The American consumer’s impotent rage
美国的消费者之怒
广州英语翻译公司：卢斯：美国多数服务业由几个巨头主导。消费者感觉到，大型服务提供商更在乎监管机构，而不是不满的客户。
Ask any American if they have lost their temper recently and there is a good chance it was on the phone to one of their service providers. Whether they were venting their spleen at a cable service company, a cell-phone operator, an airline or a health insurer hardly matters. What unites them is the impotent rage that comes from knowing how little you can do to punish the company in question.
随便问一名美国人最近发过脾气没有，答案很可能是他们在打电话给自己的某个服务供应商时发了脾气。他们是向什么公司发脾气几乎是无关紧要的——无论是有线电视服务公司、手机运营商、航空公司，还是医疗保险公司。他们共同的感受是一种无能为力的愤怒，这种愤怒源自他们知道，自己没什么可以惩罚当事企业的手段。广州英语翻译公司。
There was a time when the US consumer was still king. In most service markets, however, those days are over. If you are looking for a key to the American voter’s rage, keep in mind that the consumer is the same person. Most consumers — a steadily rising share according to surveys — are prone to moments of Trumpian rage nowadays. Lashing out usually makes things worse. But that is what people who feel powerless are liable to do.
曾有一度，美国消费者的地位还是至高无上的。然而，在多数服务业市场，那样的日子已经结束了。如果你在寻找美国选民愤怒的关键，你要记住同样一个人也是消费者。如今，多数消费者有爆发特朗普式愤怒的倾向，调查结果显示这样的消费者的人数正在稳步增长。大发脾气通常会令事情更糟糕。不过，这是感觉无力的人往往会做的。
Many people’s instinct is to blame free markets for their sense of consumer impotence. In fact, the problem stems from lack of competition. Much like in politics, where congressional boundaries are rigged in favour of incumbents, most large US service sectors are dominated by a shrinking handful of players.
许多人的本能是将他们作为消费者的无力感归咎于自由市场。事实上，这个问题源自缺乏竞争。多数美国大型服务业都由越来越少的几个市场参与者主导着，这一点与政坛十分类似——在政治上，国会的行事界线被操纵着偏向有利于现任者的一边。
Sectors where the top four companies have markedly increased their market share in the past decade — and thus their scope to treat consumers with impunity — include telecoms, information technology, transport, retail services and banking, according to a survey by The Economist. If you are still wondering why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump did so well — taking more than 40 per cent of the two parties’ primary votes between them — both talked of how US politics is rigged. It is no accident that most Americans think the same about their economy.
根据《经济学人》(The Economist)开展的一项调查，在包括电信、信息技术、交通运输、零售服务和银行业在内的一些行业中，最大的四家企业在过去十年里市场份额已显著扩大，从而也能够更加随心所欲地对待消费者、而不用担心遭到惩罚。如果你仍然奇怪为何伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)和唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的选情如此之好——两人在初选中获得的选票加起来占到总票数的40%以上，那是因为两人都谈到了美国政治是如何被操纵的。多数美国人对美国经济持有同样的看法，这并非巧合。广州英语翻译公司。
They have sound reasons to do so. The last people to grasp that things have gone wrong are the wealthy, the well-connected and the cognitive elites, which includes half the denizens of Washington. The wealthy’s share of the economy has risen sharply since the start of the century. The share of corporate profits in the economy has also soared.
他们有充分的理由这么认为。最晚察觉到事情不对劲的，就是那些富人、人脉深厚的人以及认知精英。这些人占了华盛顿住户的一半。自本世纪初以来，富人所持资产在美国经济中所占的份额已急剧上升。公司利润在经济中所占的份额也已激增。
If you are rich you can afford what used to be normal for everyone — the privilege of interacting with human beings. Thus, high net worth individuals receive personalised banking, where your bank manager knows your name and needs. The wealthy also benefit from so-called concierge health services, which come with a human face. Many oligopolistic service providers keep clandestine lists of VIP customers who need not wade through robotic software before reaching a customer service agent. When they pick up the phone, a human answers.
如果你很富有，你就可以负担得起过去对每个人都很寻常的东西——与真人（而非机器）打交道的荣幸。因此，高净值人士享受到个人化的银行服务——银行经理知道客户的姓名和需求。此外，富人还享有所谓礼宾医疗服务的好处，这种服务是由真人提供的。许多寡头垄断的服务提供商存有贵宾客户的秘密名单，这些贵宾客户不必大费周章地与机械的软件打交道，就可以联系上客服代表。他们只要拿起电话，就会得到真人应答。
Ordinary consumers, much like most voters, know there are different rules for them. They also sense that the big service providers pay more attention to Washington regulators than to their disaffected customers. It is a perfectly rational thing to do. America’s capital is where the markets are rigged, after all.
