標題中說的傻瓜是指我自己，因為我不是一個經濟學家，而且也沒有對經濟學理論或應用進行過任何正式學習。但是……早在20世紀70年代初期我就開始鉆研和制作一部史詩紀錄片，記錄每天有關全球貧困及其相關內容的社會現實。從那時起，我就開始慢慢懂得，為何今天所謂的西方資本主義注定要崩潰。
當我回想在研究120個國家以及記錄其中的69個國家（也包括在世界銀行和聯合國機構）中的所見所聞時，我依靠的是常識來做判斷。根據常識我得出的結論是：資本主義本身不是問題所在，出問題的是運行西方資本主義的短視愚蠢方式。
現在我將詳細論述這一觀點。
到20世紀70年代早期，真正有識的發展學方面的專家都在關注一個事實：我們的小星球被分成了兩個世界——涵蓋20%人口的富裕世界（發展學的術語稱為北方），以及涵蓋80%人口的貧困世界（發展學的術語成為南方）。
在貧困世界，每年大概有1500萬不到五歲的兒童死于營養不良或一些小病：腹瀉、麻疹、百日咳。這些本容易預防的疾病卻造成了死亡，只因為貧窮——赤貧。大約有不止3億孩子一出生就腦損傷，因為在媽媽的子宮里就已經營養不良。但是，這些數據還只是一小部分。這個星球上的大多數人都生存在活命的邊緣，沒有或者常常不能保障所有基本的生存需要——躲避的棚子、充足的營養、清潔的淡水、衛生保健、教育或工作機會。在每個大陸，我都會問那些最貧窮的父母，他們最需要的一樣東西是什么。當時還沒到手機時代，我期望他們中有許多人能說需要的是一臺電視或一些類似的小器具。所有人的答案都在本質上與一位貧窮的印度女人相同，她的答案是：“我的孩子能受到教育，這樣他們就不必像我們一樣活得像動物一樣。”
富有的國家通過出售商品和服務來創造財富。那么，如果這個財富創造過程是需要可持續的，如他們的政治家許諾的那樣，富有世界居民的物質生活水平會越來越高，就要保證世界市場有越來越多的有能力購買富有世界國家要出售的商品的消費者。
如果西方資本主義國家的管理者們（公司總裁、銀行家和政治家）不是短視愚蠢的，那么他們應該會這樣告訴自己：如果我們不對世界上窮人的發展進行投資，讓他們成為市場上有購買力的消費者，那么我們將缺少需要買我們待出售商品的顧客，我們也將因此無法維系自己的體系。
如果這項必要的投資已經持續了10年、15年甚至20年了（為了保證這些投資和提供的其他發展援助能夠被消化并很少被貪污、發揮了最大用處，這么長的時間是必要的），那么全球對抗貧困和不發達的戰爭——唯一有關系的戰爭就會取得勝利了。舉個例子，人口由農村向城市的災難性漂流應該被叫停甚至應該顛倒過來，農村曾有這些人的前途，而對大部分漂流者而言，城市過去沒有他們的前途，將來也不會有。
讓投資達到需要的規模意味著，投資的富裕世界國家發展得將不會如此迅速，他們的居民將被迫接受物質生活水平不那么豐富，但是相對于西方資本主義能有一個可持續的未來、我們的后代不論住在哪里都有一個值得憧憬的未來（而現在他們并沒有一個值得期待的未來），這個代價并不算大，而且值得。
西方制度的管理者沒有讓資本主義成為全世界都會受益的東西，反而選擇任由信用卡充斥著富裕世界，而這些居民因此能夠超越需求生活，并且越來越深地卷入債務。“我想要”代替了“我需要”。（我的中產階級的把拔曾對我說：“孩子，如果我們買不起，那就不要向商店玻璃窗里張望。”）
富裕世界居民沒錢維持西方消費資本主義運行的那一天注定會到來。
隨后，為了一定程度上刺激債務驅動型消費和政府開支，那些貪婪而不負責任的銀行家們使出了最后一招，他們利用杠桿投機，發明了一系列的看似價值數萬億美元卻實際上沒有實業資產進行支撐的債務工具，并最終使西方資本主義走向了墳墓。（我一個好朋友是一家總部位于倫敦的世界大型銀行的高級風險管理師，她告訴我她和自己團隊里的同事在過去五年中一直提醒公司高層，用米奇作為工具進行投機會引發巨大的災難，但是他們根本不想聽。大家的目光只集中在紅利上。）
如果杰里米•克拉克森以前就說，那些銀行高管應該拉出去在他們家人面前給槍斃了，我肯定會微笑著然后對自己說“要是那樣該多好”。
我肯定不會用那些納稅人的錢去為銀行紓困。我肯定讓它們直接完蛋得了。（資本主義的首要規則就應該是，如果你走錯了，那你就完蛋了）。但是在讓那些決定成為公共政策之前，作為首相我肯定會對我的人民這么說：“不要恐慌。我們本來為那些不顧后果、不負責任的銀行提供的紓困資金，現在要改為創立一個新的國家銀行，這個銀行跟之前那些‘高街銀行’不同，它只為消費者的需要服務。”
