演讲MP3+双语文稿:什么是经济价值？谁创造了经济价值?
听力课堂TED音频栏目主要包括TED演讲的音频MP3及中英双语文稿，供各位英语爱好者学习使用。本文主要内容为演讲MP3+双语文稿:什么是经济价值？谁创造了经济价值?，希望你会喜欢！
【演讲者及介绍】Mariana Mazzucato
Mariana Mazzucato经济学家，致力于改变政策制定者对经济的理解，以及我们对价值的看法，让价值榨取者更难被当作价值创造者。
【演讲主题】什么是经济价值，又是谁创造了经济价值?
【中英文字幕】
翻译者 Jiasi Hao 校对者 psjmz mz
00:13
Value creation. Wealth creation. These arereally powerful words. Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation, youthink of creativity. But who are the value creators? If we use that word, wemust be implying that some people aren't creating value. Who are they? Thecouch potatoes? The value extractors? The value destroyers? To answer thisquestion, we actually have to have a proper theory of value. And I'm here as aneconomist to break it to you that we've kind of lost our way on this question.
价值创造、财富创造，这些着实是非常强大的词语。可能你会想到金融，想到创新，想到创造力。但是谁是这些价值的创造者呢？如果我们用这个词，我们必然是在暗示有人没在创造价值。他们是谁？懒虫们？价值抽取人？价值摧毁者？要回答这个问题，我们其实需要一个恰当的价值理论。作为经济学家，我来是想告诉你们，我们在这个问题上迷失了方向。
00:45
Now, don't look so surprised. What I meanby that is, we've stopped contesting it. We've stopped actually asking reallytough questions about what is the difference between value creation and valueextraction, productive and unproductive activities.
不要觉得惊讶。我这么说的意思是，我们已经对此停止了争论。我们实际上已经不再询问这些棘手的问题，比如价值创造和价值提取，生产性活动和非生产性活动的差异。
00:59
Now, let me just give you some contexthere. 2009 was just about a year and a half after one of the biggest financialcrises of our time, second only to the 1929 Great Depression, and the CEO ofGoldman Sachs said Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.Productivity and productiveness, for an economist, actually has a lot to dowith value. You're producing stuff, you're producing it dynamically andefficiently. You're also producing things that the world needs, wants and buys.Now, how this could have been said just one year after the crisis, whichactually had this bank as well as many other banks -- I'm just kind of pickingon Goldman Sachs here -- at the center of the crisis, because they had actuallyproduced some pretty problematic financial products mainly but not only relatedto mortgages, which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes. In2010, in just one month, September, 120,000 people lost their homes through theforeclosures of that crisis. Between 2007 and 2010, 8.8 million people losttheir jobs. The bank also had to then be bailed out by the US taxpayer for thesum of 10 billion dollars. We didn't hear the taxpayers bragging that they werevalue creators, but obviously, having bailed out one of the biggestvalue-creating productive companies, perhaps they should have.
现在，让我给你一些背景。2009 年，距离我们这个时代最大的金融危机仅过去1年半时间，这个危机仅次于1929年的大衰退。高盛的 CEO 说，高盛的员工是世界上最具生产力的人。生产力和生产率，对经济学家来说，其实和价值有着很大关系。你在生产东西，你在动态且高效地生产它。你也是在生产世界所需，所要，所买的东西。现在，在危机发生仅 1 年后，怎么能说出这样的话？这个银行，以及很多其他的银行——我这里只是拿高盛举例——它们处于危机的中心，因为他们其实制造并销售了不仅限于房屋贷款的好些有问题的金融产品，这让成千上万的人失去住所。就在 2010 年的一个月内，9 月，12万人在这场危机中丧失了房屋赎回权。在2007至2010 年间，880 万人失业。此外，美国纳税人还必须为这些银行提供100亿美元的救助。我们没听到那些纳税人吹嘘自己是价值创造者，但显然，帮助其中一个最具价值创造的企业渡过难关，可能是他们应该做的。
02:21
What I want to do next is kind of askourselves how we lost our way, how it could be, actually, that a statement likethat could almost go unnoticed, because it wasn't an after-dinner joke; it wassaid very seriously.
我接下来想做的是扪心自问，我们是如何迷失的，为什么会这样，这样的声明几乎无人注意，毕竟它不是个饭后玩笑，而是正儿八经说的。
02:34
So what I want to do is bring you back 300years in economic thinking, when, actually, the term was contested. It doesn'tmean that they were right or wrong, but you couldn't just call yourself a valuecreator, a wealth creator. There was a lot of debate within the economicsprofession. And what I want to argue is, we've kind of lost our way, and thathas actually allowed this term, "wealth creation" and"value," to become quite weak and lazy and also easily captured.
