[克魯曼專欄] We Are the 99.9% 我們代表99.9% 原文載於(2011/11/25)

原文出於NY Times



“We are the 99 percent” is a great slogan. It correctly defines the issue as being the middle class versus the elite (as opposed to the middle class versus the poor). And it also gets past the common but wrong establishment notion that rising inequality is mainly about the well educated doing better than the less educated; the big winners in this new Gilded Age have been a handful of very wealthy people, not college graduates in general.


「我們代表99%」是句超棒的口號，明白定義出這是中產階級對菁英階級(相反就是中產階級對貧窮階級)的議題，同時也化解了長久以來的錯誤觀念，以為攀升的不平等主要是有無接受良好教育的分別。大致上新鍍金世代的大贏家是一小群大富大貴的人，而不是大學畢業生。


If anything, however, the 99 percent slogan aims too low. A large fraction of the top 1 percent’s gains have actually gone to an even smaller group, the top 0.1 percent — the richest one-thousandth of the population.


不過嚴格來說，口號的99%設的有點低，大部分的利益成長是流向1%中更小一群人，就是0.1%─最富有的千分之一。


And while Democrats, by and large, want that super-elite to make at least some contribution to long-term deficit reduction, Republicans want to cut the super-elite’s taxes even as they slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the name of fiscal discipline.


大致看來，目前民主黨要求這些超級菁英能為降低長期赤字多少盡點心力，而共和黨卻打算減免超級精英的稅，同時打著財政紀律的口號大砍社福預算、聯邦醫療保險以及醫療補助。


Before I get to those policy disputes, here are a few numbers.


在我爭論這些政策之前，我們先來看些數字。


The recent Congressional Budget Office report on inequality didn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, did. According to that report, between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted, after-tax income of Americans in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. The equivalent number for the richest 0.1 percent rose 400 percent.


最近國會預算辦公室針對不平等發表的報告，並沒有仔細檢視最高的1%，不過根據稍早2005年的報告，從1979到2005年，美國中產階級的稅後所得分配經過通膨調整後成長了21%，而那最富有0.1%階層收入分配則成長了400%。


For the most part, these huge gains reflected a dramatic rise in the super-elite’s share of pretax income. But there were also large tax cuts favoring the wealthy. In particular, taxes on capital gains are much lower than they were in 1979 — and the richest one-thousandth of Americans account for half of all income from capital gains.


巨額所得增長代表超級菁英的稅前所得劇增，而且還有偏袒富人的減稅，另外現今資本利得稅也比1979年時來的低，而那千分之一美國人的資產有超過一半是來自資本利得。


Given this history, why do Republicans advocate further tax cuts for the very rich even as they warn about deficits and demand drastic cuts in social insurance programs?


既然如此，為何共和黨還邊鼓吹要替巨富減稅，又大聲警告赤字，劇幅縮減社會保險制度的預算呢？


Well, aside from shouts of “class warfare!” whenever such questions are raised, the usual answer is that the super-elite are “job creators” — that is, that they make a special contribution to the economy. So what you need to know is that this is bad economics. In fact, it would be bad economics even if America had the idealized, perfect market economy of conservative fantasies.


先撇開「這是階級戰爭！」這類每次提起這問題都會冒出的吶喊，通常得到的回應超級精英創造就業機會，也就是說對經濟具有特殊貢獻。要知道這不是好的理由，就算美國擁有保守派夢想中的完美市場，也依然不是好理由。


After all, in an idealized market economy each worker would be paid exactly what he or she contributes to the economy by choosing to work, no more and no less. And this would be equally true for workers making $30,000 a year and executives making $30 million a year. There would be no reason to consider the contributions of the $30 million folks as deserving of special treatment.


在完美市場狀態內工作的員工，所得的薪資正好等於他透過工作對經濟所做出的貢獻度，不會多也不會少。基於同樣的道理，工人年收入是三萬美元，執行長年收入是三千萬美元。沒理由認為年收入三千萬美元的人比較有貢獻，值得擁有特殊待遇。


But, you say, the rich pay taxes! Indeed, they do. And they could — and should, from the point of view of the 99.9 percent — be paying substantially more in taxes, not offered even more tax breaks, despite the alleged budget crisis, because of the wonderful things they supposedly do.


可能有人會說「但是富人要繳稅！」沒錯，確實如此。不過富人可以，也應該(從99.9%的人的角度來看)繳交更多的稅，而不是在聲稱有預算危機的情形下還幫富人減稅，只因為他們似乎有做一些很美好的事情。


Still, don’t some of the very rich get that way by producing innovations that are worth far more to the world than the income they receive? Sure, but if you look at who really makes up the 0.1 percent, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that, by and large, the members of the super-elite are overpaid, not underpaid, for what they do.


僅管如此，有些巨富替世界帶來重大革新，難道他們不該得到除了收入以外更多的東西嗎？當然可以，不過若仔細檢視這0.1%的成員，一般來說很難不得到一個結論，就是根據這群超級精英的所作所為，他們的薪水不僅沒有受到虧待，反而還過分高估了。


For who are the 0.1 percent? Very few of them are Steve Jobs-type innovators; most of them are corporate bigwigs and financial wheeler-dealers. One recent analysis found that 43 percent of the super-elite are executives at nonfinancial companies, 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate. And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.


究竟誰是這0.1%？只有一小部分的人是像賈伯斯那樣的革新家，大部分的人是企業大亨和金融炒手。一份最近的分析指出超級精英中43%是非金融公司的主管，18%是金融公司主管，還有12%得人是律師或是房地產業。委婉來說這群人的職業裡，所得和經濟貢獻度的關聯似乎沒有那麼分明。


Executive pay, which has skyrocketed over the past generation, is famously set by boards of directors appointed by the very people whose pay they determine; poorly performing C.E.O.’s still get lavish paychecks, and even failed and fired executives often receive millions as they go out the door.


主管薪資在上個世代一飛沖天。主管薪資高低是由董事會所決定，可是董事會的成員卻正好又是這些主管所指派的。因此表現差勁的執行長還是得到豐厚的薪資，甚至徹底失敗以及被開除的主管常常都可以在離開前先領走數百萬美元。


Meanwhile, the economic crisis showed that much of the apparent value created by modern finance was a mirage. As the Bank of England’s director for financial stability recently put it, seemingly high returns before the crisis simply reflected increased risk-taking — risk that was mostly borne not by the wheeler-dealers themselves but either by naïve investors or by taxpayers, who ended up holding the bag when it all went wrong. And as he waspishly noted, “If risk-making were a value-adding activity, Russian roulette players would contribute disproportionately to global welfare.”


還有這次的金融危機顯示，很多現代金融創造出來，看起來很有價值的資產不過是海市蜃樓。一如英格蘭銀行總裁為了穩定金融所說的，危機前的高收益只是反應出了不斷增加的高投機風險，而且出差錯的代價幾乎不是由金融炒手所承擔，而是由天真的投資者與納稅人全數負責。另外總裁又很刻薄的註明了「如果投機行為真的具有附加價值，那俄羅斯羅盤的玩家一定給全球貢獻超大的福利了。」


So should the 99.9 percent hate the 0.1 percent? No, not at all. But they should ignore all the propaganda about “job creators” and demand that the super-elite pay substantially more in taxes.


