他她話題:資本主義貪得無厭的渴望

Most policy makers, and the economists who advise them, believe that the rich Western economies have suffered a mechanical malfunction. With the right monetary, fiscal and regulatory tools, the growth machine will eventually whirr into life. Others think the West's true malaise is not mechanical but moral: a love of money,markets and material things.

大多數決策者和爲他們提供建議的經濟學家們相信富裕的西方經濟遭受了一次機械故障。有了正確的貨幣，財政和監管工具，這部增長中的機器將最終迎來生機。另一些人認爲西方的乏力不在於機械體制而在於道德標準：對金錢、市場和物質的愛。

"How Much Is Enough?" and "What Money Can'tBuy" are well-argued versions of this second view. In the former, Robert and Edward Skidelsky, a father-and-son pair of British academics, take as theirtext an essay written in 1930 by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes (of whom the elderSkidelsky has written a three-volume biography) mused that within a century "the economic problem" would be solved: in rich countries people would be at least four times wealthier, on average, and have to work perhaps 15 hours a week. He looks right about living standards, but horribly wrong about working hours.

"多少纔算足夠？"和"什麼金錢無法買到"都對第二種觀點做了很好的論述。在前者中，英國學術界的Robert和Edward Skidelsky父子摘錄了凱恩斯在1930年寫的一篇文章。 凱恩斯（老Skidelsky曾爲其撰寫了一本3卷的傳記）通過沉思得出"經濟問題"將在一個世紀之內得以解決：在富裕國家，人民的平均財富將是現在的四倍多，同時工作時間也許變成每週15小時。他在生活水準上說對了，卻在工作時間上大錯特錯。

In the rich world the modern economic problem, the Skidelskys say, is how to live well amid plenty, not howto survive amid scarcity. Yet the West still chases slavishly after ever-higher gross domestic product, a purely material measure that takes no account of the blessings of nature or leisure. Humanity has become insatiable, in short. It istime to stop and rediscover the "good life". This they identify with a list of"basic goods": health, security, respect, "personality" (autonomy, if youprefer), harmony with nature, and leisure.

Skidelskys父子認爲在富裕國家，現代經濟的問題在於如何在富足中過好而不是如何在稀缺中生存。然而，西方社會仍在盲目追逐後更高的GDP這一純物質的完全與自然和悠閒生活無關的指標。簡而言之，人類已經變得貪得無厭。是時候停下來並重新發現"美好生活"了，對此他們列出了一個"美好的基本因素"清單：健康，安全，尊重，"個性化"（你也可以理解爲自主權），與自然和諧相處以及享受休閒生活。

You might expect the Skidelskys tomake common cause with those economists who believe that maximising "happiness"should be the goal of public policy. Not a bit of it. What makes people happy,they argue, is not necessarily good. They have little time for statistical measures of happiness—or the pursuit of any single metric. That would imply that the elements of the good life could be traded off against each other, whichthey deny. Nor do the Skidelskys ally themselves with environmentalists. Greens reject growth because they believe it cannot be sustained without wrecking theplanet. But what if it can? Better, say the Skidelskys, to pursue the good lifefor its own sake.

你可能以爲Skidelskys父子與那些主張應該將"幸福"最大化作爲公共政策目標的經濟學家有所共鳴。完全錯了。他們認爲讓人幸福的不一定是好東西。他們並沒有花時間去爲幸福做數學統計或追求任何單一指標。儘管他們否認，但這將意味着，美好生活的元素可以是此消彼長的。同時，Skidelskys父子也並非加入了環保人士陣營。綠黨拒絕增長，因爲他們相信持續的增長不可能不是以破壞地球爲代價的。但是，如果可能又如何呢？Skidelskys父子說，爲了生活本身去追求美好生活是更好的選擇。

Capitalism, they note, has "made possible vast improvements in material conditions", but it also fuels human insatiability. One way it does this is by "increasingly ‘monetising' the economy". Monetisation is what vexes Michael Sandel, a Harvard political philosopher, in "What Money Can't Buy". Mr Sandel poses a single question: has the role of markets spread too far?

他們指出資本主義"在物質條件上取得了巨大的進步"，但它也助長人的貪婪。其中一條途徑就是它這樣做的方法之一"使經濟日趨‘貨幣化'"。在"金錢不能買到什麼"一書中，貨幣化是一個令哈佛大學政治哲學家Michael Sandel困擾的問題。Sandel先生髮問：市場的作用是不是大過頭了？

He argues that it has, and packs his book with examples. Some, such as the sale of a poor man's kidney fortrans planting 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 are signed shrug. But almost all give pause for thought. Mr Sandel poses two objections consistently. One is inequality: the more things money can buy, themore the lack of it hurts. The other Mr Sandel calls "corruption": buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived. Paying people to give blood does not work. Giving school children money as an incentive to read books may make reading a chore rather than a life long pleasure.

他認爲市場的作用確實大過頭了，他在書中對此觀點進行了舉證。其中一些例子會讓很多人不安，如窮人出售腎臟移植給富人。其他一些則只會令人無奈的聳聳肩，如體育場館命名權的出售。但幾乎所有的例子都發人深省。Sandel先生連續提出了兩個反對。一個是不平等：當錢可以買到更多的東西，它帶來的傷害就越小。另一個被Sandel先生稱爲"腐敗"：對某件東西的買賣行爲會改變被人們這一物品的看法。對捐血的人進行支付是不起作用。付錢給小學生作爲讀書的獎勵可能使閱讀苦差事，而非終身樂趣。

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

Sandel先生並沒有精確指出底線應該在哪。他希望將這一命題留給公衆去辯論。Skidelskys父子則更加大膽地提出了針對追求美好生活且反對無休止增長的政策建議，即要有基本收入保障，基於消費而非收入的稅收政策，以及對商家廣告進行稅收抵扣。這將降低人們對工作的執着和消費的慾望。

Does the ratrace always detract from the good life? Only a few years ago, it would have been hard to imagine that whole libraries of books, music and information could be summoned 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 do with more, not less, GDP, the pursuit of wealth for its own sake is folly. Anyone who sets store by capitalism and markets will find both books uncomfortable reading. They should be read all the same.

那麼競爭與美好生活總是格格不入的嗎？短短几年前，人們還很難想象可以將整個圖書館的書籍、音樂和信息納於掌中的一部手機；然而對利潤的追求卻使之成爲現實。不過，"多少纔算足夠？"是一個很好的問題。 即使現在西方國家可以追逐更多而不是更少的GDP，爲了財富本身而追逐財富仍然是愚蠢的。而對那些認爲資本主義和市場經濟至關重要的人來說，儘管這兩本書讀起來會很不舒服，但還是應該認真閱讀。