美国是资本主义的典范吗?（三）
正文翻译
Is the United States of America a good example of capitalism?
美国是资本主义的典范吗?
美国是资本主义的典范吗?
评论翻译
Don Emerson
Has Capitalism failed America?
If you define “America” as the Working Class, capitalism has been an abysmal, undeniable, disgrace and failure. This is the reason that the Wealthy Class in the US is called the “1%”. Any economic program that only serves 1% of the population, cannot possibly be considered successful by anyone outside of that 1%.
In the US, we have put the Wealthy Class in control of our government. The economic policies that they enact, are designed to benefit the rich and the corporations that they own, exclusively. This has resulted in a steady, decades long, transfer of wealth from the Working Class to the richest 1% in the country. As a consequence, our poverty rate in the “richest country in the world” is 15% and 20% of our children live in poverty. This is a higher percentage of the population living in poverty than in any other wealthy industrialized advanced country in the world…and the US is the “richest” of them all.
资本主义让美国失败了吗？
如果你把“美国”定义为工人阶级，那么资本主义就是一种极其糟糕、不可否认的耻辱和失败。这就是美国富人阶层被称为“1%”的原因。任何只服务于1%人口的经济计划，都不可能被这1%以外的人认为是成功的。
在美国，我们已经让富裕阶层控制了我们的政府。他们制定的经济政策旨在让富人和他们拥有的公司受益。这导致了在持续数十年的时间里，财富从工人阶级向该国最富有的1%的人转移。因此，我们这个“世界上最富有的国家”的贫困率为15%，20%的儿童生活在贫困中。这比世界上任何其他富裕的工业化发达国家的贫困人口比例都要高，而美国是所有国家中“最富有”的。
Has Capitalism failed America?
If you define “America” as the Working Class, capitalism has been an abysmal, undeniable, disgrace and failure. This is the reason that the Wealthy Class in the US is called the “1%”. Any economic program that only serves 1% of the population, cannot possibly be considered successful by anyone outside of that 1%.
In the US, we have put the Wealthy Class in control of our government. The economic policies that they enact, are designed to benefit the rich and the corporations that they own, exclusively. This has resulted in a steady, decades long, transfer of wealth from the Working Class to the richest 1% in the country. As a consequence, our poverty rate in the “richest country in the world” is 15% and 20% of our children live in poverty. This is a higher percentage of the population living in poverty than in any other wealthy industrialized advanced country in the world…and the US is the “richest” of them all.
资本主义让美国失败了吗？
如果你把“美国”定义为工人阶级，那么资本主义就是一种极其糟糕、不可否认的耻辱和失败。这就是美国富人阶层被称为“1%”的原因。任何只服务于1%人口的经济计划，都不可能被这1%以外的人认为是成功的。
在美国，我们已经让富裕阶层控制了我们的政府。他们制定的经济政策旨在让富人和他们拥有的公司受益。这导致了在持续数十年的时间里，财富从工人阶级向该国最富有的1%的人转移。因此，我们这个“世界上最富有的国家”的贫困率为15%，20%的儿童生活在贫困中。这比世界上任何其他富裕的工业化发达国家的贫困人口比例都要高，而美国是所有国家中“最富有”的。
So by every possible measurement except for one, US “capitalism” is an abject failure. Our poverty rates are high, and increasing. The average standard of living in the US has declined so much over the last 40 years, that the US is no longer even in the “Top Ten” on the standard of living list. Our Working Class wages have been stagnant for over a generation, and our Federal Minimum wage has actually declined in real value in that time.
The only measure by which we can consider US “capitalism” to be successful, is in that the US has the richest billionaire class the world has ever known. But that success for a few billionaires, comes at a cost to everyone else which in the US, actually increases poverty. There is no excuse for any poverty at all in the “richest country in the world”. But any economic “system” that actually creates and increases poverty, like ours does, can hardly be considered to be anything but a miserable failure.
因此，除了一个标准之外，用任何可能的标准来衡量，美国的“资本主义”都是一个彻底的失败。我们的贫困率很高，而且还在上升。在过去的40年里，美国的平均生活水平下降得非常之快，以至于美国甚至不再是生活水平排行榜的“前十”。我们工人阶级的工资已经停滞了整整一代人，我们的联邦最低工资在这段时间里实际上有所下降。
我们认为美国“资本主义”成功的唯一标准是，美国拥有世界上有史以来最富有的亿万富翁阶层。但少数亿万富翁的成功是以其他人为代价的，而在美国，这实际上增加了贫困。在这个“世界上最富有的国家”，没有任何理由存在贫困的。但是，任何像我们这样实际上制造和增加贫困的经济“制度”，只能被认为是一个悲惨的失败。
The only measure by which we can consider US “capitalism” to be successful, is in that the US has the richest billionaire class the world has ever known. But that success for a few billionaires, comes at a cost to everyone else which in the US, actually increases poverty. There is no excuse for any poverty at all in the “richest country in the world”. But any economic “system” that actually creates and increases poverty, like ours does, can hardly be considered to be anything but a miserable failure.