毫無疑問，那些銀行高管都目光短淺、貪婪無度、愚蠢至極，但是。。。它們并不是造成未來歷史學家口中的西方資本主義的崩潰的罪魁禍首。真正的罪魁禍首是那些解除銀行和金融市場管制的政治家。而這中間最嚴重的就是英國的首相瑪格麗特•撒切爾。1986年10月27日，她在倫敦發起了金融大改革，突然解除了對銀行和金融市場的管制。受金融自由主義影響，她堅定地相信，如果解除了市場的規則和限制，市場就能夠更加高效、更好地運行。在她看來，相對于那些在委員會的條條框框下做出的眾多決策，自由市場上的交易者的日常決策對所有的人更有利。
也許我為了表明自己的觀點有些夸大其詞，而且在一定程度上歪曲了她的說法，但是她好像認為：“我們不必為舊式產業和生產財富的方式操心，銀行和市場已經為我們做了這些事兒。”
而之后事實證明她好像過于單純了，做出了錯誤的決策，但是在他們之前，里根及其之后的美國總統都追隨了撒切爾夫人的政策。
我對于現在形勢的理解可以總結如下：西方國家的政府債務實在太重了，他們根本不可能刺激經濟重新增長，也無法獲得償還債務的資金。基于這種觀點，我認為未來西方只可能出現以下兩種情形。
一是，為了償還債務，政府全面削減開支，減少、減少、再減少所有事務（包括國家退休金、社會福利和公共服務等）的預算支出。失業率高得不可思議，生活水平低到不可忍受。最后公民起來反抗，暴力沖突升級。假冒的民主也會被終止，取而代之的是軍事管制。奧威爾書中的1984終將到來。（在愛德華•希思剛從首相之位上退下來時，我和妻子同他共進午餐。那時我問他對于未來最大的擔心是什么。我本來以為得和世界貧困相關，因為他曾經是勃蘭特委員會的成員。但他很平靜地以一種闡述事實的口吻告訴我，是“英國將會成為民主世界中的第一個極權國家”。）
另外一種情形是，所有的債務，包括房屋抵押貸款，都一筆勾銷，然后我們重頭再來。
很明顯，一個新的開端必須得基于維護公平的堅定不移的承諾，要真正地使資本主義為所有的人受益。
和我這樣的傻瓜持相同觀點的還有很多。美國的馬丁•維斯是維斯評級機構（WRA）的創始人。在他最新的演講中，他對自己的機構成功預測過去四十年的經濟災難做出了一些聲明，這個聲明已經被所有美國主要的報紙和經濟期刊所確認。
WRA曾提前幾個月預測到了80年代的儲蓄借貸危機，90年代的大型保險公司的倒閉以及21世紀初的互聯網泡沫。
WRA是世界上唯一一個能夠提前一年多預測到2008年金融危機的公司，特別值得一提的是，它還明確預測到了隨后倒閉的幾乎所有主要公司的名稱。
現在馬丁•維斯這樣說：
除非出現奇跡，將會發生一次歷史性的、改變世界的事件，它會終結我們所熟知的美國式的生活方式。這次非常事件將會使大量家庭陷入貧困的噩夢，還會使很多人無家可歸，處于饑餓狀態。而最糟糕的情況就是，犯罪率大增，財產被沒收，民主權利被剝奪，甚至會引來美國軍隊強制實行軍事管制。
他所預測的改變世界的事件就是中國停止購買美國的債券。他說，這也就意味著美國再也無法借錢了，他還說，那樣的話就可以看到美國的金融末日開始臨近。
多年來我私下里跟朋友所表明的最大的擔心就是，經濟危機的進一步演化最終會將我們帶向第三次世界大戰。它有可能發生，主要是由于一下兩個相關的原因：一是政府需要借此將人民的注意力從國內的危機中轉移出去，二是政府需要尋找一個外部因素對危機負責。有人說現在美國的政治家已經將中國作為譴責對象了。
我們拭目以待……
注腳：
歐洲那種試圖嚴格控制預算的計劃是不合適的，甚至可以說是個鬧劇。這些計劃是為了阻止現在的愈演愈烈的災難再次發生，但是它們對于解決現有的債務危機一點意義都沒有。歐洲的領導人在馬匹被拴住時，還要試圖將馬房的門也關上。
艾倫•哈特曾經報道過中東的事件，是一位研究者，作家和ITN與BBC的通訊記者。閱讀更多艾倫的文章，或者訪問他的網址。
此文發布于2011年12月7日，周三，上午8:00，歸類于資本主義，經濟與經濟學，貧困。
【原 文】
The idiot of the headline is me in the sense that I am not an economist and have never had any formal association with study of the theory and practise of economics, but… I began to understand why what is today called Western capitalism was bound to crash way back in the early 1970’s when I was researching and producing an epic documentary on the everyday reality of global poverty and its implications for all.
