日韩中文字幕在线一区二区三区,亚洲热视频在线观看,久久精品午夜一区二区福利,精品一区二区三区在线观看l,麻花传媒剧电影,亚洲香蕉伊综合在人在线,免费av一区二区三区在线,亚洲成在线人视频观看
          首頁 500強 活動 榜單 商業 科技 商潮 專題 品牌中心
          雜志訂閱

          美國頂尖法學家論“榨取時代”

          Nick Lichtenberg
          2025-12-04

          吳修銘新觀點:現代美國資本主義已退化成一個以積累市場權力和“榨取”為特征的系統。

          文本設置
          小號
          默認
          大號
          Plus(0條)

          2016年11月14日,在加利福尼亞州洛杉磯市洛杉磯中央圖書館舉辦的“Aloud”系列活動中,科技與法律學者吳修銘(Tim Wu)手持著作《注意力商人》(Attention Merchants)拍攝肖像照。圖片來源:Gary Leonard/Getty Images

          曾在拜登政府任職、頗具影響力的哥倫比亞法學院(Columbia Law School)教授吳修銘(Tim Wu)攜其新觀點回歸:現代美國資本主義已退化成一個以積累市場權力和“榨取”為特征的系統,在全國范圍內催生出一種深刻的“經濟怨恨”情緒。

          在其新書《榨取時代》發行之際接受《財富》雜志采訪時,吳修銘將當前的政治動蕩與一種普遍感受——“我們的體系不公平”——聯系起來。他認為,這種無處不在的憤怒源于個人感覺“被權力壓倒,而非在競爭中落敗”,這比在公平競爭中失敗所產生的怨恨要強烈得多。

          吳修銘將核心問題界定為企業目標的轉變:從致力于打造“人們因其優質而想購買的好產品”,轉向尋求“掌控他人并盡可能從其身上榨取價值”的模式。吳修銘承認,他的觀點與老友科利·多克托羅(Cory Doctorow)近期的著述有許多相似之處;盡管多克托羅的論點主要圍繞科技領域,但他承認兩人的思想內核高度一致。“我認為這某種程度上是一個全經濟范圍的問題。一切都在悄然惡化。就是那種你喜歡的東西正變得越來越糟的怪異感覺。”

          吳修銘將此歸咎于“紀律缺失”。他表示,在當今這個榨取時代,太多公司放任自流。他說,強大的競爭對手、法律執行和公司員工都能施加紀律約束感,“但在目前這么多市場中,這些力量都不夠強大……紀律缺失讓公司得以降低產品和服務質量而不受懲罰。”從更廣的視角看,這種趨勢挑戰了美國進步的基本理念,尤其是在本應作為“發明行業”不斷推動改進的科技行業。

          “我所理解的美國是一個事物理應變得更好的地方,”吳修銘說。他認為,生活在一個許多事物反而在變糟的時代,“動搖了美國理念的核心,也動搖了科技行業的進步理念”——但他確實看到了一個看似不太可能的解決方案。

          作為一名體育迷,吳修銘說,有一個市場結構提供了清晰的范例,它擁有紀律,事物事實上并未變糟,價值未被榨取。它是一個人們因其優質而想購買的好產品:美國國家橄欖球聯盟(NFL)。他說,NFL通過薪資帽、選秀和賽程調整等機制實現“積極的再平衡”,闡明了公平規則的重要性。

          NFL如何能為經濟提供解方

          盡管NFL仍然具有競爭性和精英性,但它確保即使是最差的球隊也“有機會得到一位偉大的四分衛”并重新獲得競爭力,就像堪薩斯城酋長隊(Kansas City Chiefs)憑借其招牌球員帕特里克·馬霍姆斯(Patrick Mahomes)和特拉維斯·凱爾斯(Travis Kelce)取得歷史性成功那樣。吳修銘認為,像堪薩斯城這樣的小市場球隊經常主導像紐約這樣的大市場球隊,在“純粹的經濟游戲”中是難以想象的。相比之下,吳修銘指出美國職業棒球大聯盟(MLB)一直“被失控的支出所扭曲”。這導致了資源“荒謬”的錯配,小球隊因資源短缺而舉步維艱,而非實力不濟。(大市場球隊洛杉磯道奇隊(Los Angeles Dodgers)擁有棒球史上最高的薪資總額,剛剛慶祝了其連續第二次世界大賽冠軍。)

