评论
打印
Hi, I'm Adriene Hill.
嗨，我是埃德因·希尔。
And I'm Jacob Clifford, and this is Crash Course Economics.
我是雅各布·克利福德，欢迎收看经济速成班。
Today we're gonna talk about a lot of stuff.
我们今天要讲很多内容。
Everything from blundering planned economies to heartless free markets
从粗笨的计划经济到无情的自由市场，
from price gougers to indolent apparatchiks.
从哄抬价格到懒惰的官僚等方方面面的知识。
But it's not all bad news.
但也不全是坏消息。
We're going to learn that price signals indicate skinny jeans are on the way out.
我们将了解到，价格信号表明紧身牛仔裤即将过时。
We've talked about the different between free market economies, where supply and demand determine what gets produced,
我们讨论过供求关系决定生产的自由市场经济
and centrally planned economies, where government agencies decide what gets produced.
与政府机构决定生产的中央计划经济的区别。
Today we're gonna expand on that,
今天，我们将深入扩展一下，
and discuss why competitive markets have been more successful at providing most of the things people want.
讨论为什么竞争市场更能成功地为人们提供其所需的大部分用品。
Central planning has some upsides.
中央计划经济有一些好处，
Everyone who wants a job has a job, and production aims to meet an idealized version of society's collective goals.
每个想找工作的人都有工作，并且生产的目标是实现理想的社会集体目标。
But the reality of it has been less ideal for consumers in those societies.
但对这些社会中的消费者来说，现实却不那么理想。
In the Soviet Union, central planners were focused on producing heavy equipment and military hardware.
在苏联，中央计划经济的重点是生产重型设备和军事装备。
There were shortages of consumer goods, like soap, sugar and electronics.
消费品如肥皂、糖和电子产品等短缺。
It turns out that people care more about smartphones and good coffee than they care about tractors.
事实证明，人们更关心的是智能手机和优质咖啡，而不是拖拉机。
And so countries like China and Cuba have moved away from large-scale central planning.
因此，中国、古巴这样的国家已经远离了大规模的中央计划经济。
The problem with central planning is that it's inefficient.
中央计划经济的问题在于效率低下。
Now, when economists talk about efficiency,
现在，当经济学家们谈论效率时，
they're talking about a couple different types of efficiency that's different than the efficiency that you might know.
他们讨论的几种不同效率与你知道的可能不同。
The first is productive efficiency: the idea that products are being made at their lowest possible cost.
第一个是生产效率，即产品以尽可能低的成本生产。
This means that there are no wasted resources and that raw materials,
这意味着资源和原材料没有浪费，
workers and machines are being used to their fullest potential.
工人们和机器充分发挥他们的潜力。
Central planners in general, aren't that focused on cost.
总体而言，中央计划经济并没有把重点放在成本上。
But in the free market an individual business owner has an incentive not to be wasteful
但在自由市场中，个体企业主没有浪费的动机，
because they want to maximize profit.
因为他们想要最大化利润。
In the words of Milton Friedman;
用米尔顿·弗里德曼的话来说：
"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own."
“没有人花别人的钱会像花自己的那样小心。”
The second type of efficiency is called allocative efficiency.
第二个叫做分配效率。
This means that the things we're producing are the things that consumers actually want.
这意味着我们的产品是消费者真正想要的。
In other words, our scarce resources are being allocated towards the things we value.
换句话说，我们的稀缺资源正被分配到我们重视的东西上。
Let's say a company is producing only skinny jeans,
假设一家公司只生产紧身牛仔裤，
now if they're not hiring too many workers and if they're not ending up with a bunch of extra materials
如果他们不雇佣太多工人，并且没有额外得到一堆材料的话，
they're producing at the lowest possible cost and that's productively efficient.
它们会以尽可能低的成本生产，这种效率很高。
The problem is they only make skinny jeans.
但问题是他们只生产紧身牛仔裤。
Even though the company might be productively efficient they're probably not allocatively efficient.
尽管该公司的生产效率可能很高，但它们的分配效率可能并不高效。
Consumers don't want only skinny jeans some want bootcuts.
消费者不只想要紧身牛仔裤，有些人还想要靴裤。
Central planners are less likely to be allocatively efficient
中央计划经济不太可能分配高效，
because they have a harder feedback about what people want.
因为他们很难反馈人们的所求。
Free market producers of consumer goods collect a lot of data about consumer preferences through stuff like market research.
自由市场的消费者商品生产商通过市场调研等方式收集大量的消费者偏好数据。
But they can also learn a lot about consumer's wants by looking at prices.
但他们也可以通过价格来了解消费者的需求。
Economists call these price signals.
