2009年2月7日
耶穌基督最讚賞的美德不是嚴守貞潔等種種行為守則，而是仁慈、寬恕與正義。要進入天堂那道窄門，靠的不是依從法利賽人的指引，而是善待異鄉來的陌生人，把食物分給無助的飢民，邀請無家可歸者到自己家裏作客，在強權之下保護受壓迫受歧視的窮苦大眾。
曾被《時代》雜誌譽為「美國最好神學家」的郝華斯(Stanley Hauerwas)曾在〈同志友誼﹕天主教道德哲學的一個思想實驗〉一文中如是說﹕「說到底，性並不是那麼有趣，更不是一個足以渲染我們所有行為的決定性特質。同志就和所有其他人一樣，除了是同志之外，還有很多更重要的事要做。正是出於這個理由，我抗拒『同性慾』這種說法。」
郝華斯又在〈為什麼同志在道德上要比基督徒優越〉一文中指出，歧視同志源自當代基督徒生活中的道德紊亂。「譴責同志掩蓋了我們生活中的事實。所以在道德上對同志說『不』就變成了我們真的相信些什麼的必要象徵。」「我們生活中的事實」就是官商勾結之下的巧取豪奪，自然環境的極速惡化，以及貧窮現象的不斷擴大。
右翼基督徒往往把耶穌當年最不滿的道德問題看成是一種私人範圍的事，而今日社會普遍認為是私人範圍的性問題，在他們眼中卻是公共生活的危機。這不是基督信仰的本質傾向，而是美國右翼傳統解讀出來的特殊版本。結合了經濟上美式放任自由主義的思路，美國福音派教會一向以為貧窮問題是個人的責任，與社會再分配的機制無關，更不是政府的義務。所以他們絕對不會為了窮人展開結構性的政治行動，只能憑藉自己的憐憫心去捐錢當義工。右翼政治力量便與保守派基督教會形成了穩固的神聖同盟，以片面的宗教教條掩護政治經濟學的某種意識形態，並且愈演愈烈，使得信徒們看不見街頭上歷歷在目的社會不公，卻把床笫間事變成危及國家前途的頭等大事。
假如「傳統道德」真的正在衰亡，禍首並不是什麼「性錯誤」，而是那套孕育右翼宗教文化的意識形態；以及貪婪，那種促成了金融風暴的貪婪。難道你不知道嗎？那群用百萬美元裝修自己辦公室的華爾街精英並不乏自命堅信的「重生」基督徒。
-------------------------
【明報專訊】恩福堂的蘇穎智牧師認為如果在《家暴條例》加入保障同居同志的條文，會造成「愛滋病增加」，大學生畢業後當「性奴」，甚至成為「養鴨一族」等種種惡果。他是一位基督徒。黃毓民議員在網上電台狠批蘇牧師「是癲的」，「變成了拉登」。他同樣也是一位基督徒。基督徒並不是鐵板一塊，圍繞著《家暴條例》的爭論自然也不是基督徒與非基督徒之間的鬥爭。真正的問題是為什麼某種右翼分子儼然成了主流基督教的代言人，他們又為什麼能夠如此順利地把在美國用過的那一套戰鬥語言順利移至香港。
曾被《時代》雜誌譽為「美國最好神學家」的郝華斯(Stanley Hauerwas)並不是一個激進派。多年以來，他從不放棄重建教會美德的努力，是當今神學界裏最具分量的倫理學家之一。雖然在許多思想更開放的神學家眼中，他顯得有點保守，但是他也曾在〈同志友誼﹕天主教道德哲學的一個思想實驗〉一文中如是說﹕「說到底，性並不是那麼有趣，更不是一個足以渲染我們所有行為的決定性特質。同志就和所有其他人一樣，除了是同志之外，還有很多更重要的事要做。正是出於這個理由，我抗拒『同性慾』這種說法」。他又用一對收養子女、一心信主的虔誠女同志為例﹕「他們並不淫亂，他們分享的親密關係使得他們能為教會社群的利益而更好地生活……我看不出為什麼我們不能把這種關係視為基督教意義上的婚姻……憑什麼可以不認可我所描述的這對女子呢？」
什麼是「為教會社群的利益而更好地生活」呢？基督徒到底應該建立一個怎麼樣的社群，他們的生活又該為哪一種利益而服務呢？
翻開四福音書，今天的信徒一定會很驚訝，耶穌原來極少談論使得他們如此困擾的性問題。在《約翰福音》裏面，耶穌甚至還和一個結過好幾次婚的撒馬利亞女子私下聊天。在那個年代，一個女人嫁過幾次人是不光彩的，她的性經歷是可恥的；一個撒馬利亞人普遍被認為是「生活作風」不好的；而一名如耶穌這般的猶太聖者要是和一個女人單獨說話更是很容易變成一樁醜聞。然而，他的門徒很震驚，因為耶蘇不只沒有指摘這名女子的過往，甚至還親自祝福她！
