让资本主义更具有创意中英文翻译对照

How to fix capitalism

In these tough times, it’s easy to forget that during the past century, the world has gotten better. But billions have not been able to benefit from capitalism’s miracle. Here’s how to help them.

Capitalism has improved the lives of billions of people---something that‘s easy to forget at a time of great economic uncertainty. But it has left out billions more, they have great needs, but they can‘t express those needs in ways that matter to markets. So they are stuck in poverty, suffer from preventable diseases and never have a chance to make the most of their lives. Governments and nonprofit groups have an irreplaceable role in helping them, but it will take too long if they try to do it alone.

It is mainly corporations that have the skills to make technological innovations work for the poor. To make the most of those skills, we need a more creative capitalism : an attempt to stretch the reach of market forces so that more companies can benefit from doing work that makes more people better off.

There‘s much still to be done, but the good news is that creative capitalism is already with us. Some corporations have identified brand-new markets among the poor for life-changing technologies like cell phone. Others---sometimes with a nudge from activists—have seen how they can do good and do well at the same time.

To take a real-world example, a few years ago I was sitting in a bar with Bono, and frankly, I thought he was a little nuts. It was late, we‘d had a few drinks, and Bono was all fired up over a scheme to get companies to help tackle global poverty and disease. He kept dialing the private numbers of top executives and thrusting his cell phone at me to hear their sleepy yet enthusiastic replies, As crazy as it seemed that night, Bono‘s p ersistence soon gave birth to the (RED) campaign. Today companies like Gap, Hallmark and Dell sell (RED) –branded products and donate a portion of their profit to fight AIDS. (Microsoft recently signed up too.) It‘s a great thing : the companies make a di fference while adding to their bottom line, consumers get to show their support for a good cause, and—most important—lives are saved.

In the past year and a half, (RED) has generated $100 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, helping put nearly 80,000 people in poor countries on lifesaving drugs and helping more than 1.6 million get tested for HIV. That‘s creative capitalism at work.Creative capitalism isn‘t some big new economic theory. And it isn‘t a knock on capitalism itself. It is a way to answer a vital question : How can we most effectively spread the benefits of capitalism and the huge improvements in quality of life it can provide to people who have been left out?

The world is Getting Better

It might seem strange to talk about creative capitalism when we are paying such high gas prices and many people having trouble paying their mortgages. There‘s no doubt that today‘s economic troubles are real; people feel them deeply, and they deserve immediate attention.

Creative capitalism isn‘t an answer to the relatively short-term ups and downs of the economic cycle. It‘s a response to the longer-term fact that too many people are missing out on a historic, century-long improvement in the quality of life.

In many nations, life expectancy has grown dramatically in the past 100 years. More people vote in elections, express their views and enjoy economic freedom than ever before. Even with all the problems we face today, we are at a high point of human well-being. The world is getting a lot better. The problem is, It‘s not getting better fast enough, and it‘s not getting better for everyone. One billion people live on less than a dollar a day. They don‘t have enough nutritious food, clean water or electricity. The amazing innovations that have made many lives so much better—like vaccines and microchips—have largely passed them by. This is where government and nonprofits come in. As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and nesses self-interest in a helpful and sustainable way but only on behalf of those who can pay.

Government aid and philanthropy channel our caring for those who can‘t pay. And the world will make lasting progress on the big inequities that remain—problems like AIDS, poverty and education—only if governments and nonprofits do their part by giving more aid and more effective aid. But the improvements will happen faster and last longer if we can channel market forces, including innovation that‘s tailored to the needs of the poorest, to complement what governments and nonprofits do. We need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Naturally, if companies are going to get more involved, they need to earn some kind of return. This is the heart of creative capitalism. It‘s not just about doing more corporate philanthropy or asking companies to be more virtuous. It‘s about giving them a real incentive to apply their expertise in new ways, making it possible to earn a return while serving the people who have been left out.

This happen in two ways: companies can find these opportunities on their own, or governments and nonprofits can help create such opportunities where they presently don‘t exist.

