网帖翻译

Saulius Muliolis
Not very. We have a monetary and banking system more appropriate to a socialist regime, bailouts, subsidies, welfare programs, occupational and business licensing, mercanitilist trade policies, antitrust laws, massive deficit spending, and a warfare state.
production of goods and services is still done in a context of private property and for profit, so there are still some very strong elements of capitalism, but the economy is showing many of the bad consequences of a mixed economy that Ayn Rand and other free market advocates predicted. In that sense, it is an excellent example.

不怎么算，我们有一个更适合社会主义政权的货币和银行体系、救助、补贴、福利计划、职业和商业许可、重商主义贸易政策、反垄断法、巨额赤字支出和战争状态。
商品和服务的生产仍然是在私人财产和利润的背景下进行的，因此仍然存在一些非常强大的资本主义元素，但经济正显示出艾茵·兰德和其他自由市场倡导者预测的混合经济的许多不良后果。从这个意义上说，这是一个很好的例子。

"A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship. A mixed economy has no principles to define its policies, its goals, its laws—no principles to limit the power of its government. The only principle of a mixed economy—which, necessarily, has to remain unnamed and unacknowledged—is that no one’s interests are safe, everyone’s interests are on a public auction block, and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system—or, more precisely, anti-system—breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps, into economic groups fighting one another for self preservation in an indeterminate mixture of defense and offense, as the nature of such a jungle demands. While, politically, a mixed economy preserves the semblance of an organized society with a semblance of law and order, economically it is the equivalent of the chaos that had ruled China for centuries: a chaos of robber gangs looting—and draining—the productive elements of the country.

“混合经济是自由和控制的混合物，两者都没有原则、规则或理论可定义。由于实行控制必须并导致进一步的控制，它是一种不稳定的爆炸性混合物，最终必须废除控制或陷入独裁。混合经济没有原则来定义它的政策、目标和法律——没有原则来限制政府的权力。混合经济的唯一原则是，没有人的利益是安全的，每个人的利益都被公开拍卖，只要能逃脱惩罚，什么事都可以做。这样一个体系，或者更准确地说，是反体系，将一个国家分裂成数量不断增加的敌对阵营，分裂成经济集团，在不确定的防御和进攻混合中为自我保护而相互斗争，这是丛林的本质所要求的。虽然在政治上，混合经济保留了一个有组织的社会的表象，有法律和秩序的表象，但在经济上，这相当于统治中国几个世纪的混乱局面：混乱的强盗团伙掠夺和消耗着这个国家的生产要素。

"A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another’s expense by an act of government—i.e., by force. In the absence of individual rights, in the absence of any moral or legal principles, a mixed economy’s only hope to preserve its precarious semblance of order, to restrain the savage, desperately rapacious groups it itself has created, and to prevent the legalized plunder from running over into plain, unlegalized looting of all by all—is compromise; compromise on everything and in every realm—material, spiritual, intellectual—so that no group would step over the line by demanding too much and topple the whole rotted structure. If the game is to continue, nothing can be permitted to remain firm, solid, absolute, untouchable; everything (and everyone) has to be fluid, flexible, indeterminate, approximate. "

“混合经济是由压力集团统治的。这是一场不道德的、制度化的特殊利益集团和游说集团之间的内战，他们都在争夺对立法机构的短暂控制权，通过政府行为——即武力——以牺牲彼此为代价勒索某些特权。在没有个人权利，没有任何道德或法律原则的情况下，混合经济要想维持其岌岌可危的秩序表象，遏制它自己创造的野蛮的、极度贪婪的集团，防止合法的掠夺演变成赤裸裸的、非法的对所有人的掠夺，唯一的希望就是妥协;在每一件事和每一个领域——物质的、精神的、智力的等一切问题上妥协，这样就不会有任何团体要求过高而越界，从而推翻整个腐朽的结构。如果游戏要继续下去，就不能允许任何东西保持坚定、稳固、绝对、不可触碰；一切（以及每个人）都必须是流动的、灵活的、不确定的、近似的。“

“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,”
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer."

