肯尼迪总统 《直面现实，破除谬论》演讲

1962年6月11日，耶鲁大学迎来毕业典礼，美国总统约翰·肯尼迪来到耶鲁大学，对毕业生发表了演讲，重点谈论了当时美国社会中存在的三大错误认知，予以澄清，并且呼吁大家勇敢直面现实，帮助国家解决实际问题。

President Griswold, members of the faculty, graduates and their families, ladies and gentlemen:

格里斯沃尔德校长，各位教师，各位毕业生，各位家长，女士们先生们：

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for the very deep honor that you have conferred upon me. As General de Gaulle occasionally acknowledges America to be the daughter of Europe, so I am pleased to come to Yale, the daughter of Harvard. It might be said now that I have the best of both worlds, a Harvard education and a Yale degree.

首要，我要感谢贵校赋予我的极大殊荣。正如戴高乐喜欢把美国比作欧洲的女儿一样，我很高兴来到哈佛的女儿，耶鲁大学。我现在可以说，自己得到了世界最顶尖的两所大学的认可，在哈佛上了学，还拿到了耶鲁的学位。

I am particularly glad to become a Yale man because as I think about my troubles, I find that a lot of them have come from other Yale men. Among businessmen, I have had a minor disagreement with Roger Blough, of the law school class of 1931, and I have had some complaints, too, from my friend Henry Ford, of the class of 1940. In journalism I seem to have a difference with John Hay Whitney, of the class of 1926 and sometimes I also displease Henry Luce of the class of 1920, not to mention also William F. Buckley, Jr., of the class of 1950. I even have some trouble with my Yale advisers. I get along with them, but I am not always sure how they get along with each other.

我很高兴成为一名耶鲁人，因为我想了一下，自己的许多烦恼都来耶鲁校友。比如商人群体中，我和罗杰·布劳有些小分歧，而他是1931年从耶鲁法学院毕业的，我的朋友亨利·福特常常抱怨我，而他是1940年从耶鲁毕业的。新闻工作者中，我和约翰·黑伊·惠特尼有些分歧，他是1926年从耶鲁毕业的，我有时还会惹到亨利·路西，他是1920年的耶鲁毕业生，更不用小威廉·F·巴克利了，他是1950从这毕业的。甚至有时候我从耶鲁大学毕业的顾问也会跟我有分歧。我基本上能和他们处理好关系，但是他们之间能不能相处得好就不知道了。

I have the warmest feelings for Chester Bowles of the class of 1924, and for Dean Acheson of the class of 1915, and my assistant, McGeorge Bundy, of the class of 1940. But I am not 100 percent sure that these three wise and experienced Yale men wholly agree with each other on every issue.

我和1924年毕业于此的查斯特·鲍勒斯关系很不错，跟1915年毕业的迪安·艾奇逊还有我的助理，1940年毕业的麦克乔治·邦迪关系都不错。不过我不敢百分百确定，这三位之间是不是关系也不错。

So this administration which aims at peaceful cooperation among all Americans has been the victim of a certain natural pugnacity developed in this city among Yale men. Now that I, too, am a Yale man, it is time for peace. Last week at West Point, in the historic tradition of that Academy, I availed myself of the powers of Commander in Chief to remit all sentences of offending cadets. In that same spirit, and in the historic tradition of Yale, let me now offer to smoke the clay pipe of friendship with all of my brother Ells, and I hope that they may be friends not only with me but even with each other.

所以本届政府致力于全体美国人民友好合作的目标，不幸变成了生性好斗的耶鲁人的猎物。行了，现在我也是耶鲁人了，大家可以和睦相处了。上周，我去了西点军校，我当时为遵循该校的历史传统，以三军总司令的权力，要求西点取消所有违规学员的惩罚。那么今天我本着同样的精神，按照耶鲁的传统，给我们所有的埃尔斯兄弟都发一根象征着友情的陶制烟管，我希望大家不能和我成为朋友，也能和彼此成为朋友。

In any event, I am very glad to be here and as a new member of the club, I have been checking to see what earlier links existed between the institution of the Presidency and Yale. I found that a member of the class of 1878, William Howard Taft, served one term in the White House as preparation for becoming a member of this faculty. And a graduate of 1804, John C. Calhoun, regarded the Vice Presidency, quite naturally, as too lowly a status for a Yale alumnus and became the only man in history to ever resign that office.

