What companies are for

公司是做什么的

Competition, not corporatism, is the answer to capitalism’s problems

解決資本主義爭端的出路是競爭，而不是合作主義

Across the West, capitalism is not working as well as it should. Jobs are plentiful, but growth is sluggish, inequality is too high and the environment is su?ering. You might hope that governments would enact reforms to deal with this, but politics in many places is grid locked or unstable. Who, then, is going to ride to the rescue? A growing number of people think the answer is to call on big business to help ?x economic and social problems. Even America’s famously ruthless bosses agree. This week more than 180 of them, including the chiefs of Walmart and JPMorgan Chase, overturned three decades of orthodoxy to pledge that their firms’ purpose was no longer to serve their owners alone, but customers, sta?, suppliers and communities, too.

在整個西方，資本主義并沒有發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的作用。就業(yè)機(jī)會充足，但增長乏力，不平等過高，環(huán)境惡化。你可能希望政府能通過改革來解決這一問題，但許多地方的政治都是網(wǎng)格鎖定或不穩(wěn)定的。那么，誰來搭救呢?越來越多的人認(rèn)為答案是呼吁大企業(yè)幫助解決經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會問題。甚至連美國那些以冷酷著稱的老板們也同意這一觀點(diǎn)。本周，包括沃爾瑪(Walmart)和摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)首席執(zhí)行官在內(nèi)的180多名高管，推翻了30年來的傳統(tǒng)觀念，承諾他們公司的目標(biāo)不再是只為所有者服務(wù)，還包括為客戶、員工、供應(yīng)商和社區(qū)服務(wù)。

詞匯

Orthodox/正統(tǒng)的；傳統(tǒng)的

?

The CEOs’ motives are partly tactical. They hope to pre-empt attacks on big business from the left of the Democratic Party. But the shift is also part of an upheaval in attitudes towards business happening on both sides of the Atlantic. Younger sta? want to work for ?rms that take a stand on the moral and political questions of the day. Politicians of various hues want ?rms to bring jobs and investment home.

執(zhí)行總裁們的動機(jī)部分是出于戰(zhàn)術(shù)考慮。他們希望先發(fā)制人，阻止民主黨左翼對大企業(yè)的攻擊。但這種轉(zhuǎn)變也是大西洋兩岸對商業(yè)態(tài)度劇變的一部分。年輕的員工希望為那些在當(dāng)今道德和政治問題上表明立場的公司工作。形形色色的政客都希望公司能把工作和投資帶回國內(nèi)。

詞匯

Tactical/戰(zhàn)術(shù)的；策略的

pre-empt/先發(fā)制人

hue/色調(diào)，色相

?

However well-meaning, this new form of collective capitalism will end up doing more harm than good. It risks entrenching a class of unaccountable CEOs who lack legitimacy. And it is a threat to long-term prosperity, which is the basic condition for capitalism to succeed.

不管這種新形式的集體資本主義的本意有多好，最終弊大于利。這可能會讓一批不負(fù)責(zé)任、缺乏合法性的執(zhí)行總裁陷入困境。這是對長期繁榮的威脅，而長期繁榮是資本主義成功的基本條件。

詞匯

Unaccountable/無責(zé)任的；莫名其妙的；不可理解的

?

Ever since businesses were granted limited liability in Britain and France in the 19th century, there have been arguments about what society can expect in return. In the 1950s and 1960s America and Europe experimented with managerial capitalism, in which giant ?rms worked with the government and unions and o?ered workers job security and perks. But after the stagnation of the 1970s shareholder value took hold, as ?rms sought to maximise the wealth of their owners and, in theory, thereby maximised e?ciency. Unions declined, and shareholder value conquered America, then Europe and Japan, where it is still gaining ground. Judged by pro?ts, it has triumphed: in America they have risen from 5% of GDP in 1989 to 8% now.

