个人资料
正文

Joseph Stiglitz 新自由主义阴影下的全球选举

(2024-07-24 13:02:17) 下一个

新自由主义阴影下的全球选举

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/2024-elections-grappling-with-authoritarian-populism-and-other-legacies-of-neoliberalism-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2024-04

2024 年 5 月 1 日 约瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨

虽然丑闻、文化战争和对民主的威胁占据了头条新闻,但今年超级选举年最大的问题最终还是与经济政策有关。毕竟,反民主的民粹主义威权主义的兴起本身就是错误的经济意识形态的遗产。

纽约——在世界各地,民粹主义民族主义正在兴起,并经常为当权的威权主义领导人提供指导。然而,40 年前在西方盛行的新自由主义正统观念——政府缩减、减税、放松管制——本应加强民主,而不是削弱民主。到底出了什么问题?

中国的裙带资本主义繁荣有多特别?

部分答案是经济方面的:新自由主义根本没有兑现它的承诺。在美国和其他接受它的发达经济体中,1980 年至 COVID-19 大流行期间的人均实际(经通胀调整)收入增长比前 30 年低了 40%。更糟糕的是,底层和中层的收入基本停滞不前,而顶层的收入却在增加,而故意削弱社会保障导致了更大的金融和经济不安全。

年轻人担心气候变化会危及他们的未来,这是理所当然的,他们可以看到,受新自由主义影响的国家一直未能制定强有力的污染法规(或者,在美国,未能解决阿片类药物危机和儿童糖尿病流行)。可悲的是,这些失败并不令人意外。新自由主义建立在这样的信念之上:不受约束的市场是实现最佳结果的最有效手段。然而,即使在新自由主义崛起的早期,经济学家就已经确定,不受监管的市场既不高效也不稳定,更不用说有利于产生社会可接受的收入分配了。

新自由主义的支持者似乎从未意识到,扩大公司的自由会削弱社会其他部分的自由。污染的自由意味着健康状况恶化(对于哮喘患者来说,甚至是死亡)、更极端的天气和不适合居住的土地。当然,总是有权衡的;但任何理性的社会都会得出这样的结论:生存权比污染的伪权利更重要。

税收同样是新自由主义的诅咒,新自由主义将税收视为对个人自由的侮辱:一个人有权保留自己赚到的钱,无论他是如何赚到的。但即使他们的收入是诚实的,这种观点的支持者也没有意识到,他们赚到的钱是政府在基础设施、技术、教育和公共卫生方面的投资的结果。他们很少停下来想一想,如果他们出生在众多没有法治的国家之一,他们会怎么样(或者,如果美国政府没有进行导致 COVID-19 疫苗的投资,他们的生活会是什么样子)。

具有讽刺意味的是,那些最欠政府债的人往往最先忘记政府为他们做了什么。如果没有 2010 年奥巴马总统的能源部向埃隆·马斯克和特斯拉提供的近 5 亿美元的救命钱,他们会在哪里?最高法院法官奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯曾说过一句名言:“税收是我们为文明社会付出的代价。”这一点从未改变:税收是建立法治或提供 21 世纪社会运转所需的任何其他公共物品的必需品。

Global Elections in the Shadow of Neoliberalism

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/2024-elections-grappling-with-authoritarian-populism-and-other-legacies-of-neoliberalism-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2024-04

 

While scandals, culture wars, and threats to democracy dominate the headlines, the biggest issues in this super election year ultimately concern economic policies. After all, the rise of anti-democratic populist authoritarianism is itself the legacy of a misbegotten economic ideology.

NEW YORK – Around the world, populist nationalism is on the rise, often shepherding to power authoritarian leaders. And yet the neoliberal orthodoxy – government downsizing, tax cuts, deregulation – that took hold some 40 years ago in the West was supposed to strengthen democracy, not weaken it. What went wrong?

Part of the answer is economic: neoliberalism simply did not deliver what it promised. In the United States and other advanced economies that embraced it, per capita real (inflation-adjusted) income growth between 1980 and the COVID-19 pandemic was 40% lower than in the preceding 30 years. Worse, incomes at the bottom and in the middle largely stagnated while those at the very top increased, and the deliberate weakening of social protections has produced greater financial and economic insecurity.

Rightly worried that climate change jeopardizes their future, young people can see that countries under the sway of neoliberalism have consistently failed to enact strong regulations against pollution (or, in the US, to address the opioid crisis and the epidemic of child diabetes). Sadly, these failures come as no surprise. Neoliberalism was predicated on the belief that unfettered markets are the most efficient means of achieving optimal outcomes. Yet even in the early days of neoliberalism’s ascendancy, economists had already established that unregulated markets are neither efficient nor stable, let alone conducive to generating a socially acceptable distribution of income.

Neoliberalism’s proponents never seemed to recognize that expanding the freedom of corporations curtails freedom across the rest of society. The freedom to pollute means worsening health (or even death, for those with asthma), more extreme weather, and uninhabitable land. There are always tradeoffs, of course; but any reasonable society would conclude that the right to live is more important than the spurious right to pollute.

Taxation is equally anathema to neoliberalism, which frames it as an affront to individual liberty: one has the right to keep whatever one earns, regardless of how one earns it. But even when they come by their income honestly, advocates of this view fail to recognize that what they earn was made possible by government investment in infrastructure, technology, education, and public health. Rarely do they pause to consider what they would have if they had been born in one of the many countries without the rule of law (or what their lives would look like if the US government had not made the investments that led to the COVID-19 vaccine).

Ironically, those most indebted to government are often the first to forget what government did for them. Where would Elon Musk and Tesla be if not for the near-half-billion-dollar lifeline they received from President Barack Obama’s Department of Energy in 2010? “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed. That hasn’t changed: taxes are what it takes to establish the rule of law or provide any of the other public goods that a twenty-first-century society needs to function.

[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (0)
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.