本期原文選自The Economist 2016-9-17的Leaders板塊A giant?problem，釋義來自牛津高階七版、元照英美法詞典、Lexisnexis英漢法律詞典等資源。如果您也在學(xué)習(xí)The Economist，歡迎訂閱我的文集The Economist，一起學(xué)習(xí)交流。

A giant problem

Disruption may be the buzzword【1】 in boardrooms, but the most striking feature of business today is not the overturning of the established order. It is the entrenchment【2】 of a group of superstar companies at the heart of the global economy. Some of these are old firms, like GE, that have reinvented themselves. Some are emerging-market champions, like Samsung, which have seized the opportunities provided by globalisation. The elite of the elite are high-tech wizards—Google, Apple, Facebook and the rest—that have conjured up【3】 corporate empires from bits and bytes【4】.

【1】buzzword 流行詞語

【2】entrenchment 確立；trench 戰(zhàn)壕

【3】conjure sth from sth 令人驚訝地創(chuàng)造出；conjure變魔術(shù)，變戲法

【4】bits and bytes本意是位與字節(jié)，這里指代計算機技術(shù)，采用了頭韻alliteration修辭手法

As our special report this week makes clear, the superstars are admirable in many ways. They churn out【5】 products that improve consumers’ lives, from smarter smartphones to sharper televisions. They provide Americans and Europeans with an estimated $280 billion-worth of “free” services—such as search or directions—a year. But they have two big faults. They are squashing competition, and they are using the darker arts of management to stay ahead. Neither is easy to solve. But failing to do so risks a backlash【6】 which will be bad for everyone.

【5】churn out 大量生產(chǎn)

【6】backlash 強烈反對，反沖

More concentration, less focus

Bulking up【7】 is a global trend. The annual number of mergers and acquisitions is more than twice what it was in the 1990s. But concentration is at its most worrying in America. The share of GDP generated by America’s 100 biggest companies rose from about 33% in 1994 to 46% in 2013. The five largest banks account for 45% of banking assets, up from 25% in 2000. In the home of the entrepreneur, the number of startups is lower than it has been at any time since the 1970s. More firms are dying than being born. Founders dream of selling their firms to one of the giants rather than of building their own titans.

【7】Bulk up 增大

For many laissez-faire【8】 types this is only a temporary problem. Modern technology is lowering barriers to entry; flaccid incumbents will be destroyed by smaller, leaner ones. But the idea that market concentration is self-correcting is more questionable than it once was. Slower growth encourages companies to buy their rivals and squeeze out costs. High-tech companies grow more useful to customers when they attract more users and when they gather ever more data about those users.

【8】laissez-faire自由放任，放任主義；該詞源于法語，17世紀(jì)后期，法國財政部長科爾貝〔Colbert〕詢問一位企業(yè)家：政府可以為企業(yè)做什么，企業(yè)家回答：Laissez nous faire(不要干涉我們；讓我們自己處理)。這個詞即轉(zhuǎn)化成為政府在經(jīng)濟事務(wù)上不干預(yù)，在相關(guān)法律中不加以限制的代名詞。這一理論的過分運用，導(dǎo)致了大規(guī)模無限制的競爭。作為法律用語，該詞強調(diào)與法律限制相對的契約自由，使用和處分財產(chǎn)的自由（參照元照英美法詞典）。

The heft of the superstars also reflects their excellence at less productive activities. About 30% of global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows through tax havens【9】; big companies routinely use “transfer pricing【10】” to pretend that profits generated in one part of the world are in fact made in another. The giants also deploy huge armies of lobbyists, bringing the same techniques to Brussels, where 30,000 lobbyists now walk the corridors, that they perfected in Washington, DC. Laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, to say nothing of【11】 America’s tax code, penalise small firms more than large ones.

