怎么理解曼昆经济学原理的这句话-
2024-08-27编辑：本站
有关于曼昆的经济学原理课本中一句话的理解？~
Translation: Choices are bad 解释： 选择是错误的
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...”
这种解释的原因其实是显而易见的。例如，想象一下，某个人让你在士力架巧克力棒与M&Ms的巧克力产品之间做个选择。现在你面临着权衡取舍，意味着你只能选择其中一个。这种须放弃其一的不得已选择是痛苦的; 想必杜鲁门总统很需要一位独臂的经济学顾问因为他的双臂经济学顾问经常是“一方面……但另一方面……”
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.”
没有学过经济学知识的人可能会认为选择是快乐的。实则不然，之所以有认为选择是快乐的(误解的)想法，也许是因为他们误认为缺乏选择才是痛苦的。这种绝对是正确的，如曼瑟尔�6�1奥尔森在他的《集体行动的逻辑》书上指出的：“失败”或绝望的状态从某种意义上说等同于完美，对于那两种想法，意在试图改善，事实上并不能带来积极的效果。
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，我对曼昆的第一个原理的解释是：选择是痛苦的。这个概念可能不难理解—没有人认为经济学很容易—但困惑的读者可以通过阅读曼昆通俗易懂的原理变得清晰
Principle #2: The cost of something is what you give up to get it
原理2某种东西的成本是为了得到它所放弃的东西
Translation: Choices are really bad
解释：选择实在是痛苦
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语义死陷阱转化成简洁的形式，这个解释还能把原理1(选择是痛苦的)与原理2(选择实在是痛苦)联系起来
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.
为了让读者深入了解为什么选择实在是痛苦—让我们回到我们之前提到的例子，某人让你在士力架巧克力棒与一包M&Ms的产品之间做个选择。假设，作为讨论的前提，你拿了M&Ms。根据曼昆的原理，那些M&Ms的成本是你为了得到M&Ms所放弃的士力架巧克力棒。此情况下你的收益就是—经济学家所说的“经济利润”—即你获得M&Ms(比如0.75美元)的价值与你失去士力架巧克力棒的价值(比如0.40美元)之间的价差。换句话说，你的经济利润只有0.35美元。虽然你估计M&Ms的价值为0.75美元，而选择士力架巧克力棒让你的收益少了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.
事实上，你拥有越多的选择，你的状况更加糟糕。最糟糕的情况是某人让你从相同的M&Ms做选择。选择其中一个 (你估计价值为0.75美元) 意味着放弃另一个 (你估计价值也为0.75美元)，你的经济利润恰好为0! 因此在两个相同的M&Ms上做选择事实上等同于没有选择。
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.
现在，外行的人这样想是可以理解的: 提供两个相同的M&Ms让你选择一个其实等同于给你一个M&Ms而没选择。但经济学家考虑的更周全。提供一个M&Ms实际上意味着让你在一个M&Ms(你估计价值为0.75美元)和什么也没有之间做选择(你估计价值为0美元)。这个M&Ms可以给你0.75美元的经济利润，比你在两个相同的M&Ms做选择所获得的经济利润多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
在这点上值得承认的是(1)可能有些读者不能从整体上理解以上巧妙之处，及(2)这些读者也许开始会认为自己是不是很愚蠢，任何悬而未决的疑问都应该用曼昆的原理来解决。
Principle #3: Rational people think at the margin
原理 3 理性人考虑边际量
Translation: People are stupid
解释 人们是愚蠢的
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!
智商最低的随机观测者都能很明显地知道多数人并不考虑边际量。例如，多数人在杂货店买桔子时他们都是这样想：“嗯，桔子每个0.25 美元。我要六个。”而不是“嗯，桔子每个0.25美元。我要去买一个，因为我的边际价值超过了市场价格。现在我要买第二个，因为我的边际价值仍然超过市场价格。”我们知道多数人认为并不是那样, 因为多数人不会在他的购物中一次装一个桔子。
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.