因此，除了一个标准之外，用任何可能的标准来衡量，美国的“资本主义”都是一个彻底的失败。我们的贫困率很高，而且还在上升。在过去的40年里，美国的平均生活水平下降得非常之快，以至于美国甚至不再是生活水平排行榜的“前十”。我们工人阶级的工资已经停滞了整整一代人，我们的联邦最低工资在这段时间里实际上有所下降。
我们认为美国“资本主义”成功的唯一标准是，美国拥有世界上有史以来最富有的亿万富翁阶层。但少数亿万富翁的成功是以其他人为代价的，而在美国，这实际上增加了贫困。在这个“世界上最富有的国家”，没有任何理由存在贫困的。但是，任何像我们这样实际上制造和增加贫困的经济“制度”，只能被认为是一个悲惨的失败。
Don Emerson
Does the United States live in true capitalism, or is it really something else?
No, the US is not a state of “capitalism”. It is a state of dominance by a few rich people over the economy of the entire country. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. When you consider that the government is run exclusively for the enrichment of about 500 US billionaires who are actually controlling the government, what we have in the US is more like Fascism, control by the corporations.
In the US we just call it “capitalism” because that sounds a lot better than what it really is, a small mob of really wealthy people robbing us blind.
The reality is that “capitalism” is what you have when there is no regulation or control of the economy. In that situation, those who hold wealth, also hold the power, and their power is used to enact policies that increase the wealth of those who are already rich. Calling it “capitalism” and then pretending that there are some natural economic laws that govern the distribution of wealth in the society, is intended to protect the fortunes of the wealthy. As long as we believe that the rich are “playing by the rules”, and that they are “creators”, who are rewarded by magical market genies who distribute wealth to the “hard working and productive”, and punish the “lazy and unproductive” with various levels of poverty, we will not realize that the rich are simply stealing from us. And as long as that situation endures, they will continue to rob us.
Capitalism is a fraud, made up to protect the worst economic criminals the world has ever known. And that fraud is the basis of the US economy. All of the economic policies that have been enacted by the wealthy class who run the government, are for their benefit, not ours.
美国是生活在真正的资本主义制度下，还是实际上是另一种制度?
不，美国不是一个“资本主义”国家。这是少数富人对整个国家经济的统治状态。资本主义不是这么回事。此时你得考虑到政府的运作完全是为了让大约500名实际控制政府的美国亿万富翁致富的，我们美国的情况更像是法西斯主义，由企业控制。
在美国，我们称之为“资本主义”，因为这听起来比它的实际情况好得多，一小撮真正富有的人把我们洗劫一空。
现实情况是，“资本主义”是在对经济没有监管或控制的情况下所拥有的。在这种情况下，那些拥有财富的人，也拥有权力，他们的权力被用来制定政策，增加那些已经富有的人的财富。将其称为“资本主义”，然后假装有一些自然经济规律支配着社会财富的分配，目的是保护富人的财富。只要我们相信富人“按规则办事”，相信他们是“创造者”，他们因是神奇的市场天才而得到奖励，他们将财富分配给“辛勤工作和富有生产力”的人，并用不同程度的贫困来惩罚那些“懒惰和没有生产力的人”，我们就不会意识到富人完全是在偷我们的东西。只要这种情况持续下去，他们会继续抢劫我们。
资本主义是一种骗局，是为了保护世界上有史以来最严重的经济罪犯而编造的。这种欺诈行为是美国经济的基础。管理政府的富裕阶层制定的所有经济政策都是为了他们的利益，而不是为了我们的利益。
Does the United States live in true capitalism, or is it really something else?
No, the US is not a state of “capitalism”. It is a state of dominance by a few rich people over the economy of the entire country. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. When you consider that the government is run exclusively for the enrichment of about 500 US billionaires who are actually controlling the government, what we have in the US is more like Fascism, control by the corporations.
In the US we just call it “capitalism” because that sounds a lot better than what it really is, a small mob of really wealthy people robbing us blind.
The reality is that “capitalism” is what you have when there is no regulation or control of the economy. In that situation, those who hold wealth, also hold the power, and their power is used to enact policies that increase the wealth of those who are already rich. Calling it “capitalism” and then pretending that there are some natural economic laws that govern the distribution of wealth in the society, is intended to protect the fortunes of the wealthy. As long as we believe that the rich are “playing by the rules”, and that they are “creators”, who are rewarded by magical market genies who distribute wealth to the “hard working and productive”, and punish the “lazy and unproductive” with various levels of poverty, we will not realize that the rich are simply stealing from us. And as long as that situation endures, they will continue to rob us.
Capitalism is a fraud, made up to protect the worst economic criminals the world has ever known. And that fraud is the basis of the US economy. All of the economic policies that have been enacted by the wealthy class who run the government, are for their benefit, not ours.
美国是生活在真正的资本主义制度下，还是实际上是另一种制度?
