今天很多人对于福利政策也是不以为然的，但是他们的表述都不会这么难听，不能说这些穷人穷死活该，国家没责任。他们往往会说其实济贫用别的办法更好，比如发展民间公益组织或曰“第三部门”，会比国家救济更有效率。比如说福利可以少一些，自由应该多一些，这样会给他们提供更多的就业机会。比如“授人以鱼不如授人以渔”，给他们搞职业培训，会比救济帮助更大，等等。 只有韩非、桑弘羊们，敢于赤裸裸地讲，穷人不是懒汉就是醉鬼，他们穷死活该，救济他们就是养懒汉。桑弘羊在这个问题上的立场几乎完全重复了韩非的话。他在盐铁会议中就明确讲：你穷，说明什么？说明你懒。为什么要救济你？但是不救济又如何？西方“右派”会说，不给福利，应该给自由，鼓励他们自谋生计。但是法家却说：福利不给，自由更不能给，让他们四处流浪会有碍观瞻，给强国抹黑。所以国家应该强制收容，把他们抓去劳改，强迫劳动服苦役，这就是“愈而贫者举以为收孥”。毛泽东曾大加称赞这种“孥贫怠以绝消耗”的“大政策”

Marx’s vision was a system that would generate prosperity under more humane conditions and without inequality. Lenin and his Communist Party were inspired by Marx, but the practice could not have been more different from the theory.

the ability of those who dominate extractive institutions to benefit greatly at the expense of the rest of society implies that political power under extractive institutions is highly coveted, making many groups and individuals fight to obtain it. As a consequence, there will be powerful forces pushing societies under extractive institutions toward political instability. The synergies between extractive economic and political institutions create a vicious circle, where extractive institutions, once in place, tend to persist. Similarly, there is a virtuous circle associated with inclusive economic and political institutions. But neither the vicious nor the virtuous circle is absolute. In fact, some nations live under inclusive institutions today because, though extractive institutions have been the norm in history, some societies have been able to break the mold and transition toward inclusive institutions.

THERE ARE HUGE DIFFERENCES in living standards around the world. Even the poorest citizens of the United States have incomes and access to health care, education, public services, and economic and social opportunities that are far superior to those available to the vast mass of people living in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Central America.

我们不要以今推古，想当然地认为不搞“右派”的自由放任，就是“左派”的福利国家。桑弘羊和商鞅、韩非一样，自由、福利都不给，他们是反对济贫，而支持惩贫的。桑弘羊是强国主义者，但是这个强国家并不是为人民服务的，而是为皇帝服务的