Translation: Choices are bad 解釋： 選擇是錯誤的
The reasoning behind this translation is obvious. For example, imagine that somebody comes up to you and offers you a choice between a Snickers bar and some M&Ms. You now have a tradeoff, meaning that you have to choose one or the other. And having to trade one thing off against another is bad; President Truman supposedly asked for a one-armed economics advisor because his two-armed economics advisors were always saying, “On the one hand...but on the other hand...”
這種解釋的原因其實是顯而易見的。例如，想象壹下，某個人讓妳在士力架巧克力棒與M&Ms的巧克力產品之間做個選擇。現在妳面臨著權衡取舍，意味著妳只能選擇其中壹個。這種須放棄其壹的不得已選擇是痛苦的; 想必杜魯門總統很需要壹位獨臂的經濟學顧問因為他的雙臂經濟學顧問經常是“壹方面……但另壹方面……”
People who have not received any economics education might be tempted to think that choices are good. They aren't. The (mistaken) idea that choices are good perhaps stems from the (equally mistaken) idea that lack of choices is bad. This is simply not true, as Mancur Olson points out in his book, The Logic of Collective Action: “To say situation is ‘lost’ or hopeless is in one sense equivalent to saying it is perfect, for in both cases efforts at improvement can bring no positive results.”
沒有學過經濟學知識的人可能會認為選擇是快樂的。實則不然，之所以有認為選擇是快樂的(誤解的)想法，也許是因為他們誤認為缺乏選擇才是痛苦的。這種絕對是正確的，如曼瑟爾?6?1奧爾森在他的《集體行動的邏輯》書上指出的：“失敗”或絕望的狀態從某種意義上說等同於完美，對於那兩種想法，意在試圖改善，事實上並不能帶來積極的效果。
Hence my translation of Mankiw's first principle of economics: Choices are bad. This concept can be a little difficult to grasp-nobody ever said economics was easy-but the troubled reader will undoubtedly gain clarity from Mankiw's
因此，我對曼昆的第壹個原理的解釋是：選擇是痛苦的。這個概念可能不難理解—沒有人認為經濟學很容易—但困惑的讀者可以通過閱讀曼昆通俗易懂的原理變得清晰
Principle #2: The cost of something is what you give up to get it
原理2某種東西的成本是為了得到它所放棄的東西
Translation: Choices are really bad
解釋：選擇實在是痛苦
Beyond transforming Mankiw’s semantic deathtrap into simplicity itself, this translation has the advantage of establishing a connection between Principle #1 (Choices are bad) and Principle #2 (Choices are really bad).
除了把曼昆句子上的語義死陷阱轉化成簡潔的形式，這個解釋還能把原理1(選擇是痛苦的)與原理2(選擇實在是痛苦)聯系起來
To continue to deepen the reader’s understanding of why choices are bad-really bad-let's return to our previous example, in which somebody offers you a choice between a Snickers bar and a package of M&Ms. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you take the M&Ms. According to Mankiw, the cost of those M&Ms is the Snickers bar that you had to give up to get the M&Ms. Your gain from this situation-what economists call “economic profit”-is therefore the difference between the value you gain from getting the M&Ms (say, $.75) and the value you lose from giving up the Snickers bar (say, $.40). In other words, your economic profit is only $.35. Although you value the M&Ms at $.75, having the choice of the Snickers bar reduces your gain by $.40. Hence Principle #2: Choices are really bad.
為了讓讀者深入了解為什麽選擇實在是痛苦—讓我們回到我們之前提到的例子，某人讓妳在士力架巧克力棒與壹包M&Ms的產品之間做個選擇。假設，作為討論的前提，妳拿了M&Ms。根據曼昆的原理，那些M&Ms的成本是妳為了得到M&Ms所放棄的士力架巧克力棒。此情況下妳的收益就是—經濟學家所說的“經濟利潤”—即妳獲得M&Ms(比如0.75美元)的價值與妳失去士力架巧克力棒的價值(比如0.40美元)之間的價差。換句話說，妳的經濟利潤只有0.35美元。雖然妳估計M&Ms的價值為0.75美元，而選擇士力架巧克力棒讓妳的收益少了0.40美元
Indeed, the more choices you have, the worse off you are. The worst situation of all would be somebody coming up to you and offering you a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms. Since choosing one package (which you value at $.75) means giving up the other package (which you also value at $.75), your economic profit is exactly zero! So being offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms is in fact equivalent to being offered nothing.