不，美国不是一个“资本主义”国家。这是少数富人对整个国家经济的统治状态。资本主义不是这么回事。此时你得考虑到政府的运作完全是为了让大约500名实际控制政府的美国亿万富翁致富的，我们美国的情况更像是法西斯主义，由企业控制。
在美国，我们称之为“资本主义”，因为这听起来比它的实际情况好得多，一小撮真正富有的人把我们洗劫一空。
现实情况是，“资本主义”是在对经济没有监管或控制的情况下所拥有的。在这种情况下，那些拥有财富的人，也拥有权力，他们的权力被用来制定政策，增加那些已经富有的人的财富。将其称为“资本主义”，然后假装有一些自然经济规律支配着社会财富的分配，目的是保护富人的财富。只要我们相信富人“按规则办事”，相信他们是“创造者”，他们因是神奇的市场天才而得到奖励，他们将财富分配给“辛勤工作和富有生产力”的人，并用不同程度的贫困来惩罚那些“懒惰和没有生产力的人”，我们就不会意识到富人完全是在偷我们的东西。只要这种情况持续下去，他们会继续抢劫我们。
资本主义是一种骗局，是为了保护世界上有史以来最严重的经济罪犯而编造的。这种欺诈行为是美国经济的基础。管理政府的富裕阶层制定的所有经济政策都是为了他们的利益，而不是为了我们的利益。
Robert(Bob) Herrschaft
Does the United States live in true capitalism, or is it really something else?
Thanks for the A2A, Aaron. Your question is deceptively simple but would really require an essay to answer properly. My short answer is that there is no such thing as true capitalism. Its basis has always been the profit motive but its most successful practitioners always want to remove the regulations that tend to make it functional in a civil society. Of course, they claim that those regulations are chains on the progress they want to bestow upon society, but their definition of progress is always unmitigated greed. Capitalism can work well with some aspects of socialism and provide an enviable welfare state as in the Scandinavian countries, but a vigil has to be constantly kept against those interests that profit from deregulation.
美国是生活在真正的资本主义制度下，还是实际上是另一种制度?
谢谢你邀请我回答，亚伦。你的问题看似简单，但实际上需要一篇文章才能正确回答。我的简短回答是，根本不存在真正的资本主义。它的基础一直是利润动机，但它最成功的实践者总是希望取消那些往往使它在公民社会中发挥作用的规定。当然，他们声称，这些规定是他们想要赋予社会进步的枷锁，但他们对进步的定义一直是毫无节制的贪婪。资本主义可以与社会主义的某些方面很好地配合，成为像斯堪的纳维亚国家那样提供令人羡慕的福利的国家，但必须时刻警惕那些从放松管制中获利的利益集团。
Does the United States live in true capitalism, or is it really something else?
Thanks for the A2A, Aaron. Your question is deceptively simple but would really require an essay to answer properly. My short answer is that there is no such thing as true capitalism. Its basis has always been the profit motive but its most successful practitioners always want to remove the regulations that tend to make it functional in a civil society. Of course, they claim that those regulations are chains on the progress they want to bestow upon society, but their definition of progress is always unmitigated greed. Capitalism can work well with some aspects of socialism and provide an enviable welfare state as in the Scandinavian countries, but a vigil has to be constantly kept against those interests that profit from deregulation.
美国是生活在真正的资本主义制度下，还是实际上是另一种制度?
谢谢你邀请我回答，亚伦。你的问题看似简单，但实际上需要一篇文章才能正确回答。我的简短回答是，根本不存在真正的资本主义。它的基础一直是利润动机，但它最成功的实践者总是希望取消那些往往使它在公民社会中发挥作用的规定。当然，他们声称，这些规定是他们想要赋予社会进步的枷锁，但他们对进步的定义一直是毫无节制的贪婪。资本主义可以与社会主义的某些方面很好地配合，成为像斯堪的纳维亚国家那样提供令人羡慕的福利的国家，但必须时刻警惕那些从放松管制中获利的利益集团。
Rob Weir
Does the United States live in true capitalism, or is it really something else?
Look around you, what you own and what you consume, the bed you sleep in, the food you ate for breakfast, the clothes you wear. Where did these come from? Look at how you got to work, and where you work, and where you put the paycheck every two weeks. Look at where you go for entertainment, where you go when you are sick, who you call when you have a leaky pipe or the lights flicker. Who runs the airlines? Who provides the electricity? The telephone service? The internet?
In a capitalist society the answer to nearly all of these questions will be “a private business, not the government.” In a socialist country nearly all of these will come from the state.
In the United States, nearly all goods and services are provided by the private sector. Government operates in very limited, traditional areas, such as delivering the mail, printing money, running courts and prisons, police, armed forces, and schools. In most of these areas there are private sector alternatives (private security, private schools, private delivery services, private arbitration, etc.).
美国是生活在真正的资本主义制度下，还是实际上是另一种制度?