          NFL的成功為美國經濟應如何運作提供了一個范例。“我不是社會主義者,”吳修銘告訴《財富》雜志。“從某種意義上說,我在這里試圖不是要摧毀資本主義,而是要讓它回歸其應有的樣子。”在他的新書中,吳修銘用聽起來類似于2025年占據新聞頭條的K型經濟(指富人愈富、窮人愈窮的經濟形態)的語言來描述“榨取者”和“被榨取者”。“我認為兩者緊密相關,”吳修銘說,并補充說他并非有意在書中直接將其聯系起來。

          “我認為我們已經朝著一種經濟模式發展,其商業模式的焦點是積累市場權力然后進行榨取,根據定義,幾乎依據基本的微觀經濟學,這將導致大量財富(向上)再分配。”吳修銘補充說,他認為許多曾經支撐中產階級甚至中上階層生活方式的行業“正被壓制,而少數幾個回報超高的行業受到青睞”,包括集中的中間商、金融業的某些部分以及科技平臺。

          他辯稱,如果美國人如此喜愛每周日在電視上觀看NFL,為什么不將聯盟的相同原則應用到我們構建社會的方式上呢?畢竟,吳修銘指出,他過去在一些事情上的判斷是正確的,對社會有益。

          網絡中立性與注意力

          這位被《紐約時報》描述為“拜登反壟斷政策架構師”的哥倫比亞大學(Columbia University)杰出教授,其貢獻不止一個,而是好幾個重大理念。其一是“網絡中立性”,這是吳修銘20多年前提出的概念,即互聯網服務提供商必須對其傳輸的內容持中立態度。這是一場明確的勝利,因為相關法律仍然有效。另一個是關于“注意力經濟”的論文和著作(《注意力商人》),大約10年前由吳修銘發布,他敲響了警鐘,指出在互聯網時代注意力如何變成商品并日益被剝削。

          吳修銘表示他想保持謙遜,但真誠地相信自己十年前對注意力經濟的看法是正確的。“也許這有點顯而易見,”他說,但人類注意力資源正變得越來越稀缺和寶貴,而且“公司在以極低價格從我們身上收割這種資源方面非常老練。”

          作為父母(他的孩子分別是9歲和12歲),吳修銘說他注意到“人們對孩子使用注意力經濟產品敏感得多”,并且相信已經出現了一場奪回注意力的反向運動。他指出,大型語言模型正以非常類似的方式流行起來,而且目前上面沒有廣告,所以“問題并沒有消失,我們也沒法遠離手機。我只是覺得現在人們認識得更清楚了。”

          與政治共舞及“啤酒大戰”

          在與《財富》雜志的對話中,吳修銘回顧了他在拜登白宮工作的時光,稱那是“一次重要而偉大的經歷”,但他希望他們能在兒童隱私問題上做得更多,因為他相信99%的美國人會支持該領域的立法。然而,當他在白宮工作時,“任何事、任何議題都不可能進行投票”。他說國會“不想讓事情進入投票程序”,并將許多僵局歸因于“大型科技公司對政治的影響力已經變得非常強大”這一事實。

          當被問及是否有興趣再次在政府工作,或許與他的老朋友莉娜·可汗(Lina Khan)一起在佐赫蘭·馬姆達尼(Zohran Mamdani)的紐約市長任期內工作時,吳修銘只說他“非常支持新市長”。他說他可能會以某種方式再次參與政治,但這些日子“更注重家庭模式”。吳修銘的公共服務歷史可能長得令人驚訝,他曾在聯邦貿易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)從事反壟斷執法工作,并在奧巴馬政府時期為國家經濟委員會(National Economic Council)制定競爭政策。2014年,吳修銘是紐約州副州長的民主黨初選候選人,在那里他第一次見到了可汗。

