第二次冷戰--美國所需的中國策略

 

The second cold war 第二次冷戰

The China strategy America needs

美國所需的中國策略

President Joe Biden should aim to strike a grand bargain with America’s democratic allies

總統拜登的目標應是與美國的民主盟友敲定大協議

Leaders

Nov 19th 2020 edition

---

The achievement of the Trump administration was to recognise the authoritarian threat from China. The task of the Biden administration will be to work out what to do about it. Donald Trump’s instinct was for America to run this fight single-handed. Old allies were henchmen, not partners. As Joe Biden prepares his China strategy, he should choose a different path. America needs to strike a grand bargain with like-minded countries to pool their efforts. The obstacles to such a new alliance are great, but the benefits would be greater.

川普政府的成就在於承認中國專制主義的威脅，拜登政府的任務是找出該怎麼解決。川普的本能是美國獨自奮戰，老盟友是跟班，不是夥伴。在拜登準備他的中國策略時，他應該選擇一條不同的道路。美國需要與想法相近的國家敲定大協議，共同努力。建立這樣一個新聯盟的障礙很大，但效益更大。

To see why, consider how the cold war against China is different from the first one. The rivalry with the Soviet Union was focused on ideology and nuclear weapons. The new battlefield today is information technology: semiconductors, data, 5G mobile networks, internet standards, artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. All those things will help determine whether America or China has not just the military edge, but also the more dynamic economy. They could even give one of the rivals an advantage in scientific research.

要了解原因，思考一下對中國冷戰與第一次冷戰有何不同。與蘇聯的競爭集中在意識形態和核武器上。如今的新戰場是資訊科技：半導體、數據、5G行動網絡，網際網路標準、人工智慧（AI）和量子計算。這將有助於確定美中是否不僅擁有軍事優勢，還擁有更具活力的經濟。他們甚至可使對手在科學研究占有優勢。

The first cold war created separate looking-glass worlds. The protagonists in the second are interconnected. That is partly a result of China’s integration into the global economy, especially after it joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001. But it also stems from the network efficiencies of many tech businesses, which reward size and spread. And it reflects how hard it is for any one country to master the full range of specialisms in the tech economy. In chips, say, American or British designs may be made in Taiwanese plants, using Japanese and Dutch equipment with German lenses before being assembled in Chinese factories. It is no accident that autarkic North Korea can build nukes but not advanced computers.

第一次冷戰創造分裂的鏡像世界，第二次冷戰的主角們則彼此息息相關。部分原因是由於中國融入全球經濟，特別在2001年加入世界貿易組織後。但這也源自許多科技企業的網路效率，網路效率犒賞具規模和影響力者。這反映任何一個國家要掌握高科技經濟的全部專業知識有多困難。以半導體晶圓來說，美國或英國的設計可能在台灣製造時，使用日本和荷蘭的設備加上德國鏡片，然後在中國組裝。自給自足的北韓可製造核武器，但不能製造先進電腦，絕非偶然。

The Chinese Communist Party has understood that tech is the path to power. China is blessed with a vast market, ambition and plenty of hard-working talent. The party is supercharging the efforts of Chinese firms with subsidies and industrial espionage. Aware of how scale matters, China is touting its technologies by securing export contracts, promoting itself as a digital power using the Belt and Road Initiative and waging a campaign of pro-China standards-setting in global bodies. Mr Trump’s abrasive solo response has had some successes. He has browbeaten some allies to stop buying gear for 5G networks from Huawei, a Chinese firm. And by threatening sanctions on chipmakers who supply Huawei, he has damaged it.

中共了解科技是通往力量之路。中國得天獨厚於廣大的市場、雄心勃勃且勤奮的人才。共產黨透過補貼和產業間諜，努力壯大中國企業。中國意識到規模的重要性，藉由獲取出口合約兜售自家技術，利用「一帶一路」宣揚自己是數位強國，並在全球組織發起親中的標準制定運動。川普猛烈的單方反擊取得一些成功。他恐嚇盟友停止購買中國華為的5G網絡設備，威脅要制裁供應華為的晶片製造商，對中國造成破壞。

But in the long run this approach favours China. It has already accelerated China’s efforts to create its own world-class chip industry—though that could easily take a decade or more. More important, if a bullying America always focuses solely on its own narrow interests, it will drive away the very allies that can help it stay ahead in tech. Europe is increasingly unwilling to leave itself open to American pressure. The European Union’s highest court has twice restricted the transfer of data to America, where they may be picked over by the intelligence agencies. And European policymakers have announced plans to impose rules on the cloud, to impose digital taxes on American tech giants and to limit foreign takeovers—including, potentially, American ones.