经济学家把这些称为“价格信号”。
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
我们去看“Thought Bubble”。
Okay, if people are paying high prices for skinny jeans,
如果人们为紧身牛仔裤付高价，
it tells producers "Society wants more skinny jeans, start making them."
它就在告诉生产商“社会想要更多的紧身牛仔裤，赶紧开始制作。”
If no one wants skinny jeans, producers start making something else instead.
如果没有人想要紧身牛仔裤，生产商就会转而生产其他产品。
Here's another example: tablet computers weren't really popular until apple introduced the iPad.
还有一个例子：直到苹果推出iPad，平板电脑才真正流行起来。
After that, boom! The market exploded.
在那之后，轰！平板电脑的市场爆炸性增长。
In fact, I know about 11% of you are watching this video on a tablet right now.
事实上，我知道你们其中有11%的人正在用平板电脑看这段视频。
Because I can see you. And I can't believe you're still wearing skinny jeans.
因为我可以看见你。我真不敢相信你还穿着紧身牛仔裤。
When Google, Samsung, and Microsoft saw Apple selling millions of iPads at 500 dollars and up,
当谷歌、三星和微软看到苹果公司以500美元甚至更高的价格出售数百万台ipad时，
they had an incentive to jump into the market.
他们就有了进入市场的动机。
Price signals not only tell producers what to make,
价格信号不仅告诉生产商生产什么，
but they also help distribute tablets to the people that value them the most.
也有助于把平板电脑分配给那些最重视它们的人。
For example: if someone's grandma doesn't really want a tablet
例如：如果某人的祖母不喜欢平板电脑，
and she was only willing to pay 20 dollars for one, she doesn't get it.
并只愿意花20美元买一台，她不会买得到。
Unless her grandkids drag her into the 21st century, by giving her one for Christmas.
除非她的孙子孙女们把她拖进21世纪，为她买一台作为圣诞礼物。
Some economists love price signals so much that they argue against the tradition of giving gifts.
一些经济学家非常喜欢价格信号，以至于他们反对赠送礼物的传统。
This argument was popularized by economist Joel Waldfogel who argued that gift giving is inefficient.
经济学家沃德弗格提出一种流行观点，他认为送礼是低效的。
From a macroeconomic point of view, holiday shopping boosts consumer spending, GDP and employment.
从宏观经济的角度来看，假日购物可以促进消费、GDP和就业。
But, if too many people are purchasing items that the end consumers don't value,
但是，如果有太多的人购买终端消费者不重视的商品，
then resources are being wasted.
那么资源就被浪费了。
Of course, this analysis doesn't factor in other implicit benefits of gift giving.
当然，这种分析并没有将赠送礼物的其他隐性好处纳入其中。
Like fostering love and affection among family and friends.
比如培养家人和朋友之间的情谊。
But the fact remains: The ideal gift in terms of efficiency is cash. Heart-warming cash.
但事实仍然是：在效率方面，理想的礼物是现金，感人的现金。
Thanks Thought Bubble.
感谢“Thought Bubble”。
Theoretically, in a free market, producers cannot make themselves better off without making consumers better off.
从理论上讲，在自由市场中，生产者如果不能让消费者变好，他们自己就不能变富。
If a company makes too many units of a product or just undesirable stuff,
如果一家公司生产太多的同种产品或者不受欢迎的产品，
They'll have to adapt quickly, or else it will go out of business.
它们必须迅速适应，否则就会破产。
Competition between businesses keeps prices and quality up.
企业之间的竞争使价格和质量保持向好趋势。
This is our old buddy Adam Smith's invisible hand.
这是我们的老朋友亚当·斯密说得“看不见的手”。
It's important to take a step back here and point out that
这里退一步指明
we're not saying that free markets are always good and that government involvement is always bad.
我们并不是说自由市场总是好的，而政府的介入总是糟糕的，这很重要。
Most economists recognize that markets aren't perfect and they often fail to meet society's needs.
大多数经济学家都认识到，市场并不完美，它往往无法满足社会的需求。
In these cases, economists encourage the government
在这种情况下，经济学家鼓励政府
to either regulate or take direct control of markets to improve social welfare.
要么规范要么直接控制市场以改善社会福利。
In the United States, which is often mistaken for a free market economy,
美国通常被误认为是自由市场经济，
it turns out just about everything is regulated.
但事实证明它的一切都受控制。
For example, FDA regulations reject
例如，美国食品及药物管理局（FDA）拒绝
any wheat that contains nine milligrams or more rodent excreta pellets and/or pellet fragments per kilogram.
