版本和來源：

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949.

Fourth edition, copyright 1996 by Bettina B. Greaves (Irvington: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996)

http://mises.org/resources/3250

人的行爲，米塞斯著，夏道平譯，遠流出版事業股份有限公司，1991初版，無端OCR并整理。

夏道平是從英文第三版譯出。據英文第四版前言，新版只是糾正了一些印刷錯誤，并增加了索引。不過，從內容看，中文版和英文第四版似乎还是有些差异。

2011年1月25日第一次校對完畢。方括號【】內為校對批注。

無端

iibook@gmail.com

Interactive Index

Contents EN

Contents CN

Foreword to the Chinese edition

Foreword to the 4th edition by Bettina B. Greaves (p. v)

Foreword to the 3rd edition by Ludwig von Mises

Foreword to the 1rd edition by Ludwig von Mises

Introduction

Economics and Praxeology (p. 1)

The Epistemological Problem of a General Theory of Human Action (p. 4)

Economic Theory and the Practice of Human Action (p. 7)

Resume (p. 10)

PART ONE HUMAN ACTION

Chapter I. Acting Man

Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction (p. 11)

The Prerequisites of Human Action (p. 13)

Human Action as an Ultimate Given (p. 17)

Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research (p. 19)

Causality as a Requirement of Action (p. 22)

The Alter Ego (p. 23)

Chapter II. The Epistemological Problems of the Sciences of Human Action

Praxeology and History (p. 30)

The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology (p. 32)

The A Priori and Reality (p. 38)

The Principle of Methodological Individualism (p. 41)

The Principle of Methodological Singularism (p. 44)

The Individual and Changing Features of Human Action (p. 46)

The Scope and the Specific Method of History (p. 47)

Conception and Understanding (p. 51)

On Ideal Types (p. 59)

The Procedure of Economics (p. 64)

The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts (p. 69)

Chapter III. Economics and the Revolt Against Reason

The Revolt Against Reason (p. 72)

The Logical Aspect of Polylogism (p. 75)

The Praxeological Aspect of Polylogism (p. 76)

Racial Polylogism (p. 84)

Polylogism and Understanding (p. 86)

The Case for Reason (p. 89)

Chapter IV. A First Analysis of the Category of Action

Ends and Means (p. 92)

The Scale of Value (p. 94)

The Scale of Needs (p. 96)

Action as an Exchange (p. 97)

Chapter V. Time

Time as a Praxeological Factor (p. 99)

Past, Present, and Future (p. 100)

The Economization of Time (p. 101)

The Temporal Relation Between Actions (p. 102)

Chapter VI. Uncertainty

Uncertainty and Acting (p. 105)

The Meaning of Probability (p. 106)

Class Probability (p. 107)

Case Probability (p. 110)

Numerical Evaluation of Case Probability (p. 113)

Betting, Gambling, and Playing Games (p. 115)

Praxeological Prediction (p. 117)

Chapter VII. Action Within the World

The Law of Marginal Utility (p. 119)

The Law of Returns (p. 127)

Human Labor as a Means (p. 131)

Production (p. 140)

PART TWO ACTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SOCIETY

Chapter VIII. Human Society

Human Cooperation (p. 143)

A Critique of the Holistic and Metaphysical View of Society (p. 145)

The Division of Labor (p. 157)

The Ricardian Law of Association (p. 159)

The Effects of the Division of Labor (p. 164)

The Individual Within Society (p. 165)

The Great Society (p. 169)

The Instinct of Aggression and Destruction (p. 170)

Chapter IX. The Role of Ideas

Human Reason (p. 177)

World View and Ideology (p. 178)

Might (p. 187)

Meliorism and the Idea of Progress (p. 191)

Chapter X. Exchange Within Society

Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange (p. 194)

Contractual Bonds and Hegemonic Bonds (p. 195)

Calculative Action (p. 198)

PART THREE ECONOMIC CALCULATION

Chapter XI. Valuation Without Calculation

The Gradation of the Means (p. 200)

The Barter-Fiction of the Elementary Theory of Value and Prices (p. 201)

The Problem of Economic Calculation (p. 206)

Economic Calculation and the Market (p. 209)

Chapter XII. The Sphere of Economic Calculation

The Character of Monetary Entries (p. 212)

The Limits of Economic Calculation (p. 214)

The Changeability of Prices (p. 217)

Stabilization (p. 219)

The Root of the Stabilization Idea (p. 223)

Chapter XIII. Monetary Calculation as a Tool of Action

Monetary Calculation as a Method of Thinking (p. 229)

Economic Calculation and the Science of Human Action (p. 231)

PART FOUR CATALLACTICS OR ECONOMICS OF THE MARKET SOCIETY

Chapter XIV. The Scope and Method of Catallactics

The Delimitation of Catallactic Problems (p. 232)

The Method of Imaginary Constructions (p. 236)

The Pure Market Economy (p. 237)

The Autistic Economy (p. 243)

The State of Rest and the Evenly Rotating Economy (p. 244)

The Stationary Economy (p. 250)

The Integration of Catallactic Functions (p. 251)

Chapter XV. The Market

The Characteristics of the Market Economy (p. 257)

Capital Goods and Capital (p. 259)

Capitalism (p. 264)

The Sovereignty of the Consumers (p. 269)

Competition (p. 273)

Freedom (p. 279)

Inequality of Wealth and Income (p. 287)

Entrepreneurial Profit and Loss (p. 289)

Entrepreneurial Profits and Losses in a Progressing (p. 294)

Promoters, Managers, Technicians, and Bureaucrats (p. 303)

The Selective Process (p. 311)

The Individual and the Market (p. 315)

Business Propaganda (p. 320)

The "Volkswirtschaft" (p. 323)

Chapter XVI. Prices

The Pricing Process (p. 327)

Valuation and Appraisement (p. 331)

The Prices of the Goods of Higher Orders (p. 333)

Cost Accounting (p. 339)

Logical Catallactics Versus Mathematical Catallactics (p. 350)

Monopoly Prices (p. 357)

Good Will (p. 379)

Monopoly of Demand (p. 383)

Consumption as Affected by Monopoly Prices (p. 384)

Price Discrimination on the Part of the Seller (p. 388)

Price Discrimination on the Part of the Buyer (p. 391)

The Connexity of Prices (p. 391)

Prices and Income (p. 393)

Prices and Production (p. 394)

The Chimera of Nonmarket Prices (p. 395)

Chapter XVII. Indirect Exchange

Media of Exchange and Money (p. 398)

Observations on Some Widespread Errors (p. 398)

Demand for Money and Supply of Money (p. 401)

The Determination of the Purchasing Power of Money (p. 408)

The Problem of Hume and Mill and the Driving Force of Money (p. 416)

Cash-Induced and Goods-Induced Changes in Purchasing Power (p. 419)

Monetary Calculation and Changes in Purchasing Power (p. 424)

The Anticipation of Expected Changes in Purchasing Power (p. 426)

The Specific Value of Money (p. 428)

The Import of the Money Relation (p. 430)

The Money-Substitutes (p. 432)

The Limitation on the Issuance of Fiduciary Media (p. 434)

The Size and Composition of Cash Holdings (p. 448)

Balances of Payments (p. 450)

Interlocal Exchange Rates (p. 452)

Interest Rates and the Money Relation (p. 458)

Secondary Media of Exchange (p. 462)

The Inflationist View of History (p. 466)

The Gold Standard (p. 471)

Chapter XVIII. Action in the Passing of Time

Perspective in the Valuation of Time Periods (p. 479)

Time Preference as an Essential Requisite of Action (p. 483)

Capital Goods (p. 490)

Period of Production, Waiting Time, and Period of Provision (p. 493)

The Convertibility of Capital Goods (p. 503)

The Influence of the Past Upon Action (p. 505)

Accumulation, Maintenance and Consumption of Capital (p. 514)

The Mobility of the Investor (p. 517)

Money and Capital; Saving and Investment (p. 520)

Chapter XIX. Interest

The Phenomenon of Interest (p. 524)

Originary Interest (p. 526)

The Height of Interest Rates (p. 532)

Originary Interest in the Changing Economy (p. 534)

The Computation of Interest(p. 536)

Chapter XX. Interest, Credit Expansion, and the Trade Cycle

The Problems (p. 538)

The Entrepreneurial Component in the Gross Market Rate of Interest (p. 539)

The Price Premium as a Component of the Gross Market Rate of Interest (p. 541)

The Loan Market (p. 545)

The Effects of Changes in the Money Relation Upon Originary Interest (p. 548)

The Gross Market Rate of Interest as Affected by Inflation and Credit Expansion (p. 550)

The Gross Market Rate of Interest as Affected by Deflation and Credit Contraction (p. 566)

The Monetary or Circulation Credit Theory of the Trade Cycle (p. 571)

The Market Economy as Affected by the Recurrence of the Trade Cycle (p.575)

Chapter XXI. Work and Wages

Introversive Labor and Extroversive Labor (p. 587)

Joy and Tedium of Labor (p. 588)

Wages (p. 592)

Catallactic Unemployment (p. 598)

Gross Wage Rates and Net Wage Rates (p. 600)

Wages and Subsistence (p. 602)

The Supply of Labor as Affected by the Disutility of Labor (p. 611)

Wage Rates as Affected by the Vicissitudes of the Market (p. 624)

The Labor Market (p. 625)

Chapter XXII. The Nonhuman Original Factors of Production

General Observations Concerning the Theory of Rent (p. 635)

The Time Factor in Land Utilization (p. 637)

The Submarginal Land (p. 640)

The Land as Standing Room (p. 642)

The Prices of Land (p. 643)

Chapter XXIII. The Data of the Market

The Theory and the Data (p. 646)

The Role of Power (p. 647)

The Historical Role of War and Conquest (p. 649)

Real Man as a Datum (p. 651)

The Period of Adjustment (p. 652)

The Limits of Property Rights and the Problems of External Costs and External Economies (p. 654)

Chapter XXIV. Harmony and Conflict of Interests

The Ultimate Source of Profit and Loss on the Market (p. 664)

The Limitation of Offspring (p. 667)

The Harmony of the "Rightly Understood" Interests (p. 673)

Private Property (p. 682)

The Conflicts of Our Age (p. 684)

PART FIVE SOCIAL COOPERATION WITHOUT A MARKET

Chapter XXV. The Imaginary Construction of a Socialist Society

The Historical Origin of the Socialist Idea (p. 689)

The Socialist Doctrine (p. 693)

The Praxeological Character of Socialism (p. 695)

Chapter XXVI. The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism

The Problem (p. 698)

Past Failures to Conceive the Problem (p.701)

Recent Suggestions for Socialist Economic Calculation (p. 703)

Trial and Error (p. 704)

The Quasi-market (p. 705)

The Differential Equations of Mathematical Economics (p. 710)

PART SIX THE HAMPERED MARKET ECONOMY

Chapter XXVII. The Government and the Market

The Idea of a Third System (p. 716)

The Intervention (p. 717)

The Delimitation of Governmental Functions (p. 719)

Righteousness as the Ultimate Standard of the Individual's Actions (p. 724)

The Meaning of Laissez Faire (p. 730)

Direct Government Interference with Consumption (p. 732)

Chapter XXVIII. Interference by Taxation

The Neutral Tax (p. 737)

The Total Tax (p. 738)

Fiscal and Nonfiscal Objectives of Taxation (p. 740)

The Three Classes of Tax Interventionism (p. 741)

Chapter XXIX. Restriction of Production

The Nature of Restriction (p. 743)

The Price of Restriction (p. 744)

Restriction as a Privilege (p. 748)

Restriction as an Economic System (p. 755)

Chapter XXX. Interference with the Structure of Prices

The Government and the Autonomy of the Market (p. 758)

The Market's Reaction to Government Interference (p. 762)

Minimum Wage Rates (p. 769)

Chapter XXXI. Currency and Credit Manipulation

The Government and the Currency (p. 780)

The Interventionist Aspect of Legal Tender Legislation (p. 783)

The Evolution of Modern Methods of Currency Manipulation (p. 786)

The Objectives of Currency Devaluation (p. 789)

Credit Expansion (p. 793)

Foreign Exchange Control and Bilateral Exchange Agreements (p. 800)

Chapter XXXII. Confiscation and Redistribution

The Philosophy of Confiscation (p. 804)

Land Reform (p. 805)

Confiscatory Taxation (p. 806)

Chapter XXXIII. Syndicalism and Corporativism

The Syndicalist Idea (p. 812)

The Fallacies of Syndicalism (p. 813)

Syndicalist Elements in Popular Policies (p. 815)

Guild Socialism and Corporativism (p. 816)

Chapter XXXIV. The Economics of War

Total War (p. 821)

War and the Market Economy (p. 825)

War and Autarky (p. 828)

The Futility of War (p. 831)

Chapter XXXV. The Welfare Principle Versus the Market Principle

The Case Against the Market Economy (p. 833)

Poverty (p. 835)

Inequality (p. 840)

Insecurity (p. 851)

Social Justice (p. 853)

Chapter XXXVI. The Crisis of Interventionism

The Harvest of Interventionism (p. 855)

The Exhaustion of the Reserve Fund (p. 855)

The End of Interventionism (p. 858)

Chapter XXXVII. The Nondescript Character of Economics

The Singularity of Economics (p. 862)

Economics and Public Opinion (p. 863)

The Illusion of the Old Liberals (p. 864)

PART SEVEN THE PLACE OF ECONOMICS IN SOCIETY

Chapter XXXVIII. The Place of Economics in Learning

The Study of Economics (p. 867)

Economics as a Profession (p. 869)

Forecasting as a Profession (p. 870)

Economics and the Universities (p. 872)

General Education and Economics (p. 876)

Economics and the Citizen (p. 878)

Economics and Freedom (p. 879)

Chapter XXXIX. Economics and the Essential Problems of Human Existence

Science and Life (p. 881)

Economics and Judgments of Value (p. 882)

Economic Cognition and Human Action (p. 885)

Interactive Index

索引

英文目錄

中文目錄　5

修訂版譯者序　21

校訂者的話　25

初版譯者序　29

原著第四版前言

原著第三版前言　35

原著第一版前言　37

緒論　39

一、經濟學與人的行爲通論　39

二、人的行爲通論在認識論上的一些問題　42

三、經濟理論與人的行爲之實際　46

四、摘要　50

第一篇人的行爲　51

第一章行爲人　53

一、有目的的行爲與動物的反應　53

二、人的行爲的先決條件　56

三、作爲極據的人的行爲　60

四、合理性和無理性；行爲學研究的主觀論和客觀論　62

五、作爲行爲條件的因果關係　66

六、另一個我　67

第二章行爲科學的一些認識論的問題　77

一、行爲學與歷史　77

二、行爲學的形式的和演繹的特徵　79

三、先驗和眞實　86

四、方法論的個人主義的原理　90

五、方法論的獨特性原理　94

六、人的行爲的個性和變動性　95

七、歷史的範圍和其特殊方法　97

八、概念化與了解　101

九、論觀念的類型　110

十、經濟學的程序　116

十一、行爲學概念的一些限制　121

第三章經濟學以及對理知的反叛　127

一、對理知的反叛　127

二、從遂輯學駁斥多邏輯論　130

三、從行爲學駁斥多遝辑論　133

四、種族的多邏辑論　141

五、多邏辑論和了解　144

六、主張理知的理由　147

第四章行爲元範的一個基本分析　151

一、目的和手段　151

二、價值的等級　154

三、需求的等級　156

四、作爲交換的行爲　157

第五章時間　159

一、作爲行爲學的一個因素——時間　159

二、過去、現在和未來　160

三、時間的經濟　162

四、诸行爲之間的時序關係　162

第六章不確定　167

一、不確定與行爲　167

二、或然率的意義　169

三、類的或然率　170

四、個案或然率　173

五、個案或然率的數的估值　177

六、打賭、賭博和競技　179

七、行爲學的預測　181

第七章在這個世界裡面的行爲　183

一、邊際效用法則　183

二、報酬率　192

三、作爲手段的人的勞動　196

四、生産　206

第二篇在社會架構裡面的行爲　211

第八章人的社會　213

一、人的合作　213

二、對於整體主義的和玄學的社會觀之批評　215

三、分工　229

四、李嘉圖的協作法則　230

五、分工的一些效果　237

六、在社會裡面的個人　237

七、大社會　242

八、侵略與破壞的本能　244

第九章觀念的功用　253

一、人的理知　253

二、世界觀與意理　254

三、權力　265

四、改善論與進步觀念　270

第十章在社會裡面的交換　273

一、獨自的交換與人際的交換　273

二、契約的拘束與控制的拘束　274

三、計算的行爲　277

第三篇經濟計算　281

第十一章不用計算的評値　283

一、手段的分級　283

二、價值價格原論中的虛構——直接交換　284

三、經濟計算問題　289

四、經濟計算與市場　293

第十二章經濟計算的範圍　297

一、貨幣記錄的特徵　297

二、經濟計算的限度　300

三、價格的可變性　303

四、安定　305

五、安定觀念的根源　310

第十三章作爲一個行爲工具的經濟計算　317

一、作爲一個思想方法的經濟計算　317

二、經濟計算與人的行爲科學　319

第四篇市場社會的交換學或經濟學　321

第十四章交換學的範圍和方法　323

一、交換學的問題之界定　323

二、想像建構的方法　328

三、純粹的市場經濟　329

四、幻想的經濟　336

五、靜止狀態與均勻輪轉的經濟　337

六、靜態經濟　344

七、交換功能的统合　345

第十五章市場　353

一、市場經濟的一些特徵　353

二、資本財與資本　356

三、資本主義　360

四、消費者主權　365

五、競爭　369

六、自由　375

七、財富與所得的不平等　381

八、企業家的利潤與虧損　383

九、在進步經濟中企業家的利潤與虧損　388

十、發起人、經理、技術人員、官僚　398

十一、選擇的過程　406

十二、個人與市場　410

十三、商業宣傳　416

十四、國民經濟　419

第十六章價格　427

一、定價的過程　427

二、評值和估價　431

三、高級貨財的價格　434

四、成本計算　440

五、邏辑的交換學對數學的交換學　451

六、獨占價格　459

七、商譽　483

八、需求獨占　487

九、受了獨占價格影響的消費　489

十、賣方的價格歧視　492

十一、買方的價格歧視　495

十二、價格的相互關聯　496

十三、價格與所得　497

十四、價格與生產　499

十五、關於非市場價格這個怪想　500

第十七章間接交換　507

一、交換媒介與貨幣　507

二、對於若干普遍誤解的觀察　507

三、貨幣需求與貨幣供給　510

四、貨幣購買力的決定　517

五、休姆和穆勒的問題以及貨幣的推進力　526

六、現金引起的和貨物引起的購買力的變動　530

七、貨幣的計算與購買力的變動　535

八、購買力變動的預期　537

九、貨幣的特殊價值　540

十、貨幣關係的意義　542

十一、貨幣代替品　544

十二、信用媒介發行量的限制　546

十三、現金握存的數額和成份　562

十四、收支平衡　565

十五、地域間的匯率　567

十六、利率和貨幣關係　573

十七、次級的交換媒介　577

十八、通貨膨脹主義者的歷史觀　582

十九、金本位　587

第十八章時間經過中的行爲　599

一、時間評值的透視　599

二、作爲行爲之一必要條件的時間偏好　604

三、資本財　611

四、生產期，等待的時間以及準備期　615

五、資本財的可變性　625

六、過去對於行爲的影響　628

七、資本的累積、保持與消耗　637

八、投資者的流動性　641

九、貨幣與資本；儲蓄與投資　644

第十九章利率　651

一、利息現象　651

二、原始利息　653

三、利率的高度　659

四、變動經濟中的原始利息　661

五、利息的計算　663

第二十章利息、信用擴張和商業循環　667

一、一些問題　667

二、市場毛利率中的企業成份　668

三、作爲市場毛利率一個成份的價格貼水　670

四、借貸市場　674

五、貨幣關係的變動對於原始利息的影響　677

六、受了通貨膨脹與信用捵張之影響的市場毛利率　680

七、受了通貨緊縮與信用收縮之影響的市場毛利率　697

八、貨幣的或流通信用的商業循環論　702

九、受了商業循環影響的市場經濟　707

第二十一章工作舆工資　723

一、内向的勞動與外向的勞動　723

二、勞動的喜悦與厭惡　725

三、工資　729

四、交換論上的失業　736

五、毛工資率與淨工資率　739

六、工資與生活費　741

七、受了勞動負效用之影響的勞動供給　748

八、受市場變化之影響的工資率　762

九、勞動市場　764

第二十二章非人的原始的生產要素　779

一、關於地租理論的一般觀察　779

二、土地利用中的時間因素　782

三、邊際以下的土地　784

四、容身之用的土地　786

五、土地價格　787

第二十三章市場的基料　793

一、理論與基料　793

二、權力的作用　794

三、戰爭與征服在歷史上發生的作用　796

四、經濟學所處理的實實在在的人　798

五、調整時期　799

六、財產權的限制以及外部成本與外部經濟的一些問題　802

第二十四章利益的和諧與衝突　815

一、市場上的利潤與廯損的最後根源　815

二、生育節制　818

三、「正確了解的」利益和諧　824

四、私有財產　834

五、我們這個時代的一些衝突　836

第五篇沒有市場的社會合作　843

第二十五章一個社會主義社會的想像結構　845

一、社會主義這個構想的歷史根源　845

二、社會主義的敎條　850

三、社會主義在行爲學上的特徵　853

第二十六章社會主義不可能有經濟計算　855

―、問題　855

二、過去沒有認清這個問題　858

三、最近對於社會主義的經濟計算的一些建議　860

四、試試改改的辦法　861

五、準市場　863

六、數理經濟學的一些微分方程式　868

第六篇受束縛的巿場經濟　875

第二十七章與市場　877

一、第三制度的構想　877

二、政府的干涉　878

三、政府職務的界限　881

四、作爲個人行爲最後標準的正義　884

五、放任的意義　891

六、政府對於消費的直接干涉　893

第二十八章用租稅干涉　899

一、中立的税　899

二、全部課税　901

三、課税的財政目的和非財政目的　902

四、租税干涉的三個類別　903

第二十九章生產的拘限　905

一、拘限的性質　905

二、拘限的代價　907

三、作爲一種特權的拘限　911

四、作爲一個經濟制度的拘限　919

第三十章對於價格結構的干涉　923

一、政府與市場的自律　923

二、市場對於政府千涉的反應　928

三、最低工資率　935

第三十—章通貨舆信用的操縱　949

一、政府與通貨　949

二、法偾立法上的干涉主義　952

三、現代通貨操縱法的演進　955

四、通货眨值的目的　958

五、信用擴張　963

六、外滙管制與雙邊外滙協定　970

第三十二章沒收與再分配　975

一、沒收哲學　975

二、土地改革　976

三、沒收式的課税　977

第三十三章工團主義與勞資協作主義　985

一、工團主義者的想頭　985

二、工團主團的謬誤　986

三、一些時髦政策中的工團主義的成份　988

四、基爾特社會主義與勞資協作主義　990

第三十四章戰爭經濟學　997

―、全體戰爭　997

二、戰爭與市場經濟　1002

三、戰爭與自给自足　1005

四、戰爭無用　1008

第三十五章福利原則與市場原則　1011

一、反對市場經濟的理由　1011

二、貧窮　1013

三、不平等　1019

四、不安全　1031

五、社會正義　1032

第三十六章干涉主義的危機　1037

一、干涉主義的結果　1037

二、準備金的枯竭　1037

三、干涉主義的終結　1040

第七篇經濟學在社會的地位　1045

第三十七章難以形容的經濟學的特徵　1047

一、經濟學的獨特性　1047

二、經濟學與輿論　1048

三、老輩自由主義者的幻想　1049

第三十八章經濟學在知識界的地位　1053

一、經濟學的研究　1053

二、作爲一門專業的經濟學　1055

三、預測　1057

四、經濟學和一些大學　1059

五、一般敎育與經濟學　1063

六、經濟學與公民　1065

七、經濟學典自由　1066

第三十九章經濟學與人類生存的一些基本問題1069

一、科學與人生　1069

二、經濟學與價值判斷　1071

三、經濟的認知與人的行爲　1074

索引

修訂版譯者序

不朽的名著，沒有「時效」問題，因而也沒有「過時」的翻譯：有的，只是無常的「時運」。這句話的前半截，是十多年前我在本書初版（台銀經研室出版）譯者序中寫的，後半截是今天我準備寫這篇序的前一刹那想到的。

十多年來的世局——東西兩方的緊張冷戰，台海兩岸的雷霆鬥、日月昏，變到今天這樣——左右兩端的極權暴政相繼轉向政治民主、經濟自由。這確是歷史上罕見的大變局。這一變局顯現出奴役與自由的意理一消一長，也密切關涉到米塞斯《人的行爲》這本書的「時運」轉移！

譯者，一向浸潤於這本不時髦的冷門書的譯者，好像是尋芳於幽谷的人，雖然也常享有獨樂之樂，終不免有點寂寞之感。所幸近年來在中華經濟研究院結識了吳惠林博士。他是年輕輩難得的嚮往自由哲理而不滿足於技術層面的經濟學者之一。尤其在芝加哥大學進修回來以後，他更有興趣追索奧國學派的理論淵源。於是在我們二人的日常談論中每每提到米塞斯、海耶克諸人的著作。於是在他書架上塵封已久的那本《人的行爲》初版，他又拿出翻閱，並進而細讀它的整章或整篇。

本書的初版，我早已知道其中有不少錯誤。我也早想好好把它全盤修訂。但因它的篇幅太多，而我的精力隨年齡的增長而衰退，愈來愈不敢動手了。現在，它之得以全盤修訂以及修訂後得以出版，其過程已經吳惠林先生「校訂者的話」中講到，在這裏我只想對這位志趣相投的吳先生及具有識見的遠流出版公司之朋友表示謝意。以下我將把這次修訂的地方提出幾點報告。

這次的修訂，絕大部份是在單字和標點符號的改錯，以及文句的潤飾上。這種地方幾乎每頁都有。有些太長的複合句子，盡可能地改成中文式的幾個短句。但譯者的翻譯功力畢竟差勁，爲避免損及原文的意義，還沒有把所有這樣的長句都改過來。關於名詞的翻譯部份，在初版的譯者序中曾有些說明。現在我又發現有一最不可原恕的錯誤，就是同一名詞前後的譯名不一致，甚至凌亂：米塞斯在本書所用的ultimate given和ultimate datum（或ultimate data）兩詞是同義的。都是指行爲學上的終極據點，不容再分析，也即不容再追究的據點。本害的初版，是斷断纊績經過四個年頭譯完的，譯者不小心，竟把ultimate given譯成三個不同的中文名詞，分見於前後的篇章。它們是「極據」、「基據」和「最後的與件」；ultimate data或datum我又譯作「基料」。現在我已把這幾個凌亂的譯名統統改爲「極據」。

此外，還要特別提及的，就是category這個名詞，我大都譯作「元範」，而沒有完全照慣例譯作「範疇」。這是爲的要顯出米塞斯所經常強調的「先驗」觀念。在米塞斯的論著中用到category這個詞的時候，大都是先驗的；儘管在他的行文中有時用a priory category有時又省掉了a priori。在省掉了a priori的時候，大部份仍含有先驗的意思。我遇到這種地方，一概譯作「元範」，而不譯作「範疇」。因爲「範疇」一詞的中文通義並不排除「經驗」的成份。但是，米塞斯又在少數幾處把category與type二字交換使用，這可從上下文意看出。這時，我就把category譯作「類型」。

嚴謹的翻譯，尤其是理論性的翻譯之求嚴謹，眞是一件難事。我相信這個譯本如再修訂一次、兩次，仍不免還有缺失。但是這本大部頭的書，其中的主旨曾經作者反反覆覆申論，已很明白顯出。間或的小小誤譯，想不致使讀者有嚴重的誤解。這是我的一點想法，但決不敢用這句話來自我寬恕。

最後，我想向某些讀者提出一個建議。

大家都知道，今天的讀書人，包括在校的學生和已有某些成就的學者專家，多半是些連散步也要抄捷徑的效率迷。效率迷要找精神食糧，喜歡去的是速簡餐廳，看到大部頭的書，很少不皺眉頭而肯耐心從頭到尾啃下去的。何況這本巨著又是當代經濟學界的冷門書哩！所以我建議：凡是稍有意願接觸這本書的人士，請首先翻翻目錄，找自己有點興趣的章節看一看，想一想，如果覺得有些「實獲我心」之處，我想，就可能逐漸樂於進而追索其理論體系而再從頭細讀全書。

夏道平

一九九〇年一月於台北市

校訂者的話

早在七年前，我就踏入「自由經濟」的思路，而漸漸相信，一個個活生生的「個人」才是經濟思考的起點和終點。在七年的摸索過程中，我雖摸到了這一思考方式，但對此種思考方式的淵源，以及這派先輩大師們的思想修養卻極度陌生，我只是就自己所接觸過的一般學理反覆思索，再以實際社會所發生的現象相互印證推敲而已。

就在夏道平先生也來到中華經濟研究院之後，於相互言談中得其敎誨，才對幾位古典經濟學大師的哲理得知一、二。米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises）這個名字，也是自那時起才知道的。但是，由於俗務纏身，一直無從獲得硏讀米塞斯大作的時間，雖經夏先生屢次暗示、甚至明說，也都無所動作。

眼看一年復一年的過去，我對自由經濟理論的精髓沒有下過苦功鑽硏，就在快被夏先生視爲「朽木不可雕」的當兒，遠流出版公司的詹宏志和蘇拾平兩位先生竟然提議，要將夏先生早年花下心血翻譯的米塞斯三本大作，重新校訂再行出版。校訂工作理當由原譯者來作，將更爲美好，然而夏先生卻以年歲已大作藉口，要求由我負責校訂工作。

事情也眞巧，就在當時，香港信報財經新聞發行人林行止先生，於一九八九年六月的《信報財經月刊》上，發表一篇名爲〈中國駐美大使索取米塞斯的《人的行爲》——共產主義的「照妖鏡」〉一文，拜讀之餘，不禁又對米塞斯興起莫大的興趣。米塞斯是批評社會主義最烈，而爲資本主義極力辯護的，而他的代表作《人的行爲》，竟受到社會主義的中國駐美大使的重視，可以想見這本書的影響力了！

在兩方面的配合下，我就接受了夏先生的要求，而開始閱讀米塞斯的三本中文譯作——《反資本主義的心境》、《經濟學的最後基礎》，以及《人的行爲》。第一本屬於較通俗的作品，將反對資本主義者的心態描繪得令當事人血脈賁張，但也對被誤解了的資本主義作了一番別開生面的澄淸，這是一本易於閱讀的著作。第二本是將經濟學的根基作深刻的探索，比較艱深，普通的讀者難以領悟，本人建議先讀第三本鉅作之後，再來消化它。

第三本可說是米塞斯全盤思想體系的綜合，在中文本一千多頁的篇幅裡，米塞斯鉅細靡遺的一步步闡釋自由經濟或市場機能的眞義，讚歎之餘，不禁沉思這位哲人何來如此博大精深的思維。本書中所陳述的道理，許多已一一在今日印證了。但在鉅作完成當時，米塞斯卻是受到極大的排斥，是否先知們，定是不見容於當代呢？

遺憾的是，由於從事的是校訂工作，又趕時效，個人只負責閱讀譯文，而只在不通順和有質疑處提出疑問和修正，尙未能仔細咀嚼並對照原文，因此，我也僅能摸出個大概，還來不及作深一層的了解和思考。

不過，單只這種稍嫌浮面的校訂，我已覺獲益良多，尤其對我正走上的「自由經濟的思路」更加了一份信心。等到新書問世之後，當再詳讀，相信將有更多、更深的收穫。

所以，對我本人而言，雖說負責校訂，實在是從事一項「學習」的工作。感謝夏先生和遠流出版公司的朋友們給了我這個絕佳機會，同時，也深盼讀者們和我有同樣的感覺和收穫。

吳惠林一九九〇年元月二日

初版譯者序（略有增删）

這個中文譯本《人的行為——經濟學硏論》在原著Human Action - A Treatise on Economics出版後二十七年才出現。時間的差距，可算是很長了。但是，比起孟格爾（Carl Menger, 1840-1921）——奧國學派的奠基者——的《經濟學原理》之有英文譯本，還早了五十多年。孟格爾的德文原著（Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre）是一八七一年出版的，James Dingwall和Bert F. Hoselitz合譯的英文本（有芝加哥學派的始祖Frank H. Knight寫的一篇長序）出版於一九五〇年，前後竟相差七十九年！

不朽的名著，沒有時效問題；也就沒有「過時」的翻譯。

本書著者米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises, 1881-1973）是奥國學派第三代的大師。這個學派的學術思想，經由第三代的他，和第四代的海耶克（Friedrich A. Hayek, 1899-）之發揚光大，其輝煌的貢獻已不限於經濟學範圍，更擴展到一般性的社會哲學。我們也可以換句話說，米塞斯和海耶克這兩位大師的經濟思想，是有其深厚廣博的社會哲學基礎的。所以米塞斯寫了經濟學方面的專書，如《貨幣和信用理論》等等以外，還能寫這本《人的行爲》：海耶克除寫了《價格與生產》、《資本純論》等書以外，還寫了《自由的憲章》（Constitution of Liberty）。可是，當代大多數經濟學者所宗奉的凱因斯（John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946）除幾本經濟學的專著以外，留給我們的就是一本《機率論》。由此可以看出：米塞斯和海耶克這個學派的經濟學家，是把經濟學納入社會哲學或行爲通論的架構中來處理；凱因斯則偏於把經濟學寄託於數學或統計學部門。這一差異，關乎他們個人學問造詣之深淺廣狭者，乃至關乎經濟學之是否被確實了解者，其事小：關乎其影響於人類文明演化之分歧者，其事大。面封這個關係重大的分歧路口，我們能不審愼取捨於其間嗎？

由於先天的性向，更由於數十年來關於世局的體驗與思索，我對奧國學派的經濟思想和其相關的社會哲學，竟持有一份濃厚的偏好。由於這份偏好，我先後譯過米塞斯的另一本書——《經濟學的最後基礎》和海耶克的《個人主義與經濟秩序》。那兩本書，當然不能算是他們的代表作：可以代表他們思想體系的，就海耶克講，是他的《自由的憲章》，就米塞斯講，就是這本《人的行爲》。

米塞斯的論著，凡是在一九四〇年以前發表的，大都是用德文寫的。一九四〇年遷居美國以後，他才開始用英文寫書。本書的原著就是其中之一。它的第一版，於一九四九年在美英兩國發行。一九六三年在美國發行修訂版，擴增了若干節。一九六六年的第三版，是一九六三年版的重排，除掉改正前版一些打字的錯落以外，內容沒有什麼變動。我這個譯本，起先是照一九四九年的英國版譯的，後來找到一九六六年的第三版，就拿第三版續譯，並把已譯的部份按第三版增補。所以這個譯本比原著第三版多出了一篇「第一版前言」。

這一本八十多萬字的巨著，我是在四個年頭當中斷斷續續地把它譯完的。譯完後，排版校對又拖延了將近一年。照說，用了這麼多的時間，應該可以做到很滿意了。可是事實上並不如此。下面的話，我是抱著候敎或道歉的心情向讀者陳述的。

I. 本書原名Human Action，我譯作「人的行爲」，不譯作「人類行爲」或「人的行動」其理由分別說明如下：

（1）「人類」是個集體名詞，單數的「人」字，固也可用以泛指所有的人，但究不同於「人類」這個集體名詞之會發生誤導。在奧國學派的思想體系中，是不輕易使用集體名詞的。當他們謹愼地用到某一集體名詞時，他們是用以意指那實實在在的組成這個集體的諸份子在某一特定目的下的集合，而不是意指超越那些份子，或脫離那些份子，而獨立存在的什麼東西。超越或脫離組成份子的集體，對於頭腦淸明的人而言，是不可思議的。可是，古今中外竟有各形各色的巫師，常能用某些法術，使某些集體名詞對大衆發揮魔力，因而使我們原可持久而全面分工合作、和平競爭的社會關係，經常受到嚴重破壞，乃至引起曠世浩刼。這當然不是集體名詞本身的罪過，而是濫用集體名詞，或故弄玄虛地運用集體名詞，以及一般大衆盲目接受集體名詞的歪義， 而酸成的惡果。本書譯名不輕率使用「人類」一詞，爲的是避免不應有而可能有的誤導。這段話，自明智的讀者看來，或許是多餘的。但在奧國學派的思想體系中，這段話所表達的觀念，是主要成份之一。趁著說明譯例的機會，我順便指出，對於初步接近這個思想體系的讀者，我想該有點幫助。

（2）「行爲」與「行動」二詞，通常是可以互換使用的。如果要加以區分，我以爲前者是指「有所爲（爲字請去聲）的」動作，後者是指「無意識的」活動。米塞斯所講的action，正是有目的、有所爲的行爲，不是無意識的行動。至於有人把現代心理學的一個派別behaviorism譯作「行爲主義」，我認爲那是誤譯。正確的譯名應該是「行動主義」。因爲behaviorism的特徵，是把「人」和「動物」的學習過程與認知過程相提並論，作爲硏究對象；凡是涉及心靈方面或主觀方面的那些概念，一律排斥：而且在其研究的進行中，還要憑藉實驗室的試驗。這樣的behaviorism，怎可譯作上述定義的「行爲」主義呢？我覺得我們不應該因爲behaviorism已被譯爲「行爲主義」爲避免與之混淆，而把Human Action譯爲「人的行動」。這是以自己的誤譯來肯定別人的誤譯，我們不應該這樣作。我們應該作的，是指出behaviorism譯作「行爲主義」是個誤譯，而無改於Human Action之譯爲「人的行爲」。在臺灣暢銷的《最新英華大辭典》是以釋註正確著名的。它也是把behaviorism釋作「行動主義」。

II. 米塞斯寫的英文，流利明暢，而且對於某些關鍵性的論點，每每反覆申述，甚至使讀者有時感覺到詞費。所以大體上講，這本書是易懂易譯的。可是有些地方，碍於中英文法結構的不同，譯者也不免有時要搔搔頭或啃啃筆桿。尤其是涵意複雜、包括著兩三個子句的長句子，要譯成流暢可讀的中文，就會把原意割裂得走樣。在這種場合，爲著求「信」、求「達」，就難於顧及到「雅」。我的辦法就是把長句中的子句用括號括起來，當作一個詞看。這樣一來，即令是很長的句子，也容易看出它的結構，從而了解它的意義。

關於人名地名的譯例是這樣：凡是已有通用的中文譯名者，沿用那些譯名，僅於第一次出現的地方把原名註在括號裡。至於不常見的人名地名，就用它的原名，不用中文音譯。這也許是個不妥當的譯例。可是這個譯例，事實上還不見得徹頭徹尾地遵守，因爲譯稿是斷斷續續地完成的。最後一次的校對，也不是一氣呵成。關於人名地名的處理可能有些不一致的地方，沒有完全校正過來。

在各國的語言文字中，總有些成語或單字具有特殊複雜的含義，或指稱特殊的雜，不是別國文字所可完全代替的。所以嚴謹不苟的作家，在其著作中有時要選用若干別國的成語或單字，這不是爲的炫耀博學，而是爲要把特殊的事物或觀念盡可能地用最適當的工具表達出來。在《人的行爲》這本英文原著裡面，米塞斯也是如此。他採用了一些拉丁、希臘、法、德，乃至西班牙、意大利、阿拉伯、土耳其、印度、俄羅斯的成語和單字，尤以拉丁的最多。這大都不是一般的讀者所熟識的，一些附有外國字或外國成語的英文大字典也査不到。所幸Percy L. Greaves Jr.敎授，特爲這本書編了一本辭典，書名叫做Mises Made Easier - A Glossary for Ludwig von Mises' Human Aciton （1974出版）。這本書給我不少的便利，如果沒有它，我這個譯本的缺陷一定更多。這裡，我得感謝王撫洲（公簡）先生。因爲這本辭詞是王先生知道我在翻譯這本書，特意從美國買來送我的。

我應當感謝的還有周德偉（子若）先生。他是海耶克的學生，也是Constitution of Liberty的中譯本《自由的憲章》的譯者。他對奧國學派思想體系的精硏，在臺灣是數一數二的人物。我譯米塞斯這本書，常常受到他的鼓勵和指敎。他對於中國古籍，有超過常人的造詣。所以他所創譯的若干名詞，如：ideology譯作「意理」，egalitarism譯作「比同主義」，旣典雅、又正確。我都樂於沿用。本書第三章第二節及第三節的標題，是我向他請敎後改譯的。比我的原譯要高明得多。至於這本書名「人的行爲」，我沒有接受他的意見譯爲「人的行動」，這點意見的相左，無損於我對他的感佩。

夏道平民國六十五年五月於臺北市

註釋

1 美國有個經濟敎育基金（The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.）是承襲米塞斯的精神，闡揚自由主義經濟理論，以期大衆了解爲宗旨的財團法人，經常舉辦研討會、辯論會、演講會，並出版有關書籍及定期和不定期刊物。王撫洲先生是這個基金的贊助人之一，經常收到他們的書刊，有時與他們通訊。因而他事先知道這本辭典將出版，及時訂購了一本送給我。這個基金的地址是IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533. U.S.A.凡是有興趣研究自由主義思想體系的人，可去函該基金聯繋，即可收到他們的一些刊物。

FOREWORD TO FOURTH EDITION

Mises' contribution was very simple, yet at the same time extremely profound. He pointed out that the whole economy is the result of what individuals do. Individuals act, choose, cooperate, compete, and trade with one another. In this way Mises explained how complex market phenomena develop. Mises did not simply describe economic phenomena -- prices, wages, interest rates, money, monopoly and even the trade cycle -- he explained them as the outcomes of countless conscious, purposive actions, choices, and preferences of individuals, each of whom was trying as best as he or she could under the circumstances to attain various wants and ends and to avoid undesired consequences. Hence the title Mises chose for his economic treatise, Human Action. Thus also, in Mises' view, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was explainable on the basis of logic and utilitarian principles as the outcome of the countless actions of individuals.

Sprinkled throughout Mises' scholarly and erudite explanations of market operations are many colorful descriptions of economic phenomena. For instance, on the difference between economic and political power: "A 'chocolate king' has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides them with chocolate of the best quality and at the cheapest price. He does not rule the consumers, he serves them. The consumers ... are free to stop patronizing his shops. He loses his 'kingdom' if the consumers prefer to spend their pennies elsewhere." (p. 272) On why people trade: "The inhabitants of the Swiss Jura prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer to acquire watches." (p. 395) For Mises a price is a ratio arrived at on the market by the competitive bids of consumers for money on the one hand and some particular good or service on the other. A government may issue decrees, but "A government can no more determine prices than a goose can lay hen's eggs." (p. 397)

In Mises' view, the inequality of men was the beginning of peaceful interpersonal social cooperation and the source of all the advantages it brings: "The liberal champions of equality under the law were fully aware of the fact that men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization. Equality under the law was in their opinion not designed to correct the inexorable facts of the universe and to make natural inequality disappear. It was, on the contrary, the device to secure for the whole of mankind the maximum of benefits it can derive from it.... Equality under the law is in their eyes good because it best serves the interests of all. It leaves it to the voters to decide who should hold public office and to the consumers to decide who should direct production activities." (pp. 841-842)

Mises' 1949 comments on Social Security and government debt read as if they had been written yesterday: "Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying one hundred dollars to the national social security institution. He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU. If the government spends the hundred dollars for current expenditures, no additional capital comes into existence, and no increase in the productivity of labor results. The government's IOU is a check drawn upon the future taxpayer. In 1970 a certain Peter may have to fulfill the government's promise although he himself does not derive any benefit from the fact that Paul in 1940 saved one hundred dollars.... The trumpery argument that the public debt is no burden because 'we owe it to ourselves' is delusive. The Pauls of 1940 do not owe it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe it to the Pauls of 1940.... The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the statesmen of 1940 will be either dead or elder statesmen glorying in their wonderful achievement, social security."(pp. 847-848)

In the "Foreword to the Third Edition" of Human Action Mises mentioned the Italian and Spanish translations of this book. Since then it has been translated by Tao-Ping Hsia into Chinese (1976/7), by Raoul Audouin into French (1985), by Donald Stewart, Jr., into Portugese (1990), and by Toshio Murata into Japanese (1991). Its German-language precursor, Nationalokonomie (1940) has also been republished (1980).

The publishers of this new edition of Human Action have tried to correct the typos that inevitably creep into almost any book, especially one of this size. They have also included a completely new index, which they hope will help make the ideas in this book more readily accessible to readers.

Bettina Bien Greaves

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

February 1996

FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION

原著第三版前言

IT GIVES me great satisfaction to see this book, handsomely printed by a distinguished publishing house, appear in its third revised edition.

我很高興看到這本書由一卓越的出版家印出了這第三次修訂版，印刷装釘都很精美。

Two terminological remarks may be in order.

這裡有兩點關於名詞的說明：

First, I employ the term "liberal" in the sense attached to it every-where in the nineteenth century and still today in the countries of continental Europe. This usage is imperative because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals for slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage.

第一、我用「自由」這個名詞，其意義是十九世紀所用的意義，也是現在歐洲大陸若干國家還在用的意義。這個用法是不得已的，因爲簡直沒有一個別的名詞可以用來指稱「以自由企業和市場經濟替代資本主義以前的生產方法：以憲政代議政府替代君主或寡頭專制；以人人自由替代各種奴役制度」這種偉大的政治和文化運動。

Secondly, in the last decades the meaning of the term "psychology" has been more and more restricted to the field of experimental psychology, a discipline that resorts to the research methods of the natural sciences. On the other hand, it has become usual to dismiss those studies that previously had been called psychological as "literary psychology" and as an unscientific way of reasoning. Whenever reference is made to "psychology" in economic studies, one has in mind precisely this literary psychology, and therefore it seems advisable to introduce a special term for it. I suggested in my book Theory and History (New Haven, 1957, pp. 264-274) the term "thymology," and I used this term also in my recently published essay The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (Princeton, 1962). However, my suggestion was not meant to be retroactive and to alter the use of the term "psychology" in books previously published, and so I continue in this new edition to use the term "psychology" in the same way I used it in the first edition.

第二、最近幾十年來，「心理學」這個名詞所指稱的，愈來愈限之於試驗的心理學，這是用自然科學方法的一門學問。另一方面，把以前叫做心理學的那些研究，貶之爲「文學的心理學」，貶之爲非科學方法的理論，這已成爲現在人云亦云的說法。在經濟學中，凡是提到心理學的時候，我們的心中正是這文學的心理學，所以引進一個特別名詞來代替它，似乎是適當的。我在The Theory and History那本書裡面（New Haven, 1957, pp. 264-274）提出「Thymology」這個名詞，我也把這個名詞用在最近出版的The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (Princeton, 1962)。但是，我的意思並不是追溯旣往而把以前出版的各書中「心理學」這個名詞改變過來，所以在本書的這個新版裡面，我還是照第一版一樣，繼續用「心理學」這個名詞。

Two translations of the first edition of Human Action have come out: an Italian translation by Mr. Tuilio Bagiotti, Professor at the Universita Bocconi in Milano, under the title L’Azione Umana, Trattato di economia, published by the Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese in 1959; and a Spanish-language translation by Mr. Joaquin Reig Albiol under the title La Accion Humana (Tratado de Econo mia), published in two volumes by Fundacion Ignacio Villalonga in Valencia (Spain) in 1960.

《人的行爲》第一版，已有了兩個譯本：一個是意大利Universita Bocconi in Milano的敎授Tuilio Bagiotti先生的意大利文譯本，書名是L’Azione Umana, Trattato di economia，一九五九年由the Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese出版。一是西班牙的Joaquin Reig Albiol先生用La Accion Humana (Tratado de Econo mia)這個書名譯的西班牙文譯本。一九六〇年由Fundacion Ignacio Villalonga in Valencia (Spain)出版。

I feel indebted to many good friends for help and advice in the preparation of this book.

我感謝許多好朋友對於本書的準備給予幫助和指敎。

First of all I want to remember two deceased scholars, Paul Mantoux and William E. Rappard, who by giving me the opportunity of teaching at the famous Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, provided me with the time and the incentive to start work upon a long-pro-jected plan.

首先我要提到兩位已去世的學者：Paul Mantoux和William E. Rappard，他們給我在瑞士著名的Graduate Institute of International Studies敎書的機會，並給我充份的時間和鼓勵，使我得以寫成這個長程計畫的書。

I want to express my thanks for very valuable and helpful suggestions to Mr. Arthur Goddard, Mr. Percy Greaves, Doctor Henry Hazlitt, Professor Israel M. Kirzner, Mr. Leonard E. Read, Mr. Joaquin Reig Albiot and Doctor George Reisman.

我還要感謝Arthur Goddard先生，Percy Greaves先生，Henry Hazlitt博士，Israel M. Kirzner教授，Leonard E. Read先生，Joaquin Reig Albiot先生和George Reisman先生所給的寶貴而有益的指敎。

But most of all I want to thank my wife for her steady encouragement and help.

我尤其要謝謝吾妻自始至終不斷的鼓勵和幫助。

New York

March, 1966

LUDWIG VON MISES

一九六六年五月於紐約

FOREWORD

原著第一版前言

FR0M the fall of I 934 until the summer of 1940 I had the privilege of occupying the chair of International Economic Relations at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. In the serene atmosphere of this seat of learning, which two eminent scholars, Paul Mantoux and William E. Kappard, had organized and continued to direct, I set about executing an old plan of mine, to write a comprehensive treatise on economics. The book- Nationalokonomie, Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens -was published in Geneva in the gloomy days of May, 19.10.

從一九三四年秋天一直到一九四〇年夏季我榮幸地在瑞士日內瓦擔任the Graduate Institute of International Studies的國際經濟關係講座。這個學術硏究機構是由兩位卓越的學人，Paul Mantoux和William E. Kappard創立而且繼續指導的。在這個寧靜的學術氣氛中，我著手完成我的一個舊計畫——寫一本經濟學的綜合性論著。這本書Nationalokonomie, Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens於一九四〇年五月那個慘澹的時期在日內瓦出版。

The present volume is not a translation of this earlier book. Although the general structure has been little changed, all parts have been rewritten.

這本書不是上述那本書的翻譯。儘管這本書的一般結構與前書類似，但各部份都是重寫的。

To my friend Henry Hazlitt I wish to offer my very special thanks for his kindness in reading the manuscript and giving me most valuable suggestions about it. I must also gratefully acknowledge my obligations to Mr. Arthur Coddard for linguistic and stylistic advice. I am furthermore deeply indebted to Mr. Eugene A. Davidson, Editor of the Yale University Press, and to Mr. Leonard E. Read, President of the Foundation for Economic Education, for their kind encouragement and support.

我要向我的朋友Henry Hazlitt表示深深的感謝，承他的好意讀完我的全稿，並給我一些最有價値的指示。我也得感謝Arthur Coddard先生在語言學和文體方面給我的指敎。還有耶魯大學出版部的編輯Eugene A. Davidson先生和經濟敎育基金會的理事長Leonard E. Read先生的鼓勵和支持，我也深深感謝。

I need hardly add that none of these gentlemen is either directly or indirectly responsible for any opinions contained in this work.

這些先生們對於本書的任何見解不負任何直接的或間接的責任。這是無待贅言的。

LUDWIG von MISES

New York, February, 1949.

一九四九年三月於紐約

INTRODUCTION

緒論

1. Economics and Praxeology

一、經濟學與人的行爲通論

Economics is the youngest of all sciences. In the last two hundred years, it is true, many new sciences have emerged from the disciplines familiar to the ancient Greeks. However, what happened here was merely that parts of knowledge which had already found their place in the complex of the old system of learning now became autonomous. The field of study was more nicely subdivided and treated with new methods; hitherto unnoticed provinces were discovered in it, and people began to see things from aspects different from those of their precursors. The field itself was not expanded. But economics opened to human science a domain previously inaccessible and never thought of. The discovery of a regularity in the sequence and interdependence of market phenomena went beyond the limits of the traditional system of learning. It conveyed knowledge which could be regarded neither as logic, mathematics, psychology, physics, nor biology.

經濟學是所有科學當中最年輕的。在過去的兩百年，雖然有許多新的科學從古代希臘人所熟習的學問中成長出來，可是，那不過是些在舊學問體系中已有了地位的部份知識，現在成爲獨立的學科而已。研究的領域，劃分得更精細，而且也用些新的方法；在這領域內，有些從來未被注意的地方被發現了，而且人們開始從一些不同於前人的觀點來看事物。領域的本身並沒有擴大。但是經濟學卻給人文科學開闢了一個新的領域，這個領域是以前不能接近的，而且也從未想到的。從巿場現象的相互依賴和因果關係中，發現了它們的規律性，這卻超越了傳統學問體系的範圍。經濟學所傳述的知識，不能當作邏輯、數學、心理學、物理學、或生物學來看。

Philosophers had long since been eager to ascertain the ends which God or Nature was trying to realize in the course of human history. They searched for the law of mankind's destiny and evolution. But even those thinkers whose inquiry was free from any theological tendency failed utterly in these endeavors because they were committed to a faulty method. They dealt with humanity as a whole or with other holistic concepts like nation, race, or church. They set up quite arbitrarily the ends to which the behavior of such wholes is bound to lead. But they could not satisfactorily answer the question regarding what factors compelled the various acting individuals to behave in such a way that the goal aimed at by the whole's inexorable evolution was attained. They had recourse to desperate shifts: miraculous interference of the Deity either by revelation or by the delegation of God-sent prophets and consecrated leaders, preestablished harmony, predestination, or the operation of a mystic and fabulous "world soul" or "national soul." Others spoke of a "cunning of nature" which implanted in man impulses driving him unwittingly along precisely the path Nature wanted him to take.

自古以來，哲學家們一直是熱心於探索上帝或自然，想在人類歷史行程中實現些什麼目的。他們尋求人類的歸趨和演化的法則。但是， 他們這些努力完全失敗了，甚至那些擺脫了一切神學傾向的思想家也是如此，因爲他們都被一個錯誤的方法所害。他們是把人類當作一個整體來處理，或以其他的整體概念，例如國、民族、或敎會，來處理。他們十分武斷地建立了一些目的，以爲這樣的一些整體一定是趨向於這些目的的。但是，他們不能圓滿地解答下面這個問題：是些什麼因素逼得各種各樣的行爲人，不得不爲達成他們所謂的整體的不可阻撓的演化所要達成的目的而行爲。他們曾經用一些無可奈何的說法來解答這個問題。如：神透過聖靈啓示，或透過代表神的先知，或透過神化的領袖，而作的神秘干涉、預定的和諧、註定的命運、或神秘無稽的「世界精神」或「民族精神」的運作。其他的思想家則說到，在人的衝動中有個「自然的巧妙」（cunning of nature），驅使他不知不覺地遵照「自然」所指定的途徑走。

Other philosophers were more realistic. They did not try to guess the designs of Nature or God. They looked at human things from the viewpoint of government. They were intent upon establishing rules of political action, a technique, as it were, of government and statesmanship. Speculative minds drew ambitious plans for a thorough reform and reconstruction of society. The more modest were satisfied with a collection and systematization of the data of historical experience. But all were fully convinced that there was in the course of social events no such regularity and invariance of phenomena as had already been found in the operation of human reasoning and in the sequence of natural phenomena. They did not search for the laws of social cooperation because they thought that man could organize society as he pleased. If social conditions did not fulfill the wishes of the reformers, if their utopias proved unrealizable, the fault was seen in the moral failure of man. Social problems were considered ethical problems. What was needed in order to construct the ideal society, they thought, were good princes and virtuous citizens. With righteous men any utopia might be realized.

另外有些哲學家比較實在。他們不去推測自然或上帝的意旨。他們從政治的觀點來看人事。他們一心一意想建立一些政治行爲的規律，好像是作爲政治的和政治家的一種技術。有些愛用思想的人，擬出一些野心勃勃的大計畫，想把社會來個徹底改革和重建。比較謙虚的人，則滿意於收集歷史經驗的資料而加以系統化。但是所有這些，都是充份相信在社會事件發生的過程中，沒有像在我們的推理中所曾斷定的和在自然現象的因果關係中所曾發現的那樣的規律和不變的現象。他們不去尋求社會合作的一些法則，因爲他們以爲，人是可以隨自己的意思來組織社會的。如果社會條件不符合改革者們的願望，如果他們的理想國無法實行，那就歸咎於人的道德不夠。一些社會問題被當作倫理問題來考慮。他們認爲，爲著建造理想的社會，需要的是優秀的君主與善良的公民。有了善良的人，任何理想國都可以實現。

The discovery of the inescapable interdependence of market phenomena overthrew this opinion. Bewildered, people had to face a new view of society. They learned with stupefaction that there is another aspect from which human action might be viewed than that of good and bad, of fair and unfair, of just and unjust. In the course of social events there prevails a regularity of phenomena to which man must adjust his actions if he wishes to succeed. It is futile to approach social facts with the attitude of a censor who approves or disapproves from the point of view of quite arbitrary standards and subjective judgments of value. One must study the laws of human action and social cooperation as the physicist studies the laws of nature. Human action and social cooperation seen as the object of a science of given relations, no longer as a normative discipline of things that ought to be--this was a revolution of tremendous consequences for knowledge and philosophy as well as for social action.

由於市場現象相互依賴這一事實的發現，上述的見解就被抛棄了。人們不免驚惶失措，但他們必須面對這一嶄新的社會觀。他們恍恍惚惚地知道，在善與惡、正與邪、公道與不公道以外，還有另一個看法，可以用來看人的行爲。在社會事件發展的過程中，總有個規律在發生作用，如果你想成功，你就得服從這個規律來調整你的行爲。假若以檢査官（用些十分武断的標準和主觀的價值判断來臧否事物的人）的態度來接近社會事實，那是毫無所得的。我們必須研究人的行爲與社會合作的一些法則，如同物理學家之研究自然法則。作爲一門研究旣定關係的科學之對象來看的人的行爲與社會合作，再也不被看作應該如何如何的事情——这是對於知識與哲學，如同對於社會行爲方面，發生驚人影響的一次大革命。

For more than a hundred years, however, the effects of this radical change in the methods of reasoning were greatly restricted because people believed that they referred only to a narrow segment of the total field of human action, namely, to market phenomena. The classical economists met in the pursuit of their investigations an obstacle which they failed to remove, the apparent antinomy of value. Their theory of value was defective, and forced them to restrict the scope

可是，在一百多年當中，推理方法的這種激變所應有的效果，大大地受到拘限；因爲，人們以爲這些方法只涉及人的行爲全部領域的一狹小部份，也即，只涉及市場現象這一部份。古典學派的經濟學家，在他們的硏究進程中遇到了他們所不能撤除的一個障礙，這個障礙就是顯而易見的價値論的矛盾。他們的價値論是有缺陷的，因而使得他們不得不把他們的科學拘限於一個較小的範圍。一直到十九世紀後期，政治經濟學（political economy）還是人的行爲中「經濟」方面的一門科學，也即關於財富與自利的學理。它所處理的人的行爲，只限於由那個被稱爲利潤動機所激起的行爲，而且它聲明，此外的行爲是其他學科所要處理的。古典學派經濟學家所傳授的這一思想的轉變，是由現代主觀學派的經濟學來完成的。主觀學派的經濟學，把市場價格理論變成人的選擇行爲的通論。

For a long time men failed to realize that the transition from the classical theory of value to the subjective theory of value was much more than the substitution of a more satisfactory theory of market exchange for a less satisfactory one. The general theory of choice and preference goes far beyond the horizon which encompassed the scope of economic problems as circumscribed by the economists from Cantillon, Hume, and Adam Smith down to John Stuart Mill. It is much more than merely a theory of the "economic side" of human endeavors and of man's striving for commodities and an improvement in his material well-being. It is the science of every kind of human action. Choosing determines all human decisions. In making his choice man chooses not only between various material things and services. All human values are offered for option. All ends and all means, both material and ideal issues, the sublime and the base, the noble and the ignoble, are ranged in a single row and subjected to a decision which picks out one thing and sets aside another. Nothing that men aim at or want to avoid remains outside of this arrangement into a unique scale of gradation and preference. The modern theory of value widens the scientific horizon and enlarges the field of economic studies. Out of the political economy of the classical school emerges the general theory of human action, praxeology[1]. The economic or catallactic problems [2] are embedded in a more general science, and can no longer be severed from this connection. No treatment of economic problems proper can avoid starting from acts of choice; economics becomes a part, although the hitherto best elaborated part, of a more universal science, praxeology.

人們有段很長的時期沒有看出：從古典的價値論轉到主觀的價値論，決不止於是以一個較滿意的巿場交易論代替一個較不滿意的。這個選擇通論，遠超出康第隆（Cantillon）、休姆（Hume），以及由亞當斯密（Adam Smith）—直到約翰穆勒（John Stuart Mill）這些經濟學家所討論的那些經濟問題的眼界以外。它決不止於討論人們在「經濟方面」的努力——爲取得財貨，爲改善他的物質福利而作的努力。它是人的全部行爲的科學。選擇，是人的一切決定之所以決定。在作選擇的時候，他不只是在一些物質的東西和一些勞務之間選擇。所有的人類價値，都在供他選擇。一切目的與一切手段，現實的與理想的，崇高的與低下的，光榮的與卑鄙的，都在一個排列中讓人取捨。人們所想取得的或想避免的，沒有一樣漏在這個排列以外。這個排列，也即獨一無二的等級偏好表。這個現代價値論，擴張了科學的眼界，也擴大了經濟學研究的範圍。從古典學派的政治經濟學裡面掙脫出人的行爲通論——行爲學（praxeology）[1]。一些經濟的或交換的（catallactis）[2]問題，都納入一門較概括的科學裡面，再也不會與這個關聯分離。經濟問題本身的處理，決不能避免從選擇行爲開始：經濟學成了一門較普遍的學科——人的行爲通論或行爲學——的一部份，截至現在，這一部份還是行爲學當中最精密的一部份。

--------

[1] The term praxeology was first used in 1890 by Espinas. Cf. his article "Les Origines de law technologies," Revue Philosophique, XVth year, XXX, 114-115, and his book published in Paris in 1897, with the same title.

[1] 「praxeology」這個字，是一八九零年Espinas第一次使用的。參考他的論文Les Origines de law technologies，刊在Revue Philosophique, XVth year, XXX, 114-115以及一八九七年他在巴黎以相同的題目發表的那本書。

[2] The term Catallactics or the Science of Exchanges was first used by Whately. Cf. his book Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (London, 1831), p. 6.

[2] 「Catallactics」這個字或「the Science of Exchanges」這個詞是Whately第一次使用的。參考他的Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (London, 1831), p. 6.

2. The Epistemological Problem of a General Theory of Human Action

二、人的行爲通論在認識論上的一些問題

In the new science everything seemed to be problematic. It was a stranger in the traditional system of knowledge; people were perplexed and did not know how to classify it and to assign it its proper place. But on the other hand they were convinced that the inclusion of economics in the catalogue of knowledge did not require a rearrangement or expansion of the total scheme. They considered their catalogue system complete. If economics did not fit into it, the fault could only rest with the unsatisfactory treatment that the economists applied to their problems.

在這門新的科學裡面，每件事似乎都是有問題的。在傳統的知識體系中，它是一位「外來的客人」；人們被它弄糊塗了，不知道如何把它分類而擺在適當地方。但在另一方面，他們又相信把經濟學納入知識的總目中，並不需要把整個體系重新安排或擴大。他們認爲他們的總目是夠完全的。如果經濟學不適於擺進去，其咎只在經濟學家處理問題所用的方法不妥當。

It is a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the debates concerning the essence, scope, and logical character of economics to dismiss them as the scholastic quibbling of pedantic professors. It is a widespread misconception that while pedants squandered useless talk about the most appropriate method of procedure, economics itself, indifferent to these idle disputes, went quietly on its way. In the Methodenstreit between the Austrian economists and the Prussian Historical School, the self-styled "intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern," and in the discussions between the school of John Bates Clark and American Institutionalism much more was at stake than the question of what kind of procedure was the most fruitful one. The real issue was the epistemological foundations of the science of human action and its logical legitimacy. Starting from an epistemological system to which praxeological thinking was strange and from a logic which acknowledged as scientific--besides logic and mathematics--only the empirical natural sciences and history, many authors tried to deny the value and usefulness of economic theory. Historicism aimed at replacing it by economic history; positivism recommended the substitution of an illusory social science which should adopt the logical structure and pattern of Newtonian mechanics. Both these schools agreed in a radical rejection of all the achievements of economic thought. It was impossible for the economists to keep silent in the face of all these attacks.

把那些關於經濟學的本質、範圍和邏輯特徵的辯論，看作賣弄學問的敎授們無聊的爭吵而不予理睬，這是對於這些方面的意義的一個完全誤解。許多人這樣誤想：雖然學究們對於什麼是最適當的程序法講了許多廢話，而經濟學本身，卻不管這些無益的爭辯，照它自己的途徑發展。在奧國經濟學家與那自命爲霍亨佐倫皇室（The House of Hohenzollern）的知識衛隊的普魯士歷史學派之間的方法論之爭，以及在克拉克（John Bates Clark）學派與美國制度主義（American Institutionalism）之間的討論，遠比「何種程序是最有效果的」這個問題更關重要。實質的爭點是人的行爲科學認識論的根基及其邏輯的正當。許多著作家，出發於一種對行爲學的思維（Praxeological thinking）完全陌生的認識論體系，同時出發於只把（在邏辑與數學以外）經驗的自然科學和歷史看作是科學的這種邏輯，而來否認經濟理論的價値與有用。歷史自足主義（historicism）[3]是要把經濟史來取代經濟理論的地位；實證論（positivism）則推薦應隸屬於牛頓數學的邏輯結構和模型的那種虛構的社會科學來代替。這兩派一致地極力否認經濟思想的一切成就。就經濟學家來講，面對這些攻擊而保持沉默，是不可能的。

The radicalism of this wholesale condemnation of economics was very soon surpassed by a still more universal nihilism. From time immemorial men in thinking, speaking, and acting had taken the uniformity and immutability of the logical structure of the human mind as an unquestionable fact. All scientific inquiry was based on this assumption. In the discussions about the epistemological character of economics, writers, for the first time in human history, denied this

對於經濟學一概抹煞的這種激烈主張，不久被一個更概括的虛無主義超過。從太古以來，人們在思想、在說話、在行動的時候，都是把人心的邏輯結構之一致性和不變性看作一個不容懐疑的事實。可是，在討論經濟學認識論的特徵時，有些作家竟把這個命題也否認掉，這是人類有史以來的第一遭。馬克斯主義斷言，一個人的思想是由他所屬的階級決定的。每個社會階級有它自己的一種邏輯。思想的結果， 只是思想者自私的階級利益的一個「意理的僞装」（an "ideological disguise"），決不會是別的。揭開各種哲學和科學理論而顯出它們的「意理的空虛」，這是「知識社會學」（sociology of knowledge）的任務。經濟學是「資產階級」一時的手段，經濟學家是資本家的「諂媚者」。只有社會主義理想國的無階級社會，才會以眞理代替「意理的」謊言。

This polylogism was later taught in various other forms also. Historicism asserts that the logical structure of human thought and action is liable to change in the course of historical evolution. Racial polylogism assign to each race a logic of its own. Finally there is irrationalism, contending that reason as such is not fit to elucidate the irrational forces that determine human behavior.

這種「多邏輯說」（polylogism），後來也以種種其他方式講述。歷史自足主義斷言，人的思想行動之邏輯結構是會跟著歷史演化的過程而變動的。種族的多邏輯說則認爲每個種族都有他們自己的邏輯。最後還有「無理性說」（irrationalism），認爲理性本身不適於說明支配人的行爲的那些非理性的力量。

Such doctrines go far beyond the limits of economics. They question not only economics and praxeology but all other human knowledge and human reasoning in general. They refer to mathematics and physics as well as to economics. It seems therefore that the task of refuting them does not fall to any single branch of knowledge but to epistemology and philosophy. This furnishes apparent justification for the attitude of those economists who quietly continue their studies without bothering about epistemological problems and the objections raised by polylogism and irrationalism. The physicist does not mind if someone stigmatizes his theories as bourgeois, Western or Jewish; in the same way the economist should ignore detraction and slander. He should let the dogs bark and pay no heed to their yelping. It is seemly for him to remember Spinoza's dictum: Sane sicut lux se ipsam et tenebras manifestat, sic veritas norma sui et falsi est.

這樣的一些學說，都大大地超出了經濟學的範圍。它們不僅是懷疑經濟學和行爲學，而且也懷疑所有其他的人類知識和一般的推理。它們對數學和物理學的態度也和對經濟學一樣。所以，對於它們加以反駁，好像不是知識體系中任何某一個單獨部門的責任，而是認識論和哲學的責任。這樣才有顯著的理由讓經濟學家安靜地繼續做他們的硏究，而不煩心於認識論的問題以及多邏輯說和無理性說所提出的反調。對物理學家來說，如果有人誣衊他的理論是資產階級的，是西方的，或猶太的，他都不會在意；同樣地，經濟學家好像也該無視誣衊與詆毀。他似乎應記著史賓諾沙（Spinoza）的格言：「的確，正同光明爲它自己及黑暗下界說一樣，眞理也爲它自己及謬論下界說。」

However, the situation is not quite the same with regard to economics as it is with mathematics and the natural sciences. Polylogism and irrationalism attack praxeology and economics. Although they formulate their statements in a general way to refer to all branches of knowledge, it is the sciences of human action that they really have in view. They say that it is an illusion to believe that scientific research can achieve results valid for people of all eras, races, and social classes, and they take pleasure in disparaging certain physical and biological theories as bourgeois or Western, But if the solution of practical problems requires the application of these stigmatized doctrines, they forget their criticism. The technology of Soviet Russia utilizes without scruple all the results of bourgeois physics, chemistry,

但是，經濟學所遭遇的情況，與數學和自然科學所遭遇的，畢竟不完全一樣。多邏輯說和無理性說，是對行爲學和經濟學加以攻擊。儘管它們所作的一般說詞涉及知識的所有部門，可是它們眞正的攻擊目標還是人的行爲科學。他們說，相信科學的硏究可以爲所有的時代、所有的種族、所有的社會階級的人們獲致有效的成果，這是一個妄想，他們樂於把某些物理學的和生物學的理論誣衊爲資產階級的或西方的。但是，如果有些實際問題之解決要靠這些被誣衊了的理論，他們就忘掉了他們的指責。蘇俄的生產技術，毫不遲疑地利用了資產階級的物理學、化學、和生物學的一切成果，這又是承認了這些學問對於所有階級都有效。納粹黨的工程師和物理學家並不藐視「劣等」種族和「劣等」國的人民所提出的理論、發現和發明，而要利用之。所有一切種族、國、宗敎、語言集團、和社會階級的人們的行爲，都在明明白白地證明，他們對於多邏輯說和無理性說，並不像對於邏輯、數學和自然科學那樣的信任。

But it is quite different with praxeology and economics. The main motive for the development of the doctrines of polylogism, historicism, and irrationalism was to provide a justification for disregarding the teachings of economics in the determination of economic policies. The socialists, racists, nationalists, and etatists failed in their endeavors to refute the theories of the economists and to demonstrate the correctness of their own spurious doctrines. It was precisely this frustration that prompted them to negate the logical and epistemological principles upon which all human reasoning both in mundane activities and in scientific research is founded.

但是，就行爲學和經濟學來講，那就完全不一樣。多邏輯說、無理性說、和歷史自足主義之所以發展的主要動力，是在找一個理由，以便在決定經濟政策的時候漠視經濟學。社會主義者、種族主義者，民族主義者、國邦主義者，都沒有辦法反駁經濟學家的一些理論以顯示他們自己所揑造的那些學說的正確性。正是這種受挫折的心情，慫慂了他們來否認人類在日常生活中，以及在科學硏究中一切推理所依據的邏輯和認識論的一些原理。

It is not permissible to dispose of these objections merely on the ground of the political motives which inspired them. No scientist is entitled to assume beforehand that a disapprobation of his theories must be unfounded because his critics are imbued by passion and party bias. He is bound to reply to every censure without any regard to its underlying motives or its background. It is no less impermissible to keep silent in the face of the often asserted opinion that the theorems of economics are valid only under hypothetical assumptions never realized in life and that they are therefore useless for the mental grasp of reality. It is strange that some schools seem to approve of this opinion and nonetheless quietly proceed to draw their curves and to formulate their equations. They do not bother about the meaning of their reasoning and about its reference to the world of real life and action.

我們不容許僅以他們受了一些政治動機的影響爲理由而抹煞這些反對論。科學家決沒有權利可以預先假定他的批評者受了情感與政黨偏見的影響，因而他的批評、非難一定是無根據的。他應該答覆每一批評或非難，而不管它背後的動機或背景。同樣不容許的，是面對下述的這個常常聽說的見解而保持緘默：「經濟學的一些公理只有在某些假設下才有效，而這些假設在實際生活中永遠不會實現，所以就實際情形的了解來講，它們是無用的。」很奇怪，有些學派似乎承認這種見解，可是他們仍在安安靜靜地繼續畫他們的曲線，列他們的方程式。他們並不心煩於他們的推理有無意義，也不心煩於他們的理論與實際生活以及和實際行爲的關係。

This is, of course, an untenable attitude. The first task of every scientific inquiry is the exhaustive description and definition of all conditions and assumptions under which its various statements claim validity. It is a mistake to set up physics as a model and pattern for economic research. But those committed to this fallacy should have learned one thing at least: that no physicist ever believed that the clarification of some of the assumptions and conditions of physical theorems is outside the scope of physical research. The main question that economics is bound to answer is what the relation of its statements is to the reality of human action whose mental grasp is the objective of economic studies.

當然，這是一個不足取的態度。每項科學硏究的第一件工作，是要把它的種種陳述所賴以有效的一切條件和假設作詳盡的說明和界定。把物理學作爲經濟研究的一個典型與模式，那是錯誤的。但是，那些犯了這種錯誤的人們，至少應該知道一件事：物理學決不認爲，對於物理學的一些公理所依據的某些假設和條件予以澄淸，是物理研究範圍以外的事情。經濟學所不得不答覆的主要問題是：經濟學的陳述與人的行爲的實際（對於人的行爲之了解是經濟研究的目標）是怎樣的關係。

It therefore devolves upon economics to deal thoroughly with the assertion that its teachings are valid only for the capitalistic system of the shortlived and already vanished liberal period of Western civilization. It is incumbent upon no branch of learning other than economics to examine all the objections raised from various points of view against the usefulness of the statements of economic theory for the elucidation of the problems of human action. The system of economic thought must be built up in such a way that it is proof against any criticism on the part of irrationalism, historicism, panphysicalism, behaviorism, and all varieties of polylogism. It is an intolerable state of affairs that while new arguments are daily advanced to demonstrate the absurdity and futility of the endeavors of economics, the economists pretend to ignore all this.

所以，徹底駁斥下面這個論調的責任，是落在經濟學家的身上：「經濟學的一些敎義，只在那短命的而且已經過去了的西方文明自由時期的資本主義制度下有效」。爲著說明人的行爲的一些問題而檢討那些來自各種觀點（反對經濟理論之有用性的各種觀點）的反對論調，這只是經濟學本身的實任，而不能期待於其他部門的知識。經濟思想的體系，必須建構得經得起那些來自無理性說、歷史自足主義、汎物理主義（panphysicalism）、行動主義（behaviorism），以及所有各種變相的多邏輯說的任何批評。如果那些攻擊經濟學爲荒唐無用的新奇論調天天提出，而經濟學家卻裝做一點也不知道，這是一種難於忍受的事態。

It is no longer enough to deal with the economic problems within the traditional framework. It is necessary to build the theory of catallactics upon the solid foundation of a general theory of human action, praxeology. This procedure will not only secure it against many fallacious criticisms but clarify many problems hitherto not even adequately seen, still less satisfactorily solved. There is, especially, the fundamental problem of economic calculation.

在傳統的架構以內，再也不足以處理一些經濟問題了。現在，我們必須在人的行爲通論或行爲學的堅實基礎上，建立交換學（catallacties）的理論。這個程序不僅是保護它免於許多荒謬的批評，而且也把許多現在尙未圓滿解决，甚至尙未足夠了解的問題予以澄淸。尤其是經濟計算這個基本問題。

--------

[3] 譯者註：這個中文譯名，是張佛泉敎授用起的。見張著《自由與人權》（香港-民48）頁280及289註11。

3. Economic Theory and the Practice of Human Action

三、經濟理論與人的行為之實際

It is customary for many people to blame economics for being backward. Now it is quite obvious that our economic theory is not perfect. There is no such thing as perfection in human knowledge, nor for that matter in any other human achievement. Omniscience is denied to man. The most elaborate theory that seems to satisfy completely our thirst for knowledge may one day be amended or supplanted by a new theory. Science does not give us absolute and final certainty. It only gives us assurance within the limits of our mental abilities and the prevailing state of scientific thought. A scientific system is but one station in an endlessly progressing search for knowledge. It is necessarily affected by the insufficiency inherent in every human effort. But to acknowledge these facts does not mean that present-day economics is backward. It merely means that economics is a living thing--and to live implies both imperfection and change.

通常有許多人指實經濟學落後了。我們的經濟理論之不完全，本來是很明顯的事實。在人類知識方面，沒有「完全」這樣的東西。在人類其他的任何成就方面，也沒有什麼可叫做完全的。人不是全知的。即令那似乎可以完全滿足我們求知慾的最精緻的理論，也會有一天要修改或被一個新的理論替代。科學並不給我們絕對的和最後的確定。它只在我們心智能力和科學思想當時造詣的限度以內，給我們某些確信。一個科學體系在尋求知識的無盡進程中，只是一個中途站。它必然要受人類每項努力所固有的缺陷之影響。但是，承認了這些事實並不等於說現在的經濟學是落後的。它只是說，經濟學是個活生生的東西。活生生，就意含旣不完全而且是變動的。

The reproach of an alleged backwardness is raised against economics from two different points of view.

以所謂「落後」來指責經濟學，這是從兩個不同的觀點引起的。

There are on the one hand some naturalists and physicists who censure economics for not being a natural science and not applying the

一方面有些博物學家和物理學家，他們因爲經濟學不是一門自然科學，不採用實驗的方法和程序而非難它。像這樣的一些觀念所犯的謬誤，我們必須揭發，這是本書的任務之一。在這緖論裡面，只要把他們的心理背景簡單地提一提就夠了。凡是心眼窄狹的人，對於別人與他不同的地方都看得不順眼。童話中的駱駝攻訐其他的動物，因爲牠們沒有駝峰。淸敎徒因爲拉譜坦島的居民（Laputanian）不是淸敎徒而挑剔他們。在實驗室裡的研究人員總以爲：實驗室是唯一足以做研究工作的場所，微分方程式是唯一可以表達科學思想成果的健全方法。他簡直不能了解人的行爲的知識論方面的一些問題。自他看來，經濟學必然也是機械學的一種。

Then there are people who assert that something must be wrong with the social sciences because social conditions are unsatisfactory. The natural sciences have achieved amazing results in the last two or three hundred years, and the practical utilization of these results has succeeded in improving the general standard of living to an unprecedented extent. But, say these critics, the social sciences have utterly failed in the task of rendering social conditions more satisfactory. They have not stamped out misery and starvation, economic crises and unemployment, war and tyranny. They are sterile and have contributed nothing to the promotion of happiness and human welfare.

其次，有些人硬是說社會科學一定是有毛病，因爲社會情況這麼叫人不滿意。自然科學在過去兩三百年當中有驚人的成就，其成果的實際應用，把一般人的生活水準提高到空前的程度。但是，這些批評者又說，社會科學完全沒有使社會情況較好一點。苦難與貧困，經濟恐慌與失業，戰爭與暴政，都沒有消滅。社會科學是無用的，對於人類福利的增進沒有什麼貢獻。

These grumblers do not realize that the tremendous progress of technological methods of production and the resulting increase in wealth and welfare were feasible only through the pursuit of those liberal policies which were the practical application of the teachings of economics. It was the ideas of the classical economists that removed the checks imposed by age-old laws, customs, and prejudices upon technological improvement and freed the genius of reformers and innovators from the straitjackets of the guilds, government tutelage, and social pressure of various kinds. It was they that reduced the prestige of conquerors and expropriators and demonstrated the social benefits derived from business activity. None of the great modern inventions would have been put to use if the mentality of the precapitalistic era had not been thoroughly demolished by the economists. What is commonly called the "industrial revolution" was an offspring of the ideological revolution brought about by the doctrines of the economists. The economists exploded the old tenets: that it is unfair and unjust to outdo a competitor by producing better and cheaper

講這些怨言的人們，沒有想到生產技術驚人的進步，以及財富與福利的因此而增加，只有靠那些依照經濟學的敎義而制定的自由政策之運用才會可能。撤除那些古老的法規——關稅、偏見等等對於技術進步的障礙，而把一些天才的改革家、發明家，從那些行會、政府管制，以及各種社會壓力的束縛中解放出來的，是古典經濟家們的那些思想。貶低那些征服者和剝奪者的威望，並論證由工商業活動所產生的利益，也是他們。假若資本主義前夕的心理狀態，沒有被那些經濟學家徹底摧毀，那就不會有任何偉大的現代發明讓我們享受。通常所謂「工業革命」，正是這些經濟學家的學說所引起的意理革命的一個結果。這些經濟學家們推翻了下面這些陳舊的格言：「用價廉物美的產品來擊敗競爭者是不公平的」；「違背傳統的生產方法是不應該的」；「機器是個壞東西，因爲它帶來了失業」；「防止有效率的商人發財，保護效率低的商人免於效率高者的競爭，是政府的職務之一」；「用政府的權力或其他的社會強制力量來限制企業家的自由，是促進國民福利的適當手段」。其實，英國的政治經濟學和法國重農主義的學說是現代資本主義的帶路人。使那些增進大家福利的自然科學有進步之可能的，是這些經濟理論。

What is wrong with our age is precisely the widespread ignorance of the role which these policies of economic freedom played in the technological evolution of the last two hundred years. People fell prey to the fallacy that the improvement of the methods of production was contemporaneous with the policy of laissez faire only by accident. Deluded by Marxian myths, they consider modern industrialism an outcome of the operation of mysterious "productive forces" that do not depend in any way on ideological factors. Classical economics, they believe, was not a factor in the rise of capitalism, but rather its product, its "ideological superstructure," i.e., a doctrine designed to defend the unfair claims of the capitalistic exploiters. Hence the abolition of capitalism and the substitution of socialist totalitarianism for a market economy and free enterprise would not impair the further progress of technology. It would, on the contrary, promote technological improvement by removing the obstacles which the selfish interests of the capitalists place in its way.

我們這個時代的錯誤，偏偏是普遍地不了解這些經濟自由政策過去兩百年在生產技術的進步方面所完成的任務。人們陷於一個錯誤觀念，以爲生產方法的改進與自由政策的運用之在同一時期，不過是偶然的巧合。他們受了馬克斯神說（Marxian myths）的欺騙，以爲現代的工業制度，是一些決不依靠意理因素而存在的神秘的「生產力」運作的結果。他們不相信古典經濟學是資本主義興起的一個因素，而以爲是資本主義的結果，是它的「意理的上層結構」（ideological superstructure）也即，專爲資本主義的剝削者辯護的一種學說。因此，廢棄资本主義而以社會主義的極權主義代替市場經濟和自由企業，將不會有損於生產技術的繼纊進步，相反地，由於消除了資本家自私自利的障礙，因而會促進技術進步。

The characteristic feature of this age of destructive wars and social disintegration is the revolt against economics. Thomas Carlyle branded economics a "dismal science," and Karl Marx stigmatized the economists as "the sycophants of the bourgeoisie." Quacks--praising their patent medicines and short cuts to an earthly paradise--take pleasure in scorning economics as "orthodox" and "reactionary." Demagogues pride themselves on what they call their victories over economics. The "practical" man boasts of his contempt for economics and his ignorance of the teachings of "armchair" economists. The economic policies of the last decades have been the outcome of a mentality that scoffs at any variety of sound economic theory and glorifies the spurious doctrines of its detractors. What is called "orthodox" economics is in most countries barred from the universities and is virtually unknown to the leading statesmen, politicians, and writers.

具有毀滅性的戰爭和社會解體之危險的這個時代，其特徵是對於經濟學的反叛。卡萊爾（Thomas Carlyle）把經濟學叫做「悲慘的科學」， 馬克斯則誣衊經濟學家爲「資產階級的獻媚者」。一些江湖郞中——自誇他們的秘方和進入人間天堂之捷徑的人們則用「正統的」、「反動的」這類形容詞，來表示對於經濟學的藐視以取樂。政治的煽動家自稱打垮了經濟學而自傲。實行家自吹瞧不起經濟學，也不理睬學院的經濟學家的那一套敎義。最近幾十年的一些經濟政策，都是這樣一個心理狀態的產品，即：對於任何健全的經濟理論都加以嘲笑，而推崇誹謗者們的一些僞說。被稱之爲「正統的」經濟學，在大多數邦國竟被一些大學排斥於校外，而一些居領導地位的政治家、政客、作者，實際上也不知道它。經濟情況之不如人意，我們不能歸咎於統治者和大衆所藐視、所不理睬的這門科學。

It must be emphasized that the destiny of modern civilization as developed by the white peoples in the last two hundred years is inseparably linked with the fate of economic science. This civilization was able to spring into existence because the peoples were dominated by ideas which were the application of the teachings of economics to the problems of economic policy. It will and must perish if the nations continue to pursue the course which they entered upon under the spell of doctrines rejecting economic thinking.

過去兩百年，由白種人發展出來的現代文明，其命運與經濟學的命運有不可分的關聯，這一點是必須強調的。這個文明之所以能產生，就是因爲人們都接受經濟學的敎義應用到經濟政策的問題上面。如果目前的這個途徑大家還要繼續走下去（目前這個途徑是由於迷上了那些反對經濟思想的學说而走上的），現代文明將會、而且一定會消滅。

It is true that economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should aim at. It is a science of the means to be applied for the attainment of ends chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science. Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man must act if he wants to attain definite ends.

的確，經濟學是一門理論科學，因而它不作任何價値判斷，它的任務不在於告訴人們應該追求什麼目的。它是一門手段科學。手段是爲達成已經選定的目的而採用的。當然，它不是一門選擇目的的科學。關於目的的最後決定、評價，和選擇，都超出科學的範圍。科學決不吿訴人應該如何行爲；它只指出如果你想達到某一旣定目的，你就得如何行爲。

It seems to many people that this is very little indeed and that a science limited to the investigation of the is and unable to express a judgment value about the highest and ultimate ends is of no importance for life and action. This too is a mistake. However, the exposure of this mistake is not a task of these introductory remarks. It is one of the ends of the treatise itself.

從許多人看來，這似乎是不足道的。一門科學旣限之於只觀察「是」什麼，而不能對最高和最後的目的表示一個價値判斷，那麼，對於我們的生活與行爲，就沒有什麼重要性。這也是一個錯誤的想法。可是，剖析這個錯誤，不是這篇緖論所要作的事，而是本書本體的目的之一。

4. Resume

四、摘要

It was necessary to make these preliminary remarks in order to explain why this treatise places economic problems within the broad frame of a general theory of human action. At the present stage both of economic thinking and of political discussions concerning the fundamental issues of social organization, it is no longer feasible to isolate the treatment of catallactic problems proper. These problems are only a segment of a general science of human action and must be dealt with as such.

爲著解釋爲什麼本書要把經濟問題放在人的行爲通論這個大的架構以內來討論，必須預先作一些說明。現階段的經濟思想和政治討論，都涉及社會組織的一些基本問題，再也不能把交換問題的處理孤立起來。這些問題只是一般性的行爲科學的一部份，因而必須照這樣處理。

Chapter 1. Acting Man

第1章 行爲人

1. Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction

一、有目的的行爲與動物的反應

Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.

人的行爲是有目的的。我們也可這樣說：行爲是見之於活動而變成一個動作的意志，是爲達成某些目的，是自我對於外界環境的刺激所作的有意義的反應，是一個人對於那個決定其生活的宇宙所作的有意識的調整。這樣改換詞句而重複地講，或許可使這個定義更淸楚而免於誤解。這個定義本身是恰當的，是用不著作什麼補充或註釋的。

Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the reflexes and the involuntary responses of the body's cells and nerves to stimuli. People are sometimes prepared to believe that the boundaries between conscious behavior and the involuntary reaction of the forces operating within man's body are more or less indefinite. This is correct only as far as it is sometimes not easy to establish whether concrete behavior is to be considered voluntary or involuntary. But the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is nonetheless sharp and can be clearly determined.

有意識的、或有目的的行爲，與無意識的行動有個顯明的對比，後者是身體的細胞和神經對於刺激的反射作用和不自覺的反應。人們有時會認爲，有意識的行爲與無意識的反應都是人體內部的一些力的活動，而這兩者之間的界線或多或少是不明確的。這種想法只有在這樣的場合才是對的，即：有時我們不容易把某一具體行爲看作有意的或無意的。但是，無論如何，有意與無意是有顯著的區別而可明白斷定的。

The unconscious behavior of the bodily organs and cells is for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world. Acting man must take into account all that goes on within his own body as well as other data, e.g., the weather or the attitudes of his neighbors. There is, of course, a margin within which purposeful behavior has the power to neutralize the working of bodily factors. It is feasible within certain limits to get the body under control. Man can sometimes succeed through the power of his will in overcoming sickness, in compensating for the innate or acquired insufficiency of his physical constitution, or in suppressing reflexes. As far as this is possible, the field of purposeful action is extended. If a man abstains from controlling the involuntary reaction of cells and nerve centers, although he would be in a position to do so, his behavior is from our point of view purposeful.

身體的器官和細胞的不自覺的動作，就行爲的自我（the acting ego）而言，和外界的其他事件，同樣是資料。行爲人必須把他自己內部的一切活動和其他的一些外在資料統統考慮到，後者例如天氣，或隣居的態度。當然，在某一個限度以內，有目的的行爲也可消除體內因素的動作。也即是說，在一定的限度內，使身體受到控制是可能的。人，有時經由自己的意志力，很成功地克服了疾病，補償了生理上先天的或後天的缺陷，或抑制了一些反射作用。意識行爲的領域之擴大，只能在這些事有其可能的限度以內。如果一個人，雖然他可以控制細胞和神經中樞的非本意反應，但他卻不去控制，從我們的觀點來看，他的行爲也是有意的。

The field of our science is human action, not the psychological

我們這門科學的領域是人的行爲，而不是形之於行爲的心理事象。這一點正是人的行爲通論或行爲學不同於心理學的地方。心理學的課題是那些形之於或可以形之於行爲的內在事象。行爲學的課題是行爲本身。這也決定了行爲學與下意識的精神分析概念之間的關係。精神分析也是心理學，它不硏究行爲，而只硏究促使一個人採取具體行爲的那些力量和因素。下意識的精神分析是屬於心理學範疇而不屬於行爲學範疇。一個行爲，或是來自明白的考慮，或是來自遺忘了的記憶和被壓抑的願望，而這些記憶和願望，在一個意識不到的地方指揮意志：儘管行爲之所以形之於外的有這樣的不同，但不影響行爲的性質。一個受下意識衝動（the id）而犯謀殺罪的人，和一個患神經病的變態行爲者（從一個未受訓練的觀察者看來，這種人的行爲簡直是毫無意義），他們都是在行爲：他們也同任何別人一樣，爲達到某些目的而行爲。精神分析的功績，在於它曾經證明：即令是神經病者和精神病者的行爲也是有意義的，他們都是爲達到目的而行爲，儘管自認爲正常和淸醒的我們，把他們那些決定其行爲目的的推理稱之爲荒唐，把他們所選擇的手段稱之爲矛盾。

The term "unconscious" as used by praxeology and the terms "subconscious" and "unconscious" as applied by psychoanalysis belong to two different systems of thought and research. Praxeology no less than other branches of knowledge owes much to psychoanalysis. The more necessary is it then to become aware of the line which separates praxeology from psychoanalysis.

行爲學所用的「無意識的」一詞與精神分析學所用的「下意識的」和「無意識的」，屬於兩個不同的思想和研究體系。行爲學得力於精神分析學的地方之多，決不次於其他知識部門。因此，我們更要注意到行爲學與精神分析學的分界線。

Action is not simply giving preference. Man also shows preference in situations in which things and events are unavoidable or are believed to be so. Thus a man may prefer sunshine to rain and may wish that the sun would dispel the clouds. He who only wishes and hopes does not interfere actively with the course of events and with the shaping of his own destiny. But acting man chooses, determines, and tries to reach an end. Of two things both of which he cannot have together he selects one and gives up the other. Action therefore always involves both taking and renunciation.

行爲不單是表示偏好。人在無可如何或以爲無可如何的情勢下，也會表示偏好。一個人常會喜歡陽光而不喜歡下雨，因而希望太陽驅散陰霾。這種情勢下只懷抱希望的他，並不積極地去干涉事物的進程和他自己的命運造化。但是，行爲人卻是在選擇、決定，和企圖達到一個目的的。對於兩件不能兼而有之的事物，他取其一而捨其他。所以，行爲總是一方面取，一方面捨。

To express wishes and hopes and to announce planned action may be forms of action in so far as they aim in themselves at the realization of a certain purpose. But they must not be confused with the actions to which they refer. They are not identical with the actions they announce, recommend, or reject. Action is a real thing.

說出自己的希望與說出所計畫的行爲，就它們本身都是想達成某一目的這一點來看，也算是些行爲的方式。但是這些方式決不可與它們所指涉的那些行爲相混。它們本身與它們所說的、所推薦的，或反對的行爲，不是同一件事。行爲是一實在的東西。算數的是一個人的全部行動，而不是關於他計畫中尙未實現的行爲所講的空話。另一方面，行爲必須與使用勞力明白地區分。行爲是爲達成目的而採取手段。在通常情形下，行爲人的勞力是所採的手段之一。但並不總是如此。在特殊情況下，所需要的只是一句話。發命令或發禁令的人，不必消耗勞力。講話或不講，笑一笑或保持嚴肅，也會是行爲。消費和享樂之爲行爲，並不異於節制消費和節制享樂。

Praxeology consequently does not distinguish between "active" or energetic and "passive" or indolent man. The vigorous man industriously striving for the improvement of his condition acts neither more nor less than the lethargic man who sluggishly takes things as they come. For to do nothing and to be idle are also action, they too determine the course of events. Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering. He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result. A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts. Action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done.

所以，行爲學並不區分「積極的」或奮發的人，與「消極的」或懶惰的人。勤勤勉勉努力於改善生活環境的奮發的人，其行爲旣不多於，也不少於一切聽自其然的懶惰的人。因爲不作什麼而閒閒散散的，也是行爲，它們也決定事情進展的方向。凡是有「人所可干涉的情況」存在的地方，不管他干涉與否，他都是在行爲。一個人忍耐他所能改變的而不去改變，其爲行爲並不異於另一個人爲達成另一情況而起來干涉。能夠影響生理與本能因素的作用而不去影響它們的人，也是在行爲。行爲不僅是做，而且也包括能做而不做。

We may say that action is the manifestation of a man's will. But this would not add anything to our knowledge. For the term will means nothing else than man's faculty to choose between different states of affairs, to prefer one, to set aside the other, and to behave according to the decision made in aiming at the chosen state and forsaking the other.

我們也可以說，行爲是一個人的意志之表現。但是，這個說法對於我們的知識並不增加什麼。因爲「意志」一詞的意義不是別的，只是指一個人對於不同的情況加以選擇的能力，選擇這，放棄那，以及按照所作的決定以達到所選擇的情況，放棄另一情況。

2. The Prerequisites of Human Action

二、人的行爲的先決條件

We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness [1]. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly

一個人會處在不至於有何行爲或不會有何行爲的情況，我們把這種情況叫做知足或滿足。行爲人是極想以較滿意的情況代替較不滿意的。他心裡想到一些更適於他的情況，他的行爲是以實現這個想望中的情況爲目的。促動一個人去行爲的誘因，總是某些不安逸[1]。一個充份滿足於現狀的人，不會有改變事物的誘因。他旣沒有什麼希望，也沒有什麼慾求：他會充份快樂。他將不行爲；他過著無牽無掛的生活。

But to make a man act, uneasiness and the image of a more satisfactory state alone are not sufficient. A third condition is required: the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness. In the absence of this condition no action is feasible. Man must yield to the inevitable. He must submit to destiny.

但是，要使人行爲，僅僅是不安逸和想像一個較滿意的情況，還不足夠。第三個必要條件：即預料其行爲足以消除或至少足以減輕所感覺的不安逸。不具備這個條件，就不可能有行爲。人，對於必然的事情只好服從。註定的命，莫可如何。

These are the general conditions of human action. Man is the being that lives under these conditions. He is not only homo sapiens, but no less homo agens. Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human. Although the statutes and biology consider them to be men, they lack the essential feature of humanity. The newborn child too is not an acting being. It has not yet gone the whole way from conception to the full development of its human qualities. But at the end of this evolution it becomes an acting being.

這三者是人的行爲的一般條件。人是在這些條件之下生活的。他不僅是異於其他動物的人（homo sapiens），他也是作爲行爲人的人（homo agens）。那些由於先天或後天的缺陷而不適於任何行爲（就「行爲」一詞嚴格的意義而不止於法律的意義來講的）的人，在這個意義下，他不是人。儘管法律和生物學把他看作人，但從行爲學的觀點看，他缺乏人的本質。初生的嬰兒也不是一個行爲人。它還沒有走完從人性的孕育到人性的充份發展這一長程。但是，在這個演進的終點，他將成爲一個行爲人。

On Happiness

論快樂

In colloquial speech we call a man "happy" who has succeeded in attaining his ends. A more adequate description of his state would be that he is happier than he was before. There is however no valid objection to a usage that defines human action as the striving for happiness.

在口頭語裡面，我們把一個達成了他的目的的人叫做快樂的人。更適當的描述，應該是說他比以前較快樂。但是無論如何，我們沒有健全的理由來反對把人的行爲界說爲快樂的追求。

But we must avoid current misunderstandings. The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man's desire. There is no standard of greater or lesser satisfaction other than individual judgments of value, different for various people and for the same people at various times. What makes a man feel uneasy and less uneasy is established by him from the standard of his own will and judgment, from his personal and subjective valuation. Nobody is in a position to decree what should make a fellow man happier.

但是我們必須避免一些流行的誤解。人的行爲的最後目的總是行爲人的想望之滿足。滿足的程度較大或較小，除掉個人的價値判斷以外，沒有任何標準；而個人的價値判斷是因人而異的，即令是同一個人，也因時而異。使人覺得不安逸和較少不安逸的是什麼，是由他從他自己的願望和判斷來決定的，從他個人的和主觀評價來認定的。誰也不能決定什麼事物會使別人更快樂。

To establish this fact does not refer in any way to the antitheses of egoism and altruism, of materialism and idealism, of individualism and collectivism, of atheism and religion. There are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego. There are other people with whom awareness of the troubles of their fellow men causes as much uneasiness as or even more uneasiness than their own wants. There are people who desire nothing else than the satisfaction of their appetites for sexual intercourse, food, drinks, fine homes, and other material things. But other men care more for the satisfactions commonly called "higher" and "ideal." There are individuals eager to adjust their actions to the requirements of social cooperation; there

對於這個事實的認定，並不涉及利己與利他、物質主義與理想主義、個人主義與集體主義、無神論與宗敎這些對立。有些人只求改善他們自己的生活環境而不顧其他；也有些人把別人的不安逸視同自己的不安逸，甚至有過於自己的不安逸。有些人只求滿足他們的性慾、食慾、和住好房子，以及其他一切物質享受；也有些人更重視普通所謂「較高級的」和「理想的」滿足。有些人極願調整自己的行爲以適應社會合作的要求；也有些人執拗到把社會生活的一些規律不看在眼下。有些人以爲塵世間旅程的最後目的是爲準備天國的至福生活；也有些人不相信任何宗敎的敎條，不讓自己的生活受到它們的影響。

Praxeology is indifferent to the ultimate goals of action. Its findings are valid for all kinds of action irrespective of the ends aimed at. It is a science of means, not of ends. It applies the term happiness in a purely formal sense. In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man's unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological. It does not imply any statement about the state of affairs from which man expects happiness.

行爲學不關心行爲的一些最後目的。它的發現，對於所有各種行爲都有效，不管它們所要達成的目的是些什麼。它用「快樂」一詞， 是就形式上的意義講的。在行爲學的術語裡面，「人的獨特目的是在謀取快樂」這個命題，是個異詞同義的反覆語（tautology）。它對於「人所希望得到的快樂是來自什麼情形」這個問題，沒有提示任何的說明。

The idea that the incentive of human activity is always some uneasiness and its aim always to remove such uneasiness as far as possible, that is, to make the acting men feel happier, is the essence of the teachings of Eudaemonism and Hedonism. Epicurean is that state of perfect happiness and contentment at which all human activity aims without ever wholly attaining it. In the face of the grandeur of this cognition it is of little avail only that many representatives of this philosophy failed to recognize the purely formal character of the notions pain and pleasure and gave them a material and carnal meaning. The theological, mystical, and other schools of a heteronomous ethic did not shake the core of Epicureanism because they could not raise any other objection than its neglect of the "higher" and "nobler" pleasures. It is true that the writings of many earlier champions of Eudaemonism, Hedonism, and Utilitarianism are in some points open to misinterpretation. But the language of modern philosophers and still more that of the modern economists is so precise and straightforward that no misinterpretation can possibly occur.

「人的行爲的誘因，總是某些不安逸，而它的目的總是盡可能地消除這些不安逸，也即是說，要使行爲人覺得比較快樂」，這個觀念是幸福主義（Eudaemonism）和快樂主義（Hedonism）的精髓。伊壁鳩魯的心靈寧靜的境界（Epicurean ）是人的一切活動所想達到而又從未完全達到的那種充份快樂與滿足的情況。不管這個認識是多麼莊嚴，要是這派哲學的許多代表們，沒有看出痛苦與快樂這兩個概念的純形式上的特徵，而給它們物質和肉慾的意義，那就不怎樣有用了。神學的、神秘主義的，以及他律倫理（heteronomous ethic）的其他學派，都沒有動搖伊壁鳩魯主義的核心，因爲他們除掉反對它忽視「較高級的」和「較高尙的」快樂以外，提不出任何其他的反對理由。在早期的幸福主義、快樂主義、和功效主義的擁護者們的著作中，確有些地方是容易引起誤解的。但是現代哲學家的語言，尤其是現代經濟學家的語言，明確直爽，不可能發生誤解。

On Instincts and Impulses

論本能和衝動

One does not further the comprehension of the fundamental problem of human action by the methods of instinct-sociology. This school classifies the various concrete goals of human action and assigns to each class a special instinct as its motive. Man appears as a being driven by various innate instincts and dispositions. It is assumed that this explanation demolishes once for all the odious teachings of economics and utilitarian ethics. However, Feuerbach has already justly observed that every instinct is an instinct to happiness [2]. The method of instinct-psychology and instinct-sociology consists in an arbitrary classification of the immediate goals of action and in a hypostasis of each. Whereas praxeology says that the goal of an action is to remove

誰也不能靠本能社會學（instinct-sociology）的方法來促進對於人的行爲的基本問題的理解。這一派的社會學把人的行爲的許多具體目的予以分類，每一類有一個特別的誘因，促動這一類的行爲。人，好像是一個被固有的本能和氣質所驅使的東西。他們以爲這個解釋乾乾脆脆地把經濟學的敎義和功效主義的倫理一下子推翻了。可是費爾巴哈（Feuerbach）說得很對，他說，每個本能都是求快樂的本能[2]。本能心理學（instinct-psychology）和本能社會學的方法，在於對行爲的一些直接目的所作的一個武斷的分類，也在於它們把本質或實在歸因於概念。行爲學是說行爲的目的在於消除某一不安逸，而本能心理學卻說它是個本能衝動的滿足。

Many champions of the instinct school are convinced that they have proved that action is not determined by reason, but stems from the profound depths of innate forces, impulses, instincts, and dispositions which are not open to any rational elucidation. They are certain they have succeeded in exposing the shallowness of rationalism and disparage economics as "a tissue of false conclusions drawn from false psychological assumptions." [3] Yet rationalism, praxeology, and economics do not deal with the ultimate springs and goals of action, but with the means applied for the attainment of an end sought. However unfathomable the depths may be from which an impulse or instinct emerges, the means which man chooses for its satisfaction are determined by a rational consideration of expense and success. [4]

本能學派的擁護者，有許多是深信他們已證明了：行爲不是決定於理知，而是發動於一些「深藏於密」的先天力量——衝動、本能、和癖好，這些力量之發生作用，都是沒有什麼理由可講的。他們確信他們已成功地暴露理性主義的虜淺，而且貶損經濟學爲「從一些錯誤的假設而得到一些錯誤結論的構成體」[3]。可是理性主義、行爲學、和經濟學，並不討論行爲的最後原動力和行爲的目的，而只討論用以達成目的的手段。不管衝動或本能的來源如何深奧莫測，爲著衝動或本能的滿足，人所選擇的一些手段，總是由一個理性的考慮（考慮它的代價和成功的可能）來決定的[4]。

He who acts under an emotional impulse also acts. What distinguishes an emotional action from other actions is the valuation of input and output. Emotions disarrange valuations. Inflamed with passion, man sees the goal as more desirable and the price he has to pay for it as less burdensome than he would in cool deliberation. Men have never doubted that even in the state of emotion means and ends are pondered and that it is possible to influence the outcome of this deliberation by rendering more costly the yielding to the passionate impulse. To punish criminal offenses committed in a state of emotional excitement or intoxication more mildly than other offenses is tantamount to encouraging such excesses. The threat of severe retaliation does not fail to deter even people driven by seemingly irresistible passion.

在感情衝動下行爲的人，也是在行爲。出於感情的行爲與其他的一些行爲之區別，在於對支付和取得的評値之不同。感情激動時的人，與冷靜考慮時比較，每每把目的看得較重而把他所必須支付的代價看得較輕。人們從不懷疑：即令在感情激動時，手段和目的也會被考慮到，只是所考慮的結果，可能是支付的代價太大。刑法上對於感情衝動下的罪犯處罰較輕，這等於鼓勵這樣的放縱。嚴重報復的威脅，並非不能阻止人們之被「似乎不可拒的衝動」所驅使。

We interpret animal behavior on the assumption that the animal yields to the impulse which prevails at the moment. As we observe that the animal feeds, cohabits, and attacks other animals or men, we speak of its instincts of nourishment, of reproduction, and of aggression. We assume that such instincts are innate and peremptorily ask for satisfaction.

我們解釋動物的動作，是假定動物是受當時的衝動的支配。當我們看到動物吃東西、雌雄同棲、相互攻擊或攻擊人類的時候，我們說這是它的求生本能、生殖本能、和侵略本能。我們是假定這樣的一些本能都是先天的，而且毫不容緩地要滿足。

But is different with man. Man is not a being who cannot help yielding to the impulse that most urgently asks for satisfaction. Man is a being capable of subduing his instincts, emotions, and impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He renounces the satisfaction of a burning impulse in order to satisfy other desires. He is not a puppet of his appetites. A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill. He arranges

但是講到人，那就不同了。人究竟不是不能不屈服於衝動的動物。人能夠抑制他的本能、情感、和衝動：他能夠使他的行爲合理化。他會放棄一個熱烈衝動的滿足而滿足其他的一些願望。他不是他情慾的傀儡。一個男人並不傾倒於每一個挑逗他的女人；他並不貪吃每一份叫他垂涎的食物；他也不打擊他所痛恨的每一個人。他把他的一些希望和情慾安排得有度，他會選擇；簡言之，他行爲。人之異於禽獸者，正在於他會著意於調整他的行動。人這個東西，有自制力，能夠操縱他的衝動和情慾，有能力抑制本能的情慾和本能的衝動。

It may happen that an impulse emerges with such vehemence that no disadvantage which its satisfaction may cause appears great enough to prevent the individual from satisfying it. In this case too there is choosing. Man decides in favor of yielding to the desire concerned. [5]

有時會發生這種情形：一個衝動顯得那麼強烈，以致由於它的滿足而所引起的後果無論怎樣壞，也不足以阻止這個人去滿足它。在這種場合也是一個選擇。情願屈服於某一情慾，也是一個決定[5]。

----------

[1] Cf. Lock, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Fraser (Oxford, 1894), I, 331-333; Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, ed. Fammarion, p. 119.

[1] 參考Lock, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Fraser (Oxford, 1894), I, 331-333; Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain, ed. Fammarion, p. 119.

[2] Cf. Feuerbach, S?mmtliche Werke, ed. Bolin and Jodl (Stuttgart, 1907), X, 231.

[2] 參考Feuerbach, S?mmtliche Werke, ed. Bolin and Jodl (Stuttgart, 1907), X, 231.

[3] Cf. William McDougall, An Introduction to Social Psychology (14th ed. Boston, 1921), p. 11.

[3] 參考William McDougall, An Introduction to Social Psychology (14th ed. Boston, 1921), p. 11.

[4] Cf. Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics, trans. by G. Reisman (New York, 1960), pp. 52 ff.

[4] 參考Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics, trans. by G. Reisman (New York, 1960), pp. 52 ff.

[5] In such cases a great role is played by the circumstances that the two satisfactions concerned--that expected from yielding to the impulse and that expected from the avoidance of its undesirable consequences-- are not simultaneous. Cf. below, pp. 479-490.

[5] 在這樣的場合，發生重大作用的是當時的這種情況，即：有關的兩個滿足不是同時的。一個是屈服於衝動所可預測得到的。一個是避免那不好的後果所可預期得到的。參考第十八章第一至二節。

3. Human Action as an Ultimate Given

三、作爲極據（Ultimate Given）的人的行爲

Since time immemorial men have been eager to know the prime mover, the cause of all being and of all change, the ultimate substance from which everything stems and which is the cause of itself. Science is more modest. It is aware of the limits of the human mind and of the human search for knowledge. It aims at tracing back every phenomenon to its cause. But it realizes that these endeavors must necessarily strike against insurmountable walls. There are phenomena which cannot be analyzed and traced back to other phenomena. They are the ultimate given. The progress of scientific research may succeed in demonstrating that something previously considered as an ultimate given can be reduced to components. But there will always be some irreducible and unanalyzable phenomena, some ultimate given.

自太古以來，人們就已急於想知道一切存在和一切變動的原因或原動力，也即每一事物所從來而又成爲它本身的原因的最後本體。科學就比較謙虛，它覺得人的心力和人所硏求到的知識是有限的。它只追溯每一現象的直接原因。但是，它體會到這些努力終會碰到一些難於超越的壁壘。有些現象，不能加以分析、不能追溯到其他現象。它們是些極據。科學硏究的進步也會證明從前認爲是極據的某些事物，可以分析爲若干成份。但是，畢竟總有些不可分析的現象，也就是說，總有些極據。

Monism teaches that there is but one ultimate substance, dualism that there are two, pluralism that there are many. There is no point quarreling about these problems. Such metaphysical disputes are interminable. The present state of our knowledge does not provide the means to solve them with an answer which every reasonable man must consider satisfactory.

一元論（monism）吿訴我們，最後的本體只有一個：二元論說是兩個，多元論說是多個。關於這些問題，沒有爭論的必要。這樣的玄學，是永無止境的。我們現有的知識還不能提供一個方法來解決這些爭辯，而使每一個明白道理的人都會滿意。

Materialist monism contends that human thoughts and volitions are the product of the operation of bodily organs, the cells of the brain and the nerves. Human thought, will, and action are solely brought about by material processes which one day will be completely explained by the methods of physical and chemical inquiry. This too is a metaphysical hypothesis, although it supporters consider it as an unshakable and undeniable scientific truth.

唯物主義的一元論以爲，人的思想和意志是腦細胞和神經細胞這些肉體的器官發生作用的產品。人的思想、意志、和行動，都是從一些物質程序產生出來的，而這些物質程序總有一天會由物理和化學的研究法來完全解釋。這也是一種玄學的假說，儘管它的支持者認爲這是不可動搖，不可否認的科學眞理。

Various doctrines have been advanced to explain the relation between

對於心靈與肉體的關係提出解釋的，有種種不同的學說。它們只是些猜測，沒有任何可觀察的事實根據。所可確信的，只是心理與生理的過程有些關係存在。至於這種關係的性質和運作究竟怎樣，要說我們知道，也知道得不多。

Concrete value judgments and definite human actions are not open to further analysis. We may fairly assume or believe that they are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. But as long as we do not know how external facts--physical and physiological--produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountable methodological dualism. In the present state of our knowledge the fundamental statements of positivism, monism and panphysicalism are mere metaphysical postulates devoid of any scientific foundation and both meaningless and useless for scientific research. Reason and experience show us two separate realms: the external world of physical, chemical, and physiological phenomena and the internal world of thought, feeling, valuation, and purposeful action. No bridge connects--as far as we can see today--these two spheres. Identical external events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why.

一些具體的價値判斷和一些明確的人的行爲，都是不易於進一步分析的。我們很可以假定或相信它們是被它們的一些原因所決定。但是，只要我們還不知道外在的一些事實（物理的和生理的）如何在人心中產生一定的思想和意志，而終於有具體的行爲，我們就得面對這一道無法超越的壁壘：方法論的二元論（methodological dualism）。就我們現有的知識來看，實證論（positivism）、一元論、和泛物理學主義（panphysicalism）的一些基本陳述，只是些玄學的假定，沒有任何科學基礎。對於科學研究，旣無意義也無用處。理智和經驗都吿訴我們，有兩個各別的領域：一是物理現象、化學現象、生理現象的外在世界；一是思想、感情、價値取向、和有意行爲的內在世界。就我們今天所知道的，這兩個世界之間還沒有橋樑聯繫起來。同一的外在事件，人的反應有時不同；不同的外在事件，人的反應有時相同。我們不懂得這是什麼道理。

In the face of this state of affairs we cannot help withholding judgment on the essential statements of monism and materialism. We may or may not believe that the natural sciences will succeed one day in explaining the production of definite ideas, judgments of value, and actions in the same way in which they explain the production of a chemical compound as the necessary and unavoidable outcome of a certain combination of elements. In the meantime we are bound to acquiesce in a methodological dualism.

面對這種事象，我們對於一元論和唯物主義的一些基本陳述不得不保留判斷。我們或相信或不相信，自然科學有一天可能會用那解釋化合物之所以產生的同一方法來解釋某些觀念、價値判斷、和行爲之所以發生，是由於若干元素在某種結合下必然不可避免的結果。可是，在這一天到來之前，我們不得不老老實實地接受方法論的二元論。

Human action is one of the agencies bringing about change. It is an element of cosmic activity and becoming. Therefore it is a legitimate object of scientific investigation. As--at least under present conditions--it cannot be traced back to its causes, it must be considered as an ultimate given and must be studied as such.

人的行爲是引起變動的動力之一。它是宇宙的话動和變動的一個元素。所以它是科學觀察應有的一個對象。由於不能追溯它的原因（至少在現在的情形下是如此），我們必須把它看作一個極據，而且必須把它當作極據來討論、來研究。

It is true that the changes brought about by human action are but trifling when compared with the effects of the operation of the great cosmic forces. From the point of view of eternity and the infinite universe man is an infinitesimal speck. But for man human action and its vicissitudes are the real thing. Action is the essence of his nature and existence, his means of preserving his life and raising himself above the level of animals and plants. However perishable and

人的行爲所引起的一些變動，如果與一些龐大的宇宙力量運作的後果相比較，確實是渺小得很。從永恒和無限的宇宙觀點來看，人是一個無限小的顆粒。伹是就人而言，人的行爲和行爲的變動不居，卻是些眞實的事。行爲是他的本性和存在的要素，是他保持生命以及把他自己提昇到高於禽獸和植物水準的手段。不管人類所有的努力如何地不經久，如何地易於消失，但就人來講、就人文科學來講，人的努力總是最關重要的。

4. Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research

四、合理性和無理性；行爲學硏究的主觀論和客觀論

Human action is necessarily always rational. The term "rational action" is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.

人的行爲必然總是合理的。所以「合理的行爲」這個名詞是挂贅詞，我們必須拒絕使用它。合理的和不合理的這兩個形容詞，如果用在行爲的最後目的，那是不妥當而且無意義的。行爲的最後目的總是行爲人某些願望的滿足。旣然誰也不能夠以他自己的價値判斷來代替行爲人的價値判斷，那麼，對別人的目的和意志下判斷，這是白費的。誰也沒有資格斷言，什麼事情會使另一人更快樂或較少不滿意。批評者或者吿訴我們，如果他處在某人的地位，他相信他會以什麼爲目的：或者，以專斷傲慢的態度抹煞某人的意志和抱負，而宣稱這位某人要如何如何才更適合於他自己（批評者）。

It is usual to call an action irrational if it aims, at the expense of "material" and tangible advantages, at the attainment of "ideal" or "higher" satisfactions. In this sense people say, for instance--sometimes with approval, sometimes with disapproval--that a man who sacrifices life, health, or wealth to the attainment of "higher" goods--like fidelity to his religious, philosophical, and political convictions or the freedom and flowering of his nation--is motivated by irrational considerations. However, the striving after these higher ends is neither more nor less rational or irrational than that after other human ends. It is a mistake to assume that the desire to procure the bare necessities of life and health is more rational, natural, or justified than the striving after other goods or amenities. It is true that the appetite for food and warmth is common to men and other mammals and that as a rule a man who lacks food and shelter concentrates his efforts upon the satisfaction of these urgent needs and does not care much for other things. The impulse to live, to preserve one's own life, and to take advantage of every opportunity of strengthening one's vital forces is a primal feature of life, present in every living being. However, to yield to this impulse is not--for man--an inevitable necessity.

一種行爲如果是犧牲「物質的」和有形的利益，以達成「理想的」或「較高的」滿足，通常是把它叫做不合理的行爲。在這個意義下，人們常說，例如——有時是表示讚賞，有時是表示反對——一個犧牲自己的生命、健康、或財富以成就「較高的」善——像忠於他的宗敎的、哲學的、和政治的信念，或邦國的自由和榮耀的入，是被不合理的考慮所驅使。其實，追求這些較高的目的，旣不比追求其他的目的更合理，也不比較更不合理。如果說，求取生活和健康的基本需要比追求其他的財貨或樂事更合理、更自然、或更應當，這是一個錯誤。誠然，求溫飽是人之常情，也是其他哺乳動物的常態；一個缺乏食物和住所的人，通常是傾全力以求這些迫切需要的滿足而不大關心到其他的事情，這也是眞的。求生慾、保持自己的生命，並利用一切機會來增強自己的活力，這是生活的基本特徵。但是，就人而言，服從這個慾望，並不是非如此不可的必然。

While all other animals are unconditionally driven by the impulse to preserve their own lives and by the impulse of proliferation, man has the power to master even these impulses. He can control both his sexual desires and his will to live. He can give up his life when the conditions under which alone he could preserve it seem intolerable.

其他所有的動物都是絕對地被求生慾和生殖慾所驅使，至於人，甚至對於這些衝動也有力量操縱。他旣可以控制他的性慾，也可控制他的求生慾。當他的生活環境到了不可忍受的時候，他會犧牲自己的生命。人是能夠爲一個大義而死的，能夠自殺的。就人而言，活著，是一選擇的結果，是價値判斷的結果。

It is the same with the desire to live in affluence. The very existence of ascetics and of men who renounce material gains for the sake of clinging to their convictions and of preserving their dignity and self-respect is evidence that the striving after more tangible amenities is not inevitable but rather the result of a choice. Of course, the immense majority prefer life to death and wealth to poverty.

想在富裕的環境中生活，也是一種選擇。由於有禁慾主義者以及那些爲固守其信念或保持其自尊而犧牲物質所得的人們之存在，即可證明人們之追求有形的樂事，並不是必然的，而是選擇的結果。絕大多數的人是貪生怕死、愛財富、惡貧窮的。

It is arbitrary to consider only the satisfaction of the body's physiological needs as "natural" and therefore "rational" and everything else as "artificial" and therefore "irrational." It is the characteristic feature of human nature that man seeks not only food, shelter, and cohabitation like all other animals, but that he aims also at other kinds of satisfaction. Man has specifically human desires and needs which we may call "higher" than those which he has in common with the other mammals [6].

僅僅把生理的需要看作「自然的」，因而「是合理的」把其他的一切事物都看作「矯揉造作的」，因而「是不合理的」。這種看法是武斷的。人不像其他的動物只是尋求食物、住所、和異性，而且也求其他種類的滿足，這是人性的特徵。人，有專屬於人的願望和需要，我們稱這些願望和需要爲「較高的」，比較那些與其他哺乳動物共有的願望和需要爲高。[6]

When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy of the procedure employed. The critic approves or disapproves of the method from the point of view of whether or not it is best suited to attain the end in question. It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable--although faulty--deliberation and an attempt--although an ineffectual attempt--to attain a definite goal. The doctors who a hundred years ago employed certain methods for the treatment of cancer which our contemporary doctors reject were--from the point of view of present-day pathology--badly instructed and therefore inefficient. But they did not act irrationally; they did their best. It is probable that in a hundred years more doctors will have more efficient methods at hand for the treatment of this disease. They will be more efficient but not more rational than our physicians.

合理的與不合理的這兩個形容詞，當用來形容手段的時候，那就含有判斷的意思，關於所採的程序是否方便與適當的判斷。批評者贊成或不贊成某一方法，是看這個方法是不是最適於達到所要達到的目的。人的理智不是沒有錯的，人常常在選擇方法和應用方法的時候犯錯誤，這是個事實。不適於目的的行爲，是達不到願望的。這種行爲與目的相違，但它是合理的，也即，理智（儘管是錯误的）考慮的結果，而且是企圖（儘管是無效的）達成一個明確的目的。百年前的醫生們治療癌症的那些處方，是今天的醫生們所拒絕採用的。那時的醫生，從現代病理學的觀點來看，大都知識淺陋或荒謬，所以他們的醫術是無效果的。但是他們並非不合理地行爲。他們是盡力而爲之。在今後百年當中，大概會有更多的醫生用更有效的方法來治療這個病。他們比我們這個世代的醫生更有效，但不是更合理。

The opposite of action is not irrational behavior, but a reactive response to stimuli on the part of the bodily organs and instincts which cannot be controlled by the volition of the person concerned. To the same stimulus man can under certain conditions respond both by reactive response and by action. If a man absorbs a poison, the organs

相反的行爲，不是不合理的行動，而是身體的官能以及不能由當事人的意志來控制的本能，對於外來刺激的反應。對於同一剌激，人在某種情形下，旣會反應，也會行爲。如果一個人吃進了毒物，他的器官會發生抗毒作用的反應，同時他會採取消毒的行爲。

With regard to the problem involved in the antithesis, rational and irrational, there is no difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences. Science always is and must be rational. It is the endeavor to attain a mental grasp of the phenomena of the universe by a systematic arrangement of the whole body of available knowledge. However, as has been pointed out above, the analysis of objects into their constituent elements must sooner or later necessarily reach a point beyond which it cannot go. The human mind is not even capable of conceiving a kind of knowledge not limited by an ultimate given inaccessible to further analysis and reduction. The scientific method that carries the mind up to this point is entirely rational. The ultimate given may be called an irrational fact.

關於合理與不合理這種對立關係的問題，在自然科學與社會科學之間沒有什麼差異。科學總是而且一定是合理的。科學是藉助於對可利用的知識之全體作一有系統的安排，來求得關於宇宙現象的一個理解。可是，像前面曾經指出的，事物的分析，遲早總會分析到不可再分析的一點。人心不可能想像有一種不受限於極據（即不能再分析的）的知識，把我們的理解推進到這一點的科學方法，完全是合理的。至於極據也許可叫做不合理的事實。

It is fashionable nowadays to find fault with the social sciences for being purely rational. The most popular objection raised against economics is that it neglects the irrationality of life and reality and tries to press into dry rational schemes and bloodless abstractions the infinite variety of phenomena. No censure could be more absurd. Like every branch of knowledge economics goes as far as it can be carried by rational methods. Then it stops by establishing the fact that it is faced with an ultimate given, i.e., a phenomenon which cannot--at least in the present state of our knowledge--be further analyzed [7].

今天所流行的，是指責社會科學爲純理性的。經濟學所受到的最普遍的攻擊，是說它忽視了實際生活的無理性，而且企圖把無窮盡的種種現象套在一些枯燥的理性的計畫和一些無生氣的抽象骶念。沒有任何責難比這個更荒謬的。如同每一部門的知識，經濟學也是靠合理的方法盡可能地把它向前推展。一直推展到遇著一個極據，也即一個不可能（至少就我們現有的知識講）再分析的現象爲止[7]。

The teachings of praxeology and economics are valid for every human action without regard to its underlying motives, causes, and goals. The ultimate judgments of value and the ultimate ends of human action are given for any kind of scientific inquiry; they are not open to any further analysis. Praxeology deals with the ways and means chosen for the attainment of such ultimate ends. Its object is means, not ends.

行爲學和經濟學的敎義對於人類所有的行爲都是有效的，不管它的動機、原因、和目的是什麼。最後的價値判斷和最後的行爲目的，對於種類的科學硏究，都是旣定的，不受進一歩的分析。行爲學只處理爲達成那些最後目的而選擇的手段和方法。它的研究對象是手段，不是目的。

In this sense we speak of the subjectivism of the general science of human action. It takes the ultimate ends chosen by acting man as data, it is entirely neutral with regard to them, and it refrains from passing any value judgments. The only standard which it applies is whether or not the means chosen are fit for the attainment of the ends aimed at. If Eudaemonism says happiness, if Utilitarianism and economics say utility, we must interpret these terms in a subjectivistic way as that which acting man aims at because it is desirable in his eyes. It is in this formalism that the progress of the modern meaning of Eudaemonism, Hedonism, and Utilitarianism consists as opposed to

我們說到行爲科學的主觀論，是在這個意義下說的。行爲科學把行爲人所選擇的一些最後目的當作基料（data）看，它對於它們完全中立而不加任何價値判斷。它所持的唯一標準，是看那些被選擇的手段是否適於達成所要達成的目的。如果幸福主義（eudaemonism）說快樂，如果功效主義和經濟學說效用，我們必須以主觀論的方法把這些名詞解釋爲行爲人所企求的，因爲在他的心目中這是可欲的。幸福主義、快樂主義、和功效主義的現代意義，發展到與較舊的物質意義相反，以及現代的主觀價値論，發展到與古典的政治經濟學所說明的客觀價値論相反，都在於這種形式主義（formalism）。同時，我們這門科學的客觀性也在於這種主觀論。因爲它是主觀性的而且把行爲人的價値判斷看作極據不再受任何檢討，它本身是超出所有黨派鬥爭的，它對於所有學派的紛爭都是中立的，它沒有評價，也沒有先入的觀念和判斷，它是普遍有效的，而且是絕對地、明白地合乎人性。

--------------

[6] On the errors involved in the iron law of wages see below, pp. 603 f.; on the misunderstanding of the Malthusian theory see below, pp. 667-672.

[6] 有關於這一段的工資鐵律的錯誤，見第二十一章第六節以下；以及馬爾薩斯學說的誤解，見第二十四章第二節。

[7] We shall see later (pp. 49-58) how the empirical social sciences deal with the ultimate given.

[7] 在第二章第七、八兩節，我們將可看到經驗的社會科學如何處理極據。

5. Causality as a Requirement of Action

五、作爲行爲條件的因果關係

Man is in a position to act because he has the ability to discover causal relations which determine change and becoming in the universe. Acting requires and presupposes the category of causality. Only a man who sees the world in the light of causality is fitted to act. In this sense we may say that causality is a category of action. The category means and ends presupposes the category cause and effect. In a world without causality and regularity of phenomena there would be no field for human reasoning and human action. Such a world would be a chaos in which man would be at a loss to find any orientation and guidance. Man is not even capable of imagining the conditions of such a chaotic universe.

人能夠行爲，因爲他有能力發現那些宇宙間事物變化和形成的因果關係。行爲必須先有因果關係的範疇。只有人會就因果關係來觀察世界，所以只有人夠格行爲。在這個意義下，我們可以說因果關係是行爲的範疇。手段與目的這個範疇必須先有原因與結果這個範疇。在一個沒有因果關係和現象規則性的世界，也就沒有人的推理和人的行爲。這樣的世界，一定是一大混亂。生活於其間的人，勢將找不著方向和指標而遑遑不知所措。這樣混亂的一個宇宙，甚至不是人所可想像的。

Where man does not see any causal relation, he cannot act. This statement is not reversible. Even when he knows the causal relation involved, man cannot act if he is not in a position to influence the cause.

在不知道任何因果關係的場合，人無法行爲。這句話不能反過來說。即令在他知道了其中因果關係的時候，如果他不能影響這個原因，他也無法行爲。

The archetype of causality research was: where and how must I interfere in order to divert the course of events from the way it would go in the absence of my interference in a direction which better suits my wishes? In this sense man raises the question: who or what is at the bottom of things? He searches for the regularity and the "law," because he wants to interfere. Only later was this search more extensively interpreted by metaphysics as a search after the ultimate cause of being and existence. Centuries were needed to bring these exaggerated and extravagant ideas back again to the more modest question of where one must interfere or should one be able to interfere in order to attain this or that end.

因果關係的探究、其原型是這樣：爲要改變事情的趨勢，使其適合我的願望，我應該從何處以及如何去干涉它？在這個意義下，人提出這個問題：何人或什麼東西是這些事情的主動者或主因？因爲他想干涉，他尋求這裡的規則性和「法則」。這種尋求經形而上學擴展到追求事物存在的最後原因，這只是後來的事情。須要幾個世紀才把這些過份誇張的想法再帶回到這個比較謙遜的問題：爲要達成這個或那個目的，必須從何處干涉或能否干涉。

The treatment accorded to the problem of causality in the last decades has been, due to a confusion brought about by some eminent physicists, rather unsatisfactory. We may hope that this unpleasant chapter in the history of philosophy will be a warning to future philosophers.

在最近幾十年當中，關於因果關係問題的處理，由於某些傑出的物理學家所引起的混淆，頗爲令人失望。我們希望哲學史上這不適意的一章，對於將來的哲學家會成爲一個警吿。

There are changes whose causes are, at least for the present time, unknown to us. Sometimes we succeed in acquiring a partial knowledge so that we are able to say: in 70 per cent of all cases A results in B, in the remaining cases in C, or even in D, E, F, and so on. In order to substitute for this fragmentary information more precise information it would be necessary to break up A into its elements. As long as this is not achieved, we must acquiesce in what is called a statistical law. But this does not affect the praxeological meaning of causality. Total or partial ignorance in some areas does not demolish the category of causality.

有一些變動，其原因是我們所不知道的，至少就現在講是如此。有時我們能夠得到一部份知識，因此我們可以這樣說：在所有A的情事當中有百分之七十會歸結於B，其餘的將歸結於C，或者甚至歸結於D、E、F等等。爲要得到比較詳明的知識以代替片斷的知識，那就必須剖析出A的一些成因。如果這一點作不到，我們只好勉強承認所謂的統計法則。但是，這並不影響因果關係在人的行爲學上的意義。在某些方面的全部無知或局部無知，並不毀損因果關係這個範疇。

The philosophical, epistemological, and metaphysical problems of causality and of imperfect induction are beyond the scope of praxeology. We must simply establish the fact that in order to act, man must know the causal relationship between events, processes, or states of affairs. And only as far as he knows this relationship, can his action attain the ends sought. We are fully aware that in asserting this we are moving in a circle. For the evidence that we have correctly perceived a causal relation is provided only by the fact that action guided by this knowledge results in the expected outcome. But we cannot avoid this vicious circular evidence precisely because causality is a category of action. And because it is such a category, praxeology cannot help bestowing some attention on this fundamental problem of philosophy.

因果關係和不完全的歸納法，在哲學方面、認識論方面、和形而上學方面所引起的一些問題，超出了人的行爲學範圍以外。我們只要證實這個事實：人要行爲，必須知道一些有關事情的因果關係。他爲達成所追求的目的而行爲，其可達成的程度，取決於他封其中的因果關係知道到什麼程度。我們充份觀察到這種說法是在兜圈子。因爲要證實我們已經正確地知道了因果關係，那只有靠這個事實：這個知識所指導的行爲得到了所期望的結果。但是我們無法避免這種不好的循環論證，正因爲因果關係是個行爲範疇。而且因爲它是這樣一個範疇，人的行爲學不得不對於哲學的這個基本問題予以相當注意。

6. The Alter Ego

六、另一個我

If we are prepared to take the term causality in its broadest sense, teleology can be called a variety of causal inquiry. Final causes are first of all causes. The cause of an event is seen as an action or quasi-action aiming at some end.

如果我們準備把因果關係這個名詞作廣義解釋，那麼，目的論（teleology）就可叫作因果硏究的一個變形。最後的一些原因是一切原因的開始。一件事情的原因是被認爲企圖某個目的的行爲或準行爲（quasi-action）。

Both primitive man and the infant, in a naive anthropomorphic attitude, consider it quite plausible that every change and event is the outcome of the action of a being acting in the same way as they themselves do. They believe that animals, plants, mountains, rivers, and fountains, even stones and celestial bodies, are, like themselves, feeling, willing, and acting beings. Only at a later stage of cultural development does man renounce these animistic ideas and substitute the mechanistic world view for them. Mechanicalism proves to be so satisfactory a principle of conduct that people finally believe it capable of solving all the problems of thought and scientific research. Materialism and panphysicalism proclaim mechanicalism as the essence of all knowledge and the experimental and mathematical methods of the natural sciences as the sole scientific mode of thinking.

原始人和小孩，在一種天眞的神人同形同性的想法下（anthropomorphic attitude），滿以爲每一事情的變動和發生都是一個存在體的行爲結果，而這個存在體像他們一樣地行爲。他們相信動物、植物、山嶽、河流、和泉水，乃至石頭和天體，都像他們自己一樣，有感覺、有意志、有行爲。只是在文化發展的較後階段，人纔放棄這些精靈論的想法（animistic ideas）而代之以機械論的世界觀。機械論被認爲是極良好的一種行爲原則，以致人們終於相信它能夠解決思想方面和科學研究方面的一切問題。唯物主義和汎物理學主義把機械論當作一切知識的精髓，把自然科學的實驗和數學的方法當作唯一的科學思想模式來宣揚。把一切變動當作受一些機械法則所支配的運動來理解。

The champions of mechanicalism do not bother about the still unsolved problems of the logical and epistemological basis of the principles of causality and imperfect induction. In their eyes these principles are sound because they work. The fact that experiments in the laboratory bring about the results predicted by the theories and that machines in the factories run in the way predicted by technology proves, they say, the soundness of the methods and findings of modern natural science. Granted that science cannot give us truth--and who knows what truth really means?--at any rate it is certain that it works in leading us to success.

機械論的擁護者，對於因果律的「邏輯和認識論」的基礎以及不完全的歸納法這些迄今尙未解決的問題，並不煩心。在他們的心目中，這些法則都是健全的，因爲它們有效。他們說，實驗室的實驗得到理論所預期的一些結果，工廠的機器按照技術所預定的情況開動，這個事實證明現代自然科學的方法和發現是健全的。即令科學不會給我們眞理——而且誰知道眞理究竟是什麼？無論如何，它會指導我們成功，這是確實可靠的。

But it is precisely when we accept this pragmatic point of view that the emptiness of the panphysicalist dogma becomes manifest. Science, as has been pointed out above, has not succeeded in solving the problems of the mind-body relations. The panphysicalists certainly cannot contend that the procedures they recommend have ever worked in the field of interhuman relations and of the social sciences. But it is beyond doubt that the principle according to which an Ego deals with every human being as if the other were a thinking and acting being like himself has evidenced its usefulness both in mundane life and in scientific research. It cannot be denied that it works.

但是，正在我們接受這個實用的觀點時，汎物理學主義者的敎條顯出了它的空虛。前面曾經講過，科學不能解決心靈與身體關係的一些問題。汎物理學主義者決不能說他們所推崇的方法用在人際關係和社會科學方面已經有效。但是無疑地，一個「我」（ego）與每個人打交道時所遵守的原則，是把別人看作像自己一樣的會思想、會行爲。這個原則，在世俗生活中，在科學研究中，都已證明有用。這是不容否認的。

It is beyond doubt that the practice of considering fellow men as beings who think and act as I, the Ego, do has turned out well; on the other hand the prospect seems hopeless of getting a similar pragmatic verification for the postulate requiring them to be treated in the same manner as the objects of the natural sciences. The epistemological problems raised by the comprehension of other people's behavior are no less intricate than those of causality and incomplete induction. It may be admitted that it is impossible to provide conclusive evidence for the propositions that my logic is the logic of all other people and by all means absolutely the only human logic and that the categories of my action are the categories of all other people's action and by all means absolutely the categories of all human action. However, the pragmatist must remember that these propositions work both in practice and in science, and the positivist must not overlook the fact that in addressing his fellow men he presupposes --tacitly and implicitly-- the intersubjective validity of logic and thereby the reality of the realm of the alter Ego's thought and action, of his eminent human character

無疑地，把人類同胞看作自己一樣會思想會行爲的人，其結果確是好的：另一方面，如果希望對那必須把他們當作自然科學的對象來處理的假設，求得同樣實用的證明，這個希望是會落空的。由於對別人的行爲求了解而引起的認識論的一些問題，並不比因果關係和不完全的歸納法所涉及的認識論的問題較爲簡單。我的邏輯即是所有其他的人的邏輯，而且必定絕對地只是人類的邏輯；我的行爲範疇即是所有其他的人的行爲範疇，而且必定絕對地是所有人類行爲的範疇。對於這樣的命題，雖然不可能提出明確的證據，可是，實用主義者應該記著，這些命題在實際生活方面和科學研究方面都是有效的：實證論者應該不會忘掉這個事實：在和別人交談的時候，總得預先假定——暗含地——法則在人人的心靈中是互通的，因而另一個我的思想和行爲有其實在的界域。這是人類顯著的特徵。[8]

Thinking and acting are the specific human features of man. They are peculiar to all human beings. They are, beyond membership in the zoological species homo sapiens, the characteristic mark of man as man. It is not the scope of praxeology to investigate the relation of thinking and acting. For praxeology it is enough to establish the fact that there is only one logic that is intelligible to the human mind, and that there is only one mode of action which is human and comprehensible to the human mind. Whether there are or can be somewhere other beings--superhuman or subhuman--who think and act in a different way, is beyond the reach of the human mind. We must restrict our endeavors to the study of human action.

思想和行爲是人類所專有的特徵。所有的人都具有這兩個特徵。人之所以爲人而超越動物學上的人，就因爲有這些特徵。思想與行爲的關係之研究，不屬於行爲學的範圍。行爲學只要確定這個事實：人心所可會通的邏輯只有一種，人的行爲方式而又為人心所可共同理解的也只有一個。至於是否在什麼地方還有異於我們人的東西——超人或次級人——而其思想和行爲與人類不同，那是我們人心所無法想像的。我們必須把我們的硏究限之於人的行爲。

This human action which is inextricably linked with human thought is conditioned by logical necessity. It is impossible for the human mind to conceive logical relations at variance with the logical structure of our mind. It is impossible for the human mind to conceive a mode of action whose categories would differ from the categories which determine our own actions.

與人的思想連結得解不開的人的行爲，決定於邏輯的必然。人心不可能想到與我們心靈中的邏輯結構相矛盾的邏輯關係，人心也不可能想到一種行爲方式而其元範是不同於決定我們自己行爲的元範。

There are for man only two principles available for a mental grasp of reality, namely, those of teleology and causality. What cannot be brought under either of these categories is absolutely hidden to the human mind. An event not open to an interpretation by one of these two principles is for man inconceivable and mysterious. Change can be conceived as the outcome either of the operation of mechanistic causality or of purposeful behavior; for the human mind there is no third way available [9]. It is true, as has already been mentioned, that teleology can be viewed as a variety of causality. But the establishment of this fact does not annul the essential differences between the two categories.

人要理解現實，只有兩種原理可以應用：目的論的原理和因果關係的原理。凡是不能納入這兩個元範之一的東西，就爲人心所絕對無法理解。一個事象如果不能用這兩個原理之一來解釋，那就是不可思議，就是神秘。凡是變，可以看作：或是機械的因果關係的後果，或是有意行爲的結果：就人心來想，沒有第三個解釋[9]。前面曾講過，目的論也可看作因果關係的一種，這固然不錯，但是這種講法並不是取消這兩個元範之間的本質上的差異。

The panmechanistic world view is committed to a methodological monism; it acknowledges only mechanistic causality because it attributes to it alone any cognitive value or at least a higher cognitive value than teleology. This is a metaphysical superstition. Both principles of cognition--causality and teleology--are, owing to the limitations of human reason, imperfect and do not convey ultimate knowledge. Causality leads to a regressus in infinitum which reason can never exhaust. Teleology is found wanting as soon as the question is raised of what moves the prime mover. Either method stops short at an ultimate given which cannot be analyzed and interpreted. Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks

汎機械論的世界觀，犯了方法上一元論的錯誤：它只承認機械的因果闢係，因爲它把任何認識的價値或者至少把一個比目的論較高的認識的價値，歸因於、而且只歸因於機械的因果關係。【它只承認機械的因果闢係，因爲它把所有認知價值完全歸于機械的因果關係，或者，至少機械因果關係所包含的認知價值高于目的論。】這是一種玄學的迷信。由於人的理知是有限的，因果關係和目的論這兩種認識原理，都是不完全的，都不會傳達最後知識。因果關係的解釋只是在無限中做一下回歸（a regressus in infinitum），而無限是我們的理知所決不能窮盡的。目的論一遇到問及原動力的動因是什麽，也就顯出它的缺陷。這兩個方法的任何一個，一碰到不能分析、不能解釋的極據，也都無能爲力。推理和科學研究，永不能做到叫我們完全心安，永不能得到無可懷疑的確定，永不能做到對一切事物完全認知。想做到這種境界的人，必須寄託於信仰，皈依一種敎義或玄學的敎條而求心安。

If we do not transcend the realm of reason and experience, we cannot help acknowledging that our fellow men act. We are not free to disregard this fact for the sake of a fashionable prepossession and an arbitrary opinion. Daily experience proves not only that the sole suitable method for studying the conditions of our nonhuman environment is provided by the category of causality; it proves no less convincingly that our fellow men are acting beings as we ourselves are. For the comprehension of action there is but one scheme of interpretation and analysis available, namely, that provided by the cognition and analysis of our own purposeful behavior.

如果我們不超越理知和經驗的範圍，我們就不得不承認我們的人類同胞行爲（「行爲」二字作不及物動詞用——譯者附註）。我們不可由於時髦的偏見和武斷的見解，而無視這個事實。日常的經驗不僅證明研究自然環境唯一的適當方法是因果關係這個元範所提洪的，而且也同樣有力地證明我們人類同胞正如同我們自己一樣都是行爲人。爲要了解行爲，解釋和分析的方法只有一個，就是靠對於我們自己有意的行爲加以認知和分析。

The problem of the study and analysis of other people's action is in no way connected with the problem of the existence of a soul or of an immortal soul. As far as the objections of empiricism, behaviorism, and positivism are directed against any variety of the soul-theory, they are of no avail for our problem. The question we have to deal with is whether it is possible to grasp human action intellectually if one refuses to comprehend it as meaningful and purposeful behavior aiming at the attainment of definite ends. Behaviorism and positivism want to apply the methods of the empirical natural sciences to the reality of human action. They interpret it as a response to stimuli. But these stimuli themselves are not open to description by the methods of the natural sciences. Every attempt to describe them must refer to the meaning which acting men attach to them. We may call the offering of a commodity for sale a "stimulus." But what is essential in such an offer and distinguishes it from other offers cannot be described without entering into the meaning which the acting parties attribute to the situation. No dialectical artifice can spirit away the fact that man is driven by the aim to attain certain ends. It is this purposeful behavior--viz., action--that is the subject matter of our science. We cannot approach our subject if we disregard the meaning which acting man attaches to the situation, i.e., the given state of affairs, and to his own behavior with regard to this situation.

對於別人的行爲之研究和分析，這個問題與「靈魂」存在或「不滅的靈魂」存在的問題決無關係。實用主義、動作主義（behaviorism）[10]、和實證論對於任何種類的靈魂學說都是反對的：儘管如此，它們對於我們的問題完全無益。我們所要處理的問題是：如果我們不把人的行爲當作有意義的、有目的的行動來了解，我們是否可能在心智上把握著人的行爲。動作主義和實證論想把自然科學的方法應用到人的行爲。它們把人的行爲解釋爲對於一些刺激的反應。但是這些刺激的本身不是自然科學的方法所可記述的。要記述這些刺激必須涉及行爲人加在它們上面的意義。我們也可以把一件貨物之提供出賣叫做一個「刺激」。但是，要記述這樣的提供異於其他一些提供的要件，那就不得不涉及有關的行爲人對於這個情況所認爲的意義。人是爲要達到某些目的而行爲的，任何詭辯都不能否認這個事實。我們這門科學的論題就是這有目的的行動——即，行爲。如果我們無視行爲人對於一個情況所賦予的意義以及對於他自己應付這個情況所採取的行動所賦予的意義，我們就無法接近我們的問題。

It is not appropriate for the physicist to search for final causes because there is no indication that the events which are the subject matter of physics are to be interpreted as the outcome of actions of a being, aiming at ends in a human way. Nor is it appropriate for the praxeologist to disregard the operation of the acting being's volition and intention; they are undoubtedly given facts. If he were to disregard it, he would cease to study human action. Very often--but not always--the events concerned can be investigated both

物理學家不應當去硏求最後原因，因爲構成物理學論題的一切事物不可解釋爲人的行爲的結果。反之，行爲學家不應當無視行爲人意志的作用：行爲人的意志是旣定的事實。如果行爲學家不管它，他就應該停止硏究人的行爲。有些事物，很多時候——但不是經常，旣可以從行爲學的觀點，也可以從自然科學的觀點來研究。但是從物理學和化學的觀點來硏究鎗砲放射的人，不是行爲學家。他不管行爲科學所要闡明的那些問題。

On the Serviceableness of Instincts

論本能的有用性

The proof of the fact that only two avenues of approach are available for human research, causality or teleology, is provided by the problems raised in reference to the serviceableness of instincts. There are types of behavior which on the one hand cannot be thoroughly interpreted with the causal methods of the natural sciences, but on the other hand cannot be considered as purposeful human action. In order to grasp such behavior we are forced to resort to a makeshift. We assign to it the character of a quasi-action; we speak of serviceable instincts.

我們做研究工作只有兩個途徑可走：因果關係或目的論；這個事實，由於本能的有用性所涉及的問題得到證明。有些式樣的動作，旣不能完全用自然科學因果關係的方法來解釋，也不能看作有目的的人的行爲。爲著了解這樣的動作，我們不得不想一個權宜的辦法。我們用「準行爲」（quasi-action）一詞來指稱這些動作的特點；我們說這是些有用的本能（serviceable instincts）。

We observe two things: first the inherent tendency of a living organism to respond to a stimulus according to a regular pattern, and second the favorable effects of this kind of behavior for the strengthening or preservation of the organism's vital forces. If we were in a position to interpret such behavior as the outcome of purposeful aiming at certain ends, we would call it action and deal with it according to the teleological methods of praxeology. But as we found no trace of a conscious mind behind this behavior, we suppose that an unknown factor--we call it instinct--was instrumental. We say that the instinct directs quasi-purposeful animal behavior and unconscious but nonetheless serviceable responses of human muscles and nerves. Yet, the mere fact that we hypostatize the unexplained element of this behavior as a force and call it instinct does not enlarge our knowledge. We must never forget that this word instinct is nothing but a landmark to indicate a point beyond which we are unable, up to the present at least, to carry our scientific scrutiny.

我們觀察到兩件事情：第一、一個生物生來就會有規律地對於一個刺激起反應；第二、這種動作的效果就是加強或維持這個生物的生活力。如果我們能夠把這樣的動作解釋爲產生於有目的的意圖，我們就可以把它叫做行爲，而以行爲學目的論的方法來研究它。但是，我們在這類動作的背後看不出有意志作用的跡象，我們只好假定一個未知的因素——我們把它叫做本能——在發生作用。我們說，本能指揮動物的動作，這些動作是「準故意的」（quasi-purposeful），也指揮人的肌肉和神經的反應。這些反應是下意識的，但是有用的。我們把這類動作的未經解釋的因素看作一個力量，而把它叫做本能。可是僅就這個事實講，對於我們的知識並沒有什麼增進。我們決不可忘記，本能這個名詞不過是一個界限的標誌，我們不能——至少就目前講是不能——超越這個界限去作科學研究。

Biology has succeeded in discovering a "natural," i.e., mechanistic, explanation for many processes which in earlier days were attributed to the operation of instincts. Nonetheless many others have remained which cannot be interpreted as mechanical or chemical responses to mechanical or chemical stimuli. Animals display attitudes which cannot be comprehended otherwise than through the assumption that a directing factor was operative.

生物學對於以前被認爲本能作用的許多現象，已經成功地發現了一個「自然的」，也即機械的解釋。可是，還有一些其他的現象不能解釋爲機械的或化學的刺激所引起的機械的或化學的反應。動物所表現的姿勢，有許多是不能理解的，除非我們假定有一個什麼因素在指揮它。

The aim of behaviorism to study human action from without with the methods of animal psychology is illusory. As far as animal behavior goes beyond mere physiological processes like breathing and metabolism, it can only be investigated with the aid of the meaning-concepts developed by praxeology. The behaviorist approaches the

動作主義是要用動物心理學的方法從外面來硏究人的行爲，這是個幻想。動物的動作，一到超越了純生理的過程（像呼吸和新陳代謝），那就只有藉助於行爲學所發展出來的一些意義概念（the meaning-concepts）來研究。動作主義者是抱著目的和成功這些人類的概念來從事他的硏究的。他很不願意地把「有用」和「有害」這些人類的概念應用到他所研究的主題。他在語言字句中決不提到意識和目的的追求，因而自己欺騙自己。其實他的內心到處都追求目的，而且對於每個態度都用一種「被曲解的有用性」的看法去衡量。人的行爲科學——就其不是生理學來講——不能不涉及意義和目的。它不能從動物心理學以及對初生嬰兒無意識反應的觀察上學到任何東西。相反地，動物心理學和嬰兒心理學卻不能不要行爲科學所提供的幫助。沒有行爲學的範疇，我們就無法想像和了解動物和嬰兒的動作。

The observation of the instinctive behavior of animals fills man with astonishment and raises questions which nobody can answer satisfactorily. Yet the fact that animals and even plants react in a quasi-purposeful way is neither more nor less miraculous than that man thinks and acts, that in the inorganic universe those functional correspondences prevail which physics describes, and that in the organic universe biological processes occur. All this is miraculous in the sense that it is an ultimate given for our searching mind.

對於動物的本能動作加以觀察，會叫我們大爲驚奇，而且會引起一些無人可以圓滿解答的問題。可是，動物甚至植物，會以「準故意的」方式來反應。這個事實的神秘，與人會思想、會行爲的神秘，是一樣的，也與無機的宇宙中物理學所描述的那些功能反應的神秘，以及有機的宇宙中生物過程所顯現的神秘，沒有不同。這些都是同一意義的神秘，在這個意義下，神秘就是一個極據，爲我們的心所不能進一歩分析或解釋的。

Such an ultimate given is also what we call animal instinct. Like the concepts of motion, force, life, and consciousness, the concept of instinct too is merely a term to signify an ultimate given. To be sure, it neither "explains" anything nor indicates a cause or an ultimate cause. [10]

我們所說的動物本能也是這樣的一個極據。如同運動、力量、生命、意識這些概念一樣，本能這個概念，也只是一個指稱極據的名詞。的的確確它旣不「解釋」什麼，也不指出一個原因或一個最後原因[11]。

The Absolute End

絕對目的

In order to avoid any possible misinterpretation of the praxeological categories it seems expedient to emphasize a truism.

爲著免除對於行爲學範疇的任何誤解，強調一項明明白白的道理，似乎是有益的。

Praxeology, like the historical sciences of human action, deals with purposeful human action. If it mentions ends, what it has in view is the ends at which acting men aim. If it speaks of meaning, it refers to the meaning which acting men attach to their actions.

行爲學，同人的行爲的歷史學一樣，是處理有目的的人的行爲。如果它談到「目的」，它所指的就是行爲人所企圖的目的。如果它說到「意義」，它是指的行爲人對其行爲所賦予的意義。

Praxeology and history are manifestations of the human mind and as such are conditioned by the intellectual abilities of mortal men. Praxeology and history do not pretend to know anything about the intentions of an absolute and objective mind, about an objective meaning inherent in the course of events and of historical evolution, and about the plans which God or Nature or Weltgeist or Manifest

行爲學和歷史都是人心的顯現，因此它們都受限於人類的心智能力。關於絕對的和客觀的心靈的意向，關於在事物的趨勢中和歷史的演化中固有的客觀意義，以及關於上帝或自然或世界精神（weltgeist）或天數（manifest destiny）在宇宙和人事的統制中所想實現的東西，行爲學和歷史並不假装知道什麼。它們與所謂歷史哲學沒有相同的地方。它們不像黑格爾（Hegel）、孔德（Comet）、馬克斯（Marx）以及其他一些作家的著作那樣，自以爲是啓示生命和歷史的「眞正的、客觀的和絕對的」意義[12]。

Vegetative Man

植物人

Some philosophies advise men to seek as the ultimate end of conduct the complete renunciation of any action. They look upon life as an absolute evil full of pain, suffering, and anguish, and apodictically deny that any purposeful human effort can render it tolerable. Happiness can be attained only by complete extinction of consciousness, volition, and life. The only way toward bliss and salvation is to become perfectly passive, indifferent, and inert like the plants. The sovereign good is the abandonment of thinking and acting.

有些哲學勸吿人們完全放棄一切作爲，以實現人生的最高境界。它們把生活看作一個絕對的禍害，充滿著煩惱、痛苦、和災難：它們明白地否認任何有目的的努力會使生活變得可忍受。要得到快樂，只有靠意識、意願、和生命的完全消滅。走上至福和解放的唯一途徑，就是變得完全消極、不在乎、像植物那樣不動作。至善的境界就是不思想、不行爲。

Such is the essence of the teachings of various Indian philosophies, especially of Buddhism, and of Schopenhauer. Praxeology does not comment upon them. It is neutral with regard to all judgments of value and the choice of ultimate ends. Its task is not to approve or to disapprove, but to describe what is.

這是印度哲學，尤其是佛敎以及叔本華（Schopenhauer）哲學的精義。行爲學不評論它們。關於一切價値判斷和最後目的的選擇，行爲學是中立的。它的任務不是贊成或反對，而是陳述。

The subject matter of praxeology is human action. It deals with acting man, not with man transformed into a plant and reduced to a merely vegetative existence.

行爲學的主題，是人的行爲。它所研究的是行爲人，而不是變成了一個植物而無所作爲的人。

----------------

[8] Cf. Alfred Schütz, Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt (Vinna, 1932), p. 18.

[8] 參考Alfred Schütz, Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt (Vinna, 1932), p. 18.

[9] Cr. Karel Englis, Begründung der Teleologie als Form des empirischen Erkennens (Brünn, 1930), pp. 15 ff.

[9] 參考Karel Englis, Begründung der Teleologie als Form des empirischen Erkennens (Brünn, 1930), pp. 15 ff.

[10] 譯者注：Behaviorism通常譯作「行爲主義」。譯者鑒於本書所用的action、act、acting是特指有意義、有目的的「行爲」。爲避免混淆，故把Behaviorism譯作「動作主義」。

[10] "La vie est une cause premiere qui nous échappe comme toutes les causes premières et dont la science expérimentale n'a pas à se préoccuper." Claude Bernard, Law Science expérimentale (Paris, 1878), p. 137.

[11] 「生命，是我們所不懂的一個最初原因，和一切最初原因一樣；而且不是實驗的科學所要處理的。」Claude Bernard, Law Science expérimentale (Paris, 1878), p. 137.

[11] On the philosophy of history, cf. Mises, Theory and History (New Haven, 1957), pp. 159. ff.

[12] 關於歷史哲學，參考著者的Theory and History (New Haven, 1957), pp. 159. ff.

Chapter II. The Epistemological Problems of the Sciences of Human Action

第2章 行爲枓學的一些認識論的問題

1. Praxeology and History

一、行爲學與歷史

There are two main branches of the sciences of human action: praxeology and history. History is the collection and systematic arrangement of all thedata of experience concerning human action. It deals with the con-crete content of human action. It studies all human endeavors in their infinite multiplicity and variety and all individual actions with all their accidental, special, and particular implications. It scrutinizes the ideas guiding acting men and the outcome of the actions performed. It embraces every aspect of human activities. It is on the one hand general history and on the other hand the history of various narrower fields. There is the history of political and military action, of ideas and philosophy, of economic activities, of technology, of literature, art, and science, of religion, of mores and customs, and of many other realms of human life. There is ethnology and anthropology, as far as they are not a part of biology, and there is psychology as far as it is neither physiology nor epistemology nor philosophy. There is linguistics as far as it is neither logic nor the physiology of speech [1].

人的行爲科學有兩個主要部門：行爲學與歷史。歷史是關於人的行爲一切經驗資料的捜集與有系統的安排。它研究人在無限複雜與變化的環境中所作的一切努力，以及含有偶然的、特殊的和個別的意義的一切個人行爲。它檢討對於行爲人發生指導作用的那些觀念以及行爲所引起的後果。它包含人的活動的各方面。旣有通史，也有範圍較狹的各種專史。有政治和軍事史，有思想與哲學史，有經濟史、技術史、文學藝術科學史、宗敎史、禮儀風俗史，以及人的生活其他許多方面的歷史。人種學和人類文化學就其不是生物學的部份而成爲兩門獨立的學科，心理學就其不是生理學、不是認識論、也不是哲學的這個範圍內而成爲心理學。語言學就其不是邏輯、也不是語言生理學的範圍內而成爲語言學。[1]

The subject matter of all historical sciences is the past. They cannot teach us anything which would be valid for all human actions, that is, for the future too. The study of history makes a man wise

所有歷史學的主題都是過去。歷史學不能吿訴我們對於所有的人的行爲都有效的東西；也就是說，不能鑒往以知來。研究歷史固然可使人明智，但歷史本身並不提供可以用在實際事務上的任何知識和技能。

The natural sciences too deal with past events. Every experience is an experience of something passed away; there is no experience of future happenings. But the experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment in which the individual elements of change can be observed in isolation. The facts amassed in this way can be used for induction, a peculiar procedure of inference which has given pragmatic evidence of its expediency, although its satisfactory epistemological characterization is still an unsolved problem.

白然科學也是處理過去的經驗。每個經驗都是過去事情的經驗，決沒有發生在將來的經驗。但是自然科學所賴以成功的經驗是試驗出來的，在試驗中各個變動因素可以分隔地來觀察。用這種方法累積起來的一些事實可以用來歸納。歸納法這個推論程序已證明有它的實用性，儘管在認識論方面，還有未圓滿解決的問題。

The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action. We are never in a position to observe the change in one element only, all other conditions of the event remaining unchanged. Historical experience as an experience of complex phenomena does not provide us with facts in the sense in which the natural sciences employ this term to signify isolated events tested in experiments. The information conveyed by historical experience cannot be used as building material for the construction of theories and the prediction of future events. Every historical experience is open to various interpretations, and is in fact interpreted in different ways.

人的行爲學所必須處理的經驗，總是一些複雜現象的經驗。人的行爲不能在實驗室裡做試驗。我們決不能做到使其他一切情事保持不變而只觀察一個因素的變動。歷史經驗，也即一些複雜現象的經驗，決不能像自然科學那樣爲我們提供一些經過了隔離的試驗的「事實」。歷史經驗所傳達的消息不能用來作爲理論建構的材料，也不能作爲預測將來的根據。每個歷史經驗都會有種種解釋，而且事實上是以各種不同的方法去解釋它。

The postulates of positivism and kindred schools of metaphysics are therefore illusory. It is impossible to reform the sciences of human action according to the pattern of physics and the other natural sciences. There is no means to establish an a posteriori theory of human conduct and social events. History can neither prove nor disprove any general statement in the manner in which the natural sciences accept or reject a hypothesis on the ground of laboratory experiments. Neither experimental verification nor experimental falsification of a general proposition is possible in its field.

所以實證論以及各派玄學的一些基設（postulates）都是幻想。想以物理學或其他自然科學作楷模來改良人的行爲學，這是不可能的。我們沒有方法可以建立一套關於人的行爲和社會事象的歸納理論。自然科學靠實驗室的經驗來肯定或否定一個假設，歷史不能像自然科學那樣來證明或反駁任何陳述。在歷史的領域內，對於一般性的命題旣不可能用寞驗來證明它是對的，也不可能用實驗來證明它是錯的。

Complex phenomena in the production of which various causal chains are interlaced cannot test any theory. Such phenomena, on the contrary, become intelligible only through an interpretation in terms of theories previously developed from other sources. In the case of natural phenomena the interpretation of an event must not be at variance with the theories satisfactorily verified by experiments. In the case of historical events there is no such restriction. Commentators would be free to resort to quite arbitrary explanations. Where there is something to explain, the human mind has never been at a loss to

在生產過程中，由許多因果關係錯綜交織而形成的一些複雜現象，不能考驗任何理論。相反地，這樣的一些現象只有用一些從其他的出發點預先發展出來的理論來解釋才可了解。就自然現象來講，對於一個事象的解釋，決不可與那些已經由實驗充份證實了的理論不合。就歷史的事象講，就沒有這樣的限制。註釋歷史的人們可以很自由地來些十分武斷的解釋。凡是有些事物需要解釋的場所，人的心靈很容易特爲這些事物揑造些不合邏輯的理論。

In the field of human history a limitation similar to that which the experimentally tested theories enjoin upon the attempts to interpret and elucidate individual physical, chemical, and physiological events is provided by praxeology. Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events. Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle.

在人類歷史的領域內有一個限制，是由人的行爲學所提供的，這個限制類似那些實驗過的理論對於自然科學者所加的限制：自然科學者不可以解釋或闡釋「個別的」物理的、化學的和生理的事象。人的行爲學是一門理論的和系統的科學，而不是歷史學。它的範圍就是人的行爲本身，至於與實際行爲有關的一切環境，經常的、偶然的、個別的，一概不管。行爲學的知識是純形式的、一般的，而不涉及實質的內容和個別的情況。它所硏求的知識，是要在其情況完全符合它的假設和推理的所有場合都可適用的。它的一些陳述和命題不是來自經驗。它們像邏輯和數學的陳述命題一樣，是演繹的。它們不靠經驗和事實的證明，也不受它們的反駁。這些陳述和命題，從邏輯上講，從時間上講，都是先於歷史事實的任何理解。它們是了解歷史事象的先決條件。如果沒有它們，我們就不能在事象的趨勢中了解任何事物，只是看到千變萬化的一團混亂。

----------

[1] Economic history, descriptive economics, and economic statistics are, of course, history. The term sociology is used in two different meanings. Descriptive sociology deals with those historical phenomena of human action which are not viewed in descriptive economics; it overlaps to some extent the field claimed by ethnology and anthropology. General sociology, on the other hand, approaches historical experience from a more nearly universal point of view than that of the other branches of history. History proper, for instance, deals with people or with a certain geographical area. Max Weber in his main treatise (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Tübingen, 1922], pp. 513-600) deals with the town in general, i.e., with the whole historical experience concerning towns without any limitation to historical periods, geographical areas, or individual peoples, nations, races, and civilizations.

[1] 經濟史、記述經濟學、和經濟統計，當然都是歷史。「社會學」一詞有兩個意義的用法。記述社會學所研究的是記述經濟學所不檢討的人的行爲的歷史現象；它和人種學及人類文化學的領域有點重疊。另一方面，社會學通論是用較歷史其他部門更爲普遍的觀點來處理歷史的經驗。例如，純歷史所處理的是一個市鎭或某一特定時期的一些市鎭或一個人或某一特定地區。韋伯（Max Weber）在他的名著Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Tübingen, 1922], pp. 513-600中所處理的是一般的市鎭，也即處理關於市鎭的全部歷史經驗而不受歷史時期、地域或人物、民族、種族、和文明的限制。

2. The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology

二、行爲學的形式的和演繹的特徵

A fashionable tendency in contemporary philosophy is to deny the existence of any a priori knowledge. All human knowledge, it is contended, is derived from experience. This attitude can easily be understood as an excessive reaction against the extravagances of theology and a spurious philosophy of history and of nature. Metaphysicians were eager to discover by intuition moral precepts, the meaning of historical evolution, the properties of soul and matter, and the laws governing physical, chemical, and physiological events. Their volatile speculations manifested a blithe disregard for matter-of-fact knowledge. They were convinced that, without reference to experience, reason could explain all things and answer all questions.

現代哲學有個時髦的趨勢，就是不承認有先驗的知識。據說，所有的人類知識都是來自經驗。這種態度之形成不難了解，它是對於神學的誇張以及歷史和自然哲學的虛妄之矯枉過正。玄學家急於想靠直覺來發現道德敎條、歷史演化的意義、精神與物質的本體、以及統攝物理、化學和生理事象的一些法則。他們的一些胡思亂想，顯得他們—味地無視事實上的知識。他們深信：用不著參考經驗，理智就會解釋所有的事物，解答所有的問題。

The modern natural sciences owe their success to the method of observation and experiment. There is no doubt that empiricism and pragmatism are right as far as they merely describe the procedures of the natural sciences. But it is no less certain that they are entirely wrong in their endeavors to reject any kind of a priori knowledge and to characterize logic, mathematics, and praxeology either as empirical and experimental disciplines or as mere tautologies.

現代自然科學的成功，得力於觀察和試驗的方法。無疑地，經驗主義與實用主義，如果只是用在自然科學的一些程序方面，它們是對的。但是，如果否認任何先驗的知識，而把邏輯、數學、和行爲學視同經驗的和實驗的學科，或視爲不過是些異詞同義反覆語，其爲十分錯誤，也是同樣無疑的。

With regard to praxeology the errors of the philosophers are due

哲學家們關於行爲學的謬見，是由於他們對經濟學完全無知[2]，而且也常常由於他們的歷史知識貧乏得驚人。在哲學家們的眼光中，哲學問題的處理是一莊嚴崇高的事業，不可以與賺錢的低級職業等量齊觀。大學的敎授極不願靠研究哲學來賺取他的所得；他一想到他是和工匠農民一樣地賺錢，就感到恥辱。金錢的事情是卑鄙的，探究眞理和永恒價値這類崇高問題的哲學家，不可以分心於經濟問題而弄髒他的心靈。現代哲學家，關於最基本的經濟知識，一點也沒有。

The problem of whether there are or whether there are not a priori elements of thought--i.e., necessary and ineluctable intellectual conditions of thinking, anterior to any actual instance of conception and experience--must not be confused with the genetic problem of how man acquired his characteristically human mental ability. Man is descended from nonhuman ancestors who lacked this ability. These ancestors were endowed with some potentiality which in the course of ages of evolution converted them into reasonable beings. This transformation was achieved by the influence of a changing cosmic environment operating upon succeeding generations. Hence the empiricist concludes that the fundamental principles of reasoning are an outcome of experience and represent an adaptation of man to the conditions of his environment.

人類的思想有沒有一些先驗的成份（即，思想過程中必要而且必然的一些心智的條件，先於任何實驗的概念或經驗而存在的），這個問題決不可與「人如何獲得他所特有的人類的心智能力」這個關於創生的問題相混淆。人的祖先是一些不具備這種心智能力的非人（nonhuman ancestors）。他們只具有某些潜能，而這些潜能經過長期的演化，把人類變成理知的動物。這種轉變之完成，是由於不斷變動的大環境積世累代的影響。因此，經驗主義者得到了這一個結論：推理中的一些基本原理是經驗的結果，而且表現人類對於環境的適應。

This idea leads, when consistently followed, to the further conclusion that there were between our prehuman ancestors and homo sapiens various intermediate stages. There were beings which, although not yet equipped with the human faculty of reason, were endowed with some rudimentary elements of ratiocination. Theirs was not yet a logical mind, but a prelogical (or rather imperfectly logical) mind. Their desultory and defective logical functions evolved step by step from the prelogical state toward the logical state. Reason, intellect, and logic are historical phenomena. There is a history of logic as there is a history of technology. Nothing suggests that logic as we know it is the last and final stage of intellectual evolution. Human logic is a historical phase between prehuman nonlogic on the one

從這個概念，可以順理成章地導出另一個結論：在我們人前的祖先（our prehuman ancestors）與我們後代人之間，有些不同的中間階段。在那些階段中，我們的祖先儘管還沒有具備人類的智能，卻已懂得一點推理的初歩原理。他們所有的還不是邏輯的智慧，而是邏輯前期的（或不完全邏輯的）智慧。他們那些散漫而不完整的邏輯機能，從邏輯前期的狀況一步一步地演進到邏輯的狀況。理知、智能、和邏輯，都是歷史現象。邏輯之有歷史，正如同技術之有歷史。我們所知道的邏輯，決不是智力演進的最後階段。人類的邏輯是介乎人前的非邏輯（prehuman nonlogic）與超人的邏輯（superhuman logic）之間的一般歷史形象。理知和智慧，人類在生存競爭中這項最有效的裝備，是動物學事象不斷演化中的成份。它們旣不是永恒的，也不是不可變的。而是短暫和無常的。

Furthermore, there is no doubt that every human being repeats in his personal evolution not only the physiological metamorphosis from a simple cell into a highly complicated mammal organism but no less the spiritual metamorphosis from a purely vegetative and animal existence into a reasonable mind. This transformation is not completed in the prenatal life of the embryo, but only later when the newborn child step by step awakens to human consciousness. Thus every man in his early youth, starting from the depths of darkness, proceeds through various states of the mind's logical structure.

再者，每個人在其人格的發展中所反覆重演的，不僅是生物學的變形——從一個單細胞變到一個高度複雜的哺乳動物，而且也是心智上的變質——從一個純植物的和動物的存在，變到一個理知的心靈。這種變化不在人生前的胎孕期完成，只是在出生以後漸漸地覺悟到人的意識。所以每個人在其幼年總是從黑漆一團的蒙眛，一歩步地走完人心邏輯結構的各階段。

Then there is the case of the animals. We are fully aware of the unbridgeable gulf separating our reason from the reactive processes of their brains and nerves. But at the same time we divine that forces are desperately struggling in them toward the light of comprehension. They are like prisoners anxious to break out from the doom of eternal darkness and inescapable automatism. We feel with them because we ourselves are in a similar position: pressing in vain against the limitation of our intellectual apparatus, striving unavailingly after unattainable perfect cognition.

其次，就動物來講。我們充份察覺到在我們人類的理知與動物頭腦和神經的反射作用之間，有一條不可踰越的鴻溝。但同時我們也察覺到，在動物的身上有些力量在爲求對事物的理解而掙扎。這些力量如同獄囚一樣急想擺脫長期黑暗的刼數。我們之所以有此察覺，因爲我們的情形也是一樣：想突破我們心智的限制而無效果，想求得對事物的完全認知而終不可能。

But the problem of the a priori is of a different character. It does not deal with the problem of how consciousness and reason have emerged. It refers to the essential and necessary character of the logical structure of the human mind.

但是，先驗的問題是屬於不同的性質。它不涉及意識和理知如何產生出來的問題，它所涉及的是人心邏輯結構的主要特徵。

The fundamental logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof. Every attempt to prove them must presuppose their validity. It is impossible to explain them to a being who would not possess them on his own account. Efforts to define them according to the rules of definition must fail. They are primary propositions antecedent to any nominal or real definition. They are ultimate unanalyzable categories. The human mind is utterly incapable of imagining logical categories at variance with them. No matter how they may appear to superhuman beings, they are for man inescapable and absolutely necessary. They are the indispensable prerequisite of perception, apperception, and experience.

一些基本的邏輯關係旣不會得到實證，也不會受到反證。凡是想證明它們的毎一企圖，都須預先假設它們是有效的。因爲我們不可能對一個心裡不具備邏輯關係的人解釋邏輯關係。所以，想遵照下定義的規則來給邏輯關係下定義，必定是失敗的。它們是在任何名目的或實質的定義之前而存在的一些最初的命題。它們畢竟是些不可分析的元範。人心決不會想得出不符合邏輯元範的邏輯元範。不管超人究竟怎樣，就人而言，一些基本的邏輯關係是不可免的，而且是絕對必要的。它們是認知、明瞭、和經驗的先决條件。

They are no less an indispensable prerequisite of memory. There is a tendency in the natural sciences to describe memory as an instance of a more general phenomenon. Every living organism conserves the effects of earlier stimulation, and the present state of inorganic

基本的邏輯關係同樣也是記憶的先決條件。在自然科學裡面有一個趨勢，是把記憶看作一個較普遍的現象。每個生物都會保存早期刺激的後果，無機物的現狀是由過去所受的一切影響的後果而形成的。宇宙的現狀是來自它的過去。所以我們可用一個不太恰切的比喩來說：我們地球的地質結構保存著一切早期的宇宙變化，而一個人的身體是他祖先的和他自己的一切命運和際遇的沉澱。但是記憶則完全不同於宇宙演變在結構上的調和與連績。它是一個意識的現象，因而它是以邏輯的演繹爲條件的。心理學家曾經迷惑於爲什麼我們不記得胎孕時期和哺乳時期的任何事物。照佛洛伊德（Freud）的解釋，這是由於不愉快的回憶之受壓制。其實那是由於無意識的情況沒有什麼可回憶的。動物性的無意識的行動以及對生理上刺激的自動反應，對於胎兒，對於嬰兒，乃至對於成年人來講，都是不會回憶到的。

The human mind is not a tabula rasa on which the external events write their own history. It is equipped with a set of tools for grasping reality. Man acquired these tools, i.e., the logical structure of his mind, in the course of his evolution from an amoeba to his present state. But these tools are logically prior to any experience.

人心並不是一張白紙，讓外在的事物在這上面寫它們自己的歷史。人心裝備了一套用以理解現實的工具。人，從阿米巴（amoeba）進化到他的現狀的過程中，獲得這些工具，這些工具就是他心中的邏輯結構。可是這些工具必然是在任何經驗之前的。

Man is not only an animal totally subject to the stimuli unavoidably determining the circumstances of his life. He is also an acting being. And the category of action is logically antecedent to any concrete act.

人不只是一個完全受環境支配的動物。他也是一個主動的行爲人。而且行爲的元範必然是在任何具體行爲之先而存在的。

The fact that man does not have the creative power to imagine categories at variance with the fundamental logical relations and with the principles of causality and teleology enjoins upon us what may be called methodological apriorism.

人不可能想像到與基本邏輯關係相衝突，以及與因果關係和目的論的原則相衝突的元範，這個事實使得我們不得不接受可名之曰方法論的先驗論。

Everybody in his daily behavior again and again bears witness to the immutability and universality of the categories of thought and action. He who addresses fellow men, who wants to inform and convince them, who asks questions and answers other people's questions, can proceed in this way only because he can appeal to something common to all men--namely, the logical structure of human reason. The idea that A could at the same time be non-A or that to prefer A to B could at the same time be to prefer B to A is simply inconceivable and absurd to a human mind. We are not in the position to comprehend any kind of prelogical or metalogical thinking. We cannot think of a world without causality and teleogy.

每個人在日常生活中，一再地證明思想與行爲的一些範疇之不變性和普遍性。他與別人交談，他想敎導和說服別人，他向別人提出問題和答覆別人的問題，他之所以能夠如此，只是靠的大家有個共同的東西——也即人類理知的邏輯結構。「A同時也即非A」或「取A捨B，同時也會是取B捨A」這樣的一些念頭，簡直是人心所不能想像的、荒唐的。我們不能領悟先乎邏輯或後乎邏輯的想法。我們不會想像一個不具有因果關係和行爲意志的世界。

It does not matter for man whether or not beyond the sphere accessible

「在人心所可想像的範圍以外，是否還有些其他境界，而在那些境界裡面有點什麼東西在元範上是不同於人類思想和行爲的」這個問題對於人沒有什麼關係。人心決不會有任何知識是來自這樣的境界。如果問：一些事物的本身是不是不同於它們表現在我們眼前的？是否還有些我們所不能想像的世界和我們所不能領悟的想法？問這一類的問題是白問的。因爲這些問題超出人的認知範圍以外。人的知識受限於人心的結構。如果它（指人的知識——譯者註）選擇人的行爲作它探究的對象，那麼，它就不會是別的，而只是一些行爲元範，這些行爲元範爲人心所固有的，同時是人心對外在變動世界的投影。行爲學所有的定理只指涉這些行爲元範，也只有在這些行爲元範的運作軌道內才有效。這些定理，對於夢想不到的、不可思議的世界和關係，並不能提供任何知識。

Thus praxeology is human in a double sense. It is human because it claims for its theorems, within the sphere precisely defined in the underlying assumptions, universal validity for all human action. It is human moreover because it deals only with human action and does not aspire to know anything about nonhuman--whether subhuman or superhuman--action.

因此，「行爲學是人的行爲學」這句話有雙重意義。它是人的，因爲在基本假定下嚴格界定的範圍內，它的一些定理對於所有的人的行爲都是普遍有效的。而且，因爲它只處理人的行爲而不想知道關於非人（次人或超人）的行爲，所以它是人的。

The Alleged Logical Heterogeneity of Primitive Man

所謂「原始人的邏輯不同」

It is a general fallacy to believe that the writings of Lucien Levy-Bruhl give support to the doctrine that the logical structure of mind of primitive man was and is categorially different from that of civilized man. On the contrary, what Levy-Bruhl, on the basis of a careful scrutiny of the entire ethnological material available, reports about the mental functions of primitive man proves clearly that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action play in the intellectual activities of savages the same role they play in our own life. The content of primitive man's thoughts differs from the content of our thoughts, but the formal and logical structure is common to both.

有一個普遍的謬見，認爲Lucien Levy-Bruhl的一些著作是支持這樣一個學說的：原始人心中的邏輯結構與我們文明人的絕對不同。相反地，Levy-Bruhl對於人種學全部可利用的資料仔細査究之後，關於原始人心智功能的報吿，明白地證實了：基本的邏輯和思想行爲元範，在野蠻人的心智活動中與在我們自己的生活中所發生的作用，是相同的。原始人的思想內容與我們的思想內容雖然不同，但形式的與邏輯的結構則是相同的。

It is true that Levy-Bruhl himself maintains that the mentality of primitive peoples is essentially "mystic and prelogical" in character; primitive man's collective representations are regulated by the "law of participation" and are consequently indifferent to the law of contradiction. However, Levy-Bruhl's distinction between prelogical and logical thinking refers to the content and not to the form and categorial structure of thinking. For he declares that also among peoples like ourselves ideas and relations between ideas governed by the "law of participation" exist, more or less independently, more or less impaired, but yet ineradicable, side by side, with those subject to the

不錯，Levy-Bruhl本人是堅持原始人的心理狀態在本質上是「神秘的和邏輯的」；原始人的一些共同想像力是受制於「參與律」（law of participation）的，因而與矛盾律毫無關係。可是Levy-Bruhl對於邏輯前的思想與邏輯的思想所作的區分，是指思想的內容，並不是指思想的形式和結構。因爲他還說到，在像我們這樣的人當中，受制於「參與律」的觀念以及諸觀念之間的關係，是與那些受制於推理律的觀念同時並存的。也即是說，「邏輯前的和神秘的思想與邏輯的思想是並存的」。[3]

Levy-Bruhl relegates the essential teachings of Christianity to the realm of the prelogical mind.[4] Now, many objections can possibly be raised and have been raised against the Christian doctrines and their interpretation by theology. But nobody ever ventured to contend that the Christian fathers and philosophers--among them St. Augustine and St. Thomas--had minds whose logical structure was categorially different from that of our contemporaries. The dispute between a man who believes in miracles and another who does not refers to the content of thought, not to its logical form. A man who tries to demonstrate the possibility and reality of miracles may err. But to unmask his error is --as the brilliant essays of Hume and Mill show--Certainly no less logically intricate than to explode any philosophical or economic fallacy.

Levy-Bruhl把基督敎的一些基本敎義貶之於邏輯前的心靈境界[4]。現在，對於基督敎的一些敎條，以及神學給它們的一些註釋，都可以提出許多反對的理由。但是，從來沒有人敢於說基督敎的前輩和其哲學家們——例如其中的奧古斯丁（Augustine）和聖托馬斯（St. Thomas）——所具有的心，其邏輯結構與我們現代人的完全不同。一個相信奇蹟的人和一個不相信奇蹟的人之間的爭論，只涉及思想內容， 並不涉及它的邏輯形式。企圖論證奇蹟的可能性和實在性的人，會是錯誤的。但要揭發他的錯誤——像休姆和穆勒的那些明暢的論著所表現的——的確不比探究任何哲學的或經濟學的謬誤較少邏輯上的複雜問題。

Explorers and missionaries report that in Africa and Polynesia primitive man stops short at his earliest perception of things and never reasons if he can in any way avoid it.[5] European and American educators sometimes report the same of their students. With regard to the Mossi on the Niger Levy-Bruhl quotes a missionary's observation: "Conversation with them turns only upon women, food, and (in the rainy season) the crops."[6] What other subjects did many contemporaries and neighbors of Newton, Kant, and Levy-Bruhl prefer?

據一些探險家和傳敎士的報吿，非洲和玻里尼西亞（Polynesia）的原始人，對於一切事物只具有最粗淺的認識，如果他可以避免，他不會去推究[5]。歐洲和美國的敎育家，有時也報導他們的學生有這同樣的情形。關於奈遮河（the Niger）的土人（the Mossi），Levy-Bruhl引了一位傳敎士的觀察報吿：「和他們談話，只是講些關於女人、食物，和（在雨季當中）收穫這些事情」[6]。可是許多現代的人以及牛頓的、康德（Kant）的，和Levy-Bruhl的鄰人們，曾談過一些其他的什麼問題嗎？

The conclusion to be drawn from Levy-Bruhl's studies is best expressed in his own words: "The primitive mind, like our own, is anxious to find the reasons for what happens, but it does not seek these in the same direction as we do."[7]

要從Levy-Bruhl的一些硏究得到結論，最好是用他自己所說的：「原始的心靈，也和我們一樣，急想找些理由來解釋所發生的事情，但是它尋找理由的方向，不同於我們的心靈所找的方向。」[7]

A peasant eager to get a rich crop may--according to the content of his ideas--choose various methods. He may perform some magical rites, he may embark upon a pilgrimage, he may offer a candle to the image of his patron saint, or he may employ more and better fertilizer. But whatever he does, it is always action, i.e., the employment of means for the attainment of ends. Magic is in a broader sense a variety of technology. Exorcism is a deliberate purposeful action based on a world view which most of our contemporaries condemn as superstitious and therefore as inappropriate. But the concept of action does not imply that the action is guided by a correct theory and a technology promising success and that it attains the end aimed at. It only implies that the performer of the action believes that the means applied will produce the desired effect.

一個急想有豐富收穫的農夫，可能——依照他的想法——選擇各種不同的方法。他也許舉行某些魔術儀式，他也許來一趟朝山拜香，他也許向他所供奉的神靈貢獻一番香火，或者他使用更多更好的肥料。但是不管他做什麼，那總歸是行爲，也即，爲達到目的而採用手段。魔術，在較廣的意義下，是技術的一種。驅邪趕鬼是一個有意的、有目的的行爲，作爲這種行爲之基礎的那個世界觀，我們現代人大都斥之爲迷信，所以被認爲不適當的。但是，行爲這個概念並不意含行爲是由一個正確的理論和一個可成功的技術所指導，也不意含行爲會達到所追求的目的。它只意涵，行爲者本人相信他所採用的手段將可達成所想達成的結果。

No facts provided by ethnology or history contradict the assertion that the logical structure of mind is uniform with all men of all races, ages, and countries.[8]

所有的人——任何民族、任何邦國、任何年齡的人——心靈的邏輯結構都是相同的[8]。人種學或歷史都找不出與這個斷言相衝突的事實來。

-----------

[2] Hardly any philosopher had a more universal familiarity with various branches of contemporary knowledge than Bergson. Yet a casual remark in his last great book clearly proves that Bergson was completely ignorant of the fundamental theorem of the modern theory of value and exchange. Speaking of exchange he remarks "l'on ne peut le pratiquer sans s'être demandé si les deux objets échangés sont bien de même valeur, c'est-à-die échangeables contre un même troisième." (Les Deux Sources de law morale et de la religion

[2] 對於現代各部門的知識具有普遍了解的哲學家，難得有比得上Bergson的。可是Bergson之完全不懂現代價値與交易理論的基本定理，已由他最近一本著作中的一句信口開河的話得到證明。關於交易，他說：「一個人如果沒有問問自己這兩件交換的財貨是否價値相同，也即，是否可換到同樣價値的第三種東西，他是不會去交易的。」（Les Deux Sources de law morale et de la religion

[3] Lévy-Bruhl, How Natives Think, trans. by L.A. Clare (New York, 1932), p. 386.

[3] Lévy-Bruhl, How Natives Think, trans. by L.A. Clare (New York, 1932), p. 386.

[4] Ibid., p. 377.

[4] 同書，p. 377.

[5] Lévy-Bruhl, Primitive Mentality, trans. by L.A. Clare (New York, 1923), pp. 27-29.

[5] Lévy-Bruhl, Primitive Mentality, trans. by L.A. Clare (New York, 1923), pp. 27-29.

[6] Ibid., p. 27.

[6] 同書，p. 27.

[7] Ibid., p. 437.

[7] 同書，p. 437.

[8] Cf. the brilliant statements of Ernst Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen (Berlin, 1925), II, 78.

[8] 參考Ernst Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen裡面明暢的陳述(Berlin, 1925), II, 78.

3. The A Priori and Reality

三、先験和眞實

Aprioristic reasoning is purely conceptual and deductive. It cannot produce anything else but tautologies and analytic judgments. All its implications are logically derived from the premises and were already contained in them. Hence, according to a popular objection, it cannot add anything to our knowledge.

先驗的推理，純粹是概念的和演鐸的。它只能提出一些同義反覆語和分析的判断，而別無作用。它所有的含義都是邏輯地從其前提導出，原已蘊涵在那些前提裡面。因此，按照通常的指責，它不能給我們的知識有何增益。

All geometrical theorems are already implied in the axioms. The concept of a rectangular triangle already implies the theorem of Pythagoras. This theorem is a tautology, its deduction results in an analytic judgment. Nonetheless nobody would contend that geometry in general and the theorem of Pythagoras in particular do not enlarge our knowledge. Cognition from purely deductive reasoning is also creative and opens for our mind access to previously barred spheres. The significant task of aprioristic reasoning is on the one hand to bring into relief all that is implied in the categories, concepts, and premises and, on the other hand, to show what they do not imply. It is its vocation to render manifest and obvious what was hidden and unknown before.[9]

幾何的一切定理（theorem）都已蘊涵在那些公理（axiom）裡面。一個直角三角形的概念已含著畢達哥拉斯定理。這個定理是一句同義反覆語：它的演繹歸結於一個分析的判斷。雖然如此，決沒有人會概括地說，幾何不增加我們的知識，也決沒有人會特指畢達哥拉斯定理不增加我們的知識。從純粹的演繹推理得到的認知，也是創造的，並且爲我們的心靈走進以前的禁地開闢著門徑。演鐸的推理之有意義，一方面是把那些蘊涵在一些範疇、概念、和前提裡面的一切一切顯現出來，另一方面又使我們知道它們所不蘊涵的是些什麼。它的使命，就是要使那被掩蓋的、以前所不知道的東西，明朗化[9]。

In the concept of money all the theorems of monetary theory are already implied. The quantity theory does not add to our knowledge anything which is not virtually contained in the concept of money. It transforms, develops, and unfolds; it only analyzes and is therefore tautological like the theorem of Pythagoras in relation to the concept of the rectangular triangle. However, nobody would deny the cognitive value of the quantity theory. To a mind not enlightened by economic reasoning it remains unknown. A long line of abortive attempts to solve the problems concerned shows that it was certainly not easy to attain the present state of knowledge.

在貨幣這個概念裡面，已蘊涵貨幣理論的一切定理。貨幣數量說並沒有把貨幣概念所未蘊涵的任何東西增加在我們的知識中。它是在轉換、發揮、和展開貨幣概念；它只分析，所以它正如同畢達哥拉斯定理與直角三角形這個概念的關係一樣，是同義反覆語。但是，決沒有人會否認貨幣數量說的認知價値。因爲一個未受過經濟理論訓練的人，仍然不知道貨幣數量說是怎麼一回事。過去曾有很多很多試圖解決這些有關問題的努力，都一一失敗。這正可說明我們現有的知識確是得來不易。

It is not a deficiency of the system of aprioristic science that it does not convey to us full cognition of reality. Its concepts and theorems are mental tools opening the approach to a complete grasp of reality; they are, to be sure, not in themselves already the totality of factual knowledge about all things. Theory and the comprehension

先驗的科學，不會傳遞我們關於眞實的充份認知，這不是先驗科學這個體系的缺陷。它的一些概念和定理，都是些精神工具，這些工具爲我們開闢途徑，使我們得以接近眞實，進而完全理解：當然，並非它們本身已經是關於一切事物的眞實知識的全部。眞實，是變動不居的。理論與對於眞實的理解，相互間不是對立的。關於人的行爲一般的先驗科學，也就是理論。沒有理論，就不會對於人的行爲的眞實有所理解。

The relation between reason and experience has long been one of the fundamental philosophical problems. Like all other problems of the critique of knowledge, philosophers have approached it only with reference to the natural sciences. They have ignored the sciences of human action. Their contributions have been useless for praxeology.

理知與經驗的關係，很久以來就是哲學的基本問題之一。哲學家們處理這個問題，如同處理關於知識批判的一切其他問題一樣，只涉及自然科學。他們忽視了人的行爲科學。他們的貢獻，對於行爲學而言是無用的。

It is customary in the treatment of the epistemological problems of economics to adopt one of the solutions suggested for the natural sciences. Some authors recommend Poincaré's conventionalism [10]. They regard the premises of economic reasoning as a matter of linguistic or postulational convention [11] . Others prefer to acquiesce in ideas advanced by Einstein. Einstein raises the question: "How can mathematics, a product of human reason that does not depend on any experience, so exquisitely fit the objects of reality? Is human reason able to discover, unaided by experience through pure reasoning the features of real things?" And his answer is: "As far as the theorems of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." [12]

在處理經濟學認識論問題的時候，採用一種爲自然科學所採用的解決法，這已是常事。有些著作家推薦Poincaré的因襲主義（conventionalism）[10]。他們把經濟推理的一些前提看作語言的或假設的慣例[11]。其他的一些著作家又傾向於默認愛因斯坦（Einstein）所提出的觀念。愛因斯坦提出這樣的問題：「數學——不靠任何經驗的人類理知的產物——如何會這麼精密地合乎眞實的事物？人的理知，不藉助經驗只憑純粹的推理，就能夠發現眞實事物的情狀嗎？」他的答覆是：「就數學定理涉及眞實的而言，那些定理是不正確的，就它們是正確的而耆，它們不涉及眞實。」[12]

However, the sciences of human action differ radically from the natural sciences. All authors eager to construct an epistemological system of the sciences of human action according to the pattern of the natural sciences err lamentably.

可是，人的行爲科學與自然科學根本不同。凡是想摹倣自然科學來建立一個行爲科學認識論體系的人，都犯了可悲的錯誤。

The real thing which is the subject matter of praxeology, human action, stems from the same source as human reasoning. Action and reason are congeneric and homogeneous; they may even be called two different aspects of the same thing. That reason has the power to make clear through pure ratiocination the essential features of action is a consequence of the fact that action is an offshoot of reason. The theorems attained by correct praxeological reasoning are not only perfectly certain and incontestable, like the correct mathematical theorems. They refer, moreover, with the full rigidity of their apodictic certainty and incontestability to the reality of action as it appears in life and history. Praxeology conveys exact and precise knowledge of real things.

作爲行爲學主題的人的行爲，其賴以發生的根源，也即人的推理所由發生的根源。行爲與理知是同原同質的；它們甚至可被視爲同一事情的兩方面。理知之所以能夠（透過统粹的推理）認淸行爲的基本特徵，就是因爲行爲是由理知衍生出來的。經由正確的行爲學推理而得到的那些定理，不僅是完全對的、不容爭論的，如同正確的數學定理一樣；而且這些定理是以其充份的正確性來指點見之於現世的和歷史的行爲的眞實面。行爲學敎給我們關於一些眞實情事的正確知識。

The starting point of praxeology is not a choice of axioms and a decision about methods of procedure, but reflection about the essence of action. There is no action in which the praxeological categories

行爲學的起點不是對於一些公理的選擇，也不是關於處理方法的決定，而是關於行爲本質的深思熟慮。「行爲學的一些範疇未在其中充份而完全顯現的」行爲，事實上決不會有。「手段與目的，或者成本與收益，不能在其中明白區分的」行爲方式，也決無法可以想像。決不會有什麼事情僅僅是近乎或不完全合乎「交易」這個經濟範疇。要嘛，就是「交易」；要嘛，就是「非交易」。對於任何交易而言，所有關於交易的一般定理，連同它們的一切含義，都是充份有效的。決沒有從交易到非交易或從直接交易到間接交易過渡的情事。我們的經驗決不會與這些論述相衝突。

Such an experience would be impossible in the first place for the reason that all experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeological categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange.

與這些論述相衝突的經驗之所以不可能有，因爲凡是關於人的行爲的一切經驗，都限之於行爲學的一些範疇，只有經由這些範疇的應用，經驗才成爲可能。如果在我們的心靈中不具備行爲學推理所提供的一些分類表，我們決不能辨識和了解任何行爲。我們只會看到一些活動，但不會了解購買或出售，也不會了解價格、工資、利率等等。我們之所以能夠獲有關於買賣行爲之經驗，而又無關乎我們的感官是否也同時接觸到外在世界這方面的一些活動，這只是由於行爲學分類表的應用。不藉助於行爲學的知識，我們對於交易媒介決不會有任何了解。假若我們不具備這類先在的知識而看到一些鑄幣，我們只會認爲那是一些金屬的圓塊而已。關於貨幣經驗的獲得，必須首先知道「交易媒介」這個行爲學的範疇。

Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history.

關於人的行爲的經驗之所以不同於關於自然現象的經驗，就是由於前者以行爲學的知識爲必要條件。自然科學的方法之所以不能適用於行爲學、經濟學、和歷史之研究者，原因就在此。

In asserting the a priori character of praxeology we are not drafting a plan for a future new science different from the traditional sciences of human action. We do not maintain that the theoretical science of human action should be aprioristic, but that it is and always has been so. Every attempt to reflect upon the problems raised by human action is necessarily bound to aprioristic reasoning. It does not make any difference in this regard whether the men discussing a problem are theorists aiming at pure knowledge only or statesmen, politicians, and regular citizens eager to comprehend occurring changes and to discover what kind of public policy or private conduct would best suit their own interests. People may begin arguing about the significance

當我們斷言行爲學之先驗性的時候，我們並不是想爲將來計畫一門不同於傳統的行爲科學的新科學。我們並不是說關於人的行爲之理論科學「必須」是先驗的，而是說它「是」如此，而且「總是」如此。凡是考慮到人的行爲所引起的問題的時候，必然地要涉及先驗的推理。不管討論問題的人們是追求純知識的理論家，還是那些想了解周遭的變故，想發現什麼政策或行爲最符合他們自己的利益的政治家、政客、或一般公民，就這一點來講，他們都是如此。人們在開始討論的時候，也許會涉及某些具體經驗的意義，但是這個論辯必然會離開有關事件的那些偶然的和枝節的部份，而轉到一個基本原則的分析，而且不知不覺地會把那些引起辯論的事件完全抛棄了。自然科學的歷史，就是一些被經驗所否定的學說或假設的記錄。試回想被伽利略（Galileo）所駁倒的力學的謬誤和燃素理論（the phlogiston theory）的命運。在經濟學史上沒有這樣的記錄。在邏輯上互不相容的一些理論，其主張者每每把同一事件來證明他們的理論是得到經驗支持的。其實是這樣：在人的行爲領域所呈現的現象，都是複雜現象；凡是關於一個複雜現象的經驗，總可以用各種相反的學說來解釋。至於這個解釋是否叫人滿意，那就要靠對那些預先憑先驗推理而成立的有關學說的鑑定。[13]

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

歷史不會敎我們任何通則、原則、或法則。我們無法從歷史經驗歸納得到關於人的行爲和政策的任何理論或定理。歷史的資料，如果不能靠有系統的行爲學知識來澄淸、來安排、來解釋，那就只是一大堆亂七八糟的事象而已。

-------------

[9] Science, says Meyerson is "l'acte per lequel nous ramenons à l'identique ce qui nous a, tout d'abord, paru n'être pas tel." (De L'Explication dans dles sciences

[9] Meyerson說：科學是「把我們帶回到我們原先看來似乎不如此的那些事物」。(De L'Explication dans dles sciences

[10] Henri Poincaré, La Science et l'hypothése (Paris, 1918), p. 69.

[10] Henri Poincaré, La Science et l'hypothése (Paris, 1918), p. 69.

[11] Felix Kaufmann, Methodology of the Social Sciences (London, 1944), pp. 46-47.

[11] Felix Kaufmann, Methodology of the Social Sciences (London, 1944), pp. 46-47.

[12] Albert Eistein, Geometrie und Erfahrung (Berlin, 1923), p. 3.

[12] Albert Eistein, Geometrie und Erfahrung (Berlin, 1923), p. 3.

[13] Cf. E.P. Cheyney, Law in History and Other Essays (New York, 1927), p. 27.

[13] 參考E.P. Cheyney, Law in History and Other Essays (New York, 1927), p. 27.

4. The Principle of Methodological Individualism

四、方法論的個人主義的原理

Praxeology deals with the actions of individual men. It is only in the further course of its inquiries that cognition of human cooperation is attained and social action is treated as a special case of the more universal category of human action as such.

行爲學是硏討各「個」人的一些行爲。至於人類合作的知識之被獲得，以及社會行爲之被當作人的行爲這個更普遍的範疇之一特例，那只是行爲學研究中進一歩的課程。

This methodological individualism has been vehemently attacked by various metaphysical schools and disparaged as a nominalistic fallacy. The notion of an individual, say the critics, is an empty abstraction. Real man is necessarily always a member of a social whole. It is even impossible to imagine the existence of a man separated from the rest of mankind and not connected with society. Man as man is the product of a social evolution. His most eminent feature, reason, could only emerge within the framework of social mutuality. There is no thinking which does not depend on the concepts and notions of

這種方法論的個人主義受到各種玄學派的熱烈攻擊而被誣衊爲唯名論（nominalistism）的謬誤。批評的人們這樣講：「個人」這個概念是一個空間的概念。實在的人，必然總是社會整體的一份子。我們甚至於不可能想像，有一個脫離別人而不與社會發生關聯的個人會存在。人之爲人，是社會進化的產物。人的最大特點一理知，只有在社會關聯的架構中才會產生。人的思想沒有不會依賴語言所表達的一些概念和觀念。語言很明顯地是一社會現象。人，總是一個集體的份子。從邏輯上講，從時間上講，整體都是先於部份或份子的，因而對於個人的研究"、須後於對社會的研究。對於人類問題作科學的研究，唯一適當的方法，就是全體主義（universalism）或集體主義。

Now the controversy whether the whole or its parts are logically prior is vain. Logically the notions of a whole and its parts are correlative. As logical concepts they are both apart from time.

究竟是整體先於部份呢，還是部份先於整體，這種爭論是白費的。從邏輯上講，整體和其部份這兩個概念是互相關聯的。作爲邏輯的概念，它們都與時序無關。

No less inappropriate with regard to our problem is the reference to the antagonism of realism and nominalism, both these terms being understood in the meaning which medieval scholasticism attached to them. It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events. Methodological individualism, far from contesting the significance of such collective wholes, considers it as one of its main tasks to describe and to analyze their becoming and their disappearing, their changing structures, and their operation. And it chooses the only method fitted to solve this problem satisfactorily.

實在論（realism）與唯名論，就中古煩瑣哲學所賦與它們的意義來講，兩者間的對立，也與我們所討論的問題無關。在人的行爲方面，社會的存在是眞實的，這是不容爭辯的。誰也不敢否認國、邦、城市、政黨、宗敎團體，是些決定人事歷程的事實因素。方法論的個人主義，決不爭論這些整體的意義，而是把這些整體的形成、消滅、變遷、和運用加以描述，加以分析。這種描述和分析是方法論的個人主義的主要任務；而這種工作要做得滿意，也只有個人主義的方法，才是適當的方法。

First we must realize that all actions are performed by individuals. A collective operates always through the intermediary of one or several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as the secondary source. It is the meaning which the acting individuals and all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that determines its character. It is the meaning that marks one action as the action of an individual and another action as the action of the state or of the municipality. The hangman, not the state, executes a criminal. It is the meaning of those concerned that discerns in the hangman's action an action of the state. A group of armed men occupies a place. It is the meaning of those concerned which imputes this occupation not to the officers and soldiers on the spot, but to their nation. If we scrutinize the meaning of the various actions performed by individuals we must necessarily learn everything about the actions of collective wholes. For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members' actions. The life of a collective is lived in the actions of the individuals constituting its body. There is no social collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some individuals. The reality of a social integer consists in its directing and releasing definite actions on the part of individuals. Thus the way to a cognition of collective wholes is through an analysis of the individuals' actions.

首先，我們必須了解：一切行爲都是由一些個人作出來的。一個集體之有所作爲，總是經由一個人或多個人作些有關於這個集體的行爲而表現出來的。一個行爲的性質，決定於行爲的個人和受此行爲影響的多個人對於這一行爲所賦與的意義。某一行爲之爲個人行爲，另一行爲之爲國的行爲或市的行爲，是靠這個意義來識別的。死刑的執行者是做劊子手的那個人，不是國。至於把劊子手的行爲認爲是國的行爲，那是一些有關的人們所賦與的意義。一羣武裝的人們占領一個地區，而不說這個占領是現場的那些軍官和士兵幹的，而歸咎於他們的國，這也是一些有關的人們所賦與的意義。如果我們仔細追究個人們各種行爲的意義，我們總會知道關於集體作爲的種種。因爲在各個成員的行爲以外，決沒有一個集體存在。集體生活是生活在組成這個集體的一些個人的行爲中。我們想像不出不靠某些個人的行爲而有所作爲的集體。所以要認識整個的集體，就得從個人行爲的分析著手。

As a thinking and acting being man emerges from his prehuman existence already as a social being. The evolution of reason, language, and cooperation is the outcome of the same process; they were inseparably and necessarily linked together. But this process took place in individuals. It consisted in changes in the behavior of individuals. There is no other substance in which it occurred than the individuals. There is no substratum of society other than the actions of individuals.

人，從他的「人前階段」（his prehuman existence）演化出來的時候，已經是一個社會的動物，會思想、會行爲。理知、語言、和合作，其發展是同一過程的結果：它們一定是相互關聯而不可分開的。但是，這個過程是發生於人與人之間。個人們的行爲之變動不居，就是這個過程的進展。除掉了一些個人，就沒有這樣的過程。除掉了個人們的—些行爲，就沒有任何社會基礎。

That there are nations, states, and churches, that there is social cooperation under the division of labor, becomes discernible only in the actions of certain individuals. Nobody ever perceived a nation without perceiving its members. In this sense one may say that a social collective comes into being through the actions of individuals. That does not mean that the individual is temporally antecedent. It merely means that definite actions of individuals constitute the collective.

國邦、民族、敎會，以及在分工下的社會合作，只有在某些個人的一些行爲當中才可看得出來。如果沒有可以看得見的國民，就沒有可以看得見的國。在這個意義下，我們就可以說一個集體是經由個人們的一些行爲而存在的。這並不意含在時間上個人是先於社會的，這只是意指個人們的一些確定行爲構成了這個集體。

There is no need to argue whether a collective is the sum resulting from the addition of its elements or more, whether it is a being suigeneris, and whether it is reasonable or not to speak of its will, plans, aims, and actions and to attribute to it a distinct "soul." Such pedantic talk is idle. A collective whole is a particular aspect of the actions of various individuals and as such a real thing determining the course of events.

我們無須乎辯論：一個集體是不是它的一些份子相加的總和，還是加上了更多的什麼，它是不是屬於它自身的一個特殊存在，以及說到它的意志、計畫、目的和行爲，乃至認爲它有一特殊「精神」，這是不是合理，像這種學究式的嘮叨，是無用的。一個集體只是許多個人的行爲之某一面，因而它可以決定某些情事的發展。

It is illusory to believe that it is possible to visualize collective wholes. They are never visible; their cognition is always the outcome of the understanding of the meaning which acting men attribute to their acts. We can see a crowd, i.e., a multitude of people. Whether this crowd is a mere gathering or a mass (in the sense in which this term is used in contemporary psychology) or an organized body or any other kind of social entity is a question which can only be answered by understanding the meaning which they themselves attach to their presence. And this meaning is always the meaning of individuals. Not our senses, but understanding, a mental process, makes us recognize social entities.

可是，如果你以爲集體是可以具體化的，那就是妄想。集體決不是看得見的；集體之被認知，總是由於了解那些行爲人賦與它的意義。我們會看見許多人在一塊。至於這許多人究是烏合之衆，還是一個組織的社會團體，這個問題的答覆，只有靠對這些人對於他們自己的到場所賦與的意義求了解。而這個意義總是個人們的意義。使我們認知一些社會團體之存在的，不是我們的感官，而是我們的了解；了解是一心理過程。

Those who want to start the study of human action from the collective units encounter an insurmountable obstacle in the fact that an individual at the same time can belong and---with the exception of the most primitive tribesmen---really belongs to various collective entities. The problems raised by the multiplicity of coexisting social units and their mutual antagonisms can be solved only by methodological individualism

凡是想從集體來著手研究個人行爲的人們，都要碰到一個不可克服的障礙。那就是，事實上每個人同時會屬於而且（除最原始部落的份予）確屬於幾個不同的集體。由於同時並有的社會團體的衆多，和它們之間的利害衝突而引起的一些問題，只有方法上的個人主義，[14]才能解決。

I and We

我與我們

The Ego is the unity of the acting being. It is unquestionably given and cannot be dissolved or conjured away by any reasoning or quibbling.

「我」（the ego），是行爲者的單元。它當然是旣定的，不能用任何推理或詭辯來分解或消除。

The We is always the result of a summing up which puts together two or more Egos. If somebody says I, no further questioning is necessary in order to establish the meaning. The same is valid with regard to the Thou and, provided the person in view is precisely indicated, with regard to the He. But if a man says We, further information is needed to denote who the Egos are who are comprised in this We. It is always single individuals who say We; even if they say it in chorus, it yet remains an utterance of single individuals.

「我們」（the we）則是把兩個以上的「我」加在一起的總稱。如果某人說到「我」，其意義已足夠明瞭，無須進一步追究。同樣地，關於「你」（the thou）或「他」（the he），如果所意指的人是確定的，也無須進一步追究。但是，如果一個人說到「我們」那就需要更多的信息才可知道這個「我們」包括著誰。說「我們」的，總是一個一個的人：即令他們齊聲說出，那仍然是些各個人的發音。

The We cannot act otherwise than each of them acting on his own behalf. They can either all act together in accord, or one of them may act for them all. In the latter case the cooperation of the others consists in their bringing about the situation which makes one man's action effective for them too. Only in this sense does the officer of a social entity act for the whole; the individual members of the collective body either cause or allow a single man's action to concern them too.

「我們」的行爲，不過是其中的每一個人爲著自己而行爲；除此之外，「我們」不能有所行爲。這些人或者全體一致行動，或者其中一人爲全體而行爲。在第二種情形下，其餘的一些人之合作在於他們所形成的一個情勢，這個情勢使一人的行爲對於他們也有效。只有在這一意義下，一個社會團體的職員是爲全體而行爲的；這個人的行爲之所以關係到集體的諸份子，或者是他們所使然，或者是他們所允許。

The endeavors of psychology to dissolve the Ego and to unmask it as an illusion are idle. The praxeological Ego is beyond any doubts. No matter what a man was and what he may become later, in the very act of choosing and acting he is an Ego.

心理學想把「我」拿來分解，並且想把「我」說成一個幻覺，這些努力是白費的。行爲學裡面的「我」決無疑問。不管是什麼人，也不管他會變成什麼人，只要他有選擇，有行動，他就是一個「我」。

From the pluralis logicus (and from the merely ceremonial pluralis majestaticus) we must distinguish the pluralis gloriosus. If a Canadian who never tried skating says, "We are the world's foremost ice hockey players," or if an Italian boor proudly contends, "We are the world's most eminent painters," nobody is fooled. But with reference to political and economic problems the pluralis gloriosus evolves into the pluralis imperialis and as such plays a significant role in paving the way for the acceptance of doctrines determining international economic policies.

我們必須把「邏輯的多數」（the pluralis logicus）與「光榮的多數」（the pluralis gloriosus）分辨淸楚。如果有一位從未滑過冰的加拿大人誇口說：「我們是世界上第一流的冰上曲棍球的打手」，或者有一位意大利的文盲驕傲地說：「我們是世界上最傑出的畫家」，決沒有人會被愚弄。但是，關涉到政治經濟問題的時候，「光榮的多數」就發展到邦國主權，因而在國際經濟政策的理論方面發生了重要作用。

----------

[14] See below, pp. 145-153, the critique of the collectivist theory of society.

[14] 見第二篇第八章第二節。

5. The Principle of Methodological Singularism

五、方法論的獨特性原理【方法論上的個體原則】

No less than from the action of an individual praxeology begins its investigations from the individual action. It does not deal in vague terms with human action in general, but with concrete action which a definite man has performed at a definite date and at a definite place. But, of course, it does not concern itself with the accidental and environmental features of this action and with what distinguishes it from all other actions, but only with what is necessary and universal in its performance.

行爲學從個人的行爲來開始它的硏究，也就是不外乎從個人的行爲來開始。【此處有誤。應爲：行為學必須從個別的行爲開始它的研究，正如它也要從個人的行爲開始。】它決不籠統含糊地研討一般人的行爲，而是硏討一個確定的人在一確定的時間，一確定的地點所作的具體的行爲。當然，它並不研討這個行爲的偶然的和局部的一些特點，也不研討這個行爲異於其他所有行爲的地方，它只硏討行爲之爲行爲而普遍必要的因素。

The philosophy of universalism has from time immemorial blocked

全體主義的哲學，自古以來就堵塞了理解行爲問題的途徑，而現代的全體主義者對於行爲問題簡直不得其門而入。全體主義、集體主義，以及概念的實在論（conceptual realism）只知道一些整體和一般概念。他們所涉想的是人類、民族、邦國、階級、善與惡、對與錯、以及慾望和財貨完整的類別。他們所問的，例如：何以「金」價比「鐵」價髙？所以他們除了一些矛盾謬論以外，永久得不到解決。最著名的例子，是那個使古典經濟學家的著作爲之減色的價値說。

Praxeology asks: What happens in acting? What does it mean to say that an individual then and there, today and here, at any time and at any place, acts? What results if he chooses one thing and rejects another?

行爲學是問：行爲中發生什麼？如果說「在那時那地、此時此地、或任何時地，有一個人在行爲」，這句話是什麼意思？如果他選擇某一事物，捨棄另一事物，其結果是什麼？

The act of choosing is always a decision among various opportunities open to the choosing individual. Man never chooses between virtue and vice, but only between two modes of action which we call from an adopted point of view virtuous or vicious. A man never chooses between "gold" and "iron" in general, but always only between a definite quantity of gold and a definite quantity of iron. Every single action is strictly limited in its immediate consequences. If we want to reach correct conclusions, we must first of all look at these limitations.

選擇行爲總是在當前幾種不同的情況中作一決定。人，決不會在善與惡之間選擇，他只在我們基於一個適用的觀點而名之曰善的或惡的兩種行爲方式之間，加以選擇而已。一個人決不會在「金」與「鐵」之間選擇，而只是在一定量的金與一定量的鐵之間選擇。每一個行爲，嚴格地被它的一些直接後果所限。如果我們想達到正確的結論，最要緊的是注意這些限制。

Human life is an unceasing sequence of single actions. But the single action is by no means isolated. It is a link in a chain of actions which together form an action on a higher level aiming at a more distant end. Every action has two aspects. It is on the one hand a partial action in the framework of a further-stretching action, the performance of a fraction of the aims set by a more far-reaching action. It is on the other hand itself a whole with regard to the actions aimed at by the performance of its own parts.

人生是由一個一個單獨的行爲不斷地連續起來。但是，各個行爲決不是孤立的。多個行爲連結起來成爲一個較高層次的行爲，以之達成一個較遠的目標。每個行爲都有兩方面，一方面是一個遠大行爲當中的部份行爲，是在完成那個遠大行爲所預期的目標之一部份。另一方面，就它自己這部份所要完成的行爲來講，它本身就是全部，而非部份。

It depends upon the scope of the project on which acting man is intent at the instant whether the more far-reaching action or a partial action directed to a more immediate end only is thrown into relief. There is no need for praxeology to raise questions of the type of those raised by Gestaltpsychologie. The road to the performance of great things must always lead through the performance of partial tasks. A cathedral is something other than a heap of stones joined together. But the only procedure for constructing a cathedral is to lay one stone upon another. For the architect the whole project is the main thing. For the mason it is the single wall, and for the bricklayer the single stones. What counts for praxeology is the fact that the

至於明白顯現出來的，是那個較遠大的行爲，還是只在於達成直接目標的一部份行爲，那就決定於行爲人當時所要完成的那個設計的範圍。行爲學不必提出形態心理學（Gestaltpsychologie）所提出的那樣的一些問題。大事業的完成，總得從部份工作做起。一個大敎堂當然不同於許多石塊連結在一起。但是，建築一個大敎堂的唯一程序，卻是一個石塊砌上一個石塊。就這位工程師講，他的全部計畫是這個大敎堂；就泥水匠講，是那一面牆；就砌石的工人講，只是那些石塊。完成大事業的唯一方法，但從基本上一步一步、一點一點地做起，這是行爲學所重視的一個事實。

6. The Individual and Changing Features of Human Action

六、人的行爲的個性和變動性

The content of human action, i.e., the ends aimed at and the means chosen and applied for the attainment of these ends, is determined by the personal qualities of every acting man. Individual man is the product of a long line of zoological evolution which has shaped his physiological inheritance. He is born the offspring and the heir of his ancestors, and the precipitate and sediment of all that his forefathers experienced are his biological patrimony. When he is born, he does not enter the world in general as such, but a definite environment. The innate and inherited biological qualities and all that life has worked upon him make a man what he is at any instant of his pilgrimage. They are his fate and destiny. His will is not "free" in the metaphysical sense of this term. It is determined by his background and all the influences to which he himself and his ancestors were exposed.

人的行爲的內容，也即，所要達成的一些目的以及爲達成這些目的而採用的一些手段，是決定於每一行爲人的品質。個人是動物學上一長串演化過程的產物，在這演化過程中，他承襲了生理上的遺傳。他，生而爲其祖先的後裔，祖先們所有的經驗，是他所繼承的生物學上的遺產。當他出生的時候，他並沒有進到這個廣大的世界，而只是投入一個有限的環境。先天遺傳的品質以及後天生活的影響，使一個人成爲他那樣而終生如此。這就是他的命運。就「自由」一詞在玄學上的意義來講，他的意志是不「自由」的。他的意志決定於他的背景以及他自己和其祖先們所受到的一切外來影饗。

Inheritance and environment direct a man's actions. They suggest to him both the ends and the means. He lives not simply as man in abstracto; he lives as a son of his family, his race, his people, and his age; as a citizen of his country; as a member of a definite social group; as a practitioner of a certain vocation; as a follower of definite religious, metaphysical, philosophical, and political ideas; as a partisan in many feuds and controversies. He does not himself create his ideas and standards of value; he borrows them from other people. His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him. Only very few men have the gift of thinking new and original ideas and of changing the traditional body of creeds and doctrines.

遺傳與環境，支配一個人的行爲。它們爲他提示目的與手段。他不單是作爲一個抽象觀念的人而生活；而是作爲他的家庭、他的種族、他的民族、以及他的同輩中的一個人而生活；作爲他的國邦之一公民；作爲某一社團的一個會員：作爲某一職業的一個從業員；作爲某一宗敎的、玄學的、哲學的、以及政治的思想的一個信仰者：作爲許多黨爭和論戰的一個參與者。他自己並不創造他的思想和價値標準，而是從別人方面借來。他的意理（ideology）是他的環境所敎的。只有極少數人具有創造力，能夠提出嶄新的、原始的思想，能夠向傳統的信念和敎條挑戰。

Common man does not speculate about the great problems. With regard to them he relies upon other people's authority, he behaves as "every decent fellow must behave," he is like a sheep in the herd. It is precisely this intellectual inertia that characterizes a man as a common man. Yet the common man does choose. He chooses to adopt traditional patterns or patterns adopted by other people because he is convinced that this procedure is best fitted to achieve his own welfare. And he is ready to change his ideology and consequently his mode of action whenever he becomes convinced that this would better serve his own interests.

平凡的人不會思考大的問題。關於大的問題，他只信賴他人的權威，他按照老好人的榜樣好好做人，他像羊羣中的一頭羊。正是這種心智上的惰性使一個人成爲平凡的人。但是平凡人也是要作選擇的。他選擇了傳統的模式或別人所用的模式，因爲他深信這樣做是最適於達成他自己的福利。而且他也會改變他的意理，因而改變他的行爲方式，當他深信這樣做會更有利於自己的時候。

Most of a man's daily behavior is simple routine. He performs

一個人的日常行爲，大部份是些簡單的慣行。他做這些事情，用不著特別注意。他之這樣做，是因爲他從小就被訓練得如此，因爲別人也同樣地做，因爲這樣做是他生活環境的習俗。他養成了這些習慣，他會自動地反應。但是，他之耽於這些習慣，只是因爲他喜歡這些習慣的效果。一旦他發現遵守老辦法會有妨害，他就會變更態度。一個在水源淸潔的區域生長出來的人，習慣於毫不注意地吃水、用水洗衣物、以及洗澡。可是當他到了一個水源被病菌汚染了的地方，他就得特別注意到從來沒有煩心的問題。他得時時刻刻提醒自己，不要像以前那樣毫不思索地吃水、用水，以免受害。一種行爲在正常情形下好像是自發自動的，這個事實並非表示這種行爲不是有意選擇的。耽於一種可能改變的慣行，也是一個行爲。

Praxeology is not concerned with the changing content of acting, but with its pure form and its categorial structure. The study of the accidental and environmental features of human action is the task of history.

行爲學不處理變動的行爲「內容」，它只處理它的純形式和它的範疇結構。關於人的行爲中的偶然性和環境特徵，則是歷史所要處理的問題。

7. The Scope and the Specific Method of History

七、歷史的範圍和其特殊方法

The study of all the data of experience concerning human action is the scope of history. The historian collects and critically sifts all available documents. On the ground of this evidence he approaches his genuine task.

歷史的範圍包括對於人的行爲經驗之全部資料的研究。歷史家捜集並批判地挑選所有可得到的文件。基於這樣的證據，歷史家進入他純正的本行工作。

It has been asserted that the task of history is to show how events actually happened, without imposing presuppositions and values (wertfrei, i.e., neutral with regard to all value judgments). The historian's report should be a faithful image of the past, an intellectual photograph, as it were, giving a complete and unbiased description of all facts. It should reproduce before our intellectual eye the past with all its features.

有人說，歷史的任務是要陳述一些事件實際上是如何發生的，不要有所假想，也不容有價値判斷（即，對於一切價值判断保持中立）。歷史家的報吿必須儼如一件逼眞的過去影像，一件心智的攝影，對於所有的事實給以完全的不偏的描述。它必須把過去再現於我們的眼前而毫不遺漏。

Now, a real reproduction of the past would require a duplication not humanly possible. History is not an intellectual reproduction, but a condensed representation of the past in conceptual terms. The historian does not simply let the events speak for themselves. He arranges them from the aspect of the ideas underlying the formation of the general notions he uses in their presentation. He does not report facts as they happened, but only relevant facts. He does not approach

過去的眞正再現，是人力所做不到的。歷史不是一件心智的複製品，而是把過去作一凝縮的概念化。歷史家並不是讓過去的事件自然明白，而是按照他已有的理念來安排這些事件。他所報吿的並不是所有發生過的事實，而只是一些相干的事實。他並不是不要前提假定而去接近一些文件，而是以他那個時代的全部科學知識作裝備的，也即以當代的邏輯、數學、行爲學、和自然科學作裝備的。

It is obvious that the historian must not be biased by any prejudices and party tenets. Those writers who consider historical events as an arsenal of weapons for the conduct of their party feuds are not historians but propagandists and apologists. They are not eager to acquire knowledge but to justify the program of their parties. They are fighting for the dogmas of a metaphysical, religious, national, political or social doctrine. They usurp the name of history for their writings as a blind in order to deceive the credulous. A historian must first of all aim at cognition. He must free himself from any partiality. He must in this sense be neutral with regard to any value judgments.

不待言，歷史家不可以存有任何偏見。凡是把歷史事實作爲論戰之武器的作者，不算是歷史家，而只是宣傳家和辯護者。他們並不熱心於求知識，而是爲他們黨派的主張作辯護。他們是在爲一個玄學的、宗敎的、民族的、政治的或社會的「獨格碼」（dogma）而鬥爭。他們竊取歷史的名，以掩飾他們的作品來欺人欺世。一位歷史家最要緊的是力求認知。他必須把自己保持得不偏不倚。在這個意義下，對任何價値判斷，他一定是中立的。

This postulate of Wertfreiheit can easily be satisfied in the field of the aprioristic science--logic, mathematics, and praxeology--and in the field of the experimental natural sciences. It is logically not difficult to draw a sharp line between a scientific, unbiased treatment of these disciplines and a treatment distorted by superstition, preconceived ideas, and passion. It is much more difficult to comply with the requirement of valuational neutrality in history. For the subject matter of history, the concrete accidental and environmental content of human action, is value judgments and their projection into the reality of change. At every step of his activities the historian is concerned with value judgments. The value judgments of the men whose actions he reports are the substratum of his investigations.

這種「不涉及價値」（Wertfreiheit）的主張，在演鐸的科學——邏輯、數學、和行爲學與實驗的自然科學的領域裡，容易實現。從論理上講，在「科學的、無偏見的論述」與「迷信，成見和情感所歪曲的論述」之間劃一明確的界線，並不困難。可是在歷史的論述中要遵守價値中立這個規律，卻困難得多。因爲歷史的題材，是人的行爲的內容，具體而偶然的、環境使然的，這都是些價値判斷和這些判斷投射在變動中的現實。歷史家在他活動中的每一步驟，都關係價値判斷。他所要陳述的是人們的行爲，而這些人的價値判斷就是他所要硏究的基本資料。

It has been asserted that the historian himself cannot avoid judgments of value. No historian---not even the naive chronicler or newspaper reporter---registers all facts as they happen. He must discriminate, he must select some events which he deems worthy of being registered and pass over in silence other events. This choice, it is said, implies in itself a value judgment. It is necessarily conditioned by the historian's world view and thus not impartial but an outcome of preconceived ideas. History can never be anything else than distortion of facts; it can never be really scientific, that is neutral with regard to values and intent only upon discovering truth.

有人說，歷史家自己免不了價値判斷。沒有一位歷史家會把一切事實描寫得像它們所發生的那樣，即令是天眞的新聞記者或編年史的編者，也做不到。他一定要辨明，他一定要選擇他所認爲値得記述的事件，而把其餘的略而不提。有人說，這番選擇的本身就是一種價値判斷。它必然要受限於這位歷史家的世界觀，因而不會公正不偏，而只是一些成見的結果。歷史除掉事實的歪曲以外，沒有其他的東西：它決不會是眞正科學的。眞正的科學，不涉及價値判斷而只求發現眞理。

There is, of course, no doubt that the discretion which the selection of facts places in the hands of the historian can be abused. It can and does happen that the historian's choice is guided by party bias. However, the problems involved are much more intricate than this popular doctrine would have us believe. Their solution must be sought on

當然，由於事實的選擇，歷史家所享有的自由裁量，無疑地會被濫用。歷史家的選擇囿於黨派偏見，這種事情會發生、而且確已發生過。但是，這裡所牽涉的一些問題，比上述流行的說法叫我們相信的，要複雜得多，對於這些問題的解決，必須從歷史方法的更徹底研究來著手。

In dealing with a historical problem the historian makes use of all the knowledge provided by logic, mathematics, the natural sciences, and especially by praxeology. However, the mental tools of these nonhistorical disciplines do not suffice for his task. They are indispensable auxiliaries for him, but in themselves they do not make it possible to answer those questions he has to deal with.

在處理歷史問題的時候，歷史家要利用邏輯、數學、自然科學，尤其是行爲學所提供的一切知識。但是，這些非歷史學科的心智工具，對於他的工作，並不是足夠的。它們是些不可少的輔助物，但它們本身並不能解答他所要處理的一些問題。

The course of history is determined by the actions of individuals and by the effects of these actions. The actions are determined by the value judgments of the acting individuals, i.e., the ends which they were eager to attain, and by the means which they applied for the attainment of these ends. The choice of the means is an outcome of the whole body of technological knowledge of the acting individuals. It is in many instances possible to appreciate the effects of the means applied from the point of view of praxeology or of the natural sciences. But there remain a great many things for the elucidation of which no such help is available.

歷史過程，決定於個人們的行爲和這些行爲的後果。行爲則決定於行爲的人們之價値判斷，也即，他們所急於想達到的目的，以及他們爲達到目的而採用的手段。手段的選擇，是行爲的個人們所具有的，技術知識的應用。在許多情形下，從行爲學或自然科學的觀點對那些手段所引起的結果加以評價，那是可能的。但是，還有許許多多的事情有待於說明，而沒有現成的東西可用來幫助。

The specific task of history for which it uses a specific method is the study of these value judgments and of the effects of the actions as far as they cannot be analyzed by the teachings of all other branches of knowledge. The historian's genuine problem is always to interpret things as they happened. But he cannot solve this problem on the ground of the theorems provided by all other sciences alone. There always remains at the bottom of each of his problems something which resists analysis at the hand of these teachings of other sciences. It is these individual and unique characteristics of each event which are studied by the understanding.

歷史的特殊工作，是用一特殊方法，來硏究那些不能靠所有其他學科來分析的價値判斷和行爲後果。歷史家的純正問題在於把事情解釋得恰如其份。但是，他不能僅靠所有其他學科所提供的定理來解決這個問題。在他所要處理的每一問題的底層，總有些東西不是其他科學所可分析的。那就是每一事件所具有的一些個別的和獨特的性質，而這些特性要靠「了解」（the understanding）來硏究。

The uniqueness or individuality which remains at the bottom of every historical fact, when all the means for its interpretation provided by logic, mathematics, praxeology, and the natural sciences have been exhausted, is an ultimate datum. But whereas the natural sciences cannot say anything about their ultimate data than that they are such, history can try to make its ultimate data intelligible. Although it is impossible to reduce them to their causes---they would not be ultimate data if such a reduction were possible---the historian can understand them because he is himself a human being. In the philosophy of Bergson this understanding is called an intuition, viz., "la sympathie par laquelle on se transporte a l'interieur d'un objet pour co?ncider avec ce qu'il a d'unique et par consequent d'inexprimable." [15] German epistemology calls this act das spezifische Verstehen der

留在每一歷史事實底層的那個獨特性或個性，到了邏輯、數學、行爲學、以及自然科學所提供的解釋方法統統用盡了的時候，就成爲一個極據。但是，一些自然科學對於它們的極據，除掉作爲最後資料以外，不能再說什麼，歷史卻可以使它的一些極據成爲可理解的。儘管不可能把這些極處分解出它們的原因——如果可能，它們就不是最後資料了——歷史家卻會了解它們，因爲他自己是一個人。在柏格遜（Bergson）的哲學中，這種了解叫做直覺（intuition），也就是「爲著鑑定某一事物的獨特性，因而是不可形容的，一個人所藉以進入這一事物內部的那種感應」[15]。德國的認識論把這叫做「精神科學的特殊了解」（das spezifische Verstehen der Geisteswissenschaften）或簡單地叫做「了解」（Verstehen）。這是所有歷史家和所有其他的人在評論往事和預測未來的時候所常用的方法。「了解」的發現和其界限，是現代認識論最重要的貢獻之一。當然，它旣不是爲一門新的科學（現在還不存在而有待建立的）的一個設計，也不是爲任何現存的科學推薦一個新的處理法。

The understanding must not be confused with approval, be it only conditional and circumstantial. The historian, the ethnologist, and the psychologist sometimes register actions which are for their feelings simply repulsive and disgusting; they understand them only as actions, i.e., in establishing the underlying aims and the technological and praxeological methods applied for their execution. To understand an individual case does not mean to justify or to excuse it.

「了解」決不可與「承認」混淆，即令那只是有限制的和偶然的。歷史家、人種學家、和心理學家，有時記述一些他們所厭惡的行爲；他們只是把它們當作行爲來了解，也即，從其所含的目的與所用的手段來了解。對於某一行爲求了解，並不就是贊成這一行爲，也不是爲這一行爲辯護。

Neither must understanding be confused with the act of aesthetic enjoyment of a phenomenon. Empathy (Einfühlung) and understanding are two radically different attitudes. It is a different thing, on the one hand, to understand a work of art historically, to determine its place, its meaning, and its importance in the flux of events, and, on the other hand, to appreciate it emotionally as a work of art. One can look at a cathedral with the eyes of a historian. But one can look at the same cathedral either as an enthusiastic admirer or as an unaffected and indifferent sightseer. The same individuals are capable of both modes of reaction, of the aesthetic appreciation and of the scientific grasp of understanding.

「了解」也不可以與美的享受相混淆。投情（empathy）與了解是兩種完全不同的態度。從歷史的觀點來了解一件藝術品，斷定它的地位、它的意義，以及在世事滄桑中它的重要性，與從情感上把它當作一件藝術品來欣賞，完全是兩回事。一個人可以用歷史家的眼光來看一座敎堂。但是一個人旣可以熱情的欣賞者的態度，也可以無動於衷的觀光客的態度來看同一座敎堂。同一個人的反應方式，旣可以是美的欣賞，也可以是科學的理解。

The understanding establishes the fact that an individual or a group of individuals have engaged in a definite action emanating from definite value judgments and choices and aiming at definite ends, and that they have applied for the attainment of these ends definite means suggested by definite technological, therapeutical, and praxeological doctrines. It furthermore tries to appreciate the effects and the intensity of the effects brought about by an action; it tries to assign to every action its relevance, i.e., its bearing upon the course of events.

「了解」確認了這個事實：一個人或一羣人出發於一些明確的價値判斷和選擇，從事於一明確的行爲，以達成明確的目的，而且他們爲達成目的，採用了一些明確的手段，這些手段是由一些技術的、治療學的、和行爲學的敎義所提示的。「了解」還進一步對於一個行爲所引起的後果以及這些後果的強度試圖評估；它也試圖找出毎一行爲在其過程中與之相關的因素。

The scope of understanding is the mental grasp of phenomena which cannot be totally elucidated by logic, mathematics, praxeology, and the natural sciences to the extent that they cannot be cleared up by all these sciences. It must never contradict the teachings of these other branches of knowledge.[16] The real corporeal existence of the

凡是邏輯、數學、行爲學、和自然科學所不能完全說明的現象，就其不能說明的部份求了解，這就是了解的範圍。了解不能與這些部門的知識不相容[16]。魔鬼現形於人世間，見於無數的歷史文獻的記載，這些文獻關於其他事項的記載都是相當可靠的。許多法庭在合法的程序中，根據見證人的證詞和被吿人的口供，曾確定有魔鬼姦淫女巫的事實。但是，如果有一位歷史家要想堅持魔鬼並非神經失常者的幻覺，而係眞正存在、且干預人世間的事情，這種想法，不能憑「了解」而認爲是對的。

While this is generally admitted with regard to the natural sciences, there are some historians who adopt another attitude with regard to economic theory. They try to oppose to the theorems of economics an appeal to documents allegedly proving things incompatible with these theorems. They do not realize that complex phenomena can neither prove nor disprove any theorem and therefore cannot bear witness against any statement of a theory. Economic history is possible only because there is an economic theory capable of throwing light upon economic actions. If there were no economic theory, reports concerning economic facts would be nothing more than a collection of unconnected data open to any arbitrary interpretation.

關於自然科學，這固然是公認的，可是關於經濟理論卻有些歷史家採取不同的態度。他們認爲，某些文獻證明了一些事情是與經濟定理不相容的，然後再用這些文獻來反對經濟定理。他們沒有了解到，一些複雜現象旣不能證明、也不能反證任何理由，因而不能用來作爲反對任何理論的證據。經濟史之所以可能成爲經濟史，只是因爲有經濟理論可以說明經濟行爲。如果沒有經濟理論，那麼，關於經濟事實的一些報吿，只不過是堆積一些不相關聯的資料而可以任意解釋。

----------

[15] Henri Bergson, La Penseé et le mouvant (4th ed. Paris, 1934), p. 205.

[15] Henri Bergson, La Penseé et le mouvant (4th ed. Paris, 1934), p. 205.

[16] Cf. Ch. V. Langlois and Ch. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, trans. by G.G. Berry (London, 1925), pp. 205-208.

[16] 參考Ch. V. Langlois and Ch. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, trans. by G.G. Berry (London, 1925), pp. 205-208.

8. Conception and Understanding

八、概念化與了解

The task of the sciences of human action is the comprehension of the meaning and relevance of human action. They apply for this purpose two different epistemological procedures: conception and understanding. Conception is the mental tool of praxeology; understanding is the specific mental tool of history.

人的行爲科學，是要對人的行爲之意義和關聯求理解。爲這個目的，認識論上有兩個不同的程序：概念化與了解。概念化是行爲學的心智工具；了解【一般譯爲理解】是歷史所獨有的心智工具。

The cognition of praxeology is conceptual cognition. It refers to what is necessary in human action. It is cognition of universals and categories.

行爲學的認知是概念的認知。它涉及在人的行爲中什麼是必要的。它是屬於全稱命題的認知，屬於範疇的認知。

The cognition of history refers to what is unique and individual in each event or class of events. It analyzes first each object of its studies with the aid of the mental tools provided by all other sciences. Having achieved this preliminary work, it faces its own specific problem; the elucidation of the unique and individual features of the case by means of the understanding.

歷史的認知則涉及每一事件或每類事件中什麼是獨一無二的。首先，它要藉助於所有其他科學所提供的心智工具，來分析它所要研究的每個對象。完成了這個準備工作以後，它就面臨它本份內的特殊問題，即：憑了解來說明事件的獨特性。

As was mentioned above, it has been asserted that history can never be scientific because historical understanding depends on the historian's subjective value judgments. Understanding, it is maintained, is only a euphemistic term for arbitrariness. The writings of historians are always one--sided and partial; they do not report the facts; they distort them.

前面曾提過，有人說，歷史決不會是科學的，因爲歷史的了解是憑歷史家主觀的價値判斷。他們說，了解不過是武斷的一個委婉說法。歷史家的記述總是偏於一面的、不公平的：他們並不報吿事實：他們歪曲事實。

It is, of course, a fact that we have historical books written from various points of view. There are histories of the Reformation written from the Catholic point of view and others written from the Protestant point of view. There are "proletarian" histories and "bourgeois" histories, Tory historians and Whig historians; every nation, party, and linguistic group has its own historians and its own ideas about history.

我們有許多從各種觀點寫成的歷史書籍，這自然是個事實。關於宗敎改革的歷史，有些是從舊敎的觀點寫的，有些是從新敎的觀點寫的。還有「普羅的」歷史和「布爾喬亞的」歷史，保守黨的歷史家和自由黨的歷史家：每個國邦，每個政黨，每個語系集團，都有它自己的歷史家和它自己的歷史觀念。

But the problem which these differences of interpretation offer must not be confused with the intentional distortion of facts by propagandists and apologists parading as historians. Those facts which can be established in an unquestionable way on the ground of the source material available must be established as the preliminary work of the historian. This is not a field for understanding. It is a task to be accomplished by the employment of the tools provided by all nonhistorical sciences. The phenomena are gathered by cautious critical observation of the records available. As far as the theories of the nonhistorical sciences on which the historian grounds his critical examination of the sources are reasonably reliable and certain, there cannot be any arbitrary disagreement with regard to the establishment of the phenomena as such. What a historian asserts is either correct or contrary to fact, is either proved or disproved by the documents available, or vague because the sources do not provide us with sufficient information. The experts may disagree, but only on the ground of a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available. The discussion does not allow any arbitrary statements.

但是，由於這些解釋的差異而引起的問題，與那些自稱歷史家的宣傳家和辯護者的故意歪曲事實，不可相提並論。那些基於可用的資料以無可懐疑的方法而確定的事實，只能當作歷史家的準備工作而確定。這不是靠了解的地方。這是要用歷史以外的所有學科所提供的工具來完成的工作。事象的收集要小心求證的態度去觀察那些可用的記錄，只要歷史家用以批判資料的那些非歷史的所有理論是合理可靠的，那麼，在這個範圍以內，關於事象的這樣確定，就不會有何任意的爭執發生。歷史家所斷言的，或者對、或者與事實相反、或者被有效的文獻證實、或者被它們證妄、或者因爲所用的資料不夠報導性而曖昧含糊。專家們會有不同的意見，但意見的不同，只在於證據的如何合理解釋這方面。討論的內容不容許有何任意的陳述。

However, the historians very often do not agree with regard to the teachings of the nonhistorical sciences. Then, of course, disagreement with regard to the critical examination of the records and to the conclusions to be drawn from them can ensue. An unbridgeable conflict arises. But its cause is not an arbitrariness with regard to the concrete historical phenomenon. It stems from an undecided issue referring to the nonhistorical sciences.

可是，歷史家們封於一些非歷史的科學指導，也常常意見不一致。因此，關於記錄的研考以及硏考以後的結論，也就會意見紛歧。於是，就有一個不可調協的衝突發生。但是，這個衝突的原因不是關於具體的歷史現象的武斷，而是來自非歷史的科學裡面一個未決定的問題。

An ancient Chinese historian could report that the emperor's sin brought about a catastrophic drought and that rain fell again when the ruler had atoned for his sin. No modern historian would accept such a report. The underlying meteorological doctrine is contrary to uncontested fundamentals of contemporary natural science. But no such unanimity exists in regard to many theological, biological, and economic issues. Accordingly historians disagree.