但長遠來看，這種方法有利於中國。它加快中國致力建立自家的世界級晶片產業，儘管無疑要耗費十年甚至更長。更重要的是，如果霸道的美國總是只專注於自身狹隘的利益，將推開能助其在技術上保持領先的盟友。歐洲愈來愈不願意對美國施壓逆來順受。 歐盟最高法院已兩度限制數據傳輸至美方，唯恐傳到美國可能被情報機構擷取。歐洲政策制定者已宣布計劃嚴綁雲端規則，對美國科技巨頭開徵數位稅，並限制外國收購，包括潛在的美國收購者。

A grand bargain would turn that conflict with Europe into collaboration. Rather than be consumed by squabbles, the allies could share an approach to issues like taxation, takeover rules and supply chains. For example, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is on the way to becoming a de facto standard outside Europe. With closer collaboration in intelligence, the alliance could be more alert to security threats from Chinese hackers and tech firms. By co-ordinating their efforts on critical technologies, they could specialise rather than duplicate research. By diversifying supply chains and vetting each “tect themselves from accidental or malevolent disruptions. By working together on technical standards such as OpenRAN, which uses mostly off-the-shelf hardware for 5G networks, they can create a favourable environment for their own companies. Crucially, by collaborating on ethical norms over, say, facial recognition, they can protect their societies.

大協議可使與歐洲的衝突轉成合作。盟友間不但不會因爭吵而內耗，反而可分享解決稅收、併購規則、供應鏈等議題的辦法。例如，歐洲的一般資料保護規則（GDPR）正成為歐洲以外的實質標準。隨著情報上的緊密合作，聯盟可能會更加警惕來自中國駭客和科技公司的安全威脅。努力協調關鍵技術，他們可以專業分工取代重複研究。透過供應鏈多樣化和逐一審查，保護自己防禦意外或惡意破壞共同制定技術標準例如OpenRAN--主要將現成的硬體用於5G網絡，他們可以為自己公司創造良好的環境。重要的是，透過臉部辨識等道德規範合作，可以保護他們的社會。

Instead of leaving America isolated, a grand bargain would help it keep ahead in the race for tech dominance by bringing it the gains of closer co-operation with like-minded countries. The whole alliance would be boosted by the tech industry’s formidable network effects. A bargain would also leave America more open to cross-border scientific collaboration and immigration, vital for a place that thrives on the contributions of foreign students, many of whom stay on to carry out research or work in tech. Such openness is a strength that China lacks.

一個大協議不但不會使美國孤立，反而可助美國與想法相近的國家更緊密合作，進而在技術主導競賽中保持領先地位。科技業令人生畏的網路效應，將促進整個聯盟的發展。協議也將使美國對跨國科學合作和移民更加開放，許多外國學生繼續從事研究或進科技業工作，這對一個依靠外國學生的貢獻而繁榮的地區至關重要，這種開放是中國缺乏的力量。

Some people argue that co-operation of this sort needs a treaty, an institution like NATO or the WTO. But that would take a long time to set up. What it would possess in gravitas it would lack in flexibility. A grouping like an enlarged G7 would be more adaptable and less clumsy.

有人主張這類範疇的合作需要條約，像北約或世貿組織這樣的機構。但這將耗費很長時間來建立，雖具莊重感但缺乏靈活性。像擴大版G7之類的團體，適應力較強且不那麼笨拙。

Either way, striking a grand bargain will be hard. For one thing, America would need to acknowledge that it is not as dominant as it was when it set up global governance after the second world war. It would have to be willing to make concessions to its allies right now—over privacy, taxation and some details of industrial policy, say—in order to protect its system of government in the long term. For the strategy to be credible abroad, there would need to be bipartisan consensus in Washington.

