在阅读文章前，辛苦您先点一下关注，方便之后的讨论和分享。作者一定会不负大家期待，按时创作出更加优质的内容。文 | 李Lin 环球编辑 | 李Lin 环球 前 言 大家好，我是小李。这篇国际评论主要分析美国所谓的斩杀线。美国人常说，世界上只有死亡和税收是不可避免的。然而，大多数人理解错了这句话， 它的意思并非活着就必须交税，而是在资本主义体系下，只有交税才能被允许活着。最近大火的斩杀线概念，正是这一规则最直观的体现。 美国斩杀线的真相 根据美国官方数据，医疗、保险、教育和房产这四项支出，占普通人生活成本的60%至80%。这些开销几乎无处可逃，本质上是普通人向 资本家缴纳的生存税，就像在玩美国online这款游戏，需要不断充值点卡，否则一旦付不起，就会被系统强制下线。 美国中产阶级的抗风险能力极低，一场疾病、一场离婚或一次意外，都可能让他们从体面的生活一夜跌入流浪深渊。美国一家救济组织的创始人直言，每个 人都有可能成为流浪汉；另一家救济机构的工作人员则透露，来这里的流浪汉很多不是为了寻求生路，而是等死。这意味着，即便生活看似光鲜的美国人， 也可能迅速沦为街头的无名者。 问题并非美国整体财富不足，而是财富分配严重失 ...

转自：北京日报客户端 没了固定地址，几乎等于被整个社会"拉黑"：找工作、领救济、办社保、开银行账户都需要固定地址证 明；想租房，房东又会要求租户有稳定工作。 最近，"美国人的斩杀线"引发全网热议。 啥是"斩杀线"？"斩杀线"是游戏里的说法：当角色血条掉到某个程度，就算还有一点血，也可能被对手 一招带走。 现在大家用它来形容一种现实：在美国，个人或家庭的财务状况跌破某个底线，社会系统就会启动一连 串反应，逼得人无家可归。就算是看起来体面的中产，也可能一夜之间沦为流浪汉。 再来看看中国，2021年，我们打赢脱贫攻坚战。但一些脱贫地区底子还比较薄，因病、因灾、因市场波 动等返贫致贫的风险依然存在。 以前总有人说"外国的月亮更圆"，事实果真如此吗？咱们从住房、就业、医疗，这几个基本维度来聊 聊。 美国人为何会被"斩杀"？ 先说住房。 在美国，不管买房还是租房，每月都得雷打不动缴纳房产税。一旦钱没交，就会失去固定住址。 美国芝加哥：官员查看无家可归者营地。 这就成了死循环：没工作就没法租房，没地方住就不能好好找工作，最后只能睡大街。严寒、酷暑或一 场意外，随时都可能让他们被社会"斩杀"。 再来看就业。 美国实行"随意雇 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the evolution of economic thought regarding "good institutions," highlighting the shift from Keynesianism to neoliberalism and the implications of this shift on the understanding of capitalism and alternative models like the "Chinese model" [2][4][5] - The 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to three American new institutional economists for their research on how institutions form and affect economic prosperity, sparking widespread debate in the domestic academic community [4][2] - The concept of "good institutions" is simplified to "efficient institutions," with historical perspectives from Adam Smith to Marx influencing the discourse on what constitutes a good institution [4][5][6] Group 2 - The article identifies three core questions surrounding the understanding of good institutions: what they are, what goals they should pursue, and how they come into existence [6][8][9] - New institutional economists argue that good institutions should be inclusive economic and political systems, a view that may not necessarily apply to non-Western contexts like China [9][10] - The article critiques the historical narratives constructed by new institutional economists, suggesting that their emphasis on property rights as the cornerstone of economic success overlooks other significant factors [12][13][14] Group 3 - The discussion extends to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence and technological advancements, which may exacerbate issues of unemployment and income distribution, echoing Keynes's concerns [20][27][28] - The article emphasizes the need for a re-evaluation of what constitutes a good institution in light of contemporary economic challenges, particularly regarding short-term issues like employment and income inequality [29][31][34] - It concludes that understanding good institutions requires a focus on both historical context and the evolving economic landscape, advocating for reforms that address the dual concerns of unemployment and inequitable distribution [30][32][34]