怎么理解曼昆经济学原理的这句话
展开全部
Principle #1: People face tradeoffs 原理1：人们面临权衡取舍
Translation: Choices are bad 解释： 选择是错误的
The reasoning behind this translation is obvious. For example, imagine that somebody comes up to you and offers you a choice between a Snickers bar and some M&Ms. You now have a tradeoff, meaning that you have to choose one or the other. And having to trade one thing off against another is bad; President Truman supposedly asked for a one-armed economics advisor because his two-armed economics advisors were always saying, “On the one hand...but on the other hand...”
这种解释的原因其实是显而易见的。例如，想象一下，某个人让你在士力架巧克力棒与M&Ms的巧克力产品之间做个选择。现在你面临着权衡取舍，意味着你只能选择其中一个。这种须放弃其一的不得已选择是痛苦的; 想必杜鲁门总统很需要一位独臂的经济学顾问因为他的双臂经济学顾问经常是“一方面……但另一方面……”
People who have not received any economics education might be tempted to think that choices are good. They aren't. The (mistaken) idea that choices are good perhaps stems from the (equally mistaken) idea that lack of choices is bad. This is simply not true, as Mancur Olson points out in his book, The Logic of Collective Action: “To say situation is ‘lost’ or hopeless is in one sense equivalent to saying it is perfect, for in both cases efforts at improvement can bring no positive results.”
没有学过经济学知识的人可能会认为选择是快乐的。实则不然，之所以有认为选择是快乐的(误解的)想法，也许是因为他们误认为缺乏选择才是痛苦的。这种绝对是正确的，如曼瑟尔�6�1奥尔森在他的《集体行动的逻辑》书上指出的：“失败”或绝望的状态从某种意义上说等同于完美，对于那两种想法，意在试图改善，事实上并不能带来积极的效果。
Hence my translation of Mankiw's first principle of economics: Choices are bad. This concept can be a little difficult to grasp-nobody ever said economics was easy-but the troubled reader will undoubtedly gain clarity from Mankiw's
因此，我对曼昆的第一个原理的解释是：选择是痛苦的。这个概念可能不难理解—没有人认为经济学很容易—但困惑的读者可以通过阅读曼昆通俗易懂的原理变得清晰
Principle #2: The cost of something is what you give up to get it
原理2某种东西的成本是为了得到它所放弃的东西
Translation: Choices are really bad
解释：选择实在是痛苦
Beyond transforming Mankiw’s semantic deathtrap into simplicity itself, this translation has the advantage of establishing a connection between Principle #1 (Choices are bad) and Principle #2 (Choices are really bad).
除了把曼昆句子上的语义死陷阱转化成简洁的形式，这个解释还能把原理1(选择是痛苦的)与原理2(选择实在是痛苦)联系起来
To continue to deepen the reader’s understanding of why choices are bad-really bad-let's return to our previous example, in which somebody offers you a choice between a Snickers bar and a package of M&Ms. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you take the M&Ms. According to Mankiw, the cost of those M&Ms is the Snickers bar that you had to give up to get the M&Ms. Your gain from this situation-what economists call “economic profit”-is therefore the difference between the value you gain from getting the M&Ms (say, $.75) and the value you lose from giving up the Snickers bar (say, $.40). In other words, your economic profit is only $.35. Although you value the M&Ms at $.75, having the choice of the Snickers bar reduces your gain by $.40. Hence Principle #2: Choices are really bad.
为了让读者深入了解为什么选择实在是痛苦—让我们回到我们之前提到的例子，某人让你在士力架巧克力棒与一包M&Ms的产品之间做个选择。假设，作为讨论的前提，你拿了M&Ms。根据曼昆的原理，那些M&Ms的成本是你为了得到M&Ms所放弃的士力架巧克力棒。此情况下你的收益就是—经济学家所说的“经济利润”—即你获得M&Ms(比如0.75美元)的价值与你失去士力架巧克力棒的价值(比如0.40美元)之间的价差。换句话说，你的经济利润只有0.35美元。虽然你估计M&Ms的价值为0.75美元，而选择士力架巧克力棒让你的收益少了0.40美元
Indeed, the more choices you have, the worse off you are. The worst situation of all would be somebody coming up to you and offering you a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms. Since choosing one package (which you value at $.75) means giving up the other package (which you also value at $.75), your economic profit is exactly zero! So being offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms is in fact equivalent to being offered nothing.
