Book Review;Money and themarkets;Insatiable longing

　　書評(píng);金錢與市場;貪婪的欲求：資本主義的局限性;

　　Two new books probe the limits of capitalism;

　　兩本探討資本主義局限性的新書;

　　How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life. ByRobert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky.

　　《多少才算夠?金錢與良好生活》，作者：羅伯特斯科德爾斯基和愛德華斯科德爾斯基。

　　What Money Can t Buy: The Moral Limits ofMarkets. By Michael Sandel.

　　《錢買不到的東西：市場的道德局限性》，作者：邁克爾桑德爾。

　　MOST policymakers, and the economists who advise them, believe that the rich Westerneconomies have suffered a mechanical malfunction. With the right monetary, fiscal andregulatory tools, the growth machine will eventually whirr into life. Others think the West strue malaise is not mechanical but moral: a love of money, markets and material things.

　　在大多數(shù)當(dāng)權(quán)者以及向他們建言的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家看來，富裕的西方經(jīng)濟(jì)遭遇了機(jī)制性的失調(diào)。只要運(yùn)用正確的貨幣和財(cái)政政策及監(jiān)管工具，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長機(jī)器終究會(huì)恢復(fù)生機(jī)。但另有一些人認(rèn)為，西方世界的真正病因不是源自機(jī)制，而是源自道德：是對金錢、市場和物質(zhì)生活的追逐。

　　How Much Is Enough? and What Money Can t Buy are well-argued versions of this secondview. In the former, Robert and Edward Skidelsky, a father-and-son pair of Britishacademics, take as their text an essay written in 1930 by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes mused that within acentury the economic problem would be solved: in rich countries people would be at leastfour times wealthier, on average, and have to work perhaps 15 hours a week. He looks rightabout living standards, but horribly wrong about working hours.

　　《多少才算夠?》和《錢買不到的東西》這兩本書，雄辯地論證了上面所說的第二種觀點(diǎn)。前一本書的作者是英國父子學(xué)者羅伯特斯科德爾斯基和愛德華斯科德爾斯基。他們在書中從約翰梅納德凱因斯在1930年寫的一篇論文說起。凱恩斯在那篇論文文中預(yù)言，不出一百年，經(jīng)濟(jì)問題將不成其為問題。在富裕國家中，人們的財(cái)富將增加三倍，平均每周將只工作15小時(shí)。他對生活水平的預(yù)言看來是對的，但對工作時(shí)間的預(yù)言卻大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了。

　　In the rich world the modern economic problem, the Skidelskys say, is how to live well amidplenty, not how to survive amid scarcity. Yet the West still chases slavishly afterever-higher gross domestic product, a purely material measure that takes no account ofthe blessings of nature or leisure. Humanity has become insatiable, in short. It is time tostop and rediscover the good life. This they identify with a list of basic goods: health,security, respect, personality , harmony with nature, andleisure.

　　斯科德爾斯基父子認(rèn)為，在富裕世界里，現(xiàn)時(shí)的經(jīng)濟(jì)問題已經(jīng)不是如何在短缺的環(huán)境中掙扎生存，而是如何在豐裕的環(huán)境中過高質(zhì)量的生活。但是西方世界仍然在竭力追求不斷增長的GDP。GDP是一個(gè)純粹的物質(zhì)性指標(biāo)，完全忽略自然和閑適的價(jià)值。簡言之，人類已經(jīng)變得貪得無厭。現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)到了反思和重新定義良好生活的時(shí)候了。他們對良好生活的定義包括一系列基本條件：健康、安全、尊嚴(yán)、個(gè)性、與自然的和諧關(guān)系，以及閑適。

　　You might expect the Skidelskys to make common cause with those economists who believethat maximising happiness should be the goal of public policy. Not a bit of it. What makespeople happy, they argue, is not necessarily good. They have little time for statisticalmeasures of happinessor the pursuit of any single metric. That would imply that theelements of the good life could be traded off against each other, which they deny. Nor do theSkidelskys ally themselves with environmentalists. Greens reject growth because theybelieve it cannot be sustained without wrecking the planet. But what if it can? Better, saythe Skidelskys, to pursue the good life for its own sake.

