超级军网纽约时报网站：穷人与富人，谁在危害美国？占领华尔街运 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 19:44:19
【来 源】http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/1 ... lutocrats.html?_r=2
【原文作者】PAUL KRUGMAN
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
“占领华尔街”抗议活动会不会改变美国前进的方向，现在依然有待观察。不过，抗议活动已经引起华尔街、超级富豪阶层整体还有那些忠实地服务于百分之一的最富有阶层利益的政治家及学者歇斯底里般的反应，引人注目。
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
这种反应说明一个重要的问题——即，威胁美国价值的极端主义分子就是罗斯福所称的“经济保皇分子”，而不是在祖可蒂公园安营扎寨的人。
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
我们先看看共和党政客如何描述这些中型规模而不但扩大的表威活动，这种活动中与警方发生的一些冲突——这些冲突看来大量是因为警方过度反应而引起的——但是没有一场表威活动可以称为骚乱。事实上，到目前为止，表威活动远不及2009年夏季茶会党群众的表现。
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
尽管如此，众议院多数党领袖埃里克·康托尔谴责表威者为“暴民”，说表威是“美国人打斗美国人”。共和党总统候选人也介入评论，米特·罗姆尼谴责表威者是发动“阶级斗争”，而赫尔曼·凯因说他们“反美。”
不过，我喜欢的倒是兰德·保罗。不知出于什么原因，他担心表威者会开始抢夺Ipad，因为他们认为富人们不值得拥有这些玩意儿。
Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
靠自己打拼成为金融业巨人德纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格，言辞较为温和。不过，他还是谴责表威者试图“从这个城市中工作的人们的手里抢走工作岗位，”这种说法与该运动的实际目标毫无共同之处。
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”
还有，听听CNBC电视那些大牌主持人说的，您知道了表威者们“让他们自己奇异的旗子飘扬，”他们“与列宁保持一致”等等。
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
要理解所有这一切，就必须认识到其实这是一种规模更大的综合症的一部分。这种病症表现为，富裕的美国人从经过操纵对其有利的体制中获得了巨大的好处，现在对指出这种体制如何受到操纵的人予以歇斯底里般的反对。
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
大家也许还记得，去年，面对奥巴马总统相当温和的批评，大批金融大亨们却大撒其野。他们谴责奥巴马先生支持所谓沃克尔规则几乎成为社会主义分子，而所谓沃克尔规则仅仅是限制得到政府担保的银行从事风险性投机活动。说到他们对堵塞让一些人享受非常低税率的漏洞的提案的反应，好家伙，黑石集团的主席斯蒂芬·施瓦茨曼将其比作希特勒入侵波兰。
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
然后就是针对目前正在竞选马萨诸塞州参议员的金融改革家伊丽莎白·沃伦的人格损毁行动。不久以前，沃伦女士关于富人纳税问题所作的既动人又实在的讲话，其YouTube 视频文件在网上疯传。她并没有说任何过激的东西——充其量不过是奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯大法官“税收是支付给文明社会的”名言的一种现代翻版。
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
然而，听那些富人忠实捍卫者的评说，你就会感到沃伦女士简直就是托洛斯基的重生。乔治·威尔宣称她拥有一份“集体主义计划”，她认为“个人主义是神话中的怪物。”拉什·林堡则称她是仇恨赖以生存的主体上的寄生虫。从主体上汲取生命的同时却要消灭主体。
【来 源】http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/1 ... lutocrats.html?_r=2
【原文作者】PAUL KRUGMAN
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
“占领华尔街”抗议活动会不会改变美国前进的方向，现在依然有待观察。不过，抗议活动已经引起华尔街、超级富豪阶层整体还有那些忠实地服务于百分之一的最富有阶层利益的政治家及学者歇斯底里般的反应，引人注目。
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
这种反应说明一个重要的问题——即，威胁美国价值的极端主义分子就是罗斯福所称的“经济保皇分子”，而不是在祖可蒂公园安营扎寨的人。
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
我们先看看共和党政客如何描述这些中型规模而不但扩大的表威活动，这种活动中与警方发生的一些冲突——这些冲突看来大量是因为警方过度反应而引起的——但是没有一场表威活动可以称为骚乱。事实上，到目前为止，表威活动远不及2009年夏季茶会党群众的表现。
