皮凱蒂錯誤估算了現代資本

If you want to measure the capital possessed by a nation, there are two ways of doing it. One is to travel the length and breadth of the country counting the houses, the bridges, the factories, shops and offices, and adding up their total value. The other is to knock on doors and ask people how rich they are. National statistics offices typically do both of these things, though not literally in this way.

如果你要估算一個國家所擁有的資本，有兩種方式。一種是走遍全國各地，清點房屋、橋樑、工廠、商店和辦公樓的數量，然後加總計算它們的價值。另一種是敲開門，詢問人們的財產情況。國家統計部門通常兩種方式都用，儘管不是照此字面上那樣做。

The totals should be roughly equivalent, because however complex the chain of intermediation, it is the nation’s savings which fund the nation’s investment. The totals are not, however, exactly the same – for a few reasons.

兩種方式得到的總數應該大致相當，因爲無論中間環節多麼複雜，一國的投資總歸是來自該國的儲蓄。然而，基於一些原因，總數又不會完全相同。

For example, some national assets are owned by foreigners, and some household wealth is held overseas. But for large, developed countries the net effect of this is small because the two factors balance. The value of overseas assets owned by residents of Britain and of France is almost the same, in total, as the value of domestic assets held by overseas residents. Germany owns more than it owes, but the reverse is true of the US.

例如，一些國家資產被外國人持有，而本國居民在境外也擁有家庭財富。但對於大的發達國家而言，其最終影響很小，因爲這兩個因素可以相互抵消。英國和法國居民所擁有的海外資產價值，總體上與境外居民持有的兩國國內資產的價值幾乎相當。德國擁有的境外資產比別國擁有的德國境內資產多，而美國恰恰相反。

In addition, we do not treat government assets as part of our personal wealth, even if we attach value to the road network and the national gallery (and we certainly should). If, directly or indirectly, we hold government debt, we treat it as an asset, even though the future taxpayers who will have to pay it back do not report it as a liability.

此外，即使我們重視道路網和國家美術館（當然應該），我們也不會把政府資產當作個人財富的一部分。如果我們直接或間接持有國債，我們把它看作一種資產，即使是未來需要爲此償債的納稅人並不把它報告爲債務。

Finally, some of what we regard as household wealth is a claim on future earnings. Apple has a market capitalisation of more than $500bn, but the corporation owns physical assets worth only about $15bn (and a $150bn mountain of cash). The bulk of the corporation’s value is anticipation of future profits. Similarly, pension rights are an important component of household wealth that may – or may not – be backed up by actual investments.

最後，一些我們認爲的家庭財富其實是對未來收益的主張。蘋果公司(Apple)的市值超過了5000億美元，但該公司的實物資產價值僅爲約150億美元（還有1500億美元的巨量現金）。該公司價值的一大部分是對未來利潤的預期。類似地，養老金也是家庭財富的重要組成部分，但養老金可能得到實際投資的支持，也可能得不到。

So there are two different concepts of national capital: physical assets and household wealth. Thomas Piketty’s widely cited study measures national capital using data derived from the UN system of statistical accounts (the only source that provides internationally comparable information). Professor Piketty has heroically attempted to reconstruct estimates for extended historical periods for Britain and France – to estimate what Lord Liverpool, Wellington’s prime minister, and Napoleon’s statisticians would have told their masters if they had appropriate data and knowledge of the UN system of accounts.

因此就有了兩種不同的國家資本概念：實物資產和家庭財富。托馬斯•皮凱蒂(Thomas Piketty)利用從聯合國(UN)統計賬戶系統（提供具有國際可比性信息的唯一來源）獲得的數據來估算國家資本。他的研究被廣泛引用。皮凱蒂教授勇敢地嘗試重估英國和法國在很長曆史時期內的國家資本——估算出如果那時候的統計師可以得到適當的數據並瞭解聯合國賬戶系統的話，他們會如何向自己的主人利物浦勳爵(Lord Liverpool)、惠靈頓公爵(Duke of Wellington)以及拿破崙(Napoleon)彙報。

Prof Piketty’s figures are closer to the first concept (physical assets) than to the second (household wealth). But for his principal purposes – a review of inequality – it would seem that household wealth is more relevant. The wealth of Carlos Slim, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett is largely outside his data because the market value of América Móvil, Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway far exceeds the tangible assets of these companies. And while the scale of these individuals’ wealth is unrepresentative even among the rich of today, they are wholly representative in the sources of their wealth.

皮凱蒂教授得到的數字更接近第一個概念（實物資產），而非第二個（家庭財富）。但既然他的主要目的是評估不平等，似乎家庭財富才與之更具相關性。卡洛斯•斯利姆(Carlos Slim)、比爾•蓋茨(Bill Gates)或者沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)的財富很大程度上並不包括在他的數據之內，因爲美洲電信公司(América Móvil)、微軟(Microsoft)和伯克希爾-哈撒韋公司(Berkshire Hathaway)的市值都遠遠超過了公司的有形資產。雖然論規模，這些個人的財富即使在當今的富人中也不具有代表性，但他們在財富來源上完全具有典型性。

If “capital is back”, as Prof Piketty contends, it is in a very different sense from the 19th-century view, in which the ownership of capital confers authority over the means of production. Messrs Slim, Gates and Buffett do control the means of production but not in the way described by Marx. They did not acquire control of the means of production by virtue of their ownership of capital; rather they acquired capital from their control of the means of production, which they gained through political influence and market success.

即使像皮凱蒂教授所聲稱的那樣，“資本又回來了”，但現在的資本概念與19世紀的觀念有很大區別，彼時，資本所有權意味着對生產方式的控制權。斯利姆、蓋茨和巴菲特的確控制着生產方式，但不是像卡爾•馬克思(Carl Marx)所描述的那樣。他們不是憑藉其資本所有權獲得對生產方式的控制，而是通過政治影響力和市場成功獲得對生產方式的控制，並通過控制生產方式來獲得資本。

The days when economic power was acquired by inheriting the mill are long gone. Mr Buffett began his career as a mill owner, but closed the mills and went into insurance. That is the reality of capital in modern economics.

那些通過繼承工廠即可獲得經濟實力的日子已經一去不復返了。巴菲特的職業生涯始於做一名工廠主，但後來他關閉了工廠並進入保險業。這就是現代經濟學裏關於資本的現實。