古代中國的歷史家常會報導皇帝犯罪帶來旱災，皇帝悔過，才會下雨。現代的歷史家都不會接受這樣的報導。因爲它是與現代自然科學基本信念相衝突的。但是，在許多神學的、生物學的、和經濟學的問題上面，卻缺乏這樣的一致。因而歷史家的意見就紛歧了。

A supporter of the racial doctrine of Nordic--Aryanism will disregard as fabulous and simply unbelievable any report concerning intellectual and moral achievements of "inferior" races. He will treat

凡有種族優越感的人，一聽到關於其他「劣等」種族智能或道德方面的造詣，就會視爲荒唐無稽之談。他對於這種報導所持的態度，正如同現代歷史家對於上述古代中國歷史家的報導一樣。關於基督敎歷史上的任何現象，不會有一致的看法，因爲有的人把《福音書》奉爲聖經，有的人認爲它們都是人寫的。天主敎的歷史家與新敎徒的歷史家，對於許多事實問題不能同意，因爲是從不同的神學觀念出發。一位重商主義者或新的重商主義者與一位經濟學家，必然是意見相左。一篇關於一九一四～一九二三德國貨幣史的說明，當然要受作者的貨幣理論的限制。法國大革命的事實，由君權神授說的信仰者來寫，與由別人來寫，就完全不同。

The historians disagree on such issues not in their capacity as historians, but in their application of the nonhistorical sciences to the subject matter of history. They disagree as agnostic doctors disagree in regard to the miracles of Lourdes with the members of the medical committee for the collection of evidence concerning these miracles. Only those who believe that facts write their own story into the tabula rasa of the human mind blame the historians for such differences of opinion. They fail to realize that history can never be studied without presuppositions, and that dissension with regard to the presuppositions, i.e., the whole content of the nonhistorical branches of knowledge, must determine the establishment of historical facts.

歷史家們在這樣的一些問題上之意見不同，並不是以歷史家的資格而引起的，而是由於他們把非歷史的知識應用到歷史主題上而引起的。他們之間的意見不一致，正如同「不可知論者」的醫生們對於Lourdes[17]的奇蹟所持的見解，與那個爲搜集奇蹟的證據而成立的醫療委員會的會員們所持的見解之不一致。只有那些相信「事實把它自己的故事寫在白紙似的人心中」的人們，才會責怪歷史家這樣的意見差異。他們不知道歷史的研究決不能免於預設，關於預設（也即非歷史的全部知識）的意見不同，必然地決定了歷史事實的確立。

These presuppositions also determine the historian's decision concerning the choice of facts to be mentioned and those to be omitted as irrelevant. In searching for the causes of a cow's not giving milk a modern veterinarian will disregard entirely all reports concerning a witch's evil eye; his view would have been different three hundred years ago. In the same way the historian selects from the indefinite multitude of events that preceded the fact he is dealing with those which could have contributed to its emergence---or have delayed it ---and neglects those which, according to his grasp of the nonhistorical sciences, could not have influenced it.

這些預設也決定歷史家對於歷史事實的取捨。一位現代的獸醫在研究母牛不授乳的原因時，將會完全不理睬那些關於巫婆兇眼的報導；他的見解與三百年前的當然不同。歷史家的選擇事實，也是如此；他從那無數的事實中，挑選出他認爲與他所要處理的問題有關的，而捨棄他所認爲無關的。他的這種「認爲」，是基於他所具有的非歷史的知識。

Changes in the teachings of the nonhistorical sciences consequently must involve a rewriting of history. Every generation must treat anew the same historical problems because they appear to it in a different light. The theological world view of older times led to a treatment of history other than the theorems of modern natural science. Subjective economics produces historical works very different

非歷史的科學知識如果有所改變，其結果必然要使歷史重寫。對於同樣的歷史問題，每個世代都會重新處理，因爲每個世代有其不同的看法。古代的神學世界觀導向一種與現代自然科學的定理不相容的歷史論述。基於主觀經濟學而寫出的歷史著作與那些基於重商主義而寫出的迥然不同。就歷史著作中，由於這些差異而發生的分歧來講，這些分歧並不是所謂歷史研究中的曖昧和不確定的結果。相反地，這些分歧是由於在一些其他科學的領域內缺乏一致的意見。

To avoid any possible misunderstanding it is expedient to emphasize some further points. The divergences referred to above must not be confused:

爲避免可能的誤解，最好是再強調幾點。以上講到的那些分歧，決不可和下面幾種情形相混淆：

1. With purposeful ill--intentioned distortion of facts.

(1) 惡意的曲解事實。

2. With attempts to justify or to condemn any actions from a legal or moral point of view.

(2) 從法律或道德的觀點，想對任何行爲給以辯護或加以譴責。

3. With the merely incidental insertion of remarks expressing value judgments in a strictly objective representation of the state of affairs. A treatise on bacteriology does not lose its objectivity if the author, accepting the human viewpoint, considers the preservation of human life as an ultimate end and, applying this standard, labels effective methods of fighting germs good and fruitless methods bad. A germ writing such a book would reverse these judgments, but the material content of its book would not differ from that of the human bacteriologist. In the same way a European historian dealing with the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century may speak of "favorable" and "unfavorable" events because he takes the standpoint of the European defenders of Western civilization. But this approval of one party's standard of value need not necessarily interfere with the material content of his study. It may---from the viewpoint of contemporary knowledge---be absolutely objective. A Mongolian historian could endorse it completely but for such casual remarks.

(3) 從事態作客觀的陳述中，偶爾夾入價値判斷的字句。一位細菌學家，如果他基於人的觀點，認爲人的生命之保持是一最後目的，而把這個標準應用到他所寫的一本論著，因而把有效的抗菌法叫做好的方法，無效的叫做壞的。這並不失掉他這篇論文的客觀性。如果寫這本書是一個「細菌」而不是「人」，它將會把這種判斷顚倒過來。但是，這本書的實質內容與細菌學家所寫的不會不同。同樣地，一位歐洲的歷史家寫到十三世紀蒙古人侵略的時候，因爲他基於西方文明的保護者立場，他會講到一些「有利的」和「不利的」事件。但是，這種偏於一方面的價値標準並不一定妨害他所硏究的實質內容。它可能——從當代知識的觀點來看——是絕對客觀的。一位蒙古的歷史家，除對於那些偶有的詞句以外，可能完全同意。

4. With a representation of one party's action in diplomatic or military antagonisms. The clash of conflicting groups can be dealt with from the point of view of the ideas, motives, and aims which impelled either side's acts. For a full comprehension of what happened it is necessary to take account of what was done on both sides. The outcome was the result of the interaction of both parties. But in order to understand their actions the historian must try to see things as they appeared to the acting men at the critical time, not only as we wee them now from the point of view of our present-day knowledge. A history of Lincoln's policy in the weeks and months preceding the outbreak of the Civil War is of course incomplete. But no historical study is complete. Regardless of whether the historian sympathizes with the Unionists or with the Confederates or whether he is

(4) 在外交的或軍事的敵對中，某一方面的說詞。在羣體之間的衝突中，任何一方都是被某些觀念、動機和目的促動的，而這個衝突，可從這方面或那方面的觀點來看。爲要充份了解已經發生的事情，那就必須考察雙方面所做過的事情。其結局決定於雙方行爲的相互激盪。但是，爲要了解他們的一些，于爲，歷史家也得盡可能地就當時的情況、就當時的當事人著想，而不可僅就我們現在知識的觀點來看往事。在南北戰爭爆發前幾個星期和幾個月以內的林肯政策史，當然是不完全的。但是，歷史的研究都沒有完全的。不管這位歷史家是同情聯邦主義者、或同情南方的同盟主義者，或者是絕對中立的，他總可以用個客觀的方法來寫一八六一年春季林肯所採的政策。這樣一個研究是爲解答南北戰爭如何爆發的這個較廣泛的問題所必須的準備。

Now finally, having settled these problems, it is possible to attack the genuine question: Is there any subjective element in historical understanding, and, if so, in what manner does it determine the result of historical studies?

最後，這些問題已經解決了，才可觸及眞正的問題：在歷史的了解中，是否有何客觀的成份，如果有的話，這個成份又如何決定一些歷史研究的成果呢？

As far as the task of understanding is to establish the facts that people were motivated by definite value

judgments and aimed at definite means, there cannot be any disagreement among true historians, i.e., people intent upon cognition of past events. There may be uncertainty because of the insufficient information provided by the sources available. But this has nothing to do with understanding. It refers to the preliminary work to be achieved by the historian.

所謂了解，也就是要承認「人們的行爲是被某些確定的價値判斷所激動，而要達成某些確定的目標」這些事實。就這一點講，在眞正的歷史家當中不會有何異議。（這裡所説的眞正的歷史家，是指那些恝對往事求得認知的人們）由於可用的資料所提供的消息不夠多，可能有些不確定，可是這無害於了解。了解是指，這個歷史家所要完成的準備工作。

But understanding has a second task to fulfill. It must appraise the effects and the intensity of the effects brought about by an action; it must deal with the relevance of each motive and each action.

但是，了解還有第二個工作要完成。那就是，對於一個行爲所引起的一些後果，以及對這些後果的強度要加以評價；也要對每一個動機和每一種行爲的相干（relevance）加以說明。

Here we are faced with one of the main differences between physics and chemistry on the one hand and the sciences of human action on the other. In the realm of physical and chemical events there exist (or, at least, it is generally assumed that there exist) constant relations between magnitudes, and man is capable of discovering these constants with a reasonable degree of precision by means of laboratory experiments. No such constant relations exist in the field of human action outside of physical and chemical technology and therapeutics. For some time economists believed that they had discovered such a constant relation in the effects of changes in the quantity of money upon commodity prices. It was asserted that a rise or fall in the quantity of money in circulation must result in proportional changes of commodity prices. Modern economics has clearly and irrefutably exposed the fallaciousness of this statement.[17] Those economists who want to substitute "quantitative economics" for what they call "qualitative economics" are utterly mistaken. There are, in the field of economics, no constant relations, and consequently no measurement is possible. If a statistician determines that a rise of 10 per cent in the supply of potatoes in Atlantis at a definite time was followed by a fall of 8 per cent in the price, he does not establish anything about what happened or may happen with a change in the supply of potatoes in another country or at another time. He has not "measured"

講到這裡，我們就接觸到物理、化學與人的行爲科學之間的一些重要差異之一。在物理學和化學所處理的那些事件當中，存在著一些不變的量的關係（至少是通常假設有這種關係存在），我們人能夠藉助於實驗室的試驗相當正確地發現這些不變的關係。但是，在出乎物理學的和化學與治療學範圍以外的人的行爲方面，卻沒有這樣不變的關係存在。有個時期，經濟學家們以爲他們已經發現貨幣量的變動對於物價的影響有這樣的不變關係，他們說貨幣流通量的增加或減少必定引起物價的比例變動。現代經濟學對於這種說法的謬誤已經明白而正確地指出[18]。那些想把「量的經濟學」來代替他們所謂的「質的經濟學」的經濟學者完全錯了。在經濟學領域內沒有不變的關係，因而沒有衡量的可能。如果統計家斷言，在某一時期Atlantis的馬鈴薯供給量增加了百分之十，它的價格就接著跌落了百分之八，這位統計家並沒有對另一個地區或另一個時期的馬鈴薯供給量變動所引起或將引起的結果有何陳述。他未曾「衡量」馬鈴薯的需求彈性。他所講的只是一件特殊的、個別的歷史事實。人們關於馬鈴薯和任何其他貨物的行爲總是變動無常的。凡是有理知的人，誰也不會懷疑這一點。不同的人對於相同的事物每毎有不同的評價，而同一個人在不同的情況下對於同一事物的評價也每每發生變動。[19]

Outside of the field of economic history nobody ever ventured to maintain that constant relations prevail in human history. It is a fact that in the armed conflicts fought in the past between Europeans and backward peoples of other races, one European soldier was usually a match for several native fighters. But nobody was ever foolish enough to "measure" the magnitude of European superiority.

在經濟史這方面以外，沒有人敢主張在人的歷史當中有些不變的關係。過去，在歐洲人與落後民族的武力戰鬥中，一個歐洲兵可以敵得過幾個土著兵，這是一個事實。但是，決沒有人愚蠢到要「衡量」歐洲人的優越「量」。

The impracticability of measurement is not due to the lack of technical methods for the establishment of measure. It is due to the absence of constant relations. If it were only caused by technical insufficiency, at least an approximate estimation would be possible in some cases. But the main fact is that there are no constant relations. Economics is not, as ignorant positivists repeat again and again, backward because it is not "quantitative." It is not quantitative and does not measure because there are no constants. Statistical figures referring to economic events are historical data. They tell us what happened in a nonrepeatable historical case. Physical events can be interpreted on the ground of our knowledge concerning constant relations established by experiments. Historical events are not open to such an interpretation.

這種衡量之不可能，並非由於技術上欠缺衡量的方法，而是由於沒有不變的關係可以衡量。假若只由於技術上的欠缺，至少在某些情形下還可做一近似的估計。但是，主要的問題是，沒有不變的關係存在。一些關於經濟事象的統計數字，都是歷史資料。這些數字只吿訴我們，在不會重演的歷史事件中發生過的情形。物理學的一些事象可以靠我們在試驗中得到的知識（關於不變的關係的知識）來解釋。歷史事件不宜這樣解釋。

The historian can enumerate all the factors which cooperated in bringing about a known effect and all the factors which worked against them and may have resulted in delaying and mitigating the final outcome. But he cannot coordinate, except by understanding, the various causative factors in a quantitative way to the effects produced. He cannot, except by understanding, assign to each of n factors its role in producing the effect P. Understanding is in the realm of history the equivalent, as it were, of quantitative analysis and measurement.

歷史家可以把那些合力促成某一已知的後果的一切因素列舉出來，也可以把那些具有相反作用的一切因素列舉出來。但是，他不能用計量的方法一一指出這些因素對於這個後果所發生的作用各有多大，除非是靠了解。在歷史這個領域中，「了解」相當於物理學的定量分析。

Technology can tell us how thick a steel plate must be in order not to be pierced by a bullet fired at a distance of 300 yards from a Winchester rifle. It can thus answer the question why a man who took shelter behind a steel plate of a known thickness was hurt or not hurt by a shot fired. History is at a loss to explain with the same assurance why there was a rise in the price of milk of 10 per cent or

工藝學會吿訴我們：爲要使Winchester式的機關鎗從三百碼的距離射來不致射穿一面鋼板，這面鋼板應該有多厚。因而工藝學會解答一個躱在一面鋼板後面的人（鋼板的厚度已經知道）何以被一射擊殺傷或未受傷。但是，歷史對於下面這類的問題卻無法給以確切的解答：爲什麼牛乳的價格上漲了百分之十，爲什麼一九四四年的大選，羅斯福總統擊敗了杜威州長，爲什麼法國在一八七〇～一九四〇年間是共和政體。像這樣的一些問題，除靠了解以外，不容任何其他的方法來處理。

To every historical factor understanding tries to assign its relevance. In the exercise of understanding there is no room for arbitrariness and capriciousness. The freedom of the historian is limited by his endeavor to provide a satisfactory explanation of reality. His guiding star must be the search for truth. But there necessarily enters into understanding an element of subjectivity. The understanding of the historian is always tinged with the marks of his personality. It reflects the mind of its author.

了解對於每個歷史因素都會予以關聯。在了解的運作中，沒有武斷和任意可以存在的餘地。歷史家的自由，受了他自己爲對眞實有滿意的解釋而努力的限制。指導他的方針是在尋求眞相。但是，在了解中必然滲入主觀的成份。歷史家的了解總要染上他個性的色彩。也即反映他的心靈。

The a priori sciences--logic, mathematics, and praxeology--aim at a knowledge unconditionally valid for all beings endowed with the logical structure of the human mind. The natural sciences aim at a cognition valid for all those beings which are not only endowed with the faculty of human reason but with human senses. The uniformity of human logic and sensation bestows upon these branches of knowledge the character of universal validity. Such at least is the principle guiding the study of the physicists. Only in recent years have they begun to see the limits of their endeavors and, abandoning the excessive pretensions of older physicist, discovered the "uncertainty principle." They realize today that there are unobservables whose unobservability is a matter of epistemological principle. [19]

―些演鐸的科學——邏輯、數學，與行爲學——在於探求一種無條件地普遍有效的知識，對於所有具邏輯結構之心靈的人們，都是有效的。自然科學所尋求的認知，對於那些不僅具有人的理知，而且具有人的感官的人們，統統有效。人心的邏輯結構和人的感覺之一致性，使得這些部門的知識具有普遍有效的特徵。那至少是些物理學家作硏究時的指導原則。只是，近年來他們已開始看出，他們的努力有了缺陷，放棄老輩物理學家的過份自負，發現了「不確定原則」。現在他們認識到，有些視察不到的東西，它們之不可視察，是一個認識論上的原則問題[20]。

Historical understanding can never produce results which must be accepted by all men. Two historians who fully agree with regard to the teachings of the nonhistorical sciences and with regard to the establishment of the facts as far as they can be established without recourse to the understanding of relevance, may disagree in their understanding of the relevance of these facts. They may fully agree in establishing that the factors a, b, and c worked together in producing the effect P; nonetheless they can widely disagree with regard to the relevance of the respective contributions of a, b, and c to the final outcome. As far as understanding aims at assigning its relevance to each factor, it is open to the influence of subjective judgments. Of course, these are not judgments of value, they do not express preferences of the historian. They are judgments of relevance.

歷史的了解所得到的結論，決不是所有的人一定承認的。兩位歷史家，對於非歷史的科學所敎的東西完全同意，對於那種在不靠相關的了解而可認定的範圍以內所作的事實認定，也完全同意，但他們對於這些事實之間的相干性，可能有不同的了解。他們可能完全相同地認定a、b和c這些因素合力促成一個後果p；但是，對於a、b和c的個別貢獻各有多大，就會不能同意了。關於這方面的了解，就得受主觀判斷的影響。自然，這些判斷不是價値判斷，不是表示歷史家的偏好。這些判斷是相干判斷（judgments of relevance）。[21]

Historians may disagree for various reasons. They may hold different views with regard to the teachings of the nonhistorical sciences; they may base their reasoning on a more or less complete familiarity with the records; they may differ in the understanding of the motives and aims of the acting men and of the means applied by them. All these differences are open to a settlement by "objective" reasoning; it is possible to reach a universal agreement with regard to them. But as far as historians disagree with regard to judgments of relevance it is impossible to find a solution which all sane men must accept.

歷史家們由於各種原因會意見紛歧。他們對於非歷史的科學所敎的東西，會有不同的意見；他們對於那些作爲推理根據的記錄，有的精通，有的不很精通：他們對於一些行爲人的動機和目的，以及所用的方法，也會有不同的了解。所有這些紛歧都可用「客觀」的推理來解決：也就是說，在這些方面得到一致的同意，是可能的。但是，歷史家們在相干判斷方面所不同意的，卻無法尋求一個解決而爲所有頭腦淸楚的人所接受。

The intellectual methods of science do not differ in kind from those applied by the common man in his daily mundane reasoning. The scientist uses the same tools which the layman uses; he merely uses them more skillfully and cautiously. Understanding is not a privilege of the historians. It is everybody's business. In observing the conditions of his environment everybody is a historian. Everybody uses understanding in dealing with the uncertainty of future events to which he must adjust his own actions. The distinctive reasoning of the speculator is an understanding of the relevance of the various factors determining future events. And---let us emphasize it even at this early point of our investigations---action necessarily always aims at future and therefore uncertain conditions and thus is always speculation. Acting man looks, as it were, with the eyes of a historian into the future.

科學方面用心的方法與普通人在世俗生活中的用心，並非種類的不同。科學家所用的思想工具與普通人的一樣；他只是用得更技巧、更謹愼而已。了解並不是歷史家所獨有的，每個人都會了解。每個人在觀察他周遭的環境時，他就是一個歷史家。每個人都是用了解來對付未來的不確定，他必須爲未來而調整他自己的行爲。投機者的推理，也即對於那些決定未來情事的各種因素的一番了解。這裡，讓我提前強調一點，即：行爲的目的必然是在將來，因而是在不確定下的情事，所以行爲總是投機（speculation）。行爲人好像是用歷史家的眼光來看未來。

Natural history and Human History

自然史和人類史

Cosmogony, geology, and the history of biological changes are historical disciplines as they deal with unique events of the past. However, they operate exclusively with the epistemological methods of the natural sciences and have no need for understanding. They must sometimes take recourse to only approximate estimates of magnitudes. But such estimates are not judgments of relevance. They are a less perfect method of determining quantitative relations than is "exact" measurement. They must not be confused with the state of affairs in the field of human action which is characterized by the absence of constant relations.

宇宙起源論、地質學、以及生物演變史，都是屬於歷史方面的學科，它們所處理的是一些特殊的往事。可是，它們所用的方法只是自然科學的一些方法，無須乎了解。它們有時要依賴一些近似的計量。但是，這樣的估計並不同於相干的判斷。它們對於量的關係所作的估計，遠不及「精確」的衡量。我們不要把它們與人的行爲領域所發生的事情相混淆，後者的特徵在於沒有不變的關係。

If we speak of history, what we have in mind is only the history of human action, whose specific mental tool is understanding.

如果我們說到歷史，我們心目中就只有人的行爲史，而它的特殊心智工具就是了解。

The assertion that modern natural science owes all its achievements to the experimental method is sometimes assailed by referring to astronomy. Now, modern astronomy is essentially an application of the physical laws, experimentally discovered on the earth, to the celestial bodies. In earlier days astronomy was mainly based on the assumption that the movements of the celestial bodies would not

「現代自然科學的一切成就，都得力於試驗方法」這種說法，有時可用天文學爲例加以駁斥。現代的天文學，實質上是把物理學的一些法則應用到諸天體，而物理學的那些法則是在地球上靠試驗發現的。可是，早期的天文學大都基於一個假定，即假定諸天體的運行並不改變它們的路線。哥白尼（Copernicus）和柯卜勒（Kepler）只是猜測地球繞太陽的路線是怎樣一個形狀。由於圓形被認爲是「最完美的」曲線，所以，在哥白尼的學說中，就以圓形作爲地球運行的軌跡。後來，在柯卜勒的學說中，以楕圓形代替圓形，同樣也是猜測。一直等到有了牛頓的一些發現以後，天文學才成爲一門自然科學一嚴格意義的「科學」。

-----------

[17] 譯者註：Lourdes是法國西南部Pyrenees山脚的一個村子，天主敎的朝聖地。據傳說，1858年聖母瑪利亞曾在這裡顯現。這裡有大理石的巖穴，其中泉水以治病的奇蹟聞名。因此這裡有一常設的醫療機構，從事這些奇蹟的搜集與檢討。

[17] See below, pp. 412-414.

[18] 見第十七章第四節。

[18] Cf. below, p. 351.

[19] 參考第十六章第五節。

[19] Cf. A. Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science (New York, 1939), pp. 28-48.

[20] 參閱A. Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science (New York, 1939), pp. 28-48.

[20] As this is not a dissertation on general epistemology, but the indispensiable foundation of a treatise of economics, there is no need to stress the analogies between the understanding of historical relevance and the tasks to be accomplished by a diagnosing physician. The epistemology of biology is outside of the scope of our inquiries.

[21] 因爲這不是關於一般認識論的論著，而是一部經濟學論著所不可缺少的基礎，所以這裡無須強調歷史關聯的了解與一位醫生所要完成的工作之間的類似處。生物學的認識論不在我們研究的範圍以內。

9. On Ideal Types

九、論觀念的類型

History deals with unique and unrepeatable events, with the irreversible flux of human affairs. A historical event cannot be described without reference to the persons involved and to the place and date of its occurrence. As far as a happening can be narrated without such a reference, it is not a historical event but a fact of the natural sciences. The report that Professor X on February 20, 1945, performed a certain experiment in his laboratory is an account of a historical event. The physicist believes that he is right in abstracting from the person of the experimenter and the date and place of the experiment. He relates only those circumstances which, in his opinion, are relevant for the production of the result achieved and, when repeated, will produce the same result again. He transforms the historical event into a fact of the empirical natural sciences. He disregards the active interference of the experimenter and tries to imagine him as an indifferent observer and relater of unadulterated reality. It is not the task of praxeology to deal with the epistemological issues of this philosophy.

歷史所處理的，是一些特殊的而不會重演的事件，是個一去不復返的人事流（the irreversible flux of human affairs）。一個歷史事件的描述，不能不涉及有關的一些人，和其發生的地點與時間。如果可以不涉及這些而被描述的話，那就不是歷史事件，而是自然科學裡面的一個事實。X敎授在一九四五年二月二十日，在他的實驗室所完成的一篇試驗報吿，是一個歷史事件的敍述。這位物理學家在他的報吿中不提到做試驗的人和時間地點，他認爲這是對的。他只提到與這個試驗的結果有關的—些情況（當然是他自己認爲有關的），等到再在同樣的情況下重做的時候，也可得到同樣的結果。這樣，他是把一個歷史事件轉變成自然科學的一個事實。他把試驗者的一些動作置之不理，並且把他想像成一個漠不關心的旁觀者和陳述者，只是消極地觀察和陳述純粹的眞實。對於這個哲學的認識論問題之處理，不是行爲學的任務。物理學家們終於在自己慣於藉以自傲的信心中發現了瑕疵。

Although unique and unrepeatable, historical events have one common feature: they are human action. History comprehends them as human actions; it conceives their meaning by the instrumentality of praxeological cognition and understands their meaning in looking at their individual and unique features. What counts for history is always the meaning of the men concerned: the meaning that they attach to the state of affairs they want to alter, the meaning they attach to their actions, and the meaning they attach to the effects produced by the actions.

一切歷史事件，儘管都是獨特的、不可重演的，但有一個共同的特徵：它們都是人的行爲。歷史是把它們當作人的行爲來了解；歷史利用行爲學的知識這一工具來想像它們的意義，同時也由觀察它們的個別性和獨特性，來了解它們的意義。値得寫成歷史的，總是一些有關的人所賦與的意義：他們對於他們所想變動的那些事情賦與的意義，他們對於他們自己的行動賦與的意義，以及他們對於他們的行動所引起的後果賦與的意義。

The aspect from which history arranges and assorts the infinite multiplicity of events is their meaning. The only principle which it applies for the systemization of its objects---men, ideas, institutions, social entities, and artifacts---is meaning affinity. According to meaning affinity it arranges the elements into ideal types.

歷史對於無窮而複雜的事件之安排與分類，是按照它們的意義來作的。歷史要把它所處理的那些對象一人物、觀念、法制、社會組織、以及人爲的一切——處理得有條不紊，應遵守的唯一原則就是意義的類同（meaning affinity）。按照意義的類同，歷史才可把那些繁雜的要素納之於一些觀念的類型（ideal types）【一般譯爲理想類型】。

Ideal types are specific notions employed in historical research and in the representation of its results. They are concepts of understanding. As such they are entirely different from praxeological categories

觀念的類型是些特殊概念，用之於歷史的硏究和研究結果的陳述中。它們是一些了解的概念。因此，它們完全不同於行爲學的一些範疇和概念，也不同於自然科學的一些概念。一個觀念的類型並不是一個等級的概念，因爲它的記述不是品題等級的高低。觀念的類型，無法加以界說；它的特徵，必須靠列舉的方式來表達，那些特徵的呈現，在具體的事例中，大體上可決定我們是否屬於這個觀念的類型。一個觀念的類型的諸特徵，不必要在任何一個事例中全部呈現出來，這是很特別的。至於某些特徵的缺少，是否會妨礙把一個具體的模範納之於這個觀念的類型，那就決定於來自了解的相干判斷。觀念類型的本身是了解——對於行爲人的動機、觀念、目的，以及所採的手段之了了解——的結果。

An ideal type has nothing at all to do with statistical means and averages. Most of the characteristics concerned are not open to a numerical determination, and for this reason alone they could not enter into a calculation of averages. But the main reason is to be seen in something else. Statistical averages denote the behavior of the members of a class or a type, already constituted by means of a definition or characterization referring to other marks, with regard to features not referred to in the definition or characterization. The membership of the class or type must be known before the statistician can start investigating special features and use the result of this investigation for the establishment of an average. We can establish the average age of the United States Senators or we can reckon averages concerning the behavior of an age class of the population with regard to a special problem. But it is logically impossible to make the membership of a class or type depend upon an average.

一個觀念的類型與統計學的「中位數」和「平均數」毫不相干。它的特徵大部份與數字無關，僅憑這一點就不容作平均數的計算。但是，主要的理由還可從別的方面看出來。統計學的平均數是概述一個類（這個類型是已經藉助於界説或特徵的記述而確立的）的份子的行爲，而這種概述所涉及的不是界說以內的特徵。在統計學者開始觀察某些特徵，而以觀察的結果來確定一個平均數以前，這個類的份子必須是已知的。我們可確定美國參議員的平均年齢，我們也可以從某一年齢的人羣對於某一特殊問題的行爲反應，求得一個平均數。但是，如果要使一個類的份子的資格決定於一個平均數，那是不合邏輯的。

No historical problem can be treated without the aid of ideal types. Even when the historian deals with an individual person or with a single event, he cannot avoid referring to ideal types. If he speaks of Napoleon, he must refer to such ideal types as commander, dictator, revolutionary leader; and if he deals with the French Revolution he must refer to ideal types such as revolution, disintegration of an established regime, anarchy. It may be that the reference to an ideal type consists merely in rejecting its applicability to the case in question. But all historical events are described and interpreted by means of ideal types. The layman too, in dealing with events of the past or of the future, must always make use of ideal types and unwittingly always does so.

歷史的問題，沒有不藉助於觀念的類型而可以處理的。即令歷史家在處理一個單獨的人，或一件單獨的事時，他也免不了一些觀念的類型。如果他說到拿破崙，他必然涉及總司令、獨裁者、革命領袖這些觀念的類型；如果他處理法國大革命這個事件，他必然涉及革命、原來的政體崩潰、無政府狀態這些觀念的類型。涉及一個觀念的類型，其作用可能不是要把這個類型應用在當時的事件。但是，所有的歷史事件都是用觀念的類型來描述和解釋的。普通人應付過去和未來的事情，也總是利用一些觀念的類型，而且總是不知不覺地這樣作。

Whether or not the employment of a definite ideal type is expedient

利用一個確定的觀念類型是否有利於把握諸現象，這只能取決於了解。【此處似有漏譯：并非理想類型决定理解模式；而是理解模式需要相應的理想類型的建構和應用。】

The ideal types are constructed with the use of ideas and concepts developed by all nonhistorical branches of knowledge. Every cognition of history is, of course, conditioned by the findings of the other sciences, depends upon them, and must never contradict them. But historical knowledge has another subject matter and another method than these other sciences, and they in turn have no use for understanding. Thus the ideal types must not be confused with concepts of the nonhistorical sciences. This is valid also with regard to the praxeological categories and concepts. They provide, to be sure, the indispensable mental tools for the study of history. However, they do not refer to the understanding of the unique and individual events which are the subject matter of history. An ideal type can therefore never be a simple adoption of a praxeological concept.

觀念的類型是用一切非歷史的知識部門所發展出來的一些觀念和概念構成的。每一項歷史的認知，自然是受限於其他科學的發現，同時也依賴這些發現，而且也決不可與這些發現相衝突。但是，歷史知識還有一個這些其他科學以外的題材和方法，而它們也無須乎了解。因此，觀念的類型決不可與那些非歷史的科學概念相混淆。這句話也適用於行爲學的一些範疇和概念。它們確實提供了一些研究歷史所必須的心智工具。可是，它們並不借助於獨特的、個別的事件之了解，而獨特的、個別的事件是歷史的題材。所以，一個觀念的類型決不會是行爲學的一個概念之應用。

It happens in many instances that a term used by praxeology to signify a praxeological concept serves to signify an ideal type for the historian. Then the historian uses one word for the expression of two different things. He applies the term sometimes to signify its praxeological connotation, but more often to signify an ideal type. In the latter case the historian attaches to the word a meaning different from its praxeological meaning; he transforms it by transferring it to a different field of inquiry. The economic concept "entrepreneur" belongs to a stratum other than the ideal type "entrepreneur" as used by economic history and descriptive economics. (On a third stratum lies the legal term "entrepreneur.") The economic term "entrepreneur" is a precisely defined concept which in the framework of a theory of market economy signifies a clearly integrated function.[21] The historical ideal type "entrepreneur" does not include the same members. Nobody in using it thinks of shoe-shine boys, cab drivers who own their cars, small businessmen, and small farmers. What economics establishes with regard to entrepreneurs is rigidly valid for all members of the class without any regard to temporal and geographical conditions and to the various branches of business. What economic history establishes for its ideal types can differ according to the particular circumstances of various ages, countries, branches of business, and many other conditions. History has little use for a general ideal type of entrepreneur. It is more concerned with such types as: the American entrepreneur of the time of Jefferson, German

在許多事例中發生這種情事：行爲學用來表達行爲學的一個概念的名詞，也可爲歷史家表達一個觀念的類型。於是，歷史家使用「一個」字來表達兩個不同的東西。他有時用這個名詞來表達行爲學的概念，但是，更多的時候是用來表達一個觀念的類型。在後一情形下，這位歷史家把一個不同於行爲學上的意義之意義，加在這個字上面；他這樣作，是把這個字變換到一個不同的研究部門。兩個名詞表達不同的事物；它們是同音的。「企業家」（entrepreneur）這個字的經濟概念是屬於一個社會階層：經濟史和記述經濟學（descriptive economics）所用的「企業家」這個名詞，是表達一個觀念的類型，兩者的意義截然不同。經濟學裡面「企業家」一詞是一確定的概念，在巿場經濟的理論架構中，這個名詞是指一項統合的功能（integrated function）。歷史的觀念類型的「企業家」所包括的份子與經濟學裡面的「企業家」不同。使用「企業家」這個名詞的時候，誰也不會想到擦皮鞋的孩子、出租汽車的司機、小商人、和小農。經濟學所指的企業家，包括這個階層的全部份子，至於時間、地域和行業的部門則一概不管。在經濟史裡面，企業家一詞所代表的一些觀念類型，就會隨年齡、地區、行業、和許多其他特殊情況之不同而有差別。一般性的觀念類型對於歷史沒有什麼用處。歷史所更要用的類型是像下面這樣的：傑佛遜時代的美國企業家、威廉二世時代的德國重工業、第一次世界大戰前幾十年的新英格蘭的紡織工業等等。

Whether the use of a definite ideal type is to be recommended or not depends entirely on the mode of understanding. lt is quite common nowadays to employ two ideal types: Left-Wing Parties (Progressives) and Right_Wing Parties (Fascists). The former includes the Western democracies, some Latin American dictatorships, and Russian Bolshevism; the latter Italian Fascism and German Nazism. This typification is the outcome of a definite mode of understanding. Another mode would contrast Democracy and Dictatorship. Then Russian Bolshevism, Italian Fascism, and German Nazism belong to the ideal type of dictatorial government, and the Western systems to the ideal type of democratic government.

一個確定的觀念類型，應不應該推薦利用，這就要完全取決於如何了解。目前最風行的是利用兩個觀念類型：左翼政黨（進步黨人）和右翼政黨（法西斯蒂）。前者包括西方的民主黨、拉丁美洲某些獨裁政權、俄國的布爾雪維克；後者包括意大利的法西斯和德國的納粹。這種分類產生於一個確定的了解方式。另一個了解方式就是把民主與獨裁視作正反的對立。於是俄國的布爾雪維克、意大利的法西斯、和德國的納粹屬於獨裁政治這個觀念類型，西方的制度則屬於民主政治這個觀念類型。

It was a fundamental mistake of the Historical School of Wirt-schaftliche Staatswissenshaften in Germany and of Institutionalism in America to interpret economics as the characterization of the behavior of an ideal type, the homo oeconomicus. According to this doctrine traditional or orthodox economics does not deal with the behavior of man as he really is and acts, but with a fictitious or hypothetical image. It pictures a being driven exclusively by "economic" motives, i.e., solely by the intention of making the greatest possible material or monetary profit. Such a being, say these critics, does not have and never did have a counterpart in reality; it is a phantom of a spurious armchair philosophy. No man is exclusively motivated by the desire to become as rich as possible; many are not at all influenced by this mean craving. It is vain to refer to such an illusory homunculus in dealing with life and history.

把經濟學解釋爲一個觀念類型——「經濟人」的性格記述，這是德國歷史學派和美國制度學派的一個基本錯誤。按照這種解釋，傳統或正統的經濟學所處理的，不是人之所以爲人的一些行爲，而是一個虛擬的或假設的影像。它描繪出這樣一個東西，完全被「經濟的」動機驅使，也即一心一意謀取最大可能的物質或金錢利益。像這樣的一個東西，在現實界是沒有的，而且也從來沒有過；這是冒牌的哲學家幻想出來的一個怪物。世界上決沒有一個人只是追求財富而不計其他；事實上有許多人對於財富滿不在乎。在處理人的生活和歷史的時候，用這樣一個怪物作代表，這毫無用處。

Even if this really were the meaning of classical economics, the homo oeconomicus would certainly not be an ideal type. The ideal type is not an embodiment of one side or aspect of man's various aims and desires. It is always the representation of complex phenomena of reality, either of men, of institutions, or of ideologies.

【此處似有漏譯：即使古典經濟學真的這麽認爲，「經濟人」無疑仍然不是一個理想類型。理想類型不是人的若干目標和欲望的某個側面或方面的體現。理想類型所代表的，始終是現實世界的複雜現象，不管是人，還是制度，或是意識形態。】

The classical economist sought to explain the formation of prices. They were fully aware of the fact that prices are not a product of the activities of a special group of people, but the result of an interplay of all members of the market society. This was the meaning of their statement that demand and supply determine the formation of prices. However, the classical economists failed in their endeavors to provide a satisfactory theory of value. They were at a loss to find a solution for the apparent paradox of value. They were puzzled by

古典的經濟學家對於物質的形成，力求解釋。他們充份知道：物價不是某一羣人的活動結果，而是市場社會全部份子相互作用而形成的。但是，古典經濟學家卻沒有提出一個叫人滿意的價値理論。他們對於一個表面上似乎矛盾的價値現象茫然不知如何尋求解答。儘管鐵比金更「有用」，但金的價値比鐵的「更高」，他們被這個矛盾迷惑住了。因而他們不能建立一個價値通論，不能從市場交換現象和生產現象追溯到這些現象的最後根源——消費者的行爲。這個缺陷使他們不得不放棄他們的更大的計畫——建立一個人類行爲通論的計畫。他們不得不自滿於「只解釋生意人的行爲，而不回溯到最後的決定因素——每個人的選擇」這樣的一個理論。他們只研討生意人賤買貴賣的行爲，而把消費者置之不顧。後來的追隨者不僅不知道是古典經濟學的缺陷，反而把這個缺陷說成是前輩的精心結構，而且在方法上是必要的。他們說，這是經濟學家們故意這樣設計，使他們自己的研究限之於人的行爲之一方面，即「經濟的」一面。他們故意用一個虛擬的「人」，只受「經濟」動機的驅使而不計其他，儘管這些經濟學家們充分知道，眞正的人是受許多「非經濟」動機驅使的。這些解釋者，其中有一派人還這樣說，對於非經濟的動機之處理，不是經濟學的任務，而是其他知識部門的任務。另一派人雖然承認處理非經濟的動機，以及這些動機對於物價形成的影響，也是經濟的任務，可是他們認爲這得留給後代人去作。在本書的後面將要說明，把人的行爲分做「經濟的」動機和「非經濟的」動機，這是站不住的[23]。在這裡，只要指出所謂人的行爲之「經濟的」方面這個說法，完全誤述了古典經濟學家的敎義。他們決不是像這些人所說的有意如何如何。他們是想理解實在的物價如何形成，而不是追求在虛幻的假設下虛擬的物價如何決定。他們所想解釋而且確已解釋的物價，是實際市場的物價，儘管他們沒有把物價追溯到消費者的選擇。他們所說的需求和供給，是實實在在的因素，而這些因素是被那些促動人們買或賣的一切動機所決定的。他們的理論之錯誤，是他們沒有把需求追溯到消費者的選擇；他們缺乏一個叫人滿意的需求理論。至於說需求完全決定於「經濟的」動機，那不是他們的想法。由於他們的理論局限於生意人的行爲，所以他們沒有處理最後消費者的動機。可是，他們的價格理論是要對眞實的價格求得解釋。

Modern subjective economics starts with the solution of the apparent paradox of value. It neither limits its theorems to the actions of businessmen alone nor deals with a fictitious homo oeconomicus. It treats the inexorable categories of everybody's action. Its theorems concerning commodity prices, wage rates, and interest rates refer to all these phenomena without any regard to the motives causing people to buy or to sell or to abstain from buying or selling. It is time to discard entirely any reference to the abortive attempt to justify the shortcoming of older economists through the appeal to the homo oeconomicus phantom.

現代的主觀經濟學一開始就從事於解決價値論表面的矛盾。它旣不把它的理論局限於生意人的行爲，也不處理虛擬的經濟人。它是研討那些不易變動的每個人的行爲元範。它的那些定律——關於物價的、工資率的，以及利率的一涉及這些所有的現象，而不管那些促使人們買賣或不買賣的一些動機。到了現在，我們再也不要經由「經濟人」這個幻影爲古典經濟家的缺陷文過飾非。這種作爲是枉費心機的。

-------------

[21] See below, pp. 251-255.

[22] 見第十四章第七節。

[22] See below, pp. 232-234 and 239-244.

[23] 見第十四章第一節及第三節。

10. The Procedure of Economics

十、經濟學的程序

The scope of praxeology is the explication of the category of human action. All that is needed for the deduction of all praxeological theorems is knowledge of the essence of human action. It is a knowledge that is our own because we are men; no being of human descent that pathological conditions have not reduced to a merely vegetative existence lacks it. No special experience is needed in order to comprehend these theorems, and no experience, however rich, could disclose them to a being who did not know a priori what human action is. The only way to a cognition of these theorems is logical analysis of our inherent knowledge of the category of action. We must bethink ourselves and reflect upon the structure of human action. Like logic and mathematics, praxeological knowledge is in us; it does not come from without.

行爲學的範圍，限之於對人的行爲元範之說明。關於行爲學一切定理的推演所需要的，只是關於人的行爲之本質的知識。這種知識是我們自己的知識，因爲我們是人：人，除非他因病理的關係，變成了植物性的存在，決不會缺少這種知識。爲要了解這些定理，無須特別經驗；對於一個不會先驗地知道什麼是人的行爲的「人」，經驗也不能叫他了解這些定理，不管經驗如何豐富。認知這些定理的唯一途徑，是我們對於行爲元範的固有知識之邏輯分析。我們必須反省，並想到人的行爲之結構。行爲學的知識，同邏輯和數學一樣，是我們所固有的，而不是外來的。

All the concepts and theorems of praxeology are implied in the category of human action. The first task is to extract and to deduce them, to expound their implications and to define the universal conditions of acting as such. Having shown what conditions are required by any action, one must go further and define---of course, in a categorial and formal sense---the less general conditions required for special modes of acting. It would be possible to deal with this second task by delineating all thinkable conditions and deducing from them all inferences logically permissible. Such an all-comprehensive system would provide a theory referring not only to human action as it is under the conditions and circumstances given in the real world in

行爲學的一切概念和定理，都蘊含在人的行爲的元範中。我們的第一個任務，是要把它們抽繹出來而加以推演，說明它們的含義，並界定行爲之所以爲行爲的一般條件。在說明了任何行爲所必具備的一些條件以後，還得進一步來界定特殊行爲所必須具備的較不普遍的條件。列舉所有可想到的條件，並從這些條件推演出合乎邏輯的一切結論，藉以完成第二個任務，這當然是可能的。這樣一個概括的系統所提供的理論，不僅涉及實際世界中的人的行爲。它也同樣適用於在想像世界中所假設的行爲。

But the end of science is to know reality. It is not mental gymnastics or a logical pastime. Therefore praxeology restricts its inquiries to the study of acting under those conditions and presuppositions which are given in reality. It studies acting under unrealized and unrealizable conditions only from two points of view. It deals with states of affairs which, although not real in the present and past world, could possibly become real at some future date. And it examines unreal and unrealizable conditions if such an inquiry is needed for a satisfactory grasp of what is going on under the conditions present in reality.

但是，科學的目的是要知道眞實。科學不是精神锻鍊或邏輯的遊戲。所以行爲學的硏究限之於在現實界的那些條件和前提下的行爲。它雖也研究在未實現或不能實現的條件下之行爲，但這種研究只是從兩個觀點出發。它研究那些在現在和過去雖不是實在的，而將來可能成爲實在的事象。第二、爲著充份了解在現實界的事態如何發展，如果有必要去硏究未實現的和不能實現的條件時，也就作這樣的研究。

However, this reference to experience does not impair the aprioristic character of praxeology and economics. Experience merely directs our curiosity toward certain problems and diverts it from other problems. It tells us what we should explore, but it does not tell us how we could proceed in our search for knowledge. Moreover, it is not experience but thinking alone which teaches us that, and in what instances, it is necessary to investigate unrealizable hypothetical conditions in order to conceive what is going on in the real world.

但是，這樣講到經驗，並不妨害行爲學和經濟學的先驗性。經驗只是指使我們的好奇心從某些問題轉向到另一些問題上面去。經驗吿訴我們應該探究什麼，但它並不吿訴我們如何可以進行求知的研究。而且，在某些情況下，如要想像現實界所將發生的事情，必得研究那些不合實況的假設。吿訴我們這一點的，不是經驗，而只是思想。

The disutility of labor is not of a categorial and aprioristic character. We can without contradiction think of a world in which labor does not cause uneasiness, and we can depict the state of affairs prevailing in such a world.[23] But the real world is conditioned by the disutility of labor. Only theorems based on the assumption that labor is a source of uneasiness are applicable for the comprehension of what is going on in this world.

勞動的負效用，不是屬於元範的和先驗的。我們可以毫無矛盾地想到一個不以勞動爲苦的世界，而且我們也可描繪出在這樣的世界裡面的一些事象[24]。但是，實際的世界是受勞動負效用之影響的。可以用來了解這個世界事象的定理，只是那些基於「勞動爲不愉快的根源」這個假定上的定理。

Experience teaches that there is disutility of labor. But it does not teach it directly. There is no phenomenon that introduces itself as disutility of labor. There are only data of experience which are interpreted, on the ground of aprioristic knowledge, to mean that men consider leisure---i.e., the absence of labor---other things being equal, as a more desirable condition than the expenditure of labor. We see that men renounce advantages which they could get by working more---that is, that they are ready to make sacrifices for the attainment of leisure. We infer from this fact that leisure is valued as a good and that labor is regarded as a burden. But for previous praxeological insight, we would never be in a position to reach this conclusion.

經驗使我們知道勞動的負效用。但是經驗並不直接敎我們。我們所接觸的任何現象，決沒有會自我介紹爲勞動負效用的。只有若干經驗的資料，基於先驗的知識，被解釋爲：人們總是把閒暇看作比勞動更愜意的。我們知道：從較多的勞動所得到的利益是人們所不大願意的，換句話說，這時他們寧可犧牲這個利益來換取閒暇。從這個事實，我們就可以得到一個結論：閒暇被看作一個利益，勞動被視爲一個負擔。假若沒有以前的行爲學的透視【洞見】，我們決不會得到這個結論。

A theory of indirect exchange and all further theories built upon it ---as the theory of circulation credit---are applicable only to the interpretation of events within a world in which indirect exchange

間接交換的理論以及基於這個理論的一切理論——例如流通信用理論——只能用來解釋實行間接交換的社會裡面的事象。在一個直接交換的世界，那僅是心智方面的遊戲。在這樣的世界裡面的經濟學家（如果這樣的世界裡也有經濟學的話）不會想到間接交換、貨幣等等問題，可是在我們的實際世界中，這是經濟學的主要部份。

The fact that praxeology, in fixing its eye on the comprehension of reality, concentrates upon the investigation of those problems which are useful for this, does not alter the aprioristic character of its reasoning. But it marks the way in which economics, up to now the only elaborated part of praxeology, presents the results of its endeavors.

以了解眞實情況爲目的的行爲學，著重於硏究有益於這個目的的一些問題，這個事實並不影響行爲學理論的先驗性。但是，它指出了一個途徑，經濟學循著這個途徑已表示了它所獲致的成果。到現在，經濟學是行爲學當中唯一的部份佳構【中文難解】。

Economics does not follow the procedure of logic and mathematics. It does not present an integrated system of pure aprioristic ratiocination severed from any reference to reality. In introducing assumptions into its reasoning, it satisfies itself that the treatment of the assumptions concerned can render useful services for the comprehension of reality. It does not strictly separate in its treatises and monographs pure science from the application of its theorems to the solution of concrete historical and political problems. It adopts for the organized presentation of its results a form in which aprioristic theory and the interpretation of historical phenomena are intertwined.

經濟學不是按照邏輯和數學的程序而展開的。它不是一個脫離現實的純粹演繹推理的完整體系。在把一些假設引進它的推理的時候，它只求由這些假設而得到的論斷能夠有益於眞實情形的了解。經濟學的論著並不把純理論嚴格地分離於對歷史的政治的具體問題的研討。爲著有系統地呈現其硏究的結果，經濟學的結構是先驗的理論以及對歷史現象的解釋交織起來的。

It is obvious that this mode of procedure is enjoined upon economics by the very nature and essence of its subject matter. It has given proof of its expediency. However, one must not overlook the fact that the manipulation of this singular and logically somewhat strange procedure requires caution and subtlety, and that uncritical and superficial minds have again and again been led astray by careless confusion of the two epistemologically different methods implied.

很明顯的，經濟學的這種程式，是它的題材的那種性質所使然的。這種程式已經證明是方便的。但是，我們不能忽視一個事實，即：這種獨特的而且在邏輯上有點奇怪的程式之操作，必須特別小心謹愼，膚淺而沒有鑑定力的人，曾經在這方面一再地被引入歧途。

There are no such things as a historical method of economics or a discipline of institutional economics. There is economics and there is economic history. The two must never be confused. All theorems of economics are necessarily valid in every instance in which all the assumptions presupposed are given. Of course, they have no practical significance in situations where these conditions are not present. The theorems referring to indirect exchange are not applicable to conditions where there is no indirect exchange. But this does not impair their validity.[24]

所謂經濟學的歷史方法或制度經濟學，根本沒有這樣東西【根本沒有所謂的歷史方法或制度經濟學這樣的東西】。我們有經濟學，也有經濟史。這兩者決不可混淆。經濟學的一切定理是普遍性的，凡在合乎其假設條件的場合都是有效的。自然，在那些條件不具備的情形下，經濟學的定理就沒有實際意義。例如關於間接交換的定律不適用於沒有間接交換的地方。但這並不妨害經濟學定理的有效性。[25]

The issue has been obfuscated by the endeavors of governments

這個問題，由於政府和有力的壓力團體之輕視經濟學和損毀經濟學人而弄得叫人迷惑。君主們和民主的大衆都醉心於權力。他們雖不得不勉強承認他們是受自然法支配的，但是，他們卻拒絕經濟法則這個觀念。他們不是最高的立法者嗎？他們不是有權力擊潰每個反對者嗎？沒有一個軍閥肯承認，除掉更厲害的武力給他的限制以外，還有其他的限制。奴隸性根的人總會找些合適的說詞以自慰。有些人把他們的一些斷章取義的推測叫做「歷史的經濟學」。事實上，經濟史是一部政策失敗的記錄，政策之所以失敗，因爲它們違反了經濟法則。

It is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him.

經濟學對於有權力的人的妄自尊大是一個挑戰。如果你沒有注意到這個事實的話，你就不可能懂得經濟思想史。一位經濟學家決不是獨裁者和政治煽動家所喜歡的人物。對於他們而言，經濟學家總是損害的製造者，他們在內心裡愈是相信經濟學家的反對是有根據的，他們就愈恨他。

In the face of all this frenzied agitation it is expedient to establish the fact that the starting point of all praxeological and economic reasoning, the category of human action, is proof against any criticisms and objections. No appeal to any historical or empirical considerations whatever can discover any fault in the proposition that men purposefully aim at certain chosen ends. No talk about irrationality, the unfathomable depths of the human soul, the spontaneity of the phenomena of life, automatisms, reflexes, and tropisms, can invalidate the statement that man makes use of his reason for the realization of wishes and desires. From the unshakable foundation of the category of human action praxeology and economics proceed step by step by means of discursive reasoning. Precisely defining assumptions and conditions, they construct a system of concepts and draw all the inferences implied by logically unassailable ratiocination. With regard to the results thus obtained only two attitudes are possible; either one can unmask logical errors in the chain of the deductions which produced these results, or one must acknowledge their correctness and validity.

面對所有這些狂亂的激動，最好是確認一個事實，即：所有行爲學的和經濟學的推理的出發點，也即人的行爲的元範，經得起任何批評和反對。人總是有意地要達成所選擇的某些目的；任何歷史的或經驗的考究，都不能發現這個命題有何毛病。關於「無理性」、「人的心靈深不可測」、「生活現象的自生自發」、「自動」、「反射」、以及「向性」（tropisms）等等說詞，都不能使下面這個命題失效，即：人總是爲實現他的願望而利用他的理智的。從人的行爲的元範這個不可動搖的基礎，行爲學和經濟學一步一步地靠推理的方法而展開。確定了一些假設和條件以後，它們（指行爲學和經濟學——譯者附註）建立一個概念系統，並導出一切邏輯推理的結論。對於這樣的結論，只能有兩種態度：掲發這個結論的邏輯錯誤，或者承認它們的正確和有效。

It is vain to object that life and reality are not logical. Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both. It is vain to object that life and history are inscrutable and ineffable and that human reason can never penetrate to their inner core. The critics contradict themselves in uttering words about the ineffable and

如以「生活和現實是不合邏輯的」爲理由來反對這些結論，那是枉然的。生活與現實旣非邏輯的，也非不邏輯的；它們只是那樣。但是爲了解生活與現實，我們人只有邏輯這個工具可利用。如以「生活和歷史是不可解的，是說不出的」爲理由，或以「人的理智決不能洞察它們的核心」爲理由來反對這些結論，也是枉然的。批評者一方面說「那是說不出的」，一方面又說些關於那不可測知的理論（這自然是些揑造的理論），這是他們的矛盾。我們相信：有許多事情是我們的心靈所接觸不到的。但是，就人之能獲得知識（儘管是有限的）的限度而言，他只能利用唯一的途徑來接近它們，這就是理智爲我們開闢的途徑。

No less illusory are the endeavors to play off understanding against the theorems of economics. The domain of historical understanding is exclusively the elucidation of those problems which cannot be entirely elucidated by the nonhistorical sciences. Understanding must never contradict the theories developed by the nonhistorical sciences. Understanding can never do anything but, on the one hand, establish the fact that people were motivated by certain ideas, aimed at certain ends, and applied certain means for the attainment of these ends, and, on the other hand, assign to the various historical factors their relevance so far as this cannot be achieved by the nonhistorical sciences. Understanding does not entitle the modern historian to assert that exorcism ever was an appropriate means to cure sick cows. Neither does it permit him to maintain that an economic law was not valid in ancient Rome or in the empire of the Incas.

同樣虛妄的，是把了解與經濟學的定理對立起來，使其互不相容。歷史了解只限之於說明那些非歷史的科學所不能完全解釋的問題。了解一定不會與非歷史的科學所展開的理論相衝突。了解，除掉確認「人們是被某些觀念促動，爲要達成某些目的而去選擇某些手段」這個事實以外，別無作爲，這是一方面：另一方面，了解指出各種歷史因素的相關性，而爲非歷史的科學所做不到的。了解並不使現代歷史家可以宣稱：符咒是治療病牛的良方。了解也不容許現代歷史家認爲：一項經濟法則在古代羅馬或印加（Incas）帝國是無效的。

Man is not infallible. He searches for truth---that is, for the most adequate comprehension of reality as far as the structure of his mind and reason makes it accessible to him. Man can never become omniscient. He can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is to submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination. This means for the economist to trace back all theorems to their unquestionable and certain ultimate basis, the category of human action, and to test by the most careful scrutiny all assumptions and inferences leading from this basis to the theorem under examination. It cannot be contended that this procedure is a guarantee against error. But it is undoubtedly the most effective method of avoiding error.

人，不是沒有錯誤的。他尋求眞理——也即，盡其心靈與理智之可能，尋求對於眞實的適當了解。人決不會成爲無所不知的。他決不能絕對地確信：他的探究不會導向歧途，而他所認爲的某項眞理不是錯誤。人所能夠做的，只是把他的一切理論一再地加以最嚴格的撿討。就經濟學家來講，這就是把所有的定理回溯到它們的最後基礎——人的行爲的元範，並且對那些導源於這個基礎而得到定理的一切假設和論斷，加以最謹愼的考驗。我們固然不能說這種程序可以保證無錯誤，但是，這確實是避免錯誤的一個最有效的方法。

Praxeology---and consequently economics too---is a deductive system. It draws its strength from the starting point of its deductions, from the category of action. No economic theorem can be considered sound that is not solidly fastened upon this foundation by an irrefutable chain of reasoning. A statement proclaimed without such a connection is arbitrary and floats in midair. It is impossible to deal with a special segment of economics if one does not encase it in a complete system of action.

行爲學——因而經濟學也如此——是一演鐸的體系。它之所以堅強，係由於它的推論之出發點，由於行爲元範。經濟學定理如果不是確確實實地建立在這個基礎上面，而用一種不容反駁的推理程序得出的，這種定理就不能認爲是健全的。不具備這樣一個聯關的說明就是武斷，就是半空中的浮言。如果你想處理經濟學的一個特別部門，而又不把它納之於完整的行爲系統中，那就沒有處理的可能。

The empirical sciences start from singular events and proceed from the unique and individual to the more universal. Their treatment is subject to specialization. They can deal with segments without paying

一些經驗的科學出發於一些獨特的事象，從個別的進展到較普遍的。它們的處理易於專門化。它們能夠處理局部問題而不注意全面。至於經濟學家，決不會是一位專家。在處理任何問題的時候，他總要注意到整個制度。

Historians often sin in this respect. They are ready to invent theorems ad hoc. They sometimes fail to recognize that it is impossible to abstract any causal relations from the study of complex phenomena. Their pretension to investigate reality without any reference to what they disparage as preconceived ideas is vain. In fact they unwittingly apply popular doctrines long since unmasked as fallacious and contradictory.

歷史家們在這方面常常犯錯。他們每每爲某一目的而發明定理。歷史家們有時不承認從複雜的現象中不可能找出因果關係。他們以爲：不涉及他們所蔑視的所謂先入之見，而可研究眞實情況，這種想法是過於自負。事實上，他們不知不覺地在應用那些久已被揭發爲謬誤和矛盾的學說。

-------------

[23] See below, pp. 131-133

[24] 見第七章第三節。

[24] Cf. F.H. Knight, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays (New York, 1935), p. 139.

[25] 參考F.H. Knight, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays (New York, 1935), p. 139.

11. The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts

十一、行爲學概念的一些限制

The praxeological categories and concepts are devised for the comprehension of human action. They become self-contradictory and nonsensical if one tries to apply them in dealing with conditions different from those of human life. The naive anthropomorphism of primitive religions is unpalatable to the philosophic mind. However, the endeavors of philosophers to define, by the use of praxeological concepts, the attributes of an absolute being, free from all the limitations and frailties of human existence, are no less questionable.

行爲學的一些範疇和概念是爲了解人的行爲而設計的。如果把它們用來處理那些不同於人的生活的情事，它們就變成自相矛盾和荒謬的。天眞的原始宗敎的「神人同形同性論」是不合哲學家的口胃的。可是，哲學家們想用行爲學的概念，爲一個不具備人類一切缺陷和弱點的絕對東西的屬性作一明確的描述，同樣的是不可置信的。

Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. For an all-powerful being there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist. He is above all human comprehension, concepts, and understanding. For the almighty being every "means" renders unlimited services, he can apply every "means" for the attainment of any ends, he can achieve every end without the employment of any means. It is beyond the faculties of the human mind to think the concept of almightiness consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. The paradoxes are insoluble. Has the almighty being

煩瑣的哲學家、神學家、一神論者，以及理性時代（the Age of Reason）的自然神敎者，同樣地認爲，有一個絕對的、完全的存在，永恆不變的，無所不能的，無所不知的，然而有計畫，有行爲，要達成一些目的，而且爲達成目的也採用手段。但是，行爲只有不滿足的「人」才會有，只有無能力把不偸快的事情一舉而徹底消除的「人」才會一而再地有行爲。行爲者是不滿足的，所以不是全能的。如果他是滿足的，他就不會有行爲；如果他是全能的，他就會早已把他的不滿足一掃而光。就一個全能者來講，不會有何壓力使他不得不在各種不愉快的情形之間加以選擇：他要怎樣就可怎樣，不必有任何忍受。全能就是指，可以達成所有的目的，得到充份滿足而不受任何限制的能力。但是，這正與行爲的概念不相容。就一個全能者來講，目的與手段的範疇，根本不存在。他是超乎人的了解、人的概念、人的領悟以上的。就全能者而言，每個「手段」都會提供無限的功用，他可用每個「手段」來達成任何目的，他也可不用任何手段達成任何目的。全能這個概念，不是人的心靈所可想像的，也即人心的邏輯結構所不能容的。這是個不能解決的問題：全能者有沒有能力造就一個不接受他的干涉的東西呢？如果他有此能力，那麼，他們的能力就由於這個東西之不受干涉而有限制了，旣有限制就不是全能了；如果他沒有此能力，那麼，僅憑這個事實他就不是全能了。

Are omnipotence and omniscience compatible? Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined. If there is omniscience, omnipotence is inconceivable. Impotence to change anything in the predetermined course of events would restrict the power of any agent.

全能與全知是相容的嗎？全知必須有個前提，即：將來所發生的一切事情都是已經確定了的，不再變更的。因此，如果有了全知，則全能就無法想像。預先確定了的事情旣不能變更，也就無所謂全能了。

Action is a display of potency and control that are limited. It is a manifestation of man who is restrained by the circumscribed powers of his mind, the physiological nature of his body, the vicissitudes of his environment, and the scarcity of the external factors on which his welfare depends. It is vain to refer to the imperfections and weaknesses of human life if one aims at depicting something absolutely perfect. The very idea of absolute perfection is in every way self-contradictory. The state of absolute perfection must be conceived as complete, final, and not exposed to any change. Change could only impair its perfection and transform it into a less perfect state; the mere possibility that a change can occur is incompatible with the concept of absolute perfection. But the absence of change-----i.e., perfect immutability, rigidity and immobility---is tantamount to the absence of life. Life and perfection are incompatible, but so are death and perfection.

行爲是有限的潜能與控制力之展現。人，受制於有限的智力和體力，也受制於環境的變遷和他的幸福所依賴的外在因素的稀少，所以人不得不有行爲。行爲是人的表現。如果想把某東西形容爲至善至美（absolute perfection），那麼，訴說人生的缺陷就毫無益處了。至善至美這個概念，從任何觀點來看，都是自相矛盾的。至善至美的情況，必須想像爲完全的、最後的，而且是不容任何變動的。一經變動就破壞了它的「至」善「至」美，而變到「次」善「次」美的情況；只要有變動的可能，就與至善至美這個概念發生衝突。但是，沒有變動——也即：完全不變、完全固著、完全不動——就等於沒有生命與生活。生命生活與至善至美是不相容的，可是死亡與至善至美也不相容。

The living is not perfect because it is liable to change; the dead is not perfect because it does not live.

生活不是至善至美，因爲生活是在變動的：而死亡不是至善至美的，因爲死亡已不生活。

The language of living and acting men can form comparatives and superlatives in comparing degrees. But absoluteness is not a degree; it is a limiting notion. The absolute is indeterminable, unthinkable and ineffable. It is a chimerical conception. There are no such things as perfect happiness, perfect men, eternal bliss. Every attempt to describe the conditions of a land of Cockaigne, or the life off the Angels, results in paradoxes. Where there are conditions, there are limitations and not perfection; there are endeavors to conquer obstacles, there are frustration and discontent.

在我們活生生而行動的人所用的語言中，有一些比較級和最高級的形容詞。但是「絕對」一詞，沒有「程度」的意含：它是—固極限概念。絕對是不能決定的、不可想像的、不可名狀的。它是一個虛幻的構想。像所謂「至福」（perfect happiness），「完人」（perfect men），「永恆的極樂」（eternal bliss）等等，根本沒有這回事。凡是想描述安樂鄕的情況，或天使生活的嘗試，其結果總是陷於矛盾。凡是有所需要的地方，就是有缺陷、而非至善至美的地方：凡是有障礙要克服的地方，就是有挫折和失望的地方。

After the philosophers had abandoned the search for the absolute, the utopians took it up. They weave dreams about the perfect state. They do not realize that the state, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion, is an institution to cope with human imperfection and that its essential function is to inflict punishment upon minorities in order to protect majorities against the detrimental consequences of certain actions. With "perfect" men there would not be any need for

在哲學家已經丟掉了「絕對」（the absolute）這個概念以後，烏托邦的改革家們又把它撿起來。他們編織一些至善至美的夢境。他們不了解國邦這個強迫和鎭壓性的社會建構，是爲對付人性的缺陷而存在的，因而他們也不了解，國邦的基本功用是爲保護大多數人免於少數人某些行爲的傷害而懲罰那少數人。如果人都是「完善」的，那就用不著任何強迫和鎭壓。但是，烏托邦的改革家們沒有注意到人性及人生的一些不可變的條件。葛德文（Godwin）以爲在私有財產廢除以後，人就可成爲不腐朽的[26]。傅立業（Charles Fourier）更是胡說八道地說到充溢著檸檬汁而非鹽水的海洋[27]。馬克斯的經濟制度則輕易地無視物質的生產要素之稀少這個事實，托洛斯基則宣稱，在無產階段的天國裡面，「一般人的人格將會昇華到亞里斯多德、哥德或馬克斯的水準。在這個水準以上，還有新的高峰突起」[28]。

Nowadays the most popular chimeras are stabilization and security. We will test these catchwords later.

現在，最流行的幻想是安定【穩定】與安全。後面我們將要檢討這些時髦口號。

-----------------

[25] William Godwin, An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness (Dublin, 1793), II, 393-403.

[26] William Godwin, An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness (Dublin, 1793), II, 393-403.

[26] Charles Fourier, Théorie des quatre mouvements (Oeuvres complètes, 3d ed. Paris, 1846), I, 43.

[27] Charles Fourier, Théorie des quatre mouvements (Oeuvres complètes, 3d ed. Paris, 1846), I, 43.

[27] Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, trans. by R. Strunsky (London, 1925), p. 256.

[28] Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, trans. by R. Strunsky (London, 1925), p. 256.

Chapter III. Economics and the Revolt Against Reason

第3章 經濟學以及對理知的反叛

1. The Revolt Against Reason

一、對理知的反叛

It is true that some philosophers were ready to overrate the power of human reason. They believed that man can discover by ratiocination the final causes of cosmic events, the inherent ends the prime mover aims at in creating the universe and determining the course of its evolution. They expatiated on the "Absolute" as if it were their pocket watch. They did not shrink from announcing eternal absolute values and from establishing moral codes unconditionally binding on all men.

有些哲學家每每把人的理知力過份高估。他們以爲：人可以靠推理來發現宇宙事象的最後原因，發現原始動力在創造宇宙和決定宇宙的演化過程時所想達成的目的。他們叨叨地解釋「絕對」（the absolute），好像「絕對」是他們口袋中的掛錶。他們敢於宣稱永恒的絕對價値，敢於確立一些無條件地約束所有的人的道德律。

Then there was the long line of utopian authors. They drafted schemes for an earthly paradise in which pure reason alone should rule. They failed to realize that what they called absolute reason and manifest truth was the fancy of their own minds. They blithely arrogated to themselves infallibility and often advocated intolerance, the violent oppression of all dissenters and heretics. They aimed at dictatorship either for themselves or for men who would accurately put their plans into execution. There was, in their opinion, no other salvation for suffering mankind.

向來有許多的烏托邦的著作家。他們爲人間世設計一個天國，在這個天國裡面只有純理知在作主宰。他們不了解，他們所謂的絕對理知和明顯的眞理只是他們自己內心的幻想。他們輕率地自以爲是無錯的，常常提倡排除異己而不寬容。他們是志在獨裁，或者自己獨裁，或者擁護那將實行他們的計畫的人獨裁。照他們看來，對於受苦受難的人，沒有其他的方法可以解救。

There was Hegel. He was a profound thinker and his writings are a treasury of stimulating ideas. But he was laboring under the delusion that Geist, the Absolute, revealed itself through his words. There was nothing in the universe that was hidden to Hegel. It was a pity that his language was so ambiguous that it could be interpreted in various ways. The right-wing Hegelians interpreted it as an endorsement of the Prussian system of autocratic government and of the dogmas of the Prussian Church. The Left-wing Hegelians read out of it atheism, intransigent revolutionary radicalism, and anarchistic doctrines.

這樣的哲學家，我們首先講到黑格爾。他是一位深沉的思想家，他的著作充滿了刺激性的觀念。但是，他是在一個幻想中做工作，即幻想所謂「精神」（geist）或「絕對」（the absolute），透過他的語言文字而表現出來。宇宙間沒有黑格爾所不了解的事象。所可惜者，他的語言是那麼模糊不淸，以致可作多種不同的解釋。右翼的信徒們用它來擁護普魯士的君主專制政體和普魯士敎會的「獨格碼」（dogma）。左翼的信徒們則把它看成無神論、不妥協的革命的急進主義、以及無政府主義。

There was Auguste Comte. He knew precisely what the future had in store for mankind. And, of course, he considered himself as the supreme legislator. For example, he regarded certain astronomical studies as useless and wanted to prohibit them. He planned to substitute a new religion for Christianity, and selected a lady who in this new church was destined to replace the Virgin. Comte can

其次是孔德（Auguste Comte）。他以爲他完全知道未來的一切。他自視爲最高的立法者。例如，他認爲天文學的一些研究都是無用的，而想禁止它們。他計畫用一個新的宗敎來代替基督敎，並且選拔這個敎會的一個女人來代替聖母瑪利亞。孔德可以得到原諒，因爲他是病理學所謂的瘋人。但是，他的信徒們又怎麼樣呢？

Many more facts of this kind could be mentioned. But they are no argument against reason, rationalism, and rationality. These dreams have nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not reason is the right and only instrument available for man in his endeavors to attain as much knowledge as is accessible to him. The honest and conscientious truth-seekers have never pretended that reason and scientific research can answer all questions. They were fully aware of the limitations imposed upon the human mind. They cannot be taxed with responsibility for the crudities of the philosophy of Haeckel and the simplism of the various materialist schools.

這一類的事實還可以舉出許多。但是，它們決沒有反理知、反唯理主義，反合理性的議論。理知是不是獲得充份知識的唯一正確的工具，上述的那些美夢，全然不觸及這個問題。至於誠實而謹慎的「眞理追求者」，從來不以爲理知與科學研究可以解答一切問題。他們知道，人的心靈是有限的。所以他們不會像Haeckel和各種唯物學派那樣，提出一些粗疏、簡陋的哲學。

The rationalist philosophers themselves were always intent upon showing the boundaries both of aprioristic theory and of empirical research. [1] The first representative of British political economy, David Hume, the Utilitarians, and the American Pragmatists are certainly not guilty of having exaggerated the power of man to attain truth. It would be more justifiable to blame the philosophy of the last two hundred years for too much agnosticism and skepticism than for overconfidence in what could be achieved by the human mind.

唯理主義的哲學家們，總是專心於指示先驗的理論與經驗的硏究這兩者間的分界[1]。英國政治經濟學的第一位代表人休姆（David Hume）、功效主義們、以及美國的實用主義者們，對於「人的獲得眞理的能力」並未過份地誇張。如果我們說，過去兩百年的哲學過份偏於不可知論（agnosticism）和懷疑論，而非過份相信人心所可獲致的東西，這應該是比較公平的說法。

The revolt against reason, the characteristic mental attitude of our age, was not caused by a lack of modesty, caution, and self-examination on the part of the philosophers. Neither was it due to failures in the evolution of modern natural science. The amazing achievements of technology and therapeutics speak a language which nobody can ignore. It is hopeless to attack modern science, whether from the angle of intuitionism and mysticism, or from any other point of view. The revolt against reason was directed against another target. It did not aim at the natural sciences, but at economics. The attack against the natural sciences was only the logically necessary outcome of the attack against economics. It was impermissible to dethrone reason in one field only and not to question it in other branches of knowledge also.

對理知的反叛，我們這個時代特有的心理狀態，不是由於哲學家們的缺乏謙虛、謹愼、和自我檢討而引起的。也不是由於現代自然科學之不進步。現代工藝學和醫療學一些驚人的成就，誰也不能否認。不管是從直觀論（intuitionism）或神秘主義的角度，或從其他的觀點來攻擊現代科學，都是無效的。對理知的反叛是針對另一個目標。這個目標不是自然科學，而是經濟學。對自然科學的攻擊，只是攻撃經濟學的時候邏輯上必然的後果。因爲只把理知從知識的某一部門中排除而在其他諸部門中不懷疑它，這是不可以的。所以連帶地攻擎到自然科學。

The great upheaval was born out of the historical situation existing in the middle of the nineteenth century. The economists had entirely demolished the fantastic delusions of the socialist utopians. The deficiencies of the classical system prevented them from comprehending why every socialist plan must be unrealizable; but they knew enough to demonstrate the futility of all socialist schemes produced up to their time. The communist ideas were done for. The socialists

大劇變發生於十九世紀中葉。那時經濟學家已完全摧毀了社會主義者的幻想。古典經濟學體系固然妨礙了當時的經濟學家，使他們無法了解社會主義的計畫之所以不能實現；但是，他們知道把當時所有的社會主義計畫的無用指出來。社會主義者對於一些致命的批評，已不能提出任何反駁來辯護。社會主義似乎就這樣死亡了。

Only one way could lead the socialists out of this impasse. They could attack logic and reason and substitute mystical intuition for ratiocination. It was the historical role of Karl Marx to propose this solution. On the basis of Hegel's dialectic mysticism, he blithely arrogated to himself the ability to predict the future. Hegel pretended to know that Geist, in creating the universe, wanted to bring about the Prussian monarchy of Frederick William III. But Marx was better informed about Geist's plans. He knew that the final cause of historical evolution was the establishment of the socialist millennium. Socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature." And as, according to Hegel, every later stage of history is a higher and better stage, there cannot be any doubt that socialism, the final and ultimate stage of mankind's evolution, will be perfect from any point of view. It is consequently useless to discuss the details of the operation of a socialist commonwealth. History, in due time, will arrange everything for the best. It does not need the advice of mortal men.

只有一個途徑可把社會主義者從這條死巷子引出來。他們攻擊邏輯和理知，而以神秘的直觀代替推理。這倜方法的提出，是馬克斯的歷史任務。他以黑格爾辯證法的神秘論作基礎，自以爲能夠預知將來。黑格爾妄稱他知道「精神」在創造宇宙的時候，就已決定了普魯士威廉第三的專制。但是，馬克斯對於「精神」的計畫知道的更詳細。他知道歷史演化的最後目標是要建立社會主義的太平盛世。社會主義的社會，一定是要實現的，這是「自然法所決定，絕對必然的」。照黑格爾的說法，在歷史的進化程序中，一個階段高於一個階段，所以最後一個階段的社會主義社會，從任何觀點來看，都盡善盡美，這是不懷疑的。因此，關於社會主義社會的詳情如何，無須乎討論。到了那個時候，歷史自會把一切安排得最好，用不著凡人操心。

There was still the main obstacle to overcome: the devastating criticism of the economists. Marx had a solution at hand. Human reason, he asserted, is constitutionally unfitted to find truth. The logical structure of mind is different with various social classes. There is no such thing as a universally valid logic. What mind produces can never be anything but "ideology," that is, in the Marxian terminology, a set of ideas disguising the selfish interests of the thinker's own social class. Hence, the "bourgeois" mind of the economists is utterly incapable of producing more than an apology for capitalism. The teachings of "bourgeois" science, an offshoot of "bourgeois" logic, are of no avail for the proletarians, the rising class destined to abolish all classes and to convert the earth into a Garden of Eden.

可是，還有一個主要的障礙要克服，即：經濟學家厲害的批評。馬克斯有個現成的解答。他說，人的理知本來就不適於發現眞理。人心的邏輯結構隨社會階級之不同而不同。決沒有一種普遍有效的邏輯這麼回事。心靈所能產生的只是意理（ideology）而已，所謂「意理」，在馬克斯的語彙中，是指一套掩飾著思想者本人階級利益的觀念。因此，經濟學家所具有的「資產階級的」心，除爲資本主義辯護以外，決想不到其他的。「資產階級的」科學——「資產階級的」邏輯的一個分支——的一些敎義，對於無產階級毫無用處。無產階級這個新興的階級，一定會消除一切階級，而把人間世變成伊甸園。

But, of course, the logic of the proletarians is not merely a class logic. "The ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas, but emanations of logic pure and simple." [2] Moreover, by virtue of a special privilege, the logic of certain elect bourgeois is not tainted with the original sin of being bourgeois. Karl Marx, the son of a well-to-do lawyer, married to the daughter of a Prussian noble, and his collaborator Frederick Engels, a wealthy textile manufacturer, never doubted that they themselves were above the law and, notwithstanding their bourgeois background, were endowed with the power to discover absolute truth.

但是，無產階級的邏輯自然不僅是一個階級邏輯。「無產階級邏輯的一些觀念不是黨派的一些偏見，而是從單純的邏輯衍生出來的。」[2]而且，由於一項特權，某些被選定的资產階級者，其邏輯未染上資產階級的原罪，馬克斯，是一個富有的律師的兒子，和普魯士貴族的女兒結婚，他的合作者恩格斯是一位富有的紡織業者，可是，馬克斯和恩格斯卻認爲他們自己是超乎他們所說的法則，儘管他們有資產階級的背景，而他們卻認爲自己具有發現絕封眞理的能力。

It is the task of history to describe the historical conditions which made such a crude doctrine popular. Economics has another task. It must analyze both Marxian polylogism and the other brands of polylogism formed after its pattern, and expose their fallacies and contradictions.

指出這個粗劣的學說之所以風行的歷史環境，這是歷史的任務。經濟學有另一個任務：它必須分析馬克斯的多邏輯論以及依樣畫葫蘆的其他牌頭的多邏輯論，並揭發它們的謬誤和矛盾。

---------

[1] Cf., for instance, Louis Rougier, Les Paralogismes du rationalisme (Paris, 1920).

[1] 參考Louis Rougier, Les Paralogismes du rationalisme (Paris, 1920).

[2] Cf. Joseph Dietzgen Briefe über Logik, speziell demokratisch-proletarische Logik (2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1903), p. 112.

[2] 參考Joseph Dietzgen Briefe über Logik, speziell demokratisch-proletarische Logik (2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1903), p. 112.

2. The Logical Aspect of Polylogism

二、從邏輯學駁斥多邏輯論

Marxian polylogism asserts that the logical structure of the mind is different with the members of various social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure.

馬克斯的多邏輯論宣稱：人心的邏輯結構隨著社會階級之不同而不同。種族多邏輯論與馬克斯的多邏輯論的差別，只在於認爲每個種族各有一個特殊的人心邏輯結構，某一種族的全體份子，不管他們所屬的階級，都具有同一的特殊邏輯結構。

There is no need to enter here into a critique of the concepts social class and race as applied by these doctrines. It is not necessary to ask the Marxians when and how a proletarian who succeeds in joining the ranks of the bourgeoisie changes his proletarian mind into a bourgeois mind. It is superfluous to ask the racists to explain what kind of logic is peculiar to people who are not of pure racial stock. There are much more serious objections to be raised.

這些學說所使用的「社會階級」和「種族」，其概念究竟是什麼，在這裡無須追究。這裡也無須質問馬克斯，如果一個無產階級者成功地昇到資產階級，那麼，他將在什麼時候，以及如何把他的無產階級的心變成資產階級的心。這裡也無須要求種族主義者來說明，如果某些人不屬於純粹的種族，而是雜種的混血兒，他們的邏輯將是怎樣。關於這些方面，有更多的嚴肅的問難可提出。

Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman. Some German professors advanced all these three arguments together against the validity of Ricardo's teachings. However, it is not enough to reject a theory wholesale by unmasking the background of its author. What is wanted is first to expound a system of logic different from that applied by the criticized author. Then it would be necessary to examine the contested theory point by point and to show where in its reasoning inferences are made which---although correct from the point of view of its author's logic----are invalid from the point of view of the proletarian, Aryan, or German logic. And finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the author's vicious inferences by the correct inferences of the critic's own logic must

馬克斯主義者、種族主義者，以及任何其他牌頭的多邏輯論者，只是宣稱人心的邏輯結構隨著階級或種族或國邦之不同而不同，而沒有更進一步講什麼。他們從未確切地說明，無產階級的邏輯與資產階級的邏輯有何不同，或者Aryan種族的邏輯與非Aryan種族的邏輯有何不同，或者德國人的邏輯與法國人或英國人的邏輯有何不同。在馬克斯信徒們的心目中，李嘉圖的相對成本理論是假的，因爲李嘉圖是個資產階級者。德國的種族主義者罵這個理論，因爲李嘉圖是一個猶太人；德國國家主義者罵這個理論，因爲李嘉圖是一個英國人。有些德國的敎授們則合併這三個理由來反對李嘉圖的理論。但是，以指摘立論者的背景來反對其理論，這是沒有足夠的說服力的。首先必要的是，有系統地說明那種不同於被批評者所採用的邏輯體系。接著，就是一點一點地來檢視這個有爭論的理論，並指出在它的推理中是循怎樣的程序——儘管從立論者的邏輯觀點來看是對的，但從無產階級、Aryan族、或德國人的邏輯觀點來看是無效的。最後，應當解釋憑批評者自己的邏輯的正確推理代替立論者的錯誤推理所導致的結論是怎樣的結論。人人都知道，這不是任何人所曾做到，也不是任何人所能做到的。

Then there is the fact that there is disagreement concerning essential problems among people belonging to the same class, race, or nation. Unfortunately there are, say the Nazis, Germans who do not think in a correct german way. But if a German does not always necessarily think as he should, but may think in the manner of a man equipped with a non-German logic, who is to decide which German's ideas are truly German and which un-German? Says the late Professor Franz Oppenheimer; "The individual errs often in looking after his interests; a class never errs in the long run." [3] This would suggest the infallibility of a majority vote. However, the Nazis rejected decision by majority vote as manifestly un-German. The Marxians pay lip service to the democratic principle of majority vote.[4] But whenever it comes to a test they favor minority rule, provided it is the rule of their own party. Let us remember how Lenin dispersed by force the Constituent Assembly elected, under the auspices of his own government, by adult franchise, because only about one-fifth of its members were Bolshevik.

因而事實是這樣：在同一階級、同一種族，或同一國邦的人們當中，關於某些重要問題會有不同的意見。據納粹黨人說，所不幸的是：有些不以正確的德國思想方法來思想的德國人。但是，如果一個德國人不總是必然地以他應該用來思想的方法來思想，而有時會以非德國人的邏輯來思想，那麼，誰來決定那些德國人的觀念是眞正德國的，哪些是非德國的呢？已故的Franz Oppenheimer敎授說：「個人在尋求他的利益時，常常犯錯，一個階級究竟是不犯錯的。」[3]這是說，大多數的投票是不錯的。可是，納粹黨人曾經把大多數的投票當作非德國人的決定而加以拒絕，馬克斯的信徒們也說是尊重多數投票的民主原則[4]。但是，到了他們所說的面臨考驗時，假若少數的決定符合他們黨的利益，他們就支持少數的決定。讓我們回想列寧是如何用武力解散制憲會議的，那個制憲會議是他的政府所主辦的，以普選選出來的代表組成的，因爲只有五分之一的代表是布爾雪維克黨人，所以被迫解散。

A consistent supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race. But consistency is not one of their virtues. Thus the Marxians are prepared to assign the epithet "proletarian thinker" to everybody whose doctrines they approve. All the others they disparage either as foes of their class or as social traitors. Hitler was even frank enough to admit that the only method available for him to sift the true Germans from the mongrels and the aliens was to enunciate a genuinely German program and to see who were ready to support it.[5] A dark-haired man whose bodily features by no means fitted the prototype of the fair-haired Aryan master race, arrogated to himself the gift of discovering the only doctrine adequate to the German mind and of expelling from the ranks of the Germans all those who did not accept this doctrine whatever their bodily characteristics might be. No further proof is needed of the insincerity of the whole doctrine.

多邏輯論的主張者，如果他貫徹他的主張，他就應該堅持，某些觀念之所以正確，是因爲抱持這插觀念的人是屬於正當的階級、正當的邦國，或正當的種族。但是，他們並沒有貫徹主張的美德。馬克斯主義者常把「無產階級的思想家」這個稱謂送給任何人，只要這個人的學說是他們所贊成的。除此以外的所有的人，他們都罵爲階級敵人或社會叛逆。希特勒甚至更坦白地承認，他從混血兒或異族人當中篩選德國人的唯一方法，是宣佈一個純正的德國綱領，再來看誰支持它，他就是德國人[5]。一個黑頭髮的人，其體型絕不符合金髮Aryan族人的標準，卻自以爲有天賦的才能，能夠發現適合於德國人的唯一學說，而且能夠把所有不接受這個學說的人都排斥爲非德國人，不管他們的體型是怎樣。講到這裡，對於他們的主張之不一貫，再也不必有更多的求證了。

-----------

[3] Cf. Franz Oppenheimer, System der Soziologie (Jena, 1926), II. 559.

[3] 參考Franz Oppenheimer, System der Soziologie (Jena, 1926), II. 559.

[4] It must be emphasized that the case for democracy is not based on the assumption that majorities are always right, still less that they are infallible. Cf. below, pp. 149-151.

[4] 這裡必須強調的，贊成民主的理由，並不是基於「大多數經常是對的」這個假定，更不是假定大多數是不錯的。參考第八章第二節。

[5] Cf. his speech on the Party Convention in Nuremberg, September 3, 1933 (Frankfurter Zeitung, September 4, 1933, p. 2).

[5] 參考一九三三年九月三日他在Nuremberg召開的納粹黨會議上的演說(Frankfurter Zeitung, September 4, 1933, p. 2).

3. The Praxeological Aspect of Polylogism

三、從行爲學駁斥多邏輯論

An ideology in the Marxian sense of this term is a doctrine which,

馬克斯用「意理」（ideology）這個名詞來指一個學說，這個學說，即令從正確的無產階級邏輯的觀點來看是錯的，但有利於形成這個意理的階級。一個意理，客觀地講是邪惡的；可是，它之所以有利於形成它的那個階級，正因爲它的邪惡。許多馬克斯的信徒們以爲，他們已經證實了這個說法，證實的辦法是強調「人們並不是只爲知識本身而渴求知識」這一點。科學家的目的在於爲成功的行爲舖路。理論總是爲實際應用而發展出來的。所謂「純科學」和「客觀的求眞理」，根本沒有這麼回事。

For the sake of argument we may admit that every effort to attain truth is motivated by considerations of its practical utilization for the attainment of some end. But this does not answer the question why an "ideological"---i.e., a false---theory should render better service than a correct one. The fact that the practical application of a theory results in the outcome predicted on the basis of this theory is universally considered a confirmation of its correctness. It is paradoxical to assert that a vicious theory is from any point of view more useful than a correct one.

爲著討論方便起見，我們也可承認，凡是尋求眞理的動機，就是爲達到某些目旳而作的實用的考慮。但是，這並沒有解答這個問題：爲什麼一個意理的（也即邪惡的）理論會比一個正確的理論更有用。一個理論的實用性，在於靠這個理論所預測的結果是應驗的。這是大家所接受的事實。如果說，一個邪惡的理論從任何觀點來看，都比一個正確理論更有用，那就是荒謬的說法。

Men use firearms. In order to improve these weapons they developed the science of ballistics. But, of course, precisely because they were eager to hunt game and to kill one another, a correct ballistics. A merely "ideological" ballistics would not have been of any use.

人們使用各種武器。爲著改進這些武器，他們發展了彈道學。當然，這正是因爲他們要打獵，要殺別人，而發展一種正確的彈道學。至於只是「意理的」彈道學當不會有何用處。

For the Marxians the view that scientists labor for knowledge alone is nothing but an "arrogant pretense" of the scientists. Thus they declare that Maxwell was led to his theory of electromagnetic waves by the craving of business for wireless telegraphs.[6] It is of no relevance for the problem of ideology whether this is true or not. The question is whether the alleged fact that nineteenth-century industrialism considered telegraphy without wires "the philosopher's stone and the elixir of youth" [7] impelled Maxwell to formulate a correct theory or an ideological superstructure of the selfish class interests of the bourgeoisie. There is no doubt that bacteriological research was instigated not only by the desire to fight contagious diseases, but also by the desire of the producers of wine and of cheese to improve their methods of production. But the result obtained was certainly not "ideological" in the Marxian sense.

就馬克斯的信徒們認爲：「科學家只是爲知識而努力」這個見解，不過是科學家用以自傲的一個掩飾的說法。於是他們宣吿：Maxwell是爲無線電報的業務而去硏究電磁波的理論[6]。這個說法或對或錯，都與意理問題不相干。問題是在：推動Maxwell去研究電磁波，因而形成正確理論的，究竟是十九世紀的工業化把無線電報看作「仙術」和「仙丹」這個所謂的事實[7]呢，還是資產階級自私自利的意理的上層結構？無疑地，細菌學的研究不僅是爲的防治傳染病，而且也爲的改進製酒和製乳酪。但是硏究所得的結果，則確不是馬克斯所說的「意理的」結果。

What induced Marx to invent his ideology-doctrine was the wish to sap the prestige of economics. He was fully aware of his impotence to refute the objections raised by the economists to the practicability

馬克斯發明他的意理學說是想用以打擊經濟學的聲望。他完全知道，他沒有能力可以反駁經濟學家對於社會主義實行的可能性所提出的異議。事實上，他是傾倒於英國古典經濟學理論體系而深信其顚撲不破的。他旣不知道古典的價値理論在聰明的學者心中引起的懷疑，即令他聽見過，他也不會了解這些懷疑的重要性。他自己的那些經濟觀點，不過是李嘉圖理論的一個斷章取義的翻版。當傑逢斯（Jevons）和孟格爾（Menger）在經濟思想方面開創一個新紀元的時候，《資本論》（Das Kapital）第一卷已在前幾年出版，可是他一生的事業（作爲一位經濟學著作家的事業）完蛋了。馬克斯對於邊際價値理論的唯一反應是，拖延《資本論》後半部的出版。它們的出版是在他死了以後的事。

In developing the ideology-doctrine Marx exclusively aims at economics and the social philosophy of Utilitarianism. His only intention was to destroy the reputation of economic teachings which he was unable to refute by means of logic and ratiocination. He gave to his doctrine the form of a universal law valid for the whole historical age of social classes because a statement which is applicable only to one individual historical event could not be considered as a law. For the same reasons he did not restrict its validity to economic thought only, but included every branch of knowledge.

馬克斯發展他的意理學說，是專爲攻擊經濟學和功效主義的社會哲學。他唯一的意圖是在破壞經濟學的聲譽，因爲他不能靠邏輯的推理來達到這個目的。他把他的學說弄成普遍法則的形式，對於古往今來的一些社會階級都是有效的，因爲只適用於一個單獨歷史事件的陳述，不能認爲是一個法則，同樣理由，他不把這個法則的有效性限之於經濟思想，而是包括知識的一切部門。

The service which bourgeois economics rendered to the bourgeoisie was in Marx's eyes twofold. It aided them first in their fight against feudalism and royal despotism and then later again in their fight against the rising proletarian class. It provided a rational and moral justification for capitalist exploitation. It was, if we want to use a notion developed after Marx's death, a rationalization of the claims of the capitalists.[8] The capitalists, in their subconsciousness ashamed of the mean greed motivating their own conduct and anxious to avoid social disapproval, encouraged their sycophants, the economists, to proclaim doctrines which could rehabilitate them in public opinion.

在馬克斯的心目中，資產階級的經濟學對於資產階級的功用是雙重的。它幫助他們對抗封建制度和君主專制，然後又幫助他們對抗新興的無產階級。它把資本主義的剝削說成合理，說成合乎道德。如果我們願意使用馬克斯死後發展出來的一個概念，那就可以說，這種經濟學是使資本家的一些權利主張合理化[8]。資本家們，在他們下意識裡面，對於自己的卑鄙貪婪的行爲感到慚愧而急想避免社會的指責，因而鼓勵那些向他們獻媚的經濟學家，宣佈一些可使他們在輿論面前抬起頭來的學說。

Now, recourse to the notion of rationalization provides a psychological description of the incentives which impelled a man or a group of men to formulate a theorem or a whole theory. But it does not predicate anything about the validity or invalidity of the theory

一個人或一羣人想出一個理論或一整套理論體系，其動機可以用「合理化」這個概念作一心理的描述。但是，這個概念並不涉及這個想出的理論是有效或無效。如果這個理論被證明是不能成立的，則合理化這個概念就是對於使立論者犯錯誤的那些原因所加的一個心理解釋。但是，如果我們在這個被想出的理論中找不出任何錯誤，則我們就不能用合理化這個概念來推翻它的有效性。假若經濟學在他們的下意識裡面眞的只是爲資本家的不當行爲作辯護，而他們的一些理論也會是完全正確的。爲要掲發一個錯誤的理論，除掉用推理來反駁它，而代之以較好的理論之外，別無他法。當我們討論畢達哥拉斯（Pythagoras）定理或相對成本理論的時候，我們不過問促動畢達哥拉斯和李嘉圖建立這些定理的心理因素，儘管這些因素對於歷史家和傳記家也許是重要的。從科學的觀點看，這些理論經不經得起合理的考驗，這才是唯一的、相干的問題。至於立論者本人的社會背景或種族背景，都是題外的事情。

It is a fact that people in the pursuit of their selfish interests try to use doctrines more or less universally accepted by public opinion. Moreover, they are eager to invent and to propagate doctrines which they could possibly use for furthering their own interests. But this does not explain why such doctrines, favoring the interests of a minority and contrary to the interests of the rest of the people, are endorsed by public opinion. No matter whether such "ideological" doctrines are the product of a "false consciousness," forcing a man to think unwittingly in a manner that serves the interests of his class, or whether they are the product of a purposeful distortion of truth, they must encounter the ideologies of other classes and try to supplant them. Then a rivalry between antagonistic ideologies emerges. The Marxians explain victory and defeat in such conflicts as an outcome of the interference of historical providence. Geist, the mythical prime mover, operates according to a definite plan. He leads mankind through various preliminary stages to the final bliss of socialism. Every stage is the product of a certain state of technology; all its other characteristics are the necessary ideological superstructure of this technological state. Geist causes man to bring about in due time the technological ideas adequate to the stage in which he lives, and to realize them. All the rest is an outgrowth of the state of technology. The hand-mill made feudal society; the steam-mill made capitalism.

人們在尋求他們私利的時候，總想利用一些或多或少被輿論所接受的學說，這是一個事實。而且，他們也極想發明，並宣傳那些可用以增進他們私利的學說。但是，這並未說明爲什麼這樣的一些理論，有利於少數人而與其餘的人的利益相反的理論，會被輿論支持。不管這樣的「意理的」理論是不是「錯誤的下意識」的產品——叫人不得不在不知不覺中爲自己的階級利益著想，也不管它們是不是有意地歪曲眞理，總之，它們必然會碰上其他階級的一些意理，而想把它們排擠掉。於是，對抗的意理就發生衝突。馬克斯及其信徒們，把這種衝突的勝敗解釋爲歷史註定的。「精神」（geist）這個神秘的最後動力，按照一個確定了的計畫在操作。他（指geist）引導人類通過一些預備階段，走向最後的社會主義制度的極樂世界。每一階段是某一生產技術的產品；至於它的一切其他特徵，必然是這一生產技術的意理的上層建築。「精神」叫人在適當時期興起一些適於他所生活的階段的技術觀念，並求這些觀念實現。其餘的一切都是生產技術所孳生出來的。手推的磨子造就了封建社會；蒸汽機發動的磨子，帶來資本主義社會。[9]人的意志與理知只是這些變動的一個副產品。堅定不移的歷史發展法則，使人們不得不依照相應於他們那個時代的物質基礎的模型而思想、而行爲。人們常自以爲在不同的觀念之間自由選擇，在他們所謂的眞理與錯誤之間自由選擇，這都是自己在愚弄自己。他們自己並不思想，而是歷史的意志（historical providence）在人們的思想中表現出來。

This is a purely mystical doctrine. The only proof given in its support is the recourse of Hegelian dialectics. Capitalistic private property is the first negation of individual private property. It begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation, namely common ownership of the means of production.[10] However, a mystical doctrine based on intuition does not lose its mysticism by referring to another no less mystical doctrine. This makeshift by no means answers the question why a thinker must necessarily develop an ideology in accordance with the interests of his class. For the sake of argument we may admit that man's thoughts must result in doctrines beneficial to his interests. But are a man's interests necessarily identical with those of his whole class? Marx himself had to admit that the organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves.[11] It is an undeniable fact that there prevails an irreconcilable conflict of interests between those workers who are employed at union wage rates and those who remain unemployed because the enforcement of union rates prevents the demand for and the supply of labor from finding the appropriate price for meeting. It is no less true that the interests of the workers of the comparatively overpopulated countries and those of the comparatively underpopulated countries are antagonistic with regard to migration barriers. The statement that the interests of all proletarians uniformly require the substitution of socialism for capitalism is an arbitrary postulate of Marx and the other socialists. It cannot be proved by the mere assertion that the socialist idea is the emanation of proletarian thought and therefore certainly beneficial to the interests of the proletariat as such.

這是一個純粹的神秘學說。它只有靠黑格爾的辯證法來支持。資本主義的私有財產是個人私有財產的第一否定。由於一個自然法則的堅定不移，它又孕育了對本身的否定，即生產手段的公有[10]。可是，一個基於直觀的神秘學說，並不因其藉助於另一個較少神秘的學說而去其神秘性。這種把戲決不能解答，爲什麼一位思想家一定會按照他的階級利益而發展一種意理。爲著討論方便起見，我們姑且承認，人的思想一定是歸結於有利於他的那些學說。但是，一個人的利益一定是和他的整個階級的利益相一致麼？馬克斯本人也得承認：無產者的階級組織以及他們的政黨組織，不斷地因工人們本身的競爭而被破壞[11]。按照工會工資率，被僱用的工人們和那些因爲這種工资率的強制推行而失業的工人們，其間有不可否認的衝突。工會工資率防止了勞動的供需達成平衡的適當價格。還有，人口較多國的工人和人口較少國的工人，在移民問題上，彼此的利益也是衝突的。至於說，所有無產階級的利益都是一致地要求用社會主義代替資本主義，這種說法是馬克斯和其他社會主義者武斷的假說。這個假說不能僅憑「社會主義觀念是從無產階級的思想發放出來的，所以必然有利於無產階級」這一斷言而得到證實。

A popular interpretation of the vicissitudes of British foreign trade policies, based on the ideas of Sismondi, Frederick List, Marx, and the German Historical School, runs this way: In the second part of the eighteenth century and in the greater part of the nineteenth century the class interests of the British bourgeoisie required a free

用西思蒙第（Sismondi）、李斯特（Frederick List）、馬克斯和德國歷史學派的觀點，對英國國外貿易政策的變動所作的一個著名的解釋，是這樣講的：在十八世紀的後半期及十九世紀的大部份，英國資產階級的利益是要自由貿易政策。所以，英國的政治經濟學者想出一套自由貿易學說，而英國製造業者發起一個運動，終於成功地撤除了保護關稅。後來情況變更了。英國的資產階級再也經不起外國製造業的競爭而急需關稅的保護，於是經濟學家又以保護理論來代替過時的自由貿易的意理，英國又回轉到保護制度。

The first error in this interpretation is that it considers the "bourgeoisie" as a homogeneous class composed of members whose interests are identical. A businessman is always under the necessity of adjusting the conduct of his business to the institutional conditions of his country. In the long run he is, in his capacity as entrepreneur and capitalist, neither favored nor injured by tariffs or the absence of tariffs. He will turn to the production of those commodities which under the given state of affairs he can most profitably produce. What may hurt or further his short-run interests are only changes in the institutional setting. But such changes do not affect the various branches of business and the various enterprises in the same way and to the same extent. A measure that benefits one branch or enterprise may be detrimental to other branches or enterprises. What counts for a businessman is only a limited number of customs items. And with regard to these items the interests of various branches and firms are mostly antagonistic.

這個解釋的第一個錯誤是，它把「資產階級」看作利害一致的成員所組成的一個階級。一個生意人不得不隨時調整他的業務，以適應他本國的法制環境。經長期看，作爲企業家或資本家的他，旣不因關稅的存廢而受惠，也不因它的存廢而受害。他總要找些在旣定情況下，他最能有利地生産出來的商品來生產。至於可以損害或增進他的短期利益，只是法制方面的一些變動。但是，這方面的變動並非同樣地或同等程度地影響到生產事業的各個部門和各種企業。有利於某一部門或企業的措施，對於另一部門或企業可能有害。就一個生意人來亂關稅與他有關的只是爲數有限的幾個稅目。這幾個稅目對於不同部門和行號的利害關係，大都是相反的。

[Omitted in the 4th edition.]

「在自由貿易思想占優勢的時期，英國製造業的所有部門利害是一致的，他們一致地受惠於保護關稅的撤消」，這種說法不符合事實。英國當時的工廠，在生產技術上遠優於世界其他地方，因而不怕外國的競爭。這個說法也非事實。今天，美國的工廠也享有技術上的優勢。可是，大部份的美國製造業急切需要保護，以抗拒別國落後工業的競爭。

The interests of every branch or firm can be favored by all kinds of privileges granted to it by the government. But if privileges are granted to the same extent also to the other branches and firms, every businessman loses---not only in his capacity as consumer, but also in his capacity as buyer of raw materials, half-finished products, machines and other equipment---on the one hand as much as he profits on the other. Selfish group interests may impel a man to ask for protection for his own branch or firm. They can never motivate him to ask for universal protection for all branches or firms if he is not sure to be protected to a greater extent than the other industries or enterprises.

每個部門或行號都可因政府給以各種特權而得到利益。但是，如果對於其他的部門和行號，也給以同樣程度的特權，則每個商人——不僅在其作爲消費者的身份，而且也在其作爲原料、半製品、機器和其他設備的購買者的身份——這方面所受的損失，將等於在另一方面所受到的利益。自私團體的利益會使某一個人去要求對他自己的那一部門或行號給以保護。但是，這種利益決不會推動他去要求對所有的部門或所有的行號都給以保護，除非他有把握他自己所受的保護大於別人。

Neither were the British manufacturers from the point of view of their class concerns more interested in the abolition of the Corn Laws than other British citizens. The landowners were opposed to the repeal of these laws because a lowering of the prices for agricultural products reduced the rent of land. A special class interest of the manufacturers can only be construed on the basis of the long since discarded iron law of wages and the no less untenable doctrine that

從他們的階級利益的觀點來看，英國的工業家並不比英國其他的公民更關心穀物法的廢除。地主們之反對廢除這些法律，是因爲農產品的價格低落將使地租降低。工業家的階級利益這個特殊觀念，是與那個久已被丟棄的「工資細則」和「利潤是剝削工人的結果」這個同樣站不住的學說相關聯的。

Within a world organized on the basis of the division of labor, every change must in one way or another affect the short-run interests of many groups. It is therefore always easy to expose every doctrine supporting an alteration of existing conditions as an "ideological" disguise of the selfish interests of a special group of people. The main occupation of many present-day authors is such unmasking. Marx did not invent this procedure. It was known long before him. Its most curious manifestation was the attempts of some eighteenth-century writers to explain religious creeds as a fraudulent deception on the part of the priests eager to gain power and wealth both for themselves and for their allies, the exploiters. The Marxians endorsed this statement in labeling religion "opium for the masses."[12] It never occurred to the supporters of such teachings that where there are selfish interests pro there must necessarily be selfish interests contra too. It is by no means a satisfactory explanation of any event that it favored a special class. The question to be answered is why the rest of the population whose interests it injured did not succeed in frustrating the endeavors of those favored by it.

在一個分工的世界裡面，每一變動必定會影響到許多集團的利益。所以，把每一個主張變動的學說說成某一集圑的私利的一個「意理的」掩飾，這總是容易的事體。許多現在的著作家就是以這樣的揭發爲主要工作。這並不是馬克斯所發明的。在他以前，大家早已知道。稀奇的是，十八世紀的一些著作家，把宗敎的敎義解釋爲牧師、神父們的大欺騙，藉此爲他們自己和他們同夥的剝削者詐取權力和財富。馬克斯學派接受這種說法而稱宗敎爲「大衆的鴉片」[12]。支持這種說法的人，從來不會想到，凡是有私利所贊成的，必然也有私利所反對的。只是說這事有利於某一階級，這決不是一個叫人滿意的解釋。應該解答的問題是，爲什麼那些會受害的人不能夠挫敗那些會受益者的企圖。

Every firm and every branch of business is in the short run interested in increased sales of its products. In the long run, however, there prevails a tendency toward an equalization of returns in the various branches of production. If demand for the products of a branch increases and raises profits, more capital flows into it and the competition of the new enterprises cuts down the profits. Returns are by no means higher in the sale of socially detrimental articles than in the sale of socially beneficial articles. If a certain branch of business is outlawed and those engaged in it risk prosecution, penalties, and imprisonment, gross profits must be high enough to compensate for the risks involved. But this does not interfere with the height of net returns.

每個行號和每個商業部門，在短期當中都以增銷它的產品爲有利。可是，在長期當中，各種不同的生產部門，其報酬有傾向於平均的趨勢。如果某一部門的產品需求增加了，因而利潤增加，則有更多的資本流進這一部門，由於新加入者的競爭，利潤爲之減少。從社會的觀點來看，有害的商品，其銷售利潤決不會高於有利的商品的銷售利潤。如果某一行業是犯法的，從事這種行業的人們承擔了死刑、罰款和坐牢的危險，則其毛利潤必須高到足以抵償所冒的危險。但是，這種事實並不干擾純利潤的高度。

The rich, the owners of the already operating plants, have no particular class interest in the maintenance of free competition. They are opposed to confiscation and expropriation of their fortunes, but their vested interests are rather in favor of measures preventing newcomers from challenging their position. Those fighting for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of those rich

富人，已在營業的工廠老闆，並沒有什麼特別的階級利益在於自由競爭的維持。他們反對財富的沒收，但他們的旣得利益是贊成採取一些方法來防止新來者對他們之地位的挑戰。至於那些爲自由企業、自由競爭而奮鬥的人們，不是在保護今天的富人的利益。他們是想讓那些可成爲明天企業家的和那些有天才而可以使後代的生活過得更舒適的無名人物，得以自由發展其才智。他們是想爲經濟的更爲改善留一途徑。他們是進步的發言人。

The nineteenth-century success of free trade ideas was effected by the theories of classical economics. The prestige of these ideas was so great that those whose selfish class interests they hurt could not hinder their endorsements by public opinion and their realization by legislative measures. It is ideas that make history, and not history that makes ideas.

十九世紀自由貿易思想之所以成功，得力於古典經濟學的一些理論。這些思想的聲望是崇高的，崇高到足以使那些階級私利受害的人們，不能夠阻止輿論對它們的支持，不能夠阻止這些思想表現於立法措施。觀念造成歷史，不是歷史造成觀念。

It is useless to argue with mystics and seers. They base their assertions on intuition and are not prepared to submit them to rational examination. The Marxians pretend that what their inner voice proclaims is history's self-revelation. If other people do not hear this voice, it is only a proof that they are not chosen. It is insolence that those groping in darkness dare to contradict the inspired ones. Decency should impel them to creep into a corner and keep silent.

與神秘主義者和空想家辯論，是無用的。他們用直觀來支持他們的論斷，而不訴之於合理的檢討。馬克斯主義者謊言【謊稱】他們內在之音（their inner voice）所宣吿的是，歷史的自我啓示（history's self-revelation）。如果有些人沒有聽到這種聲音，那就證明他們不是被選的。如果在暗中摸索的人們敢於反抗通了神意的人，那就是大不敬。前者必須安分守己，爬在角落裡保守沉默。

However, science cannot abstain from thinking although it is obvious that it will never succeed in convincing those who dispute the supremacy of reason. Science must emphasize that the appeal to intuition cannot settle the question which of several antagonistic doctrines is the right one and which are wrong. It is an undeniable fact that Marxism is not the only doctrine advanced in our time. There are other "ideologies" besides Marxism. The Marxians assert that the application of these other doctrines would hurt the interests of the many. But the supporters of these doctrines say precisely the same with regard to Marxism.

但是，科學不會不思考，即令科學決不能說服那些不承認理知的人。科學必須強調：訴之於直觀並不能解決「在一些相反的學說中，那一個是對的，那一些是錯的」這個問題。馬克斯主義不是我們這個時代被提倡的唯一學說。除了馬克斯主義以外，還有許多其他的「意理」。馬克斯主義者斷言，實行這些其他的學說，將傷害許多人的利益。但是，這些學說的支持者也可同樣說馬克斯主義的實行將會如此。

Of course, the Marxians consider a doctrine vicious if its author's background is not proletarian. But who is proletarian? Doctor Marx, the manufacturer and "exploiter" Engels, and Lenin, the scion of the Russian gentry, were certainly not of proletarian background. But Hitler and Mussolini were genuine proletarians and spent their youth in poverty. The conflict of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks or that between Stalin and Trotsky cannot be presented as class conflicts. They were conflicts between various sects of fanatics who called one another traitors.

照馬克斯主義者的判斷，如果某一學說的主張者不是無產階級的背景，這個學說就是邪惡的。但是，誰是無產階級者？馬克斯博士，工業家兼「剝削者」的恩格斯，俄國上流社會後裔的列寧，都不是無產階級的背景。但是，希特勒和墨索里尼（Mussolini）倒是眞正地屬於無產階級，他們的靑年時期過的是貧窮生活。布爾雪維克（Bolsheviks）與孟雪維克（Mensheviks）之間的鬥爭，以及史達林與托洛斯基之間的鬥爭，都不能代替階級鬥爭，這都是些狂熱之徒的派系鬥爭，他們彼此都罵對方爲叛徒。

The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our

馬克斯哲學的精髓是這樣：我們是對的，因爲我們是新興的無產階級的發言人。紛歧的推理無損於我們敎義的有效性，因爲這些敎義是來自那個決定人類命運的超越力量。我們的敵人是錯的，因爲他們缺少那種指導他們心靈的直觀。這當然不是他們的過失，只是因爲他們所屬的階級不同，所以不具備純正的無產階級的邏輯，而被一些「意理」蒙蔽。深奥而不可測的歷史，勒令選擇了我們，譴責了他們。將來是我們的。

----------

[6] Cf. Lancelot Hogben, Science for the Citizen (New York, 1938), pp. 726-728.

[6] 參考Lancelot Hogben, Science for the Citizen (New York, 1938), pp. 726-728.

[7] Ibid., p. 726.

[7] 同上：p. 726.

[8] Although the term rationalization is new, the thing itself was known long ago; Cr., for instance, the words of Benjamin Franklin: "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do." (Autobiography, ed. New York, 11944, p. 41.)

[8] 僅管「合理化」一詞是新鮮的，但這種事象的本身在很早以前就已知的。參考Benjamin Franklin的話：「作爲一個reasonable creature是極其方便的，因爲這使得你能夠找出或造出一個理由爲你想做的每件事情辯護。」(Autobiography, ed. New York, 11944, p. 41.)

[9] "Le moulin à bras vous donnera la société avec le souzerain; le moulin à vapeur, la société avec le capitaliste industriel." Marx, Misére de la philosophie (Paris and Brussels, 1847), p. 100.

[9] 「手推的磨子給你的社會，是封建地主的社會：蒸汽機發動的磨子給你的社會，是工業資本家的社會。」馬克斯The Poverty of Philosophy（英丈譯本），p. 105.

[10] Marx, Das Kapital (7th ed. Hamburg, 1914), I, 728-729.

[10] Marx, Das Kapital (7th ed. Hamburg, 1914), I, 728-729.

[11] The Communist Manifesto, I.

[11] The Communist Manifesto, I.

[12] The meaning that contemporary Marxism attaches to this phrase, viz., that the religious drug has been purposely administered to the people, may have been the meaning of Marx too. But it was not implied in the passage in which--in 1843--Marx coined this phrase. Df., R.P. Case, Religion in Russia (New York, 1946), pp. 67-69.

[12] 現代馬克斯主義加給這個片語的意義——宗敎的麻醉是有意地施之於人們的——可能也是馬克斯的意義。但是在一八四三年馬克斯創造這個片語的文句中並不蘊含這個意義。參考R.P. Case, Religion in Russia (New York, 1946), pp. 67-69.

4. Racial Polylogism

四、種族的多通輯論

Marxian polylogism is an abortive makeshift to salvage the untenable doctrines of socialism. Its attempt to substitute intuition for ratiocination appeals to popular superstitions. But it is precisely this attitude that places Marxian polylogism and its offshoot, the so-called "sociology of knowledge," in irreconcilable antagonism to science and reason.

馬克斯的多邏輯論救不了站不住的社會主義。它想以直觀代替推理，這是訴之於普通迷信。但是正是這種態度，使得馬克斯的多邏輯論和它的支派——所謂「知識社會學」（sociology of knowledge），與科學和理知立於不可妥協的敵對地位。

It is different with the polylogism of the racists. This brand of polylogism is in agreement with fashionable, although mistaken, tendencies in present-day empiricism. It is an established fact that mankind is divided into various races. The races differ in bodily features. Materialist philosophers assert that thoughts are a secretion of the brain as bile is a secretion of the gall-bladder. It would be inconsistent for them to reject beforehand the hypothesis that the thought-secretion of the various races may differ in essential qualities. The fact that anatomy has not succeeded up to now in discovering anatomical differences in the brain cells of various races cannot invalidate the doctrine that the logical structure of mind is different with different races. It does not exclude the assumption that later research may discover such anatomical peculiarities.

它與種族主義者的多邏輯論不同。這個牌號的多邏輯論與今天的經驗主義的時髦趨勢是符合的，儘管這個趨勢是錯誤的。世界上的人類分做不同的種族，這是一個旣成的事實。種族之不同，表顯於身體上的特徵。唯物主義的哲學家斷言：思想是腦髓的分泌物，如同膽汁是膽囊的分泌物。對他們而言，如果預先否定「不同種族的思想分泌，在本質上會不同」這個假設，那就是自相矛盾。人體解剖術到現在還沒有發現不同種族的腦細胞有何不同：這個事實並不能使「人心的邏輯結構隨種族之不同而不同」這個學說失效。因爲解剖術的研究，也許將來會發現腦細胞也有些種族性的特徵。

Some ethnologists tell us that it is a mistake to speak of higher and lower civilizations and of an alleged backwardness of alien races. The civilizations of various races are different from the Western civilization of the peoples of Caucasian stock, but they are not inferior. Every race has its peculiar mentality. It is faulty to apply to the civilization of any of them yardsticks abstracted from the achievements of other races. Westerners call the civilization of China an arrested civilization and that of the inhabitants of New Guinea primitive barbarism. But the Chinese and the natives of New Guinea despise our civilization no less than we despise theirs. Such estimates are judgments of value and hence arbitrary. Those other races have a different structure of mind. Their civilizations are adequate to their mind as our civilization is adequate to our mind. We are incapable of comprehending that what we call backwardness does not appear such to them. It is, from the point of view of their logic, a better method of coming to a satisfactory arrangement with given natural conditions of life than is our progressivism.

有些種族學家吿訴我們：把文明說成較高的和較低的，把外族說成落後的，這都是錯誤的。別個種族的文明不同於白種人的西方文明，但是它們並不是低級的。每個種族有它特殊的心境。如果以某一種族的成就作標準，來衡量任何種族的文明，這是錯的。西方人把中國文明叫做滞塞的文明，把新幾內亞人的文明叫做原始的野蠻。但是，中國人和新幾內亞人輕蔑我們的文明，並不遜於我們之輕蔑他們的文明。像這一類的評價都是價値判斷，因而都是武斷的。那些其他的種族有一不同的心靈結構。他們的文明適於他們的心，正如同我們的文明之適於我們的心。我們不能了解，我們所說的落後對於他們並不是落後。就他們的邏輯觀點來看，他們的文明比我們的進歩主義更好，因爲在他們的生活環境中，要如此才是滿意的安排。

These ethnologists are right in emphasizing that it is not the task of a historian---and the ethnologist too is a historian---to express value judgments. But they are utterly mistaken in contending that these other races have been guided in their activities by motives other than those which haver actuated the white race. The Asiatics and the Africans no less than the peoples of European descent have been eager to struggle successfully for survival and to use reason as the foremost weapon in these endeavors. They have sought to get rid of the beasts of prey and of disease, to prevent famines and to raise the productivity of labor. There can be no doubt that in the pursuit of these aims they have been less successful than the whites. The proof is that they are eager to profit from all achievements of the West. Those ethnologists would be right, if Mongols or Africans, tormented by a painful disease, were to renounce the aid of a European doctor because their mentality or their world view led them to believe that it is better to suffer than to be relieved of pain. Mahatma Gandhi disavowed his whole philosophy when he entered a modern hospital to be treated for appendicitis.

這些種族學家，在其強調「價値判斷的表示，不是一位歷史家的事情（種族學家也是歷史家）」的時候，他們是對的。至於他們認爲，其他種族的行爲動機不同於白種人，那就完全錯誤了。亞洲人、非洲人之爲生存奮鬥，以及利用理知作爲最主要的奮鬥手段，並不遜於歐洲人。他們曾努力於解除野獸和疾病的侵襲、防止饑荒、提高勞動生產力。在這些努力中，他們不及白種人成功，這是事實。這可從他們之汲汲於從西方的成就中以謀利得到證明。假若被疾病所折磨的蒙古人或非洲人，因爲他們的心態或人生觀，使他們相信吃苦優於痛苦的解除，因而拒絕歐洲醫生的診治，那麼，這些種族學家所說的才是對的。印度的甘地（Mahatma Gandhi）在接受現代醫術割治盲腸的時候，他就放棄了他的整套哲學。

The North American Indians lacked the ingenuity to invent the wheel. The inhabitants of the Alps were not keen enough to construct skis which would have rendered their hard life much more agreeable. Such shortcomings were not due to a mentality different from those of the races which had long since used wheels and skis; they were failures, even when judged from the point of view of the Indians and the Alpine mountaineers.

北美印第安人缺乏發明輪子的聰明。阿爾卑斯山的居民不會做雪橇以改善他們的生活。像這樣的缺陷，並非由於一種異於那些早已利用輪子和雪橇的種族的心態。這些缺陷，即令從印第安人和阿爾卑斯山居民的觀點來看，也是缺陷。

However, these considerations refer only to the motives determining concrete actions, not to the only relevant problem of whether or not there exists between various races a difference in the logical structure of mind. It is precisely this that the racists assert.[13]

可是，這些考慮只涉及那些決定具體行爲的動機，並未涉及「不同的種族之間，究竟有沒有不同的人心結構」這個唯一相干的問題。這正是種族主義者所肯定、斷言的。[13]

We may refer to what has been said in the preceding chapters about the fundamental issues of the logical structure of mind and the categorial principles of thought and action. Some additional observations will suffice to give the finishing stroke to racial polylogism and to any other brand of polylogism.

我們可回想，在前面幾章關於人心邏輯結構的基本問題和思想行爲的那些原則所講的話。再加上若干得自觀察的結論，就足夠一舉而完全摧毀種族的多邏輯論和其他牌號的多邏輯論。

The categories of human thought and action are neither arbitrary products of the human mind nor conventions. They are not outside of the universe and of the course of cosmic events. They are biological facts and have a definite function in life and reality. They are instruments in man's struggle for existence and in his endeavors to adjust himself as much as possible to the real state of the universe and to remove uneasiness as much as it is in his power to do so. They are

人的思想和行爲的諸範疇，旣不是人心武斷的結果，也不是一些習慣，它們不在宇宙之外，也不在宇宙事象的過程之外。它們是生物學上的事實，在生活與現實中有一定的功用。人爲生存而奮鬥，它們是這種奮鬥的工具。人靠它們來調整自己，使自己盡可能地適應周遭的實際情況，盡可能地把不愉快的事情消除。所以，它們對於外在世界的結構是適合的，而且反映這個世界和這個現實的特性。它們工作，而且在這個意義下他們是眞實的、有效的。

It is consequently incorrect to assert that aprioristic insight and pure reasoning do not convey any information about reality and the structure of the universe. The fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge. They are adequate to the structure of reality, they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, they are for man basic ontological facts.[14] We do not know what a superhuman intellect may think and comprehend. For man every cognition is conditioned by the logical structure of his mind and implied in this structure. It is precisely the satisfactory results of the empirical sciences and their practical application that evidence this truth. Within the orbit in which human action is able to attain ends aimed at there is no room left for agnosticism.

因此，如果斷言先驗的悟力和純粹的推理對於現實和宇宙結構不會傳達任何淸況，這種說法是不對的。一些基本的邏輯關係和思想行爲的諸範疇，是一切人類知識的最後根源。它們是符合現實結構的，它們把這種結構顯現於人心，而且，在這種意義下，對於人而言，它們是些基本的本體論的事實。[14]我們不知道一個超人的智力會怎樣想、怎樣領悟。就人來講，每一認知都受限於他內心的邏輯結構，而蘊含在這個結構裡面。證明這個眞理的，就是那些經驗科學的良好結果和其實際的應用。在人的行爲所可達成其目的的軌道裡面，不容「不可知論」（agnosticism）存在。

If there had been races which had developed a different logical structure of the mind, they would have failed in the use of reason as an aid in the struggle for existence. The only means for survival that could have protected them against extermination would have been their instinctive reactions. Natural selection would have eliminated those specimens of such races that tried to employ reasoning for the direction of their behavior. Those individuals alone would have survived that relied upon instincts only. This means that only those would have had a chance to survive that did not rise above the mental level of animals.

如果眞有一些種族發展出一種不同的心靈邏輯結構，他們就不能在生存競爭中利用理知。於是，保護他們免於滅亡的唯一工具，只是他們的本能反應。在物競天擇下，這樣的種族——心靈的邏輯結構不同的種族——如要以推理來指導行爲，那就一定會被消滅。只有那些專靠本能的個體才能生存。這就是說，只有那些沒有超越一般動物的心態水準者，才會有生存的機會。

The scholars of the West have amassed an enormous amount of material concerning the high civilizations of China and India and the primitive civilizations of the Asiatic, American, Australian, and African aborigines. It is safe to say that all that is worth knowing about the ideas of these races is known. But never has any supporter of polylogism tried to use these data for a description of the allegedly different logic of these peoples and civilizations.

西方的學者們曾經聚積了關於中國、印度高度文明和亞洲、美洲、澳洲和非洲土著原始文明的大量資料。可靠的說法是，關於這些種族的値得知道的東西，已經全部知道。但是，從來沒有一個多邏輯論的支持者想利用這些資料來記述這些種族和文明的所謂不同的邏輯。

-----------------

[13] Cf. L.G. Tirala, Rasse, Geist und Seele (Munich, 1935), pp. 190 ff.

[13] 參考L.G. Tirala, Rasse, Geist und Seele (Munich, 1935), pp. 190 ff.

[14] Cf. Morris R. Cohen, Reason and Nature (New York, 1931), pp. 202-205; A Preface to Logi (New York, 1944), pp. 42-44, 54-56, 92, 180-187.

[14] 參考Morris R. Cohen, Reason and Nature (New York, 1931), pp. 202-205; A Preface to Logi (New York, 1944), pp. 42-44, 54-56, 92, 180-187.

5. Polylogism and Understanding

五、多邏輯論和了解

Some supporters of the tenets of Marxism and racism interpret the epistemological teachings of their parties in a peculiar way. They are ready to admit that the logical structure of mind is uniform for all races, nations, and classes. Marxism or racism, they assert, never intended to deny this undeniable fact. What they really wanted to say

有些馬克斯主義和種族主義的擁護者，都給他們自己的認識論的敎義解釋得很特別。他們樂於承認，就所有的種族、民族、階級而言，人心的邏輯結構是一致的。他們聲言，馬克斯主義或種族主義，決不想否認這個不可否認的事實。他們眞正想說的是：歷史的了解、美的感受、以及價値判斷都受限於一個人的背景。這種說法，當然不能靠多邏輯論者的論著來支持。可是，把它作爲一個獨立的學說來看，也須加以分析。

There is no need to emphasize again that a man's value judgments and his choice of ends reflect his inborn bodily features and all the vicissitudes of his life.[15] But it is a far cry from the acknowledgment of this fact to the belief that racial inheritance or class affiliation ultimately determines judgments of value and the choice of ends. The fundamental discrepancies in world view and patterns of behavior do not correspond to differences in race, nationality, or class affiliation.

一個人的價値判斷和他的目的選擇，反映他天生的特徵和他的生活的變動，關於這一點，這裡無須再加強調。[15]但是，對於這個事實的承認與相信「種族遺傳或階級關係是價値判斷和目的選擇的最後決定因素」，這兩者之間有很遠很遠的距離。人生觀與行爲方式的基本差異，並不相當於種族、民族、或階級關係的差異。

There is hardly any greater divergence in value judgments than that between ascetics and those eager to enjoy life lightheartedly. An unbridgeable gulf separates devout monks and nuns from the rest of mankind. But there have been people dedicated to the monkish ideals among all races, nations, classes, and castes. Some of them were sons and daughters of kings and wealthy noblemen, others were beggars. St. Francis, Santa Clara, and their ardent followers were natives of Italy, whose other inhabitants cannot be described as weary of temporal things. Puritanism was Anglo-Saxon, but so was the lasciviousness of the British under the Tudors, the Stuarts, and the Hanoverians. The nineteenth century's outstanding champion of asceticism was Count Leo Tolstoy, a wealthy member of the profligate Russian aristocracy. Tolstoy saw the pith of the philosophy he attacked embodied in Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata, a masterpiece of the son of extremely poor parents.

價値判斷的差異，沒有比禁慾主義者與縱慾主義者之間來得更大的。虔誠的和尙、尼姑與人類其他的人，其間有一條不可踰越的鴻溝。但是在所有的種族、民族、階級當中，都有些人是獻身於修道院的理想的。其中有些人是國王和貴族的兒女，有些人是乞丐。St. Francis，Santa Clara和他們虔誠的信徒們是意大利人，可是，我們不能把其他的意大利人說成是厭棄世俗事物的。淸敎是Anglo-Saxon民族的，但是在The Tudors、The Stuarts和The Hanoverians王朝時代的荒淫無度，也是Anglo-Saxon民族的。十九世紀禁慾主義的傑出代表者是托爾斯泰（Count Leo Tolstoy），他是窮奢縱慾的俄國貴族之一員。托爾斯泰發現，他所攻擊的那種哲學精神體現在貝多芬（Beethoven）的Kreutzer Sonata，而這部奏鳴曲的作者正是極端貧窮的父母的兒子。

It is the same with aesthetic values. All races and nations have had both classic and romantic art. With all their ardent propaganda the Marxians have not succeeded in bringing about a specifically proletarian art or literature. The "proletarian" writers, painters, and musicians have not created new styles and have not established new aesthetic values. What characterizes them is solely their tendency to call everything they detest "bourgeois" and everything they like "proletarian."

在美的價値方面也是如此。所有的種族和民族，都有古典的和浪漫的藝術。馬克斯主義者雖有那麼多的熱烈宣傳，他們並沒有完成一種獨特的無產階級藝術或文學。「無產階級的」作家、畫家、音樂家，沒有創造新的風格，也沒有建立新的審美價値。他們的特徵只是把他們所不喜歡的一切都叫做「資產階級的」，把他們所喜歡的叫做「無產階級的」。

Historical understanding both of the historian and of the acting man always reflects the personality of its author.[16] But if the historian and the politician are imbued with the desire for truth, they will never let themselves be deluded by party bias, provided they are

歷史家與行爲人的歷史了解，總是了解者的人格反映。[16]但是，如果歷史家和政治家具有尋求眞理的熱望，他們就不會自囿於派系的偏見，假若他們有本領而不愚昧。至於一位歷史家或一位政治家，是把某一因素的干擾看作有利或有害，這倒是不重要的。不管他對那些發生作用的因素，低估其中之一，或高估其中之一，都得不到任何好處。只有笨拙而自以爲是歷史家的人們，才會相信他們可以用歪曲歷史的手段來達到他們的目的。拿破崙第一和第三、俾斯麥（Bismarck）、馬克斯、格蘭斯頓（Gladstone）、廸士累利（Disraeli）這些在上世紀最引起爭論的人物的傳記，關於價値判斷方面有很大的紛爭，但在對於這些人所扮演的角色的了解上，則幾乎沒有異議。

This is no less true of the statesman's understanding. What use could a champion of Protestantism derive from misunderstanding the tremendous power and prestige of Catholicism, or a liberal from misunderstanding the relevance of socialist ideas? In order to succeed a politician must see things as they are; whoever indulges in wishful thinking will certainly fail. Judgments of relevance differ from judgments of value in that they aim at the appraisal of a state of affairs not dependent on the author's arbitrariness. They are colored by their author's personality and can therefore never be unanimously agreed upon by all people. But here again we must raise the question: What advantage could a race or class derive from an "ideological" distortion of understanding?

政治家的了解也是如此。一位新敎的擁護者誤解天主敎的權力和特權，會得到什麼好處；一位自由主義者誤解社會主義，又會得到什麼好處？一個政治家如要成功，就必須認淸事實的眞象，誰慣於一廂情願的想法，誰就一定失敗。事實關係的判斷之不同於價値判斷，在於不靠武斷來評量事態。這種判斷自不免於染上判斷者人格的色彩，所以不會是所有的人都可一致同意的。但是，在這裡我們又要提出這個問題：一個種族或一個階級，從一「意理的」歪曲了解，又能得到什麼好處？

As has already been pointed out, the serious discrepancies to be found in historical studies are an outcome of differences in the field of the nonhistorical sciences and not in various modes of understanding.

如已指出的，在歷史研究中有待發現的一些嚴重矛盾，都是「非歷史的」科學部門裡面的一些爭論的結果，而不是由於了解的方法之不同。

Today many historians and writers are imbued with the Marxian dogma that the realization of the socialist plans is both unavoidable and the supreme good, and that the labor movement is entrusted with the historical mission of accomplishing this task by a violent overthrow of the capitalistic system. Starting from this tenet, they take it as a matter of course that the parties of the "Left," the elect, in the pursuit of their policies, should resort to acts of violence and to murder. A revolution cannot be consummated by peaceful methods. It is not worthwhile to dwell upon such trifles as the butchering of the four daughters of the last Tsar, of Leon Trotsky, of tens of thousands of Russian bourgeois and so on. "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs"; why explicitly mention the eggs broken? But, of course, it is different if one of those assailed ventures to defend himself or even to strike back. Few only mention the acts of sabotage, destruction, and violence committed by strikers. But all authors enlarge upon the attempts of the companies to protect their property and the lives of their employees and their customers against such onslaughts.

現在，許多歷史家和作者受了馬克斯的「獨格瑪」（dogma）的感染，以爲社會主義制度的實現是必然的，也是至善的，而勞工運動是要以暴力推翻資本主義實現社會主義，以完成這個歷史使命。從這個敎條出發，他們就把「左翼」黨派的屠殺政策視爲當然。革命是不能靠和平手段完成的。像殺害沙皇的四個女兒、殺害托洛斯基，乃至殺害幾十萬俄國的資產階級者等等，這些「小事」是値不得計較的。「不打破鷄蛋就做不成蛋捲」；爲什麼要明白地提出那些已打破的鷄蛋呢？但是，如果被侵害的人們當中，有敢於自衛，甚至敢於反擊者，情形就當然不同了。事實上，只有少數人僅僅提到怠工、破壞、以及罷工者的暴行。但是，所有的作者都詳細陳述鐵路公司如何地想保護他們的財產、保護他們的員工和顧客的生命，以免於這些襲擊。

Such discrepancies are due neither to judgments of value nor to differences in understanding. They are the outcome of antagonistic

像這樣的紛歧旣不是由於價値判斷，也不是由於了解的不同，而是由於關於經濟與歷史演化的一些相敵對的理論。如果社會主義的到來是不可避免的，而且只有靠革命手段來達成的話，「進步份子」所犯的暴行，只是一些沒有什麼重要性的小事。但是，那些會妨害社會主義最後勝利的「反革命份子」的自衛和反擊，卻是最大的重要事。事實上，他們的屠殺是異常的事件，而所謂反革命者的行爲，只是當然的常態。【這是一些引人注目的大事，而革命行爲卻只是常態。】

----------------

[15] Cf. above, pp. 46-47.

[15] 參考前面第二章第六節。

[16] Cf. above, pp. 57-58.

[16] 參考前面第二章第八節的最後幾段。

6. The Case for Reason

六、主張理知（reason）的理由

Judicious rationalists do not pretend that human reason can ever make man omniscient. They are fully aware of the fact that, however knowledge may increase, there will always remain things ultimately given and not liable to any further elucidation. But, they say, as far as man is able to attain cognition, he must rely upon reason. The ultimate given is the irrational. The knowable is, as far as it is known already, necessarily rational. There is neither an irrational mode of cognition nor a science of irrationality.

明智的理性主義者（rationalist），並不以爲人的理知可以使人成爲全知。他們充份知道這個事實，即：知識雖然可以增進，但總有些東西永遠是最後的假定（也即極據）而不容解析淸楚的。但是，他們又說，人，就其能夠得到認知的這限度以內來講，他必須依賴理知。最後的假定是個非理性的。知識，就我們已知的而言，必然是理性的。我們旣沒有非理性的認知模式，也沒有一門非理性的科學。

With regard to unsolved problems, various hypotheses are permissible provided they do not contradict logic and the uncontested data of experience. But these are hypotheses only.

關於一些未解決的問題，可容許各種不同的假說，只要它們不抵觸邏輯和一致公認的經驗的資料。但是，它們只是一些假說。

We do not know what causes the inborn differences in human abilities. Science is at a loss to explain why Newton and Mozart were full of creative genius and why most people are not. But it is by all means an unsatisfactory answer to say that a genius owes his greatness to his ancestry or to his race. The question is precisely why such a man differs from his brothers and from the other members of his race.

我們還不知道什麼東西使人的智能有先天的差異。爲什麼牛頓和莫扎特（Mozart）富有創造才，而其餘的大多數人都沒有？科學對於這個問題茫然不得其解。科學盡其所能只能提供這樣一個叫人不能滿意的答覆：天才是得之於他的祖先或他的種族。【然而】這個問題正在於：爲什麼這一個人不同於他的兄弟，不同於他本族的其他份子。

It is a little bit less faulty to attribute the great achievements of the white race to racial superiority. Yet this is no more than vague hypothesis which is at variance with the fact that the early foundations of civilization were laid by peoples of other races. We cannot know whether or not at a later date other races will supplant Western civilization.

至於把白種人的偉大成就歸因於種族的優越性，其爲錯誤，不過稍遜而已。可是，這仍然是一個同樣含糊的假設，而與「現代文明的—些基礎，是由其他種族的人們所安排的」這一事實不相符。我們不會知道，將來是不是會有其他的種族取代西方文明。

However, such a hypothesis must be appraised on its own merits. It must not be condemned beforehand because the racists base on it their postulate that there is an irreconcilable conflict between various racial groups and that the superior races must enslave the inferior ones. Ricardo's law of association has long since discarded this mistaken interpretation of the inequality of men.[17] It is nonsensical to fight the racial hypothesis by negating obvious facts. It is vain to deny that up to now certain races have contributed nothing or very

可是，像這樣的一個假設，必須就它本身的眞實性來評價。我們不可以因爲種族主義者把他們的主張建立在這個假設上，因而就說這個假設不對。種族主義者的主張是：在不同的種族之間有一不能和解的衝突，而優等種族一定要奴役劣等種族。李嘉圖的協作法則（Ricardo's law of association），[17]早已把這種關於人間不平等的錯誤解釋廢棄。可是，爲對付種族主義者的假設而否定明顯的事實，也是荒謬的。直到現在，有些種族封於文明的發展毫無貢獻，或極少貢獻，因而在這個意義下，可說是劣等種族，這個事實是不容我們否認的。

If somebody were eager to distill at any cost a grain of truth out of the Marxian teachings, he could say that emotions influence a man's reasoning very much. Nobody ever ventured to deny this obvious fact, and Marxism cannot be credited with its discovery. But it is without any significance for epistemology. There are many sources both of success and of error. It is the task of psychology to enumerate and to classify them.

如果有人一定要從馬克斯的敎義中找出一點眞理，那麼，他可以這樣說：情感很影響一個人的推理。這個明顯的事實，誰也不敢否認，這個發現不能歸功於馬克斯主義。但是，它對於認識論毫無意義。成功與錯誤的原因都有許多。把它們列舉出來而予以分類，那是心理學所要作的事情。

Envy is a widespread frailty. It is certain that many intellectuals envy the higher income of prosperous businessmen and that these feelings drive them toward socialism. They believe that the authorities of a socialist commonwealth would pay them higher salaries than those that they earn under capitalism But to prove the existence of this envy does not relieve science of the duty of making the most careful examination of the socialist doctrines. Scientists are bound to deal with every doctrine as if its supporters were inspired by nothing else than the thirst for knowledge. The various brands of polylogism substitute for a purely theoretical examination of opposite doctrines the unmasking of the background and the motives of their authors. Such a procedure is incompatible with the first principles of ratiocination.

嫉妒是一個普遍的弱點。確確實實有些知識份子嫉妒那些發財的生意人收入多，因而傾向社會主義。他們以爲，社會主義的政府給他們的薪金將會高於資本主義社會所賺得的。但是，對於這種嫉妒心理的證明，並不解除科學對於社會主義敎條作最小心、最充份檢討的責任。科學家研究每個學說，必須把該學說的擁護者看作只被求知慾所驅使。各種不同牌號的多邏輯論，對於它們所反對的那些學說的處理，只是揭發那些學說的主張者的背景和動機，而不從事純粹的理論檢討。這樣一個程序，不合乎推理的基本原則。

It is a poor makeshift to dispose of a theory by referring to its historical background, to the "spirit" of its time, to the material conditions of the country of its origin, and to any personal qualities of its authors. A theory is subject to the tribunal of reason only. The yardstick to be applied is always the yardstick of reason. A theory is either correct or incorrect. It may happen that the present state of our knowledge does not allow a decision with regard to its correctness or incorrectness. But a theory can never be valid for a bourgeois or an American if it is invalid for a proletarian or a Chinese.

研究一個理論而歸因於它的歷史背景，歸因於它的時代「精神」，歸因於它的發源地的物質環境，歸因於該理論的主張者的人格，這都是拙劣的手段。一個理論只受理知的評判。評判的尺度永遠是理知尺度。一個理論旣可對，也可錯。有的時候，憑我們現有的知識，不能判斷它的對或錯。但是，一個理論，如果對於無產階級或中國人是無效的，則決不會對於有產階級或美國人是有效的。

If the Marxians and the racist were right, it would be impossible to explain why those in power are anxious to suppress dissenting theories and to persecute their supporters. The very fact that there are intolerant governments and political parties intent upon outlawing and exterminating dissenters, is a proof of the excellence of reason. It is not a conclusive proof of a doctrine's correctness that its adversaries use the police, the hangman, and violent mobs to fight it. But it is a proof of the fact that those taking recourse to violent oppression are in their subconsciousness convinced of the untenability of their own doctrines.

假若馬克斯主義者和種族主義者是對的，那就無法解釋爲什麼他們一有了政權就壓制異端學說、迫害異端的主張者。有了「不容忍的政府和政黨，總想壓制或消滅反對者」這個事實，就是理知優越的一個證明。一個學說的正確性，固不能因爲敵對者利用警察、利用劊子手、利用暴民來鬥爭而得到證明，但是那些人們之利用暴力來壓制別人的學說，正證明他們的潜意識已承認，他們自己的學說是站不住的。

It is impossible to demonstrate the validity of the a priori foundations

我們無法論證邏輯和行爲學的一些先驗基礎之有效性而不涉及這些基礎的本身。理知是一個極據，不能用它本身來分析、來問難的。人之有理知，是一非理性的事實。關於理知，我們只可以說：它是使人之所以異於禽獸的特徵，它使那些專屬於人的事物得以實現。

To those pretending that man would be happier if he were to renounce the use of reason and try to let himself be guided by intuition and instincts only, no other answer can be given than an analysis of the achievements of human society. In describing the genesis and working of social cooperation, economics provides all the information required for an ultimate decision between reason and unreason. If man reconsiders freeing himself from the supremacy of reason, he must know what he will have to forsake.

有些人以爲：如果人抛棄了理知，專憑直覺和本能來生活，他將更快樂些。對於作這種主張的人，我們只好用一社會結構的分析作爲給他們的答覆。經濟學在記述社會合作的起源和進行的時候，對於合理與不合理之間的最後決定，提供了所需要的一切信息。假若人還想擺脫理知支配的話，他應當知道他必須放棄些什麼。

-------

[17] See below, pp. 158-163

[17] 見第八章第三節。

Chapter IV. A First Analysis of the Category of Action

第4章 行爲元範第一個基本分析

1. Ends and Means

一、目的和手段

The result sought by an action is called its end, goal, or aim. One uses these terms in ordinary speech also to signify intermediate ends, goals, or aims; these are points which acting man wants to attain only because he believes that he will reach his ultimate end, goal or aim in passing beyond them. Strictly speaking the end, goal, or aim of any action is always the relief from a felt uneasiness.

一個行爲所尋求的結果，叫做它的目的或目標。我們在日常談話中使用這些名詞，也指稱一些中間的目的或目標；行爲人之所以想達到這些中間目的或目標，只是因爲他相信，通過它們就可以達到他的最後目的或目標。嚴格地講，任何行爲的目的或目標，總是某一不舒適的感覺之解除。

A means is what serves to the attainment of any end, goal, or aim. Means are not in the given universe; in this universe there exist only things. A thing becomes a means when human reason plans to employ it for the attainment of some end and human action really employs it for this purpose. Thinking man sees the serviceableness of things, i.e., their ability to minister to his ends, and acting man makes them means. It is of primary importance to realize that parts of the external world become means only through the operation of the human mind and its offshoot, human action. External objects are as such only phenomena of the physical universe and the subject matter of the natural sciences. It is human meaning and action which transform them into means. Praxeology does not deal with the external world. but with man's conduct with regard to it. Praxeological reality is not the physical universe, but man's conscious reaction to the given state of this universe. Economics is not about things and tangible material objects; it is about men, their meanings and actions. Goods, commodities, and wealth and all the other notions of conduct are not elements of nature; they are elements of human meaning and conduct. He who wants to deal with them must not look at the external world; he must search for them in the meaning of acting men.

手段是爲達成任何目的或目標而服務的。手段不在旣定的宇宙中；在旣定的宇宙中的，只是許多東西。一件東西之成爲手段，是在人的理知計畫利用它以達成某一目的，而人的行爲實際上在利用它以達成此目的的時候。人在思想的時候，察知了一些東西的用處，即：它們有達成他的目的的能力：人在行爲的時候，就使它們成爲手段。最主要的是要知道：外在世界的東西之成爲手段，只有通過人的心靈和心靈所衍生的人的行爲之運作。外在的東西只是自然界的一些現象而爲自然科學的主題。把它們變成手段的是人的意思和人的行爲。行爲學並不處理外在世界，它所處理的是關於它們的人的行爲。行爲學的實在，不是外在的世界，而是人對於外在世界的旣定情況有意識的反應。經濟學無關於有形的物質的東西：它是研究人、人的意思和行爲。貨物、商品、與財富以及有關行爲的其他所有概念都非自然的要素；它們是人的意思和行爲的要素。想研究它們的人，不應該向外在世界去觀察；他必須在行爲人的意思中去探索它們。

Praxeology and economics do not deal with human meaning and action as they should be or would be if all men were inspired by an absolutely valid philosophy and equipped with a perfect knowledge of technology. For such notions as absolute validity and omniscience

假若所有的人都接受一種絕對正當的哲學，同時也具備技術上的完全知識，那麼，人的意思和行爲應該、或者將會怎樣？行爲學和經濟學不是像這樣去研究人的意思和行爲的。在以「有錯的人」作主題的科學裡面，不容有絕對正當和全知這一類的概念存在。目的，是人們想要達成的任何事物。手段，是行爲人認爲它是手段的任何事物。

It is the task of scientific technology and therapeutics to explode errors in their respective fields. It is the task of economics to expose erroneous doctrines in the field of social action. But if men do not follow the advice of science, but cling to their fallacious prejudices, these errors are reality and must be dealt with as such. Economists consider foreign exchange control as inappropriate to attain the ends aimed at by those who take recourse to it. However, if public opinion does not abandon its delusions and governments consequently resort to foreign exchange control, the course of events is determined by this attitude. Present-day medicine considers the doctrine of the therapeutic effects of mandrake as a fable. But as long as people took this fable as truth, mandrake was an economic good and prices were paid for its acquisition. In dealing with prices economics does not ask what things are in the eyes of other people, but only what they are in the meaning of those intent upon getting them. For it deals with real prices, paid and received in real transactions, not with prices as they would be if men were different from what they really are.

科學的技術學和治療學的任務，是在探究它們各自部門的錯誤。經濟學的任務是在揭發社會行爲部門的錯誤學說。但是，如果人們不遵從科學的忠吿，而固執他們錯誤的偏見，那麼這些謬見是實在的，必須就其實在來處理。經濟學家認爲，外滙管制不適於達到採行此政策的人們所想達到的目的。可是，如果輿論不放棄它的誤想，而政府終於採用了外滙管制，則事態的發展就如此決定了。現代的醫藥學認爲曼陀羅華（Mandrake或Mandragora）這種植物的治療效果是揑造的謊言。但是，只要人們把這個謊言當作眞理，曼陀羅華就是一種經濟財，爲要獲得它就必須支付代價。在處理價格問題時，經濟學並不過問在別人的心目中是些什麼東西，而只問，在那些想取得的人們的意念中，它們是些什麼。經濟學所處理的是實在的價格，在實在的交易中一付一收的實在價格，而不是「假若有關的實在的人們是另外一些人，價格又將如何」的價格。

Means are necessarily always limited, i.e., scarce with regard to the services for which man wants to use them. If this were not the case, there would not be any action with regard to them. Where man is not restrained by the insufficient quantity of things available, there is no need for any action.

手段必然是有限的，也即相對於人們想利用它們的用處而言，它們是稀少的。否則就不會有關於手段的任何行爲。在取之不盡、用之不竭的地方，也就沒有任何行爲。

It is customary to call the end the ultimate good and the means goods. In applying this terminology economists mainly used to think as technologists and not as praxeologists. They differentiated between free goods and economic goods. They called free goods those things which, being available in superfluous abundance, do not need to be economized. Such goods are, however, not the object of any action. They are general conditions of human welfare; they are parts of the natural environment in which man lives and acts. Only the economic goods are the substratum of action. They alone are dealt with in economics.

在習慣上，常把目的叫做最後財貨（the ultimate good），把手段叫做財貨（goods）。經濟學者在使用這種詞彙的時候，主要地是以技術學者的地位在思想，而不是以行爲學者的地位在思想。他們把財貨區分爲自由財與經濟財。凡是取之不盡、用之不竭，而無須經濟使用的東西，它們叫做自由財。可是，這樣的財貨不是任何行爲的目標。它們是人類福利的一般條件；它們是人們生活和行爲於其中的自然環境的部份。只有經濟財才是行爲的基礎。也只有它們才是經濟學所處理的對象。

Economic goods which in themselves are fitted to satisfy human wants directly and whose serviceableness does not depend on the cooperation of other economic goods, are called consumers' goods or goods of the first order. Means which can satisfy wants only indirectly when complemented by cooperation of other goods are called producers' goods or factors of production or goods of a remoter or higher order. The services rendered by a producers' good consist

在經濟財當中，其本身就可以直接滿足人的慾望而無須其他經濟財的合作者，叫做消費財或第一級的財貨。手段，在其與其他財貨合作時，始能間接滿足慾望，這叫做生產財或生產要素，或者叫做較遠級的或較高級的財貨。生產財所提供的服務，在於與其他輔助的生產財合作，而生產一種產品。其產品或者是消費財，或者是另一種生產財，這種生產財再與其他生產財結合而生產消費財。生產財可按其與消費財之生產距離的遠近來分級。最接近於消費財之生產的，排在第二級（第一級是消费財），生産第二級生產財的排在第三級。以此類推。

The purpose of such an arrangement of goods in orders is to provide a basis for the theory of value and prices of the factors of production. It will be shown later how the valuation and the prices of the goods of higher orders are dependent on the valuation and the prices of the goods of lower orders produced by their expenditure. The first and ultimate valuation of external things refers only to consumers' goods. All other things are valued according to the part they play in the production of consumers' goods.

這樣分級的目的，在於爲生產要素的價値與價格理論提供一個基礎。以下將要說明，較高級財貨的價値與價格如何決定於它們所生產出來的較低級財貨的價値與價格。關於外在東西的評値，最後的依據只是消費財。所有其他財貨，都按照它們對於消費財的生產所貢獻的大小來評價。

It is therefore not necessary actually to arrange producers' goods in various orders from the second to the nth. It is no less superfluous to enter into pedantic discussions of whether a concrete good has to be called a good of the lowest order or should rather be attributed to one of the higher orders. Whether raw coffee beans or roast coffee beans or ground coffee or coffee prepared for drinking or only coffee prepared and mixed with cream and sugar are to be called a consumers' good ready for consumption is of no importance. It is immaterial which manner of speech we adopt. For with regard to the problem of valuation, all that we say about a consumers' good can be applied to any good of a higher order (except those of the highest order) if we consider it as a product.

所以，實際上沒有必要把生產財照上述的辦法分級。至於對「一件具體的財貨，究竟應該叫做最低級的財貨或叫做較高級的」這個問題作學究式的討論，也同樣是不必要的。比方以咖啡爲例來講，應該叫做消費財的，究竟是未加工的咖啡子，還是烤過的咖啡子、或者是碾成粉末的咖啡、或者只是已經混合了乳油白糖的咖啡，這是不重要的問題。因爲關於評價問題，我們對於消費財所講的一切，都可逾用於任何較高級的財貨（除掉那些最高級的），如果我把它看作是產品的話。

An economic good does not necessarily have to be embodied in a tangible thing. Nonmaterial economic goods are called services.

經濟財貨不一定是一種具體的東西。非物質的經濟財就叫做「勞務」。

2. The Scale of Value

二、價値的等級

Acting man chooses between various opportunities offered for choice. He prefers one alternative to others.

行爲人是在一些可供選擇的各種機會中加以選擇。他擇其一而捨其餘。

It is customary to say that acting man has a scale of wants or values in his mind when he arranges his actions. On the basis of such a scale he satisfies what is of higher value, i.e., his more urgent wants, and leaves unsatisfied what is of lower value, i.e., what is a less urgent want. There is no objection to such a presentation of the state of

行爲人，當他安排他的行爲時，在他內心中有一個慾望等級或價値等級。靠這個等級，他使那有較高價値的，也即他所較迫切需要的，得到滿足，而讓那較低價値的，也即他不太迫切需要的不滿足。這是通常的說法。這個說法是一事態的陳述，不容反對。可是，我們不能忘記，這個價値等級或慾望等級只是在行爲的實現中表現出來。離開了各個人的實際行爲，就沒有獨立存在的價値等級或慾望等級。關於這種等級的知識，其唯一的來源是對於人的行爲之觀察。每一種行爲總是完全符合價値等級或慾望等級的，因爲這些等級不過是解釋人的行爲的一個工具而已。

Ethical doctrines are intent upon establishing scales of value according to which man should act but does not necessarily always act. They claim for themselves the vocation of telling right from wrong and of advising man concerning what he should aim at as the supreme good. They are normative disciplines aiming at the cognition of what ought to be. They are not neutral with regard to facts; they judge them from the point of view of freely adopted standards.

倫理的一些敎義，在於建立人們應該遵行、但不必總是遵行的一些價値標準。它們自負有叫人遷惡就善的使命。它們是些規範性的紀律，目的在於叫人認知「應該如何如何」。它們對於一些事實，不是中立的：它們有些自由決定的標準，從這些標準的觀點來評判事實。

This is not the attitude of praxeology and economics. They are fully aware of the fact that the ultimate ends of human action are not open to examination from any absolute standard. Ultimate ends are ultimately given, they are purely subjective, they differ with various people and with the same people at various moments in their lives. Praxeology and economics deal with the means for the attainment of ends chosen by the acting individuals. They do not express any opinion with regard to such problems as whether or not sybaritism is better than asceticism. They apply to the means only one yardstick, viz., whether or not they are suitable to attain the ends at which the acting individuals aim.

這不是行爲學和經濟學的態度。它們完全知道：人的行爲的最後目標，不容以任何絕對標準來檢討。最後的目標是些極據（ultimately given），純粹是主觀的，各人不同，而且在同一個人的一生中，也隨時期的不同而有變動。行爲學和經濟學只研討行爲人爲達成他所選的目的而採取的手段。它們對於像「奢侈放縱與克苦節儉究竟是哪一種行爲好呢」這一類的問題，不表示任何意見。它們只研討行爲人所採的手段，是否適於達成他們所要達成的目標。

The notions of abnormality and perversity therefore have no place in economics. It does not say that a man is perverse because he prefers the disagreeable, the detrimental, and the painful to the agreeable, the beneficial, and the pleasant. It says only that he is different from other people; that he likes what others detest; that he considers useful what others want to avoid; that he takes pleasure in enduring pain which others avoid because it hurts them. The polar notions normal and perverse can be used anthropologically for the distinction between those who behave as most people do and outsiders and atypical exceptions; they can be applied biologically for the distinction between those whose behavior preserves the vital forces and those whose behavior is self-destructive; they can be applied in an ethical sense for the distinction between those who behave correctly and those who act otherwise than they should. However, in the frame of a theoretical science of human action, there is no room for such a distinction.

所以「變態」（abnormality）和「乖僻」（perversity）等概念，在經濟學裡面沒有存在的地位。經濟學決不說某人是乖僻的，因爲他寧可要不舒適的、有損的、乃至痛苦的，而不要舒適的、有利的、乃至快樂的。它只說：這個人與別人不同；他喜歡別人所不喜歡的；他把別人所要避免的視爲有用；他把別人所要避免的痛苦視爲樂事而接受。「正常」與「變態」這兩個極端的概念，可以用在人類學的意義上，以區別那些依大多數人的行爲而行爲的人與那些不合定型的人；也可以用在生物學的意義上，以區別那些善於保持健康的人與那些自我斲傷的人；也可用在倫理意義上，以區別那些行爲正當的人與那些行爲不正當的人。但是，在一門關於人的行爲的理論科學的架構中，不容有這樣的區別。對於最後目標的檢討，總歸是純主觀的，因而是武斷的。

Value is the importance that acting man attaches to ultimate ends. Only to ultimate ends is primary and original value assigned. Means are valued derivatively according to their serviceableness in contributing to the attainment of ultimate ends. Their valuation is derived from the valuation of the respective ends. They are important for man only as far as they make it possible for him to attain some ends.

價値是行爲人賦與最後目的的重要性。主要的或【和】原始的價値只賦與最後的目的。至於手段的價値，則看它對於最後目的的達成有多大的貢獻。所以，手段的價値是從其可達成的目的的價値引伸出來的。手段對於人之所以重要，只因它有使人們達成某些目的的可能。

Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment.

價値不是本來就有的，它不在事物的本身。它是在我們的心裡；它是人們對於生活環境所採的反應。

Neither is value in words and doctrines. It is reflected in human conduct. It is not what a man or groups of men say about value that counts, but how they act. The oratory of moralists and the pompousness of party programs are significant as such. But they influence the course of human events only as far as they really determine the actions of men.

價値也不在語言文字和學說中，而是反映於人的行爲。它不是一個人或一羣人所說的値得什麼，而是他們如何行爲。道德家誇張的講演和政黨的自吹自擂，好像煞有意思的。但是，它們只就其眞正決定人之行爲的程度而對於人事發生影響。

3. The Scale of Needs

三、需求的等級

Notwithstanding all declarations to the contrary, the immense majority of men aim first of all at an improvement of the material conditions of well-being. They want more and better food, better homes and clothes, and a thousand other amenities. They strive after abundance and health. Taking these goals as given, applied physiology tries to determine what means are best suited to provide as much satisfaction as possible. It distinguishes, from this point of view, between man's "real" needs and imaginary and spurious appetites. It teaches people how they should act and what they should aim at as a means.

儘管有許多是相反的說法，絕大多數的人總是以物質生活的改善爲第一目的。他們需求更多、更好的食物、更好的房屋和衣著，以及其他許許多多的舒適。他們力求富有與健康。應用生理學把這些目的當作旣定的，進而斷定那些手段最適於達成滿意的結果。從這個觀點出發，應用生理學把人的「眞正」需求與想像中的假慾望明白區分。它敎人們應該如何作爲，應該把什麼作爲手段以達成目的。

The importance of such doctrines is obvious. From his point of view the physiologist is right in distinguishing between sensible action and action contrary to purpose. He is right in contrasting judicious methods of nourishment from unwise methods. He may condemn certain modes of behavior as absurd and opposed to "real" needs. However, such judgments are beside the point for a science dealing with the reality of human action. Not what a man should do, but what he does, counts for praxeology and economics. Hygiene may be right or wrong in calling alcohol and nicotine poisons. But economics must explain the prices of tobacco and liquor as they are, not as they would be under different conditions.

這種學說的重要性是很明白的。從這個觀點看，生理學家把人的行爲區分爲明智的行爲與違反目的的行爲，這是對的。他指出適宜的營養方法與愚蠢的方法顯然不同，這是對的。他會譴責某些行爲方式是荒謬的，是違反「眞正」需要的。但是，這樣的判斷不是一門處理人的行爲的科學所應有的。行爲學和經濟學所處理的不是一個人「應該」做什麼，而是他做什麼。衛生學把酒精和尼古丁叫做毒物，也許對，也許錯。但是，經濟學只就事論事，解釋菸草和酒類的價格，而不講在不同的情形下，它們的價格會怎樣。

There is no room left in the field of economics for a scale of needs different from the scale of values as reflected in man's actual

在經濟學領域以內，沒有異乎價値等級的需要等級，價値反映在人的實際行爲。經濟學處理實實在在的人、脆弱而會犯錯的人，並不處理只有像神那樣的全知而完善的理想中的存在。

4. Action as an Exchange

四、作爲交換的行爲

Action is an attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. We call such a willfully induced alteration an exchange. A less desirable condition is bartered for a more desirable. What gratifies less is abandoned in order to attain something that pleases more. That which is abandoned is called the price paid for the attainment of the end sought. The value of the price paid is called costs. Costs are equal to the value attached to the satisfaction which one must forego in order to attain the end aimed at.

行爲的目的是想以較滿足的事態來代替較不滿足的事態。我們把這樣一個意願的代替叫做交換（exchange）。以不大喜歡的情況交換較喜歡的情況。放棄前者取得後者。前者之被放棄，是爲取得後者所付的代價。所付的代價也叫做成本（cost）。成本等於附著在那份必須放棄的滿足値上。

The difference between the value of the price paid (the costs incurred) and that of the goal attained is called gain or profit or net yield. Profit in this primary sense is purely subjective, it is an increase in the acting man's happiness, it is a psychical phenomenon that can be neither measured nor weighed. There is a more and a less in the removal of uneasiness felt; but how much one satisfaction surpasses another one can only be felt; it cannot be established and determined in an objective way. A judgment of value does not measure, it arranges in a scale of degrees, it grades. It is expressive of an order of preference and sequence, but not expressive of measure and weight. Only the ordinal numbers can be applied to it, but not the cardinal numbers.

代價的價値（所付的成本）與達成的目的的價値，其間的差叫做利得（gain）、或利潤（profit）、或淨收益（net yield）。利潤，在這個原始的意義下是純主觀的，它是行爲人的幸福之增加，它是旣不能量也不能衡的一個心理現象。不愉快的感覺有時消除得較多，有時消除得較少：但是，一個滿足超過另一個滿足究竟超過多少，那只有憑感覺，沒有客觀的方法來判定，價値判斷無關乎計量，它只是程度的排列、分等級。它只能以序數，不能以基數來表示。

It is vain to speak of any calculation of values. Calculation is possible only with cardinal numbers. The difference between the valuation of two states of affairs is entirely psychical and personal. It is not open to any projection into the external world. It can be sensed only by the individual. It cannot be communicated or imparted to any fellow man. It is an intensive magnitude.

說到價値的計算，等於白說。計算，只有利用基數才可能。兩種事態的評價，其間之差異完全是心理的、個人的。它不能投射到外界。它只能由當事人感覺到，不能傳遞給別人。它是心理方面的一種強度。

Physiology and psychology have developed various methods by means of which they pretend to have attained a substitute for the unfeasible measurement of intensive magnitudes. There is no need for economics to enter into an examination of these rather questionable makeshifts. Their supporters themselves realize that they are not applicable to value judgments. But even if they were, they would not have any bearing on economic problems. For economics deals with action as such, and not with the psychical facts that result in definite actions.

生理學和心理學已發展了各種方法，它們以爲，這些方法可用以代替那個無法實行的衡量法。在經濟學領域內，無須檢討這些有問題的方法。它們的支持者也體會到，這些方法不能用之於價値判斷。但是，即令它們能用之於價値判斷，它們對於經濟問題也毫無關係。因爲經濟學是處理行爲的本身，並不處理促成某些行爲的那些心理狀態。

It happens again and again that an action does not attain the end

行爲也常常達不到目的。如果行爲的結果，雖然不及所希求的目的，但比事前的情況較佳，那麼，這還是有利（profit），儘管不及所希望的利。但是，行爲的結果，有時也會比行爲所要變更的情況更壞。這時，對於結果的評値與所已支付的成本的評値，兩者之間的差就叫做損失。

V. TIME

第5章 時間

1. Time as a Praxeological Factor

一、作爲行爲學的一個因素——時間

The notion of change implies the notion of temporal sequence. A rigid, eternally immutable universe would be out of time, but it would be dead. The concepts of change and of time are inseparably linked together. Action aims at change and is therefore in the temporal order. Human reason is even incapable of conceiving the ideas of timeless existence and of timeless action.

「變」，這個概念意含著「時序」概念。固定的、永久不變的世界，是脫離了時間的世界，是死的世界。變與時間這兩個概念是不可分的。行爲的目的在於變，所以行爲是在時間的程序中。人的理知無法想像無時間的情況和無時間的行爲。

He who acts distinguishes between the time before the action, the time absorbed by the action, and the time after the action has been finished. He cannot be neutral with regard to the lapse of time.

行爲的人，會辨識行爲以前的時間，行爲所花掉的時間和行爲以後的時間。關於時間的經過，他是不能中立的。

Logic and mathematics deal with an ideal system of thought. The relations and implications of their system are coexistent and interdependent. We may say as well that they are synchronous or that they are out of time. A perfect mind could grasp them all in one thought. Man's inability to accomplish this makes thinking itself an action, proceeding step by step from the less satisfactory state of insufficient cognition to the more satisfactory state of better insight. But the temporal order in which knowledge is acquired must not be confused with the logical simultaneity of all parts of an aprioristic deductive system. Within such a system the notions of anteriority and consequence are metaphorical only. They do not refer to the system, but to our action in grasping it. The system itself implies neither the category of time nor that of causality. There is functional correspondence between elements, but there is neither cause nor effect.

邏輯與數學所處理的，是一套理想的思想體系。它們之間的關係和蘊含，是共存的而且互相依賴的。我們也可以說：它們是同時發生的，或者說，它們是超越時間的。一個完全的心靈或可以一下子領悟它們。人卻不能如此。因而思想本身也成爲一個行爲，一步一步地從不足夠的認知，進到較滿意的認知。但是，知識所賴以獲得的時間程序，決不可混同於這個演繹體系各部份的邏輯同時性。在這個體系裡面，「原先」與「後果」的概念只是比喩的。它們並不是指的這個體系，而是指的我們把握這個體系的行爲。這個體系本身旣不蘊含時間元範，也不蘊含因果元範。在一些元素之間，具有功能的一致性，但是旣沒有因，也沒有果。

What distinguishes epistemologically the praxeological system from the logical system is precisely that it implies the categories both of time and of causality. The praxeological system too is aprioristic and deductive. As a system it is out of time. But change is one of its elements. The notions of sooner and later and of cause and effect are among its constituents. Anteriority and consequence are essential concepts of praxeological reasoning. So is the irreversibility of events. In the frame of the praxeological system any reference to functional correspondence is no less metaphorical and misleading than is the

在認識論上，行爲學體系不同於邏輯體系，因爲它旣蘊含時間元範，也蘊含因果元範。行爲學體系也是先驗的和演繹的。作爲一個體系看，它是超越時間的。但是，「變」是它的諸元素之一。「較快」和「較緩」，「原因」和「結果」這些概念，是它的構成份。原先與後果是行爲學推理的基本概念。事情的結局之不可改變，也是它的基本概念。在行爲學體系的架構中，凡涉及功能一致性者，其爲比喩的、其爲易於引起誤解，並不遜於在邏輯體系的架構中之涉及「原先」與「後果」之爲比喩的，之易於引起誤解。[1]

-----------

[1] In a treatise on economics there is no need to enter into a discussion of the endeavors to construct mechanics as an axiomatic system in which the concept of function is substituted for that of cause and effect. It will be shown later that axiomatic mechanics cannot serve as a model for the treatment of the economic system. Cf. below, pp. 353-357.

[1] 在一本經濟學的論著中，無須討論這樣的一種公理體系的如何建構，即在這種體系裡面，功能的概念取代了因果概念。本書的後面就要說明：公理體系不能作爲討論經濟制度的一個模式。參考第十六章第五節。

2. Past, Present, and Future

二、過去、現在和未來

It is acting that provides man with the notion of time and makes him aware of the flux of time. The idea of time is a praxeological category.

行爲，使人具有時間觀念，使他覺得時光的流逝。時間觀點是一個行爲學的元範。

Action is always directed toward the future; it is essentially and necessarily always a planning and acting for a better future. Its aim is always to render future conditions more satisfactory than they would be without the interference of action. The uneasiness that impels a man to act is caused by a dissatisfaction with expected future conditions as they would probably develop if nothing were done to alter them. In any case action can influence only the future, never the present that with every infinitesimal fraction of a second sinks down into the past. Man becomes conscious of time when he plans to convert a less satisfactory present state into a more satisfactory future state.

行爲總是趨向將來的：它本質上必然是爲一個較好的將來而計畫、而行爲。它的目的在於，使將來的一些情況比沒有行爲的干預而形成的情況更好些。促動一個人去行爲的那種「不安逸」之所以發生，是由於想到如果不以行爲去改變的話，則將來的情況是叫人苦惱的。無論如何，行爲只能影響將來，決不影響現在，現在只是無限小的一刹那，一下子就沉沒在過去。一個人當他計畫把一個較不滿意的現狀，變到較滿意的將來情況的時候，就察覺到時間。

For contemplative meditation time is merely duration, "la durée pure, dont l'écoulement est continu, et où l'on passe, par gradations insensibles, d'un etat a l'autre: Continuité réellement vécue." [2] The "now" of the present is continually shifted to the past and is retained in the memory only. Reflecting about the past, say the philosophers, man becomes aware of time.[3] However, it is not recollection that conveys to man the categories of change and of time, but the will to improve the conditions of his life.

就深思冥想來講，時間只是綿延，「純粹的綿延，其間之流是繼續的，以小得看不出的程度，從這一情況進到另一情況：繼續，實即生活（或經驗）」。[2]現在的「現在」不斷地轉變爲過去，而只留在記憶中。哲學家們說，人在回憶中才覺察到時間。[3]但是，把「變」的元範和時間元範傳達給人的，不是回憶，而是想改善生活情況的那種意願。

Time as we measure it by various mechanical devices is always past, and time as the philosophers use this concept is always either past or future. The present is, from these aspects, nothing but an ideal boundary line separating the past from the future. But from the praxeological aspect there is between the past and the future a real extended present. Action is as such in the real present because it utilizes the instant and thus embodies its reality.[4] Later retrospective

時間，當我們用各種機械的設計來衡量它的時候，它每每已經過去；時間，當哲學家們用這個概念的時候，它或者是過去，或者是未來。從這些觀點來講，現在，不過是觀念上區分過去與未來的一絲界線而已。但從行爲學的觀點來講，在過去與未來之間，有一實在的擴面的「現在」在。行爲之爲行爲，是在這個實在的現在中，因爲它利用瞬息間因而體現出它的實在[4]。後來的回憶辨識出，在那已過去的時刻當中，首先有行爲，以及那個時刻給行爲所提供的一些條件。凡是由於機會已去，而不能再做或再用的，那就是使過去與現在相對照。凡是由於條件未具備，或時機未成熟，而還不能做或不能用的，那就是使未來與過去相對照。給行爲提供一些條件和任務的，是現在；前此則太早，今後則太遲。

The present qua duration is the continuation of the conditions and opportunities given for acting. Every kind of action requires special conditions to which it must be adjusted with regard to the aims sought. The concept of the present is therefore different for various fields of action. It has no reference whatever to the various methods of measuring the passing of time by spatial movements. The present encloses as much of the time passed away as still is actual, i.e., of importance for acting. The present contrasts itself, according to the various actions one has in view, with the Middle Ages, with the nineteenth century, with the past year, month, or day, but no less with the hour, minute, or second just passed away. If a man says: Nowadays Zeus is no longer worshipped, he has a present in mind other than that the motorcar driver who thinks: Now it is still too early to turn.

作爲綿延的現在，是給行爲提供的那些條件和機會的連續。每一類的行爲，必須有些特殊條件是它在尋求某些目的的過程中所要調整以適應的。所以，現在這個概念，因行爲的方面不同而不同。至於以什麼標準來衡量空間化的時間經過，那是沒有關係的。它所包含的時間經過有多久，那是隨行爲的重要性而伸縮的。與現在相對照的，就看我們心中所想的是中古時期、是十九世紀、是去年、是上月，或昨天，但這些與剛剛過去的一時、一分或一秒，也同是現在的對照。假若一個人這樣說「現在宙斯神（Zeus）已不再受崇拜了」，他說這句話時心中的現在，與一位汽車司機說「現在回去未免太早了」這句話的時候心中的現在，完全不同。

As the future is uncertain it always remains undecided and vague how much of it we can consider as now and present. If a man had said in 1913: At present---now---in Europe freedom of thought is undisputed, he would have not foreseen that this present would very soon be a past.

由於未來是不確定的，我們無法知道我們所說的現在能夠持續多久。比方說，一個人在一九一三年這樣說：「現在，歐洲思想自由是大家公認的。」當他說這句話的時候，他不能預知他所說的「現在」會不會很快就成爲過去。

------------

[2] Henri Bergson, Matière et mémoire (7th ed. Paris, 1911), p. 205

[2] Henri Bergson, Matière et mémoire (7th ed. Paris, 1911), p. 205

[3] Edmund Husserl, "Vorlesungen zur Ph?nomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins," Jahrbuch Fü Philosophie und Ph?nomenologische Forschung, IX (1928), 391ff.; A. Schütz, loc cit., pp. 45 ff.

[3] Edmund Husserl, "Vorlesungen zur Ph?nomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins," Jahrbuch Fü Philosophie und Ph?nomenologische Forschung, IX (1928), 391ff.; A. Schütz, loc cit., pp. 45 ff.

[4] "Ce que j'appelle mon présent, c'est mon attitute vis-à-vix de l'avenir immédiat, c'est action imminente." Bergson, op. cit., p. 152.

[4] 「我所叫做我的現在，是我對於即刻的將來所持的心理狀態，也即我的當前行爲。」 Bergson, op. cit., p. 152.

3. The Economization of Time

三、時間的經濟

Man is subject to the passing of time. He comes into existence, grows, becomes old, and passes away. His time is scarce. He must economize it as he economizes other scarce factors.

歲月不饒人（Man is subject to the passing of time.）。他出生、成長、老而死。他的時間是有限的。他必須像利用其他有限資源一樣經濟地利用它。

The economization of time has a peculiar character because of the uniqueness and irreversibility of the temporal order. The importance of these facts manifests itself in every part of the theory of action.

時間的經濟有一特徵，這是由於時序的獨特性和不可倒返性。這些事實的重要性，出現於行爲理論的每一部份。

Only one fact must be stressed at this point. The economization of time is independent of the economization of economic goods and services. Even in the land of Cockaigne man would be forced to economize time, provided he were not immortal and not endowed

這裡只要強調一個事實。時間的經濟，與經濟財貨和勞務的經濟是兩回事。即令生活在萬事俱備的安樂鄉的人，只要他不是長生不老的，他也不得不節用時間。即令他所有的慾望，都可毫不費力地得到滿足，他也不得不好好地安排他的時間表，因爲這些滿足的情況是互不相容而不能同時達成的。所以，對於人而言【即使對此人而言】，時間也是有限的，也有或遲或早的光景。

4. The Temporal Relation Between Actions

四、諸行爲之間的時序關係

Two actions of an individual are never synchronous; their temporal relation is that of sooner and later. Actions of various individuals can be considered as synchronous only in the light of the physical methods for the measurement of time. Synchronism is a praxeological notion only with regard to the concerted efforts of various acting men.[5]

一個人的兩個行爲決不會是同時的，它們的時序關係是較早和較晚的關係。不同的個人們的一些行爲，可以視爲同時的，但這也只能就物理學上的時間度量法來講。同時性（synchronism）只有在涉及不同的行爲人們相互協作的場合，才是行爲學的一個觀念。[5]

A man's individual actions succeed one another. They can never be effected at the same instant; they can only follow one another in more or less rapid succession. There are actions which serve several purposes at one blow. It would be misleading to refer to them as a coincidence of various actions.

—個人的一些個別行爲是一個連續的另一行爲。【一個人的不同行爲前後相繼。】它們決不能同時發生：它們是或快或慢地彼此連接。有些行爲是可以一舉而達成幾個目的的。但如果把這些目的的達成，看作多個行爲的同時發生，那就會使人誤解。

People have often failed to recognize the meaning of the term "scale of value" and have disregarded the obstacles preventing the assumption of synchronism in the various actions of an individual. They have interpreted a man's various acts as the outcome of a scale of value, independent of these acts and preceding them, and of a previously devised plan whose realization they aim at. The scale of value and the plan to which duration and immutability for a certain period of time were attributed, were hypostatized into the cause and motive of the various individual actions. Synchronism which could not be asserted with regard to various acts was then easily discovered in the scale of value and in the plan. But this overlooks the fact that the scale of value is nothing but a constructed tool of thought. The scale of value manifests itself only in real acting; it can be discerned only from the observation of real acting. It is therefore impermissible to contrast it with real acting and to use it as a yardstick for the appraisal of real actions.

人們往往看不出「價値等級」（scale of value）這個名詞的意義，因而漠視了一個人的各種行爲之所以不能同時發生的原因。他們把一個人的各種行爲解釋爲一個價値等級的結果；而這個價値等級是獨立於而且先於這些行爲的。他們也把它們解釋爲一個預先計畫的結果，而這個計畫是那些行爲所要實現的。在某一個時期以內，使行爲得以持續不變的那個價値等級和那個計畫，被視爲各種行爲的原因和動機；於是那個不能就各種行爲而言的「同時性」（synchronism），就輕易地在這價値等級和計畫中發現。但是，這忽略了一個事實，即：價値等級不過是一個思想工具，它只在實際行爲中表現出來：它只能從實際行爲的觀察中被看出。所以，我們不可以拿它和實際行爲對比，而用它作爲評論實際行爲的尺度。

It is no less impermissible to differentiate between rational and allegedly irrational acting on the basis of a comparison of real acting with earlier drafts and plans for future actions. It may be very interesting

我們也同樣不可以把實際行爲和那些爲將來的行爲而事先擬定的計畫作一比較，來區分合理的行爲與所謂不合理的行爲。有趣的是，昨天的目標，是爲今天的行爲而非爲今天眞想達成的那些目標而定的。但是，昨天的計畫，並不爲我們提供比任何其他的觀念和規範更客觀的和非武斷的標準用以評判今日的實際行爲。

The attempt has been made to attain the notion of a nonrational action by this reasoning: If a is preferred to b and b to c, logically a should be preferred to c. But if actually c is preferred to a, we are faced with a mode of acting to which we cannot ascribe consistency and rationality.[6] This reasoning disregards the fact that two acts of an individual can never be synchronous. If in one action a is preferred to b and in another action b to c, it is, however short the interval between the two actions may be, not permissible to construct a uniform scale of value in which a precedes b and b precedes c. Nor is it permissible to consider a later third action as coincident with the two previous actions. All that the example proves is that value judgments are not immutable and that therefore a scale of value, which is abstracted from various, necessarily nonsynchronous actions of an individual, may be self-contradictory.[7]

有人曾想靠下面這個推理，來求得一個非理性的行爲這個觀念：如果a優於b，b優於c，那麼就邏輯講，a當然優於c。但是，如果實際上有人偏好c而捨棄a，我們就碰到一個行爲方式而爲我們所不能說是一貫和合理的。[6]這個推理忽略了這個事實：一個人的兩個行爲決不會是同時的。如果在一個行爲中，a被選擇，b被捨棄，在另一個行爲中，b被選擇，c被捨棄，不管這兩個行爲之間的時間距離是多麼短，決不可以構想一個始終如一的價値等級以示a憂於b，b優於c。也不可以料想，一個後來的第三行爲和以前的兩個行爲是一致的。這些例子所證明的不過是：價値判斷不是不變的，所以從一個人的各個行爲，必然非同時發生的各個行爲，抽繹出的一個價値標準，是會自相矛盾的。[7]

One must not confuse the logical concept of consistency (viz., absence of contradiction) and the praxeological concept of consistency (viz., constancy or clinging to the same principles). Logical consistency has its place only in thinking, constancy has its place only in acting.

我們不要把邏輯的一貫概念（即沒有矛盾）與行爲學的一貫概念（堅貞constancy，或固執於某些不變的原則）【堅貞恐怕不確。】相混淆。邏輯的一貫只在思想中有它的地位，堅贞只有在行爲中有它的地位。

Constancy and rationality are entirely different notions. If one's valuations have changed, unremitting faithfulness to the once espoused principles of action merely for the sake of constancy would not be rational but simply stubborn. Only in one respect can acting be constant: in preferring the more valuable to the less valuable. If the valuations change, acting must change also. Faithfulness, under changed conditions, to an old plan would be nonsensical. A logical system must be consistent and free of contradictions because it implies the coexistence of all its parts and theorems. In acting, which is necessarily in the temporal order, there cannot be any question of such consistency. Acting must be suited to purpose, and purposefulness requires adjustment to changing conditions.

堅貞與合理，是完全不同的觀念。如果一個人，對事物的評價已經改變了，而還繼續忠於以前曾經擁護過的那些行爲原則（只是爲的堅貞），這不算是合理的，這簡直是頑固。行爲只有在一方面會是堅貞的：選擇那價値較大的，捨棄那價値較小的。如果評價改變了，行爲也一定改變。在改變了的環境下，忠於一個舊的計畫是毫無意義的。一個邏輯系統必須是一貫而沒有矛盾的，因爲它要包容它所有的部份和它所有的定理，使它們可以共存。至於行爲，必然發生於—固時序中，在行爲方面不會有這樣的一貫問題。行爲一定要適合目的，而目的是要隨改變的環境而調整的。

Presence of mind is considered a virtue in acting man. A man has presence of mind if he has the ability to think and to adjust his acting

沉著鎭靜（presence of mind），被認爲是行爲人的美德。如果一個人有能力思考，而且能夠敏捷地調整他的行爲，以適應環境的變動而不落後，他就是沉著鎭靜。如果把堅貞看作對於原有計畫的繼續遵守而不管環境的改變，那麼，沉著鎭靜和敏捷反應，恰好是與堅貞正相反的。

When the speculator goes to the stock exchange, he may sketch a definite plan for his operations. Whether or not he clings to this plan, his actions are rational also in the sense which those eager to distinguish rational acting from irrational attribute to the term "rational." This speculator in the course of the day may embark upon transactions which an observer, not taking into account the changes occurring in market conditions, will not be able to interpret as the outcome of constant behavior. But the speculator is firm in his intention to make profits and to avoid losses. Accordingly he must adjust his conduct to the change in market conditions and in his own judgment concerning the future development of prices.[8]

當一個投機者進到證券交易所的時候，他會有個大概如何做法的確定計畫。就那些急於想把行爲分爲合理的與不合理的人們所給予「合理」的意義而言，不管他是否堅持他的計畫，他的行爲都是合理的。這位投機者在這一天當中所做的買賣，從一個不明瞭市況變化的旁觀者看來，不能解釋爲行爲的一貫。但是，這位投機者是堅持他的意圖的，意圖利得，避免損失。因而他必須調整他的行爲以適應市況的變化，並適應他自己對於價格前途所作的判斷之改變。[8]

However one twists things, one will never succeed in formulating the notion of "irrational" action whose "irrationality" is not founded upon an arbitrary judgment of value. Let us suppose that somebody has chosen to act inconstantly for no other purpose than for the sake of refuting the praxeological assertion that there is no irrational action. What happens here is that a man aims at a peculiar goal, viz., the refutation of a praxeological theorem, and that he accordingly acts differently from what he would have done otherwise. He has chosen an unsuitable means for the refutation of praxeology, that is all.

「不合理的」行爲這個觀念中所謂的「不合理」，總是基於一個任意的價値判斷。任何人，不管他如何曲解事實，他總不能在這個基礎以外，再形成另一個不合理的行爲觀念。讓我們假想：某一個人專爲反駁行爲學上所講的「沒有什麼不合理的行爲」這句斷言，故意地做些顚三倒四的事情。這種情形是這個人想達成一個確定的目的，即：爲反駁行爲學的定理，他做些否則他不會做的一些事情。他爲反駁行爲學而選擇了一個不適當的手段，如此而已矣。

------------------

[5] In order to avoid any possible misunderstanding it may well be expedient to emphasize that this theorem has nothing at all to do with Einstein's theorem concerning the temporal relation of spatially distant events.

[5] 爲避免任何可能的誤解，我們不妨強調：這個定理完全與愛因斯坦（Einstein）的關於時空的定理無關。

[6] Cf. Felix Kaufmann, "On the Subject-Matter of Economic Science," Economica, XIII, 390.

[6] 參考Felix Kaufmann, "On the Subject-Matter of Economic Science," Economica, XIII, 390.

[7] Cf. P.H. Wicksteed, The Common Sense of Political Economy, ed. Robbins (London, 1933), I, 32 ff.; L. Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2d ed. London, 1935), pp. 91 ff.

[7] 參考P.H. Wicksteed, The Common Sense of Political Economy, ed. Robbins (London, 1933), I, 32 ff.; L. Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2d ed. London, 1935), pp. 91 ff.

[8] Plans too, of course, may be self-contradictory. Sometimes their contradictions may be the effect of mistaken judgment. But sometimes such contradictions may be intentional and serve a definite purpose. If, for instance, a publicized program of a government or a political party promises high prices to the producers and at the same time low prices to the consumers., the purpose of such an espousal of incompatible goals may be demagogic. Then the program, the publicized plan, is self-contradictory; but the plan of its authors who wanted to attain a definite end through the endorsement of incompatible aims and their public announcement is free of any contradiction.

[8] 自然，諸計畫也會自相矛盾的。它們的矛盾有時是錯誤判断的結果。但是，這樣的矛盾有時會是故意的，爲的是某一個目的。例如，一個政府或一個政黨所公佈的政策，一方面向生產者承諾高的價格，同時向消费者承諾低的價格，把兩個不相容的目標擺在一起，其目的是在做政治的鼓動。這個公佈的政策或計畫是自相矛盾的：但是，制定這個政策或計畫的人，是想透過這個自相矛盾的政策或計畫，以達成一個確定的目的，在這個意義下，沒有任何矛盾。

VI. UNCERTAINTY

第6章 不確定

1. Uncertainty and Acting

一、不確定與行爲

The uncertainty of the future is already implied in the very notion of action. That man acts and that the future is uncertain are by no means two independent matters. They are only two different modes of establishing one thing.

未來的不確定，已蘊含在行爲這個觀念中。「人行爲」與「未來是不確定的」決不是兩件獨立的事情。它們只是一件事的兩個不同的說法。

We may assume that the outcome of all events and changes is uniquely determined by eternal unchangeable laws governing becoming and development in the whole universe. We may consider the necessary connection and interdependence of all phenomena, i.e., their causal concatenation, as the fundamental and ultimate fact. We may entirely discard the notion of undetermined chance. But however that may be, or appear to the mind of a perfect intelligence, the fact remains that to acting man the future is hidden. If man knew the future, he would not have to choose and would not act. He would be like an automaton, reacting to stimuli without any will of his own.

我們可以假設：一切事象和變動的結果，是決定於一些支配整個宇宙的形成與發展而永恆不變的法則。我們也可以把一切現象的必然關聯和相互依賴——也即它們的因果關係的連續——看作根本的和終極的事實。我們可以完全放棄「未定的機會」這個觀念。但是，不管從一個全知的心靈看來究竟是怎樣，從行爲人看來，未來總是一個謎。如果人知道未來，他就無須選擇，也不要行爲。他就像一具自動機，只對刺激起反應，而沒有他自己的任何意志。

Some philosophers are prepared to explode the notion of man's will as an illusion and self-deception because man must unwittingly behave according to the inevitable laws of causality. They may be right or wrong from the point of view of the prime mover or the cause of itself. However, from the human point of view action is the ultimate thing. We do not assert that man is "free" in choosing and acting. We merely establish the fact that he chooses and acts and that we are at a loss to use the methods of the natural sciences for answering the question why he acts this way and not otherwise.

有些哲學家準備推翻「個人的意志」這個觀念，認爲這是個幻想、是自欺，因爲人必須遵照一些必然的因果法則不知不覺地行爲。從原動力（prime mover）或原因本身的觀點來看，這些哲學家也許對、也許錯。但從人的觀點來看，行爲是終極的事情。我們並不斷言：人在選擇和行爲方面是「自由」的。我們只是證實這個事實：他選擇、他行爲：我們不知道如何用自然科學的一些方法來解答「爲什麼他要這樣行爲，而不那樣行爲」這個問題。

Natural science does not render the future predictable. It makes it possible to foretell the results to be obtained by definite actions. But it leaves unpredictable two spheres: that of insufficiently known natural phenomena and that of human acts of choice. Our ignorance with regard to these two spheres taints all human actions with uncertainty. Apodictic certainty is only within the orbit of the deductive system of aprioristic theory. The most that can be attained with regard to reality is probability.

自然科學並不使將來成爲可測知的。它只可預言某些確定的行爲所會引起的結果。但它對於以下的兩方面畢竟是無法預知的：不足夠了解的自然現象方面和人的選擇行爲方面。我們對於這兩方面是無知的。這個無知，把人的一切行爲都弄得不確定。不容置疑的確定，只存在於演鐸理論的體系當中，關於現實界，我們所能得到的，至多是個大概。

It is not the task of praxeology to investigate whether or not it is permissible to consider as certain some of the theorems of the empirical

行爲學的任務，不在於硏究可否把經驗的自然科學的某些定理視爲確定的。這個問題，就行爲學而言，沒有什麼實際的重要性。無論如何，物理學與化學的一些定理，具有很高度的概然性，爲著一切實際的目的，我們可以把它們看作確定的。一部按照科技法則而製造的機器，我們實際上可以預料它將如何運作。但是，一部機器的製造，只是一個較大計畫的一部份，這個較大的計畫，是要把這部機器的產品供給消費者。這個計畫是不是最適當的，就要看將來情況的發展，這個發展在實行此計畫的時候，是不能準確地預知的。所以，關於機器製造的技術結果的確定程度，不管它怎樣，畢竟不能消除全部行爲所固有的不確定性。未來的需要和評値、人們對於環境變動的反應，未來的科學和技術知識、未來的一些意理和政策，都不能正確地預言，至多只能說到某種程度的或然率。每一行爲都涉及一個未知的將來。在這個意義下，行爲總歸是危險的投機。

The problems of truth and certainty concern the general theory of human knowledge. The problem of probability, on the other hand, is a primary concern of praxeology.

眞實與確定是關於一般的知識論問題。相反地，或然率的問題是行爲學的一個主要問題。

2. The Meaning of Probability

二、或然率的意義

The treatment of probability has been confused by the mathematicians. From the beginning there was an ambiguity in dealing with the calculus of probability. When the Cehvalier de Mere consulted Pascal on the problems involved in the games of dice, the great mathematician should have frankly told his friend the truth, namely, that mathematics cannot be of any use to the gambler in a game of pure chance. Instead he wrapped his answer in the symbolic language of mathematics. What could easily be explained in a few sentences of mundane speech was expressed in a terminology which is unfamiliar to the immense majority and therefore regarded with reverential awe. People suspected that the puzzling formulas contain some important revelations, hidden to the uninitiated; they got the impression that a scientific method of gambling exists and that the esoteric teachings of mathematics provide a key for winning. The heavenly mystic Pascal unintentionally became the patron saint of gambling. The textbooks of the calculus of probability gratuitously propagandize for the gambling casinos precisely because they are sealed books to the layman.

或然率的處理，已經被一些數學家弄混淆了。從開始處理或然率的計算時，就有了曖昧。當美和男爵（the Cehvalier de Mere）向巴斯可爾（Pascal）請敎關於擲骰賭博的一些問題的時候，這位偉大的數學家應該坦白地把眞實吿訴他的朋友，即是說，數學對於純靠機會的賭博，毫無用處。可是，他偏要把他的答覆隱藏在數學的符號語言中。幾句通俗的話就很容易解釋的道理，偏要用大衆陌生的術語來表達，因而引起敬畏。人們總覺得，這種叫人迷惑的公式蘊含著一些重要的天機，是未入門的人所無法知曉的：他們的印象是：有一種科學的賭博方法存在，而數學的一些秘密敎義爲賭博提供勝利的保證。神秘主義者巴斯可爾無意地變成了賭博的守護神。一些或然率的敎科書爲賭博做了義務宣傳，正因爲它們是外行人的一些天書。

No less havoc was spread by the equivocations of the calculus of

計算或然率的那些遁詞，用之於科學研究的領域，流弊也不小。每一知識部門的歷史都有誤用或然率的記錄。這種情形，像約翰穆勒（John Stuart Mill）所說的，使它成爲「數學的眞正恥辱」[1]。在我們這個時代，有些最壞的錯誤發生於物理學方法的解釋中。

The problem of probable inference is much bigger than those problems which constitute the field of the calculus of probability. Only preoccupation with the mathematical treatment could result in the prejudice that probability always means frequency.

大概的推理這個問題，比起構成或然率計算領域的那些問題重要得多。只是對於數學的處理有成見，因而產生了「或然率就是頻率」這個偏見。

A further error confused the problem of probability with the problem of inductive reasoning as applied by the natural sciences. The attempt to substitute a universal theory of probability for the category of causality characterizes an abortive mode of philosophizing, very fashionable only a few years ago.

還有一個錯誤，是把或然率的問題與自然科學所使用的歸納法的問題相混淆。想用一個普遍有效的或然率理論來代替因果元範這個企圖，正是前幾年最風行的無效的推理方式的特徵。

A statement is probable if our knowledge concerning its content is deficient. We do not know everything which would be required for a definite decision between true and not true. But, on the other hand, we do know something about it; we are in a position to say more than simply non liquet or ignoramus.

如果我們對於某一事物的內容沒有充份的知識，則關於它的陳述就是或許的。我們不知道決定某一陳述眞或非眞所必要的一切事項。但是，我們確實知道關於它的某些事項：我們能夠比一個完全無知的人多講一點。

There are two entirely different instances of probability; we may call them class probability (or frequency probability) and case probability (or the specific understanding of the sciences of human action). The field for the application of the former is the field of the natural sciences, entirely ruled by causality; the field for the application of the latter is the field of the sciences of human action, entirely ruled by teleology.

關於或然率有兩個完全不同的例子【兩種完全不同的情形】；我們可以把它們分別叫做類的或然率（class probability——或頻繁或然率【頻率或然率】）和個案或然率（case probability——或人的行爲枓學的特殊了解）。前者應用的領域是自然科學，完全受因果關係的支配；後者應用的領域是人的行爲科學，完全受目的論的支配。

----------

[1] John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive (new impression, London, 1936), pp. 353.

[1] John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive (new impression, London, 1936), pp. 353.

3. Class Probability

三、類的或然率

Class probability means: We know or assume to know, with regard to the problem concerned, everything about the behavior of a whole class of events or phenomena; but about the actual singular events or phenomena we know nothing but that they are elements of this class.

類的或然率，意思是：我們知道或自以爲知道關於某些事象全類活動的一切情形：但關於個別事象的實際情形，我們除知道它們是這—類的份子以外，毫無所知。

We know, for instance, that there are ninety tickets in a lottery and that five of them will be drawn. Thus we know all about the behavior of the whole class of tickets. But with regard to the singular tickets we do not know anything but that they are elements of this class of tickets.

例如，我們知道在一次摸彩遊戲中有九十張彩票，其中五張將會抽中。就是說，我們對於這全部彩票的動態完全知道。但是，關於個別的彩票，我們除了知道它們是這一類彩票的構成份以外，什麼也不知道。

We have a complete table of mortality for a definite period of the past in a definite area. If we assume that with regard to mortality no changes will occur, we may say that we know everything about the mortality of the whole population in question. But with regard to the

在某一時期某一地區以內，我們可製出一個完全的死亡率表。如果我們假定死亡率不發生變動的話，我們就可以說，關於這個地區全部人口死亡率的動態我們都知道。但是，關於各個人的生命期，我們除知道它們是構成全部人口死亡率的因素以外，毫無所知。

For this defective knowledge the calculus of probability provides a presentation in symbols of the mathematical terminology. It neither expands nor deepens nor complements our knowledge. It translates it into mathematical language. Its calculations repeat in algebraic formulas what we knew beforehand. They do not lead to results that would tell us anything about the actual singular events. And, of course, they do not add anything to our knowledge concerning the behavior of the whole class, as this knowledge was already perfect---or was considered perfect---at the very outset of our consideration of the matter.

或然率的計算，就是對於這缺陷的知識，用數學的專門符號來陳述。它旣不擴張，也不加深，更不補足我們的知識。它只是把我們的知識變成數學語言。它的計算是在我們早已熟知的一些代數式中反覆重演。其結果並沒有吿訴我們關於個別事象的任何情形。自然，這些計算不會增加我們關於全類動態的知識，因爲這方面的知識，在一開始考慮這個事象的時候，已經是完全的，或認爲完全的。

It is a serious mistake to believe that the calculus of probability provides the gambler with any information which could remove or lessen the risk of gambling. It is, contrary to popular fallacies, quite useless for the gambler, as is any other mode of logical or mathematical reasoning. It is the characteristic mark of gambling that it deals with the unknown, with pure chance. The gambler's hopes for success are not based on substantial considerations. The nonsuperstitious gambler thinks: "There is a slight chance [or, in other words: 'it is not impossible'] that I may win; I am ready to put up the stake required. I know very well that in putting it up I am behaving like a fool. But the biggest fools have the most luck. Anyway!"

如果相信或然率的計算會爲賭徒提供任何情報，藉以消除或減輕輸錢的危險，那是一個嚴重的錯誤。正與通常的錯誤相反，或然率計算，對於賭徒是毫無用處的，這與任何其他的邏輯或數學推理對於他毫無用處是一樣的。賭博的特徵是在對未知的事情打賭，對純粹的機會打賭。賭徒的成功希望，不是靠健全的考慮。不迷信的賭徒會這樣想：「我赢的機會是有一點的（或，換句話说，「那不是不可能的」）；我願意下這筆賭注。我很知道，我下這筆賭注，是做儍事。但是，最大的儍子，才會有最大的幸運。管它的!」

Cool reasoning must show the gambler that he does not improve his chances by buying two tickets instead of one of a lottery in which the total amount of the winnings is smaller than the proceeds from the sale of all tickets. If he were to buy all the tickets, he would certainly lose a part of his outlay. Yet every lottery customer is firmly convinced that it is better to buy more tickets than less. The habitues of the casinos and slot machines never stop. They do not give a thought to the fact that, because the ruling odds favor the banker over the player, the outcome will the more certainly result in a loss for them the longer they continue to play. The lure of gambling consists precisely in its unpredictability and its adventurous vicissitudes.

冷靜的推理就會使賭徒明白：買兩張彩票並不比買一張的機會更好，因爲彩票的全部彩金比它的全部銷售收入要小得多。如果他把全部彩票都買來，他一定要大大賠本。可是，每個買彩票的人總堅決相信，多買比少買好。他們不想想這個事實：因爲開賭的莊家相對於賭徒而言，總是操勝算的，你賭得愈多愈長，你損失的機會愈是確定。賭博之所以迷人，正由於它的不可預知和它的風險變化。

Let us assume that ten tickets, each bearing the name of a different man, are put into a box. One ticket will be drawn, and the man whose name it bears will be liable to pay 100 dollars. Then an insurer can promise to the loser full indemnification if he is in a position to insure each of the ten for a premium of ten dollars. He will collect 100 dollars and will have to pay the same amount to one of the ten. But if he were to insure one only of them at a rate fixed by the calculus,

我們假想，有十張籤條，每張上面各寫一個不同的姓名，放進一隻箱子裡面。從中抽出一張，其姓名出現在這一張上面的那個人就得付出100元。如果有一個保險人能夠給這每張籤條保險，每張各收保險費10元，這時他就可給這位損失者充份的賠償。他收到100元，也得支付100元給這十人中之一人。但是，如他只給這十張籤條當中的一張保險，按或然率計算出的費率收保險費10元，這樣他就不是做保險而是賭博。他拿自己來代替被保險人。他收到10元也得到這樣一個機會，即：或者淨得這10元，或者失掉這十元再賠上90元。

If a man promises to pay at the death of another man a definite sum and charges for this promise the amount adequate to the life expectancy as determined by the calculus of probability, he is not an insurer but a gambler. Insurance, whether conducted according to business principles or according to the principle of mutuality, requires the insurance of a whole class or what can reasonably be considered as such. Its basic idea is pooling and distribution of risks, not the calculus of probability. The mathematical operation that it requires are the four elementary operations of arithmetic. The calculus of probability is mere by--play.

如果某甲承諾在某乙死亡時給付一定的金額，爲提供這個承諾，某甲在某乙的生前收取一個適當的金額，此金額按或然率計算。某甲這種作法不是保險而是賭博。保險，不管是按照商業原則來作或按照互助原則來作，必須是屬於全類的保險，或可以視作全類的保險。它的基本觀點是湊份子（pooling），是危險分攤，而不是或然率的計算。它所需要的數學是四則的算術。或然率的計算不過是揷曲戲。

This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the elimination of hazardous risk by pooling can also be effected without any recourse to actuarial methods. Everybody practices it in his daily life. Every businessman includes in his normal cost accounting the compensation for losses which regularly occur in the conduct of affairs. "Regularly" means in this context: The amount of these losses is known as far as the whole class of the various items is concerned. The fruit dealer may know, for instance, that one of every fifty apples will rot in this stock; but he does not know to which individual apple this will happen. He deals with such losses as with any other item in the bill of costs.

湊份子來消除危險（即危險的分攤）這種事情，用不著什麼保險統計。每個人在日常生活中都會這樣作。每個做生意的人都會把業務中通常發生的損失計入他的正常成本中。這裡所說的「通常」，其意義是：這些損失的數額，就個別項組成全類來講，是可知的。例如，水果商會知道在這批進貨中每五十枚蘋果有一枚將會壞掉；但他不知究竟哪一枚會壞。他處理這種損失，如同處理成本帳中任何其他項目一樣。

The definition of the essence of class probability as given above is the only logically satisfactory one. It avoids the crude circularity implied in all definitions referring to the equiprobability of possible events. In stating that we know nothing about actual singular events except that they are elements of a class the behavior of which is fully known, this vicious circle is disposed of. Moreover, it is superfluous to add a further condition called the absence of any regularity in the sequence of the singular events.

上述的類的或然率的界說，只是邏輯上良好的界說。凡是涉及兩可情況的一切界說，都不免是粗疏的循環論法，上述的界說避免了這個毛病。它是說，關於各個事項的實際情形，我們一無所知，除掉知道它是那個全體動態的構成份以外；全體動態是我們充份知道的。在這種說法下，有缺陷的循環論法就被解決了。

The characteristic mark of insurance is that it deals with the whole class of events. As we pretend to know everything about the behavior of the whole class, there seems to be no specific risk involved in the conduct of the business.

保險的特徵是處理「全類的」事項。因爲我們以爲，關於全類的動態我們都知道，所以在保險業務上似乎沒有什麼特殊風險。

Neither is there any specific risk in the business of the keeper of a gambling bank or in the enterprise of a lottery. From the point of view of the lottery enterprise the outcome is predictable, provided that all tickets have been sold. If some tickets remain unsold, the

開賭場的莊家，或發行彩票的行業，也是沒有任何特殊風險的。從彩票行業的觀點來看，只要全部彩票都賣掉了，其結果是可以預知的。如果有些彩票未賣掉，則這個行業的主人，就其保留的那些彩票而言，與每個買彩票的人，就其買到的那張彩票而言，是處在同樣的地位。

4. Case Probability

四、個案或然率

Case probability means: We know, with regard to a particular event, some of the factors which determine its outcome; but there are other determining factors about which we know nothing.

個案或然率的意思是：關於某一事項，我們知道決定其結果的某些因素，但還有一些其他的決定因素我們不知道。

Case probability has nothing in common with class probability but the incompleteness of our knowledge. In every other regard the two are entirely different.

個案或然率與類的或然率，除掉都是不完全的知識這一點以外，沒有共同點。在其他任何方面，這兩種或然率完全不同。

There are, of course, many instances in which men try to forecast particular future event on the basis of their knowledge about the behavior of the class. A doctor may determine the chances for the full recovery of his patient if he knows that 70 per cent of those afflicted with the same disease recover. If he expresses his judgment correctly, he will not say more than that the probability of recovery is 0.7, that is, that out of ten patients not more than three on the average die. All such predictions about external events, i.e., events in the field of the natural sciences, are of this character. They are in fact not forecasts about the issue of the case in question, but statements about the frequency of the various possible outcomes. They are based either on statistical information or simply on the rough estimate of the frequency derived from nonstatistical experience.

自然，有許多人是想憑他們關於類的動態的知識來預測某一特殊的未來事項。一位醫生，如果他知道某類病人的康復機會是70%，他就會對於他的那位害同類病的病人作一個判斷。如果他要把他的判斷說得正確的話，他只能說康復的機會是0.7，也就是說，十個病人平均只有三個會死亡。關於外在事象，也即自然科學領域的事象的一切預測，都是屬於這種性質。事實上，它們不是對於有關個案的預測，而是講的關於各種可能結果的頻率。它們或者是憑統計資料，或者僅憑非統計的經驗而作的大略估計。

So far as such types of probable statements are concerned, we are not faced with case probability. In fact we do not know anything about the case in question except that it is an instance of a class the behavior of which we know or think we know.

這種方式的預測，與個案或然率無關。事實上我們對於有關的個案毫無所知，除掉知道它是某一類動態的一個例證以外，這一類的動態是我們知道的，或我們認爲是我們知道的。

A surgeon tells a patient who considers submitting himself to an operation that thirty out of every hundred undergoing such an operation die. If the patient asks whether this number of deaths is already full, he has misunderstood the sense of the doctor's statement. He has fallen prey to the error known as the "gambler's fallacy." Like the roulette player who concludes from a run of ten red in succession that the probability of the next turn being black is now greater than it was before the run, he confuses case probability with class probability.

一位病人準備請一位外科醫生給他動手術，醫生吿訴他，像這樣的病動手術，一百人當中平均三十人會死。如果這位病人要問到這個死亡數是否已經届滿，那他就是誤解了醫生的話。他就是陷入了所謂「賭徒的錯誤」。賭輪盤的賭徒看到一連串有十次「紅」出現，於是認爲下一次出現「黑」的機會就更大了。這是他把個案或然率與類的或然率弄混淆了。

All medical prognoses, when based only on general physiological knowledge, deal with class probability. A doctor who hears that a man he does not know has been seized by a definite illness will, on the basis of his general medical experience, say: His chances for recovery

凡是醫生，僅憑生理學的知識而作的預測，就是使用類的或然率。一位醫生，聽說一位他所不知道的病人患了某一明確的病症，他憑一般的治療經驗，於是說：這位病人的康復機會是7對3。如果這位醫生親身診斷這位病人，他也許有不同的看法。這位病人是年壯力強的；在患這種病以前的健康情形很好。在這些情況下，這位醫生會想到，死亡率要低些；這位病人的康復機會不是7：3而是9：1。儘管這不是憑統計資料只是憑他的臨床經驗，可是邏輯方法是一樣的。醫生所知道的往往只是一些類的動態。就我們這個例子來看，這個「類」就是患這種病的年壯力強的人這個類。

Case probability is a particular feature of our dealing with problems of human action. Here any reference to frequency is inappropriate, as our statements always deal with unique events which as such---i.e., with regard to the problem in question---are not members of any class. We can form a class "American presidential elections." This class concept may prove useful or even necessary for various kinds of reasoning, as, for instance, for a treatment of the matter from the viewpoint of constitutional law. But if we are dealing with the election of 1944---either, before the election, with its future outcome or, after the election, with an analysis of the factors which determined the outcome---we are grappling with an individual, unique, and nonrepeatable case. The case is characterized by its unique merits, it is a class by itself. All the marks which make it permissible to subsume it under any class are irrelevant for the problem in question.

個案或然率是我們處理人的行爲問題的一個特殊點。這裡一講到頻率就不適當，因爲我們所講的總是些獨特無二的事象，不是任何一類的份子。我們可把「美國總統選舉」作爲一個「類」。這個類的概念可能有用，或者爲著某種推理甚至是必要的，例如，從憲法的觀點來討論這個問題的時候，這個概念是必要的。但是，如果討論一九四四年的總統選舉——或者在選舉前討論未來的結果，或者在選舉以後作因果關係的分析——我們就是在處理個別、獨特、而不會重演的個案。這個個案的特徵是它的獨一無二性，它本身就是一個類。凡是可以允許把它納入任何一類的那些跡象，都與這裡的問題不相干。

Two football teams, the Blues and the Yellows, will play tomorrow. In the past the Blues have always defeated the Yellows. This knowledge is not knowledge about a class of events. If we were to consider it as such, we would have to conclude that the Blues are always victorious and that the Yellows are always defeated. We would not be uncertain with regard to the outcome of the game. We would know for certain that the Blues will win again. The mere fact that we consider our forecast about tomorrow's game as only probable shows that we do not argue this way.

兩個足球隊，藍隊與黃隊，明天就要比賽。過去，藍隊總是打敗黃隊。這個知識不是關於「類」的知識。如果我們要把它當作類的知識，我們必然會作這樣的結論：藍隊總是勝，黃隊總是敗。關於這場比賽的結果，我們將確定地知道藍隊會再勝。但是，事實上我們把關於明天比賽的預測，只看作可能，這一事實就表示我們並不這樣講。

On the other hand, we believe that the fact that the Blues were victorious in the past is not immaterial with regard to the outcome of tomorrow's game. We consider it as a favorable prognosis for the repeated success of the Blues. If we were to argue correctly according to the reasoning appropriate to class probability, we would not attach any importance to this fact. If we were not to resist the erroneous conclusion of the "gambler's fallacy," we would, on the

另一方面，我們認爲藍隊過去常勝，對於明天的比賽結果並不是不重要的。它有利於藍隊再勝的預測。假若我們要按照適於類的或然率的推理而正確地講，我們就不會看重這個事實。假若我們不提防陷入「賭徒的錯誤」的話，那就會相反地要說：明天的比賽將是黄隊勝利。

If we risk some money on the chance of one team's victory, the lawyers would qualify our action as a bet. They would call it gambling if class probability were involved.

如果我們對某隊的勝利的預測，冒著若干金錢的危險，懂得法律的人就會把我們的行爲叫做打賭。所以，如果涉及類的或然率的行爲，那就叫做賭博。

Everything that outside the field of class probability is commonly implied in the term probability refers to the peculiar mode of reasoning involved in dealing with historical uniqueness or individuality, the specific understanding of the historical sciences.

在類的或然率範圍以外，而又可以統稱之爲或然率的每件事情，都是指一個特殊的推理方式，這個推理方式是用來處理歷史的獨一無二的、或個別的事象，也即歷史學的特殊了解。

Understanding is always based on incomplete knowledge. We may believe we know the motives of the acting men, the ends they are aiming at, and the means they plan to apply for the attainment of these ends. We have a definite opinion with regard to the effects to be expected from the operation of these factors. But this knowledge is defective. We cannot exclude beforehand the possibility that we have erred in the appraisal of their influence or have failed to take into consideration some factors whose interference we did not foresee at all, or not in a correct way.

了解，總是基於不完全的知識。我們可能知道行爲人的一些動機，他們所想達成的一些目的，以及他們爲達成這些目的而計畫採用的一些手段。對於這些因素所形成的後果，我們有一確定的見解。但是，這種知識是有缺陷的。我們不能預先否定我們有錯誤的可能性；我們可能把那些因素的影響估量錯誤，我們也可能沒有考慮到某些因素，這些因素的參與是我們完全沒有預料到的，或者預料得不對。

Gambling, engineering, and speculating are three different modes of dealing with the future.

賭博、工程、與投機，是處理「未來」的三個不同的方式。

The gambler knows nothing about the event on which the outcome of his gambling depends. All that he knows is the frequency of a favorable outcome of a series of such events, knowledge which is useless for his undertaking. He trusts to good luck, that is his only plan.

賭徒對於他所賭的結果所賴以發生的事情，毫無所知。他所知道的不過是他所希望的那些事象發生的頻率而已，對於他的賭博，這是無用的知識。他信賴幸運，這是他唯一的計畫。

Life itself is exposed to many risks. At any moment it is endangered by disastrous accidents which cannot be controlled, or at least not sufficiently. Every man banks on good luck. He counts upon not being struck by lightning and not being bitten by a viper. There is an element of gambling in human life. Man can remove some of the chrematistic consequences of such disasters and accidents by taking out insurance policies. In doing so he banks upon the opposite chances. On the part of the insured the insurance is gambling. His premiums were spent in vain if the disaster does not occur.[2] With regard to noncontrollable natural events man is always in the position of a gambler.

人生本身冒著許多危險。隨時隨地會遇到不可控制或不能充份控制的意外災禍。每個人都要靠好運。他指望不要觸電，不要被毒蛇咬著。人生總有個賭博因素。人可用保險的辦法消除或減輕若千災禍的結果。要他這樣作的時候，他是依賴相反的機會。在被保險人這方面，保險是賭博。如果所保的災禍不發生，他的保險費就是白花的[2]。關於不可控制的自然事變，人總是處於賭徒的地位。

The engineer, on the other hand, knows everything that is needed for a technologically satisfactory solution of his problem, the construction of a machine. As far as some fringes of uncertainty are left in his power to control, he tries to eliminate them by taking safety

另一方面，工程師對於解決他的問題（比方说，一部機器的結構）所需要的一切技術知識他都具備。至於有些他不能控制的不確定的邊緣，他就留著安全的餘地來避免危險。他只知道可以解決的問題，以及那些現代知識尙不能解決的問題。有時，他會從不愉快的經驗中發現，他自己的知識並沒有他原來所想像的那麼完全。也發現他沒有認識到某些結果的不確定性，而這是他原來以爲他能夠控制的。於是他就努力增進他的知識。自然，他決不能完全消除人生當中的賭博因素，但是，他的原則是只在確定的軌道上活動，他的目的是要充份控制他的行爲因素。

It is customary nowadays to speak of "social engineering." Like planning, this term is a synonym for dictatorship and totalitarian tyranny. The idea is to treat human beings in the same way in which the engineer treats the stuff out of which he builds bridges, roads, and machines. The social engineer's will is to be substituted for the will of the various people he plans to use for the construction of his utopia. Mankind is to be divided into two classes: the almighty dictator, on the one hand, and the underlings who are to be reduced to the status of mere pawns in his plans and cogs in his machinery, on the other. If this were feasible, then of course the social engineer would not have to bother about understanding other people's actions. He would be free to deal with them as technology deals with lumber and iron.

現在常常聽到「社會工程」這個名詞。和「計畫」一樣，這個名詞是獨裁或極權暴政的一個同義詞。是要用工程師在建造橋樑、道路、和機器時處理材料的方法來對付人。社會工程師計畫用人來建造他的烏托邦，因而各階層、各行業的人的意志都以工程師的意志來代替。人被分作兩類：一方面是全能的獨裁者，他方面都是些被降到奉行他的計畫的一些小卒，和他的機器中的螺絲釘。假若這是行得通的，那麼，社會工程師當然不煩心來了解別人的行爲。他可以自由地對付他們，如同工程師之處理木材和鋼鐵一樣。

In the real world acting man is faced with the fact that there are fellow men acting on their own behalf as he himself acts. The necessity to adjust his actions to other people's actions makes him a speculator for whom success and failure depend on his greater or lesser ability to understand the future. Every action is speculation. There is in the course of human events no stability and consequently no safety.

在這個實際世界中，行爲人所面對的，是一些像自己一樣爲著他們自己的利益而行爲的人羣。所以，一個行爲人必須隨時對著別人的行爲來調整自己的行爲，這個必要就使得他成爲一個投機者（非惡意的——譯者附註）；他的成功或失敗就看他了解未來的能力或大或小。每一筆投資是一投機方式。在人生過程中沒有安定，因而也沒有安全。

-----------------

[2] In life insurance the insured's stake spent in vain consists only in the difference between the amount collected and the amount he could have accumulated by saving.

[2] 在人壽保險的場合，被保險者所白花的保險費，只是所收的金額與他所可儲積的金額兩者之差。

5. Numerical Evaluation of Case Probability

五、個案或然率的數的估値

Case probability is not open to any kind of numerical evaluation. What is commonly considered as such exhibits, when more closely scrutinized, a different character.

個案或然率不受任何種類的數的估値【之影響】。通常認爲是數的估値的場合，經過仔細檢討以後，就會顯出一個不同的特徵。

On the eve of the 1944 presidential election people could have said:

在一九四四年美國總統選舉的前夕，美國人可能這樣說：

(a) I am ready to bet three dollars against one that Roosevelt will be elected.

(a) 我願意用三塊錢對一塊錢來打賭羅斯福會當選。

(b) I guess that out of the total amount of electors 45 millions will exercise their franchise, 25 millions of whom will vote for Roosevelt.

(b) 我測想在全體選舉人中將有四千五百萬人將參加投票，其中將有二千五百萬人投羅斯福。

(c) I estimate Roosevelt's chances as 9 to 1.

(c) 我估計羅斯福當選的機會是9對1。

(d) I am certain that Roosevelt will be elected.

(d) 我確信羅斯福會當選。

Statement (d) is obviously inexact. If asked under oath on the witness stand whether he is as certain about Roosevelt's future victory as about the fact that a block of ice will melt when exposed to a temperature of 150 degrees, our man would have answered no. He would have rectified his statement and would have declared: I am personally fully convinced that Roosevelt will carry on. That is my opinion. But, of course, this is not certainty, only the way I understand the conditions involved.

(d)的說法，明顯地是不精確的。如果要他在發誓臺上答覆：確信羅斯福將要當選是否和確信一個冰塊暴露在150度的溫度下將要溶化那樣地有把握，他將會答「不」。他會修正他的說法而說：就我個人講，我充份相信羅斯福連任。這是我的意見。但是，這自然不是確定的，只是我這樣想而已。

The case of statement (a) is similar. This man believed that he risked very little when laying such a wager. The relation 3:1 is the outcome of the interplay of two factors: the opinion that Roosevelt will be elected and the man's propensity for betting.

(a)的說法是同樣的。這個人當他打這個賭的時候，他相信是冒很小的險。3：1的關係對於候選人是否當選，並未作斷言。那是兩個因素互相影響的結果：「羅斯福將會當選」這個意見和這個人好賭的傾向。

Statement (b) is an evaluation of the outcome of the impending event. Its figures refer not to a greater or smaller degree of probability, but to the expected result of the voting. Such a statement may be based on a systematic investigation like the Gallup poll or simply on estimates.

(b)的說法，是對於這個未決事件的結果作一數的估値。這裡的數字不是指或然率的或大或小，而是指預期的投票結果。這樣的說法，也許是憑一種有系統的觀察，像蓋洛普（Gallup）民意調查那樣，也許僅憑一些估計。

It is different with statement (c). This is a proposition about the expected outcome couched in arithmetical terms. It certainly does not mean that out of ten cases of the same type nine are favorable for Roosevelt and one unfavorable. It cannot have any reference to class probability. But what else can it mean?

它與(c)的說法不同。(c)是一個關於預期結果的命題用算術名詞來表示。它決不是眞正地意指十個同樣的個案中有九個是利於羅斯福，有一個是對他不利的。它不會涉及個案或然率。那麼，它的意思是其他的什麼呢？

It is a metaphorical expression. Most of the metaphors used in daily speech imaginatively identify an abstract object with another object that can be apprehended directly by the senses. Yet this is not a necessary feature of metaphorical language, but merely a consequence of the fact that the concrete is as a rule more familiar to us than the abstract. As metaphors aim at an explanation of something which is less well known by comparing it with something better known, they consist for the most part in identifying something abstract with a better--known concrete. The specific mark of our case is that it is an attempt to elucidate a complicated state of affairs by resorting to an analogy borrowed from a branch of higher mathematics, the calculus of probability. As it happens, this mathematical discipline is more popular than the analysis of the epistemological nature of understanding.

它是一個比喩的表現法【表達方式】。在日常語言中的大多數比喩，總是用一個可以直接由感官察知的東西來比同一個抽象的東西。可是，這並不是比喩語言的必要特徵，而只是「具體的東西通常比抽象的東西更習見」這個事實的結果。比喩的目的，是在於用大家所熟知的事情來說明較不熟知的事情。所以，大多數的比喩是以大家熟知的具體事物來比同抽象的事物。就我們這裡的事例來講，其特徵是藉助數學部門的或然率計算這個類比，來說明這一個複雜事態。因爲這個數學部門，比起關於領悟的認識論分析，要容易懂些。

There is no use in applying the yardstick of logic to a critique of metaphorical language. Analogies and metaphors are always defective and logically unsatisfactory. It is usual to search for the underlying tertium comparationis. But even this is not permissible with regard to the metaphor we are dealing with. For the comparison is based on a conception which is in itself faulty in the very frame of

我們用不著拿邏輯的尺度來批評比喩的語言。類比和比喩總是有缺陷的，從邏輯的觀點來看，總是叫人不滿意的。但是，關於我們所處理的這個比喩，甚至也是不可以允許的。因爲這個比較所根據的一個概念，其本身在或然率計算的架構中就是錯誤的，也即「賭徒的謬誤」。在斷言羅斯福的機會是9：1的時候，意思就是：羅斯福在這次選舉中所處的地位，等於一位買了全部彩票90%的人關於中頭彩所處的地位。這是意含：這個9：1的比率吿訴我們，關於那個獨特案件的結果的某些實質的東西。這是一個錯誤的想法。

No less impermissible is the recourse to the calculus of probability in dealing with hypotheses in the field of the natural sciences. Hypotheses are tentative explanations consciously based on logically insufficient arguments. With regard to them all that can be asserted is: The hypothesis does or does not contradict either logical principles or the facts as experimentally established and considered as true. In the first case it is untenable, in the second case it is---under the present state of our experimental knowledge---not untenable. (The intensity of personal conviction is purely subjective.) Neither frequency probability nor historical understanding enters into the matter.

在自然科學的領域中，也同樣不可以靠或然率的計算來處理假設。假設是自覺地憑些邏輯上不充足的議論而作的嘗試性的解釋。關於假設，我們所可說的只是：假設可能與邏輯原理衝突，也可能不衝突：可能與經驗的和被認爲的事實衝突，也可能不衝突。凡是與它們衝突的場合，它就站不住，凡是與它們不衝突的場合——在我們的經驗知識的現況下——不是站不住的。（個人信服的強度大小則純然是主觀的）或然率也好，歷史的了解也好，都與這個問題無關。

The term hypothesis, applied to definite modes of understanding historical events, is a misnomer. If a historian asserts that in the fall of the Romanoff dynasty the fact that this house was of German background played a relevant role, he does not advance a hypothesis. The facts on which his understanding is founded are beyond question. There was a widespread animosity against Germans in Russia, and the ruling line of the Romanoffs, having for 200 years intermarried exclusively with scions of families of German descent, was viewed by many Russians as a germanized family, even by those who assumed that Tsar Paul was not the son of Peter III. But the question remains what the relevance of these facts was in the chain of events which brought about the dethronement of this dynasty. Such problems are not open to any elucidation other than that provided by understanding.

「假設」這個名詞，如果用在了解歷史事件的一些確定方式上，那就是一誤用。假若一位歷史家斷言，「Romanoff王朝崩潰這件事，與這個皇室屬於日耳曼人的背景有關係」，他這種說法，並非提出一個假設。他的了解所憑藉的那些事實，都是確切無疑的。在俄國，對於曰耳曼人有普遍的怨恨，二百年當中，僅和日耳曼貴族通過婚的Romanoff這一統治階級，就被許多俄國人看作日耳曼化的家族，這些俄國人當中，甚至有的人認爲Paul沙皇不是Peter III的兒子。但是，這些事實與那些促成這個王朝廢位的一連串事故有什麼相干，仍然是個問題。像這一類的問題，除了我們的了解以外，沒有任何方法可以說明。

6. Betting, Gambling, and Playing Games

六、打賭、賭博和競技

A bet is the engagement to risk money or other things against another man on the result of an event about the outcome of which we know only so much as can be known on the ground of understanding. Thus people may bet on the result of an impending election or a tennis match. Or they may bet on whose opinion concerning the content of a factual assertion is right and whose is wrong.

打賭，是僅憑自己了解的程度對於某一事件的結果作一預測，而與另一個作不同的或相反的預測的人賭金錢或其他東西。即將到來的選舉或網球比賽，都可作爲打賭的對象。

Gambling is the engagement to risk money or other things against another man on the result of an event about which we do not know

賭博是僅憑關於這個全類動態的知識對於某一事件的結果作一預測，而與另一個人賭金錢或其他東西的勝負。

Sometimes betting and gambling are combined. The outcome of horse racing depends both on human action---on the part of the owner of the horse, the trainer, and the jockey---and on nonhuman factors---the qualities of the horse. Most of those risking money on the turf are simply gamblers. But the experts believe they know something by understanding the people involved; as far as this factor influences their decision they are betters. Furthermore they pretend to know the horses; they make a prognosis on the ground of their knowledge about the behavior of the classes of horses to which they assign the various competing horses. So far they are gamblers.

有時候，打賭與賭博是結合在一起的。賽馬的結果，旣憑人的行爲——馬的主人、馬的訓練者、和賽馬師——也憑非人的因素——馬的品質。賽馬場裡面冒金錢風險的那些人，大部份只是賭徒。但是專家們認爲，憑著對於有關人等的了解，他們會知道某些事情；就這種因素影響他們的決定的程度以內來講，他們是打賭者。而且他們也許自以爲懂得這些馬：他們是憑自己關於這些類別的馬各種動態的知識來作決定的。就這一點講，他們又是賭徒。

Later chapters of this book deal with the methods business applies in handling the problem of the uncertainty of the future. On this point of our reasoning only one more observation must be made.

本書後面的幾章，將討論工商業者應付未來不確定問題的諸方法。在這裡只要多作一點觀察。

Embarking upon games can be either an end or a means. It is an end for people who yearn for the stimulation and excitement with which the vicissitudes of a game provide them, or whose vanity is flattered by the display of their skill and superiority in playing a game which requires cunning and expertness. It is a means for professionals who want to make money by winning.

競技，會是目的，也會是手段。對於那些極想從競技中找刺激的人們而言，或者對於那些想從表演中以滿足虛榮心的人們而言，它是目的。對於那些靠此賺錢的職業競技者而言，它是手段。

Playing a game can therefore be called an action. But it is not permissible to reverse this statement and to call every action a game or to deal with all actions as if they were games. The immediate aim in playing a game is to defeat the partner according to the rules of the game. This is a peculiar and special case of acting. Most actions do not aim at anybody's defeat or loss. They aim at an improvement in conditions. It can happen that this improvement is attained at some other men's expense. But this is certainly not always the case. It is, to put it mildly, certainly not the case within the regular operation of a social system based on the division of labor.

所以競技可叫做行爲。但是，我們不可以倒過來講，把所有的行爲都叫做競技，或把所有的行爲當作競技來處理。競技的直接目的是遵照這項競技的規則把對方打敗。這是行爲的一個特例。大多數的行爲並不以打敗任何人或使任何人受損爲目的。它們的目的是在改善生活情況。這種改善也會偶爾是損人而利己的。但這決不總是如此。平實地講，在一個分工的社會制度下，凡是正規的行爲決不是損人利己的。

There is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society. The card player wins money by outsmarting his antagonist. The businessman makes money by supplying customers with goods they want to acquire. There may exist an analogy between the strategy of a card player and that of a bluffer. There is no need to investigate this problem. He who interprets the conduct of business as trickery is on the wrong path.

競技與市場社會中的商業的行爲，這兩者沒有一點類似的地方。玩紙牌的人是要使對手上當才可赢錢。做生意的人要供給顧客們所需要的東西才能賺錢。玩牌者與欺騙者的策略可能相類似。這裡不必討論這個問題。凡是把商業行爲解釋爲騙子的人，是在思路上走錯了方向。

The characteristic feature of games is the antagonism of two or more players or groups of players.[3] The characteristic feature of business

競技的特徵是兩個或兩個以上的個人或團體的敵對[3]。在一個分工社會中的商業行爲，是要和這個社會的份子合作的。一旦他們之間彼此敵對，這個社會就會趨向於解體。

Within the frame of a market economy competition does not involve antagonism in the sense in which this term is applied to the hostile clash of incompatible interests. Competition, it is true, may sometimes or even often evoke in the competitors those passions of hatred and malice which usually accompany the intention of inflicting evil on other people. Psychologists are therefore prone to confuse combat and competition. But praxeology must beware of such artificial and misleading difference between catallactic competition and combat. Competitors aim at excellence and preeminence in accomplishments within a system of mutual cooperation. The function of competition is to assign to every member of a social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all its members. It is a method of selecting the most able man for each performance. Where there is social cooperation, there some variety of selection must be applied. Only where the assignment of various individuals to various tasks is effected by the dictator's decisions alone and the individuals concerned do not aid the dictator by endeavors to represent their own virtues and abilities in the most favorable light, is there no competition.

在一個巿場經濟的架構裡面，競爭並不是競技中的那種敵對。不錯，競爭有時候或甚至常激起競爭者的怨恨和惡意，想加害於別人。所以，心理學家易於把戰鬥和競爭混爲一談。但是，行爲學必須明察這種引起誤解的混淆。從行爲學的觀點看，競爭與戰鬥有基本的不同。競爭者的目的是要在合作的制度裡面有卓越優異的成就。競爭的功用是使社會的每一份子能夠爲全社會或社會所有其他份子提供最好的服務。競爭是爲各行各業挑選幹才的方法。凡是有社會合作的地方，必定有各種不同的選擇。只有在獨裁者指派各人的各種工作，而那些被指派工作的人們並非憑自己的才德和利益來幫助這個獨裁者的地方，才沒有競爭。

We will have to deal at a later stage of our investigations with the function of competition.[4] At this point we must only emphasize that it is misleading to apply the terminology of mutual extermination to the problems of mutual cooperation as it works within a society. Military terms are inappropriate for the description of business operations. It is, e.g., a bad metaphor to speak of the conquest of a market. There is no conquest in the fact that one firm offers better or cheaper products than its competitors. Only in a metaphorical sense is there strategy in business operations.

我們必須在以後再討論競爭的功用[4]。在這裡只要強調：把「互相撲滅」的用語用之於「互相合作」的問題上，這是誤導。軍事的名詞不適於拿來描述商業活動。把巿場比作戰場是個壞的比喩。事實上，一個公司行號提供較美、較廉的貨色與同行競爭，不能說是征服。只有在比喩的意義下，商場中才有所謂「戰略」。

-------------------

[3] "Patience" or "Solitaire" is not a one-person game, but a pastime, a means of escaping boredom. It certainly does not represent a pattern for what is going on in a communistic society, as John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern (Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

[3] 有一種叫做Patience或Solitaire的一個人玩的紙牌遊戲，不是競技，而是一種消遣的方法。像John von Neumann和Oscar Morgenstern所說的（Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

[4] See below, pp. 273-277.

[4] 見第十五章第五節。

7. Praxeological Prediction

七、行爲學的預測

Praxeological knowledge makes it possible to predict with apodictic certainty the outcome of various modes of action. But, of course, such prediction can never imply anything regarding quantitative matters. Quantitative problems are in the field of human action open

行爲學的知識會使我們可能預測某些行爲方式的結果。但是，這樣的預測自然不會涉及量的方面。人的行爲所引起的量的問題，除靠了解以外，沒有任何其他方法可用來說明。

We can predict, as will be shown later, that---other things being equal---a fall in the demand for a will result in a drop in the price of a. But we cannot predict the extent of this drop. This question can be answered only by understanding.

後面將要講到，我們可以預言：在其他事情不變的條件下，某物的需求下降，其價格將會跌落。但是，我們不能預言價格跌落的程度。這個問題只能憑了解來答覆。

The fundamental deficiency implied in every quantitative approach to economic problems consists in the neglect of the fact that there are no constant relations between what are called economic dimensions. There is neither constancy nor continuity in the valuations and in the formation of exchange ratios between various commodities. Every new datum brings about a reshuffling of the whole price structure. Understanding, by trying to grasp what is going on in the minds of the men concerned, can approach the problem of forecasting future conditions. We may call its methods unsatisfactory and the positivists may arrogantly scorn it. But such arbitrary judgments must not and cannot obscure the fact that understanding is the only appropriate method of dealing with the uncertainty of future conditions.

對於經濟問題作量的硏究，其基本缺點在於忽視了這個事實：在所謂經濟計量之間，沒有固定的關係。對於各種貨物的評價以及它們之間交換率的形成，旣非一成不變的，也非連續不斷的。每個新的事實都會使整個價格結構重新調整。了解，可以接近未來情況的預測這個問題，因爲了解是靠試圖把握有關的人們內心中所想的是什麼。我們可以說，這個方法是不能叫人滿意的，實證論者也會輕蔑它。但是這樣任意的判斷，不應該、也不會掩蔽這個事實：了解是處理未來情況之不確定的唯一可能的方法。

VII. ACTION WITHIN THE WORLD

第7章 在這個世界裡面的行爲

1. The Law of Marginal Utility

一、邊際效用法則

Action sorts and grades; originally it knows only ordinal numbers, not cardinal numbers. But the external world to which acting man must adjust his conduct is a world of quantitative determinateness. In this world there exist quantitative relations between cause and effect. If it were otherwise, if definite things could render unlimited services, such things would never be scarce and could not be dealt with as means.

行爲分類，也分級：最初，只知道序數（ordinal numbers），而不知道基數（cardinal numbers）。但是，行爲人必須調整其行爲以求適應的這個外在世界，是一個屬於量的世界。在這個世界裡面，原因與結果之間有量的關係存在。如果不是如此，如果一些確定的東西會提供無限的服務，則這樣的一些東西決不是稀少的，而且也不能把它們當作手段來處理。

Acting man values things as means for the removal of his uneasiness. From the point of view of the natural sciences the various events which result in satisfying human needs appear as very different. Acting man sees in these events only a more or a less of the same kind. In valuing very different states of satisfaction and the means for their attainment, man arranges all things in one scale and sees in them only their relevance for an increase in his own satisfaction. The satisfaction derived from food and that derived from the enjoyment of a work of art are, in acting man's judgment, a more urgent or a less urgent need; valuation and action place them in one scale of what is more intensively desired and what is less. For acting man there exists primarily nothing but various degrees of relevance and urgency with regard to his own well-being.

行爲人對於事物的評値，是把它們看作消除他的不適之感的手段。從自然科學的觀點來看，那些可以滿足人們需要的各種事物，像是非常不同的。但從行爲人的觀點來看，差不多是同類的。人，對於非常不同的滿足狀態以及得到這些滿足的手段，加以評値的時候，總是把所有的事物安排在「一個」等級表，而且在這些事物裡面，只看出它們對於他自己的滿足的相關聯。從食物得到的滿足，與從藝術品的欣賞後得到滿足，在行爲人的判斷中，是一個較迫切的或較不迫切的需要；評値與行爲把它們擺在一個等級表，這個等級表現出較強烈和較不強烈的需求。對於行爲人而言，他所評値的，只是這些事物與他自己的福利相關聯的程度，而不涉及其他。

Quantity and quality are categories of the external world. Only indirectly do they acquire importance and meaning for action. Because every thing can only produce a limited effect, some things are consider scarce and treated as means. Because the effects which things are able to produce are different, acting man distinguishes various classes of things. Because means of the same quantity and quality are apt always to produce the same quantity of an effect of the same quality, action does not differentiate between concrete definite quantities of homogeneous means. But this does not imply that it attaches the same value to the various portions of a supply of homogeneous means. Each portion is valued separately. To each portion its own rank in the scale of value is assigned. But these orders of rank can be ad libitum interchanged among the various portions of the same magnitude.

量與質是外在世界的元範。對於行爲而言，它們只間接地有其重要性與意義。因爲每一事物只能發生有限的效果，有些事物被認爲稀少的而當作手段。因爲事物所能發生的效果是彼此不同的，行爲人把它們區分爲各類。因爲同量同質的手段常常會發生同量的同質效果，行爲就對同質手段的一些具體而確定的量不加以區分。但是這並不意含：行爲對於同質手段的不同部份同樣重視。每一部份是各別評値的。每一部份在價値等級表上被安排在它自己的等級。但是，這些等級可以隨意地在同量的各部份之間相互交換。

If acting man has to decide between two or more means of different classes, he grades the individual portions of each of them. He assigns to each portion its special rank. In doing so he need not assign to the various portions of the same means orders of rank which immediately succeed one another.

如果行爲人必須在不同類的兩個或兩個以上的手段之間作一決定，他就把它們每一個的個別部份加以分級，使各歸於自己的那一級。他這樣作的時候，並不必要把同一手段的各部份，一個接一個地連續排起來。

The assignment of orders of rank through valuation is done only in acting and through acting. How great the portions are to which a single order of rank is assigned depends on the individual and unique conditions under which man acts in every case. Action does not deal with physical or metaphysical units which it values in an abstract academic way; it is always faced with alternatives between which it chooses. The choice must always be made between definite quantities of means. It is permissible to call the smallest quantity which can be the object of such a decision a unit. But one must guard oneself against the error of assuming that the valuation of the sum of such units is derived from the valuation of the units, or that it represents the sum of the valuations attached to these units.

靠評値來分等級，只有在行爲中而經由行爲才做得到。可以分作同一級的那些部份究有多大，這要看人在行爲時的個別情況。行爲不涉及抽象的學術硏究中所重視的自然科學的或玄學的那些單位；行爲總是面對一些不同的選擇。必須在某些量的手段中加以選擇。我們可以把那作爲選擇對象的最小量叫做一個單位。但是，我們切不要犯了一個錯誤的想法，以爲這些單位的總値是來自這些單位的評値，或以爲它是代表對於這些單位評値的總和。

A man owns five units of commodity a and three units of commodity b. He attaches to the units of a the rank--orders 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, to the units of b the rank--orders 3, 5, and 6. This means: If he must choose between two units of a and two units of b, he will prefer to lose two units of a rather than two units of b. But if he must choose between three units of a and two units of b, he will prefer to lose two units of b rather than three units of a. What counts always and alone in valuing a compound of several units is the utility of this compound as a whole---i.e., the increment in well--being dependent upon it or, what is the same, the impairment of well--being which its loss must bring about. There are no arithmetical processes involved, neither adding nor multiplying; there is a valuation of the utility dependent upon the having of the portion, compound, or supply in question.

假設一個人有五個單位的貨物A，有三個單位的貨物B。他賦與五個單位A的等級爲1、2、4、7和8。賦與三個單位B的等級爲3、5和6。這個意思是：如果他必須在兩個單位的A和兩個單位的B之間加以選擇，他就寧可損失兩個單位的A而不願損失兩個單位的B。但是如果他必須在三個單位的A與兩個單位的B之間加以選擇，他就寧可損失兩個單位的B而不願損失三個單位的A。對於幾個單位的混合體予以估値所要計及的，是這整個混合體的效用：也即，福利因它而增加，或換言之，福利因它之失去而受損。這裡不涉及算術程序，旣不加，也不乘；而是對於取得這有關的部份——混合體、或供給量——的效用予以估値。

Utility means in this context simply: causal relevance for the removal of felt uneasiness. Acting man believes that the services a thing can render are apt to improve his own well--being, and calls this the utility of the thing concerned. For praxeology the term utility is tantamount to importance attached to a thing on account of the belief that it can remove uneasiness. The praxeological notion of utility (subjective use--value in the terminology of the earlier Austrian economists) must be sharply distinguished from the technological notion of utility (objective use--value in the terminology of the same economists). Use--value in the objective sense is the relation between a thing and the effect it has the capacity to bring about. It is to objective

這裡的「效用」一詞，只是指：使不適之感爲之消除的因素（causal relevance for the removal of felt uneasiness）。行爲人以爲：一物所能提供的服務有益於他自己的福利，因而把這種服務叫做該物的效用。就行爲學來講，效用一詞是當事人認爲一物會消除他的不適之感，因而賦與該物的重要性。行爲學的效用觀念（在早期奥國學派經濟學家的用語中爲「主觀的使用價值」），必須與工藝學的效用觀念（在上述經濟學家的用語中爲「客觀的使用價值」）嚴格區分。客觀意義的使用價値，是指一物與它能使發生的效果之間的關係。例如，人們說到煤的「熱値」或「熱力」的時候，所指的就是客觀的使用價値。主觀的使用價値往往與眞正的客觀使用價値無關。有些事物之有主觀的使用價値，是因爲人們誤信它們有發生他所想望的效果的能力。相反地，有些事物確能發生所想望的效果，但人們不認爲它們有使用價値，這是因爲他們不知道這個事實。

Let us look at the state of economic thought which prevailed on the eve of the elaboration of the modern theory of value by Carl Menger, William Stanly Jevons, and Leon Walras. Whoever wants to construct an elementary theory of value and prices must first think of utility. Nothing indeed is more plausible than to assume that things are valued according to their utility. But then a difficulty appears which presented to the older economists a problem they failed to solve. They observed that things whose "utility' is greater are valued less than other things of smaller utility. Iron is less appreciated than gold. This fact seems to be incompatible with a theory of value and prices based on the concepts of utility and use--value. The economists believed that they had to abandon such a theory and tried to explain the phenomena of value and market exchange by other theories.

