Value creation. Wealth creation. These are really powerful words.
价值创造、财富创造，这些着实是非常强大的词语。
Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation, you think of creativity.
可能你会想到金融，想到创新，想到创造力。
But who are the value creators? If we use that word, we must be implying that some people aren't creating value.
但是谁是这些价值的创造者呢？如果我们用这个词，我们必然是在暗示有人没在创造价值。
Who are they? The couch potatoes? The value extractors? The value destroyers?
他们是谁？懒虫们？价值抽取人？价值摧毁者？
To answer this question, we actually have to have a proper theory of value.
要回答这个问题，我们其实需要一个恰当的价值理论。
And I'm here as an economist to break it to you that we've kind of lost our way on this question.
作为经济学家，我来是想告诉你们我们在这个问题上迷失了方向。
Now, don't look so surprised. What I mean by that is, we've stopped contesting it.
不要觉得惊讶。我这么说的意思是我们已经对此停止了争论。
We've stopped actually asking really tough questions
我们实际上已经不再询问这些棘手的问题，
about what is the difference between value creation and value extraction, productive and unproductive activities.
比如价值创造和价值提取，生产性活动和非生产性活动的差异。
Now, let me just give you some context here.
现在，让我给你一些背景。
2009 was just about a year and a half after one of the biggest financial crises of our time, second only to the 1929 Great Depression,
2009年，距离我们这个时代最大的金融危机仅过去1年半时间，这个危机仅次于1929年的大衰退，
and the CEO of Goldman Sachs said Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.
高盛的CEO说，高盛的员工是世界上最具生产力的人。
Productivity and productiveness, for an economist, actually has a lot to do with value.
生产力和生产率，对经济学家来说，其实和价值有着很大关系。
You're producing stuff, you're producing it dynamically and efficiently.
你在生产东西，你在动态且高效地生产它。
You're also producing things that the world needs, wants and buys.
你也是在生产世界所需，所要，所买的东西。
Now, how this could have been said just one year after the crisis, which actually had this bank as well as many other banks
现在，在危机发生仅1年后，怎么能说出这样的话，这个银行，以及很多其他的银行，
I'm just kind of picking on Goldman Sachs here -- at the center of the crisis,
我这里只是拿高盛举例，它们处于危机的中心，
because they had actually produced some pretty problematic financial products mainly but not only related to mortgages,
因为他们其实制造并销售了不仅限于房屋贷款的好些有问题的金融产品，
which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes.
这让成千上万的人失去住所。
In 2010, in just one month, September, 120,000 people lost their homes through the foreclosures of that crisis.
就在2010年的一个月内，9月，12万人在这场危机中丧失了房屋赎回权。
Between 2007 and 2010, 8.8 million people lost their jobs.
在2007至2010年间，880万人失业。
The bank also had to then be bailed out by the US taxpayer for the sum of 10 billion dollars.
此外，美国纳税人还必须为这些银行提供100亿美元的救助。
We didn't hear the taxpayers bragging that they were value creators,
我们没听到那些纳税人吹嘘自己是价值创造者，
but obviously, having bailed out one of the biggest value-creating productive companies, perhaps they should have.
但显然，帮助其中一个最具价值创造的企业渡过难关，可能是他们应该做的。
What I want to do next is kind of ask ourselves how we lost our way,
我接下来想做的是扪心自问，我们是如何迷失的，
how it could be, actually, that a statement like that could almost go unnoticed,
为什么会这样，这样的声明几乎无人注意，
because it wasn't an after-dinner joke; it was said very seriously.
毕竟它不是个饭后玩笑，而是正儿八经说的。
So what I want to do is bring you back 300 years in economic thinking, when, actually, the term was contested.
所以我想把你们带回到300年前的经济思考，那时，这个词是有争议的。
It doesn't mean that they were right or wrong, but you couldn't just call yourself a value creator, a wealth creator.
这并不是说他们是对或错，但你不能自称是价值创造者，财富创造者。
There was a lot of debate within the economics profession.
在经济学界，曾有着无数辩论。
And what I want to argue is, we've kind of lost our way,
我想要争论的是，我们已经有些迷失了，
and that has actually allowed this term, "wealth creation" and "value," to become quite weak and lazy and also easily captured.