When I reflected on what I had witnessed and learned while researching in 120 countries (as well as at the World Bank and many UN agencies) and filming in 69 of them, I let commonsense be my guide. It led me to the conclusion that capitalism was not of itself the problem. It was the short-sighted and stupid way Western capitalism was managed.
Now I’ll put some flesh on that bone.
By the early 1970’s truly informed development experts were drawing attention to the fact that our one small planet was divided into two worlds – the Rich World containing about 20% of humankind (and known in development jargon as the North), and the Poor World containing about 80% of humankind (and known in development jargon as the South).
In the Poor World an estimated 15 million children under five were dying each year from malnutrition and related and easily preventable diseases such as diahorrea, measles and whooping cough – in a word poverty, abject poverty. And an estimated 300 million more were born brain damaged because of malnutrition in the wombs of their mothers. But those statistics told only a part of the story. The majority of the human inhabitants of Planet Earth were living on the margins of life, without some and in many cases all of the basic necessities for life – shelter, adequate nutrition, clean water, health care, education and work/job opportunities. On each and every continent I asked the poorest parents what was the one thing they most wanted. This was before the age of the mobile telephone and I expected many of them to say a television or some such gadget. What they all said in their various ways echoed one of the poorest Indian women. Her answer was, “Education for my children so they don’t have to live like animals as we do.”
The rich nations were creating their wealth by selling goods and services. It followed that if this wealth creating process was to have a sustainable future and Rich World citizens were to enjoy ever rising material standards of living as promised by their politicians, the global market place needed more and more consumers with the purchasing power to buy what the Rich World nations had to sell.
If the managers of Western capitalism (corporate chiefs, bankers and politicians) had not been short-sighted and stupid, they would have said to themselves something like the following. “If we don’t now invest in the development of the poor of the world and bring them progressively into the market place with purchasing power, we are going to run out customers in the numbers needed to buy what we have to sell in order to sustain our system.”
If the necessary investment had been made over 10, 15 and even 20 years, (it would have needed that amount of time in order to guarantee that the money and other development assistance provided could be absorbed and put to best use with minimum corruption), victory in the war against global poverty and underdevelopment – the only war that matters – would have been assured. To give just one example… The disastrous population drift from the rural areas where there was a future to the urban centres where there was not and is not a future for many of the drifters could have been halted and even reversed.
Making the investment needed on the necessary scale would have meant that the investing Rich World nations would not have grown so rapidly and their citizens would have had to accept a little less in the way of ever rising material standards of living, but that would have been a small price to pay for giving Western capitalism a sustainable future and all of our children wherever they live the prospect of a future worth having. (Whereas today they do not have a future worth having).
Instead of starting down the road to making capitalism work for the benefit of all in global terms, the system’s Western managers opted to keep things going by flooding the Rich World with credit cards to enable its citizens to live beyond their means and get deeper and deeper into debt. “I need” was replaced with “I want”. (My working class father used to say to me, “Boy, if we can’t afford it, we don’t look in the shop window.”)
There was bound to come a time when Rich World citizens simply could not afford to go on buying on the scale needed to keep Western consumer capitalism going.
Then, partly to fuel debt-driven consumer and government spending, the greed-driven, totally irresponsible bankers drove the final nail into Western capitalism’s coffin by playing their leveraging games, producing debt instruments with a face value of hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars but which were not backed and supported by real assets. (A good friend of mine was the senior risk manager for one of the world’s biggest banks headquartered in London. She told me that for five years she and her team tried to warn top management that leveraging with Mickey Mouse instruments was creating a catastrophe, but top management didn’t want to listen. It was focused only on bonuses).