事實上，妳擁有越多的選擇，妳的狀況更加糟糕。最糟糕的情況是某人讓妳從相同的M&Ms做選擇。選擇其中壹個 (妳估計價值為0.75美元) 意味著放棄另壹個 (妳估計價值也為0.75美元)，妳的經濟利潤恰好為0! 因此在兩個相同的M&Ms上做選擇事實上等同於沒有選擇。
Now, a lay person might be forgiven for thinking that being offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms is in fact equivalent to being offered a single package of M&Ms. But economists know better. Being offered a single package of M&M effectively means having to choose between a package of M&Ms (which you value at $.75) and nothing (which you value at $0). Choosing the M&Ms gives you an economic profit of $.75, which is $.75 more than your economic profit when you are offered a choice between two identical packages of M&Ms.
現在，外行的人這樣想是可以理解的: 提供兩個相同的M&Ms讓妳選擇壹個其實等同於給妳壹個M&Ms而沒選擇。但經濟學家考慮的更周全。提供壹個M&Ms實際上意味著讓妳在壹個M&Ms(妳估計價值為0.75美元)和什麽也沒有之間做選擇(妳估計價值為0美元)。這個M&Ms可以給妳0.75美元的經濟利潤，比妳在兩個相同的M&Ms做選擇所獲得的經濟利潤多0.75美元。
At this point it is worth acknowledging that (1) there may be readers who have failed to grasp the above subtleties in their entirety, and (2) such readers may well be beginning to wonder whether they are, in a word, stupid. Any lingering doubts should be eliminated by the Mankiw's
在這點上值得承認的是(1)可能有些讀者不能從整體上理解以上巧妙之處，及(2)這些讀者也許開始會認為自己是不是很愚蠢，任何懸而未決的疑問都應該用曼昆的原理來解決。
Principle #3: Rational people think at the margin
原理 3 理性人考慮邊際量
Translation: People are stupid
解釋 人們是愚蠢的
One point that is immediately obvious to the most casual observer with the meanest intelligence is that most people do not think at the margin. For example, most people who buy oranges at the grocery store think like this: “Hmmm, oranges are $.25 each. I think I'll buy half a dozen.” They do not think like this: “Hmmm, oranges are $.25 each. I'm going to buy one, because my marginal value exceeds the market price. Now I'm going to buy a second one, because my marginal value still exceeds the market price...” We know most people don't think like this because most people don't fill their shopping baskets one orange at a time!
智商最低的隨機觀測者都能很明顯地知道多數人並不考慮邊際量。例如，多數人在雜貨店買桔子時他們都是這樣想：“嗯，桔子每個0.25 美元。我要六個。”而不是“嗯，桔子每個0.25美元。我要去買壹個，因為我的邊際價值超過了市場價格。現在我要買第二個，因為我的邊際價值仍然超過市場價格。”我們知道多數人認為並不是那樣, 因為多數人不會在他的購物中壹次裝壹個桔子。
But we are now led inexorably toward a most unhappy conclusion. If—as Mankiw says—rational people think at the margin, and if—as we all know—most people do not think at the margin, then most people are not rational. Most people, in other words, are stupid. Hence my translation of the third principle of economics: People are stupid.
但現在將引導我們無情地推出這個最讓人難過的結論。如果—如曼昆所說的—理性人考慮邊際量，接著如果—如我們所知道的—多數人認為不會考慮邊際量，因此可以說多數人是不理智的。換句話說，多數人是愚蠢的。因此我對第三個原理的解釋為：人們是愚蠢的
Before sinking into despair for the fate of the human race, however, the reader would be wise to consider Mankiw's
然而，在對人類命運感到絕望之前，讀者會理智地考慮壹下曼昆的原理
Principle #4: People respond to incentives.
原理4人們會對激勵作出反應
Translation: People aren’t that stupid.
解釋 人們也不是那麽愚蠢
The dictionary says that incentive, n., is 1. Something that influences to action; stimulus; encouragement.
