为了表示尊敬，我一句话一句话从视频上抄下来。
演讲全文如下：
让我们从一个简单的问题开始：
I'd like to start with a simple question:
为什么穷人总是做出不好的决策？
Why do the poor people make so many poor decisions?
我知道这是一个残酷的问题，
I know it's a harsh question,
但是让我们先看看数据。
but take a look at the data.
穷人借钱越多，积蓄越少，抽烟越多，锻炼越少，喝酒越多，饮食越不健康。
The poor borrow more,save less,smoke more,exercise less,drink more,and eat less healthfully.
为什么呢？
Why？
标准的解释是英国首相撒切尔夫人总结的。
Well,the standard explanation was once summed up by the British Prime Minister,Margaret Thatcher.
她将贫穷称为‘一种人格缺陷’。
And she called poverty 'a personality defect.'
简而言之，就是缺少一种品格。
A lack of character,basically.
我知道你们没多少人会这么直接。
Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt.
但是，不止撒切尔夫人一个人持有把贫穷归于穷人自己这种观点。
But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor people themselves is not restricted to Mrs.Thatcher.
一些人会认为穷人应该为他们自己的错误买单。
Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible for their own mistakes.
另一些人会反驳，我们应该帮助他们去做正确的决定。
And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions.
但是潜在的假设是相同的:穷人一定有问题。
But the underlying assumption is the same:there's something wrong with them.
如果我们能改变他们，如果我们能教他们去正确地生活，如果他们能听从我们的劝告。
If we could just change them, if we could just teach them how to live their lives,if they would only listen.
坦诚地说，长期以来，我也是这么认为的。
And to be honest, this was what I thought for a long time.
然而，就在几年前，我才发现我对于贫苦的看法是错误的。
It was ongly a few years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.
一切源于一次偶然的机会，我发现一篇由几位美国心理学家发表的文章。
It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper by a few American psychologists.
他们前往印度，跋涉8000英里，去进行一项有趣的研究。
They had traveled 8000 miles,all the way to India for a fascinating study.
这是一个针对甘蔗种植者的实验。
And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers.
你们应该知道，农民60%的年收入都来自于丰收之后。
You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent of their annual income all at once, right after the harvest.
这意味着他么每年有一段时间相对贫穷而另一段时间相对富裕。
This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year and rich the other.
研究人员分别在丰收前和丰收后对农民们进行智商测试。
The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest.
他么随后的发现令我震惊。
What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind.
测试表明，农民们在丰收前的智商较低。
The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest.
在贫困中生活的结果就是---智商降低14点。
The effects of living in poverty, it turns out,correspond to losing 14 points of IQ.
现在，再讲一个能让你们彻底失眠的观点，甚至喝醉也不行。
Now, to give you an idea,that's comparable to losing a night's sleep or the effects of alcoholism.
几个月后，我听说普林斯顿大学的教授该研究的作者之一Eldar Shafir将要来到我所在的荷兰。
A few months later,I heared that Eldar Shafir a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study,was coming over to Holland,where I live.
于是我们在阿姆斯特丹见面，谈到了他那革命性的贫困新理论。
So we met up in Amsterdam，to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty.
我将这个理论总结为几个字：匮乏心态
And I can sum it up in just two words:scarcity mentality.
当人们觉察到缺乏某种东西时他们的行为就会发生变化。
It turns out that people behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce.
无论这个‘东西’是什么-----缺时间、缺钱或缺食物。
And what that thing is doesn't much matter.---whether it's not enough time,money or food.
你们都知道这种感觉，当你有太多事情要做时，或者不吃早餐时，你的血糖骤降。
You all know this feeling,when you've got too much to do,or when you've put off breaking for lunch and your blood sugar takes a dive.
你满脑子都是你所缺乏的东西---你现在缺食物,你现在缺时间,或是缺钱。
This narrows your focus to your immediate lack--to the sandwich you've got to have now，the meeting that's starting in five minutes，or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow.
这就导致你无法从长远的角度去思考。
So the long-term perspective goes out the window.
就像一台新电脑一次打开运行太多庞杂的程序。它会越来越慢，出现错误。最终死机。不是因为它是一台坏电脑，而是因为它需要一次性处理太多程序。
You could compare it to a new computer that's running 10 heavy programs at once.It gets slower and slower,making errors. Enventually, it freezes，not because it's a bad computer,but because it has too much to do at once.
穷人面临着同样的问题。
The poor people have the same problem.
他们做出不好的决定，不是因为他们是蠢人，而是因为他们生活在一个任何人都会做出愚蠢的决定的环境中。
They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb,but because they're living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions.
