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.
大多数决策者和为他们提供建议的经济学家们相信富裕的西方经济遭受了一次机械故障。有了正确的货币，财政和监管工具，这部增长中的机器将最终迎来生机。另一些人认为西方的乏力不在于机械体制而在于道德标准：对金钱、市场和物质的爱。
"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.
"多少才算足够？"和"什么金钱无法买到"都对第二种观点做了很好的论述。在前者中，英国学术界的Robert和Edward Skidelsky父子摘录了凯恩斯在1930年写的一篇文章。 凯恩斯（老Skidelsky曾为其撰写了一本3卷的传记）通过沉思得出"经济问题"将在一个世纪之内得以解决：在富裕国家，人民的平均财富将是现在的四倍多，同时工作时间也许变成每周15小时。他在生活水准上说对了，却在工作时间上大错特错。
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父子认为在富裕国家，现代经济的问题在于如何在富足中过好而不是如何在稀缺中生存。然而，西方社会仍在盲目追逐后更高的GDP这一纯物质的完全与自然和悠闲生活无关的指标。简而言之，人类已经变得贪得无厌。是时候停下来并重新发现"美好生活"了，对此他们列出了一个"美好的基本因素"清单：健康，安全，尊重，"个性化"（你也可以理解为自主权），与自然和谐相处以及享受休闲生活。
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.
你可能以为Skidelskys父子与那些主张应该将"幸福"最大化作为公共政策目标的经济学家有所共鸣。完全错了。他们认为让人幸福的不一定是好东西。他们并没有花时间去为幸福做数学统计或追求任何单一指标。尽管他们否认，但这将意味着，美好生活的元素可以是此消彼长的。同时，Skidelskys父子也并非加入了环保人士阵营。绿党拒绝增长，因为他们相信持续的增长不可能不是以破坏地球为代价的。但是，如果可能又如何呢？Skidelskys父子说，为了生活本身去追求美好生活是更好的选择。
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?
他们指出资本主义"在物质条件上取得了巨大的进步"，但它也助长人的贪婪。其中一条途径就是它这样做的方法之一"使经济日趋‘货币化'"。在"金钱不能买到什么"一书中，货币化是一个令哈佛大学政治哲学家Michael Sandel困扰的问题。Sandel先生发问：市场的作用是不是大过头了？
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.
他认为市场的作用确实大过头了，他在书中对此观点进行了举证。其中一些例子会让很多人不安，如穷人出售肾脏移植给富人。其他一些则只会令人无奈的耸耸肩，如体育场馆命名权的出售。但几乎所有的例子都发人深省。Sandel先生连续提出了两个反对。一个是不平等：当钱可以买到更多的东西，它带来的伤害就越小。另一个被Sandel先生称为"腐败"：对某件东西的买卖行为会改变被人们这一物品的看法。对捐血的人进行支付是不起作用。付钱给小学生作为读书的奖励可能使阅读苦差事，而非终身乐趣。
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 theincentive to work and the temptation to consume.
Sandel先生并没有精确指出底线应该在哪。他希望将这一命题留给公众去辩论。Skidelskys父子则更加大胆地提出了针对追求美好生活且反对无休止增长的政策建议，即要有基本收入保障，基于消费而非收入的税收政策，以及对商家广告进行税收抵扣。这将降低人们对工作的执着和消费的欲望。
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.
那么竞争与美好生活总是格格不入的吗？短短几年前，人们还很难想象可以将整个图书馆的书籍、音乐和信息纳于掌中的一部手机；然而对利润的追求却使之成为现实。不过，"多少才算足够？"是一个很好的问题。 即使现在西方国家可以追逐更多而不是更少的GDP，为了财富本身而追逐财富仍然是愚蠢的。而对那些认为资本主义和市场经济至关重要的人来说，尽管这两本书读起来会很不舒服，但还是应该认真阅读。