考研英语经济学人文章阅读训练五十一

Many economists defend disaster profiteers.They are wrong

许多经济学家为发灾害财的人们辩解，但他们错了

With price gouging,morality trumps economics

就哄抬物价而言，道德胜过经济学

Much about the pandemic sweeping across the world is unprecedented, but one aspect is all too familiar:price gouging in the wake of a disaster. In New York police arrested a man who had stockpiled medical gear, allegedly selling it for a700%mark-up.

当一场流行病席卷全球之际，世界发生了许多前所未见的事情，但有一件事我们再熟悉不过了：灾难发生后，人们会哄抬物价。纽约警方逮捕了一名男子，该男子囤积医疗物资，并溢价700%进行销售。

Indonesian authorities seized600,000masks from hoarders.In Italy the government launched a probe into sky-high online prices for basic protective equipment.Such crackdowns are popular.Who could possibly endorse disaster profiteering?Many economists,as it turns out.

印尼当局从囤积者手中没收了60万个口罩。意大利政府针对线上天价基本防护物资展开了调查。此类打击行动受到了人们的欢迎。那么谁会支持发灾难财的行为呢？答案是，许多经济学家。

To be clear,it is not that they want the public to miss out on life-saving products.Quite the contrary.They believe that soaring prices stimulate greater output,and that policies to cap costs might limit supplies and so do more harm than good.

有一点需要说明的是，并不是说他们希望人们错失这些救命物资。恰恰相反。他们认为，价格的飞涨能够刺激产量的增长，而价格管制政策可能会导致供应紧缩，反而弊大于利。

In2012the University of Chicago surveyed32eminent economists about legislation that banned price gouging during a weather-related emergency.Only three supported the ban;more than half criticised it. 2012年，芝加哥大学就一项关于在发生与天气有关的紧急状况下禁止哄抬物价的立法对32位知名经济学家进行了调查。结果只有3人对这项禁令表示支持；超过一半的人表示反对。

Similar views have been aired in recent weeks.An economist with the Cato Institute,a conservative think-tank,lamented the“madness”of anti-gouging rules,saying that profits are what entice firms to meet rising demand for safety equipment.

近来几周同样也出现了类似的观点。保守派智库卡托研究所的一位经济学家对人们反对哄抬物价的“狂热情绪”表示遗憾，他表示，利润是吸引企业满足人们对防护物资日益增长的需求的动力。

Yet a closer look at one key piece of equipment—masks—during the coronavirus crisis shows that this standard view needs revamping. Economists are normally loth to tamper with prices,the most basic element of any market.But little about this pandemic has been normal. Price signalling alone would have been inadequate to the challenge of ensuring vast increases in supply.

然而，在新冠疫情流行期间，只需仔细观察口罩这一关键性物资，你就会发现这种观点是需要更正的。对于任何市场来说，价格是最基本的要素，在正常情况下，经济学家是不愿意干预价格的。但疫情的大流行并非正常情况。仅凭价格信号是不足以应对确保供应大幅增加的挑战的。

First,consider the manufacture of masks.They might look simple,but producers need sterile factories and sophisticated machinery to churn out melt-blown fabric.Upfront costs would be hard to justify if the virus were quickly snuffed out.

首先，想一想口罩的生产。它们看似简单，但生产商需要有无菌化的工厂和精密的机器才能生产熔喷织物。如果病毒很快就能被消灭，那么很难证明前期投入是合理的。

So in January,the early phase of the outbreak,Chinese firms began by scouring the world for masks rather than by making more of their own.It took government action to change that.

因此，今年1月，在疫情爆发初期，中国企业先是在世界各地采购口罩，而非自己生产。直到政府采取措施，这一情况才得以改变。

Officials offered subsidies to firms producing safety gear:promising not outsized gains but an avoidance of losses.China went from making20m masks per day before the crisis—half the world’s output—to nearly120m by the end of February.

当局向防护用品生产商提供补贴：承诺就算不能带来丰厚的收益，但也不至于给他们带来损失。疫情爆发前，中国的口罩日生产量为2千万个（占全球产量的一半），到2月底，日生产量已达近1.2亿个。

Profit,narrowly defined as the income earned from making masks,also fails to explain corporate motives.Regulation has been panies in China could not resume operations until all their workers had masks,so automakers,phone manufacturers and oil giants all added mask-production lines.