nebook:《绝望的人,不绝望的市场经济》
The market system does not reward — it does not reward teachers, does not reward nurses — I mean, it does not reward all kinds of people who do all kinds of useful things in any way comparable to how it will reward entertainers, or people who can figure out the value of businesses, or athletes, or that sort of thing.
A market system pays very big for something that will entertain them. People want to be entertained a good bit of the day. And it pays better for people that will entertain than educate.
像我们这样的市场体系，生产出人们想要的东西。如果他们想看一场重量级比赛，他们想看迈克·泰森，他们会为他在拳击台上的几分钟支付2500万美元。它生产人们喜欢的东西。它大量生产这种物质。
There is and always has been — that doesn’t mean it always should be — but there is a tremendous amount of inequality. What you don’t want is an inequality of opportunity. There will be a lot of inequality in ability. A market system, like we have, churns out what people want. If they want to watch a heavyweight fight, and they want to watch Mike Tyson, they’re going to pay him $25 million for getting in the ring for a few minutes. And it produces what people like. And it produces it in abundance.
31. 资本主义受益者需要帮助那些没有受益的人
沃伦·巴菲特：第三区？
观众提问：巴菲特先生、芒格先生，我的家族自1968年起就与伯克希尔有着关联。因此，我怀着对你们品格和智慧的深深敬意提出这个问题。我是一名在城市中心区任教的教师，那里普遍存在一种日益增长的绝望感。当我问学生们“什么能让你感到快乐？”时，他们最普遍的回答是“一百万美元”。作为世界上最富有的人之一，我想知道，如果你们面对这些学生，会如何回应？此外，资本主义的哲学基础在很大程度上忽视了系统性视角，即持续消耗有限的全球资源以维持市场经济、极富者与极度贫困者之间不断扩大的差距，以及国际社会将美国视为一个以贪婪和帝国主义为主要价值观的国家。当我们步入21世纪，你们是否认为有必要重新审视资本主义的基本前提，回归民主、正义和人道关怀的原始理念？
沃伦·巴菲特：我并没有完全理解那些内容。
查理·芒格：嗯——（笑声）——我这么说吧，我对现有的社会秩序比你更乐观一些。（掌声）当然，任何社会秩序总有各种问题。而且毫无疑问，我们的社会秩序在某些方面确实比过去更加混乱了。我认为沃伦和我并没有什么神奇的方案来解决世界上所有的问题。但指望一下子得到一百万美元，而不是采取一些切实可行的小步骤，这种心态是错误的。我们当初获得那一百万美元，并不是靠这样的想法得来的。
沃伦·巴菲特：但我并不——（掌声）
查理·芒格：顺便说一下，沃伦可能会给出不同的答案。他是个——
沃伦·巴菲特：不，我同意——你知道的——想要一份工作对我来说很有意义，想办法获得工作，然后从那里开始。但现实是，而且一直以来都是如此——这并不意味着它永远应该如此——但社会中存在着巨大的不平等。你真正不想看到的是机会上的不平等。能力上的差异在所难免。像我们这样的市场体系会生产出人们想要的东西。如果人们想看重量级拳赛，想看迈克·泰森比赛，他们就会付给他2500万美元，只为让他在拳台上站几分钟。市场体系会大量生产人们喜欢的东西，并且在生产效率方面表现得非常出色。如今，在美国，即使处于收入最低的20%，也比50年前要好得多；而且在美国处于最低20%的人群，也比世界上任何其他国家都要好。但即便如此，现状仍然令人不太满意。
市场体系并不会给予回报——它不会奖励教师，也不会奖励护士。我的意思是，它对那些以各种方式做出有益贡献的人所给予的回报，远远无法与对娱乐业人士、能够评估企业价值的人、运动员等群体的回报相提并论。市场体系会为能带来娱乐的事物支付很高的报酬。人们每天都会花大量时间寻求娱乐，因此提供娱乐的人比教育者获得更高的回报。我并不想干预市场体系，也不认为自己应该告诉别人他们的人生该做什么。但我认为，那些在该体系下获得巨大成功的人，理应被征税，以便合理地照顾到那些虽不适应该体系、但在其他方面都是完全合格公民的人。至于如何征税，比如是否要按“相对价值”来衡量，这我就不再深入讨论了。
但我认为，像我这样恰好能完美适应这个体系的人，在孟加拉国或其他地方可能就一文不值了，因为我在那里的优势无法得到回报——他们的体系不会奖励这种特质。我认为社会给予我们——这个社会为我提供——巨大的回报，以表彰我所贡献的一切。迈克·泰森也是如此，某个天生适合唱歌的人也一样。我不希望去破坏这种机制。但我也认为，那些从社会中获得各种好处的人，应该建立一种制度，让那些虽然不太适应当前体系、但在其他方面都是正直合格的公民，不至于真的被社会抛弃。我认为过去50年在这方面已经取得了一些进步，但我们离一个完美的社会还差得很远。我希望在接下来的50年里，能有更大的进步。
