【英语生活】该不该对金融交易征税？

Does the world need a global “Tobin” tax? That is the question buzzing around London's financial circles. Some three decades ago, James Tobin, the economist, first proposed introducing a tax on financial transactions to deter short-term currency speculation. Since then few policymakers have dared air the idea since it seemed wildly unfashionable. But this month Adair Turner, chairman of the FSA, took part in a round-table organised by *Prospect magazine – and suggested a new “Tobin” debate. Unsurprisingly, this has grabbed attention. However, the really interesting thing about Turner's suggestion is the wider intellectual impetus behind it. For the FSA chairman is increasingly convinced that Western policymakers are at an intellectual watershed.

In recent years, he argues, “the whole efficient markets theory, Washington consensus, free market deregulation system . . .” was so dominant that it was somewhat like a “religion”. This gave rise to “regulatory capture through the intellectual zeitgeist”, enabling the banking lobby to swell in size and power. Now, he says, there has been “a very fundamental shock to the “efficient markets hypothesis” which has been in the DNA of the FSA and securities and banking regulators around the world.” Hence “the idea that more complete markets were good and more liquid markets are definitionally good” is no longer trusted. “[This crisis] requires a very major reconstruct of the global financial regulatory system, [not] a minor adjustment,” he concluded during the Prospect discussion (in which I also took part). Reflect on those words. Turner previously worked at McKinsey, the management consultancy which has been an evangelist for the creed of shareholder value, free-market competition and financial capitalism. He now thinks that the intellectual compass-cum-bible which has guided the FSA – and McKinsey – has been wrong. A cynic might say this is political posturing. The FSA, after all, has faced criticism for failing to get tougher on bank bonuses and it is fending off proposals to put it under the Bank of England. But Turner's comments are a sign of the times. And they raise a crucial question: namely what type of intellectual framework should Western regulators use if their compass has turned out to be so flawed? Sadly, Turner does not offer any pat answers. He has many ideas he thinks that politicians and regulators should debate. For example, he would like to consider more curbs on financial innovation, and a review of market dominance and pricing activity in the wholesale finance sector. But those ideas are not really a manifesto; instead, he stresses that regulators are “still trying to work out” what to do “after a fairly complete train wreck of a predominant theory of economics and finance.”

No doubt, that agnostic stance will infuriate some (or confirm the impression that regulators are toothless). But that may be the wrong response. After all, the real problem with finance in the past few decades is not that policymakers and investors were using flawed economic and financial theories, but using them so blindly that they often disengaged their brains.

Bodies such as the FSA, for example, were so wedded to ideas of market efficiency that they only intervened when there was a clear case of market failure. Similarly, investors were so obsessed with narrow, short-term definitions of shareholder value, that they – like regulators – often appeared to be acting on auto-pilot. But there is never going to be a complete intellectual system to explain how financial systems “should” work. After all, as I wrote last week, ideologies are always rooted in shifting power structures and struggles. And just as the old intellectual model proved imperfect, any new “theory” that might replace it will have limitations too. What is needed noware policymakers, politicians, investors and bankers who are willing to engage their brains, and keep remaking policy, as the world evolves.

That is not an easy idea to sell. After all, as Turner points out, a world without a reliable compass is frightening, exhausting and time-consuming to navigate. “For the regulators of the world, once you have accepted that you don't have an intellectual framework of “more market is always better” you're in a much more worrying space, because you don't have an intellectual system to refer each of your decisions.”

It remains unclear whether Turner will be able to turn any of his rhetoric into policies, given the scale of backlash that his comments will undoubtedly spark. But I, for one, reckon he is to be applauded, for trying to think the unthinkable – and moving away from a crude reliance on creeds. The question is whether other regulators will follow, not just in Europe, but the US, where so many of the free-market dogmas first sprang to life.

