億萬(wàn)富翁的錢從哪來(lái)，怎么花

Sitting at a table, grinding his pinkie into the corner of his mouth and staring at the screen, Dr. Evil announces he is holding the world ransom for $1 million. Having been cryogenically frozen for 30 years, the comic villain created by the actor Mike Myers is shocked when he is told that $1 million isn’t a lot of money in 1997.

邪惡博士(Dr. Evil)坐在一張桌子旁，一邊盯著屏幕，一邊把小指頭伸向嘴角，宣布他要向這個(gè)世界索要100萬(wàn)美元的贖金。這個(gè)由演員邁克·邁爾斯(Mike Myers)創(chuàng)造的滑稽反派人物在被低溫冷凍了30年之后蘇醒過(guò)來(lái)，當(dāng)被告知100萬(wàn)美元在1997年不算很多錢時(shí)，他感到十分震驚。

Trying to regain his composure, he turns to the screen, voice cracking with uncertainty, and says, “OK then, we hold the world ransom for $100 billion.”

他竭力恢復(fù)鎮(zhèn)定，轉(zhuǎn)向屏幕，聲音有些顫抖，帶著點(diǎn)不確定說(shuō)道，“那好吧，我們向這個(gè)世界索要1000億美元贖金。”

Twenty years after the movie “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery” was released, billions of dollars aren’t what they used to be, either.

影片《王牌大間諜》(Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery)已經(jīng)上映20年，數(shù)十億美元也不像過(guò)去那么值錢了。

Bill Gates alone is just $10 billion shy of Dr. Evil’s ransom demand, according to a soon-to-be-released list of the world’s top 10 billionaires by Wealth-X, a financial research firm. Gates, the Microsoft founder, tops the list at $89.3 billion, followed by his friend Warren Buffett at $73.5 billion.

財(cái)務(wù)研究公司W(wǎng)ealth-X即將發(fā)布的世界十大億萬(wàn)富翁排行榜顯示，僅比爾·蓋茨(Bill Gates)一個(gè)人的財(cái)富，距離邪惡博士的要價(jià)也就只差100億美元而已。這位微軟創(chuàng)始人以893億美元位居該榜單首位，緊隨其后的是他的朋友、擁有735億美元財(cái)富的沃倫·巴菲特(Warren Buffett)。

The top 10 — nine from the United States, one from Spain — have a combined net worth of $582 billion. While their wealth would certainly be enough to save the world from Dr. Evil, what they do with it in real life is the subject of great interest and debate.

前十位億萬(wàn)富翁——九名來(lái)自美國(guó)，一名來(lái)自西班牙——的財(cái)富凈值合計(jì)5820億美元。盡管這些人的財(cái)富肯定夠?qū)⑹澜鐝男皭翰┦康氖种姓瘸鰜?lái)，但他們?cè)诂F(xiàn)實(shí)生活中如何運(yùn)用自己的財(cái)富是一個(gè)備受關(guān)注和有爭(zhēng)議的話題。

That is true now more than ever. Issues around money — like wealth inequality and talk of tax cuts for the rich — are among the hottest topics of the day. And the richest president in history is sitting in the Oval Office, with billionaires sprinkled throughout his Cabinet.

在今天尤其是這樣。有關(guān)金錢的議題——比如貧富懸殊和為富裕階層減稅——都屬于當(dāng)今最熱門的話題。有史以來(lái)最富有的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)正坐在橢圓形辦公室里，他的內(nèi)閣成員也有不少是億萬(wàn)富翁。

To some, today’s billionaires are like Dr. Evil: selfish, rapacious and bent on world domination. To others, billionaires are worthy of respect for having put their names and fortunes behind an array of philanthropic endeavors, many aimed at improving the lives of people at the very base of the wealth pyramid.

對(duì)有些人來(lái)說(shuō)，如今的億萬(wàn)富翁就像邪惡博士一樣：自私、貪婪，一心要主宰這個(gè)世界。而在另一些人看來(lái)，億萬(wàn)富翁值得尊敬，因?yàn)樗麄儗⒆约旱拿趾拓?cái)富投入到一系列慈善事業(yè)中，有許多人致力于改善財(cái)富金字塔最底端人群的生活。

There were 2,473 billionaires in the world, as of Wealth-X’s last count through 2015. That was a 6.4 percent increase in billionaires from the year before.