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
尽管如此，众议院多数党领袖埃里克·康托尔谴责表威者为“暴民”，说表威是“美国人打斗美国人”。共和党总统候选人也介入评论，米特·罗姆尼谴责表威者是发动“阶级斗争”，而赫尔曼·凯因说他们“反美。”
不过，我喜欢的倒是兰德·保罗。不知出于什么原因，他担心表威者会开始抢夺Ipad，因为他们认为富人们不值得拥有这些玩意儿。
Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
靠自己打拼成为金融业巨人德纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格，言辞较为温和。不过，他还是谴责表威者试图“从这个城市中工作的人们的手里抢走工作岗位，”这种说法与该运动的实际目标毫无共同之处。
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”
还有，听听CNBC电视那些大牌主持人说的，您知道了表威者们“让他们自己奇异的旗子飘扬，”他们“与列宁保持一致”等等。
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
要理解所有这一切，就必须认识到其实这是一种规模更大的综合症的一部分。这种病症表现为，富裕的美国人从经过操纵对其有利的体制中获得了巨大的好处，现在对指出这种体制如何受到操纵的人予以歇斯底里般的反对。
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
大家也许还记得，去年，面对奥巴马总统相当温和的批评，大批金融大亨们却大撒其野。他们谴责奥巴马先生支持所谓沃克尔规则几乎成为社会主义分子，而所谓沃克尔规则仅仅是限制得到政府担保的银行从事风险性投机活动。说到他们对堵塞让一些人享受非常低税率的漏洞的提案的反应，好家伙，黑石集团的主席斯蒂芬·施瓦茨曼将其比作希特勒入侵波兰。
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
然后就是针对目前正在竞选马萨诸塞州参议员的金融改革家伊丽莎白·沃伦的人格损毁行动。不久以前，沃伦女士关于富人纳税问题所作的既动人又实在的讲话，其YouTube 视频文件在网上疯传。她并没有说任何过激的东西——充其量不过是奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯大法官“税收是支付给文明社会的”名言的一种现代翻版。
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
然而，听那些富人忠实捍卫者的评说，你就会感到沃伦女士简直就是托洛斯基的重生。乔治·威尔宣称她拥有一份“集体主义计划”，她认为“个人主义是神话中的怪物。”拉什·林堡则称她是仇恨赖以生存的主体上的寄生虫。从主体上汲取生命的同时却要消灭主体。
【原文作者】PAUL KRUGMAN
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
“占领华尔街”抗议活动会不会改变美国前进的方向，现在依然有待观察。不过，抗议活动已经引起华尔街、超级富豪阶层整体还有那些忠实地服务于百分之一的最富有阶层利益的政治家及学者歇斯底里般的反应，引人注目。
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
这种反应说明一个重要的问题——即，威胁美国价值的极端主义分子就是罗斯福所称的“经济保皇分子”，而不是在祖可蒂公园安营扎寨的人。
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
我们先看看共和党政客如何描述这些中型规模而不但扩大的表威活动，这种活动中与警方发生的一些冲突——这些冲突看来大量是因为警方过度反应而引起的——但是没有一场表威活动可以称为骚乱。事实上，到目前为止，表威活动远不及2009年夏季茶会党群众的表现。
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
尽管如此，众议院多数党领袖埃里克·康托尔谴责表威者为“暴民”，说表威是“美国人打斗美国人”。共和党总统候选人也介入评论，米特·罗姆尼谴责表威者是发动“阶级斗争”，而赫尔曼·凯因说他们“反美。”
不过，我喜欢的倒是兰德·保罗。不知出于什么原因，他担心表威者会开始抢夺Ipad，因为他们认为富人们不值得拥有这些玩意儿。
Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
靠自己打拼成为金融业巨人德纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格，言辞较为温和。不过，他还是谴责表威者试图“从这个城市中工作的人们的手里抢走工作岗位，”这种说法与该运动的实际目标毫无共同之处。
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”
还有，听听CNBC电视那些大牌主持人说的，您知道了表威者们“让他们自己奇异的旗子飘扬，”他们“与列宁保持一致”等等。
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
要理解所有这一切，就必须认识到其实这是一种规模更大的综合症的一部分。这种病症表现为，富裕的美国人从经过操纵对其有利的体制中获得了巨大的好处，现在对指出这种体制如何受到操纵的人予以歇斯底里般的反对。
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