但现在将引导我们无情地推出这个最让人难过的结论。如果—如曼昆所说的—理性人考虑边际量，接着如果—如我们所知道的—多数人认为不会考虑边际量，因此可以说多数人是不理智的。换句话说，多数人是愚蠢的。因此我对第三个原理的解释为：人们是愚蠢的
Before sinking into despair for the fate of the human race, however, the reader would be wise to consider Mankiw's
然而，在对人类命运感到绝望之前，读者会理智地考虑一下曼昆的原理
Principle #4: People respond to incentives.
原理4人们会对激励作出反应
Translation: People aren’t that stupid.
解释 人们也不是那么愚蠢
The dictionary says that incentive, n., is 1. Something that influences to action; stimulus; encouragement.
Incentive(激励)在词典的解释为，1.影响行动的因素;促进因素;鼓励
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.
因此如曼昆所说人们会被动机激发，或人们受影响行动的行动影响。现在你可以那句话是同义重复—读者也许会认为人们是多么愚蠢若他们不会对激励做出反应，或对影响行动的激励纹丝不动。记住原理3是：人们是愚蠢的。因此对于原理4，有必要澄清：人们并不是那样的愚蠢
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对曼昆原理的解释
Principle #5: Trade can make everyone better off
原理5 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
Translation: Trade can make everyone worse off
解释 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏
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，读者可能会问，难道第五个原理的解释真的是与原文相反的?当然不是。
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，首先要注意“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”是显而易见的：如果我有个士力架巧克力棒想要M&Ms而你有M&Ms想要士力架巧克力棒，我们可以贸易且我们的状况会更好。在这句话上，曼昆有更深的理解吗?事实上，我认为是，为了解释这句话，对比以下两个短语：
A: Trade can make everyone better off
A: 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
B: Trade will make everyone better off
B: 贸易将会使每个人的状况变得更好
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.
现在，B句明显强于A句。那为什么曼昆使用A句呢?可能的原因只有B句是错的。通过“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”，曼昆传递了经济学中的巧妙之处：贸易也不能使每个人的状况变得更好。这与我的解释很接近，“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏。”
原理5显见的微妙之处在以下的两个原理里更能体现出来。
Principle #6: Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity
原理6市场通常是组织经济活动的一种最好方法
Translation: Governments are stupid.
解释政府是愚蠢的
Principle #7: Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes
原理7 政府有时可以改善市场结果
Translation: Governments aren’t that stupid.
解释：政府也不是那样的愚蠢
在这两个原理中原理5起着重要的角色，注意原理5原句(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”)推出了原理6(“政府是愚蠢的”)。毕竟，如果贸易能是每个人的状况变得更好我们还要政府干什么?而原理5的解释(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更糟”)推出原理7(“政府也不是那样德愚蠢”)。毕竟，如果贸易能使我们的状况变得更糟，我们还是需要一个政府来阻止某些人交易!
和前五个原理一样，原理6和7显示了经济学思考方式内在的微妙特征。人们是愚蠢的，但并不是那样的愚蠢，贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好，但也能使每个人的状况变得更糟;政府是愚蠢的，但也不是那样德愚蠢。研究，提炼及叙述这些特征就是经济学高等经济学课程，博士论文的主要话题，也是美国经济评论及其他学术性期刊论文的主要话题。文章第一页所描述的基本原理提供了非常重要的指引，读者应遵循这些原理。
这个在图中的意思，就是我只会画图。图形上的表示就是你在均衡点画一个坐标轴，均衡点左面的梯形减掉中间三角形的面积最大。
第五版里没有这句话，我想大概可以理解为均衡数量既不过剩也不短缺，对买卖双方都是最好的吧
《经济学原理》曼昆写得一段关于效率和平等的问题 答：我也认为是这个意思，效率应该是正确地做事和做正确的事，是将人力资源、物力资源进行合理的分配和使用，最后使得利益最大化，而不是说效率本身就是利益。效率影响和决定最终利益的大小。
曼昆经济学原理名词解释 答：2)经济学实验是实验的替代品，是历史所提供的自然试验。3)货币量变动的长期效应（假设所有价格完全可变）和短期效应（假设价格完全固定）4)通过假设撇开与所研究问题无关的许多经济细节，所有模型，都为了加深我们对现实的 理解而简化了现实。5)循环流量图：说明货币如何通过市场在家庭和企业之间流动的直观...
