Comments 13

富足之下的悲观主义

Feb 23, 2018 Michael Spence

发自米兰——几年前，我写了一本名为《下一次大趋同》(The Next Convergence)的书，讲述发展中经济体如何在收入，财富，健康和其他人类福利方面“迎头赶上”发达国家的。我不仅关注这些国家如何实现快速增长——包括开放性全球经济所扮演的中心角色——而且还看到了这一融合过程所带来的机遇和挑战。

在撰写该书时，我曾计划在书中插入大量数据图表。但有一位受人尊敬的书籍出版代理人告诉我说使用图表并不是个好主意，因为只有少部分人能更好地吸收这种以视觉形式呈现的数量信息。我因此意识到图表在某种意义上是对问题的回答。但如果你没有提出问题，那么图表就会显得既无趣，又没有什么意义。

最近，哈佛大学心理学家史蒂文·平克（Steven Pinker）出版了一本书，记录了各项福利的长期积极趋势，他称之为“启蒙的成果”。然而平克认为进展并非总是前进式的，有时候也会随着气候变化等新挑战的出现而遭遇重大挫折。但总的来说，至少在18世纪中叶以后福利一直不断改善，工业革命更是带来了福利收益的急剧增长。自第二次世界大战以来，占全球总人口85%的发展中国家人民也有所受益。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The New Disappeared

Oct 12, 2018 Nina L. Khrushcheva
The New and Not Improved NAFTA

Oct 9, 2018 Jeffrey Frankel
The Big Blockchain Lie

Oct 15, 2018 Nouriel Roubini
Does Modi Have a Pakistan Policy?

Oct 10, 2018 Shashi Tharoor
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab

Michael Spence

Writing for PS since 2008
108 Commentaries

Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at NYU’s Stern School of Business, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Advisory Board Co-Chair of the Asia Global Institute in Hong Kong, and Chair of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on New Growth Models. He was the chairman of the independent Commission on Growth and Development, an international body that from 2006-2010 analyzed opportunities for global economic growth, and is the author of The Next Convergence – The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 in all 13 Comments on this article

Henk Crop Feb 28, 2018

The wealth in the world, including the US and EU, has been growing and continues to grow.
However Robert Reich observed that in the 1950's a person in the US with a regular job could live comfortably.
Since the early 1970's that has become ever more difficult. Giving many in the middle class justified reason for pessimism.
What happens is that the economic and political system rewards the benefits of production-output more to capital than to labor.
In other words, the money goes increasing to the Bankers, CEO's, Shareholders, Consultants and less to the average worker.
In the process the middle class, the majority of the Americans, is being undermined.
Reich wants capitalism to work for the many, not just the few.
In the EU there are similar developments, but not as extreme.
Recommended reading: Saving Capitalism, Robert Reich.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Morgan Feb 26, 2018

There's no evidence that average prosperity in Western countries is improving, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.

Much recorded "growth" is simply the spending of borrowed money. The conduits for this borrowed consumption are low value-added - a lot more pedicures and takeaway food, hardly any growth in manufacturing, agriculture or construction. Wages aren't keeping up with inflation, let alone with the cost of household essentials. Typical households are more indebted than ever.

In other words, we're pushing borrowed money into the economy through low-value, residual activities - "taking in each others' washing" - and racking up debt as we do so.

Finally, think about pensions. The WEF reckons the pension gap in eight major economies was $67tn at end-2015, and will be $428tn (in 2015 dollars) by 2050.

As for globalization, it simply asks Western consumers to increase their consumption even though they've been stripped of well-paid jobs. Using debt to bridge this gap was the reason for deregulation, and the underlying cause of the GFC.

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/02/23/120-the-need-for-new-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-5845
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lester Soss Feb 25, 2018

Dr. Pence assumes here that the purveyors of negative news are driven by profit considerations. In other words Fox News, in order to make money, is simply telling its audience what they want to hear.
It has no political agenda. Simon Wren-Lewis in his blog "Mainly Macro" counters this idea. Below is the first paragraph of that blog:
"The first line of defence for the UK’s partisan right wing press (Mail, Sun, Telegraph) is that they do not matter. The opinions they express and the news stories they follow just reflect the views and interests of their readers. We now have clear evidence that this is simply not true for Fox News in the United States. As I describe here, the output of Fox News, which bears very little relationship to the truth, is designed to maximise its persuasive power. I think Obama summed it up quite clearly when he said even he would not vote for himself if he watched Fox News."
It's a sobering article that portends a possible ugly change in our politics.
- P. Kamath Apr 18, 2018
  
  But FOX news which has little concern for truth, has such powerful hold on half of American population!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Olga Butorina Feb 25, 2018

