美國是資本主義的典范嗎?

Is the United States of America a good example of capitalism?

2023-09-08 湯沐之邑 4040 12 0 收藏糾錯&舉報

譯文簡介

網(wǎng)友：不怎么算，我們有一個更適合社會主義政權的貨幣和銀行體系、救助、補貼、福利計劃、職業(yè)和商業(yè)許可、重商主義貿(mào)易政策、反壟斷法、巨額赤字支出和戰(zhàn)爭狀態(tài)。商品和服務的生產(chǎn)仍然是在私人財產(chǎn)和利潤的背景下進行的，因此仍然存在一些非常強大的資本主義元素......

正文翻譯

Is the United States of America a good example of capitalism?

美國是資本主義的典范嗎?

評論翻譯

Saulius Muliolis
Not very. We have a monetary and banking system more appropriate to a socialist regime, bailouts, subsidies, welfare programs, occupational and business licensing, mercanitilist trade policies, antitrust laws, massive deficit spending, and a warfare state.
production of goods and services is still done in a context of private property and for profit, so there are still some very strong elements of capitalism, but the economy is showing many of the bad consequences of a mixed economy that Ayn Rand and other free market advocates predicted. In that sense, it is an excellent example.

不怎么算，我們有一個更適合社會主義政權的貨幣和銀行體系、救助、補貼、福利計劃、職業(yè)和商業(yè)許可、重商主義貿(mào)易政策、反壟斷法、巨額赤字支出和戰(zhàn)爭狀態(tài)。
商品和服務的生產(chǎn)仍然是在私人財產(chǎn)和利潤的背景下進行的，因此仍然存在一些非常強大的資本主義元素，但經(jīng)濟正顯示出艾茵·蘭德和其他自由市場倡導者預測的混合經(jīng)濟的許多不良后果。從這個意義上說，這是一個很好的例子。

"A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws—no principles to limit the power of its government. The only principle of a mixed economy—which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged—is that no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system—or, more precisely, anti-system—breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting—and draining—the productive elements of the country.

“混合經(jīng)濟是自由和控制的混合物，兩者都沒有原則、規(guī)則或理論可定義。由于實行控制必須并導致進一步的控制，它是一種不穩(wěn)定的爆炸性混合物，最終必須廢除控制或陷入獨裁。混合經(jīng)濟沒有原則來定義它的政策、目標和法律——沒有原則來限制政府的權力?；旌辖?jīng)濟的唯一原則是，沒有人的利益是安全的，每個人的利益都被公開拍賣，只要能逃脫懲罰，什么事都可以做。這樣一個體系，或者更準確地說，是反體系，將一個國家分裂成數(shù)量不斷增加的敵對陣營，分裂成經(jīng)濟集團，在不確定的防御和進攻混合中為自我保護而相互斗爭，這是叢林的本質(zhì)所要求的。雖然在政治上，混合經(jīng)濟保留了一個有組織的社會的表象，有法律和秩序的表象，但在經(jīng)濟上，這相當于統(tǒng)治中國幾個世紀的混亂局面：混亂的強盜團伙掠奪和消耗著這個國家的生產(chǎn)要素。

"A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another’s expense by an act of government—i.e., by force. In the absence of individual rights, in the absence of any moral or legal principles, a mixed economy’s only hope to preserve its precarious semblance of order, to restrain the savage, desperately rapacious groups it itself has created, and to prevent the legalized plunder from running over into plain, unlegalized looting of all by all—is compromise; compromise on everything and in every realm—material, spiritual, intellectual—so that no group would step over the line by demanding too much and topple the whole rotted structure. If the game is to continue, nothing can be permitted to remain firm, solid, absolute, untouchable; everything (and everyone) has to be fluid, flexible, indeterminate, approximate. "