If Jeremy Clarkson had said that banking chiefs should have been taken out and shot in front of their families, I would have smiled and said to myself, “If only.”
And I would not have bailed out the banks with taxpayers’ money. I would have let them go bust. (The first rule of capitalism is supposed to be that if you get it wrong you go bust). But before making that decision public I (as prime minister) would have said to my people something like the following. “Don’t panic. The money we would have to put into bailing out reckless and irresponsible banks will instead be used to create a new national bank which, rather like the High Street banks of the old days, will exist only to serve the needs of their customers.”
There’s no question that banking chiefs were short-sighted, greedy and stupid, but… They were not the architects of what future historians will call the crash of Western capitalism. They, the architects, were the politicians who deregulated the banks and financial markets. The leading architect was Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. On 27 October 1986, she initiated the “Big Bang” in the City of London, the sudden deregulation of the banks and financial markets. In the name of “financial liberalism” she truly believed that markets would work better, more efficiently, if they were free of rules and restrictions. In her view millions of decisions made every day by traders in a free market would be better for all of us than decisions that had to be made with reference to rules and regulations drawn up by committees of the great and the good.
Though I might be exaggerating to make a point and may be misrepresenting her to some extent, she seemed to be saying, “We need not bother too much with our old industries and ways of creating wealth, the banks and the markets will do it for us.”
Events were to prove that she could not have been more naive and more wrong, but before they did American presidents starting with Ronald Reagan had followed her lead.
My understanding of the situation today can be summarized as follows. The debts of Western governments are so big that no Western country will be able to generate the growth and so the money needed to repay them. On that basis I can see only two scenarios for the future.
One is that in order to repay the debts, governments slash expenditure across the board, cutting, cutting and cutting back massively on budgets for everything including state pensions and social welfare benefits and services. Unemployment rises to unthinkable levels and living standards plunge to unacceptable levels. Eventually the citizens revolt and violence escalates. What passes for democracy is shut down and martial law is established. Orwell’s 1984 finally arrives. (Soon after Edward Heath ceased to be prime minister, my wife and I had lunch with him. I asked him what his biggest fear for the future was. I expected it to be related to global poverty because he had been a member of the Brandt Commission which studied it. His reply, calm in delivery and matter of fact in tone, was, “That Britain will become the first police state in the democratic world.”)
In the other scenario all debts, including mortgages on homes, are written off and we all start again.
By definition a re-start would have to be based on a rock-solid commitment to fairness with a real intention to make capitalism work for the benefit of all.
This idiot is in quite good company. American Martin Weiss is the founder of the Weiss Rating Agency (WRA). In his latest presentation he makes the following claims about his agency’s astonishing success in predicting economic disasters of the past 40 years, a claim which is confirmed by all the major American newspapers and economic journals.
Months in advance WRA warned about the S&L crisis of the 1980’s; the great insurance company failures of the 1990’s; plus the great “Tech Wreck” of the early 2000’s.
WRA was the only firm in the world to warn of the financial crisis of 2008 more than a year in advance, specifically naming nearly every major company that later collapsed.
Today Martin Weiss says this:
Barring a miracle, an historic, world-changing event is about to end the American way of life as we know it. This monumental event will plunge vast numbers of families into the nightmare of poverty, homeless and hunger. In a worst case scenario you will see soaring crime, the confiscation of property, the suspension of civil rights, and even the enforcement of martial law by the U.S. military.
The world-changing event he is anticipating is a decision by China to stop buying U.S. debt, which will mean, he says, that America will no longer be able to borrow money; and that, he adds, will see the beginning of “America’s Financial Doomsday”.
My own biggest fear which I have been expressing to friends in private for a number of years is that the unfolding economic crisis may take us all the way to World War 111. It could happen for two related reasons. One is the need of governments to deflect the attention of their own people away from the mess within. The other is the need to have an outside party to blame. There’s a case for saying that some American politicians are already setting up China for blame.
We shall see…
Footnote
European plans to bring in tough budget controls are irrelevant, even a farce. They are designed to stop the present unfolding catastrophe from happening again, but they won’t do anything to solve the present debt crisis. European leaders are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and globally as a researcher, author, and a correspondent for ITN and the BBC. Read other articles by Alan, or visit Alan's website.
This article was posted on Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Capitalism, Economy/Economics, Poverty.
「 支持烏有之鄉！」
烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM
您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！
歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號