也因此使得这些词，“财富创造”和“价值”变得越发脆弱、慵懒，以及容易标榜。
OK? So let's start -- I hate to break it to you -- 300 years ago.
好了，让我们开始--我不喜欢给你剖析--300年前。
Now, what was interesting 300 years ago is the society was still an agricultural type of society.
300年前有趣的是当时的社会仍然是农业社会。
So it's not surprising that the economists of the time, who were called the Physiocrats,
所以那时的经济学家，也被称为重农主义者，
actually put the center of their attention to farm labor.
他们实际上把注意力放在了农业劳动上。
When they said, "Where does value come from?" they looked at farming.
当他们问，“这些价值从哪里来的？”他们看向农场。
And they produced what I think was probably the world's first spreadsheet, called the "Tableau Economique,"
他们制作了我认为的世界上第一个表格，名为“经济试算表”，
and this was done by François Quesnay, one of the leaders of this movement.
这是弗朗索瓦·魁奈制作的，他是这场运动的领导者之一。
And it was very interesting, because they didn't just say, "Farming is the source of value."
这很有趣，因为他们不是只说：“农场经营是价值的源泉”。
They then really worried about what was happening to that value when it was produced.
他们然后真的很操心价值创造出来后发生的事情。
What the Tableau Economique does -- and I've tried to make it a bit simpler here for you
经济表所做的--我已试图过把这个简化下说给你们，
is it broke down the classes in society into three.
是将社会分为3个阶级。
The farmers, creating value, were called the "productive class."
农民，创造价值，被称为“生产阶级”。
Then others who were just moving some of this value around but it was useful, it was necessary,
然后其他那些仅仅是流通这些价值的，但是有用且不可少的，
these were the merchants; they were called the "proprietors."
他们些是商人；被称为“经营者”。
And then there was another class that was simply charging the farmers a fee for an existing asset, the land,
之后还有一个阶级，根据现有资产和土地向农民单纯征收费用的，
and they called them the "sterile class."
他们称其为“不结果实阶级”（不生产阶级）。
Now, this is a really heavy-hitting word if you think what it means:
如果你想想这个的意思，你就会发现很沉重：
that if too much of the resources are going to the landlords,
如果过多的资源流向地主，
you're actually putting the reproduction potential of the system at risk.
你实际上把系统的再生产潜能置于危险之地。
And so all these little arrows there were their way of simulating
这里所有的小箭头是他们的模拟方式，
again, spreadsheets and simulators, these guys were really using big data
再次，表格和模拟程序，他们真的在用大数据，
they were simulating what would actually happen under different scenarios
他们在模拟不同情景下可能会发生什么，
if the wealth actually wasn't reinvested back into production to make that land more productive
如果财富不被重新投资于生产让土地更具生产力
and was actually being siphoned out in different ways, or even if the proprietors were getting too much.
并实际上被以不同的方式吸走，或甚至，经营者获取过多。
And what later happened in the 1800s, and this was no longer the Agricultural Revolution but the Industrial Revolution,
然后是1800年代发生的，不再是农业革命，而是工业革命，
is that the classical economists, and these were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx,
是古典经济学家，如亚当·斯密，大卫·李嘉图，卡尔·马克思，
the revolutionary, also asked the question "What is value?"
这些革命者们，也在问着同样的问题：“什么是价值？”
But it's not surprising that because they were actually living through an industrial era
毫不令人惊讶的是由于他们生活在工业时代下，
with the rise of machines and factories, they said it was industrial labor.
见证了机器和工厂的崛起，他们说价值是工业劳动力。
So they had a labor theory of value. But again, their focus was reproduction,
于是他们有了劳动价值论。但同样的，重点仍是再生产，
this real worry of what was happening to the value that was created if it was getting siphoned out.
他们极力想找出若价值分离到其他地方，创造价值时会发生什么。
And in "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith had this really great example of the pin factory
在《国富论》中，亚当·斯密有一个关于大头针工厂极佳例子，
where he said if you only have one person making every bit of the pin, at most you can make one pin a day.
他说如果只有一个人负责大头针生产的所有工序，一天你最多只能制造1个大头针。
But if you actually invest in factory production and the division of labor,
但倘若你能投资工厂生产以及做劳动力分工，
new thinking -- today, we would use the word "organizational innovation"
新想法--现在，我们会用“组织创新”这个词来形容，
then you could increase the productivity and the growth and the wealth of nations.