所以99.9%的人該痛恨0.1%的人囉？當然不是，不過前者應該要無視什麼「創造就業」之類的宣傳，並要求這些超級精英繳交更多的稅金。

[克魯曼專欄] Boring, Cruel Euro Romantics 無趣又殘酷的歐洲夢想家 原文載於(2011/11/21)

原文出於NY Times



There’s a word I keep hearing lately: “technocrat.” Sometimes it’s used as a term of scorn — the creators of the euro, we’re told, were technocrats who failed to take human and cultural factors into account. Sometimes it’s a term of praise: the newly installed prime ministers of Greece and Italy are described as technocrats who will rise above politics and do what needs to be done.


近來我常聽到一個單字「技術官僚」。有時候這單字會拿來嘲笑某人，像稱呼創造歐元的人都是技術官僚，說他們當初沒有把人為因素和文化因素列入考量。而有時候這單字則是拿來讚美某人，如稱呼希臘和義大利新上任的總理都是技術官僚，可以超越政治角度，確實完成該做的事。


I call foul. I know from technocrats; sometimes I even play one myself. And these people — the people who bullied Europe into adopting a common currency, the people who are bullying both Europe and the United States into austerity — aren’t technocrats. They are, instead, deeply impractical romantics.


不過我得說沒這回事，因為我認識這群技術官僚，甚至我自己有時候也扮演這角色。可是這群人─包含要建立歐洲統一貨幣的人、強迫歐洲和美國都要實施財政緊縮的人都不算什麼技術官僚，他們只不過是完全不切實際的夢想家罷了。


They are, to be sure, a peculiarly boring breed of romantic, speaking in turgid prose rather than poetry. And the things they demand on behalf of their romantic visions are often cruel, involving huge sacrifices from ordinary workers and families. But the fact remains that those visions are driven by dreams about the way things should be rather than by a cool assessment of the way things really are.


更精確的說，這群人是一派又無聊又古怪的夢想家。比起吟詩，他們更常發表誇大且乏味的散文，而且浪漫的腦袋總是提出十分殘酷的要求，要求普通勞工及家庭做出重大犧牲。但這些要求都是依照他們腦袋裡的妄想提出的，而非來自於對實際情形的精確評估。


And to save the world economy we must topple these dangerous romantics from their pedestals.


想要拯救世界經濟，就必須先把這些危險的夢想家趕下臺。

Let’s start with the creation of the euro. If you think that this was a project driven by careful calculation of costs and benefits, you have been misinformed.


先從歐元的誕生談起。若認為在歐元成立前有經過非常精準的支出與收益評估，那你肯定是受人誤導。


The truth is that Europe’s march toward a common currency was, from the beginning, a dubious project on any objective economic analysis. The continent’s economies were too disparate to function smoothly with one-size-fits-all monetary policy, too likely to experience “asymmetric shocks” in which some countries slumped while others boomed. And unlike U.S. states, European countries weren’t part of a single nation with a unified budget and a labor market tied together by a common language.


打從一開始，任何客觀的經濟分析都對歐洲能否邁向統一貨幣半信半疑。全歐洲各經濟體差異極大，很難有一體適用的財政政策，因此相當容易受到「不對稱衝擊」的影響，也就是指有些國家深陷不景氣，同時有些國家卻景氣過熱。此外與美國的各州不同，歐洲各國不屬於同一個國家，沒有統一的預算，也沒有共通語言的勞動市場。


So why did those “technocrats” push so hard for the euro, disregarding many warnings from economists? Partly it was the dream of European unification, which the Continent’s elite found so alluring that its members waved away practical objections. And partly it was a leap of economic faith, the hope — driven by the will to believe, despite vast evidence to the contrary — that everything would work out as long as nations practiced the Victorian virtues of price stability and fiscal prudence.


那為什麼這群「技術官僚」如此賣力推動歐元，完全無視眾多經濟學家提出的警告呢？部分是因為想完成統一歐洲的春秋大夢，這夢對歐洲菁英來說是如此誘人，所以很多人都未提出實質反對。另一部份是對經濟遽增的信心，儘管有大量證據反對，但還是盲目希望只要能維持維多利亞時代的物價穩定以及謹慎財政，一切都會完美運作。


Sad to say, things did not work out as promised. But rather than adjusting to reality, those supposed technocrats just doubled down — insisting, for example, that Greece could avoid default through savage austerity, when anyone who actually did the math knew better.


難過的是，事情終究沒有像先前保證的那般完美。然而這群所謂技術官僚不僅沒有配合現實調整制度，反而還加倍下注，例如堅持只要希臘遵守極嚴格的財政緊縮就一定不會違約，可是任何一個會算數的人都知道答案不是如此。


Let me single out in particular the European Central Bank (E.C.B.), which is supposed to be the ultimate technocratic institution, and which has been especially notable for taking refuge in fantasy as things go wrong. Last year, for example, the bank affirmed its belief in the confidence fairy — that is, the claim that budget cuts in a depressed economy will actually promote expansion, by raising business and consumer confidence. Strange to say, that hasn’t happened anywhere.


我特別要指名歐洲央行(E.C.B.)，本來該是最終的技術官僚機構，然而在情況出錯時卻反而躲進幻想世界裡。如去年就證實了歐洲央行深信信心神話，聲稱在經濟不景氣時縮減預算反而會促進經濟成長，因為如此一來會提升商業與消費者信心。不過很奇怪，這預測從來就沒有發生。


And now, with Europe in crisis — a crisis that can’t be contained unless the E.C.B. steps in to stop the vicious circle of financial collapse — its leaders still cling to the notion that price stability cures all ills. Last week Mario Draghi, the E.C.B.’s new president, declared that “anchoring inflation expectations” is “the major contribution we can make in support of sustainable growth, employment creation and financial stability.”


如今歐洲面臨危機，除非歐洲央行介入，阻止財政崩壞的惡性循環才能控制這場危機，可是歐洲領導人還是堅信物價穩定是所有問題的解答。上個星期歐洲央行的新總裁德拉吉宣稱「固定通貨膨脹預期是我們幫助經濟持續成長，創造就業，穩定經濟所能做的主要貢獻。」


This is an utterly fantastic claim to make at a time when expected European inflation is, if anything, too low, and what’s roiling the markets is fear of more or less immediate financial collapse. And it’s more like a religious proclamation than a technocratic assessment.


這聲明徹頭徹尾就是胡言亂語，比較像是宗教宣言而不是技術評估。真要說起來歐洲的通膨預期反而還太低，而且市場上瀰漫的恐懼是擔心財政的立即崩潰。


Just to be clear, this is not an anti-European rant, since we have our own pseudo-technocrats warping the policy debate. In particular, allegedly nonpartisan groups of “experts” — the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Concord Coalition, and so on — have been all too successful at hijacking the economic policy debate, shifting its focus from jobs to deficits.


