Capitalism, Version 2012

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine, has a smart new book out, entitled “Power, Inc.,” about the epic rivalry between big business and government that captures, in many ways, what the 2012 election should be about — and it’s not “contraception,” although the word does begin with a “C.” It’s the future of “capitalism” and whether it will be shaped in America or somewhere else.

Rothkopf argues that while for much of the 20th century the great struggle on the world stage was between capitalism and communism, which capitalism won, the great struggle in the 21st century will be about which version of capitalism will win, which one will prove the most effective at generating growth and become the most emulated.

“Will it be Beijing’s capitalism with Chinese characteristics?” asks Rothkopf. “Will it be the democratic development capitalism of India and Brazil? Will it be entrepreneurial small-state capitalism of Singapore and Israel? Will it be European safety-net capitalism? Or will it be American capitalism?” It is an intriguing question, which raises another: What is American capitalism today, and what will enable it to thrive in the 21st century?

Rothkopf’s view, which I share, is that the thing others have most admired and tried to emulate about American capitalism is precisely what we’ve been ignoring: America’s success for over 200 years was largely due to its healthy, balanced public-private partnership — where government provided the institutions, rules, safety nets, education, research and infrastructure to empower the private sector to innovate, invest and take the risks that promote growth and jobs.

When the private sector overwhelms the public, you get the 2008 subprime crisis. When the public overwhelms the private, you get choking regulations. You need a balance, which is why we have to get past this cartoonish “argument that the choice is either all government or all the market,” argues Rothkopf. The lesson of history, he adds, is that capitalism thrives best when you have this balance, and “when you lose the balance, you get in trouble.”

For that reason, the ideal 2012 election would be one that offered the public competing conservative and liberal versions of the key grand bargains, the key balances, that America needs to forge to adapt its capitalism to this century.

The first is a grand bargain to fix our long-term structural deficit by phasing in $1 in tax increases, via tax reform, for every $3 to $4 in cuts to entitlements and defense over the next decade. If the Republican Party continues to take the view that there must be no tax increases, we’re stuck. Capitalism can’t work without safety nets or fiscal prudence, and we need both in a sustainable balance.

As part of this, we will need an intergenerational grand bargain so we don’t end up in an intergenerational civil war. We need a proper balance between government spending on nursing homes and nursery schools — on the last six months of life and the first six months of life.

Another grand bargain we need is between the environmental community and the oil and gas industry over how to do two things at once: safely exploit America’s newfound riches in natural gas, while simultaneously building a bridge to a low-carbon energy economy, with greater emphasis on energy efficiency.

Another grand bargain we need is on infrastructure. We have more than a $2 trillion deficit in bridges, roads, airports, ports and bandwidth, and the government doesn’t have the money to make it up. We need a bargain that enables the government to both enlist and partner with the private sector to unleash private investments in infrastructure that will serve the public and offer investors appropriate returns.

Within both education and health care, we need grand bargains that better allocate resources between remediation and prevention. In both health and education, we spend more than anyone else in the world — without better outcomes. We waste too much money treating people for preventable diseases and reteaching students in college what they should have learned in high school. Modern capitalism requires skilled workers and workers with portable health care that allows them to move for any job.

We also need a grand bargain between employers, employees and government — à la Germany — where government provides the incentives for employers to hire, train and retrain labor.

We can’t have any of these bargains, though, without a more informed public debate. The “big thing that’s missing” in U.S. politics today, Bill Gates said to me in a recent interview, “is this technocratic understanding of the facts and where things are working and where they’re not working,” so the debate can be driven by data, not ideology.

Capitalism and political systems — like companies — must constantly evolve to stay vital. People are watching how we evolve and whether our version of democratic capitalism can continue to thrive. A lot is at stake here. But if “we continue to treat politics as a reality show played for cheap theatrics,” argues Rothkopf, “we increase the likelihood that the next chapter in the ongoing story of capitalism is going to be written somewhere else.”