所以我想把你们带回到 300 年前的经济思考，那时，这个词是有争议的。这并不是说他们是对或错，但你不能自称是价值创造者，财富创造者。在经济学界，曾有着无数辩论。我想要争论的是，我们已经有些迷失了，也因此使得这些词，“财富创造”和“价值”变得越发脆弱、慵懒，以及容易标榜。
03:00
OK? So let's start -- I hate to break it toyou -- 300 years ago. Now, what was interesting 300 years ago is the societywas still an agricultural type of society. So it's not surprising that theeconomists of the time, who were called the Physiocrats, actually put thecenter of their attention to farm labor. When they said, "Where does valuecome from?" they looked at farming. And they produced what I think wasprobably the world's first spreadsheet, called the "TableauEconomique," and this was done by François Quesnay, one of the leaders ofthis movement. And it was very interesting, because they didn't just say,"Farming is the source of value."
好了，让我们开始——我不喜欢给你剖析—— 300 年前。300 年前有趣的是当时的社会仍然是农业社会。所以那时的经济学家，也被称为重农主义者，他们实际上把注意力放在了农业劳动上。当他们问，“这些价值从哪里来的？”他们看向农场。他们制作了我认为的世界上第一个表格，名为“经济试算表”，这是弗朗索瓦·魁奈制作的，他是这场运动的领导者之一。这很有趣，因为他们不是只说：“农场经营是价值的源泉”。
03:36
They then really worried about what washappening to that value when it was produced. What the Tableau Economique does-- is it broke down the classes in society into three. The farmers, creatingvalue, were called the "productive class." Then others who were justmoving some of this value around but it was useful, it was necessary, thesewere the merchants; they were called the "proprietors." And thenthere was another class that was simply charging the farmers a fee for anexisting asset, the land, and they called them the "sterile class."Now, this is a really heavy-hitting word if you think what it means: that iftoo much of the resources are going to the landlords, you're actually puttingthe reproduction potential of the system at risk. Again, spreadsheets andsimulators, these guys were really using big data -- they were simulating whatwould actually happen under different scenarios if the wealth actually wasn'treinvested back into production to make that land more productive and was actuallybeing siphoned out in different ways, or even if the proprietors were gettingtoo much.
他们然后真的很操心价值创造出来后 发生的事情。经济表所做的—— 是将社会分为 3 个阶级。农民，创造价值，被称为“生产阶级”。然后其他那些仅仅是流通这些价值的，但是有用且不可少的，他们些是商人；被称为“经营者”。之后还有一个阶级，根据现有资产和土地向农民单纯征收费用的，他们称其为“不结果实阶级”（不生产阶级）。如果你想想这个的意思，你就会发现很沉重：如果过多的资源流向地主，你实际上把系统的再生产潜能置于危险之地。再次，表格和模拟程序，他们真的在用大数据——他们在模拟不同情景下可能会发生什么，如果财富不被重新投资于生产让土地更具生产力并实际上被以不同的方式吸走，或甚至，经营者获取过多。
04:40
And what later happened in the 1800s, andthis was no longer the Agricultural Revolution but the Industrial Revolution,is that the classical economists, and these were Adam Smith, David Ricardo,Karl Marx, the revolutionary, also asked the question "What isvalue?" But it's not surprising that because they were actually livingthrough an industrial era with the rise of machines and factories, they said itwas industrial labor. So they had a labor theory of value. But again, theirfocus was reproduction, this real worry of what was happening to the value thatwas created if it was getting siphoned out.
然后是1800 年代发生的——不再是农业革命，而是工业革命——是古典经济学家，如亚当·斯密，大卫·李嘉图，卡尔·马克思，这些革命者们，也在问着同样的问题：“什么是价值？”毫不令人惊讶的是由于他们生活在 工业时代下，见证了 机器和工厂的崛起，他们说价值是工业劳动力。于是他有了劳动价值论。但再次，他们的关注点是再生产，这种对价值创造的担忧，假如价值被吸走。
05:12
And in "The Wealth of Nations,"Adam Smith had this really great example of the pin factory where he said ifyou only have one person making every bit of the pin, at most you can make onepin a day. But if you actually invest in factory production and the division oflabor, new thinking -- today, we would use the word "organizationalinnovation" -- then you could increase the productivity and the growth andthe wealth of nations. So he showed that 10 specialized workers who had beeninvested in, in their human capital, could produce 4,800 pins a day, as opposedto just one by an unspecialized worker. And he and his fellow classicaleconomists also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.