不過要聲明，這篇文章不是拿來謾罵歐洲，因為我們也有群假扮成技術官僚的人在扭曲政策。此外還有其他據說是秉持中立的「專家」組成的團體如盡責聯邦預算委員會、反赤字協和聯盟等，成功挾持經濟政策的辯論焦點，把目光從就業轉移到赤字上。


Real technocrats would have asked why this makes sense at a time when the unemployment rate is 9 percent and the interest rate on U.S. debt is only 2 percent. But like the E.C.B., our fiscal scolds have their story about what’s important, and they’re sticking to it no matter what the data say.


真正的技術官僚會想尋求解答，想了解為什麼失業率高達9%而美國國債利率只有2%。然而我們的財政嘮叨大嬸，如歐洲央行對事情的輕重緩急卻有自己的看法，而且不管數據如何解釋都無法改變意見。


So am I against technocrats? Not at all. I like technocrats — technocrats are friends of mine. And we need technical expertise to deal with our economic woes.


那麼我是反對技術官僚囉？也不盡然。我喜歡技術官僚，其中有些人還是我的朋友，而且我們還需要專業的意見來處理目前經濟困境。


But our discourse is being badly distorted by ideologues and wishful thinkers — boring, cruel romantics — pretending to be technocrats. And it’s time to puncture their pretensions.


但我們的討論已經被意識形態和癡心妄想嚴重扭曲，這群無聊又殘忍的夢想家假裝自己是技術官僚，是時候戳破他們吹的牛皮了。

[克魯曼專欄] Vouchers for Veterans 老兵的憑證 原文載於(2011/11/14)

原文出於NY Times

American health care is remarkably diverse. In terms of how care is paid for and delivered, many of us effectively live in Canada, some live in Switzerland, some live in Britain, and some live in the unregulated market of conservative dreams. One result of this diversity is that we have plenty of home-grown evidence about what works and what doesn’t.

美國的健保系統最引人注目的地方莫過於其多樣性，以繳費及提供的服務來看，很多人其實是住在加拿大，有些是在瑞士，有的則是在英國，還有些人則是住在保守派夢想中沒有任何管制的市場。這些各式各樣的種類產生的成果，就是有了大量自家證據證明哪些管用，哪些沒用。

Naturally, then, politicians — Republicans in particular — are determined to scrap what works and promote what doesn’t. And that brings me to Mitt Romney’s latest really bad idea, unveiled on Veterans Day: to partially privatize the Veterans Health Administration (V.H.A.).

於是很自然的，有政客──尤其是共和黨人毅然而然的要把可行的健保服務作廢，同時大聲宣揚行不通的健保服務。這讓我想到羅尼最近在退伍軍人節披露的壞主意，說要把部分退伍軍人健康管理局(V.H.A.)民營化。

What Mr. Romney and everyone else should know is that the V.H.A. is a huge policy success story, which offers important lessons for future health reform.

羅尼先生和所有人都該了解，退伍軍人健康管理局是空前成功的政策，也給未來健保改革帶來貴重的啟示。

Many people still have an image of veterans’ health care based on the terrible state of the system two decades ago. Under the Clinton administration, however, the V.H.A. was overhauled, and achieved a remarkable combination of rising quality and successful cost control. Multiple surveys have found the V.H.A. providing better care than most Americans receive, even as the agency has held cost increases well below those facing Medicare and private insurers. Furthermore, the V.H.A. has led the way in cost-saving innovation, especially the use of electronic medical records.

很多人對退伍軍人健康管理局的印象還停在二十年前糟糕透頂的情況，然而在柯林頓主政時期，整個退伍軍人健康管理局已經大幅改造，成了提高品質與費用控制的耀眼組合。許多調查表明退伍軍人健康管理局提供的健保服務，比大多數美國人所擁有的還好，而且支出控制得宜，費用低於聯邦醫療保險(Medicare)以及民營保險。此外退伍軍人健康管理局在節省支出的創舉上算是領頭羊，特別像是使用電子醫療紀錄。

What’s behind this success? Crucially, the V.H.A. is an integrated system, which provides health care as well as paying for it. So it’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense. And because V.H.A. patients are in it for the long term, the agency has a stronger incentive to invest in prevention than private insurers, many of whose customers move on after a few years.

成功背後的原因是什麼？關鍵在於退伍軍人健康管理局是個綜合系統，同時提供健保及給付健保費，因此可以免除一些不良誘因，如醫生和醫院可以從昂貴的實驗與療程來獲利，不管這些療程是不是真的有醫學意義。而且相較於民營保險的顧客沒幾年就不續保了，退伍軍人健康管理局的病人都是長期保險，所以有更強的誘因去注重疾病預防。

And yes, this is “socialized medicine” — although some private systems, like Kaiser Permanente, share many of the V.H.A.’s virtues. But it works — and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of U.S. health care more broadly.

沒錯，這是公費醫療系統，雖說有些民營系統如Kaiser Permanente也有許多退伍軍人健康管理局的優點，但這系統真的管用，同時在解決美國健保的問題上給了更廣泛的解答。

Yet Mr. Romney believes that giving veterans vouchers to spend on private insurance would somehow yield better results. Why?

不過羅尼先生深信，給退伍軍人可以用在民營保險的憑單會更好。為什麼呢？

Well, Republicans have a thing about vouchers. Earlier this year Representative Paul Ryan famously introduced a plan to convert Medicare into a voucher system; Mr. Romney’s Medicare proposal follows similar lines. The claim, always, is the one Mr. Romney made last week, that “private sector competition” would lower costs.

這個嘛，共和黨人對憑單特別感興趣。今年稍早眾議員萊恩引人注目的引進一套把聯邦醫療保險轉換為憑單制度的方案，而現在羅尼的聯邦醫療保險提案內容也是老生常談。羅尼先生上個星期發布聲明，又是千篇一律的說「民營企業競爭」會降低成本。

But we have a lot of evidence about how private-sector competition in health insurance works, and it’s not favorable. The individual insurance market, which comes closest to the conservative ideal of free competition, has huge administrative costs and has no demonstrated ability to reduce other costs. Medicare Advantage, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to buy private insurance instead of having Medicare pay bills directly, has consistently had higher costs than the traditional program.

可是我們已經有很多證據說明健保讓民營企業競爭的結果，而且這結果不太好看。如最接近保守派自由競爭理念的個人健康保險市場，不僅付出了龐大的行政成本，也沒顯示出其他降低成本的能力。像聯邦醫療保險優惠計畫(Medicare Advantage)允許聯邦醫療保險的受益人可以購買民營保險，代替直接付費給聯邦醫療保險，可是這項方案的成本持續攀高，還超過原本方案。

And the international evidence accords with U.S. experience. The most efficient health care systems are integrated systems like the V.H.A.; next best are single-payer systems like Medicare; the more privatized the system, the worse it performs.

國際上的證據也與美國經驗一致。最有效率的健保系統是綜合式系統如退伍軍人健康管理局，次佳的是單一付費者系統如聯邦醫療保險。系統越民營化，表現得越差。

To be fair to Mr. Romney, he takes a somewhat softer line than others in his party, suggesting that the existing V.H.A. system would remain available and that traditional Medicare would remain an option. In practice, however, partial privatization would almost surely undermine the public side of these programs. For example, one problem with the V.H.A. is that its hospitals are spread too thinly across the nation; this problem would become worse if a substantial number of veterans were encouraged to opt out of the system.