之后你就能提高生产效率、推动经济增长以及国家财富。
So he showed that 10 specialized workers who had been invested in, in their human capital,
于是他展示了经由人力资本投资的10个专业化分工的工人，
could produce 4,800 pins a day, as opposed to just one by an unspecialized worker.
每天能生产4800个大头针，相比1个非专业分工的工人每天只生产1个大头针。
And he and his fellow classical economists also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.
他和他的古典经济学家伙伴也把经济活动分为生产型和非生产型两类。
And the unproductive ones weren't -- I think you're laughing because most of you are on that list, aren't you?
非生产型不是--我想你们笑的原因是在座大部分人都在这个列表上，对吧？
Lawyers! I think he was right about the lawyers. Definitely not the professors, the letters of all kind people.
律师！我想他把律师放上榜是对的。教授真不该在榜上，其他职业也是。
So lawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians. He obviously hated the opera.
所以律师、教授，小商品店主和音乐人。他很显然讨厌歌剧。
He must have seen the worst performance of his life the night before writing this book.
他一定在写这本书的前夜看了一场最糟糕的演出。
There's at least three professions up there that have to do with the opera.
这上面，至少有3个职业是和歌剧相关的。
But this wasn't an exercise of saying, "Don't do these things."
但这并不是说“不要做这些事情”。
It was just, "What's going to happen if we actually end up allowing some parts of the economy to get too large
这只是“如果这些经济部门占比过高，尤其当我们让这些经济部门变得太大
without really thinking about how to increase the productivity of the source of the value that they thought was key, which was industrial labor.
而不去真正思考如何提高价值创造的源泉，即工业劳动力时，会发生什么。
And again, don't ask yourself is this right or is this wrong, it was just very contested.
再次，不要问自己这是对或错，这个话题只是争辩不断。
By making these lists, it actually forced them also to ask interesting questions.
写出这些清单，其实也在强迫他们提出有趣的问题。
And their focus, as the focus of the Physiocrats, was, in fact, on these objective conditions of production.
而且他们的关注点，和重农主义的关注点一样，实际上是建立在这些生产的客观条件上。
They also looked, for example, at the class struggle.
他们也关注，例如阶级斗争。
Their understanding of wages had to do with the objective,
他们对于工资的理解与目标有关，
if you want, power relationships, the bargaining power of capital and labor.
如果你愿意，资方和劳方在工资上讨价还价的能力。
But again, factories, machines, division of labor, agricultural land and what was happening to it.
但再次，工厂、机器、劳动力分工、农业用地才是重点。
So the big revolution that then happened -- and this, by the way, is not often taught in economics classes
于是，随后发生的重大革新--顺便说一句，这个在经济课上不常教授，
the big revolution that happened with the current system of economic thinking that we have,
当前经济思想体系发生的重大革新，
which is called "neoclassical economics," was that the logic completely changed.
被称为“新古典经济学”，逻辑完全改变了。
It changed in two ways. It changed from this focus on objective conditions to subjective ones.
它在两方面发生了改变。它从对客观条件的关注转变为对主观条件的关注。
Let me explain what I mean by that. Objective, in the way I just said.
让我来解释一下这是什么意思。客观，就是我之前说的方式。
Subjective, in the sense that all the attention went to how individuals of different sorts make their decisions.
主观，意味着所有的关注点都聚焦在不同个体如何做出自己的决定。
OK, so workers are maximizing their choices of leisure versus work.
好吧，于是工人们最大化自己休闲的选择而非工作。
Consumers are maximizing their so-called utility, which is a proxy for happiness, and firms are maximizing their profits.
顾客最大化他们所谓的效用，即幸福感的代名词，而公司最大化自身利润。
And the idea behind this was that then we can aggregate this up, and we see what that turns into,
这背后的想法是我们可以加总这些，我们看看它能变成什么，
which are these nice, fancy supply-and-demand curves which produce a price, an equilibrium price.
这些美妙的供求曲线形成了价格，即均衡价格。
It's an equilibrium price, because we also added to it a lot of Newtonian physics equations
这是一个均衡价格，因为我们也向其中添加了许多牛顿物理方程：
where centers of gravity are very much part of the organizing principle.
重心是组织原则的重要组成部分。
But the second point here is that that equilibrium price, or prices, reveal value.
