????兩個(gè)月前，“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運(yùn)動(dòng)（Occupy Wall Street）剛剛進(jìn)駐位于曼哈頓下城的祖科蒂公園（Zuccotti Park）。兩個(gè)月后，它已迅速演變成一場(chǎng)全美性運(yùn)動(dòng)，席卷了從邁阿密到西雅圖的眾多城市。隨著冬季即將到來，一些地方警局開始驅(qū)趕示威者，這場(chǎng)抗議運(yùn)動(dòng)的前景并不明朗。但從某種意義上，這并不重要。不管這些聲稱代表99%人群的示威者和他們的露營地未來怎樣，美國的商界領(lǐng)袖們都需要認(rèn)真思考這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)暴露出來的問題。

????推動(dòng)“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運(yùn)動(dòng)迅速蔓延的怒火依然沒有消退。民意調(diào)查顯示，多達(dá)半數(shù)的美國人支持這些示威者，或者至少認(rèn)為他們代表了公眾的意見。從很多方面看，聲稱代表99%人群的示威者們利用的正是當(dāng)初推動(dòng)茶黨（Tea Party）崛起的因素，也就是說同樣是民眾的不滿情緒——民眾普遍認(rèn)為，商界和政界都被一小撮圈內(nèi)人所操縱，特別是與華爾街有關(guān)聯(lián)的人。左翼和右翼的極端人士夸大了這一情形，但聽起來確實(shí)是這么一回事，這可能導(dǎo)致美國兩黨政治立場(chǎng)的轉(zhuǎn)向，調(diào)轉(zhuǎn)矛頭，指向大企業(yè)。別再批評(píng)奧巴馬政府在推動(dòng)華爾街改革和抑制貧富差距方面的溫和動(dòng)作，身處1%陣營的杰米?戴蒙們和丹尼爾?勒布們應(yīng)該從豪車?yán)锵蛲饪纯?，眼下美國正在發(fā)生的事情。（杰米?戴蒙和丹尼爾?勒布分別是摩根大通和Third Point LLC對(duì)沖基金公司的首席執(zhí)行官?！g注）

????多年來普通民眾只是眼睜睜的看著收入增長停滯，工作被轉(zhuǎn)移到了中國，少數(shù)幸運(yùn)兒也要像中世紀(jì)的十字軍一樣出征海外。每一年，記者們（包括筆者）都能從美國人口局（Census Bureau）的最新數(shù)據(jù)中看到，最富有的1%人群所持有的全美財(cái)富比例越來越高。（美國國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室（Congressional Budget Office）的一項(xiàng)新研究顯示，1979年至2007年期間，這一比例從不到 8%上升到了17%。）盡管如此，天下依然太平。當(dāng)時(shí)的美國似乎完全背離了“社會(huì)不公擴(kuò)大最終會(huì)導(dǎo)致社會(huì)動(dòng)蕩、政局不穩(wěn)”的歷史真理?，F(xiàn)在情況變了。經(jīng)過了金融危機(jī)、救助方案和大蕭條后，社會(huì)不公最終成為了一個(gè)突出的問題。越來越多的1%成員遭到質(zhì)問，他們到底是從哪里賺到的這么多錢。

????對(duì)于努力工作、勇于承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并創(chuàng)造價(jià)值的人們，大多數(shù)美國人并不嫉妒他們創(chuàng)造的巨額財(cái)富。人們對(duì)史蒂芬?喬布斯鋪天蓋地的溢美之詞就是一個(gè)明證，說明偉大的企業(yè)家仍然備受推崇。但這里有一個(gè)不成文的社會(huì)契約，即回報(bào)應(yīng)基于個(gè)人的努力和成就。如果現(xiàn)在很多美國人認(rèn)為，美國企業(yè)界已違背了這一契約，有什么可奇怪的嗎？在很多大公司，高管們更感興趣的似乎是如何塞滿個(gè)人腰包，而不是公司的長遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展。巨額薪酬還只是個(gè)引子。想想輕信的董事會(huì)、粉飾盈利的帳本、舉報(bào)人被封口、為高管提供豐厚離職補(bǔ)償金的黃金降落傘制度等等，最終付出昂貴代價(jià)的卻是納稅人。真正奇怪的是為什么經(jīng)過了這么長的時(shí)間公眾的怒氣才開始爆發(fā)。