　　人們可能以為，斯科德爾斯基父子和那些認(rèn)為公共政策目標(biāo)應(yīng)當(dāng)是幸福最大化的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家屬于同一陣營，其實(shí)不然。斯氏父子認(rèn)為，使人們感到幸福的事情，不一定都是好事。他們在書中幾乎沒有討論幸福的統(tǒng)計(jì)指標(biāo)或度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題。那些統(tǒng)計(jì)指標(biāo)意味著，良好生活的各種要素是可以互相替換的，而他們否認(rèn)這種可替換性。另外，斯氏父子也不贊成環(huán)境主義者的主張。綠色運(yùn)動(dòng)倡導(dǎo)者們反對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為，不毀掉地球，就不會(huì)有可持續(xù)的增長。但是，持續(xù)的增長不一定以毀掉地球?yàn)榇鷥r(jià)。斯氏父子認(rèn)為，更重要的是探究良好生活本身的意義。

　　Capitalism, they note, has made possible vast improvements in material conditions, but italso fuels human insatiability. One way it does this is by increasingly monetising theeconomy. Monetisation is what vexes Michael Sandel, a Harvard political philosopher, inWhat Money Can t Buy. Mr Sandel poses a single question: has the role of markets spreadtoo far?

　　他們認(rèn)為，資本主義在極大地改善了人們的物質(zhì)生活條件的同時(shí)，也助長了人們貪婪的本性。其途徑之一是使經(jīng)濟(jì)越來越金錢化。金錢化是哈佛大學(xué)哲學(xué)家邁克爾桑德爾在《金錢買不到的東西》一書中的重點(diǎn)關(guān)注。桑德爾先生提出了一個(gè)問題：市場化是否已經(jīng)走得太遠(yuǎn)了?

　　He argues that it has, and packs his book with examples. Some, such as the sale of a poorman s kidney for transplanting into a rich man s body, will make many people squirm.Others, such as the sale of naming rights for sports stadiums, may yield only a resignedshrug. But almost all give pause for thought. Mr Sandel poses two objections consistently.One is inequality: the more things money can buy, the more the lack of it hurts. The otherMr Sandel calls corruption: buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived.Paying people to give blood does not work. Giving schoolchildren money as an incentive toread books may make reading a chore rather than a lifelong pleasure.

　　桑德爾認(rèn)為，市場化確實(shí)太過分了，在書中他舉出了很多例子。有些例子，比如窮人出賣腎臟移植于富人的身體，會(huì)使很多人感到不安。另一些例子，如體育場出賣掛名權(quán)，大概只會(huì)使人無奈地聳聳肩而已。但幾乎所有的例子都令人思考。桑德斯先生在書中反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)了他對過度市場化的兩個(gè)反對意見。其一是不平等：錢能買到的東西越多，缺錢帶來的傷害就越大。其二是桑德斯先生所稱的腐蝕：買賣行為會(huì)改變?nèi)藗儗α己檬挛锏目捶āＨ鐚ΛI(xiàn)血人付錢的辦法并不能鼓勵(lì)更多的人獻(xiàn)血;用給錢來鼓勵(lì)小學(xué)生閱讀書籍，會(huì)使閱讀成為一種負(fù)擔(dān)而不是終生的樂趣。

　　Mr Sandel does not say precisely where he thinks the limit should lie. That should be left, hehopes, to public debate. The Skidelskys are bolder, proposing policies that would encouragethe pursuit of the good life rather than endless growth: a basic income; a tax on consumptionrather than income; and an end to the tax-deductibility of company spending on advertising.This would reduce the incentive to work and the temptation to consume.

　　桑德斯先生并沒有明確指出市場化的邊界應(yīng)當(dāng)在哪里。他希望通過公眾的討論來解決這個(gè)問題。但斯氏父子在這個(gè)問題上更為激進(jìn)，他們提出了一些政策建議，這些政策旨在鼓勵(lì)人們追求良好生活而不是無止境的增長：有限的基本收入;用消費(fèi)稅取代收入稅;廣告支出不再計(jì)入公司的稅前成本。這些措施將降低人們的工作動(dòng)力和消費(fèi)欲望。

　　Does the rat race always detract from the good life? Only a few years ago, it would havebeen hard to imagine that whole libraries of books, music and information could besummoned to a phone in your palm; yet the pursuit of profit has helped to put them there.Nevertheless, How Much Is Enough? is a good question. Even if just now the West could dowith more, not less, GDP, the pursuit of wealth for its own sake is folly. Anyone who setsstore by capitalism and markets will find both books uncomfortable reading. They should beread all the same.

　　難道激烈的商業(yè)競爭總是良好生活的負(fù)面因素嗎?幾年以前，還很難想象整座圖書館的書籍、音樂和信息可以儲(chǔ)存在一部小小的手機(jī)里，但人們對利潤的追逐使它得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。盡管如此，多少才算夠?仍然是一個(gè)有意義的問題。即便西方目前可以創(chuàng)造更多而不是更少的GDP，為了追求財(cái)富而追求財(cái)富也是愚蠢的。任何一個(gè)贊同資本主義和市場的人，都會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這兩本書讀起來很不舒服，但它們還是值得讀一讀的。

　　Book Review;Money and themarkets;Insatiable longing

　　書評(píng);金錢與市場;貪婪的欲求：資本主義的局限性;

　　Two new books probe the limits of capitalism;

　　兩本探討資本主義局限性的新書;

　　How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life. ByRobert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky.