曼昆:经济学十大原理,你都了解吗? 答：曼昆教授的经济学十大原理，是经济学入门的绝佳指南。这些原理简单易懂，却深刻揭示了经济决策背后的逻辑。以下是其中的几点核心原则：1. 权衡取舍：生活中处处是决策，如工作、买房、早餐选择等，经济学研究的就是如何在这些选择中找到最划算的方案。2. 成本与机会：任何行动的成本并不仅限于金钱，还包括...
曼昆经济学原理 答：曼昆通过日常生活中人们熟悉的事例、故事经历、政策分析、新闻摘录这些素材来介绍经济学，这就让读者在有趣的阅读中轻松地了解 经济学的基本理论与方法。经济学的趣味化是许多经济学家追求的目标，曼昆是成功者，这也正是这本书的影响远远超出学术界的原因。曼昆的经济学原理的主要内容：1. 人们是如何...
曼昆经济学原理中的一个例子的解释 答：票价应不低于500美元这句的前提是每次飞行都能满员。但实际常常不能满员，可航空公司不能因为某一次飞行不能满员就取消该次航班。所以航空公司要考虑如何在不满员或这说是赔钱的情况下如何降低损失。比如说把票价降低到300美元来招揽更多顾客。2.有利可图是指和有10个空位的不满员情况比较。赔2000美元...
怎么理解这句话?《经济学原理》上的 答：税收归宿取决于供给和需求的力量对比关系。要理解这一点，必须从弹性这个概念出发。当供给方的供给弹性大于需求方的需求弹性时，税收更大比例地落在了相对更缺乏弹性的需求方。打个比方，以加油站和车主为例，车主开车，必须用汽油，一天都不能耽搁，而加油站呢，至少从短期来看，三五天生意亏了也没关系...
曼昆的经济学十大原理是什么,请简要叙述十大原理 答：曼昆的十大经济学原理，涉及人们是如何做决定的、如何相互交易、整体经济是如何运行的三个方面。在 在人们是如何做决定的方面，原理一是人们面临权衡取舍，即为了得到我们喜欢的东西，通常不得不放弃另一件我们喜欢的东西，做出决策要求我们在一个目标和另一个目标间权衡取舍；原理二是某种东西的成本是为了...
曼昆的经济学十大原理是什么? 答：第三个大问题就是整体经济如何运行，这个问题可用以下三个原理加以解释。原理八：一国的生活水平取决于它生产物品与劳动的能力。世界各国贫富不均，生活水平差距较大，原因在于生产率的差别。原理九：当政府发行了好多货币时，物价上升。这是一个货币理论，指的是通货膨胀这一现象，所谓通货膨胀是指经济中...
关于曼昆的经济学原理与曼昆宏微观经济学区别 答：2、曼昆宏微观经济学：在继续保持条理清晰、易于理解的写作风格基础上，曼昆教授在第5版中对全书36章都做了精心修订；同时也更新了大部分“新闻摘录”和部分“案例研究”；此外，为帮助教师进行课堂设计和课堂讲解，本版还极大地丰富了教辅资源。三、影响不同 1、曼昆的经济学原理：书还没有完稿时，...