【9】tax havens 避稅地

【10】transfer pricing 轉(zhuǎn)讓定價，是指關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)之間在銷售貨物、提供勞務(wù)、轉(zhuǎn)讓無形資產(chǎn)等時制定的價格。在跨國經(jīng)濟活動中，利用關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)之間的轉(zhuǎn)讓定價進行避稅已成為一種常見的稅收逃避方法，其一般做法是：高稅國企業(yè)向其低稅國關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)銷售貨物、提供勞務(wù)、轉(zhuǎn)讓無形資產(chǎn)時制定低價；低稅國企業(yè)向其高稅國關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)銷售貨物、提供勞務(wù)、轉(zhuǎn)讓無形資產(chǎn)時制定高價。這樣，利潤就從高稅國轉(zhuǎn)移到低稅國，從而達到最大限度減輕其稅負的目的。（該釋義來自百度百科）

【11】to say nothing of 更不用說

None of this helps the image of big business. Paying tax seems to be unavoidable for individuals but optional for firms. Rules are unbending for citizens, and up for negotiation when it comes to companies. Nor do profits translate into jobs as once they did. In 1990 the top three carmakers in Detroit had a market capitalisation【12】 of $36 billion and 1.2m employees. In 2014 the top three firms in Silicon Valley, with a market capitalisation of over $1 trillion, had only 137,000 employees.

【12】market capitalisation 市值，市場資本化

Anger at all this is understandable, but an inchoate desire to bash business leaves everyone worse off. Disenchantment【13】 with pro-business policies, particularly liberal immigration rules, helped the “outs” to win the Brexit referendum in Britain and Donald Trump to seize the Republican nomination. Protectionism and nativism【14】 will only lower living standards. Reining in【15】 the giants requires the scalpel, not the soapbox【16】.

【13】disenchantment；disenchanted with sb/sth 不再抱幻想，失望

【14】nativism 本土主義，排外主義

【15】Rein in 嚴(yán)格控制，用韁繩勒馬；rein韁繩

【16】scalpe和soapbox又是頭韻的修辭手法

That means a tough-but-considered approach to issues such as tax avoidance【17】. The OECD countries have already made progress in drawing up common rules to prevent companies from parking money in tax havens, for example. They have more to do, not least【18】 to address the convenient fiction that different units of multinationals are really separate companies. But better the grind of multilateral negotiation than moves such as the European Commission’s recent attempt to impose retrospective taxes on Apple in Ireland.

【17】tax avoidance 避稅（合法）；tax evasion逃稅，偷稅漏稅（非法）

【18】not least 尤其

Concentration is an even harder problem. America in particular has got into the habit of giving the benefit of the doubt to【19】 big business. This made some sense in the 1980s and 1990s when giant companies such as General Motors and IBM were being threatened by foreign rivals or domestic upstarts. It is less defensible now that superstar firms are gaining control of entire markets and finding new ways to entrench themselves.

【19】give the benefit of the doubt to sb / give sb the benefit of the doubt 當(dāng)你不同意或反對對方意見的時候，如果理據(jù)并不充分，則假定對方是正確的或無辜的

Prudent policymakers must reinvent antitrust for the digital age. That means being more alert to the long-term consequences of large firms acquiring promising startups. It means making it easier for consumers to move their data from one company to another, and preventing tech firms from unfairly privileging their own services on platforms they control (an area where the commission, in its pursuit of Google, deserves credit【20】). And it means making sure that people have a choice of ways of authenticating their identity online.

【20】deserve credit 值得贊揚

1917 and all that

The rise of the giants is a reversal of recent history. In the 1980s big companies were on the retreat, as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took a wrecking ball【21】 to state-protected behemoths【22】 such as AT&T and British Leyland. But there are some worrying similarities to a much earlier era. In 1860-1917 the global economy was reshaped by the rise of giant new industries (steel and oil) and revolutionary new technologies (electricity and the combustion engine). These disruptions led to brief bursts of competition followed by prolonged periods of oligopoly【23】. The business titans of that age reinforced their positions by driving their competitors out of business and cultivating close relations with politicians. The backlash that followed helped to destroy the liberal order in much of Europe.