事实上，你拥有越多的选择，你的状况更加糟糕。最糟糕的情况是某人让你从相同的M&Ms做选择。选择其中一个 (你估计价值为0.75美元) 意味着放弃另一个 (你估计价值也为0.75美元)，你的经济利润恰好为0! 因此在两个相同的M&Ms上做选择事实上等同于没有选择。
Now, a lay person might be forgiven for thinking that being offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms is in fact equivalent to being offered a single package of M&Ms. But economists know better. Being offered a single package of M&M effectively means having to choose between a package of M&Ms (which you value at $.75) and nothing (which you value at $0). Choosing the M&Ms gives you an economic profit of $.75, which is $.75 more than your economic profit when you are offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms.
现在，外行的人这样想是可以理解的: 提供两个相同的M&Ms让你选择一个其实等同于给你一个M&Ms而没选择。但经济学家考虑的更周全。提供一个M&Ms实际上意味着让你在一个M&Ms(你估计价值为0.75美元)和什么也没有之间做选择(你估计价值为0美元)。这个M&Ms可以给你0.75美元的经济利润，比你在两个相同的M&Ms做选择所获得的经济利润多0.75美元。
At this point it is worth acknowledging that (1) there may be readers who have failed to grasp the above subtleties in their entirety, and (2) such readers may well be beginning to wonder whether they are, in a word, stupid. Any lingering doubts should be eliminated by the Mankiw's
在这点上值得承认的是(1)可能有些读者不能从整体上理解以上巧妙之处，及(2)这些读者也许开始会认为自己是不是很愚蠢，任何悬而未决的疑问都应该用曼昆的原理来解决。
Principle #3: Rational people think at the margin
原理 3 理性人考虑边际量
Translation: People are stupid
解释 人们是愚蠢的
One point that is immediately obvious to the most casual observer with the meanest intelligence is that most people do not think at the margin. For example, most people who buy oranges at the grocery store think like this: “Hmmm, oranges are $.25 each. I think I'll buy half a dozen.” They do not think like this: “Hmmm, oranges are $.25 each. I'm going to buy one, because my marginal value exceeds the market price. Now I'm going to buy a second one, because my marginal value still exceeds the market price...” We know most people don't think like this because most people don't fill their shopping baskets one orange at a time!
智商最低的随机观测者都能很明显地知道多数人并不考虑边际量。例如，多数人在杂货店买桔子时他们都是这样想：“嗯，桔子每个0.25 美元。我要六个。”而不是“嗯，桔子每个0.25美元。我要去买一个，因为我的边际价值超过了市场价格。现在我要买第二个，因为我的边际价值仍然超过市场价格。”我们知道多数人认为并不是那样, 因为多数人不会在他的购物中一次装一个桔子。
But we are now led inexorably toward a most unhappy conclusion. If—as Mankiw says—rational people think at the margin, and if—as we all know—most people do not think at the margin, then most people are not rational. Most people, in other words, are stupid. Hence my translation of the third principle of economics: People are stupid.
但现在将引导我们无情地推出这个最让人难过的结论。如果—如曼昆所说的—理性人考虑边际量，接着如果—如我们所知道的—多数人认为不会考虑边际量，因此可以说多数人是不理智的。换句话说，多数人是愚蠢的。因此我对第三个原理的解释为：人们是愚蠢的
Before sinking into despair for the fate of the human race, however, the reader would be wise to consider Mankiw's
然而，在对人类命运感到绝望之前，读者会理智地考虑一下曼昆的原理
Principle #4: People respond to incentives.
原理4人们会对激励作出反应
Translation: People aren’t that stupid.