讓我們來看看在孟格爾（Carl Menger）、傑逢斯（William Stanly Jevons）和瓦拉斯（Leon Walras）提出現代價値論前夕的經濟思想的情況。凡是想建立一種價値與價格基本理論的人，一定會首先想到效用。「事物是按照它們的效用而被估値的」，這個說法是最能叫人信服的。但在當時，卻有一個困難爲老輩的經濟學家所未曾解決。他們看到一些「效用」較大的東西，比「效用」較小的東西反而估値較低。「鐵」比「金」較不重視。這種事實似乎不符合基於效用與使用價値兩概念的價値與價格理論。於是經濟學家認爲，他們不得不放棄這樣的理論，試圖用其他理論來解釋和市場交換那些現象。

Only late did the economists discover that the apparent paradox was the outcome of a vicious formulation of the problem involved. The valuations and choices that result in the exchange ratios of the market do not decide between gold and iron. Acting man is not in a position in which he must choose between all the gold and all the iron. He chooses at a definite time and place under definite conditions between a strictly limited quantity of gold and a strictly limited quantity of iron. His decision in choosing between 100 ounces of gold and 100 tons of iron does not depend at all on the decision he would make if he were in the highly improbable situation of choosing between all the gold and all the iron. What counts alone for his actual choice is whether under existing conditions he considers the direct or indirect satisfaction which 100 ounces of gold could give him as greater or smaller than the direct or indirect satisfaction he could derive from 100 tons of iron. He does not express an academic or philosophical judgment concerning the "absolute" value of gold and of iron; he does not determine whether gold or iron is more important for mankind; he does not perorate as an author of books on the philosophy of history or on ethical principles. He simply chooses between two satisfactions both of which he cannot have together.

到後來，經濟學家們才發現，這個表面上的矛盾是由於把問題講錯了。表現於市場交換率的估値和選擇，並不在「金」和「鐵」之間抉擇其一。行爲人不能夠在「所有的」金與「所有的」鐵之間作選擇。他是在一定時間、一定地點，在確定數量的金和確定數量的鐵之間作選擇。他在100盎司的金和100噸的鐵之間所作的選擇決定，與他在一個絕對不可能的假設下，在所有的金與所有的鐵之間所作的選擇決定，完全不相干。與他實際上的決定有關的，只是在實際情況下，他要考慮100盎司金所能給他的滿足（直接的和間接的）是大於或小於100噸鐵所能給他的滿足。他並不封於金和鐵的「絕對」價値作一學究式的或哲學式的判斷；他也不決定對於人類更重要的是金還是鐵：他不會像歷史哲學家或倫理學家著書立說時那樣下結論。他只是在兩個不能兼而有之的滿足之間作選擇。

To prefer and to set aside and the choices and decisions in which they result are not acts of measurement. Action does not measure utility or value; it chooses between alternatives. There is no abstract problem of total utility or total value.[1] There is no ratiocinative operation which could lead from the valuation of a definite quantity or number of things to the determination of the value of a greater or smaller quantity or number. There is no means of calculating the total value of a supply if only the values of its parts are known. There is no means of establishing the value of a part of a supply if only the value of the total supply is known. There are in the sphere of values and valuations no arithmetical operations; there is no such thing as a calculation of values. The valuation of the total stock of two things can differ from the valuation of parts of these stocks. An isolated man owning seven cows and seven horses may value one horse higher than one cow and may, when faced with the alternative, prefer to give up one cow rather than one horse. But at the same time the same man, when faced with the alternative of choosing between his whole supply of horses and his whole supply of cows, may prefer to keep the cows and to give up the horses. The concepts of total utility and total value are meaningless if not applied to a situation in which people must choose between total supplies. The question whether gold as such and iron as such is more useful and valuable is reasonable only with regard to a situation in which mankind or an isolated part of mankind must choose between all the gold and all the iron available.

取捨、選擇以及決定，都不是衡量的行爲。行爲並不衡量效用或價値：它只在不可兼得的事物之間作選擇。沒有什麼總效用或總價値（total utility or total value）這樣的抽象問題[1]。我們不能從一定數量的事物的估値推論到較多或較少數量事物的價値。如果只知道部份存量的價値，我們沒有方法可以計算總存量的價値。在價値和估値的領域內沒有算術的運算；沒有價値計算這樣的事情。對於兩物的全部存量估値，會不同於部份存量的估値。例如一位孤立的人，有七條牛和七匹馬，他對一匹馬的估値可能高於對一條牛的估値，因而當他必須選擇其一的時候，他寧可放棄一條牛而不放棄一匹馬。但在同時同一個人，如果他必須在馬的全部存量和牛的全部存量之間作一選擇，他也許願意保有那些牛而放棄那些馬。總效用與總價値這種概念，如果不是用在人們必須在幾種總存量之間選擇其一的場合，是沒有意義的。金的本身與鐵的本身究竟那個更有用、更有價値這個問題的提出，只有在一種場合是合理的，即：人類或孤立的那部份人類，必須在「所有的」金與「所有的」鐵之間來選擇其一的場合。

The judgment of value refers only to the supply with which the concrete act of choice is concerned. A supply is ex definitione always composed of homogeneous parts each of which is capable of rendering the same services as, and of being substituted for, any other part. It is therefore immaterial for the act of choosing which particular part forms its object. All parts---units---of the available stock are considered as equally useful and valuable if the problem of giving up one of them is raised. If the supply decreased by the loss of one unit, acting man must decide anew how to use the various units of the remaining stock. It is obvious that the smaller stock cannot render all the services the greater stock could. That employment of the various units which under this new disposition is no longer provided for, was in the eyes of acting man the least urgent employment among

價値判斷總是僅僅涉及與選擇行爲有關的存量。一種存量總是由同質的部份組成，而每一部份都能提供與另些部份相同的服務，因而各部份可以互相代替。所以就選擇行爲講，任何部份作選擇的對象都是一樣。如果遇到必須放棄其中一部份這個問題發生時，所有的部份（單位）都被認爲同樣有用、同樣有價値的。假若這個存量由於失去一單位而減少了，行爲人必須重新決定如何利用其餘的各單位。當然，較小的存量不能提供較大存量所能提供的那麼多的服務。在這新的安排下，已不再僱用的那個單位，在行爲人的心目中，是在以前存量較大時最不迫切的僱用。因而他所放棄的滿足，是在以前存量較大時，那些單位所提供的滿足中最小的滿足。假若在總存量中要放棄一個單位，他所必須考慮到的只是這個邊際滿足的價値。假若要對同質存量中一個單位予以估値，他就以全部存量中那個用途最不重要的單位的價値估之；也即憑邊際效用來估値。

If a man is faced with the alternative of giving up either one unit of his supply of a or one unit of his supply of b, he does not compare the total value of his total stock of a with the total value of his stock of b. He compares the marginal values both of a and of b. Although he may value the total supply of a higher than the total supply of b, the marginal value of b may be higher than the marginal value of a.

如果一個人必須抉擇，或者放棄存量a中的一個單位，或者放棄存量b中的一個單位，這時，他並不要把全部存量a的總價値與全部存量b的價値作比較。他要比較a和b的邊際價値。儘管他可能把全部存量a的價値看得比全部存量b的價値較高，可是b的邊際價値可能高於a的邊際價値。

The same reasoning holds good for the question of increasing the available supply of any commodity by the acquisition of an additional definite number of units.

同樣的推理也可適用於任何財貨存量的增加。

For the description of these facts economics does not need to employ the terminology of psychology. Neither does it need to resort to psychological reasoning and arguments for proving them. If we say that the acts of choice do not depend on the value attached to a whole class of wants, but on that attached to the concrete wants in question irrespective of the class in which they may be reckoned, we do not add anything to our knowledge and do not trace it back to some better--known or more general knowledge. This mode of speaking in terms of classes of wants becomes intelligible only if we remember the role played in the history of economic thought by the alleged paradox of value. Carl Menger and Bohm--Bawerk had to make use of the term "class of wants" in order to refute the objections raised by those who considered bread as such more valuable than silk because the class "want of nourishment" is more important than the class "want of luxurious clothing." [2] Today the concept "class of wants" is entirely superfluous. It has no meaning for action and therefore none for the theory of value; it is, moreover, liable to bring about error and confusion. Construction of concepts and classification are mental tools; they acquire meaning and sense only in the context

爲著陳述這些事實，經濟學無須使用心理學的術語。也用不著訴之於心理學的推理來證明。如果我們說，選擇行爲並不依靠附著於整個類的慾望的價値，而依靠附著於有關的實在慾望的價値，不管這些慾望可歸於哪一類，那麼，這並不增加我們的任何知識，也不把它追溯到更熟知的或更一般的知識。以慾望的類別來講的這個說法，只有我們回憶到所謂「價値的謬論」在經濟思想史所扮演的角色時才可了解。孟格爾和龐巴衛克曾經利用「慾望種類」這個名詞來反駁一些人所提到的反對論，那些人認爲「麵包」比「絲」更有價値，因爲「營養這一類慾望」比「華麗衣著這一類慾望」更重要[2]。今天，「慾望種類」這個概念完全是多餘的。對於行爲毫無意義。因而對於價値論也毫無意義。而且它還容易引起錯誤和混淆。概念與類別是心智的工具；它們只在利用它們的那些理論脈絡中才具有意義[3]。爲著確認這樣的分類對於價値毫無用處，而又把不同的慾望安排於「慾望種類」，這是荒謬的。

The law of marginal utility and decreasing marginal value is independent of Gossen's law of the saturation of wants (first law of Gossen). In treating marginal utility we deal neither with sensuous enjoyment nor with saturation and satiety. We do not transcend the sphere of praxeological reasoning in establishing the following definition: We call that employment of a unit of a homogeneous supply which a man makes if his supply is n units, but would not make if, other things being equal, his supply were only n-1 units, the least urgent employment or the marginal employment, and the utility derived from it marginal utility. In order to attain this knowledge we do not need any physiological or psychological experience, knowledge, or reasoning. It follows necessarily from our assumptions that people act (choose) and that in the first case acting man has n units of a homogeneous supply and in the second case n-1 units. Under these conditions no other result is thinkable. Our statement is formal and aprioristic and does not depend on any experience.

「邊際效用和邊際價値遞減律」與高森的慾望飽和律（Gossen's law of the saturation of wants——也即高森第一法則）無關。在討論邊際效用的時候，我們旣不講到感官的享受，也不講到飽和與滿足。爲建立下述的定義，我們並不超越行爲學推理的範圍：假設一個人具有某同質的存量是n個單位，他就使用一個單位，如果存量只有n-1個單位，他就不使用，我們就把這個使用叫做最不迫切的使用或邊際使用，從這邊際使用得到的效用叫做邊際效用。爲得到這個知識，我們並不需要任何生理的或心理的經驗、知識、或推理。這是從我們的假設必然得到的結論，我們的假設是：人是有行爲的（有選擇的），在第一場合，他有n個單位的同質的存量，在第二場合，他只有n-1個單位。在這些條件下，我們想不出會有其他結果。我們的這個陳述是形式的、是先驗的，不憑藉任何經驗。

There are only two alternatives. Either there are or there are not intermediate stages between the felt uneasiness which impels a man to act and the state in which there can no longer be any action (be it because the state of perfect satisfaction is reached or because man is incapable of any further improvement in his conditions). In the second case there could be only one action; as soon as this action is consummated, a state would be reached in which no further action is possible. This is manifestly incompatible with our assumption that there is action; this case no longer implies the general conditions presupposed in the category of action. Only the first case remains. But then there are various degrees in the asymptotic approach to the state in which there can no longer be any action. Thus the law of marginal utility is already implied in the category of action. It is nothing else than the reverse of the statement that what satisfies more is preferred to what gives smaller satisfaction. If the supply available increases from n-1 units to n units, the increment can be employed only for the removal of a want which is less urgent or less painful than the least urgent or least painful among all those wants which could be removed by means of the supply n-1.

促使人們行爲的不適之感，這是一種情況；另一種情形是，再也沒有任何行爲（或因爲到達了完全滿足的情沉，或因爲這個人不能再改善他的生活環境）。在這兩種情况之間或者有些中間階段，或者沒有。非此即彼，不會有第三種情形。在第二種情形下，只會有一個行爲，這個行爲一經完成，即到了再也不能有所行爲的境界。這顯然與我們的預設——有行爲——不相容；所以它不蘊含行爲元範的一般條件。剩下的只有第一種情形。但是，這種情形與第二種情形的距離又有各種不同的程度。所以邊際效用法則已經蘊含在行爲元範中。它不過是「滿足較多的東西優先於滿足較少的東西」這個說法的反面。如果可供使用的存量從n-1個單位增加到n個單位，這個增加部份之被使用，只是爲的滿足那個比存量爲n-1個單位時所能滿足的慾望中最不迫切的慾望還要不迫切的慾望。

The law of marginal utility does not refer to objective use--value, but to subjective use--value. It does not deal with the physical or chemical capacity of things to bring about a definite effect in general, but with their relevance for the well--being of a man as he himself sees it under the prevailing momentary state of his affairs. It does not deal primarily with the value of things, but with the value of the services a man expects to get from them.

邊際效用法則不是指的客觀使用價値，而是指的主觀使用價値。它不涉及某些東西引起一定效果的物理的或化學的性能，而只涉及那些東西與一個人自己所認爲的福利的相關性。它不涉及某些東西的價値，而只涉及一個人認爲從這些東西上面可得到的服務。

If we were to believe that marginal utility is about things and their objective use--value, we would be forced to assume that marginal utility can as well increase as decrease with an increase in the quantity of units available. It can happen that the employment of a certain minimum quantity---n units---of a good a can provide a satisfaction which is deemed more valuable than the services expected from one unit of a good b. But if the supply of a available is smaller than n, a can only be employed for another service which is considered less valuable than that of b. Then an increase in the quantity of a from n-1 units to n units results in an increase of the value attached to one unit of a. The owner of 100 logs may build a cabin which protects him against rain better than a raincoat. But if fewer than 100 logs are available, he can only use them for a berth that protects him against the dampness of the soil. As the owner of 95 logs he would be prepared to forsake the raincoat in order to get 5 logs more. As the owner of 10 logs he would not abandon the raincoat even for 10 logs. A man whose savings amount to $100 may not be willing to carry out some work for a remuneration of $200. But if his savings were $2,000 and he were extremely anxious to acquire an indivisible good which cannot be bought for less than $2,100, he would be ready to perform this work for $100. All this is in perfect agreement with the rightly formulated law of marginal utility according to which value depends on the utility of the services expected. There is no question of any such thing as a law of increasing marginal utility.

假若我們要相信邊際效用是關於事物和事物的客觀使用價値，我們就不得不以爲，隨著可使用的單位數量的增加，邊際效用不僅是會遞減，而且也會遞增。財貨a某一最少量——n個單位——的使用所提供的滿足，被認爲比財貨b—個單位所可提供的服務更有價値，這種情形會發生。但是，如果財貨a的存量小於n，它只能用之於被認爲比財貨b的用途較少價値的用途。這時，a的數量如果從n-1個單位增加到n個單位，其結果就是附著於a的一個單位的價値之增加。有100根木頭的人，可能建造一間小屋以避雨，比一件雨衣要有用得多。但是，如果他可使用的木頭還不到30根，他就只能做一張床以避地面的潮濕。如果他有95根木頭，他就會放棄雨衣以換取更多的5根木頭。如果他只有10根木頭，他將不會放棄雨衣，即令可換約10根木頭。一個人如果只有200元的儲蓄，他可能不願意去做某種可賺約200元報酬的工作。但是，如果他的儲蓄到了2,000元，而他急於想買到非2,100元買不到手的一件東西，這時，他就很樂於接受這項工作，而且，即令它的報酬不是200元而是100元，他也樂於接受。所有這些例子，完全符合正確陳述的邊際效用法則。依照這個法則，價値是靠期望中的服務的效用。至於效用遞增律，確也有這回事。【此處似應爲：至于效用遞增率，則純屬無稽之談。】

The law of marginal utility must be confused neither with Bernoulli's doctrine de mensura sortis nor with the Weber-Fechner law. At the bottom of Bernoulli's contribution were the generally known and never disputed facts that people are eager to satisfy the more urgent wants before they satisfy the less urgent, and that a rich man is in a position to provide better for his wants than a poor man. But the inferences Bernoulli drew from these truisms are all wrong. He developed a mathematical theory that the increment in gratification diminishes with the increase in a man's total wealth. His statement that as a rule it is highly probable that for a man whose income is 5,000 ducats one ducat means not more than half a ducat for a man

邊際效用法則決不可與Bernoulli的學說和Weber-Fechner法則相混淆。Bernoulli的基本貢獻是大家所熟知而不容爭辯的事實，即人們在滿足其次要的慾望以前，急於滿足更迫切的慾望，一個富人比一個窮人更能滿足他的慾望。但是，Bernoulli從這些明明白白的事情推論出來的結論都是錯誤的。他發展一套數學理論，認爲滿足的增加量隨著一個人的全部財富的增多而遞減。他的說法是對於一個有5,000金幣（ducats）收入的人而言，一枚金幣極可能不會比半枚金幣對於一個只有2,500金幣收入的人更爲重要，這個說法簡直是奇想。各人對於事物的估値，千差百異，彼此之間除用武断的方法以外，沒有任何其他的方法可作比較。即令我們把這一層置而不論，Bernoulli的方法即就同一個人對不同額的收入估値來講，也是不適當的。他不了解在這個問題上面我們所能夠講的只是：隨著所得增加，每個新增額是用來滿足較所得增加前已經滿足的最不迫切的慾望更不迫切的慾望。他不了解在估値、選擇、和行爲中決沒有什麼可衡量、可相等的，只有等級之差，也即取和捨[4]。所以，Bernoulli也好，那些採用Bernoulli推理方式的數學家和經濟學者也好，都不能解決價值這一難題。

The mistakes inherent in the confusion of the Weber--Fechner law of psychophysics and the subjective theory of value have already been attacked by Max Weber. Max Weber, it is true, was not sufficiently familiar with economics and was too much under the sway of historicism to get a correct insight into the fundamentals of economic thought. But ingenious intuition provided him with a suggestion of a way toward the correct solution. The theory of marginal utility, he asserts, is "not psychologically substantiated, but rather---if an epistemological term is to be applied---pragmatically, i.e., on the employment of the categories: ends and means."[5]

把主觀的價値理論和Weber-Fechner的精神物理學法則相混淆所引起的錯誤，曾經被Max Weber攻擊過。Max Weber對於經濟學固然不夠嫻熟，而且過份地受了歷史自足主義（historicism）的支配，以致看不淸經濟思想的一些基本原理：但是，他的天才使得他在這個問題上得到了正確的結論。他斷言，邊際效用理論「不是心理學所可證明的，而是——如果用一個認識論的名詞來講——建立於實效主義，也即基於目的與手段這兩個範疇的發展」。[5]

If a man wants to remove a pathological condition by taking a definite quantity of a remedy, the intake of a multiple will not bring about a better effect. The surplus will have either no effect other than the appropriate dose, the optimum, or it will have detrimental effects. The same is true of all kinds of satisfactions, although the optimum is often reached only by the application of a large dose, and the point at which further increments produce detrimental effects is often far away. This is so because our world is a world of causality and of quantitative relations between cause and effect. He who wants to remove the uneasiness caused by living in a room with a temperature of 35 degrees will aim at heating the room to a temperature of 65 or 70 degrees. It has nothing to do with the Weber--Fechner law that he does not aim at a temperature of 180 or 300 degrees. Neither has it

如果一個人想解除某種病況而服用一定量的藥劑。這一劑藥沒有使病況轉好。再加重分量，其結果或者是恰到好處，或者是把病弄得更壞。所有各種滿足，也是如此，儘管恰好的那一點要用大份量才可達到，而引起負效果的那一點通常是很遙遠。這是因爲我們的世界是屬於一個因果關係，而其因果又是屬於量的關係之世界。例如，一個人住在華氏35度氣溫的房子而感到不舒服，他就想把這間房子的氣溫昇高到65或70度。他決不會把氣溫昇到180度或200度。這個事實與Weber-Fechner的法則無關，也與心理學無關。心理學對於這個事實的解釋至多是提出一個極據式的說法：人，照例是喜歡保持生命與健康，而不願意死亡和疾病。從行爲學的觀點來看，重要的只是「行爲人在交替的事物之間加以選擇」這個事實。人，被放在十字路口，他必須、而且也的確選擇，這是——且不提其他情形——由於他生活在一個量的世界，而非一個無量的世界，無量的世界，甚至不是我們的心靈所可想像的。

The confusion of marginal utility and the Weber--Fechner law originated from the mistake of looking only at the means for the attainment of satisfaction and not at the satisfaction itself. If the satisfaction had been thought of, the absurd idea would not have been adopted of explaining the configuration of the desire for warmth by referring to the decreasing intensity of the sensation of successive increments in the intensity of the stimuli. That the average man does not want to raise the temperature of his bedroom to 120 degrees has no reference whatever to the intensity of the sensation for warmth. That a man does not heat his room to the same degree as other normal people do and as he himself would probably do, if he were not more intent upon buying a new suit or attending the performance of a Beethoven symphony, cannot be explained by the methods of the natural sciences. Objective and open to a treatment by the methods of the natural sciences are only the problems of objective use--value; the valuation of objective use--value on the part of acting man is another thing.

邊際效用與Weber-Fechner的法則之混淆，是源於錯在只看到達成滿足的手段，而沒有注意到滿足的本身。如果滿足的本身，曾經被想到，則不會荒謬到用「感覺的強度隨外來刺激的強度之遞增而遞減」來解釋關於氣溫的慾望。一般人不會想把臥室的氣溫提昇到120度這一事實，無論如何是與對氣溫的感覺強度毫無關係的。如果某人旣不更想買一套新衣服，也不更想聽一次貝多芬交響曲演奏，而他又不把他室內的溫度調整到其他正常人所調整到的、也是他自己所可以調整到的溫度，這不能用自然科學的方法來解釋。只有客觀的使用價値，才是客觀的，可以用自然科學的方法來處理：至於行爲人對於客觀使用價値的估値則是另一回事。

---------------

[1] It is important to note that this chapter does not deal with prices or market values, but with subjective use-value. Prices are derivative of subjective use-value. Cf. below, Chapter XVI.

[1] 要緊的是注意本章所討論的不是價値或市場價値問題，而是主觀的使用價値。價格是由客觀的使用價値導出的。參考下面的第十六章。

[2] Cf. Carl Menger, Grunds?tze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Vienna, 1871), pp. 88 ff.; B?hm-Bawerk, Kapital und Kapitalzins (3d ed. Innsbruck, 1909), Pt. II, pp. 237 ff.

[2] 參考Carl Menger, Grunds?tze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Vienna, 1871), pp. 88 ff.; B?hm-Bawerk, Kapital und Kapitalzins (3d ed. Innsbruck, 1909), Pt. II, pp. 237 ff.

[3] Classes are not in the world. It is our mind that classifies the phenomena in order to orgaize our knowledge. The question of whether a certain mode of classifying phenomena is conducive to this end or not is different from the question of whether it is logical permissible or not.

[3] 世界上沒有什麼類別。爲著組織我們的知識而把一切現象分類的，是我們的心。「把現象作某種分類是否有助於這個目的」，與「它是否爲邏輯所許可」，它們是兩個不同的問題。

[4] Cf. Daniel Bernoulli, Versuch einer neuen Theorie zur Bestimmung von Glücksf?llen, trans. by Pringsheim (Leipzib, 1896), pp. 27 ff.

[4] 參考Daniel Bernoulli, Versuch einer neuen Theorie zur Bestimmung von Glücksf?llen, trans. by Pringsheim (Leipzib, 1896), pp. 27 ff.

[5] Cf. Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufs?tze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tübingen, 1922), p. 372; also p. 149. The term "pragmatical" as used by Weber is of course liable to bring about confusion. It is inexpedient to employ it for anything other than the philosophy of Pragmatism. If Weber had known the term "praxeology," he probably would have preferred it.

[5] 參考Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufs?tze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tübingen, 1922), p. 372.及p. 149. Weber所用的「實用主義」一詞，自然易於發生混淆。如果Weber知道「行爲學」這個名詞，他或者會採用它。

2.The Law of Returns

二、報酬律

Quantitative definiteness in the effects brought about by an economic good means with regard to the goods of the first order (consumers' goods): a quantity a of cause brings about---either once and for all or piecemeal over a definite period of time---a quantity {a} of effect. With regard to the goods of the higher orders (producers' goods) it means: a quantity b of cause brings about a quantity {B} of effect, provided the complementary cause c contributes the quantity {y} of effect; only the concerted effects {B} and {y} bring about the quantity p of the good of the first order D. There are in this case three quantities: b and c of the two complementary goods B and C, and p of the product D.

經濟財在後果方面引起的量的確定，關於第一級財貨（消费財）的則是：一個a量的原因引起一個{a}量的後果。關於較高級財貨（生產財）的則是：一個b量的原因引起一個{B}量的後果，假使那補助的原因c助成了V量的後果；只有互助協作的{B}和{y}後果引起第一級財貨D的p量。在這種情形下有三個量：B和C兩個補助財貨的b和c。以及D產品的p。

With b remaining unchanged, we call that value of c which results in the highest value of p/c the optimum. If several values of c result in this highest value of p/c, then we call that the optimum which results

在b不變的場合，我們把那個歸結於p/c最高値的c値叫做最適値。如果有幾個c値歸結於p/c最高値，我們就把那也歸結於p這個最高値的，叫做最適値。如果兩個補助財貨在最適的比率下被使用，它們兩者都提供最高的產出：它們的生產力，它們的客觀使用價値，已被充份利用，沒有一點浪費。如果我們違背了這最適的組合，增加C量而不變動B量，報酬大概是會再增加的，但不比例於C的增加而增加。如果我們可能靠增加補助要素之一，也即靠把cx代替c，而x大於1，因而報酬從p增加到p1，那麼就有：p1>p而p1c

The law of returns asserts that for the combination of economic goods of the higher orders (factors of production) there exists an optimum. If one deviates from this optimum by increasing the input of only one of the factors, the physical output either does not increase at all or at least not in the ratio of the increased input. This law, as has been demonstrated above, is implied in the fact that the quantitative definiteness of the effects brought about by any economic good is a necessary condition of its being an economic good.

報酬律是這樣講的：就較高級經濟財（生產財）的組合而言，有一最適的境況。如果我們違離這個最適的境況，只將要素之一增加，其結果或者是產出量根本不增加，或者是不和那個要素同比率地增加。這個法則，如上所述，隱含在這個事實中：任何經濟財所引起的後果在量的方面的確定，是它之所以爲經濟財的必要條件。

That there is such an optimum of combination is all that the law of returns, popularly called the law of diminishing returns, teaches. There are many other questions which it does not answer at all and which can only be solved a posteriori by experience.

報酬律（通常叫做報酬遞減律）敎給我們的，也只是這樣的一個最適的組合。還有一些其他問題是報酬律所未解答的，那只能憑經驗來解決。

If the effect brought about by one of the complementary factors

如果補助要素之一所引起的後果是不可分的，則最適的境況就是那個足以達成目標的唯一組合。爲要把一疋呢料染色到某種程度，必須一定量的染料。較多或較少的染料不能達成所要達成的目標。有較多染料的人，必須把多餘的部份保留不用。有較少染料的人，則只能染一疋的一部份。在這個事例中，報酬遞減的結果是增加量的完全無用。

In other instances a certain minimum is required for the production of the minimum effect. Between this minimum effect and the optimal effect there is a margin in which increased doses result either in a proportional increase in effect or in a more than proportional increase in effect. In order to make a machine turn, a certain minimum of lubricant is needed. Whether an increase of lubricant above this minimum increases the machine's performance in proportion to the increase in the amount applied, or to a greater extent, can only be ascertained by technological experience.

在其他的事例中，最小後果的生產必須有最小限度的投入。在這最小後果與最適後果之間有一餘地，在這餘地當中增加投入的份量，其結果或是產出的比例增加或是超比例增加。爲使一部機器開動，必須用最低限度的潤滑油。至於超過這最低限度而增加潤滑油的使用量，是使這部機器的工作量比例增加還使超比例增加，這只能靠技術上的經驗解答。

The law of returns does not answer the following questions: (1) Whether or not the optimum dose is the only one that is capable of producing the effect sought. (2) Whether or not there is a rigid limit above which any increase in the amount of the variable factor is quite useless. (3) Whether the decrease in output brought about by progressive deviation from the optimum and the increase in output brought about by progressive approach to the optimum result in proportional or nonproportional changes in output per unit of the variable factor. All this must be discerned by experience. But the law of returns itself, i.e., the fact that there must exist such an optimum combination, is valid a priori.

報酬律不能解答下列問題：（1）最適的份量是不是可產生所追求的後果的唯一的份量。（2）是否有一嚴格的限度，超過此限度以後的任何數量的要素增加都是完全無用的。（3）由於漸漸遠離最適境況而引起的產出減少，以及由於漸漸接近最適境況而引起的產出增加，其給果就各個要素每單位的產出來講，是比例的變動還是非比例的變動？所有這些問題都要經驗來解答。但是報酬律的本身，也即：一定有個這樣最適的組合，是先驗地有效的。

The Malthusian law of population and the concepts of absolute overpopulation and under-population and optimum population derived from it are the application of the law of returns to a special problem. They deal with changes in the supply of human labor, other factors being equal. Because people, for political considerations, wanted to reject the Malthusiam law, they fought with passion but with faulty arguments against the law of returns---which, incidentally, they knew only as the law of diminishing returns of the use of capital and labor on land. Today we no longer need to pay any attention to these idle remonstrances. The law of returns is not limited to the use of complementary factors of production on land. The endeavors to refute or to demonstrate its validity by historical and experimental investigations of agricultural production are as needless as they are

馬爾薩斯的人口法則以及過度人口、低度人口和適度人口這些從它推演出來的絕對概念，都是報酬律之應用於特殊問題。它們都是在其他要素不變的假定下，硏討人力供給的變動。因爲人們基於政治的考慮，想反封馬爾薩斯法則，他們憑情感來爭論，而其論調是錯誤的——人們只了解資本與勞力用在土地上的報酬遞減律。現在我們再也不必注意這些無謂的異議了。報酬律不限之於補助的生產要素用之於土地。想以農業生產的歷史和經驗來駁斥報酬律的有效性，大可不必，因爲這是白費的。想駁倒這個報酬律的人，必須解釋爲什麼人們願意支付代價來買土地。如果報酬律不是有效的，一個農夫決不會去考慮要擴大他的耕地。他將會在任何一塊土地上倍增他的資本與勞力的投入，即可無限地倍增其報酬。

People have sometimes believed that, while the law of diminishing returns is valid in agricultural production, with regard to the processing industries a law of increasing returns prevails. It took a long time before they realized that the law of returns refers to all branches of production equally. It is faulty to contrast agriculture and the processing industries with regard to this law. What is called---in a very inexpedient, even misleading terminology---the law of increasing returns is nothing but a reversal of the law of diminishing returns, an unsatisfactory formulation of the law of returns. If one approaches the optimum combination by increasing the quantity of one factor only, the quantity of other factors remaining unchanged, then the returns per unit of the variable factor increase either in proportion to the increase or even to a greater extent. A machine may, when operated by 2 workers, produce p; when operated by 3 workers, 3p; when operated by 4 workers, 6p; when operated by 5 workers, 7p; when operated by 6 workers, also not more than 7p. Then the employment of 4 workers renders the optimum return per head of the worker, namely 6/4p, while under the other combinations the returns per head are respectively 1/2p, p, 7/5p and 7/6p. If, instead of 2 workers, 3 or 4 workers are employed, then the returns increase more than in relation to the increase in the number of workers; they do not increase in the proportion 2:3:4, but in the proportion 1:3:6. We are faced with increasing returns per head of the worker. But this is nothing else than the reverse of the law of diminishing returns.

人們有時候認爲，報酬遞減律在農業方面有效的，至於加工的工業則是報酬遞增律有效。經過了一段很長的時期，他們才認識到報酬律對於所有的生產都同樣地有效。在這一點上把農業與工業對立，是錯誤的。所謂報酬遞增律（這是個不適當，甚至會引起誤解的名詞）不過是報酬遞减律的反面，而報酬遞減律也是「報酬律」的一個不滿意的說法。如果我們只增加一個要素的數量，其他的要素不變，而漸進於最適的組合，則各要素的每單位報酬或者比例增加或者超比例增加。一部機器，當兩個工人運作的時候，生產p：三個工人運作時，生產3p；四個工人運作時，生產6p：五個工人運作時，生產7p；六個工人運作時，也不多於7p。於是可知，僱用四個工人時每個工人的報酬是最適的，即6/4p，在其他的組合下，則分別爲1/2p，p，7/5和7/6p。如果我們不僱用兩個工人，而僱用三個或四個，則其報酬的增加超過工人數目增加的比率：它們不是按2：3：4的比例而增加，而是按1：3：6的比例增加。這時我們所面對的是每個工人的報酬遞增，也即報酬遞減的反面。

If a plant or enterprise deviates from the optimum combination of the factors employed, it is less efficient than a plant or enterprise for which the deviation from the optimum is smaller. Both in agriculture and in the processing industries many factors of production are not perfectly divisible. It is, especially in the processing industries, for the most part easier to attain the optimum combination by expanding the size of the plant or enterprise than by restricting it. If the smallest unit of one or of several factors is too large to allow for its optimal exploitation in a small or medium-size plant or enterprise, the only way to attain the optimum is by increasing the outfit's size. It is these facts that bring about the superiority of big-scale

如果一個工場或企業違背了生產要素的最適組合，則它比另一個違背此最適組合較小的工場或企業更少效率。在農業與工業方面都有些生產要素不是完全可分的。尤其是在工業方面，擴大工場或企業的規模，比較限制它更容易達到最適的組合。如果某種生產要素的最小單位，對於一個中小規模的工場或企業還是太大了，不能夠用以達到最適的組合，這時，要達到最適組合的目的，唯一的辦法是擴大規模。這是大規模的生產事業所以占優勢的原因。關於這個問題的重要性，將在以後討論成本會計時再講。

3. Human Labor as a Means

三、作爲手段的人的勞動

The employment of the physiological functions and manifestations of human life as a means is called labor. The display of the potentialities of human energy and vital processes which the man whose life they manifest does not use for the attainment of external ends different from the mere running of these processes and from the physiological role they play in the biological consummation of his own vital economy, is not labor; it is simply life. Man works in using his forces and abilities as a means for the removal of uneasiness and in substituting purposeful exploitation of his vital energy for the spontaneous and carefree discharge of his faculties and nerve tensions. Labor is a means, not an end in itself.

把人生的生理功能和表現當作手段來僱用，就叫做勞動。至於人的潜能與生命過程的開展而非用以達成外在的目的，只是本人生理上的活動，那就不是勞動；而只是生活。人之工作，是在使用他的力量和智能，作爲消除不適之感的手段，是在以有目的地利用他的生命力，來取代自然的無所憂慮的消遣。勞動是手段，其本身不是目的。

Every individual has only a limited quantity of energy to expend, and every unit of labor can only bring about a limited effect. Otherwise human labor would be available in abundance; it would not be scarce and it would not be considered as a means for the removal of uneasiness and economized as such.

每個人只有有限的精力可消耗，每一單位的勞動只能產生一有限的後果。否則人的勞動將可無限使用；它將不是稀少的東西而不被認爲是消除不適之感的手段，而且也不必經濟地利用。

In a world in which labor is economized only on account of its being available in a quantity insufficient to attain all ends for which it can be used as a means, the supply of labor available would be equal to the whole quantity of labor which all men together are able to expend. In such a world everybody would be eager to work until he had completely exhausted his momentary capacity to work. The time which is not required for recreation and restoration of the capacity to work, used up by previous working, would be entirely devoted to work. Every nonutilization of the full capacity to work would be deemed a loss. Through the performance of more work one would have increased one's well-being. That a part of the available potential remained unused would be appraised as a forfeiture of well-being. The very idea of laziness would be unknown. Nobody would think: I could possibly do this or that; but it is not worthwhile; it does not pay; I prefer my leisure. Everybody would consider his whole capacity to work as a supply of factors of production which he would be anxious to utilize completely. Even a chance of the smallest increase in well-being would be considered a sufficient incentive to work more if it happened that at the instant no more profitable use could be made of the quantity of labor concerned.

勞動之所以要經濟地利用，只因爲它的量是有限的，不足以用來達成它所可達成的所有目的。在這個世界裡面，可使用的勞動供給量將等於所有的人所能消耗的全部勞動量。如果在這樣的一個世界裡面，每個人都熱心工作，直到他把當時的工作能力消耗完了爲止。工作勞累以後，繼之以消遣與恢復，恢復以後又把時間完全用在工作。工作能力之未充份利用就認爲是一損失。經由較多的工作而獲致成就，你就可增益你的福利。可以利用而未利用的那部份潜能，可以說是毫無補償的福利喪失。誰也不會這樣想：我可以做這件事或那件事；但是不値得做；我寧可賦閒。每個人會把他的全部工作能力看作他所極想全部利用的一項生產要素的供給。在沒有更好的機會時，即令是一點點福利增加，也會成爲工作的誘因。

In our actual world things are different. The expenditure of labor is deemed painful. Not to work is considered a state of affairs more satisfactory than working. Leisure is, other things being equal, preferred to travail. People work only when they value the return of labor higher than the decrease in satisfaction brought about by the curtailment of leisure. To work involves disutility.

在我們的眞實世界裡面，事情不是如此。工作被認爲是痛苦的，不工作比工作被認爲是較滿意的情況。在其他條件不變的假定下，閒暇比工作好。人們之所以工作，只是在他們認爲工作的報酬高於閒暇所產生的滿足。工作招致負效用。

Psychology and physiology may try to explain this fact. There is no need for praxeology to investigate whether or not they can succeed in such endeavors. For praxeology it is a datum that men are eager to enjoy leisure and therefore look upon their own capacity to bring about effects with feelings different from those with which they look upon the capacity of material factors of production. Man in considering an expenditure of his own labor investigates not only whether there is no more desirable end for the employment of the quantity of labor in question, but no less whether it would not be more desirable to abstain from any further expenditure of labor. We can express this fact also in calling the attainment of leisure an end of purposeful activity, or an economic good of the first order. In employing this somewhat sophisticated terminology, we must view leisure as any other economic good from the aspect of marginal utility. We must conclude that the first unit of leisure satisfies a desire more urgently felt than the second one, the second one a more urgent desire than the third one, and so on. Reversing this proposition, we get the statement that the disutility of labor felt by the worker increases in a greater proportion than the amount of labor expended.

心理學和生理學都想解釋這個事實。它們在這方面的努力能否成功，行爲學沒有必要去檢討它。人們之想享受閒暇，因而對於他們自己工作能力的看法不同於對那些物質的生產要素的看法。這個事實，對於行爲學而言是一論據。人，在考慮他自己的勞動支付時，他不僅要問是否沒有更好的目的來使用這勞動量，而且也要問，如果不再支付勞動不是更好嗎。我們也可把這個事實表達於把閒暇的取得叫做有意活動的一個目的，或第一級的經濟財。用這個比較牽強的名詞，爲的是我們必須把閒暇和任何其他經濟財一樣地從邊際效用方面來看。我們的結論必須是：第一個單位的閒暇所滿足的慾望比第二個單位所滿足的更迫切，第二個單位的閒暇所滿足的慾望比第三個單位所滿足的更迫切，以後以此類推。反過來說，工人所感覺到的勞動負效用，隨著勞動量之增加而超比例地增加。

However, it is needless for praxeology to study the question of whether or not the disutility of labor increases in proportion to the increase in the quantity of labor performed or to a greater extent. (Whether this problem is of any importance for physiology and psychology, and whether or not these sciences can elucidate it, can be left undecided.) At any rate the worker knocks off work at the point at which he no longer considers the utility of continuing work as a sufficient compensation for the disutility of the additional expenditure of labor. In forming this judgment he contrasts, if we disregard the decrease in yield brought about by increasing fatigue, each portion of working time with the same quantity of product as the preceding portions. But the utility of the units of yield decreases with the progress of the labor performed and the increase in the total amount of yield produced. The products of the prior units of working time have provided for the satisfaction of more important needs than the products of the work performed later. The satisfaction of these less important needs may not be considered as a sufficient reward for the further continuation of work, although they

但是，勞動的負效用是否比例於勞動量之增加而增加，或者增加得更多，這不是行爲學所必須研究的。（這個問題對於生理學與心理學是否重要，以及這些科學能否説明它，這可存疑不管。）無論如何，工人工作到某種程度，他會覺得再繼續工作所可享有的效用不足以補償勞動的負效用，這時他就會停止工作。在作這個判断的時候，他是把每段工作時間的同量產品與以前各段時間的作比較（這裡我們且不管因爲疲勞的增加而產量減少）。但是收益的單位效用隨勞動量的增加而減少，而收益的總量則是增加的。以前的那些工時單位的產品比起後來的會滿足較重要的慾望。後來的較不重要的慾望滿足，不能認爲足以補償工作的持續，儘管它們的物質產品數量不變。

It is therefore irrelevant for the praxeological treatment of the matter whether the disutility of labor is proportional to the total expenditure of labor or whether it increases to a greater extent than the time spent in working. At any rate, the propensity to expend the still unused portions of the total potential for work decreases, other things being equal, with the increase in the portions already expended. Whether this decrease in the readiness to work more proceeds with a more rapid or a less rapid acceleration, is always a question of economic data, not a question of categorial principles.

所以勞動的負效用是否比例於勞動支付的總量，或是否比消耗於工作的時間增加得更多，這是與行爲學不相干的。無論如何，在其他事物不變的假設下，把尙未使用的那部份潜能用之於工作的這個傾向，是隨已用的部份之增加而降低的。這個傾向的降低是加速的還是減速的，這是個經濟資料問題，不是個元範性的原則問題。

The disutility attached to labor explains why in the course of human history, concomitantly with the progressive increase in the physical productivity of labor brought about by technological improvement and a more abundant supply of capital, by and large a tendency toward shortening the hours of work developed. Among the amenities which civilized man can enjoy in a more abundant way than his less civilized ancestors there is also the enjoyment of more leisure time. In this sense one can answer the question, often raised by philosophers and philanthropists, whether or not economic progress has made men happier. If the productivity of labor were lower than it is in the present capitalist world, man would be forced either to toil more or to forsake many amenities. In establishing this fact the economists do not assert that the only means to attain happiness is to enjoy more material comfort, to live in luxury, or to have more leisure. They simply acknowledge the truth that men are in a position to provide themselves better with what they consider they need.

勞動的負效用可以解釋：爲什麼在人類歷史中，隨著技能進步、資本豐富、勞動生產力增加，而縮短工作時間的趨勢愈來愈加強。在文明人所能比他的祖先享受得更多的一些快樂的事物當中，還有更多的閒暇享受。在這個意義下，我們可以答覆哲學家和慈善家所常提出的一個問題：經濟進步是否使人們更快樂。如果勞動生產力比現在資本主義社會的較低的話，人們就不得不更辛勞，或不得不放棄許多快樂的事物。在確認這個事實的時候，經濟學家們並不斷言，獲得快樂的唯一方法是享受更多的物質舒適，過奢侈的生活，或有更多的閒暇。他們只是承認這個事實：人是能夠供給自己所認爲需要的東西，而使生活過得更好些。

The fundamental praxeological insight that men prefer what satisfies them more to what satisfies them less and that they value things on the basis of their utility does not need to be corrected or complemented by an additional statement concerning the disutility of labor. These propositions already imply the statement that labor is preferred to leisure only in so far as the yield of labor is more urgently desired than the enjoyment of leisure.

人都樂於較大的滿足，而對事物的估値都是基於那些事物的效用。這是基本的行爲學的深入觀察。這兩個命題用不著再以勞動負效用的說法來修正或補充。它們已蘊含著：人們之願意勞動，只有在它的收益比閒暇的享受更迫切的時候。

The unique position which the factor labor occupies in our world is due to its nonspecific character. All nature-given primary factors of production--i.e., all those natural things and forces that man can use for improving his state of well-being--have specific powers and virtues. There are ends for whose attainment they are more suitable, ends for which they are less suitable, and ends for which they are altogether unsuitable. But human labor is both suitable and indispensable for the performance of all thinkable processes and modes of production.

在我們這個世界裡面，勞動這個生產要素所處的地位之獨特，是由於它的非特殊性。所有自然界的生產要素——即自然界的一切東西和力量，而人可以用來改善他的生活情況的——各有其特殊的力量和性能。有些目的是它們較適於達成的，有些目的是它們較不適於達成的，有些目的是它們完全不能達成的。但是，人的勞動對於所有可想得到的生產程序和方式，旣能適合而且也不可少。

It is, of course, impermissible to deal with human labor as such in

當然，我們不可一概而論。人，和人的工作能力是不同的，如果不認淸這個區別，那就是一個基本錯誤。某一個人所能做的工作，較適於某些目的，較不適於另些目的，還有些目的是它完全不適合的。古典經濟學的缺點之一是它沒有充份注意到這個事實，而在價値、價格、工資率的理論建構中沒有考慮到它。人，所要經濟使用的是，某些種類的勞動，並非概括講的勞動。工資不是爲消耗了的勞動而給付，而是爲勞動的成就而給付，勞動的成就在質和量方面有很多的差異。每一特殊物品的生產，必須僱用能夠提供這種有關的特殊勞動的工人。有些人沒有考慮到這一點反而自我辯護說：勞動的主要供需是關係每個健康的人所能提供的非熟練的普通勞動，至於技術勞動，即賦有先天智能或後天訓練的人所提供的勞動，無論從何觀點來看，是一個例外。這種說法是荒謬的。在遠古時代，情形是否如此，或者甚至在原始的部落社會裡面，先天和後天的智能之不平等是不是要經濟使用勞動的主要因素，這都無須考究。在討論文明人的情況時，我們不可以無視勞動的質的差異。各個人所能做的工作是不同的，因爲人是生而不一樣的，又因爲他們在生活過程中所得到的技巧和經驗，使他們的能力更加差異化。

In speaking of the nonspecific character of human labor we certainly do not assert that all human labor is of the same quality. What we want to establish is rather that the differences in the kind of labor required for the production of various commodities are greater than the differences in the inborn capacities of men. (In emphasizing this point we are not dealing with the creative performances of the genius; the work of the genius is outside the orbit of ordinary human action and is like a free gift of destiny which comes to mankind overnight. [6] We furthermore disregard the institutional barriers denying some groups of people access to certain occupations and the training they require.) The innate inequality of various individuals does not break up the zoological uniformity and homogeneity of the species man to such an extent as to divide the supply of labor into disconnected sections. Thus the potential supply of labor available for the performance

說到人的勞動非特殊性的時候，我們並不是斷言所有的人力都是同質的。我們所要確認的無寧是：生產各種財貨所必須的勞動種類的差異，比人們天賦的才能差異還要大。（在強調這一點的時候，我們不涉及天才的創作；天才的作品是超越一般人的行爲常軌的[6]。而且，我們也不涉及那些防阻某些人羣進入某些行業和某些必須訓練的制度上的障礙。）各個人的天賦儘管不是相等的，可是，人類在動物學上是一致和同質的，天賦的差異不會差異到要把勞動的供給區分爲一些不相連續的部份。所以，每類工作的潜在勞動供給都超過這類勞動的需求。每類專業化的勞動供給，不能靠其他部門退出的工人來增加。但是，任何生產部門所必須的勞動，不會永久受限於做這類工作的人之稀少。只有在短期當中才會有專門人材缺乏的現象。在長期當中，這個現象會隨天賦的這類才幹的人們之受訓練而消失。

Labor is the most scarce of all primary means of production because it is in this restricted sense nonspecific and because every variety of production requires the expenditure of labor. Thus the scarcity of the other primary means of production---i.e., the nonhuman means of production supplied by nature---becomes for acting man a scarcity of those primary material means of production whose utilization requires the smallest expenditure of labor.[7] It is the supply of labor available that determines to what an extent the factor nature in each of its varieties can be exploited for the satisfaction of needs.

勞動是所有基本的生產手段當中最稀少的，因爲在這個限定的意義下，它是不特殊的，也因爲各種各類的生產都需要勞動。因而其他的基本生產手段——即自然界非人的生產手段——對於行爲人而言的稀少性，就成爲那些只需要最少勞動就可使用的生產手段的稀少性[7]。自然界的各種生產要素能夠爲滿足人類慾望而被利用到什麼程度，這就決定於勞動的供給。

If the supply of labor which men are able and ready to perform increases, production increases too. Labor cannot remain unemployed on account of its being useless for the further improvement of need satisfaction. Isolated self-sufficient man always has the opportunity of improving his condition by expending more labor. On the labor market of a market society there are buyers for every supply of labor offered. There can be abundance and superfluity only in segments of the labor market; it results in pushing labor to other segments and in an expansion of production in some other provinces of the economic system. On the other hand, an increase in the quantity of land available---other things being equal---could result in an increase in production only if the additional land is more fertile than the marginal land tilled before.[8] The same is valid with regard to accumulated material equipment for future production. The serviceableness of capital goods also depends on the supply of labor available. It would be wasteful to use the capacity of existing facilities if the labor required could be employed for the satisfaction of more urgent needs.

如果人們所能夠而又願意提供的勞動量增加了，生產也就增加。勞動，不會因爲它無助於慾望的更加滿足而留著不用。孤立而自足的個人常有機會靠多勞動以改善生活情況。在一個市場社會的勞動市場中，每一勞動都有些購買者。只有在市場的某些部門才會有過多的勞動供給；其結果，這些過多的勞動不得不轉移到其他部門，因而這些部門的生產爲之擴展。他方面，可利用的土地增加了——其他情形不變——只有在這增加的土地是比原已耕種的邊際土地更肥沃些的條件下，才會使生產增加[8]。物質設備的累積對於增產的關係也是這樣。資本財的有用也要靠可利用的勞動供給。如果所要用的勞動可用以滿足其他更迫切的慾望，則現存設備的使用就是浪費。

Complementary factors of production can only be used to the extent allowed by the availability of the most scarce among them. Let us assume that the production of 1 unit of p requires the expenditure

互相補足的生產要素所能使用的程度，受限於它們當中最稀少的那個要素。例如生產一個單位的p，需要7個單位的要素a和3個單位的要素b，而且a和b都不能用在其他的生產。假若有49個單位a和2,000個單位b可供使用，p的產量不會多於7個單位。因爲a的供給量決定了b的使用量。只有a被認爲是經濟財：人們只願意對a付代價；p的價格大都是由7個單位的a決定的。他方面，b不是經濟財，因而也沒有價格。沒有使用的b，數量有很多。

We may try to imagine the conditions within a world in which all material factors of production are so fully employed that there is no opportunity to employ all men or to employ all men to the extent that they are ready to work. In such a world labor is abundant; an increase in the supply of labor cannot add any increment whatever to the total amount of production. If we assume that all men have the same capacity and application for work and if we disregard the disutility of labor, labor in such a world would not be an economic good. If this world were a socialist commonwealth, an increase in population figures would be deemed an increase in the number of idle consumers. If it were a market society, wage rates paid would not be enough to prevent starvation. Those seeking employment would be ready to go to work for any wages, however low, even if insufficient for the preservation of their lives. They would be happy to delay for awhile death by starvation.

我們可試想一個世界裡面所有物質的生產要素已經充份利用了，因而沒有機會僱用所有願意工作的工人。在這樣的一個世界當中，勞動是豐富的；勞動供給量的再增加不會使生產總量有任何增加。如果我們假定所有的人有同樣的工作能力和志願，如果我們不管勞動的負效用，那麼在這樣的世界裡，勞動就不是經濟財。如果這個社會是社會主義國，人口增加必然是無事可作的消費者的人數增加。如果它是個市場社會，工資將不足夠免於飢餓。但是，那些尋找工作的人們將願意接受任何工資而工作，即令工資不足以維持生命，總可以延緩餓死。

There is no need to dwell upon the paradoxes of this hypothesis and to discuss the problems of such a world. Our world is different. Labor is more scarce than material factors of production. We are not dealing at this point with the problem of optimum population. We are dealing only with the fact that there are material factors of production which remain unused because the labor required is needed for the satisfaction of more urgent needs. In our world there is no abundance, but a shortage of manpower, and there are unused material factors of production, i.e. land, mineral deposits, and even plants and equipment.

這裡用不著詳細討論這樣世界的這些問題。我們的世界不是這樣的，勞動比物質的生產要素更稀少。我們在這一點並不討論適度的人口問題。我們只討論這個事實：這裡有些物質的生產要素還沒有使用，因爲所需要的勞動被更迫切的慾望滿足吸收去。在我們這個世界，人力不是豐富，而是不足，因而還有些未被利用的物質的生產要素，如土地、鑛藏，甚至工場和設備。

This state of affairs could be changed by such an increase in population figures that all material factors required for the production of the foodstuffs indispensable--in the strict meaning of the word--for the preservation of human life are fully exploited. But as long as this is not the case, it cannot be changed by any improvement in technological methods of production. The substitution of more efficient methods of production for less efficient ones does not render labor abundant, provided there are still material factors available whose utilization can increase human well-being. On the contrary, it increases

這種情況，會因人口的大量增加，生產糧食（維持生命所必須的）的一切物質要素都已充份利用而改變。但只要這種情形不發生，它不會被生產技術的任何進步所改變。效率較高的生產方法代替效率較低的，不會使勞動豐富，假使還有些物質的要素可用以增進人們福利的話。相反地，它會增加生產，因而增加消費財的數量。「節省勞動」的生產方法可以減輕貧困，不會引起所謂「技術的失業」（technological unemployment）。

Every product is the result of the employment both of labor and of material factors. Man economizes both labor and material factors.

每項產物是勞動與物質的要素就業的結果。人旣節用勞動，也節用物質的要素。

Immediately Gratifying Labor and Mediately Gratifying Labor

直接滿足慾望的勞動和間接滿足慾望的勞動

As a rule labor gratifies the performer only mediately, namely, through the removal of uneasiness which the attainment of the end brings about. The worker gives up leisure and submits to the disutility of labor in order to enjoy either the product or what other people are ready to give him for it. The expenditure of labor is for him a means for the attainment of certain ends, a price paid and a cost incurred.

在通常的情形下，勞動只間接地滿足勞動者，也即，經由目的的達成所導致的不適之感的消除。工作者放棄閒暇而享受勞動的效用，或者是爲享受某種產物，或者爲享受別人所願意爲他提供的產物。勞動，對於他而言，是爲某些目的而採取的一個手段，而支付的一個代價，而承受的一項成本。

But there are instances in which the performance of labor gratifies the worker immediately. He derives immediate satisfaction from the expenditure of labor. The yield is twofold. It consists on the one hand in the attainment of the product and on the other hand in the satisfaction that the performance itself gives to the worker.

但是也有些直接滿足的事例。勞動者從勞動支付得到的直接滿足，會是雙重的。一方面是勞動的結果給他的滿足，一方面是勞動的本身給他的滿足。

People have misinterpreted this fact grotesquely and have based on this misinterpretation fantastic plans for social reforms. One of the main dogmas of socialism is that labor has disutility only within the capitalistic system of production, while under socialism it will be pure delight. We may disregard the effusions of the poor lunatic Charles Fourier. But Marxian "scientific" socialism does not differ in this point from the utopians. Some of its foremost champions, Frederick Engels and Karl Kautsky, expressly declare that a chief effect of a socialist regime will be to transform labor from a pain into a pleasure. [10]

有些人曾經把這個事實誤解得很奇怪，同時又把一些狂熱的社會改革計畫放在這些誤解的基礎上面。社會主義的主要獨格碼（dogma）之一是說，勞動只在資本主義的社會才有負效用，在社會主義的社會則是純粹的快樂。我們可以不管那位可憐的精神病者Charles Fourier的一些說法。但是，馬克斯的「科學」社會主義在這一點上也與烏托邦沒有兩樣。它的第一流的擁護人之一Karl Kautsky曾明白地宣稱，無產階級政權的主要任務是要把勞動從痛苦變到快樂[9]。

The fact is often ignored that those activities which bring about immediate gratification and are thus direct sources of pleasure and enjoyment, are essentially different from labor and working. Only a very superficial treatment of the facts concerned can fail to recognize these differences. Paddling a canoe as it is practiced on Sundays for amusement on the lakes of public parks can only from the point of view of hydromechanics be likened to the rowing of boatsmen and galley slaves. When judged as a means for the attainment of ends it is as different as is the humming of an aria by a rambler from the recital of the same aria by the singer in the opera. The carefree Sunday paddler and the singing rambler derive immediate gratification from their activities, but not mediate gratification. What they do is therefore not labor, not the employment of their physiological functions for the attainment of ends other than the mere exercise of these

那些引起直接滿足的活動因而是快樂和享受的直接根源，這些活動本質上與勞動和工作不同。這個事實常被忽視。對於這些有關的事實僅作一點膚淺的討論，是不會明瞭其區別的。星期天在公園的湖上駕一隻獨木舟遊玩，只有從流體力學的觀點來看，才可與船夫和划船奴（galley slaves）的划船相比。當你把它作爲一個可達成目的的手段來判斷的時候，它就像一個散步的人，口哼抒情曲與一個歌星在劇場上唱同一抒情曲的差別。那些閒情逸致的在星期天盪船人，與散步哼歌的人，從他們自己的行爲直接得到滿足，而不是間接滿足。所以，他們所做的不是勞動，不是使用他們生理的機能以達成其他的目的，只是那些機能本身的運動。它只是娛樂。它本身是一目的；它是爲本身而作的，而不提供任何其他功用。因爲它不是勞動，我們不可以把它叫做直接滿足的勞動。[10]

Sometimes a superficial observer may believe that labor performed by other people gives rise to immediate gratification because he himself would like to engage in a kind of play which apparently imitates the kind of labor concerned. As children play school, soldiers, and railroad, so adults too would like to play this and that. They think that the railroad engineer must enjoy operating and steering his engine as much as they would if they were permitted to toy with it. On his hurried way to the office the bookkeeper envies the patrolman who, he thinks, is paid for leisurely strolling around his beat. But the patrolman envies the bookkeeper who, sitting on a comfortable chair in a well-heated room, makes money by some scribbling which cannot seriously be called labor. Yet the opinions of people who misinterpret other people's work and consider it a mere pastime need not be taken seriously.

有時，一個虜淺的觀察者會以爲別人的勞動會引起直接滿足，因爲他自己喜歡與這類勞動表面上相似的那種遊戲。像小孩子喜歡玩鐵路、當兵等等，成年人也會喜歡玩這玩那。他們會以爲鐵路的技師在開動機車的時候，是和他在玩火車玩具時一樣地快樂。一位簿記員在上班的路上看到巡邏的兵士就有點羨妒，他以爲這個巡邏兵在游游蕩蕩的享樂中領受薪金。但是，這個巡邏兵也會羡妒這個簿記員，以爲他在溫度調節的屋子內坐在舒服的椅子上，寫寫畫畫就可賺得薪金。這些都是誤解別人的工作而認爲那只是消遣。這些人的想法不値得我們重視。

There are, however, also instances of genuine immediately gratifying labor. There are some kinds of labor of which, under special conditions, small quantities provide immediate gratification. But these quantities are so insignificant that they do not play any role at all in the complex of human action and production for the satisfaction of wants. Our world is characterized by the phenomenon of the disutility of labor. People trade the disutility-bringing labor for the products of labor; labor is for them a source of mediate gratification.

但是，也有些事例，是眞正的直接滿足的勞動。在特殊的情形下，有幾種勞動的小量可以提供直接的滿足。但是，這些數量微末到不足以在複雜的人的行爲和滿足慾望的生產中發生任何作用。我們這個世界的特徵是，勞動是負的效用。人們把這帶有負效用的勞動換來勞動的產品；勞動，對於他們而言，是間接滿足的一個來源。

As far as a special kind of labor gives a limited amount of pleasure and not pain, immediate gratification and not disutility of labor, no wages are allowed for its performance. On the contrary, the performer, the "worker," must buy the pleasure and pay for it. Hunting game was and is for many people regular disutility-creating labor. But there are people for whom it is pure pleasure. In Europe amateur hunters buy from the owner of the hunting-ground the right to shoot a definite number of game of a definite type. The purchase of this right is separated from the price to be paid for the bag. If the two purchases are linked together, the price by far exceeds the prices that can be obtained on the market for the bag. A chamois buck still roaming on precipitous rocks has therefore a higher cash value than later when killed, brought down to the valley, and ready for the utilization of the meat, the skin, and the horns, although strenuous climbing and some material must be expended for its killing. One could say that one of the services which a living buck is able to render is to provide the hunter with the pleasure of killing it.

如果一種特別的勞動提供快樂而非痛苦，直接滿足而非勞動的負效用，則這種勞動用不著付工資。而且相反地，這個「工作者」必須購買這個快樂，也即爲作這種勞動反而要自己付出代價。打獵，對於許多人而言，是一種發生負效用的勞動，但有些人是以打獵爲樂。在歐洲，有些業餘的好獵者，向獵場的主人購買打獵權，得以一定的方式和一定的次數在那裡打獵。這種權利的購買與他將可獵獲的代價是不相干的。如果把這兩個價格對照起來看，購買打獵權所支付的代價遠超過獵獲物在市場上所可賣得的代價。爲什麼他們會這樣作呢？這是因爲一隻還在懸岩上邀遊的活生生的羚羊，比一隻殺死了的羚羊，包括它的肉、它的皮、它的角……更有價値些，儘管獵者爲射死這隻羚羊還要大費氣力爬到岩上，還要用一些必要的物質，可是我們可以說，一隻活的羚羊對於好獵者所提供的，是殺射的快樂。

The Creative Genius

有創造力的天才

Far above the millions that come and pass away tower the pioneers, the men whose deeds and ideas cut out new paths for mankind. For the pioneering genius [12] to create is the essence of life. To live means for him to create.

在千千萬萬人之上有些傑出的倡導人物，這種人的觀念和事業爲人類開闢些新的途徑。對於這種倡導性的天才[11]而言，創造是生命的本質，生活就是創造。

The activities of these prodigious men cannot be fully subsumed under the praxeological concept of labor. They are not labor because they are for the genius not means, but ends in themselves. He lives in creating and inventing. For him there is not leisure, only intermissions of temporary sterility and frustration. His incentive is not the desire to bring about a result, but the act of producing it. The accomplishment gratifies him neither mediately nor immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more often even greet it with taunts, sneers, and persecution. Many a genius could have used his gifts to render his life agreeable and joyful; he did not even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny path without hesitation. The genius wants to accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he knows that he moves toward his own disaster.

這種非常人物的一些活動，不能完全納之於行爲學的勞動這個概念。那些活動不是勞動，因爲對於天才而言，它們不是手段，它們本身就是目的。他生活在創造與發明中。就他而言，沒有什麼閒暇，只有暫時失望的間歇期。他的動機不是想得到一個結果，而是產生結果的這個行爲。成功給他的滿足旣不是間接的也不是直接的。之所以不是間接的，因爲只要他的同胞不關心這個工作也就很好了，通常他們是譏笑、輕蔑、甚至迫害他。許多天才，本可以用他的天賦使自己的生活改善些，過得快樂些；但是，他們甚至不考慮這個可能，而毫不猶疑地選擇這荆棘叢叢的途徑，天才是想完成他所認爲的他的使命，即令他知道這是走向多災多難的前途。

Neither does the genius derive immediate gratification from his creative activities. Creating is for him agony and torment, a ceaseless excruciating struggle against internal and external obstacles; it consumes and crushes him. The Austrian poet Grillparzer has depicted this in a touching poem "Farewell to Gastein." [13] We may assume that in writing it he thought not only of his own sorrows and tribulations but also of the greater sufferings of a much greater man, of Beethoven, whose fate resembled his own and whom he understood, through devoted affection and sympathetic appreciation, better than any other of his contemporaries. Nietzsche compared himself to the flame that insatiably consumes and destroys itself.[14] Such agonies are phenomena which have nothing in common with the connotations generally attached to the notions of work and labor, production and success, breadwinning and enjoyment of life.

天才也沒有從他的創造活動中得到直接的滿足。創造對於他，是一種極度的苦惱，是一種無休止的對內在和外在障礙的艱苦搏鬥，折磨他、消耗他。奧國詩人Grillparzer曾經在一首感人的詩篇Farewell to Gastein中描述這種情形[12]。我們可想像，在寫這篇詩的時候，他所想到的，不僅是他自己的悲哀和苦難，而且也想到一個更偉大的人物——貝多芬（Beethoven）——更大的悲痛；貝多芬的命運與他的相類似，他對貝多芬的了解也最深。尼采（Nietzsche）把自己比著火焰，不休不止地消耗它自己，毀滅它自己[13]。像這樣的一些苦惱，與一般的工作和勞動、生產和功能、謀生與生活享受等概念的內涵，沒有一點是共同的。

The achievements of the creative innovator, his thoughts and theories, his poems, paintings, and compositions, cannot be classified praxeologically as products of labor. They are not the outcome of

天才的成就，他的思想和學說，他的詩、畫、文章、作曲，不能歸之於行爲學所講的「勞動」的產品。它們不是那些可用來生產其他東西的勞動的產品。「生產」哲學、藝術、和文學巨著的，不是一般的勞動。思想家、詩人、藝術家，有時不適於完成任何其他工作。無論如何，他們用在創造活動的時間與精力，決不是從其他有目的的用途中扣留下來的。一位有能力可以發明新事物的人，環境也許註定他要受苦受難，使得他非餓死不可，或者使得他非把他的全部精力用於爭取僅夠糊口的生存。但是，如果這位天才完成了他的理想，除了他自己以外，誰也沒有支付這項成功的「成本」。歌德（Goethe）在任職Weimar法院的時候，或者是受他職務的限制而不能有所表現。但是，如果他不寫他的劇本、詩歌、和小說的話，即令他做中央政府的部長、劇場經理、或鑛場管理員，他也決不會有較好的成就。

It is, furthermore, impossible to substitute other people's work for that of the creators. If Dante and Beethoven had not existed, one would not have been in a position to produce the Divina Commedia or the Ninth Symphony by assigning other men to these tasks. Neither society nor single individuals can substantially further the genius and his work. The highest intensity of the "demand" and the most peremptory order of the government are ineffectual. The genius does not deliver to order. Men cannot improve the natural and social conditions which bring about the creator and his creation. It is impossible to rear geniuses by eugenics, to train them by schooling, or to organize their activities. But, of course, one can organize society in such a way that no room is left for pioneers and their path-breaking.

而且，我們也不可能用別人的工作去代替創造者的工作。如果沒有丹提（Dante）和貝多芬這兩個人，誰也不能寫出或指派別人寫出《神曲》和第九交響曲。社會或個人，都不能眞正地促成天才和天才的作品。最強度的「需求」和最強制的政府命令也無效。人們不能改善產生天才和其創作的自然環境與社會環境。我們不可能靠優生學來作育天才，靠學校來訓練天才，也不可能組織天才們的活動。但是，相反地，你可以組織一個社會，而在這個社會裡面沒有創作者活動的餘地。

The creative accomplishment of the genius is an ultimate fact for praxeology. It comes to pass in history as a free gift of destiny. It is by no means the result of production in the sense in which economics uses this term.

天才所完成的創作，就行爲學講，是一最後事實。它是像命運的賜予，出現於人類史上。它不是「生產」——這個名詞在經濟學裡面的意義——的結果。

--------------

[6] See below, pp. 139-140.

[6] 見下面「有創造力的天才」節。

[7] Of course, some natural resources are so scarce that they are entirely utilized

[7] 當然，有些自然資源稀少到已經完全被利用。

[8] Under free mobility of labor it would be wasteful to improve barren soil if the reclaimed area is not so fertile that it compensates for the total cost of the operation.

[8] 在勞動可以自由流動的環境下，如果開墾的土地其收穫不足夠以抵補開墾的全部成本，則對這種磽瘠地的改良就是浪費。

[9] See below, pp. 769-779.

[10] Karl Kautsky, Die soziale Revolution (3d ed. Berlin, 1911), II, 16ff. About Engels see below, p. 591.

[9] Karl Kautsky, Die soziale Revolution (3d ed. Berlin, 1911), II, 16ff. About Engels see below, p. 591.

[11] Rowing seriously practiced as a sport and singing seriously practiced by an amateur are introversive labor. See below, pp. 587-588.

[10] 作爲一個運動項目而認眞地練習搖船，以及業餘的歌星認眞地練習歌唱，這是內向勞動（introversive labor）。見第二十一章第一節。

[12] Leaders [Fürhrers] are not pioneers. They guide people along the tracks pioneers have laid. The pioneer clears a road through land hitherto inaccessible and may not care whether or not anybody wants to go the new way. The leader directs people toward teh goal they want to reach.

[11] 領袖（Fürhrers）不是倡導者，他們只是帶領人們循著倡導者開闢的途艇。倡導者是斬棘披荆的開荒者，他也許不關心有沒有別人想走他所開的新路。至於領袖，則是指揮人們照他所想達成的目標前進。

[13] It seems that there is no English translation of this poem. The book of Douglas Yates (Franz Grillparzer, a Critical Biography, Oxford, 1946), I, 57, gives a short English resume of its content.

[12] 這篇詩似乎還沒有英譯。Douglas Yates的著作(Franz Grillparzer, a Critical Biography, Oxford, 1946), I, 57.有一英譯的摘要。

[14] For a translation of Nietzsche's poem see M.A. Mügge, Friedrich Nietzsche (New York, 1911), p. 275.

[13] Nietzsche這篇詩的英譯，見M.A. Mügge, Friedrich Nietzsche (New York, 1911), p. 275.

4. Production

四、生產

Action, if successful, attains the end sought. It produces the product.

行爲，如果成功了，達到它所追求的目標。它產生了結果。

Production is not an act of creation; it does not bring about something that did not exist before. It is a transformation of given elements through arrangement and combination. The producer is not a creator. Man is creative only in thinking and in the realm of imagination. In the world of external phenomena he is only a transformer. All that he can accomplish is to combine the means available in such a way that according to the laws of nature the result aimed at is bound to emerge.

生產不是一個創造的行爲；它不產生未曾有的東西。它是把某些旣存的元素經過安排和組合的一個轉變。生産者不是創造者。人，只在思想方面和想像方面會有創造性的。在外在現象的世界中，他只是—個轉變者。他所能完成的，不過是把可用的手段，用適當的方法組合起來。所謂適當方法，即按照自然法則去作，於是所想達成的結果一定可以出現。

It was once customary to distinguish between the production

過去曾有過時期把有形財貨的生產與個人勞務的提供加以區分。製造桌椅的木匠，是生産的：但是，一位診好了木匠的病，使他能夠再製造桌椅的醫生，卻不是生產的。在醫生、木匠的關係與木匠、成衣匠的關係之間，居然定下區別。他們說，醫生自己是不生產的：他從別人所生產的以謀生，他要靠木匠或成衣匠過活。在更早的時期，法國重農學派的學者認爲，除掉從土地上得出某些東西的勞動以外，其他所有的勞動都是不生產的。只有耕種、漁、獵、採鑛、採石是生產的。加工的製造業所增加的價値僅夠抵補工作者所消費的東西的價値，此外，對此所使用的材料，並不增加任何價値。

Present-day economists laugh at their predecessors for having made such untenable distinctions. However, they should rather cast the beam out of their own eyes. The way in which many contemporary writers deal with various problems---for instance, advertising and marketing---is manifestly a relapse into the crude errors which should have disappeared long ago.

今天的經濟學者，嘲笑他們的前輩作了這樣不合理的區別。但是，他們自己也應該反省反省。現代的一些經濟學家，在討論某些問題時——例如，廣吿和市場問題——明顯地又回復到老早就應該不存在的粗疏的錯誤。

Another widely held opinion finds a difference between the employment of labor and that of material factors of production. Nature, it is asserted, dispenses its gifts gratuitously; but labor must be paid for by submitting to its disutility. In toiling and overcoming the disutility of labor man adds something to the universe that did not exist before. In this sense labor was called creative. This too is erroneous. Man's capacity to work is given in the universe as are the original and inherent capacities of the land and the animal substances. Nor does the fact that a part of the potentiality of labor can remain unused differentiate it from the nonhuman factors of production; these too can remain unused. The readiness of individuals to overcome the disutility of labor is the outcome of the fact that they prefer the produce of labor to the satisfaction derived from more leisure.

另一個大家相信的見解，是認爲勞動的僱用與物質的生產要素的僱用，其間也有區別。他們說，自然是慷慨施捨的：但是，勞動則由於它的負效用而必須付以代價，人在辛苦工作、克服勞動負效用的時候，給這個宇宙增加一些未曾有的東西。在這個意義下，勞動是創造的。這也是錯誤的見解。人的工作能力，和土地以及動物資產的生產力，在宇宙中同樣是所與的（given）。勞動潜能的一部份可以留下不用這一事實，也不使勞動有異於非人的生產要素：後者也會留下不用。人們之願意克服勞動的負效用，是由於他們寧可犧牲較多的閒暇來換取勞動的成果。

Only the human mind that directs action and production is creative. The mind too appertains to the universe and to nature; it is a part of the given and existing world. To call the mind creative is not to indulge in any metaphysical speculations. We call it creative because we are at a loss to trace the changes brought about by human action farther back than to the point at which we are faced with the intervention of reason directing human activities. Production is not something physical, material, and external; it is a spiritual and intellectual phenomenon. Its essential requisites are not human labor and external natural forces and things, but the decision of the mind to use

只有那指揮行爲和生產的人心才是創造的。人心也屬於這個宇宙和自然；它是這個旣有的世界之一部份。把人心稱爲創造的，並非耽迷於任何形而上的玄想。我們之所以把它稱爲創造的，因爲我們只能把人的行爲所引起的變動，追溯到「理知指導人的活動」這一點上，過此我們就茫然無所知。生產不是物質的、自然的、和外在的什麼；它是個精神的和心智的現象。它必要的基本條件不是人的勞動與外在的、自然的力量和事物，而是「用這些要素作手段，來達成某些目的」的這個心的決定。產生生產物的，不是辛苦工作的本身，而是辛苦工作者受理知的指導這個事實。只有人心有消除不適的能力。

The materialist metaphysics of the Marxians misconstrues these things entirely. The "productive forces" are not material. Production is a spiritual, intellectual, and ideological phenomenon. It is the method that man, directed by reason, employs for the best possible removal of uneasiness. What distinguishes our conditions from those of our ancestors who lived one thousand or twenty thousand years ago is not something material, but something spiritual. The material changes are the outcome of the spiritual changes.

馬克斯的信徒們以及唯物主義的玄學，把這些事情完全曲解。「生產力」不是物質的。生產是一精神的、心智的、和意理的現象。它是那受理知指導的人，爲著盡可能消除不適而採用的方法。使得我們的生活環境優於千年或二萬年以前我們祖先們的生活環境的，不是什麼物質的東西，而是精神的東西。物質的改變，是精神改變的結果。

Production is alteration of the given according to the designs of reason. These designs---the recipes, the formulas, the ideologies----are the primary thing; they transform the original factors---both human and nonhuman---into means. Man produces by dint of his reason; he chooses ends and employs means for their attainment. The popular saying according to which economics deals with the material conditions of human life is entirely mistaken. Human action is a manifestation of the mind. In this sense praxeology can be called a moral science (Geisteswissenschaft).

生產是把旣有的東西按照理知的設計而改變。這些設計——處方、公式、意理——是基本的東西；它們把那些原始要素——人的和非人的——改變成手段。人，憑他的理知來生產；他選擇目的並利用手段來達成。經濟學處理人生物質條件時所用的通常說法，完全是錯誤的。人的行爲是心的表現。在這個意義下，行爲學可稱爲精神科學（moral science - Geisteswissenschaft）。

Of course, we do not know what mind is, just as we do not know what motion, life, electricity are. Mind is simply the word to signify the unknown factor that has enabled men to achieve all that they have accomplished: the theories and the poems, the cathedrals and the symphonies, the motorcars and the airplanes.

當然，我們不知心是什麼，正如同不知道動、生命、電是什麼一樣。心只是一個字，用以指稱那個未知的因素。那個因素使人們得以完成他們曾經完成的東西：理論與詩歌，大敎堂與交響曲，汽車與飛機。

Chapter VIII. Human Society

第8章 人的社會

1. Human Cooperation

一、人的合作

Society is concerted action, cooperation. Society is the outcome of conscious and purposeful behavior.

社會，是協力一致的行爲，是合作。

This does not mean that individuals have concluded contracts by virtue of which they have founded human society. The actions which have brought about social cooperation and daily bring it about anew do not aim at anything else than cooperation and coadjuvancy with others for the attainment of definite singular ends. The total complex of the mutual relations created by such concerted actions is called society. It substitutes collaboration for the--at least conceivable--isolated life of individuals. Society is division of labor and combin-ation of labor. In his capacity as an acting animal man becomes a social animal.

社會是有意的、有目的的行爲之結果，這句話並不意指人們曾經締結一些契約以建立人的社會。產生社會合作，以及時時使社會更新的那些行爲，除掉爲的與別人合作以達成某些獨特的目的以外，別無所爲。由這樣協力一致的行爲而形成的複雜的相互關係的總稱，就是社會。它以個人們的合作生活來代替他們的孤立生活。社會是分工，也是合作；人，以其行爲動物的資格，成爲社會動物。

Individual man is born into a socially organized environment. In this sense alone we may accept the saying that society is---logically or historically---antecedent to the individual. In every other sense this dictum is either empty or nonsensical. The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. It exists nowhere else than in the actions of individual men. It is a delusion to search for it outside the actions of individuals. To speak of a society's autonomous and independent existence, of its life, its soul, and its actions is a metaphor which can easily lead to crass errors.

個人，一生下來就進入一個社會組織的環境。只有在這個意義下，我們可以接受「社會是一個邏輯地或歷史地——先於個人」【社會先于個人而存在——邏輯地或歷史地】這一說法。在其他任何意義下，這個說法或者是言之無物，或者是胡說八道。個人在社會裡面生活和行爲。但是，社會不過是許多個人爲合作而形成的結合。社會只存在於個人們的行爲之間，此外無所謂社會。在個人們的行爲之外去尋找社會，那是個妄想。說到一個社會自主的和獨立的存在，說到社會的生命、社會的靈魂、和社會的行爲，這都是容易引起徹底錯誤的比喩說法。

The questions whether society or the individual is to be considered as the ultimate end, and whether the interests of society should be subordinated to those of the individuals or the interests of the individuals to those of society are fruitless. Action is always action of individual men. The social or societal element is a certain orientation of the actions of individual men. The category end makes sense only when applied to action. Theology and the metaphysics of history may discuss the ends of society and the designs which God wants to realize with regard to society in the same way in which they discuss the purpose of all other parts of the created universe. For science,

應該視爲最後目的的，是社會還是個人：個人利益應該高於社會利益，還是社會利益應該高於個人利益，這些問題都是沒有意義的。行爲，總歸是個人的行爲。社會成份是些個人行爲的某一取向。「目的」這個範疇，只在用於行爲的時候有意義。神學和歷史的形而上學，在討論社會的目的和上帝關於理想社會的設計時，所用的方法也許和討論這個宇宙其他所有部份的目的所用的是一樣。從科學的觀點來講——科學與理知不可分，科學顯然不是一個適於討論這樣一些問題的工具——關於這些事情的思考，毫無用處。

Within the frame of social cooperation there can emerge between members of society feelings of sympathy and friendship and a sense of belonging together. These feelings are the source of man's most delightful and most sublime experiences. They are the most precious adornment of life; they lift the animal species man to the heights of a really human existence. However, they are not, as some have asserted, the agents that have brought about social relationships. They are fruits of social cooperation, they thrive only within its frame; they did not precede the establishment of social relations and are not the seed from which they spring.

在社會合作的架構裡面，社會成員之間就會顯現出同情、友愛、和同屬感（sense of belonging together）。這些感情是我們人最愉快、最崇髙的經驗的根源。它們是人生最珍貴的飾物；它們把動物屬的人抬昇到眞正的人。但是，這些感情，並不是像有些人所說的，是形成社會關係的動因。它們是社會合作的成果，它們只在社會合作的架構裡面發揚光大，它們不是在社會關係建立以前就存在的，它們不是社會關係所由發生的種籽。

The fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society, and civilization and transformed the animal man into a human being are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man's reason is capable of recognizing this truth. But for these facts men would have forever remained deadly foes of one another, irreconcilable rivals in their endeavors to secure a portion of the scarce supply of means of sustenance provided by nature. Each man would have been forced to view all other men as his enemies; his craving for the satisfaction of his own appetites would have brought him into an implacable conflict with all his neighbors. No sympathy could possibly develop under such a state of affairs.

形成合作、社會、與文明，而把動物人轉變成「人」的這些基本事實，也即是「在分工下所完成的工作，比孤立工作更生產些」，而且人的理知能夠認知這個眞理。如果不是如此，人們將永久停留在相互敵對的狀態，爲爭取自然界稀少的生活資源而成爲不解的仇敵。每個人不得不把其他所有的人看作敵人，爲求得自己的慾望滿足，必然與所有的鄰人發生不可解的衝突。在這樣的情況下，不可能發展出同情。

Some sociologists have asserted that the original and elementary subjective fact in society is a "consciousness of kind." [1] Others maintain that there would be no social systems if there were no "sense of community or of belonging together." [2]One may agree, provided that these somewhat vague and ambiguous terms are correctly interpreted. We may call consciousness of kind, sense of community, or sense of belonging together the acknowledgment of the fact that all other human beings are potential collaborators in the struggle for survival because they are capable of recognizing the mutual benefits of cooperation, while the animals lack this faculty. However, we must not forget that the primary facts that bring about such consciousness or such a sense are the two mentioned above. In a hypothetical world in which the division of labor would not increase productivity, there would not be any society. There would not be any sentiments of benevolence and good will.

有些社會學家曾經斷言，社會原始的和基本的主觀事實是一「種屬的自覺」（consciousness of kind）[1]。另一些社會學家則以爲，如果沒有「社會意識或同屬感」，就不會有社會制度[2]。這些含義模糊的名詞，假若予以適當解釋，我們也可同意。我們可以將「種屬的自識」、「社會意識」或「同屬感」，解釋爲對於一個事實的承認，即承認：所有其他的人都是生存競爭中可能的合作者，因爲他們有能力認知合作的利益，至於禽獸則缺乏這種認知的能力。但是，我們決不可忘記引起這樣自覺或這樣感情的，還是上面提到的兩個基本事實。如果我假想一個世界，在那裡，分工並不增進生產力，則這個世界就不會有什麼社會，也不會有什麼仁愛和友善的感情。

The principle of the division of labor is one of the great basic principles of cosmic becoming and evolutionary change. The biologists were right in borrowing the concept of the division of labor from social philosophy and in adapting it to their field of investigation. There is division of labor between the various parts of any living organism. There are, furthermore, organic entities composed of collaborating animal individuals; it is customary to call metaphorically such aggregations of the ants and bees "animal societies." But one must never forget that the characteristic feature of human society is purposeful cooperation; society is an outcome of human action, i.e., of a conscious aiming at the attainment of ends. No such element is present, as far as we can ascertain, in the processes which have resulted in the emergence of the structure-function systems of plant and animal bodies and in the operation of the societies of ants, bees, and hornets. Human society is an intellectual and spiritual phenomenon. It is the outcome of a purposeful utilization of a universal law determining cosmic becoming, viz., the higher productivity of the division of labor. As with every instance of action, the recognition of the laws of nature is put into the service of man's efforts to improve his conditions.

分工原理是宇宙的形成和演化的大原理之一。生物學家從社會哲學方面借來分工的概念而用之於他們的研究領域，這是對的。任何生物內部結構的各部份之間，是分工的。而且，還有些有機體是由一些合作的動物組成的；習慣上，我們將蟻羣和蜂羣比喩爲「動物社會」。但是，我們決不可忘記：人的社會之特徵，是有意的合作；社會是人的行爲之結果，也即，有意地要達成某些目的，因而有了社會。植物的機能結構和動物的身體，以及蟻蜂「社會」的活動，就我們所確知，都不是有意合作的結果。人的社會是心智的和精神的現象。它是有意地利用一個決定宇宙形成的普遍法則——「分工能提高生產力」這一法則——的結果。

------------

[1] F.H. Giddings, The Principles of Sociology (New York, 1926), p. 17.

[1] F.H. Giddings, The Principles of Sociology (New York, 1926), p. 17.

[2] F.M. MacIver, Society (New York, 1937), pp. 6-7.

[2] F.M. MacIver, Society (New York, 1937), pp. 6-7.

2. A Critique of the Holistic and Metaphysical View of Society

二、對於整體主義的和玄學的社會觀之批評

According to the doctrines of universalism, conceptual realism, holism, collectivism, and some representatives of Gestaltpsychologie, society is an entity living its own life, independent of and separate from the lives of the various individuals, acting on its own behalf and aiming at its own ends which are different from the ends sought by the individuals. Then, of course, an antagonism between the aims of society and those of its members can emerge. In order to safeguard the flowering and further development of society it becomes necessary to master the selfishness of the individuals and to compel them to sacrifice their egoistic designs to the benefit of society. At this point all these holistic doctrines are bound to abandon the secular methods of human science and logical reasoning and to shift to theological or metaphysical professions of faith. They must assume that Providence, through its prophets, apostles, and charismatic leaders, forces men who are constitutionally wicked, i.e., prone to pursue their own ends, to walk in the ways of righteousness which the Lord or Weltgeist or history wants them to walk.

按照全體主義（universalism）、概念實在論（conceptual realism）、整體主義（olism）、集體主義（collectivism）、以及格式心理學（Gestaltpsychologie）某些代表者的那些敎條，社會是一個有自己生命的存在體，獨立於各個人的生命而分離，爲它本身的目的而行爲，而它本身的目的不同於個人們所追求的目的。照這種說法，社會目的與社會份子的個人目的之間，當然會有衝突發生。爲保障社會的繁榮與發展，控制個人們的自私，強使他們犧牲自利的計畫以利於社會，就成爲必要的了。在這一點上，所有整體主義的敎條，必然是放棄人的科學和邏輯推理的一般方法，而轉到神學的或玄學的一些信條。他們一定假定：神，經由祂的先知們、使徒們、和受命的領袖們，強迫那本質上就是邪惡的人們，也即慣於追求他們自己的目的的人們，走上上帝或「世界精神」（Weltgeist）或歷史想他們行走的正途。

This is the philosophy which has characterized from time immemorial

這是表現太古時代原始部落的特徵的哲學。它是一切宗敎敎義的一個元素。人，必須遵守一個超人的力量所發佈的法律，必須服從這個力量所付託的執行這種法律的權威。因此，這個法律所創造的秩序——人的社會——是神的作品，而不是人的行爲結果。如果神未曾干預，未曾給有罪的人類以啓示，則社會不會出現。不錯，社會合作是於人有益的：不錯，人只有在社會架構裡面才能從野蠻原始的狀態中走出來。但是，如果讓他去，不管他，他決不會看出自我解救的途徑。因爲，就社會合作的要求而調整，以及對道德律的服從，是給他沉重的束縛。以他淺陋的心智來看，他會認爲放棄某些眼前的利益是有害的。他不知道放棄現在可見的利益可以獲得較大的、但是較遲的利益。如果沒有神秘的啓示，他決不會了解天使要他爲自己的利益和他子孫的利益所做的事。

The scientific theory as developed by the social philosophy of eighteenth-century rationalism and liberalism and by modern economics does not resort to any miraculous interference of superhuman powers. Every step by which an individual substitutes concerted action for isolated action results in an immediate and recognizable improvement in his conditions. The advantages derived from peaceful cooperation and division of labor are universal. They immediately benefit every generation, and not only later descendants. For what the individual must sacrifice for the sake of society he is amply compensated by greater advantages. His sacrifice is only apparent and temporary; he foregoes a smaller gain in order to reap a greater one later. No reasonable being can fail to see this obvious fact. When social cooperation is intensified by enlarging the field in which there is division of labor or when legal protection and the safeguarding of peace are strengthened, the incentive is the desire of all those concerned to improve their own conditions. In striving after his own---rightly understood---interests the individual works toward an intensification of social cooperation and peaceful intercourse. Society is a product of human action, i.e., the human urge to remove uneasiness as far as possible. In order to explain its becoming and its evolution it is not necessary to have recourse to a doctrine, certainly offensive to a truly religious mind, according to which the original creation was so defective

像十八世紀理性主義的社會哲學和現代經濟學所發展出來的科學理論，並不憑藉什麼超人力量的神秘干預。個人以協力一致的行爲來代替孤立的行爲的過程中，每走一步，他的生活情況也就每有一次直接而可見的改善。來自和平合作和分工的那些利益，是普遍性的。它們直接有利於每個世代，而不限於近代的子孫。因爲個人爲社會所必作的犧牲，他得到較大利益的充足補償。他的犧牲只是形式的、暂時的；他放棄較小的利益換得稍遲的較大利益。沒有一個明白道理的人不知道這個明顯的事實。當社會合作，由於分工部門的擴大而加強的時候，或法律制度對於和平的保障更有力的時候，其動機是那些有關的所有的人們要改善他們自己的情況。在爭取他自己的——正確地了解了的——利益時，個人的工作趨向於加強社會合作和和平交往。社會是人的行爲之一結果，也即盡可能地消除不適之感的那種願望的結果。爲著解釋社會的形成與演化，用不著憑藉那個確實觸犯了眞正宗敎精神的敎條，照這個敎條，原始的創造是那麼有缺陷，以致不斷地需要超人的干預，以免歸於失敗。

The historical role of the theory of the division of labor as elaborated by British political economy from Hume to Ricardo consisted in the complete demolition of all metaphysical doctrines concerning the origin and the operation of social cooperation. It consummated the spiritual, moral and intellectual emancipation of mankind inaugurated by the philosophy of Epicureanism. It substituted an autonomous rational morality for the heteronomous and intuitionist ethics of older days. Law and legality, the moral code and social institutions are no longer revered as unfathomable decrees of Heaven. They are of human origin, and the only yardstick that must be applied to them is that of expediency with regard to human welfare. The utilitarian economist does not say: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus. He says: Fiat justitia, ne pereat mundus. He does not ask a man to renounce his well-being for the benefit of society. He advises him to recognize what his rightly understood interests are. In his eyes God's magnificence does not manifest itself in busy interference with sundry affairs of princes and politicians, but in endowing his creatures with reason and the urge toward the pursuit of happiness. [3]

從休姆到李嘉圖，英國經濟學者所發展出來的分工理論，在思想史上完成的任務，是把關於社會的起源和運作的一切玄學敎條，完全抛棄。它完成了享樂主義哲學（philosophy of Epicureanism）所提倡的精神、道德、和心智的大解放。它以自主自發的理性道德代替了古代他律的直觀的倫理。法律、道德律、和社會制度，再也不被當作神秘的天意而被尊重。它們都是人爲的，衡量它們的尺度，只是看是否便於增進人的福利。功效主義的經濟學家並不說：如果照正義作，一切都完了（Fiat justitia, pereat mundus）。他是說：如果照正義作，一切不會完（Fiat justitia, ne pereat mundus）。他不要求一個人因爲社會利益而放棄他自己的福利。他勸人認淸自己所正確了解的利益是什麼。在他的心目中，上帝的莊嚴不顯現於對事事的忙碌干預，而顯現於把理知和追求幸福的動力，賦與他的創造物[3]。

The essential problem of all varieties of universalistic, collectivistic, and holistic social philosophy is: By what mark do I recognize the true law, the authentic apostle of God's word, and the legitimate authority. For many claim that Providence has sent them, and each of these prophets preaches another gospel. For the faithful believer there cannot be any doubt; he is fully confident that he has espoused the only true doctrine. But it is precisely the firmness of such beliefs that renders the antagonisms irreconcilable. Each party is prepared to make its own tenets prevail. But as logical argumentation cannot decide between various dissenting creeds, there is no means left for the settlement of such disputes other than armed conflict. The nonrationalist,

所有各形各色的全體主義的、集體主義的和整體主義的社會哲學的基本問題是：靠什麼符號我可認知眞法、上帝使徒的語言、和正統的權威。因爲有許多人認爲是神遣派他們的，這些先知的每一個都向別人佈講福音。對於虔誠的信徒而言，沒有什麼可懷疑的：他充份自信他擁護唯一的眞理。但是，正是這信仰的堅定以致形成不可和解的敵對。每一黨派都要使它自己的敎義風行，但是，因爲各種不同的信念，不是邏輯的論證所可決定是非的，所以，對於這樣的爭執，除訴之於武力鬥爭，別無解決的方法。凡是非理性主義的、非功效主義的、非自由主義的敎條，必然醞醸國際戰爭或國內戰爭，直到敵對者之一方被消滅或降服爲止。世界上一些大宗敎的歷史，是一部鬥爭和戰爭的記錄。正如同現代的一些假宗敎——社會主義、國家主義和民族主義——的歷史一樣。

Intolerance and propaganda by the executioner's or the soldier's sword are inherent in any system of heteronomous ethics. The laws of God or Destiny claim universal validity, and to the authorities which they declare legitimate all men by rights owe obedience. As long as the prestige of heteronomous codes of morality and of their philosophical corollary, conceptual realism, was intact, there could not be any question of tolerance or of lasting peace. When fighting ceased, it was only to gather new strength for further battling. The idea of tolerance with regard to other people's dissenting views could take root only when the liberal doctrines had broken the spell of universalism. In the light of the utilitarian philosophy, society and state no longer appear as institutions for the maintenance of a world order that for considerations hidden to the human mind pleases the Deity although it manifestly hurts the secular interests of many or even of the immense majority of those living today. Society and state are on the contrary the primary means for all people to attain the ends they aim at of their own accord. They are created by human effort and their maintenance and most suitable organization are tasks not essentially different from all other concerns of human action. The supporters of a heteronomous morality and of the collectivistic doctrine cannot hope to demonstrate by ratiocination the correctness of their specific variety of ethical principles and the superiority and exclusive legitimacy of their particular social ideal. They are forced to ask people to accept credulously their ideological system and to surrender to the authority they consider the right one; they are intent upon silencing dissenters or upon beating them into submission.

不容忍和靠暴力宣傳，是任何他律的（heteronomous）倫理制度所固然的。上帝或命運的法則是普遍有效的，它們所宣稱的合法權威是所有的人必須服從的。只要他律的道德項目和它們的哲學結論——概念實在論——的威望維持不墜，就不會有何容忍或持久和平。當鬥爭停止的時候，那只是爲下一次的鬥爭而準備新力量。對於別人不同的意見予以容忍的這個觀念，只有在自由的敎義戳穿了全體主義的符號的時候，才會生根。照功效主義的哲學講，社會與國邦再也不是爲維持神所喜歡的世界秩序而存在的建構。相反地，社會與國邦是爲所有的人達成他們自己的目的的主要手段。它們是由人的努力而建立的，它們的維持與最適當的組織，本質上與人的行爲所產生的其他所有的建構的維持與組織，沒有什麼不同。他律的道德與集體主義敎條的擁護者，不能憑推理來說明他們的那些特殊倫理的正確性，也不能憑推理來說明他們的特殊社會理想的優越性和唯一的合理性。他們不得不要求人們盲目地接受他們的意理系統，並服從他們所認爲正義的權威；他們是要制止反對者說話，或逼迫他們屈從。

Of course, there will always be individuals and groups of individuals whose intellect is so narrow that they cannot grasp the benefits which social cooperation brings them. There are others whose moral strength and will power are so weak that they cannot resist the temptation to strive for an ephemeral advantage by actions detrimental to the smooth functioning of the social system. For the adjustment of the individual to the requirements of social cooperation demands sacrifices. These are, it is true, only temporary and apparent sacrifices as they are more than compensated for by the incomparably greater advantages which living within society provides. However, at the instant, in the very act of renouncing an expected enjoyment,

當然，經常會有些個人或團體，其心智狹窄到不能了解社會合作對於他們的益處。另外還有些人，其道德力量和意志力微弱到不足以抗拒一時利益的誘惑，而做出有害社會制度順利運作的勾當。個人爲適應社會合作的要求而作的調整，是會有所犧牲的。誠然，這只是一些暫時的、形式的犧牲，將會因生活在合作的社會裡面而得到無可比的更大利益的抵償。但是，在那當時，就放棄一個眼前利益這一行爲來講，他們是痛苦的：有遠見而會看出稍後更大利益因而依此行爲的，究竟不是每個人所能的。無政府主義者相信，敎育可以使所有的人了解他們自己的利益需要他們做什麼；經過正確地敎導，他們將會自願地遵守那些爲維持社會生活所必須的行爲規律。無政府主義者以爲：沒有任何人會犧牲別人而享受特權的這樣社會秩序，其存在不必靠任何強制力量來防止危害社會的行爲。這樣的一個社會，不要國、不要政府，也即不要警察力量，不要強制的社會法制，也行。

The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government.

無政府主義者忽視了這個不容否認的事實：有些人或者是心境太窄狹，或者是軟弱，不能夠自發地調整自己以適應社會生活的條件。即令我們承認，每個頭腦淸楚的成年人都具有能力認知社會合作的好處，因而也認知自己與別人合作的好處，可是我們還有老、幼、和精神病人的問題。我們也可同意，那些做出反社會行爲的人應該視爲精神病者而需要予以照顧。但是，只要所有的精神病者還沒有都治好，只要還有老小孱弱，那就必須爲他們作些設施，否則他們會使社會癱瘓。無政府的社會將會受到每個人的擺佈。如果多數人不準備以嚴厲旳手段阻嚇少數人破壞社會秩序的行爲，則社會不會存在。這個阻嚇的權力，就得委之於政府。

State or government is the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion. It has the monopoly of violent action. No individual is free to use violence or the threat of violence if the government has not accorded this right to him. The state is essentially an institution for the preservation of peaceful interhuman relations. However, for the preservation of peace it must be prepared to crush the onslaughts of peace-breakers.

國或政府是個強制性的社會建構。它有暴力行爲的獨占權。任何人不能自由使用暴力或以暴力來威脅，如果政府沒有給他這種權力。政府，本質上是一維持和平的人際關係的一個機構。但是，爲著維持和平，它必須準備打擊那些和平的破壞者。

Liberal social doctrine, based on the teachings of utilitarian ethics and economics, sees the problem of the relation between the government and those ruled from a different angle than universalism and collectivism. Liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to

自由主義的社會哲學，基於功效主義的倫理和經濟學，從不用於全體主義和集體主義的角度，來看政府與被統治者之間的關係。自由主義者了解：統治者總歸是少數，如果他們得不到多數被統治者的同意，是不會長久在位的。不管是什麼制度的政府，它之所以建立和維持，總是基於那些被統治者的這個想法：服從和忠於這個政府，比推翻它另組一個政府更有利於自己。大多數人是有力量推翻一個失民心的政府的，一且大多數人認爲這是他們自己的福利所要求，他們就會使用這個力量。在長期當中，不會有失民心的政府這回事。內戰和革命是不滿的大多數打倒統治者的手段。爲求得民主的和平，自由主義的目的在於建立民主的政府。所以民主政治不是一個革命的設施。相反地，它正是防止革命和內戰的手段。它提一個方法，使政府得以適應大多數的意志而和平調整。當執政的人們和其政策不爲大多數所喜的時候，他們將會一在下次選舉中一被攆走，而代之以主張其他政策的別人。

The principle of majority rule or government by the people as recommended by liberalism does not aim at the supremacy of the mean, of the lowbred, of the domestic barbarians. The liberals too believe that a nation should be ruled by those best fitted for this task. But they believe that a man's ability to rule proves itself better by convincing his fellow-citizens than by using force upon them. There is, of course, no guarantee that the voters will entrust office to the most competent candidate. But no other system could offer such a guarantee. If the majority of the nation is committed to unsound principles and prefers unworthy office-seekers, there is no remedy other than to try to change their mind by expounding more reasonable principles and recommending better men. A minority will never win lasting success by other means.

自由主義所推薦的多數之治（majority rule）或民治（government by the people）原則，並不是企圖建立平凡人的主權。它確實不是像某些批評者所指責的，主張平凡人、下流人、土包子（domestic barbarians）之治。自由主義者也相信，治國必須要找適於治國的人。但是，他們更相信：要證明一個人的統治能力，靠說服他的國人比靠鎭壓他們更合適。當然，我們不能保證投票者將選出最適任的候選人。但是，其他的任何制度也不能保證。如果大多數誤信了不健全的政策，選出了不足取的官吏，我們只好向他們解說較合理的政策，推薦較好的人，試圖轉變他們的心；除此以外別無他法。少數決不會用其他的手段得到持久的成功。

Universalism and collectivism cannot accept this democratic solution of the problem of government. In their opinion the individual in complying with the ethical code does not directly further his earthly concerns but, on the contrary, foregoes the attainment of his own ends for the benefit of the designs of the Deity or of the collective whole. Moreover reason alone is not capable of conceiving the supremacy of the absolute values and the unconditional validity of the sacred law and of interpreting correctly the canons and commandments. Hence it is in their eyes a hopeless task to try to convince the majority through persuasion and to lead them to righteousness by amicable admonition. Those blessed by heavenly inspiration, to whom their charisma has conveyed illumination, have the duty to propagate the gospel to the docile and to resort to violence against the intractable. The charismatic leader is the Deity's vicar, the mandatory of the collective whole, the tool of history. He is infallible and always right. His orders are the supreme norm.

全體主義者和集體主義者不會接受這個政治問題的民主解決法。他們以爲：個人在遵行倫理規律的時候，不會直接促進他自己的利益，而是相反地，要放棄他自己的目的以實現神所計畫的利益或整個集體的利益。而且，僅靠理知並不能想到神聖法律的絕對價値和其他無條件的有效性之至高無上，也不能正確地解釋那些規範和戒律。所以在他們的心目中，想用和藹的勸吿來說服大多數，引導他們走上正軌，這是徒勞無功的工作。那些受了神靈啓示的人，有責任向一般大衆宣傳福音，而對那些不聽話的則以暴力打擊之。神權的領袖們是上帝的使者，是整個集體的受託人，是歷史的工具。他永久是對的，不會有錯。他的命令是至高無上的規律。

Universalism and collectivism are by necessity systems of theocratic government. The common characteristic of all their varieties is that they postulate the existence of a superhuman entity which the individuals are bound to obey. What differentiates them from one another is only the appellation they give to this entity and the content of the laws they proclaim in its name. The dictatorial rule of a minority cannot find any legitimation other than the appeal to an alleged mandate obtained from a superhuman absolute authority. It does not matter whether the autocrat bases his claims on the divine rights of anointed kings or on the historical mission of the vanguard of the proletariat or whether the supreme being is called Geist (Hegel) or Humanite (Auguste Comte). The terms society and state as they are used by the contemporary advocates of socialism, planning, and social control of all the activities of individuals signify a deity. The priests of this new creed ascribe to their idol all those attributes which the theologians ascribe to God---omnipotence, omniscience, infinite goodness, and so on.

全體主義與集體主義，必然是神權的政治制度。這類主義的共同特徵，是它們都認爲有一超人的東西爲個人們所不得不服從的。它們之間不同之點只是它們給這個東西的名稱不一樣，以及它們用這個名稱所宣佈的法規戒條之內容不一樣。少數人專斷的統治，除掉假託於一個超人絕對權威的授命以外，無法作其他的辯護。至於這個絕封的統治者是行使「神權」的神化了的君主，或者是履行「歷史使命」的普羅階級的先鋒，或者是黑格爾（Hegel）所叫做的「精神」（Geist），或孔德（Auguste Comte）所叫做的人道（Humanite），都沒有關係。現代鼓吹社會主義、經濟計畫、社會控制的人們所使用的「社會」和「國」這類名詞，都是象徵一個神，這個新敎條的佈道者把神學家容形容上帝的那些形容詞，統統拿來形容他們的偶像——全能的、全知的、至善的，等等。

If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual's actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being. Then one cannot evade the question whose ends take precedence whenever an antagonism arises, those of the state or society or those of the individual. The answer to this question is already implied in the very concept of state or society as conceived by collectivism and universalism. If one postulates the existence of an entity which ex definitione is higher, nobler, and better than the individuals, then there cannot be any doubt that the aims of this eminent being must tower above those of the wretched individuals. (It is true that some lovers of paradox---for instance, Max Stirner [4]--took pleasure in turning the matter upside down and for all that asserted the precedence of the individual.) If society or state is an entity endowed with volition and intention and all the other qualities attributed to it by the collectivist doctrine, then it is simply nonsensical to set the shabby individual's trivial aims against its lofty designs.

如果有人假設：在個人行爲之上、之外，還有一個永久不滅的存在體，它有自己的目的，和我們終歸要死的個人的目的不同，作這個假設的人已經構成了一個超人的概念。這樣一來，這個人就逃避不掉一個問題，即：在目的上發生衝突時，那一個優先——國或社會的目的，還是個人的目的？這個問題的答案，已經蘊含在集體主義者和全體主義者所具有的「國」或「社會」這類概念中，如果某個人主張有一個存在體，在定義上比個人較崇高、較高貴、較善良。於是，就不容置疑地，這個超越物的目的必然高出卑微的個人的目的。（不錯，有些怪论的愛好者，——例如Max Stirner [4]——樂於把事情倒轉過來而说個人的優先。）如果社會或國是一個有意志、有目的、有集體主義賦與它的一切其他性能的話，那麼，拿卑微瑣屑的個人目的與社會或國家的崇高計婁相對，自然是荒唐的。

The quasi-theological character of all collectivist doctrines becomes manifest in their mutual conflicts. A collectivist doctrine does not assert the superiority of a collective whole in abstracto; it always proclaims the eminence of a definite collectivist idol, and either flatly denies the existence of other such idols or relegates them to a subordinate

一切集體主義的準神學的特徵，表現在它們的相互衝突中。所有的集體主義並不是用抽象的說法斷言一整個集體的優越性；它們總是宣稱，某一確定的集體偶像之卓越絕羣，而直率地否認其他的這樣偶像之存在，或者把它們貶到低級的附屬地位。崇拜國的人們總是宣稱一個確定的國——也即，他們自己的國——的優越性：民族主義者們，宣揚他們自己民族的優越。如果有反對者向他們挑戰，而說另一個集體偶像的優越，他們就只好一再地用這句話來抵擋：「我們是對的，因爲一個內在之音（inner voice）吿訴我們，我們對，你們錯。」對立的集體主義的敎條和敎派之間的衝突，不能靠講理來解決，必須訴之於武力。自由民主的多數決治的原則之替換物，就是武装衝突和獨裁侵略的軍事原則。

All varieties of collectivist creeds are united in their implacable hostility to the fundamental political institutions of the liberal system: majority rule, tolerance of dissenting views, freedom of thought, speech, and the press, equality of all men under the law. This collaboration of collectivist creeds in their attempts to destroy freedom has brought about the mistaken belief that the issue in present-day political antagonisms is individualism versus collectivism. In fact it is a struggle between individualism on the one hand and a multitude of collectivist sects on the other hand whose mutual hatred and hostility is no less ferocious than their abomination of the liberal system. It is not a uniform Marxian sect that attacks capitalism, but a host of Marxian groups. These groups----for instance, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Mensheviks, supporters of the Second International, and so on---fight one another with the utmost brutality and inhumanity. And then there are again many other non-Marxian sects which apply the same atrocious methods in their mutual struggles. A substitution of collectivism for liberalism would result in endless bloody fighting.

各形各色的集體主義對於自由制度的一些基本的政治設施，如多數决【多數統治或多數裁定】、容忍異議、思想自由、言論自由、出版自由、法律之前人人平等，是一致地敵視的。它們在企圖毀滅自由這方面的一致，引起了一個錯誤的信念，以爲今天政治上的敵對問題是個人主義對集體主義。其實是：個人主義這方面與集體主義那方面之間的鬥爭，而集體主義那方面內部的相互仇視，並不遜於它們之恨自由制度。攻擊資本主義的馬克斯並不是統一的，而是一些不同的馬克斯的派系。例如，史大林派（Stalinists）、托洛斯基派（Trotskyists）、孟雪維克派（Mensheviks）、第二國際派等等，它們相互間進行最殘酷的鬥爭。此外，還有些非馬克斯派，它們之間也一樣用殘暴方式相互鬥爭。所以，集體主義如果替代了自由主義，其結果是無休止的流血戰鬥。

The customary terminology misrepresents these things entirely. The philosophy commonly called individualism is a philosophy of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of the social nexus. On the other hand the application of the basic ideas of collectivism cannot result in anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict. It is true that every variety of collectivism promises eternal peace starting with the day of its own decisive victory and the final overthrow and extermination of all other ideologies and their supporters. However, the realization of these plans is conditioned upon a radical transformation in mankind. Men must be divided into two classes: the omnipotent godlike dictator on the one hand and the masses which must surrender volition and reasoning in order to become mere chessmen in the plans of the dictator. The masses must be dehumanized in order to make one

習慣的用語，把這些事情完全搞顚倒了。通常叫做個人主義的哲學是社會合作的哲學，是社會關係不斷強化的哲學。相反地，集體主義的基本觀念之應用，其結果不是別的，只是社會解體和不斷的武裝衝突。不錯，每種集體主義總要承諾：從它得到決定性勝利，終於推翻和消滅所有別的意理和其支持者之日起，就會有永久的和平。可是，這些計畫的實現是要靠人類的激烈大轉變。人，必須分成兩個階級：一方面是像神一樣的全能的獨裁者，另一方面，是一些爲成爲獨裁者計畫中的棋子，而交出自己的意志和理知的大衆。爲著要把一個人抬舉成大衆的像神般的主宰，所以必須把大衆貶成非人（dehumanized）。思想與行爲是人之所以爲人的基本特徵，將只有「一個」人有此特權。我們不必說明這樣的設計是不能實現的。獨裁者千年至福的帝國（the chiliastic empires of dictators）註定要失敗；它們決不會持續多年。我們已經親眼看到幾個這樣的「千年至福」的秩序之崩潰。剩下來的，將也不會更好。

The modern revival of the idea of collectivism, the main cause of all the agonies and disasters of our day, has succeeded so thoroughly that it has brought into oblivion the essential ideas of liberal social philosophy. Today even many of those favoring democratic institutions ignore these ideas. The arguments they bring forward for the justification of freedom and democracy are tainted with collectivist errors; their doctrines are rather a distortion than an endorsement of true liberalism. In their eyes majorities are always right simply because they have the power to crush any opposition; majority rule is the dictatorial rule of the most numerous party, and the ruling majority is not bound to restrain itself in the exercise of its power and in the conduct of political affairs. As soon as a faction has succeeded in winning the support of the majority of citizens and thereby attained control of the government machine, it is free to deny to the minority all those democratic rights by means of which it itself has previously carried on its own struggle for supremacy.

集體主義觀念在現代的復活一我們這個時代一切苦難的主要根源已經把自由的社會哲學之精義徹底埋沒了。今天，甚至許多愛好民主制度的人們，也不了解這些精義。他們用以讚賞自由與民主的那些議論，也染上了集體主義的錯誤色彩；他們的持論是對眞正自由主義的曲解，而不是對它的確證。在他們的心目中，多數，僅因爲他們有力量打垮任何的反對，所以總是對的；多數決就是黨員最多的黨的專斷之治，因而，在運用力量處理政務時，不必限制自己。一個黨一旦得到多數國民的支持，因而掌握政權的時候，它就可自由抹煞少數人所有的民主的權利，而這些民主的權利正是該黨人士以前用以取得政權的手段。

This pseudo--liberalism is, of course, the very antithesis of the liberal doctrine. The liberals do not maintain that majorities are godlike and infallible; they do not contend that the mere fact that a policy is advocated by the many is a proof of its merits for the common weal. They do not recommend the dictatorship of the majority and the violent oppression of dissenting minorities. Liberalism aims at a political constitution which safeguards the smooth working of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of mutual social relations. Its main objective is the avoidance of violent conflicts, of wars and revolutions that must disintegrate the social collaboration of men and throw people back into the primitive conditions of barbarism where all tribes and political bodies endlessly fought one another. Because the division of labor requires undisturbed peace, liberalism aims at the establishment of a system of government that is likely to preserve peace, viz., democracy.

當然，這種假的自由主義，正是自由敎義的反面。自由主義者並不主張多數是像神一樣的無過失：他們並不認爲：一個政策得到多數的支持這個事實本身，就可證明它是有利於大衆的。他們並不贊成多數的專斷以及對反對的少數予以暴力的壓迫。自由主義的目的，在於建立一個保障社會合作順利運行和社會關係不斷強化的制度。它的主要目標是要避免武力衝突、避免使社會解體，把人民抛回到原始野蠻狀態的戰爭與革命。因爲分工必須靠無騷亂的和平，自由主義的目的在於建立一個易於保持和平，也即民主的政治制度。

Praxeology and Liberalism

行爲學與自由主義

Liberalism, in its 19th century sense, is a political doctrine. It is not a theory, but an application of the theories developed by praxeology

自由主義是一政治原則。它不是一個學說，而是由行爲學，尤其是由經濟學所發展出來的一些學說，之應用於人的行爲的某些確定問題。

As a political doctrine liberalism is not neutral with regard to values and the ultimate ends sought by action. It assumes that all men or at least the majority of people are intent upon attaining certain goals. It gives them information about the means suitable to the realization of their plans. The champions of liberal doctrines are fully aware of the fact that their teachings are valid only for people who are committed to these valuational principles.

因爲是一個政治原則，自由主義關於價値問題和行爲所追求的最後目的，不是中立的。它是假定所有的人，至少是大多數人有意於達成某些目的的。它供給他們一些關於實現他們計畫的適當手段之信息。自由原則的擁護者充份知道這個事實：自由主義的敎義只是對那些致志於這些價値原則的人們有效。

While praxeology, and therefore economics too, uses the terms happiness and removal of uneasiness in a purely formal sense, liberalism attaches to them a concrete meaning. It presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness, nourishment to starvation, abundance to poverty. It teaches man how to act in accordance with these valuations.

行爲學使用「幸福」和「不適的消除」這些名詞，是用的純粹形式的意義，經濟學是行爲學的一部門，當然也如此。但是，自由主義則在這些名詞上面加上一個具體的意義。它預設人們是樂生惡死；樂於健康，厭惡疾病：樂於營養溫飽，厭惡饑餓：樂於富有，厭惡贫窮。它敎導人們如何照這些價値來行爲。

It is customary to call these concerns materialistic and to charge liberalism with an alleged crude materialism and a neglect of the "higher" and "nobler" pursuits of mankind. Man does not live by bread alone, say the critics, and they disparage the meanness and despicable baseness of the utilitarian philosophy. However, these passionate diatribes are wrong because they badly distort the teachings of liberalism.

【中文版無此段：這些關切，人們常以唯物主義視之，因此，人們指責自由主義為一種所謂粗俗的唯物主義，忽略了“更高級”和“更高尚”的人類追求。批評家說，人不只是靠麵包活著，因此他們蔑視功效主義哲學的自私吝嗇和卑鄙下流。然而，這些激烈的抨擊是錯的，因爲它們嚴重扭曲了自由主義的學說。】

First: The liberals do not assert that men ought to strive after the goals mentioned above. What they maintain is that the immense majority prefer a life of health and abundance to misery, starvation, and death. The correctness of this statement cannot be challenged. It is proved by the fact that all antiliberal doctrines--the theocratic tenets of the various religious, statist, nationalist, and socialist parties--adopt the same attitude with regard to these issues. They all promise their followers a life of plenty. They have never ventured to tell people that the realization of their program will impair their material well-being. They insist--on the contrary--that while the realization of the plans of their rival parties will result in indigence for the majority, they themselves want to provide their supporters with abundance. The Christian parties are no less eager in promising the masses a higher standard of living than the nationalists and the socialists. Present-day churches often speak more about raising wage rates and farm incomes than about the dogmas of the Christian doctrine.

第一：自由主義者們並不斷言，人們「應該」努力於上述的那些目標，他們所堅稱的只是：絕大多數人樂於健康與富有，厭惡贫困與死亡。這種說法的正確性是顚撲不破的，可用這個事寞證明：所有反自由的主義——各種宗敎的神學規範、國家主義的、民族主義的、社會主義的政黨——關於這些問題採取同一態度，他們都許諾他們的徒衆豐足的生活。他們決不敢宣稱，如果實現了他們的計劃，大衆的福利會受到損害。相反地，他們是堅持，如果敵對黨派的計劃實行了，其結果將是大多數人的災害。基督敎的政黨對於一般大衆急於承諾較高的生活標準，並不遜於民族主義的與社會主義的政黨。今天的敎會講到提高工資和農民所得的時候，比講到基督敎義的時候還要多。

Secondly: The liberals do not disdain the intellectual and spiritual aspirations of man. On the contrary. They are prompted by a passionate ardor for intellectual and moral perfection, for wisdom and for aesthetic excellence. But their view of these high and noble things is far from the crude representations of their adversaries. They do not share the naive opinion that any system of social organization can directly succeed in encouraging philosophical or scientific thinking,

第二：自由主義者們並不輕視人們精神方面的活動。相反地，他們熱烈地推崇心智的道德的美術的成就。但是，他們對於這些高貴東西的見解，遠非他們的反對者所持的見解可比。他們不存天眞的想法，以爲任何社會制度都可直接有效地鼓勵哲學的或科學的思想，產生藝術和文學的傑作，並使大衆更開明。他們認知：在這些方面，社會所能夠做到的只是提供一個適當環境，在這個環境下，天才的發展不受到阻礙，一般人都可免於柴米之憂而從事自己有興趣的精神活動。在他們的見解中，使人的生活過得更有人味的社會方法，最主要的是克服貧窮。智慧、科學、藝術，在一個豐富的社會比在貧困的人羣中，當然要興旺得多。

It is a distortion of facts to blame the age of liberalism for an alleged materialism. The nineteenth century was not only a century of unprecedented improvement in technical methods of production and in the material well-being of the masses. It did much more than extend the average length of human life. Its scientific and artistic accomplishments are imperishable. It was an age of immortal musicians, writers, poets, painters, and sculptors; it revolutionized philosophy, economics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. And, for the first time in history, it made the great works and the great thoughts accessible to the common man.

把自由主義的時代斥之爲唯物主義，這是有意的歪曲事實。十九世紀不僅是生產技術和大衆物質生活空前進步的一個世紀。它的成就也遠多於延長人們的平均壽命。它的科學和藝術造詣是千古不朽的。它是名傳千古的音樂家們、作家們、詩人們、畫家們、雕刻家們的一個時代：它使哲學、經濟學、數學、物理學、化學、和生物學都徹底革新與進步。而且，它使一些偉大的作品和偉大的思想與一般人接近，這是有史以來的第一次。

Liberalism and Religion

自由主義舆宗敎

Liberalism is based upon a purely rational and scientific theory of social cooperation. The policies it recommends are the application of a system of knowledge which does not refer in any way to sentiments, intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided, mystical experiences, and the personal awareness of superhuman phenomena. In this sense the often misunderstood and erroneously interpreted epithets atheistic and agnostic can be attributed to it. It would, however, be a serious mistake to conclude that the sciences of human action and the policy derived from their teachings, liberalism, are antitheistic and hostile to religion. They are radically opposed to all systems of theocracy. But they are entirely neutral with regard to religious beliefs which do not pretend to interfere with the conduct of social, political, and economic affairs.

自由主義是以純理的、科學的社會合作理論作基礎。它所推薦的—些政策，是一個知識體系的應用，而這一知識體系絕不涉及情感，不涉及那些邏輯所不能作證的直覺信念，不涉及神秘的經驗、和個人所察覺的超人現象。在這個意義下，「無神論的」和「不可知論的」這些常被誤解的形容詞，可以加在自由主義上。但是，如果說人的行爲諸科學以及依它們的敎義——自由主義——制定的政策是無神論的、是敵視宗敎的，那就犯了嚴重的錯誤。它們確是激烈反對一切神權政制（theocracy）；但是，它們對於那些不想干預社會、政治、經濟各方面行爲的宗敎信仰，是完全中立的。

Theocracy is a social system which lays claim to a superhuman title for its legitimation. The fundamental law of a theocratic regime is an insight not open to examination by reason and to demonstration by logical methods. Its ultimate standard is intuition providing the mind with subjective certainty about things which cannot be conceived by reason and ratiocination. If this intuition refers to one of the traditional systems of teaching concerning the existence of a Divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, we call it a religious belief. If it refers to another system we call it a metaphysical belief. Thus a system of theocratic government need not be founded on one of the great historical religions of the world. It may be the outcome of

神權政制是一個以超人的頭銜（如中國的所謂「天子」——譯者附註）來維護的社會制度。一個神權政體的基本大法是頓悟（insight），頓悟是不受理知檢討，也不能用邏輯方法說明的。它的終極標準是直覺，直覺對於一些不能由理知和推理而得知的事情，提供主觀的確信。如果這種直覺是涉及神秘的創造者和宇宙統治者這一類敎義的傳統體系，我們就把它叫做宗敎信仰。如果它涉及其他的體系，我們就把它叫作形而上的信仰。因此，一種神權的政治制度無須建立在一個偉大的世界宗敎上。它可能是些形而上的敎條的產品，而這些敎條否認所有的傳統敎會和宗派，而且，強調它們是無神論的、反形而上學的，並以之自傲。在我們這個時代，一些勢力最大的神權政黨都反對基督敎和其他淵源於猶太一神敎的一切宗敎。他們之爲神權的，其特徵是他們急於要按照那些不能從推理證明其有效的觀念，來安排人類的世俗事務。他們認爲，他們的領袖們具有一般人所不能通曉的知識。受有神權的領袖們，是受一個神秘的、更高的權力信托，來管理犯錯的人類事務。只有這些領袖們是開明的，所有其他的人旣盲且聾，或者是壞人。

It is a fact that many varieties of the great historical religions were affected by theocratic tendencies. Their apostles were inspired by a craving for power and the oppression and annihilation of all dissenting groups. However, we must not confuse the two things, religion and theocracy.

歷史上許多形色的大宗敎，受了神權政治趨勢的影響，這是事實，它們的使徒們受神意而追求權力，以壓迫乃至消滅反對的人羣。但是，我們決不可把宗敎與神權政體混爲一談。

William James calls religious "the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." [5] He enumerates the following beliefs as the characteristics of the religious life: That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance; that union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end; that prayer or inner communion with the spirit thereof----be that spirit "God" or "law"---is a process wherein work is really done, and spiritual energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the phenomenal world. Religion, James goes on to say, also includes the following psychological characteristics: A zest which adds itself like a gift to life, and takes the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism, and furthermore an assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affection.[6]

威廉詹姆斯（William James）把「個人們在獨處時的感情、行動和經驗，就他們所領悟到的他們自己與其所想到的神發生關聯的這個範圍而言」叫做宗敎的[5]。他列舉以下的這些情感，認爲是宗敎生活的特徵：這個可見的世界是一個精神宇宙的一部份，它從這個精神宇宙得到主要意義；與這個較高的宇宙結合或保持和諧關係，是我們的眞正目的；祈禱或與這個精神——「上帝」或「法律」的精神——交往，是一個過程：經由這個過程，在現象世界內部的工作才是眞正地做了。於是精神的活力流進來，而且產生一些心理的或物質的後果。詹姆斯還接著說，宗敎也包含以下的一些心理特徵：像贈品一樣「加在」生命的一股新情趣，所取的形式，或者是抒情的調兒、或者是英雄的氣概，還有安全與和平的保證；在與別人的關係上，則是一股隆摯的友愛[6]。

This characterization of mankind's religious experience and feelings does not make any reference to the arrangement of social cooperation. Religion, as James sees it, is a purely personal and individual relation between man and a holy, mysterious, and awe----inspiring divine Reality. It enjoins upon man a certain mode of individual conduct. But it does not assert anything with regard to the problems of social organization.

人類的宗敎經驗和情感的特徵，與社會合作的安排毫不相干。照詹姆斯的見解，宗敎是神人之間純粹的個人關係。它責成個人實踐某一行爲方式。但它不斷言關於社會組織的任何問題。St. Francis d'Assisi，西方最偉大的天才宗敎家，從不涉及政治學與經濟學。他只想敎導他的門徒如何過虔誠信神的生活；他沒有草擬過生產組織的計畫，也沒有鼓勵過他的門徒以暴力對付異端。他所建立的敎會對於他的敎義所作的解釋，他是沒有責任的。

Liberalism puts no obstacles in the way of a man eager to adjust his personal conduct and his private affairs according to the mode in which he individually or his church or denomination interprets the teachings of the Gospels. But it is radically opposed to all endeavors to silence the rational discussion of problems of social welfare by an appeal to religious intuition and revelation. It does not enjoin divorce or the practice of birth control upon anybody. But it fights those who want to prevent other people from freely discussing the pros and cons of these matters.

自由主義對於一個依宗敎信仰調整他的個人行爲和處理他個人的私事的人，不加任何阻礙。但是，凡是企圖憑宗敎的直覺和啓示來抑制社會福利問題的合理討論，自由主義卻要激烈反對。它不責備任何人離婚或實行節制生育。但是，凡是想阻止別人自由討論這些事情的人，它就予以攻擊。

In the liberal opinion the aim of the moral law is to impel individuals to adjust their conduct to the requirements of life in society, to abstain from all acts detrimental to the preservation of peaceful social cooperation and to the improvement of interhuman relations. Liberals welcome the support which religious teachings may give to those moral precepts of which they themselves approve, but they are opposed to all those norms which are bound to bring about social disintegration from whatever source they may stem.

在自由主義者的見解中，道德律的目標是在於促使個人們把他們的行爲調整到適於社會生活，凡是有害於和平的社會合作之保持與人際關係之改善的行爲都不做。自由主義者歡迎宗敎敎義對於這種道德律給予的支持，但是，他們反對那必然會引起社會解體的一切規範，不管它們的來源是宗敎的或非宗敎的。

It is a distortion of fact to say, as many champions of religious theocracy do, that liberalism fights religion. Where the principle of church interference with secular issues is in force, the various churches, denominations and sects are fighting one another. By separating church and state, liberalism establishes peace between the various religious factions and gives to each of them the opportunity to preach its gospel unmolested.

在許多神權政制的擁護者常說，自由主義是攻擊宗敎的，這種說法，是歪曲事實。凡是敎會的敎義干涉到世俗問題的地方，各別的敎會、宗派，每每互相攻擊。自由主義把政敎分離，因而在各個敎派之間建立起和平的關係，使得它們之中，每一敎派有機會平平安安地各傳各的福音。

Liberalism is rationalistic. It maintains that it is possible to convince the immense majority that peaceful cooperation within the framework of society better serves their rightly understood interests than mutual battling and social disintegration. It has full confidence in man's reason. It may be that this optimism is unfounded and that the liberals have erred. But then there is no hope left for mankind's future.

自由主義是各乎【印刷錯誤，應爲“合乎”。】理性的。它堅持：說服大多數人相信，在社會架構裡面，和平合作比互相戰鬥更可增進他們正確了解的利益，這是可能的。自由主義充份信賴人的理知。這種樂觀也許是沒有根據的，自由主義者也許是錯了；可是，人類前途再沒有其他的希望。

------------

[3] Many economists, among them Adam Smith and Bastiat, believed in God. Hence they admired in the facts they had discovered the providential care of "the great Director of Nature." Atheist critics blame them for this attitude. However, these critics fail to realize that to sneer at the references to the "invisible hand" does not invalidate the essential teachings of the rationalist and utilitarian social philosophy. One must comprehend that the alternative is this: Either association is a human process because it best serves the aims of the individuals concerned and the individuals themselves have the ability to realize the advantages they derive from their adjustment to life in social cooperation. Or a superior being enjoins upon reluctant men subordination to the law and to the social authorities. It is of minor importance whether one calls this supreme being God, Weltgeist, Destiny, History, Wotan, or Material Productive Forces and what title one assigns to its apostles, the dictators.

[3] 有些經濟學家，包括亞當斯密和Bastiat，是信神的。因而他們在他們所發現的那些事實中讚美「偉大的自然主宰」（the great Director of Nature）的神寵。無神論的批評者指責他們這種態度。但是，這些批評者卻沒有想到，嘲笑那「看不見的手」並不能使理性主義與功效主義的社會哲學的基本敎義失效。我們必須了解，我們只有這個解釋：或者是人爲程序的結合，因爲它最能達成有關的個人們的目的，而個人們自己有能力實現他們社會合作的利益。或者是一個超人的東西，命令這些不情願的人們服從法律和社會權威。至於把這個超人的東西叫做上帝、世界精神、命運、歷史、或生產力，以及我們用什麼名稱來稱呼這些東西的使徒——獨裁者，這是不關重要的。

[4] Cf. Max Stirner (Johan Kaspar Schmidt). The Ego and His Own, trans. by S.T. Byington (New York, 1907).

[4] 參考Max Stirner (Johan Kaspar Schmidt). The Ego and His Own, trans. by S.T. Byington (New York, 1907).

[5] W. James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (35th impression, New York, 1925), p. 31.

[5] W. James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (35th impression, New York, 1925), p. 31.

[6] Ibid., pp. 485-486.

[6] 同上，pp. 485-486.

3. The Division of Labor

三、分工

The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart human cooperation.

基本的社會現象是分工以及它的對稱現象，合作。

Experience teaches man that cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated action of self-sufficient individuals. The natural conditions determining man's life and effort are such that the

經驗敎給我們：合作的行爲比—個自足的個人單獨的行爲更有效率，更可多生產的。決定人的生活和努力的自然條件是這樣：分工會增加每一單位勞動的生產量。自然的事實是：

First: the innate inequality of men with regard to their ability to perform various kinds of labor. Second: the unequal distribution of the nature-given, nonhuman opportunities of production on the surface of the earth. One may as well consider these two facts as one and the same fact, namely, the manifoldness of nature which makes the universe a complex of infinite varieties. If the earth's surface were such that the physical conditions of production were the same at every point and if one man were as equal to all other men as is a circle to another with the same diameter in Euclidian geometry, men would not have embarked upon the division of labor.

第一、人們做各類工作的能力，先天就不相等。第二、自然賜予的生產機會，分配得也不相等。我們無妨把這兩件事看作一件相同的事，即，使這個宇宙複雜化的自然，其本身是多樣性的。如果地球表面上的情形是這樣：生產的物質條件在任何地方都是一樣，又如果一個人與其他所有的人之相等，正如同歐氏幾何的一個圓與其他同一直徑的圓之相等，分工就沒有任何好處。

There is still a third fact, viz., that there are undertakings whose accomplishment exceeds the forces of a single man and requires the joint effort of several. Some of them require an expenditure of labor which no single man can perform because his capacity to work is not great enough. Others again could be accomplished by individuals; but the time which they would have to devote to the work would be so long that the result would only be attained late and would not compensate for the labor expended. In both cases only joint effort makes it possible to attain the end sought.

此外，還有第三個事實，即，有許多工作不是一個人的力量所可完成，需要若干人聯合起來做。其中，有兩種不同的情形：一是因爲單獨一個人的能力不足夠做這個工作。二是單獨一個人雖然可以作，但所需要的時間很長，以致要很遲才可得到結果，而不能補償所費掉的勞動。在這兩種情形下，只有聯合工作才可達到所追求的目的。

If only this third condition were present, temporary cooperation between men would have certainly emerged. However, such transient alliances to cope with specific tasks which are beyond the strength of an individual would not have brought about lasting social cooperation. Undertakings which could be performed only in this way were not very numerous at the early stages of civilization. Moreover, all those concerned may not often agree that the performance in question is more useful and urgent than the accomplishment of other tasks which they could perform alone. The great human society enclosing all men in all of their activities did not originate from such occasional alliances. Society is much more than a passing alliance concluded for a definite purpose and ceasing as soon as its objective is realized, even if the partners are ready to renew it should an occasion present itself.

如果只有這第三種情況，人與人之間暫時的合作，必定是會出現的。但是，這種臨時性的對於某一特定工作之聯合努力，不會引起持久的社會合作。只有用持久的合作方式才可完成的工作，在文明的早期不是很多的。而且，所有有關的人們也不會常常同意於合力完成的工作比單獨可以完成的更有用、更迫切。包括所有的人、所有活動的這個人類大社會，不是起源於這樣偶爾的聯合。社會之爲社會，決不僅是爲一特定目標而作的一時結合，目標一達成，結合即行終止。

The increase in productivity brought about by the division of labor is obvious whenever the inequality of the participants is such that every individual or every piece of land is superior at least in one regard to the other individuals or pieces of land concerned. If A is fit to produce in 1 unit of time 6 p or 4 q, and B only 2 p, but 8 q, they both, when working in isolation, will produce together 4 p + 6 q; when working under the division of labor, each of them producing

凡是在每一個人或每一塊土地至少在一點上優於其他的人们或其他的一些土地的時候，分工所引起的生產力增加，就是很明顯的。如果A在一個單位時間可以生產6個單位的p或4個單位的q，B只生產2個單位的p，但可生產8個單位的q，當他們二人單獨工作，每人用半個單位時間生產p，半個單位時間生產q的時候，他們二人將共同生產4個單位的p加上6個單位的q；在分工的時候，他們每人只就他比較有效率的生產一種貨財，那麼他們將可生產6個單位的p加上8單位的q。伹是，如果A不僅是在生產p比B較有效率，即在生產q也比B有效率，那將怎麼辦呢？這是李嘉圖提出的問題，而他馬上就解答了。

4. The Ricardian Law of Association

四、李嘉圖的協作法則

Ricardo expounded the law of association in order to demonstrate what the consequences of the division of labor are when an individual or a group, more efficient in every regard, cooperates with an individual or a group less efficient in every regard. He investigated the effects of trade between two areas, unequally endowed by nature, under the assumption that the products, but not the workers and the accumulated factors of future production (capital goods), can freely move from each area into the other. The division of labor between two such areas will, as Ricardo's law shows, increase the productivity of labor and is therefore advantageous to all concerned, even if the physical conditions of production for any commodity are more favorable in one of these two areas than in the other. It is advantageous for the better endowed area to concentrate its efforts upon the production of those commodities for which its superiority is greater, and to leave to the less endowed area the production of other goods in which its own superiority is less. The paradox that it is more advantageous to leave more favorable domestic conditions of production unused and to procure the commodities they could produce from areas in which conditions for their production are less favorable, is the outcome of the immobility of labor and capital, to which the more favorable places of production are inaccessible.

爲著說明當一個人或一羣人，在每方面都比另一個人或另一羣人更有效率的時候，雙方合作的結果將是怎樣，李嘉圖於是解釋了協作法則。他就兩個地區的貿易結果加以檢討，這兩個地區的自然資源不相等，並假定生產品可以自由地從每個地區移動到其他地區，但工人與資本財則不能如此。照李嘉圖的法則所示，這樣兩個地區之間的分工，可以增加勞動的生產，因而有利於雙方面，即令某一地區生產任何財貨的物質條件都比另一地區優越。這某一地區擇其優越程度較大的，集中全力來生產，而把優越程度較小的讓另一地區去生產，其結果是更有利的。這個說法似乎有點奇怪，爲什麼放棄自己較優越的生產條件不用而去換取另一地區以其較劣的生產條件生產出來的財貨，而是有利的呢？這是由於勞動與資本不能自由流動的結果，它們難得進到生產條件較優的地區。

Ricardo was fully aware of the fact that his law of comparative cost, which he expounded mainly in order to deal with a special problem of international trade, is a particular instance of the more universal law of association.

李嘉圖充份知道這個事實：他的比較成本法則——主要是爲討論國際貿易的一個特殊問題而提出的——是個更一般性的協作法則的一個特例。

If A is in such a way more efficient than B that he needs for the production of 1 unit of the commodity p 3 hours compared with B's 5, and for the production of 1 unit of q 2 hours compared with B's 4, then both will gain if A confines himself to producing q and leaves B to produce p. If each of them gives 60 hours to producing p and 60 hours to producing q, the result of A's labor is 20 p + 30 q; of B's, 12 p +15 q; and for both together , 32 p + 45 q. If, however, A confines himself to producing q alone, he produces 60 q in 120 hours, while B, if he confines himself to producing p, produces in the same time 24 p. The result of their activities is then 24 p + 60 q, which, as p

如果A是這樣地比B更有效率：他生產1個單位的p，需要3小時，而B則需要5小時；他生産1個單位的q，需要2小時，而B則需要4小時，於是如果A只生產q，讓B去生產p，則雙方都有利。如果他們每個人各有60小時生產p，60小時生產q，則A的勞動結果就是20p+30q；B的勞動結果就是12p+15q；兩人的合計就是32p+45q。但是，如果A只生產q，他就可在120小時當中生產60q，如果B只生產p，則可在120小時當中生產24p。他們活動的結果就是24p+60q，因爲p對於A而言有一代替率3/2q、對於B而言，有一代替率5/4，所以24p+60q的產出大於32p+45q。這就表明，分工有利於參與分工的各方。較有才智的、較能幹的、較勤勉的人和才智較差的、能幹較差的、勤勉較差的人合作，結果雙方都有利。從分工得來的利益總是相互的利益。

The law of association makes us comprehend the tendencies which resulted in the progressive intensification of human cooperation. We conceive what incentive induced people not to consider themselves simply as rivals in a struggle for the appropriation of the limited supply of means of subsistence made available by nature. We realize what has impelled them and permanently impels them to consort with one another for the sake of cooperation. Every step forward on the way to a more developed mode of the division of labor serves the interests of all participants. In order to comprehend why man did not remain solitary, searching like the animals for food and shelter for himself only and at most also for his consort and his helpless infants, we do not need to have recourse to a miraculous interference of the Deity or to the empty hypostasis of an innate urge toward association. Neither are we forced to assume that the isolated individuals or primitive hordes one day pledged themselves by a contract to establish social bonds. The factor that brought about primitive society and daily works toward its progressive intensification is human action that is animated by the insight into the higher productivity of labor achieved under the division of labor.

協作法則使我們了解，人的合作之所以有日益加強的趨勢。我們想到，使得人們不把他們自己只看作互相爭取有限的生活資源的敵手的誘因，是自然形成的。我們知道什麼東西促使人們、而且永久促使人們都趨向合作。分工的程度每向前發展一歩，都對所有的參與者有益。爲要了解，爲什麼人不停留於孤立狀態，像禽獸一般，只爲自己，或至多兼爲他的配偶和幼兒，覓取食物和住所，我們不必求之於神秘的神的干預，或求之於空洞的假說，說是有一先天的衝動促使協作。我們也不必假想孤立的個人或原始的人羣，曾經有一天他們發誓結約以建立社會關係。促使原始社會和日常工作趨向於進步加強的因素，是人的行爲；而人的行爲之所以生氣蓬勃，是甶於人們察覺到在分工下勞動的生產力較大。

Neither history nor ethnology nor any other branch of knowledge can provide a description of the evolution which has led from the packs and flocks of mankind's nonhuman ancestors to the primitive, yet already highly differentiated, societal groups about which information is provided in excavations, in the most ancient documents of history, and in the reports of explorers and travelers who have met savage tribes. The task with which science is faced in respect of the origins of society can only consist in the demonstration of those factors which can and must result in association and its progressive intensification. Praxeology solves the problem. If and as far as labor under the division of labor is more productive than isolated labor, and if and as far as man is able to realize this fact, human action itself tends toward cooperation and association; man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare. Experience teaches that this condition--higher productivity

歷史、人種學、或任何知識部門，對於考古學家在發掘中所發見的，遠古歷史文獻所記載的，以及那些曾經遇到過野蠻部落的探險家和旅行者所提出的，那些關於我們人類演化的信息，從非人的祖先演化到已經高度差異化的原始人這一演化的信息，不能提供一個說明。在社會起源這方面，科學所面對的工作，只能說明那些能夠、而且一定歸結於協作和協作之進步加強的因素。行爲學解決了這個問題。如果分工下的勞動，比孤立的勞動生產力更大，如果人能夠認知這個事實，則人的行爲就因之趨向合作與結合；人之成爲社會動物，並不在於他爲了一個神秘的「以人身作祭品」（Moloch）的社會而犧牲自己的利益，是在於力求增進他自己的福利。經驗吿訴我們：這個條件——分工下的勞動生產力較大——之存在，是因爲它的原因——人們生而不相等，以及地域間自然的生產資源的分配不一樣——是真實的。所以，我們能夠了解社會演化的進程。

Current Errors Concerning the Law of Association

關於協作法則一些流行的謬見

People cavil much about Ricardo's law of association, better known under the name law of comparative cost. The reason is obvious. This law is an offense to all those eager to justify protection and national economic isolation from any point of view other than the selfish interests of some producers or the issues of war-preparedness.

有些人挑剔李嘉圖的協作法則（也即較著名的比較成本法則），其理由是明顯的。因爲主張保護經濟和國家經濟孤立的人所講的道理，有的是從生產者的自私和備戰的觀點以外的觀點來講的；這個法則觸犯了所有的這些人。

Ricardo's first aim in expounding this law was to refute an objection raised against freedom of international trade. The protectionist asks: What under free trade will be the fate of a country in which the conditions for any kind of production are less favorable than in all other countries? Now, in a world in which there is free mobility not only for products, but no less for capital goods and for labor, a country so little suited for production would cease to be used as the seat of any human industry. If people fare better without exploiting the --comparatively unsatisfactory--physical conditions of production offered by this country, they will not settle here and will leave it as uninhabited as the polar regions, the tundras and the deserts. But Ricardo deals with a world whose conditions are determined by settlement in earlier days, a world in which capital goods and labor are bound to the soil by definite institutions. In such a milieu free trade, i.e., the free mobility of commodities only, cannot bring about a state of affairs in which capital and labor are distributed on the surface of the earth according to the better or poorer physical opportunities afforded to the productivity of labor. Here the law of comparative cost comes into operation. Each country turns toward those branches of production for which its conditions offer comparatively, although not absolutely, the most favorable opportunities. For the inhabitants of a country it is more advantageous to abstain from the exploitation of some opportunities which--absolutely and technologically--are more propitious and to import commodities produced abroad under conditions which--absolutely and technologically--are less favorable than the unused domestic resources. The case is analogous to that of a surgeon who finds it convenient to employ for the cleaning of the operating-room and the instruments a man whom he excels in this performance also and to devote himself exclusively to surgery, in which his superiority is higher.

李嘉圖說明這個法則的第一個目的，是要駁斥對國際自由貿易提出的反對。保護主義者問：在自由貿易下，任何生產條件都比其他各國差的國，命運將怎樣？在一個不只是產品可自由流動，而資本財與勞動也同樣可以自由流動的世界，凡是不適於生產的國，在任何生產方面都沒有地位。如果這裡的居民可以自由移動到別處去的話，他們就不會住在這個地方，而這個地方就會像無人居住的兩極、苔原和沙漠一樣。但是，在李嘉圖所討論的這個世界裡面，資本財和勞動受某些制度的限制不是可以自由流動的。在這樣的環境中，自由貿易，即只有貨物的自由流動，不會使資本財與勞動按照自然界給予勞動生產力的機會之較優或較劣而分配於地球表面。在這樣的世界裡，比較成本法則就發生作用。每個國從事於它的環境所提供的比較（儘管不是絕對的）最有利條件的生產部門。就一國的居民而言，放棄某些較有利的（絕對地和技術地）機會之利用，而輸入在別國在較劣的（絕對地和技術地）條件下所生產的貨物，是更有利的。這種情形，類似一位外科醫生爲著淸潔手術室和器具，僱一個做這種工作還不如他自己的人來作，而他自己完全專心於他更優越的外科。這樣對於他還是有利的。

The theorem of comparative cost is in no way connected with the value theory of classical economics. It does not deal with value or with prices. It is an analytic judgment; the conclusion is implied in

比較成本這個定理，與古典經濟學的價値理論决無關係。它不處理價値或價格問題。它是一個分析性的判斷；其結論隱含在兩個命題中：就技術上講，可流動的生產要素，其生產力因地而異，而它們的流動性是受制度上限制的。這個定理，可以不管價値問題，因爲它可自由地訴之於一套簡單的假設。這些假設是：只有兩種產品是要生產的；這兩種產品可以自由流動；爲著生產它們當中的任何一種，都需要兩種要素：這兩種要素之一（或勞動或資本財）在這兩種產品的生產過程中完全是一樣，其他要素（土壌的特殊性質）則不同；在兩種生產中稀少性都是較大的那個，決定了其他要素的使用程度。在這些假設的架構中，這個定理就解答了所提出的問題，因爲有了這些假設，則在共同的要素與產出之間，就可以建立一個代替率。

The law of comparative cost is as independent of the classical theory of value as is the law of returns, which its reasoning resembles. In both cases we can content ourselves with comparing only physical input and physical output. With the law of returns we compare the output of the same product. With the law of comparative costs we compare the output of two different products. Such a comparison is feasible because we assume that for the production of each of them, apart from one specific factor, only nonspecific factors of the same kind are required.

比較成本法則的推理與報酬律是相類似的，報酬律也是與古典的價値論無關。在這兩個場合，我們只要比較物質的投入和物質的產出就可滿足了。在報酬率的場合，我們比較同一產品的產出。在比較成本法則的場合，我們比較兩種不同產品的產出。這樣的比較，是可能的，因爲我們假定爲生產每種產品，除掉一種特殊要素，只需要一些同類的非特殊的要素。

Some critics blame the law of comparative cost for this simplification of assumptions. They believe that the modern theory of value would require a reformulation of the law in conformity with the principles of subjective value. Only such a formulation could provide a satisfactory conclusive demonstration. However, they do not want to calculate in terms of money. They prefer to resort to those methods of utility analysis which they consider a means for making value calculations in terms of utility. It will be shown in the further progress of our investigation that these attempts to eliminate monetary terms from economic calculation are delusive. Their fundamental assumptions are untenable and contradictory and all formulas derived from them are vicious. No method of economic calculation is possible other than one based on money prices as determined by the market. [7]

在些批評者指摘比較成本法則的這些假設過於簡單。他們認爲，現代的價値論需要把這法則就主觀價値原理加以重新講解。可是，他們又不想用貨幣來計算主觀價値。他們寧可訴之於那些效用分析法，而他們認爲那些方法是以效用來作價値計算的一個手段。在後面將要講到，想在經濟計算中完全不用貨幣，這是一個幻想。他們的基本假設是站不住的，而且是矛盾的：從這些假設得出的一切公式，都是錯誤的。經濟計算，除掉用市場所決定的貨幣價格作基礎的方法以外，另無他法[7]。

The meaning of the simple assumptions underlying the law of comparative cost is not precisely the same for the modern economists as it was for the classical economists. Some adherents of the classical school considered them as the starting point of a theory of value in international trade. We know now that they were mistaken in this belief. Besides, we realize that with regard to the determination of

構成比較成本法則之基礎的那些簡單假設的意義，對於現代經濟學家與對於古典的經濟學家，不是完全一樣的。有些古典學派的信徒們認爲，那些假設是國際貿易中價値論的出發點。我們現在知道，他們的這個想法是錯誤的。而且，我們還確認關於價値與價格的決定，國內貿易與國外貿易之間沒有什麼不同的。使人們把國內市場與國外市場加以區分的，只是論據的不同，也即，限制生產要素流動性的與限制産品流動性的各別的制度。

If we do not want to deal with the law of comparative cost under the simplified assumptions applied by Ricardo, we must openly employ money calculation. We must not fall prey to the illusion that a comparison between the expenditure of factors of production of various kinds and of the output of products of various kinds can be achieved without the aid of money calculation. If we consider the case of the surgeon and his handyman we must say: If the surgeon can employ his limited working time for the performance of operations for which he is compensated at $50 per hour, it is to his interest to employ a handyman to keep his instruments in good order and to pay him $2 per hour, although this man needs 3 hours to accomplish what the surgeon could do in 1 hour. In comparing the conditions of two countries we must say: If conditions are such that in England the production of 1 unit of each of the two commodities a and b requires the expenditure of 1 working day of the same kind of labor, while in India with the same investment of capital for a 2 days and for b 3 days are required, and if capital goods and a and b are freely movable from England to India and vice versa, while there is no mobility of labor, wage rates in India in the production of a must tend to be 50 percent, and in the production of b 33 1/3 per cent, of the English rates. If the English rate is 6 shillings, the rates in India would be the equivalent of 3 shillings in the production of a and the equivalent of 2 shillings in the production of b. Such a discrepancy in the remuneration of labor of the same kind cannot last if there is mobility of labor on the domestic Indian labor market. Workers would shift from the production of b into the production of a; their migration would tend to lower the remuneration in the a industry and to raise it in the b industry. Finally Indian wage rates would be equal in both industries. The production of a would tend to expand and to supplant English competition. On the other hand the production of b would become unprofitable in India and would have to be discontinued, while it would expand in England. The same reasoning is valid if we assume that the difference in the conditions of production consists also or exclusively in the amount of capital investment needed.

如果我們不想在李嘉圖所提出的那些簡單的假設下討論比較成本法則，我們就必須坦白地使用貨幣計算。我們不要陷於幻想，以爲各種生產要素的費用與各種產品的產出費用之比較，可以不靠貨幣計算即可做到。如果我們就上述的外科醫生和他的雜工（handyman）這個例子來講，我們必須說：假若這位外科醫生把他有限的時間用在爲病人施手術上，他可得到每小時50元的報酬，再假定他僱用一個雜工來淸理他的用具，每小時付工資2元，即令這位雜工要花費三個小時才能做完這位醫生只要一個小時就可做完的工作，就這位醫生講，還是有利的。在比較兩國的情形時，我們必須說，如果情形是這樣：在英國a和b兩種貨物，無論生產那一種，一個單位都需要一個工作日，在印度，資本的投資與英國的相同，但生產一個單位的a需要兩個工作日，一個單位的b，則需要三個工作日，如果資本財以及a和b可以自由地在英國與印度之間流動，而勞動則不能自由流動，在這個假設下，印度生產a的工資率一定趨向於英國工資率的50%，印度生產b的工資率一定趨向於英國工資率的33(1/3)%。如果英國的工資率是6先令，則在印度生產a的工資率將等於3先令，生產b的工資率將等於2先令。如果印度的勞動在國內的勞動市場上可以自由流動，則同類勞務的報酬差異不會持久。工人們將會從b的生產轉到a的生產；他們的移轉將會壓低生產a的報酬，提高生產b的報酬。最後，這兩個生產部門的工資率將調整到相等爲止。a的生產將趨向於擴張，而且排擠英國的競爭。他方面，b的生產在印度變成不利的，因而不得不中斷，但在英國則將擴張。如果我們假定生產情形的差異，也在於或只在於所需要的投資量，也可適用同樣的推理。

It has been asserted that Ricardo's law was valid only for his age and is of no avail for our time which offers other conditions. Ricardo saw the difference between domestic trade and foreign trade in differences in the mobility of capital and labor. If one assumes that capital, labor, and products are movable, then there exists a difference between regional and interregional trade only as far as the cost of

有人這樣講：李嘉圖的法則只適用於他那個時代，不適於我們這個時代，我們這個時代的情況不同了。李嘉圖是在資本與勞動的流動性之不同，看出國內貿易與國外貿易之間的差異。如果我們假定資本、勞動與產品都是可以自由流動的，則在區域內與區域間的貿易之不同，只發生於運輸費用上。果眞如此，那就無須有異於國內貿易的國際貿易理論了。資本與勞動是按照各地區所提供的生產條件之優劣而分配於地球表面的。有些地區人口較密集、資本設備較優良，有些地區則人口較稀少、資本供給較貧乏。在整個地球上，同類勞動的工資率有趨向於相等之勢。

Ricardo,. however, starts from the assumption that there is mobility of capital and labor only within each country, and not between the various countries. He raises the question what the consequences of the free mobility of products must be under such conditions. (If there is no mobility of products either, then every country is economically isolated and autarkic, and there is no international trade at all.) The theory of comparative cost answers this question. Now, Ricardo's assumptions by and large held good for his age. Later, in the course of the nineteenth century, conditions changed. The immobility of capital and labor gave way; international transfer of capital and labor became more and more common. Then came a reaction. Today capital and labor are again restricted in their mobility. Reality again corresponds to the Ricardian assumptions.

可是，李嘉園是從這樣的假定出發的：資本與勞動只在每國的內部可以流動，不是在國與國之間可以流動的。他提出這個問題：在這種情况下，產品自由流動的結果一定是怎樣？（如果產品也不能自由流動，則每國是經濟孤立的、自給自足的，根本就沒有國際贸易。）比較成本法則解答了這個問題。從任何一點來看，李嘉圖的一些假定，在那個時代是站得穩的。後來，在十九世紀的過程中，情形變動了。資本與勞動不再是不可自由流動的；國際間的資本與勞動之移轉愈來愈尋常了。接著，又來一個反動。今天，資本與勞動的流動又受到了限制。實際的情形又與李嘉圖的一些假定相合了。

However, the teachings of the classical theory of interregional trade are above any change in institutional conditions. They enable us to study the problems involved under any imaginable assumptions.

但是，古典國際貿易理論的一些敎義，是超乎制度上的任何變動的。它們使我們能夠在任何假想的預設下硏究有關的諸問題。

----------------

[7] See below, pp. 201-209.

[7] 詳見第十一章第二及第三節。

5. The Effects of the Division of Labor

五、分工的一些效果

The division of labor is the outcome of man's conscious reaction to the multiplicity of natural conditions. On the other hand it is itself a factor bringing about differentiation. It assigns to the various geographic areas specific functions in the complex of the processes of production. It makes some areas urban, others rural; it locates the various branches of manufacturing, mining, and agriculture in different places. Still more important, however, is the fact that it intensifies the innate inequality of men. Exercise and practice of specific tasks adjust individuals better to the requirements of their performance; men develop some of their inborn faculties and stunt the development of others. Vocational types emerge, people become specialists.

分工是人對自然環境的多樣性有意識的反應。同時，分工本身又是引起差異化的一個因素。在複雜的生產過程中，它把各別的任務分派於各個地區。它使某些地區成爲都市，其他地區成爲鄉村；它安置工業、鑛業和農業各部門於不同的地區。更重要的，是它加強了人們天生的不相等。特定工作的熟練把人們調整得更適於他們的業務的要求；人們天生的性能，有些發展出來，有些受到阻礙。熟練於某一職業以後，人們變成了專家。

The division of labor splits the various processes of production into minute tasks, many of which can be performed by mechanical devices. It is this fact that made the use of machinery possible and brought about the amazing improvements in technical methods of production. Mechanization is the fruit of the division of labor, its most beneficial achievement, not its motive and fountain spring. Power-driven specialized machinery could be employed only in a

分工把一些生產過程分裂成許多小的工作，其中又有許多小的工作可以用機械來做。正因爲如此，機械的利用，才成爲可能：也正因爲如此，生產技術才會有驚人之改進。機械化是分工的結果，是分工的最大成就，而不是分工的動機和源泉。專業化的機械只有在分工的環境下才能使用。趨向於更專門化、更精緻、更有生產力的機械之使用的每一步，都要以工作的更進一步分工爲要件。

6. The Individual Within Society

六、在社會裡面的個人

If praxeology speaks of the solitary individual, acting on his own behalf only and independent of fellow men, it does so for the sake of a better comprehension of the problems of social cooperation. We do not assert that such isolated autarkic human beings have ever lived and that the social stage of man's nonhuman ancestors and the emergence of the primitive social bonds were effected in the same process. Man appeared on the scene of earthly events as a social being. The isolated asocial man is a fictitious construction.

如果行爲學說到孤立的個人（只爲自己的利益而行爲，毫不關心別人），那是爲的便於了解一些社會合作問題。我們並不是說眞有這樣孤立的自給自足的人會生活在世間，我們也不是說在人類史進到有社會的階段以前，還有—固像覓食的野獸那樣漫遊於地球上的獨立的個人時代。人的非人祖先，在生物方面的人化（biological humanization）和原始的社會結合之開始，是發生於同一過程。人一出現於世界舞臺，就是屬於社會性的。孤立的社會人，是一虚幻的構想。

Seen from the point of view of the individual, society is the great means for the attainment of all his ends. The preservation of society is an essential condition of any plans an individual may want to realize by any action whatever. Even the refractory delinquent who fails to adjust his conduct to the requirements of life within the societal system of cooperation does not want to miss any of the advantages derived from the division of labor. He does not consciously aim at the destruction of society. He wants to lay his hands on a greater portion of the jointly produced wealth than the social order assigns to him. He would feel miserable if antisocial behavior were to become universal and its inevitable outcome, the return to primitive indigence, resulted.

從個人的觀點來看，社會是達成他的一切目的的一個大手段。一個人，不管他想用什麼行爲來實現什麼計畫，社會的保持是一個基本要件。即令是一個不馴良的人，不能把他的行爲調整到適於社會合作的要求的人，也不想失掉來自分工的任何利益。他不至於有意地毀壞社會。只是想在大家聯合生產出來的財富當中，奪取比社會秩序分派給他的那一份更多的一份。如果反社會的行爲成爲普遍現象，而其必然的結果——回復到原始的窮困——發生了的話，他也會感到悲慘。

It is illusory to maintain that individuals in renouncing the alleged blessings of a fabulous state of nature and entering into society have foregone some advantages and have a fair claim to be indemnified for what they have lost. The idea that anybody would have fared better under an asocial state of mankind and is wronged by the very existence of society is absurd. Thanks to the higher productivity of social cooperation the human species has multiplied far beyond the margin of subsistence offered by the conditions prevailing in ages with a rudimentary degree of the division of labor. Each man enjoys a standard of living much higher than that of his savage ancestors. The natural condition of man is extreme poverty and insecurity. It is romantic nonsense to lament the passing of the happy days of primitive barbarism. In a state of savagery the complainants would either not have reached the age of manhood, or if they had, they would have lacked the opportunities and amenities provided by civilization. Jean Jacques Rousseau and Frederick Engels, if they had lived in the

有的人這樣說：在自然狀態中，人們是幸福的，進入社會就放棄了這種幸福，所以，他們有權要求補償他們所失掉的。這是無稽之談。荒謬的想法以爲任何人在一個無社會的情況下，會生活得好些，一有了社會反而變壞了。謝謝社會合作帶來的較大生產力，人類得以繁殖，而且過著比野蠻的祖先所過的較髙水準的生活。人的自然狀態是極端的窮困和不安。緬懷原始野蠻的黃金時代，只是浪漫荒唐的念頭。如果盧梭（Jean Jacques Rousseau）和恩格爾斯（Frederick Engels）眞的生活在他們以思古之幽情來描述的那種原始狀況，他們決不會有那麼閒暇來從事硏究和著作。

One of the privileges which society affords to the individual is the privilege of living in spite of sickness or physical disability. Sick animals are doomed. Their weakness handicaps them in their attempts to find food and to repel aggression on the part of other animals. Deaf, nearsighted, or crippled savages must perish. But such defects do not deprive a man of the opportunity to adjust himself to life in society. The majority of our contemporaries are afflicted with some bodily deficiencies which biology considers pathological. Our civilization is to a great extent the achievement of such men. The eliminative forces of natural selection are greatly reduced under social conditions. Hence some people say that civilization tends to deteriorate the hereditary qualities of the members of society.

社會給與個人的特惠之一，是不管有沒有疾病或殘廢，都可生活下去。禽獸一有疾病，就是刼數。衰弱阻礙它們覓食，也使它們不能抵抗侵略。聾的、瞎的、跛的野獸一定滅亡。但是，這些缺陷並不剝奪一個人調整他自己適應社會生活的機會。我們現代的人，大多數都不免有身體上的某些缺陷爲生物學視爲病態的。可是，我們的文明大部份是這些人的成就。自然選擇的消滅力量，在社會情況下大大地減低。因而有些人說，文明趨向於降低社會份子的遺傳品質。

Such judgments are reasonable if one looks at mankind with the eyes of a breeder intent upon raising a race of men equipped with certain qualities. But society is not a stud-farm operated for the production of a definite type of men. There is no "natural" standard to establish what is desirable and what is undesirable in the biological evolution of man. Any standard chosen is arbitrary, purely subjective, in short a judgment of value. The terms racial improvement and racial degeneration are meaningless when not based on definite plans for the future of mankind.

如果你用飼育者（一心一意想把人類撫養成具有某種性質的飼育者）的眼光來看人類，則這樣的判斷是合理的。但是，社會不是一個種馬農場（stud-farm），不是爲著產生某一特定類型人而活動的。在人的生物演化上，沒有一個「自然的」標準來確定怎樣是好的、怎樣是不好的。任何選擇標準，都是武斷的、純主觀的。簡言之，是個價値判斷。所謂「種族進步」和「種族堕落」這些名詞，如果不是對人類前途的某些特定計畫而言，都是無意義的。

It is true, civilized man is adjusted to life in society and not to that of a hunter in virgin forests.

的確，文明人是調整得適於在社會生活，而不是適於在處女森林【原始森林】中打獵。

The Fable of the Mystic Communion

神秘交通的神話

The praxeological theory of society is assailed by the fable of the mystic communion.

行爲學的社會理論受到神秘交通（mystic communion）的神話之攻擊。

Society, assert the supporters of this doctrine, is not the product of man's purposeful action; it is not cooperation and division of tasks. It stems from unfathomable depths, from an urge ingrained in man's essential nature. It is, says one group, engrossment by the Spirit which is Divine Reality and participation, by virtue of a unio mystica, in God's power and love. Another group sees society as a biological phenomenon; it is the work of the voice of the blood, the bond uniting the offspring of common ancestors with these ancestors and with one another, and the mystical harmony between the ploughman and the soil he tills.

這個神話的支持者說，社會不是人的有意行爲的結果：它不是合作與分工。它是發生於深不可測的奧秘，發生於嵌在人的本性中的一種衝動。另一派人說，社會是神所體現的精神（the Spirit which is Divine Reality），其中有上帝的力和愛。另一派人把社會看作一生物現象：它是血的呼聲的工作（the work of the voice of the blood），它是把共同祖先的後裔與其祖先及其後裔相互間聯結起來的紐帶，它也是耕耘者與其所耕的土地之間神秘的調和。

That such psychical phenomena are really felt is true. There are people who experience the unio mystica and place this experience above everything else, and there are men who are convinced that they hear the voice of the blood and smell with heart and soul the

這樣的心理現象確實是有的。有些人經驗到神秘的結合，而把這個經驗看作高於一切：有些人自信他們聽到血的呼聲，以他們的心靈嗅到他們所珍愛的鄉土氣息。這種神秘的經驗和叫人心醉神迷的快樂，像其他的任何心理現象一樣，都是心理學所必須視作實在的事實。神交論的錯誤不在於他們斷言這些現象的確實發現，而在於深信這些現象是些不靠任何合理考慮的基本事實。

The voice of the blood which brings the father close to his child was not heard by those savages who did not know the causal relation between cohabitation and pregnancy. Today, as this relation is known to everybody, a man who has full confidence in his wife's fidelity, the voice of the blood is of no use. Nobody ever ventured to assert that doubts concerning paternity could be resolved by the voice of the blood. A mother who has kept watch over her child since its birth can hear the voice of the blood. If she loses touch with the infant at an early date, she may later identify it by some bodily marks, for instance those moles and scars which once were popular with novel writers. But the blood is mute if such observations and the conclusions derived from them do not make it speak. The voice of the blood, contend the German racists, mysteriously unifies all members of the German people. But anthropology reveals the fact that the German nation is a mixture of the descendants of various races, subraces, and strains and not a homogeneous stock descended from a common ancestry. The recently germanized Slav who has only a short time since changed his paternal family name for a German-sounding name believes that he is substantially attached to all Germans. But he does not experience any such inner urge impelling him to join the ranks of his brothers or cousins who remained Czechs or Poles.

使父親接近他的小孩的那個血的呼聲，是那些不懂得同居與懷孕之間因果關係的野蠻人所聽不到的。現在，因爲每個人都知道這種關係，一個深信妻的貞操的人也許會聽到它。但是，對於妻的貞操有些懷疑，則血的呼聲就沒有用。誰也不敢斷言關於血親關係的懷疑可以靠血的呼聲來解決。自從嬰兒出生一直是看守著的母親，會聽到血的呼聲。如果她在很早就和嬰兒不接觸，她後來就得憑身體上的特徵，例如黑痣與疤痕，來認識他。但是，如果這樣的一些觀察和得自這些觀察的結論無法辨識他，血也是啞巴。日耳曼的種族主義者斷言：血的呼聲把日耳曼族的全體份子神秘地結合起來。但是，人類學揭發了這個事實：曰耳曼民族是一些不同民族的後裔之大混合，並不是從一系共同的祖先傳下來的純種。近年歸化日耳曼的斯拉夫人，放棄父系的姓，改用德文拼音的名字，只是不久以前的事情。但是，他認爲自己和所有的日耳曼人一樣，沒有體驗到什麼內在的衝動使得他和那些還是捷克人或波蘭人的兄弟姊妹們結合在一起。

The voice of the blood is not an original and primordial phenomenon. It is prompted by rational considerations. Because a man believes that he is related to other people by a common ancestry, he develops those feelings and sentiments which are poetically described as the voice of the blood.

血的呼聲不是一個原始的基本現象。它是一些合理的考慮所激起的。因爲，一個人認爲他和別人是出自同系的祖先而有血統關係，於是，血發生一些詩意描述的所謂血的呼聲之情感。

The same is true with regard to religious ecstasy and mysticism of the soil. The unio mystica of the devout mystic is conditioned by familiarity with the basic teachings of his religion. Only a man who has learned about the greatness and glory of God can experience direct communion with Him. Mysticism of the soil is connected with the development of definite geopolitical ideas. Thus it may happen that inhabitants of the plains or the seashore include in the image of the soil with which they claim to be fervently joined and united also mountain districts which are unfamiliar to them and to whose conditions they could not adapt themselves, only because this territory belongs to the political body of which they are members, or would like to be members. On the other hand they often fail to include in

關於鄉土的宗敎情操和神秘感，也是如此。虔誠的神秘主義者的神秘結合，是以熟習他的宗敎的基本敎義爲條件的。只有已經知道上帝的偉大和榮耀的人，才會體驗到和祂的直接交通。鄉土的神秘是與特定的地緣政治觀念的發展有關。所以，住在平原或海邊的居民們，會把某些生疏的，也是他們所不能適應的山嶽地區，納入他們熱情結合的鄉土影像中，只是因爲這些山嶽地區屬於他們的政治領域。相反地，鄰近的地區，其地形地勢與他們自己家鄕的非常相像，如果這個地區是屬於外國的領土，他們也就不把它納入「其呼聲他們可以聽到的」鄕土影像中。

The various members of a nation or linguistic group and the clusters they form are not always united in friendship and good will. The history of every nation is a record of mutual dislike and even hatred between its subdivisions. Think of the English and the Scotch, the Yankees and the Southerners, the Prussians and the Bavarians. It was ideologies that overcame such animosities and inspired all members of a nation or linguistic group with those feelings of community and belonging together which present-day nationalists consider a natural and original phenomenon.

一個民族或語言集團以及他們所形成的組合，其中各個份子並不是經常友好團結的。每個民族史都是內部互相厭惡，乃至互相仇恨的記錄。試想英格蘭人與蘇格蘭人、美國北方佬（Yankees）與南方人，普魯士人與巴伐利亞人（Bavarians）。克服這樣的仇恨而使一個民族或語言集團具有同屬感而結合起來的，是一些意理；可是，現在的民族主義者則認爲是一自然的和原始的現象！

The mutual sexual attraction of male and female is inherent in man's animal nature and independent of any thinking and theorizing. It is permissible to call it original, vegetative, instinctive, or mysterious; there is no harm in asserting metaphorically that it makes one being out of two. We may call it a mystic communion of two bodies, a community. However, neither cohabitation, nor what precedes it and follows, generates social cooperation and societal modes of life. The animals too join together in mating, but they have not developed social relations. Family life is not merely a product of sexual intercourse. It is by no means natural and necessary that parents and children live together in the way in which they do in the family. The mating relation need not result in a family organization. The human family is an outcome of thinking, planning, and acting. It is this very fact which distinguishes it radically from those animal groups which we call per analogiam amimal families.

男女兩性間的互相吸引是人的獸性中所固有的，與任何思想和理論無關。我們無妨把它叫做原始的、機能的、本能的、或神秘的；也無妨用比喩的說法，說它把二做成一。我們可把它叫做兩人的神秘交通。但是，同居也好，同居前和以後也好，都不會形成社會合作和社會的生活方式。禽獸在交尾的時候也結合在一起，但是，它們未曾發展出社會關係。家庭關係不只是性行爲的結果。父母子女在一起過家庭式的生活，決不是自然的和必要的。配偶關係不一定要有家庭組織。人類的家庭是思想、計畫、和行爲的結果。正是這個事實，使人類家庭特別明顯地不同於禽獸的「家」。

The mystical experience of communion or community is not the source of societal relations, but their product.

神秘的交通或神秘的結合，其經驗不是社會關係的根源，而是社會關係的後果。

The counterpart of the fable of the mystical communion is the fable of a natural and original repulsion between races or nations. It is asserted that an instinct teaches man to distinguish congeners from strangers and to detest the latter. Scions of noble races abominate any contact with members of lower races. To refute this statement one need only mention the fact of racial mixture. As there are in present-day Europe no pure stocks, we must conclude that between members of the various stocks which once settled in that continent there was sexual attraction and not repulsion. Millions of mulattoes and other half-breeds are living counterevidence to the assertion that there exists a natural repulsion between the various races.

和這神秘交通的神話相對稱的還有一個神話，是說在民族或國之間，有一自然的和原始的排斥性。他們說，本能敎給我們區分「自家人」與「外人」，而憎惡「外人」。貴族的子孫厭惡與低族的人有任何接觸。爲駁斥這個說法，我們只要提到種族混合這個事實就夠了。今天的歐洲，沒有一個純種的民族，我們就可知道，不同世系的份子一旦定居在這個大陸，彼此間就發生男女兩性的吸引而非排斥。幾百萬的黑白混血兒和其他的混種，正是「在不同的民族間有自然的排斥性」這一說法的活生生反證。

Like the mystical sense of communion, racial hatred is not a natural phenomenon innate in man. It is the product of ideologies. But even if such a thing as a natural and inborn hatred between various races existed, it would not render social cooperation futile and would not invalidate Ricardo's theory of association. Social cooperation has nothing to do with personal love or with a general commandment to

像神秘的交通感一樣，種族仇恨不是與生俱來的自然現象。它是一些意理的產物。但是，即令種族之間眞有自然的、天生的仇恨，也不致使社會合作成爲無用，也不會使李嘉圖的協作理論歸於無效。社會合作無關乎個人的愛或相愛的訓律。人們並不因爲互愛或應當互愛而分工合作。他們之合作，因爲合作對於他們自己最有利。使人不得不調整他自己的行爲以適應社會要求的、不得不尊重別人的權利和自由的、不得不以和平的協作來代替敵對與衝突的，不是愛、不是仁慈，也不是任何其他的同情心，而是正確地懂得自私。

7. The Great Society

七、大社會

Not every interhuman relation is a social relation. When groups of men rush upon one another in a war of outright extermination, when men fight against men as mercilessly as they crush pernicious animals and plants, there is, between the fighting parties, reciprocal effect and mutual relation, but no society. Society is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner's success as a means for the attainment of his own.

人與人之間的關係並不都是社會關係。在大規模戰爭或人羣打鬥的時候，雙方相互衝擊，這其間是有交互的影響和相互關係，但這不是社會。社會是聯合行動與合作，其間每個參與的人都把其他夥伴的成功看作成就自己的手段。

The struggles in which primitive hordes and tribes fought one another for watering places, hunting and fishing grounds, pastures and booty were pitiless wars of annihilation. They were total wars. So in the nineteenth century were the first encounters of Europeans with the aborigines of territories newly made accessible. But already in the primeval age, long before the time of which historical records convey information, another mode of procedure began to develop. People preserved even in warfare some rudiments of social relations previously established; in fighting against peoples with whom they never before had had any contact, they began to take into account the idea that between human beings, notwithstanding their immediate enmity, a later arrangement and cooperation is possible. Wars were waged to hurt the foe; but the hostile acts were no longer merciless and pitiless in the full sense of these terms. The beligerents began to respect certain limits which in a struggle against men--as differentiated from that against beasts--should not be transcended. Above the implacable hatred and the frenzy of destruction and annihilation a societal element began to prevail. The idea emerged that every human adversary should be considered as a potential partner in a future cooperation, and that this fact should not be neglected in the conduct of military operations. War was no longer considered the normal state of interhuman relations. People recognized that peaceful cooperation is the best means to carry on the struggle for biological survival. We may even say that as soon as people realized that it is more advantageous to enslave the defeated than to kill them, the warriors, while still fighting, gave thought to the aftermath, the peace. Enslavement was by and large a preliminary step toward cooperation.

原始的游牧民族和部落，爲爭奪有水的地區、獵漁的地區、草原和戰利品而發生的戰鬥，是些殘酷的消滅戰，是些總體戰。十九世紀歐洲人在新闢地域與當地土著的戰爭，也是如此。但是，在原始時代，也即在有歷史記載以前的很早時期，另一個行動方式已開始了。人們即令在戰爭中，也還保存先前所建立的社會關係的某些基礎；當他們和那些從未有何接觸的人們戰鬥的時候，他們開始想到：人與人間即令現在是敵人，以後的合作是可能的。戰爭是在傷害敵人；但是，敵對行爲再也不那麼極端殘酷了。交戰國開始遵守某些限制。這些限制，在對付「人」的戰爭——不同於對付野獸——中，是不許超過的。在不解的仇恨和毀滅的狂暴之下，有個社會的因素開始抬頭。每個敵人應該被看作在將來的合作中可能的夥伴，這個事實在軍事戰鬥中也不應忽視。這樣的觀念在人們的腦子裡開始浮現了。戰爭再也不被視爲人際關係的常態。人們認識到：和平合作是生物性的生存競爭最好的手段。我們甚至可以這樣說：人們一旦認識到，把打敗了的敵人拿來做奴隸，比殺死他們更有利，這時，他們雖然還在戰鬥，但已想到了戰後的和平。奴役，就大體上講，可以說是走向合作的預備步驟。

The ascendancy of the idea that even in war not every act is to be considered permissible, that there are legitimate and illicit acts of warfare, that there are laws, i.e., societal relationships which are above all nations, even above those momentarily fighting one another, has finally established the Great Society embracing all men and all nations. The various regional societies were merged into one ecumenical society.

即令在戰爭中，也不是任何行爲都被允許的；有些是合法的戰爭行爲，有些則是非法的，也即，在所有的國之上，甚至在那戰爭的目的之上，還有一種社會關係。由於這類的觀念得勢，其結果建立了包括所有的人和所有的國的大社會。各個區域的社會合併到一個全人類的社會。

Belligerents who do not wage war savagely in the manner of beasts, but according to "human" and social rules of warfare, renounce the use of some methods of destruction in order to attain the same concessions on the part of their foes. As far as such rules are complied with, social relations exist between the fighting parties. The hostile acts themselves are not only asocial, but antisocial. It is inexpedient to define the term "social relationships" in such a way as to include actions which aim at other people's annihilation and at the frustration of their actions. [8] Where the only relations between men are those directed at mutual detriment, there is neither society nor societal relations.

遵守人道主義和戰爭的社會規律，而不以消滅猛獸的野蠻方式從事戰爭的交戰國，再也不使用某些毀滅性的方法，藉以換取敵人方面的同樣約束。這些規律被遵守到什麼程度，戰鬥團體之間的社會關係就到什麼程度。敵對行爲的本身不僅是「非」社會的，而且是「反」社會的。如果對「社會關係」一詞下定義，而把那些想消滅別人和打擊別人的行爲也包括進去[8]，那就是錯誤的。凡是在人與人之間只有以相互傷害爲目的的這種關係的地方，旣沒有社會，也沒有社會關係。

Society is not merely interaction. There is interaction--reciprocal influence--between all parts of the universe: between the wolf and the sheep he devours; between the germ and the man it kills; between the falling stone and the thing upon which it falls. Society, on the other hand, always involves men acting in cooperation with other men in order to let all participants attain their own ends.

社會不只是相互作用或相互影響。在宇宙的一切部份之間都有相互影響：狼和它所呑噬的綿羊之間，病菌和它所殺死的病人之間，墜石和它所碰上的東西之間，都有相互影響。他方面，社會所涉及的相互影響，是指人們爲要達到各人的目的而彼此採取的合作行爲。

--------------

[8] Such is the terminology used by Leopold von Wiese (Allgemeine Soziologie [Munich, 1924], I, 10 ff.).

[8] 這是Leopold von Wiese使用的名詞（Allgemeine Soziologie [Munich, 1924], I, 10 ff.）。

8. The Instinct of Aggression and Destruction

八、侵略與破壊的本能

It has been asserted that man is a beast of prey whose inborn natural instincts impel him to fight, to kill, and to destroy. Civilization, in creating unnatural humanitarian laxity which alienates man from his animal origin, has tried to quell these impulses and appetites. It has made civilized man a decadent weakling who is ashamed of his animality and proudly calls his depravity true humaneness. In order to prevent further degeneration of the species man, it is imperative to free him from the pernicious effects of civilization. For civilization is merely a cunning invention of inferior men. These underlings are too weak to be a match for the vigorous heroes, they are too cowardly to endure the well-deserved punishment of complete annihilation, and they are too lazy and too insolent to serve the masters as slaves. Thus they have resorted to a tricky makeshift. They have reversed the eternal standards of value, absolutely fixed by the

有些人說：人是掠食的動物，天生的本能驅使他戰鬥、殺伐、破壞。創導非自然的人道主義使人脫離原始獸性的文明，曾經試圖鎭壓這些衝動和慾望。它使文明人成爲頹廢柔弱的人，以自己的動物性爲恥，而把自己的墮落叫做眞正人性以爲榮。爲防止人類的更頹廢，必須把他從文明的惡果中解救出來。因爲文明只是劣等人的一個狡猾的設計。這些劣等人過於軟弱，不能做勇敢英雄們的夥伴；他們也過於怯懦，不敢承當應該被消滅的懲罰；而且，他們也過於懶惰和驕傲，不肯做別人的奴隸。於是，他們就訴之於詭計。他們把永恆的價値標準顚倒過來，這些標準是由宇宙的一些不變的法則所確定的；他們曾經宣傳一種道德，把他們自己的卑劣叫做善，把那些英雄們的卓傑叫做惡。這些奴隸們的道德造反必須撲滅，把一切價値轉變過來以撲滅它。這些奴隸們的倫理、可恥的弱者怨恨的產品，必須完全抛棄；強者的倫理必須用來代替它，所謂強者的倫理，適當地講，就是把一切倫理的約束完全取消。人必須無愧於原始的祖先，也即，過去時代的一些高尙的野獸。

It is usual to call such doctrines social or sociological Darwinism. We need not decide here whether this terminology is appropriate or not. At any rate it is a mistake to assign the epithets evolutionary and biological to teachings which blithely disparage the whole of mankind's history from the ages in which man began to lift himself above the purely animal existence of his nonhuman ancestors as a continuous progression toward degeneration and decay. Biology does not provide any standard for the appraisal of changes occurring within living beings other than whether or not these changes succeeded in adjusting the individuals to the conditions of their environment and thereby in improving their chances in the struggle for survival. It is a fact that civilization, when judged from this point of view, is to be considered a benefit and not an evil. It has enabled man to hold his own in the struggle against all other living beings, both the big beasts of prey and the even more pernicious microbes; it has multiplied man's means of sustenance; it has made the average man taller, more agile, and more versatile and it has stretched his average length of life; it has given man the uncontested mastery of the earth; it has multiplied population figures and raised the standard of living to a level never dreamed of by the crude cave dwellers of prehistoric ages. It is true that this evolution stunted the development of certain knacks and gifts which were once useful in the struggle for survival and have lost their usefulness under changed conditions. On the other hand it developed other talents and skills which are indispensable for life within the frame of society. However, a biological and evolutionary view must not cavil at such changes. For primitive man hard fists and pugnacity were as useful as the ability to be clever at arithmetic and to spell correctly are for modern man. It is quite arbitrary and certainly contrary to any biological standard to call only those characteristics which were useful to primitive man natural and adequate to human nature and to condemn the talents and skills badly needed by civilized man as marks of degeneration and biological deterioration. To advise man to return to the physical and intellectual features of his prehistoric ancestors is no more reasonable than to ask him to renounce his upright gait and to grow a tail again.

通常是把這樣的一些調論叫做社會的或社會學的達爾文主義。這裡，我們不必斷定這個名詞是否妥當。無論如何，把「演化的」和「生物的」這兩個形容詞（達爾文主義是關於演化的、生物的，所以著者這樣说——譯者附註）加在這些誣衊全部人類史的敎義，總是一個錯誤。這裡所說的全部人類史，是指從人類開始把自己超脫了非人的祖先們純動物的生活的那個時期，一直到現在。誣衊這部歷史的人們，把它說成是不斷地趨向於頹廢墮落。生物學只關心生物內部的變化是否使個體調整到適於他們的環境，因而改善他們生存競爭的機會。除此以外，生物學不提供用以評判那些變化的任何標準。從這個觀點來判斷的時候，我們應該認爲，文明不是壞事，而是好事。這是確定的事實。它曾經使人能夠在和其他所有的生物——包括龐大的野獸和更危險的微生物——鬥爭中保存自己；它曾經增殖人的生活資料；它曾經使一般人長得更高、更精明、更多才多藝，而且，延長了一般人的生命期：它曾經給人對這個地球的控制力；它繁殖了人口，並把人們的生活水準提高到史前穴居的祖先所夢想不到的程度。誠然，這種演化妨害了某些技巧和天賦的發展，而那些技巧和天賦，在生存競爭中曾經是有用的，但在變動了的環境下，它們已沒有用了。另一方面，它發展了其他的一些才能和技巧，是社會構架中的生活所不可少的。但是，生物學的和演化論的觀點，決不會指責這樣的一些變化。拳擊對於原始人的有用，正和精明的運算與正確的拼音對於現代人的有用。如果只把對於原始人有用的那些特徵叫做自然的、適於人性的，而把那些對現代人特別有用的才能和技巧，譴責爲頹廢堕落和生物退化的標誌，這是十分武斷，而且也違背了任何生物學的判斷標準。勸人回復到史前祖先們的那種體格和智能，其不合理無異於要他放棄直立的姿態而再長尾巴。

It is noteworthy that the men who were foremost in extolling the eminence of the savage impulses of our barbarian forefathers were so frail that their bodies would not have come up to the requirements of "living dangerously." Nietzsche even before his mental breakdown was so sickly that the only climate he could stand was that of the Engadin valley and of some Italian districts. He would not have been in a position to accomplish his work if civilized society had not protected his delicate nerves against the roughness of life. The apostles of violence wrote their books under the sheltering roof of "bourgeois security" which they derided and disparaged. They were free to publish their incendiary sermons because the liberalism which they scorned safeguarded freedom of the press. They would have been desperate if they had had to forego the blessings of the civilization scorned by their philosophy. And what a spectacle was that timid writer Georges Sorel, who went so far in his praise of brutality as to blame the modern system of education for weakening man's inborn tendencies toward violence! [9]

値得注意的是，那些極力讚美我們野蠻祖先們的那股蠻勁的人們，其身體脆弱到不能適應「危險生活」的要求，尼采（Nietzsche）甚至在他的精神崩潰以前，已經是病到只適於在Engadin盆地和意大利幾個地區的氣候下過活。假若不是文明社會保護他那衰弱的神經，他不可能完成他的著作。暴力的宣揚者是在他們所嘲弄汚衊的「布爾喬亞安全」的屋頂下從事著作。他們很自由地發表煽動性的敎條，因爲他們所譏諷的自由主義，保障了出版自由。如果他不得不放棄他們的哲學所嘲笑的這個文明的賜予（指出版自由——譯者附注），他們會懊喪得不可忍耐。試想那位膽小怯弱的作者Georges Sorel，他在頌揚暴力的時候，甚至譴責時代的敎育制度在弱化人們天生的暴力傾向，這是一幅怎樣的情景[9]！

One may admit that in primitive man the propensity for killing and destroying and the disposition for cruelty were innate. We may also assume that under the conditions of earlier ages the inclination for aggression and murder was favorable to the preservation of life. Man was once a brutal beast. (There is no need to investigate whether prehistoric man was a carnivore or a herbivore.) But one must not forget that he was physically a weak animal; he would not have been a match for the big beasts of prey if he had not been equipped with a peculiar weapon, reason. The fact that man is a reasonable being, that he therefore does not yield without inhibitions to every impulse, but arranges his conduct according to reasonable deliberation, must not be called unnatural from a zoological point of view. Rational conduct means that man, in face of the fact that he cannot satisfy all his impulses, desires, and appetites, foregoes the satisfaction of those which he considers less urgent. In order not to endanger the working of social cooperation man is forced to abstain from satisfying those desires whose satisfaction would hinder the establishment of societal institutions. There is no doubt that such a renunciation is painful. However, man has made his choice. He has renounced the satisfaction of some desires incompatible with social life and has given priority to the satisfaction of those desires which can be realized only or in a more plentiful way under a system of the division of labor. He has entered upon the way toward civilization, social cooperation, and wealth.

我們或可承認，原始人殘暴嗜殺的傾向是天性。我們也可假設，在早期的環境下，侵略殺伐的傾向是保存生命所必須的。人曾經一度是殘酷的野獸（這裡無須考究史前人是吃肉的還是吃草的）。但是，我們決不可忘記，在生理上，人是一個弱的動物；如果他沒有具備一項特殊武器——理知——的話，他決不是那些龐大的掠食的野獸的對手。人是理知的動物，所以他會自制而不受每一衝動的誘惑，他會按照理知的考盧來調整他的行爲。這個事實，我們決不可從動物學的觀點說它是不自然的。理知的行爲是指：人，知道他不能滿足他所有的衝動、慾望和嗜好，於是放棄那些他認爲較不迫切的滿足。爲著不妨害社會合作的進行，人不得不抑制那些會阻礙社會制度之建立的慾望。當然，慾望的抑制，是痛苦的。但是，人有他的選擇。他放棄了某些與社會生活不相容的滿足，而優先滿足那些只能在分工制度下所能滿足的，或在分工制度下更可得到較大滿足的慾望。他已經開始走向文明、社會合作、和財富之路。

This decision is not irrevocable and final. The choice of the fathers does not impair the sons' freedom to choose. They can reverse the resolution. Every day they can proceed to the transvaluation of values and prefer barbarism to civilization, or, as some authors say, the soul to the intellect, myths to reason, and violence to peace. But they must choose. It is impossible to have things incompatible with one another.

這個決定，不是不能改變的、不是最後的。父親們的選擇並不妨害兒女們的選擇自由。他們可以轉變這個決定。他們可以贊成野蠻、反對文明，或者像某些作者所說的，主張靈魂、反對智慧，主張神秘、反對理知，主張暴力、反對和平。但是，他們必須選擇。因爲，互不相容的事物是不可能兼而有之的。

Science, from the point of view of its valuational neutrality, does not blame the apostles of the gospel of violence for praising the frenzy of murder and the mad delights of sadism. Value judgments are subjective, and liberal society grants to everybody the right to express his sentiments freely. Civilization has not extirpated the original tendency toward aggression, bloodthirstiness, and cruelty which characterized primitive man. In many civilized men they are dormant and burst forth as soon as the restraints developed by civilization give way. Remember the unspeakable horrors of the Nazi concentration camps. The newspapers continually report abominable crimes manifesting the latent urges toward bestiality. The most popular novels and moving pictures are those dealing with bloodshed and violent acts. Bull fights and cock fights attract large crowds.

科學，從它對於價値問題是中立的這一觀點來講，並不譴責暴力的宣揚者而讚美屠殺和瘋子的虐待狂。價値判斷是主觀的，自由社會承認，毎個人有權自由表達他的情緒。文明未曾根絕原始人殘暴嗜殺的特徵。這些特徵潛伏在許多文明人的身上，一旦文明所發展的一些約束失效了，它們就會爆發出來。試回想納粹（Nazi）集中營那種不堪言狀的恐怖。報紙上不斷地報導可惡的罪行，也說明殘暴的獸性還潛在。許多暢銷小說和有名的電影，大都是描述血淋淋的暴行。鬥牛和鬥雞吸引很多的觀衆。

If an author says: the rabble thirst for blood and I with them, he may be no less right than in asserting that primitive man too took delight in killing. But he errs if he passes over the fact that the satisfaction of such sadistic desires impairs the existence of society or if he asserts that "true" civilization and the "good" society are an achievement of people blithely indulging in their passion for violence, murder, and cruelty, that the repression of the impulses toward brutality endangers mankind's evolution and that a substitution of barbarism for humanitarianism would save man from degeneration. The social division of labor and cooperation rests upon conciliatory settlement of disputes. Not war, as Heraclitus said, but peace is the source of all social relations. To man desires other than that for bloodshed are inborn. If he wants to satisfy these other desires, he must forego his urge to kill. He who wants to preserve life and health as well and as long as possible, must realize that respect for other people's lives and health better serves his aim than the opposite mode of conduct. One may regret that such is the state of affairs. But no such lamentations can alter the hard facts.

如果一位作家這樣說：暴民急於想流血，而我也和他們一樣。他這樣說並不比說「原始人過於嗜殺」較不對。但是，如果他忽略了「這種虐待的慾望之滿足，會損害社會生存」這個事實，或者，如果他斷言：「眞正的」文明和「好的」社會，是那些明目張瞻地放縱於暴力殘殺的人們的成就；對於殘暴的衝動加以壓制，將會危害人類的進化；以野蠻主義代替人道主義就可救人免於墮落。那麼，他就錯了。正如Heraclitus所說的，一切社會關係的根源，決不是戰爭，而是和平。就人而言，與生俱來的慾望不是殘殺。如果他想滿足其他的一切慾望，他必須抛棄殺人的念頭。凡是想盡可能地保持生命與健康的人，一定要知道，尊重別人的生命與健康，比相反的行爲更可達成自己的願望。一個人（暗指暴力主義者——譯者附註）可能惋惜事情竟是這樣。但是，這樣的歎惜究不能改變這個堅牢的事實。

It is useless to censure this statement by referring to irrationality. All instinctive impulses defy examination by reason because reason deals only with the means for attaining ends sought and not with ultimate ends. But what distinguishes man from other animals is precisely that he does not yield without any will of his own to an instinctive

譴責這種說法荒唐無稽，是沒有用的。所有本身的衝動都是不受理知檢討的，因爲理知只管達成目的的手段，而不管最後的目的。但是，人之所以異於其他動物的，是由於他不會不經意地屈從一個本能的衝動。爲著在一些不能兼得的慾望滿足之間加以選擇，人利用理知。

One must not tell the masses: Indulge in your urge for murder; it is genuinely human and best serves your well-being. One must tell them: If you satisfy your thirst for blood, you must forego many other desires. You want to eat, to drink, to live in fine homes, to clothe yourselves, and a thousand other things which only society can provide. You cannot have everything, you must choose. The dangerous life and the frenzy of sadism may please you, but they are incompatible with the security and plenty which you do not want to miss either.

你不可以這樣向大衆講：去滿足你殺人的衝動吧，那是眞正人性的，而且最有益於你的福利。你應當吿訴他們：如果你滿足你殺人的衝動，你就必得放棄許多其他的慾望。你想吃、想喝、想住好的房子、想穿著、以及其他許許多多只有社會才能供給的事物。你不能得到你所想的一切，你必須選擇。危險的生活和虐待狂的發洩也許叫你快樂，但是，它們與你也不想失掉的安全和富有是不相容的。

Praxeology as a science cannot encroach upon the individual's right to choose and to act. The final decisions rest with acting men, not with the theorists. Science's contribution to life and action does not consist in establishing value judgments, but in clarification of the conditions under which man must act and in elucidation of the effects of various modes of action. It puts at the disposal of acting man all the information he needs in order to make his choices in full awareness of their consequences. It prepares an estimate of cost and yield, as it were. It would fail in this task if it were to omit from this statement one of the items which could influence people's choices and decisions.

作爲一門科學的行爲學，不能侵入個人的選擇和行爲權。最後的決定是在行爲人，不在理論家。科學對於生活和行爲的貢獻，不在於建立價値判斷，而在於說明人們所賴以行爲的諸條件，在於說明不同的行爲所將引起的後果。它供給行爲人所需要的一切信息，讓他在充份了解一切後果以後自作選擇。它好像計算到成本與收益。如果它漏落了一項有關於作選擇、作決定的信息，那就是它失職。

Current Misinterpretations of Modern Natural Science, Especially of Darwinism

關於現代科學，尤其是關於達爾文學說的一些流行的誤解

Some present-day antiliberals, both of the right-wing and of the left-wing variety, base their teachings on misinterpretations of the achievements of modern biology.

今天有些反自由主義者，右翼的和左翼的，把他們的敎義放在對現代生物學的成就所作的一些誤解上。

1. Men are unequal. Eighteenth-century liberalism and likewise present-day egalitarianism start from the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." However, say the advocates of a biological philosophy of society, natural science has demonstrated in an irrefutable way that men are different. There is no room left in the framework of an experimental observation of natural phenomena for such a concept as natural rights. Nature is unfeeling and insensible with regard to any being's life and happiness. Nature is iron necessity and regularity. It is metaphysical nonsense to link together the "slippery" and vague notion of liberty and the unchangeable absolute laws of cosmic order. Thus the fundamental idea of liberalism is unmasked as a fallacy.

1. 人是不平等的 十八世紀的自由主義和現代的比同主義（egalitarianism）同樣地是出發於這個「自明之理」的「人皆生而平等，他們都由他們的創造主賦與某些不可出讓的權利」。但是，一門叫做「生物的社會哲學」（a biological philosophy of society）的提倡者們說，自然科學已經用一個不能辯駁的方法證明人是有差異的。在自然現象實驗觀察的架構中，容不著像自然權利這樣的概念。自然對於任何生物的生活和幸福，是沒有感情、沒有感覺的。自然是生硬的必然，和規律。把「拿不穩的」模糊的自由概念與不可變的宇宙秩序的絕對法則連在一起，這是玄學的無稽之談。因而，自由的基本觀念被他們當作謬見揭發。

Now it is true that the liberal and democratic movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries drew a great part of its strength from the doctrine of natural law and the innate imprescriptible rights of the individual. These ideas, first developed by ancient philosophy

確實，十八和十九世紀自由民主運動的興起，大都得力於自然法和個人固有的絕對權利這個敎條。這些觀念，首先發展於古代哲學和猶太神學，後來滲進基督敎義。有些反天主敎的敎派，把這些氍念作爲他們政治宣傳的焦點。許許多多傑出的哲學家，充實了這些觀念的內容。於是它們更爲流行，成爲民主政治發展中的主要動力。今天，這些觀念還存在。它們的主張者完全不管這個不容爭辯的事實：上帝或自然並沒有創造平等的人，因爲有些人生而強壯，有的人生而孱弱或畸型。除了這些先天的不平等以外，還有由於敎育、機會、和社會制度造成的人與人之間的許多差異。

But the teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of natural right. With them the only point that matters is social utility. They recommend popular government, private property, tolerance, and freedom not because they are natural and just, but because they are beneficial. The core of Ricardo's philosophy is the demonstration that social cooperation and division of labor between men who are in every regard superior and more efficient and men who are in every regard inferior and less efficient is beneficial to both groups. Bentham, the radical, shouted: "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense." [10] With him "the sole object of government ought to be the greatest happiness of the greatest possible number of the community." [11] Accordingly, in investigating what ought to be right he does not care about preconceived ideas concerning God's or nature's plans and intentions, forever hidden to mortal men; he is intent upon discovering what best serves the promotion of human welfare and happiness. Malthus showed that nature in limiting the means of subsistence does not accord to any living being a right of existence, and that by indulging heedlessly in the natural impulse of proliferation man would never have risen above the verge of starvation. He contended that human civilization and well-being could develop only to the extent that man learned to rein his sexual appetites by moral restraint. The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity. They recommend equality under the civil law not because men are equal but because such a policy is beneficial to the commonweal. In rejecting the illusory notions of natural law and human equality modern biology only repeated what the utilitarian champions of liberalism and democracy long before had taught in a much more persuasive way. It is obvious that no biological doctrine can ever invalidate what utilitarian philosophy says about the social utility of democratic government, private property, freedom, and equality under the law.

但是，功效哲學的敎義和古典經濟學，則完全不涉及自然權利這個敎條。與它們有關的要點只是社會效用。它們之推薦民主政府、私有財產權、寬容和自由，不是因爲這些東西是自然的和正當的，而是因爲它們是有利的。李嘉圖哲學的核心，是在說明社會合作與分工的好處。在任何方面都較優越、都較有效率的人，和那些在任何方面都較低劣、都較欠缺效率的人分工，也是對雙方有利的。邊沁，這位急進份子，曾叫喊：「自然權利簡直是胡說：自然的和絕對的權利，是荒謬的修辭。」[10]照他的意思「政治的唯一目的，應該是社會最大可能的多數人的最大幸福。」[11]因此，在檢討什麼應該是對的時候，他不注意那些關於上帝的或自然的計畫和意圖的成見；他一心一意地要發現最有助於人類福利之增進的是什麼。馬爾薩斯講過，自然沒有給任何生物的生存權，生活資料是有限的，他並且說，人們如果漫不經心地縱慾於生殖，將永久不能超出飢餓的邊緣。他斷言，人類文明與幸福所能發展的程度，決定於人以道德節制性慾的程度。功效主義者之反抗武斷的統治和特權，並不是因爲它們違反自然法，而是因爲它們有害於大家的福利。他們之主張法律之前人人平等，並不是因爲人是平等的，而是因爲這樣的政策有利於大家的福利。在反對自然法和人皆平等這個虛妄觀念這一點上，現代生物學只是複述好久以前功效主義的自由民主的鬥士們所講過的一些話。而且，他們講得更透徹服人。很明顯地，功效主義封於民主政治、私有財產權、自由、法律之前的平等這些事情的社會效用所講的話，決不是生物學的敎義所可動搖的。

The present-day prevalence of doctrines approving social disintegration and violent conflict is not the result of an alleged adaptation of social philosophy to the findings of biology but of the almost universal rejection of utilitarian philosophy and economic theory. People have substituted an ideology of irreconcilable class conflict and international conflict for the "orthodox" ideology of the harmony of the rightly understood, i.e., long-run, interests of all individuals, social groups, and nations. Men are fighting one another because they are convinced that the extermination and liquidation of adversaries is the only means of promoting their own well-being.

現在盛行的贊成社會分裂和暴力衝突的那些敎條，不是所謂生物的社會哲學的結果，而是由於大家不接受功效主義和經濟理論。人們已經把不可和解的階級衝突和國際衝突這個意理，代替了「正統的」社會和諧的意理。所謂社會和諧，即所有的個人、所有的社會團體、和所有的國，長期利益的和諧。人們之所以互相爭鬥，因爲他們深信消滅敵人是增進自己福利的唯一手段。

2. The social implications of Darwinism. The theory of evolution as expounded by Darwin, says a school of social Darwinism, has clearly demonstrated that in nature there are no such things as peace and respect for the lives and welfare of others. In nature there is always struggle and merciless annihilation of the weak who do not succeed in defending themselves. Liberalism's plans for eternal peace --both in domestic and in foreign relations--are the outcome of an illusory rationalism contrary to the natural order.

2. 達爾文主義的一些社會涵義 有一派社會的達爾文主義這樣說：達爾文所倡導的進化論，曾經明白地說明，自然界沒有什麼和平和尊重別人的生命與幸福這樣的事情。自然界總是鬥爭和無情地消滅弱者。自由主義的永久和平計畫——國內的和國際的——是理性主義的幻想物，違背自然秩序。

However, the notion of the struggle for existence as Darwin borrowed it from Malthus and applied it in his theory, is to be understood in a metaphorical sense. Its meaning is that a living being actively resists the forces detrimental to its own life. This resistance, if it is to succeed, must be appropriate to the environmental conditions in which the being concerned has to hold its own. It need not always be a war of extermination such as in the relations between men and morbific microbes. Reason has demonstrated that, for man, the most adequate means of improving his condition is social cooperation and division of labor. They are man's foremost tool in his struggle for survival. But they can work only where there is peace. Wars, civil wars, and revolutions are detrimental to man's success in the struggle for existence because they disintegrate the apparatus of social cooperation.

但是，達爾文借自馬爾薩斯而用之於自己的學說的生存競爭這個觀念，要就比喩的意思來了解。它的意義是：一個生物對於危害它生命的那些力量，積極抵抗。這種抵抗，如果要成功的話，那就一定要適於這個生物所賴以生活的那個環境。這並不一定總是毀滅性的戰爭，像人與病菌之間的那種關係。理知曾經指示我們，就人而言，改善生活情況最適當的方法是社會合作和分工。它們是人在生存競爭中最重要的工具。但是，這種工具只有在和平的情況下才能操作。戰爭、內戰和革命，都妨害人們生存競爭的成功，因爲這些事情使社會合作的機構解體。

3. Reason and rational behavior called unnatural. Christian theology deprecated the animal functions of man's body and depicted the "soul" as something outside of all biological phenomena. In an excessive reaction against this philosophy some moderns are prone to disparage everything in which man differs from other animals. In their eyes human reason is inferior to the animal instincts and impulses; it is unnatural and therefore bad. With them the terms rationalism and rational behavior have an opprobrious connotation. The perfect man, the real man, is a being who obeys his primordial instincts more than his reason.

3. 理知和理性的行爲是不自然的 基督敎義求免人體的獸性機能，而把「靈魂」描述成在一切生物現象以外的東西。對這個哲學的極端反動，就是有些現代人傾向於蔑視人有異於其他動物的任何情事。在他們的心目中，人的理知不及禽獸的本能和衝動；理知是不自然的，所以是壞的。理性主義與理性行爲這類名詞，有一卑鄙的內涵。完全的人、眞正的人，服從自己的原始本能，更甚於服從自己的理知。

The obvious truth is that reason, man's most characteristic feature, is also a biological phenomenon. It is neither more nor less natural than any other feature of the species homo sapiens, for instance, the upright gait or the hairless skin.

顯明的眞理是這樣：理知——人的最大特徵，也是一個生物現象。理知之爲自然的，旣不多於、也不少於人類的其他一些特徵，比方說，直立的姿勢和無毛的皮膚。

----------------

[9] Georges Sorel, Réflexions sur law violence (3d. ed., Paris, 1912), p. 269.

[9] Georges Sorel, Réflexions sur law violence (3d. ed., Paris, 1912), p. 269.

[10] Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies; being an Examination of the Declaration of Rights issued during the French Revolution, in Work (ed. by Bowring), II, 501.

[10] Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies; being an Examination of the Declaration of Rights issued during the French Revolution, in Work (ed. by Bowring), II, 501.

[11] Bentham, Principles of the Civil Code, in Works, I, 301.

[11] Bentham, Principles of the Civil Code, in Works, I, 301.

IX. THE ROLE OF IDEAS

第9章 觀念的功用

1. Human Reason

一、人的理知

Reason is man's particular and characteristic feature. There is no need for praxeology to raise the question whether reason is a suitable tool for the cognition of ultimate and absolute truth. It deals with reason only as far as it enables man to act.

理知是人的特徵。至於理知是不是認知最後和絕對眞理的一個適當工具，行爲學不必提出這個問題。行爲學之處理理知，只就其「能夠使人行爲」這一點上來處理。

All those objects which are the substratum of human sensation, perception, and observation also pass before the senses of animals. But man alone has the faculty of transforming sensuous stimuli into observation and experience. And man alone can arrange his various observations and experiences into a coherent system.

所有一切成爲人的感覺、知覺和觀察之對象的東西，也都呈現於動物感官之前。但是，只有人能夠把一些感官的刺激變成知識和經驗。因而，也只有人能夠把他的各個知識和經驗安排在一個有條理的系統中。

Action is preceded by thinking. Thinking is to deliberate beforehand over future action and to reflect afterwards upon past action. Thinking and acting are inseparable. Every action is always based on a definite idea about causal relations. He who thinks a causal relation thinks a theorem. Action without thinking, practice without theory are unimaginable. The reasoning may be faulty and the theory incorrect; but thinking and theorizing are not lacking in any action. On the other hand thinking is always thinking of a potential action. Even he who thinks of a pure theory assumes that the theory is correct, i.e., that action complying with its content would result in an effect to be expected from its teachings. It is of no relevance for logic whether such action is feasible or not.

行爲之前是思想。思想是預籌將來的行爲，並回顧過後的行爲。思想與行爲是不可分的。每一行爲總是基於一個關於因果關係的特定觀念。思考一個因果關係的人，是在思考一個理論。沒有思想的行爲，不要理論的實施，是不可想像的。推理可能錯誤，理論可能不正確：但思考與推理在任何行爲中都是有的。另一方面，思想總是想到一個可能的行爲。甚至一位思考一種純理論的人，他會假定其理論是對的，也即，假定按照這個理論的行爲，其結果將是這個理論所預料的。至於這個行爲是否行得通，那就與邏輯無關。

It is always the individual who thinks. Society does not think any more than it eats or drinks. The evolution of human reasoning from the naive thinking of primitive man to the more subtle thinking of modern science took place within society. However, thinking itself is always an achievement of individuals. There is joint action, but no joint thinking. There is only tradition which preserves thoughts and communicates them to others as a stimulus to their thinking. However, man has no means of appropriating the thoughts of his precursors other than to think them over again. Then, of course, he is in a position to proceed farther on the basis of his forerunners' thoughts. The foremost vehicle of tradition is the word. Thinking is linked up with language and vice versa. Concepts are embodied in terms. Language is a tool of thinking as it is a tool of social action.

思想的，總歸是個人。社會不思想，正如同它不食、不飮。人的理知作用，從原始人的天眞想法，演進到現代科學的精密思想，是發生於社會裡面。可是，思想本身則是個人的成就。我們有聯合的行爲，沒有聯合的思想。我們只有「保存思想，並把思想傳遞給別人，以刺激他們思想」的傳統。可是，人沒有其他的方法占有前輩的思想，除掉一再地去思想它們。自然，他可以根據前人的思想再向前想。傳統的主要工具，是語言。思想與語言相聯，語言也與思想相聯。概念體現於名詞。語言之爲思想的工具，正如同它之爲社會行爲的工具。

The history of thought and ideas is a discourse carried on from generation to generation. The thinking of later ages grows out of the thinking of earlier ages. Without the aid of this stimulation intellectual progress would have been impossible. The continuity of human evolution, sowing for the offspring and harvesting on land cleared and tilled by the ancestors, manifests itself also in the history of science and ideas. We have inherited from our forefathers not only a stock of products of various orders of goods which is the source of our material wealth; we have no less inherited ideas and thoughts, theories and technologies to which our thinking owes its productivity. But thinking is always a manifestation of individuals.

思想與觀念史是在世代與世代間的談話。後代的思想產生於前代的思想。如果沒有這種刺激，知識的進步就不可能。爲後人播種而在前人耕耘的土地上收穫，這種不斷的演進，也表現於科學和觀念史的上面。我們承襲於祖先的，不僅是一些構成我們物質福利的財貨；我們也同樣地承襲了一些觀念、思想、理論和技術，我們的思想因此而益豐富。但是，思想總是個人的顯現。

2. World View and Ideology

二、世界觀舆意理

The theories directing action are often imperfect and unsatisfactory. They may be contradictory and unfit to be arranged into a comprehensive and coherent system.

指導行爲的理論，往往是不完全的、不如意的。它們可能是衝突的，不適於納入一個周全而一貫的體系。

If we look at all the theorems and theories guiding the conduct of certain individuals and groups as a coherent complex and try to arrange them as far as is feasible into a system, i.e., a comprehensive body of knowledge, we may speak of it as a world view. A world view is, as a theory, an interpretation of all things, and as a precept for action, an opinion concerning the best means for removing uneasiness as much as possible. A world view is thus, on the one hand, an explanation of all phenomena and, on the other hand, a technology, both these terms being taken in their broadest sense. Religion, metaphysics, and philosophy aim at providing a world view. They interpret the universe and they advise men how to act.

如果把那些指導某些個人和集團的行爲的一切命題和理論，看作一貫的複合體，而盡可能地把它們納入一個體系，也即一個周全的知識體系，那麼，我們就把它叫做一個世界觀。一個世界觀，如同一個理論，是對一切的一個解釋：如同一個行爲規律，是關於消除憂慮的最好方法的一個意見。所以，一個世界觀一方面是一切現象的解釋，另一方面是一種技術。「解釋」與「技術」這兩個名詞，都是廣義的。宗敎、形而上學和哲學，其目的都是要提供一個世界觀。它們解釋宇宙，它們敎人們如何行爲。

The concept of an ideology is narrower than that of a world view. In speaking of ideology we have in view only human action and social cooperation and disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences, and the technologies derived from them. Ideology is the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations. Both, world view and ideology, go beyond the limits imposed upon a purely neutral and academic study of things as they are. They are not only scientific theories, but also doctrines about the ought, i.e., about the ultimate ends which man should aim at in his earthly concerns.

意理這個概念比世界觀的概念較狭。當我們說到「意理」的時候，我們只想到人的行爲和社會合作，而不管形而上學的問題、宗敎的「獨格碼」（dogma）、自然科學、以及來自它們的技術。意理是關於個人行爲和社會關係的那些原則的總稱。世界觀和意理，都超出了加在純中立的學術的研究之限制。它們不僅是科學的理論，而且也是關於「應該」的一些原則，也即，關於人在世間所應追求的一些終極目的。

Asceticism teaches that the only means open to man for removing pain and for attaining complete quietude, contentment, and happiness is to turn away from earthly concerns and to live without bothering

禁慾主義吿訴我們：人能夠用以消除痛苦、獲取完全平安、滿足、和幸福的唯一方法，是擺脫俗慮而不煩心於富貴榮華。要求解脫，只有排棄物質福利的追求，忍受人生旅途的苦難，終身致力於爲享受永恆至福作準備。可是，堅決遵守禁慾主義的人畢竟太少。禁慾主義所提倡的那種完全忍耐，似乎是反自然的。生活的誘惑終於勝利。禁慾的原則已不純粹。即令是最聖潔的苦行者，也不得不向那些與嚴格原則不相容的生活和俗務讓步。但是，一個人一旦考慮到任何俗務，一旦把世俗的觀念代替純然植物性的理想，他就和那些追求世俗目的的人們沒有性質上的區別。於是，他與其他的每個人就有了一些相同的地方了。

Human thoughts about things of which neither pure reasoning nor experience provides any knowledge may differ so radically that no agreement can be reached. In this sphere in which the free reverie of the mind is restricted neither by logical thinking nor by sensory experience man can give vent to his individuality and subjectivity. Nothing is more personal than the notions and images about the transcendent. Linguistic terms are unable to communicate what is said about the transcendent; one can never establish whether the hearer conceives them in the same way as the speaker. With regard to things beyond there can be no agreement. Religious wars are the most terrible wars because they are waged without any prospect of conciliation.

有些東西，推理和經驗都不能提供它們的任何知識，人們關於這些東西的想法，會差異到永不能達到同意。在這方面，也即在自由的幻想——旣不受邏輯思考的限制，也不受感官經驗的限制——的方面，人可以充份地發洩他的個性和主觀。關於「超越物質界的超絕物」（transcendent）的一些觀念和影像，是最具「個人性的（personal）」。語言文字不能夠傳達關於超絕物所說的是什麼；誰也不能確定聽的人所想的是否和說的人所想的一樣。關於超越的東西，永久不會有同意。宗敎戰爭之所以最殘酷，是因爲沒有任何調和的希望而作戰的。

But where earthly things are involved, the natural affinity of all men and the identity of the biological conditions for the preservation of their lives come into play. The higher productivity of cooperation under division of labor makes society the foremost means of every individual for the attainment of his own ends whatever they may be. The maintenance and further intensification of social cooperation become a concern of everybody. Every world view and every ideology which is not entirely and unconditionally committed to the practice of asceticism and to a life in anchoritic reclusion must pay heed to the fact that society is the great means for the attainment of earthly ends. But then a common ground is won to clear the way for an agreement concerning minor social problems and the details of society's

但是，在涉及世俗事務的地方，人與人的自然相親以及保持生命的生理條件之一致，就會發生功用。分工合作的較高生產力，使社會成爲每個人達成他自己的目的的主要手段，不管他們的目的是些什麼。社會合作的維持及加強，成爲每個人所關切的事。任何世界觀和意理，凡不是屬於完全無條件的禁慾主義，凡不是完全屬於隱居生活的，就必須注意到「社會是達成世俗目的的大手段」這個事實。但是，另一方面，關於某些較小的社會問題和社會組織的瑣事，也有個共同點藉以獲致同意。各種意理不管怎樣相互衝突，它們在一點上是和諧的，即在社會生活的承認這一點上。

People fail sometimes to see this fact because in dealing with philosophies and ideologies they look more at what these doctrines assert with regard to transcendent and unknowable things and less at their statements about action in this world. Between various parts of an ideological system there is often an unbridgeable gulf. For acting man only those teachings are of real importance which result in precepts for action, not those doctrines which are purely academic and do not apply to conduct within the frame of social cooperation. We may disregard the philosophy of adamant and consistent asceticism because such a rigid asceticism must ultimately result in the extinction of its supporters. All other ideologies, in approving of the search for the necessities of life, are forced in some measure to take into account the fact that division of labor is more productive than isolated work. They thus admit the need for social cooperation.

人們有時看不淸這個事實，因爲他們遇到哲學和意理的時候，總是多注意它們關於「超絕物」和不可知道的東西所講的一些話，而少注意它們關於現實界的行爲所說的一些話。在一個意理的各部份之間，也常有不可塡補的鴻溝。對於行爲人而言，實際重要的，只是那些歸結於行爲規範的敎義，而不是那些純學術性而不適用於社會合作架構中的行爲的學說。我們可以不管那種絕對一貫的禁慾主義的哲學，因爲那樣嚴格的禁慾主義，最後一定使它的支持者歸於毀滅。其他所有的意理，在認可生活必需品的尋求下，或多或少不得不考慮到這個事實：分工比孤立的工作較有更大的生產力。因而它們承認社會合作的必要。

Praxeology and economics are not qualified to deal with the transcendent and metaphysical aspects of any doctrine. But, on the other hand, no appeal to any religious or metaphysical dogmas and creeds can invalidate the theorems and theories concerning social cooperation as developed by logically correct praxeological reasoning. If a philosophy has admitted the necessity of societal links between men, it has placed itself, as far as problems of social action come into play, on ground from which there is no escape into personal convictions and professions of faith not liable to a thorough examination by rational methods.

行爲學和經濟學不適於處理任何敎義的「超絕物」和形而上的方面。但是，另一方面，任何宗敎的或形而上學的獨格碼和敎條，也不能使那些「從正確的行爲學推理發展出來的關於社會合作的定理和理論」失效。如果一種哲學已經承認，人與人之間的社會聯繋有其必要，那麼，就社會行爲問題的發生來說，這種哲學的立場就不容再轉到那些經不起科學方法檢驗的個人信念上面去。

This fundamental fact is often ignored. People believe that differences in world view create irreconcilable conflicts. The basic antagonisms between parties committed to different world views, it is contended, cannot be settled by compromise. They stem from the deepest recesses of the human soul and are expressive of a man's innate communion with supernatural and eternal forces. There can never be any cooperation between people divided by different world views.

這個基本事實常常被忽視。人們以爲，世界觀的一些差異，產生了一些不可和解的衝突。由於世界觀的差異而形成的各黨派，其間的基本敵對，是不能靠妥協來解決的。它們導源於人的心靈最深處，而【而且】是表現一個人天生的與一些神秘而永恆的力量之交通。被不同的世界觀分開的人們，其間決不會有任何的合作。

However, if we pass in review the programs of all parties--both the cleverly elaborated and publicized programs and those to which the parties really cling when in power--we can easily discover the fallacy of this interpretation. All present-day political parties strive after the earthly well-being and prosperity of their supporters. They promise that they will render economic conditions more satisfactory to their followers. With regard to this issue there is no difference

但是，如果我們檢查一下所有各黨派的綱領——精巧設計而又公佈了的綱領，以及那些黨派當權時實際上固執的網領——我們會容易地發現，上面的說法是錯誤的。現在，所有的政黨都是爭取世俗的福利，以及他們的支持者的利益。他們的諾言是說，要給他們的追隨者更如意的經濟情況。關於這一點，羅馬天主敎與各派新敎之間，就其干預到政治的社會的問題時而言，沒有區别；基督敎義與基督敎以外的宗敎之間，經濟自由鼓吹者與各牌馬克斯的唯物主義者之間，國家主義者與國際主義者之間，種族主義者與種族間和平主義者之間，都沒有區別。不錯，這些黨派有許多是相信，要犧牲其他的人羣才可達成他們自己的幸福，甚至於以爲，完全消滅或奴役其他的人羣，是達到他們自己福利的必要條件。可是，消滅或奴役別人，並不是他們的終極目的，而是達成他們所想達成的最後目的——自己集團的福利——的一個手段。如果他們知道，他們自己的計畫是被錯誤的、揑造的學說指導，並不能達成所希望的目的，他們將會改變他們的綱領。

The pompous statements which people make about things unknowable and beyond the power of the human mind, their cosmologies, world views, religions, mysticisms, metaphysics, and conceptual phantasies differ widely from one another. But the practical essence of their ideologies, i.e., their teachings dealing with the ends to be aimed at in earthly life and with the means for the attainment of these ends, show much uniformity. There are, to be sure, differences and antagonisms both with regard to ends and means. Yet the differences with regard to ends are not irreconcilable; they do not hinder cooperation and amicable arrangements in the sphere of social action. As far as they concern means and ways only, they are of a purely technical character and as such open to examination by rational methods. When in the heat of party conflicts one of the factions declares: "Here we cannot go on in our negotiations with you because we are faced with a question touching upon our world view; on this point we must be adamant and must cling rigidly to our principles whatever may result," one need only scrutinize matters more carefully to realize that such declarations describe the antagonism as more pointed than it really is. In fact, for all parties committed to pursuit of the people's welfare and thus approving social cooperation, questions of social organization and the conduct of social action are not problems of ultimate principles and of world views, but ideological issues. They are technical problems with regard to which some arrangement is always possible. No party would wittingly prefer social disintegration, anarchy, and a return to primitive barbarism to a solution which must be bought at the price of the sacrifice of some ideological points.

關於不可知的和超乎心力的東西，人們所作的那些自以爲了不起的陳述，包括他們的宇宙觀、世界觀、宗敎、神秘主義、形而上學，以及概念的一切幻想，彼此間有很大的差異。但是，他們意理的實際要義，也即，關於世俗生活中所追求的目的，和達成這些目的的手段的敎義，則顯得很一致。在目的與手段方面，誠然有些差異和敵對。可是，關於目的的一些差異不是不可協調的；它們不妨害在社會行爲方面的合作與和善的安排。僅就手段與方法來講，那是純屬技術性的問題，因而可以用合理的方法來檢討。當黨派衝突到了火熱的時候，某一方面會這樣聲張：「我們不能與你進行和談，因爲我們所面對的問題觸及我們的世界觀；在這一點上，不管結果如何，我們必須堅持我們的原則。」我們聽到這種話，只要仔細査究就可看出，這種宣吿所描述的敵對，比實際的情形要尖銳些。事實上，就所有顧及人民的世俗福利，因而承認社會合作的一切政黨而言，關於社會組織和社會行爲之處理的問題，不是最後原則和世界觀的問題，而是意理的問題。那都是些可以解決的技術問題。沒有一個政黨願意社會解體，陷於無政府狀態，乃至回復到原始的野蠻階段，而不肯犧牲意理的某些觀點以期解決。

In party programs these technical issues are, of course, of primary importance. A party is committed to certain means, it recommends certain methods of political action and rejects utterly all other methods and policies as inappropriate. A party is a body which combines all those eager to employ the same means for common action. The principle which differentiates men and integrates parties is the choice of means. Thus for the party as such the means chosen are essential. A party is doomed if the futility of the means recommended becomes obvious. Party chiefs whose prestige and political career are bound up with the party's program may have ample reasons for withdrawing its principles from unrestricted discussion; they may attribute to them the character of ultimate ends which must not be questioned because they are based on a world view. But for the people as whose mandataries the party chiefs pretend to act, for the voters whom they want to enlist and for whose votes they canvass, things offer another aspect. They have no objection to scrutinizing every point of a party's program. They look upon such a program only as a recommendation of means for the attainment of their own ends, viz., earthly well-being.

在政黨綱領中，這些技術問題自然是最重要的。一個政黨總會主張某種手段。推薦某些政治方法，而排斥所有的其他方法與政策。一個政黨是一些急於想用同一方法，以達成共同目的的人們的結合體。使人們有分別、使黨派得以結合的，是手段的選擇。因此就政黨之爲政黨而言，選擇的手段是它的基本要素。如果其手段已證明無效，則這個政黨也就註定完蛋了。政黨的領袖們，如果他們的威望和政治業績是繋於黨的政綱，他們會有很多理由不許對它的原則作無限制的討論；他們也許把那些原則看作不容置疑的最後目標，因爲它們是基於一個世界觀。但是，從人民（黨魁們自以爲是受他們的委託而行動的）看來、從投票者（黨魁所想拉攏的）看來，事情還有另一方面。他們不反對就政黨政綱的毎一點加以檢討。他們只把黨政綱看作達成他們自己的目標——即世俗的福利——的手段之推薦。

What divides those parties which one calls today world view parties, i.e., parties committed to basic philosophical decisions about ultimate ends, is only seeming disagreement with regard to ultimate ends. Their antagonisms refer either to religious creeds or to problems of international relations or the problem of ownership of the means of production or the problems of political organization. It can be shown that all these controversies concern means and not ultimate ends.

今天，有些叫做世界觀的黨派，即涉及最後目的的基本哲學決定的黨派，分裂這些黨派的，只是關於最後目的的表面上的不一致。他們的敵對或者是發生於宗敎的規律，或者是發生於國際關係的問題，或者是發生於生產手段所有權的問題，或者是發生於政治組織的問題。所有這些爭執，我們可以看出，都是關於手段而非關於最後目的。

Let us begin with the problems of a nation's political organization. There are supporters of a democratic system of government, of hereditary monarchy, of the rule of a self-styled elite and of Caesarist dictatorship.[1] It is true that these programs are often recommended by reference to divine institutions, to the eternal laws of the universe, to the natural order, to the inevitable trend of historical evolution, and to other objects of transcendent knowledge. But such statements are merely incidental adornment. In appealing to the electorate, the parties advance other arguments. They are eager to show that the system they support will succeed better than those advocated by other parties in realizing those ends which the citizens aim at. They specify the beneficial results achieved in the past or in other countries; they disparage the other parties' programs by relating their failures.

讓我們從一國的政治組織問題講起。民主政制、世襲君主制、貴族統治、沙皇式的獨裁[1]，都有許多擁護者。誠然，這些政綱之被推薦，其理由常常是說到：神聖的制度、宇宙的永恆法則、自然秩序、歷史演化不可避免的趨勢、以及其他一些神秘的東西。但是，這樣的一些說法只是附帶的點綴。到了向選民說話的時候，這些政黨又拿出其他的一些說法。他們急於表示，他們所支持的制度將比其他政黨所鼓吹的制度更可成功地實現人們所追求的目的。他們列舉過去、或在他國已經達成的有利的結果；他們指出其他政黨的失敗，以詆毀其政綱。他們旣用純粹的推理，也用歷史經驗的解釋，以期說明他們自己的建議的優越，以及敵對政黨的建議之無效。他們主要的論旨總是：「我們所主張的政治制度將使你們更幸福，更滿意。」

In the field of society's economic organization there are the liberals advocating private ownership of the means of production, the socialists advocating public ownership of the means of production, and the interventionists advocating a third system which, they contend, is as far from socialism as it is from capitalism. In the clash of these parties there is again much talk about basic philosophical issues. People speak of true liberty, equality, social justice, the rights of the individual, community, solidarity, and humanitarianism. But each party is intent upon proving by ratiocination and by referring to historical experience that only the system it recommends will make the citizens prosperous and satisfied. They tell the people that realization of their program will raise the standard of living to a higher level than realization of any other party's program. They insist upon the expediency of their plans and upon their utility. It is obvious that they do not differ from one another with regard to ends but only as to means. They all pretend to aim at the highest material welfare for the majority of citizens.

在社會的經濟組織方面，自由主義者維護生產手段的私有權，干涉主義者則鼓吹第三種制度。他們認爲，這種制度旣非社會主義，也非資本主義。在這些派別的衝突中，也有很多關於基本哲學問題的議論。人們常說到眞正的自由、平等、社會正義、個人權利、社會、聯立關係、和人道主義。但是，每個黨派都想用推理方法和歷史經驗，來證明只有它所推薦的制度才會使人民幸福和滿足。他們吿訴人民：實現他們的方案將可提高大家的生活水準，而提高的程度不是其他黨派的方案所可趕得上的。他們堅決宣稱他們的計畫是便利的、有效的。很明顯地，各黨派之間的區別，不在目的方面，而在手段方面。他們都自以爲是在企求大多數人的最高物質福利。

The nationalists stress the point that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of various nations, but that, on the other hand, the rightly understood interests of all the citizens within the nation are harmonious. A nation can prosper only at the expense of other nations; the individual citizen can fare well only if his nation flourishes. The liberals have a different opinion. They believe that the interests of various nations harmonize no less than those of the various groups, classes, and strata of individuals within a nation. They believe that peaceful international cooperation is a more appropriate means than conflict for the attainment of the end which they and the nationalists are both aiming at: their own nation's welfare. They do not, as the nationalists charge, advocate peace and free trade in order to betray their own nation's interests to those of foreigners. On the contrary, they consider peace and free trade the best means to make their own nation wealthy. What separates the free traders from the nationalists are not ends, but the means recommended for attainment of the ends common to both.

國家主義者特別強調：國與國之間的利害關係是不可調和的，而一國內部各份子的正當利益，彼此是和諧的。一國的繁榮只有犧牲別國才可獲致；一國的各個份子，也只有在國的繁榮中才可生活得舒適。自由主義者有一不同的見解。他們相信各國之間的利益和諧，並不遜於一國之內各集圑、各階級之間的利益和諧。他們相信和平的國際合作比國與國之間的衝突，更適於達成他們和國家主義者都想達成的目的——他們自己的國家福利。他們之主張和平與自由貿易，亦不是像國家主義所指責的違反本國的利益而有利於別國。恰相反地，他們認爲，和平與自由貿易是使本國富裕的最好手段。使得自由貿易主義者與國家主義者分離的，不是目的，而是達到他們雙方所企求的共同目的的手段。

Dissension with regard to religious creeds cannot be settled by rational methods. Religious conflicts are essentially implacable and irreconcilable. Yet as soon as a religious community enters the field

至於宗敎敎條的衝突是不能靠推理的方法來解決的。宗敎衝突，本質上是不能調和的。可是，一個宗敎團體一旦進到政治行動方面，而試圖處理社會組織問題時，它就不得不考慮到一些世俗問題，不管這種考慮如何與它的「獨格碼」和信條是如何衝突的。在一切敎外活動中，從來沒有一個宗敎敢於坦白地吿訴大家：實現我們所計畫的社會組織，將會使你們窮困而有害於你們的世俗福利。那些始終堅守窮困生活的敎徒們，退出了政治舞臺，逃遁於隱居。但是，那些以傳敎爲目的，以影響敎徒們政治社會活動爲目的的敎會和宗敎團體，則採納了世俗的行爲原則。在處理人們的世俗生活中，他們與任何其他政黨，沒有什麼區別。在遊說宣傳中，他們對物質的福利比對於天堂的至福更強調些。

Only a world view whose supporters renounce any earthly activity whatever could neglect to pay heed to the rational considerations which show that social cooperation is the great means for the attainment of all human ends. Because man is a social animal that can thrive only within society, all ideologies are forced to acknowledge the preeminent importance of social cooperation. They must aim at the most satisfactory organization of society and must approve of man's concern for an improvement of his material well-being. Thus they all place themselves upon a common ground. They are separated from one another not by world views and transcendent issues not subject to reasonable discussion, but by problems of means and ways. Such ideological antagonisms are open to a thorough scrutiny by the scientific methods of praxeology and economics.

社會合作是達到人類一切目的的大手段。這是理知的考慮所明示的。對於這個事實能夠置之不理的，只有一種世界觀，即這個世界觀的抱持者，否認一切一切世俗活動。因爲人是社會動物，他只能在社會裡面生活得好。所有的意理不得不承認社會合作的特殊重要性。它們必須企求最滿意的社會組織，必須贊成人們促進物質福利。所以，它們是站在同一的立場。使得它們彼此分離的，不是什麼世界觀和不可合理討論的超絕的問題，而是手段與方法的問題。這樣的一些意理的對立，是可以用行爲學和經濟學的科學方法來徹底檢討的。

The Fight Against Error

對謬見的抗爭

A critical examination of the philosophical systems constructed by mankind's great thinkers has very often revealed fissures and flaws in the impressive structure of those seemingly consistent and coherent bodies of comprehensive thought. Even the genius in drafting a world view sometimes fails to avoid contradictions and fallacious syllogisms.

對於大思想家們所建構的哲學體系加以批評，常常會揭發隱藏在那些似乎條理一貫的思想體系中的罅隙和缺陷。提出一個世界觀的人，即令是天才，有時也不免有矛盾和錯誤的推論。

The ideologies accepted by public opinion are still more infected by the shortcomings of the human mind. They are mostly an eclectic juxtaposition of ideas utterly incompatible with one another. They cannot stand a logical examination of their content. Their inconsistencies are irreparable and defy any attempt to combine their various parts into a system of ideas compatible with one another.

一般輿論所接受的那些意理，更是受人心缺陷的影響。它們大都是些彼此絕不相容的觀念的雜陳，經不起邏輯的檢驗。它們的矛盾是不能消除的，也無法把它們的各部份併成一個互相協調的觀念體系。

Some authors try to justify the contradictions of generally accepted ideologies by pointing out the alleged advantages of a compromise, however unsatisfactory from the logical point of view, for the smooth functioning of interhuman relations. They refer to the popular fallacy

有些著作家指出：從邏輯的觀點來講，妥協或調和，儘管是不能叫人滿意的，但爲保持人際關係的和諧，倒有好處。他們用這個說詞來辯解一般人接受的那些意理的矛盾。他們犯了「生命與現實是不合邏輯的」這個常見的錯誤想法；他們以爲，一個矛盾的體系也許由於運作得滿意，而證明了它的便利、乃至它的眞理，而合乎邏輯的體系反而有害。這種謬見，沒有再加駁斥的必要。邏輯思考與現實生活不是兩個各別的軌道。對於人而言，邏輯是處理現實問題的唯一工具。凡是在理論上衝突的，在現實界同樣是衝突的。邏輯的不一貫，決不能給現實問題提供一個滿意的、可行的解決。一些矛盾意理的唯一效果，是把眞實的問題掩蓋著，因而妨害了人們及時尋求適當的解決法。不一貫的意理，有時會延緩衝突的明朗化。但是，它們確實是使它們所掩蓋的那些壞處更甚，而使最後的解決更爲困難。它們使痛苦加倍、使仇恨加深、使和平解決成爲不可能。如果認爲意理的衝突是無害的，或甚至是有益的，這是個嚴重的大錯。

The main objective of praxeology and economics is to substitute consistent correct ideologies for the contradictory tenets of popular eclecticism. There is no other means of preventing social disintegration and of safeguarding the steady improvement of human conditions than those provided by reason. Men must try to think through all the problems involved up to the point beyond which a human mind cannot proceed farther. They must never acquiesce in any solutions conveyed by older generations, they must always question anew every theory and every theorem, they must never relax in their endeavors to brush away fallacies and to find the best possible cognition. They must fight error by unmasking spurious doctrines and by expounding truth.

行爲學和經濟學的主要目的，是要拿一貫的、正確的意理，來代替常見的衝突敎條的調和折衷。除掉理知提供的方法以外，沒有其他方法可以防止社會解體，沒有其他方法可以保證人的情況之不斷的改善。人們必須就其心智所及盡可能地想透一切有關問題，決不要輕易地接受前輩人傳下來的任何方法，必須經常封每個理論、每個定理加以懐疑，決不要懈於掃除謬見，以尋求最正確的認知。我們必須掲發假冒學說，展示眞理，以對抗謬見。

The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict. It condemns beforehand all dissenters as evildoers, it calls into question their good faith, it asks them to surrender unconditionally. No social cooperation is possible where such an attitude prevails.

這裡涉及的一些問題都是純知識方面的，因而要以知識問題來處理。如果把它們看作道德問題，而把那些持相反意理的人罵之爲壞人，那是很不幸的。如果堅持我們所追求的目的是好的，我們的反對者所追求的是壞的，那也是無益。宗敎集團和馬克斯主義所特有的、僵硬的「獨格碼」，終歸於不可和解的衝突。它總是先發制人把所有的反對者罵成作惡者，它懷疑他們的誠實，它要他們無條件投降。凡是有這種態度流行的地方，社會合作就不可能了。

No better is the propensity, very popular nowadays, to brand supporters of other ideologies as lunatics. Psychiatrists are vague in drawing a line between sanity and insanity. It would be preposterous for laymen to interfere with this fundamental issue of psychiatry. However, it is clear that if the mere fact that a man shares erroneous views and acts according to his errors qualifies him as mentally disabled, it would be very hard to discover an individual to which the epithet

現在的傾向並不較好，時髦的風氣是把不同意理的支持者誣衊爲精神病人。神經健全與神經錯亂之間的界線，在精神病理學上是模糊不淸的。外行的人們干涉到精神病理學上的這種基本問題，這自然是荒謬的。顯然地，如果一個人有了錯誤的見解，而照他的錯誤見解來行爲，這個人就可叫做精神病人，那麼，我們就很難發現可稱爲正常的人了。這樣一來，我們不得不把前輩的人稱爲精神病人，因爲他們對於自然科學問題的觀念及其相隨的技術，都與我們這個時代的不同。因爲同一理由，後輩的人們也將把我們叫做精神病人。如果犯錯誤是精神病態的特徵，那麼，每個人都可叫做精神病患者。

Neither can the fact that a man is at variance with the opinions held by the majority of his contemporaries qualify him as a lunatic. Were Copernicus, Galileo and Lavoisier insane? It is the regular course of history that a man conceives new ideas, contrary to those of other people. Some of these ideas are later embodied in the system of knowledge accepted by public opinion as true. Is it permissible to apply the epithet "sane" only to boors who never had ideas of their own and to deny it to all innovators?

一個人的見解不同於同時代大多數人所持的見解，僅憑這個事實決不能說他是個精神病人。哥白尼（Copernicus）、伽利略（Galileo），和Lavoisier是精神病人嗎？一個人抱持新的觀念，與別人的觀念衝突，這是歷史的常態。有些新觀念，後來被當作眞理而納入大家接受的知識體系中。「神經健全」這個形容詞，只可用之於毫無己意的庸碌之輩，而不可以用之於所有的創新者嗎？

The procedure of some contemporary psychiatrists is really outrageous. They are utterly ignorant of the theories of praxeology and economics. Their familiarity with present-day ideologies is superficial and uncritical. Yet they blithely call the supporters of some ideologies paranoid persons.

有些現代精神病的醫生們是荒謬絕倫的。他們完全不懂行爲學和經濟學的理論。他們所熟知的那些現代意理，是膚淺的、未經批判的。可是，他們卻爽爽快快地把某些意理的支持者叫做妄想的狂人。

There are men who are commonly stigmatized as monetary cranks. The monetary crank suggests a method for making everybody prosperous by monetary measures. His plans are illusory. However, they are the consistent application of a monetary ideology entirely approved by contemporary public opinion and espoused by the policies of almost all governments, political parties, and the press.

有些人，常被稱爲「貨幣的幻想者」。這種「貨幣的幻想者」主張用貨幣措施爲每個人謀福利。他的計畫是虛妄的。可是，那些計畫卻是現代輿論所完全贊成，也是幾乎所有的政府所採納的貨幣意理的徹底應用。經濟學家對於這些意理的錯誤所提出的反對，得不到政府、政黨、和輿論的考慮。

It is generally believed by those unfamiliar with economic theory that credit expansion and an increase in the quantity of money in circulation are efficacious means for lowering the rate of interest permanently below the height it would attain on a nonmanipulated capital and loan market. This theory is utterly illusory. [2] But it guides the monetary and credit policy of almost every contemporary government. Now, on the basis of this vicious ideology, no valid objection can be raised against the plans advanced by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Ernest Solvay, Clifford Hugh Douglas and a host of other would-be reformers. They are only more consistent than other people are. They want to reduce the rate of interest to zero and thus to abolish altogether the scarcity of "capital." He who wants to refute them must attack the theories underlying the monetary and credit policies of the great nations.

那些不了解經濟理論的人們，大概都相信：信用擴張和增加貨幣流通量，是把利率降低到永久低於自由的金融市場所維持的高度以下的有效方法。這個學說完全是幻想[2]。但是，它對於幾乎每個現代政府的貨幣信用政策發生指導作用。現在，在這邪惡意理的基礎上，沒有有效的反對可以提出來抗拒Pierre Joseph Proudhon，Ernest Solvay，Clifford Hugh Douglas和一些其他所謂的改革家們所提倡的計畫。他們只是比別人更貫徹些。他們想把利率降低到零，因而徹底消除「資本」的稀少性。凡是想駁斥他們的人，必須對一些大國的貨幣信用政策所依據的那些學說，加以攻擊。

The psychiatrist may object that what characterizes a man as a lunatic is precisely the fact that he lacks moderation and goes to extremes. While normal man is judicious enough to restrain himself, the paranoid person goes beyond all bounds. This is quite an unsatisfactory

精神病的醫生們也許不同意，精神病人的特徵確是在於不溫和而走極端。正常的人，有自我節制之明，瘋狂的人則越出一切範圍。這完全是個不滿意的辯解。凡是認爲靠擴充信用即可以把利率從5%或4%減低到3%或2%的那些議論，也同樣有效地可用來認爲利率可減低到零。從一般輿論所支持的那些貨幣謬見的觀點來看，「貨幣幻想者」確實是對的。

There are psychiatrists who call the Germans who espoused the principles of Nazism lunatics and want to cure them by therapeutic procedures. Here again we are faced with the same problem. The doctrines of Nazism are vicious, but they do not essentially disagree with the ideologies of socialism and nationalism as approved by other peoples' public opinion. What characterized the Nazis was only the consistent application of these ideologies to the special conditions of Germany. Like all other contemporary nations the Nazis desired government control of business and economic self-sufficiency, i.e., autarky, for their own nation. The distinctive mark of their policy was that they refused to acquiesce in the disadvantages which the acceptance of the same system by other nations would impose upon them. They were not prepared to be forever "imprisoned," as they said, within a comparatively overpopulated area in which physical conditions render the productivity of human effort lower than in other countries. They believed that their nation's great population figures, the strategically propitious geographic situation of their country, and the inborn vigor and gallantry of their armed forces provided them with a good chance to remedy by aggression the evils they deplored.