          吳修銘最近確實卷入了一些左翼內部的經濟爭論,他在關于降低紐約市體育場熱狗和啤酒價格的辯論中站在了可汗一邊。“啤酒大戰”在推特上爆發,吳修銘和可汗站在支持降價的一邊,而馬特·伊格萊西亞斯(Matt Yglesias)和杰森·福爾曼(Jason Furman)則持更中間派的立場,主張讓自由市場設定價格。吳修銘說這是一場“奇怪的戰斗”,并表示左翼內部在經濟問題上似乎存在一種他并不完全理解的緊張關系,并補充說他過去曾與福爾曼富有成效地合作過。總的來說,他說他認為“我們的政治非常憤怒,部分原因是經濟怨恨……它以奇怪的方式表達出來,并走向各個方向。”將此與他的新書聯系起來,他認為總的來說,“我們讓事情有點過火了”,并且我們“有點失去了作為美國方式的廣泛財富積累傳統”。

          當被問及紐約商界對馬姆達尼和“民主社會主義”一詞的嘩然時,吳修銘說這已經有點成為一個“總括性”術語,因為“一個真正的社會主義者認為所有生產資料都應歸國家所有”,而馬姆達尼的民主社會主義者并不完全主張這一點。他說,也許左翼的一些人希望更直接地擁有公共事物,但這更多是那種相同的“我們走得太遠了”的感覺的混合體。吳修銘補充說,他個人感覺與路易斯·布蘭代斯(Louis Brandeis)最有共鳴,布蘭代斯是進步主義運動(Progressive Movement)中的一位司法人物,對發展現代反壟斷法和“隱私權”概念很有影響。

          “如果你想談論美國正漂向更像共產主義的東西,那更多是在特朗普政府中看到的這種真實的、非常積極的國家干預的理念”,例如,收購了英特爾(Intel)等美國主要公司的股份。“那實際上更像社會主義”,以及你在“指令性經濟”中看到的東西,吳修銘說。他將其比作斯大林主義或墨索里尼統治下的法西斯主義,“我意識到這兩者都不是最討人喜歡的標簽。”當然,這也類似于中國的共產主義,吳修銘說。

          吳修銘說他希望這種情況不會發生。美國可能走向一種商業模式是榨取——試圖找到凌駕于他人之上的權力并盡可能吸干——的道路,也可能走向另一條更好的道路。“我認為我們可以做得更好。坦率地說,我非常相信商業的力量。我認為我們需要回歸‘種瓜得瓜,種豆得豆'這樣的理念,即你的投資會讓你有所收獲。”(財富中文網)

          譯者:中慧言-王芳

          曾在拜登政府任職、頗具影響力的哥倫比亞法學院(Columbia Law School)教授吳修銘(Tim Wu)攜其新觀點回歸:現代美國資本主義已退化成一個以積累市場權力和“榨取”為特征的系統,在全國范圍內催生出一種深刻的“經濟怨恨”情緒。

          在其新書《榨取時代》發行之際接受《財富》雜志采訪時,吳修銘將當前的政治動蕩與一種普遍感受——“我們的體系不公平”——聯系起來。他認為,這種無處不在的憤怒源于個人感覺“被權力壓倒,而非在競爭中落敗”,這比在公平競爭中失敗所產生的怨恨要強烈得多。

          吳修銘將核心問題界定為企業目標的轉變:從致力于打造“人們因其優質而想購買的好產品”,轉向尋求“掌控他人并盡可能從其身上榨取價值”的模式。吳修銘承認,他的觀點與老友科利·多克托羅(Cory Doctorow)近期的著述有許多相似之處;盡管多克托羅的論點主要圍繞科技領域,但他承認兩人的思想內核高度一致。“我認為這某種程度上是一個全經濟范圍的問題。一切都在悄然惡化。就是那種你喜歡的東西正變得越來越糟的怪異感覺。”

          吳修銘將此歸咎于“紀律缺失”。他表示,在當今這個榨取時代,太多公司放任自流。他說,強大的競爭對手、法律執行和公司員工都能施加紀律約束感,“但在目前這么多市場中,這些力量都不夠強大……紀律缺失讓公司得以降低產品和服務質量而不受懲罰。”從更廣的視角看,這種趨勢挑戰了美國進步的基本理念,尤其是在本應作為“發明行業”不斷推動改進的科技行業。