瞬间我明白了为什么这么多扶贫计划都不管用。
So suddenly I understood why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work.
比如在教育上加大投资，往往一点用都没有。
Investments in education,for example,are often completely ineffective.
贫穷不是因为知识匮乏。
Poverty is not a lack of knowledge.
最近，一项针对201起金钱管理训练的有效性分析表明这种训练无效。
A recent analysis of 201 studies on the effectiveness of money-management training came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all.
请不要误解了我的意思---我不是说穷人不学无术--他们当然可以变得更加聪明。
Now, don't get me wrong--this is not to say the poor don't learn anything--they can come out wiser for sure.
但是这不够。
But it's not enough.
或者说，就像Shafir教授所说，'就像是刚开始教一个人游泳却立马把他们扔进波涛汹涌的大海。’
Or as Professor Shafir told me,'It's like teaching someone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea.'
我仍然记得，我坐在那,困惑不解。
I still remember sitting there,perplexed.
教授的话给我带来了巨大的冲击---我们本应该在几十年前就想明白。
And it struck me ---that we could have figured this all out decades ago.
我的意思是说，这些心理学家不需要任何复杂的大脑扫描;他们只需要测一下农民们的智商，而智商测试在100多年前就被发明出来了。
I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans;they only had to measure the farmer's IQ,and IQ test were invented more than 100 years ago.
事实上，我意识到我以前读过关于贫穷心理学的书籍。
Actually,I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before.
世界上最著名的作家之一，George Orwell（《动物庄园》作者）在1920年代曾亲身经历过贫穷。
George Orwell one of the greatest writers who ever lived experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s.
他在书中写到：‘贫穷的本质，是摧毁未来。’
‘The essence of poverty,’he wrote back then,is that it 'annihilates the future.'
他感叹道：'人们理所当然地认为当你的收入在贫困线以下时他们有权教导你并为你祈祷。‘’
And he marveled at, quote,'How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your incomes fails below a certain level.'
如今，这些话仍然能够引起共鸣。
Now，those words are every bit as resonant today.
当然，最大的问题是：我们能做些什么？
The big question is,of course:What can be done?
现代经济学家已经想出一些解决办法。
Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves.
我们可以帮助穷人做一些文书工作或者给他们发消息提醒他么支付账单。
We could help the poor with their paperwork or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills.
这种类型的解决办法颇受政客欢迎,主要因为，这几乎没有成本。
This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politiciants，mostly because, well they cost next to nothing.
我认为，这种解决办法是这个时代的一个标志---我们往往只关注表象,却忽略深层原因。
These solutions are,I think, a symbol of this era in which we so often treat the symptoms,but ignore the underlying cause.
我不禁要问：我们为什么不去改变穷人的生活环境？
So I wonder：Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live?
让我们回到前面提到的电脑类比：与其一直纠结于一点点改进软件，为什么我们不简单得直接增加一些额外的内存呢？
Or,going back to our computer analogy:Why keep tinkering around with the software when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead?
这时，Shafir 教授露出一副茫然的表情。几秒钟后，他说：‘奥，我知道了。’
At that point,Professor Shafir responded with a blank look.And after a few seconds,he said,‘Oh,I get it.’
你的意思是想给穷人发钱以根除贫困。
You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor to eradicate poverty.
哦，当然，这是个好主意。
Uh,sure, that'd be great.
但是，恐怕你在阿姆斯特丹提出的这种左翼政策的想法---在美国不存在。‘’
But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics you've got in Amsterdam---it doesn't exist in the States.'
但这真是一个过时的做左派想法吗？
But is this really an old-fashioned,leftist idea?
我记得我看到过一个以前的计划---由一些历史上重要的思想家提出。
I remembered reading about an old plan--something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers.
500 年前哲学家 托马斯.莫尔在他的著作《乌托邦》最先提及这个计划。
The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book,<Utopia>,more than 500years ago.
它的支持者遍布左翼和右翼，包括*权人**运动领袖马丁路德.金，经济学家米尔顿.弗里德曼。
And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right,from the civil rights campaigner,Martin Luther King,to the economist Milton Friedman.
这个计划简单得不可置信:保障基本收入。
And it's an incredibly simple idea:basic income guarantee.
什么意思呢？很简单
What it is ? Well that's easy.
就是每月的补助金，保障基本开支：食物，住宿，教育。
It's a monthly grant,enough to pay for your basic needs:food,shelter,education.