无论怎么说，我都很高兴来到这里，很高兴加入贵校，来这里之前，我特意查了下，此前耶鲁和总统有没有什么关联。我发现1878年的毕业生中，有一个人名叫威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱，他后来为了成为贵校的教授，而决定去白宫当一届总统，证明自己的实力。1804年，贵校的毕业生中有一人名叫约翰·C·卡尔霍恩，他嫌副总统这个职位太低了，配不上堂堂耶鲁人，所以成为了我国历史上唯一一个辞职的副总统。

Calhoun in 1804 and Taft in 1878 graduated into a world very different from ours today. They and their contemporaries spent entire careers stretching over 40 years in grappling with a few dramatic issues on which the Nation was sharply and emotionally divided, issues that occupied the attention of a generation at a time: the national bank, the disposal of the public lands, nullification or union, freedom or slavery, gold or silver. Today these old sweeping issues very largely have disappeared. The central domestic issues of our time are more subtle and less simple. They relate not to basic clashes of philosophy or ideology but to ways and means of reaching common goals to research for sophisticated solutions to complex and obstinate issues. The world of Calhoun, the world of Taft had its own hard problems and notable challenges. But its problems are not our problems. Their age is not our age. As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality.

无论是卡尔霍恩的1804年，还会是塔夫脱的1878年，他们所处的时代都比我们的要更加艰难。他们和同辈人需要投入整个职业生涯，40多年的时间来解决那些意见不一的严重问题，这些问题往往需要会困扰一整代人；国家银行问题，公有土地的处理问题，各州大还是联邦大，自由还是奴役，金本位还是银本位。今天，这些旧日的问题基本上都销声匿迹了。我们这一代人要面临的国内问题更加细致，更加复杂。这些问题关乎的不是哲学思想或意识形态上的冲突，而是怎么实现我们共同的目标，怎么设计出一套完善的方案，解决复杂棘手的问题。卡尔霍恩和塔夫脱的时代，都有各自的难题和挑战。但这并不是我们要面临的问题。我们并不属于他们那个时代。过去每一代美国人都需要摆脱以往认知的刻板印象，我们这一代人也是如此，我们不能再只是复读那些信誓旦旦的陈词滥调，而是要直面前所未有、艰难重重但不可忽视的现实。

For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

因为真理最大的敌人往往不是谎言——不是精心刻意编造的谎言——而是谬误——长期流传、信众广泛但不切实际的谬误。我们喜欢复读祖辈的陈词滥调。我们给现实提前设计好了一套逻辑。我们喜欢别人迎合自己的想法，听不得反对的声音。

Mythology distracts us everywhere—in government as in business, in politics as in economics, in foreign affairs as in domestic affairs. But today I want to particularly consider the myth and reality in our national economy. In recent months many have come to feel, as I do, that the dialog between the parties—between business and government, between the government and the public—is clogged by illusion and platitude and fails to reflect the true realities of contemporary American society.

谬误这种东西，会在生活中方方面面干扰我们——在政界，在商界，在政治上，在经济上，国内事务上，国外事务上无处不在。但今天，我希望主要谈一谈有关我国经济的谬误和现实。最近几个月，我和一些人开始意识到，两党之间的对话——政界和商界之间的对话，政府和民众之间的对话——面临着一种阻力，这种阻力就是虚无幻想和陈词滥调，这反映了当代真实的美国社会是什么样的。

I speak of these matters here at Yale because of the self-evident truth that a great university is always enlisted against the spread of illusion and on the side of reality. No one has said it more clearly than your President Griswold: "Liberal learning is both a safeguard against false ideas of freedom and a source of true ones." Your role as university men, whatever your calling, will be to increase each new generation's grasp of its duties.

我在耶鲁谈这些问题，是因为众所周知，大学总是抗击幻想、强调现实的急先锋。你们的格里斯沃尔德校长也明确说过：“自由学习既能破除谬误思想，有时真理的源泉。”你们大学生将来无论从事什么行业，都需要激发新一代人的使命感。

There are three great areas of our domestic affairs in which, today, there is a danger that illusion may prevent effective action. They are, first, the question of the size and the shape of government's responsibilities; second, the question of public fiscal policy; and third, the matter of confidence, business confidence or public confidence, or simply confidence in America. I want to talk about all three, and I want to talk about them carefully and dispassionately—and I emphasize that I am concerned here not with political debate but with finding ways to separate false problems from real ones.

