(单词翻译:单击)
Welcome to Crash Course Economics. My name is Adriene Hill.
欢迎收看经济速成班，我是埃德因·希尔。
And I'm Jacob Clifford, and today we're going to talk about good intentions, and how they can go wrong.
我是雅各布·克利福德，我们今天将要讨论好意以及它们是如何出错的。
Price controls can derail markets. And subsidies can distort them.
价格管制会破坏市场，补贴则会扭曲它们。
And "dead weight" isn't just a good description of your ex.
“dead weight”不适合描述你的前任。
Let's say Craig becomes President and he caps the prices of all consumer goods.
假设克雷格当上了总统并限制所有消费品的价格。
He argues that the lower price will help everyone, the poor, the middle class, small businesses, everyone.
他认为，低价将帮助所有人，穷人、中产阶级、小型企业等任何人。
Maybe a few people might fall for this policy, but not you.
也许会有一些人支持这项政策，但不包括你。
You watch Crash Course Economics, which means you're funny and smart and attractive,
你看经济速成班，这意味着你有趣、聪明、有吸引力，
and you understand why this is a horrible idea.
而且你明白它为什么是个可怕的想法。
This example seems far fetched, but it actually happened...
这个例子似乎有点儿牵强，但确是事实...
not the part of Craig being President... instead it was President Richard Nixon.
这项政策不是由克雷格总统提出的，而是理查德·尼克松总统提出的。
In the early 1970s, Nixon established a 90-day price and wage freeze designed to fight inflation.
上世纪70年代初，尼克松制定了一项为期90天的冻结物价和工资的经济计划，以对抗通货膨胀。
The general public supported the idea, but economists were skeptical.
公众们都支持这一想法，但经济学家们持怀疑态度。
In fact, Milton Friedman called the freeze,
事实上，米尔顿·弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)称之为“冻结”。
"one of those 'very plausible schemes…with very pleasing commencements,
“其中一项‘非常合理的计划...拥有令人愉快的开端，
that have often shameful and lamentable conclusions'."
但结局往往是可耻可悲的。’”
Economists call this idea of the government setting prices, price controls.
经济学家把这种政府定价的想法称为价格管制。
Now, there's two types and we're gonna look at both of them in the Thought Bubble.
价格管制有两种类型，我们将在“Thought Bubble”中仔细研究。
When the government sets a maximum price for a specific good or service, that's a price ceiling.
政府为某一特定商品或服务设定的最高价格就是价格上限。
Let's say the government forced gas stations to charge a dollar per gallon for gas.
假设政府强制加油站每加仑汽油收费1美元。
This might seem like a good idea, right?
这似乎是个好主意，不是吗？
Mandated lower gas prices mean we all benefit.
强制降低汽油价格意味着我们都受益。
Not really. Society is actually made worse off.
但事实并非如此，社会情况实际恶化了。
When the gas prices fall consumers will want to buy more,
当汽油价格下跌时，消费者会想买更多，
but producers will no longer find it profitable to sell gas.
但生产商将发现出售汽油不再有利可图。
The lower price will decrease the amount of gasoline produced, and we've got a shortage.
低价促使汽油产量降低，造成汽油短缺。
A price floor is a law that sets a minimum price in a specific market.
价格下限是在特定市场中设定最低价格的法则。
The idea is to help by keeping the price artificially high and not allowing the price to fall down to equilibrium.
这样做的目的是通过人为抬高价格、不让它跌至均衡价格来帮助人们。
Let's make up an example using corn.
我们以玉米为例。
Assume the government set a price floor for a bushel of corn at 7 dollars when the actual equilibrium price is 4 dollars.
假设政府为实际均衡价格为4美元的一蒲式耳玉米最低定价7美元。
The higher price would give farmers an incentive to produce more,
高价会激励农民生产更多的玉米，
but at that high price, consumers would go buy substitutes, things like wheat or rice.
但在这个高价下，消费者会去购买玉米的替代品，比如小麦或大米。
Instead of cornflakes they'd buy Rice Krispies.
他们不再买玉米片，而是大米脆片。
The point is, the farmers wouldn't necessarily be better off.
问题来了，农民不一定会更富裕。
They could sell corn at the higher price, but they wouldn't have as many customers.
他们可能会以更高的价格售卖玉米，但消费者没那么多了。
In terms of actually helping consumers and producers,
就对消费者和生产者的实际帮助而言，
the vast majority of economists consider price controls counter-productive.
绝大多数经济学家认为价格管制适得其反。
But there is one notable exception: minimum wage.
