????二戰(zhàn)以來,，所有富裕國家的趨勢都是如此——私有財富的價值相對于國民收入的比重大約增長了兩倍。資本主義的定義就是財產(chǎn)和生產(chǎn)要素由個人控制的經(jīng)濟體系,，所以很難理解怎么會有人說近些年來富裕國家的資本主義色彩變淡了呢,？

????有一段時間，法國對財產(chǎn)私有的厭惡程度確實要高得多,。對此皮凱蒂這樣解釋：

????20世紀30年代的經(jīng)濟危機以及隨后的慘痛經(jīng)歷極大地動搖了人們對私人資本主義的信心,，不僅是在法國，世界上所有國家都是如此……美國,、德國,、英國和法國的失業(yè)者占到了全部勞動力的四分之一。傳統(tǒng)的“自由主義”教條,，或者說政府不干涉經(jīng)濟的原則……遭到了持續(xù)的質(zhì)疑……

????在法國,，人們懷疑許多經(jīng)濟界精英曾和德國占領(lǐng)者合作，在戰(zhàn)爭期間依靠不體面的手段發(fā)了財,，這種觀念加深了不相信私人資本主義的大趨勢,。巴黎解放后,，在這種高度緊張的氛圍之下，法國經(jīng)濟中的主要行業(yè)都實行了國有化,，特別是銀行,、煤礦和汽車制造業(yè)。1944年9月,，雷諾公司（Renault）所有人路易斯?雷諾因為曾經(jīng)與德國占領(lǐng)者合作而被捕,，雷諾公司也被政府接管，以示懲罰,。1945年1月,，當(dāng)?shù)卣畬⒗字Z國有化……1950年，法國政府掌握了全國財富的25%-30%,，實際比例可能還要更高,。

????在這種環(huán)境下，遭到戰(zhàn)爭重創(chuàng)的法國經(jīng)濟出現(xiàn)了近30年的快速增長,。但是,，戰(zhàn)后的趕超階段結(jié)束后，法國實際上又以極大的熱情接受了財產(chǎn)私有制度,。

????在這個過程中,，法國的獨特之處在于，1950-1980年間大行其道的政府所有制在1980年以后降到了非常低的水平,，甚至是在包括金融資產(chǎn)和房地產(chǎn)的私人財富超過了英國的情況下——按2010年國民收入計算,，法國的私人財富相當(dāng)于近六年的國民收入，或者政府財富的20倍,。始于1950年的國家資本主義階段過后,，法國成了21世紀新型私人資本主義的樂土。

????正如皮凱蒂指出的那樣,，經(jīng)濟評論人士拿法國和英美做比較時很少提到這個趨勢,。在我們的記憶中，20世紀80年代的英國和美國都熱衷于私有化和放松管制,。但我們忘了,，其他富裕國家的情況和英美如出一轍，有時甚至更勝一籌,。

????那么,，政府開支占GDP的比重不斷上升又是怎么回事呢？私人財富的增長速度遠高于整體收入,，表明政府支出的上升速度不及私人財富的積累,，而且在討論一個國家的經(jīng)濟時應(yīng)該承認這兩種趨勢。此外，二戰(zhàn)后政府開支的增長可能有兩股推動力：

????1）私人財富的集中程度不斷提高,，上圖和皮凱蒂的這本書都表明了這一點,。隨著一個國家國民財富和收入的增長變得越來越不均衡，選民就會尋求政府的幫助,，從而抵消落后于人的切身感受對自己的影響,。

????2）鮑莫爾成本病：這個理論認為,，政府支出占年度產(chǎn)出的百分比自然會上升,，原因是類似教育這樣的服務(wù)主要由政府提供，而這些服務(wù)都無法像私營行業(yè)提供的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)那樣得到比較有效的管理,。