耶穌基督最讚賞的美德不是嚴守貞潔等種種行為守則，而是仁慈、寬恕與正義(我突然想起蘇穎智牧師那一句「要立法令他們(同志)不受傷害，無可能！」)。要進入天堂那道窄門，靠的不是依從法利賽人(當年的猶太教基要派)的指引，而是善待異鄉來的陌生人，把食物分給無助的飢民，邀請無家可歸者到自己家裏作客，在強權之下保護受壓迫受歧視的窮苦大眾。每次讀到福音書裏的這些信息，我都會感到一種深沉的感動。即使不是教徒，也不能不折服於耶穌基督的勇氣與大愛。既然連神子都能為他所愛的罪人流血，我們又怎能不為我們最小的兄弟去做最簡單的事呢？比如說不要讓他們受到傷害。
右翼教會的問題：錯誤解讀基督信仰
美國和香港的右派教會在道德議題上的最大特點，就是把它全部收縮窄化到性上面，似乎除此之外別無其他公開集體行動的理由。電視上有露點鏡頭，他們投訴；同志要求平權，他們就上街。但我卻從未見過「明光社」投訴報章醜化新移民，也從未見過教會為了增加綜援金額而發動信徒去包圍立法會。這是為什麼呢？難道我讀的福音和他們的不一樣嗎？難道歧視新移民與少數族裔不是一個道德問題嗎？難道同志的罪惡要比一個漠視貧富差距不斷擴大的社會還要深重嗎？
郝華斯又在〈為什麼同志在道德上要比基督徒優越〉(Why Gays (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group))一文中指出，歧視同志源自當代基督徒生活中的道德紊亂。「譴責同志掩蓋了我們生活中的事實。所以在道德上對同志說『不』就變成了我們真的相信些什麼的必要象徵。」「我們生活中的事實」就是官商勾結之下的巧取豪奪，自然環境的極速惡化，以及貧窮現象的不斷擴大。
不要搞錯，我可沒說右翼基督徒都很沒良心。恰恰相反，每逢天災人禍，教會的保守派信徒都為善不落人後。根據一些調查顯示，他們平日捐獻的金額比例甚至要比許多悲天憫人的左派還多。問題只是他們往往把耶穌當年最不滿的道德問題看成是一種私人範圍的事，而今日社會普遍認為是私人範圍的性問題，在他們眼中卻是公共生活的危機。這不是基督信仰的本質傾向，而是美國右翼傳統解讀出來的特殊版本。結合了經濟上美式放任自由主義的思路，美國福音派教會一向以為貧窮問題是個人的責任，與社會再分配的機制無關，更不是政府的義務。所以他們絕對不會為了窮人展開結構性的政治行動，只能憑藉自己的憐憫心去捐錢當義工。
克魯曼(Paul Krugman)在《一個自由主義者的良心》裏，更曾舉過好幾個例子說明美國右翼一直用宗教議題，驅使底層勞工支持明明對他們不利的政策。雖然一個候選人寬免大企業稅項的主張會削弱基層所能得到的福利，但是那些基層還是把票投給了他，因為他攻擊對手贊成同性婚姻。於是，右翼政治力量便與保守派基督教會形成了穩固的神聖同盟，以片面的宗教教條掩護政治經濟學的某種意識形態，並且愈演愈烈，使得信徒們看不見街頭上歷歷在目的社會不公，卻把床笫間事變成危及國家前途的頭等大事。
這套美式論述之所以能夠順利嫁接到此，是因為香港本來就有新自由主義的豐厚土壤。在殖民傳統「大市場、小政府」的管治共識底下，香港人一向強調自力更生，將貧困看成是個人的不幸甚至人格的缺陷，絕不輕易地把責任往社會頭上推，更不會將它看成是社會整體的道德淪喪。因此香港也就絕對有本錢醞釀出安徒先生所說的美式「文化戰爭」，把道德熱情全部投注到同志受不受承認，傳媒有沒有教壞小孩這些事情上了。
諷刺的是，美國右翼教會多年來維護「家庭價值」，力拒同志歪風的侵入，可是美國的離婚率卻總是居高不下。他們覺得這實在是末日將臨，還得再加把勁才行，因此羅賓遜(Pat Robertson)牧師等人才會把話說得愈來愈狠，用「接受同性戀是基督信仰衰亡的最後一步」之類的警示威脅大家。可是，正如美國評論家卡拉漢(David Callahan)所說的﹕「離婚是市場個人主義與消費文化的完美表現。為什麼要和一個不能總是運作良好的產品黏在一起？如果有更新、更好，也更年輕的版本，又何必守住10年前的老款式呢？」(見《The Moral Center》)。換句話說，假如「傳統道德」真的正在衰亡，禍首並不是什麼「性錯誤」，而是那套孕育右翼宗教文化的意識形態；以及貪婪，那種促成了金融風暴的貪婪。難道你不知道嗎？那群用百萬美元裝修自己辦公室的華爾街精英並不乏自命堅信的「重生」基督徒。
