(单词翻译:单击)
I'm Jacob Clifford.
我是雅各布·克利福德。
And I'm Adriene Hill and welcome to Crash Course Economics.
我是埃德因·希尔。欢迎收看经济速成班。
In the last few videos we've said a lot of nice things about how competitive markets allocate resources.
在前几期节目中，我们说了很多竞争市场如何分配资源的好处。
You know, they do a pretty good job.
你知道的，它们做得很好。
But nobody's perfect. Sometimes markets get it wrong. Sometimes they fail.
但没有什么是完美的，有时市场也会出错，它们有时会失灵。
Sometimes the byproducts of production make people sick.
有时生产的副产品使人生病。
Today we are going to talk about those market failures, and how economists address them.
今天我们将讨论这些市场失灵，以及经济学家如何解决它们。
In 2015, a story made the rounds online about a University of Maryland professor and an extra credit question:
2015年，一个关于一位马里兰大学教授和一个额外加分问题的故事在网上流传开来：
"Select whether you want 2 points or 6 points added onto your final paper grade.
“选择你是在你的期末论文分数上加2分还是6分。
But there's a small catch...if more than 10% of the class selects 6 points, then no one gets any points."
但有个小问题...如果超过10%的学生选择6分，那么没有人会得到任何分数。
So, what would you do?
那么，你会如何做呢？
The question alludes to one of the biggest problems with free markets:
这个问题暗示了自由市场的最大问题之一：
sometimes people have a personal incentive to do something that is against the collective interests of the group.
有时人们有个人动机去做一些违背集体利益的事情。
Obviously, everyone wants at least some extra credit, but there is also an incentive to get even more points.
显然，每个人都想获得额外学分，但同时也有获得更多分数的动机。
In this situation, the professor reported that too many people chose 6 points and no one got extra credit.
在这种情况下，教授报告说，有太多的人选择了6分，所以没有人得到额外学分。
Let's say that your local government sent a similar proposition to every household in your city,
假设你所在的地方政府向你所在城市的每个家庭也提出了类似建议，
"Select whether you want to pay 20 dollars or 100 dollars to fund the local fire department,
“选择你是愿意支付20美元还是100美元资助当地消防部门，
but there's a small catch:
但有个小问题：
if more than 50% of citizens choose 20 dollars, there's not going to be enough money to have a fire department."
如果超过50%的公民选择20美元，那么将没有足够的钱来建立一个消防部门。”
This is the free rider problem. Free riders are people who benefit without paying.
这是搭便车的问题。免费的乘客是那些不用付钱就能受益的人。
They are not necessarily evil。
他们并不一定邪恶。
Let's face it, you probably know someone that's illegally downloaded Game of Thrones,
面对现实吧，你可能知道有人非法下载了《权力的游戏》，
but they're responding to incentives, why pay more, if I can get it for less?
但他们是在对动机做出反应，如果我能用较少的钱得到它，为什么要支付更多呢？
If too many people think like this, then we're all worse off
如果太多的人这样想，那么我们的情况就更糟了，
and we're going to end up not getting the things we want
我们最终将得不到自己想要的东西，
like fire protection or a satisfying ending to Game of Thrones.
比如消防或《权力的游戏》的满意结局。
So how do most cities get around the problem that some people will benefit even if they don't pay.
那么，大多数城市如何解决这个有些人即使不付钱也能受益的问题？
The city doesn't ask for money, they demand money in the form of taxes.
城市不要钱，而是以税收的形式征钱。
The reasoning is that fire protection is so essential that people shouldn't be allowed to opt out.
它们的理由是，消防非常重要，人们不应该被允许选择退出。
So things that are for our collective well-being,
所以我们的集体福利
like fire protection, schools, and national defense are often funded by the government.
比如消防、学校、国防等经常由政府投资。
When markets alone fail to provide enough of these things, that's called market failures.
当市场本身无法提供充足的福利时，就叫做市场失灵。
These are often called public goods,
这些福利通常被称为公共物品，
but the technical definition of a public good is anything that has two characteristics: non-exclusion and non-rivalry.
