【美國(guó)的富人】強(qiáng)盜大亨與硅谷國(guó)王-(上)

1、美國(guó)的富人】強(qiáng)盜大亨與硅谷國(guó)王上）Self-made wealth in America 美國(guó)白手起家的富人Robber barons and silicon sultans 強(qiáng)盜大亨與硅谷國(guó)王 Todays tech billionaires have a lot in common with a previous generation of capitalist titans perhaps too much for their own good 當(dāng)今的科技億萬(wàn)富翁同上一代的大資本家有許多共同之處 也許， 這對(duì)他們是有很多好處的。 Jan 3rd 2015 | From the print

2、 edition of The Economist 譯者：老狒狒 IN THE 50 years between the end of the American civil war in 1865 and the outbreak of the first world war in 1914, a group of entrepreneurs spearheaded Americas transformation from an agricultural into an industrial society, built gigantic business empires and amasse

3、d huge fortunes. In 1848 John J. Astor, a merchant trader, was Americas richest man with $20m (now $545m). By the time the United States entered the first world war, John D. Rockefeller had become its first billionaire. 在美國(guó)內(nèi)戰(zhàn)結(jié)束的 1865 年至第一次世界大戰(zhàn)爆發(fā)的 1914 年的 50 年間，一群企 業(yè)家?guī)ьI(lǐng)美國(guó)完成了從農(nóng)業(yè)社會(huì)到工業(yè)社會(huì)的轉(zhuǎn)變。構(gòu)建了 巨大的商業(yè)帝國(guó)，

4、累積了巨額的財(cái)富。 1848 年，商品交易商John J. Astor 是美國(guó)首富，身價(jià) 2000 萬(wàn)美元（合現(xiàn)在的 54.5 億美元）。到美國(guó)加入一戰(zhàn)時(shí)，約翰 D洛克菲勒已經(jīng)成為 美國(guó)的第一位億萬(wàn)富翁。 In the 50 years since Data General introduced the first mini-computers in the late 1960s, a group of entrepreneurs have spearheaded the transformation of an industrial age into an information socie

5、ty, built gigantic business empires and acquired huge fortunes. When he died in 1992, Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, was probably Americas richest man with $8 billion. Today Bill Gates occupies that position with $82.3 billion. 在數(shù)據(jù)通用公司于上世紀(jì) 60 年代末期引進(jìn) 了第一臺(tái)微型機(jī)算計(jì)至今的 50 年中，一群企業(yè)家在帶領(lǐng)美 國(guó)從工業(yè)時(shí)代向信息社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)變的過(guò)程

6、中，構(gòu)建了巨大的商業(yè) 帝國(guó)，獲取了巨額的財(cái)富。當(dāng)沃爾瑪創(chuàng)始人山姆沃爾頓在 1992 年去世時(shí)， 身價(jià) 80 億美元的他可能是美國(guó)當(dāng)時(shí)的首富。 今天，比爾蓋茨以 823 億美元占據(jù)這個(gè)位置。 The first group is now known as the robber barons. The second lot call them the silicon sultans could face a similar fate. Like their predecessors, they were once revered as inventive mould-breakers, deliv

7、ering gadgets to the masses. But just like Rockefeller and the other“ malefactors of great wealth”, thnew capitalists are losing their sheen. They have been diversifying into businesses that have little to do with computers,while egotistically proclaiming that they alone can solve mankinds problems,

8、 from ageing to space travel. More pointedly, they stand accused of being greedy businessfolk who suborn politicians, employ sweatshop labour, stiff other shareholders and, especially, monopolise markets. Rockefeller once controlled 80% of the worlds supply of oil: today Google has 90% of the search

9、 market in Europe and 67% in the United States.第一群企業(yè)家就是如今被稱為“強(qiáng)盜大亨”的人。第 二群企業(yè)家姑且稱之為硅谷國(guó)王可能面臨同樣的 命運(yùn)。像他們的前輩一樣，他們也曾經(jīng)被尊稱為富有創(chuàng)造力 的開(kāi)拓者，能為大眾帶來(lái)花樣百出的數(shù)碼產(chǎn)品。但是，就像 洛克菲勒和其他“罪惡的大富豪”一樣，新一代的資本家正 在逐漸失去他們的光環(huán)。他們一邊拿出一部分資金進(jìn)入與計(jì) 算機(jī)毫不相干的商業(yè)領(lǐng)域，一邊自戀地宣稱他們能夠獨(dú)自解 決從長(zhǎng)生不老到星際旅行的人類難題。說(shuō)得難聽(tīng)一點(diǎn)，他們 是一群背著貪婪罵名的商業(yè)大鱷，干著與政客狼狽為奸、剝 削血汗工廠的勞動(dòng)力、陷害其他股東，特

