摘要：作者介绍：詹姆斯·佩托库基斯是美国企业研究所（AEI）的高级研究员和德威特·华莱士主席，他分析美国经济政策，撰写和编辑AEIdeas博客，并主持AEI的政治经济播客。他也是CNBC的撰稿人，并撰写了《请快一点！》Substack上的时事通讯。
薛欣仪：creative Destruction,FTW(Again)创造性破坏，再次胜利
作者：詹姆斯·佩索库基斯
作者介绍：詹姆斯·佩托库基斯是美国企业研究所（AEI）的高级研究员和德威特·华莱士主席，他分析美国经济政策，撰写和编辑AEIdeas博客，并主持AEI的政治经济播客。他也是CNBC的撰稿人，并撰写了《请快一点！》Substack上的时事通讯。
在加入AEI之前，佩托库基斯是汤森路透（Thomson Reuters）旗下的观点和评论部门路透（Reuters） Breakingviews的华盛顿专栏作家。此前，他是《美国新闻与世界报道》的商业编辑和经济专栏作家。
佩托库基斯是《保守的未来主义者：如何创造我们被承诺的科幻世界》（Center Street, 2023）一书的作者。他还为许多出版物撰稿，包括《大西洋月刊》、《评论》、《金融时报》、《投资者商业日报》、《国家评论》、《纽约邮报》、《纽约时报》、《今日美国》和《周刊》。他的众多广播节目包括CNBC， CNN，福克斯商业网络，福克斯新闻频道，MSNBC和PBS。
佩托库基斯毕业于西北大学（Northwestern University）和梅迪尔新闻学院（Medill School of Journalism），是2002年《危险边缘》(Jeopardy！“冠军。
Author Introduction：James Pethokoukis is a senior fellow and the DeWitt Wallace Chair at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he analyzes US economic policy, writes and edits the AEIdeas blog, and hosts AEI’s Political Economy podcast. He is also a contributor to CNBC and writes the Faster, Please! newsletter on Substack.
Before joining AEI, Mr. Pethokoukis was the Washington columnist for Reuters’s Breakingviews, the opinion and commentary wing of Thomson Reuters. Earlier, he was the business editor and economics columnist for US News & World Report.
Mr. Pethokoukis is the author of The Conservative Futurist: How to Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised (Center Street, 2023). He has also written for many publications, including the Atlantic, Commentary, Financial Times, Investor’s Business Daily, National Review, New York Post, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Week. His numerous broadcast appearances include CNBC, CNN, Fox Business Network, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and PBS.
A graduate of Northwestern University and the Medill School of Journalism, Mr. Pethokoukis is a 2002 “Jeopardy!” champion.
正文一：
民粹主义政客对“创造性破坏”的概念大发牢骚。他们声称，充满活力的市场资本主义本应是残酷的，但却夺走了家乡工厂的好工作，并将越来越多的财富交给了远方的股东。人民与权贵的对抗，前者是经济崩溃的大输家。
然而，咨询公司麦肯锡（McKinsey）对美国、德国和英国近万家大公司的深入研究却得出了相反的结论：约瑟夫·熊彼特（Joseph Schumpeter）的破坏球几乎不是批评者所说的零和机制。相反，它是广泛的国家经济成功的关键。
麦肯锡的研究打破了这种零和叙事：生产率增长最快的公司，利润和工资增长也最强劲。员工和客户通常不是剥削工人，而是生产率增长最大、最直接的受益者。麦肯锡：“生产率增长对所有人来说都是双赢的。”
这里的证据有力地支持了市场活力和美式资本主义。在美国样本中，“杰出”企业（通过亚马逊电子商务平台或苹果智能手机革命等创新促进国家生产率增长的企业）的数量是表现不佳的“落后者”企业（不利于生产率增长的企业）的三倍。在德国和英国的样本中，“出类拔萃者”和“落伍者”的数量几乎相等。
然而，美国的这种优势并不仅仅在于创新能力。报告中写道：
在美国的公司样本中，员工从生产率较低的公司到生产率较高的公司的再分配更多。领导者成长得更快，表现不佳的公司更快地重组或退出。总体而言，在美国样本中，动态再分配，包括跨子行业边界的再分配，为生产率增长贡献了2.1个百分点中的0.9个，略低于一半。相比之下，在德国和英国，再分配的贡献微不足道。这可能是因为美国具有高度动态的要素市场，可以快速进入和退出，也可以快速扩大和重组
政策教训非常简单：拥有灵活劳动力市场的国家将创造性破坏转化为普遍繁荣。那些维持现状的国家肯定会衰落。如果民粹民族主义者真的想要更强大的社区，他们应该把重点放在帮助工人向生产率更高的公司过渡上——考虑搬家援助、快速再培训和可转移的福利——而不是保护当地工厂或其他雇主免受国内或全球竞争压力的影响。
熊彼特的经典见解经久不衰：允许成功的企业扩张，让失败的企业消失，工资就会上涨。那些试图阻止这一富有成效的过程的人冒着伤害他们声称要捍卫的社区的风险。
正文二：
Populist politicians rail against the notion of “creative destruction.” They claim the supposedly cruel churn of dynamic market capitalism erases good jobs from hometown factories and hands increasing wealth to distant shareholders. The people versus the powerful, with the former as big losers from economic disruption.
Yet a deep dive by consultant McKinsey into nearly 10,000 large companies across the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom tells the opposite story: Joseph Schumpeter’s wrecking ball is hardly the zero-sum mechanism the critics suggest. Rather, it’s key to broad national economic success.
McKinsey’s research undermines that zero-sum narrative: Firms with the highest productivity growth also had the strongest profit and wage growth. Rather than exploiting workers, employees and customers are typically the biggest and most immediate beneficiaries of productivity growth. McKinsey: “Productivity growth is a win-win for all.”
The evidence here strongly supports market dynamism and American-style capitalism. The US sample had three times more “Standout” firms (companies that add to their country’s productivity growth through innovations like Amazon’s e-commerce platform or Apple’s smartphone revolution) than underperforming “Stragglers” (firms that detract from productivity growth). The German and UK samples had almost even numbers of Standouts and Stragglers.
This US advantage wasn’t just about innovative oomph, however. From the report:
Firms in the US sample had more reallocation of employees from less productive to more productive firms. Leaders grew faster, and underperforming firms more swiftly restructured or exited. … Overall, dynamic reallocation, including reallocation across subsector boundaries, added 0.9 of 2.1 percentage points—slightly less than half—to productivity growth in the US sample. In contrast, the contribution of reallocation was negligible in Germany and the United Kingdom. This may be explained by the fact that the United States has highly dynamic factor markets, allowing for quick entry and exit as well as fast scale-up and restructuring
The policy lesson is straightforward enough: Countries with flexible labor markets transform creative destruction into widespread prosperity. Those that preserve the status quo guarantee decline. If populist nationalists truly want stronger communities, they should focus on helping workers transition to more productive companies—consider moving assistance, rapid retraining, and portable benefits—rather than protecting the local factory or other employer from competitive pressures, whether domestic or global.
Schumpeter’s classic insight endures: allow successful businesses to expand, let failing ones disappear, and wages will increase. Those who try to stop this productive process risk hurting the very communities they claim to champion.
来源：非常道
