演講MP3+雙語文稿:什么是經(jīng)濟價值？誰創(chuàng)造了經(jīng)濟價值?

00:00

00:00

MP3下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/10000/10387/tedyp140.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

聽力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語文稿，供各位英語愛好者學(xué)習(xí)使用。本文主要內(nèi)容為演講MP3+雙語文稿:什么是經(jīng)濟價值？誰創(chuàng)造了經(jīng)濟價值?，希望你會喜歡！

【演講者及介紹】Mariana Mazzucato

Mariana Mazzucato經(jīng)濟學(xué)家，致力于改變政策制定者對經(jīng)濟的理解，以及我們對價值的看法，讓價值榨取者更難被當(dāng)作價值創(chuàng)造者。

【演講主題】什么是經(jīng)濟價值，又是誰創(chuàng)造了經(jīng)濟價值?

【中英文字幕】

翻譯者 Jiasi Hao 校對者 psjmz mz

00:13

Value creation. Wealth creation. These arereally powerful words. Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation, youthink of creativity. But who are the value creators? If we use that word, wemust be implying that some people aren't creating value. Who are they? Thecouch potatoes? The value extractors? The value destroyers? To answer thisquestion, we actually have to have a proper theory of value. And I'm here as aneconomist to break it to you that we've kind of lost our way on this question.

價值創(chuàng)造、財富創(chuàng)造，這些著實是非常強大的詞語?？赡苣銜氲浇鹑?，想到創(chuàng)新，想到創(chuàng)造力。但是誰是這些價值的創(chuàng)造者呢？如果我們用這個詞，我們必然是在暗示有人沒在創(chuàng)造價值。他們是誰？懶蟲們？價值抽取人？價值摧毀者？要回答這個問題，我們其實需要一個恰當(dāng)?shù)膬r值理論。作為經(jīng)濟學(xué)家，我來是想告訴你們，我們在這個問題上迷失了方向。

00:45

Now, don't look so surprised. What I meanby that is, we've stopped contesting it. We've stopped actually asking reallytough questions about what is the difference between value creation and valueextraction, productive and unproductive activities.

不要覺得驚訝。我這么說的意思是，我們已經(jīng)對此停止了爭論。我們實際上已經(jīng)不再詢問這些棘手的問題，比如價值創(chuàng)造和價值提取，生產(chǎn)性活動和非生產(chǎn)性活動的差異。

00:59

Now, let me just give you some contexthere. 2009 was just about a year and a half after one of the biggest financialcrises of our time, second only to the 1929 Great Depression, and the CEO ofGoldman Sachs said Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.Productivity and productiveness, for an economist, actually has a lot to dowith value. You're producing stuff, you're producing it dynamically andefficiently. You're also producing things that the world needs, wants and buys.Now, how this could have been said just one year after the crisis, whichactually had this bank as well as many other banks -- I'm just kind of pickingon Goldman Sachs here -- at the center of the crisis, because they had actuallyproduced some pretty problematic financial products mainly but not only relatedto mortgages, which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes. In2010, in just one month, September, 120,000 people lost their homes through theforeclosures of that crisis. Between 2007 and 2010, 8.8 million people losttheir jobs. The bank also had to then be bailed out by the US taxpayer for thesum of 10 billion dollars. We didn't hear the taxpayers bragging that they werevalue creators, but obviously, having bailed out one of the biggestvalue-creating productive companies, perhaps they should have.

現(xiàn)在，讓我給你一些背景。2009 年，距離我們這個時代最大的金融危機僅過去1年半時間，這個危機僅次于1929年的大衰退。高盛的 CEO 說，高盛的員工是世界上最具生產(chǎn)力的人。生產(chǎn)力和生產(chǎn)率，對經(jīng)濟學(xué)家來說，其實和價值有著很大關(guān)系。你在生產(chǎn)東西，你在動態(tài)且高效地生產(chǎn)它。你也是在生產(chǎn)世界所需，所要，所買的東西。現(xiàn)在，在危機發(fā)生僅 1 年后，怎么能說出這樣的話？這個銀行，以及很多其他的銀行——我這里只是拿高盛舉例——它們處于危機的中心，因為他們其實制造并銷售了不僅限于房屋貸款的好些有問題的金融產(chǎn)品，這讓成千上萬的人失去住所。就在 2010 年的一個月內(nèi)，9 月，12萬人在這場危機中喪失了房屋贖回權(quán)。在2007至2010 年間，880 萬人失業(yè)。此外，美國納稅人還必須為這些銀行提供100億美元的救助。我們沒聽到那些納稅人吹噓自己是價值創(chuàng)造者，但顯然，幫助其中一個最具價值創(chuàng)造的企業(yè)渡過難關(guān)，可能是他們應(yīng)該做的。

02:21

What I want to do next is kind of askourselves how we lost our way, how it could be, actually, that a statement likethat could almost go unnoticed, because it wasn't an after-dinner joke; it wassaid very seriously.