但它有一个明显的例外：最低工资。
The minimum wage is a really complex issue that we're going to address in a future video.
最低工资是个非常复杂的问题，我们将在以后的视频中讨论。
Thanks Thought Bubble.
感谢“Thought Bubble”。
Let's look at both these policies again using the supply and demand graph.
让我们使用供需图再次分析这两个政策。
Assume the equilibrium price for gas is 3 dollars and the government sets a price ceiling here at only 1 dollars.
假设汽油的均衡价格是3美元，而政府为它设定的价格上限仅为1美元。
At that low price, consumers would want to buy more, so the quantity demanded is gonna be here.
在这个低价下，消费者想买更多的汽油，所以需求量将会升至这里。
The producers have less incentive to produce gas so they're going to make less,
生产者生产汽油的动力减少，因此汽油数量将会减少，
so the quantity supplied is right here.
于是供给量将会降至这里。
The end result is that the quantity bought and sold is going to fall resulting in a shortage.
最终结果是汽油买卖的数量将会减少，从而导致汽油短缺。
The amount of gas society wants is where supply meets demand.
社会需要的汽油量是满足需求的供给量。
Producing any quantity less than that will result in something that economists call dead weight loss.
生产量少于这一数量会导致经济学家所谓的“无谓损失”（dead weight loss）。
So the quantity produced at the price ceiling is not allocatively efficient.
因此，在价格上限水平上产生的数量并不能进行有效分配。
We're not producing enough.
因为我们的生产量不足。
The lower the price ceiling, the more the dead weight loss and inefficiency.
价格上限越低，无谓损失越多，效率越低。
Keep in mind that the price ceiling only has an effect on the market when it's below the equilibrium price.
请记住，价格上限只有在价格低于均衡价格时才会对市场产生影响。
Many countries still use price ceilings: take Venezuela.
许多国家仍在使用价格上限：以委内瑞拉为例。
In recent years they have been experiencing high inflation,
委内瑞拉近年来经历了高通胀，
so the government decided to impose price controls on consumer products like basic foods, medicine, and toilet paper.
因此，政府决定对主食、药品和卫生纸等消费品实行价格管制。
But, the new price is so low relative to the cost of production that farmers and factories can't make money.
但是新价格相对于生产成本而言是如此之低，以至于农民和工厂都无法赚钱。
As a result, they reduced or halted production of many goods causing long lines, shortages and empty shelves.
因此，他们减少或停止生产许多产品，导致人们排长龙购物，商品短缺，货架空置。
Rent control is another type of price ceiling.
房租管制是另一种价格上限。
Many cities, including New York and San Francisco, put a cap on monthly rent for some apartments.
包括纽约和旧金山在内的许多城市对一些公寓的月租设定了上限。
Again, the idea is to increase affordability for tenants,
该想法同样是为了提高租户的负担能力，
which enables long-term tenants to stay in their homes when real estate prices rise.
保证长期租户在房地产价格上涨时，可以继续租房。
Meanwhile, the lower rent discourages renovation and new construction, reducing the quantity supplied.
然而，低租金阻碍了房屋改造及其新建设，减少了房屋供给量。
The result is a shortage of apartments with landlords
其结果就是房东的公寓短缺，
that have few incentives to maintain their buildings or be responsive to their tenants' needs.
让他们对住房的维护或对租户需求的响应缺乏动力。
Economists are not at all split on rent control.
经济学家们对租金管制的看法不一。
Pretty much all of them think that price ceilings on rent reduce the quantity and quality of the housing that's available.
几乎所有人都认为，房租的价格上限会降低现有住房的数量和质量。
Now, how about a price floor?
那么价格下限又如何呢？
Well, look at corn with an equilibrium price of 4 dollars per bushel and a price floor at 7 dollars.
让我们以均衡价格是4美元的每蒲式耳玉米最低定价7美元为例。
The higher price will give farmers an incentive to increase the quantity supplied.
高价会激励农民增加供应量。
But consumers don't want to pay those higher prices so the quantity demanded's gonna fall.
但是消费者不想支付高价，所以玉米需求量会下降。
The result is a surplus and dead weight loss, so society's worse off.
结果导致玉米过剩和无谓损失，因此社会状况恶化。
Now one argument for a price floor on corn is that if farmers can't get a high enough price, they'll stop producing.
现在有一个关于玉米价格下限的争论是，如果农民得不到足够高的价格就会停止生产。
Then we will run out of food and die.
