窮人的反撲與富人的反省 工商時報 + R% a) s! E6 |1 n) B+ i. f+ b4 x- yos.tvboxnow.com 9 A2 |2 A) W: }( O " G; O0 X. B0 I! E- ZTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。舉凡一個人的行為改變，主要源自兩種力量的驅使，一為自己的不斷內省，另一則為他人施予的壓力。貧富差距一直是人類社會最複雜與困擾的問題，其中充滿了文明進步追求的價值爭議，更涵蓋了人性本質蘊藏的情緒對立。但不可否認的是，每當貧富問題嚴重惡化時，都會為人類社會帶來大變革，不論是在思想領域的發展上，或是在解決問題的實際行動上。近來，我們一方面看到美國民眾「占領華爾街」示威活動的益愈擴大蔓延，另一方面卻也同時看到類如巴菲特這樣的全球首富，公開表示願意主動繳納更多的稅負。面對這種反撲與反省並存的情境，不啻為貧富差距問題找到一個解決的新契機，其背後嚴肅的意義，我們不應輕忽，尤其是政府的政策反應與作為。 ! L2 v( k' \8 f3 ]' X+ q / p8 W8 Z! s: g* V/ \os.tvboxnow.com「占領華爾街」行動發起於9月17日的美國紐約，靈感的啟發係來自於今年的埃及革命，該期間民眾在開羅塔利爾廣場的集會與示威運動，終至達成推翻獨裁專制政權的民主勝利。只是，這次「占領華爾街」的訴求是社會公平與貧富差距問題，而抗議的對象則是貪婪無度的企業大亨。拜臉書等網路社群工具之賜，此一運動，不但迅速在美國遍地開花，更如響斯應地擴大為全球性的「占領」狂潮。台北也在日昨舉辦「占領101大樓」的活動，雖然實際到場群眾只有400多人，但已充分顯示台灣社會呼應國際新情勢的意願，並凸顯出台灣民眾對社會公平正義的相同渴望。可惜這次行動未及擴大串連各地市井小民與弱勢團體，以致聲勢不夠浩大，社會關注不足。期待下一次「占領凱達格蘭大道」的抗議活動，能引爆出更多的輿論焦點與壓力。 " P3 K. M! Y, E+ @% K. oTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb% R6 I% L1 N" k' M' k# d# f
其實，這次占領運動的導火線應該追溯至前幾年的金融海嘯。金融海嘯的發生，讓世人覺醒到虛幻膨脹的金融工具，是多麼的邪惡，而由其所創造出來的假性泡沫榮景，又是多麼的脆弱。尤有甚者，政府為了搶救經濟危機，大量舉債，擴大支出，導致財政赤字連連，這些最後都是由全體民眾納稅來承受。更過分的是，為了避免引發系統性風險，政府不敢讓這些肆意囂張的金融機構倒閉，只好傾全力挹注資金，助其脫困，而這些也都是用社會大眾的納稅錢來支付。當全世界都在為他們捅出的樓子擦屁股之際，卻得知那些貪婪的金融業大亨仍然繼續坐領高薪，過著奢華的生活。「占領華爾街」就是要把這些躲在華爾街內的富豪揪出來，讓他們現出原形，逼他們跟世人道歉，促使他們為犯行付出應有的代價。公仔箱論壇) r+ ^+ `9 n4 o( W
8 t' j) f# C9 j0 d! T7 `' s' ]
這個抗議行動或可說是窮人對富人的反撲，但其中卻具有難得的理性思維。參加示威抗議的民眾不是因為「仇富」的情緒而上街，而是針對那些把持政府、掌握權力，靠著虛幻複雜的財務工具發財，但卻把金融危機的苦果留給一般民眾承受的「壞富人」開刀。這項特色不但讓占領行動增添了「造反有理」的思辨空間，同時也促使了有良心的富人認真嚴肅的反躬自省。美國投資股神巴菲特繼其一貫主張，日前除公開呼籲美國政府應改革稅制提高富人課稅之外，更公布其去年共賺進6,280萬美元，但課稅所得則為3,980萬美元，他繳納了690萬美元的聯邦所得稅與15,300美元的社會安全捐，實質稅率為17.4％，比他的秘書與員工所繳的稅率都低。巴菲特不斷重申這樣的稅制，對富人過於寬容，造成稅制不公，力挺美國政府大力改革。或許巴菲特只是富人中的「極少數」，但畢竟他的聲望與地位不同於一般富人，有他登高一呼，典範效應不容小覷。 5 f0 i+ u# B7 B" `6 D& J! yTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 * ?5 X W3 b; l; ptvb now,tvbnow,bttvb美國諾貝爾經濟學獎得主Joseph Stiglitz，在今年5月的Vanity Fair雜誌上發表了一篇名為「Of the 1％, by the 1％, for the 1％」的文章。他殘酷地指出美國奉為立國精神象徵的「Of the people, by the people, for the people」(民有、民治、民享)，如今已變成被社會極少數1％的人所控制與把持，對美國而言，這真是莫大的諷刺。1％頂端美國人的每年所得約占全部所得的25％，並且擁有全美國財富的40％。尤有甚者，這個趨勢還在繼續惡化中。Stiglitz更嚴厲地譴責「以經濟成長可以帶動所得分配平均」的謬論；他明確指出，過去10年這1％的人所得增加了18％，但那些中產家庭的所得卻反而下降。「Arising tide lifts all boats.」乃是一句騙人的神話，99％的民眾都變成被遺棄的犧牲者。這次占領行動凸顯的就是99％與1％之間的抗爭。 $ O4 l& H+ f, e' ?9 i! dtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb 7 h: Z0 V4 K3 ?; @TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。美國歐巴馬總統最近向國會提出整套「經濟成長與赤字減少方案」，其中特別呼應巴菲特的主張，決定開徵「富人稅」。雖然該案日前被參議院否決，但歐巴馬政府表示仍將繼續努力與國會協商，爭取通過的機會。任何租稅改革的推動都會遭遇反對的阻力與困難，尤其是政黨間的惡鬥，更是租稅公平的最大障礙與威脅。在美國，有99％民眾的奮起抗議，有1％富人的自覺反省，有諾貝爾經濟學家的鏗鏘諍言，更有政府堅持的改革動能。反觀我國近年也同樣面對租稅不公與貧富差距問題，但99％民眾的聲音，1％富人的勇氣，學者的春秋判筆，以及政府的專業決心等，何時才能整合與轉化成改革的力量？作者: felicity2010 時間: 2011-10-20 08:55 AM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-10-20 09:12 AM 編輯 6 l/ L% e+ S& _( M- [