無論哪種方式，要敲定大協議很困難。一方面，美國需承認，主導地位已不再像二戰後建立全球政府時一樣，現在必須願意就隱私、稅收和某些產業政策細節，對盟友做出讓步，來保護治理體系走得長久。為使策略在國外具有信譽，美國需要兩黨在國會達成共識。

America’s allies would have to make concessions, too. They would have to trust a country which, under Mr Trump, has sometimes looked on the transatlantic alliance with contempt. Some Europeans would have to temper their dream of becoming a superpower that stands apart from both China and America.

美國的盟友也必須讓步。他們將必須相信一個--在川普領導下--有時會輕視跨大西洋聯盟的國家。一些歐洲人將不得淡化他們的夢想--成為一個與中美分庭抗禮的強權。

Yet that European dream has always looked far-fetched. And if anything can overcome divisions in Washington, China can. Moreover, the sacrifices would be worth it. A grand bargain would help focus competition with China on tech, potentially enabling detente in areas where collaboration is essential, such as curbing global warming, health and, as with the Soviet Union, arms control. A grand bargain could make the world safer by making it more predictable. When superpowers are set on a collision course, that is something profoundly to be wished for. ■

但那個歐洲夢總是看似遙不可及。如果有什麼可以克服美國兩黨的分歧，那會是中國。而且，犧牲是值得的。大協議將有助於把美中競爭聚焦在科技，這可能在其他務必攜手合作的領域緩和對峙，諸如遏制全球暖化、健康，以及軍備控制，一如當年與蘇聯的談判。 大協議可使世界變得更可預測，因此變得更安全。在兩大超級強權眼看就要迎頭對撞時，這是令人寄予厚望的事。 ■

在巴菲特之後--價值型投資仍管用嗎？

 

Beyond Buffett 在巴菲特之後

Does value investing still work?

價值型投資仍管用嗎？

Asset management is in turmoil 資產管理陷入混亂

Leaders

Nov 14th 2020 edition

---

Nov 14th 2020

For a moment this week investors could afford to ignore stockmarket superstars like Amazon and Alibaba. As news of a vaccine broke, a motley crew of more jaded firms led Wall Street higher, with the shares of airlines, banks and oil firms soaring on hopes of a recovery. The bounce has been a long time coming. So-called value stocks, typically asset-heavy firms in stodgy industries, have had a decade from hell, lagging behind America’s stockmarket by over 90 percentage points. This has led to a crisis of confidence among some fund managers, who wonder if their framework for assessing firms works in the digital age. They are right to worry: it needs upgrading to reflect an economy in which intangibles and externalities count for more.

在本周有段時間，投資者可以忽略像亞馬遜和阿里巴巴之類的股市巨星。隨著疫苗的消息傳出，一群雜七雜八、死氣沉沉的公司帶領華爾街股市走高。這波反彈睽違已久，包含航空、銀行和石油公司的股票在復甦的希望下飆升。所謂價值型股票通常是傳統產業的重資產公司，這些股票已在谷底十年，落後美國股市超過90個百分點。這導致一些基金經理人的自信陷入危機，他們懷疑自己對公司估價的框架是否適用於數位時代。他們的擔心是對的：價值型模型需要升級，來反映無形資產和外部性在經濟日益重要。

For almost a century the dominant ideology in finance has been value investing. It has evolved over time but typically takes a conservative view of firms, placing more weight on their assets, cashflows and record, and less on their investment plans or trajectory. The creed has its roots in the 1930s and 1940s, when Benjamin Graham argued that investors needed to move on from the pre-1914 era, during which capital markets were dominated by railway bonds and insider-dealing. Instead he proposed a scientific approach of evaluating firms’ balance-sheets and identifying mispriced securities. His disciple, Warren Buffett, popularised and updated these ideas as the economy shifted towards consumer firms and finance in the late 20th century. Today measures of value are plugged into computers which hunt for “factors” that boost returns and there are investors in Shanghai loosely inspired by a doctrine born in Depression-era New York.

