這位26歲的無名小子戳到了《21世紀資本論》的痛腳

It’s not every week that a dense and esoteric book like Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty First Century captures the public’s imagination.

皮凱蒂的《21世紀資本論》原本只是一本艱深的理論書籍，近來卻屢屢掀起激烈的討論，這並不常見。

The surprise bestseller built its success on the general anxiety that income and wealth inequality across the rich world are exploding and that the trend is not good for social cohesion or economic growth. The book has accomplished many things, from codifying research that helps us understand the nature of income inequality over the past hundred years and beyond, to predicting that income and wealth inequality, already at historically high levels, will continue to grow worse. As a solution, Piketty suggests a global tax on capital, or wealth, and the creation of a system to redistribute it to avoid the repercussions of too much inequality.

《21世紀資本論》之所以成爲讓人意外的暢銷書，原因在於其指出了人們的普遍擔憂，即富裕國家收入和財富差距正迅速擴大，這樣的趨勢不利於提高社會凝聚力，也不利於經濟增長。這本書產生了一連串影響，有人對理論研究進行了梳理，進而幫助大家理解百年來，甚至更長時間以來收入差距的本質；也有人預計，即使收入和財富差距已處於有史以來最高，未來還將繼續擴大。皮凱蒂提出的解決方案是徵收全球性資本稅或富人稅，建立財富再分配製度，以減少貧富差距過大產生的不利影響。

Piketty’s success has motivated dozens of enterprising economists and journalists to challenge various aspects of the book. The latest challenge comes from a 26-year-old graduate student at M.I.T., Matthew Rognlie,who published a paper last month with the Brookings Institution that argues that Piketty did not take the effects of depreciation into account enough in his analysis of the growing importance of capital. Rognlie also showed that when you do properly take depreciation into account, the decline in the share of income going to workers versus capital owners can be explained completely by the rise in the value of real estate.

皮凱蒂的新書大受歡迎以來，已有數十名學術上頗爲精進的經濟學家和專業的新聞記者從多個角度對其理論提出挑戰。最新批評者是26歲的麻省理工研究生馬修o榮利。上個月，榮利在布魯金斯學會發表論文指出，皮凱蒂在分析資本日益增長的重要性時，並未充分考慮貶值的作用。榮利的論文還指出，如果考慮貶值因素的影響，房地產價值的增長就恰好可以解釋工薪階層收入相對比重下降以及資本所有者收入相對比重增長。（此句繁複晦澀，但未找到更好譯法，須看下皮凱蒂和榮利對該問題的闡述——曹禎）

The business media has covered Rognlie’s paper widely. It makes for good copy when an economist who hasn’t even gotten his PhD writes a paper that, according to The Economist, “several reputable economists regard . . . as the most serious and substantive critique that Mr Piketty’s work has yet faced.”

財經媒體紛紛報道了榮利的論文，畢竟一位尚未獲得博士學位的經濟學者能寫出如此水平的評論文章已實屬不易。《經濟學人》稱：“幾位知名經濟學家認爲，這篇文章是迄今爲止皮凱蒂遇到的最嚴肅也是最具實質的批評。”

At the same time, we should put into perspective the practical implications of Rognlie’s critique. He isn’t the first economist to call into question Piketty’s assertion that the very nature of capitalism will lead wealth inequality to grow much worse than it is now, creating a permanent, dynastic, global aristocracy, or an “endless inegalitarian spiral,” as Piketty himself puts it. Rognlie’s analysis might be better regarded as an addition to a broad body of work suggesting that housing policy in America is holding back growth and exacerbating inequality.

讚歎的同時，我們也應該更全面地看待榮利的批評，看其是否具有實踐指導意義。皮凱蒂認爲，資本主義的本質將使今後貧富差距問題日益嚴重，最終形成全球性的代代世襲貴族羣體。或者，用皮凱蒂自己的話說，一個“永無止境的不平等循環”。榮利並不是第一個質疑該觀點的經濟學者，在他之前已有不少文章指出，美國的房地產政策正阻礙經濟增長，加重社會不平等現象。

As Rognlie admits in his paper, economists like Edward Glaeser have been arguing that real estate, namely the restrictions local governments put on building more housing in and around economically vibrant areas, has long been slowing economic growth and hurting economic mobility. Building restrictions in vibrant cities and their nearby, exclusive suburbs prevent upwardly mobile people from relocating to places that offer the most economic opportunity.