我不认为应该去奢望那一百万美元——你知道，事情并不是这样的。我认为，如果你足够幸运，拥有一些市场体系所认可的特质，那么在这里你就能过得很好；而如果你不幸拥有那些不被市场认可的东西，现在你的处境也比三四十年前要好得多，甚至比其他国家的人强。但我能理解，当看到别人仅仅因为天赋组合稍有不同，便能获得某种保障，让其本人以及接下来五代人都无需辛苦劳作时，这种现象看起来确实非常不公平。
查理·芒格：我认为，我支持一定程度的社会干预，以减少资本主义带来的结果不平等。但我强烈反对奖励那些容易被伪造的东西，因为那样一来人们就会说谎，而说谎一旦奏效，就会蔓延开来，整个文明也会随之恶化。如果由我来管理这个世界，工人赔偿制度下的压力补偿将为零，这并不是因为工作本身没有真实的压力，而是只要对压力给予任何奖励，就根本无法杜绝虚假行为。
沃伦·巴菲特：有一篇非常好的文章，这与之前的问题相关——（掌声）——上一期《福布斯》刊登了一篇文章，展示了美国不同时间段的职业结构，追溯到1900年。从这个结构图中可以看出一个明显的问题：如果你假设最底层的20%人口——无论你用什么标准衡量就业能力，比如智商、工作意愿、精力水平或其他因素——他们实际上非常适合一百年前大多数存在的工作岗位。换句话说，当时许多工作并不需要很高的智力水平就能胜任。但随着工作的变化，人们的能力结构却没有改变。因此，现在有越来越多的人处于劣势地位。不过，好的一面是，社会如今生产了更多的财富，能够以各种方式照顾到这些人。
现在关键在于，要照顾好他们，让他们不仅感受到参与感，而且真正发挥生产力，融入到整个过程中。我们有足够的产品来实现这一点。但如今国家的产出远远超过五十年前或一百年前。我们尚未完全掌握如何让能力处于底部20%或30%的人群适应不断变化的新职业需求。我强烈建议你们去查阅那本《福布斯》杂志。因为如果你深入思考这些图表所揭示的含义，就会明白哪些社会问题亟需解决。
31. People rewarded by capitalism need to help those who aren’t
WARREN BUFFETT: Zone 3?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger, my family’s been associated with Berkshire since 1968. So I ask this question with a great deal of respect for your integrity and your wisdom. I work as an inner-city schoolteacher, where there is a rising and pervasive sense of hopelessness. When I ask my students, “What would make you happy?” their predominant response is, “A million dollars.” As some of the richest men in the world, I wonder what your response to them might be. And as a second part of this question, the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism have largely ignored a systemic perspective involving issues of ongoing depletion of limited global resources exploited to sustain a market economy, widening gaps between the very wealthy and the severely impoverished, and an international view of America as a country whose primary values are greed and imperialism. As we move into the 21st century, do you see a need to re-envision capitalist premises towards original notions of democracy, justice, and humanitarian concerns?
WARREN BUFFETT: I didn’t get all of that.
CHARLIE MUNGER: Well — (laughter) — I will say this. I am higher on the existing social order than you are. (Applause) I — there’s always plenty wrong with a social order. And certainly, there are places where ours is a lot more broken than it used to be. I don’t think Warren and I have any wonderful solution to all the problems of the world. But wishing for a million dollars instead of some more tangible short step is the wrong frame of mind. That isn’t the way we got our million dollars.