近一個世紀以來，金融領域的主要意識形態一直是價值型投資。它隨著時間進化，但通常對公司持保守態度，它更重視公司的資產、現金流量和表現紀錄，而較少關注他們的投資計劃或軌跡。該信條起源於1930年代和1940年代，葛拉漢主張，投資者須揮別1914年以前的時代，那時期資本市場盛行鐵路債券和內線交易。他提議改用一套科學方法來評估公司的資產負債表，藉此辨識估價錯誤的證券。當20世紀後期隨著經濟轉向消費公司和金融，他的門徒巴菲特推廣和更新這些想法。如今，價值型衡量指標開始內建電腦，以獵取能夠提高報酬的「因子」，而上海的投資人大致受到大蕭條時代紐約產生的信條的啟發。

The trouble is that value investing has led to poor results. If you had bought value shares worth $1 a decade ago, they would fetch $2.50 today, compared with $3.45 for the stockmarket as a whole and $4.65 for the market excluding value stocks. Mr Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has lagged behind badly. Despite its efforts to modernise, value investing often produces backward-looking portfolios and as a result has largely missed the rise of tech. The asset-management industry’s business model is under strain, as our special report this week explains. Now one of its most long-standing philosophies is under siege, too.

麻煩在於價值型投資導致糟糕的結果。如果你十年前買進價值1美元的價值型股票，今天可賣得2.50美元，相較下，股市大盤漲到3.45美元，價值股除外的股票值4.65美元。巴菲特的波克夏公司嚴重落後。儘管努力現代化，但價值型投資通常產生「回顧過去」的投資組合，因此大致上錯過科技股漲勢。資產管理行業的商業模式正面臨壓力，正如我們本周特別報導解釋的，如今它最悠久的理念也遭圍攻。

Value investors might argue that they are the victims of a stockmarket bubble and that they will thus be proved right eventually. The last time value strategies did badly was in 1998-2000, before the dotcom crash. Today stockmarkets do indeed look expensive. But alongside this are two deeper changes to the economy that the value framework is still struggling to grapple with.

價值型投資者可能會主張，他們是股市泡沫的受害者，且最終將被證明是正確的。最近一次價值型策略表現不佳是在1998-2000年，即網路股崩盤之前。如今股票市場確實顯得昂貴。但是同時還有兩個更深層的經濟變化，價值型模型仍努力在設法克服。

The first is the rise of intangible assets, which now account for over a third of all American business investment—think of data, or research. Firms treat these costs as an expense, rather than an investment that creates an asset. Some sophisticated institutional investors try to adjust for this but it is still easy to miscalculate how much firms are reinvesting—and firms’ ability to reinvest heavily at high rates of return is crucial for their long run performance. On a traditional definition, America’s top ten listed firms have invested $700bn since 2010. On a broad one, the figure is $1.5trn or more. Intangible firms can also often scale up quickly and exploit network effects to sustain high profits.

首先是無形資產的增長，無形資產現占美國所有商業投資超過三分之一--想像數據或研究，企業將這些成本視為支出，而不是創造資產的投資。一些經驗豐富的機構投資者試圖對此調整，但仍容易錯估公司再投資金額有多少----而公司能否以高報酬率大量再投資，對長期表現至關重要。按照傳統定義，美國前十大上市公司自2010年來已投資7,000億美元。從廣義上說，這數字是1.5兆美元或更多。無形資產企業通常也可以迅速擴大規模，並利用網路效應來維持高利潤。

The second change is the rising importance of externalities, costs that firms are responsible for but avoid paying. Today the value doctrine suggests you should load up on car firms and oil producers. But these firms’ prospects depend on the potential liability from their carbon footprint, the cost of which may rise as emissions rules tighten and carbon taxes spread.

第二個變化是外部性的重要性日益增加，外部性是企業有義務但避免支付的成本。今天價值型理念建議你應該買進汽車公司和石油生產商股票。但是這些公司的前景取決於碳足跡的潛在負債，隨著排碳法規趨嚴和排碳稅的普及，公司成本可能會上升。

Value investing’s rigour and scepticism are as relevant as ever—especially given how frothy markets look. But many investors are still only just beginning to get their heads round how to assess firms’ intangible assets and externalities. It is a laborious task, but getting it right could give asset management a new lease of life and help ensure that capital is allocated efficiently. In the 1930s and 1940s Graham described how the old investing framework had become obsolete. Time for another upgrade.