“混合經(jīng)濟是由壓力集團統(tǒng)治的。這是一場不道德的、制度化的特殊利益集團和游說集團之間的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，他們都在爭奪對立法機構的短暫控制權，通過政府行為——即武力——以犧牲彼此為代價勒索某些特權。在沒有個人權利，沒有任何道德或法律原則的情況下，混合經(jīng)濟要想維持其岌岌可危的秩序表象，遏制它自己創(chuàng)造的野蠻的、極度貪婪的集團，防止合法的掠奪演變成赤裸裸的、非法的對所有人的掠奪，唯一的希望就是妥協(xié);在每一件事和每一個領域——物質(zhì)的、精神的、智力的等一切問題上妥協(xié)，這樣就不會有任何團體要求過高而越界，從而推翻整個腐朽的結構。如果游戲要繼續(xù)下去，就不能允許任何東西保持堅定、穩(wěn)固、絕對、不可觸碰；一切（以及每個人）都必須是流動的、靈活的、不確定的、近似的?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,”
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer."

“新法西斯：共識統(tǒng)治”
只要承認法律可能偏離其真正的目的——它可能侵犯財產(chǎn)而不是保護財產(chǎn)——那么每個人都會想要參與制定法律，要么保護自己不受掠奪，要么利用法律進行掠奪。政治問題總是帶有偏見的、占主導地位的、十分有趣的。要了解這一點，幾乎不需要研究法國和英國立法機關發(fā)生的事情;僅僅理解問題就是知道答案。

James Hankins
The United States has a mixed economy (like China) in that large capitalist enterprises or professional lobbies use their influence with the state to preserve or increase their market share and stifle competition. They are called upon to be ‘good corporate citizens’ in return, which they sometimes are. Politicians call this a ‘public-private partnership.’ Such an arrangement is illegal in many countries (though no less common for that) but perfectly legal in the US. In cases of abuse, however, like making harmful products or outright bribery, there is legal recourse to be had in the U.S., made effective to some extent by a relatively free press and the two-party system. If it wants to, the state always has the resources to beat a corporation in the courts. Usually, however, politicians of both major parties derive more benefit from a clientage relationship with wealthy corporations. I don’t know of any examples of pure capitalism in the sense of a completely free market system with a neutral rule of law maintained by a non-interested state. This is the so-called ‘night-watchman state’, which most historians would say has never existed in pure form.

美國有一個混合經(jīng)濟(像中國一樣)，大型資本主義企業(yè)或?qū)I(yè)游說團體利用他們對國家的影響力來保持或增加他們的市場份額，扼殺競爭。作為回報，他們被要求成為“良好的企業(yè)公民”，有時他們確實是。政客們稱之為“公私合作”。這種安排在許多國家都是非法的(盡管這種情況并不少見)，但在美國是完全合法的。然而，在濫用職權的情況下，比如制造有害產(chǎn)品或公然賄賂，美國可以訴諸法律，在某種程度上，相對自由的新聞和兩黨制使其有效。只要政府愿意，它總是有足夠的資源在法庭上擊敗一家公司。然而，通常情況下，兩大政黨的政客都能從與富裕企業(yè)的裙帶關系中獲得更多利益。我不知道有任何純粹資本主義的例子，即一個完全自由的市場體系，由一個沒有利益糾葛的國家維持中立的法治，這就是所謂的“守夜人國家”，大多數(shù)歷史學家會說，它從未以純粹的形式存在過。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Ron Wiseman
What are some examples of capitalism in America?
You want specific examples of capitalism in America?
Walmart pays its full-time hourly employees so little that they have to apply for food stamps (Walmart even helps them with the paperwork), while the Walmart corporation makes more than $100 Billion every quarter
Amazon sold 87% of all Christmas shopping online purchases made in America during the 2017 holiday shopping season. As a result, most of America’s top tier retailers are shutting stores. Now, Amazon is aiming to take over the grocery business.
There are basically about six large corporations that own all of the news outlets in America.
There are as few as five major healthcare providers who own all of the others.
There are four telecom companies who own all of the telecom industry.
I could go on, but I need to make an important point…