不過要幫羅尼先生說句公道話，他比起其他同黨人士說詞較為溫和，建議現存的退伍軍人健康管理局系統可以持續，傳統的聯邦醫療保險也可以列為選項。然而實際上，部分民營化最終一定會侵蝕公營部分的基礎。舉例來說，退伍軍人健康管理局的其中一個問題是全國有支援的醫院太少，如果鼓勵許多退伍軍人離開這體系，問題會很快惡化。

So what lies behind the Republican obsession with privatization and voucherization? Ideology, of course. It’s literally a fundamental article of faith in the G.O.P. that the private sector is always better than the government, and no amount of evidence can shake that credo.

所以共和黨熱情追求民營化與證券化的原因為何呢？當然是意識形態作祟。共和黨的基本信念就是民間企業一定好過政府，無論多少證據都不能撼動其信條。

In fact, it’s hard to avoid the sense that Republicans are especially eager to dismantle government programs that act as living demonstrations that their ideology is wrong. Bloated military budgets don’t bother them much — Mr. Romney has pledged to reverse President Obama’s defense cuts, despite the fact that no such cuts have actually taken place. But successful programs like veterans’ health, Social Security and Medicare are in the crosshairs.

事實上很難避免共和黨去廢除這些政府方案，因為這些方案就像是他們信念錯誤的活證明。對他們來說膨大的軍事預算無所謂，羅尼先生還誓言要推翻歐巴馬總統的國防預算縮編案，儘管根本就沒有要刪減，然而卻把準心瞄準成功的方案如退伍軍人健保、社福制度、聯邦醫療保險。

Which brings me to a final thought: maybe all this amounts to a case for Rick Perry. Any Republican would, if elected president, set out to undermine precisely those government programs that work best. But Mr. Perry might not remember which programs he was supposed to destroy.

我最後的想法如下，也許這一切只是為了要給培里(譯註：共和黨籍德州州長)一個機會。只要共和黨選上總統，一定會開始暗地破壞那些運作良好的政府方案，不過屆時培里先生可能早忘了他該破壞哪些方案了。

[遊戲相關翻譯] 重裝武力3: BFE 製作者訪談

原文出處Blistered Thumbs

Sam不分紅海，他分的是城市

訪問過所有以重裝武力衍生的獨立製作遊戲後，是時候和重裝武力本家的開發者談談了。重裝武力：BFE 發售在即，Croteam的首席創意家(正式職稱)Davor Hunkski 百忙之中抽空參加面談，聊聊即將推出的新遊戲以及對製作衍生遊戲系列的靈感。

Question 1

就從告訴我們的讀者一些關於重裝武力: BFE 的新情報開始吧。

重裝武力3: BFE 使用我們自己的Serious Engine 3.5 製作。遊戲是重裝武力1的前傳，Sam “Serious” Stone在近未來的埃及對抗Mental 的侵略部隊。新作仍然緊緊擁抱以往重裝武力的精神：誇張華麗的動作場面、快節奏的單人戰役和多人遊戲，當然也少不了Sam那招牌的獨特幽默。

Question 2

重裝武力3: BFE 會是前傳。為何開發小組決定製作前傳呢？

我們想把走入時光機回到古埃及之前的劇情補完。先前我們就有設定，在更接近現代的埃及有場大戰，而Sam最終必須要回到古埃及去打倒Mental。因此我們打算深入這場戰役，讓重裝武力的粉絲能在熟悉的劇情設定下，體驗到不同以往的故事。

Question 3

我們有個工作人員承認自己從來沒玩過重裝武力系列。在用重裝武力1代的光碟扁了他好幾個小時後決定幫他問一下，這款對沒玩過系列作的新玩家好上手嗎？

怎麼可以沒有玩過重裝武力系列呢？實在是太失禮了！不過事實上，的確有一整個新世代的玩家從來沒玩過系列作，可是相信重裝武力HD版和重裝武力3: BFE的成功會讓我們得到更多的粉絲。

回到問題本身，不管玩家的遊戲經驗或是遊戲技巧如何，都可以輕鬆上手重裝武力3: BFE。重裝武力這種大型機台風格的射擊遊戲能在對抗模式中提供更加公平的場地，而我們的目標就是要讓遊戲過程單純順暢，所有人都可投入遊戲體驗混戰的樂趣。就只有玩家，一大堆的武器，還有準心而已。因此，任何人都可以在重裝武力3: BFE享受愉快的時光。

Question 4

遊戲是用與HD版相同的引擎開發，然而從預告看起來畫面卻好上幾萬倍。Serious 3 engine還可以發揮到什麼程度？

其實重裝武力3: BFE是用我們最新的Serious Engine 3.5開發的，HD版則是Serious Engine 3。Serious Engine 3.5是特別為重裝武力3: BFE打造的，讓我們得以設計出前所未見的動作等級。玩家會看到比以往更大、更精細的戰場，裡面塞滿了滿滿的敵人。說實話，遊戲尾聲的戰鬥會混亂到簡直難以想像。

GNNAR後悔問了Sam牠眼睛裡是不是有東西。

Question 5

重裝武力的敵人總是有些熟面孔。新作裡會有新的瘋狂怪物嗎？會有很多老班底敵人回歸嗎？

很多經典的敵人都會重現，像是無頭Kamikazes，Gnaar，Kleer，Biomechanoids。甚至有經典敵人的新變種還有Scrapjack 等全新怪物壯大Menta的軍團。

Question 6

也許還有更重要的問題，就是Sam的軍火有什麼改變？我喜歡來點新火力，可是如果拿走了我的加農砲，我可會不高興！

開心吧，因為大家最愛的加農砲仍舊健在！而加了爆裂彈的散彈槍肯定是受歡迎的改變。此外還有天狼星人的Mutilator…

Question 7

預告片裡有看到一把大槌子，這表示沒有電鋸囉？

因為電鋸沒油了，所以Sam改成揮舞一把閃亮的嶄新大槌，砸爛所有靠近到讓人不自在的敵人。有從頭揮下的垂直揮法，也可以水平揮舞來清理比較大批的敵軍，還有萬能的360度揮舞。

Question 8

重裝武力最棒的一點就是如果你實在沒辦法發射更多的子彈，可以找個朋友帶著火力一起來場合作派對。BFE會有哪些多人遊戲模式？

沒錯，合作模式和多人遊戲一直都是重裝武力的最大特色。重裝武力3: BFE的電腦版支援16名玩家的線上合作模式，還有多人對決模式裡最高可以支援4名玩家分割畫面遊戲。經典的遊戲如死鬥、搶旗也會加入在重裝武力HD新導入的模式，如Beast Hunt和持久戰。等不及看到各位上線發揮真本事了！

到處都是敵人，眼前卻沒有任何一塊矮牆可供遮掩。如臨至福。

Question 9

目前我們看到的場景都是Sam最愛的度假勝地埃及，他在這趟冒險中會旅行到其他地方嗎？

重裝武力3: BFE就只在埃及，不過因為設定在近未來而不是古代的埃及，玩家會用全新的眼光來看這些熟悉卻又新奇的場景。

Question 10

Sam從來就不是個慢慢來的傢伙，很高興得知遊戲並沒有使用掩護機制。可是要如何阻止人們躲在高度及胸的矮牆後呢？

只要玩家高興，他們可以躲在遊戲裡任何一個地方，但重裝武力不是這樣玩的。若想享受遊戲樂趣，就抓起武器，對著入侵的Meantal軍團來宣洩些怒氣。喔，如果真的想試著躲起來，最終敵人還是會摧毀所有牆壁與樑柱逮到你。

