dingdong

第7章
诅咒机器

（接前面部分）

4
 
A warning is necessary before we leave this subject. It was precisely the great merit of the classical economists that they looked for secondary consequences, that they were concerned with the effects of a given economic policy or development in the long run and on the whole community. But it was also their defect that, in taking the long view and the broad view, they sometimes neglected to take also the short view and the narrow view. They were too often inclined to minimize or to forget altogether the immediate effects of developments on special groups. We have seen, for example, that many of the English stocking knitters suffered real tragedies as a result of the introduction of the new stocking frames, one of the earliest inventions of the Industrial Revolution.

在我们结束这个话题之前，有必要再提醒一下读者。古典经济学家的可贵之处，在于他们寻求特定经济政策的次要后果，关心其在长期内对公众整体的影响。但是它的不足之处，在于他们过分注重长期和全局，有时反倒无视短期和局部的效应。他们往往低估经济发展对特殊群体的即期影响，甚至根本不放在心上。例如，我们已经看到，在工业革命初期，绝大多数英格兰手工织袜工人所遭遇的不幸，正是由于新的织袜机的发明和应用。

But such facts and their modern counterparts have led some writers to the opposite extreme of looking only at the immediate effects on certain groups. Joe Smith is thrown out of a job by the introduction of some new machine. “Keep your eye on Joe Smith,” these writers insist. “Never lose track of Joe Smith.” But what they then proceed to do is to keep their eyes only on Joe Smith, and to forget Tom Jones, who has just got a new job in making the new machine, and Ted Brown, who has just got a job operating one, and Daisy Miller, who can now buy a coat for half what it used to cost her. And because they think only of Joe Smith, they end by advocating reactionary and nonsensical policies.

不过，这些事实及其现代版本，又使得某些经济文章作者走到了另一个极端，也就是只关注特定群体所遭受的即期影响。由于某种新机器投入使用，张三失去了工作，那些学者于是呼吁社会“关注张三”。他们接下来所做的就是眼睛只看张三，而忘了李四刚得到制造新机器的新工作、王五刚得到操作新机器的工作，以及消费者现在只需要用过去一半的价钱就能买到大衣。正因为他们只想到张三，他们为此所鼓吹的便成了倒行逆施的荒谬政策。

Yes, we should keep at least one eye on Joe Smith. He has been thrown out of a job by the new machine. Perhaps he can soon get another job, even a better one. But perhaps, also, he has devoted many years of his life to acquiring and improving a special skill for which the market no longer has any use. He has lost this investment in himself, in his old skill, just as his former employer, perhaps, has lost his investment in old machines or processes suddenly rendered obsolete. He was a skilled workman, and paid as a skilled workman. Now he has become overnight an unskilled workman again, and can hope, for the present, only for the wages of an unskilled workman, because the one skill he had is no longer needed. We cannot and must not forget Joe Smith. His is one of the personal tragedies that, as we shall see, are incident to nearly all industrial and economic progress.

的确，我们也至少应该给予张三一些关注。他因新机器而失去了工作。也许不久他就会找到找另一份工作，甚至比过去的工作还好。但实际的情形也可能是，他这辈子花了大半生所学习和掌握的某项特殊技能，变成了市场不再需要的技能。他对自身与旧技能的投资都白费了，正如他的老雇主在旧机器或旧工艺流程上面的投资，突然之间也变得落伍过时，血本无归一样。张三本来是技术工人，拿的是技术工人的工资。因为他的技能不再有人需要，他又沦为非技术工人，只能领到普通工人的工资。我们不能也不应该忘掉张三。像我们将要看到的，张三的经历几乎是所有工业和经济进步都必将带来的个人悲剧。

To ask precisely what course we should follow with Joe Smith —whether we should let him make his own adjustment, give him separation pay or unemployment compensation, put him on relief, or train him at government expense for a new job—would carry us beyond the point that we are here trying to illustrate. The central lesson is that we should try to see all the main consequences of any economic policy or development—the immediate effects on special groups, and the long-run effects on all groups.

我们到底应该对张三怎么办——不管他、让他自己去适应变化；发放遣散补偿金或失业补助给他，任由他依靠领取救济金度日；或者由政府出钱培训，帮助他再就业——这些话题已经超出了本章要讨论的范围。这里要总结的教训是，我们应该设法观察经济政策或经济动向的所有的主要后果——既观察其对特殊群体产生的即期影响，又观察其对所有群体产生的长期影响。

If we have devoted considerable space to this issue, it is because our conclusions regarding the effects of new machinery, inventions and discoveries on employment, production and welfare are crucial. If we are wrong about these, there are few things in economics about which we are likely to be right.

我们在这个主题上倾注了大量的时间和精力，这是因为就新机器、新发明和新发现对于就业、生产和福利的影响，我们能得出什么样的结论至关重要。要是我们得出的结论是错误的，那么我们在经济学上就很难做多少正确的事情了。

Trackback URI | Comments RSS