????近來一些商界領(lǐng)袖的行為顯示他們已意識(shí)到了推動(dòng)這次運(yùn)動(dòng)的因素是什么。沃倫?巴菲特已表示，他應(yīng)該繳納更多的稅?；ㄆ旒瘓F(tuán)（Citigroup）首席執(zhí)行官潘偉迪在接受《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）采訪時(shí)提出愿意與抗議者會(huì)面，承認(rèn)華爾街已失去公眾的信任?；ㄆ旌推渌笮豌y行也已經(jīng)明智地決定，不效法美國銀行（Bank of America）收取借記卡服務(wù)費(fèi)的做法。但金融業(yè)內(nèi)太多人依然我行我素，仿佛時(shí)間依然停留在2007年。無論是抱怨奧巴馬是一個(gè)隱蔽的社會(huì)主義者的投資銀行家們，抑或是向著“占領(lǐng)華爾街”示威者們高呼“去找份工作吧”的沃頓（Wharton）學(xué)生們，還是曾經(jīng)溫和但正在利用資金和影響力試圖保留喬治?布什時(shí)代富人減稅政策的美國商會(huì)（Chamber of Commerce），他們傳遞出來的信息都是一樣的：我們不明白！

????對(duì)于金融界精英們而言，說到底他們的特權(quán)有賴于所有其他人的默許，針鋒相對(duì)是愚蠢而危險(xiǎn)的行為。哪怕是為了自己著想，1%陣營也應(yīng)該有點(diǎn)頭腦。

????--John Cassidy是《財(cái)富》雜志供稿人，《紐約客》（New Yorker）雜志的在編撰稿人。

????Just two months after taking over Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, Occupy Wall Street has mushroomed into a national movement, with offshoots in cities from Miami to Seattle. With winter coming on and some local police departments moving to clear out the demonstrators, it isn't clear where the protest goes from here. In one sense it doesn't matter. Regardless of what happens to the 99ers and their encampments, American business leaders need to take seriously what the lessons are for them.

????The anger that fueled Occupy Wall Street's rapid growth isn't going away. Polls show that up to half of Americans support the demonstrators or at least believe they reflect public opinion. In many ways the 99ers are drawing on the same popular sentiment that gave rise to the Tea Party: a perception that business and politics are rigged in favor of a privileged clique of insiders, particularly those connected to Wall Street. Extremists on the left and the right exaggerate that picture, but it rings true enough to provide the makings of a political swing against big business that could sweep up the two main parties. Instead of criticizing the Obama administration's modest efforts to reform Wall Street and rein in excesses, the Jamie Dimons and Daniel Loebs of this world should be looking out of their limos at what is happening in America.

????For years ordinary citizens looked on impassively as their incomes stagnated, their jobs were shipped to China, and a few lucky folks made out like medieval crusaders. Every year journalists (myself included) would point to the latest Census Bureau data showing that the top 1% of earners were taking a bigger and bigger share of the national pie. (Between 1979 and 2007, says a new Congressional Budget Office study, it went from less than 8% to 17%.) And nothing would happen. The U.S. seemed to be defying the historical truism that rising inequality eventually leads to social and political unrest. Not anymore. With the financial crisis, the bailouts, and the Great Recession, inequality has finally emerged as a potent issue. Increasingly members of the 1% are being asked where they got their sacks of gold.

????Most Americans don't begrudge great riches to anybody who works hard, takes real risks, and creates things of value. As evidenced by the positive outpouring for Steve Jobs, great entrepreneurs are still celebrated. But there is an implicit social contract that links rewards to effort and accomplishment. If many people now believe that corporate America has violated that contract, is it surprising? At many big corporations, the senior managers have seemed more interested in stuffing their pockets than building for the long term. Gargantuan pay packages are only the start of it. Think boards of directors packed with patsies, books cooked to juice earnings, potential whistleblowers silenced, golden parachutes, and finally taxpayers obliged to save expensively tanned hides. The thing that is really surprising is that it has taken this long for public anger to well up.

????Lately some corporate leaders have shown they understand what is driving the outcry. Warren Buffett said he should pay higher taxes. Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citicorp (C), offered in a Fortune interview to meet with the protesters, acknowledging a lack of trust in Wall Street. Citi and other big banks wisely chose not to follow the lead of Bank of America (BAC) in imposing fees for using debit cards. But too many people in finance are acting as if it were 2007. Whether it is investment bankers griping about Obama being a closet socialist, Wharton MBA students chanting "Get a job" to OWS protestors, or the Chamber of Commerce, once a moderate voice, using its money and clout to try to preserve George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the message conveyed is the same: We don't get it!

????For an economic elite whose perquisites ultimately depend on the acquiescence of everybody else, it is a silly and dangerous pose to strike. If only for its own sake, the 1% needs to show a bit of nous.

????--John Cassidy is a Fortune contributor and a New Yorker staff writer.