榮利在論文中談到，愛德華o格萊澤等經濟學家一直聲稱，房地產，或者說地方政府對繁華地區及周邊修建住宅的限制，妨礙了經濟增長，也降低了經濟流動性。具體來說就是，政府限制人們在繁華城市及其周邊專屬郊區修建住宅後，正在向上流動的社會人羣沒法自由移居到發展機會更好的地方。

Where industry is booming, in cities like San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., housing is increasingly unaffordable. Those who were lucky enough to buy real estate in these areas in recent years have seen their wealth explode, but renters and others trying to move there, and up the economic ladder, are struggling.

舉例來說，在舊金山、紐約和華盛頓等城市，各行各業正在繁榮發展，但房價也越發讓人難以承受。這就導致一方面，近幾年在這些城市買房的幸運兒們財富暴漲；另一方面，租房的人們，以及想去大城市謀求更好生活的人們只能眼睜睜看房價飆漲卻無能爲力。

Meanwhile, recent data from online real estate firm Zillow offers evidence that the real estate market is compounding economic inequality in other ways. Its most recent report showed that the percentage of American homeowners who are underwater, or owe more on their homes than they are worth, stood at 16.9%. Though that rate remained flat from the previous quarter, Zillow found that a homeowner was much more likely to be underwater if their home was in the bottom third of real estate by value. Furthermore, the percentage of homeowners who are underwater increased in almost half of the largest 50 metro areas, the same areas that are strugglig economically.

房地產在線數據庫Zillow的數據顯示，房地產市場還通過其他途徑加劇貧富差距矛盾。其最新報告顯示，有16.9%的美國房主“資不抵債”，也就是說，他們抵押貸款的數額遠遠超出了房屋本身的價值。儘管比例和前一個季度持平，但Zillow發現，房屋價值越低，房主“資不抵債”的可能性越高。此外，在美國50大城市中，約有一半的城市出現了“資不抵債”房主比例上升的情況，而且這些城市的經濟均陷入困境。

As it stands, homeownership is not a great way to climb up the economic ladder. That’s because working class people can often only afford to buy real estate in neighborhoods where home values are volatile. Investing in such homes can make you financially less stable, rather than the opposite. This is what we’re seeing today, as shown by Zillow’s data, and this dynamic has been exacerbated by the lasting effects of the housing bubble.

這說明，擁有住房並不是改善財務的好辦法。因爲在工薪階層買得起房的地段，房價並不穩定。Zillow的數據顯示，在差地段買房會只會導致財務狀況更加起伏不定，根本沒法穩定下來。再加上房地產泡沫的影響仍未消散，出現這種情況的可能性就更大。

This might lead us to believe that we could stem the rising tide of inequality simply by weakening real estate regulations—force localities to allow more building and eliminate policies like the mortgage interest deduction, which drives up the price of housing. Then again, economists have been arguing for decades that such policies are harmful to the economy. And yet the middle class loves them, even if they’re actually broadly harmful.

這或許會讓大家覺得，只要放鬆房地產監管政策，比如迫使地方政府批准修建更多房屋，取消按揭利息抵扣等推高房價的政策，就能遏制貧富差距不斷擴大的趨勢。不過，幾十年來經濟學家一直在說，這些政策不利於經濟發展。儘管中產階層擁護這樣的政策，但這不過是飲鴆止渴。

Piketty’s suggestions that we enact a broad, global tax on wealth might seem far fetched, but it isn’t more outlandish than believing that homeowners will suddenly welcome affordable multifamily housing in their leafy, conveniently located suburbs.

皮凱蒂建議徵收全球性財富稅，或許有點不着邊際，倒也不算多麼荒誕不經。畢竟還有人相信，在居住環境好，交通又便利的郊區，人們會突然同意政府修建多戶型經濟適用房。