文艺；书评；金钱与市场;贪婪的欲求：资本主义的局限性;

　　Two new books probe the limits of capitalism;

　　两本探讨资本主义局限性的新书;

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

　　《多少才算够？金钱与良好生活》，作者：罗伯特·斯科德尔斯基和爱德华·斯科德尔斯基。

　　What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. By Michael Sandel.

　　《钱买不到的东西：市场的道德局限性》，作者：迈克尔·桑德尔。

　　MOST policymakers, 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.

　　在大多数当权者以及向他们建言的经济学家看来，富裕的西方经济遭遇了机制性的失调。只要运用正确的货币和财政政策及监管工具，经济增长机器终究会恢复生机。但另有一些人认为，西方世界的真正病因不是源自机制，而是源自道德：是对金钱、市场和物质生活的追逐。

　　“How Much Is Enough?” and “What Money Can't Buy” 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 their text an essay written in 1930 by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes (of whom the elder Skidelsky 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.

　　《多少才算够？》和《钱买不到的东西》这两本书，雄辩地论证了上面所说的第二种观点。前一本书的作者是英国父子学者罗伯特·斯科德尔斯基和爱德华·斯科德尔斯基。他们在书中从约翰·梅纳德·凯因斯在1930年写的一篇论文说起（罗伯特·斯科德尔斯基曾写过三卷本的凯恩斯传记）。凯恩斯在那篇论文文中预言，不出一百年，“经济问题”将不成其为问题。在富裕国家中，人们的财富将增加三倍，平均每周将只工作15小时。他对生活水平的预言看来是对的，但对工作时间的预言却大错特错了。

　　In the rich world the modern economic problem, the Skidelskys say, is how to live well amid plenty, 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 the blessings of nature or leisure. Humanity has become insatiable, in short. It is time to stop and rediscover the “good life”. This they identify with a list of “basic goods”: health, security, respect, “personality” (autonomy, if you prefer), harmony with nature, and leisure.

　　斯科德尔斯基父子认为，在富裕世界里，现时的经济问题已经不是如何在短缺的环境中挣扎生存，而是如何在丰裕的环境中过高质量的生活。但是西方世界仍然在竭力追求不断增长的GDP（国内生产总值）。GDP是一个纯粹的物质性指标，完全忽略自然和闲适的价值。简言之，人类已经变得贪得无厌。现在已经到了反思和重新定义“良好生活”的时候了。他们对良好生活的定义包括一系列“基本条件”：健康、安全、尊严、“个性”（或者说“自主”）、与自然的和谐关系，以及闲适。

　　You might expect the Skidelskys to make 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, which they deny. Nor do the Skidelskys ally themselves with environmentalists. Greens reject growth because they believe it cannot be sustained without wrecking the planet. But what if it can? Better, say the Skidelskys, to pursue the good life for its own sake.

　　人们可能以为，斯科德尔斯基父子和那些认为公共政策目标应当是“幸福”最大化的经济学家属于同一阵营，其实不然。斯氏父子认为，使人们感到幸福的事情，不一定都是好事。他们在书中几乎没有讨论幸福的统计指标或度量标准问题。那些统计指标意味着，良好生活的各种要素是可以互相替换的，而他们否认这种可替换性。另外，斯氏父子也不赞成环境主义者的主张。绿色运动倡导者们反对经济增长，因为他们认为，不毁掉地球，就不会有可持续的增长。但是，持续的增长不一定以毁掉地球为代价。斯氏父子认为，更重要的是探究良好生活本身的意义。

　　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?

　　他们认为，资本主义在极大地改善了人们的物质生活条件的同时，也助长了人们贪婪的本性。其途径之一是使经济越来越“金钱化”。“金钱化”是哈佛大学哲学家迈克尔·桑德尔在《金钱买不到的东西》一书中的重点关注。桑德尔先生提出了一个问题：市场化是否已经走得太远了？

　　He argues that it has, and packs his book with examples. Some, such as the sale of a poor man'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 resigned shrug. 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 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 schoolchildren money as an incentive to read books may make reading a chore rather than a lifelong pleasure.

　　桑德尔认为，市场化确实太过分了，在书中他举出了很多例子。有些例子，比如穷人出卖肾脏移植于富人的身体，会使很多人感到不安。另一些例子，如体育场出卖挂名权，大概只会使人无奈地耸耸肩而已。但几乎所有的例子都令人思考。桑德斯先生在书中反复强调了他对过度市场化的两个反对意见。其一是不平等：钱能买到的东西越多，缺钱带来的伤害就越大。其二是桑德斯先生所称的“腐蚀”：买卖行为会改变人们对良好事物的看法。如对献血人付钱的办法并不能鼓励更多的人献血；用给钱来鼓励小学生阅读书籍，会使阅读成为一种负担而不是终生的乐趣。

　　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 the incentive to work and the temptation to consume.

　　桑德斯先生并没有明确指出市场化的边界应当在哪里。他希望通过公众的讨论来解决这个问题。但斯氏父子在这个问题上更为激进，他们提出了一些政策建议，这些政策旨在鼓励人们追求良好生活而不是无止境的增长：有限的基本收入；用消费税取代收入税；广告支出不再计入公司的税前成本。这些措施将降低人们的工作动力和消费欲望。

　　Does the rat race 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.

　　难道激烈的商业竞争总是良好生活的负面因素吗？几年以前，还很难想象整座图书馆的书籍、音乐和信息可以储存在一部小小的手机里，但人们对利润的追逐使它得以实现。尽管如此，“多少才算够?”仍然是一个有意义的问题。即便西方目前可以创造更多而不是更少的GDP，为了追求财富而追求财富也是愚蠢的。任何一个赞同资本主义和市场的人，都会发现这两本书读起来很不舒服，但它们还是值得读一读的。