價值型投資的縝密性和懷疑性一如既往地重要，尤其是鑑於市場看起來泡沫四溢。但是，許多投資者仍只是剛開始弄懂如何評價公司的無形資產和外部性，這是一項艱巨的任務，但是正確執行可賦予資產管理嶄新的生命，並有助確保有效地分配資本。葛拉漢在1930年代和1940年代描述舊的投資框架是如何過時，是時候再一次升級了。

伏爾泰的繼承者--法國捍衛言論自由是正確的

 

Voltaire’s heirs 伏爾泰的繼承者

France is right to defend free speech

法國捍衛言論自由是正確的

No one has a right not to be offended

無人有權不受冒犯

Leaders

Nov 5th 2020 edition

---

Nov 5th 2020

Samuel paty told his pupils to look away if they might be offended. He knew that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad are deemed blasphemous by Muslims. But since the images in question were published by Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine whose staff were massacred by jihadists in 2015, they were also relevant to a class about free speech. The teacher thought his pupils old enough to decide for themselves. For this, he was beheaded.

帕蒂告訴他的學生把目光移開，如果他們可能遭冒犯。他知道先知穆罕默德的諷刺漫畫被穆斯林視為褻瀆，但是由於這些有疑慮的圖像是由法國諷刺雜誌《查理周刊》出版，他們也與言論自由課有關。《查理周刊》的員工在2015年遭聖戰者的屠殺。老師認為他的學生成熟到可以為自己決定。為此，他被斬首。

In the age of social media, outrage can swiftly go global. The parent who denounced Mr Paty was not in the classroom, and lied when he said his daughter had been. The jihadist who killed the teacher did so after watching a Facebook video posted by that parent. And when Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, decried the murder and defended free speech, the leaders of several Muslim countries accused him of Islamophobia. Among them were Turkey’s president, who locks up thousands of Muslims for belonging to the wrong religious group, and Pakistan’s prime minister, who seems more upset by events in a classroom in France than in next-door China’s million-Muslim gulag.

在社交媒體時代，憤怒可以迅速傳向全球。譴責帕蒂的父母並不在教室，且謊稱自己的女兒在現場。殺害老師的聖戰者是在觀看該父母張貼在Facebook的短片後犯案。法國總統馬克宏譴責謀殺並捍衛言論自由時，許多穆斯林國家的領導人指責他有伊斯蘭恐懼症，其中包括土耳其總統，他以加入錯誤宗教團體為由羈押數千名穆斯林；以及巴基斯坦總理，他對法國教室裡發生的事，似乎比對隔壁中國送百萬名穆斯林進勞改營更生氣。

Unscrupulous politicians have always stirred up racial or sectarian outrage to unite their supporters and distract attention from their own flaws. But some critics seem sincerely to believe that France is the cause, rather than victim, of jihadist attacks on its soil. They often point to its tradition of laïcité, or secularism. This was entrenched by law in 1905, after a long struggle with the Catholic church. It protects the right to believe, or not to believe, and separates religion from public life. 

無道德原則的政客總是煽動種族或教派的憤怒，藉此團結支持者且分散對自身缺陷的注意力。但一些批評者似乎真心相信，聖戰者在法國國土上發動攻擊，法國是咎由自取。他們常指出法國政教分離（世俗主義）的傳統。法國在與天主教會進行了長期鬥爭之後，在1905年藉由法律明確保障信仰與否的權利，並將宗教與公共生活分開。

No French president could be sworn in on a holy book. No French state school could stage a nativity play. Some feel that such rules discriminate against Muslims. A ban on “conspicuous” religious symbols in state schools includes the crucifix, but some Muslims still resent the fact that they (or their daughters) must remove their headscarves at the school gate. When Mr Macron recently announced a crackdown on signs of “Islamist separatism”, such as home schooling, which he sees as a pretext for radicalised teaching, he was accused of “weaponising” secularism against Muslims.

