Poverty isn't a lack of character; it's a lack of cash

演講者：Rutger Bregman?魯特格·布雷格曼

語(yǔ)言：英語(yǔ)

簡(jiǎn)介：2017?|?歷史學(xué)家魯特格·布雷格曼（Rutger Bregman）說：“思想可以并且正在改變世界∏嘣穑”他分享了他關(guān)于一個(gè)備受爭(zhēng)議的話題——基本保障收入——的看法户誓。了解有500年歷史的觀點(diǎn)，探索確實(shí)有效但被遺忘的現(xiàn)代實(shí)驗(yàn)悔橄，并想象如果我們一勞永逸地解決貧困問題，我們將釋放出多少能量和才能腺毫。

???中英對(duì)照翻譯

I'd like to start with a simple question:?Why do the poor make so many poor decisions??I know it's a harsh question,?but take a look at the data.?The poor borrow more, save less,?smoke more, exercise less, drink more?and eat less healthfully.?Why?

讓我們從一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問題開始：?為什么窮人總是做出不好的決策癣疟？?我知道這是一個(gè)殘酷的問題， 但是讓我們看看數(shù)據(jù)潮酒。?窮人借錢越多睛挚，積蓄越少，抽煙越多急黎，鍛煉越少扎狱，喝酒越多， 飲食越不健康勃教。?為什么呢淤击？

Well, the standard explanation?was once summed up by the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.?And she called poverty "a personality defect."?A lack of character, basically.

標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的解釋 是由英國(guó)首相Margaret Thatcher總結(jié)的。?她將貧窮稱為“一種人格缺陷”故源。簡(jiǎn)而言之污抬，就是缺少一種品格。

Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt.?But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves?is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher.?Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible?for their own mistakes.?

我知道你們大部分人不會(huì)這么直接绳军。但是印机，不止Thatcher夫人一個(gè)人持有這種觀點(diǎn)——窮人之所以貧窮是因?yàn)樗麄冏约河袉栴}。一些人會(huì)認(rèn)為窮人應(yīng)該為他們自己的錯(cuò)誤買單门驾。

And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions.?But the underlying assumption is the same:?there's something wrong with them.?If we could just change them,?if we could just teach them how to live their lives,?if they would only listen.?

另一些人會(huì)反駁射赛，我們應(yīng)該幫助他們?nèi)プ稣_的決定。但是潛在的假設(shè)是相同的：窮人一定有問題奶是。如果我們能改變他們咒劲，如果我們能教他們?nèi)フ_地生活顷蟆，如果他們能聽從我們的勸告。

And to be honest,this was what I thought for a long time.?It was only a few years ago that I discovered?that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper?by a few American psychologists.?

坦誠(chéng)地說腐魂，長(zhǎng)期以來帐偎，我也是這么認(rèn)為的。然而蛔屹，就在幾年前削樊，我才發(fā)現(xiàn)我對(duì)于貧困的一切看法都是錯(cuò)誤的。一切都源于一次偶然的機(jī)會(huì)兔毒，我發(fā)現(xiàn)了一篇由幾位美國(guó)心理學(xué)家發(fā)表的文章漫贞。

They had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to India,?for a fascinating study.?And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers. You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent?of their annual income all at once,?right after the harvest.?This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year?and rich the other.?

他們前往印度，跋涉8000英里育叁，去進(jìn)行一項(xiàng)有趣的研究迅脐。這是一個(gè)針對(duì)甘蔗種植者的實(shí)驗(yàn)。你們應(yīng)該知道豪嗽，農(nóng)民們60%的年收入都來自于豐收之后谴蔑。這意味著他們每年有一段時(shí)間相對(duì)貧窮另一段時(shí)間相對(duì)富裕。

The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest.?What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind.?The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest.?The effects of living in poverty, it turns out,?correspond to losing 14 points of IQ.?Now, to give you an idea,?that's comparable to losing a night's sleep?or the effects of alcoholism.

