2023考研英語閱讀最富的百分之一們
MITT ROMNEY is not the first multi-millionaire toseek the presidency, nor the richest. Ross Perot,the record-holder, spent some of his billions earnedfrom computer data on losing bids in 1992 and1996. Since then men who owe their or theirfamilys fortunes to oil, sport, publishing, trial law,ketchup, beer and bestselling autobiographies havefollowed.
米特?羅姆尼不是第一個(gè)競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的身家數(shù)百萬的富豪，也不是其中最富裕的。紀(jì)錄保持者是羅斯?比洛特，他靠電腦數(shù)據(jù)賺了幾十億美元，其中一些花在了1992年 和1996年兩場(chǎng)失敗的總統(tǒng)競(jìng)選上。自此之后競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的富豪也不在少數(shù)，這些人的財(cái)富分別來自石油、運(yùn)動(dòng)、出版、法律等，還有靠賣番茄醬、啤酒、暢銷自傳 等賺錢的。
But Mr Romney, who earned his $200m or so as a private-equity executive buying andselling companies, is the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance. As such, heillustrates the changing complexion of Americas rich. The wealthiest 1% of Americans notonly get more of the pie; they are increasingly creatures of finance.
但是羅姆尼先生是第一個(gè)來自傳說中的金融界的候選人。 因此，他反映了著美國富人階層面貌的變化。美國人中最富裕的1%不僅分得了更多的蛋糕，并且他們出身金融界的比例越來越高。
The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data.The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008.The Congressional Budget Office puts the cut-off lower, at $347,000 in 2007, or $252,000after subtracting federal taxes and adding back transfers. Measured by net worth, rather thanincome, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23%from 2007.
根據(jù)聯(lián)邦稅務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)，1%這一群體在2008年的平均家庭年收入為120萬美元;其中超富階層的年收入悄然拔高了這個(gè)平均值：2008年1%的準(zhǔn)入門檻為年收入38萬美 元。國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室認(rèn)為這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該更低，在2007年其應(yīng)為34萬7千美元;按除去聯(lián)邦稅款、加上轉(zhuǎn)移支付后計(jì)算，應(yīng)為25萬2千美元。根據(jù)美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)數(shù)據(jù)，若以 凈值衡量而非以年收入衡量，2009年1%群體準(zhǔn)入門檻為6,900,000美元，比2007年降低了23%。
The richest 1% earn roughly half their income from wages and salaries, a quarter from self-employment and business income, and the remainder from interest, dividends, capital gainsand rent. According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and twoothers, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares thathave changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined . The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is evenmore pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979.
最富1%們收入中約一半來自工資和薪水，四分之一來自自營業(yè)務(wù)和生意收入，剩下來自于利息、分紅、資本利得和租金。根據(jù)喬恩和另兩位學(xué)者對(duì)納稅申報(bào)單的 分析研究，1%們中有16%來自于醫(yī)藥業(yè)，8%是律師，這兩個(gè)比例在1979年-2005年間變化不大，作者的研究數(shù)據(jù)最晚來自2005年。最驚人的變化是金融業(yè)從業(yè)者 所占比例，從1979年的不到8%增長到了2005年的13.9%; 其在前0.1%中的比例變化更顯著，從1979年的11%增長到了18%。
Steve Kaplan of the University of Chicago thinks finance explains much of the rise ininequality. Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplannotes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007,only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated . The trend iseven more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009.
芝加哥大學(xué)的史蒂夫?卡普蘭認(rèn)為金融業(yè)在收入不公的形成中發(fā)揮了重要作用。卡普蘭先生更新了托馬斯?和伊曼紐爾的系列研究，他認(rèn)為最富裕1%群體所占有的 全社會(huì)收入比例在2007年達(dá)到了近80年來最高的23.5%，不過2009年隨著金融市場(chǎng)縮水隨即下跌到了17.6%。
Mr Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers,corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporateexecutives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investorsearned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives ofcompanies in the S P 500 stock index combined.
