推特网调：自由主义玩不下去了，然后呢？ [美国媒体]

《经济学人》推特网调：
越来越多的人认为自由主义已经无法解决一般民众的问题了。那么，应该做下面哪一个才最能改善这一问题呢？
1.强化自由贸易
2.增强区域力量
3.检讨国家福利
4.增进国际关系

Andy Fox
@andyandyfox
13h
The question was what do we replace capitalism with? It works well in democratic & some not so democratic countries already..

问题是我们要不要把资本主义换掉？这种制度在很多民主国家和不那么民主的国家都运行良好

Jan Trnka
@jantrnka78
13h
Well, it works well for a few, it works very crappy for many and for the planet itself. What to replace it with? Let’s call it e.g. democratic ecosocialism.

好吧，对少数人来说资本主义运行良好，但是对大部分人和整个地球来说它都是糟糕的。用什么来替换它呢？让我们把这个替换它的制度叫做民主生态社会主义。



cwwood
@CarolWWood
10h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Universal basic income esp as production becomes automated.

随着生产日益自动化，全球的基本收入都会下降。

Thomas Goodfellow
@tga_tgoodfellow
·
7h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Cancel subscription to Economist.

从现在起，我不再订阅《经济学人》了。

Alain
@alainmarques
11h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
"Liberalism is increasingly seen as unable to solve the problems of ordinary people." I am not understand. Where did this statement come from?

“越来越多的人认为自由主义已经无法解决一般民众的问题了。”我看不懂。你这结论从哪里来的？

Cindy Cheng
@CindyCh84840948
11h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Manipulative choices

你们提供的这些选项可真是一波操作啊...



Matthew_Bailey
@Matthew_Bailey
1h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Restore legitimate Democracy should be include.

加上一个选项，恢复法治民主。

Because this is a sham poll.

因为我们的国家已经成了骗子窝。

Athumani Sungamoyo
@ASungamoyo
4h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Welfare is every thing

福利政策才是关键。

Galina Artemova
@Stervotochinka
7h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
None of the above

以上选项都没用。

Ruyliev
@zetetic2017
9h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
And conservatism of course solves every problem.

当然，保守主义能解决所有问题。（反话）

Dominic Godfrey
@28WordAverage
9h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Increasingly by who? This is unqualified conjecture?

越来越多的谁？你们这是胡乱猜想？

us news live
@QianruCheng
10h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Woman’s bathroom selfie sends social media into meltdown..can you spot Why?
The following media includes potentially sensitive content. Change settings

女人们的浴室自拍照让社交媒体彻底垮台了...你知道问什么吗？
如下的媒体包含了潜在敏感信息。改变过滤设置就好了。

J. R. Jaimes
@J_R_Jaimes
10h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
another option, which is rethink money scheme:

还有一个选项，就是重新检讨财富分配:

(link:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3246644) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
prosperity
@sunboy64037120
13h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Reinforce free trade & re-think the welfare state

我选强化自由贸易和检讨国家福利

Diana
@dianajayne_
14h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
electoral college amendment

得改选举团修正案



Et nihil infernae terruit
@Kalei53scop3
8h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Better solution would be to throw liberalism away in it's odious entirety.. Shrug

最好的办法就是把令人厌恶的自由主义整个抛开...耸肩

wealthissimple
@wealthissimple
9h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Socialism is the problem of ordinary people. It put's a life long, low, oppressive glass ceiling on everyone.

社会主义才是普通人的问题呢。它使得整个社会存在一个究其一生无法改变的，压迫式的天花板，把每个人都压到社会底层。

#OpenFuture
Jim Engler
@EnglerJim
11h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Apparently you haven't been observing the condition of the world lately. Hundreds of Millions of people being lifted out of poverty in India and China withbCapitalism. Africa and Socialist areas not doing as well. Count your blessings, not your political economy.

很显然，你们已经很久没有仔细观察当前世界的状况了。印度和中国数亿的人口通过资本主义摆脱了贫困。非洲和一些社会主义国家却表现得不好。看来你们的政治经济学学得不靠谱，只能靠祈祷了吧。

z7greens
@z7greens
11h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Liberalism is the problem.

