Tom Friedman Just Noticed that the UK “Has Gone Mad” (Part 1)
Tom Friedman’s April 2, 2019 column concluded “The United Kingdom Has Gone Mad.” To which, the only possible response is – ‘you just noticed?’ The UK went ‘mad’ 22 years ago when Parliament elected the odious Tony Blair Prime Minister.
汤姆·弗里德曼 (Tom Friedman) 2019 年 4 月 2 日的专栏以“英国疯了”为结尾。对此，唯一可能的回应是——“你刚刚注意到了？”22 年前，当议会选出可恶的托尼·布莱尔 (Tony Blair) 首相时，英国“疯了”。
I think many Tory policies were mad long before that date, but the Labour Party opposed them.
我认为许多保守党的政策早在那个日期之前就已经很疯狂了，但工党反对它们。
The entire UK did not go ‘mad’ until Blair created “New Labour” and adopted Tory policies and became PM in 1997.
直到布莱尔创立“新工党”并采纳保守党政策并于1997年成为首相后，整个英国才变得“疯狂”。
Blair explicitly modeled the name and the adoption of neoliberal economic and military policies on Bill Clinton and the “New Democrats.” The UK became ‘mad’ when both of its major parties adopted the neoliberal economic and military policies that Friedman celebrates and proselytizes.
布莱尔明确地以比尔·克林顿和“新民主党”为榜样，并采用了新自由主义经济和军事政策。当英国的两个主要政党都采用了弗里德曼所推崇和鼓吹的新自由主义经济和军事政策时，英国变得“疯狂”。
I am dividing this article into two subparts for reasons of length.
由于篇幅原因，我将本文分为两个子部分。
This part deals with the general madness.
这部分涉及普遍的疯狂。
The next part (7b) explains its relevance to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
下一部分 (7b) 解释了它与现代货币理论 (MMT) 的相关性。
Friedman’s April 2, 2019 column was about Brexit, which understandably sticks in the craw of the populist spreader of the myth that the world is becoming ‘flat’ and a ‘hyper-meritocracy.’ The wealthy rig the world to make it tilt sharply.
弗里德曼 2019 年 4 月 2 日的专栏是关于英国脱欧的，这可以理解地让民粹主义散布者感到不安，他们散布着世界正在变得“平坦”和“超级精英统治”的神话。富人操纵世界，使其急剧倾斜。
Plutocrats tilt it to ensure that a huge and increasing share of the world’s wealth flows to them.
富豪们利用这一点来确保世界财富中越来越大的份额流向他们。
Friedman is the most infamous shill for those plutocrats.
弗里德曼是那些财阀中最臭名昭著的托儿。
The plutocrats tilt and warp the economy unevenly to favor not simply the wealthy, but a favored subset that is typically the opposite of a meritocracy (kakistocracy).
富豪们不均匀地倾斜和扭曲经济，不仅有利于富人，而且有利于通常与精英政治（恶人统治）相反的受青睐的子集。
Worse, the world tilts toward catastrophe because the ultra-wealthy kakistocracy’s political pawns have produced environments so criminogenic that they produce our recurrent, intensifying financial crises.
更糟糕的是，世界正走向灾难，因为超级富有的恶棍统治国家的政治棋子创造了犯罪环境，导致我们反复出现、加剧的金融危机。
Friedman is shocked that one of the two epicenters of the global kakistocracy and plutocracy – the City of London – has forced the UK to follow policies so self-destructive and rapacious that vast swaths of the UK rose in opposition by voting for Brexit.
弗里德曼感到震惊的是，全球恶人统治和财阀统治的两个中心之一——伦敦金融城——迫使英国采取如此自我毁灭和贪婪的政策，以至于英国广大民众投票支持脱欧而反对。
The City of London, of course, hates Brexit.
当然，伦敦金融城讨厌英国脱欧。
Friedman’s column does not consider the data on the primary reason a majority of UK citizens voted in favor of Brexit – a policy he considers ‘mad.’ Austerity was the decisive factor that changed the expected vote on Brexit from ‘remain’ to ‘leave.’ (The linked article discusses what drove support for Ukip.
弗里德曼的专栏没有考虑大多数英国公民投票支持脱欧的主要原因的数据 — — 他认为这项政策是“疯狂”的。紧缩是将脱欧预期投票从“留欧”变为“脱欧”的决定性因素。（链接的文章讨论了推动英国独立党支持的因素。
That UK party’s single issue was pushing Brexit.) Polling data confirms that these predominantly working class voters devastated by austerity were the key to the public’s vote in favor of Brexit.
英国政党的唯一议题就是推动英国脱欧。）民意调查数据证实，这些因紧缩政策而遭受重创的工人阶级选民是公众投票支持英国脱欧的关键。
Welfare cuts and other austerity measures implemented under the Conservatives pushed vital swing voters to back Brexit and won the EU referendum for the Leave campaign, according to a new report.