解释 人们也不是那么愚蠢
The dictionary says that incentive, n., is 1. Something that influences to action; stimulus; encouragement.
Incentive(激励)在词典的解释为，1.影响行动的因素;促进因素;鼓励
So what Mankiw is saying here is that people are motivated by motives, or that people are influenced to action by things that influence to action. Now, this may seem to be a bit like saying that tautologies are tautological—the reader may be thinking that people would have to be pretty stupid to be unmotivated by motives, or to be inactive in response to something that influences to action. But remember Principle #3: People are stupid. Hence the need for Principle #4, to clarify that people aren’t that stupid.
因此如曼昆所说人们会被动机激发，或人们受影响行动的行动影响。现在你可以那句话是同义重复—读者也许会认为人们是多么愚蠢若他们不会对激励做出反应，或对影响行动的激励纹丝不动。记住原理3是：人们是愚蠢的。因此对于原理4，有必要澄清：人们并不是那样的愚蠢
Only truly stupid people can fail to understand my translation of Mankiw's
只有真正愚蠢的人才不能理解我对曼昆原理的解释
Principle #5: Trade can make everyone better off
原理5 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
Translation: Trade can make everyone worse off
解释 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏
But, the reader may well be asking, isn't the translation of the fifth principle the exact opposite of the principle itself? Of course not.
然而，读者可能会问，难道第五个原理的解释真的是与原文相反的?当然不是。
To see why, first note that "trade can make everyone better off" is patently obviously: if I have a Snickers bar and want M&Ms and you have M&Ms and want a Snickers bar, we can trade and we will both be better off. Surely Mankiw is getting at something deeper than this? Indeed, I believe he is. To see what it is, compare the following phrases:
要找出原因，首先要注意“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”是显而易见的：如果我有个士力架巧克力棒想要M&Ms而你有M&Ms想要士力架巧克力棒，我们可以贸易且我们的状况会更好。在这句话上，曼昆有更深的理解吗?事实上，我认为是，为了解释这句话，对比以下两个短语：
A: Trade can make everyone better off
A: 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
B: Trade will make everyone better off
B: 贸易将会使每个人的状况变得更好
Now, Statement B is clearly superior to Statement A. Why, then, does Mankiw use Statement A? It can only be because Statement B is false. By saying that trade can make everyone better off, Mankiw is conveying one of the subtleties of economics: trade can also not make everyone better off. It is a short hop from here to my translation, “Trade can make everybody worse off.” (A numerical example can be found in this footnote.3)
The subtlety evident in Principle #5 is even more clearly visible in the next two principles.
现在，B句明显强于A句。那为什么曼昆使用A句呢?可能的原因只有B句是错的。通过“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”，曼昆传递了经济学中的巧妙之处：贸易也不能使每个人的状况变得更好。这与我的解释很接近，“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏。”
原理5显见的微妙之处在以下的两个原理里更能体现出来。
Principle #6: Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity
原理6市场通常是组织经济活动的一种最好方法
Translation: Governments are stupid.
解释政府是愚蠢的
Principle #7: Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes
原理7 政府有时可以改善市场结果
Translation: Governments aren’t that stupid.
解释：政府也不是那样的愚蠢
在这两个原理中原理5起着重要的角色，注意原理5原句(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”)推出了原理6(“政府是愚蠢的”)。毕竟，如果贸易能是每个人的状况变得更好我们还要政府干什么?而原理5的解释(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更糟”)推出原理7(“政府也不是那样德愚蠢”)。毕竟，如果贸易能使我们的状况变得更糟，我们还是需要一个政府来阻止某些人交易!