转移支付（transfer payment），又称无偿支出，它主要是指各级政府之间为解决财政失衡而通过一定的形式和途径转移财政资金的活动，是用以补充公共物品而提供的一种无偿支出，是政府财政资金的单方面的无偿转移，体现的是非市场性的分配关系。是二级分配的一种手段。
回答 共 5 条
正在看这本书呢。我还配套买了经济学原理辅导教材。
我不是经济学专业毕业的学生，但是工作却与经济、管理有关。
曼昆的书作为一个经济入门读物非常不错。我的收获是：
1、知道了经济学研究的对象和范围。以前认为经济学就是数学，就是管理学，而现在知道经济学原理渗透在生活的各个角落。
2、通过经济学原理来解释某些经济现象，比如通货膨胀，比如利息率增长，比如股市波动，比如宏观调控，石油涨价、猪肉变贵。我能知道这些现象产生的背后的原因。
3、具备经济学的思维模式。历史学、管理学、法学、数学。。。每一个学科总是有自己的思维方式，学会经济学思维，有助于更好地把握现实问题。
4、让我在工作和生活中的谈话更有时代性和专业性。呵呵，聊天是一种社交工具，掌握一定的术语，有助于获得一种共同语言，便于进入某一个圈子。
回答者：xwzxxy - 经理 四级 2-15 20:27
我们专业的经济学用的就是曼昆的这本教材。曼昆的《经济学原理》是学习经济学的入门的最佳选择，他每个问题都阐述得简明清晰，而且都配有实际的案例帮助理解，非常经典。学习了这本书使自己明白了什么是经济学，经济学研究的都是什么问题，并且有很直观的理解，比如对GDP,税收等。
回答者：lavender96566 - 助理 二级 2-15 20:40
说的一套套的……
我是学这专业的，我咋一点感觉都没有？
回答者：itol2005 - 助理 三级 2-15 23:21
这个……
英文版中的Ferrari到中文版里都变成了保时捷……
其实中文版和英文版99.9%都是一样的，我看了20多章下来今天才第一次发现了删节，汗，我就说嘛中文版里好像没有举这个例子来说明……
下面是英文版中的内容（中文版里没有），我没写全只摘取一部分：
......economists Andrew Bernard and Meghan Busse have examined the determinants of Olympic success. The most obvious explanation is population: Countries with more people will, other things equal, have more star athletes. But this is not the full story. China, India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh together have more than 40 percent of the world's population, but they typically win only 6 percent of the medals. The reason is that these countries are poor: Despite their large populations, they account for only 5 percent of the world's GDP. Their, poverty prevents many gifted athletes from reaching their potential. （有关中国的贫穷和GDP）
......in addition, the former communist countries of Eastern Europe (the Soviet Union, Romania, East Germany, and so on) earned more medals than other countries with similar GDP. These centrally planned economies devoted more of the nation's resources to training Olympic athletes than did free-market economies, where people have more control over their own lives. （有关社会主义国家的人权问题）
没想到英文版里有这样一段…难怪会被删，不过人家讲的确实是事实 : ) xxx
总之，曼昆的书虽是以美国社会为背景，但是经济学中很多原理是相同的，尤其是在全球一体化的情况下，顽固坚持自己的形式类似于固步自封。中国的经济无愧是中国式的经济，甚至引进曼昆的书，也要进行删节，规避掉敏感话题，不能够做到客观全面诚实地看待问题。管中窥豹，从曼昆的书上反映出来的问题，其实也说明了为什么中国经济的模式以及对经济问题的分析和解决能力仍然相对比较落后。
这是我的体会，算是一种……不全面的个人观点。不知道你的面试到底是什么性质，如求稳妥，还是保险回答为好……
对了还有，我的另外体会就是，
经济学原理，尤其是宏观部分，绝不是看一遍就能全部记下来的，至少也要看个两遍吧。 ^^
经济学很生活，书中都以食品CD房产作为具体例子，说明了经济学在现实生活中的普遍存在性……
经济学中有个前提，人是完全理性的。书中其实也暗含了这样一个思想：讲道德的（当然不讲道德的更加）不能使社会福利最大化，这就引发了另外一个思考，道德和对经济利益的追求的平衡问题。当然了，经济学十大原理第一条，人们面临权衡取舍。 ^^
Translation: Choices are bad 解释： 选择是错误的
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...”
