资本主义道德吗？大地360

PragerU字幕组

Many people believe that free market capitalism is selfish, even immoral. They say it's about greed, about a hunger for money and power; that it helps the rich and hurts the poor. They're wrong. The free market is not only economically superior, it is morally superior to any other way of organizing economic behavior. Here's why.

许多人相信自由市场资本主义是自私的，甚至是不道德的。他们说它关乎贪婪，关乎对金钱和权力的渴望；它帮助富人，伤害穷人。他们错了。自由市场不仅在经济上更优越，它在道德上也比任何其他经济行为组织方式要优越。以下是原因。

The free market calls for voluntary actions between individuals. There's no coercion. In a free market, if I want something from you, I have to do something for you.

自由市场要求个体双方自愿行动，其中不存在强迫。在一个自由市场，如果我想从你那里得到某样东西，我就得为你做点什么。

Let's say I mow your lawn and you pay me twenty dollars. What does that twenty dollars really mean? When I go to the grocer and say, "I would like to have four pounds of steak" He, in effect, says to me, "You want a lot of people to serve you -- ranchers, truckers, butchers, and packagers. All these people have to be paid. What did you do to serve your fellow man?”

比方说，我替你修剪草坪，然后你付我 20 美元。这 20 美元其实意味着什么？当我去食品杂货店说：「我想要四磅牛排。」他实际对我说的是：「你想要很多人来为你服务，牧场主、卡车司机、肉贩、包装商。这些人都得拿到报酬。你做了什么来服务他人呢？」

"Well," I say, "I mowed my fellow man's lawn." And the grocer says, "Prove it." Then I offer him the twenty dollars. Think of the money that you've earned as a certificate of performance. It's proof that you've served your fellow man.

我说，「好吧，我帮人修剪了草坪。」然后杂货店主说，「证明给我看。」接着我给了他这 20 美元。把你挣来的钱想作是你的表现凭证。这是你为他人服务了的证明。

People accuse the free market of not being moral because they say it's a zero-sum game, like poker, where if you win, it means that I have to lose. But the free market is not a zero-sum game. It's a positive sum game. You do something good for me, such as give me that steak and I'll do something good for you -- give you twenty dollars. I'm better off because I valued the steak more than I valued the $20 and the grocer is better off because he valued the $20 more than he valued the steak. We both win.

人们谴责自由市场是不道德的，因为他们说这是个零和博弈，就像打扑克，如果你赢了，那我一定就输了。但自由市场并非零和博弈，它是正和博弈。你为我做了件好事，比如说给我那块牛排，那我就也为你做件好事——给你 20 美元。我的境况更好了，因为比起那 20 美元，我更重视这块牛排；杂货店主的境况也更好了，因为比起牛排，他更重视那 20 美元。我们都赢了。

Ironically, it's the government, not the free market, that creates zero-sum games in our economy. If you use the government to get a food stamp, a farm subsidy or a business bail out, you will benefit -- but at the expense of your fellow citizens. Isn't it more moral to require that people serve their fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces rather than not serve others and still have a claim?

讽刺的是，不是自由市场，而是政府在我们经济中创造零和博弈。如果你利用政府得到食品券、农场补贴或商业救助，你将会得益——但损害了你同胞的利益。更道德的做法难道不是要求人们为同胞服务以获得相应的回报，而不是不为他人服务却依然索取？

But, a lot of people ask, what about giant corporations? Don't they have too much power over our lives? Not in a free market. Because in a free market We, the People, decide the fate of companies who want our business.

但是，很多人会问，那么企业巨头呢？它们对我们生活不是有太多控制权了吗？在自由市场不是。因为在一个自由市场，是我们人民，决定想做我们生意的企业的命运。

Free market capitalism will punish a corporation that does not satisfy customers or fails to use resources efficiently. Businesses, big and small, that wish to prosper are held accountable by the people who vote with their dollars. And, again, it's the government that can undo this.

自由市场资本主义会惩罚一家无法满足客户或没有做到有效利用资源的企业。企业，无论大小，想繁荣就要对用自己的钱来投票的人们负责。能够破坏这一机制的也是政府。

Take the example of the American automobile industry. It was struggling to survive in 2009. Why? Because they were producing cars that did not please a sufficient number of their fellow men. In a free market, they would therefore have gone bankrupt. The market would have said, "Look, you're done. Sell your plant and equipment to somebody who can do a better job." But when Chrysler and General Motors failed, they went to Washington D.C. and got the government to bail them out.

以美国汽车业为例。它在 2009 年挣扎求存。为什么？因为它们生产的汽车不太能够满足同胞。在一个自由市场，他们将因此破产。市场会说，「看啊，你完了。把你的工厂和设备卖给能做得更好的人吧。」但当克莱斯勒和通用汽车失败，他们去了华盛顿特区，获得了政府救助。

The government bailout essentially meant to them: "You don't have to be accountable to customers and stock holders.' No matter how inferior your product is and no matter how inefficient you are, we'll keep you in business by taking your fellow man's money. When government interferes in this way, it takes the power away from the people and rewards companies that couldn't compete successfully in the marketplace. That may work out very well for politicians, big unions and corporate officers, but it seldom does for the tax payer. That's why a free market system can only work if there is limited government. Limited government means you and I decide which businesses survive.

政府救助的实际含义是：「你不必对客户和股东负责。」不管你的产品有多劣质，不管你效率多低，我们会用你同胞的钱来帮助你继续经营。当政府以此种方式干预，它夺走了人们的权力，奖赏那些无法在市场竞争中成功的公司。这或许对政客，大型工会和企业高管来说个很不错的买卖，但对纳税人来说常常就不是了。这就是为什么自由市场制度只有在小政府的前提下才行得通。小政府意味着你和我决定哪些企业生存。

That's the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned -- a limited government that has only a few specifically mentioned -- or enumerated -- powers that are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It's this brilliant, limited-government notion that produced the wealthiest nation in history. In a free market, the ambition and the voluntary effort of citizens, not the government, drives the economy. That is: people, to the best of their ability, shaping their own destiny.

这就是国父们所设想的美国——（只拥有）在美国宪法第一条第八款里具体提到或枚举的权力的小政府。正是高明的小政府观念带来了这个史上最富裕的国家。在一个自由市场，是公民的雄心和自愿努力，而非政府，驱动着经济发展。即是：人们，竭尽全力打造他们自己的命运。

Sounds pretty moral to me.

在我听来十分道德。

I'm Walter Williams of George Mason University for Prager University.

我是乔治梅森大学的沃尔特·威廉姆斯，为 PragerU 制作。