“新法西斯：共识统治”
只要承认法律可能偏离其真正的目的——它可能侵犯财产而不是保护财产——那么每个人都会想要参与制定法律，要么保护自己不受掠夺，要么利用法律进行掠夺。政治问题总是带有偏见的、占主导地位的、十分有趣的。要了解这一点，几乎不需要研究法国和英国立法机关发生的事情;仅仅理解问题就是知道答案。

James Hankins
The United States has a mixed economy (like China) in that large capitalist enterprises or professional lobbies use their influence with the state to preserve or increase their market share and stifle competition. They are called upon to be ‘good corporate citizens’ in return, which they sometimes are. Politicians call this a ‘public-private partnership.’ Such an arrangement is illegal in many countries (though no less common for that) but perfectly legal in the US. In cases of abuse, however, like making harmful products or outright bribery, there is legal recourse to be had in the U.S., made effective to some extent by a relatively free press and the two-party system. If it wants to, the state always has the resources to beat a corporation in the courts. Usually, however, politicians of both major parties derive more benefit from a clientage relationship with wealthy corporations. I don’t know of any examples of pure capitalism in the sense of a completely free market system with a neutral rule of law maintained by a non-interested state. This is the so-called ‘night-watchman state’, which most historians would say has never existed in pure form.

美国有一个混合经济(像中国一样)，大型资本主义企业或专业游说团体利用他们对国家的影响力来保持或增加他们的市场份额，扼杀竞争。作为回报，他们被要求成为“良好的企业公民”，有时他们确实是。政客们称之为“公私合作”。这种安排在许多国家都是非法的(尽管这种情况并不少见)，但在美国是完全合法的。然而，在滥用职权的情况下，比如制造有害产品或公然贿赂，美国可以诉诸法律，在某种程度上，相对自由的新闻和两党制使其有效。只要政府愿意，它总是有足够的资源在法庭上击败一家公司。然而，通常情况下，两大政党的政客都能从与富裕企业的裙带关系中获得更多利益。我不知道有任何纯粹资本主义的例子，即一个完全自由的市场体系，由一个没有利益纠葛的国家维持中立的法治，这就是所谓的“守夜人国家”，大多数历史学家会说，它从未以纯粹的形式存在过。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Ron Wiseman
What are some examples of capitalism in America?
You want specific examples of capitalism in America?
Walmart pays its full-time hourly employees so little that they have to apply for food stamps (Walmart even helps them with the paperwork), while the Walmart corporation makes more than $100 Billion every quarter
Amazon sold 87% of all Christmas shopping online purchases made in America during the 2017 holiday shopping season. As a result, most of America’s top tier retailers are shutting stores. Now, Amazon is aiming to take over the grocery business.
There are basically about six large corporations that own all of the news outlets in America.
There are as few as five major healthcare providers who own all of the others.
There are four telecom companies who own all of the telecom industry.
I could go on, but I need to make an important point…

有哪些例子能说明美国是资本主义?
你想要美国是资本主义的具体例子吗？
沃尔玛支付给全职小时工的工资少得可怜，他们不得不申请食品券(沃尔玛甚至还帮他们处理文书工作)，而沃尔玛公司每季度的收入超过1000亿美元
在2017年的假日购物季，亚马逊的业绩占据了美国所有圣诞网上购物的87%。因此，大多数美国顶级零售商都在关闭店铺。现在，亚马逊的目标是接管食品杂货业务。
基本上大约有六家大公司拥有美国所有的新闻媒体。
只有五家大型医疗保健提供商控股了所有其他医疗保健提供商。
四家电信公司控制了整个电信行业。
我可以继续说下去，但我需要强调一点…

Many (especially conservatives) will howl that I’m wrong, that free market capitalism is the best dang economic system humans have ever created. Let’s tease that apart.
The free market is indeed the best dang economic system humans have created. But, the free market is not capitalism..
Capitalism is interested in only one thing: shareholder value. Capitalism is about maximizing reward for shareholders, which requires minimizing the reward for labor. Both of these diametrically-opposed elements are intrinsic to capitalism.
Case, meet point: This week’s record-making crash of the stock market was a reflection of a report that came out last Friday indicating that salaries in the US are increasing. This caused the entire stock market (capital investments) to crash on the fear that corporations’ profits will be squeezed.
A free market does not exist within a capitalist economy. They are antithetical ideas. A free market requires four things that capitalism explicitly opposes.
Plenty of competition. Buyers can choose from many providers.
Easy entry for competition. New providers can enter the market with few obstructions. It’s easy for a mom and pop shop to open.
Buyers must have access to market data. Buyers must be able to make choices based on price, quality, availability, and many other factors, not the least of which is competition. That means buyers have to be able to find whatever information they need to make a choice.

