Awakening the Investor-in-Whole-Society
There’s a lot of handwringing now about how central banks have no ammunition to fight a recession.
现在有很多人对央行没有弹药来应对经济衰退感到绝望。
The fact that this is apparently true—and, perhaps, uniquely true in modern history—is all the more reason to explore MMT’s premise that central banks are not just instruments of private commerce, but are, as well, instruments of collective, democratic will.
事实上，这显然是正确的——而且也许在现代历史上是独一无二的——这一事实更有理由探索现代货币理论的前提，即中央银行不仅是私人商业的工具，而且也是集体民主意志的工具。
The bankers are in a box of their own making, but that box, in fact, is inside another box which, as MMT makes clear, has lots of ammunition not only to fight a recession, but to pursue the betterment of American society whether an economic downturn unfolds or not.
银行家们被关在他们自己制造的盒子里，但这个盒子实际上是在另一个盒子里，正如现代货币理论所明确指出的那样，这个盒子里有大量弹药，不仅可以对抗经济衰退，而且无论经济衰退是否出现，都可以追求美国社会的改善。
Let’s consider the central bankers’ basic dilemma: If private enterprise begins to slow, they would love to issue more money to get it back up to speed.
让我们考虑一下央行官员面临的基本困境：如果私营企业开始放缓，他们会愿意发行更多货币来使其恢复增长速度。
But inside their box the only way to do that is by encouraging private enterprise to borrow more money.
但在他们的框架内，做到这一点的唯一方法是鼓励私营企业借更多的钱。
Private enterprise, in turn, decides to borrow more based on production and spending decisions tied to the making of potential profits.
反过来，私营企业根据与潜在利润相关的生产和支出决策决定增加借贷。
The only lever the central bank has to affect these profit calculations is the manipulation of interest rates—lowering rates to make the profitability of enterprise more feasible (hence, encouraging more borrowing and more money creation) or raising rates to do the opposite.
中央银行影响这些利润计算的唯一手段是操纵利率——降低利率以使企业的盈利能力更加可行（从而鼓励更多的借贷和更多的货币创造），或者提高利率以达到相反的效果。
So, if interest rates are already close to zero, the central bankers are out of ammunition if private enterprise, on a large scale, decides to slow down operations and lay-off workers.
因此，如果利率已经接近于零，如果私营企业大规模决定放慢运营速度并裁员，那么央行行长们就没有弹药了。
But why do we insist on imagining that central banks are only established and managed to serve the interests of the American enterprise by issuing money (through the interest-driven banking system) for the exclusive needs of profit-seeking investment?
但为什么我们坚持认为中央银行的设立和管理只是为了满足美国企业的利益，通过发行货币（通过利率驱动的银行体系）来满足逐利性投资的排他性需求？
The “American enterprise,” after all, is larger than the summation of its private enterprise: it includes the success and well-being of the whole of American society—not just those aspects which can be addressed by profit-seeking investment.
毕竟，“美国企业”比其私营企业的总和还要大：它包括整个美国社会的成功和福祉，而不仅仅是那些可以通过营利性投资来解决的方面。
To address the needs private enterprise fails to undertake, it is necessary to understand that central banks are, in fact, capable of servicing another client as well: the Investor-in-Whole-Society.
为了满足私营企业无法满足的需求，有必要了解央行实际上也有能力为另一个客户提供服务：全社会投资者。
This set of issues becomes even more crucial when we realize that the whole of society is confronting a multitude of urgent (and even existential) tasks which are NOT profit-making, and so will not be undertaken as investments by private enterprise—regardless of what central bankers do with interest rates.
当我们意识到整个社会正面临着大量紧迫的（甚至是生存的）任务时，这一系列问题就变得更加重要，这些任务不是为了盈利，因此私人企业不会将其作为投资来承担——无论央行如何处理利率。
Who will undertake those investments?
谁将承担这些投资？
Private businesses will gladly line up to do the work —for “overhead and profit”—but who will make the investment?
私营企业会很乐意排队做这项工作——为了“管理费用和利润”——但谁来进行投资呢？
Who will pay the “overhead and profit” to private businesses for undertaking the tasks?
谁来支付私营企业承担任务的“管理费用和利润”？
It can only be the Investor-in-Whole-Society.
它只能是全社会的投资者。
The Investor-in-Whole-Society can do this because, uniquely, it does not require a return on its investment other than the accomplishment of the urgent tasks.
全社会投资者之所以能够做到这一点，是因为它除了完成紧急任务之外不需要投资回报。
The Investor-in-Whole-Society can, in fact, “lose” as much of its invested money as necessary to accomplish what needs to be done—and this, I believe, is precisely the philosophical point of MMT.
事实上，为了完成需要做的事情，整个社会的投资者可以“损失”尽可能多的投资资金——我相信，这正是现代货币理论的哲学观点。
If the idea of “losing money” sounds like a bad idea to you, consider this: When money is “lost” by the Investor-in-Whole-Society, as suggested above, it is not lost at all—instead, it is earned by America’s private businesses and citizens!
如果“赔钱”的想法对你来说听起来像是一个坏主意，请考虑一下：当钱被整个社会的投资者“损失”时，如上所述，它根本就没有损失，相反，它是由美国的私营企业和公民赚取的！
There is a double benefit, then, when the Investor-in-Whole-Society awakens and becomes active: 1.
那么，当全社会投资者觉醒并变得活跃时，就会有双重好处：1。
Urgent tasks get accomplished, and (2) American citizens and businesses earn money for accomplishing those tasks.
紧急任务得到完成，并且（2）美国公民和企业可以通过完成这些任务赚钱。
This is the first simple, and essential, insight that MMT wants people to understand.