WARREN BUFFETT: But I don’t — (Applause)
CHARLIE MUNGER: Warren might give a different answer, by the way. He’s a —
WARREN BUFFETT: No, I would agree with the — I, you know — wishing for a job makes a lot of sense to me and figuring out how to get one and then going from there. But it — There is and always has been — that doesn’t mean it always should be — but there is a tremendous amount of inequality. What you don’t want is an inequality of opportunity. There will be a lot of inequality in ability. A market system, like we have, churns out what people want. If they want to watch a heavyweight fight, and they want to watch Mike Tyson, they’re going to pay him $25 million for getting in the ring for a few minutes. And it produces what people like. And it produces it in abundance. And it’s done very well in terms of production. It is much better to be in the bottom 20 percent in this country now than it was 50 years ago. And it’s better to be in the bottom 20 percent of this country than in any other country. But it still isn’t very satisfactory.
The market system does not reward — it does not reward teachers, does not reward nurses — I mean, it does not reward all kinds of people who do all kinds of useful things in any way comparable to how it will reward entertainers, or people who can figure out the value of businesses, or athletes, or that sort of thing. A market system pays very big for something that will entertain them. People want to be entertained a good bit of the day. And it pays better for people that will entertain than educate. I think — I don’t want to tinker with the market system. I don’t think I should be telling people what they should want to do with their lives. But I do think that it’s incumbent on the people that do very well under that system to be taxed in a manner that takes reasonable care of anybody that is not well adapted to that system, but that is a perfectly decent citizen in every other regard. And that is — you know, I don’t want to start getting into comparable worth in terms of how I tax.
But I do think that somebody like me, that happens to just fit this system magnificently, but wouldn’t be worth a damn in Bangladesh or someplace, you know, because what I have wouldn’t pay off there — their system would not reward that. I think that we get from society — society provides me — this society provides me — with enormous rewards for what I bring to the game. And it does the same with Mike Tyson. And it does the same with some guy whose adenoids are right for singing or whatever it may be. And I don’t want to tamper with that. But I do think those people who are getting all kinds of claim checks on the rest of society from that — I think there should be a system that people — where people who are not well adapted to that system, but that are perfectly decent citizens in every other respect, do not really, you know, fall through the slats on that. And I think progress has been made on that over the last 50 years. But I think we’re far from a perfect society in that respect. And I hope, you know, more progress is made in the next 50 years.
I don’t think the wishing for the million dollars, though — you know, it doesn’t work that way. I think — But if you are lucky enough to have something that the market system rewards, you do very well here. And if you’re unlucky enough to have something it doesn’t reward, you do better now than you would’ve 30 or 40 years ago. And you do better than in other countries. But I can see where it seems very unjust to look at somebody else who has just a little different mix of talents that can achieve claim checks in a way that keeps them and the next five generations of their family in a position where they don’t have to do very much.
CHARLIE MUNGER: I would say that I like a certain amount of social intervention that takes some of the inequality out of results in capitalism. But I hate, with a passion, rewarding anything that can be easily faked. Because I think then people lie, and lying works, and the lying spreads. And I think your whole civilization deteriorates. If I were running the world, the compensation for stress under workman’s compensation would be zero, not because there isn’t real stress. Because there’s no way to keep the fakery out, if you reward stress at all.
WARREN BUFFETT: There was a great article, and this applies — (applause) — to an earlier question. There was a very good article in Forbes about one issue ago that showed the occupational profile of the U.S. at a couple of different intervals, going back to 1900. And one problem you can see, just by looking at that profile, is that, if you assume 20 percent of the — the bottom 20 percent — however you measure it, in terms of employability — whether it’s measured by IQ, or interest in working, or energy level, or whatever you want to do — they fit, very well, most of the jobs that were available a hundred years ago. In other words, you could do most of the jobs, of which there were many, with relatively unimpressive mental abilities. And as jobs have changed, the profile of people hasn’t changed. So there are more people that end up on the short end. Now, the good part of that is the society produces so much more that it can take care of those people, one way or another.
Now, the trick is to take care of them and make them not only feel, but be productive and be part of the act, and — We’ve got enough product to do that. But the country turns out way more output than 50 or a hundred years ago. We don’t have — we’re not perfect at figuring out how to make the bottom 20 or 30 percent, in terms of abilities, fit a new, changing job profile. I really recommend you look at that Forbes magazine. Because if you think through the implications of those charts, I think you’ll see what social problems have to be attacked.