????2007年堡壘投資集團（Fortress Investment Group）上市時，（公司投資總監）邁克?諾沃格拉茨和這家對沖基金的其他負責人立即成為了億萬富翁。和華爾街眾多超級富豪一樣，他們的財富(部分源于寬松的貨幣政策)已成為政客和活動人士的批評目標。

????最近的統計數據再次在美國引發了一場關于收入不平等的討論。正如最近《紐約時報》(New York Times)所指，2012年某個時候，有1,760萬戶家庭吃不飽。美國人口調查局(The Census Bureau)最近報告，有15%或4,650萬美國人生活貧困。而《經濟學家》(Economist)的報道顯示，富人在美國國民收入中的占比已達到創紀錄的19.3%，超過了2007年和1929年。

????日前，諾沃格拉茨就相關問題接受《財富》雜志(Fortune)采訪時沒有像很多華爾街人士那樣用套話回應，而是非常坦誠地討論了如何通過調整政策來縮小收入差距，CEO們在思考自身企業時需要如何進行一場“道德革命”，以及賺大錢為什么不一定被看成資本主義。

????沃爾瑪(Wal-Mart)是美國最大的雇主，但它的很多員工卻要依賴某種形式的政府補貼來維持生活。您認為，美國怎么到了今天這個地步？

????這是全球化和科技快速發展的結果。1989年時發達世界只有約5億人口。然后，柏林墻倒了，中國開始對外開放。接下來的25年里，發達世界人口從5億增長到了30億。

????勞動力供應增加拉低了工資，智力資本成本大幅上升。比如，馬克?扎克伯格這樣的人。他想出了一個可擴展的點子，推廣至整個世界。這個點子價值連城。

????延生閱讀：金融危機過后，美國有錢人更有錢了

????從很多方面，這種財富的分化總是會發生，不管是哪個黨派當政。自從20世紀80年代以來，無論是共和黨、還是民主黨當政，美國的基尼指數（反映一個國家經濟不平等程度的指數）都處于單邊走勢。變化如此之快，很多人，也許連我們的政治體系都沒能跟上。政府有責任去做并有可能做的事是，關注這些大趨勢，關注它們對社會的影響。這是我們希望生活的環境嗎？這是我們希望生活的國家嗎？

????許多人會說，過去25年，沃爾瑪借國際趨勢大賺其錢，這方面無人能出其右。你會因為正在發生的這一切指責沃爾瑪這類公司嗎？你認為他們貪婪嗎？

????是的，是的。沃爾瑪今年會賺150億美元。這家公司49%的股權由山姆?沃爾頓的繼承人和信托持有。他們有130萬員工，人均時薪約12美元。因此，一個全職員工每周工作40個小時，賺的錢還不夠維持生計。而且，美國納稅人每年還要為這些工資單補貼15億美元左右。沃爾頓家族的資產凈值已超過1,300億美元。這里感覺有些不對勁，是不是？

????如果只聽最后兩句，把沃爾瑪換成堡壘投資集團，我會認為你剛才說的是你自己和你的合伙人們。你們可能沒有1,300億美元，但你們都是億萬富翁。有什么不同嗎？

????我不是要跟有錢人找茬。我認為，我們的第一要務不是盯著收入不平等問題，而是要確保更多的工薪族能自己養活自己。華爾街從業人員，包括我們自己在內，我們所處的行業利潤率很高，薪資也非常高。我們的行業正處于全球化的十字路口。在美國，我們有很大的競爭優勢，美國作為全球金融中心的歷史悠久。我們有很多機會實戰學習投資和承擔風險。當然，假以時日這一優勢必將消失，但短期內不會。因此，我們能給所有員工非常好的薪酬。

????Mike Novogratz and the other principals of hedge fund Fortress Investment Group (FIG) became instant billionaires when the company went public in 2007. Like many other uber-rich on Wall Street, their wealth, some of it created by loose monetary policy, has become the target of criticism from politicians and activists.

????Recent statistics have renewed the debate about income inequality in the U.S. As referenced recently in the New York Times, 17.6 million households did not have enough to eat at some point in 2012. The Census Bureau recently reported that 15% of Americans, or 46.5 million people, live in poverty. But, according to the Economist, the share of national income flowing to the rich is at a record high of 19.3%, ahead of both 2007 and 1929.

????Breaking from typical canned responses given by many on Wall Street, Novogratz offers a candid interview with Fortune about how policy can change to close the income gap, how CEOs need to have a "moral revolution" when thinking about their businesses, and how making oodles of money isn't always considered capitalism.

????Many people at the country's biggest employer -- Wal-Mart -- are on some sort of government support. In your opinion, how did this country get to where it is now?

????It's the powerful combination of globalization and technology. In 1989, there were roughly 500 million people who constituted the developed world. Then the Berlin wall fell, and China opened up. Over the next 25 years, the developed world would go from 500 million to 3 billion.

????Labor supply increased, driving down wages, and the cost of intellectual capital went way up. So you look at a guy like Mark Zuckerberg. He developed a scalable idea that can go to the entire world. His single idea was very valuable.

????MORE: The rich got a lot richer since the financial crisis

????In a lot of ways, this divergence of wealth was going to happen no matter who was at the watch. The Gini index [a measure of a country's inequality] has been on a one-way trend since the '80s through both Republican and Democratic regimes. Change is happening so fast, many people and maybe our political system just can't keep up. What the government has a responsibility to do -- and has the possibility of doing -- is looking at these mega-trends and looking at what this does to our communities. Is this the environment that we want to live in? Is this the country we want to live in?

????Many would argue that Wal-Mart is the quintessential company that exploited global trends over the last 25 years. Do you blame the likes of Wal-Mart for what is happening? Do you think they are being greedy?

????Yes and yes. Wal-Mart (WMT) will make $15 billion this year. 49% is owned by the heirs and trusts of Sam Walton. They have 1.3 million workers who on average make around $12 an hour. So a full time employee, someone who works 40 hours a week doesn't make a living wage. And the U.S. taxpayer subsidizes that wage bill with an estimated $1.5 billion a year. The family has net worth of over $130 billion. Something doesn't feel right there, does it?

????If I looked at only those last two sentences, and replaced Wal-Mart with Fortress, I'd think that you were talking about yourself and your partners. You might not have $130 billion, but you're all billionaires. How is this different?

????My issue isn't with people making money. I really think our first priority is to focus less on inequality and more on making sure the working class can support themselves. Wall Street employees, including ours, are in an industry with large margins and a very inflated pay scale. Our industry sits at the crossroads of globalization. We have a huge competitive advantage here in the U.S. which has a long history of being at the center of global finance. We have the training grounds of investing and risk taking. I am sure in time, that advantage will disappear but not in the near future. So we are in a position to pay all our employees extremely well.