????“占領華爾街”抗議活動的走向還不明朗。雖然紐約警察清理了祖科蒂公園（Zucotti Park），其他城市也迅速跟進，但這場活動不可能在近期內(nèi)銷聲匿跡。真正的怒火并未熄滅，而且還在繼續(xù)蔓延，早已超越了華爾街的范疇。不錯，人們對金融服務業(yè)的敵視顯而易見，認為就是他們導致全世界陷入了漫長而嚴重的經(jīng)濟衰退。但這場抗議活動的深入程度遠遠不止如此。我們常說的“那1%”（也就是在全球財富中所占比例過多的全球精英）并不僅僅包括對沖基金經(jīng)理、投資顧問和交易商，其中還包括了各個行業(yè)中非金融公司的高管和領袖。憤怒也指向了他們。弄清楚這些批評的原因同樣重要。

????美國勞工聯(lián)合會-產(chǎn)業(yè)工會聯(lián)合會（AFL-CIO）的資料顯示， 299家最大公司的CEO在2010年平均獲得了1,140萬美元的薪酬，而普通勞動者的薪酬在2009年剛剛超過3.3萬美元。兩者之間的巨大差距是令人們?nèi)呵榧ぐ旱脑蛑弧５珕栴}不僅僅在于錢。有關薪酬的爭論模糊了有關高管行為的一個合理之處。這一點值得進行深入探討。

????人們對公司高管的憤怒還源于這樣一種看法：美國公司沒有盡到其道德責任。“權(quán)力越大，責任也越大”的觀念并不僅僅是好萊塢大片里的臺詞。它包含了一個強有力的、能引起共鳴的事實：我們希望最有權(quán)勢的人謹慎行事，負責地行使其權(quán)力。次貸危機、安然（Enron）欺詐丑聞、世通（WorldCom）事件、期權(quán)回溯丑聞，以及其他層出不窮的企業(yè)違法案例表明，公司領導者們做起事來完全不負責任。它們表明，利潤現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)優(yōu)先于員工、環(huán)境、客戶、社會和其他一切。它們還表明，CEO們用道德?lián)Q取薪酬，引導全社會走上了一條貪婪和腐敗之路。

????商業(yè)世界的維護者辯稱（正如我們已經(jīng)做過的那樣），問題不在于個別高管，而在于令高管們左右為難的體系。高管們被要求專注于提高股東價值。這是個極其困難的任務。反映在股價上的股東價值是一個衡量其他人期望的指標。雖然股東價值可能部分取決于企業(yè)基本面，但它們也會受到宏觀因素、系統(tǒng)偏好和廣告宣傳的推動。高管們很難在短期內(nèi)通過提升公司業(yè)績這一腳踏實地但卻困難重重的工作來影響股價。因此，他們轉(zhuǎn)而從投資者的期望入手。他們提供引導，大力宣傳公司股票，進行莽撞的并購和業(yè)務剝離，這些都是為了推動股價上揚。

????Just where the Occupy Wall Street protests are headed is unclear. Though New York police cleared out Zucotti Park and others cities quickly moved to follow suit, it is unlikely the movement will simply die away in the near term. Real anger remains, an anger that extends well beyond Wall Street. Yes, there is clear enmity towards the financial services sector for tipping the world into a lengthy and damaging recession, but the protests run much deeper than that. The much-referenced 1% -- the global elite that controls a disproportionate percentage of global wealth -- is not made up solely of hedge fund managers, investment advisors and traders. It is made up of executives and leaders of non-financial firms in every sector. The anger is directed here too. And it is just as important to make sense of this strand of criticism.

????Per the AFL-CIO, CEOs of 299 top firms earned, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation in 2010. The disparity between that number and the average worker's salary -- just over $33,000 in 2009 -- is part of what gets the blood boiling. But it is more than just money. The salary argument obfuscates a legitimate point about executive behavior that is worth exploring.

????The anger with our corporate executives is also rooted in a sense that corporate America has abdicated its moral responsibility. The notion that "with great power comes great responsibility" is not just a line from a Hollywood blockbuster. It contains a powerful and resonant truth: We want the most powerful among us to act with care and to wield that power responsibly. The sub-prime mortgage debacle, the Enron, WorldCom and options backdating scandals, and myriad other examples of corporate malfeasance suggest that our corporate leaders are capable of acting utterly irresponsibly. They suggest that profits now come before employees, before the environment, before customers, before society, before anything and everything. They suggest that CEOs have traded their ethics for a paycheck and led us down a greed-driven and corrupt path.