　　《多少才算夠?金錢與良好生活》，作者：羅伯特斯科德爾斯基和愛德華斯科德爾斯基。

　　What Money Can t Buy: The Moral Limits ofMarkets. By Michael Sandel.

　　《錢買不到的東西：市場的道德局限性》，作者：邁克爾桑德爾。

　　MOST policymakers, and the economists who advise them, believe that the rich Westerneconomies have suffered a mechanical malfunction. With the right monetary, fiscal andregulatory tools, the growth machine will eventually whirr into life. Others think the West strue malaise is not mechanical but moral: a love of money, markets and material things.

　　在大多數(shù)當(dāng)權(quán)者以及向他們建言的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家看來，富裕的西方經(jīng)濟(jì)遭遇了機(jī)制性的失調(diào)。只要運(yùn)用正確的貨幣和財(cái)政政策及監(jiān)管工具，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長機(jī)器終究會(huì)恢復(fù)生機(jī)。但另有一些人認(rèn)為，西方世界的真正病因不是源自機(jī)制，而是源自道德：是對金錢、市場和物質(zhì)生活的追逐。

　　How Much Is Enough? and What Money Can t Buy are well-argued versions of this secondview. In the former, Robert and Edward Skidelsky, a father-and-son pair of Britishacademics, take as their text an essay written in 1930 by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes mused that within acentury the economic problem would be solved: in rich countries people would be at leastfour times wealthier, on average, and have to work perhaps 15 hours a week. He looks rightabout living standards, but horribly wrong about working hours.

　　《多少才算夠?》和《錢買不到的東西》這兩本書，雄辯地論證了上面所說的第二種觀點(diǎn)。前一本書的作者是英國父子學(xué)者羅伯特斯科德爾斯基和愛德華斯科德爾斯基。他們在書中從約翰梅納德凱因斯在1930年寫的一篇論文說起。凱恩斯在那篇論文文中預(yù)言，不出一百年，經(jīng)濟(jì)問題將不成其為問題。在富裕國家中，人們的財(cái)富將增加三倍，平均每周將只工作15小時(shí)。他對生活水平的預(yù)言看來是對的，但對工作時(shí)間的預(yù)言卻大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了。

　　In the rich world the modern economic problem, the Skidelskys say, is how to live well amidplenty, not how to survive amid scarcity. Yet the West still chases slavishly afterever-higher gross domestic product, a purely material measure that takes no account ofthe blessings of nature or leisure. Humanity has become insatiable, in short. It is time tostop and rediscover the good life. This they identify with a list of basic goods: health,security, respect, personality , harmony with nature, andleisure.

　　斯科德爾斯基父子認(rèn)為，在富裕世界里，現(xiàn)時(shí)的經(jīng)濟(jì)問題已經(jīng)不是如何在短缺的環(huán)境中掙扎生存，而是如何在豐裕的環(huán)境中過高質(zhì)量的生活。但是西方世界仍然在竭力追求不斷增長的GDP。GDP是一個(gè)純粹的物質(zhì)性指標(biāo)，完全忽略自然和閑適的價(jià)值。簡言之，人類已經(jīng)變得貪得無厭。現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)到了反思和重新定義良好生活的時(shí)候了。他們對良好生活的定義包括一系列基本條件：健康、安全、尊嚴(yán)、個(gè)性、與自然的和諧關(guān)系，以及閑適。

　　You might expect the Skidelskys to make common cause with those economists who believethat maximising happiness should be the goal of public policy. Not a bit of it. What makespeople happy, they argue, is not necessarily good. They have little time for statisticalmeasures of happinessor the pursuit of any single metric. That would imply that theelements of the good life could be traded off against each other, which they deny. Nor do theSkidelskys ally themselves with environmentalists. Greens reject growth because theybelieve it cannot be sustained without wrecking the planet. But what if it can? Better, saythe Skidelskys, to pursue the good life for its own sake.