梁文道 文化評論人
2009年2月7日 星期六
2009年2月6日 星期五
邵新明 - The Death of Trust
華爾街巨頭們從來就並非真的那樣聰明，而且肯定也不恪守道德，因為他們在唯一一次真正的考驗中集體不及格。他們領導的所有公司都陷於倒閉，只能依靠那些永遠也不可能在華爾街找到高級工作或到哈佛上學的人們的錢來挽救。不過這些華爾街驕子在某個方面的確聰明過人：他們成功地捲走了財富，而讓我們其他人收拾留下來爛攤子。 (中文摘譯版在後面)
Sin-ming Shaw - The Death of Trust
Sin-ming Shaw is a private investor and former visiting scholar at Princeton University.
1 Feb 2009
BANGKOK - A friend recently asked a seemingly naïve question: "What is money? How do I know I can trust that it is worth what it says it is worth?" We learn in introductory economics that money is a medium of exchange. But why do we accept that? Banknotes are just pieces of paper with a number attached to them.
We believe in banknotes because we collectively decide to trust the government when it says that 100 is 100, not 10 or 50. Money, therefore, is about trust, without which no society can function.
Just as we obey our leaders' orders to fight and die because we trust their judgment, we entrust our careers and our money to those who run Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and other such banks, because we believe their leaders will be fair to their employees and clients, and honorable in their business practices. We do not grow up wishing to work for crooks and liars.
Once that trust breaks, bad things happen. Money ceases to have credibility. Leaders become figures of contempt or worse.
As I write, inflation in Zimbabwe has reached an unimaginable (if not unpronounceable) level of more than 500 quintillion per cent. One quintillion is one million trillion. A year ago, inflation was "only" 100,000%. This is what happens when trust vanishes.