有哪些例子能說明美國是資本主義?
你想要美國是資本主義的具體例子嗎？
沃爾瑪支付給全職小時工的工資少得可憐，他們不得不申請食品券(沃爾瑪甚至還幫他們處理文書工作)，而沃爾瑪公司每季度的收入超過1000億美元
在2017年的假日購物季，亞馬遜的業(yè)績占據(jù)了美國所有圣誕網(wǎng)上購物的87%。因此，大多數(shù)美國頂級零售商都在關閉店鋪?，F(xiàn)在，亞馬遜的目標是接管食品雜貨業(yè)務。
基本上大約有六家大公司擁有美國所有的新聞媒體。
只有五家大型醫(yī)療保健提供商控股了所有其他醫(yī)療保健提供商。
四家電信公司控制了整個電信行業(yè)。
我可以繼續(xù)說下去，但我需要強調(diào)一點…

Many (especially conservatives) will howl that I’m wrong, that free market capitalism is the best dang economic system humans have ever created. Let’s tease that apart.
The free market is indeed the best dang economic system humans have created. But, the free market is not capitalism..
Capitalism is interested in only one thing: shareholder value. Capitalism is about maximizing reward for shareholders, which requires minimizing the reward for labor. Both of these diametrically-opposed elements are intrinsic to capitalism.
Case, meet point: This week’s record-making crash of the stock market was a reflection of a report that came out last Friday indicating that salaries in the US are increasing. This caused the entire stock market (capital investments) to crash on the fear that corporations’ profits will be squeezed.
A free market does not exist within a capitalist economy. They are antithetical ideas. A free market requires four things that capitalism explicitly opposes.
Plenty of competition. Buyers can choose from many providers.
Easy entry for competition. New providers can enter the market with few obstructions. It’s easy for a mom and pop shop to open.
Buyers must have access to market data. Buyers must be able to make choices based on price, quality, availability, and many other factors, not the least of which is competition. That means buyers have to be able to find whatever information they need to make a choice.

許多人（尤其是保守派）會咆哮說，我錯了，自由市場資本主義是人類有史以來創(chuàng)造的最好的經(jīng)濟體系，讓我們梳理一下：
自由市場確實是人類創(chuàng)造的最好的經(jīng)濟體系。但是，自由市場不是資本主義。
資本主義只對一件事感興趣：股東價值。資本主義是為了最大限度地提高股東的報酬，這就要求最大限度地減少付出勞動力的報酬。這兩種截然相反的因素都是資本主義固有的。
例證:本周創(chuàng)紀錄的股市暴跌反映了上周五發(fā)布的一份報告，該報告顯示美國的工資正在上漲。由于擔心公司利潤將受到擠壓，這導致整個股票市場(資本投資)崩潰。
資本主義經(jīng)濟中不存在自由市場。它們是對立的思想。自由市場需要資本主義明確反對的四件事：
激烈競爭：買家可以從許多供應商那進行選擇。
容易進入競爭：新的供應商可以在幾乎沒有障礙的情況下進入市場。夫妻店開起來就很容易。
買家必須能夠獲得市場數(shù)據(jù)。買家必須能夠根據(jù)價格、質(zhì)量、可用性和許多其他因素做出選擇，其中最重要的是競爭。這意味著買家必須能夠找到他們需要的任何信息來做出選擇。

Buyers must have a choice. They must have equal access to all of the competing providers.
If you don’t have those four fundamental elements, you don’t have a free market. So, when you have companies merging with and acquiring their competition, you don’t have a free market. When you have companies shutting out emerging competition, you don’t have a free market.
Shareholder-driven economics (a.k.a. capitalism) is the most insidious economic construct of our time. It is truly a cancer. To sustain the unrelenting thirst for increasing earnings per share, capitalists are acquiring every path for revenue they can find, leaving the lifeblood of competitive consumerism starving, powerless, and dying. Capitalism raises prices for no other reason than to outperform the previous period of performance, and by eliminating competition they have little incentive to control prices or improve their products or services as prices climb higher. Remember the EpiPen? An 800% increase in price and no improvement in product.
The typical voting Republicans and conservatives live in a false belief, evangelized by the party’s leadership, that the strengths provided by a free market economy are enabled by capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile, Republican legislators continue to preach the wonders of the free market while they’re lining up to suck at the tit of capitalism. And they’re making their followers believe they are both one and the same.