我接下來想做的是捫心自問，我們是如何迷失的，為什么會這樣，這樣的聲明幾乎無人注意，畢竟它不是個飯后玩笑，而是正兒八經(jīng)說的。

02:34

So what I want to do is bring you back 300years in economic thinking, when, actually, the term was contested. It doesn'tmean that they were right or wrong, but you couldn't just call yourself a valuecreator, a wealth creator. There was a lot of debate within the economicsprofession. And what I want to argue is, we've kind of lost our way, and thathas actually allowed this term, "wealth creation" and"value," to become quite weak and lazy and also easily captured.

所以我想把你們帶回到 300 年前的經(jīng)濟思考，那時，這個詞是有爭議的。這并不是說他們是對或錯，但你不能自稱是價值創(chuàng)造者，財富創(chuàng)造者。在經(jīng)濟學(xué)界，曾有著無數(shù)辯論。我想要爭論的是，我們已經(jīng)有些迷失了，也因此使得這些詞，“財富創(chuàng)造”和“價值”變得越發(fā)脆弱、慵懶，以及容易標(biāo)榜。

03:00

OK? So let's start -- I hate to break it toyou -- 300 years ago. Now, what was interesting 300 years ago is the societywas still an agricultural type of society. So it's not surprising that theeconomists of the time, who were called the Physiocrats, actually put thecenter of their attention to farm labor. When they said, "Where does valuecome from?" they looked at farming. And they produced what I think wasprobably the world's first spreadsheet, called the "TableauEconomique," and this was done by François Quesnay, one of the leaders ofthis movement. And it was very interesting, because they didn't just say,"Farming is the source of value."

好了，讓我們開始——我不喜歡給你剖析—— 300 年前。300 年前有趣的是當(dāng)時的社會仍然是農(nóng)業(yè)社會。所以那時的經(jīng)濟學(xué)家，也被稱為重農(nóng)主義者，他們實際上把注意力放在了農(nóng)業(yè)勞動上。當(dāng)他們問，“這些價值從哪里來的？”他們看向農(nóng)場。他們制作了我認(rèn)為的世界上第一個表格，名為“經(jīng)濟試算表”，這是弗朗索瓦·魁奈制作的，他是這場運動的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者之一。這很有趣，因為他們不是只說：“農(nóng)場經(jīng)營是價值的源泉”。

03:36

They then really worried about what washappening to that value when it was produced. What the Tableau Economique does-- is it broke down the classes in society into three. The farmers, creatingvalue, were called the "productive class." Then others who were justmoving some of this value around but it was useful, it was necessary, thesewere the merchants; they were called the "proprietors." And thenthere was another class that was simply charging the farmers a fee for anexisting asset, the land, and they called them the "sterile class."Now, this is a really heavy-hitting word if you think what it means: that iftoo much of the resources are going to the landlords, you're actually puttingthe reproduction potential of the system at risk. Again, spreadsheets andsimulators, these guys were really using big data -- they were simulating whatwould actually happen under different scenarios if the wealth actually wasn'treinvested back into production to make that land more productive and was actuallybeing siphoned out in different ways, or even if the proprietors were gettingtoo much.

