燕谈's Archiver

金丝铁线 发表于 2006-7-19 16:24

薛兆丰:“行善”并不等于“补偿”

<div>&nbsp;</div><div>本期《经济学人》刊登老友 Isaac DiIanni 的<a href="http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7159368" target="_blank"><font color="#000033" size="2">短信</font></a>,指出巴菲特与盖茨的“行善”,并不是对社会的“补偿”。试译如下:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>先生:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>在表彰巴菲特和盖茨诸君的行善行为时,你们认可了这样的观点,即在资本主义社会里,胜利者家应该“拿出其部分财富来补偿失败者”(见 <a href="http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7114396" target="_blank"><font color="#000033" size="2">Billanthropy</font></a>,7月1日)。好像盖茨这样的创造者,是靠服务顾客来赚钱的,而顾客也在交易中得益。有人认为创造者有义务“回馈”社会,这种观点暴露出他们不明白最基本的经济原理:自愿交易使买卖双方都得益。富人是否应该帮助穷人,是重要的伦理问题;但混淆了“行善”与“补偿”的概念,则只是经济学不过关而已。</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>ISAAC DIIANNI<br/>菲尔法斯特,弗吉尼亚州</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Sir -<br/><br/>In praising Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and others for their philanthropy, you endorse the view that capitalism\'s winners should "use some of their wealth to compensate the losers" ("Billanthropy," July 1st).&nbsp; Innovators like Mr Gates make money by serving their customers, who also gain from the exchange.&nbsp; The idea that wealth creators have a duty to "give back" betrays a lack of understanding of that most basic principle of economics: voluntary trade benefits both parties.&nbsp; Whether the wealthy should help the poor is an important ethical question, but to confuse charity with compensation is just bad economics.<br/><br/>ISAAC DIIANNI<br/>Fairfax, Virginia</div><div>&nbsp;</div>

侧评 发表于 2006-7-19 17:53

<p>这个的确很重要。</p><p>只要是自愿进行的交易,一定是“双赢”的局面。既双方都对对方的东西比对自己的东西感兴趣,而且对成交的比例也满意,因此才会成交。成交结束,双方谁都不欠对方什么。无论是产品市场、劳动市场还是金融市场,都如此。</p><p>但穷人之所以穷,主要是“交易”以外的制度和自身的素质所导致。比如产权界定方面出了问题,比如交易并非自愿。</p><p></p><p></p>

生死相伴 发表于 2006-7-19 18:50

<p>说得好,穷人可以不要善款,但一定要追索补偿。比如当年被平反的老右派,可以不要邻居的救助,但一定要追索国家的归还和补偿。</p><p>我要是巴菲特就指定善款用在制度改善和教育普及上,仅从这点上说,索罗斯的确值得欣赏,他支助过东欧和中国。</p>

页: [1]

Powered by Discuz! Archiver 7.0.0  © 2001-2009 Comsenz Inc.