The government and the Labour Party disagreed yesterday about what sort of enquiry there should be into the Libor scandal, but they both agreed there're needs to be such an enquiry. Something went wrong and it's important to find out why. What interests me, however, is a very much bigger question. Something's gone profoundly wrong, not just with the banks, but with so much else in recent years: MP's expenses, phone hacking, financial mis-selling and the widespread irresponsibility that brought the whole financial pack of cards come tumbling down.
政府和工黨昨日就對(duì)對(duì)倫敦銀行同業(yè)拆放利率丑聞進(jìn)行何種調(diào)查一事產(chǎn)生分歧,但他們都認(rèn)為應(yīng)該對(duì)此進(jìn)行調(diào)查。當(dāng)發(fā)現(xiàn)問題時(shí)找出原因是十分重要的。然而,讓我感興趣的是一個(gè)更大的問題。我們?cè)谀撤矫嬲媸谴箦e(cuò)特錯(cuò),不僅僅是銀行業(yè),近幾年我們?cè)谄渌S多方面都犯了嚴(yán)重的錯(cuò)誤,如:議員開銷、電話截聽、不當(dāng)銷售以及普遍存在的不負(fù)責(zé)任的態(tài)度,令整個(gè)金融牌堆搖搖欲墜。
What's gone wrong? And how did we get into this terrible state? There're some very interesting answers now beginning to emerge, particularly, I think from the Harvard Professor Michael Sandel. Here's just one of the vivid examples from his latest book. In Israel on one day in a year students go from house to house collecting for good causes. Some economists decided to conduct an experiment. One group of students were given a motivating speech and sent on their way. Two other groups were promised a personal bonus on all they collected. This did not come out of the money given for good causes. What the economists discovered is that the group who acted on a purely voluntary basis collected as much as 55% more than those who were given a personal financial reward. Sandel's first point is that economic incentives might not even work from an economic point of view, but his main theme is that they can crowd out and undermine precious values, like doing something good for its own sake, or a sense of service to society. If Sandel is right and our most fundamental values are being eroded by giving everything in life a monetary value, this has, I think, huge implications for the market itself. For as the great founding father of modern capitalism Adam Smith stressed time and again, the market depends on non-market values like honesty and trust.
到底哪里出了錯(cuò)?我們是怎樣陷入如此糟糕的境地的?目前,開始出現(xiàn)了一些有趣的答案,我認(rèn)為最有意思的當(dāng)屬哈佛大學(xué)教授邁克爾·桑德爾的回答。他在最新的書中舉了一個(gè)非常生動(dòng)的例子。在以色列,學(xué)生每年要在某天挨家挨戶地募集善款。一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家決定做一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)。他們讓其中一組學(xué)生在出發(fā)前聽了一場(chǎng)激動(dòng)人心的演講。他們還向另外兩組學(xué)生做出保證,要根據(jù)募集到的捐款額給他們發(fā)放個(gè)人獎(jiǎng)金。獎(jiǎng)金不來自募捐得到的資金。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)純粹自愿募集善款的小組比獲得個(gè)人獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的小組籌得的捐款多55%。桑德爾的第一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)就是,從經(jīng)濟(jì)的角度上來看,就連經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激都并非有效。不過他的主要觀點(diǎn)是經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激可能會(huì)排擠并且損害一些珍貴的價(jià)值觀,比如全心全意地做善事或者服務(wù)社會(huì)。如果桑德爾是正確的,如果給生活中的每件事賦予貨幣價(jià)值會(huì)使我們最基本的價(jià)值觀受到侵蝕,那么,我認(rèn)為這一觀點(diǎn)對(duì)市場(chǎng)本身而言意義重大。因?yàn)椋缤F(xiàn)代資本主義的鼻祖亞當(dāng)·斯密再三強(qiáng)調(diào)的那樣,市場(chǎng)取決于像誠(chéng)信和信任這樣的非市場(chǎng)化的價(jià)值觀。
By seeing everything in economic terms we are undermining the very values on which the market itself depends. Sometimes when particularly depressed about the worst effects of market capitalism and I wonder if there is a better way, I go back and remind myself of why markets exist at all. People come together in a local town to sell eggs, chickens and vegetables to get cash so that they in their turn can buy other food, animals and other goods. The market is a human contrivance so that we can all live, and live better than if we were simply on our own. It's a means to an end not an end in itself. To adapt the words of Jesus, the market exists for humans and not humans for the market. It has to be set within that wider frame of reference of human community and those values on which all human community depends.