大家也许还记得，去年，面对奥巴马总统相当温和的批评，大批金融大亨们却大撒其野。他们谴责奥巴马先生支持所谓沃克尔规则几乎成为社会主义分子，而所谓沃克尔规则仅仅是限制得到政府担保的银行从事风险性投机活动。说到他们对堵塞让一些人享受非常低税率的漏洞的提案的反应，好家伙，黑石集团的主席斯蒂芬·施瓦茨曼将其比作希特勒入侵波兰。
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
然后就是针对目前正在竞选马萨诸塞州参议员的金融改革家伊丽莎白·沃伦的人格损毁行动。不久以前，沃伦女士关于富人纳税问题所作的既动人又实在的讲话，其YouTube 视频文件在网上疯传。她并没有说任何过激的东西——充其量不过是奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯大法官“税收是支付给文明社会的”名言的一种现代翻版。
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
然而，听那些富人忠实捍卫者的评说，你就会感到沃伦女士简直就是托洛斯基的重生。乔治·威尔宣称她拥有一份“集体主义计划”，她认为“个人主义是神话中的怪物。”拉什·林堡则称她是仇恨赖以生存的主体上的寄生虫。从主体上汲取生命的同时却要消灭主体。
【来 源】http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/1 ... lutocrats.html?_r=2
【原文作者】PAUL KRUGMAN
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
“占领华尔街”抗议活动会不会改变美国前进的方向，现在依然有待观察。不过，抗议活动已经引起华尔街、超级富豪阶层整体还有那些忠实地服务于百分之一的最富有阶层利益的政治家及学者歇斯底里般的反应，引人注目。
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
这种反应说明一个重要的问题——即，威胁美国价值的极端主义分子就是罗斯福所称的“经济保皇分子”，而不是在祖可蒂公园安营扎寨的人。
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
我们先看看共和党政客如何描述这些中型规模而不但扩大的表威活动，这种活动中与警方发生的一些冲突——这些冲突看来大量是因为警方过度反应而引起的——但是没有一场表威活动可以称为骚乱。事实上，到目前为止，表威活动远不及2009年夏季茶会党群众的表现。
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
尽管如此，众议院多数党领袖埃里克·康托尔谴责表威者为“暴民”，说表威是“美国人打斗美国人”。共和党总统候选人也介入评论，米特·罗姆尼谴责表威者是发动“阶级斗争”，而赫尔曼·凯因说他们“反美。”
不过，我喜欢的倒是兰德·保罗。不知出于什么原因，他担心表威者会开始抢夺Ipad，因为他们认为富人们不值得拥有这些玩意儿。
Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
靠自己打拼成为金融业巨人德纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格，言辞较为温和。不过，他还是谴责表威者试图“从这个城市中工作的人们的手里抢走工作岗位，”这种说法与该运动的实际目标毫无共同之处。
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”
还有，听听CNBC电视那些大牌主持人说的，您知道了表威者们“让他们自己奇异的旗子飘扬，”他们“与列宁保持一致”等等。
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
要理解所有这一切，就必须认识到其实这是一种规模更大的综合症的一部分。这种病症表现为，富裕的美国人从经过操纵对其有利的体制中获得了巨大的好处，现在对指出这种体制如何受到操纵的人予以歇斯底里般的反对。
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
大家也许还记得，去年，面对奥巴马总统相当温和的批评，大批金融大亨们却大撒其野。他们谴责奥巴马先生支持所谓沃克尔规则几乎成为社会主义分子，而所谓沃克尔规则仅仅是限制得到政府担保的银行从事风险性投机活动。说到他们对堵塞让一些人享受非常低税率的漏洞的提案的反应，好家伙，黑石集团的主席斯蒂芬·施瓦茨曼将其比作希特勒入侵波兰。
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
然后就是针对目前正在竞选马萨诸塞州参议员的金融改革家伊丽莎白·沃伦的人格损毁行动。不久以前，沃伦女士关于富人纳税问题所作的既动人又实在的讲话，其YouTube 视频文件在网上疯传。她并没有说任何过激的东西——充其量不过是奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯大法官“税收是支付给文明社会的”名言的一种现代翻版。
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
然而，听那些富人忠实捍卫者的评说，你就会感到沃伦女士简直就是托洛斯基的重生。乔治·威尔宣称她拥有一份“集体主义计划”，她认为“个人主义是神话中的怪物。”拉什·林堡则称她是仇恨赖以生存的主体上的寄生虫。从主体上汲取生命的同时却要消灭主体。
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.