自從19世紀(jì)英國和法國賦予企業(yè)有限責(zé)任以來，人們就一直在爭論社會能期望得到什么回報。在20世紀(jì)50年代和60年代，美國和歐洲試驗(yàn)了管理資本主義，其中大型公司與政府和工會合作，為工人提供工作保障和津貼。但在上世紀(jì)70年代的股東價值停滯之后，隨著企業(yè)尋求最大化所有者的財富，并在理論上實(shí)現(xiàn)效率的最大化，股東價值開始下降。工會衰落了，股東價值戰(zhàn)勝了美國，然后是歐洲和日本，在這些國家，工會仍在不斷壯大。從利潤來判斷，它已經(jīng)取得了勝利:在美國，它已經(jīng)從1989年占GDP的5%上升到現(xiàn)在的8%。

詞匯

Stagnation/停滯；滯止

?

It is this framework that is under assault. Part of the attack is about a perceived decline in business ethics, from bankers demanding bonuses and bail-outs both at the same time, to the sale of billions of opioid pills to addicts. But the main complaint is that shareholder value produces bad economic outcomes. Publicly listed ?rms are accused of a list of sins, from obsessing about short-term earnings to neglecting investment, exploiting sta?, depressing wages and failing to pay for the catastrophic externalities they create, in particular pollution.

正是這個框架受到了攻擊。攻擊的部分原因是人們認(rèn)為商業(yè)道德在下降，從銀行家同時要求獎金和救市，到向--者出售數(shù)十億粒--類藥物。但主要的抱怨是，股東價值會產(chǎn)生糟糕的經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)果。上市公司被控犯下一系列罪行，從過分關(guān)注短期收益，到忽視投資、剝削員工、壓低工資，再到未能為它們帶來的災(zāi)難性外部效應(yīng)(尤其是污染)買單。

詞匯

bail-outs/救市

?

Not all these criticisms are accurate. Investment in America is in line with historical levels relative to GDP, and higher than in the 1960s. The time-horizon of America’s stockmarket is as long as it has ever been, judged by the share of its value derived from long-term pro?ts. Jam-tomorrow ?rms like Amazon and Net?ix are all the rage. But some of the criticism rings true. Workers’ share of the value ?rms create has indeed fallen.Consumers often get a lousy deal and social mobility has sunk.

并非所有這些批評都是準(zhǔn)確的。美國的投資與國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的歷史水平相當(dāng)，甚至高于上世紀(jì)60年代。從從長期利潤中獲得的價值份額來判斷，美國股市的時間跨度和以往一樣長。像亞馬遜和Netflix這樣的明日公司風(fēng)靡一時。但有些批評聽起來是對的。工人在企業(yè)創(chuàng)造的價值中所占的份額確實(shí)下降了，消費(fèi)者往往得到了一筆糟糕的交易，社會流動性也下降了。

詞匯

Jam-tomorrow/許諾但不兌現(xiàn)的東西，可望而不可及的事物

?

Regardless, the popular and intellectual backlash against shareholder value is already altering corporate decision-making. Bosses are endorsing social causes that are popular with customers and sta?. Firms are deploying capital for reasons other than e?ciency: Microsoftis financing $500m of new housing in Seattle. President Donald Trump boasts of jawboning bosses on where to build factories. Some politicians hope to go further. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic contender for the White House, wants ?rms to be federally chartered so that, if they abuse the interests of sta?, customers or communities, their licences can be revoked. All this portends a system in which big business sets and pursues broad social goals, not its narrow self-interest.

無論如何，公眾和學(xué)術(shù)界對股東價值的強(qiáng)烈反對，已經(jīng)在改變企業(yè)的決策。老板們支持深受顧客和員工歡迎的社會事業(yè)。各公司投入資金的原因并非出于效率:微軟為西雅圖5億美元的新住宅提供了融資。美國總統(tǒng)唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)夸口稱，他曾就在哪里建廠向老板們發(fā)出過嚴(yán)厲的警告。一些政客希望走得更遠(yuǎn)。民主黨總統(tǒng)候選人伊麗莎白·沃倫希望公司能獲得聯(lián)邦特許，這樣，如果公司濫用員工、客戶或社區(qū)的利益，他們的執(zhí)照就可以被吊銷。所有這些都預(yù)示著一個大企業(yè)設(shè)定并追求廣泛社會目標(biāo)的體系，而不是狹隘的自身利益。

詞匯

Jawboning/強(qiáng)烈呼吁

Revoke/撤回，取消；廢除

?