公共物品的定义有两个特点：非排他性和非竞争性。
Non-exclusion is the idea that you can't exclude people that don't pay.
非排他性是指你不能排除那些不付钱的人。
For example, it's impossible to limit the benefits of national defense to only people that pay their taxes.
例如，我们不可能将国防利益只限制在纳税人身上。
People who pay no federal taxes still get the benefit of protection from bombs,
不缴纳联邦税的人仍然能从炸弹中得到保护利益，
and people who pay a lot of federal taxes don't get extra protection.
而缴纳了大量联邦税的人则得不到额外保护。
Non-rivalry is the idea that one person's consumption of the good doesn't ruin it for other people.
非竞争性是指一个人对物品的消费不会毁了其他人消费的机会。
So, public parks are a great example.
所以，公园就是个很好的例子。
You can use it today, I can use it tomorrow; it can be shared. Ideally.
你今天可以用，我明天可以用；它可以被共享。理想情况下是这样。
If a good or service meets these two criteria, it's unlikely that private firms will produce it,
如果一个商品或服务符合这两个标准，那么私营企业不太可能生产它，
no matter how essential it is.
不管它有多重要。
Street lights and organizations that track and prevent the spread of diseases are pretty important,
街灯与追踪和防止疾病传播的组织非常重要，
and if the government doesn't step in, we probably won't get them.
如果政府不介入，我们很可能不会拥有它们。
The incentive to do what's best for you, rather than what's best for everyone
做对自己最有利的事，而不是对所有人最有益的事的动机
is the root cause of something economists call the Tragedy of the Commons.
就是经济学家所说的“公地悲剧”的根源。
This is the idea that common goods that everyone has access to are often misused and exploited.
“公地悲剧”是一个概念，即每个人都能接触到的公共物品经常被滥用和开采。
It explains the cause of most of our environmental problems
它解释了我们的大多数环境问题，
like air pollution, deforestation, the killing of endangered species and overfishing.
比如空气污染、森林砍伐、濒危物种的灭绝和过度捕捞。
In many places in the world, there are more fish being pulled out of rivers, lakes, and oceans than are being born.
在世界的许多地方，我们从河流、湖泊、海洋中打捞得鱼比出生得鱼多很多。
This is not just bad for the fish; it's bad for the people doing the fishing.
这不仅对鱼类有害，对从事渔业的人也不利。
As these resources are depleted, fishermen find themselves without a job.
随着这些资源枯竭，渔民们发现自己会失去工作。
So why aren't they conserving? Allowing fish to reproduce and generate more resources in the future?
那么他们为什么不保留鱼类，允许鱼类在未来繁殖并产生更多的鱼呢？
Well, look at the incentives.
好吧，我们来看他们的动机。
If a few environmentally conscious fishermen decide to give the fish time to spawn,
如果一些有环保意识的渔民决定给鱼产卵的时间，
then some other fisherman will harvest them instead.
那么另一些渔民则会收获它们。
If you can't prevent other people from exploiting the resource,
如果你不能阻止其他人开发资源，
then you have an incentive to exploit it yourself and take as much as you can, as quickly as you can.
那么你就有了自己开发它的动机，并且尽可能多、尽可能快得利用它。
But, with everyone following that logic, the finite resource gets pillaged.
但是，由于每个人都遵循这个逻辑，有限的资源就会被掠夺。
The tragedy of the commons explains why fish stocks get depleted,
公地悲剧解释了为什么鱼类资源枯竭、
the rainforest get cut down, and why endangered species get hunted for their hides or horns.
雨林被砍伐，以及为什么濒危物种会因为它们的兽皮或角而被猎杀。
There is an entire subfield of economics focused on address and solving these issues,
有一个经济学的整个子领域集中解决这些问题，
it is called environmental economics.
它被称为环境经济学。
The problem here is that unregulated markets sometimes don't produce the outcome that society wants.
问题是，不受监管的市场有时不会产生社会想要的结果。
Remember, sometimes markets misallocate resources because they don't have the right price signals.
