Insatiable longing

　　永無(wú)止境的欲望

　　Two new books probe the limits of capitalism

　　兩本新書(shū)帶領(lǐng)我們探索資本主義的底線

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

　　《多少錢才算夠?錢財(cái)與好生活》 羅伯特?斯基德?tīng)査够c愛(ài)德華斯基德?tīng)査够?/p>

　　And What Money Can t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. By Michael Sandel.

　　《錢財(cái)所不能買：市場(chǎng)的道德底線》 邁克爾桑德?tīng)栔?/p>

　　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.

　　西方大國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)就像是一臺(tái)機(jī)器。許多決策者，和作為顧問(wèn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家認(rèn)為這臺(tái)機(jī)器運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題。采用合適的貨幣，財(cái)政政策，配合上監(jiān)管機(jī)制，問(wèn)題才能得以解決，經(jīng)濟(jì)才會(huì)蒸蒸日上。其他人則認(rèn)為西方國(guó)家并不是運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題，而是道德出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題：永無(wú)止境地追求財(cái)富，市場(chǎng)和物質(zhì)，這才是問(wèn)題。

　　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.

　　《多少錢才算夠?》和《錢財(cái)所不能買》兩本書(shū)對(duì)第二種觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行很好的論證。羅伯特斯基德?tīng)査够蛺?ài)德華斯基德?tīng)査够鶅扇耸怯?guó)大學(xué)教師，父子二人合作共同寫成《多少錢才算夠?》此書(shū)。新書(shū)以約翰梅納德凱恩斯于1930年寫的一篇論文為背景。凱恩斯猜想一百年以內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題將會(huì)得以解決，富國(guó)人民至少富裕四倍;平均下來(lái)，每周大概只需工作15個(gè)小時(shí)。對(duì)于生活水平，凱恩斯是猜對(duì)了，但是對(duì)于工作時(shí)間，凱恩斯卻是大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)。

　　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 after ever-higher gross domestic product, a purely material measure that takes no account of theblessings of nature or leisure. Humanity has become insatiable, in short. It is time to stopand rediscover the good life. This they identify with a list of basic goods: health,security, respect, personality , harmony with nature, andleisure.

　　斯基德?tīng)査够缸诱J(rèn)為富國(guó)的現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題是如何在富裕中更好生活，而非如何于貧瘠中生存。但是西方國(guó)家仍盲目追求更高的國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值，他們完全以物質(zhì)衡量一切，無(wú)視自然和放松為我們帶來(lái)的益處。簡(jiǎn)而言之，人性變得貪得無(wú)厭。我們應(yīng)該停下腳步，重新發(fā)掘生活中的美好事物。有人還列了一張表叫《生活必備的美好事物》，其中包括健康，安全保障，尊重，自我個(gè)性，與大自然的協(xié)調(diào)，還有身心放松的狀態(tài)。

　　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.

　　一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家認(rèn)為公共政策的目標(biāo)是將幸福最大化。你或許會(huì)以為斯基德?tīng)査够缸訒?huì)與這些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家有所合作。那你們就想錯(cuò)了。父子提出理由說(shuō)明使人們幸福的事物并不一定是美好的事物。他們沒(méi)有時(shí)間進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)衡量幸福，也沒(méi)有時(shí)間衡量其他事物。那說(shuō)明生活的美好元素是可以相互平衡協(xié)調(diào)，對(duì)此父子兩人不以肯定。兩人也沒(méi)有與環(huán)保學(xué)家合作。環(huán)保人士否定經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的意義，因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為經(jīng)濟(jì)要持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)就必須破壞地球。但是如果不用破壞地球呢?斯基德?tīng)査够缸诱f(shuō)，那最好只為生活而追求美好生活。

　　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?

　　他們指出資本主義已經(jīng)最大程度地改善物質(zhì)生活，但同時(shí)資本主義也使人的欲望變本加厲，其中的途徑之一就是以財(cái)富衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)。哈佛大學(xué)政治哲學(xué)家，邁克爾桑德?tīng)栐凇跺X財(cái)所不能買》中提到一切向錢看齊，這種思想讓他很惱火。桑德?tīng)栂壬岢鲆粋€(gè)問(wèn)題：如今市場(chǎng)的作用是否過(guò)大?

　　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.