買家必須有一個選擇：他們必須有平等的機會接觸到所有相互競爭的供應商。
如果你沒有這四個基本要素，就不是自由市場。所以，當你有公司合并并收購他們的競爭對手時，你就不是自由市場。當你的公司把新興的競爭對手拒之門外時，你就不是自由的市場。
股東驅(qū)動的經(jīng)濟(又名資本主義)是我們這個時代最陰險的經(jīng)濟結構。這確實是一種癌癥。為了維持對增加每股收益的不懈渴望，資本家正在尋找他們能找到的每一條收入途徑，讓競爭性消費主義的命脈挨餓，無力，甚至死亡。資本主義提高價格沒有別的原因，只是為了超越前一段時間的業(yè)績，通過消除競爭，他們幾乎沒有動力控制價格或改善產(chǎn)品或服務，因為價格上漲。還記得腎上腺素筆嗎?價格漲了800%，藥效卻沒有改進。
典型的投票共和黨人和保守派生活在一種錯誤的信念中，這種信念是由黨的領導層傳播的，即自由市場經(jīng)濟提供的優(yōu)勢是由資本主義實現(xiàn)的。事實遠非如此。與此同時，共和黨議員一邊繼續(xù)鼓吹自由市場的奇跡，一邊排隊吮吸資本主義的奶頭。他們讓他們的追隨者相信他們是一體的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

George Keith
What are some examples of capitalism in America?
Wow are you getting some rambling and most certainly political bias answers. Especially from that Ron guy. It’s hard to take somebody like that serious when they rattle off their political beliefs without even answering the question.
Capitalism is simply the private ownership of resources. It’s wealth creation. You own your right to work any where. The right to free enterprise. The right to private property, etc. That’s all that capitalism is. So when somebody says they hate capitalism they are saying they hate private ownership of resources.
The market system is the distribution of the wealth created in capitalism. This is typically where people have issues however the economically ignorant just confuse the market system with capitalism. Rob mentions it himself: free-market capitalism, although he treats it as one in the same. He also implies we have free markets when in fact our economic freedom is not in the top 10 in the world.
The market system is very different than capitalism. This is where mutually agreeable transactions occur. We buy or sell what was created in capitalism. We seek utility through our purchases of goods and services and are willing to let a business owner earn profits from providing those goods. We have freedom of choice so competition and prices regulate the market.
so what’s examples of capitalism? You working anywhere you want.

有哪些例子能說明美國是資本主義?
哇，你得到了一些雜亂無章的答案，而且肯定帶有政治偏見。尤其是那個叫羅恩的家伙。這樣的人連問題都不回答就滔滔不絕地說出自己的政治信仰，很難把他當回事。
資本主義就是資源的私有制。這是創(chuàng)造財富。你擁有在任何地方工作的權利，擁有自由選擇企業(yè)的權利，擁有私有財產(chǎn)權等等。這就是資本主義。所以當有人說他們討厭資本主義時，他們是在說他們討厭資源私有制。
市場體系是對資本主義創(chuàng)造的財富的分配。這通常是人們有問題的地方，然而經(jīng)濟上無知的人完全混淆了市場體系和資本主義。羅恩自己也提到了這一點：自由市場資本主義，盡管他將其視為一體。他還暗示我們有自由市場，而事實上我們的經(jīng)濟自由度在世界上并不是前10名。
市場體系與資本主義大不相同。這就是雙方都同意的交易發(fā)生的地方。我們買賣資本主義創(chuàng)造的東西。我們通過購買商品和服務來尋求效用，并愿意讓企業(yè)主從提供這些商品中賺取利潤。我們有選擇的自由，所以通過競爭和價格可以調(diào)節(jié)市場。
那么資本主義的例子是什么呢？你想在哪里工作就在哪里工作。