有些精神病醫生把那些擁護納粹主義的人叫做精神病人，而想用治療學的程序來醫治他們。這裡我們又遇到同樣的問題。納粹的一些敎條是邪惡的，但它們在本質上並無異於別族輿論所贊成的社會主義和民族主義的那些意理。納粹的特徵只是把那些意理，貫徹地應用於德國的特殊情況而已。像所有的現代國一樣，納粹黨要政府控制生產事業，要求本國經濟自足。他們政策的明顯標誌是他們決不承認、也不默認，如果別國也採用同樣政策，勢將使他們不利。照他們的說法，他們不準備永久「被困於」人口過多的領域，在這個領域內，物質環境使得勞動生產力低於別國。他們相信他們的人口多、戰略上的地理優勢，以及武裝部隊的活力勇敢，足使他們有機會用侵略的方法來補救他們所悲傷的缺憾。

Now, whoever accepts the ideology of nationalism and socialism as true and as the standard of his own nation's policy, is not in a position to refute the conclusions drawn from them by the Nazis. The only way for a refutation of Nazism left for foreign nations which have espoused these two principles was to defeat the Nazis in war. And as long as the ideology of socialism and nationalism is supreme in the world's public opinion, the Germans or other peoples will try again to succeed by aggression and conquest, should the opportunity ever be offered to them. There is no hope of eradication the aggression mentality if one does not explode entirely the ideological fallacies from which it stems. This is not a task for psychiatrists, but for economists. [3]

凡是接受民族主義和社會主義的意理，而把這個意理視爲眞理、視爲國策標準的人，不可能拒絕納粹黨從這兩種主義導出的那些結論。接受這兩種主義的外國，若要抗拒納粹，那只有一個方法，即用戰爭來打敗它。只要社會主義和民族主義在世界輿論上占上風，德國人或其他國人，一有機會就會一再地嘗試靠侵略征服來達成目的。如果我們不探究侵略心理之所從出的那些意理的謬誤，就沒有希望根除那侵略心理。這不是精神病醫生的事情，而是經濟學家的任務[3]。

【英文第四版無此段。】

德國人的錯處不是他們不遵守福音敎義。沒有一個民族是遵守的。除掉那個小而無影響力的敎友派（the friends）以外，實際上所有的基督敎會和宗敎都讚美戰士們的武功。在老輩的德國征服者當中，最殘酷的是那些藉基督敎義作戰的日耳曼的武士們（the teutonic knights）。今日德國的侵略，其根源是由於德國人抛棄了自由哲學，而以民族主義和社會主義的意理代替了自由貿易與和平的自由原則。假若人類不回復到時下所毀之爲「正統」的「Manchester哲學」的、和「自由放任」的那些觀念，那麼，要防止新的侵略，唯一的方法就是剝奪掉德國人從事戰爭的手段，使他們成爲無害的民族。

Man has only one tool to fight error: reason.

人，只有一個工具可以戰勝錯誤：理知。

--------------

[1] Caesarism is today exemplified by the Bolshevik, Fascist, or Nazi type of dictatorship.

[1] 沙皇式的統治，在今天可用布爾雪維克、法西斯和納粹的獨裁爲例。

[2] Cf. below, Chapter XX.

[2] 參考第二十章。

[3] Cf. Mises, Omnipotent Government (New Haven, 1944), pp. 221-228, 129-131-140.

[3] 參考Mises, Omnipotent Government (New Haven, 1944), pp. 221-228, 129-131-140.

3. Might

三、權力

Society is a product of human action. Human action is directed by ideologies. Thus society and any concrete order of social affairs are an outcome of ideologies; ideologies are not, as Marxism asserts, a product of a certain state of social affairs. To be sure, human thoughts and ideas are not the achievement of isolated individuals.

社會是人的行爲之一產物。人的行爲是受某些意理指導的。所以社會和任何社會情事的具體秩序，都是一些意理的結果：意理不是像馬克斯敎條所說的，是某些社會情事的結果。當然，人的思想和觀念不是孤立的個人的成就。思想也只有經由思想家們的合作才有進展。如果一個人在推理方面必須從頭開始，他將不會有何進展。一個人在思想上的進步，只是由於他的努力得助於前輩人的努力，前輩人提供了一些思想工具、一些概念、一些術語，以及提出了一些問題。

Any given social order was thought out and designed before it could be realized. This temporal and logical precedence of the ideological factor does not imply the proposition that people draft a complete plan of a social system as the utopians do. What is and must be thought out in advance is not the concerting of individual actions into an integrated system of social organization, but the actions of individuals with regard to their fellow men and of already formed groups of individuals with regard to other groups. Before a man aids his fellow in cutting a tree, such cooperation must be thought out. Before an act of barter takes place, the idea of mutual exchange of goods and services must be conceived. It is not necessary that the individuals concerned become aware of the fact that such mutuality results in the establishment of social bonds and in the emergence of a social system. The individual does not plan and execute actions intended to construct society. His conduct and the corresponding conduct of others generate social bodies.

任何已有的社會秩序，都是在它實現以前被想出、被設計的。意理因素在時序上和邏輯上的這種領先，並不意涵人們像空想家所作的，擬定一個完全的社會制度的計畫。預先想出的，而且必須預先想出的，不是協調各個人的行爲，納入一個統合的社會組織中，而是有關於別人的各個人的行爲，以及有關於其他集團的集團行爲。在一個人幫助別人砍伐一棵樹木以前，這樣的合作一定是已被想出。在物物交換制發生以前，一定是已經有了互相交換貨物和勞務的觀念。有關的人們不一定會想到，這樣的合作終於形成社會約束，終於建立社會制度。個人並不計畫和實行一些打算建立社會的行爲。他的行爲和別人的相適應的行爲，產生了一些社會團體。

Any existing state of social affairs is the product of ideologies previously thought out. Within society new ideologies may emerge and may supersede older ideologies and thus transform the social system. However, society is always the creation of ideologies temporally and logically anterior. Action is always directed by ideas; it realizes what previous thinking has designed.

任何存在的社會事象都是事先想出的一些意理的產物。在社會內部，新的意理也許發生、也許代替舊的意理，因而改變社會制度。可是，社會總是意理的產物，意理在時序上和邏輯上總是領先的，行爲總是受一些觀念的指導；它實現思想所預定的事情。

If we hypostatize or anthropomorphize the notion of ideology, we may say that ideologies have might over men. Might is the faculty or power of directing actions. As a rule one says only of a man or of groups of men that they are mighty. Then the definition of might is: might is the power to direct other people's actions. He who is mighty, owes his might to an ideology. Only ideologies can convey to a man the power to influence other people's choices and conduct. One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating. Might is thus not a physical and tangible thing, but a moral and spiritual phenomenon. A king's might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects.

如果我們把意理這個觀念實體化、或人格化，我們也可這樣說：意理對於人有支配的權力。它指揮人的行爲。通常，我們是說，一個人、或人的集團是有權力的。於是，權力的定義就是：權力是指揮別人行爲的力量。有權力的人，其權力是來自意理。只有意理才能賦與一個人得以影響別人選擇和行爲的力量。一個人只有在一種情形下才可成爲領袖，即有一種使別人馴服的意理在支持他。所以，權力不是物質的有形的東西，而是一道德和精神現象。一個皇帝的權力靠的是他的臣民接受君主政制的意理。

He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in

【中文版無此段：那個可以憑著自己的權勢使國家——也就是用于壓迫和强制的社會工具——運作起來的人，可以統治國家。統治就是權勢在政治實體中的運作。統治始終是基于權勢，即，支配其他人民之行爲的力量。】

Of course, it is possible to establish a government upon the violent oppression of reluctant people. It is the characteristic mark of state and government that they apply violent coercion or the threat of it against those not prepared to yield voluntarily. Yet such violent oppression is no less founded upon ideological might. He who wants to apply violence needs the voluntary cooperation of some people. An individual entirely dependent on himself can never rule by means of physical violence only.[4] He needs the ideological support of a group in order to subdue other groups. The tyrant must have a retinue of partisans who obey his orders of their own accord. Their spontaneous obedience provides him with the apparatus he needs for the conquest of other people. Whether or not he succeeds in making his sway last depends on the numerical relation of the two groups, those who support him voluntarily and those whom he beats into submission. Though a tyrant may temporarily rule through a minority if this minority is armed and the majority is not, in the long run a minority cannot keep the majority in subservience. The oppressed will rise in rebellion and cast off the yoke of tyranny.

當然，用暴力鎭壓以建立一個政府，是可能的。有些國和政府的特徵是如此。可是，這樣的暴力壓制也一樣地是基於意理的權力。想使用暴力的人，也需要有些人的自願合作。完全只靠自己一個人的人，決不能僅憑物質的暴力來統治[4]。爲壓服其他的人羣，他需要一羣人的意理支持。暴君必須有些自願服從他的侍衛人員。他們的自願服從，使他擁有壓服其他人們的工具。他能否長久地維持他的統治，那就決定於兩羣人——一羣自願支持他的人和一羣被他壓服的人——的人數多少。儘管一個暴君可以靠少數的武裝力量暫時壓制無武裝的多數人民，但從長期看，少數畢竟不能壓服多數。被壓迫者終會起來反抗，從而擺脫暴君的奴役。

A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. The term Realpolitik makes sense only if used to signify a policy taking account of generally accepted ideologies as contrasted with a policy based upon ideologies not sufficiently acknowledged and therefore unfit to support a durable system of government.

一個持久的政治制度，一定要建立在大多數人所接受的意理上。成爲政府的基礎而賦與統治者使用暴力，以壓迫少數反對者的「實在」因素、「實在」力量，本質上是意理的、道德的和精神的。統治者如果不懂得這個基本原理，而自恃武裝軍隊爲不可抗拒的力量，而蔑視精神與觀念，最後將會被反對者打倒。把權力解釋爲一種不依賴意理的「實在」因素，這是政治書籍和歷史書籍極普通的錯誤。「現實政治」（Realpolitik）這個名詞，只在一種情形下有意義，即：把它用來指稱一個政策，而這個政策是考慮到一般人所接受的意理的政策，而不是指稱基於無足夠的承認因而不適於支持一個長久的政治制度的那些意理的政策。

He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. To these subordinates a definite task within the framework of the ruling ideology is assigned. Their chiefs commit to their care troops which are not

把權力解釋爲物質的或「實在的」力量，而把暴行看作統治基礎的人，是從狭隘的軍警界低級官員的觀點來看的。指派給這些低級官員的任務，是在統治意理架構內部的一項確定任務。他們上司們委之於他們的隊伍，不僅是已有物質武器裝備，而且也經過訓練具有服從命令的精神。低級的指揮官視這種精神因素爲當然，因爲他們自己也具有這同樣的精神，甚至不會想像到不同的意理。意理的力量正在於人們心甘情願而又毫無遲疑地接受它的擺佈。

However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.

可是，就政府的頭兒來講，事情就不是這樣。他必須以保持軍隊士氣和人民忠貞爲目的。因爲，這些精神因素是他的統治力所賴以繼續保持的唯一的「實在的」的因素。如果支持他的統治力的意理消失了，他的權力也就衰落。

Minorities too can sometimes conquer by means of superior military skill and can thus establish minority rule. But such an order of things cannot endure. If the victorious conquerors do not succeed in subsequently converting the system of rule by violence into a system of rule by ideological consent on the part of those ruled, they will succumb in new struggles. All victorious minorities who have established a lasting system of government have made their sway durable by means of a belated ideological ascendancy. They have legitimized their own supremacy either by submitting to the ideologies of the defeated or by transforming them. Where neither of these two things took place, the oppressed many dispossessed the oppressing few either by open rebellion or through the silent but steadfast operation of ideological forces. [5]

有時，少數人也可憑優越的軍事技巧取得控制力，因而建立少數之治。但是，這種局面不會長久。假若這勝利的征服者不接著把暴力統治轉變爲意理從同之治，他們就會在新的鬥爭中被打垮。凡是曾經建立過持久政制的少數征服者，都靠一種意理的優勢，使他們的統治得以持續。他們使人民甘心承認其霸權的手段，或者是屈從被征服者的意理（蒙古人的元朝，滿州人的清朝之统治中國，就是用的這個手段——譯者附註），或者是改變他們的意理。如果這兩個手段都沒有採取。則被壓迫者或公開叛亂，或默默而不斷地運用意理的力量來攆走壓迫者。[5]

Many of the great historical conquests were able to endure because the invaders entered into alliance with those classes of the defeated nation which were supported by the ruling ideology and were thus considered legitimate rulers. This was the system adopted by the Tartars in Russia, by the Turks in the Danube principalities and by and large in Hungary and Transylvania, and by the British and the Dutch in the Indies. A comparatively insignificant number of Britons could rule many hundred millions of Indians because the Indian princes and aristocratic landowners looked upon British rule as a means for the preservation of their privileges and supplied it with the support which the generally acknowledged ideology of India gave to their own supremacy. England's Indian empire was firm as long as public opinion approved of the traditional social order. The Pax Britannica safeguarded the princes' and the landlords' privileges and protected the masses against the agonies of wars between the principalities and of succession wars within them. In our day the

歷史上有許多大的征服之所以能維持長久，是因爲侵略者與被侵略民族內部那些得到一般意理的支持因而被認爲正當的統治者聯合起來。這種辦法，韃靼人用之於俄國，土耳其人用之於多瑙河的一些公國、匈牙利和德蘭斯斐尼亞（Transylvania），英國人與荷蘭人用之於東印度羣島。極少數的不列顚人能夠統治幾倍印度人，因爲印度的王公和貴族地主把不列顚人的統治看作他們的特權的保障，因而支持它。英國的印度王國只要輿論支持這個傳統的社會秩序，就可穩定不致動搖。英國統治下的和平（Pax Britannica）保障了王公和地主的特權，也保護了大衆免受王公之間的戰爭和他們內部繼承戰爭之苦。今天，從外滲透的顚覆觀念，已經動搖了英國的統治，同時威脅到這個古老的社會秩序的維持。

Victorious minorities sometimes owe their success to their technological superiority. This does not alter the case. In the long run it is impossible to withhold the better arms from the members of the majority. Not the equipment of their armed forces, but ideological factors safeguarded the British in India. [6]

勝利的少數，有時是得力於他們的技術優越。這並不改變這種情形。在長期中不可能壓制住多數份子更精銳的武裝。保障在印度的英國人的，不是他們的武裝，而是意理因素。[6]

A country's public opinion may be ideologically divided in such a way that no group is strong enough to establish a durable government. Then anarchy emerges. Revolutions and civil strife become permanent.

一國的輿論，在意理上可能分裂到沒有一個集圑堅強到足以建立一個長期政府。這時，就陷於無政府狀態。經常有革命與內戰發生。

Traditionalism as an Ideology

作爲一個意理的傳統主義

Traditionalism is an ideology which considers loyalty to valuations, customs, and methods of procedure handed down or allegedly handed down from ancestors both right and expedient. It is not an essential mark of traditionalism that these forefathers were the ancestors in the biological meaning of the term or can be fairly considered such; they were sometimes only the previous inhabitants of the country concerned or supporters of the same religious creed or only precursors in the exercise of some special task. Who is to be considered an ancestor and what is the content of the body of tradition handed down are determined by the concrete teachings of each variety of traditionalism. The ideology brings into prominence some of the ancestors and relegates others to oblivion; it sometimes calls ancestors people who had nothing to do with the alleged posterity. It often constructs a "traditional" doctrine which is of recent origin and is at variance with the ideologies really held by the ancestors.

傳統主義（traditionalism）是一個意理，這個意理是認爲，尊重旣定的價値系統、習俗，以及祖先傳下來的或當作祖先傳下的一些行爲方式，是應該的，也是便利的。傳統主義所必有的特徵，並不限於這些祖先是生物學意義的祖先，所謂祖先，有時只是指這個地方以前的居民，或同一敎條以前的信仰者，或某一特別工作以前的作者。誰被當作祖先，以及傳下來的傳統其內容是些什麼，這是決定於各種傳統主義的具體敎義。傳統主義這個意理，把某些祖先抬舉起來，把其他的淹沒下去；它有時也會把一些與所謂後裔毫無關係的人們稱之爲祖先。它也常建構一個屬於新近來源的「傳統」學說，而不同於祖先們眞正信持的那些意理。

Traditionalism tries to justify its tenets by citing the success they secured in the past. Whether this assertion conforms with the facts, is another question. Research could sometimes unmask errors in the historical statements of a traditional belief. However, this did not always explode the traditional doctrine. For the core of traditionalism is not real historical facts, but an opinion about them, however mistaken, and a will to believe things to which the authority of ancient origin is attributed.

傳統主義每每提到它的敎義在過去如何成功，用以證明這些敎義是對的。至於這種說法是不是符合事實，那是另一問題。有時，一個傳統信念的歷史陳述中的錯誤，會因人們的研究而被揭發。但是，這並不經常推翻傳統的學說。因爲傳統主義的核心不是實在的歷史事實，而是關於歷史事實的意見（不管這個意見是否錯誤），以及對於具有權威的雜樂於相信的那種意願。

---------------

[4] A gangster may overpower a weaker or unarmed fellow. However, this has nothing to do with life in society. It is an isolated antisocial occurrence.

[4] —個匪徒會壓服一個弱者或無武裝的人。但是這無關於社會的生活。這是一個孤立的反社會的現象。

[5] Cf. below, pp. 649-650.

[5] 參閱第十三章第三節。

[6] We are dealing here with the preservation of European minority rule in non-European countries. About the prospects of an Asiatic aggression on the West cf. below, pp. 669-670.

[6] 我們在這裡所講的是歐洲人在歐洲以外地區維持的少數之治，關於亞洲人之侵略西方，參閱第二十四章第二節。

4. Meliorism and the Idea of Progress

四、改善論與進歩

The notions of progress and retrogression make sense only within a teleological system of thought. In such a framework it is sensible to call approach toward the goal aimed at progress and a movement

進步與退步的觀念，只有在目的論的思想體系裡才有意義。在這樣的一個架構內，把那趨向於所追求的目標的動態叫做進步，相反的趨向叫做退步，這是切實的。如不涉及某一主動者的行爲和一確定的目標，則這兩個觀念是空洞的，無任何意義。

It was one of the shortcomings of nineteenth-century philosophies to have misinterpreted the meaning of cosmic change and to have smuggled into the theory of biological transformation the idea of progress. Looking backward from any given state of things to the states of the past one can fairly use the terms development and evolution in a neutral sense. Then evolution signifies the process which led from past conditions to the present. But one must guard against the fatal error of confusing change with improvement and evolution with evolution toward higher forms of life. Neither is it permissible to substitute a pseudoscientific anthropocentrism for the anthropocentrism of religion and the older metaphysical doctrines.

十九世紀的一些哲學，誤解了宇宙變化的意義，而且把進步觀念偷偷地用在生物變化的理論中，這是它們的缺點之一。從任何已有的情況來回顧過去的情況，我們很可以使用「發展」與「演化」這些名詞於中立的意義。於是，演化是指從過去到現在的過程。但是我們必須小心，不要把變化與改善相混淆，不要把演化與趨向較高級生活方式的進化相混淆，如果這樣混淆，那就是極關重要的錯誤。至於以假科學的人類中心說，代替宗敎的人類中心說和較古老的玄學，也是不可以的。

However, there is no need for praxeology to enter into a critique of this philosophy. Its task is to explode the errors implied in current ideologies.

可是，就行爲學來講，不必進一步對這種哲學加以批評。行爲學的任務是要暴露現行的一些意理裡面的那些錯誤。

Eighteenth-century social philosophy was convinced that mankind has now finally entered the age of reason. While in the past theological and metaphysical errors were dominant, henceforth reason will be supreme. People will free themselves more and more from the chains of tradition and superstition and will dedicate all their efforts to the continuous improvement of social institutions. Every new generation will contribute its part to this glorious task. With the progress of time society will more and more become the society of free men, aiming at the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Temporary setbacks are, of course, not impossible. But finally the good cause will triumph because it is the cause of reason. People called themselves happy in that they were citizens of an age of enlightenment which through the discovery of the laws of rational conduct paved the way toward a steady amelioration of human affairs. What they lamented was only the fact that they themselves were too old to witness all the beneficial effects of the new philosophy. "I would wish," said Bentham to Philarete Chasles, "to be granted the privilege to live the years which I have still to live, at the end of each of the centuries following my death; thus I could witness the effects of my writing." [7]

十八世紀的社會哲學確信，人類終於到了理知時代。過去是神學和玄學的謬見占優勢，今後將是理知作主宰。世人將從傳統和迷信的鎖鍊下，一天一天地解放出來而傾全力於社會制度的不断改善。每個新的世代都會貢獻於這番光榮事業。隨著時間的進展，我們的社會愈來愈成爲自由人的社會，而以最多數人的最大幸福爲目標。當然，暫時的退步不是不可能的。但是，最後總是進歩的多，因爲這是理知的目的。人們認爲自己是幸福的，因爲他們是一個開朗時代【啓蒙時代或開明時代】的人民，這個時代由於發現了理性行爲的法則，鋪就了走向人類事象不断改善的途徑。他們所唯一惋惜的事情，是他們自己的年紀太大了，不能親身看見這個新哲學一切有利的效果。邊沁對Philarete Chasles說過：「我希望在我死後的幾百年，還像現在活著的時候一樣，能夠看到我的著作的一些效果」。[7]

All these hopes were founded on the firm conviction, proper to the age, that the masses are both morally good and reasonable. The upper strata, the privileged aristocrats living on the fat of the land, were

所有這些希望是基於一個堅定的信念，即：芸芸衆生都是善良而理智的。這是屬於那個時代的信念。上階層靠土地享受生活的特權貴族，被認爲將會衰落。平民們，尤其是農民和工人，被讚美成高尙而無過失。於是這些哲學家深信：民主民治的政府，將產生完善的社會。

This prejudice was the fateful error of the humanitarians, the philosophers, and the liberals. Men are not infallible; they err very often. It is not true that the masses are always right and know the means for attaining the ends aimed at. "Belief in the common man" is no better founded than was belief in the supernatural gifts of kings, priests, and noblemen. Democracy guarantees a system of government in accordance with the wishes and plans of the majority. But it cannot prevent majorities from falling victim to erroneous ideas and from adopting inappropriate policies which not only fail to realize the ends aimed at but result in disaster. Majorities too may err and destroy our civilization. The good cause will not triumph merely on account of its reasonableness and expediency. Only if men are such that they will finally espouse policies reasonable and likely to attain the ultimate ends aimed at, will civilization improve and society and state render men more satisfied, although not happy in a metaphysical sense. Whether or not this condition is given, only the unknown future can reveal.

這種成見是些人道主義者、哲學家和自由主義者的大錯誤。人不是無過失的；他們常常犯錯。芸芸衆生總是正直的，總會知道選擇手段以達成所追求的目的，這種想法是不對的。「信賴普通人」並不比信賴帝王僧侶貴族的神奇天賦更有根據。民主所保證的是一個依照大多數人的願望和計畫的政治制度。但它不能預防大多數人陷於錯誤觀念而採取不當的政策——不僅不能達到目的，而且有惡果的政策。大多數人也會犯錯，以致破壞我們的文明。好事不只靠它的合理和有利就可成功。只有世人終於贊助那些合理而又可以達成目標的政策，文明才會增進，社會邦國才會叫人更加滿意，儘管就形而上的意義講，不是快樂的。這種情況會不會有，只有未知的將來可以揭曉。

There is no room within a system of praxeology for meliorism and optimistic fatalism. Man is free in the sense that he must daily choose anew between policies that lead to success and those that lead to disaster, social disintegration, and barbarism.

在行爲學體系裡面，不容有改善論和樂觀的宿命論。人，每天都在兩種政策之間選擇：一是導致成功的政策，一是導致災難、社會解體和野蠻狀態的政策。在這個意義下，人是自由的。

The term progress is nonsensical when applied to cosmic events or to a comprehensive world view. We have no information about the plans of the prime mover. But it is different with its use in the frame of ideological doctrine. The immense majority strives after a greater and better supply of food, clothes, homes, and other material amenities. In calling a rise in the masses' standard of living progress and improvement, economists do not espouse a mean materialism. They simply establish the fact that people are motivated by the urge to improve the material conditions of their existence. They judge policies from the point of view of the aims men want to attain. He who disdains the fall in infant mortality and the gradual disappearance of famines and plagues may cast the first stone upon the materialism of the economists.

進步這個名詞，當其用之於宇宙事象或廣泛的世界觀的時候，是荒唐無稽的。關於原動力（prime mover）的一些計畫，我們一無所知。但是，這不同於用之於一個意理學說的架構中。極大多數的人是在爭取較多較好的食物、衣著、房屋，和其他的物質享受。經濟學家把大衆生活水準的提昇，叫做進步，他們並不是贊成卑鄙的唯物主義。他們只是確定一個事實：改善生活的物質條件這個慾望，是刺激世人的一個動力。他們是從世人想達成的目的這個觀點來判斷政策。蔑視嬰兒死亡率的降低和饑荒時疫之逐漸消滅的人，也許會首先攻擊經濟學家的唯物主義。

There is but one yardstick for the appraisal of human action; whether or not it is fit to attain the ends aimed at by acting men.

評論人的行爲的標準只有一個：看它是否適於達成行爲人所想達成的目標。

---------------

[7] Philaréte Chasles, études sur les hommes et les moers du XIX siècle (Paris, 1849), p. 89.

[7] Philaréte Chasles, études sur les hommes et les moers du XIX siècle (Paris, 1849), p. 89.

X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY

第10章 在社會裡面的交換

1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange

一、獨自的交換與人際的交換

Action always is essentially the exchange of one state of affairs for another state of affairs. If the action is performed by an individual without any reference to cooperation with other individuals, we may call it autistic exchange. An instance: the isolated hunter who kills an animal for his own consumption; he exchanges leisure and a cartridge for food.

行爲，在本質上總是某一種情況換另一種情況。如果一個人的行爲不涉及別人的合作，我們就叫這種行爲是獨自的交換（autistic exchange）。例如：爲著自己消費而射殺一隻動物的孤單的獵人；他是把閒暇和彈藥換得食物。

Within society cooperation substitutes interpersonal or social exchange for autistic exchanges. Man gives to other men in order to receive from them. Mutuality emerges. Man serves in order to be served.

在社會裡面，合作是把人際的或社會的交換代替幻覺的交換。人，爲著有所取於別人，因而對他們就有所與。於是產生相互關係。人，爲著利己，因而利人。

The exchange relation is the fundamental social relation. Interpersonal exchange of goods and services weaves the bond which unites men into society. The societal formula is: do ut des. Where there is no intentional mutuality, where an action is performed without any design of being benefitted by a concomitant action of other men, there is no interpersonal exchange, but autistic exchange. It does not matter whether the autistic action is beneficial or detrimental to other people or whether it does not concern them at all. A genius may perform his task for himself, not for the crowd; however, he is an outstanding benefactor of mankind. The robber kills the victim for his own advantage; the murdered man is by no means a partner in this crime, he is merely its object; what is done, is done against him.

交換關係是基本的社會關係。人與人之間交換貨物與勞務，於是織成了把人們結合爲社會的紐帶。社會的公式是：爲取而與（do ut des）。凡是無故意互助的地方，就沒有人際的交換，只有獨自的交換。

Hostile aggression was a practice common to man's nonhuman forebears. Conscious and purposeful cooperation is the outcome of a long evolutionary process. Ethnology and history have provided us with interesting information concerning the beginning and the primitive patterns of interpersonal exchange. Some consider the custom of mutual giving and returning of presents and stipulating a certain return present in advance as a precursory pattern of interpersonal exchange[1]. Others consider dumb barter as the primitive mode of trade. However, to make presents in the expectation of being rewarded

敵對的侵略，是人的非人祖先們（nonhuman forebears）的故常。有意的合作，是個長期演化的結果。人種學和歷史給我們提供了關於人際交換原始形態的有趣報導。有人認爲，禮物的贈予和報答是人際交換的雛形[1]。有人認爲，默契的實物交換（dumb barter）是貿易的原始方式。但是，爲得到接受者的報答而贈予，或爲著結好於人而贈予，已等於人際交換。默契的實物交換，也是如此。它之不同於其他方式的實物交換和貿易，只是不經過口頭討價還價而已。

It is the essential characteristic of the categories of human action that they are apodictic and absolute and do not admit of any gradation. There is action or nonaction, there is exchange or nonexchange; everything which applies to action and exchange as such is given or not given in every individual instance according to whether there is or there is not action and exchange. In the same way the boundaries between autistic exchange and interpersonal exchange are sharply distinct. Making one-sided presents without the aim of being rewarded by any conduct on the part of the receiver or of third persons is autistic exchange. The donor acquires the satisfaction which the better condition of the receiver gives to him. The receiver gets the present as a God-sent gift. But if presents are given in order to influence some people's conduct, they are no longer one-sided, but a variety of interpersonal exchange between the donor and the man whose conduct they are designed to influence. Although the emergence of interpersonal exchange was the result of a long evolution, no gradual transition is conceivable between autistic and interpersonal exchange. There were no intermediary modes of exchange between them. The step which leads from autistic to interpersonal exchange was no less a jump into something entirely new and essentially different than was the step from automatic reaction of the cells and nerves to conscious and purposeful behavior, to action.

人的行爲的一些範疇，是明確的、絕對的，不容任何等差的。這是它們的基本特徵。行爲、或非行爲，交換、或非交換，其間的界限明明白白。獨自的交換與人際的交換，其間的界限也如此。不希冀接受者，或第三人有何報酬的單方面贈予，不是交換。接受者的情況得到改善，贈予即得到滿足。接受者之得到贈予，好像是神之賜。但是，如果贈予的目的是在影響某人的行爲，則這種贈予就不是單方面的，而是贈予者和那個其行爲受到贈予影響的人之間的一種變相的人際交換。儘管人際交換的出現是一長期演進的結果，但在獨自交換和人際交換之間，並沒有逐漸演變的痕跡可尋，也即是說，在它們之間沒有中間型的交換。從獨自的交換到人際的交換，是一個跳躍的歩驟，跳躍到完全嶄新的、本質上不同的情事，正如同細胞和神經的自動反應，跳躍到有意識的、有目的的行爲一樣。

--------------

[1] Gustav Cassel, The Theory of Social Economy, trans. by S. L. Banon, (new ed. London, 1932), p. 371.

[1] Gustav Cassel, The Theory of Social Economy, trans. by S. L. Banon, (new ed. London, 1932), p. 371.

2. Contractual Bonds and Hegemonic Bonds

二、契約的拘束舆控制的拘束

There are two different kinds of social cooperation: cooperation by virtue of contract and coordination, and cooperation by virtue of command and subordination or hegemony.

社會合作，有兩種不同的形態：一是靠平等契約的合作，一是靠服從命令的合作。

Where and as far as cooperation is based on contract, the logical relation between the cooperating individuals is symmetrical. They are all parties to interpersonal exchange contracts. John has the same relation to Tom as Tom has to John. Where and as far as cooperation is based on command and subordination, there is the man who commands and there are those who obey his orders. The logical relation between these two classes of men is asymmetrical. There is a director and there are people under his care. The director alone chooses and directs; the others--the wards--are mere pawns in his actions.

在合作基於契約的場合，合作人之間的邏輯關係是對稱的。他們同是人際交換契約的當事人。張三和李四的關係同於李四和張三的關係。在合作基於命令的場合，就有一個命令者和一些服從命令的人。在這兩種人之間，邏輯關係是不對稱的。這裡有一位主宰者，有一些在他保護下的人。只有主宰者能單獨選擇和指揮：其他的人——被保護人——只是他的行爲中的一些小卒。

The power that calls into life and animates any social body is always ideological might, and the fact that makes an individual a member of any social compound is always his own conduct. This is no less valid with regard to a hegemonic societal bond. It is true, people are as a rule born into the most important hegemonic bonds, into the family and into the state, and this was also the case with the hegemonic bonds of older days, slavery and serfdom, which disappeared in the realm of Western civilization. But no physical violence and compulsion can possibly force a man against his will to remain in the status of the ward of a hegemonic order. What violence or the threat of violence brings about is a state of affairs in which subjection as a rule is considered more desirable than rebellion. Faced with the choice between the consequences of obedience and of disobedience, the ward prefers the former and thus integrates himself into the hegemonic bond. Every new command places this choice before him again. In yielding again and again he himself contributes his share to the continuous existence of the hegemonic societal body. Even as a ward in such a system he is an acting human being, i.e., a being not simply yielding to blind impulses, but using his reason in choosing between alternatives.

任何社會團體之所以生氣蓬勃，總歸是意理的力量使然，一個人之所以成爲任何圑體之一員，總歸是他自己的行爲使然。即就一個控制性的社會關係而言，也是如此。誠然，人們總是生而受到一些控制性拘束的，家、國，以及古代奴隸制度、農奴制度下的控制拘束都是。但是，決沒有什麼有形的暴力，會強迫一個人違反他自己的意願而長久留在控制秩序下被保護者的地位。暴力或暴力威脅所引起的情況，是使人認爲服從比反抗較滿意。要在服從的後果與反抗的後果之間加以選擇，被保護者寧願選擇前者，因而把他自己投入控制的拘束中。每次新的命令又把這種選擇放在他的面前。在一再的服從中，他自己也有助於這個控制性的社會團體之繼續存在。甚至像這種情形下的被保護者，也是一個行爲人，即：他不是盲目衝動，而是利用他的理知在彼此之間作選擇。

What differentiates the hegemonic bond from the contractual bond is the scope in which the choices of the individuals determine the course of events. As soon as a man has decided in favor of his subjection to a hegemonic system, he becomes, within the margin of this system's activities and for the time of his subjection, a pawn of the director's actions. Within the hegemonic societal body and as far as it directs its subordinates' conduct, only the director acts. The wards act only in choosing subordination; having once chosen subordination they no longer act for themselves, they are taken care of.

控制的拘束與契約的拘束之不同，在於人們選擇所決定的範圍。一個人一經決定服從於控制性的制度，他就在這個制度的活動範圍以內，在他服從的時期以內，成爲指揮者的行爲的小卒。在這個控制的社會團體內部，只有指揮者行爲。被保護者只在選擇服從的時候是行爲，一經決定了服從，就再不是爲自己而行爲。

In the frame of a contractual society the individual members exchange definite quantities of goods and services of a definite quality. In choosing subjection in a hegemonic body a man neither gives nor receives anything that is definite. He integrates himself into a system in which he has to render indefinite services and will receive what the director is willing to assign to him. He is at the mercy of the director. The director alone is free to choose. Whether the director is an individual or an organized group of individuals, a directorate, and whether the director is a selfish maniacal tyrant or a benevolent paternal despot is of no relevance for the structure of the whole system.

在一個契約社會的組織內，各個成員交換確定數量、確定品質的財貨與勞務。一個人如果選擇了控制團體的服從，他就旣不給予確定的東西，也不接受確定的東西。他委身於這樣一個制度：在這個制度中，他必須提供無限的勞務，而所接受的，則是指揮者所願意給他的。他完全受指揮者的擺佈。只有指揮者是自由選擇。至於指揮者是一個人、或是一個人羣組織，指揮者是個自私瘋狂的暴君、或是一個仁慈爲懷的家長型的專制君主，對於這整個制度的結構沒有關係。

The distinction between these two kinds of social cooperation is common to all theories of society. Ferguson described it as the contrast

這兩種社會合作之不同，是所有的社會學說所公認的。Ferguson把這種不同說成好戰國與商業國的對比[2]；Saint Simon則把它說成好鬥國與和平或工業國的對比；Herbert Spencer則說成個人自由的社會與軍事組織的社會的對比[3]；Sombart則說成英雄與小販的對比[4]。馬克斯主義者則區分爲，一方面是原始社會和永恒極樂的社會主義的社會，另一方面是不可言狀地墮落的資本主義的社會[5]。納粹的哲學家，則區分爲虚僞的布爾喬亞安全制度與獨裁元首的英雄制度。各派社會學者對兩種相對的制度，各有不同的評價。但是，他們完全同意於這種類比之設立，而也一致承認，沒有第三原則可想像、可實行。

Western civilization as well as the civilization of the more advanced Eastern peoples are achievements of men who have cooperated according to the pattern of contractual coordination. These civilizations, it is true, have adopted in some respects bonds of hegemonic structure. The state as an apparatus of compulsion and coercion is by necessity a hegemonic organization. So is the family and its household community. However, the characteristic feature of these civilizations is the contractual structure proper to the cooperation of the individual families. There once prevailed almost complete autarky and economic isolation of the individual household units. When interfamilial exchange of goods and services was substituted for each family's economic self-sufficiency, it was, in all nations commonly considered civilized, a cooperation based on contract. Human civilization as it has been hitherto known to historical experience is preponderantly a product of contractual relations.

西方文明和較進步的東方民族的文明一樣，是人們按照契約關係的合作而獲致的成就。這些文明，固然在某些方面也採行了強制結構的拘束。國，就必然是一個強制的體制。家庭和其家屬關係也是如此。但是，這些文明的特徵，畢竟是基於個別家庭之合作的契約結構。過去曾有一個時期，幾乎完全是自足而孤立的各個家庭單位。當家庭之間的財貨與勞務交換，代替了家庭經濟自足的時候，那就是基於契約的合作。人類文明，爲我們迄今所經驗到的，主要的是契約關係的產品。

Any kind of human cooperation and social mutuality is essentially an order of peace and conciliatory settlement of disputes. In the domestic relations of any societal unit, be it a contractual or a hegemonic bond, there must be peace. Where there are violent conflicts and as far as there are such conflicts, there is neither cooperation nor societal bonds. Those political parties which in their eagerness to substitute the hegemonic system for the contractual system point

任何種類的人間合作和社會相亂本質上就是一個和平秩序，用調和的辦法來解決爭端。在國內任何社會單位的關係上，不管它是契約的拘束或強制的拘束，總歸是和平的。在有暴力衝突的地方，旣沒有合作，也沒有社會拘束。那些急於想以控制的制度來代替契約制度的政黨，攻擊和平與布爾喬亞的安全，認爲那是腐敗的，讚美暴力流血的革命和戰爭，他們是自相矛盾的。因此，他們自己所設計的理想國是和平的。納粹的國與馬克斯的國，都是爲安寧和平的社會而設計的。可是，事實上他們的國是靠鎭壓而建立的，也即對那些不服從的人們用暴力降服。在一個契約的世界裡面，各國可以和平共存。在一個覇權的世界裡面，只能有一個帝國、一個獨裁者。社會主義必須在下述二者之間選擇其一：或者否認包括全球與全人類的分工制度的利益，或者建立一個包括全世界的覇權秩序。使得俄國的布爾雪維克、德國的納粹、義大利的法西斯成爲侵略的，就是這個事實。在契約條件下，大帝國的內部，分爲關係鬆懈的一些自治的分子國。覇權制度一定是要把所有的獨立國合併爲一。

The contractual order of society is an order of right and law. It is a government under the rule of law (Rechtsstaat) as differentiated from the welfare state (Wohlfahrtsstaat) or paternal state. Right or law is the complex of rules determining the orbit in which individuals are free to act. No such orbit is left to wards of a hegemonic society. In the hegemonic state there is neither right nor law; there are only directives and regulations which the director may change daily and apply with what discrimination he pleases and which the wards must obey. The wards have one freedom only: to obey without asking questions.

契約的社會秩序，是個權利與法律的秩序。它是一個法治之下的政治（Rechtsstaat），不同於福利國（Wohlfahrtsstaat）或父權國（paternal state）。權利或法律，是一些規定人們得以自由行動的軌道的規律的集合體。在控制的社會裡面，被保護者沒有這樣的軌道，也即，旣沒有權利、也沒有法律，只有主宰者的命令和管制；而這些命令和管制，主宰者可以隨時變更，可以隨他的喜怒來差別使用，被保護者必須服從。被保護者只有一個自由：服從而不質問。

-------------------

[2] Cf. Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society (new ed. Basel, 1789), p. 208.

[2] 參考Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society (new ed. Basel, 1789), p. 208.

[3] Cf. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (New York, 1914), III, 575-611.

[3] 參考Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (New York, 1914), III, 575-611.

[4] Cf. Werner Sombart, Haendler und Helden (Munich, 1915).

[4] 參考Werner Sombart, Haendler und Helden (Munich, 1915).

[5] Cf. Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York, 1942), p. 144.

[5] 參考Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York, 1942), p. 144.

3. Calculative Action

三、計算的行爲

All the praxeological categories are eternal and unchangeable as they are uniquely determined by the logical structure of the human mind and by the natural conditions of man's existence. Both in acting and in theorizing about acting, man can neither free himself from these categories nor go beyond them. A kind of acting categorially different from that determined by these categories is neither possible nor conceivable for man. Man can never comprehend something which would be neither action nor nonaction. There is no history of acting; there is no evolution which would lead from nonaction to action; there are no transitory stages between action and nonaction. There is only acting and nonacting. And for every concrete action all that is rigorously valid which is categorially established with regard to action in general.

所有的行爲學範疇，都是永恒的、不可改變的，因爲它們是獨特地被人心的邏輯結構以及人的存在之自然條件所決定的。人，在行爲中以及在關於行爲的理論化中，旣不能擺脫這些範疇，也不能超出它們。絕對不同於這些範疇所決定的行爲，旣不可能，也無法想像。人決不能想像旣非行爲也非不行爲的事象。我們沒有行爲的歷史；沒有從不行爲進到行爲的演進：沒有行爲與不行爲之間的過渡階段。只有行爲與不行爲。凡是關於一般行爲的範疇，對於每個具體行爲都是嚴格有效的。

Every action can make use of ordinal numbers. For the application of cardinal numbers and for the arithmetical computation based on them special conditions are required. These conditions emerged in the historical evolution of the contractual society. Thus the way was opened for computation and calculation in the planning of future action and in establishing the effects achieved by past action. Cardinal numbers and their use in arithmetical operations are also eternal and immutable categories of the human mind. But their applicability to premeditation and the recording of action depends on certain conditions which were not given in the early state of human affairs, which appeared only later, and which could possibly disappear again.

毎個行爲可以利用序數（ordinal numbers）。至於基數（cardinal numbers）的應用，以及基於基數的算術計算，則需要些特別條件。這些條件出現於契約社會的歷史演進中。因此，在計畫將來的行爲和確定過去行爲的後果上，我們有方法計算。基數和它們在算術上的運用，也是人心中永恒的和不變的範疇。但是，它們的適用性，對於行爲的預謀和記錄，就靠那些在人事的初期形態中未曾有的條件，這些條件只在稍後才出現，而且可能再消失。

It was cognition of what is going on within a world in which action is computable and calculable that led men to the elaboration of the sciences of praxeology and economics. Economics is essentially a theory of that scope of action in which calculation is applied or can be applied if certain conditions are realized. No other distinction is of greater significance, both for human life and for the study of human action, than that between calculable action and noncalculable action. Modern civilization is above all characterized by the fact that it has elaborated a method which makes the use of arithmetic possible in a broad field of activities. This is what people have in mind when attributing to it the --not very expedient and often misleading--epithet of rationality.

引導人們苦心鑽研行爲學和經濟學的，是由於人們認識到，在一個行爲可以計算的世界裡面，是些什麼在繼續進步。人的一部份行爲，如果具備了某些條件，是要計算的或可以計算的，經濟學本質上就是關於這部份行爲的一套理論。可計算的行爲與不可計算的行爲之區分，是最重要的，就人的生活和人的行爲之研究來講，沒有比這個區分更重要的。現代文明尤其是由於這個事實而顯出它的特徵：即它已經發展出一個方法，使算術可以應用到較廣的活動領域。當人們把現代文明形容爲「理性的」（這個形容詞不很好，有時且引起誤解）時候，心中就想到這個事實。

The mental grasp and analysis of the problems present in a calculating market system were the starting point of economic thinking which finally led to general praxeological cognition. However, it is not the consideration of this historical fact that makes it necessary to start exposition of a comprehensive system of economics by an analysis of the market economy and to place before this analysis an examination of the problem of economic calculation. Neither historical nor heuristic aspects enjoin such a procedure, but the requirements of logical and systematic rigor. The problems concerned are apparent and practical only within the sphere of the calculating market economy. It is only a hypothetical and figurative transfer which makes them utilizable for the scrutiny of other systems of society's economic organization which do not allow of any calculation. Economic calculation is the fundamental issue in the comprehension of all problems commonly called economic.

對於出現在計算的市場制度的一些問題之理解和分析，是經濟思考的起點，而經濟思考終於導致一般的行爲學的認知。用市場經濟的分析來展開一個完整的經濟學體系，而且把經濟計算問題的檢討置之於這個分析之前，這是必要的。但是，使這成爲必要的並不是上面這句話所說的那個歷史事實。這樣的過程旣不是歷史的方法敎給我們的，也不是啓發的方法敎會的，而是邏輯的嚴格規律所導致出來的。這些有關的問題只在計算的市場經濟的範圍以內，是顯而易見的、是實際的。至於社會經濟組織之不容許任何計算的其他制度，則不能這樣考察。經濟計算是理解所有通常叫做經濟問題的基本。

XI. VALUATION WITHOUT CALCULATION

第11章 不用計算的評値

1. The Gradation of the Means

一、手段的分級

Acting man transfers the valuation of ends he aims at to the means.

行爲人總是把他所追求的目的之評値轉移到手段。

Other things being equal, he assigns to the total amount of the various means the same value he attaches to the end which they are fit to bring about. For the moment we may disregard the time needed for production of the end and its influence upon the relation between the value of the ends and that of the means.

在其他事物不變的假定下，他對於幾個手段的總評値等於他對這些手段所可達成的目的之評値。這裡，我們可以暫時不管達成目的所需要的時間，以及時間對於目的價値和手段價値之間的關係所發生的影響。

The gradation of the means is like that of the ends a process of preferring a to b. It is preferring and setting aside. It is manifestation of a judgment that a is more intensely desired than is b. It opens a field for application of ordinal numbers, but it is not open to application of cardinal numbers and arithmetical operations based on them. If somebody gives me the choice among three tickets entitling one to attend to operas Aida, Falstaff, and Traviata and I take, if I can only take one of them, Aida, and if I can take one more, Falstaff also, I have made a choice. That means: under given conditions I prefer Aida and Falstaff to Traviata; if I could only choose one of them, I would prefer Aida and renounce Falstaff. If I call the admission to Aida a, that to Falstaff b and that to Traviata c, I can say: I prefer a to b and b to c.

手段的分級像目的的分級一樣，是一個甲優於乙的過程，涉及取與捨。也即斷定甲比乙更可貴。是應用序數的場合，而不適用基數以及基於基數的算術運算。如果有人拿三個戲劇Aida、Falstaff和Traviata的入場券給我選擇，如果只讓我選一張的話，我就選Aida，如果我可再選一張的話，我就拿Falstaff，這就是說：在這種情形下，我是把Aida看得優於Falstaff，Falstaff優于Traviata。

The immediate goal of acting is frequently the acquisition of countable and measurable supplies of tangible things. Then acting man has to choose between countable quantities; he prefers, for example, 15r to 7p; but if he had to choose between 15r and 8p, he might prefer 8p. We can express this state of affairs by declaring that he values 15r less than 8p, but higher than 7p. This is tantamount to the statement that he prefers a to b and b to c. The substitution of 8p for a, of 15r for b and of 7p for c changes neither the meaning of the statement nor the fact that it describes. It certainly does not render reckoning with cardinal numbers possible. It does not open a field for economic calculation and the mental operations based upon such calculation.

行爲的直接目的，常常是爲獲得可數可量的有形的東西。因而行爲人必須在一些可以計算的數量之間來選擇。例如，他願意取得15r而不要7p；但是，如果他必須在15r與8p之間選擇其一，他也許願意取得8p，而不要15r。於是我們可以這樣說：他對於15r的評値低於對8p的評値，但高於對7p的評値。這等於說，他喜歡a甚於b，b甚於c。用8p代替a，15r代替b，7p代替c，旣不改變這句話的意思，也不改變這句話所陳述的事實。這並不使「基數的計算」成爲可能。這也沒有爲經濟計算以及基於經濟計算的心智運用，開闢一個領域。

2. The Barter-Fiction of the Elementary Theory of Value and Prices

二、價値價格原論中的虚構——直接交換

The elaboration of economic theory is heuristically dependent on the logical processes of reckoning to such an extent that the economists failed to realize the fundamental problem involved in the methods of economic calculation. They were prone to take economic calculation as a matter of course; they did not see that it is not an ultimate given, but a derivative requiring reduction to more elementary phenomena. They misconstrued economic calculation. They took it for a category of all human action and ignored the fact that it is only a category inherent in acting under special conditions. They were fully aware of the fact that interpersonal exchange, and consequently market exchange effected by the intermediary of a common medium of exchange--money, and therefore prices, are special features of a certain state of society's economic organization which did not exist in primitive civilizations and could possibly disappear in the further course of historical change[1]. But they did not comprehend that money prices are the only vehicle of economic calculation. Thus most of their studies are of little use. Even the writings of the most eminent economists are vitiated to some extent by the fallacies implied in their ideas about economic calculation.

經濟理論的精心構製之依賴計算的邏輯程序，竟到了這樣一個程度：經濟學者們昧於經濟計算法中的基本問題。他們慣於把經濟計算看作當然之事；他們不知道那不是一個極據（ultimate given），而只是一個要還原到一些更基本現象的衍生物（derivative）。他們誤解了經濟計算。他們把它看作人的一切行爲的一個元範，而不知道它只是特殊情況下的行爲之一元範。他們充份知道：使用貨幣因而有價格的人與人之間的交換，以及因此而形成的市場交換，是原始文化所沒有的那種社會經濟組織的特殊情況，而且，在歷史演變的未來也可能消滅。[1]但是，他們卻不了解表現於貨幣價格是經濟計算唯一的工具。因而他們的學問大都是無用的。甚至有些最卓越的經濟學家的著作，在某種程度以內也受了他們關於經濟計算的謬見之害。

The modern theory of value and prices shows how the choices of individuals, their preferring of some things and setting aside of other things, result, in the sphere of interpersonal exchange, in the emergence of market prices[2]. These masterful expositions are unsatisfactory in some minor points and disfigured by unsuitable expressions. But they are essentially irrefutable. As far as they need to be amended, it must be done by a consistent elaboration of the fundamental thoughts of their authors rather than by a refutation of their reasoning.

現代的價値和價格理論是在解釋：個人們的選擇（他們的取捨），在人際交換的領域中，如何歸結於市場價格的出現[2]。這種解釋，在細節方面是不夠的，而且也表達得不妥當。但是在本質上是不能反駁的。就其所要修正的來講，那就是，要糾正他們的基本思想，倒不是要駁斥他們的推理。

In order to trace back the phenomena of the market to the universal category of preferring a to b, the elementary theory of value and prices is bound to use some imaginary constructions. The use of imaginary constructions to which nothing corresponds in reality is an indispensable tool of thinking. No other method would have contributed anything to the interpretation of reality. But one of the most

爲著把市場現象追溯到「取甲捨乙」這個一般性的元範，價値和價格原論必須利用某些想像的結構。想像的結構是思想的必要工具。沒有其他的方法有助於現實的解釋。但是，科學的最重要問題之一，是要避免那些由於誤用這樣的結構而引起的謬見。

The elementary theory of value and prices employs, apart from other imaginary constructions to be dealt with later[3], the construction of a market in which all transactions are performed in direct exchange. There is no money; goods and services are directly bartered against other goods and services. this imaginary construction is necessary. One must disregard the intermediary role played by money in order to realize that what is ultimately exchanged is always economic goods of the first order against other such goods. Money is nothing but a medium of interpersonal exchange. But one must carefully guard oneself against the delusions which this construction of a market with direct exchange can easily engender.

且不說下面將要討論的其他的一些想像結構[3]，價値價格原論是利用一個想像的市場結構，在這個結構裡面，所有的交換都是直接的。這裡沒有貨幣；貨物與勞務直接交換其他的貨物與勞務。這種想像的結構是必要的。爲著認淸最後的交換終歸是把一些第一級的經濟財交換其他第一級的經濟財，我們不要管貨幣所擔任的媒介任務。貨幣只是一種交換媒介。但是我們要提防自己，不要陷於這個直接交換的市場結構所易於產生的幻想。

A serious blunder that owes its origin and its tenacity to a misinterpretation of this imaginary construction was the assumption that the medium of exchange is a neutral factor only. According to this opinion the only difference between direct and indirect exchange was that only in the latter was a medium of exchange used. The interpolation of money into the transaction, it was asserted, did not affect the main features of the business. One did not ignore the fact that in the course of history tremendous alterations in the purchasing power of money have occurred and that these fluctuations often convulsed the whole system of exchange. But it was believed that such events were exceptional facts caused by inappropriate policies. Only "bad" money, it was said, can bring about such disarrangements. In addition people misunderstood the causes and effects of these disturbances. They tacitly assumed that changes in purchasing power occur with regard to all goods and services at the same time and to the same extent. This is, of course, what the fable of money's neutrality implies. The whole theory of catallactics, it was held, can be elaborated under the assumption that there is direct exchange only. If this is once achieved, the only thing to be added is the "simple" insertion of money terms into the complex of theorems concerning direct exchange. However, this final completion of the catallactic system was considered of minor importance only. It was not believed that it could alter anything essential in the structure of economic teachings. The main task of economics was conceived as the study of direct exchange. What remained to be done besides this was at best only a scrutiny of the problems of "bad" money.

由於對這個想像結構的誤解而產生的一個嚴重大錯，是以爲交易媒介只是一個中立的因素。照這個想法，直接交換與間接交換唯一的差別，只是在後一場合使用了交易媒介而已。據說，貨幣之參進交換並不影響交易的一些主要特徵。持這種見解的人，並不是不知道在歷史上發生過貨幣購買力的大變動，而這些變動常常動搖了整個交換制度。伹是，他們認爲這種事情是錯誤政策所引起的例外事象。只有「壞的」貨幣會引起這種混亂。加之，人們也誤解了這種混亂的原因與後果。他們隱隱約約地假定，購買力的變動之發生，是同時同程度涉及一切財貨和勞務的。這當然是貨幣中立這個神話所意涵的。他們以爲，全部的交換理論可以在「只有直接交換」這個假定下製作出來。如果這個理論一經完成，則要再作的唯一事情，就是「簡簡單單地」把貨幣的說法挿進關於直接交換的一些定理當中。但是，交換制度的這個最後成就，被認爲只是次要的。他們不認爲這對於經濟學有什麼本質上的改變。經濟學的主要任務是研究直接交換。除此以外所需要做的，至多只是對於「壞」貨幣的問題加以檢討而已。

Complying with this opinion, economists neglected to lay due stress upon the problems of indirect exchange. Their treatment of

照這種見解，經濟學者就不重視間接交換的一些問題。他們對於貨幣的討論是庸淺的；其討論只是與市場程序之檢討發生點鬆弛的關聯而已。約在十九世紀與二十世紀之交，間接交換的問題還被貶於從屬的地位。那時的一些關於交換問題的論著，只是偶爾草率地討論到貨幣，有些討論通貨和銀行的書，甚至於不把這兩個主題納之於交換理論的體系中。在Anglo-Saxon諸國的大學中，經濟學與貨幣銀行學分設講座，德國的大學大多數幾乎完全不講貨幣問題[4]。只是，後來的經濟學家才認識到：交換理論中最重要、最複雜的問題，有些是發生在間接交換的部門，如果經濟理論不充份注意到間接交換，則是嚴重的缺陷。關於「自然利率」與「貨幣利率」之間的關係之研究成爲風尙，商業循環的貨幣理論之占優勢，以及貨幣購買力同時而一致的變動這一學說的完全放棄，是經濟思想新趨勢的一些標誌。自然，這些新觀念，在本質上是從休姆、英國通貨學派、約翰穆勒以及Cairnes等人所光榮開始的心智努力而繼續發展出來的。

Still more detrimental was a second error which emerged from the careless use of the imaginary construction of a market with direct exchange.

更有害的是第二個錯誤，這個錯誤是由於粗心使用直接交換市場的想像結構而產生的。

An inveterate fallacy asserted that things and services exchanged are of equal value. Value was considered as objective, as an intrinsic quality inherent in things and not merely as the expression of various people's eagerness to acquire them. People, it was assumed, first established the magnitude of value proper to goods and services by an act of measurement and then proceeded to barter them against quantities of goods and services of the same amount of value. This fallacy frustrated Aristotle's approach to economic problems and, for almost

一個由來已久的謬見是說：被交換的財貨和勞務是屬於等價的。價値被視爲客觀的，被視爲固著於這些東西本身的一種性能，而不只是表達各個人想取得它們的那股渴望。據說，人們首先衡量出屬於財貨和勞務的價値量，然後再與價値量相同的其他財貨量和勞務量相交換。這個謬見破壞了亞里斯多德處理經濟問題的方法，而且也破壞了服從亞里斯多德意見的那些人的推理，幾乎有了二千年。它嚴重地損害了古典經濟學家們輝煌的成就，也使他們的低級的後繼者——尤其是馬克斯和其學派——的著作完全無用。現代經濟學的基礎是在於認知：正因爲附在交換物的價値之不相等，所以就引起它們的交換。人們之所以買賣，只是因爲他們對於放棄的東西的評値，低於換到的東西的評値。所以價値衡量的觀念是無用的。一個交換行爲，事先和事後都沒有可叫做價値衡量的程序。一個人可能把兩物看作價値相同，但是這時就不會有交換。但是，如果評値有所差異，我們也只可以說：一個a的價値較高，所以願意放棄一個b來取得它。價値與評値是些強弱的量（intensive quantities），而不是些多少的量（extensive quantities）。我們不能用基數（cardinal numbers）來想它們。

However, the spurious idea that values are measurable and are really measured in the conduct of economic transactions was so deeply rooted that even eminent economists fell victim to the fallacy implied. Even Friedrich von Wieser and Irving Fisher took it for granted that there must be something like measurement of value and that economics must be able to indicate and to explain the method by which such measurement is effected[5]. Most of the lesser economists simply maintained that money serves "as a measure of values."

可是，「價値是可以衡量的，而且在交易行爲中實在是衡量的」這個錯誤觀念已根深柢固，甚至一些優越的經濟學家也陷於這個謬見。Friedrich von Wieser和Irving Fisher也認爲，像價値衡量這樣的事情當然是有的，而且經濟學一定能夠說明這種衡量的方法[5]。至於次級的一些經濟學者，則簡簡單單地以爲貨幣可以作爲「價値的一個尺度」。

Now, we must realize that valuing means to prefer a to b. There is --logically, epistemologically, psychologically, and praxeologically--only one pattern of preferring. It does not matter whether a love prefers one girl to other girls, a man one friend to other people, an amateur one painting to other paintings, or a consumer a loaf of bread to a piece of candy. Preferring always means to love or to desire a more than b. Just as there is no standard and no measurement of sexual love, of friendship and sympathy, and of aesthetic enjoyment, so there is no measurement of the value of commodities. If a man exchanges two pounds of butter for a shirt, all that we can assert with regard to this transaction is that he--at the instant of the transaction and under the conditions which this instant offers to him--prefers one shirt to two pounds of butter. It is certain that every act

現在，我們必須認淸：評値的意思是取此捨彼。就邏輯的意義講、就認識論的意義講、就心理學的意義講，以及就行爲學的意義講，都只有一個取捨型。至於是一個男孩捨棄其他的一些女孩而追求某一女孩，或者是某一個人不交別人而選擇某人作朋友，或者是一位業餘的藝術家欣賞某一幅畫而不欣賞其他的幾幅，或者是一個消費者購買一條麵包而不買一塊糖，這都沒有關係。取捨，總歸是喜歡a或想a更甚於喜歡b或想b。貨物價値之沒有衡量的尺度，正如同性愛、友誼、同情、美感之沒有標準，沒有尺度。如果一個人拿兩磅牛油換得一件襯衣，對於這筆交換，我們所可以說的只是：他——在這交換的時刻和當時的情況下——願意放棄兩磅牛油取得一件襯衣。的的確確，每一取捨行爲必含有一定的心理感覺的強度。渴望取得某一目的物，其強度是有等級的，這個強度決定了成功的行爲帶給行爲人的心理利潤（psychic profit）。但是，心理的量只能感覺到，那完全是屬於個人的。它的強度不是語言文字所可表達出來，因而沒有方法可以叫別人知道。

There is no method available to construct a unit of value. Let us remember that two units of a homogeneous supply are necessarily valued differently. The value attached to the nth unit is lower than that attached to the (n-1)th unit.

我們沒有方法可以建構一個價値單位。讓我們記著：同質的兩個單位供給，必然是受到不同的評値。賦與n次單位的價値低於賦與n-1次單位的價値。【賦予第n個單位的價值低于賦予第n-1個單位的價值。】

In the market society there are money prices. Economic calculation is calculation in terms of money prices. The various quantities of goods and services enter into this calculation with the amount of money for which they are bought and sold on the market or for which they could prospectively be bought and sold. It is a fictitious assumption that an isolated self-sufficient individual or the general manager of a socialist system, i.e., a system in which there is no market for means of production, could calculate. There is no way which could lead one from the money computation of a market economy to any kind of computation in a nonmarket system.

在市場經濟裡面，有些表現於貨幣的價格。經濟計算是用貨幣價格來計算的。貨物和勞務在市場上買賣或買賣的預期，都是以貨幣量來計算的。如果說一個獨立的、自足的個人，或社會主義制度下（即：沒有市場作爲生產方法的制度下）的總經理，能夠作經濟計算，那是一個虛妄的騰說。沒有任何途徑可以引導我們，從一個市場經濟的貨幣計算走到一種非巿場制度的計算。

The Theory of Value and Socialism

價値理論與社會主義

Socialists, Institutionalists and the Historical School have blamed economists for having employed the imaginary construction of an isolated individual's thinking and acting. This Robinson Crusoe pattern, it is asserted, is of no use for the study of the conditions of a market economy. The rebuke is somewhat justified. Imaginary constructions of an isolated individual and of a planned economy without market exchange become utilizable only through the implication of the fictitious assumption, self---contradictory in thought and contrary to reality, that economic calculation is possible also within a system without a market for the means of production.

社會主義者、制度學派、和歷史學派，曾經指責經濟學家採用了孤立的個人思想和行爲這種構想。他們說：用魯賓遜型的思想與行爲來研究市場經濟的情況，是決無結果的。這個指責多少有點道理。一個孤立的個人的構想，或者一個沒有市場交換的計畫經濟的構想，只有在下面那樣的虛幻的假定下才會成爲可採用的構想。這個假定是：在一個沒有市場作爲生產方法的制度下，經濟計算也是可能的。這個假定，在思想上是自相矛盾的，在實際上是相反的。

It was certainly a serious blunder that economists did not become aware of this difference between the conditions of a market economy and a nonmarket economy. Yet the socialists had little reason for criticizing this fault. For it consisted precisely in the fact that the economists tacitly implied the assumption that a socialist order of society could also resort to economic calculation and that they thus asserted the possibility of the realization of the socialist plans.

經濟學家沒有察覺到市場經濟與非市場經濟之間的不同，這確是嚴重的大錯。可是社會主義沒有理由批評這個錯誤。因爲這個過錯正在於經濟學家默認了「社會主義的社會秩序也可靠經濟計算」這個假定，因而他們認爲社會主義的計畫之實現是可能的。

The classical economists and their epigones could not, of course, recognize the problems involved. If it were true that the value of things is determined by the quantity of labor required for their production

古典的經濟學家和他們的低級後繼者，當然不會認識這裡所涉及的一些問題。假若物品的價値眞的是決定於它們的生產或再生產所需要的勞動量，那就沒有進一步的經濟計算問題了。我們不能指責勞動價値說的支持者誤解了社會主義制度的一些問題。他們致命的失敗是敗在那種站不住脚的價値學說。他們當中有些人每每認爲，社會主義經濟制度的構想是一個可用來徹底改良社會組織的模型，這種想法與他們的理論分析的基本內容並不衝突。但是，它與主觀的交換論是不同的。現代的經濟學家沒有認淸這裡所涉及的問題，這是不可原諒的。

Wieser was right when he once declared that many economists have unwittingly dealt with the value theory of communism and have on that account neglected to elaborate that of the present state of society[6]. It is tragic that he himself did not avoid this failure.

Wieser有過一次說到：有許多經濟學者不知不覺地與共產主義的價値論發生關係，因而疏於研究社會現狀的價値學說[6]。Wieser講這句話的時候，是對的。可是他自己也不免於這個失敗，這眞是個悲劇。

The illusion that a rational order of economic management is possible in a society based on public ownership of the means of production owed its origin to the value theory of the classical economists and its tenacity to the failure of many modern economists to think through consistently to its ultimate conclusions the fundamental theorem of the subjectivist theory. Thus the socialist utopias were generated and preserved by the shortcomings of those schools of thought which the Marxians reject as "an ideological disguise of the selfish class interest of the exploiting bourgeoisie." In truth it was the errors of these schools that made the socialist ideas thrive. This fact clearly demonstrates the emptiness of the Marxian teachings concerning "ideologies" and its modern offshoot, the sociology of knowledge.

「在一個奠基於生產手段歸公的社會，經濟管理的合理秩序是可能的」這個幻想，其淵源是古典經濟學家的價値論：其所以持久不滅，是由於許多現代經濟學家沒有把主觀主義者的理論徹底一貫地思考到最後結論，所以社會主義的一些烏托邦就因爲這些思想派別的缺陷而興起、而保持，這些思想是馬克斯門徒們斥之爲「資產階級自私自利的階級利益的一個意理的煙幕」。其實，社會主義之得以滋長的，是這些思想的錯誤所促成。這個事實，明白地表現出馬克斯的關於「意理」的敎條，以及它的現代支流——知識社會學——之空虛。

----------------------

[1] The German Historical School expressed this by asserting that private ownership of the means of production, market exchange, and money are "historical categories."

[1] 德國歷史學派就是這樣講的，他們說，生產手段私有制、市場交換、以及貨幣，都是「歷史的元範」。

[2] Cf. especially Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Kapital und Kapitalzins, Pt. II, Bk. III.

[2] 尤其要參考Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Kapital und Kapitalzins, Pt. II, Bk. III.

[3] See below, pp. 236-256.

[3] 見第十四章第二節至第七節。

[4] Neglect of the problems of indirect exchange was certainly influenced by political prepossessions. People did not want to give up the thesis according to which economic depressions are an evil inherent in the capitalist mode of production and are in no way caused by attempts to lower the rate of interest by credit expansion. Fashionable teachers of economics deemed it "unscientific" to explain depressions as a phenomenon originating "only" out of events in the sphere of money and credit. There were even surveys of the history of business cycle theory which omitted any discussion of the monetary thesis. Cf., e.g., Eugen von Bergmann, Geschichte der nationalokonomischen Krisentheorien (Stuttgart, 1895).

[4] 對於間接交換問題的忽視，確是受了政治偏見的影響。人們並不想放棄這個命題，依照這個命題，經濟蕭條是資本主義生產方式固有的壞處，決不是由於爲擴張信用降低利率而引起的。時髦的經濟學敎師們認爲：把經濟蕭條解釋爲只是貨幣與信用方面發生的現象，那是「不科學」的。在商業循環學說史裡面，甚至有些論著完全不提到貨幣問題。例如，Eugen von Bergmann, Geschichte der nationalokonomischen Krisentheorien (Stuttgart, 1895).

[5] For a critical analysis and refutation of Fisher's argument, cf. Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, trans. by H. E. Batson (London, 1934), pp. 42-44; for the same with regard to Wieser's argument, Mises, Nationalokonomie (Geneva, 1940), pp. 192-194.

[5] 關于Fisher這一議論的批駁，參考Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, H. E. Batson譯本 (London, 1934), pp. 42-44; 關于Wieser的，參考Mises, Nationalokonomie (Geneva, 1940), pp. 192-194.

[6] Cf. Friedrich von Wieser, Der naturliche Wert (Vienna, 1889), p. 60, n. 3.

[6] 參考Friedrich von Wieser, Der naturliche Wert (Vienna, 1889), p. 60, n. 3.

3. The Problem of Economic Calculation

三、經濟計算問題

Acting man uses knowledge provided by the natural sciences for the elaboration of technology, the applied science of action possible in the field of external events. Technology shows what could be achieved if one wanted to achieve it, and how it could be achieved provided people were prepared to employ the means indicated. With the progress of the natural sciences technology progressed too; many would prefer to say that the desire to improve technological methods prompted the progress of the natural sciences. The quantification of the natural sciences made technology quantitative. Modern technology is essentially the applied art of quantitative prediction of the outcome of possible action. One calculates with a reasonable degree of precision the outcome of planned actions, and one calculates in order to arrange an action in such a way that a definite result emerges.

行爲人利用自然科學所提供的知識以促進工藝學——對外在事象的應用科學。如果我們想達成什麼目的，工藝學將吿訴我們，這個目的可否達成，以及如何達成。隨著自然科學的進歩，工藝學也進步：有些人喜歡這樣講：改良工藝的那種願望促動了自然科學進歩。自然科學的定量（quantification）使工藝學，也成爲定量的。現代的工藝學本質上是對一些可能行爲的結果作定量預測的應用技術。我們計算一些計畫行爲的後果，計算得相當精確，我們也爲要把行爲安排得可以達成確定的結果而作計算。

However, the mere information conveyed by technology would suffice for the performance of calculation only if all means of production--both

但是，如果僅僅靠工藝學所提供的信息就足以完成計算，那只有在一種情形下才可能，即，所有的生產手段——物質的和人力的——能够按照一定的比率彼此完全替代，或者它們都是絕對特殊的。在前一情形下，所有的生產手段都會適於達成所有的生產目的；事情好象是只有一種手段——只有一種較髙級的經濟財。在後一情形下，每一手段可以用來達成僅有的一個目的；我們將要把那賦與第一級各個財貨的價値，賦與每組互相輔助的生產要素。（這裡，我們又要暫時不管時間因素所引起的一些限制。）這兩種情形都不是我們生活的宇宙的實情。生產手段只能在狹窄的範圍以內可以彼此代替；它們或多或少是特別有利於達成某些不同目的的。但是，另一方面，大多數的手段不是絕對特殊的：它們的大多數適於用來達成各種不同的目的。事實是這樣：我們有許多不同等級的生產手段；手段的大多數較適於實現某些目的，較不適於實現另一些目的，至於對第三組目的則絕對無用：所以，不同的手段有不同的適當用途，這些事實使我們不得不把不同的手段配置在不同的用途，使它們提供最優良的服務。這裡，工藝學所應用的實物計算（computation in kind），完全無用。工藝學所運用的是些可計數可衡量的外在事物的一些量：工藝學知道這些量之間的因果關係，但是，它不知道它們與人的慾望的關聯。工藝學的領域只是客觀使用價値的領域。它是以物理學的、化學的，或生物學的中立觀察者冷靜的觀點，來判斷一切問題。在工藝學的敎義裡面，不涉及主觀價値這個觀念，不涉及特殊差異的人的觀點，不涉及行爲人的一些兩難的境況。工藝學不過問經濟問題。經濟問題是要把可用的手段這樣使用：那就是，使那些較迫切的慾望不致因爲這些手段用在（浪费在）較不迫切的慾望滿足而得不到滿足。要解決這樣的一些問題，工藝學和它的一些計數衡量方法都是不適合的。工藝學吿訴我們，如何可以使用各種手段——這些手段是可以在不同的組合下使用的——來達成一個旣定的目的，或者吿訴我們，爲著達成某些目的，各種可用的手段如何可以使用。但是，它不能吿訴我們，從無限可能的生產方法中應該選擇哪一種。行爲人所想知道的，是他應該怎樣使用那些可用的手段，最可能或最經濟地消除不適之感。但是，工藝學供給他的不過是些關於外在事物之間的因果關係的說明。例如，它會吿訴他：7a+3b+5c+…xn會產生8P。但是，即令它知道行爲人賦與第一級各種財貨的價値，它也不能斷定這個程式或其他程式（在無限多的同樣建構起來的程式中的任何一個其他程式）是否最有助於行爲人所追求的目的之達成。爲著在某地點建造一座橋，使其有一定的載重能力，工程技術可以確定這座橋應該如何建造。但是，建造這座橋是不是會把物資的和人力的生產要素，從那個能夠滿足更迫切慾望的用途拉過來呢？對於這個問題，工程技術不能答覆。它不能吿訴我們這座橋究竟應不應該建造，應該在什麼地方建造，應該有多大的負荷能力，以及在許多可能的建造中應該選擇哪一個。對於各級手段間的關係之確定，工藝學的計算只能在一定的限度以內做得到，也即在它們爲達成一定的目的而可以彼此代替的限度以內。但是，行爲必須發現所有的手段（不管它們怎樣的不同）之間的關係，至於它們能不能互相代替以完成同樣的服務，則可不管。

Technology and the considerations derived from it would be of little use for acting man if it were impossible to introduce into their schemes the money prices of goods and services. The projects and designs of engineers would be purely academic if they could not compare input and output on a common basis. The lofty theorist in the seclusion of his laboratory does not bother about such trifling things; what he is searching for is causal relations between various elements of the universe. But the practical man, eager to improve human conditions by removing uneasiness as far as possible, must know whether, under given conditions, what he is planning is the best method, or even a method, to make people less uneasy. He must know whether what he wants to achieve will be an improvement when compared with the present state of affairs and with the advantages to be expected from the execution of other technically realizable projects which cannot be put into execution if the project he has in mind absorbs the available means. Such comparisons can only be made by the use of money prices.

工藝學以及來自工藝學的一些考慮，如果不能把財貨與勞務的貨幣價格納入其中，對於行爲人就沒有什麼用處。工程師的設計如果不能在一共同的基礎上比較投入與產出，則那些設計就是純粹學院式的。崇高的理論家在他的研究室裡面閉門思索，厭煩於這類屑瑣的事情；他所探索的是宇宙間各種元素之間的因果關係。但是，注重實際的人，則想盡可能地消除不安逸，以改善生活情況，所以，他必須知道，在某些條件下他所計畫的是不是使人們減少不適的最好方法。他必須知道，他所想達成的情況與現在的情況比較，是不是一個改進。他也要知道：如果他內心的設計會把那些可用之於其他計畫的手段吸引過來，以致其他計畫不能實施，則其他計畫所可實現的利益，與他心中的設計所可實現的利益互相比較，孰大孰小。這樣的比較，只能用貨幣價格來作。

Thus money becomes the vehicle of economic calculation. This is not a separate function of money. Money is the universally used medium of exchange, nothing else. Only because money is the common

因此，貨幣成爲經濟計算的工具。這不是貨幣的個別功能。貨幣不是別的，只是普遍使用的交易媒介，只因爲貨幣是大家接受的交易媒介，因爲大多數財貨與勞務可以在市場對貨幣買賣，而且，僅僅因爲如此，人們能夠用貨幣價格來計算。貨幣對各種財貨和勞務的交換比率——過去的市場所確立的以及預期中未來的市場所將確立的——是經濟計畫的心智工具。在沒有貨幣價格的地方，決不會有經濟數量這樣的東西。在外在的世界中，只有各種因果之間的各種數量關係。這裡，我們沒有方法可以找出怎樣的行爲最有助於消除不適之感。

There is no need to dwell upon the primitive conditions of the household economy of self-sufficient farmers. These people performed only very simple processes of production. For them no calculation was needed, as they could directly compare input and output. If they wanted shirts, they grew hemp, they spun, wove, and sewed. They could, without any calculation, easily make up their minds whether or not the toil and trouble expended were compensated by the product. But for civilized mankind a return to such a life is out of the question.

我們不必詳述自給自足的農民家庭經濟的原始情況。這些人只實行極簡單的生產程序。他們不必要計算，因爲他們可以直接比較投入和產出。如果他們需要襯衣，他們就種苧蔴，他們就紡織和裁縫。他們不用計算就可決定値不値得這樣作。但文明的人類絕不可能回復到這樣的生活。

4. Economic Calculation and the Market

四、經濟計算與市場

The quantitative treatment of economic problems must not be confused with the quantitative methods applied in dealing with the problems of the external universe of physical and chemical events. The distinctive mark of economic calculation is that it is neither based upon nor related to anything which could be characterized as measurement.

經濟問題之「量的處理」，不可與「用之於處理物理的和化學的問題的定量方法」相混淆。經濟計算的特點是：它旣不基於、也不涉及任何以計量爲特徵的東西。

A process of measurement consists in the establishment of the numerical relation of an object with regard to another object, viz., the unit of the measurement. The ultimate source of measurement is that of spatial dimensions. With the aid of the unit defined in reference to extension one measures energy and potentiality, the power of a thing to bring about changes in other things and relations, and the passing of time. A pointer-reading is directly indicative of a spatial relation and only indirectly of other quantities. The assumption underlying measurement is the immutability of the unit. The unit of length is the rock upon which all measurement is based. It is assumed that man cannot help considering it immutable.

計量的程序，在於一物與另一物之間數的關係之確立，所謂另一物，即計量的單位。計量的最後根源，也就是空間容積的最後根源。藉助於單位（其定義涉及廣袤的單位），我們可以衡量能量（energy）與潜力（potentiality），可以衡量一物使其他事物和關係發生變動的力量，可以衡量時間的經過。一個指標針的表記，是空間關係的直接表示，只是間接地表示其他的一些量。計量的基本假定是單位的不變性。長度的單位是一切計量的堅固基礎。我們假定：人不得不認爲它是不變的。

The last decades have witnessed a revolution in the traditional epistemological setting of physics, chemistry, and mathematics. We are on the eve of innovations whose scope cannot be foreseen. It may

過去幾十年，物理學、化學和數學的傳統認識論的體系發生了一次革命。我們是在一些革新的前夕，這些革新的範圍不能預測。後幾代的物理學家，也許要面臨類似行爲學所要處理的一些問題。或者他們不得不放棄「有些不受宇宙變化之影響的東西，觀察者可用作計量的標準」這個觀念。但是，無論將來的情形怎樣，對世間一些實體的計量，肉眼可見的或物理實驗室所觀察的實體的計量，其邏輯結構是不變的。在微視物理學（microscopic physics）裡面的軌跡的計量，也是用米突尺、測微器、分光圖來作的，最後還是要靠人的一些遲鈍的感官來觀察、來試驗[7]。計量離不開歐氏幾何，離不開「不可變的標準」這個觀念。

There are monetary units and there are measurable physical units of various economic goods and of many--but not of all-services bought and sold. But the exchange ratios which we have to deal with are permanently fluctuating. There is nothing constant and invariable in them. They defy any attempt to measure them. They are not facts in the sense in which a physicist calls the establishment of the weight of a quantity of copper a fact. They are historical events, expressive of what happened once at a definite instant and under definite circumstances. The same numerical exchange ratio may appear again, but it is by no means certain whether this will really happen and, if it happens, the question is open whether this identical result was the outcome of preservation of the same circumstances or of a return to them rather than the outcome of the interplay of a very different constellation of price-determining factors. Numbers applied by acting man in economic calculation do not refer to quantities measured but the exchange ratios as they are expected--on the basis of understanding--to be realized on the markets of the future to which alone all acting is directed and which alone counts for acting man.

在各種經濟財和許多（不是所有的）勞務的買賣中，有些貨幣單位，也有些物質的單位。但是，我們所要討論的一些交換率是經常變動的。在交換率裡面，沒有恆久不變的東西。它們使任何計量的企圖無法實現。物理學家把一塊銅的重量叫做事實，交換率並不是這個意義的事實。它們是些歷史事象，是表現在某一確定的時間、某些確定的環境下，曾經發生過的事情。在數字上，同樣的比率可能再出現，但是，我們不能確定它是否會眞的再出現。如果眞的再出現了，我們還是不能確信，這個相同的結果一定是由於原來的環境還存在，或由於回復到原來的環境，而不是由於一些物價決定因素發生了和以前完全不同的互激互盪的作用。行爲人在經濟計算中所使用的一些「數」，不涉及被衡量的量，只涉及預期中的未來市場上會發生的一些交換率。只有這些交換率，是一切行爲的目標，只有這些交換率對於行爲人是重要的。

We are not dealing at this point of our investigation with the problem of a "quantitative science of economics," but with the analysis of the mental processes performed by acting man in applying quantitative distinctions when planning conduct. As action is always directed toward influencing a future state of affairs, economic calculation always deals with the future. As far as it takes past events and exchange ratios of the past into consideration, it does so only for the sake of an arrangement of future action.

在我們研討的這一點，我們不擬處理「經濟計量學」【經濟的數量科學】這個問題，但要分析行爲人在計畫行爲時，利用定量概念的那種心理過程。凡是行爲總是想影響未來的情況，經濟計算總是對著未來的。行爲當然也會考慮到過去的事情和過去的交換率，可是，它之所以如此，是爲將來的行爲作安排。

The task which acting man wants to achieve by economic calculation is to establish the outcome of acting by contrasting input and output. Economic calculation is either an estimate of the expected

行爲人作經濟計算所想完成的工作，是靠投入與產出的比較，以確定行爲的結果。經濟計算或者是估計未來行爲的可能結果，或者是認淸過去行爲已然的結果。但是，後者並不只是爲歷史的目的和說敎的目的而作的。它的實際意義是要顯示，一個人如何可以自由消費而不損害未來的生產能力。經濟計算的一些基本觀念——資本與所得、利潤與虧損、消費與儲蓄、成本與收益——的發展，都是在這個問題上。這些觀念以及來自這些觀念的所有觀念之實際應用，都與市場運作有不可分的關聯：在市場裡面，一切等級的財貨與勞務，是和一種普遍使用的交換媒介——即貨幣——相交換的。這些觀念，如果對實際的行爲無任何關係，那就只是空論。

---------------------

[7] Cf. A. Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 70-79, 168-169.

[7] 參考A. Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science, pp. 70-79, 168-169.

XII. THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC CALCULATION

第12章 經濟計算的範圍

1. The Character of Monetary Entries

一、貨幣記錄的特徵

Economic calculation can comprehend everything that is exchanged against money.

經濟計算可以包括一切與貨幣交換的。

The prices of goods and services are either historical data describing past events or anticipations of probable future events. Information about a past price conveys the knowledge that one or several acts of interpersonal exchange were effected according to this ratio. It does not convey directly any knowledge about future prices. We may often assume that the market conditions which determined the formation of prices in the recent past will not change at all or at least not change considerably in the immediate future so that prices too will remain unchanged or change only slightly. Such expectations are reasonable if the prices concerned were the result of the interaction of many people ready to buy or to sell provided the exchange ratios seemed propitious to them and if the market situation was not influenced by conditions which are considered as accidental, extraordinary, and not likely to return. However, the main task of economic calculation is not to deal with the problems of unchanging or only slightly changing market situations and prices, but to deal with change. The acting individual either anticipates changes which will occur without his own interference and wants to adjust his actions to this anticipated state of affairs; or he wants to embark upon a project which will change conditions even if no other factors produce a change. The prices of the past are for him merely starting points in his endeavors to anticipate future prices.

財貨與勞務的價格，或者是過去事象的歷史資料，或者是可能的將來事象的預測。已往的價格情報，使我們知道一項或數項人際交換曾經按照這個比率進行。它並且直接敎給我們關於未來價格的一切知識。我們也許常常假定那些決定最近價格的市場情況不會發生變動，或至少不會馬上發生大的變動，因而價格也將持續不變或只小小地變動。這樣的希望，是合理的，假使有關的價格是許多人在交換率似乎對他們有利的時候願意買進和賣出而形成的結果，假使市場情況沒有受到那些被認爲偶然的、非常的、不會再發生的情形的影響。但是，經濟計算的主要任務不是處理那些在不變的、或只小小變動的市場情況和價格下的問題，而是處理變動。行爲人或者是預測那些將會發生的變動，因而想調整他自己的行爲，以適應那些預期的情況；或者是想著手一個改變情況的計畫，即令沒有其他的因素引起變動。過去的一些價格，對於他只是些預測將來價格的出發點。

Historians and statisticians content themselves with prices of the past. Practical man looks at the prices of the future, be it only the immediate future of the next hour, day, or month. For him the prices of the past are merely a help in anticipating future prices. Not only in his preliminary calculation of the expected outcome of planned action, but no less in his attempts to establish the result of his past transactions, he is primarily concerned with future prices.

歷史學家與統計學家有了過去的一些價格也就夠了。重實際的人所注意的是未來的價格，即使僅是最近的將來——後一小時、第二天、或下一個月的價格。至於過去的價格，對於他只是一個幫助，幫助他預測未來的價格。他特別關切未來的價格，不只是在於對於計畫行爲的可能結果作預計，也同樣地在於想確定過去的一些交易的成果。

In balance sheets and in profit-and-loss statements the result of past action becomes visible as the difference between the money equivalent

在資產負債表和損益表上面，可以看出過去行爲的結果，那就是這個期初保有的資金（資產總額減負债總額）與期末保有的資金之差額，也即成本的貨幣額與毛收益的差額。在這樣的兩個報表中，必須把那些現金以外的一切資產與負債以估計的貨幣額表現出來。這些項目的估値，必須按照它們在將來大概可以賣得的價格，或者參照由於它們的幫助而製造出來的商品所可賣得的價格，如果這些項目是生產設備的話，則尤其如此。可是，老的商業習慣以及商事法和稅法的規定，已經違離了那些但求正確的健全的會計原則。這些習慣和法律並不那麼注重資產負債表和損益表的正確性，而是注重其他的目的。商事法所注重的是用以間接保障債權人免於受損的會計方法。它或多或少是趨向低估資產價値，使淨利潤和保有的資金總額表現得比實際的較少些。這樣就有了安全的餘地以減輕危險；否則公司行號會提出過多的資金作爲利潤分掉，而那已經沒有償付債務能力的公司行號還可繼續經營，一直到耗盡了可用以償債的資金爲止，這是對債權人不利的。相反地，稅法所常採用的計算方法，是要使公司行號所賺得的錢表現得比實際賺得的較多些。這爲的是要提高實際稅率，而又不讓這種提高見之於名義的稅率表。所以，我們必須把工商業者爲計畫將來而作的經濟計算和爲其他目的而作的計算，分別淸楚。應納的稅額之決定，與經濟計算是兩件不同的事體。如果稅法規定，僱用一個男佣人所應納的稅額等於僱用兩個女佣人的應納額，這種規定，誰也知道，只是確定稅額的一個方法。同樣地，如果遺產稅法規定，有價證券必須按照死亡者死亡的那一天的證券市場的價格來估價，這也只是一個確定稅額的方法而已。

The duly kept accounts in a system of correct bookkeeping are accurate as to dollars and cents. They display an impressive precision, and the numerical exactitude of their items seems to remove all doubts. In fact, the most important figures they contain are speculative anticipations

在正確的會計制度下所記的帳目是精細到幾角幾分的，使我們看起來非常精確而不容置疑。其實，其中最重要的數字是來自對於未來市場的預測。如果把商業帳上的項目拿來與純技術的計算項目（例如爲設計製造一部機器而作的計算）相提並論，那就是大錯。工程師在技術設計方面，只是應用自然科學的方法所確立的那些數的關係；至於商人們所用的數字，則免不掉是來自對未來的預測。在資產負債表和損益表上面的主要事情，是對那些非現金的資產和負債加以估値。所有這些估値都是暫時性的。它們是盡可能地記述一個任意選擇的時刻所發生的事象，而人的生活和行爲卻是繼續不停的。把個別的營業單位予以解散，這是可能的，但全部的生產體系永不停頓。依存於現金的資產和負債，也不免於一切商業會計項目所固有的不確定。它們之隨將來市場的情形而變動，正同存貨或設備等項目一樣。商業帳目上和其他計算上的精確數字，不應防止我們認識到它們的不確定性和猜測性。

Yet, these facts do not detract from the efficiency of economic calculation. Economic calculation is as efficient as it can be. No reform could add to its efficiency. It renders to acting man all the services which he can obtain from numerical computation. It is, of course, not a means of knowing future conditions with certainty, and it does not deprive action of its speculative character. But this can be considered a deficiency only by those who do not come to recognize the facts that life is not rigid, that all things are perpetually fluctuating, and that men have no certain knowledge about the future.

可是，這些事實損傷經濟計算的效率。經濟計算是盡其可能地做到有效率。沒有任何改良的方法可以增加它的效率。它對於行爲人提供他所可從數字計算得到的一切便利。當然，它不是正確察知未來情況的一個手段，它也不使行爲人的行爲失去它的猜測性。但是這種情形之被人們視爲一個缺陷，那只是由於那些人不了解「生活不是膠著的」，「一切事情永遠是在變動的」，「人們對於將來不會有明確的預知」這些事實。

It is not the task of economic calculation to expand man's information about future conditions. Its task is to adjust his actions as well as possible to his present opinion concerning want-satisfaction in the future. For this purpose acting man needs a method of computation, and computation requires a common denominator to which all items entered are to be referable. The common denominator of economic calculation is money.

把人的知識推展到未來的情況，這不是經濟計算的任務。它的任務是要盡可能地調整人的行爲，使其適應他現在的關於將來慾望滿足的意見。爲著這個目的，行爲人需要一個計算方法，而計算必須有一個共同標準來統馭所有的項目。這個經濟計算的共同標準就是貨幣。

2. The Limits of Economic Calculation

二、經濟計算的限度

Economic calculation cannot comprehend things which are not sold and bought against money.

經濟計算不能包括那些不用貨幣來買賣的東西。

There are things which are not for sale and for whose acquisition sacrifices other than money and money's worth must be expended. He who wants to train himself for great achievements must employ many means, some of which may require expenditure of money. But the essential things to be devoted to such an endeavor are not purchasable. Honor, virtue, glory, and likewise vigor, health, and life itself play a role in action both as means and as ends, but they do not enter into economic calculation.

有些東西不是可以出賣的，取得這些東西所要犧牲的不是貨幣或貨幣的價値。想把自己訓練成有大作爲的人物的人，必須用許多方法，其中有些是要花費金錢的。但是，也有些絕不可少的東西不是金錢所可購買的。氣節、德行、榮譽心，以及精力、健康，乃至生活本身，在作爲手段和作爲目的的行爲中，都有其重要的作用：但是，這些東西都不在經濟計算之列。

There are things which cannot at all be evaluated in money, and there are other things which can be appraised in money only with regard to a fraction of the value assigned to them. The appraisal of an old building must disregard its artistic and historical eminence as far as these qualities are not a source of proceeds in money or goods vendible. What touches a man's heart only and does not induce other people to make sacrifices for its attainment remains outside the pale of economic calculation.

有些東西，畢竟是不能用金錢來估價的，另外有些能用金錢估價的東西，只能就附著於它們上面的價値之一部份來估。對於一座古老的建築估價，必須撇開那藝術的和歷史的價値，因爲這些品質不是金錢收入的來源，也不是可以出賣的東西。凡是只能感動一個人的心而不誘發別人爲取得而有所犧牲的東西，始梦是在經濟計算的範圍之外。

However, all this does not in the least impair the usefulness of economic calculation. Those things which do not enter into the items of accountancy and calculation are either ends or goods of the first order. No calculation is required to acknowledge them fully and to make due allowance for them. All that acting man needs in order to make his choice is to contrast them with the total amount of costs their acquisition or preservation requires. Let us assume that a town council has to decide between two water supply projects. One of them implies the demolition of a historical landmark, while the other at the cost of an increase in money expenditure spares this landmark. The fact that the feelings which recommend the conservation of the monument cannot be estimated in a sum of money does not in any way impede the councilmen's decision. The values that are not reflected in any monetary exchange ratio are, on the contrary, by this very fact lifted into a particular position which makes the decision rather easier. No complaint is less justified than the lamentation that the computation methods of the market do not comprehend things not vendible. Moral and aesthetic values do not suffer any damage on account of this fact.

但是，這一切一切絲毫也不損害經濟計算的有用性。那些不列入會計項目或計算範圍的東西，或者是些目的，或者是些第一級的財貨。爲充份認識它們，不需要有何計算。行爲人在作他的選擇時所要做的事情，只是把那些選擇的事物與取得或保持它們的總成本加以比較。例如一個市議會對於兩個給水方案要作抉擇。其中之一必須拆除一件歷史名蹟，而另一方案雖可保存此名蹟，但經費卻要增加。對於名蹟的眷愛而樂於保存的這份感情，是無法以貨幣數額估計的，可是這個事實並不妨害市議員們的抉擇。相反的，凡是不能反映於金錢交換率的價値，正因此而特別能夠使抉擇更容易作。市場的計算方法不包括不能買賈的東西，對於這個事實而生感歎是毫無道理的。道德價値和美的價値並不因爲這個事實而有何損傷。

Money, money prices, market transactions, and economic calculation based upon them are the main targets of criticism. Loquacious sermonizers disparage Western civilization as a mean system of mongering and peddling. Complacency, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy exult in scorning the "dollar-philosophy" of our age. Neurotic reformers, mentally unbalanced literati, and ambitious demagogues take pleasure in indicting "rationality" and in preaching the gospel of the

金錢、金錢價格、市場計算、以及基於它們的經濟計算，是些被批評的主要目標。言多語雜的說敎者，把西方文明看作商販的卑賤制度。自以爲「了不起」的僞君子，嘲笑我們這個時代的「拜金主義」（dollar-philosophy）。精神病的改革家、心理失衡的文學家，以及野心的政治煽動家，都喜歡指摘「合理」而宣揚「不合理」的福音。在這些愛說瞎話者的眼光中，金錢和計算是罪惡之源。但是，人們在經濟生活方面發展了一個有利於行爲的檢定方法這一事實，並不妨礙任何人按照自以爲是的標準去行爲。股票交易所和公司行號的會計人員的「唯物主義」，並不妨礙誰去追隨Thomas a Kempis（德國的一位牧師和著作家，1379-1471）的生活方式，也不妨礙誰爲一崇高的理想而以身殉。衆人喜看偵探小說而不好讀詩，因此，寫小說比寫詩更合算，這個事實並不是由於我們使用金錢和金錢計數才存在。社會上之有竊盜、殺人犯、賣淫者、貪汚受賄的行政官吏和法官，並不是金錢之過，「誠實不値得」這句話是不對的。有些人寧願守誠而不願用不誠實的方法得到別人所謂的利益，對於這些人，誠實是値得的。

Other critics of economic calculation fail to realize that it is a method available only to people acting in the economic system of the division of labor in a social order based upon private ownership of the means of production. It can only serve the considerations of individuals or groups of individuals operating in the institutional setting of this social order. It is consequently a calculation of private profits and not of "social welfare." This means that the prices of the market are the ultimate fact for economic calculation. It cannot be applied for considerations whose standard is not the demand of the consumers as manifested on the market but the hypothetical valuations of a dictatorial body managing all national or earthly affairs. He who seeks to judge actions from the point of view of a pretended "social value," i.e., from the point of view of the "whole society," and to criticize them by comparison with the events in an imaginary socialist system in which his own will is supreme, has no use for economic calculation. Economic calculation in terms of money prices is the calculation of entrepreneurs producing for the consumers of a market society. It is of no avail for other tasks.

另有些經濟計算的批評者，不了解經濟計算只在以生產手段私有爲基礎的社會秩序中，對於那些分工的行爲人纔是有用的方法。它只有助於個人們或各個團體行動於這種社會秩序中的一些考慮。因此，經濟計算是一個私利的計算，而不是什麼「社會福利」的計算。這是說，市場的一些價格爲經濟計算的終極事實（ultimate fact）。這個事實不適用於統制全國或全世界的獨裁政體，這種政體的權力者所考慮的標準，不是顯現於市場的那些消費者的需求，而是他本人所假想的「社會價値」。這種人是從一種假託的「社會價値」的觀點，也即所謂「全社會」的觀點來判斷行爲，並且用想像的社會主義制度中所會發生的事情來比較，以批評行爲，而在他所想像的社會主義制度下，他自己的意志是至髙無上的。對於這種人，經濟計算毫無用處。用金錢價格來作的經濟計算，是那爲市場社會的消費者而從事生產的企業計算。對於其他的工作，經濟計算完全無用。

He who wants to employ economic calculation must not look at affairs in the manner of a despotic mind. Prices can be used for calculation by the entrepreneurs, capitalists, landowners, and wage earners of a capitalist society. For matters beyond the pursuits of these categories it is inadequate. It is nonsensical to evaluate in money objects which are not negotiated on the market and to employ in calculations arbitrary items which do not refer to reality. The law determines the amount which ought to be paid as indemnification for having

凡是想利用經濟計算的人，決不可以用獨裁者的心情來看事物。價格可以被资本主義社會裡面的企業家、資本家、地主、和工資賺取者用來作計算。除此之外，經濟計算是不適宜的。對於那些不是市場買賣的事物給以金錢的估價，用那些不涉及實際的妄斷的項目來作計算，那是毫無意義的。法律規定了致人於死者應該賠償的金錢數額。但是，這種賠償金的規定並不意涵人命有價。只有奴隸的社會，奴隸纔有市場價格。奴隸制不存在的社會，人、生命、和健康，都是商業交換以外的東西。在自由人的社會裡面，生命與健康的保持是目的，而非手段，不是計算程序所考慮的問題。

It is possible to determine in terms of money prices the sum of the income or the wealth of a number of people. But it is nonsensical to reckon national income or national wealth. As soon as we embark upon considerations foreign to the reasoning of a man operating within the pale of a market society, we are no longer helped by monetary calculation methods. The attempts to determine in money the wealth of a nation or of the whole of mankind are as childish as the mystic efforts to solve the riddles of the universe by worrying about the dimensions of the pyramid of Cheops. If a business calculation values a supply of potatoes at $100, the idea is that it will be possible to sell it or to replace it against this sum. If a whole entrepreneurial unit is estimated $1,000,000, it means that one expects to sell it for this amount. But what is the meaning of the items in a statement of a nation's total wealth? What is the meaning of the computation's final result? What must be entered into it and what is to be left outside? Is it correct or not to enclose the "value" of the country's climate and the people's innate abilities and acquired skill? The businessman can convert his property into money, but a nation cannot.

用金錢價格來確定一些人的所得或財富總額，這是可能的。但是，要計算國民所得或國民財富，那就毫無意義。只要我們一觸及異於在市場社會行爲的人的理知的考慮，我們就不能藉助於金錢的計算方法。想用金錢來確定一國或全人類的財富的企圔，正同想從埃及金字塔的容積來解決宇宙之謎的企圖一樣的幼稚。如果一個商業的計算把一批馬鈴薯估値一百元，這就是說，這批馬鈴薯可以換得這個金額。如果一個企業單位被估値爲一百萬元，這是說，我們預料這個單位可以在這個金額下賣掉。但是，一國總財富的報表中的那些項目，是什麼意思？計算的最後結果是什麼意思？應包括些什麼？應排出些什麼？一國的氣候和人民的先天的和後天的才能，這些價値應不應當列入，做生意的人可以把他的財產換成金錢：但是，一個國卻不能如此。

The money equivalents as used in acting and in economic calculation are money prices, i.e., exchange ratios between money and other goods and services. The prices are not measured in money; they consist in money. Prices are either prices of the past or expected prices of the future. A price is necessarily a historical fact either of the past or of the future. There is nothing in prices which permits one to liken them to the measurement of physical and chemical phenomena.

用在行爲和經濟計算的金錢等値，就是金錢價格，也即金錢與其他財貨和勞務的交換率。價格在於金錢，而不是用金錢衡量的。價格或者是過去的價格，或者是未來的預期的價格。一個價格必然是過去的或未來的一個歷史性的事實。在價格裡面，決沒有像理化方面的衡量那樣的東西。

3. The Changeability of Prices

三、價格的可變性

Exchange ratios are subject to perpetual change because the conditions which produce them are perpetually changing. The value that an individual attaches both to money and to various goods and services is the outcome of a moment's choice. Every later instant may generate something new and bring about other considerations and valuations. Not that prices are fluctuating, but that they do not alter more quickly could fairly be deemed a problem requiring explanation.

交換率總是不斷地變動的，因爲形成交換率的那些情況總是變動的。一個人賦與金錢和各種財貨勞務的價値，都是一時選擇的結果。一時過去，又會有新的情事發生，因而有新的考慮和新的評値。我們所要解釋的問題，與其說是「價格是在變動中」，不如說是「價格變動得再快也沒有了」。

Daily experience teaches people that the exchange ratios of the market are mutable. One would assume that their ideas about prices would take full account of this fact. Nevertheless all popular notions of production and consumption, marketing and prices are more or less contaminated by a vague and contradictory notion of price rigidity. The layman is prone to consider the preservation of yesterday's price structure both as normal and fair, and to condemn changes in the exchange ratios as a violation of the rules of nature and of justice.

曰常的經驗吿訴大家，市場的交換率是不斷地變動的。我們可以假設，人們關於價格的想法當會充份考慮到這個事實。可是，所有關於生產和消費、市場和價格的流行觀念，或多或少都汚染了一些含糊而矛盾的物價觀。外行人每每認爲，維持昨天的物價結構於不變，旣是正常的，也是公平的，而把交換率的變動斥之爲違犯自然法則和正義法則。

It would be a mistake to explain these popular beliefs as a precipitate of old opinions conceived in earlier ages of more stable conditions of production and marketing. It is questionable whether or not prices were less changeable in those older days. On the contrary, it could rather be asserted that the merger of local markets into larger national markets, the final emergence of a world embracing world market, and the evolution of commerce aiming at continuously supplying the consumers have made price changes less frequent and less sharp. In precapitalistic times their was more stability in technological methods of production, but there was much more irregularity in supplying the various local markets and in adjusting supply to their changing demands. But even if it were true that prices were somewhat more stable in a remote past, it would be of little avail for our age. The popular notions about money and money prices are not derived from ideas formed in the past. It would be wrong to interpret them as atavistic remnants. Under modern conditions every individual is daily faced with so many problems of buying and selling that we are right in assuming that his thinking about these matters is not simply a thoughtless reception of traditional ideas.

把這些流行的想法解釋爲早期生產和巿場比較安定時的一個老想法的殘餘，這是錯誤的。在那早期，物價是否較少波動，也是問題。相反地，我們毋寧這樣說：使物價變動得較少、較緩和的，是一些地方市場併入了較大的全國巿場，最後有一個包羅世界市場的世界出現，以及商業的大發展。在前資本主義時代，生產技術比較安定，但在各個地方市場的供給，以及供給方面對於變動的需求所作的調整，都很不規律。但是，即令在遙遠的過去，物價眞的比較安定，那也無關乎我們這個時代。現在流行的關於貨幣和貨幣價格的那些觀念，並不是來自過去所形成的舊觀念。把它們解釋爲老觀念的殘餘，是錯誤的。在現代的環境下，每個人每天要面對那麼多的買賣問題，以致我們有理由假設，人們對於這些事情的想法，決不只是不假思索地對傳統想法的接受。

It is easy to understand why those whose short-run interests are hurt by a change in prices resent such changes, emphasize that the previous prices were not only fairer but also more normal, and maintain that price stability is in conformity with the laws of nature and of morality. But every change in prices furthers the short-run interests of other people. Those favored will certainly not be prompted by the urge to stress the fairness and normalcy of price rigidity.

有些人，他們的短期利益因物價變動而受損害，因而抱怨物價的變動，強調原先的物價不僅是比較公平的，而且也比較正常，並認爲物價的安定是符合自然法和道德的。這種人之所以如此，是很容易了解的。但是，物價的每一次波動，總要影響到某些人的短期利益。至於那些受益的人，則決不會強調物價固定不變是公平的、正常的。

Neither atavistic reminiscences nor the state of selfish group interests can explain the popularity of the idea of price stability. Its roots are to be seen in the fact that notions concerning social relations have been constructed according to the pattern of the natural sciences. The economists and sociologists who aimed at shaping the social sciences according to the pattern of physics or physiology only indulged in a way of thinking which popular fallacies had adopted long before.

舊想法的殘餘或自私自利心，都不能解釋物價安定這個流行的觀念。它的根源是在這個事實：關於社會關係的那些觀念，已依照自然科學的模型而建構。那些志在把社會科學依照物理學或生理學的模型而建立的經濟學家和社會學家，已慣於用那些久已流行的錯誤想法來想社會問題。

Even the classical economists were slow to free themselves from this error. With them value was something objective, i.e., a phenomenon of the external world and a quality inherent in things and therefore measurable. They utterly failed to comprehend the purely human and voluntaristic character of value judgments. As far as we can see today, it was Samuel Bailey who first disclosed what is going on in preferring one thing to another[1]. But his book was overlooked as were the writings of other precursors of the subjective theory of value.

即就古典學派的經濟學家來講，他們是慢慢地免於這種錯誤的。由他們看來，價値是客觀的東西，也即外在世界的一種現象，事物本身所固有的一種品質，因而是可以衡量的。他們完全不了解價値判斷的純主觀性。就我們現在所能知道的，第一個發現「交換過程中發生了什麼」的人是Samuel Bailey [1]。但是，他的書竟同主觀價値說的其他先驅們的著作一樣，沒有受到注意。

It is not only a task of economic science to discard the errors concerning measurability in the field of action. It is no less a task of economic policy. For the failures of present-day economic policies are to some extent due to the lamentable confusion brought about by the idea that there is something fixed and therefore measurable in interhuman relations.

抛棄那些關於行爲領域裡面的可量測性的謬見，不僅是經濟科學的義務，經濟政策也同樣有此義務。因爲當今許多經濟政策的失敗，在某程度內是由於可悲的觀念上的混淆，而這種混淆的根源，是誤認人際關係中有固定的、因而可以衡量的東西。

-----------------------------

[1] Cf. Samuel Bailey, A Critical Dissertation on the Nature, Measures and Causes of Values. London, 1825. No.7 in Series of Reprints of Scarce Tracts in Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics (London, 1931).

[1] 參考Samuel Bailey, A Critical Dissertation on the Nature, Measures and Causes of Values. London, 1825. No.7 in Series of Reprints of Scarce Tracts in Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics (London, 1931).

4. Stabilization

四、安定

An outgrowth of all these errors is the idea of stabilization.

所有這些謬見的總結果是「安定」這個想頭。

Shortcomings in the governments' handling of monetary matters and the disastrous consequences of policies aimed at lowering the rate of interest and at encouraging business activities through credit expansion gave birth to the ideas which finally generated the slogan "stabilization." One can explain its emergence and its popular appeal, one can understand it as the fruit of the last hundred and fifty years' history of currency and banking, one can, as it were, plead extenuating circumstances for the error involved. But no such sympathetic appreciation can render its fallacies any more tenable.

政府處理貨幣有許多缺失，爲著促進工商活動而降低利率、擴張信用，這些政策招致了許多惡果。於是，這些缺失和惡果終於引起了「安定」的口號。你可以解釋這個口號之所以發生和受人歡迎，你可以把它看作過去一百五十年貨幣銀行史演進的結果，你可以找些口實以掩飾那些缺失。但是，謬見仍然是謬見，任何同情的辯解不能使它站得住脚。

Stability, the establishment of which the program of stabilization aims at, is an empty and contradictory notion. The urge toward action, i.e., improvement of the conditions of life, is inborn in man. Man himself changes from moment to moment and his valuations, volitions, and acts change with him. In the realm of action there is nothing perpetual but change. There is no fixed point in this ceaseless fluctuation other than the eternal aprioristic categories of action. It is vain to sever valuation and action from man's unsteadiness and the changeability of his conduct and to argue as if there were in the universe eternal values independent of human value judgments and suitable to serve as a yardstick for the appraisal of real action [2].

安定計畫所要達成的安定，是一個空虚而又矛盾的想法。行爲的動力，也即改善生活情況的衝動，是人的天性。人的本身時時刻刻都在變，他的評値、意志、和行爲，也隨著他在變。在行爲的範圍內，沒有什麼永久不變的事情。在這不停的變動中，除掉行爲的一些先驗元範是永恒的以外，沒有任何固定的要點。如果想把「評値和行爲」與「人的易變性和其行爲的可變性」分開，並進而主張宇宙間有所謂永恒的價値超脫於人的價値判断以外，而可以作爲評判實際行爲的標準，這種想法或說法，白費心機，一無是處[2]。

All methods suggested for a measurement of the changes in the

爲衡量貨幣單位的購買力而提出的一切方法，或多或少都是不知不覺地基於一個虛幻的影像——永恒而不變的人，這個人用一個不變的標準來確定一個單位貨幣對他所提供的滿足量。有人爲這個不健全的想法辯護，說它只是想衡量貨幣購買力的變動而已。這種辯護是無效的。安定想法的難題，正好是購買力這個概念。囿於物理學的一些觀念的門外漢，曾經把貨幣看作價格的尺度。他以爲交換率的波動只會發生於各種財貨和勞務之間，而不會也發生於貨幣與「財貨和勞務的『全部』」之間。後來，人們反過來講。價値的不變性再也不歸之於貨幣，而歸之於可以買賣的東西之「全部」。人們開始建議一些方法，使複雜的貨物單位得以與貨幣單位比較。爲急於求得衡量購買力的指數而把一切的顧慮都排斥掉。所使用的物價記錄之可疑性和不可比較性，以及計算平均數的程序的武斷性，都一概不理。

Irving Fisher, the eminent economist, who was the champion of the American stabilization movement, contrasts with the dollar a basket containing all the goods the housewife buys on the market for the current provision of her household. In the proportion in which the amount of money required for the purchase of the content of this basket changes, the purchasing power of the dollar has changed. The goal assigned to the policy of stabilization is the preservation of the immutability of this money expenditure[3]. This would be all right if the housewife and her imaginary basket were constant elements, if the basket were always to contain the same goods and the same quantity of each and if the role which this assortment of goods plays in the family's life were not to change. But we are living in a world in which none of these conditions is realized.

傑出的經濟學家Irving Fisher是美國經濟安定運動的推行者，他把主婦在市場上買到的各形各色的一籃子的貨物與美元相對比。美元的購買力，比例於購買這一籃的貨物所必須支付的貨幣量之變動而變動。安定政策的目標是要維持這筆金錢支出量於不變[3]。如果這位主婦和她想像的籃子是不變的要素，如果這個籃子總是裝著同類的貨物，而且每類的數量也總是一樣，如果在這個家庭生活中，貨物購買的種類和數量，總是像這一樣的分配，那麼，安定政策的目標完全是對的。但是，在我們所生活的這個世界中，上述的那些條件一個也不存在。

First of all there is the fact that the quality of the commodities produced and consumed changes continuously. It is a mistake to identify wheat with wheat, not to speak of shoes, hats, and other manufactures. The great price differences in the synchronous sales of commodities which mundane speech and statistics arrange in the same class clearly evidence this truism. An idiomatic expression asserts that two peas are alike; but buyers and sellers distinguish

第一、事實是：生產的和消費的貨物，其性質是不斷變動的。把這粒小麥視同那粒小麥，是個錯誤，更不必説鞋子、帽子、和其他的製造品。有些貨物照通俗的說法是屬於同類的，統計的安排也屬於同類，但其間的價格有很大的參差，這就是個證明。俗語說：兩粒豆子是相同的；但是買者和賣者會區別豆子的品質和等級。把那些技術方面或統計方面叫做同一名稱的貨物，在不同的地方或不同的時間買賣的價格拿來比較，那是毫無用處的，除非我們能確定它們的品質——如果沒有地域的差異——完全一樣。在這裡所說的「品質」是指：購買者和可能的購買者所注意到的一切一切。所有第一級的財貨和勞務，都是易於變動的。僅僅這個事實，就推翻了所有指數方法的基本假定之一。至於高級財貨——尤其是金屬品和那些可以由特殊方程式決定的化學物品——的一個有限的數量會完全符合所列的類別，這是不相干的。購買力的衡量要靠第一級財貨與勞務的價格，尤其是要靠它們的全部。採用生產財的價格是無效的，因爲這不免把同一消費財的幾個生產階段重複計算，以致結果是錯誤的。限之於選擇的一旨貨，那又會是武斷的。

But even apart from all these insurmountable obstacles the task would remain insoluble. For not only do the technological features of commodities change and new kinds of goods appear while many old ones disappear. Valuations change too, and they cause changes in demand and production. The assumptions of the measurement doctrine would require men whose wants and valuations are rigid. Only if people were to value the same things always in the same way, could we consider price changes as expressive of changes in the power of money to buy things.

但是，即令撇開這些不可克服的障礙不談，這個工作仍然是作不通的。因爲不僅是一切貨物的技術面在變，而且有許多舊的貨物隨時新種類的貨物隨時產生。人們的評値也在變，這又引起需求與生產的變。衡量購買力這一妄斷，必須假定人的慾望和評値是固定不移的。只有人們對於同樣的東西總是給以同樣的評値，我們才可把物價的變動看作貨幣購買力的變動。

As it is impossible to establish the total amount of money spent at a given fraction of time for consumers' goods, statisticians must rely upon the prices paid for individual commodities. This raises two further problems for which there is no apodictic solution. It becomes necessary to attach to the various commodities coefficients of importance. It would be manifestly wrong to let the prices of various commodities enter into the computation without taking into account the different roles they play in the total system of the individuals' households. But the establishment of such proper weighting is again arbitrary. Secondly, it becomes necessary to compute averages out of the data collected and adjusted. But there exist different methods for the computation of averages. There are the arithmetic, the geometric, the harmonic averages, there is the quasi-average known as the median. Each of them leads to different results. None of them

由於不可能確定某一時期以內用在消費財的金錢總額，統計人員必須依賴對個別貨物所支付的價格。這又引起兩個沒有明確解答的問題。第一、對於個別的貨物必須分別賦與「重要性係數」（coefficients of importance）。如果不考慮各種貨物在個人家計的全部活動中所充當的各別任務之不同，而貿然拿它們的價格來計算，這顯然是錯誤的。但是，如果考慮到這個問題而以加權的辦法來顯示其不同，則這種加權又必然是武斷的。第二、必須收集到而又經過調整的資料求出一些平均數。但是，求平均數有幾個不同的方法，有算術平均，有幾何平均，有調和平均（harmonic averages），還有叫做中位數（median）的近似平均（quasi-average）。方法不同，所求得的結果也不一樣。而且，每個方法都有它的缺點，任何一個都不能視爲唯一可以得到完善結果的方法，所以不管你決定用那個方法，這種決定總是武斷的。

If all human conditions were unchangeable, if all people were always to repeat the same actions because their uneasiness and their ideas about its removal were constant, or if we were in a position to assume that changes in these factors occurring with some individuals or groups are always outweighed by opposite changes with other individuals or groups and therefore do not effect total demand and total supply, we would live in a world of stability. But the idea that in such a world money's purchasing power could change is contradictory. As will be shown later, changes in the purchasing power of money must necessarily affect the prices of different commodities and services at different times and to different extents; they must consequently bring about changes in demand and supply, in production and consumption [4]. The idea implied in the inappropriate term level of prices, as if --other things being equal--all prices could rise or drop evenly, is untenable. Other things cannot remain equal if the purchasing power of money changes.

假若所有的人，其情況都是不變的，假若所有的人，總是重複他們同樣的行爲，或者，如果我們能夠假定某些個人或某些人羣在這些因素方面發生的變動，總是被另些個人或另些人羣相反的變動所抵銷，因而不影響到總需求和總供給，我們就會生活在一個安定的世界中。但是「在這樣一個世界中，貨幣的購買力會發生變動」這個想法，則又是矛盾的。後面將要講到，貨幣購買力的變動一定在不同的時間，以不同的程度影響到各種貨物的價格；它們終於會引起需求與供給的變動、生產與消費的變動[4]。隱含在「物價水準」（level of prices）這個不妥的名詞裡面的那個想法——其他事物不變，所有的貨物會上昇或下降——是站不住的。如果貨幣購買力變動，則其他事物不會依然如故。

In the field of praxeology and economics no sense can be given to the notion of measurement. In the hypothetical state of rigid conditions there are no changes to be measured. In the actual world of change there are no fixed points, dimensions, or relations which could serve as a standard. The monetary unit's purchasing power never changes evenly with regard to all things vendible and purchasable. The notions of stability and stabilization are empty if they do not refer to a state of rigidity and its preservation. However, this state of rigidity cannot even be thought out consistently to its ultimate logical consequences; still less can it be realized[5]. Where there is action, there is change. Action is a lever of change.

在行爲學和經濟學的範圍內，「衡量」這個觀念毫無意義。如果假定一切情況是固定的，那就是沒有任何變動需要衡量。在這個有變動的實際世界中，則又沒有可作爲衡量標準的固定的點、固定的面、或固定的關係。貨幣單位的購買力，決不會隨著所有可買賣的貨物齊一地變動。如果「安定」或「安定化」的觀念，不是指的固定狀態或此種狀態的保持，則這個觀念就是空虛的。如果是指的固定狀態，則在邏輯上又是矛盾的，想都不能想，更談不上實現[5]。有行爲就有變動。行爲是變動的槓桿。

The pretentious solemnity which statisticians and statistical bureaus display in computing indexes of purchasing power and cost of living is out of place. These index numbers are at best rather crude and inaccurate illustrations of changes which have occurred. In periods of slow alterations in the relation between the supply of and the demand for money they do not convey any information at all. In periods of inflation and consequently of sharp price changes they provide a rough image of events which every individual experiences in his daily life. A judicious housewife knows much more about price changes as far as they affect her own household than the statistical

統計人員和統計官署，在編製貨幣購買力指數和生活費指數時所誇示的莊嚴，是虛矯的。這些指數至多是給那些已經發生的變動，粗疏而不精確的說明。當貨幣的供求關係發生輕微變動的時期，指數根本不提示什麼信息。在通貨膨脹因而貨價劇烈變動的時期，它們所提示的事象，正是每個人在曰常生活中所體驗到的。聰明的主婦由於物價與其家計密切相關，因而關於物價的變動，她所知道的比統計的平均數敎給她的要多得多。統計的平均數旣沒有顧到她所能買的那些貨物的質的變動，也沒顧到它們的量的變動，所以對於她沒有什麼用處。如果她只拿兩三種貨物的價格當作一個尺度，依她個人的偏好來「衡量」變動，那麼，她與那些選擇自己的方法來運用市場資料的統計人員相比，旣不更少「科學的」，也不更多「武斷的」。

In practical life nobody lets himself be fooled by index numbers. Nobody agrees with the fiction that they are to be considered as measurements. Where quantities are measured, all further doubts and disagreements concerning their dimensions cease. These questions are settled. Nobody ventures to argue with the meteorologists about their measurements of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, and other meteorological data. But on the other hand nobody acquiesces in an index number if he does not expect a personal advantage from its acknowledgment by public opinion. The establishment of index numbers does not settle disputes; it merely shifts them into a field in which the clash of antagonistic opinions and interests is irreconcilable.

在實際生活方面，誰也不會受指數的愚弄。誰也不會同意，指數可當作衡量的標準。凡是有「量」要衡量的場合，關於容積的一切疑問和異議都不存在。這些問題都解決了。誰也不敢和氣象學家們爭論關於氣溫、濕度、氣壓、和其他氣象資料的衡量。但是，另一方面，如果人們不想從輿論之承認指數而得到個人的利益，誰也不會默認一個指數。有了指數並沒有解決爭端；它只是把爭端轉移到對立的意見無法和解的方面。

Human action originates change. As far as there is human action there is no stability, but ceaseless alteration. The historical process is a sequence of changes. It is beyond the power of man to stop it and to bring about an age of stability in which all history comes to a standstill. It is man's nature to strive after improvement, to beget new ideas, and to rearrange the conditions of his life according to these ideas.

人的行爲，引發變動。凡是有人的行爲的場合，就沒有安定，而只有不斷的變動。歷史過程是一些變動的連續。人力不能停止它，不能造就一個安定時期，而在這個時期當中，一切歷史都變成靜止的狀態。人的天性，是努力於改善，是提出新的想法，是按照新的想法來重新安排他的生活。

The prices of the market are historical facts expressive of a state of affairs that prevailed at a definite instant of the irreversible historical process. In the praxeological orbit the concept of measurement does not make any sense. In the imaginary--and, of course, unrealizable--state of rigidity and stability there are no changes to be measured. In the actual world of permanent change there are no fixed points, objects, qualities or relations with regard to which changes could be measured.

市場價格是些歷史事實。這些事實所表現的，是在一往不復的歷史過程中，某一段時期以內所呈現的事象。在行爲學方面，「衡量」這個概念毫無意義。在想像中的——當然是不能實現的一固定和安定狀態下，沒有什麼需要衡量的變動。在永恒變動的實際世界中，則沒有任何可用以衡量變動的固定的點、固定的物、固定的質、或固定的關係。

----------------------

[2] For the propensity of the mind to view rigidity and unchangeability as the essential thing and change and motion as the accidental, cf. Bergson, La Pensee et le mouvant, pp. 85 ff.

[2] 關於人們傾向於把固定不變看作常態，把變和動看作偶然，參考Bergson, La Pensee et le mouvant, pp. 85 ff.

[3] Cf. Irving Fisher, The Monetary Illusion (New York, 1928), pp. 19-20.

[3] 參考Irving Fisher, The Monetary Illusion (New York, 1928), pp. 19-20.

[4] See below, pp. 411-413.

[4] 見第十八章第四節。

[5] See below, pp. 247-250.

[5] 見第十四章第五節。

5. The Root of the Stabilization Idea

五、安定觀念的根源

Economic calculation does not require monetary stability in the sense in which this term is used by the champions of the stabilization movement. The fact that rigidity in the monetary unit's purchasing power is unthinkable and unrealizable does not impair the methods of economic calculation. What economic calculation requires

經濟計算並不以貨幣安定爲必要條件。這裡所說的「貨幣安定」，是就安定運動的提倡者用這個名詞時的意義而言的。貨幣單位的購買力之固定，是不可想像的，也是不會實現的，這個事實無害於經濟計算的方法。經濟計算所必要的條件，是一個其功能不受政府干擾的貨幣制度。爲增加政府的支付能力，或爲暫時降低利率，而增加貨幣流動量的那些作爲，都是對於幣制的騒擾而破壞經濟計算的。貨幣政策的第一目標，應該是防止政府從事通貨膨脹，防止它鼓勵銀行擴張信用。但是，這個目標與那曖昧的、矛盾的安定購買力的目標，絕不一樣。

For the sake of economic calculation all that is needed is to avoid great and abrupt fluctuations in the supply of money. Gold and, up to the middle of the nineteenth century, silver served very well all the purposes of economic calculation. Changes in the relation between the supply of and the demand for the precious metals and the resulting alterations in purchasing power went on so slowly that the entrepreneur's economic calculation could disregard them without going too far afield. Precision is unattainable in economic calculation quite apart from the shortcomings emanating from not paying due consideration to monetary changes [6]. The planning businessman cannot help employing data concerning the unknown future; he deals with future prices and future costs of production. Accounting and bookkeeping in their endeavors to establish the result of past action are in the same position as far as they rely upon the estimation of fixed equipment, inventories, and receivables. In spite of all these uncertainties economic calculation can achieve its tasks. For these uncertainties do not stem from deficiencies of the system of calculation. They are inherent in the essence of acting that always deals with the uncertain future.

爲著經濟計算，我們所需要的，只是要避免貨幣供給量大幅的、突然的波動。黄金以及十九世紀中期以前的白銀，都很有利於經濟計算。這兩種貴金屬的供求關係的變動，以及因此而引起的購買力的變動，都很緩慢，以致企業家在作經濟計算時可以不理睬它們而不至於誤計。在經濟計算上，精確是做不到的，何況還有因爲未適當地注意到貨幣的變動而引起的缺陷[6]。有計畫的工商業者不得不採用關於未知的、將來的資料；他要考慮將來的價格和將來的生產成本。記錄過去行爲之成果的會計和簿記，在他需要計算固定設備、存貨、和應收款項時，也有同樣的重要性。儘管有這些的不確定，經濟計算仍可完成它的任務，因爲這些不確定不是由於這個計算制度的缺陷。它們與行爲是分不開的，行爲總是涉及不確定的將來。

The idea of rendering purchasing power stable did not originate from endeavors to make economic calculation more correct. Its source is the wish to create a sphere withdrawn from the ceaseless flux of human affairs, a realm which the historical process does not effect. Endowments which were designed to provide in perpetuity for an ecclesiastic body, for a charitable institution, or for a family were long established in land or in disbursement of agricultural products

使購買力穩定這一想法，不是由於想使經濟計算更正確。它的根源是想從不停的人事流變中，創立一個不受歷史過程之影響的領域。捐贈給一個宗敎團體、一個慈善機關，或一個家庭的永久基金，向來是用地產或支付農產品的方式。後來才有用金錢支付的年金制度。捐贈人和受益者都希望，那筆定量的貴金屬年金不受經濟情況變動的影響。但是，這種希望是虛幻的。後輩的人知道，他們祖先的計畫沒有實現，由於這個經驗，他們就開始硏究如何才可達成這個目的。於是，他們就企圖衡量購買力的變動，並進而消除這些變動。

The problem assumed much greater importance when governments initiated their policies of long-term irredeemable and perpetual loans. The state, this new deity of the dawning age of statolatry, this eternal and superhuman institution beyond the reach of earthly frailties, offered to the citizen an opportunity to put his wealth in safety and to enjoy a stable income secure against all vicissitudes. It opened a way to free the individual from the necessity of risking and acquiring his wealth and his income anew each day in the capitalist market. He who invested his funds in bonds issued by the government and its subdivisions was no longer subject to the inescapable laws of the market and to the sovereignty of the consumers. He was no longer under the necessity of investing his funds in such a way that they would best serve the wants and needs of the consumers. He was secure, he was safeguarded against the dangers of the competitive market in which losses are the penalty of inefficiency; the eternal state had taken him under its wing and guaranteed him the undisturbed enjoyment of his funds. Henceforth his income no longer stemmed from the process of supplying the wants of the consumers in the best possible way, but from the taxes levied by the state's apparatus of compulsion and coercion. He was no longer a servant of his fellow citizens, subject to their sovereignty; he was a partner of the government which ruled the people and exacted tribute from them. What the government paid as interest was less than the market offered. But this difference was far outweighed by the unquestionable solvency of the debtor, the state whose revenue did not depend on satisfying the public, but on insisting on the payment of taxes.

到了政府開始採用發行長期不還本的公債這個政策的時候，這個問題的重要性大大增加了。這個邦國崇拜（statolatry）時代黎明期的新神，這個永恒而超人的建構，給它的公民提供了一個機會，得以保全他們的財富、享受穩定的收入而不愁任何不測之變。它開闢了一個途徑，讓人們不必在資本主義的市場中承擔風險以賺取財富和所得。凡是把資金投之於政府所發行的債票的人，就可不受市場法則和消費者的支配。他再也不必把資金投在最能滿足消費者慾望的途徑。在競爭的市場中，損失是給無效率者的懲罰，他再也不遭受這種危險了；永恒的國庇護了他，保證他來自資金的享受安穩可靠。此後，他的所得再也不是來自消費者的慾望得以滿足的過程，而是來自國的強制機構所徵收的稅款。他再不是他的國人的服務者，不受制於國人消費者的主權；他是統治人民而向人民徵課的這個政府的合夥人。政府作爲利息而支付的，比市場所提供的較少。但是，這個差額被這個債務人（國）可靠的償付能力抵銷而有餘，國的收入靠的不是滿足大家，而是靠強制徵稅。

In spite of the unpleasant experiences with public debts in earlier days, people were ready to trust freely the modernized state of the nineteenth century. It was generally assumed that this new state would scrupulously meet its voluntarily contracted obligations. Capitalists and entrepreneurs were fully aware of the fact that in the market society there is no means of preserving acquired wealth other

儘管早期的公債有這些不愉快的經驗，人們還是樂於信賴十九世紀現代化的國。那時，大家認爲這種新的國將會認眞履行它自願的契約義務。資本家和企業家都充份知道這個事實：在市場社會中，要保持旣得的財富，除掉與每個人、與已經存在的和新興的公司行號從事競爭，以期財富日增月累以外，別無他法。至於那年老力衰的企業家，和那懶惰而又自知無能的富人子弟，則寧願投資於公債，因爲他們想免於市場法則的支配。

Now, the irredeemable perpetual public debt presupposes the stability of purchasing power. Although the state and its compulsion may be eternal, the interest paid on the public debt could be eternal only if based on a standard of unchanging value. In this form the investor who for security's sake shuns the market, entrepreneurship, and investment in free enterprise and prefers government bonds is faced again with the problem of the changeability of all human affairs. He discovers that in the frame of a market society there is no room left for wealth not dependent upon the market. His endeavors to find an inexhaustible source of income fail.

永不償還的公債，須以購買力的穩定爲條件。即令邦國和它的強制力是永恒的，公債的利息只有在一個價値不變的標準上才會是永恒的。於是，那個爲安全的理由而逃避市場、不作自由企業的投資而寧願購買公債的投資人，又面對著「一切人事都是變動的」這個問題。他發現，在一個市場社會的架構內，「不依存於市場的財富」沒有存在的餘地。他努力尋找不枯竭的所得來源，可是，這番努力是白費的。

There are in this world no such things as stability and security and no human endeavors are powerful enough to bring them about. There is in the social system of the market society no other means of acquiring wealth and of preserving it than successful service to the consumers. The state is, of course, in a position to exact payments from its subjects and to borrow funds. However, even the most ruthless government in the long run is not able to defy the laws determining human life and action. If the government uses the sums borrowed for investment in those lines in which they best serve the wants of the consumers, and if it succeeds in these entrepreneurial activities in free and equal competition with all private entrepreneurs, it is in the same position as any other businessman; it can pay interest because it has made surpluses. But if the government invests funds unsuccessfully and no surplus results, or if it spends the money for current expenditure , the capital borrowed shrinks or disappears entirely, and no source is opened from which interest and principal could be paid. Then taxing the people is the only method available for complying with the articles of the credit contract. In asking taxes for such payments the government makes the citizens answerable for money squandered in the past. The taxes paid are not compensated by any present service rendered by the government's apparatus.

在這個世界裡面，沒有安定和安全這樣的事情，而人類旳力量也沒有大到足以實現這樣的事情。在市場社會的社會制度中，要取得財富和保全財富，只有好好地爲消費者服務，除此以外別無他法。當然，國，是能夠向它的國民課稅和借債的。但是，從長期看，即令最暴虐的政府，也不能抗拒決定人生和行爲的那些法則。如果政府把借來的資金，投之於最能滿足消費者慾望的途徑，如果政府在這方面的投資，是和所有民營企業立於自由競爭的地位而成功的，那麼，它就和任何其他的工商業者處於同樣的地位；因爲它赢得盈利，它可以支付利息。但是，如果這個政府的投資不成功，沒有盈餘，或者它把錢用在經常開支，借來的資本虧蝕了，或完全用光了，那就沒有還本付息的財源了。這時，只有用課稅這個方法才可以履行契約的償付義務。這種作法，是政府要人民對它過去所浪費的錢負起償付的責任。人民所納的稅是沒有補償的，政府機關對人民沒有提供任何現在的服務。政府支付利息，是對那筆已消耗、而不存在的資本付息。國庫由於過去政策的不幸結果而有些負擔。

A good case can be made out for short-term government debts under special conditions. Of course, the popular justification of war loans is nonsensical. All the materials needed for the conduct of a war must be provided by restriction of civilian consumption, by using up a part of the capital available and by working harder. The whole burden of warring falls upon the living generation. The coming generations are only affected to the extent to which, on account of the war expenditure, they will inherit less from those now living than they would have if no war had been fought. Financing a war through loans does not shift the burden to the sons and grandsons[7]. It is merely a method of distributing the burden among the citizens. If the whole expenditure had to be provided by taxes, only those who have liquid funds could be approached. The rest of the people would not contribute adequately. Short-term loans can be instrumental in removing such inequalities, as they allow for a fair assessment on the owners of fixed capital.

在特殊情形下，短期公債的發行是有理由的。當然，通常對於戰債的辯護是無意義的。作戰所需要的一切物質，必然要靠非軍事方面的消費節約，要靠部份資本的消耗，要靠工作的更加勤勉。戰爭的全部負擔，是落在生活在戰時的這個時代。後來的世代，只因爲戰時的消耗而繼承比較少的財產。他們所受的損失只限於這方面。用借債的方法籌戰費，並沒有把負擔轉移到子孫[7]。那只是負擔分配於民間的一個方法。如果全部經費都要靠課稅，那就只有保有流動資金的人才會被課到。其餘的人不會有適當的貢獻。短期公債可用來消除這種不平等，因爲，短期公債對於固定資本的保有人，會予以公平的評估。

The long-term public and semipublic credit is a foreign and disturbing element in the structure of a market society. Its establishment was a futile attempt to go beyond the limits of human action and to create an orbit of security and eternity removed from the transitoriness and instability of earthly affairs. What an arrogant presumption to borrow and to lend money for ever and ever, to make contracts for eternity, to stipulate for all times to come! In this respect it mattered little whether the loans were in a formal manner made irredeemable or not; intentionally and practically they were as a rule considered and dealt with as such. In the heyday of liberalism some Western nations really retired parts of their long-term debt by honest reimbursement. But for the most part new debts were only heaped upon old ones. The financial history of the last century shows a steady increase in the amount of public indebtedness. Nobody believes that the states will eternally drag the burden of these interest payments. It is obvious that sooner or later all these debts will be liquidated in some way or other, but certainly not by payment of interest and principal according to the terms of the contract. A host

至於長期的公債與準公債（semipublic credit），是市場社會的架構裡面一個陌生的干擾因素。它的設立是一個想超越人力的限制而終歸無效的企圖，企圖創立一個免於人世的變化不測而永恒安定的軌道。永遠借貸、永恒契約，爲所有未來的時間預先約定，這是多麼一個妄誕的想法！在這方面，債在形式上是否規定永不償還，倒沒有什麼關係；有意地，而且實際上它們照例是被當作永不償還的債處理的。在自由主義全盛時代，西方邦國曾經實實在在地把它們的長期公債償還了一些。但是大部份是借新債來還舊債的。最近百年來的金融史，顯示出公債數額的續漲增高。誰也不相信政府會永久背著支付利息的擔子。很明顯地，所有這些公債遲早會用什麼方法消滅掉的，但是，消滅的方法確不是按照契約的還本付息。有一大羣老於世故的著作家，現正忙於爲這最後淸算日揑造道德上的理由[8]。

The fact that economic calculation in terms of money is unequal to the tasks which are assigned to it in these illusory schemes for establishment of an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security cannot be called a deficiency. There are no such things as eternal, absolute, and unchanging values. The search for a standard of such values is vain. Economic calculation is not imperfect because it does not correspond to the confused ideas of people yearning for a stable income not dependent on the productive processes of men.

用貨幣來作的經濟計算，不同於上述的那些爲求永恒安定而作的那些工作。這個事實不能說是一個缺陷。世界上沒有什麼永恒、絕對、和不變的價値這樣的情事。追求這樣的一個價値標準，畢竟是徒勞的。至於經濟計算，則不是有缺點的，因爲，它與那些嚮往安定所得（不依賴生產過程的）的人們的那些混淆的想法不相干。

--------------------------

[6] No practical calculation can ever be precise. The formula underlying the process of calculation may be exact; the calculation itself depends on the approximate establishment of quantities and is therefore necessarily inaccurate. Economics is, as has been shown above (p. 39), an exact science of real things. But as soon as price data are introduced into the chain of thought, exactitude is abandoned and economic history is submitted for economic theory.

[6] 附帶地講，實際的計算，決不會是精確的。關於計算程序的公式，也許是精密的；計算的本身，靠的是數量的約計，所以必然是不正確的。我們曾經講過（參考第二章第三節），經濟學是一門實情實事的精密科學。但是，一到把物價資料引進思索中，精密性就被放棄，而經濟史就代替了經濟理論。

[7] Loans, in this context, mean funds borrowed from those who have money available for lending. We do not refer here to credit expansion of which the main vehicle in present-day America is borrowing from the commercial banks.

[7] 這裡所講的借債，是指從那些有錢、可放債人那裡借到的資金。這裡不涉及銀行的信用擴張。今日美國信用擴張的主要途徑，是向商業銀行借債。

[8] The most popular of these doctrines is crystallized in the phrase: A public debt is no burden because we owe it to ourselves. If this were true, then the wholesale obliteration of the public debt would be an innocuous operation, a mere act of bookkeeping and accountancy. The fact is that the public debt embodies claims of people who have in the past entrusted funds to the government against all those who are daily producing new wealth. It burdens the producing strata for the benefit of another part of the people. It is possible to free the producers of new wealth from this burden by collecting the taxes required for the payments exclusively from the bondholders. But this means undisguised repudiation.

[8] 這些理由中，最流行的可以濃縮成一句話：「公債決不是負債，因爲，是我們欠我們自己的」。如果這句話是眞的，那麼，把所有的公債一筆勾銷是無害的作法，只是會計員的一個動作而已。其實，公債所代表的是，過去把資金交給政府的那些人的要求權，這種要求權的對方，是每天在生產新財富的那些人。由此可知，公債是給生產階層的負擔，但卻有利於另一部份人。要想解除那些生產者的這種負擔，也有可能，那就是把還本付息所需要的那筆錢，用課稅的方式全部課在債票持有人的身上。但是，這種作法就是毫無掩飾地賴債。

XIII. MONETARY CALCULATION AS A TOOL OF ACTION

第13章 作爲一個行爲工具的經濟計算

1. Monetary Calculation as a Method of Thinking

一、作爲一個思想方法的經濟計算

Monetary calculation is the guiding star of action under the social system of division of labor. It is the compass of the man embarking upon production. He calculates in order to distinguish the remunerative lines of production from the unprofitable ones, those of which the sovereign consumers are likely to approve form those of which they are likely to disapprove. Every single step of entrepreneurial activities is subject to scrutiny by monetary calculation. The premeditation of planned action becomes commercial precalculation of expected costs and expected proceeds. The retrospective establishment of the outcome of past action becomes accounting of profit and loss.

在分工的社會裡面，金錢的計算是行爲的導星（guiding star）。它是生產者的羅盤。他計算，爲的是要辨別有利的和無利的生產途徑，爲的是要辨別消費者喜歡的是哪些人、不喜歡的是哪些人。企業活動的每一個步驟都要受金錢的計算之檢査。行爲的預謀，成爲商業上成本與收益的預計。對於過去行爲結果的回顧，成爲會計上盈虧的處理。

The system of economic calculation in monetary terms is conditioned by certain social institutions. It can operate only in an institutional setting of the division of labor and private ownership of the means of production in which goods and services of all orders are bought and sold against a generally used medium of exchange, i.e., money.

以金錢來作的經濟計算制度，是以一些確定的社會建構爲條件的。它只能在分工、而生產手段私有制的條件下運作，在這樣的社會裡面，各級的財貨與勞務都以通用的交易媒介，即金錢，來買賣。

Monetary calculation is the method of calculating employed by people acting within the frame of society based on private control of the means of production. It is a device of acting individuals; it is a mode of computation designed for ascertaining private wealth and income and private profits and losses of individuals acting on their own behalf within a free enterprise society[1]. All its results refer to the actions of individuals only. When statisticians summarize these results, the outcome shows the sum of the autonomous actions of a plurality of self-directing individuals, but not the effect of the action of a collective body, of a whole, or of a totality. Monetary calculation is entirely inapplicable and useless for any consideration which does not look at things from the point of view of individuals. It involves calculating the individuals' profits, not imaginary "social" values and "social" welfare.

金錢的計算，是那些生産活動由私人支配的社會裡面的人們的計算方法。它是「行爲的個人」的一個方法：它是一個計算方式，用以稽考那些爲著自己的利益而活動於自由企業社會的個人們的私有財產和所得、私有的利潤和損失[1]。經濟計算的一切結果，都只是一些「個人的」行爲結果。當統計人員綜合這些結果的時候，其結果是表示許許多多獨立的個人自發的行爲所造成的總和，而不是一個集體或一個整體的行爲結果。凡是不從個人的觀點出發而作的任何考慮，金錢的計算完全不適用，而且無用。它只可用以計算「個人的」利潤，不能計算想像的「社會的」價値和「社會的」福利。

Monetary calculation is the main vehicle of planning and acting in the social setting of a society of free enterprise directed and controlled by the market and its prices. It developed in this frame and was gradually perfected with the improvement of the market mechanism and with the expansion of the scope of things which are negotiated on markets against money. It was economic calculation that assigned to measurement, number, and reckoning the role they play in our quantitative and computing civilization. The measurements of physics and chemistry make sense for practical action only because there is economic calculation. It is monetary calculation that made arithmetic a tool in the struggle for a better life. It provides a mode of using the achievements of laboratory experiments for the most efficacious removal of uneasiness.

自由企業是受制於市場和市場價格的，在自由企業的社會裡面，金錢的計算是計畫和行爲的主要手段。它在這種社會架構中發展出來，而漸漸地隨著市場機能的改善和市場交易的擴張而完成。在我們這個講究「量」和「計算」的文明裡面，度量、數目、和運算之所以有它們的作用，這都是由於經濟計算。物理學和化學的度量，對於實際行爲之所以有意義，只是因爲有經濟計算。使數學成爲改善生活的工具之一，是金錢的計算。它使我們得以利用試驗室的成就，來消除我們的不安逸。

Monetary calculation reaches its full perfection in capital accounting. It establishes the money prices of the available means and confronts this total with the changes brought about by action and by the operation of other factors. This confrontation shows what changes occurred in the state of the acting men's affairs and the magnitude of those changes; it makes success and failure, profit and loss ascertainable. The system of free enterprise has been dubbed capitalism in order to deprecate and to smear it. However, this term can be considered very pertinent. It refers to the most characteristic feature of the system, its main eminence, viz., the role the notion of capital plays in its conduct.

金錢的計算用在資本帳上，完滿到了極點。它可以確定可用資本的金錢價格，而把這個總額與那些由於其他要素的活動而引起的變動相對照。這種對照，顯示出發生於行爲人方面的變動和那些變動的幅度：它使成功與失敗、利潤與虧損成爲可確定的。自由企業制度曾經被人叫做资本主義，取這個諢名的人，主要爲的是反對它、糟蹋它。可是，我們也可認爲這個名詞非常的恰當。它指出了這個制度最主要的特徵、主要的優越點，也即，資本概念在這個制度運作中所發生的作用。

There are people to whom monetary calculation is repulsive. They do not want to be roused from their daydreams by the voice of critical reason. Reality sickens them, they long for a realm of unlimited opportunity. They are disgusted by the meanness of a social order in which everything is nicely reckoned in dollars and pennies. They call their grumbling the noble deportment worthy of the friends of the spirit, of beauty, and virtue as opposed to the ignoble baseness and villainy of Babbittry. However, the cult of beauty and virtue, wisdom and the search for truth are not hindered by the rationality of the calculating and computing mind. It is only romantic reverie that cannot thrive in a milieu of sober criticism. The cool-headed reckoner is the stern chastiser of the ecstatic visionary.

有些人會討厭金錢的計算。他們不願意「批判的理知之音」把他們的白日夢喚醒。現實使他們頭痛，他們嚮往一種無限希望的境界。他們覺得，凡事都要錙銖計較的社會秩序是鄙俗的、討厭的。他們把他們的發牢騷叫做髙尙的行爲，可與眞善美相提並論，而且是與現代工商業者那種卑陋庸俗的作風相反的。但是，美和善的崇拜，智慧和追求眞理，並不因計算的心靈而受阻。至於經不起嚴肅批評的東西，只是浪漫的遐想。頭腦冷靜的計算者，是夢想家的嚴厲懲罰人。

Our civilization is inseparably linked with our methods of economic calculation. It would perish if we were to abandon this most precious intellectual tool of acting. Goethe was right in calling bookkeeping by double entry "one of the finest inventions of the human mind."

我們的文明和我們的經濟計算法是不可分的。如果我們放棄這個最寶貴的心智工具，我們的文明就會消滅。Goethe讚美複式簿記，稱之爲「人類心靈最好的發明之一」，這是對的[2]。

------------------------

[1] In partnerships and corporations it is always individuals who act, although not only one individual.

[1] 在合夥事業和公司組織中，從事活動的畢竟還是個人，儘管不只是一個人。

[2] Cf. Goethe, Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, Bk. I, chap. x.

[2] 參考Goethe, Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, Bk. I, chap. x.

2. Economic Calculation and the Science of Human Action

二、經濟計算與人的行爲科學

The evolution of capitalist economic calculation was the necessary condition for the establishment of a systematic and logically coherent science of human action. Praxeology and economics have a definite place in the evolution of human history and in the process of scientific research. They could only emerge when acting man had succeeded in creating methods of thinking that made it possible to calculate his actions. The science of human action was at the beginning merely a discipline dealing with those actions which can be tested by monetary calculation. It dealt exclusively with what we may call the orbit of economics in the narrower sense, that is, with those actions which within a market society are transacted by the intermediary of money. The first steps on the way to its elaboration were odd investigations concerning currency, moneylending, and the prices of various goods. The knowledge conveyed by Gresham's Law, the first crude formulations of the quantity theory of money--such as those of Bodin and Davanzati--and the Law of Gregory King mark the first dawn of the cognition that regularity of phenomena and inevitable necessity prevail in the field of action. The first comprehensive system of economic theory, that brilliant achievement of the classical economists, was essentially a theory of calculated action. It drew implicitly the borderline between what is to be considered economic and what extra-economic along the line which separates action calculated in monetary terms from other action. Starting from this basis, the economists were bound to widen step by step the field of their studies until they finally developed a system dealing with all human choices, a general theory of action.

資本主義的經濟計算之演進，是建立一門有體系而合乎邏輯的人的行爲科學的必要條件。行爲學與經濟學【“行爲學與經濟學”重複，可删。】在人類史的發展中，以及在科學研究的過程中，行爲學與經濟學有一確定的地位。這兩門學問只有在行爲人已經成功地創造了一種思想方法得以計算他的行爲的時候，才能出現。在開始的時候，人的行爲科學只是處理那些可受金錢計算之檢驗的行爲。它所處理的完全限之於我們叫做狹義經濟學的內容，也即，處理那些在巿場社會裡面，靠金錢作媒介的交換行爲。在最初的階段，都是些關於通貨、放債、和個別物價這類問題的零星研究。葛來欣法則（Gresham's Law，也即Bodin和Davanzati的貨幣數量説最早的模樣）和金氏法則（Law of Gregory King）所傳授的知識，使我們開始了解在行爲領域中一些現象的規律性和必然性。最早的經濟理論的綜合體系，也即古典學派經濟學家輝煌的成就，其主要部份是關於計算的行爲的理論。這個理論體系隱隱約約地把人的行爲，分爲叫做「經濟的」和經濟以外的，也即分爲用金錢來計算的行爲和其他的行爲。從這個基礎出發，經濟學家就一步一步地擴大他們研究的範圍，最後擴展到把人的一切選擇都當作處理的對象而形成一個理論體系——行爲通論。

XIV. THE SCOPE AND METHOD OF CATALLACTICS

第14章 交換學的範圍和方法

1. The Delimitation of Catallactic Problems

一、交換學的問題之界定

There have never been any doubts and uncertainties about the scope of economic science. Ever since people have been eager for a systematic study of economics or political economy, all have agreed that it is the task of this branch of knowledge to investigate the market phenomena, that is, the determination of the mutual exchange ratios of the goods and services negotiated on markets, their origin in human action and their effects upon later action. The intricacy of a precise definition of the scope of economics does not stem from uncertainty with regard to the orbit of the phenomena to be investigated. It is due to the fact that the attempts to elucidate the phenomena concerned must go beyond the range of the market and of market transactions. In order to conceive the market fully one is forced to study the action of hypothetical isolated individuals on one hand and to contrast the market system with an imaginary socialist commonwealth on the other hand. In studying interpersonal exchange one cannot avoid dealing with autistic exchange. But then it is no longer possible to define neatly the boundaries between the kind of action which is the proper field of economic science in the narrower sense, and other action. Economics widens its horizon and turns into a general science of all and every human action, into praxeology. The question emerges of how to distinguish precisely, within the broader field of general praxeology, a narrower orbit of specifically economic problems.

關於經濟學的範圍，從來沒有任何疑問和不確定之點。自從人們渴望有一系統完整的經濟學或政治經濟學以來，大家都同意：這是研究市場現象這個知識部門的工作，也即，測定在市場上商討的財貨與勞務的相互交換率、交換率在人的行爲中的根源，以及它們對後繼行爲的影響。經濟學範圍的一個精確定義之複雜性，不是發生於所要研究的現象軌道之不確定。而是由於：說明有關現象的那些嘗試，必然越出市場和市場交易的範圍。爲要充份了解市場，我們不得不同時作兩方面的工作，一方面硏究假設的孤立狀態的個人行爲，一方面把市場制度與一假想的社會主義國相比較。在研究人際交換的時候，我們不免要涉及變態心理下的交換。這時，我們就不可能在兩類行爲之間劃出一條明確的界線，把那屬於經濟科學範圍的行爲與其他的行爲分開。經濟學在擴展它的視域，而成爲處理人的一切行爲的一門科學，成爲行爲學。現在的問題是：在一般行爲學這個較廣泛的範圍以內，我們如何正確地顯出較狹窄的經濟行爲的特徵。

The abortive attempts to solve this problem of a precise delimitation of the scope of catallactics have chosen as a criterion either the motives causing action or the goals which action aims at. But the variety and manifoldness of the motives instigating a man's action are without relevance for a comprehensive study of acting. Every action is motivated by the urge to remove a felt uneasiness. It does not matter for the science of action how people qualify this uneasiness from a physiological, psychological, or ethical point of view. It is the task of economics to deal with all commodity prices as they are really asked and paid in market transactions. It must not restrict its investigations

解決這個問題的一些無效的企圖，有的是把促起行爲的那些動機作爲判別的標準，有的是把行爲所想達成的那些目的當作標準。但是，促起行爲的那些動機的差異性和多樣性，對於行爲的綜合研究是不相干的。每一行爲都是由於想消除不適之感而發動的。至於怎樣才是「不適之感」，是從生理學、心理學，還是從倫理的觀點來說的呢？這個問題對於行爲科學沒有關係。經濟學的任務，是處理市場交易中實際上叫出的和照付的所有的貨物價格。它不可把它的硏究限之於某些價格。依照行爲的動機來把行爲分類，在心理學上也許是重要的，在道德的評値上也許可提供一個準繩；但在經濟學方面那就沒有一致的理論。從根本上講，凡是想把經濟學的範圍限之於研究「目的在供給有形財貨的行爲」的企圖，也同樣是理論的不一致。嚴格地說，人們並不希求有形財貨的本身，而是希求這些財貨所能提供的服務。他們所要的是，這些服務所能帶來的福利之增加。但是，如果是如此，我們就不可以把那些不藉助於有形的財貨而可直接消除不適之感的行爲，排之於「經濟的」行爲以外。一位醫生的囑咐、一位敎師的訓話、一位藝術家的演奏，以及其他人身的服務之爲經濟研究的對象，不異於建築師設計的藍圖、科學家發明的方程式、著作家的出版物。

The subject matter of catallactics is all market phenomena with all their roots, ramifications, and consequences. It is a fact that people in dealing on the market are motivated not only by the desire to get food, shelter, and sexual enjoyment, but also by manifold "ideal" urges. Acting man is always concerned both with "material" and "ideal" things. He chooses between various alternatives, no matter whether they are to be classified as material or ideal. In the actual scales of value material and ideal things are jumbled together. Even if it were feasible to draw a sharp line between material and ideal concerns, one must realize that every concrete action either aims at the realization both of material and ideal ends or is the outcome of a choice between something material and something ideal.

交換學的主題是一切巿場現象，包括它們的一切根源、一切分枝、和一切後果。在市場上做買賣的人們，不只是想取得衣、食、住和性慾的享樂，而且也有多樣「理想的」動機，這是個事實。行爲人總是旣關心「物質的」東西，也關心「理想的」東西。他在種種替換物之間作選擇，不管這些替換物是屬於物質類或理想類。在他內心的價値表上，物質的和理想的東西混雜在一起。即令我們可能劃一明確界線，分別物質的和理想的事物，我們也得了解：每一具體行爲，或者是爲實現物質的和理想的目的，或者是在某一物質的東西和某一理想的東西之間選擇的結果。

Whether it is possible to separate neatly those actions which aim at the satisfaction of needs exclusively conditioned by man's physiological constitution from other "higher" needs can be left undecided. But we must not overlook the fact that in reality no food is valued solely for its nutritive power and no garment or house solely for the protection it affords against cold weather and rain. It cannot be denied that the demand for goods is widely influenced by metaphysical, religious, and ethical considerations, by aesthetic value judgments, by customs, habits, prejudices, tradition, changing fashions, and many other things. To an economist who would try to restrict his investigations

滿足生理需要的行爲與滿足「較高」需要的行爲能否截然劃分這個問題，可以置之不理。但是，我們決不可忽視一個事實，即：在寞際上沒有一樣食物只是就它的營養來評價的，也沒有一件衣服或一幢房子，只是就它禦寒或防風雨的效用來評價的，我們不能否認影響財貨需求的有形而上的、宗敎的、和倫理的考慮，有審美觀念、風俗習慣、偏見、傳統、經常在變的時髦、和其他等等。對於一位想把他的研究只限之於「物質」方面的經濟學家，研究的主題，一到他想把握它的時候，就馬上消逝了。

All that can be contended is this: Economics is mainly concerned with the analysis of the determination of money prices of goods and services exchanged on the market. In order to accomplish this task it must start from a comprehensive theory of human action. Moreover, it must study not only the market phenomena, but no less the hypothetical conduct of an isolated man and of a socialist community. Finally, it must not restrict its investigations to those modes of action which in mundane speech are called "economic" actions, but must deal also with actions which are in a loose manner of speech called "noneconomic."

我們所可主張的不過是：經濟學主要地是在於分析「巿場上交換的財貨和勞務的」貨幣價格之決定。爲完成這個工作，那就必須從人的行爲概括理論開始。而且，不只是要硏究市場現象，還要同樣地硏究假設的一個孤立的人的行爲和一個社會主義社會的行爲。最後，它不可以拘限於那些通俗稱之爲「經濟的」行爲研究，也要研究那些所謂「非經濟的」行爲。「非經濟的」這個形容詞是很不謹嚴的。

The scope of praxeology, the general theory of human action, can be precisely defined and circumscribed. The specifically economic problems, the problems of economic action in the narrower sense, can only by and large be disengaged from the comprehensive body of praxeological theory. Accidental facts of the history of science of conventions play a role in all attempts to provide a definition of the scope of "genuine" economics.

行爲學，也即「人的行爲通論」，其範圍可以精密地界定。特別明確的經濟問題，狹義的經濟行爲的問題，只能從行爲學的綜合體系中分出來。自古以來有許多人想給「眞正的」經濟學確定一個範圍，在他們的這些努力中，科學史上的偶然事件和社會的積習每每發生作用。

Not logical or epistemological rigor, but considerations of expediency and traditional convention make us declare that the field of catallactics or of economics in the narrower sense is the analysis of the market phenomena. This is tantamount to the statement: Catallactics is the analysis of those actions which are conducted on the basis of monetary calculation. Market exchange and monetary calculation are inseparably linked together. A market in which there is direct exchange only is merely an imaginary construction. On the other hand, money and monetary calculation are conditioned by the existence of the market.

我們說，交換學，或狹義經濟學的範圍，是對市場現象的分析。使我們這樣說的，不是邏輯的或認識論的嚴密，而是權宜和傳統習慣的考慮。這等於這樣說：交換學是分析那些基於金錢計算的行爲。市場交換與金錢計算是連在一起不可分的。一個只有直接交換的市場，只是個想像的結構。另一方面，金錢與金錢的計算必須市場的存在爲條件。

It is certainly one of the tasks of economics to analyze the working of an imaginary socialist system of production. But access to this study too is possible only through the study of catallactics, the elucidation of a system in which there are money prices and economic calculation.

對一個假定的社會主義的生產制度加以分析，確是經濟學的任務之一。但是，要接觸這方面的研究，也只有藉助於交換學：交換學是對那種有金錢價格和經濟計算的制度的解釋。

The Denial of Economics

經濟學的否認

There are doctrines flatly denying that there can be a science of economics. What is taught nowadays at most of the universities under the label of economics is practically a denial of it.

有些敎條直截了當地否認經濟學這門學科的存在。目前在大多數大學裡面，以「經濟學」這個科目來講授的東西，實際是對經濟學的否定。

He who contests the existence of economics virtually denies that man's well-being is disturbed by any scarcity of external factors. Everybody, he implies, could enjoy the perfect satisfaction of all his

對經濟學的存在持反對論的人，實際上就是否認人的幸福因外在因素的稀少而受干擾。他有這樣的意思：假若有一種改革把不適當的人爲建構所形成的某些障礙成功地克服掉，任何人都可以享受他的一切慾望之完全滿足。「自然」是慷慨的，它毫不吝惜地給人類豐富的賜予。生活環境對於無限的人口，也可以成爲天堂。物资的稀少是人爲不臧的結果。把那些人爲的建制都廢除掉，就會大家富裕。

In the doctrine of Karl Marx and his followers scarcity is a historical category only. It is the feature of the primeval history of mankind which will be forever liquidated by the abolition of private property. Once mankind has effected the leap from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom[1] and thereby reached "the higher phase of communist society," there will be abundance and consequently it will be feasible to give "to each according to his needs."[2] There is in the vast flood of Marxian writings not the slightest allusion to the possibility that a communist society in its "higher phase" might have to face a scarcity of natural factors of production. The fact of the disutility of labor is spirited away by the assertion that to work, under communism of course, will no longer be pain but pleasure, "the primary necessity of life."[3] The unpleasant experiences of the Russian "experiment" are interpreted as caused by the capitalists' hostility, by the fact that socialism in one country only is not yet perfect and therefore has not yet been able to bring about the "higher phase," and, more recently, by the war.

在馬克斯和其門徒們的敎條中，「稀少」只是一個歷史的範疇。它是人類史原始期的特徵。這一特徵將隨私有財產制的廢除而永歸消滅。人類一旦從艱困的境界躍進「自由的」境界[1]【人類一旦脫離必然王國，躍進自由王國】，因而達到「較高層面的共產社會」【較高階段的共産主義】，那就實現了富裕，而可以實行「各取所需」[2]了。在多得如洪水般的馬克斯主義著作中，從來沒有說到，在較高層面的共產社會可能遇到自然資源稀少的問題，不僅沒有這樣說到，連一點這樣的暗示也沒有。至於勞動的負效用（disutility）則用下面的說詞欺騙掉：工作，在共產制度下，再也不是痛苦，而是快樂，是「人生的基本需要」[3]。俄國「試驗」的苦痛經驗被解釋爲：由於資本主義的敵對，由於社會主義不能只在一國圓滿實行，所以還不能進到「較高層面」【較高階段】，到了最近，則又說由於戰爭。

Then there are the radical inflationists as represented, for example, by Proudhon and by Ernest Solvay. In their opinion scarcity is created by the artificial checks upon credit expansion and other methods of increasing the quantity of money in circulation, enjoined upon the gullible public by the selfish class interests of bankers and other exploiters. They recommend unlimited public spending as the panacea.

於是，就有了一些急進的膨脹主義者，例如Proudhon、Ernest Solvay，以及現代美國的「功能財政」的敎條，都可代表。在這些人們的見解中，「稀少」是由於人爲的對信用擴張，以及其他增加貨幣流通量的方法所加的那些限制造成的，是由於銀行家和其他的剝削者，基於自私的階級利益而加害於可欺的大衆。這些人們把無限制的政府支出當作萬靈藥來推薦。

【英文第四版無此段。】

以富裕的經濟來代替所謂人爲的稀少經濟，在美國作這種主張的人，以曾任副總統的Henry A. Wallacc爲最激烈。他有過空前的、最龐大的計畫，要用政府命令來統制主要食物和原料的供給。他將因此而在歷史上留名——這種龐大計畫的創作者。可是，這樣的歷史記錄，無論如何不會損傷他那種主張的通俗性。

Such is the myth of potential plenty and abundance. Economics may leave it to the historians and psychologists to explain the popularity of this kind of wishful thinking and indulgence in daydreams. All that economics has to say about such idle talk is that economics deals with the problems man has to face on account of the fact that his life is conditioned by natural factors. It deals with action, i.e., with the conscious endeavors to remove as far as possible felt uneasiness. It has nothing to assert with regard to the state of affairs in an unrealizable and for human reason even inconceivable universe of unlimited opportunities. In such a world, it may be admitted, there will be no law of value, no scarcity, and no economic problems. These things will be

這都是神話，「可能的富裕」神話。這樣一廂情願的想法和自我陶醉的白日夢，爲什麼如此受人歡迎？對於這個問題，經濟學可以不管，讓歷史家和心理學家去解釋。經濟學所不得不講的只是：因爲人的生活受限於自然因素，所以他必定遇著一些問題，經濟學就是處理這些問題的。它處理人的行爲，也即，處理那些盡可能的消除不適之感的自覺的努力。關於那些不可實現的事象，甚至爲人的理知所不能想像的無限機會的宇宙，在經濟學裡面沒有什麼可說的。如果眞有這樣一個世界，那裡就沒有什麼價値法則、沒有稀少，也就沒有經濟問題。這些事情都沒有，因爲那裡沒有什麼選擇要作、沒有行爲，也沒有要用理知來解決的事情。繁殖在這樣一個世界的東西，決不會發展出理知和思考。如果我們能爲我們的子孫造就這樣一個世界，那些受賜的子孫將會體驗他們的思考力之退化而漸渐變得不成其爲人。因爲理知的基本任務是要對抗自然加給人類的限制，是要和「稀少」抗爭。行爲和思想的人，是「稀少」世界的產物。在這個世界裡面，凡是可得到的福利，都是辛勞和困苦的獎品，都是通常所說的「經濟」行爲的獎品。

--------------------

[1] Cf. Engels, Herrn Eugen Duhrings Umwalzung der Wissenschaft (7th ed. Stuttgart, 1910), p.306.

[1] 參考Engels, Herrn Eugen Duhrings Umwalzung der Wissenschaft (7th ed. Stuttgart, 1910), p.306.

[2] Cf. Karl Marx, Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms von Gotha, ed. Kreibich (Reichenberg, 1920), p. 17.

[2] 參考Karl Marx, Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms von Gotha, ed. Kreibich (Reichenberg, 1920), p. 17.

[3] Cf. ibid.

[3] 參考上書。

2. The Method of Imaginary Constructions

二、想像建構的方法

The specific method of economics is the method of imaginary constructions.

經濟學特有的方法，是想像建構的方法。

This method is the method of praxeology. That it has been carefully elaborated and perfected in the field of economic studies in the narrower sense is due to the fact that economics, at least until now, has been the best-developed part of praxeology. Everyone who wants to express an opinion about the problems commonly called economic takes recourse to this method. The employment of these imaginary constructions is, to be sure, not a procedure peculiar to the scientific analysis of these problems. The layman in dealing with them resorts to the same method. But while the layman's constructions are more or less confused and muddled, economics is intent upon elaborating them with the utmost care, scrupulousness, and precision, and upon examining their conditions and assumptions critically.

這個方法是行爲學的方法。它在狹義的經濟研究範圍內，已經是很精巧周到了，這是由於經濟學已經是行爲學最發展的一部份，至少就現在講，是如此。任何人，只要他想表示關於通常所說的經濟問題，就得求助於這個方法。這些想像的建構之利用，誠然不是這些問題的科學分析所特有的程序。外行人處理這些問題，也用同樣的方法。但是，外行人的建構或多或少是混亂含糊的，經濟學則是以最審慎、最認眞、最謹嚴的態度來精心製作它們，並以批評的眼光來檢視它們的—些條件和假設。

An imaginary construction is a conceptual image of a sequence of events logically evolved from the elements of action employed in its formation. It is a product of deduction, ultimately derived from the fundamental category of action, the act of preferring and setting aside. In designing such an imaginary construction the economist is not concerned with the question of whether or not it depicts the conditions of reality which he wants to analyze. Nor does he bother about the question of whether or not such a system as his imaginary construction posits could be conceived as really existent and in operation. Even imaginary constructions which are inconceivable, self-contradictory, or unrealizable can render useful, even indispensable services in the comprehension of reality, provided the economist knows how to use them properly.

一個想像的建構，是事件連續關係的概念典型【是事件序列的概念圖像】，而這些事件是從行爲的一些元素必然【合乎邏輯地】發展出來的。它是演鐸的結果，最後溯源於行爲的基本元範——取和捨的行爲。經濟學家在設計這樣一個想像建構的時候，他並不關心它是不是描述他所想分析的那些實際情況。他也不煩心於他的想像建構所佈置的這個制度能否視爲實際存在而又運作。即令他的想像的建構是難於置信的、自相矛盾的，或不能實現的，只要經濟學家知道如何適當地使用它們，它們對於實際的了解也能提供有用的、甚至不可少的幫助。

The method of imaginary constructions is justified by its success. Praxeology cannot, like the natural sciences, base its teachings upon laboratory experiments and sensory perception of external objects.

想像建構的方法，因其成功而得到嘉許。行爲學不能像自然科學一樣，把它的敎義置基於實驗室的試驗上面，也不能置基於對外界事物的感覺上面。它必須發展一些完全不同於物理學和生物學的方法。如果在自然科學的領域去找想像建構的類比，那就犯了嚴重的大錯。行爲學的想像建構，決不會碰上外界事物的任何經驗，也決不可從這些經驗的觀點予以評價。想像建構的功用，是幫助我們做那些不能靠我們的感官來做的査究。當我們把想像建構和實際情況比照的時候，我們不能提出這樣的問題：它們是否與經驗符合，是否適當地描述經驗資料。我們必須問：建構的一些假設是否與我們所要陳述的那些行爲的條件相一致。

The main formula for designing of imaginary constructions is to abstract from the operation of some conditions present in actual action. Then we are in a position to grasp the hypothetical consequences of the absence of these conditions and to conceive the effects of their existence. Thus we conceive the category of action by constructing the image of a state in which there is no action, either because the individual is fully contented and does not feel any uneasiness or because he does not know any procedure from which an improvement in his well-being (state of satisfaction) could be expected. Thus we conceive the notion of originary interest from an imaginary construction in which no distinction is made between satisfactions in periods of time equal in length but unequal with regard to their distance from the instant of action.

設計想像建構的主要公式，是從實際行爲中某些情況的運作加以抽象化。於是，我們就能夠領悟這些情況不存在時的假想後果，也能夠領悟它們存在時的後果。所以，我們構想一個沒有行爲景況（或者因爲個人的一切慾望已經充份滿足而沒有任何不適之感，或者因爲他不知道他的福利〔滿足的情沉〕有何改善的程序），藉此想出行爲的元範。

The method of imaginary constructions is indispensable for praxeology; it is the only method of praxeological and economic inquiry. It is, to be sure, a method difficult to handle because it can easily result in fallacious syllogisms. It leads along a sharp edge; on both sides yawns the chasm of absurdity and nonsense. Only merciless self-criticism can prevent a man from falling headlong into these abysmal depths.

想像建構這個方法，是行爲學所不可少的：它是行爲學和經濟研究唯一的方法。誠然，它是個極難運用的方法，因爲它容易流於錯誤的推理。稍一不愼就陷入荒謬。只有嚴厲的自我批判才可防止這樣的情形發生。

3. The Pure Market Economy

三、純粹的市場經濟

The imaginary construction of a pure or unhampered market economy assumes that there is division of labor and private ownership (control) of the means of production and that consequently there is market exchange of goods and services. It assumes that the operation of the market is not obstructed by institutional factors. It assumes that the government, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion, is intent upon preserving the operation of the market system, abstains from hindering its functioning, and protects it against encroachments

一個純粹的或未受妨礙的巿場經濟的想像建構，是假設分工和生產手段的私有，因而有財貨和勞務的巿場交換。它假設市場的運作不受制度方面的妨礙。它假設政府這個有強制力的機構，只專心於市場運作的維持，而不妨害它的功能，並且還要保護它，不許別人侵害。市場是自由的：沒有市場以外的因素干擾到物價、工資率，和利率。從這些假設出發，經濟學就進而解說純粹市場經濟的運作。把這個想像建構的每件事情都徹底了解以後，稍後的階段再去研究，由於政府和其他運用強制力的機構之干涉市場，而引起的那些問題。

It is amazing that this logically incontestable procedure, the only one that is fitted to solve the problems involved, has been passionately attacked. People have branded it as a prepossession in favor of a liberal economic policy, which they stigmatize as reactionary, economic royalism, Manchesterism, negativism, and so on. They deny that anything can be gained for the knowledge of reality from occupation with this imaginary construction. However, these turbulent critics contradict themselves as they take recourse to the same method in advancing their own assertions. In asking for minimum wage rates they depict the alleged unsatisfactory conditions of a free labor market and in asking for tariffs they describe the alleged disasters brought about by free trade. There is, of course, no other way available for the elucidation of a measure limiting the free play of the factors operating on an unhampered market than to study first the state of affairs prevailing under economic freedom.

叫人驚奇的是：像這樣合理而不容爭辯的程序，唯一適於解決有關問題的程序，竟遇到激烈的反對。有人認爲，這是袒護自由經濟政策的偏見，而罵它是反動的經濟保皇主義、曼徹斯特主義（Manchesterism）、消極主義等等。他們否認從這種想像建構可以得到一切實際知識。可是，這些橫蠻的批評者，當他們用同樣的方法申述他們的論斷時，卻又自相矛盾。在要求最低工資率的時候，他們描述自由勞動市場所謂不好的情況，在要求保護關稅的時候，他們形容自由貿易帶來的所謂禍害。當然，除掉首先研究在經濟自由下的情況以外，我們沒有其他的方法可以把限制那些活動於自由市場的要素的措施加以說明。

It is true that economists have drawn from their investigations the conclusion that the goals which most people, practically even all people, are intent on attaining by toiling and working and by economic policy can best be realized where the free market system is not impeded by government decrees. But this is not a preconceived judgment stemming from an insufficient occupation with the operation of government interference with business. It is, on the contrary, the result of a careful unbiased scrutiny of all aspects of interventionism.

不錯，經濟學家從他們的研究中得到這樣一個結論：大多數人，實際上甚至是所有的人，靠勤勞、工作、和經濟方法而想達到的目標，最能夠在不受政府干擾的自由市場裡面實現。這並不是一個缺乏充份根據的判斷；相反地，是從各方面仔細而公平地檢討政府干涉而獲致的結論。

It is also true that the classical economists and their epigones used to call the system of the unhampered market economy "natural" and government meddling with market phenomena "artificial" and "disturbing." But this terminology also was the product of their careful scrutiny of the problems of interventionism. They were in conformity with the semantic practice of their age in calling an undesirable state of social affairs "contrary to nature."

不錯，古典學派的經濟學家和他們的追隨者，慣於把未受妨礙的市場經濟叫做「自然的」，把政府之干涉市場叫做「人爲的」和「擾亂的」。但是，這種用語也是他們對於干涉的問題經過仔細研究的產物。他們把那不可喜的社會事象叫做「反自然的」，這是他們那個時代的語言習慣。

Theism and Deism of the Age of Enlightenment viewed the regularity of natural phenomena as an emanation of the decrees of Providence. When the philosophers of the Enlightenment discovered that there prevails a regularity of phenomena also in human action and in social evolution, they were prepared to interpret it likewise as evidence

啓蒙時代的有神論和自然神敎，把自然現象的規律性看作神命所使然。當啓蒙時代的哲學家們發現，在人的行爲和社會的演化中，也有規律性的時候，他們也就同樣地把它解釋爲宇宙創造者「父愛」（paternal care）的明證。這是某些經濟學家所反覆說明的預定和諧說（the doctrine of the predetermined harmony）的眞義[4]。主張父權主義的社會哲學，特別強調受命於天來統治人民的專制君主之神聖使命。自由主義者則反過來講：自由市場的運作所形成的情況，比神化了的統治者的命令所規定的更叫人滿意。在自由市場裡面，消費者——也即每個公民——是主權。他們說：遵守市場制度的功能，你將可發現神力（the finger of God）。

Along with the imaginary construction of a pure market economy the classical economists elaborated its logical counterpart, the imaginary construction of a socialist commonwealth. In the heuristic process which finally led to the discovery of the operation of a market economy this image of a socialist order even had logical priority. The question which preoccupied the economists was whether a tailor could be supplied with bread and shoes if there was no government decree compelling the baker and the shoemaker to provide for his needs. The first thought was that authoritarian interference is required to make every specialist serve his fellow citizens. The economists were taken aback when they discovered that no such compulsion is needed. In contrasting productivity and profitability, self-interest and public welfare, selfishness and altruism, the economists implicitly referred to the image of a socialist system. Their astonishment at the "automatic," as it were, steering of the market system was precisely due to the fact that they realized that an "anarchic" state of production results in supplying people better than the orders of a centralized omnipotent government. The idea of socialism--a system of the division of labor entirely controlled and managed by a planning authority--did not originate in the heads of utopian reformers. These utopians aimed rather at the autarkic coexistence of small self-sufficient bodies; take, for instance, Fourier's phalanstere. The radicalism of the reformers turned toward socialism when they took the image of an economy managed by a national government or a world authority, implied in the theories of the economists, as a model for their new order.

古典學派經濟學家，除掉純粹市場經濟的想像建構以外，還有一個相對的社會主義國的想像建構。爲引導人們發現市場經濟的運作，社會主義秩序的構想有先講之必要。經濟學家首先被困擾的問題是：假若沒有政府下命令強迫烘麵包的人和做鞋的人供給裁縫工人的麵包和鞋子，裁縫工人能不能得到麵包和鞋子。這一想，首先想到：權威的干涉是必要的，由權威機構規定，每個專業者爲他的同胞服務。可是，經濟學家們在發現這樣的強迫沒有必要的時候，他們嚇了一大跳。在把生產與利潤、私利與公益、自私與利他，彼此對照的時候，經濟學家所參證的是社會主義制度這個影像。可是，他們對於市場制度的運作好像是「自動地」在那裡調整而感到驚異。這種驚異正是由於他們領悟到一個「無政府的」生產狀態，竟然比一個權力集中、靠命令來作的萬能政府更好。社會主義——完全由一個計畫機構來控制、來管理的分工制度——這個想頭不是發源於烏托邦改革家的頭腦。烏托邦的改革家所提倡的，是小規模的自給自足的團體，彼此享有獨立主權而又和平共存，例如Fourier所鼓吹的那種社會Phalanstere。但是，那些嚮往一國政府、或一世界性的權力機構所統制的經濟制度，而轉向到社會主義的改革家所抱持的急進主義，竟隱藏於經濟學家們的理論中，被視作他們的新秩序之一模型。

The Maximization of Profits

最大利潤的追求

It is generally believed that economists, in dealing with the problems of a market economy, are quite unrealistic in assuming that all

大家都以爲：經濟學家在處理市場問題是很不切實際地假定所有的人總是在追求最大利益。據說，經濟學家構想一個完全自私而合理的人，對於他，除利潤以外，沒有値得計較的東西。這樣的一種「經濟人」（homo oeconomicus）類似股票市場的投機者。但是，絕大多數的人並不如此。所以，有人說，研習經濟學家所構想的這個幻境，對於實際不會有何認知。

It is not necessary to enter again into a refutation of all the confusion, error, and distortion inherent in this contention. The first two parts of this book have unmasked the fallacies implied. At this point it is enough to deal with the problem of the maximization of profits.

對於這種說法所有的混淆、錯誤、和曲解，我們再也沒有必要加以辯駁。本書的頭兩篇已經揭發那些謬見。這裡只要討論「最大利潤的追求」這個問題就夠了。

Praxeology in general and economics in its special field assume with regard to the springs of human action nothing other than that acting man wants to remove uneasiness. Under the particular conditions of dealing on the market, action means buying and selling. Everything that economics asserts about demand and supply refers to every instance of demand and supply and not only to demand and supply brought about by some special circumstances requiring a particular description or definition. To assert that a man, faced with the alternative of getting more or less for a commodity he wants to sell, ceteris paribus chooses the high price, does not require any further assumption. A higher price means for the seller a better satisfaction of his wants. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the buyer. The amount saved in buying the commodity concerned enables him to spend more for the satisfaction of other needs. To buy in the cheapest market and to sell in the dearest market is, other things being equal, not conduct which would presuppose any special assumptions concerning the actor's motives and morality. It is merely the necessary offshoot of any action under the conditions of market exchange.

行爲的原動力，不是別的，是想消除不適之感。這是行爲學通論和經濟學的共同假定。在討論到市場這種特定的情況時，行爲就是指買與賣。經濟學所講的關於需求和供給的每件事情，是指需求和供給的一切情況，而不只是指在某些特定環境（需要加以特別描述或界説的環境）下發生的需求和供給。我們說：一個人在出賣他的貨物時，可得到的價格有高低不同的選擇，如果其他情形都一樣，他將選擇高的價格。我們這一說法，並不需要更進一層的假定。對於賣者而言，較高的價格就是他的慾望之更大滿足。這句話加以必要的變更，就可同樣地應用到買者。在購買貨物時所省下的金額使買者能夠在滿足其他慾望方面有較多的錢可花。假若其他情況都一樣，在價格最低的巿場買進，在最高的市場賣出，這種行爲不需要在動機方面和道德方面有何特殊預設的行爲。它不過是在市場交換的環境下必然衍生的。

In his capacity as a businessman a man is a servant of the consumers, bound to comply with their wishes. He cannot indulge in his own whims and fancies. But his customers' whims and fancies are for him ultimate law, provided these customers are ready to pay for them. He is under the necessity of adjusting his conduct to the demand of the consumers. If the consumers, without a taste for the beautiful, prefer things ugly and vulgar, he must, contrary to his own convictions, supply them with such things[5]. If consumers do not want to pay a higher price for domestic products than for those produced abroad, he must buy the foreign product, provided it is cheaper. An employer cannot grant favors at the expense of his customers. He cannot pay wage rates higher than those determined by the market if the buyers are not ready to pay proportionately higher prices for

一個人，當其爲商人的身份時，他是消費者的僕人，不得不遵從他們的意願。他不能縱容或耽迷於自己的興趣和幻想。但是，他的顧客們的興趣和幻想對於他卻是最高的律令，假使這些顧客準備對他支付代價的話。他必得調整他的行爲以適應消費者的需求。如果消費者不喜歡美的而喜歡醜惡和粗陋的東西，他就要一反自己的信念，把醜陋的東西供給他們[5]。如果消費者不想對本國貨支付比外國貨較高的價格，他就得買進外國貨來供給他們，如果外國貨較便宜的話。一個僱主不能犧牲他顧客的利益而施惠。他所支付的工資不能高於市場所決定的，只有在購買者對他的產品願意支付較高的價格時，他才可以比例地提高他所付的工資。

It is different with man in his capacity as spender of his income. He is free to do what he likes best. He can bestow alms. He can, motivated by various doctrines and prejudices, discriminate against goods of a certain origin or source and prefer the worse or more expensive product to the --technologically--better and cheaper one.

人，當其以所得花費者的身份出現的時候，情形就不同了。他自由地做他所最喜歡做的事情。他可以把錢捐贈出去。他會受各種不同的敎條和偏見的支配，歧視某些來源的貨物，而寧可買那價格較高而在技術觀點上品質較差的貨物。

As a rule people in buying do not make gifts to the seller. But nonetheless that happens. The boundaries between buying goods and services needed and giving alms are sometimes difficult to discern. He who buys at a charity sale usually combines a purchase with a donation for a charitable purpose. He who gives a dime to a blind street musician certainly does not pay for the questionable performance; he simply gives alms.

人在購買的時候，通常不是對賣者贈送，可是，有時也發生例外。購買必需的財貨和勞務與片面的施捨，這兩者之間，有時難得看出劃分的界線。購買慈善活動義賣品的人，通常是購買與捐贈的混合。拿一角錢給那街頭吹蕭的盲人，大概不是報償他的那點演奏，而只是一種施捨。

Man in acting is a unity. The businessman who owns the whole firm may sometimes efface the boundaries between business and charity. If he wants to relieve a distressed friend, delicacy of feeling may prompt him to resort to a procedure which spares the latter the embarrassment of living on alms. He gives the friend a job in his office although he does not need his help or could hire an equivalent helper at a lower salary. Then the salary granted appears formally as a part of business outlays. In fact it is the spending of a fraction of the businessman's income. It is, from a correct point of view, consumption and not an expenditure designed to increase the firm's profits[6].

在行爲中的人，是一個單元。獨資經營的商行老闆，有時忘掉了做生意與做善事之間的界線。如果他想援助一位窮困的朋友，體貼的情感會促使他解除這位朋友依賴救濟過活的窘愧心情，而在他的商行裡面爲他安排一個職位，儘管他並不需要這位朋友的幫助、或者可以用較低的待遇僱用同等的助手。在這種情形下，支付的這筆薪金，在形式上是營業費用的一部份，事賁上是這位老闆的所得的一部份開支。從正確的觀點看，這是消費，而不是用來增加商行收入的經費[6]。

Awkward mistakes are due to the tendency to look only upon things tangible, visible, and measurable, and to neglect everything else. What the consumer buys is not simply food or calories. He does not want to feed like a wolf, he wants to eat like a man. Food satisfies the appetite of many people the better, the more appetizingly and tastefully it is prepared, the finer the table is set, and the more agreeable the environment is in which the food is consumed. Such things are regarded as of no consequence by a consideration exclusively occupied with the chemical aspects of the process of digestion[7]. But the fact that they play an important role in the determination of food prices is perfectly compatible with the assertion that people prefer, ceteris paribus, to buy in the cheapest market. Whenever a buyer, in choosing between two things which chemists and technologists deem perfectly equal, prefers the more expensive, he has a reason. If he does not err, he

麻煩的錯誤是由於人們有這樣的一個傾向：只看到有形的、可見的，和可以計量的東西，其餘的一切，都忽略掉了。消費者所購買的不僅是食物或熱量，他不是像狼那樣的想吃，而是以一個「人」的樣子想吃。食物烹調得愈合口味、餐桌佈置得愈雅潔、用餐的環境愈舒適，則愈是叫人滿意。像這樣的一些東西，如果專就消化食物的化學過程來考盧，可視爲毫無意義的[7]。但是，這些東西對於吃的價格的決定，發生重大的作用。這個事實完全符合這一句話：假若其他情形都一樣，人們願意在價格最低的市場購買。如果有兩件貨物，化學家和技術人員認爲是完全相同的，而購買者願意買那件價錢較貴的，這時他有他的理由。假若他不錯的話，他是對化學家和技術人員用他們的專業研究法所不能理解的那些服務支付代價。如果一個人樂於去昂貴的場所，而不去較便宜的地方，爲的是喜歡在一位公爵的鄰近呷雞尾酒，我們可以批評他可笑的虚榮心。但是，我們決不可以說這個人的行爲不是爲的增進他自己的滿足。

What a man does is always aimed at an improvement of his own state of satisfaction. In this sense--and in no other--we are free to use the term selfishness and to emphasize that action is necessarily always selfish. Even an action directly aiming at the improvement of other people's conditions is selfish. The actor considers it as more satisfactory for himself to make other people eat than to eat himself. His uneasiness is caused by the awareness of the fact that other people are in want.

一個人所作的事，總歸是爲的增進他自己的滿足。在這個意義下，我們使用「自私自利」（selfish）這個名詞，而強調行爲總是自私自利的。即令某一行爲，其直接目的在於改善別人的生活情況，也是自私自利的行爲。因爲這個行爲者覺得使別人吃比自己吃更舒服些。他的不適之感是由於看見別人飢餓而引起的。

It is a fact that many people behave in another way and prefer to fill their own stomach and not that of their fellow citizens. But this has nothing to do with economics; it is a datum of historical experience. At any rate, economics refers to every kind of action, no matter whether motivated by the urge of a man to eat or to make other people eat.

也有許多人的行爲不如此，他們只圖自己飽暖不管別人飢寒。這也是事實。但是，這些與經濟學無關；這是歷史經驗的資料。無論如何，經濟學涉及每類的行爲，不管它的動機是爲的自己吃或者使別人吃。

If maximizing profits means that a man in all market transactions aims at increasing to the utmost the advantage derived, it is a pleonastic and perphrastic circumlocution. It only asserts what is implied in the very category of action. If it means anything else, it is the expression of an erroneous idea.

如果「最大利潤的追求」是說：一個人在所有的市場交易中都爲的是盡力增加利益，這是個冗長而又轉彎抹角的遁辭。那不過是說出，蘊含在每一行爲元範裡面的東西。如果它指的是別的，那就是個錯誤觀念的陳述。

Some economists believe that it is the task of economics to establish how in the whole of society the greatest possible satisfaction of all people or of the greatest number could be attained. They do not realize that there is no method which would allow us to measure the state of satisfaction attained by various individuals. They misconstrue the character of judgments which are based on the comparison between various people's happiness. While expressing arbitrary value judgments, they believe themselves to be establishing facts. One may call it just to rob the rich in order to make presents to the poor. However, to call something fair or unfair is always a subjective value judgment and as such purely personal and not liable to any verification or falsification. Economics is not intent upon pronouncing value judgments. It aims at a cognition of the consequences of certain modes of acting.

有的經濟學家認爲：經濟學的任務是要確定全社會所有的人，或最大多數的人的最大可能滿足如何可以獲致。他們不了解我們決沒有方法可以衡量各個人得到的滿足狀態。他們誤解了基於人際幸福之比較的那些判斷。他們一方面提示武斷的價値判斷，一方面相信他們自己在確定事實。你可以把劫富濟貧叫做正義。可是，把某事叫做公平或不公平，總是一個主觀的價値判斷，因此，那是純粹個人的事情，旣無法證其爲是，也無法證其爲非。經濟學不涉及價値判斷。它的目的在於認知某些方式的行爲所獲致的一些後果。

It has been asserted that the physiological needs of all men are of the same kind and that this equality provides a standard for the measurement of the degree of their objective satisfaction. In expressing such opinions and in recommending the use of such criteria to guide the government's policy, one proposes to deal with men as the breeder deals with his cattle. But the reformers fail to realize that there is no

有人說，生理方面的需要，所有的人都是一樣的，這個一樣，爲衡量他們的滿足程度提供了一個標準。表示這種意見而提議用這個標準來指導政府政策的人，等於提議以畜牲的豢養者對付畜牲的態度來對付人。但是，這種改革家們卻不了解我們沒有什麼普遍有效的營養法則可以適用於所有的人。一個人在不同的法則中選擇哪一個，完全決定於這個人的目的是什麼。畜牲的豢養者不是爲的使母牛的幸福而豢養它，而是爲的達成他自己的目的——他所以計畫豢養母牛的目的。他所希望的，也許是較多的牛乳，也許是較肥的牛肉，或者其他的什麼。人的豢養者想把人養成怎樣的人——運動員呢？還是數學家？軍人呢，還是工廠的職工？那個想把人當作一個有目的的養育制度的材料的人，他自己就會擅攬專制的權力而把國人作爲手段，以達成他自己的目的。這些目的不是國人自己所要達成的。

The value judgments of an individual differentiate between what makes him more satisfied and what less. The value judgments a man pronounces about another man's satisfaction do not assert anything about this other man's satisfaction. They only assert what condition of this other man better satisfies the man who pronounces the judgment. The reformers searching for the maximum of general satisfaction have told us merely what state of other people's affairs would best suit themselves.

什麼事物使人更快樂，什麼事物使人較少快樂，這其間的價値判斷，人各不同。一個人對於別人的滿足所作的價値判斷，其內容與這位別人的滿足毫不相干。實質上，這種價値判斷不過是說：這位別人要如何如何才可使這位作價値判斷的人更滿足。那些爲全社會尋求最大福利的改革家們吿訴我們的，實質上只是說：一般別人的情況要怎樣怎樣才最使他們適意。

-----------------

[4] The doctrine of the predetermined harmony in the operation of an unhampered market system must not be confused with the theorem of the harmony of the rightly understood interests within a market system, although there is something akin between them. Cf. below, pp. 673-682.

[4] 自由市場運作的預定和諧說，與「市場制度裡面正確了解的利益彼此和諧定理」雖然有點類似的地方，但不可混淆。參考第二十四章第三節。

[5] A painter is a businessman if he is intent upon making paintings which could be sold at the highest price. A painter who does not compromise with the taste of the buying public and, disdaining all unpleasant consequences, lets himself be guided solely by his own ideals is an artist, a creative genius. Cf. above, pp. 139-140.

[5] —個畫家，如果他志在賈得高價而作畫，他就是一個商人。如果他不迎合大衆的好尙，不顧一切不好的後果而我行我素，他就是一位藝術家，一位有原創力的天才。參考第七章第三節。

[6] Such overlapping of the boundaries between business outlays and consumptive spending is often encouraged by institutional conditions. An expenditure debited to the account of trading expenses reduces net profits and thereby the amount of taxes due. If taxes absorb 50 per cent of profits, the charitable businessman spends only 50 per cent of the gift out of his own pocket. The rest burdens the Department of Internal Revenue.

[6] 像這樣的營業費用與消費支出的混淆不淸，常常是由於制度方面的情況促成的。記在營業費用帳上的一筆開支，將使利潤淨額減少，因而減少了應納的稅額。假若租稅會課掉利潤的50%，則商人在慈善方面所花的錢只有50%是出自自己的腰包，其餘的一半是稅務局的損失。

[7] To be sure, a consideration from the point of view of the physiology of nutrition will not regard such things as negligible.

[7] 當然，從營養生理學的觀點來考慮，這些事情不致於被忽視。

4. The Autistic Economy

四、幻想的經濟

No other imaginary construction has caused more offense than that of an isolated economic actor entirely dependent on himself. However, economics cannot do without it. In order to study interpersonal exchange it must compare it with conditions under which it is absent. It constructs two varieties of the image of an autistic economy in which there is only autistic exchange: the economy of an isolated individual and the economy of a socialist society. In employing this imaginary construction the economists do not bother about the problem of whether or not such a system could really work[8]. They are fully aware of the fact that their imaginary construction is fictitious. Robinson Crusoe, who, for all that, may have existed, and the general manager of a perfectly isolated socialist commonwealth that never existed, would not have been in a position to plan and to act as people can only when taking recourse to economic calculation. However, in the frame of our imaginary construction we are free to pretend that they could calculate whenever such a fiction may be useful for the discussion of the specific problem to be dealt with.

沒有其他的想像建構比「完全孤立的經濟行爲人」這個想像建構更多流弊的。但是，經濟學卻少不了它。爲研究人際的交換，經濟學必須把人際交換和沒有人際交換的情況作一比較。它建構兩種形態的幻想經濟，一個孤立的個人經濟與一個社會主義社會的經濟。在利用這個想像建構時，經濟學家並不擔心「這樣的制度實際是否可行」的問題[8]。他們充份知道，他們的想像建構本來就是虛構的。魯賓遜（Robinson Crusoe，即令也許有這樣的人）和完全孤立的社會主義社會的總經理（事實上決不會有這樣的社會）不能夠像一般人那樣只要藉助於經濟計算，就可計畫和行爲。可是，在我們的想像建構中，我們無妨認爲他們能夠如此。

The imaginary construction of an autistic economy is at the bottom of the popular distinction between productivity and profitability as it

一般人通常是把生產性（productivity）與利潤性（profitability）加以區分，而用這個區分作爲價値判斷的尺度。幻想經濟這個想像建構，本質上是屬於這種區分。用這種區分的人們是把這個幻想經濟——尤其是那個社會主義的——看作最可欲、最完善的經濟管理制。市場經濟的每一現象，都要用社會主義的觀點來判斷它是不是許可的。只有在這樣制度的經理的計畫中的有意義行爲，他們才認爲有正面的價値，而加以「生產的」這個形容詞。至於在市場經濟的一切活動都叫做「非生產的」，儘管那些活動對於作這些活動的人可能有利。比方說，推銷、廣吿、和銀行業務都看作是有利的活動，但不是生產的。

Economics, of course, has nothing to say about such arbitrary value judgments.

當然，經濟學對於這樣武斷的價値判斷沒有什麼可說的。

-----------------

[8] We are dealing here with problems of theory, not history. We can therefore abstain from refuting the objections raised against the concept of an isolated actor by referring to the historical role of the self-sufficient household economy.

[8] 這裡，我們是討論理論，不是討論歷史。所以，我們不必提出自足的家族經濟在歷史上扮演過的角色來反駁對於孤立行爲人這一概念的反對。

5. The State of Rest and the Evenly Rotating Economy

五、靜止狀態與均匀輪轉的經濟

The only method of dealing with the problem of action is to conceive that action ultimately aims at bringing about a state of affairs in which there is no longer any action, whether because all uneasiness has been removed or because any further removal of felt uneasiness is out of the question. Action thus tends toward a state of rest, absence of action.

處理行爲問題的唯一方法，是想像行爲的最後目的在於實現一種再也無須行爲的情況，這種情況的實現，或者是因爲所有的不適之感都已消除了，或者是因爲再進一步消除它已不可能了。所以，行爲是趨向於靜止，趨向於沒有行爲。

The theory of prices accordingly analyzes interpersonal exchange from this aspect. People keep on exchanging on the market until no further exchange is possible because no party expects any further improvement of its own conditions from a new act of exchange. The potential buyers consider the prices asked by the potential sellers unsatisfactory, and vice versa. No more transactions take place. A state of rest emerges. This state of rest, which we may call the plain state of rest, is not an imaginary construction. It comes to pass again and again. When the stock market closes, the brokers have carried out all orders which could be executed at the market price. Only those potential sellers and buyers who consider the market price too low or too high respectively have not sold or bought[9]. The same is valid with regard to all transactions. The whole market economy is a big exchange or market place, as it were. At any instant all those transactions take place which the parties are ready to enter into at the realizable price. New sales can be effected only when the valuations of at least one of the parties have changed.

因此，價格理論就從這方面來分析人際的交換。人們在市場上繼續交換，直到沒有一方可以希望從再交換中再改善自己的情況，因而再也沒有交換的可能時爲止。潜在的買者不滿意潜在的賣者所要的價，潜在的賣者不滿意潜在的買者所出的價。於是再也沒有交換發生。一個靜止的狀態爲之出現。這種靜止狀態（我們可把它叫做平常的靜止狀態）不僅是一個想像的建構。它是一再地來來去去的。當股票市場關閉的時候，經紀人已經把所有願在市場價格之下買賣的委託都完成了。只有那些認爲市場價格太低的潜在賣者和那些認爲它太高的潜在買者沒有賣出或買進[9]，這個道理同樣地適用於所有的交易。整個巿場經濟好像是一個大的交易所或大的市場。在任何時候，凡是雙方都願意在可實現的價格下參與進來，那些交易就發生。新的買賣，只有在雙方的評價發生變動的時候才會再出現。

It has been asserted that the notion of the plain state of rest is unsatisfactory. It refers, people have said, only to the determination of prices of goods of which a definite supply is already available, and does not say anything about the effects brought about by these prices upon production. The objection is unfounded. The theorems implied in the notion of the plain state of rest are valid with regard to all transactions without exception. It is true, the buyers of factors of production will immediately embark upon producing and very soon reenter the market in order to sell their products and to buy what they want for their own consumption and for continuing production processes. But this does not invalidate the scheme. This scheme, to be sure, does not contend that the state of rest will last. The lull will certainly disappear as soon as the momentary conditions which brought it about change.

有人說，平常的靜止狀態這個觀念不能叫人滿意。他們說，那只是指，那已經有了一定供給量的貨物的價格之決定，至於這些價格在生產方面所發生的影響，則完全沒有講到。這個說法是沒有道理的。蘊含在「平常的靜止狀態」這個觀念裡面的定理，對於所有交易都是有效的，沒有例外。不錯，生產要素的買者將會馬上著手生產而很快地再進入巿場以期寳掉產品，買進所要消費和用以繼續生產的東西。但是這種情形並不使這個觀念無效。這個觀念，確實並不意含靜止狀態會永久繼續下去。它一定隨著促成它的那些暫時情況之變動而馬上消失。

The notion of the plain state of rest is not an imaginary construction but the adequate description of what happens again and again on every market. In this regard it differs radically from the imaginary construction of the final state of rest.

平常的靜止狀態這個觀念，不是一個想像建構，而是一再發生在每個市場的狀態之適當的描述。在這一點上，它根本不同於「最後的靜止狀態」那個想像的建構。

In dealing with the plain state of rest we look only at what is going on right now. We restrict our attention to what has happened momentarily and disregard what will happen later, in the next instant or tomorrow or later. We are dealing only with prices really paid in sales, i.e., with the prices of the immediate past. We do not ask whether or not future prices will equal these prices.

在討論「平常的靜止狀態」的時候，我們只注意目前連續發生的事情。我們把注意力限之於瞬間發生的事情而不管稍後（後一小時，明天，或更後）將會發生什麼。我們只處理買賣方面實際收付的價格，也即剛剛過去的價格。我們不問將來的價格是否與這些價格相等。

But now we go a step further. We pay attention to factors which are bound to bring about a tendency toward price changes. We try to find out to what goal this tendency must lead before all its driving force is exhausted and a new state of rest emerges. The price corresponding to this future state of rest was called the natural price by older economists; nowadays the term static price is often used. In order to avoid misleading associations it is more expedient to call it the final price and accordingly to speak of the final state of rest. This final state of rest is an imaginary construction, not a description of reality. For the final state of rest will never be attained. New disturbing factors will emerge before it will be realized. What makes it necessary to take recourse to this imaginary construction is the fact that the market at every instant is moving toward a final state of rest. Every later new instant can create new facts altering this final state of rest. But the market is always disquieted by a striving after a definite final state of rest.

現在，我們再進一步。我們注意到那些必然引起物價變動的因素。我們試圖找出這個變動趨勢在其推進力耗竭，而新的靜止狀態出現以前，將會走向什麼目標。那些適應未來靜止狀態的物質，老一輩的經濟學家稱之爲「自然價格」；現在則常用「靜態價格」這個名詞。最後靜止狀態是一個想像建構，不是實情的描述。因爲，最後的靜止狀態永久不會達成。在它將要實現以前，新的干擾因素已發生作用。我們之所以要藉助於這個想像建構，是由於我們的市場時時刻刻是在趨向這個最後的靜止狀態。每一稍後的時刻都會有改變最後靜止狀態的新事件發生。但是，這個市場總是受那些尋求最後靜止狀態的力量之騒擾。

The market price is a real phenomenon; it is the exchange ratio which was actual in business transacted. The final price is a hypothetical

市場價格是實在的現象；它是商業交易中實際的交換率。至於最後價格則是一個假設的價格。市場價格是些歷史事實，所以，我們能夠確切地說出它是幾元幾角。至於最後價格，則只能說出它出現的必要條件。我們不能用金錢數値或其他財貨的數量來說出。最後價格永不會出現於市場。但是，交換學如果不討論最後價格，則對於價格決定的問題之分析一定失敗。因爲，在巿場價格所出現的市場情況中，已有些潜在的動力會不斷地引起起物價變動，假若沒有新的事件出現，這個趨勢會一直趨向於最後價格與最後靜止狀態形成時爲止。如果我們只注意表現於貨幣數額的市場價格和平常的靜止狀態，而不管「這個市場已經受到那些必然引起物價變動和一個傾向於另一靜止狀態的趨勢之因素的干擾」這個事實，那麼，我們就是不適當地拘限了價格決定的研究。

The phenomenon with which we have to cope is the fact that changes in the factors which determine the formation of prices do not produce all their effects at once. A span of time must elapse before all their effects are exhausted. Between the appearance of a new datum and the perfect adjustment of the market to it some time must pass. (And, of course, while this period of time elapses, other new data appear.) In dealing with the effects of any change in the factors operating on the market, we must never forget that we are dealing with events taking place in succession, with a series of effects succeeding one another. We are not in a position to know in advance how much time will have to elapse. But we know for certain that some time must elapse, although this period may sometimes be so small that it hardly plays any role in practical life.

我們必須妥善處理的是這個事實：那些影響價格的因素變動，並非一下子發生它們所有的後果。它們所有的後果之全部發生，必須跨過相當的時間。在「新的事件發生」與「市場對它的完全調整」必須經過一個時期。（而且，當這個時期漸漸消逝的時候，其他的新事件又發生）。在處理影響巿場因素任何變動的後果時，我們決不可忘掉我們是在處理連續發生的事件，在處理一個接一個的一連串後果。我們不能預先知道這其間需要多長的時間經過。但是，我們確實知道一定要有時間經過，儘管有時它會很短，短到在實際生活方面不發生任何影響。

Economists often erred in neglecting the element of time. Take for instance the controversy concerning the effects of changes in the quantity of money. some people were only concerned with its long-run effects, i.e., with the final prices and the final state of rest. Others saw only the short-run effects, i.e., the prices of the instant following the change in the data. Both were mistaken and their conclusions were consequently vitiated. Many more examples of the same blunder could be cited.

經濟學家常常錯在忽視時間因素。關於貨幣量變動引起的後果之爭論，就是一個例子。有些人只注意它的長期後果，也即，只注意最後價格和最後靜止狀態。另一些人則只看到短期後果，也即緊接因素變動後的價格。這雙方都是錯誤的，因而他們的結論都無效。像這樣的嚴重錯誤還可列舉許多。

The imaginary construction of the final state of rest is marked by paying full regard to change in the temporal succession of events. In this respect it differs from the imaginary construction of the evenly

最後靜止狀態這個想像建構，其特徵在於充份注意到瞬息間事象連續的變動。在這一點上，它不同於「均勻輪轉的經濟」這個想像建構，後者的特徵，是事象和時間因素的變動都被抹煞。（通常是把這種想像建構叫做靜態經濟或靜態均衡，這是不妥當而且使人误解的，尤其是把它與靜態經濟的想像建構相淆混，是個有害的錯誤）[10]。均勻輪轉的經濟是一虛構的制度，在這個制度下，一切財貨和勞務的市場價格與最後價格相一致。在它的架構裡，沒有任何價格變動；那裡的物價是完全安定的。同樣的市場交易一再地重複發生。較高級的財貨以同樣的數量、經過同樣的加工過程，一直到最後產出的消費財到了消費者的手中被消費掉爲止。市場事象沒有變動發生。今天與昨天沒有什麼不同，明天也和今天一樣。這個制度是在永恒的川流中運作，但總是留在同一方位。它繞著一個固定中心，均勻地輪轉。平常的靜止狀態一再地被擾亂，但它馬上就回復到原來的水準。一切因素，包括那些一再擾亂平常狀態的因素，都是不變的。所以，價格——通常叫做靜態價格或均衡價格——也仍然不變。

The essence of this imaginary construction is the elimination of the lapse of time and of the perpetual change in the market phenomena. The notion of any change with regard to supply and demand is incompatible with this construction. Only such changes as do not affect the configuration of the price-determining factors can be considered in its frame. It is not necessary to people the imaginary world of the evenly rotating economy with immortal, non-aging and nonproliferating men. We are free to assume that infants are born, grow old, and finally die, provided that total population figures and the number of people in every age group remain equal. Then the demand for commodities whose consumption is limited to certain age groups does not alter, although the individuals from whom it originates are not the same.

這個想像建構的基本要點是抹煞了時間的經過和市場現象的永恒變動。任何關於供需變動的觀念都會是與這個建構不相容的。只有那些對於價格決定因素的結構不發生影響的變動，可以在這個架構中考慮到。在均勻輪轉的經濟這個想像的世界裡面，我們不必假想其居民都是不死的、沒有年齡的、也不繁殖的。我們可以自由假設那裡有出生、成長、和死亡，但是，人口的總數以及按年齡分組的每組人數，都是保持不變的。於是，那些專屬於某組消費的貨物，其需求量也就不變，儘管組成各組的個人不是原來的人。

In reality there is never such a thing as an evenly rotating economic system. However, in order to analyze the problems of change in the data and of unevenly and irregularly varying movement, we must confront them with a fictitious state in which both are hypothetically eliminated. It is therefore preposterous to maintain that the construction of an evenly rotating economy does not elucidate conditions within a changing universe and to require the economists to

在實際上，決不會有這樣的一個均勻輪轉的經濟制度。可是，爲分析市場事象的變動，以及不均勻、不規律的運動所引起的一些問題，我們必得把它們和一個沒有這些問題的虛構情況相對照。所以，如果說，均勻輪轉的經濟這個建構，沒有說明在變化的宇宙中的情況，因而要求經濟學家以「動態學」的研究來代替他們所說的「靜態學」的專業，這是荒謬的說法。這種所謂靜態方法正是檢視變動的適當工具。要硏究複雜的行爲現象，除掉「首先抽去一切變動，然後引進一個惹起變動的孤立因素，最後分析這個因素在其他情形不變的假設下所發生的後果」以外，再也沒有其他的辦法。如果認爲我們所研究的對象——也即，實際行爲的領域，在沒有變動這一點上，愈是符合均勻輪轉的經濟這個建構，則這個建構的功用愈有價値。這個想法更是荒謬。靜態方法，利用均勻輪轉的經濟這個想像建構的方法，是分析有關變動唯一妥當的方法，至於那些變動是大、是小，是突然、還是緩慢，都沒關係。

The objections hitherto raised against the use of the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy missed the mark entirely. Their authors did not grasp in what respect this construction is problematic and why it can easily engender error and confusion.

以上對於均勻輪轉的經濟這個建構所提出的一些反對論，完全沒有看出這個建構的特徵。提出這些反對論的人們，不了解這個建構在哪一點上有問題，以及爲什麼它易於引起誤想和混淆。

Action is change, and change is in the temporal sequence. But in the evenly rotating economy change and succession of events are eliminated. Action is to make choices and to cope with an uncertain future. But in the evenly rotating economy there is no choosing and the future is not uncertain as it does not differ from the present known state. Such a rigid system is not peopled with living men making choices and liable to error; it is a world of soulless unthinking automatons; it is not a human society, it is an ant hill.

行爲就是變動，變動是在時間的連續中。但在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，變動和事象的連續，都被抹煞。行爲就是選擇，是應付不確定的未來。但在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，沒有選擇，未來並不是不確定的，因爲它並不同於現在所已知的情況。這樣一個僵硬的制度，不是由一些有生命的、作選擇的、而且易犯錯誤的人組成的，那是一個無靈魂、不思想的機器人的世界：那不是人的社會，而是一個蟻垤。

These insoluble contradictions, however, do not affect the service which this imaginary construction renders for the only problems for whose treatment it is both appropriate and indispensable: the problem of the relation between the prices of products and those of the factors required for their production, and the implied problems of entrepreneurship and of profit and loss. In order to grasp the function of entrepreneurship and the meaning of profit and loss, we construct a system from which they are absent. This image is merely a tool for our thinking. It is not the description of a possible and realizable state of affairs. It is even out of the question to carry the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating system to its ultimate logical consequences. For it is impossible to eliminate the entrepreneur from the picture of a market economy. The various complementary factors of production cannot come together spontaneously. They need to be combined by the purposive efforts of men aiming at certain ends and motivated by the urge to improve their state of

可是，這些無法解決的矛盾並不妨害這個想像建構的功用，因爲對於下述的這個問題的處理，只有它是旣適當的、也是不可少的。這個問題是：產品的價格與其必要的生產要素的價格之間的關係問題，以及一切內涵的企業精神和利潤與損失的問題。爲了解企業精神的功能和利潤與損失的意義，我們構想一個沒有這些東西的制度。這個構想只是我們思想的一個工具。它不是一個可能實現的情況之描述。甚至於想把這個想像建構推論到它最後的邏輯結論，也做不到。因爲我們不可能從一個市場經濟的寫實中抹煞企業精神。種種互相輔助的生產要素不會自動地一起到來，而需要有目的的努力來組合它們，這種努力就是來自企業精神。抹煞企業精神，也即抹煞整個市場制度的原動力。

Then there is a second deficiency. In the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy, indirect exchange and the use of money are tacitly implied. But what kind of money can that be? In a system without change in which there is no uncertainty whatever about the future, nobody needs to hold cash. Every individual knows precisely what amount of money he will need at any future date. He is therefore in a position to lend all the funds he receives in such a way that the loans fall due on the date he will need them. Let us assume that there is only gold money and only one central bank. With the successive progress toward the state of an evenly rotating economy all individuals and firms restrict step by step their holding of cash and the quantities of gold thus released flow into nonmonetary--industrial--employment. When the equilibrium of the evenly rotating economy is finally reached, there are no more cash holdings; no more gold is used for monetary purposes. The individuals and firms own claims against the central bank, the maturity of each part of which precisely corresponds to the amount they will need on the respective dates for the settlement of their obligations. The central bank does not need any reserves as the total sum of the daily payments of its customers exactly equals the total sum of withdrawals. All transactions can in fact be effected through transfer in the bank's books without any recourse to cash. Thus the "money" of this system is not a medium of exchange; it is not money at all; it is merely a numeraire, an etheral and undetermined unit of accounting of that vague and indefinable character which the fancy of some economists and the errors of many laymen mistakenly have attributed to money. The interposition of these numerical expressions between seller and buyer does not affect the essence of the sales; it is neutral with regard to the people's economic activities. But the notion of a neutral money is unrealizable and inconceivable in itself[11]. If we were to use the inexpedient terminology employed in many contemporary economic writings, we would have to say: Money is necessarily a "dynamic factor"; there is no room left for money in a "static" system. But the very notion of a market economy without money is self-contradictory.

講到這裡，又有了第二個缺陷。在一個均勻輪轉的經濟這個想像建構中，是有間接交換和貨幣使用的。但是，那裡的貨幣是什麼樣子的貨幣呢？在一個沒有變動的制度下，關於未來旣沒有什麼不確定，就沒有人需要保有現金。每個人都可正確地知道，在任何未來的日期他所需要的金額。所以，他能夠把他所收到的全部資金用這個方法貸放出去：即，哪一天需要它們，就在哪一天收回它們。讓我們假設，這裡只有黃金做貨幣，只有一個中央銀行。隨著這個經濟之進到均匀輪轉的經濟情況，所有的人和商號，一步一歩地縮減他們的現金保有量。因此而解放出來的黃金量就流到非貨幣的——工業的——用途。當這個均勻輪轉的經濟最後達到均衡的時候，那裡就不會再有更多的現金保有量，不會有更多的黃金用作貨幣。個人和商號對中央銀行握有要求權，每部份要求權按照他們需要淸償債務的日子分別到期，而其數量也符合他們届時所需要的數量。中央銀行用不著有現金準備，因爲它的顧客們每天存進的金額恰好等於提出的金額。所有的交易，事實上都經由銀行的轉帳來結算，用不著現金。於是這個制度的「貨幣」就不是一種交易媒介；它根本不是貨幣；它只是一個數目，是一個模糊而不確定的計帳單位。這種在買賣之間的數字表現法，對於銷售或購買的本身不發生任何影響；就其對人們的經濟活動而言，它是中立的。但是，「一個中立的貨幣」這個觀念是不切實際的，是不可想像的[11]。如果我們想用在許多現代經濟學論著中所用的這個不妥當語法，我們就必須這樣說：貨幣必然是個「動態的」因素；在一個「靜態的」制度下，沒有貨幣存在的餘地。但是，「一個沒有貨幣的市場經濟」這個觀念的本身是自相矛盾的。

The imaginary construction of an evenly rotating system is a limiting notion. In its frame there is in fact no longer any action. Automatic reaction is substituted for the conscious striving of thinking man after the removal of uneasiness. We can employ this problematic

均勻輪轉制度這個想像建構是一限制的觀念。在它的架構中沒有任何行爲。自動的反應代替了有思想的人有意識地消除不適之感的努力。我們只能在一個條件下應用這個有問題的想像建構，那個條件就是決不可忘掉這個建構的特殊功用。首先，我們想分析那個見之於每個行爲的趨勢，即走向一個均勻輪轉的經濟這個趨勢；在作這個分析的時候，我們必須時時刻刻想到：這個趨勢在一個非完全僵硬不變的世界裡面，決不能達到它的目的。第二、我們必須了解：一個有行爲的活生生的世界，在那些方面並不同於一個僵硬的世界。這，我們只能靠一個僵硬經濟的構想所提供的矛盾論來發現。這樣，我們就可看透：每一種行爲都是對付將來那些不確定的情況，而利益和損失，是行爲所必有的特徵，不能靠一廂情願的想法來消滅它們。充份具備這些基本認知的經濟學家所採取的程序，可叫做經濟學的邏輯方法，與數學方法的技術相對。

The mathematical economists disregard dealing with the actions which, under the imaginary and unrealizable assumption that no further new data will emerge, are supposed to bring about the evenly rotating economy. They do not notice the individual speculator who aims not at the establishment of the evenly rotating economy but at profiting from an action which adjusts the conduct of affairs better to the attainment of the ends sought by acting, the best possible removal of uneasiness. They stress exclusively the imaginary state of equilibrium which the whole complex of all such actions would attain in the absence of any further change in the data. They describe this imaginary equilibrium by sets of simultaneous differential equations. They fail to recognize that the state of affairs they are dealing with is a state in which there is no longer any action but only a succession of events provoked by a mystical prime mover. They devote all their efforts to describing, in mathematical symbols, various "equilibria," that is, states of rest and the absence of action. They deal with equilibrium as if it were a real entity and not a limiting notion, a mere mental tool. What they are doing is vain playing with mathematical symbols, a pastime not suited to convey any knowledge[12].

數理經濟學家們對於我們所假想的形成均勻輪轉經濟的那些行爲的討論，不予理睬。他們不注意那些志不在於達成均勻輪轉的經濟，而在於從行爲中得到利益的個別投機者。他們一味地強調那個假想的均衡狀態，也即，在沒有新的變動發生時，所有這樣的行爲（指投機行爲——譯者附注）的全體總合所達成的均衡狀態。他們用多組聯立方程式來表現這個假想的均衡。他們不知道他們所討論的那些事象，其中不會再有行爲，而只是一個神祕的原動力所推動的一些事象的連續。他們全神貫注在用數學符號來申述種種「均衡」，也即，種種靜止而無行爲的狀態。他們把均衡當作實有其物在處理，而不是作爲一個限制的觀念、一個心智的工具。他們所作的是數學符號的遊戲，不適於傳遞任何知識的一種玩意兒。

----------------------------------------

[9] For the sake of simplicity we disregard the price fluctuations in the course of the business day.

[9] 爲求簡單起見，我們不管物價的逐日波動。

[10] See below, pp. 250-251.

[10] 見本章第六節。

[11] Cf. below, pp. 416-419.

[11] 見第十七章第五節。

[12] For a further critical examination of mathematical economics see below, pp. 350-357.

[12] 關於數理經濟學的進一步批評，見第十六章第五節。

6. The Stationary Economy

六、靜態經濟

The imaginary construction of a stationary economy has sometimes been confused with that of an evenly rotating economy. But in

靜態經濟這個想像建構，有時與均勻輪轉的經濟那個建構相混淆。但事實上，這兩個建構是不同的。

The stationary economy is an economy in which the wealth and income of the individuals remain unchanged. With this image changes are compatible which would be incompatible with the construction of the evenly rotating economy. Population figures may rise or drop provided that they are accompanied by a corresponding rise or drop in the sum of wealth and income. The demand for some commodities may change; but these changes must occur so slowly that the transfer of capital from those branches of production which are to be restricted in accordance with them into those to be expanded can be effected by not replacing equipment used up in the shrinking branches and instead investing in the expanding ones.

在靜態經濟裡面，個人的財富與所得仍然不變。有些與均勻輪轉的經濟那個建構不相容的變動，可以與這個建構相容。人口可以增多或減少，假若財富與所得的總額也有相適應的增減。某些貨物的需求也可變動：但是這些變動必須很慢，慢到資本移轉（由於需求變動，有的生產部門相應地收縮，有的生產部門相應地擴張，資本乃從前者移轉到後者）所受的影響不是來自緊縮部門的資本換置，而是來自擴張部門的投資。

The imaginary construction of a stationary economy leads to two further imaginary constructions: the progressing (expanding) economy and the retrogressing (shrinking) economy. In the former the per capita quota of wealth and income of the individuals and the population figure tend toward a higher numerical value, in the latter toward a lower numerical value.

靜態經濟這個想像建構，又導向兩個進一層的建構：進步的（橫張的）經濟和退步的（收縮的）經濟。在進步的經濟裡面，國民財富與所得的每人平均分配額和人口數是趨向於較高的數値，在退步的經濟裡面，則趨向於較低的數値。

In the stationary economy the total sum of all profits and of all losses is zero. In the progressing economy the total amount of profits exceeds the total amount of losses. In the retrogressing economy the total amount of profits is smaller than the total amount of losses.

在靜態經濟裡面，全部利潤和全部損失的總和等於零。在進步的經濟中，利潤的總額超過損失的總額。在退步的經濟中，利潤的總額小於損失的總額。

The precariousness of these three imaginary constructions is to be seen in the fact that they imply the possibility of the measurement of wealth and income. As such measurements cannot be made and are not even conceivable, it is out of the question to apply them for a rigorous classification of the conditions of reality. Whenever economic history ventures to classify economic evolution within a certain period according to the scheme stationary, progressing or retrogressing, it resorts in fact to historical understanding and does not "measure."

這三個想像建構的不可靠，可從它們暗含有計量財富和所得的可能性這個事實看出。因爲這種衡量是做不到的，甚至是無法想像的，所以絕不可能用它們來把實際情況作嚴格的分類。經濟史如想按照靜態的、進步的、或返步的類型，對某一時期以內的經濟演化來分類，這在事實上是憑藉歷史的了解而非「計量」。

7. The Integration of Catallactic Functions

七、交換功能的統合

When men in dealing with the problems of their own actions, and when economic history, descriptive economics, and economic statistics in reporting other people's actions, employ the terms entrepreneur, capitalist, landowner, worker, and consumer, they speak of ideal types. When economics employs the same terms it speaks of catallactic categories. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, landowners, workers, and consumers of economic theory are not living men as one meets them in the reality of life and history. They are the embodiment of distinct functions in the market operations. The fact that both acting

當人們在處理他們自己的行爲問題時，以及經濟史、敍述的經濟學和經濟統計在報吿別人的行爲時，常用「企業家」、「資本家」、「地主」、「工人」，和「消費者」這些名詞，這時他們所說的是些觀念上的類型【理想類型】。當經濟學用這些相同的名詞時，它所說的是屬於交換學的類型。經濟理論裡面的企業家、資本家、地主、工人、和消費者，不是我們在實際生活中所遇見的有生命的人，而是在市場運作中一些特殊功能的化身。行爲人和歷史科學，在推理的時候都應用經濟學的結論，他們也依據行爲學理論的一些類型，來建構他們觀念上的類型，這是事實，這個事實並不影響「觀念的類型」與「經濟的類型」兩者間基本的邏輯上的差異。與我們有關的「經濟的類型」指涉純粹的統合功能，觀念的典型【理想類型】則指涉歷史的事件。有生命、有行爲的人，必然兼有種種功能。他決不只是一個消費者。他同時是一個企業家、地主、資本家、或工人，或者是這樣的一些人所撫養的一個人，而且，企業家、地主、資本家、和工人的功能，常常爲同一個人所兼備。歷史是按照人們所追求的目的，和他們爲達到目的而採用的手段來把人分類。經濟學，探究市場社會的行爲結構，不管人們追求的目的和所採的手段的經濟學，則要辨識類型與功能。這是兩個不同的任務。這個不同，在討論企業家的交換概念時會有最好的說明。

In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy there is no room left for entrepreneurial activity, because this construction eliminates any change of data that could affect prices. As soon as one abandons this assumption of rigidity of data, one finds that action must needs be affected by every change in the data. As action necessarily is directed toward influencing a future state of affairs, even if sometimes only the immediate future of the next instant, it is affected by every incorrectly anticipated change in the data occurring in the period of time between its beginning and the end of the period for which it aimed to provide (period of provision[13] ). Thus the outcome of action is always uncertain. Action is always speculation. This is valid not only with regard to a market economy but no less for Robinson Crusoe, the imaginary isolated actor, and for the conditions of a socialist economy. In the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating system nobody is an entrepreneur and speculator. In any real and living economy every actor is always an entrepreneur and speculator; the people taken care of by the actors--minor family members in the market society and the masses of a socialist society--are, although themselves not actors and therefore not speculators, affected by the outcome of the actors' speculations.

在均勻輪轉的經濟這個想像建構中，沒有企業家活動的餘地，因爲這個建構抹煞了影響物價的任何變動。只要你一放棄這個僵固的假設，你馬上就可想到，行爲一定會受每一有關變動的影響。因爲行爲必然是爲的要影響一個未來的情況（即令只瞬息間的最近未來），所以它的結果如何將决定於對於未來的預測是否正確[13]。所以，行爲的後果總是不確定的。行爲總是投機。這句話不僅是對一個市場經濟有效，也同樣適用於小說中孤立的行爲者魯賓遜以及社會主義的經濟。在一個均勻輪轉制度的想像建構中，誰也不是一個企業家或投機者。在任何實際的生動的經濟裡面，每個行爲者總是一個企業家和投機者；被行爲者照顧的人們——市場經濟裡面家庭的小孩子和社會主義社會的大衆——儘管他們自己不是行爲者，因而不是投機者，他們是要受行爲人投機的結果之影響的。

Economics, in speaking of entrepreneurs, has in view not men, but a definite function. This function is not the particular feature of a

經濟學，在說到企業家的時候，並不是想到一些人，而是想到一個確定的功能。這個功能不是某一組人或某階層的人所具有的特質，而是每一個行爲所固有的，每個行爲人所承擔的。把這個功能體現於一個假想的人物，這是我們在方法上的權宜之計。用在交換學的「企業家」一詞是指：專從每一行爲的不確定性這方面來看的行爲人。用這個名詞的時候，決不可忘記：每個行爲都嵌在時間的流變中，所以必然是一投機。資本家、地主、和勞工，必定是投機者。在考慮預測的將來需要時，消費者也是投機者。可是，天下事往往事敗垂成。

Let us try to think the imaginary construction of a pure entrepreneur to its ultimate logical consequences. This entrepreneur does not own any capital. The capital required for his entrepreneurial activities is lent to him by the capitalists in the form of money loans. The law, it is true, considers him the proprietor of the various means of production purchased by expanding the sums borrowed. Nevertheless he remains propertyless as the amount of his assets is balanced by his liabilities. If he succeeds, the net profit is his. If he fails, the loss must fall upon the capitalists who have lent him the funds. Such an entrepreneur would, in fact, be an employee of the capitalists who speculates on their account and takes a 100 per cent share in the net profits without being concerned about the losses. But even if the entrepreneur is in a position to provide himself a part of the capital required and borrows only the rest, things are essentially not different. To the extent that the losses incurred cannot be borne out of the entrepreneur's own funds, they fall upon the lending capitalists, whatever the terms of the contract may be. A capitalist is always also virtually an entrepreneur and speculator. He always runs the chance of losing his funds. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe investment.

讓我們試想一個純企業家的想像建構，其最後的一些邏輯結果是怎樣。這種企業家沒有資本所有權。他的企業活動所需要的資本，是資本家用借款的方式借給他的。他用這借來的錢購買了種種生產工具。法律誠然是把他看作是這些生產工具的所有人。可是，他仍然是個無財產的人，因爲他的資產總額被他的負債總額抵銷。如果他成功，淨利潤是他的。如果他失敗，這項損失必落在曾經借錢給他的資本家身上。像這樣的企業家事實上是資本家的僱員，他是爲自己而投機，拿走百分之百的淨利潤而不承擔損失。但是，即令這位企業家能夠自籌一部份資本，只有其餘部份靠借款，基本上情形還是一樣。就其發生的損失不能由企業家自己的錢負擔這個程度內來講，它們仍然是落在借錢的資本家身上，不管契約的條件是怎樣。一個資本家實質上也常常是一個企業家和投機者。他總在承擔賠掉資金的危險。我們沒有絕對安全的投資這麼一回事。

The self-sufficient landowner who tills his estate only to supply his own household is affected by all changes influencing the fertility of his farm or his personal needs. Within a market economy the result of a farmer's activities is affected by all changes regarding the importance of his piece of land for supplying the market. The farmer is clearly, even from the point of view of mundane terminology, an entrepreneur. No proprietor of any means of production, whether they are represented in tangible goods or in money, remains untouched by the uncertainty of the future. The employment of any tangible goods or money for production, i.e., the provision for later days, is in itself an entrepreneurial activity.

耕種自己的地產而只供養自己家庭的自足地主，他的土地生產力，乃至他所需要的對象，會受許多變動的影響，所有這些變動也就影響到他本人。在一個市場經濟裡面，一個農夫經營的結果，要受到所有關於他那份土地在農業市場上的重要性的一切變動的影響。這個農夫，即令就世俗的用語來講，也明顯地是個企業家。任何生產手段——不管是有形的財貨或金錢——的所有者，都不能安然免於未來的不確定所帶來的襲擊。把任何有形的財貨或金錢用之於生產，也即爲將來準備，其本身就是一個企業活動。

Things are essentially the same for the laborer. He is born the

從基本上看，勞工也是如此。他生而具有某些才幹：他那作爲生產手段的天賦才幹，最適於某類工作，次適於另些類的工作，完全不適於他類的工作[14]。如果他學得做某類工作的技能，那麼，就學習所花的時間和物質來講，他是處於投資者的地位。他希望得到適當産出的補償而作了投入。就他的工資決定於市場對於他所做的那類工作所願付的價格而言，這位勞工又是一位企業家。這個價格也和其他生產手段的價格一樣，是隨市場情況的變動而變動的。

In the context of economic theory the meaning of the terms concerned is this: Entrepreneur means acting man in regard to the changes occurring in the data of the market. Capitalist and landowner mean acting man in regard to the changes in value and price which, even with all the market data remaining equal, are brought about by the mere passing of time as a consequence of the different valuation of present goods and of future goods. Worker means man in regard to the employment of the factor of production human labor. Thus every function is nicely integrated: the entrepreneur earns profit or suffers loss; the owners of means of production (capital goods or land) earn originary interest; the workers earn wages. In this sense we elaborate the imaginary construction of functional distribution as different from the actual historical distribution[15].

在經濟學敎科書裡面，這些名詞的意義是這樣：企業家是關於市場上一些變動的行爲人。資本家和地主是關於只因時間的經過（即令市場情况仍舊，而發生價值和價格變動）因而現在財與未來財的價値不同的行爲人。勞工是關於勞動這個生產要素之就業的人。於是，每一功能就嚴密地統合起來：企業家賺得利潤或承擔損失；生產手段（資本或土地）的所有人賺得原始的利息；工人賺得工資。在這個意義下，我們弄出「功能的分配」這個想像建構，以示別於實際的歷史上的分配[15]。

Economics, however, always did and still does use the term "entrepreneur" in a sense other than that attached to it in the imaginary construction of functional distribution. It also calls entrepreneurs those who are especially eager to profit from adjusting production to the

可是，經濟學使用「企業家」這個名詞時，不是用功能分配這個想像建構來賦與它的意義，過去如此，現在還是如此。經濟學把下列的這些人都叫做企業家：特別熱中於調整生產適應預期的變化，以謀取利潤的人：比一般人有更多的原創力、更多的冒險精神、更敏銳的眼光的人；推動經濟進步的拓荒者。這個概念比功能分配那個建構中所用的企業家一詞的概念要狹窄些：後者所包含的事例，有許多它沒有納入。同一名詞用來指兩個不同的概念，這是很麻煩的。假若用另一名詞——比方說，用「促進者」（promoter）來表示那個較狭義的概念，那就更方便些。

It is to be admitted that the notion of the entrepreneur-promoter cannot be defined with praxeological rigor. (In this it is like the notion of money which also defies--different from the notion of a medium of exchange--a rigid praxeological definition.[16] ) However, economics cannot do without the promoter concept. For it refers to a datum that is a general characteristic of human nature, that is present in all market transactions and marks them profoundly. This is the fact that various individuals do not react to a change in conditions with the same quickness and in the same way. The inequality of men, which is due to differences both in their inborn qualities and in the vicissitudes of their lives, manifests itself in this way too. There are in the market pacemakers and others who only imitate the procedures of their more agile fellow citizens. The phenomenon of leadership is no less real on the market than in any other branch of human activities. The driving force of the market, the element tending toward unceasing innovation and improvement, is provided by the restlessness of the promoter and his eagerness to make profits as large as possible.

我們必得承認：企業家——促進者這個概念，在行爲學裡面無法給以嚴密的定義。（在這一點，它和「貨幣」這個概念一樣，貨幣在行爲學裏面也是不能嚴格定義的。）[16]可是，經濟學卻不能沒有促進者這個概念。因爲它所指涉的是人性的特徵，在一切市場交易中表現出來。各個人對於一個情況變動所起的反應不是同樣快，也不是以同樣的方式，這個事實就是人性的特徵。人之不相等，由於先天的品質差異，也由於後天的生活環境之不同，在這方面也顯現出來。在市場裡面，有一些走在前面的帶步人，也有一些只會仿效別人繊行動的跟隨者。領袖現象在市場裡面和在其他的人類活動部門是一樣地眞實。市場的推動力，也即，促起不停的革新和改進的因素，是產生促進者自強不息精神以及盡可能追求最大利潤的那股勁。

There is, however, no danger that the equivocal use of this term may result in any ambiguity in the exposition of the catallactic system. Wherever any doubts are likely to appear, they can be dispelled by the employment of the term promoter instead of entrepreneur.

可是，這個名詞的雙關用法在交換制度的解說中不會引起暖昧的危險。在有疑惑發生的地方，我們可用「促進者」這個名詞來替代「企業家」，就可使疑惑消除。

The Entrepreneurial Function in the Stationary Economy

靜態經濟裡面企業家的功能

The futures market can relieve a promoter of a part of his entrepreneurial function. As far as an entrepreneur has hedged himself through suitable forward transactions against losses he may possibly suffer, he ceases tobe an entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial function devolves on the other party to the contract. The cotton spinner who, buying raw cotton for is mill, sells the same quantity forward has abandoned a part of his entrepreneurial function. He will neither profit nor lose from changes in the cotton price occurring in the period concerned. Of course, he does not entirely cease to serve in

期貨市場會把一位企業家的企業家功能解除一部份。一位企業家可以經由合宜的期貨交易來防止可能的虧損，這是他給自己保險的辦法，在這個保險的範圍以內，他就失其爲企業家，而企業家的功能移轉到期貨交易的對手方了。棉紗業者當他買進原棉的時候就預先把產品賣掉，這樣作他就放棄了企業家功能的一部份。在這個期間如果棉價有波動，他旣不受益也不會受損。當然，他並非完全失去企業家的功能。因爲那些不是由於原棉價格的變動而引起的一般的紗價或他所生產的那種紗價之變動，也會影響他，即令他只是一個依照契約收取報酬的紡紗者，就他投在工具方面的資金來講，他仍然是個企業家。

We may construct the image of an economy in which the conditions required for the establishment of futures markets are realized for all kinds of goods and services. In such an imaginary construction the entrepreneurial function is fully separated from all other functions. There emerges a class of pure entrepreneurs. The prices determined on the futures markets direct the whole apparatus of production. The dealers in futures alone make profits and suffer losses. All other people are insured, as it were, against the possible adverse effects of the uncertainty of the future. They enjoy security in this regard. The heads of the various business units are virtually employees, as it were, with a fixed income.

我們也可假想一個經濟制度，在那裡，所有各種財貨和勞務都可做期貨。在這樣一個想像的建構裡面，企業家的功能與其他所有的功能完全分離。於是，就有了一個純粹的企業家階級出現。期貨市場所決定的價格，指導全部的生產装備。只有做期貨交易的商人賺利潤、蒙虧損。其他所有的人，好像都保了險，可免於未來的不確定所可帶來的損失。在這方面，他們享有安全。各個行業單位的頭兒們，好像是受僱的人員，領取定額的薪金。

If we further assume that this economy is a stationary economy and that all futures transactions are concentrated in one corporation, it is obvious that the total amount of this corporation's losses precisely equals the total amount of its profits. We need only to nationalize this corporation in order to bring about a socialist state without profits and losses, a state of undisturbed security and stability. But this is so only becuase our definition of a stationary economy implies equality of the total sum of losses and that of profits. In a changing economy an excess either of profits or of losses must emerge.

假若我們進一歩假設這個經濟是一靜態經濟，而且全部期貨交易都集中在一個公司，這樣一來，很明顯地，損失總額恰好等於利潤總額。爲實現一個無利潤和損失的社會主義國，我們只要把這個公司國有化就行了。但是，這所以如此者，只因爲我們給靜態經濟所下的定義，意含損失和利潤的總額相等。但在一個變動的經濟裡面，盈虧不會恰好相等的，不是利潤超過損失，就是損失超過利潤。

It would be a waste of time to dwell longer upon such oversophisticated images which do not further the analysis of economic problems. The only reason for mentioning them is that they reflect ideas which are at the bottom of some criticisms made against the economic system of capitalism and of some delusive plans suggested for a socialist control of business. Now, it is true that a socialist scheme is logically compatible with the unrealizable imaginary constructions of an evenly rotating economy and of a stationary economy. The predilection with which mathematical economists almost exclusively deal with the conditions of these imaginary constructions and with the state of "equilibrium" implied in them, has made people oblivious of the fact that these are unreal, self-contradictory and imaginary expedients of thought and nothing else. They are certainly not suitable models for the construction of a living society of acting men.

對於這些過份造作而無益於經濟問題之分析的假想，若再論下去，那是時間的浪費。我們之所以講到它們的唯一理由，是因爲它們所反映的觀念，實際上是在批評资本主義經濟而建議某些虛妄的社會主義統制計畫。一個社會主義制度，在邏輯上確是和均勻輪轉的經濟及靜態經濟這兩個想像建構相容的。數理經濟學家幾乎是專一地討論這些想像建構及蘊含於這些建構的「均衡」，而不管其他。這種偏見使得人們忘卻了這個事實：這些建構不是別的，只是一些不實在的、自相矛盾的、作爲思考上的權宜之計的東西。它們決不是行爲人所生活的實際社會的妥當模式。

--------------------

[13] Cf. below, p. 481.

[13] 見第十八章第一節。

[14] In what sense labor is to be seen as a nonspecific factor of production see above, pp. 133-135.

[14] 關於把勞動看作非特殊化的生產要素，見前面第七章第三節。

[15] Let us emphasize again that everybody, laymen included, in dealing with the problems of income determination always takes recourse to this imaginary construction. The economists did not invent it; they only purged it of the deficiencies peculiar to the popular notion. For an epistemological treatment of functional distribution cf. John Bates Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York, 1908), p. 5, and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. F. X. Weiss (Vienna, 1924), p. 299. The term "distribution" must not deceive anybody; its employment in this context is to be explained by the role played in the history of economic thought by the imaginary construction of a socialist state (cf. above, p. 240). There is in the operation of a market economy nothing which could properly be called distribution. Goods are not first produced and then distributed, as would be the case in a socialist state. The word "distribution" as applied in the term "functional distribution" complies with the meaning attached to "distribution" 150 years ago. In present-day English usage "distribution" signifies dispersal of goods among consumers as effected by commerce.

[15] 讓我再來強調：每個人，包括外行人，在討論關於所得決定的一些問題時，總會用到這個想像的建構。經濟學家並未發明它：他們只是把那些屬於通俗想法的一些缺陷加以澄淸而已。關於功能分配的認識論上的討論，參考John Bates Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York, 1908), p. 5, 和 Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. F. X. Weiss (Vienna, 1924), p. 299. 分配（distribution）這個名詞，不可用以欺騙人；用在這裡，是要以社會主義國這個想像建構在經濟思想史上所扮演的角色來解釋的（麥考前面第十四章第三節）。在市場經濟的運作中，沒有什麼事情可以適當地叫做「分配」的。財貨並不是像在社會主義國那樣先生產然後再分配的。「分配」這個字用在「功能的分配」這個名詞中，是依照一百五十年前賦與它的意義來使用的。在現在英國的用語中，「分配」是指財貨經由商業活動而分散於消費者之間。

[16] Cf. below, p. 398.

[16] 見第十七章第一節。

XV. THE MARKET

第15章 市場

1. The Characteristics of the Market Economy

一、市場經濟的一些特徵

The market economy is the social system of the division of labor under private ownership of the means of production. Everybody acts on his own behalf; but everybody's actions aim at the satisfaction of other people's needs as well as at the satisfaction of his own. Everybody in acting serves his fellow citizens. Everybody, on the other hand, is served by his fellow citizens. Everybody is both a means and an end in himself, an ultimate end for himself and a means to other people in their endeavors to attain their own ends.

市場經濟是一個生產手段私有而行分工的社會制度。每個人爲他自己的利益而行爲；但每人的行爲在於滿足自己的需要也同時滿足別人的需要。在行爲中的每個人都是在爲別人服務，從另一方面看，每個人都在接受別人的服務。每個人本身旣是一個手段，也是一個目的：就他自己說，每個人是一最後的目的，對於別人而言，在別人爲達成他們的目的而作的努力中，他是一個手段。

This system is steered by the market. The market directs the individual's activities into those channels in which he best serves the wants of his fellow men. There is in the operation of the market no compulsion and coercion. The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, does not interfere with the market and with the citizens' activities directed by the market. It employs its power to beat people into submission solely for the prevention of actions destructive to the preservation and the smooth operation of the market economy. It protects the individual's life, health, and property against violent or fraudulent aggression on the part of domestic gangsters and external foes. Thus the state creates and preserves the environment in which the market economy can safely operate. The Marxian slogan "anarchic production" pertinently characterizes this social structure as an economic system which is not directed by a dictator, a production tsar who assigns to each a task and compels him to obey this command. Each man is free; nobody is subject to a despot. Of his own accord the individual integrates himself into the cooperative system. The market directs him and reveals to him in what way he can best promote his own welfare as well as that of other people. The market is supreme. The market alone puts the whole social system in order and provides it with sense and meaning.

這個制度的運作是市場在掌舵。市場指導人們的活動，使他們的活動最能滿足別人的需要。在市場運作中沒有任何強迫和壓制。國，這個強制的社會機制，不干預市場和市場所指導的國民活動。它使用權力使人民服從，只是爲的懲罰和防止那些破壞市場運作的行爲。它保護人民的生命、健康、和財產，使人民免於國內暴徒和國外敵人的侵襲。於是，國就創立、並保持一個市場經濟可以順利運作的環境。馬克斯主義者所喊的「無政府生產」這個口號，很恰當地描寫出這個社會結構的特徵。作爲一個經濟制度的這個社會結構，其中沒有一個獨裁者在指派每個人一份工作而強迫他完成。每個人都是自由的：誰也不服從一個暴君。每個人自願地與別人合作。市場指揮他，吿訴他如何才會最利於自己、也最有利於別人。市場是至高無上的。僅僅這個市場，把整個社會制度安排得有秩序、有意義。

The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the --continually changing--state of the market are the

市場不是一個地方、一件東西，或一個集體的存在。市場是一個過程，是由形形色色的個人，在分工合作下的行爲之相激相盪而發動的。决定這個——不停地變動的——市場情況的力量，是這些人的價値判断，以及這些價値判斷所指導的行爲。每一時刻的市場情況就是那時的價格結構，也即是，那些想買進和想資出的人們相互作用所形成的全部交換率。市場現象中沒有什麼神秘的、非人的東西。市場過程完全是人的行爲結果。每一市場現象都可溯源於這個市場社會成員們的某些確定行爲。

The market process is the adjustment of the individual actions of the various members of the market society to the requirements of mutual cooperation. The market prices tell the producers what to produce, how to produce, and in what quantity. The market is the focal point to which the activities of the individuals converge. It is the center from which the activities of the individuals radiate.