他們?nèi)缓笳娴暮懿傩膬r值創(chuàng)造出來后 發(fā)生的事情。經(jīng)濟表所做的—— 是將社會分為 3 個階級。農(nóng)民，創(chuàng)造價值，被稱為“生產(chǎn)階級”。然后其他那些僅僅是流通這些價值的，但是有用且不可少的，他們些是商人；被稱為“經(jīng)營者”。之后還有一個階級，根據(jù)現(xiàn)有資產(chǎn)和土地向農(nóng)民單純征收費用的，他們稱其為“不結(jié)果實階級”（不生產(chǎn)階級）。如果你想想這個的意思，你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)很沉重：如果過多的資源流向地主，你實際上把系統(tǒng)的再生產(chǎn)潛能置于危險之地。再次，表格和模擬程序，他們真的在用大數(shù)據(jù)——他們在模擬不同情景下可能會發(fā)生什么，如果財富不被重新投資于生產(chǎn)讓土地更具生產(chǎn)力并實際上被以不同的方式吸走，或甚至，經(jīng)營者獲取過多。

04:40

And what later happened in the 1800s, andthis was no longer the Agricultural Revolution but the Industrial Revolution,is that the classical economists, and these were Adam Smith, David Ricardo,Karl Marx, the revolutionary, also asked the question "What isvalue?" But it's not surprising that because they were actually livingthrough an industrial era with the rise of machines and factories, they said itwas industrial labor. So they had a labor theory of value. But again, theirfocus was reproduction, this real worry of what was happening to the value thatwas created if it was getting siphoned out.

然后是1800 年代發(fā)生的——不再是農(nóng)業(yè)革命，而是工業(yè)革命——是古典經(jīng)濟學(xué)家，如亞當(dāng)·斯密，大衛(wèi)·李嘉圖，卡爾·馬克思，這些革命者們，也在問著同樣的問題：“什么是價值？”毫不令人驚訝的是由于他們生活在 工業(yè)時代下，見證了 機器和工廠的崛起，他們說價值是工業(yè)勞動力。于是他有了勞動價值論。但再次，他們的關(guān)注點是再生產(chǎn)，這種對價值創(chuàng)造的擔(dān)憂，假如價值被吸走。

05:12

And in "The Wealth of Nations,"Adam Smith had this really great example of the pin factory where he said ifyou only have one person making every bit of the pin, at most you can make onepin a day. But if you actually invest in factory production and the division oflabor, new thinking -- today, we would use the word "organizationalinnovation" -- then you could increase the productivity and the growth andthe wealth of nations. So he showed that 10 specialized workers who had beeninvested in, in their human capital, could produce 4,800 pins a day, as opposedto just one by an unspecialized worker. And he and his fellow classicaleconomists also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.

在《國富論》中，亞當(dāng)·斯密有一個關(guān)于大頭針工廠極佳例子，他說如果只有一個人負(fù)責(zé)大頭針生產(chǎn)的所有工序，一天你最多只能制造 1 個大頭針。但倘若你能投資工廠生產(chǎn)以及做勞動力分工，新想法——現(xiàn)在，我們會用“組織創(chuàng)新”這個詞來形容——之后你就能提高生產(chǎn)效率、推動經(jīng)濟增長以及國家財富。于是他展示了經(jīng)由人力資本投資的 10 個專業(yè)化分工的工人，每天能生產(chǎn) 4,800 個大頭針，相比 1 個非專業(yè)分工的工人每天只生產(chǎn) 1 個大頭針。他和他的古典經(jīng)濟學(xué)家伙伴也把經(jīng)濟活動分為生產(chǎn)型和非生產(chǎn)型兩類。

05:52

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

05:53

And the unproductive ones weren't -- Ithink you're laughing because most of you are on that list, aren't you?

非生產(chǎn)型不是——我想你們笑的原因是在座大部分人都在這個列表上，對吧？

05:58

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

06:00

Lawyers! I think he was right about thelawyers. Definitely not the professors, the letters of all kind people. Solawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians. He obviously hated the opera. Hemust have seen the worst performance of his life the night before writing thisbook. There's at least three professions up there that have to do with theopera.

律師！我認(rèn)為他對律師的觀點是對的。絕對不是教授，等紙上的各類人物。所以律師、教授，小商品店主和音樂人。他很顯然討厭歌劇。他一定在寫這本書的前夜看了一場最糟糕的演出。這上面，至少有 3 個職業(yè)是和歌劇相關(guān)的。

06:19

But this wasn't an exercise of saying,"Don't do these things." It was just, "What's going to happen ifwe actually end up allowing some parts of the economy to get too large withoutreally thinking about how to increase the productivity of the source of thevalue that they thought was key, which was industrial labor.