          “我所理解的美國是一個事物理應變得更好的地方,”吳修銘說。他認為,生活在一個許多事物反而在變糟的時代,“動搖了美國理念的核心,也動搖了科技行業的進步理念”——但他確實看到了一個看似不太可能的解決方案。

          作為一名體育迷,吳修銘說,有一個市場結構提供了清晰的范例,它擁有紀律,事物事實上并未變糟,價值未被榨取。它是一個人們因其優質而想購買的好產品:美國國家橄欖球聯盟(NFL)。他說,NFL通過薪資帽、選秀和賽程調整等機制實現“積極的再平衡”,闡明了公平規則的重要性。

          NFL如何能為經濟提供解方

          盡管NFL仍然具有競爭性和精英性,但它確保即使是最差的球隊也“有機會得到一位偉大的四分衛”并重新獲得競爭力,就像堪薩斯城酋長隊(Kansas City Chiefs)憑借其招牌球員帕特里克·馬霍姆斯(Patrick Mahomes)和特拉維斯·凱爾斯(Travis Kelce)取得歷史性成功那樣。吳修銘認為,像堪薩斯城這樣的小市場球隊經常主導像紐約這樣的大市場球隊,在“純粹的經濟游戲”中是難以想象的。相比之下,吳修銘指出美國職業棒球大聯盟(MLB)一直“被失控的支出所扭曲”。這導致了資源“荒謬”的錯配,小球隊因資源短缺而舉步維艱,而非實力不濟。(大市場球隊洛杉磯道奇隊(Los Angeles Dodgers)擁有棒球史上最高的薪資總額,剛剛慶祝了其連續第二次世界大賽冠軍。)

          NFL的成功為美國經濟應如何運作提供了一個范例。“我不是社會主義者,”吳修銘告訴《財富》雜志。“從某種意義上說,我在這里試圖不是要摧毀資本主義,而是要讓它回歸其應有的樣子。”在他的新書中,吳修銘用聽起來類似于2025年占據新聞頭條的K型經濟(指富人愈富、窮人愈窮的經濟形態)的語言來描述“榨取者”和“被榨取者”。“我認為兩者緊密相關,”吳修銘說,并補充說他并非有意在書中直接將其聯系起來。

          “我認為我們已經朝著一種經濟模式發展,其商業模式的焦點是積累市場權力然后進行榨取,根據定義,幾乎依據基本的微觀經濟學,這將導致大量財富(向上)再分配。”吳修銘補充說,他認為許多曾經支撐中產階級甚至中上階層生活方式的行業“正被壓制,而少數幾個回報超高的行業受到青睞”,包括集中的中間商、金融業的某些部分以及科技平臺。

          他辯稱,如果美國人如此喜愛每周日在電視上觀看NFL,為什么不將聯盟的相同原則應用到我們構建社會的方式上呢?畢竟,吳修銘指出,他過去在一些事情上的判斷是正確的,對社會有益。

          網絡中立性與注意力

          這位被《紐約時報》描述為“拜登反壟斷政策架構師”的哥倫比亞大學(Columbia University)杰出教授,其貢獻不止一個,而是好幾個重大理念。其一是“網絡中立性”,這是吳修銘20多年前提出的概念,即互聯網服務提供商必須對其傳輸的內容持中立態度。這是一場明確的勝利,因為相關法律仍然有效。另一個是關于“注意力經濟”的論文和著作(《注意力商人》),大約10年前由吳修銘發布,他敲響了警鐘,指出在互聯網時代注意力如何變成商品并日益被剝削。

          吳修銘表示他想保持謙遜,但真誠地相信自己十年前對注意力經濟的看法是正確的。“也許這有點顯而易見,”他說,但人類注意力資源正變得越來越稀缺和寶貴,而且“公司在以極低價格從我們身上收割這種資源方面非常老練。”