市場過程是市場社會各形各色的成員們，對於相互合作所必要的行爲調整。巿場價格吿訴生產者生產什麼、如何生產、生產多少。市場是一些個人活動的輳合點，也是一些個人活動的輻射點。

The market economy must be strictly differentiated from the second thinkable--although not realizable--system of social cooperation under the division of labor; the system of social or governmental ownership of the means of production. This second system is commonly called socialism, communism, planned economy, or state capitalism. The market economy or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy., a system that would be in part capitalist and in part socialist. Production is directed by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar or a committee of production tsars.

市場經濟必須嚴格地區別於第二種可想到的——儘管不是可實現的——分工合作制：生產手段公有（社會或政府）制。這種制度，通常叫做社會主義、共產主義、計畫經濟，或國家社會主義。市場經濟或如通常所稱的資本主義，與社會主義經濟是不相容的。兩者的混合是不可以的或不堪想像的：沒有所謂混合經濟——部分是資本主義的，部分是社會主義——這麽一回事。生產或者是受市場的指導，或是由一個獨裁者，或一個委員會用命令統治的。

If within a society based on private ownership by the means of production some of these means are publicly owned and operated--that is, owned and operated by the government or one of its agencies--this does not make for a mixed system which would combine socialism and capitalism. The fact that the state or municipalities own and operate some plants does not alter the characteristic features of the market economy. The publicly owned and operated enterprises are subject to the sovereignty of the market. They must fit themselves, as buyers of raw materials, equipment, and labor, and as sellers of goods and services, into the scheme of the market economy. They are subject to the laws of the market and thereby depend on the consumers who may or may not patronize them. They must strive for profits or, at least, to avoid losses. The government may cover losses of its plants or shops by drawing on public funds. But this neither eliminates nor mitigates the supremacy of the market; it merely shifts it to another sector. For the means for covering the losses must be raised by the imposition of taxes. But this taxation has

如果在一個以生產手段私有爲基礎的社會裡面，有些生產手段是公有公營——也即，由政府或它的一個代理機構所有和經營——這並不構成一個兼併社會主義和資本主義的混合經濟。州或市政府保有、且經營某些工廒，這種事情並不改變巿場經濟的一些特徵。這些公有公營的企業還是受市場指導的。它們在購買原料和設備、僱用勞工、以及出賣它們的產品或勞務時，必須把它自己的作爲調整得適合市場情況。它們受制於市場法則，因而必須依賴消費者，消費者會照顧它們，也會不照顧它們。它必得謀取利潤，至少要力避虧損。政府可能提取公款來彌縫它的工廠或商店的虧損。但這種作法旣不是消除，也不是減輕市場的支配力；那只是把它移轉到另一個部門。因爲彌縫虧損的這筆錢必須從課稅得來。但是，這種課稅會影響到市場和遵照市場法則的經濟結構。決定這種稅的負擔落在誰的身上，以及如何影響生產和消費的，是市場運作，而不是徵稅的政府。所以決定這些公營企業之作爲的，是市場，而不是政府。

Nothing that is in any way connected with the operation of a market is in the praxeological or economic sense to be called socialism. The notion of socialism as conceived and defined by all socialists implies the absence of a market for factors of production and of prices of such factors. The "socialization" of individual plants, shops, and farms--that is, their transfer from private into public ownership--is a method of bringing about socialism by successive measures. It is a step on the way toward socialism, but not in itself socialism. (Marx and the orthodox Marxians flatly deny the possibility of such a gradual approach to socialism. According to their doctrine the evolution of capitalism will one day reach a point in which at one stroke capitalism is transformed into socialism.)

在行爲學或經濟學的意義上，無論如何，凡與市場運作相關聯的事情，決不可叫做社會主義。照所有社會主義所想的、所界說的，社會主義這個概念意涵沒有生產要素的市場和它們的價格。私人工廠、商店、農場的社會化——也即由私有轉爲公有——是逐漸實現社會主義的一個方法。它是走向社會主義的一個步驟，其本身不是社會主義。（馬克斯和正統的馬克斯派明白否認由漸進而達成社會主義的可能性。照他們的敎條，資本主義會演進到那麽一天，一下子由資本主義突變到社會主義。）

Government-operated enterprises and the Russian Soviet economy are, by the mere fact that they buy and sell on markets, connected with the capitalist system. They themselves bear witness to this connection by calculating in terms of money. They thus utilize the intellectual methods of the capitalist system that they fanatically condemn.

政府經營的企業和蘇俄的經濟，僅憑其在市場上買賣這個事實來看，是與資本主義制度相關聯的。關於這一點，他們都用貨幣來作計算，就是他們給自己作證。他們仍在利用他們所激烈攻擊的資本主義制度的心智上的方法。

For monetary economic calculation is the intellectual basis of the market economy. The tasks set to acting within any system of the division of labor cannot be achieved without economic calculation. The market economy calculates in terms of money prices. That it is capable of such calculation was instrumental in its evolution and conditions its present-day operation. The market economy is real because it can calculate.

用貨幣的經濟計算是市場經濟在心智上的基礎。在任何分工制度裡面所要做的事情，如果沒有經濟計算就做不成功。市場經濟是用貨幣價格來作計算的。它能作這樣的計算，這有助於它的演進，並改善它的現在運作。市場經濟是眞實的，因爲它能計算。

2. Capital Goods and Capital

二、資本財舆資本

There is an impulse inwrought in all living beings that directs them toward the assimilation of matter that preserves, renews, and strengthens their vital energy. The eminence of acting man is manifested in the fact that he consciously and purposefully aims at maintaining and enhancing his vitality. In the pursuit of this aim his ingenuity leads him to the construction of tools that first aid him in the appropriation of food, then, at a later stage, induce him to design methods of increasing the quantity of foodstuffs available, and finally, enable him to provide for the satisfaction of the most urgently felt among those

【中文版無此段。】

At the outset of every step forward on the road to a more plentiful existence is saving--the provisionment of products that makes it possible to prolong the average period of time elapsing between the beginning of the production process and its turning out of a product ready for use and consumption. The products accumulated for this purpose are either intermediary stages in the technological process, i.e. tools and half-finished products, or goods ready for consumption that make it possible for man to substitute, without suffering want during the waiting period, a more time-absorbing process for another absorbing a shorter time. These goods are called capital goods. Thus, saving and the resulting accumulation of capital goods are at the beginning of every attempt to improve the material conditions of man; they are the foundation of human civilization. Without saving and capital accumulation there could not be any striving toward non-material ends[1].

【中文版無此段。】

From the notion of capital goods one must clearly distinguish the concept of capital[2]. The concept of capital is the fundamental concept of economic calculation, the foremost mental tool of the conduct of affairs in the market economy. Its correlative is the concept of income.

市場經濟的心智工具是經濟計算。經濟計算的基本觀念是「資本」和它的相關物「所得」觀念。

The notions of capital and income as applied in accountancy and in the mundane reflections of which accountancy is merely a refinement, contrast the means and the ends. The calculating mind of the actor draws a boundary line between the consumer's goods which he plans to employ for the immediate satisfaction of his wants and the goods of all orders--including those of the first order[3] --which he plans to employ for providing by further acting, for the satisfaction of future wants. The differentiation of means and ends thus becomes a differentiation of acquisition and consumption, of business and

資本和所得這兩個概念，用在會計上和用在通俗的談話中，是手段與目的的相對稱謂。行爲人的內心計算劃出了資本與所得的界線。這一邊是他想用來直接滿足慾望的消費財，那一邊是他想用來滿足未來慾望的各級財貨——包括第一級的經濟財[1]。於是手段與目的的區別變成賺取與消費的區別、營業與家計的區別、商業財貨與家用財貨的區別。用之於賺取的那些複雜財貨的全部，以貨幣來估値，而這一總額——資本——就是經濟計算的起點。賺取行爲的直接目的在於增加、至少保持這項資本。在一確定期間可用以消費，而無損於資本的那個金額，就叫做所得。如果消費超過了所得，那差額就叫做資本消耗。如果所得大於消費額，這個差額就叫做儲蓄。計算所得額、儲蓄額、和資本消耗額，是經濟計算的主要工作。

The reflection which led acting man to the notions implied in the concepts of capital and income are latent in every premeditation and planning of action. Even the most primitive husbandmen are dimly aware of the consequences of acts which to a modern accountant would appear as capital consumption. The hunter's reluctance to kill a pregnant hind and the uneasiness felt even by the most ruthless warriors in cutting fruit trees were manifestations of a mentality which was influenced by such considerations. These considerations were present in the age-old legal institution of usufruct and in analogous customs and practices. But only people who are in a position to resort to monetary calculation can evolve to full clarity the distinction between an economic substance and the advantages derived from it, and can apply it neatly to all classes, kinds, and orders of goods and services. They alone can establish such distinctions with regard to the perpetually changing conditions of highly developed processing industries and the complicated structure of the social cooperation of hundreds of thousands of specialized jobs and performances.

每個行爲人在其計畫或預謀某一行爲時，總會想到資本與所得的關係。即使最原始時代的農夫也會模模糊糊地意識到現代會計人員所說的「資本消耗」那種行爲所會招致的結果。獵夫不願殺射一條懷孕的母鹿，最殘忍的軍人在砍倒一棵果樹時也覺得心有不安，這都是受了資本與所得這種考慮之影響的心理狀態。這種考慮在古老的法制中曾表現於「受益權」和其類似習慣。但是，只有那能夠藉助於貨幣計算的人們，才會明明白白看出資產與來自資產的利益之間的區別，而且把這個概念應用到各類各級的財貨和勞務。

Looking backward from the cognition provided by modern accountancy to the conditions of the savage ancestors of the human race, we may say metaphorically that they too used "capital." A contemporary accountant could apply all the methods of his profession to their primitive tools of hunting and fishing, to their cattle breeding and their tilling of the soil, if he knew what prices to assign to the various items concerned. Some economists concluded therefrom that "capital" is a category of all human production, that it is present in every thinkable system of the conduct of production processes--i.e., no less in Robinson Crusoe's involuntary hermitage than in a socialist society--and that it does not depend upon the practice of monetary calculation[4]. This is, however, a confusion.

從現代會計所提供的知識，回顧人類野蠻祖先們的情況，我們比喻地說，他們也使用「資本」。一位現代會計員可把他專業的一切方法應用到他們原始的漁獵工具，應用到他們畜牧和他們的耕種，如果他知道這些有關項目是些什麼價格的話。從這個想法下來，有的經濟學家就得到這個結論：「資本」是人的一切生產的一個範疇，它呈現於任何可想得到的生產制度中——也即，在魯賓遜的世界和社會主義的社會都一樣——它並不依賴貨幣計算的實行[2]。但是，這種說法是觀念的混淆。資本這個概念不能離開貨幣計算和市場經濟的社會結構，只有在這樣的社會結構，貨幣計算才可能。這個概念，只有在生產手段私有制下，人們爲著自利而行爲時的計畫和記錄上，才有它的作用，它隨著用貨幣來作的經濟計算之推廣而發展[3]。

Modern accountancy is the fruit of a long historical evolution. Today there is, among businessmen and accountants, unanimity with regard to the meaning of capital. Capital is the sum of the money equivalent of all assets minus the sum of the money equivalent of all liabilities as dedicated at a definite date to the conduct of the operations of a definite business unit. It does not matter in what these assets may consist, whether they are pieces of land, buildings, equipment, tools, goods of any kind and order, claims, receivables, cash, or whatever.

現代會計是一長期的歷史演進的產物。今天，在工商業者和會計人員之間，關於資本的意義已有一致的意見。資本是一個確定營業單位在一個確定的日期，用之於業務的全部資產金額減掉全部負債金額。至於這些資產是些什麼東西，那是沒有關係的。它可能是一些土地、建築物、裝備、工具、任何種類和等級的財貨、要求權、應收帳款、現金、或其他的東西。

It is a historical fact that in the early days of accountancy the tradesmen, the pacemakers on the way toward monetary calculation, did not for the most part include the money equivalent of their buildings and land in the notion of capital. It is another historical fact that agriculturists were slow in applying the capital concept to their land. Even today in the most advanced countries only a part of the farmers are familiar with the practice of sound accountancy. Many farmers acquiesce in a system of bookkeeping that neglects to pay heed to the land and its contribution to production. Their book entries do not include the money equivalent of the land and are consequently indifferent to changes in this equivalent. Such accounts are defective because they fail to convey that information which is the sole aim sought by capital accounting. They do not indicate whether or not the operation of the farm has brought about a deterioration in the land's capacity to contribute to production, that is, in its objective use value. If an erosion of the soil has taken place, their books ignore it, and thus the calculated income (net yield) is greater than a more complete method of bookkeeping would have shown.

在會計術的初期，小商人，也即走向經濟計算的帶歩人，大都不把他們的房地產的金錢等價包括在資本概念裡面，這是個歷史事實。農夫們慢慢地把資本概念應用到他們的土地，這是另一個歷史事實。即令在現在的先進國，也只有部份的農民熟習健全的會計制度。許多農民在他們的簿記裡面沒有注意到土地和土地封於生產的貢獻。他們的帳戶不包括土地的金錢等値，因而也不管這個等値的變動。這樣的帳册是有缺陷的，因爲它沒有提供現代會計制度中資本帳所要提供的信息。它沒有指出，在農業經營中是否引起土地生產力，也即土地的客觀使用價値的減退。如果土壤變壞了而帳上不管它，那麼，帳上所表現的所得（淨收益）就大於完善的簿記制度所會表現的。

It is necessary to mention these historical facts because they influenced the endeavors of the economists to construct the notion of real capital.

提一提這些歷史上的事實是有必要的，因爲它們影響到經濟學家們建立「實質資本」（real capital）這個概念的努力。

The economists were and are still today confronted with the superstitious belief that the scarcity of factors of production could be brushed away, either entirely or at least to some extent, by increasing

有些人認爲：增加貨幣流通量和擴張信用，可以完全、至少可以相當地消除生產要素的稀少性，這是個迷信。經濟學家過去、乃至現在，還要克服這個迷信。爲著適當地處理這個基本經濟政策問題，他們認爲，有必要建立一個「實質資本」的概念，來與商人的資本概念相對立，商人的計算涉及他全部賺錢活動的總集合。當經濟學家作這種努力的時候，土地的金錢價値在資本概念中的地位還是有問題的。所以，經濟學家們認爲，在建立「實質資本」這個概念的時候，不考慮土地是合理的。他們把「實質資本」定義爲，可以利用的、人造的生產要素的全部。吹毛求疵的討論是從「商業單位保有的消費財存貨是或不是實質資本」這個問題開始的。但是，現金不是實質資本，這幾乎是大家一致同意的。

Now this concept of totality of the produced factors of production is an empty concept. The money equivalent of the various factors of production owned by a business unit can be determined and summed up. But if we abstract from such an evaluation in money terms, the totality of the produced factors of production is merely an enumeration of physical quantities of thousands and thousands of various goods. Such an inventory is of no use to acting. It is a description of a part of the universe in terms of technology and topography and has no reference whatever to the problems raised by the endeavors to improve human well-being. We may acquiesce in the terminological usage of calling the produced factors of production capital goods. But this does not render the concept of real capital any more meaningful.

人造的生產要素的全部這個概念是個空洞的概念。一個商業單位所保有的各種生產要素的金錢價値，是確定可以總計的。但是，如果我們把這種金錢的估値抽離掉，則人造生產要素的全部只是成千成萬種種財貨的物質數量的列舉。這樣的一張淸單，對於行爲是沒有用處的。它是用工藝學和局部解剖學描述萬物的一部份，對於改善人類幸福的努力所引起的一些問題沒有關係。我們固可同意，把人造的生産要素叫做「資本財」，但是，這個術語並未賦與實質资本這個概念更多的意義。

The worst outgrowth of the use of the mythical notion of real capital was that economists began to speculate about a spurious problem called the productivity of (real) capital. A factor of production is by definition a thing that is able to contribute to the success of a process of production. Its market price reflects entirely the value that people attach to this contribution. The services expected from the employment of a factor of production (i.e., its contribution to productivity) are in market transactions paid according to the full value people attach to them. These factors are considered valuable only on account of these services. These services are the only reason why prices are paid for them. Once these prices are paid, nothing remains that can bring about further payments on the part of anybody as a compensation for additional productive services of these factors of production. It was a blunder to explain interest as an income derived from the productivity of capital

實質資本這個神話的概念之使用，所引起的更壞結果是：經濟學家開始思索一個叫做（實質的）「資本生產力」的虚偽問題。生產要素的定義是一件能夠在生產過程中有貢獻的東西。它的市場價格完全反映人們對於這個貢獻所賦與的價値。從一件生產要素的僱用而希望得到的服務（也即它對於生產的貢獻），在市場交易中是按照人們賦與它們的全部價値而償付的。這些要素之被認爲有價値，只因爲能產生這些服務。這些服務是對它們支付代價的唯一理由。這些代價一經支付，就沒有什麼可以引起作爲報償這些要素的額外生産服務而再支付。把利息解釋爲來自資本生產力的一項所得，那是大錯特錯[4]。

No less detrimental was a second confusion derived from the real capital concept. People began to mediate upon a concept of social capital as different from private capital. Starting from the imaginary construction of a socialist economy, they were intent upon defining a capital concept suitable to the economic activities of the general manager of such a system. They were right in assuming that this manager would be eager to know whether his conduct of affairs was successful (viz., from the point of view of his own valuations and the ends aimed at in accordance with these valuations) and how much he could expend for his wards' consumption without diminishing the available stock of factors of production and thus impairing the yield of further production. A socialist government would badly need the concepts of capital and income as a guide for its operations. However, in an economic system in which there is no private ownership of the means of production, no market, and no prices for such goods the concepts of capital and income are mere academic postulates devoid of any practical application. In a socialist economy there are capital goods, but no capital.

來自實質資本概念的第二個混淆，也同樣有害。人們開始玄想異於「私人資本」的「社會資本」這個概念。從社會主義經濟這個現像建構出發，他們想界定一個適於這種制度裡面，總經理經濟活動的資本概念。他們假設，這位總經理是急於要知道他的行爲是否成功（也即從他自己的一些評價，以及依據這些評價所要達成的目的的觀點來看），而且要知道，爲著他的被保護者們的消費，而又不要損及生產要素的現存量以致減損將來生產的收益，他可以花費多少。經濟學家們的這個假設是對的。一個社會主義的政府，特別需要資本與所得概念作爲運作的指標。但是，在一個生產手段非私有、沒有市場、也沒有物價的經濟制度裡面，資本與所得概念只是些學術討論上的假定，沒有實際的適用性。在一個社會主義的經濟裡面，有資本財，但是沒有資本。

The notion of capital makes sense only in the market economy. It serves the deliberations and calculations of individuals or groups of individuals operating on their own account in such an economy. It is a device of capitalists, entrepreneurs and farmers eager to make profits and to avoid losses. It is not a category of all acting. It is a category of acting within a market economy.

資本這個概念，只在巿場經濟裡面才有意義。它是爲那些在市場經濟裡面基於自己的利益而行爲的個人或個人集體而服務的。它是一些想賺取利潤，避免虧損的資本家、企業家和農民們的設計。它不是一切行爲的範疇。它是在市場經濟裡面的一個行爲範疇。

-----------------

[1] Capital goods have been defined also as produced factors of production and as such have been opposed to the nature given or original factors of production, i. e., natural resources (land) and human labor. This terminology must be used with great caution as it can be easily misinterpreted and lead to the erroneous concept of real capital criticized below.

[2] But, of course, no harm can result if, following the customary terminology, one occasionally adopts for the sake of simplicity the terms "capital accumulation" (or "supply of capital," "capital shortage," etc.) for the terms "accumulation of capital goods," "supply of capital goods," etc.

[3] For this man these goods are not goods of the first order, but goods of a higher order, factors of further production.

[1] 對於這個有計算心的人而言，這些財貨不是第一級貨財，而是較高級的財貨，用以再生產的生產要素。

[4] Cf. e.g., R. v. Strigl, Kapital und Produktion (Vienna, 1934), p. 3.

[2] 參考，例如R. v. Strigl, Kapital und Produktion (Vienna, 1934), p. 3.

[5] Cf. Frank A. Fetter in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. III, 190.

[3] 參考Frank A. Fetter in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. III, 190.

[6] Cf. below, pp. 526-534.

[4] 參考第十九章第一、二、三節。

3. Capitalism

三、資本主義

All civilizations have up to now been based on private ownership of the means of production. In the past civilization and private property have been linked together. Those who maintain that economics is an experimental science and nevertheless recommend public control of the means of production, lamentably contradict themselves. If historical experience could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization. There is no experience to the effect that socialism could provide a standard of living as high as that provided by capitalism [7].

直到現在，一切文明都是基於生產手段的私有。在過去，文明與私有財產是連在一起的。有些人認爲，經濟學是一門實驗科學、而又主張由政府控制生產手段，這種人很可憐地犯了自相矛盾而不知覺。如果歷史經驗可以吿訴我們什麼事情的話，那麼，私有財產與文明之不可分，就是它所吿訴的。我們沒有經驗，說是社會主義可以提供像資本主義所可提供的那麼一樣的高的生活水準[5]。

The system of market economy has never been fully and purely tried. But there prevailed in the orbit of Western civilization since the Middle Ages by and large a general tendency toward the abolition of institutions hindering the operation of the market economy. With the successive progress of this tendency, population figures multiplied

市場經濟制度從來沒有充份而純粹地試行過。但是，自中世紀以來，在西方文明的軌道上，大體上有一個總趨勢，那就是，趨向於廢除那些妨礙市場運作的法制。隨著這一趨勢繼續進步，人口大大增加，而大衆的生活標準提高到以前夢想不到的水準。一個普通的美國工人所享受的生活之舒適，連古代的富豪、將軍，乃至國王如Croesus，Crassus，the Medici，和Louis XIV也會嫉妒他。

The problems raised by the socialist and interventionist critique of the market economy are purely economic and can be dealt with only in the way in which this book tries to deal with them: by a thorough analysis of human action and all thinkable systems of social cooperation. The psychological problem of why people scorn and disparage capitalism and call everything they dislike "capitalistic" and everything they praise "socialistic" concerns history and must be left to the historians. But there are several other issues which we must stress at this point.

社會主義者和干涉主義者對市場經濟的批評所提出的一些問題是純經濟的，我們可以只用本書所用的方法來討論它們：即，對人的行爲和一切可想得到的社會合作制度加以貫徹的分析。至於人們爲什麼要嘲笑和汚衊資本主義，而把他們所不喜歡的一切事情都叫做「資本主義的」，把所欣賞的一切事情都叫做「社會主義的」，這個心理上的問題，是與歷史有關的，必須讓歷史學家去處理。但是，還有幾個其他的問題，我們應該在這裡特別提出討論。

The advocates of totalitarianism consider "capitalism" a ghastly evil, an awful illness that came upon mankind. In the eyes of Marx it was an inevitable stage of mankind's evolution, but for all that the worst of evils; fortunately salvation is imminent and will free man forever from this disaster. In the opinion of other people it would have been possible to avoid capitalism if only men had been more moral or more skillful in the choice of economic policies. All such lucubrations have one feature in common. They look upon capitalism as if it were an accidental phenomenon which could be eliminated without altering conditions that are essential in civilized man's acting and thinking. As they neglect to bother about the problem of economic calculation, they are not aware of the consequences which the abolition of the monetary calculus is bound to bring about. They do not realize that socialist men for whom arithmetic will be of no use in planning action, will differ entirely in their mentality and in their mode of thinking from our contemporaries. In dealing with socialism, we must not overlook this mental transformation, even if we were ready to pass over in silence the disastrous consequences which would result for man's material well-being.

極權主義的鼓吹者把「資本主義」看作人類的惡魔，可怕的禍害。在馬克斯的眼光中，它是人類演化中不可避免的一個階段但是即令如此，也是最壞的禍害；所幸解放就要到來，將使人們永遠脫離苦難。在其他人的見解中則以爲：只要人們在作經濟政策的選擇時，更道德一點、更技巧一點，資本主義的避免是可能的。所有這些看法，有一點是共同的。他們都把資本主義看作是一個偶然的現象，旣是偶然的現象，就可消滅它而不要改變那些在文明人的行爲與思想中的基本要件。因爲他們忽視經濟計算這個問題，他們也就不知道消滅了金錢的計算所必然引起的那些後果。他們也不了解：不用算術的社會主義人（socialist men），在心境上和思想方式上，將會完全不同於我們這個時代的人。討論社會主義，我們不可以忽略這個心境的轉變，即令我們把它所帶來人們物質生活的那些悲慘後果置之不聞不問。

The market economy is a man-made mode of acting under the division of labor. But this does not imply that it is something accidental or artificial and could be replaced by another mode. The market economy is the product of a long evolutionary process. It is the outcome of man's endeavors to adjust his action in the best possible way to the given conditions of his environment that he cannot alter. It is the strategy, as it were, by the application of which man has triumphantly progressed from savagery to civilization.

市場經濟是在分工下的一種人爲的行爲方式。這並不意涵，它是偶然的，或矯揉造作的，而可用別的方式來代替。市場經濟是一長期演進過程的產物。它是人們努力調整自己的行爲，以適應他們所不能改變的旣定環境的結果。它好像是個戰略，人們已經很成功地運用它從野蠻進到文明。

Some authors argue: Capitalism was the economic system which brought about the marvelous achievements of the last two hundred years; therefore it is done for because what was beneficial in the past

下面這個說法在今天的著作家當中是常見的：资本主義這個制度，在過去二百年曾經有驚人的成就。現在不行，因爲過去有利的事情，對於我們以及對於將來，不會是有利的。這樣的推理與經驗的認知法則顯然是相衝突的。在這裡，我們沒有必要再提出「人的行爲科學能否採用自然科學的實驗方法」這個問題，即令對於這個間題可給以肯定的答覆，像這樣的實驗主義者所作的推理，確是可笑的。實驗科學是說：因爲a在過去是有效的，它在將來也會有效。決不可以反過來說，因爲a在過去有效，所以在將來沒有效。

It is customary to blame the economists for an alleged disregard of history. The economists, it is contended, consider the market economy as the ideal and eternal pattern of social cooperation. They concentrate their studies upon investigating the conditions of the market economy and neglect everything else. They do not bother about the fact that capitalism emerged only in the last two hundred years and that even today it is restricted to a comparatively small area of the earth's surface and to a minority of peoples. There were and are, say these critics, other civilizations with a different mentality and different modes of conducting economic affairs. Capitalism is, when seen sub specie aeternitatis, a passing phenomenon, an ephemeral stage of historical evolution, just the transition from precapitalistic ages to a postcapitalistic future.

責罵經濟學家不管歷史，這也是常常聽到的。據說，經濟學家把市場看作理想的永恆的社會合作模式。他們專注於研究市場經濟的情況，而不管其他。他們不知道資本主義只出現在過去的二百年當中，即使現在，也只限於地球上相當小的地區，和少數的人口。過去和現在，都有些其他的文明，在處理經濟事件上，有不同的心境和不同的方式。資本主義是一種過渡現象，是歷史演化過程中的一個短暫階段，從資本主義以前的時代，轉到資本主義以後的未來的一個過渡而已。

All these criticisms are spurious. Economics is, of course, not a branch of history or of any other historical science. It is the theory of all human action, the general science of the immutable categories of action and of their operation under all thinkable special conditions under which man acts. It provides as such the indispensable mental tool for dealing with historical and ethnographic problems. A historian or an ethnographer who neglects in his work to take full advantage of the results of economics is doing a poor job. In fact he does not approach the subject matter of his research unaffected by what he disregards as theory. He is at every step of his gathering of allegedly unadulterated facts, in arranging these facts, and in his conclusions derived from them, guided by confused and garbled remnants of perfunctory economic doctrines constructed by botchers in the centuries preceding the elaboration of an economic science and long since entirely exploded.

所有這些批評都是不眞實的。當然，經濟學不是歷史或任何其他歷史科學的一個部門。它是人的一切行爲的理論，人的行爲有一些不變的範囀，這些範疇在所有可想得到的特殊情況下都會運作，經濟學是陳述這些範疇和其運作的一般理論。因而它對於歷史的和人種學的問題之硏究，也提供了不可少的心智的工具。一位歷史學家或人種學家，如果在他的工作中，不知道充份利用經濟學的成果，他的工作一定是很粗劣的。事實上，他並不是不受他所鄙棄爲理論的東西的影響，而接近他所研究的主題。他在收集事實（他所謂的未攙雜的事實）的每一步琛中，在安排這些事實，以及從而得出結論的時候，都是接受經濟學成爲科學以前的那些粗疏的經濟理論，和那些已被推翻了的經濟理論的指導。其中有的是觀點混淆，有的是斷章取義。

The analysis of the problems of the market society, the only pattern of human action in which calculation can be applied in planning action, opens access to the analysis of all thinkable modes of action and of all economic problems with which historians and ethnographers are confronted. All noncapitalistic methods of economic

市場社會是在其中可以應用計算的人的行爲的唯一模式，關於市場社會的問題之分析，開闢了一條通路，通向一切可想得到的行爲方式和一切經濟問題的分析，而這些問題是歷史學家和人種學家所遇到的。一切非資本主義的經濟管理的方法，只能在這樣的假設下研究，即假設在這些方法中也可用些基數（cardinal numbers）來記錄過去的行爲和計畫未來的行爲。這就是爲什麼經濟學家要把純粹市場經濟之研究放在他們研究的中心的道理。

It is not the economists who lack the "historical sense" and ignore the factor of evolution, but their critics. The economists have always been fully aware of the fact that the market economy is the product of a long historical process which began when the human race emerged from the ranks of the other primates. The champions of what is mistakenly called "historicism" are intent upon undoing the effects of evolutionary changes. In their eyes everything the existence of which they cannot trace back to a remote past or cannot discover in the customs of some primitive Polynesian tribes is artificial, even decadent. They consider the fact that an institution was unknown to savages as a proof of its uselessness and rottenness. Marx and Engels and the Prussian professors of the Historical School exulted when they learned that private property is "only" a historical phenomenon. For them this was the proof that their socialist plans were realizable[8].

缺乏「歷史感」（historical sense），且忽視演化因素的，不是經濟學家，倒是他們的批評者。經濟學家完全知道，市場經濟是個長期的歷史過程的產物，這個過程在人類從其他靈長類動物中演化而來的時候開始。「歷史自足主義」（historicism——這是個錯誤的名稱）的鼓吹者是想消除演變的後果。在他們的心目中，凡是存在不能回溯到遠古，或不能在原始部落的習俗中發現的東西，都是造作的，甚至是頹廢的。他們認爲：如果某一制度爲野蠻時代所沒有的，這就證明這個制度是無用的、腐敗的。馬克斯和恩格斯，以及普魯士的歷史學派的敎授們，知道了私有財產「只」是個歷史現象的時候，他們高興極了。自他們看來，這就證明他們的社會主義計畫是可實現的[6]。

The creative genius is at variance with his fellow citizens. As the pioneer of things new and unheard of he is in conflict with their uncritical acceptance of traditional standards and values. In his eyes the routine of the regular citizen, the average or common man, is simply stupidity. For him "bourgeois" is a synonym of imbecility

有原創力的天才是不同於別人的。作爲一個新事物或前所未聞的事物的創導者，他和別人所接受的傳統標準和價値是格格不入的。在他的心目中，一般循規蹈矩的普通人的例行工作，簡直是糊塗。照他看來，「布爾喬亞」是「愚蠢低能」的同義詞[7]。那些爲忘掉和掩蓋他們自己的無能，而倣效天才的作風以自娛的倒霉的藝術家們，也使用這個名詞。這些放浪不羈的人們，把他們所不喜歡的一切一切，都叫做「布爾喬亞的」。自從馬克斯把「資本家」這個名詞弄成和「布爾喬亞」同義以來，他們就把這兩個字互換地使用。在各種文字的字彙中，「資本主義的」和「布爾喬亞的」這兩個字的意思是指，一切可恥的、墮落的、不名譽的東西[8]。相反地，人們把所認爲善良的、値得稱讚的，都叫做「社會主義的」。通常的說法是這樣：一個人任意地把他所不喜歡的每件事物都叫做「資本主義的」，然後再從這個稱謂推斷出這件事物是壞的。

This semantic confusion goes still further. Sismondi, the romantic eulogists of the Middle Ages, all socialist authors, the Prussian Historical School, and the American Institutionalists taught that capitalism is an unfair system of exploitation sacrificing the vital interests of the majority of people for the sole benefit of a small group of profiteers. No decent man can advocate this "mad" system. The economists who contend that capitalism is beneficial not only to a small group but to everyone are "sycophants of the bourgeoisie." They are either too dull to recognize the truth or bribed apologists of the selfish class interests of the exploiters.

【中文版無此段。】

Capitalism, in the terminology of these foes of liberty, democracy, and the market economy, means the economic policy advocated by big business and millionaires. Confronted with the fact that some--but certainly not all-wealthy entrepreneurs and capitalists nowadays favor measures restricting free trade and competition and resulting in monopoly, they say: Contemporary capitalism stands for protectionism, cartels, and the abolition of competition. It is true, they add, that at a definite period of the past British capitalism favored free trade both on the domestic market and in international relations. This was because at that time the class interests of the British bourgeoisie were best served by such a policy. Conditions, however, changed and today capitalism, i.e., the doctrine advocated by the exploiters, aims at another policy.

資本主義這個名詞，在自由、民主、和市場經濟的敵人的字彙中，是意指大商人和萬萬富翁們所主張的那些經濟政策。現代富有的企業家和資本家，有一些一但決不是全體一是主張限制自由貿易和競爭的，其結果是形成獨占。他們看到這個事實於是乎說：現代資本主義是代表保護主義、卡特爾，以及競爭的廢除。他們還說：不錯，在過去有個時期，英國的資本主義是主張自由貿易的，國內貿易與國際貿易都主張自由。這是因爲這樣的政策最有益於那時的英國布爾喬亞的階級利益。但是，情況變了，今天的資本主義，也即剝削者所主張的，目的在於另一政策。

It has already been pointed out that this doctrine badly distorts both economic theory and historical facts[11]. There were and there will always be people whose selfish ambitions demand protection for vested interests and who hope to derive advantage from measures restricting competition. Entrepreneurs grown old and tired and the decadent heirs of people who succeeded in the past dislike the agile

我曾經指出，這種武斷嚴重地曲解了經濟理論和歷史事實[9]。有些人基於私利而要求保護旣得的利益，希望有限制競爭的政策而從中得利。這種人過去有的是，現在也總是有的。年老返休的企業家和過去成功者的不肖子孫，討厭那些向他們的財富和社會地位挑戰的敏捷能幹的暴發戶。想把經濟情況弄成僵固以阻礙改進的，是他們。但是，他們的這個願望能否實現，就要看輿論的氣候。在十九世紀當中，由於自由主義經濟學家的言論塑成的意理結構，使這種願望無法實現。當自由主義時代技術的進步，推翻了生產、交通、交易的一些傳統方法，可是，那時一些旣得利益受了損害的人們並未要求保護，這是因爲那種要求是無希望的妄想。但在今天，阻止效率高的人與效率較低的人競爭，卻被認爲是政府應做的事。輿論同情壓力圑體阻止進步的要求。牛油的生產者很成功地鬥勝了人造奶油。樂師戰勝了留聲音樂片。工會是新機器的勁敵。在這樣的環境中，效率低的工商業者要求保護，以對抗有效率者的競爭，這是不足爲怪的。

It would be correct to describe this state of affairs in this way: Today many or some groups of business are no longer liberal; they do not advocate a pure market economy and free enterprise, but, on the contrary, are asking for various measures of government interference with business. But it is entirely misleading to say that the meaning of the concept of capitalism has changed and that "mature capitalism"--as the American Institutionalists call it--or "late capitalism"--as the Marxians call it--is characterized by restrictive policies to protect the vested interests of wage earners, farmers, shopkeepers, artisans, and sometimes also of capitalists and entrepreneurs. The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy. One deprives oneself of the semantic tools to deal adequately with the problems of contemporary history and economic policies if one acquiesces in a different terminology. This faulty nomenclature becomes understandable only if we realize that the pseudo-economists and the politicians who apply it want to prevent people from knowing what the market economy really is. They want to make people believe that all the repulsive manifestations of restrictive government policies are produced by "capitalism."

這種情況，我們可以這樣陳述：今天，有許多、或有一些工商業團體不再是自由的：他們不主張純粹的市場經濟和自由企業；相反地，而是要求種種干涉政策。但是，如果我們說資本主義這個概念的意義已經變了，「成熟的資本主義」（這是美國人用的名詞）或「後期的资本主義」（這是馬克斯主義者的说法）的特徵是保護工人、農民、店主、技工，

乃至有時也保護資本家和企業家的旣得利益。這種說法是完全使人誤解的。作爲一個經濟概念講，資本主義這個概念是不變的：如果它有何意指，那就指的是市場經濟。如果你默認一個不同的術語，你就是剝奪了你自己用以適當處理現代歷史和經濟政策問題的語意工具（semantic tools）。這種錯誤的命名法，只有在我們了解了「那些用這個名詞的假經濟學家和政客們的企圖是想不讓人們知道市場經濟是什麼」的時候，才成爲可懂的。他們想使人們相信，所有叫人討厭的政府干涉政策都是由「資本主義」搞出來的。

-----------------------

[7] For an examination of the Russian "experiment" see Mises, Planned Chaos (Irvington-on-Hudson, 1947), pp. 80-87 (reprinted in the new edition of Mises, Socialism [New Haven, 1951] pp. 527-592).

[5] 關於俄國的「經驗」，參看Mises, Planned Chaos (Irvington-on-Hudson, 1947), pp. 80-87.

[8] The most amazing product of this widespread mode of thought is the book of a Prussian professor, Bernhard Laum (Die geschlossene Wirtschaft [Tubingen, 1933]). Laum assembles a vast collection of quotations from ethnographical writings showing that many primitive tribes considered economic autarky as natural, necessary, and morally good. He concludes from this that autarky is the natural and most expedient state of economic management and that the return to autarky which he advocates is "a biologically necessary process." (p. 491).

[6] 這個普遍的思想方法所形成的最叫人吃驚的結果是一位普魯士的敎授Bernhard Laum寫的那本書（Die geschlossene Wirtschaft [Tubingen, 1933]）Laum從人種學的論著中，引用了很多資料。那些資料都證明，許多原始部落把經濟的自給自足看作自然的、必要的，而且善良的。因此，他得到的結論是：自給自足是自然的、最便利的經濟狀態；回復到自給自足——他所鼓吹爲「叫固生物的必要程序！」（p. 491）。

[9] Guy de Maupassant analyzed Flaubert's alleged hatred of the bourgeois in Etude sur Gustave Flaubert (reprinted in Oeuvres completes de Gustave Flaubert

[7] Guy de Maupassant在Etude sur Gustave Flaubert（再刊在Oeuvres completes de Gustave Flaubert

[10] The Nazi's used "Jewish" as a synonym of both "capitalist" and "bourgeois."

[8] 納粹黨人把「猶太人的」這個形容詞當作「資本主義的」和「布爾喬亞的」同義詞來使用。

[11] Cf. above, pp. 80-84.

[9] 參考第十三章第三節最後的十段。

4. The Sovereignty of the Consumers

四、消費者主權

The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain's orders. The captain is the consumer.

在市場社會裡面，一切經濟事情的定向是企業家們的任務。他們控制生產，他們是這條船的掌舵者、駕駛人。膚淺的觀察者以爲，他們是至高無上的。但是，事實上並非如此。他們必須無條件地服從船主的命令。這位船主是消费者。決定生產什麼的，旣不是企業家，也不是農民，更不是資本家。而是消費者在作這個決定。如果一個企業家不嚴格地服從消費者經由市場價格結構傳遞出來的命令，他就要虧損、要破產，因而要從掌舵的高位返下來。另一位能夠使消費者的需求更滿足的人取代了他的地位。

The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people.

消費者羣照顧那些他們能夠以最便宜的價格買到他們所想買的商店。他們的購買或不購買，決定了誰會保有，和經營這些工廠和農場。他們會使窮人富有，富人貧窮。他們精密地規定應該生產什麼、怎樣的品質，以及多大的數量。他們是些無情而自私的頭兒，富有變幻莫測的興致和奇想。對於他們，沒有什麼事情比他們自己的滿足更値得計較。他們毫不關心過去的功績和旣得利益。如果你能夠提供他們所更喜歡的或更便宜的東西，他們馬上背棄以前所照顧的商店而來買你的。人們在以購買者和消費者的身份出現時，心腸是硬的，不會考慮到別人。

Only the sellers of goods and services of the first order are in direct contact with the consumers and directly depend on their orders. But they transmit the orders received from the public to all those producing goods and services of the higher orders. For the manufacturers of consumers' goods, the retailers, the service trades, and the professions are forced to acquire what they need for the conduct of their own business from those purveyors who offer them at the cheapest price. If they were not intent upon buying in the cheapest market and arranging their processing of the factors of production so as to fill the demands of the consumers in the best and cheapest way, they would be forced to go out of business. More efficient men who succeeded better in buying and processing the factors of production would supplant them. The consumer is in a position to give free rein to his caprices and fancies. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and farmers have their hands tied; they are bound to comply in their operations with the orders of the buying public. Every deviation from the lines prescribed by the demand of the consumers debits their account. The slightest deviation, whether willfully brought about or caused by error, bad judgment, or inefficiency, restricts their profits or makes them disappear. A more serious deviation results in losses and thus impairs or entirely absorbs their wealth.Capitalists, entrepreneurs, and landowners can only preserve and increase their wealth by filling best the orders of the consumers. They are not free to spend money

只有第一級的財貨和勞務的出賣者，才是直接與消費者接觸、直接接受消費者命令的。但是，他們會把所接受的命令，轉到較高級的財貨和勞務的生產者。因爲消費財的生產者、零售商，以及提供勞務的職業，都不得不向那些定價最廉的供給者去取得他們業務上需要的東西。如果他不能在最便宜的市場購買，不能把生產要素以最經濟、最適合消費者需求的方法來利用，他們就會被迫返出他們的行業，而由那些能善於購買和利用生產要素的能手來接替他們。消費者是能夠從心所欲的。企業家、資本家、和農民讓他們的手被束住；他們不得不遵照大衆購買者的命令來做事。如果違離了消費者的需求所規定的路線，就會賠本。稍稍違離——或者是由於故意，或者由於差誤，或者由於壞的判斷，或者由於缺乏效率——就可滅低利潤或造成虧損。較嚴重的違離，就會陷於破產或賠掉全部財富。資本家、企業家、地主，只有好好地遵照消費者的命令，才可保存和增加自己的財富。消費者向他們買產品所付的錢，不會多於自己所願意支付的，他們收到這筆錢也不會自由地花掉它。在生意的行爲中，他們一定是無情的，因爲消費者——他們的發號施令者，也是無情的。

The consumers determine ultimately not only the prices of the consumers' goods, but no less the prices of all factors of production. They determine the income of every member of the market economy. The consumers, not the entrepreneurs, pay ultimately the wages earned by every worker, the glamorous movie star as well as the charwoman. With every penny spent the consumers determine the direction of all production processes and the details of the organization of all business activities. This state of affairs has been described by calling the market a democracy in which every penny gives a right to cast a ballot[12]. It would be more correct to say that a democratic constitution is a scheme to assign to the citizens in the conduct of government the same supremacy the market economy gives them in their capacity as consumers. However, the comparison is imperfect. In the political democracy only the votes cast for the majority candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping the course of affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not directly influence policies. But on the market no vote is cast in vain. Every penny spent has the power to work upon the production processes. The publishers cater not only to the majority by publishing detective stories, but also to the minority reading lyrical poetry and philosophical tracts. The bakeries bake bread not only for healthy people, but also for the sick on special diets. The decision of a consumer is carried into effect with the full momentum he gives it through his readiness to spend a definite amount of money.

消費者不僅決定消費財的價格，而且也決定一切生產要素的價格。他們決定市場經濟裡面每個份子的所得。最後支付工人的工資、電影明星的薪水的，不是企業家，而是消費者。消費者每花一文錢，對於一切生產程序的方向和生產活動的組織，都會發生影響。這種情況曾經被稱爲市場民主，在這種民主裡面，每一文錢就代表一次投票權[10]。我們還可更正確地說：一部民主的憲法，是給毎個公民在政治行爲中的主權的一個設計，市場經濟則是給他們作爲消費者的時候的主權。但是，這個類比是有缺點的。在政治的民主中所投的票，只有投給多數人所支持的候選人或多數人所贊成的方案的那些票才有效。其餘的票不發生直接影響。但在巿場裡面，沒有票是白投的。消費者所花的每一文錢都影響到生產。出版商不僅是迎合大多數消費者的好尙而出版偵探小說，同時也迎合少數的人的情趣而出版抒情詩和哲學論著。麵包店不僅是供應一般健康的人所吃的麵包，也供應爲病人而特製的麵包，消費者的決定之發生效果，是隨他願花的金額所發生的力量而俱來的。

It is true, in the market the various consumers have not the same voting right. The rich cast more votes than the poorer citizens. But this inequality is itself the outcome of a previous voting process. To be rich, in a pure market economy, is the outcome of success in filling best the demands of the consumers. A wealthy man can preserve his wealth only by continuing to serve the consumers in the most efficient way.

誠然，在市場裡面，不同的消費者不是享有同等的投票權。富人的投票比窮人的多。但是，這種不平等的本身是以前投票的結果。在純粹市場經濟裡面，要成爲富人，必須好好地滿足消費者的需求。一個富人要想繼續保有他的財富，也只有靠繼續以最有效的方法爲消費者服務。

Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated.

所以，生產要素的所有人和企業家，實際上是消費者的受託者，而這受託者每天都有被撤消或繼續當選的可能，因爲消費者每天在繼續投票。

There is in the operation of a market economy only one instance in which the proprietary class is not completely subject to the supremacy

在市場經濟的運作中，只有在一種情形下，業主階級可以完全不受消費者主權的支配。那就是獨占。獨占價格是對消費者主權的侵犯。

The Metaphorical Employment of the Terminology of Political Rule

政治術語的比喻用法

The orders given by businessmen in the conduct of their affairs can be heard and seen. Nobody can fail to become aware of them. Even messenger boys know that the boss runs things around the shop. But it requires a little more brains to notice the entrepreneur's dependence on the market. The orders given by the consumers are not tangible, they cannot be perceived by the senses. Many people lack the discernment to take cognizance of them. They fall victim to the delusion that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats whom nobody calls to account for their actions[13].

商人在業務方面所發的命令，可以聽到或見到。誰也不會不知道。卽令是聽差的小孩，也會知道他的老闆是總管店務的人。但是，如果要知道企業家之服從市場，那就多需要一點頭腦來想。消費者所發的命令不是有形的，不是感官所可察覺的。許多人缺乏這種認識力。他們陷於一種幻想，以爲企業家和資本家是些無責任的獨裁者，沒有任何人責備他們檢點其行爲[11]。

The outgrowth of this mentality is the practice of applying to business the terminology of political rule and military action. Successful businessmen are called kings or dukes, their enterprise an empire, a kingdom, or a dukedom. It this idiom were only a harmless metaphor, there would be no need to criticize it. But it is the source of serious errors which play a sinister role in contemporary doctrines.

這種心態發展的結果是把政治統治和軍事行動的名詞用之於工商業。成功的商人被稱爲大王或公爵，他們的企業被稱爲帝國、王國，或公國。如果這種稱呼只是一種無害的比喩，我們就沒有必要去批評它。但是，它卻是一些嚴重謬見的來源，而這些謬見在當代的一些學說中發生惡劣的作用。

Government is an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. It has the power to obtain obedience by force. The political sovereign, be it an autocrat or the people as represented by its mandataries, has power to crush rebellions as long as his ideological might subsists.

政府是一強制機構。它有權用武力取得人民的服從，政治的主權，是一位君主也好，是代議制下的人民也好，只要他的意理權力維持得住，就有權削平叛亂。

The position which entrepreneurs and capitalists occupy in the market economy is of a different character. A "chocolate king" has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides them with chocolate of the best possible quality and at the cheapest price. He does not rule the consumers, he serves them. The consumers are not tied to him. They are free to stop patronizing his shops. He loses his "kingdom" if the consumers prefer to spend their pennies elsewhere. Nor does he "rule" his workers. He hires their services by paying them precisely that amount which the consumers are ready to restore to him in buying the product. Still less do the capitalists and entrepreneurs exercise political control. The civilized nations of Europe and America were long controlled by governments which did not considerably hinder the operation of the market economy. Today these countries too are dominated by parties which are hostile to capitalism and believe that every harm inflicted upon capitalists and entrepreneurs is extremely beneficial to the people.

至於企業家和資本家，在市場經濟裡面所處的地位是屬於不同性質的。一位「巧克力大王」無權支配他的顧客——消費者。他以價廉物美的巧克力供應他們。他不統治他們，而是爲他們服務。消費者不受他的束縛。他們很自由地可以隨時不再照顧他的商店。如果消費者寧願把他們的錢花在別處，他就要失掉他的「王國」。他也不「統治」他的工人。他僱用他們的勞務而償付他們的代價，代價的金額決定於消費者購買他的產品所願支付的代價。資本家和企業家更是不運用政治控制的。歐美的一些文明國久已被那不大妨礙巿場運作的政府統治。今天，這些國也受那些敵視資本主義的政黨的支配，而認爲凡是傷害資本家和企業家的事情，都是最有利於人民的。

In an unhampered market economy the capitalists and entrepreneurs

在一個未受妨礙的市場經濟裡面，資本家和企業家不會希望靠賄賂官吏得到利益。另一方面，官吏們也不能夠向工商業者敲詐。但在一個干涉主義的國邦，有力的壓力團體，每每企圖取得本團體份子的特權而損害較弱的團體和個人。於是，工商業者就認爲要免於自己之被歧視，賄賂行政官吏或立法人員是最方便的辦法：一旦用過這種方法，他們就會進一步用這個方法來謀取特權。無論如何，工商業者向官吏納賄或者受那般人的敲詐，這個事實並不說明他們是至高無上的，是統治這個國邦的。納賄的、奉獻的，是被統治者，不是統治者。

The majority of businessmen are prevented from resorting to bribery either by their moral convictions or by fear. They venture to preserve the free enterprise system and to defend themselves against discrimination by legitimate democratic methods. They form trade associations and try to influence public opinion. The results of these endeavors have been rather poor, as is evidenced by the triumphant advance of anticapitalist policies. The best that they have been able to achieve is to delay for a while some especially obnoxious measures.

大多數的工商業者受自己的良心或恐懼心的抑制，不致於靠納賄來圖利。他們想以合法的民主方法，來維護自由企業制度，以保障他們自己不受歧視。他們組成同業公會，且想影響輿論。這些努力的結果頗爲可憐，這可由反資本主義的政策之大行其道得到證明。他們所能達成的，至多是把某些特別可惡的措施延緩一時而已。

Demagogues misrepresent this state of affairs in the crassest way. They tell us that these associations of bankers and manufacturers are the true rulers of their countries and that the whole apparatus of what they call "plutodemocratic" government is dominated by them. A simple enumeration of the laws passed in the last decades by any country's legislature is enough to explode such legends.

這個事象被煽動家們用極粗魯的方法來誤傳。他們吿訴我們：銀行家和製造業的那些同業公會是他們的國的眞正統治者，所謂的「財閥」（plutodemocratic）政治，是由他們支配的。這樣的傳說，只要列舉最近幾十年任何國的立法機關所通過的法律，也就足以推翻它。

-------------------

[12] Cf. Frank A. Fetter, The Principles of Economics (3d ed. New York, 1913), pp. 394-410.

[10] 參考Frank A. Fetter, The Principles of Economics (3d ed. New York, 1913), pp. 394-410.

[13] Beatrice Webb, Lady Passfield, herself the daughter of a wealthy businessman, may be quoted as an outstanding example of this mentality. Cf. My Apprenticeship (New York, 1926), p. 42.

[11] Beatrice Webb，Lady Passfield，她本人是一位富商的女兒。我們可引她作爲這種心態的一個顯例。參考My Apprenticeship (New York, 1926), p. 42.

5. Competition

五、競爭

In nature there prevail irreconcilable conflicts of interests. The means of subsistence are scarce. Proliferation tends to outrun subsistence. Only the fittest plants and animals survive. The antagonism between an animal starving to death and another that snatches the food away from it is implacable.

在自然狀態下，不能和解的利益衝突，到處都是。維持生存的資料是稀少的。生殖率趨向於超過食物的產出率。只有那些最適於環境的植物和動物才能維持生存。飢餓與掠奪之間的敵對，難解難分。

Social cooperation under the division of labor removes such antagonisms. It substitutes partnership and mutuality for hostility. The members of society are united in a common venture.

在分工下的社會合作，消除了這種敵對。它以協力相關替代彼此敵對。社會的組成份子在一個共同的目標下聯合起來。

The term competition as applied to the conditions of animal life signifies the rivalry between animals which manifests itself in their search for food. We may call this phenomenon biological competition. Biological competition must not be confused with social competition, i.e., the striving of individuals to attain the most favorable position in the system of social cooperation. As there will always be

「競爭」這個名詞，當它用在動物生活的時候，是指那些尋找食料的動物之間的生死鬥爭。我們無妨把這個現象叫做「生物學上的競爭」。「生物學上的競爭」不可與「社會競爭」相混淆，後者是指，在社會合作的制度下，個人們爲爭取最有利的地位而作的努力。因爲，總歸有些地位是人們視爲比其他地位更有價値的，於是他們就去爭取，以期勝過封方。社會競爭終於表現在各型的社會組織。如果我們要想像一個沒有社會競爭的情況，我們必須構想一個社會主義制度，那個制度裡面的頭兒，在指派每個人的社會地位和工作的時候，沒有任何人會幫助他，因爲任何人都沒有奢望，他們不希望什麼特別的指派，對一切都不在乎。他們像一羣種馬似地生活著，當主人挑出其中的種馬使牠們交配的時候，種馬羣並不自動爭取。可是像這樣的人們，那就不再是行爲人了。

Catallactic competition is emulation between people who want to surpass one another. It is not a fight, although it is usual to apply to it in a metaphorical sense the terminology of war and internecine conflict, of attack and defense, of strategy and tactics. Those who fail are not annihilated; they are removed to a place in the social system that is more modest, but more adequate to their achievements than that which they had planned to attain.

【中文版無此段。】

In a totalitarian system, social competition manifests itself in the endeavors of people to court the favor of those in power. In the market economy, competition manifests itself in the fact that the sellers must outdo one another by offering better or cheaper goods and services, and that the buyers must outdo one another by offering higher prices. In dealing with this variety of social competition which may be called catallactic competition, we must guard ourselves against various popular fallacies.

在極權的制度下，社會競爭表現於人們之向權力者爭寵，在市場經濟裡面，競爭表現於下述的事情，卽：寶者必須提供價廉質美的貨物和勞務來打敗別人，買者必須支付較高的價格來打敗別人。在討論這種型態的社會競爭——我們可稱之爲「交換的競爭」（catallactic competition）——的時候，我們要愼防各種通常的謬見。

The classical economists favored the abolition of all trade barriers preventing people from competing on the market. Such restrictive laws, they explained, result in shifting production from those places in which natural conditions of production are more favorable to places in which they are less favorable. They protect the less efficient man against his more efficient rival. They tend to perpetuate backward technological methods of production. In short they curtail production and thus lower the standard of living. In order to make all people more prosperous, the economists argued, competition should be free to everybody. In this sense they used the term free competition. There was nothing metaphysical in their employment of the term free. They advocated the nullification of privileges barring people from access to certain trades and markets. All the sophisticated lucubrations caviling at the metaphysical connotations of the adjective free as applied to competition are spurious; they have no reference whatever to the catallactic problem of competition.

古典學派的經濟學家們，主張取消一切限制巿場競爭的障礙。照他們的解釋，這類限制性的法律，是把生產事業從天然條件較有利的地方移轉到它們較不利的地方，是保障效率低的人來對抗效率高的對手，是使落後的生產技術得以不被淘汰。總而言之，這樣的法律是減削生產，因而降低生活標準。爲著使大家生活過得更舒服，這派經濟學家們強調：競爭必須人人自由。他們使用「自由競爭」這個名詞，是用在這個意義下，沒有什麼玄妙不可解的意味。他們主張，凡是妨礙人們自由參加某些行業和市場的那些限制都要取消。由此可知，所有對「自由競爭」的「自由」這個形容詞的著意挑剔，都是虛妄的；它們對競爭的交換問題沒有任何相干。

As far as natural conditions come into play, competition can only be "free" with regard to those factors of production which are not scarce and therefore not objects of human action. In the catallactic field competition is always restricted by the inexorable scarcity of the economic goods and services. Even in the absence of institutional barriers erected to restrict the number of those competing, the state of affairs is never such as to enable everyone to compete in all sectors of the market. In each sector only comparatively small groups can engage in competition.

就自然狀態發生作用的範圍以內講，競爭，只有關於那些非稀少的生產要素，方可以是自由的，可是，這樣的生產要素就不是人的行爲之對象了。在交換行爲中，競爭總是受限於經濟財貨和勞務的稀少性。卽令沒有那些用以限制競爭人數的法律制度存在，情形也不會變到每個人能在市場的一切部門從事競爭。在每個部門裡面，只有相當小的人羣可以競爭。

Catallactic competition, one of the characteristic features of the market economy, is a social phenomenon. It is not a right, guaranteed by the state and the laws, that would make it possible for every individual to choose ad libitum the place in the structure of the division of labor he likes best. To assign to everybody his proper place in society is the task of the consumers. Their buying and abstention from buying is instrumental in determining each individual's social position. Their supremacy is not impaired by any privileges granted to the individuals qua producers. Entrance into a definite branch of industry is virtually free to newcomers only as far as the consumers approve of this branch's expansion or as far as the newcomers succeed in supplanting those already occupied in it by filling better or more cheaply the demands of the consumers. Additional investment is reasonable only to the extent that it fills the most urgent among the not yet satisfied needs of the consumers. If the existing plants are sufficient, it would be wasteful to invest more capital in the same industry. The structure of market prices pushes the new investors into other branches.

交換的競爭——市場經濟的特徵之一——是一個社會現象。它不是政府和法律所保障，而使每個人得以隨意在分工的結構中選擇他所最喜歡的地位的一種權利。指派每個人在社會上適當的地位，這是消費者的事情。消費者指派每個人的社會地位所用的手段，是購買和不購買。他們的主權不受到生產者任何特權的侵害。新來的生產者之得以自由加入某一生産都門，只有在消費者批准這一部門可以擴張的時候才行，或者在新來的人能夠以價更廉、質更美的貨物滿足消費者的需求，因而把原來占據這一部門的人排擠出去的時候才行。另增的投資只有在這個範圍以內才是合理的，卽，這項投資是滿足消費者尙未滿足的需要當中的最迫切的需要。如果旣存的工廠已經足夠，而再增加投資於這個部門，那就是浪費。市場價格結構會把新的投資者推到其他部門。

It is necessary to emphasize this point because the failure to grasp it is at the root of many popular complaints about the impossibility of competition. Some sixty years ago people used to declare: You cannot compete with the railroad companies; it is impossible to challenge their position by starting competing lines; in the field of land transportation there is no longer competition. The truth was that at that time the already operating lines were by and large sufficient. For additional capital investment the prospects were more favorable in improving the serviceableness of the already operating lines and in other branches of business than in the construction of new railroads. However, this did not interfere with further technological progress in transportation technique. The bigness and the economic "power" of the railroad companies did not impede the emergence of the motor car and the airplane.

關於這一點，有特別強調的必要，因爲許多人訴說自由競爭的不可能，都是由於他們不了解這一點。大約在五十年以前，人們常常這樣說：你不能與鐵路公司競爭：在陸地運輸的業務上再也沒有競爭了。事實是這樣：在那個時候已在經營的鐵路線，大體上已經足夠了。對於另外的投資而言，更有希望的投資途徑是在改善原有路線的便利性和其他運輸部門而不是修築新鐵路。但是，這並不妨礙到運輸方面的技術進步。鐵路公司的「大」和其經濟力量，沒有阻礙汽車和飛機的出現。

Today people assert the same with regard to various branches of big business: You cannot challenge their position, they are too big

今天人們持同樣的論調而指涉到各種大規模的生產部門。他們說：你不能向它們的地位挑戰，它們太大、太有力量。但是，競爭的意思並不是說，任何人可以僅靠摹仿別人所作的事情就可致富。它的意思是：以提供質較美或價較廉的東西爲消費者服務的機會，不因爲旣得利益者享有的特權（免於創新的傷害的特權）而受限制。凡是想向老的公司行號的旣得利益挑戰的人所最需要的東西，是頭腦和觀念。如果他的設計能滿足消費者最迫切的需求，或者能以較廉的價格爲消費者提供別的提供者所提供的同樣東西，他就會成功，儘管老的公司行號規模大、力量大，也不能阻礙他的成功。

Catallactic competition must not be confused with prize fights and beauty contests. The purpose of such fights and contests is to discover who is the best boxer or the prettiest girl. The social function of catallactic competition is, to be sure, not to establish who is the smartest boy and to reward the winner by a title and medals. Its function is to safeguard the best satisfaction of the consumers attainable under the given state of the economic data.

【中文版無此段。】

Equality of opportunity is a factor neither in prize fights and beauty contests nor in any other field of competition, whether biological or social. The immense majority of people are by the physiological structure of their bodies deprived of a chance to attain the honors of a boxing champion or a beauty queen. Only very few people can compete on the labor market as opera singers and movie stars. The most favorable opportunity to compete in the field of scientific achievement is provided to the university professors. Yet, thousands and thousands of professors pass away without leaving any trace in the history of ideas and scientific progress, while many of the handicapped outsiders win glory through marvelous contributions.

【中文版無此段。】

It is usual to find fault with the fact that catallactic competition is not open to everybody in the same way. The start is much more difficult for a poor boy than for the son of a wealthy man. But the consumers are not concerned about the problem of whether or not the men who shall serve them start their careers under equal conditions. Their only interest is to secure the best possible satisfaction of their needs. As the system of hereditary property is more efficient in this regard, they prefer it to other less efficient systems. They look at the matter from the point of view of social expediency and social welfare, not from the point of view of an alleged, imaginary, and unrealizable "natural" right of every individual to compete with equal opportunity. The realization of such a right would require placing at a disadvantage those born with better intelligence and greater will power than the average man. It is obvious that this would be absurd.

【中文版無此段。】

The term competition is mainly employed as the antithesis of monopoly. In this mode of speech the term monopoly is applied in different meanings which must be clearly separated.

競爭這個名詞，主要地是作爲「獨占」的反面來使用的。在這個語式裡面，「獨占」這個名詞有些不同的意義，這些不同的意義必須明白分辨。

The first connotation of monopoly, very frequently implied in the popular use of the term, signifies a state of affairs in which the monopolist, whether an individual or a group of individuals, exclusively controls one of the vital conditions of human survival. Such a monopolist has the power to starve to death all those who do not obey his orders. He dictates and the others have no alternative but either to surrender or to die. With regard to such a monopoly there is no market or any kind of catallactic competition. The monopolist is the master and the rest are slaves entirely dependent on his good graces. There is no need to dwell upon this kind of monopoly. It has no reference whatever to a market economy. It is enough to cite one instance. A world-embracing socialist state would exercise such an absolute and total monopoly; it would have the power to crush its opponents by starving them to death[14].

獨占的第一個涵義，也卽最常用的，是指這種狀態：獨占者，或者是個人或者是一組人，絕對控制人們生存的基本要件之一。這樣的獨占者有權力使不服從他的人飢餓至死。他是發號施令者，其他的人，只有服從或死，沒有其他的選擇。講到這樣的獨占，市場是不存在的，也沒有任何其他的交換競爭。獨占者是主人，其餘的人都是奴隸，完全依靠他的恩惠而生存。這類的獨占我們沒有詳細討論的必要，它和一個市場經濟沒有任何關係。我們只要舉一個例就夠了。一個包括全世界的社會主義國或會行使這樣絕對的全體的獨占；它有權力把所有的反對者餓死[14]。

The second connotation of monopoly differs from the first in that it describes a state of affairs compatible with the conditions of a market economy. A monopolist in this sense is an individual or a group of individuals, fully combining for joint action, who has the exclusive control of the supply of a definite commodity. If we define the term monopoly in this way, the domain of monopoly appears very vast. The products of the processing industries are more or less different from one another. Each factory turns out products different from those of the other plants. Each hotel has a monopoly on the sale of its services on the site of its premises. The professional services rendered by a physician or a lawyer are never perfectly equal to those rendered by any other physician or lawyer. Except for certain raw materials, foodstuffs, and other staple goods, monopoly is everywhere on the market.

獨占的第二個涵意和第一個涵意之不同在於：它所描述的情況是與市場經濟相容的。在這個意義下的獨占者是一個人或一組完全聯合行動的人們，對於某一貨物的供給握有絕對的控制力。如果我們對獨占一詞這樣下定義，則獨占的領域顯得很大。加工業的一些產品，彼此間或多或少總有些差異。每個工廠產出的貨物和其他工廠產出的總有些不同。每一個旅館在服務方面或在地區方面有它的獨占。一位醫生或一位律師所提供的勞務決不和其他醫生或律師所提供的完全相同。除掉某些原料、糧食、和其他大宗產品以外，巿場上到處有獨占。

However, the mere phenomenon of monopoly is without any significance and relevance for the operation of the market and the determination of prices. It does not give the monopolist any advantage in selling his products. Under copyright law every rhymester enjoys a monopoly in the sale of his poetry. But this does not influence the market. It may happen that no price whatever can be realized for his stuff and that his books can only be sold at their waste paper value.

但是，僅僅是獨占的「現象」，對於巿場運作和價格決定，沒有什麼意義和相干。它不會給獨占者在出賣他的產品時占到什麼利益。在版權法的保障下，每個寫打油詩的詩人也享有他那詩篇的獨占銷售權。伹這並不影響市場。他那貨色可能賣不出任何價格，也許只能當作廢紙賣掉。

Monopoly in this second connotation of the term becomes a factor in the determination of prices only if the demand curve for the

這第二個意義的獨占之成爲價格的決定因素，只有它的產品的需求曲線是一特殊形狀的時候才會。如果情形是這樣：獨占者可以把他的產品賣出較少的數量，索取較高的價格，而其淨收入比賣出較多的數量、索取較低的價格更多些。這時就出現比沒有獨占時可能的市場價格要高些的「獨占價格」。獨占價格是個重要的市場現象，獨占之爲獨占只有在它能夠形成獨占價格的場合才是重要的。

It is customary to call prices which are not monopoly prices competitive prices. While it is questionable whether or not this terminology is expedient, it is generally accepted and it would be difficult to change it. But one must guard oneself against its misinterpretation. It would be a serious blunder to deduce from the antithesis between monopoly price and competitive price that the monopoly price is the outgrowth of the absence of competition. There is always catallactic competition on the market. Catallactic competition is no less a factor in the determination of monopoly prices than it is in the determination of competitive prices. The shape of the demand curve that makes the appearance of monopoly prices possible and directs the monopolists' conduct is determined by the competition of all other commodities competing for the buyers' dollars. The higher the monopolist fixes the price at which he is ready to sell,the more potential buyers turn their dollars toward other vendible goods. On the market every commodity competes with all other commodities.

習慣上是把沒有獨占的價格叫做「競爭價格」。這個稱謂是否便利固然是個問題，可是它已被大家採用，將難於改變了。但是，我們必須小心不要誤解。如果從獨占價格競爭價格的對立，因而推論說，獨占價格是沒有競爭的結果，那就大錯特錯。在市場裡面，總是有交換競爭的。交換的競爭是競爭價格的決定因素，崗樣也是獨占價格的決定因素。使獨占價格的出現成爲可能，並且指導獨占者的行爲的需求曲線的形狀，是決定於爭取購買者的金錢的其他所有的貨物的競爭。獨占者的售價定得愈高，潜在的買者把他們的金錢轉到其他貨物的賣者則愈多。在市場裡面，每樣貨物都在和其他所有的貨物競爭。

There are people who maintain that the catallactic theory of prices is of no use for the study of reality because there has never been "free" competition or because, at least today, there is no longer any such thing. All these doctrines are wrong[15]. They misconstrue the phenomena and simply do not know what competition really is. It is a fact that the history of the last decades is a record of policies aiming at the restriction of competition. It is the manifest intention of these schemes to grant privileges to certain groups of producers by protecting them against the competition of more efficient competitors. In many instances these policies have brought about the conditions required for the emergence of monopoly prices. In many other instances this was not the case and the result was only a state of affairs preventing many capitalists, entrepreneurs, farmers, and workers from entering those branches of industry in which they would have rendered the most valuable services to their fellow citizens. Catallactic

有許多人認爲，交換的債格論對於實際問題的研究毫無用處，因爲「自由的」競爭是絕封沒有的事情，或者至少在今天，再也沒有這樣的事情。所有這些說法都是錯的[13]。他們誤解這個現象，簡直不知道競爭眞正是什麼。過去幾十年的歷史，記錄了許許多多限制競爭的政策，這是事實。這些政策的明顯意圖，是給某些生產集團的特權，保護他們免於更有效率的對手者的競爭。在許多情形下，這些政策曾經完成了獨占價格所必要的條件。在其他的許多情形下，不是這樣，其結果只是阻止了許多資本家、企業家、農民、工人進到那些應該會爲國人提供最有價値服務的生產部門。交換的競爭是被嚴重地限制，但市場經濟仍然在運作，儘管因政府和工會的干擾而受妨礙。

It is the ultimate end of these anticompetition policies to substitute for capitalism a socialist system of planning in which there is no catallactic competition at all. While shedding crocodile tears about the decline of competition, the planners want to abolish this "mad" competitive system. They have attained their goal in some countries. But in the rest of the world they have only restricted competition in some branches of business by increasing the number of people competing in other branches.

這些反競爭政策的最後目的是要以計畫的社會主義制度來替代資本主義，在社會主義制度裡面，根本沒有交換的競爭。計畫者一方面封競爭的衰返假惺惺地表示惋惜，一方面想徹底消除這種「瘋狂的」競爭制度。他們的目的，在某些國已經達到。但在世界其餘的地區，他們只做到某些生產部門的競爭被限制，而其他部門的競爭人數爲之增多。

The forces aiming at a restriction of competition play a great role in our day. It is an important task of the history of our age to deal with them. Economic theory has no need to refer to them in particular. The fact that there are trade barriers, privileges, cartels, government monopolies and labor unions is merely a datum of economic history. It does not require special theorems for its interpretation.

我們這個時代，以限制競爭爲目的的那些力量，正在扮演重大的角色。處理這些力量是我們這個時代的歷史的重大任務。經濟理論沒有特別討論它們之必要。現在，我們有貿易壁壘、有特權、有產業聯營、有政府獨占、有工會。這些事實，只是經濟史的資料，不需要特別的定理來解釋。

---------------------

[14] Cf. Trotsky (1937) as quoted by Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (London, 1944), p. 89.

[12] 參考Hayek在The Road to Serfdom (London, 1944), p. 89所引的Trotsky所說的話（1937）。

[15] For a refutation of the fashionable doctrines of imperfect and of monopolistic competition cf. F. A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 92-118.

[13] 關於不完全的競爭和獨占性的競爭這些時髦理論的駁斥，參考F. A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 92-118.

6. Freedom

六、自由

Philosophers and lawyers have bestowed much pain upon attempts to define the concept of freedom or liberty. It can hardly be maintained that these endeavors have been successful.

自由這個名詞，就人類最傑出的人物看來，是指一個最寶貴、最可欲的東西。現在流行的風氣是輕視它、嘲笑它，時髦的哲人在大聲叫喊：自由是「狡猾的」觀念和「布爾喬亞」的偏見。

The concept of freedom makes sense only as far as it refers to interhuman relations. There were authors who told stories about an original--natural--freedom which man was supposed to have enjoyed in a fabulous state of nature that preceded the establishment of social relations. Yet such mentally and economically self-sufficient individuals or families, roaming about the country, were only free as long as they did not run into a stronger fellow's way. In the pitiless biological competition the stronger was always right, and the weaker was left no choice except unconditional surrender. Primitive man was certainly not born free.

在自然狀態下沒有所謂自由。自由這個名詞不能有意義地用在自然狀態下的任何現象。無論人做什麼，他決不能擺脫自然界給他的限制。如果他想在行爲上成功，他必須無條件服務一些自然法則，否則他的行爲就得失敗。自由總是指的人際關係。一個人如果能夠不受別人的任意支配而好好地活下去，他就是自由的。在這個社會架構裡面，人人互賴。社會人（social man）不能放棄社會合作的一切利益而成爲獨立的人。自足自給的人是獨立的，但他不是自由的。因爲他是在每個強過他的人的支配下。較強的人可以任意殺害他而無所畏懼。所謂「自然的」和「天賦的」自由，是說人們在社會約束出現以前的遠古時代，已經享有的自由，這簡直是無稽之談。人不是生而自由的：他所可享有的自由是社會給他的。只有一些社會條件能造就一個軌道，讓他在這個軌道的範圍以內享有自由。

Only within the frame of a social system can a meaning be attached to the term freedom. As a praxeological term, freedom refers to the sphere within which a acting individual is in a position to choose between alternative modes of action. A man is free in so far as he is permitted to choose ends and the means to be used for the attainment of those ends. A man's freedom is most rigidly restricted by the laws of nature as well as by the laws of praxeology. He cannot attain ends which are incompatible with one another. If he chooses to indulge in gratifications that produce definite effects upon the

在一個契約的社會裡面，自由是做人的條件。生產手段私有制下的社會合作，就是在巿場的範圍以內，個人不必服從和服侍一個主子。他給予別人和爲別人服務，他是自願地爲著取得報償和得到對方的服務。他交換財貨和勞務，他不作被強迫的工作，他也不貢獻。他確是不獨立的。他依賴社會的其他份子。但是，這種依賴是相互的。買者依賴賣者，賣者依賴買者。

Man cannot have both the advantages derived from peaceful cooperation under the principle of the division of labor within society and the license of embarking upon conduct that is bound to disintegrate society. He must choose between the observance of certain rules that make life within society possible and the poverty and insecurity of the "dangerous life" in a state of perpetual warfare among independent individuals. This is no less rigid a law determining the outcome of all human action than are the laws of physics.

【中文版無此段。】

Yet there is a far-reaching difference between the sequels resulting from a disregard of the laws of nature and those resulting from a disregard of the laws of praxeology. Of course, both categories of law take care of themselves without requiring any enforcement on the part of man. But the effects of a choice made by an individual are different. A man who absorbs poison harms himself alone. But a man who chooses to resort to robbery upsets the whole social order. While he alone enjoys the short-term gains derived from his action, the disastrous long-term effects harm all the people. His deed is a crime because it has detrimental effects on his fellow men. If society were not to prevent such conduct, it would soon become general and put an end to social cooperation and all the boons the latter confers upon everybody.

【中文版無此段。】

In order to establish and to preserve social cooperation and civilization, measures are needed to prevent asocial individuals from committing acts that are bound to undo all that man has accomplished in his progress from the Neanderthal level. In order to preserve the state of affairs in which there is protection of the individual against the unlimited tyranny of stronger and smarter fellows, an institution is needed that curbs all antisocial elements. Peace--the absence of perpetual fighting by everyone against everyone--can be attained only by the establishment of a system in which the power to resort to violent action is monopolized by a social apparatus of compulsion and coercion and the application of this power in any individual case is regulated by a set of rules--the man-made laws as distinguished both from the laws of nature and those of praxeology. The essential implement of a social system is the operation of such an apparatus commonly called government.

【中文版無此段。】

The concepts of freedom and bondage make sense only when referring to the way in which government operates. It would be highly inexpedient and misleading to say that a man is not free because, if he wants to stay alive, his power to choose between a drink of water and one of potassium cyanide is restricted by nature. It would be no less inconvenient to call a man unfree because the law imposes sanctions upon his desire to kill another man and because the police and the penal courts enforce them. As far as the government--the social apparatus of compulsion and oppression--confines the exercise of its violence and the threat of such violence to the suppression and prevention of antisocial action, there prevails what reasonably and meaningfully can be called liberty. What is restrained is merely conduct that is bound to disintegrate social cooperation and civilization, thus throwing all people back to conditions that existed at the time homo sapiens emerged from the purely animal existence of its nonhuman ancestors. Such coercion does not substantially restrict man's power to choose. Even if there were no government enforcing man-made laws, the individual could not have both the advantages derived from the existence of social cooperation on the one hand, and, on the other, the pleasures of freely indulging in the rapacious animal instincts of aggression.

【中文版無此段。】

In the market economy, the laissez-faire type of social organization, there is a sphere within which the individual is free to choose between various modes of acting without being restrained by the threat of being punished. If, however, the government does more than protect people against violent or fraudulent aggression on the part of antisocial individuals, it reduces the sphere of the individual's freedom to act beyond the degree to which it is restricted by praxeological law. Thus we may define freedom as that state of affairs in which the individual's discretion to choose is not constrained by governmental violence beyond the margin within which the praxeological law restricts it anyway.

【中文版無此段。】

This is what is meant if one defines freedom as the condition of an individual within the frame of the market economy. He is free in the sense that the laws and the government do not force him to renounce his autonomy and self-determination to a greater extent than the inevitable praxeological law does. What he foregoes is only the animal freedom of living without any regard to the existence of other specimens of his species. What the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion achieves is that individuals whom malice, shortsightedness or mental inferiority prevent from realizing that by indulging in acts that are destroying society they are hurting themselves and all other human beings are compelled to avoid such acts.

【中文版無此段。】

From this point of view one has to deal with the often-raised problem of whether conscription and the levy of taxes mean a restriction of freedom. If the principles of the market economy were acknowledged by all people all over the world, there would not be any reason to wage war and the individual states could live in undisturbed peace[16]. But as conditions are in our age, a free nation is continually threatened by the aggressive schemes of totalitarian autocracies. If it wants to preserve its freedom, it must be prepared to defend its independence. If the government of a free country forces every citizen to cooperate fully in its designs to repel the aggressors and every able-bodied man to join the armed forces, it does not impose upon the individual a duty that would step beyond the tasks the praxeological law dictates. In a world full of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors. He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.

【中文版無此段。】

The maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments. There is need to stress this fact, because in our age of interventionism and the steady "progress" toward totalitarianism the governments employ the power to tax for the destruction of the market economy.

【中文版無此段。】

Every step a government takes beyond the fulfillment of its essential functions of protecting the smooth operation of the market economy against aggression, whether on the part of domestic or foreign disturbers, is a step forward on a road that directly leads into the totalitarian system where there is no freedom at all.

【中文版無此段。】

Liberty and freedom are the conditions of man within a contractual society. Social cooperation under a system of private ownership of the factors of production means that within the range of the market

【中文版無此段。】

The main concern of many writers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was to misrepresent and to distort this obvious state of affairs. The workers, they said, are at the mercy of their employers. Now, it is true that the employer has the right to fire the employee. But if he makes use of this right in order to indulge in his whims, he hurts his own interests. It is to his own disadvantage if he discharges a better man in order to hire a less efficient one. The market does no directly prevent anybody from arbitrarily inflicting harm on his fellow citizens; it only puts a penalty upon such conduct. The shopkeeper is free to be rude to his customers provided he is ready to bear the consequences. The consumers are free to boycott a purveyor provided they are ready to pay the costs. What impels every man to the utmost exertion in the service of his fellow men and curbs innate tendencies toward arbitrariness and malice is, in the market, not compulsion and coercion on the part of gardeess, hangmen, and penal courts; it is self-interest. The member of a contractual society is free because he serves others only in serving himself. What restrains him is only the inevitable natural phenomenon of scarcity. For the rest he is free in the range of the market.

十九世紀和二十世紀，有許多著作家曲解了這個明顯的事實。他們說，工人們是受他們僱主擺佈的。不錯，僱主有權解僱工人。但是，如果他濫用這個權力以逞一時之快，他就會傷害自己的利益。如果他爲僱用一個效率低的工人而解僱一個較好工人，那是對他自己不利。巿場並不直接制止任何人任意加害別人；它只是對這種行爲加以懲罰。店主有自由對他的顧客不禮貌，假若他甘心接受後果。消費者有自由杯葛一個賣主，假若他願意支付代價。在市場裡面推動每個人盡力爲別人服務，同時遏制那些任性作惡的天賦傾向的，不是憲兵、不是絞刑吏、不是刑事法庭，而是每個人自己的利害關係。契約社會的份子是自由的，因爲他只是爲服務自己而服務別人。限制他的只是那無可如何的自然現象一稀少。除此以外，他在市場的範圍內是自由的。

There is no kind of freedom and liberty other than the kind which the market economy brings about. In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide.

除掉市場經濟帶來的這類自由，再也沒有別類的自由。在一個極權統治的社會裡面，留給個人的唯一自由，是那無法剝奪的自殺的自由。

The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, is by necessity a hegemonic bond. If government were in a position to expand its power ad libitum, it could abolish the market economy and substitute for it all-round totalitarian socialism. In order to prevent this, it is necessary to curb the power of government. This is the task of all constitutions, bills of rights, and laws. This is the meaning of all struggles which men have fought for liberty.

國，這個強制性的社會機構，必然是個強力的束縛。如果政府能夠隨便擴張它的權力，它就可以徹底消除巿場經濟而代之以萬能的、極權的社會主義。爲著預防這種事情發生，削減政府的權力是必要的。這是所有的憲法、人權表（bills of rights），和法律的任務。這是人們爲爭取自由而作的一切鬥爭的意義。

The detractors of liberty are in this sense right in calling it a "bourgeois" issue and in blaming the rights guaranteeing liberty for being negative. In the realm of state and government, liberty means restraint imposed upon the exercise of the police power.

在這個意義下，誹謗自由的人所說的是對的。他們把自由叫做「布爾喬亞的」收穫物，而且責怪那些保證自由的權利是消極的，就政治的意義講，自由是指對警察的權力所加的限制。自由這個名詞是用來描述市場社會各個份子的社會地位，在這市場社會裡面，國，這個不可少的強力束縛，其權力是要削減的，否則市場運作就要受害。在一個極權制度下，沒有任何事情可以用得上「自由」這個形容詞，那裡只有獨裁者無限的任意專斷。

There would be no need to dwell upon this obvious fact if the

如果那些主張廢棄自由的宣傳者，未曾有意地在字義上故弄混淆，我們也就不必對這個明顯的事實多費筆墨。他知道：如果公開而坦白地鼓吹限制和奴役，那是得不到附和的。自由這個觀念已有了任何宣傳所不能動搖的聲望。在西方文明中，很久很久以來，自由已被認爲是最可貴的。西方文明的優越，是得之於對自由的關切，這是東方人生疏的一個社會理想。西方的社會哲學，本質上是自由哲學。歐洲以及歐洲移民和其子孫在世界別處所建立的社會，其歷史的主要內容是爭取自由的一些鬥爭。「粗野的」個人主義是我們這個文明的記號。對個人自由的公開攻擊，決不會有成功的希望。

Thus the advocates of totalitarianism chose other tactics. They reversed the meaning of words. They call true or genuine liberty the condition of the individuals under a system in which they have no right other than to obey orders. In the United States, they call themselves true liberals because they strive after such a social order. They call democracy the Russian methods of dictatorial government. They call the labor union methods of violence and coercion "industrial democracy." They call freedom of the press a state of affairs in which only the government is free to publish books and newspapers. They define liberty as the opportunity to do the "right" things, and, of course, they arrogate to themselves the determination of what is right and what is not. In their eyes government omnipotence means full liberty. To free the police power from all restraints is the true meaning of their struggle for freedom.

因此，極權主義的擁護者選擇了別的戰略。他們顚倒文字的意義。他們把那只有服從、沒有其他權利的制度下的個人處境叫做眞的或眞正的自由。他們把他們自己叫做眞的自由主義者，因爲他們是爲實現這樣的社會秩序而奮鬥。他們把俄國獨裁政府的一些方法叫做民主。他們把工會所用的暴力叫做「產業民主」。他們把那只有政府可以自由印行書刊報紙的情況叫做出版自由。他們把自由定義爲做「正當」事情的機會，而所謂正當或不正當，當然只能由他們自己作判斷。在他們的心目中，政府萬能就是充份自由。使警察的權力不受任何限制，是他們爲自由而奮鬥的眞正意義。

The market economy, say these self-styled liberals, grants liberty only to a parasitic class of exploiters, the bourgeoisie. These scoundrels enjoy the freedom to enslave the masses. The wage earner is not free; he must toil for the sole benefit of his masters, the employers. The capitalists appropriate to themselves what according to the inalienable rights of man should belong to the worker. Under socialism the worker will enjoy freedom and human dignity because he will no longer have to slave for a capitalist. Socialism means the emancipation of the common man, means freedom for all. It means, moreover, riches for all.

這些自命爲自由主義者的人們這樣說：市場經濟只是給剝削者布爾喬亞這一寄生階級的自由。這些惡棍享有奴役大衆的自由。賺取工資的人是不自由的；他必須爲他的主人——雇主——的利益而辛苦工作。資本家把應該屬於工人的據爲自有。在社會主義制度下，工人享有自由和尊嚴，因爲他再不必爲資本家做奴隸。社會主義卽是一般人的解放，卽是大家自由。而且，也是大家都富有的。

These doctrines have been able to triumph because they did not encounter effective rational criticism. Some economists did a brilliant job in unmasking their crass fallacies and contradictions. But the public ignores the teachings of economics. The arguments advanced

這些敎條也能叫人相信，因爲它們沒有遇到過有力的批駁。有許多經濟學家曾經揭發他們的嚴重謬見和矛盾。但是，一般大衆注意不到經濟學的敎義。這些敎義封於那些小報和其他低級刊物的讀者，過於繁重而吃不消。至於平庸的政客和作家提出的反社會主義的議論，或者是愚蠹的，或者是不中肯的。如果別人說最「自然的」的權利是所得平等的權利，而你還訴之於個人保有財產的所謂「自然」權利，那是無用的。對於社會主義的那些枝節而非要害加以批評，是不中用的。社會主義封於宗敎、婚姻、生育節制和藝術，自有它的立場。我們不要靠攻擊它的這些立場來駁斥社會主義。而且，在這荜問題的討論上，批評社會主義的人常在錯的方面。舉例來講，他們愚昧到把那「對布爾雪維克迫害俄國敎會的反對」變成「一個對那卑鄙的、難忍受的敎會和它的一些迷信的作爲的辯護」。

In spite of these serious shortcomings of the defenders of economic freedom it was impossible to fool all the people all the time about the essential features of socialism. The most fanatical planners were forced to admit that their projects involve the abolition of many freedoms people enjoy under capitalism and "plutodemocracy." Pressed hard, they resorted to a new subterfuge. The freedom to be abolished, they emphasize, is merely the spurious "economic" freedom of the capitalists that harms the common man. Outside the "economic sphere" freedom will not only be fully preserved, but considerably expanded. "Planning for Freedom" has lately become the most popular slogan of the champions of totalitarian government and the Russification of all nations.

儘管經濟自由的辯護者有這些嚴重的缺點，但要想把社會主義的基本特徵永久瞞過所有的人，那是不可能的。最狂熱的計畫者不得不承認，他們的方案是要廢除人們在資本主義和「富豪的民主」下所享有的許多自由。如果逼緊了，他們就訴之於一個新的遁辭。他們強調說：要廢除的自由只是虛僞的「經濟」自由。「經濟範圍」以外的自由不僅是全部保留，而且大大地擴張。「爲自由而計畫」成爲近來最流行的口號，喊出這個口號的，是些極權政治的擁護者。

The fallacy of this argument stems from the spurious distinction between two realm of human life and action, entirely separated from one another, viz., the "economic" sphere and the "noneconomic" sphere. With regard to this issue there is no need to add anything to what has been said in the preceding parts of this book. However, there is another point to be stressed.

這個議論的錯誤，源於誤把人的生活與行爲，區分爲完全分離的兩個界域，卽「經濟」界域和「非經濟」界域。關於這個問題，除掉本書前面幾篇講過的話以外，沒有必要再講什麼。但是，有一點我們要特別強調的。

Freedom, as people enjoyed it in the democratic countries of Western civilization in the years of the old liberalism's triumph, was not a product of constitutions, bills of rights, laws, and statutes. Those documents aimed only at safeguarding liberty and freedom, firmly established by the operation of the market economy, against encroachments on the part of officeholders. No government and no civil law can guarantee and bring about freedom otherwise than by supporting and defending the fundamental institutions of the market economy. Government means always coercion and compulsion and is by necessity the opposite of liberty. Government is a guarantor of liberty and is compatible with liberty only if its range is adequately restricted to the preservation of what is called economic freedom. Where there is no market economy, the best_intentioned provisions of constitutions and laws remain a dead letter.

像過去自由主義得勢的時期，西方民主國的人民所享受的那種自由，並不是憲法、人權表、法律、規章的產物。那些文件的目的，只在於保障自由以防官吏們的侵犯，而市場經濟的運作則是堅實地確立了自由。沒有一個政府或一部民法，可以不維護市場經濟的基本功用而能保障自由的。政府總是個強制性的機構，它必然是自由的反對物。政府之成爲自由的保障者而與自由相容，只有在一種情形下才可能，卽它的活動範圍適當地限於經濟自由的維護。凡是沒有市場經濟的地方，宗旨最好的憲法條文和一般法規，都成爲具文。

The freedom of man under capitalism is an effect of competition.

資本主義下的個人自由是競爭的效果。工人不靠僱主的恩惠。如果他的僱主解僱他，他就另找僱主[14]。消費者不受店主的擺佈。如果他不喜歡，他可自由地照顧另一個商店。誰也不要去吻別人的手或怕失掉別人的寵愛。人際關係簡單明瞭。貨物和勞務的交換是相互的；買或賣不是一種恩惠，而是由雙方的自私自利所指揮的交易。

It is true that in his capacity as a producer every man depends either directly--e.g., the entrepreneur--or indirectly--e.g., the hired worker--on the demands of the consumers. However, this dependence upon the supremacy of the consumers is not unlimited. If a man has a weighty reason for defying the sovereignty of the consumers, he can try it. There is in the range of the market a very substantial and effective right to resist oppression. Nobody is forced to go into the liquor industry or into a gun factory if his conscience objects. He may have to pay a price for his conviction; there are in this world no ends the attainment of which is gratuitous. But it is left to a man's own decision to choose between a material advantage and the call of what he believes to be his duty. In the market economy the individual alone is the supreme arbiter in matters of his satisfaction[18].

不錯，每個人當他是生產者的時候，他將直接（當他是企業家的時候）或間接（當他是工人的時候）依賴消費者的需求。但是，這種對於消費者的依賴不是無限的。如果一個人有重大的理由不管消費者的主權，他可試試看。在市場範圍內，有個非常實在而有效的抗拒壓迫的權利。誰也不會被逼進到製酒業或鎗礮工業，如果他的良心反對的話。他也許要爲他的信念支付代價；在這個世界裡面，沒有不要代價而可達成的目的。但是，在「物質利益」與「他認爲的他的天職」之間的選擇，還是由他自己決定。在市場經濟裡面，關於個人滿足的事情，他本人就是最高的裁決者。[15]

Capitalist society has no means of compelling a man to change his occupation or his place of work other than to reward those complying with the wants of the consumers by higher pay. It is precisely this kind of pressure which many people consider as unbearable and hope to see abolished under socialism. They are too dull to realize that the only alternative is to convey to the authorities full power to determine in what branch and at what place a man should work.

資本主義社會除掉以較高的報償來獎賞那些善於滿足消費者慾望的人以外，決不強迫一個人改變他的行業、他的居住地，或他的工作。正因爲這種情形，有些人覺得忍受不了而希望看到在社會主義下消除這種情形。他們竟愚昧到看不出要如此則只有給政府充份的權力，讓它來決定每個人應該在那個部門、那個地方工作。

In his capacity as consumer man is no less free. He alone decides what is more and what is less important for him. He chooses how to spend his money according to his own will.

一個人，當他是消費者的時候，是同樣的自由。他憑他自己一個人來判定什麼東西對於他最重要，什麼次重要。他按照自己的意願來選擇怎樣花費他的錢。

The substitution of economic planning for the market economy removes all freedom and leaves to the individual merely the right to obey. The authority directing all economic matters controls all aspects of a man's life and activities. It is the only employer. All labor becomes compulsory labor because the employee must accept what the chief deigns to offer him. The economic tsar determines what and how much of each the consumer may consume. There is no sector of human life in which a decision is left to the individual's value judgments. The authority assigns a definite task to him, trains him for his job, and employs him at the place and in the manner it deems expedient.

以經濟計畫替代巿場經濟，那就是消除一切自由，而留給個人的只是一個服從的權利。指揮經濟事務的那個權威，控制每個人的生活和活動的各方面。它是唯一的僱主。所有的勞動都成爲強迫勞動，因爲被僱者必須接受這個頭兒指派他的工作。這個經濟的獨裁者決定每個消費者可以消費什麼、消費多少。在人生的任何方面，都沒有讓各個人按他的價値判斷來作決定的餘地。這個權威指派他一定的工作，訓練他適合這個工作，然後按照它所認爲方便的地區和方式，來僱用他。

As soon as the economic freedom which the market economy grants to its members is removed, all political liberties and bills of rights become humbug. Habeas corpus and trial by jury are a sham if, under the pretext of economic expediency, the authority has full power to relegate every citizen it dislikes to the arctic or to a desert and to assign him "hard labor" for life. Freedom of the press is a mere blind if the authority controls all printing offices and paper plants. And so are all the other rights of men.

市場經濟給人們的經濟自由一經廢除，所有的政治自由和人權表都成爲欺騙。如果在經濟的權宜之計這個藉口下，權威者有充份的權力把它不喜歡的人放逐到北極去、沙漠地帶去，並且指派他終身的勞役。那麼，人身保護狀（habeas corpus）和陪審制度就一個裝飾品。如果這想權威控制住所有的印刷廠和造紙廠，則出版自由不過是一句空話。其他的人權也是如此。

A man is free as far as he shapes his life according to his own plans. A man whose fate is determined by the plans of a superior authority, in which the exclusive power to plan is vested, is not free in the sense in which this term "free" was used and understood by all people until the semantic revolution of our day brought about a confusion of tongues.

一個人按照自己的計畫安排他的生活，能夠這樣做到什麼程度，他在這個程度內就是自由的。一個人，如其命運是決定於上級權威的計畫，則他就不是自由的。這裡所用的自由一詞，其意義是大家所用的、所了解的，而不是前面提到的我們這個時代的語義革命所弄成的那種歪義。

------------------

[16] See below, p. 685.

[17] See below, pp. 598-600.

[14] 見第二十一章第四節。

[18] In the political sphere resistance to oppression on the part of the established government is the ultima ratio of those oppressed. However illegal and unbearable the oppression, however lofty and noble the motives of the rebels, and however beneficial the consequences of their violent resistance, a revolution is always an illegal act, disintegrating the established order of state and government. It is an essential mark of civil government that it is in its territory the only agency which is in a position to resort to measures of violence or to declare legitimate whatever violence is practiced by other agencies. A revolution is an act of warfare between the citizens, it abolishes the very foundations of legality and is at best restrained by the questionable international customs concerning belligerency. If victorious, it can afterwards establish a new legal order and a new government. But it can never enact a legal "right to resist oppression." Such an impunity granted to people venturing armed resistance to the armed forces of the government is tantamount to anarchy and incompatible with any mode of government. The Constituent Assembly of the first French Revolution was foolish enough to decree such a right; but it was not so foolish as to take its own decree seriously.

[15] 在政治界域內，對政府所加的壓迫之抗拒，是被壓迫者最後所使用的武力（ultima ratio）。不管這壓迫如何非法、如何難受，不管這反叛的動機如何崇髙，而其結果如何有利，革命總是一個非法的行爲，使社會秩序和政府陷於瓦解。政府在其領域以內是唯一能夠使用暴力的機構，也是可以宣佈其他機構所用的暴力是正當的唯一機構（意指承認外國的革命政府？——譯者附註）。這是文明政府的一個基本特徵。革命是公民之間的戰鬥，它推翻法統，至多它只受關於交戰團體的國際慣例不大有力的限制。如果勝利了，它就會接著建立一個新的法律秩序和一個新政府。但是，它決不會制定一個合法的「反抗壓迫的權利」。允許人民以武裝力量來反抗政府的武裝力量，那就等於無政府，而是與任何政治體制不相容的。第一次法國革命的國民議會，曾經愚蠢到宣吿人民有這種權利；但是它卻沒有愚蠢到把這個宣吿當眞的。

7. Inequality of Wealth and Income

七、財富與所得的不平等

The inequality of individuals with regard to wealth and income is an essential feature of the market economy.

關於財富和所得的個人間之不平等，是市場經濟的一個基本待徵。

The fact that freedom is incompatible with equality of wealth and income has been stressed by many authors. There is no need to enter into an examination of the emotional arguments advanced in these writings. Neither is it necessary to raise the question of whether the renunciation of liberty could in itself guarantee the establishment of equality of wealth and income and whether or not a society could subsist on the basis of such an equality. Our task is merely to describe the role inequality plays in the framework of the market society.

自由不能和財富所得的平等相容，這一事實曾經被許多著作家強調過。這裡沒有必要再進而檢討那些作品中激於情感的議論。也沒有必要提出這樣的問題：放棄了自由是不是可以保證財富與所得就會平等，以及以這樣的平等作基礎的社會能不能長期存在。我們在這裡所要做的工作，只是描述，在市場社會的架構中「不平等」所扮演的角色。

In the market society direct compulsion and coercion are practiced only for the sake of preventing acts detrimental to social cooperation.

在市場社會裡面，直接的強迫只是爲制止那些危害社會合作的行爲而使用的。除此以外，個人不會受到警察權力的折磨。守法的公民無虞牢獄之災。逼著你不得不貢獻你的一份於生產合作的，是市場的價格結構所發生的作用。這個壓力是間接的。它對每個人的貢獻給以獎金，金額多少是按照消費者對這個貢獻的評價。在這個過程中，每個人可以自由決定把自己的能力利用到什麼程度。當然，這個方法不能消除某些人因天生缺陷而受到的不利。但是，它卻給每個人一種鼓勵，鼓勵他盡力運用他的智慧和能力。

The only alternative to this financial pressure as exercised by the market is direct pressure and compulsion as exercised by the police power. The authorities must be entrusted with the task of determining the quantity and quality of work that each individual is bound to perform. As individuals are unequal with regard to their abilities, this requires an examination of their personalities on the part of the authorities. The individual becomes an inmate of a penitentiary, as it were, to whom a definite task is assigned. If he fails to achieve what the authorities have ordered him to do, he is liable to punishment.

唯一可替代這種市場間接壓力的，是警察權力的直接强制。這是讓政府機構來決定毎個人應該作的工作量和質。由於各個人的才能不是相等的，政府機構必須個別檢查，才好指派不同的工作。指派了工作以後，他就像勞動營裡面被關的人一樣，如果他不能完成被指定的工作，就要受懲罰。

It is important to realize in what the difference consists between direct pressure exercised for the prevention of crime and that exercised for the extortion of a definite performance. In the former case all that is required from the individual is to avoid a certain mode of conduct, precisely determined by law. As a rule it is easy to establish whether or not this interdiction has been observed. In the second case the individual is liable to accomplish a definite task; the law forces him toward an indefinite action, the determination of which is left to the decision of the executive power. The individual is bound to obey whatever the administration orders him to do. Whether or not the command issued by the executive power was adequate to his forces and faculties and whether or not he has complied with it to the best of his abilities is extremely difficult to establish. Every citizen is with regard to all aspects of his personality and with regard to all manifestations of his conduct subject to the decisions of the authorities. In the market economy in a trial before a penal court the prosecutor is obliged to produce sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty. But in matters of the performance of compulsory work it devolves upon the defendant to prove that the task assigned to him was beyond his abilities or that he has done all that can be expected of him. The administrators combine in their persons the offices of the

爲防止犯罪而使用的直接壓力與爲責成工作而使用的壓力，其間有重要的區別，這一點必須認識淸楚。在前一情形下，個人所要遵守的，不過是避免作某一行爲而已，而此行爲是由法律明確規定的。對於這個禁法是不是違犯了，通常很容易判定。在後一情形下，個人要負貴完成某一工作：法律沒有明確規定他應作的行爲，他究竟應作什麼，則留給行政當局決定。不管這個決定是怎樣，個人必須服從。行政當局給他的命令是否適合他的能力才智，以及他是否盡了最大努力遵行這個命令，這是極難確定的。每個公民，關於他的人格各方面以及關於他行爲的一切表現，都要由行政當局來判斷。在市場經濟裡面，在刑事法庭審判以前，起訴人有貴任提出被吿犯罪的充份證據。但在強迫勞動的場合，則是被吿方面要負責提出證據，證明派給他的那份工作超出了他的能力範圍，或者證明他已完成了派給他的全部工作。在這種場合，行政當局兼有幾種身份：立法者、法律執行人、檢察官、和審判官。被吿完全受他們的擺佈。這是我們說到缺乏自由的時候，浮現在心頭的情境。

No system of the social division of labor can do without a method that makes individuals responsible for their contributions to the joint productive effort. If this responsibility is not brought about by the price structure of the market and the inequality of wealth and income it begets, it must be enforced by the methods of direct compulsion as practiced by the police.

如果沒有一個方法使各個人對於聯合生產的努力負起責任，社會分工制就無法實行。如果這個責任不靠巿場價格結構和它所引起的財富與所得的不平等的激勵，那就必須用警察的力量來直接強制。

8. Entrepreneurial Profit and Loss

八、企業家的利潤與虧損

Profit, in a broader sense, is the gain derived from action; it is the increase in satisfaction (decrease in uneasiness) brought about; it is the difference between the higher value attached to the result attained and the lower value attached to the sacrifices made for its attainment; it, in other words, yield minus costs. To make profit is invariably the aim sought by any action. If an action fails to attain the ends sought, yield either does not exceed costs or lags behind costs. In the latter case the outcome means a loss, a decrease in satisfaction.

利潤，就它的廣義講，是來自行爲的利得；它是滿足的增加（不愉快之減少）；它是那附著於得到的結果上面的較高價値，與那附著於爲獲得此結果而作的犧牲上面的較低價値之差額：換句話說，它是收益減去成本。謀取利潤，一定是任何行爲所追求的目的。如果一個行爲沒有達到它的目的，則收益或者沒有超過成本或者不夠成本。如果是後者，那就是虧損，也卽滿足之減少。

Profit and loss in this original sense are psychic phenomena and as such not open to measurement and a mode of expression which could convey to other people precise information concerning their intensity. A man can tell a fellow man that a suits him better than b; but he cannot communicate to another man, except in vague and indistinct terms, how much the satisfaction derived from a exceeds that derived from b.

利潤與虧損，在這原始的意義下，是些心理現象，因而無法計量，而且不能精確地把它的強度說給別人知曉。一個人可以向別人說a比b更合他的意；但是他無法使別人知道（除用模糊不清的詞句）從a得到的滿足與6的相比究竟超過多少。

In the market economy all those things that are bought and sold against money are marked with money prices. In the monetary calculus profit appears as a surplus of money received over money expended and loss as a surplus of money expended over money received. Profit and loss can be expressed in definite amounts of money. It is possible to ascertain in terms of money how much an individual has profited or lost. However, this is not a statement about a social phenomenon, about the individual's contribution to the societal effort as it is appraised by the other members of society. It does not tell us anything about the individual's increase or decrease in satisfaction or happiness. It merely reflects his fellow men's evaluation of his contribution to social cooperation. This evaluation is ultimately determined by the efforts of every member of society to attain the highest possible psychic profit. It is the resultant of the composite effect of all these people's subjective

在市場經濟裡面，凡是用金錢買賣的東西都以金錢來標價。在金錢的計算上，利潤是收到的金額超過支出的金額，虧損是支出的金額超過收到的金額。利潤與鹳損可用一定的金額表示。所以，用金錢來確定一個人的利潤與虧損，這是可能的。但是，這並不代表這個人的心理上的利潤與虧損，而是關於一個社會現象的陳述，也卽，關於社會其他份子對於個人在社會生產中的貢獻所作的評價這一現象的陳述。它沒有吿訴我們關於個人的滿意或幸福之或增或減，它只反映別人如何鑑定他在社會合作中的貢獻。這種鑑定或評價，最後決定於社會的每個份子爲取得最高可能的心理利潤而作的努力。它是所有這些人在市場行爲中表現出的個人主觀的價値判斷的混合後果。但是，我們決不可以把「利潤與虧損」和這些價値判斷的本身相混淆。

We cannot even think of a state of affairs in which people act without the intention of attaining psychic profit and in which their actions result neither in psychic profit nor in psychic loss[19]. In the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy there are neither money profits nor money losses. But every individual derives a psychic profit from his actions, or else he would not act at all. The farmer feeds and milks his cows and sells the milk because he values the things he can buy against the money thus earned more highly than the costs expended. The absence of money profits or losses in such an evenly rotating system is due to the fact that, if we disregard the differences brought about by the higher valuation of present goods as compared with future goods, the sum of the prices of all complementary factors needed for production precisely equals the price of the product.

我們甚至於不能想像有這種事情：人們行爲而不是爲獲得心理的利潤，行爲的結果旣沒有心理的利潤也沒有心理的虧損[16]。在一個均勻輪轉的經濟這個想像建構裡面，沒有金錢的利潤，也沒有金錢的虧損。伹是，每個人從他的行爲方面得到一種心理的利潤，否則他將不會有所行爲。農人飼養母牛，擠牠的奶來賣，因爲他對這賺得的錢所買到的東西的評價，高於他所花的成本。在這樣的均勻輪轉制裡面，之所以沒有金錢的利潤與虧損，是由於這個事實：如果我們不管現在財的評價高於未來財的評價之間的差額，則生產過程中一切要素價格的總和將恰好等於產品的價格。

In the changing world of reality differences between the sum of the prices of the complementary factors of production and the prices of the products emerge again and again. It is these differences that bring about money profits and money losses. As far as such changes affect the sellers of labor and those of the original nature-given factors of production and of the capitalists as moneylenders, we will deal with them later. At this point we are dealing with the promoters' entrepreneurial profit and loss. It is this problem that people have in mind when employing the terms profit and loss in mundane speech.

在實際的變動的世界中，一切生產要素的價格之總和，與產品價格之間的差額，總是經常出現的。金錢的利潤與金錢的虧損是這一差額引起的。關於這些變動影響勞動、自然資源和資本這些方面，將在下面討論。這裡，我們是討論企業家的利潤和虧損。當人們在日常談話中使用利潤和虧損這兩個名詞的時候，心中想到的就是這個問題。

Like every acting man, the entrepreneur is always a speculator. He deals with the uncertain conditions of the future. His success or failure depends on the correctness of his anticipation of uncertain events. If he fails in his understanding of things to come, he is doomed. The only source from which an entrepreneur's profits stem is his ability to anticipate better than other people the future demand of the consumers. If everybody is correct in anticipating the future state of the market of a certain commodity, its price and the prices of the complementary factors of production concerned would already today be adjusted to this future state. Neither profit nor loss can emerge for those embarking upon this line of business.

企業家，像毎個行爲人一樣，經常是一個投機者。他應付未來的一些不確定的情況。他的成功或失敗，決定於他對這些不確定的事情預測得正確與否。如果他不能領悟將來的事情，他就倒霉。企業家利潤的唯一來源，是他對消費者將來的需求預料得比別人更正確些的這個能力。如果每個人都正確地預料到某一貨物將來的市場情況，那麼，它的價格以及一切有關的生產要素價格，就會在今天爲適應這將來的情況都預先調整好了。這樣一來，則從事這一行業的人旣無利潤也無虧損。

The specific entrepreneurial function consists in determining the

特殊的企業家功能在於決定生產要素的僱用。企業家是把生產要素奉獻於一些特別目的的人。在這樣作的時候，他只受賺取利潤和獲得財富的自利心所驅使。但是，他不能逃避巿場法則。他的成功只能靠好好地爲消費者服務。他的利潤決定於消費者對他的行爲之讚賞。

One must not confuse entrepreneurial profit and loss with other factors affecting the entrepreneur's proceeds.

我們決不可把企業家的「利潤與虧損」與影響企業家收入的其他因素相混淆。

The entrepreneur's technological ability does not affect the specific entrepreneurial profit or loss. As far as his own technological activities contribute to the returns earned and increase his net income, we are confronted with a compensation for work rendered. It is wages paid to the entrepreneur for his labor. Neither does the fact that not every process of production succeeds technologically in bringing about the product expected, influence the specific entrepreneurial profit or loss. Such failures are either avoidable or unavoidable. In the first case they are due to the technologically inefficient conduct of affairs. then the losses resulting are to be debited to the entrepreneur's personal insufficiency, i.e., either to his lack of technological ability or to his lack of the ability to hire adequate helpers. In the second case the failures are due to the fact that the present state of technological knowledge prevents us from fully controlling the conditions on which success depends. This deficiency may be caused either by incomplete knowledge concerning the conditions of success or by ignorance of methods for controlling fully some of the known conditions. The price of the factors of production takes into account this unsatisfactory state of our knowledge and technological power. The price of arable land, for instance, takes into full account the fact that there are bad harvests, as it is determined by the anticipated average yield. The fact that the bursting of bottles reduces the output of champagne does not affect entrepreneurial profit and loss. It is merely one of the factors determining the cost of production and the price of champagne[20].

某企業家的技術能力不影響他的利潤或虧損。就他自己的技術活動對賺得報酬和增加淨所得這一點來講，我們所面對的問題是一個對於工作的補償問題。它是補償這位企業家的勞動而支付的工资。生產的過程並不是每一次在技術上都可生產出預期的產品的，這個事實也不影響某一企業家的利潤或應損。這方面的失敗，或者是可以避免的，或者是不可以避免的。可避免的失敗是由於技術上的缺乏效率的行爲。這時所遭受的虧損，應歸咎於這位企業家個人的能力不夠，或者是他的技術能力不夠，或者是他沒有能力僱用適當的助手。至於不可避免的失敗，則由於現在的技術知識不能讓我們充份控制那些成功所依賴的情況。這些缺陷可能是對於成功或失敗的情況沒有完全的知識而引起的，也可能是對於充份控制某些已知的情況之無知而引起的。生產要素的價格對於我們的知識和技術能力這樣不完全的情況是顧到了。例如耕地的價格，當它被決定於預期的平均收穫時，已充份考慮到歉收的可能性。酒罈爆破，減少了香檳的產量，這個事實不影響企業家的利潤和虧損。它只是決定生產費和香檳價格的一個因素[17]。

Accidents affecting the process of production, the means of production, or the products while they are still in the hands of the entrepreneur are an item in the bill of production costs. Experience, which conveys to the businessman all other technological knowledge, provides

對於生產程序、生產手段、或尙在企業家手中的產品有影響的那些意外事件，都是生產成本的一個項目。經驗，給工商業者傳遞一切其他技術知識的經驗，也給他提供那種意外事件所會引起的生產平均減少量的知識。他可在帳戶上開一個意外損失準備金戶，把它們的後果轉入經常的生產成本。至於這種方法所不能應付的不常見、而又不規律的意外事件，則由夠多的公司行號大家協力來預防。這就是在保險辦法下的保火險、水險、或其意外損失的險，這是以保險費的繳付來替代準備金的撥付。這樣作，則意外事件的風險無論如何不致把「不確定」引到技術程序的行爲上[18]。如果一個企業家疏於適當處理它們，那就證明他的技術效率不夠。這樣引起的虧損，應歸咎於技術不良，而不能歸咎於他的企業家功能。

The elimination of those entrepreneurs who fail to give to their enterprises the adequate degree of technological efficiency or whose technological ignorance vitiates their cost calculation is effected on the market in the same way in which those deficient in the performance of the specific entrepreneurial functions are eliminated. It may happen that an entrepreneur is so successful in his specific entrepreneurial function that he can compensate losses caused by his technological failure. It may also happen that an entrepreneur can counterbalance losses due to failure in his entrepreneurial function by the advantages derived from his technological superiority or from the differential rent yielded by the higher productivity of the factors of production he employs. But one must not confuse the various functions which are combined in the conduct of a business unit. The technologically more efficient entrepreneur earns higher wage rates or quasi-wage rates than the less efficient in the same wy in which the more efficient worker earns more than the less efficient. The more efficient machine and the more fertile soil produce higher physical returns per unit of costs expended; they yield a differential rent when compared with the less efficient machine and the less fertile soil. The higher wage rates and the higher rent are, ceteris paribus, the corollary of higher physical output. But the specific entrepreneurial profits and loses are not produced by the quantity of physical output. The depend on the adjustment of output to the most urgent wants of the consumers. What produces them is the extent to which

那些在技術上的缺乏效率或無知的企業家，不能作正確的成本計算，因而被市場淘汰掉，這正和那些不能完成某種特殊企業家功能的企業家之被巿場淘汰是一樣的。一個企業家在他特殊的企業家功能方面，成功到足以補償由於技術的缺乏效率而引起的虧損，這是可能發生的事情。另一方面，一個企業家由於企業家功能的失敗而遭受的虧損，被來自他的優越技術或他所僱用的生產要素所產生的差別租的利益所抵銷，這也是可能發生的事情。但是，我們決不可把那些結合在一個營業單位的經營中的各種功能弄得混淆不淸。技術方面效率愈高的企業家所賺得的工资率或準工資率比低效率者高，這正如同效率較髙的工人比低效率者賺得更多。效率較高的機器和土壤較肥的土地，產生的實質報酬率也較高；它們與效率較低的機器和土壤較磽瘠土地比較，產生了差別租。其他情形假若不變，較高的工資率和較高的租額，是較高的實質產量的必然結果。但是，特殊企業家的利潤和虧損，並不是從實質的產量引起的，而是決定於能否把產量調整到適應消費者的迫切需求。換言之，決定利潤和磨損的，是企業家對於將來市場情況的預測成功或失敗的程度。將來的市場情況必然是不確定的。

The entrepreneur is also jeopardized by political dangers. Government policies, revolutions, and wars can damage or annihilate his enterprise. Such events do not affect him alone; they affect the market economy as such and all individuals, although not all of them to the same extent. For the individual entrepreneur they are data which he cannot alter. If he is efficient, he will anticipate them in time. But it is not always possible for him to adjust his operations in such a way as to avoid damage. If the dangers expected concern only a part of the territory which is accessible to his entrepreneurial activities, he can avoid operating in the menaced areas and can prefer countries in which the danger is less imminent. But if he cannot emigrate, he must stay where he is. If all entrepreneurs were fully convinced that the total victory of Bolshevism was impending, they would nevertheless not abandon their entrepreneurial activities. The expectation of imminent expropriation will impel the capitalists to consume their funds. The entrepreneurs will be forced to adjust their plans to the market situation created by such capital consumption and the threatened nationalization of their shops and plants. But they will not stop operating. If some entrepreneurs go out of business, others will take their place--newcomers or old entrepreneurs expanding the size of their enterprises. In the market economy there will always be entrepreneurs. Policies hostile to capitalism may deprive the consumers of the greater part of the benefits they would have reaped from unhampered entrepreneurial activities. But they cannot eliminate the entrepreneurs as such if they do not entirely destroy the market economy.

企業家也常受到政治的危險。政府的政策、革命、和戰爭都會危害或消滅他的企業。這種事情不止於影響他；它會影響市場經濟的本身和所有的人，儘管影響的程度不一樣。就個別的企業家而言，這都是他所不能改變的外在情勢。如果他是有效率的，他會在適當的時候預料到它們。但是，他不可能每次都把他的行爲調整到避免了這些危險。如果這些預見的危險只會發生在他的企業活動所可到達的地區之一部份，他就會離開這危險的地區，而遷到較安全的國邦去。但是，如果他不能遷住別國，他就必須在原地留下。假若所有的企業家都充份相信布爾雪維克的全面勝利很快會實現，他們仍然不致放棄他們的企業活動。資本家們預料到他們的財產將被沒收，這種預料促使他們消費他們的資本。企業家將不得不調整他們的計畫，以適應由於這樣的資本消耗和產業國有化的威脅而造成的市場情況。但是，他們並不停止經營。如果某些企業家返出了，別人將進來補上一新來的或原有的企業家擴張他們的企業規模。在市場經濟裡面，總是有企業家的。和資本主義作對的那些政策，剝奪了消費者在充份自由的企業活動下所可獲得的利益的大部份。但是，那些政策如果沒有完全毀滅市場經濟，它們就不會消滅企業家。

The ultimate source from which entrepreneurial profit and loss are derived is the uncertainty of the future constellation of demand and supply.

企業家的利潤與虧損的最後來源是將來的供需情況之不確定。

If all entrepreneurs were to anticipate correctly the future state of the market, there would be neither profits nor losses. The prices of all the factors of production would already today be fully adjusted to tomorrow's prices of the products. In buying the factors of production the entrepreneur would have to expend (with due allowance for the difference between the prices of present goods and future goods) no less an amount than the buyers will pay him later for the product. An entrepreneur can make a profit only if he anticipates future conditions more correctly than other entrepreneurs. Then he buys the complementary factors of production at prices the sum of

如果所有的企業家都很正確地預料到市場的未來情況，那就旣沒有利潤，也沒有虧損。所有生產要素今天的價格，已經適應明天的產品價格而調整好了。企業家在購買生產要素的時候所支付的金額，不會少於將來他的產品的購買者所付給他的金額（適當地扣掉現在財與將來貨之間的值差）。一個企業家之能夠賺得利潤，只是因爲他預料將來的情況比其他企業家料得更正確。於是，他購買各種生產要素所支付的代價總額少於他出賈產品時所付出的。

If we want to construct the image of changing economic conditions in which there are neither profits nor losses, we must resort to an unrealizable assumption: perfect foresight of all future events on the part of all individuals. If those primitive hunters and fishermen to whom it is customary to ascribe the first accumulation of produced factors of production had known in advance all the future vicissitudes of human affairs, and if they and all their descendants until the last day of judgment, equipped with the same omniscience, had appraised all factors of production accordingly, entrepreneurial profits and losses would never have emerged. Entrepreneurial profits and losses are created through the discrepancy between the expected prices and the prices later really fixed on the markets. It is possible to confiscate profits and to transfer them from the individuals to whom they have accrued to other people. But neither profits nor losses can ever disappear from a changing world not populated solely with omniscient people.

假若我們要想像一個旣沒有利潤也沒有虧損而又是變動的經濟情況，我們必得靠一個不能實現的假設：所有的人對於未來的一切事情完全預先知道。假若那些原始的獵者和漁人（通常認爲他們是最先把人爲的生產要素累積起來的）已經預先知道一切未來的人事變遷，又假若他們和他們世世代代（至審判的末曰爲止）的子孫，有同樣全知的子孫，已經根據所知，對所有的生產要素作過評價，那麼，企業家的利潤和虧損也就不會出現。企業家的利潤與虧損的發生，是由於預期的價格與將來市場上實在的價格之不一致。某人得到的利潤被沒收而轉移於別人，這是可能的。但在一個變動的世界而其人民不都是全知的，則利潤和虧損都不會消失。

--------------------

[19] If an action neither improves nor impairs the state of satisfaction, it still involves a psychic loss because of the uselessness of the expended psychic effort. The individual concerned would have been better off if he had inertly enjoyed life.

[16] 如果一個行爲旣不改善也不減損滿足的狀況，它還是有一種心理損失的，因爲這一行爲是白費了。如果這個人靜靜地享受他的生活，他就過得更好些。

[20] Cf. Mangoldt, Die Lehre vom Unternehmergewinn (Leipzig, 1855), p. 82. The fact that out of 100 liters of plain wine one cannot produce 100 liters of champagne, but a smaller quantity, has the same significance as the fact that 100 kilograms of sugar beet do not yield 100 kilograms of sugar but a smaller quantity.

[17] 參考Mangoldt, Die Lehre vom Unternehmergewinn (Leipzig, 1855), p. 82，從一百公升粗製的葡萄酒，醸不出一百公升的香檳，只能醸出較小的量，這個事實與一百公斤的甜菜製不出一百公斤的糖，是同樣的意義。

[21] Cf. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston, 1921), pp. 211-213.

[18] 參考Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston, 1921), pp. 211-213.

9. Entrepreneurial Profits and Losses in a Progressing Economy

九、在進歩經濟中企業家的利潤與虧損

In the imaginary construction of a stationary economy the total sum of all entrepreneurs' profits equals the total sum of all entrepreneurs' losses. What one entrepreneur profits is in the total economic system counterbalanced by another entrepreneur's loss. The surplus which all the consumers together expend for the acquisition of a certain commodity is counterbalanced by the reduction in their expenditure for the acquisition of other commodities[22].

在一個靜態經濟的想像建構裡面，所有企業家的利潤總額等於所有企業家的虧損總額。一個企業家的利潤，在整個經濟制度裡面，被另一個企業家的虧損所抵銷。全體消費者爲取得某一商品而花費的超過額，被他們爲取得另外一些商品而花費的折減額所抵銷。[19]

It is different in a progressing economy.

在一個進歩的經濟裡，那就不同了。

We call a progressing economy an economy in which the per capita quota of capital invested is increasing. In using this term we do not imply value judgments. We adopt neither the "materialistic" view that such a progression is good nor the "idealistic" view that it is bad or at least irrelevant from a "higher point of view." Of course, it is a well-known fact that the immense majority of people consider the consequences of progress in this sense as the most desirable state of affairs and yearn for conditions which can be realized only in a progressing economy.

一個經濟裡面，以人口來平均的投資額是在增加，這種經濟我們叫做進步的經濟。我們用「進步」這個名詞，不意涵價値判斷。我們旣不採「唯物的」觀點，認爲進歩是好的：也不採「理想的」觀點，認爲它是壞的，或者至少是和「較高的觀點」無關的。當然，絕大多數的人是把這個意義的「進步」的後果看作最可喜的情況，而他們所嚮往的生活境界，也只有在一個進步的經濟裡面，才可實現。這是大家熟知的事實。

In the stationary economy the entrepreneurs, in the pursuit of their

在靜態經濟裡面，企業家們在發揮他們的功能的時候，只能把一些生產要素從這一生產部門轉移到另一生産部門（假定它們是可以轉換的[20]），或者讓某一部門在生產過程中所消耗的資本財不復補置，而把它的等値用來擴充其他部門的資本財。在進步的經濟裡面則不然，企業家的活動包括僱用那些新儲蓄所形成的新資本財。有了這些新的資本財投入生產過程，必然會增加所得總額，不減損生產中的资本設備，而可增加消費財的消費，因而不妨害將來的生產。所得的增加，或者是由於擴張生產而不改變技術方面的方法，或者是由於把以前的技術方法加以改善。這種改善，在資本財的供給不足的時候，是做不到的。

It is out of this additional wealth that the surplus of the total sum of entrepreneurial profits over the total sum of entrepreneurial losses flows. But it can be easily demonstrated that this surplus can never exhaust the total increase in wealth brought about by economic progress. The laws of the market divide this additional wealth between the entrepreneurs and the suppliers of labor and those of certain material factors of production in such a way that the lion's share goes to the nonentrepreneurial groups.

企業家的利潤總額超過企業家的虧損總額的這個差額，是來自這新添的財富。但是，我們很容易說明：這個超過額並不是經濟進步帶來的財富增加額的全部。市場法則把這新增的財富分給企業家、勞動供給者、以及某些物質的生產要素的供給，其中的絕大部份是分給非企業家的。

First of all we must realize that entrepreneurial profits are not a lasting phenomenon but only temporary. There prevails an inherent tendency for profits and losses to disappear. The market is always moving toward the emergence of the final prices and the final state of rest. If new changes in the data were not to interrupt this movement and not to create the need for a new adjustment of production to the altered conditions, the prices of all complementary factors of production would--due allowance being made for time preference--finally equal the price of the product, and nothing would be left for profits or losses. In the long run every increase of productivity benefits exclusively the workers and some groups of the owners of land and of capital goods.

最重要的我們必須了解：企業家利潤不是一個持久的現象，而是暫時的現象。利潤與虧損總是趨向於消失的。市場總是趨向於最終價格和最後的靜止階段的出現。如果新的變動不干擾這個趨勢，不引起生產上新的調整之必要，則一切生產要素的價格終會等於產品的價格（對於時間偏好予以適當考慮），沒有什麼東西可成爲利潤或饀損的。在長期裡面，生產力的每一增高完全是有利於工人和某些土地與資本財的所有主。

In the groups of the owners of capital goods there are benefitted:

在資本財所有者當中，有利於：

1. Those whose saving has increased the quantity of capital goods

1. 其儲蓄曾經加了資本財數量的那人。他們有這新增的財富，這筆財富是他們節制消費的後果。

2. The owners of those capital goods already previously existing which, thanks to the improvement in technological methods of production, are now better utilized than before. Such gains are, of course, temporary only. They are bound to disappear as they cause a tendency toward an intensified production of the capital goods concerned.

2. 原已存在的那些資本財的所有主。這些資本財，由於生產技術的改善，現在比從前利用得更好些。當然，這樣的利得只是暫時的。因爲它們會促使這類資本財的產量（供給量）增加，所以它們必然趨向於消失。

On the other hand, the increase in the quantity of capital goods available lowers the marginal productivity of these capital goods; it thus brings about a fall in the prices of the capital goods and thereby hurts the interests of all those capitalists who did not share at all or not sufficiently in the process of saving and the accumulation of the additional supply of capital goods.

另一方面，可用的資本財數量增加，使資本的邊際生產力降低；因而引起資本財的價格下降，這樣一來，凡是沒有（或不足夠）從事儲蓄以累積新的資本財的那些資本家，都要吃虧。

In the group of the landowners all those are benefitted for whom the new state of affairs results in a higher productivity of their farms, forests, fisheries, mines, and so on. On the other hand, all those are hurt whose property may become submarginal on account of the higher return yielded by the land owned by those benefitted.

在地主羣中，凡是其農場、森林、漁場、礦區等等的生產力，由於新的情況而提高的那些地主，都會受益。另一方面，因爲那些受益者所有的土地產生了較高的報酬，於是，就有些地主的財產會變成邊際以下的財產，凡是這樣的地主都要吃虧。

In the group of labor all derive a lasting gain from the increase in the marginal productivity of labor. But, on the other hand, in the short run some may suffer disadvantages. These are people who were specialized in the performance of work which becomes obsolete as a result of technological improvement and are fitted only for jobs in which--in spite of the general rise in wage rates--they earn less than before.

在工人羣中，都會因勞動邊際生產力的增高而得到持久的利益。但是，另一方面，在短期中有些工人會吃虧。這些人是因爲他們那種特殊化的工作由於技術改進而變成無用，或者是因爲他們只適於做那些上匕以前賺錢更少的行業，儘管一般的工資率是上昇了。

All these changes in the prices of the factors of production begin immediately with the initiation of the entrepreneurial actions designed to adjust the processes of production to the new state of affairs. In dealing with this problem as with the other problems of changes in the market data, we must guard ourselves against the popular fallacy of drawing a sharp line between short-run and long-run effects. What happens in the short run is precisely the first stages of the chain of successive transformations which tend to bring about the long-run effects. The long-run effect is in our case the disappearance of entrepreneurial profits and losses. The short-run effects are the preliminary stages of this process of elimination which finally, if not interrupted by a further change in the data, would result in the emergence of the evenly rotating economy.

生產要素價格的這一些變動，都是在企業家爲適應新的情勢而開始調整其行爲的那個時候緊接著發生的。討論這個問題也和討論關於市場資料變動的其他問題一樣，我們必須小心，不要犯了通常的錯誤，把短期和長期的效果劃出一明顯的界線。短期發生的事情正是趨向於形成長期效果的那一連鎖變動的第一階段。就我們的立場講，長期效果是企業家的利潤和虧損的消失。短期效果是這消失過程的預備階段；如果沒有其他的變動發生干擾的話，這個消失的過程最後歸結於均勻輪轉的經濟。

It is necessary to comprehend that the very appearance of an excess in the total amount of entrepreneurial profits over the total amount of entrepreneurial losses depends upon the fact that this process of the elimination of entrepreneurial profit and loss begins at

企業家的利潤總額超過他們的磨損總額這一現象的發生，靠的是這個事實：上述的企業家的利潤和虧損的消失過程，是與企業家爲適應變動了的情況而開始調整生產活動的時候同時開始的。這—點是必要的。在事情的全部連續中，那來自資本量之增加和技術之改進的利益，決不會只歸企業家享有。假若其他階層的財富和所得仍然照舊不受影響，則這些人要想購買額外的產品，那只有減少其他產品的購買才能辦到。於是，某一羣企業家的利潤就恰好等於另些羣的企業家所受的虧損。

What happens is this: The entrepreneurs embarking upon the utilization of the newly accumulated capital goods and the improved technological methods of production are in need of complementary factors of production. Their demand for these factors is a new additional demand which must raise their prices. Only as far as this rise in prices and wage rates occurs, are the consumers in a position to buy the new products without curtailing the purchase of other goods. Only so far can a surplus of the total sum of all entrepreneurial profits over all entrepreneurial losses come into existence.

發生的事情是這樣的：那些從事於利用新累積的資本財和改善了的生產技術的企業家，是急於需要一些輔助的生產要素。他們對那些要素的需求是一新生的額外需求，必然會提高它們的價格。只有在這價格和工資率上昇的情形下，消費者才能夠買此新的產品而不致削減其他貨物的購買，只有這樣，所有企業家的利潤總額超過所有企業家的磨損這一現象才會發生。

The vehicle of economic progress is the accumulation of additional capital goods by means of saving and improvement in technological methods of production the execution of which is almost always conditioned by the availability of such new capital. The agents of progress are the promoting entrepreneurs intent upon profiting by means of adjusting the conduct of affairs to the best possible satisfaction of the consumers. In the performance of their projects for the realization of progress they are bound to share the benefits derived from progress with the workers and also with a part of the capitalists and landowners and to increase the portion allotted to these people step by step until their own share melts away entirely.

促動經濟進步的工具，是來自儲蓄的新資本財之累積，以及生產技術的改善；改善了的技術總要有新添的資本來利用它。經濟進歩的推動者是些企業家，他們志在謀取利潤，而其手段則是調整自己的營業行爲，以期最可滿足消費者。在實行他們的計畫以實現經濟進步的過程中，他們當然也和工人和一部份資本家與地主一樣，分享一份來自經濟進步的利益，他們把「分給這些人的部份」一步一步地擴增，一直到他們自己所分到的那一份完全消失爲止。

From this it becomes evident that it is absurd to speak of a "rate of profit" or an "average rate of profit." Profit is not related to or dependent on the amount of capital employed by the entrepreneur. Capital does not "beget" profit. Profit and loss are entirely determined by the success or failure of the entrepreneur to adjust production to the demand of the consumers. There is nothing "normal" in profits and there can never be an "equilibrium" with regard to them. Profit and loss are, on the contrary, always a phenomenon of a deviation from "normalcy," of changes unforeseen by the majority, and of a "disequilibrium." They have no place in an imaginary world of normalcy and equilibrium. In a changing economy there prevails always an inherent tendency

因此，我們就可明白所謂「利潤率」或「正常的利潤率」或「平均的利潤率」都是荒唐的說法。利潤與企業家運用的資本量沒有關係，也非靠的資本量。資本不「孳生」利潤。利潤與虧損完全決定於企業家爲適應消費者的需求而調整生產這一行爲的成功或失敗。利潤無所謂「正常的」，也決不會有所謂「均衡」。相反地，利潤與虧損，總是個非常的現象，是大多數人所未料到的一些變動所引起的現象，是個「不均衡」的現象。它們在假想的正常與均衡的情況下無存在的餘地。在一個變動的經濟裡面，有一個固著的趨勢，就是利潤與虧損傾向於消失。它們之所以一再地復活，那只因爲一些新的變動繼續在出現。在靜態的情況下，利潤的「平均率」是零。如果利潤總額超過躬損總額，這就是證明經濟在進步，而大家的生活標準也在提高。這個超額愈大，一般的繁榮也愈增加。

Many people are utterly unfit to deal with the phenomenon of entrepreneurial profit without indulging in envious resentment. In their eyes the source of profit is exploitation of the wage earners and the consumers, i.e., an unfair reduction in wage rates and a no less unfair increase in the prices of the products. By rights there should not be any profits at all.

許多人蔽於嫉妒心而不了解企業家的利潤。在他們的心目中，利潤的來源是對工資所得者和消費者的剝削，也即，不公平地削減工資率，不公平地提高了產品的價格。就正義講，根本不許有任何利潤。

Economics is indifferent with regard to such arbitrary value judgments. It is not interested in the problem of whether profits are to be approved or condemned from the point of view of an alleged natural law and of an alleged eternal and immutable code of morality about which personal intuition or divine revelation are supposed to convey precise information. Economics merely establishes the fact that entrepreneurial profits and losses are essential phenomena of the market economy. There cannot be a market economy without them. It is certainly possible for the police to confiscate all profits. But such a policy would by necessity convert the market economy into a senseless chaos. Man has, there is no doubt, the power to destroy many things, and he has made in the course of history ample use of this faculty. He could destroy the market economy too.

經濟學對於這樣武斷的價値判斷是置之不理的。我們知道，有所謂自然法則，有所謂永恆不變的道德律，關於這種道德的認知，被認爲是由於人的直覺或神的啓示。從這樣的自然法則和道德律的觀點來看，利潤是應該被讚賞，還是應該被譴責，這個問題是經濟學所不關心的。經濟學只說明這個事實：企業家的利潤與虧損爲市場經濟不可少的基本現象。沒有它們就不成其爲市場經濟。用警察來沒收一切利潤，這確是可能的。但是，這樣的政策勢必把市場經濟弄成一團糟。無疑問地，人有力量破壞許多事情，在歷史的過程中，他已經做了許許多多這樣的錯誤。他也能破壞市場經濟。

If those self-styled moralists were not blinded by their envy, they would not deal with profit without dealing simultaneously with its corollary, loss. They would not pass over in silence the fact that the preliminary conditions of economic improvement are an achievement of those whose saving accumulates the additional capital goods and of the inventors, and that the utilization of these conditions for the realization of economic improvement is effected by the entrepreneurs. The rest of the people do not contribute to progress, but they are benefitted by the horn of plenty which other people's activities pour upon them.

如果那些自以爲是的道德家們不受嫉妒心所蔽，他們想到利潤的同時，也應該想到利潤的相關物——虧損。經濟進步的前提條件是要有些人從事儲蓄，而其儲蓄使額外的資本得以形成，也要有些人是創新者，而且還要有企業家來利用這些條件以實現經濟進步。這是個事實。那些道德家們對於這個事實不應該視若無睹。其餘的人對於經濟進步沒有貢獻，可是，他們卻分享別人努力的成果。

What has been said about the progressing economy is mutatis mutandis to be applied to the conditions of a retrogressing economy, i.e., an economy in which the per capita quota of capital invested is decreasing. In such an economy there is an excess in the total sum of entrepreneurial losses over that of profits. People who cannot free themselves from the fallacy of thinking in concepts of collectives

關於進步經濟所講的那些話，加以必要變更以後，就可適用於退步的經濟，退歩經濟是以人口來平均的投資額在減少中的經濟。在這樣的經濟裡面，企業家的虧損總額超過利潤總額。那些誤以集體概念來想問題的人們可能提出下面這個問題：在這樣的返步經濟裡面，怎麼還有企業家在活動呢？如果企業家預先知道從數學上講他賺得利潤的機會比虧損的機會要小些，爲什麼他還要作企業活動呢？可是提出這樣的問題，是犯了思路不淸的毛病。企業家和別人一樣，其行爲不是作爲一個階級的份子而行爲的，而是以他個人的身份而行爲。沒有一位企業家對於企業家整體的命運稍爲煩心的。發生於在理論上屬於同一階級其他份子的事情，對於個別的企業家是不相干的。理論上的區分階級是按照某一特徵而分的。在生動而永久在變的市場社會裡面，總有些利潤是由那些效率高的企業家賺得。在退步的社會裡面，虧損的總額超過利潤的總額這個事實，並不妨礙一個對自己的優越效率具有信心的人從事企業活動。有先見的企業家不依靠或然率的計算。或然率的計算在靠「領悟」的場合毫無用處，他所信賴的是他自己具有的比別人更優越的對於將來的市場情況領悟的能力。

The entrepreneurial function, the striving of entrepreneurs after profits, is the driving power in the market economy. Profit and loss are the devices by means of which the consumers exercise their supremacy on the market. The behavior of the consumers makes profits and losses appear and thereby shifts ownership of the means of production from the hands of the less efficient into those of the more efficient. It makes a man the more influential in the direction of business activities the better he succeeds in serving the consumers. In the absence of profit and loss the entrepreneurs would not know what the most urgent needs of the consumers are. If some entrepreneurs were to guess it, they would lack the means to adjust production accordingly.

企業家的追求利潤是市場經濟的推動力。利潤與虧損是消費者在市場上行使其主權的手段。消費者的行爲使利潤與齬損出現，因而把生產手段的所有權從效率低的企業家轉移到效率高的企業家。它，愈善於服侍消費者的人成爲企業界愈有影響力的人物。在沒有利潤和虧損的場合，企業家將無從知道消費者最迫切的需要是什麼。

Profit-seeking business is subject to the sovereignty of the consumers, while nonprofit institutions are sovereign unto themselves and not responsible to the public. Production for profit is necessarily production for use, as profits can only be earned by providing the consumers with those things they most urgently want to use.

營利的事業是服從消費者主權的，非營利的機構則自己是握有主權的，因而不向大衆負責任。爲利潤而生產，必然是爲使用而生產，因爲利潤之賺得，只能靠爲消費者提供他們所最想使用的那些東西。

The moralists' and sermonizers' critique of profits misses the point. It is not the fault of the entrepreneurs that the consumers--the people, the common man--prefer liquor to Bibles and detective stories to serious books, and that governments prefer guns to butter. The entrepreneur does not make greater profits in selling "bad" things than in selling "good" things. His profits are the greater the better he succeeds in providing the consumers with those things they ask for

批評利潤的道德家和說敎者，不懂得這一點。消費者——也即一般大衆——喜歡吃酒而不讀聖經，喜歡看偵探小說而不讀嚴肅的書刊，以及政府喜歡大礮而不重視牛油，這不是企業家的過錯。企業家不是靠出資「壞的」東西來賺取更大的利潤。他愈是能夠供給消費者所迫切需要的東西，他的利潤就愈大。酒徒不是爲造酒者的利益而去買醉，兵士不是爲軍火商人的利潤而走上戰場。軍火製造業的存在，是黷武精神的結果，而不是它的原因。

It is not the business of the entrepreneurs to make people substitute sound ideologies for unsound. It rests with the philosophers to change people's ideas and ideals. The entrepreneur serves the consumers as they are today, however wicked and ignorant.

至於使人們以健全的意理替代不健全的，這不是企業家的事情。改變人們的觀念和理想，這是哲學家的責任。企業家只是對今天這樣的消費者服務，不管他們如何邪惡和無知。

We may admire those who abstain from making gains they could reap in producing deadly weapons or hard liquor. However, their laudable conduct is a mere gesture without any practical effects. Even if all entrepreneurs and capitalists were to follow their example, wars and dipsomania would not disappear. As was the case in the precapitalistic ages, governments would produce the weapons in their own arsenals and drinkers would distill their own liquor.

也許有些人原可靠生產武器或烈酒賺錢，而他們不這樣作，我們對於這種人當然敬佩。但是，他們這種有所不爲的精神，沒有什麼實際效果。即令所有的企業家和資本家都以他們爲楷模，戰爭與酗酒仍然不會絕跡。像在資本主義以前的時代，政府會在自己的兵工廠裡製造軍火，酒徒會在自己家裡醸造。

The Moral Condemnation of Profit

從道德的觀點對利潤的譴責

Profit is earned by the adjustment of the utilization of the human and material factors of production to changes in conditions. It is those benefitted by this adjustment who, scrambling for the products concerned and offering and paying for them prices that exceed the costs expended by the seller, generate the profits. Entrepreneurial profit is not a "reward" granted by the customer to the supplier who served him better than the sluggish routinists; it is the result of the eagerness of the buyers to outbid others who are equally anxious to acquire a share of the limited supply.

利潤是由於調整生產要素（人力的和物質的）的利用，以適應情況的變動而賺得的。使利潤得以產生的，是受到調整的那些人，他們搶購這有關的產品，把它們的價格搶高了，高到超過了出賣者的成本。企業家的利潤不是消費者賞給那個比較更善於服侍他的供給者的一項獎金：它是由於有些買者急於要買，因而把有限供給的產品價格大大叫髙了。

The dividends of corporations are popularly called profits. Actually they are interest on the capital invested plus that part of profits that is not ploughed back into the enterprise. If the enterprise does not operate successfully, either no dividends are paid or the dividends contain only interest on the whole or a part of the capital.

公司的股利，通常是叫做利潤。實際上，它是資本的利息再加上一些未留用於企業的利潤。如果這個企業經營得不成功，那就沒有股利可分，或者是股利只包含全部或部份的資本利息。

Socialists and interventionists call profit and interest unearned income, the result of depriving the workers of a considerable part of the fruits of their effort. As they see it, the products come into existence through toiling as such and nothing else, and should by rights benefit the toilers alone.

社會主義者和干涉主義者把利潤和利息叫做「不勞而獲的所得」，認爲那是從工人努力的成果中剝削來的。照他們的想法，我們之所以有產品，只是經由勞工得來而沒有別的事物，因此，只有勞動者才有權享有產品。

Yet bare labor produces very little if not aided by the employment of the outcome of previous saving and accumulation of capital. The products are the outgrowth of a cooperation of labor with tools and other capital goods directed by provident entrepreneurial design. The savers, whose saving accumulated and maintains the capital, and the entrepreneurs, who channel the capital into those employments in which it best serves the consumers, are no less indispensable for the

可是，如果不藉助原先儲蓄的結果和資本累積，徒有勞動所可生產的非常有限。產品是勞動與資本合作的結果，而這種合作是由精明的企業家設計安排的。儲蓄者和企業家在生產過程中，與勞動者是同樣重要，同樣不可或缺的。儲蓄者的儲蓄使資本得以形成、得以保持。企業家把資本引到最有利於消費者的用途。把全部產品歸功於勞動的提供者，而把資本和企業理想的提供者對於生產的貢獻置之不聞不問，這是荒唐的。生產「有用的」財貨的，不是體力的勞動本身，而是由智力予以適當指導的體力，智力的運用是有一定目標的。資本的任務愈大，資本的利用在生產要素的合作中效率愈高，則愈顯得「只是讚頌體力勞動對生產的貢獻」是荒唐的。最近兩百年來驚人的經濟進步，是那些使必需的資本財得以供應的資本家和一些傑出的企業家，以及技術人員的成就。至於體力勞動的大衆，則是坐享一些變動的利益，而這些變動，他們不僅沒有予以促成，而且，他們每每想打斷它們。

Some Observations on the Underconsumption Bogey and on the Purchasing Power Argument

對消費不足這個怪論和購買力說的幾點批評

In speaking of underconsumption, people mean to describe a state of affairs in which a part of the goods produced cannot be consumed because the people who could consume them are by their poverty prevented from buying them. These goods remain unsold or can be swapped only at prices not covering the cost of production. Hence various disarrangements and disturbances arise, the total complex of which is called economic depression.

說到消費不足，人們所指的是這種情況：已生產的財貨有一部份不能消費，因爲那些應該消費它們的人，由於窮而不能購買它們。於是這些財貨賣不掉，或者只能以低於生產成本的價格賣掉。因此，就發生種種混亂，這種種混亂的綜合就叫做經濟蕭條。

Now it happens again and again that entrepreneurs err in anticipating the future state of the market. Instead of producing those goods for which the demand of the consumers is most intense, they produce less urgently needed goods or things which cannot be sold at all. These inefficient entrepreneurs suffer losses while their more efficient competitors who anticipated the wishes of the consumers earn profits. The losses of the former group of entrepreneurs are not caused by a general abstention from buying on the part of the public; they are due to the fact that the public prefers to buy other goods.

企業家預測未來的市場情況一再地犯錯誤。他們沒有生產那些消費者最迫切需要的財貨，而生產了他們次要的東西，因而不能全部賣掉。這些效率低的企業家遭受虧損，同時那些猜準了消費者需求的效率高的競爭者，賺到利潤。前者所受的虧損不是由於大衆的購買一般的減縮：而是由於他們想買其他的財貨。

If it were true, as the underconsumption myth implies, that the workers are too poor to buy the products because the entrepreneurs and the capitalists unfairly appropriate to themselves what by rights should go to the wage earners, the state of affairs would not be altered. The "exploiters" are not supposed to exploit from sheer wantonness. They want, it is insinuated, to increase at the expense of the "exploited" either their own consumption or their own investments. They do not withdraw their booty from the universe. They spend it either in buying luxuries for their own household or in buying producers' goods for the expansion of their enterprises. Of course, their demand is directed toward goods other than those the wage earners would have bought if the profits had been confiscated and distributed among them.

消費不足這個神話有這樣一個涵意：工人們太窮了，買不起這些產品，因爲企業家和資本家不公平地把工人應得的那部份也剝削去了。如果這是眞的，事情仍然不變。這些「剝削者」該不是沒有目的地剝削。他們是想增加自己的消費或自己的投資而犧牲那些被剝削者。他們沒有把他們「剝削來的」東西丟到這個宇宙以外去。他們或者爲他們自己和家人購買了一些奢侈品，或者爲擴張他們的企業而購買些生產財。當然，他們所需要的貨物不是工人們沒收了這些利潤時所會購買的。由此可知，經由這樣的「剥削」而產生的企業家，在各類貨物的市場供應方面的錯誤，和企業家的其他錯誤沒有什麼區別。這些錯誤也不過是使某些行業倒霉，另一些行業興旺。它們不致引起一般的經濟蕭條。

The underconsumption myth is baseless self-contradictory balderdash. Its reasoning crumbles away as soon as one begins to examine it. It is untenable even if one, for the sake of argument, accepts the "exploitation" doctrine as correct.

消費不足這個神話，是毫無根據的自相矛盾的胡說。它的那套推理，一經我們檢討，馬上就粉碎。即令我們接受所謂「剝削」是眞的（這是爲的申狳起見），它也是站不住的。

The purchasing power argument runs in a slightly different manner. It contends that a rise in wage rates is a prerequisite of the expansion of production. If wage rates do not rise, there is no use for business to increase the quantity and to improve the quality of the goods produced., For the additional products would find no buyers or only such buyers as restrict their purchases of other goods. What is needed first for the realization of economic progress is to make wage rates rise continually. Government or labor union pressure and compulsion aiming at the enforcement of higher wage rates are the main vehicles of progress.

購買力說的內容稍微不同。它說工資率的上昇是擴大生產的必要條件。如果工資率不上昇，則貨物的產量增加和品質改良就毫無用處。因爲這新增的產品找不著買主，或者只找著幾個減少其他貨物的購買的買主，爲著實現經濟進步，最要緊的是不斷地提高工资率。政府或工會強迫工資率提高，是促成經濟進步的主動力。

As has been demonstrated above the emergence of an excess in the total sum of entrepreneurial profits over the total sum of entrepreneurial losses is inseparably bound up with the fact that a portion of the benefits derived from the increase in the quantity of capital goods available and from the improvement of technological procedures goes to the nonentrepreneurial groups. The rise in the prices of complementary factors of production, first among them wage rates, is neither a concession which the entrepreneurs will-nilly must make to the rest of the people nor a clever device of the entrepreneurs in order to make profits. It is an unavoidable and necessary phenomenon in the chain of successive events which the endeavors of the entrepreneurs to make profits by adjusting the supply of the consumers' goods to the new state of affairs are bound to bring about. The same process which results in an excess of entrepreneurial profits over losses causes first--i.e., before such an excess appears--the emergence of a tendency toward a rise in wage rates and in the prices of many material factors of production. And it is again the same process that would in the further course of events make this excess of profits over losses disappear, provided that no further changes, increasing the amount of capital goods available, were to occur. The excess of profits over losses is not a consequence of the rise in the prices of the factors of production. The two phenomena--the rise in the prices of the factors of production and the excess of profits over losses--are both steps in the process of adjustment of production to the increase in the quantity of capital goods and to the technological changes which the

前面我們曾經講到，企業家的利潤總額超過企業家的虧損總額的時候，也即是來自資本財供給量之增加，和生產技術之改良的利益，有一部份分配到非企業家的手中的時候。這兩件事是關聯得分不開的。輔助的生產要素的價格之上漲，其中尤其是工資的上漲，旣不是企業家對別人必須作的讓步，也不是企業家爲賺取利潤而採取的聰明手段。而是企業家爲賺得利潤，以調整消費財的供給來適應新的情況這種努力所引起的一連串事象中，所必然發生的一個現象。企業家的利潤總額超過虧損總額這個過程，首先（在這種總額出現以前）引起工資率和許多物質的生產要素的價格走向上漲的趨勢。這同一過程更進而使利潤對虧損的超額趨向於消滅，假使沒有其他的變動使資本財的供給量再增加的話。利潤的超過虧損，不是生產要素的價格上漲的結果。這兩個現象——生產要素的價格上漲和利潤超過虧損——是在企業家爲適應新情況而調整生產的過程中的兩個步驟，利潤對虧損的超額，只有在別人也因這個調整而得利的範圍以內，才可暫時存在。

The basic error of the purchasing power argument consists in misconstruing this causal relation. It turns things upside down when considering the rise in wage rates as the force bringing about economic improvement.

購買力說的根本錯誤在於誤解這個因果關係。當它把工資率的上漲看作促成經濟進步的動力的時候，把事情弄顚倒了。

We will discuss at a later stage of this book the consequences of the attempts of the governments and of organized labor violence to enforce wage rates higher than those determined by a nonhampered market[24]. Here we must only add one more explanatory remark.

在本書的後面會討論到政府和勞工組織強迫地把工資率提高到自由市場所決定的水準以上的那些企圖[21]。這裡，我們只要再加一點解釋。

When speaking of profits and losses, prices and wage rates, what we have in mind is always real profits and losses, real prices and real wage rates. It is the arbitrary interchange of money terms and real terms that has led many people astray. This problem too will be dealt with exhaustively in later chapters. Let us incidentally only mention the fact that a rise in real wage rates is compatible with a drop in nominal wage rates.

當我們說到利潤和虧損、價格和工資率的時候，我們所想到的總是實質的利潤和虧損，實質的價格和實質的工資率。許多人之所以常常走入迷途，是因爲把貨幣意義的名詞和實質意義的名詞隨便交換使用。這個問題也將在後面幾章詳盡地討論。這裡，讓我們附帶地提一提：實質工資率的上昇與名義工資率的下降是可相容的。

-------------------------

[22] If we were to apply the faulty concept of a "national income" as used in popular speech, we would have to say that no part of national income goes into profits.

[19] 如果我們想用通常使用的「國民所得」這個錯誤的概念，我們就可以說國民所得裡面沒有利潤這個部份。

[23] The problem of the convertibility of capital goods is dealt with below, pp. 503-505.

[20] 關於資本財轉換的問題，將在第十八章第五節討論。

[24] Cf. below, pp. 769-779.

[21] 參考第三十章第三節最低工資率。

10. Promoters, Managers, Technicians, and Bureaucrats

十、發起人、經理、技術人員、官僚

The entrepreneur hires the technicians, i.e., people who have the ability and the skill to perform definite kinds and quantities of work. The class of technicians includes the great inventors, the champions in the field of applied science, the constructors and designers as well as the performers of the most simple tasks. The entrepreneur joins their ranks as far as he himself takes part in the technical execution of his entrepreneurial plans. The technician contributes his own toil and trouble; but it is the entrepreneur qua entrepreneur who directs his labor toward definite goals. And the entrepreneur himself acts as a mandatary, as it were, of the consumers.

企業家僱用技術人員，技術人員是具有做某種工作技能的人。技術人員這個階層包括偉大的創新者、應用科學部門的優秀份子、建築師、設計員、以及一些最簡單工作的工匠。企業家本人在參與其企業計畫技術上的施工時，他也加入他們的行列。技術人員只是盡他自己的辛勞：而企業家以企業家的資格，則要指揮他的勞動以完成確定的目標。而且，企業家本人的行爲可說是以消費者的受託人的地位來作的。

The entrepreneurs are not omnipresent. They cannot themselves attend to the manifold tasks which are incumbent upon them. Adjustment of production to the best possible supplying of the consumers with the goods they are asking for most urgently does not merely consist in determining the general plan for the utilization of resources. There is, of course, no doubt that this is the main function of the promoter and speculator. But besides the great adjustments, many small adjustments are necessary too. Each of them may seem trifling and of little bearing upon the total result. But the cumulative effect of shortcomings in many of these minor matters can be such as to frustrate entirely the success of a correct solution of the great problems. At any rate, it is certain that every failure to handle the smaller

企業家不是無所不在的。他們自己不能照料到他們份內五花八門的工作。要做到爲消費者提供他們所最需要的貨物，而來調整生產，這不僅是要決定資源利用的一般計畫。當然，發起人和投機者的主要功能是在這方面，但是，除掉大的調整以外，許許多多小的調整也是必要的。每個小的調整對於總的結果似乎不關重要。但是，許許多多小毛病累積起來的後果，可能使正確的大決定歸於失敗。無論如何，對於小問題的處理每失敗一次，其直接的結果就是，有限生產資源的一次浪費，因而減損了消費者最大可能的滿足，這是確確實實的。

It is important to conceive in what respects the problem we have in mind differs from the technological tasks of the technicians. The execution of every project upon which the entrepreneur has embarked in making his decision with regard to the general plan of action requires a multiplicity of minute decisions. Each of these decisions must be effected in such a way as to prefer that solution of the problem which--without interfering with the designs of the general plan for the whole project--is the most economical one. It must avoid superfluous costs in the same way as does the general plan. The technician from his purely technological point of view either may not see any difference in the alternatives offered by various methods for the solution of such a detail or may give preference to one of these methods on account of its greater output in physical quantities. But the entrepreneur is actuated by the profit motive. This enjoins upon him the urge to prefer the most economical solution, i.e., that solution which avoids employing factors of production whose employment would impair the satisfaction of the more intensely felt wants of the consumers. He will prefer among the various methods with regard to which the technicians are neutral, the one the application of which requires the smallest cost. He may reject the technicians' suggestion to choose a more costly method securing a greater physical output if his calculation shows that the increase in output would not outweigh the increase in cost required. Not only in the great decisions and plans but no less in the daily decisions of small problems as they turn up in the current conduct of affairs, the entrepreneur must perform his task of adjusting production to the demand of the consumers as reflected in the prices of the market.

企業家的問題不同於技術人員的問題是在什麼地方，關於這一點的知曉是很重要的。企業家對於一般計畫決定時所著手的每個設計的執行，都要有許多細微的決定。而這些細微決定的每一個之達成，必須是因爲它可以使這個問題的解決成爲最經濟的解決。它必須和一般的計畫一樣，避免不必要的成本。技術人員從他的純技術觀點來看，對於這類細節的解決所提出的幾個可替代的方法，或者是看不出有何區別，或者是因爲其中的某一個可得到的較大的「物質的」數量而選擇那一個。但是企業家就不如此，他是被利潤的動機驅使的。因而他不得不選擇其中最經濟的那一個解決法，這個解決法是在避免僱用某些生產要素，因爲這些要素的僱用就會損害消費者最迫切的慾望之滿足。他所選擇的方法，是技術人員無可無不可的方法，這個方法即成本最低的方法。技術人員向他建議，選擇那個可得到較多物質産量的方法，如果他計算出這個方法所增加的產量，不能抵償所要增加的成本，他就會拒絕技術人員的建議。企業家的這種作法不限之於大的決定，而且也用之於曰常小問題的決定，因爲他必須這樣完成他的任務，他的任務是照市場價格反映出來的消費者的需求來調整生產。

Economic calculation as practiced in the market economy, and especially the system of double-entry bookkeeping, make it possible to relieve the entrepreneur of involvement in too much detail. He can devote himself to his great tasks without being entangled in a multitude of trifles beyond any mortal man's range of sight. He can appoint assistants to whose solicitude he entrusts the care of subordinate entrepreneurial duties. And these assistants in their turn can be aided according to the same principle by assistants appointed for a smaller sphere of duties. In this way a whole managerial hierarchy can be built up.

在市場經濟裡面所做的經濟計算，尤其是複式簿記制度，使企業家得以免於陷入過多的瑣屑事務。他可以專心於大的事情，而把次級的、技術上的職務委之於助手們，而那些助手也可按照同樣的原則把更小範圍的職務委之於他們的助手。於是，就建立了整個經理部門的分層負責制。

A manager is a junior partner of the entrepreneur, as it were, no matter what the contractual and financial terms of his employment

經理是企業家的一個低級夥計，不管僱用他的契約條件和金錢待遇是怎樣。唯一有關的事情是他們自己的金錢利益逼得他盡最大的能力來做他份內的事，也即完成一定範圍以內的企業家的功能。

It is the system of double-entry bookkeeping that makes the functioning of the managerial system possible. Thanks to it, the entrepreneur is in a position to separate the calculation of each part of his total enterprise in such a way that he can determine the role it plays within his whole enterprise. Thus he can look at each section as if it were a separate entity and can appraise it according to the share it contributes to the success of the total enterprise. Within this system of business calculation each section of a firm represents an integral entity, a hypothetical independent business,as it were. It is assumed that this section "owns a definite part of the whole capital employed in the enterprise, that it buys from other sections and sells to them, that it has its own expenses and its own revenues, that its dealings result either in a profit or in a loss which is imputed to its own conduct of affairs as distinguished from the result of the other sections. Thus the entrepreneur can assign to each section's management a great deal of independence. The only directive he gives to a man whom he entrusts with the management of a circumscribed job is to make as much profit as possible. An examination of the accounts shows how successful or unsuccessful the managers were in executing this directive. Every manager and submanager is responsible for the working of his section or subsection. It is to his credit if the accounts show a profit, and it is to his disadvantage if they show a loss. His own interests impel him toward the utmost care and exertion in the conduct of his section's affairs. If he incurs losses, he will be replaced by a man whom the entrepreneur expects to be more successful, or the whole section will be discontinued. At any rate, the manager will lose his job. If he succeeds in making profits, his income will be increased, or at least he will not be in danger of losing it. Whether or not a manager is entitled to a share in the profit imputed to his section is not important with regard to the personal interest he takes in the results of his section's dealings. His welfare is at any rate closely connected with that of his section. His task is not like that of the technician, to perform a definite piece of work according to a definite precept. It is to adjust--within the limited scope left to his discretion--the operation of his section to the state of the market. Of course, just as an entrepreneur may combine in his person entrepreneurial functions and those of a technician, such a union of various functions can also occur with a manager.

使經理制得以發生作用的，是複式簿記。幸虧有它，企業家才能夠把他全部企業每個部門的計算分開來作，藉以斷定每個部門在整個企業裡面所擔的任務。於是，他可以把每個部門看作一個分立的單位，而按照它對於整個企業的成功所貢獻的大小而給它評價。在這種計算制度裡面，一個商號的每個部門代表一個整體，一個假想的獨立營業單位。這是假定這個部門「保有」這個企業所使用的全部資本額的一定部份，它從別個部門買進，也向別個部門賣出，它有它自己的開支和自己的收入，它經營的結果或盈或虧，是它自己的功過，與其他部門無關。這樣，企業家就可給每個部門的經理很多的獨立行事權。他給他所信任的各部門的經理唯一的指示是，盡可能地賺取最大利潤。經理們對於這種指示的執行是成功或失敗，只要一查營業帳册即可知道。每個經理和次級經理，各就他的部門或次級部門的工作負責任。如果帳册上表現出盈餘，那就是他的成績；如果表現出虧損，就是他的敗績。他自己的利害關係逼得他不得不盡心盡力做好他那一部門的工作。如果他弄得虧損了，企業家將會僱用一個有成功希望的人來替代他，或者撤銷這一部門。無論如何，這位經理是要失掉這個職位的。如果他賺得利潤，他的薪資將會增加，至少也沒有失掉職位的危險。至於一個經理能否分享他那個部門所賺得的利潤，這是不重要的。無論如何，他的福利與他那個部門的福利是密切相關的。他的工作與技術人員的不一樣，技術人員是按照一定的格式完成一份確定的工作，經理的工作是在他受託的一定範圍以內，按照自己的意思來調整本部門的經營方法以適應市場情況。一個企業家有時會把企業家的功能和技術人員的功能兼之於一身，一個經理有時也會如此。

The managerial function is always subservient to the entrepreneurial function. It can relieve the entrepreneur of a part of his minor duties; it can never evolve into a substitute for entrepreneurship. This fallacy to the contrary is due to the error confusing the category of entrepreneurship as it is defined in the imaginary construction of functional distribution with conditions in a living and operating market economy. The function of the entrepreneur cannot be separated from the direction of the employment of factors of production for the accomplishment of definite tasks. The entrepreneur controls the factors of production; it is this control that brings him either entrepreneurial profit or loss.

經理的功能總是幫助企業家功能的。它可使企業家解脫一部份輕微的責任：但它決不能做到取代企業家的地位。和這相反的謬見，是由於誤把「功能分配的想像」結構中，企業家的身份這個範疇，與「實際運作的市場經濟裡面的企業家」相混淆了。企業家的功能與指揮生產要素之僱用是不可分的。企業家控制生產要素；使他賺得利潤或遭受虧損的，正是這種控制。

It is possible to reward the manager by paying for his services in proportion to the contribution of his section to the profit earned by the entrepreneur. But this is of no avail. As has been pointed out, the manager is under any circumstances interested in the success of that part of the business which is entrusted to his care. But the manager cannot be made answerable for the losses incurred. These losses are suffered by the owners of the capital employed. They cannot be shifted to the manager.

對於某一部門的經理，按照他那個部門在整個企業賺得的利潤中所貢獻的比例給予報酬，這是可能的。但是，這完全無用。前面曾講過，在任何情形下，經理所關心的是，委之於他的那個部門業務的成功。但是，我們不能使經理賠償他那個部門的虧損。這種虧損是資本主所承擔的，不能移轉到經理。

Society can freely leave the care for the best possible employment of capital goods to their owners. In embarking upon definite projects these owners expose their own property, wealth, and social position. They are even more interested in the success of their entrepreneurial activities than is society as a whole. For society as a whole the squandering of capital invested in a definite project means only the loss of a small part of its total funds; for the owner it means much more, for the most part the loss of his total fortune. But if a manager is given a completely free hand, things are different. He speculates in risking other people's money. He sees the prospects of an uncertain enterprise from another angle than that of the man who is answerable for the losses. It is precisely when he is rewarded by a share of the profits that he becomes foolhardy because he does not share in the losses too.

社會可以爽爽快快地讓資本主自己去善爲運用他的資本財而不加干預。資本主在從事某一計畫時，他自己的財產、財富，乃至他的社會地位都繫於這個計畫的成敗。他們關切自己的企業活動之成敗，比整個社會對它的關切爲尤甚。因爲從整個社會來講，投之於某一計畫的資本如果浪費了，那不過是社會全部資金的一小部份；就資本主來講，那就是他個人全部財產的大部份。但是，如果授權一個經理，讓他完全自由經營，事情就不同了。他是以別人的金錢來冒險投機。他是從一個不同於自承虧損的投資人的角度來預測不確定的將來。因爲他不分擔虧損，所以，當他分享利潤的時候，正是他勇於蠻幹的時候。

The illusion that management is the totality of entrepreneurial activities and that management is a perfect substitute for entrepreneurship is the outgrowth of a misinterpretation of the conditions of the corporations, the typical form of present-day business. It is asserted that the corporation is operated by the salaried managers, while the shareholders are merely passive spectators. All the powers are concentrated in the hands of hired employees. The shareholders are idle and useless; they harvest what the managers have sown.

把經理業務看作企業活動的全部，認爲經理可以完全替代企業家，這種幻覺是源於誤解了公司組織，公司組織是現代工商業的標準方式。他們說，公司是由賺薪金的經理經營，股東不過是消極的旁觀者。所有的權力都集中在被僱的職員手上。股東不發生作用；他們只收穫經理們耕耘的成果。

This doctrine disregards entirely the role that the capital and money market, the stock and bond exchange, which a pertinent

這種說法完全忽略了資本和金融市場——也即股票和債券交易所——在公司業務上所發生的功用。這個市場的交易，被反資本主義的偏見視爲純粹賭博。事實上，公司的普通股、優先股、和公司債券的價格波動，正是資本家用以控制資本流的工具。在資本和金融市場，以及大規模的商品市場裡面，由投機決定的價格結構，不僅是決定每個公司可以用到多少資本；它也創造一種情勢，使經理們必須在細節上調整他們的經營，以求適應。

The general direction of a corporation's conduct of business is exercised by the stockholders and their elected mandataries, the directors. The directors appoint and discharge the managers. In smaller companies and sometimes even in bigger ones the offices of the directors and the managers are often combined in the same persons. A successful corporation is ultimately never controlled by hired managers. The emergence of an omnipotent managerial class is not a phenomenon of the unhampered market economy. It was, on the contrary, an outgrowth of the interventionist policies consciously aiming at an elimination of the influence of the shareholders and at their virtual expropriation. In Germany, Italy, and Austria it was a preliminary step on the way toward the substitution of government control of business for free enterprise, as has been the case in Great Britain with regard to the Bank of England and the railroads. Similar tendencies are prevalent in the American public utilities. The marvelous achievements of corporate business were not a result of the activities of a salaried managerial oligarchy; they were accomplished by people who were connected with the corporation by means of the ownership of a considerable part or of the greater part of its stock and whom part of the public scorned as promoters and profiteers.

公司業務的一般指揮，是由股東和他們的委託人——董事們來作的。董事們任免經理。在小規模的公司，董事常常兼任經理，甚至較大的公司也有時如此。一個成功的公司，最後的控制權決不是在被僱的經理手上。萬能的經理階級的出現，不是自由巿場經濟的一個現象。相反地，它是那些爲要消除股東的影響力而做到實際沒收的干涉政策所引起的結果。在德國、意大利、和奧國，萬能的經理階級的出現，是走向以管制經濟替代自由企業的一個預備步驟，在英國曾經由這個歩驟做到英倫銀行和鐵路的國營。同樣的趨向，在美國的公用事業方面也已開始。公司行業的一些驚人成就，不是幾個拿薪水的經理們的活動所造成的；而是那些靠握有大量股權而與公司發生關係的人們，和那些被汚衊爲奸商的人們所完成的。

The entrepreneur determines alone, without any managerial interference, in what lines of business to employ capital and how much capital to employ. He determines the expansion and contraction of the size of the total business and its main sections. He determines the enterprise's financial structure. These are the essential decisions which are instrumental in the conduct of business. They always fall upon the entrepreneur, in corporations as well as in other types of a firm's legal structure. Any assistance given to the entrepreneur in this regard is of ancillary character only; he takes information about the past state of affairs from experts in the fields of law, statistics, and technology; but the final decision implying a judgment about the future state of the market rests with him alone. The execution of the

對於在什麼行業投下資本，投下多少資本這類問題作決定的，只是企業家個人，他不要經理部門的任何干預。他決定整個業務或主要業務的擴張或緊縮。他決定這個企業的財務結構。這些都是全盤業務所賴以進行的基本決定。這些決定總是要靠企業家來作，公司組織如此，其他方式的營業組織也如此。在這方面給予企業家的任何幫助只是屬於輔助性的；企業家會從法律方面、統計方面、和技術方面的專家們，取得關於過去情況的知識；但是，涉及將來市場情況的預測而作的最後判斷，只落在企業家個人的身上，與別人無關。有了這個最後判断以後，計畫的執行則可委之於經理們。

The social functions of the managerial elite are no less indispensable for the operation of the market economy than are the functions of the elite of inventors, technologists, engineers, designers, scientists, and experimenters. In the ranks of the managers many of the most eminent men serve the cause of economic progress. Successful managers are remunerated by high salaries and often by a share in the enterprise's gross profits. Many of them in the course of their careers become themselves capitalists and entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, the managerial function is different from the entrepreneurial function.

優越的經理人才所發揮的社會功能，對於市場經濟的運作，和優越的發明者、技術人員、工程師、設計員、科學家、試驗者所發揮的功能，是同樣不可缺乏的。在經理階層當中，有許多傑出的人物有助於經濟進步。成功的經理得到高額薪金的報酬，也常分享這個企業的毛利。他們當中，有些人在其事業的過程中，自己也成了資本家與企業家。可是，經理的功能與企業家的功能是不同的。

It is a serious mistake to identify entrepreneurship with management as in the popular antithesis of "management" and "labor." This confusion is, of course, intentional. It is designed to obscure the fact that the functions of entrepreneurship are entirely different from those of the managers attending to the minor details of the conduct of business. The structure of business, the allocation of capital to the various branches of production and firms, the size and the line of operation of each plant and shop are considered as given facts and it is implied that no further changes will be effected with regard to them. The only task is to go on in the old routine. In such a stationary world, of course, there is no need for innovators and promoters; the total amount of profits is counterbalanced by the total amount of losses. To explode the fallacies of this doctrine it is enough to compare the structure of American business in 1960 with that of 1940.

通常是把「經理」與「勞工」看作是對立的，在這一對立中，又把企業家的功能與經理的功能視爲一事，這是個嚴重的錯誤。當然，這種混淆是故意弄成的。其目的在於蒙蔽事實，使世人不明白企業家的功能與那些照料細務的經理們的功能完全不同。業務結構、資本在各個生產部門之間的配置、每個工場或商店的規模和作業，都被認爲是旣定的事實，也即意謂：關於這些事情，不會再有變動發生，唯一要作的都是些例行的工作。當然，在這樣的一個靜態的世界，無須創新者和發起人；利潤的總額與虧損的總損相抵銷。要揭發這個說法的謬誤，只要拿一九四五年美國的工商業結構與一九一五年的作一比較也就那夠了。

But even in a stationary world it would be nonsensical to give "labor," as a popular slogan demands, a share in management. The realization of such a postulate would result in syndicalism [25].

但是，即令在一個靜態的世界，像流行的口號所要求的，讓「勞工」參與經理這一主張，也是荒唐的。這個主張如果實現，一定成爲工團主義（syndicalism）[22]。

There is furthermore a readiness to confuse the manager with a bureaucrat.

除此之外，還有把經理與官僚相混的企圖。

Bureaucratic management, as distinguished from profit management, is the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs, the result of which has no cash value on the market. The successful performance of the duties entrusted to the care of a police department is of the greatest importance for the preservation of social cooperation and benefits each member of society. But it has no price on the market, it cannot be bought or sold; it can therefore not be confronted with the expenses incurred in the endeavors to secure it. It results in gains, but these gains are not reflected in profits liable to expression in terms of money. The methods of economic calculation, and especially those of double-entry bookkeeping, are not applicable

「官僚管理」，不同於追求利潤的經理，它是用之於行政方面的方法，它的結果沒有市場上的金錢價値。警察部門的職務做得很成功，對於社會合作的維持是最重要的，且有利於社會的每一份子。但是，它沒有市場價格，它不能被買或被賣：所以不需要直接花費金錢來取得它。它的結果是些利益，但是，這些利益不是由金錢表示的利潤反映出來的。經濟計算法，尤其是複式簿記計算法，對它們不適用。警察活動的成功或失敗，不能照營利事業的算術程式來稽考。沒有一位會計員可以確定，一個警察部門的活動是否成功。

The amount of money to be expended in every branch of profit-seeking business is determined by the behavior of the consumers. If the automobile industry were to treble the capital employed, it would certainly improve the services it renders to the public. There would be more cars available. But this expansion of the industry would withhold capital from other branches of production in which it could fill more urgent wants of the consumers. This fact would render the expansion of the automobile industry unprofitable and increase profits in other branches of business. In their endeavors to strive after the highest profit obtainable, entrepreneurs are forced to allocate to each branch of business only as much capital as can be employed in it without impairing the satisfaction of more urgent wants of the consumers. Thus the entrepreneurial activities are automatically, as it were, directed by the consumers' wishes as they are reflected in the price structure of consumers' goods.

用在營利事業每個部門的金錢數量，是由消費者的行爲決定的。如果汽車業要把資本增加三倍，那一定會改善它對大衆的服務。因爲可用的車輛更多了。但是，汽車業的這一擴張，將要從其他可以滿足消費者更迫切需要的生產部門挪出資本。這個事實將會使汽車業的擴張無利可得，且增加其他生產部門的利潤。企業家爲追求可能最高的利潤，他不得不把配置在每個部門的資本量，調整到不損害消費者更迫切的慾望之滿足。因此，企業家的活動儼然是自動地受消費者的意願之指揮，消費意願反映在消費財的價格結構上。

No such limitation is enjoined upon the allocation of funds for the performance of the tasks incumbent upon government activities. There is no doubt that the services rendered by the police department of the City of New York could be considerably improved by trebling the budgetary allocation. But the question is whether or not this improvement would be considerable enough to justify either the restriction of the services rendered by other departments--e.g., those of the department of sanitation--or the restriction of the private consumption of the taxpayers. This question cannot be answered by the accounts of the police department. These accounts provide information only about the expenses incurred. They cannot provide any information about the results obtained, as these results cannot be expressed in money equivalents. The citizens must directly determine the amount of services they want to get and are ready to pay for. They discharge this task by electing councilmen and officeholders who are prepared to comply with their intentions.

政府各部門的經費配置卻沒有這樣的限制。紐約市警察局所提供的勞務，可以經由預算的三倍增加而大大改善，這是無疑問的。但是，問題就在這種改善是否大到足以應該使其他部門的服務——例如衛生部門——因此而受限制，或者是否大到足以應該使納稅人在私人財貨的消費上因此而受限制。這個問題不能在警察局的帳上得到答覆。警察局的帳只記載經費的支出，至於支出的結果是怎樣，那些帳不能提供任何情報，因爲那些結果不能用金額表示出來。市民們必須直接決定他們所想取得的服務的份量，和準備對那些服務支付的代價，而不能間接地反映於市場價格。他們選舉市議員和市政官吏，委託他們來作這些決定。

Thus the mayor and the chiefs of the city's various departments are restricted by the budget. They are not free to act upon what they themselves consider the most beneficial solution of the various problems the citizenry has to face. They are bound to spend the funds allocated for the purposes the budget has assigned them. They must not use them for other tasks. Auditing in the field of public administration is entirely different from that in the field of profit-seeking

因此，市長和巿政府各部門的首長，是受預算限制的。他們對於市民所面臨的問題不能自由地照他們自己所認爲最有利的方法去解決。他們必須按照預算的規定把經費用在一定的用途。他們不能隨便挪動。政府的審計完全不同於營利事業的審計。它的目的在於稽考經費支出是否嚴格遵照預算的規定執行。

In profit-seeking business the discretion of the managers and submanagers is restricted by considerations of profit and loss. The profit motive is the only directive needed to make them subservient to the wishes of the consumers. There is no need to restrict their discretion by minute instructions and rules. If they are efficient, such meddling with details would at best be superfluous, if not pernicious in tying their hands. If they are inefficient, it would not render their activities more successful. It would only provide them with a lame excuse that the failure was caused by inappropriate rules. The only instruction required is self-understood and does not need to be especially mentioned: Seek profit.

營利事業的經理和其下級經理們的行動，是受盈虧考慮的限制。謀取利潤的動機是使得他們服侍消費者願望的唯一必要的指導原則，用不著瑣瑣屑屑的命令和規章來限制他們的行動。如果他們是有效率的；則瑣瑣屑屑的干涉即令不是有害的束縛，也是多餘的；如果他們缺乏效率，那也不會使他們的活動更成功，而只是給他們一個脫卸失敗責任的藉口。唯一必要的指導原則無須特別提明。那就是追求利潤。

Things are different in public administration, in the conduct of government affairs. In this field the discretion of the officeholders and their subaltern aids is not restricted by consideration of profit and loss. If their supreme boss--no matter whether he is the sovereign people or a sovereign despot--were to leave them a free hand, he would renounce his own supremacy in their favor. These officers would become irresponsible agents, and their power would supersede that of the people or the despot. They would do what pleased them, not what their bosses wanted them to do. To prevent this outcome and to make them subservient to the will of their bosses it is necessary to give them detailed instructions regulating their conduct of affairs in every respect. Then it becomes their duty to handle all affairs in strict compliance with these rules and regulations. Their freedom to adjust their acts to what seems to them the most appropriate solution of a concrete problem is limited by these norms. They are bureaucrats, i.e., men who in every instance must observe a set of inflexible regulations.

在公共行政方面，在政府事務方面，情形就不同了。官署的首長和他們的部門在作判斷時，不受盈虧的限制。如果他們的上司——這個上司或者是主權的人民，或者是一個主權的專制君主，都無關係——要讓他們自由行動，他將放棄他自己的主權以便利他們。於是，這些官吏將會變得不負責任，而他們的權力就替代了人民或那個專制君主的權力。他們將做他們自己所喜歡做的事情，而不是做他們的上司想他們做的事情。爲著防止這樣的結果，而使他們服從他們上司的意旨，那就必須在每一細節上詳細規定他們應做的事情。這樣一來，他們就要嚴格遵守這些法令，這是他們的職責。對於某一具體問題，自他們看來似乎是最適當的解決法，但他們調整他們的行爲，以適應這個辦法的自由，卻受到這些法令的限制。這就叫做官僚。官僚就是事事要遵守一套呆板法令的人們。

Bureaucratic conduct of affairs is conduct bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by the authority of a superior body. It is the only alternative to profit management. Profit management is inapplicable in the pursuit of affairs which have no cash value on the market and in the non-profit conduct of affairs which could also be operated on a profit basis. The former is the case of the administration of the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion; the latter is the case in the conduct of an institution on a non-profit basis, e.g., a school, a hospital, or a postal system. Whenever the operation of a system is not directed by the profit motive, it must be directed by bureaucratic rules.

官僚行爲是必須遵照一個上級權力機關所規定的詳細規則的行爲。它是利潤管理制唯一的替代法。利潤管理制不適用於那些沒有市場金錢價値的事務，也不適用於那些不以營利爲目的的事務。前者是指強制性的社會機構的行政；後者是指非營利社團的行爲，如學校、醫院、或郵政。凡是不以營利爲目的的制度，必須用官僚的法則來指導其作爲。

Bureaucratic conduct of affairs is, as such, not an evil. It is the only

官僚制度的本身並不是一件壞事，它是處理政府事務唯一的適當辦法。由於政府是必要的，官僚制度也同樣必要。凡是經濟計算不可行的地方，官僚方法就不可缺少。一個社會主義的政府必須用官僚方法來處理一切事情。

No business, whatever its size or specific task, can ever become bureaucratic so long as it is entirely and solely operated on a profit basis. But as soon as it abandons profit seeking and substitutes for it what is called the service principle--i.e., the rendering of services without regard as to whether or not the prices to be obtained for them cover the expenses--it must substitute bureaucratic methods for those of entrepreneurial management[26].

工商業，不管它的規模多大，也不管它是什麼行業，只要它完全是以利潤爲目的，它決不會變成官僚。但是，一旦到了它放棄謀利的目的，而代之以所謂服務原則——即在提供服務時，不問是否得不償失——它就必須採用官僚制度來替代企業管理。[23]

--------------------------

[25] Cf. below, pp. 812-820.

[22] 參考第三十三章第一節。

[26] For a detailed treatment of the problems involved, cf. Mises, Bureaucracy (New Haven, 1944).

[23] 闢於這裡所涉及的一些問題之詳細討論，參考Mises, Bureaucracy (New Haven, 1944).

11. The Selective Process

十一、選擇的過程

The selective process of the market is actuated by the composite effort of all members of the market economy. Driven by the urge to remove his own uneasiness as much as possible, each individual is intent, on the one hand, upon attaining that position in which he can contribute most to the best satisfaction of everyone else and, on the other hand, upon taking best advantage of the services offered by everyone else. This means that he tries to sell on the dearest market and to buy on the cheapest market. The resultant of these endeavors is not only the price structure but no less the social structure, the assignment of definite tasks to the various individuals. The market makes people rich or poor, determines who shall run the big plants and who shall scrub the floors, fixes how many people shall work in the copper mines and how many in the symphony orchestras. None of these decisions is made once and for all; they are revocable every day. The selective process never stops. It goes on adjusting the social apparatus of production to the changes in demand and supply. It reviews again and again its previous decisions and forces everybody to submit to a new examination of his case. There is no security and no such thing as a right to preserve any position acquired in the past. Nobody is exempt from the law of the market, the consumers' sovereignty.

市場的選擇過程是由市場經濟所有份子的努力合成的。每個人都有消除不適之感的衝動，被這個衝動驅使，他一方面致力於使自己能夠提供最可滿足別人的貢獻，一方面致力於取得別人勞務所提供的利益。這即是他想在最貴的市場資出，在最便宜的市場買進。這些作爲的總結果，不僅是有了價格結構，而且也有了社會結構，指派了各個人各別的工作。市場使人富有或貧窮，決定誰去經營大規模的工廠，誰去爲人擦地板，確定多少人開採銅鑛，多少人組織交響樂團。這些決定都不是一成不變的；而是每天都可取消的。這個選擇過程永不停止。它在繼續調整社會的生產機構以適應供需的變動。它一再地複核以前所作的決定，而使每個人不得不接受更新的考驗。大家無所謂安全，過去取得的任何地位沒有什麼權利可以永久保持。誰也不能逃避市場法則，這個法則就是消費者至上。

Ownership of the means of production is not a privilege, but a social liability. Capitalists and landowners are compelled to employ their property for the best possible satisfaction of the consumers. If they are slow and inept in the performance of their duties, they are penalized by losses. If they do not learn the lesson and do not

生產手段的保有不是一個特權，而是一個社會責任。資本家和地主不得不把他們的財產利用到使消費者得到最大可能的滿足。如果他們遲緩、愚鈍，以致不能完成他們的責任，他們就受到虧損的懲罰。如果他們不接受這種懲罰的敎訓，他們就要喪失他們的財富。投資沒有永久是安全的。凡是不能把他的財產最有效地爲消費者服務的人，註定要失敗。貪享受而不用腦力、體力的人，沒有生存的餘地。財產所有人必須把他的資產利用得至少不讓它的本値和孳息受到磨損。

In the ages of caste privileges and trade barriers there were revenues not dependent on the market. Princes and lords lived at the expense of the humble slaves and serfs who owed them tithes, statute labor,and tributes. Ownership of land could only be acquired either by conquest or by largesse on the part of a conqueror. It could be forfeited only by recantation on the part of the donor or by conquest on the part of another conqueror. Even later, when the lords and their liegemen began to sell their surpluses on the market, they could not be ousted by the competition of more efficient people. Competition was free only within very narrow limits. The acquisition of manorial estates was reserved to the nobility, that of urban real property to the citizens of the township, that of farm land to the peasants. Competition in the arts and crafts was restricted by the guilds. The consumers were not in a position to satisfy their wants in the cheapest way, as price control made underbidding impossible to the sellers. The buyers were at the mercy of their purveyors. If the privileged producers refused to resort to the employment of the most adequate raw materials and of the most efficient methods of processing, the consumers were forced to endure the consequences of such stubbornness and conservatism.

在階級特權和工商業受限制的時代【在等級特權和貿易壁壘的時代】，有些不經過市場的收入。國王和地主靠奴隸和農奴的勞役來過活。土地所有權只能靠征服或征服者的賞賜而取得，也只有被賞賜者收回或被其他的征服者強奪而喪失。後來，地主們和他們的部下，開始在市場上出賣他們的剩餘物，即令在這個時代，他們也不會被有效率的競爭淘汰。競爭只有很狹窄的範圍內是自由的。莊園的領地只有貴族才能取得，鎭市的地產只有市民可以取得，農地只有農民可以取得。技藝方面的競爭受行會的限制。消費者不能以最便宜的方法來滿足他們的慾望，因爲價格的控制使賣者不能削價競爭。購買者只好聽供給者的擺佈。如果特權的生產者不使用最好的原料，不採用最有效率的生產方法，消費者也就不得不忍受這種頑固保守的後果。

The landowner who lives in perfect self-sufficiency from the fruits of his own farming is independent of the market. But the modern farmer who buys equipment, fertilizers, seed, labor, and other factors of production and sells agricultural products is subject to the law of the market. His income depends on the consumers and he must adjust his operations to their wishes.

靠自己的農產物而過完全自足生活的地主，是獨立於市場的。但是，現代的農民要購買農具、肥料、種籽、勞力，和其他生產要素，也要出賣他的產品，所以，他是受市場法則支配的。他的所得，靠的是消費者，他必須調整他的行爲以適應他們的願望。

The selective function of the market works also with regard to labor. The worker is attracted by that kind of work in which he can expect to earn most. As is the case with material factors of production, the factor labor too is allocated to those employments in which it best serves the consumers. There prevails the tendency not to waste any quantity of labor for the satisfaction of less urgent demand if more urgent demand is still unsatisfied. Like all other strata of society, the worker is subject to the supremacy of the consumers. If he disobeys, he is penalized by a cut in earnings.

市場選擇功能也發生於勞動方面。工人被那能夠賺得最多工資的工作部門吸收去。勞動這個生產要素，也和物質的生產要素一樣，配置在最有利於消費者的用途。如果消費者有更迫切的需求尙未滿足，則不會把勞動浪費於次要的滿足，這是個必然的趨勢。工人也和所有的社會階層一樣，是受消費者的主權支配。如果他不服從，他就受到收入減少的懲罰。

The selection of the market does not establish social orders, castes,

市場選擇並不建立馬克斯所說的那種意義的社會階級。企業家和發起人也不形成一個完整的社會階級。任何人如果預測未來巿場情況的能力比別人高明，如果他自甘冒險、自負責任，而其行爲被消費者嘉許，他就可成爲一個事業的發起人而不受任何阻礙。一個人以其進取的精神和接受市場考驗的意願，而躋身於發起人階級。這種市場考驗是不論人的，不是因人而異的，凡是想成爲一個發起人，或想繼續保持這個地位，就得接受它的考驗。每個人都有這種機會。新來的人不必等待別人的邀請或鼓勵。他必須靠自己的手算，必須靠自己知道如何準備資金而踴躍行動。

It has been contended again and again that under the conditions of "late" or "mature" capitalism it is no longer possible for penniless people to climb the ladder to wealth and entrepreneurial position. No attempt has ever been made to prove this thesis. Since it was first advanced, the composition of the entrepreneurial and capitalist groups has changed considerably. A great part of the former entrepreneurs and their heirs have been eliminated and other people, newcomers, have taken their places. It is, of course, true that in the last years institutions have been purposely developed which, if not abolished very soon, will make the functioning of the market in every regard impossible.

常常有人這樣講：在「後期的」或「成熟的」資本主義社會裡面，一文莫名的人爬上富有的企業家地位，再也不可能了。可是，對於這個論調，從來沒有人求證。自從有了這個說法以後，企業家和資本家羣體的構成，已經有了大大的變化。以前的企業家和他們的繼承人，大部份已經消滅，新來的人已取代了他們的地位。過去若干年當中，建立了一些制度，那些制度，如果不是很快地被取消，那將會使市場運作在任何方面都不可能。

The point of view from which the consumers choose the captains of industry and business is exclusively their qualification to adjust production to the needs of the consumers. They do not bother about other features and merits. They want a shoe manufacturer to fabricate good and cheap shoes. They are not intent upon entrusting the conduct of the shoe trade to handsome amiable boys, to people of good drawing-room manners, of artistic gifts, of scholarly habits, or of any other virtues or talents. A proficient businessman may often be deficient in many accomplishments which contribute to the success of a man in other spheres of life.

消費者所憑以選擇工商界巨頭的觀點，完全是在他們有沒有適應消費者的需要而從事調整的能力。至於其他的特徵和優點，消費者是一概不管的。例如就鞋子的需要來講，消費者只想要一個製造很精美，而價錢又便宜的鞋匠。他們不會把製鞋的工作委之於年輕漂亮的男孩，委之於文質彬彬的紳士，委之於藝術天才，委之於學者或具有其他特徵和優點的人。一位熟練的工商人士，每每缺乏其他許多方面成功的條件。

It is quite common nowadays to deprecate the capitalists and entrepreneurs. A man is prone to sneer at those who are more prosperous than himself. These people, he contends, are richer only because they are less scrupulous than he. If he were not restrained by due consideration for the laws of morality and decency, he would be no less successful than they are. Thus men glory in the aureole of self-complacency and Pharisaic self-righteousness.

對資本家和企業家予以輕視，這是現在極普通的事情。人，總喜歡嘲笑比自己的境遇更好的人。他會這樣說：這些人之所以比我更富，只是因爲他們不像他這樣循規蹈矩。如果他也不講道德的話，他不會比他們差。於是，他就在自我陶醉、自以爲是的心境中感到光榮。

Now it is true that under the conditions brought about by interventionism

確確實實在現在干涉主義所弄成的情況下，許多人可以靠賄賂而取得財富。有些國的干涉主義，把市場法則破壞到驚人的程度，以致工商業者與其用心於滿足消費者的需要，不如收買官吏的援助更有利。但是，這種情形卻不是上述的對別人的財富加以指摘的人們所想到的。他們認爲，在純粹市場社會裡用以取得財富的那些方法，從倫理的觀點看，是應該反對的。

Against such statements it is necessary to emphasize that, so far as the operation of the market is not sabotaged by the interference of governments and other factors of coercion, success in business is the proof of services rendered to the consumers. The poor man need not be inferior to the prosperous businessman in other regards; he may sometimes be outstanding in scientific, literary, and artistic achievements or in civic leadership. But in the social system of production he is inferior. The creative genius may be right in his disdain for commercial success; it may be true that he would have been prosperous in business if he had not preferred other things. But the clerks and workers who boast of their moral superiority deceive themselves and find consolation in this self-deception. They do not admit that they have been tried and found wanting by their fellow citizens, the consumers.

爲駁斥這些說法，我們必須強調：如果市場運作沒有受到政府和其他強制因素的妨害，工商業的成功是對消費者服務的證明。窮人在其他方面，不必在富有的商人之前感到自卑；他有時會在科學、文學、藝術，或政治方面有卓越的成就。但在社會的生產體系中，他不如人。有天才的人瞧不起商業的成功，也許是對的；因爲如果他不選擇其他的事情來作，他在商業方面一定有成就。至於那些自吹自己有道德的店員和工人們，則是自欺以自慰。他們不承認他們曾經被國人——消費者——考驗過而發現他們不行。

It is often asserted that the poor man's failure in the competition of the market is caused by his lack of education. Equality of opportunity, it is said, could be provided only by making education at every level accessible to all. There prevails today the tendency to reduce all differences among various peoples to their education and to deny the existence of inborn inequalities in intellect, will power, and character. It is not generally realized that education can never be more than indoctrination with theories and ideas already developed. Education, whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces imitation and routine, not improvement and progress. Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them.

我們也常常聽到這種說法：在市場競爭中，窮人的失敗是由於缺乏敎育。他們說，只有所有的人都可受到各級敎育，才可做到機會平等。今天有一個趨勢，即把人與人之間的一切差異都歸之於他們的敎育，而否認天生的才智、意志力，和性格的不相等。敎育不過是灌輸已有的學說或觀念，這一點未被普遍認識。敎育，不管它有何好處，它總是傳遞傳統的敎條和價値觀念；它必然是保守的。它所造就的是模仿、而不是進歩。天才的創新者不是學校裡面培養出來的。學校敎給他們的那一套，正是他們所蔑視、所反抗的。

In order to succeed in business a man does not need a degree from a school of business administration. These schools train the subalterns for routine jobs. They certainly do not train entrepreneurs. An entrepreneur cannot be trained. A man becomes an entrepreneur in seizing an opportunity and filling the gap. No special education is required for such a display of keen judgment, foresight, and energy. The most successful businessmen were often uneducated when measured by the scholastic standards of the teaching profession. But they were equal

一個人爲要在工商界有成就，不必要在工商管理學院得到學位。這些學院只訓練例行工作的低級人員，決訓練不出企業家。一個企業家不是訓練出來的。一個人之成爲企業家，在於把握時機、塡補空隙。這需要敏銳的判斷力、遠見、和氣魄。這些都不是什麼特種敎育可以造就的。工商界最成功的人們，如果以學術敎育水準來衡量，常常是低級的。但是，他們能勝任他們的社會功能——調整生產以適應最迫切的需求。就因爲這個優點，消費者選他們成爲工商界領袖。

12. The Individual and the Market

十二、個人與市場

It is customary to speak metaphorically of the automatic and anonymous forces actuating the "mechanism" of the market. In employing such metaphors people are ready to disregard the fact that the only factors directing the market and the determination of prices are purposive acts of men. There is no automatism; there are only men consciously and deliberately aiming at ends chosen. There are no mysterious mechanical forces; there is only the human will to remove uneasiness. There is no anonymity; there is I and you and Bill and Joe and all the rest. And each of us is both a producer and a consumer.

我們說，一些自動的、無名的力量，發動市場「機構」，這是習慣上的比喩說法。我們用這樣的比喩，是準備不觸及這個事實，即：指揮市場並且決定價格的，只是人們的一些有意的行爲。市場裡面沒有什麼自動：只有有意追求其所選擇的目的的人們。沒有什麼神秘的機械力量；只有人的意志——消除不適之感的意志。沒有什麼無名氏；有的是我，是你，是張三、李四，和所有的他人。我們每一個人旣是生產者，也是消費者。

The market is a social body; it is the foremost social body. The market phenomena are social phenomena. They are the resultant of each individual's active contribution. But they are different from each such contribution. They appear to the individual as something given which he himself cannot alter. He does not always see that he himself is a part, although a small part, of the complex of elements determining each momentary state of the market. Because he fails to realize this fact, he feels himself free, in criticizing the market phenomena, to condemn with regard to his fellow men a mode of conduct which he considers as quite right with regard to himself. He blames the market for its callousness and disregard of persons and asks for social control of the market in order to "humanize" it. He asks on the one hand for measures to protect the consumer against the producers. But on the other hand he insists even more passionately upon the necessity of protecting himself as a producer against the consumers. The outcome of these contradictory demands is the modern methods of government interference whose most outstanding examples were the Sozialpolitik of imperial Germany and the American New Deal.

市場是一個社會體，是一個最主要的社會體。市場現象是些社會現象。它們是每個人的行動所貢獻的總結果。但是，它們又不同於個別的貢獻。它們對於個人，好像是不能改變的旣定的事情。他總看不出他自己也是決定市場現象的那些複雜因素的一部份，儘管是很小很小的一部份。因爲他看不淸這個事實，他在批評市場現象的時候，每每指責個人，而認爲自己是對的，其實，別人的和他自己的行爲模式是一樣的。他罵市場冷酷，不講人道，因而要求政府控制市場，使市場「人道化」。一方面他要求設法保護消費者，以對抗生產者。但在另一方面，他甚至更堅決地要求保護他自己這樣的生產者，以對抗消費者。由於這些互相衝突的要求，就產生了許多政府干涉的現代方法，其中，最突出的例子就是德意志帝國的「社會政策」（Sozialpolitik）和美國的新政（New Deal）。

It is an old fallacy that it is a legitimate task of civil government to protect the less efficient producer against the competition of the more efficient. One asks for a "producers' policy: as distinct from a "consumers' policy." While flamboyantly repeating the truism that the only aim of production is to provide ample supplies for consumption, people emphasize with no less eloquence that the "industrious" producer should be protected against the "idle" consumer.

明智的政府應該保護效率較差的生產者，以對抗效率高的競爭者。這是一個古老的謬見。這是要求一個不同於「消費者的」政策的「生產者的」政策。生產的唯一目的，是在爲消費者提供充裕的供給，這是自明之理，有些人一方面一再地宣揚這個自明之理，同時也同樣強調「勤勉的」生產者應該得到保護，以對抗「閒散的」消費者。

However, producers and consumers are identical. Production and

但是，生產者與消費者是同一個人。生產與消費是行爲的兩個不同階段。交換學爲表現這兩個行爲階段之不同而有「生產者」與「消費者」的說法。但在事實上他們是同一個人。當然，保護效率較差的生產者以對抗效率高者的競爭，這是可能的，這樣的做法，是把自由市場給那些善於滿足消費者慾望的生產者的利益拿來給這些被保護者。這一定要損害消費者的滿足。如果被保護者只有一個生產者或一小羣生產者，則受益者所享受的利益是來自其餘的人之受損。但是，如果所有的生產者享有同樣程度的特權，則每個人以其生產者的身份所受的利益，將等於他以消費者的身份所受的損失。而且，所有的人都被傷害，因爲最有效率的人如果不能把他們的技能用在最能服務於消費者的途徑，則物產的供給勢必減少。

If a consumer believes that it is expedient or right to pay a higher price for domestic cereals than for cereals imported from abroad, or for manufactures processed in plants operated by small business or employing unionized workers than for those of another provenance, he is free to do so. He would only have to satisfy himself that the commodity offered for sale meets the conditions upon which he makes the allowance of a higher price depend. Laws which forbid counterfeiting of labels of origin and trademarks would succeed in attaining the ends aimed at by tariffs, labor legislation, and privileges granted to small business. But it is beyond doubt that the consumers are not prepared to act in this way. The fact that a commodity is marked as imported does not impair its salability if it is better or cheaper, or both. As a rule the buyers want to buy as cheaply as possible without regard for the origin of the article or some particular characteristics of the producers.

如果一個消費者認爲，以高於外國農產品的價格來購買本國的農產品是對的，或者認爲，以高於其他來源的產品的價格來購買小廠所生產的產品，或購買那些僱用工會工人的工廠所生產的產品是對的，這是他的個人自由，他可以自由地這樣作。他只要使他自己覺得：那出賣的貨物滿足了他願出較高價格的那些條件。禁止冒牌偽造的那些法律，可以用關稅、勞工立法、以及特惠小規模的工商業等辦法來達到目的。但是，消費者不願意這樣作，則是無疑的。一種貨物標明它是外來的，這並不妨害它的銷路，如果它比本國的更好或更便宜，或者旣好且便宜。購買者總是想盡可能買最便宜的，而不管貨物的來源或生產者的某些特徵。

The psychological root of the producers' policy as practiced today in all parts of the world is to be seen in spurious economic doctrines. These doctrines flatly deny that the privileges granted to less efficient producers burden the consumer. Their advocates contend that such measures are prejudicial only to those against whom they discriminate. When, pressed further, they are forced to admit that the consumers are damaged took they maintain that the losses of the consumers are more than compensated by an increase in their money income which the measures in question are bound to bring about.

現在世界的大部份所實行的那種「生產者的政策」，其心理的病根見之於一些偽造的經濟理論。這些理論直截了當地否認，給予效率差的生產者的特權會增加消費者的負擔。這些理論的主張者認爲，那樣的一些措施只是對於它們所正要歧視的那些人不利。如果我們再進逼一步，他們就不得不承認消費者也會受害，可是，他們又說消費者的損失會因爲他們的貨幣所得之增加而得到補償而有餘，他們貨幣所得之所以增加是因爲那些措施而引起的。

Thus in the predominantly industrial countries of Europe the protectionists were first eager to declare that the tariff on agricultural products hurts exclusively the interests of the farmers of the predominantly

因此，歐洲那些工業國的保護主義者，首先急於宣稱對農產品所課的關稅，只是傷害農業國的農民的，和穀物商人的利益。輸出國的這兩種人的利益之受損害，是確實的。但是，採取保護關稅的國，其消費者之受損害也是同樣確實的。因爲，他們必須以較高的價格來買糧食。保護主義者又強辯：這不是一種負擔：因爲本國消費者所多付的價錢增加了農民的收入和他們的購買力；農民將花費這全部的增加額來購買更多的非農業部門所生產的貨物。這種謬論與一個有名的傳說是一樣的荒唐。傳說：一個旅行者住進客棧，要求客棧老闆送他十塊錢。這不會叫這位老闆吃虧，因爲這個乞求者要把這十塊錢全部花在他的客棧裡面。但是，保護主義的謬論儘管是如此明顯，仍能得到輿論的支持。這是因爲，許許多多的人簡直不懂得保護的唯一後果是生產資源的錯誤配置。從效率高的生產轉變到效率低的生產。這是使大家更窮，而不是更富。

The ultimate foundation of modern protectionism and of the striving for economic autarky of each country is to be found in this mistaken belief that they are the best means to make every citizen, or at least the immense majority of them, richer. The term riches means in this connection an increase in the individual's real income and an improvement in his standard of living. It is true that the policy of national economic insulation is a necessary corollary of the endeavors to interfere with domestic business, and that it is an outcome of warlike tendencies as well as one of the factors producing these tendencies. But the fact remains that it would never have been possible to sell the idea of protection to the voters if one had not been able to convince them that protection not only does not impair their standard of living but raises it considerably.

現代的保護主義和各國追求自給自足的經濟主權，其最後的基礎在於這個錯誤的信念。即誤信這是使每個國民，或至少是使絕大多數人更富的最好手段。「更富」這個詞，用在這裡是指個人的實質所得的增加和生活標準改善。誠然，對外經濟隔離政策是國內經濟干涉所招致的必然後果，它是引起好戰傾向的因素之一，也是好戰傾向所會帶來的結果。但是，事實仍然是這樣：如果你不能叫人民相信，保護不僅是不損害他們的生活標準而且會把它大大提高，則保護主義是不會被接受的。

It is important to emphasize this fact because it utterly explodes a myth propagated by many popular books. According to these myths, contemporary man is no longer motivated by the desire to improve his material well-being and to raise his standard of living. The assertions of the economists to the contrary are mistaken. Modern man gives priority to "noneconomic" or "irrational" things and is ready to forego material betterment whenever its attainment stands in the way of those "ideal" concerns. It is a serious blunder, common mostly with economists and businessmen, to interpret the events of our time from an "economic" point of view and to criticize current

強調這個事實，是很重要的。因爲這可徹底戳穿許多有名的著作所宣傳的一個神話。照這些神話所說，現代的人再也不被改善物質幸福和提高生活標準的慾望所激動。經濟學家相反的說法是錯誤的。現代人的優先選擇是「非經濟的」或「不合理的」東西，一旦到了物質生活的改善會妨害那些「理想的」事情，他就願意放棄前者。經濟學家和工商界人士每每從「經濟的」觀念來解釋我們這個時代的事情，這是一個嚴重的大錯。人們所嚮往的是好生活以外的事情。

It is hardly possible to misconstrue the history of our age more crassly. Our contemporaries are driven by a fanatical zeal to get more amenities and by an unrestrained appetite to enjoy life. A characteristic social phenomenon of our day is the pressure group, an alliance of people eager to promote their own material well-being by the employment of all means, legal or illegal, peaceful or violent. For the pressure group nothing matters but the increase of its members' real income. It is not concerned with any other aspects of life. It does not bother whether or not the realization of its program hurts the vital interests of other men, of their own nation or country, and of the whole of mankind. But, of course, every pressure group is anxious to justify its demands as beneficial to the general public welfare and to stigmatize its critics as abject scoundrels, idiots, and traitors. In the pursuit of its plans it displays a quasi-religious ardor.

對於我們這個時代的歷史，誤解得比這更愚蠢的，恐怕是不會有的。我們這個時代的人狂熱地追求生活的享受。我們今天的社會現象，以壓力團體的活動爲其特徵。壓力團體是一些追求物質福利的人之一結合，他們用各種方法，合法的或非法的，和平的或暴力的。就壓力團體而言，除了爲它的會員增加實質所得以外，沒有什麼事情是要緊的。它不關心生活的其他方面。至於它的計畫之達成是否會傷害到別人、傷害到他們自己的國邦，以及傷害到全人類，它一概不管。但是，每個壓力團體總要把它的要求說成對一般大衆的福利，而駡它的批評者爲無賴、白癡、和叛徒。在實行它的計畫時，它表現出類似宗敎的熱情。

Without exception all political parties promise their supporters a higher real income. There is no difference in this respect between nationalists and internationalists and between the supporters of a market economy and the advocates of either socialism or interventionism. If a party asks its supporters to make sacrifices for its cause, it always explains these sacrifices as the necessary temporary means for the attainment of the ultimate goal, the improvement of the material well-being of its members. Each party considers it as an insidious plot against its prestige and its survival if somebody ventures to question the capacity of its projects to make the group members more prosperous. Each party regards with a deadly hatred the economists embarking upon such a critique.

所有的政黨都對他們的支持者許諾較高的實質所得，這幾乎沒有例外。國家主義的政黨也好，國際主義的也好，維護市場經濟的也好，主張社會主義或干涉主義的也好，在這一點上面，彼此沒有區別。如果一個政黨要求它的支持者爲它的目的而作犧牲，它總是把這犧牲說成必要的、暫時的手段，而最後的目的是改善它的黨員們的物質福利。如果有人敢於懷疑它的方案所標榜的目標，這個人就被這個政黨當作破壞黨譽的陰謀者。凡是做這樣批評的經濟學家，每個政黨都痛恨。

All varieties of the producers' policy are advocated on the ground of their alleged ability to raise the party members' standard of living. Protectionism and economic self-sufficiency, labor union pressure and compulsion, labor legislation, minimum wage rates, public spending, credit expansion, subsidies, and other makeshifts are always recommended by their advocates as the most suitable or the only means to increase the real income of the people for whose votes they canvass. Every contemporary statesman or politician invariably tells his voters: My program will make you as affluent as conditions may permit, while my adversaries' program will bring you want and misery.

各形各色的「生產者的」政策之被鼓吹，都是基於所謂能夠提高黨員們的生活標準。保護主義和經濟自足、工會的壓迫與強制、勞工立法、最低工資率、公共支出、信用擴張、補貼，以及其他的手段，都是被它們的主張者用來作爲增加他們所遊說的人們的實質所得的最適當或唯一的辦法。每一個現代的政治家或政客，總是向他的選民說：我的方案將會使你盡可能地富裕和安逸，我的反對者所提出的方案將爲你帶來貧困和苦難。

It is true that some secluded intellectuals in their esoteric circles talk differently. They proclaim the priority of what they call eternal absolute values and feign in their declamations--not in their personal conduct--a disdain of things secular and transitory. But the public

誠然，有些隱士們在他們的圈子裡說不同的話。他們宣揚他們所謂的永恒的、絕對的價値，而在口頭上——非在行爲上——鄙棄世俗的、暫時的事物。但是，他們的這種說法，大衆是不會理睬的。今天，政治行動的主要目的，是在爲各自壓力團體的份子謀取物質的福利。一個領袖得以成功的唯一方法，是要叫人們相信，他的方案最能達成這個目的。

What is wrong with the producers' policies is their faulty economics.

「生產者的」政策之所以錯誤，是由於它所憑藉的經濟理論是錯誤的。

If one is prepared to indulge in the fashionable tendency to explain human things by resorting to the terminology of psychopathology, one might be tempted to say that modern man in contrasting a producers' policy with a consumers' policy has fallen victim to a kind of schizophrenia. He fails to realize that he is an undivided and indivisible person, i.e., an individual, and as such no less a consumer than a producer. The unity of his consciousness is split into two parts; his mind is inwardly divided against himself. But it matters little whether or not we adopt this mode of describing the fact that the economic doctrine resulting in these policies is faulty. We are not concerned with the pathological source from which an error may stem, but with the error as such and with its logical roots. The unmasking of the error by means of ratiocination is the primary fact. If a statement were not exposed as logically erroneous, psychopathology would not be in a position to qualify the state of mind from which it stems as pathological. If a man imagines himself to be the king of Siam, the first thing which the psychiatrist has to establish is whether or not he really is what he believes himself to be. Only if this question is answered in the negative can the man be considered insane.

如果有人樂於追隨時髦的趨勢，用精神病理學的術語來解釋人的行爲，那麼他就可以說，現代人在把「生產者的政策」與「消費者的政策」對稱的時候，那是害了一種癡呆症。他不知道：他是一個未分割而且不可分割的一整個的人，其爲一個消費者並不少於其爲一個生產者。他的意識單元被分成兩部份：他的心靈在反抗他自己。但是，我們是否用這個方式來描述「這種政策所依據的經濟理論是錯誤的」這個事實，這倒沒有什麼關係。我們並不關心一個錯誤所因以發生的精神狀態，而關心錯誤的本身和它的邏輯基礎。用推理的方法來揭發錯誤，是主要的事情。如果一個陳述並不顯出邏輯的錯誤，精神病理學就不能把這個陳述所從出的心理狀態看作是病態的。如果一個人想像他自己是泰國的國王，精神病的醫生必須首先確定，這個人是否眞的是他自己所相信的那樣。只有這個問題的答案是否定的時候，這個人才可被視爲瘋狂的人。

It is true that most of our contemporaries are committed to a fallacious interpretation of the producer-consumer nexus. In buying they behave as if they were connected with the market only as buyers, and vice versa in selling. As buyers they advocate stern measures to protect them against the sellers, and as sellers they advocate no less harsh measures against the buyers. But this antisocial conduct which shakes the very foundations of social cooperation is not an outgrowth of a pathological state of mind. It is the outcome of a narrow-mindedness which fails to conceive the operation of the market economy and to anticipate the ultimate effects of one's own actions.

我們這個時代的人，大都誤解了生產者－消費者的關係。在購買的時候，他們好像只是以買者的行爲與市場發生關係，在出賣的時候，他們好像只是以賣者的行爲與市場發生關係。作爲買者的時候，他們主張用嚴厲的辦法保護他們以對抗賣者，作爲賣者的時候，又作相反的主張。但是，這種動搖社會合作之基礎的反社會行爲，並不是由於心理病態，而是由於窄心眼不能了解市場經濟的運作，不能預知自己的行爲所引起的最後效果。

It is permissible to contend that the immense majority of our contemporaries are mentally and intellectually not adjusted to life in the market society although they themselves and their fathers have unwittingly created this society by their actions. But this maladjustment consists in nothing else than in the failure to recognize erroneous doctrines as such.

我們也可以這樣講：現代的絕大多數人，在心靈上和知識上，都沒有調整到適於市場社會的生活，儘管他們自己和他們的祖先，不知不覺地以他們的行爲造就了這樣的社會。但是，這種失調不在於別的，而在於沒有認淸錯誤理論之爲錯誤。

13. Business Propaganda

十三、商業宣傳

The consumer is not omniscient. He does not know where he can obtain at the cheapest price what he is looking for. Very often he does not even know what kind of commodity or service is suitable to remove most efficaciously the particular uneasiness he wants to remove. At best he is familiar with the market conditions of the immediate past and arranges his plans on the basis of this information. To convey to him information about the actual state of the market is the task of business propaganda.

消費者不是無所不知的。他不知道在什麼地方他可付最低的價格買到他所想要的東西。他甚至於常常不知道，怎麼樣的財貨或勞務最有效地解除他所想解除的那種不適之感。他至多只熟習那些剛剛過去的市場情況，而以這點知識作基礎來安排他的計畫。向他提供關於市場實際情形之信息的，是商業宣傳的任務。

Business propaganda must be obtrusive and blatant. It is its aim to attract the attention of slow people, to rouse latent wishes, to entice men to substitute innovation for inert clinging to traditional routine. In order to succeed, advertising must be adjusted to the mentality of the people courted. It must suit their tastes and speak their idiom. Advertising is shrill, noisy, coarse, puffing, because the public does not react to dignified allusions. It is the bad taste of the public that forces the advertisers to display bad taste in their publicity campaigns. The art of advertising has evolved into a branch of applied psychology, a sister discipline of pedagogy.

商業宣傳必然是吵吵鬧鬧的。它的目的是在引起遲鈍的人注意，是在激發潜在的慾望，是在慫恿人們捨舊從新。爲著達到目的，廣吿一定要適應它所要引發的那些人的心情而調整。它必須投合他們的胃口，使用他們的特殊語言。廣吿是喧擾的、刺耳的、粗俗的、誇張的，因爲一般大衆對於高尙而含蓄的東西是不會有反應的。使得廣吿流於低級趣味的，是大衆的低級趣味。廣吿術已發展到成爲應用心理學的一個部門，成爲敎育學的一門姊妹學科。

Like all things designed to suit the taste of the masses, advertising is repellent to people of delicate feeling. This abhorrence influences the appraisal of business propaganda. Advertising and all other methods of business propaganda are condemned as one of the most outrageous outgrowths of unlimited competition. It should be forbidden. The consumers should be instructed by impartial experts; the public schools, the "nonpartisan" press, and cooperatives should perform this task.

凡是投合一般大衆趣味的東西，具有優雅情操的人總是討厭的，廣吿當然也如此。這種厭惡，影響到商業宣傳的評價。廣吿和其他商業宣傳的方法，被駡爲自由競爭的最荒唐的後果之一。它必須被禁止。消費者應該由公正的專家指導；公立的學校，無偏見的報紙，以及合作社，應該做這種工作。

The restriction of the right of businessmen to advertise their products would restrict the freedom of the consumers to spend their income according to their own wants and desires. It would make it impossible for them to learn as much as they can and want about the state of the market and the conditions which they may consider as relevant in choosing what to buy and what not to buy. They would no longer be in a position to decide on the basis of the opinion which they themselves have formed about the seller's appraisal of his products; they would be forced to act on the recommendation of other people. It is not unlikely that these mentors would save them some mistakes. But the individual consumers would be under the tutelage of guardians. If advertising is not restricted, the consumers are by and large in the position of a jury which learns about the case by hearing the witnesses and examining directly all other means of

對商人作廣吿的權利加以限制，也即對消費者按照他自己的意願而花錢的自由加以限制。這使消費者不可能儘量知道，他所想知道的關於他所想買或想不買的那些貨物的市場情況。他們再也不能憑他們自己的見解，來判斷出賣者對他的產品所作的宣傳；他們將不得不憑別人的推薦來決定購買。當然，指導的人也可能使他們免於錯誤。但是，這樣一來，消費者是在導師保護之下。如果廣吿未受限制，則消費者是處在陪審團的地位，一方面聽取見證人的證詞以了解案情，一方面直接審査所有其他的證據。如果廣吿受到限制，則他們所處的地位就不同了。如果還可說是陪審團的地位，這個陪審團只是聽取一個法官報吿他自己審査證據的結果。

It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against "high-pressure" advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would on the mode of advertising only. However, nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candlemakers hold the field against the electric bulb, the horsedrivers against the motorcars, the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen. But whoever admits this implies that the quality of the commodity advertised is instrumental in bringing about the success of an advertising campaign. Then there is no reason to maintain that advertising is a method of cheating the gullible public.

有人說，技巧的廣吿會說動每個人購買做廣吿的人希望他們購買的那些東西，這是個很普遍的謬見。照這個說法，消費者對於廣吿的「高壓」簡直是無防禦的。如果這話是眞的，那麼工商業的成敗完全決定於廣吿。但是，誰也不會相信有何廣吿會使蠟燭的製造者能夠抵制電燈泡，馬車夫能夠抵制汽車，鵝毛筆能夠抵制鋼筆和後來的自來水筆。凡是承認這種情形的人，也就是承認：使廣吿成功的終究是貨物本身的品質。旣然如此，我們就沒有理由說，廣吿是欺騙大衆的一個方法。

It is certainly possible for an advertiser to induce a man to try an article which he would not have bought if he had known its qualities beforehand. But as long as advertising is free to all competing firms, the article which is better from the point of view of the consumers' appetites will finally outstrip the less appropriate article, whatever methods of advertising may be applied. The tricks and artifices of advertising are available to the seller of the better product no less than to the seller of the poorer product. But only the former enjoys the advantage derived from the better quality of his product.

做廣吿的人引誘一個人試買一件貨物，如果這個人事先不知道這件貨物的品質，他是不會去買的【如果這個人事先知道這件貨物的品質，他是不會去買的】。這種情形確有可能。但是，只要所有的競爭商號都有做廣吿的自由，則從消費者的觀點看來，是較好的那種貨物，終歸要勝過較差的貨物，不管是用什麼方法做廣吿。至於劣質貨物的出賣者利用廣吿的詭計來騙人，優質貨物的出資者也同樣可以利用。但是，只有後者享受到來自優質產品的利益。

The effects of advertising of commodities are determined by the fact as a rule the buyer is in a position to form a correct opinion about the usefulness of an article bought. The housewife who has tried a particular brand of soap or canned food learns from experience whether it is good for her to buy and consume that product in the future too. Therefore advertising pays the advertiser only if the examination of the first sample bought does not result in the consumer's refusal to buy more of it. It is agreed among businessmen that it does not pay to advertise products other than good ones.

事實上，購買者對於所買的貨物之有用性，總會有正確的判斷，廣吿的一些效果決定於這個事實。曾經試過某個牌子的肥皀或罐頭食品的主婦，她就憑此經驗而知道，將來要不要再買這種肥皀或食品。所以做廣吿的人只有在這一種情形下才値得作，即第一次樣品的嘗試不致叫消費者拒絕再買，只有品質好的東西才值得作廣吿。這是工商界公認的事實。

Entirely different are conditions in those fields in which experience cannot teach us anything. The statements of religious, metaphysical, and political propaganda can be neither verified nor falsified by experience. With regard to the life beyond and the absolute, any experience is always the experience of complex phenomena which is open to different interpretations; the only yardstick which can be applied to political doctrines is aprioristic reasoning. Thus political

在經驗不能吿訴我們任何東西的地方，情形完全不一樣。宗敎的、形而上的、以及政治的宣傳，旣不能靠經驗來證賁，也不能靠經驗來證妄。關於來生和神的事情，是生活在這個世界的人們不能經驗的。政治方面的經驗總是些可引起不同解釋的複雜現象的經驗；可用以判斷政治敎條的唯一標準是先驗的推理。所以，政治宣傳與商業宣傳，根本是兩件不同的事情，儘管它們常常是同樣的方法。

There are many evils for which contemporary technology and therapeutics have no remedy. There are incurable diseases and there are irreparable personal defects. It is a sad fact that some people try to exploit their fellow men's plight by offering them patent medicines. Such quackeries do not make old people young and ugly girls pretty. They only raise hopes. It would not impair the operation of the market if the authorities were to prevent such advertising, the truth of which cannot be evidenced by the methods of the experimental natural sciences. But whoever is ready to grant to the government this power would be inconsistent if he objected to the demand to submit the statements of churches and sects to the same examination. Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop. If one assigns to the government the task of making truth prevail in the advertising of perfumes and tooth paste, one cannot contest it the right to look after truth in the more important matters of religion, philosophy, and social ideology.

我們有許多現代的醫藥還無法治療的疾病。可悲的是，有些江湖郞中利用病人的困境兜售他們的萬靈藥。這樣的江湖郞中當然不能叫人返老還童，也不能把醜人變美。他們只給人一些希望。如果政府要禁止這一類的廣告——它所宣傳的「事實」是不能用自然科學的實驗法證明的——對於市場的運作倒也無害。但是，如果你準備給政府這個權力，而你又反對政府同樣地來審查宗敎的宣傳，那你就是不一致。自由是不可分割的。當你一開始限制它的時候，你就走上了下坡路而難於停止了。如果你指派政府證明香水牙膏的廣吿是忠實的，你就不能反對它干預一些更重要的宗敎的、哲學的、和社會意理的事情。

The idea that business propaganda can force the consumers to submit to the will of the advertisers is spurious. Advertising can never succeed in supplanting better or cheaper goods by poorer goods.

商業宣傳會強迫消費者順從做廣吿的人的意思，這個想法是不對的。廣吿決不會搶去質美或價廉的貨物的銷路。

The costs incurred by advertising are, from the point of view of the advertiser, a part of the total bill of production costs. A businessman expends money for advertising if and as far as he expects that the increase in sales resulting will increase the total net proceeds. In this regard there is no difference between the costs of advertising and all other costs of production. An attempt has been made to distinguish between production costs and sales costs. An increase in production costs, it has been said, increases supply, while an increase in sales costs (advertising costs included) increases demand[27]. This is a mistake. All costs of production are expended with the intention of increasing demand. If the manufacturer of candy employs a better raw material, he aims at an increase in demand in the same way as he does in making the wrappings more attractive and his stores more inviting and in spending more for advertisements. In increasing production costs per unit of the product the idea is always to increase demand. If a businessman wants to increase supply, he must increase the total cost of production, which often results in lowering production costs per unit.

從做廣吿的人的觀點來看，廣吿費是生產成本總帳中的一部份。商人如果認爲花費做廣吿可以增加他的淨收入，他才做廣吿。在這一點上，廣吿費和其他的生產成本沒有什麼不同。有人曾把生產成本和銷售成本加以區分。據他們說，生產成本的增加，將增加供給，銷售成本（廣告费包括在内）的增加，將增加需求[24]。這是錯誤的。所有的生產成本都是爲增加需求而花的。如果罐頭食品的生產者用了更好的原料，這和他在包裝方面、店鋪方面更美化更吸引人一樣，在廣吿方面花更多的錢，同樣爲的是增加供給。增加毎個單位產品的生產成本，總是爲的增加供給。一個商人如果想要增加供給，他就必須增加總成本，總成本增加了，單位成本常常減少。

--------------------

[27] Cf. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), pp. 123 ff.

[24] 參考Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), pp. 123 ff.

14. The "Volkswirtschaft"

十四、國民經濟

The market economy as such does not respect political frontiers. Its field is the world.

市場經濟之爲市場經濟是不管政治疆界的；它的領域是世界。

The term Volkswirtschaft was long applied by the German champions of government omnipotence. Only much later did the British and the French begin to speak of the "British economy" and "l'economie francaise" as distinct from the economies of other nations. But neither the English nor the French language produced an equivalent of the term Volkswirtschaft. With the modern trend toward national planning and national autarky, the doctrine involved in this German word became popular everywhere. Nonetheless, only the German language is able to express in one word all the ideas implied.

國民經濟（Volkswirtschaft）這個詞早已被德國的國家萬能說的倡導者使用。到很久的後來，英國人和法國人才開始說「英國經濟」和「法國經濟」以示別於他國經濟。但是，英國的文字和法國的文字都沒有等於德文Volkswirtschaft這個詞的單字。隨著國家計畫和國家自足的現代趨勢，蘊含在這個德國字的主義到處流行。但是，只有德國文字才能用一個單字表達它的一切涵意。

The Volkswirtschaft is a sovereign nation's total complex of economic activities directed and controlled by the government. It is socialism realized within the political frontiers of each nation. In employing this term people are fully aware of the fact that real conditions differ from the state of affairs which they deem the only adequate and desirable state. But they fudge everything that happens in the market economy from the point of view of their ideal. They assume that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the Volkswirtschaft and those of the selfish individuals eager to seek profit. They do not hesitate to assign priority to the interests of the Volkswirtschaft over those of the individuals. The righteous citizen should always place the volkswirtscaftliche interests above his own selfish interests. He should act of his own accord as if he were an officer of the government executing its orders. Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (the welfare of the nation takes precedence over the selfishness of the individuals) was the fundamental principle of Nazi economic management. But as people are too dull and too vicious to comply with this rule, it is the task of government to enforce it. The German princes of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, foremost among them the Hohenzollern Electors of Brandenburg and Kings of Prussia, were fully equal to this task. In the nineteenth century, even in Germany the liberal ideologies imported from the West superseded the well-tried and natural policies of nationalism and socialism. However, Bismarck's and his successors' Sozialpolitik and finally Nazism restored them.

國民經濟是由政府統制的一個主權國的一切經濟活動的總體。它是在國的政治領域內實現的社會主義。使用這個名詞的人們，充份知道那些實際情形與他們所認、爲唯一適當的可貴的情形不一樣。但是，他們是從他們的理想的觀點來判斷市場經濟所發生的每一件事情。他們以爲，國民經濟的利益與自私的追求利潤的個人的經濟利益之間，有一不可調協的衝突。他們毫不猶疑地認定，國民經濟利益比個人的經濟利益優先。公正的公民應當把國民經濟利益放在他自己個人利益之上。他應該自願地把自己看作執行政府命令的一個官吏而行爲。納粹（Nazi）經濟統制的基本原則就是，國的福利先於個人的自私。但是，當人民「太愚鈍」、「太邪惡丄以致不遵守這個原則的時候，政府就要強迫他們遵守。十七世紀和十八世紀的德爾曼的君主們，尤其是Brandenburg的Hohenzollern諸侯們和普魯士王，充份勝任這個工作。到了十九世紀，從西方輸入的自由思想，甚至在德國也壓倒了久經試驗的國家主義和社會主義的政策。可是俾斯麥（Bismarck）和他的後繼者的社會政策（Sozialpolitik）和最後的納粹主義又把它們恢復了。

The interests of a Volkswirtschaft are seen as implacably opposed not only to those of the individuals, but no less to those of the Volkswirtschaft of any foreign nation. The most desirable state of a Volkswirtschaft is complete economic self-sufficiency. A nation

國民經濟不僅被看作與個人的經濟利益衝突，而且也同樣地與別國的國民經濟利益勢不相容。最理想的國民經濟是完全的經濟自足。一個有任何國外輸入的國就是缺乏經濟獨立，它的主權只是假的。所以一個國如果不能生產本國所需要的東西，那就必須對外征服可以滿足這些需要的領土。要眞正成爲主權的獨立的國，它就必須有極龐大的領土和極豐富的資源足以使它在自給自足的情況下過著不低於任何別國的生活水準。

Thus the idea of the Volkswirtschaft is the most radical denial of all the principles of the market economy. It was this idea that guided, more or less, the economic policies of all nations in the last decades. It was the pursuit of this idea that brought about the terrific wars of our century and may kindle still more pernicious wars in the future.

所以，國民經濟這個觀念是對市場經濟的一切法則作極激烈的否認。過去幾十年所有的國的經濟政策或多或少是被這觀念指導。引起這個世紀兩次世界大戰，以及會燃起未來戰火的，是這個觀念的見諸實行。

From the early beginnings of human history the two opposite principles of the market economy and of the Volkswirtschaft fought each other. Government, i.e, a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, is a necessary requisite of peaceful cooperation. The market economy cannot do without a police power safeguarding its smooth functioning by the threat or the application of violence against peace-breakers. But the indispensable administrators and their armed satellites are always tempted to use their arms for the establishment of their own totalitarian rule. For ambitious kings and generalissimos the very existence of a sphere of the individuals' lives not subject to regimentation is a challenge. Princes, governors, and generals are never spontaneously liberal. They become liberal only when forced to by the citizens.

從人類史的早期開始，巿場經濟和國民經濟這兩個相對的原則就互相戰鬥。政府，也即強制性的社會機構，是維持和平合作所必要的東西。巿場經濟不能不要警察的武力來對抗和平的破壞者，以保障它順利運作。但是，這些必要的行政官吏和他們武裝的部屬，總不免受權力的引誘而利用它來建立自己的極權統制。對於野心的國王和將軍來講，未納入團隊組織的個人生活圈的存在，對他們是一挑釁。國王、總督、將軍，決不會同時也是自由主義者。他們之成爲自由主義者，只有人民逼得他們不得不如此的時候。

The problems raised by the plans of the socialists and the interventionists will be dealt with in later parts of this book. Here we have only to answer the question of whether or not any of the essential features of the Volkswirtschaft are compatible with the market economy. For the champions of the idea of the Volkswirtschaft do not consider their scheme merely as a pattern for the establishment of a future social order. They declare emphatically that even under the system of the market economy, which, of course, in their eyes is a debased and vicious product of policies contrary to human nature, the Volkswirtschaften. As they see it, what separates one Volkswirtschaft from all the others is not, as the economists would have us believe, merely political institutions. It is not the trade and migration barriers established by government interference with business and the differences in legislation and in the protection granted to the individuals by the courts and tribunals that bring about the distinction

社會主義和干涉主義的那些計畫，所引起的一些問題，將在本書以後的幾篇討論。這裡，我們只要解答一個問題，即：國民經濟的任何基本特徵，可否與市場經濟相容。國民經濟這個觀念的擁護者，不把他們的方案僅僅看作未來社會的建築藍圖。他們強調地宣稱，即令在市場經濟制度（市場經濟在他們的心目中自然是違反人性的那些政策的惡果）下，各國的國民經濟各成統合的單位，而彼此的利益是相互衝突無法調和的。把一個國民經濟與所有別的國民經濟隔離起來的，不是像經濟學家叫我們相信的，僅爲政治制度。使國內貿易與國外貿易發生差異的，不是由於政府對工商業的干涉和法院對個人的差別保護而建立的貿易障礙和移民阻礙。相反的，這種差異是許多事情的必然結果，是無法解決的一個因素；它不會被任何意理消除，而且也不管法律、行政官吏、和法官是不是注意到它，它一樣地發生它的結果。國民經濟是一個自然存在的事實，至於包容全球人類社會的世界經濟，只是一個邪說的妄想，爲毀滅文明而設計的一個計畫。

The truth is that individuals in their acting, in their capacity as producers and consumers, as sellers and buyers, do not make any distinction as between the domestic market and the foreign market. They make a distinction as between local trade and trading with more distant places as far as the costs of transportation play a role. If government interference, such as tariffs, renders international transactions more expensive, they take this fact into account in the same way in which they pay regard to shipping costs. A tariff on caviar has no effect other than would a rise in the cost of transportation. A rigid prohibition of the importation of caviar produces a state of affairs no different from that which would prevail if caviar could not stand shipping without an essential deterioration in its quality.

事實是這樣：個人們在他們的行爲中，在他們作爲生產者和消費者，作爲賣者和買者的時候，並不使國內市場與國外市場有何差別。本地貿易與距離較遠的貿易是有差別的，這是因爲交通運輸的成本關係。如果政府干涉，比方說用關稅吧，使國際交易的費用加重，他們對於這個事實的考慮，和對於運輸成本的考慮是一樣的。對魚子醬課關稅的後果，只是交易成本的增加。如果嚴格禁止魚子醬進口，其後果也無異於魚子醬經不起運輸，因其品質易於腐壞。

There has never been in the history of the West such a thing as regional or national autarky. There was, as we may admit, a period in which the division of labor did not go beyond the members of a family household. There was autarky of families and tribes which did not practice interpersonal exchange. But as soon as interpersonal exchange emerged, it crossed the boundaries of the political communities. Barter between the inhabitants of regions more remote from one another, between the members of various tribes, villages, and political communities preceded the practice of barter between neighbors. What people wanted first to acquire by barter and trade were things they could not produce themselves out of their own resources. Salt, other minerals and metals the deposits of which are unequally distributed over the earth's surface, cereals which one could not grow on the domestic soil, and artifacts which only the inhabitants of some regions were able to manufacture, were the first objects of trade. Trade started as foreign trade. Only later did domestic exchange develop between neighbors. The first holes that opened the closed household economy to interpersonal exchange were made by the products of distant regions. No consumer cared on his own account whether the salt and the metals he bought were of "domestic" or of "foreign" provenance. If it had been otherwise, the governments

在西方的歷史上，從來沒有區域自足或國家自足這麼樣的東西。我們可以承認，那裡曾有一個時期，分工的範圍沒有超過一個家族，這是人與人之間沒有交換的家家自足和部落自足。但是，一到人與人之間有了交換的時候，交換就超越了政治社會的疆界。距離較遠的區域之間的物物交換，不同的部落、村莊，和政治社會之間的物物交換，領先了近鄰的物物交換。人們最想交換到的東西，是他們用自己的資源所不能生產出來的東西。地球上的儲藏量分佈得不均勻的食鹽、其他的礦物和金屬品、國內的土壤所不能成長的穀物，以及只有某些地區的居民才會製造的產品，是貿易的第一目標。貿易一開始就是對外貿易。國內貿易發展到近鄰之間只是後來的事情。給封閉的經濟打開第一個洞口而有人際交換的，是遠距離區域的產品。消費者，爲自己的利益打算，誰也不關心他所買到的食鹽和金屬品是國內生產的還是外國供給的。如果事情不是如此的話，則政府就沒有任何理由要用關稅和其他的方法來限制對外貿易了。

But even if a government succeeds in making the barriers separating its domestic market from foreign markets insurmountable and thus establishes perfect national autarky, it does not create a Volkswirtschaft. A market economy which is perfectly autarkic remains for all that a market economy; it forms a closed and isolated catallactic system. The fact that its citizens miss the advantages which they could derive from the international division of labor is simply a datum of their economic conditions. Only if such an isolated country goes outright socialist, does it convert its market economy into a Volkswirtschaft.

但是，即令一個政府能夠使一些隔離國內外市場的障礙成爲不可克服的障礙，因而建立完全的一國自足，它也沒有創立一個國民經濟。不管怎樣講，一個完全自足的市場經濟仍然是個市場經濟；它形成一個封閉的孤立的交換制度。至於它的公民得不到國際分工所發生的利益這件事，僅是他們的一些經濟條件的一個旣定事實。只有這樣的一個孤立的國，徹底走上社會主義的時候，它才會把它的市場經濟變爲一個國民經濟。

Fascinated by the propaganda of Neo-Mercantilism, people apply idioms which are in contrast to the principles they take as guides in their acting and to all the characteristics of the social order in which they are living. Long ago the British began to call plants and farms located in Great Britain, and even those located in the Dominions, in the East Indies, and in the colonies, "ours." But if a man did not just want to make a show of his patriotic zeal and to impress other people, he was not prepared to pay a higher price for the products of his "own" plants than for those of the "foreign" plants. Even if he had behaved in this way, the designation of the plants located within the political boundaries of his nation as "ours" would not be adequate. In what sense could a Londoner, before the nationalization, call coalmines located in England which he did not own "our" mines and those of the Ruhr "foreign" mines? Whether he bought "British" coal or "German" coal, he always had to pay the full market price. It is not "america" that buys champagne from "France." It is always an individual American who buys it from an individual Frenchman.

被新重商主義（Neo-Mercantilism）的宣傳迷住了的人們，每每使用一些與他們視爲生活的指導原則相反的，以及與他們生活的社會秩序的一切特徵相反的語言。在好久以前，不列顚人已開始把所有設在大不列顚的工廠、農場，乃至設在自治領、東印度，以及各殖民地的工廠、農場，統統叫做「我們的」。但是，如果一個人不是爲的把愛國熱情表現給別人看，他不會用較高的價錢來買他所說的「我們的」工廠的產品，而不以較低的價錢來買他所說的「外國的」產品。即令他這樣作，而把那些設在本國政治領域以內的工廠都叫做「我們的」，也是不適當的。一個倫敦人，在煤鑛業國有化以前，把那些不是他所有，但位置是在倫敦區的煤鑛叫做「我們的」煤鑛，而把那些在魯爾（Ruhr）的煤鑛叫做「外國的」煤鑛，這是什麼意思？他買「英國」煤也好，「德國」煤也好，他都要十足地支付市場價格。買香檳酒的，不是美國向法國買，而是一個一個的美國人，向一個一個的法國人買。

As far as there is still some room left for the actions of individuals, as far as there is private ownership and exchange of goods and services between individuals, there is no Volkswirtschaft. Only if full government control is substituted for the choices of individuals does the Volkswirtschaft emerge as a real entity.

只要個人的活動還有一些餘地，只要財產私有權和個人之間的財貨與勞務的貿易還存在，那就沒有國民經濟。只有全面的政府統制，替代了個人的選擇的時候，國民經濟才眞正出現。

XVI. PRICES

第16章 價格

1. The Pricing Process

一、定價的過程

In an occasional act of barter in which men who ordinarily do not resort to trading with other people exchange goods ordinarily not negotiated, the ratio of exchange is determined only within broad margins. Catallactics, the theory of exchange ratios and prices, cannot determine at what point within these margins the concrete ration will be established. All that it can assert with regard to such exchanges is that they can be effected only if each party values what he receives more highly than what he gives away.

在一個偶然的物物交換的行爲當中（這裡所説的偶然的物物交換，是指那些經常不【不經常或通常不】與別人交易的人，也偶爾來一次物物交換，在這種交換中，通常是不會怎樣叫價還價的），交換率是在一個很寬的界限以內決定的。至於事實上的交換率，究竟會決定在這個界限以內的那一點，交換學——交換率和價格理論——不能解答這個問題。它對於這種交換率所能講的，只是說只有在交換的雙方都覺得收進的比付出的較多的時候，交換率就決定了。

The recurrence of individual acts of exchange generates the market step by step with the evolution of the division of labor within a society based on private property. As it becomes a rule to produce for other people's consumption, the members of society must sell and buy. The multiplication of the acts of exchange and the increase in the number of people offering or asking for the same commodities narrow the margins between the valuations of the parties. Indirect exchange and its perfection through the use of money divide the transactions into two different parts: sale and purchase. What in the eyes of one party is a sale, is for the other party a purchase. The divisibility of money, unlimited for all practical purposes, makes it possible to determine the exchange ratios with nicety. The exchange ratios are now as a rule money prices. They are determined between extremely narrow margins: the valuations on the one hand of the marginal buyer and those of the marginal offerer who abstains from selling, and the valuations on the other hand of the marginal seller and those of the marginal potential buyer who abstains from buying.

個人的交換行爲繼續發生，於是在財產私有的社會裡面，一歩一歩地隨著分工的發展而產生了巿場。到了「爲別人的消費而生產」成爲常態的時候，社會份子就必須從事買賣了。交換行爲的增加和買賣相同貨物的人數增多，使得買賣雙方評價的界限縮小。由於貨幣可以無限分割，於是，交換率的決定可以定得很精密。它們定在極端狹窄的界限之間，一方面是那個邊際買者和那個不願賣的邊際供給者的評價，另一方面是那位邊際賣者和那個不願買的邊際需求者的評價。

The concatenation of the market is an outcome of the activities of entrepreneurs, promoters, speculators, and dealers in futures and in arbitrage. It has been asserted that catallactics is based on the assumption--contrary to reality--that all parties are provided with perfect knowledge concerning the market data and are therefore in a position to take best advantage of the most favorable opportunities for

市場現象的連續，是企業家、發起人、投機者、買賣期貨做套利生意的人們的一些活動的總結果。有些人這樣講：交換學的基本假定，是各方面都具備關於市場情況的完全知識，因而能夠利用最有利的機會在買賈中得到最大的利益。這個假定是不合實際的。誠然，有些經濟學家眞正相信這樣的假定蘊含在價格理論中。他們不僅不了解，如果世界上所有的人具備相等的知識和遠見，這樣的一個世界與經濟學家在他們的理論中所要解釋的這個眞實世界，在那些方面是不同的；而且，他們也錯在沒有發覺他們自己在討論價格的時候，並不是基於這樣的假定。

In an economic system in which every actor is in a position to recognize correctly the market situation with the same degree of insight, the adjustment of prices to every change in the data would be achieved at one stroke. It is impossible to imagine such uniformity in the correct cognition and appraisal of changes in data except by the intercession of superhuman agencies. we would have to assume that every man is approached by an angel informing him of the change in data which has occurred and advising him how to adjust his own conduct in the most adequate way to this change. certainly the market that catallactics deals with is filled with people who are to different degrees aware of the changes in data and who, even if they have the same information, appraise it differently. The operation of the market reflects the fact that changes in the data are first perceived only by a few people and that different men draw different conclusions in appraising their effects. The more enterprising and brighter individuals take the lead, others follow later. The shrewder individuals appreciate conditions more correctly than the less intelligent and therefore succeed better in their actions. Economists must never disregard in their reasoning the fact that the innate and acquired inequality of men differentiates their adjustment to the conditions of their environment.