和前五个原理一样，原理6和7显示了经济学思考方式内在的微妙特征。人们是愚蠢的，但并不是那样的愚蠢，贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好，但也能使每个人的状况变得更糟;政府是愚蠢的，但也不是那样德愚蠢。研究，提炼及叙述这些特征就是经济学高等经济学课程，博士论文的主要话题，也是美国经济评论及其他学术性期刊论文的主要话题。文章第一页所描述的基本原理提供了非常重要的指引，读者应遵循这些原理。
Translation: Choices are bad 解释： 选择是错误的
The reasoning behind this translation is obvious. For example, imagine that somebody comes up to you and offers you a choice between a Snickers bar and some M&Ms. You now have a tradeoff, meaning that you have to choose one or the other. And having to trade one thing off against another is bad; President Truman supposedly asked for a one-armed economics advisor because his two-armed economics advisors were always saying, “On the one hand...but on the other hand...”
这种解释的原因其实是显而易见的。例如，想象一下，某个人让你在士力架巧克力棒与M&Ms的巧克力产品之间做个选择。现在你面临着权衡取舍，意味着你只能选择其中一个。这种须放弃其一的不得已选择是痛苦的; 想必杜鲁门总统很需要一位独臂的经济学顾问因为他的双臂经济学顾问经常是“一方面……但另一方面……”
People who have not received any economics education might be tempted to think that choices are good. They aren't. The (mistaken) idea that choices are good perhaps stems from the (equally mistaken) idea that lack of choices is bad. This is simply not true, as Mancur Olson points out in his book, The Logic of Collective Action: “To say situation is ‘lost’ or hopeless is in one sense equivalent to saying it is perfect, for in both cases efforts at improvement can bring no positive results.”
没有学过经济学知识的人可能会认为选择是快乐的。实则不然，之所以有认为选择是快乐的(误解的)想法，也许是因为他们误认为缺乏选择才是痛苦的。这种绝对是正确的，如曼瑟尔�6�1奥尔森在他的《集体行动的逻辑》书上指出的：“失败”或绝望的状态从某种意义上说等同于完美，对于那两种想法，意在试图改善，事实上并不能带来积极的效果。
Hence my translation of Mankiw's first principle of economics: Choices are bad. This concept can be a little difficult to grasp-nobody ever said economics was easy-but the troubled reader will undoubtedly gain clarity from Mankiw's
因此，我对曼昆的第一个原理的解释是：选择是痛苦的。这个概念可能不难理解—没有人认为经济学很容易—但困惑的读者可以通过阅读曼昆通俗易懂的原理变得清晰
Principle #2: The cost of something is what you give up to get it
原理2某种东西的成本是为了得到它所放弃的东西
Translation: Choices are really bad
解释：选择实在是痛苦
Beyond transforming Mankiw’s semantic deathtrap into simplicity itself, this translation has the advantage of establishing a connection between Principle #1 (Choices are bad) and Principle #2 (Choices are really bad).
除了把曼昆句子上的语义死陷阱转化成简洁的形式，这个解释还能把原理1(选择是痛苦的)与原理2(选择实在是痛苦)联系起来
To continue to deepen the reader’s understanding of why choices are bad-really bad-let's return to our previous example, in which somebody offers you a choice between a Snickers bar and a package of M&Ms. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you take the M&Ms. According to Mankiw, the cost of those M&Ms is the Snickers bar that you had to give up to get the M&Ms. Your gain from this situation-what economists call “economic profit”-is therefore the difference between the value you gain from getting the M&Ms (say, $.75) and the value you lose from giving up the Snickers bar (say, $.40). In other words, your economic profit is only $.35. Although you value the M&Ms at $.75, having the choice of the Snickers bar reduces your gain by $.40. Hence Principle #2: Choices are really bad.
为了让读者深入了解为什么选择实在是痛苦—让我们回到我们之前提到的例子，某人让你在士力架巧克力棒与一包M&Ms的产品之间做个选择。假设，作为讨论的前提，你拿了M&Ms。根据曼昆的原理，那些M&Ms的成本是你为了得到M&Ms所放弃的士力架巧克力棒。此情况下你的收益就是—经济学家所说的“经济利润”—即你获得M&Ms(比如0.75美元)的价值与你失去士力架巧克力棒的价值(比如0.40美元)之间的价差。换句话说，你的经济利润只有0.35美元。虽然你估计M&Ms的价值为0.75美元，而选择士力架巧克力棒让你的收益少了0.40美元
Indeed, the more choices you have, the worse off you are. The worst situation of all would be somebody coming up to you and offering you a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms. Since choosing one package (which you value at $.75) means giving up the other package (which you also value at $.75), your economic profit is exactly zero! So being offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms is in fact equivalent to being offered nothing.