但这里的第二点是均衡价格，或价格，揭示了价值。
So the revolution here is a change from objective to subjective,
所以这里的革新是从客观到主观的改变，
but also the logic is no longer one of what is value,
但与此同时逻辑也不再是以前的什么是价值，
how is it being determined, what is the reproductive potential of the economy,
它是如何被决定的，经济再生产潜力是什么，
which then leads to a theory of price but rather the reverse: a theory of price and exchange which reveals value.
这就引出了价格理论，但恰恰相反：揭示价值的价格理论和交换理论。
Now, this is a huge change. And it's not just an academic exercise, as fascinating as that might be.
这是一个巨大的改变。这也不仅仅是一个学术活动，它可能很吸引人。
It affects how we measure growth. It affects how we steer economies to produce more of some activities, less of others,
它影响着我们如何衡量增长。这影响着我们如何引导经济去生产更多这种活动，减少那种活动，
how we also remunerate some activities more than others.
为何给予某些活动较多酬劳。
And it also just kind of makes you think, you know, are you happy to get out of bed if you're a value creator or not,
这也多少让你思考，如果你没创造价值的话，是否还愿意起床工作，
and how is the price system itself if you aren't determining that?
如果你没参与决定，那么价格体系本身会如何？
I mentioned it affects how we think about output.
我说过，这影响我们如何思考“产出”。
If we only include, for example, in GDP, those activities that have prices, all sorts of really weird things happen.
如果我们只把定了价的行为，举例来说，纳入GDP，很多奇怪的事会发生。
Feminist economists and environmental economists have actually written about this quite a bit.
女权主义经济学家和环境经济学家实际上已经写了很多关乎于此的文章。
Let me give you some examples. If you marry your babysitter, GDP will go down, so do not do it.
让我给你举几个例子。如果你娶了照看孩子的保姆，GDP就会下降，所以不要这么做。
Do not be tempted to do this, OK?
别被诱惑这么做，好吗？
Because an activity that perhaps was before being paid for is still being done but is no longer paid.
因为一项原本可被支付的活动尽管会照常进行，但结了婚，就没有“付钱”的环节了。
If you pollute, GDP goes up. Still don't do it, but if you do it, you'll help the economy.
如果你污染环境，GDP会上升。但仍旧别那么做，可如果要做，你会促进经济。
Why? Because we have to actually pay someone to clean it.
为什么？因为我们要支付某人来清洁。
Now, what's also really interesting is what happened to finance in the financial sector in GDP.
金融体制发生的事情也同样很有趣，计算GDP时，这个体制归类在金融产业。

This also, by the way, is something I'm always surprised that many economists don't know.
我一直很意外，很多经济学家不知道这件事。
Up until 1970, most of the financial sector was not even included in GDP.
直到1970年，大多金融部门甚至不被囊括在GDP中。
It was kind of indirectly, perhaps not knowingly,
它是间接的，也许不是故意的，
still being seen through the eyes of the Physiocrats as just kind of moving stuff around, not actually producing anything new.
仍然被重商主义者视为只是把东西搬来搬去，并没有产生新东西的部门。
So only those activities that had an explicit price were included.
所以只有那些明确的价格活动才被包含进去。
For example, if you went to get a mortgage, you were charged a fee.
例如，如果你要获取贷款，你会被收取费用。
That went into GDP and the national income and product accounting. But, for example, net interest payments didn't,
这笔费用会被算入GDP、国民收入以及产品核算。但像净利息支付就不算，
the difference between what banks were earning in interest if they gave you a loan and what they were paying out for a deposit.
这个数字是银行贷款给你所赚的利息和银行付给存款人利息间的差额。
That wasn't being included.
这曾经不算在GDP中的。
And so the people doing the accounting started to look at some data,
于是会计从业者开始研究一些数据，
which started to show that the size of finance and these net interest payments were actually growing substantially.
这些数据逐渐显示出了金融业运转资金以及这些净利息支付的高速增长。
And they called this the "banking problem."
他们称其为“银行业问题”。
These were some people working inside, actually, the United Nations in a group called the Systems of National, SNA.
这些人实际上是联合国组织国民账户体系（SNA）小组的工作人员。
They called it the "banking problem," like, "Oh my God, this thing is huge, and we're not even including it."