任何每公斤含9毫克或更多啮齿动物排泄物或颗粒碎片的小麦。
And the government directly controls the markets for national defense and public education.
政府直接控制国防和公共教育市场。
The field of public economics analyzes this very thing.
公共经济学领域对此进行了分析。
Now I love rodent excrement and public education as much as the next girl.
我爱啮齿动物粪便和公共教育的程度和隔壁女孩一样多。
But let's get back to markets and the role that prices play in determining how we use our limited resources.
让我们回到市场与价格决定我们如何使用有限资源的作用上。
So price signals help us use our resources efficiently,
价格信号帮助我们有效地利用资源，
but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees that they are always right or just. Take price gouging.
但这并不意味着每个人都同意价格信号的正确性。以哄抬物价为例。
Price gouging happens when sellers raise prices for essential items like food, water, or gasoline.
当卖方提高食品、水或汽油等必需品的价格时，就会发生哄抬物价的现象。
When there's something like an emergency.
比如发生了紧急情况等事情。
Some argue that this practice exploits consumers and as an example of the cruelty of markets.
一些人认为这种做法剥削消费者，并以此作为市场残酷性的例子。
In the US, anti-price gouging laws have been enacted in 34 states.
在美国，34个州都颁布了反价格欺诈法。
But many economists say that these laws promote inefficiency and actually make the problem worse.
但许多经济学家都声称，这些法律促使效率更低下，实际使问题变得更糟。
They argue that allowing prices to increase in times of crisis
他们认为，在危机时刻允许价格上涨
encourages others outside the disaster zone to haul in and sell essential goods.
能鼓励灾区以外的人运送并销售必需品到灾区。
If prices aren't allowed to increase, then there's less of an incentive to bring this stuff in.
如果不允许价格上涨，那么人们就没有动力把这些东西带进来。
Furthermore, higher prices for things like batteries, sleeping bags, and generators
此外，电池、睡袋、发电机等物品价格升高
mean that people who don't really need them won't buy them,
意味着那些没有需求的人不会买它们，
making them more available to people who do.
让它们更容易到达需要之人的手里。
Now it might not always be government laws that limit price gouging.
哄抬价格并不总是政府法律的限制。
It may be the desire to earn profit that actually keeps prices down.
它可能是想通过实际压低价格来赚取利润。
It's clear that businesses can earn a ton of profit in the short run by price gouging, but what happens in the long run?
很明显，企业可以通过短期哄抬价格赚取大量利润，但长期如何呢？
Consumers are likely to remember how they were treated.
消费者可能会记得他们是如何被对待的。
This is part of the reason some businesses like Walmart
这就是某些企业如沃尔玛
has an emergency operation center and an in-house meteorologist to interpret weather patterns.
有一个紧急行动中心和内部“气象学家”来解释市场风云模式的部分原因
This allows them to have goods like water and batteries and stock when they're needed.
这使得他们在需要的时候可以有水、电池和原料之类的商品。
Not only is this profitable, it's also a pretty good public relations move.
这不仅有利可图，而且还是个相当好的公关活动。
In fact, in some cases like Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
事实上，在某些情况下，比如2005年的卡特里娜飓风，
private businesses were quicker to provide disaster relief than government agencies.
私营企业比政府机构更快地提供救灾援助。
A different example of how the price system is perceived as unjust is below-cost pricing.
价格体系被认为不公平的另一个例子是低于成本的定价。
Sometimes called predatory pricing.
有时它被称为掠夺性定价。
This is the idea that a business can drive out competitors by charging lower prices even at a short-term loss.
它是指即使短期亏损，企业也可以通过更低的定价来赶走竞争对手。
Competitors that can't sustain such low prices will be forced out of the market,
无法维持如此低价的竞争对手将被迫退出市场，
giving the surviving businesses market share and the ability to raise prices.
给予幸存企业市场份额和提高价格的能力。
Let's talk about Walmart again.
我们再以沃尔玛为例。
Walmart has been the target of numerous predatory pricing lawsuits.
沃尔玛一直是众多掠夺性定价诉讼的目标。
Their size allows them to squeeze distributors and sell products at very low prices.
它们的规模使它们能够以极低的价格挤压分销商，销售产品。
Although lots of consumers like these low prices, it's bad for competitors.
尽管许多消费者喜欢这些低价格，但这对竞争对手不利。
Especially small mom-and-pop stores, who are sometimes pushed out of the market.
尤其是家庭经营的小店有时会被挤出市场。
But is it predatory pricing?
但这是掠夺性定价吗？
In the US, the courts have said it's not. the federal trade commission's website states,
在美国，法院已经表示这不是。联邦贸易委员会的网站上说，
"Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully,
“尽管联邦贸易委员会仔细审查掠夺性定价的索赔，
courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims."