在一個經濟制度裡面，如果每個行爲者具有同程度的洞察力，能夠正確地看到市場情況，則物價適應每一變動的調整，將會一舉達成。但是像這樣的一致，是不可想像的事情。交換學所討論的市場，其中的人們對於一切變化的了解是彼此不同的，而且，即令他們有了同樣的信息，彼此的評價也不一樣。市場運作反映出這個事實；首先察覺到變化的只有少數人，而這些變化所將引起的結果如何，各人的結論也不一樣。活潑能幹而企業心較強的人領先；其他的人慢慢跟上。較聰明的人比智力差的人，料事比較正確，所以他的行爲比較成功。經濟學家在推理的時候決不可忽略這個事實：人們因天賦的和後習的不平等，因而他們對於環境的適應也各人不同。

The driving force of the market process is provided neither by the consumers nor by the owners of the means of production--land, capital goods, and labor--but by the promoting and speculating entrepreneurs. These are people intent upon profiting by taking advantage of differences in prices. Quicker of apprehension and farther-sighted than other men, they look around for sources of profit. They buy where and when they deem prices too low, and they sell where and when they deem prices too high. They approach the owners of the factors of production, and their competition sends the prices of these factors up to the limit corresponding to their anticipation of the future prices of the products. They approach the consumers, and their competition forces prices of consumers' goods down to the point at which the whole supply can be sold. Profit-seeking speculation

市場過程的推動力，旣不是來自消費者，也不是來自生產手段——土地、資本財、和勞動——的所有者，而是來自一些企業家。他們志在利用價格的差異以謀取利潤。他們用敏捷的理解力和遠大的眼光向四處尋找利潤的源泉。他們在他們認爲價格夠低的地方和時機買進，在他們認爲價格夠高的地方和時機賣出。他們接近那些生產要素的所有者，而他們的競爭把這些要素的價格抬高到相當於他們對產品的未來價格所預期的限度。他們接近消費者，而他們的競爭把消費財的價格懕低到全部供給量可以銷售掉的那一點。追求利潤的投機，是市場的推動力，正如同它是生產的推動力。

On the market agitation never stops. The imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy has no counterpart in reality. There can never emerge a state of affairs in which the sum of the prices of the complementary factors of production, due allowance being made for time preference, equals the prices of the products and no further changes are to be expected. There are always profits to be earned by somebody. The speculators are always enticed by the expectation of profit.

市場上，動盪永不停止。想像的均勻輪轉的經濟結構，在實際上沒有這回事。所有生產要素的價格總和，加以時間偏好的斟酌損益，等於產品的價格而又不至於再有變動，這種情況，實際上是決不會出現的。市場上總會有利潤可被某些人賺取。投機者總是受預期中的利潤之慫恿。

The imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy is a mental tool for comprehension of entrepreneurial profit and loss. It is, to be sure, not a design for comprehension of the pricing process. The final prices corresponding to this imaginary conception are by no means identical with the market prices. The activities of the entrepreneurs or of any other actors on the economic scene are not guided by consideration of any such things as equilibrium prices and the evenly rotating economy. The entrepreneurs take into account anticipated future prices, not final prices or equilibrium prices. They discover discrepancies between the height of the prices of the complementary factors of production and the anticipated future prices of the products, and they are intent upon taking advantage of such discrepancies. These endeavors of the entrepreneurs would finally result in the emergence of the evenly rotating economy if no further changes in the data were to appear.

想像的均勻輪轉的經濟結構，是用以領悟企業家盈虧的一個心智上工具。它當然不是用來理解定價過程的。相應於這個假想結構的最後價格，決不與市場價格一致。企業家的活動，或經濟舞台上任何角色的活動，不是受像均衡價格和均勻輪轉的經濟這些東西的考慮之指引。企業家所考慮的是，預期中之未來價格，而不是最後價格或均衡價格。他們在生產要素的價格與預期的未來的產品價格之間發現差額，他們就利用這樣的差額來謀取利潤。企業家努力的最後結果，如果再沒有變動發生的話，將是均勻輪轉的經濟之出現。

The operation of the entrepreneurs brings about a tendency toward an equalization of prices for the same goods in all subdivisions of the market, due allowance being made for the cost of transportation and the time absorbed by it. Differences in prices which are not merely transitory and bound to be wiped out by entrepreneurial action are always the outcome of particular obstacles obstructing the inherent tendency toward equalization. Some check prevents profit-seeking business from interfering. An observer not sufficiently familiar with actual commercial conditions is often at a loss to recognize the institutional barrier hindering such equalization. But the merchants concerned always know what makes it impossible for them to take advantage of such differences.

企業家的經營引起一個物價走向相等的趨勢，詳言之，運輸成本和時間因素都考慮到，在市場的任何部份，同樣貨物的價格有走向相等的趨勢。價格的差異不僅是暫時的，而且必然要被企業家的行爲消滅，這樣的價格差異總是某些特殊障礙所形成的結果。某些限制防止了營利事業參與。對於實際的商情不夠熟習的觀察者，常常看不淸阻止這種趨勢的一些制度上的障礙。但是，有關的商人們總歸知道：使他們不能利用那些差異以謀利的，是些什麼。

Statisticians treat this problem too lightly. When they have discovered differences in the wholesale price of a commodity between two cities or countries, not entirely accounted for by the cost of transportation, tariffs, and excise duties, they acquiesce in asserting that the purchasing power of money and the "level" of prices are

統計學家處理這個問題，處理得太輕率。當他們發現兩個城市或國家之間，某一貨物的批發價格有了差異，而這差異不完全由於運輸成本、關稅、和內地稅的時候，他們就說「貨幣購買力與物價『水準』不同」而默認這個事實[1]。基於這樣的說法，人們就草擬計畫用貨幣方法來消除這些差異。但是，這種差異的根本原因不會在貨幣方面。如果兩國的物價是用相同的貨幣標出的，那麼，我們就必須解答，是些什麼東西在阻止商人們，使他們不能做那些可以消滅價格差異的生意。如果價格是用不同的貨幣標出的，事情在本質上還是一樣的。因爲不同類的貨幣滙率，趨向於再也沒有可利用物價差異以謀利的餘地那一點上面。凡是兩個地方的物價差異持續存在的時候，找出是些什麼障礙在阻止那些必然使價格趨於一致的交易，這是經濟史和敍述經濟學的任務。

All the prices we know are past prices. They are facts of economic history. In speaking of present prices we imply that the prices of the immediate future will not differ from those of the immediate past. However, all that is asserted with regard to future prices is merely an outcome of the understanding of future events.

我們所知道的一切價格，都是過去的價格。它們是經濟史的事實。在說到「現在價格」的時候，我們是意指，最近將來的價格不會不同於最近過去的價格。但是，關於未來價格所說的一切，不過是對未來事情的領悟之一種結果而已。

The experience of economic history never tells us more than that at a definite date and definite place two parties A and B traded a definite quantity of the commodity a against a definite number of units of the money p. In speaking of such acts of buying and selling at the market price of a, we are guided by a theoretical insight, deduced from an aprioristic starting point. This is the insight that, in the absence of particular factors making for price differences, the prices paid at the same time and the same place for equal quantities of the same commodity tend toward equalization, viz., a final price. But the actual market prices never reach this final state. The various market prices about which we can get information were determined under different conditions. It is impermissible to confuse averages computed from them with the final prices.

經濟史的經驗不過吿訴我們：在某一特定的時間、某一特定地點，張三與李四用了若干數量的某貨物交換了一種貨幣的若干單位，除此以外，它不會吿訴我什麼。在說到按照市場價格而作這樣買賣行爲的時候，我們是受一個溯源於先驗的出發點的理論洞察力的指導。我們洞察到：如果沒有什麼特殊因素使價格發生差異，在同時、同地，對同量、同質的貨物所支付的價格，是趨向於相等的，也即最後價格。但是，實際的市場價格永不會達到這個最後情況。我們所能知道的各個市場的價格，是在不同的情形之下決定的。我們不可把計算出來的平均價格與最後價格相混。

Only with regard to fungible commodities negotiated on organized stock or commodity exchanges is it permissible, in comparing prices, to assume that they refer to the same quality. Apart from such prices negotiated in exchanges and from prices of commodities the homogeneity of which can be precisely established by technological analysis,

只有關於在有組織的股票交易所或貨物交易所裡面買資的那些可替代的商品，才可以在比較價格的時候，假定它們所涉及的商品是同質的。除掉交易所裡面這樣決定的價格，和技術分析所能精密確定其同質貨物的價格以外，如果在討論價格時，不顧到有關貨物的品質上差異，那就犯了嚴重的大錯誤。即令在紡織品原料的躉售中，也是品目繁多的。消費財的品質更是千差萬異，把一些消費財的價格作一比較，當然是引起誤解的。一次交易的成交量，對於單位價格的決定也是有關係的。一次大量出賣的公司股份所賣到的單位價格，不同於分做數次小量出賣所賣的單位價格。

It is necessary to emphasize these facts again and again because it is customary nowadays to play off the statistical elaboration of price data against the theory of prices. However, the statistics of prices is altogether questionable. Its foundations are precarious because circumstances for the most part do not permit the comparison of the various data, their linking together in series, and the computation of averages. Full of zeal to embark upon mathematical operations, the statisticians yield to the temptation of disregarding the incomparability of the data available. The information that a certain firm sold at a definite date a definite type of shoes for six dollars a pair relates a fact of economic history. A study of the behavior of shoe prices from 1923 to 1939 is conjectural, however sophisticated the methods applied may be.

一再地強調這些事實，是有必要的。因爲把物價的統計資料拿來反對價格理論，是現在的慣例。但是，物價統計完全是靠不住的。它的一些基礎都是不確定的，因爲事實的情況大都不容許把各種資料拿來作比較，不容許把各種資料聯結在一起，不容許計算出平均數。過份熱心於數學運算的統計學家，受到誘惑而不管那些資料之不可比較。某一商號在某一天賣出了某一式樣的鞋子一雙，售價六元。這個信息，是關於經濟史的事實。對於一九二三年到一九三九年的鞋價研究，無論所用的方法如何周到，終歸是推測的。

Catallactics shows that entrepreneurial activities tend toward an abolition of price differences not caused by the costs of transportation and trade barriers. No experience has ever contradicted this theorem. The results obtained by an arbitrary identification of unequal things are irrelevant.

交換學吿訴我們：企業家的活動使那非因運輸成本和貿易障礙而發生的價格差異趨向於消滅。經驗與這個定理從來沒有牴觸過。至於把一些不同的事情任意視爲相同，而得出的那些結果，是毫不相干的。

-------------------------

[1] Sometimes the difference in price as established by price statistics is apparent only. The price quotations may refer to various qualities of the article concerned. Or they may, complying with the local usages of commerce, mean different things. They may, for instance, include or not include packing charges; they may refer to cash payment or to payment at a later date; and so on.

[1] 有時，物價統計所確定的價格差異只是表面的。價格表所列的，可能涉及各種品質的同類貨物。或者依照當地的商業習慣，涉及不同的貨物。例如，它們可能包括或不包括包裝費：它們可能涉及付現或賒帳等等。

2. Valuation and Appraisement

二、評値和估價

The ultimate source of the determination of prices is the value judgments of the consumers. Prices are the outcome of the valuation preferring a to b. They are social phenomena as they are brought about by the interplay of the valuations of all individuals participating in the operation of the market. Each individual, in buying or not buying and in selling or not selling, contributes his share to the formation of the market prices. But the larger the market is, the smaller is the weight of each individual's contribution. Thus the structure of market prices appears to the individual as a datum to which he must adjust his own conduct.

決定物價的最後原因，是消費者的價値判斷。物價是人們對各物所作的評値不同而形成的結果。價格是個社會現象，是所有參與市場活動的人對各物評値而起的相互作用所產生的。每一個人，在購買或不購買，出賣或不出賣的時候，對於巿場價格的形成都發生他那一份的影響。但是，市場愈大則他的那份影響就愈小。所以，市場價格結構，自個人看來，似乎是一旣定的事實，而他必須調整自己的行爲以適應。

The valuations which result in determination of definite prices are different. Each party attaches a higher value to the good he receives than to the good he gives away. The exchange ratio, the price,is not the product of an equality of valuation, but, on the contrary, the product of a discrepancy in valuation.

歸結於確定的價格之形成的一些評値，是彼此不同的。每個當事人對他收到的財貨所給的評値，總高於對他付出的財貨所給的評値。交換率，也即價格，不是評値相等的結果。相反地，而是評値參差的結果。

Appraisement must be clearly distinguished from valuation. Appraisement in no way depends upon the subjective valuation of the man who appraises. He is not intent upon establishing the subjective use-value of the good concerned, but upon anticipating the prices which the market will determine. Valuation is a value judgment expressive of a difference in value. Appraisement is the anticipation of an expected fact. It aims at establishing what prices will be paid on the market for a particular commodity or what amount of money will be required for the purchase of a definite commodity.

估價必須與評値明白區分。估價決不依賴估價者的主觀評値。他並不注意於有關貨物的主觀的使用價値，而注意於預測市場所將決定的那些價格。評値是一價値判斷，以不同的値表示之。估價是對將要到來的事實所作的預測。估價的目的，在於確定某一特定的貨物在巿場上將賣什麼價錢，或者說，將要多少錢才可買到這一特定貨物。

Valuation and appraisement are, however, closely connected. The valuations of an autarkic husbandman directly compare the weight he attaches to different means for the removal of uneasiness. The valuations of a man buying and selling on the market must not disregard the structure of market prices; they depend upon appraisement. In order to know the meaning of a price one must know the purchasing power of the amount of money concerned. It is necessary by and large to be familiar with the prices of those goods which one would like to acquire and to form on the ground of such knowledge an opinion about their future prices. If an individual speaks of the costs incurred by the purchase of some goods already acquired or to be incurred by the purchase of goods he plans to acquire, he expresses these costs in terms of money. But this amount of money represents in his eyes the degree of satisfaction he could obtain by employing it for the acquisition of other goods. The valuation makes a detour, it goes via the appraisement of the structure of market prices; but it always aims finally at the comparison of alternative modes for the removal of felt uneasiness.

但是，評値與估價是密切關聯的。一個自給自足的農夫，是把他賦與各種「解除不適之感的手段」的重要性直接加以比較，這是他的評値。一個在市場上做買寶的人的評値就不同了，他不得不注意市場價格的結構；市場價格靠的是估價。爲要知道一個價格的意義，我們必須知道那項有關金額的購買力。總而言之，我們必須熟習我們所想取得的那些財貨的價格，並且要靠這個知識來形成對於它們未來價格的看法。如果一個人在說到那已經買到的某些貨物的購買成本，或說到那將要計畫購買的某些貨物的購買成本的時候，他是以金額來表示這些成本的。但是，這項金額在他的心目中是代表他能夠用它而取得其他財貨，因而享有的滿足程度。評値是個迂迴的過程，它要經過對市場價格結構的估定；但是，它的目的終歸是把幾個可以彼此替代的解除不適之感的方法加以比較。

It is ultimately always the subjective value judgments of individuals that determine the formation of prices. Catallactics in conceiving the pricing process necessarily reverts to the fundamental category of action, the preference given to a over b. In view of popular errors it is expedient to emphasize that catallactics deals with the real prices as they are paid in definite transactions and not with imaginary prices. The concept of final prices is merely a mental tool for the grasp of a particular problem, the emergence of entrepreneurial profit and loss. The concept of a "just" or "fair" price is devoid of any scientific meaning; it is a disguise for wishes, a striving for a state of affairs different from reality. Market prices are entirely determined by the value judgments of men as they really act.

決定價格之形成，最後總是個人的主觀價値判斷。交換學在想到定價過程的時候，必然要回溯到行爲的基本元範，即寧可取A捨B。鑒於一些流行的謬見，我們可強調：交換學是討論在確實的交易中實際支付的價格，而不是討論想像的價格。最後價格這個概念，只是爲理解特殊問題而準備的一個心智上的工具。這裡所說的特殊問題，即企業家的盈虧問題。所謂「公平的」或「合理的」價格這種概念，沒有任何科學意義：那只是一些希望的僞装，希望達到一種與實況不同的情境。市場價格完全是由那些實際在行爲的人們的價値判斷所決定。

If one says that prices tend toward a point at which total demand is equal to total supply, one resorts to another mode of expressing the same concatenation of phenomena. Demand and supply are the outcome

如果我們說價格趨向於總需求等於總供給的那一點，那是同樣的現象連續之另一表示方法。需求與供給是些買者和賣者的行爲結果。如果，其他情形不變，供給增加，價格必下跌。在原先的價格下那些準備支付那個價格的人們，可以購買他們所想購買的數量。如果供給增加，他們必買較多的數量，或者原先未買的那些人現在有購買的興趣了。這種情形只有在較低的價格下才出現。

It is possible to visualize this interaction by drawing two curves, the demand curve and the supply curve, whose intersection shows the price. It is no less possible to express it in mathematical symbols. But it is necessary to comprehend that such pictorial or mathematical modes of representation do not affect the essence of our interpretation and that they do not add a whit to our insight. Furthermore it is important to realize that we do not have any knowledge or experience concerning the shape of such curves. Always, what we know is only market prices--that is, not the curves but only a point which we interpret as the intersection of two hypothetical curves. The drawing of such curves may prove expedient in visualizing the problems for undergraduates. For the real tasks of catallactics they are mere byplay.

劃出兩條曲線——需求曲線和供給曲線來表現這種相互作用，這是可能的。兩條曲線的相交點表示價格。我們也同樣可能用數學符號來表現它。但是，我們必須了解，這樣的曲線圖形或數學符號，並不影響我們的解釋之本質，它們對於我們的洞察力也沒有絲毫的補益。而且，更重要的是要了解：關於這些曲線的形狀，我們沒有任何知識或經驗。我們所知道的，總歸只是些市場價格——不是曲線，而只是我們解釋爲兩條假定的曲線相交的那一點。爲一般大學生講解這個問題而劃出這樣的曲線，也許是方便的辦法。就交換學的眞正任務講，那不過是揷曲。

3. The Prices of the Goods of Higher Orders

三、高級財貨的價格

The market process is coherent and indivisible. It is an indissoluble intertwinement of actions and reactions, of moves and countermoves. But the insufficiency of our mental abilities enjoins upon us the necessity of dividing it into parts and analyzing each of these parts separately. In resorting to such artificial cleavages we must never forget that the seemingly autonomous existence of these parts is an imaginary makeshift of our minds. They are only parts, that is, they cannot even be thought of as existing outside the structure of which they are parts.

市場程序是連續一貫的，不可分割的，它是行爲與反應不可分解的大糾結。但是，由於我們的智能不夠，我們不得不把它分成幾部份，而各別地來分析每一部份。在採用這種牽強的方法時，我們決不可忘記：這些部份的似乎自主的存在，不過是我們心中一個假想的計策。事實上，它們只是些部份，也即是說，它們甚至不能被想爲存在於它們之爲部份的那個結構之外。

The prices of the goods of higher orders are ultimately determined by the prices of the goods of the first or lowest order, that is, the consumers' goods. As a consequence of this dependence they are ultimately determined by the subjective valuations of all members of the market society. It is, however, important to realize that we are faced with a connection of prices, not with a connection of valuations. The prices of the complementary factors of production are conditioned by the prices of the consumers' goods. The factors of production are appraised with regard to the prices of the products, and from this appraisement their prices emerge. Not the valuations but the appraisement are transferred from the goods of the first order to those of higher orders. The prices of the consumers' goods engender

較高級財貨的價格，最後是決定於第一級或最低級財貨——消費財——的價格。因爲這種依賴的關係，它們最後決定於市場社會所有份子的主觀評値。但是，重要的是我們要了解：我們面對的是些價格的關聯，而不是些評値的關聯。生產要素的價格受限於消費財的價格。生產要素是參照產品的價格估價的，它們的價格從這種估價上面出現。從第一級財貨推轉到較髙級財貨的不是評値，而是估價。消費財的價格引起那些終於決定生產要素價格的行爲。生產要素的價格主要地只與消費財的價格相關聯。至於與個人們的評値，它們只間接地發生關聯，也即經由消費財（利用它們而生產出來的產品）的價格而發生關聯。

The tasks incumbent upon the theory of the prices of factors of production are to be solved by the same methods which are employed for treatment of the prices of consumers' goods. We conceive the operation of the market of consumer's goods in a twofold way. We think on the one hand of a state of affairs which leads to acts of exchange; the situation is such that the uneasiness of various individuals can be removed to some extent because various people value the same goods in a different way. On the other hand we think of a situation in which no further acts of exchange can happen because no actor expects any further improvement of his satisfaction by further acts of exchange. We proceed in the same way in comprehending the formation of the prices of factors of production. The operation of this market is actuated and kept in motion by the exertion of the promoting entrepreneurs, eager to profit from differences in the market prices of the factors of production and the expected prices of the products. The operation of this market would stop if a situation were ever to emerge in which the sum of the prices of the complementary factors of production--but for interest--equaled the prices of the products and nobody believed that further price changes were to be expected. Thus we have described the process adequately and completely by pointing out, positively, what actuates it and, negatively, what would suspend its motion. The main importance is to be attached to the positive description. The negative description resulting in the imaginary constructions of the final price and the evenly rotating economy is merely auxiliary. For the task is not the treatment of imaginary concepts, which never appear in life and action, but the treatment of the market prices at which the goods of higher orders are really bought and sold.

生產要素的價格理論所要做的工作，要用消費財的價格理論所用的同樣方法來達成。我們從兩方面來想消費財的市場運作。一方面，我們想到一種引起交換行爲的情況；這種情況是各個人的不適之感可以消除到某種程度，因爲各人對於同樣財貨作不同的評値。另一方面，我們想到一種再也不會有交換行爲發生的情況，因爲誰也不認爲再行交換會更增加他的滿足。我們用這同樣的想法，來了解生產要素價格的形成。這個市場的運作是由企業家的努力而發動的，企業家是想從生產要素的巿場價格與預期中的產品價格之間的差異而謀取利潤。如果生產要素的價格總和等於產品的價格，而且無人認爲價格會再發生變動，在這種假想的情形下，這種市場的運作就會停止。講到這裡，我們已經適當地、充份地從正面指出了發動市場運作的是什縻，也從反面指出了停止它的是什麼。最主要的，還是正面的申述。基於最後價格和均勻輪轉經濟這種假想結構的反面申述，不過是輔助的。因爲生產要素的價格理論所要做的工作，不是討論一些假想的概念（這些假想的概念，在我們的生活和行爲中，是決不會出現的），而是討論高級財貨在實際買賣中的市場價格。

This method we owe to Gossen, Carl Menger, and Bohm-Bawerk. Its main merit is that it implies the cognition that we are faced with a phenomenon of price determination inextricably linked with the market process. It distinguishes between two things: (a) the direct valuation of the factors of production which attaches the value of the product to the total complex of the complementary factors of production, and (b) the prices of the single factors of production which are formed on the market as the resultant of the concurring

我們之有這種方法，得感謝Gossen，Carl Menger，和Bohm-Bawerk。這個方法的優點在於認識到我們面對著一個與市場程序糾結得不可分的價格現象。它把下列二事明白區別：（a）把產品價値連繋於各種互補的生產要素全部集合體的對生產要素的直接評値。（the direct valuation of the factors of production which attaches the value of the product to the total complex of the complementary factors of production）（b）由於市場上的競爭而形成的個別的生產要素的價格。一個孤立的行爲者（魯賓遜或社會主義的生產管理局）所作的評値，決不會成爲「價値比額」（quotas of value）這樣事情的決定。評値只能把財貨按偏好的程度來安排。它決不會把什麼可叫做價値量的東西與一件財貨相連。價値總額的說法是荒唐的。我們說，賦與產品的價値，等於互補的生產要素全部集合體的價値（聞於時間偏好這一因素暫置不理），這是可以的；但是如果說，賦與產品的價値等於賦與各種互補的生產要素的價値之「總額」，那就荒謬了。價値或評値是不可相加的。用貨幣表示的價格可以相加，偏好的程度不能相加。價値判斷不是別的，只是指涉某事物優於其他事物。

The process of value imputation does not result in derivation of the value of the single productive agents from the value of their joint product. It does not bring about results which could serve as elements of economic. It is only the market that, in establishing prices for each factor of production, creates the conditions required for economic calculation. Economic calculation always deals with prices, never with values.

價値推轉的過程，不會歸結到各個生產因素的價値從它們聯合產品的價値中導出。此過程對於經濟計算毫無幫助。只有市場運作提供經濟計算的必要條件，因而確立了每種生產要素的價格。經濟計算，總是價格的計算，決不涉及價値。

The market determines prices of factors of production in the same way in which it determines prices of consumers' goods. The market process is an interaction of men deliberately striving after the best possible removal of dissatisfaction. It is impossible to think away or to eliminate from the market process the men actuating its operation. One cannot deal with the market of consumers' goods and disregard the actions of the consumers. One cannot deal with the market of the goods of higher orders while disregarding the actions of the entrepreneurs and the fact that the use of money is essential in their transactions. There is nothing automatic or mechanical in the operation of the market. The entrepreneurs, eager to earn profits, appear as bidders at an auction, as it were, in which the owners of the factors of production put up for sale land, capital goods, and labor. The entrepreneurs are eager to outdo one another by bidding higher prices than their rivals. Their offers are limited on the one hand by their anticipation of future prices of the products and on the other hand by the necessity to snatch the factors of production away from the hands of other entrepreneurs competing with them.

市場決定消費財的價格，它也以同樣的方法決定生產要素的價格。市場程序是一些有意努力於解除不適之感的人們的行爲之相互作爲。我們不可能想到市場程序而不涉及發動市場運作的人。我們不能討論消費財的市場而不管消費者的行爲。我們也不能討論高級財貨的市場而不管企業家的行爲和「貨幣使用是他們交易中不可少的」這一事實。在市場運作中，沒有什麼是自動的，或機械的。志在利潤的企業家，像拍賣中的叫價者，在那裡，生產要素的所有者把他們的土地、資本財、和勞動拿來出賣。企業家相互間爲要勝過別人，一步一歩地把價格叫高。他的叫價，最高方面受限於他們預期中的未來的產品價格，最低方面受限於足以把生產要素從競爭對方的手中搶來。

The entrepreneur is the agency that prevents the persistence of a

生產的情況有時不能讓消費者以最低的代價得到最大的滿足，企業家可以防止這種情況繼續保持下去。所有的人都想讓自己的慾望得到最大滿足，在這個意義下，他們盡可能地追求利得。發起人、投機者、和企業家和其他的人沒有什麼不同。他們僅僅是在智力和活力方面比一般人優越。在物質進步的路程上，他們是領導者。他們首先懂得在「做了的」與「可做的」之間有差異。他們猜測消費者將會喜歡什麼而爲之供應。因此，他們把某些生產要素的價格叫高了，而把另一些要素的價格壓低了（由於他們減少這些要素的需求）。在他們以那些能賺得最高利潤的消費財供給市場的時候，它們的價格就趨向於跌落，這個趨勢是他們的這一行爲創造出來的。他們減少那些不能賺得理想利潤的消費財的產量的時候，那些消費財的價格就趨向於上昇，這一趨勢也是他們創造出來的。所有這些轉變，不停地發生，只有在那想像的均勻輪轉的經濟和靜態均衡的情況下才會停止。

In drafting their plans the entrepreneurs look first at the prices of the immediate past which are mistakenly called present prices. Of course, the entrepreneurs never make these prices enter into their calculations without paying regard to anticipated changes. The prices of the immediate past are for them only the starting point of deliberations leading to forecasts of future prices. The prices of the past do not influence the determination of future prices. It is, on the contrary, the anticipation of future prices of the products that determines the state of prices of the complementary factors of production. The determination of prices has, as far as the mutual exchange ratios between various commodities are concerned[2], no direct causal relation whatever with the prices of the past. The allocation of the nonconvertible factors of production among the various branches of production[3] and the amount of capital goods available for future production are historical magnitudes; in this regard the past is instrumental in shaping the course of future production and in affecting the prices of the future. But directly the prices of the factors of production are determined

在草擬計畫的時候，企業家首先要看看那些剛剛過去的價格（也即大家誤稱爲「現在的」價格）。當然，企業家決不會不考慮到預料的變動而逕把這些價格納入他們的計算中。這些剛剛過去的價格對於他們只是用以預測將來價格的一個起點。過去的價格不影響將來價格的決定。相反地，決定生產要素現在價格的，倒是對產品的將來價格的預期。價格的決定，就有關各物之間的相互交換率而言[2]，與過去的價格沒有什麼直接的因果關係。不能互換的生產要素，在各種生產部門之間的配置[3]和那用之於將來生產的資本財數量，都是歷史性的：在這一點上，「過去」有助於形成將來的生產方向，因而影響將來的價格。但是，就直接關係講，生產要素的價格完全是決定於對產品的將來價格的預期。至於說昨天人們對一些貨物的評値和估値與今天不同，這一事實與這裡所討論的問題不相干。消費者不會關心那些參照過去市場情況而作的投資，也不會擔心企業家、資本家、地主和工人們的旣得利益，這些人的利益可能因價格結構的變動而受到損害。像這樣的一些情緒，在價格的形成中不起作用。（有了既得利益的人之所以要求政府干預經濟活動，正是因爲市場是不尊重既得利益的。）對於企業家——將來生產的形成者——而言，過去的價格只是一個心智上的工具。企業家並非每天重新構想一個嶄新的價格結構，或重新把生產要素配置於各種部門。他們只是改變過去已做的事情，以期更能適應變動了的情況。原先的，他們保存多少、改變多少，這就看那已經改變了的情況改變到什麼程度。

The economic process is a continuous interplay of production and consumption. Today's activities are linked with those of the past through the technological knowledge at hand, the amount and the quality of the capital goods among various individuals. They are linked with the future through the very essence of human action; action is always directed toward the improvement of future conditions. In order to see his way in the unknown and uncertain future man has within his reach only two aids: experience of past events and his faculty of understanding. Knowledge about past prices is a part of this experience and at the same time the starting point of understanding the future.

經濟過程是生產與消費的相互作用。今天的活動，經由已有的技術知識、可用的資本財之量與質、以及這些財貨在個人之間的分配，而與過去的活動連結起來。它們之與將來發生關聯，則是經由人的行爲之本質：行爲總是爲的改善將來的情況，爲著在未知的不確定將來有所作爲。人，在其力量達得到的範圍，只有靠兩個幫助：往事的經驗和他的領悟力。關於過去的價格知識是這種經驗的一部份，同時也是領悟將來的起點。

If the memory of all prices of the past were to fade away, the pricing process would become more troublesome, but not impossible as far as the mutual exchange ratios between various commodities are concerned. It would be harder for the entrepreneurs to adjust production to the demand of the public, but it could be done nonetheless. It would be necessary for them to assemble anew all the data they need as the basis of their operations. They would not avoid mistakes which they now evade on account of experience at their disposal. Price fluctuations would be more violent at the beginning, factors of production would be wasted, want-satisfaction would be impaired. But finally, having paid dearly, people would again have acquired the experience needed for a smooth working of the market process.

如果過去的一切價格的記憶都忘掉了，定價過程自然會變得更麻煩，但就有關的各貨物間的相互交換率來講，定價過程並非不可能。企業家自然更難於調整生產以適應大衆，但是那仍然是可以作的。他們將必須重新收集他們賴以操作的全部資料。他們將不免於那些可藉經驗來避免的錯誤，物價的波動在開始時將會更劇烈，生産要素會被浪費，慾望滿足會受到損害。但是到了最後，支付了很高的代價以後，人們又再度獲得市場程序所賴以順利運作的那些經驗。

The essential fact is that it is the competition of profit-seeking entrepreneurs

實在的事情是這樣的：生產要素「錯誤的」價格之所以不能繼續存在，是由於那些追求利潤的企業家們之間的競爭。企業家們的活動是那將可引起均勻輪轉的經濟情況的元素，如果再沒有變動發生的話。在這個包括全世界的拍資市場中，他們是生產要素的競買者。在叫價的時候，他們可說是消費者的委託人。消費者的慾望是多方面的，每個企業家代表一個不同的方面，或者是不同的貨物，或者是相同的貨物、不同的生產方法。人們在其可取得的消費財的限度以內，有各種消除其不適之感的「可能」，企業家們的競爭，最後是這些「可能」之間的競爭。消費者決定購買這件貨物而緩買那件貨物，這一行爲也就決定了生產這件貨物的生產要素的價格。企業家的競爭，在生產要素的價格形成中，反映消費財的價格。生產要素是稀少的；由於這稀少，每個人的心中都有些衝突，企業家的競爭把這衝突反映到外在世界。生產要素，有的是不特殊的，可用之於各種用途：有的是特殊的，只能用之於特定的用途。前者應該配置在哪些用途，後者應該使用多少，這是消費者所要決定的，企業家的競爭使這決定有效。

The pricing process is a social process. It is consummated by an interaction of all members of the society. All collaborate and cooperate, each in the particular role he has chosen for himself in the framework of the division of labor. Competing in cooperation and cooperating in competition all people are instrumental in bringing about the result, viz., the price structure of the market, the allocation of the factors of production to the various lines of want-satisfaction, and the determination of the share of each individual. These three events are not three different matters. They are only different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon which our analytical scrutiny separates into three parts. In the market process they are accomplished uno actu. Only people prepossessed by socialist leanings who cannot free themselves from longing glances at socialist methods speak of three different processes in dealing with the market phenomena: the determination of prices, the direction of productive efforts, and distribution.

定價過程是一社會過程。它是由社會所有份子的相互行爲達成的。在分工的架構內，每個人就其所選擇的崗位大家通力合作。大家在合作中競爭，在競爭中合作，因而有助於完成這個結果，即：市場的價格結構，生產要素配置於各種慾望滿足的途徑，以及每個人分配額的決定。這三件事情不是三件不同的事情，它們是一個不可分的現象的三個不同面。在我們的分析過程中，這個不可分的現象被分爲三部份。在市場程序中，它們是由一個行爲完成的。只有那些拘於社會主義者的方法而具有社會主義成見的人們，在討論市場現象時才說到三個不同的程序：價格的決定，生產努力的趨向，和分配。

A Limitation on the Pricing of Factors of Production

對於產要素定價的一個限制

The process which makes the prices of the factors of production spring from the prices of products can achieve its results only if, of the complementary factors not replaceable by substitutes, not more

使生產要素的價格發生於產品價格的這個過程，只有在下述的情形下可完成它的效果。即：在那不可替代的生產要素中，只有一個是屬於絕對特殊性的，也即只有一個是不適於其他任何用途的。如果生產一件產品，需要兩種或兩種以上的絕對特殊的要素，那就只有累加的價格可歸因於它們。如果所有的生產要素都是絕對特殊的，則定價過程所會完成的，不過是這樣的累加價格。那不過是像這樣說：把3個a和5個b結合起來生產一個單位的p，3個a和5個b等於1個p，3a+5b的最後價格等於1p的最後價格（時間的偏好當然要顛倒）。因爲那些不是爲生產p而想使用a和b的企業家們不競買它們，更詳細的價格決定是不可能的。只有那些想把a（或b）用在其他用途的企業家們對a發生需求的時候，在他們與那些計畫生產力的企業家們之間的競爭就產生，而且a（或b）的價格就出現，這個價格的高度，也決定b（或a）的價格。

A world in which all the factors of production are absolutely specific could manage its affairs with such cumulative prices. In such a world there would not exist the problem of how to allocate the means of production to various branches of want-satisfaction. In our real world things are different. There are many scarce means of production which can be employed for various tasks. There the economic problem is to employ these factors in such a way that no unit of them should be used for the satisfaction of a less urgent need if this employment prevents the satisfaction of a more urgent need. It is this that the market solves in determining the prices of the factors of production. The social service rendered by this solution is not in the least impaired by the fact that for factors which can be employed only cumulatively no other than cumulative prices are determined.

一個世界，如果其中的一切生產要素都是絕對特殊的，那麼，這個世界就可用這樣的累加價格來處理它的事務。在這樣的世界裡面，將不會有「爲何把生產手段配置於各種滿足慾望的生產部門」這樣的問題。在我們實際的世界裡面，事情不是如此。我們有許多種可以用在不同部門的稀少資源。我們的經濟問題是在把這些要素用來滿足最迫切的慾望，而不浪費一個單位滿足次要的慾望而妨害最重要的慾望之滿足。就在生產要素價格的決定中，我們的市場解決了這個問題。這個解決所提供的社會利益，一點也不受害於這個事實：對於那些只能累加使用的要素，只有累加的價格被決定。

Factors of production which can be used in the same ratio of combination for the production of various commodities but do not allow of any other use, are to be considered as absolutely specific factors. They are absolutely specific with regard to the production of an intermediary product which can be utilized for various purposes. The price of this intermediary product can be assigned to them cumulatively only. Whether this intermediary product can be directly apperceived by the senses or whether it is merely the invisible and intangible outcome of their joint employment makes no difference.

有些生產要素可在同比率的結合下用來生產各種貨物，但沒有任何其他的用途，這種要素被視爲絕對特殊的要素。關於一個可用在各種用途的中間產品的生產，它們是絕對特殊的。這個中間產品的價格只可累加地歸因於它們。至於這個中間產品是否可以由我們的感官直接察覺，或是否僅爲它們的聯合使用所引起的無形的、看不見的結果，這都沒有關係。

-------------------------

[2] It is different with regard to the mutual exchange ratios between money and the vendible commodities and services. Cf. below, pp. 410-411.

[2] 這是不同於貨幣與有銷路的貨物和勞務之間的相互交換率。參考第十七章第四節。

[3] The problem of the nonconvertible capital goods is dealt with below, pp. 503-509.

[3] 不能互換的資本財的問題，將在第十八章第五、六兩節討論。

4. Cost Accounting

四、成本計算

In the calculation of the entrepreneur costs are the amount of money required for the procurement of the factors of production.

在企業家的計算中，成本是購買生產要素所必要的金額。

The entrepreneur is intent upon embarking upon those business projects from which he expects the highest surplus of proceeds over costs and upon shunning projects from which he expects a lower

企業家專心於從事那些收益可望超過成本的事業，而放棄那些他認爲利潤較少，甚至可能虧損的計畫。他這樣做，正是他爲著最能滿足消費者的需要而調整他的努力。一個營業計畫之所以沒有利潤，是因爲成本高於收益，這是由於這個計畫所需要使用的生產要素還有個更有用的用途。有些其他的產品，消費者準備償付用以生產它的那些生產要素的代價。但是，消費者不願意償付這些代價以購買那些無益的產品。

Cost accounting is affected by the fact that the two following conditions are not always present:

下列兩個條件不是經常有的，成本的計算受這個事實的影響：

First, every increase in the quantity of factors expended for the production of a consumers' good increases its power to remove uneasiness.

第一、用來生產消費財的要素，其數量的每一增加，即是它的消除不適之感的力量增加。

Second, every increase in the quantity of a consumers' good requires a proportional increase in the expenditure of factors of production or even a more than proportional increase in their expenditure.

第二、消費財的數量每一增加，生產要素的消耗必須同比例增加，或甚至超比例增加。

If both these conditions were always and without any exception fulfilled, every increment z expended for increasing the quantity m of a commodity g would be employed for the satisfaction of a need viewed as less urgent than the least urgent need already satisfied by the quantity m available previously. At the same time the increment z would require the employment of factors of production to be withdrawn from the satisfaction of other needs considered as more pressing than those needs whose satisfaction was foregone in order to produce the marginal unit of m. One the one hand the marginal value of the satisfaction derived from the increase in the quantity available of g would drop. On the other hand the costs required for the production of additional quantities of g would increase in marginal disutility: factors of production would be withheld from employments in which they could satisfy more urgent needs. Production must stop at the point at which the marginal utility of the increment no longer compensates for the marginal increase in the disutility of costs.

如果這兩個條件經常而無例外地滿足，則用以增產m量商品的g的每個z增份，將被用來滿足一個被視爲比已被前一個m量所滿足的那個最不迫切的需要更不迫切的需要。同時，這個z增份將要從其他需要的滿足拉來一些生產要素使用，而這些其他需要被認爲比那些其滿足已被放棄了的需要更爲迫切，而那些需要的滿足之所以被放棄，爲的是要生產這個m邊際單位。一方面，由於g的增加而產生的滿足，其邊際價値將降低，另一方面，生產g的增加份所必要的成本將經邊際反效用而增高；生產要素要從那些可滿足更迫切需要的用途拉來。生產必定停止在「增加份的邊際效用再也不能補償成本負效用的邊際增加」那一點上。

Now these two conditions are present very often, but not generally without exception. There exist many commodities of all orders of goods whose physical structure is not homogeneous and which are therefore not perfectly divisible.

這兩個條件常常具備，但不是沒有例外。在各級商品當中，都有許多商品的物質結構不是相同的，所以不是完全可分的。

It would, of course, be possible to conjure away the deviation from the first condition mentioned above by a sophisticated play on words. One could say: half a motorcar is not a motorcar. If one adds to half a motorcar a quarter of a motorcar, one does not increase the "quantity"

當然，我們也可用一種佾皮話的說法，把上述第一個條件的偏差消除掉。我們可以這樣說：半部汽車不是汽車。如果你給半部汽車再加上四分之一的汽車，你並沒有增加有用的「量」；只有產出一部完全的車子的生產程序之完成，才是生產了一個單位，而有用的「量」才是增加。但是，這樣的解釋沒有觸及微妙處。我們面對的問題是：費用的增加並非每次都比例地增加客觀的使用價値（―物提供一定利益的物質力）。費用增加所引起的結果，每次不一樣。有時費用增加了，仍然無用，假若沒有一定量的再增加。

On the other hand--and this is the deviation from the second condition--an increase in physical output does not always require a proportionate increase in expenditure or even any additional expenditure. It may happen that costs do not rise at all or that their rise increases output more than proportionately. For many means of production are not homogeneous either and not perfectly divisible. This is the phenomenon known to business as the superiority of big-scale production. The economists speak of the law of increasing returns or decreasing costs.

另一方面——這是第二條件的偏差——物質產量的增加，並不總是要把費用同比例增加，甚至完全不要增加費用。成本根本不增加，或者成本增加而產出量超比例地增加，這種事情是會發生的。因爲有許多生產手段不是同質的，也不能完全分割。這是工商界所熟知的大規模生產的優點。也即，經濟學家所說的報酬遞增律或成本遞減律。

We consider--as case A--a state of affairs in which all factors of production are not perfectly divisible and in which full utilization of the productive services rendered by every further indivisible element of each factor requires full utilization of the further indivisible elements of every other of the complementary factors. Then in every aggregate of productive agents each of the assembled elements--every machine, every worker, every piece of raw material--can be fully utilized only if all the productive services of the other elements are fully employed too. Within these limits the production of a part of the maximum output attainable does not require a higher expenditure than the production of the highest possible output. We may also say that the minimum-size aggregate always produces the same quantity of products; it is impossible to produce a smaller quantity of products even if there is no use for a part of it.

我們考慮這樣一種情況（作爲A例）；在這裡，所有的生產要素不是完全可分的，其不完全可分的情形是這樣的：若要充份利用每個要素所有不可再分的成份所提供的生產功能，那就要充份利用所有其他補助要素不可再分的成份。於是，在生產要素的所有聚合體中每個組成份——每部機器，每個工人，每件原料——的充份利用，只在其他所有成份的生產功能也被充份利用了的時候才有可能。在這些限制以內，生產那可得到的最大產量的一部份，並不需要一筆高於生產最高可能產量的費用。我們也可這樣說：最小規模的聚合體，經常產出同量的產品：即令它的一部份沒有用，也不可能產出較少的產品。

We consider--as case B--a state of affairs in which one group of the productive agents (p) is for all practical purposes perfectly divisible. On the other hand the imperfectly divisible agents can be divided in such a way that full utilization of the services rendered by each further indivisible part of one agent requires full utilization of the further indivisible parts of the other imperfectly divisible complementary factors. Then increasing production of an aggregate of further indivisible factors from a partial to a more complete utilization of their productive capacity requires merely an increase in the quantity of p, the perfectly divisible factors. However, one must

我們再考慮另一種情形（作爲b例）；在這裡，一組生產要素（p），在一切實際的用途上是完全可分的。另一方面，那些不完全可分的要素可以這樣分割：即，若要充份利用一個要素的不可再分的部份所提供的功能，就必須充份利用其他不完全可分的補助要素的不可再分的部份。於是，從部份地利用它的生產力，進到較完全地利用以增加那些不可再分的要素的聚合體的生產，只要增加P（完全可分的要素）就行了。但是，我們必須當心，不要誤以爲這一定會減低平均生產成本。不錯，在不完全可分的要素這個聚合體以內，它們的每一個，現在利用得更好了，所以，生產成本就其受這些要素合作的影響而言，仍然不變，而分攤於一個產量單位的分攤額，則減低了。但是，另一方面，那完全可分的生產要素的增加僱用，只有從其他用途拉來才有可能。如果其他情形不變，這些其他用途隨著它們的減縮而價値增加；這些完全可分的要素，其價格趨向於上昇，因爲有較多的這種要素要用來改善那些不可再分的要素的聚合體的生產能力之利用。我們決不可把我們的問題考慮拘限於這樣的情形：即，P的增加量是從其他企業拉來的，而那些其他企業是以較低效率生產相同產品的，因而它們不得不減縮產量了。在這種情形下——即，一個效率高和一個效率低，而生產同樣產品的企業，爲著相同的原料而競爭——很顯然的，平均生產成本在擴大工場的過程中，是遞減的。對於這個問題更廣泛的徹究，將導致一個不同的結論。如果P所從拉來的那些企業，原是把它用來生產不同產品的，則這些單位價格就趨向於增高。這個趨向可能被一些偶然發生的相反趨勢抵銷；有時也會很微弱，以致其後果小到微不足道。但在經常的情形下，它是存在的，而且很能影響成本結構。

Finally we consider--as case C--a state of affairs in which various imperfectly divisible factors of production can be divided only in such a way that, given the conditions of the market, any size which can be chosen for their assemblage in a production aggregate does not allow for a combination in which full utilization of the productive capacity of one factor makes possible full utilization of the productive capacity of the other imperfectly divisible factors. This case c alone is of practical significance, while the cases A and B hardly play any role in real business. The characteristic feature of case C is that the configuration of production costs varies unevenly. If all imperfectly divisible factors are utilized to less than full capacity, an expansion of production results in a decrease of average costs of production unless a rise in the prices to be paid for the perfectly divisible factors counterbalances this outcome. But as soon as full utilization of the capacity of one of the imperfectly divisible factors is attained, further

最後我們考慮一種情形（作爲C例）；在這裡，各種非完全可分的生產要素只能作這樣的分割：即，在旣定的市場情況下，任何可選擇的生產規模，都不容許這樣一個結合，即，一個要素的生產力之充分利用，使其他非完全可分的要素生產力之充份利用成爲可能。只有這個C例是實際上有意義的。A和B例在實際上不發生作用。C例的特徵是生產成本的結構變化得不均勻，如果所有的非完全可分的要素都未利用到充份，則生產的擴張就會使平均生產成本減低，除非那必須支付的完全可分的要素的價格上漲，抵銷了這個結果。但是，一旦到了那些非完全可分的要素之一的生產力充份利用了，則生產的再擴張就會使成本突然激烈上漲。然後平均生產成本跌落的趨勢又開始，這個趨勢繼續發展，一直到那些非完全可分的要素之一重新達到充份利用的時候爲止。

Other things being equal, the more production of a certain article increases, the more factors of production must be withdrawn from other employments in which they would have been used for the production of other articles. Hence--other things being equal--average production costs increase with the increase in the quantity produced. But this general law is by sections superseded by the phenomenon that not all factors of production are perfectly divisible and that, as far as they can be divided, they are not divisible in such a way that full utilization of one of them results in full utilization of the other imperfectly divisible factors.

在其他情形不變的假定下，某一物品的產量增加得愈多，則生產要素從其他用途拉到這個用途的就愈多。因此——假定其他情形不變——平均成本隨產量之增加而增加。但是，這個一般性的法則被下述的現象取消了：生產要素不都是完全可分的；而且，就其可分的來講，也不是其中之一的充份利用，結果是其他非完全可分的要素也充份利用。

The planning entrepreneur is always faced with the question: To what extent will the anticipated prices of the products exceed the anticipated costs? If the entrepreneur is still free with regard to the project in question, because he has not yet made any inconvertible investments for its realization, it is average costs that count for him. But if he has already a vested interest in the line of business concerned, he sees things from the angle of additional costs to be expended. He who already owns a not fully utilized production aggregate does not take into account average cost of production but marginal cost. Without regard to the amount already expended for inconvertible investments he is merely interested in the question whether or not the proceeds from the sale of an additional quantity of products will exceed the additional cost incurred by their production. Even if the whole amount invested in the inconvertible production facilities must be wiped off as a loss, he goes on producing provided he expects a reasonable[4] surplus of proceeds over current costs.

作計畫的企業家經常遇到這個問題：預期中的產品價格超過預期中的成本將會超過多少？如果企業家由於未曾做任何不可改變的投資，而尙可自由考慮有關的計畫，則他所要注意的是平均成本。但是，如果他已經在某一行業有了旣定的利益，則他就要從「有待增加的成本」這個角度來考慮事情。凡是已經有了未充份利用的生產要素的人，所考慮的不是平均成本，而是邊際成本。已經花在不可改變的投資的金額，他是不管的，他只注意，增加的產量所賣得的收益，是否會超過增加的成本這個問題。即令投在不可改變的生產設備上的全部金額必須作爲損失銷掉，只要他還可希望有個合理的收益超過成本[4]，他還是要繼續生產的。

With regard to popular errors it is necessary to emphasize that if the conditions required for the appearance of monopoly prices are not present, an entrepreneur is not in a position to increase his net returns by restricting production beyond the amount conforming with consumers' demand. But this problem will be dealt with later in section 6.

關於一些流行的謬見，這裡有必要特別強調一點：如果獨占價格沒有具備實現的條件，一個企業家不可能靠減少產量把他的淨報酬提高到超過消費者需求所許可的數額。但是，這個問題將在本章第六節討論。

That a factor of production is not perfectly divisible does not always mean that it can be constructed and employed in one size only. This, of course, may occur in some cases. But as a rule it is

一個生產要素不是完全可分的這個事實，並不總是意謂，它只能在一個規模下建造和使用。當然，在有些情況下會如此。但是，變動這些要素的體積，照例是可能的。如果在一個要素——比方說一部機器——的幾種可能的容積中，有一種容積是特別會使其產品的單位成本低於其他容積所生產的，這是常有的事情。因此可知：大規模的工場之所以占優勢，並不是由於它把一部機器的性能充份利用，而小規模的工場只把一部同樣大小的機器利用到它的性能的一部份，而是由於大規模的工場所用的機器比小規模工場所用的較大，因而在它的建造和操作方面所需要的那些生產要素得以更善利用。

The role played in all branches of production by the fact that many factors of production are not perfectly divisible is very great. It is of paramount importance in the course of industrial affairs. But one must guard oneself against many misinterpretations of its significance.

許多生産要素不是完全可分的這個事實，在一切生產部門所發生的作用非常大。在工業生產的過程尤爲重要。但是，關於它的重要性有許多誤解，我們必須小心提防。

One of these errors was the doctrine according to which in the processing industries there prevails a law of increasing returns, while in agriculture and mining a law of decreasing returns prevails. The fallacies implied have been exploded above[5]. As far as there is a difference in this regard between conditions in agriculture and those in the processing industries, differences in the data bring them about. The immobility of the soil and the fact that the performance of the various agricultural operations depends on the seasons make it impossible for farmers to take advantage of the capacity of many movable factors of production to the degree which conditions in manufacturing for the most part allow. The optimum size of a production outfit in agricultural production is as a rule much smaller than in the processing industries. It is obvious and does not need any further explanation why the concentration of farming cannot be pushed to anything near the degree obtaining in the processing industries.

誤解之一是說：在加工的工業方面，是報酬遞增律發生作用，而在農礦業方面，是報酬遞減律發生作用。這一說法的錯誤已於前面揭發[5]。在這一點上，農業的條件與工業的條件之有差異，是那些極據上的差異所形成的。土地的不能移動以及許多農業活動之有季節性，這都使農民們不能把一些可動的生產要素的性能，利用到工業方面大都可以利用到的程度。農業的生產裝備，其適度的規模照例是比工業方面的小得多。農業的集中化，決不能推進到工業方面所可做到的程度，其理由很明顯，用不著再加解釋。

However, the inequality in the distribution of natural resources over the earth's surface, which is one of the two factors making for the higher productivity of the division of labor, puts a limit to the progress of concentration in the processing industries also. The tendency toward a progressive specialization and the concentration of integrated industrial processes in only a few plants is counteracted by the geographical dispersion of natural resources. The fact that the production of raw materials and foodstuffs cannot be centralized and forces people to disperse over the various part of the earth's

可是，自然資源在地球上分配得不均勻（這是使分工有利於生產的兩個因素之一），也給工業集中化一個限制。少數統合工業累進的專業化和集中化的趨勢，受阻於自然資源的地域散佈。原料和糧食的生產不能集中，因而使地球的居民不得不分散各地。這個事實也使工業不得不保持某種程度的分散。這使它必須把運輸問題當作生產成本的一個特殊因素來考慮。運輸成本要和更徹底專業化所可獲致的經濟，權衡輕重。在某些工業部門，極端的集中化是減低成本的最好方法，但在另一些工業部門，某種程度的分散是更有利的。在服務業方面，集中是得不償失的。

Then a historical factor comes into play. In the past capital goods were immobilized on sites on which our contemporaries would not have set them. It is immaterial whether or not this immobilization was the most economical procedure to which the generations that brought it about could resort. In any event the present generation is faced with a fait accompli. It must adjust its operations to the fact and it must take it into account in dealing with problems of the location of the processing industries[6].

其次，我們要講到歷史因素發生的作用。在過去，有些資本財固定在現在這個世代的人們所不會安置的地點。對於那個世代而言，把资本財固定在那個地點是不是最經濟的辦法，這是不關重要的問題。無論如何，現在這個世代是面對一個旣成事實。他們必須對它調整他們的行爲，在處理工業位置問題的時候，必須考慮到這個事實[6]。

Finally there are institutional factors. There are trade and migration barriers. There are differences in political organization and methods of government between various countries. Vast areas are administered in such a way that it is practically out of the question to choose them as a seat for any capital investment no matter how favorable their physical conditions may be.

最後，還有制度方面的一些因素，那就是一些行業的和移民的障礙。在國與國之間，政治組織和行政方法有很多的差異。有些廣闊地區，不管自然條件如何有利於投資，但其政治作風竟不許我們選擇該地區作爲投資的場所。

Entrepreneurial cost accounting must deal with all these geographical, historical and institutional factors. But even apart from them there are purely technical factors limiting the optimum size of plants and firms. The greater plant or firm may require provisions and procedures which the smaller plant or firm can avoid. In many instances the outlays caused by such provisions and procedures may be overcompensated by the reduction in costs derived from better utilization of the capacity of some of the not perfectly divisible factors employed. In other instances this may not be the case.

企業的成本計算必須處理這些地域的、歷史的、和制度的因素。但是，即令撇開它們不談，還有些純技術性因素也會限制商號和工場的適度規模。較大的商號或工場也許需要較小的商號或工場所可避免的一些設備和程序。在有些情形下，這些設備和程序所引起的開支可被成本的降低抵銷，因爲有了這些設備和程序，就可使某些不完全可分的要素的性能利用得更充份。但在其他的情形下事情不是這樣。

Under capitalism the arithmetical operations required for cost accounting and the confrontation of costs and proceeds can easily be effected as there are methods of economic calculation available. However, cost accounting and calculation of the economic significance of business projects under consideration is not merely a mathematical problem which can be solved satisfactorily by all those familiar with

在資本主義社會裡面，成本計算所需要的算術運算，以及成本與收益的比較是容易做到的，因爲在這樣的社會裡面有些可用的經濟計算的方法。可是在考慮中的業務計畫，其成本計算和經濟意義的預測，則不只是一個所有熟習四則運算的人們都會滿意解決的數學問題。主要的問題是，那些要進入計算中的項目的金錢等値之如何決定。有許多經濟學家以爲，這些等値是些旣定的數量，唯一地決定於經濟情況。這是一個錯誤的假定。其實，那些等値都是對於不確定的未來情況的推測，因此，靠的是企業家對於將來市場的領悟。「固定成本」這個名詞，在這一點上是有點叫人誤解的。

Every action aims at the best possible supplying of future needs. To achieve these ends it must make the best possible use of the available factors of production. However, the historical process which brought about the present state of factors available is beside the point. What counts and influences the decisions concerning future action is solely the outcome of this historical process, the quantity and the quality of the factors available today. These factors are appraised only with regard to their ability to render productive services for the removal of future uneasiness. The amount of money spent in the past for their production and acquisition is immaterial.

每一行爲都爲的是盡可能好好供給未來的需要。爲達到這個目的，必須善於利用那些可用的生產要素。但是，那些促成可用的生產要素之現狀的歷史過程，與這一點無關。成爲問題而影響關於未來行爲之決定的，只是這個歷史過程的後果，也即，今天可用的這些要素的量和質。對於這些要素的估價，只是就它們提供效用以消除未來的不舒服的能力而作的。至於過去爲生產它們和取得它們所花的金錢數額有多少，這是不關重要的事情。

It has already been pointed out that an entrepreneur who by the time he has to make a new decision has expended money for the realization of a definite project is in a different position from that of a man who starts afresh. The former owns a complex of inconvertible factors of production which he can employ for certain purposes. His decisions concerning further action will be influenced by this fact. But he appraises this complex not according to what he expended in the past for its acquisition. He appraises it exclusively from the point of view of its usefulness for future action. The fact that he has spent more or less for its acquisition is insignificant. This fact is only a factor in determining the amount of the entrepreneur's past losses or profits and the present state of his fortune. It is an element in the historical process that brought about the present state of the supply of factors of production and as such it is of importance for future action. But it does not count for the planning of future action and the calculation regarding such action. It is irrelevant that the entries in the firm's books differ from the actual price of such inconvertible factors of production.

我們曾經講過，在要作新決定的時候，已經爲某一特定計畫的實施而花了一筆錢的企業家所處的地位，與一位從新開始的企業家所處的地位，是不同的。前者保有一個可以用在某些目的的不可改變的生產要素的聚合體。他對於未來行爲的決定，將要受到這個事實的影響。但是，他對於這個聚合體的估價，不是按照過去爲取得它們所花的金額多少，而只是從「它對未來的行爲有何用處」這個觀點來作的。至於他曾經爲取得它們而花錢多少這個事實，則是不關重要的。這個事實只是確定過去盈虧數額的一個因素。它是促成現在生產要素的供給情形的一個歷史因素，由於這一點，它對未來的行爲是重要的。但是，對於將來這個行爲的計畫和關於將來行爲的計算，它都不關事。這個商號帳簿上所記的，與這些不可改變的生產要素的實際價格不相符，這是不相干的事情。

Of course, such consummated losses or profits may motivate a firm to operate in a different way from which it would if it were not affected by them. Past losses may render a firm's financial position precarious, especially if they bring about indebtedness and burden it with payments of interest and installments on the principal. However, it is not correct to refer to such payments as a part of fixed

當然，這樣作成的盈虧，對於一個商店的營業所發生的影響，也許與不是這樣作成的盈虧所發生的影響，不一樣。過去的虧損，可使一個商號財務地位不穩定，假若這些虧損使這個商號負債，因而有付息和分期還本的負擔，則尤其如此。但是，如果說這些支付是固定成本的一部份，那就錯了。它們與現在的營業無任何關係。它們不是生產過程引起的，而是過去的企業家爲取得必須的資本和資本財而採用的那些方法所引起的。就現在營業中的商號而言，它們只是偶然的不幸事件。但是，它們也許會迫使這個商號採取一個在財務狀況更健全時所不採取的行動。爲著應付到期債務對於現金的迫切需要，並不影響它的成本計算，但會影響它對於現金與日後才可收到的金錢之間的相對估價。這個迫切需要會迫使這個商號在不合算的時候賣掉存貨，而且把它的耐久性生產設備用得過度，以致犧牲了將來的用場。

It is immaterial for the problems of cost accounting whether a firm owns the capital invested in its enterprise or whether it has borrowed a greater or smaller part of it and is bound to comply with the terms of a loan contract rigidly fixing the rate of interest and the dates of maturity for interest and principal. The costs of production include only the interest on the capital which is still existent and working in the enterprise. It does not include interest on capital squandered in the past by bad investment or by inefficiency in the conduct of current business operations. The task incumbent upon the businessman is always to use the supply of capital goods now available in the best possible way for the satisfaction of future needs. In the pursuit of this aim he must not be misled by past errors and failures the consequences of which cannot be brushed away. A plant may have been constructed in the past which would not have been built if one had better forecast the present situation. It is vain to lament this historical fact. The main thing is to find out whether or not the plant can still render any service and, if this question is answered in the affirmative, how it can be best utilized. It is certainly sad for the individual entrepreneur that he did not avoid errors. The losses incurred impair his financial situation. They do not affect the costs to be taken into account in planning further action.

一個商號是否保有那筆投在它的企業中的資本，或是否曾經借入那筆資本的大部份或小部份，因而不得不遵守借債契約按一定的利率一定的期間付息還本，這對於成本計算的一些問題是不關重要的。生產成本只包括對那筆還在企業中運用的資本所付的利息。它不包括封過去錯誤的投資或現在無效率的經營所浪費的資本所付的利息。商人的任務，總是在盡可能善於利用「現有的」資本財的供給，以滿足未來的需要。爲著這個目的，他決不可受那些其後果無法刷淸的過去的錯誤和失敗的誤導。在過去已經建立的某一個工廠，如果當事人封現在的情況有先見之明的話，就不會建立了。悲歎這個歷史事實，毫無用處。要緊的事情是，要明瞭這個工廠還能否提供什麼服務，如果這個問題的答案是肯定的，就要再進一步明瞭如何把它作最善的利用。就企業家個人而言，他沒有免於錯誤，確是可悲的。招來的虧損，傷害他的財務狀況。但是，這些虧損影響在計畫將來的行爲時所應考慮的成本。

It is important to stress this point because it has been distorted in the current interpretation and justification of various measures. One does not "reduce costs" by alleviating some firms' and corporations' burden of debts. A policy of wiping out debts or the interest due on them totally or in part does not reduce costs. It transfers wealth from creditors to debtors; it shifts the incidence of losses incurred in the past from one group of people to another group, e.g., from the owners of common stock to those of preferred stock and corporate bonds. This argument of cost reduction is often advanced in

我們強調這一點，這是很重要的，因爲時下對各種措施的解釋和辯護都把它曲解了。你把某些商號和公司的債務負擔減輕了，這不是「降低成本」。消除債務或其利息的全部或局部的政策，並不降低成本。它是把財富從債權人轉移到債務人：它是把過去引起的虧損從這—個人轉移到另一組人，從普通股的持有人轉移到優先股和公司債的持有人。這個成本降低的議論常被用來辯護通貨眨値。在這個事例中，它的謬誤並不遜於爲此目的而提出的一切別的議論。

What are commonly called fixed costs are also costs incurred by the exploitation of the already available factors of production which are either rigidly inconvertible or can be adapted for other productive purposes only at a considerable loss. These factors are of a more durable character than the other factors of production required. But they are not permanent. They are used up in the process of production. With each unit of product turned out a part of the machine's power to produce is exhausted. The extant of this attrition can be precisely ascertained by technology and can be appraised accordingly in terms of money.

普通叫做「固定成本」的，也是由於利用那些已有的絕對不可改變用途或可改變用途，但必須蒙受很大損失的生產要素而引起的成本。這些要素比其他的必須要素更富耐久性。但是，它們不是永久不滅的。在生產過程中它們會漸漸用完。隨著每個單位產品的產出，機器生產力的一部份爲之消耗。這種消耗的程度可以靠工藝學精密地確定，而且也可以用金額來表現。

However, it is not only this money equivalent of the machine's wearing out which the entrepreneurial calculation has to consider. The businessman is not merely concerned with the duration of the machine's technological life. He must take into account the future state of the market. Although a machine may still be technologically perfectly utilizable, market conditions may render it obsolete and worthless. If the demand for its products drops considerably or disappears altogether or if more efficient methods for supplying the consumers with these products appear, the machine is economically merely scrap iron. In planning the conduct of his business the entrepreneur must pay full regard to the anticipated future state of the market. The amount of "fixed" costs which enter into his calculation depends on his understanding of future events. It is not to be fixed simply by technological reasoning.

但是，企業家的計算所要考慮的不只是機器損耗的金錢等値。工商業者不僅是關心機器的生命長短。他必須考慮到未來的市場情況。儘管一部機器在技術上還是完全可用的，市場情況可能使它陳舊而無價値。如果它的產品需求大大降低或完全消滅，或者如果這些產品的供給有了更有效率的方法出現，於是這部機器在經濟上就成爲—堆廢鐵。所以，在計畫他們的營業行爲時，企業家必得充份注意未來的市場情況。進入他的計算中的「固定」成本額，決定於他對未來情況的領悟。這不是單憑技術的推理可以確定的。

The technologist may determine the optimum for a production aggregate's utilization. But this technological optimum may differ from that which the entrepreneur on the ground of his judgment concerning future market conditions enters into his economic calculation. Let us assume that a factory is equipped with machines which can be utilized for a period of ten years. Every year 10 per cent of their prime costs is laid aside for depreciation. In the third year market conditions place a dilemma before the entrepreneur. He can double his output for the year and sell it at a price which (apart from covering the increase in variable costs) exceeds the quota of depreciation for the current year and the present value of the last depreciation quota. But this doubling of production trebles the wearing out of the equipment and the surplus proceeds from the sale of the double quantity of products are not great enough to make good also for the present value of the depreciation quota of the ninth year. If the entrepreneur were to consider the annual depreciation quota as a rigid

技術人員可能爲一個生產要素聚合體的利用確定一個最適度。但是這個技術上的最適度，有異於企業家基於他對未來巿場情況的判斷而考慮的那個最適度。讓我們假設，有個工廠装置了幾部可以用十年的機器。每年提出它們原始成本的十分之一作爲折舊準備。在第三年，市場情況使這位企業家面臨左右兩難之局。他可以在這一年加倍生產，而把它在一個「超過本年度折舊額和最後折舊額的現値」的價格下賣掉（這裡且不管抵補變動成本的增加）。但是，產量的加倍使機器設備耗損了三倍，而那筆從銷售加倍產量得來的超額收益不足以把第九年折舊額的現値，也抵補上。如果這位企業家要把每年的折舊額看作他計算中的一個固定份子，他一定認爲，加倍生產是不合算的。因爲額外收益落後於額外成本。他不會把生產擴大到超過技術的適度。但是，這位企業家不是這樣計算的，儘管在他的會計處理上，他可每年提出同額的折舊準備。這位企業家是不是寧取第九年折舊額現値的一部份而捨去那些機器在第九年所可提供的技術的服務，這就決定於他對未來市場情況的見解。

Public opinion, governments and legislators, and the tax laws look upon a business outfit as a source of permanent revenue. They believe that the entrepreneur who makes due allowance for capital maintenance by annual depreciation quotas will always be in a position to reap a reasonable return from the capital invested in his durable producers' goods. Real conditions are different. A production aggregate such as a plant and its equipment is a factor of production whose usefulness depends on changing market conditions and the skill of the entrepreneur in employing it in accordance with the change in conditions.

輿論、政府、立法者，以及一些稅法都把工商業的裝備看作一個永久收益的來源。他們以爲：那些爲其資本的維持每年提了折舊準備額的企業家，將會永久從其投在耐久性生產財的資本中收穫合理的報酬。實際的情形並不如此。一個生產要素聚合體像一個工場，其設備之是否有用，是要看在變動中的市場情況，以及企業家依照那些情況的變動而運用這個聚合體的技術。

There is in the field of economic calculation nothing that is certain in the sense in which this term is used with regard to technological facts. The essential elements of economic calculation are speculative anticipations of future conditions. Commercial usages and customs and commercial laws have established definite rules for accountancy and auditing. There is accuracy in the keeping of books. But they are accurate only with regard to these rules. The book values do not reflect precisely the real state of affairs. The market value of an aggregate of durable producers' goods may differ from the nominal figures the books show. The proof is that the Stock Exchange appraises them without any regard to these figures.

在經濟計算的範圍內沒有確定的東西，這裡所用的「確定」一詞，是用它在工藝方面的意義。經濟計算的基本成份是一些對未來情況的推測。商業的慣例和商事法，曾經爲會計和審計確立了一些規則。在帳簿的記載上是精確的。但這些精確只是依照那些規則而言。帳面上的價値並不正確地反映實在的情況。耐久性生產財聚合體的市場價値與帳面上的數字是不同的。股票市場對於股票的叫價，與這種數字毫無關係，就是一個證明。

Cost accounting is therefore not an arithmetical process which can be established and examined by an indifferent umpire. It does not operate with uniquely determined magnitudes which can be found out in an objective way. Its essential items are the result of an understanding of future conditions, necessarily always colored by the entrepreneur's opinion about the future state of the market.

所以，成本會計不是一個中立的公斷人所可確立和審定的算術過程。它不是用些靠客觀的方法找出來的數量來運算的。它的一些基本項目是，對於未來情況領悟的結果，必然總是染上企業家主觀的色彩。

Attempts to establish cost accounts on an "impartial" basis are doomed to failure. Calculating costs is a mental tool of action, the purposive design to make the best of the available means for an improvement of future conditions. It is necessarily volitional, not factual. In the hands of an indifferent umpire it changes its character

想把成本會計建立在一個「不偏不倚」基礎上的努力，註定是要失敗的。計算成本是行爲的一個心智工具，是爲的善用那些可以用的手段以改進未來的情況。它必然是意志的，而不是事實的。一到中立的公断人的手中，它就完全改變了它的性質。公斷人並不展望將來。他回顧已不存在的過去及那些對於實際生活和行爲無用的嚴格規則。他不預測變化。他不知不覺地囿於偏見，以爲均勻輪轉的經濟是正常的最可喜的人事情況。利潤與他的想法不調和。他有一個關於「公平的」利潤率或「公平的」投資報酬的混淆觀念。可是事實上沒有這樣的東西。在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，是沒有利潤的。在變動的經濟裡面，利潤不是按照任何可用以把它區分公平或不公平的規則而決定的。利潤無所謂正常的。有正常的地方，也即沒有變化，利潤就決不會產生。

--------------------

[4] Reasonable means in this connection that the anticipated returns on the convertible capital used for the continuation of production are at least not lower than the anticipated returns on its use for other projects.

[4] 這裡所說的合理，意思是：用以繼續生產的不變資本的預期報酬，至少不低於它用於其他計畫的預期報酬。

[5] Cf. Above, p. 130.

[5] 參考第七章第二節。

[6] For a thoroughgoing treatment of the conservatism enjoined upon men by the limited convertibility of many capital goods, the historically determined element in production, see below, pp. 503-514.

[6] 關於這方面的徹底討論，見第十八章第五、六兩節。

5. Logical Catallactics Versus Mathematical Catallactics

五、邏輯的交換學對數學的交換學

The problems of prices and costs have been treated also with mathematical methods. There have even been economists who held that the only appropriate method of dealing with economic problems is the mathematical method and who derided the logical economists as "literary" economists.

價格和成本問題也有用數學方法來處理的。甚至於有些經濟學家以爲，處理經濟問題的唯一適當方法是數學方法，他們把邏輯的經濟學家嘲笑爲「文學的」經濟學家。

If this antagonism between the logical and the mathematical economists were merely a disagreement concerning the most adequate procedure to be applied in the study of economics, it would be superfluous to pay attention to it. The better method would prove its preeminence by bringing about better results. It may also be that different varieties of procedure are necessary for the solution of different problems and that for some of them one method is more useful than the other.

如果邏輯的經濟學家與數學的經濟學家之間的對立，只是一個關於研究經濟學的最適當的程序之爭，那麼我們可不必去管它。較好的方法總會帶來較好的結果，以證明它的優越。而且，不同的程序對於不同的問題之解決，也許是必要的；對於某些問題，這個方法也許比那個方法更有用。

However, this is not a dispute about heuristic questions, but a controversy concerning the foundations of economics. The mathematical method must be rejected not only on account of its barrenness. It is an entirely vicious method, starting from false assumptions and leading to fallacious inferences. Its syllogisms are not only sterile; they divert the mind from the study of the real problems and distort the relations between the various phenomena.

但是，這不是一個關於方法效果的問題之爭，而是關於經濟學的基礎之爭。數學方法之必須反對，不僅是因爲它的無效。它完全是一個錯誤的方法，從一些錯誤假定開始，導致一些錯誤的結論。它的推論式不僅是白費的；它們使我們的心智離開實際問題的硏究，而且曲解各種現象之間的關係。

The ideas and procedures of the mathematical economists are not uniform. There are three main currents of thought which must be dealt with separately.

數學經濟學家們的一些想法和程序不是一致的。有三派主要的思潮，我們必須分列討論。

The first variety is represented by the statisticians who aim at discovering economic laws from the study of economic experience. They aim to transform economics into a "quantitative" science. Their program is condensed in the motto of the Econometric Society: Science is measurement.

第一派是一些統計學家所代表的，他們想從經濟經驗的研究來發現經濟法則。他們的目的是要把經濟學變成一門「計量的」科學。他們的計畫濃縮在「經濟計量學會」（the Econometric Society）的標語：科學是測量（Science is measurement）。

The fundamental error implied in this reasoning has been shown above[7]. Experience of economic history is always experience of complex phenomena. It can never convey knowledge of the kind the experimenter abstracts from a laboratory experiment. statistics is a method for the presentation of historical facts concerning prices and other relevant data of human action. It is not economics and cannot produce economic theorems and theories. The statistics of prices is economic history. The insight that, ceteris paribus, an increase in demand must result in an increase in prices is not derived from experience. Nobody ever was or ever will be in a position to observe a change in one of the market data ceteris paribus. There is no such thing as quantitative economics. All economic quantities we know about are data of economic history. No reasonable man can contend that the relation between price and supply is in general, or in respect of certain commodities, constant. We know, on the contrary, that external phenomena affect different people in different ways, that the reactions of the same people to the same external events vary, and that it is not possible to assign individuals to classes of men reacting in the same way. This insight is a product of our aprioristic theory. It is true the empiricists reject this theory; they pretend that they aim to learn only from historical experience. However, they contradict their own principles as soon as they pass beyond the unadulterated recording of individual single prices and begin to construct series and to compute averages. A datum of experience and a statistical fact is only a price paid at a definite time and a definite place for a definite quantity of a certain commodity. The arrangement of various price data in groups and the computation of averages are guided by theoretical deliberations which are logically and temporally antecedent. The extent to which certain attending features and circumstantial contingencies of the price data concerned are taken or not taken into consideration depends on theoretical reasoning of the same kind. Nobody is so bold as to maintain that a rise of a per cent in the supply of any commodity must always--in every country and at any time--result in a fall of b per cent in its price. But as no quantitative economist ever ventured to define precisely on the ground of statistical experience the special conditions producing a definite deviation from the ratio a : b, the futility of his endeavors is manifest. Moreover, money is not a standard for the measurement of prices; it is a medium whose exchange ratio varies in the same way, although as a rule not with the same speed and to

包含在這個理論裡面的錯誤，已在前面講過[7]。經濟史的經驗總是一些複雜現象的經驗。它決不能提供像做試驗的人在實驗室裡面抽繹出的那一類的知識。統計是一個表現歷史事實的方法。它表現關於物價和其他有關人的行爲資料的歷史事實。它不是經濟學，不能導出經濟定理和理論。物價統計是經濟歷史。「其他情形不變，需求增加，價格必定上漲」這個法則，不是從經驗得來的。誰也不能看到其他情形不變，只有一個市場現象在變。所謂經濟計量學，根本不會有這樣的東西。我們所知道的一切經濟數量，都是經濟歷史。凡是懂理的人，誰也不會主張價格與供給的關係是不變的，一般地說也好，就某些特定的貨物說也好。相反地，我們知道：外在現象對於不同的人發生不同的影饗；同一個人對於同一的外在事象的反應也會前後不一樣；我們不可能按其反應的相同，而把人歸屬於同類。我們的這種洞察力是得自演繹法。經驗主義者是反對它的：他們說他們只向歷史的經驗學習，但是，當他們超越實在的個別物價而開始構想價格的「序列」和「平均」的時候，他們就牴觸了他們自己的原則。一項經驗資料和一件統計事實只是在一定的時間、一定的地點，對某一貨物的一定量所支付的價格。至於各種物價資料分組安排，而計算出平均數，那是受―些先驗理論的指導。把有關的物價資料的某些附帶特徵和偶然性納入考慮或不納入考慮的程度，決定於同樣的推理。誰也不敢這樣講：任何貨物的供給增加了百分之a，無論在何時何地，其結果是價格一定跌落百分之b。但是，因爲沒有一個經濟計量學家膽敢靠統計經驗，精確地斷定某些特別情況會使a:b的比率發生一定的偏差，他的努力之無用，也就可知了。而且，貨幣不是衡量物價的一個標準：它是一個媒介，而其交換率的變動和那些能寶的貨物與勞務的相互交換率的變動是同樣的，儘管在正常情形下，其變動的速度與幅度不一樣。

There is hardly any need to dwell longer upon the exposure of the claims of quantitative economics. In spite of all the high-sounding pronouncements of its advocates, nothing has been done for the realization of its program. The late Henry Schultz devoted his research to the measurement of elasticities of demand for various commodities. Professor Paul H. Douglas has praised the outcome of Schultz's studies as "a work as necessary to help make economics a more or less exact science as was the determination of atomic weights for the development of chemistry."[8] The truth is that Schultz never embarked upon a determination of the elasticity of demand for any commodity as such; the data he relied upon were limited to certain geographical areas and historical periods. His result for a definite commodity, for instance potatoes, do not refer to potatoes in general, but to potatoes in the United States in the years from 1875 to 1929[9]. They are, at best, rather questionable and unsatisfactory contributions to various chapters of economic history. They are certainly not steps toward the realization of the confused and contradictory program of quantitative economics. It must be emphasized that the two other varieties of mathematical economics are fully aware of the futility of quantitative economics. For they have never ventured to make any magnitudes as found by the econometricians enter into their formulas and equations and thus to adapt them for the solution of particular problems. There is in the field of human action no means for dealing with future events other than that provided by understanding.

這裡無須乎對經濟計量學的主張再多討論。儘管它的鼓吹者叫得震天價饗，就其目的而言是一事無成。已故的Henry Schultz曾盡力於研究幾種貨物的需求彈性的衡量。Paul H. Douglas敎授讚賞Schultz的研究結果，認爲是「一項使經濟學成爲具有幾分精密性的科學的必要工作，其必要，正同原子量的確定對於化學的發展」。[8]其實，Schultz並沒有對任何貨物本身的需求彈性作一確定；他所依賴的資料限於某些地區和某些歷史時期。他對特定貨物的硏究結果，例如馬鈴薯，不涉及一般的馬鈴薯，只涉及一八七五到一九二九年美國的馬鈴薯[9]。那些研究結果，至多是對經濟史的某幾章有點不能叫人滿意的貢獻。它們確不是實現經濟計量學的那個混淆而矛盾的綱領的一些步驟。這裡，我們必須特別指出：其他兩派數學經濟學倒是充份知道經濟計量學的無用。因爲，他們從來不敢把經濟計量學者所建立的一些量列入他們的公式和方程式，而用來解決特殊問題。在人的行爲領域內，處理未來事情的方法沒有別的，只有領悟所提供的。

The second field treated by mathematical economists is that of the relation of prices and costs. In dealing with these problems the mathematical economists disregard the operation of the market process and moreover pretend to abstract from the use of money inherent in all economic calculations. However, as they speak of prices and costs in general and confront prices and costs, they tacitly imply the existence and the use of money. Prices are always money prices, and costs cannot be taken into account in economic calculation if not expressed in terms of money. If one does not resort to terms of money, costs are expressed in complex quantities of diverse goods and services to be expended for the procurement of a product. On the other hand prices--if this term is applicable at all to exchange ratios determined by barter--are the enumeration of quantities of various goods against which the "seller" can exchange a definite supply. The goods

數學經濟學家所處理的第二方面，是物價與成本的關係。在處理這些問題的時候，他們不理睬市場程序的操作，而且妄想撇開一切經濟計算所固有的貨幣的用處。可是，當他們說到物價和成本的時候，他們又默認貨幣的存在和其用處。價格總歸是貨幣價格，成本如果不以貨幣表示，就不能納入經濟計算。如果我們不憑藉貨幣的名目，則成本就要以取得一件產品所必須花掉的種種財貨與勞務的綜合量來表示。另一方面，價格——如果這個名詞可用來指稱由物物交換所決定的交換率——就是「賣者」以其一定的供給所能換得的各種財貨數量的列舉。這樣以實物表示的「價格」和這樣以實物表示的「成本」，是無法比較的。賣者對於他所放棄的財貨的評値低於他所換得的財貨的評值；賣者和買者對於他們交換的兩種財貨的主觀評値不一樣：一個企業家只有在他預期從產品換得的財貨之價値高於生產中花掉的財貨的時候，才去實行一個生產計畫。對於所有的這些情形，我們基於交換學的了解，已經知道。使得我們能夠預知一位會作經濟計算的企業家之行爲的，就是這種先驗的知識。但是，數學經濟學家當他妄想不藉助貨幣名目，而在一個更一般性的方法下來處理這些問題的時候，他是在欺騙自己。要研究有關非完全可分的生產要素的事情，而不藉助於用貨幣來作的經濟計算，那是徒勞無功的。這樣的一個研究法決不會超出已有的知識；也即，每個企業家所想生產的東西，是那些爲他帶來的收益，在他的評値中高於生產中花掉的全部財貨的評値之東西。但是，如果沒有間接交換，如果沒有通用的交易媒介，一個企業家的成功，也即，他正確地預測到未來的市場情況，只有他具有一種超人的智慧才可能。他必須一望就可看出市場上決定的一切一切交換率，而正確地按照這些交換率把每件財貨安排在適當的地方。

It cannot be denied that all investigations concerning the relation of prices and costs presuppose both the use of money and the market process. But the mathematical economists shut their eyes to this obvious fact. They formulate equations and draw curves which are supposed to describe reality. In fact they describe only a hypothetical and unrealizable state of affairs, in no way similar to the catallactic problems in question. They substitute algebraic symbols for the determinate terms of money as used in economic calculation and believe that this procedure renders their reasoning more scientific. They strongly impress the gullible layman. In fact they only confuse and muddle things which are satisfactorily dealt with in textbooks of commercial arithmetic and accountancy.

所有關於價格與成本關係的研究，得先有貨幣的使用和市場程序，這是不容否認的。但是，數學經濟學者對於這個明顯的事實閉目不視。他們列出一些方程式，劃出一些曲線圖，以爲那就是實情的陳述。其實，他們所陳述的只是一個虚擬的、不能實現的情況，決不同於交換學所處理的有關問題。他們拿代數符號替代確定的貨幣名目用在經濟計算，而且以爲這樣處置可使他們的理論更科學。容易欺騙的門外漢很相信他們的那一套。事實上，他們只是把商業算術和會計學的敎科書裡面講得很淸楚的一些東西弄混淆了、弄糟了。

Some of these mathematicians have gone so far as to declare that economic calculation could be established on the basis of units of utility. They call their methods utility analysis. Their error is shared by the third variety of mathematical economics.

有些這樣的數學家甚至於宣稱，經濟計算可以建立在效用單位的基礎上。他們把他們的方法叫做效用分析，他們的謬見也爲第三派的數學經濟學者所共有。

The characteristic mark of this third group is that they are openly

這個第三派的特徵是，他們公開地、故意地不管市場程序，而想解決交換學的問題。他們的理想是，按照力學的模型來建立一套經濟理論。他們一再地把經濟學類比於古典的力學，在他們的見解中，力學是科學硏究唯一的絕對模式。這裡，不必再解釋爲什麼這個類比是淺薄的、誤導的、以及人的行爲在那些方面絕對不同於力學所研究的主題——運動。這裡，只要強調一點就夠了，這一點就是，微積方程在這兩個領域的實際意義。

The deliberations which result in the formulation of an equation are necessarily of a nonmathematical character. The formulation of the equation is the consummation of our knowledge; it does not directly enlarge our knowledge. Yet, in mechanics the equation can render very important practical services. As there exist constant relations between various mechanical elements and as these relations can be ascertained by experiments, it becomes possible to use equations for the solution of definite technological problems. Our modern industrial civilization is mainly an accomplishment of this utilization of the differential equations of physics. No such constant relations exist, however, between economic elements. The equations formulated by mathematical economics remain a useless piece of mental gymnastics and would remain so even it they were to express much more than they really do.

由於深思熟慮而列出一個方程式，這樣的深思熟慮必然是屨於非數學性的。方程式的列出是我們的知識的完成：它不直接擴增我們的知識。可是，在力學裡面，方程式有非常重要的用處。因爲，在力學領域內，各種機械的因素之間存有不變的關係，而這些關係可用實驗來查究，所以，利用方程式來解決一定的技術問題就成爲可能。我們現代的工業文明，大都是微分方程用在物理學的成就。但是，在經濟的因素之間，卻沒有這樣不變的關係存在。數學經濟學所列出的那些方程式，終歸是些無用的心智遊戲的工具，即令它們所要表示的遠比它們實際做到的多得多，仍然是無用的。

A sound economic deliberation must never forget these two fundamental principles of the theory of value: First, valuing that results in action always means preferring and setting aside; it never means equivalence or indifference. Second, there is no means of comparing the valuations of different individuals or the valuations of the same individuals at different instants other than by establishing whether or not they arrange the alternatives in question in the same order of preference.

健全的經濟考慮，決不可忘掉價値論的兩個基本原則：第一、引起行爲的評値，總歸是取和捨；它決不是等値。第二、我們沒有任何方法可用以比較不同的人的評値，或同一個人在不同的時候的評値，我們只能觀察，他們是不是把那些有關的選擇安排在相同的偏好等級中，再憑此觀察以確定他們之間的評値之不同。

In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy all factors of production are employed in such a way that each of them renders the most valuable service. No thinkable and possible change could improve the state of satisfaction; no factor is employed for the satisfaction of a need a if this employment prevents the satisfaction of a need b that is considered more valuable than the satisfaction of a. It is, of course, possible to describe this imaginary state of the allocation of resources in differential equations and to visualize it graphically in curves. But such devices do not assert anything about the market process. They merely mark out an imaginary situation in

在一個均勻輪轉的經濟這種假想的結構裡面，所有的生產要素都用在提供最有價値的服務的途徑。我們再也想不出，有什麼可再促進滿足的變動可能發生；沒有一個要素用來滿足某種需求而妨礙到另一種被認爲更有價値的需求之滿足。當然，把這種假想的資源配置情况，用微分方程來陳述，並用曲線圖形來表現，這是可能的。但是，這樣的做法對於市場程序並沒有講到什麼，而只是劃出一個市場程序停止了操作的假想狀態。數學經濟學家們不理睬整個市場程序的理論闡釋，而躲躲閃閃地拿一個用在理論闡釋的輔助觀念（離開理論闡釋就沒有任何意義的輛助觀念）以自娛。

In physics we are faced with changes occurring in various sense phenomena. We discover a regularity in the sequence of these changes and these observations lead us to the construction of a science of physics. We know nothing about the ultimate forces actuating these changes. They are for the searching mind ultimately given and defy any further analysis. What we know from observation is the regular concatenation of various observable entities and attributes. It is this mutual interdependence of data that the physicist describes in differential equations.

在物理學裡面，我們遇到一些發生在感覺現象的變動。我們在這些變動的連續中發現一個規律性，而這些觀察就引導我們建立起一門物理科學。關於發動這些變動的最後力量是怎麼一回事，我們一點也不知道。我們從觀察中知道的，是種種可看到的有規律和連績的實體和特徵。物理學家在微分方程裡面記述的，就是這些資料相互間的依賴。

In praxeology the first fact we know is that men are purposively intent upon bringing about some changes. It is this knowledge that integrates the subject matter of praxeology and differentiates it from the subject matter of the natural sciences. We know the forces behind the changes, and this aprioristic knowledge leads us to a cognition of the praxeological processes. The physicist does not know what electricity "is." He knows only phenomena attributed to something called electricity. But the economist knows what actuates the market process. It is only thanks to this knowledge that he is in a position to distinguish market phenomena from other phenomena and to describe the market process.

在行爲學裡面，我們首先知道的事實是：人是故意地要引起某些變動。這個知識使我們能夠統合行爲學題材而區別於自然科學的題材。我們知道引起變動的力量是什麼，而這個先驗的知識導致我們走向行爲學的程序之認識。物理學家不知道電「是」什麼。他只知道，属於叫做電的那些現象。但是，經濟學家卻知道發動市場程序的是什麽。他之能夠辨識市場現象不同於其他現象，而且能夠陳述市場程序，完全是靠的這個知識。

Now, the mathematical economist does not contribute anything to the elucidation of the market process. He merely describes an auxiliary makeshift employed by the logical economists as a limiting notion, the definition of a state of affairs in which there is no longer any action and the market process has come to a standstill. That is all he can say. What the logical economist sets forth in words when defining the imaginary constructions of the final state of rest and the evenly rotating economy and what the mathematical economist himself must describe in words before he embarks upon his mathematical work, is translated into algebraic symbols. A superficial analogy is spun out too long, that is all.

數學經濟學家對於市場程序的說明毫無貢獻。他只對邏輯的經濟學家當作界限用的輔助性的權宜辦法加以申述而已，這個權宜辦法——均衡觀念，就是對「再也沒有任何行爲，而市場程序已完停頓」這一情況所下的定義。這就是他所能講的一切一切。邏輯的經濟學家在界定最後休止狀態和均勻輪轉經濟這些假想的建構時，用語言文字表示出來的東西，以及數學經濟學家本人在著手數學工作以前所必須用語言文字陳述的東西，都被他變成代數符號。一個膚淺的類推弄得長而又長，一切一切不過如此。

Both the logical and the mathematical economists assert that human action ultimately aims at the establishment of such a state of equilibrium and would reach it if all further changes in data were to cease. But the logical economist knows much more than that. He shows how the activities of enterprising men, the promoters and speculators, eager to profit from discrepancies in the price structure, tend toward

邏輯的經濟學家和數學的經濟學家都是說：人的行爲畢竟是要建立這樣一個均衡情況，如果資料方面再也沒有任何變動的話，這樣的情况是可以達到的。但是，邏輯的經濟學家知道的比這更多。他說明那些要從價格結構的不調和而謀利的企業家、發起人、投機者的活動如何趨向於消滅這樣的矛盾，因而也趨向於消滅企業盈虧的來源。他說明這個程序最後如何歸結於均勻輪轉的經濟之建立。這是經濟理論的任務。各種均衡情況的數學記述只是一種遊戲。問題是在市場程序的分析。

A comparison of both methods of economic analysis makes us understand the meaning of the often raised request to enlarge the scope of economic science by the construction of a dynamic theory instead of the mere occupation with static problems. With regard to logical economics this postulate is devoid of any sense. Logical economics is essentially a theory of processes and changes. It resorts to the imaginary constructions of changelessness merely for the elucidation of the phenomena of change. But it is different with mathematical economics. Its equations and formulas are limited to the description of states of equilibrium and nonacting. It cannot assert anything with regard to the formation of such states and their transformation into other states as long as it remains in the realm of mathematical procedures. As against mathematical economics the request for a dynamic theory is will substantiated. But there is no means for mathematical economics to comply with this request. The problems of process analysis, i.e., the only economic problems that matter, defy any mathematical approach. The introduction of time parameters into the equations is no solution. It does not even indicate the essential shortcomings of the mathematical method. The statements that every change involves time and that change is always in the temporal sequence are merely a way of expressing the fact that as far as there is rigidity and unchangeability there is no time. The main deficiency of mathematical economics is not the fact that it ignores the temporal sequence, but that it ignores the operation of the market process.

這雙方的經濟分析方法的比較，使我們了解常被提出的「建立動態理論而不拘限於靜態問題，以擴大經濟學的範圍」這個要求的意思。就邏輯的經濟學來講，這個要求是沒有意義的。邏輯經濟學本來就是程序和變動的理論。它之利用無變動的假想建構，只是爲的便於說明變動的現象。但是它與數學的經濟學不同。它的一些方程式和公式是限之於記述均衡與非動的情況。它（這個「它」應该是「它們」，用以指稱上句的一些方程式和公式——譯者附註）不能斷言，關於這樣的一些情況之形成和它們轉到其他情況的任何事情，只要它（應该是「它們」，如上——譯者附註）還在數學程序的部門以內。爲反封數學的經濟學而要求一個動態的理論，這是很有理由的。但是，我們無法爲贊成數學的經濟學而又答應這個要求。關於程序分析的一些問題（也即唯一要緊的經濟問題）不能用數學方法來處理。時間變數決沒有方法引進方程式裡面。這還不是數學方法的基本缺點。「每個變動必然涉及時間」，「變動總是在時序中發生的」，這些說法也即是說「固定不變就是沒有時間」。數學經濟學的主要缺陷不是它不管時間，而是它不管市場程序的操作。

The mathematical method is at a loss to show how from a state of nonequilibrium those actions spring up which tend toward the establishment of equilibrium. It is, of course, possible to indicate the mathematical operations required for the transformation of the mathematical description of a definite state of nonequilibrium into the mathematical description of the state of equilibrium. But these mathematical operations by no means describe the market process actuated by the discrepancies in the price structure. The differential equations of mechanics are supposed to describe precisely the motions concerned at any instant of the time interval between the state of nonequilibrium

數學的方法難於說明，那些趨向於建立均衡行爲如何從一個非均衡的情況發生。當然，把一個非均衡狀況的數學記述轉變到均衡狀況的數學記述所需要的數學運算指示出來，這是可能的。但是，這種數學運算決不能描述由於價格結構的不調和而引起的市場程序。力學的一些微分方程對於時間經過中任何時點的有關運動，被認爲描述得精精確確。經濟的方程式對於非均衡狀態與均衡狀況之間的時間經過中，每一時點的實際情形毫不涉及。只有那些完全蔽於「經濟學一定是力學複製品」這個偏見的人們，才低估這個缺陷的重要性。一個非常有缺陷而又膚淺的隱喩，不能替代邏輯的經濟學所提供的功用。

In every chapter of catallactics the devastating consequences of the mathematical treatment of economics can be tested. It is enough to refer to two instances only. One is provided by the so-called equation of exchange, the mathematical economists' futile and misleading attempt to deal with changes in the purchasing power of money[10]. The second can be best expressed in referring to Professor Schumpeter's dictum according to which consumers in evaluating consumers' goods "ipso facto also evaluate the means of production which enter into the production of these goods."[11] It is hardly possible to construe the market process in a more erroneous way.

經濟學用數學處理所引起的破壞後果，在交換學的每一章中都可檢驗到。我們只要舉兩個例子就夠了。一個是所謂「交換方程式」的例子，這是數學的經濟學家處理貨幣購買力變動的一個無效而又引起誤解的企圖[10]。第二個例子最好用熊彼得（Schumpeter）敎授的一句話作代表，據他說，消費者對消費財評値的時候「事實上也是對那些生產這些消費財的生產手段評値。」[11]市場程序的構想中沒有比這更錯誤的。

Economics is not about goods and services, it is about the actions of living men. Its goal is not to dwell upon imaginary constructions such as equilibrium. These constructions are only tools of reasoning. The sole task of economics is analysis of the actions of men, is the analysis of processes.

經濟學所處理的不是財貨和勞務，而是活生生的人們的行爲。它的目的不在冗長地討論假想的建構如均衡狀態。這種建構只是些推理的工具。經濟學的唯一任務是人的行爲之分析，是程序的分析。

-----------------------

[7] Cf. Above, pp. 31, 55-56.

[7] 參考第二章第一節及第八節。

[8] Cf. Paul H. Douglas in Econometrica, VII, 105.

[8] 見Paul H. Douglas在Econometrica, VII, 105.所講的。

[9] Cf. Henry Schultz, The Theory and Measurement of Demand (University of Chicago Press, 1938), pp. 405-427.

[9] Henry Schultz, The Theory and Measurement of Demand (University of Chicago Press, 1938), pp. 405-427.

[10] Cf. below, p. 399.

[10] 參考第十七章第二節。

[11] Cf. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York, 1942), p. 175. For a critique of this statement, cf. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” Individualism and the Social Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 89 ff.

[11] 參考Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York, 1942), p. 175。關於這個說法的批評，參考Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society,刊於American Economic Review, XXXV, 529-530（此文已收入Individualism and the Social Order——譯者附註）。

6. Monopoly Prices

六、獨占價格

Competitive prices are the outcome of a complete adjustment of the sellers to the demand of the consumers. Under the competitive price the whole supply available is sold, and the specific factors of production are employed to the extent permitted by the prices of the nonspecific complementary factors. No part of a supply available is permanently withheld from the market, and the marginal unit of specific factors of production employed does not yield any net proceed. The whole economic process is conducted for the benefit of the consumers. There is no conflict between the interests of the buyers and those of the sellers, between the interests of the producers and those of the consumers. The owners of the various commodities are not in a position to divert consumption and production from the lines enjoined by the valuations of the consumers, the state of supply of goods and services of all orders and the state of technological knowledge.

競爭價格是賣者爲適應消費者的需求而作的完全調整的結果。在競爭價格下，全部的有效供給都會賣掉，而那些特殊的生產要素被利用到那些非特殊的要素的價格所可容許的程度。有效的供給不會有一部份永久撤出巿場，而那被利用的特殊生產要素的邊際單位不產生淨的收益。這全部經濟程序的活動是有利於消費者的。買者與賈者之間，生產者與消費者之間，都沒有利害衝突。各種貨物的所有人不能夠使消費和生產轉向：消費和生產是由各級的財貨和勞務的供給情形，以及技術知識所決定的。

Every single seller would see his own proceeds increased if a fall

每一單獨的賣者，如果他的競爭者的供給之減少，會使他自己所能銷售的價格提高，則他自己的收益就可望增加。但在競爭市場裡面，他不能造成這個結果。除非他在政府的干涉政策下享有特權，否則他必須受市場情況之支配。

The entrepreneur in his entrepreneurial capacity is always subject to the full supremacy of the consumers. It is different with the owners of vendible goods and factors of production and, of course, with the entrepreneurs in their capacity as owners of such goods and factors. Under certain conditions they fare better by restricting supply and selling it at a higher price per unit. The prices thus determined, the monopoly prices, are an infringement of the supremacy of the consumers and the democracy of the market.

企業家在其爲企業家的時候，總是要受消費者全權支配的。可賣的貨物和生產要素的所有者則不如此；自然，企業家在其爲這樣的貨物和要素的所有者的時候，也不如此。在某些情形下，他們會減少供給以提高每單位的價格，因而得利。這樣決定的價格，也即獨占價格，是對消費者的最高權力和市場民主的一個侵犯。

The special conditions and circumstances required for the emergence of monopoly prices and their catallactic features are:

獨占價格之得以出現的必要條件和這種價格的特徵如下：

1. There must prevail a monopoly of supply. The whole supply of the monopolized commodity is controlled by a single seller or a group of sellers acting in concert. The monopolist--whether one individual or a group of individuals--is in a position to restrict the supply offered for sale or employed for production in order to raise the price per unit sold and need not fear that his plan will be frustrated by interference on the part of other sellers of the same commodity.

1. 必須有一個供給方面的獨占。獨占商品的全部供給被單獨一個賣者或行動一致的一羣賣者所控制。獨占者——或者是單獨一個人，或者是一羣人——能夠把那用以銷售或用以生產的供給量加以限制，以提高每單位的售價，而不怕其他的出賣者以同樣商品來破壞他的計畫。

2. Either the monopolist is not in a position to discriminate among the buyers of he voluntarily abstains from such discrimination.[12]

2. 或者是這個獨占者不能夠在買者之中差別待遇，或者是他自願不這樣作。[12]

3. The reaction of the buying public to the rise in prices beyond the potential competitive price, the fall in demand, is not such as to render the proceeds resulting from total sales at any price exceeding the competitive price smaller than total proceeds resulting from total sales at the competitive price. Hence it is superfluous to enter into sophisticated disquisitions concerning what must be considered the mark of the sameness of an article. It is not necessary to raise the question whether all neckties are to be called specimens of the same article or whether one should distinguish them with regard to fabric, color, and pattern. An academic delimitation of various articles is useless. The only point that counts is the way in which the buyers react to the rise in prices. For the theory of monopoly prices it is irrelevant to observe that every necktie manufacturer turns out different articles and to call each of them a monopolist. Catallactics does not deal with monopoly as such but with monopoly prices. A seller of neckties which are different from those offered for sale by other

3. 購買的大衆對於這價格之漲到超過可能的競爭賈格所採的反應——需求的降低——不致使獨占者的總收益小於競爭價格下的總收益。因此，過份深究應該把什麼看作一種商品相同的特徵，這是多餘的。我們不必提出這樣的問題：所有的領帶都可叫做「同一的」商品呢，還是應該按照質地、顔色、圖案來區分。一種學究式的劃分是無用的。唯—直得重視的一點是，購買者對於價格上漲如何反應。至於說領帶的每個製造者生產不同的商品，因而把他們每個人都叫做一個獨占者，這，就獨占價格的理論來觀不相干的。交換學不討論像這樣的獨占，而是討論獨占價格。有獨特之點的領帶的賣者之能夠把持獨占價格，只有在一種情形下才可能，那就是，買者對於價格上漲的反應不致於使這種上漲對賣者不利。

Monopoly is a prerequisite for the emergence of monopoly prices, but it is not the only prerequisite. There is a further condition required, namely a certain shape of the demand curve. The mere existence of monopoly does not mean anything in this regard. The publisher of a copyright book is a monopolist. But he may not be able to sell a single copy, no matter how low the price he asks. Not every price at which a monopolist sells a monopolized commodity is a monopoly price. Monopoly prices are only prices at which it is more advantageous for the monopolist to restrict the total amount to be sold than to expand his sales to the limit which a competitive market would allow. They are the outcome of a deliberate design tending toward a restriction of trade.

獨占是獨占價格得以出現的必要條件，但不是唯一的必要條件。還有一個必要的條件，即需求曲線的一定形態。僅僅是獨占，沒有任何意思。享有版權的著作物的出版者是一獨占者。但是，他也許賣不掉一本，不管它價格如何低廉。一個獨占者出賣獨占商品的價格不見得都是獨占價格。獨占價格，只是獨占者限制其銷售量比擴張銷售量到競爭市場所可許可的程度更爲有利的價格。這種價格是故意限制交易量的結果。

【英文第四版無此段。】

把獨占者的這一行爲叫做故意的，這並不是說他把他所要求的價格與一個假想的非獨占市場所決定的競爭價格相比較。把獨占價格和可能的競爭價格相比較的，只是經濟學家。在那已經得到獨占地位的獨占者的考慮中，競爭價格沒有任何作用。像其他的賣者一樣，他是想實現可能得到的最高價格。使獨占價格得以形成的，一方面是他的獨占地位所決定的市場情形，另一方面是購買者的行爲。

4. It is a fundamental mistake to assume that there is a third category of prices which are neither monopoly prices nor competitive prices. If we disregard the problem of price discrimination to be dealt with later, a definite price is either a competitive price or a monopoly price. The assertions to the contrary are due to the erroneous belief that competition is not free or perfect unless everybody is in a position to present himself as a seller of a definite commodity.

4. 有人以爲，除獨占價格和競爭價格以外，還有第三類的價格，這是一個基本錯誤。如果我們不管後面將要討論的價格歧視問題、確定的價格，或是競爭價格或是獨占價格。相反的說法是由於一個錯誤的信念，即誤信競爭不是自由或完全的，除非每個人能夠以確定的商品購買者的身份出現。

The available supply of every commodity is limited. If it were not scarce with regard to the demand of the public, the thing in question would not be considered an economic good, and no price would be paid for it. It is therefore misleading to apply the concept of monopoly in such a way as to make it cover the entire field of economic goods. Mere limitation of supply is the source of economic value and of all prices paid; as such it is not yet sufficient to generate monopoly prices.[13]

每種商品的有效供給都是有限的，如果對於大衆的需求而言，它不是稀少的，則這個東西就不被認爲是經濟財，因而對它無須支付代價。所以，把獨占概念用來概括全部的經濟財，這是錯誤的。供給的有限，是經濟價値的來源，因而是一切價格的來源；這不足以形成獨占惯格[13]。

The term monopolist or imperfect competition is applied today to cases in which there are some differences in the products of different producers and sellers. This means that almost all consumers' goods are included in the class of monopolized goods. However, the only question relevant in the study of the determination of prices is whether these differences can be used by the seller for a scheme of deliberate restriction of supply for the sake of increasing his total net proceeds. Only if this is possible and put into effect, can monopoly prices emerge as differentiated from competitive prices. It may be true that every seller has a clientele which prefers his brand to those

「獨占性的競爭或不完全的競爭」這個名詞，現在用以指稱這種情況：在不同的生產者和銷售者所產銷的產品中有某些差異。這無異於把幾乎所有的消費財都納入獨占商品的範圍。但是，與價格歧視的唯一有關的問題，是要看這些差異能否被銷售者用以故意減少供給而達成增加他淨收益的目的。只有如果這是可能的、而且實際上做到了的時候，不同於競爭價格的獨占價格才會出現。不錯，每個賣者有些一定的顧客喜歡他的牌頭，因而寧願付較高的價格來買他的，而不在較低的價格下向他的競爭者去買。但是，就這個賣者來講，問題是在這種顧客的人數是否多到足以除補償因爲別人不來購買以致總銷售額減少而受的損失以外，還有多餘的。只有答案是肯定的時候，他才認爲獨占價格比競爭價格有利。

Considerable confusion stems from a misinterpretation of the term control of supply. Every producer of every product has his share in controlling the supply of the commodities offered for sale. If he had produced more a, he would have increased supply and brought about a tendency toward a lower price. But the question is why he did not produce more of a. Was he in restricting his production of a to the amount of p intent upon complying to the best of his abilities with the wishes of the consumers? Or was he intent upon defying the orders of the consumers for his own advantage? In the first case he did not produce more of a, because increasing the quantity of a beyond p would have withdrawn scarce factors of production from other branches in which they would have been employed for the satisfaction of more urgent needs of the consumers. He does not produce p + r, but merely p, because such an increase would have rendered his business unprofitable or less profitable, while there are still other more profitable employments available for capital investment. In the second case he did not produce r, because it was more advantageous for him to leave a part of the available supply of a monopolized specific factor of production m unused. If m were not monopolized by him, it would have been impossible for him to expect any advantage from restricting his production of a. His competitors would have filled the gap and he would not have been in a position to ask higher prices.

導致「不完全的競爭或獨占性的競爭」這個觀念的，是由於對「供給控制」這個名詞的誤解。每種產品的每個生產者，在所有提供銷售的商品供給，都有他那一份的控制作用。如果他生產了較多的a，他就是增加了供給，因而引起一個趨向跌價的趨勢。但是，問題是在，爲什麼他沒有生產較多的a。他把a的生產限之於p量，是想盡可能地符合消費者願望嗎？或者是不顧消費者在市場價格上表現出來的命令而謀自己的利益呢？在第一種情況下。他不生產較多的a，因爲a的數量如果增加到a以上，就會把稀少的生產資源從那些可用以滿足消費者更迫切需求的其他部門拉過來。他不生產p+r量，而僅生產p量，因爲r這個增加量會使他的營業得不到利潤或得到較少的利潤，同時，還有其他更有利的途徑可以投資。在第二種情況下，他不生產r，是因爲將那獨占的特殊生產要素m的有效供給保留一部份不利用，對於他更有利。如果m未被他獨占，他就不可能從限制a的生產以謀取任何利益。他的競爭者將會塡補這個空隙，因而他不能要求較高的價格。

In dealing with monopoly prices we must always search for the monopolized factor m. If no such factor is in the case, no monopoly prices can emerge. The first requirement for monopoly prices is the existence of a monopolized good. If no quantity of such a good m is withheld, there is no opportunity for an entrepreneur to substitute monopoly prices for competitive prices.

在討論獨占價格時，我們總要探求這個獨占要素m。如果沒有這樣的要素，就沒有獨占價格會出現。獨占價格的第一個必要條件是獨占商品的存在。如果m這樣的要素沒有任何數量的保留，則企業家也沒有機會以獨占價格替代競爭價格。

Entrepreneurial profit has nothing at all to do with monopoly. If an entrepreneur is in a position to sell at monopoly prices, he owes this advantage to his monopoly with regard to a monopolized factor m. He earns the specific monopoly gain from his ownership of m, not from his specific entrepreneurial activities.

企業利潤與獨占是毫不相干的。如果一個企業家能夠用獨占價格出賣他的產品，他的利益是來自對於生產要素m的獨占。他是從他之保有m而賺得特別獨占利潤，不是從他的特別企業活動而賺得的。

Let us assume that an accident cuts a city's electrical supply for several days and forces the residents to resort to candlelight only.

讓我們假設，一個偶然事故把一個城市的電力供給停頓了幾天，市民不得不只靠蠟燭來照明。蠟燭的價格漲到s；在這個價格下，全部有效的供給量都賣完了。這些賣蠟燭的商店在s價格下賣掉他們的全部供給量而賺得厚利。但是，這些商店的老闆也可能聯合起來減少一部份對市場的供給量而將其餘的部份在5+t的價格下出賣。這時s是競爭價格，s+t是獨占價格。這些商店老闆在s+t價格下所賺到的那份超過在s價格下所可賺到的收益額，只是他們的特別獨占利得。

It is immaterial in what way the storekeepers bring about the restriction of the supply offered for sale., The physical destruction of a part of the supply available is the classical case of monopolistic action. Only a short time ago it was practiced by the Brazilian government in burning large quantities of coffee. But the same effect can be attained by leaving a part of the supply unused.

這些商店的老闆們用什麼方法來限制供給量，那是不關重要的問題。把有效的供給量在實體方面毀壞一部份，這是正統的獨占行爲。不久以前，巴西政府毀掉大量的咖啡就是一例。但是，用其他方法減少供給量也可達成同樣的效果。

While profits are incompatible with the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy, monopoly prices and specific monopoly gains are not.

使利潤歸於消滅，這是個不變的趨勢，但是，特別的獨占利得又是一個永久的現象，只隨市場的變化而消費。利潤與均勻輪轉的經濟這個假想建構是不相容的，但是，獨占價格和特別獨占利得則不如此。

5. If the available quantities of the good m are owned not by just one man, firm, corporation, or institution but by several owners who want to cooperate in the substitution of a monopoly price for the competitive price, an agreement among them (commonly called a cartel and branded in the American antitrust legislation as a conspiracy) is required to assign to each party the amount of m it is allowed to sell, viz., at the monopoly price. The essential part of any cartel agreement is the assignment of definite quotas to the partners. The art of cartel-making consists in skill in bringing about an agreement about the quotas. A cartel collapses as soon as the members are no longer prepared to cling to a quota agreement. Mere talk among the owners of m about the desirability of higher prices is of no avail.

5. 競爭價格是決定於市場情況。在一個競爭市場裡面，價格的參差，趨向於消滅；價格的一致，趨向於形成。獨占價格就不如此。如果銷售者可能靠限制銷售量提高單位價格以增加他的淨收益，則滿足這種條件的獨占價格通常會有幾個。通常這些價格中的一個是賺得最高淨收益的。但是，也可能有幾個獨占價格對獨占者同樣有利。我們可把這個或這些最有利於獨占的價格叫做最適度的獨占價格。

As a rule the state of affairs that makes the emergence of monopoly prices possible is brought about by government policies, e.g., customs barriers. If the owners of m do not take advantage of the opportunity to combine for the achievement of monopoly prices offered to them, governments frequently take upon themselves the organization of what the American law calls "restraint of trade." The police power forces the owners of m----mostly land and mining and fishing facilities--to restrict output. The most eminent examples of this method are provided on the national level by the American farm policy and on the international level by the treaties euphemistically styled Inter-governmental Commodity Control Agreements. There has developed a new semantics to describe this branch of government interference with business. The restriction of output, and consequently of the

【中文版無此段。】

6. The concept of competition does not include the requirement that there should be a multitude of competing units. Competing is always the competition of one man or firm against another man or firm, no matter how many others are striving after the same prize. Competition among the few is not a kind of competition praxeologically different from competition among the many. Nobody ever maintained that the competition for elective office is under a two-party system less competitive than under a system of many parties. The number of competitors plays a role in the analysis of monopoly prices only as far as it is one of the factors upon which the success of the endeavors to unite competitors into a cartel depends.

【中文版無此段。】

7. If it is possible for the seller to increase his net proceeds by restricting sales and increasing the price of the units sold, there are usually several monopoly prices that satisfy this condition. As a rule one of these monopoly prices yields the highest net proceeds. But it may also happen that various monopoly prices are equally advantageous to the monopolist. We may call this monopoly price or these monopoly prices most advantageous to the monopolist the optimum monopoly price or the optimum monopoly prices.

【中文版無此段。】

8. The monopolist does not know beforehand in what way the consumers will react to a rise in prices. He must resort to trial and error in his endeavors to find out whether the monopolized good can be sold to his advantage at any price exceeding the competitive price and, if this is so, which of various possible monopoly prices is the optimum monopoly price or one of the optimum monopoly prices. This is in practice much more difficult than the economist assumes when, in drawing demand curves, he ascribes perfect foresight to the monopolist. We must therefore list as a special condition required for the appearance of monopoly prices the monopolist's ability to discover such prices.

6. 獨占者事先不知道消費者對於價格上漲將如何反應。他必須靠試猜的辦法來尋求獨占商品能否在競爭價格以上的任何價格對他有利，如果能的話，那麼，其中哪些或哪一個價格是最適度的獨占價格。在實際上這是難於做到的。比經濟學家在畫需求曲線時所假設的要困難得多，經濟學家在這時是假設獨占者有先見之明。所以，我們必須把獨占者對於這些價格的發現能力列爲獨占價格之出現的一個必要的條件。

9. A special case is provided by the incomplete monopoly. The greater part of the total supply available is owned by the monopolist; the rest is owned by one or several men who are not prepared to cooperate with the monopolist in a scheme for restricting sales and bringing about monopoly prices. However, the reluctance of these outsiders does not prevent the establishment of monopoly prices if

7. 一個特別的例子是不完全獨占所提供的。全部有效供給的較大部份被獨占者保有；其餘的部份被一個或幾個人保有，他或他們不準備與那個獨占者合作參與限制銷售量以實現獨占價格的計畫。但是，這些人之不願合作並不防止獨占價格的建立，如果把獨占者所控制的那部份p1拿來和局外人所控制的那部份p2比較是夠大的話。我們假設這全部供給(p=p1+p2)可在單位價格c之下賣掉，而p-z的供給量可在獨占價格d之下賣掉。如果d(p1-z)高於cp1，則獨占者限制他的銷售量是對他有利的，不管局外人的行爲是怎樣。他們也許在價格c之下出資，也許把價格提高到最高點d。唯一値得注意之點，是這些局外人不願意忍住把他們所要出賣的數量減低。這全部的減少額必須由p1的所有主承擔。這就影響他的計畫，其結果總是有一個不同於在完全獨占下所出現的獨占價格出現[14]。

10. Duopoly and oligopoly are not special varieties of monopoly prices, but merely a variety of the methods applied for the establishment of a monopoly price. Two or several men own the whole supply. They all are prepared to sell at monopoly prices and to restrict their total sales accordingly. But for some reason they do not want to act in concert. Each of them goes his own way without any formal or tacit agreement with his competitors. But each of them knows also that his rivals are intent upon a monopolistic restriction of their sales in order to reap higher prices per unit and specific monopoly gains. Each of them watches carefully the conduct of his rivals and tries to adjust his own plans to their actions. a succession of moves and countermoves, a mutual outwitting results, the outcome of which depends on the personal cunning of the adverse parties. The duopolists and oligopolists have two objectives in mind: to find out the monopoly price most advantageous to the sellers on the one hand and to shift as much as possible of the burden of restricting the amount of sales to their rivals. Precisely because they do not agree with regard to the quotas of the reduced amount sales to be allotted to each party, they do not act in concert as the members of a cartel do.

8. 雙占與寡占不是獨占價格的變例，而只是用以建立獨占價格的方法之變例。兩個人或少數幾人保有全部的供給量。他們都準備在獨占價格下出賣，因而都準備限制他們的全部供給量。但是，因爲某些理由他們不願一致行動。他們之中的每一個人皆各行其是，彼此沒有任何正式的協議或非正式的默契。但是他們之中的每一個人也皆知道他的那些對手都想限制他們的銷售量以期在較高的價格下賺得特別的獨占利得。他們之中的每一個人皆小心翼翼地觀望他的對手們的行爲，以便調整自己的計畫以適應之。動和相反的動，連續發生，形成相互瞞騙的局面，其結果如何，取決於對方個人的技巧。雙占者和寡占者內心中有兩個目的，一方面是要尋求最有利出賣的獨占價格，一方面想儘量把限制銷售量的負擔移轉到對方。正因爲他們對於銷售量的減少額如何分攤於各方面這個問題得不到同意的解決，所以，他們不像一個卡特爾的組成份子那樣地一致行動。

One must not confuse duopoly and oligopoly with the incomplete monopoly or with competition aiming at the establishment of monopoly. In the case of incomplete monopoly only the monopolistic group is prepared to restrict its sales in order to make a monopoly price prevail; the other sellers decline to restrict their sales. But duopolists and oligopolists are ready to withhold a part of their supply from the market. In the case of price slashing one group A plans to attain full

我們決不可把雙占、寡占與不完全的獨占或志在建立獨占價格的競爭相混淆。在不完全獨占的場合，只有獨占的那一羣人準備限制他們的銷售量以期建立獨占價格；其他的銷售者不願限制他們的銷售量。但是，雙占者和寡占者隨時都可把他們的供給扣留一部份不提供市場。在價格跌落的情形下，A羣的人計畫把所有的或大多數的B羣競爭者的人逼走，以謀充份獨占或不完全獨占。他們把價格減削到使那些較弱的競爭者受不了的程度。A羣的人在這個低價下也會虧損，但是，他們比別人能夠忍受較長的時間，而且，他們相信，這種虧損將可從後來的獨占利得彌補上。這個過程與獨占價格無關。這是謀取獨占地位的一個計策。

One may wonder whether duopoly and oligopoly are of practical significance. As a rule the parties concerned will come to at least a tacit understanding concerning their quotas of the reduced amount of sales.

我們也許不知道雙占和寡占是不是有實際意義。在通常情形下，有關各方對於銷售量減少的分配額至少會達成默契。

11. The monopolized good by whose partial withholding from the market the monopoly prices are made to prevail can be either a good of the lowest order or a good of a higher order, a factor of production. It may consist in the control of the technological knowledge required for production, the "recipe." Such recipes are as a rule free goods as their ability to produce definite effects is unlimited. They can become economic goods only if they are monopolized and their use is restricted. Any price paid for the services rendered by a recipe is always a monopoly price. It is immaterial whether the restriction of a recipe's use is made possible by institutional conditions--such as patents and copyright laws--or by the fact that a formula is kept secret and other people fail to guess it.

9. 靠扣留一部份不提供市場因而使獨占得以形成的那獨占物，也許是最低級的財貨，也許是高級財貨——生產要素。也許是生產方面技術知識的控制，例如製藥的處方。對一個處方提供的服務所支付的任何價格都是獨占價格。至於一個處方的使用之受限制是由於制度使然——如專利法和版權法，還是由於其內容秘密別人猜測不到，這是不關重要的。

The complementary factor of production the monopolization of which can result in the establishment of monopoly prices may also consist in a man's opportunity to make his cooperation in the production of a good known to consumers who attribute to this cooperation a special significance. This opportunity may be given either by the nature of the commodities or services in question or by institutional provisions such as protection of trademarks. The reasons why the consumers value the contribution of a man or a firm so highly are manifold. They may be: special confidence placed on the individual or firm concerned on account of previous experience[15]; merely baseless prejudice or error; snobbishness; magic or metaphysical prepossessions whose groundlessness is ridiculed by more reasonable people. A drug marked by a trademark may not differ in its chemical structure and its physiological efficacy from other compounds not marked with the same label. However, if the buyers attach a special significance to this label and are ready to pay higher prices for the

由於獨占而終於建立獨占價格的那種輔助生產要素，也許在於一個人之有機會使他自己的產品爲消費者特別重視。這種機會或者是那有關的貨物或勞務的性質給與的，或者是制度給與的，例如商標的保護。消費者爲什麼那樣特別重視一個人或一個商號的貢獻，這有種種理由。它們可能是：基於過去的經驗，對於有關的個人或商號特別信任[15]；毫無理由的偏見或謬見；趨炎附勢；較有理知的人所嘲笑的那些荒唐無稽的偏愛。某一商標的藥物在化學結構上和生理效應上也許和其他非這個商標的藥物完全相同，但是，如果購買者對於這個商標的藥物特別信任而願意支付較高的價錢來買，則它的賣者也就可賺得獨占利潤。

The monopoly which enables the monopolist to restrict the amount offered without counteraction on the part of other people can consist in the greater productivity of a factor which he has at his disposal as against the lower productivity of the corresponding factor at the disposal of his potential competitors. If the margin between the higher productivity of his supply of the monopolized factor and that of his potential competitors is broad enough for the emergence of a monopoly price, a situation results which we may call margin monopoly[16].

使獨占者能夠限制供給量而不致引起別人抵抗的那種獨占，會存於他所處分的那個要素的較大的生產力。這裡所說的較大的生產力，是指比他的潛在競爭者所可處分的相當要素的生產力較大。如果這兩個生產力之間的差距大到足以出現獨占價格，則有一個我們可叫做邊際獨占的情況發生[16]。

Let us illustrate margin monopoly by referring to its most frequent instance in present-day conditions, the power of a protective tariff to generate a monopoly price under special circumstances. Atlantis puts a tariff t on the importation of each unit of the commodity p, the world market price of which is s. If domestic consumption of p in Atlantis at the price s + t is a and domestic production of p is b, b being smaller than a, then the costs of the marginal dealer are s + t. The domestic plants are in a position to sell their total output at the price s + t. The tariff is effective and offers to domestic business the incentive to expand the production of p from b to a quantity slightly smaller than a. But if b is greater than a, things are different. If we assume that b is so large that even at the price s domestic consumption lags behind it and the surplus must be exported and sold abroad, the imposition of a tariff does not affect the price of p. Both the domestic and the world market price of p remain unchanged. However the tariff, in discriminating between domestic and foreign production of p, accords to the domestic plants a privilege which can be used for a monopolistic combine, provided certain further conditions are present. If it is possible to find within the margin between s + t and s a monopoly price, it becomes lucrative for the domestic enterprises to form a cartel. The cartel sells in the home market of Atlantis at a monopoly price and disposes of the surplus abroad at the world market price. Of course, as the quantity of p offered at the world market increases as a consequence of the restriction of the quantity sold in Atlantis, the world market price drops from s to s1. It is therefore a further requirement for the emergence of the domestic monopoly price that the total restriction in proceeds resulting from this fall in the world market price is not so great as to absorb the whole monopoly gain of the domestic cartel.

讓我們用一個現在最常見的情形——保護關稅在特別環境下產生獨占價格的力量——來說明邊際獨占。假設Atlantis島對那世界價格爲s的商品p每單位課一進口稅t。如果在s+t的價格下，Atlantis島內該商品的消費量爲a，島內的生產量爲b，而b小於a，這時，邊際商人的成本就是s+t。島內的生產者能夠在s+t的價格下把他們的全部產量都賣掉。這個關稅是有效的，它刺激島內的生產者把s的產量從b擴大到稍稍小於a的程度。但是如果b大於a，事情就不同了。如果我們假設b大到即令價格等於s而島內的消費量仍趕不上它，多餘的必須輸出到島外銷售，那麼，關稅就不影響p的價格。p在島內市場和世界市場的價格仍舊不變。但是，對島內生產的p與島外生產的p加以差別待遇的關稅，就給了島內生產者一種特權，可用以組成獨占結合的特權，如果那些必要條件具備的話。假若在s+t與s之間的這個差距以內可能有個獨占價格，則島內的企業組成一個卡特爾就成爲有利的。因爲這個卡特爾在島內市場以獨占價格出售，在島外則以世界市場的價格出售那剩餘的部份。當然，提供於世界市場的數量因島內銷售量的受限制而增加，世界市場的價格從s跌到s1。所以島內獨占價格所賴以出現的又一個必要條件，就是因世界市場的價格跌落而引起的收入的減少，沒有大到抵銷島內卡特爾的全部獨占利得。

In the long run such a national cartel cannot preserve its monopolistic position if entrance into its branch of production is free to newcomers. The monopolized factor the services of which the cartel restricts (as far as the domestic market is concerned) for the sake of monopoly prices is a geographical condition which can easily be duplicated by every new investor who establishes a new plant within the borders of Atlantis. Under modern industrial conditions, the characteristic feature of which is steady technological progress, the latest plant will as a rule be more efficient than the older plants and produce at lower average costs. The incentive to prospective newcomers is therefore twofold. It consists not only in the monopoly gain of the cartel members, but also in the possibility of outstripping them by lower costs of production.

如果新起者可以自由參加這個生產部門，則這樣的一個全國性的卡特爾不能長久維持它的獨占地位。卡特爾爲著獨占價格而限制其功用（就島内市場而言）的那個獨占要素是一個地域條件，而這個條件很容易被每個新投資者在Atlantis境內設置一個新工廠而也同樣享有。現代工業的特徵是技術的不斷進步，在這種情形下，最新的工廠照例是比舊工廠的效率高，而在較低的平均成本下生產。所以對新來投資的誘因是雙重的。它不僅在於卡特爾組成員的獨占利得，而且還有可能靠較低的生產成本來超越原來的組成員。

Here again institutions come to the aid of the old firms that form the cartel. The patents give them a legal monopoly which nobody may infringe. Of course, only some of their production processes may be protected by patents. But a competitor who is prevented from resorting to these processes and to the production of the articles concerned may be handicapped in such a serious way that he cannot consider entrance into the field of the cartelized industry.

講到這裡，又是一些法律幫助了組成卡特爾的那些老的組成員。專利權給了他們一種法律上的獨占。他們的生產方法，當然只有某些而非所有的受到專利權的保護，但是，一個潜在的競爭者，當他不能使用某些方法來生產那有關的貨物時，他也就不考慮參加這個卡特爾化的行業了。

The owner of a patent enjoys a legal monopoly which, other conditions being propitious, can be used for the attainment of monopoly prices. Beyond the field covered by the patent itself a patent may render auxiliary services in the establishment and preservation of margin monopoly where the primary institutional conditions for the emergence of such a monopoly prevail.

保有專利權的人享受一種法律上的獨占，這種獨占，在順利的環境下，可被用來形成獨占價格。一個專利權，在其本身所保護的範圍以外，還會有助於一種邊際獨占的建立與維持，在這種邊際獨占下，又會出現法律獨占所賴以成立的一些重要法制。

We may assume that some world cartels would exist even in the absence of any government interference which provides for other commodities the indispensable conditions required for the construction of a monopolistic combine. There are some commodities, e.g., diamonds and mercury, the supply of which is by nature limited to a few sources. The owners of these resources can easily be united for concerted action. But such cartels would play only a minor role in the setting of world production. Their economic significance would be rather small. The important place that cartels occupy in our time is an outcome of the interventionist policies adopted by the governments of all countries. The monopoly problem mankind has to face today is not an outgrowth of the operation of the market economy. It is a product of purposive action on the part of governments. It is not one of the evils inherent in capitalism as the demagogues trumpet. It is, on the contrary, the fruit of policies hostile to capitalism and intent upon sabotaging and destroying its operation.

許多獨占的結合是由於政府的干涉而成立的，我們也可假設，即令沒有政府的這種干涉，某些世界性的卡特爾也會存在。例如鑽石與水銀這類的貨物，其天然來源是有限的。保有這種資源的人很容易聯合起來採取一致行動。但是，這樣的卡特爾在世界生產的舞臺上只扮演一個不重要的角色。它們的經濟意義頗爲渺小。我們這個時代，卡特爾所占的重要地位，是各國政府所採的干涉政策所引起的結果。今天，我們面臨的大獨占問題不是市場經濟運作的後果，而是政府方面有意造成的產物。它不是像那些汚衊資本主義的人所說的，是资本主義的固有的禍害之一。相反地，它是那些敵視資本主義的政策所招致的結果，而目的在於破壞資本主義的運作。

The classical country of the cartels was Germany. In the last decades

卡特爾的正統國是德國。在十九世紀的後幾十年，德意志帝國實行大規模的社會政策。其目的是要提高工人的所得和生活水準，所採的方法，有所謂勞工立法，有俾斯麥的社會安全方案，有工會所强迫要索的較高工資率。這種政策的主張者不理睬經濟學家的警吿。他們敢於說沒有經濟法則這樣的東西。打敗了奧國和法國皇帝，而使世界的其他國家也爲之發抖的Hohenzollern氏的帝國，是在任何法律之上的。它的意旨就是最高的規範。

In stark reality the Sozialpolitik raised costs of production within Germany. Every progress of the alleged prolabor legislation and every successful strike disarranged industrial conditions to the disadvantage of the German enterprises. It made it harder for them to outdo foreign competitors for whom the domestic events of Germany did not raise costs of production. If the Germans had been in a position to renounce the export of manufactures and to produce only for the domestic market, the tariff could have sheltered the German plants against the intensified competition of foreign business. They would have been in a position to sell at higher prices. What the wage earner would have profited from the achievements of the legislature and the unions, would have been absorbed by the higher prices he would have had to pay for the articles he bought. Real wage rates would have risen only to the extent the entrepreneurs could improve technological procedures and thereby increase the productivity of labor. The tariff would have rendered the Sozialpolitik harmless.

在實際上，這種社會政策把德國國內的生產成本提高了。所謂勞工立法的每一進展和每次成功的罷工，都是把生產方面的情形擾亂，而有害於德國企業的。它使德國企業更難於對付外國的競爭者，因爲後者的生產成本並不因爲德國國內的事故而提高。如果德國人果能放棄工業製造品的輸出只爲國內市場生產，則關稅就會保護德國的工業免於外國的激烈競爭而能賺得較高的價格。工資收入者從立法和工會的成就而得到的利益，將被他購買時所必須支付的較高價格吸收了。實質工資率之提高，只限之於企業家在技術上的改進，因而增加勞動生產力的限度以內。在這種假設下，關稅倒無害於社會政策之防止失業擴增。

But Germany is, and was already at the time Bismark inaugurated his prolabor policy, a predominantly industrial country. Its plants exported a considerable part of their total output. These exports enabled the Germans to import the foodstuffs and raw materials they could not grow in their own country, comparatively overpopulated and poorly endowed with natural resources as it was. This situation could not be remedied simply by a protective tariff. Only cartels could free Germany from the catastrophic consequences of its "progressive" prolabor policies. The cartels charged monopoly prices at home and sold abroad at cheaper prices. The cartels are the necessary accompaniment and upshot of a "progressive" labor policy as far as it affects industries dependent for their sales on foreign markets. The cartels do not, of course, safeguard for the wage earners the illusory social gains which the labor politicians and the union leaders promise them. There is no means of raising wage rates for all those eager to earn wages above the height determined by the productivity of each kind of labor. What the cartels achieved was merely to counterbalance the apparent gains in nominal wage rates by corresponding increases in domestic commodity prices. But the most

但是，德國是一個優越的工業國，而且在俾斯麥實行社會政策的時候，已經是這樣的一個國家。它的工業輸出是他們總生產的大部份。這些輸出使德國人能夠輸入他們在本國所不能生產的食物和原料。他們的本國，在相對的意義下，人口過多而資源過少。上面曾經講過，像這樣的一種過剩生產將使保護關稅失效。只有卡特爾才可解救德國，使其免於「進歩的」勞工政策所造成的災難。卡特爾在國內以獨占出賣，在國外以較低價格出資。所謂「進歩的」勞工政策——影響到輸出工業，卡特爾就是這個政策必然的附隨物和必然的結果。當然，這些卡特爾並不爲工資收入者保障勞工政客和工會領袖們向他們承諾的那些騙人的社會利益。沒有方法把所有急於賺得工資者的實質工資率提高到每種勞動生產力所決定的髙度以上。卡特爾所成就的，只是以國內物價的相應增高，來抵銷名目工資率的提昇。但是，最低工資率的最壞後果，也即持久的大量失業，在最初是避免了的。

【英文第四版版無此段。】

最先用偏袒勞工的立法讓工會得以自由要索最低工資率的國家，並不是德國。有些其他的國還在德國之前採行這些政策。但是，在那些國，由於經濟學家們和有理知的政治家們與工商界人士的反對發生作用，這些破壞性的政策多年來沒有什麼進展。這些政策所謂的利益，大都未超過工資收入者由於技術改進（在資本主義下技術改進永久不會停止）而政府無任何干預的時候已經得到的利益。在有些事例中，當政府稍稍多干預一點的時候，工商界的作爲在非常短暫的時間以內就把事情弄平了。但到了後來，尤其在第一次世界大戰以後，所有其他的國也都採用德國徹頭徹尾的方法了。而且，卡特爾必須補助這些偏袒勞工的政策，以掩蓋它們的無用，並延遲他們的失敗之暴露。

With all industries which cannot content themselves with the domestic market and are intent upon selling a part of their output abroad the function of the tariff, in this age of government interference with business, is to enable the establishment of domestic monopoly prices. Whatever the purpose and the effects of tariffs may have been in the past, as soon as an exporting country embarks upon measures designed to increase the revenues of the wage earners or the farmers above the potential market rates, it must foster schemes which result in domestic monopoly prices for the commodities concerned. A national government's might is limited to the territory subject to its sovereignty. It has the power to raise domestic costs of production. It does not have the power to force foreigners to pay correspondingly higher prices for the products. If exports are not to be discontinued, they must be subsidized. The subsidy can be paid openly by the treasury or its burden can be imposed upon the consumers by the cartel's monopoly prices.

在政府干涉工商業的時代，縱然有些生產事業不自滿於國內市場，而想把他們產品的一部份銷售於國外，可是一有了關稅，則國內的獨占價格就可以形成。不管過去的關稅之目的和後果是什麼，一旦輸出國用關稅來提高工人或農民的工資於市場工資率之上，它就必然促成那些有關商品的國內獨占價格。一國政府的權力限之於它的主權所及的領域以內。它有權提高國內的生產成本。它沒有權力強制外國人以較高的價格來買這些產品。生產成本增高了，如果還想輸出不致中斷，則必須對輸出予以津貼，這種津貼可以公開地由國庫支付，也可把這個負擔經由卡特爾的獨占價格攤派在消費者身上。

The advocates of government interference with business ascribe to the "State" the power to benefit certain groups within the framework of the market by a mere fiat. In fact this power is the government's power to foster monopolistic combines. The monopoly gains are the funds out of which the "social gains" are financed. As far as these monopoly gains do not suffice, the various measures of interventionism immediately paralyze the operation of the market; mass unemployment, depression, and capital consumption appear. This explains the eagerness of all contemporary governments to foster monopoly in all those sectors of the market which are in some way or other connected with export trade.

主張政府干涉工商業的人們，認爲政府有權用一紙命令，使某些人羣在市場架構以內得到特別利益。事實上，這種權力就是政府促成獨占結合的權力。這種獨占利得是「社會利益」所賴以融資的。這種獨占利得如不足夠，則又用種種干涉的辦法，而這些辦法直接癱瘓市場的運作；大量失業，經濟蕭條，以及資本消耗都隨之發生。這可用以解釋，爲什麼所有現代的政府都急於要在那些與國外貿易有關的市場部門獎勵獨占。

If a government does not or cannot succeed in attaining its monopolistic aims indirectly, it resorts to other means. In the field of coal and potash the Imperial Government of Germany fostered compulsory cartels. The American New Deal was prevented by the opposition of business from organizing the nation's great industries on an obligatory cartel basis. It fared better in some vital branches of farming with measures designed to restrict output for the sake of monopoly prices. A long series of agreements concluded between the world's most prominent governments aimed at the establishment of world-market monopoly prices for various raw materials and foodstuffs.[17] It is the avowed purpose of the United Nations to continue these plans.

一個政府如果沒有或不能間接達到它的獨占目的，它就採取直接行動。德意志帝國政府在煤和鉀碱方面建立了強制的卡特爾。美國的「新政」，由於工商界的反對，還沒有進而把美國的大產業組成卡特爾。在某些重要的農業部門，美國政府爲著維持獨占價格而採取的那些限制產量的辦法是相當成功的。在國際上，許多大國的政府爲計畫建立各種原料和食品的世界獨占價格，相互間簽訂了一連串的協定[17]。這些計畫的繼續推行，是聯合國明白宣吿的目標。

12. It is necessary to view this promonopoly policy of the contemporary governments as a uniform phenomenon in order to discern the reasons which motivated it. From the catallactic point of view these monopolies are not uniform. The contractual cartels into which entrepreneurs enter in taking advantage of the incentive offered by protective tariffs are instances of margin monopoly. Where the government directly fosters monopoly prices we are faced with instances of license monopoly. The factor of production by the restriction of the use of which the monopoly price is brought about is the license[18] which the laws make a requisite for supplying the consumers.

爲著認識現代的一些政府之所以採取偏袒獨占政策的原因何在，我們把這種政策看作現代政府的一致的現象，這是必要的。但從交換學的觀點來看，這些獨占不是一致的。企業家利用保護關稅的鼓勵，而結合的契約性的卡特爾，是一些邊際獨占的例子。在政府直接促成的獨占價格地方，我們所面對的獨占則是特許獨占的例子。獨占價格之所以形成，靠的是限制生產要素的使用，而生產要素之限制使用，是法律所特許，特許是一必要條件。

Such licenses may be granted in different ways:

這樣的一些特許是以不同的方法給予：

(a) An unlimited license is granted to practically every applicant. This amounts to a state of affairs under which no license at all is required.

(a) 對於每個申請人都給予的一種無限制的特許。這等於不要特許。

(b) Licenses are granted only to selected applicants. Competition is restricted. However, monopoly prices can emerge only if the licensees act in concert and the configuration of demand is propitious.

(b) 只給予某些申請人的特許。競爭是受限制的。但是獨占價格之出現，只有在這些被特許人聯合起來一致行動，而需求又非常大的時候才可能。

(c) There is only one license. The licensee, e.g., the holder of a patent or a copyright, is a monopolist. If the configuration of the demand is propitious and if the licensee wants to reap monopoly gains, he can ask monopoly prices.

(c) 只有一個被特許人。例如享有專利權或版權的被特許人，也即一個獨占者。如果需要非常大，而被特許的人又想賺取獨占利得，則他就可索取獨占價格。

(d) The licenses granted are limited. They confer upon the licensee only the right to produce or to sell a definite quantity, in order to prevent him from disarranging the authority's scheme. The authority itself directs the establishment of monopoly prices.

(d) 有限的特許，這種特許只給被特許的人生產或銷售一定數量的權利，這爲的是不讓被特許的人擾亂政府的計畫。政府本身指導獨占價格的決定。

Finally there are the instances in which a government establishes a monopoly for fiscal purposes. The monopoly gains go to the treasury. Many European governments have instituted tobacco monopolies. Others have monopolized salt, matches, telegraph and telephone service, broadcasting, and so on. Without exception every country has a government monopoly of the postal service.

最後還有一種特許，在這種特許下，政府爲財政的目的而建立一個獨占。獨占利得歸於國庫。在歐洲，許多國的菸草是由政府獨占產銷的。其他的一些國，食鹽、火柴、電報、電話、廣播等等，是由政府獨占經營的。郵政，則毫無例外地，都是由政府獨占的。

13. Margin monopoly need not always owe its appearance to an institutional factor such as tariffs. It can also be produced by sufficient differences in the fertility or productivity of some factors of production.

10. 邊際獨占的出現，不一定是由於法制因素，如關稅。它也會由於某些生產要素在生產力方面的充份差異而產生。

It has already been said that it is a serious blunder to speak of a land monopoly and to refer to monopoly prices and monopoly gains in explaining the prices of agricultural products and the rent of land. As far as history is confronted with instances of monopoly prices for agricultural products, it was license monopoly fostered by government

我們曾經講過，在解釋農產品的價格和地租的時候，說是土地獨占而認爲是獨占價格和獨占利得，這是嚴重的大錯。歷史上所有農業產品獨占價格的事例，都是政府命令所支持的特許獨占。但是，這個事實的承認並不等於說土壤肥瘠的差異決不會引起獨占價格。如果那還在耕種中的最劣土地和那最優的尙未開墾，而可以用來增產的土地，它們之間肥瘠的差異，大到足以使那些已耕地的地主們能夠在這個差距以內得到有利的獨占價格，則他們就可靠一致行動限制生產而賺得獨占價格。但是，事實是這樣的：農業的自然條件不符合這些要求，因爲如此，那些追求獨占價格的農民們不訴之於一致行動，而是請求政府干涉。

In various branches of mining conditions are often more propitious for the emergence of monopoly prices based on margin monopoly.

在鑛業方面，有些部門常常是更適於邊際獨占的獨占價格出現的。

14. It has been asserted again and again that the economies of big-scale production have generated a tendency toward monopoly prices in the processing industries. Such a monopoly would be called in our terminology a margin monopoly.

11. 大規模生產的經濟曾經引起一個走向獨占價格的趨勢，這是一再地被講到的。這樣的獨占，在我們的術語中叫做邊際獨占。

Before entering into a discussion of this topic one must clarify the role an increase or decrease in the unit's average cost of production plays in the considerations of a monopolist searching for the most advantageous monopoly price. We consider a case in which the owner of a monopolized complementary factor of production, e.g., a patent, at the same time manufactures the product p. If the average cost of production of one unit of p, without any regard to the patent, decreases with the increase in the quantity produced, the monopolist must weigh this against the gains expected from the restriction of output. If, on the other hand, cost of production per unit decreases with the restriction of total production, the incentive to embark upon monopolistic restraint is augmented. It is obvious that the mere fact that big-scale production tends as a rule to lower average costs of production is in itself not a factor driving toward the emergence of monopoly prices. It is rather a checking factor.

在進而討論這個問題以前，我們必須明白：單位平均生產成本的上漲或下跌，在一個以謀取最有利的獨占價格爲目的的獨占者的考慮中所發生的作用。我們考慮一個事例，在這個事例中，一個獨占的輔助生產要素，比方說，一種專利權的所有者，同時是產品p的生產者。如果一個單位p的平均生產成本——不管這個專利權——隨著產量之增加而減輕，這個獨占者一定把這種情形和限制產量所可希望得到的利益兩相權衡。如果相反地，單位生產成本隨著總產量之受限制而減輕，則可以說獨占者限制產量是有利的。但是，大規模生產照例是趨向於減輕平均生產成本的，僅僅這個事實的本身，顯然不是促成獨占價格的一個因素。無寧說它是一個妨礙獨占價格的因素。

What those who blame the economies of big-scale production for the spread of monopoly prices are trying to say is that the higher efficiency of big-scale production makes it difficult or even impossible for small-scale plants to compete successfully. A big-scale plant could, they believe, resort to monopoly prices with impunity because small business is not in a position to challenge its monopoly. Now, it is certainly true that in many branches of the processing industries it would be foolish to enter the market with the high-cost products of small, inadequate plants. A modern cotton mill does not need to fear the

那些把獨占價格的蔓延歸咎於大規模生產經濟的人們，所要說的是：大規模生產的較高效率使得小規模的工廠難於與之競爭，甚至不可能與之競爭。他們認爲，因爲小規模的工廠不能向大規模者的獨占挑戰，所以後者得毫無顧慮地索取獨占價格。在加工業的許多部門中，以小規模高成本來經營，這確是愚蠢的行爲。一個現代化的紗廠不必怕舊式捲線桿的競爭：它的勁敵是那些有適當設備的紗廠。但是，這並不是說它享有索取獨占價格的機會。在大規模的工商業之間，也有競爭。如果獨占價格風行於大規模工商業的產品，其原因或者是在於專利權，或者是在於保有礦權或其他原料的來源，或者是靠關稅保護的卡特爾。

One must not confuse the notions of monopoly and of monopoly prices. Mere monopoly as such is catallactically of no importance if it does not result in monopoly prices. Monopoly prices are consequential only because they are the outcome of a conduct of business defying the supremacy of the consumers and substituting the private interests of the monopolist for those of the public. They are the only instance in the operation of a market economy in which the distinction between production for profit and production for use could to some extent be made if one were prepared to disregard the fact that monopoly gains have nothing at all to do with profits proper. They are not a part of what catallactics can call profits; they are an increase in the price earned from the sale of the services rendered by some factors of production, some of these factors being physical factors, some of them merely institutional. If the entrepreneurs and capitalists in the absence of a monopoly price constellation abstain from expanding production in a certain branch of industry because the opportunities offered to them in other branches are more attractive, they do not act in defiance of the wants of the consumers. On the contrary, they follow precisely the line indicated by the demand as expressed on the market.

獨占和獨占價格這兩個概念決不可混淆。僅僅是獨占本身，如果它不引起獨占價格，則在交換學上沒有什麼重要性。一些獨占價格之所以隨獨占而發生，只是因爲，有一商業行爲抹煞了消費者主權，而以獨占者的私利代替大衆的利益。獨占價格是這樣一個市場運作的僅有事例，在這個市場中，如果我們不管「獨占利得與利潤無關」這個事實，則「爲利潤而生產與爲使用而生產之間的區別」在某個程度以內，是可以分辨的。它們不是交換學可以稱之爲利潤的一部份；它們是來自某些生產要素所提供的勞務之出賣而賺得的價格之增加，這些要素，有的是物質要素，有的僅是法制的要素。如果企業家和資本家在設有獨占價格的時候不擴充某一部門的生產，是因爲其他部門給他們的機會更有利，這時，他們的行爲不是無視消費者的慾望。相反地，他們正是按照市場上表現的需求所指示的途徑行事。

The political bias which has obfuscated the discussion of the monopoly problem has neglected to pay attention to the essential issues involved. In dealing with every case of monopoly prices one must first of all raise the question of what obstacles restrain people from challenging the monopolists. In answering this question one discovers the role played in the emergence of monopoly prices by institutional factors. It was nonsense to speak of conspiracy with regard to the deals between American firms and German cartels. If an American wanted to manufacture an article protected by a patent owned by Germans, he was compelled by the American law to come to an arrangement with German business.

使獨占問題的討論陷於困擾的那種政治偏見，忽略了其中一些基本要點。在討論獨占價格的每一事例時，我們必須首先提出這個問題：阻礙人們向獨占者挑戰的是什麼。在答覆這個問題的時候，就可發現，法制的因素對於獨占價格的出現所發生的作用。關於美國的公司行號和德國卡特爾之間的交易而說是陰謀，這是荒唐無稽的。如果一個美國人想製造德國人享有專利權保護的商品，他在美國的法律下，不得不去和德國人打交道。

15. A special case is what may be called the failure monopoly. In the past capitalists invested funds in a plant designed for the production of the article p. Later events proved the investment a failure. The prices which can be obtained in selling p are so low that

12. —種特殊的事例，可以叫做失敗獨占。起先資本家爲生產商品p投資設廠。後來，事實證明這項投資是失敗的。p所可賣得的一些價格，低到使那筆投在不能改變用途的設備上之資本沒有得到報酬。這是虧損，但是，就那筆用在生產p的變動資本而言，這些價格則高到足以產生合理的報酬。如果把那筆投在不可改變用途的設備上之資本所受的無法補救的損失從帳面勾銷，而把所有的相應變更都記在帳上，則那減少了的營運資本是有利潤的，這時，如果要完全停止經營，則又是一個錯誤。茲假設這個工廒盡量生産q量的p，而以單位價格s出賣。

But conditions may be such that it is possible for the enterprise to reap a monopoly gain by restricting output to q/2 and selling the unit of q at the price 3 s. Then the capital invested in the inconvertible equipment no longer appears completely lost. It yields a modest return, namely, the monopoly gain.

但是，情形可能是這樣：這個企業把產量限制在q/z，因而把價格提高到了s，這樣就賺得一種獨占利潤。這時，那筆投在不可改變用途的設備上之資本，就不顯得完全損失了。它產生一個適中的報酬，即：獨占利得。

This enterprise now sells at monopoly prices and reaps monopoly gains although the total capital invested yields little when compared with what the investors would have earned if they had invested in other lines of business. The enterprise withholds from the market the services which the unused production capacity of its durable equipment could render and fares better than it would by producing at full capacity. It defies the orders of the public. The public would have been in a better position if the investors had avoided the mistake of immobilizing a part of their capital in the production of p. However, as things are now after this irreparable fault has been committed, they want to get more of p and are ready to pay for it what is now its potential competitive market price, namely, s. They do not approve, as conditions are now, the action of the enterprise in withholding an amount of variable capital from employment for the production of p. This amount certainly does not remain unused. It goes into other lines of business and produces there something else, namely, m. But as conditions are now, the consumers would prefer an increase of the available quantity of p to an increase in the available quantity of m. The proof is that in the absence of a monopolistic restriction of the capacity for the production of p, as it is under given conditions, the profitability of a production of the quantity q selling at the price s would be such that it would pay better than an increase in the quantity of the article m produced.

這個企業於是以獨占價格出賣，而賺到獨占利得，儘管全部投資的收益是很有限的，這裡所說的很有限，是說如果投資者投在其他的生產途徑，他會賺得更多的收益：這樣比較，顯得很有限。這個企業把那些耐久性設備未使用的生產力所可生產的勞務扣留住而不提供巿場，因而比充份生產更有利些。這是不管大衆的命令。如果投資者在生產p的時候不把他的資本凍結一部份，則大衆的經濟情況就更好些。他們自然不會得到任何p。但是，他們將可得到那些現在不能得到的一些東西；這些東西現在之所以不能得到，是因爲生產這些東西所需要的資本，已浪費於爲生產p而裝置的設備。但是，不可補救的錯誤旣已如此，現在，大家只想多得到一點p，而且準備支付可能的競爭市場的價格——即：s。他們的願望沒有達到，在現在的情形下，這個企業扣留了一些可變資本不用來生產p。這筆數額當然不是擺著不用。它被用於其他途徑而生產其他的東西，我們假設它是m。但是，在現在的情形下，消費者希望p的可得量增加而不希望增加m的可得量。因爲如果生產p的能力沒有因獨占而受限制的話，則生產q量並以s價格出賣，其利潤會比m的生產量之增加所獲致的更多些。這就可以證明消費者的願望。

There are two distinctive features of this case. First, the monopoly

這個事例有兩點特徵。第一、購買者所支付的獨占價格，其總額尙低於p的總成本，如果把投資者的全部投入都計算在內的話。第二、這個商號獨占利得小到不足以使這整個經營顯得是優良的投資。它仍然是錯誤的投資。構成這個企業之獨占地位的，正是這個事實。因爲生產p是要虧損的，所以誰也不想參加這個部門的企業活動。

Failure monopoly is by no means a merely academic construction. It is, for instance, actual today in the case of some railroad companies. But one must guard against the mistake of interpreting every instance of unused production capacity as a failure monopoly. Even in the absence of monopoly it may be more profitable to employ variable capital for other purposes instead of expanding a firm's production to the limit fixed by the capacity of its durable inconvertible equipment; then the output restriction complies precisely with the state of the competitive market and the wishes of the public.

失敗獨占，決不僅是一個學術性的概念。今天，有些鐵路公司就是實際的事例。但是，我們必須小心，不要以爲凡是有未使用的生產力之企業都是失敗獨占。即令在沒有獨占的場合，把可變資本用在其他用途，而不用以發揮固定資本的全部生產力以擴增產量，也會有利；這時，產量的限制正符合競爭市場的情況和大衆的願望。

16. Local monopolies are, as a rule, of institutional origin, But there are also local monopolies which originate out of conditions of the unhampered market. Often the institutional monopoly is designed to deal with a monopoly which came into existence or would be likely to come into existence without any authoritarian interference with the market.

13. 地域獨占，照例是發源於法制。但也有些地域獨占是發生於未受限制的市場情況。在政府對於市場不加任何干涉的情況下，也會有獨占存在，法制的獨占常常是對於這種獨占的處理。

A catallactic classification of local monopolies must distinguish three groups: margin monopoly, limited-space monopoly and license monopoly.

交換學上對於地域獨占的分類必須區分爲三組：邊際獨占、有限的空間獨占、和特許獨占。

A local margin monopoly is characterized by the fact that the barrier preventing outsiders from competing on the local market and breaking the monopoly of the local sellers is the comparative height of transportation costs. No tariffs are needed to grant limited protection to a firm which owns all the adjacent natural resources required for the production of bricks against the competition of far distant tile works. The costs of transportation provide them with a margin in which, the configuration of demand being propitious, an advantageous monopoly price can be found.

地域邊際獨占的特徵在於：使局外人之所以不能到這個地方市場來競爭，從而打破地方獨占的，是由於那個相當高的運輸成本發生障礙作用。如果一個製磚廠擁有鄰近的生產磚的全部自然資源，那就不怕遠距離的製磚者的競爭，因而用不著關稅保護。運輸成本給他們一個界限，在這個界限裡面，如果需求的情況是適合的，則有利的獨占價格就可成立。

So far local margin monopolies do not differ catallactically from other instances of margin monopoly. What distinguishes them and makes it necessary to deal with them in a special way is their relation to the rent of urban land on the one hand and their relation to city development on the other.

從交換學的觀點來看，這樣的一些地域邊際獨占，無異於其他的邊際獨占。表現它們的特色，而必須用特別方法來處理它們的原因，一方面是它們與都市地租的關係，一方面是它們與城市發展的關係。

Let us assume that an area A offering favorable conditions for the aggregation of an increasing urban population is subject to monopoly prices for building materials. Consequently building costs are higher

我們假設一個地區A，其環境適於遽增的都市人口的聚合，但易受制於建築材料的獨占價格。因爲建材的獨占價格，建築成本就比較高些。A地區住家和開工廠，有贊成的理由，也有反對的理由。但是，就那些權衡於贊成論和反對論之間的人們而言，沒有理由可以認爲，他們會付較高的價格在A地區購買或租進住宅和工場。這些價格一方面決定於其他地區的相對價格，另一方面決定於定居或設廠於A地區，而不定居或設廠於其他地區所可得到的更多利益。至於建築方面需要的較高費用，並不影響這些價格：它的歸宿是在土地的收益上面。建築材料的賈主所賺的獨占利得，是由都市土地的地主們負擔的。因爲這些利得是來自這些地主們的收入之減少。即令在（事實上不大會）住宅和工場的需求，高到使地主們可以在出賣和出租的時候賺到獨占價格的情形下，建築材料的獨占價格只會影響地主的收入，不會影響買主或租賃者所支付的價格。

The fact that the burden of the monopoly gains reverts to the price of urban employment of the land does not mean that it does not check growth of the city. It postpones the employment of the peripheral land for the expansion of the urban settlement . The instant at which it becomes advantageous for the owner of a piece of suburban land to withdraw it from agricultural or other nonurban employment and to use it for urban development appears at a later date.

獨占利得的負擔轉到土地利用的價格上這個事實，並非表示它不妨礙都市的成長。它延遲了城市外圍土地用以擴展市場的利用。市郊土地的地主，把土地從農業的，或非都市的用途收回，而用之於發展都市的用途成爲有利的作法這個時刻，推延到以後了。

Now arresting a city's development is a two-edged action. Its usefulness for the monopolist is ambiguous. He cannot know whether future conditions will be such as to attract more people to A, the only market for his products. One of the attractions a city offers to newcomers is its bigness, the multitude of its population. Industry and commerce tend toward centers. If the monopolist's action delays the growth of the urban community, it may direct the stream toward other places. An opportunity may be missed which never comes back. Greater proceeds in the future may be sacrificed to comparatively small short-run gains.

那麼，阻止一個城市發展是一個雙刃的行爲。它對於獨占者的用處是含糊不淸的。他不會知道將來的情形是不是會吸引更多的人口來到A地區——他的產品之唯一市場。一個都市對於人口的吸引力之一，是它的「大」，人口複雜。工商業是傾向於集中的。如果獨占者的行爲延遲了都市社會的發展，這個傾向就會轉到別處去發生。再也不會到來的一個機會被錯過了。將來的更大收益會被短期較小的利得犧牲掉。

It is therefore at least questionable whether the owner of a local margin monopoly in the long run serves his own interests well by embarking upon selling at monopoly prices. It would often be more advantageous for him to discriminate between the various buyers. He could sell at higher prices for construction projects in the central parts of the city and at lower prices for such projects in peripheral districts. The range of local margin monopoly is more restricted than is generally assumed.

由此可知，享有地域邊際獨占的人，以獨占價格出賣他的產品，就長期看，究竟是不是對他自己最有利，至少是可疑的。對不同的買者予以不同的待遇，常常是對他有利的。對於市中心區的建築計畫，他可以按較高的價格出賣他的建築材料，封於市郊的，則以較低的價格出賣。地域邊際獨占的範圍，比通常所假想的要窄小些。

Limited-space monopoly is the outcome of the fact that physical conditions restrict the field of operation in such a way that only one or a few enterprises can enter it. Monopoly emerges when there is only one enterprise in the field or when the few operating enterprises combine for concerted action.

有限空間獨占的產生，是由於自然條件限定了只有一個或兩三個企業能夠進到這個地區。當只有一個的時候，或者少數企業聯合一致的時候，獨占就發生。

It is sometimes possible for two competing trolley companies to operate in the same streets of a city. There were instances in which two or even more companies shared in supplying the residents of an area with gas, electricity, and telephone service. But even in such exceptional cases there is hardly any real competition. Conditions suggest to the rivals that they combine at least tacitly. The narrowness of the space results, one way or another, in monopoly.

在一個城市的同一街道上，兩個電車公司在營業，這有時是可能的。有時有兩個或更多的公司，對一個地區的居民分別供給煤氣、電、和電話服務。但在這種例外的情形下，實際上沒有什麼競爭。它們彼此之間至少是默契的聯合。空間的狹小終歸要形成獨占。

In practice limited-space monopoly is closely connected with license monopoly. It is practically impossible to enter the field without an understanding with the local authorities controlling the streets and their subsoil. Even in the absence of laws requiring a franchise for the establishment of public utility services, it would be necessary for the enterprises to come to an agreement with the municipal authorities. Whether or not such agreements are to be legally described as franchises is unimportant.

在實際上，有限空間的獨占與特許獨占密切關聯。如果沒有這個統治本區的地方政府的諒解，事實上就不能參與這個行業。即令法律上沒有規定公用事業的經營必須申請特許狀，但這個企業之得到市政府同意，卻是必要的。至於這種同意是不是法律上所說的特許，則是不關重要的。

Monopoly, of course, need not result in monopoly prices. It depends on the special data of each case whether or not a monopolistic public utility company could resort to monopoly prices. But there are certainly cases in which it can. It may be that the company is ill-advised in choosing a monopoly-price policy and that it would better serve its long-run interests by lower prices. But there is no guarantee that a monopolist will find out what is most advantageous for him.

當然，獨占不一定索取獨占價格。一個獨占的公用事業公司能不能索取獨占價格，這要看個別事例的特殊極據來決定。但確有些能夠索取獨占憤格的事例。這個公司可能輕率地採取了獨占價格政策，而它的長期利益應該是採取較低價格政策的。但是，我們無法保證一個獨占者會發現怎樣才是對於他自己最有利。

One must realize that limited-space monopoly may often result in monopoly prices. In this case we are confronted with a situation in which the market process does not accomplish its democratic function.[19]

我們必須了解有限空間獨占常常形成獨占價格。這時，我們所遭遇的情況是市場程序不完成其國內功能的情況[18]。

Private enterprise is very unpopular with our contemporaries. Private ownership of the means of production is especially disliked in those fields in which limited-space monopoly emerges even if the company does not charge monopoly prices and even if its business yields only small profits or results in losses. A "public utility" company is in the eyes of the interventionist and socialist politicians a public enemy. The voters approve of any evil inflicted upon it by the authorities. It is generally assumed that these enterprises should be nationalized or municipalized. Monopoly gains, it is said, must

私人企業是我們這個時代的人所極不歡迎的。生產手段的私有權，尤其是在有限空間的獨占會出現的場合的私有權，是大家所厭惡的，即令一個公司不索取獨占價格，即令它的營業只賺得很小的利潤或虧損，也是會遭厭惡的。一個私營的「公用事業」公司，在干涉主義和社會主義的政客們心目中，是個公敵。如果是政府經營，則其造成任何罪惡，投票人一概認可。一般人是以爲，這些企業必須國有化或市有化。他們說，獨占利得決不可歸於私人，必須完全納入公庫。

The outcome of the municipalization and nationalization policies of the last decades was almost without exception financial failure, poor service, and political corruption. Blinded by their anticapitalistic prejudices people condone poor service and corruption and for a long time did not bother about the financial failure. However, this failure is one of the factors which contributed to the emergence of the present-day crisis of interventionism.[20]

過去幾十年，市有化和國有化政策的結果，幾乎沒有例外地是財政上的失敗、服務方面惡劣、以及政治的腐化。一般人們蔽於反資本主義的偏見，對於惡劣的服務的腐化都予以原諒，而且久已不過問那財政上的失敗。但是，這方面的失敗是促成今天干涉主義的危機之出現的因素之一[19]。

17. It is customary to characterize labor-union policies as monopolistic schemes aiming at the substitution of monopoly wage rates for competitive wage rates. However, as a rule labor unions do not aim at monopoly wage rates. A union is intent upon restricting competition on its own sector of the labor market in order to raise its wage rates. But restriction of competition and monopoly price must not be confused. The characteristic feature of monopoly prices is the fact that the sale of only a part p of the total supply P available nets higher proceeds than the sale of P. The monopolist earns a monopoly gain by withholding P - p from the market. It is not the height of this gain that marks the monopoly price situation as such, but the purposive action of the monopolists in bringing it about. The monopolist is concerned with the employment of the whole stock available. He is equally interested in every fraction of this stock. If a part of it remains unsold, it is his loss. Nonetheless he chooses to have a part unused because under the prevailing configuration of demand it is more advantageous for him to proceed in this way. It is the peculiar state of the market that motivates his decision. The monopoly which is one of the two indispensable conditions of the emergence of monopoly prices may be--and is as a rule--the product of an institutional interference with the market data. But these external forces do not directly result in monopoly prices. Only if a second requirement is fulfilled is the opportunity for monopolistic action set.

14. 把傳統的工會政策描寫爲獨占的企圖——企圖以獨占工資率替代競爭工資率——這是向來的慣例。但是，在通常情形下，工會並不以獨占工資率爲目的。工會是想在勞動市場中它自己的那個部門裡面限制競爭以期提高工資率。但是，競爭的限制與獨占價格政策決不可混淆。獨占價格的特徵是這樣的：出售全部供給量P的一部份p，比出售P更可賺得較多的收益。獨占者從市場上撤回P-p因而賺得獨占利得。獨占價格之成爲獨占價格，並不是由於這個利得的高度，而是由於獨占者促成這個價格的那個有意的行爲。獨占者關切那全部存貨的利用。他也同樣關切這批存貨的每一部份。如果有一部份未被利用到，那是他的損失。可是，他終於決定讓一部份不利用，這是因爲在當時的需求情況下，這樣做對他更有利。這是市場的特殊情況促成他的決定。獨占價格所賴以出現的兩個必要條件之一的獨占，會是——而通常是——法制方面對市場干涉的結果。但，這些外來的力量不直接產生獨占價格。只有在第二個條件具備的時候，獨占行爲的機會才到來。

It is different in the case of simple supply restriction. Here the authors of the restriction are not concerned with what may happen to the part of the supply they bar from access to the market. The fate of the people who own this part does not matter to them. They are looking only at that part of the supply which remains on the market. Monopolistic action is advantageous for the monopolist only if total net proceeds at a monopoly price exceed total net proceeds at the potential competitive price. Restrictive action on the other hand is

在單純的限制供給的事例中，那就不同了。這時，發動限制的人們，並不關心對他們所不許提供市場的那一部份供給量所會發生的後果。保有這部份供給量的人之命運與他們無關。他們只注意留在市場裡面的那一部供給。獨占行爲只有在一種情形下對獨占者有利，即：在獨占價格下的全部淨收入超過了在可能的競爭價格下的全部淨收入。限制的行爲總是有利於那些享有特權的人羣，不利於那些被此行爲排出市場的人們。它總會提高單位價格，因而提高那些享有特權的人的全部淨收入。至於被排斥者的損失則不在考慮中。

It may happen that the benefits which the privileged group derives from the restriction of competition are much more lucrative for them than any imaginable monopoly price policy could be. But this is another question. It does not blot out the catallactic differences between these two modes of action.

享有特權者由於限制競爭而得到的利益，可能比任何可想像的獨占政策所能賺得的要大得多。但是，這是另一個問題。這並不抹煞這兩個行爲方式之間的差異。

The labor unions aim at a monopolistic position on the labor market. But once they have attained it, their policies are restrictive and not monopoly price policies. They are intent upon restricting the supply of labor in their field without bothering about the fate of those excluded. They have succeeded in every comparatively underpopulated country in erecting immigration barriers. Thus they preserve their comparatively high wage rates. The excluded foreign workers are forced to stay in their countries in which the marginal productivity of labor, and consequently wage rates, are lower. The tendency toward an equalization of wage rates which prevails under free mobility of labor from country to country is paralyzed. On the domestic market the unions do not tolerate the competition of non-unionized workers and admit only a restricted number to union membership. Those not admitted must go into less remunerative jobs or must remain unemployed. The unions are not interested in the fate of these people.

現在的工會政策是一些限制政策而不是獨占價格政策。工會的目的是在限制他們那個部門的勞動供給量而不管被排斥者的命運。在人口比較少的毎一個國，工會在限制移民入境這件事上是成功的。所以，他們維持住他們的相當高的工資率。那些被排斥的外國工人不得不留在他們本國，在他們本國裡面，勞工的邊際生產力較低，因而其工資率也較低。如果勞工在國與國之間能夠自由活動，則工資率趨向於平等，現在這一趨勢是被癱瘓了。在國內市場，工會不容許未入會的工人們競爭，而且只許有限的工人加入工會，那些未加入工會的工人必須去找報酬較低的工作，或者失業。工會對於這些人的命運是不關心的。

Even if a union takes over the responsibility for its unemployed members and pays them, out of contributions of its employed members, unemployment doles not lower than the earnings of the employed members, its action is not a monopoly price policy. For the unemployed union members are not the only people whose earning power is adversely affected by the union's policy of substituting higher rates for the potential lower market rates. The interests of those excluded from membership are not taken into account.

即令一個工會對於失業會員負起責任，以就業會員的捐款給他們的失業津貼，而其讓不低於就業會員工資收入，這種行爲不是一種獨占價格的政策。因爲在工會政策——以較高的工資率替代可能的較低的市場工資率——下，受害者不只是工會內部那些失業的會員。而那些被排斥於工會以外的工人們的利益，未被考慮到。

The Mathematical Treatment of the Theory of Monopoly Prices

獨占價格理論的數學處理

Mathematical economists have paid special attention to the theory of monopoly prices. It looks as if monopoly prices would be a chapter of catallactics for which mathematical treatment is more appropriate than it is for other chapters of catallactics. However, the services which mathematics can render in this field are rather poor too.

數學經濟學家對於獨占價格理論曾經特別注意。好像獨占價格是交換學中較適於數學處理的一章。但是，數學在這方面的用處，也是頗爲貧乏的。

With regard to competitive prices mathematics cannot give more than a mathematical description of various states of equilibrium and

對於競爭價格，只能做到把各種均衡情況和假想的均勻輪轉經濟的一些情況，給以數學的描述而已。對於那些如果沒有再變動發生就會終於建立這些均衡和這種均勻輪轉經濟的一些行爲，它不能有何說明。

In the theory of monopoly prices mathematics comes a little nearer to the reality of action. It shows how the monopolist could find out the optimum monopoly price provided he had at his disposal all the data required. But the monopolist does not know the shape of the curve of demand. What he knows is only points at which the curves of demand and supply intersected one another in the past. He is therefore not in a position to make use of the mathematical formulas in order to discover whether there is any monopoly price for his monopolized article and, if so, which of various monopoly prices is the optimum price. The mathematical and graphical disquisitions are therefore no less futile in this sector of action than in any other sector. But, at least, they schematize the deliberations of the monopolist and do not, as in the case of competitive prices, satisfy themselves in describing a merely auxiliary construction of theoretical analysis which does not play a role in real action.

在獨占價格的理論方面，數學稍微接近於行爲的實際。它說明獨占者如何會找出最適的獨占價格，假若他有了一切必要资料的話。但是，獨占者不知道需求曲線的形狀。他所知道的只是過去需求與供給曲線交叉的一些點。所以他不能利用數學公式來發現他的獨占品是不是有何獨占價格，以及，如果有，那一個獨占價格是最適度的。所以，數學和圖解的研究法，在行爲的這方面之無用，與在行爲的其他任何方面是一樣的。但是，它們至少會扼要地表現出獨占者內心的打算，而不是像在競爭價格的場合，只自滿於描述一個在實際行爲毫無用處的理論分析。

Contemporary mathematical economists have confused the study of monopoly prices. They consider the monopolist not as the seller of a monopolized commodity, but as an entrepreneur and producer. However, it is necessary to distinguish the monopoly gain clearly from entrepreneurial profit. Monopoly gains can only be reaped by the seller of a commodity or a service. An entrepreneur can reap them only in his capacity as seller of a monopolized commodity, not in his entrepreneurial capacity. The advantages and disadvantages which may result from the fall or rise in cost of production per unit with increasing total production, diminish or increase the monopolist's total net proceeds and influence his conduct. But the catallactic treatment of monopoly prices must not forget that the specific monopoly gain stems, with due allowance made to the configuration of demand, only from the monopoly of a commodity or a right. It is this alone which affords to the monopolist the opportunity to restrict supply without fear that other people can frustrate his action by expanding the quantity they offer for sale. Attempts to define the conditions required for the emergence of monopoly prices by resorting to the configuration of production costs are vain.

現代的數學經濟學家把獨占價格的硏究弄混淆了。他們不把獨占者看作一種獨占物的出賣者，而看作一個企業家和生產者。但是，獨占利得與企業家的利潤是必須區分得淸淸白白的。獨占利得只能由一件貨物或勞務的出售賺得。一個企業家之賺得它們，只是以獨占品的出售者的身份，不是以企業家的身份而賺得的。由於單位生產成本隨總產量之增加而下降或上昇的那種利益或不利，會增加或減少獨占者全部淨收入，因而影響他的行爲。但是，交換學之討論獨占價格，決不可忘記個別的獨占利得只來自一件貨物或勞務的獨占。只是，這一點使獨占者得以限制供給，而不怕別人增加供給來打擊他。如果想從生產费方面來界定獨占價格出現的必要條件，那是白費的企圃。

It is misleading to describe the market situation resulting in competitive prices by declaring that the individual producer could sell at the market price also a greater quantity than what he really sells. This is true only when two special conditions are fulfilled: the producer concerned, A, is not the marginal producer, and expanding production does not require additional costs which cannot be recovered in selling the additional quantity of products. Then A's expansion

「個別的生產者也可按市場價格賣出比他實際賣出的數量更大的數量」，用這個說法來描述那種歸結於競爭價格的市場情況，是會引起誤解的。這個說法，只有在兩個特別條件都具備的時候才是眞的：（1）有關的生產者A，不是邊際生產者；（2）擴展的生產，無須一些無法收回的額外成本。這時，A的增產逼得邊際生產者中止生產；拿出來賣的供給量仍然不變。

The characteristic mark of the competitive price as distinguished from the monopoly price is that the former is the outcome of a situation under which the owners of goods and services of all orders are compelled to serve best the wishes of the consumers. On a competitive market there is no such thing as a price policy of the sellers. They have no alternative other than to sell as much as they can at the highest price offered to them. But the monopolist fares better by withholding from the market a part of the supply at his disposal in order to make specific monopoly gains.

競爭價格不同於獨占價格的特點是：前者是各級職與勞務所有人不得不儘量滿足消費者的願望這一情況的結果。在一個競爭市場裡面，根本沒有出賣者的價格政策這麼一回事。他們只可以在較髙的價格下儘量多賣，而別無其他的選擇。但是，獨占者則不然，爲著賺取獨占利得，他可以從市場上撤回一部份供給以達成目的。

-------------------

[12] Price discrimination is dealt with below, pp. 388-391.

[12] 關於價格的歧視，在本章第十節討論。

[13] Cf. the refutation of the misleading extension of the concept of monopoly by Richard T. Ely, Monopolies and Trusts (New York, 1906), pp. 1-36.

[13] 參考Richard T. Ely在他的Monopolies and Trusts (New York, 1906), pp. 1-36對於對於誤把獨占概念擴張應用的駁斥。

[14] It is obvious that an incomplete monopoly scheme is bound to collapse if the outsiders come into a position to expand their sales.

[14] 如果這些局外人變成能夠擴大他們的銷售量，則不完全的獨占計畫勢必失敗，這是很顯然的。

[15] Cf. below, pp. 379-383, on good will.

[15] 參考下面「商譽」那一節。

[16] The use of this term "margin monopoly" is, like that of any other, optional. It would be vain to object that every other monopoly which results in monopoly prices could also be called a margin monopoly.

[16] 「邊際獨占」這個名詞的使用，像任何其他名詞的使用一樣，完全是隨意的。至於說凡是引起獨占價格的其他獨占也可以叫做邊際獨占，這不是有效的反對理由。

[17] A collection of these agreements was published in 1943 by the International Labor Office under the title Intergovernmental Commodity Control Agreements.

[17] 這些協定已由國際勞工局（International Labor Office）收集成冊，於一九四三年出版。書名Intergovernmental Commodity Control Agreements。

[18] The terms license and licensee are not employed here in the technical sense of patent legislation.

[19] About the significance of this fact see below, pp. 680-682.

[18] 關於這個事實的意義，見第二十四章三節。

[20] See below, pp. 855-857.

[19] 見第三十六章第一及第二節。

7. Good Will

七、商譽

It must be emphasized again that the market is peopled by men who are not omniscient and have only a more or less defective knowledge of prevailing conditions.

在市場上活動的人們不是無所不知的，他們對於現況只具有不完全的知識。這一點必須再加強調。

The buyer must always rely upon the trustworthiness of the seller. Even in the purchase of producers' goods the buyer, although as a rule an expert in the field, depends to some extent on the reliability of the seller. This is still more the case on the market for consumers' goods. Here the seller for the most part excels the buyer in technological and commercial insight. The salesman's task is not simply to sell what the customer is asking for. He must often advise the customer how to choose the merchandise which can best satisfy his needs. The retailer is not only a vendor; he is also a friendly helper. The public does not heedlessly patronize every shop. If possible, a man prefers a store or a brand with which he himself or trustworthy friends have had good experience in the past.

買者總要信賴賣者的誠實。即令是生產財的購買，買者雖然常是這方面的專家，也得相當地信任賣者。消費財的市場尤其是如此。就技術的和商業的知識方面講，賣者大都是超過買者的。推銷員的任務不單是銷售消費者所要求的東西。他必須常常吿訴消費者如何選擇那最能滿足他所需求的貨物。零售商不僅是一個出賣者；他也是一個善意的幫助者。一般大衆不會輕率地光顧每個商店。如果可能的話，一個人總是按照他自己或他親信的朋友過去的經驗去選擇一個商店或一個品牌。

Good will is the renown a business acquires on account of past achievements. It implies the expectation that the bearer of the good will in the future will live up to his earlier standards. Good will is not a phenomenon appearing only in business relations. It is present in all social relations. It determines a person's choice of his spouse and of his friends and his voting for a candidate in elections. Catallactics, of course, deals only with commercial good will.

商譽是一個營利事業由於過去的業績而獲得的聲望。它意涵，這個商譽的保有者將來的行爲也會遵守過去的標準。商譽不僅是商業關係上的一個現象。它也出現於所有的社會關係上。它決定一個人的擇偶、擇友、和他的政治投票。當然，交換學所討論的只是商業上的商譽。

It does not matter whether the good will is based on real achievements and merits or whether it is only a product of imagination and fallacious ideas. What counts in human action is not truth as it may appear to an omniscient being, but the opinions of people liable to error. There are some instances in which customers are prepared to pay a higher price for a special brand of a compound although the branded article does not differ in its physical and chemical structure from another cheaper product. Experts may deem such conduct unreasonable.

商譽是否基於實在的業績，或是不是想像的和錯覺的結果，這不關重要。在人的行爲中，値得計較的不是什麼全知者所認爲的眞理，而是我們這樣易犯錯誤的人的一些意見。我們常看到這種情形：顧客們願意以較高的價錢來買某一牌頭的商品，儘管這種商品在物質和化學成份上和那價錢較便宜的同類商品是一樣的。專家們也許認爲這種行爲不合理。但是，沒有一個人在有關他選擇的一切方面都具備完全的知識。他不能完全免於以對人的信任來替代眞情實況的認識。經常的顧客能選擇的不是貨物或勞務，是他所相信的賣主。他對他們所認爲可靠的賣主，給點價格以外的貼水。

The role which good will plays on the market does not impair or restrict competition. Everybody is free to acquire good will, and every bearer of good will can lose good will once acquired. Many reformers, impelled by their bias for paternal government, advocate authoritarian grade labeling as a substitute for trademarks. They would be right if rulers and bureaucrats were endowed with omniscience and perfect impartiality. But as officeholders are not free from human weakness, the realization of such plans would merely substitute the defects of government appointees for those of individual citizens. One does not make a man happier by preventing him from discriminating between a brand of cigarettes or canned food he prefers and another brand he likes less.

商譽在市場上所起的作用並不妨礙或限制競爭。每個人可以自由獲得商譽，每個享有商譽的人也會失掉旣有的商譽。有許多改革家，由於他們父權主義的政治偏見，主張政府確定商品的等級以代替商標。如果管制者和官僚們是天賦的全知者，而又絕對公正的話，這種主張是對的。但是，官吏們不能免於人類的弱點，這種主張的實現，僅僅是以政府官吏的缺陷來替代個別人民的缺陷。不許一個人按照他自己的好惡來選擇某一品牌的香烟或罐頭食品，這不會使他更快樂。

The acquisition of good will requires not only honesty and zeal in attending to the customers, but no less money expenditure. It takes time until a firm has acquired a steady clientele. In the interval it must often put up with losses against which it balances expected later profits.

商譽的獲得，不僅是需要忠實而誠懇地服務顧客，而且也需要金錢的開支。一個商號之保有一羣常來的顧客，是經過了相當時間的。在這個當兒，他們必須在金錢上受些損失，這些損失可被預料中後來的利潤所抵銷。

From the point of view of the seller good will is, as it were, a necessary factor of production. It is appraised accordingly. It does not matter that as a rule the money equivalent of the good will does not appear in book entries and balance sheets. If a business is sold, a price is paid for the good will provided it is possible to transfer it to the acquirer.

從賣者的觀點來看，商譽好像是一必要的生產要素。因此，可以當作生產要素來處理。通常，商譽的金錢等値，不表現在帳簿上和資產負債平衡表上，這是無關重要的。在出賣一個企業的時候，假若商譽也可能移轉到買者，這時，商譽就可取得一個賣價。

It is consequently a problem of catallactics to investigate the nature of this peculiar thing called good will. In this scrutiny we must distinguish three different cases.

因此，研究這個叫做商譽的特别東西的性質，是交換學的一個問題。在這個研究中，我們必須區分三種不同的事例：

Case 1. The good will gives to the seller the opportunity to sell at monopoly prices or to discriminate among various classes of buyers. This does not differ from other instances of monopoly prices or price discrimination.

事例1. 商譽給賣者以獨占價格出賣的機會，或者給他歧視不同的買者的機會。這無異於別的獨占價格或差別價格的事例。

Case 2. The good will gives to the seller merely the opportunity to sell at prices corresponding to those which his competitors attain. If he had no good will, he would not sell at all or only by cutting prices. Good will is for him no less necessary than the business premises, the keeping of a well-assorted stock of merchandise and the hiring of skilled helpers. The costs incurred by the acquisition of

事例2，商譽僅僅只給賣者以競爭價格出賣的機會。如果他沒有商譽，他就根本賣不掉或只能削價出賣。商譽對於他，正和營業的房屋、各色俱全的貨物、能幹的助手，同樣必要。由於取得商譽而支付的成本，與其他的營業費用發生同樣作用。這些費用，都是同樣地用總收入對總成本的超額來支付。

Case 3. The seller enjoys within a limited circle of staunch patrons such a brilliant reputation that he can sell to them at higher prices than those paid to his less renowned competitors. However, these prices are not monopoly prices. They are not the result of a deliberate policy aiming at a restriction in total sales for the sake of raising total net proceeds. It may be that the seller has no opportunity whatsoever to sell a larger quantity, as is the case for example, with a doctor who is busy to the limit of his powers although he charges more than his less popular colleagues. It may also be that the expansion of sales would require additional capital investment and that the seller either lacks this capital or believes that he has a more profitable employment for it. What prevents an expansion of output and of the quantity of merchandise or services offered for sale is not a purposive action on the part of the seller, but the state of the market.

事例3 賣者在一有限的老顧客的圈子以內，有很好的信譽，因而他能夠以較高於那些名譽較差的競爭者所賣的價格賣給他們。但是，這些價格不是獨占價格。它們不是爲提高全部淨收入而故意限制銷售量的結果。可能是賣者沒有任何機會出賣較多的數量，例如一位名醫，儘管他所收的治療費比名氣較差的醫生所收的要高些，而他還是忙到了他的能力範圍的極限。也可能是擴大銷售量將要額外的投資，而這位賣者或者是缺乏這筆資本，或者是認爲這筆資本還有更有利的用途。總而言之，使產量和銷售量不能擴大的，不是賣方的有意作爲，而是市場情况。

As the misinterpretation of these facts has generated a whole mythology of "imperfect competition" and "monopolistic competition," it is necessary to enter into a more detailed scrutiny of the considerations of an entrepreneur who is weighing the pros and cons of an expansion of his business.

因爲對於這些事實的誤解引起了一套「非完全競爭」和「獨占性競爭」的神話，所以必須更仔細地追査一個企業家在權衡是否擴張營業的得失時所考慮的是些什麼。

Expansion of a production aggregate, and no less increasing production from partial utilization of such an aggregate to full capacity production, requires additional capital investment which is reasonable only if there is no more profitable investment available[21]. It does not matter whether the entrepreneur is rich enough to invest his own funds or whether he would have to borrow the funds needed. Also that part of an entrepreneur's own capital which is not employed for the expansion of the business concerned these funds must be withdrawn from their present employment[22]. The entrepreneur will only embark upon this change of investment if he expects from it an increase in his net returns. In addition there are other doubts which may check the propensity to expand a prospering enterprise even if the market situation seems to offer propitious chances. The entrepreneur may

生產總額的擴增必須增加額外的投资，這筆額外投资，只有在沒有更有利的其他投資途徑時才是合理的[20]。這位投資者是不是富到足以投下自己的資金，或是必須借用別人的資金，這是不關重要的。企業家的資本沒有用在他自己商號的那部份，不是「賦閒的」，它已用在別處。爲著要用以擴張所說的營業，這些資金必須從現在的用場撤回[21]。這位企業家只有在他認爲這樣作有增加收入淨額之希望時才肯這樣做。此外還有一些其他的顧慮，即令市場情況似乎有利，也會妨礙擴張的傾向。例如這個企業家也許不敢相信自己的能力可以經營一個規模較大的事業。他也可能被別人失敗的例子嚇住而不敢作擴張的嘗試。

A businessman who, thanks to his splendid good will, is in a position to sell at higher prices than less renowned competitors, could, of course, renounce his advantage and reduce his prices to the level of his competitors. Like every seller of commodities or of labor he could abstain from taking fullest advantage of the state of the market and sell at a price at which demand exceeds supply. In doing so he would be making presents to some people. The donees would be those who could buy at this lowered price. Others, although ready to buy at the same price, would have to go away empty-handed because the supply was not sufficient.

一位享有優良商眷，因而能比名氣較差的競爭者賣得較高價格的商人，當然也可自動放棄他的利益，而把他的價格減到與他的競爭者所資的價格相等。他和每個出賣貨物或勞務的人一樣，可以不充份地沾市場情況的利益，而以需求超過供給的那個價格出賣。他這樣做，等於對某些人贈送。受贈的人是那些能夠以這較低價格來買的人。其餘的人，儘管也願意在相同的價格下購買，但不得不空手回去，因爲在這個價格下，供給不夠應付需求。

The restriction of the quantity of every article produced and offered for sale is always the outcome of the decisions of entrepreneurs intent upon reaping the highest possible profit and avoiding losses. The characteristic mark of monopoly prices is not to be seen in the fact that the entrepreneurs did not produce more of the article concerned and thus did not bring about a fall in its price. Neither is it to be seen in the fact that complementary factors of production remain unused although their fuller employment would have lowered the price of the product. The only relevant question is whether or not the restriction of production is the outcome of the action of the--monopolistic--owner of a supply of goods and services who withholds a part of this supply in order to attain higher prices for the rest. The characteristic feature of monopoly prices is the monopolist's defiance of the wishes of the consumers. A competitive price for copper means that the final price of copper tends toward a point at which the deposits are exploited to the extent permitted by the prices of the required nonspecific complementary factors of production; the marginal mine does not yield mining rent. The consumers are getting as much copper as they themselves determine by the prices they allow for copper and all other commodities. A monopoly price of copper means that the deposits of copper are utilized only to a smaller degree because this is more advantageous to the owners; capital and labor which, if the supremacy of the consumers were not infringed, would have been employed for the production of additional copper, are employed for the production of other articles for which the demand of the consumers is less intense. The interests of the owners of the copper deposits take precedence over those of the consumers. The available resources of copper are not employed according to the wishes and plans of the public.

對於毎件商品的生產量和銷售量加以限制，這總是企業家故意決定的結果，他故意這樣作，爲的是賺取可能賺得的最高利潤和避免虧損。企業家們不生產較多的有關貨物，因而不使它的價格降落，在這個事實中，看不出獨占價格的特徵。一些補助性的生產要素留著不用，如果較充份地利用它們，產品的價格將會降低，在這個事實中，也看不出獨占價格的特徵。唯一有關的問題是：生產的限制是不是獨占的行爲後果。獨占者的行爲是把他的供給量扣留一部份不提供給市場，因而抬髙單位價格。獨占價格的特點是獨占者蔑視消費者的願望。銅的競爭價格，是指：銅的最後價格趨向於一點，在這一點上面，銅的鑛藏開採到那些必要的、非特殊的補助生產要素的價格所可容許的程度：邊際的銅鑛不產生鑛租。消費者們所購得的銅，其數量由他們自己在銅的價格和其他—切貨物的價格上斟酌決定。銅的獨占價格，是指：銅的鑛藏只利用到較少的程度，因爲這樣對鑛主更有利：資本與勞力——如果消費者的主權未遭侵犯的話，將會用來生產更多的銅——用以生產消費者所不急於需要的東西。銅鑛主人的利益比消費者的利益優先。銅這項可用的資源不是遵照大衆的願望和計畫利用的。

Profits are, of course, also the outcome of a discrepancy between the wishes of the consumers and the actions of the entrepreneurs. If all entrepreneurs had had in the past perfect foresight of the present state of the market, no profits and losses would have emerged. Their competition would have already adjusted in the past--due allowance being made for time preference--the prices of the complementary factors of production to the present prices of the products. But this statement cannot brush away the fundamental difference between profits and monopoly gains. The entrepreneur profits to the extent he has succeeded in serving the consumers better than other people have done. The monopolist reaps monopoly gains through impairing the satisfaction of the consumers.

當然，利潤也是由於消費者的願望與企業家的行爲這兩者之間的不一致而產生的。如果企業家們對於今天的市場情況都早有先見之明，則利潤與虧損都不會發生；他們的競爭早已把那些生產要素的價格按照現在的產品價格調整了（時間的偏好當然也考慮到）。但是，這個說法並沒有消除利潤與獨占利得之間的基本差異。企業家之賺得利益，其數量決定於他對消費者的服務比別人的服務更好得多少。獨占者之取得獨占利得，則是由於損害消費者的滿足。

---------------------

[21] Expenditure for additional advertising also means additional input of capital.

[20] 額外增加的廣吿費也是投資的增加。

[22] Cash holding, even if it exceeds the customary amount and is called "hoarding," is a variety of employing funds available. Under the prevailing state of the market the actor considers cash holding the most appropriate employment of a part of his assets.

[21] 現金的握存，即令它超過了習慣的數量因而叫做「窖藏」，也是利用資金的方式之一。在市場的現況下，營業者認爲，握存現金是一部份资產最適當的運用法。

8. Monopoly of Demand

八、需求獨占

Monopoly prices can emerge only from a monopoly of supply. A monopoly of demand does not bring about a market situation different from that under not monopolized demand. The monopolist buyer--whether he is an individual or a group of individuals acting in concert--cannot reap a specific gain corresponding to the monopoly gains of monopolistic sellers. If he restricts demand, he will buy at a lower price. But then the quantity bought will drop too.

獨占價格只能因供給之獨占而產生。需求的獨占並不引起一個異於無獨占需求的市場情況。獨占的買者——或者是一個人，或者是行動一致的一羣人——不能取得相當於獨占資者所賺得的獨占利得那樣的特別利得。如果他限制需求，他將可在較低價格下購買。但是，這時買到的數量也隨之減少。

In the same way in which governments restrict competition in order to improve the position of privileged sellers, they can also restrict competition for the benefit of privileged buyers. Again and again governments have put an embargo on the export of certain commodities. Thus by excluding foreign buyers they have aimed at lowering the domestic price. But such a lower price is not a counterpart of monopoly prices.

政府旣可爲著有利於某些特權的賣者而限制競爭，同樣地，他們也可以爲著有利於某些特權的買者而限制競爭。有些政府曾經一再地禁止某些貨物輸出。這樣排斥外國的買者，他們達到了壓低國內物價的目的。但是，這樣的低價並不是獨占價格的相對物。

What is commonly dealt with as monopoly of demand are certain phenomena of the determination of prices for specific complementary factors of production.

通常作爲需求獨占來討論的，是些關於特殊生產要素價格決定的現象。

The production of one unit of the commodity m requires, besides the employment of various nonspecific factors, the employment of one unit of each of the two absolutely specific factors a and b. Neither a nor b can be replaced by any other factor; on the other hand a is of no use when not combined with b and vice versa. The available supply of a by far exceeds the available supply of b. It is therefore not possible for the owners of a to attain any price for a. The demand for a is always lags behind the supply; a is not an economic good. If a is a mineral deposit the extraction of which requires the use of capital and labor, the ownership of the deposits does not yield a royalty. There is no mining rent.

商品m一個單位的生產，除掉使用各種非特殊的要素以外，還要使用a和b這兩個絕對特殊的要素各一單位。a和b都不能用任何別的要素替代；另一方面，a不和b結合起來的時候，它毫無用處，b不和a結合起來的時候，也是如此。現在，a的供給大大超過了b的供給。所以a的所有者不可能把a賣得任何價格。對於a的需求總是落在供給之後；a不是一項經濟財。如果a是一種鑛藏，它的開採必須使用資本和勞力，鑛藏的所有權不產生收益。這裡沒有鑛租。

But if the owners of a form a cartel, they can turn the tables. They can restrict the supply of a offered for sale to such a fraction that the supply of b exceeds the supply of a. Now a becomes an economic good for which prices are paid while the price of b dwindles to zero. If then the owners of b react by forming a cartel too, a price struggle develops between the two monopolistic combines about the outcome of which catallactics can make no statements. As has already been pointed out, the pricing process does not bring about a uniquely determined result in cases in which more than one of the factors of production required is of an absolutely specific character.

但是如果a的所有主們組成一個卡特爾，他們就可轉變這一情勢。他們可以把a的供給量限制到使b的供給量超過它。現在a變成了經濟財，對它必須支付代價，而b的價格則減縮到零。如果這時b的所有主們也組成一個卡特爾來反擊，於是，在這兩個獨占組織之間的價格鬥爭爲之展開，其結果如何，交換學無法說明。以前曾經講過，如果有一個以上的必要要素是屬於絕對特殊的性質，則定價過程不引起獨特無二地確定的後果。

It does not matter whether or not the market situation is such that the factors a and b together could be sold at monopoly prices. It does not make any difference whether the price for a lot including one unit of both a and b is a monopoly price or a competitive price.

巿場的情況是不是a和b可以一起在獨占價格下出賣，這是無關重要的。包括一個單位a和一個單位b的一個組合所賣得的價格，是獨占價格或競爭價格，這是沒有什麼關係的。

Thus what is sometimes viewed as a monopoly of demand turns out to be a monopoly of supply formed under particular conditions. The sellers of a and b are intent upon selling at monopoly prices without regard to the question whether or not the price of m can be come a monopoly price. What alone matters for them is to obtain as great a share as possible of the joint price which the buyers are ready to pay for a and b together. The case does not indicate any feature which would make it permissible to apply to it the term monopoly of demand. This mode of expression becomes understandable, however, if one takes into account the accidental features marking the contest between the two groups. If the owners of a (or b) are at the same time the entrepreneurs conduction the processing of m, their cartel takes on the outward appearance of a monopoly of demand. But this personal union combining two separate catallactic functions does not alter the essential issue; what is at stake is the settlement of affairs between two groups of monopolistic sellers.

由此可知，那個有時被看作需求獨占的，實即特殊情況下形成的一種供給獨占。a和b的賣者一心一意地想以獨占價格出賣，不管m的價格是不是會成爲獨占價格這個問題。他們唯一關心的事情，是盡可能地在買者對a和b—起所預備給付的聯合價格中取得最多的一份。這種情形並不顯出任何可讓我們使用「需求獨占」這個名詞的特徵。但是，如果我們考慮到那些表現兩組間之爭奪的附帶特徵，則這個方式的說法就變成可以了解的。如果a（或b）的所有主們，同時也是製造m的企業家，他們的卡特爾就顯出需求獨占的外貌。但是，這種把交換學上兩個不同的功能聯合起來的人身結合，不影響基本問題；有關重要的問題是，兩組獨占賣者之間的爭執之解決。

Our example fits, mutatis mutandis, the case in which a and b can also be employed for purposes other than the production of m, provided these other employments only yield smaller returns.

我們所講的這個事例，加以必要的變更以後，也可適用於「a和b也可用來生產m以外的商品」的場合，假若那些用途只産生較少的報酬的話。

9. Consumption as Affected by Monopoly Prices

九、受了獨占價格影響的消費

The individual consumer may react to monopoly prices in different ways.

個別的消費者對於獨占價格可能有幾種不同的行爲反應：

1. Notwithstanding the rise in price, the individual consumer does not restrict his purchases of the monopolized article. He prefers to restrict the purchase of other goods. (If all consumers were to react in this way, the competitive price would have already risen to the height of the monopoly price.)

1. 儘管價格上漲，個別的消費者仍然不限制對於獨占物的購買。他寧可限制其他貨物的購買。（如果所有的消费者都是這樣的話，競爭價格一定已經涨到獨占價格的高度了。）

2. The consumer restricts his purchase of the monopolized article to such an extent that he does not spend for it more than he would have spent--for the purchase of a larger quantity--under the competitive price. (If all people were to react in this way, the seller would not get more under the monopoly price than he did under the competitive price; he would not derive any gain by deviating from the competitive price.)

2. 消費者對於獨占物的購買，限制到不多於在競爭價格下購買它所花的金錢數額。（如果所有的消費者都是這樣的話，則賣者在獨占價格下的收入並不多於在競爭價格下的收入。）

3. The consumer restricts his purchase of the monopolized commodity to such an extent that he spends less for it than he would have spent under the competitive price; he buys with the money thus saved goods which he would not have bought otherwise. (If all people were to react in this way, the seller would harm his interests by substituting a higher price for the competitive price; no monopoly price could emerge. Only a benefactor who wanted to wean his fellow men from the consumption of pernicious drugs would in this case raise the price of the article concerned above the competitive level.)

3. 消費者對於獨占物的購買，限制到少於在競爭價格下購買它所花的金錢額；他把這省下來的錢用來買他原來不買的東西。（如果所有的人都這樣作，則這個賣者以較高的價格替代競爭價格反而損害了自己的利益；獨占價格不會出現。在這種情形下，把價格提高到競爭價格以上的，只有善意的保護人想使他的同胞不沉溺於有毒的麻醉品之消費，才會這樣作。）

4. The consumer spends more for the monopolized commodity than he would have spent under the competitive price and acquires only a smaller quantity of it.

4. 消費者比在競爭價格下花更多的錢來購買這個獨占物，而購得的數量比在競爭價格下所購買得的還少些。

However the consumer may react, his satisfaction appears to be impaired from the viewpoint of his own valuations. He is not so well served under monopoly prices as under competitive prices. The monopoly gain of the seller is borne by a monopoly deprivation of the buyer. Even if some consumers (as in case 3) acquire goods which they would not have bought in the absence of the monopoly price, their satisfaction is lower than it would have been under a different state of prices. Capital and labor which are withdrawn from the production of products which drops on account of the monopolistic restriction of the supply of one of the complementary factors required for their production, are employed for the production of other things which would otherwise not have been produced. But the consumers value these other things less.

不管消費者如何反應，從他自己評値的觀點來看，他的滿足好像是受了損害。在獨占價格下，他所享受的沒有在競爭價格下的那麼好。賣者的獨占利得是來自買者的損失。即令有些消費者（像第3例所講的）購得在沒有獨占價格時所不購買的貨物，可是，他們的滿足仍低於在不同的價格情況下所可得到的滿足。獨占物產量的減少，固然騰出资本和勞力可用來生產原來不生產的其他貨物，但是，消費者對於這些其他貨物的評値是較低的。

Yet there is an exception to this general rule that monopoly prices benefit the seller and harm the buyer and infringe the supremacy of the consumers' interests. If on a competitive market one of the complementary factors, namely f, needed for the production of the consumers' good g, does not attain any price at all, although the production of f requires various expenditures and consumers are ready to pay for the consumers' good g a price which makes its production profitable on a competitive market, the monopoly price for f becomes a necessary requirement for the production of g. It is this idea that

獨占價格通常總是有利於賣者，有害於買者，而且違背消費者的利益至上，但是，也有一個例外。如果在競爭市場上，補助的生產要素之一，即f，是製造消費財g所必要的，儘管生產f也需要各種費用，而且消費者也願意用一個使它可以有利地在競爭市場上製造的價格來買消費財g，可是這個要素f竟然賣不出價錢。在這種場合，f的獨占價格，倒成爲生產g的必要條件了。這就是大家所以贊成專利和版權立法的理由。如果發明家和著作者不能從發明和寫作方面賺得金錢報酬，他們將不願把他們的時間和精力用在這方面，也不會願意支付這方面的費用。社會大衆也不能從f的獨占價格之不存在而得到任何利益。相反地，他們失去了可以從g的購賈而得到的滿足[22]。

Many people are alarmed by the reckless use of the deposits of minerals and oil which cannot be replaced. Our contemporaries, they say, squander an exhaustible stock without any regard for the coming generations. We are consuming our own birthright and that of the future. Now these complaints make little sense. We do not know whether later ages will still rely upon the same raw materials on which we depend today. It is true that the exhaustion of the oil deposits and even those of coal is progressing at a quick rate. But it is very likely that in a hundred or five hundred years people will resort to other methods of producing heat and power. Nobody knows whether we, in being less profligate with these deposits, would not deprive ourselves without any advantage to men of the twenty-first or of the twenty-fourth centuries. It is vain to provide for the needs of ages the technological abilities of which we cannot even dream.

有許多人憂慮那些不能恢復的鑛物和石油的無節制使用。他們說，我們這個時代的人，浪費那些會枯竭的資源而不顧後代。我們不僅是在消耗我們所繼承的遺產，而且也在耗消後代人所應繼承的遺產。這些控訴是沒有什麼意義的。我們不知道後代的人是不是還要依賴我們今天所依賴的同樣的一些原料。誠然，石油的鑛藏，乃至煤的鑛藏是在加速地消耗。但是，在一百年或五百年以後，大家用其他的方法來產生熱和力是很可能的。假若我們少消耗點這些鑛藏，我們是不是苦了我們自己而無益於二十一世紀或二十四紀的人呢？誰也不知道。遙遠後代的技術能力將進步到什麼境界，我們是無法想像的，因而，爲那後代的需要而作準備，一無是處。

But it is contradictory if the same people who lament the depletion of some natural resources are no less vehement in indicting monopolistic restraint in their present-day exploitation. The effect of monopoly prices of mercury is certainly a slowing down of the rate of depletion. In the eyes of those frightened by the aspect of a future scarcity of mercury this effect must appear highly desirable.

但是，如果同一個人旣憂慮某些自然資源的枯竭，而又同樣熱烈地控訴這些資源開發之受獨占限制，這是自相矛盾的。水銀的獨占價格，確有使水銀鑛藏之消耗率趨於減低的效果。那些擔憂將來水銀稀少的人們，應該認爲這個效果是非常好的現象。

Economics in unmasking such contradictions does not aim at a "justification" of monopoly prices for oil, minerals, and ore. Economic has neither the task of justifying nor of condemning. It has merely to scrutinize the effects of all modes of human action. It does not enter the arena in which friends and foes of monopoly prices are intent upon pleading their causes.

經濟學在揭發這樣的一些矛盾時，並不是認爲石油、煤鑛等等的獨占價格是正當的。經濟學的任務旣非稱讚、也非譴責。它只要查究人的行爲之後果。它不參與獨占價格的敵友之爭。

Both sides in this heated controversy resort to fallacious arguments. The antimonopoly party is wrong in attributing to every monopoly the power to impair the situation of the buyers by restricting supply and bringing about monopoly prices. It is no less wrong in assuming that there prevails within a market economy, not hampered and sabotaged by government interference, a general tendency toward the formation of monopoly. It is a grotesque distortion of the true

這個熱烈爭辯中的雙方，都是搬弄些錯誤的議論。反對獨占的一方，錯在認爲，所有的獨占都是靠限制供給，形成獨占價格以損害購買者。他們也同等地錯在認爲，在一個未受到政府干擾的市場經濟裡面，有個一般趨勢，趨向於獨占的形成。他們每每說「獨占的資本主義」而不說「獨占的干涉主義」，每每說「民營的卡特爾」，而不說「政府做成的卡特爾」。如果政府不有意地獎勵它們，獨占價格將會限於某些只在少數地區可以開採的鑛物，和那些地方性的有限空間的獨占。

The promonopoly party is wrong in crediting to the cartels the economics of big-scale production. Monopolistic concentration of production on one hand, they say, as a rule reduces average costs of production and thus increases the amount of capital and labor available for additional production. However, no cartel is needed in order to eliminate the plants producing at higher costs. Competition on the free market achieves this effect in the absence of any monopoly and of any monopoly prices. It is,on the contrary, often the purpose of government-sponsored cartelization to preserve the existence of plants and farms which the free market would force to discontinue operations precisely because they are producing at too high costs of production. The free market would have eliminated, for example, the submarginal farms and preserved only those for which production pays under the prevailing market price. But the New Deal preferred a different arrangement. It forced all farmers to a proportional restriction of output. It raised by its monopolistic policy the price of agricultural products to such a height that production became reasonable again on submarginal soil.

贊成獨占的一方，錯在把大規漠生產經濟歸功於卡特爾。他們說，獨占性的集中生產，照例是會減低平均成本，因而增加資本和勞力的可用量，用之於額外的生產。但是，爲著消滅那些生產成本較高的工場，用不著卡特爾。自由市場裡面的競爭，在沒有任何獨占和獨占價格的環境下，可以達到這個目的。生產成本太高的工廠和農場，自由市場是會壓迫它們停止經營的。維持這種工廠和農場存在的，倒是政府支持的卡特爾組織。例如自由市場會消滅邊際以下的農場，而僅維持那些在現行的市場價格下値得生產的。但是，美國的新政則作了不同的安排。它強迫所有的農民按一個比例來限制產量。它用獨占政策把農產品的價格提高到使邊際以下的土地之生產又成爲合理的那個程度。

No less erroneous are the conclusions derived from a confusion of the economies of product standardization and monopoly. If men asked only for one standard type of a definite commodity, production of some articles could be arranged in a more economical way and costs would be lowered accordingly. But if people were to behave in such a manner, standardization and the corresponding cost reduction would emerge also in the absence of monopoly. If, on the other hand, one forces the consumers to be content with one standard type only, one does not increase their satisfaction; one impairs it. A dictator may deem the conduct of the consumers rather foolish. Why should they be so crazy about individually fashioned clothes? He may be right from the point of view of his own value judgments. But the trouble is that valuation is personal, individual, and arbitrary. The democracy of the market consists in the fact that people themselves make their choices and that no dictator has the power to force them to submit to his value judgments.

把產品標準化的經濟與獨占相混淆而得出一些結論，也是同樣的錯誤。如果人們只要求一個標準格式的一定貨物，則生產自可在一個更經濟的程序中進行，因而成本也就可以降低。但是，如果人們眞的是這樣作爲，標準化和相因的成本降低，也可在沒有獨占的環境下出現。另一方面，如果你「強迫」消費者們只用一個標準格式的東西，你就不是增加他們的滿足；而是損害它。一個獨裁者也許認爲，消費者們的行爲是愚蠢的。婦女們爲什麼不像士兵一樣都穿制服呢？她們爲什麼要那樣狂喜於形形色色的時髦服装？從獨裁者自己的價値判斷來看，他也許是對的。但是，麻煩的是：價値是個人的、主觀的、任意的。市場的民主，在於人們自己作他們的選擇，沒有獨裁者有權強迫他們服從他的價値判斷。

----------------------

[23] See below, pp. 680-681.

[22] 見第二十四章第三節。

[24] See above, p. 366.

10. Price Discrimination on the Part of the Seller

十、賣方的價格歧視

Both competitive prices and monopoly prices are the same for all buyers. There prevails on the market a permanent tendency to eliminate all discrepancies in prices for the same commodity or service. Although the valuations of the buyers and the intensity of their demand as effective on the market are different, they pay the same prices. The wealthy man does not pay more for bread than the less wealthy man, although he would be ready to pay a higher price if he could not buy it cheaper. The enthusiast who would rather restrict his consumption of food than miss a performance of a Beethoven symphony pays no more for admission than a man for whom music is merely a pastime and who would not care for the concert if he could attend it only by renouncing his desire for some trifles. The difference between the price one must pay for a good and the highest amount one would be prepared to pay for it has sometimes been called consumers' surplus.[25]

競爭價格也好，獨占價格也好，對所有的買者是一律的。在市場裡面有一個持久的趨勢，即趨向於消滅相同的貨物或相同的勞務之間的價格差異。儘管買者們的評値和他們在市場上有效需求的強度彼此不同，他們所付的價格是一致的。富人買麵包並不比窮人付的錢多，儘管他如果不能照這個價格買到，他也願意付較高的價格。一位熱愛音樂的人，寧願少吃幾片麵包而不願失掉聽貝多芬交響曲演奏的機會，但是，他不需要比別的聽衆花更多的錢買門票，即令別的聽衆是把音樂當作消遣，如果他必須放棄某些瑣屑的慾望不滿足才能買門票的話，他就不會來聽這場演奏。買一件東西實際上支付的價格與買者內心中願意支付的最高價，這兩者之間的差額有時叫做「消費者剩餘」。[23]

But there can appear on the market conditions which make it possible for the seller to discriminate between the buyers. He can sell a commodity or a service at different prices to different buyers. He can obtain prices which may sometimes even rise to the point at which the whole consumers' surplus of a buyer disappears. Two conditions must coincide in order to make price discrimination advantageous to the seller.

但是，在市場上也會發生這種情形，就是賣者可以歧視買者，對不同的買者索價不同。他所定的價格有時可高到使一個買者的「消費者剩餘」完全消失。要使歧視的價格有利於賣方，有兩個條件必須符合：

The first condition is that those buying at a cheaper price are not in a position to resell the commodity or the service to people to whom the discriminating seller sells only at a higher price. If such reselling cannot be prevented, the first seller's intention would be thwarted. The second condition is that the public does not react in such a way that the total net proceeds of the seller lag behind the total net proceeds he would obtain under price uniformity. This second condition is always present under conditions which would make it advantageous to a seller to substitute monopoly prices for competitive prices. But it can also appear under a market situation which would not bring about monopoly gains. For price discrimination does not enjoin upon the seller the necessity of restricting the amount sold. He does not lose any buyer completely; he must merely take into account that some buyers may restrict the amount of their purchases. But as a rule he has the opportunity to sell the remainder of his supply to people who would not have bought at all or would

第一個條件是：以較低價格購買的人，不能把他買進的東西轉賣給那些只能在較高價格下購買的人。如果這樣的轉賣不能防止，則賣者對買者差別待遇的意圃就會落空。第二個條件是：大衆的反應不致使賣者的全部淨收入比他採用一律定價政策所可賺得的全部淨收入要少得多。凡是在賣者以獨占價格替代競爭價格而對他有利的場合，第二個條件就具備了。但是在一個不會產生獨占利得的市場情況下也會出現這種情形。因爲價格的歧視並不要賣者一定限制銷售量。他不至於失掉所有的買者；他只要考慮到有些買者會限制他們的購買。但是，在通常情形下他有機會賣掉剩下的部份，因爲在一致的競爭價格下，有些人根本不會購買，或者只會購買少量。現在這剩下的部份就是賣給這些人。

Consequently the configuration of production costs plays no role in the considerations of the discriminating seller. Production costs are not affected as the total amount produced and sold remains unaltered.

因此，生產成本的結構在差別定價的賣者的考慮中不起作用。當全部生產量和銷售量維持不變的時候，生產成本不受任何影響。

The most common case of price discrimination is that of physicians. A doctor who can perform 80 treatments in a week and charges $3 for each treatment is fully employed by attending to 30 patients and makes $240 a week. If he charges the 10 wealthiest patients, who together consume 50 treatments, $4 instead of $3, they will consume only 40 treatments. The doctor sells the remaining 10 treatments at $2 each to patients who would not have expended $3 for his professional services. Then his weekly proceeds rise to $270.

價格歧視最普通的事例是醫生的收費。假設一位醫生每週可看80次病，每次收費3元：所看的病人有30人，他每週的收入是240元。假使他差別收費，對那最富的10個病人每次收費不是3元而是4元。他們就從每週看病50次減到40次。這位醫生就剩下10次看病的時間，於是把這10次的時間減價收費2元，於是有些花不起3元看一次病的病人也就可以來看病了。這時，這位醫生每週的收入是270元。

As price discrimination is practiced by the seller only if it is more advantageous to him than selling at a uniform price, it is obvious that it results in an alteration of consumption and the allocation of factors of production to various employments. The outcome of discrimination is always that the total amount expended for the acquisition of the good concerned increases. The buyers must provide for their excess expenditure by cutting down other purchases. As it is very unlikely that those benefitted by price discrimination will spend their gains for the purchase of the same goods as those the other people no longer buy in the same quantity, changes in the market data and in production become unavoidable.

賣方之採用歧視的價格，只有在比採用一律定價對他更有利的場合他才採用。這是淸楚地說明：歧視價格引起消費變動，因而也引起生產要素在用途上的轉變。歧視的結果，總歸是購買這種貨物的金錢總額爲之增加。買者們爲抵銷他們這份增加的支出，必須減少其他的購買。至於那些因爲歧視價格而得到利益的人們，把這份利得用之於購買別人所少買的那種貨物，而且購買量也與他們所少買的數量相等，這是極不可能的。於是市場情況和生產情形之發生變動是必不可免的。

In the above example the 10 wealthiest patients are damaged; they pay $4 for a service for which they used to pay only $3. But it is not only the doctor who derives advantage from the discrimination; the patients whom he charges $2 are benefitted too. It is true they must provide the doctor's fees by renouncing other satisfactions. However, they value these other satisfactions less than that conveyed to them by the doctor's treatment. Their degree of contentment attained is increased.

在上舉的例子中，那10位最富的病人是受到損失的，他們向來只付3元看一次病，現在要付4元。但是因歧視價格而得利的，不只是這位醫生：那些付2元看一次病的病人也得到利益。誠然，他們必須放棄其他的滿足來支付這筆看病費。但是，他們對那放棄的其他的滿足之評値低於醫生看病給他們的滿足。他們得到的滿足程度是增加了。

For a full comprehension of price discrimination it is well to remember that, under the division of labor, competition among those eager to acquire the same product does not necessarily impair the individual competitor's position. The competitors' interests are antagonistic only with regard to the services rendered by the complementary nature-given factors of production. This inescapable natural antagonism is superseded by the advantages derived from the division of labor. As far as average costs of production can be reduced by big-scale production, competition among those eager to acquire the same commodity brings about an improvement in the individual competitor's

爲著充份理解價格歧視，最好是記住：在分工的秩序下，在那些極想得到相同產品的人們當中的競爭，並不必然損害各個競爭者的地位。競爭者的利益是衝突，這只是從「自然資源是有限的」這一觀點來看的。這個不可免的敵對被來自分工的利益抵銷了。平均生產成本會因大規模生產而降低，在那些極想得到相同產品的人們當中的競爭，會隨平均成本之降低而改善各個競爭者的地位。「不只是少數人，而是許多許多人極想得到商品c這個事實，使得c的製造可以在節省成本的程序中進行；於是即令資產不多的人也買得起。同樣地，價格歧視有時也會使一個歧視價格不存在時不能得到滿足的需要得到滿足。

There live in a city p lovers of music, each of whom would be prepared to spend $2 for the recital of a virtuoso. But such a concert requires an expenditure greater than 2 p dollars and can therefore not be arranged. But if discrimination of admission fees is possible and among the p friends of music n are ready to spend $4, the recital becomes feasible, provided that the amount 2 (n + p) dollars is sufficient. Then n people spend $4 each and (p - n) people $2 each for the admission and forego the satisfaction of the least urgent need they would have satisfied if they had not preferred to attend the recital. Each person in the audience fares better than he would have if the unfeasibility of price discrimination had prevented the performance. It is to the interest to the organizers to enlarge the audience to the point at which the admission of additional customers involves higher costs than the fees they are ready to spend.

假設某一城市有p個愛好音樂的人，他們每個人都願意花2元來欣赏某一音樂名家的獨奏。但是，這個演奏會的必要經費大於2p元，因此無法舉行。但是，如果門票可以差別定價，而p個音樂之友當中，有n個是願意花4元的，同時假定2(n+p)元這個數額是足夠的，則這個演奏會就可以舉行了。這時n個聽衆每人花4元，(p-n)個聽衆每人花2元來買門票，而放棄那較不迫切的需要之滿足。於是，聽衆中每個人都比在這個演奏會不能舉行的情況下過得愉快。就主辦這個演奏會的人的利益來講，最好是把衆聽【聽衆】擴增到「再增加一批聽衆則成本會高於取自他們的門票收入」那個程度。

Things would be different if the recital could have been arranged even if no more than $2 was charged for admission. Then price discrimination would have impaired the satisfaction of those who are charged $4.

【中文版無此段。】

The most common practices in selling admission tickets for artistic performances and railroad tickets at different rates are not the outcome of price discrimination in the catallactic sense of the term. He who pays a higher rate gets something appreciated more than he who pays less. He gets a better seat, a more comfortable traveling opportunity, and so on. Genuine price discrimination is present in the case of physicians who, although attending to each patient with the same care, charge the wealthier clients more than the less wealthy. It is present in the case of railroads charging more for the shipping of goods the transportation of which adds more to their value than for others although the costs incurred by the railroad are the same. It is obvious that both the doctor and the railroad can practice discrimination only within the limits fixed by the opportunity given to the patient and the shipper to find another solution of their problems that is more to their advantage. But this refers to one of the two conditions required for the emergence of price discrimination.

技藝表演的入場券和鐵路的乘車票，通常有不同的價格。但這不是交換學裡面所說的價格歧視。因爲支付較高價格的人有某種較好的享受。例如他的座位比較舒適，受到較好的招待等等。眞正的價格歧視是醫生收費的例子，醫生儘管是同樣小心地看病人，但對較富的病人收費較高。鐵路的貨運，也有價格歧視的辦法，即對那些因轉運而其價値增加得較多的貨物，收較高的運費，儘管鐵路方面所負擔的運輸成本是一樣的。醫生和鐵路局之採用歧視價格，當然只能在一定的界限以內，這個界限是由「那病人和運貨者用其他方法解決他們的問題更對他們有利」的機會所決定。這就是指上述的價格歧視出現的兩個必要條件之一。

It would be idle to point out a state of affairs in which price discrimination could be practiced by all sellers of all kinds of commodities

我們不必指出，在某個情況下，各種各類貨物的每個賣者都可採用歧視價格，這是沒有用的。更重要的是，要使大家認定這個事實：在一個未受政府干擾的市場經濟裡面，採用歧視價格的必要條件是極難具備的，因此，我們很可以把它叫做例外的現象。

----------------

[25] Cf. A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (8th ed. London, 1930), pp. 124-127.

[23] 參考Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (8th ed. London, 1930), pp. 124-127.

11. Price Discrimination on the Part of the Buyer

十一、買方的價格歧親

While monopoly prices and monopoly gains cannot be realized to the advantage of a monopolistic buyer, the case is different with price discrimination. There is only one condition required for the emergence of price discrimination on the part of a monopolistic buyer on a free market, namely, crass ignorance of the state of the market on the part of the sellers.As such ignorance is unlikely to last for any length of time, price discrimination can only be practiced if the government interferes.

賣方的獨占價格和獨占利得固然不會實現於買者的獨占而有利於他，但講到歧視價格，情形就不同了。在一個自由市場裡面，獨占的買方採用歧視價格必要的條件只有一個，即賣者們對於市場情況毫無所知。因爲這樣的無知是不會持續很久的，所以歧視價格的實行只有靠政府干涉。

The Swiss Government has established a government owned and operated trade monopoly for cereals. It buys cereals at world-market prices on foreign markets and at higher prices from domestic farmers. In domestic purchases it pays a higher price to farmers producing at higher costs on the rocky soil of the mountain districts and a lower price--although still higher than the world-market price--to the farmers tilling more fertile land.

瑞士的穀物貿易是由政府獨占經營的。瑞士政府用世界市場的價格向國外市場買穀物，用較高的價格向國內農民購買。國內購買的價格又有高低之分。在山區岩石地帶耕種的農民所花的成本較高，政府以較高的價格來買他們的穀物，在平原肥沃地種植的穀物成本低價，政府以較低的價格收買，但仍比世界市場的價格較高。

12. The Connexity of Prices

十二、價格的相互關聯

If a definite process of production brings about the products p and q simultaneously, the entrepreneurial decisions and actions are directed by weighing the sum of the anticipated prices of p and q. The prices of p and q are particularly connected with one another as changes in the demand for p (or for q) generate changes in the supply of q (or for p). The mutual relation of the prices of p and q can be called connexity of production. The businessman calls p (or q) a by-product of q (or p).

如果一個確定的生產過程會同時產出p和q這兩種產品，這個企業家的一些決定和行爲就受預期中的p和q的價格之影響。p和q的價格彼此間有特別關聯，因爲p（或q）的需求一有變動，即引起q（或p）的供給變動。p和q的價格這樣的相互關係可以叫做生產的關聯。工商界的人士把p（或q）叫做q（或p）的副產品。

The production of the consumers' good z requires the employment of the factors p and q, the production of p the employment of the factors a and b, and the production of q the employment of the factors c and d. Then changes in the supply of p (or for q) bring about changes in the demand for q (or for p). It does not matter whether the process of producing z out of p and q is accomplished by the same enterprises which produce p out of a and b and q out of c and d, or by entrepreneurs financially independent of one another, or by the consumers themselves as a preliminary step in their consuming. The prices of p and q are particularly connected with one another because

消費財z的生產，必須使用p和q這兩個要素，p的生產，要使用a和b這兩個要素，q的生產要使用c和d這兩個要素。於是p（或q）的供給變動引起q（或p）的需求變動。至於從p和q製成z的這個生產過程是由誰完成的——是由那些從a或b製成p，從c和d製成q的企業完成的，或者是由一些在財務上彼此獨立的企業家完成的，或者是由消費者自己完成——這是不關重要的。p和q的價格，彼此有特殊的關聯，因爲沒有p和q無用，或只有較小的效用；反過來講也是一樣。p和q的價格這樣的相互關係，可以叫做消費的關聯。

If the services rendered by a commodity b can be substituted, even though in a not perfectly satisfactory way, for those rendered by another commodity a, a change in the price of one of them affects the price of the other too. The mutual relation of the prices of a and b can be called connexity of substitution.

如果一種貨物b所提供的利益可以替代另一種貨物a所提供的（即令替代得不完全滿意），則它們的價格息息相關：這一個發生變動，那一個也隨之發生變動。a和b的價格這樣的相互關係，可以叫做替代的關聯。

Connexity of production, connexity of consumption, and connexity of substitution are particular connexities of the prices of a limited number of commodities. From these particular connexities one must distinguish the general connexity of the prices of all goods and services. This general connexity is the outcome of the fact that for every kind of want-satisfaction, besides various more or less specific factors, one scarce factor is required which,in spite of the differences in its qualitative power to produce, can, within the limits precisely defined above[26], be called a nonspecific factor--namely, labor.

生產的關聯、消費的關聯、和替代的關聯，是少數有限貨物的價格間之特殊關聯。此外還有一般的價格關聯，即所有的貨物和勞務的價格相互的關聯。這兩種不同的關聯我們必須區分淸楚。一般的關聯之發生是由於：所有的慾望滿足，除掉需要各種有點特殊化的要素以外，還需要一種稀少要素，這種要素，儘管其生產力不一樣，但在上述的[24]嚴格界定的範圍以內，可叫做非特殊的要素——也即勞動。

Within a hypothetical world in which all factors of production are absolutely specific, human action would operate in a multiplicity of fields of want-satisfaction independent of one another. What links together in our actual world the various fields of want-satisfaction is the existence of a great many nonspecific factors, suitable to be employed for the attainment of various ends and to be substituted in some degree for one another. The fact that one factor, labor, is on the one hand required for every kind of production and on the other hand is, within the limits defined, nonspecific, brings about the general connexity of all human activities. It integrates the pricing process into a whole in which all gears work on one another. It makes the market a concatenation of mutually interdependent phenomena.

在所有的生產要素都是絕對特殊的這樣一個假設的世界裡面，人的行爲就要涉及多樣的、彼此不相依賴的部門，以滿足慾望。在我們實際的世界裡面，把種種滿足慾望的部門連結在一起的，是那許許多多非特殊的要素，這些要素適於用以達成種種目的，而在某種限度以內可以彼此替代。「一個」要素，即勞動，一方面是所有的生產所必要的，另一方面在嚴格界定的範圍以內是非特殊的，這個事實就產生了人的一切活動之一般關聯。它把價格形成的過程統合在一個整體中，在這個整體裡面，所有的齒輪相互影響。它使這個市場成爲千千萬萬相互依賴的現象的一個連續。

It would be absurd to look upon a definite price as if it were an isolated object in itself. A price is expressive of the position which acting men attach to a thing under the present state of their efforts to remove uneasiness. It does not indicate a relationship to something unchanging, but merely the instantaneous position in a kaleidoscopically changing assemblage. In this collection of things considered valuable by the value judgments of acting men each particle's place is interrelated with those of all other particles. What is called a price is always a relationship within an integrated system which is the composite effect of human relations.

把某一個價格看作一個孤立的東西，這是荒唐的。價格是表現行爲人在爲解除不適之感而努力的現狀下賦與一個東西的重要性。它不是給什麼不變動的東西指出關係，而只是在瞬息間千變萬化的萬象中指出那短暫時間的態勢。在這些被行爲人的價値判斷認爲重要的東西當中，每樣東西的重要性與其他所有東西的重要性是相互關聯的。凡是叫做價格的，總是在一個更完整的體系裡面的一種關係，而這完整的體系是大家的評値聚合的後果。

------------------

[26] Cf. above, pp. 133-135.

[24] 參考第七章第三節。

13. Prices and Income

十三、價格與所得

A market price is a real historical phenomenon, the quantitative ratio at which at a definite place and at a definite date two individuals exchanged definite quantities of two definite goods. It refers to the special conditions of the concrete act of exchange. It is ultimately determined by the value judgments of the individuals involved. It is not derived from the general price structure or from the structure of the prices of a special class of commodities or services. What is called the price structure is an abstract notion derived from a multiplicity of individual concrete prices. The market does not generate prices of land or motorcars in general nor wage rates in general, but prices for a certain piece of land and for a certain car and wage rates for a performance of a certain kind. It does not make any difference for the pricing process to what class the things exchanged are to be assigned from any point of view. However they may differ in other regards, in the very act of exchange they are nothing but commodities, i.e., things valued on account of their power to remove felt uneasiness.

一個市場價格是一個實在的歷史現象，是在一定的地方，一定的時間，兩個人交換兩種東西的量的比率。它指涉那具體的交換行爲的一些特別情況。它最後決定於相關的人們的價値判斷。它不是從一般的價格結構或某一類貨物或勞務的價格結構導出的。所謂價格結構，是從許許多多各個具體的價格導出的一個抽象概念。市場並不產生一般的土地價格或汽車價格，也不產生一般的工資率，只產生某一塊土地、某一部汽車的價格，以及某一類工作的工資率。就價格形成的過程來講，市場對於商品的類別——不管從什麼觀點分類——沒有任何關係。儘管從其他方面，看商品如何差異，但在交換這個行爲中，商品只是商品，這是說，是按照它們解除不適之感的功效而評値的東西。

The market does not create or determine incomes. It is not a process of income formation. If the owner of a piece of land and the worker husband the physical resources concerned, the land and the man will renew and preserve their power to render services; the agricultural and urban land for a practically indefinite period, the man for a number of years. If the market situation for these factors of production does not deteriorate, it will be possible in the future too to attain a price for their productive employment. Land and working power can be considered as sources of income if they are dealt with as such, that is, if their capacity to produce is not prematurely exhausted by reckless exploitation. It is provident restraint in the use of factors of production, not their natural and physical properties, which convert them into somewhat durable sources of income. There is in nature no such thing as a stream of income. Income is a category of action; it is the outcome of careful economizing of scarce factors. This is still more obvious in the case of capital goods. The produced factors of production are not permanent. Although some of them may have a life of many years, all of them eventually become useless through wear and tear, sometimes even by the mere passing of time. They become durable sources of income only if their owners treat them as such. Capital can be preserved as a source of income if the consumption of its products, market conditions remaining unchanged, is restricted in such a way as not to impair the replacement of the worn out parts.

市場不創造或决定所得。它不是所得形成的過程。如果一塊土地的地主（也即工人）耕種這份自然資源，這塊土地和這個人的生產力是可以恢復保存的；農地和都市土地可以無限期的利用，人也要活上數十年。如果市場情況，對於這些生產要素而言，不變壞，它們在未來的歲月中仍可被僱用而得到報酬。這也就是說，如果它們的生產力不是毫無節制地過早用光的話，土地和勞力可看作所得的源頭。使生產要素得以變爲相當持久的所得源頭的，不是它們的本質，而是節省使用。決沒有所謂「所得流」這樣的東西。所得是一個行爲範疇；它是對於稀少的資源小心節用的結果。這在資本財方面更爲明顯。人爲的生產要素不是永久不滅的。儘管它們當中有些有好幾年的壽命，但它們都會經由損耗，最後成爲無用的東西，有時甚至一瞬間就完了。它們之成爲所得的永久源頭，只是因爲它們的所有者把它們當作所得的永久源頭。在市場情況不變的假定下，如果我們對於資本的產品之消費，不消費到妨害了資本消耗的補償，資本就可當作所得的源頭而維持住。

Changes in the market data can frustrate every endeavor to perpetuate a source of income. Industrial equipment becomes obsolete if demand changes or if it is superseded by something better. Land becomes useless if more fertile soil is made accessible in sufficient quantities. Expertness and skill for the performance of special kinds of work lose their remunerativeness when new fashions or new methods of production narrow the opportunity for their employment. The success of any provision for the uncertain future depends on the correctness of the anticipations which guided it. No income can be made safe against changes not adequately foreseen.

市場情況的變動可以使維持所得源頭的一切努力歸於失敗。某些工業的設備，在需求發生變動，或有什麼更好的東西超過它時，就要報廢。某些農地，在發現更肥沃的土地而又足夠耕種的時候，它就成爲廢物。某種工作的專門智識和技術，在有新的生產方法奪去了它們原有的用途的時候，它們的報酬也就失掉了。爲著不確定的未來而作的任何準備，其成功都要靠指導這個準備的預測之正確。沒有任何所得可以得到保證不受未料到的變動之影響而永保安全的。

Neither is the pricing process a form of distribution. As has been pointed out already, there is nothing in the market economy to which the notion of distribution could be applied.

價格形成的過程也不是一個分配的方式。我們曾經講過，在巿場經濟裡面，沒有什麼東西可以用得上分配這個觀念的。

14. Prices and Production

十四、價格與生產

The pricing process of the unhampered market directs production into those channels in which it best serves the wishes of the consumers as manifested on the market. Only in the case of monopoly prices have the monopolists the power to divert production, within a limited range, from this line into other lines to their own benefit.

價格形成的過程，把生產導向那些最能爲消費者的願望服務的途徑；消費者的願望是在市場上表現出來的。只有在獨占價格下，獨占者們在有限的範圍內有力量把生產扭轉到其他途徑以謀他們自己的利益。

The prices determine which of the factors of production should be employed and which should be left unused. The specific factors of production are employed only if there is no more valuable employment available for the complementary nonspecific factors. There are technological recipes, land, and nonconvertible capital goods whose capacity to produce remains unused because their employment would mean a waste of the scarcest of all factors, labor. While under the conditions present in our world there cannot be in the long run unemployment of labor in a free labor market, unused capacity of land and of inconvertible industrial equipment is a regular phenomenon.

價格決定那些生產要素應該使用，那些應該不使用。特殊的生產要素，只有在那些補助的非特殊要素沒有更有利的用途時才被使用。有些技術方面秘訣，土地、以及一些不能改變用途的資本財，它們的生產力之所以未被使用，是因爲如果使用它們就等於浪費了所有的生產要素中最稀少的一種要素，勞動。在我們這個世界的情況下，自由的勞動市場裡面固然不會有長期的勞工失業，但土地的未被使用的生產力和不能改變用途的工業設備的未被使用的生產力，卻是經常的現象。

It is nonsense to lament the fact of unused capacity. The unused capacity of equipment made obsolete by technological improvement is a landmark of material progress. It would be a blessing if the establishment of durable peace would render munitions plants unused or if the discovery of an efficient method of preventing and curing tuberculosis would render obsolete sanatoria for the treatment of people affected by this evil. It would be sensible to deplore the lack of provision in the past which resulted in malinvestment of capital goods. Yet, men are not infallible. A certain amount of malinvestment is unavoidable. What has to be done is to shun policies that like credit expansion artificially foster malinvestment.

對未被使用的生產力發生感歎，這是無意義的。由於技術改進而落伍的工業設備之不被使用，是一個進步的路標。如果由於永久和平的確保使得兵工廠無用，或者如果由於防治肺結核的有效方法之發明使得肺病療癢院無用，這應該是一件好事。至於悲歎過去疏於準備，以致有錯誤的投資，這倒是在情理中的。可是，人不是無錯的。某種數量的錯誤投資總是免不掉的。我們所應當做的是，極力避免那些以人爲方法勵獎錯誤投資的信用擴張政策。

Modern technology could easily grow oranges and grapes in hot-houses in the arctic and subarctic countries. Everybody would call such a venture lunacy. But it is essentially the same to preserve the growing of cereals in rocky mountain valleys by tariffs and other devices of protectionism while elsewhere there is plenty of fallow fertile land. The difference is merely one of degree.

現代的技術要在北極或北極附近的地區用溫室來種植橘柑和葡萄，是件容易的事情。可是，每個人會把這種事情叫做瘋人的行爲。用保護關稅或其他的保護方法來維持岩石山地的穀物種植，而讓別處許多肥沃的土地休閒，實質上和北極地帶種橘柑和葡萄是一樣的儍事，不過是程度的不同而已。

The inhabitants of the Swiss Jura prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer to acquire watches. The fact that the inhabitants of the Jura do not grow wheat and the Canadians do not manufacture watches is not more worthy of notice than the fact that tailors do not make their shoes and shoemakers do not make their clothes.

瑞士Jura地方的住民寧願製造鐘錶而不種植小麥。對於他們而言，製造鐘錶是取得小麥最便宜的方法。就加拿大的農民來講，種小麥是取得鐘錶最便宜的方法。Jura的居民不種小麥和加拿大農民不製造鐘錶，這和成衣匠不做他們自己的鞋子，製鞋匠不做他們自己的衣服是一樣的道理。

15. The Chimera of Nonmarket Prices

十五、闢於非市場價格這個怪想

Prices are a market phenomenon. They are generated by the market process and are the pith of the market economy. There is no such thing as prices outside the market. Prices cannot be constructed synthetically, as it were. They are the resultant of a certain constellation of market data, of actions and reactions of the members of a market society. It is vain to meditate what prices would have been if some of their determinants had been different. Such fantastic designs are no more sensible than whimsical speculations about what the course of history would have been if Napoleon had been killed in the battle of Arcole or if Lincoln had ordered Major Anderson to withdraw from Fort Sumter.

價格是個市場現象。它們是由市場程序產生出來的，是市場經濟的節奏。市場以外，沒有價格這樣的東西。價格是市場社會的成員一些行爲和反應的結果。至於說，如果價格的決定因素有些是不同的，價格將會怎麼樣，這樣的想法毫無用處。這正同假想「如果拿破崙在Arcole之戰陣亡的話，或者如果林肯命令Anderson將軍從Sumter堡撤返的話，歷史將會怎麼」一樣的無意義。

It is no less vain to ponder on what prices ought to be. Everybody is pleased if the prices of things he wants to buy drop and the prices of the things he wants to sell rise. In expressing such wishes a man is sincere if he admits that his point of view is personal. It is another question whether, from his personal point of view, he would be well advised to prompt the government to use its power of coercion and oppression to interfere with the market's price structure. It will be shown in the sixth part of this book what the inescapable consequences of such a policy of interventionism must be.

「價格應該怎樣」，這種考慮也是同樣無用的。每個人都喜歡他所想買的東西價格下跌，他所想賣的東西價格上漲。如果他承認這是他「個人」的觀點，這表示他是誠實的。至於他是否從他個人的觀點，去慫恿政府運用強制力量來干涉市場價格結構，這是另一個問題。在本書第六篇將要說明，這樣的干涉政策所不可避免的後果是些什麼。

But one deludes oneself or practices deception if one calls such wishes and arbitrary value judgments the voice of objective truth. In human action nothing counts but the various individuals' desires for the attainment of ends. With regard to the choice of these ends there is no question of truth; all that matters is value. Value judgments are necessarily always subjective, whether they are passed by one man

但是，如果一個人把這樣的一些願意和任意的價値判斷叫做客觀的眞理，那就是自欺或欺人。在人的行爲中，値得計較的沒有別的，只有各個人的種種願望，達成種種目的的願望。關於那些目的的選擇，沒有什麼眞理問題；都是價値判斷在發生作用。價値判斷必然是主觀的，不管是一個人或一羣人所下的判斷，或者是一個白癡、一個敎授、或一個政治家，所下的判斷，都是如此。

Any price determined on a market is the necessary outgrowth of the interplay of the forces operating, that is, demand and supply. Whatever the market situation which generated this price may be, with regard to it the price is always adequate, genuine, and real. It cannot be higher if no bidder ready to offer a higher price turns up, and it cannot be lower if no seller ready to deliver at a lower price turns up. Only the appearance of such people ready to buy or to sell can alter prices.

凡是一個市場決定的價格，是一些活動力量相互作用的必然後果，即需求與供給的必然後果。不管形成價格的市場情況是怎樣，就這一點來講，價格總是合適的、眞正的、實在的。假若沒有競買者準備以較高價格買進，價格不會更高，假若沒有競賣者準備以較低價格賣出，價格不會更低。只有這樣的一些人出現於市場，價格才會變動。

Economics analyzes the market process which generates commodity prices, wage rates, and interest rates. It does not develop formulas which would enable anybody to compute a "correct" price different from that established on the market by the interaction of buyers and sellers.

經濟學是對那產生物價、工資率、和利率的巿場程序加以分析。它並不發展一些公式可使任何人用以計算異於市場程序所決定的所謂「正確的」價格。

At the bottom of many efforts to determine nonmarket prices is the confused and contradictory notion of real costs. If costs were a real thing, i.e., a quantity independent of personal value judgments and objectively discernible and measurable, it would be possible for a disinterested arbiter to determine their height and thus the correct price. There is no need to dwell any longer on the absurdity of this idea. Costs are a phenomenon of valuation. Costs are the value attached to the most valuable want-satisfaction which remains unsatisfied because the means required for its satisfaction are employed for that want-satisfaction the cost of which we are dealing with. The attainment of an excess of the value of the product over the costs, a profit, is the goal of every production effort. Profit is the pay-off of successful action. It cannot be defined without reference to valuation. It is a phenomenon of valuation and has no direct relation to physical and other phenomena of the external world.