投資銀行家、企業(yè)律師、對(duì)沖基金和個(gè)人股權(quán)經(jīng)理已經(jīng)取代公司高管坐上收入排行的前排交椅。2009年最有錢的25個(gè)對(duì)沖基金投資家賺了250億美元，今本上是所 有S P500強(qiáng)公司首席執(zhí)行官們所有收入總和的6倍。
Although the 1% have been gaining share in most countries, a recent OECD report shows thatthe trend began sooner, and has gone further, in America. Some scholars, noting thatinequality has risen more in English-speaking countries, think social and political valuesmay play a role: in mainland Europe and Japan, corporate governance, tax laws andunionisation have tended to lessen income disparities. But the relatively large role of thefinancial sector in English-speaking countries could also be a factor: even more of the top 1%work in finance in Britain than in America.
盡管在大多數(shù)國家前1%一直在增加其所占有社會(huì)財(cái)富的比例，最近一份 OECD報(bào)告顯示這個(gè)趨勢(shì)在美國開始更早、進(jìn)展更深入。一些學(xué)者認(rèn)為此不公現(xiàn)象在英語 國家更嚴(yán)重，社會(huì)和政治價(jià)值觀或許與此有關(guān)：在歐洲大陸和日本，其公司治理模式、稅法和工會(huì)組織有助于減弱收入差距。但在英語國家中金融業(yè)扮演著相對(duì) 更重要的角色，可能這也是造成現(xiàn)狀的一個(gè)原因：英國的最富1%們中在金融業(yè)工作的比例比美國的更大。
Membership in Americas 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in thepercentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time,one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decadelater. Kinship plays a big part: rich parents tend to produce rich kids. High levels ofeducational attainment and stable families help in this. According to Gallup, 72% of the 1%have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three timesthe proportion of the other 99%. The 1% are more likely to be married and to havechildren.
美國最富 1%的身份變化不大;每年有四分之三的家庭在下一年繼續(xù)屬于這個(gè)階層。盡管隨著時(shí)間的推移，能夠一直留在前1%的家庭比例在不斷下降，但一項(xiàng)研究 發(fā)現(xiàn)絕大多數(shù)進(jìn)入前1%的家庭在10年后依然能躋身前10%。親屬關(guān)系至關(guān)重要：富裕的父母更有可能養(yǎng)育出富裕后代。高水平的教育和穩(wěn)定的家庭對(duì)此有幫助。 根據(jù)蓋洛普公司調(diào)查結(jié)果，1%們中有72%有大學(xué)學(xué)位，有一半獲得研究生學(xué)位，比例是其他99%們的兩到三倍。1%們結(jié)婚和養(yǎng)育下一代的比例更大。
The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors foundthat between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar ormiscellaneous service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. Theshare of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%.
富人們?cè)絹碓蕉嗟卦诒倦A層內(nèi)部通婚。巴甲先生及其同著作者們發(fā)現(xiàn)，1979到2005年間，1%夫婦其中一人來自藍(lán)領(lǐng)階層或雜七雜八的非專業(yè)服務(wù)業(yè)背景的比例稍 稍降低，從7.9%降低到了6.4%。 工作于金融、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)、法律行業(yè)的從3.5%增長到了8.8%。
Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselvesas Republicans and less likely to be Democrats . A survey of104 wealthy families in the Chicago area, led by Benjamin Page of Northwestern University,found the budget deficit was their leading worry, followed by unemployment; for thebroader population, the reverse is true. Still the rich, like most voters, have eclecticviews, often supporting liberal and conservative positions simultaneously. For example,Keith Whitaker, who advises wealthy families on behalf of Wells Fargo, says many of themsympathise with the Occupy Wall Street movement. A lot of them became rich by buildingbusinesses and consider Wall Street the place where businesses are taken apart and run bysomeone else.