这种解释的原因其实是显而易见的。例如，想象一下，某个人让你在士力架巧克力棒与M&Ms的巧克力产品之间做个选择。现在你面临着权衡取舍，意味着你只能选择其中一个。这种须放弃其一的不得已选择是痛苦的; 想必杜鲁门总统很需要一位独臂的经济学顾问因为他的双臂经济学顾问经常是“一方面……但另一方面……”
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.”
没有学过经济学知识的人可能会认为选择是快乐的。实则不然，之所以有认为选择是快乐的(误解的)想法，也许是因为他们误认为缺乏选择才是痛苦的。这种绝对是正确的，如曼瑟尔�6�1奥尔森在他的《集体行动的逻辑》书上指出的：“失败”或绝望的状态从某种意义上说等同于完美，对于那两种想法，意在试图改善，事实上并不能带来积极的效果。
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，我对曼昆的第一个原理的解释是：选择是痛苦的。这个概念可能不难理解—没有人认为经济学很容易—但困惑的读者可以通过阅读曼昆通俗易懂的原理变得清晰
Principle #2: The cost of something is what you give up to get it
原理2某种东西的成本是为了得到它所放弃的东西
Translation: Choices are really bad
解释：选择实在是痛苦
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语义死陷阱转化成简洁的形式，这个解释还能把原理1(选择是痛苦的)与原理2(选择实在是痛苦)联系起来
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.
为了让读者深入了解为什么选择实在是痛苦—让我们回到我们之前提到的例子，某人让你在士力架巧克力棒与一包M&Ms的产品之间做个选择。假设，作为讨论的前提，你拿了M&Ms。根据曼昆的原理，那些M&Ms的成本是你为了得到M&Ms所放弃的士力架巧克力棒。此情况下你的收益就是—经济学家所说的“经济利润”—即你获得M&Ms(比如0.75美元)的价值与你失去士力架巧克力棒的价值(比如0.40美元)之间的价差。换句话说，你的经济利润只有0.35美元。虽然你估计M&Ms的价值为0.75美元，而选择士力架巧克力棒让你的收益少了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.
事实上，你拥有越多的选择，你的状况更加糟糕。最糟糕的情况是某人让你从相同的M&Ms做选择。选择其中一个 (你估计价值为0.75美元) 意味着放弃另一个 (你估计价值也为0.75美元)，你的经济利润恰好为0! 因此在两个相同的M&Ms上做选择事实上等同于没有选择。
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.
现在，外行的人这样想是可以理解的: 提供两个相同的M&Ms让你选择一个其实等同于给你一个M&Ms而没选择。但经济学家考虑的更周全。提供一个M&Ms实际上意味着让你在一个M&Ms(你估计价值为0.75美元)和什么也没有之间做选择(你估计价值为0美元)。这个M&Ms可以给你0.75美元的经济利润，比你在两个相同的M&Ms做选择所获得的经济利润多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
在这点上值得承认的是(1)可能有些读者不能从整体上理解以上巧妙之处，及(2)这些读者也许开始会认为自己是不是很愚蠢，任何悬而未决的疑问都应该用曼昆的原理来解决。
Principle #3: Rational people think at the margin
原理 3 理性人考虑边际量
Translation: People are stupid
解释 人们是愚蠢的
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!
智商最低的随机观测者都能很明显地知道多数人并不考虑边际量。例如，多数人在杂货店买桔子时他们都是这样想：“嗯，桔子每个0.25 美元。我要六个。”而不是“嗯，桔子每个0.25美元。我要去买一个，因为我的边际价值超过了市场价格。现在我要买第二个，因为我的边际价值仍然超过市场价格。”我们知道多数人认为并不是那样, 因为多数人不会在他的购物中一次装一个桔子。
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.