截止Wealth-X2015年最近一次統(tǒng)計(jì)之時(shí)，世界上有2473名億萬(wàn)富翁，比前一年的數(shù)量增長(zhǎng)了6.4%。

But who these billionaires are and what they’re like is more difficult to discern. Many may seem as ordinary as the guy sitting next to you on the train — or in Michael Bloomberg’s case, standing beside you on the subway, when he was mayor of New York. (Bloomberg is No. 9 on Wealth-X’s list.)

但要分辨這些億萬(wàn)富翁真實(shí)和表面的樣子，更加困難。有許多看起來(lái)就跟火車上坐在你旁邊的家伙一樣普通——或者像布隆伯格(Bloomberg)那樣，在地鐵里站在你旁邊，當(dāng)時(shí)他還是紐約市長(zhǎng)。(布隆伯格在Wealth-X的名單上排名第九。)

There are certainly billionaires who want to save the world, like Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg, who have pledged to give their fortunes away. Others in the top 10 are also philanthropic but are still focusing on their day jobs, like Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Larry Page of Alphabet (the parent of Google) — Nos. 4, 5 and 10.

肯定有蓋茨、巴菲特和布隆伯格這樣想要拯救世界的億萬(wàn)富翁，他們承諾捐贈(zèng)自己的財(cái)富。前十位中的其他億萬(wàn)富翁也參與慈善，不過(guò)他們?nèi)匀粚⒅饕Ψ旁谧约旱娜粘９ぷ魃希热鐏嗰R遜(Amazon)的杰夫·貝佐斯(Jeff Bezos)、Facebook的馬克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)，以及Google母公司字母表公司(Alphabet)的拉里·佩奇(Larry Page)——分別排名第四、第五和第十。

Yet many of the billionaires beyond the top 10 or 20 have a much lower profile. Who outside of finance or hockey knew of Vincent Viola, a former oil trader and current owner of the Florida Panthers, before President Donald Trump nominated him to be secretary of the Army? Now that he has withdrawn, he can return to relative anonymity.

然而，排在前10或前20之外的許多億萬(wàn)富翁要低調(diào)得多。在被唐納德·特朗普總統(tǒng)提名為陸軍部長(zhǎng)之前，金融或冰球界之外有誰(shuí)知道文森特·維奧拉(Vincent Viola)?他之前是一名石油商人，現(xiàn)為佛羅里達(dá)美洲豹隊(duì)(Florida Panthers)的所有人?，F(xiàn)在他已經(jīng)選擇退出了，又可以回歸相對(duì)的默默無(wú)聞。

For that matter, Wilbur L. Ross, Trump’s choice for commerce secretary, is the wealthiest of the president’s billionaire cabinet picks. He would pop up in the headlines every few years for a deal he was making but then return to what could be called the quiet opulence of the billionaire class.

說(shuō)到這一點(diǎn)，被特朗普選中擔(dān)任商務(wù)部長(zhǎng)的威爾伯·L·羅斯(Wilbur L. Ross)是總統(tǒng)內(nèi)閣人選中最富有的億萬(wàn)富翁。每隔幾年，他就會(huì)因?yàn)檎谶M(jìn)行的交易出現(xiàn)在新聞?lì)^條中，但接著便回歸到富豪階層的低調(diào)奢華狀態(tài)。

“We know that things are quite different for a billionaire individual or a billionaire family than they are for even a very wealthy ultra-high-net-worth family,” said Belinda Sneddon, national practice executive in the family office group at U.S. Trust.

“我們知道跟其他人——哪怕是特別富有的超高凈值家庭——相比，億萬(wàn)富翁個(gè)人或家族的情況是非常不一樣的，”美國(guó)信托公司(U.S. Trust)家族辦公室全國(guó)業(yè)務(wù)主管貝琳達(dá)·斯內(nèi)登(Belinda Sneddon)說(shuō)。

“They’re different in how they can invest their assets and what their portfolio may look like,” Sneddon said. “In many ways, they face different risks, both personal risks and cyber risks, than the average individual does. They often think about structuring decisions differently from a succession-planning standpoint as well as the structure they create around themselves and their family.”

“在如何投資自己的資產(chǎn)和選擇什么樣的投資組合上，他們有所不同，”斯內(nèi)登說(shuō)。“從許多方面講，他們面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都與普通人不一樣，不管是就個(gè)人風(fēng)險(xiǎn)還是網(wǎng)絡(luò)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)而言。在考慮結(jié)構(gòu)性決策時(shí)，他們往往想法有別，既要從接班人規(guī)劃的角度看問(wèn)題，也要圍繞自身和家族利益搭建架構(gòu)。”

But billionaires are as different from one another as members of any other economic group. How they amassed their billions, and how that pile is growing, tells a lot about the economy today.