但這并不是說“不要做這些事情”。這只是“如果這些經(jīng)濟部門占比過高，尤其當(dāng)我們讓這些經(jīng)濟部門變得太大而不去真正思考如何提高價值創(chuàng)造的源泉，即工業(yè)勞動力時，會發(fā)生什么。

06:36

And again, don't ask yourself is this rightor is this wrong, it was just very contested. By making these lists, itactually forced them also to ask interesting questions. And their focus, as thefocus of the Physiocrats, was, in fact, on these objective conditions ofproduction. They also looked, for example, at the class struggle. Theirunderstanding of wages had to do with the objective, if you want, powerrelationships, the bargaining power of capital and labor. But again, factories,machines, division of labor, agricultural land and what was happening to it.

再次，不要問自己這是對或錯，這個話題只是爭辯不斷。寫出這些清單，其實也在強迫他們提出有趣的問題。而且他們的關(guān)注點，和重農(nóng)主義的關(guān)注點一樣，實際上是建立在這些生產(chǎn)的客觀條件上。他們也關(guān)注，例如階級斗爭。他們對于工資的理解與目標(biāo)有關(guān)，如果你愿意，權(quán)力關(guān)系，資本和勞動力的議價能力。但再次，工廠、機器、勞動力分工、農(nóng)業(yè)用地以及什么發(fā)生在其上？

07:08

So the big revolution that then happened --and this, by the way, is not often taught in economics classes -- the bigrevolution that happened with the current system of economic thinking that wehave, which is called "neoclassical economics," was that the logiccompletely changed. It changed in two ways. It changed from this focus onobjective conditions to subjective ones.

于是，隨后發(fā)生的重大革新——順便說一句，這個在經(jīng)濟課上不常教授—— 當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟思想體系發(fā)生 的重大革新，被稱為“新古典經(jīng)濟學(xué)”。邏輯完全改變了。它在兩方面發(fā)生了改變。它從對客觀條件的關(guān)注轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閷χ饔^條件的關(guān)注。

07:30

Let me explain what I mean by that.Objective, in the way I just said. Subjective, in the sense that all theattention went to how individuals of different sorts make their decisions. OK,so workers are maximizing their choices of leisure versus work. Consumers aremaximizing their so-called utility, which is a proxy for happiness, and firmsare maximizing their profits. And the idea behind this was that then we canaggregate this up, and we see what that turns into, which are these nice, fancysupply-and-demand curves which produce a price, an equilibrium price. It's anequilibrium price, because we also added to it a lot of Newtonian physicsequations where centers of gravity are very much part of the organizingprinciple. But the second point here is that that equilibrium price, or prices,reveal value.

讓我來解釋一下這是什么意思。客觀，就是我之前說的方式。主觀，意味著所有的關(guān)注點都聚焦在不同個體如何做出自己的決定。好吧，于是工人們最大化自己休閑的選擇而非工作。顧客最大化他們所謂的效用，即幸福感的代名詞，而公司最大化自身利潤。這背后的想法是我們可以加總這些 我們看看它能變成什么，這些美妙的供求曲線 形成了價格，即均衡價格。這是一個均衡價格，因為我們也向其中添加了許多牛頓物理方程：重心是組織原則的重要組成部分。但這里的第二點是均衡價格，或價格，揭示了價值。

08:18

So the revolution here is a change fromobjective to subjective, but also the logic is no longer one of what is value,how is it being determined, what is the reproductive potential of the economy,which then leads to a theory of price but rather the reverse: a theory of priceand exchange which reveals value.

所以這里的革新是從客觀到主觀的改變，但與此同時邏輯也不再是以前的什么是價值，它是如何被決定的，經(jīng)濟再生產(chǎn)潛力是什么，這就引出了價格理論，但恰恰相反：揭示價值的價格理論和交換理論。

08:35

Now, this is a huge change. And it's notjust an academic exercise, as fascinating as that might be. It affects how wemeasure growth. It affects how we steer economies to produce more of someactivities, less of others, how we also remunerate some activities more thanothers. And it also just kind of makes you think, you know, are you happy toget out of bed if you're a value creator or not, and how is the price systemitself if you aren't determining that?