從政治角度看，蓋洛普調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)最富的1%中將自己歸為共和黨的比例比其余99%多而歸為民主黨的少。西 北大學(xué)本杰明?裴吉在芝加哥地區(qū)進(jìn)行的對(duì)104個(gè)富裕家庭進(jìn)行的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，預(yù)算赤字是他們最大的政治擔(dān)憂，其次是失業(yè);而對(duì)于更廣闊的群體來說，這個(gè)重要性 排序恰好相反。然而1%們的思維正如大多數(shù)選民一樣并不開放靈活，常常同時(shí)支持自由主義和保守主義的觀點(diǎn)。比如代表富國銀行為富裕家庭提供建議的基思?惠 特克說， 他們中的很多人同情占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng);他們很多人通過商業(yè)經(jīng)營致富，認(rèn)同認(rèn)為華爾街是一個(gè)把企業(yè)拿來解體，交由他人管理的地方。 。
Bob Perkowitz embodies these contradictions. A rich entrepreneur, he now devotes much ofhis time to a non-profit environmental outfit. He is a lifelong Republican who objects toGeorge Bush juniors tax cuts for the wealthy, and backed Barack Obama in 2008. Havingrestructured companies himself, he has no trouble with Mr Romneys private-equity work butagrees with Occupy Wall Street that corporations have too much power.
鮑勃?派克威身上集中了這些矛盾。他是一個(gè)富裕的企業(yè)家，現(xiàn)在為某非盈利環(huán)保機(jī)構(gòu)效力。他一輩子都是共和黨人，但卻反對(duì)喬治?小布什的富人減稅政策，2008 年支持奧巴馬。他自己也曾搞過公司重組，所以他對(duì)羅姆尼先生的個(gè)人股權(quán)工作沒有意見，但他認(rèn)同占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)的觀點(diǎn)：公司手中的權(quán)力已過大了。
Until recently he split his time between conservative Charlotte, North Carolina, and liberalWashington, DC. His wife, Lisa Renstrom, used to manage hotels inherited from her father, aprosperous Republican businessman. Now she campaigns on climate change and backsWealth for the Common Good, a group of rich people who back Occupy Wall Street. Herfather used to give his occupation as capitalist. I grew up believing that [capitalists] weremaking the world a better place, she says. The capitalism we have has left us withdegraded infrastructure, threats to our health, and global warming.
直到最近他一直都在兩個(gè)地方生活：保守的北卡羅來納州夏洛特市和開放的華盛頓特區(qū)。他的妻子麗莎?恩斯曾經(jīng)管理過繼承自其父親的一家旅館，現(xiàn)在她正為氣候變化奔走呼號(hào)，參加一個(gè)名為財(cái)富為大家的支持華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)的富人團(tuán)體。她的父親曾稱自己為一名資本家。在我的成長歷 程中，我一直相信資本家使這個(gè)世界更美好，她說。我們的資本主義留給我們的是破敗的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、對(duì)我們健康的威脅和全球變暖。
Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune. As the New York Times recentlyobserved in an article on the 1%, Some envisioned waking up to protesters on the lawn;others feared audits by the IRS or other punitive government action.But Mr Perkowitz andMs Renstrom are utterly typical of the 1% in that they are far more politically engaged thanthe average 99-percenters. Nearly all the rich people surveyed by Northwestern vote, 68%make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifthhad solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate. A good chunk of those calls were meantto help their businesses. But many were motivated by the common good, defined in asmany different ways as the sources of their wealth.
大多數(shù)的1%們不想討論他們的財(cái)富。紐約時(shí)報(bào)上最近的一篇文章稱，一些人想象著早上醒來發(fā)現(xiàn)草坪上的示威者的場(chǎng)景;另外一些人害怕IRS的審計(jì)或其他懲罰 性的政府措施。但1%們的政治參與度比其余99%更高，派克威先生和恩斯女士是其中的典型。幾乎所有參與西北大學(xué)調(diào)查的人都投票，68%的人曾為政治活動(dòng)捐 款，近一半的人與一位國會(huì)議員聯(lián)絡(luò)過，有五分之一的人曾代表某候選人募集過競(jìng)選資金。以上行為中，相當(dāng)一部分是為了照顧好他們自己的生意;但很多人也 是出于謀求公眾利益，從很多角度講那都是他們財(cái)富的源泉。
MITT ROMNEY is not the first multi-millionaire toseek the presidency, nor the richest. Ross Perot,the record-holder, spent some of his billions earnedfrom computer data on losing bids in 1992 and1996. Since then men who owe their or theirfamilys fortunes to oil, sport, publishing, trial law,ketchup, beer and bestselling autobiographies havefollowed.
