Wealth creation.

創造價值

These are really powerful words.

創造財富

Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation,

都是很有份量的詞

you think of creativity.

也許你聯想到金融、創新

But who are the value creators?

或是創意

If we use that word, we must be implying that some people aren't creating value.

但究竟誰創造了價值？

Who are they?

說這話的意思就是

The couch potatoes?

並非所有人都在創造價值

The value extractors?

誰沒貢獻價值？

The value destroyers?

整天窩在沙發看電視的人？

To answer this question, we actually have to have a proper theory of value.

萃取價值的人？

And I'm here as an economist to break it to you

破壞價值的人？

that we've kind of lost our way on this question.

要解答這問題

Now, don't look so surprised.

我們先要有一個像樣的價值理論

What I mean by that is, we've stopped contesting it.

今天我以經濟學家的身分

We've stopped actually asking really tough questions

為各位解答

about what is the difference between value creation and value extraction,

我們迷失在這個問題上了

productive and unproductive activities.

別這麼驚訝

Now, let me just give you some context here.

我的意思是說

2009 was just about a year and a half after

我們已經全盤接受

one of the biggest financial crises of our time,

也不再強硬質疑

second only to the 1929 Great Depression,

創造價值和萃取價值的不同

and the CEO of Goldman Sachs said

生產活動和非生產活動的差異

Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.

我給各位講講背景知識

Productivity and productiveness, for an economist,

2009 年當時

actually has a lot to do with value.

近代最嚴重的其中一次金融危機

You're producing stuff,

才解除不到一年半

you're producing it dynamically and efficiently.

僅次於 1929 年的大蕭條

You're also producing things that the world needs, wants and buys.

高盛集團執行長聲稱

Now, how this could have been said just one year after the crisis,

他們的員工世上最有生產力

which actually had this bank as well as many other banks --

經濟學家認為生產力高低

I'm just kind of picking on Goldman Sachs here --

實際上和價值有很大關係

at the center of the crisis, because they had actually produced

你生產東西

some pretty problematic financial products mainly but not only related to mortgages,

用的是動態、有效率的方法

which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes.

那些東西也是大家

In 2010, in just one month, September,

所需、所想、所買

120,000 people lost their homes through the foreclosures of that crisis.

危機才過短短一年半

Between 2007 and 2010,

那樣的說辭從何而生

8.8 million people lost their jobs.

而且這家銀行

The bank also had to then be bailed out by the US taxpayer

我只是拿高盛舉例

for the sum of 10 billion dollars.

當然還有其他很多銀行

We didn't hear the taxpayers bragging that they were value creators,

跟金融危機一點也脫不了關係

but obviously, having bailed out

因為這些銀行製造出

one of the biggest value-creating productive companies,

一些出問題的金融產品

perhaps they should have.

主要是抵押貸款

What I want to do next is kind of ask ourselves

讓成千上萬人失去房產

how we lost our way,

2010 年 9 月，僅僅這一個月內

how it could be, actually,

有 120,000 人因為這次危機

that a statement like that could almost go unnoticed,

房子遭銀行徵收而無家可歸

because it wasn't an after-dinner joke; it was said very seriously.

2007 至 2010 年間

So what I want to do is bring you back 300 years in economic thinking,

880 萬人失業

when, actually, the term was contested.

這家銀行更是用了

It doesn't mean that they were right or wrong,

美國納稅人 100 億美金

but you couldn't just call yourself a value creator, a wealth creator.

才脫離險境

There was a lot of debate within the economics profession.

納稅人可沒自詡他們創造了價值

And what I want to argue is, we've kind of lost our way,

但很明顯的

and that has actually allowed this term, "wealth creation" and "value,"

納稅人應以自己為榮

to become quite weak and lazy

拯救了這些

and also easily captured.

創造價值、又有生產力的大公司

OK? So let's start -- I hate to break it to you --

我接著想問大家

300 years ago.

我們如何迷失了方向

Now, what was interesting 300 years ago

我們怎麼會對那樣的陳述

is the society was still an agricultural type of society.

幾乎毫無所覺

So it's not surprising that the economists of the time,

因為那席話十分認真

who were called the Physiocrats,

並非只是玩笑

actually put the center of their attention to farm labor.

我想帶大家回顧

When they said, "Where does value come from?"

經濟概念的 300 年歷史

they looked at farming.

當時，光是名稱本身就備受爭議

And they produced what I think was probably the world's first spreadsheet,

那些公司並無對錯

called the "Tableau Economique,"

但不能無憑無據

and this was done by François Quesnay, one of the leaders of this movement.

給自己冠上價值、財富創造者的名號

And it was very interesting,

這個問題也曾激起經濟學界熱烈討論

because they didn't just say, "Farming is the source of value."

我認為我們已經迷失方向了

They then really worried about what was happening to that value

才讓「創造財富」、「價值」這些字

when it was produced.

失其份量，得來全不費工夫

What the Tableau Economique does --

可以脫口而出

and I've tried to make it a bit simpler here for you --

我很不想提起這件事

is it broke down the classes in society into three.