他们称之为“银行业问题”，好比“我的天，这个东西体量那么大，然而我们甚至没有把它包括进来”。
So instead of stopping and actually making that Tableau Economique
所以，相较于停下脚步、专注于制作那张经济试算表
or asking some of these fundamental questions that also the classicals were asking about what is actually happening,
或是问一些那些古典经济学家也想要知道的基础的问题，
the division of labor between different types of activities in the economy, they simply gave these net interest payments a name.
经济中不同类型活动之间的劳动分工，他们只是简单给了这些净利息支付一个名字。
So the commercial banks, they called this "financial intermediation." That went into the NIPA accounts.
各商业银行称这个现象为金融媒介。这也纳入了国民收入和生产帐户。
And the investment banks were called the "risk-taking activities," and that went in.
投资银行得到了“风险承担活动”的名号，也纳入了其中。
In case I haven't explained this properly, that red line is showing how much quicker financial intermediation as a whole was growing
我怕我没解释清楚，这条红线告诉我们，金融媒介作为一个整体成长得有多快，
compared to the rest of the economy, the blue line, industry.
跟整个经济体，也就是蓝色这条线相比。
And so this was quite extraordinary, because what actually happened, and what we know today,
这就是不寻常之处，因为实际在发生的，以及我们今天所知的，
and there's different people writing about this, this data here is from the Bank of England,
有不同的人写了这些，这是英格兰银行的数据，
is that lots of what finance was actually doing from the 1970s and '80s on was basically financing itself: finance financing finance.
金融体制事实上从20世纪70到80年代就在投资自己：金融业投资金融业。
And what I mean by that is finance, insurance and real estate.
我指的是金融、保险还有不动产业。
In fact, in the UK, something like between 10 and 20 percent of finance finds its way into the real economy,
其实在英国，大概10%-20%的融资能够最终流向实体经济，
into industry, say, into the energy sector, into pharmaceuticals, into the IT sector,
流向行业，比如能源产业，制药行业，信息科技产业，
but most of it goes back into that acronym, FIRE: finance, insurance and real estate.
但大部分还是回流到金融业、保险业和不动产业，简称FIRE。
It's very conveniently called FIRE.
简称为FIRE非常方便。
Now, this is interesting because, in fact, it's not to say that finance is good or bad,
这很耐人寻味，因为事实上很难断定金融是好还是坏，
but the degree to which, by just having to give it a name, because it actually had an income that was being generated,
只能说，因为这实际上创造了收入，所以我们仅仅为这现象取了个名字，
as opposed to pausing and asking, "What is it actually doing?" -- that was a missed opportunity.
而不是停下来质疑“实际上是怎么一回事？”那是一个错失的机会。
Similarly, in the real economy, in industry itself, what was happening?
同样，在实体经济中，行业自身正在发生什么？
And this real focus on prices and also share prices has created a huge problem of reinvestment,
这种对价格以及股价的真正关注造成了再投资的巨大问题，
again, this real attention that both the Physiocrats and the classicals had to the degree to
同样，重农主义者和古典主义者都非常关注
which the value that was being generated in the economy was in fact being reinvested back in.
经济中产生的价值在多大程度上被重新投资。
And so what we have today is an ultrafinancialized industrial sector where,
所以我们今天拥有的是过度金融化的行业部门，
increasingly, a share of the profits and the net income are not actually going back into production,
它们越来越多的利润和净收入并没有再次投入生产，
into human capital training, into research and development
没有流回人力资本培训，或产品研发，
but just being siphoned out in terms of buying back your own shares, which boosts stock options,
而只是把这些资金用于回购你自己的股票，这提高了股票期权的价值，
which is, in fact, the way that many executives are getting paid.
事实上，这也是许多高管获得报酬的方法。
And, you know, some share buybacks is absolutely fine, but this system is completely out of whack.
你知道，股票回购绝对没问题，但这样的一个系统完全不正常。
These numbers that I'm showing you here show that in the last 10 years,
我这里给你显示的这些数字表明，在过去10年，
466 of the S and P 500 companies have spent over four trillion on just buying back their shares.
500家S&P公司中的466家已经花了不止4万亿美元在回购他们的股票上。
And what you see then if you aggregate this up at the macroeconomic level,
如果你在宏观经济层面加总这些数字，
so if we look at aggregate business investment, which is a percentage of GDP,
如果我们看商业投资的总额，也就是所占GDP的百分比，
you also see this falling level of business investment. And this is a problem.