事实上，你拥有越多的选择，你的状况更加糟糕。最糟糕的情况是某人让你从相同的M&Ms做选择。选择其中一个 (你估计价值为0.75美元) 意味着放弃另一个 (你估计价值也为0.75美元)，你的经济利润恰好为0! 因此在两个相同的M&Ms上做选择事实上等同于没有选择。
Now, a lay person might be forgiven for thinking that being offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms is in fact equivalent to being offered a single package of M&Ms. But economists know better. Being offered a single package of M&M effectively means having to choose between a package of M&Ms (which you value at $.75) and nothing (which you value at $0). Choosing the M&Ms gives you an economic profit of $.75, which is $.75 more than your economic profit when you are offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms.
现在，外行的人这样想是可以理解的: 提供两个相同的M&Ms让你选择一个其实等同于给你一个M&Ms而没选择。但经济学家考虑的更周全。提供一个M&Ms实际上意味着让你在一个M&Ms(你估计价值为0.75美元)和什么也没有之间做选择(你估计价值为0美元)。这个M&Ms可以给你0.75美元的经济利润，比你在两个相同的M&Ms做选择所获得的经济利润多0.75美元。
At this point it is worth acknowledging that (1) there may be readers who have failed to grasp the above subtleties in their entirety, and (2) such readers may well be beginning to wonder whether they are, in a word, stupid. Any lingering doubts should be eliminated by the Mankiw's
在这点上值得承认的是(1)可能有些读者不能从整体上理解以上巧妙之处，及(2)这些读者也许开始会认为自己是不是很愚蠢，任何悬而未决的疑问都应该用曼昆的原理来解决。
Principle #3: Rational people think at the margin
原理 3 理性人考虑边际量
Translation: People are stupid
解释 人们是愚蠢的
One point that is immediately obvious to the most casual observer with the meanest intelligence is that most people do not think at the margin. For example, most people who buy oranges at the grocery store think like this: “Hmmm, oranges are $.25 each. I think I'll buy half a dozen.” They do not think like this: “Hmmm, oranges are $.25 each. I'm going to buy one, because my marginal value exceeds the market price. Now I'm going to buy a second one, because my marginal value still exceeds the market price...” We know most people don't think like this because most people don't fill their shopping baskets one orange at a time!
智商最低的随机观测者都能很明显地知道多数人并不考虑边际量。例如，多数人在杂货店买桔子时他们都是这样想：“嗯，桔子每个0.25 美元。我要六个。”而不是“嗯，桔子每个0.25美元。我要去买一个，因为我的边际价值超过了市场价格。现在我要买第二个，因为我的边际价值仍然超过市场价格。”我们知道多数人认为并不是那样, 因为多数人不会在他的购物中一次装一个桔子。
But we are now led inexorably toward a most unhappy conclusion. If—as Mankiw says—rational people think at the margin, and if—as we all know—most people do not think at the margin, then most people are not rational. Most people, in other words, are stupid. Hence my translation of the third principle of economics: People are stupid.
但现在将引导我们无情地推出这个最让人难过的结论。如果—如曼昆所说的—理性人考虑边际量，接着如果—如我们所知道的—多数人认为不会考虑边际量，因此可以说多数人是不理智的。换句话说，多数人是愚蠢的。因此我对第三个原理的解释为：人们是愚蠢的
Before sinking into despair for the fate of the human race, however, the reader would be wise to consider Mankiw's
然而，在对人类命运感到绝望之前，读者会理智地考虑一下曼昆的原理
Principle #4: People respond to incentives.
原理4人们会对激励作出反应
Translation: People aren’t that stupid.
解释 人们也不是那么愚蠢
The dictionary says that incentive, n., is 1. Something that influences to action; stimulus; encouragement.