记住，有时市场会因为没有正确的价格信号而错配资源。
There is no better example of this than what economists call externalities.
经济学家所说的外部性就是最好的例子。
Externalities are situations when there's an external costs or external benefits that accrue to other people or society as a whole.
外部性是指外部成本或外部利益对其他人或整个社会产生影响的情况。
When other people are made worse off that's called a negative externality.
当别人变得更糟时，它被称为负外部性。
When other people are made better off that is called a positive externality.
当别人变得更好时，它被称为正外部性。
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
我们去看“Thought Bubble”。
Let's look at a TV factory that pollutes a river with toxic chemicals.
我们来看一家用有毒化学物质污染河流的电视工厂。
This is definitely a negative externality.
这绝对是一个负外部性。
The factory has internal costs: it has to pay its workers, buy raw materials, pay for energy;
工厂有内部成本：它必须支付工人，购买原材料，支付能源，
and it uses those costs to determine how many TVs to produce.
并利用这些成本来决定生产多少台电视机。
But there are also external costs associated with polluting the waterways,
但是它也有一些与污染水道相关的外部成本，
like dead fish, contaminated drinking water, and people getting sick.
比如死鱼、被污染的饮用水、还有人们生病。
Those external costs are paid by people downstream, and they are likely to be ignored by the factory owner.
这些外部成本是由下游的人支付的，他们很可能会被工厂老板忽略。
The free market assumes that all the costs associated with producing TVs
自由市场假设所有与生产电视有关的成本
are accounted for within the price of those TVs, but, in this case, the market is wrong.
都包含在这些电视机的价格之内，但在这种情况下，市场错了。
The end result is a market failure because the factory is producing too many TVs.
最终的结果是市场失灵，因为工厂生产的电视太多了。
As for positive externalities. Think about education. More education is great for you.
至于正外部性，以教育为例吧。更多的教育对你来说是件好事。
You'll likely generate more income and it makes you more interesting to talk to at parties.
你可能因此会有更多的收入，它让你在聚会上聊天更有趣。
But there are also external benefits of your education. Everyone is actually better off.
但是教育也有一些外在好处。它让每个人的实际境况都会变好。
With more education you're more likely be a positive and productive member of society.
有了更多的教育，你就更有可能成为一个积极多产的社会成员。
And if you earn a higher income, that means more tax revenue.
如果你收入更高，就意味着税收收入更多。
Now in both cases, negative and positive externalities,
在这负外部性和正外部性两种情况下，
economists often look to the government to step in and solve the problem.
经济学家经常指望政府介入并解决问题。
For example, the government could tax the TV factory or subsidize education.
例如，政府可以对电视工厂征税或补贴教育。
In fact, externalities are the justification for almost everything the government does.
事实上，外部性几乎是政府所有行动的正当理由。
When politicians tax cigarettes, fund education, subsidize fuel efficient cars, or regulate financial markets,
政客们对香烟征税、资助教育、补贴节能汽车或监管金融市场，
it's because they are convinced that free markets alone are not adjusting for externalities.
是因为他们相信自由市场本身并不能适应外部性。
Thanks Thought Bubble.
感谢“Thought Bubble”。
We've tried to explain the problem of externalities, now let's talk about the solutions.
我们试着解释了外部性的问题，现在我们来谈谈它的解决方法。
When the government tries to fix externalities they can use regulatory policies or market-based policies.
当政府试图解决外部性问题时，他们可以使用监管或基于市场的政策。
Regulatory policies are simply rules established by government decree.
监管政策只是政府法令规定的规则。
Some people complain about regulation.
有些人抱怨监管。
They say, "the government can't tell me what to do." But let's be honest, it can.
他们会说“政府不能告诉我做什么。”但老实说，它告诉你了。
The government also spends a ton of time and money telling you what you can't do.
政府也花了大量的时间和金钱告诉你不能做什么。
Don't drive too fast. Don't build a house in Yellowstone. Don't kill anybody.
不要开得太快。不要在黄石公园建房子。不要杀人。
It seems like the government probably should regulate some stuff.