10、別是壟斷市場(chǎng)的勾 當(dāng)。洛克菲勒曾一度控制了全世界 80石油供應(yīng)。如今，谷 歌占有 90的歐洲搜索市場(chǎng)和 67的美國(guó)搜索市場(chǎng)。 Together, the two groups throw light on some of the most enduring themes of American history both the countrys extraordinary ability to generate vast wealth and its enduring ambivalence about concentrations of power. Henry Ford, the youn

11、gest of the robber barons, once said that history is more or less bunk. He was wrong. The silicon sultans have the advantage of being able to learn from their predecessors mistakes. It is not entirely clear that they are doing so. 這兩群人加起來(lái)為美國(guó)歷 史上一些最經(jīng)久不衰的主題產(chǎn)生大批富人的特殊能力 和長(zhǎng)久的對(duì)于權(quán)力集中的矛盾心態(tài)提供了注解。作為強(qiáng) 盜大亨中最年輕的

12、一位，亨利福特曾經(jīng)說(shuō)：歷史，多多少 少是胡言亂語(yǔ)。他錯(cuò)了。硅谷的國(guó)王們擁有從前輩的錯(cuò)誤中 吸取教訓(xùn)的有力條件。但是，他們是否正在這樣做就不完全 清楚了。 History rhymes 歷史基調(diào) All business titans have certain things in common a steely determination to turn their dreams into reality, a gargantuan appetite for success and, as they grow older, a complicated relationship with the

13、fruits of their labour. But the robbers and sultans have more in common than most: they are the bermenschen of the past 200 years of American capitalism, the people who feel the future in their bones, bring it into being and sometimes go too far.所有的商業(yè)巨頭都有某些共同點(diǎn)： 讓夢(mèng)想成為事實(shí)的鋼鐵決心，對(duì)成功的極度渴望；上了年紀(jì) 后，同自己的勞動(dòng)果實(shí)有

14、一種復(fù)雜的關(guān)系。但是強(qiáng)盜大亨與 硅谷國(guó)王之間的共同點(diǎn)是最接近的：他們都是美國(guó)資本主義 在其 200 年歷史中的“高等民族” ，是能夠在骨子里感受到 未來(lái)，然后再將未來(lái)變?yōu)楝F(xiàn)實(shí)的人雖然有的時(shí)候走得太 遠(yuǎn)了。 The most striking similarity is that they refashioned the material basis of civilisation. Railway barons such as Leland Stanford and E.H. Harriman laid down more than 200,000 miles of track, creati

15、ng a national market. Andrew Carnegie replaced iron with much more versatile steel. Ford ushered in the era of the automobile. Mr Gates tried to put a computer in every office and in every home. Larry Page and Sergey Brin put the worlds information at everybodys fingertips. Mark Zuckerberg made the

16、internet social. Just as the railroad made it possible for obscure companies to revolutionise everything from food (Heinz) to laundry (Procter & Gamble), the internet allows entrepreneurs to disrupt everything from retailing (Amazon) to transport (Uber). 最突出的相同點(diǎn)是： 他們重塑了文明的物質(zhì)基礎(chǔ)。 以 利蘭斯坦福和 E.H. 哈里曼為代表的

17、鐵路大亨鋪設(shè)了超過(guò) 200000 英里的鐵路，從而創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)全國(guó)市場(chǎng)；安德魯卡 內(nèi)基以用途更為廣泛的鋼代替了鐵；福特開(kāi)辟了汽車時(shí)代。 蓋茨試圖讓電腦進(jìn)入每一間辦公室和每一個(gè)家庭；拉里佩 奇和謝爾蓋布林把有關(guān)這個(gè)世界的信息置于每一個(gè)人的指 尖之下；馬克扎克伯格造就了網(wǎng)絡(luò)社交。正如鐵路讓默默 無(wú)聞的公司去徹底改變從食品(亨氏)到洗衣(寶潔)的所有東西成為可能一樣，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)也任由企業(yè)家對(duì)從零售（亞馬 遜）到交通 （優(yōu)步） 的一切進(jìn)行創(chuàng)造性的破壞。 Both relied on the relentless logic of economies of scale. The robber barons s

18、tarted with striking innovations in Fords case, a more efficient way of turning petrol into power but their real genius lay in their ability to“ scale up ” these innovations to squeeze tcompetition.“Cut the prices; scoop the market; run the millsfull, ” as Carnegie put it. The silicon sultans update

19、d the idear. M Gates understood the imminent ubiquity of personal computers, and the money to be made from making their software. Messrs Brin and Page grasped that their search engine could create a massive audience for advertisers. Mr Zuckerberg saw that Facebook could profit from inserting itself