公仔箱論壇' A+ U# t) [: d0 m+ A5 z+ Z Of the 1%, by the1%, for the 1% Joseph E. Stiglitz 0 v" ?8 G" q6 Y+ ~9 @0 Y3 ]& y公仔箱論壇 & ^6 W9 p8 Q& ^& Y# w# w& g3 Eos.tvboxnow.com+ [5 \ N. q* O7 ]
+ i: U5 F# x4 ^) Y( ~# J+ Y( \
[attach]1498577[/attach] + h1 b4 f- y. u" F; d6 R* _TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。os.tvboxnow.com$ r I) D% c9 |! }+ T9 k4 L! ? THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles,says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。9 |, x3 V# R8 G# F
9 }' z {$ i0 D$ B, N4 k. K
7 T8 w+ b" b2 b9 F, k: {
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.公仔箱論壇: C& [8 ~. A0 s+ D$ [& {+ w, h1 R
( r% V+ P6 u- q0 ^( UIt’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably.Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.os.tvboxnow.com* p6 K0 ?; Y6 P( v
公仔箱論壇6 ` _3 J p: G3 H2 v0 e1 d
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin. 4 h o8 w7 k; F$ C: C* w- ] * |- N3 L! f2 O) e: r2 E7 z! e: O7 gSome people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb) L- v& b. `! p8 m
2 K0 D# R3 m% p! p9 d7 J# o
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes onto create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy. $ n4 H" d1 [8 N* dtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 y5 ^" p; v8 N0 Q( @
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead. ' o( s& ^1 u0 S, U5 {6 ], ^tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb - S: k2 q3 }+ ?4 f6 jNone of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people,losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes. : |3 r! W) X: F* P7 A& G& ?2 T + M6 n# n; V; }" z G* mTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: labor saving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.* B" R7 U- u- l! r) M& Y
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。5 a. S( P# B6 y2 c4 t
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy.Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest. % T7 h+ K" u" t, \+ @% M" t公仔箱論壇! @' O3 F( I9 W4 g% B
When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work. $ q0 ]) g" i9 `5 E7 |- y0 q公仔箱論壇6 k- d5 ]( B @
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the“all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters,and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that.Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain.The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich:they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb( Y0 B9 D; Z( Z$ d* r5 v) ?