What’s Been Missed

AS C.K prahalad shows in his book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, there are markets all over the world that businesses have missed. One study found that the poorest two-thirds of the world‘s population has come 5$ trillion in purchasing power. A key reason market forces are slow to make an impact in developing countries is that we don‘t spend enough time studying the needs of those markets. should know: I saw it happen at Microsoft. For many years, Microsoft has used corporate philanthropy to bring technology to people who can‘t get it otherwise, donating more than $3 billion in cash and software to try to bridge the digital divide.

But our real expertise is in writing software that solves problems, and recently we have realized that we weren‘t bringing enough of that expertise to problems in the developing world. So now we are looking at inequity as a business problem as well as something to be addressed through philanthropy.

We are working on projects like a visual interface that will enable illiterate or semiliterate people to use a PC instantly, with minimal training. Another project of ours lets an entire classroom full of students use a single computer; we have developed software that lets each students use her own mouse to control a specially colored cursor so that as many as 50 kids can use one computer at the same time. This is a big advance for school where there aren‘t enough computers to go around, and it severs a market we hadn‘t examined before.

Cell phones are another example. They are now a booming market in the developing world, but historically, companies vastly underestimated their potential. In 2000, when Vodafone bought a large stake in a Kenyan cell-phone company, if figured that the market in Kenyan would max out at 400,000 users. Today that company, safaricom, has more than 10 million. The company has done it by finding creative ways to serve low-income Kenyans. Its customers are charged by the second rather than by the minute, for example, which keeps down the cost. Safaricom is making a profit, and it‘s maki ng a difference. Farmers use their cell pones to find the best prices in nearby markets. A number of innovative user for cell phones are emerging. Already many Kenyan use them to store cash (via a kind of electronic money) and transfer funds. If you have to carry money over long distances--- say, form the market back to your home--- this kind of innovation makes a huge difference. You are less tempting to rob if you are not holding any cash. This how people can benefit when businesses find opportunities that have been missed. But since I started talking about creative capitalism earlier this year, I have heard from some skeptics who doubt that there are any new markets.

They say, ―if these opportunities really existed, someone would have found them by now.‖ I disagree. Their argument assumes that businesses have already studied every possible market for their products. Their attitude reminds me of the joke about an economist who‘s walking down the street with a friend. The economist steps over a $10bill that‘s lying on the ground. His friend asks him why he didn‘t take the money. ―it couldn‘t possibly be there ,‖ he explains. ―if it were, somebody would have picked it up.‖

Some companies make the same mistake. They think all the $10 bills have already been picked up. It would be a shame if we missed such opportunities, and it would make a huge difference if, instead, researchers and strategists at corporations met regularly with experts on the needs of the poor and talked about new applications for their best ideas.

Beyond finding new markets and developing new products, companies sometimes can benefit by providing the poor with heavily discounted access to products. Industries like software and pharmaceuticals, for example, have very low production costs, so you can come out ahead by selling your product forin rich markets and for a smaller profit, or at cost, in poor ones. Businesses in other industries can‘t do this tiered pricing, but they can benefit from the public recognitio n and enhanced reputation that come from serving those who can‘t pay. The companies involved in the (RED) campaign draw in new customers who want to be associated with a good cause. That might be the tipping point that leads people to pick one product over another.

There‘s another cruc ial benefit that accrues to businesses that do good work. They will find it easier to recruit and retain great employees. Young people today—all over the world —want to work for organizations that they can feel good about. Show them that a company is applying its expertise to help the poorest, and they will repay that commitment with their own dedication.

Creating new incentives

Even so, no matter how hard businesses look or how creatively they think, there are some problems in the world that aren‘t amenable to solution by existing market incentives . Malaria is a great example : the people who most need new drugs or a vaccine are the least able to pay, so the drugs and vaccines never get made. In these cases, governments and nonprofits

can create the incentives. This is the second way in which creative capitalism can take wing. Incentives can be as straight forward as giving public praise to the companies that are doing work that serves the poor.