但與其他任何經(jīng)濟(jì)群體一樣，億萬(wàn)富翁彼此之間的差別也很大。從他們?nèi)绾畏e聚數(shù)百億美元財(cái)富，這財(cái)富如何增長(zhǎng)，可以看出當(dāng)下經(jīng)濟(jì)的許多問(wèn)題。

Road to Billions

通往億萬(wàn)財(cái)富的道路

Just as the best teacher in the country is going to earn less money than a mediocre investment banker, the industries in which future billionaires begin their careers determine the magnitude of their wealth and how quickly it is going to grow.

這個(gè)國(guó)家最好的老師也不會(huì)比一名普通的投資銀行家賺得多，未來(lái)億萬(wàn)富翁在什么行業(yè)起步，決定了他們能擁有多大規(guī)模的財(cái)富，以及這財(cái)富能以多快的速度增長(zhǎng)。

Six of the top 10 billionaires made their money in technology. But in Wealth-X’s research, technology ranks sixth overall for the number of billionaires on the list, with 114 around the world.

在排名前十的億萬(wàn)富翁中，有六人是在科技行業(yè)獲得了財(cái)富。但Wealth-X的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在上榜的所有億萬(wàn)富翁中，處在科技行業(yè)的在全世界有114人，是人數(shù)第六多的行業(yè)。

Finance has created the most billionaires, with 377, or 15 percent of the world’s billionaires. It is followed by industrial conglomerates, with 317, or 13 percent.

金融業(yè)產(chǎn)生了最多的億萬(wàn)富翁，有377人，占世界上所有億萬(wàn)富翁的15%。第二多是工業(yè)集團(tuán)，有317人，占13%。

After that, the concentration in particular industries drops. Real estate is third with 141. The group of people who identify their industry as nonprofits (meaning they made their money some other way or inherited it) is fourth, with 122. Manufacturing, in fifth place, has 120.

在此之下，特定行業(yè)的集中度有所下降。房地產(chǎn)業(yè)以141人位居第三。自認(rèn)為處在非營(yíng)利行業(yè)的群體(意味著他們是通過(guò)其他方式獲得財(cái)富，或者是繼承)排在第四位，有122人。制造業(yè)排第五，有120人。

“Globalization has been a big trend,” said Benjamin Kinnard, a research analyst at Wealth-X. “The market is now 7 billion people, not just the size of your domestic country.”

“全球化一直是個(gè)大趨勢(shì)，”Wealth-X的研究分析師本杰明·金納德(Benjamin Kinnard)說(shuō)。“這個(gè)市場(chǎng)現(xiàn)在有70億人，不只是你所在國(guó)家的規(guī)模。”

He added that finance had a bigger lead in first place several years ago, but it has been losing ground as industries like technology boom.

他還表示，前幾年金融的領(lǐng)先優(yōu)勢(shì)更大，但隨著科技等行業(yè)繁榮起來(lái)，這種優(yōu)勢(shì)便逐漸減弱。

And while billionaires in the United States are often better known than those elsewhere, there are more billionaires in Europe (although they have less total wealth than their U.S. counterparts).

盡管相比其他地方，美國(guó)的億萬(wàn)富翁往往更為人所知，但歐洲的億萬(wàn)富翁總數(shù)更多(不過(guò)他們的財(cái)富總額少于美國(guó)的億萬(wàn)富翁)。

Asia is gaining ground quickly. Research from UBS calculated that a new billionaire is created every three days in Asia, with 65 percent of the region’s billionaires in China.

亞洲在快速趕上。據(jù)瑞銀(UBS)估算，亞洲每三天就誕生一名新的億萬(wàn)富翁，而該地區(qū)65%的億萬(wàn)富翁集中在中國(guó)。

While the number of billionaires in China is rising at a fast clip, the pace of growth in billionaires worldwide is slowing. Wealth-X said the number will be 3,250 by 2020, down 16 percent from an earlier prediction of 3,873. This is because economic growth is expected to slow around the world.

