That capitalism has been shown, in practice, to be endemically flawed should come as no surprise. That is the nature of mankind. What is more important is that history, notably the history of the world after the second world war, has demonstrated beyond dispute that every other system of economic organisation is far worse. So capitalism both deserves to survive, and will survive, just as it did after the even greater economic disaster of the 1930s.
实践已表明，资本主义存在固有缺陷，这一点不足为奇。那是人类的天性。更重要的是，历史——尤其是二战之后的世界历史——已无可辩驳地证明，其他所有经济组织制度都要糟糕得多。因此，资本主义既应当继续存在下去，也将会继续存在下去，正如上世纪30年代那场甚至比目前更为严重的经济灾难之后的情况。
But there is another lesson of the 1930s. It is that although capitalism survives it is capable of retreating behind a protectionist shell, at great cost to global prosperity. This is a real danger today. The “Buy American” provisions in President Barack Obama's fiscal boost are an ominous sign. The impulse to resort to protection when economic hardship suddenly strikes is, of course, always present. But there is today a dangerous new factor which magnifies the threat. The leaders of some of America's largest corporations have already joined up with organised labour (the AFL-CIO) to urge Congress to impose tariffs against imports from countries (such as China, for example) which are understandably unwilling to bear the heavy costs of an obligation to curb their carbon dioxide emissions. There is considerable support in Europe, notably within the European Commission and in France, for a similar approach.
但上世纪30年代还有一个教训：尽管资本主义幸存了下来，但它会缩进一个保护主义的壳里，让全球繁荣付出了惨重代价。目前这是一种真切存在的危险。美国总 统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)财政刺激方案中的“买美国货”条款就是一个不祥之兆。自然，当经济困厄骤然来袭之际，人们总会产生一种求助于保护主义的冲动。但目前存在一种 危险的新因素，加大了这种威胁。美国一些大企业领袖已联合有组织的工人(美国劳工联合会-产业工会联合会，AFL-CIO)，敦促国会对来自相关国家(如 中国)的进口商品加征关税，这些国家不愿承担限制本国二氧化碳排放的沉重成本，这也是可以理解的。类似的做法在欧洲颇受支持，尤其是在欧盟委员会(EC) 内部和法国。
It is essential, both in the US and in Europe, that this is resolutely rejected. The first and most important requirement for the future of capitalism is the preservation of globalisation, and the massive benefits it confers on mankind, in particular in the developing world. There are, inevitably, costs of globalisation; but they are hugely outweighed by the benefits. So resistance to protection, whatever arguments may be used in its favour, must be rigorously maintained. Nor is this an exclusively economic argument. It is a moral imperative, as well. Moreover, a trade war with China could well have unpredictable, and potentially highly damaging, political consequences.
美国和欧洲必须坚决摈弃这种做法。要保障资本主义的未来，首要条件是维护全球化，及其给人类(尤其是发展中国家)带来的巨大利益。全球化必然有代价，但其 利益远远超过了代价。因此，无论保护主义的支持者可能摆出哪些有利于自己的论点，我们都必须坚定地抵制保护主义。这不只是一种经济上的主张，在道义上也势 在必行。此外，与中国进行贸易战，很可能造成无法预测、可能极具破坏力的政治后果。
But will capitalism need to change in the future? Again, the lesson of history is that the answer is “not really”. The economic cycle is endemic and inescapable, and everyone (with the exception of prime minister Gordon Brown) has always known this. What the current crisis does underline, however, is that a cyclical downturn associated with a collapse of the banking system is by an order of magnitude worse than a normal cyclical downturn.
然而，今后资本主义需要改变吗?历史教训再一次表明，答案是“不一定”。经济周期是固有的和不可避免的，对此所有(除了英国首相戈登•布朗)一向都很清楚。不过，当前危机所突出表明的，是伴随银行体系崩溃的周期性衰退，在数量级上要比正常的周期性衰退更为严重。
So there does need to be a change to the banking system. In a nutshell, we need to return, in all major financial centres, to the separation of commercial banking from investment banking that was enforced in the US under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, until it was repealed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. This is all the more important since we now live in an age in which the acquisition of wealth appears to count for more than reputation.
因此，银行体系的确需要变革。简言之，我们必须在所有主要金融中心重新施行商业银行与投资银行业务分离的做法。根据1933年的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法 案》(Glass-Steagall Act)，美国过去一直实行这种做法，直到上世纪90年代该国总统比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton)废止了这一法案。既然我们如今生活在发财致富似乎比名誉更重要的时代，这一点就显得更加重要。
Achieving this will not be easy or popular in banking circles, but it can be done. We have time to get it right: this is not firefighting, but fireproofing.
要做到这一点并不容易，也不会受到银行界的欢迎，不过这是可以做到的。我们有时间来把事情做好：这不是救火工作，而是防火。