What a brilliant idea to use graphs as answers to questions! It's a Life Huck for scholars. The main issue is to pose a right question.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nigel southway Feb 24, 2018

Another globalism loving economist that thinks that the track we are on is all fine and fair... well its not fine and certainly not fair.. Its a glass half full half empty discussion when the rest of us want to change the size of the glass....

globalization has grown 8 times since 1980 where as average GDP has grown 3.5 times and is flat-lined or worse in the western economies for most of the population.
So globalization has strong winners and losers .... Its not about technology.... its about global wealth transfer..
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Feb 24, 2018

HOPE IN DEMOCRACY
The example of Sweden and America cited perhaps hits the central theme.
Globalization or A.I. are both not considered Impediments to Hope, in Sweden.
Because Hope transcends all - every Swede believes that Hope exists.
Because of the egalitarianism that they see - socialized medicine, if you will.
The wealth effects too don't nurture Pessimism - so long Hope exists.

Agriculture represents a unique opportunity for perspective.
70 % of an Economy at one stage worked Agriculture.
Today it is not even 7 %. The displacement did not take away Hope.
Because the family budget spent on food also declined to 7 % from 70 %.
Next in importance is perhaps Housing Education Infrastructure Health.
The percentage required by family budgets spent on HEIH keeps rocketing.
When Hope disappears - of living a lifestyle of Superwealth - pessimism arises.
When the dream requires relocation to Big City of Superwealth - pessimism is up.
70 % of family budgets now are spent on HEIH - capping it to 7 % impossible.

Universal Basic Income will work - if it can achieve this capping @ 7 %.
HEIH has become like "Food" - Citizen Joe Public needs assurances.
Joe Public in Sweden feels Democracy protects his future.
Joe Public in America despairs Democracy that does not protect his future.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
manuel werner Feb 23, 2018

I had chatted with Pinker a few years ago after he gave a talk, and he was contemptuously dismissive of inequality. Focusing on absolute gain, whereby everyone gets a bit more, mere crumbs at the lower end and giant loaves at the other rather than relative gain is a huge flaw in the “things are getting better” argument. Leaving out the fragilization of absolute gains by growing inequality in China, India, America and many other societies, across the political spectrum, is a major flaw in both yours and Pinker’s rosy views. The Swedes can appreciate their shiny new tech toys precisely because these are not a threat to the reasonably lower levels of inequality their society currently enjoys.
If climate change or Orange I (Trump) don’t get us first, inequality is next in line for it’s shot at creating major upheaval.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Feb 23, 2018

"Thus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached; and the probable duration of that authority can be calculated from the more or less general desire for a true government, — that is, for a scientific government. And just as the right of force and the right of artifice retreat before the steady advance of justice, and must finally be extinguished in equality, so the sovereignty of the will yields to the sovereignty of the reason, and must at last be lost in scientific socialism." - Proudhon: What is Property?
- M M Feb 23, 2018
  
  Bitcoin?
  - Marc Laventurier Feb 23, 2018
    
    M M - I've been loosely and intermittently associated with the Silicon Valley and SF Etherium communities for a few years, and the best thinkers will start off a presentation pointing out that Visa vastly outperforms BTC etc in their similar functions. Most of the rest of them are unconscious market-slave 'entrepreneurs' who when they aren't chasing the main chance the CC fad represents, are projecting the problems late-capitalist market-life entails on a thin idea of a distributed anonymous ledger that somehow cages their sweaty dreams. The future will likely be served by a sort of free, voluntary 'information utility' optimizing resources and social-scale outcomes; I call the idea 'teleocom', among other things. Even Proudhon might approve.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Feb 23, 2018

Another puff piece for how wonderful globalization is. No the losers aren't losers you must look at the big picture. Well Mr.Spence let me give you a look at how well being as improved in this your modern day paradise. I have watched 2 jobs shipped to the 3rd world and trained my H1b replacement at another. I no longer have medical insurance that is any better then eye catching toilet paper with a 10,000 dollar deductible it isn't worth much as insurance. I'm making half what I did in 2008. If this your idea wonderful progress you and I will have to disagree. The so called "benefits" of globalization in the developed world have concentrated a relatively small group and until our so called elites face up to this Trump and Brexit are merely the beginning. Policies are removing the social safety net Mr Spence not improving it. Any kind of policy making based on "social solidarity", What are you smoking? Not happening not going to happen.

Let me ask you one simple question Mr. Spence: Positive long term trends for WHO? No one in the working class of the developed world that's for sure.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Feb 23, 2018

Michael, your whole essay could have been summarised with this one and only paragraph that is in it and is herewith attached. The conclusion is not sound however, where do you see " positive long term trends"..... for the masses .....and not the few? Surely you're not referring to the current madness in the Equity Markets that do not reflect reality?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.