今天我国国内事务里存在着三大幻想，阻挠着我们采取有效行动。第一是政府的规模和职责大小问题；第二，财政支出问题；第三，信心问题，包括企业的信心、民众的信心，或者简单来说，就是对美国的信心。我想谈一谈这三个问题——心平气和地好好谈一谈这三个问题——我需要强调，我今天来到这里，不是来就政治事务吵架的，我只是来帮助大家分清虚实的。

If a contest in angry argument were forced upon it, no administration could shrink from response, and history does not suggest that American Presidents are totally without resources in an engagement forced upon them because of hostility in one sector of society. But in the wider national interest, we need not partisan wrangling but common concentration on common problems. I come here to this distinguished university to ask you to join in this great task.

如果这些事情点燃了民众的怒火，大家群情激奋，政府就必须作出回应，如果社会上部分人执意同我们作对，历史已经证明，美国总统是有办法对付他们的。但是为了我国更普遍的利益，我们需要的不是党争，而是为了共同的目标而齐头并进。我今天造访贵校，就是邀请大家与我一同前进。

Let us take first the question of the size and shape of government. The myth here is that government is big, and bad—and steadily getting bigger and worse. Obviously this myth has some excuse for existence. It is true that in recent history each new administration has spent much more money than its predecessor. Thus President Roosevelt outspent President Hoover, and with allowances for the special case of the Second World War, President Truman outspent President Roosevelt. Just to prove that this was not a partisan matter, President Eisenhower then outspent President Truman by the handsome figure of $182 billion. It is even possible, some think, that this trend may continue.

我们先谈谈第一个问题，政府规模之争。有一种刻板印象认为，政府规模越大，就会愈加糟糕。显然，这种说法当然也有一定的依据。我国近期历史上，几乎每一届新政府的开支都会比前一届政府更大。比方说，罗斯福总统的开支就比胡佛总统更大，由于二战的特殊原因，杜鲁门总统任内的开支又比罗斯福总统更高。而且这不是某个党派的问题，因为艾森豪威尔总统任内的开支达到夸张的1820亿美元，超过了杜鲁门总统。有些人，这种趋势可能还会继续下去。

But does it follow from this that big government is growing relatively bigger? It does not—for the fact is for the last 15 years, the Federal Government—and also the Federal debt—and also the Federal bureaucracy—have grown less rapidly than the economy as a whole. If we leave defense and space expenditures aside, the Federal Government since the Second World War has expanded less than any other major sector of our national life—less than industry, less than commerce, less than agriculture, less than higher education, and very much less than the noise about big government.

但从这种情况衍生出了另一种问题，那就是大政府是不是会继续加速扩大？答案是否定的——过去15年里，联邦政府——联邦债务——联邦部门的增长速度都没有我国经济发展快。如果我们刨除国防开支和太空预算，那么联邦政府的增长速度在我国的各大主要部门和行业中排名倒数第一——工业发展速度比我们高，贸易发展速度也比我们高，农业速度比我们高，高等教育速度比我们高，某些人口中关于大政府的谣言，其扩散速度更是比我们不知道高到哪里去了。

The truth about big government is the truth about any other great activity—it is complex. Certainly it is true that size brings dangers—but it is also true that size can bring benefits. Here at Yale which has contributed so much to our national progress in science and medicine, it may be proper for me to mention one great and little noticed expansion of government which has brought strength to our whole society—the new role of our Federal Government as the major patron of research in science and in medicine. Few people realize that in 1961, in support of all university research in science and medicine, three dollars out of every four came from the Federal Government. I need hardly point out that this has taken place without undue enlargement of Government control—that American scientists remain second to none in their independence and in their individualism.

大政府的情况就跟其他事务一样，实际情况错综复杂。没错，政府规模扩大，确实有可能产生威胁——但政府规模越大，也能更好地服务人民。耶鲁大学为我国科技和医疗方面的发展做出了巨大贡献，而我需要指出，政府规模扩大，恰好就有一个鲜为人知的优点——那就是它可以资助科研和医疗发展，造福于我们全社会。1961年时，没有几个人发现，大学的科学医疗研究所需费用，有四分之三都来自联邦政府。想必无需我说，大家也知道政府并没有过多干涉大学科研——美国的科学家依然我行我素，其独立性高于全球任何其他国家的科学家。

I am not suggesting that Federal expenditures cannot bring some measure of control. The whole thrust of Federal expenditures in agriculture have been related by purpose and design to control, as a means of dealing with the problems created by our farmers and our growing productivity. Each sector, my point is, of activity must be approached on its own merits and in terms of specific national needs. Generalities in regard to federal expenditures, therefore, can be misleading—each case, science, urban renewal, education, agriculture, natural resources, each case must be determined on its merits if we are to profit from our unrivaled ability to combine the strength of public and private purpose.

