注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

保罗·克鲁格曼 中文博客

授权网易博客进行中文翻译并推广

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

美国经济学家

2008年诺贝尔经济学奖得主。 美國經濟學家及紐約時報的專欄作家,普林斯頓大學經濟系教授,是新凱恩斯主義经济学派代表。1953年出生美國紐約,约翰·F·肯尼迪高中毕业。1974年就讀耶鲁大學,1977年在麻省理工學院取得博士學位,受到经济学家诺德豪斯的注意。畢業後先後於耶鲁大学、麻省理工及史丹福大學任教。2000年起,成為普林斯頓大學經濟系教授。

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

婴儿看护与宏观困境  

2009-09-07 22:48:18|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

续上一篇博客:错误百出的经济学家


钱老大[译]


IV. THE TROUBLE WITH MACRO


四、宏观困境

“We have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. The result is that our possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a time — perhaps for a long time.” So wrote John Maynard Keynes in an essay titled “The Great Slump of 1930,” in which he tried to explain the catastrophe then overtaking the world. And the world’s possibilities of wealth did indeed run to waste for a long time; it took World War II to bring the Great Depression to a definitive end.

“而今,我们身处巨大泥潭之中,对于这精巧机器的运转方式,一无所知,对它的控制,亦是错误百出。结果就是,我们发财致富的可能,在一段时间内,竟化泡影。这时间可能还会很长很长。”约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯,在一篇题为《速降1930》(The Great Slump of 1930)的论文中,试图对当时席卷全球的经济大难进行解释时,作如是感叹。实际亦是如此,全球的财富机会,在很长一段时间内,俱化灰烬;直至第二次世界大战,才使这次大萧条最终有了一个明确的说法。

Why was Keynes’s diagnosis of the Great Depression as a “colossal muddle” so compelling at first? And why did economics, circa 1975, divide into opposing camps over the value of Keynes’s views?

首先,凯恩斯在诊断大萧条时,用了一个如此强力的词:“巨大泥潭”呢?为什么在1975年左右,经济学界会在“如何认识凯恩斯思想”这个问题上,分化为两个完全对抗的阵营呢?

I like to explain the essence of Keynesian economics with a true story that also serves as a parable, a small-scale version of the messes that can afflict entire economies. Consider the travails of the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op.

我要用一个真实故事,也作为一个例子,看看这个乱世缩微版,看看它是如何消磨整体经济的,由此,我们可以来说明凯恩斯经济学的精髓所在。下面是一个关于“国会山婴儿看护合作社”(the capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op)的艰辛历程。

This co-op, whose problems were recounted in a 1977 article in The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, was an association of about 150 young couples who agreed to help one another by baby-sitting for one another’s children when parents wanted a night out. To ensure that every couple did its fair share of baby-sitting, the co-op introduced a form of scrip: coupons made out of heavy pieces of paper, each entitling the bearer to one half-hour of sitting time. Initially, members received 20 coupons on joining and were required to return the same amount on departing the group.

这家合作社的问题,在1977年《货币、信用与银行杂志》的一篇文章中,有详细介绍。它是一个由150对左右的年轻夫妇组成的合作体,他们同意:当有人想在外面过夜时,由其他人来提供帮助,帮忙照看他们的小孩。为了保证每一对夫妇,都拥有公平的“婴儿看护份额”,合作社引入了一种“临时票证”:用硬板纸做的息票,一张息票,就表示持有人拥有半小时的婴儿看护权。开始,入社时,社员得到20张息票,而且,并且要求:社员在退社时,要归还相同数量的息票。

Unfortunately, it turned out that the co-op’s members, on average, wanted to hold a reserve of more than 20 coupons, perhaps, in case they should want to go out several times in a row. As a result, relatively few people wanted to spend their scrip and go out, while many wanted to baby-sit so they could add to their hoard. But since baby-sitting opportunities arise only when someone goes out for the night, this meant that baby-sitting jobs were hard to find, which made members of the co-op even more reluctant to go out, making baby-sitting jobs even scarcer. . . .

不幸的是,结果表明:合作社的社员们,平均来说,都想持有多于20张息票的储备,这可能是因为他们大概想一连出去好多次吧。结果就成了:相对较少的人们愿意花掉自己的临时票证,他们很少出去,而相对较多的人却愿意去照顾小孩,这样,就可以多存几张息票了。但是,因为婴儿看护机会,只当有人出去过夜时,才会出现,所以,这就意味着:婴儿看护工作很难找到;这又使社员们更加不愿意出门了,又使得婴儿看护工作变得更加稀缺……

In short, the co-op fell into a recession.

总而言之,合作社陷入了衰退之中。


译者手记:

* 这个案例,似在克鲁格曼更早一些的作品中,也有出现。


  评论这张
 
阅读(10176)| 评论(19)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017