这是无条件给予的,没有人会告诉你如何得到它,也没有人会告诉你如何去使用它。
It's completely unconditional,so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it,and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it.
这种基本收入不是一种恩惠，而是一种权利。
The basic income , is not a favor, but a right.
这绝对不是什么见不得人的事。
There's absolutely no stigma attached.
正如我对贫穷本质的理解一样。
So as I learned about the true nature of poverty.
我止不住在想：这是我们一直都在期待的想法吗？
I couldn't stop wondering:Is this the idea we've all been waiting for?
它真的就这么简单吗？
Could it really be that simple?
随后的三年中，我阅读了一切我能找到的关于基本收入的书籍。
And in the three years that followed,I read everything I could find about basic income.
我研究了几十个遍布全球进行的实验，很快发现一个镇子的故事--真正根除了贫困。
I researched the dozens of experiments that have been conducted all over the globe, and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town that had done it --had actually eradicated poverty.
然而...几乎没人记得。
But then.....nearly everyone forgot about it.
这个故事开始于加拿大Dauphin。
This story starts in Daupin,Canada.
1974年，这个镇子上的每个人都得到了基本收入保障金，没有人掉到贫困线以下。
In 1974,everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income,ensuring that on one fell beloe the poverty line.
在实验的开始，一队研究学者空降在镇子上。
At the start of the experiment,an army of researchers descended on the town.
在随后的四年，一切进展很顺利。
For four years, all went well.
然而，新政府掌权，加拿大新内阁认为这项昂贵的实验没有任何意义。
But then a new government was voted into power,and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment.
所以，很明显，没有足够的资金去支撑结果分析工作，学者们将这些文件打包装进2000个祥子里并带走。
So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results,the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2000 boxes.
25年过去了，一位加拿大教授 Evelyn Forget发现了这些记录。
Twenty-five years went by,and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor found the records.
三年间，她利用各种方法对这些数据进行统计分析，不管何种方法，每次的结果都是一样的：
这是一个彻底成功的实验。
For three years, she subjectedthe data to all manner of statistical analysis,and no matter what she tried,the results were the same every time:the experiment had been an resounding success.
Evelyn Forget 发现,在Dauphin，人们不仅变得更加富有，还变得更加聪明且健康。
Evelyn Forget discovered that the people in Dauph had not only become richer ,but also smarter and healther.
孩子们在学校的表现有了大幅度进步。
The school performance of kids improved substantially.
就医率下降了8.5%。
The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent.
家庭*力暴**事件减少了，精神健康问题也减少了。
Domestic violence incidents were down,as were mental health complaints.
而且人们都去工作。
And people didn't quit their jobs.
只有新晋母亲和学生们工作得少了些--学生们在学校的时间增加。
The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students--who stayed in school longer.
从美国到印度，全球范围内，不及其数的其他实验也得到相似的结论。
Similar results have since been found in countless other experimens around the globe,from the US to India.
所以...我得到了如下结论。
So.... here's what I've learned.
当贫困出现时，我们这些富有的人，应该停止假装我们最了解穷人。
When it comes to poverty,we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best.
我们应该停止给穷人们，我们没见过的人们送去鞋子和泰迪熊。
We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor,to people we have never met.
我们应该根除大张旗鼓式的专断官僚主义。
And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats.
我们可以给那些应该收到帮助的穷人们发工资。
When we could simply hand over their salaries to the poor ,they're supposed to help.
因为，我认为，钱应该花在穷人们需要的地方,而不是专家们认为他们需要的地方。
Because, I mean, the great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need.
想象一下有多少杰出的科学家、企业家和作家，例如George Orwell，因为缺钱而陨落。
Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers,like George Orwell，are now withering away in scarcity.
想象一下，如果我们能一次性让所有人彻底摆脱贫困，有多少能量和天赋能被释放。
Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all.
我认为，保障基本收入是对人们的一项风险投资。
I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people.
而且，我们不得不这么做，因为贫穷的代价太昂贵了。
And 为can't afford not to do it,because poverty is hugely expensive.
比如，让我们看看在美国用于儿童贫困的支出。
Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example.
每年估计有5000亿美金,用于解决越来越高的卫生保健开支，越来越高的辍学率，及越来越多的犯罪。
It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year in terms of higher care spending,higher dropout rates,and more crime.
现在看来，这是对人类潜能的一种不可置信的浪费。
Now,this is an incredible waste of human potential.
让我们讨论一下最关键的问题。
But let's talk about the elephant in the room.
我们能否承担得起基本收入保障？
How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee?
其实这比你们想象的要便宜得多。
Well，it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think.
