That capitalism has been shown, in practice, to be endemically flawed should come as no surprise. That is the nature of mankind. What is more important is that history, notably the history of the world after the second world war, has demonstrated beyond dispute that every other system of economic organisation is far worse. So capitalism both deserves to survive, and will survive, just as it did after the even greater economic disaster of the 1930s.

　　實(shí)踐已表明，資本主義存在固有缺陷，這一點(diǎn)不足為奇。那是人類的天性。更重要的是，歷史——尤其是二戰(zhàn)之后的世界歷史——已無(wú)可辯駁地證明，其他所有經(jīng)濟(jì)組織制度都要糟糕得多。因此，資本主義既應(yīng)當(dāng)繼續(xù)存在下去，也將會(huì)繼續(xù)存在下去，正如上世紀(jì)30年代那場(chǎng)甚至比目前更為嚴(yán)重的經(jīng)濟(jì)災(zāi)難之后的情況。

　　But there is another lesson of the 1930s. It is that although capitalism survives it is capable of retreating behind a protectionist shell, at great cost to global prosperity. This is a real danger today. The “Buy American” provisions in President Barack Obama's fiscal boost are an ominous sign. The impulse to resort to protection when economic hardship suddenly strikes is, of course, always present. But there is today a dangerous new factor which magnifies the threat. The leaders of some of America's largest corporations have already joined up with organised labour (the AFL-CIO) to urge Congress to impose tariffs against imports from countries (such as China, for example) which are understandably unwilling to bear the heavy costs of an obligation to curb their carbon dioxide emissions. There is considerable support in Europe, notably within the European Commission and in France, for a similar approach.

　　但上世紀(jì)30年代還有一個(gè)教訓(xùn)：盡管資本主義幸存了下來(lái)，但它會(huì)縮進(jìn)一個(gè)保護(hù)主義的殼里，讓全球繁榮付出了慘重代價(jià)。目前這是一種真切存在的危險(xiǎn)。美國(guó)總 統(tǒng)巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)財(cái)政刺激方案中的“買美國(guó)貨”條款就是一個(gè)不祥之兆。自然，當(dāng)經(jīng)濟(jì)困厄驟然來(lái)襲之際，人們總會(huì)產(chǎn)生一種求助于保護(hù)主義的沖動(dòng)。但目前存在一種 危險(xiǎn)的新因素，加大了這種威脅。美國(guó)一些大企業(yè)領(lǐng)袖已聯(lián)合有組織的工人(美國(guó)勞工聯(lián)合會(huì)-產(chǎn)業(yè)工會(huì)聯(lián)合會(huì)，AFL-CIO)，敦促國(guó)會(huì)對(duì)來(lái)自相關(guān)國(guó)家(如 中國(guó))的進(jìn)口商品加征關(guān)稅，這些國(guó)家不愿承擔(dān)限制本國(guó)二氧化碳排放的沉重成本，這也是可以理解的。類似的做法在歐洲頗受支持，尤其是在歐盟委員會(huì)(EC) 內(nèi)部和法國(guó)。

　　It is essential, both in the US and in Europe, that this is resolutely rejected. The first and most important requirement for the future of capitalism is the preservation of globalisation, and the massive benefits it confers on mankind, in particular in the developing world. There are, inevitably, costs of globalisation; but they are hugely outweighed by the benefits. So resistance to protection, whatever arguments may be used in its favour, must be rigorously maintained. Nor is this an exclusively economic argument. It is a moral imperative, as well. Moreover, a trade war with China could well have unpredictable, and potentially highly damaging, political consequences.

　　美國(guó)和歐洲必須堅(jiān)決擯棄這種做法。要保障資本主義的未來(lái)，首要條件是維護(hù)全球化，及其給人類(尤其是發(fā)展中國(guó)家)帶來(lái)的巨大利益。全球化必然有代價(jià)，但其 利益遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)了代價(jià)。因此，無(wú)論保護(hù)主義的支持者可能擺出哪些有利于自己的論點(diǎn)，我們都必須堅(jiān)定地抵制保護(hù)主義。這不只是一種經(jīng)濟(jì)上的主張，在道義上也勢(shì) 在必行。此外，與中國(guó)進(jìn)行貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)，很可能造成無(wú)法預(yù)測(cè)、可能極具破壞力的政治后果。

　　But will capitalism need to change in the future? Again, the lesson of history is that the answer is “not really”. The economic cycle is endemic and inescapable, and everyone (with the exception of prime minister Gordon Brown) has always known this. What the current crisis does underline, however, is that a cyclical downturn associated with a collapse of the banking system is by an order of magnitude worse than a normal cyclical downturn.

　　然而，今后資本主義需要改變嗎?歷史教訓(xùn)再一次表明，答案是“不一定”。經(jīng)濟(jì)周期是固有的和不可避免的，對(duì)此所有(除了英國(guó)首相戈登•布朗)一向都很清楚。不過(guò)，當(dāng)前危機(jī)所突出表明的，是伴隨銀行體系崩潰的周期性衰退，在數(shù)量級(jí)上要比正常的周期性衰退更為嚴(yán)重。

　　So there does need to be a change to the banking system. In a nutshell, we need to return, in all major financial centres, to the separation of commercial banking from investment banking that was enforced in the US under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, until it was repealed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. This is all the more important since we now live in an age in which the acquisition of wealth appears to count for more than reputation.

　　因此，銀行體系的確需要變革。簡(jiǎn)言之，我們必須在所有主要金融中心重新施行商業(yè)銀行與投資銀行業(yè)務(wù)分離的做法。根據(jù)1933年的《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法 案》(Glass-Steagall Act)，美國(guó)過(guò)去一直實(shí)行這種做法，直到上世紀(jì)90年代該國(guó)總統(tǒng)比爾•克林頓(Bill Clinton)廢止了這一法案。既然我們?nèi)缃裆�活在發(fā)財(cái)致富似乎比名譽(yù)更重要的時(shí)代，這一點(diǎn)就顯得更加重要。

　　Achieving this will not be easy or popular in banking circles, but it can be done. We have time to get it right: this is not firefighting, but fireproofing.

　　要做到這一點(diǎn)并不容易，也不會(huì)受到銀行界的歡迎，不過(guò)這是可以做到的。我們有時(shí)間來(lái)把事情做好：這不是救火工作，而是防火。