政府似乎应该监管一些东西。
The question is, "how much should they regulate?"
问题是“它们应该监管多少？”
Even people who adamantly oppose government regulation probably agree that
即使是那些坚决反对政府监管的人也可能同意
nuclear weapons and nerve gas shouldn't be on the shelves at Target.
核武器和神经毒气不应该放在塔吉特公司的架子上。
Let's go back to the TV factory example.
我们回到电视机工厂的例子上。
To help solve the pollution externality,
为了解决污染的外部性问题，
the government could ban the use of certain types of chemicals
政府可以禁止使用某些种类的化学品。
or set a production quota to limit the production of TVs or regulate what can be dumped in the river.
或者设定生产配额限制电视机的生产或者管理可能排到河中的物质。
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pushed for laws to control pollution,
在美国，环境保护署（EPA）已经推行法律来控制污染，
and these regulations have worked.
并且这些规定都奏效了。
Regulation can also create positive externalities.
监管也可以产生正外部性。
In some cases, the external benefits are perceived to be so high that the government essentially takes over the market.
在某些情况下，外部利益被认为非常高，以至于政府基本接管了它的市场。
Consider education. Most countries have compulsory education
以教育为例，大多数国家都有义务教育，
which requires citizens to be educated up to a specific age and the government pays for schools through taxes.
它要求公民在特定年龄接受教育，政府通过税收来支付学校费用。
If the government didn't get involved,
如果政府没有参与，
all education would be provided by private schools that would charge tuition;
所有教育都由收取学费的私立学校提供，
there might not be enough affordable schools to educate young people.
那么可能没有足够的经济学校教育年轻人。
The government funds education because they think that the external benefits,
政府资助教育是因为他们认为
like literate, well-informed, erudite citizens, are so high it's worth forcing everyone to pay.
受过教育的博学公民等外部利益非常高，值得强迫大家付钱。
Another way that governments try to solve externalities is with market-based policies.
政府试图解决外部性的另一种方式是基于市场的政策。
These are policies designed to manipulate markets, prices, and incentives to correct for market failures.
这些政策旨在操纵市场、价格和激励机制，以纠正市场失灵。
The best examples are taxes and subsidies.
最好的例子是税收和补贴。
A tax on the production of TVs or on the chemicals the factory is using will decrease production and limit pollution.
对电视机生产或工厂使用的化学品征税将减少生产并限制污染。
Federal grants that help subsidize college education will increase the amount of education people buy.
资助大学教育的联邦拨款将增加人们购买教育的数量。
In general, economists tend to prefer market-based policies.
一般而言，经济学家倾向于以市场为基础的政策。
Take cigarettes. Cigarettes generate high external costs on society.
以香烟为例。香烟会给社会带来高昂的外部成本。
There's second-hand smoke and there's higher healthcare costs for everyone, due to smoking-related illnesses.
每个人都会间接吸烟，并因吸烟有关的疾病产生更高的医疗费用。
The government could force cigarettes companies to produce less,
政府可以迫使烟草公司减产，
or just shut them down entirely, but instead they tax cigarettes.
或者干脆关闭它们，但他们做得是对香烟征税。
The tax drives up the price, consumers buy fewer cigarettes, and this addresses the negative externality.
税收提高了香烟的价格，消费者购买的香烟减少了，这就解决了负外部性问题。
Now, this market-based approach has one key advantage over the regulatory approach.
这种基于市场的方法比监管有一个关键优势。
Instead of spending money on enforcing regulations,
政府没有把钱花在执行法规上，
the government is earning tax revenue that can be used for purposes.
而是正在赚取可用于目的的税收。
In real life, though, governments often use both policies.
然而，在现实生活中，政府经常使用这两种政策。
In the US, the government taxes cigarette producers and regulates where people can smoke.
在美国，政府对烟草生产商征税，并规定人们在哪里吸烟。
It also restricts how tobacco companies can advertise,
它还限制了烟草公司如何做广告，
and supports anti-smoking campaigns designed to convince people to quit smoking.
并支持旨在说服人们戒烟的反吸烟运动。
Seriously, you should stop smoking.