　　他認(rèn)為是的，并且在書(shū)中提出大量論據(jù)。例如，販賣窮人的腎，移植到富人體內(nèi)，這樣的例子讓人心神不寧。又例如，出售體育館的命名權(quán)，對(duì)此人們大概只會(huì)無(wú)奈的聳聳肩。但幾乎所有人都會(huì)重新考慮市場(chǎng)的作用。桑德?tīng)栂壬鷮?duì)兩點(diǎn)不斷提出異議。第一點(diǎn)是分配不公：錢的作用越大，沒(méi)有錢就會(huì)越痛苦。桑德?tīng)栂壬鷮⒌诙c(diǎn)稱為人性扭曲：買賣會(huì)改變美好事物的性質(zhì)。人們不能付錢買血。但是以錢作為獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，讓孩子讀書(shū)，會(huì)使閱讀變得無(wú)聊乏味，可閱讀應(yīng)該是人生一大樂(lè)事。

　　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?tīng)栂壬](méi)有明確指出他認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)的底線應(yīng)在何處。他希望這個(gè)問(wèn)題留給大眾決定。斯基德?tīng)査够缸觿t較為大膽，提出若干政策以鼓勵(lì)追求美好生活，而不是一味追求永無(wú)止境的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。這些措施包括基本收入，收取消費(fèi)稅，取消個(gè)人收入所得稅，對(duì)公司的廣告支出重新征稅。這些措施會(huì)減少人們工作和消費(fèi)的欲望。

　　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.

　　市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈是否會(huì)使好生活減分不少?若干年前，將全圖書(shū)館的書(shū)籍，所有音樂(lè)和信息集于手掌上的電話，這種事根本是無(wú)法想象的。但是逐利的思想使之成為現(xiàn)實(shí)。不過(guò)多少錢才算夠?這個(gè)問(wèn)題提得好。即使現(xiàn)在西方國(guó)家國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長(zhǎng)了不少，僅為財(cái)富而追求財(cái)富，這種做法仍是愚蠢的。信奉資本主義和市場(chǎng)的人會(huì)覺(jué)得這兩本書(shū)讀起來(lái)很不舒服。不管怎樣，這兩本書(shū)都值得一讀。

　　Insatiable longing

　　永無(wú)止境的欲望

　　Two new books probe the limits of capitalism

　　兩本新書(shū)帶領(lǐng)我們探索資本主義的底線

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

　　《多少錢才算夠?錢財(cái)與好生活》 羅伯特?斯基德?tīng)査够c愛(ài)德華斯基德?tīng)査够?/p>

　　And What Money Can t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. By Michael Sandel.

　　《錢財(cái)所不能買：市場(chǎng)的道德底線》 邁克爾桑德?tīng)栔?/p>

　　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.

　　西方大國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)就像是一臺(tái)機(jī)器。許多決策者，和作為顧問(wèn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家認(rèn)為這臺(tái)機(jī)器運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題。采用合適的貨幣，財(cái)政政策，配合上監(jiān)管機(jī)制，問(wèn)題才能得以解決，經(jīng)濟(jì)才會(huì)蒸蒸日上。其他人則認(rèn)為西方國(guó)家并不是運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題，而是道德出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題：永無(wú)止境地追求財(cái)富，市場(chǎng)和物質(zhì)，這才是問(wèn)題。

　　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.

　　《多少錢才算夠?》和《錢財(cái)所不能買》兩本書(shū)對(duì)第二種觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行很好的論證。羅伯特斯基德?tīng)査够蛺?ài)德華斯基德?tīng)査够鶅扇耸怯?guó)大學(xué)教師，父子二人合作共同寫成《多少錢才算夠?》此書(shū)。新書(shū)以約翰梅納德凱恩斯于1930年寫的一篇論文為背景。凱恩斯猜想一百年以內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題將會(huì)得以解決，富國(guó)人民至少富裕四倍;平均下來(lái)，每周大概只需工作15個(gè)小時(shí)。對(duì)于生活水平，凱恩斯是猜對(duì)了，但是對(duì)于工作時(shí)間，凱恩斯卻是大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)。

　　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 after ever-higher gross domestic product, a purely material measure that takes no account of theblessings of nature or leisure. Humanity has become insatiable, in short. It is time to stopand rediscover the good life. This they identify with a list of basic goods: health,security, respect, personality , harmony with nature, andleisure.