这是现代货币理论希望人们理解的第一个简单而重要的见解。
The second insight is equally simple but requires a more difficult shift in perspective: The Investor-in-Whole-Society obtains its investment money—the money it can “lose” as necessary to accomplish urgent tasks—only partially by taxing American citizens and businesses.
第二个见解同样简单，但需要更困难的视角转变：全社会投资者仅部分通过对美国公民和企业征税来获得其投资资金（为完成紧急任务而可能“损失”的资金）。
Nor is there some preferred or “required” portion of its investment funds that must be derived from taxes.
其投资资金中也不存在必须来自税收的优先或“必需”部分。
Taxes play a different role entirely in the socio-economic system—but their collection does, coincidentally, contribute to the Investor-in-Whole-Society’s investment funds.
税收在社会经济体系中发挥着完全不同的作用，但巧合的是，税收的征收确实为全社会投资者的投资基金做出了贡献。
The remainder (and perhaps the majority) of those funds is derived by an operation supported by—and ultimately implemented by—the central bank.
这些资金的其余部分（也许是大部分）是由央行支持并最终实施的操作获得的。
This operation is the issuing of “future dollars” by the U.S. Treasury.
这一操作就是美国财政部发行“未来美元”。
These “future dollars” are typically called “treasury bonds”—but the MMT perspective-shift points out that it is inaccurate to think of these financial instruments as bonds (i.e. pledges to repay borrowed dollars) for three simple reasons:
这些“未来美元”通常被称为“国债”，但现代货币理论的观点转变指出，将这些金融工具视为债券（即偿还借入美元的承诺）是不准确的，原因如下：
These two MMT insights—(a) spending by the Investor-in-Whole-Society is not “money “lost” but money earned plus tasks accomplished, and (b) U.S. treasuries are future dollars rather than “borrowed” dollars—these insights change the formula that calculates what the Investor-in-Whole-Society can (and arguably should ) undertake to accomplish.
这两个 MMT 见解——（a）全社会投资者的支出不是“损失”的钱，而是赚来的钱加上已完成的任务，以及（b）美国国债是未来的美元而不是“借来的”美元——这些见解改变了计算全社会投资者可以（并且可以说应该）实现目标的公式。
That formula now becomes, oddly, completely disconnected from any consideration of “money.” To meet urgent and existential needs of the whole society—needs which profit-seeking private enterprise is unable to address—the Investor-in-Whole-Society can spend, in fact, whatever “money” is necessary.
奇怪的是，这个公式现在变得完全脱离了对“金钱”的考虑。为了满足全社会的迫切需要和生存需要，而追求利润的私营企业无法满足这种需要，全社会投资者实际上可以花任何“钱”。
Instead of being concerned with “money,” the formula is now concerned primarily with the availability of the real resources—labor, professional expertise, technology, energy, raw and processed materials, etc.—that the money will need to employ to accomplish a given task.
该公式现在不再关注“金钱”，而是主要关注实际资源的可用性——劳动力、专业知识、技术、能源、原材料和加工材料等——金钱需要用来完成特定的任务。
If the necessary resources are not available, the formula makes clear, no amount of money can buy them.
该公式表明，如果无法获得必要的资源，无论花多少钱都买不到它们。
If the resources are available, there is no “affordability” constraint to marshalling them to the task.
如果资源可用，那么将它们编组到任务中就不存在“负担能力”限制。
The question is: how can the Investor-in-Whole-Society be awakened from its stupor?
问题是：如何才能让全社会投资者从昏迷中醒来？
Does it require a charismatic leader?
它需要一个有魅力的领导者吗？
Does it require a national disaster on the scale of war?
是否需要一场战争规模的全国性灾难？
We know, historically, the Investor-in-Whole-Society can be awakened.
我们知道，从历史上看，整个社会的投资者是可以被唤醒的。
Pearl Harbor succeeded in doing that.
珍珠港事件成功地做到了这一点。
But why is it necessary to reach such a point of crisis?
但为什么一定要发展到如此危机的地步呢？
You would think our currently debated list of urgent tasks would be enough: universal medical care, preschool daycare, the debt burden of education, affordable housing, failing and out-of-date infrastructure, disease control and the need for new antibiotic drugs, the looming inadequacy of social-security—and, of course, the existential challenge staring us in the face: climate-change mitigation and adaptation.
你可能认为我们目前争论的紧急任务清单就足够了：全民医疗保健、学前日托、教育债务负担、经济适用房、失败和过时的基础设施、疾病控制和对新抗生素药物的需求、迫在眉睫的社会保障不足——当然，还有我们面临的生存挑战：减缓和适应气候变化。
If humankind is to take responsibility for this Earth, which—Mars and Moon-dreams notwithstanding—is its only home and hearth in an infinitely cold universe, the Investor-in-Whole-Society will have to be awakened.
如果人类要对地球负责，尽管有火星和月球的梦想，但地球是无限寒冷的宇宙中唯一的家园和壁炉，整个社会的投资者就必须被唤醒。
We cannot be chopping down and burning!
我们不能砍伐和焚烧！
the lungs of our oxygen system with the argument such actions represent economic development and social betterment.
我们的氧气系统的肺部，并认为此类行为代表了经济发展和社会进步。
What are we thinking?
我们在想什么？
The problem is “we” are not thinking at all: it is precisely that “we” who is the Investor-in-Whole-Society!
问题是“我们”根本没有思考：恰恰是“我们”才是整个社会的投资者！
Shake as many bedframes as you can find.
摇动尽可能多的床架。
“WE” have to wake up!
“我们”必须醒来！