我并不是说，联邦资助的同时不能施加任何干涉。联邦政府资助了农业，就要求资助对象按照我们的要求进行生产，这是我们缓解农业生产过剩的手段之一。我强调的重点在于，任何活动都必须根据各自的情况，来解决国家的特定需求。所以联邦如果不分具体情况就资助，才会产生不良后果——如果我们想要将我们公私合作的强大优势转化为利润，我们就需要让所有工程根据自身特定情况来发展，包括科技、城市振兴、教育、农业和自然资源。

Next, let us turn to the problem of our fiscal policy. Here the myths are legion and the truth hard to find. But let me take as a prime example the problem of the Federal budget. We persist in measuring our federal fiscal integrity today by the conventional or administrative budget—with results which would be regarded as absurd in any business firm—in any country of Europe—or in any careful assessment of the reality of our national finances. The administrative budget has sound administrative uses. But for wider purposes it is less helpful. It omits our special trust funds and the effect that they have on our economy; it neglects changes in assets or inventories. It cannot tell a loan from a straight expenditure—and worst of all it cannot distinguish between operating expenditures and long term investments.

之后，我们再谈谈下一个问题，国家财政问题。关于财政的谬论众多，人们很难从中找到真相。不过，我先给大家举个联邦财政的例子。现在，我们一直在通过常规预算和行政预算，评估我国联邦财政是否有漏洞——然后我们得出的结论，放到任何企业——任何欧洲国家——任何一个我国真实财政情况的评估报告中，都会显得荒唐。大家通常觉得，行政预算就该只用于行政事务。但是这样的话，它就无法帮助我国其他方面的事务。就无法让我国信托基金推动经济发展；就无法应对资产和库存变动。就无法帮助我国企业区分出什么时候该贷款，什么时候该直接一笔付清——最关键的是，就无法帮助我们企业区分出什么是运营成本，什么是长期投资。

This budget, in relation to the great problems of Federal fiscal policy which are basic to our economy in 1962, is not simply irrelevant; it can be actively misleading. And yet there is a mythology that measures all of our national soundness or unsoundness on the single simple basis of this same annual administrative budget. If our Federal budget is to serve not the debate but the country, we must and will find ways of clarifying this area of discourse.

这份预算事关我国财政政策的重大问题，是1962年美国经济的基础，不可谓毫不相干；但这种说辞同样具有误导性。有一种说法，声称既然年行政预算是经济基础，那么只看预算就能看出我国整体经济是好是坏。如果我们希望这笔预算用于造福国家，而不是引发争论，我们就必须澄清这一类言论。

Still in the area of fiscal policy, let me say a word about deficits. The myth persists that Federal deficits create inflation and budget surpluses prevent it. Yet sizeable budget surpluses after the war did not prevent inflation, and persistent deficits for the last several years have not upset our basic price stability. Obviously deficits are sometimes dangerous—and so are surpluses. But honest assessment plainly requires a more sophisticated view than the old and automatic cliche that deficits automatically bring inflation.

还是财政政策方面，我先解释一下什么叫财政赤字。有传言称，联邦预算出现财政赤字，就会导致通货膨胀，而财政盈余的话，就可以避免通货膨胀。但是二战结束后，我们财政有大量盈余，依然发生了通货膨胀，过去几年我国都陷入财政赤字，但是物价基本保持稳定。显然，财政赤字不是什么好事——但财政盈余也不见得就是。如果想要看到真相，就不能听信这种把财政赤字和通货膨胀划等号的幼稚言论。

There are myths also about our public debt. It is widely supposed that this debt is growing at a dangerously rapid rate. In fact, both the debt per person and the debt as a proportion of our gross national product have declined sharply since the Second World War. In absolute terms the national debt since the end of World War II has increased only 8 percent, while private debt was increasing 305 percent, and the debts of State and local governments—on whom people frequently suggest we should place additional burdens—the debts of State and local governments have increased 378 percent. Moreover, debts, public and private, are neither good nor bad, in and of themselves. Borrowing can lead to over-extension and collapse—but it can also lead to expansion and strength. There is no single, simple slogan in this field that we can trust.