一份新报告显示，保守党领导下实施的福利削减和其他紧缩措施推动了重要的摇摆选民支持脱欧，并赢得了脱欧公投。
Research published by the Social Market Foundation suggests the best indicator of a person’s referendum vote was not age or education, but happiness or sadness about their personal finances – with unhappy people tending to vote Leave and contented ones preferring Remain.
社会市场基金会发表的研究表明，衡量一个人公投投票的最佳指标不是年龄或教育程度，而是个人财务状况的快乐或悲伤——不快乐的人倾向于投票脱欧，而满意的人则倾向于投票留欧。
The report, which analysed the level of cuts in each area of the UK alongside each area’s growth in support for Ukip, argues that had it not been for austerity, the referendum would not have turned out the way it did.
该报告分析了英国各地区的削减水平以及各地区对英国独立党支持率的增长，认为如果没有紧缩政策，公投就不会出现这样的结果。
It found that in districts that received the average austerity shock, Ukip vote shares were on average 11.62 percentage points higher in the most recent local elections prior to the referendum than in districts with little exposure to austerity.
研究发现，在平均受到紧缩冲击的地区，英国独立党在公投前的最近一次地方选举中的得票率平均比几乎没有受到紧缩冲击的地区高出 11.62 个百分点。
As well as area-level analysis, the report looked at individual-level data and found that some people directly affected by welfare cuts shifted their political support to Ukip and rejected the political establishment.
除了地区层面的分析外，该报告还研究了个人层面的数据，发现一些直接受到福利削减影响的人将政治支持转向了英国独立党，并拒绝了政治建制派。
“Households exposed to the bedroom tax increasingly shifted to support Ukip and experienced economic grievances as they fell behind with their rent payments due to the cuts,” the paper stated.
该报称：“缴纳卧室税的家庭越来越多地转而支持英国独立党，并因削减租金而拖欠租金，从而遭受经济不满。”
As much as 9 percentage points of the 52 per cent support for Leave – around 3 million votes – was decided by concern about austerity and related issues, the researchers estimated.
研究人员估计，在 52% 的脱欧支持率（约 300 万张选票）中，有多达 9 个百分点是出于对紧缩及相关问题的担忧。
It suggests that without the effect of the “austerity shock” on welfare and public services, the Leave share of the referendum vote could have been as low as 43 per cent, delivering a comfortable win for Remain.
它表明，如果没有“紧缩冲击”对福利和公共服务的影响，脱欧派在公投中所占的比例可能会低至 43%，从而为留欧派带来轻松的胜利。
Austerity means that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is relevant to the story.
紧缩意味着现代货币理论（MMT）与这个故事相关。
MMT scholars protested against UK austerity and warned it would harm the recovery.
现代货币理论学者抗议英国的紧缩政策，并警告称这将损害经济复苏。
It did.
确实如此。
Austerity always inflicts its harm unevenly.
紧缩政策造成的伤害总是不均匀的。
It is an enormous economic advantage to the wealthy, and a horrific burden on the working class and the poor.
这对富人来说是巨大的经济优势，对工人阶级和穷人来说是可怕的负担。
In the UK context, that meant that austerity made the City of London elites that did so much to cause and profit from the orgy of “control fraud and predation” that caused the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) even wealthier while devastating huge parts of the UK inhabited by working class families.
在英国的背景下，这意味着紧缩政策使伦敦金融城的精英们做出了巨大的努力，他们从“控制欺诈和掠夺”的狂欢中做出了巨大的努力，并从这场狂欢中获利，这场狂欢导致了金融大危机（GFC），同时也摧毁了英国大部分工人阶级家庭居住的地区。
(“Control fraud and predation” is a criminology term that describes what happens when those who control a seemingly legitimate firm use it as a ‘weapon’ to defraud or predate on others.)
（“控制欺诈和掠夺”是一个犯罪学术语，描述了当那些控制看似合法公司的人将其用作欺诈或掠夺他人的“武器”时会发生什么。）
Friedman, Blair, and Clinton’s Four Defining Acts of Madness
弗里德曼、布莱尔和克林顿的四大疯狂行为
Why did Friedman ignore austerity?
弗里德曼为何忽视紧缩政策？
The UK went ‘mad’ when Tony Blair championed four neoliberal policies that caused massive harm.
当托尼·布莱尔倡导四项造成巨大伤害的新自由主义政策时，英国“疯了”。
Friedman, infamously, was among the most prominent cheerleaders for these ‘mad’ policies.
臭名昭著的弗里德曼是这些“疯狂”政策最著名的支持者之一。
Friedman loves ‘globalization’ and the most far reaching, dominating, and harmful form of it is global finance.
弗里德曼热衷于“全球化”，而全球化影响最深远、最具主导性和危害性最大的形式就是全球金融。
Friedman has a ‘mad’ view about financial crises and globalization.