看看你的周围，你拥有什么，你消费什么，你睡的床，你早餐吃的食物，你穿的衣服。这些是从哪里来的?看看你是怎么去上班的，在哪里工作，你把每两周的薪水放在哪里。看看你去哪里娱乐，当你生病的时候你去哪里，当你遇到管道漏水或灯光闪烁时给谁打电话。谁经营航空公司？谁提供电力、电话服务和互联网？
在资本主义社会，几乎所有这些问题的答案都是“私营企业，而不是政府”。在一个社会主义国家，几乎所有这些都由国家提供。
在美国，几乎所有的商品和服务都由私营企业提供。政府只在非常有限的传统领域运作，比如投递邮件、印刷货币、管理法院和监狱、警察、武装部队和学校。在这些领域中，大多数都有私营企业参与的替代方案(私人保安、私立学校、私人送货服务、私人仲裁等)。
Does the United States live in true capitalism, or is it really something else?
Look around you, what you own and what you consume, the bed you sleep in, the food you ate for breakfast, the clothes you wear. Where did these come from? Look at how you got to work, and where you work, and where you put the paycheck every two weeks. Look at where you go for entertainment, where you go when you are sick, who you call when you have a leaky pipe or the lights flicker. Who runs the airlines? Who provides the electricity? The telephone service? The internet?
In a capitalist society the answer to nearly all of these questions will be “a private business, not the government.” In a socialist country nearly all of these will come from the state.
In the United States, nearly all goods and services are provided by the private sector. Government operates in very limited, traditional areas, such as delivering the mail, printing money, running courts and prisons, police, armed forces, and schools. In most of these areas there are private sector alternatives (private security, private schools, private delivery services, private arbitration, etc.).
美国是生活在真正的资本主义制度下，还是实际上是另一种制度?
看看你的周围，你拥有什么，你消费什么，你睡的床，你早餐吃的食物，你穿的衣服。这些是从哪里来的?看看你是怎么去上班的，在哪里工作，你把每两周的薪水放在哪里。看看你去哪里娱乐，当你生病的时候你去哪里，当你遇到管道漏水或灯光闪烁时给谁打电话。谁经营航空公司？谁提供电力、电话服务和互联网？
在资本主义社会，几乎所有这些问题的答案都是“私营企业，而不是政府”。在一个社会主义国家，几乎所有这些都由国家提供。
在美国，几乎所有的商品和服务都由私营企业提供。政府只在非常有限的传统领域运作，比如投递邮件、印刷货币、管理法院和监狱、警察、武装部队和学校。在这些领域中，大多数都有私营企业参与的替代方案(私人保安、私立学校、私人送货服务、私人仲裁等)。
Todd Simpson
Is the United States capitalism?
I would say that America is not nor has it been for some time a truly “capitalist” society. It has taken on way too many traits of other “isms” to even be called capitalist. Problem is there is really no other definition to call it by.
Part of the reason I say this is the sheer number of laws and regulations not only to protect industries but also to keep competition at bay. A couple of examples come to mind.
The first would be “safety” laws. The government really has no vested interest in whether you wear your seat belt or not. Insurance companies on the other hand do! They use government to lower their risk exposure by in law (ultimately enforced at the barrel of a gun).
美国是资本主义吗？
我想说的是，美国不是，而且在一段时间内也不是一个真正的“资本主义”社会。它具有太多其他“主义”的特征，甚至不能被称为资本主义。问题是，实际上并没有其他定义可以用来称呼它。
我之所以这么说，部分原因是大量的法律法规不仅保护了行业，也抑制了竞争。我想到了几个例子。
首先是“安全”法律。政府真的对你是否系安全带是没有既得利益的。另一方面，保险公司可以!他们利用政府通过法律(最终在枪杆子下强制执行)来降低风险。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Is the United States capitalism?
I would say that America is not nor has it been for some time a truly “capitalist” society. It has taken on way too many traits of other “isms” to even be called capitalist. Problem is there is really no other definition to call it by.
Part of the reason I say this is the sheer number of laws and regulations not only to protect industries but also to keep competition at bay. A couple of examples come to mind.
The first would be “safety” laws. The government really has no vested interest in whether you wear your seat belt or not. Insurance companies on the other hand do! They use government to lower their risk exposure by in law (ultimately enforced at the barrel of a gun).
美国是资本主义吗？
我想说的是，美国不是，而且在一段时间内也不是一个真正的“资本主义”社会。它具有太多其他“主义”的特征，甚至不能被称为资本主义。问题是，实际上并没有其他定义可以用来称呼它。
我之所以这么说，部分原因是大量的法律法规不仅保护了行业，也抑制了竞争。我想到了几个例子。
首先是“安全”法律。政府真的对你是否系安全带是没有既得利益的。另一方面，保险公司可以!他们利用政府通过法律(最终在枪杆子下强制执行)来降低风险。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
“illegal” drugs are another one. Opium, for example, was a commonly prescribed or used drug prior to the early 1900’s. It was not government regulated until the industrial revolution took hold. Safety aside, industry does not want under-productive employees. Prohibition was just as much about this as any “moral crusade”. The “war on drugs” is just as much about this as it is the “income” it brings to government agencies through legally questionable “seizures of (possible) drug proceeds”. Prohibition of alcohol was a cost rather than profit center for government agencies. The “war on drugs” has become a profit center for government and a whole “testing/treatment” industry.