还有关于我国国债。有一种流传广泛的说法认为，我国国债增长速度太快，会造成严重威胁。实际上呢，自二战以来，我国人均负债额还有国债占GDP的比重都在迅速下降。按照绝对值来说，二战结束以来的国债增加了8%，而私企债务则增加了305%，而各地各州政府的债务——有些人喜欢说这些政府养尊处优——但它们的债务增加了378%。而且债务，国债也好，私债也好，其本身并无好坏之分。借钱可能引发经济膨胀和崩溃——但也可以推动经济发展、国力上升。其原理不是一两句话就能说得清的。

Finally, I come to the problem of confidence. Confidence is a matter of myth and also a matter of truth—and this time let me take the truth of the matter first.

最后，我再谈一谈信心问题。信心问题不仅有谬误以免，也有真相一面——我先拿真相方面来说。

It is true—and of high importance—that the prosperity of this country depends on the assurance that all major elements within it will live up to their responsibilities. If business were to neglect its obligations to the public, if labor were blind to all public responsibility, above all, if government were to abandon its obvious—and statutory—duty of watchful concern for our economic health-if any of these things should happen, then confidence might well be weakened and the danger of stagnation would increase. This is the true issue of confidence.

没错，我国是否繁荣——很大程度上——取决于我国国内各部各团体能否履行自己的责任。如果企业不顾自己对民众的责任，如果工人不管自己的社会责任，最重要的是，如果政府摒弃了法律赋予自己的责任，不再维持经济健康发展——如果这种情况发生，那么我们的信心必然遭到打击，经济停滞的概率就会上升。这是信心问题的真相方面。

But there is also the false issue—and its simplest form is the assertion that any and all unfavorable turns of the speculative wheel—however temporary and however plainly speculative in character—are the result of, and I quote, "a lack of confidence in the national administration." This I must tell you, while comforting, is not wholly true. Worse, it obscures the reality—which is also simple. The solid ground of mutual confidence is the necessary partnership of government with all of the sectors of our society in the steady quest for economic progress.

这个问题也有谬误一面——其中最简单粗暴的说法就是，只要股市投资出现下行——哪怕只是暂时的，哪怕是其中风险最高的——这都是“对政府缺乏信心”的恶果。我必须告诉大家，虽然这种说法令人安心，但并不完全正确。更糟糕的是，它在通过这种简单的方法——混淆虚实。互信必须建立在政府和社会各层相互合作，一同推动经济发展的坚实基础上。

Corporate plans are not based on a political confidence in party leaders but on an economic confidence in the Nation's ability to invest and produce and consume. Business had full confidence in the administrations in power in 1929, 1954, 1958, and 1960—but this was not enough to prevent recession when business lacked full confidence in the economy. What matters is the capacity of the Nation as a whole to deal with its economic problems and its opportunities.

企业规划的基石，不是对哪个党派领袖的政治信任，而是对我国投资、生产和消费能力的经济信任。企业在1929年、1954年、1958年和1960年都非常信任政府——但是它们不信任经济，所以这几年都发生了经济衰退。重点在于，我国是否有能力处理经济难题，抓住经济机遇。

The stereotypes I have been discussing distract our attention and divide our effort. These stereotypes do our Nation a disservice, not just because they are exhausted and irrelevant, but above all because they are misleading—because they stand in the way of the solution of hard and complicated facts. It is not new that past debates should obscure present realities. But the damage of such a false dialogue is greater today than ever before simply because today the safety of all the world—the very future of freedom—depends as never before upon the sensible and clearheaded management of the domestic affairs of the United States.

我刚刚谈论的那些刻板思维，一直都在分散我们的注意，让我们无法团结合作。这些刻板思维阻碍了我国的发展，不仅因为这些思维让我们感到不安，说得一派胡言——更是因为它们真正误导了我们的人民——它们在阻碍我们直视艰难复杂的现实，进而阻碍我们找到解决方案。旧日的思想阻碍人们看到今天的事实，这种事情已经不是第一次发生了。但是这一次，这种谣言对我国造成了空前严重的伤害，很简单，因为现在，全世界的安全——自由世界的未来——都需要美国来维护，美国必须处理好国内事务，才能更好地履行自身责任。

The real issues of our time are rarely as dramatic as the issues of Calhoun. The differences today are usually matters of degree. And we cannot understand and attack our contemporary problems in 1962 if we are bound by traditional labels and worn-out slogans of an earlier era. But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that our rhetoric has not kept pace with the speed of social and economic change. Our political debates, our public discourse—on current domestic and economic issues—too often bear little or no relation to the actual problems the United States faces.