弗里德曼对金融危机和全球化有着“疯狂”的看法。
In The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (1990: 462), he admitted that deregulation and globalization would cause immense harm.
在《雷克萨斯和橄榄树：理解全球化》（The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization，1990：462）中，他承认放松管制和全球化会造成巨大危害。
He was writing in the heart of the savings and loan debacle.
他写的是储蓄和贷款崩溃的核心内容。
“Global financial crises will be the norm in this coming era.” He added to emphasize that point: “ crises will be endemic ” (emphasis added).
“全球金融危机将成为即将到来的时代的常态。”他补充强调了这一点：“危机将是地方性的”（强调是后加的）。
Friedman was correct to admit that the policies he cheered would produce “endemic” financial crises.
弗里德曼正确地承认，他所欢呼的政策将引发“地方性”金融危机。
What he did not discuss was the “endemic” financial crises’ costs.
他没有讨论“地方性”金融危机的成本。
He did not discuss how we should prevent the crises or respond to them when they occurred.
他没有讨论我们应该如何预防危机或在危机发生时应对危机。
Professor Alexander Field of Santa Clara University published a study in 2017 that estimated the U.S. cumulative output losses over the course of the GFC and its recovery as $41.7 trillion (Table I, p.
圣克拉拉大学的 Alexander Field 教授在 2017 年发表了一项研究，估计美国在全球金融危机及其复苏过程中的累计产出损失为 41.7 万亿美元（表 I，第 12 页）。
95).
95）。
A trillion is a thousand billion.
一万亿就是一千亿。
The figure for the EU should be substantially larger because its infliction of austerity slowed its recovery.
欧盟的数字应该要大得多，因为其实施的紧缩政策减缓了其复苏。
The U.S. figure, however, would have been smaller had President Obama not made his infamous pivot towards austerity and the “Grand Bargain” that he sought to negotiate with Republicans to weaken the safety net.
然而，如果奥巴马总统没有臭名昭著地转向紧缩政策以及他寻求与共和党人谈判以削弱安全网的“大交易”，美国的数字可能会更小。
It was really the Grand Betrayal of his campaign promises and the American people.
这确实是对他的竞选承诺和美国人民的大背叛。
Friedman does not want to discuss his praise of the three “De’s” and the “race to the bottom” between the City of London and Wall Street that created the intense “criminogenic environment” in both financial centers and drove the control fraud and predation epidemics that drove the GFC.
弗里德曼不想讨论他对三个“德”的赞扬以及伦敦金融城和华尔街之间的“逐底竞争”，这种竞争在两个金融中心创造了强烈的“犯罪环境”，并推动了控制欺诈和掠夺流行，从而推动了全球金融危机。
Friedman does not want to discuss his praise of EU austerity and Obama’s effort to negotiate the Grand Betrayal .
弗里德曼不想讨论他对欧盟紧缩政策的赞扬以及奥巴马为谈判大背叛所做的努力。
Blair, Clinton and Gore, Obama, and Friedman went “mad” long before Obama sought to negotiate the Grand Betrayal.
早在奥巴马寻求就大背叛进行谈判之前，布莱尔、克林顿、戈尔、奥巴马和弗里德曼就已经“疯狂”了。
Consider Friedman’s admission that the trends he champions are certain to cause “endemic” global financial crises.
弗里德曼承认，他所倡导的趋势肯定会引发“地方性”全球金融危机。
That is a ‘mad’ trend.
这是一种“疯狂”的趋势。
We desperately need to reverse it.
我们迫切需要扭转这一局面。
The S&L regulators contained the ‘debacle’ before it caused any economic crisis, but it cost $150 billion to resolve.
S&L 监管机构在这场“灾难”引发任何经济危机之前就将其遏制住了，但解决这个问题花费了 1500 亿美元。
We did so by reversing the deregulatory trend.
我们通过扭转放松管制的趋势来做到这一点。
The Enron era frauds, at peak, caused a $7 trillion dollar loss of market capitalization and helped spark a moderate recession.
安然时代的欺诈行为在高峰期造成了 7 万亿美元的市值损失，并引发了温和的衰退。
The GFC caused a $41.7 trillion loss in U.S. output, a larger loss in EU output, a global financial crisis, and the Great Recession.
全球金融危机导致美国产出损失41.7万亿美元、欧盟产出损失更大、全球金融危机和大衰退。
If the trend continues, the “endemic” global financial crises will cause catastrophic harm.
如果这种趋势持续下去，“地方性”的全球金融危机将造成灾难性的损害。
What is Friedman’s policy answer to such a devastating trend ?
弗里德曼对这种毁灭性趋势的政策回应是什么？
Friedman gives this sage advice in his column decrying the UK going ‘mad.’
弗里德曼在他的专栏中给出了这一明智的建议，谴责英国正在“疯狂”。
What do the most effective leaders today have in common?
