????但就沃爾瑪而言，政府為沃爾瑪低收入員工提供的補貼讓創始人們變得更賦富裕了。你認為政府該怎么做？

????第一步是雙方要認清當前的狀況及原因所在。我曾經是奧巴馬的積極支持者。但他一展開競選就開始指責富人。他說，億萬富翁和百萬富翁們正在操縱整個體系，拿走所有的錢。這馬上就把原本可以幫助（改善現狀）的人們推到了對立面。我不是說“有權者不會為私利而改變體系”，我要說的是它并不是不平等的根源。

????但具體來說，需要進行什么改變？

????我們需要改變美國企業界的想法。全球化以及擔心中國人搶飯碗的憂慮已經將“股東價值”變成了經營一家公司的全部和終極目標，深深地烙在了大多數CEO的DNA中。我們需要轉變，公司領導人需要在股東、客戶和員工間尋找平衡。我猜這是一場道德革命。

????如果企業不這么做，政府可以努力促進增長，給工薪階層和中產階級更好的機會。需要進行正確的結構性調整。首先，我們需要關注迫在眉睫的事情。為長期預算問題哪怕支付一筆定金，這非常重要。解決社保體系的問題應是當務之急。當然，我們應該按經濟狀況審查。因此，富人們不應獲得社會保障，即便他們為此進行了支付。一旦我們證明我們能做成什么，信心就會提升。

????第二，政府需要幫助人們就業。這里有一個讓人難過的統計數據：25-55歲的美國男性有9%的人在拿傷殘補貼，高于20年前的2%-3%。這些人當然是傷殘者。但很多人就是長期失業。我們有迷惘的一代，就像是歷史上大蕭條時期的無業游民。這些人從沒有工作，從未結婚，從來沒有理由攢錢。這是一件非?？膳潞土钊司趩实氖虑?。促進就業的最佳方式是讓企業界相信你是支持他們的。因此，指責是一種非常糟糕的政策。我們需要釋放被壓抑的資本和創造力。

????第三，讓我們來看看貨幣政策，QE3。這項政策的本意是通過推高資產價格來刺激經濟。但擁有資產的正是富人。曼哈頓是一個典型的例子。曼哈頓公寓、漢普頓的別墅以及股票價格都出現了上漲。我們都變得更有錢了！我們需要認識到這一點。或許，美聯儲(Fed)應當將政策關注點擴大至中小企業直接貸款，而不是永遠只有量化寬松。

????最后，美國政府需要規范最低工資。拿最低工資的人們應該無需政府補貼。一個更詳盡的最低工資體系會把責任交回企業。這也是一種更有尊嚴的收入再分配方式。我相信那些沃爾瑪員工寧可每年從公司獲得額外的2,500美元，也不愿接受政府的救濟。

????稅收呢？既然像你這樣的有錢人變得更有錢了，難道你不認為稅收能幫助實現財富再分配嗎？換言之，下調資本所得稅稅率讓有錢人獲益，與提供政府補貼讓沃爾瑪獲益，兩者有什么不同？

????稅收當然有一定作用。我認識的大多數有錢人都不介意財富再分配，前提是得讓他們相信，這些財富不會被浪費。政府的表現從來沒有證明它是GDP的好管家。在大多數城市，我們的公共教育體系就是個大敗筆。對政府項目的需求和項目實際執行之間脫節，這個體系兩級分化，想做什么事都做不成。我希望我能有一個答案。政治僵局是復蘇不溫不火的原因之一。一旦有了信心，未來人們就會開始借錢和投資。（財富中文網）

????譯者：早稻米

????

????So, in the case of Wal-Mart, government subsidies of the poor employees make the founders even richer. What do you think that the government should do?

????The first step is for both sides to recognize what is happening and why. I was a big Obama supporter, yet the moment he gets on the campaign trail he blames the rich. He says billionaires and millionaires are rigging the system to take all the money. That immediately puts the people you need to help [the situation] on the defensive. I am not saying that people in power don't tweak things to their advantage' what I am saying is that is not the root cause of the inequity.

????But, specifically, what changes need to be made?

????We need a change of thinking in corporate America. Globalization and the fear of having your lunch eaten by the Chinese has made "shareholder value" the be-all and end of running a company. It is in the DNA of most of our CEOs. We need a shift where company leaders look at a balance between shareholders, customers, and employees. I guess that is a moral revolution.

????Short of that, the government can do things both to promote growth and to give the working and middle class a better shot. The right structural changes need to be made. First, we need to look at the things that are overhanging us. Making even a down payment on our long term budget problems is key. Fixing the social security system should be a top priority. And, of course, we should means test. So rich people shouldn't get social security, even though they paid into it. Once we show we can get something done, confidence will pick up.

????Second, the government needs to help get people employed. Here's a sad statistic: 9% of 25-55 year old males are on disability, up from 2%-3% from 20 years ago. Of course there are people on the list that are disabled. But many are just chronically unemployed. We have a whole lost generation. It's not unlike the hobos during the depression era. These men never got jobs; never got married; never have a reason to build a nest egg. That's the really scary and depressing thing. The best way to spur employment is to get the business community to believe you're on their side. It's why blaming is such bad policy. We need to unleash the pent up capital and creativity.

????Third, take a look at monetary policy, QE3. This was meant to stimulate the economy by driving asset prices up. But it's the rich people who own the assets. Manhattan is a perfect example. Manhattan apartments, Hamptons houses, stock prices have all gone higher. We've all gotten richer! We need to recognize it. Maybe the Fed should expand its mandate to direct lending to small and medium-size companies as opposed to QE forever.

????Finally, the government needs to regulate minimum wage. An employee making minimum wage should not have to be subsidized by the government to live. A more comprehensive minimum wage system puts the responsibility back onto the businesses. It's also a more dignified way at redistribution. I am sure those Wal-Mart employees would rather have that extra $2,500 a year come from their company as opposed to a government handout.

????What about taxes? Since the rich, like you, have gotten richer, don't you think redistribution of wealth through taxes could help? Or put another way, how is a lower tax rate on capital gains, which essentially helps the rich, not like a government subsidy similar to the one Wal-Mart receives?

????Taxes play a role for sure. Most wealthy people I know wouldn't mind redistribution if they believed it wouldn't be wasted. Government hasn't shown that it hasn't been a good steward of GDP. In most cities our public school system is a debacle. This idea -- the disconnect between the need for government programs and the true implantation of them -- has caused a polarized system that throws a wet blanket over anything you want to get done. I wish I had an answer. Political gridlock is one of the reasons for the muted recovery. Once you have confidence, people start borrowing money and investing in the future.