与选举中多数选民一样，普通消费者知道他们面对的是不同的规则。他们还感觉到，大型服务提供商更在乎华盛顿的监管机构，而不是不满的客户。这些服务提供商的做法是完全合理的。毕竟，市场正是在华盛顿被操纵的。广州英语翻译公司。
Politicians rank their priorities in much the same order. Voters come low on their list. Lawmakers devote chunks of their schedules to raising money from donors. In most districts, the voter barely matters since gerrymandering has rigged the election in favour of one or other party. Politicians with large war chests are far less likely to be challenged for their party’s nomination. The same logic leads companies to keep a strong lobbying presence in Washington.
政客的优先级排序也差不多。选民在他们的优先级清单上排位很低。议员安排大量时间从捐赠者处筹集资金。在多数选区，选民基本上是无关紧要的，原因是选区的不公正划分已操纵选举偏向这个或那个政党。能筹得大笔资金的政客，在获得所在党派提名时遭遇挑战的可能性小得多。正是出于这个原因，企业始终在华盛顿保持强大的游说攻势。
So what can people do? As consumers very little. If United Airlines keeps bumping you off flights, you might shift your mileage account to Delta or American. But your chances of mistreatment will not fall. Ditto for those who switch their health insurance from Cigna to Aetna, or their broadband from Comcast to Verizon. Perhaps you can start a new company? Alas, what goes in Silicon Valley for people seeking funding for social media start-ups does not apply to markets with high barriers to entry. America’s big four airlines might provide dismal service to most customers. But they are Olympic champions at stopping “open skies” competition.
那么，人们对此能做些什么呢？作为消费者，能做的事极少。如果美联航(United Airlines)不停取消你订的航班座位，你也许会将里程账号换成达美航空(Delta)或美国航空(American)。不过，你受到不公正对待的可能性并不会降低。而对那些将医疗保险从信诺(Cigna)换成安泰保险(Aetna)、或者将宽带从康卡斯特(Comcast)换成Verizon的人来说，情况也同样如此。也许你可以创立一家新公司？在硅谷人们可以寻求投资创立社交媒体公司，但这条路在高准入门槛的市场里却走不通。美国四大航空公司为多数顾客提供的服务或许是非常差劲的，然而它们在阻止“开放天空”(Open Skies)竞争方面却是顶尖高手。
Maybe you should just shout at customer representatives? That is what many people do. But it usually backfires. Besides, on the rare occasions you reach a human, they are the last people you should berate. America’s mostly outsourced contact services industry is staffed by people reading instructions from a software manual. Every minute of their time is monitored. Consumers are not just voters — they are employees too.
也许你应该向客服代表大声咆哮一通？这正是许多人的做法。然而这么做通常会产生适得其反的效果。此外，哪怕你的电话破天荒地由真人接听了，那些接电话的人也是你最不应斥责的。美国电话联络服务业的多数业务都外包了出去，这一行业的员工是一些按照软件手册念说明的人。他们工作时间的每一分钟都受到监督。消费者不仅是选民——他们还是公司员工。广州英语翻译公司。
There are no easy ways to reduce market concentration, just as there are no easy fixes for corporate America’s grip on politics. But there are two simple ones. The first is to metastasise your consumer rage by voting for Mr Trump. This is the man who is best known to most Americans for saying “you’re fired” on television. For every problem America faces, he has a solution that is clear, simple and wrong. The second is to support aggressive antitrust action. Since Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, trustbusting has a great history. It could also have a great future.
没有容易的方法能够降低市场的集中程度，正如没有容易的办法能够解除美国商界对政治的控制。不过，有两个简单的办法。第一个办法是通过把票投给特朗普，发泄你作为消费者的愤怒。关于特朗普，多数美国人最熟悉的是他是那个在电视真人秀上说“你被解雇了”的人。对于美国面临的每个问题，他都有明确、简单而错误的解决方案。第二个办法是支持激进的反垄断行动。自西奥多•罗斯福(Theodore Roosevelt)的总统任期以来，反垄断有着伟大的历史。它未来或许还会大有作为。
Alas, no presidential nominee has yet found the conviction to champion breaking up the monopolies. The more is the pity. Taking on the titans would not just be great populism. It would also be smart policy.
只是，没有一名总统提名人建立了支持打破垄断的坚定信念。这真遗憾。挑战巨头不仅会大受平民欢迎，还会是个明智的政策。