米特?羅姆尼不是第一個(gè)競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的身家數(shù)百萬的富豪，也不是其中最富裕的。紀(jì)錄保持者是羅斯?比洛特，他靠電腦數(shù)據(jù)賺了幾十億美元，其中一些花在了1992年 和1996年兩場(chǎng)失敗的總統(tǒng)競(jìng)選上。自此之后競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的富豪也不在少數(shù)，這些人的財(cái)富分別來自石油、運(yùn)動(dòng)、出版、法律等，還有靠賣番茄醬、啤酒、暢銷自傳 等賺錢的。
But Mr Romney, who earned his $200m or so as a private-equity executive buying andselling companies, is the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance. As such, heillustrates the changing complexion of Americas rich. The wealthiest 1% of Americans notonly get more of the pie; they are increasingly creatures of finance.
但是羅姆尼先生是第一個(gè)來自傳說中的金融界的候選人。 因此，他反映了著美國富人階層面貌的變化。美國人中最富裕的1%不僅分得了更多的蛋糕，并且他們出身金融界的比例越來越高。
The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data.The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008.The Congressional Budget Office puts the cut-off lower, at $347,000 in 2007, or $252,000after subtracting federal taxes and adding back transfers. Measured by net worth, rather thanincome, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23%from 2007.
根據(jù)聯(lián)邦稅務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)，1%這一群體在2008年的平均家庭年收入為120萬美元;其中超富階層的年收入悄然拔高了這個(gè)平均值：2008年1%的準(zhǔn)入門檻為年收入38萬美 元。國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室認(rèn)為這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該更低，在2007年其應(yīng)為34萬7千美元;按除去聯(lián)邦稅款、加上轉(zhuǎn)移支付后計(jì)算，應(yīng)為25萬2千美元。根據(jù)美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)數(shù)據(jù)，若以 凈值衡量而非以年收入衡量，2009年1%群體準(zhǔn)入門檻為6,900,000美元，比2007年降低了23%。
The richest 1% earn roughly half their income from wages and salaries, a quarter from self-employment and business income, and the remainder from interest, dividends, capital gainsand rent. According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and twoothers, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares thathave changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined . The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is evenmore pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979.
最富1%們收入中約一半來自工資和薪水，四分之一來自自營業(yè)務(wù)和生意收入，剩下來自于利息、分紅、資本利得和租金。根據(jù)喬恩和另兩位學(xué)者對(duì)納稅申報(bào)單的 分析研究，1%們中有16%來自于醫(yī)藥業(yè)，8%是律師，這兩個(gè)比例在1979年-2005年間變化不大，作者的研究數(shù)據(jù)最晚來自2005年。最驚人的變化是金融業(yè)從業(yè)者 所占比例，從1979年的不到8%增長到了2005年的13.9%; 其在前0.1%中的比例變化更顯著，從1979年的11%增長到了18%。
Steve Kaplan of the University of Chicago thinks finance explains much of the rise ininequality. Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplannotes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007,only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated . The trend iseven more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009.
芝加哥大學(xué)的史蒂夫?卡普蘭認(rèn)為金融業(yè)在收入不公的形成中發(fā)揮了重要作用。卡普蘭先生更新了托馬斯?和伊曼紐爾的系列研究，他認(rèn)為最富裕1%群體所占有的 全社會(huì)收入比例在2007年達(dá)到了近80年來最高的23.5%，不過2009年隨著金融市場(chǎng)縮水隨即下跌到了17.6%。
Mr Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers,corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporateexecutives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investorsearned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives ofcompanies in the S P 500 stock index combined.