当今最高效的领导者有什么共同点？
They wake up every morning and ask themselves the same questions: “What world am I living in?
他们每天早上醒来都会问自己同样的问题：“我生活在一个什么样的世界？
What are the biggest trends in this world?
这个世界上最大的趋势是什么？
And how do I educate my citizens about this world and align my policies so more of my people can get the best out of these trends and cushion the worst?”
我如何教育我的公民了解这个世界并调整我的政策，以便更多的人能够从这些趋势中获得最好的结果并缓冲最坏的情况？”
What Friedman describes and praises is mad.
弗里德曼的描述和赞扬是疯狂的。
It is mad to treat a “trend” as inevitable.
将“趋势”视为不可避免的做法是疯狂的。
Trends are the product of institutional factors that create incentives.
趋势是产生激励的制度因素的产物。
Institutional structures – the three “de’s” plus a race to the bottom creates the perverse incentives that create an environment so criminogenic that it will produce “control fraud” and “control predation” epidemics so harmful that they will make global financial crises “endemic.” The “most effective leaders” would never accept “trends” that were so harmful.
制度结构——三个“德”加上逐底竞争，产生了不正当的激励，创造了一种犯罪环境，以至于产生“控制欺诈”和“控制掠夺”的流行病，其危害性如此之大，将使全球金融危机“流行”。 “最有效的领导者”永远不会接受如此有害的“趋势”。
They would work on an emergency basis to end the trends producing “endemic” global financial crises.
他们将紧急开展工作，以结束导致“地方性”全球金融危机的趋势。
Similarly, the “trends” on climate change are catastrophic.
同样，气候变化的“趋势”也是灾难性的。
It is “mad” to accept those trends – we must urgently reverse those trends.
接受这些趋势是“疯狂的”——我们必须紧急扭转这些趋势。
Friedman pretends to be vigorous on climate, but his own words demonstrate that he thinks the goal should be to “cushion the worst” harms.
弗里德曼假装对气候问题很积极，但他自己的话表明，他认为目标应该是“缓冲最严重的”伤害。
He wants to allow a suicidal trend to continue.
他想让自杀趋势继续下去。
That is mad.
那太疯狂了。
“Effective leaders” do not ask: “what world am I living in?” They ask: “what world should we make?” We make our world through the democratic process when we create our institutions and our rule of law.
“有效的领导者”不会问：“我生活在一个什么样的世界？”他们问：“我们应该创造一个什么样的世界？”当我们创建我们的机构和法治时，我们就通过民主进程创造了我们的世界。
When we create a criminogenic or predatory environment, we ensure that fraud and predation will become epidemic and crises “endemic.” It is mad to do so, yet that is what we have been doing for nearly 40 years.
当我们创造一个犯罪或掠夺性环境时，我们就确保欺诈和掠夺行为将成为流行病，危机将成为“地方病”。这样做很疯狂，但这就是我们近 40 年来一直在做的事情。
It is mad to continue a mad policy when we see it produce endemic and growing financial crises that cause catastrophic harm.
当我们看到一项疯狂的政策引发了地方性的、日益严重的金融危机并造成灾难性的伤害时，继续推行一项疯狂的政策是疯狂的。
Friedman is the world’s most willing apologist for the plutocrats that create these perverse environments.
弗里德曼是世界上最愿意为创造这些不正当环境的富豪们辩护的人。
He celebrates their alleged brilliance and claims they are spurring huge gains in productivity.
他赞扬了他们所谓的才华，并声称他们正在刺激生产力的巨大提高。
Data destroys his apologies.
数据毁掉了他的道歉。
Productivity in the EU and the U.S. has fallen sharply during the period we have been making finance ever more criminogenic.
在我们让金融犯罪变得更加严重的时期，欧盟和美国的生产力急剧下降。
That, of course, is what economists and criminologists would predict.
当然，这是经济学家和犯罪学家的预测。
Thinking that by eroding the rule of law to the point that we have made global financial crises “endemic” is a good way to spur economic growth is mad.
认为通过侵蚀法治以至于使全球金融危机成为“流行病”是刺激经济增长的好方法，这种想法是疯狂的。
Austerity and public bailouts of fraudulent financial firms is, however, a spectacularly effective policy to aid plutocrats and kleptocrats.
然而，紧缩政策和对欺诈性金融公司的公开救助对于帮助富豪和盗贼来说是一项非常有效的政策。
Friedman’s heroes and their ‘mad’ neoliberal policies made the world so criminogenic that global financial crises became “endemic.” Friedman’s heroes and their ‘mad’ decision to invade Iraq was one part farce and twelve parts tragedy.
弗里德曼的英雄和他们“疯狂”的新自由主义政策使世界变得如此犯罪，以至于全球金融危机变得“普遍”。弗里德曼笔下的英雄和他们入侵伊拉克的“疯狂”决定一半是闹剧，一半是悲剧。
President Bush, of course, leads the list of those who were ‘mad’ when it came to Iraq.