　　斯基德?tīng)査够缸诱J(rèn)為富國(guó)的現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題是如何在富裕中更好生活，而非如何于貧瘠中生存。但是西方國(guó)家仍盲目追求更高的國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值，他們完全以物質(zhì)衡量一切，無(wú)視自然和放松為我們帶來(lái)的益處。簡(jiǎn)而言之，人性變得貪得無(wú)厭。我們應(yīng)該停下腳步，重新發(fā)掘生活中的美好事物。有人還列了一張表叫《生活必備的美好事物》，其中包括健康，安全保障，尊重，自我個(gè)性，與大自然的協(xié)調(diào)，還有身心放松的狀態(tài)。

　　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.

　　一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家認(rèn)為公共政策的目標(biāo)是將幸福最大化。你或許會(huì)以為斯基德?tīng)査够缸訒?huì)與這些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家有所合作。那你們就想錯(cuò)了。父子提出理由說(shuō)明使人們幸福的事物并不一定是美好的事物。他們沒(méi)有時(shí)間進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)衡量幸福，也沒(méi)有時(shí)間衡量其他事物。那說(shuō)明生活的美好元素是可以相互平衡協(xié)調(diào)，對(duì)此父子兩人不以肯定。兩人也沒(méi)有與環(huán)保學(xué)家合作。環(huán)保人士否定經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的意義，因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為經(jīng)濟(jì)要持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)就必須破壞地球。但是如果不用破壞地球呢?斯基德?tīng)査够缸诱f(shuō)，那最好只為生活而追求美好生活。

　　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?

　　他們指出資本主義已經(jīng)最大程度地改善物質(zhì)生活，但同時(shí)資本主義也使人的欲望變本加厲，其中的途徑之一就是以財(cái)富衡量經(jīng)濟(jì)。哈佛大學(xué)政治哲學(xué)家，邁克爾桑德?tīng)栐凇跺X財(cái)所不能買》中提到一切向錢看齊，這種思想讓他很惱火。桑德?tīng)栂壬岢鲆粋€(gè)問(wèn)題：如今市場(chǎng)的作用是否過(guò)大?

　　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.

　　他認(rèn)為是的，并且在書(shū)中提出大量論據(jù)。例如，販賣窮人的腎，移植到富人體內(nèi)，這樣的例子讓人心神不寧。又例如，出售體育館的命名權(quán)，對(duì)此人們大概只會(huì)無(wú)奈的聳聳肩。但幾乎所有人都會(huì)重新考慮市場(chǎng)的作用。桑德?tīng)栂壬鷮?duì)兩點(diǎn)不斷提出異議。第一點(diǎn)是分配不公：錢的作用越大，沒(méi)有錢就會(huì)越痛苦。桑德?tīng)栂壬鷮⒌诙c(diǎn)稱為人性扭曲：買賣會(huì)改變美好事物的性質(zhì)。人們不能付錢買血。但是以錢作為獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，讓孩子讀書(shū)，會(huì)使閱讀變得無(wú)聊乏味，可閱讀應(yīng)該是人生一大樂(lè)事。

　　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?tīng)栂壬](méi)有明確指出他認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)的底線應(yīng)在何處。他希望這個(gè)問(wèn)題留給大眾決定。斯基德?tīng)査够缸觿t較為大膽，提出若干政策以鼓勵(lì)追求美好生活，而不是一味追求永無(wú)止境的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。這些措施包括基本收入，收取消費(fèi)稅，取消個(gè)人收入所得稅，對(duì)公司的廣告支出重新征稅。這些措施會(huì)減少人們工作和消費(fèi)的欲望。

　　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.

　　市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈是否會(huì)使好生活減分不少?若干年前，將全圖書(shū)館的書(shū)籍，所有音樂(lè)和信息集于手掌上的電話，這種事根本是無(wú)法想象的。但是逐利的思想使之成為現(xiàn)實(shí)。不過(guò)多少錢才算夠?這個(gè)問(wèn)題提得好。即使現(xiàn)在西方國(guó)家國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長(zhǎng)了不少，僅為財(cái)富而追求財(cái)富，這種做法仍是愚蠢的。信奉資本主義和市場(chǎng)的人會(huì)覺(jué)得這兩本書(shū)讀起來(lái)很不舒服。不管怎樣，這兩本書(shū)都值得一讀。