然后我们就会耗尽食物而死去。
Economists (except for Malthus) are not fans of starvation
经济学家们（马尔萨斯除外）并不是饥饿的粉丝，
so they recognize that the government needs to get involved sometimes to preserve our food supply.
因此他们认识到，政府有时需要参与进来，以维持我们的粮食供应。
But they don't use price floors.
但他们不使用价格下限。
Let's talk about agricultural subsidies.
让我们来谈谈农业补贴吧。
A subsidy is a government payment given to individuals or businesses.
补贴是指政府给个人或企业的一笔政府补偿。
And they're often designed to offset costs to advance a specific public goal.
他们旨在抵消成本，以推进特定的公共目标。
Let's say the government subsidizes farmers that produce strawberries.
假设政府补贴农民生产草莓。
This encourages them to increase supply and the result is more strawberries and a lower price.
补贴会鼓励他们增加供应，导致草莓数量增多，价格降低。
At first glance, this sounds like a great idea.
乍一看，这似乎是个好主意。
Prices for consumers fall, farmers get more money, and the market remains at equilibrium.
消费价格下降了，农民得到了更多的钱，而且市场仍保持着均衡。
There is no shortage or surplus.
没有短缺或过剩。
Proponents of farm subsidies say they can help provide a stable living to farmers,
农业补贴的支持者说，补贴可以为农民提供稳定的生活，
limit food price inflation, and make sure we grow enough food to feed everyone.
限制食品价格上涨，确保种植的粮食足够养活所有人。
But before you go out and become a lobbyist for farm subsidies, keep in mind that economists don't like them.
但在你成为一名农业补贴的说客之前，请记住，经济学家们不喜欢它。
For one, many farmers these days are not poor.
首先，现在许多农民并不贫穷。
By some estimates they make more than non-farm families.
据某些估计，他们比非农业家庭挣得还多。
Farmers, economists argue, have the income they need to handle price shocks.
经济学家们认为，农民拥有应对价格冲击所需的收入。
Economists also think that subsidies might discourage farmers from innovating and rethinking how they farm
他们还认为，补贴可能会阻碍农民创新和重新思考耕种方式，
because they have guaranteed income from the government.
因为他们有从政府那里得到的保证收入。
A survey of economists found that 85% think the United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies.
一项针对经济学家的调查发现，85%的人认为美国应该取消农业补贴。
But what do economists have against farmers?
但经济学家为什么与农民作对呢？
Economists don't have it in for anybody.
他们对任何人都没有兴趣。
Except maybe physicists, because they have unbreakable laws and perfectly controlled experiments.
除了物理学家之外，因为他们有牢不可破的法则和完美的控制实验。
Man I wish economics was a science!
我希望经济学是一门科学！
Economists recognize that market prices are set for a reason.
经济学家们认识到市场定价是有原因的。
If corn prices are down because demand has fallen,
如果因为需求下降导致玉米价格下跌，
then it's inefficient and wasteful to spend money on subsidies.
那么把钱花在补贴上是低效和浪费的。
That said, if there is a drought or other natural disaster affecting farmers
也就是说，如果干旱或其他自然灾害影响农民，
then some sort of short-term aid might be needed to keep farmers on their feet.
那么可能需要一些短期援助来维持农民的生计。
But today, farm subsidies in the US were not about giving a little money to help ma and pa make it through a tough season.
但现在的美国农业补贴并不是为了给爸爸妈妈提供一点儿钱来帮助他们度过艰难时期。
In the US, agricultural subsidies have been around since the Great Depression.
自大萧条以来，美国的农业补贴一直存在。
They were meant to help prop up farm prices and farmers.
它的目的是帮助支持农产品价格和农民。
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 paid farmers not to grow crops on some of their land.
1933年的《农业调整法案》（Agricultural Adjustment Act）规定，政府对不能在自家土地耕种的农民进行补贴。
The government also bought up excess crops.
政府还购买过多的农作物。
For decades after, farmers of crops like corn, wheat, cotton, and soybeans received government help.
几十年来，种植玉米、小麦、棉花和大豆等农作物的农民一直得到政府的帮助。
In the late 1990s Congress added new farm programs, including what are called direct payments.
上世纪90年代末，国会增加了新的农业项目，其中包括所谓的直接补贴。
Basically, the government handed out checks to farmers based on land ownership and historical production levels.
它基本上是政府根据土地所有权和历史生产水平向农民发放支票。
Farmers got them regardless of the market price for crops or how much they produced.