????舉例來說,，2014年美國的食品加工量遠遠超過1914年，但在這方面花的錢遠少于1914年,。而在教育等領(lǐng)域,，技術(shù)手段還沒辦法減少一定數(shù)量的學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)代數(shù)或閱讀所需要的教師人數(shù)（至少現(xiàn)在還不行）。政府經(jīng)常深度參與的領(lǐng)域?qū)ψ詣踊牡挚沽Χ己軓姟?/p>

????經(jīng)濟學(xué)有多大作用取決于我們手中數(shù)據(jù)的質(zhì)量,。皮凱蒂的新書為我們提供了一個嶄新的視角和大量新近編輯整理的數(shù)據(jù),，將極大地幫助我們理解資本主義的實際運作情形。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????

????The same trend is present in all wealthy countries since World War II: the value of privately owned wealth has increased relative to national income by a factor of roughly two. The definition of capitalism is an economic system in which property and the means of production are controlled by private individuals, so it's hard to see how one could argue the wealthy world has become less capitalistic in recent years.

????Surely, there was a time when France was much more averse to private ownership of property. Here's how Piketty explains it:

????Not only in France, but in countries around the world, faith in private capitalism was greatly shaken by the economic crisis of the 1930s and the cataclysms that followed ... a quarter of the working population in the United States, Germany, Britain and France found themselves out of work. The traditional doctrine of "laissez faire," or nonintervention by the state in the economy ... was durably discredited....

????In France this general climate of distrust toward private capitalism was deepened by the fact that many members of the economic elite were suspected of having collaborated with the German occupiers and indecently enriched themselves during the war. It was in this highly charged post-Liberation climate that major sectors of the economy were nationalized, including in particular the banking sector, the coal mines and the automobile industry. The Renault factories were punitively seized after their owner, Louis Renault, was arrested as a collaborator in September 1944. The provisional government nationalized the firm in January 1945.... In 1950, the government of France owned 25-30 percent of the nation's wealth, and perhaps a little more.

????It was in this environment that the French economy, badly damaged by the war, embarked on nearly 30 years of rapid economic growth. Once that post-war catch-up period was over, however, the French actually embraced private ownership of property with great enthusiasm:

????What is distinctive about the French trajectory is that public ownership, having thrived from 1950 to 1980, dropped to very low levels after 1980, even as private wealth -- both financial and real estate -- rose to levels even higher than Britain's: nearly six years of national income in 2010, or 20 times the value of public wealth. Following a period of state capitalism after 1950, France became the promised land of the new private-ownership capitalism of the twenty-first century.

????As Piketty points out, this trend in France is hardly mentioned when economic commentators compare France to the U.K. and the U.S. We remember the 1980s in the U.K. and the U.S. as a time of enthusiastic privatization and deregulation, but forget that the same thing occurred, sometimes even more intensely, across the rest of the rich world too.

????So, what about that growing share of GDP coming from government spending? The fact that private wealth is growing much more quickly than overall income shows that government spending isn't keeping up with private wealth accumulation, and that both trends should be acknowledged when discussing a nation's economy. Furthermore, the growth of government spending after World War II is likely the result of two forces:

????1) The growing concentration of private wealth, as shown by the chart above and Piketty's book in general. As wealth and income grow more unequal within a given nation's population, voters turn to the government to help compensate for the real feeling that they're falling behind.

????2) Baumol's cost disease: This is the theory that government spending will naturally grow to be a greater percentage of yearly output because government mostly provides services like education that cannot become more efficiently administered in the same way as products and services provided by the private sector can.

????For instance, the U.S. produces a lot more food in 2014 for a lot less money than it did in 1914. Yet in a field like education, technology isn't able to reduce the number of teachers needed for a fixed amount of students to learn algebra or reading (at least not yet). Governments are often heavily involved in the fields that are most resistant to automation.

????The usefulness of economics is determined by the quality of data at our disposal. Piketty's new volume offers a fresh perspective and a wealth of newly compiled data that will go a long way in helping us understand how capitalism actually works.