研究人員分別在豐收前和豐收后對(duì)農(nóng)民們進(jìn)行智商測(cè)試龟梦。他們隨后的發(fā)現(xiàn)令我震驚隐锭。測(cè)試表明，農(nóng)民們?cè)谪S收前的智商較低计贰。在貧困中生活的結(jié)果就是——智商降低14點(diǎn)∏账現(xiàn)在，再講一個(gè)能讓你們徹底失眠的觀點(diǎn)躁倒，甚至連酗酒也不管用荞怒。

A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir,?a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study,?was coming over to Holland, where I live.?So we met up in Amsterdam?to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty.?

幾個(gè)月后，我聽說普林斯頓大學(xué)的教授秧秉、該研究的作者之一EldarShafir將要來到我所在的荷蘭褐桌。于是我們?cè)诎⒛匪固氐ひ娒嬲劦搅怂歉锩缘呢毨吕碚摗?/p>

And I can sum it up in just two words:?scarcity mentality.?It turns out that people behave differently?when they perceive a thing to be scarce.?And what that thing is doesn't much matter --whether it's not enough time, money or food.

我將這個(gè)理論總結(jié)為幾個(gè)字：匱乏心態(tài)。當(dāng)人們察覺到缺乏某種東西時(shí)他們的行為就會(huì)發(fā)生變化福贞。無論這個(gè)“東西”是什么——缺時(shí)間撩嚼、缺錢或缺食物停士。

You all know this feeling,?when you've got too much to do,?or when you've put off breaking for lunch?and your blood sugar takes a dive.?This narrows your focus to your immediate lack --?to the sandwich you've got to have now,?the meeting that's starting in five minutes?or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow.?So the long-term perspective goes out the window.?

你們都知道這種感覺挖帘，當(dāng)你有太多事情要做時(shí)，或者當(dāng)你沒吃早餐時(shí)你的血糖驟降恋技。你滿腦子都是你所缺乏的東西——你現(xiàn)在必須得吃的三明治（缺乏食物）拇舀，將在5分鐘內(nèi)開始的會(huì)議（缺少時(shí)間）或是必須于明天前支付的賬單（缺錢）。這就導(dǎo)致你無法從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的角度去思考蜻底。

You could compare it to a new computer?that's running 10 heavy programs at once.?It gets slower and slower, making errors.?Eventually, it freezes --?not because it's a bad computer,?but because it has too much to do at once.?The poor have the same problem.?They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb,?but because they're living in a context?in which anyone would make dumb decisions.

就像一臺(tái)新電腦一次性運(yùn)行10個(gè)龐雜的程序骄崩。它會(huì)變得越來越慢，出現(xiàn)錯(cuò)誤。最終要拂，死機(jī)了——不是因?yàn)樗且慌_(tái)壞電腦抠璃，而是因?yàn)樗淮涡砸幚硖喑绦颉８F人面臨著同樣的問題脱惰。他們做出不好的決定搏嗡，不是因?yàn)樗麄兪谴廊耍且驗(yàn)樗麄兩钤谝粋€(gè)任何人都會(huì)做出愚蠢的決定的環(huán)境中拉一。

So suddenly I understood?why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work.?Investments in education, for example, are often completely ineffective.?Poverty is not a lack of knowledge.?A recent analysis of 201 studies?on the effectiveness of money-management training?came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all.?

瞬間我明白了為什么這么多反貧窮計(jì)劃都不管用采盒。比如在教育上加大投資，往往一點(diǎn)用都沒有蔚润。貧窮不是因?yàn)橹R(shí)匱乏磅氨。最近，一項(xiàng)針對(duì)201起金錢管理訓(xùn)練的有效性分析表明這種訓(xùn)練完全無效嫡纠。

Now, don't get me wrong --?this is not to say the poor don't learn anything --?they can come out wiser for sure.?But it's not enough.?Or as Professor Shafir told me,?"It's like teaching someone to swim?and then throwing them in a stormy sea."

請(qǐng)不要誤解了我的意思——我不是說窮人不學(xué)無術(shù)——他們當(dāng)然可以變得更加聰明烦租。但這還不夠』踽悖或者說左权，就像Shafir教授所說，“就像是剛開始教一個(gè)人游泳卻立馬把他們?nèi)舆M(jìn)波濤洶涌的大海痴颊∩统伲”

I still remember sitting there,?perplexed.?And it struck me?that we could have figured this all out decades ago.I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans;?they only had to measure the farmer's IQ,?and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago.?Actually, I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before.?

