有錢人的憤怒

作者: Jas / 發表於 2010-09-21

Angry rich 1

前幾天看完雷利·史考特的電影《Robin Hood (2010)》,不久,就在紐約時報讀到保羅·克魯曼的專欄文章《The Angry Rich》。

時間點的巧合,讓我忍不住對《Robin Hood (2010)》與《The Angry Rich》產生種種聯想。

保羅·克魯曼的專欄文章以一種倒裝的寫法,先承認了美國社會確實存在憤怒的少數。

接著,再娓娓道來地揭露:在這個貧富愈漸懸殊的時代,百萬人民流離失所、年輕一代找不到工作、被解雇的五十多歲中年人害怕他們的職場生涯就此結束的當代美國社會,真正把憤怒詮釋到白熱化極致的,並不是弱勢者,而是有錢人。

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.

Angry rich 2

哪個有錢人那麼好死呢?保羅·克魯曼直接點名了這一位:世界最大私募股權基金「黑石集團(Blackstone Group)」的創辦人Stephen A. Schwarzman

就在今年,美國總統歐巴馬簽署了意在剝奪特權階級之特權的《華爾街改革法案(Wall Street Reform Act)》之後,就被Stephen A. Schwarzman之流的有錢人們譬喻作納粹(Nazi)德國的希特勒(Hitler)

When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

把歐巴馬比作希特勒顯然不大貼切,不過,在知名有錢人的憤怒煽動之下,歐巴馬或許有機會淪為任內簽署了憲章卻無意遵守的約翰王

Angry rich 3

畢竟,即便在民主政治制度之下,能夠勝選坐大位還是最重要的。

除了時間點的巧合之外,另一個讓我忍不住把《Robin Hood (2010)》與《The Angry Rich》聯想在一起的,其實是一種「我們的處境都被美化了」的概觀直覺。

我們這些相對弱勢,這些被扔到高牆上的雞蛋,每一次與體制抗衡,其實都在為有錢人而奮鬥犧牲。

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

不像羅賓漢還能有個雪伍德森林(Sherwood Forest)可以打造自己的理想國。





回上方