20、into the social lives of a sizeable chunk of the worlds population. 雙方都借助了規(guī) 模經(jīng)濟(jì)的冰冷邏輯。強(qiáng)盜大亨發(fā)跡于驚人的創(chuàng)新對(duì)福特 來(lái)說(shuō)，他找到的是一種能夠?qū)⑵透行У剞D(zhuǎn)化為動(dòng)力的方 式但是，他們真正的天才是能夠“成倍地放大”這些創(chuàng) 新以擊垮對(duì)手。正如卡內(nèi)基所言： “降價(jià)，搶占市場(chǎng)；然后， 開(kāi)足馬力”。硅谷的國(guó)王們升級(jí)了這種思想。蓋茨在個(gè)人電 腦普及之前就已經(jīng)看懂了這一趨勢(shì)，他知道財(cái)富就來(lái)源于為 這些電腦制造軟件；布林和佩奇深知，他們的搜索引擎能夠 為廣告商創(chuàng)造大量的受眾；扎克伯格發(fā)現(xiàn)，臉書(shū)能夠通過(guò)讓自己進(jìn)入占世界人口很大

21、一部分人的社交生活而獲利Economies of scale allowed the robber barons to keep reducing prices and improving quality. Henry Ford cut the price of his Model T from $850 in its first year of production to $360 in 1916. In 1924 you could buy a much better car for just $290. The silicon sultans performed exactly the

22、same trick. The price of computer equipment, adjusted for quality and inflation, has declined by 16% a year over the five decades from 1959 to 2009. Each iPhone contains the same amount of computing power as was housed in MIT in 1960. 規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)曾經(jīng)允許強(qiáng)盜大亨們一 邊降低價(jià)格，一邊提高質(zhì)量。亨利福特將其 T 型車的價(jià)格 從量產(chǎn)第一年的 850 美元降到了 1916

23、 年的 360 美元。到 1924 年，人們只需花 290 美元就能夠買(mǎi)一輛好很多的車。硅谷的 國(guó)王們表演了幾乎同樣的戲法。扣除質(zhì)量和通脹因素，計(jì)算 機(jī)的價(jià)格在從 1959年到 2009 年的 50年間，年均下降了 16。 一部 iPhone 的計(jì)算能力同麻省理工在 1960 年建造的一間房 子大小的計(jì)算機(jī)不相上下。 The robber barons denounced regulators in the name of the free market, but monopoly suited them better. Rockefeller rued the “ destructive c

24、ompetition ” of the oil industry, with its cycle of glut and shortage, and set about ensuring continuity of supply. The first trust, Standard Oils, established in 1882, was designed to persuade his rivals to giveup control of their companies in return for a guaranteed incomeand an easy life.“The Sta

25、ndard was an angel oref amcehrincygdown from the sky and saying Get into the ark. Put in your old junk. We will take all the risks, ” he wrote. 強(qiáng)盜大亨們?cè)宰?由市場(chǎng)之名指責(zé)監(jiān)管，但是，用“壟斷”一詞來(lái)形容他們的 行為是再合適不過(guò)了。洛克菲勒曾經(jīng)對(duì)有著過(guò)剩合短缺周期 的石油行業(yè)的“ 毀滅性競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”表示后悔，并著手確保供應(yīng) 的連續(xù)性。創(chuàng)建于 1882 年的第一家托拉斯標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油的 最初目的是勸說(shuō)對(duì)手放棄對(duì)他們公司的控制，以換取一個(gè)有 收入保障和舒適的生活。

26、 “標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油是一位仁慈天使，她在 從天而降的同時(shí)告訴我們： 進(jìn)入方舟，交出你們的破船。 一切風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都由我們來(lái)承擔(dān)。 ”他曾經(jīng)這樣寫(xiě)道。 Others followed. Although the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 outlawed these devices as restraints on free trade, the barons either neutralised the legislation or got round it with another control-preserving device, the holding compan

27、y. By the early 20th century trusts and holding companies held nearly 40% of American manufacturing assets. Alfred Chandler, the doyen of American business historians, summed up the hundred years following the civil war as “ ten years of competition and 90 years of oligopoly ” .之后，其他的強(qiáng)盜大亨也開(kāi)始效仿洛克 菲勒的

28、做法。 盡管 1890 年謝爾曼反托拉斯法 將這些“設(shè)備”視為對(duì)自由貿(mào)易的抑制而加以明令禁止，但是，大亨們 或是讓這項(xiàng)立法失去了效力，或是用另一種掌控設(shè)備控 股公司繞過(guò)了這項(xiàng)法案。到 20 世紀(jì)早期，托拉斯和控股公 司持有將近 40的美國(guó)制造業(yè)資產(chǎn)。 美國(guó)商業(yè)史學(xué)界的元老 阿爾弗雷德 錢(qián)德勒曾將內(nèi)戰(zhàn)后的 100 年概括為“10年的競(jìng) 爭(zhēng) 90 年的壟斷”。 The silicon sultans have it easier. They sometimes brush with the law Google and Apple have been scolded for creating in