我仍然記得，我坐在那蠢棱，困惑不解锌杀。教授的話給我?guī)砹司薮蟮臎_擊——我們本應(yīng)在幾十年前就想明白。我的意思是說泻仙，這些心理學(xué)家不需要任何復(fù)雜的大腦掃描糕再；他們只需要測(cè)量一下農(nóng)民們的智商，而智商測(cè)試在100多年前就被發(fā)明出來了玉转。事實(shí)上突想，我意識(shí)到我以前讀過關(guān)于貧窮心理學(xué)的書籍。

George Orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived,?experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s.?"The essence of poverty," he wrote back then,?is that it "annihilates the future."?And he marveled at, quote,?"How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you?and pray over you?as soon as your income falls below a certain level."

世界上最著名的作家之一GeorgeOrwell在1920年代曾親身經(jīng)歷過貧窮究抓。他在書中寫到：“貧窮的本質(zhì)猾担，是摧毀未來〈滔拢”他感嘆道：“人們理所應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)卣J(rèn)為當(dāng)你的收入在貧困線以下時(shí)他們有權(quán)教導(dǎo)你并為你祈禱绑嘹。”

Now, those words are every bit as resonant today.?The big question is, of course:?What can be done??Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves.?We could help the poor with their paperwork?or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills.?

如今橘茉，這些話仍然能引起共鳴工腋。當(dāng)然姨丈，最大的問題是：我們能做些什么？現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家已經(jīng)想出一些解決辦法擅腰。我們可以幫助窮人做一些文書工作或者給他們發(fā)消息提醒他們支付賬單蟋恬。

This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians,?mostly because,?well, they cost next to nothing.?These solutions are, I think, a symbol of this erain which we so often treat the symptoms,?but ignore the underlying cause.

這種類型的解決辦法頗受當(dāng)代政客歡迎，主要是因?yàn)槌酶裕@幾乎沒有成本筋现。我認(rèn)為，這種解決辦法是這個(gè)時(shí)代的一個(gè)標(biāo)簽——我們往往只關(guān)注表象箱歧，卻忽略深層原因矾飞。

So I wonder:?Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live??Or, going back to our computer analogy:?Why keep tinkering around with the software?when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead??

試問：我們?yōu)槭裁床蝗ジ淖兏F人的生活環(huán)境？讓我們回到前面提到的電腦類比：與其一直糾結(jié)于一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)改進(jìn)軟件呀邢，為什么我們不簡(jiǎn)單地直接增加一些額外的內(nèi)存呢洒沦？

At that point, Professor Shafir responded with a blank look.?And after a few seconds, he said,?"Oh, I get it.?You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor?to eradicate poverty.?Uh, sure, that'd be great.?But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics?you've got in Amsterdam --?it doesn't exist in the States."

這時(shí)，Shafir教授露出一副茫然的表情价淌。幾秒鐘后申眼，他說：“噢，我知道了蝉衣。你的意思是你想給窮人發(fā)錢以根除貧困括尸。額，當(dāng)然病毡，這是個(gè)好想法濒翻。但是，恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹提出的這種左翼政策的想法——在美國(guó)并不存在啦膜∮兴停”

But is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea??I remembered reading about an old plan --?something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers.?The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book, "Utopia,"?more than 500 years ago.?And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right,?from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King,?to the economist Milton Friedman.?And it's an incredibly simple idea:?basic income guarantee.

但這真的是一個(gè)過時(shí)的左派想法嗎？我記得我看到過一個(gè)以前的計(jì)劃——由一些歷史上重要的思想家提出僧家。500多年前雀摘，哲學(xué)家ThmasMore在他的著作“烏托邦”最先提及了這個(gè)計(jì)劃。它的支持者遍布左翼和右翼八拱，包括人權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)者M(jìn)artinLutherKing阵赠，及經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家MiltonFriedman。這個(gè)計(jì)劃簡(jiǎn)單得不可置信：保障基本收入肌稻。

What it is??Well, that's easy.?It's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs:?food, shelter, education.?It's completely unconditional,?so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it,?and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it.?The basic income is not a favor, but a right.?There's absolutely no stigma attached.?

