The Problem with Pro fits

譯/房彥昊

Big firms in the United States have never had it so good.Time for more competition. 美國的大公司迎來了前所未有的好時光。是時候引入更多競爭了。

America used to be the land of opportunity and optimism. Now opportunity is seen as the preserve of the elite: two-thirds of Americans believe the economy is rigged in favour of vested interests.

[2] The campaigns have found plenty of things to blame, from free-trade deals to the recklessness of Wall Street. But one problem with American capitalism has been overlooked: a corrosive lack of competition. The naughty secret of American firms is that life at home is much easier: their returns on equity are 40% higher in the United States than they are abroad. Aggregate domestic profits are at near-record levels relative to GDP. America is meant to be a temple of free enterprise. It isn’t.

Borne by the USA

[3] High profits might be a sign of brilliant innovations or wise long-term investments, were it not for the fact that they are also suspiciously persistent.A very profitable American firm has an 80% chance of being that way ten years later. In the 1990s the odds were only about 50%. Some companies are capable of sustained excellence, but most would expect to see their profits competed away. Today, incumbents find it easier to make hay for longer.

美利堅曾經是一塊充滿機會與樂觀精神的土地。如今，機會被當作只是留給精英的：三分之二的美國人認為，經濟受到操控，為各種既得利益者謀利。

[2]從自由貿易條約到膽大妄為的華爾街，競選活動把槍口對準了很多問題，卻忽略了美國資本主義的一個問題——市場競爭嚴重缺失。美國公司有個歪門兒秘密，那就是國內市場太好混了：美國國內的股本回報率比國外高出40%。國內利潤總和占國內生產總值的比例接近歷史最高水平。美利堅本該是崇尚自由企業精神的圣地，現在可不是了。

美國的負擔

[3]高額利潤或許是高度創新或明智的長期投資帶來的，但持久的高利潤是有問題的。一家美國企業10年后仍然能保持高度盈利的概率有80%，而在1990年代，這樣的幾率只有約50%。一些公司有能力一直保持優秀，但大部分公司的利潤會在競爭中日益減少。如今，在位企業發現，想更長久地抓機會賺大錢比之前還要容易。

[4] You might think that voters would be happy that their employers are thriving. But if they are not reinvested, or spent by shareholders, high profits can dampen demand. The excess cash generated domestically by American firms beyond their investment budgets is running at $800 billion a year, or 4% of GDP. The tax system encourages them to park foreign profits abroad. Abnormally high pro fits can worsen inequality if they are the result of persistently high prices or depressed wages. Were America’s firms to cut prices so that their pro fits were at historically normal levels, consumers’ bills might be 2%lower. If steep earnings are not luring in new entrants, that may mean that firms are abusing monopoly positions, or using lobbying to stifle competition. The game may indeed be rigged.

[5] One response to the age of hyperprofitability would be simply to wait.Creative destruction takes time: previous episodes of peak pro fits—for example, in the late 1960s—ended abruptly.Silicon Valley’s evangelicals believe that a new era of big data, blockchains and robots is about to munch away the fat margins of corporate America. In the past six months the earnings of listed firms have dipped a little, as cheap oil has hit energy firms and a strong dollar has hurt multinationals.

[4]也許你會認為，選民樂意看到他們的雇主表現強勁。可是，如果未用于再投資或由股東花掉，高利潤則可能削弱需求。每年，美國企業本土創收的現金超過投資預算近8000億美元，約為國內生產總值的4%。現有的稅收制度鼓勵企業將海外利潤留在國外。持續的高物價或低工資導致的非正常高利潤可能加劇不平等。假設美國企業降低價格使利潤維持在歷史正常水平，那么消費者賬單上的數額就可能減少2%。如果高額利潤沒有吸引新公司進入行業，那可能意味著在位企業濫用其壟斷力量，或者進行游說來扼殺競爭。這可能真的是被操縱的游戲。

[5]對利潤率超高時代的一種應對辦法就是等待。非常規的破壞需要時間：歷史上的幾個利潤頂峰期——比如1960年代末——結束得都很突然。硅谷的福音信徒認為，以大數據、區塊鏈和機器人為標志的新時代將耗掉侵蝕美國企業帝國的豐厚利潤。過去6個月，能源公司收入稍有降低，而跨國公司受制于強勢美元，導致上市公司收益略減。

[6] Unfortunately the signs are that incumbent firms are becoming more entrenched, not less. A tenth of the economy is at the mercy of a handful of firms—from dog food and batteries to airlines, telecoms and credit cards. A $10 trillion wave of mergers since 2008 has raised levels of concentration further.American firms involved in such deals have promised to cut costs by $150 billion or more, which would add a tenth to overall pro fits. Few plan to pass the gains on to consumers.

[7] Getting bigger is not the only way to squish competitors. As the mesh of regulation has got denser since the 2007-08 financial crisis, the task of navigating bureaucratic waters has become more central to firms’ success. Lobbying spending has risen by a third in the past decade, to $3 billion. A mastery of patent rules has become essential in health care and technology, America’s two most pro fitable industries. And new regulations do not just fence big banks in: they keep rivals out.