Fortunately, Zimbabwe is not a country of real consequence for world stability. But the Weimar Republic and China in the 1940's were. One opted for Hitler and the other for Mao Zedong to restore trust. So the risks are clear.
Are we now seeing an erosion of trust in America and in the United Kingdom?
The first warning sign surfaced in 2001, with the bankruptcy of Enron in the United States. Its fraudulent accounts were certified by Arthur Andersen. Now, India's Satyam, audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, is found to be missing billions in cash. If we cannot rely on the best auditors, can we continue to trust chartered accountants?
Bond rating agencies have issued misleading ratings on companies in questionable health. Will we ever again be able to trust a triple A rating issued by, say, Moody's?
Banks have been holding our money for safekeeping since the fourteenth century, when the Florentines invented the practice. The Royal Bank of Scotland, founded in 1727, when laissez-faire philosopher Adam Smith was only four years old, has just become a socialist state-owned-enterprise thanks to the bank's incompetent leaders, who acquired over-priced banks filled with toxic assets.
Citicorp, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and other symbols of "excellence" all would have collapsed but for public bailouts. And yet for decades we thought that the people who were managing those firms were much smarter than we were.
We grew up admiring leaders such as Robert Rubin, John Thain, and Henry Paulson. Rubin, a former US Treasury Secretary and ex-Chairman of Goldman Sachs, presided over the collapse of Citigroup while taking home $150 million in bonuses. Should he really have been rewarded at all for his "performance"? Just this week, the technically bankrupt Citigroup's senior executives were about to buy a new $50 million luxury French jet for themselves, until the White House stopped it.
Thain, also a former president of Goldman Sachs, helped himself and his Merrill Lynch staff to $4 billion in bonus payments even after he had to sell the firm to Bank of America to save it from bankruptcy. After he was caught spending $1.2 million, even as Merrill Lynch disintegrated, to decorate his new office, Bank of America had to fire him to placate growing revulsion over Wall Street's out-of-control culture of entitlement.
Paulson, the outgoing Treasury Secretary and another Goldman Sachs veteran, left a loophole in his rescue package big enough for a truck to drive through. That loophole allowed his former friends and colleagues on Wall Street to pay themselves billion-dollar bonuses while keeping those firms afloat with taxpayers' money.
The universities these men attended - Harvard and Yale for Rubin; MIT and Harvard for Thain; Dartmouth and Harvard for Paulson - have been magnets for the world's finest young minds. The rest of us thought that these institutions could instill the wisdom, insight, and character of which we all wished we had more.
Perhaps parents all over the world should re-examine their often obsessive craving for these "name-brand" universities, pushing their children as if an Ivy League degree was an end in itself. Now we know that Wall Street's titans were never all that smart, and certainly not very ethical, for they failed the only test that counts. All of the firms they led collapsed, and were saved only by money from those who could never get a senior job on Wall Street or a place at Harvard.
These Wall Street princes were smarter in one way, however: they managed to pocket a fortune while the rest of us are stuck with the mess they left behind. Bernard Madoff who hailed from down-market part of New York City and attended a middling university will spend time behind bars, but none of the titans of Wall Street with blue-chip pedigree will ever do so.