当然，布什总统在伊拉克问题上“疯狂”的人中名列前茅。
Again, the tragedy is that the leaders of both major parties in the U.S. and the UK shared this madness.
悲剧再次在于，美国和英国两大政党的领导人都有这种疯狂。
Friedman was their most notorious cheerleader and apologist for their “muscular” military policies that invading Iraq epitomized.
弗里德曼是他们最臭名昭著的拉拉队长和辩护者，他们以入侵伊拉克为代表的“强硬”军事政策。
His ‘mad’ policies, 16 years later, continue to cause immense suffering and disrupt the Middle East.
16 年后，他的“疯狂”政策继续给中东带来巨大痛苦和混乱。
Friedman has a bro-crush on Blair, so his trademark obsequiousness to powerful males reached nauseating levels in his writings about Blair.
弗里德曼对布莱尔有一种兄弟般的迷恋，因此他对有权有势的男性的标志性的谄媚在他关于布莱尔的著作中达到了令人作呕的程度。
Two years ago, Friedman wrote a column praising Blair as the exemplar of the ideal leader, but admitting that Blair was enormously “ unpopular ” among UK citizens.
两年前，弗里德曼撰写了一篇专栏，称赞布莱尔是理想领袖的典范，但也承认布莱尔在英国公民中非常“不受欢迎”。
The UK public despises Blair for championing the four acts of madness that produced the GFC, a ‘mad’ response (austerity plus bailouts of the City’s fraudulent and predatory bankers) to the GFC that made it far more damaging, particularly to the working class, and the catastrophic invasion of Iraq.
英国公众鄙视布莱尔支持导致全球金融危机的四项疯狂行为、对全球金融危机的“疯狂”反应（紧缩加上对伦敦金融城的欺诈性和掠夺性银行家的救助），这使得全球金融危机更具破坏性，特别是对工人阶级，以及对伊拉克的灾难性入侵。
The UK citizenry also detests Blair for his greed since leaving office in becoming wealthy by shilling for the world’s worst dictators and for his hypocrisy in presenting that odious behavior as ‘charitable.’ (Yes, he continued to copy Bill Clinton’s tactics after leaving office.) Blair got as wrong as it is possible to get wrong the six great issues he faced.
英国公民还憎恨布莱尔，因为他在卸任后通过为世界上最糟糕的独裁者提供先令而变得富有，并且虚伪地将这种可恶的行为呈现为“慈善”。（是的，他在卸任后继续复制比尔·克林顿的策略。）布莱尔在他面临的六个重大问题上犯了尽可能多的错误。
Friedman’s Juvenile Enthusiasm for ‘Muscular Diplomacy’ (Invading other Nations)
弗里德曼青少年时期对“强硬外交”的热情（入侵其他国家）
Friedman ignores the reasons his nation despises Blair, except for Blair’s push to invade Iraq and defending it even when the facts proved that the pretexts for invasion were falsehoods and the horrific harm of the invasion became evident.
弗里德曼忽略了他的国家鄙视布莱尔的原因，除了布莱尔推动入侵伊拉克并捍卫伊拉克，即使事实证明入侵的借口是谎言，入侵的可怕危害已经显而易见。
Friedman, following our family rule that is impossible to compete with unintentional self-parody, presented Blair in and April 22, 2005 column as a martyr torched by an ignorant public for his courageous and ‘principled’ championing of invading Iraq.
弗里德曼遵循我们的家庭规则，这是不可能与无意识的自我模仿相媲美的，他在 2005 年 4 月 22 日的专栏中将布莱尔描述为一位烈士，因为他勇敢而“有原则”地支持入侵伊拉克，而被无知的公众焚烧。
By that date, Friedman knew that the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq were falsehoods, that the war had caused catastrophic harm, and that invading Iraq had harmed the allied efforts in Afghanistan.
到那时，弗里德曼知道入侵伊拉克的借口都是谎言，战争造成了灾难性的伤害，入侵伊拉克损害了盟军在阿富汗的努力。
The invasion had failed to produce a movement to real democracy in the Mideast, a fantasy that Friedman promoted.
入侵未能在中东掀起真正的民主运动，而这正是弗里德曼所提倡的幻想。
It was a strategic gift to Iran, which Friedman hates.
这是送给弗里德曼所讨厌的伊朗的战略礼物。
In deciding to throw in Britain’s lot with President Bush on the Iraq war, Mr. Blair not only defied the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of his own party, but public opinion in Britain generally.
布莱尔决定在伊拉克战争问题上与布什总统站在一起，这不仅挑战了本党压倒性的反战情绪，也挑战了英国的公众舆论。
“Blair risked complete self-immolation on a principle,” noted Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a pro-Democratic U.S. think tank.