美式資本主義 需要五大協議

「外交政策」（Foreign Policy）雜誌執行長兼自由編輯羅斯科夫（David Rothkopf）在最近推出的新書「Power, Inc.」中，談論大企業和政府間長期的對立，他在很多地方捕捉到2012年大選應有的主題：資本主義的未來，以及這個未來會不會在美國或其他地方成形。

羅斯科夫宣稱，雖然20世紀世界上多數重大鬥爭衍生自資本主義和共產主義，並由資本主義勝出，但21世紀鬥爭的主題將圍繞在「哪種版本」的資本主義會勝出，哪種資本主義會是促進成長最有效的方法，會吸引最多人效法。

羅斯科夫問：「勝利者會不會是有中國特色的北京資本主義？是印度與巴西的民主發展資本主義？是新加坡和以色列的創業小國資本主義？是歐洲的安全網資本主義？還是美國資本主義？」

這個有趣的問題，也引出另一個問題：美國今日的資本主義是什麼？哪些因素能讓它在21世紀壯大？

羅斯科夫的觀點是，美國資本主義中最受其他人推崇和效法的東西，卻一直被我們忽略：美國200年來的成功歸功於公私部門健康、平衡的合作關係—公部門提供機制、法規、安全網、教育、研究和基礎建設，鼓勵私部門創新與投資，並承擔促進成長與就業的風險。

私部門凌駕於公部門之上，造成2008年的次貸危機。公部門凌駕於私部門，將帶來令人窒息的法律規範。羅斯科夫說，歷史給我們的教訓是，只有公、私部門達成平衡，資本主義才能蓬勃發展，「如果失去平衡，我們就麻煩了」。

也因此，2012年大選理想的狀況是，讓保守派與自由派各抒己見，提出美國人在21世紀要適應資本主義所必須達成的大協議（grand bargain）與平衡。

第一個大協議是修補美國的長期結構性赤字，方法是透過漸進的財政改革，每增稅1美元，未來十年內配合削減3到4 美元的福利和國防支出。如果共和黨還是堅決不增稅，事情沒有轉圜餘地。資本主義不能沒有社會安全網或財政審慎的配合，我們需要兩者處於可長久維繫的平衡。

要達到平衡，我們需要一個跨世代的大交易，才不會引爆跨世代的內鬥。我們需要政府在老年照護和幼兒托育機制的支出之間，達到恰好的平衡。

第二個大協議是如何兼顧環保以及石油天然氣的開發，既能安全開採美國新發現的豐富天然氣，也能打造一個更強調能源效益的低碳經濟。

第三是有關基礎建設的大協議。我們為建造橋樑、道路、機場、港口和寬頻上的赤字已超過2兆美元，但政府沒有足夠錢填補缺口。我們需要一個協議讓政府徵召私部門，雙方攜手合作，讓私部門投資社會所需的基礎建設，並獲得適當的報酬。

在教育和健康照護上，我們需要更妥善分配補救及預防資源的協議。我們在這方面的支出超過其他國，成果卻沒有較好。我們浪費太多錢在可預防的疾病，而且反覆教導大學生在高中就已學到的知識。現代資本主義需要技術熟練的勞工與可攜式的健保制度，讓勞工換工作時不受限制。

我們還需要一個介於雇主、員工和政府之間的大協議，例如德國政府提供誘因讓雇主聘用員工，提供教育訓練與再教育。

公共辯論素養沒有提升，我們無法達成上述的大協議。微軟創辦人蓋茲最近受訪時對我說，當今美國政府缺乏最重要的東西是「對事實的技術性瞭解，和對制度運作得宜或失當之處的暸解」，這些才能讓公共辯論以事實為依據，而非意識形態。

資本主義和政治體系就像企業，須一直進步才能生存。人們等著看美國如何進化，看美國版的資本主義能否繼續壯大。羅斯科夫說，眼前有很多事情有待我們完成，但要是我們繼續把政治當成廉價的實境秀，資本主義歷史的下一章很可能就要由別人來寫。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/friedman-capitalism-version-2012.html

Video: America’s Future
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/03/01/opinion/100000001394405/on-technocratic-logic.html

2012-03-20/經濟日報/A5版/國際焦點 編譯余曉惠