In my opinion, the way “free trade” is being carried out is also counter to a capitalist society. As “free trade” exists now, it is to the benefit of certain businesses, those big enough to have pull with politicians to the detriment of smaller business who dont.
Even environmental, and to a degree safety regulations can be used to keep out the little guy. Then there is also the tax code. “Eminent Domain” has also been perverted to favor the big guy with a team of lawyers and access to politicians. If you wish to set up a hardware store, you can only pick from a location that someone is willing to sell. If Lowes or Home Depot comes to town, it is very possible that they can use government to help then take the location they want.
“非法”毒品是另一个问题。例如，在20世纪初之前，鸦片是一种常用的处方或使用药物。直到工业革命开始，它才受到政府的监管。撇开安全不谈，工业界不想要生产率低下的员工。禁酒令与任何“道德运动”一样重要。“毒品战争”也是如此，因为它是通过法律上可疑的“缉获(可能的)毒品收益”给政府机构带来的“收入”，不如说是关于这一点。禁酒令是政府机构的成本中心，而不是利润中心。“禁毒战争”已经成为政府和整个“检测/治疗”行业的利润中心。
在我看来，“自由贸易”的实施方式也与资本主义社会背道而驰。由于“自由贸易”的存在，它对某些企业有利，这些企业足够大，可以吸引政客，而对那些没有影响力的小企业不利。
甚至环境法规，一定程度上的安全法规，都可以用来把小家伙拒之门外，此外还有税法问题。“土地征用权”也被曲解为有利于拥有律师团队和接触政客的大人物。如果你想开一家五金店，你只能从有人愿意出售的地方挑选。如果洛斯(Lowes)或家得宝(Home Depot)来了，他们很可能会利用政府帮助他们拿下他们想要的位置。
In my opinion, the way “free trade” is being carried out is also counter to a capitalist society. As “free trade” exists now, it is to the benefit of certain businesses, those big enough to have pull with politicians to the detriment of smaller business who dont.
Even environmental, and to a degree safety regulations can be used to keep out the little guy. Then there is also the tax code. “Eminent Domain” has also been perverted to favor the big guy with a team of lawyers and access to politicians. If you wish to set up a hardware store, you can only pick from a location that someone is willing to sell. If Lowes or Home Depot comes to town, it is very possible that they can use government to help then take the location they want.
“非法”毒品是另一个问题。例如，在20世纪初之前，鸦片是一种常用的处方或使用药物。直到工业革命开始，它才受到政府的监管。撇开安全不谈，工业界不想要生产率低下的员工。禁酒令与任何“道德运动”一样重要。“毒品战争”也是如此，因为它是通过法律上可疑的“缉获(可能的)毒品收益”给政府机构带来的“收入”，不如说是关于这一点。禁酒令是政府机构的成本中心，而不是利润中心。“禁毒战争”已经成为政府和整个“检测/治疗”行业的利润中心。
在我看来，“自由贸易”的实施方式也与资本主义社会背道而驰。由于“自由贸易”的存在，它对某些企业有利，这些企业足够大，可以吸引政客，而对那些没有影响力的小企业不利。
甚至环境法规，一定程度上的安全法规，都可以用来把小家伙拒之门外，此外还有税法问题。“土地征用权”也被曲解为有利于拥有律师团队和接触政客的大人物。如果你想开一家五金店，你只能从有人愿意出售的地方挑选。如果洛斯(Lowes)或家得宝(Home Depot)来了，他们很可能会利用政府帮助他们拿下他们想要的位置。
Graham Maloney
Which country does capitalism better than the United States?
Most countries that are developed “do capitalism.” Therefore your question has a limitation to its logic or at least needs a better qualifier. Better to ask what each nation gets for its particular system. The way the capitalist system is run in the United States is not the same as in the U.K., which is not the same as Norway, which is not the same as China, etc.
The United States’ system is good at: funneling public money to private interests, growing the incomes and assets of the incumbent and ownership class, debt financing, developing novel and niche products that would be looked at with skepticism or disdain by other nations, and maintainomg a large bureaucracy that serves as a client purchaser for the goods and services of many private firms.
哪个国家的资本主义比美国更好？
大多数发达国家“实行资本主义”。因此，你的问题在逻辑上是有局限性的，或者至少需要一个更好的限定词。最好问问每个国家从其特定的制度中得到了什么。美国资本主义制度的运行方式与英国不同，与挪威不同，与中国不同，等等。
美国的体制擅长：将公共资金输送给私人利益，增加现任者和所有权阶层的收入和资产，债务融资，开发新颖和针对特定小群体的产品，这些产品可能会被其他国家怀疑或鄙视，并维持一个庞大的官僚机构，作为客户来采购许多私营企业分商品和服务。
Which country does capitalism better than the United States?
Most countries that are developed “do capitalism.” Therefore your question has a limitation to its logic or at least needs a better qualifier. Better to ask what each nation gets for its particular system. The way the capitalist system is run in the United States is not the same as in the U.K., which is not the same as Norway, which is not the same as China, etc.