這是一個巨大的改變。這也不僅僅是一個學(xué)術(shù)活動，它可能很吸引人。它影響著我們?nèi)绾魏饬吭鲩L。這影響著我們?nèi)绾我龑?dǎo)經(jīng)濟去生產(chǎn)更多這種活動，減少那種活動，這影響我們某些活動的報酬比其他活動高。這也多少讓你思考，假如你是否是個價值創(chuàng)造者，你會開心地起床嗎，以及如果你無法決定價格，那價格系統(tǒng)自身如何決定價格？

09:01

I mentioned it affects how we think aboutoutput. If we only include, for example, in GDP, those activities that haveprices, all sorts of really weird things happen. Feminist economists andenvironmental economists have actually written about this quite a bit. Let megive you some examples. If you marry your babysitter, GDP will go down, so donot do it. Do not be tempted to do this, OK? Because an activity that perhapswas before being paid for is still being done but is no longer paid.

我說過，這影響我們?nèi)绾嗡伎肌爱a(chǎn)出”。如果我們只是包括，例如 GDP ，那些有價格標(biāo)簽的活動，所有奇怪的事情都會發(fā)生。女權(quán)主義經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和環(huán)境經(jīng)濟學(xué)家實際上已經(jīng)寫了很多關(guān)乎于此的文章。讓我給你舉幾個例子。如果你娶了照看孩子的保姆，GDP 就會下降，所以不要這么做。別被誘惑這么做，好嗎？因為一項原本可被支付的活動盡管會照常進行，但結(jié)了婚，就沒有“付錢”的環(huán)節(jié)了。

09:30

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

09:31

If you pollute, GDP goes up. Still don't doit, but if you do it, you'll help the economy. Why? Because we have to actuallypay someone to clean it.

如果你污染環(huán)境，GDP 會上升。但仍舊別那么做，可如果要做，你會促進經(jīng)濟。為什么？因為我們要支付某人來清潔。

09:39

Now, what's also really interesting is whathappened to finance in the financial sector in GDP. This also, by the way, issomething I'm always surprised that many economists don't know. Up until 1970,most of the financial sector was not even included in GDP. It was kind ofindirectly, perhaps not knowingly, still being seen through the eyes of thePhysiocrats as just kind of moving stuff around, not actually producinganything new. So only those activities that had an explicit price wereincluded. For example, if you went to get a mortgage, you were charged a fee.That went into GDP and the national income and product accounting. But, forexample, net interest payments didn't, the difference between what banks wereearning in interest if they gave you a loan and what they were paying out for adeposit. That wasn't being included.

現(xiàn)在，還有一個真正有趣的，是金融部門的財務(wù)在 GDP 中發(fā)生的情況。順便，這也是我經(jīng)常感到意外但很多經(jīng)濟學(xué)家不知道的一件事。直到 1970 年，大多金融部門甚至不被囊括在 GDP 中。它是間接的，也許不是故意的，仍然被重商主義者視為只是把東西搬來搬去，并沒有產(chǎn)生新東西的部門。所以只有那些明確的價格活動才被包含進去。例如，如果你要獲取貸款，你會被收取費用。這筆費用會被算入 GDP 、國民收入以及產(chǎn)品核算。但比如，凈利息支付不算。也就是銀行賺取貸款利息收入和支付存款利息的差額。這曾經(jīng)不算在 GDP 中的。

10:25

And so the people doing the accountingstarted to look at some data, which started to show that the size of financeand these net interest payments were actually growing substantially. And theycalled this the "banking problem." These were some people workinginside, actually, the United Nations in a group called the Systems of National[Accounts], SNA. They called it the "banking problem," like, "Ohmy God, this thing is huge, and we're not even including it." So insteadof stopping and actually making that Tableau Economique or asking some of thesefundamental questions that also the classicals were asking about what is actuallyhappening, the division of labor between different types of activities in theeconomy, they simply gave these net interest payments a name. So the commercialbanks, they called this "financial intermediation." That went intothe NIPA accounts. And the investment banks were called the "risk-takingactivities," and that went in.

于是會計從業(yè)者開始研究一些數(shù)據(jù)，這些數(shù)據(jù)逐漸顯示出了金融業(yè)運轉(zhuǎn)資金 以及這些凈利息支付的高速增長。他們稱其為“銀行業(yè)問題”。這些人實際上是聯(lián)合國組織國民賬戶體系（SNA）小組的工作人員。他們稱之為“銀行業(yè)問題”，好比“我的天，這個東西體量那么大，然而我們甚至沒有把它包括進來”。所以，相較于停下腳步，專注于制作那張經(jīng)濟試算表或是問一些那些古典經(jīng)濟學(xué)家詢問發(fā)生了什么，經(jīng)濟中不同類型活動之間的勞動分工，他們只是簡單給了這些凈利息支付一個名字。所以商業(yè)銀行們，被稱為“金融媒介”。這算入國民收入和生產(chǎn)帳戶（NIPA）。之后投行們?nèi)急唤凶觥帮L(fēng)險承擔(dān)活動”，也被算入 NIPA 。