在《国富论》中，亚当·斯密有一个关于大头针工厂极佳例子，他说如果只有一个人负责大头针生产的所有工序，一天你最多只能制造 1 个大头针。但倘若你能投资工厂生产以及做劳动力分工，新想法——现在，我们会用“组织创新”这个词来形容——之后你就能提高生产效率、推动经济增长以及国家财富。于是他展示了经由人力资本投资的 10 个专业化分工的工人，每天能生产 4,800 个大头针，相比 1 个非专业分工的工人每天只生产 1 个大头针。他和他的古典经济学家伙伴也把经济活动分为生产型和非生产型两类。
05:52
(Laughter)
（笑声）
05:53
And the unproductive ones weren't -- Ithink you're laughing because most of you are on that list, aren't you?
非生产型不是——我想你们笑的原因是在座大部分人都在这个列表上，对吧？
05:58
(Laughter)
（笑声）
06:00
Lawyers! I think he was right about thelawyers. Definitely not the professors, the letters of all kind people. Solawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians. He obviously hated the opera. Hemust have seen the worst performance of his life the night before writing thisbook. There's at least three professions up there that have to do with theopera.
律师！我认为他对律师的观点是对的。绝对不是教授，等纸上的各类人物。所以律师、教授，小商品店主和音乐人。他很显然讨厌歌剧。他一定在写这本书的前夜看了一场最糟糕的演出。这上面，至少有 3 个职业是和歌剧相关的。
06:19
But this wasn't an exercise of saying,"Don't do these things." It was just, "What's going to happen ifwe actually end up allowing some parts of the economy to get too large withoutreally thinking about how to increase the productivity of the source of thevalue that they thought was key, which was industrial labor.
但这并不是说“不要做这些事情”。这只是“如果这些经济部门占比过高，尤其当我们让这些经济部门变得太大而不去真正思考如何提高价值创造的源泉，即工业劳动力时，会发生什么。
06:36
And again, don't ask yourself is this rightor is this wrong, it was just very contested. By making these lists, itactually forced them also to ask interesting questions. And their focus, as thefocus of the Physiocrats, was, in fact, on these objective conditions ofproduction. They also looked, for example, at the class struggle. Theirunderstanding of wages had to do with the objective, if you want, powerrelationships, the bargaining power of capital and labor. But again, factories,machines, division of labor, agricultural land and what was happening to it.
再次，不要问自己这是对或错，这个话题只是争辩不断。写出这些清单，其实也在强迫他们提出有趣的问题。而且他们的关注点，和重农主义的关注点一样，实际上是建立在这些生产的客观条件上。他们也关注，例如阶级斗争。他们对于工资的理解与目标有关，如果你愿意，权力关系，资本和劳动力的议价能力。但再次，工厂、机器、劳动力分工、农业用地以及什么发生在其上？
07:08
So the big revolution that then happened --and this, by the way, is not often taught in economics classes -- the bigrevolution that happened with the current system of economic thinking that wehave, which is called "neoclassical economics," was that the logiccompletely changed. It changed in two ways. It changed from this focus onobjective conditions to subjective ones.
于是，随后发生的重大革新——顺便说一句，这个在经济课上不常教授—— 当前经济思想体系发生 的重大革新，被称为“新古典经济学”。逻辑完全改变了。它在两方面发生了改变。它从对客观条件的关注转变为对主观条件的关注。
07:30
Let me explain what I mean by that.Objective, in the way I just said. Subjective, in the sense that all theattention went to how individuals of different sorts make their decisions. OK,so workers are maximizing their choices of leisure versus work. Consumers aremaximizing their so-called utility, which is a proxy for happiness, and firmsare maximizing their profits. And the idea behind this was that then we canaggregate this up, and we see what that turns into, which are these nice, fancysupply-and-demand curves which produce a price, an equilibrium price. It's anequilibrium price, because we also added to it a lot of Newtonian physicsequations where centers of gravity are very much part of the organizingprinciple. But the second point here is that that equilibrium price, or prices,reveal value.