The United States’ system is good at: funneling public money to private interests, growing the incomes and assets of the incumbent and ownership class, debt financing, developing novel and niche products that would be looked at with skepticism or disdain by other nations, and maintainomg a large bureaucracy that serves as a client purchaser for the goods and services of many private firms.
哪个国家的资本主义比美国更好？
大多数发达国家“实行资本主义”。因此，你的问题在逻辑上是有局限性的，或者至少需要一个更好的限定词。最好问问每个国家从其特定的制度中得到了什么。美国资本主义制度的运行方式与英国不同，与挪威不同，与中国不同，等等。
美国的体制擅长：将公共资金输送给私人利益，增加现任者和所有权阶层的收入和资产，债务融资，开发新颖和针对特定小群体的产品，这些产品可能会被其他国家怀疑或鄙视，并维持一个庞大的官僚机构，作为客户来采购许多私营企业分商品和服务。
Michael Geoghegan
Is capitalism working for America?
Capitalism works great when you have effective anti trust legislation that prevents the rise of monopolies, when you have labor laws that allow workers to organize so as to help ensure livable wages and safe working conditions and when you have laws that prevent the wealthy from buying governments and politicians.
As Henry Ford famously noted, when he paid his workers at his automobile factory a living wage not only did he attract more skilled workers, he had less in the way of staff turn over and workers also started buying his car leading to increased sales.
Without campaign spending and donation limits it is relatively easy for the wealthy to rig the system increasingly in their favor. This is what has happened in the United States over the last 40 years.
资本主义对美国有用吗？
当你有有效的反垄断法来防止垄断的兴起，当你有劳动法允许工人组织起来以帮助确保得到维持生计的工资和安全的工作条件，以及当你有法律阻止富人收买政府和政客时，资本主义就会发挥巨大作用。
正如亨利·福特(Henry Ford)所指出的那样，当他向汽车厂的工人支付生活工资时，他不仅吸引了更多的熟练工人，而且减少了员工的流动率，工人们也开始购买他的汽车，从而提高了销量。
如果没有对竞选支出和捐款的限制，富人就能相对容易地操纵制度，使之越来越有利于自己。这就是美国在过去40年里发生的事情。
Is capitalism working for America?
Capitalism works great when you have effective anti trust legislation that prevents the rise of monopolies, when you have labor laws that allow workers to organize so as to help ensure livable wages and safe working conditions and when you have laws that prevent the wealthy from buying governments and politicians.
As Henry Ford famously noted, when he paid his workers at his automobile factory a living wage not only did he attract more skilled workers, he had less in the way of staff turn over and workers also started buying his car leading to increased sales.
Without campaign spending and donation limits it is relatively easy for the wealthy to rig the system increasingly in their favor. This is what has happened in the United States over the last 40 years.
资本主义对美国有用吗？
当你有有效的反垄断法来防止垄断的兴起，当你有劳动法允许工人组织起来以帮助确保得到维持生计的工资和安全的工作条件，以及当你有法律阻止富人收买政府和政客时，资本主义就会发挥巨大作用。
正如亨利·福特(Henry Ford)所指出的那样，当他向汽车厂的工人支付生活工资时，他不仅吸引了更多的熟练工人，而且减少了员工的流动率，工人们也开始购买他的汽车，从而提高了销量。
如果没有对竞选支出和捐款的限制，富人就能相对容易地操纵制度，使之越来越有利于自己。这就是美国在过去40年里发生的事情。
The New Deal policies of FDR helped bring about the largest and most prosperous middle class the world has ever seen. However this middle class after benefiting from a plethora of policies that helped ensure their success in the 50s, 60s and 70s grew complacent.
No one likes paying taxes, no one likes dealing with government bureaucrats and no one likes dealing with the inconvenience and disruption caused by strikes.
So in the 1980s the Republicans started coming up with a compelling message: That if we cut back on government regulation, cut back on taxes and gut the unxs then everyone will have a better and more prosperous life. Myths like “trickle down economics” were also espoused and despite 40 years of failure are still being espoused today.
This approach coupled with the GoPs southern strategy to grab those white southern voters alienated by LBJ’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, has resulted in the Republican Party dominating US politics since 1980, much the same way as the Democratic Party dominated US politics for the previous 50 years.
罗斯福的新政政策催生了世界上规模最大、最繁荣的中产阶级。然而，这些中产阶级在上世纪50年代、60年代和70年代受益于帮助他们获得成功的大量政策后，变得自满起来。
没有人喜欢纳税，没有人喜欢与政府官僚打交道，没有人喜欢处理罢工造成的不便和干扰。
因此，在20世纪80年代，共和党人开始提出一个令人信服的信息:如果我们削减政府监管，削减税收，解散工会，那么每个人都会过上更好、更富裕的生活。像“涓滴经济学”这样的神话也被推崇，尽管失败了40年，但时至今日仍然得到支持。
这种方法与共和党的南方战略相结合，以争取那些因约翰逊通过《民权法案》而疏远的南方白人选民，导致共和党自1980年以来主导美国政治，就像民主党在此前50年主导美国政治一样。
No one likes paying taxes, no one likes dealing with government bureaucrats and no one likes dealing with the inconvenience and disruption caused by strikes.