Gregory Scott
What are some examples of capitalism in America?
A poor guy starts a lawn mowing business. He fixes a broken lawn mower he finds in the trash, and starts mowing laws to get paid. He renders a service, and people are happy to pay money for the service, so they don't have to mow the lawn.
So he continues to save his money, the best he can. So he buys a car, and the gas he needs, and he can find more customers, mow more lawns, and make more money. He's happy, and more customers are happy, and in the processes he makes more money.
He saves more money and buys a trailer and more lawn maintenance equipment: fertilizer spreader, hedge clipper, chain saw, shovel, rake, riding mower. Now he can make more money by maintaining the entire lawn and yard of bigger properties. He has more happy customers who want to pay him for his services, and he makes more money.
He continues to save money, buys more equipment, and is able to hire some people. Now he can pay some of his money to other people, and still have money he is making from his many more landscape maintenance jobs. Happy former poor guy is making a lot more money, and who is now middle class, happy employees, who now have jobs and are now are doing better, and happy customers, who would rather pay than do the work of maintaining their property.
The part about saving money, and reinvesting in the business it is a major part of capitalism. He doesn't just spend all the money that he makes. The money he puts back into his business to improve it is called capital.
Note that nobody has been taken advantage of.
Even the government is better. More people are paying taxes, fewer people are on welfare. More people can pay for what they need.

有哪些例子能說明美國是資本主義?
一個窮人開了一家割草公司。他在垃圾堆里找到了一臺壞了的割草機，修理好了，然后開始割草掙錢。他提供了一項服務，人們很樂意為這項服務付錢，這樣他們就不用割草坪了。
所以他繼續(xù)盡可能地存錢。所以他買了一輛車，他買了他需要的汽油，他可以找到更多的客戶，割更多的草坪，賺更多的錢。他很高興，更多的客戶也很高興，在這個過程中，他賺了更多的錢。
他存下了更多的錢，買了一輛拖車和更多的草坪維護設備：施肥機、樹籬修剪機、鏈鋸、鏟子、耙子、割草機?，F(xiàn)在，他可以通過維護更大房產(chǎn)的整個草坪和庭院來賺更多的錢。他有更多滿意的顧客愿意為他的服務付費，他也賺了更多的錢。
他繼續(xù)存錢，購買更多的設備，并能夠雇傭一些人?，F(xiàn)在，他可以把一部分錢付給其他人，而且還有更多的景觀維護工作來賺錢。令人高興的是以前貧窮的人賺了更多的錢，他們現(xiàn)在是中產(chǎn)階級，快樂的雇員，他們現(xiàn)在有工作，現(xiàn)在過得更好，顧客滿意，他們寧愿付錢，也不愿維護自己的財產(chǎn)。
關于儲蓄和再投資是資本主義的重要組成部分。他不只是把他賺的錢都花光。他把錢投入到他的生意中來改善它，這被稱為資本。
請注意，沒有人被利用。
就連政府也比以前好了。納稅的人越來越多，領取福利的人越來越少。更多的人可以買到他們需要的東西。

George Keith
Has Capitalism failed America?
Capitalism is a simple concept: private ownership of resources. You own the resources and can use them to build wealth. Thus capitalism is generally referred to as wealth creation.
The market system is different than capitalism. The market system is the distribution of wealth.
Thus our economic system is described as: free-market capitalism. Teachnically we are a mixed economy .
Now has capitalism failed America? Well, I’ll ask you, is there any way private ownership of resources could be considered a bad thing? Let’s try to look through the eyes of Don E.