Incentive(激励)在词典的解释为，1.影响行动的因素;促进因素;鼓励
So what Mankiw is saying here is that people are motivated by motives, or that people are influenced to action by things that influence to action. Now, this may seem to be a bit like saying that tautologies are tautological—the reader may be thinking that people would have to be pretty stupid to be unmotivated by motives, or to be inactive in response to something that influences to action. But remember Principle #3: People are stupid. Hence the need for Principle #4, to clarify that people aren’t that stupid.
因此如曼昆所说人们会被动机激发，或人们受影响行动的行动影响。现在你可以那句话是同义重复—读者也许会认为人们是多么愚蠢若他们不会对激励做出反应，或对影响行动的激励纹丝不动。记住原理3是：人们是愚蠢的。因此对于原理4，有必要澄清：人们并不是那样的愚蠢
Only truly stupid people can fail to understand my translation of Mankiw's
只有真正愚蠢的人才不能理解我对曼昆原理的解释
Principle #5: Trade can make everyone better off
原理5 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
Translation: Trade can make everyone worse off
解释 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏
But, the reader may well be asking, isn't the translation of the fifth principle the exact opposite of the principle itself? Of course not.
然而，读者可能会问，难道第五个原理的解释真的是与原文相反的?当然不是。
To see why, first note that "trade can make everyone better off" is patently obviously: if I have a Snickers bar and want M&Ms and you have M&Ms and want a Snickers bar, we can trade and we will both be better off. Surely Mankiw is getting at something deeper than this? Indeed, I believe he is. To see what it is, compare the following phrases:
要找出原因，首先要注意“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”是显而易见的：如果我有个士力架巧克力棒想要M&Ms而你有M&Ms想要士力架巧克力棒，我们可以贸易且我们的状况会更好。在这句话上，曼昆有更深的理解吗?事实上，我认为是，为了解释这句话，对比以下两个短语：
A: Trade can make everyone better off
A: 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
B: Trade will make everyone better off
B: 贸易将会使每个人的状况变得更好
Now, Statement B is clearly superior to Statement A. Why, then, does Mankiw use Statement A? It can only be because Statement B is false. By saying that trade can make everyone better off, Mankiw is conveying one of the subtleties of economics: trade can also not make everyone better off. It is a short hop from here to my translation, “Trade can make everybody worse off.” (A numerical example can be found in this footnote.3)
The subtlety evident in Principle #5 is even more clearly visible in the next two principles.
现在，B句明显强于A句。那为什么曼昆使用A句呢?可能的原因只有B句是错的。通过“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”，曼昆传递了经济学中的巧妙之处：贸易也不能使每个人的状况变得更好。这与我的解释很接近，“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏。”
原理5显见的微妙之处在以下的两个原理里更能体现出来。
Principle #6: Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity
原理6市场通常是组织经济活动的一种最好方法
Translation: Governments are stupid.
解释政府是愚蠢的
Principle #7: Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes
原理7 政府有时可以改善市场结果
Translation: Governments aren’t that stupid.
解释：政府也不是那样的愚蠢
在这两个原理中原理5起着重要的角色，注意原理5原句(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”)推出了原理6(“政府是愚蠢的”)。毕竟，如果贸易能是每个人的状况变得更好我们还要政府干什么?而原理5的解释(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更糟”)推出原理7(“政府也不是那样德愚蠢”)。毕竟，如果贸易能使我们的状况变得更糟，我们还是需要一个政府来阻止某些人交易!
和前五个原理一样，原理6和7显示了经济学思考方式内在的微妙特征。人们是愚蠢的，但并不是那样的愚蠢，贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好，但也能使每个人的状况变得更糟;政府是愚蠢的，但也不是那样德愚蠢。研究，提炼及叙述这些特征就是经济学高等经济学课程，博士论文的主要话题，也是美国经济评论及其他学术性期刊论文的主要话题。文章第一页所描述的基本原理提供了非常重要的指引，读者应遵循这些原理。
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