This summer , a Dutch nonprofit called the Access to Medicine Foundation started publishing a report card that shows which pharmaceutical companies are doing the most to make sure that medicines are made for—and reach— people in developing countries. When I talk to executives form pharmaceutical companies, they tell me that they want to do more for neglected diseases——but they at least need to get credit dose exactly that.Publicity is very valuable , but sometimes it is still not enough to persuade companies to get involved. Even the best p.r. may not pay the bill for 10 years of research into a new drug. That is why it‘s so important for governments to create more financial incentives . Under a U.S. law enacted last year, for example, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria can get a priority review from the Food and Drug Administration (FAD) for another product it has made.

If you develop a new drug for malaria, profitable cholesterol drug could go on the market as much as a year earlier. Such a priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a fantastic way for governments to go beyond the aid they already give and channel market forces so they improve even more lives. Of course, governments in developing countries have to do a lot to foster capitalism themselves. They must pass laws and make regulations that let markets flourish, bringing the benefits of economic growth to more people. In fact, that another argument I have heard against creative capitalism:‖We don?t need to make capitalism more creative. We just need governments to stop interfering with it.‖

there is something to this. Many countries could spark more business investment—both within their borders and from the outside—if they did more to guarantee property rights, cut red tap and so on. But these changes come slowly. In the meantime, we can‘t wait. As a businessman, I have seen that companies can tap new market right now, even if conditions aren‘t ideal. And as a philanthropist, I‘ve found that our caring for others compels us to help people right now. The longer we wait, the more people suffer needlessly.

The next stop

In june, I moved out of my day-to-day role at Microsoft to spend more time on the work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I‘ll be talking with political leaders a bout how their governments can increase aid for the poor, make it more effective and bring in new partners through creative capitalism. I‘ll also talk with CEOs about what their companies can do. One idea is to dedicate a percentage of their top innovators‘ time to issues that affect the people who have been left behind. This kind of contribution takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest and dedicates some of it to improving the lives of everyone else.

Some pharmaceutical companies, like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, are already doing this. The Japanese company Sumitomo Chemical shared some of its technology with a Tanzanian textile company, helping it produce millions of bed nets, which are crucial tools in the fight to eradicate malaria. Other companies are doing the same in food, cell phones and banking.

In other words, creative capitalism is already under way. But we can do much more. Governments can create more incentives like the FDA voucher. We can expand the report-card idea beyond the pharmaceutical industry and make sure the rankings get publicity so companies get credit for doing good work. Consumers can reward companies that do their part by

buying their employers are contributing. If more companies follow the lead of the most creative organizations in their industry, they will make a huge impact on some of the world‘s worst problem s.

More than 30 years ago, Paul Allen and I started Microsoft because we wanted to be part of a movement to put a computer on every desk and in every home. Ten years ago, Melinda and I started our foundation because we want to be part of a different movement—this time, to help create a world where no one has to live on a disease we know how to prevent. Creative capitalism can help make it happen. I hope more people will join the cause.

让资本主义更具有创意

比尔盖茨

在艰难的岁月里，我们会轻易忘记在过去的世纪中，世界已经在得到改善。但是还有数十亿的人一直没有在资本主义的奇迹中获益。下面就是如何帮助他们的方法。

在经济严重不确定期间，是非常容易忘记资本主义已经改善了数十亿人的生活。但是还有数十亿以上的人被忽视，他们有很大的需求，但是，他们的需求无法在市场上实现。所以，他们就贫穷，染上本可以预防的疾病，没有机会过上好的生活。政府和非营利机构有不可取代的责任去帮助他们，如果他们没有政府和这些机构的帮助，他们将需要更长的时间去获得美好的生活。

有许多公司具有为贫穷阶层而进行技术创新的能力。为了可以充分利用这些技术，我们需要一个更具有创意的资本主义：更多公司通过努力开拓市场力渗透的范围，在从事使更多的人富有的工作中获得利益。