但包括最高法院在内的法院对这种说法持怀疑态度。”
So predatory pricing lawsuits are common, but very rarely successful in the US.
因此，掠夺性定价诉讼很常见，但在美国很少成功。
In Germany, Walmart faced the same sort of accusations in 2000 and was ordered to raise some of its prices.
2000年，分布在德国的沃尔玛面临同样的指控，并被要求提高部分商品价格。
The company ended up leaving Germany in 2006.
最终，该公司于2006年退出德国。
Predatory pricing is difficult and risky.
掠夺性定价困难且冒险。
When a business successfully eliminates their competitors by selling products at a loss,
当一家企业成功通过亏本销售来消除竞争对手时，
they're eventually gonna need to increase their prices above the market price to make up for those losses.
他们最终需要将价格提高到高于市场的价格，以弥补这些损失。
In the short run, consumers would have to pay more.
短期内，消费者将不得不支付更多。
But eventually, other businesses would be attracted by the higher prices and enter the market.
但最终，其他企业会被更高价格所吸引并进入市场。
The end result is that there's no guarantee that predatory pricing is worth it in the long run.
从长远来看，掠夺性定价的最终结果是不值得。
There's tons of examples of corporate greed, inequality, and disregard for the environment
企业贪婪、不平等、漠视环境的例子比比皆是，
that make people wonder if markets are evil.
让人们怀疑市场的邪恶。
And they are. Thanks for watching! We'll see you next week!
它们确实邪恶。感谢您的收看！我们下期见！
Now, there are some examples of socially conscious companies
现在，有一些具有社会意识的公司
that make an effort to protect the environment and help the disadvantaged.
为保护环境和帮助弱势群体做着努力。
Capitalism, with its focus on prices rather than fairness is often characterized as the opposite of altruism.
资本主义以价格而不是公平为中心，通常被认为是利他主义的反面。
But the two can and do coexist. But here's the big takeaway:
但两者可以并存。这里有一个重要的结论：
Capitalism, with its system of price signals, is basically crowdfunding.
拥有价格信号系统的资本主义基本上是众筹。
We collectively choose what we want and how we want it made when we spend our money.
我们花钱时，会共同选择我们想要的以及它们的制作方式。
After all, companies can't force you to buy their stuff, they have to earn your money.
毕竟，企业不能强迫你去买他们的东西，他们必须赚你的钱。
Now if you want to see real changes in the world,
如果你想看到世界的真实变化，
don't just complain that corporations are greedy; expect more from them.
不要只是抱怨公司太贪婪，对它们有太多期待。
You also need to expect more from ourselves.
你也需要对自己有更多期待
If you disagree with the way a retailer treats its workers, then don't buy from them.
如果你不同意零售商对待员工的方式，那就不要从他们那里买东西。
Even if they do have the lowest prices and convenient delivery options
即使他们有最低的价格和方便的送货方式。
If we as consumers want our purchases to have a positive impact,
如果我们消费者希望自己的购买能够产生积极影响，
it's on us to seek out companies that try to improve the world.
寻找那些试图改善世界的公司是我们的责任。
This might mean paying more for the stuff we buy or it might mean buying less stuff.
这可能意味着我们要支付得更多或者买到的更少。
A market-based society still has shared social goals.
一个以市场为基础的社会仍然有共同的社会目标。
They just don't come from a central planner.
它们不是来自中央计划经济。
Sure, some of our social priorities come from governments,
当然，我们的一些社会优先事项来自政府，
but they also come from each of us
但它们也来自于我们每个人
and the decisions we make about how to spend our time, and energy, and money.
以及我们如何花费时间、精力和金钱的决定。
It's also worth remembering that it's a luxury to have these discussions.
同样值得记住的是，进行这些讨论是一种奢侈。
For many, many people around the world who live in poverty
对于世界上许多生活在贫困中、
and have trouble affording the basic necessities of life,
并难以负担生活基本必需品的人们来说，
paying a higher price based on conscience isn't an option.
基于良心付出更高的代价并不是一种选择。
Thanks for watching! We'll see you next week.
谢谢收看！我们下周见。
Crash Course Economics is made with the help of all these fine people.
经济速成班是由这群好心人制作的。
You can support Crash Course at Patreon, a voluntary subscription service
你可以支持Patreon的速成课程，它是个自愿订阅服务，
where your support helps keeps Crash Course free for everyone forever.
你可以让它们向所有人永远免费开放，
And you get great rewards! Thanks for watching and DFTBA.
并获得大奖！感谢您的收看，别忘了做个了不起的人！