資本主義讓美國失敗了嗎？
資本主義是一個簡單的概念：資源的私有制。你擁有這些資源，并可以利用它們來積累財富。因此，資本主義通常被稱為財富創(chuàng)造。
市場體系不同于資本主義。市場體系是財富的分配。
因此，我們的經(jīng)濟體系被描述為：自由市場資本主義。嚴格意義來講，我們是一個混合經(jīng)濟體。
現(xiàn)在資本主義讓美國失望了嗎？那么，我要問你，資源私有制有可能被認為是一件壞事嗎?讓我們試著從Don E的角度看問題。

It’s clear he hates capitalism so if we assume he is using the correct definition of capitalism then what Don is saying is that there should be no private ownership of resources. All resources, including labor, should be owned by the government. The government should decide where you work and in what field.
If you read his answer , everything he brings up have to do with the market system not capitalism. His consistent use of causation also shows a lack of critical thinking in his answer. Thus his answer is driven by passion, not reason and logic.
So let’s adjust your question: has the market system failed America. My simple answer is no. The profit motive is a beautiful thing. Promotes efficiency and quality. Competition is the disciplinary of the markets. Keep in mind we are one of the youngest economic systems yet one of the most powerful. Adam Smith came up with a good system.
It does have some drawbacks to it but the deadweight is worth it assuming that deadweight is properly managed. In my opinion that part is the weakest lix.
The government is suppose to protect consumers and promote efficiency and competition. However, our government sells its services to the highest bidder.

很明顯，他討厭資本主義，所以如果我們認為他使用了資本主義的正確定義，那么Don E所說的是，不應該存在資源的私有制。所有資源，包括勞動力，都應該歸政府所有。政府應該決定你在哪里工作，在什么領域工作。
如果你讀了他的答案，他提出的一切都與市場體系而不是與資本主義有關。他對因果關系的一貫使用也表明他在回答中缺乏批判性思維。因此，他的回答是出于激情，而不是理性和邏輯。
所以，讓我們調(diào)整一下你的問題：市場體系讓美國失望了嗎。我簡單的回答是否定的。盈利動機是一件美好的事情：提高效率和質(zhì)量。競爭是市場的規(guī)律。請記住，我們是最年輕的經(jīng)濟體系之一，但也是最強大的經(jīng)濟體系之一。亞當·斯密提出了一個很好的體系。
它確實有一些缺點，但如果無謂的負擔得到妥善管理，那么無謂的負擔是值得的。在我看來，這部分是最薄弱的環(huán)節(jié)。
政府應該保護消費者，促進效率和競爭。然而，我們的政府把服務賣給出價最高的人。

Don points to poverty, the 1%, etc. All are arbitrary labels that really define nothing. Poverty was decreasing until the government started its “war on poverty”. If we truly want to solve the real problems, such as poverty, distribution of income, etc then our only option is campaign finance reform. Take the money away from the politician. Force them to answer to the voter instead of too the highest bidder. We also need voters to stop voting the two party system. Unfortunately we have a very lazy voting population. We spend more time ordering food off a menu than we do voting.
Our political system is failing us, not our economic system.
Note: please excuse spelling and grammar. Typing on iPhone in a moving car. No I’m not driving.

唐指出貧困、1%等等。所有這些都是武斷的標簽，實際上沒有進行真正的定義。在政府發(fā)動“反貧困戰(zhàn)爭”之前，貧困一直在減少。如果我們真的想解決真正的問題，比如貧困、收入分配等，那么我們唯一的選擇就是競選資金改革。把政客的錢拿走。迫使他們對選民負責，而不是對出價最高的人負責。我們還需要選民停止對兩黨制的投票。不幸的是，我們的投票人群非常懶惰。我們花在點餐上的時間比投票的時間還多。
我們的政治制度讓我們失望，而不是我們的經(jīng)濟制度讓我們失望。

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

美國 資本主義

很贊 ( 0 )

收藏