让我来解释一下这是什么意思。客观，就是我之前说的方式。主观，意味着所有的关注点都聚焦在不同个体如何做出自己的决定。好吧，于是工人们最大化自己休闲的选择而非工作。顾客最大化他们所谓的效用，即幸福感的代名词，而公司最大化自身利润。这背后的想法是我们可以加总这些 我们看看它能变成什么，这些美妙的供求曲线 形成了价格，即均衡价格。这是一个均衡价格，因为我们也向其中添加了许多牛顿物理方程：重心是组织原则的重要组成部分。但这里的第二点是均衡价格，或价格，揭示了价值。
08:18
So the revolution here is a change fromobjective to subjective, but also the logic is no longer one of what is value,how is it being determined, what is the reproductive potential of the economy,which then leads to a theory of price but rather the reverse: a theory of priceand exchange which reveals value.
所以这里的革新是从客观到主观的改变，但与此同时逻辑也不再是以前的什么是价值，它是如何被决定的，经济再生产潜力是什么，这就引出了价格理论，但恰恰相反：揭示价值的价格理论和交换理论。
08:35
Now, this is a huge change. And it's notjust an academic exercise, as fascinating as that might be. It affects how wemeasure growth. It affects how we steer economies to produce more of someactivities, less of others, how we also remunerate some activities more thanothers. And it also just kind of makes you think, you know, are you happy toget out of bed if you're a value creator or not, and how is the price systemitself if you aren't determining that?
这是一个巨大的改变。这也不仅仅是一个学术活动，它可能很吸引人。它影响着我们如何衡量增长。这影响着我们如何引导经济去生产更多这种活动，减少那种活动，这影响我们某些活动的报酬比其他活动高。这也多少让你思考，假如你是否是个价值创造者，你会开心地起床吗，以及如果你无法决定价格，那价格系统自身如何决定价格？
09:01
I mentioned it affects how we think aboutoutput. If we only include, for example, in GDP, those activities that haveprices, all sorts of really weird things happen. Feminist economists andenvironmental economists have actually written about this quite a bit. Let megive you some examples. If you marry your babysitter, GDP will go down, so donot do it. Do not be tempted to do this, OK? Because an activity that perhapswas before being paid for is still being done but is no longer paid.
我说过，这影响我们如何思考“产出”。如果我们只是包括，例如 GDP ，那些有价格标签的活动，所有奇怪的事情都会发生。女权主义经济学家和环境经济学家实际上已经写了很多关乎于此的文章。让我给你举几个例子。如果你娶了照看孩子的保姆，GDP 就会下降，所以不要这么做。别被诱惑这么做，好吗？因为一项原本可被支付的活动尽管会照常进行，但结了婚，就没有“付钱”的环节了。
09:30
(Laughter)
（笑声）
09:31
If you pollute, GDP goes up. Still don't doit, but if you do it, you'll help the economy. Why? Because we have to actuallypay someone to clean it.
如果你污染环境，GDP 会上升。但仍旧别那么做，可如果要做，你会促进经济。为什么？因为我们要支付某人来清洁。
09:39
Now, what's also really interesting is whathappened to finance in the financial sector in GDP. This also, by the way, issomething I'm always surprised that many economists don't know. Up until 1970,most of the financial sector was not even included in GDP. It was kind ofindirectly, perhaps not knowingly, still being seen through the eyes of thePhysiocrats as just kind of moving stuff around, not actually producinganything new. So only those activities that had an explicit price wereincluded. For example, if you went to get a mortgage, you were charged a fee.That went into GDP and the national income and product accounting. But, forexample, net interest payments didn't, the difference between what banks wereearning in interest if they gave you a loan and what they were paying out for adeposit. That wasn't being included.
现在，还有一个真正有趣的，是金融部门的财务在 GDP 中发生的情况。顺便，这也是我经常感到意外但很多经济学家不知道的一件事。直到 1970 年，大多金融部门甚至不被囊括在 GDP 中。它是间接的，也许不是故意的，仍然被重商主义者视为只是把东西搬来搬去，并没有产生新东西的部门。所以只有那些明确的价格活动才被包含进去。例如，如果你要获取贷款，你会被收取费用。这笔费用会被算入 GDP 、国民收入以及产品核算。但比如，净利息支付不算。也就是银行赚取贷款利息收入和支付存款利息的差额。这曾经不算在 GDP 中的。
10:25
And so the people doing the accountingstarted to look at some data, which started to show that the size of financeand these net interest payments were actually growing substantially. And theycalled this the "banking problem." These were some people workinginside, actually, the United Nations in a group called the Systems of National[Accounts], SNA. They called it the "banking problem," like, "Ohmy God, this thing is huge, and we're not even including it." So insteadof stopping and actually making that Tableau Economique or asking some of thesefundamental questions that also the classicals were asking about what is actuallyhappening, the division of labor between different types of activities in theeconomy, they simply gave these net interest payments a name. So the commercialbanks, they called this "financial intermediation." That went intothe NIPA accounts. And the investment banks were called the "risk-takingactivities," and that went in.