300 年前

The farmers, creating value, were called the "productive class."

300 年前，特別的是

Then others who were just moving some of this value around

整個社會仍然奉行農業

but it was useful, it was necessary,

想當然耳

these were the merchants;

我們稱那時的經濟學家是重農主義者

they were called the "proprietors."

他們把重心擺在農業勞力

And then there was another class that was simply charging the farmers a fee

當他們問：「價值從何來？」

for an existing asset, the land,

考慮的是農事

and they called them the "sterile class."

魁奈 (François Quesnay) 帶領其他人

Now, this is a really heavy-hitting word if you think what it means:

畫了可能是史上第一張表格

that if too much of the resources are going to the landlords,

稱作「經濟表」

you're actually putting the reproduction potential of the system at risk.

有趣的是

And so all these little arrows there were their way of simulating --

他們不只認為「農事創造價值」

again, spreadsheets and simulators, these guys were really using big data --

還很苦惱這些價值究竟是如何產生的

they were simulating what would actually happen under different scenarios

經濟表的功用便是

if the wealth actually wasn't reinvested back into production

我會試著不說得那麼難

to make that land more productive

經濟表將社會分為三個等第

and was actually being siphoned out in different ways,

創造價值的農民

or even if the proprietors were getting too much.

也叫作「生產階級」

And what later happened in the 1800s,

其他人便只是四處搬動這些價值

and this was no longer the Agricultural Revolution

但這種行為很有用且必要

but the Industrial Revolution,

這些人是商人

is that the classical economists,

稱作「業主」

and these were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, the revolutionary,

還有另一階級

also asked the question "What is value?"

他們只用現有資產

But it's not surprising that because they were actually living

也就是土地，向農民收錢

through an industrial era with the rise of machines and factories,

稱為「不事生產階級」

they said it was industrial labor.

仔細想想的話

So they had a labor theory of value.

這詞其實很沈重，意思是：

But again, their focus was reproduction,

如果地主得到太多資源

this real worry of what was happening to the value that was created

則事實上整個系統 生生不息的潛力將受到威脅

if it was getting siphoned out.

這些箭號是當時經濟學者在模擬

And in "The Wealth of Nations,"

看到空白表格和模型

Adam Smith had this really great example of the pin factory where he said

不得不說他們運用了大數據

if you only have one person making every bit of the pin,

他們模擬不同情境

at most you can make one pin a day.

如果財富不再投入生產 讓土地更有生產力

But if you actually invest in factory production and the division of labor,

而是以不同方法分離出去

new thinking --

或如果甚至是業主獲利太多

today, we would use the word "organizational innovation" --

之後 1800 年代

then you could increase the productivity

農業革命已不復存在

and the growth and the wealth of nations.

工業革命取而代之

So he showed that 10 specialized workers

古典經濟學者

who had been invested in, in their human capital,

像是 Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx

could produce 4,800 pins a day,

開創新制

as opposed to just one by an unspecialized worker.

也想瞭解「價值是什麼？」

And he and his fellow classical economists

但他們實際生活在工業化時代

also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.

機械、工廠到處林立

(Laughter)

他們的答案是工業勞力

And the unproductive ones weren't --

一點也不足為奇

I think you're laughing because most of you are on that list, aren't you?

他們提出勞動價值說

(Laughter)

重點仍是再生產

Lawyers! I think he was right about the lawyers.

他們極力想找出

Definitely not the professors, the letters of all kind people.

若價值分離到其他地方

So lawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians.

創造價值時會發生什麼事

He obviously hated the opera.

Adam Smith 在《國富論》提到

He must have seen the worst performance of his life

大頭針工廠這個很好的例子

the night before writing this book.

如果要一個人負責全部的步驟

There's at least three professions up there

一天最多就產一根大頭針

that have to do with the opera.

但如果有資源

But this wasn't an exercise of saying, "Don't do these things."

投入到工廠生產和勞力分工

It was just, "What's going to happen

這是新的想法

if we actually end up allowing some parts of the economy to get too large

我們現在稱之為「組織創新」

without really thinking about how to increase the productivity

這樣生產力便會增加

of the source of the value that they thought was key,

國家也會成長、更加富裕

which was industrial labor.

他提到了 10 位專業化的工人

And again, don't ask yourself is this right or is this wrong,

他們的人力資本獲得資源

it was just very contested.

一天可以生產 4,800 根大頭針

By making these lists,

跟一名工人包攬全部工作的結果迥異

it actually forced them also to ask interesting questions.

Adam Smith 和其他古典經濟學家

And their focus, as the focus of the Physiocrats,

也把各類活動分為

was, in fact, on these objective conditions of production.

生產活動和非生產活動

They also looked, for example, at the class struggle.

（笑聲）

Their understanding of wages

這些非生產活動

had to do with the objective, if you want, power relationships,

你們在笑是因為自己也上榜了，對吧？

the bargaining power of capital and labor.

（笑聲）

But again, factories, machines, division of labor,

律師！我想他把律師放上榜是對的

agricultural land and what was happening to it.