          作為父母(他的孩子分別是9歲和12歲),吳修銘說他注意到“人們對孩子使用注意力經濟產品敏感得多”,并且相信已經出現了一場奪回注意力的反向運動。他指出,大型語言模型正以非常類似的方式流行起來,而且目前上面沒有廣告,所以“問題并沒有消失,我們也沒法遠離手機。我只是覺得現在人們認識得更清楚了。”

          與政治共舞及“啤酒大戰”

          在與《財富》雜志的對話中,吳修銘回顧了他在拜登白宮工作的時光,稱那是“一次重要而偉大的經歷”,但他希望他們能在兒童隱私問題上做得更多,因為他相信99%的美國人會支持該領域的立法。然而,當他在白宮工作時,“任何事、任何議題都不可能進行投票”。他說國會“不想讓事情進入投票程序”,并將許多僵局歸因于“大型科技公司對政治的影響力已經變得非常強大”這一事實。

          當被問及是否有興趣再次在政府工作,或許與他的老朋友莉娜·可汗(Lina Khan)一起在佐赫蘭·馬姆達尼(Zohran Mamdani)的紐約市長任期內工作時,吳修銘只說他“非常支持新市長”。他說他可能會以某種方式再次參與政治,但這些日子“更注重家庭模式”。吳修銘的公共服務歷史可能長得令人驚訝,他曾在聯邦貿易委員會(Federal Trade Commission)從事反壟斷執法工作,并在奧巴馬政府時期為國家經濟委員會(National Economic Council)制定競爭政策。2014年,吳修銘是紐約州副州長的民主黨初選候選人,在那里他第一次見到了可汗。

          吳修銘最近確實卷入了一些左翼內部的經濟爭論,他在關于降低紐約市體育場熱狗和啤酒價格的辯論中站在了可汗一邊。“啤酒大戰”在推特上爆發,吳修銘和可汗站在支持降價的一邊,而馬特·伊格萊西亞斯(Matt Yglesias)和杰森·福爾曼(Jason Furman)則持更中間派的立場,主張讓自由市場設定價格。吳修銘說這是一場“奇怪的戰斗”,并表示左翼內部在經濟問題上似乎存在一種他并不完全理解的緊張關系,并補充說他過去曾與福爾曼富有成效地合作過。總的來說,他說他認為“我們的政治非常憤怒,部分原因是經濟怨恨……它以奇怪的方式表達出來,并走向各個方向。”將此與他的新書聯系起來,他認為總的來說,“我們讓事情有點過火了”,并且我們“有點失去了作為美國方式的廣泛財富積累傳統”。

          當被問及紐約商界對馬姆達尼和“民主社會主義”一詞的嘩然時,吳修銘說這已經有點成為一個“總括性”術語,因為“一個真正的社會主義者認為所有生產資料都應歸國家所有”,而馬姆達尼的民主社會主義者并不完全主張這一點。他說,也許左翼的一些人希望更直接地擁有公共事物,但這更多是那種相同的“我們走得太遠了”的感覺的混合體。吳修銘補充說,他個人感覺與路易斯·布蘭代斯(Louis Brandeis)最有共鳴,布蘭代斯是進步主義運動(Progressive Movement)中的一位司法人物,對發展現代反壟斷法和“隱私權”概念很有影響。

          “如果你想談論美國正漂向更像共產主義的東西,那更多是在特朗普政府中看到的這種真實的、非常積極的國家干預的理念”,例如,收購了英特爾(Intel)等美國主要公司的股份。“那實際上更像社會主義”,以及你在“指令性經濟”中看到的東西,吳修銘說。他將其比作斯大林主義或墨索里尼統治下的法西斯主義,“我意識到這兩者都不是最討人喜歡的標簽。”當然,這也類似于中國的共產主義,吳修銘說。

          吳修銘說他希望這種情況不會發生。美國可能走向一種商業模式是榨取——試圖找到凌駕于他人之上的權力并盡可能吸干——的道路,也可能走向另一條更好的道路。“我認為我們可以做得更好。坦率地說,我非常相信商業的力量。我認為我們需要回歸‘種瓜得瓜,種豆得豆'這樣的理念,即你的投資會讓你有所收獲。”(財富中文網)

          譯者:中慧言-王芳

          Tim Wu, the influential Columbia Law School professor who previously served in the Biden administration, is back with a message: Modern American capitalism has devolved into a system defined by the accumulation of market power and “extraction,” generating a profound sense of “economic resentment” across the nation.