为此，我们还有很多事需要去做，但是值得庆幸的是我们已经拥有了有创意的资本主义。一些公司从贫穷阶层在改善生活的技术方面找到了新市场，比如手机。一些公司有时也会从活跃分子哪里获得激励，发现他们如何做好事的途径，并在同时获得利益。

举一个现实生活中的例子，几年前我和博诺坐在一家酒吧里，说实在的，当时，我觉得他有点失常。天色已经很晚，我们一起喝酒，博诺对通过公司来帮助解决全球贫困和疾病的计划充满了激情。他一直不断的拨打那些公司高管们的私人电话，然后把手机塞给我，要我听他们的充满睡意但却充满热情的回答。尽管当晚的情况有些荒唐，但是博诺的坚持很快孕育了这场（RED）活动。现在很多公司，如盖普、贺曼和戴尔等推销―RED‖品牌产品，并且捐赠一部分利润，来抗击爱滋病。（微软最近也签约参加了）这是一件好事：公司在盈利的同时，努力做出新的成绩，消费者对好的事业总是给予支持的，最重要的是，生命得到了挽救。

一年半以来，(RED)计划已经为抗击爱滋病、肺结核和疟疾全球基金会筹集了1亿美元，帮助贫穷国家的8万人获得了救生的药物，并且帮助16万以上的人进行艾滋病毒的检测。创造性资本主义在起作用。创造性资本主义不是某些大的新的经济理论。也不是对资本主义自身的一次冲击。而是解决关键问题的一种方法：我们怎样才能最有效地传播资本主义的益处，它如何才能为那些被忽视的人们带来生活质量的巨大改善？

世界变的越来越好

现在我们的石油价格过高，很多人仍有困难来支付住房贷款，所以说起创造性资本主义，会感觉有点怪怪的。毫无疑问的是，现在的经济困境是事实，人们深切地感受到了这种困境，他们应该受到及时的关注。创造性资本主义不是解决经济周期的相对较短的盛衰的解答，而是针对一种很多人在长达一个世纪之久的历史性的生活质量的改善中错过了机会的反应。

在很多国家，一百年来，平均寿命有了明显的增加。与以往的任何时候相比，更多的人参加投票选举，表达自己的观点以及享受经济上的自由。尽管我们现在面临各种问题，但是我们仍处于人类幸福的鼎盛期。世界状况得到大大的改善。问题是世界进步的还不足够快，而且并没有让所有人的状况都在改善。十亿人每天的生活费还不到一美元。他们没有足够营养的食物，

洁净的水和电。他们没有享受到已经让很多人生活得到改善的惊人的创新——像疫苗和微芯片。这些都需要政府和非盈利组织的介入。在我看来，人性有两种强大的量：自利和帮助他人。资本主义以有益的和可持续的方式驾驭了自私自利，但是它只代表那些能够支付得起钱的人。

政府援助和慈善引导我们关心的那些支付不起的人。只要政府和非盈利组织通过提供更多的帮助和更有效的援助来为社会做出贡献，世界在仍然存在的爱滋病、贫穷和教育等许多不公平现象的问题上，才会取得持续的进步。但是，如果我们能够引导市场力量，包括为满足最贫穷阶层的需求进行的创新，来完善政府和非盈利组织的工作，改善才会来的更早、更持久。我们需要一个比我们今天所做的更好的，能吸引创新者及企业的系统。

自然，如果更多的公司参与进来，他们就需要赚取一定的回报。这是创造性资本主义的核心。这不仅仅在于进行更多的慈善活动或者要求公司更加具有美德。而是通过给他们一个有效的激励措施，使他们以新的方式使用自己的专门知识，服务于那些被忽视的人们，并从而获取利益。