什么意思呢清蚀？很簡(jiǎn)單。就是每月的補(bǔ)助金灯萍，保障基本開支：食物轧铁，住宿每聪，教育旦棉。這是無條件給予的齿风，沒有人會(huì)告訴你如何去得到它，沒有人會(huì)告訴你如何去使用它绑洛。這個(gè)基本收入不是一種恩惠救斑，而是一種權(quán)利。這絕對(duì)不是什么見不得人的事真屯。

So as I learned about the true nature of poverty,?I couldn't stop wondering:?Is this the idea we've all been waiting for??Could it really be that simple??And in the three years that followed,?I read everything I could find about basic income.?I researched the dozens of experiments?that have been conducted all over the globe,?and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town?that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty.?But then ...?nearly everyone forgot about it.

正如我對(duì)貧窮本質(zhì)的理解一樣脸候。我止不住在想：這是我們一直都在期待的想法嗎？它真的就這么簡(jiǎn)單嗎绑蔫？隨后的三年中运沦，我閱讀了一切我能找到的關(guān)于基本收入的書籍。我研究了幾十個(gè)遍布全球進(jìn)行的實(shí)驗(yàn)配深，很快我發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)鎮(zhèn)子的故事——真正根除了貧困携添。然而...幾乎沒有人記得。

This story starts in Dauphin, Canada.?In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income,ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line.?At the start of the experiment,?an army of researchers descended on the town.?For four years, all went well.?But then a new government was voted into power,?and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment.?

這個(gè)故事開始于加拿大Dauphin篓叶。1974年烈掠，這個(gè)鎮(zhèn)子上的每個(gè)人都得到了基本收入保障金，沒有人掉到貧困線以下缸托。在實(shí)驗(yàn)的開始左敌，一隊(duì)研究學(xué)者空降在鎮(zhèn)子上。在隨后的四年俐镐，一切都很順利矫限。然而，新政府掌權(quán)佩抹，加拿大新內(nèi)閣認(rèn)為這項(xiàng)昂貴的實(shí)驗(yàn)沒有任何意義奇唤。

So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results,?the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes.Twenty-five years went by,?and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor,?found the records.?For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis,?and no matter what she tried,?the results were the same every time:?the experiment had been a resounding success.

所以，很明顯匹摇，沒有足夠的資金去支撐結(jié)果分析工作咬扇，學(xué)者們將這些文件打包裝進(jìn)2000個(gè)箱子里并帶走。25年過去了廊勃，一位加拿大教授Evelyn Forget發(fā)現(xiàn)了這些記錄懈贺。三年間，她用盡各種方法對(duì)這些數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計(jì)分析坡垫，不管何種方法梭灿，每一次的結(jié)果都是一樣的：這是一個(gè)徹徹底底成功的實(shí)驗(yàn)。

Evelyn Forget discovered?that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer?but also smarter and healthier.?The school performance of kids improved substantially.?The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent.?

Evely Forget發(fā)現(xiàn)在Dauphin冰悠，人們不僅變得更加富有堡妒，還變得更加聰明且健康。孩子們?cè)趯W(xué)校的表現(xiàn)有了大幅度進(jìn)步溉卓。就醫(yī)率下降了8.5%皮迟。

Domestic violence incidents were down,?as were mental health complaints.?And people didn't quit their jobs.?The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students --?who stayed in school longer.?Similar results have since been found?in countless other experiments around the globe,?from the US to India.

家庭暴力事件減少了搬泥，精神健康問題也減少了。而且人們都去工作伏尼。只有新晉母親和學(xué)生們工作得少一些——學(xué)生們?cè)趯W(xué)校的時(shí)間增加忿檩。從美國(guó)到印度，全球范圍內(nèi)爆阶，不計(jì)其數(shù)的其他實(shí)驗(yàn)也得到了相似的結(jié)論燥透。

So ...?here's what I've learned.?When it comes to poverty,?we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best.We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor,?to people we have never met.?And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats?when we could simply hand over their salaries?to the poor they're supposed to help.