投資銀行家、企業(yè)律師、對(duì)沖基金和個(gè)人股權(quán)經(jīng)理已經(jīng)取代公司高管坐上收入排行的前排交椅。2009年最有錢的25個(gè)對(duì)沖基金投資家賺了250億美元，今本上是所 有S P500強(qiáng)公司首席執(zhí)行官們所有收入總和的6倍。
Although the 1% have been gaining share in most countries, a recent OECD report shows thatthe trend began sooner, and has gone further, in America. Some scholars, noting thatinequality has risen more in English-speaking countries, think social and political valuesmay play a role: in mainland Europe and Japan, corporate governance, tax laws andunionisation have tended to lessen income disparities. But the relatively large role of thefinancial sector in English-speaking countries could also be a factor: even more of the top 1%work in finance in Britain than in America.
盡管在大多數(shù)國家前1%一直在增加其所占有社會(huì)財(cái)富的比例，最近一份 OECD報(bào)告顯示這個(gè)趨勢(shì)在美國開始更早、進(jìn)展更深入。一些學(xué)者認(rèn)為此不公現(xiàn)象在英語 國家更嚴(yán)重，社會(huì)和政治價(jià)值觀或許與此有關(guān)：在歐洲大陸和日本，其公司治理模式、稅法和工會(huì)組織有助于減弱收入差距。但在英語國家中金融業(yè)扮演著相對(duì) 更重要的角色，可能這也是造成現(xiàn)狀的一個(gè)原因：英國的最富1%們中在金融業(yè)工作的比例比美國的更大。
Membership in Americas 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in thepercentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time,one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decadelater. Kinship plays a big part: rich parents tend to produce rich kids. High levels ofeducational attainment and stable families help in this. According to Gallup, 72% of the 1%have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three timesthe proportion of the other 99%. The 1% are more likely to be married and to havechildren.
美國最富 1%的身份變化不大;每年有四分之三的家庭在下一年繼續(xù)屬于這個(gè)階層。盡管隨著時(shí)間的推移，能夠一直留在前1%的家庭比例在不斷下降，但一項(xiàng)研究 發(fā)現(xiàn)絕大多數(shù)進(jìn)入前1%的家庭在10年后依然能躋身前10%。親屬關(guān)系至關(guān)重要：富裕的父母更有可能養(yǎng)育出富裕后代。高水平的教育和穩(wěn)定的家庭對(duì)此有幫助。 根據(jù)蓋洛普公司調(diào)查結(jié)果，1%們中有72%有大學(xué)學(xué)位，有一半獲得研究生學(xué)位，比例是其他99%們的兩到三倍。1%們結(jié)婚和養(yǎng)育下一代的比例更大。
The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors foundthat between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar ormiscellaneous service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. Theshare of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%.
富人們?cè)絹碓蕉嗟卦诒倦A層內(nèi)部通婚。巴甲先生及其同著作者們發(fā)現(xiàn)，1979到2005年間，1%夫婦其中一人來自藍(lán)領(lǐng)階層或雜七雜八的非專業(yè)服務(wù)業(yè)背景的比例稍 稍降低，從7.9%降低到了6.4%。 工作于金融、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)、法律行業(yè)的從3.5%增長到了8.8%。
Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselvesas Republicans and less likely to be Democrats . A survey of104 wealthy families in the Chicago area, led by Benjamin Page of Northwestern University,found the budget deficit was their leading worry, followed by unemployment; for thebroader population, the reverse is true. Still the rich, like most voters, have eclecticviews, often supporting liberal and conservative positions simultaneously. For example,Keith Whitaker, who advises wealthy families on behalf of Wells Fargo, says many of themsympathise with the Occupy Wall Street movement. A lot of them became rich by buildingbusinesses and consider Wall Street the place where businesses are taken apart and run bysomeone else.