History has not been kind to societies that lose trust in the integrity of their leaders and institutions. We need to save our economic system from its abusers, or else.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
邵新明 - 信任的消亡
香港蘋果日報2009年2月5日
普林斯頓大學前訪問學者
一位朋友最近問了一個似乎很天真的問題：「甚麼是貨幣？我怎麼知道該不該相信它是否真抵得上票面價值？」我們在經濟學導論中學過貨幣是交換的介質。但我們為甚麼接受這種說法？紙幣充其量不過是上面標有數字的紙張而已。
我們相信紙幣，因為政府說一百是一百，而不是十或五十的時候我們所有人都決定信任政府。因此，貨幣的本質就是信任，缺少了這種信任，社會就將陷入癱瘓境地。
正如我們因為信任領袖的判斷而遵從他們的命令去作戰和獻身一樣，我們也把自己的前途和財富託付給了花旗集團、高盛和其他此類銀行的經營者，理由是我們相信它們的領導者能公平地對待員工和客戶，並能在自身的商業行為中遵從誠實守信的原則。
一旦這種信任被打破，就會出現問題。貨幣不再具有公信力。領導者成為被輕視的對象，甚至比這更低。
就在我寫這篇文章的時候，津巴布韋每年的通貨膨脹已經令人無法想像（如果不是無法表達）地超過了五百億億倍。而就在一年以前，通貨膨脹還「只有」百分之十萬。這就是信任消失所導致的惡果。
幸運的是，津巴布韋不能真正影響到世界的穩定。但二十世紀四十年代的魏瑪共和國和中國卻可以。它們一個選擇了希特拉、另一個選擇了毛澤東來重新恢復信任。這裡面的風險是顯而易見的。
我們現在是否看到美國和英國的信任正在遭受侵蝕？
如果不是公共援助計劃，花旗公司、美國銀行、高盛、美林和其他「傑出企業」的代表本來都應該破產倒閉。但幾十年來我們卻一直認為管理那些公司的人比我們聰明得多。
我們懷著對羅伯特魯賓、約翰塞恩和亨利保爾森等領導人物的崇敬之情長大。魯賓曾任職美國財政部長和高盛主席，花旗集團在他的管理下倒閉，而他卻把一億五千萬美元的獎金裝進自己的口袋裡。陷入技術破產的花旗集團高管們更要為自己購買一架新的價值五千萬美元的法國豪華噴氣飛機，直到這種做法被白宮制止。
塞恩也曾擔任高盛總裁一職，即使在他被迫把公司賣給美國銀行以避免破產的命運之後，他還幫助自己及其美林員工拿到了價值四十億美元的獎勵。他在美林陷入解體的時候仍被爆耗費一百二十萬美元裝修自己的新辦公室，致使美國銀行不得不將其開除。
卸任財長保爾森也曾經在高盛供職，他在救援計劃中留下的漏洞大得足以讓卡車通過。那個漏洞允許他以前在華爾街的同事和密友可以為自己發放十億美元獎金，同時用納稅人的錢維持公司繼續運營下去。
這些人上過的大學──魯賓的哈佛和耶魯、塞恩的麻省理工和哈佛、保爾森的達特茅斯和哈佛──一直以來都扮演著吸引世界頂尖青年的磁石角色。我們都相信這些大學能賦予學生洞察力和智慧。
也許全世界的家長應該重新審視自己對這些「名牌」大學的迷戀。現在我們知道華爾街巨頭們從來就並非真的那樣聰明，而且肯定也不恪守道德，因為他們在唯一一次真正的考驗中集體不及格。他們領導的所有公司都陷於倒閉，只能依靠那些永遠也不可能在華爾街找到高級工作或到哈佛上學的人們的錢來挽救。
不過這些華爾街驕子在某個方面的確聰明過人：他們成功地捲走了財富，而讓我們其他人收拾留下來爛攤子。
歷史對那些領袖和機構已經失去民眾信任的社會歷來是無情的。我們需要從擅權者手中挽救經濟體系，否則必定會自食其果。
ProjectSyndicate，2009
Sin-ming Shaw - The Death of Trust
Sin-ming Shaw is a private investor and former visiting scholar at Princeton University.
1 Feb 2009
BANGKOK - A friend recently asked a seemingly naïve question: "What is money? How do I know I can trust that it is worth what it says it is worth?" We learn in introductory economics that money is a medium of exchange. But why do we accept that? Banknotes are just pieces of paper with a number attached to them.
We believe in banknotes because we collectively decide to trust the government when it says that 100 is 100, not 10 or 50. Money, therefore, is about trust, without which no society can function.