有两种方式：公司可以通过自己的能力发现这些机遇，或政府和非盈利组织也可能在目前这种机遇不存在的情况下，帮助制造这样的机遇。

我们错过了什么

正如普哈拉德在《金字塔底层的财富》书中所说的，全世界有很多的市场被企业忽视了。一项研究发现，三分之二的世界最贫困人口拥有5万亿的购买力。市场力对发展中国家的影响十分缓慢的一个主要原因是因我们没有花费足够的时间研究这些市场的需求。我应当知道：我看到这种现象在微软发生过。很多年来，微软利用公司慈善活动将科技传授给那些在其他情况下不能得到的人，捐赠了超过30亿现金和软件设备尝试跨越―数字鸿沟‖。但是我们真正的专长是编写软件来解决问题，最近我们已经意识到，我们没有足够的专门技术来解决发展中国家的问题。所以现在我们开始采取措施来解决企业问题和一些通过慈善事业解决的问题之间的不平衡。

我们致力于让文盲或者半文盲的人能在接受很少的培训之后就立即使用个人电脑的一个视觉界面的开发项目。我们的另外一个项目是让整个教室的所有学生都使用一台电脑。我们开发了软件，让每一个学生能用自己的鼠标去控制一个特殊颜色的光标，以此来让50个孩子能够在同一时间使用一台电脑。这对于那些没有足够电脑的学校是一个巨大的进步，这也是我们之前没有注意到的一个市场。

手机也是一个例子。它现在在发展中国家是一个繁荣的市场，但是从历史上看，那些公司极大低估了他们的潜力。在2000年，沃达丰收购一家肯尼亚手机公司的大量股份的时候，就推测肯尼亚手机市场上最多有40万的使用者，现在那家萨法利公司，已经拥有超过1000万的用户。这家公司是通过找到新的创意，服务于低收入的肯尼亚人而获得成功的。例如，它对消费者的收费不是以分钟来计算而是以秒来计算，以此来减低成本。萨法利公司不仅盈利，并获得了成功。农民们使用自己的手机找到附近市场的最好价格。手机的一些创新用途开始出现。有很多的肯尼亚人已经用他们来存款（通过一种电子货币的方法）和转移资金。如果你需要远距离的携带现金——比如，从市场回家——这种创新获得了巨大的成功。如果你没有携带现金，就会减少被抢劫的危险。这就是企业发现了被忽视的机会而获利的实例。但是自从我今年早些时候开始讨论创造性资本主义以来，我听说一些怀疑论者怀疑那些新市场的存在。

他们认为。―如果这些机遇真的存在，一些人现在就应该已经发现他们了。‖我不同意这样的说法。他们的论据假设是企业们对于自己的产品，已经研究了所有可能的市场。

他们的观点让我想起了一个笑话。一位经济学家和他的朋友一起漫步在大街上，这个经济学家踩到了一张10美元纸币，他的朋友问他为什么不把钱捡走，他解释说―那里不可能有钱，如果真的有，早就有人捡起了。‖

一些公司犯了同样的错误。他们以为所有的10美元纸币已经被捡走了。如果我们错过了这样的机会，我们会感到非常羞耻。如果企业研究者和战略家就穷人的需求问题会与专家定期地开会，讨论自己最佳创意的新应用，就可获得巨大成功。

除了发现新的市场和开发新产品之外，公司可以通过对贫穷阶层进行产品大幅的折扣来获取利益。比如，软件和医药等行业的生产的成本非常的低，所以可以在富国市场销售产品来获取较大的利益，而在穷国市场获取较低利益或亏本销售来获取领先地位。虽然其他行业的企业不能使用这种分级定价的方法，但是他们可以通过服务那些无力购买的人来获得公共认可和提高名气。涉及(RED)活动的公司们吸引了新的消费者。这也许就是引导人们如何选择产品的一个主要原因。

还有另一个企业做慈善的重要的益处。他们发现这样可以很容易招募和留住优秀的员工。现在全世界的年轻人希望为有好感的企业工作。告诉他们，公司在向最贫穷的阶层提供自己的专门技术，他们会用自己的奉献来实现这种承诺。