沒有法國總統可向聖經宣誓就任，沒有法國公立學校能上演耶穌誕生劇，有些人認為這樣的規則歧視穆斯林。公立學校禁用「明顯的」宗教符號，包括耶穌受難像，但一些穆斯林仍然討厭他們（或他們的女兒）必須在校門摘掉頭巾的事實。馬克宏最近宣布一項打擊「伊斯蘭分裂主義」跡象，像是家庭學校等，並視此為激進主義教學的藉口，他被指責針對穆斯林將世俗主義「武器化」。

Most controversial of all for some Muslims, French law protects the right to blaspheme and to insult any religion—although not to discriminate against an individual on the basis of religious belief. Some see this, wrongly, as a French campaign to insult Islam. Boycotts of French goods and anti-Macron protests have taken place from Istanbul to Islamabad.

對某些穆斯林而言最具爭議的是，法國法律保護褻瀆和侮辱任何宗教的權利，儘管不可基於宗教信仰歧視個人。有些人誤以為這是法國侮辱伊斯蘭的運動。從伊斯坦堡到伊斯蘭瑪巴德，各地湧現抵制法國貨和反馬克宏抗議活動。

Discrimination against Muslims is a real problem in France, as Mr Macron implicitly concedes. Employers are more likely to bin their job applications. Mr Macron has vowed to fight racism, and improve opportunities for people in deprived neighbourhoods, “of whatever skin colour, origin, religion”. He will have his work cut out, even without his own ministers undermining him by griping absurdly about the existence of separate shelves for halal food in supermarkets.

歧視穆斯林在法國的確是個問題，馬克宏也默認。雇主更有可能將穆斯林的求職信扔進垃圾箱。馬克宏誓言要對抗種族主義，並為貧困的鄰國人民提供更多機會，不論膚色，血統，宗教信仰。即使他麾下的部長沒有幫倒忙，荒唐地抱怨超市的清真食品專櫃，他也將面對艱鉅的任務。

Yet it is important not to lose sight of two points of context. First, more than 250 people have been killed in Islamist terrorist attacks in France since 2015. Last year more suspects of jihadist terrorism were arrested in France than in any other eu country. French intelligence services warn that radicals are waging a war for the minds of the young, especially online, to win recruits to violence. France is right to be more concerned than most, and to seek to respond firmly.

然而，不要忽略兩個重要背景。首先，自2015年以來，在法國的伊斯蘭恐攻有250多人被殺害。去年，在法國被捕的聖戰恐怖主義嫌疑人比其他歐盟國家還多。法國情報機構警告，激進分子正在為洗腦年輕人發動戰爭，尤其是網絡上，進而徵募新兵從事暴力活動。法國更擔心和尋求堅定回應並沒有錯。

Second, France is also right to defend free speech. A religion is a set of ideas, and therefore open to debate and even mockery. Considerate speakers will try not to give gratuitous offence. But governments should not compel them to be inoffensive. If they did, everyone would have to censor themselves, for fear of offending the most easily offended person in the audience. And as Mr Paty discovered, an audience can include anyone on Earth with a phone.

第二，法國捍衛言論自由也是正確的。宗教是一套概念，因此可供辯論甚至嘲笑。體貼的人發言會試著不無端冒犯人，但是政府不應該強制他們不得冒犯人。如果他們這樣做了，每個人都將必須審查自己，以免得罪觀眾中最容易被冒犯的人。正如帕蒂發現的那樣，觀眾可以包括地球上持有手機的任何人。

The French state should never give the impression that it endorses blasphemy, but it is right to protect blasphemers, just as it is right to protect those who complain about them, so long as they do not advocate violence. As many thoughtful Muslims in France and elsewhere have pointed out, no matter how offended you feel, the answer to speech is not knives: it is more speech. ■

法國政府應該永遠不要給人贊同褻瀆宗教的印象，但是保護褻瀆者是對的，一如保護抱怨褻瀆宗教的人也是對的，只要他們不提倡暴力。誠如許多法國及各地思慮周到的穆斯林指出，無論你覺得多麼受冒犯，對言論的回應不該用刀刃，而是更多的言論。 ■