我们当代面临的真正问题，并不像卡尔霍恩那个时代，有根本分析。我们当代的分歧，通常在于对程度的把握。如果我们继续坚守祖宗之法，继续复读早已过时的话语，我们就不能理解，也无法解决1962年的问题。但是很不幸，我们的嘴巴被社会经济变革甩在了后面。我国许多人在谈及国内事务和经济事务时——无论是在政治论题、经济论题中——经常说的话跟美国的现实毫不相干。

What is at stake in our economic decisions today is not some grand warfare of rival ideologies which will sweep the country with passion but the practical management of a modern economy. What we need is not labels and cliches but more basic discussion of the sophisticated and technical questions involved in keeping a great economic machinery moving ahead.

今天，在美国讨论经济政策的利害关系，这不是什么会让全国陷入狂热的大规模意识形态斗争，而是管理现代国家经济的务实之举。我们不需要贴标签，也不需要旧日滥调，我们需要更加脚踏实地地讨论，怎么让美国这个巨大的经济体继续前进，如何应对这一过程中产生的复杂技术问题。

The national interest lies in high employment and steady expansion of output, in stable prices, and a strong dollar. The declaration of such an objective is easy; their attainment in an intricate and interdependent economy and world is a little more difficult. To attain them, we require not some automatic response but hard thought. Let me end by suggesting a few of the real questions on our national agenda.

想要维护国家利益，就需要让产能提高、就业率充分、物价稳定、美元坚挺。想要倒行逆施很容易；但在这个错综复杂、相互依赖的世界经济中，想要实现这些目标却比较困难。为此，我们不能只靠自己做出本能反应，而是需要深思熟虑。最后我谈一谈我国正面临的实际问题。

First, how can our budget and tax policies supply adequate revenues and preserve our balance of payments position without slowing up our economic growth?

第一，我国的预算规划和税收政策，怎么才能在不影响经济增长的情况下，实现财政平衡？

Two, how are we to set our interest rates and regulate the flow of money in ways which will stimulate the economy at home, without weakening the dollar abroad? Given the spectrum of our domestic and international responsibilities, what should be the mix between fiscal and monetary policy?

第二，我们应该设置多高的利率，如何管理资金流动，促进国内经济发展的同时，不削弱美元在国际上的地位？结我们对国内和国际的责任，应该采取什么样的财政政策和货币政策？

Let me give several examples from my experience of the complexity of these matters and how political labels and ideological approaches are irrelevant to the solution.

这些事情有多么复杂，政治标签和意识形态为什么无助于解决这些问题，我结合我自己的经验跟大家解释一下。

Last week, a distinguished graduate of this school, Senator Proxmire, of the class of 1938, who is ordinarily regarded as a liberal Democrat, suggested that we should follow in meeting our economic problems a stiff fiscal policy, with emphasis on budget balance and an easy monetary policy with low interest rates in order to keep our economy going. In the same week, the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland, a conservative organization representing the central bankers of Europe suggested that the appropriate economic policy in the United States should be the very opposite; that we should follow a flexible budget policy, as in Europe, with deficits when the economy is down and a high monetary policy on interest rates, as in Europe, in order to control inflation and protect goals. Both may be right or wrong. It will depend on many different factors.

普罗克斯迈尔参议员，他也是贵校的杰出毕业生，1938年毕业的，起初他是一位自由派民主党人，上周他建议我们使用僵硬的经济政策来处理经济问题，重点放在预算平衡和宽松性货币政策，降低利率，推动经济发展。同一周，瑞士巴塞尔的国际清算银行，这是一个代表欧洲大银行家的保守派组织，它主张美国采取完全相反的经济政策；让我们像欧洲一样，灵活调整预算，像欧洲一样，在经济下行时扩大支出，让财政赤字，然后上调利率，控制通货膨胀，确保我们的目标不受损害。这两种政策哪种可行，很难说。因为我们需要考虑现实中的诸多影响因素。

The point is that this is basically an administrative or executive problem in which political labels or cliches do not give us a solution.

但重点在于，这基本上是个行政问题，而靠着政治标签和旧日滥调肯定是无法解决问题的。

A well-known business journal this morning, as I journeyed to New Haven, raised the prospects that a further budget deficit would bring inflation and encourage the flow of gold. We have had several budget deficits beginning with a $12 1/2 billion deficit in 1958, and it is true that in the fall of 1960 we had a gold dollar loss running at $5 billion annually. This would seem to prove the case that a deficit produces inflation and that we lose gold, yet there was no inflation following the deficit of 1958 nor has there been inflation since then.