于是会计从业者开始研究一些数据，这些数据逐渐显示出了金融业运转资金 以及这些净利息支付的高速增长。他们称其为“银行业问题”。这些人实际上是联合国组织国民账户体系（SNA）小组的工作人员。他们称之为“银行业问题”，好比“我的天，这个东西体量那么大，然而我们甚至没有把它包括进来”。所以，相较于停下脚步，专注于制作那张经济试算表或是问一些那些古典经济学家询问发生了什么，经济中不同类型活动之间的劳动分工，他们只是简单给了这些净利息支付一个名字。所以商业银行们，被称为“金融媒介”。这算入国民收入和生产帐户（NIPA）。之后投行们全都被叫做“风险承担活动”，也被算入 NIPA 。
11:23
And so this was quite extraordinary,because what actually happened, and what we know today, and there's different peoplewriting about this, is that lots of what finance was actually doing from the1970s and '80s on was basically financing itself: finance financing finance.And what I mean by that is finance, insurance and real estate. In fact, in theUK, something like between 10 and 20 percent of finance finds its way into thereal economy, into industry, say, into the energy sector, into pharmaceuticals,into the IT sector, but most of it goes back into that acronym, FIRE: finance,insurance and real estate. It's very conveniently called FIRE.
而且这很不寻常，因为实际在发生的，以及我们今天所知的，有不同的人写了这些，数据显示从 1970 年代开始和 80 年代后银行业实际一直在做的事情基本上就是给自己融资：金融融资资金。我的意思是金融，保险和房地产。事实上，在英国大概 10% - 20% 的融资能够最终流向实体经济，流向行业，比如能源部门，制药行业，IT部门，但其中的大部分最终会流回 FIRE，即金融、保险和房地产。简称为 FIRE 非常方便。
12:05
Now, this is interesting because, in fact,it's not to say that finance is good or bad, but the degree to which, by justhaving to give it a name, because it actually had an income that was beinggenerated, as opposed to pausing and asking, "What is it actuallydoing?" -- that was a missed opportunity.
这件事很有趣，因为实际上，并非说金融的好坏，而且是其程度，只要给它一个名字，因为它实际上是有收入的，而不是停下来问，“它到底在做什么?” -- 那是一个错失的机会。
12:22
Similarly, in the real economy, in industryitself, what was happening? And this real focus on prices and also share priceshas created a huge problem of reinvestment, again, this real attention thatboth the Physiocrats and the classicals had to the degree to which the valuethat was being generated in the economy was in fact being reinvested back in.And so what we have today is an ultrafinancialized industrial sector where,increasingly, a share of the profits and the net income are not actually goingback into production, into human capital training, into research anddevelopment but just being siphoned out in terms of buying back your ownshares, which boosts stock options, which is, in fact, the way that manyexecutives are getting paid. And, you know, some share buybacks is absolutelyfine, but this system is completely out of whack. These numbers that I'm showingyou here show that in the last 10 years, 466 of the S and P 500 companies havespent over four trillion on just buying back their shares. And what you seethen if you aggregate this up at the macroeconomic level, so if we look ataggregate business investment, which is a percentage of GDP, you also see thisfalling level of business investment. And this is a problem.
同样，在实体经济中，行业自身，正在发生什么？这种对价格以及股票价格的真正关注 造成了再投资的巨大问题，再次，重农主义者和 古典主义者都非常关注 经济中产生的价值在多大程度上 被重新投资。所以我们今天拥有的是 过度金融化的行业部门，它们越来越多的利润和净收入 并没有再次投入生产，没有流回人力资本培训，或产品研发，而只是把这些资金用于回购你自己的股票，这提高了股票期权的价值，事实上，这也是许多高管获得报酬的方法。你知道，股票回购绝对没问题，但这样的一个系统完全不正常。我这里给你显示的这些数字表明在过去 10 年，500 家 S&P 公司中的 466 家已经花了不止 4 万亿美元在回购他们的股票上。如果你在宏观经济层面加总这些数字，如果我们看商业投资的总额，也就是所占 GDP 的百分比，你也会看到商业投资水平呈现如此的下降趋势。这是一个问题。
【碍于字符限制，讲稿无法全部呈现。建议大家：点击播放界面上的“词”按钮就能看到同步的完整版中英文字幕哦~】