【21】wrecking ball 落錘破碎機，破碎球，這里是指拆分巨型企業(yè)

【22】behemoth 超級公司或機構(gòu)

【23】oligopoly 賣方寡頭壟斷；近義詞monopoly

So, by all means celebrate the astonishing achievements of today’s superstar companies. But also watch them. The world needs a healthy dose of competition to keep today’s giants on their toes【24】 and to give those in their shadow a chance to grow.

【24】keep sb on their toes 使某人保持警覺

【小結(jié)】

Disruption是董事會會議室（boardroom）的流行詞語（buzzword），但當(dāng)今商業(yè)最引人注目的特征不是既定秩序（established order）的破壞，而是處于全球經(jīng)濟核心地位的明星公司的確立（entrenchment）。高科技公司是精英中的精英，在計算機領(lǐng)域（from bits and bytes）建立了企業(yè)帝國（corporate empires）。這些公司大量生產(chǎn)（churn out）能夠改善人類生活的產(chǎn)品，但存在兩個錯誤：壓制競爭；采用隱秘的管理方式保持其領(lǐng)先地位。雖然這兩個問題都難以解決，但如果不這樣做又有反沖（backlash）的風(fēng)險。企業(yè)壯大（bulking up）是全球趨勢，但集中化（concentration）卻是美國最令人擔(dān)憂的問題。垂死掙扎的公司多于新生公司。企業(yè)創(chuàng)建者希望把企業(yè)賣給大公司，而不是創(chuàng)建自己的大型企業(yè)（titan）。對于很多放任自由（laissez-faire）的企業(yè)來說，這只是暫時性的問題。高科技公司吸引更多用戶，收集更多用戶數(shù)據(jù)，從而為客戶提供更完善的服務(wù)。明星企業(yè)還通過避稅天堂（tax haven）、轉(zhuǎn)讓定價（transfer pricing）、游說者（lobbyist）等方式謀取更多利潤。一些法律（更不用說（to say nothing of）美國稅法）對小型公司的懲罰比大型公司更嚴(yán)厲。法規(guī)對普通公民來說是冷漠無情的，但對于公司來說卻可以協(xié)商。市值（market capitalisation）增加卻不能帶來更多工作崗位。人們對利商政策不再抱有幻想（disenchantment）。保護主義（protectionism）和本土主義（nativism）只會降低生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。嚴(yán)格管控（rein in）大型企業(yè)，需要采取強硬措施應(yīng)對避稅（tax avoidance）等問題。為了防止一些公司把錢留在避稅地，經(jīng)合組織國家還需采取行動，尤其（not least）要讓跨國公司的不同分支真正成為分立公司。但征收追溯稅（retrospective tax）等方式不如多方協(xié)商。集中化是更嚴(yán)重的問題。美國已經(jīng)習(xí)慣假定大企業(yè)是無辜的（give the benefit of doubt to big business），但如今明星公司控制整個市場并尋求新方式確立自身地位，這種假定則有失偏頗。決策者需要警惕大企業(yè)收購有前景的小型初創(chuàng)公司而造成的長期后果，防止技術(shù)公司利用自身控制的平臺對自身服務(wù)賦予特權(quán)。歐盟處理此類問題的方式值得贊揚（deserve credit）。撒切爾和里根曾對國企施行大刀闊斧的私有化改革，使巨型企業(yè)（behemoth）進行拆分（took a wrecking ball to state-protected behemoths）。當(dāng)今世界也存在類似的問題。新的大型企業(yè)崛起，新的革命性技術(shù)出現(xiàn)，使得全球經(jīng)濟得以重塑。短暫的競爭之后卻是長期的寡頭壟斷（oligopoly）。當(dāng)今明星公司取得的驚人成就值得慶幸，但還有待觀望。世界需要健康的競爭，以使大型企業(yè)保持警惕，同時小型企業(yè)也能獲得生存機會。

* 注：本文僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流之用，不代表作者觀點。