“布莱尔在一项原则上冒着彻底自焚的风险，”美国亲民主智库进步政策研究所所长威尔·马歇尔指出。
Neither Marshall nor Friedman presented an honest ‘principle’ one advances by invading another nation on the basis of fake facts and turning the nation you invade into a vast charnel house.
马歇尔和弗里德曼都没有提出一个诚实的“原则”，即通过在虚假事实的基础上入侵另一个国家并将你入侵的国家变成一个巨大的停尸房来推进这一原则。
The U.S. and the UK lost lives and treasure and the invasion was a geopolitical blunder of epic proportions for the U.S. and UK.
美国和英国失去了生命和财富，这次入侵对美国和英国来说是一个史无前例的地缘政治错误。
Friedman’s claimed ‘principle’ was actually despicable propaganda.
弗里德曼所谓的“原则”实际上是卑鄙的宣传。
Mr. Blair took a principled position to depose Saddam and keep Britain tightly aligned with America.
布莱尔先生采取了推翻萨达姆并使英国与美国紧密结盟的原则立场。
He did so, among other reasons, because he believed that the advance of freedom and the defeat of fascism — whether Islamo-fascism or Nazi fascism — were quintessential and indispensable “liberal” foreign policy goals.
他这样做的原因之一是，他相信推进自由和击败法西斯主义——无论是伊斯兰法西斯主义还是纳粹法西斯主义——是典型且不可或缺的“自由”外交政策目标。
Saddam Hussein was many bad things, but he neither a ‘fascist’ nor driven by ‘Islamic’ views.
萨达姆·侯赛因有很多坏事，但他既不是“法西斯”，也不是受“伊斯兰”观点驱使。
He was notoriously secular.
他是出了名的世俗化。
There is no such thing as ‘Islamo-fascism.’ That was a phrase invented by bigots to attack Islam.
根本不存在“伊斯兰法西斯主义”这样的东西。这是偏执者为了攻击伊斯兰教而发明的一个短语。
There are scores of anti-democratic world leaders.
有数十位反民主的世界领导人。
Deciding to invade and ‘liberate’ nations only when their populations were overwhelmingly Islamic is the opposite of “principle” – it is prejudice powered by propaganda.
仅当穆斯林人口占绝大多数时才决定入侵和“解放”国家，这与“原则”相反——这是宣传驱动的偏见。
Friedman’s April 22, 2015 column had to abandon the lies that formed the pretext for the invasion of Iraq.
弗里德曼 2015 年 4 月 22 日的专栏不得不放弃为入侵伊拉克借口的谎言。
There were no ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD) and Iraqis government had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Friedman was happy to supply new lies (‘Islamo-fascism’).
不存在“大规模杀伤性武器”（WMD），伊拉克政府与针对美国的 9/11 袭击无关。弗里德曼很乐意提供新的谎言（“伊斯兰法西斯主义”）。
By 2015, Friedman was at his most despicable and juvenile.
到了2015年，弗里德曼达到了最卑鄙、最幼稚的时期。
In sum, Tony Blair has redefined British liberalism.
总之，托尼·布莱尔重新定义了英国自由主义。
He has made liberalism about embracing, managing and cushioning globalization, about embracing and expanding freedom — through muscular diplomacy where possible and force where necessary — and about embracing fiscal discipline.
他创造了关于拥抱、管理和缓冲全球化的自由主义，关于拥抱和扩大自由——在可能的情况下通过强有力的外交，在必要时使用武力——以及关于财政纪律。
Seriously, ‘real men’ (gender intentional) embrace “muscular diplomacy.” We “expand[ed] freedom” by invading Iraq!
说真的，“真正的男人”（有意向的性别）拥抱“强硬外交”。我们通过入侵伊拉克来“扩大自由”！
In 2005, when he knew that the pretexts for the invasion were lies and the invasion had produced a catastrophe, Friedman enthused like a 16 year old boy about the masculine joys of “muscular diplomacy” (invasion) and chastised Democrats for not being sufficiently enthusiastic about invading Iraq.
2005年，当弗里德曼知道入侵的借口都是谎言并且入侵造成了灾难时，他像一个16岁的男孩一样对“强硬外交”（入侵）的男性乐趣充满热情，并批评民主党人对入侵伊拉克没有足够的热情。
[T]heir own ambivalence toward muscular diplomacy, cost Democrats just enough votes in the American center to allow a mistake-prone Bush team to squeak by in 2004.
民主党人对强硬外交的矛盾态度导致他们在美国中间失去了足够的选票，足以让容易犯错的布什团队在 2004 年勉强度过难关。
The Friedman doctrine is that Democrats should have beaten the “mistake-prone” Bush by enthusiastically embracing Bush’s worst mistake – invading Iraq.