　　人們可能以為，斯科德爾斯基父子和那些認(rèn)為公共政策目標(biāo)應(yīng)當(dāng)是幸福最大化的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家屬于同一陣營，其實(shí)不然。斯氏父子認(rèn)為，使人們感到幸福的事情，不一定都是好事。他們在書中幾乎沒有討論幸福的統(tǒng)計(jì)指標(biāo)或度量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題。那些統(tǒng)計(jì)指標(biāo)意味著，良好生活的各種要素是可以互相替換的，而他們否認(rèn)這種可替換性。另外，斯氏父子也不贊成環(huán)境主義者的主張。綠色運(yùn)動(dòng)倡導(dǎo)者們反對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為，不毀掉地球，就不會(huì)有可持續(xù)的增長。但是，持續(xù)的增長不一定以毀掉地球?yàn)榇鷥r(jià)。斯氏父子認(rèn)為，更重要的是探究良好生活本身的意義。

　　Capitalism, they note, has made possible vast improvements in material conditions, but italso fuels human insatiability. One way it does this is by increasingly monetising theeconomy. Monetisation is what vexes Michael Sandel, a Harvard political philosopher, inWhat Money Can t Buy. Mr Sandel poses a single question: has the role of markets spreadtoo far?

　　他們認(rèn)為，資本主義在極大地改善了人們的物質(zhì)生活條件的同時(shí)，也助長了人們貪婪的本性。其途徑之一是使經(jīng)濟(jì)越來越金錢化。金錢化是哈佛大學(xué)哲學(xué)家邁克爾桑德爾在《金錢買不到的東西》一書中的重點(diǎn)關(guān)注。桑德爾先生提出了一個(gè)問題：市場化是否已經(jīng)走得太遠(yuǎn)了?

　　He argues that it has, and packs his book with examples. Some, such as the sale of a poorman s kidney for transplanting into a rich man s body, will make many people squirm.Others, such as the sale of naming rights for sports stadiums, may yield only a resignedshrug. But almost all give pause for thought. Mr Sandel poses two objections consistently.One is inequality: the more things money can buy, the more the lack of it hurts. The otherMr Sandel calls corruption: buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived.Paying people to give blood does not work. Giving schoolchildren money as an incentive toread books may make reading a chore rather than a lifelong pleasure.

　　桑德爾認(rèn)為，市場化確實(shí)太過分了，在書中他舉出了很多例子。有些例子，比如窮人出賣腎臟移植于富人的身體，會(huì)使很多人感到不安。另一些例子，如體育場出賣掛名權(quán)，大概只會(huì)使人無奈地聳聳肩而已。但幾乎所有的例子都令人思考。桑德斯先生在書中反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)了他對過度市場化的兩個(gè)反對意見。其一是不平等：錢能買到的東西越多，缺錢帶來的傷害就越大。其二是桑德斯先生所稱的腐蝕：買賣行為會(huì)改變?nèi)藗儗α己檬挛锏目捶āＨ鐚ΛI(xiàn)血人付錢的辦法并不能鼓勵(lì)更多的人獻(xiàn)血;用給錢來鼓勵(lì)小學(xué)生閱讀書籍，會(huì)使閱讀成為一種負(fù)擔(dān)而不是終生的樂趣。

　　Mr Sandel does not say precisely where he thinks the limit should lie. That should be left, hehopes, to public debate. The Skidelskys are bolder, proposing policies that would encouragethe pursuit of the good life rather than endless growth: a basic income; a tax on consumptionrather than income; and an end to the tax-deductibility of company spending on advertising.This would reduce the incentive to work and the temptation to consume.

　　桑德斯先生并沒有明確指出市場化的邊界應(yīng)當(dāng)在哪里。他希望通過公眾的討論來解決這個(gè)問題。但斯氏父子在這個(gè)問題上更為激進(jìn)，他們提出了一些政策建議，這些政策旨在鼓勵(lì)人們追求良好生活而不是無止境的增長：有限的基本收入;用消費(fèi)稅取代收入稅;廣告支出不再計(jì)入公司的稅前成本。這些措施將降低人們的工作動(dòng)力和消費(fèi)欲望。

　　Does the rat race always detract from the good life? Only a few years ago, it would havebeen hard to imagine that whole libraries of books, music and information could besummoned to a phone in your palm; yet the pursuit of profit has helped to put them there.Nevertheless, How Much Is Enough? is a good question. Even if just now the West could dowith more, not less, GDP, the pursuit of wealth for its own sake is folly. Anyone who setsstore by capitalism and markets will find both books uncomfortable reading. They should beread all the same.

　　難道激烈的商業(yè)競爭總是良好生活的負(fù)面因素嗎?幾年以前，還很難想象整座圖書館的書籍、音樂和信息可以儲(chǔ)存在一部小小的手機(jī)里，但人們對利潤的追逐使它得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。盡管如此，多少才算夠?仍然是一個(gè)有意義的問題。即便西方目前可以創(chuàng)造更多而不是更少的GDP，為了追求財(cái)富而追求財(cái)富也是愚蠢的。任何一個(gè)贊同資本主義和市場的人，都會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這兩本書讀起來很不舒服，但它們還是值得讀一讀的。