          Speaking to Fortune upon the release of his newest book, The Age of Extraction, Wu connected the current political volatility to a widespread feeling that “our system is not fair.” He suggests this pervasive anger stems from individuals feeling “out-powered, as opposed to out-competed,” which creates far more resentment than losing in a fair fight.

          Wu defines the core problem as a shift in business goals: moving away from building “a good product that people want to buy because it's good,” toward models seeking to “find power over someone and suck as much as you can out of them.” Wu agreed his take has many similarities to recent writings from his old friend, Cory Doctorow; even though Doctorow's argument is mainly about tech, he acknowledged they share much of the same DNA. “I think that that is kind of an economy-wide problem. Everything kind of just creeps. It's that weird feeling of something you like becoming worse.”

          Chalking it up to a “lack of discipline,” Wu said too many companies let things drift in the modern age of extraction. Strong competitors, legal enforcement, and a company's employees can all stress a sense of discipline, he said, “but none of those are very strong right now in so many markets ...a lack of discipline lets firms get away with making their products and services worse.” Zooming out a bit further, this trend challenges the fundamental idea of American progress, especially in the tech industry, which is supposed to be the “invention industry” constantly driving improvement.

          “My understanding of America is that it's the place where things are supposed to get better,” Wu said. Living in an age when so many things are getting worse instead “cuts at the core of the idea of America, but also the tech industry ideaidea of progress,” he argued---but he does see an unlikely solution.

          As a sports fan, Wu said there's a clear example of a market structure that has discipline, where things are not in fact getting worse, where things are not extracted. It's a good product that people want to buy because it's good: the National Football League. He said the NFL illustrates the importance of fair rules, with “aggressive rebalancing,” achieved through mechanisms such as the market cap, the draft, and adjusted schedules.

          How the NFL could fix the economy

          While the NFL is still competitive and meritocratic, it ensures that even the worst team “has some chance to get a great quarterback” and become competitive again, like the Kansas City Chiefs, who have enjoyed historic success with their franchise players Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce. Teams from smaller markets like Kansas City routinely dominating those from larger markets, like New York, would be unthinkable in “just an economic game,” Wu argued. In contrast, Wu points to Major League Baseball, which has been “distorted by out of control spending.” This results in an “absurd” mismatch of resources, where smaller teams are crippled by resource deficits, rather than poor play. (The big-market Los Angeles Dodgers, with the biggest payroll in baseball history, just celebrated their second-straight World Series win.)

          The NFL's success serves as a model for how the U.S. economy should function. “I'm not a socialist,” Wu told Fortune. “In some ways, I'm here to try to not destroy capitalism, but return it to what it can be.” In his new book, Wu writes about the “extractors” and the “extracted” in language that sounds similar to the K-shaped economy dominating headlines in 2025, a shorthand for an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. “I think it is closely linked,” Wu said, adding it wasn't his intention to directly link them in his book.

          “I think we have moved in the direction of an economy where the focus of business models is the accumulation of market power and then extraction, which, by definition, almost by basic microeconomics is going to result in a lot of upwardupward wealth redistribution.” Wu added that he thinks many of the industries that used to provide a middle class or even upper middle class lifestyle “are being driven down in favor of a couple industries that have outsized returns,” including concentrated middlemen, certain parts of finance, and tech platforms.

          If Americans love the NFL so much on their TV every Sunday, he argued, why not apply the same principles from the league to how we structure our society? After all, Wu points out, he's been right about some things before, to society's benefit.