你也会看到商业投资水平呈现如此的下降趋势。这是一个问题。
This, by the way, is a huge problem for skills and job creation.
顺便说一下，这对技能和创造就业来说是个大问题。
You might have heard there's lots of attention these days to, "Are the robots taking our jobs?"
你可能听到近来很多关于“机器人会抢走我们的工作吗？”这样的话题。
Well, mechanization has for centuries, actually, taken jobs,
然而机械化在过去的几个世纪已经取代了一些工作，
but as long as profits were being reinvested back into production, then it didn't matter: new jobs appeared.
但只要利润持续重新投入生产，这个趋势丝毫不重要：新的工作机会会出现。
But this lack of reinvestment is, in fact, very dangerous.
但是再投资的缺乏，实际上，真的很危险。
Similarly, in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, how prices are set,
同样，比如说制药行业中的定价方式，
it's quite interesting how it doesn't look at these objective conditions of the collective way in which value is created in the economy.
很有趣的是，它没有考虑整个经济体里创造价值的客观条件。
So in the sector where you have lots of different actors -- public, private, of course, but also third-sector organizations
所以在这个行业有着很多参与者--公共的、私人的，当然，还有第三部门组织，
creating value, the way we actually measure value in this sector is through the price system itself.
都在创造价值，我们其实是以价格系统计算这个部门的价值。
Prices reveal value. So when, recently, the price of an antibiotic went up by 400 percent overnight,
价格揭示价值。所以最近当一个抗生素的价格一夜间上涨了400%，
and the CEO was asked, "How can you do this? People actually need that antibiotic. That's unfair."
人们问这家企业的CEO，“你怎么能这么做？人们需要这些抗生素。这不公平。”
He said, "Well, we have a moral imperative to allow prices to go what the market will bear,"
他回答说：“我们有道德义务让价格遵循市场走向”。
completely dismissing the fact that in the US, for example,
完全没考虑到实际情况，就以美国为例，
the National Institutes of Health spent over 30 billion a year on the medical research that actually leads to these drugs.
国立卫生研究院每年在医学研究上花费的300多亿美元，其实推动了这些药物的开发。
So, again, a lack of attention to those objective conditions and just allowing the price system itself to reveal the value.
所以，缺乏对这些客观条件的关注，只是让价格体系来揭示价值。
Now, this is not just an academic exercise, as interesting as it may be.
这也不仅是一个学术实践，它可能如此有趣。
All this really matters how we measure output, to how we steer the economy, to whether you feel that you're productive,
所有这些都对我们如何衡量产出，对我们如何掌舵经济，对你能否感到自己有生产效率，
to which sectors we end up helping, supporting and also making people feel proud to be part of.
对我们最终帮助和支持哪个行业、并让人们因为其工作而感到自豪至关重要。
In fact, going back to that quote, it's not surprising that Blankfein could say that. He was right.
实际上，回到那个引言，贝兰克梵这样说并不奇怪。他是对的。
In the way that we actually measure production, productivity and value in the economy,
我们实际在衡量生产、生产力和经济价值的方式，
of course Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive. They are in fact earning the most.
当然，高盛的员工是最具生产力的。他们实际上也是赚得最多的。
The price of their labor is revealing their value. But this becomes tautological, of course.
他们的劳动力价格揭示了他们的价值。我就不再赘述了。
And so there's a real need to rethink.
我们真的需要重新思考。
We need to rethink how we're measuring output, and in fact there's some amazing experiments worldwide.
我们需要重新思考计算产出的方式，而且实际上，世界范围内有一些很棒的实验。
In New Zealand, for example, they now have a gross national happiness indicator.
比如在新西兰，他们现在有国民幸福指标。
In Bhutan, also, they're thinking about happiness and well-being indicators.
在不丹，同样的，他们在思考幸福感和健康的指标。
But the problem is that we can't just be adding things in.
但问题在于我们不能只是一贯往里加东西。
We do have to pause, and I think this should be a moment for pause,
我们需要停下脚步，我认为我们现在应该暂停一下，
given that we see so little has actually changed since the financial crisis,
考虑到自金融危机以来我们看到的改变如此之少，
to make sure that we are not also confusing value extraction with value creation,
以确保我们没有混淆价值提取和价值创造，
so looking at what's included, not just adding more, to make sure that we're not, for example, confusing rents with profits.