Question 11

撿起醫藥包和護甲？你確定現在的玩家還知道這些東西嗎？為什麼沒有採用自動回復血條呢？

自動回血真的拖慢了現在射擊遊戲的節奏。從壯決的交火中跑開，躲到附近的掩蔽物後跪下等回血有什麼樂趣？重裝武力的風格是快節奏、刺激火爆的動作，所以如果玩家被猛烈轟炸，我們要玩家手指緊扣板機然後狂奔向醫藥包或護甲。

Question 12

遊樂器的玩家也能玩到移植版的重裝武力3: BFE嗎？還是有專為遊樂器打造的版本？

重裝武力3: BFE最後會出遊樂器版。電腦版的遊戲正式啟動後會跟著推出。

圖中兩位玩家正在合作遊戲，想想16名玩家同時合作會有多酷！

Question 13

有款非常受歡迎的高檔遊戲不讓電腦玩家隨意更改畫面設定(Crysis 2)，BFE會讓玩家全權控制設定嗎？

是的，我們始終樂於讓重裝武力的粉絲全權更動畫面設定，重裝武力3: BFE亦是如此。

Question 14

還有更重要的一點，電腦版的玩家需要趕快添購新配備來跑重裝武力3: BFE嗎？能透露詳細配備嗎？

詳細配備很快就會更新於Steam的頁面上，不過不用擔心，我們希望遊戲能容易上手，所以大部分的人都不需要買台新電腦才能玩重裝武力3: BFE。

Question 15

製作小組用了嶄新方法宣傳BFE，任用了三個獨立製作小組來製作重裝武力的衍生遊戲。是誰提出這構想的？

這是我們的發行商Devolver 給Croteam 的意見，而我們真的愛死這點子了。由於我們本身也是獨立的製作小組，所以把這當成絕佳的機會，讓其他超棒的製作人能在重裝武力的世界裡，帶來並實現他們充滿創意的構想。

Question 16

你們有玩那些衍生遊戲嗎？目前評價如何？

有的，三款分別位於不同開發階段的遊戲我們都玩過了。全都非常出色充滿創意，相信重裝武力的粉絲一定會愛上的。每一款都呈現出獨特的重裝武力配方，展現出的結果讓我們開心不已。絕對要去看看他們喔！

Question 17

在未來有可能看到更多這類衍生遊戲嗎？會給製作團隊開發續作或是讓新制作團隊參與的權力嗎？

重裝武力的衍生遊戲系列讓我們非常開心，未來也絕對會繼續推出。其實已經有關於衍生遊戲第二系列的計畫了，所以獨立製作組們，別輕易轉台！

Question 18

最後，能給個遊戲確切上市日期嗎？

你應該很快就可以知道上市日期了，這點就讓我保留吧。

這可能會有點棘手...喔等等，Sam可以帶不只兩把槍！

[克魯曼專欄] Legends of the Fail 歐元破產傳奇 原文載於(2011/11/11)

原文出於NY TIMES



This is the way the euro ends — not with a bang but with bunga bunga. Not long ago, European leaders were insisting that Greece could and should stay on the euro while paying its debts in full. Now, with Italy falling off a cliff, it’s hard to see how the euro can survive at all.


歐元就是這樣終結的──不是轟然一聲結束，而是在領導人與眾多紅粉佳人的性醜聞下落幕。不久之前歐洲領導人還在堅持希臘會還清所有債務，所以希臘可以，而且也應該繼續留在歐元區。如今義大利也跌落深淵，實在看不出歐元還有一絲維持機會。


But what’s the meaning of the eurodebacle? As always happens when disaster strikes, there’s a rush by ideologues to claim that the disaster vindicates their views. So it’s time to start debunking.


然而歐元崩解意味著什麼？每當災難來臨，總是有群理論家會跳出來，聲稱這場災難證明了他們的觀點。是時候該揭穿真相了。


First things first: The attempt to create a common European currency was one of those ideas that cut across the usual ideological lines. It was cheered on by American right-wingers, who saw it as the next best thing to a revived gold standard, and by Britain’s left, which saw it as a big step toward a social-democratic Europe. But it was opposed by British conservatives, who also saw it as a step toward a social-democratic Europe. And it was questioned by American liberals, who worried — rightly, I’d say (but then I would, wouldn’t I?) — about what would happen if countries couldn’t use monetary and fiscal policy to fight recessions.


首先，試圖創造歐洲通用貨幣的構想已經超越了以往意識形態的分界。美國右派對此大為鼓勵，認為是僅次於回復金本位制外最好的想法；英國左派歡欣鼓舞，這是邁向社會民主主義歐洲的一大步。不過英國保守派抱持反對態度，因為也把此舉視為邁向社會民主主義歐洲的一大步；至於美國自由派亦提出質疑，擔憂──我會說擔憂的對(我的確是說了，不是嗎？) 如果國家不能使用貨幣與財政政策對抗不景氣該怎麼辦。


So now that the euro project is on the rocks, what lessons should we draw?


現在歐元方案瀕臨瓦解，我們從中學到了什麼教訓？


I’ve been hearing two claims, both false: that Europe’s woes reflect the failure of welfare states in general, and that Europe’s crisis makes the case for immediate fiscal austerity in the United States.


我聽過兩種說法，全部都是錯的。一個是說歐洲的災難反應福利國家的失敗，另一個說歐洲危機要美國立刻實施財政緊縮政策。


The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats” and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.” The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.


斷定歐洲危機證實福利國家會失敗主要來自共和黨人，比如說羅尼指控歐巴馬總統是受到歐洲「社會民主主義」所啟發，又聲稱「歐洲模式連在歐洲都沒有用。」其論述大概是身陷危機的國家，都被龐大的政府支出壓得喘不過氣。不過事實卻不是如此。


It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits — including universal health care — and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well — if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” — spending on welfare-state programs — was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.


歐洲國家都有相當優渥的社會津貼──包含了全民健保，而且政府支出高於美國政府也是事實，但遭遇危機的國家並沒有比其他表現良好的國家有更高的津貼。真要說的話，關連性還完全相反。瑞典一向以高福利聞名，目前的表現卻非常耀眼，是少數幾個GDP比金融危機前還高的國家。此外陷入麻煩的國家在危機前，其社福支出(就是福利方案的支出)所占歲收比例還比德國低，更別提瑞典了。


Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.


喔，還有加拿大，他們也有全民健保和比起美國更優渥的貧困補助，卻也比我們更順利的度過危機。


The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state. But does it make the case for belt-tightening in a depressed economy?


所以歐洲危機跟福利國家是否能持續毫無關係，但是否意味著經濟蕭條時要勒緊褲帶呢？


You hear that claim all the time. America, we’re told, had better slash spending right away or we’ll end up like Greece or Italy. Again, however, the facts tell a different story.