          Net neutrality and attention

          A distinguished professor at Columbia University who The New York Times described as “an architect of Biden's antitrust policy,” Wu has not one but several big ideas to his credit. One is “net neutrality,” the concept authored by Wu over 20 years ago that internet service providers must be agnostic about what content flows through them. This was a clear victory, as the law is still on the books. Another is about “the attention economy,” a thesis and book (The Attention Merchants) that Wu released roughly 10 years ago, sounding the alarm on how attention was turning into a commodity in the internet age and was increasingly exploited.

          Wu said he wants to be humble, but genuinely believes he was right about the attention economy a decade ago. “Maybe it was sort of obvious,” he said, but the resource of human attention becoming scarcer and more valuable and “companies are very sophisticated at essentially harvesting this resource from us at a very low price.”

          As a parent (his kids are 9 and 12), Wu said he notices “people are much more sensitive” about their children using attention-economy products and believes there has been a counter-movement to reclaim attention. He notes large language models are becoming popular in a very similar way and there's no advertising on them for now, so “it's not like the problem has gone away and it's not as if we are able to get away from our phones. I just think it's better recognized.”

          A dance with politics and the 'beer wars'

          In his conversation with Fortune, Wu reflected on his time in the Biden White House, saying it was “an important and great experience,” but he wishes they were able to do more on children's privacy issues as he believes 99% of Americans would support legislation in this area. Yet, it was “impossible to get a vote on anything, any issue” when he worked in the White House. Congress “doesn't want to let things get to a vote,” he said, attributing much of the gridlock to the fact that “influence of big tech over politics has just gotten so strong.”

          When asked if he has any interest in working in government again, perhaps along his longtime friend Lina Khan in Zohran Mamdani's mayoralty in New York, Wu only said he's “very supportive of the new mayor.” He said he could get involved in politics in some fashion again, but is “much more in a family mode” these days. Wu has a perhaps surprisingly long history in public service, having worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission as well as working on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Obama administration. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York, where he first met Khan.

          Wu did get involved in some intra-left economics squabbles recently, as he took Khan's side of the debate on plans to reduce the price of hot dogs and beers at New York City sports stadiums. The “beer wars” erupted on Twitter, with Wu and Khan on the side in favor of cutting prices, and Matt Yglesias and Jason Furman on the more centrist side, arguing for letting the free market set prices. Wu said it was a “strange battle” and said there seems to be a tension on the left around economics that he doesn't fully understand, adding that he has worked productively alongside Furman in the past. In general, he said he thinks “our politics is very angry, partially because of economic resentment ... it gets expressed in strange ways and goes in all kinds of directions.” Tying it back to his new book, he believes that in general, “we let things go a little too far” and we “just kind of lost touch with the tradition of broad-based wealth that was the American way.”

          When asked about the uproar among the New York business community about Mamdani and the term “democratic socialism,” Wu said it has become a bit of an “umbrella” term, because “a real socialist believes that all the means of production should be owned by the state” and Mamdani's democratic socialists aren't exactly advocating that. He said maybe some on the left would like more direct ownership of public things, but it's more a mixture of that same “we've gone too far” feeling. Wu added that he personally feels most affiliated with Louis Brandeis, a judicial figure from the Progressive Movement who was influential in developing modern antitrust law and the “right to privacy” concept.

          “If you want to talk about America drifting towards something more like Communism, it is more in this idea of real, very active state involvement” that you see in the Trump administration, which has, for instance, taken stakes in major U.S. companies such as Intel. “That's actually more like socialism” and what you see in a “command economy,” Wu said. He compared it to Stalinism or fascism under Mussolini, “neither of which are the most flattering labels, I realize.” It's also, of course, similar to Chinese Communism, Wu said.

          Wu said he hopes this doesn't come to pass. There could be an America where the idea of doing business is extraction---trying to find power over someone and sucking out as much as possible---and another, better way. “I think we can do better. I'm a big believer, frankly, in business. I think we need a return to like this idea you can reap what you sow, that your investments will get you somewhere.”

          財富中文網所刊載內容之知識產權為財富媒體知識產權有限公司及/或相關權利人專屬所有或持有。未經許可,禁止進行轉載、摘編、復制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
          0條Plus
          精彩評論
          評論

          撰寫或查看更多評論

          請打開財富Plus APP

          前往打開