自由主义本身就是问题。

Curiouser & curioser SD
@alfredosamosa
11h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Whats gone is gone !

该走的都要走的。

bittertruth
@gauravlavania
11h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Liberalism should go back to its roots. The deepest one being genuine free speech.

我们应该回到自由主义的本源。它的根本就是真正的言论自由。

Lucas Taylor
@lucastaylor4U
12h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
#TaxIsTheft

收税就是（对人民）实施盗窃

Ali mohamed
@Alimohamed10010
9m
Replying to
@TheEconomist
i think the islamic economy

我觉得应该采取伊斯兰教经济学



Abdisitar
@strulyo1
·
13h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Manchester City break ￡500m revenue barrier in Premier League-winning season
sitarsports.wordpress.com

曼彻斯特市在英超联赛期间突破5亿英镑财政收入魔障。

Dayne Hutchinson
@DayneHutchinso2
13h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
People can work out their own problems. Blanket solutions do no help different people with different problems

人们可以解决自己的问题。一篮子政策无法解决不同人不同的问题。

Olaf J. Ogland
@platoinCT
14h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Neither liberalism, nor any system of governance, is to be thought of as "solving the problems" of people: if government tries foolishly to do so it falls prey to cynics and dangerous malcontents. Governance to be credible must 1) show awareness and 2) keep a fair and open field

不论是自由主义，还是其他统治体系，都不是“用来解决”人民的问题的。如果政府愚蠢的想要解决这一点，它就会落入愤世嫉俗的呆子和对社会不满的危险分子手里。政府管理要做到稳固就必须 1 )知晓社会呼声并做出反应 2）确保公平及开放

Secret t
@Secret____t
14h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
"To know and to act are one and the same." - Takuan

“了解和做出行动是同样的一件事 - 泽庵宗彭 （日本禅师）

Secret t
@Secret____t
14h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
the USA/UK/EU must simply exercise its inherent remedial powers (e.g., via Police Power of the Tenth Amendment) to "make itself whole" and COIN STIMULUS to offset the aggregate amount of ALL SUCH LOSSES in one fell swoop.

美国/英国/欧盟必须采取内部补救措施（比如，利用第十修正案的警察力量），来“保证国家完整性”并采用财政措施一下子来弥补这些措施造成的损失。 （指用强权政治解决问题）

Poof.

哇。

Problems solved.

问题决绝了。

Secret t
@Secret____t
14h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
How's this.

这个方案怎么样？



J. Clarence
@OhMyClarence
13h
If I asked you how much would you rather be in the top 1% in the 1920s as oppose to 2018, it would be fairly close; but, if I asked you would rather be in the bottom 5% between the same period it wouldn't be close, because the quality of life of the bottom has increased so much

如果我问你，你想身在1920年左右的社会前1%还是2018年的社会前1%，选择两者的的人数可能相近，但是如果我问你你想身为1920年左右的社会后5%还是2018年的社会后5%，
选择两者的人数将会是天壤之别，那是因为现在社会底层的生活质量比以前进步太多了。

Howard Wemple
@HowardWemple
4h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
None of the above. The are no "liberals" left. They have all degenerated into Left Wing Fascists, enemies of free speech and thought.

以上皆非。早就没有什么”自由主义者“了。他们早就蜕变为左翼法西斯主义，成为自由言论和思想的敌人。

Katy Oldenburg
@KatyOldenburg
8h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
The dependent welfare state doesn't work-it is demeaning-it removes individual initiative and competition which creates better products at cheaper prices-the welfare state means you are controlled in a socialist-Fascist police state

依赖国家的福利并且不工作，它消除了个人工作的主动性，也消除了以更低价格贩卖更好产品的市场竞争，福利国家意味着你被一个社会主义-法西斯主义的警察国家控制了。

Adam Glick
@hayimbendavid
13h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Get rid of the welfare state!

彻底抛弃国家福利！

DFW Dissident Right
@DFWAltRight
·
14h
Replying to
@TheEconomist
Ending globalism would be great... stopping the Empire, Immigration, and ‘Free Trade’.

结束全球化就太好了....终结帝国（中国？），外来移民和所谓的”自由贸易“



Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

为什么自由主义的加利福尼亚州成为了美国贫穷之都呢？