这里发生的到底是怎么回事？
回答肯定是，华尔街的宇宙主人们深深地认识到，从道义上讲他们是根本站不住脚的。他们不是约翰·高尔特；他们更不是斯蒂芬·乔布斯。他们是靠兜售复杂的金融计划而大发其财的人，这些计划根本没有给美国人民带来好处，相反却将我们推入一场危机之中，而危机的恶果还在继续摧毁数千万同胞公民的生活。
然而，他们却没有付出任何代价。他们的机构得到纳税人的援救，而附加的条件却很少。他们继续从显性及隐性联邦政府担保中获取好处——基本上讲，他们依然在玩“赢了他们得大头，输了纳税人承担”的游戏。他们依然享受着税收漏洞优惠，以至在许多情况下每年收入数百万美元的人缴纳的税金竟比中产阶级家庭还少。
这种特殊的待遇是经不起仔细检查——因此，在他们看来，压根就不应该有任何仔细的检查。任何指出这种明显事实的人，不管说的如何平静而温和，都必须予以妖魔化，然后逐出舞台。事实上，批评者越是显得合情合理，越是温文尔雅，则越应该立刻被妖魔化，于是就有了对伊丽莎白·沃伦的疯狂玷污。
那么，谁在这里真正反对美国？不是这些抗议者，他们只是想让民众听到他们的声音。
这里真正危害美国的极端分子是美国的金融寡头，他们要压制对他们财富来源的任何批评。
----------------------------------------------------
来自： http://hexinbbs.blog.163.com/blo ... 002011103075422596/
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.
这里发生的到底是怎么回事？
回答肯定是，华尔街的宇宙主人们深深地认识到，从道义上讲他们是根本站不住脚的。他们不是约翰·高尔特；他们更不是斯蒂芬·乔布斯。他们是靠兜售复杂的金融计划而大发其财的人，这些计划根本没有给美国人民带来好处，相反却将我们推入一场危机之中，而危机的恶果还在继续摧毁数千万同胞公民的生活。
然而，他们却没有付出任何代价。他们的机构得到纳税人的援救，而附加的条件却很少。他们继续从显性及隐性联邦政府担保中获取好处——基本上讲，他们依然在玩“赢了他们得大头，输了纳税人承担”的游戏。他们依然享受着税收漏洞优惠，以至在许多情况下每年收入数百万美元的人缴纳的税金竟比中产阶级家庭还少。
这种特殊的待遇是经不起仔细检查——因此，在他们看来，压根就不应该有任何仔细的检查。任何指出这种明显事实的人，不管说的如何平静而温和，都必须予以妖魔化，然后逐出舞台。事实上，批评者越是显得合情合理，越是温文尔雅，则越应该立刻被妖魔化，于是就有了对伊丽莎白·沃伦的疯狂玷污。
那么，谁在这里真正反对美国？不是这些抗议者，他们只是想让民众听到他们的声音。
这里真正危害美国的极端分子是美国的金融寡头，他们要压制对他们财富来源的任何批评。
----------------------------------------------------
来自： http://hexinbbs.blog.163.com/blo ... 002011103075422596/
写得还不错，不过在美国任何事情都被贴上了党派的标签。
华尔街这事也不例外。
明明本质上是一种阶级矛盾，搞到最后却成了民主党和共和党的党争。
所以美国的所谓民主极其虚伪，把任何矛盾都弄成是两党的党争，从而掩盖了真正的矛盾，转移了真正视线。