许多人（尤其是保守派）会咆哮说，我错了，自由市场资本主义是人类有史以来创造的最好的经济体系，让我们梳理一下：
自由市场确实是人类创造的最好的经济体系。但是，自由市场不是资本主义。
资本主义只对一件事感兴趣：股东价值。资本主义是为了最大限度地提高股东的报酬，这就要求最大限度地减少付出劳动力的报酬。这两种截然相反的因素都是资本主义固有的。
例证:本周创纪录的股市暴跌反映了上周五发布的一份报告，该报告显示美国的工资正在上涨。由于担心公司利润将受到挤压，这导致整个股票市场(资本投资)崩溃。
资本主义经济中不存在自由市场。它们是对立的思想。自由市场需要资本主义明确反对的四件事：
激烈竞争：买家可以从许多供应商那进行选择。
容易进入竞争：新的供应商可以在几乎没有障碍的情况下进入市场。夫妻店开起来就很容易。
买家必须能够获得市场数据。买家必须能够根据价格、质量、可用性和许多其他因素做出选择，其中最重要的是竞争。这意味着买家必须能够找到他们需要的任何信息来做出选择。

Buyers must have a choice. They must have equal access to all of the competing providers.
If you don’t have those four fundamental elements, you don’t have a free market. So, when you have companies merging with and acquiring their competition, you don’t have a free market. When you have companies shutting out emerging competition, you don’t have a free market.
Shareholder-driven economics (a.k.a. capitalism) is the most insidious economic construct of our time. It is truly a cancer. To sustain the unrelenting thirst for increasing earnings per share, capitalists are acquiring every path for revenue they can find, leaving the lifeblood of competitive consumerism starving, powerless, and dying. Capitalism raises prices for no other reason than to outperform the previous period of performance, and by eliminating competition they have little incentive to control prices or improve their products or services as prices climb higher. Remember the EpiPen? An 800% increase in price and no improvement in product.
The typical voting Republicans and conservatives live in a false belief, evangelized by the party’s leadership, that the strengths provided by a free market economy are enabled by capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile, Republican legislators continue to preach the wonders of the free market while they’re lining up to suck at the tit of capitalism. And they’re making their followers believe they are both one and the same.

买家必须有一个选择：他们必须有平等的机会接触到所有相互竞争的供应商。
如果你没有这四个基本要素，就不是自由市场。所以，当你有公司合并并收购他们的竞争对手时，你就不是自由市场。当你的公司把新兴的竞争对手拒之门外时，你就不是自由的市场。
股东驱动的经济(又名资本主义)是我们这个时代最阴险的经济结构。这确实是一种癌症。为了维持对增加每股收益的不懈渴望，资本家正在寻找他们能找到的每一条收入途径，让竞争性消费主义的命脉挨饿，无力，甚至死亡。资本主义提高价格没有别的原因，只是为了超越前一段时间的业绩，通过消除竞争，他们几乎没有动力控制价格或改善产品或服务，因为价格上涨。还记得肾上腺素笔吗?价格涨了800%，药效却没有改进。
典型的投票共和党人和保守派生活在一种错误的信念中，这种信念是由党的领导层传播的，即自由市场经济提供的优势是由资本主义实现的。事实远非如此。与此同时，共和党议员一边继续鼓吹自由市场的奇迹，一边排队吮吸资本主义的奶头。他们让他们的追随者相信他们是一体的。

George Keith
What are some examples of capitalism in America?
Wow are you getting some rambling and most certainly political bias answers. Especially from that Ron guy. It’s hard to take somebody like that serious when they rattle off their political beliefs without even answering the question.
Capitalism is simply the private ownership of resources. It’s wealth creation. You own your right to work any where. The right to free enterprise. The right to private property, etc. That’s all that capitalism is. So when somebody says they hate capitalism they are saying they hate private ownership of resources.
The market system is the distribution of the wealth created in capitalism. This is typically where people have issues however the economically ignorant just confuse the market system with capitalism. Rob mentions it himself: free-market capitalism, although he treats it as one in the same. He also implies we have free markets when in fact our economic freedom is not in the top 10 in the world.
The market system is very different than capitalism. This is where mutually agreeable transactions occur. We buy or sell what was created in capitalism. We seek utility through our purchases of goods and services and are willing to let a business owner earn profits from providing those goods. We have freedom of choice so competition and prices regulate the market.
so what’s examples of capitalism? You working anywhere you want.