os.tvboxnow.com2 \3 j7 q$ S" E4 K' e
Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling.With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations,and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.公仔箱論壇: ], x& q' {+ g( F% g! A
; q* N: G* C, G) u% {2 x# }2 A4 v: @In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。7 X/ `, H" S5 d7 Y9 D
' k2 z J. j( X3 IAs we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。+ i5 c! ?" @- G( o, @, a9 z7 u
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。! M5 x7 [- n7 Q* w2 G
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.公仔箱論壇; ?9 b$ A3 U4 t( V7 w
- s0 e& h, i7 O% I0 ~TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1percent eventually do learn. Too late.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb( @0 a3 ^, o9 K+ A
/ z, I; g3 i, I/ w
約瑟夫·尤金·斯蒂格利茨（Joseph Eugene "Joe" Stiglitz，1943年2月9日－），美國經濟學家，哥倫比亞大學教員。他於1979年獲得約翰·貝茨·克拉克獎（John Bates Clark Medal），2001年獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。斯蒂格利茨曾擔任世界銀行資深副總裁與首席經濟師，提出經濟全球化的觀點。他還曾經在國際貨幣基金組織任職。2008年，他針對華爾街的房產泡沫，提出了金融改革的幾點看法。作者: felicity2010 時間: 2011-10-20 09:08 AM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-10-20 09:12 AM 編輯 - ?" V1 o; {8 a- Z" r9 X M5 C7 f& j ; Q6 g9 k* Y% N" aos.tvboxnow.com政商勾結華爾街 愈窮愈借港美同 畢老林 ! Q- q2 p \! F9 ?6 e6 z 3 B8 a2 H# j8 u0 Qtvb now,tvbnow,bttvbTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。) K) V5 f! V5 L2 I- Y0 C9 E) L# a
德國總理默克爾叫大家不要「做夢」，對星期日歐盟峰會不宜抱太大期望。個市果然「聽話」，恆指低開后無力反彈，全日跌797點，險守萬八。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。% e8 h4 W2 Q5 V0 M2 @3 }3 I* m
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。+ f, G; b7 e& D3 e. k' o
老畢心想，歐洲無計個市狂跌不在話下﹔即使有計，評級機構虎視眈眈，能否執行亦大有疑問。既然希臘有秩序違約形同「做夢」，EFSF杠杆化法國AAA難保（穆迪已預告可能檢討法國主權評級），為免峰會曲終后市場出現「報復式」sell-off，默克爾把壞消息事先張揚，讓市場早點消化，不失為沒辦法中的辦法。 ) Z4 ^6 Z( H' |公仔箱論壇 9 ?2 ~, |' [! Y$ } Z, ]7 C英通脹三年最高 6 t3 N6 Z) I: V* D- ~- P中英兩國是日分別發表重要經濟數據，本港投資者自然聚焦內地第三季GDP同比增長9.1％，遜預期兼兩年來最「慢」，惟老畢認為，在「佔領」（Occupy）浪潮蔓延全球的此際，大不列顛的數字更富「教育」意義。 ( J+ e& n/ @# g6 Bos.tvboxnow.com公仔箱論壇: F6 v, j* r! X- E& n
英國政府公布，上月消費物價指數（CPI）按年急升5.2％，非但遠超市場預期的4.9％，且為2008年9月以來最高的通脹水平。百物騰貴之余，大不列顛失業率創下8.1％十七年新高，通脹失業雙雙攀升，由這兩個元素組成的「苦惱指數」（Misery Index）升至13.3％，殊不令人意外。無業一族固苦不堪言，有工做同樣難捱，皆因工資增長大大落后於通脹，實質收入每下愈況【圖1】。 ) ~+ I* y0 A% K( n* g1 n% dos.tvboxnow.com / h! F2 f( G K" ~3 P0 v E% c/ O; r早在「佔領華爾街」運動火頭四起前，《經濟學人》一篇題為〈收入不平等與此何干？〉（What's income inequality got to do with it? 2010年8月26日上載《經人》網站）的評論中，力「撐」華爾街。在1％ vs 99％意識高漲的當下，跟「佔領者」唱對台的意見，不論觀點正確與否，皆有一提價值。 - _' y- I1 ^4 z+ O1 \TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。# o5 d6 l/ k! f! R, h/ `
標題中的「此」（it），所指乃「金融危機」。換句話說，《經人》對貪得無厭的華爾街賓架�炒家引發金融海嘯之說並無異議，該刊不能認同的是，收入不平等跟華爾街「大鱷」觸發金融危機這兩件事，存在因果關系。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb' N, G S, h) Z" g
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。- Z* w$ ?- ^4 X, i- ?/ Z' P 兩大因素隻手遮天 0 ]- Z, R O1 X! p, l$ cos.tvboxnow.com聽落有點復雜，惟此一質疑背后的邏輯，一點也不難懂。一、假設收入差距沒有今天那麼懸殊，華爾街「大鱷」促使金融制度、游戲規則向他們傾斜的誘因，是否就會因此而降低？二、賓架操控政經資源的機會和能力，是否就會隨貧富差距收窄而減少？對以上兩個問題，《經人》的答案是否定的。 ; K1 _5 D: U/ |' S$ |' P7 ytvb now,tvbnow,bttvb 9 W3 O* i9 @' l% M; {9 l「大鱷」之所以能隻手遮天，一則由於他們享有信息不對稱優勢，二則華爾街與華盛頓之間有一道專為金融家而設的「旋轉門」，供他們在政商二界自出自入來去裕如。銀行有難，主事人一個電話直達財政部，對口單位往往就是同一家銀行昔日的CEO﹔政府高官卸下公職，華爾街的大門亦為他們常敞永開。 . [/ g# n# k5 {, m: C9 q2 ~# ]! { + Y) L$ e Z- f$ LTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。你可以痛斥這種制度鼓勵官商勾結，易成貪腐溫床，但那跟社會上最富有5％的人與最底層5％者收入相差多遠，有何直接關系？一句話，《經人》不認同貧富差距縮窄對扭轉華爾街「大鱷」長期享有的信息不對稱有任何積極影響，遑論打破金融政界存在百年的唇齒關系。結論是，金融危機縱使罪在華爾街，針對收入不平等大做文章，顯非對症下藥。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。2 a" q- Z- f" m( M, n1 [" P* C2 x
