亿万富翁寄望道德革命破解贫富差距难题

    但就沃尔玛而言，政府为沃尔玛低收入员工提供的补贴让创始人们变得更赋富裕了。你认为政府该怎么做？

    第一步是双方要认清当前的状况及原因所在。我曾经是奥巴马的积极支持者。但他一展开竞选就开始指责富人。他说，亿万富翁和百万富翁们正在操纵整个体系，拿走所有的钱。这马上就把原本可以帮助（改善现状）的人们推到了对立面。我不是说“有权者不会为私利而改变体系”，我要说的是它并不是不平等的根源。

    但具体来说，需要进行什么改变？

    我们需要改变美国企业界的想法。全球化以及担心中国人抢饭碗的忧虑已经将“股东价值”变成了经营一家公司的全部和终极目标，深深地烙在了大多数CEO的DNA中。我们需要转变，公司领导人需要在股东、客户和员工间寻找平衡。我猜这是一场道德革命。

    如果企业不这么做，政府可以努力促进增长，给工薪阶层和中产阶级更好的机会。需要进行正确的结构性调整。首先，我们需要关注迫在眉睫的事情。为长期预算问题哪怕支付一笔定金，这非常重要。解决社保体系的问题应是当务之急。当然，我们应该按经济状况审查。因此，富人们不应获得社会保障，即便他们为此进行了支付。一旦我们证明我们能做成什么，信心就会提升。

    第二，政府需要帮助人们就业。这里有一个让人难过的统计数据：25-55岁的美国男性有9%的人在拿伤残补贴，高于20年前的2%-3%。这些人当然是伤残者。但很多人就是长期失业。我们有迷惘的一代，就像是历史上大萧条时期的无业游民。这些人从没有工作，从未结婚，从来没有理由攒钱。这是一件非常可怕和令人沮丧的事情。促进就业的最佳方式是让企业界相信你是支持他们的。因此，指责是一种非常糟糕的政策。我们需要释放被压抑的资本和创造力。

    第三，让我们来看看货币政策，QE3。这项政策的本意是通过推高资产价格来刺激经济。但拥有资产的正是富人。曼哈顿是一个典型的例子。曼哈顿公寓、汉普顿的别墅以及股票价格都出现了上涨。我们都变得更有钱了！我们需要认识到这一点。或许，美联储(Fed)应当将政策关注点扩大至中小企业直接贷款，而不是永远只有量化宽松。

    最后，美国政府需要规范最低工资。拿最低工资的人们应该无需政府补贴。一个更详尽的最低工资体系会把责任交回企业。这也是一种更有尊严的收入再分配方式。我相信那些沃尔玛员工宁可每年从公司获得额外的2,500美元，也不愿接受政府的救济。

    税收呢？既然像你这样的有钱人变得更有钱了，难道你不认为税收能帮助实现财富再分配吗？换言之，下调资本所得税税率让有钱人获益，与提供政府补贴让沃尔玛获益，两者有什么不同？

    税收当然有一定作用。我认识的大多数有钱人都不介意财富再分配，前提是得让他们相信，这些财富不会被浪费。政府的表现从来没有证明它是GDP的好管家。在大多数城市，我们的公共教育体系就是个大败笔。对政府项目的需求和项目实际执行之间脱节，这个体系两级分化，想做什么事都做不成。我希望我能有一个答案。政治僵局是复苏不温不火的原因之一。一旦有了信心，未来人们就会开始借钱和投资。（财富中文网）

    译者：早稻米

    So, in the case of Wal-Mart, government subsidies of the poor employees make the founders even richer. What do you think that the government should do?

    The first step is for both sides to recognize what is happening and why. I was a big Obama supporter, yet the moment he gets on the campaign trail he blames the rich. He says billionaires and millionaires are rigging the system to take all the money. That immediately puts the people you need to help [the situation] on the defensive. I am not saying that people in power don't tweak things to their advantage' what I am saying is that is not the root cause of the inequity.

    But, specifically, what changes need to be made?

    We need a change of thinking in corporate America. Globalization and the fear of having your lunch eaten by the Chinese has made "shareholder value" the be-all and end of running a company. It is in the DNA of most of our CEOs. We need a shift where company leaders look at a balance between shareholders, customers, and employees. I guess that is a moral revolution.

    Short of that, the government can do things both to promote growth and to give the working and middle class a better shot. The right structural changes need to be made. First, we need to look at the things that are overhanging us. Making even a down payment on our long term budget problems is key. Fixing the social security system should be a top priority. And, of course, we should means test. So rich people shouldn't get social security, even though they paid into it. Once we show we can get something done, confidence will pick up.

    Second, the government needs to help get people employed. Here's a sad statistic: 9% of 25-55 year old males are on disability, up from 2%-3% from 20 years ago. Of course there are people on the list that are disabled. But many are just chronically unemployed. We have a whole lost generation. It's not unlike the hobos during the depression era. These men never got jobs; never got married; never have a reason to build a nest egg. That's the really scary and depressing thing. The best way to spur employment is to get the business community to believe you're on their side. It's why blaming is such bad policy. We need to unleash the pent up capital and creativity.

    Third, take a look at monetary policy, QE3. This was meant to stimulate the economy by driving asset prices up. But it's the rich people who own the assets. Manhattan is a perfect example. Manhattan apartments, Hamptons houses, stock prices have all gone higher. We've all gotten richer! We need to recognize it. Maybe the Fed should expand its mandate to direct lending to small and medium-size companies as opposed to QE forever.

    Finally, the government needs to regulate minimum wage. An employee making minimum wage should not have to be subsidized by the government to live. A more comprehensive minimum wage system puts the responsibility back onto the businesses. It's also a more dignified way at redistribution. I am sure those Wal-Mart employees would rather have that extra $2,500 a year come from their company as opposed to a government handout.

    What about taxes? Since the rich, like you, have gotten richer, don't you think redistribution of wealth through taxes could help? Or put another way, how is a lower tax rate on capital gains, which essentially helps the rich, not like a government subsidy similar to the one Wal-Mart receives?

    Taxes play a role for sure. Most wealthy people I know wouldn't mind redistribution if they believed it wouldn't be wasted. Government hasn't shown that it hasn't been a good steward of GDP. In most cities our public school system is a debacle. This idea -- the disconnect between the need for government programs and the true implantation of them -- has caused a polarized system that throws a wet blanket over anything you want to get done. I wish I had an answer. Political gridlock is one of the reasons for the muted recovery. Once you have confidence, people start borrowing money and investing in the future.