Just as we obey our leaders' orders to fight and die because we trust their judgment, we entrust our careers and our money to those who run Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and other such banks, because we believe their leaders will be fair to their employees and clients, and honorable in their business practices. We do not grow up wishing to work for crooks and liars.
Once that trust breaks, bad things happen. Money ceases to have credibility. Leaders become figures of contempt or worse.
As I write, inflation in Zimbabwe has reached an unimaginable (if not unpronounceable) level of more than 500 quintillion per cent. One quintillion is one million trillion. A year ago, inflation was "only" 100,000%. This is what happens when trust vanishes.
Fortunately, Zimbabwe is not a country of real consequence for world stability. But the Weimar Republic and China in the 1940's were. One opted for Hitler and the other for Mao Zedong to restore trust. So the risks are clear.
Are we now seeing an erosion of trust in America and in the United Kingdom?
The first warning sign surfaced in 2001, with the bankruptcy of Enron in the United States. Its fraudulent accounts were certified by Arthur Andersen. Now, India's Satyam, audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, is found to be missing billions in cash. If we cannot rely on the best auditors, can we continue to trust chartered accountants?
Bond rating agencies have issued misleading ratings on companies in questionable health. Will we ever again be able to trust a triple A rating issued by, say, Moody's?
Banks have been holding our money for safekeeping since the fourteenth century, when the Florentines invented the practice. The Royal Bank of Scotland, founded in 1727, when laissez-faire philosopher Adam Smith was only four years old, has just become a socialist state-owned-enterprise thanks to the bank's incompetent leaders, who acquired over-priced banks filled with toxic assets.
Citicorp, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and other symbols of "excellence" all would have collapsed but for public bailouts. And yet for decades we thought that the people who were managing those firms were much smarter than we were.
We grew up admiring leaders such as Robert Rubin, John Thain, and Henry Paulson. Rubin, a former US Treasury Secretary and ex-Chairman of Goldman Sachs, presided over the collapse of Citigroup while taking home $150 million in bonuses. Should he really have been rewarded at all for his "performance"? Just this week, the technically bankrupt Citigroup's senior executives were about to buy a new $50 million luxury French jet for themselves, until the White House stopped it.
Thain, also a former president of Goldman Sachs, helped himself and his Merrill Lynch staff to $4 billion in bonus payments even after he had to sell the firm to Bank of America to save it from bankruptcy. After he was caught spending $1.2 million, even as Merrill Lynch disintegrated, to decorate his new office, Bank of America had to fire him to placate growing revulsion over Wall Street's out-of-control culture of entitlement.
Paulson, the outgoing Treasury Secretary and another Goldman Sachs veteran, left a loophole in his rescue package big enough for a truck to drive through. That loophole allowed his former friends and colleagues on Wall Street to pay themselves billion-dollar bonuses while keeping those firms afloat with taxpayers' money.
The universities these men attended - Harvard and Yale for Rubin; MIT and Harvard for Thain; Dartmouth and Harvard for Paulson - have been magnets for the world's finest young minds. The rest of us thought that these institutions could instill the wisdom, insight, and character of which we all wished we had more.
Perhaps parents all over the world should re-examine their often obsessive craving for these "name-brand" universities, pushing their children as if an Ivy League degree was an end in itself. Now we know that Wall Street's titans were never all that smart, and certainly not very ethical, for they failed the only test that counts. All of the firms they led collapsed, and were saved only by money from those who could never get a senior job on Wall Street or a place at Harvard.
These Wall Street princes were smarter in one way, however: they managed to pocket a fortune while the rest of us are stuck with the mess they left behind. Bernard Madoff who hailed from down-market part of New York City and attended a middling university will spend time behind bars, but none of the titans of Wall Street with blue-chip pedigree will ever do so.