所以看一下包括了什么，而不是增加更多，以确保我们不会混淆租金和利润。
Rents for the classicals was about unearned income.
古典主义认为租金是非劳动收入。
Today, rents, when they're talked about in economics,
而今天，经济界探讨的租金，
is just an imperfection towards a competitive price that could be competed away if you take away some asymmetries.
只是一个竞争价格的缺陷，如果你消除一些不对称因素就会消失。
Second, we of course can steer activities into what the classicals called the "production boundary."
第二，我们当然可以引导活动进入古典主义者所说的“生产边界”。
This should not be an us-versus-them, big, bad finance versus good, other sectors.
这不应该是“我们vs.他们”，也不应该是“不好的庞大金融vs.他优良部门”。
We could reform finance. There was a real lost opportunity in some ways after the crisis.
我们可以改革金融业。危机过后，在某些方面我们确实错失机会。
We could have had the financial transaction tax,
我们本可以征收金融交易税，
which would have rewarded long-termism over short-termism, but we didn't decide to do that globally.
来鼓励长期投资而不是短期投资，但我们并没有在全球范围内决定做这件事。
We can. We can change our minds. We can also set up new types of institutions.
我们可以的。我们可以改变我们的想法。我们也可以建立新机构。
There's different types of, for example, public financial institutions worldwide
全球有很多不同的机构，比如公共金融机构，
that are actually providing that patient, long-term, committed finance
能够给病人提供长期且稳定的资金，
that helps small firms grow, that help infrastructure and innovation happen.
能够帮助小微企业成长，确保基建和创新的可能。
But this shouldn't just be about output. This shouldn't just be about the rate of output.
但这不应该只是关于产出。这不应该只是关于产出率。
We should also as a society pause and ask: What value are we even creating?
我们整个社会也应该停下来想一想：我们到底在创造什么价值？
And I just want to end with the fact that this week we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.
我想以这周我们正在庆祝登月50周年的事来结束这个演讲。
This required the public sector, the private sector, to invest and innovate in all sorts of ways, not just around aeronautics.
登月这事儿需要公共部门以及私有部门在各方面投资和创新，不仅仅是与航空相关的。
It included investment in areas like nutrition and materials.
也要包括对诸如营养和材料等领域的投资。
There were lots of actual mistakes that were done along the way.
这条路走来，我们犯了不少错。
In fact, what government did was it used its full power of procurement,
实际上，政府所做的就是充分利用它的采购权力，
for example, to fuel those bottom-up solutions, of which some failed.
比如，推动那些自下而上的解决方案，其中有些会失败。
But are failures part of value creation? Or are they just mistakes?
但是失败是价值创造的一部分吗？还是它们仅仅是错误？
Or how do we actually also nurture the experimentation, the trial and error and error and error?
还是我们应该如何培养实验，试错，再错，再错？
Bell Labs, which was the R and D laboratory of AT and T, actually came from an era where government was quite courageous.
贝尔实验室，即AT&T公司的研发实验室，实际上来自一个政府非常勇敢的时代。
It actually asked AT and T that in order to maintain its monopoly status,
为了保持垄断，政府那时要求AT&T
it had to reinvest its profits back into the real economy, innovation and innovation beyond telecoms.
必须将利润重新投资于实体经济、创新、不限于电信领域的创新。
That was the history, the early history of Bell Labs.
这是历史，这是贝尔实验室的早期历史。
So how we can get these new conditions around reinvestment to collectively invest
所以，我们如何才能使这些围绕再投资的新条件共同投资于
in new types of value directed at some of the biggest challenges of our time, like climate change? This is a key question.
针对我们这个时代一些最大挑战的新型价值，例如气候变化呢？这是个重要问题。
But we should also ask ourselves, had there been a net present value calculation or a cost-benefit analysis done
但是我们也应该自问：是否有过净现值计算或成本效益分析，
about whether or not to even try to go to the Moon and back again in a generation, we probably wouldn't have started.
来决定是否要在我们可能不会开始的一代人的时间里尝试一次次往返月球，
So thank God, because I'm an economist, and I can tell you, value is not just price. Thank you.
所以感谢上帝，因为我是一个经济学家，所以我可以告诉你价值不仅等同于价格。谢谢。