So in the 1980s the Republicans started coming up with a compelling message: That if we cut back on government regulation, cut back on taxes and gut the unxs then everyone will have a better and more prosperous life. Myths like “trickle down economics” were also espoused and despite 40 years of failure are still being espoused today.
This approach coupled with the GoPs southern strategy to grab those white southern voters alienated by LBJ’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, has resulted in the Republican Party dominating US politics since 1980, much the same way as the Democratic Party dominated US politics for the previous 50 years.
罗斯福的新政政策催生了世界上规模最大、最繁荣的中产阶级。然而，这些中产阶级在上世纪50年代、60年代和70年代受益于帮助他们获得成功的大量政策后，变得自满起来。
没有人喜欢纳税，没有人喜欢与政府官僚打交道，没有人喜欢处理罢工造成的不便和干扰。
因此，在20世纪80年代，共和党人开始提出一个令人信服的信息:如果我们削减政府监管，削减税收，解散工会，那么每个人都会过上更好、更富裕的生活。像“涓滴经济学”这样的神话也被推崇，尽管失败了40年，但时至今日仍然得到支持。
这种方法与共和党的南方战略相结合，以争取那些因约翰逊通过《民权法案》而疏远的南方白人选民，导致共和党自1980年以来主导美国政治，就像民主党在此前50年主导美国政治一样。
The policies advocated by Bernie Sanders today would have been considered mainstream by not just Democratic Presidents like FDR, Truman, LBJ and Carter, but also by Republican President Eisenhower who famously tried to warn Americans of the corrupting influence of the USA’s military industrial complex. That warning unfortunately went unheeded.
Conversely the policies put forward by Democrat Presidents Clinton and Obama were certainly very much in keeping with those of Reagan and Bush Sr. For example Clinton signed off on rescinding Glass Steagall. These were four provisions of the U.S.A Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking. Obamacare was based on a program first put forward by Mitt Romney when he was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts.
So capitalism works well for America when you don’t have an Oligarchy. That means having campaign spending and donation limits and having an independent agency that prevents gerrymandering.
伯尼·桑德斯今天所倡导的政策不仅被罗斯福、杜鲁门、约翰逊和卡特等民主党总统视为主流，也被共和党总统艾森豪威尔视为主流，艾森豪威尔曾试图警告美国人美国军工联合体的腐败影响。不幸的是，这一警告没有得到重视。
相反，民主党总统克林顿和奥巴马提出的政策当然与里根和老布什的政策非常一致，例如克林顿签署了废除格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案。这是1933年美国银行法中区分商业银行和投资银行的四条规定。奥巴马医改是基于米特·罗姆尼担任马萨诸塞州共和党州长时首次提出的一项计划。
因此，当你没有寡头政治时，资本主义对美国很有效。这意味着要限制竞选支出和捐款，并有一个防止选区划分不公的独立机构。
Conversely the policies put forward by Democrat Presidents Clinton and Obama were certainly very much in keeping with those of Reagan and Bush Sr. For example Clinton signed off on rescinding Glass Steagall. These were four provisions of the U.S.A Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking. Obamacare was based on a program first put forward by Mitt Romney when he was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts.
So capitalism works well for America when you don’t have an Oligarchy. That means having campaign spending and donation limits and having an independent agency that prevents gerrymandering.
伯尼·桑德斯今天所倡导的政策不仅被罗斯福、杜鲁门、约翰逊和卡特等民主党总统视为主流，也被共和党总统艾森豪威尔视为主流，艾森豪威尔曾试图警告美国人美国军工联合体的腐败影响。不幸的是，这一警告没有得到重视。
相反，民主党总统克林顿和奥巴马提出的政策当然与里根和老布什的政策非常一致，例如克林顿签署了废除格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案。这是1933年美国银行法中区分商业银行和投资银行的四条规定。奥巴马医改是基于米特·罗姆尼担任马萨诸塞州共和党州长时首次提出的一项计划。
因此，当你没有寡头政治时，资本主义对美国很有效。这意味着要限制竞选支出和捐款，并有一个防止选区划分不公的独立机构。
By returning to being a Democracy the United States would then be able to stop price gouging of consumers by big pharma, get serious about universal access to health care (as every other first world nation already has), break up monopolies like Amazon, ensure that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes and thus in turn have the funds to rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure while returning to having balanced budgets.
To sum up the wealthy and powerful have been allowed to change the rules back to the way they were before the Great Depression. So while the wealthy have got to enjoy a new guilded age, the average American has found their lives getting both poorer and shorter. It has also brought about the same instability that led to the great depression such as for example the 2008 financial crises.
In short the United States is going through the most comprehensive example of those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It’s your political system that needs fixing. Fixing that will in turn will lead to a capitalist system that is taxed and regulated in such a manner that both the working and middle class get their fair share, which in turn ensures a thriving customer base for business.