弗里德曼的学说是，民主党应该通过热情接受布什最严重的错误——入侵伊拉克——来击败“容易犯错误”的布什。
How did that sentence not sound “mad” to Friedman when he wrote it?
当弗里德曼写下这句话时，他怎么感觉不“疯狂”呢？
Friedman is the exemplar of our family rule that it is impossible to compete with unintentional self-parody.
弗里德曼是我们家族规则的典范，即不可能与无意识的自我模仿竞争。
He reached his lowest level, literally blasphemous, in a March 16, 2013 column claiming that Blair invaded Iraq in an act of selfless religious devotion to cure the ills of the world.
2013 年 3 月 16 日，他发表了一篇专栏文章，宣称布莱尔入侵伊拉克是出于无私的宗教奉献，旨在治愈世界的弊病，这让他达到了最低水平，简直就是亵渎神明。
What does Tony Blair get that George Bush doesn’t?
托尼·布莱尔得到了什么乔治·布什没有得到的东西？
The only way I can explain it is by a concept from the Kabbalah called ”tikkun olam.” It means, ”to repair the world.” If you listened to Tony Blair’s speeches in recent weeks they contain something so strikingly absent from Mr. Bush’s.
我能解释它的唯一方法是用卡巴拉的一个概念，称为“tikkun olam”。它的意思是“修复世界”。如果你听过托尼·布莱尔最近几周的演讲，其中包含了布什先生的演讲中明显缺失的内容。
Tony Blair constantly puts the struggle for a better Iraq within a broader context of moral concerns.
托尼·布莱尔不断地将争取更美好伊拉克的斗争置于更广泛的道德关注背景下。
Tony Blair always leaves you with the impression that for him the Iraq war is just one hammer and one nail in an effort to do tikkun olam, to repair the world.
托尼·布莱尔总是给你留下这样的印象：对他来说，伊拉克战争只是一把锤子和一颗钉子，目的是修复世界。
The obvious question is what the “Progressive Policy Institute” is that shared Friedman’s masculine joy about invading Iraq – a quintessentially anti-progressive and “mad” policy.
显而易见的问题是，与弗里德曼一样对入侵伊拉克充满男性喜悦的“进步政策研究所”是什么——这是一项典型的反进步和“疯狂”政策。
It is the New Democrats’ and New Labour’s anti-progressive shop.
这是新民主党和新工党的反进步商店。
At all times, Blair copied Clinton.
布莱尔一直在模仿克林顿。
A 2015 Guardian article demonstrated PPI’s message discipline and its blindness to reality.
2015 年《卫报》的一篇文章展示了 PPI 的信息纪律及其对现实的盲目性。
The PPI talisman was “growth.”
PPI 的法宝是“增长”。
At Columbia University in New York this weekend, the Progressive Policy Institute, which helped Bill Clinton and Tony Blair pioneer so-called third way politics in the 1990s, held a closed-door strategy session for congressional staffers that was designed to find ways of promoting growth.
本周末，在纽约哥伦比亚大学，帮助比尔·克林顿和托尼·布莱尔在 20 世纪 90 年代开创所谓第三条道路政治的进步政策研究所为国会工作人员举办了一次闭门战略会议，旨在寻找促进经济增长的方法。
“There is no question that the prevailing temper of the Democratic party is populist: strongly sceptical of what we like to call capitalism and angry about the perceived power of the monied elite in politics,” said PPI president and founder Will Marshall.
PPI 主席兼创始人威尔·马歇尔 (Will Marshall) 表示：“毫无疑问，民主党的主流态度是民粹主义：对我们所说的资本主义强烈怀疑，对政治上有钱精英的权力感到愤怒。”
“But inequality is not the biggest problem we face: it is symptomatic of the biggest problem we face, which is slow growth.”
“但不平等并不是我们面临的最大问题：它只是我们面临的最大问题的症状，即增长缓慢。”
Al From, a leading figure of the centre-left who chaired the Democratic Leadership Council during the first Clinton presidency, argues that a focus on inequality, though understandable after the banking crash, risks driving all candidates too far from policies that would promote growth.
克林顿第一任总统期间担任民主党领导委员会主席的中左翼领导人阿尔·弗洛姆认为，对不平等的关注虽然在银行业崩溃后可以理解，但可能会导致所有候选人远离促进增长的政策。
“Culturally, the country has progressed a lot and we are not going back,” says From, who points especially to changing attitudes to gay marriage and women’s rights.
“在文化上，这个国家已经取得了很大进步，我们不会倒退，”弗洛姆说，他特别指出了人们对同性婚姻和妇女权利态度的改变。
“But the question is whether a major political party can sustain itself solely on cultural issues and can have a real shot at governing, if it doesn’t have a growth agenda as part of its programme.”