從政治角度看，蓋洛普調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)最富的1%中將自己歸為共和黨的比例比其余99%多而歸為民主黨的少。西 北大學(xué)本杰明?裴吉在芝加哥地區(qū)進(jìn)行的對(duì)104個(gè)富裕家庭進(jìn)行的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，預(yù)算赤字是他們最大的政治擔(dān)憂，其次是失業(yè);而對(duì)于更廣闊的群體來說，這個(gè)重要性 排序恰好相反。然而1%們的思維正如大多數(shù)選民一樣并不開放靈活，常常同時(shí)支持自由主義和保守主義的觀點(diǎn)。比如代表富國銀行為富裕家庭提供建議的基思?惠 特克說， 他們中的很多人同情占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng);他們很多人通過商業(yè)經(jīng)營致富，認(rèn)同認(rèn)為華爾街是一個(gè)把企業(yè)拿來解體，交由他人管理的地方。 。
Bob Perkowitz embodies these contradictions. A rich entrepreneur, he now devotes much ofhis time to a non-profit environmental outfit. He is a lifelong Republican who objects toGeorge Bush juniors tax cuts for the wealthy, and backed Barack Obama in 2008. Havingrestructured companies himself, he has no trouble with Mr Romneys private-equity work butagrees with Occupy Wall Street that corporations have too much power.
鮑勃?派克威身上集中了這些矛盾。他是一個(gè)富裕的企業(yè)家，現(xiàn)在為某非盈利環(huán)保機(jī)構(gòu)效力。他一輩子都是共和黨人，但卻反對(duì)喬治?小布什的富人減稅政策，2008 年支持奧巴馬。他自己也曾搞過公司重組，所以他對(duì)羅姆尼先生的個(gè)人股權(quán)工作沒有意見，但他認(rèn)同占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)的觀點(diǎn)：公司手中的權(quán)力已過大了。
Until recently he split his time between conservative Charlotte, North Carolina, and liberalWashington, DC. His wife, Lisa Renstrom, used to manage hotels inherited from her father, aprosperous Republican businessman. Now she campaigns on climate change and backsWealth for the Common Good, a group of rich people who back Occupy Wall Street. Herfather used to give his occupation as capitalist. I grew up believing that [capitalists] weremaking the world a better place, she says. The capitalism we have has left us withdegraded infrastructure, threats to our health, and global warming.
直到最近他一直都在兩個(gè)地方生活：保守的北卡羅來納州夏洛特市和開放的華盛頓特區(qū)。他的妻子麗莎?恩斯曾經(jīng)管理過繼承自其父親的一家旅館，現(xiàn)在她正為氣候變化奔走呼號(hào)，參加一個(gè)名為財(cái)富為大家的支持華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)的富人團(tuán)體。她的父親曾稱自己為一名資本家。在我的成長歷 程中，我一直相信資本家使這個(gè)世界更美好，她說。我們的資本主義留給我們的是破敗的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、對(duì)我們健康的威脅和全球變暖。
Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune. As the New York Times recentlyobserved in an article on the 1%, Some envisioned waking up to protesters on the lawn;others feared audits by the IRS or other punitive government action.But Mr Perkowitz andMs Renstrom are utterly typical of the 1% in that they are far more politically engaged thanthe average 99-percenters. Nearly all the rich people surveyed by Northwestern vote, 68%make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifthhad solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate. A good chunk of those calls were meantto help their businesses. But many were motivated by the common good, defined in asmany different ways as the sources of their wealth.
大多數(shù)的1%們不想討論他們的財(cái)富。紐約時(shí)報(bào)上最近的一篇文章稱，一些人想象著早上醒來發(fā)現(xiàn)草坪上的示威者的場(chǎng)景;另外一些人害怕IRS的審計(jì)或其他懲罰 性的政府措施。但1%們的政治參與度比其余99%更高，派克威先生和恩斯女士是其中的典型。幾乎所有參與西北大學(xué)調(diào)查的人都投票，68%的人曾為政治活動(dòng)捐 款，近一半的人與一位國會(huì)議員聯(lián)絡(luò)過，有五分之一的人曾代表某候選人募集過競(jìng)選資金。以上行為中，相當(dāng)一部分是為了照顧好他們自己的生意;但很多人也 是出于謀求公眾利益，從很多角度講那都是他們財(cái)富的源泉。