11:23

And so this was quite extraordinary,because what actually happened, and what we know today, and there's different peoplewriting about this, is that lots of what finance was actually doing from the1970s and '80s on was basically financing itself: finance financing finance.And what I mean by that is finance, insurance and real estate. In fact, in theUK, something like between 10 and 20 percent of finance finds its way into thereal economy, into industry, say, into the energy sector, into pharmaceuticals,into the IT sector, but most of it goes back into that acronym, FIRE: finance,insurance and real estate. It's very conveniently called FIRE.

而且這很不尋常，因為實際在發(fā)生的，以及我們今天所知的，有不同的人寫了這些，數(shù)據(jù)顯示從 1970 年代開始和 80 年代后銀行業(yè)實際一直在做的事情基本上就是給自己融資：金融融資資金。我的意思是金融，保險和房地產(chǎn)。事實上，在英國大概 10% - 20% 的融資能夠最終流向?qū)嶓w經(jīng)濟，流向行業(yè)，比如能源部門，制藥行業(yè)，IT部門，但其中的大部分最終會流回 FIRE，即金融、保險和房地產(chǎn)。簡稱為 FIRE 非常方便。

12:05

Now, this is interesting because, in fact,it's not to say that finance is good or bad, but the degree to which, by justhaving to give it a name, because it actually had an income that was beinggenerated, as opposed to pausing and asking, "What is it actuallydoing?" -- that was a missed opportunity.

這件事很有趣，因為實際上，并非說金融的好壞，而且是其程度，只要給它一個名字，因為它實際上是有收入的，而不是停下來問，“它到底在做什么?” -- 那是一個錯失的機會。

12:22

Similarly, in the real economy, in industryitself, what was happening? And this real focus on prices and also share priceshas created a huge problem of reinvestment, again, this real attention thatboth the Physiocrats and the classicals had to the degree to which the valuethat was being generated in the economy was in fact being reinvested back in.And so what we have today is an ultrafinancialized industrial sector where,increasingly, a share of the profits and the net income are not actually goingback into production, into human capital training, into research anddevelopment but just being siphoned out in terms of buying back your ownshares, which boosts stock options, which is, in fact, the way that manyexecutives are getting paid. And, you know, some share buybacks is absolutelyfine, but this system is completely out of whack. These numbers that I'm showingyou here show that in the last 10 years, 466 of the S and P 500 companies havespent over four trillion on just buying back their shares. And what you seethen if you aggregate this up at the macroeconomic level, so if we look ataggregate business investment, which is a percentage of GDP, you also see thisfalling level of business investment. And this is a problem.

同樣，在實體經(jīng)濟中，行業(yè)自身，正在發(fā)生什么？這種對價格以及股票價格的真正關(guān)注 造成了再投資的巨大問題，再次，重農(nóng)主義者和 古典主義者都非常關(guān)注 經(jīng)濟中產(chǎn)生的價值在多大程度上 被重新投資。所以我們今天擁有的是 過度金融化的行業(yè)部門，它們越來越多的利潤和凈收入 并沒有再次投入生產(chǎn)，沒有流回人力資本培訓(xùn)，或產(chǎn)品研發(fā)，而只是把這些資金用于回購你自己的股票，這提高了股票期權(quán)的價值，事實上，這也是許多高管獲得報酬的方法。你知道，股票回購絕對沒問題，但這樣的一個系統(tǒng)完全不正常。我這里給你顯示的這些數(shù)字表明在過去 10 年，500 家 S&P 公司中的 466 家已經(jīng)花了不止 4 萬億美元在回購他們的股票上。如果你在宏觀經(jīng)濟層面加總這些數(shù)字，如果我們看商業(yè)投資的總額，也就是所占 GDP 的百分比，你也會看到商業(yè)投資水平呈現(xiàn)如此的下降趨勢。這是一個問題。

【礙于字符限制，講稿無法全部呈現(xiàn)。建議大家：點擊播放界面上的“詞”按鈕就能看到同步的完整版中英文字幕哦~】