英國的僵化--為什麼瑞斯錯了

 

The zombification of Britain

Why Rishi got it wrong 為什麼瑞斯錯了

Britain’s chancellor should not have extended the furlough scheme

英國財相不應該延長無薪假補助

Leaders

Oct 29th 2020 edition

---

Oct 29th 2020

Imagine if, 20 years ago, the British government had vowed to protect every job in the country. Today an extra 30,000 Britons would be working as high-street travel agents, 30,000 or so would earn their crust by repairing fax machines, and 40,000 would still be stacking shelves and ringing the tills in Woolworths, a chain of stores that went bust in 2009.

想像假如20年前，英國政府誓言要保護國內每一份工作，今天將多出3萬名英國人，做著商業街的旅遊代理人的工作，約3萬人靠修理傳真機維生，還有4萬人仍在沃爾沃斯堆放貨架及操作收銀機，沃爾沃斯連鎖商店在2009年破產。

Allowing obsolete jobs to wither and new ones to blossom is one of the main ways in which capitalist economies get richer and more productive. Governments interfere with this process of creative destruction at their peril. That is why the direction that Britain is taking in its efforts to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic is so mistaken.

允許過時的工作凋零、新的工作興盛，是資本主義經濟變得更富裕、生產力更高的主要方式。各國政府要干預創造性破壞的過程，後果自負。英國努力減輕疫情對經濟影響，方向卻大錯特錯，原因就在此。

Since March Britain has been shielding workers and their families from the ruinous effects of the pandemic primarily through its furlough scheme, which pays 80% of workers’ salaries. Britain’s approach is similar to that of other European countries, but its scheme is more generous than those elsewhere. In the deepest days of lockdown, close to 10m workers—a third of the labour force—were benefiting from it. More than twice as many Britons remain furloughed as Italians, Germans or French.

自3月以來，英國為保護勞工及家庭免受疫病流行毀滅性的影響，主要採行無薪假補助，支付勞工80％的工資。英國的做法與其他歐洲國家類似，但是補助計畫比其他國家更慷慨。在封鎖最嚴重的時期，近千萬名勞工（占勞動力的三分之一）從中受惠。英國維持無薪假人數是義大利、德國或法國的兩倍多。

Until recently Rishi Sunak, the chancellor of the exchequer, had been planning to introduce a stripped-down replacement for his furlough scheme. But at the last minute, as it became clear that infection rates are rising alarmingly fast across large parts of the country, the chancellor changed his mind and opted instead to continue with an adjusted scheme that is due to start on November 1st and is almost as generous.

直到最近，英國財政大臣蘇納克（Rishi Sunak）擬引入精簡的方案來替代無薪假補助，但在最後一分鐘，當感染率在全國大範圍地區急遽上升的變得明顯，財政大臣改變主意，選擇11月1日起繼續實施修正後的方案，且幾乎一樣慷慨。

Under the new rules, workers need put in only 20% of their normal scheduled hours, and the government will cover half their normal pay. For companies that have been forced to close by government restrictions, the scheme will pay two-thirds of workers’ salaries.

在新規下，勞工只需要投入平時工作時間的20％，而政府將支付原工資的一半。對於因政府限制而被迫關閉的公司，該方案將支付勞工三分之二的薪水。

Politically, Mr Sunak’s move is shrewd. The opposition Labour Party can hardly criticise a policy that it itself had called for. And by making it easier for bosses to keep workers on the books, Britain will for the time being sweep the pent-up rise in unemployment under the carpet. That, in turn, will blunt the criticism coming from those on the right wing of Mr Sunak’s Conservative Party, who worry that restrictions on movement and socialising are strangling the economy.

從政治上看，蘇納克的舉動是明智的。反對黨工黨很難批評自己要求的政策，而且讓雇主更容易將勞工留在薪冊上，英國將暫時掩蓋蠢蠢欲升的失業率。而這又能緩和保守黨右翼人士的批評，他們擔心限制行動和社交會扼殺經濟。

But the about-turn makes it more likely that the government will protect jobs for which there is no demand. The economy is changing fast. Fewer sandwich-sellers will be needed in city centres in future, since more people will work from home. The growth of online shopping, and the decline of the bricks-and-mortar sort, has accelerated. At least 1m jobs supported by the new furlough scheme, representing about 3% of the workforce, are unlikely to survive in the long run.