[6]很不幸，種種跡象表明，在位公司的地位正變得愈加穩固，而非削弱。經濟命脈的十分之一掌握在少數幾家公司手中——范圍涵蓋廣泛，從寵物食品和電池，到航空、電信和信用卡。2008年開始掀起一波規模達10萬億美元的合并潮，進一步加深了行業集中程度。牽涉其中的美國企業承諾削減1500億美元或更多成本，總利潤會因而增加十分之一。可是沒有幾家公司計劃將此間收益傳遞給消費者。

[7]兼并擴充并不是排擠對手的唯一方法。2007年至2008年金融危機之后，監管力度加大，順利通過層層官僚關卡對企業獲得成功變得更加重要。過去10年，行業游說花銷升至30億美元，增長了三分之一。醫療保健和科技是美國利潤最高的兩個行業，對它們來說，精通專利規則變得異常重要。而新的監管措施不單單約束大銀行，還會擋住競爭對手。

[8] Having limited working capital and fewer resources, small companies struggle with all the forms, lobbying and red tape. This is one reason why the rate of small-company creation in America has been running at its lowest levels since the 1970s. The ability of large firms to enter new markets and take on lazy incumbents has been muted by an orthodoxy among institutional investors that companies should focus on one activity and keep margins high. Warren Buffett, an investor, says he likes companies with “moats” that protect them from competition. America Inc has dug a giant defensive ditch around itself.

[9] Most of the remedies dangled by politicians to solve America’s economic woes would make things worse. Higher taxes would deter investment. Jumps in minimum wages would discourage hiring. Protectionism would give yet more shelter to dominant firms. Better to unleash a wave of competition.

[10] The first step is to take aim at cosseted incumbents. Modernising the antitrust apparatus would help. Mergers that lead to high market share and too much pricing power still need to be policed. But firms can extract rents in many ways. Copyright and patent laws should be loosened to prevent incumbents milking old discoveries. Big tech platforms such as Google and Facebook need to be watched closely: they might not be rent-extracting monopolies yet,but investors value them as if they will be one day. The role of giant fund managers with crossholdings in rival firms needs careful examination, too.

[8]小型公司營運資金有限，資源較少，掙扎在各種表面文章、游說活動和繁文縟節之間。這也解釋了為什么當今美國小型公司創立數量是1970年代以來最低的。一些觀念正統的機構投資者認為，公司應當專注于一項業務并保持高利潤，這種觀念減弱了大公司進入新市場和挑戰在位公司的能力。投資者沃倫·巴菲特說，他喜歡投資那些依靠“壁壘”阻擋競爭的公司。美利堅商業帝國已經在自己周圍挖了一道深深的防御溝。

[9]政客們展示出的解決美國經濟困局的大部分舉措會讓局面更糟。增加稅收會嚇走投資。提高最低工資會減少雇傭。保護主義會給壟斷公司提供更多的庇護。最好掀起一波競爭吧。

[10]第一步，瞄準那些被寵護的在位公司。現代化更新反壟斷機構會有所幫助。那些導致市場份額過大及定價權過多的合并仍須審查。然而公司還有許多辦法謀取租金。應當放松版權及專利法以防止在位企業繼續利用舊發明攫取高利潤。必須對谷歌和臉書這樣的大型技術平臺加強監查：它們現在也許還不是謀取租金的壟斷者，但投資者相信它們終有一天會變成壟斷者。同時，還需要仔細審查手握幾家競爭企業股份的巨型基金經理。

Set them free

[11] The second step is to make life easier for startups and small firms. Concerns about the expansion of red tape and of the regulatory state must be recognised as a problem, not dismissed as the mad rambling of anti-government Tea Partiers. The burden placed on small firms by laws like Obamacare has been material. The rules shackling banks have led them to cut back on serving less profitable smaller customers. The pernicious spread of occupational licensing has stifled startups. Some 29% of professions,including hairstylists and most medical workers, require permits, up from 5% in the 1950s.

[12] A blast of competition would mean more disruption for some: firms in the S&P 500 employ about one in ten Americans. But it would create new jobs, encourage more investment and help lower prices. Above all, it would bring about a fairer kind of capitalism.That would lift Americans’ spirits as well as their economy. ■

給予自由

[11]第二步，為初創及小型企業提供更寬松的環境。必須意識到，繁瑣程序和監管的增加是一個問題，而絕不是反政府茶黨的瘋狂囈語。諸如奧巴馬醫改這樣的法規加給小公司的負擔已經造成了重大影響。銀行受規則束縛，減少了對利潤較低的小客戶的服務。職業許可制度的惡性擴張扼殺了創業。約29%的職業人士，包括發型師及大多數醫務工作者，需要執業許可，1950年代只有5%需要。

[12]一大波競爭會對某些公司造成更多破壞：標普500指數中的那些公司雇用了十分之一的美國人口。但競爭將創造新的就業，鼓勵更多投資，并促使降價。最重要的是，它會帶來更加公平的資本主義。這不僅會拉抬美國經濟，還可以提升美國精神。 □