History has not been kind to societies that lose trust in the integrity of their leaders and institutions. We need to save our economic system from its abusers, or else.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
邵新明 - 信任的消亡
香港蘋果日報2009年2月5日
普林斯頓大學前訪問學者
一位朋友最近問了一個似乎很天真的問題：「甚麼是貨幣？我怎麼知道該不該相信它是否真抵得上票面價值？」我們在經濟學導論中學過貨幣是交換的介質。但我們為甚麼接受這種說法？紙幣充其量不過是上面標有數字的紙張而已。
我們相信紙幣，因為政府說一百是一百，而不是十或五十的時候我們所有人都決定信任政府。因此，貨幣的本質就是信任，缺少了這種信任，社會就將陷入癱瘓境地。
正如我們因為信任領袖的判斷而遵從他們的命令去作戰和獻身一樣，我們也把自己的前途和財富託付給了花旗集團、高盛和其他此類銀行的經營者，理由是我們相信它們的領導者能公平地對待員工和客戶，並能在自身的商業行為中遵從誠實守信的原則。
一旦這種信任被打破，就會出現問題。貨幣不再具有公信力。領導者成為被輕視的對象，甚至比這更低。
就在我寫這篇文章的時候，津巴布韋每年的通貨膨脹已經令人無法想像（如果不是無法表達）地超過了五百億億倍。而就在一年以前，通貨膨脹還「只有」百分之十萬。這就是信任消失所導致的惡果。
幸運的是，津巴布韋不能真正影響到世界的穩定。但二十世紀四十年代的魏瑪共和國和中國卻可以。它們一個選擇了希特拉、另一個選擇了毛澤東來重新恢復信任。這裡面的風險是顯而易見的。
我們現在是否看到美國和英國的信任正在遭受侵蝕？
如果不是公共援助計劃，花旗公司、美國銀行、高盛、美林和其他「傑出企業」的代表本來都應該破產倒閉。但幾十年來我們卻一直認為管理那些公司的人比我們聰明得多。
我們懷著對羅伯特魯賓、約翰塞恩和亨利保爾森等領導人物的崇敬之情長大。魯賓曾任職美國財政部長和高盛主席，花旗集團在他的管理下倒閉，而他卻把一億五千萬美元的獎金裝進自己的口袋裡。陷入技術破產的花旗集團高管們更要為自己購買一架新的價值五千萬美元的法國豪華噴氣飛機，直到這種做法被白宮制止。
塞恩也曾擔任高盛總裁一職，即使在他被迫把公司賣給美國銀行以避免破產的命運之後，他還幫助自己及其美林員工拿到了價值四十億美元的獎勵。他在美林陷入解體的時候仍被爆耗費一百二十萬美元裝修自己的新辦公室，致使美國銀行不得不將其開除。
卸任財長保爾森也曾經在高盛供職，他在救援計劃中留下的漏洞大得足以讓卡車通過。那個漏洞允許他以前在華爾街的同事和密友可以為自己發放十億美元獎金，同時用納稅人的錢維持公司繼續運營下去。
這些人上過的大學──魯賓的哈佛和耶魯、塞恩的麻省理工和哈佛、保爾森的達特茅斯和哈佛──一直以來都扮演著吸引世界頂尖青年的磁石角色。我們都相信這些大學能賦予學生洞察力和智慧。
也許全世界的家長應該重新審視自己對這些「名牌」大學的迷戀。現在我們知道華爾街巨頭們從來就並非真的那樣聰明，而且肯定也不恪守道德，因為他們在唯一一次真正的考驗中集體不及格。他們領導的所有公司都陷於倒閉，只能依靠那些永遠也不可能在華爾街找到高級工作或到哈佛上學的人們的錢來挽救。
不過這些華爾街驕子在某個方面的確聰明過人：他們成功地捲走了財富，而讓我們其他人收拾留下來爛攤子。
歷史對那些領袖和機構已經失去民眾信任的社會歷來是無情的。我們需要從擅權者手中挽救經濟體系，否則必定會自食其果。
ProjectSyndicate，2009
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)