有哪些例子能说明美国是资本主义?
哇，你得到了一些杂乱无章的答案，而且肯定带有政治偏见。尤其是那个叫罗恩的家伙。这样的人连问题都不回答就滔滔不绝地说出自己的政治信仰，很难把他当回事。
资本主义就是资源的私有制。这是创造财富。你拥有在任何地方工作的权利，拥有自由选择企业的权利，拥有私有财产权等等。这就是资本主义。所以当有人说他们讨厌资本主义时，他们是在说他们讨厌资源私有制。
市场体系是对资本主义创造的财富的分配。这通常是人们有问题的地方，然而经济上无知的人完全混淆了市场体系和资本主义。罗恩自己也提到了这一点：自由市场资本主义，尽管他将其视为一体。他还暗示我们有自由市场，而事实上我们的经济自由度在世界上并不是前10名。
市场体系与资本主义大不相同。这就是双方都同意的交易发生的地方。我们买卖资本主义创造的东西。我们通过购买商品和服务来寻求效用，并愿意让企业主从提供这些商品中赚取利润。我们有选择的自由，所以通过竞争和价格可以调节市场。
那么资本主义的例子是什么呢？你想在哪里工作就在哪里工作。

Gregory Scott
What are some examples of capitalism in America?
A poor guy starts a lawn mowing business. He fixes a broken lawn mower he finds in the trash, and starts mowing laws to get paid. He renders a service, and people are happy to pay money for the service, so they don't have to mow the lawn.
So he continues to save his money, the best he can. So he buys a car, and the gas he needs, and he can find more customers, mow more lawns, and make more money. He's happy, and more customers are happy, and in the processes he makes more money.
He saves more money and buys a trailer and more lawn maintenance equipment: fertilizer spreader, hedge clipper, chain saw, shovel, rake, riding mower. Now he can make more money by maintaining the entire lawn and yard of bigger properties. He has more happy customers who want to pay him for his services, and he makes more money.
He continues to save money, buys more equipment, and is able to hire some people. Now he can pay some of his money to other people, and still have money he is making from his many more landscape maintenance jobs. Happy former poor guy is making a lot more money, and who is now middle class, happy employees, who now have jobs and are now are doing better, and happy customers, who would rather pay than do the work of maintaining their property.
The part about saving money, and reinvesting in the business it is a major part of capitalism. He doesn't just spend all the money that he makes. The money he puts back into his business to improve it is called capital.
Note that nobody has been taken advantage of.
Even the government is better. More people are paying taxes, fewer people are on welfare. More people can pay for what they need.

有哪些例子能说明美国是资本主义?
一个穷人开了一家割草公司。他在垃圾堆里找到了一台坏了的割草机，修理好了，然后开始割草挣钱。他提供了一项服务，人们很乐意为这项服务付钱，这样他们就不用割草坪了。
所以他继续尽可能地存钱。所以他买了一辆车，他买了他需要的汽油，他可以找到更多的客户，割更多的草坪，赚更多的钱。他很高兴，更多的客户也很高兴，在这个过程中，他赚了更多的钱。
他存下了更多的钱，买了一辆拖车和更多的草坪维护设备：施肥机、树篱修剪机、链锯、铲子、耙子、割草机。现在，他可以通过维护更大房产的整个草坪和庭院来赚更多的钱。他有更多满意的顾客愿意为他的服务付费，他也赚了更多的钱。
他继续存钱，购买更多的设备，并能够雇佣一些人。现在，他可以把一部分钱付给其他人，而且还有更多的景观维护工作来赚钱。令人高兴的是以前贫穷的人赚了更多的钱，他们现在是中产阶级，快乐的雇员，他们现在有工作，现在过得更好，顾客满意，他们宁愿付钱，也不愿维护自己的财产。
关于储蓄和再投资是资本主义的重要组成部分。他不只是把他赚的钱都花光。他把钱投入到他的生意中来改善它，这被称为资本。
请注意，没有人被利用。
就连政府也比以前好了。纳税的人越来越多，领取福利的人越来越少。更多的人可以买到他们需要的东西。