通过回归民主，美国将能够阻止大型制药公司对消费者的价格欺诈，认真对待全民医疗保健（就像其他第一世界国家一样），打破亚马逊等垄断企业，确保富人和大公司缴纳他们应得的税款，从而让美国有资金重建摇摇欲坠的基础设施，同时恢复预算平衡。
总而言之，有钱有势的人被允许改变规则，回到大萧条之前的样子。因此，当富人开始享受新的自由时代时，普通美国人却发现他们越来越穷，（寿命）越来越短。它还带来了导致大萧条的不稳定，比如2008年的金融危机。
简言之，美国正在经历未能从历史中吸取教训且注定会重蹈覆辙的国家的全部过程。需要修正的是你们的政治体制。解决这个问题反过来又会导致资本主义制度的形成，在这种制度下，工人阶级和中产阶级都能得到公平的份额，从而确保企业的客户群蓬勃发展。
To sum up the wealthy and powerful have been allowed to change the rules back to the way they were before the Great Depression. So while the wealthy have got to enjoy a new guilded age, the average American has found their lives getting both poorer and shorter. It has also brought about the same instability that led to the great depression such as for example the 2008 financial crises.
In short the United States is going through the most comprehensive example of those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It’s your political system that needs fixing. Fixing that will in turn will lead to a capitalist system that is taxed and regulated in such a manner that both the working and middle class get their fair share, which in turn ensures a thriving customer base for business.
通过回归民主，美国将能够阻止大型制药公司对消费者的价格欺诈，认真对待全民医疗保健（就像其他第一世界国家一样），打破亚马逊等垄断企业，确保富人和大公司缴纳他们应得的税款，从而让美国有资金重建摇摇欲坠的基础设施，同时恢复预算平衡。
总而言之，有钱有势的人被允许改变规则，回到大萧条之前的样子。因此，当富人开始享受新的自由时代时，普通美国人却发现他们越来越穷，（寿命）越来越短。它还带来了导致大萧条的不稳定，比如2008年的金融危机。
简言之，美国正在经历未能从历史中吸取教训且注定会重蹈覆辙的国家的全部过程。需要修正的是你们的政治体制。解决这个问题反过来又会导致资本主义制度的形成，在这种制度下，工人阶级和中产阶级都能得到公平的份额，从而确保企业的客户群蓬勃发展。
Dave Stevens
Is Capitalism fading in the United States?
Capitalism is proving more and more consistently unable to meet the needs and wants of more and more people. Therefore demand for capitalist solutions is falling.
This is pure economics — goods and services (and capitalism is absolutely both) which do not (or which do not any longer) meet the needs of consumers will be gradually replaced by other goods which consumers judge will meet meet their needs better.
For many (especially younger) people today; capitalism is an inferior good.
Many, myself included, regard aspects of the current and recent iterations capitalism to be defective or not-as-advertised.
As other solutions become more available and more accessible (as demand dictates that they should) fewer people will remain willing to continue “buying” capitalism.
资本主义在美国褪色了吗？
事实证明，资本主义越来越无法满足越来越多人的需求。因此，对资本主义解决方案的需求正在下降。
这是纯粹的经济学——不满足(或不再满足)消费者需求的商品和服务(资本主义绝对是两者兼而有之)将逐渐被消费者认为能更好地满足他们需求的其他商品所取代。
对今天的许多人(尤其是年轻人)来说;资本主义是次等商品。
包括我在内的许多人认为，当前和最近资本主义迭代的某些方面存在缺陷，或者不像宣传的那样。
随着其他解决方案变得越来越可用和更容易获得（正如需求所要求的那样），越来越少的人愿意继续为资本主义“买单”。
Is Capitalism fading in the United States?
Capitalism is proving more and more consistently unable to meet the needs and wants of more and more people. Therefore demand for capitalist solutions is falling.
This is pure economics — goods and services (and capitalism is absolutely both) which do not (or which do not any longer) meet the needs of consumers will be gradually replaced by other goods which consumers judge will meet meet their needs better.
For many (especially younger) people today; capitalism is an inferior good.
Many, myself included, regard aspects of the current and recent iterations capitalism to be defective or not-as-advertised.
As other solutions become more available and more accessible (as demand dictates that they should) fewer people will remain willing to continue “buying” capitalism.
资本主义在美国褪色了吗？
事实证明，资本主义越来越无法满足越来越多人的需求。因此，对资本主义解决方案的需求正在下降。
这是纯粹的经济学——不满足(或不再满足)消费者需求的商品和服务(资本主义绝对是两者兼而有之)将逐渐被消费者认为能更好地满足他们需求的其他商品所取代。
对今天的许多人(尤其是年轻人)来说;资本主义是次等商品。
包括我在内的许多人认为，当前和最近资本主义迭代的某些方面存在缺陷，或者不像宣传的那样。
随着其他解决方案变得越来越可用和更容易获得（正如需求所要求的那样），越来越少的人愿意继续为资本主义“买单”。
很赞 0
收藏