书名：The Price of Inequality不平等的代价

作者：Joseph Stiglitz
出版社名称：Penguin
出版时间：2013
语种：英文
ISBN：9780718197384
商品尺寸：12.9 x 2.5 x 19.8 cm
包装：平装
页数：592（以实物为准）
★诺贝尔经济学奖得主斯蒂格利茨力作

★关于1%的少数与99%的大多数
★席卷畅销书排行榜，颠覆你的制度幻觉

本书The Price of Inequality《不平等的代价》关注美国社会中自由市场这一“神话”所造成的不平等现状——不仅是结果上的不平等，而是与“美国梦”背道而驰的机会不平等，及其对于社会经济甚至民主制度的危害。这对于我们当今社会的发展，也有着非常重要的警示和意义。

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz explains why we are experiencing such destructively high levels of inequality - and why this is not inevitable
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn't seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn - too late.
In this timely book, Joseph Stiglitz identifies three major causes of our predicament: that markets don't work the way they are supposed to (being neither efficient nor stable); how political systems fail to correct the shortcomings of the market; and how our current economic and political systems are fundamentally unfair. He focuses chiefly on the gross inequality to which these systems give rise, but also explains how inextricably interlinked they are. Providing evidence that investment - not austerity - is vital for productivity, and offering realistic solutions for levelling the playing field and increasing social mobility, Stiglitz argues that reform of our economic and political systems is not just fairer, but is the only way to make markets work as they really should.
1%的少数群体虽然享受着好的住房、好的教育、好的医生、好的生活方式，但是有一样东西是金钱买不到的，那就是意识到他们的命运是与那99%的大多数命运捆绑在一起的。纵观历史，这些1%的群体终究都会明白这一道理，只不过他们常常明白得太晚了。

诺贝尔经济学奖获得者斯蒂格利茨教授，通过走访世界各地的普通人，与他们交流，发现无论是东方还是西方，不满的根本原因是相同的，那就是这些国家的经济体制和政治体制在很多方面都失败了，并且二者都相当不公平。由此诞生出全球一个新趋势——服务大众。
约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨，世界知名经济学家，哥伦比亚大学教授，同时担任哥伦比亚大学全球思想委员会的联合主席。2001年，因其对信息经济学的开创性工作而荣获诺贝尔经济学奖。在此之前，他还获得了约翰·贝茨·克拉克奖。斯蒂格利茨教授先后执教于耶鲁大学、普林斯顿大学、斯坦福大学、麻省理工学院和牛津大学，是著名的经济学教育家之一。他的教材是世界上很畅销的教材之一，他的著作常能引起学术界和大众的共鸣。

Joseph E. Stiglitzis a professor of economics at Columbia University and the recipient of a John Bates Clark Medal and a Nobel Prize. He is also the former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank. His books include Globalization and Its Discontents, The Three Trillion Dollar War, and Making Globalization Work. He lives in New York City.
In the campaign, the word "inequality" wasn't heard often-indeed, given the attention focused on the 1 percent by the Occupy Wall Street movement, the absence of attention to the issue might seem surprising, until one remembers that much of the more than $2 billion spent on the campaign was raised(by both parties) from persons in the 1 percent-and one wouldn't want to offend them. But the wound of America's growing inequality festered not far beneath the surface. When the Democrats talked about protecting the middle class, they were really saying that the American economy has not been delivering for most Americans, that only those at the top have benefited from the increase in GDP. Any economic agenda focusing on the middle class is, by its nature, an agenda centered on shared prosperity; and that means halting and reversing the trend of growing inequality.

Perhaps the moment when inequality moved closest to being front and center in the campaign was when Mitt Romney suggested that 47 percent of Americans were paying no income tax, living off of government handouts.

The statement, made at a $50,000-a-plate fund-raiser in lavish settings in Boca Raton, Florida, stirred up its own hurricane. The irony, of course, was that people like Romney are the true freeloaders: the taxes that he has said he is paying(as a percentage of his reported income) are(at 14 percent in 2011) far less than those of people with substantially less income.

What Romney said reflects views held by many Americans, and not just those in the 1 percent. Many of those who are working hard feel that they are being taken advantage of, that their taxes are being used either to bail out rich bankers or to provide welfare payments for people who refuse to work. They see themselves as "victims," and this perception has played a role in the rise of the Tea Party, which seeks to downsize government. Nothing perhaps gave more impetus to this movement than the huge gifts to the banks and the bankers; government stepped in to help those who had caused the crisis, and did little to help those who suffered. The Tea Partyers and others sympathetic to them were right to be outraged, but their diagnosis was wrong: without government, they would have suffered even more; without government, the banks would have abused them even more. The government didn't do what it should have done to prevent the crisis and banks' exploitive behavior-or to resuscitate the economy or to help those that were suffering from the economic downturn-but, given the imbalances in American politics, it is perhaps more remarkable what was done.