今天早上，我到纽黑文时，一本著名商业报刊发文表示，财政赤字进一步扩大，会导致通货膨胀，然后黄金外流更加严重。1958年时，我们的各份预算赤字加起来达到125亿美元，1960年秋季，我们一年流失了50亿美元的黄金。这似乎证明，财政赤字会导致通货膨胀，然后我国黄金外流，但是1958年也是财政赤字，却没有发生通货膨胀，甚至从那至今再也没有出现过通货膨胀。

Our wholesale price index since 1958 has remained completely level in spite of several deficits, because the loss of gold has been due to other reasons: price instability, relative interest rates, relative export-import balances, national security expenditures—all the rest.

自1958年以来，尽管我国在多方面都陷入财政赤字，但我们的购买力指数基本保持稳定，黄金外流是其他因素所导致的：物价不稳定，利率问题、贸易失衡问题、国防支出——等等原因。

Let me give you a third and final example. At the World Bank meeting in September, a number of American bankers attending predicted to their European colleagues that because of the fiscal 1962 budget deficit, there would be a strong inflationary pressure on the dollar and a loss of gold. Their predictions of inflation were shared by many in business and helped push the market up. The recent reality of non-inflation helped bring it down. We have had no inflation because we have had other factors in our economy that have contributed to price stability.

我再给大家举第三个例子，也是最后一个例子。去年九月份，世界银行举行会议，一些出席会议的美国银行家告诉欧洲银行家，他们觉得1962年美国的财政赤字会导致严重通货膨胀，美元会贬值，然后黄金会外流。他们的这种预测，也得到了许多企业家的认可，然后导致市场物价上涨。结果呢，现实中没有发生通货膨胀，现在物价又降下来了。我们没有发生通货膨胀，因为经济中的其他因素帮助稳定了物价。

I do not suggest that the Government is right and they are wrong. The fact of the matter is in the Federal Reserve Board and in the administration this fall, a similar view was held by many well-informed and disinterested men that inflation was the major problem that we would face in the winter of 1962. But it was not. What I do suggest is that these problems are endlessly complicated and yet they go to the future of this country and its ability to prove to the world what we believe it must prove.

我不是想说，政府的说法才是对的，他们的说法就是错的。但事实上，美联储委员会和政府中的许多博学名士也觉得，通货膨胀会成为美国在1962年冬季最主要的问题。但结果什么都没有发生。我想说的是，这些问题极其复杂，关乎我国的未来，关乎到我们是否有能力向世界证明自己。

I am suggesting that the problems of fiscal and monetary policies in the sixties as opposed to the kinds of problems we faced in the thirties demand subtle challenges for which technical answers, not political answers, must be provided. These are matters upon which government and business may and in many cases will disagree. They are certainly matters that government and business should be discussing in the most dispassionate, and careful way if we to maintain the kind of vigorous upon which our country depends.

我想说的是，在60年代，经济货币政策问题与我们在30年代面临的问题截然不同，我们需要的是精细的技术方案，而不是靠政治方案。政府和企业在许多事务上可能都有分歧。但是如果我们想继续保持活力，让国家继续前进，政府和企业应该以最冷静、最细心的态度进行交流。

How can we develop and sustain strong and stable world markets for basic commodities without unfairness to the consumer and without undue stimulus to the producer? How can we generate the buying power which can consume what we produce on our farms and in our factories? How can we take advantage of the miracles of automation with the great demand that it will put upon highly skilled labor and yet offer employment to the half million of unskilled school dropouts each year who enter the labor market, eight million of them in the 1960's?

我们该怎么在保障消费者权益的同时，在防止生产过剩的同时，让世界市场保持强健稳定，让基础商品继续流通？我们怎么才能提高购买力，使之能够消费掉我们的工业品和农产品？我们该如何利用自动化机械这一伟大发明，借其对高质量劳动力的巨大需求，为每年进入市场的50万辍学者、整个60年代的800万辍学者提供工作岗位？

How do we eradicate the barriers which separate substantial minorities of our citizens from access to education and employment on equal terms with the rest?

我们该怎么为众多少数族裔公民争取平等教育、平等就业？

How, in sum, can we make our free economy work at full capacity—that is, provide adequate profits for enterprise, adequate wages for labor, adequate utilization of plant, and opportunity for all?

总而言之，我们该怎么让自由经济释放潜能——也就是说，该怎么让企业获得足够的利润，让工人得到足够的薪资，让工厂得到充分利用，让全体人民享有上升机遇？

These are the problems that we should be talking about—that the political parties and the various groups in our country should be discussing. They cannot be solved by incantations from the forgotten past. But the example of Western Europe shows that they are capable of solution—that governments, and many of them are conservative governments, prepared to face technical problems without ideological preconceptions, can coordinate the elements of a national economy and bring about growth and prosperity—a decade of it.