农民们不用管农作物的市场价格或生产量就能得到补贴。
According to The Washington Post,
据《华盛顿邮报》报道，
"In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record 72 billion dollars,
“仅在2005年，当税前农场利润达到接近纪录的720亿美元时，
the federal government handed out more than 25 billion dollars in aid…"
联邦政府就发放了超过250亿美元的援助...”
That was almost 50% more than it paid to families on welfare.
这几乎比支付给家庭的福利高50%。
The Washington Post also found the government gave over 1.3 billion dollars to people that didn't farm at all.
《华盛顿邮报》还发现，联邦政府给那些根本不耕种的人发放了13亿美元。
In 2014, the government eliminated this system of direct payment subsidies.
2014年，美国政府取消了直接支付补贴制度。
Farm subsidies still cost the government 20 billion dollars a year,
农业补贴每年仍使政府损失200亿美元，
but a large portion goes to helping farmers pay for crop insurance.
但有很大一部分是帮助农民支付农作物保险。
But economists don't like this much either.
但经济学家也不喜欢这样。
Some argue that any form of government assistance distorts the market, resulting in unintended consequences.
一些经济学家认为，任何形式的政府援助都会扭曲市场，导致意想不到的后果。
For one, it guarantees farmers an income,
首先，补贴能保障农民的收入，
and perhaps encourages them to take more risks, like planting on less fertile land.
或者鼓励他们冒更大的风险，比如在贫瘠的土地上种植。
So is it ever appropriate for the government to give a subsidy?
那么，政府是否有必要给予补贴呢？
Well, let's look at the supply and demand graph again.
我们再来看供求关系图。
A market's going to produce the equilibrium quantity and,
市场会产生均衡数量，
in most cases, that is exactly the amount society wants.
在大多数情况下，它正是社会所需的。
But what if the amount society actually wants is much greater?
但如果社会实际需要的数量要大得多呢？
What if there is something special about this product that buyers and sellers aren't factoring in?
如果这个产品有什么特别之处，买方和卖方都没有考虑进去呢？
In this case, the amount being produced is less than the amount society wants.
在这种情况下，生产量会少于社会需求量。
The result would be dead weight loss.
其结果将是无谓损失。
The inefficiency caused by the underproduction of this product.
该产品的生产不足会导致低效率。
A subsidy would make society better off and improve efficiency.
补贴会让社会更富裕，提高效率。
Let's look at renewable energy technology.
让我们来看看可再生能源技术。
Some economists like government subsidies for research and development in energy.
一些经济学家喜欢政府对能源研究和发展的补贴。
They argue that things like solar panels would be underdeveloped and underproduced without government action
他们认为，太阳能电池板这样的产品如果没有政府的行动，将开发不充分，而且生产不足。
and that subsidies reduce dead weight loss.
补贴可以减少无谓损失。
Other economists point out that businesses already have an incentive to innovate,
而其他经济学家指出，企业已经有了创新的动力，
and that subsidies create false demand.
这种补贴会创造虚假的需求。
In essence, they argue that there is no dead weight loss, and even if there is, markets will adjust.
从本质上说，他们认为没有无谓损失，即使有，市场也会调整。
The takeaway from this debate is that subsidies aren't inherently good or bad,
这场辩论的结果是，补贴本身并没有好坏之分，
it just depends on the values of society and markets in question.
它仅仅取决于考虑中的社会和市场价值。
Just think, because of NASA, we have things like scratch-resistant lenses, memory foam, Moonbase Alpha.
想想吧，因为宇航局，我们有了防刮镜片，记忆海绵，月球基地阿尔法。
So we stand by our claim, markets work.
所以我们坚持自己的主张，让市场运作。
They help us to determine the quantity we should produce and help us to use our resources efficiently.
市场帮助我们确定应该生产的数量，并帮助我们有效地利用资源。
Now, government policies like price ceilings and floors often fail to make all of us better off.
现在，价格上限和下限等政府政策不能让我们所有人都更富裕。
Sometimes, markets fail. And that's when the government needs to step in.
有时，市场会失败，而这正是政府需要介入的时候。
Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week.
感谢您的收看，我们下期见。
Crash Course Economics was made with help of all of these nice people.
经济速成班是由这群好心人制作的。
You can support Crash Course at Patreon,
你可以在Patreon上支持速成课程，
where you can help keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever, and get great rewards.
你可以让它们向所有人永远免费开放，并获得奖励。
Thanks for watching and DFTBA.
感谢您的收看，别忘了做个了不起的人。