That sounds nice, but collective capitalism su?ers from two pitfalls: a lack of accountability and a lack of dynamism. Consider accountability ?rst. It is not clear how CEOs should know what “society”wants from their companies. The chances are that politicians, campaigning groups and the CEOs themselves will decide—and that ordinary people will not have a voice. Over the past 20 years industry and ?nance have become dominated by large ?rms, so a small number of unrepresentative business leaders will end up with immense power to set goals for society that range far beyond the immediate interests of their company.

這聽起來不錯，但集體資本主義有兩個陷阱:一是不可數(shù)性，二是動態(tài)性。目前還不清楚執(zhí)行總裁們應(yīng)該如何知道“社會”想從他們的公司得到什么。很有可能政客、競選團(tuán)體和執(zhí)行總裁們自己會做出決定，而普通人將沒有發(fā)言權(quán)。在過去的20年里，工業(yè)和金融業(yè)已經(jīng)被大公司所主導(dǎo)，因此，一小部分沒有代表性的商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖最終將擁有巨大的權(quán)力，為社會設(shè)定遠(yuǎn)大于公司當(dāng)前利益的目標(biāo)。

詞匯

Pitfall/陷阱，圈套；缺陷；誘惑

?

The second problem is dynamism. Collective capitalism leans away from change. In a dynamic system ?rms have to forsake at least some stakeholders: a number need to shrink in order to reallocate capital and workers from obsolete industries to new ones. If, say, climate change is to be tackled, oil ?rms will face huge job cuts. Fans of the corporate giants of the managerial era in the 1960s often forget that AT&T ripped o? consumers and that General Motors made out-of-date, unsafe cars. Both ?rms embodied social values that, even at the time, were uptight. They were sheltered partly because they performed broader social goals, whether jobs-for-life, world-class science or supporting the fabric of Detroit.

第二個問題是活力。集體資本主義傾向于改變。在一個動態(tài)的系統(tǒng)中，企業(yè)必須至少放棄一些利益相關(guān)者:為了將資本和工人從過時的行業(yè)重新配置到新的行業(yè)，一些利益相關(guān)者需要縮減規(guī)模。比如說，如果要應(yīng)對氣候變化，石油公司將面臨大規(guī)模裁員。上世紀(jì)60年代管理時代的企業(yè)巨頭們的擁躉們，常常忘記美國電話電報公司(AT&T)剝削消費(fèi)者，忘記通用汽車(General Motors)制造過時、不安全的汽車。這兩家公司都體現(xiàn)了社會價值觀，即使在當(dāng)時也是緊張的。他們之所以受到庇護(hù)，部分原因是他們實(shí)現(xiàn)了更廣泛的社會目標(biāo)，無論是終身就業(yè)、世界級的科學(xué)，還是支持底特律的結(jié)構(gòu)。

?

The way to make capitalism work better for all is not to limit accountability and dynamism, but to enhance them both. This requires that the purpose of companies should be set by their owners, not executives or campaigners. Some may obsess about short-term targets and quarterly results but that is usually because they are badly run. Some may select charitable objectives, and good luck to them. But most owners and ?rms will opt to maximise long-term value, as that is good business.

讓資本主義更好地為所有人服務(wù)的方法，不是限制問責(zé)制和活力，而是增強(qiáng)兩者。這就要求公司的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該由其所有者來決定，而不是由高管或競選者們來決定。有些人可能會執(zhí)著于短期目標(biāo)和季度業(yè)績，但這通常是因?yàn)樗麄兊慕?jīng)營不善。有些人可能會選擇慈善目標(biāo)，祝他們好運(yùn)。但大多數(shù)所有者和公司會選擇將長期價值最大化，因?yàn)檫@是一項(xiàng)好業(yè)務(wù)。

?

It also requires ?rms to adapt to society’s changing preferences. If consumers want fair-trade co?ee, they should get it. If university graduates shun unethical companies, employers will have to shape up. A good way of making ?rms more responsive and accountable would be to broaden ownership. The proportion of American households with exposure to the stock market (directly or through funds) is only 50%,and holdings are heavily skewed towards the rich. The tax system ought to encourage more share ownership. The ultimate bene?ciaries of pension schemes and investment funds should be able to vote in company elections; this power ought not to be outsourced to a few barons in the asset-management industry.