说真的，你应该戒烟。
Market-based approaches to reduce negative externalities are also used to fight climate change.
减少负外部性的以市场为基础的方法也被用于应对气候变化。
Many economists argue that taxes on carbon-based fuels like coal, oil, and gas
许多经济学家认为对煤、石油或天然气等碳基燃料征税
are a more effective way to deal with air pollution.
是处理空气污染的更有效方法。
One oft-discussed market-based policy is emissions trading or "cap and trade."
一个经常讨论的基于市场的政策是排放交易或“限额和贸易”。
The government issues pollution permits and if your factory doesn't hold one of those permits, it can't pollute.
政府签发污染许可证，如果你的工厂不持有这些许可证，就不能污染。
But companies can buy or sell those permits.
但企业可以买卖这些许可证。
This sets up incentives to go green:
这就鼓励了绿色环保：
if you can produce without pollution, you can make money by selling your permits.
如果你能无污染地生产，就可以通过出售许可证来赚钱。
But if you operate a dirty plant, you have to pay for those extra permits.
但是如果你经营一家肮脏的工厂，就必须为这些额外的许可证付钱。
As controversial as cap and trade can be among American politicians,
它像“限额和贸易”一样在美国政客间存在争议，
it's interesting to note that it's already been used successfully in the US.
值得注意的是，它已经在美国成功地使用了。
A cap and trade program to reduce acid rain pollution, it worked! It cut sulfur dioxide emissions.
一项减少酸雨污染的限额和贸易计划奏效了！它减少了二氧化硫的排放。
According to a 2003 report from the Office of Management and Budget,
管理与预算办公室2003年的报告称，
"the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits
“酸雨计划是过去10年间实施的所有联邦主要监管计划中
of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years,
对人体健康好处最大的一个，
with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1."
利益与成本的比值超过40:1。”
Remember that extra credit question?
还记得那个额外学分的问题吗？
What if the world's largest economies were given a similar proposition:
如果世界上最大的经济体也有类似的提议：
"Select whether you want to decrease your pollution by 5% or 30%, with a small catch;
“选择你是想要减少5%还是30%的污染，还有一个小问题；
if more than 50% of counties choose only 5% then climate change will make Earth unlivable."
如果超过50%的国家只选择5%，那么气候变化将使地球无法生存。”
That simplifies the issue, but it does illustrate why it's so hard to address climate change.
这简化了问题，但它确实说明了应对气候变化为什么如此困难。
Individual countries might work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,
个别国家可能会努力减少二氧化碳的排放，
but they can't prevent other countries from polluting. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.
但是他们不能阻止其他国家进行污染。这就是公地悲剧。
In an unregulated global economy, where producers want to make products as cheaply as possible,
在不受管制的全球经济中，生产商希望尽可能廉价地制造产品，
there's an incentive to ignore international environment to get ahead.
他们有一种动机是忽视国际环境以取得进展。
Global issues like climate change, human rights abuses, and nuclear proliferation
如果各国不合作，气候变化、人权侵犯以及核扩散等全球性问题
can't be effectively addressed if countries don't work together.
就不能有效地被解决。
But that requires a lot of trust and a lot of commitment.
但这需要很多信任和承诺。
So markets aren't perfect.
所以市场并不完美。
There are many cases when the government should get involved,
在很多情况下，政府应该介入，
and there's even some situations when the government should just take control.
甚至在某些情况下，政府应该采取控制措施。
The question isn't "which is better: free markets or government?"
问题不是“哪个更好：自由市场还是政府？”
The question is "how can they work together to make our lives better?"
而是“他们如何共同努力让我们的生活更美好？”
Thanks for watching, we'll see you next week.
感谢您的收看，我们下期见。
Crash Course Economics is made with the help of all these fine 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，
a voluntary subscription service where your support helps keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever.
它是个自愿订阅平台，你可以让它们向所有人永远免费开放。
And you get great rewards. Thanks for watching, and DFTBA!
并获得奖励。感谢您的收看，别忘了做个了不起的人！