許多想規定非市場價格的努力，在根本上有個混淆而矛盾的實在成本觀念。如果成本眞是實在的，也即是說，如果成本是一個獨立於價値判斷的量，而可以客觀地辨識和衡量的，那麼，讓一位公正無私的仲裁者來規定「正確」價格的高低，那是可能的。這種想法是荒謬的，在這裡，沒有詳加剖析的必要。成本是一評値現象。詳言之，成本是賦與那尙未滿足的、最有價値的慾望滿足的價値，那種慾望之所以尙未滿足，是因爲它的滿足所需要的生產要素，已用在其成本是我們正在討論的慾望滿足。超乎成本的產品價値——利潤——的取得，是所有生產努力的目標。利潤是成功行爲的報酬。它不能不涉及評値而下定義。它是個評値現象，與物質或其他外在世界的現象沒有直接關係。

Economic analysis cannot help reducing all items of cost to value judgments. The socialists and interventionists call entrepreneurial profit, interest on capital, and rent of land "unearned" because they consider that only the toil and trouble of the worker is real and worthy of being rewarded. However, reality does not reward toil and trouble. If toil and trouble is expended according to well-conceived plans, its outcome increases the means available for want-satisfaction. Whatever some people may consider as just and fair, the only relevant question is always the same. What alone matters is which system of social organization is better suited to attain those ends for which people are ready to expend toil and trouble. The question is: market economy, or socialism? There is no third solution. The notion of a market economy with nonmarket prices is absurd. The very idea of

經濟分析不得不把所有各項成本還原到價値判斷。社會主義者和干涉主義者把企業的利潤、資本的利息、地租，叫做「不勞而獲」，因爲他們認爲，只有工人的辛勞才是實在的，才是値得給以報酬的。但是，客觀的現實並不報酬辛勞。如果辛勞是花在好的計畫上，它的結果就會增加可用於滿足慾望的資財。不管人們認爲公平是怎麼一回事，唯一有關的問題總是一樣的。那就是：哪一種社會組織更適於達成人們願意支付辛勞而去追求的那些目標。這個問題也就是：市場經濟呢，還是社會主義？沒有第三種解決法。具有非市場價格的市場經濟這個觀念，是荒誕不經的。「成本價格」這個想法，是不能實現的。即令成本價格的公式只用在企業的利潤，它也會癱瘓市場。如果貨物和勞務—定要在市場所決定的價格以下出寶，供給總要驗需求之後，這時，市場旣不能決定什麼東西應該或不應該生產，也不能決定誰可享有這些貨物與勞務。結果是一團糟。

This refers also to monopoly prices. It is reasonable to abstain from all policies which could result in the emergence of monopoly prices. But whether monopoly prices are brought about by such promonopoly government policies or in spite of the absence of such policies, no alleged "fact finding" and no armchair speculation can discover another price at which demand and supply would become equal. The failure of all experiments to find a satisfactory solution for the limited-space monopoly of public utilities clearly proves this truth.

這也涉及獨占價格。凡是可以促成獨占價格的政策，一概避免採取，這是合理的。但是，不管獨占價格是不是由政府的政策促成的，決沒有所謂「求實」的精神或憑空的想像，會發現供需相等的另一種價格。爲公用事業有限空間的獨占，尋求一滿意解決的一切試驗之失敗，明白地證明這個眞理。

It is the very essence of prices that they are the offshoot of the actions of individuals and groups of individuals acting on their own behalf. The catallactic concept of exchange ratios and prices precludes anything that is the effect of actions of a central authority, of people resorting to violence and threats in the name of society or the state or of an armed pressure group. In declaring that it is not the business of the government to determine prices, we do not step beyond the borders of logical thinking. A government can no more determine prices than a goose can lay hen's eggs.

價格是一些個人和人羣，爲著他們自己的利盆而行爲的結果，這是價格之所以爲價格。交換率和價格在交換學裡面的意義不包括中央權力機構的行爲後果，不包括那些假藉社會或國家名義的人們暴力威脅的行爲結果，也不包括武裝壓力圑體的行爲結果。當我們宣稱「規定價格不是政府應做的事情」的時候，我們並未越出邏輯思考的範圍。一個政府之不能規定價格，正如同一隻雌鵝之不能生雞蛋。

We can think of a social system in which there are no prices at all, and we can think of government decrees which aim at fixing prices at a height different from that which the market would determine. It is one of the tasks of economics to study the problems implied. However, precisely because we want to examine these problems it is necessary clearly to distinguish between prices and government decrees. Prices are by definition determined by peoples' buying and selling or abstention from buying and selling. They must not be confused with fiats issued by governments or other agencies enforcing their orders by an apparatus of coercion and compulsion.

我們可以想到一個根本沒有價格的社會制度，我們也可想到一些要把價格規定得不同於巿場所決定的政府命令。硏究這樣的制度和命令所引起的一些問題，是經濟學的任務之一。但是，正因爲我們想檢討這些問題，所以必須明白區分價格與政府命令之別。價格，就它的定義講，就是人們的買和賣，或不買和不賣所決定的。價格決不可混淆於政府、或其他運用強迫力的機構所發佈的命令[25]。

--------------------

[27] In order not to confuse the reader by the introduction of too many new terms, we shall keep to the widespread usage of calling such fiats prices, interest rates, wage rates decreed and enforced by governments or other agencies of compulsion (e.g., labor unions). But one must never lose sight of the fundamental difference between the market phenomena of prices, wages, and interest rates on the one hand, and the legal phenomena of maximum or minimum prices, wages, and interest rates, designed to nullify these market phenomena, on the other hand.

[25] 爲避免把讀者弄糊塗，我們不必使用太多的新名詞，而將這些命令規定的價格叫做「政府或其他強力機構（即工會）強制的物價、利率、和工资率。」但是，我們決不可忽略了市場現象的物價、工資、利率與破壞市場功能的法定的最高或最低的物價、工資、利率之間的區別。

XVII. INDIRECT EXCHANGE

第17章 間接交換

1. Media of Exchange and Money

一、交換媒介與貨幣

Interpersonal exchange is called indirect exchange if, between the commodities and services the reciprocal exchange of which is the ultimate end of exchanging, one or several media of exchange are interposed. The subject matter of the theory of indirect exchange is the study of the ratio of exchange between the media of exchange on the one hand and the goods and services of all orders on the other hand. The statements of the theory of indirect exchange refer to all instances of indirect exchange and to all things which are employed as media of exchange.

在人與人之間交換貨物或勞務，如果中間揷進了一種或幾種交換媒介，那就叫做間接交換。間接交換論的主題，是硏究這個交換媒介與各級貨物勞務之間的交換率。間接交換論所陳述的，涉及間接交換的一切事情，以及作爲交換媒介的一切東西。

A medium of exchange which is commonly used as such is called money. The notion of money is vague, as its definition refers to the vague term "commonly used." There are borderline cases in which it cannot be decided whether a medium of exchange is or is not "commonly" used and should be called money. But this vagueness in the denotation of money in no way affects the exactitude and precision required by praxeological theory. For all that is to be predicated of money is valid for every medium of exchange. It is therefore immaterial whether one preserves the traditional term theory of money or substitutes for it another term. The theory of money was and is always the theory of indirect exchange and of the medium of exchange.[1]

當作交換媒介而普遍使用的，叫做貨幣（或金錢）。貨幣這個觀念是含糊的，因爲它的定義涉及一個含糊的字句「普遍使用」。有的時候，我們不能決定一種交換媒介是或不是「普遍使用」而應叫做貨幣。但是，這種含糊決不影響行爲理論所要求的精密性。因爲關於貨幣所要敍述的一切，對於每種交換媒介都是有效的。所以我們或者保存「貨幣論」這個傳統的名詞，或者用另一種名詞來代替，這沒有什麼關係。貨幣論，過去和現在都是間接交換論，都是交換媒介論[1]。

-------------------

[1] The theory of monetary calculation does not belong to the theory of indirect exchange. It is a part of the general theory of praxeology.

[1] 貨幣計算的理論不屬於間接交換論。它是一般的行爲理論之一部份。

2. Observations on Some Widespread Errors

二、對於若干普遍誤解的觀察

The fateful errors of popular monetary doctrines which have led astray the monetary policies of almost all governments would hardly have come into existence if many economists had not themselves committed blunders in dealing with monetary issues and did not stubbornly cling to them.

如果若干經濟學家在討論貨幣問題時，自己沒有犯些重大的錯誤，沒有那麼固執於那些錯誤，則那些把各國政府的貨幣政策導向旁門左道的有名的貨幣理論中的致命錯誤就不致於發生。

There is first of all the spurious idea of the supposed neutrality of money.[2] An outgrowth of this doctrine was the notion of the "level"

其中尤其重要的，是所謂「貨幣的中立性」這個妄想[2]。從這個妄想中產生出來的，是比例於貨幣流通量的增減而昇降的物價「水準」這個觀念。貨幣量的變動決不會同時、同程度地影響所有貨物和勞務的價格，這一點他們沒有認識到。貨幣單位購買力的變動必然與那些買賣之間相互關係的變動相關聯，這一點也未被認識到。爲著證明貨幣量與物價比例地昇降，在處理貨幣論的時候，他們曾經藉助於一個完全不同於現代經濟學處理其他一切問題時所用的程序。他們不從個人的行爲開始（交換學決無例外地是這樣作），而建立一些想用以了解市場經濟全體的公式。這些公式的成份包括：國民經濟中貨幣總供給量；貿易量——也即國民經濟中貨物和勞動全部交易的金額；貨幣單位的平均流通速率；物價水準。這些公式似乎給「物價水準論」的正確性提供了證據。事實上，這整個推理方式是一典型的循環論法。因爲，在這個交換方程式裡面已經包含著它所要證明的一些水準論。它的精髓沒有別的，只是用數學來表示這個站不住的論斷——在貨幣量與物價變動之間有個比例關係。

In analyzing the equation of exchange one assumes that one of its elements--total supply of money, volume of trade, velocity of circulation--changes, without asking how such changes occur. It is not recognized that changes in these magnitudes do not emerge in the Volkswirtschaft as such, but in the individual actors' conditions, and that it is the interplay of the reactions of these actors that results in alterations of the price structure. The mathematical economists refuse to start from the various individuals' demand for and supply of money. They introduce instead the spurious notion of velocity of circulation fashioned according to the patterns of mechanics.

分析交換方程式的人，總是假定它的一些成份——貨幣總供給量、貿易量、流通速率——之一發生變動，而不問這樣的變動是如何發生的。他沒有看出，這些方面的變動不是出現於作爲國民經濟之國民經濟，而是出現於各個行爲人的情境：他也沒有看出，價格結構之發生變動，是這些行爲人的行爲相互作用的結果。數學經濟學者的硏究程序不從各個人對貨幣的需求和供給開始，而依照力學的一些模式引進「流通速率」這個妄誕的觀念。

There is at this point of our reasoning no need to deal with the question of whether or not the mathematical economists are right in assuming that the services rendered by money consist wholly or essentially in its turnover, in its circulation. Even if this were true, it would still be faulty to explain the purchasing power--the price--of the monetary unit on the basis of its services. The services rendered by water, whisky, and coffee do not explain the prices paid for these things. What they explain is only why people, as far as they recognize

【中文版無此段。】

It is true that with regard to money the task of catallactics is broader than with regard to vendible goods. It is not the task of catallactics, but of psychology and physiology, to explain why people are intent on securing the services which the various vendible commodities can render. It is a task of catallactics, however, to deal with this question with regard to money. Catallactics alone can tell us what advantages a man expects from holding money. But it is not these expected advantages which determine the purchasing power of money. The eagerness to secure these advantages is only one of the factors in bringing about the demand for money. It is demand, a subjective element whose intensity is entirely determined by value judgments, and not any objective fact, any power to bring about a certain effect, that plays a role in the formation of the market's exchange ratios.

不錯，交換學的任務關於貨幣面的，比關於可賣的貨物面的，要廣泛些。解釋人們爲什麼想獲得種種可賣的貨物所能提供的功用，這不是交換學的任務，而是心理學和生理學的任務。但是，討論關於貨幣面的這個問題，卻是交換學的任務。只有交換學能夠吿訴我們：一個人從握有貨幣可望得到的一些利益是什麼。但是，決定貨幣購買力的不是這些想望中的利益。想獲得這種利益的那種渴望，只是引起貨幣需求的因素之一。對於巿場的交換率之形成發生作用的，是需求，其強度完全決定於價値判斷的一個主觀因素，而不是任何客觀事實、任何可引起某一後果的力量。

The deficiency of the equation of exchange and its basic elements is that they look at market phenomena from a holistic point of view. They are deluded by their prepossession with the Volkswirtschaft notion. But where there is, in the strict sense of the term, a Volkswirtschaft, there is neither a market or prices and money. On a market there are only individuals or groups of individuals acting in concert. What motivate these actors are their own concerns, not those of the whole market economy. If there is any sense in such notions as volume of trade and velocity of circulation, then they refer to the resultant of the individuals' actions. It is not permissible to resort to these notions in order to explain the actions of the individuals. The first question that catallactics must raise with regard to changes in the total quantity of money available in the market system is how such changes affect the various individuals' conduct. Modern economics does not ask what "iron" or "bread" is worth, but what a definite piece of iron or of bread is worth to an acting individual at a definite date and a definite place. It cannot help proceeding in the same way with regard to money. The equation of exchange is incompatible with the fundamental principles of economic thought. It is a relapse to the thinking of ages in which people failed to comprehend praxeological phenomena because they were committed to holistic notions. It is sterile, as were the speculations of earlier ages concerning the value of "iron" and "bread" in general.

交換方程式和其基本因子的缺陷，是他們（指創立這個方程式的人們）從一個整體的觀點來看市場現象。他們誤於「國民經濟」這個觀念的偏執。但是，凡是有「國民經濟」——用這個名詞的嚴格意義——的地方，就沒有市場，也沒有價格和貨幣。在市場裡面，只有一些個人和一些人羣在合作中行爲。促動這些行爲人的，是他們自己的利害關係，而不是整個市場經濟的利害關係。如果「貿易量」和「流通速率」這樣的觀念有何意義的話，那是指個人們的行爲所引起的結果。決不可用這些觀念來解釋個人們的行爲。關於市場制度中貨幣供給量的變動，交換學必須提出的第一個問題是，這些變動如何影響各個人的行爲。現代經濟學不問「鐵」或「麵包」値得什麼，而是問一定大小的鐵塊或麵包，在一定的時間、一定的地點，對於一個行爲人値得什麼。關於貨幣問題，也得用這樣的方法著手研究。交換方程式與經濟思考的基本原則不相容。它是回復到早期的思想方式，那時的人們不懂得行爲學的現象，因爲他們誤於整體觀念。交換方程式之毫無用處，正同早期的思想方式籠籠統統地來想「鐵」和「麵包」的價値一樣。

The theory of money is an essential part of the catallactic theory.

貨幣論是交換學的基本部份，這部份的處理必須採用處理其他所有交換學問題的同樣態度。

-------------------

[2] Cf. above, p. 202. Important contributions to the history and terminology of this doctrine are provided by Hayek, Prices and Production (rev. ed. London, 1935), pp. 1 ff., 129 ff.

[2] 參考第十一章第二節。Hayek的Prices and Production (rev. ed. London, 1935), pp. 1 ff., 129 ff.對於這個妄想歷史和用語提供了重要的貢獻。

3. Demand for Money and Supply of Money

三、貨幣需求與貨幣供給

In the marketability of the various commodities and services there prevail considerable differences. There are goods for which it is not difficult to find applicants ready to disburse the highest recompense which, under the given state of affairs, can possibly be obtained, or a recompense only slightly smaller. There are other goods for which it is very hard to find a customer quickly, even if the vendor is ready to be content with a compensation much smaller than he could reap if he could find another aspirant whose demand is more intense. It is these differences in the marketability of the various commodities and services which created indirect exchange. A man who at the instant cannot acquire what he wants to get for the conduct of his own household or business, or who does not yet know what kind of goods he will need in the uncertain future, comes nearer to his ultimate goal if he exchanges a less marketable good he wants to trade against a more marketable one. It may also happen that the physical properties of the merchandise he wants to give away (as, for instance, its perishability or the costs incurred by its storage or similar circumstances) impel him not to wait longer. Sometimes he may be prompted to hurry in giving away the good concerned because he is afraid of a deterioration of its market value. In all such cases he improves his own situation in acquiring a more marketable good, even if this good is not suitable to satisfy directly any of his own needs.

各種貨物和勞務，在銷路方面有很大的差異。有些貨物不難於在高的價格下銷售掉，有些貨物即使在低的價格下也不易很快地賣掉。引起了間接交換的，正是貨物和勞務在銷路上的差異。一個人，當他不能立刻得到他所想消費或用以生產的東西的時候，或者還不知道在不確定的將來，他將需要什麼東西的時候，如果他把一項銷路差的財貨換成銷路好的財貨，這算是向他的最後目的走近了一些。也可能有這種情形：他所想放棄的那項財貨的物質特性（例如容易腐壞、或保管費太大等等）逼得他不得不急於賣掉。有時，他之所以急於要賣掉某項貨物，是因爲他怕它的市場慣格會跌落。在所有這些情況下，如果他能夠取得銷路較好的財貨，他就改善了他的處境，即令這項財貨不能直接滿足他自己的任何需要。

A medium of exchange is a good which people acquire neither for their own consumption nor for employment in their own production activities, but with the intention of exchanging it at a later date against those goods which they want to use either for consumption or for production.

交換媒介是這樣的一種財貨，人們取得它旣不是爲的自己消費，也不是爲的用之於生產，而是爲的將來拿它交換那些可用以消費或用以生產的財貨。

Money is a medium of exchange. It is the most marketable good which people acquire because they want to offer it in later acts of interpersonal exchange. Money is the thing which serves as the generally accepted and commonly used medium of exchange. This is its only function. All the other functions which people ascribe to money are merely particular aspects of its primary and sole function, that of a medium of exchange.[3]

貨幣是交換媒介。它是銷路最好的財貨，人們之所以取得它，因爲他們想在今後的人際交換中使用它。貨幣是大家接受當作交換媒介用的東西。這是它的唯一功能。至於其他的一切功能，只是這個基本功能——交換媒介——的一些特殊面[3]。

Media of exchange are economic goods. They are scarce; there is

交換媒介是經濟財貨。它們是稀少的；對於它們有需求。在市場上，有人要取得它們而願意以貨物和勞務來換取。交換媒介有交換價値。人們爲取得它們而支付代價。這種代價的特徵是不能用貨幣表示的。關於貨物和勞務的，我們是說「價格」或「金錢價格」。關於貨幣的，我們是說它的購買力，而不說它的價格，更不能說它的金錢價格。

There exists a demand for media of exchange because people want to keep a store of them. Every member of a market society wants to have a definite amount of money in his pocket or box, a cash holding or cash balance of a definite height. Sometimes he wants to keep a larger cash holding, sometimes a smaller; in exceptional cases he may even renounce any cash holding. At any rate, the immense majority of people aim not only to own various vendible goods; they want no less to hold money. Their cash holding is not merely a residuum, an unspent margin of their wealth. It is not an unintentional remainder left over after all intentional acts of buying and selling have been consummated. Its amount is determined by a deliberate demand for cash. And as with all other goods, it is the changes in the relation between demand for and supply of money that bring about changes in the exchange ratio between money and the vendible goods.

交換媒介之所以有需求，因爲人們想把它們儲存若干。市場社會的每一份子都想有一定額的貨幣存在手頭，也即一筆確定量的現金握存或現金餘額。有時他要較多的現金握存，有時要較少的，在例外的情形下，他甚至完全不要現金握存。無論加何，絕大多數的人，不僅是要保有種種可賣的財貨，也要保有若干貨幣。他們的現金握存不是一項剩餘一他們的財富沒有用掉的餘額。詳言之，不是在一切有意的買賣行爲結束以後無意地賸下的餘額。現金握存的數額是決定於現金的有意需求。貨幣與可賣的財貨之間的交換比率之發生變動，是貨幣的需求與供給之間的關係發生變動而引起的。

Every piece of money is owned by one of the members of the market economy. The transfer of money from the control of one actor into that of another is temporally immediate and continuous. There is no fraction of time in between in which the money is not a part of an individual's or a firm's cash holding, but just in "circulation."[4] It is unsound to distinguish between circulating and idle money. It is no less faulty to distinguish between circulating money and hoarded money. What is called hoarding is a height of cash holding which--according to the personal opinion of an observer--exceeds what is deemed normal and adequate. However, hoarding is cash holding. Hoarded money is still money and it serves in the hoards the same purposes which it serves in cash holdings called normal. He who hoards money believes that some special conditions make it expedient to accumulate a cash holding which exceeds the amount he himself would keep under different conditions, or other people keep, or an economist censuring his action considers appropriate. That he acts in this way influences the configuration of the

每一塊錢都有一個人（市場經涛的份子之一）保有。一塊錢從這個行爲人的控制下轉到另一行爲人的控制下，是一刹那間的事體，這其間沒有一點時間可以說這塊錢旣不是一個人的，也不是一個商號的現金握存之一部份，而是在「流通中」[4]。把貨幣區分爲「流通中的」與「呆存的」，這是不正確的。區分流通的貨幣與窖藏的貨幣，也同樣不正確。通常所說的窖藏（hoarding），是按照一個觀察者的個人見解，認爲現金的握存量超過他認爲正常的或適當的量。但是，窖藏是現金握存。窖藏的貨幣仍然是貨幣，而且它在窖藏的功用與它在所謂正常的現金握存中的功用是一樣的。窖藏貨幣的人，認爲便於應付某些特殊情況的可能發生，有累積一筆現金握存的必要，這筆現金握存的數量，超過了他自己在不同的情況下所要握存的數量，或超過那些批評他的行爲的人們所認爲的適當數量。他這樣的行爲對於貨幣需求的結構所發生的影響，與每一「正常的」需求所發生的影響是一樣的。

Many economists avoid applying the terms demand and supply in the sense of demand for and supply of money for cash holding because they fear a confusion with the current terminology as used by the bankers. It is, in fact, customary to call demand for money the demand for short-term loans and supply of money the supply of such loans. Accordingly, one calls the market for short-term loans the money market. One says money is scarce if there prevails a tendency toward a rise in the rate of interest for short-term loans, and one says money is plentiful if the rate of interest for such loans is decreasing. These modes of speech are so firmly entrenched that it is out of the question to venture to discard them. But they have favored the spread of fateful errors. They made people confound the notions of money and of capital and believe that increasing the quantity of money could lower the rate of interest lastingly. But it is precisely the crassness of these errors which makes it unlikely that the terminology suggested could create any misunderstanding. It is hard to assume that economists could err with regard to such fundamental issues.

許多經濟學家避免把需求和供給這兩名詞用在貨幣方面，因爲他們怕引起與銀行家使用的名詞相混淆。銀行的習慣是把貨幣需求叫做短期貸放的需求，貨幣供給叫做短期貸放的供給。因此，大家把短期貸放市場叫做貨幣市場。如果短期貸放的利率趨向於上昇，大家就說貨幣短缺：如果這種利率趨向於下降，就說貨幣充裕。這種習慣的說法已牢不可破。但它助長了一些嚴重錯誤的蔓延。它使人們把貨幣觀念與資本觀念混淆，而以爲貨幣數量的增加可使利率持續地下降。但是，正由於這些錯誤的粗疏，以致上述的名詞尙不會引起任何誤解。我們難於想像經濟學家在這樣的基本問題上會犯錯誤。

Others maintained that one should not speak of the demand for and supply of money because the aims of those demanding money differ from the aims of those demanding vendible commodities. Commodities, they say, are demanded ultimately for consumption, while money is demanded in order to be given away in further acts of exchange. This objection is no less invalid. The use which people make of a medium of exchange consists eventually in its being given away. But first of all they are eager to accumulate a certain amount of it in order to be ready for the moment in which a purchase may be accomplished. Precisely because people do not want to provide for their own needs right at the instant at which they give away the goods and services they themselves bring to the market, precisely because they want to wait or are forced to wait until propitious conditions for buying appear, they barter not directly but indirectly through the interposition of a medium of exchange. The fact that money is not worn out by the use one makes of it and that it can render its services practically for an unlimited length of time is an important factor in the configuration of its supply. But it does not alter the fact that the appraisement of money is to be explained in the same way as the appraisement of all other goods: by the demand on the part of those who are eager to acquire a definite quantity of it.

其他的人們之所以主張不要說貨幣的需求與供給，因爲他們以爲，需求貨幣者的目的與需求貨物者的目的不同。他們說，貨物是爲的消費而被需求，貨幣是爲的在將來的交換行爲中拿出去而被需求。這個說法同樣是無效的。交換媒介的用處，固然是在於放棄它。但是，人們熱心於累積某一數量的貨幣，是爲將來的購買作準備。正因爲人們在市場上提供他們的貨物和勞務的那個時候，不想滿足他們自己的直接需要，正因爲他們想等待或不得不等待直到有利的情形下再購買，所以，他們不直接物物交換而使用交換媒介來間接交換。貨幣不因爲有人使用過而損耗，而會無限期地提供它的功用，這個事實是它的供給結構中一個主要因素。但是，貨幣的評價與其他一切貨物的評價，仍然要用同樣方法來解釋：即用那些想獲得一定數量貨幣的人們的需求來解釋。

Economists have tried to enumerate the factors which within the

經濟學家們曾經把那些在經濟制度裡面會增加或減少貨幣需求的因素列擧出來。那些因素是：人口；個人家庭自給生產的程度以及爲別人的需求而生產，在市場上出賣產品，買進自己的消費財的程度；商業活動的分配以及一年當中結付帳款的季節；淸算制度。所有這些因素固然都會影響貨幣需求以及各個人和各商號現金握存量，但是，它們的這種影響只是間接的，因爲人們在考慮保存多少現金餘額才是適當的時候，那些因素會發生作用，於是間接地影響到貨幣需求以及各個人和各商號的現金握存量。決定現金餘額的總是當事人的價値判斷。各個行爲人照自己的價値判斷認爲應當保持多少現金餘額才是適當。他們爲實現他們的決定，於是放棄一些貨物、有價證券、生利權（interest-bearing claims）而賣出這類的資產，或者相反地增加它們的購買。關於貨幣的這些事情，並非不同於關於所有其他貨物和勞務的事情。貨幣的需求決定於那些想獲得它作爲他們現金握存的人們的行爲。

Another objection raised against the notion of the demand for money was this: The marginal utility of the money unit decreases much more slowly than that of the other commodities; in fact its decrease is so slow that it can be practically ignored. With regard to money nobody ever says that his demand is satisfied, and nobody ever forsakes an opportunity to acquire more money provided the sacrifice required is not too great. It is therefore impermissible to consider the demand for money as limited. The very notion of an unlimited demand is, however, contradictory. This popular reasoning is entirely fallacious. It confounds the demand for money for cash holding with the desire for more wealth as expressed in terms of money. He who says that his thirst for more money can never be quenched, does not mean to say that his cash holding can never be too large. What he really means is that he can never be rich enough. If additional money flows into his hands, he will not use it for an increase of his cash balance or he will use only a part of it for this purpose. He will expend the surplus either for instantaneous consumption or for investment. Nobody ever keeps more money than he wants to have as cash holding.

另一個反對貨幣需求這個觀念的理由是這樣：貨幣單位的邊際效用之遞減，比其他貨物的邊際效用之遞減要慢得多；事實上它的遞減之慢，慢到可以不必理的程度。關於貨幣，誰也不會說他的需求滿足了，誰也不會放棄取得更多貨幣的機會，如果爲取得它而必要的犧牲不太大的話。所以，不能認爲貨幣的需求是有限的。這個有名的理論，完全是錯誤的。它把現金握存這種貨幣需求和以貨幣名義表示的對更多財富的慾望弄混淆了。一個人，當他說到他想獲得更多錢的這個慾望永遠不能滿足的時候，他的意思並不是說，他的現金握存永遠不會太多，他眞正的意思是說他永遠不會富夠了。如果有更多的錢到他的手裡，他不會用來增加他的現金餘額，或者只用一部份來增加現金餘額。他將把多餘的部份用在當時的消費，也可用來投資。誰也不會使手頭的現金超過他所認爲的適當的現金握存。

The insight that the exchange ratio between money on the one

一方面是貨幣，另一方面是可賣的貨物和勞務，這兩者之間的交換率，和各種可賣的貨物相互間之交換率一樣，是決定於需求與供給。這個透徹的觀察是「貨幣數量說」的本質。這個理論，本質上是把一般的供需理論應用到貨幣特例上。它的優點是，拿那用以解釋所有其他交換率的同樣理論，來解釋貨幣購買力的決定。它的缺點是，它訴之於一種全體主義的說明。它考慮國民的貨幣總供給，而不考慮各個人和各個商號的行爲。這個錯誤觀點所引起的後果，是貨幣的「總」量的變動與貨幣價格的變動之間有個比例這個想法。但是，那些較古老的批評家，沒有探究到數量說固有的錯誤而以較滿意的理論替代它。他們沒有擊中數量說的錯誤；相反地，他們攻擊到它的眞理核心。他們想否認物價變動與貨幣量變動之間有一因果關係。這個否認使他們擺不脫種種錯誤、矛盾、荒誕的糾葛。現代貨幣理論一開始就認識到：要研究貨幣購買力的變動，必須應用那些應用於所有其他巿場現象的原則，而貨幣供需的變動與其購買力的變動之間，有一種關係存在，這個認識是接著傳統的數量說而講下來的。在這個意義下，我們可以把現代的貨幣論叫做數量說的一個修正。

The Epistemological Import of Carl Menger's Theory of the Origin of Money

孟格爾（Carl Menger）的貨幣起源論在認識上的重要性

Carl Menger has not only provided an irrefutable praxeological theory of the origin of money. He has also recognized the import of his theory for the elucidation of fundamental principles of praxeology and its methods of research.[5]

孟格爾不僅是提供了一個顚撲不破的行爲學的貨幣起源論，而且他也認識到，他的理論對於說明行爲學的一些基本原則和其研究方法的重要性[5]。

There were authors who tried to explain the origin of money by decree or covenant. The authority, the state, or a compact between citizens has purposively and consciously established indirect exchange and money. The main deficiency of this doctrine is not to be seen in the assumption that people of an age unfamiliar with indirect

有些著作家曾以命令或契約來解釋貨幣的起源。他們認爲，有意建立起間接交換制度和貨幣的，是一個權威——國，或人民相互間的契約。這個說法的主要缺點，還不在於如下的假設：尙未見過間接交換和貨幣的那個時代的人們能夠設計一個新的秩序，完全不合於他們那個時代的實際情形的秩序，而且懂得這樣的設計之重要；也不在於如下的事實：歷史上找不出一點線索可以支持這樣的說法。它的主要缺點是在更基本的地方，我們有些更實在的理由可用來反對它。

If it is assumed that the conditions of the parties concerned are improved by every step that leads from direct exchange to indirect exchange and subsequently to giving preference for use as a medium of exchange to certain goods distinguished by their especially high marketability, it is difficult to conceive why one should, in dealing with the origin of indirect exchange, resort in addition to authoritarian decree or an explicit compact between citizens. A man who finds it hard to obtain in direct barter what he wants to acquire renders better his chances of acquiring it in later acts of exchange by the procurement of a more marketable good. Under these circumstances there was no need of government interference or of a compact between the citizens. The happy idea of proceeding in this way could strike the shrewdest individuals, and the less resourceful could imitate the former's method. It is certainly more plausible to take for granted that the immediate advantages conferred by indirect exchange were recognized by the acting parties than to assume that the whole image of a society trading by means of money was conceived by a genius and, if we adopt the covenant doctrine, made obvious to the rest of the people by persuasion.

如果我們假定：有關各方的生活情況，隨著直接交換進到間接交換的每一歩驟而改善，最後大家樂於採用某些特別具有高度銷路的貨物當作交換媒介，那麼，我們就難於了解，爲什麼要多此一舉，要用命令或契約的權威來解釋間接交換的起源。一個人當他發現了在直接的物物交換中難於獲得他所想要的東西，他就會知道，如果首先換取更有銷路的貨物，等到後來再用它交換屆時所要的東西，那就方便多了。在這種情形下，用不著政府干預，也用不著成立什麼契約。最精明的人首先實行，等而下之的人們跟著這樣做。我們把「間接交換的利益爲行爲人所知曉」這一點視爲當然，比假定「一位天才憑空想像到貨幣社會的好處，再經由命令或契約來實現這個社會」更可叫人相信些。

If, however, we do not assume that individuals discovered the fact that they fare better through indirect exchange than through waiting for an opportunity for direct exchange, and, for the sake of argument, admit that the authorities or a compact introduced money, further questions are raised. We must ask what kind of measures were applied in order to induce people to adopt a procedure the utility of which they did not comprehend and which was technically more complicated than direct exchange. We may assume that compulsion was practiced. But then we must ask, further, at what time and by what occurrences indirect exchange and the use of money later ceased to be procedures troublesome or at least indifferent to the individuals concerned and became advantageous to them.

但是，如果我們不假定「各個人發現了間接交換比等候直接交換的機會更方便些」，而且，爲著討論起見，如果我們承認貨幣是由命令或契約創立的，那麼，又有些別的問題發生了。我們必須問：用什麼方法可以使人們採用一種爲他們所不了解其功用的程序，而且在技術上比直接交換更爲複雜的程序。我們姑且假定用強迫方法。但是他們又要再問：在什麼時候，有些什麼事情使人們覺得間接交換和貨幣使用不再是麻煩的，或至少是無可無不可的程序，而變成對他們是有利的。

The praxeological method traces all phenomena back to the actions of individuals. If conditions of interpersonal exchange are such that indirect exchange facilitates the transactions, and if and as far as people realize these advantages, indirect exchange and money come into being. Historical experience shows that these conditions were and are present. How, in the absence of these conditions, people could have adopted indirect exchange and money and clung to these modes of exchanging is inconceivable.

行爲學的方法把一切現象追溯到各個人的行爲。如果人與人之間的交換情形是這樣：間接交換使交易更爲便利，再加上如果人們又認識這些利益，間接交換和貨幣就會出現。歷史的經驗顯示出，這些情形過去和現在都有。假若這些情形不存在，人們如何能夠採取間接交換、使用貨幣，並且固執這涸交換方法，那就無法想像了。

The historical question concerning the origin of indirect exchange

關於間接交換和貨幣的起源這個歷史問題，畢竟是與行爲學無關的。唯一相干的事情是：間接交換和貨幣之所以存在，是因爲促成它們存在的那些條件，在過去和現在都具備。如果這是如此，行爲學無須要靠這個假設：命令或契約創制這些交換方法。國家主義者們，如果他們願意的話，他們還會繼續地把貨幣的「發明」歸功於國家，不管這是多麼不可能。要緊的是，一個人不是爲的消費它或用它來生產而謀取一件財貨，而是爲的在日後的交換行爲中放棄它。這樣的行爲使這件財貨成爲交換媒介，如果這樣的行爲總是涉及某一種財貨，則這種財貨就成爲貨幣。行爲學裡面關係交換媒介和貨幣的一切定理，都涉及一種財貨以其交換媒介的資格所提供的那些功用。即令間接交換和貨幣，眞的是由命令或契約提供發動力而引出的，下面這句話仍然是顚撲不破的，即：只是那些從事交換的人的行爲，能夠創造間接交換和貨幣。

History may tell us where and when for the first time media of exchange came into use and how, subsequently, the range of goods employed for this purpose was more and more restricted. As the differentiation between the broader notion of a medium of exchange and the narrower notion of money is not sharp, but gradual, no agreement can be reached about the historical transition from simple media of exchange to money. Answering such a question is a matter of historical understanding. But, as has been mentioned, the distinction between direct exchange and indirect exchange is sharp and everything that catallactics establishes with regard to media of exchange refers categorially to all goods which are demanded and acquired as such media.

歷史也許會吿訴我們，交換媒介在什麼地方、什麼時候第一次出現，後來那些作爲交換媒介的貨物種類又如何愈來愈減少。由於交換媒介這個較廣的觀念，與貨幣這個較狭的觀念之區別，不是截然劃分的，而是漸渐的差異，所以，關於從簡單的交換媒介進到貨幣這個歷史過程，也沒有一致的看法。這是屬於歷史領悟的事情。但是，前面曾經提到，直接交換和間接交換的區別是截然劃分的；交換學關於交換媒介所確定的一切事情，在範疇上都涉及所有當作這種媒介而被需求、被獲得的財貨。

As far as the statement that indirect exchange and money were established by decree or by covenant is meant to be an account of historical events, it is the task of historians to expose its falsity. As far as it is advanced merely as a historical statement, it can in no way affect the catallactic theory of money and its explanation of the evolution of indirect exchange. But if it is designed as a statement about human action and social events, it is useless because it states nothing about action. It is not a statement about human action to declare that one day rulers of citizens assembled in convention were suddenly struck by the inspiration that it would be a good idea to exchange indirectly and through the intermediary of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is merely pushing back the problem involved.

間接交換和貨幣是由命令或契約創制的這個說法，就其意義在於說明歷史事實的程度以內來講，揭發它的錯誤，是歷史家的任務。就其只是作爲一個歷史的陳述而提出來講，那就不會影響交換學的貨幣論，以及關於間接交換的解釋。但是，如果它是當作關於人的行爲和社會事象的一個陳述而提出的，它就毫無用處，因爲，它對於行爲完全沒有講到。至於說，有一天統治者們，或集會在一起的公民們突然靈機一動，想到間接交換和使用交換媒介的好處，這不是關於人的行爲的一個陳述。那只是把有關的問題推開。

It is necessary to comprehend that one does not contribute anything to the scientific conception of human actions and social phenomena if one declares that the state or a charismatic leader or an inspiration

我們必須了解：如果有人說「國，或者一個超人的領袖，或者一個降落在全體人民的神靈啓示，創造了某些社會現象」，這種說法對於人的行爲和社會現象的科學概念沒有任何貢獻。它也不能駁倒下面這個學說，即：說明這些社會現象如何可以看作「無意的結果，即不是社會的份子們故意設計而努力達成的結果」[6]的那個學說。

----------------

[3] Cf. Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, trans. by H. E. Batson (London and New York, 1934), pp. 34-37.

[3] 參考Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, H. E. Batson譯(London and New York, 1934), pp. 34-37.

[4] Money can be in the process of transportation, it can travel in trains, ships, or planes from one place to another. But it is in this case, too, always subject to somebody's control, is somebody's property.

[4] 貨幣會在運輸過程中，它會在火車上、輪船上、或飛機上，從這個地方運輸到那個地方。但是，在這種情形下，它也是在某一個人的控制下，屬於某一人所有，而不是所謂的在「流通中」。

[5] Cf. Carl Menger's books Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Vienna, 1871), pp. 250 ff.; ibid. (2d ed. Vienna, 1923), pp. 241 ff.; Untersuchungen uber die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften (Leipzig, 1883), p. 171 ff.

[5] 參考Carl Menger's books Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Vienna, 1871), pp. 250 ff.; ibid. (2d ed. Vienna, 1923), pp. 241 ff.; Untersuchungen uber die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften (Leipzig, 1883), p. 171 ff.

[6] Cf. Menger, Untersuchungen, 1.c., p. 178.

[6] 參考Menger, Untersuchungen, 1.c., p. 178.

4. The Determination of the Purchasing Power of Money

四、貨幣購買力的決定

As soon as an economic good is demanded not only by those who want to use it for consumption or production, but also by people who want to keep it as a medium of exchange and to give it away at need in a later act of exchange, the demand for it increases. A new employment for this good has emerged and creates an additional demand for it. As with every other economic good, such an additional demand brings about a rise in its value in exchange, i.e., in the quantity of other goods which are offered for its acquisition. The amount of other goods which can be obtained in giving away a medium of exchange, its "price" as expressed in terms of various goods and services, is in part determined by the demand of those who want to acquire it as a medium of exchange. If people stop using the good in question as a medium of exchange, this additional specific demand disappears and the "price" drops concomitantly.

一種經濟財貨，一旦到了不僅是那些想用它消費或用它生產的人們需要它，還有些人想把它作爲交換媒介來保存，以便在日後的交易行爲中放棄它，這時，它的需求就增加了。這種財貨的一個新用途出現了，因而對它發生一額外的需求。和其他的每種財貨一樣，額外需求就會使它的交換價値提昇，這裡所說的交換價値，即爲取得它而提供的其他財貨的數量，放棄一個交換媒介而可取得的其他財貨的數量，也即以各種財貨和勞務的名目來表示的它的「價格」：這個「價格」部份地決定於那些想把它當作交換媒介而取得的人們的需求。如果人們不再把這個財貨當作交換媒介來使用，則這額外的特殊需求就爲之消失，而其「價格」也就隨之下降。

Thus the demand for a medium of exchange is the composite of two partial demands: the demand displayed by the intention to use it in consumption and production and that displayed by the intention to use it as a medium of exchange.[7] With regard to modern metallic money one speaks of the industrial demand and of the monetary demand. The value in exchange (purchasing power) of a medium of exchange is the resultant of the cumulative effect of both partial demands.

所以交換媒介的需求是兩部份需求合成的：一部份是想用它消費和生產的需求，一部份是想用它作爲交換媒介的需求[7]。就現代的金屬貨幣講，我們說有工業上的需求，有貨幣方面的需求。一個交換媒介的交換價値（購買力）是這兩部份需求相加的結果。

Now the extent of that part of the demand for a medium of exchange which is displayed on account of its service as a medium of exchange depends on its value in exchange. This fact raises difficulties which many economists considered insoluble so that they abstained from following farther along this line of reasoning. It is illogical, they said, to explain the purchasing power of money by reference to the demand for money, and the demand for money by reference to its purchasing power.

作爲交換媒介的那部份需求的程度，決定於它的交換價値。這個事實引起了一些困難，許多經濟學家認爲，這些困難是無法解決的，所以，他們不再循著這個理論路線進一步硏討。他們說，用貨幣需求來解釋貨幣購買力，而又用它的購買力來解釋貨幣需求，這是不合邏輯的。

The difficulty is, however, merely apparent. The purchasing power

但是，這個困難只是表面的。我們以那特別需求的程度來解釋的那個購買力，不同於其強度會決定這種特別需求的另一個購買力。問題是在想像即刻的將來購買力的決定。爲著這個問題的解決，我們藉助於剛剛過去的購買力。這是兩個不同的數量。反對我們這個理論（我們這個理論可以叫做「回歸定理」，the regression theorem）的理論，說它是在循環論法中兜圈子，這個說法是一個謬見[8]。

But, say the critics, this is tantamount to merely pushing back the problem. For now one must still explain the determination of yesterday's purchasing power. If one explains this in the same way by referring to the purchasing power of the day before yesterday and so on, one slips into a regressus in infinitum. This reasoning, they assert, is certainly not a complete and logically satisfactory solution of the problem involved. What these critics fail to see is that the regression does not go back endlessly. It reaches a point at which the explanation is completed and no further question remains unanswered. If we trace the purchasing power of money back step by step, we finally arrive at the point at which the service of the good concerned as a medium of exchange begins. At this point yesterday's exchange value is exclusively determined by the nonmonetary --industrial--demand which is displayed only by those who want to use this good for other employments than that of a medium of exchange.

但是，批評的人們這樣說：這等於是把問題推回去。因爲，你還要解釋昨天的購買力的決定。如果你用前天的購買力來解釋昨天的，你還要用大前天的來解釋前天的，這樣下去，你就陷入無窮的回歸。他們說，這樣的推理，確實不是對這個問題的圓滿解決。這些批評者所未了解的，是我們的回歸定理並非無窮盡地向後追溯。它會到達某一點，到了這一點的時候，解釋就完全了，再也沒有問題未解答。如果我們一步一步地向後追溯貨幣的購買力，我們最後會追到這種有關的財貨作爲交換媒介的那個功用剛剛開始的那一時點。這一時點，昨天的購買力，完全決定於非貨幣的——工業的——需求，這種需求完全來自那些想用這種財貨於貨幣以外的用途的人們。

But, the critics continue, this means explaining that part of money's purchasing power which is due to its service as a medium of exchange by its employment for industrial purposes. The very problem, the explanation of the specific monetary component of its exchange value, remains unsolved. Here too the critics are mistaken. That component of money's value which is an outcome of the services it renders as a medium of exchange is entirely explained by reference to these specific monetary services and the demand they create. Two facts are not to be denied and are not denied by anybody. First, that the demand for a medium of exchange is determined by considerations

但是，批評的人們繼續說：這等於以工業目的的用途來解釋，由於交換媒介的功用而發生的那部份購買力。眞正的問題——對於它的交換價値中貨幣成份的解釋——仍然未解決。這裡，批評的人們也是誤解的。貨幣價値中來自交換媒介這個功用的成份，完全用這特殊的貨幣功用和它所創造的需求解釋了。有兩個事實是任何人所不否認、也不應當否認的：第一、交換媒介的需要決定於它的交換價値的考慮，而它的交換價値是它所提供的貨幣功用和工業功用的結果。第二、未曾作爲交換媒介而被需要的那種財貨的交換價値，只決定於那些想把它用於工業目的——也即爲著消費或生產的目的——的人們的需求。我們所說的回歸定理，目的在於說明：原先僅爲工業目的而需要的那種財貨的貨幣需求之第一次出現，是受當時僅由它的非貨幣功用而具有交換價値之影響的。這並不意涵，以它在工業上的交換價値爲理由來解釋交換媒介在貨幣功能方面的特殊交換價値。

Finally it was objected to the regression theorem that its approach is historical, not theoretical. This objection is no less mistaken. To explain an event historically means to show how it was produced by forces and factors operating at a definite date and a definite place. These individual forces and factors are the ultimate elements of the interpretation. They are ultimate data and as such not open to any further analysis and reduction. To explain a phenomenon theoretically means to trace back its appearance to the operation of general rules which are already comprised in the theoretical system. The regression theorem complies with this requirement. It traces the specific exchange value of a medium of exchange back to its function as such a medium and to the theorems concerning the process of valuing and pricing as developed by the general catallactic theory. It deduces a more special case from the rules of a more universal theory. It shows how the special phenomenon necessarily emerges out of the operation of the rules generally valid for all phenomena. It does not say: This happened at that time and at that place. It says: This always happens when the conditions appear; whenever a good which has not been demanded previously for the employment as a medium of exchange begins to be demanded for this employment, the same effects must appear again; no good can be employed for the function of a medium of exchange which at the very beginning of its use for this purpose did not have exchange value on account of other employments. And all these statements implied in the regression theorem are enounced apodictically as implied in the apriorism of praxeology. It must happen this way. Nobody can ever succeed in construction a hypothetical case in which things were to occur in a different way.

最後，還有一個反對回歸定理的說法，是說它的接近法【方法或思路】是歷史的，而不是理論的。這個說法也同樣錯誤。對於一個事象作歷史上的解釋，是在說明，它如何在一定的時間、一定的地點，受那些運作中的力量和因素的影響而産生。這些個別的力量和因素，在這個解釋中是些最後的極據。因爲是最後的極據，所以不容再加分析和演繹。至於從理論上來解釋一個現象，則是把它的出現追溯到一些通則的運作，而這些通則是已經包含在這個理論體系中的。我們的回歸定理符合這個要求。它把交換媒介的這個特殊交換價値追溯到它作爲媒介的功能，並追溯到一般交換理論所發展出來的關於評値估價程序的那些定理。它從一個更普遍的理論體系中的一些法則抽鐸出一個特殊的個案。它說明這個特殊現象如何必然地出現於那些對一切現象都有效的法則之運作。它不說：這發生於那個時候、那個地點，它說：這總是發生於這些條件具備的時候；原先沒有作爲交換媒介而被需要的財貨，一旦開始爲這個用途而被需要，則同樣的後果一定再發生；決沒有一種可用作交換媒介的財貨，在其開始在這個用途上被需要的時候，不具有因其他用途而具有的交換價値，所有這些包含在回歸定理的陳述和那包含在行爲學先驗原理中的，同樣地說得明明白白。它「一定」是這樣發生的。誰也不能成功地提出一個假定的事例，在那個事例中事情不是這樣發生的。

The purchasing power of money is determined by demand and supply, as is the case with the prices of all vendible goods and services. As action always aims at a more satisfactory arrangement of future

貨幣購買力，如同一切貨物和勞務，是由需求和供給決定的。因爲行爲總是爲的把將來的境況作更滿意的安排，一個人在考慮取得或放棄貨幣的時候，他首先要注意的，自然是將來的貨幣購買力和將來的物價結構。但是，他除掉從貨幣購買力剛剛過去的情況來考慮以外，他不能對將來的貨幣購買力作何判斷。正是這個事實，使貨幣購買力的決定與各種財貨勞務之間的相互交換率的决定顯出差別。關於後者，行爲者所考慮的沒有別的，只是它們對於將來的慾望滿足之重要性。如果一項前所未聞的新貨物拿到市場出賣，例如一、二十年以前的收音機，唯一値得計較的問題是：這個新玩意所將提供的滿足，是否大於爲購買這個新東西而必須放棄的其他東西所可提供的滿足。關於過去的價格之知識，對於買者而言，只是爲獲取消費者剩餘的一個手段。如果他不在乎消費者剩餘的獲取，他就可以（假若必須的話）不管剛剛過去的市場價格（也即通常叫做現在價格的）而來安排他的購買。他可以不比價而作價値判斷。我們曾經提過，把過去的一切物價都忘掉，並不妨礙各物之間的新交換率之形成。但是，如果關於貨幣購買力的知識漸漸淡忘，則間接交換和交換媒介的發展程序勢必從新開始。那就必須再開始使用某種財貨——比別種財貨有更好銷路的財貨——作爲交換媒介。於是，這種財貨的需求增加，因而在它原有的交換價値（用在工業用途的交換價值）以外，又增加了一項用在貨幣用途的交換價値。就貨幣來講，價値判斷只有在它可以估價的條件下才可能。一種新的貨幣之被接受，前提條件是，這種東西本來已有直接消費或生產的用處而有了交換價値。買者也好，賣者也好，如果他對剛剛過去的貨幣的交換價値（它的購買力）一無所知，他就不能對一個貨幣單位的價値作判斷。

The relation between the demand for money and the supply of money, which may be called the money relation, determines the height of purchasing power. Today's money relation, as it is shaped on the ground of yesterday's purchasing power, determines today's purchasing power. He who wants to increase his cash holding restricts

貨幣需求與貨幣供給的關係（也可叫做貨幣闡係）決定購買力的強度。今天的貨幣關係，根據昨天的購買力而形成的，決定今天的購買力。凡是想增加現金握存的人，減少他的購買，增加他的出售，因而引起物價下跌的趨勢。凡是想減少現金握存的人，增加他的購買——或爲消費或爲生產——減少他的出售，因而引起物價上漲的趨勢。

Changes in the supply of money must necessarily alter the disposition of vendible goods as owned by various individuals and firms. The quantity of money available in the whole market system cannot increase or decrease otherwise than by first increasing or decreasing the cash holdings of certain individual members. We may, if we like, assume that every member gets a share of the additional money right at the moment of its inflow into the system, or shares in the reduction of the quantity of money. But whether we assume this or not, the final result of our demonstration will remain the same. This result will be that changes in the structure of prices brought about by changes in the supply of money available in the economic system never affect the prices of the various commodities and services to the same extent and at the same date.

貨幣供給的變動必然使各個人和各商號變更對他們所保有的貨物的處分。整個巿場體系裡面的貨幣供給量之增加或減少，必須首先由某些個人或商號，增加或減少他們的現金握存。否則整個市場體系的貨幣供給量不可能增減。如果我們願意的話，我們可以假設，正當貨幣流量注入這個體系的時候，每個份子取得一份額外的貨幣，或者當貨幣量減少的時候，他們也分別減少。但是，不管我們作不作這個假設，我們所陳述的這個最後結果，總是一樣的。這個結果是：經濟體系裡面，貨幣供給量所引起的物價結構的變動，決不以同樣的程度、在同一時間，影響各種財貨和勞務的價格。

Let us assume that the government issues an additional quantity of paper money. The government plans either to buy commodities and services or to repay debts incurred or to pay interest on such debts. However this may be, the treasury enters the market with an additional demand for goods and services; it is now in a position to buy more goods than it could buy before. The prices of the commodities it buys rise. If the government had expended in its purchases money collected by taxation, the taxpayers would have restricted their purchases and, while the prices of goods bought by the government would have risen, those of other goods would have dropped. But this fall in the prices of the goods the taxpayers used to buy does not occur if the government increases the quantity of money at its disposal without reducing the quantity of money in the hands of the public. The prices of some commodities--viz., of those the government buys--rise immediately, while those of the other commodities remain unaltered for the time being. But the process goes on. Those selling the commodities asked for by the government are now themselves in a position to buy more than they used previously. The prices of the things these people are buying in larger quantities therefore rise too. Thus the boom spreads from one group of commodities and services to other groups until all prices and wage rates have risen. The rise in prices is thus not synchronous for the various commodities and services.

我們假定政府增發一批紙幣。這個政府或者想用以購買財貨和勞務，或者是想用來償還公債或支付公債利息。不管怎樣，這時國庫使這個市場對於貨物和勞務發生了額外的需求；而那有關的物價爲之上漲。如果政府在購買中花掉稅收的錢，則納稅人減少了他們的購買，一方面，政府所買的東西價格上漲，另一方面，其他東西的價格下跌。但是，如果政府增加它所支出的貨幣量，而不減低大衆手中的貨幣量，則納稅人所慣於購買的那些貨物的價格就不會下跌。有些貨物——即政府購買的——的價格馬上上漲，而其他貨物的價格暫時維持不變。但是，這個過程是要向前發展的。那些賣貨物給政府的人們，現在也能夠比以前購買得更多。因而他們買得更多的那些貨物，價格也就上漲了。由這一組貨物和勞務的價格上漲，影響到其他許多價格，這樣一波一波地推展，直到所有的價格和工資都已上漲。所以，物價的上漲總是參差不齊的。

When eventually, in the further course of the increase in the quantity

在貨幣量的繼續增加過程中，到了最後，一切物價都上漲了，這種上漲不是以同樣程度影響到各種貨物和勞務。在這個過程當中，有些人，因爲他們賣出的那些財貨或勞務的價格，上漲得較高，而他們買進的那些財貨或勞務，或者沒有漲價，或者漲得較少，他們就得到利益。相反地，有些人賣出的那些貨物和勞務沒有漲價或者上漲得少，而他們必須買進的那些貨物和勞務漲價較高，他們就受害。對於前者，物價的不斷上漲是一福利：對於後者，是一災難。此外，債務人是以債權人作犧牲而得利的。當這個過程到了終結的時候，各個人的財富受到不同方向、不同程度的影響。有些人富有了，有些人貧窮了，都和以前的情形不一樣。這個新的秩序終於使各種貨物需求的強度發生變化。各種貨物與勞務相互間的價格比率再也不像以前那樣了。除掉一切物價都已上漲以外，物價結構也有變動。在貨幣量增加的後果已經充份達成的時候，市場的趨勢所建立的一些最後價格，並不等於以前的那些最後價格乘以同一倍數。

The main fault of the old quantity theory as well as the mathematical economists' equation of exchange is that they have ignored this fundamental issue. Changes in the supply of money must bring about changes in other data too. The market system before and after the inflow or outflow of a quantity of money is not merely changed in that the cash holdings of the individuals and prices have increased or decreased. There have been effected also changes in the reciprocal exchange ratios between the various commodities and services which, if one wants to resort to metaphors, are more adequately described by the image of price revolution than by the misleading figure of an elevation or a sinking of the "price level."

古老的貨幣數量說和數理經濟學家的交換方程式一樣，其主要錯誤是，他們忽略了這個基本問題。貨幣供給的變動一定引起其他有關方面的變動。在貨幣流量注入或流出以前和以後的巿場體系的變動，不僅是表示於各個人的現金握存和物價的上昇或下降，而且，各種財貨與勞務相互間的交換率也發生變動。這種變動，如果我們想用比喩的說法，無妨說它是物價革命，而不說是物價水準的上昇或下降，以免引起誤解。

We may at this point disregard the effects brought about by the influence on the content of all deferred payments as stipulated by contracts. We will deal later with them and with the operation of monetary events on consumption and production, investment in capital goods, and accumulation and consumption of capital. But even in setting aside all these things, we must never forget that changes in the quantity of money affect prices in an uneven way. It depends on the data of each particular case at what moment and to what

在這一點，我們可以不管像契約規定的一切延期償付所引起的一些後果。這些後果我們將在下面討論，並且還要討論到貨幣事象在消費和生產方面、資本財的投資方面、資本的累積和消耗方面所發生的一些作用。但是，即令把所有這些事情擺在一旁，我們決不可忘掉，貨幣量的變動對於物價的影響是參差不齊的。這要看各種財貨和勞務的價格，在什麼時候受到影響以及影響到什麼樣的程度，而不能一概而論。在貨幣擴增（通貨膨脹）的過程中，最初的反應不僅是某些物價較其他物價漲得更快更陡，而且也會有些物價在開始時是下跌的，這是由於有些人在這個過程中是受害的，他們以前所需求的那些貨物和勞務，現在因爲這些人受傷害，於是這些東西的需求減少了，所以這些物價下跌。

Changes in the money relation are not only caused by governments issuing additional paper money. An increase in the production of the precious metals employed as money has the same effects although, of course, other classes of the population may be favored or hurt by it. Prices also rise in the same way if, without a corresponding reduction in the quantity of money available, the demand for money falls because of a general tendency toward a diminution of cash holdings. The money expended additionally by such a "dishoarding" brings about a tendency toward higher prices in the same way as that flowing from the gold mines or from the printing press. Conversely, prices drop when the supply of money falls (e.g., through a withdrawal of paper money) or the demand for money increases (e.g., through a tendency toward "hoarding," the keeping of greater cash balances). The process is always uneven and by steps, disproportionate and asymmetrical.

貨幣關係的變動不只是政府增發紙幣引起的。用作貨幣的那種金屬的產量增加，也有同樣的後果，儘管受益或受害的是另一些人。如果貨幣的需求因爲現金握存一般地趨向於降低而減少，同時，貨幣量沒有相應的減少，則物價也同樣地上漲。由於「反握存」而額外支出的貨幣，與來自金鑛或來自印刷機的貨幣，同樣地促成物價上漲。相反地，當著貨幣供給降低（例如經由紙幣的收回）或貨幣需求增加（例如，經由握存的趙勢增強、保持較多的現金餘額），則物價下跌。這個過程總是不平坦的、非比例的、不對稱的。

It could be and has been objected that the normal production of the gold mines brought to the market may well entail an increase in the quantity of money, but does not increase the income, still less the wealth, of the owners of the mines. These people earn only their "normal" income and thus their spending of it cannot disarrange market conditions and the prevailing tendencies toward the establishment of final prices and the equilibrium of the evenly rotating economy. For them, the annual output of the mines does not mean an increase in riches and does not impel them to offer higher prices. They will continue to live at the standard at which they used to live before. Their spending within these limits will not revolutionize the market. Thus the normal amount of gold production, although certainly increasing the quantity of money available, cannot put into motion the process of depreciation. It is neutral with regard to prices.

有人反對這個說法，而認爲投入市場的正常的金產量固然增加貨幣量，但並不增加金鑛主人們的所得，更不增加他們的財富。這些人只賺得他們「正常的」收入，因而他們的支用所得不會擾亂市場情況，也不會擾亂建立最後價格的趨勢，以及均勻輪轉的經濟之均衡。對於他們而言，金鑛的年產量並不是財富的一筆增加，所以，不會促使他們把物價叫高，他們仍然照向來的標準過活。他們在這個範圍以內的支用，不會引起市場革命。所以，正常的金產量不會發動貶値的過程，儘管貨幣量確實增加，它對於物價是中立的。

As against this reasoning one must first of all observe that within a progressing economy in which population figures are increasing and the division of labor and its corollary, industrial specialization, are perfected, there prevails a tendency toward an increase in the demand for money. Additional people appear on the scene and want to establish cash holdings. The extent of economic self-sufficiency, i.e., of production for the household's own needs, shrinks and people become more dependent upon the market; this will, by and large,

在反對這個理論的時候，我們首先要注意：在一個人口正在增加、而分工和專業化也已完成的進步經濟裡面，貨幣需求自會有增加的趨勢。增加的人口也要保有他們的現金握存。經濟自足的程度，也即爲自己家庭的需要而生產的程度，萎縮了，人們愈來愈要依賴市場；這種情形使他們不得不增加他們的現金握存。因此，那個來自所謂「正常的」金生產的提昇物價的趨勢，碰著那個來自現金握存增加的削減物價的趨勢。但是，這兩個相反的趨勢並不彼此抵銷。這兩個過程各有自己的路線，兩者都把旣存的社會情況擾亂，使某些人更富，某些人更窮。兩者在不同的時日，以不同的程度影響各種貨物的價格。誠然，有些貨物的價格由於這兩個過程之一而引起的上漲，最後會被另一個過程引起的下跌而抵銷。其結果，某些物價，或許多物價，回復到原來的高度，這種情形是可能發生的。但是，這樣的最後結果，並不是因爲沒有貨幣關係之變動所引起的騷擾。而是兩個獨立的過程偶合的聯合後果，這兩個過程的每一個，都引起市場情況變化和各個人的物質情況的變化。這個新的物價結構，也許和以前的沒有什麼很大的差異。但這是兩個系列的變化的結果，而這兩個系列的變化，已經達成了一切應有的社會變遷。

The fact that the owners of gold mines rely upon steady yearly proceeds from their gold production does not cancel the newly mined gold's impression upon prices. The owners of the mines take from the market, in exchange for the gold produced, the goods and services required for their mining and the goods needed for their consumption and their investments in other lines of production. If they had not produced this amount of gold, prices would not have been affected by it. It is beside the point that they have anticipated the future yield of the mines and capitalized it and that they have adjusted their standard of living to the expectation of steady proceeds from the mining operations. The effects which the newly mined gold exercises on their expenditure and on that of those people whose cash holdings it enters later step by step begin only at the instant this gold is available in the hands of the mine owners. If, in the expectation of future yields, they had expended money at an earlier date and the expected yield failed to appear, conditions would not differ from other cases in which consumption was financed by credit based on expectations not realized by later events.

「金鑛的所有人依賴每年產金的穩定收入」這個事實，並不抵銷新產出的黃金對物價的影響。金鑛的所有人，在巿場上把生產的黃金換得開鑛所要用的一些財貨和勞務，以及他們在消費方面和在其他投資方面所需要的一些財貨。如果他們沒有生產這個數量的黃金，物價就不會受到它的影響。至於說，他們已經預期金鑛的將來收益，把它換算成資本，而且，他們已經把他們的生活標準按照這個預期的穩定收益而調整，這是搞錯了的。新產出的黃金對於他們的支出所發生的影響，只是在這批黃金到了他們手中的時候才開始：新產出的黃金漸漸進到許多人的現金握存中，這些人的支出之受到影響，也只是在那個時候開始。如果他們預期將來的收益，提早花掉了金錢，而所預期的收益終於幻滅，則其情況就無異於靠一些沒有實現的預期來借債消費。

Changes in the extent of the desired cash holding of various people neutralize one another only to the extent that they are regularly recurring and mutually connected by a causal reciprocity. Salaried people and wage earners are not paid daily, but at certain pay days

各人現金握存的數額之變動，只有在它們有規律地一再出現，而又相互關聯的程度以內彼此相消。薪資收入者不是每天收到薪資的，而是在一個或幾個星期的期間領收的。他們在這個期間以內所握存的現金，不是每天一致的：他們手頭的現金數額隨著下次發薪日的到來而逐漸減少。另一方面，那些爲他們供給生活必需品的商人們，則在這個期間逐漸增加他們的現金握存。這兩個變動互爲條件：其間有一因果的相互關係，在時間上和數量上，彼此協調。商人和他的顧客，都不讓自己受這週期變動的影響。他們的現金握存計畫，和他們的業務經營與消費支出，各有其整個週期的打算。

It was this phenomenon that led economists to the image of a regular circulation of money and to the neglect of the changes in the individuals' cash holdings. However, we are faced with a concatenation which is limited to a narrow, neatly circumscribed field. Only as far as the increase in the cash holding of one group of people is temporally and quantitatively related to the decrease in the cash holding of another group and as far as these changes are self-liquidating within the course of a period which the members of both groups consider as a whole in planning their cash holding, can the neutralization take place. Beyond this field there is no question of such a neutralization.

正是這個現象，使得經濟學家們以爲，有一個規律的貨幣流通額，而忽視各個人的現金握存之變動。但是，我們是面對一個限之於狭小範圍的連繫。只是就「一組人的現金握存之增加，在時間與數量方面與另一組人的現金握存之減少相關聯」以及「這些變動，在這兩組人計畫他們的現金握存時，視爲整個的那個時間過程當中，是自行消失的」來講，彼此抵消的現象才會發生。在這個範圍以外，沒有這樣的相消。

---------------------

[7] The problems of money exclusively dedicated to the service of a medium of exchange and not fit to render any other services on account of which it would be demanded are dealt with below in section 9.

[7] 只能當作交換媒介而不適於其他任何用途的那種貨幣的需求問題將在本章第九節討論。

[8] The present writer first developed this regression theorem of purchasing power in the first edition of his book Theory of Money and Credit, published in 1912 (pp. 97-123 of the English-language translation). His theorem has been criticized from various points of view. Some of the objections raised, especially those by B. M. Anderson in his thoughtful book The Value of Money, first published in 1917 (cf. pp. 100 ff. of the 1936 edition), deserve a very careful examination. The importance of the problems involved makes it necessary to weigh also the objections of H. Ellis (German Monetary Theory 1905-1933 [Cambridge, 1934], pp. 77 ff.). In the text above, all objections raised are particularized and critically examined.

[8] 著者在一九一二年出版的Theory of Money and Credit（英文譯本的pp.97-123）第一次提出這個購買力回歸定理。這個定理曾受到各種觀點的批評。有些批評，尤其是B. M. Anderson在他那本思想豐富的著作The Value of Money（1917年初版，參考1936年版的pp. 100 ff.）裡面的批評，値得仔細檢討。由於涉及的一些問題之重要，我們也必須重視H. Ellis所提出的那些反對（見之於German Monetary Theory 1905-1933 [Cambridge, 1934], pp. 77 ff.）。在上面的正文裡面，所有的批評都詳細列舉並加以檢討。

5. The Problem of Hume and Mill and the Driving Force of Money

五、休姆（Hume）和穆勒（Mill）的問題以及貨幣的推進力

Is it possible to think of a state of affairs in which changes in the purchasing power of money occur at the same time and to the same extent with regard to all commodities and services and in proportion to the change affected in either the demand for or the supply of money? In other words, is it possible to think of neutral money within the frame of an economic system which does not correspond to the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy? We may call this pertinent question the problem of Hume and Mill.

貨幣購賈力，對於所有的貨物和勞務，同時、同程度地發生變動，而且比例於貨幣的需求面或供給面的變動而變動，這種情況是可能想像的嗎？換句話說，我們可能想像在一個不同於假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構的經濟體系裡面，會有中立的貨幣嗎？我們可以把這個問題叫做休姆和穆勒的問題。

It is uncontested that neither Hume nor Mill succeeded in finding a positive answer to this question.[9] Is it possible to answer it categorically in the negative?

休姆也好，穆勒也好，對於這個問題都沒有找出一個肯定的答案[9]。直截了當地給以否定的答案，是可能的嗎？

We imagine two systems of an evenly rotating economy A and B. The two systems are independent and in no way connected with one another. The two systems differ from one another only in the fact

我們想像兩個均勻輪轉的經濟制度A和B。這兩個制度是獨立的；彼此沒有關聯。它們之間的不同，只是：在相對於A裡面的每一貨幣量m，B裡面就有一個nm的貨幣量，n大於或小於1；我們再假定，在這兩個制度裡面，都沒有延期支付，而所使用的貨幣只有貨幣的用途，沒有貨幣以外的任何用途。因此，這兩個制度裡面的一般物價的比率是1:n。我們可能想像把A的情形一下子變到完全和B的一樣嗎？

The answer to this question must obviously be in the negative. He who wants to answer it in the positive must assume that a deus ex machina approaches every individual at the same instant, increases or decreases his cash holding by multiplying it by n, and tells him that henceforth he must multiply by n all price data which he employs in his appraisements and calculations. This cannot happen without a miracle.

對於這個問題的答覆，必然是否定的。凡是想對這個問題予以肯定答覆的人，必須假定，有一個神力同時降臨到各個人的身上，使他的現金握存按n的乘數增加或減少，而且吿訴他：今後在他的計算中一切價格都要乘以n。這種情境，沒有奇蹟是不會發生的。

It has been pointed out already that in the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy the very notion of money vanishes into an unsubstantial calculation process, self-contradictory and devoid of any meaning.[10] It is impossible to assign any function to indirect exchange, media of exchange, and money within an imaginary construction the characteristic mark of which is unchangeability and rigidity of conditions.

前面曾經講過，在一個均勻輪轉的經濟這種假想的結構裡面，貨幣這個概念，消失在一種空虚的計算程序中，自相矛盾而無任何實際意義[10]。均勻輪轉的經濟特徵是一切情況固定不變，在這樣一個假想的結構裡面，我們不可能給間接交換、交易媒介和貨幣指派任何功能。

Where there is no uncertainty concerning the future, there is no need for any cash holding. As money must necessarily be kept by people in their cash holdings, there cannot be any money. The use of media of exchange and the keeping of cash holdings are conditioned by the changeability of economic data. Money in itself is an element of change; its existence is incompatible with the idea of a regular flow of events in an evenly rotating economy.

如果關於將來不是不確定的，則現金握存就沒有任何必要。旣沒有現金握存，也就沒有貨幣了。交易媒介的使用和現金握存的保持，是由於經濟事象之不斷變動。貨幣本身就是變動的一個因素；貨幣的存在與「均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，一切事象都是有規律的流轉」這個想法，是不相容的。

Every change in the money relation alters--apart from its effects upon deferred payments--the conditions of the individual members of society. Some become richer, some poorer. It may happen that the effects of a change in the demand for and supply of money encounter the effects of opposite changes occurring by and large at the same time and to the same extent; it may happen that the resultant of the two opposite movements is such that no conspicuous changes in the price structure emerge. But even then the effects on the conditions of the various individuals are not absent. Each change in the money relation takes its own course and produces its own particular effects. If an inflationary movement and a deflationary one occur at the same time or if an inflation is temporally followed by a deflation in such a

貨幣關係的每一變動——除掉對延期支付的影響以外——使社會各個份子的情況隨之轉變。有些人變得更富，有些人變得更窮。貨幣的需求與供給的一種變動，其後果恰好碰到同時、同程度的相反變動的後果，因而互相抵消，所以，在物價結構沒有什麼明顯變動下，這種情形是可能發生的。但是，即令如此，各個人的情況並不是不受影響的。貨幣關係的每次變動，是循著它自己的路向，產生它自己的特殊後果。如果一個通貨膨脹的動向和一個通貨緊縮的動向同時出現，或者如果一個通貨膨脹接著一個通貨緊縮，以致一般物價終於沒有多大的變動，這兩個動向的每一個的社會後果並不互相抵消，而是在通貨膨脹的社會後果上面，再加上通貨緊縮的社會後果。我們沒有理由可以認爲：所有或大多數受到某一動向之益的那些人們，將受到另一動向之害，而受害者將受益。

Money is neither an abstract numeraire nor a standard of value or prices. It is necessarily an economic good and as such it is valued and appraised on its own merits, i.e., the services which a man expects from holding cash. On the market there is always change and movement. Only because there are fluctuations is there money. Money is an element of change not because it "circulates," but because it is kept in cash holdings. Only because people expect changes about the kind and extent of which they have no certain knowledge whatsoever, do they deep money.

貨幣旣不是抽象的數，也不是價値或價格的標準。它必然是一種經濟財貨，因爲它是經濟財，所以要按照它本身的功用來評値估價，它本身的功用是指，一個人希望從握存現金而得到的利益。在市場裡面總是有變動的。只是因爲有波動，才有貨幣。貨幣之所以是變動的一個因素，不是因爲它「流通」，而是因爲它以現金握存的方式保持。只是因爲人們對於將來有何變動，以及變動到什麼程度，都不能確知，所以他們要保存貨幣。

While money can be thought of only in a changing economy, it is in itself an element of further changes. Every change in the economic data sets it in motion and makes it the driving force of new changes. Every shift in the mutual relation of the exchange ratios between the various nonmonetary goods not only brings about changes in production and in what is popularly called distribution, but also provokes changes in the money relation and thus further changes. Nothing can happen in the orbit of vendible goods without affecting the orbit of money, and all that happens in the orbit of money affects the orbit of commodities.

一方面，我們可以把貨幣看作只在變動的經濟裡面才有的萆西，同時，貨幣本身也是引起變動的一個因素。經濟事象的每一變動都會推動它，而使它成爲一些新變動的動力。在貨物買賣過程中發生的事情，沒有不影響到貨幣方面的；貨幣方面發生的一切一切，也影響到貨物的買資。

The notion of a neutral money is no less contradictory than that of a money of stable purchasing power. Money without a driving force of its own would not, as people assume, be a perfect money; it would not be money at all.

「中立的貨幣」這個觀念的矛盾，不遜於「購買力穩定的貨幣」這個觀念。沒有它本身的推動力的貨幣，不算是完全的貨幣；也可說根本不是貨幣。

It is a popular fallacy to believe that perfect money should be neutral and endowed with unchanging purchasing power, and that the goal of monetary policy should be to realize this perfect money. It is easy to understand this idea as a reaction against the still more popular postulates of the inflationists. But it is an excessive reaction, it is in itself confused and contradictory, and it has worked havoc because it was strengthened by an inveterate error inherent in the thought of many philosophers and economists.

完全的貨幣應該是中立，應該是具有不變的購買力，而且，貨幣政策的目標應該是實現這樣完全的貨幣，這種見解是個很普遍的謬見。我們很可以把這個謬見看作通貨膨脹主義者們一些普遍的說法的一個反動。但是，這是過份的反動，它本身是混淆的、矛盾的，而且，因爲它被一個固著於一些哲學家和經濟學家思想中的另一個謬見的推波助瀾而引起大的破壞。

These thinkers are misled by the widespread belief that a state of rest is more perfect than one of movement. Their idea of perfection implies that no more perfect state can be thought of and consequently that every change would impair it. The best that can be said of a motion is that it is directed toward the attainment of a state of perfection in which there is rest because every further movement would

這些思想家被一個普遍的信念所誤導，這個信念是以爲靜態比動態更完善些。他們心中的完善是「一個再好不過的」情況，因而一有變動就損害了它。最好的動，就是趨向於完善的動，一到了完善就是一個靜態，因爲這時如果再動，那就是導向一個不完善的境況。動，被視爲均衡和充份滿足的沒有達到，被視爲苦惱和缺乏的表現。這些想法如果只是意涵「行動或行爲的目的在於解除不適之感而最後在於達成充份滿足」，那就是很有根據的想法。但是，我們決不可忘記：靜止和均衡不僅是出現在人們充份滿足的時候，當人們有許多慾望未滿足，而又毫無辦法改善他們的情況時，靜止和均衡也會出現。不行爲不僅是充份滿足的結果，也是不能把事情做得更滿意的必然結果。它旣可表示滿足，也可表示絕望。

With the real universe of action and unceasing change, with the economic system which cannot be rigid, neither neutrality of money nor stability of its purchasing power are compatible. A world of the kind which the necessary requirements of neutral and stable money presuppose would be a world without action.

實在的世界是不斷變動的，經濟制度不會是固定的，貨幣的中立和貨幣購買力的決定，與這樣的世界、這樣的經濟制度，是不相容的。一個世界，如果必須有中立而安定的貨幣，那將是一個沒有行爲的世界。

It is therefore neither strange nor vicious that in the frame of such a changing world money is neither neutral nor stable in purchasing power. All plans to render money neutral and stable are contradictory. Money is an element of action and consequently of change. Changes in the money relation, i.e., in the relation of the demand for and the supply of money, effect the exchange ratio between money on the one hand and the vendible commodities on the other hand. These changes do not affect at the same time and to the same extent the prices of the various commodities and services. They consequently affect the wealth of the various members of society in a different way.

所以，在一個變動的世界裡面，貨幣旣不是中立的，而其購買力也不是安全的，這旣不奇怪，也不是壞事。凡是想把貨幣弄成中立的、安定的一切計畫，都是矛盾的。貨幣是一個行爲因素，因而是一變動因素。貨幣關係的變動——也即貨幣供需關係的變動——影響貨幣與貨物之間的交換率。這些變動並不同時、同程度影響各種貨物與勞務的價格。它們必然對社會各個份子的財富發生不同的影響。

---------------------

[9] Cf. Mises, Theory of Money and Credit, pp. 140-142.

[9] 參考Mises, Theory of Money and Credit, pp. 140-142.

[10] Cf. above, p. 249.

[10] 參考第十四章第五節。

6. Cash-Induced and Goods-Induced Changes in Purchasing Power

六、現金引起的和貨物引起的購買力的變動

Changes in the purchasing power of money, i.e., in the exchange ratio between money and the vendible goods and commodities, can originate either from the side of money or from the side of the vendible goods and commodities. The change in the data which provokes them can either occur in the demand for and supply of money or in the demand for and supply of the other goods and services. We may accordingly distinguish between cash-induced and goods-induced changes in purchasing power.

貨幣購買力的變動，也即貨幣與貨物之間的交換率的變動，旣會從貨幣方面引起，也會從貨物方面引起。那些引起這些變動的變動，旣可發生於貨幣的供需，也會發生於財貨和勞務的供需。因此我們可以區分現金引起與貨物引起的購買力變動。

Goods-induced changes in purchasing power can be brought about by changes in the supply of commodities and services or in the demand for individual commodities and services. A general rise or fall

貨物引起的購買力變動，會由貨物和勞務的供給或個別貨物和勞務的需求之變動而引起。至於全部或大部份貨物和勞動的需求之一般的上昇或下降，則只會由貨幣方面引起。

Let us now scrutinize the social and economic consequences of changes in the purchasing power of money under the following three assumptions: first, that the money in question can only be used as money--i.e., as a medium of exchange--and can serve no other purpose; second, that there is only exchange of present goods against future goods; third, that we disregard the effects of changes in purchasing power on monetary calculation.

現在讓我在下列三個假設下仔細檢討貨幣購買力變動所造成的社會的和經濟的一些後果。三個假設是：第一，貨幣只能作爲貨幣用，也即只能作交換媒介，不能有別的用途；第二，只有現貨交易，沒有現貨對期貨的交易；第三，我們不管購買力變動對於貨幣流通額的一些影響。

Under these assumptions all that cash-induced changes in purchasing power bring about are shifts in the disposition of wealth among different individuals. Some get richer, others poorer; some are better supplied, others less; what some people gain is paid for by the loss of others. It would, however, be impermissible to interpret this fact by saying that total satisfaction remained unchanged or that, while no changes have occurred in total supply, the state of total satisfaction or of the sum of happiness has been increased or decreased by changes in the distribution of wealth. The notions of total satisfaction or total happiness are empty. It is impossible to discover a standard for comparing the different degrees of satisfaction or happiness attained by various individuals.

在這些假設下，現金引起的購買力變動所造成的一切後果，就是財富在一些個人之間發生轉移。有些人更富有，有些人更貧窮：有些人得到較好的供應，有的人相反；某些人所得到的，就是另些人所失掉的。但是，我們不可以把這個事實解釋爲總滿足仍然不變，也不可以解釋爲，總供給固然沒有變動，但總滿足或幸福總額則因財富分配之變動而增加或減少。總滿足或總幸福這些觀念是空洞的。我們不可能發現一個標準用以比較各個人獲得的滿足或幸福的不同的程度。

Cash-induced changes in purchasing power indirectly generate further changes by favoring either the accumulation of additional capital or the consumption of capital available. Whether and in what direction such secondary effects are brought about depends on the specific data of each case. We shall deal with these important problems at a later point.[11]

現金引起的購買力變動，會有利於累積更多的資本，或有利於消費現有的資本，經由這種影響又會間接引起一些變動。至於這些第二層次的變動是不是眞會引起，以及變動的方向怎樣，那就要隨個別的情況來決定。關於這些重要問題，我們將在後面討論。[11]

Goods-induced changes in purchasing power are sometimes nothing else but consequences of a shift of demand from some goods to others. If they are brought about by an increase or a decrease in the supply of goods they are not merely transfers from some people to other people. They do not mean that Peter gains what Paul has lost. Some people may become richer although nobody is impoverished, and vice versa.

貨物引起的購買力變動，有時不是別的，只是對某些貨物的需求轉變成對另些貨物的需求的一些結果。如果這些變動是由貨物供給的增加或減少而引起的，那就不僅是從某些人到另一些人的財富移轉。這並不意味張三得到李四所失的。有些人會變得更富有，但沒有別人受到損害，或者有些人會變得更窮，但沒有別人更富有。

We may describe this fact in the following way: Let A and B be two independent systems which are in no way connected with each other. In both systems the same kind of money is used, a money which cannot be used for any nonmonetary purpose. Now we assume, as case 1, that A and B differ from each other only in so far as in B the

我們可把這個事實描述如下：假定A和B是兩個彼此沒有關係的獨立的制度。在這兩個制度裡面，使用相同的貨幣，這種貨幣不能用在貨幣以外的任何用途上。現在我們假定第一個事例：A和B彼此間只有一點不同，即B的貨幣供給總額是nm，A的貨幣供給總額是m，同時相對於A的每一現金握存c，B就有一筆現金握存nc，相對於A的每一個貨幣要求權d，B就有一個貨幣要求權nd。在其他各方面，A和B都是一樣。我們再假定第二個事例：A與B的不同只是B的某一貨物r的供給總額是np，A的這種貨物的供給總額是p，同時，相對於A的這種貨物r的每一存量v，B就有一個存量nv。在這個兩個事例中，n都大於1。如果我們問A的每一個人是否願意以最小的犧牲而把他的地位交換B的相對地位，其答覆在第一個事例中一定是一致地否定。但在第二事例中，r的全部所有者和那些沒有任何r而想得到一點它的那些人，將會肯定答覆。

The services money renders are conditioned by the height of its purchasing power. Nobody wants to have in his cash holding a definite number of pieces of money or a definite weight of money; he wants to keep a cash holding of a definite amount of purchasing power. As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money's purchasing power at a height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or a deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great or small. changes in money's purchasing power generate changes in the disposition of wealth among the various members of society. From the point of view of people eager to be enriched by such changes, the supply of money may be called insufficient or excessive, and the appetite for such gains may result in policies designed to bring about cash-induced alterations in purchasing power. However, the services which money renders can be neither improved nor repaired by changing the supply of money. There may appear an excess or a deficiency of money in an individual's cash holding. But such a condition can be remedied by increasing or decreasing consumption or investment. (Of course, one must not fall prey to the popular confusion between the demand for money for cash holding and the appetite for more wealth.) The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do.

貨幣的功用受限於它的購買力。誰也不想在他的握存中保有一定數目或一定重量的貨幣；他想保有的是，具有一定量購買力的現金握存。由於市場運作趨向於把貨幣購買力的最後情況決定在貨幣供需達到一致時的髙度，所以貨幣決不會過多或不夠，每個人和所有的人都充份享受從間接交換和使用貨幣的利益，至於貨幣總量的或大或小，都沒有關係。貨幣購買力的變動引起社會各份子間財富分配的變動。從那些想靠這樣的變動而變得更富的人們的觀點來看，貨幣的供給可以說是不夠或過多，而這種貪得之心可能導致一些爲實現現金引起的購買力變動而設計的政策。但是，貨幣的功用旣不會因貨幣供給的變動而改良，也不會因之而受損。在二個人的現金握存中，倒會顯出貨幣過多或不夠的現象。但是，這樣的情形可以靠增減消費或投資來補救。（「爲現金握存而引起的貨幣需求」與「爲更多的財富而貪得無饜」，這兩者間是有區別的，我們決不可陷於這個常見的混淆。）在整個經濟裡面，可利用的貨幣量總是足夠使每個人取得貨幣所得和所可取得的一切一切。

From the point of view of this insight one may call wasteful all expenditures incurred for increasing the quantity of money. The fact that things which could render some other useful services are

從這個透徹的觀點來看，我們可以把那些爲增加貨幣量而發生的一切支出都叫做浪費。把一些別有用途的東西拿來當作貨幣，因而把它們從別的用途拉過來，這個事實，看起來好像是不必要地使滿足慾望的有限機會又爲之減少。正是這個念頭，使亞當斯密和李嘉圖想到印刷紙幣有減低成本的利益。但是，從貨幣史上來看，事情還有另一面。如果你注意到紙幣膨脹的結果爲害之大，你就一定會承認，黃金生產費的昂貴是件小事。至於說通貨膨脹之爲害，是由於握有紙幣發行權的政府誤用這個權力，較爲明智的政府會採行較健全的政策，這種說法毫無實際意義。因爲貨幣決不會是中立的，而它的購買力也決不會是安定的，一個政府關於決定貨幣量的那些計畫，決不會對社會的所有份子都是公平的。政府爲影響貨幣購買力而作的事情，不管是什麼，必然是靠的統治者個人的價値判斷。那總是增進某些人羣利益，而使另一些人羣受損。決不會有所謂大衆的福利。在貨幣政策方面也沒有一個科學的「應該」這種情事。

The choice of the good to be employed as a medium of exchange and as money is never indifferent. It determines the course of the cash-induced changes in purchasing power. The question is only who should make the choice: the people buying and selling on the market, or the government? It was the market which in a selective process, going on for ages, finally assigned to the precious metals gold and silver the character of money. For two hundred years the governments have interfered with the market's choice of the money medium. Even the most bigoted etatists do not venture to assert that this interference has proved beneficial.

選擇什麼東西作爲交換媒介、作爲貨幣，這個選擇不是不關重要的。它決定著現金引起的購買力變動的過程。問題只是，誰應作這個選擇：市場上從事買賣的人們呢？還是政府？在長久以來的一個選擇過程中，最後選定了貴金屬、黃金、白銀作爲貨幣的，是市場。兩百多年來，政府干涉市場的貨幣選擇，屢見不鮮。但是，即令是最頑固的國家主義者，也不敢斷言這種干涉被證明是有利的。

Inflation and Deflation; Inflationism and Deflationism

通貨膨脹與通貨緊縮：通貨膨脹主義與通貨緊縮主義

The notions of inflation and deflation are not praxeological concepts. They were not created by economists, but by the mundane speech of the public and of politicians. They implied the popular fallacy that there is such a thing as neutral money or money of stable purchasing power and that sound money should be neutral and stable in purchasing power. From this point of view the term inflation was applied to signify cash-induced changes resulting in a drop in purchasing power, and the term deflation to signify cash-induced changes resulting in a rise in purchasing power.

通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮這兩個觀念不是行爲學的概念，它們不是經濟學家創造的，而是出自一般人和政客們通俗的語言。這兩個名詞隱含著一個通常的謬見：以爲有一中立的貨幣或購買力穩定的貨幣這樣的東西，而且以爲健全的貨幣必須是中立的，其購買力必須是穩定的。從這樣的觀點來看，通貨膨脹這個名詞是用來指稱，那些歸結於購買力下降的現金引起的變動，通貨緊縮這個名詞是用來指稱，那些歸結於購買力上昇的現金引起的變動。

However, those applying these terms are not aware of the fact that purchasing power never remains unchanged and that consequently there is always either inflation or deflation. They ignore these necessarily perpetual fluctuations as far as they are only small and inconspicuous, and reserve the use of the terms to big changes in purchasing power. Since the question at what point a change in purchasing power begins to deserve being called big depends on personal relevance judgments, it becomes manifest that inflation and deflation are terms lacking the categorial precision required for praxeological, economic, and catallactic concepts. Their application is appropriate for history and politics. Catallactics is free to resort to them only when applying its theorems to the interpretation of events of economic history and of political programs. Moreover, it is very expedient even in rigid catallactic disquisitions to make use of these two terms whenever no misinterpretation can possibly result and pedantic heaviness of expression can be avoided. But it is necessary never to forget that all that catallactics says with regard to inflation and deflation--i.e., big cash-induced changes in purchasing power--is valid also with regard to small changes, although, of course, the consequences of smaller changes are less conspicuous than those of big changes.

但是，這樣使用這兩個名詞的人們，卻不知道購買力決不會保持不變，因而總是或通貨膨脹或通貨緊縮。他們在這些永恆的變動輕微而不顯著的時候，不注意到它們，而把這兩個名詞留到購買力發生大變動的時候來使用。由於購買力的變動到了什麼程度才可叫做大的變動這個問題，是憑個人的判斷，所以，通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮這兩個名詞就缺乏行爲學的、經濟學的、和交換科學的概念所應具備的精密性。在歷史和政治學方面，這兩個名詞是可以適用的。交換科學只有在用它的一般命題來解釋經濟史和政治綱領的時候，才可藉助它們。此外，在不致引起誤解，而又不必那麼學究氣的時候，即在嚴肅的交換科學的論文中使用這兩個名詞，倒是非常方便的。但不要忘記：交換科學關於通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮（也即現金引起的購買力的大變動）所講的一切一切，也適用於購買力輕微的變動，儘管小變動的後果比大變動的較不顯著。

The terms inflationism and deflationism, inflationist and deflationist, signify the political programs aiming at inflation and deflation in the sense of big cash-induced changes in purchasing power.

通貨膨脹主義和通貨緊縮主義、通貨膨脹主義者和通貨緊縮主義者這些名詞的意思，涉及那些以通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮（現金引起的購買力大變動）爲目的的政治綱領。

The semantic revolution which is one of the characteristic features of our day has also changed the traditional connotation of the terms inflation and deflation. What many people today call inflation or deflation is no longer the great increase or decrease in the supply of money, but its inexorable consequences, the general tendency toward a rise or a fall in commodity prices and wage rates. This innovation is by no means harmless. It plays an important role in fomenting the popular tendencies toward inflationism.

成爲我們這個時代特徵之一的語意的革命（the semantic revolution），也把通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮這兩個名詞的傳統涵義改變了。今天，許多人所說的通貨膨脹或通貨緊縮，再也不是指貨幣供給量的大增或大減，而是指其必然的後果——物價和工資率一般地趨向於上昇或下降。這個涵義決不是無害的。通貨膨脹主義這一趨勢的形成，發生了重要的作用。

First of all there is no longer any term available to signify what inflation used to signify. It is impossible to fight a policy which you cannot name. Statesmen and writers no longer have the opportunity of resorting to a terminology accepted and understood by the public when they want to question the expediency of issuing huge amounts of additional money. They must enter into a detailed analysis and description of this policy with full particulars and minute accounts whenever they want to refer to it, and they must repeat this bothersome procedure in every sentence in which they deal with the subject. As this policy has no name, it becomes self-understood and a matter of fact. It goes on luxuriantly.

第一、現在再也沒有一個名詞可用來指稱通貨膨脹所慣於指稱的事情。你無以名之的政策，你就不可能攻擊它。政治家和著作家在想追問，大量增加貨幣發行是否便利的時候，他們再也沒有機會藉助於大家所接受的、所了解的名詞了。當他們想談這個政策的時候，他們必須瑣瑣細細分析它、描述它，而在討論這個主題的每一句話裡面，他們都要重複這個累贅的作法。因爲這個政策沒有名稱，它就變成自我了解的，變成一個事實。於是它就大行其道。

The second mischief is that those engaged in futile and hopeless attempts to fight the inevitable consequences of inflation--the rise in prices--are disguising their endeavors as a fight against inflation.

第二個害處，是攻擊通貨膨脹的後果——物價的上漲——而徒勞無功的那些人們，把他們的努力說成對通貨膨脹的攻擊。他們所攻擊的只是表象，而他們卻以爲是攻擊禍根。因爲他們不懂得貨幣量增加與物價上漲之間的因果關係，他們實際上把事情弄得更糟。最好的例子就是美國、加拿大、英國的政府對農民們所發的補助金。限價政策使該貨物的供給減少，因爲生產該貨物的邊際生產者將受虧損。爲防止這種結果，政府給那些在最高成本下生產的農民以補助金。這些補助金是來自貨幣量的增加。假若消費者們不得不支付較高的價格來買該產品（意指假若不限價——譯者附註），則進一步的通貨膨脹的後果不至於發生。所以通貨膨脹與其後果的相混淆，事實上會直接引起更大的通貨膨脹。

It is obvious that this new-fangled connotation of the terms inflation and deflation is utterly confusing and misleading and must be unconditionally rejected.

這兩個名詞（通貨膨脹與通貨緊縮）的這種新奇的涵義，顯然是混亂的、誤導的，我們必須不留餘地地摒棄它。

---------------------

[11] Cf. below, Chapter XX.

[11] 見後面第二十章。

7. Monetary Calculation and Changes in Purchasing Power

七、貨幣的計算與購買力的變動

Monetary calculation reckons with the prices of commodities and services as they were determined or would have been determined or presumably will be determined on the market. It is eager to detect price discrepancies and to draw conclusions from such a detection.

貨幣的計算是考慮那些在市場上已被決定的，或會被決定的，或將被決定的貨物和勞務的價格。它是要發現價格的一些差異，再從這個發現來做結論。

Cash-induced changes in purchasing power cannot be taken into account in such calculations. It is possible to put in the place of calculation based on a definite kind of money a mode of calculation based on another kind of money b. Then the result of the calculation is made safe against adulteration on the part of changes effected in the purchasing power of a; but it can still be adulterated by changes effected in the purchasing power of b. There is no means of freeing any mode of economic calculation from the influence of changes in the purchasing power of the definite kind of money on which it is based.

現金引起的購買力變動，不能在這樣的計算中考慮。用一個基於另一種貨幣B的計算方式來代替基於貨幣A的計算，這是可能的。這樣，計算的結果可以不因A的購買力發生變動而受影響；但是，仍要受到B的購買力變動之影響。我們無法使任何方式的經濟計算免於所據以計算的那種貨幣的購買力之變動的影響。

All results of economic calculation and all conclusions derived from them are conditioned by the vicissitudes of cash-induced changed in purchasing power. In accordance with the rise of fall in purchasing power there emerge between items reflecting earlier prices and those reflecting later prices specific differences; the calculation shows profits or losses which are merely produced by cash-induced changes effected in the purchasing power of money. If we compare such profits or

一切經濟計算的結果以及從經濟計算推出的一切結論，都決定於現金引起的購買力變動。按照購買力的上昇或下降，在那些反映早期物價的項目，與反映以後物價的項目之間就有差額發生；這些計算所表現的利潤或虧損，只是現金引起的貨幣購買力變動所惹出的。如果我們把這樣的利潤或虧損，與那用一種購買力變動較小的貨幣而作的計算結果相比較，我們就可把這樣的盈虧叫做假想的或表面的而已。但是，我們決不可忘記，這些說法只可視爲，以不同的貨幣所作的計算之比較結果。由於沒有一種貨幣是購買力穩定的，所以，一切的方式的經濟計算都會出現這種表面的盈虧，不管它所據以計算的是那種貨幣。要精密地區別眞正的盈虧與表面的盈虧，這是不可能的。

It is therefore possible to maintain that economic calculation is not perfect. However, nobody can suggest a method which could free economic calculation from these defects or design a monetary system which could remove this source of error entirely.

所以，我們可以說，經濟計算不是分毫不差的。但是，誰也不能提出一個使經濟計算免於這些缺陷的方法，誰也不能設計一種完全消除這種誤差之根源的貨幣制度。

It is an undeniable fact that the free market has succeeded in developing a currency system which serves all the requirements both of indirect exchange and of economic calculation. The aims of monetary calculation are such that they cannot be frustrated by the inaccuracies which stem from slow and comparatively slight movements in purchasing power. Cash-induced changes in purchasing power of the extent to which they occurred in the last two centuries with metallic money, especially with gold money, cannot influence the result of the businessmen's economic calculations so considerably as to render such calculations useless. Historical experience shows that one could, for all practical purposes of the conduct of business, manage very well with these methods of calculation. Theoretical consideration shows that it is impossible to design, still less to realize, a better method. In view of these facts it is vain to call monetary calculation imperfect. Man has not the power to change the categories of human action. He must adjust his conduct to them.

自由市場已經成功地發展出一種可以滿足間接交換和經濟計算的一切要求的通貨制度，這是一個不可否認的事實。貨幣計算的目的，是要使它們不因來自購買力輕微變動的不精確而被破壞。過去兩個世紀當中，現金引起的金屬貨幣、尤其是金幣的購買力變動的那種程度，不會大大地影響到商人們的經濟計算而使其無用。歷史的經驗顯示出：爲著營業的一切實際目的，誰都會好好運用這些計算方法。理論的考慮顯示出：要想設計一個更好的方法，那是不可能的；要想實現一個更好的方法，更是不可能。因此，我們大可不必說貨幣計算是不圓滿的。人，沒有能力把人的行爲的一些範疇予以改變。他必須依照這些範疇來調整自己的行爲。

Businessmen never deemed it necessary to free economic calculation in terms of gold from its dependence on the fluctuations in purchasing power. The proposals to improve the currency system by adopting a tabular standard based on index numbers or by adopting various methods of commodity standards were not advanced with regard to business transactions and to monetary calculation. Their aim was to provide a less fluctuating standard for long-run loan contracts. Businessmen did not even consider it expedient to modify their accounting methods in those regards in which it would have been easy to narrow down certain errors induced by fluctuations in purchasing power. It would, for instance, have been possible to discard the practice of writing off durable equipment by means of yearly

商人們決不認爲，使金本位的經濟計算免於受到購買力波動的影響是必要的。就交易和經濟計算來講，用物價指數表作本位或其他方法的貨物本位，以改良通貨制度的建議，沒有任何益處。這些建議的目的，是想爲長期的借貸契約提供一個較少波動的標準。商人們甚至不認爲，修改他們的計算方法使其減縮因購買力波動而引起的錯誤是有利的。例如，耐久的生產設備，按照它的購置成本每年折舊一個固定的百分數，漸漸地勾銷它，這是通常採用的方法；放棄這個方法不用，應該是可能的。爲替代這個方法，你可以在需要換置這項設備的時候，再撥出一筆足夠的資金來購置。但是，工商業者並不想用這種方法。

All this is valid only with regard to money which is not subject to rapid, big cash-induced changes in purchasing power. But money with which such rapid and big changes occur loses its suitability to serve as a medium of exchange altogether.

這一切一切只就那購買力不因現金方面的變動而引起激烈的巨幅變動的貨幣而言，是有效的。至於購買力發生這種激烈的巨幅變動的貨幣，那就完全喪失了作爲交換媒介的性能。

8. The Anticipation of Expected Changes in Purchasing Power

八、購買力變動的預期

The deliberations of the individuals which determine their conduct with regard to money are based on their knowledge concerning the prices of the immediate past. If they lacked this knowledge, they would not be in a position to decide what the appropriate height of their cash holdings should be and how much they should spend for the acquisition of various goods. a medium of exchange without a past is unthinkable. Nothing can enter into the function of a medium of exchange which was not already previously an economic good and to which people assigned exchange value already before it was demanded as such a medium.

個人們當其決定與貨幣有關的行爲時，他們的考慮是根據他們關於剛剛過去的一些物價的知識。如果他們缺乏這些知識，他們就不能決定應當握存多少現金才適當，也不能決定應當花多少錢來買各種財貨。沒有過去經歷的交換媒介，是不可想像的。凡原先不是經濟財的東西不會具有交換媒介的功能，在它作爲交換媒介而被需求以前，人們已經對它賦與交換價值。

But the purchasing power handed down from the immediate past is modified by today's demand for and supply of money. Human action is always providing for the future, be it sometimes only the future of the impending hour. He who buys, buys for future consumption and production. As far as he believes that the future will differ from the present and the past, he modifies his valuation and appraisement. This is no less true with regard to money than it is with regard to all vendible goods. In this sense we may say that today's exchange value of money is an anticipation of tomorrow's exchange value. The basis of all judgments concerning money is its purchasing power as it was in the immediate past. But as far as cash-induced changes in purchasing power are expected, a second factor enters the scene, the anticipation of these changes.

但是，從剛剛過去傳下來的購買力，受今日貨幣供需的影響而改變。人的行爲總是爲將來作準備的，即令有時只是即刻的將來。購買的人是爲將來的消費和生產而購買。就他認爲將來會不同於現在和過去，他改正他的評値和估價。就一切可買賣的財貨講是如此，就貨幣講也是如此。在這個意義下，我們可以說：今天貨幣的交換價値是明天的交換價値的預期。關於貨幣的一切判斷，是以它的剛剛過去的購買力作基礎。但就現金引起的購買力變動來講，第二個因素就出現了，這就是對這些變動的預測。

He who believes that the prices of the goods in which he takes an interest will rise, buys more of them than he would have bought in the absence of this belief: accordingly he restricts his cash holding. He who believes that prices will drop, restricts his purchases and thus enlarges his cash holding. As long as such speculative anticipations are limited to some commodities, they do not bring about a general tendency toward changes in cash holding. But it is different if people

凡是認爲他有興趣的貨物將要漲價的人，他將對這種貨物買得更多：因此他就減少了他的現金握存。凡是認爲物價將跌的人，他將減少購買，因而增加他的現金握存，只要這些預測是限之於某幾種貨物，那就不會引起現金握存一般的變動趨勢。但是，如果人們相信現金引起的購買力大幅變動將要到來，事情就不同了。當他們認爲一切貨物的貨幣價格將要上漲或下跌的時候，他們就擴大或縮減他們的購買。這種態度更大大地加強和加速這個預期的趨勢。這種情形一直繼續到大家認爲貨幣購買力不會再有變動的時候爲止。只有到這個時候，賣出或買進的傾向才停止，人們才再開始增加或縮減他們的現金握存。

But if once public opinion is convinced that the increase in the quantity of money will continue and never come to an end, and that consequently the prices of all commodities and services will not cease to rise, everybody becomes eager to buy as much as possible and to restrict his cash holding to a minimum size. For under these circumstances the regular costs incurred by holding cash are increased by the losses caused by the progressive fall in purchasing power. The advantages of holding cash must be paid for by sacrifices which are deemed unreasonably burdensome. This phenomenon was, in the great European inflations of the 'twenties, called flight into real goods (Flucht in die Sachwerte) or crack-up boom (Katastrophenhausse). The mathematical economists are at a loss to comprehend the causal relation between the increase in the quantity of money and what they call "velocity of circulation."

但是，如果一旦大家相信貨幣量的增加將會繼續下去而不致終止，因而一切貨物和勞務的價格將不停止上漲，那麼，每個人就盡可能地多購買，而把他的現金握存減縮到最少的數量，因爲在這種情況下，握存現金所蒙受的損失，是隨貨幣購買力的加速下降而增加的。握存現金的利益所必須支付的代價，是大家所認爲不合理的犧牲。這種現象，在二十年代歐洲通貨大膨脹時期，叫做「逃到實質財貨」（Flucht in die Sachwerte）或脹破了的繁榮（Katastrophenhausse）。數理經濟學家們不了解貨幣量增加與他們所說的「流通速度」之間的因果關係。

The characteristic mark of this phenomenon is that the increase in the quantity of money causes a fall in the demand for money. The tendency toward a fall in purchasing power as generated by the increased supply of money is intensified by the general propensity to restrict cash holdings which it brings about. Eventually a point is reached where the prices at which people would be prepared to part with "real" goods discount to such an extent the expected progress in the fall of purchasing power that nobody has a sufficient amount of cash at hand to pay them. The monetary system breaks down; all transactions in the money concerned cease; a panic makes its purchasing power vanish altogether. People return either to barter or to the use of another kind of money.

這個現象的特徵是：貨幣量增加引起貨幣需求的減少。由於貨幣量增加而引起的購買力跌落這個趨勢，又因購買力跌落所引起的現金握存一般地趨向於減少而更加強。最後凡是想出賣實物的人們不得不考慮到貨幣購買力的不斷跌落，因而他們所要的代價，可以高到誰也沒有足夠買得起的現金。於是貨幣制度崩潰：凡是用貨幣計算的交易都停止；這種經濟恐慌使貨幣購買力完全消失。人們或者回復到物物交換，或者使用另一種貨幣。

The course of a progressing inflation is this: At the beginning the inflow of additional money makes the prices of some commodities and services rise; other prices rise later. The price rise affects the various commodities and services, as has been shown, at different dates and to a different extent.

遞增的通貨膨脹，其過程是這樣的：開始的時候，貨幣增加額的流入，使某些貨物和勞務的價格上漲；其他的價格稍後上漲。各種貨物和勞務的價格上漲，時間旣不一致，程度也不一樣。

This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the

通貨膨脹的這個第一階段，可能持續好幾年。在這個階段當中，有許多貨物和勞務的價格還沒有和已經改變了的貨幣關係相適應。這時還有些人們沒有察覺到他們所遭遇的一個物價革命，這個革命最後是要引起一切物價都大大上漲的，儘管上漲的程度不會一致。這些人們還以爲，物價總有一天會下跌。爲著等待這一天，他們減少購買，增加現金握存。只要大家還有這種想法，政府放棄它的膨脹政策，還不算太遲。

But then finally the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against "real" goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.

但是到了最後，大家都覺悟了。他們霍然知道了通貨膨脹是一個故意的政策，而且將會無止境地繼續下去。崩潰的危機到來了，病態的繁榮出現了。每個人都急於把他的貨幣換成實物，不管這實物是不是自己需要的，也不管要付多少錢。在一個很短的時期以內，在一兩個星期，甚至一兩天以內，原來當作貨幣使用的東西再也不作爲交換媒介使用了。它們變成了廢紙。誰也不願把任何東西換來這些廢紙。

It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German Mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.

這種情形曾經發生於一七八一年美國的大陸通貨（the Continental currency），一七九六年法國革命政府所發行的紙幣（mandats territoriaux），一九二三年德國的馬克（Mark）。只要有同樣的環境，這種情形將會再發生。如果一種東西要用作交換媒介，一般輿論必須相信這種東西的數量不會無限制地增加。通貨膨脹是一個不能永久持續下去的政策。

9. The Specific Value of Money

九、貨幣的特殊價値

As far as a good used as money is valued and appraised on account of the services it renders for nonmonetary purposes, no problems are raised which would require special treatment. The task of the theory of money consists merely in dealing with that component in the valuation of money which is conditioned by its function as a medium of exchange.

作爲貨幣用的一種財貨，就其在非貨幣方面所提供的功用，而被評値和估價而言，沒有什麼必須特別處理的問題發生。貨幣理論的任務，只在於討論作爲交換媒介這一功用所決定的貨幣價値中的那個構成份。

In the course of history various commodities have been employed as media of exchange. A long evolution eliminated the greater part of these commodities from the monetary function. Only two, the precious metals gold and silver, remained. In the second part of the nineteenth century more and more governments deliberately turned toward the demonetization of silver.

在歷史過程中，有多種貨物曾經當作交換媒介使用。這些貨物的大部份，經由長期的演進已失掉了貨幣的功能。其中只有兩種，金和銀，仍作貨幣用。到了十九世紀後期，有意放棄白銀作幣材的政府愈來愈多。

In all these cases what is employed as money is a commodity which is used also for nonmonetary purposes. Under the gold standard gold is money and money is gold. It is immaterial whether or not the laws assign legal tender quality only to gold coins minted by the government. What counts is that these coins really contain a fixed weight

在這所有的史實中，凡是當作貨幣用的東西，也有貨幣以外的用途。在金本位制下，黃金就是貨幣，貨幣就是黃金。至於法律是否只許政府所鑄的金幣有法償資格，那是不關重要的問題。値得計較的是，這些鑄幣實際上含有定量的黃金，而且，任何數量的金塊也可以自由改鑄成金幣。在金本位制下，美元和英鎊只是定量黃金的兩個名稱，法律只規定一點點差額而已。我們可以把這一類的貨幣叫做「商品貨幣」（commodity money）。

A second sort of money is credit money. Credit money evolved out of the use of money-substitutes. It was customary to use claims, payable on demand and absolutely secure, as substitutes for the sum of money to which they gave a claim. (We shall deal with the features and problems of money-substitutes in the next sections.) The market did not stop using such claims when one day their prompt redemption was suspended and thereby doubts about their safety and the solvency of the obligee were raised. As long as these claims had been daily maturing claims against a debtor of undisputed solvency and could be collected without notice and free of expense, their exchange value was equal to their face value; it was this perfect equivalence which assigned to them the character of money-substitutes. Now, as redemption was suspended, the maturity date postponed to an undetermined day, and consequently doubts about the solvency of the debtor or at least about his willingness to pay emerged, they lost a part of the value previously ascribed to them. They were now merely claims, which did not bear interest, against a questionable debtor and falling due on an undefined day. But as they were used as media of exchange, their exchange value did not drop to the level to which it would have dropped if they were merely claims.

第二種貨幣是「信用貨幣」（credit money）。信用貨幣是從貨幣替代品（money-substitutes）的使用而演化出來的。不是使用貨幣的本身而是使用其要求權——代表要求權的東西，一經提出，立即兌現，而且安全可靠——是原有的習慣。（我們將在下節討論貨幣替代品的一些性質和問題）當某一天，這種要求權的立即償付被停止了，因而它們的安全和債務人的償付能力發生問題了，市場並不停止使用這種要求權。只要這種要求權天天都可向一個償付能力沒有問題的債務人提出，用不著事前通知，也不花任何費用就可立即兌現，則這種要求權的交換價値就和它們的票面價値相等：正由於這完全的等値,它們就具有了「貨幣替代品」的性質。現在，因爲停止了立即償付，而償付期無定期地展延了，於是，關於債務人的償付能力，至少關於他償付的意願，發生了疑問，這些要求權就失掉了原先的價値之一部份。現在，它們只是一些對一個有問題的債務人，而償付期又是不定的要求權（且不生息的）。但是，由於它們被當作交換媒介使用，它們的交換價値並未跌落到假使它們只是要求權的時候所應跌落的程度。

One can fairly assume that such credit money could remain in use as a medium of exchange even if it were to lose its character as a claim against a band or a treasury, and thus would become fiat money. Fiat money is a money consisting of mere tokens which can neither be employed for any industrial purposes nor convey a claim against anybody.

你也可以這樣說：這樣的信用貨幣仍然可當作交換媒介使用，即令它失去了作爲對一個銀行或一個國庫的要求權的資格，因而成爲「法令貨幣」（fiat money）。法令貨幣是一種僅由一些標誌構成的貨幣，旣不能用之於任何工業的用途，也不是對任何人的一個要求權。

It is not a task of catallactics but of economic history to investigate whether there appeared in the past specimens of fiat money or whether all the sorts of money which were not commodity money were credit money. The only thing that catallactics has to establish is that the possibility of the existence of fiat money must be admitted.

過去是否有過「法令貨幣」的實例，或者凡不是商品貨幣的各種貨幣是否都是信用貨幣，對於這類問題的硏究，不是交換科學的任務，而是經濟史的任務。交換科學所要確定的唯一的事情是：法令貨幣存在的可能性必須被承認。

The important thing to be remembered is that with every sort of money, demonetization--i.e., the abandonment of its use as a medium of exchange--must result in a serious fall of its exchange value. What this practically means has become manifest when in the last ninety years the use of silver as commodity money has been progressively restricted.

我們必須記住的一個重要事實是：無論那種貨幣，當它不再當作貨幣用的時候，它的交換價値一定是大大跌落。過去八十年當中，把白銀當作商品貨幣使用的愈來愈少，已表明這個事實。

There are specimens of credit money and fiat money which are embodied in metallic coins. Such money is printed, as it were, on silver, nickel, or copper. If such a piece of fiat money is demonetized, it still retains exchange value as a piece of metal. But this is only a very small indemnification of the owner. It has no practical importance.

用金屬鑄成的信用貨幣和法令貨幣，這樣的實例是有的。這樣的貨幣是用銀、鎳、或銅鑄成的。假若這樣的一枚法令貨幣不再當作貨幣使用了，它仍然保有作爲一塊金屬的交換價値。但是，這對於所有人只是一點很小的補償。沒有實際的重要性。

The keeping of cash holding requires sacrifices. To the extent that a man keeps money in his pockets or in his balance with a bank, he forsakes the instantaneous acquisition of goods he could consume or employ for production. In the market economy these sacrifices can be precisely determined by calculation. They are equal to the amount of originary interest he would have earned by investing the sum. The fact that a man takes this falling off into account is proof that he prefers the advantages of cash holding to the loss in interest yield.

現金握存是必須有所犧牲的。握存現金的人，視其口袋裡保有的貨幣額或銀行裡存款餘額的多少，而放棄了他所可消費或用以生產的現在財貨之取得。在市場經濟裡面，這些犧牲可以精密地計算出來。它們等於把這筆錢用之於投資所可賺得的利息額。這個人考慮到這筆損失，這就證明他重視現金握存的利益，輕視利息的損失。

It is possible to specify the advantages which people expect from keeping a definite amount of cash. But it is a delusion to assume that an analysis of these motives could provide us with a theory of the determination of purchasing power which could do without the notions of cash holding and demand for and supply of money.[12] The advantages and disadvantages derived from cash holding are not objective factors which could directly influence the size of cash holdings. They are put on the scales by each individual and weighed against one another. The result is a subjective judgment of value, colored by the individual's personality. Different people and the same people at different times value the same objective facts in a different way. Just as knowledge of a man's wealth and his physical condition does not tell us how much he would be prepared to spend for food of a certain nutritive power, so knowledge about data concerning a man's material situation does not enable us to make definite assertions with regard to the size of his cash holding.

把握存定額現金所可得到的一些利益一一列舉出來，這是可能的。但是，如果認爲對這些動機加以分析就可給我提供一個購買力決定的理論而無須再用現金握存和貨幣供需等概念，這是個妄想[12]。從現金握存得到的利益和損失，都不是可以直接影響現金握存額的客觀因素，而是基於每個人內心的衡量。其結果是個主觀的價値判斷，富有個人的色彩。不同的人，和不同時間的同一個人，對於同一客觀事實有不同的價値判斷。知道了某一個人的財富和他的體格，我們並不因此就可知道他將會在富有某種營養的食物上花多少錢，同樣地，知道了某一個人的經濟情況，我們並不因此就可確定他的現金握存額。

-------------------------

[12] Such an attempt was made by Greidanus, The Value of Money (London, 1932), pp. 197 ff.

[12] Greidanus, 在他的The Value of Money (London, 1932), pp. 197 ff.這樣做過。

10. The Import of the Money Relation

十、貨幣關係的意義

The money relation, i.e., the relation between demand for and supply of money, uniquely determines the price structure as far as the reciprocal exchange ratio between money and the vendible commodities and services is involved.

貨幣關係，也即貨幣的供需。凡涉及貨幣與貨物、勞務之間的相互交換率，這種關係就決定了價格結構。

If the money relation remains unchanged, neither an inflationary (expansionist) nor a deflationary (contractionist) pressure on trade, business, production, consumption, and employment can emerge. The assertions to the contrary reflect the grievances of people reluctant to

如果貨幣關係維持不變，則膨脹的（擴張狀態的）壓力，或緊縮的（收縮狀態的）壓力，都不會在貿易、生產、消費和就業方面出現。相反的說法，則是反映那些不願意調整自己的行爲以適應大衆表現於市場上的需求的人們的牢騒。但是，「農產品價格過低，低到不足以使邊際以下的農民得到他們所想賺得的收入」這種說法，不是所謂貨幣稀少的理由。這些農民們貧困的原因是其他的農民在較低的成本下生產。英國製造業的毛病不是價格「水準」太低，而是他們沒有做到把投下的資本和僱用的工人的生產力提昇到足以供給英國人所想消費的全部財貨的高度。

An increase in the quantity of goods produced, other things being unchanged, must bring about an improvement in people's conditions. Its consequence is a fall in the money prices of the goods the production of which has been increased. But such a fall in money prices does not in the least impair the benefits derived from the additional wealth produced. One may consider as unfair the increase in the share of the additional wealth which goes to the creditors, although such criticisms are questionable as far as the rise in purchasing power has been correctly anticipated and adequately taken into account by a negative price premium.[13] But one must not say that a fall in prices caused by an increase in the production of the goods concerned is the proof of some disequilibrium which cannot be eliminated otherwise than by increasing the quantity of money. Of course, as a rule every increase in production of some or of all commodities requires a new allocation of factors of production to the various branches of business. If the quantity of money remains unchanged, the necessity of such a reallocation becomes visible in the price structure. Some lines of production become more profitable, while in others profits drop or losses appear. Thus the operation of the market tends to eliminate these much discussed disequilibria. It is possible by means of an increase in the quantity of money to delay or to interrupt this process of adjustment. It is impossible either to make it superfluous or less painful for those concerned.

產品的數量一有增加，如果其他事物仍舊的話，必然會使人們的生活情況有所改善。其結果是，這些產量增加了的財貨的價格下跌。但是，這樣的價格下跌一點也不損傷那些來自財富增產的利益。你可以認爲，這額外財富的增加全歸債權人所有是不公平的，儘管這樣的非難，就「購買力的上昇已經被正確地預料到，而且已經用減價的方式照顧到」而言，是有問題的。[13]但是，你決不可說：由於產量增加而引起的價格下跌是某種不均衡的證明，而這種不均衡，只有靠增加貨幣量才能消除。當然，某些貨物或所有貨物的每次增產，照例是要使生產要素重新配置於各部門。如果貨幣量不變，則這樣一次重配置的必要性就會顯現在價格結構中。有些生產行業賺得更多的利潤，而另些行業的利潤減少或虧損。於是，市場運作傾向於消除這些常被討論的不均衡。靠增加貨幣量來延遲或中止這種調整過程，是可能的。至於想使它成爲不必要的，或使它封於當事人較少痛苦，那是不可能的。

If the government-made cash-induced changes in the purchasing power of money resulted only in shifts of wealth from some people to other people, it would not be permissible to condemn them from the point of view of catallactics' scientific neutrality. It is obviously fraudulent to justify them under the pretext of the commonweal or public welfare. But one could still consider them as political measures suitable to promote the interests of some groups of people at the expense of others without further detriment. However, there are still other things involved.

【中文版無此段。】

It is not necessary to point out the consequences to which a continued deflationary policy must lead. Nobody advocates such a

持續的緊縮政策所必然導致的一些後果，沒有一一指出的必要。誰也不會主張這種政策。一般大衆和那些喜歡喝采的作家與政客們，都是支持通貨膨脹的。關於這些作爲，我們必得強調三點：第一、膨脹的或擴張的政策，其結果一定是過度消費和錯誤投資。這就是浪費資本而損害將來的慾望滿足[14]。第二、通貨膨脹過程並不消除生產調整和資源重配置的必要，而只是延緩它，因而使這調整和重配置更爲困難。第三、通貨膨脹不能作爲一個永久的政策來運用，因爲繼續運用這個政策，最後的結果是貨幣制度的崩潰。

A retailer or innkeeper can easily fall prey to the illusion that all that is needed to make him and his colleagues more prosperous is more spending on the part of the public. In his eyes the main thing is to impel people to spend more. But it is amazing that this belief could be presented to the world as a new social philosophy. Lord Keynes and his disciples make the lack of the propensity to consume responsible for what they deem unsatisfactory in economic conditions. What is needed, in their eyes, to make men more prosperous is not an increase in production, but an increase in spending. In order to make it possible for people to spend more, an "expansionist" policy is recommended.

一個零售商人或客棧老闆很容易陷於一個錯覺：即以爲要使他和他的同事們更發財，就是要大家多花錢。在他的心目中，主要的事情是推動人們花更多的錢。但是，叫人驚奇的是，這種信念居然能夠成爲一種新的社會哲學而呈現於世界。凱因斯爵士和他的門徒把他們所認爲的經濟情況不良歸咎於消費傾向的不夠。在他們的心目中，爲使人們更幸福，必要作的事情不是增加生產，而是增加消費。要使人們能夠更多消費，於是推薦一個「擴張的」政策。

This doctrine is as old as it is bad. Its analysis and refutation will be undertaken in the chapter dealing with the trade cycle.[15]

這個學說旣陳舊也惡劣。對它的分析和駁斥，將在討論商業循環的那一節提出[15]。

---------------------

[13] About the relations of the market rate of interest and changes in purchasing power, cf. below, Chapter XX.

[13] 關於市場利率與購買力變動的關係，參考第二十章。

[14] Cf. below, pp. 564-565.

[14] 參考第二十章節六節。

[15] Cf. below, pp. 548-565.

[15] 參考第二十章第五節、第六節。

11. The Money-Substitutes

十一、貨幣代替品

Claims to a definite amount of money, payable and redeemable on demand, against a debtor about whose solvency and willingness to pay there does not prevail the slightest doubt, render to the individual all the services money can render, provided that all parties with whom he could possibly transact business are perfectly familiar with these essential qualities of the claims concerned: daily maturity as well as undoubted solvency and willingness to pay on the part of the debtor. We may call such claims money-substitutes, as they can fully replace money in an individual's or a firm's cash holding. The technical and legal features of the money-substitutes do not concern catallactics. A money-substitute can be embodied either in a banknote or in a demand deposit with a bank subject to check ("checkbook money" or deposit currency), provided the bank is prepared to

一定數額的貨幣要求權，如果是隨時可以兌現，而其債務人的償付能力和償付意願都毫無疑問的，而且，凡是與這位債務人可能發生交易關係的人們，都完全知道這個要求權具備上述的各點，則這個要求權就可具有貨幣的一切功能。我們可把這樣的要求權叫做「貨幣代替品」，在個人或商號的現金握存中，它可以完全代替貨幣。貨幣代替品在技術上和法律的特徵，與交換科學無關，貨幣代替品可以是銀行鈔票，也可以是支票存款，如果這個銀行準備隨時兌付本位幣而不收取費用的話。低値鑄幣（token coin）也是貨幣代替品，如果持有人可以隨時換得貨幣而不須支付費用。爲達到這個目的，並不需要用法律限定政府兌換它們。要緊的是，這些低値鑄幣可以立即而不須費用就能換成本位幣。如果低値鑄幣的發行量保持在合理的限度以內，政府方面無須用特別規定來維持它們的交換價値，使其與它們票面價値相等。大衆對於小額的零錢有需要，因此，每個人都有機會把鑄幣換成本位幣。重要的事情是，貨幣代替品的每個持有者都確信，這代替品可以隨時隨地而無費用地換成貨幣。

If the debtor--the government or a bank--keeps against the whole amount of money-substitutes a 100% reserve of money proper, we call the money-substitute a money-certificate. The individual money-certificate is--not necessarily in a legal sense, but always in the catallactic sense--a representative of a corresponding amount of money dept in the reserve. The issuing of money-certificates does not increase the quantity of things suitable to satisfy the demand for money for cash holding. Changes in the quantity of money-certificates therefore do not alter the supply of money and the money relation. They do not play any role in the determination of the purchasing power of money.

如果債務人——政府或銀行——對其所發行的貨幣代替品保有等於其總額的現金（本位幣）準備，我們就把這種貨幣代替品叫做貨幣證券（money-certificate）。一張貨幣證券是（不一定在法律的意義下，但總在交換科學的意義下）代表一筆保存在準備中的相對金額。貨幣證券的發行並不增加「可用以滿足爲現金握存而發生的貨幣需求的」那些東西的數量。所以，貨幣證券的數量變動並不改變貨幣供給和貨幣關係。它們在貨幣購買力的決定上不發生任何作用。

If the money reserve kept by the debtor against the money-substitutes issued is less than the total amount of such substitutes, we call that amount of substitutes which exceeds the reserve fiduciary media. As a rule it is not possible to ascertain whether a concrete specimen of money-substitutes is a money-certificate or a fiduciary medium. A part of the total amount of money-substitutes issued is usually covered by a money reserve held. Thus a part of the total amount of money-substitutes issued is money certificates, the rest fiduciary media. But this fact can only be recognized by those familiar with the bank's balance sheets. The individual banknote, deposit, or token coin does not indicate its catallactic character.

如果債務人對他所發行的貨幣證券所保存的現金準備少於這項證券的總額，我們就把那超過準備的證券額叫做信用媒介（fiduciary media）【流通媒介】。通常我們不可能確定某一張貨幣代替品究竟是一張貨幣證券，還是一張信用媒介。發行了的貨幣代替品總額，通常只有一部分有現金準備的。所以其中的一部份是貨幣證券，其餘的是信用媒介。但是，這個事實只有那些熟悉銀行的資產負債平衡表的人們才會看出。一張銀行鈔票、一筆存錢，或一枚低値鑄幣，並不表示它在交換科學中的性質。

The issue of money-certificates does not increase the funds which the bank can employ in the conduct to its lending business. A bank which does not issue fiduciary media can only grant commodity credit, i.e., it can only lend its own funds and the amount of money which its customers have entrusted to it. The issue of fiduciary media enlarges the bank's funds available for lending beyond these limits.

貨幣證券的發行並不增加銀行可用以貸放的資金。不發行信用媒介的銀行，只能授予「商品信用」（commodity credit），也即，只能貸出它自己的資金和它的顧客們信託它的金額。信用媒介的發行，使銀行可用以貸放的資金超過上述的限制而增加。於是，它不僅可以授予商品信用，而且也可授予「流通信用」（circulation credit），也即，授予來自信用媒介之發行的信用。

While the quantity of money-certificates is indifferent, the quantity of fiduciary media is not. The fiduciary media affect the market phenomena in the same way as money does. Changes in their quantity influence the determination of money's purchasing power and of prices and--temporarily--also of the rate of interest.

貨幣證券的數量大小，對於市場毫無關係，至於信用媒介的數量，則不然。信用媒介對於市場的影響和貨幣的影響一樣。它們的數量發生變動，影響到貨幣購買力，物價以及——暫時地——利率的決定。

Earlier economists applied a different terminology. Many were prepared to call the money-substitutes simply money, as they are fit to render the services money renders. However, this terminology is not expedient. The first purpose of a scientific terminology is to facilitate the analysis of the problems involved. The task of the catallactic theory of money--as differentiated from the legal theory and from the technical disciplines of bank management and accountancy--is the study of the problems of the determination of prices and interest rates. This task requires a sharp distinction between money-certificates and fiduciary media.

早期的經濟學家們使用了一個不同的名詞。許多人把貨幣證券就叫做貨幣，因爲它們提供了貨幣所提供的功用。但是，這個名詞是不適當的。科學名詞的主要目的是要便於有關問題的分析。交換科學中的貨幣理論，其任務不同於法律理論和銀行管理及會計的技術學科，它是要研究物價和利率決定這些問題。這個任務的達成，必須首先把貨幣證券與信用媒介之間的區分弄得明明白白。

The term credit expansion has often been misinterpreted. It is important to realize that commodity credit cannot be expanded. The only vehicle of credit expansion is circulation credit. But the granting of circulation credit does not always mean credit expansion. If the amount of fiduciary media previously issued has consummated all its effects upon the market, if prices, wage rates, and interest rates have been adjusted to the total supply of money proper plus fiduciary media (supply of money in the broader sense), granting of circulation credit without a further increase in the quantity of fiduciary media is no longer credit expansion. Credit expansion is present only if credit is granted by the issue of an additional amount of fiduciary media, not if banks lend anew fiduciary media paid back to them by the old debtors.

「信用擴張」（credit expansion）這個名詞，常常被誤解。商品信用是不能擴張的，這個認識很重要。唯一可引起信用擴張的是流通信用。但是，流通信用的授予並不總是信用擴張。如果原先發行的一筆信用媒介，在市場上已經發生了它的一切後果，如果物價、工資率、以及利率，已經適應本位貨幣加上信用媒介的總供給（廣義的貨幣供給）而調整，則不再增加信用媒介數量的流通信用之授予，就不會引起信用擴張。信用擴張只出現於增發信用媒介來作信用授予的時候，如果銀行把收回的信用媒介再貸放出去，就不會發生信用擴張。

12. The Limitation on the Issuance of Fiduciary Media

十二、信用媒介發行量的限制

People deal with money-substitutes as if they were money because they are fully confident that it will be possible to exchange them at any time without delay and without cost against money. We may call those who share in this confidence and are therefore ready to deal with money-substitutes as if they were money, the clients of the issuing banker, bank, or authority. It does not matter whether or not this issuing establishment is operated according to the patterns of conduct customary in the banking business. Token coins issued by a country's treasury are money-substitutes too, although the treasury as a rule does not enter the amount issued into its accounts as a

一般人把貨幣代替品看作貨幣，因爲他們充份相信，它們是可隨時立即兌換而不要任何費用。我們把具有這種信念因而視貨幣代替品如同貨幣的人們，叫做這個發行銀行或政府機構的「顧客」。至於這個發行機關是否按照銀行業務的慣例行事，這是不關重要的。一個國的財政部所發行的低値鑄幣，也是貨幣代替品，儘管財政部照例不把這發行的數量列入債務帳而視爲國債的一部份。一個貨幣代替品的持有人是否享有要求兌換的權利，也是同樣不關重要的。値得計較的，倒是這種貨幣代替品是否眞的可以立即兌換貨幣而又不花任何費用[16]。

Issuing money-certificates is an expensive venture. The banknotes must be printed, the coins minted; a complicated accounting system for the deposits must be organized; the reserves must be kept in safety; then there is the risk of being cheated by counterfeit banknotes and checks. against all these expenses stands only the slight chance that some of the banknotes issued may be destroyed and the still slighter chance that some depositors may forget their deposits. Issuing money-certificates is a ruinous business if not connected with issuing fiduciary media. In the early history of banking there were banks whose only operation consisted in issuing money-certificates. But these banks were indemnified by their clients for the costs incurred. at any rate, catallactics is not interested in the purely technical problems of banks not issuing fiduciary media. The only interest that catallactics takes in money-certificates is the connection between issuing them and the issuing of fiduciary media.

發行貨幣證券是一件很費神的事情。銀行券必須印製，低値硬幣必須鑄造；記錄存款而內容繁複的會計制度必須創立：準備金必須保存得安全；而且，銀行券和支票還有被僞造以致受欺騙的危險。抵補這些費用的，只有發行的鈔票或有若干損毀的小小機會以及某些存款人忘記了他們的存款這個更小的機會。所以，貨幣證券的發行如果不和信用媒介的發行發生關聯，那就是一項招致破產的業務。在早期的銀行史中，有些銀行是以貨幣證券的發行爲唯一的業務。但是，這些銀行的費用是由他們的顧客補償的。無論如何，交換科學對於不發行信用媒介的銀行所面對的那些純技術問題，是不關心的。交換科學對於貨幣證券所關心的唯一問題，是發行貨幣證券與發行信用媒介之間的關聯。

While the quantity of money-certificates is catallactically unimportant, an increase or decrease in the quantity of fiduciary media affects the determination of money's purchasing power in the same way as do changes in the quantity of money. Hence the question of whether there are or are not limits to the increase in the quantity of fiduciary media has fundamental importance.

一方面貨幣證券的數量在交換科學上不關重要，另一方面，信用媒介的數量或增或減，就會影響貨幣購買力的決定，這種影響和貨幣數量的變動之發生影響，是相同的。因此，對於信用媒介的數量有沒有限制這個問題，具有基本的重要性。

If the clientele of the bank includes all members of the market economy, the limit to the issue of fiduciary media is the same as that drawn to the increase in the quantity of money. A bank which is, in an isolated country or in the whole world, the only institution issuing fiduciary media and the clientele of which comprises all individuals and firms, is bound to comply in its conduct of affairs with two rules:

如果銀行的顧客包括這個市場經濟的全體人員，則信用媒介發行量的限制，就同於爲限制貨幣量增加而規定的限制。在一個孤立的國裡面或在全世界裡面，唯一發行信用媒介而其顧客包括所有的個人和商號的一個銀行，其業務必須遵照兩個規律：

First: It must avoid any action which could make the clients--i.e., the public--suspicious. As soon as the clients begin to lose confidence, they will ask for the redemption of the banknotes and withdraw their deposits. How far the bank can go on increasing its issues of fiduciary media without arousing distrust, depends on psychological factors.

第一、它必須避免會引起顧客——也即大家——懷疑的任何行爲。一到顧客對它開始失去信心的時候，他們就會馬上拿銀行券來要求兌現，並提取他們的存款。至於這個銀行能夠發行多少信用媒介而不致引起顧客們的不信任，這就要看心理因素。

Second: It must not increase the amount of fiduciary media at such a rate and with such speed that the clients get the conviction that the rise in prices will continue endlessly at an accelerated pace. For if the public believes that this is the case, they will reduce their cash holdings, flee into "real" values, and bring about the crack-up boom. It is impossible to imagine the approach of this catastrophe without assuming that its first manifestation consists in the evanescence of confidence. The public will certainly prefer exchanging the fiduciary media against money to fleeing into real values, i.e. to the indiscriminate buying of various commodities. Then the bank must go bankrupt. If the government interferes by freeing the bank from the obligation of redeeming its banknotes and of paying back the deposits in compliance with the terms of the contract, the fiduciary media become either credit money or fiat money. The suspension of specie payments entirely changes the state of affairs. There is no longer any question of fiduciary media, of money-certificates, and of money-substitutes. The government enters the scene with its government-made legal tender laws. The bank loses its independent existence; it becomes a tool of government policies, a subordinate office of the treasury.

第二、信用媒介的增加發行，其速率決不可大到使顧客們認爲，物價的上漲將會繼續不斷地加速。因爲，如果大衆這樣認爲旳話，他們將減少現金握存，趨向於「實」値的保持，因而引起瘋狂的購買。這個災難的到臨，起初是由於信任心的漸漸消失。大衆都要把信用媒介換成貨幣，用以購買有實値的東西，也即，對於各種貨物不加選擇地搶購。這時銀行一定破產。如果這時政府出來干涉，解除銀行兌換其銀行貨幣的義務，並解除其遵照契約退還存款的義務，則這些信用媒介就變成了信用貨幣或法定貨幣。停止兌現這一措施，把情勢完全改變了。於是再也沒有信用媒介的，貨幣證券的和貨幣代替品的任何問題了。政府帶著它所製定的一些法償法規（legal tender laws）登場了。銀行失去了它的獨立性；它變成了政府政策的一個工具，財政部的一個附屬機關。

The catallactically most important problems of the issuance of fiduciary media on the part of a single bank, or of banks acting in concert, the clientele of which comprehends all individuals, are not those of the limitations drawn to the amount of their issuance. We will deal with them in Chapter XX, devoted to the relations between the quantity of money and the rate of interest.

從交換科學觀點看，唯一的一個銀行或共同行動的多數銀行（也即其顧客包括所有的個人和商號）發行信用媒介最重要的問題，不是對其發行量加些限制的問題。我們將在第二十章討論它們，那一章是用以討論貨幣數量與利率的關係。

At this point of our investigations we have to scrutinize the problem of the coexistence of a multiplicity of independent banks. Independence means that every bank in issuing fiduciary media follows its own course and does not act in concert with other banks. Co-existence means that every bank has a clientele which does not include all members of the market system. For the sake of simplicity we will assume that no individual or firm is a client of more than one bank. It would not affect the result of our demonstration if we were to assume that there are also people who are clients of more than one bank and people who are not clients of any bank.

在這裡，我們必須檢討多數獨立銀行共存的問題。獨立的意思，是指每個銀行在發行信用媒介這個業務上各行其是，而不與其他銀行合作。共存的意思，是指每個銀行的顧客都不包括這個市場經濟的全體成員。爲著說明簡便起見，我們假定沒有一個人或一個商號是一個銀行以上的顧客。這個假定所獲致的結論，並不因爲我們假定「也有人是一個銀行以上的顧客，也有人不是任何銀行的顧客」而受影響。

The question to be raised is not whether or not there are limits

我們所要提出的問題，不是對這些獨立共存的銀行發行信用媒介有沒有限制。因爲，對於一個其顧客包括所有的人的唯一銀行之發行信用媒介尙有限制，對於多數獨立共存的銀行，當然也有這樣的限制。我們所要說明的，是對於這樣獨立共存的一些銀行所加的限制，比對於其顧客包括所有的人的唯一銀行所加的限制較爲狹小。

We assume that within a market system several independent banks have been established in the past. While previously only money was in use, these banks have introduced the use of money-substitutes a part of which are fiduciary media. Each bank has a clientele and has issued a certain quantity of fiduciary media which are dept as money-substitutes in the cash holdings of various clients. The total quantity of the fiduciary media as issued by the banks and absorbed by the cash holdings of their clients has altered the structure of prices and the monetary unit's purchasing power. But these effects have already been consummated and at present the market is no longer stirred by any movements generated from this past credit expansion.

我們假定，在一個市場體系中已經有了幾個獨立的銀行。原先雖然只有貨幣是在使用中，這些銀行現在採用了貨幣代替品，其中的一部份是信用媒介。每個銀行有一些顧客，而且發行了某一數量的信用媒介，在顧客們的現金握存中作爲貨幣代替品保存。這些銀行所發行、而被顧客們握存的信用媒介的總量，改變了物價結構和貨幣單位的購買力。但是，這些後果已經完全實現，現在市場上再也沒有過去信用擴張所引起的任何騷動了。

But now, we assume further, one bank alone embarks upon an additional issue of fiduciary media while the other banks do not follow suit. The clients of the expanding bank--whether its old clients or new ones acquired on account of the expansion--receive additional credits, they expand their business activities, they appear on the market with an additional demand for goods and services, they bid up prices. Those people who are not clients of the expanding bank are not in a position to afford these higher prices; they are forced to restrict their purchases. Thus there prevails on the market a shifting of goods from the nonclients to the clients of the expanding bank. The clients buy more from the nonclients than they sell to them; they have more to pay to the nonclients than they receive from them. But money-substitutes issued by the expanding bank are not suitable for payments to nonclients, as these people do not assign to them the character of money-substitutes. In order to settle the payments due to nonclients, the clients must first exchange the money-substitutes issued by their own--viz., the expanding bank--against money. The expanding bank must redeem its banknotes and pay out its deposits. Its reserve--we suppose that only a part of the money-substitutes it had issued had the character of fiduciary media--dwindles. The instant approaches in which the bank will--after the exhaustion of its money reserve--no longer be in a position to redeem the money-substitutes still current. In order to avoid insolvency it must as soon

但是，我們現在再假定，某一個銀行單獨發動增加信用媒介的發行，其他諸銀行不這樣作。這個擴張中的銀行的顧客們——或者是原有的老顧客，或者是得到貸款的新顧客——收到增發的信用，他們就擴大他們的業務活動，他們帶著更多的需求（對貨物和勞務）出現於市場，他們把物價叫高。至於那些不是這個擴張銀行的顧客的人們，吃不消這些較高的價格；他們就不得不減縮他們的購買。於是，市場上的一些貨物就發生移轉；從不是這個擴張銀行的顧客們轉到它的顧客們。那些顧客們從那些非顧客方面買來的，多於他們賣給那些非顧客們的；他們付給那些非顧客的，多於他們取自他們的。但是，擴張銀行所發行的貨幣代替品不適於付給那些非顧客，因爲，這些人不承認它們有貨幣代替品的資格。爲償付非顧客們的債務，那些顧客們必須首先把他們自己的銀行（也即擴張中的銀行）所發行的貨幣代替品換成貨幣。這個擴張就得把它的銀行鈔票兌現並付出它的存款。它的準備金——我們假定它所發行的貨幣代替品只有一部份有信用媒介的性質——就爲之減少。這個銀行——在它的準備金用完了以後——就臨到了再也不能把那些尙未兌現的貨幣代替品兌現的時候了。爲避免破產，它必須儘快地加強它的準備金。它必須放棄它的擴張政策。

This reaction of the market to a credit expansion on the part of a bank with a limited clientele has been brilliantly described by the Currency School. The special case dealt with by the Currency School referred to the coincidence of credit expansion on the part of one country's privileged central bank or of all banks of one country and of a nonexpansionist policy on the part of the banks of other countries. Our demonstration covers the more general case of the coexistence of a multiplicity of banks with different clientele as well as the most general case of the existence of one bank with a limited clientele in a system in which the rest of the people do not patronize any bank and do not consider any claims as money-substitutes. It does not matter, of course, whether one assumes that the clients of a bank live neatly separated from those of the other banks in a definite district or country or whether they live side by side with those of the other banks. These are merely differences in the data not affecting the catallactic problems involved.

市場對於一個顧客有限的銀行所採行的擴張政策之反應，曾被通貨學派（the Currency School）描述得淸淸楚楚。通貨學派所討論的特例，是指涉一國享有特權的中央銀行，或一國的所有銀行所採行的擴張政策，與其他一些國的銀行所採行的非擴張政策之同時遇合。我們所說明的，則涉及較通常的事例，即擁有不同的顧客們的多數銀行，也涉及最通常的事例，即在一個經濟體系中，有一個銀行擁有有限的顧客，其餘的人們不光顧任何銀行，也不把任何要求權看作貨幣代替品。當然，你是否假定，一個銀行的顧客們與其他銀行的顧客們分別生活在不同的地區或國，或者生活在一塊，這是不關重要的。這些差異對於相關的交換學科上的一些問題沒有影響。

A bank can never issue more money-substitutes than its clients can keep in their cash holdings. The individual client can never keep a larger portion of his total cash holding in money-substitutes than that corresponding to the proportion which his turnover with other clients of his bank bears to his total turnover. For considerations of convenience he will, as a rule, remain far below this maximum proportion. Thus a limit is drawn to the issue of fiduciary media. We may admit that everybody is ready to accept in his current transactions indiscriminately banknotes issued by any bank and checks drawn upon any bank. But he deposits without delay with his own bank not only the checks but also the banknotes of banks of which he is not himself a client. In the further course his bank settles its accounts with the bank engaged. Thus the process described above comes into motion.

一個銀行所發行的貨幣代替品，決不能多於它的顧客們在他們的現金握存中所可保存的數量。單獨的一個顧客，在其現金握存中用貨幣代替品保存的比例，決不能大於他和他的銀行的別的顧客們之間交易週轉額（turnover）在其全部週轉額中之比例。爲著方便起見，他照例是遠在這最高限的比例之下保持貨幣代替品。因此，對於信用媒介的發行就有了一個限制。我們承認，每個人在日常交易中對於任何銀行發行的銀行鈔票以及對任何銀行開出的支票，都會不分靑紅皀白地一律接受。但是，他會馬上把這些鈔票及支票存入他自己的銀行。他的銀行再與那些有關的銀行淸算，於是，上述的過程就開始發動。

A lot of nonsense has been written about a perverse predilection of the public for banknotes issued buy dubious banks. The truth is that, except for small groups of businessmen who were able to distinguish between good and bad banks, banknotes were always looked upon with distrust. It was the special charters which the governments granted to privileged banks that slowly made these suspicions disappear. The often advanced argument that small banknotes come into the hands of poor and ignorant people who cannot distinguish between good and bad notes cannot be taken seriously. The poorer the recipient of a banknote is nd the less familiar he is with bank affairs, the more quickly will he spend the note and the more quickly

關於一般大衆對於他們所不知曉的銀行所發行的鈔票那種癖好，有許多荒唐的記述。眞相是這樣的：除掉少數能夠辨別好壞銀行的商人以外，銀行鈔票總是不被信任的。使得這種不信任的心理漸漸消滅的，是政府給予某些特權銀行的特許狀。常常有人說，少數的銀行鈔票流到那些不能辨別好壞銀行的貧窮而無知的人們手中，這種說法不能當眞。銀行鈔票的收受者愈是窮、愈是不熟悉銀行的事情，支用他手中的鈔票愈是快，因而，這鈔票回到它的發行銀行或流到那些精通銀行情況的人們手中愈是快。

It is very easy for a bank to increase the number of people who are ready to accept loans granted by credit expansion and paid out in an amount of money-substitutes. But it is very difficult for any bank to enlarge its clientele, that is, the number of people who are ready to consider these claims as money-substitutes and to keep them as such in their cash holdings. To enlarge this clientele is a troublesome and slow process, as is the acquisition of any kind of good will. On the other hand, a bank can lose its clientele very quickly. If it wants to preserve it, it must never permit any doubt about its ability and readiness to discharge all its liabilities in due compliance with the terms of the contract. A reserve must be kept large enough to redeem all banknotes which a holder may submit for redemption. Therefore no bank can content itself with issuing fiduciary media only; it must keep a reserve against the total amount of money-substitutes issued and thus combine issuing fiduciary media and money-certificates.

一個銀行當它採用信用擴張政策，而以貨幣代替品的要求權來貸放，這時它要增加那願意接受這種貸款的人數，是很容易的事情。伹是，任何銀行要增加它的顧客們的人數，卻是非常困難的。這裡所說的顧客，是指那願意把這些要求權看作貨幣代替品，而保持在他們的現金握存中的人，要增加這種顧客的人數，如同要獲得一種商譽，是件麻煩的事情，而且是個緩慢的過程。另一方面，一個銀行會很快地失掉它的顧客。如果它想保有它的顧客，它決不可讓他們對於它依照契約履行債務的能力和誠意，稍有懷疑。必須保存一筆大到足以應付要求兌現者所提出的全部鈔票的準備金。所以，沒有一個銀行可以自滿於僅僅發行信用媒介；它必須對它所發行的貨幣代替品總額保有一筆準備金，因此，信用媒介和貨幣證券必須合併發行。

It was a serious blunder to believe that the reserve's task is to provide the means for the redemption of those banknotes the holders of which have lost confidence in the bank. The confidence which a bank and the money-substitutes it has issued enjoy is indivisible. It is either present with all its clients or it vanishes entirely. If some of the clients lose confidence, the rest of them lose it too. No bank issuing fiduciary media and granting circulation credit can fulfill the obligations which it has taken over in issuing money-substitutes if all clients are losing confidence and want to have their banknotes redeemed and their deposits paid back. This is an essential feature or weakness of the business of issuing fiduciary media and granting circulation credit. No system of reserve policy and no reserve requirements as enforced by the laws can remedy it. All that a reserve can do is to make it possible for the bank to withdraw from the market an excessive amount of fiduciary media issued. If the bank has issued more banknotes than its clients can use in doing business with other clients, it must redeem such an excess.

有些人以爲準備金的任務，是爲的應付對這個銀行失掉信心的人拿鈔票來要求兌現的。這是個嚴重誤解。一個銀行享有的信任，和它所發行的貨幣代替品所享有的信任，是不可分的，對銀行的信任心或者是所有的顧客都具有，或者是完全失掉。如果有些顧客失掉了信任心，其餘的顧客也會失掉。發行信用媒介而授予「流通信用」的銀行，如果遇到它所有的顧客對它失掉信任心而想把他們手中的鈔票拿來兌現，並提取他們的存款，這個銀行就不能履行它發行貨幣代替品所負起的義務。這是發行信用媒介和授予「流通信用」這種業務的基本特徵或基本弱點。沒有任何準備政策，也沒有任何法律所規定的準備條件，能夠補救它。準備金所能做到的，只是使這個銀行可能從巿場上把發行的信用媒介過多的部份收回。如果這個銀行所發行的鈔票多於它的顧客們與別家銀行的顧客們交易時所可使用的數量，它就必須把那超過額收回。

The laws which compelled the banks to keep a reserve in a definite ration of the total amount of deposits and of banknotes issued were effective in so far as they restricted the increase in the amount of fiduciary media and of circulation credit. They were futile as far as they aimed at safeguarding, in the event of a loss of confidence, the prompt redemption of the banknotes and the prompt payment on deposits.

有些法律規定，各銀行必須在存款和其發行的鈔票總額中保存一筆確定比率的準備金，這種法律就其限制信用媒介和「流通信用」量的增加而言，是有效的。至於在銀行喪失信用的時候，想靠這些法律來保證銀行鈔票的立即兌現和存款的立即返還，則是無效的。

The Banking School failed entirely in dealing with these problems.

銀行學派（The Banking School）對於這些問題的處理完全失敗，他們被一個揑造的觀念混亂了思想，依照這個觀念，銀行業務的一些必要條件嚴格地限制住一個銀行所可發行的可兌換的鈔票的最高額。他們沒有想到，大衆對於信用的需求是一個由銀行貸放的意願而決定的量，而那些不關心自己償付能力的銀行，能夠把利率減低到巿場利率以下，以擴張「流通信用」。至於說一個銀行，如果它把它的貸放，限之於來自原料和半製品的買賣的短期滙票的貼現，則它所能貸放的最高額，就是一個只決定於工商業情況的數量，而與這個銀行的政策無關。這個說法不符事實。事實上，這個數量是隨貼現率的降低或昇高而擴增或縮減的。降低利率等於增加他們所誤認爲的工商業正常需要的數量。

The Currency School gave a quite correct explanation of the recurring crises as they upset English business conditions in the 'thirties and 'forties of the nineteenth century. There was credit expansion on the part of the Bank of England and the other British banks and bankers, while there was no credit expansion, or at least not to the same degree, in the countries with which Great Britain traded. The external drain occurred as the necessary consequence of this state of affairs. Everything that the Banking School advanced in order to refute this theory was vain. Unfortunately, the Currency School erred in two respects. It never realized that the remedy it suggested, namely strict legal limitation of the amount of banknotes issued beyond the specie reserve, was not the only one. It never gave a thought to the idea of free banking. The second fault of the Currency School was that it failed to recognize that deposits subject to check are money-substitutes and, as far as their amount exceeds the reserve kept, fiduciary media, and consequently no less a vehicle of credit expansion than are banknotes. It was the only merit of the Banking School that it recognized that what is called deposit currency is a money-substitute no less than banknotes. But except for this point, all the doctrines of the Banking School were spurious. It was guided by contradictory ideas concerning money's neutrality; it tried to refute the quantity theory of money by referring to a deus ex machina, the much talked about hoards, and it misconstrued entirely the problems of the rate of interest.

通貨學派對於十九世紀三十幾年和四十幾年屢屢發生，而困擾英國工商業的一些危機，給了一個正確的解釋。在英國，英倫銀行和其他的一些英國銀行採取信用擴張政策，而與英國有貿易關係的那些國沒有信用擴張，至少沒有同程度的信用擴張。這種情勢的必然後果，就是黃金外流。銀行學派爲駁斥這個理論而提出的一切一切，都是白費的。不幸，通貨學派也有兩點是錯誤的。他們從未認識到，他們所提議的補救方法——也即，用法律嚴格限制現金準備以上的鈔票發行量——不是唯一的方法。他們從未接觸自由的銀行業務這個觀念。通貨學派的第二點錯誤是，他們沒有認淸支票存款即是貨幣代替品，如果它們的量超過了保有的準備金，則成爲信用媒介，其結果有助於信用擴張並不遜於銀行鈔票。銀行學派認淸了所謂存款通貨（deposit currency）與銀行鈔票同樣是貨幣代替品。這是銀行學派唯一的優點。但是除這一點以外，銀行學派所有的學說都是揑造的，他們被一些關於貨幣中立性的矛盾觀點所指導：他們常常講到窖藏（在信用擴張時而有窖藏，無異是個奇蹟）用以反對貨幣數量說，他們完全誤解了關於利率的一些問題。

It must be emphasized that the problem of legal restrictions upon the issuance of fiduciary media could emerge only because governments

我們必須強調：對信用媒介的發行加以法律限制這個問題之會發生，只因爲政府已給一個或數個銀行的特權，因而阻止了銀行業務的自由演進。如果政府從未爲某些特殊銀行的利益而採干涉行動，如果政府從未解除某些銀行遵照契約淸償債務的義務（在市場經濟裡面，這是所有的個人和所有的商號所應履行的義務），則不會有什麼銀行問題發生。對於信用擴張所定的限制自會有效。每個銀行，對於自己的償付能力之考慮，就可使它不得不小心謹愼而不敢過份發行信用媒介。否則就要破產。

The attitudes of the European governments with regard to banking were from the beginning insincere and mendacious. The pretended solicitude for the nation's welfare, for the public in general, and for the poor ignorant masses in particular was a mere blind. The governments wanted inflation and credit expansion, they wanted booms and easy money. Those Americans who twice succeeded in doing away with a central bank were aware of the dangers of such institutions; it was only too bad that they failed to see that the evils they fought were present in every kind of government interference with banking. Today even the most bigoted etatists cannot deny that all the alleged evils of free banking count little when compared with the disastrous effects of the tremendous inflations which the privileged and government-controlled banks have brought about.

歐洲的一些政府對于銀行業務的態度自始就是僞善的，不誠實的。所謂關切邦國的福利、關切一般大衆，尤其是貧而無知的大衆福利，只是一種藉口。政府所要的是通貨膨脹，是信用擴張；它們所要的是市面的繁榮，是來得容易的錢。那些曾經兩度成功地廢棄中央銀行的美國人，察覺了這種制度的危險性；可是，最糟糕的是，他們不知道他們所攻擊的那些弊病，也可發生於政府對銀行業務的任何干涉。現在，即令最頑固的國家主義者也不能否認：所謂自由銀行制的一切弊病，與那些有特權而受政府控制的銀行所引起的通貨膨脹的惡果，比較起來也就不値得計較了。

It is a fable that governments interfered with banking in order to restrict the issue of fiduciary media and to prevent credit expansion. The idea that guided governments was, on the contrary, the lust for inflation and credit expansion. They privileged banks because they wanted to widen the limits that the unhampered market draws to credit expansion or because they were eager to open to the treasury a source of revenue. For the most part both of these considerations motivated the authorities. They were convinced that the fiduciary media are an efficient means of lowering the rate of interest, and asked the banks to expand credit for the benefit of both business and the treasury. Only when the undesired effects of credit expansion became visible, were laws enacted to restrict the issue of banknotes--and sometimes also of deposits--not covered by specie. The establishment of free banking was never seriously considered precisely because it would have been too efficient in restricting credit expansion. For rulers, writers, and the public were unanimous in the belief that business

政府爲限制信用媒介的發行，爲防止信用擴張，而干涉銀行業務，這是一種神話。相反地，指導政府行爲的觀念，是貪求通貨膨脹和信用擴張。它們給某些銀行的特權，因爲它們要把自由市場對於信用擴張所加的限制放寬，或者因爲它們是急於要爲國庫開闢一個財源。在大多數情形下，這兩個考慮都促使政府如此作爲。它們以爲信用媒介是降低利率的一個有效手段，因而爲工商界的利益和國庫的利益，要求銀行擴張信用。只有到了信用擴張的惡果已彰明較著的時候，才制定法律來限制銀行鈔票的發行——有時也限制銀行放款。自由銀行制從未被認眞考慮過，正因爲自由制對於限制信用擴張太有效。統治者、著作家和一般大衆一致地認爲，工商界有權要求一個「正常的」或「必要的」「流通信用」量，而這個量的流通信用，他們認爲在自由銀行制下不會得到[17]。

Many governments never looked upon the issuance of fiduciary media from a point of view other than that of fiscal concerns. In their eyes the foremost task of the banks was to lend money to the treasury. The money-substitutes were a favorably considered as pacemakers for government-issued paper money. The convertible banknote was merely a first step on the way to the nonredeemable banknote. With the progress of statolatry and the policy of interventionism these ideas have become general and are no longer questioned by anybody. No government is willing today to give any thought to the program of free banking because no government wants to renounce what it considers a handy source of revenue. What is called today financial war preparedness is merely the ability to procure by means of privileged and government-controlled banks all the money a warring nation may need. Radical inflationism, although not admitted explicitly, is an essential feature of the economic ideology of our age.

許多政府從來沒有從財政觀點以外的觀點來看信用媒介的發行。在他們的心目中，銀行的主要任務是借錢給國庫。貨幣代替品對政府發行的紙幣發生了帶頭作用。可兌換的銀行鈔票只是走向不兌換的銀行鈔票的第一步。隨著這個趨勢和干涉主義的政策，這些觀念已成爲普遍的，再也沒有人懷疑了。現在，沒有一個政府願意對自由銀行制稍加考慮，因爲沒有一個政府想放棄它所認爲的方便財源，今天，所謂的財政方面的戰爭準備，不過是指，靠那些有特權而受政府控制的銀行，以取得戰時所需要的全部金錢的這種能力。激烈的通貨膨脹主義，是我們這個時代經濟意理（economic ideology）的主要特徵。

But even at the time liberalism enjoyed its highest prestige and governments were more eager to preserve peace and well-being than to foment war, death, destruction, and misery, people were biased in dealing with the problems of banking. Outside of the Anglo-Saxon countries public opinion was convinced that it is one of the main tasks of good government to lower the rate of interest and that credit expansion is the appropriate means for the attainment of this end.

但是，即令在自由主義享有它最高聲望，而一些政府也更熱心於維持安寧而不煽動戰爭的時代，一般人在銀行問題的討論中也存有偏見。除安格魯薩克遜諸國（the Anglo-Saxon countries）以外，一般的輿論總以爲，降低利率是善良政府的主要任務之一，而信用擴張是達成這個目的的適當手段。

Great Britain was free from these errors when in 1844 it reformed its bank laws. But the two shortcomings of the Currency School vitiated this famous act. On one hand, the system of government interference with banking was preserved. On the other hand, limits were placed only on the issuance of banknotes not covered by specie. The fiduciary media were suppressed only in the shape of banknotes. They could thrive as deposit currency.

英國在一八四四年改訂銀行法的時候，消除了這些謬見，但是，通貨學派的兩個缺點卻損害了這著名的法律。一方面，政府干涉銀行業務這個制度被保存了。另一方面，限制只是加在沒有現金準備的銀行鈔票的發行。信用媒介之被抑制，只是以銀行鈔票的形式出現的那部份。至於以存款通貨的形式而出現的信用媒介，則讓它擴增。

In carrying the idea implied in the Currency Theory to its full logical conclusion, one could suggest that all banks be forced by law to keep against the total amount of money-substitutes (banknotes plus demand deposits) a 100 per cent money reserve. This is the core of Professor Irving Fisher's 100 per cent plan. But Professor Fisher combined his plan with his proposals concerning the adoption of an

把隱含在通貨學派理論中的觀念推演出它的邏輯結論，我們就可主張，所有的銀行都要在法律的強制下，對貨幣代替品的總額（银行鈔票加上即期存款）保持百分之百的準備金。這是Irving Fisher敎授「百分之百計畫」的中心思想。但是，Fisher敎授把他的這個計畫與他的那些採行指數本位的建議合併在一起。我們曾經說明，何以這樣的設計是妄想，也是等於公開承認，政府可以依照壓力團體的希求運用權力來操縱貨幣購買力。但是，即令百分之百的準備計畫，在眞正的金本位基礎上施行，它也不會完全免除政府干涉銀行業務（不管什麼方式的干涉）所必然的弊病。爲防止任何幅度的信用擴張所要做的事情，是要使銀行業務受一般商事法規和民法的管制，這些法規是強制每個人和每個商號完全遵照契約條件充份履行義務的。如果把銀行當作特權機構而受一些特殊法令的管制，則銀行仍然是政府可用以達成財政目的的工具。於是，對於信用媒介的發行所加的每一限制，都要靠政府和國會的好意。在所謂正常時期，他們可能限制它的發行。一旦政府認爲，緊急的情勢有理由可採非常措施的時候，這種限制就會撤銷。如果一個政權和背後的政黨想增加經費而又顧卹民意，不敢徵課較高租稅，這時，他們每每把這種難局叫做緊急情勢。政府所做的事情，有些不是納稅人所願意的，政府如果急於要作這些事情，其經費不便取之於較高的租稅，於是藉助於印刷機（印鈔票），藉助於那些願意奉承政府官吏的銀行經理，就成爲政府的主要手段。

Free banking is the only method available for the prevention of the dangers inherent in credit expansion. It would, it is true, not hinder a slow credit expansion, kept within very narrow limits, on the part of cautious banks which provide the public with all information required about their financial status. But under free banking it would have been impossible for credit expansion with all its inevitable consequences to have developed into a regular--one is tempted to say normal--feature of the economic system. Only free banking would have rendered the market economy secure against crises and depressions.

自由銀行制是防止信用擴張固有危險的唯一有效方法。不錯，它不會妨礙那些經常公開其財務狀況的穩健銀行在很狭的限度內緩慢的信用擴張。但是，在自由銀行制下，信用擴張連同它的一切必然後果，不會發展到成爲經濟制度的常態。只有自由銀行制才會使巿場經濟安全，免於恐慌和蕭條。

Looking backward upon the history of the last two centuries, one cannot help realizing that the blunders committed by liberalism in handling the problems of banking were a deadly blow to the market economy. There was no reason whatever to abandon the principle of free enterprise in the field of banking. The majority of liberal politicians simply surrendered to the popular hostility against money-lending

回顧過去幾百年的歷史，我們不得不切實指出，自由主義在銀行問題的處理上所犯的大錯是對市場經濟的一個致命傷。我們沒有任何理由要在銀行業這個部門放棄自由企業的原則。大多數自由主義的政客們簡直是在一般人敵視放債取息的氣氛下投降了，他們沒有認淸，利率是一個不可由政府或其他任何機構操縱的市場現象。他們有個迷信：降低利率是有益的，信用擴張是降低利率的正確手段。傷害自由主義這個大義的，莫過於暴起暴落的商業循環。輿論已變到相信這種循環是自由的市場經濟不可避免的。一般人沒有了解，他們所悲歎的現象，實在是那些藉信用擴張來降低利率的政策的必然結果。他們固執地維護這種政策，同時又要以愈來愈多的政府干涉來和這些政策所招致的惡果格鬥，這當然是徒勞無效果的。

Observations on the Discussions Concerning Free Banking

關於自由銀行制的討論

The Banking School taught that an overissuance of banknotes is impossible if the bank limits its business to the granting of short-term loans.[18] When the loan is paid back at maturity, the banknotes return to the bank and thus disappear from the market. However, this happens only if the bank restricts the amount of credits granted. (But even then it would not undo the effects of its previous credit expansion. It would merely add to it the effects of a later credit contraction.) The regular course of affairs is that the bank replaces the bills expired and paid back by discounting new bills of exchange. Then to the amount of banknotes withdrawn from the market by the repayment of the earlier loan there corresponds an amount of newly issued banknotes.

銀行學派敎給我們：如果銀行把它的業務限之於短期放款，則銀行鈔票就不可能過份發行。當那放款到期收回的時候，那鈔票就回到銀行而在市場上消滅。但是，這種情形只有銀行限制其信用放款的數量時才會發生。（但是，即令在這種時候，它也不會消除以前的信用擴張的後果。它只會給它加上後來信用收縮的後果。）通常的情形是這樣的：銀行一方面收回到期的放款，一方面作新的貸放。於是，相對於從市場上收回的鈔票額（即早期放款的收回）而有一筆新發行的鈔票額。

The concatenation which sets a limit to credit expansion under a system of free banking works in a different way. It has no reference whatever to the process which this so-called Principle of Fullarton has in mind. It is brought about by the fact that credit expansion in itself does not expand a bank's clientele, viz., the number of people who assign to the demand-claims against this bank the character of money-substitutes. Since the overissuance of fiduciary media on the part of one bank, as has been shown above, increases the amount to be paid by the expanding bank's clients to other people, it increases concomitantly the demand for the redemption of its money-substitutes. It thus forces the expanding bank back to a restraint.

在自由銀行制下，對於信用擴張給以限制的那種連續事象，是以另一個不同的方式發生作用。這與所謂Fullarton原則所緊記的程序毫無關係，而是由於「信用擴張本身並不增加一個銀行的顧客人數」這個事實引起的。因爲，一個銀行之過份發行信用媒介，增加了這個銀行的顧客對別人所應支付的數額，這就隨著增加了它的貨幣代替品兌現的需求。因而這個擴張的銀行不得不回到緊縮[18]。

This fact was never questioned with regard to demand deposits subject to check. It is obvious that an expanding bank would very soon find itself in a difficult position in clearing with the other banks.

就支票存款來講，這個事實，無人置疑。一個擴張的銀行很快就會發現，難於與其他銀行淸算。但是，人們有時以爲，如果不就支票存款而就銀行鈔票來講，事情就不一樣。

In dealing with the problems of money-substitutes, catallactics maintains that the claims in question are dealt with by a number of people like money, that they are, like money, given away and received in transactions and dept in cash holdings. Everything that catallactics asserts with regard to money-substitutes presupposes this state of affairs. But it would be preposterous to believe that every banknote issued by any bank really becomes a money-substitute. What makes a banknote a money-substitute is the special kind of good will of the issuing bank. The slightest doubt concerning the bank's ability or willingness to redeem every banknote without any delay at any time and with no expense to the bearer impairs this special good will and deprives the banknotes of their character as a money-substitute. We may assume that everybody not only is prepared to get such questionable banknotes as a loan but also prefers to receive them as payment instead of waiting longer. But if any doubts exist concerning their prime character, people will hurry to get rid of them as soon as possible. They will keep in their cash holdings money and such money-substitutes as they consider perfectly safe and will dispose of the suspect banknotes. These banknotes will be traded at a discount, and this fact will carry them back to the issuing bank which alone is bound to redeem them at their full face value.

在討論貨幣代替品問題的時候，交換科學是說：這種要求是被許多人當作貨幣來處理的，像貨幣一樣，在交易中有付出、有收入；而且，保留在現金握存中。交換科學凡是講到關於貨幣代替品的事情，都是預先假定這種情況的。但是，如果以爲任何銀行所發行的每一張鈔票都成了貨幣代替品，那就是荒謬的。使一張鈔票成爲貨幣代替品的，是這個發行銀行的一種特別商譽。對這個銀行無條件立即兌現的能力和意願如果稍有懷疑，這個特別商譽即受到傷害。因而它發行的鈔票就失去貨幣代替品的資格。我們可以假定，每個人不僅是在借款時準備接受這種可成問題的鈔票，而且，在買賣時也願接受它而不願意多等待，但是，如果關於它的要件有何疑問發生的話，人們將會儘快地把它脫手。他們在現金握存中將保存貨幣和他們認爲完全可靠的貨幣代替品，而把可疑的鈔票處分掉。這種鈔票可以打折扣賣掉，而打折扣這個事實，將會把它帶回到原發行銀行，只有這個銀行不得不按它的面値兌現。

The issue can still better be clarified by reviewing banking conditions in continental Europe. Here the commercial banks were free from any limitation concerning the amount of deposits subject to check. They would have been in a position to grant circulation credit and thus expand credit by adopting the methods applied by the banks of the Anglo-Saxon countries. However, the public was not ready to treat such bank deposits as money-substitutes. As a rule a man who received a check cashed it immediately and thereby withdrew the amount from the bank. It was impossible for a commercial bank to lend, except for negligible sums, by crediting the debtor's account. As soon as the debtor wrote out a check, a withdrawal of the amount concerned from the bank resulted. Only big business treated deposits as money-substitutes. Although the Central Banks in most of these countries were not submitted to any legal restrictions with regard to their deposit business, they were prevented from using it as a vehicle of large-scale credit expansion because the clientele for deposit currency was too small. Banknotes were practically the sole instrument of circulation credit and credit expansion.

這個問題還可從歐陸的銀行情況之檢討而更加澄淸。在這裡，商業銀行關於支票存款的數額是不受任何限制的。他們應當能夠採用Anglo-Saxon諸國的銀行所用的方法授予「流通信用」因而擴張信用。但是，一般大衆卻不慣於把這樣的銀行存款當作貨幣代替品。通常收到一張支票的人，立即就去那個銀行提現。除掉很小的數額以外，一個商業銀行不可能用設立（爲債務人設立）支票存款帳戶來放款。當債務人開出一張支票，這筆金額馬上就會從這個銀行提出。只有少數大規模的工商業者，把那存在中央發行銀行的存款（不是存在商業銀行的）當作貨幣代替品。儘管這些中央銀行在它們的存款業務方面，大都不受任何法律限制，它們也不會利用存款業務來大規模地擴張信用，因爲它們的顧客們要求存款通貨的太少。銀行鈔票實際上是唯一的流通信用和信用擴張的工具。同樣的情形，在Anglo-Saxon銀行制度範圍以外的諸國曾經普遍化，現在還是常見的情形。

In the 'eighties of the nineteenth century the Austrian Government embarked upon a project of popularizing checkbook money by establishing a checking account department with the Post Office Savings Service. It succeeded to some degree. Balances with this department of

在十九世紀的八十年代，奧國政府實施一個計畫，就是在郵局儲蓄部設立一個支票存款部門，使支票的使用普遍化。這個計畫相當成功。存在郵局這個部門的金額是被顧客們看作貨幣代替品的，而這一批顧客們的人數，比中央發行銀行支票存款部的顧客多。這個制度，後來也被一九一八年繼承帝國的新國保存下來，而且也被一些其他的歐洲諸國，例如德國，採行。這種存款通貨純粹是政府的冒險，而這個制度下的流通信用只限之於借給政府。對於這一點的認識是很重要的。其特徵就是，奧國郵局儲蓄部的名稱，連同別國模仿它的那些機構的名稱，不叫做儲蓄「銀行」，而叫做儲蓄「局」。在大多數非Anglo-Saxon的國家裡，除掉存在政府郵政系統的這些即期存款以外，銀行鈔票——也由少數存在政府控制的中央發行銀行的存款——是流通信用的唯一工具。講到這些國的信用擴張，那就完全指的是銀行鈔票。

In the United States many employers pay salaries and even wages by writing out checks. As far as the payees immediately cash the checks received and withdraw the whole amount from the bank, the method means merely that the onerous burden of manipulating coins and banknotes is shifted from the employer's cashier to the bank's cashier. It has no catallactic implications. If all citizens were to deal in this way with checks received, the deposits would not be money-substitutes and could not be used as instruments of circulation credit. It is solely the fact that a considerable part of the public looks upon deposits as money-substitutes that makes them what is popularly called checkbook money or deposit currency.

在美國，許多僱主是靠開支票來支付薪水乃至工資的。如果被僱的員工們馬上把所收的支票拿到銀行去全部兌現，那麼這個方法只是把點數硬幣和鈔票的麻煩工作，從僱主的出納員移轉到銀行的出納員。這在交換科學上沒有什麼意義。如果全國的人收到支票的時候都是這樣作，則這些存款就不是貨幣代替品，不能當作流通信用的工具用。使得這些存款成爲通常叫做存款通貨或「支票本貨幣」的，只是由於大多數人把這些存款看作貨幣代替品這個事實。

It is a mistake to associate with the notion of free banking the image of a state of affairs under which everybody is free to issue banknotes and to cheat the public ad libitum. People often refer to the dictum of an anonymous american quoted by Tooke: "Free trade in banking is free trade in swindling." However, freedom in the issuance of banknotes would have narrowed down the use of banknotes considerably if it had not entirely suppressed it. It was this idea which Cernuschi advanced in the hearings of the French Banking Inquiry of October 24, 1865: "I believe that what is called freedom of banking would result in a total suppression of banknotes in France. I want to give everybody the right to issue banknotes so that nobody should take any banknotes any longer."[19]

每個人可以自由發行鈔票，可以自由欺騙大衆，這種想像的情況，與自由銀行制毫不相干。如果把自由銀行制與這種想像的情況聯想在一起，那就是個大錯。人們常常提到Tooke引用過的一個不詳姓名的美國人留下的一句話「銀行業務的自由就是行使詐欺的自由」。可是，發行鈔票的自由，其結果如果不是完全撲滅鈔票的使用，也會大大減縮它的使用。一八六五年十月二十四曰Cernuschi在法國銀行業審查會的聽證中提出過這樣一個想法：「我相信，所謂銀行業務的自由，其結果就是法國銀行鈔票的一個總撲滅。我想給每個人發行銀行鈔票的權利，於是誰也不再願意持有任何銀行鈔票。」[19]

People may uphold the opinion that banknotes are more handy than coins and that considerations of convenience recommend their use. As far as this is the case, the public would be prepared to pay a premium for the avoidance of the inconveniences involved in carrying a heavy weight of coins in their pockets. Thus in earlier days banknotes issued

銀行鈔票比硬幣更便於攜帶，由於這個便利，所以大家樂於使用。這個意見可能是一般人所支持的。就這一點來講，大家會願意爲免於在口袋裡裝著沉重硬幣的不便利而支付一點代價——貼水。所以，在早期那些償付能力沒有問題的銀行所發行的鈔票，在兌換金屬通貨時有點貼水。因此，旅行支票頗受人歡迎，儘管發行它們的銀行要收取一點發行的手續費。但是，所有這些事實對於這裡討論的問題毫無關係。這並不爲那些鼓勵大衆使用銀行鈔票的政策提供辯護。一些政府不是爲婦女們逛商店的方便起見而提倡使用銀行鈔票。他們的想法是在降低利息並爲他們的金庫開闢一個便宜的財源。在他們的心目中，信用媒介的數量增加是增進福利的一個手段。

Banknotes are not indispensable. All the economic achievements of capitalism would have been accomplished if they had never existed. Besides, deposit currency can do all the things banknotes do. And government interference with the deposits of commercial banks cannot be justified by the hypocritical pretext that poor ignorant wage earners and farmers must be protected against wicked bankers.

銀行鈔票不是必不可少的。如果從來沒有銀行鈔票，資本主義的一切經濟成就也會完成。而且，存款通貨可以做到銀行鈔票所能做的一切事情。至於「貧窮而無知的工人和農民必須加以保護使其免於受那些邪惡的銀行家的欺騙」這個僞善的說詞，不能用來爲政府干涉商業銀行作辯護。

But, some people may ask, what about a cartel of the commercial banks? Could not the banks collude for the sake of a boundless expansion of their issuance of fiduciary media? The objection is preposterous. As long as the public is not, by government interference, deprived of the right of withdrawing its deposits, no bank can risk its own good will by collusion with banks whose good will is not so high as its own. One must not forget that every bank issuing fiduciary media is in a rather precarious position. Its most valuable asset is its reputation. It must go bankrupt as soon as doubts arise concerning its perfect trustworthiness and solvency. It would be suicidal for a bank of good standing to link its name with that of other banks with a poorer good will. Under free banking a cartel of the banks would destroy the country's whole banking system. It would not serve the interests of any bank.

但是，有的人也許會這樣問：一些商業銀行聯合成一個卡特爾，那又怎麼樣呢？這些銀行不會爲著濫發信用媒介而共同詐欺嗎？這個想法是荒謬的。只要一般大衆提取存款的權利未被政府的干涉而喪失，沒有一個銀行會把自己的商譽拿來冒險而與那些商譽不及它的銀行聯合起來。我們決不可忘記：凡是發行信用媒介的銀行總是處在一個不穩定的地位。它所最珍貴的資產是它自己的信譽。一旦對它的誠實和償付能力發生了懷疑，它就要走上破產的境界。就一個信譽良好的銀行而言，把它自己的招牌與那些信譽差的銀行的招牌結合在一起，那等於自殺。在自由銀行制下，銀行的卡特爾將會摧毀一國的整個銀行制度，對於任何銀行，都沒有利益。

For the most part the banks of good repute are blamed for their conservatism and their reluctance to expand credit. In the eyes of people not deserving of credit such restraint appears as a vice. But it is the first and supreme rule for the conduct of banking operations under free banking.

一些信譽好的銀行，大都被譴責爲保守而不願擴張信用。在那些不應受到信任的人們的心目中，這樣的保守是一罪惡。但是，這卻是自由銀行制下經營銀行業務的最高原則。

It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary. However, one must remember that this government interference was based on the erroneous assumption that credit expansion is a proper means of lowering the rate of interest permanently and without harm to anybody but the callous capitalists. The governments interfered precisely because they knew that free banking keeps credit expansion within narrow limits.

我們這個時代的人們極難於想像自由銀行制的一些情形，因爲他們把政府的干涉銀行視爲當然，視爲必要。但是，我們必須記住：政府的這種干涉是基於一個錯誤的假定：信用擴張是降低利率的適當手段；除掉無情的資本家以外，對任何人沒有傷害。政府之干涉銀行，正因爲政府裡的人知道，自由銀行制把信用擴張限之於狹小的範圍以內。

Economists may be right in asserting that the present state of banking makes government interference with banking problems advisable.

經濟學家講，現在這樣的銀行業情況使政府的干涉成爲應當的。這個講法可說是對的。但是，銀行業現在的這樣情況，並非自由市場經濟所引起的後果，而是政府爲更大規模擴張信用而搞成這樣的一個結果。如果政府從來未加干涉，則銀行鈔票和存款通貨的使用，將會限之於那些熟悉銀行業的情形，知道哪些銀行有償付能力，哪些銀行沒有償付能力的人們。這樣，大規模的信用擴張就不可能發生。現在政府的財政部和它所控制的機構，在其所發行的每一張紙幣上印著「淸償」這種魔術式的字樣，而一般人封它產生迷信的敬畏，這種迷信的敬畏之傳播，只有政府是要負責的。

Government interference with the present state of banking affairs could be justified if its aim were to liquidate the unsatisfactory conditions by preventing or at least seriously restricting any further credit expansion. In fact, the chief objective of present-day government interference is to intensify further credit expansion. This policy is doomed to failure. Sooner or later it must result in a catastrophe.

政府對于現在的銀行業情況加以干涉，如果其目的是在消除這些不好的情況，因而防止或至少是嚴格限制信用的再擴張，則這種干涉是有理由的。可是，事實上現在政府干涉的主要目的是在加強信用擴張。這個政策註定要失敗。或遲或早，它一定歸結於一個大崩潰。

------------------

[16] It is furthermore immaterial whether or not the laws assign to the money-substitutes legal tender quality. If these things are really dealt with by people as money-substitutes and are therefore money-substitutes and equal in purchasing power to the respective amount of money, the only effect of the legal tender quality is to prevent malicious people from resorting to chicanery for the mere sake of annoying their fellow men. If, however, the things concerned are not money-substitutes and are traded at a discount below their face value, the assignment of legal tender quality is tantamount to an authoritarian price ceiling, the fixing of a maximum price for gold and foreign exchange and of a minimum price for the things which are no longer money-substitutes but either credit money or fiat money. Then the effects appear which Gresham's Law describes.

[16] 法律是否賦與貨幣代替品以法償資格，也是不關重要的。如果這些東西，眞的被一般人看作貨幣代替品因而就是貨幣代替品，而其購買力等於貨幣，則法償資格的唯一效果，只是防止壞人專爲困擾別人而實行狡賴。但是，如果這種東西不是貨幣代替品，因而在交易中是按它們的票面價値打一個折扣，則法償資格的賦與，等於用政治力量來限價，即對黃金和外滙規定一個最高價，對那些再也不是貨幣代替品而是信用貨幣或法定貨幣的東西規定一個最低價。這時Gresham法則的效果就會發生。

[17] The notion of "normal" credit expansion is absurd. Issuance of additional fiduciary media, no matter what its quantity may be, always sets in motion those changes in the price structure the description of which is the task of the theory of the trade cycle. Of course, if the additional amount issued is not large, neither are the inevitable effects of the expansion.

[17] 「正常的」信用擴張這個想法是荒謬的。信用媒介的增加發行，不管它的數量大小，總要引起商業循環理論所要討論的那種物價結構的變動。當然，如果增加發行的數量不大，也不致有擴張的後果。

[18] See above, pp. 437-438.

[18] Vera C. Smith在她那本有價値的著作The Rationale of Central Banking (London, 1936), pp. 157 ff.當中，對于這個基本事實沒有注意到。【注釋不對應。】

[19] Cf. Cernuschi, Contre le billet de banque (Paris, 1866), p. 55.

[19] 參考Cernuschi, Contre le billet de banque (Paris, 1866), p. 55.

13. The Size and Composition of Cash Holdings

十三、現金握存的數額和成份

The total amount of money and money-substitutes is kept by individuals and firms in their cash holdings. The share of each is determined by marginal utility. Each is eager to keep a certain portion of his total wealth in cash. He gets rid of an excess of cash by increased purchases and remedies a deficiency of cash by increased sales. The popular terminology confusing the demand for money for cash holding and the demand for wealth and vendible goods must not delude an economist.

貨幣和貨幣代替品的總額保存在各個人和各商號的現金握存中。每個人或每個商號所保存的那份數額是決定於邊際效用。每個人都要在他的全部財富中用現金的方式保持一部份。他把過多的現金用來購買別的東西，在現金不夠的時候，則賣出別的東西來彌補。爲現金握存而發生的貨幣需求，與那爲財富和可賣出的貨物而發生的貨幣需求是兩回事，混淆這兩種需求的通俗用語，矇騙不了經濟學家。

What is valid with regard to individuals and firms is no less true with regard to every sum of the cash holdings of a number of individuals and firms. The point of view from which we treat a number of such individuals and firms as a totality and sum up their cash holdings is immaterial. The cash holdings of a city, a province, or a country is the sum of the cash holdings of all its residents.

凡是對各個人和各個商號而言，是有效的話，對於許多人和商號的現金握存的每個數額，也同樣有效。我們從什麼觀點出發，把許多這樣的個人和商號當作一個全體而總計他們的現金握存，這是不關重要的。一市一省，或一國的現金握存，是它的全體居民的現金握存的總額。

Let us assume that the market economy uses only one kind of money and that money-substitutes are either unknown or used in the whole area by everybody without any difference. There are, for example, gold money and redeemable banknotes, issued by a world bank and treated by everybody as money-substitutes. On these assumptions measures hindering the exchange of commodities and services do not affect the state of monetary affairs and the size of cash holdings. Tariffs, embargoes, and migration barriers affect the tendencies toward an equalization of prices, wages, and interest rates. They do not react directly upon cash holdings.

讓我們假定這個市場經濟只使用一種貨幣，貨幣代替品或者是未被知道，或者是在整個領域內任何人都使用而無任何差別。例如，一個世界銀行發行的金幣，和可以兌現而每個人都當作貨幣代替品的銀行鈔票。在這些假定下，那些妨礙貨物和勞務交易的措施不致影響貨幣方面的事象和現金握存的數額。關稅、海禁和移民限制，對於物價、工資、利率趨向於相等的那些趨勢是有影響的。它們不致直接反應到現金握存方面。

If a government aims at increasing the amount of cash kept by its subjects, it must order them to deposit a certain amount with an office and to leave it there untouched. The necessity of procuring this amount would force everybody to sell more and to buy less; domestic prices would drop; exports would be increased and imports reduced; a quantity of cash would be imported. But if the government were simply to obstruct the importation of goods and the exportation of money, it would fail to attain its goal. If imports drop, other things being equal, exports drop concomitantly.

如果一個政府想提高人民的現金握存額，它就必須命令他們，把某一定額的現金存進一個官署而留在那裡不動用。這個作法會使每個人不得不多賣少買；國內物價將會跌落；輸出會增加，輸入會減少：因而有一個數額的現金會輸入。但是，如果這個政府只想阻礙貨物的輸入和貨幣的輸出，那就不會達到它的目的。如果輸入減少了，其他情形不變，輸出自會同時減少。

The role money plays in international trade is not different from that which it plays in domestic trade. Money is no less a medium of exchange in foreign trade than it is in domestic trade. Both in domestic trade and in international trade purchases and sales result in a more than passing change in the cash holdings of individuals and firms only if people are purposely intent upon increasing or restricting the size of their cash holdings. A surplus of money flows into a country only when its residents are more eager to increase their cash holdings than are the foreigners. An outflow of money occurs only if the residents are more eager to reduce their cash holdings than are the foreigners. A transfer of money from one country into another country which is not compensated by a transfer in the opposite direction is never the unintended result of international trade transactions. It is always the outcome of intended changes in the cash holdings of the residents. Just as wheat is exported only if a country's residents want to export a surplus of wheat, so money is exported only if the residents want to export a sum of money which they consider as a surplus.

貨幣在國際貿易方面發生的作用，與在國內貿易所發生的，沒有什麼不同。貨幣在國際貿易方面之爲交易媒介，無異於在國內貿易之爲交易媒介。在國內貿易和在國外貿易，如果買寶的結果不只是一人和一些商號的現金握存之流動，那只是因爲，那些人們有意增加或減少他們的現金握存。只有當一國的居民們比外國人更急於要增加現金握存的時候，才會有貨幣餘額流進這個國家。只有當一國的居民比外國人更急於要減少現金握存的時候，才會有貨幣餘額流出。國與國之間的貨幣移轉而沒有被反方面的移轉抵銷的那部份，決不是國際貿易上非故意的結果。那總是某一國的居民有意變動其現金握存的結果。小麥的輸出只在一國的居民想把多餘的小麥輸出的時候，同樣地，貨幣的輸出也只在一國的居民想把他們認爲剩餘的貨幣輸出的時候。

If a country turns to the employment of money-substitutes which are not employed abroad, such a surplus emerges. The appearance of these money-substitutes is tantamount to an increase in the country's supply of money in the broader sense, i.e., supply of money plus fiduciary media; it brings about a surplus in the supply of money in the broader sense. The residents are eager to get rid of their share in the surplus by increasing their purchases either of domestic or of foreign goods. In the first case exports drop and in the second case imports increase. In both cases the surplus of money goes abroad. As, according to our assumption, money-substitutes cannot be exported, only money proper flows out. The result is that within the domestic supply of money in the broader sense (money + fiduciary media) the portion of money drops and the portion of fiduciary media increases. The domestic stock of money in the narrower sense is now smaller than it was previously.

如果某一個國轉而使用國外所未使用的貨幣代替品，則這樣的剩餘就會發生。這些貨幣代替品的出現等於這個國的廣義的貨幣供給之增加，也即貨幣加上信用媒介的供給量增加；這就在廣義的貨幣供給中產生剩餘。這國的居民們就想把他們那一份的剩餘脫手，因而對本國的或外國的貨物增加購買。如果是增加本國貨的購買，則輸出減少：如果是增加外國貨的購買，則輸入增加。在這兩種情形下，剩餘的貨幣都是外流。因爲，照我們的假定，貨幣代替品不能輸出，只有貨幣本身流出去。其結果是：在國內的廣義貨幣供給（貨幣加信用媒介）裡面，貨幣部份降低，信用媒介部份昇高。這時，國內的狭義貨幣存量比以前較小。

Now, we assume further, the domestic money-substitutes cease

現在我們再假定：國內的貨幣代替品變成不是貨幣代替品了。發行它們的銀行不再接受兌現。以前的那些貨幣代替品，現在是一些對一個不履行其義務的銀行的要求權，這個銀行償還債務的能力和意願成了問題。誰也不知道，原先的那些貨幣代替品有沒有兌現的一天。但是，這些要求權可能被大家當作信用貨幣使用。作爲貨幣代替品看，它們被認爲等於一個隨時應付的要求權的金額。作爲信用貨幣看，它們現在要打折扣交換。

At this point the government may interfere. It decrees that these pieces of credit money are legal tender at their face value.[20] No trader is free to discriminate against them. The decree tries to force the public to treat things of different exchange value as if they had the same exchange value. It interferes with the structure of prices as determined by the market. It fixes minimum prices for the credit money and maximum prices for the commodity money (gold) and foreign exchange. The result is not what the government aimed at. The difference in exchange value between credit money and gold does not disappear. As it is forbidden to employ the coins according to their market price, people no longer employ them in buying and selling and in paying debts. They keep them or they export them. The commodity money disappears from the domestic market. Bad money, says Gresham's Law, drives good money out of the country. It would be more correct to say that the money which the government's decree has undervalued disappears from the market and the money which the decree has overvalued remains.

到了這個時候，政府會出來干涉了。它用法令規定，這一張張的信用貨幣按照它們的面値有法償的資格[20]。每個債權人不得不按照它們的面値接受債務的償付。交易中誰也沒有歧視它們的自由。這個法令是強迫大家把一些交換價値不同的東西當作有相同的交換價値。它干擾到市場所決定的物價結構。它給信用貨幣定下最低的價格，給物品貨幣（黃金）和外滙定下最高的價格。其結果不是政府所想達成的結果。信用貨幣與黃金之間的滙價之差並不消減。因爲硬幣是禁止按照它們的市場價格來使用的，人們再也不在買賣中和還債中使用它們。他們收藏它們或輸出它們。物品貨幣在國內市場絕跡了。像Gresham法則所指出的，劣幣驅逐良幣出國了。我們可以更正確地說，其價値被政府法令抑抵的貨幣，絕跡於巿場。其價値被政府法令抬高的貨幣，繼續存在。

The outflow of commodity money is thus not the effect of an unfavorable balance of payments, but the effect of a government interference with the price structure.

所以，物品貨幣的外流不是因爲收支平衡的逆差，而是政府干擾物價結構的結果。

--------------------

[20] Very often the legal tender quality had been given to those banknotes at a time when they still were money-substitutes and as such equal to money in their exchange value. At that time the decree had no catallactic importance. Now it becomes important because the market no longer considers them money-substitutes.

[20] 在這些銀行鈔票還是貨幣代替品的時候，政府也常常給它們的法償資格，因此，在交換價値上，它們等於貨幣。那時，這個法令沒有交換科學上的重要性。現在它變成重要了，是因爲這個市場再也不把它們當作貨幣代替品了。

14. Balances of Payment

十四、收支平衡

The confrontation of the money equivalent of all incomings and outgoings of an individual or a group of individuals during any particular period of time is called the balance of payments. The credit side and the debit side are always equal. The balance is always in balance.

一個人或一羣人，在任何特定的時期以內，全部收入和全部支付的貨幣等値之對照，這就叫做收支平衡。

If we want to know an individual's position in the frame of the market economy, we must look at his balance of payments. It tells us everything about the role he plays in the system of the social division of labor. It shows what he gives to his fellow men and what he receives or takes from them. It shows whether he is a self-supporting decent citizen or a thief or an almsman. It shows whether he consumes all his proceeds or whether he saves a part of them. There are many human things which are not reflected in the sheets of the ledger; there are virtues and achievements, vices and crimes that do not leave any traces in the accounts. But as far as a man is integrated into social life and activities, as far as he contributes to the joint effort of society and his contributions are appreciated by his fellow men, and as far as he consumes what is or could be sold and bought on the market, the information conveyed is complete.

如果我們想知道，一個人在市場經濟架構內的地位，我們必須注意他的收支平衡。它會吿訴我們，關於這個社會分工的制度下，他所扮演的角色的一切一切。它表現出，他在人羣中拿出一些什麼，收進一些什麼。它表現出，他是不是一個自立的正派人，或是一個盜賊，或是一個靠接受施捨過活的人。它表現出，他是否消費他的全部收入，還是把收入儲蓄一部份。在收支帳册上，自然表現不出許多的人事現象；美德與功業、邪惡與罪行，在帳册上留不下記錄。伹是，就一個人摻合在社會生活和社會活動而言，就他貢獻於社會的協作，而他的貢獻之受別人欣賞而言，以及就他消費市場上所買賣或所可買賣的東西而言，收支平衡所提供的情況也就夠了。

If we combine the balances of payments of a definite number of individuals and leave out of account the items referring to transactions between the members of this group, we draw up the group's balance of payment. This balance tells us how the members of the group, considered as an integrated complex of people, are connected with the rest of the market society. Thus we can draw up the balance of payments of the members of the New York Bar, of the Belgian farmers, of the residents of Paris, or of those of the Swiss Canton of Bern. Statisticians are mostly interested in establishing the balance of payments of the residents of the various countries which are organized as independent nations.

如果我們把若干個人的收支平衡合併起來，去掉那些有關這羣人彼此間的交易項目，我們就可編製這一羣人的收支平衡。這個收支平衡吿訴我們：這羣人的這些份子如何與這市場經濟的其餘部份發生關係。我們可編製紐約律師團的會員們的、比利時農民的、巴黎住民的或瑞士百倫州（Bern）居民的收入平衡。統計家最有興趣於編製獨立國的收支平衡。

While an individual's balance of payments conveys exhaustive information about his social position, a group's balance discloses much less. It says nothing about the mutual relations between the members of the group. The greater the group is and the less homogeneous its members are, the more defective is the information vouchsafed by the balance of payments. The balance of payments of Denmark tells more about the conditions of the Danes than the United States balance of payments about the conditions of the Americans. If one wants to describe a country's social and economic condition, one does not need to deal with every single inhabitant's personal balance of payments. But one must not form other groups than such as are composed of members who are by and large homogeneous in their social standing and their economic activities.

個人的收支平衡對於他的社會地位提供了詳盡的情報，一個團體的收支平衡所提供的情報卻少得多。它對於這個團體內部各份子間的相互關係完全不涉及。這個團體愈大，它的份子愈複雜、愈差異，則由收支平衡所顯示的情報，愈不完全。拉脫維亞（Lativia）的收支平衡所顯示的關於拉脫維亞人的情形，比美國收支平衡所顯示的關於美國人的情形要多些。如果你想陳述一國的社會經濟狀況，你就不必涉及每個居民個人的收支平衡。要緊的一點是，作爲一個團體而編製其收支平衡時，這個團體的份子必須在他們的社會經濟活動方面大體上是相同的，否則決不可作爲一個圑體來處理。

Reading balances of payments is thus very instructive. However, to guard against popular fallacies, one must know how to interpret them.

所以閲讀收支平衡是很有敎益的。但是，你必須知道如何解釋它們，以免犯上通常的錯誤。

It is customary to list separately the monetary and the nonmonetary items of a country's balance of payments. One calls the balance

習慣上是把一國的收支平衡分列爲貨幣項目和非貨幣項目。如果貨幣和金銀塊的輸入超過了它們的輸出，就叫做順差。如果貨幣和金銀塊的輸出超過了它們的輸入，就叫做逆差。這兩個名詞是源於重商主義者的謬見。所不幸的，這兩個代表謬見的名詞，積重難返，錯到現在還在使用，儘管有些經濟學家嚴厲地批評過。貨幣與金銀塊的輸入、輸出，被認爲是收支平衡中那些非貨幣項目的結構所引起的結果，而不是故意造成的。這個見解完全錯誤。貨幣和金銀塊的出超，並不是壞的遭遇之結果，而是由於這一國的居民有意要減少他們所保有的貨幣量，以致購買較多的貨物。這正說明：爲什麼產金國的收支平衡通常總是「逆差」；這也說明：爲什麼一個以信用媒介來代替一部份貨幣的國家，在其這樣作的時期中，這個國家也是「逆差」。

No provident action on the part of a paternal authority is required lest a country lose its whole money stock by an unfavorable balance of payments. Things are in this regard not different between the personal balances of payments of individuals and those of groups. Neither are they different between the balances of payments of a city or a district and those of a sovereign nation. No government interference is needed to prevent the residents of New York from spending all their money in dealings with the other forty-nine stated of the Union. As long as any American attaches any weights to the keeping of cash, he will spontaneously take charge of the matter. Thus he will contribute his share to the maintenance of an adequate supply of money in his country. But if no American were interested in keeping any cash holding, no government measure concerning foreign trade and the settlement of international payments could prevent an outflow of America's total monetary stock. A rigidly enforced embargo upon the exportation of money and bullion would be required.

用不著政府採取什麼謹愼的措施來避免逆差所引起的貨幣外流。就這方面講，在個人收支平衡與團體收支平衡之間的一些事情，沒有不同的。在一市或一區收支平衡，與一國收支平衡之間，它們也不是不同的。政府不必干涉紐約州的居民，以防止他們把他們所有的錢都花在購買其他各州的貨物。只要有美國人對於握存現金還肯重視，他就會封這件事負起責任。於是，他那一份的現金握存就有助於維持一個適當的美國的貨幣供給量。但是，如果沒有一個美國人有興趣任何數量的現金握存，則有關對外貿易和國際支付淸算的政府機關，就無法防阻美國的全部貨幣存量的外流。這時，就要對貨幣和金銀塊的輸出，採取嚴厲的、強迫的禁運措施了。

15. Interlocal Exchange Rates

十五、地域間的滙率

Let us first assume that there is only one kind of money. Then with regard to money's purchasing power at various places the same is valid as with regard to commodity prices. The final price of cotton in Liverpool cannot exceed the final price in Houston, Texas, by more than the cost of transportation. As soon as the price in Liverpool rises to a higher point, merchants will ship cotton to Liverpool

首先，讓我們假定只有一種貨幣。於是各地的貨幣購買力是相同的，各地的物價也是相同的。英國Liverpool的棉花最後價格與美國Houston的差額不會超過兩地之間的運輸成本。一旦Liverpool的價格上漲得較高，商人們就會把棉花運到Liverpool，於是引起一個回到那最後價格的趨勢。在Amsterdam—張金額荷幣的滙票價格，在紐約不會高出由各項成本所決定的那個數額，這裡的各項成本包括硬幣的改鑄、運費、保險費、以及這些一切操作所必要的那段期間的利息。一旦價格的差額超過了這個一點（我們把它叫做「輪金點」）——則把黃金從紐約運到Amsterdam就有利可圖。這些運輸就把紐約的荷幣滙率壓低到輸金點以下。地域間貨物交換率的結構，與貨幣滙率的結構之所以有差異，是由於在通常情形下，貨物總是單方向流動的，也即，從生產多的地方流到消費多的地方。棉花從Houston運到Liverpool，並不從Liverpool運到Houston。它在Houston的價格低於Liverpool的價格。但是，黃金則會一時從甲地運到乙地，一時從乙地運到甲地。

The error of those who try to interpret the fluctuations of the interlocal exchange rates and the interlocal shipments of money as determined by the configuration of the nonmonetary items of the balance of payments is that they assign to money an exceptional position. They do not see that with regard to interlocal exchange rates there is no difference between money and commodities. If cotton trade between Houston and Liverpool is possible at all, the cotton prices at these two places cannot differ by more than the total amount of costs required for shipment. In the same way in which there is a flow of cotton from the southern parts of the United States to Europe, gold flows from the gold-producing countries like South Africa to Europe.

有些人想把地域間的滙率波動和地域間貨幣運輸的波動，解釋爲收支平衡中那些非貨幣項目的結構所決定。這些人的錯誤，在於他們對貨幣有個特殊的看法。他們不了解關於地域間的交換率；貨幣與貨物之間是沒有區別的。如果Houston與Liverpool兩地的棉花貿易是可能的，則棉花在這兩個地方的價格不會差到大於全部運輸成本之總和。美國南部各州的棉花是怎樣運輸到歐洲的，產金國，像南非的黃金，也就怎樣運輸到歐洲。這其間沒有區別。

Let us disregard triangular trade and the case of the gold-producing countries and let us assume that the individuals and firms trading with one another on the basis of the gold standard do not have the intention of changing the size of their cash holdings. From their purchases and sales, claims are generated which necessitate interlocal payments. But according to our assumption these interlocal payments are equal in amount. The amount that the residents of A have to pay to the residents of B is equal to the amount that the residents of B have to pay to the residents of A. It is therefore possible to save the costs of shipping gold from A to B and from B to A. Claims and debts can be settled by a sort of interlocal clearing. It is merely a technical problem whether this evening up is effected by an interlocal clearinghouse organization or by the turnovers of a special market for foreign

讓我們擺開產金國的事例不談，我們假定，一些個人和商號用金本位彼此貿易，他們都無意於變更他們現金握存的數額。由於他的買和賣，一些要求權就產生了，這些要求權是要在地域間支付的。但照我們的假定，這些地域間的支付是等額的。A地的居民應該付給B地居民的數額等於B地居民應該付給A地居民的數額。所以，可以省掉把黃金從A地運到B地，又從B地運到A地。要求權和債務可以用一種地域淸算的辦法了結。至於這種彼此冲銷，是否受到一個地域間的票據淸算所組織或一個特別的外滙市場所影響，那只是一個技術問題。無論如何，A（或B）地一個居民應該在B（或A）地支付的那個價格，是保持在運輸成本所決定的那些差額以內。它不會高出這個平價而高於運輸成本（輪出金點），也不會低於運輸成本（輪入金點）。

It may happen that--all our other assumptions remaining unaltered--there is a temporal discrepancy between the payments due from A to B and those from B to A. Then an interlocal shipment of gold can only be avoided by the interposition of a credit transaction. If the importer who today has to pay from A to B can buy at the market of foreign exchange claims against residents of B as fall due in ninety days, he can save the costs of shipping gold by borrowing the sum concerned in B for a period of ninety days. The dealers in foreign exchange will resort to this makeshift if the costs of borrowing in B do not exceed the costs of borrowing in A by more than double the costs of shipping gold. If the cost of shipping gold is 1/8 per cent, they will be ready to pay for a three months' loan in B up to 1 per cent (pro anno) more as interest than corresponds to the state of the money-market interest rate at which, in the absence of such requirements for interlocal payments, credit transactions between A and B would be effected.

也許發生這種情形——所有其他的假定都不變——A地應付B地的數額與B地應付A地的，其間有個暫時的差異。這時，要避免地域間的黃金運輸，那只有靠信用交易。如果今天必須從A地付錢給B地的一個输入商人，能夠在外滙市場買到的，只有九十天到期的對B地居民的要求權，他就可在B地借入這個數額的錢（爲期九十天），因而省下運輸黃金的費用。如果B地的借債成本與A地的比較，沒有高過運金費用的一倍，則外滙商人就會用這個手段。如果運金費用是1/8％，他們在B地爲三個月期的借款所願付的利息，可以高過在下述那種貨幣市場情況下的利率1％（每年），即：沒有這樣的地域間收支之必要條件時，A地與B地之間信用交易將會受到影響的那種利率。

It is permissible to express these facts by contending that the daily state of the balance of payments between A and B determines the daily point at which, within the margins drawn by the gold export point and the gold import point, the foreign exchange rates are fixed. But one must not forget to add that this happens only if the residents of A and of B do not intend to change the size of their cash holdings. Only because this is the case does it become possible to avoid the transfer of gold altogether and to keep foreign exchange rates within the limits drawn by the two gold points. If the residents of A want to reduce their cash holdings and those of B want to increase theirs, gold must be shipped from A to B and the rate for cable transfer B reaches in A the gold export point. Then gold is sent from A to B in the same way in which cotton is regularly sent from the United States to Europe. The rate of cable transfer B reaches the gold export point because the residents of A are selling gold to those of B, not because their balance of payments is unfavorable.

這些事實可以用這樣的說法來表達：A地與B地之間每天的收支平衡，在輸出金點與輸入金點的差距以內，決定外滙率所依以規定的那一點。但是，我們決不可忘掉再說一句：這種情形只有在A地和B地的居民不想變動他們的現金握存額的時候才會發生。只因爲情形是如此，所以，完全不運輸黃金，而把滙率保持在兩個輸金點所限定的範圍以內，是可能的。如果A地居民想減少他們的現金握存，B地居民想增加他們的，則黃金必須從A地運輸到B地，而A地的滙率就漲到黃金輸出點。這時黃金從A地送到B地，正同棉花之經常從美國運到歐洲。滙率之達到黃金輸出點，是因爲A地居民願意把黃金賣給B地居民，不是因爲他們的收支平衡出現了逆差。

All this is valid with regard to any payments to be transacted between various places. It makes no difference whether the cities concerned belong to the same sovereign nation or to different sovereign nations. However, government interference has considerably changed the conditions. All governments have created institutions which make

這一切一切都適用於不同的地域間任何償付。有關的城市屬於同一個主權國或不同的主權國，都是一樣。但是，政府的干涉就大大改變了這種情況。所有的政府都已設立了一些機構，使本國居民在國內各地域間的收支可以按票面價値。至於把通貨從這個地方運送到別個地方的費用，或者由國庫負擔，或者由中央銀行體系負擔，或者由其他的政府金融機構，如歐洲一些國家的郵政儲蓄銀行負擔。因此，再也沒有國內地域間的外滙市場。一般人如有地域間的收支，也和當地的收支一樣，沒有較多的負擔，如果有點小小的差額，那也不涉及地域間通貨流動率或流動方向的變動。使國內地域間的收支與國際收支發生差異的是政府的干涉。國內地域間的收支都按票面價値，而國際收支則在兩個輸金點之間的範園內波動。

If more than one kind of money is used as a medium of exchange, the mutual exchange ratio between them is determined by their purchasing power. The final prices of the various commodities, as expressed in each of the two or several kinds of money, are in proportion to each other. The final exchange ratio between the various kinds of money reflects their purchasing power with regard to the commodities. If any discrepancy appears, opportunity for profitable transactions presents itself and the endeavors of businessmen eager to take advantage of this opportunity tend to make it disappear again. The purchasing-power parity theory of foreign exchange is merely the application of the general theorems concerning the determination of prices to the special case of the coexistence of various kinds of money.

如果有一種以上的貨幣用作交易媒介，它們之間的相互交換率決定於它們的購買力。各種貨物的最後價格，當其表現於每種貨幣上，是彼此成比例的。各種貨幣之間的最後交換率反映它們對於貨物的購買力。如果有何差距發生的話，也就是有利於掉換的機會出現了，於是，有些商人利用這個機會來做買賣，其結果使這個差距又消失。外滙的購買力平價理論，不過是把關於價格決定的一般理論應用到各種貨幣並存的特殊情況。

It does not matter whether the various kinds of money coexist in the same territory or whether their use is limited to distinct areas. In any case the mutual exchange ratio between them tends to a final state at which it no longer makes any difference whether one buys and sells against this or that kind of money. As far as costs of interlocal transfer come into play, these costs must be added or deducted.

各種貨幣是不是在同一領域內並存，或者說，它們的使用是不是限之於不同的區域，這是不關重要的。無論如何，它們之間的相互交換率是趨向於一個最後的情況。所謂最後的情況者，是在這個情况下，對這種貨幣或那種貨幣買和賣，再也沒有任何差異了。如果地域間運輸成本發生作用，這些成本必須加上或減掉。

The changes in purchasing power do not occur at the same time with regard to all commodities and services. Let us consider again the practically very important instance of an inflation in one country only. The increase in the quantity of domestic credit money or fiat money affects at first only the prices of some commodities and services. The prices of the other commodities remain for some time still at their previous stand. The exchange ratio between the domestic currency and the foreign currencies is determined on the bourse, a market organized and managed according to the pattern and the commercial customs of the stock exchange. The dealers on this special

購買力的變動不是對所有的貨物和勞務同時發生。讓我們再就只有一國的通貨膨脹這個事例（這是個非常重要的事例）來討論。本國信用貨幣或命令貨幣的數量增加，首先只影響某些貨物和勞務的價格。其他貨物的價格在某一時期以內維持不變。本國通貨與外國通貨之間的滙率，是在交易所決定的。這個特殊市場的商人，在預期將來的變動這方面比別人更敏捷。因此，外滙市場價格結構反映新的貨幣關係，比許多貨物和勞務的價格來得更快。一旦國內通貨膨脹開始影響到某些貨物的價格時，外滙價格馬上就會上漲到相當於國內物價和工資上漲的最後階段，無論如何，外滙價格的上漲總在大部份物價上漲以前。

This fact has been entirely misinterpreted. People failed to realize that the rise in foreign exchange rates merely anticipates the movement of domestic commodity prices. They explained the boom in foreign exchange as an outcome of an unfavorable balance of payments. The demand for foreign exchange, they maintained, has been increased by a deterioration of the balance of trade or of other items of the balance of payments, or simply by sinister machinations on the part of unpatriotic speculators. The higher prices to be paid for foreign exchange cause the domestic prices of imported goods to rise. The prices of the domestic products must follow suit because otherwise their low state would encourage business to withhold them from domestic consumption and to sell them abroad at a premium.

這個事實完全被誤解了，人們不知道外滙的上漲只是國內物價波動的先聲。他們把外滙巿場的興旺解釋爲由於收支平衡的逆差。他們說，外滙需求之所以增加，是因爲貿易平衡或收支平衡中其他項目的減返，或者只是由於一些不愛國的投機者的搗鬼。外滙價格上漲，使得輸入品在國內市場的價格也上漲，於是國內生產的一些貨物一定也跟著漲價，因爲如果不上漲，它們的低價將促使商人把它們運到國外出賣，國內市場就沒有這些貨物供應。

The fallacies involved in this popular doctrine can easily be shown. If the nominal income of the domestic public had not been increased by the inflation, they would be forced to restrict their consumption either of imported or of domestic products. In the first case imports would drop and in the second case exports would increase. Thus the balance of trade would again be brought back to what the Mercantilists call a favorable state.

這個流行的說法所包含的一些謬見很容易指出。如果國內大衆的名目所得沒有因通貨膨脹而增加，他們就不得不減少進口貨物或本國產品的消費。減少進口貨物的消費，則輸入就會降低；減少本國產品的消費，則輸出就會增加。於是，貿易平衡又會再回到重商主義者所說的有利的境況。

Pressed hard, the Mercantilists cannot help admitting the cogency of this reasoning. But, they say, it applies only to normal trade conditions. It does not take into account the state of affairs in countries which are under the necessity of importing vital commodities such as food and essential raw materials. The importation of such goods cannot be curtailed below a certain minimum. They are imported no matter what prices must be paid for them. If the foreign exchange required for importing them cannot be procured by an adequate amount of exports, the balance of trade becomes unfavorable and the foreign exchange rates must rise more and more.

這裡的推理，重商主義者不得不承認是對的。但是，他們又說，這個理論只適用於正常的貿易情況，沒有考慮到有些國一定要輸入一些必需品如糧食和基本原料。這些貨物的輸入不能減少到一個最低限以下。不管它們的價格怎樣，他們都得輸入，如果輸入這些貨物所需要的外滙不能靠適當的輸出量而取得，則貿易平衡就變成逆差，而滙率一定上漲再上漲。

This is no less illusory than all other Mercantilist ideas. However urgent and vital an individual's or a group of individuals' demand for some goods may be, they can satisfy it on the market only by paying the market price. If an Austrian wants to buy Canadian

這個想法之荒謬，不遜於其他所有的重商主義者的想法。一個人或一羣人，對於某一貨物的需求，無論怎樣迫切、怎樣緊要，他們只能按照市場價格去買它才能得到。假若一個奧國人想買加拿大的小麥，他就必須用加拿大的貨幣按市場價格去買。他必須直接向加拿大輸出貨物或向其他國家輸出貨物，以取得加拿大的貨幣。他不是用奥國貨幣表示出來的較高的價格（也即較高的匯率）來增加他所要的加拿大貨幣。而且，如果他的所得（就奥國錢來講）不變，他也買不起這樣高價（就奥國錢來講）的進口小麥。只有奧國政府採取通貨膨脹政策，因而增加奧國人民口袋中的奧國錢，奥國人才能夠照向來的購買量，來繼續買加拿大的小麥而不必減少其他的消費。如果沒有國內的通貨膨脹，輸入品的價格上漲，其結果不是這種物品的消費減縮，就是其他物品的消費減縮。於是，上述的再調整過程就會發動。

If a man lacks the money to buy bread from his neighbor, the village baker, the cause is not to be seen in an alleged scarcity of money. The cause is that this man did not succeed in earning the amount of money needed either by selling goods or by rendering services for which people are prepared to pay. The same is true with regard to international trade. a country may be distressed on account of the fact that it is at a loss to sell abroad as many commodities as it would have to sell in order to buy all the food its citizens want. But this does not mean that foreign exchange is scarce. It means that the residents are poor. And domestic inflation is certainly not an appropriate means to remove this poverty.

如果一個人沒有錢向他隔壁的麵包店買麵包，其原因不是在於通常所說的金錢稀少。眞正的原因，是這個人未能靠出賣人們願意購買的貨物或未能提供人們願意僱用的勞務而賺得他所需要的金錢數量。就國際貿易來講，也是如此。一個國也會因爲它不能向國外賣出足夠貨物以買進國人所需要的食糧而感到困窘。但是，這並不是外滙短缺。這是表示，這個國的人民貧乏。國內的通貨膨脹決不是消除這種貧乏的適當方法。

Neither has speculation any reference to the determination of foreign exchange rates. The speculators merely anticipate the expected alterations. If they err, if their opinion that an inflation is in progress is wrong, the structure of prices and foreign exchange rates will not correspond to their anticipations and they will have to pay for their mistakes by losses.

投機對於滙率的決定也沒有任何關係。投機者只是預測未來的變動。如果他們錯了，如果他們認爲通貨膨脹是在進展中這個想法是不對的，則物價結構和滙率就不會符合他們的預期，他們就得因爲這種錯誤而受損失。

The doctrine according to which foreign exchange rates are determined by the balance of payments is based upon an illicit generalization of a special case. If two places, A and B, use the same kind of money and if the residents do not want to make any changes in the size of their cash holdings, over a given period of time the amount of money paid from the residents of A to those of B equals the amount paid from the residents of B to those of A and all payments can be settled without shipping money from A to B or from B to A. Then the rate of cable transfer B in A cannot rise above a point slightly below the gold export point and cannot drop below a point slightly

滙率決定於收支平衡這個理論，是基於一個不健全的概論，即把一個特別情況概括化的結論。如果有兩個地方A和B，使用同樣的貨幣，如果這兩地的居民不想變動他們的現金握存額，則在這個時期當中，A地居民付給B地居民的貨幣量就會等於B地居民付給A地居民的數量，於是所有的支付互相抵銷，用不著把貨幣從A地運輸到B地，或從B地運輸到A地。這時，A地向B地的滙率不會高於那稍低於黃金輸出點的那一點，也不能低於那稍富於黃金輸入點的那一點，反過來講也一樣。在這個差距以內，收支平衡的每天情況決定每天的滙率。這只是因A地居民和B地居民都不想變動他們的現金握存額才會如此。如果A地居民想減少他們的現金握存額，而B地居民想增加他們的現金握存額，則貨幣就要從A地運輸到B地，而A地的滙率就要高到黃金輸出點。但是貨幣並不因A地的收支平衡變成逆差而要運輸。重商主義者所說的收支平衡的逆差，是A地居民現金握存的故意減縮和B地居民現金握存的故意增加所引起的結果。如果A地居民誰也不預備減少他的現金握存額，則貨幣之從B地流出就決不會發生。

The difference between the trade in money and that in the vendible commodities is this: As a rule commodities move on a one-way road, viz., from the places of surplus production to those of surplus consumption. Consequently the price of a certain commodity in the places of surplus production is as a rule lower by the amount of shipping costs than in the places of surplus consumption. Things are different with money if we do not take into account the conditions of the gold-mining countries and of those countries whose residents deliberately aim at altering the size of their cash holdings. Money moves now this way, now that. At one time a country exports money, at another time it imports money. Every exporting country very soon becomes an importing country precisely on account of its previous exports. For this reason alone it is possible to save the costs of shipping money by the interplay of the market for foreign exchange.

貨幣貿易與貨物貿易之間的不同是這樣的：通常，貨物總是在單行線上流動的，也即，從過多生產的地方流向過多消費的地方。因此，某種貨物在過多生產地的價格，低於過多消費地的價格，而其所低的數額通常是決定於運輸成本。就貨幣來講，如果我們不涉及產金國和那些其居民故意要變動其現金握存額的國，則事情就不同了。貨幣一時從這個方向流去，一時又從那個方向流回。一個國有時輸出貨幣，有時輸入貨幣。每個輸出國，正因爲它先前的輸出很快地變成一個輸入國。僅僅因爲這個理由，才可能藉外滙市場的相互作用而省掉運輸貨幣的成本。

16. Interest Rates and the Money Relation

十六、利率和貨幣關係

Money plays in credit transaction the same role it plays in all other business transactions. As a rule loans are granted in money, and interest and principal are paid in money. The payments resulting from such dealings influence the size of cash holding only temporarily. The recipients of loans, interest, and principal spend the sums received either for consumption or for investment. They increase their cash holdings only if definite considerations, independent of the inflow of the money received, motivate them to act in this way.

貨幣在信用交易中所發生的作用，和它在所有其他的交易中所發生的作用，是相同的。通常，放款是用貨幣放的，付息和還本也是用貨幣支付的。從這樣的一些交易而引起的支付，只是暫時影響到現金握存額。接受放款、利息、以及本金的人們，把他們所收到的款項或用之於消費，或用之於投資。至於他們之增加他們的現金握存，那只是由於某些與其收入的貨幣毫無關係的考慮。

The final state of the market rate of interest is the same for all loans of the same character. Differences in the rate of interest are caused either by differences in the soundness and trustworthiness of

市場利率的最後情況對於所有同樣性質的放款是一樣的。利率之有差異，或者是由於債務人的可靠性有差異，或者是由於契約條件之不同[21]。凡不是由於這些原因而引起的利率差異，是趨向於消失的。申請放款的人總是去找那些所索的利率較低的貸放者。貸放者總是迎合那些準備支付較高利率的借款人，貨幣市場的事情與所有其他市場的事情是相同的。

With regard to interlocal credit transactions the interlocal exchange rates are to be taken into account as well as differences in the monetary standard if there are any. Let us contemplate the case of two countries, A and B. A is under the gold standard, B under the silver standard. The lender who considers lending money from A to B must first sell gold against silver and later, at the termination of the loan, silver against gold, the principal repaid by the debtor (in silver) will buy a smaller amount of gold than that expended by the creditor when he previously embarked upon the transaction. He will therefore only venture lending in B if the difference in the market rate of interest between A and B is large enough to cover an expected fall in the price of silver as against gold. The tendency toward an equalization of the market rate of interest for short-term loans which prevails if A and B are both under the same monetary standard is seriously impaired under a diversity of standards.

關於地域間的信用交易，地域間的滙率也和貨幣本位的差異一樣，都要考慮到，如果兩地的貨幣本位是有差異的。讓我們設想A、B兩國的情形。A採用金本位，B採用銀本位。那個想把貨幣從A貸放給B的放款者必須首先賣出黃金換得白銀，後來在放款收回時賣出白銀換得黃金。如果在這個後期，銀價對金價而言跌落了，則債務人所償還的本金（用白銀）所可買到的黃金量，將少於債權人原先放款時所支出的數量。所以，如果A和B之間的市場利率之差，大到足以抵補預期的銀價對黃金的跌落，那麼，他在B國的放款將只是僥倖的行爲。如果A、B採用相同的貨幣本位，則短期放款的市場利率就有相等的趨勢，這種趨勢，在不同的本位下嚴重地被損害了。

If A and B are both under the same standard, it is impossible for the banks of A to expand credit if those of B do not espouse the same policy. Credit expansion in A makes prices rise, and short-term interest rates temporarily drop in A, while prices and interest rates in B remain unchanged. Consequently exports from A drop and imports to A increase. In addition, the money lenders of A become eager to lend on the short-term loan market of B. The result is an external drain from A which makes the money reserves of A's banks dwindle. If the banks of A do not abandon their expansionist policy, they will become insolvent.

如果A和B採用相同的本位，則A的諸銀行就不可能擴張信用，除非B的諸銀行也採同樣的政策。A的信用擴張使物價上漲，於是A的短期利率下降，而B的物價和利率仍然不變。因而A的輸出跌落，輸入增漲。而且，A的貨幣貸放者變得急於想在B的短期貸放市場放款。其結果是資金外流，使A國銀行的貨幣準備爲之減少。如果A國的銀行不放棄它們的擴張政策，它們將會破產。

This process has been entirely misinterpreted. People speak of an important and vital function which a country's central bank has to fulfill on behalf of the nation. It is, they say, the central bank's sacred duty to preserve the stability of foreign exchange rates and to protect the nation's gold reserve against attacks on the part of foreign speculators and their domestic abettors. The truth is that all that a central bank does lest its gold reserve evaporate is done for the sake of the preservation of its own solvency. It has jeopardized its financial position by embarking upon credit expansion and must now undo

這個過程已經完全被誤解了。他們說，保持滙率的安定以及保護本國的金準備免受於外國的投機者和本國的幫助者的侵害，這是中央銀行的神聖職責。其實是這樣：一個中央銀行爲怕它的金準備消散而要做的一切事情，是爲著保持它自己的償付能力而做的。它已經由於擴張信用而癱瘓了自己的財力，現在爲著避免悲慘的結果，必須解脫以前的行爲。它的擴張政府已碰到那些限制信用媒介之發行的障礙了。

The use of the terminology of warfare is inappropriate in dealing with monetary matters, as it is in the treatment of all other catallactic problems. There is no such thing as a "war" between the central banks. No sinister forces are "attacking" a bank's position and threatening the stability of foreign exchange rates. No "defender" is needed to "protect" a nation's currency system. It is, moreover, not true that what prevent a nation's central bank or its private banks from lowering the domestic market rate of interest are considerations of the preservation of the gold standard and of foreign exchange stability and of frustrating the machinations of an international combine of capitalistic moneylenders. The market rate of interest cannot be lowered by a credit expansion except for a short time, and even then it brings about all those effects which the theory of the trade cycle describes.

在討論貨幣事情的時候，使用戰鬥這類的名詞，是不適當的，正如同在討論交換科學的其他所有問題時之不適宜於使用這類名詞。在各國中央銀行之間，沒有像「戰爭」的那種事情。沒有什麼兇惡的力量在「侵襲」一個銀行的地位、在威脅滙率的安定。不需要什麼「防禦者」，來保護一國的通貨制度。而且，下面這個說法是不對的，即：防止一國的中央銀行或它的一些私人銀行降低國內市場利率的，是關於保護金本位、關於滙率安定，以及關於打擊資本主義放債者國際陰謀的這些考慮。市場利率，除短期以外，不能靠擴張信用來降低，而且，甚至在那時候，它也會引起商業循環論所描述的一切後果。

When the Bank of England redeemed a banknote issued according to the terms of the contract, it did not render unselfishly a vital service to the British people. It simply did what every housewife does in paying the grocer's bill. The idea that there is some special merit in a central bank's fulfillment of its voluntarily assumed responsibilities could originate only because again and again governments granted to these banks the privilege of denying to their clients the payments to which they had a legal title. In fact, the central banks became more and more subordinate offices of the treasuries, mere tools for the performance of credit expansion and inflation. It does not make any difference practically whether they are or are not owned by the government and directly managed by government officials. In effect the banks granting circulation credit are in every country today only affiliates of the treasuries.

英倫銀行在按照契約的條件，兌換一張已發行的銀行鈔票的時候，它並不是對英國人民無私地提供一項重要的功能。它只是做每個主婦在支付雜貨店帳款時所做的事情。至於說，一個中央銀行完成其自願承擔的一些責任，就算有特殊功績，這種想法之所以發生，只是因爲政府一再地允許這些銀行有特權可以拒絕支付顧客們有權要求的支付。事實上，中央銀行愈來愈成爲財政部的附屬機關，只是信用擴張與通貨膨脹的工具。至於中央銀行是不是政府所有、是不是由政府的官吏直接經營，實際上沒有什麼區別。總之，現在各國可授予流通信用的銀行，都是些國庫的分支機構。

There is but one means of keeping a local and national currency permanently at par with gold and foreign exchange: unconditional redemption. The central bank has to buy at the parity rate any amount of gold and foreign exchange offered against domestic banknotes and deposit currency; on the other hand it has to sell, without discrimination, any amount of gold and foreign exchange asked for by people ready to pay the parity price in domestic banknotes, coins, or deposit currency. Such was the policy of central banks under the gold standard. Such was also the policy of those governments and central banks which had adopted the currency system commonly known under the name of the gold exchange standard. The only difference between the "orthodox" or classical gold standard as it

要永久維持一個地區的或一國的通貨與黃金和外滙的平價，只有一個辦法：無條件兌現。中央銀行必須按照平價買進或賣出任何數量的黃金或外滙。這是金本位制下中央銀行的政策。這也是那些採行大家所熟知的金滙兌本位制的政府和中央銀行的政策。從十九世紀二十幾年到第一次世界大戰爆發時，在英國和其他國家實行過的正宗的或古典的金本位制，與後來的金滙兌本位制，這兩者間的區別，只是國內市場是否使用金幣之別。在古典金本位制下，人民的現金握存有一部份是金幣，其餘的是貨幣代替品。在金滙兌本位制下，現金握存全部是貨幣代替品。

Pegging a certain rate of foreign exchange is tantamount to redemption at this rate.

外滙率的釘住，等於按照這個釘住的比率兌現。

A foreign exchange equalization account, too, can succeed in its operations only as far as it clings to the same methods.

一個外滙平準帳在運用上的成功，也只有靠堅持這同一方法。

The reasons why in the last decades European governments have preferred foreign exchange equalization accounts to the operation of central banks are obvious. Central bank legislation was an achievement of liberal governments or of governments which did not dare to challenge openly, at least in the conduct of financial policies, public opinion of the liberal countries. The operations of central banks were therefore adjusted to economic freedom. For that reason they were considered unsatisfactory in this age of rising totalitarianism. The main characteristics of the operation of a foreign exchange equalization account as distinguished from central bank policy are:

歐洲的一些政府，近年來爲什麼樂於採用外滙平準帳以代替中央銀行的運作，其理由很明顯。關於中央銀行的法制，是一些自由政府的一大功績，這裡所說的自由政府，是指那些不敢公開向自由國家的民意挑戰一至少在金融政策方面一的政府。所以，中央銀行的一些運作是適應經濟自由而調整的。因爲這個理由，這些運作在這個極權主義抬頭的時代，就不滿人意了。外滙平準帳的運作與中央銀行政策不同的主要特徵是：

1. The authorities keep the transactions of the account secret. The laws have obliged the central banks to publicize their actual status at short intervals, as a rule every week. But the status of the foreign exchange equalization accounts is known only to the initiated. Officialdom renders a report to the public only after a lapse of time when the figures are of interest to historians alone and of no use whatever to the businessman.

1. 外滙平準帳是保密的。中央銀行在法律規定下必須按期（通常是每週）公佈它的實況。但是，外滙平準帳的情形只有內行人才知道。官方給大家的報吿只是些過時的數字，這些數字只有歷史家才關心，對於工商業者沒有任何用處。

2. This secrecy makes it possible to discriminate against people not in great favor with the authorities. In many continental countries of Europe it resulted in scandalous corruption. Other governments used the power to discriminate to the detriment of businessmen belonging to linguistic or religious minorities or supporting opposition parties.

2. 一這種秘密性使差別待遇成爲可能。在歐洲大陸的許多國，這個制度釀成可恥的貪汚腐化。其他的政府利用這個歧視的權力來傷害那些語言不同或宗敎不同的少數商人或那些支持反對黨的商人。

3. A parity is no longer fixed by a law duly promulgated by parliament and therefore known to every citizen. The determination depends upon the arbitrariness of bureaucrats. From time to time the newspapers reported: The Ruritanian currency is weak. A more correct description would have been: The Ruritanian authorities have decided to raise the price of foreign exchange.[22]

3，平價再也不是由國會公佈的大家周知的法律所規定的。平價的決定只是官僚們的任意作爲。報紙上常常有這樣的報導：某國的通貨軟弱了。更正確的報導應該是：某國的政府已決定提高外滙價格[22]。

A foreign exchange equalization account is not a magic wand for

外滙平準帳不是可以驅除通貨膨脹的諸惡果的一根魔杖。它不能在正宗的中央銀行所用的那些方法以外，採用任何其他方法。如果國內有通貨膨脹和信用擴張，它也和中央銀行一樣，一定不能維持外滙平價。

It has been asserted that the "orthodox" methods of fighting an external drain by using the rate of discount no longer work because nations are no longer prepared to comply with "the rules of the game." Now, the gold standard is not a game, but a social institution. Its working does not depend on the preparedness of any people to observe some arbitrary rules. It is controlled by the operation of inexorable economic law.

有人這樣說：靠提高貼現率以抵抗資金外流的這個「正宗的」方法再也不行了，因爲一些國再也不遵守「這些競技的規則」了。金本位並不是一種競技，而是一個社會建制。它的運作，不靠任何人之願意遵守某些任意制定的規則。它是被冷酷的經濟法則所控制的。

The critics give point to their objection by citing the fact that in the interwar period a rise in the rate of discount failed to stop the external drain, i.e., the outflow of specie and the transfer of deposits into foreign countries. But this phenomenon was caused by the governments' anti-gold and pro-inflation policies. If a man expects that he will lose 40 per cent of his balance by an impending devaluation, he will try to transfer his deposit into another and will not change his mind if the bank rate in the country planning a devaluation rises 1 or 2 per cent. Such a rise in the rate of discount is obviously not a compensation for a loss ten or twenty or even forty times greater. Of course, the gold standard cannot work if governments are eager to sabotage its operations.

這些評論家舉出下述的事實作爲論據，即在戰爭間貼現率的提高不能阻止資金的外流——黃金和存款之轉移到外國。但是，這種現象是政府「反對黃金而贊成通貨膨脹」的一些政策所引起的。如果一個人眼見他的存款將會因貨幣貶値而損失40％，他當然要設法把它移轉到別國；如果這個將要貶價的國，其銀行利率提高1％或2％，這個人也不會改變主意。因爲這提昇的貼現率，很明顯地不足以抵補那個大上十倍、二十倍、甚至四十倍的損失。如果政府熱心於破壞金本位，金本位就當然不行了。

--------------------

[21] For a more elaborate analysis, see below, pp. 539-548.

[21] 關於更詳細的分析見第二十章第二、三、四節。

[22] See below, pp. 786-789.

[22] 見第二十六章第三節。

17. Secondary Media of Exchange

十七、次級的交換媒介

The use of money does not remove the differences which exist between the various nonmonetary goods with regard to their marketability. In the money economy there is a very substantial difference between the marketability of money and that of the vendible goods. But there remain differences between the various specimens of this latter group. For some of them it is easier to find without delay a buyer ready to pay the highest price which, under the state of the market, can possibly be attained. With others it is more difficult. A first-class bond is more marketable than a house in a city's main street, and an old fur coat is more marketable than an autograph of an eighteenth-century statesman. One no longer compares the marketability of the various vendible goods with the perfect marketability of money. One merely compares the degree of marketability of the various commodities. One may speak of the secondary marketability of the vendible goods.

各種非貨幣的貨物，其銷路有大小的差異，貨幣的使用並不消除這些差異。在貨幣經濟裡面，貨幣的銷路與貨物的銷路，兩者間有很大的差異。但在各種各類的貨物之間，仍然存有許多差異。它們當中有的容易找到願意出最高價來買的買主，有的則較爲困難。一張第一級的債券比一棟房子更有銷路，一件獺皮外衣比一位十八世紀政治家的墨蹟更有銷路。誰也不會把各種貨物的銷路拿來和貨幣的完全銷路相比。人們只把各種貨物銷路的大小程度拿來相比。我們無妨說貨物的銷路是次級的。

He who owns a stock of goods of a high degree of secondary marketability is in a position to restrict his cash holding. He can expect that when one day it is necessary for him to increase his cash holding

保有著一些高度次級銷路的貨物的人，就可以減縮他的現金握存，因爲他有把握在需要增加現金握存的時候，他就可很快地把那些有高度次級銷路的貨物，在市場上賣到最高價格而得到現金。所以，一個人或一個商號的現金存額的或大或小，要看他是否保有一些高度次級銷路的貨物。如果有些高度次級銷路的貨物在手頭，則現金握存額以及保存它的費用都可減少些。

Consequently there emerges a specific demand for such goods on the part of people eager to keep them in order to reduce the costs of cash holding. The prices of these goods are partly determined by this specific demand; they would be lower in its absence. These goods are secondary media of exchange, as it were, and their exchange value is the resultant of two kinds of demand: the demand related to their services as secondary media of exchange, and the demand related to the other services they render.

因此，那些爲減低現金握存的費用，而保有這種貨物的人們，對這種貨物就產生了一種特別需求。這些貨物的價格一部份決定於這個特別需求；如果沒有這個特別需求，它們的價格將會低些。這些貨物就是次級的交換媒介，因而它們的交換價値是兩種需求合成的結果：一是對於次級交換媒介這個功能而發生的需求，一是對於它們所提供的其他功能而發生的需求。

The costs incurred by holding cash are equal to the amount of interest which the sum concerned would have borne when invested. The cost incurred by holding a stock of secondary media of exchange consists in the difference between the interest yield of the securities employed for this purpose and the higher yield of other securities which differ from the former only in regard to their lower marketability and are therefore not suited for the role of secondary media of exchange.

因握存現金而受的損失，等於這筆金額用在投資方面所會賺到的利息額。因握存一批次級的交換媒介而受的損失，則等於握存中的這些證券所產生的利息和其他證券（與握存中的證券之不同，僅在它們的銷路較小，因而不適於作爲次級的交換媒介來使用）的最高收益之間的差額。

From time immemorial jewels have been used as secondary media of exchange. Today the secondary media of exchange commonly used are:

從不知何時開始的時期起，珠寶被用作次級的交換媒介。現在通常用作次級交換媒介的，是：

1. Claims against banks, bankers, and savings banks which--although not money-substitutes[23] --are daily maturing or can withdrawn on short notice.

1. 對一般銀行或儲蓄銀行的要求權。這些要求權——雖然不是貨幣代替品[23]——是每天到期的，或者是通知後一兩天就可提取的。

2. Bonds whose volume and popularity are so great that it is, as a rule, possible to sell moderate quantities of them without depressing the market.

2. 發行量很大而且發行得很普遍，因而即令賣出相當數量，也不會使市場價格下跌的那種債券。

3. Finally, sometimes even certain especially marketable stocks or even commodities.

3. 最後，有時候甚至某些特別有銷路的股票或甚至貨物。

Of course, the advantages to be expected from lowering the costs of holding cash must be confronted with certain hazards incurred. The sale of securities and still more that of commodities may only be feasible with a loss. This danger is not present with bank balances and the hazard of the bank's insolvency is usually negligible. Therefore interest-bearing claims against banks and bankers, which can be withdrawn at short notice, are the most popular secondary media of exchange.

自然，從降低握存現金的成本而可得到的利益，一定要碰到某些想不到的損失而與之對銷。出賣有價證券，尤其出賈貨物，有時只有賠本才可賣掉。如果保持銀行存款就沒有這種危險，銀行倒閉的危險，通常是少到不値得考慮的。所以，有利息的對銀行的要求權，可以在通知後一兩天提取的，是最受歡迎的次級交換媒介。

One must not confuse secondary media of exchange with money-substitutes. Money-substitutes are in the settlement of payments given away and received like money. But the secondary media of exchange must first be exchanged against money or money-substitutes if one wants to use them--in a roundabout way--for paying or for increasing cash holdings.

我們決不可把次級的交換媒介與貨幣代用品相混淆。貨幣代用品在給付的時候就被放棄，而對方就把它當作貨幣接受。至於次級的交換媒介，則要首先換成貨幣或貨幣代用品，再把這換得的貨幣或貨幣代用品來支付或用來增加現金握存，這是一個迂迴的方法。

Claims employed as secondary media of exchange have, because of this employment, a broader market and a higher price. The outcome of this is that they yield lower interest than claims of the same kind which are not fit to serve as secondary media of exchange. Government bonds and treasury bills which can be used as secondary media of exchange can be floated on conditions more favorable to the debtor than loans not suitable for this purpose. The debtors concerned are therefore eager to organize the market for their certificates of indebtedness in such a way as to make them attractive for those in search of secondary media of exchange. They are intent upon making it possible for every holder of such securities to sell them or to use them as collateral in borrowing under the most reasonable terms. In advertising their bond issues to the public they stress these opportunities as a special boon.

用作次級交換媒介的要求權，因爲這個用途，就有了較大的銷路和較高的價格。因而它們所產生的收益就低於那些不適於作次級交換媒介的同類要求權所產生的收益。可以用作次級交換媒介的政府公債和國庫券的發行條件，可以比那些不適於這個用途的債券（例如私人債券）的發生條件，更有利於債務人。所以，有關的債務人總是熱心於組織一個可使他們的債券具有吸引力的市場，以博得那些尋求次級交換媒介的人們的需求。他們是想使這些債券的每個持有人都可在最合理的條件下賣出或用以作借款的抵押品。他們在發行債券而向大衆作廣吿的時候，特別強調這個有利的機會。

In the same way banks and bankers are intent upon attracting demand for secondary media of exchange. They offer convenient terms to their customers. They try to outdo one another by shortening the time allowed for notice. Sometimes they pay interest even for money maturing without notice. In this rivalry some banks have gone too far and endangered their solvency.

一些銀行也同樣地專心於誘發次級交換媒介的需求。他們爲他們的顧客提供一些便利的條件。他們縮短通知存款的期間而在他們之間相互競爭。有時他們甚至對活期存款也給利息。在這種劇烈的競爭中有的銀行做得太過，因而慯害了自己的償付能力。

Political conditions of the last decades have given to bank balances which can be used as secondary media of exchange an increased importance. The governments of almost all countries are engaged in a campaign against the capitalists. They are intent upon expropriating them by means of taxation and monetary measures. The capitalists are eager to protect their property by keeping a part of their funds liquid in order to evade confiscatory measures in time. They keep balances with the banks of those countries in which the danger of confiscation or currency devaluation is for the moment less than in other countries. As soon as the prospects change, they transfer their balances into countries which temporarily seem to offer more security. It is these funds which people have in mind when speaking of "hot money."

最近幾十年的政治情況，給那些可用作次級交換媒介的銀行存款一個更大的重要性。幾乎每國的政府都在和資本家作對。它們都想用租稅和金融措施來沒收他們的財產。那些資本家爲著保護財產而把其中的一部份以動產的形式保存，以期便於逃避沒收。他們把資金存之於那些目前不會有沒收或通貨貶値之危險的國的銀行。一旦淸勢有了變化，他們馬上就把存款移轉到那些暫時似乎比較安全的國。當人們說到「熱錢」時，他們的心中所想的就是這些資金。

The significance of hot money for the constellation of monetary affairs is the outcome of the one-reserve system. In order to make it easier for the central banks to embark upon credit expansion, the European governments aimed long ago at a concentration of their

「熱錢」對於貨幣事象的意義是「唯一準備」制（the one-reserve system）的結果。爲著中央銀行更易於從事信用擴張，在很久以前，歐洲的一些政府就把全國的準備金集中在它們的中央銀行。其他的銀行（私人銀行，也即沒有賦與特權，不能發行銀行鈔票的一些銀行）則把它們的現金握存限之於應付逐日交易的需要。它們再不對它們逐日到期的債務保持準備。它們不必靠自己庫存的現金來履行債務的償付。它們依賴中央銀行。當債權人想提取一筆超乎「正常」數額的款項時，這些私人銀行就向中央銀行借這筆款了。一個私人銀行，如果它保有足夠的抵押品可向中央銀行借款，或有足夠的滙票可向中央銀行貼現的話[24]，它就自視是靈活的。

When the inflow of hot money began, the private banks of the countries in which it was temporarily deposited saw nothing wrong in treating these funds in the usual way. They employed the additional funds entrusted to them in increasing their loans to business. They did not worry about the consequences, although they knew that these funds would be withdrawn as soon as any doubts about their country's fiscal or monetary policy emerged. The illiquidity of the status of these banks was manifest: on the one hand large sums which the customers had the right to withdraw at short notice, and on the other hand loans to business which could be recovered only at a later date. The only cautious method of dealing with hot money would have been to keep a reserve of gold and foreign exchange big enough to pay back the whole amount in case of a sudden withdrawal. Of course, this method would have required the banks to charge the customers a commission for keeping their funds safe.

當「熱錢」開始流入的時候，那些國的私人銀行把這些暫時存入的資金照通常的辦法來處理，不見得有什麼錯。它們用這些信託給它們的資金來增加對商人的放款。它們不擔心這種作法的一些後果，儘管它們知道，一到該國的財政或金融政策引起任何懷疑的時候，這些資金馬上就會被提取。這些銀行不靈活的情況很明顯地是這樣：一方面有一筆巨額存款是顧客們有權忽然提取的，另一方面對商人們的一批放款只能在較遲的時日收回。處理「熱錢」的唯一謹愼辦法，應該是保持一筆足夠的黃金和外滙準備，以防萬一全部金額的忽然提取。當然，採用這個方法的銀行，必得向顧客們收取一筆手續費，這是爲他們的資金保持安全的報酬。

The showdown came for the Swiss banks on the day in September, 1936, on which France devalued the French franc. The depositors of hot money became frightened; they feared that Switzerland might follow the French example. It was to be expected that they would all try to transfer their funds immediately to London or New York, or even to Paris, which for the immediate coming weeks seemed to offer a smaller hazard of currency depreciation. But the Swiss commercial banks were not in a position to pay back these funds without the aid of the National Bank. They had lent them to business--a great part to business in countries which, by foreign exchange control, had blocked their balances. The only way out would have been for them to borrow from the National bank. Then they would have maintained their own solvency. But the depositors paid would have immediately

一九三六年九月法國的佛朗眨値，瑞士的銀行面臨危機。熱錢的存款人恐懼了；他們害怕瑞士也會步法國的後塵。可以想見的是，他們都想把他們的資金移轉到倫敦或紐約，甚至移轉到巴黎，因爲就最近將來的幾個星期來看，巴黎的通貨再貶値的可能性似乎較小。但是，瑞士的商業銀行不能不依賴政府銀行的幫助而付還那些資金。它們已經把那些資金借給工商業——其中大部份的工商業是在一些實行外滙管制的國裡面，它們的銀行存款已被凍結。因此，這些商業銀行的唯一出路就是向國家銀行借款。這時，商業銀行算是維持住它們自己的償付能力。但是，那些被償付的債權人，卻會馬上去要求國家銀行用黃金或外滙兌付他們所收到的那些銀行鈔票。如果國家銀行不接受這個要求，它就是實際上放棄了金本位而將瑞士佛朗貶値。相反地，如果國家銀行免換了這些鈔票，它就要喪失大部份的準備。這會引起一個經濟大恐慌。瑞士人自己將要盡可能取得大量的黃金與外滙。該國的整個貨幣制度就會崩潰。

The only alternative for the Swiss National Bank would have been not to assist the private banks at all. But this would have been equivalent to the insolvency of the country's most important credit institutions.