所以...我得到了如下結(jié)論。當(dāng)貧困出現(xiàn)時(shí)辨图，我們這些富有的人班套，應(yīng)該停止我們假裝最了解窮人。我們應(yīng)該停止給窮人們故河、我們沒見過的人們送去鞋子和泰迪熊孽尽。我們應(yīng)該根除大張旗鼓式的專斷官僚主義，我們可以把工資給那些應(yīng)該受到幫助的窮人們忧勿。

Because, I mean, the great thing about money?is that people can use it to buy things they need?instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need.?Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers,?like George Orwell,?are now withering away in scarcity.?Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash?if we got rid of poverty once and for all.?

因?yàn)樯寂艺J(rèn)為，錢應(yīng)該花在窮人們需要的地方而不是專家們認(rèn)為他們需要的地方鸳吸。想象一下有多少杰出的科學(xué)家熏挎、企業(yè)家和作家，例如GeorgeOrwell晌砾，因?yàn)槿卞X而隕落坎拐。想象一下，如果我們能一次性讓所以人徹底擺脫貧困有多少能量和天賦能夠被釋放养匈。

I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people.?And we can't afford not to do it,?because poverty is hugely expensive.?Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example.?It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year,?in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates,?and more crime.?Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.

我認(rèn)為哼勇，保障基本收入是對(duì)人們的一項(xiàng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資。而且我們不得不這么做呕乎，因?yàn)樨毟F的代價(jià)太昂貴了积担。比如，讓我們看看在美國(guó)用于兒童貧困的支出猬仁。每年估計(jì)有5000億美元用于解決越來越高的衛(wèi)生保健開支帝璧，越來越高的輟學(xué)率及越來越多的犯罪。現(xiàn)在看來湿刽，這是對(duì)于人類潛能的一種不可置信的浪費(fèi)的烁。

But let's talk about the elephant in the room.?How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee??Well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think.?What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax.This means that your income is topped up?as soon as you fall below the poverty line.?

讓我們討論一下最關(guān)鍵的問題。我們是否能夠承擔(dān)基本收入保障诈闺？其實(shí)這比你們想象的要便宜得多渴庆。在Dauphin，政府給予人民最低收入補(bǔ)貼。這意味著只要你掉到貧困線以下你的收入就會(huì)提高襟雷。

And in that scenario,according to our economists' best estimates,?for a net cost of 175 billion --?a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP --?you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line.?You could actually eradicate poverty.?Now, that should be our goal.

在這種情形下刃滓，據(jù)我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家最樂觀的估計(jì)，凈支出1750億美金——美國(guó)軍費(fèi)支出的四分之一嗤军，全國(guó)GDP的百分之一——你就可以將美國(guó)所有的貧困人口拉至貧困線以上。你就可以實(shí)實(shí)在在地徹底驅(qū)除貧困』挝＃現(xiàn)在來看叙赚，這應(yīng)該是我們共同的目標(biāo)。

The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past.?I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas,?and basic income is so much more than just another policy.?It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is.?And in that sense,?it will not only free the poor,?but also the rest of us.

前面所講都是一些瑣碎的想法和說服...現(xiàn)在到了最根本的新想法的時(shí)間僚饭，保障基本收入不僅僅是一個(gè)新政策震叮。它還是關(guān)于對(duì)于“工作”本質(zhì)的全面的再思考。就其意義而言鳍鸵，它不僅將解放窮人苇瓣，還將解放我們其余的人。

Nowadays, millions of people feel?that their jobs have little meaning or significance.?A recent poll among 230,000 employees?in 142 countries?found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job.?And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers?have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist.?It's like Brad Pitt says in "Fight Club,"?"Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."

現(xiàn)如今偿乖，成千上萬(wàn)的人認(rèn)為他們的工作沒有任何意義或并不重要击罪。最近的一個(gè)針對(duì)142個(gè)國(guó)家共23,0000員工的問卷調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)只有13%的員工真正熱愛他們的工作。另一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)英國(guó)37%的員工認(rèn)為他們的工作根本沒有存在的價(jià)值贪薪。就像BradPitt在搏擊俱樂部中所說“我們總是在做著那些我們?cè)骱薜墓ぷ飨苯I著那些我們根本不需要的東西』校”

Now, don't get me wrong --?I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen?and the care workers here.?If they stopped working,?we'd be in trouble.?I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excellent résumés?who earn their money doing ...?strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings?while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation?in the network society.