盡管中國(guó)億萬(wàn)富翁的數(shù)量在快速增長(zhǎng)，但全球億萬(wàn)富翁的增長(zhǎng)速度卻在減慢。Wealth-X表示，至2020年，全球億萬(wàn)富翁數(shù)量將達(dá)到3250人，比早年預(yù)計(jì)的3873人少16%。這是因?yàn)槿蚪?jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)預(yù)計(jì)將放緩。

And not all billionaires are household names.

上榜的億萬(wàn)富翁并非全都家喻戶曉。

Ma Jianrong, executive chairman of Shenzhou International Group Holdings, which is the leading textile company in China and manufactures clothing for Nike, Adidas, Puma and Uniqlo, is worth $4.3 billion.

身家43億美元的申洲國(guó)際集團(tuán)控股有限公司執(zhí)行董事長(zhǎng)馬建榮就不太為人所知。他的公司是中國(guó)領(lǐng)先的紡織企業(yè)，為耐克(Nike)、阿迪達(dá)斯(Adidas)、彪馬(Puma)和優(yōu)衣庫(kù)(Uniqlo)加工服裝。

Kevin Systrom, chief executive of Instagram, is surely well known in Silicon Valley — and among students at Stanford University (his alma mater) who want to emulate his route to a net worth of $1.2 billion by age 33. But he is not as recognizable as Zuckerberg of Facebook.

Instagram首席執(zhí)行官凱文·斯特羅姆(Kevin Systrom)在硅谷肯定是大名鼎鼎——那些想要像他一樣在33歲獲得12億美元資本凈值的斯坦福大學(xué)(他的母校)校友也都知道他。但他不像Facebook的扎克伯格那樣廣為人知。

What is expected of people who have more money than they could spend in several lifetimes? It depends on whom you ask.

對(duì)于錢多得幾輩子也花不完的人，我們?cè)撈诖┦裁?答案取決于你問(wèn)的是誰(shuí)。

A recent report from Oxfam International, the antipoverty charity, argued that eight billionaires had as much wealth as half of the world’s population — or 3.6 billion people — and that that was a travesty.

反貧困慈善組織樂(lè)施會(huì)國(guó)際聯(lián)會(huì)(Oxfam International)最近發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告稱，八名億萬(wàn)富翁擁有的財(cái)富與全世界一半人口——或說(shuō)36億人——的財(cái)富相當(dāng)，這是一個(gè)莫大的諷刺。

“It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when one in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day,” Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam, said in a statement. “Inequality is trapping hundreds of millions in poverty. It is fracturing our societies and undermining democracy.”

“每10個(gè)人里就有1個(gè)人仍以平均每天不足2美元的錢過(guò)活，在這樣的情況下，有如此多的財(cái)富掌握在如此少的人手中，讓人難以接受，”樂(lè)施會(huì)執(zhí)行總干事溫妮·比揚(yáng)依瑪(Winnie Byanyima)在一份聲明中表示。“不平等正在令數(shù)億人陷入貧困。它在撕裂我們的社會(huì)，在破壞民主。”

Philanthropy has become important to many billionaires, and not just through the Giving Pledge, Buffett’s compact to get the wealthiest to give away at least half of their fortunes. Nor is it confined to the United States, with its tradition of charitable giving.

對(duì)許多億萬(wàn)富翁而言，慈善正變得重要起來(lái)。出現(xiàn)這種趨勢(shì)，不只是因?yàn)榘头铺刈屪罡辉Ｈ巳壕栀?zèng)至少一半財(cái)富的協(xié)議“贈(zèng)予誓言”(Giving Pledge)的影響，也不局限于有慈善捐贈(zèng)傳統(tǒng)的美國(guó)。

But there are limits to what even a billionaire can do. Bloomberg, in an interview in 2014, recalled the time he was approached at a conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, by a hedge fund manager offering him $1 billion over five years to change public education in New York.

但一個(gè)人的能力是有限的，哪怕他是個(gè)億萬(wàn)富翁。布隆伯格曾在2014年接受采訪時(shí)回憶，在愛(ài)達(dá)荷州太陽(yáng)谷舉辦的一個(gè)會(huì)議上，有一名對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理走到他面前，表示想在五年里提供10億美元資金，用于改善紐約的公共教育。

“When I explained to him that New York City’s annual school budget was $22 billion a year,” Bloomberg said, “that was the last time we ever heard from him.”

“當(dāng)我向他解釋紐約每年的學(xué)校預(yù)算是220億美元時(shí)，”布隆伯格說(shuō)，“他再也沒(méi)跟我們聯(lián)系過(guò)。”