但现在将引导我们无情地推出这个最让人难过的结论。如果—如曼昆所说的—理性人考虑边际量，接着如果—如我们所知道的—多数人认为不会考虑边际量，因此可以说多数人是不理智的。换句话说，多数人是愚蠢的。因此我对第三个原理的解释为：人们是愚蠢的
Before sinking into despair for the fate of the human race, however, the reader would be wise to consider Mankiw's
然而，在对人类命运感到绝望之前，读者会理智地考虑一下曼昆的原理
Principle #4: People respond to incentives.
原理4人们会对激励作出反应
Translation: People aren’t that stupid.
解释 人们也不是那么愚蠢
The dictionary says that incentive, n., is 1. Something that influences to action; stimulus; encouragement.
Incentive(激励)在词典的解释为，1.影响行动的因素;促进因素;鼓励
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.
因此如曼昆所说人们会被动机激发，或人们受影响行动的行动影响。现在你可以那句话是同义重复—读者也许会认为人们是多么愚蠢若他们不会对激励做出反应，或对影响行动的激励纹丝不动。记住原理3是：人们是愚蠢的。因此对于原理4，有必要澄清：人们并不是那样的愚蠢
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对曼昆原理的解释
Principle #5: Trade can make everyone better off
原理5 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
Translation: Trade can make everyone worse off
解释 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏
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，读者可能会问，难道第五个原理的解释真的是与原文相反的?当然不是。
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，首先要注意“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”是显而易见的：如果我有个士力架巧克力棒想要M&Ms而你有M&Ms想要士力架巧克力棒，我们可以贸易且我们的状况会更好。在这句话上，曼昆有更深的理解吗?事实上，我认为是，为了解释这句话，对比以下两个短语：
A: Trade can make everyone better off
A: 贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好
B: Trade will make everyone better off
B: 贸易将会使每个人的状况变得更好
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.
现在，B句明显强于A句。那为什么曼昆使用A句呢?可能的原因只有B句是错的。通过“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”，曼昆传递了经济学中的巧妙之处：贸易也不能使每个人的状况变得更好。这与我的解释很接近，“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更坏。”
原理5显见的微妙之处在以下的两个原理里更能体现出来。
Principle #6: Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity
原理6市场通常是组织经济活动的一种最好方法
Translation: Governments are stupid.
解释政府是愚蠢的
Principle #7: Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes
原理7 政府有时可以改善市场结果
Translation: Governments aren’t that stupid.
解释：政府也不是那样的愚蠢
在这两个原理中原理5起着重要的角色，注意原理5原句(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好”)推出了原理6(“政府是愚蠢的”)。毕竟，如果贸易能是每个人的状况变得更好我们还要政府干什么?而原理5的解释(“贸易能使每个人的状况变得更糟”)推出原理7(“政府也不是那样德愚蠢”)。毕竟，如果贸易能使我们的状况变得更糟，我们还是需要一个政府来阻止某些人交易!
和前五个原理一样，原理6和7显示了经济学思考方式内在的微妙特征。人们是愚蠢的，但并不是那样的愚蠢，贸易能使每个人的状况变得更好，但也能使每个人的状况变得更糟;政府是愚蠢的，但也不是那样德愚蠢。研究，提炼及叙述这些特征就是经济学高等经济学课程，博士论文的主要话题，也是美国经济评论及其他学术性期刊论文的主要话题。文章第一页所描述的基本原理提供了非常重要的指引，读者应遵循这些原理。
这个在图中的意思，就是我只会画图。图形上的表示就是你在均衡点画一个坐标轴，均衡点左面的梯形减掉中间三角形的面积最大。
第五版里没有这句话，我想大概可以理解为均衡数量既不过剩也不短缺，对买卖双方都是最好的吧