無時無刻都會聽到這種主張，說美國最好馬上大砍支出，或則會落得和希臘與義大利一樣的下場。然而再一次，事實不是這樣。


First, if you look around the world you see that the big determining factor for interest rates isn’t the level of government debt but whether a government borrows in its own currency. Japan is much more deeply in debt than Italy, but the interest rate on long-term Japanese bonds is only about 1 percent to Italy’s 7 percent. Britain’s fiscal prospects look worse than Spain’s, but Britain can borrow at just a bit over 2 percent, while Spain is paying almost 6 percent.


首先若環顧一下整個世界，會發現決定利率高低的巨大因素不是政府債務的等級，而是政府借了多少內債。日本的債務遠高於義大利，但日本長期國債的利率只有1%，而義大利是7%。英國的財政遠景看來比西班牙糟，可是英國借貸利率只高過2%一點點，西班牙卻幾乎到6%。


What has happened, it turns out, is that by going on the euro, Spain and Italy in effect reduced themselves to the status of third-world countries that have to borrow in someone else’s currency, with all the loss of flexibility that implies. In particular, since euro-area countries can’t print money even in an emergency, they’re subject to funding disruptions in a way that nations that kept their own currencies aren’t — and the result is what you see right now. America, which borrows in dollars, doesn’t have that problem.


結果證明由於採用歐元，西班牙和義大利等於把自己降到第三世界國家的水準，必須要借入他國的貨幣，喪失了貨幣彈性。此外歐元區國家連面臨危機也無法加印貨幣，因此受困於資金中斷，這是擁有自己貨幣的國家不會發生的，其結果就如現在所見。而美國是以美金借入，所以沒有此問題。


The other thing you need to know is that in the face of the current crisis, austerity has been a failure everywhere it has been tried: no country with significant debts has managed to slash its way back into the good graces of the financial markets. For example, Ireland is the good boy of Europe, having responded to its debt problems with savage austerity that has driven its unemployment rate to 14 percent. Yet the interest rate on Irish bonds is still above 8 percent — worse than Italy.


在目前危機當中還要知道一件事，就是所有嘗試財政緊縮的國家都失敗了：沒有一個有顯著負債的國家可以在大砍赤字後，回復了以往金融市場上的優雅身影。以愛爾蘭為例，愛爾蘭是歐洲的乖孩子，負責的以緊縮政策讓失業率飆到14%來處理債務問題，可是愛爾蘭國債利率還是超過8%，比義大利還高。


The moral of the story, then, is to beware of ideologues who are trying to hijack the European crisis on behalf of their agendas. If we listen to those ideologues, all we’ll end up doing is making our own problems — which are different from Europe’s, but arguably just as severe — even worse.


整件事的教訓，是小心那些為了自己利益方針試圖挾持歐洲危機的理論家。如果真的聽進了他們的理論，結果只會製造自己的麻煩──一個跟歐洲不同，但可能一樣嚴重甚至更糟糕的麻煩。

[克魯曼專欄] Here Comes the Sun 太陽出來囉 原文載於(2011/11/07)

原文出於NY Times

For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.

幾十年來電腦的廣泛使用使科技的故事始終位於主導地位，深深植於人心還有大部分的現實。根據摩爾定律，電腦運算能力的價格每18個月就會打對折，這讓電腦的運用來到前所未見的程度，從稅收到Facebook都是。

Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.

然而另一方面，我們支配物質世界的進度就慢了很多。如能源、運輸方式等都和上個世代相差無幾。

But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.

If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.

可是也許改變的時刻已經到了。我們已經，或是也該來到能源革新的關頭了，因為太陽能的價錢正快速大幅下滑。沒錯，就是太陽能。假如你對此感到驚訝，或者還是認為太陽能不過是嬉皮的幻想罷了，這要怪我們化石級的政治體系，因為石化燃料生產商既是強大的政治盟友也是強大的宣傳機器，不斷詆毀替代能源。

Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let’s talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, a k a fracking.

說到宣傳，在討論太陽能之前，我們先來簡短地聊聊水力破裂法。

Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.

水力破裂法就是在地底岩層注入高壓水引起石化燃料釋出，非常令人印象深刻的科技，卻也讓大眾付出極大代價。目前已知在這過程內，會產生有毒而且具有放射性的廢水來汙染飲用水。雖然能源業否認，但也足以懷疑連帶污染了地下水。另外水力破裂法所需要的貨車運輸，也是道路毀損的主因。

Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.

基礎經濟學教我們，如果企業讓第三者付出了許多代價，就要把這些代價「內部化」。也就是說要賠償造成的損失，把傷害視為生產的成本。如果有人賠償這些損失，那水力破裂法是可以繼續的，可是不該有企業影響了環境和國家的基礎建設後，卻還能不用付出任何代價。

Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that “there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”

不過這些企業與其捍衛者理所當然的會為造成的損害開脫。為什麼呢？因為我們需要能源！舉例來說，有企業在背後撐腰的組織energyfromshale.org 宣稱「這場爭議只有兩方：一方希望石油與天然資源能安全合理的開發，另一方則根本不希望石油和天然資源有任何開發。」

So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.

水力破裂法的特殊待遇根本是在嘲笑自由市場的準則，所以特別值得提出。贊成水力破裂法的政客聲稱反對任何補貼，但讓企業強徵公眾利益卻又不必付任何賠償金，其本身就是一個巨大的補助。政客反對政府來「挑選贏家」，與此同時又要求這行業要有特殊待遇，只因他們說這行業會是個贏家。

And now for something completely different: the success story you haven’t heard about.

現在來點徹底不同的故事，一個你還沒聽過的成功故事。

These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.

最近只要提到太陽能，可能會聽見有人大喊「Solyndra！(譯註：Solyndra為生產太陽能薄膜公司，曾接受美國聯邦補助，於今年9月1日宣布破產)」共和黨人試圖讓這家失敗的太陽能面板公司成為政府浪費的象徵──儘管基本上，聲稱這是起大醜聞是一派胡言，另外成為痛打可再生能源的棍子。

But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.

但是Solyndra的失敗其實是因為技術上的成功，太陽能面板的造價急遽下跌，而Solyndra在這場競爭裡跟不上腳步。事實上太陽能面板的發展是巨大且持續的進步，如科學人雜誌一篇部落格裡的文章所提，「現在太陽能裡也常提到摩爾定律」，價格每年都會下跌7%。

This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we’re just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.

太陽能板的安裝數量因此快速上升，不過更多的改變可能很快就會到來。如果降價的態勢持續不變，事實上目前看來降價的速度正不斷加快，只要再幾年太陽能發電的成本就會比燃燒煤油來的便宜。

And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point.

而且我們若把燃燒油煤的巨大健康與相關成本也算進去來收費，搞不好太陽能已經比較便宜了。

But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach?

然而我們的政治體系會延宕已經近在眼前的能源革新嗎？

Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar.

面對事實吧，一大部分的政治階級包含幾乎整個共和黨，都在石化燃料壟斷的能源業投資了大筆金錢，所以十分敵視替代能源。這政治階級會用盡辦法確保補貼石化燃料的萃取與使用，直接點的拿納稅人的錢補貼，間接點的就讓企業開脫所造成的損害，同時嘲笑如太陽能之類的科技。

So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in.