現(xiàn)在竣稽，請(qǐng)不要誤解我——在這里我不是說老師、清潔工及看護(hù)工作者霍弹。如果他們停止工作毫别，那麻煩可就大了。我是說那些所有的有著出色的履歷典格、拿著高薪水的專家們他們?cè)谏缃痪W(wǎng)絡(luò)中通過戰(zhàn)略性的會(huì)議岛宦，并努力想出創(chuàng)造性毀滅的附加價(jià)值來賺錢。

Or something like that.?Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting,?simply because we tell our kids they'll have to "earn a living."?Or think of what a math whiz working at Facebook lamented a few years ago:"The best minds of my generation?are thinking about how to make people click ads."

或者類似的情況耍缴。讓我們想象一下我們浪費(fèi)了多少天分恋博，僅僅因?yàn)槲覀兏嬖V我們的孩子們他們不得不為了生存而工作∷教瘢或者债沮，看看幾年前在Facebook工作的一個(gè)數(shù)學(xué)天才抱怨的，“我這代最優(yōu)秀的思想是考慮如何讓人們點(diǎn)擊更多的廣告本鸣∫唏茫”

I'm a historian.?And if history teaches us anything,?it is that things could be different.?There is nothing inevitable?about the way we structured our society and economy right now.?Ideas can and do change the world.?And I think that especially in the past few years,?it has become abundantly clear?that we cannot stick to the status quo --?that we need new ideas.

我是一個(gè)歷史學(xué)家。如果歷史教給我們?nèi)魏螙|西荣德，那就是事情可以不一樣闷煤。我們建立起我們的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)不是只有一種方式童芹。思想可以并且正在改變世界。我認(rèn)為鲤拿，特別是在過去幾年假褪，我們不能安于現(xiàn)狀，這變得越來越明確了——我們需要新的想法近顷。

I know that many of you may feel pessimistic?about a future of rising inequality,?xenophobia?and climate change.?But it's not enough to know what we're against.?We also need to be for something.?Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a nightmare."He had a dream.

我知道你們中的許多人對(duì)未來加劇的不平等生音、仇外、以及氣候變化感到悲觀窒升。但是光知道我們反對(duì)什么是不夠的缀遍。我們需要做些什么。MartinLutherKing沒有說饱须，“我有一個(gè)噩夢(mèng)域醇。”?他有一個(gè)夢(mèng)想蓉媳。

So ...?here's my dream:?I believe in a future?where the value of your work is not determined?by the size of your paycheck,?but by the amount of happiness you spread?and the amount of meaning you give.?I believe in a future?where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job?but for a life well-lived.?I believe in a future?where an existence without poverty is not a privilege?but a right we all deserve.?So here we are.?Here we are.?We've got the research, we've got the evidence?and we've got the means.

所以...這是我的夢(mèng)想：我相信在未來譬挚，你工作的價(jià)值不由你賺的錢決定，而是由你傳播的快樂和你創(chuàng)造的意義決定酪呻。我相信在未來殴瘦，教育的目的不在于為一個(gè)無意義的工作做好準(zhǔn)備，而在于為有意義的一生做好準(zhǔn)備号杠。我相信在未來蚪腋，脫離貧困不是一項(xiàng)特權(quán)，而是我們應(yīng)得的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利姨蟋。所以有我們屉凯。有我們。我們進(jìn)行研究眼溶，我們得到證據(jù)悠砚，我們創(chuàng)造意義。

Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income,?and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty,?we all need to change our worldview,?because poverty is not a lack of character.?Poverty is a lack of cash.

現(xiàn)在堂飞，在Thomas More第一次描述基礎(chǔ)收入500年之后以及在GeorgeOrwell發(fā)現(xiàn)貧窮的實(shí)質(zhì)100年之后灌旧，我們需要改變我們的世界觀，因?yàn)樨毟F不是缺少一種人格绰筛。貧窮就是缺少金錢枢泰。

Thank you.(Applause)

謝謝。（掌聲）