Americans are angry at Wall Street, and rightly so. First the financial industry plunged us into economic crisis, then it was bailed out at taxpayer expense. And now, with the economy still deeply depressed, the industry is paying itself gigantic bonuses. If you aren’t outraged, you haven’t been paying attention.

美國人對華爾街感到憤怒，這是應該的。首先，金融業令美國陷入經濟危機，然後又需要納稅人出錢拯救；而現在，在經濟仍然深陷困境之際，金融業向自己發放龐大花紅。如果你不氣憤，那是你沒有留意這件事。

But crashing the economy and fleecing the taxpayer aren’t Wall Street’s only sins. Even before the crisis and the bailouts, many financial-industry high-fliers made fortunes through activities that were worthless if not destructive from a social point of view.

不過，華爾街不是只有破壞經濟和詐取公帑等罪行。在危機爆發及政府出手拯救前，很多金融業傑出表現者透過一些從社會角度來說就算不是具破壞性，也是沒有價值的活動賺錢。

And they’re still at it. Consider two recent news stories.

而且，他們仍然這樣做。看看最近兩宗新聞就會明白。

One involves the rise of high-speed trading: some institutions, including Goldman Sachs, have been using superfast computers to get the jump on other investors, buying or selling stocks a tiny fraction of a second before anyone else can react. Profits from high-frequency trading are one reason Goldman is earning record profits and likely to pay record bonuses.

其中一宗涉及高速交易的冒起：一些金融機構例如高盛，一直利用超快速的電腦來攻擊其他投資者，以數分之一秒的時間，搶先在其他人可以作出反應前買賣股票。高頻交易的盈利是高盛錄得龐大盈利並很可能發放巨額花紅的原因。

On a seemingly different front, Sunday’s Times reported on the case of Andrew J. Hall, who leads an arm of Citigroup that speculates on oil and other commodities. His operation has made a lot of money recently, and according to his contract Mr. Hall is owed $100 million.

在另一宗似乎不相關的新聞，《紐約時報》周日報道了關於領導花旗集團石油及商品交易部門的霍爾（Andrew J. Hall）的新聞，說他的部門最近賺了大錢，而根據霍爾的合約，他可以得到1億美元。

What do these stories have in common?

這兩個故事有什麼相同之處？

The politically salient answer, for now at least, is that in both cases we’re looking at huge payouts by firms that were major recipients of federal aid. Citi has received around $45 billion from taxpayers; Goldman has repaid the $10 billion it received in direct aid, but it has benefited enormously both from federal guarantees and from bailouts of other financial institutions. What are taxpayers supposed to think when these welfare cases cut nine-figure paychecks?

高頻交易損害股市功能 在政治方面，至少目前來說，這兩宗新聞都是關於接受龐大政府資助的金融公司發放龐大薪酬。花旗接受了大約450億美元的政府資助，而高盛已經償還了所得的100億美元直接資助，但該行從聯邦擔保和其他金融機構所得的資助得益不少。當這些員工福利涉及九位數的薪酬時，納稅人應該怎樣想？

But suppose we grant that both Goldman and Mr. Hall are very good at what they do, and might have earned huge profits even without all that aid. Even so, what they do is bad for America.

不過，即使假設高盛和霍爾都是很出色的金融業者，就算沒有政府資助，他們也可以得到賺得很多錢。即使如此，他們所做的仍然是對美國有害。

Just to be clear: financial speculation can serve a useful purpose. It’s good, for example, that futures markets provide an incentive to stockpile heating oil before the weather gets cold and stockpile gasoline ahead of the summer driving season.

先說明一下：金融炒賣可以是有用處的，例如期貨市場鼓勵企業在冬天天氣變冷前積存保暖用燃油，在夏天駕駛旺季前積存汽油。

But speculation based on information not available to the public at large is a very different matter. As the U.C.L.A. economist Jack Hirshleifer showed back in 1971, such speculation often combines “private profitability” with “social uselessness.”

但以公眾不獲悉的資料為基礎來作炒賣活動，則是另一回事，正如洛杉磯加州大學經濟學者赫什利弗（Jack Hirshleifer）在1971年所說，這種炒賣通常是「私人賺錢能力」（private profitability）與「對社會沒有用處」（social uselessness）的混合體。

It’s hard to imagine a better illustration than high-frequency trading. The stock market is supposed to allocate capital to its most productive uses, for example by helping companies with good ideas raise money. But it’s hard to see how traders who place their orders one-thirtieth of a second faster than anyone else do anything to improve that social function.

這令人很難想到高頻交易以外有更好的例子。股市的本意是把資金作最有效的用途，例如協助有優秀概念的企業集資，但很難看出那些較其他人快十三分之一秒落盤的交易員，可以如何促進這種社會功能。

What about Mr. Hall? The Times report suggests that he makes money mainly by outsmarting other investors, rather than by directing resources to where they’re needed. Again, it’s hard to see the social value of what he does.

霍爾又怎樣？《紐約時報》說，他主要是智勝其他投資者，而不是把資源分配到所需的地方。同樣地，這讓人很難看出，他所做的事有什麼社會價值。

And there’s a good case that such activities are actually harmful. For example, high-frequency trading probably degrades the stock market’s function, because it’s a kind of tax on investors who lack access to those superfast computers — which means that the money Goldman spends on those computers has a negative effect on national wealth. As the great Stanford economist Kenneth Arrow put it in 1973, speculation based on private information imposes a “double social loss”: it uses up resources and undermines markets.

而且，有很強的理據證明，此類活動實際上是有害的。例如，高頻交易可能會損害股市的功能，因為這形同對無法接觸超高速電腦的投資者造成負擔，也就是說，高盛花在這些電腦的錢對國家財富有負面影響。偉大的史丹福大學經濟學者阿羅（Kenneth Arrow）在1973年曾說，以非公開資訊為基礎的炒賣帶來「雙重社會損失」：消耗資源，並削弱市場。

Now, you might be tempted to dismiss destructive speculation as a minor issue — and 30 years ago you would have been right. Since then, however, high finance — securities and commodity trading, as opposed to run-of-the-mill banking — has become a vastly more important part of our economy, increasing its share of G.D.P. by a factor of six. And soaring incomes in the financial industry have played a large role in sharply rising income inequality.

現在，你可能會覺得破壞性炒賣是個小問題。如果是三十年前，你是對的。但現在複雜金融業務（即相對於公式化銀行業務的證券及商品交易）對經濟的影響力大大提高，在國內生產總值（GDP）中所佔比例上升了六倍。而金融業不斷上升的收入，是收入不平等問題嚴重惡化的主要原因之一。

What should be done? Last week the House passed a bill setting rules for pay packages at a wide range of financial institutions. That would be a step in the right direction. But it really should be accompanied by much broader regulation of financial practices — and, I would argue, by higher tax rates on supersized incomes.

我們應該做什麼呢？眾議院上周通過了一項動議，對多種不同類型的金融機構制定了薪酬監管規例，這是邁向正確方向的一步。但這需要伴隨更廣泛的金融營業手法監管，我建議應該加徵超巨額薪酬的稅。

Unfortunately, the House measure is opposed by the Obama administration, which still seems to operate on the principle that what’s good for Wall Street is good for America.

可惜的是，奧巴馬政府反對眾議院的動議，政府似乎仍然覺得，華爾街好、美國就會好。

Neither the administration, nor our political system in general, is ready to face up to the fact that we’ve become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.

我們的政府和整個政治體系都沒有準備面對一個現實，那就是我們變成了一個大錢流入壞人口袋的社會，一個向導致我們更貧窮的人付大額報酬的社會。

Greenspan & Paulson