同時也要求企業(yè)適應(yīng)社會不斷變化的偏好。如果消費(fèi)者想要公平貿(mào)易的咖啡，他們應(yīng)該得到它。如果大學(xué)畢業(yè)生回避不道德的公司，雇主將不得不改進(jìn)。讓公司更有相應(yīng)、更負(fù)責(zé)任的一個好辦法是擴(kuò)大所有權(quán)。擁有股票市場敞口的美國家庭(直接或通過基金)僅占50%，而且持有的股票嚴(yán)重偏向富人。稅收制度應(yīng)該鼓勵更多的股份所有權(quán)。退休金計劃和投資基金的最終受益人應(yīng)能夠在公司選舉中投票;這種權(quán)力不應(yīng)該外包給資產(chǎn)管理行業(yè)的少數(shù)巨頭。

詞匯

Skew/?偏的，歪斜的

Beneficiary/受益人

Baron/大亨，巨頭

Accountability works only if there is competition. This lowers prices, boosts productivity and ensures that ?rms cannot long sustain abnormally high pro?ts. Moreover it encourages companies to anticipate the changing preferences of customers, workers and regulators—for fear that a rival will get there ?rst.

問責(zé)制只有在存在競爭的情況下才有效。這降低了價格，提高了生產(chǎn)率，并確保企業(yè)無法長期維持異常高的利潤。此外，它還鼓勵企業(yè)預(yù)測消費(fèi)者、工人和監(jiān)管者不斷變化的偏好，因?yàn)樗鼈儞?dān)心競爭對手會搶先一步。

?

Unfortunately, since the 1990s, consolidation has left two thirds of industries in America more concentrated. The digital economy, meanwhile, seems to tend towards monopoly. Were pro?ts at historically normal levels, and private-sector workers to get the bene?t, wages would be 6% higher. If you cast your eye down the list of the 180 American signatories this week, many are in industries that are oligopolies, including credit cards, cable TV, drug retailing and airlines, which overcharge consumers and have abysmal reputations for customer service. Unsurprisingly, none is keen on lowering barriers to entry.

不幸的是，自上世紀(jì)90年代以來，行業(yè)整合使得美國三分之二的行業(yè)更加集中。與此同時，數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)似乎傾向于壟斷。如果利潤處于歷史正常水平，私營部門的工人也能從中受益，那么工資將上漲6%。如果你看看本周美國180個簽名方的名單，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)，其中許多公司都屬于寡頭壟斷行業(yè)，包括信用卡、有線電視、藥品零售和航空公司，這些行業(yè)對消費(fèi)者收費(fèi)過高，在客戶服務(wù)方面聲譽(yù)極差。不出所料，它們都不熱衷于降低準(zhǔn)入門檻。

詞匯

Signatory/簽約方；簽字人；簽約國

Oligopoly/寡占；寡頭買主壟斷

Abysma/深不可測的；糟透的；極度的

?

Of course a healthy, competitive economy requires an e?ective government—to enforce antitrust rules, to stamp out today’s excessive lobbying and cronyism, to tackle climate change. That well-functioning polity does not exist today, but empowering the bosses of big businesses to act as an expedient substitute is not the answer. The Western world needs innovation, widely spread ownership and diverse ?rms that adapt fast to society’s needs. That is the really enlightened kind of capitalism.

當(dāng)然，一個健康、有競爭力的經(jīng)濟(jì)需要一個有效的政府來執(zhí)行反壟斷規(guī)則，消除當(dāng)今過度的游說和任人唯親，以應(yīng)對思潮變化。這種運(yùn)作良好的政體如今已不復(fù)存在，但讓大企業(yè)的老板們充當(dāng)權(quán)宜之計的替代品并不是解決之道。西方世界需要創(chuàng)新，廣泛的所有權(quán)和多樣化的公司來快速適應(yīng)社會的需求。這才是真正開明的資本主義。

詞匯

Antitrust/反壟斷的

stamp out/撲滅；踩滅

Cronyism/任人唯親；任用親信

?