这才是我们应该讨论的问题——这才是各党派，我国各组织应该关注的问题。这些问题不可能靠着复读陈词滥调解决。西欧已经向我们证明了，他们有能力解决这些问题——各国政府，包括保守政府，都愿意直面技术难题，而不是将之化为意识形态的偏见，这样才能协调国家经济各要素，实现了一个年代的经济繁荣增长，我们应该效仿他们的榜样。

Some conversations I have heard in our own country sound like old records, long-playing, left over from the middle thirties. The debate of the thirties had its great significance and produced great results, but it took place in a different world with different needs and different tasks. It is our responsibility today to live in our own world, and to identify the needs and discharge the tasks of the 1960's.

我听说美国国内还有许多人在复读30年代中期的观点。30年代的争辩确实意义非凡，而且得出了正确的解决之道，但那毕竟是30年代，现在我们面临着不同的世界，不同的需求，不同的目标。我们应该关注今天的世界，关注60年代的需求和目标。

If there is any current trend toward meeting present problems with old cliches, this is the moment to stop it—before it lands us all in a bog of sterile acrimony.

如果现在真的存在以旧方法解决新新问题的浪潮，那么我们就要赶在被它裹挟之前——力挽狂澜。

Discussion is essential; and I am hopeful that the debate of recent weeks, though up to now somewhat barren, may represent the start of a serious dialog of the kind which has led in Europe to such fruitful collaboration among all the elements of economic society and to a decade of unrivaled economic progress. But let us not engage in the wrong argument at the wrong time between the wrong people in the wrong country—while the real problems of our own time grow and multiply, fertilized by our neglect.

我们当然需要讨论；但我们希望最近几周暂无成果的讨论，从现在开始，可以认真起来，讨论那种让西欧实现了10年发展的经济合作道路的可能性。当我们也万万不能在错误的时间、错误的地点跟错误的人讨论一个错误的国家——我们当代的问题会变化，会扩大，如果我们忽视问题，问题必然恶化。

Nearly 150 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The new circumstances under which we are placed call for new words, new phrases, and for the transfer of old words to new objects." New words, new phrases, the transfer of old words to new objects-that is truer today than it was in the time of Jefferson, because the role of this country is so vastly more significant. There is a show in England called "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off." You have not chosen to exercise that option. You are part of the world and you must participate in these days of our years in the solution of the problems that pour upon us, requiring the most sophisticated and technical judgment; and as we work in consonance to meet the authentic problems of our times, we will generate a vision and an energy which will demonstrate anew to the world the superior vitality and the strength of the free society.

大约150年前，托马斯·杰斐逊曾写下，“我们身处新时代，就要有新话语，新口号，让旧日的话语，成为我们新的目标。”新话语，新口号，旧日的话语，新目标——杰斐逊当年写下的这句话，放在今天再合适不过了，因为今天我国的地位已经大大提高。英国有一部音乐剧，叫《地球先别转，让我先下车》。我们可不能把这种想法当真。你们是世界的一份子，你们必须积极参与进来，帮助我国解决这些复杂的技术难题；我们要团结一致，直面我们当代的显示问题，我们会高瞻远瞩，迸发活力，再次向世界证明，自由国家拥有更加充沛的活力、更加强大的力量。

声明：本人仅按照原文翻译内容，演讲内容不代表本人观点。此专栏仅供历史和英语交流学习使用，任何读者皆可引用本人的译本。

希望来学习英语的观众明白：我觉得这些专栏的主要精华在于英语原文，而并非我的译本，我的译本很大程度上只是供来学习历史的观众使用的。本人的英语水平一般，翻译得并不会多么精彩，只能在你看不懂时来帮助你了解这些演讲内容最基本的意思，而且翻译时难免会出现差错，切勿直接完全以我的译本为标准。如发现有翻译错误或者歧义内容，欢迎指正。

希望来学习历史的观众明白：任何历史人物都有一定的局限性，随着时代发展，很多观点看法可能已经不再适用今天的世界，西方的观点也不一定适用于我们。通过了解这些演讲，仅可给我们提供一个更全面了解过去和世界的渠道。我们可以从优秀的历史、当代人物身上学到很多，但是请保持独立思考，理性看待演讲内容，切勿全信或将其奉为真理。