华尔街这事也不例外。
明明本质上是一种阶级矛盾，搞到最后却成了民主党和共和党的党争。
所以美国的所谓民主极其虚伪，把任何矛盾都弄成是两党的党争，从而掩盖了真正的矛盾，转移了真正视线。
季路 发表于 2011-11-30 22:18 ![]()
写得还不错，不过在美国任何事情都被贴上了党派的标签。
华尔街这事也不例外。
西方的民主政治确实很虚伪，不过话说“政治”这东西有哪个国家的不虚伪么？
写得还不错，不过在美国任何事情都被贴上了党派的标签。
华尔街这事也不例外。
西方的民主政治确实很虚伪，不过话说“政治”这东西有哪个国家的不虚伪么？
蔑视权威 发表于 2011-11-30 22:28 ![]()
西方的民主政治确实很虚伪，不过话说“政治”这东西有哪个国家的不虚伪么？
用党争来掩盖更深层次的矛盾，不得不说美国的开创者们很厉害，站的高，看的远啊。:D
西方的民主政治确实很虚伪，不过话说“政治”这东西有哪个国家的不虚伪么？
用党争来掩盖更深层次的矛盾，不得不说美国的开创者们很厉害，站的高，看的远啊。:D
季路 发表于 2011-11-30 22:35 ![]()
用党争来掩盖更深层次的矛盾，不得不说美国的开创者们很厉害，站的高，看的远啊。
你这句话说的没错，美国的缔造者们确实厉害，他们创造出了一个有生命力的体制，在这个体制下美国一步步成为了世界霸主，不管他是如何虚伪，但经过百多年的进化，所谓的深层次矛盾被不断的调和，至今还没有崩塌的迹象
用党争来掩盖更深层次的矛盾，不得不说美国的开创者们很厉害，站的高，看的远啊。
你这句话说的没错，美国的缔造者们确实厉害，他们创造出了一个有生命力的体制，在这个体制下美国一步步成为了世界霸主，不管他是如何虚伪，但经过百多年的进化，所谓的深层次矛盾被不断的调和，至今还没有崩塌的迹象
蔑视权威 发表于 2011-11-30 22:40 ![]()
你这句话说的没错，美国的缔造者们确实厉害，他们创造出了一个有生命力的体制，在这个体制下美国一步步成 ...
不过是利用自身优势，把内部矛盾不断向外转移罢了。
不过你放心，终会有无法再向外转移的那一天。
你这句话说的没错，美国的缔造者们确实厉害，他们创造出了一个有生命力的体制，在这个体制下美国一步步成 ...
不过是利用自身优势，把内部矛盾不断向外转移罢了。
不过你放心，终会有无法再向外转移的那一天。
季路 发表于 2011-11-30 22:42 ![]()
不过是利用自身优势，把内部矛盾不断向外转移罢了。
不过你放心，终会有无法再向外转移的那一天。
那我们就一同看好戏呗，不过我个人比较悲观，悲观的不是MD的衰落，因为这是必然事件，而是MD自身政治体制的瓦解
不过是利用自身优势，把内部矛盾不断向外转移罢了。
不过你放心，终会有无法再向外转移的那一天。
那我们就一同看好戏呗，不过我个人比较悲观，悲观的不是MD的衰落，因为这是必然事件，而是MD自身政治体制的瓦解
两党制可以把白皮间的阶级矛盾糊弄过去，但种族矛盾怎么忽悠过去，观海下台那就有好戏看了
克鲁格曼出来发话了……看看这回怎么帮MD洗地……
美国两党有什么矛盾？一致对外的啊。为预算什么的吵，那是河蟹的表现形式。
美国还有剥削世界其他国家剩余价值的能力，看看英国，200万人上街要体面的退休金，这个只能内部消化了，估计革命的火星快起来了