“但问题是，如果一个主要政党没有将增长议程作为其计划的一部分，它是否能够仅靠文化问题维持自身并能够真正获得执政机会。”
Representative Kind, the head of the House caucus of New Democrats and a strong Hillary supporter, was willing to give a quotation explaining that Hillary was lying about her opposition to Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in order to deceive Democratic primary voters.
新民主党众议院核心小组主席、希拉里的坚定支持者金德愿意引述，解释希拉里在反对奥巴马跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP)方面撒谎，以欺骗民主党初选选民。
“I’d lie if I said I wasn’t disappointed with the statement that she made on TPP,” says Representative Kind.
“如果我说我对她在 TPP 上发表的声明并不失望，那我就是在撒谎，”代表金德说。
“Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be, but given the necessities of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially.”
“每个人都知道她在这件事上的立场以及她将在哪里，但考虑到当前的必要性和艰难的民主党初选，她觉得她最初需要去那里。”
Al From, the long-time leader of the New Democrats, was willing to quoted presenting an even more cynical illustration of New Democrat realpolitik and another ode to growth.
新民主党长期领导人阿尔·弗洛姆愿意引用新民主党现实政治的更为愤世嫉俗的例证，以及对增长的另一首颂歌。
Paradoxically, some New Democrats may even relish a Sanders resurgence, pointing to the similar experience of Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn in the British Labour party, which they claim will ultimately prove the folly of pandering to the left.
自相矛盾的是，一些新民主党人甚至可能喜欢桑德斯的复兴，他们指出英国工党内埃德·米利班德和杰里米·科尔宾的类似经历，他们声称这最终将证明迎合左派是愚蠢的。
“If we are going to be a governing party we have to [focus more on economic growth], but there is not going to be any pressure in the presidential process until we lose an election or two,” concludes From.
“如果我们要成为执政党，我们就必须[更多地关注经济增长]，但在我们输掉一两次选举之前，总统选举过程中不会有任何压力，”弗洛姆总结道。
The New Democrats’ problems include nominating their candidate (Hillary) and losing to Donald Trump.
新民主党的问题包括提名他们的候选人（希拉里）并输给唐纳德·特朗普。
The bigger problem is that they think that we should tolerate extraordinary “income inequality” to “promote growth.” What has happened to U.S. growth rates as inequality surged?
更大的问题是，他们认为我们应该容忍异常的“收入不平等”以“促进增长”。随着不平等加剧，美国的增长率发生了什么变化？
Growth has fallen sharply.
增长急剧下降。
Epidemics of control fraud and predation cause (real) growth to become negative.
控制欺诈和掠夺的流行导致（实际）增长变为负值。
Bubbles hide this reality by creating data that are nonsense, but once the bubble collapses, the real economic situation emerges.
泡沫通过创造无意义的数据来掩盖这一现实，但一旦泡沫破裂，真实的经济状况就会显现出来。
The collapse eviscerates growth, but the expansion of the bubble means allocates credit inefficiently, which harms growth.
崩溃会削弱增长，但泡沫的扩大意味着信贷配置效率低下，从而损害增长。
Austerity gratuitously increases the lost growth.
紧缩政策无缘无故地加剧了增长损失。
The key to preventing this lost growth is an effective rule of law preventing the epidemics of control fraud and predation.
防止这种增长损失的关键是有效的法治，防止控制欺诈和掠夺的流行。
The New Democrats and Blair are terrible on each of these essential prerequisites of real economic growth.
新民主党和布莱尔在实际经济增长的每一个基本先决条件上都表现得很糟糕。
Bill Clinton was exceptionally lucky in the timing of his presidency.
比尔·克林顿担任总统的时机非常幸运。
His supposed economic success was the product of the immense dot.com bubble and the even larger housing bubble.
他所谓的经济成功是巨大的互联网泡沫和更大的房地产泡沫的产物。
The housing bubble expanded throughout his eight years in office.
在他执政的八年里，房地产泡沫不断扩大。
President Bush continued Clinton and Gore’s assault on the rule of law by making even deeper cuts in federal banking regulators and ‘preempting’ state attorney generals’ efforts to stop the three epidemics of control fraud (plus predation) that drove the GFC.
布什总统继续克林顿和戈尔对法治的攻击，对联邦银行监管机构进行更大幅度的削减，并“先发制人”州总检察长为制止导致全球金融危机的三种控制欺诈（加上掠夺）的流行病所做的努力。
Clinton and Bush made the same promise – ‘deregulation’ would spur a sharp increase in growth.
克林顿和布什做出了同样的承诺——“放松管制”将刺激经济大幅增长。
It did the opposite.
但事实恰恰相反。
An effective rule of law – and regulation is an essential aspect of that rule of law – is essential to produce real growth.
有效的法治 — — 而监管是法治的一个重要方面 — — 对于实现真正的增长至关重要。
When you strip away the bubbles, you strip away the Clinton and Bush growth and see the reality.
当你剥离泡沫时，你就剥离了克林顿和布什的增长并看到了现实。