创造新的激励因素

尽管如此，不论企业看起来有多么努力或认为自己多么具有创造性，世界上还是存在一些在现有市场激励下的不能解决的问题。疟疾就是一个很好的例子：最需要新的药物和疫苗的人是那些最不能支付费用的人，所以药物和疫苗也得不到生产。在这样的情况下，政府和非盈利组织可以创造激励措施。这是创造性资本主义能够发展的第二种方法。直接的激励措施就是公开称赞那些为穷人服务的公司。

今年夏天，一家医学基金荷兰非盈利组织开始发行一种调查报告卡，显示了制药公司正在尽全力确保药物是为发展中国家的人们而生产，并且送到他们手中。当我和制药公司的执行主管们交流的时候，他们告诉我，他们想为被忽视的疾病做一些事公开宣传是有价值的，但是有时候它还不足够说服其他公司参与进来。就算最好的公关活动可能也无法为研究一种新药花费十年的时间。这就是为什么政府要创造更多的财政激励措施的重要性。例如，根据去年开始实施的一项美国法律，为疟疾等被忽视的疾病开发了新的疗法的一些药物公司，食品和药物管理局可以对其生产的另外一种产品进行优先审查。

如果你为疟疾开发了一种新药物，可以盈利的胆固醇药物就可以早一年上市。这样的优先审查的价值可能会达到上百上亿美元。这是一个完美的方法，可以让政府超越他们已经给予的援助范围，引导市场力量，改善更多人的生活。当然，发展中国家的政府自己在促进资本主义的发展方面还有许多工作要做。他们必须通过法律、制定法规，来使市场繁荣，给更多的人带来经济增长的利益。事实上，这是我听说的反对创造性资本主义的另一个论据：―我们必须使资本主义更加具有创造力。我们只需要政府停止对其干涉。‖

这句话有些道理，不仅是本国的，还有外来的，如果他们在保障财产权和减少烦琐的政府办事程序等方面做更多的事情的话，很多国家能够刺激更多的商业投资。但是，这些变化的到来是缓慢的。目前我们无法等待。作为商人，我所看到的是，各家公司目前就能利用新的市场，即使条件并不是很理想。作为慈善家，我发现，我们对别人的关爱迫使我们现在为人们提供帮助。我们等待得越久，就有越多的人遭受不必要的苦难。

下一步

今年6月，我辞去了在微软公司的日常职务，以便把更多的时间用于盖茨基金会的工作。我将就各国政府怎样才能增加对穷人的援助，提高援助的有效性，以及通过创造性的资本主义让新的合作伙伴参加进来等问题，与政界领导人进行商议。我还将要与首席执行官们就他们的公司都能做些什么的问题进行交流。有一个想法就是让公司的顶级创新者花费更多的时间来解决影响到哪些落后的人们的问题。他们让最富裕的人们的生活得到改善而做出这种贡献，一部分也可用来改善其他人的生活。一些制药公司，譬如默克公司和葛兰素史克公司，已经在这样做了。日本的住友化学公司与坦桑尼亚的一家纺织公司共享自己的一些技术成果，帮助该公司生产了几百万个蚊帐。这些蚊帐是对抗疟疾十分重要的工具。另外一些公司在食品、手机和银行业等领域中也在做这种工作。

换句话说，创造性资本主义已经在实施之中。但是我们能做的还不止这些。政府可以创造更多的激励措施，譬如食品和药物管理局的凭证等。我们可以拓展报告卡的创意，超越制药工业的范围，并确保这个排名榜得到公开的宣传，以便各公司能够因为慈善活动获取报告卡的名额。消费者可以通过购买公司的产品奖励做出贡献的公司。如果有更多的公司在最富于创造性的企业的带领下行动，就会在解决世界上的一些最严重的问题方面产生重大影响。

30多年前，保罗艾伦和我创办微软公司，是因为我们想要参与让每个办公桌上和每个家庭都有一台电脑的运动。10年前，梅琳达和我创建了自己的基金会，因为我们想成为另一种不同的运动的一部分———这一回是为了创造这样一个世界，人们在这个世界生存，而不会染上我们知道如何预防的疾病。创造性的资本主义可以帮助我们实现这样的世界。我希望会有更多的人参加到这项事业中来。