藏拙的倫敦市長非小丑, 而是故作魯莽

Boris Johnson has a talent for carefully calculated imprudence. The London mayor says, apparently artlessly, things others are advised not to say. The result is that while appearing as a buffoon, he is in fact one of the most thoughtful politicians of our time. These abilities were in evidence last week when he delivered the Margaret Thatcher memorial lecture.

鮑里斯•約翰遜(Boris Johnson)有一種天賦：他表現出的莽撞其實是經過精心設計的。這位倫敦市長會以一種顯得很天真的方式，說出其他人都知道不該說的事。結果就是，儘管他看起來像個小丑，但他實際上卻是我們這個時代最具洞察力的政治人物之一。他的這種能力在他近日發表紀念瑪格麗特•撒切爾(Margaret Thatcher)的講話時得到了清晰的體現。

Mr Johnson appeared to regard the observation that Britain had invaded 171 countries as a matter for pride not apology. But since he was clearly not suggesting we should once more adopt this foreign policy, his evident purpose was to wind up critics he knows will not vote for him anyway.

約翰遜稱，英國入侵過171個國家。看上去，他似乎把這件事視爲一種驕傲，而不是需要道歉的事。然而，由於他明顯不是在暗示我們應該再次奉行這種外交政策，因此他的目的顯然是想給某些批評者添點兒堵——他知道，這些批評者無論如何也不會把選票投給他。

Other headline-grabbing observations were, similarly, truths that these critics think should go unmentioned rather than ones with which they could reasonably disagree. More people do have an IQ below 85 than above 130. (As Mr Johnson doubtless knows, this is a result of the way the statistics are constructed, not a function of the level and dispersion of achievement.)

同樣，約翰遜說過的另一些引起轟動的話，其實也是那種批評者們認爲不該提及的事實，而不是那種他們能夠合理反對的話。智商低於85的人確實比智商高於130的人多。（約翰遜當然明白，這一結果是這種統計的構造方式導致的，而不是成就水平或離差的函數。）

When Mr Johnson said: “After 2008 the left was ushered centre stage, and missed their cue: political history reached a turning point and failed to turn,” he scored a hit against his political opponents. When capitalism finally came to the point of collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions – an event Europe’s left had long anticipated – the policy response of its representatives was, and continues to be, to avert that collapse with lots of public money. Voters responded to this intellectual vacuum by throwing out whichever party – left or right – was in power at the time, and by turning to fringe parties.

約翰遜說：“2008年後，左翼被推上中心舞臺，變得忘乎所以：政治歷史發展到了一個轉折點，但轉折卻並沒有發生。”這番話幫他從政治對手那裏贏了一分。當資本主義在內部矛盾的重壓下終於臨近崩潰時（這是歐洲左翼人士長期以來期盼發生的事件），左翼代表們給出的政策應對是（而且現在依然是）用海量公共資金來避免這一崩潰的發生。對於這一缺乏理智的現象，選民們作出的迴應是拋棄了那時掌權的任何黨派——不管它是左翼還是右翼——轉而求助邊緣政黨。

But it was on inequality that Mr Johnson was most controversial[AND RIGHT?]. “Some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy,” he said. “Keeping up with the Joneses is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity.” Yet most critics of capitalism deplore these things rather than deny that they are true.

不過，約翰遜最具爭議的話還是有關不平等的言論。他說：“一定程度的不平等對於保持嫉妒心是十分必要的。和貪婪一樣，攀比是對經濟活動的一種寶貴刺激。”大多數資本主義的批評者譴責這類說法，但並不否認它們說的是事實。

Where Mr Johnson is wrong is in suggesting social mobility is what makes inequality tolerable. If medieval peasants did not resent the wealth of the king, it was not because they could imagine themselves as king but because they could not. Political agitation came from those who might be king. Social unrest increased when education and economic change enabled people to aspire to a lifestyle that most could not, in fact, achieve.