你要知道的就是這些人嘴裡講出來的全部是謊言。水力破裂法不是什麼美夢成真，而現在的太陽能已經符合效益。太陽出來了，就看我們願不願意打開那扇窗。

[克魯曼專欄] Oligarchy, American Style 寡頭政治，美國風格 (原文載於2012/11/04)

Inequality is back in the news, largely thanks to Occupy Wall Street, but with an assist from the Congressional Budget Office. And you know what that means: It’s time to roll out the obfuscators!

社會不平等又重回新聞版面上，大半要感謝占領華爾街的行動，還有美國國會預算處的協助。這表示是時候碾平那些混淆事實的人了！

Anyone who has tracked this issue over time knows what I mean. Whenever growing income disparities threaten to come into focus, a reliable set of defenders tries to bring back the blur. Think tanks put out reports claiming that inequality isn’t really rising, or that it doesn’t matter. Pundits try to put a more benign face on the phenomenon, claiming that it’s not really the wealthy few versus the rest, it’s the educated versus the less educated.

長期關注此議題的人會明白我的意思。每當收入增長不均的威脅浮上檯面，總是會有一群忠誠的捍衛者試著模糊焦點。智庫會提出報告，不是聲稱不平等並沒有攀升，就是說這一點也不重要。而專家則會擺出比較親切的面孔，宣稱其實不是少數富貴對抗普羅大眾，而是有受教育對抗比較沒受教育的人。

So what you need to know is that all of these claims are basically attempts to obscure the stark reality: We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only.

要知道基本上，所有這些論點都是試圖遮掩赤裸裸的事實，我們的社會中增加的財富都是集中在少數人手上，而收入與財產的集中足以威脅民主，讓民主名存實亡。

The budget office laid out some of that stark reality in a recent report, which documented a sharp decline in the share of total income going to lower- and middle-income Americans. We still like to think of ourselves as a middle-class country. But with the bottom 80 percent of households now receiving less than half of total income, that’s a vision increasingly at odds with reality.

預算處最近的報告展現了這顯而易見的真相，美國中產階級與低收入戶的收入分配急劇下滑。我們還是喜歡自認為中產階級國家，可是當80%的家庭得不到總收入的一半時，印象與現實顯得越來越不一致。

In response, the usual suspects have rolled out some familiar arguments: the data are flawed (they aren’t); the rich are an ever-changing group (not so); and so on. The most popular argument right now seems, however, to be the claim that we may not be a middle-class society, but we’re still an upper-middle-class society, in which a broad class of highly educated workers, who have the skills to compete in the modern world, is doing very well.

為了回應，那些飽受嫌疑的人又開始提出再熟悉也不過的主張，如數據有瑕疵(並沒有)，富人階層是不斷替換的(並不是)之類。然而目前最為流行的說法，是聲稱我們或許不是中產階級社會，可是仍可稱為中上階級的社會。大量受過良好教育的勞工表現傑出，有本錢在現代世界中競爭。

It’s a nice story, and a lot less disturbing than the picture of a nation in which a much smaller group of rich people is becoming increasingly dominant. But it’s not true.

比起國內少數有錢人越來越占優勢的情況，這的確是個美好的故事，也比較沒那麼讓人心煩，但終究不是事實。

Workers with college degrees have indeed, on average, done better than workers without, and the gap has generally widened over time. But highly educated Americans have by no means been immune to income stagnation and growing economic insecurity. Wage gains for most college-educated workers have been unimpressive (and nonexistent since 2000), while even the well-educated can no longer count on getting jobs with good benefits. In particular, these days workers with a college degree but no further degrees are less likely to get workplace health coverage than workers with only a high school degree were in 1979.

平均來看，受過大學教育的勞工確實表現的比較出色，而這鴻溝正隨著時間逐漸拉開，可是受過高等教育的勞工也沒因此免於收入停滯及持續增長的經濟不安全感。大多大學畢業的勞工薪資實在不怎麼樣，而且從2000年後就已經沒有增加，甚至良好教育也不代表可以找到良好福利的工作。尤其現在大學學歷的勞工很少有工作場所保險，比1979年只有高中學歷的勞工還少。

So who is getting the big gains? A very small, wealthy minority.

那麼是誰大大的賺了一筆呢？非常稀少的有錢人。

The budget office report tells us that essentially all of the upward redistribution of income away from the bottom 80 percent has gone to the highest-income 1 percent of Americans. That is, the protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong.

預算處的報告表明收入向上重新分配，遠離80%的民眾，流到了最高收入1%的美國人手中。所以那些示威者描述自己代表99%民眾利益基本上是對的，至於鄭重擔保問題出在教育，而不是少數菁英得益的專家錯得離譜。

If anything, the protesters are setting the cutoff too low. The recent budget office report doesn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, found that almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in income actually went to the top 0.1 percent — the richest thousandth of Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the period from 1979 to 2005.

真要說有什麼不對，就是示威者把數字降太低了。雖然近年來預算處並沒有調查最高的1%，不過之前僅在2005年出版的報告發現，其實最高1%區間裡，收入有將近三分之二都屬於0.1%的人。從1979到2005年以來，千分之一的美國人實質所得增加了超過400%。

Who’s in that top 0.1 percent? Are they heroic entrepreneurs creating jobs? No, for the most part, they’re corporate executives. Recent research shows that around 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent either are executives in nonfinancial companies or make their money in finance, i.e., Wall Street broadly defined. Add in lawyers and people in real estate, and we’re talking about more than 70 percent of the lucky one-thousandth.

誰是那0.1%呢？是那些創造就業的偉大企業家嗎？不，他們大多是公司的高階主管。最近的研究顯示這群0.1%的人約有六成不是非金融公司的主管，就是在金融業賺錢。換句話說，就是在華爾街。再加上律師和不動產業，就是千分之一幸運兒裡的70%啦。

But why does this growing concentration of income and wealth in a few hands matter? Part of the answer is that rising inequality has meant a nation in which most families don’t share fully in economic growth. Another part of the answer is that once you realize just how much richer the rich have become, the argument that higher taxes on high incomes should be part of any long-run budget deal becomes a lot more compelling.

但收入集中在少數人有關係嗎？答案之一是持續升高的不均，意味著大部分家庭並沒有分享到經濟成長的果實。答案之二是一但了解這些富人有多富有，主張長期預算方案裡要對高收入階層增稅的說法就更有說服力。

The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?

然而最重要的答案是收入極端的集中與現實的民主難以共存。有人可以鄭重否認我們的政治體系沒受到大把鈔票影響扭曲嗎？若這批人更加富有，情況不會更為惡化嗎？

Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.

有些專家還是把不平等加劇當成愚蠢議題，事實是我們的社會已經來到危急關頭。



原文出於NY Times

[克魯曼專欄]Bombs, Bridges and Jobs 炸彈，大橋，工作 (2012/10/31)

A few years back Representative Barney Frank coined an apt phrase for many of his colleagues: weaponized Keynesians, defined as those who believe “that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.”