但是政策髮夾彎使得政府更有可能保護沒有需求的工作。經濟瞬息萬變，由於愈來愈多人在家工作，未來市區需要的三明治販售商將更少。線上購物成長及實體商店的衰落加速。新一輪無薪假補助保住至少100萬個職位（約占勞動力的3％），這些職位長遠來看不太可能倖存。

The cost of supporting these jobs, which is probably around £1bn a month, is a problem in itself. But in a world in which the budget deficit is that size every day it is a minor one. What is more worrying is the likelihood that the government is retarding economic recovery by discouraging the reallocation of workers from dying industries to growing ones. It is leaving the country stuck with the post-pandemic equivalent of fax-repairmen and Woolies’ sales staff.

保住這些工作的成本約每月10億英鎊，這本身是個問題。但在全世界每天預算赤字如此龐大，這算輕微。更令人擔憂的是，政府可能阻礙勞力從垂死產業重新配置到成長型產業，進而延緩經濟復甦。這使疫後英國甩不掉過時工作，如同傳真機維修員和沃爾沃斯的銷售員。

America is doing better. Across the Atlantic, politicians have focused less on preserving jobs than on preserving incomes, posting stimulus cheques to households and temporarily bumping up unemployment-insurance payments (these have since lapsed, but after the election Congress will probably decide to reintroduce them). Earlier this year, government top-ups were worth $600 a week, so generous that seven out of ten unemployed Americans earned more from benefits than they had done when they were still in work.

美國做得更好。在大西洋另一端，政治人物較少聚焦在保護工作，而是保護收入，向家庭寄出紓困支票並暫時提高失業保險金支付（雖已失效，但大選後國會可能會決定重新採用）。今年早些時候，政府補足的費用為每周600美元，慷慨程度到十分之七的失業者所獲得的福利金，比他們在職賺的錢還多。

This largesse has given people the financial security to experiment with new ways of earning money. As the economy has reopened, America has seen an explosion of small-business creation, with laid-off workers finding gaps in the market. Europe’s economic recovery is weaker than America’s, and Britain lags still further behind. The furlough scheme, which encourages workers to cling to old jobs rather than looking for new ones, is almost certainly part of the reason.

這種慷慨捐助提供人們財務保障，去嘗試新方式賺錢。隨著經濟重啟，美國新創立的小企業呈爆炸性成長，被解僱勞工發覺市場有缺口可填補。歐洲經濟復甦比美國弱，英國則落後更多。無薪假補助鼓勵勞工緊抓著舊崗位而不是尋找新工作，這幾乎可確定是一部分原因。

It is not too late to change course. The government should wind down the furlough scheme, as it had planned to, and follow the American example. It should not just cancel a planned reduction in the value of universal credit, but sharply increase its value, so as to ensure that workers whose jobs disappear earn the same as those who stay on furlough. If so, they would get 85% of their previous earnings in benefits, up from 55% at present. That would allow the necessary reallocation of resources without forcing people into penury.

改變路線為時不晚。英國政府應按原計畫，逐漸結束無薪假補助，並仿效美國。不但應該取消調降統一福利救濟金的計畫，還應大幅提高金額，以確保工作消失的勞工與續放無薪假的勞工賺同樣多的錢。如果這樣，他們將獲得以前收入的85％，高於目前的55％。這將允許必要的資源重分配，而不會迫使人們陷入赤貧。

Build it to last 永續發展

In the spring, when it was still unclear how long the pandemic would last, Britain was right to try to hold the economy in suspended animation. Now that the world knows the impact of covid-19 will be deep and enduring, the task for politicians is to protect workers, and leave the market to work its magic. 

春季時疫情會持續多久還不明朗，英國試圖使經濟處於停滯狀態是正確的。現在全世界既知新冠肺炎的影響深遠而持久，政治人物的任務應是保護勞工，讓市場發揮魔力。