教授真不該在榜上

So the big revolution that then happened --

其他職業也是

and this, by the way, is not often taught in economics classes --

律師、教授、店主、音樂家

the big revolution that happened with the current system

他一定很討厭聽歌劇

of economic thinking that we have,

他寫這本書前一晚

which is called "neoclassical economics,"

一定聽了最差勁的歌劇

was that the logic completely changed.

名單中至少有三種職業

It changed in two ways.

跟歌劇有關

It changed from this focus on objective conditions to subjective ones.

但這份名單並非要人們

Let me explain what I mean by that.

「不要去從事這些職業」

Objective, in the way I just said.

而是在說

Subjective, in the sense that all the attention went to

「如果我們真的讓經濟的一部份

how individuals of different sorts make their decisions.

發展的太壯大

OK, so workers are maximizing their choices of leisure versus work.

還不設法增加這些價值來源的生產力

Consumers are maximizing their so-called utility,

會發生什麼事？」

which is a proxy for happiness,

這裡價值來源指的是工業勞力

and firms are maximizing their profits.

不要太斟酌其中的對錯

And the idea behind this was that then we can aggregate this up,

列這份名單本來就很有爭議

and we see what that turns into,

也讓他們提出一些很有趣的問題

which are these nice, fancy supply-and-demand curves

他們和重農主義者其實都想知道

which produce a price,

生產的客觀條件

an equilibrium price.

他們也研究其他事情，像是階級鬥爭

It's an equilibrium price, because we also added to it

他們認定工資

a lot of Newtonian physics equations

跟這些客觀的權力階級有關係

where centers of gravity are very much part of the organizing principle.

資方和勞方在工資上討價還價的能力

But the second point here is that that equilibrium price, or prices,

工廠、機器、勞力分工

reveal value.

農業用土地，才是重點

So the revolution here is a change from objective to subjective,

重大變革接著發生

but also the logic is no longer one of what is value,

順道一提

how is it being determined,

經濟學課堂裡通常不提這個

what is the reproductive potential of the economy,

現今我們的經濟思想

which then leads to a theory of price

稱作新古典經濟學派

but rather the reverse:

發生重大變革

a theory of price and exchange

改變了整套邏輯思想

which reveals value.

變動了兩個方面

Now, this is a huge change.

人們開始更關心主觀條件 而不是客觀條件

And it's not just an academic exercise, as fascinating as that might be.

讓我解釋一下

It affects how we measure growth.

客觀，就像我剛說的

It affects how we steer economies to produce more of some activities,

主觀，大家更關注

less of others,

不同類型的人如何做決定

how we also remunerate some activities more than others.

勞工試圖在工作 和休閒中找到最大效益

And it also just kind of makes you think,

消費者也想得到最多所謂的效用

you know, are you happy to get out of bed if you're a value creator or not,

效用是幸福的代名詞

and how is the price system itself if you aren't determining that?

企業也想賺到最多的利益

I mentioned it affects how we think about output.

我們可以累積這些效益

If we only include, for example, in GDP,

看看會有什麼結果

those activities that have prices,

就是背後的機制

all sorts of really weird things happen.

是這些完美、花俏的供需曲線

Feminist economists and environmental economists

可以計算出一個價格

have actually written about this quite a bit.

一個均衡價格

Let me give you some examples.

交叉點是一個均衡價格

If you marry your babysitter, GDP will go down, so do not do it.

因為我們也納入許多牛頓的物理等式

Do not be tempted to do this, OK?

重心就是組織原則的一部分

Because an activity that perhaps was before being paid for is still being done

第二點是由均衡價格揭示價值

but is no longer paid.

此（經濟理論）變革 不只從客觀變為主觀觀點

(Laughter)

邏輯也變為

If you pollute, GDP goes up.

不再考慮什麼有價值

Still don't do it, but if you do it, you'll help the economy.

如何決定價值

Why? Because we have to actually pay someone to clean it.

經濟體系的再生產潛力有多大

Now, what's also really interesting is what happened to finance

（上述不再）決定價格

in the financial sector in GDP.

反而是正好相反：

This also, by the way, is something I'm always surprised

由價格和交換理論揭示其價值

that many economists don't know.

這是個重大的變化

Up until 1970,

因為這不只跟學術有關

most of the financial sector was not even included in GDP.

雖然學術上很有趣

It was kind of indirectly, perhaps not knowingly,

還會影響我們如何量測發展

still being seen through the eyes of the Physiocrats

會影響我們如何操縱經濟

as just kind of moving stuff around, not actually producing anything new.

增加或減少某些生產活動

So only those activities that had an explicit price were included.

為何給予某些活動較多酬勞

For example, if you went to get a mortgage, you were charged a fee.

還會令你思考

That went into GDP and the national income and product accounting.

如果你沒創造價值的話 是否還願意起床工作

But, for example, net interest payments didn't,

如果你沒參與決定 那麼價格體系本身會如何？

the difference between what banks were earning in interest

我剛剛說了

if they gave you a loan and what they were paying out for a deposit.

我們對生產的看法會受到影響