George Keith
Has Capitalism failed America?
Capitalism is a simple concept: private ownership of resources. You own the resources and can use them to build wealth. Thus capitalism is generally referred to as wealth creation.
The market system is different than capitalism. The market system is the distribution of wealth.
Thus our economic system is described as: free-market capitalism. Teachnically we are a mixed economy .
Now has capitalism failed America? Well, I’ll ask you, is there any way private ownership of resources could be considered a bad thing? Let’s try to look through the eyes of Don E.

资本主义让美国失败了吗？
资本主义是一个简单的概念：资源的私有制。你拥有这些资源，并可以利用它们来积累财富。因此，资本主义通常被称为财富创造。
市场体系不同于资本主义。市场体系是财富的分配。
因此，我们的经济体系被描述为：自由市场资本主义。严格意义来讲，我们是一个混合经济体。
现在资本主义让美国失望了吗？那么，我要问你，资源私有制有可能被认为是一件坏事吗?让我们试着从Don E的角度看问题。

It’s clear he hates capitalism so if we assume he is using the correct definition of capitalism then what Don is saying is that there should be no private ownership of resources. All resources, including labor, should be owned by the government. The government should decide where you work and in what field.
If you read his answer , everything he brings up have to do with the market system not capitalism. His consistent use of causation also shows a lack of critical thinking in his answer. Thus his answer is driven by passion, not reason and logic.
So let’s adjust your question: has the market system failed America. My simple answer is no. The profit motive is a beautiful thing. Promotes efficiency and quality. Competition is the disciplinary of the markets. Keep in mind we are one of the youngest economic systems yet one of the most powerful. Adam Smith came up with a good system.
It does have some drawbacks to it but the deadweight is worth it assuming that deadweight is properly managed. In my opinion that part is the weakest lix.
The government is suppose to protect consumers and promote efficiency and competition. However, our government sells its services to the highest bidder.

很明显，他讨厌资本主义，所以如果我们认为他使用了资本主义的正确定义，那么Don E所说的是，不应该存在资源的私有制。所有资源，包括劳动力，都应该归政府所有。政府应该决定你在哪里工作，在什么领域工作。
如果你读了他的答案，他提出的一切都与市场体系而不是与资本主义有关。他对因果关系的一贯使用也表明他在回答中缺乏批判性思维。因此，他的回答是出于激情，而不是理性和逻辑。
所以，让我们调整一下你的问题：市场体系让美国失望了吗。我简单的回答是否定的。盈利动机是一件美好的事情：提高效率和质量。竞争是市场的规律。请记住，我们是最年轻的经济体系之一，但也是最强大的经济体系之一。亚当·斯密提出了一个很好的体系。
它确实有一些缺点，但如果无谓的负担得到妥善管理，那么无谓的负担是值得的。在我看来，这部分是最薄弱的环节。
政府应该保护消费者，促进效率和竞争。然而，我们的政府把服务卖给出价最高的人。

Don points to poverty, the 1%, etc. All are arbitrary labels that really define nothing. Poverty was decreasing until the government started its “war on poverty”. If we truly want to solve the real problems, such as poverty, distribution of income, etc then our only option is campaign finance reform. Take the money away from the politician. Force them to answer to the voter instead of too the highest bidder. We also need voters to stop voting the two party system. Unfortunately we have a very lazy voting population. We spend more time ordering food off a menu than we do voting.
Our political system is failing us, not our economic system.
Note: please excuse spelling and grammar. Typing on iPhone in a moving car. No I’m not driving.

唐指出贫困、1%等等。所有这些都是武断的标签，实际上没有进行真正的定义。在政府发动“反贫困战争”之前，贫困一直在减少。如果我们真的想解决真正的问题，比如贫困、收入分配等，那么我们唯一的选择就是竞选资金改革。把政客的钱拿走。迫使他们对选民负责，而不是对出价最高的人负责。我们还需要选民停止对两党制的投票。不幸的是，我们的投票人群非常懒惰。我们花在点餐上的时间比投票的时间还多。
我们的政治制度让我们失望，而不是我们的经济制度让我们失望。