約翰遜的錯誤之處在於，他暗示社會流動性令不平等成爲一種可容忍的事情。如果說中世紀的農民不憎恨國王的財富，那並不是因爲他們能夠想像自己有稱王的那一天，而是因爲他們不能這麼想。政治上的騷動源自那些可能成爲國王的人。當教育和經濟變革令人們能夠對多數人其實無法實現的生活方式產生渴望時，社會動盪就會加劇。

Envy is, therefore, indeed both inseparable from economic progress and destructive of social cohesion. Some inequality is inevitable, and there seem to be three principal factors that make it more tolerable.

因此，嫉妒實際上與經濟進步和社會凝聚力的瓦解均有不可分割的關係。某些不平等是不可避免的，其之所以更可容忍，似乎是因爲下面三個主要因素。

Inequality is easier to accept if everyone is becoming better off. Recent dissatisfaction in Britain and the US is significantly attributable to the fact that, while some have grown much richer, median incomes have not increased. The criticism that the rapid economic growth of China and India has been accompanied by rising inequality is mainly made from outside these countries.

首先，如果每個人的境遇都在改善，不平等就更容易被人接受。最近英國和美國國內的不滿情緒主要歸因於一個事實：儘管有些人的財富大幅增長，國民收入中值卻沒有上升。相比之下，中國和印度經濟快速增長的同時不平等也在加劇，而對這種現象的批評卻主要來自這兩個國家以外。

Inequality is easier to accept if the beneficiaries have benefited people other than themselves. Bill Gates’s extraordinary wealth causes little resentment because he is associated with technological innovations that have transformed business and personal life. Financiers rarely attract similar approval because – sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly – they are suspected of appropriating wealth created by others rather than engaging in genuine wealth creation.

其次，如果不平等的受益者給他人帶來好處，而不是隻給自己帶來好處，這種不平等也更易被接受。比爾•蓋茨(Bill Gates)的鉅額財富幾乎沒有引起什麼不滿情緒，因爲人們把他與技術革命聯繫在一起，而技術革命徹底改變了商業面貌和個人生活。金融家很少得到類似的認可，因爲人們懷疑他們竊取了他人創造的財富，而不是參與了真正的財富創造——這種懷疑有時候是正確的，有時候卻並非如此。

And inequality is more tolerable if its beneficiaries behave well. Mr Gates has chosen to devote his Microsoft fortune and his time to philanthropy rather than fly in entertainers and exotic foods for lavish parties. Investor Warren Buffett famously lives in the Omaha bungalow he purchased 50 years ago.

最後，如果不平等的受益者舉止得當，人們對不平等的容忍度也會更高。蓋茨選擇把他的微軟(Microsoft)財富和他的時間都奉獻給慈善事業，而不是用飛機運送藝人和異國美食，來舉辦奢侈的聚會。投資家沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)出名的事情則是他一直居住在自己50年前購買的奧馬哈平房裏。

Mr Johnson knows these things. When he muses on whether the widening income gap is the result of “boardroom greed or, as I am assured, the natural and God-given talent of boardroom inhabitants”, he makes clear which side he is on. When he refers to teddy bear braces and young people driving Porsches, it is not with approbation. And when he hopes, somewhat optimistically, that “this time, the Gordon Gekkos of the world are conspicuous not for their greed as for what they give and do for the rest of the population”, he correctly identifies the moral issue at the heart of London’s role as a financial centre.

對於這些情況，約翰遜心知肚明。當他沉思自問收入差距的擴大是源自“高管們的貪婪，還是像我相信的那樣，源自高管們天生、天賦的才幹”時，他已表明了自己是站在哪一邊的。當他提到泰迪熊揹帶和開着保時捷(Porsche)的年輕人時，他並不是表示對這些現象的認可。當他帶着些許樂觀情緒希望“這一次，全世界的戈登•蓋柯(Gordon Gekko)們不是因他們的貪婪、而是因他們給予他人的東西和爲他人做的事而引入注目”時，他正確地認識到了倫敦金融中心角色的核心是道德問題。