在Dauphin，政府给予人民最低补贴。
What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax.
这意味着只要你掉到贫困线以下你的收入就会提高。
This means that your income is topped up as soon as you fall below the poverty line.
在这种情形下，据我们经济学家最乐观的估计，净支出1750亿美金---美国军费支出的四分之一，全国GDP的百分之一---你就可以将美国所有的贫困人口拉至贫困线以上。
And in that scenario,according to our economists' best estimates,for a net cost of 175 billion--a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP --you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line.
你就可以实实在在地彻底地驱除贫困。
You could actually eradicate poverty.
现在看来，这应该是我们的共同目标。
Now, that should be our goal.
前面所讲都是一些琐碎的想法。
The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past.
现在到了最根本的新想法的时间，保障基本收入不仅仅是一个新政策。
I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas and basic income is so much more than just another policy.
它还是关于‘工作’本质的全面再思考。
It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is.
就其意义而言，它不仅解放穷人，还将解放我们其余的人。
And in that sense, it will not only free the poor, but also the rest of us.
现如今，成千上万的人认为他们的工作没有意义或者不重要。
Now days, millions of people feel that their jobs have little meaning or significance.
最近的一个针对142个国家共230000员工的问卷调查发现只有13%的员工真正热爱他们的工作。
A recent poll among 230000 employees in 142 countries found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job.
另一项调查发现英国37%的员工认为他们的工作根本没有存在的价值。
And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist.
就像Brad Pitt 在《搏击俱乐部》所说，'我们总在做着我们憎恨的工作，买着不需要的东西。‘’
It's like Brad Pitt says in 'Fight Club','Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.'
现在，请不要误解我---我在这里不是说老师、清洁工及护工。
Now,don't get me wrong--I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen and the care workers here.
如果他们停止工作，麻烦就大了。
If they stopped working, we would in trouble.
我是说那些所有的有着出色履历、拿着高薪水的专家们，他们在网络社会中通过战略性点对点交易会议并努力想出获得破坏性的附加价值，来赚钱。或者类似的情况。
I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excelent resumes who earn their money doing strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation in the network society.Or something like that.
让我们想象一下我们浪费了多少天分，仅仅因为我们告诉孩子们，不得不为了生存而工作。
Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting,simply because we tell our kids they'll have to 'earn a living.'
或者，看看几年前在脸书工作的一个数学天才所抱怨的:'我这代最优秀的大脑是考虑如何让人们点击更多的广告。‘’
Or think of what a math whiz working at facebook lamented a few years ago:‘The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads’
我是个历史学家。如果历史教给我们一点东西，那就是事情可以不一样。
I'm a historian.And if history teaches us anything,it is that things could be different.
我们建立起我们的社会和经济不是只有一种方式。
There is nothing inevitable about the way we structured our society and economy fight now.
思想可以并且正在改变世界。我认为，特别是过去几年.
Ideas and do change the world.And I think that especially in the past few years.
我们不能安于现状，这变得很明确了，我们需要更新的想法。
It has become abundantly clear that we cannot stick to the status quo--that we need new ideas.
我知道你们中的许多人感到悲观，对未来加剧的不平等、仇外、及气候变化。
I know that many of you may feel pessimistic about a future rising inequality，xenophobia and climate change.
但是，光知道我们反对什么是不够的。
But it's not enough to know what we're against.
我们需要做些什么。
We also need to be for something.
马丁路德.金 没有说，‘我有个噩梦。’
Martin Luther King didn't say,'I have a nightmare.'
他有一个梦想。
He had a dream.
所以。。。这就是我的梦想:我相信在未来，你工作的价值，不由你赚的钱决定，而是由你传播的快乐和你创造的意义决定。
So....here 's my dream:I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give.
我相信在未来，教育的目的不在于为一个无意义的工作做好准备，而在于为有意义的一生做好准备。
I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job but for a life well-lived.
我相信在未来，脱离贫困不是一项特权，而是我们应得的一项权利。
I believe in a future where an existence without poverty is not a privilege，but a right we all deserve.
我们。我们进行研究，得到证据，我们创造意义。
So here we are. We've got the research,we've got the evidence and we've got the means.
距托马斯.莫尔描述基础收入500年之后，以及乔治.奥威尔发现贫穷的实质100年之后，我们需要改变我们的世界观，因为贫穷不是人格缺陷。
Now,more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income, and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty,we all need to change our worldview, because poverty is not a lack of character.
贫穷就是缺少金钱。
Poverty is a lack of cash.
谢谢
Thank you.