世界是否需要一种全球性的“托宾税”？这个问题正在困扰着伦敦的金融圈。大约30年前，经济学家詹姆斯•托宾(James Tobin)率先提出对金融交易征税，以遏制短期货币投机。此后，很少有政策制定者敢于提出这种想法，因为它看起来极其不为社会所认可。但本月，英国金融服务管理局(FSA)主席阿戴尔•特纳(Adair Turner)参加了《展望》(Prospect)杂志组织的一场圆桌会议，并建议重启关于“托宾税”的讨论。不出所料，这引起了广泛关注。不过，特纳建议真正令人感兴趣之处在于其背后深远的学术动因。因为这位FSA主席日益相信，西方的政策制定者正处于学术的分水岭。

他指出，近年来，“有效市场理论、华盛顿共识、自由市场去监管……这一整套体系”占据着如此稳固的主导地位，已经有点像是“宗教”。这导致“监管体制成了学术时代精神的俘虏”，使得银行业游说团体的规模和权力不断膨胀。如今，“存在于FSA以及世界各地证券与银行业监管机构DNA中的‘有效市场假设'受到了根本性冲击”。因此，“更完整的市场更优越、流动性更高的市场在定义上更优越”的观点已不再可信。“（这场危机）要求我们对全球金融监管体系进行重大改造，而不是细枝末节的调整，”特纳在《展望》组织的讨论中（我也参与了这场讨论）得出这样的结论。好好想想这几句话。特纳曾就职于麦肯锡(McKinsey)——这家管理咨询机构一直是股东价值、自由市场竞争和金融资本主义等信条的倡导者。如今他却认为，一直指引FSA（好麦肯锡）的学术指南针和圣经指错了方向。愤世嫉俗者大概会说，这不过是政治上的惺惺作态。毕竟，FSA因未能对银行奖金采取更严格的措施而遭到了批评，而且正奋力抵挡由英国央行(Bank of England)将其接管的建议。但特纳的言论是一个时代的标志，并且提出了一个关键性问题：如果他们的指南针确实存在如此严重的缺陷，那么西方的监管机构应该采用哪种学术框架呢？遗憾的是，特纳未能提供合适的答案。他有许多想法，觉得政治家和监管官员应予以讨论。例如，他意欲考虑加强对金融创新的限制，对批发金融领域的市场主导地位和定价活动进行审查。但这些想法算不上真正的宣言；相反，他强调，监管机构“仍试图找出，在一个最具影响力的经济和金融理论遭遇相当彻底的火车失事之后”，该如何是好。

无疑，这种不可知论的立场会惹恼一些人（或坐实监管机构缺乏有效手段的印象）。但这种反应可能是错误的。毕竟，过去几十年金融业的真正问题，并不在于政策制定者和投资者运用了有缺陷的经济和金融理论，而是他们经常不动脑子，盲目运用这些理论。

例如，FSA等机构对市场有效理论过于执着，只有在明显可能出现市场崩溃时才会出手干预。同样地，投资者也过度执迷于对股东价值狭隘的短期定义，以至于他们（和监管机构一样）常常好像是在依靠自动驾驶仪。但是，永远不会出现一个完整的理论体系，解释金融体系“应该”如何运作。毕竟，正如我两周前所写的那样，意识形态总是植根于不断变化的权力结构与争斗中。而且，就像事实证明旧的理论模型是不完美的一样，任何可能取而代之的新“理论”也会有其局限性。我们现在需要的是，愿意动脑子、并且愿意随着世界的发展而不断修改政策的政策制定者、政治家、投资者和银行家。

这种想法并不容易推销。正如特纳指出的那样，在失去可靠指南针的世界里航行，毕竟是一件令人恐惧、费时耗力的事。“对于世界各国的监管机构而言，一旦你承认自己已经失去了‘市场化程度越高总是越好'的理论框架，你就会处于一个更为焦虑的境地，因为你没有一个理论体系为你各项决定作参照。”

鉴于特纳的言论必然会引发激烈的反对，他是否会将任何言论付诸于实际政策，仍是个未知数。但我个人认为，他敢于想人之不敢想，并脱离对信条的盲目依赖，应该会受到称赞。问题是，其他监管者是否会追随他的脚步，不仅仅是在欧洲，而且还有美国——有太多自由市场的教条最初就是在那里生根发芽的。

译者/管婧