Incentive(激勵)在詞典的解釋為，1.影響行動的因素;促進因素;鼓勵
So what Mankiw is saying here is that people are motivated by motives, or that people are influenced to action by things that influence to action. Now, this may seem to be a bit like saying that tautologies are tautological—the reader may be thinking that people would have to be pretty stupid to be unmotivated by motives, or to be inactive in response to something that influences to action. But remember Principle #3: People are stupid. Hence the need for Principle #4, to clarify that people aren’t that stupid.
因此如曼昆所說人們會被動機激發，或人們受影響行動的行動影響。現在妳可以那句話是同義重復—讀者也許會認為人們是多麽愚蠢若他們不會對激勵做出反應，或對影響行動的激勵紋絲不動。記住原理3是：人們是愚蠢的。因此對於原理4，有必要澄清：人們並不是那樣的愚蠢
Only truly stupid people can fail to understand my translation of Mankiw's
只有真正愚蠢的人才不能理解我對曼昆原理的解釋
Principle #5: Trade can make everyone better off
原理5 貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更好
Translation: Trade can make everyone worse off
解釋 貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更壞
But, the reader may well be asking, isn't the translation of the fifth principle the exact opposite of the principle itself? Of course not.
然而，讀者可能會問，難道第五個原理的解釋真的是與原文相反的?當然不是。
To see why, first note that "trade can make everyone better off" is patently obviously: if I have a Snickers bar and want M&Ms and you have M&Ms and want a Snickers bar, we can trade and we will both be better off. Surely Mankiw is getting at something deeper than this? Indeed, I believe he is. To see what it is, compare the following phrases:
要找出原因，首先要註意“貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更好”是顯而易見的：如果我有個士力架巧克力棒想要M&Ms而妳有M&Ms想要士力架巧克力棒，我們可以貿易且我們的狀況會更好。在這句話上，曼昆有更深的理解嗎?事實上，我認為是，為了解釋這句話，對比以下兩個短語：
A: Trade can make everyone better off
A: 貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更好
B: Trade will make everyone better off
B: 貿易將會使每個人的狀況變得更好
Now, Statement B is clearly superior to Statement A. Why, then, does Mankiw use Statement A? It can only be because Statement B is false. By saying that trade can make everyone better off, Mankiw is conveying one of the subtleties of economics: trade can also not make everyone better off. It is a short hop from here to my translation, “Trade can make everybody worse off.” (A numerical example can be found in this footnote.3)
The subtlety evident in Principle #5 is even more clearly visible in the next two principles.
現在，B句明顯強於A句。那為什麽曼昆使用A句呢?可能的原因只有B句是錯的。通過“貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更好”，曼昆傳遞了經濟學中的巧妙之處：貿易也不能使每個人的狀況變得更好。這與我的解釋很接近，“貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更壞。”
原理5顯見的微妙之處在以下的兩個原理裏更能體現出來。
Principle #6: Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity
原理6市場通常是組織經濟活動的壹種最好方法
Translation: Governments are stupid.
解釋政府是愚蠢的
Principle #7: Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes
原理7 政府有時可以改善市場結果
Translation: Governments aren’t that stupid.
解釋：政府也不是那樣的愚蠢
在這兩個原理中原理5起著重要的角色，註意原理5原句(“貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更好”)推出了原理6(“政府是愚蠢的”)。畢竟，如果貿易能是每個人的狀況變得更好我們還要政府幹什麽?而原理5的解釋(“貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更糟”)推出原理7(“政府也不是那樣德愚蠢”)。畢竟，如果貿易能使我們的狀況變得更糟，我們還是需要壹個政府來阻止某些人交易!
和前五個原理壹樣，原理6和7顯示了經濟學思考方式內在的微妙特征。人們是愚蠢的，但並不是那樣的愚蠢，貿易能使每個人的狀況變得更好，但也能使每個人的狀況變得更糟;政府是愚蠢的，但也不是那樣德愚蠢。研究，提煉及敘述這些特征就是經濟學高等經濟學課程，博士論文的主要話題，也是美國經濟評論及其他學術性期刊論文的主要話題。文章第壹頁所描述的基本原理提供了非常重要的指引，讀者應遵循這些原理。