數年前眾議員法蘭克為他的同事取了個十分貼切的新名字：武裝派凱因斯信徒，其定義是「認為政府資助造橋鋪路、重要研究或是勞工進修等都無法創造就業，只有製造永不會用於戰爭的飛機才行。這可真是經濟救星。」

Right now the weaponized Keynesians are out in full force — which makes this a good time to see what’s really going on in debates over economic policy.

如今武裝派凱因斯信徒已蜂擁而出，這成了絕佳時機，讓我們得以一窺經濟政策辯論的真相。

What’s bringing out the military big spenders is the approaching deadline for the so-called supercommittee to agree on a plan for deficit reduction. If no agreement is reached, this failure is supposed to trigger cuts in the defense budget.

稱作超級委員會的委員會正討論是否同意削減赤字的方案，而隨著期限逐步逼近，那些主張龐大軍事支出的人紛紛現形，因為若沒達成協議，國防預算勢必會縮編。

Faced with this prospect, Republicans — who normally insist that the government can’t create jobs, and who have argued that lower, not higher, federal spending is the key to recovery — have rushed to oppose any cuts in military spending. Why? Because, they say, such cuts would destroy jobs.

面臨這種情形，通常堅定認為政府無法創造就業，而且聯邦支出應該要更低而非更高才是復甦關鍵的共和黨人，卻馬上反對刪減軍事開銷。為何呢？他們說因為刪減開銷會摧毀工作機會。

Thus Representative Buck McKeon, Republican of California, once attacked the Obama stimulus plan because “more spending is not what California or this country needs.” But two weeks ago, writing in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. McKeon — now the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee — warned that the defense cuts that are scheduled to take place if the supercommittee fails to agree would eliminate jobs and raise the unemployment rate.

還有，加州共和黨眾議員麥克基恩曾經砲轟過歐巴馬的刺激方案，他說「不管是加州還是整個國家都不需要更多支出。」然而就在兩星期前，這位麥克基恩先生才在華爾街日報上以眾院軍事委員會的身分警告，如果超級委員會沒能達成協議，國防預算的縮編會終結就業機會，讓失業率攀升。

Oh, the hypocrisy! But what makes this particular form of hypocrisy so enduring?

拜託，真是偽善。然而是什麼原因讓這奇異的偽善持續不斷？

First things first: Military spending does create jobs when the economy is depressed. Indeed, much of the evidence that Keynesian economics works comes from tracking the effects of past military buildups. Some liberals dislike this conclusion, but economics isn’t a morality play: spending on things you don’t like is still spending, and more spending would create more jobs.

首先，當經濟不景氣時軍事開銷真的可以創造就業。在追蹤以往建軍的效果後，許多證據都證明凱因斯經濟學在此真的管用。有些自由派人士不太喜歡這結論，但經濟不是道德遊戲。支出就是支出，不管是不是用在你喜歡的地方，而越多的支出可以創造越多的就業。

But why would anyone prefer spending on destruction to spending on construction, prefer building weapons to building bridges?

但為何有人喜歡把花費用於毀滅而不是創造，製造軍火而不是造橋鋪路呢？

John Maynard Keynes himself offered a partial answer 75 years ago, when he noted a curious “preference for wholly ‘wasteful’ forms of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” Indeed. Spend money on some useful goal, like the promotion of new energy sources, and people start screaming, “Solyndra! Waste!” Spend money on a weapons system we don’t need, and those voices are silent, because nobody expects F-22s to be a good business proposition.

凱因斯本人在75年前提供了部分的解答，他注意到很奇妙的一件事，「人們在借貸花費時傾向於完全而非部分揮霍掉，因為只花費部分容易被他人用嚴格的商業原則來檢視。」確實如此，花錢在一些有用的目標如宣傳新能源上，很快就會招來人們狂叫「沒有用！浪費！」可是把錢花在用不到的武器系統上就沒有這類意見，因為沒人認為F-22s會是什麼好商業提案。

To deal with this preference, Keynes whimsically suggested burying bottles full of cash in disused mines and letting the private sector dig them back up. In the same vein, I recently suggested that a fake threat of alien invasion, requiring vast anti-alien spending, might be just the thing to get the economy moving again.

為此凱因斯提出了異想天開的點子，建議把裝滿現金的瓶子放入廢棄礦坑內埋起來，再讓民間企業去開挖。同樣的道理，我提議假造有外星人入侵的威脅，需要大量對抗外星人的開銷，也許這樣可以讓經濟再次活絡起來。

But there are also darker motives behind weaponized Keynesianism.

然而武裝派凱因斯信徒背後有更深沉黑暗的動機。

For one thing, to admit that public spending on useful projects can create jobs is to admit that such spending can in fact do good, that sometimes government is the solution, not the problem. Fear that voters might reach the same conclusion is, I’d argue, the main reason the right has always seen Keynesian economics as a leftist doctrine, when it’s actually nothing of the sort. However, spending on useless or, even better, destructive projects doesn’t present conservatives with the same problem.

首先，承認公共支出用在有用的項目上可以創造就業，等於承認這些支出是好事，承認政府是解決問題，不是製造問題。我認為右派害怕選民也做出一樣結論，這就是為何右派始終把凱因斯經濟學視為左派學說，儘管根本就不是。然而話說回來，保守派在一些沒用，甚至毀滅性的項目上的花費就又沒這困擾。

Beyond that, there’s a point made long ago by the Polish economist Michael Kalecki: to admit that the government can create jobs is to reduce the perceived importance of business confidence.

除此之外，很久以前波蘭經濟學家卡列基就提出承認政府能創造就業，可以降低企業信心的重要性。

Appeals to confidence have always been a key debating point for opponents of taxes and regulation; Wall Street’s whining about President Obama is part of a long tradition in which wealthy businessmen and their flacks argue that any hint of populism on the part of politicians will upset people like them, and that this is bad for the economy. Once you concede that the government can act directly to create jobs, however, that whining loses much of its persuasive power — so Keynesian economics must be rejected, except in those cases where it’s being used to defend lucrative contracts.

對反對收稅與管制的人來說，凡事訴諸信心一直都是辯論中的關鍵。華爾街對歐巴馬總統嘀咕抱怨只是延續長久以來的傳統，一群大富商還有底下敲鑼打鼓的都認為，只要政客暗示了一點點民粹主義都會傷了他們的心，而且對經濟很不好。可是一但退一步承認政府可以有直接行動來創造就業，這些抱怨馬上就站不住腳。所以除非能用來保護有利可圖的合約，必須嚴厲拒絕凱因斯經濟學。

So I welcome the sudden upsurge in weaponized Keynesianism, which is revealing the reality behind our political debates. At a fundamental level, the opponents of any serious job-creation program know perfectly well that such a program would probably work, for the same reason that defense cuts would raise unemployment. But they don’t want voters to know what they know, because that would hurt their larger agenda — keeping regulation and taxes on the wealthy at bay.

因此我歡迎這些突然冒出的武裝派凱因斯信徒，他們正好揭露政治協商背後的真相。打從根本就反對任何創造就業計畫的人，其實非常明白這類計畫可能會有效果，正因如此才會說縮減國防預算會升高失業率。可是他們不想要選民知道自己明白其道理，因為這會讓他們更遠大的目標受阻，那目標就是要讓富人遠離稅收與管制。






原文出處