29、formal agreements to prevent poaching wars but network effects, whereby the more customers a service has, the more valuable it becomes, mean that their businesses tend towards monopoly anyway. In the digital world, the alternative is often annihilation. As Peter Thiel, PayPals cerebral founder, put

30、it in“Zero to One ”: “All failed compaare the same: they failed to escape competition.”硅谷的國(guó)王們 的壟斷相對(duì)容易一些。他們有時(shí)會(huì)置法律于不顧谷歌和 微軟之所以飽受批評(píng)，是因?yàn)樗麄兙喗Y(jié)了非正式的協(xié)議以防 止偷獵戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)但是，一項(xiàng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)會(huì)因?yàn)榭蛻粼黾佣兊?更有價(jià)值的網(wǎng)絡(luò)效應(yīng)意味著，他們的業(yè)務(wù)仍然往往更加傾向 于壟斷。在數(shù)字世界中，其他的選擇常常意味著消亡。正如 貝寶的創(chuàng)意創(chuàng)始人皮特泰爾在從無(wú)到有中所言： “所 有失敗公司都時(shí)一樣的：他們沒(méi)能逃脫競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。 ”The result, in both cases, i

31、s an unparalleled concentration of power. A century ago the barons had a lock on transport and energy. Today Google and Apple between them provide 90% of smartphone operating systems of; over half of North Americans and over a third of Europeans use Facebook. None of the five big car companies, by c

32、ontrast, controls more than a fifth of the American market. 對(duì)這兩群人來(lái)說(shuō)， 結(jié)果都是史無(wú)前例的權(quán)力 集中。 一個(gè)世紀(jì)前， 大亨們牢牢地控制了交通和能源。 如今， 谷歌和蘋(píng)果總共為 90的智能手機(jī)提供操作系統(tǒng)； 超過(guò)半數(shù) 的北美人和三分之一以上的歐洲人使用臉書(shū)。相比之下，在 五大汽車制造商中，沒(méi)有一家能夠控制超過(guò)五分之一的美國(guó) 市場(chǎng)。 The 0.000001%0.000001% The silicon sultans are some of the few businesspeople who can compete with th

33、e robber barons in terms of ownership. Carnegie made a point of always owning more than half of his company. Today most firms are widely held by large numbers of shareholders: the largest individual shareholder in Exxon, the grandchild of Standard Oil, is Rex Tillerson, the companys chief executive.

34、 He owns 0.05% of the stock. But tech is different. Together Googles two founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and its executive chairman, Eric Schmidt (who also sits on the board of The Economists parent company) control two-thirds of the voting stock in Google.Mark Zuckerberg owns 20% of Facebook

35、shares but almost all of its “ class B” shares, which have ten times the voting power of ordinary shares. 硅谷的國(guó)王們是少有的能夠在所有權(quán)方面 同強(qiáng)盜大亨一較高低的商界人士。卡內(nèi)基總是持有自己公司 半數(shù)以上的股份。如今，大多數(shù)公司都是被很多股東廣泛地 所持有：作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油的第四代公司，美孚的最大個(gè)人股東 是公司的首席執(zhí)行官雷克斯蒂爾納森。他所擁有股份只有 0.05%。但是，技術(shù)巨頭們就不一樣了。谷歌的兩位創(chuàng)始人 拉里佩奇和謝爾蓋布林以及首席執(zhí)行官（同時(shí)也是本報(bào) 母公司董事會(huì)成員） 埃里克施

36、密特共持有公司三分之二 的擁有投票權(quán)的股份。 馬克扎克伯格擁有臉書(shū) 20的股份， 但這些股份幾乎占投票權(quán)十倍于普通股的“ B 股”的全部。 The tech titans are not as rich in relative terms as the robber barons. When Rockefeller retired in the early 20th century, his net worth was equal to about one-thirtieth of Americas annual GNP. When Mr Gates stepped aside as CEO

37、of Microsoft in 2000 his net worth might have equalled 1/130th of it. But they nevertheless represent the most significant concentration of business wealth in the world. In 2013 34% of billionaire-entrepreneurs aged 40 or under made their money in high tech.相對(duì)而言，技術(shù)巨頭們并不如強(qiáng)盜大亨們那樣富有。 當(dāng)洛克菲勒在 20 世紀(jì)早期退休時(shí)，他的凈資產(chǎn)約為美國(guó)年均 GNP 的 1/30 。當(dāng)比爾蓋茨在 2000 年卸任微軟首席執(zhí)