瑞士國家銀行唯一的其他辦法，就是完全不幫助私人銀行，但是，這就等於該國的一些最重要的信用機構之破產。

Thus for the Swiss Government no choice was left. It had only one means to prevent an economic catastrophe: to follow suit forthwith and to devalue the Swiss franc. The matter did not brook delay.

所以就瑞士政府來講，沒有什麼可選擇的。它只有一個防止經濟災難的方法，立刻效尤把瑞士佛朗貶値。

By and large, Great Britain, at the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, had to face similar conditions. The City of London was once the world's banking center. It has long since lost this function. But foreigners and citizens of the Dominions still kept, on the eve of the war, considerable short-term balances in the British banks. Besides, there were the large deposits due to the central banks in the "sterling area." If the British Government had not frozen all these balances by means of foreign exchange restrictions, the insolvency of the British banks would have become manifest. Foreign exchange control was a disguised moratorium for the banks. It relieved them from the plight of having to confess publicly their inability to fulfill their obligations.

大體上講，英國在一九三九年九月戰爭爆發的時候，就遇到這同樣的情況。倫敦市曾經是世界的金融中心。它久已失去了這種功能。但是，在戰爭的前夕，一些外國人和自治領的公民們，在英國的一些銀行裡面仍然有很多的短期存款。此外，還有巨額的存款是「英鎊區」的一些中央銀行所存的。如果英國政府不用外滙管制的辦法凍結這些存款，則英國的一些銀行勢必破產。外滙管制是僞裝的延期償付。一些銀行免了公開承認無能爲力償還債務。

--------------------

[23] For instance, demand deposits not subject to check.

[23] 例如，不能用支票的活期存款。

[24] All this refers to European conditions. American conditions differ only technically, but not economically.

[24] 這一切是就歐洲的情形而言的。美國的情形只在技術上不同，而非經濟上的不同。可是，「熱錢」這個問題不是一個美國問題，因爲在現在情況下，沒有一個國會被資本家認爲是比美國更安全的資金避難所。

18. The Inflationist View of History

十八、通貨膨脹主義者的歷史觀

A very popular doctrine maintains that progressive lowering of the monetary unit's purchasing power played a decisive role in historical evolution. It is asserted that mankind would not have reached its present state of well-being if the supply of money had not increased to a greater extent than the demand for money. The resulting fall in purchasing power, it is said, was a necessary condition of economic progress. The intensification of the division of labor and the continuous growth of capital accumulation, which have centupled the productivity of labor, could ensue only in a world of progressive price rises. Inflation creates prosperity and wealth; deflation distress and economic decay.[25] A survey of political literature and of the

一個非常流行的學說以爲，貨幣購買力的不斷下降，在歷史的演進中發生了決定性的作用。它說，如果貨幣的供給不是超過貨幣的需求而增加，則人類不會達到現在這樣的福利水準。貨幣購買力的下降是經濟進步的一個必要條件。分工的日益細密和資本累積的繼續成長，只有在物價不斷上漲的世界裡面才有可能，而這兩者已使勞動的生產力千百倍地提昇。通貨膨脹創造繁榮和財富；通貨緊縮帶來貧困和經濟蕭條[25]。我們把幾百年來指導各國貨幣和信用政策的一些政治文獻及觀念加以檢討，即可發現，上述的這個見解幾乎是被普遍接受的。儘管經濟學家提出了許多警吿，到今天，這個見解仍然是外行的經濟思想的核心，也是凱因斯和其東西兩半球的門徒們的一些敎條的精髓。

The popularity of inflationism is in great part due to deep-rooted hatred of creditors. Inflation is considered just because it favors debtors at the expense of creditors. However, the inflationist view of history which we have to deal with in this section is only loosely related to this anticreditor argument. Its assertion that "expansionism" is the driving force of economic progress and that "restrictionism" is the worst of all evils is mainly based on other arguments.

通貨膨脹主義之受人歡迎，大部份是由於對債權人有個根深柢固的仇恨。通貨膨脹之被認爲正當，因爲它是犧牲債權人而有利於債務人。但是，我們在這裡所要討論的逋貨膨脹主義的歷史觀，只是鬆鬆地與這個反債權人的論點有關。他們所說的「擴張主義」是經濟進步的推動力，「緊縮主義」是一切禍害中的最大禍害，主要是基於其他的論點。

It is obvious that the problems raised by the inflationist doctrine cannot be solved by a recourse to the teachings of historical experience. It is beyond doubt that the history or prices shows, by and large, a continuous, although sometimes for short periods interrupted, upward trend. It is of course impossible to establish this fact otherwise than by historical understanding. Catallactic precision cannot be applied to historical problems. The endeavors of some historians and statisticians to trace back the changes in the purchasing power of the precious metals for centuries, and to measure them, are futile. It has been shown already that all attempts to measure economic magnitudes are based on entirely fallacious assumptions and display ignorance of the fundamental principles both of economics and of history. But what history by means of its specific methods can tell us in this field is enough to justify the assertion that the purchasing power of money has for centuries shown a tendency to fall. With regard to this point all people agree.

很明顯的，通貨膨脹主義學說所引起的一些問題，不能靠歷史經驗的敎義來解決。物價的歷史大體上顯示出一個繼續（雖然有短時期的中斷）向上的趨勢，這是無疑的。要認定這個事實，除非靠歷史的了解，否則是不可能的。交換科學的謹嚴，不能用之於歷史的問題。有些歷史家和統計家想追溯幾百年來金屬貨幣購買力的一些變動，想衡量這些變動，這種努力是白費的。我們曾經說過，凡是衡量經濟數値的一切企圖，都是基於一些完全錯誤的假定，而顯出對於經濟學和歷史的一些基本法則之無知。但是，歷史靠它的一些特殊方法在這方面所能吿訴我們的，足以支持這個論斷：幾百年來，貨幣購買力已顯示出一個下降趨勢。關於這一點，所有的人都是同意的。

But this is not the problem to be elucidated. The question is whether the fall in purchasing power was or was not an indispensable factor in the evolution which led from the poverty of ages gone by to the more satisfactory conditions of modern Western capitalism. This question must be answered without reference to the historical experience, which can be and always is interpreted in different ways, and to which supporters and adversaries of every theory and of every explanation of history refer as a proof of their mutually contradictory and incompatible statements. What is needed is a clarification of the effects of changes in purchasing power on the division of labor, the accumulation of capital, and technological improvement.

但是，這不是一個要解釋的問題。問題是，購買力的下跌是不是由長久的貧窮演進到現代西化資本主義這個較滿足的情境所必要的一個因素。這個問題的答覆決不可涉及歷史經驗；歷史經驗可以有，而且常常有不同的解釋；每種學說和每種歷史解釋的主張者和反對者，都可舉出歷史經驗來證明他們之間矛盾而不相容的陳述。我們所要作的，是要闡明購買力變動對於分工、對於資本累積、對於技術進步的一些影響。

In dealing with this problem one cannot satisfy oneself with the refutation of the arguments advanced by the inflationists in support of their thesis. The absurdity of these arguments is so manifest that their refutation and exposure is easy indeed. From its very beginnings

在討論這個問題的時候，我們不能以駁斥通貨膨脹主義者所提出的論點而滿足。那些論點的荒謬，是明顯得易於駁斥、易於揭露的。經濟學自始就一再斷言「錢多是幸福，錢少是窮困」的說法是推理錯誤的結果。通貨膨脹主義和擴張主義的信徒們反駁經濟學家的敎義之正確性，這些努力已經完全失敗了。

The only relevant question is this: Is it possible or not to lower the rate of interest lastingly by means of credit expansion? This problem will tb treated exhaustively in the chapter dealing with the interconnection between the money relation and the rate of interest. There it will be shown what the consequences of booms created by credit expansion must be.

唯一有關的問題是：以信用擴張作手段，使利率永久下降是可能或不可能？這個問題將在討論貨幣關係與利率兩者的關聯那一章再詳盡地研討。在那裡，將會指出信用擴張引起的市面興旺的必然後果是些什麼。

But we must ask ourselves at this point of our inquiries whether it is not possible that there are other reasons which could be advanced in favor of the inflationary interpretation of history. Is it not possible that the champions of inflation have neglected to resort to some valid arguments which could support their stand? It is certainly necessary to approach the issue from every possible avenue.

但是，在這裡我們必須問問自己：是不是不可能還有一些其他的理由可用來支持通貨膨脹的歷史觀。通貨膨脹主義者不可忽略了某些可以支持他們立場的健全的論點嗎？從每個途徑來接近這個問題，確是必要的。

Let us think of a world in which the quantity of money is rigid. At an early stage of history the inhabitants of this world have produced the whole quantity of the commodity employed for the monetary service which can possibly be produced. A further increase in the quantity of money is out of the question. Fiduciary media are unknown. All money-substitutes--the subsidiary coins included--are money-certificates.

讓我們假想這樣的一個世界：在這個世界裡面，貨幣數量是固定不變的。在歷史的前期，這個世界的居民已經生產了可能生產出的當作貨幣用的那種貨物的全部數量。貨幣數量的再增加是絕對做不到的。他們不知道用什麼信用媒介。所有的貨幣代替品——包括輔幣在內——都是貨幣證券（money-certificates）。

On these assumptions the intensification of the division of labor, the evolution from the economic self-sufficiency of households, villages, districts, and countries to the world-embracing market system of the nineteenth century, the progressive accumulation of capital, and the improvement of technological methods of production would have resulted in a continuous trend toward falling prices. Would such a rise in the purchasing power of the monetary unit have stopped the evolution of capitalism?

在這些假設下，分工之日益細密，從家庭的、落的、區域的、和國家的經濟自足，到十九世紀世界性的市場制度這樣的歷史演變，資本的繼續累積，以及生產技術的改進，將會促成物價下跌的長期趨勢。貨幣購買力這樣的上昇會使資本主義的進展停止嗎？

The average businessman will answer this question in the affirmative. Living and acting in an environment in which a slow but continuous fall in the monetary unit's purchasing power is deemed normal, necessary, and beneficial, he simply cannot comprehend a different state of affairs. He associates the notions of rising prices and profits on the one hand and of falling prices and losses on the other. The fact that there are bear operations too and that great fortunes have been made by bears does not shake his dogmatism. These are, he says, merely speculative transactions of people eager to profit from the fall in the prices of goods already produced and

平凡的商人對於這個問題的答覆，會是肯定的。因爲他的生活環境是把貨幣購買力的慢慢而持續下降看作正常的、必要的、而且有利的，他簡直不能領悟一種不同的事象：一方面把上漲的物價和利潤這兩個觀念聯在一起，一方面把下跌的物價和虧損混爲一談。其實，市場上也有些看跌的人賺得大量的利潤，可是，這個事實並不能動搖上述的武斷想法。他會這樣說：有些專做投機的人們，想從一些已經生產出來的貨物之價格下跌而謀利。創意的革新、新的投資、改善的技術之應用，都要有物價上漲的希望來刺激。經濟進步只有在物價上漲的世界才有可能。

This opinion is untenable. In a world of a rising purchasing power of the monetary unit everybody's mode of thinking would have adjusted itself to this state of affairs, just as in our actual world it has adjusted itself to a falling purchasing power of the monetary unit. Today everybody is prepared to consider a rise in his nominal or monetary income as an improvement of his material well-being. People's attention is directed more toward the rise in nominal wage rates and the money equivalent of wealth than to the increase in the supply of commodities. In a world of rising purchasing power for the monetary unit they would concern themselves more with the fall in living costs. This would bring into clearer relief the fact that economic progress consists primarily in making the amenities of life more easily accessible.

這種見解是站不住的。在一個貨幣購買力上昇的世界裡面，每個人的思想方式會對這種事象而自動調整，正如同在我們這個實際世界裡面，對貨幣購買力的下跌而自動調整。今天，每個人都把他的名目所得或貨幣所得之增加看作物質幸福的改善。人們對名目工資率和財富的貨幣等値的增加，比對貨物供給的增加更爲注意。在一個貨幣購買力上漲的世界，他們就會更關心生活費用的下跌。這就將使大家看到經濟進步主要的在於生活的安逸更易於得到而感到安慰。

In the conduct of business, reflections concerning the secular trend of prices do not bother any role whatever. Entrepreneurs and investors do not bother about secular trends. What guides their actions is their opinion about the movement of prices in the coming weeks, months. or at most years. They do not heed the general movement of all prices. What matters for them is the existence of discrepancies between the prices of the complementary factors of production and the anticipated prices of the products. No businessman embarks upon a definite production project because he believes that the prices, i.e., the prices of all goods and services, will rise. He engages himself if he believes that he can profit from a difference between the prices of goods of various orders. In a world with a secular tendency toward falling prices, such opportunities for earning profit will appear in the same way in which they appear in a world with a secular trend toward rising prices. The expectation of a general progressive upward movement of all prices does not bring about intensified production and improvement in well-being. It results in the "flight to real values," in the crack-up boom and the complete breakdown of the monetary system.

在工商業行爲中，關於長期物價趨勢的考慮並不發生什麼作用。企業家和投資者不爲長期的趨勢煩心。指導他們行爲的，是他們對於將來的幾個星期、幾個月，至多是幾年的物價趨勢的看法。他們不會注意所有物價的一般趨勢。對於他們有關係的，是生產要素的價格與其產品的預期價格之間的差距。決沒有一個商人因爲他料想所有的貨物和勞務的價格將要上漲而著手某一生產計畫的。如果他相信他能夠從各級財貨的價格之差異間得到利潤，他就會著手去做。在一個物價長期趨向下跌的世界裡面，這樣謀取利潤的機會，與在一個物價長期上漲的世界裡面同樣地會出現。「所有的」物價「一般的」繼續上漲這個預期，並不引起細密的分工和福利的增進。它的結果是「逃避到眞實的價値」，是瘋狂的購買，是貨幣制度的崩潰。

If the opinion that the prices of all commodities will drop becomes general, the short-term market rate of interest is lowered by the amount of the negative price premium.[26] Thus the entrepreneur employing borrowed funds is secured against the consequences of such a drop in prices to the same extent to which, under conditions

如果「所有的物價將會下跌」這個意見成爲一般的想法，則短期的巿場利率就會按「負價格貼水」（the negative price premium）[26]的數額而減低。使用借來的資金之企業家，在物價這樣跌落時，經由負價格貼水而得到的安全保障，和在物價上漲的情況下，放款人爲了免於貨幣購買力下降而受損，經由價格貼水（the price premium）而得到的安全保障，是相等的。

A secular tendency toward a rise in the monetary unit's purchasing power would require rules of thumb on the part of businessmen and investors other than those developed under the secular tendency toward a fall in its purchasing power. But it would certainly not influence substantially the course of economic affairs. It would not remove the urge of people to improve their material well-being as far as possible by an appropriate arrangement of production. It would not deprive the economic system of the factors making for material improvement, namely, the striving of enterprising promoters after profit and the readiness of the public to buy those commodities which are apt to provide them the greatest satisfaction at the lowest costs.

在貨幣購買力上漲的長期趨勢下，商人們和投資者所用的經驗法則，當然不同於在貨幣購買力下跌的長期趨勢下所發展出來的那些法則。但是，這卻不會從本質上影響到經濟事象的過程。人們有一種衝動，是盡可能地好好生產以期改善他們的物質福利，這個衝動不是可以消除的。經濟體系中有些促成物質改善的因素，即一些有企業心的發起人追求利潤的熱忱，和一般大衆對於那些可用最低代價達到最大滿足的貨物的購買慾，這些因素不是可以消滅的。

Such observations are certainly not a plea for a policy of deflation. They imply merely a refutation of the ineradicable inflationist fables. They unmask the illusiveness of Lord Keyne's doctrine that the source of poverty and distress, of depression of trade, and of unemployment is to be seen in a "contractionist pressure." It is not true that "a deflationary pressure ... would have ... prevented the development of modern industry." It is not true that credit expansion brings about the "miracle ... of turning a stone into bread."[27]

對於這些事象的一些說明，並不是要主張通貨緊縮政策。這些說明只是對那根深柢固的通貨膨脹主義者所講的神話加以駁斥。也即揭發凱因斯學說的荒誕，凱因斯是說貧困的根源、商業蕭條的根源，以及失業的根源都在於「緊縮主義者的壓力」（contractionist pressure）。「通貨緊縮的壓力……會妨礙現代工業的發展」的說法，不是眞的。信用擴張會帶來「變石頭爲麵包的……奇蹟」[27]的說法，不是眞的。

Economics recommends neither inflationary not deflationary policy. It does not urge the governments to tamper with the market's choice of a medium of exchange. It establishes only the following truths:

經濟學旣不推薦通貨膨脹政策，也不推薦通貨緊縮政策。它不促動政府去干涉交易媒介的市場選擇。它只證明以下的一些眞理：

1. By committing itself to an inflationary or deflationary policy a government does not promote the public welfare, the commonweal, or the interests of the whole nation. It merely favors one or several groups of the population at the expense of other groups.

1. 一個政府採取通貨膨脹政策或通貨緊縮政策，都不會促進大衆福利或全國的利益。它只是有利於一羣人或幾羣人，而使其他的人羣受害。

2. It is impossible to know in advance which group will be favored by a definite inflationary or deflationary measure and to what extent. These effects depend on the whole complex of the market data involved. They also depend largely on the speed of the inflationary or deflationary movements and may be completely reversed with the progress of these movements.

2. 採取通貨膨脹政策或緊縮政策對於那些人羣有利以及有利到什麼程度，都不可能在事先知道。這些後果如何，決定於錯綜複雜的全部市場情況。也大部份決定於通貨膨脹或緊縮的快慢程度。

3. At any rate, a monetary expansion results in misinvestment of capital and overconsumption. It leaves the nation as a whole poorer, not richer. These problems are dealt with in Chapter XX.

3. 無論如何，擴張政策的結果總是資本的誤投和過份的消費。它使一個國（就全部看）更窮，而非更富。這些問題將在第二十章討論。

4. Continued inflation must finally end in the crack-up boom, the complete breakdown of the currency system.

4. 繼續的通貨膨脹，最後一定要歸結於瘋狂的購買，通貨制度的全盤崩潰。

5. Deflationary policy is costly for the treasury and unpopular with the masses. But inflationary policy is a boon for the treasury and very popular with the ignorant. Practically, the danger of deflation is but slight and the danger of inflation tremendous.

5. 通貨緊縮政策是不利於國庫的，而且也不爲一般人歡迎。通貨膨脹政策是有利於國庫的，而且一般無知的大衆非常歡迎。實際上，通貨緊縮的危險只是很小的，通貨膨脹的危險，卻是大得可怕的。

--------------------

[25] Cf. the critical study of Marianne von Herzfeld, "Die Geschichte als Funktion der Geldbewegung," Archiv fuer Sozialwissenschaft, LVI, 654-686, and the writings quoted in this study.

[25] 參考Marianne von Herzfeld, Die Geschichte als.【此處闕漏。】

[26] Cf. below, pp. 541-545.

[26] 參考第二十章第三節。

[27] Quoted from: International Clearing Union, Text of a Paper Containing Proposals by British Experts for an International Clearing Union, April 8, 1943 (published by British Information Services, an Agency of the British Government), p. 12.

[27] 括號內的詞句，見之於International Clearing Union, Text of a Paper Containing Proposals by British Experts for an International Clearing Union, April 8, 1943 (published by British Information Services, an Agency of the British Government), p. 12.

19. The Gold Standard

十九、金本位

Men have chosen the precious metals gold and silver for the money service on account of their mineralogical, physical, and chemical features. The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold--and not something else--is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics. In monetary history too, as in all other branches of history, one must resort to historical understanding. If one takes pleasure in calling the gold standard a "barbarous relic,"[28] one cannot object to the application of the same term to every historically determined institution. Then the fact that the British speak English--and not Danish, German, or French--is a barbarous relic too, and every Briton who opposes the substitution of Esperanto for English is no less dogmatic and orthodox than those who do not wax rapturous about the plans for a managed currency.

人們因爲金銀這兩種貴金屬具有礦物學的、物理學的和化學的一些特點而選擇了它們作爲貨幣。在市場經濟裡面，貨幣的使用是一個必要的事實。至於用黃金——而不用別的東西——當作貨幣，這只是一個歷史事實，因而不是交換科學所可陳述的。在貨幣史裡面，也和在歷史的其他部門裡面一樣，我們必須依賴歷史了解。如果有人喜歡把金本位叫做「野蠻的遺跡」[28]，他就不能反對把這個名詞用之於歷史上已定了的每個制度或慣例。於是，英國人說英語——而不說丹麥語、德語、或法語——這個事實也是一野蠻的遺蹟，因而凡是反對用世界語（Esperanto）代替英語的英國人之爲頑固，也不下於那些不喜歡管理通貨的人們。

The demonetization of silver and the establishment of gold mono-metallism was the outcome of deliberate government interference with monetary matters. It is pointless to raise the question concerning what would have happened in the absence of these policies. But it must not be forgotten that it was not the intention of the governments to establish the gold standard. What the governments aimed at was the double standard. They wanted to substitute a rigid, government-decreed exchange ratio between gold and silver for the fluctuating market ration between the independently coexistent gold and silver coins. The monetary doctrines underlying these endeavors misconstrued the market phenomena in that complete way in which only bureaucrats can misconstrue them. The attempts to create a double standard of both metals, gold and silver, failed lamentably. It was this failure which generated the gold standard. The emergence of the gold standard was the manifestation of a crushing defeat of the governments and their cherished doctrines.

白銀的喪失貨幣資格和黃金單一本位制的成立，是政府對於貨幣事情著意干涉的結果。至於問，如果政府不加干涉那又會怎樣，這個問題的提出毫無意義。但是，我們決不可忘記金本位的建立不是那些政府的意思。那些政府的目的是在複本位制。他們應用一個由官方硬性規定的金銀比價，來代替獨立並存的金幣與銀幣之間的波動的市場交換率。這些作爲所根據的貨幣學說，對於巿場現象的誤解，只有官僚們才會如此誤解的。建立金銀複本位制的企圖，悲慘地失敗了。由於這個失敗，金本位就接著產生。金本位的出現，是顯示那些政府和其採取的學說之完全失敗。

In the seventeenth century the rates at which the English government tariffed the coins overvalued the guinea with regard to silver and thus made the silver coins disappear. Only those silver coins which

十七世紀，英國政府把金幣（the guinea）對銀幣的比價規定得太高，因而銀幣銷跡了。留在市場上流通的銀幣只有那些用久了損壞的，或者因爲其他原因重量減低的；這樣的銀幣不値得輸出，也不値得向金塊市場出賣。因此英國就採用了金本位。這不是英國政府的意圖。一直到很久以後，政府才把這事實上的金本位，變成法律上的金本位。這其間，英國政府曾企圖使銀本位幣在市場上流通，因爲無效而又放棄這種企圖，結果只把白銀鑄成有限法償的輔幣。這些辅幣不是貨幣，只是貨幣代替品。它們的交換價値不是靠它們的含銀量，而是靠隨時可按面値兌換黃金而不受損失。它們是對定額黃金的一些要求權。

Later in the course of the nineteenth century the double standard resulted in a similar way in France and in the other countries of the Latin Monetary Union in the emergence of de facto gold monometallism. When the drop in the price of silver in the later 'seventies would automatically have effected the replacement of the de facto gold standard by the de facto silver standard, these governments suspended the coinage of silver in order to preserve the gold standard. In the United States the price structure on the bullion market had already, before the outbreak of the Civil War, transformed the legal bimetallism into de facto gold monometallism. After the greenback period there ensued a struggle between the friends of the gold standard on the one hand and those of silver on the other hand. The result was a victory for the gold standard. Once the economically most advanced nations had adopted the gold standard, all other nations followed suit. After the great inflationary adventures of the first World War most countries hastened to return to the gold standard or the gold exchange standard.

後來，在十九世紀當中，法國的複本位制也是同樣的結果，而其他屬於拉丁貨幣同盟的一些國，則有事實上的黃金單一本位制的出現。在七十年代後期銀價跌落，本應自動地引起事實上的銀本位代替事實上的金本位的時候，那些政府爲保持金本位而停止了銀幣的鑄造。在美國金塊市場的價格結構，在內戰爆發以前已經把法制上的複本位制變成事實上的黃金單一本位制。在綠背鈔票時期以後，金本位的贊成者與銀本位的贊成者之間發生了爭鬥。其結果是，贊成金本位者的勝利。一到在經濟方面最進歩的一些國採行了金本位，其他所有的國也就跟著採行。在第一次世界大戰的通貨膨脹以後，大多數國很快地回到金本位或金滙兌本位。

The gold standard was the world standard of the age of capitalism, increasing welfare, liberty, and democracy, both political and economic. In the eyes of the free traders its main eminence was precisely the fact that it was an international standard as required by international trade and the transactions of the international money and capital market.[29] It was the medium of exchange by means of which Western industrialism and Western capital had borne Western civilization into the remotest parts of the earth's surface, everywhere destroying the fetters of age-old prejudices and superstitions, sowing the seeds of new life and new well-being, freeing minds and souls, and creating riches unheard of before. It accompanied the triumphal

金本位是資本主義時代的世界本位，它增進了福利、自由、和政治的、經濟的民主。在自由貿易者的心目中，它的主要優點，在於它是一個國際本位，而國際本位是國際貿易和貨幣與資本在國際間移轉所必要的[29]。西方的工業制度和西方的資本，靠金本位這個交易媒介把西方文明傳播到遙遠的地方，到處破除年代久遠的偏見和迷信，播下新生活、新幸福的種籽，解放人們的心靈，創造前所未聞的財富。同時，西方自由主義空前的進展，幾乎把所有的國聯合成一個自由國際社會，彼此和平合作。

It is easy to understand why people viewed the gold standard as the symbol of this greatest and most beneficial of all historical changes. All those intent upon sabotaging the evolution toward welfare, peace, freedom, and democracy loathed the gold standard, and not only on account of its economic significance. In their eyes the gold standard was the labarum, the symbol, of all those doctrines and policies they wanted to destroy. In the struggle against the gold standard much more was at stake than commodity prices and foreign exchange rates.

人們爲什麼把金本位看作這個最大、最有利的歷史變動的象徵，這是容易了解的。凡是想阻撓那趨向於福利、和平、自由、民主之趨勢的人們，總是討厭金本位的，而且，他們的討厭不僅是基於經濟的理由。在他們的心目中，金本位是他們所想催毀的一切學說和政策的旗號或象徵。在對金本位的鬥爭中，比在物價和外滙率的鬥爭中表現得更爲劇烈。

The nationalists are fighting the gold standard because they want to sever their countries from the world market and to establish national autarky as far as possible. Interventionist governments and pressure groups are fighting the gold standard because they consider it the most serious obstacle to their endeavors to manipulate prices and wage rates. But the most fanatical attacks against gold are made by those intent upon credit expansion. With them credit expansion is the panacea for all economic ills. It could lower or even entirely abolish interest rates, raise wages and prices for the benefit of all except the parasitic capitalists and the exploiting employers, free the state from the necessity of balancing its budget--in short, make all decent people prosperous and happy. Only the gold standard, that devilish contrivance of the wicked and stupid "orthodox" economists, prevents mankind from attaining everlasting prosperity.

國家主義者反對金本位，因爲他們想把他們的國與世界市場隔離，而盡可能地做到一國的自給自足。干涉主義的政府和壓力團體反對金本位，因爲他們認爲，金本位對於他們的操縱物價和工資是個大障礙。但是，反對金本位最激烈的，卻是那些意圖擴張信用的人們。照他們的看法，信用擴張是醫治一切經濟毛病的萬靈藥。它可以降低，甚至完全消滅利率；可以提高工資、物價而有利於所有的人，只有寄生的資本家和剝削的僱主除外；可以使預算不必維持平衡。總而言之，可以使廣有的好人幸福快樂。只有金本位，邪惡而愚蠢的「正統的」經濟學家想出的詭計，是妨害人類獲致永久繁榮的。

The gold standard is certainly not a perfect or ideal standard. There is no such thing as perfection in human things. But nobody is in a position to tell us how something more satisfactory could be put in place of the gold standard. The purchasing power of gold is not stable. But the very notions of stability and unchangeability of purchasing power are absurd. In a living and changing world there cannot be any such thing as stability of purchasing power. In the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy there is no room left for a medium of exchange. It is an essential feature of money that its purchasing power is changing. In fact, the adversaries of the gold standard do not want to make money's purchasing power stable. They want rather to give to the governments the power to manipulate purchasing power without being hindered by an "external" factor, namely, the money relation of the gold standard.

金本位確不是一個完全的或理想的本位。在人間事物中，決沒有什麼完全的東西。但是，誰也不能吿訴我們，如何可以把更好的東西來替代金本位。黃金購買力是不安定的。但是，購買力安定不變這個觀念就是荒謬的。在一個生動的世界裡面，不會有購買力安定這樣一回事。在一個假想的、均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，用不著交換媒介。購買力的變動，正是貨幣的本質。事實上，金本位的反對者不要貨幣購買力的安定。他們是要使政府有操縱購買力的權力，而這種權力不受「外在」因素——即金本位的貨幣關係——的限制。

The main objection raised against the gold standard is that it makes operative in the determination of prices a factor which no government can control--the vicissitudes of gold production. Thus an "external" or "automatic" force restrains a national government's

反對金本位的主要理由，是說金本位使一個不是政府所能控制的因素——即黄金產量的變動——在物價的決定中發生影響。因此，一個「外在的」或「自動的」力量限制住一國政府爲人民謀福利的權力。一些國際資本家在發號施令，國家主權成爲虛偽的東西。

However, the futility of interventionist policies has nothing at all to do with monetary matters. It will be shown later why all isolated measures of government interference with market phenomena must fail to attain the ends sought. If the interventionist government wants to remedy the shortcomings of its first interferences by going further and further, it finally converts its country's economic system into socialism of the German pattern. Then it abolishes the domestic market altogether, and with it money and all monetary problems, even though it may retain some of the terms and labels of the market economy.[30] In both cases it is not the gold standard that frustrates the good intentions of the benevolent authority.

但是，干涉政策之無用與貨幣的事情畢竟無關。以後將要說明，爲什麼政府干涉市場現象的一切措施決不能達到所追求的目的。如果干涉主義的政府想補救第一次干涉的缺陷而繼續再加干涉，最後就會把本國的經濟制度變成德國型的社會主義。那時，它就完全廢除了國內市場，而且貨幣和所有的貨幣問題也隨之消滅，儘管它還保留市場經濟的某些名詞和標誌[30]。在這種情形下，辜負了仁慈當局之善意的，不是金本位。

The significance of the fact that the gold standard makes the increase in the supply of gold depend upon the profitability of producing gold is, of course, that it limits the government's power to resort to inflation. The gold standard makes the determination of money's purchasing power independent of the changing ambitions and doctrines of political parties and pressure groups. This is not a defect of the gold standard; it is its main excellence. Every method of manipulating purchasing power is by necessity arbitrary. All methods recommended for the discovery of an allegedly objective and "scientific" yardstick for monetary manipulation are based on the illusion that changes in purchasing power can be "measured." The gold standard removes the determination of cash-induced changes in purchasing power from the political arena. Its general acceptance requires the acknowledgment of the truth that one cannot make all people richer by printing money. The abhorrence of the gold standard is inspired by the superstition that omnipotent governments can create wealth out of little scraps of paper.

金本位使黃金供給的增加要靠產金之有利潤，這個事實的意義，就是：它限制了政府採取通貨膨脹政策的權力。金本位使貨幣購買力的決定得以脫離一些政黨和壓力圑體常常變動的野心和理論。這不是金本位的缺點，而是它主要的優點。操縱購買力的每個方法必然是任意武斷的。爲想發現所謂客觀的和「科學的」標準來管理貨幣的一切建議，都是基於「購買力的變動可以衡量」這個妄想。金本位使「現金引起的購買力變動」之決定，從政治舞台上移出來。金本位的普遍接受，必須大家認識到「任何人不能靠印刷鈔票使所有的人更富有」這個眞理。「萬能的政府可以用幾張紙頭創造財富」這個迷信，鼓勵了對金本位的厭惡。

It has been asserted that the gold standard too is a manipulated standard. The governments may influence the height of gold's purchasing power either by credit expansion, even if it is kept within the limits drawn by considerations of preserving the redeemability of the money-substitutes, or indirectly by furthering measures which induce people to restrict the size of their cash holdings. This is true. It cannot be denied that the rise in commodity prices which occurred between 1896 and 1914 was to a great extent provoked by such government policies. But the main thing is that the gold standard keeps all such endeavors toward lowering money's purchasing power within narrow limits. The inflationists are fighting the gold standard precisely

他們說，金本位也是一個被操縱的本位。政府也可以藉信用擴張來影響黃金購買力的高低，即令這信用擴張要保持在限度以內（這限度是來自貨幣代替品必須随時兑現這種考慮，或者直接來自引起人們減少現金握存額的那些進一步措施）。這是眞的。一八九六年與一九一四年之間的物價上漲，大部份是政府的信用擴張政策引起的。這個事實是不能否認的。但是，主要的事情，是金本位把所有像降低利率這樣的作爲，限之於狹窄的範圍以內。通貨膨脹者反對金本位，正因爲他們認爲這些限制對於他們的計畫之實現是個重大的阻礙。

What the expansionists call the defects of the gold standard are indeed its very eminence and usefulness. It checks large-scale inflationary ventures on the part of governments. The gold standard did not fail. The governments were eager to destroy it, because they were committed to the fallacies that credit expansion is an appropriate means of lowering the rate of interest and of "improving" the balance of trade.

通貨膨脹主義者所說的金本位的一些缺陷，卻正是金本位最優越、最有用的功能。

No government is, however, powerful enough to abolish the gold standard. Gold is the money of international trade and of the supernational economic community of mankind. It cannot be affected by measures of governments whose sovereignty is limited to definite countries. As long as a country is not economically self-sufficient in the strict sense of the term, as long as there are still some loopholes left in the walls by which national governments try to isolate their countries from the rest of the world, gold is still used as money. It does not matter that governments confiscate the gold coins and bullion they can seize and punish those holding gold as felons. The language of bilateral clearing agreements by means of which governments are intent upon eliminating gold from international trade, avoids any reference to gold. But the turnovers performed on the ground of those agreements are calculated on gold prices. He who buys or sells on a foreign market calculates the advantages and disadvantages of such transactions in gold. In spite of the fact that a country has severed its local currency from any link with gold, its domestic structure of prices remains closely connected with gold and the gold prices of the world market. If a government wants to sever its domestic price structure from that of the world market, it must resort to other measures, such a prohibitive import and export duties and embargoes. Nationalization of foreign trade, whether effected openly or directly by foreign exchange control, does not eliminate gold. The governments qua traders are trading by the use of gold as a medium of exchange.

黃金是國際貿易的貨幣，是超國邦的人類經濟社會的貨幣。它不會受到某些國的那些政府之措施的影響。只要在經濟方面不是嚴格意義的自給自足的國，只要國家主義者用以隔絕外界的那些圍墙還有些漏洞存在，黃金仍然要當作貨幣使用的。即使政府沒收它所査獲的金幣和金塊，並把保有黃金當作罪人來懲罰，也是不關事的。有些政府想在國際貿易上消除黃金，因而彼此簽訂雙邊淸算協定，而這些協定的文字避免涉及黃金。但是，基於那些協定而完成的交易，是以黃金的價格來計算的。在外滙市場買進或賣出的人，是用黃金來計算買賣的得失。儘管一國的通貨已經與黃金斷絕所有的關係，它的國內物價結構依然與黃金和世界市場的黃金價格密切關聯。如果一個政府想把本國的價格結構與世界市場的價格結構隔離，它就必須用其他的一些辦法，例如限制進出口的關稅和禁運。國際貿易的國營，不管是公開地或直接地靠外滙管制來達成的，並不廢除黃金。以貿易者的資格而從事貿易的政府，仍然在用黃金作交易媒介。

The struggle against gold which is one of the main concerns of all contemporary governments must not be looked upon as an isolated phenomenon. It is but one item in the gigantic process of destruction which is the mark of our time. People fight the gold standard because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty.

所有現代的政府都反對金本位。我們決不可認爲這是個孤立的現象。這只是我們這個破壞時代的一連串大破壞的一個項目而已。人們之反對金本位，因爲他們要以國家的自足代替自由貿易，以戰爭代替和平，以極權的政府萬能代替自由。

It may happen one day that technology will discover a method of enlarging the supply of gold at such a low cost that gold will become useless for the monetary service. Then people will have to

也許有這麼一天，工藝學發現一種方法把黃金產量擴增到使其價値低落得不堪作爲貨幣了。那時，人們將會用其他的本位來代替金本位。今天，我們用不難心這個問題如何解決。關於在什麼情形之下，將會作這個決定，我們一點也不知道。

International Monetary Cooperation

國際的貨幣合作

The international gold standard works without any action on the part of governments. It is effective real cooperation of all members of the world-embracing market economy. There is no need for ant government to interfere in order to make the gold standard work as an international standard.

國際金本位，無須政府方面的任何作爲而會自行運作。這是全世界市場經濟中所有成員的有效而眞實的合作。不需要任何政府爲著使金本位成爲國際本位而加以干涉。

What governments call international monetary cooperation is concerted action for the sake of credit expansion. They have learned that credit expansion, when limited to one country only, results in an external drain. They believe that it is only the external drain that frustrates their plans of lowering the rate of interest and thus of creating an everlasting boom. If all governments were to cooperate in their expansionist policies, they think, they could remove this obstacle. What is required is an international bank issuing fiduciary media which are dealt with as money-substitutes by all people in all countries.

一些政府所說的國際貨幣合作，是爲著信用擴張而採取的一致行動。他們知道：信用擴張只限於一國的時候，其結果是這一國的資金外流。他們認爲：使他們降低利率因而創造持久繁榮的計畫歸於失敗的，只是資金外流。如果所有的政府合作起來，採取擴張政策，他們想，他們就可消除這個障礙。所需要的是一個發行信用媒介的國際銀行，而這些信用媒介被各國的人民當作貨幣代替品使用。

There is no need to stress again here the point that what makes it impossible to lower the rate of interest by means of credit expansion is not merely the external drain. This fundamental issue is dealt with exhaustively in other chapters and sections of this book.[31]

靠信用擴張以降低利率是不可能的，使其不可能的，不只是資金外流，關於這一點，在這裡沒有再強調的必要。這個基本問題將在其他的章節詳細討論[31]。

But there is another important question to be raised.

但是，另一個重要問題要在這裡提出。

Let us assume that there exists an international bank issuing fiduciary media the clientele of which is the world's whole population. It does not matter whether these money-substitutes go directly into the cash holdings of the individuals and firms, or are only kept by the various nations' central banks as reserves against the issuance of national money-substitutes. The deciding point is that there is a uniform world currency. The national banknotes and checkbook money are redeemable in money-substitutes issued by the international bank. The necessity of keeping its national currency at par with the international currency limits the power of every nation's central banking system to expand credit. But the world bank is restrained only by those factors which limit credit expansion on the part of a single bank operation in an isolated economic system or in the whole world.

讓我們假設有一個發行信用媒介的國際銀行，它的顧客是世界全部的人口。至於這些貨幣代替品是直接流進個人和公司行號的現金握存，或只是被各國中央銀行作爲本國貨幣代替品的發行準備金，這是不關重要的事情。要緊的是有個統一的世界通貨。各國的銀行鈔票和支票貨幣可兗換這個國際銀行發行的貨幣代替品。維持本國通貨與國際通貨的平價這個必要，限制住每國中央銀行擴張信用的能力。但是，這個世界銀行只受限於對一個在孤立的經濟體系或在全世界營業的單一銀行的信用擴張發生限制作用的那些因素。

We may as well assume that the international bank is not a bank issuing money-substitutes a part of which are fiduciary media, but a world authority issuing international fiat money. Gold has been entirely demonetized. The only money in use is that created by the international authority. The international authority is free to increase the quantity of this money provided it does not go so far as to bring about the crack-up boom and the breakdown of the currency.

我們也可假設，這個國際銀行不是一個發行貨幣代替品（其中一部分是信用媒介）的銀行，而是一個發行國際性命令貨幣的世界當局。使用中的唯一貨幣是這個世界當局創立的。這個世界當局可以自由增加這種貨幣的數量，倘若它不做得過份以致引起瘋狂的購買而陷幣制於崩潰的話。

Then the ideal of the Keynesians is realized. There is an institution operating which can exercise an "expansionist pressure on world trade."

於是，凱因斯門徒們的想法實現了。於是，有了一個可以對世界貿易運用「通貨膨脹主義者的壓力」的機構。這個機構可以使全世界富饒到用之不盡，取之不竭。

However, the champions of such plans have neglected a fundamental problem, namely, that of the distribution of the additional quantities of this credit money or of this paper money.

可是，這些計畫的鼓吹者卻忽略了一個基本的問題，即，這種信用貨幣或紙幣的增加量如何分配的問題。

Let us assume that the international authority increases the amount of its issuance by a definite sum, all of which goes to one country, Ruritania. The final result of this inflationary action will be a rise in prices of commodities and services all over the world. but while this process is going on, the conditions of the citizens of various countries are affected in a different way. The Ruritanians are the first group blessed by the additional manna. They have more money in their pockets while the rest of the world's inhabitants have not yet got a share of the new money. They can bid higher prices, while the others cannot. Therefore the Ruritanians withdraw more goods from the world market than they did before. The non-Ruritanians are forced to restrict their consumption because they cannot compete with the higher prices paid by the Ruritanians. While the process of adjusting prices to the altered money relation is still in progress, the Ruritanians are in an advantageous position against the non-Ruritanians. When the process finally comes to an end, the Ruritanians have been enriched at the expense of the non-Ruritanians.

讓我們假設，這個國際當局把它的發行量增加一個定額，這增加額的全部都用之於一個國——烏有國。這個通貨膨脹行爲的最後結果，將是全世界的貨物與勞務的價格上漲。但在這個過程當中，各國人民的生活情況所受到的影響不一樣。烏有國的人民是首先受惠的集圑。他們的口袋裡有了更多的錢，別國的人民還沒有分到新發行的貨幣。烏有國的人民能夠出較高的價格買東西，別國的人民不能如此。所以，烏有國的人民從世界市場取回的財貨比以前的多。別國的人民就不得不減少他們的消費，因爲，他們不能與烏有國的人民競爭，後者能夠出較高的價格購買。當價格調整的過程還在進行的時候，烏有國的人民是處在有利的地位。當這個過程終止的時候、烏有國的人民已經是犧牲了別國人民的利益而富有了。

The main problem in such expansionist ventures is the proportion according to which the additional money is to be allotted to the various nations. Each nation will be eager to advocate a mode of distribution which will give it the greatest possible share in the additional currency. The industrially backward nations of the East will, for instance, probably recommend equal distribution per capita of population, a mode which would obviously favor them at the expense of the industrially advanced nations. Whatever mode may be adopted, all nations would be dissatisfied and would complain of unfair treatment. Serious conflicts would ensue and would disrupt the whole scheme.

這裡的主要問題，是增發的貨幣按什麼比例分攤給各國的問題。每個國都會主張本國可以得到最大配額的分配方式。例如工業落後的東方國大概要主張按照人口平等分配，這個主張明顯地有利於他們而犧牲工業進步的國。不管採用怎樣的分配方式，所有的國不會都滿意，而要申訴不平的。於是，嚴重的衝突隨之發生，整個計畫爲之瓦解。

It would be irrelevant to object that this problem did not play an important role in the negotiations which preceded the establishment of the International Monetary Fund and that it was easy to reach an agreement concerning the use of the Fund's resources. The Bretton Woods Conference was held under very particular circumstances. Most of the participating nations were at that time entirely dependent on the benevolence of the United States. They would have been doomed if the United States had stopped fighting for their freedom and aiding them materially by lend-lease. The government of the United States, on the other hand, looked upon the monetary agreement as a scheme for a disguised continuation of lend-lease after the cessation of hostilities. The United States was ready to give and the other participants--especially those of the European countries, most

如果說，這個問題在建立國際貨幣基金以前的那些商議中並未成爲重要的爭端，而且關於這個基金的利用，很容易地達成了協議。用這種說法來反對我們所作的分析，這是不相干的，布萊頓森林會議（The Bretton Woods Conference）是在特殊環境下舉行的。當時參加的國大多數完全依賴美國的仁慈。如果美國停止爲他們旳自由而戰，停止以租借的辦法大規模地援助他們，他們勢將慘敗。另一方面，美國政府是把貨幣協定看作休戰以後爲一個僞裝的租借辦法的繼續而作的一個設計。一方面，美國願意給與，另一方面，其他的參加國——尤其是歐洲的一些國家，其中的大多數當時尙被德軍完全占領，以及亞洲的一些國家——樂於接受任何被給與的東西。這裡涉及的一些問題，一到美國對金融貿易事件的戰時態度被一個更現實的情緖所代替的時候，馬上就會顯現出來。

The International Monetary Fund did not achieve what its sponsors had expected. At the annual meetings of the Fund there is a good deal of discussion, and occasionally pertinent observations and criticisms concerning the monetary and credit policies of governments and central banks are brought forward. The Fund itself engages in lending and borrowing transactions with various governments and central banks. It considers its main function to be that of assisting governments to maintain an unrealistic exchange rate for their overexpanded national currency. The methods it resorts to in these endeavors do not differ essentially from those always applied for this purpose. Monetary affairs in the world are going on as if no Bretton Woods Agreement and no International Monetary Fund existed.

國際貨幣基金並未達成它的發起人所希望達到的目的。在該基金的歷屆年會中，有很多的討論，也有些關於各國政府和中央銀行的貨幣信用政策的檢討與批評。該基金本身與各國政府和中央銀行做借貸交易。它認爲，幫助各國政府爲它們的過份擴增的本國通貨維持住一個不切實的滙率，是它的主要功用。在這些努力中，它所採用的方法，本質上並不異於爲此目的而經常採用的那些方法。世界的貨幣事情的發展，和沒有布萊頓協定、沒有國際貨幣基金，是一樣的。

The constellation of the world's political and economic affairs enabled the American government to keep its promise of letting foreign governments and central banks get an ounce of gold by paying thirty-five dollars. But the continuation and intensification of the American "expansionist" policy has considerably increased the withdrawal of gold and makes people worry about the future of monetary conditions. They are frightened by the spectre of a farther increase in the demand for gold that may exhaust the gold funds of the United States and force it to abandon its present methods of dealing with gold.

世界政治經濟情勢的湊合，使得美國政府能夠遵守它的諾言，讓外國政府和中央銀行得以三十五元美金買得一盎斯黃金。但是，美國「擴張主義者」的政策之繼續和加強，已經大大地加速了黃金的提取，並引起人們的憂慮將來的貨幣情況。他們恐懼黃金的需求會再增加，美國的存金將會枯竭，因而逼得美國不得不放棄現在維持美元於三十五盎斯黃金的辦法。

The characteristic feature of the public discussion of the problems involved is that it carefully avoids mentioning the facts that are causing the extension of the demand for gold. No reference is made to the policies of deficit spending and credit expansion. Instead, complaints are raised about something called "insufficient liquidity" and a shortage of "reserves." The remedy suggested is more liquidity, to be achieved by "creating" new additional "reserves." This means it is proposed to cure the effects of inflation by more inflation.

關於這些問題的公開討論有一個特徵，那就是小心翼翼地避免提到黃金需求之所以增加的一些眞正原因。他們不涉及赤字支出和信用擴張政策。而只是埋怨所謂「不足的流動性」和「準備」不足。他們所建議的治療法是更多的流動性，是靠「創造」新增的「準備」來達成。這即是建議，以更大的通貨膨脹來醫治通貨膨脹的後果。

There is need to remember that the policies of the American government and the Bank of England of maintaining on the London gold market a price of 35 dollars for an ounce of gold is the only measure that today prevents the Western nations from embarking upon boundless inflation. These policies are not immediately affected by the size of the various nations' "reserves." The plans for new "reserves" seem therefore not to concern directly the problem to the relation of gold to the dollar. They concern it indirectly as they try to divert the public's attention from the real problem, inflation. For the rest, the official doctrine relies upon the long since discredited balance-of-payments interpretation of monetary troubles.

我們必須記住，美國政府與英倫銀行在倫敦黃金市場維持三十五元美元一盎斯黃金的政策，是今天防止西方一些國無限通貨膨脹的唯一措施。這些政策不會馬上受到各國「準備」額的影響。所以，那些新「準備」計畫似乎不直接關乎黃金對美元之關係的問題。它們是間接地與它有關，因爲，它們是要把大衆的注意力轉移到眞正問題——通貨膨脹——以外。就其餘的講，官方理論靠的是那個老早被放棄了的收支平衡說——用以解釋貨幣風潮的收支平衡說。

------------------------

[28] Lord Keynes in the speech delivered before the House of Lords, May 23, 1944.

[28] 見之於一九四四年五月二十三日凱因斯在上議院的演講詞。

[29] T. E. Gregory, The Gold Standard and Its Future (1d ed. London, 1934), pp. 22 ff.

[29] T. E. Gregory, The Gold Standard and Its Future (1d ed. London, 1934), pp. 22 ff.

[30] Cf. below, Chapters XXVII-XXXI.

[30] 參第二十七至三十一章。

[31] Cf. above, pp. 441-442, and below, pp. 550-586.

[31] 參考前面的第十七章第十二節和後面的第二十章第六節至第九節。

XVIII. ACTION IN THE PASSING OF TIME

第18章 時間經過中的行爲

1. Perspective in the Valuation of Time Periods

一、時間評値的透視

Acting man distinguishes the time before satisfaction of a want is attained and the time for which the satisfaction continues.

行爲人會區別兩個時間，一是慾望得到滿足以前的時間，一是滿足在繼續的時間。

Action always aims at the removal of future uneasiness, be it only the future of the impending instant. Between the setting in of action and the attainment of the end sought there always elapses a fraction of time, viz., the maturing time in which the seed sown by the action grows to maturity. The most obvious example is provided by agriculture. Between the tilling of the soil and the ripening of the fruit there passes a considerable period of time. Another example is the improvement of the quality of wine by aging. In some cases, however, the maturing time is so short that ordinary speech may assert that the success appears instantly.

行爲的目的，總是爲的消除將來的憂慮，即使這個將來只是立刻到來的時刻。在行爲開始與目的達成的中間，總有一段時間經過，也即，行爲所播的種籽長到成熟的那個成長期。最明顯的例子是農業提供的。從土地耕作到成果收穫，其間有段相當長的時間。其他的例子是酒的品質因年代久遠而益醇美。可是，在某些場合其完成期非常短，短到通常的說法是說馬上成功。

As far as action requires the employment of labor, it is concerned with the working time. The performance of every kind of labor absorbs time. In some cases the working time is so short that people say the performance requires no time at all.

行爲是要使用勞動的。就這一點講，行爲與工作時間有關。每種勞動都要消耗時間。在某些場合，工作時間非常短，短到一般人把它說成不需要時間。

Only in rare cases does a simple, indivisible and nonrepeated act suffice to attain the end aimed at. As a rule what separates the actor from the goal of his endeavors is more than one step only. He must make many steps. And every further step to be added to those previously made raises anew the question whether or not he should continue marching toward the goal once chosen. Most goals are so far away that only determined persistence leads to them. Persevering action, unflinchingly directed to the end sought, is needed in order to succeed. The total expenditure of time required, i.e., working time plus maturing time, may be called the period of production. The period of production is long in some cases and short in other cases. It is sometimes so short that it can be entirely neglected in practice.

只有在稀少的場合，一個簡單的、不可分割的、不重複的行爲就足以達成目的。在通常的情形下，行爲者達到他所追求的目的，總不只一個步驟。他必須經過許多步驟。而且每進一步就要重新引起這個問題：要不要向那個曾經選定的目的繼續前進。很多目的是非常遙遠的，只有靠堅定的毅力來達成。必要的全部時間，也即工作期加上完成期，可以叫做生產時期。生產時期，有的場合長，有的場合短；有時短到可以完全無視它。

The increment in want-satisfaction which the attainment of the end brings about is temporally limited. The result produced extends services only over a period of time which we may call the duration of serviceableness. The duration of serviceableness is shorter with

由於目的達成而得到的慾望滿足之增加，在時間上是有限的。生產的結果，只在我們可叫做「功用持續」（the duration of serviceableness）的時期當中提供功用。有些產品的功用持續較短，有些較長，較長的通常叫做耐久財。因此，行爲人總要考慮到生產期和產品的功用持續期。在估計一個計畫的反效用的時候，他不只是計算對那些必要的物質要素和勞動的支出，也要計及生產期。在估計那件預期中的產品的效用時，他要想到這件產品的功用持續期。當然，一件產品愈是耐久，則它所提供的功用量就愈大。但是，如果這些功用不能累積在同一天，而是擴散在一個時期當中，則時間因素在它們的評値中就要發生特別作用。n個單位功用或在同一天中提供出來，或是擴散在n天當中，每天只有一個單位，這個不同，是相當重要的。

It is important to realize that the period of production as well as the duration of serviceableness are categories of human action and not concepts constructed by philosophers, economists, and historians as mental tools for their interpretation of events. They are essential elements present in every act of reasoning that precedes and directs action. It is necessary to stress this point because Bohm-Bawerk, to whom economics owes the discovery of the role played by the period of production, failed to comprehend the difference.

生產期和功用持續期一樣，都屬於人的行爲元範，而不是哲學家、經濟學家、和歷史家構想出來作爲心智工具的概念。對於這一點的認識是很重要的。凡是先於行爲而且指導行爲的每一推理都以這兩個元範爲其基本要素。這一點是必須強調的，因爲龐巴衛克（Bohm-Bawerk）沒有了解這個區別，儘管他發現生產期所發生的作用，對於經濟學是一大貢獻。

Acting man does not look at his condition with the eyes of a historian. He is not concerned with how the present situation originated. His only concern is to make the best use of the means available today for the best possible removal of future uneasiness. The past does not count for him. He has at his disposal a definite quantity of material factors of production. He does not ask whether these factors are nature-given or the product of production processes accomplished in the past. It does not matter for him how great a quantity of nature-given, i.e., original material factors of production and labor, was expended in their production and how much time these processes of production have absorbed. He values the available means exclusively from the aspect of the services they can render him in his endeavors to make future conditions more satisfactory. The period of production and the duration of serviceableness are for him categories in planning future action, not concepts of academic retrospection and historical research. They play a role in so far as the actor has to choose between periods of production of different length and between the production of more durable and less durable goods.

行爲人不是用歷史家的眼光來看他的情況。他不關切現在的情況是怎樣開端的。他所關心的只是善於利用今天可以利用的手段盡可能地消除將來的憂慮。過去的事情對於他不成問題。他有定量的物質的生產要素可以自由處分。他不過問這些要素是自然的賜予還是過去生產過程的產物。在它們的生產中用了多大一個數量的自然賜予，也即，原始的物質的生產要素和勞動，以及這些生產過程耗費了多少時間，對於他都無所謂。他對那些可用的手段之評値，完全是看它們在他改善將來情況的努力中所能提供的幫助。生產期和功用持續期，對於他而言，是計畫將來行爲的兩個元範，不是學術思考和歷史研究的概念。行爲人必須對長短不同的生產期加以選擇，對程度不同的耐久財的生產加以選擇，在這些選擇的範內，這兩個元範發生作用。

Action is not concerned with the future in general, but always

行爲不是關於一般的將來，而是關於一個確定的、有限的一段將來。這段將來，一端是決定於這個行爲所佔的時間，另一端的所在就憑行爲者的決定和選擇。有些人只關心眼前，有些人遠慮到他們的生後。我們可把行爲者在某一特定行爲中所想用以準備的那段將來的時間叫做「準備期」。行爲人對那些在同一段將來時間以內的各種慾望滿足要加以選擇；同樣地，在較近的將來之慾望滿足，與較遠的將來之慾望的滿足之間，他也要加以選擇。每個選擇也包含着準備期的選擇。人在決定如何使用各種可用的手段以消除憂慮的時候，他也無形地決定了這個準備期。在市場經濟裡面，消費者的需求也決定準備期的長短。

There are various methods available for a lengthening of the period of provision:

有種種方法可用以延長準備期：

1. The accumulation of larger stocks of consumers' goods destined for later consumption.

1. 派定將來消費的消費財之大量的累積。

2. The production of goods which are more durable.

2. 較耐久的財貨之生產。

3. The production of goods requiring a longer period of production.

3. 需要較長生產期的財貨之生產。

4. The choice of methods of production consuming more time for the production of goods which could also be produced within a shorter period of production.

4. 選擇一些更費時的生產方法來生產那些也可在較短的生產期生產出來的財貨。

The first two methods do not require any further comment. the third and the fourth methods must be scrutinized more closely.

前兩個方法用不着再加解釋。第三和第四個方法必須仔細檢討。

It is one of the fundamental data of human life and action that the shortest processes of production, i.e., those with the shortest period of production, do not remove felt uneasiness entirely. If all those goods which these shortest processes can provide are produced, unsatisfied wants remain and incentive to further action is still present. As acting man prefers those processes which, other things being equal, produce the products in the shortest time,[1] only such processes are left for further action which consume more time. People embark upon these more time-consuming processes because they value the increment in satisfaction expected more highly than the disadvantage of waiting longer for their fruits. Bohm-Bawerk speaks of the higher productivity of roundabout ways of production requiring more time. It is more appropriate to speak of the higher physical productivity

最短的生產過程，也即，生產期最短的過程，不會完全消除不適之感，這是人的生活和行爲的極據之一。如果這些最短的過程所可提供的一切財貨都生產了，未滿足的慾望仍然有，再行爲的誘因還存在。因爲行爲人在其他事物不變的條件下，喜歡那些最短的生產過程[1]，所以，只有那些消耗更多時間的過程留下來再行爲。人們之所以用這些消耗更多時間的過程，因爲他們把「那預期中旳滿足之增加」看得比「因爲等待而受到的不利」更重。龐巴衛克說到費時的迂迴生產有較高的生產力。更適當的說法應該是說較高的物質生產力的生產過程是需要較多時間的。這些較高生產力的生產過程不總是在於它們生產出——用同量的生產要素——較大量的產品。常常是在於它們生產些較短的生產期根本不能生產的產品。這些過程不是迂迴的過程。它們是達成那個被選定目的的最捷徑。如果一個人想捕獲更多的魚，除掉用魚網、漁船來代替徒手捕魚法以外，別無他法。阿司匹靈（aspirin）的生產除掉用已知的化學工廠所用的方法以外，沒有更好的、更敏捷的、更便宜的方法。如果一個人把錯誤與無知置之不理，則不會懷疑他所選擇的一些過程是生產力最高的和最大便利的。如果人們不把它們看作最直接的過程——也即走向所選擇的目標的最捷徑——他們就不會採取它們。

The lengthening of the period of provision through the mere accumulation of stocks of consumers' goods is the outcome of the desire to provide in advance for a longer period of time. The same is valid for the production of goods the durability of which is greater in proportion to the greater expenditure of factors of production required.[2] But if temporally remoter goals are aimed at, lengthening of the period of production is a necessary corollary of the venture. The end sought cannot be attained in a shorter period of production.

經由消費財的累積的準備期延長，是由一個想爲較長時期而預先準備的願望所引起的結果。就那些耐久性在比例上大於所必要的生產要素的較大消耗額的財貨之生產而言，這也是有效的[2]。但是，如果時間上較遠的目的指定了，則生產期的延長就是一個必然的結果。這個目的不能在較短的生產期達成。

The postponement of an act of consumption means that the individual prefers the satisfaction which later consumption will provide to the satisfaction which immediate consumption could provide. The choice of a longer period of production means that the actor values the product of the process bearing fruit only at a later date more highly than the products which a process consuming less time could provide. In such deliberations and the resulting choices the period of production appears as waiting time. It was the great contribution of Jevons and Bohm-Bawerk to have shown the role played by taking account of waiting time.

一個消費行爲的延緩，即是這個當事人寧願用後來的消費所提供的滿足來代替目前的消費所可提供的滿足。一個較長的生產期之選擇，即是這個行爲者對較長的生產過程所生產的財貨的評値，比對較短的生產過程所生產的評値要高些。在這樣的深思熟慮後所決定的選擇下，這個生產期就顯得像等待期（waiting time）。這是傑逢斯和龐巴衛克曾指出的等待期所發生的作用，這是他們兩人的偉大貢獻。

If acting men were not to pay heed to the length of the waiting time, they would never say that a goal is temporally so distant that one cannot consider aiming at it. Faced with the alternative of choosing between two processes of production which render different output with the same input, they would always prefer that process which renders the greater quantity of the same products or better products

如果行爲人沒有注意到等待期的長短，他就不會說一個目標在時間上是這麼遙遠以致誰也不會想達成它。面對兩個生產過程，投入相等，產出不同，他總會選擇那個可產出同樣產品而數量較多的，或者選擇那個可產生同量產品而品質較佳的過程，即令這個結果的達成只有靠生產期的延長。如果投入的增加使得產品的「功用持續期」超比例地增加，這應該是無條件地被認爲有利的。人們不這樣作，這就證明，他們對一段同樣長的時期所作的評値，是就其與行爲者作決定的時刻距離的遠近而分輕重的。在其他事物不變的條件下，較近將來的滿足比較遠時期的滿足更受歡迎；負效用發生於等待中。

This fact is already implied in the statement stressed in the opening of this chapter that man distinguishes the time before satisfaction is attained and the time for the duration of which there is satisfaction. If any role at all is played by the time element in human life, there cannot be any question of equal valuation of nearer and remoter periods of the same length. Such an equal valuation would mean that people do not care whether success is attained sooner or later. It would be tantamount to a complete elimination of the time element from the process of valuation.

這個事實已隱含在本章開始的那句話中。那句話是說行爲人會區別兩個時期，一是慾望得到滿足以前的時期，一是滿足在繼續的時期。如果在人的生活中，時間沒有任何作用的話，對較近和較遠的同樣長的時期予以同等評値，那就不會有何問題。這樣的同等評値也即表示，人們並不關心成功的或遲或早，那就等於時間因素完全從評値過程中排除掉。

The mere fact that goods with a longer duration of serviceableness are valued more highly than those with a shorter duration does not yet in itself imply a consideration of time. A roof that can protect a house against the weather during a period of ten years is more valuable than a roof which renders this service only for a period of five years. The quantity of service rendered is different in both cases. But the question which we have to deal with is whether or not an actor in making his choices attaches to a service to be available in a later period of the future the same value he attaches to a service available at an earlier period.

功用持續期較長的財貨比功用持續期較短的財貨得到更高的評値，這是事實；但僅僅這個事實，其本身並不意涵時間的考慮，一個可以防禦風雨達十年之久的屋頂，比一個只能防禦風雨五年的屋頂更有價値。這兩個屋頂的功能，量不一樣。但是，我們所要討論的問題是：一個在作選擇的行爲人，是否把一個在較遠的將來才可得到的一個功用，和一個在較近時期即可得到的功用給以相等評値。

--------------------

[1] Why man proceeds in this way, will be shown on the following pages.

[1] 爲什麼一定要這樣，將在以下幾頁說明。

[2] If the lengthening of durability were not at least proportionate to the increment in expenditure needed, it would be more advantageous to increase the quantity of units of a shorter durability.

[2] 如果耐久性的延長至少不比例於所需要的费用之增加，則增加耐久性較短的那些單位的數量就是更有利的。

2. Time Preference as an Essential Requisite of Action

二、作爲行爲之一必要條件的時間偏好

The answer to this question is that acting man does not appraise time periods merely with regard to their dimensions. His choices regarding the removal of future uneasiness are directed by the categories sooner and later. Time for man is not a homogeneous substance of which only length counts. It is not a more or a less in dimension. It is an irreversible flux the fractions of which appear in different perspective according to whether they are nearer to or remoter from the instant of valuation and decision. Satisfaction of a want in the nearer future is, other things being equal, preferred to that in the farther distant future. Present goods are more valuable than future goods.

對於這個問題的答覆是：行爲人不是僅就時期的長度來給時期評値。他爲消除未來的憂慮而作的選擇是受「較早」和「較遲」這個範疇指導的。時間對於人，不是一個只有長度可計的同質的東西。它不是長度方面的「較多」或「較少」，它是一股不能倒流的流，其中的一些片斷，按照它們距評値和決定的時刻之或近或遠而顯現於不同的展望中，在較近將來的一個慾望之滿足，在其他事物不變的條件下，比一個在較遠將來的滿足更受重視。現在的財貨，比將來的財貨更有價値。

Time preference is a categorial requisite of human action. No mode of action can be thought of in which satisfaction within a nearer period of the future is not--other things being equal--preferred to that in a later period. The very act of gratifying a desire implies that gratification at the present instant is preferred to that at a later instant. He who consumes a nonperishable good instead of postponing consumption for an indefinite later moment thereby reveals a higher valuation of present satisfaction as compared with later satisfaction. If he were not to prefer satisfaction in a nearer period of the future to that in a remoter period, he would never consume and so satisfy wants. He would always accumulate, he would never consume and enjoy. He would not consume today, but he would not consume tomorrow either, as the morrow would confront him with the same alternative.

時間偏好是人的行爲的一個絕對必要因素。我們不能想像一種行爲不是把近期的滿足看得比遠期的更重要。慾望滿足這件事的本身，即意涵目前的滿足重於後來的滿足。如果一個人不是把近期的滿足看得比遠期的更重要，他就永遠不爲滿足慾望而消費。他永遠是累積而不消費享受。今天他不消費，明天也不消費，因爲到了明天，他又同樣地作了。

Not only the first step toward want-satisfaction, but also any further step is guided by time preference. Once the desire a to which the scale of values assigns the rank 1 is satisfied, one must choose between the desire b to which the rank 2 is assigned and c that desire of tomorrow to which--in the absence of time preference--the rank 1 would have been assigned. If b is preferred to c, the choice clearly involves time preference. Purposive striving after want-satisfaction must needs be guided by a preference for satisfaction in the nearer future over that in a remoter future.

受時間偏好支配的，不僅是走向慾望滿足的第一個步驟，接著的每一步骤也要受它的支配。在價値等級上，列在第一級的慾望a一經得到滿足，一個人就要在第二級的慾望b和那個屬於明天的慾望c之間加以選擇，這個慾望c如果沒有時間偏好的話，它會列在第一級。假若取b捨c，很明顯地這個選擇就涉及時間偏好，著意尋求慾望的滿足，一定是要受時間偏好所支配的，時間較近的滿足優於時間較遠的滿足。

The conditions under which modern man of the capitalist West must act are different from those under which his primitive ancestors lived and acted. As a result of the providential care of our forebears we have at our disposal an ample stock of intermediate products (capital goods or produced factors of production) and of consumers' goods. Our activities are designed for a longer period of provision because we are the lucky heirs of a past which has lengthened, step by step, the period of provision and has bequeathed to us the means to expand the waiting period. In acting we are concerned with longer periods and are aiming at an even satisfaction in all parts of the period chosen as the period of provision. We are in a position to rely upon a continuing influx of consumers' goods and have at our disposal not only stocks of goods ready for consumption but also stocks of producers' goods out of which our continuous efforts again and again make new consumers' goods mature. In our dealing with this increasing "stream of income," says the superficial observer, there is no heed paid to any considerations related to a different valuation of present and of future goods. We synchronize, he asserts, and thus the time element loses any importance for the conduct of

現代資本主義的西方人所處的環境，與他的原始祖先所處的環境大大不同。我們托祖先之福有了豐富的中間產品（資本財或製造的生產要素）和消費財可以由我們處分。我們的活動是就一個較長的準備期而設計的，因爲我們的祖先已經一步一步地把準備期延長，給我們遺留下可用以伸展等待期的生活資料。在行爲中，我們關心較長的時期，而要在那個選作準備期的時期以內，所有的部份時間求得均勻的滿足。我們能夠信賴消費財的繼續產出，而且可由我們處分的，不僅是大量的消費財，也有大量的生產財可供我們繼續生產新的消費財。膚淺的觀察者說，在我們這種遞增的「所得流」的討論中，沒有注意到關於現在財和未來財不同評値的任何考慮。他說，我們不分時間的先後，因而時間因素對於事情的處理沒有任何重要性。他接著說，所以，用時間偏好來解釋現代環境，這是不中肯的。

The fundamental error involved in this popular objection is caused, like so many other errors, by a lamentable misapprehension of the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy. In the frame of this imaginary construction no change occurs; their prevails an unvarying course of all affairs. In the evenly rotating economy consequently nothing is altered in the allocation of goods for the satisfaction of wants in nearer and in remoter periods of the future. No one plans any change because--according to our assumptions--the prevailing allocation best serves him and because he does not believe that any possible rearrangement could improve his condition. No one wants to increase his consumption in a nearer period of the future at the expense of his consumption in a more distant period or vice versa because the existing mode of allocation pleases him better than any other thinkable and feasible mode.

這種說法的基本錯誤，和其他的許多錯誤一樣，是由於對那個假想的均勻輪轉的經濟建構的一個可悲的誤會。在那個假想的建構裡面，是沒有變動的；一切事情都有一定的過程。因而爲近期和遠期的慾望之滿足而配置財貨，也不會有什麼變動。誰也不打算什麼變動，因爲——按照我們的假設——現行的配置是最好的，因爲他不相信有何可能的再安排會改善他的環境。誰也不想增加近期的消費而犧牲遠期的消費，或增加遠期的消費而犧牲近期的消費，因爲現在的配置方式比任何其他可想得到的可實行的配置方式更好。

The praxeological distinction between capital and income is a category of thought based on a different valuation of want-satisfaction in various periods of the future. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy it is implied that the whole income but not more than the income is consumed and that therefore the capital remains unchanged. An equilibrium is reached in the allocation of goods for want-satisfaction in different periods of the future. It is permissible to describe this state of affairs by asserting that nobody wants to consume tomorrow's income today. We have precisely designed the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy in such a way as to make it fit just this condition. But it is necessary to realize that we can assert with the same apodictic assurance that, in the evenly rotating economy, nobody wants to have more of any commodity than he really has. These statements are true with regard to the evenly rotating economy because they are implied in our definition of this imaginary construction. They are nonsensical when asserted with regard to a changing economy which is the only real economy. as soon as a change in the data occurs, the individuals are faced anew with the necessity of choosing both between various modes of want-satisfaction in the same period and between want-satisfaction in different periods. An increment can be either employed for immediate consumption or invested for further production. No matter how the actors employ it, their choice must needs be the result of a weighing of the advantages expected from want-satisfaction in different periods of the future. In the world of reality, in the living and changing universe, each individual in each of his actions is forced

資本與所得在行爲通論上的區別是一個思想範疇，這個範疇是以對將來不同時期慾望滿足的不同評値作基礎的。在那均勻輪轉經濟的假想建構裡面，消費掉的是全部所得而不多於所得，所以，其資本仍然不變。爲著將來不同時期的慾望滿足而作的財貨配置，達到了一個均衡。我們可以把這種情況說成：誰也不想在今天消費明天的所得。我們之設計這個假想的建構，正是要使它適合這種情形。但是，我們也可以同樣確定地說，在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，誰也不想保有比他實際保有的更多財貨，這是必要的一個認識。這些陳述就那均勻輪轉的經濟而言，都是眞的，因爲它們已經包含在這個假想建構的定義中。如果就實際的變動的經濟而言，那就是荒謬的。變動一經發生，各個人馬上就要重新作選擇，一方面要在各種滿足同一時期慾望的方法之間選擇，一方面要在各種滿足不同時期慾望的方法之間選擇。增加的東西可用之於立刻的消費，也可用之於投資。不管行爲人如何利用它，他們的選擇一定是決定於對那些不同時期慾望滿足所可得到的利益所作的權衡。在實際的世界中，也即，在生動變化的環境中，每個人在他的行爲中，不得不在各種時期的慾望之間加以選擇。有些人把他們所賺得的一切一切全部消費掉，有些人把他們的資本消費一部份，有些人把他們的所得儲蓄一部份。

Those contesting the universal validity of time preference fail to explain why a man does not always invest a sum of 100 dollars available today, although these 100 dollars would increase to 104 dollars within a year's time. It is obvious that this man in consuming this sum today is determined by a judgment of value which values 100 present dollars higher than 104 dollars available a year later. But even in case he chooses to invest these 100 dollars, the meaning is not that he prefers satisfaction in a later period to that of today. It means that he values 100 dollars today less than 104 dollars a year later. Every penny spent today is, precisely under the conditions of a capitalist economy in which institutions make it possible to invest even the smallest sums, a proof of the higher valuation of present satisfaction as compared with later satisfaction.

對於時間偏好的一般有效性持反對論的人們，未能解釋爲什麼一個人不總是把今天可用的一百元的總額拿去投資，即令這一百元在一年以內會增加到一百零四元。很明顯地，今天消費這筆錢的這個人之所以作此決定，是由於一個價値判斷，即他對現在一百元的評値高於一年後一百零四元的評値。但是，即令他選擇投資這一百元，其意義並不是他寧可捨今天的滿足換得以後的滿足，而是他對今天一百元的評値低於一年以後一百零四元的評値。在資本主義經濟裡面，由於金融機構的完備，即令極小的金額也可用以投資，在這種情形下，今天花費的一文錢就是當前的滿足比後來的滿足有較高評値的明證。

The theorem of time preference must be demonstrated in a double way. first for the case of plain saving in which people must choose between the immediate consumption of a quantity of goods and the later consumption of the same quantity. Second for the case of capitalist saving in which the choice is to be made between the immediate consumption of a quantity of goods and the later consumption either of a greater quantity or of goods which are fit to provide a satisfaction which--except for the difference in time--is valued more highly. The proof has been given for both cases. No other case is thinkable.

時間偏好這個公理必須從兩個途徑來說明。第一，就單純的儲蓄來講，在這個場合，人們是在「即刻消費某一數量的財貨」與「以後消費這相同的數量的財貨」之間選擇。第二，就資本主義的儲蓄來講，在這個場合，人們是在「即刻消費某一數量的財貨」與「今後消費較大量的財貨，或今後消費那些適於提供評値較高的滿足的財貨」之間作選擇。關於這兩種情形的證據，我們已經提出。再沒有別的情形可以想像到。

It is possible to search for a psychological understanding of the problem of time preference. Impatience and the pains caused by waiting are certainly psychological phenomena. One may approach their elucidation by referring to the temporal limitations of human life, to the individual's coming into existence, his growth and maturing, and his inevitable decay and passing away. There is in the course of a man's life a right moment for everything as well as a too early and to late. However, the praxeological problem is in no way related to psychological issues. We must conceive, not merely understand. We must conceive that a man who does not prefer satisfaction within a nearer period of the future to that in a remoter period would never achieve consumption and enjoyment at all.

關於時間偏好問題，要從心理學上尋求了解，這是可能的。焦躁以及等待引起的苦痛，確是一些心理現象。這些現象，可就人生的時間有限來說明，人生從出生而成長，最後必然衰老而死亡。在人生的這個過程中，毎件事物有其適當的時日，也有其過早和過遲的時日。可是，行爲通論上的問題與心理學上的問題決無關係。我們必須想像，不僅是了解。我們必須想像一個不願捨遠期滿足以換近期滿足的人，將永久不會消費和享受。

Neither must the praxeological problem be confused with the physiological. He who wants to live to see the later day, must first of all care for the preservation of his life in the intermediate period. Survival and appeasement of vital needs are thus requirements for the satisfaction of any wants in the remoter future. This makes us understand

我們也不可把行爲通論上的問題與心理學上的問題相混淆。凡是想活得更久一點的人，最重要的，是在中間時期特別注意生活的保健。爲著較遠將來任何慾望的滿足，有關生命的一些需要必須得到照顧。這使我們了解，爲什麼凡在糊口的生活都有問題的場合，寧可捨以後的滿足換得最近的滿足。但是，我們在這裡所講的是行爲的本身，而非指導行爲的一些動機。以經濟學家的資格，我們不問爲什麼人需要蛋白質、醣和脂肪，同樣地，我們也不問爲什麼有關生命的需要刻不容緩地要滿足。我們必須想到：任何種類的消費和享受，都意涵當前的滿足優於後來的滿足。這個透徹的見識，遠勝於用生理學上那些有關的事實來提供解釋。它涉及各種各類的慾望滿足，不僅涉及維持生命的最低需要的滿足。

It is important to stress this point because the term "supply of subsistence, available for advances of subsistence," as used by Bohm-Bawerk, can easily be misinterpreted. It is certainly one of the tasks of this stock to provide the means for a satisfaction of the bare necessities of life and thus to secure survival. But besides it must be large enough to satisfy, beyond the requirements of necessary maintenance for the waiting time, all those wants and desires which-apart from mere survival-are considered more urgent than the harvesting of the physically more abundant fruits of production processes consuming more time.

強調這一點是必要的，因爲龐巴衛克所使用的「生活必需品的供給」（supply of subsistence, available for advances of subsistence）這個詞，很容易被誤解。爲生活上基本需要之滿足而準備，使生命得以延續，這確是這個供給量的功用之一。但是，除掉滿足等待期的生活必需以外，它必須大到足以滿足那些「被認爲比那更費時的生產過程所可得到的豐富收穫更爲迫切的一切慾望」。

Bohm-Bawerk declared that every lengthening of the period of production depends on the condition that "a sufficient quantity of present goods is available to make it possible to overbridge the lengthened average interval between the starting of preparatory work and the harvesting of its product."[3] The expression "sufficient quantity" needs elucidation. It does not mean a quantity sufficient for necessary sustenance. The quantity in question must be large enough to secure the satisfaction of all those wants the satisfaction of which during the waiting time is considered more urgent than the advantages which a still greater lengthening of the period of production would provide. If the quantity in question were smaller, a shortening of the period of production would appear advantageous; the increase in the quantity of products or the improvement of their quality to be expected from the preservation of the longer period of production would no longer be considered a sufficient remuneration for the restriction of consumption enjoined during the waiting time. Whether or not the supply of subsistence is sufficient, does not depend on any

龐巴衛克宣稱，生產期的每一延長都要靠這個條件：「要有一批在數量上足夠的現在財，可用以渡過從準備工作的開始，到它的產品收穫這段延長了的中間時期」[3]。「足夠的數量」這個說法，要加以說明。它不是指一個足夠維持最低生活的數量。這裡所說的數量，必須大到足以使下述的慾望全部得到滿足，即：在等待期當中，其滿足被認爲比那更長的生產期所將提供的利益更爲重要的那些慾望。如果這個數暈不夠這樣的話，則把生產期縮短就顯得有利；希望從較長的生產期所可做到的產品數量的增加或其品質的改良，就不被認爲足以補償等待期必要的消費節省。生活必需品的供給是足夠或不足夠，不是憑任何生理學上的因素，或其他可由工藝學和生理學的方法作客觀決定的那些事實。「渡過」（overbridge）這個比喩詞，是會引起誤解的，因爲這個詞的意義，含有被「渡過的」這條河的寬度給築橋者提出一個客觀決定了的工作。其實，這裡所說的數量，是由人們評値的，他們的主觀判斷断定它足夠或不夠。

Even in a hypothetical world in which nature provides every man with the means for the preservation of biological survival (in the strict sense of the term), in which the most important foodstuffs are not scarce and action is not concerned with the provision for bare life, the phenomenon of time preference would be present and direct all actions.[4]

即令我們假想一個世界，在那裡面，自然界供給每個人維持生物生存的必要物資，在那裡面，最重要的食糧不是稀少的，人的行爲不關心到最低生活的維持，即令如此，時間偏好這個現象還是存在的，還是指導一切行爲的[4]。

Observations on the Evolution of the Time-Preference Theory

論時間偏好理論的演進

It seems plausible to assume that the mere fact that interest is graduated in reference to periods of time should have directed the attention of the economists, intent upon developing a theory of interest, upon the role played by time. However, the classical economists were prevented by their faulty theory of value and their misconstruction of the cost concept from recognizing the significance of the time element.

利息隨時期的延長而增加。僅憑這個事實，就可叫那些想發展一套利息理論的經濟學家注意時間所發生的作用。這個想法似乎是有理的。可是古典的經濟學家，由於他們的價値理論和成本概念的錯誤，沒有認淸時間因素的重要性。

Economics owes the time-preference theory to William Stanley Jevons and its elaboration, most of all, to Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk. Bohm-Bawerk was the first to formulate correctly the problem to be solved, the first to unmask the fallacies implied in the productivity theories of interest, and the first to stress the role played by the period of production. But he did not entirely succeed in avoiding the pitfalls in the elucidation of the interest problem. His demonstration of the universal validity of time preference is inadequate because it is based on psychological considerations. However, psychology can never demonstrate the validity of a praxeological theorem. It may show that some people or many people let themselves be influenced by certain motives. It can never make evident that all human action is necessarily dominated by a definite categorial element which, without any exception, is operative in every instance of action.[5]

時間偏好理論是傑逢斯對經濟學的一大貢獻，而這個理論的完成尤其得力於龐巴衛克。龐巴衛克是精確地講解這個問題的第一人，是揭發生產力學說的一些謬誤的第一人，是強調生產期所起的作用的第一人。但在利息問題上，他沒有完全避開陷阱。他對於時間偏好的一般有效性所提的論證，是不適當的，因爲，那是基於一些心理學的考慮。但是，心理學決不能說明行爲通論中的一個公理的有效性。它可以說明，有些人或許多人讓他們自己受某些動機的影響。它決不能說明，人的一切行爲必定是受一個確定的絕對因素的支配，這個因素，無例外地，在每個行爲中發生作用[5]。

The second shortcoming of Bohm-bawerk's reasoning was his misconstruction of the concept of the period of production. He was not fully aware of the fact that the period of production is a praxeological category and that the role it plays in action consists entirely in the choices acting man makes between periods of production of different

龐巴衛克理論的第二個缺點是，他誤解了生產期這個概念。他沒有充份知道生產期是行爲通論的一個元範，而它在行爲中所起的作用，完全在於行爲人在長短不同的生產期之間所作的選擇。過去爲生產今天使用的資本財而花的時間之長短，畢竟不値得計較。這些資本財只能就它們對將來的慾望之滿足有無用處來評値。「平均生產期」是個空洞的概念。決定行爲的，是這個事實：在各種可以消除未來憂慮的方法當中加以選擇的時候，每個方法的等待期的長短，是個必須考慮到的因素。

It was an outcome of these two errors that Bohm-Bawerk in the elaboration of his theory did not entirely avoid the productivity approach which he himself had so brilliantly refuted in his critical history of the doctrines of capital and interest.

由於這兩點錯誤，龐巴衛克在他的理論中沒有完全避免生產力硏究法，這個方法是他自己駁斥過的。

These observations do not detract at all from the imperishable merits of Bohm-Bawerk's contributions. It was on the foundation laid by him that later economists--foremost among them Knut Wicksell, Frank Albert Fetter and Irving Fisher--were successful in perfecting the time-preference theory.

這些論述絲毫不貶損龐巴衛克的那些不朽的貢獻，後來的一些經濟學家——其中最著名的如威克塞爾（Knut Wicksell），Frank Albert Fetter和Irving Fisher在時間偏好理論上的成就，都是在龐巴衛克所奠定的基礎上面完成的。

It is customary to express the essence of the time-preference theory by saying that there prevails a preference for present over future goods. In dealing with this mode of expression some economists have been puzzled by the fact that in some cases present uses are worth less than future uses. However, the problem raised by the apparent exceptions is caused merely by a misapprehension of the true state of affairs.

習慣上講到時間偏好理論的精髓時總是這樣說：現在的財貨優於未來的財貨。在討論這種說法的時候，有些經濟學家被例外的事實弄糊塗了，有的場合，現在的用處不及將來的用處那麼値得。但是，這些似乎是例外的場合所引起的問題，只是由於對眞實情況之不了解。

There are enjoyments which cannot be had at the same time. A man cannot on the same evening attend performances of Carmen and of Hamlet. In buying a ticket he must choose between the two performances. If tickets to both theaters for the same evening are presented to him as a gift, he must likewise choose. He may think with regard to the ticket which he refuses: "I don't care for it just now," or "If only it had been later."[6] However, this does not mean that he prefers future goods to present goods. He does not have to choose between future goods and present goods. He must choose between two enjoyments both of which he cannot have together. This is the dilemma in every instance of choosing. In the present state of his affairs he may prefer Hamlet to Carmen. The different conditions of a later date may possibly result in another decision.

有些享受是不能同時兼有的。一個人不能在同一晚上去兩個劇場看戲。在買入場券的時候，他必須在兩者之間作選擇。如果有人把同一晚上的兩個劇場的入場券當禮物送給他，他也同樣要在兩者之間作選擇。對於他拒收的那張入場券，他也許這樣想：「此刻我不想要」或「假若是以後的就好了」[6]。但是，這並不是說將來財比現在財好。他不是要在將來財和現在財之間作選擇。他是要在兩個不能同時兼有的享受之間作選擇。這是每個選擇中的兩難。在現在的情況下，他也許捨甲劇場而取乙劇場。在後來不同的情況下，他可能作相反的決定。

The second seeming exception is presented by the case of perishable goods. They may be available in abundance in one season of the year and may be scarce in other seasons. However, the difference between ice in winter and ice in summer is not that between a present good and a future good. It is the difference between a good that loses its specific usefulness even if not consumed and another good which requires a different process of production. Ice available in winter can only be used in summer when subjected to a special process of conservation. It is, in respect to ice utilizable in summer, at best one of

第二個類似的例外，見之於一些不經久的財貨。這些不經久的財貨會在一年的某一季節中很豐富，在其他季節中卻稀少。但是，冬季的冰與夏季的冰之間的區別，不是現在財與將來財之間的區別。它是「一種即令不消費它，它的特殊效用也會失掉的財貨」與「那需要一個不同的生產過程的另一種財貨」之間的區別。冬季結的冰要留到夏季用，必須經過一個特別的保存過程。如果僅僅是節省冬季的用冰量，那就不可能增加夏季可用的冰。就一切實際的目的而言，它們是兩種不同的財貨。

The case of the miser does not contradict the universal validity of time preference. The miser too, in spending some of his means for a scanty livelihood, prefers some amount of satisfaction in the nearer future to that in the remoter

守財奴的例子也不與時間偏好的一般有效性衝突。在支用少許的錢以維持糊口生活的時候，守財虜也是把當前的滿足看得比將來的滿足更重要。至於守財虜連最低限度的食物費用都捨不得支付，這種極端的例子是代表一種病態，生命力枯竭的病態。這正如同怕把細菌吃進去而絕食的人一樣，正如同怕遇到危險的事情而自殺的人一樣，正如同怕睡著了有不測之禍而失眠的人一樣。

----------------------

[3] Bohm-Bawerk. Kleinere Abhandlungen uber Kapital und Zins, vol. II in Gesammelte Schriften, ed. F. X. Weiss (Vienna, 1926), p. 169.

[3] 參考Bohm-Bawerk. Kleinere Abhandlungen uber Kapital und Zins, vol. II in Gesammelte Schriften, ed. F. X. Weiss (Vienna, 1926), p. 169.

[4] Time preference is not specifically human. It is an inherent feature of the behavior of all living things. The distinction of man consists in the very fact that with him time preference is not inexorable and the lengthening of the period of provision not merely instinctive as with certain animals that store food, but the result of a process of valuation.

[4] 時間偏好不是人類所專有的。它是一切動物行爲的一個先天的特徵。人之異於其他動物，在於時間偏好對於他不是一成不變的，準備期的延長不全然是本能的（有些動物之儲蓄食物是出自本能），也是一個評值過程的結果。

[5] For a detailed critical analysis of this part of Bohm-Bawerk's reasoning the reader is referred to Mises, Nationalokonomie, pp. 439-443.

[5] 關於龐巴衛克這部份的理論之詳細分析和批評，讀者請參考Mises, Nationalokonomie, pp. 439-443.

[6] Cf. F. A. Fetter, Economic Principles (New York, 1923), I, 239.

[6] 參考F. A. Fetter, Economic Principles (New York, 1923), I, 239.

3. Capital Goods

三、資本財

As soon as those present wants are sated the satisfaction of which is considered more urgent than any provision for the morrow, people begin to save a part of the available supply of consumers' goods for later use. This postponement of consumption makes it possible to direct action toward temporally remoter ends. It is now feasible to aim at goals which could not be thought of before on account of the length of the period of production required. It is furthermore feasible to choose methods of production in which the output of products is greater per unit of input than in other methods requiring a shorter period of production. The sine qua non of any lengthening of the process of production adopted is saving, i.e., an excess of current production over current consumption. Saving is the first step on the way toward improvement of material well-being and toward every further progress on this way.

現在的慾望之滿足被認爲比將來的更迫切，當現在的慾望一滿足，人們馬上就開始把那可利用的消費財儲蓄一部份，以備後來的消費。這種延遲消費，使一些爲期較遠的目的可能達成。以前由於那必要的生產期太長而不堪設想的一些目標，現在也可能達成了。而且，所選擇的生產方法，也可能是那些每個單位投入的產出量比那生產期較短的其他方法的產出量爲多的生產方法。延長生產期的必要條件是儲蓄，也即，現在的生產超過現在的消費。儲蓄是增進物質福利以及促其繼續不斷增進的第一個步驟。

The postponement of consumption and the accumulation of stocks of consumers' goods destined for later consumption would be practiced even in the absence of the stimulus offered by the technological superiority of processes with a longer period of production. The higher productivity of such processes consuming more time strengthens considerably the propensity to save. The sacrifice made by restricting consumption in nearer periods of the future is henceforth not only counterbalanced by the expectation of consuming the saved goods in remoter periods; it also opens the way to a more ample supply in the remoter future and to the attainment of goods which could not be procured at all without this provisional sacrifice. If acting man, other conditions being equal, were not to prefer, without exception, consumption in the nearer future to that in the remoter future, he would always save, never consume. What restricts the amount of saving and investment is time preference.

消費的延緩以及爲後來消費而作的消費財存量的累積，即令沒有較長生產期技術優越性這個誘因，也會有人實行的。較長時期生產過程的較高生產力，更大大地加強了儲蓄傾向。減縮當前的消費而引起的犧牲，到後來不僅是因消費那些儲蓄下來的財貨而得到彌補，而且它也開闢了一條途徑，經由這條途徑，將來有更豐富的供應，而且還可得到「假若沒有這種犧牲就根本不會得到的」一些財貨。如果行爲人，在其他情形不變的假定下，不是把當前的消費看得比將來的消費更重要，他就會總是儲蓄，決不消費。限制儲蓄額和投資額的，是時間偏好。

People eager to embark upon processes with a longer period of production must first accumulate, by means of saving, that quantity of consumers' goods which is needed to satisfy, during the waiting time, all those wants the satisfaction of which they consider more urgent than the increment in well-being expected from the more time-consuming process. Accumulation of capital begins with the formation of stocks of consumers' goods the consumption of which is postponed for later days. If these surpluses are merely stored and kept for later consumption, they are simply wealth or, more precisely, a reserve for rainy days and emergencies. They remain outside the orbit of production. They become integrated--economically, not physically--into production activities only when employed as means of subsistence of workers engaged in more time-consuming processes. If expended in this way, they are physically consumed. But economically they do not disappear. They are replaced first by the intermediary products of a process with a longer period of production and then later by the consumers' goods which are the final product of these processes.

想採用生產期較長的生產方法的人們，必須首先儲蓄一些消費財，這些消費財是在等待期用以滿足那些他們認爲比那可從較長期的生產過程得來的福利增加更爲迫切的慾望。資本累積是以消費財的儲蓄開始的，消費財的儲蓄即是把它的消費延展到日後。如果這些剩餘（儲蓄）只是儲藏起來留著日後消費，則它們僅僅是財富而已，或更正確地說，僅僅是爲不時之需作準備。這樣，它們是留在生產的軌道以外。它們之成爲生產活動的一部份（經濟意義的，不是物理意義的），只有在用來作爲那些在較長期生產過程中工作的工人們生活之資的時候。這個時候，就物理意義講，它們是被消費了，但就經濟意義講，它們沒有消滅。首先，它們被那些生產期較長的過程所產出的中間產品所接替，後來又被這些過程所產出的最後產品所接替。

All these ventures and processes are intellectually controlled by capital accounting, the acme of economic calculation in monetary terms. Without the aid of monetary calculation men could not even learn whether--apart from the length of the period of production--a definite process promises a higher productivity than another. The expenditures required by various processes cannot be weighed against one another without the aid of monetary terms. Capital accounting starts with the market prices of the capital goods available for further production, the sum of which it calls capital. It records every expenditure from this fund and the price of all incoming items induced by such expenditures. It establishes finally the ultimate outcome of all these transformations in the composition of the capital and thereby the success or the failure of the whole process. It shows not only the final result; it mirrors also every one of its intermediary stages. It produces interim balances for every day such a balance may be required and statements of profit and loss for every part or stage of the process. It is the indispensable compass of production in the market economy.

所有這些活動和過程，在心智上都是受制於資本計算，資本計算是用貨幣來作的經濟計算的極致。如果不靠貨幣計算，人們甚至不能知道一個確定的生產過程是不是——且不管生產期的長短——比另一個過程的生產力較高。沒有貨幣計算的幫助，各種生產過程所需要的費用也不能相互對比。資本計算隨那些可用以促進生產的資本財的市場價格開始，其總額就叫做資本。它記錄著來自這個基金的每項支出，以及這些支出所導出的一切收入項的價格。最後，它把所有的這些轉變，在資本結構中的最後結果表達出來，而且也藉此顯出整個過程的成功或失敗。它不僅指出這最後的結果，而且也把那些中間階段一一反映出來。它製出一些暫時的平衡表，這種平衡表是每天都需要的；它也爲每一生產部門或階段製出一些損益表。它是市場經濟所不可少的生產指針。

In the market economy production is a continuous, never-ending pursuit split up into an immense variety of partial processes. Innumerable processes of production with different periods of production are in progress simultaneously. They complement one another and at

在市場經濟裡面，生產是一個分爲無數部門而繼續不斷的一個過程。無數的生產程序以不同的生產期同時進行。它們互相補充，同時又相互競爭那些稀少的生產要素。或者是新的資本經由儲蓄而繼續累積，或者是以前累積的資本被過份的消費而耗損。生產是由許許多多個別的工廠、農場和其他一切工作場所分別進行，它們的每個單位只要達成某些限定的目標。一些中間產品或資本財，在生產過程中轉手；它們從這個工廠轉到另一個工廠，直到最後製成的消費財到了那些使用它們、享受它們的人們的手上爲止。生產的社會過程永不停止。每一時刻都有無數的生產程序在進行，其中，有一些較接近於它們的特定目標之達成，有一些距離較遠。

Every single performance in this ceaseless pursuit of wealth production is based upon the saving and the preparatory work of earlier generations. We are the lucky heirs of our fathers and forefathers whose saving has accumulated the capital goods with the aid of which we are working today. We favorite children of the age of electricity still derive advantage from the original saving of the primitive fishermen who, in producing the first nets and canoes, devoted a part of their working time to provision for a remoter future. If the sons of these legendary fishermen had worn out these intermediary products--nets and canoes--without replacing them by new ones, they would have consumed capital and the process of saving and capital accumulation would have had to start afresh. We are better off than earlier generations because we are equipped with the capital goods they have accumulated for us.[7]

在這不斷的財富生產的過程中，每一成就都是基於前輩人的儲蓄和其準備工作。我們是我們祖先的幸運後嗣，他們的儲蓄曾經累積了一些資本財，我們今天靠這些資本財的幫助而工作。我們，這個電力時代的寵兒，還在享受從上古捕魚的祖先們的原始儲蓄所衍生的福利，他們，在製造最初的魚網和獨木舟的時候，把他們的工作時間用了一部份爲較遠的將來作準備。假若這些捕魚的祖先的兒孫們，把那些中間產品——魚網和獨木舟——用壞了而不做新的來接替，他們就是消耗了資本。果如此，則儲蓄過程和資本累積又不得不從頭開始。我們比前輩的人更富足，這是因爲，我們有了他們爲我們累積的一些資本財[7]。

The businessman, the acting man, is entirely absorbed in one task only: to take best advantage of all the means available for the improvement of future conditions. He does not look at the present state of affairs with the aim of analyzing and comprehending it. In classifying the means for further production and appraising their importance he adopts superficial rules of thumb. He distinguishes three classes of factors of production: the nature-given material factors, the human factor--labor, and capital goods--the intermediary factors produced in the past. He does not analyze the nature of the capital goods. They are in his eyes means of increasing the productivity of labor. Quite naively he ascribes to them productive power of their own. He does not trace their instrumentality back to nature and labor. He does not ask how they came into existence. They

工商業者，也即行爲人，全副精神貫注在一件事上：盡可能地利用一切可用的手段以改善未來的情況。他不以分析和了解的目的來注視現在的事象。在把生產手段分類而估量它們的重要性的時候，他所用的是些虜淺的經驗法則。他把生產要素分做三類：自然賜予的物質要素、人的要素——勞動，和資本財——過去生產的中間要素。他不分析資本財的性質。在他的心目中，資本財是給勞動增加生產力的手段。他不把它們的工具性追溯到自然和勞動。他不過問資本財是怎樣產生的。資本財只就其對他的努力成功有所貢獻而有價値。

This mode of reasoning is all right for the businessman. But it was a serious mistake for the economists to agree with the businessman's superficial view. They erred in classifying "capital" as an independent factor of production along with the nature-given material resources and labor. The capital goods--the factors of further production produced in the past--are not an independent factor. They are the joint products of the cooperation of the two original factors--nature and labor--expended in the past. They have no productive power of their own.

就工商業者來講，這種理論方式是對的。但是，就經濟學家來講，同意工商業者的這種虜淺見解，那就是嚴重的錯誤。他們錯在把「資本」當作一個與自然賜予的物質資源以及勞動三者並立的獨立要素來分類。資本財——過去生產出來的再生產要素——不是一個獨立要素。它們是過去消耗掉的兩個原始要素——自然與勞動——的聯合產品。資本財沒有自己的生產力。

Neither is it correct to call the capital goods labor and nature stored up. They are rather labor, nature, and time stored up. The difference between production without the aid of capital goods and that assisted by the employment of capital goods consists in time. Capital goods are intermediary stations on the way leading from the very beginning of production to its final goal, the turning out of consumers' goods. He who produces with the aid of capital goods enjoys one great advantage over the man who starts without capital goods; he is nearer in time to the ultimate goal of his endeavors.

把資本財說成儲藏起來的勞動和自然，這也不對。倒不如說它們是儲藏起來的勞動、自然、和時間。不靠資本財幫助的生產與利用資本財的生產，其間的區別在於時間。資本財是從生產的開端走到它最後目標（產生消费財）的過程中的一些中途站。利用資本財生產的人，比那不使用資本財的人享有一大利益；他在時間上更接近於他所努力的最後目標。

There is no question of an alleged productivity of capital goods. The difference between the price of a capital good, e.g., a machine, and the sum of the prices of the complementary original factors of production required for its reproduction is entirely due to the time difference. He who employs the machine is nearer the goal of production. The period of production is shorter for him than for a competitor who must start from the beginning. In buying a machine he buys the original factors of production that were expended in producing it plus time, i.e., the time by which his period of production is shortened.

沒有所謂資本財的生產力這樣的問題。資本財（例如一部機器）的價格與這個資本財的再生產所必要的那些相互補足的原始的生產要素的價格總和，這兩者之間的差異，完全是由於時間的差異。使用這部機器的人更接近於生產的目標。他所用的生產期較短於一個必須從頭開始的競爭者所用的生產期。在購買一部機器的時候，他買到這部機器再生產時所要消耗的兩個原始的生產要素，再加上時間，也即，他的生產期縮短了的那個時間。

The value of time, i.e., time preference or the higher valuation of want-satisfaction in nearer periods of the future as against that in remoter periods, is an essential element in human action. It determines every choice and every action. There is no man for whom the difference between sooner and later does not count. The time element is instrumental in the formation of all prices of all commodities and services.

時間的價値，也即，時間偏好，或者說，封當前的慾望滿足之評値較高於對遠期的慾望滿足之評値，這是人的行爲的一個核心元素。它決定每個選擇和每個行爲。決沒有這樣一個人對於時間的遲早不加計較的。時間元素是形成一切貨物和勞務價格的工具。

---------------------

[7] These considerations explode the objections raised against the time-preference theory by Frank H. Knight in his article, "Capital, Time and the Interest Rate," Economica, n.s., I, 257-286.

[7] Frank H. Knight在他那篇Capital, Time and the Interest Rate（載在Economica, n.s., I, 257-286）的時間偏好理論，有些人提出反對的議論。我們在這裡所講的足以推翻那些反對論。

4. Period of Production, Waiting Time, and Period of Provision

四、生產期，等待的時間以及準備期

If one were to measure the length of the period of production spent in the fabrication of the various goods available now, one would have to trace back their history to the point at which the first expenditure

如果一個人想估量這些現在可利用的各種財貨的生產期的長短，他就必須追溯它們的歷史，一直追溯到第一次花費原始的生產要素那一刹那爲止。他必須確定，自然資源和勞動在什麼時候第一次用在這種生產過程——除掉有助於其他財貨的生產以外，最後也有助於這裡所說的財貨之生產的過程。這個問題的解決，以物質的轉變和歸宿（physical imputation）這個問題的解決爲必要條件。用數量的說法來確定那些直接或間接被用來生產這有關財貨的工具、原料、和勞動，對於這個結果的貢獻究竟貢默到什麼程度，這是必要的。在這些探究中，人們必得追溯到資本累積的那個起點，也即，那些原來是僅夠糊口的人們之開始儲蓄。妨礙這樣歷史硏究的，不僅是些實際困難。物質的轉變和歸宿這個問題的不能解決，更使我們無從著手。

Neither acting man himself not economic theory needs a measurement of the time expended in the past for the production of goods available today. They would have no use for such data even if they knew them. Acting man is faced with the problem of how to take best advantage of the available supply of goods. He makes his choices in employing each part of this supply in such a way as to satisfy the most urgent of the not yet satisfied wants. For the achievement of this task he must know the length of the waiting time which separates him from the attainment of the various goals among which he has to choose. As has been pointed out and must be emphasized again, there is no need for him to look backward to the history of the various capital goods available. Acting man counts waiting time and the period of production always from today on. In the same way in which there is no need to know whether more or less labor and material factors of production have been expended in the production of the products available now, there is no need to know whether their production has absorbed more or less time. Things are valued exclusively from the point of view of the services they can render for the satisfaction of future wants. The actual sacrifices made and the time absorbed in their production are beside the point. These things belong to the dead past.

今天可利用的這些財貨，在過去生產的過程中花費了多少時間，關於這個問題，行爲人本身也好，經濟學也好，都沒有知道的必要。即令他們知道，也沒有什麼用處。行爲人所面對的問題是，如何善於利用那些可利用的財貨。他在利用這些財貨的每一部份時所作的選擇，是要滿足那些尙未滿足的慾望當中最迫切的慾望。爲達成這個目的，他必須知道等待的時間有多長，這個等待時間使他和「他在其中所要選擇的各種目標之達成」彼此隔離。以上曾經指出、而這裡要再強調的，行爲人沒有必要去追溯那些可利用的各種資本財的歷史。他總是從今天起去計較等待的時間和生產期。現在可利用的產品在其生產過程中花費了多少勞動和物質要素，旣沒有必要知道，同樣地，也沒有必要知道它們在生產過程中花費了多少時間。物品的評價，完全要看它們對於未來的慾望之滿足所能提供的功用。至於在它們的生產過程中所作的镄牲和花费的時間都是不相干的，這些事情屬於死一樣的過去。

It is necessary to realize that all economic categories are related to human action and have nothing at all to do directly with the physical properties of things. Economics is not about goods and services; it is about human choice and action. The praxeological concept of time is not the concept of physics or biology. It refers to the sooner or the later as operative in the actors' judgments of value. The distinction between capital goods and consumers' goods is not a rigid

所有的經濟範疇都是關乎人的行爲，完全沒有什麼是直接與物品的物質有關的。這一點是必要認淸的。經濟學不從事財貨和勞務的研討，它所研討的是人的選擇和行爲。行爲通論中的時間概念不是物理學或生物學上的概念。它指涉，在行爲人的價値判斷中起作用的「遲」或「早」。資本財與消費財的區別，不是那基於有關財貨的物理學和生物學的性質而作的嚴格區別。它是憑行爲人所處的地位和他們所要作的選擇而定的。同一財貨可以看作资本財，也可看作消費財。有些可以直接享受的財貨從若干人的觀點看來竟是資本財，如果這些人是把它當作等待期當中維持他自己和他僱用的工人的生活之資的話。

An increase in the quantity of capital goods available is a necessary condition for the adoption of processes in which the period of production and therefore waiting time are longer. If one wants to attain ends which are temporally farther away, one must resort to a longer period of production because it is impossible to attain the end sought in a shorter period of production. If one wants to resort to methods of production with which the quantity of output is higher per unit of input expended, one must lengthen the period of production. For the processes with which output is smaller per unit of input have been chosen only on account of the shorter period of production they require. But on the other hand, not every employment chosen for the utilization of capital goods accumulated by means of additional saving requires a process of production in which the period of production from today on to the maturing of the product is longer than with all processes already adopted previously. It may be that people, having satisfied their more urgent needs, now want goods which can be produced within a comparatively short period. The reason why these goods have not been produced previously was not that the period of production they require was deemed too long, but that there was a more urgent employment open for the factors required.

增加可利用的資本財的數量，是採取「生產期較長，因而等待的時間也較長的」生產過程的必要條件。如果你想達成在時間上頗遠的目檩，你就必須靠一個較長的生產期，因爲，在一個較短的生產期就不可能達到所追求的目標。如果你所想採用的生產方法是每單位投入的產量較多的方法，你就必須把生產期延長。因爲，毎單位投入的產量較少的那些程序之被採用，只是這些程序需要較短的生產期。但在另一方面，爲利用那些因另外的儲蓄而累積了的資本財而選擇的生產程序，其生產期從今天起，算到產品的成熟，不一定要長於以前已曾採用的一切程序。那可能是這樣的：已經滿足了較迫切需要的人們，現在想要些不能在比較短的時期以內生產出的財貨。這些財貨爲什麼以前沒有生產呢？原因不是生產這些財貨所需要的生產期被認爲太長，而是那些必須的生產要素在當時有個更迫切的用場。

If one chooses to assert that every increase in the supply of capital goods available results in a lengthening of the period of production and of waiting time, one reasons in the following way: If a are the goods already previously produced and b the goods produced in the new processes started with the aid of the increase in capital goods, it is obvious that people had to wait longer for a and b than they had to wait for a alone. In order to produce a and b it was not only necessary to acquire the capital goods required for the production of a, but also those required for the production of b. If one had expended for and increase of immediate consumption the means of sustenance saved to make workers available for the production of b, one would have attained the satisfaction of some wants sooner.

假若你一定要這樣說：可利用的資本財供給量之每一增加，其結果就是生產期和等待時間的延長，那麼，你就要這樣來推理：如果a是以前已經生產的財貨，b是在新的程序下生產出來的財貨，而這個新的程序是得力於資本財的增加而發動的，於是，很顯然地，人們對a和b的等待期一定要長於單單對a的等待期。爲著生產a和b，不僅是需要獲得生產a的資本財，而且也需要獲得生產b的資本財。假若你爲著增加當前的消費，已經把那批儲蓄起來以備工人們在生產b的時期的生活之資都消耗掉，那麼，你就是寧可早點得到某些慾望的滿足。

The treatment of the capital problem customary with those economists who are opposed to the so-called "Austrian" view assumes that the technique employed in production is unalterably determined by

那些反對所謂「奧地利的」觀點的經濟學家，對於資本問題的論述總以爲：用在生產上的技術總是一成不變地決定於工藝知識的現狀。另一方面，「奧地利的」經濟學家指出：在許多已知的生產技術當中，決定採用那些技術的，是每個時期可以利用的資本財供給量。[8]「奧地利的」觀點之正確性，很容易從資本財稀少這個問題的探究得到證明。

Let us look at the condition of a country suffering from such scarcity of capital. Take, for instance, the state of affairs in Rumania about 1860. What was lacking was certainly not technological knowledge. There was no secrecy concerning the technological methods practiced by the advanced nations of the West. They were described in innumerable books and taught at many schools. The elite of Rumanian youth had received full information about them at the technological universities of Austria, Switzerland, and France. Hundreds of foreign experts were ready to apply their knowledge and skill in Rumania. What was wanting were the capital goods needed for a transformation of the backward Rumanian apparatus of production, transportation, and communication according to Western patterns. If the aid granted to the Rumanians on the part of the advanced foreign nations had consisted merely ion providing them with technological knowledge, they would have had to realize that it would take a very long time until they caught up with the West. The first thing for them to have done would have been to save in order to make workers and material factors of production available for the performance of more time-consuming processes. Only then could they successively produce the tools required for the construction of those plants which in the further course were to produce the equipment needed for the construction and operation of modern plants, farms, mines, railroads, telegraph lines, and buildings. Scores of decades would have passed until they had made up for the time lost. There would not have been any means of accelerating this process than by restricting current consumption as far as physiologically possible for the intermediary period.

讓我們來看一個苦於資本財稀少的國家，其情形是怎樣。就以一八六〇年羅馬尼亞（Rumania）的情況來講吧。當時他們所缺乏的，確不是技術知識。關於西方進步國家所用的那些工藝上的方法，根本沒有什麼秘密。在許多書籍裡面都有記載，有許多學校已講授。羅馬尼亞的優秀靑年在奧地利、瑞士和法國的一些工藝大學裡面已經充份地接受了這些知識。還有成百成千的外國專家，準備把他們的知識和技能用在羅馬尼亞。羅馬尼亞當時所缺乏的，是一些可用以依照西方的典型來改變羅馬尼亞落後的生產設備和交通運輸設備的資本財。如果進步國家給羅馬尼亞的援助只是供給他們的技術知識，那麼，羅馬尼亞還得有個很長的時期來趕上西方。他們要作的第一件事就是儲蓄，有儲蓄才可使工人和物質的生產要素可用在時期較長的生產程序。只有在這個時候，他們才可成功地生產那些建立初級工廠所必要的工具，而這些初級工廠再生產那些用以建立和經營現代工廠、農場、鐵路、電報、和建築物的設備。直到他們補回了落後的時間，幾十年的光陰已經過去了。要加速這個過程，除掉就生理上的可能儘量滅縮當前的消費以外，別無他法。

However, things developed in a different way. The capitalist West lent to the backward countries the capital goods needed for an instantaneous transformation of a great part of their methods of production. It saved them time and made it possible for them to

但是，事情的發展不是這樣。資本主義的西方國家把一些資本財借給落後國家，這些資本財是改變他們的生產方法所必要的。這一來節省了他們的時間，使他們可以很快地增加他們的勞動生產力。其結果，對羅馬尼亞人而言，是他們可以很快地享受到現代技術程序帶來的利益。將像是他們在很早以前就已開始儲蓄、就已開始累積資本。

Shortage of capital means that one is further away from the attainment of a goal sought than if one had started to aim at it at an earlier date. Because one neglected to do this in the past, the intermediary products are wanting, although the nature-given factors from which they are to be produced are available. Capital shortage is dearth of time. It is the effect of the fact that one was late in beginning the march toward the aim concerned. It is impossible to describe the advantages derived from capital goods available and the disadvantages resulting from the paucity of capital goods without resorting to the time element of sooner and later.[9]

一個人如果沒有在以前累積資本，他就與他所追求的目標之獲得，距離得較遠。資本不足就是這個意思。因爲他過去不作這件事，中間產品就不夠，儘管中間產品所從而產生的自然資源是有的。資本缺乏是時間不夠。這是由於資本累積開始得太遲了。如果不憑時間因素的「遲」、「早」，那就不可能記述資本財所提供的一些利益和資本財貧乏的一些不利[9]。

To have capital goods at one's disposal is tantamount to being nearer to a goal aimed at. An increment in capital goods available makes it possible to attain temporally remoter ends without being forced to restrict consumption. A loss in capital goods, on the other hand, makes it necessary either to abstain from striving after certain goals which one could aim at before or to restrict consumption. To have capital goods means, other things being equal,[10] a temporal gain. As against those who lack capital goods, the capitalist, under the given state of technological knowledge, is in a position to reach a definite goal sooner without restricting consumption and without increasing the input of labor and nature-given material factors of production. His head start is in time. A rival endowed with a smaller supply of capital goods can catch up only by restricting his consumption.

有資本財可以使用，就等於更接近所追求的目標。資本財的增加，使我們無須減縮消費而可以達成在時間上較遠的目的。相反地，資本財的損失使我們不得不放棄原可達成的某些目標之追求，或者減縮消費。在其他事物不變的假設下[10]，有了資本財也即時間的占優勢。資本家，與那些缺乏資本財的人相反，在旣定的技術知識之下，他可以不減縮消費、可以不增加勞動和自然賜予的物質生產要素的投入，而較快地達成一個確定的目標。資本財較少的競爭者只能靠減縮消費來趕上。

The start which the peoples of the West have gained over the other peoples consists in the fact that they have long since created the political and institutional conditions required for a smooth and by and large uninterrupted progress of the process of larger-scale saving, capital accumulation, and investment. Thus, by the middle of the nineteenth century, they had already attained a state of well-being which far surpassed that of races and nations less successful in substituting the ideas of acquisitive capitalism for those of predatory militarism. Left alone and unaided by foreign capital these backward peoples would have needed much more time to improve their methods of production, transportation, and communication.

西方人的累積資本比別國人發動在先，這是因爲他們很早就在政治和法制方面創立了一些有利於大規模儲蓄、有利於資本累積和投資的環境。因此，到了十九世紀中期，他們所享受的福利，已經大大超過那些較窮的民族和國家，這些民族和國家未能以謀利的资本主義觀念完全代替掠奪的黷武主義觀念。這些落後地區的人們，如果沒有外國資本的幫助，讓他們自作自受，他們將需要很多很多的時間來改善他們的生產、運輸和交通方法。

It is impossible to understand the course of world affairs and the development of the relations between West and East in the last centuries, if one does no comprehend the importance of this large-scale transfer of capital. The west has given to the East not only technological and therapeutical knowledge, but also the capital goods needed for an immediate practical application of this knowledge. These nations of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa have been able, thanks to the foreign capital imported, to reap the fruits of modern industry at an earlier date. They were to some extent relieved from the necessity of restricting their consumption in order to accumulate a sufficient stock of capital goods. This was the true nature of the alleged exploitation of the backward nations on the part of Western capitalism about which their nationalists and the Marxians lament. It was a fecundation of the economically backward nations by the wealth of the more advanced nations.

如果你不了解這種大規模的資本輸送的重要性，你就不可能懂得最近幾百年當中，世界情勢和東西關係的發展。西方給予東方的，不僅是工藝的和醫學的知識，也給予一些可以直接應用這些知識的資本財。東歐、亞洲和非洲的這些國家，由於外國資本的輸入，也就能夠提早收穫現代工業的成果。爲著累積足夠的資本財，他們已不必那麼減縮他們的消費了。這是他們的國家主義者和馬克斯門徒們所責駡的所謂西方帝國主義剥削落後國的眞情實況。這是進步國家的財富在經濟落後國家發生受胎作用。

The benefits derived were mutual. What impelled the capitalists of the West to embark upon foreign investment was the demand on the part of the domestic consumers. Consumers asked for goods which could not be produced at all at home and for a cheapening of goods which could be produced at home only with rising costs. If the consumers of the capitalist West had behaved in a different way or if the institutional obstacles to capital export had proved insurmountable, no capital export would have occurred. There would have been more longitudinal expansion of domestic production instead of lateral expansion abroad.

得到的利益是相互的，逼得西方的資本家不得不向外投資的，是消費者需求。消費者要求那些在國內根本不能生產的財貨，他們也要求那些在國內只能以高成本生產而在國外生產則較便宜的財貨。如果西方資本主義國家的人民不是這樣，或者那些阻止資本輸出的法制上的障礙如果終於不可克服，則資本輸出的事情就不會發生。那就只有國內生產更多的縱的發展，不會有國外橫的擴張。

It is not the task of catallactics but of history to deal with the consequences of the internationalization of the capital market, its working, and its final disintegration brought about by the expropriation policies adopted by the receiving countries. Catallactics has only to scrutinize the effects of a richer or poorer supply of capital goods. We compare the conditions of two isolated market systems A and B . Both are equal in size and population figures, the state of technological knowledge, and in natural resources. They differ from one another only in the supply of capital goods, this supply being larger in A than in B. This enjoins that in A many processes of production are employed with which the output is greater per unit of input than with those employed in B. In B one cannot consider the adoption of these processes on account of the comparative scarcity of capital goods. Their adoption would require a restriction of consumption. In B many manipulations are performed by manual labor which in A are performed by labor-saving machines. In A goods are produced with a longer durability; in B one must abstain from producing them

資本市場的國際化，它的運作，以及由於接受國採用了沒收政策而最後歸之於解體，關於這個事件的後果之研討，不是行爲學而是歷史的任務。行爲學只要研究，資本財供給或豐或嗇所引起的一些後果。我們比較兩個孤立的市場制度A和B的情況。這兩個市場的面積和人口、技術知識、以及自然資源都相等。它們之間的不同只在資本財的供給，A比B多。於是，在A市場所採用的生產程序，有許多是每單位投入的產量大於B市場所採用的程序所產生的。B市場的人們不能考慮採用那些程序，因爲其資本財相對稀少。如果他們想採用那些程序，就得減縮消費。在B市場有許多事情是徒手作的，在A市場，這些事情都由省力的機器作。A巿場生產的財貨有許多是更耐久的；在B市場的人們，必須放棄耐久財的生產，儘管耐久性的延長並不要同比例地增加投入。在A市場，勞動的生產力比B市場的高，因而工資率和工人的生活水準也比B市場的高[11]。

Prolongation of the Period of Provision Beyond the Expected Duration of the Actor's Life

準備期延長到超過了行爲人的生命期

The judgments of value which determine the choice between satisfaction in nearer and in remoter periods of the future are expressive of present valuation and not of future valuation. They weigh the significance attached today to satisfaction in the nearer future against the significance attached today to satisfaction in the remoter future.

決定當前的滿足和將來的滿足兩者間之選擇的那些價値判斷，是表現現在的評値而非表現將來的評値。這些判斷是把今天對當前滿足所賦與的意義，與今天對將來滿足所賦與的意義兩相比較。

The uneasiness which acting man wants to remove as far as possible is always present uneasiness, i.e., uneasiness felt in the very moment of action, and it always refers to future conditions. The actor is discontented today with the expected state of affairs in various periods of the future and tries to alter it through purposive conduct.

行爲人所想盡可能消除的憂慮，總是現在的憂慮，也即，在行爲的當時所感覺到的不舒適，而且它總是涉及將來的情況。行爲人在今天，對於預想中的某些將來情況感到不滿，於是想以有意的行爲來改變它。

If action is primarily directed toward the improvement of other people's conditions and is therefore commonly called altruistic, the uneasiness the actor wants to remove is his own present dissatisfaction with the expected state of other people's affairs in various periods of the future. In taking care of other people he aims at alleviating his own dissatisfaction.

假若某一行爲，主要是爲的改善別人的情況，因而通常叫做利他的行爲，這種場合，行爲人所想消除的不舒適，是他自己對於預想中的別人在未來時期的情況而感到的不滿。他的照顧別人，爲的是消除他自己的不舒服。

It is therefore not surprising that acting man often is intent upon prolonging the period of provision beyond the expected duration of his own life.

所以，行爲人常常想把準備期延長到超過他自己的生命期，這是不足爲怪的。

Some Applications of the Time-Preference Theory

時間偏好理論的一些應用

Every part of economics is open to intentional misrepresentation and misinterpretation on the part of people eager to excuse or to justify fallacious doctrines underlying their party programs. To prevent such misuse as far as possible it seems expedient to add some explanatory remarks to the exposition of the time-preference theory.

經濟學的每一部份，都曾受到那些想爲他們自己的政黨政綱掩過飾非的人們有意的誤述和曲解。爲盡可能地防止這種情形，對時間偏好理論再加些說明，似乎是値得的。

There are schools of thought which flatly deny that men differ with regard to innate characteristics inherited from their ancestors.[12] In the opinion of these authors the only difference between the white men of Western civilization and Eskimos is that the latter are in arrears in their progress toward modern industrial civilization. This merely temporal difference of a few thousand years is insignificant when compared with the many hundreds of thousands of years which were absorbed

有幾派的思想家斷然否認在先天遺傳的特徵上，人們不同於他們的祖先[12]。在這些人的見解中，西方文明的白種人與愛斯基摩人（Eskimos）之間唯一的不同，是後者在趨向現代工業文明的進步中落後了。這不過是時間上幾百年的差異而已，人類從人猿的祖先演化到今天的人，經過了幾十萬年。在幾十萬年當中的幾百年，不算一回事。這不足以支持種族差異的假說。

Praxeology and economics are foreign to the issues raised by this controversy. But they must take precautionary measures lest they become implicated by partisan spirit in this clash of antagonistic ideas. If those fanatically rejecting the teachings of modern genetics were not entirely ignorant of economics, they would certainly try to turn the time-preference theory to their advantage. They would refer to the circumstance that the superiority of the Western nations consists merely in their having started earlier in endeavors to save and to accumulate capital goods. They would explain this temporal difference by accidental factors, the better opportunity offered by environment.

行爲通論和經濟學與這個爭論所引起的一些問題無關。但是這兩門學科必須有所警戒，以免那些敵對觀念的衝突中所顯出的偏見的糾纏。假若那些盲目反對現代遺傳學的人們不完全不懂經濟學，他們當會爲他們的方便來利用時間偏好理論。他們當會說西方國家的優越只因他們開始儲蓄和累積資本財的時間較早而已。他們當會把這時間的差距解釋爲偶然的因素，環境造成的幸運。

Against such possible misinterpretations one must emphasize the fact that the temporal head start gained by the Western nations was conditioned by ideological factors which cannot be reduced simply to the operation of environment. What is called human civilization has up to now been a progress from cooperation by virtue of hegemonic bonds to cooperation by virtue of contractual bonds. But while many races and peoples were arrested at an early stage of this movement, others kept on advancing. The eminence of the Western nations consisted in the fact that they succeeded better in checking the spirit of predatory militarism than the rest of mankind and that they thus brought forth the social institutions required for saving and investment on a broader scale. Even Marx did not contest the fact that private initiative and private ownership of the means of production were indispensable stages in the progress from primitive man's penury to the more satisfactory conditions of nineteenth-century Western Europe and North America. What the East Indies, China, Japan, and the Mohammedan countries lacked were institutions for safeguarding the individual's rights. The arbitrary administration of pashas, kadis, rajahs, mandarins, and daimios was not conducive to large-scale accumulation of capital. The legal guarantees effectively protecting the individual against expropriation and confiscation were the foundations upon which the unprecedented economic progress of the West came into flower. These laws were not an outgrowth of chance, historical accidents, and geographical environment. They were the product of reason.

要駁斥像這樣的曲解，我們必須強調這個事實：西方國家的開始儲蓄和累積資本之所以能夠佔先，這是由於有些不能一味地委之於環境作用的意理因素（ideological factors）。叫做「人類文明」的，是從統治權約束下的合作，走到契約約束下的合作這個發展。但是，有許多種族和民族在這個發展的早期就停住了，其他的種族和民族繼續前進。西方國家的優越，在於他們更成功地抑制住黷武主義的掠奪精神，因而他們創建了一些有利於大規模儲蓄和投資的社會制度。甚至馬克斯也不否認這個事實；個人的原創力和生產手段的私有制，是從原始人的貧窮境況進到十九世紀西歐和北美那種較富裕的情境所必不可少的階梯。東印度、中國、日本以及一些回敎國家所缺乏的，是保障個人權利的一些法制。巴夏們（pashas）、軍閥們（kadis）、酋長們（rajahs）、滿大人們（mandarins）、以及大名們（daimios）的武斷統治，是不利於大規模資本累積的。法律上有效地保障個人以免徵用和沒收，是西方空前的經濟進歩所賴以興旺的基礎。這些法律不是一個什麼機會、歷史的偶然，或地理環境的結果。它們是理知的一些結晶（the product of reason）。

We do not know what course the history of Asia and Africa would have taken if these peoples had been left alone. What happened was that some of these peoples were subject to European rule and others--like China and Japan--were forced by the display of naval power to open their frontiers. The achievements of Western industrialism came to them from abroad. They were ready to take advantage of the foreign capital lent to them and invested in their territories. But they

假若讓亞洲和非洲的民族自作自受，我們不知道亞非的歷史究竟會是怎樣。實際發生的，是這些民族當中，有許多隸屬於歐洲的統治，其他的——像中國和日本——是在海軍力量逼迫之下才開放他們的門戶。西方工業化的成就從外面進入。他們利用借到的外國資本而在本國境內投資。但是，他們對於現代工業化所從而產生的那些意理，卻是緩慢地接受。他們對於西方生活方式的模仿是膚淺的。

We are in the midst of a revolutionary process which will very soon do away with all varieties of colonialism. This revolution is not limited to those countries which were subject to the rule of the British, the French and the Dutch. Even nations which without any infringement of their political sovereignty had profited from foreign capital are intent upon throwing off what they call the yoke of foreign capitalists. They are expropriating the foreigners by various devices--discriminatory taxation, repudiation of debts, undisguised confiscation, foreign exchange restrictions. We are on the eve of the complete disintegration of the international capital market. The economic consequences of this event are obvious; its political repercussions are unpredictable.

我們是在一個革命過程的中間，這個過程將會很快地把所有各類的殖民政策一掃而光，這個革命不限於隸屬英國、法國和荷蘭的那些國家。甚至那些從未受到任何政治侵略、而且從外國資本得到利益的國家，也想擺脫他們所說的外國資本家的羈絆。他們用各種手段沒收外國人的財產——歧視的課稅、賴債、變相的沒收、外滙限制等等。現在，我們是在國際資本市場完全崩潰的前夕。這件事的經濟後果是明顯的；但是，它的政治反響就不可預知了。

In order to appreciate the political consequences of the disintegration of the international capital market it is necessary to remember what effects were brought about by the internationalization of the capital market. Under the conditions of the later nineteenth century it did not matter whether or not a nation was prepared and equipped with the required capital in order to utilize adequately the natural resources of its territory. There was practically free access for everybody to every area's natural wealth. In searching for the most advantageous opportunities for investment capitalists and promoters were not stopped by national borderlines. As far as investment for the best possible utilization of the known natural resources was concerned, the greater part of the earth's surface could be considered as integrated into a uniform world-embracing market system. It is true that this result was attained in some areas, like the British and the Dutch East Indies and Malaya, only by colonial regimes and that autochthonous governments of these territories would probably not have created the institutional setting indispensable for the importation of capital. But Eastern and Southern Europe and the Western Hemisphere had of their own accord joined the community of the international capital market.

爲著估量國際資本市場崩潰的政治後果，我們必須記著資本市場國際化的功效。在十九世紀後期的情況下，一個國家爲了好好利用本國的自然資源，它自己是不是準備了資本，或者說有沒有資本供應，這是無關緊要的。因爲，那時任何人都可自由接近毎個地區的自然財富。資本家和創業者爲尋找最有利的投資機會，他們的活動不受國界的限制。從這方面來講，地球表面的大部份可看作統合在一個世界市場的體系中。誠然，在某些地區，像英國與荷屬東印度與馬來西亞，這種結果只是靠殖民制度達成的，而這些地區的土著政府，大概不會自動地創立資本輸入所必須的那些法制。但是，東南歐和西半球曾經自動地參加這個國際資本市場的社會。

The Marxians were intent upon indicting foreign loans and investments for the lust for war, conquest, and colonial expansion. In fact the internationalization of the capital market, together with free trade and the freedom of migration, was instrumental in removing the economic incentives to war and conquest. It on longer mattered for a man where the political boundaries of his country were drawn. The entrepreneur and the investor were not checked by them. Precisely those nations which in the age preceding the first World War were paramount in foreign lending and investment were committed to the ideas of peace-loving "decadent" liberalism. Of the foremost aggressor nations Russia, Italy, and Japan were not capital exporters; they themselves needed foreign capital for the development of their own

馬克斯的信徒們一心一意地控訴外國借款和投資爲的是戰爭、征服、和殖民地的擴張。事實上，资本市場的國際化，連同自由貿易和自由遷居，有助於消除戰爭和征服的經濟誘因。對於個人而言，本國的政治疆界劃在什麼地方，再也不關重要了。企業家和投資者不受這些疆界的限制。正是那些在第一次世界大戰以前對外貸款、對外投資最多的國家受累於愛好和平的「堕落的」資本主義的一些觀念。最有侵略性的國家俄國、意大利、和日本，都不是資本的輸出國；他們自己還需要外國資本來開發本國的自然資源。德國帝國主義者的冒險，不是企業界、金融界的鉅子所支持的[13]。

The disappearance of the international capital market alters conditions entirely. It abolishes the freedom of access to natural resources. If one of the socialist governments of the economically backward nations lacks the capital needed for the utilization of its natural resources, there will be no means to remedy this situation. If this system had been adopted a hundred years ago, it would have been impossible to exploit the oil fields of Mexico, Venezuela, and Iran, to establish the rubber plantations in Malaya or to develop the banana production of Central America. It is illusory to assume that the advanced nations will acquiesce forever in such a state of affairs. They will resort to the only method which gives them access to badly needed raw materials; they will resort to conquest. War is the alternative to freedom of foreign investment as realized by the international capital market.

國際資本市場的消滅把情勢完全改變了。接近自然資源的自由，消失了。如果一個經濟落後國家的社會主義的政府缺乏開發其自然资源所必要的資本，就沒有任何補救的方法。如果這個制度在一百年以前被採用，則墨西哥、委內瑞拉（Venezuela）和伊朗的油田不可能勘採，馬來西亞的橡園不可能興起，中美的香蕉生產也不可能發展到今天的地步。如果認爲，進歩的國家在這種情勢下將會默然而息，這是虛妄的假想。他們將要採用那個使他們可以取得迫切需要的原料的唯一方法；他們將要用征服的手段。戰爭，是國際資本市場所提供的對外投資自由的代替品。沒有對外投資的自由，只好訴之於戰爭。

The inflow of foreign capital did not harm the receiving nations. It was European capital that accelerated considerably the marvelous economic evolution of the United States and the British Dominions. Thanks to foreign capital the countries of Latin America and Asia are today equipped with facilities for production and transportation which they would have had to forego for a very long time if they had not received this aid. Real wage rates and farm yields are higher today in those areas than they would have been in the absence of foreign capital. The mere fact that almost all nations are vehemently asking today for "foreign aid" explodes the fables of the Marxians and the nationalists.

外國資本的流入，並不傷害接受的國家。美國和英國的一些自治領，經濟進步之所以突飛猛進，得力於歐洲的資本。拉丁美洲和亞洲的一些國家，如果沒有接受外國資本的幫助，他們就不得不有很長的時間享受不到今天這些生產的和運輸的設備，而其實質的工資率和農業方面的收穫，也不會像今天這樣的高。現在，幾乎所有的國家都在熱烈地要求美國借款，單憑這個事實，就可以推翻馬克斯主義者和國家主義者的一些無稽之談。

However, the mere lust for imported capital goods does not resuscitate the international capital market. Investment and lending abroad are only possible if the receiving nations are unconditionally and sincerely committed to the principle of private property and do not plan to expropriate the foreign capitalists at a later date. It was such expropriations that destroyed the international capital market.

但是，僅僅是尋求資本財的輸入，不會使國際資本市場復活，國際投資和借款只有在下述情形下才有可能，即接受投資和借債的那些國家，無條件地、誠心誠意地尊重私有財產權；而不在後來沒收外國資本家的財產，破壞國際資本市場的，是這種沒收行爲。

Intergovernmental loans are no substitute for the functioning of an international capital market. If they are granted on business terms, they presuppose no less than private loans the full acknowledgment of property rights. If they are granted, as is usually the case, as virtual subsidies without any regard for payment of principal and interest, they impose restrictions upon the debtor nation's sovereignty. In fact such "loans" are for the most part the price paid for military assistance in coming wars. Such military considerations already played an important role in the years in which the European powers prepared the great wars of our age. The outstanding example was provided by the huge sums which the French capitalists, pressed hard by the Government

政府與政府之間的借貸，不能代替國際資本市場的功能。如果這種借貸是以商業的條件成立的，那就與私人之間的借貸無異，必須充份承認財產權。如果像通常的情形一樣，是一種不計較還本付息的贈與性的所謂借款，那就對於債務國的主權會有一些限制。事實上，這樣的所謂「借款」，大都是爲換得未來戰爭中的援助所支付的代價。這樣的一些考慮，在我們這個時代，歐洲列強準備幾次世界大戰的年份當中，曾經發生過重大作用。最顯著的例子，是法國資本家在第三共和的政府壓迫之下，借給帝俄的大量外債。沙皇用這借到的資金擴充他的軍備，而不是用它來改善生產設備，不是用來投資，而是用來消費。

-----------------

[8] Cf. F. A. Hayek. The Pure Theory of Capital (London, 1941), p. 48. It is awkward indeed to attach to certain lines of thought national labels. As Hayek remarks pertinently (p. 47, n. 1), the classical English economists since Ricardo, and particularly J. S. Mill (the latter probably partly under the influence of J. Rae) were in some regards more "Austrian" than their recent Anglo-Saxon successors.

[8] 參考F. A. Hayek. The Pure Theory of Capital (London, 1941), p. 48.對某些思想方法加上國名的標記，這確是不妥當的。Hayek說得好（p. 47, n. 1），自Ricardo以後的古典的英國經濟學家，尤其是J. S. Mill（可能部份地受到J. Rae的影響）在某些方面比他們Anglo-Saxon的現代後繼者更是「奥地利的」。

[9] Cf. W. S. Jevons, The Theory of Political Economy (4th ed. London, 1924), pp. 224-229.

[9] 參考W. S. Jevons, The Theory of Political Economy (4th ed. London, 1924), pp. 224-229.

[10] This implies also equality in the quantity of nature-given factors available.

[10] 這裡也意涵自然资源的品質相等。

[11] Cf. John Bates Clark, Essentials of Economic Theory (New York, 1907), pp. 133 ff.

[11] 參考John Bates Clark, Essentials of Economic Theory (New York, 1907), pp. 133 ff.

[12] About the Marxian attack against genetics, cf. T. D. Lysenko, Heredity and Variability (New York, 1945). A critical appraisal of the controversy is provided by J. R. Baker, Science and the Planned State (New York, 1945), pp. 71-76.

[12] 關於馬克斯主義者之攻擊遠傳學，參考T. D. Lysenko, Heredity and Variability (New York, 1945)。關於這個爭論的評判參考J. R. Baker, Science and the Planned State (New York, 1945), pp. 71-76.

[13] Cf. Mises, Omnipotent Government (New Haven, 1944), p. 99 and the books quoted there.

[13] 參考Mises, Omnipotent Government (New Haven, 1944), p. 99.以及那裡所引的書籍。

5. The Convertibility of Capital Goods

五、資本財的可變性

Capital goods are intermediary steps on the way toward a definite goal. If in the course of the period of production the goal is changed, it is not always possible to use the intermediary products already available for the pursuit of the new goal. Some of the capital goods may become absolutely useless, and all expenditure made in their production appears now as waste. Other capital goods could be utilized for the new project but only after having been subjected to a process of adjustment; it would have been possible to spare the costs required by this alteration if one had from the start aimed at the new goal. A third group of capital goods can be employed for the new process without any alteration; but if it had been known at the time they were produced that they would be used in the new way, it would have been possible to manufacture at smaller cost other goods which could render the same service. Finally there are also capital goods which can be employed for the new project just as well as for the original one.

資本財是走向一定目標的過程中的一些中途站。如果在生產期當中，這個目標改變了，那些原先使用的中間產品，不是都可以用來達成新目標的。其中有些變成完全無用的，因而生產它們的一切費用，現在都成了浪費。有些還可在新目標下使用，但必須經過一番調整；如果當事人一開始就是朝向這個新目標的話，就可省掉這筆調整的費用。其中還有第三種情形的資本財，即無須調整就可用在新目標下使用的，但是如果在生產它們的時候，已經知道將要把它們用來達成新目標的話，那時就可能以較低成本製造出可以同樣在新目標下使用的別樣的資本財。最後，其中也有些在新目標下使用和在舊目標下使用完全沒有差異的資本財。

It would hardly be necessary to mention these obvious facts if it were not essential to refute popular misconceptions. There is no such thing as an abstract or ideal capital that exists apart from concrete capital goods. If we disregard the role cash holding plays in the composition of capital (we will deal with this problem in one of the later sections) we must realize that capital is always embodied in definite capital goods and is affected by everything that happens with regard to them. The value of an amount of capital is a derivative of the value of the capital goods in which it is embodied. the money equivalent of an amount of capital is the sum of the money equivalents of the aggregate of capital goods to which one refers in speaking of capital in the abstract. There is nothing which could be called "free" capital. Capital is always in the form of definite capital goods. These capital goods are better utilizable for some purposes, less utilizable for others, and absolutely useless for still other purposes. Every unit of capital is therefore in some way of other fixed capital, i.e., dedicated to definite processes of production. The businessman's distinction between fixed capital and circulating capital is a difference of degree, not of kind. Everything that is valid with regard to fixed capital is also valid, although to a smaller degree, with regard to circulating capital. All capital goods have a more or less specific character. Of

如果不是特別有關於一些通常的誤想之辯駁，則對這些明顯的事實，幾乎沒有提到的必要。離開了具體的資本財，就沒有抽象的資本這樣的東西。假使我們不管現金握存在資本構成中所扮演的角色（我們將在以下的一節中討論這個問題），我們必須了解：資本總是體現在一定的資本財上面，而且凡是有關資本財的事情發生，它就受到影響。一個資本量的價値，是它所體現的那個資本財的價値的一個衍生物。一個資本量的金錢等値，即是人們說到抽象資本時所指的那些資本財的金錢等値的總額。我們沒有可以叫做「自由」資本的東西。資本總是一定形式的資本財。這些資本財在某些用途上最有用，在某些用途上次之，而在其餘的用途上絕對無用。所以資本的每個單位，總會在某個用途上是固定資本，也即，專用在一定的生產程序上。工商業者所區分的固定資本和流動資本，是程度上的差異，而不是種類的區別。凡是對於固定資本有效的事情，對於流動資本也是有效的，儘管在程度上較小。一切資本財或多或少總有它的特徵。其中當然有許多是不會因慾望和計畫的改變而歸於完全無用的。

The more a definite process of production approaches its ultimate end, the closer becomes the tie between its intermediary products and the goal aimed at. Iron is less specific in character than iron tubes, and iron tubes less so than iron machine-parts. The conversion of a process of production becomes as a rule the more difficult, the farther it has been pursued and the nearer it has come to its termination, the turning out of consumers' goods.

一定的生產程序愈是接近它的最後目標，它的中間產品和其目標之間的關聯，就變得愈密切。鐵比鐵管較不特殊，鐵管比鐵製的機器零件較不特殊。生產程序走得愈遠，愈是接近它的終極目標——消費財的產出，則其轉變照例是愈形困難。

In looking at the process of capital accumulation from its very beginnings one can easily recognize that there cannot be such a thing as free capital. There is only capital embodied in goods of a more specific character and in goods of a less specific character. When the wants or the opinions concerning the methods of want-satisfaction change, the value of the capital goods is altered accordingly. Additional capital goods can come into existence only through making consumption lag behind current production. The additional capital is already in the very moment of its coming into existence embodied in concrete capital goods. These goods had to be produced before they could--as an excess of production over consumption--become capital goods. The role which the intraposition of money plays in the sequence of these events will be dealt with later. Here we need only recognize that even the capitalist whose whole capital consists in money and in claims to money does not own free capital. His funds are tied up with money. They are affected by changes in money's purchasing power and--as far as they are invested in claims to definite sums of money--also by changes in the debtor's solvency.

如果人們從資本累積的開始來看資本累積的過程，那就很容易了解，不會有自由資本這樣的一種東西，只有體現於一些較特殊的財貨或較不特殊的財貨的資本。當慾望或關於慾望滿足的意見，有了變動的時候，資本財的價値也隨著變動。額外資本財之出現，只有使消費落在當期生產之後才會可能。這筆額外資本，在它出現的那個時候，就已體現在具體的資本財。這些財貨必須在它們能夠——由於生產超過消費——成爲資本財以前生產出來。關於貨幣滲入這些事情當中所起的作用，將在以後討論。在這裡，我們只要了解：即令有的資本家，其全部資本都是貨幣和貨幣要求權，也不是保有自由資本，他的資金是與貨幣聯結起來的。它們要受貨幣購買力變動的影響，而且——就其投資於一定數額的貨幣要求權而言——也要受債務人償付能力的變動之影響。

It is expedient to substitute the notion of the convertibility of capital goods for the misleading distinction between fixed and free or circulating capital. The convertibility of capital goods is the opportunity offered to adjust their utilization to a change in the data of production. Convertibility is graduated. It is never perfect, i.e., present with regard to all possible changes in the data. In the case of absolutely specific factors it is entirely absent. As the conversion of capital goods from the employment originally planned to other employments becomes necessary through the emergence of unforeseen changes in the data, it is impossible to speak of convertibility in general without reference to changes in the data which have already occurred or are expected. A radical change in the data could make capital goods previously considered to be easily convertible either not convertible at all or convertible only with difficulty.

把資本財可變性這個觀念代替固定資本和自由或流動資本的區別，是有其便利的。固定資本與流動資本的區別是會引起誤解的。資本財的可變性是給它得以適應生產情形以調整用途的機會。可變是漸漸變的。它決不是完全的，也即，決不是隨生產情形的一切可能的變動而變。絕對特殊的一些生產要素完全沒有可變性。當資本財從原來計畫的用途轉變到其他用途，因不測的變化而成爲必要的時候，如不指涉那些已經發生或將要發生的變化，而概括地說到可變性，這是不可能的。重大變化，會使原先認爲易於轉變的資本財，或者成爲完全不可改變的，或者成爲很難於改變的。

It is obvious that in practice the problem of convertibility plays a greater role with goods the serviceability of which consists in rendering

有些財貨，可以在一個時期當中提供一連串的功用，有些資本財只能在生產過程中提供一個功用就完了。可變性這個問題對於前者所起的作用，比後者來得大。工廠、運輸設備，以及那些爲較久的用途而設計的装置之擱置不用和廢棄，比丟掉過時的衣著和容易腐敗的東西更關重要。可變性這個問題，只在資本會計使它在資本財方面特別顯著的範圍內，成爲資本和資本財的一個問題。本質上，它是一個在消費財方面也有的現象，這裡所說的消費財，是專指消費者爲他自己的使用和消費而已經取得了的。如果引起他們取得的那些情況發生變動，可變性這個問題，在消費財方面也就發生了。

Capitalists and entrepreneurs in their capacity as owners of capital are never perfectly free; they are never on the eve of the first decision and action which will bind them. They are always already engaged in some way or other. Their funds are not outside the social process of production, but invested in definite lines. If they own cash, this is, according to the state of the market, either a sound or an unsound "investment"; but it is always an investment. They have either let slip the right moment for the purchase of concrete factors of production which they must buy sooner or later, or the right moment to buy has not yet come. In the first case their holding of cash is unsound; they have missed an opportunity. In the second case their choice was correct.

資本家和企業家，就他們的身份——資本保有者的身份——來講，決不是完全自由的；他們總有些羈絆。他們的資金不是放在社會生產過程以外，而是投資在一些確定的管道。如果他們保有現金，按照市場情況，這或者是健全的投資，或者是不健全的投資；但是，這總是一種投資。他們或者把那個應當購買的適當時機放過了，或者是應筲購買的適當時機還未到來。在第一個情形下，他們之握存現金，是不健全的投資：他們失掉了好機會。在第二個情形下，他們的選擇是正確的。

Capitalists and entrepreneurs in expending money for the purchase of concrete factors of production value the goods exclusively from the point of view of the anticipated future state of the market. They pay prices adjusted to future conditions as they themselves appraise them today. Errors committed in the past in the production of capital goods available today do not burden the buyer; their incidence falls endaural on the seller. In this sense the entrepreneur who proceeds to buy against money capital goods for future production crosses out the past. His entrepreneurial ventures are not affected by changes which in the past occurred in the valuation and the prices of the factors of production he acquires. In this sense alone one may say that the owner of ready cash owns liquid funds and is free.

資本家和企業家，花錢購買具體生產要素的時候，完全是從預期的未來市場情況的觀點來估値的。他們所付的價格，是就他們在今天對於將來情況的看法而調整的。今天可以使用的這些資本財，在過去生產它們時所犯的錯誤，並不給買者的負擔；它們的歸宿完全落在賈者的身上。在這個意義下，爲將來的生産而購買資本財的企業家把過去勾銷了。他的企業活動，不因那些過去發生於他所得到的那些生產要素的評値和價格的變動而受影響。只有在這個意義下，我們才可說保有現金的人是握有流動資金，因而是自由的。

6. The Influence of the Past Upon Action

六、過去對於行爲的影響

The more the accumulation of capital goods proceeds, the greater becomes the problem of convertibility. The primitive methods of farmers and handicraftsmen of earlier ages could more easily be

資本財的累積愈多，可變性這個問題愈大。早期的農民和手工業者的原始方法，比現代資本主義下的生產方法更容易適應新的工作而調整。但是，面對環境迅速變動的，正是現代的資本主義。技術知識和消費者的需求，在我們這個時代，天天都在變動，這些變動使許多在實施中的生產計畫變得不合時宜，因而引起這個問題：我們應不應當照那實施中的計畫做下去。

The spirit of sweeping innovation may get hold of men, may triumph over the inhibitions of sluggishness and indolence, may incite the slothful slaves of routine to a radical rescission of traditional valuations, and may peremptorily urge people to enter upon new paths leading to new goals. Doctrinaires may try to forget that we are in all our endeavors the heirs of our fathers, and that our civilization, the product of a long evolution, cannot be transformed at one stroke. But however strong the propensity for innovation may be, it is kept in bounds by a factor that forces men not to deviate too hastily from the course chosen by their forebears. All material wealth is a residuum of past activities and is embodied in concrete capital goods of limited convertibility. The capital goods accumulated direct the actions of the living into lines which they would not have chosen if their discretion had not been restricted by binding action accomplished in the past. The choice of ends and of the means for the attainment of these ends is influenced by the past. Capital goods are a conservative element. They force us to adjust our actions to conditions brought about by our own conduct in earlier days and by the thinking, choosing and acting of bygone generations.

掃蕩式的創新風氣，可能迷人、可能克服懶惰、可能刺激循規蹈矩的惰性變成對傳統價値的反抗、可能促動人們走上新的途徑，趨向新的目標。空論家雖然可力圖忘掉我們在一切的努力中總是我們祖先的後裔，而我們的文明是長期演變的結果，不是一舉就可改變的。但是，不管創新的傾向如何強烈，它畢竟要受限於一個因素，這就是使人們不能離開祖先們所選擇的途徑太遠的那個因素。所有的物質財富，都是過去活動的遺物，體現在一些屬於有限的、可變性的具體資本財。這些累積下來的資本財指導活著的人們的行爲路線，如果不是受制於祖先們所作的約束，他們不會選擇這些路線。目標的選擇，以及達成這些目標的手段的選擇，都受過去的影響。資本財是個保守的因素。它們強迫我們調整我們的行爲，以適應我們自己以前的行爲和歷代祖先們的思想、選擇、以及行爲所造成的那些情境。

We may picture to ourselves the image of how things would be if, equipped with our present knowledge of natural resources, geography, technology, and hygienics, we had arranged all processes of production and manufactured all capital goods accordingly. We would have located the centers of production in other places. We would have populated the earth's surface in a different way. some areas which are today densely inhabited and full of plants and farms would be less occupied. We would have assembled more people and more shops and farms in other areas. All establishments would by equipped with the most efficient machines and tools. Each of them would be the size required for the most economical utilization of its capacity of production. In the world of our perfect planning there would be no technological backwardness, no unused capacity to produce, and no avoidable shipping of men or of goods. The productivity of human exertion would far surpass that prevailing in our actual, imperfect state.

假若用我們現在的一些知識——關於自然資源、地理、生產技術、和衛生學的知識——我們把所有的生產程序重新安排，並製造一切資本財出來，那會是怎樣的一個世界。我們也可以爲我們自己描繪出這個想像的情境：我們當已把這些生產中心擺在其他的一些地方。我們當已把人口在地球上作不同的分佈。今天，這些人口集中，而工廠、農場密集的地方，當已相當地疏散。所有的生產機構當已装置著更有效率的機器和工具，而其規模的大小，當已做到可使它的生產能力作最經濟的作用。在我們這個完全的計畫世界裡面，當已沒有技術上的落後，沒有未使用的生產能力，沒有不必要的人和物的運輸。人的生產力當已大大地超過在我們這個不完全的實際世界中所呈現的生產力。

The writings of the socialists are full of such utopian fancies.

社會主義者的一些著作，充滿了這樣的一些幻想。不管他們自命是馬克斯主義者或非馬克斯的社會主義者，技術主義者（technocrats）或單純的計畫者，他們都是要吿訴我們，實際的事情安排得如何愚蠢，如果人們賦與改革家一些獨斷獨行的權力，他們當會生活得如何愉快。人類之所以不能享受現代的技術知識水準所可提供的一切舒適快樂，只是因爲資本主義的生產方式不對。

The fundamental error involved in this rationalistic romanticism is the misconception of the character of the capital goods available and of their scarcity. The intermediary products available today were manufactured in the past by our ancestors and by ourselves. The plans which guided their production were an outgrowth of the then prevailing ideas concerning ends and technological procedures. If we consider aiming at different ends and choosing different methods of production, we are faced with an alternative. We must either leave unused a great part of the capital goods available and start afresh producing modern equipment, or we must adjust our production processes as far as possible to the specific character of the capital goods available. The choice rests, as it always does in the market economy, with the consumers. Their conduct in buying or not buying settles the issue. In choosing between old tenements and new ones equipped with all the gadgets of comfort, between railroad and motorcar, between gas and electric light, between cotton and rayon goods, between silk and nylon hosiery, they implicitly choose between a continued employment of previously accumulated capital goods and their scrapping. When an old building which could still be inhabited for years is not prematurely demolished and replaced by a modern house because the tenants are not prepared to pay higher rents and prefer to satisfy other wants instead of living in more comfortable homes, it is obvious how present consumption is influenced by conditions of the past.

這種唯理的空想，其根本錯誤在於誤解了可以利用的資本財和其稀少性的特徵。今天，可以利用的一些中間產品，是我們的祖先和我們自己在過去生產出來的。引導這些資本財生產的一些計畫，是從當時流行的關於目標和技術程序的一些觀念產生出來的。如果我們在不同的目標和不同的生產方法之間考慮，我們就是面對一個選擇。我們不是讓那可利用的資本財大部份置之不用，而重新製造現代化的設備，那就必須盡可能地調整我們的生產程序，以適應可利用的資本財的特徵。這種選擇，在市場經濟裡面總是繫於消費者。他們的行爲一購買或不購買，解決了這個問題。在老式的房屋與具有一切新式舒適設備的房屋之間的選擇中，在火車與汽車之間的選擇中，在煤氣燈與電燈之間的選擇中，在棉織品與人造絲製品之間的選擇中，在絲襪與尼龍襪之間的選擇中，他們所選擇的，實際上是繼續利用原先累積下的資本財呢，還是把它們作廢？如果因爲房客們不準備付較高的房租來換租新式更舒服的房子，而寧可把錢用來滿足其他慾望，所以那幢還有幾年可以住的老房子沒有提早拆掉改建新的，這就可明顯地看出現在的消費如何受過去的情形之影響。

The fact that not every technological improvement is instantly applied in the whole field is not more conspicuous than the fact that not everybody throws away his old car or his old clothes as soon as a better car is on the market or new patterns become fashionable. In all such things people are motivated by the scarcity of goods available.

當巿場上有較好的車子出現，或有新式的衣著流行起來的時候，並不是每個人都馬上丟掉他的舊車或舊衣服，這個事實是很明顯的。生產技術的改進，並不是每次都會馬上應用到有關的整個部門，這個事實卻不比前一個事實更明顯。在所有這樣的事情上面，人們的行爲是由那些可用的財貨之稀少性使然的。

A new machine, more efficient than those used previously, is constructed. Whether or not the plants equipped with the old, less efficient machines will discard them in spite of the fact that they are still utilizable and replace them by the new model depends on the degree of the new machine's superiority. Only if this superiority

一部新機器——比原先使用的效率更高——製造出來了。那些使用老式而效率較低的機器的工廠，會不會在這些機器還可使用的時候就把它們作廢而換上新式的，這就要看新的機器優越到什麼程度；只有在其優越的程度大到足以抵補改換時的額外費用的時候，舊的機器之作廢才合算。假設p是新機器的價格，q是把舊機器當作廢鐵資所可寶得的價格。a是舊機器生產一個單位產品的成本，b是新機器生產一個單位產品的成本，但不計及部機器的購置成本。倘若我們再假定，這部新機器的優點只在於把原料和勞動利用得更好，而不在於製出更多的產品，因而年產量z仍然不變。於是，新機器換掉舊機器只有在利益z（a-b）大到足以補償p-q這筆支出的時候才有利。我們假定對新機器每筆折舊的比額不大於對舊機器的比額，在這個假定下，我們可以不管折舊的勾銷。同樣的一些考慮也可適用於已經存在的一個工廠，從一個生產情況較差的地方轉換到較好的地方。

Technological backwardness and economic inferiority are two different things and must not be confused. It can happen that a production aggregate which from a merely technological point of view appears outclassed is in a position to compete successfully with aggregates better equipped or located at more favorable sites. The degree of the superiority provided by the technologically more efficient equipment or by the more propitious location as compared with the surplus expenditure required for the transformation decides the issue. This relation depends on the convertibility of the capital goods concerned.

技術的落後與經濟的劣勢是兩件不同的事情，決不可相混。單從技術的觀點來看，一個顯得優越的生產組合，也可能在競爭中勝過那些有更好的設備或處在更好位置的生產組合。更好的設備或更好的位置所提供的優勢與遷廠的費用相對照所顯出的優越程度，決定了這個問題。這種關係繫乎有關的資本財的可變性。

The distinction between technological perfection and economic expediency is not, as romantic engineers would have us believe, a feature of capitalism. It is true that only economic calculation as possible solely in a market economy gives the opportunity to establish all the computations required for the cognition of the relevant facts. A socialist management would not be in a position to ascertain the state of affairs by arithmetical methods. It would therefore not know whether or not what it plans and puts into operation is the most appropriate procedure to employ the means available for the satisfaction of what it considers to be the most urgent of the still unsatisfied wants of the people. But if it were in a position to calculate, it would not proceed in a way different from that of the calculating businessman. It would not squander scarce factors of production for the satisfaction of wants deemed less urgent if this would prevent the

技術的完善與經濟的便利之間的區別，不是像怪誕的工程師們要我們相信的資本主義的一個特徵。經濟計算僅在市場經濟才有可能；爲著認知有關的事實而作的一切計算，也只有經濟計算可提供機會。社會主義的管制不能夠用數學方法來確定事象。所以，它不知道它所計畫的和實施的，是不是爲滿足它所認爲的人民的最迫切慾望而採用最適當程序。假若它眞能計算的話，它就不會採用異於善作計算的商人們所用的方法。它就不會浪費那有限的生產資源，去滿足那些較不迫切的慾望，如果這方面的滿足會妨害更迫切的慾望滿足。它就不會忙於抛棄那些尙可利用的生產設備，如果換置新設備所需要的投資會妨害更迫切的生產之擴張。

If one takes the problem of convertibility into proper account, one can easily explode many widespread fallacies. Take, for instance, the infant industries argument advanced in favor of protection. Its supporters assert that temporary protection is needed in order to develop processing industries in places in which natural conditions for their operation are more favorable or, at least, no less favorable than in the areas in which the already established competitors are located. These older industries have acquired an advantage by their early start. They are now fostered by a merely historical, accidental, and manifestly "irrational" factor. This advantage prevents the establishment of competing plants in areas the conditions of which give promise of becoming able to produce more cheaply than, or at least as cheaply as, the old ones. It may be admitted that protection for infant industries is temporarily expensive. But the sacrifices made will be more than repaid by the gains to be reaped later.

如果你把可變性這個問題加以適當的考慮，你會很容易地打破許多流行的謬見。就拿幼稚工業的保護關稅論來講吧。它的主張者這樣說：有些地方，其自然環境更有利於某些加工業之經營，或者至少不劣於這些工業早已建立起來了的那些地方。爲使這些工業能夠在前些地方發展起來，暫時的保護是必要的。那些較老的工業是得利於建立得早。它們只是由於一個歷史的偶然而顯然「不合理的」因素發達起來。它們所享的利益妨害了一些潜在的競爭工廠，在那些環境更有利的地區設立；如果它們在那些地區設立的話，則它們就能夠比那些舊廠更便宜地生產。幼稚工業的保護，誠然有一時的犧牲，但是，後來的收穫將會抵償它而有餘。

The truth is that the establishment of an infant industry is advantageous from the economic point of view only if the superiority of the new location is so momentous that it outweighs the disadvantages resulting from the abandonment of nonconvertible and nontransferable capital goods invested in the already established plants. If this is the case, the new plants will be able to compete successfully with the old ones without any aid given by the government. If it is not the case, the protection granted to them is wasteful, even if it is only temporary and enables the new industry to hold its own at a later period. The tariff amounts virtually to a subsidy which the consumers are forced to pay as a compensation for the employment of scarce factors of production for the replacement of still utilizable capital goods to be scrapped and the withholding of these scarce factors from other employments in which they could render services valued higher by the consumers. The consumers are deprived of the opportunity to satisfy certain wants because the capital goods required are directed toward the production of goods which were already available to them in the absence of tariffs.

眞實的情形是這樣：從經濟的觀點看，在一新地區扶植某種幼稚工業，只在於新地區的好處大到可以抵償因爲放棄那些已裝置在舊工廒的不能改變的、不能遷移的資本財所受的損失而有餘的時候才有利。如果情形是如此，則新的工廠就用不著政府保護而可在競爭中勝過舊的工廒。如果不是如此，保護就是浪費，即令只是暫時的保護，即令這個保護使新的工業能夠在後期站得住，也是浪費。保護關稅，實際上等於消費者被迫付出的一筆津貼：因爲保護關稅把那些尙可使用的資本財提早報廢，而用一些稀少的生產要素製造同類的資本財來代替，而這些稀少的資源又是從一些可製造消費者評値較高的生產部門拉來的，所以，這筆津貼是使用這些稀少的生產要素的報酬。消費者滿足某些慾望的機會被剝奪了，因爲，滿足那些慾望所需要的資源，被用來製造在沒有保護關稅的時候原已有了的那些財貨。

There prevails a universal tendency for all industries to move to those locations in which the potentialities for production are most propitious. In the unhampered market economy this tendency is slowed down as much as due consideration to the inconvertibility of scarce capital goods requires. This historical element does not give a permanent superiority to the old industries. It only prevents

所有的行業都有個普遍的趨勢，就是向那些最有利於發揮生產潜力的地區遷徙。在未受阻礙的市場經濟裡面，由於不得不考慮到稀少的資本財之不能改換，這個趨勢隨之緩和下來。這個歷史因素並沒有使那古老的行業佔有長久的優勢。它只是一方面防止來自那些尙可使用的生產設備歸於無用的一些投資所引起的浪費，另一方面也防止對那些可用以滿足一些尙未滿足的慾望的資本財所加的限制。在沒有關稅的場合，工業的遷徒會延遲到老廠的資本財損耗得不能再用，或因技術上的特別改進必須換置新設備而報廢的時候。美國的工業史提供了許多這樣的事例，在美國的境界以內，一些工業中心沒有任何保護的措施，工業的遷徙就是如此。幼稚工業保護論之爲虛僞，並不遜於其他所有的主張保護關稅的理論。

Another popular fallacy refers to the alleged suppression of useful patents. A patent is a legal monopoly granted for a limited number of years to the inventor of a new contrivance. At this point we are not concerned with the question whether or not it is a good policy to grant such exclusive privileges to inventors.[14] We have to deal only with the assertion that "big business" misuses the patent system to withhold from the public benefits it could derive from technological improvement.

另一個流行的謬見涉及所謂專利權的抑制。專利是給發明人或新的設計者在限定的年份內一種法律上的獨占。在這裡，我們不管專利權這個政策是好是壞的問題[14]。我們所要討論的只是「大企業」濫用專利權，使大衆享受不到技術改進的利益這個說法。

In granting a patent to an inventor the authorities do not investigate the invention's economic significance. They are concerned merely with the priority of the idea and limit their examination to technological problems. They deal with the same impartial scrupulousness with an invention which revolutionizes a whole industry and with some trifling gadget, the uselessness of which is obvious. Thus patent protection is provided to a vast number of quite worthless inventions. Their authors are ready to overrate the importance of their contribution to the progress of technological knowledge and build exaggerated hopes upon the material gain it could bring them. Disappointed, they grumble about the absurdity of an economic system that deprives the people of the benefit of technological progress.

在給予發明人專利權的時候，政府當局並不審查這項發明在經濟方面的重要性如何。他們只注意觀念是否新鮮，而把他們的審查限之於一些技術問題，他們以同樣公平、同樣謹愼的態度，來審查所有的發明，不管它是全部工業界革命化的發明，還是沒有什麼用處的小玩意的發明。因此，有許許多多無價値的東西之發明，也得到專利權的保護。這些東西的發明人每每高估自己封於技術知識的貢獻，而過份希望這些東西所可帶來的物質利益。到了失望的時候，他們就抱怨經濟制度的不合理——使大家享受不到技術進步的利益。

The conditions under which it is economical to substitute new improved equipment for still utilizable older tools have been pointed out above. If these conditions are absent, it does not pay, either for private enterprise in a market economy or for the socialist management of a totalitarian system, to adopt the new technological process immediately. The new machinery to be produced for new plants, the expansion of already existing plants and the replacement of old

在什麼條件下用新的改良設備來替換尙可使用的舊工具才是經濟的，這在上文已經指出。如果這些條件不存在而立刻採用新的技術程序，就市場經濟的民營企業來講也好，就極權制度的社會主義的管理部門來講也好，都是不値得的。爲新設的工廠，爲原已存在的工廠之擴張，以及爲損耗了的舊設備之替換而要製造的新機器，要照新的設計來完成，但那尙可使用的設備將不丟掉。新的程序只是一步一步地實行。那些設備陳舊的工廠，在相當時期以內，還可以和那些新設備的工廠競爭。對於這個說法的正確性有所懷疑的人們，無妨問問自己，是不是一看到有較好的吸塵器或收音機出售，馬上就把原有的吸塵器或收音機丟掉。

It does not make any difference in this regard whether the new invention is or is not protected by a patent. A firm that has acquired a license has already expended money for the new invention. If it nonetheless does not adopt the new method, the reason is that its adoption does not pay. It is of no avail that the government-created monopoly which the patent provides prevents competitors from applying it. what counts alone is the degree of superiority secured by the new invention as against old methods. Superiority means reduction in the cost of production per unit or such an improvement in the quality of the product that buyers are ready to pay adequately higher prices. The absence of a sufficient degree of superiority to make the cost of transformation profitable is proof of the fact that consumers are more intent upon acquiring other goods than upon enjoying the benefits of the new invention. It is the consumers with whom the ultimate decision rests.

在這一點上，新的發明或不是有專利權的保護，都是一樣的。一個取得了專利權的商號，已經爲這個新發明花了金錢。如果它仍然不採用這個新方法，其理由就是不値得採用。專利權所提供的法律獨佔不許競爭者採用，完全是落空的。値得計較的只是新發明比舊方法優越的程度。優越的意思是指，單位生產成本的降低，或指產品的品質改良，使大家願意出較高的價錢來買。消費者有時寧願購買其他的貨物而不願享受新的發明，這個事實就證明，新發明的優越程度不夠。最後的決定，仍繫於消費者。

Superficial observers sometimes fail to see these facts because they are deluded by the practice of many big enterprises of acquiring the rights granted by a patent in their field regardless of its usefulness. This practice stems from various considerations:

膚淺的觀察者看不淸這些事實，因爲他們惑於許多大企業在它們的行業中謀取專利權，而不管它有沒有用。這種情形是由於種種不同的理由：

1. The economic significance of the innovation is not yet recognizable.

1. 創新的經濟意義還沒有明顯到叫大家認淸。

2. The innovation is obviously useless. But the firm believes that it could develop it in such a way as to make it useful.

2. 這個創新顯然是無用的，但是這個廠商卻相信它能夠把它變成有用的。

3. The immediate application of the innovation does not pay. But the firm intends to apply it later when replacing its worn-out equipment.

3. 立刻採用這個發明是不値得的。但是這個廠商準備等到換置耗損的舊設備時再採用它。

4. The firm wants to encourage the inventor to continue his research in spite of the fact that up to now his endeavors have not resulted in a practically utilizable innovation.

4. 這個廠商想鼓勵這個發明者繼續他的研究，儘管截至目前，他的努力還沒有做到實際上有用的創新。

5. The firm wants to placate litigious inventors in order to spare the money, time, and nervous strain which frivolous infringement suits bring about.

5. 這個廠商想撫慰那愛訴訟的發明者，以期節省時間、金錢、以及訴訟事件引起的神經緊張。

6. The firm resorts to hardly disguised bribery or yields to veiled blackmail when paying for quite useless patents to officers, engineers,

6. 這個廠商因取得一些完全無用的專利權，而對某些有勢力的官吏、工程師、或其他有影響力的人物償付代價的時候，使用掩飾的賄賂手段或屈服於隱蔽的敲詐。這裡所說的其他影響力的人物，包括這個商號的一些顧主廠商或顧主機構中的人物。

If an invention is so superior to the old processes that it makes the old equipment obsolete and peremptorily demands its immediate replacement by new machines, the transformation will be effected no matter whether the privilege conferred by the patent is in the hands of the owners of the old equipment or of an independent firm. The assertions to the contrary are based on the assumption that not only the inventor and his attorneys but also all people already active in the field of production concerned or prepared to enter into it if an opportunity is offered to them fail entirely to grasp the importance of the invention. The inventor sells his rights to the old firm for a trifle because no one else wants to acquire them. And this old firm is also too dull to see the advantage that it could derive from the application of the invention.

如果一個發明比舊的程序優越，優越到使舊的設備成爲廢物而需要馬上用新機器來替換，這時，不管專利權是在舊設備的廠主們的手中，或是在一個獨立的廠主手中，新設備替換舊設備的事情是會發生的。相反的說法，則是基於下面這個假定：即假定對於這個發明的重要性完全不了解的，不僅是這個發明者和其代理人，而且，凡是已經在這個有關的生產部門工作的人，或者準備一有機會就參加這個生產部門的人，都不了解它的重要性。發明者把他的權利賣給老的廠商，只收小的報酬，因爲沒有別人想取得這個權利。在這個老廠商方面，也看不出這個發明的應用所可產生的利益。

Now, it is true that a improvement cannot be adopted if people are blind to its usefulness. Under a socialist management the incompetence or stubbornness of the officers in charge of the department concerned would be enough to prevent the adoption of a more economical method of production. The same is the case with regard to inventions in fields dominated by the government. The most conspicuous examples are provided by the failure of eminent military experts to comprehend the significance of new devices. The great Napoleon did not recognize the help which steamboats could give to his plans to invade Great Britain; both Foch and the German general staff underestimated on the eve of the first World War the importance of aviation, and later the eminent pioneer of air power, General Billy Mitchell, had very unpleasant experiences. But things are entirely different in the orbit in which the market economy is not hampered by bureaucratic narrow-mindedness. There, a tendency to overrate rather than to underestimate the potentialities of an innovation prevails. The history of modern capitalism shows innumerable instances of abortive attempts to push innovations which proved futile. Many promoters have paid heavily for unfounded optimism. It would be more realistic to blame capitalism for its propensity to overvalue useless innovations than for its alleged suppression of useful innovations. It is a fact that large sums have been wasted for the purchase of quite useless patent rights and for fruitless ventures to apply them in practice.

不錯，生產技術的改進所帶來的利益如果沒有被人了解，這個改進是不會被採用的。在社會主義的管理下，有關部門的官吏們，其無能或頑固就足以妨礙更經濟的生產方法之採用。就有關於政府所控制的部門的發明來講，情形也是如此。最著名的例子是，一些傑出軍事家不懂得新發明的重要性。拿破崙大帝不了解汽船有助於進攻英國；法國的Forch將軍和德國的參謀本部，在第一次世界大戰前夕都低估了航空的重要性，後來，傑出的空軍創辦人Billy Mitchell將軍有些非常不愉快的經驗。但是，在自由的市場經濟——未受到官僚們窄心眼妨害的市場經濟裡面，情形就完全不同。那裡的趨勢則是對於創新的潜力偏於高估而非低估。現代資本主義的歷史記載著許許多多在創新方面加以鼓勵而結果卻是勞而無功的事例。許多發起人因爲無根據的樂觀，支付了很大的代價。如果指責資本主義傾向於高估一些無用的發明，而不指責它抑制有用的創新，反而更切實際些。在資本主義下，龐大的金額浪費在完全無用的專利權之購買，浪費在應用新發明而無結果。這確是事實。

It is absurd to speak of an alleged bias of modern big business against technological improvement. The great corporations spend huge sums in the search for new processes and new devices.

如果說現代的大企業對於技術改進存有反對的偏見，那簡直是胡說。一些大公司在硏究新程序、新方法方面，花了很多很多金錢。

Those lamenting an alleged suppression of inventions on the part of free enterprise must not think that they have proved their case by referring to the fact that many patents are either never utilized at all or only used after a long delay. It is manifest that numerous patents, perhaps the far greater number of them, are quite useless. Those alleging suppression of useful innovations do not cite a single instance of such an innovation's being unused in the countries protecting it by a patent while it is used by the Soviets--no respecters of patent privileges.

有些人指責自由企業抑制發明，這些人決不可以爲「許多專利或者根本沒有使用，或者延遲了很久才使用」這個事實證明了他們的指責。很明顯地，許多專利權，或許是大多數的專利權，完全是無用的。那些說「有利的創新被抑制了」的人們，並沒有舉出這樣一個事例：在用專利權保護創新的國家所未應用的創新，在蘇聯已經應用了——蘇聯是沒有專利權的。

The limited convertibility of capital goods plays an important role in human geography. The present distribution of human abodes and industrial centers over the earth/s surface is to a certain degree determined by historical factors. The fact that definite sites were chosen in a distant past is still operative. There prevails, it is true, a universal tendency for people to move to those areas which offer the most propitious potentialities for production. However, this tendency is restrained not only by institutional factors, such as migration barriers. A historical factor also plays a momentous role. Capital goods of limited convertibility have been invested in areas which, from the point of view of our present knowledge, offer less favorable opportunities. Their immobilization counteracts the tendency to locate plants, farms, and dwelling places according to the state of our contemporary information about geography, geology, plant and animal physiology, climatology, and other branches of science. Against the advantages of moving toward sites offering better physical opportunities one must weigh the disadvantages of leaving unused capital goods of limited convertibility and transferability.

資本財的可變性之有限，在人文地理上發生了重大的作用。現在地球上的人口和工業中心的分佈，被一些歷史因素作了相當的決定。有些地區是很久以前選擇的，現在還是有效。不錯，人們有個普遍的趨勢，即喜歡遷徙到最有利於生產的地方。但是，這個趨勢不僅是受制於一些法制上的因素，例如移民的限制，一個歷史因素也發生重大作用。可變性有限的資本財，用我們現代知識的觀點來看，已經投放在比較不利的地區。它們的固著性阻礙了這個趨勢——依照我們現代一切有關的知識來選擇地區建工廠、設農場、築住宅的趨勢。遷徒到更適於生產的地區是有利的，但是，讓那些可變性有限而又難於移動的資本財廢而不用則是有損失。人們必須在這利弊之間加以權衡。

Thus the degree of convertibility of the supply of capital goods available affects all decisions concerning production and consumption. The smaller the degree of convertibility, the more realization of technological improvement is delayed. Yet it would be absurd to refer to this retarding effect as irrational and antiprogressive. To consider, in planning action, all the advantages and disadvantages expected and to weigh them against one another is a manifestation of rationality. Not the soberly calculating businessman, but the romantic technocrat is to blame for a delusive incomprehension of reality. What slows down technological improvement is not the imperfect convertibility of capital goods, but their scarcity. We are not rich enough to renounce the services which still utilizable capital goods could provide. The fact that a supply of capital goods is available does not check progress; it is, on the contrary, the indispensable condition of any improvement and progress. The heritage of the past

因此，資本財可變性的大小，影響到關於生產與消費的一切決定。可變性愈小，則技術改進的應用愈是延緩。可是，如果說這種延緩是不合理的、是反進歩的，那就荒唐了。在計畫行爲的時候，把所有可想得到的利弊都加以權衡，這才是合理的。頭腦淸醒而善於計算的商人，不會對實際情形迷糊不了解：迷糊不了解的是，那些浪漫氣息的技術主義者。使技術進步緩慢下來的，不是資本財的不完全的可變性，而是它們的稀少性。我們還沒有富足到可以抛棄那些尙可利用的資本財。資本財之尙可利用並不妨礙進步，相反地，那是任何改進所免不了的情形。體現於資本財的先人遺產，是我們的財富和促進福利的主要手段。如果我們的祖先和我們自己，在過去的行爲中能夠把今天的情況預測得更正確的話，我們現在當然會過得更好些。這些事實的認識可以解釋我們這個時代的許多現象。但是，這旣不是對過去有何責難，也不是表現巿場經濟的任何缺陷。

--------------------

[14] Cf. above, pp. 385-386, and below, pp. 680-681.

[14] 參考第十六章第九節及第二十四章第三節。

7. Accumulation, Maintenance and Consumption of Capital

七、資本的累積、保持與消耗

Capital goods are intermediary products which in the further course of production activities are transformed into consumers' goods. All capital goods, including those not called perishable, perish either in wearing out their serviceableness in the performance of production processes or in losing their serviceableness, even before this happens, through a change in the market data. There is no question of keeping a stock of capital goods intact. They are transient.

資本財是些中間產品，在生產活動的過程中變化成消費財。所有的資本財（包括那些耐久的）都是要消失的，或者是在生產過程中漸漸耗竭，或者是由於市場情況的變化而報廢。我們決不能把資本財保持不變。

The notion of wealth constancy is an outgrowth of deliberate planning and acting. It refers to the concept of capital as applied in capital accounting, not to the capital goods as such. The idea of capital has no counterpart in the physical universe of tangible things. It is nowhere but in the minds of planning men. It is an element in economic calculation. Capital accounting serves one purpose only. It is designed to make us know how our arrangement of production and consumption acts upon our power to satisfy future wants. The question it answers is whether a certain course of conduct increases or deceases the productivity of our future exertion.

「資本不變」這個觀念，是著意計畫和行爲的一個結果。它所指的，是應用在資本帳的那個資本概念，而不是指的資本財本身。資本這個觀念，在物質世界裡面沒有相對的具體事物。它只存在於計畫者的內心。它是經濟計算中的一個要素。資本帳只爲的一個目的。它是被用以吿訴我們，如何安排我們的生產和消費，以滿足未來的慾望。它所答覆的問題，是某一行爲過程對於我們將來工作的生產力是增加還是滅少。

The intention of preserving the available supply of capital goods in full power or of increasing it could also direct the actions of men who did not have the mental tool of economic calculation. Primitive fishermen and hunters were certainly aware of the difference between maintaining their tools and devices in good shape and serviceableness and wearing them out without providing for adequate replacements. An old-fashioned peasant, committed to traditional routine and ignorant of accountancy, knows very well the significance of maintaining intact his live and dead stock. Under the simple conditions of a stationary or slowly progressing economy it is feasible to operate successfully even in the absence of capital accounting. There the maintenance of a by and large unchanged supply of capital goods can be effected either by current production of pieces destined to replace those worn out or by the accumulation of a fund of consumers'

充份保持或增加資本財的供給量這個意圖，也會指導那些沒有經濟計算這個心智工具的人們的行爲。原始的漁人或獵者，確已知道「好好地保持他們的工具」和「消耗它們而不予以適當補充」這兩者間的區別。一位拘於傳統習慣而不懂得會計的老式農夫，很知道保持他們的農具和耕牛免於損耗的重要性。在一個靜態的、或進步緩慢的、簡單的經濟情形下，即令沒有資本會計，也可經營得成功。在那裡，要維持一個大體上不變的資本財供給量，旣可以靠當時生產些新的資本財來補充那些損耗的，也可靠累積些消費財以備將來專心於生産資本財以補充損耗的時候，不致於必須減少消費。但是，一個變動的工業經濟，則不能沒有經濟計算以及經濟計算所憑藉的資本與所得這些基本概念。

Conceptual realism has muddled the comprehension of the concept of capital. It has brought about a mythology of capital.[15] An existence has been attributed to "capital," independent of the capital goods in which it is embodied. Capital, it is said, reproduces itself and thus provides for its own maintenance. Capital, says the Marxian, hatches out profit. All this is nonsense.

概念的現實主義混淆了對資本概念的了解。它引起了一個資本神話[15]。這個神話是說，離開資本所體現的資本財而有「資本」存在。據說，資本再產生資本，因而它自己維持自己。馬克斯說，资本孵化出利潤。這都是胡說。

Capital is a praxeological concept. It is a product of reasoning, and its place is in the human mind. It is a mode of looking at the problems of acting, a method of appraising them from the point of view of a definite plan. It determines the course of human action and is, in this sense only, a real factor. It is inescapably linked with capitalism, the market economy.

資本是行爲學的一個概念。如果我們訴之於傳統哲學的名詞（傳統哲學的特徵，是不管行爲學的一切問題），我們可把它叫做自由意志的一個概念。它是推理的一個結果，它的地位是在人心裡面。它是觀察一些行爲問題的一個方式，是從一定的計畫的觀點，來評判那些問題的一個辦法。它決定人的行爲途徑，在這個意義下，它是一個實在的因素。它與资本主義、市場經濟是必然相連的。在那些沒有市場交易而各級財貨都沒有貨幣價格的經濟制度裡面，它只是一個影子。

The capital concept is operative as far as men in their actions let themselves be guided by capital accounting. If the entrepreneur has employed factors of production in such a way that the money equivalent of the products at least equals the money equivalent of the factors expended, he is in a position to replace the capital goods expended by new capital goods the money equivalent of which equals the money equivalent of those expended. But the employment of the gross proceeds, their allotment to the maintenance of capital, consumption, and the accumulation of new capital is always the outcome of purposive action on the part of the entrepreneurs and capitalists. It is not "automatic"; it is by necessity the result of deliberate action. and it can be frustrated if the computation on which it is based was vitiated by negligence, error, or misjudgment of future conditions.

就人們在其行爲中，讓他們自己受資本會計的指導而言，資本這個概念是有作用的。如果企業家僱用生產要素是如下這樣僱用的：產品的貨幣等値至少等於僱用的生產要素的貨幣等値，他就能夠用新的資本財來補充那些用掉的資本財，而新資本財的貨幣等値等於那些用掉的資本財的貨幣等値。但是，那些毛收入的使用，也即，這些毛收入分配於資本的維持、消費、以及新資本的累積，總是企業家和資本家方面有意作爲的結果。它不是「自動的」；它必然是計畫的結果。如果它所依據的那個計算，因疏忽、誤差、或對未來情況的判斷錯誤而無效，那麼它就會失敗。

Additional capital can be accumulated only by saving, i.e., a surplus of production over consumption. Saving may consist in a restriction of consumption. But it can also be brought about, without a further restriction in consumption and without a change in the input of capital goods, by an increase in net production. Such an increase can appear in different ways:

更額外的資本累積只有靠儲蓄，也即超過消費的生產額，儲蓄可來自消費的節省，但是它也可來自生產淨額的增加，而不必在消費方面再節省、不必在資本財的投入方面有所變動。這樣的增加，會在下述各種情形下出現：

1. Natural conditions have become more propitious. Harvests are more plentiful. People have access to more fertile soil and have discovered mines yielding higher returns per unit of input. Cataclysms and catastrophes which in repeated occurrence frustrated human

1. 自然環境變得更有利，收穫更豐富。人們有了耕種更肥沃土地的機會，而且，發現了可以提供更高報酬的鑛區。過去一再發生，而使人們的努力歸於無效的那些天災地變，已經大大減少。人和牲畜的傳染病，已經可以控制。

2. People have succeeded in rendering some production processes more fruitful without investing more capital goods and without a further lengthening of the period of production.

2. 人們已能夠使某些生產程序獲致更豐富的成果，而無須投下更多的資本財，無須延長生產期。

3. Institutional disturbances of production activities have become less frequent. The losses caused by war, revolutions, strikes, sabotage, and other crimes have been reduced.

3. 法制方面，對生產活動的一些干擾已經少見。因爲戰爭、革命、罷工、怠工、和其他的一些罪惡行爲所引起的損失已經減少。

If the surpluses thus brought about are employed as additional investments, they further increase future net proceeds. Then it becomes possible to expand consumption without prejudice to the supply of capital goods available and the productivity of labor.

如果把這樣形成的一些超額生產，用之於額外投資，它們就更進一步增加將來的淨收入。於是，就可以擴大消費而無損於資本財的供給，無損於勞動生產力。

Capital is always accumulated by individuals or groups of individuals acting in concert, never by the Volkswirtschaft or the society.[16] It may happen that while some actors are accumulating additional capital, others are at the same time consuming capital previously accumulated. If these two processes are equal in amount, the sum of the capital funds available in the market system remains unaltered and it is as if no change in the total amount of capital goods available had occurred. The accumulation of additional capital on the part of some people merely removes the necessity of shortening the period of production of some processes. But no further adoption of processes with a longer period of production becomes feasible. If we look at affairs from this angle we may say that a transfer of capital took place. But one must guard oneself against confusing this notion of capital transfer with the conveyance of property from one individual or group of individuals to others.

资本總是由一些個人或協作的人羣累積起來的，決不是國民經濟或社會所累積的[16]。一方面，有些行爲者在累積額外的資本，另一方面，有些行爲者在消費以前累積下來的資本，這種情形是可能發生的。如果這兩方面的數量相等，則這個市場制度裡面可用的資本仍然不變，好像是資本財的總量沒有發生變動。來自某些人的額外資本的累積，只是消除了縮短某些生產時期的那個必要。但是，若想進而採取更長生產期的程序，那是不可能的。如果我們從這個角度來看，我們也可以說，資本的轉移已發生了。伹是你得當心，不要把這個資本轉移的觀念，與財產之從一個人或一人羣轉移到另一個人或另一人羣相混淆。

The sale and purchase of capital goods and the loans granted to business are not as such capital transfer. They are transactions which are instrumental in conveying the concrete capital goods into the hands of those entrepreneurs who want to employ them for the performance of definite projects. They are only ancillary steps in the course of a long-range sequence of acts. Their composite effect decides the success or failure of the whole project. But neither profit nor loss directly brings about either capital accumulation or capital consumption. It is the way in which those in whose fortune profit or loss occurs arrange their consumption that alters the amount of capital available.

資本財的買賣以及對工商業的放款，其本身並不是資本轉移，而是一些交易。這些交易在把具體的資本財交給那些想用以完成一定的生產計畫的人們手中的時候是些手段。它們只是一連貫的行爲過程中的一些補助步驟。它們的混合後果決定這整個計畫的成敗。但是，利得或損失都不直接引起資本累積或資本消耗。使資本數量發生變動的，是財富有了增减的那些人，對於他們的消費所作的安排。

Capital transfer can be effected both without and with a conveyance in the ownership of capital goods. The former is the case when

资本的轉移，可能有，也可能沒有資本財所有權的轉讓。後者是在某一個人消耗資本，而另一個人累積同量資本的時候發生。前者是在資本財的出賣者把寶得的錢消費掉，而買進者是用那超過消費的淨收入的儲蓄額來支付代價。

Capital consumption and the physical extinction of capital goods are two different things. All capital goods sooner or later enter into final products and cease to exist through use, consumption, wear and tear. What can be preserved by an appropriate arrangement of consumption is only the value of a capital fund, never the concrete capital goods. It may sometimes happen that acts of God or manmade destruction result in so great an extinction of capital goods that no possible restriction of consumption can bring about in a short time a replenishment of the capital funds to its previous level. But what brings about such a depletion is always the fact that the net proceeds of current production devoted to the maintenance of capital are not sufficiently large.

資本消耗與資本財的實體消滅是兩件不同的事情。所有的資本財或遲或早要摻進到一些最後產品，並經由使用、消耗、損壞而歸於消滅。至於可以靠妥適的消費安排而維持住的，只是資本基金的價値，決不是具體的資本財。天災或人爲的破壞，有時會大到被毀滅的資本財無法在短期內經由消費的節省而補充到原來的水準。但是，引起資本財這樣損耗的，通常總是由於當期生產的淨收益用之於維持資本的那部份不夠多。

-------------------

[15] Cf. Hayek, "The Mythology of Capital," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, L (1936), 223 ff.

[15] 參考Hayek, "The Mythology of Capital," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, L (1936), 223 ff.

[16] The state and the municipalities, in the market economy, are also merely actors representing concerted action on the part of definite groups of individuals.

[16] 在市場經濟裡面，國家和一些自治區，也不過是些代表某些確定人羣的具體行爲的行爲者。

8. The Mobility of the Investor

八、投資者的流動性

The limited convertibility of the capital goods does not immovably bind their owner. The investor is free to alter the investment of his funds. If he is able to anticipate the future state of the market more correctly than other people, he can succeed in choosing only investments whose price will rise and in avoiding investments whose price will drop.

資本財的有限可變性並不束縛它們的所有者。投資者很自由地變動他的投資。如果他能夠比別人更正確地預料到市場的遠景，他就會選擇價格將要上漲的投資，而避免那價格將會下跌的投資。

Entrepreneurial profit and loss emanate from the dedication of factors of production to definite projects. Stock exchange speculation and analogous transactions outside the securities market determine on whom the incidence of these profits and losses shall fall. A tendency prevails to make a sharp distinction between such purely speculative ventures and genuinely sound investment. The distinction is one of degree only. There is no such thing as a nonspeculative investment. In a changing economy action always involves speculation. Investments may be good or bad, but they are always speculative. A radical change in conditions may render bad even investments commonly considered perfectly safe.

企業的利潤和虧損，是來自一些生產要素之奉獻於某些明確的生產計畫。股票市場的投機和證券市場以外的一些類似交易，決定這些利潤和虧損將落在誰的身上。現在有個趨勢，是要在這樣的純粹投機與眞正穩健的投資之間，劃出明顯的界線。其實，這兩者的區別只是程度上的問題，決沒有非投機的投資這麼一回事。在一個變動的經濟裡面，行爲總涉及投機。投資可能是好的，也可能是壞的，但是，它們總是投機。情況的劇烈變動，會使壞的投資變成通常認爲的安全投資。

Stock speculation cannot undo past action and cannot change anything with regard to the limited convertibility of capital goods already in existence. What it can do is to prevent additional investment in branches and enterprises in which, according to the opinion of the speculators, it would be misplaced. It points the specific way for a tendency, prevailing in the market economy, to expand profitable

股票投機不能取消過去的行爲，也不能在旣存的資本財有限可變性方面有何改變。它所能做的，是妨礙對那些投機者認爲無利可圖的部門和企業增加投資。它加強了流行於市場經濟的那個趨勢，即擴張那些有利的生產而減縮不利的。在這個意義下，股票交易所簡直成爲市場經濟的焦點，也即是使預期中的消費者的需求在商業行爲上成爲主權的終極手段。

The mobility of the investor manifests itself in the phenomenon misleadingly called capital flight. Individual investors can go away from investments which they consider unsafe provided that they are ready to take the loss already discounted by the market. Thus they can protect themselves against anticipated further losses and shift them to people who are less realistic in their appraisal of the future prices of the goods concerned. Capital flight does not withdraw inconvertible capital goods from the lines of their investment. It consists merely in a change of ownership.

投資者的流動性表現於所謂「資本逃避」這個現象。一些個人投資者能夠脫離他們所認爲不安全的投資，倘若他們準備接受已由市場反映出來的損失。於是，他們就可免於進一步的損失，而把那損失轉移到對於將來的有關價格預測得較不準確的那些人身上。資本逃避並不是把不可改變的資本財從它們的投資部門撤回，它只是所有權的改換。

It makes no difference in this regard whether the capitalist "flees" into another domestic investment or into a foreign investment. One of the main objectives of foreign exchange control is to prevent capital flight into foreign countries. However, foreign exchange control only succeeds in preventing the owners of domestic investments from restricting their losses by exchanging in time a domestic investment they consider unsafe for a foreign investment they consider safe.

在這一點上面，資本的「逃避」是逃到本國的其他投資部門，還是逃到外國的投資部門，都是一樣的。外滙管制的主要目的之一，是防止資本逃到外國。但是，外滙管制只能做到：不讓國內投資的所有人，爲減輕損失把他們認爲不安全的國內投資換成他們認爲較安全的國外投資。

If all or certain classes of domestic investment are threatened by partial or total expropriation, the market discounts the unfavorable consequences of this policy by an adequate change in their prices. When this happens, it is too late to resort to flight in order to avoid being victimized. Only those investors can come off with a small loss who are keen enough to forecast the disaster at a time when the majority is still unaware of its approach and its significance. Whatever the various capitalists and entrepreneurs may do, they can never make inconvertible capital goods mobile and transferable. While this, at least, is admitted by and large with regard to fixed capital, it is denied with regard to circulating capital. It is asserted that a businessman can export products and fail to reimport the proceeds. People do not see that an enterprise cannot continue its operations when deprived of its circulating capital. If a businessman exports his own funds employed for the current purchase of raw materials, labor, and other essential requirements, he must replace them by funds borrowed. The grain of truth in the fable of the mobility of circulating capital is the fact that it is possible for an investor to avoid losses menacing his circulating capital independently of the avoidance of such losses menacing his fixed capital. However, the process of capital flight is in both instances the same. It is a change in the person

如果所有的或某些種類的國內投資，有被部份或全部沒收的危險時，市場就會經由價格的變動，而把這個政策的不利結果打個折扣。當這種情形發生的時候，爲免於受害而想逃避，已爲時過晚。有的投資者比大多數人敏銳，他們能夠在適當的時機預料到這種災難將要到臨，而大多數人還茫然無知。只有這些投資者才能夠少受損失。不管資本家和企業家們會做些什麼，他們決不能使不可移動的資本財變成可移動的。關於這一點，就固定資本講，至少大體上得到承認，但就流動資本講，則被否認。他們說，一個商人能夠輸出產品而不輸進他的銷貨收入。他們沒有想到，一個企業當它沒有了流動資本的時候，就無法繼續經營。如果一個商人把他自己經常用以僱用工人、購買原料和其他必要設備的資金輸出到國外，他就必須向別人借來資金作抵充。「流動資本的可動性」是個神話，在這個神話中如果有點眞理，那就是：一個投資者單單避免對他的流動資本構成威脅的那些損失，而無關乎對他的固定資本構成威脅的損失，這是可能的。但是，資本逃避的程序在這兩種場合是一樣的。它是投資者人身的轉變。投資本身不受影響；有關的資本並未移動。

Capital flight into a foreign country presupposes the propensity of foreigners to exchange their investments abroad against those in the country from which capital flees. A British capitalist cannot flee from his British investments if no foreigner buys them. It follows that capital flight can never result in the much talked about deterioration of the balance of payments. Neither can it make foreign exchange rates rise. If many capitalists--whether British or foreign--want to get rid of British securities, a drop in their prices will ensue. But it will not affect the exchange ratio between the sterling and foreign currencies.

資本逃到外國必須先有外國人願意把他們的投資拿來交換在資本逃出國的投資。一位英國的資本家，如果沒有外國人願意買他的投資，他就不能把他的投資從英國逃出。因此，資本逃避決不會歸結於經常所說的收支平衡惡化。它也不會使外滙率上昇。如果有許多資本家——不管是英國的或外國的——想把一些英國的有價證券貪掉，這些證券的價格就會隨之跌落。但是，這並不影響英鎊與外幣之間的滙率。

The same is valid with regard to capital invested in ready cash. The owner of French francs who anticipates the consequences of the French Government's inflationary policy can either flee into "real goods" by the purchase of goods or into foreign exchange. But he must find people who are ready to take francs in exchange. He can flee only as long as there are still people left who appraise the future of the franc more optimistically than he himself does. What makes commodity prices and foreign exchange rates rise is not the conduct of those ready to give away francs, but the conduct of those refusing to take them except at a low rate of exchange.

這句話對於投在現金的資本，也是有效的。預料到法國政府所採行的通貨膨脹政策所將引起的後果的那些保有法國佛郞的人們，旣可經由貨物的購買而逃避於「實物」，也可逃避於外滙。但是，他必須找到願意取得佛郞的人。他只有在還有別人對佛郞的前途看好的場合才能逃避。使物價和外滙率上漲的，不是那些要抛出佛郞的人們的行爲。而是那些除掉在低的滙率下就拒絕接受佛郞的人們的行爲。

Governments pretend that in resorting to foreign exchange restrictions to prevent capital flight they are motivated by consideration of the nation's vital interests. What they really bring about is contrary to the material interests of many citizens without any benefit to any citizen or to the phantom of the Volkswirtschaft. If there is inflation going on in France, it is certainly not to the advantage either of the nation as a whole or of any citizen that all the disastrous consequences should affect Frenchmen only. If some Frenchmen were to unload the burden of these losses on foreigners by selling them French banknotes or bonds redeemable in such banknotes, a part of these losses would fall upon foreigners. The manifest outcome of the prevention of such transactions is to make some Frenchmen poorer without making any Frenchmen richer. From the nationalist point of view this hardly seems desirable.

政府每每以爲：用外滙管制以防止資本逃避，是基於國家重要利益的考慮。事實上恰相反，外滙管制所引起的結果，有害於許多公民，而對於任何公民或「國民經濟」這個幻影，沒有絲毫利益。如果法國是在通貨膨脹中，則所有的惡果只落在法國人的身上，這對於整個法國或對於任何一個法國公民，都不是有利的。如果有些法國人把法國的銀行鈔票或可兌換這種鈔票的證券賈給外國人，因而使外國人負擔這些損失，那麼，這些損失的一部份就落在外國人身上。對於這種交易加以禁止，明顯的結果，就是使某些法國人更窮，而沒有使任何法國人更富。從國家主義的觀點來看，這也不像是可取的。

Popular opinion finds something objectionable in every possible aspect of stock market transactions. If prices are rising, the speculators are denounced as profiteers who appropriate to themselves what by rights belongs to other people. If prices drop, the speculators are denounced for squandering the nation's wealth. The profits of the speculators are vilified as robbery and theft at the expense of the

流行的見解總以爲，股票市場的交易都是不好的。如果價格上漲，就說投機者是侵佔別人的不當利得者。如果是價格跌落，就說投機者浪費國家財富。投機的利潤被罵爲盜竊的贓物。這暗示，那是大家貧窮的原因。在習慣上，人們每每要區分股票經紀人所得的不正當報酬與那不專門賭博而是供應消費者的製造業所得的利潤。甚至有些金融問題的著作家，也不能辨識，股票市場的交易旣不產生利潤，也不產生虧損，而只是來自貿易和製造的利潤和虧損之完成。這些利潤和虧損一市場的購買者封於過去的投資贊成或不贊成所引起的結果一是由股票市場顯現出來。股票市場交易額不影響大衆。相反地，決定證券市場之價格結構的，倒是大衆封於投資者據以安排生產活動的方式所發生的反應。使得某些股票漲價、某些跌價的，最後還是消費者的態度。凡是不從事儲蓄投資的人們，旣不因股票巿場的價格波動而受益，也不因之而受損。證券市場的交易只決定那些投資者應當賺錢，那些投資者應該賠本[17]。

-------------------

[17] The popular doctrine that the stock exchange "absorbs" capital and money is critically analyzed and entirely refuted by F. Machlup, The Stock Market, Credit and Capital Formation, trans. by V. Smith (London, 1940), pp. 6-153.

[17] 流行的說法，是說股票市場「吸收」資本和貨幣，這個說法曾被F. Machlup分析駁斥。見之於The Stock Market, Credit and Capital Formation, trans. by V. Smith (London, 1940), pp. 6-153.

9. Money and Capital; Saving and Investment

九、貨幣與資本；儲蓄舆投資

Capital is computed in terms of money and represents in such accounting a definite sum of money. But capital can also consist of amounts of money. As capital goods also are exchanged and as such exchanges are effected under the same conditions as the exchange of all other goods, here too indirect exchange and the use of money become peremptory. In the market economy no participant can forego the advantages which cash holding conveys. Not only in their capacity as consumers, but also in their capacity as capitalists and entrepreneurs, individuals are under the necessity of keeping cash holdings.

資本是用貨幣的名義來計算，而且，在這樣的計算下，代表一定的貨幣額。但是，資本也可由貨幣額組成。因爲資本財也是可被交換的，而且，這種交換和所有其他財貨發生交換的情形一樣，也是間接交換，貨幣的使用成爲必要的。在市場經濟裡面，誰也不能放棄現金握存所提供的便利。人們，不僅以消費者的資格，而且以資本家和企業家的資格，都要有若干現金握存。

Those who have seen in this fact something puzzling and contradictory have been misled by a misconstruction of monetary calculation and capital accounting. They attempt to assign to capital accounting tasks which it can never achieve. Capital accounting is a mental tool of calculating and computing suitable for individuals and groups of individuals acting in the market economy. Only in the frame of monetary calculation can capital become computable. The sole task that capital accounting can perform is to show to the various individuals acting within a market economy whether the money equivalent of their funds devoted to acquisitive action has changed and to

凡是對這個事實覺得有些迷惑與矛盾的人，是由於誤解了貨幣計算和資本會計。他們想使資本會計承擔一些它決不能達成的任務。資本會計是適於在市場經濟裡面活動的個人或人羣用以計算的一個心智工具。只有在貨幣計算的架構中，資本才會成爲可計算的。資本會計所可完成的唯一任務，是爲那些在市場經濟裡面活動的人們指出：他們用在取得活動的那筆資金，其貨幣等價是否發生變動以及變動到什麼程度。至於就其他的一切目的而言，資本會計完全無用。

If one tries to ascertain a magnitude called the volkswirtschaftliche capital or the social capital as distinct both from the acquisitive capital of various individuals and from the meaningless concept of the sum of the various individuals' acquisitive capital funds, then, of course, one is troubled by a spurious problem. What is the role of money, one asks, in such a concept of social capital? One discovers a momentous difference between capital as seen from the individual's point of view and as seen from the standpoint of society. However, this whole reasoning is utterly fallacious. It is obviously contradictory to eliminate reference to money from the computation of a magnitude which cannot be computed otherwise than in terms of money. It is nonsensical to resort to monetary calculation in an attempt to ascertain a magnitude which is meaningless in an economic system in which there cannot be any money and no money prices for factors of production. As soon as our reasoning passes beyond the frame of a market society, it must renounce every reference to money and money prices. The concept of social capital can only be thought of as a collection of various goods. It is impossible to compare two collections of this type otherwise than by declaring that one of them is more serviceable in removing the uneasiness felt by the whole of society than the other. (Whether or not such a comprehensive judgment can be pronounced by any mortal man is another question.) No monetary expression can be applied to such collections. Monetary terms are void of any meaning in dealing with the capital problems of a social system in which there is no market for factors of production.

如果有人想確定一個叫做「國民經濟的」資本量或社會的資本量，一方面示別於各個人用以賺錢的資本，另一方面示別於那個無意義的「各個人用以賺錢的資本總額」概念，那麼，這個人自然要受一個僞造的問題所困擾。有人問，在社會資本這樣一個概念中，貨幣的任務是什麼？從個人的觀點來看的資本，與從社會的觀念來看的資本，有人發現這兩者之間一個重大的區別。但是，這全部推理完全是錯誤的。在計算一個不能用貨幣以外的東西來計算的數量，而想不涉及貨幣，這顯然是矛盾的。想用貨幣計算來確定「在一個不會有任何貨幣，而生產要素沒有貨幣價格的經濟制度裡面毫無意義的一個數量」，這是荒唐的。我們的推理一超過市場社會這個架構，它就要立即不涉及貨幣和貨幣價格。社會資本這個概念只能想作種種財貨的一個集合。要比較這樣的兩個集合，而不靠陳述其中一個集合在消除整個社會的不適之感方面，比另一個集合更有用，那是不可能的。（至於像這樣的一個廣泛的判斷，是不是我們人類可以做到的，那是另一個問題。）對於這樣的集合不能用貨幣表示。如果一個社會制度裡面沒有生產要素的市場，則在討論這個社會的資本問題時，不能用貨幣來講：用貨幣來講，沒有任何意義。

In recent years economists have paid special attention to the role cash holding plays in the process of saving and capital accumulation. Many fallacious conclusions have been advanced about this role.

近年來，有些經濟學家對於現金握存在儲蓄與資本累積的過程中所起的作用特別注意。他們在這方面做了許多錯誤的結論。

If an individual employs a sum of money not for consumption but for the purchase of factors of production, saving is directly turned into capital accumulation. If the individual saver employs his additional savings for increasing his cash holding because this is in his eyes the most advantageous mode of using them, he brings about a tendency toward a fall in commodity prices and a rise in the monetary unit's purchasing power. If we assume that the supply of money in the market system does not change, this conduct on the part of the saver will not directly influence the accumulation of capital and its employment for an expansion of production.[18] The effect of our

如果有一個人把他的一筆錢不用之於消費，而用之於購買生產要素，儲蓄就直接變成了資本累積。如果這位儲蓄者把他的額外儲蓄用以增加他的現金握存——因爲在他的心目中這是最有利的使用它們的方式——那麼，他就引起一個物價下跌而貨幣單位的購買力上漲的趨勢。如果我們假定市場的貨幣供給量不變，這位儲蓄者的行爲將不直接影響資本累積，也不影響生產的擴張[18]。這位儲蓄者的儲蓄後果——也即，生產出來的財貨超過消費的財貨——不因爲他的握存而消失。資本財的價格不漲到沒有這樣的握存時所會漲到的程度。但是，更多的資本財可以利用這個事實，並不因許多人努力增加他們的現金握存而受到影響，假若沒有人把這些財貨——財貨的不消費使儲蓄增加——用以增加他的消費支出，那麼，這些財貨仍然是可用的資本財的一個增加量，不管它們的價格是怎樣。這兩個過程——增加現金握存和增加資本累積——同時發生。

A drop in commodity prices, other things being equal, causes a drop in the money equivalent of the various individuals' capital. But this is not tantamount to a reduction in the supply of capital goods and does not require an adjustment of production activities to an alleged impoverishment. It merely alters the money items to be applied in monetary calculation.

其他的事物不變，物價一跌落，各個人的資本的貨幣等値也因之跌落。但這不等於資本財供給量的減少，因而生產活動無須對所謂「匱乏」而來個調整。那只是把那些用在貨幣計算上的貨幣項目變動一下。

Now let us assume that an increase in the quantity of credit money or of fiat money or credit expansion produces the additional money required for an expansion of the individuals' cash holdings. Then three processes take their course independently: a tendency toward a fall in commodity prices brought about by the increase in the amount of capital goods available and the resulting expansion of production activities, a tendency toward a fall in prices brought about by an increased demand of money for cash holding, and finally a tendency toward a rise in prices brought about by the increase in the supply of money (in the broader sense). The three processes are to some extent synchronous. Each of them brings about its particular effects which, according to the circumstances, may be intensified or weakened by the opposite effects originating from one of the other two. But the main thing is that the capital goods resulting from the additional saving are not destroyed by the coincident monetary changes--changes in the demand for and the supply of money (in the broader sense). Whenever an individual devotes a sum of money to saving instead of spending it for consumption, the process of saving agrees perfectly with the process of capital accumulation and investment. It does not matter whether the individual saver does or does not increase his cash holding. The act of saving always has its counterpart in a supply of goods produced and not consumed, of goods available for further production activities. A man's savings are always embodied in concrete capital goods.

現在讓我們假定：信用貨幣或不兌換紙幣的數量增加或信用擴張產生了個人的現金握存所需要的額外貨幣。於是，有三個過程個別地各循它們的途徑：一個趨勢傾向於物價跌落，這是由於可利用的資本財的數量增加而生產活動隨之擴張而引起的，另一個趨勢也是傾向於物價下跌，但這是由於爲現金握存的貨幣需求之增加而引起的，最後一個趨勢使物價上昇，這是由於貨幣（廣義的）供給的增加而引起的。這三個過程有點兒是同時的，每個過程引起的後果，隨著當時的環境，有的被另一過程所引起的後果加強，有的被另一個過程所引起的後果減弱。但是，主要的事情是：來自額外儲蓄的資本財，沒有被那些同時發生的貨幣變動——貨幣（廣義的）供需的變動——破壞。無論什麼時候，如果有人把一筆錢儲蓄起來而不用於消費，這個儲蓄過程，與資本累積和投資的過程完全一致。至於這位儲蓄者增加或不增加他的現金握存，那是不關緊要的。儲蓄這種行爲，總有它的相對事情隨之發生，即在財貨的供給方面，有了一些已產出而未消費的財貨，這些財貨可用在進一步的生產活動上。一個人的儲蓄，總是體現在具體的資本財。

The idea that hoarded money is a barren part of the total amount

窖藏的貨幣是財富總量中不生利的一部份，這部份的增加，使那部份用以生產的財富減縮。這個想法只有在這個程度以內是對的：即，貨幣單位購買力的上昇，其結果爲開採金鑛而僱用了一些額外的生產要素，而且黃金從工業的用途轉到貨幣的用途。但是，這是由於努力增加現金握存所引起的，而不是儲蓄引起的。在市場經濟裡面，儲蓄要靠節省消費。儲蓄者把他的儲蓄窖藏起來，影響到貨幣購買力，因而可能降低名目的資本量，也即資本的貨幣等値；但是，這並不使那已累積的資本有何損傷。

-------------------

[18] Indirectly capital accumulation is affected by the changes in wealth and incomes which every instance of cash-induced change in the purchasing power of money brings about.

[18] 現金引起的（cash-induced）貨幣購買力變動所帶來的財富與所得的變動，會間接影響到資本累積。

XIX. INTEREST

第19章 利率

1. The Phenomenon of Interest

一、利息現象

It has been shown that time preference is a category inherent in every human action. Time preference manifests itself in the phenomenon of originary interest, i.e., the discount of future goods as against present goods.

我們曾經指出：時間偏好是人的行爲中固有的一個元範。時間偏好出現於原始的利息現象，也即，未來財相對於現在財的那個折扣。

Interest is not merely interest on capital. Interest is not the specific income derived from the utilization of capital goods. The correspondence between three factors of production--labor, capital, and land--and three classes of income--wages, profit, and rent--as taught by the classical economists is untenable. Rent is not the specific revenue from land. Rent is a general catallactic phenomenon; it plays in the yield of labor and capital goods the same role it plays in the yield of land. Furthermore there is no homogeneous source of income that could be called profit in the sense in which the classical economists applied this term. Profit (in the sense of entrepreneurial profit) and interest are no more characteristic of capital than they are of land.

利息不僅是資本的利息。利息不是來自資本財之利用的特定所得。古典經濟學家所敎的三個生產要素（勞動、資本和土地）與三類所得（工資、利潤和租金）之間的對稱，是站不住的。租金不是來自土地的特定收益。租金是個一般的交換現象；它在勞動和資本財方面與在土地方面發生同樣的作用。而且，古典經濟學家所說的那種利潤，也不是同樣來源的所得。利潤（企業利潤的意義）和利息所具有的特徵，資本的並不比土地的更多。

The prices of consumers' goods are by the interplay of the forces operation on the market apportioned to the various complementary factors cooperating in their production. As the consumers' goods are present goods, while the factors of production are means for the production of future goods, and as present goods are valued higher than future goods of the same kind and quantity, the sum thus apportioned, even in the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy, falls behind the present price of the consumers' goods concerned. This difference is the originary interest. It is not specifically connected with any of the three classes of factors of production which the classical economists distinguished. Entrepreneurial profit and loss are produced by changes in the data and the resulting price changes which occur in the passing of the period of production.

消費財的價格，經由市場上各種力量的相互作用，分派給在它們的生產過程中合作的各種補助要素。因爲消費財是現在財，而生產要素是生產未來財的手段，又因爲現在財的評値較高於同類、同量的未來財，因而被分派的數額落在有關的消費財的現在價格之後。即令在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面也如此。這個差額就是原始的利息。它與古典經濟學家所區分的那三類生產要素的任何一類，都沒有特殊的關係。企業家的利潤和虧損是發生於一些有關的變動，以及由這些變動所引起，而在生產期中出現的價格變動。

Naive reasoning does not see any problem in the current revenue derived from hunting, fishing, cattle breeding, forestry, and agriculture. Nature generates deer, fish, and cattle and makes them grow, causes the cows to give milk and the chickens to lay eggs, the trees to put on wood and to bear fruit, and the seeds to shoot into ears.

天眞的推理看不出那種來自漁獵畜牧農林等的經常收入中的任何問題。自然產生些鹿、魚、家畜，並且使它們成長，使母牛給乳、母鷄生蛋，使樹木成林結果，使種籽發芽。有權把這種循環發生的財富據爲己有的人，享受著一項穩定的所得。正像一條滔滔不絕的河流一樣，這個「所得流」不断地流，一而再地帶來新的財富。這全部過程，明明白白地是個自然現象。但從經濟學家的觀點來看，卻出現了一個問題，那就是關於土地、家畜、和其他等等價格決定的問題。假若未來財不是相對於現在財的價値打個折扣來買賓的話，則購買土地的人所支付的價格，就要等於全部未來淨收益的總額，因而就沒有留下什麼可孳生一而再的所得了。

The yearly recurring proceeds of the owners of land and cattle are not marked by any characteristic which would catallactically distinguish them from the proceeds stemming from produced factors of production which are used up sooner or later in the processes of production. The power of disposal over a piece of land is the control of this field's cooperation in the production of all the fruit which can ever be grown on it, and the power of disposal over a mine is the control of its cooperation in the extraction of all the minerals which can ever be brought to the surface from it. In the same way the ownership of a machine or a bale of cotton is the control of its cooperation in the manufacture of all goods which are produced with its cooperation. The fundamental fallacy implied in all the productivity and use approaches to the problem of interest was that they traced back the phenomenon of interest to these productive services rendered by the factors of production. However, the serviceableness of the factors of production determines the prices paid for them, not interest. These prices exhaust the whole difference between the productivity of a process aided by a definite factor's cooperation and that of a process lacking this cooperation. The difference between the sum of the prices of the complementary factors of production and the products which emerges even in the absence of changes in the market data concerned, is an outcome of the higher valuation of present goods as compared with future goods. As production goes on, the factors of production are transformed or ripen into present goods of a higher value. This increment is the source of specific proceeds flowing into the hands of the owners of the factors of production, of originary interest.

土地和家畜的所有者每年發生的收入，與那些來自在生產過程中遲早會消耗掉的生產要素的收入，在交換科學上沒有什麼不同的特徵。對一塊土地的處分權，也就是對這塊地在生產中與其他要素的合作加以控制；對一個鑛區的處分權，也就是對它在開採中的合作加以控制。同樣地，一部機器或一綑棉花的所有權，也是對它在製造中的合作加以控制。凡是以生產力（productivity）和用處（use）來研討利息問題者的基本錯誤，是他們把利息現象追溯到一些生產要素在生產中的用處（productive services）。但是，生產要素的用處只決定要素本身的價格，並不決定利息。這些價格，把那有某一要素合作的程序所提供的生產力，與那沒有這種合作的程序所提供的生產力，兩者之間的全部差額統統支付了。補助的生產要素的價格總額與產品價格的總額兩者間的差額，是現在財比未來財有較高評値的結果。這種差額即令有關的一些市場情况沒有變動，也是會發生的。隨著生產的進行，生產要素變化到或成熟到較高價値的現在財裡面。這個增加量就是流到生產要素所有者手中的特殊收入的來源，也即原始利息的來源。

The owners of the material factors of production--as distinct from the pure entrepreneurs of the imaginary construction of an integration of catallactic functions--harvest two catallactically different items: the prices paid for the productive cooperation of the factors they control on the one hand and interest on the other hand. These

物質的生產要素（示別於企業精神）的所有者們，得到交換科學上兩個不同項目的收入：一是對他們所控制的要素間的生產合作所給的報酬，一是利息。這兩個項目決不可混淆。在解釋利息的時候，不容涉及生產要素在生產過程中提供的用處。

Interest is a homogeneous phenomenon. There are no different sources of interest. Interest on durable goods and interest on consumption-credit are like other kinds of interest an outgrowth of the higher valuation of present goods as against future goods.

利息是個同原的現象（homogeneous phenomenon）。利息沒有不同的來源。耐久財的利息和消費信用的利息，與其他利息一樣，都是現在財的評値高於未來財的結果。

2. Originary Interest

二、原始利息

Originary interest is the ratio of the value assigned to want-satisfaction in the immediate future and the value assigned to want-satisfaction in remote periods of the future. It manifests itself in the market economy in the discount of future goods as against present goods. It is a ratio of commodity prices, not a price in itself. There prevails a tendency toward the equalization of this ratio for all commodities. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy the rate of originary interest is the same for all commodities.

人們對立即的慾望滿足所給的價値，與對將來的慾望滿足所給的價値，是不同的。利息是這兩個價値的比率。在市場經濟裡面，利息表現於未來財相對於現在財打個折扣。利息是些物價的比率，而其本身不是物價。在所有的貨物當中，這個比率有個傾向於一致的趨勢。在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，原始的利率對於所有的貨物都是一致的。

Originary interest is not "the price paid for the services of capital."[1] The higher productivity of more time-consuming roundabout methods of production which is referred to by Bohm-Bawerk and by some later economists in the explanation of interest, does not explain the phenomenon. It is, on the contrary, the phenomenon of originary interest that explains why less time-consuming methods of production are resorted to in spite of the fact that more time-consuming methods would render a higher output per unit of input. Moreover, the phenomenon of originary interest explains why pieces of usable land can be sold and bought at finite prices. If the future services which a piece of land can render were to be valued in the same way in which its present services are valued, no finite price would be high enough to impel its owner to sell it. Land could neither be bought nor sold against definite amounts of money, nor bartered against goods which can render only a finite number of services. Pieces of land would be bartered only against other pieces of land. A superstructure that can yield during a period of ten years an annual revenue of one hundred dollars would be priced (apart from the soil on which it is built) at the beginning of the second year at none hundred dollars, and so on.

原始利息不是「對資本的用處所付的代價」[1]。龐巴衛克和後來的若干經濟學家，在解釋利息時所說到的迂迴生產方法的較高生產力，沒有解釋這個現象。相反地，解釋「爲什麼迂迴的生產方法雖可產出較多的產量，但花時較少的生產方法卻還有人採用」這個問題的，倒是原始利息這個現象。而且，原始利息這個現象還解釋一塊可利用的土地會在有限的價格下買賣。假若對一塊土地所可提供的未來的功用，也和對它所提供的現在的功用一樣評値，則有限的價格無論如何無法高到足以使它的所有者願意出賣它。在這個假設下，土地旣無法用有限的金錢數量來買賣，也無法與那些只提供有限功用的財貨直接交換。一塊土地只能與另一塊土地直接交換。一幢在十年期間每年可產生一百元收益的建築物，在這期間的開始時估價一千元（不管它的地基），在第二年的開始則爲九百元，以此類推。

Originary interest is not a price determined on the market by the

原始利息不是在市場上由資本或資本財的供需相互作用而決定的價格。它的高低不繋乎這種供需的程度。倒是原始的利率決定資本和資本財的供需。它決定把多少財貨用於立即的消費，多少用於較遠的將來。

People do not save and accumulate capital because there is interest. Interest is neither the impetus to saving nor the reward or the compensation granted for abstaining from immediate consumption. It is the ratio in the mutual valuation of present goods as against future goods.

人們不是因爲有利息而儲蓄、而累積資本。利息旣不是儲蓄的促動力，也不是對於不立即消費這個行爲的報酬或補償。它是現在財與未來財彼此評價間的比率。

The loan market does not determine the rate of interest. It adjusts the rate of interest on loans to the rate of originary interest as manifested in the discount of future goods.

貸放市場不決定利率。它是把放款的利率調整到與那個表現於未來財的折扣的原始利率相適應。

Originary interest is a category of human action. It is operative in any valuation of external things and can never disappear. If one day the state of affairs were to return which was actual at the close of the first millennium of the Christian era when some people believed that the ultimate end of all earthly things was impending, men would stop providing for future secular wants. The factors of production would in their eyes become useless and worthless. The discount of future goods as against present goods would not vanish. It would, on the contrary, increase beyond all measure. On the other hand, the fading away of originary interest would mean that people do not care at all for want-satisfaction in nearer periods of the future. It would mean that they prefer to an apple available today, tomorrow, in one year or in ten years, tow apples available in a thousand or ten thousand years.

原始利息是人的行爲的一個元範。任何對外在事物的評價，都有它在發生作用，原始利息永不消滅。假若有一天大家相信世界的末日就要到來了，大家就不爲未來的慾望滿足打算。生產要素在他們的心目中成爲無用、無價値的東西。這時，未來財相對於現在財的折扣不僅是不消失的，而且這種折扣還要大大地提高。另一方面，原始利息的消滅就是意謂人們完全不重視立即的慾望滿足。這是意謂，他們願意放棄今天、明天、一年或十年當中可得到的一個蘋果，換那一千年或二千年後可得到的兩個蘋果。

We cannot even think of a world in which originary interest would not exist as an inexorable element in every kind of action. Whether there is or is not division of labor and social cooperation and whether there is or is not division of labor and social cooperation and whether society is organized on the basis of private or of public control of the means of production, originary interest is always present. In a socialist commonwealth its role would not differ from that in the market economy.

我們甚至於無法涉想一個沒有利息的世界是怎樣的情況。不管有沒有分工和社會合作，也不管社會繊是基於生產手段的私有或公有，原始利息總是存在的。在社會主義的國家，原始利息所發生的作用，無異於在市場經濟裡面的作用。

Bohm-Bawerk has once for all unmasked the fallacies of the naive productivity explanations of interest, i.e., of the idea that interest is the expression of the physical productivity of factors of production. However, Bohm-Bawerk has himself based his own theory to some extent on the productivity approach. In referring in his explanation to the technological superiority of more time-consuming, roundabout processes of production, he avoids the crudity of the naive productivity

龐巴衛克曾經断然揭發生產力說的一些錯誤，也即，「利息是生產要素的生產力之表現」這個想法的一些錯誤。可是龐巴衛克自己的論據也有點生產力的說法。在講到迂迴生產在技術上的優越性時，他避免了天眞的生產力的謬見所表現的那種粗疏。但是，事實上他轉到生產力的說法上去了，儘管他說得微妙。後來那些忽略了時間偏好的經濟學家，只重視龐巴衛克理論中所含的生產力觀念，因而得到這樣的一個結論——如果有一天生產期的延長再也不能使生產力增高，那時原始利息就會沒有了[2]。這個結論完全是錯的。只要滿足慾望的東西是有限、只要人們有行爲，原始利息就不會消失。

As long as the world is not transformed into a land of Cockaigne, men are faced with scarcity and must act and economize; they are forced to choose between satisfaction in nearer and in remoter periods of the future because neither for the former nor for the latter can full contentment be attained. Then a change in the employment of factors of production which withdraws such factors from their employment for want-satisfaction in the remoter future must necessarily impair the state of satisfaction in the nearer future and improve it in the remoter future. If we were to assume that this is not the case, wi should become embroiled in insoluble contradictions. We may at best think of a state of affairs in which technological knowledge and skill have reached a point beyond which no further progress is possible for mortal men. No new processes increasing the output per unit of input can henceforth be invented. But if we suppose that some factors of production are scarce, we must not assume that all processes which-apart from the time they absorb--are the most productive ones are fully utilized, and that no process rendering a smaller output per unit of input is resorted to merely because of the fact that it produces its final result sooner than other, physically more productive processes. Scarcity of factors of production means that we are in a position to draft plans for the improvement of our well-being the realization of which is unfeasible because of the insufficient quantity of the means available. It is precisely the unfeasibility of such desirable improvements that constitutes the element of scarcity. The reasoning of the modern supporters of the productivity approach is misled by the connotations of Bohm-Bawerk's term roundabout methods of production and the idea of

只要這個世界不變成一個無所不有的安樂鄉，人們總是要面對「稀少」這個問題，而必須行爲，必須講求經濟；他們不得不在立即的滿足和較遠將來的滿足之間作選擇，因爲：前者也好，後者也好，都是不能充份得到的。把生產要素從那滿足立即慾望的用途撤走，轉而用之於較遠將來的慾望滿足，這一變動必然是有損於現在，有利於將來。如果我們假定情形不是如此，我們就陷入一些無法解決的矛盾混亂中。我們最想像這種情況：技術知識和技巧已經達到了再也不能進步的那一點，以後再也不會發明使每單位投入的產出得以增加的新的生產程序了。但是，如果我們假定有些生產要素是稀少的，我們就不可假想所有那些最生產的程序（不管它們所用的時間）都充份利用了，而且，爲每單位投入提供較少產生的那種程序也沒有被採用的，只因爲它比那些較生產的程序更快地產生它最後的結果。生產要素的稀少，意謂我們有些福利因爲可用的手段不足夠而不能實現，我們可以設法改善。正是這樣可欲的改善之不能實現，構成了稀少。生產力說的現代支持者，其推理被龐巴衞克的「迂迴的生產方法」這個名詞的一些內涵，以及它所暗示的技術改進這個觀點所誤導。但是，如果有「稀少」，那就總有一個未用的技術機會，靠延長某些生產部門的生產期以促進福利，不管技術知識是不是有了改變。如果手段是稀少的，如果目的與手段在行爲學上的關係還存在，那麼必然有些未滿足的慾望，這些慾望旣有屬於立即的，也有屬於將來的。總有些財貨是我們必須放棄的，因爲走向生產它們的那條路太長了，因而妨礙了我們滿足更迫切的需要。「我們不爲將來準備得更豐富」這個事實，就是我們在立即的滿足與將來的滿足之間，權衡輕重的結果。經過權衡而得到的比率，就是原始利息。

In such a world of perfect technological knowledge a promoter drafts a plan A according to which a hotel in picturesque, but not easily accessible, mountain districts and the roads leading to it should be built. In examining the practicability of this plan he discovers that the means available are not sufficient for its execution. Calculating the prospects of the profitability of the investment, he comes to the conclusion that the expected proceeds are not great enough to cover the costs of material and labor to be expended and interest on the capital to be invested. He renounces the execution of project A and embarks instead upon the realization of another plan, B. According to plan B the hotel is to be erected in a more easily accessible location which does not offer all the advantages of the picturesque landscape which plan A had selected, but in which it can be built either with lower costs of construction or finished in a shorter time. If no interest on the capital invested were to enter into the calculation, the illusion could arise that the state of the market data--supply of capital goods and the valuations of the public--allows for the execution of plan A. However, the realization of plan A would withdraw scarce factors of production from employments in which they could satisfy wants considered more urgent by the consumers. It would mean a manifest malinvestment, a squandering of the means available.

在這樣一個具有完全技術知識的世界裡面，有一位發起人擬定一項計畫A，要在風景優美、但交通不便的山區建築一座旅館，同時，要築一條對外交通的馬路。在檢討這個計畫的可行性時，他發現，可用的資力不足夠執行這個計畫。估計這項投資所可獲致的利潤，他得到這樣一個結論：預期中的收益不會大到足以抵補材料費、工資、和利息這些成本。於是他放棄了計畫A而實行另一個計畫B。按照計畫B，這個旅館建築在交通較便利的地區，但沒有計畫A所選擇的那樣優美的風景。可是，在這裡建築旅館，或者是建築費較低，或者是在較短的時期內完成。如果不計較投資利息的話，就會發生這樣一個幻想：以爲市場情況——資本的供給和大衆的評値——容許計畫A的執行。但是計畫A的執行，就要把稀少的生產要素從那些可以滿足消費者所認爲更迫切的慾望的用途拉過來。這就顯出是一項錯誤的投資，也即資源的浪費。

A lengthening of the period of production can increase the quantity of output per unit of input or produce goods which cannot be produced at all within a shorter period of production. But it is not true that the imputation of the value of this additional wealth to the capital goods required for the lengthening of the period of production generates interest. If one were to assume this, one would relapse

生產期的延長會增加每單位投入的產出量，或者會生產在較短生產期裡面根本不能生產的財貨。但是，如果說這增加的財富所具有的價値，轉嫁到那些爲延長生產期而必要的資本財裡面，因而產生了利息，這就不對了。如果有人這樣說的話，他又是回到龐巴衛克所已推翻的生產力說極粗魯的錯誤了。一些補助的生產要素對於生產的結果有貢獻，這是它們之所以被認爲有價値的理由；這解釋了對它們支付的價格，而且，在這些價格的決定中充份地顧及到它們的這種貢獻。此外，再也沒有什麼未經說明而可用以解釋利息的東西了。

It has been asserted that in the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy no interest would appear.[3] However, it can be shown that this assertion is incompatible with the assumptions on which the construction of the evenly rotating economy is based.

有人說，在一個假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，不會出現利息[3]。但是，這個說法顯然是與均勻輪轉的經濟結構所依據的那些假設不相容的。

We begin with the distinction between two classes of saving: plain saving and capitalist saving. Plain saving is merely the piling up of consumers' goods for later consumption. Capitalist saving is the accumulation of goods which are designed for an improvement of production processes. The aim of plain saving is later consumption; it is merely postponement of consumption. Sooner or later the goods accumulated will be consumed and nothing will be left. The aim of capitalist saving is first an improvement in the productivity of effort. It accumulates capital goods which are employed for further production and are not merely reserves for later consumption. The boom derived from capitalist saving is the increase of the quantity of goods produced or the production of goods which could not be produced at all without its aid. In constructing the image of an evenly rotating (static) economy, economists disregard the process of capital accumulation; the capital goods are given and remain, as, according to the underlying assumptions, no changes occur in the data. There is neither accumulation of new capital through saving, nor consumption of capital available through a surplus of consumption over income, i.e., current production minus the funds required for the maintenance of capital. It is now our task to demonstrate that these assumptions are incompatible with the idea that there is no interest.

首先，我們把儲蓄區分爲兩類：單純的儲蓄與資本家的儲蓄。單純的儲蓄只是爲著後來的消費而堆積的消費財。資本家的儲蓄是那些將用以改進生產程序的財貨之累積。單純儲蓄的目的是後來的消費；它只是消費的延緩。所累積的財貨遲早是要消費掉的，沒有什麼東西遺留下來。資本家儲蓄的目的首先是生產力的改進。它是累積那些用在將來生產的，而不單是爲後來消費的資本財。來自單純儲蓄的利益，是些當時未立即消費而累積下來的儲藏品的稍後消費。來自資本家儲蓄的利益，是資本財的數量增加，或者是沒有這種儲蓄的幫助就根本不會生產的那種財貨的生產。在構想一個均勻輪轉的（靜態的）經濟結構時，經濟學家不考慮資本累積的程序：資本財是旣定的，而且根據那些基本假定，也沒有變動發生。旣不經由儲蓄而累積新的資本，也不由於消費超過所得（也即，當期生產減去保持資本的必要的資金），而消費到可用的資本。現在，我們的工作就是要說明：這些假定與沒有利息這個想法是不相容的。

There is no need to dwell, in this reasoning, upon plain saving. The objective of plain saving is to provide for a future in which the saver could possibly be less amply supplied than in the present. Yet, one of the fundamental assumptions characterizing the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy is that the future does not differ at all from the present, that the actors are fully aware of this fact

在這裡，我們用不著從長討論單純的儲蓄。單純儲蓄的目的是儲蓄者爲將來準備，在將來他可能比現在收入較少。可是，使假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構有其特徵的那些基本假定之一，就是未來與現在沒有任何的不同，行爲者完全知道這種情形，並根據這個情形而行爲。因此，在這個結構裡面，單純儲蓄這個現象無遺留之餘地。

It is different with the fruit of capitalist saving, the accumulated stock of capital goods. There is in the evenly rotating economy neither saving and accumulation of additional capital goods nor eating up of already existing capital goods. Both phenomena would amount to a change in the data and would thus disturb the even rotation of such an imaginary system. Now, the magnitude of saving and capital accumulation in the past--i.e., in the period preceding the establishment of the evenly rotating economy--was adjusted to the height of the rate of interest. If--with the establishment of the conditions of the evenly rotating economy--the owners of the capital goods were no longer to receive any interest, the conditions which were operative in the allocation of the available stocks of goods to the satisfaction of wants in the various periods of the future would be upset. The altered state of affairs requires a new allocation. Also in the evenly rotating economy the difference in the valuation of want-satisfaction in various periods of the future cannot disappear. Also in the frame of this imaginary construction, people will assign a higher value to an apple available today as against an apple available in ten or a hundred years. If the capitalist no longer receives interest, the balance between satisfaction in nearer and remoter periods of the future is disarranged. The fact that a capitalist has maintained his capital at just 100,000 dollars was conditioned by the fact that 100,000 present dollars were equal to 105,000 dollars available twelve months later. These 5,000 dollars were in his eyes sufficient to outweigh the advantages to be expected from an instantaneous consumption of a part of this sum. If interest payments are eliminated, capital consumption ensues.

至於講到資本家儲蓄的成果、資本財累積的存量，那就不同了。在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，旣沒有儲蓄和額外資本財的累積，也不會消耗原有的資本財。這兩個現象等於情況的變動，因而騒擾了均勻輪轉的假想結構。再說，過去的——也即在這個均勻輪轉的經濟建立以前的時期的——儲蓄和資本累積的數量，已適應利率的高度而調整。如果——隨著均勻輪轉經濟的條件之建立——資本財的所有者不再收到任何利息，則那些在爲滿足不同的未來期之慾望而作的財貨配置中發生作用的條件就被攪亂了。改變了的情況需要一番新的配置。而且在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，對於不同的未來期慾望滿足的評値之差異，是不會消滅的。在這種假想的經濟結構中，人們給今天的一個蘋果的評値，也是高於十年或幾百年以後的一個蘋果的評値。如果資本家不接受利息，則近期與遠期慾望滿足的平衡就被擾亂。一個資本家把他的資本保持在剛好十萬元，這是因爲現在的十萬元等於十二個月以後的十萬伍千元。這個伍千元在他的心目中足以勝過當時立即消費掉這個金額的一部份所可提供的利益。如果利息消滅了，資本的消費就跟著發生。

This is the essential deficiency of the static system as Schumpeter depicts it. It is not sufficient to assume that the capital equipment of such a system has been accumulated in the past, that it is now available to the extent of this previous accumulation and is henceforth unalterably maintained at this level. We must also assign in the frame of this imaginary system a role to the operation of forces which bring about such a maintenance. If one eliminates the capitalist's role as receiver of interest, one replaces it by the capitalist's role as consumer of capital. There is no longer any reason why the owner of capital goods should abstain from employing them for consumption. Under the assumptions implied in the imaginary construction of static conditions (the evenly rotating economy) there is no need to keep them in reserve for rainy days. But even if, inconsistently enough, we

這是熊彼得所描繪的那種靜態制度的基本缺陷。只假定這樣的制度裡面的資本設備已經累積，現在是就這已累積的數量來利用，嗣後保持這個水準不變，這個假定是不夠的。我們也要在這個假想的制度中認定，那些使這個水準得以保持不變的力量所起的作用。假若有人消除掉作爲利息接受者的資本家的任務，他就是用一個作爲资本消费者的資本家任務來替代它。這就沒有任何理由可以解釋，爲什麼資本財的所有者不把資本財用之於消費。在假想的靜態情況（均勻輪轉的經濟）的那些假定下，沒有爲準備意外事故而保存它們的必要。但是，即令假使（這是極不一貫的假定）我們這樣假定：它們的一部分用之於這個目的，所以不立即消費，可是，至少相當於資本家的儲蓄超過單純的儲蓄那個數量的資本會消費掉。[4]

If there were no originary interest, capital goods would not be devoted to immediate consumption and capital would not be consumed. On the contrary, under such an unthinkable and unimaginable state of affairs there would be no consumption at all, but only saving, accumulation of capital, and investment. Not the impossible disappearance of originary interest, but the abolition of payment of interest to the owners of capital, would result in capital consumption. The capitalists would consume their capital goods and their capital precisely because there is originary interest and present want-satisfaction is preferred to later satisfaction.

如果眞的沒有原始利息，資本財不會用在立即的消費，资本不會消耗。正相反，在這樣的一個不可想像的情況下，根本沒有任何消費，只有儲蓄、資本累積、和投資。歸結於資本消耗的，不是原始利息的消滅，原始利息的消滅是不可能的；而是對資本所有者的利息支付之被廢除。資本家之消費他們的資本財和他們的資本，正是因爲有原始利息，而現在的慾望滿足優於稍後的滿足。

Therefore there cannot be any question of abolishing interest by any institutions, laws, or devices of bank manipulation. He who wants to "abolish" interest will have to induce people to value an apple available in a hundred years no less than a present apple. What can be abolished by laws and decrees is merely the right of the capitalists to receive interest. But such decrees would bring about capital consumption and would very soon throw mankind back into the original state of natural poverty.

所以廢除利息這個問題是不會發生的。任何制度、法律，以及銀行政策都不能廢除利息。凡是想「廢除」利息的人，必須使人們對於一百年以後的一個蘋果的評値不低於對今天的一個蘋果的評値。法律和命令所能廢除的，只是資本家接受利息的權利。但是，這樣的法律將會引起資本消費，而且將會很快地把人類推回到原始的窮困境界。

---------------------------

[1] This is the popular definition of interest as, for instance, given by Ely, Adams, Lorenz, and Young, Outlines of Economics (3d ed. New York, 1920), p. 493.

[1] 這是流行的利息定義，例如Ely, Adams, Lorenz, and Young, Outlines of Economics (3d ed. New York, 1920), p. 493.上面所寫的。

[2] Cf. Hayek, "The Mythology of Capital載在The Quarterly Journal of Economics, L (1936), 223 ff. However Professor Hayek has since partly changed his point of view. (Cf. his article "Time-Preference and Productivity, a Reconsideration," Economica, XII [1945], 22-25.) But the idea criticized in the text is stil widely help by economists.

[2] 參考Hayek, The Mythology of Capital, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, L (1936), 223 ff. 可是Hayek敎授已經部份地改變了他的觀點，（參考他的論文：Time-Preference and Productivity, a Reconsideration載在Economica, XII [1945], 22-25.）但是本文所批評的那個觀點還有許多經濟學家接受。

[3] Cf. J. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, trans. by R. Opie (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 34-46, 54.

[3] 參考J. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, trans. by R. Opie (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 34-46, 54.

[4] Cf. Robbins, "On a Certain Ambiguity in the Conception of Stationary Equilibrium," The Economic Journal, XL (1930), 211 ff.

[4] 參考Robbins, "On a Certain Ambiguity in the Conception of Stationary Equilibrium," The Economic Journal, XL (1930), 211 ff.

3. The Height of Interest Rates

三、利率的高度

In plain saving and in the capitalist saving of isolated economic actors the difference in the valuation of want-satisfaction in various periods of the future manifests itself in the extent to which people provide in a more ample way for nearer than for remoter periods of the future. Under the conditions of a market economy the rate of originary interest is, provided the assumptions involved in the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy are present, equal to the ratio of a definite amount of money available today and the amount available at a later date which is considered as its equivalent.

在孤立的經濟行爲人的單純儲蓄和資本家儲蓄當中，對於不同的未來期慾望滿足的評値之差異，表現於人們爲較近的未來，準備得比較遠的未來更豐富的那個程度。在市場經濟的條件下，如果均勻輪轉的經濟結構所依據的那些假設都具備的話，原始利率等於今天的一定金額與以後某一時日的被視爲等値的一定金額之間的比率。

The rate of originary interest directs the investment activities of the entrepreneurs. It determines the length of waiting time and of the period of production in every branch of industry.

原始利率指導企業家的投資活動。它決定等待期，以及每一生產部門的生產期的長短。

People often raise the question of which rate of interest, a "high" or a "low," stimulates saving and capital accumulation more and which less. The question makes no sense. The lower the discount attached to future goods is, the lower is the rate of originary interest. People

人們常常提出這樣一個問題：怎麼樣的利率，高的或低的，更能刺激儲蓄和资本累積。這個問題毫無意義。對於未來財的折扣愈小，原始利率就愈低。人們並不因爲原始利率上昇而多儲蓄，原始利率也不因爲儲蓄額的增加而下降。原始利率的變動和儲蓄額的變動——假定其他情形不變，尤其是法制方面的情形——是同一現象的兩方面。原始利率的消滅，等於消費的消滅。原始利率過度地上昇，等於儲蓄的消滅，也即對於未來不作準備。

The quantity of the available supply of capital goods influences neither the rate of originary interest nor the amount of further saving. Even the most plentiful supply of capital need not necessarily bring about either a lowering of the rate of originary interest or a drop in the propensity to save. The increase in capital accumulation and the per capita quota of capital invested which is a characteristic mark of economically advanced nations does not necessarily either lower the rate of originary interest or weaken the propensity of individuals to make additional savings. People are, in dealing with these problems, for the most part misled by comparing merely the market rates of interest as they are determined on the loan market. However, these gross rates are not merely expressive of the height of originary interest. They contain, as will be shown later, other elements besides, the effect of which accounts for the fact that the gross rates are as a rule higher in poorer countries than in richer ones.

资本財的現實供給量，旣不影響原始利率，也不影響繼續的儲蓄額。即令最豐富的資本供給，旣不一定使原始利率降低，也不一定使儲蓄傾向下落。资本累稹和那作爲經濟進步國家之特徵的平均每人投资額的增加，旣不一定降低原始利率，也不減弱個人們儲蓄的傾向。人們在處理這些問題的時候，大都只拿那些由借貸市場所決定的市場利率來比較，因而被誤導。但是，這些毛利率不只是表現原始利率的高度。它們還包含有其他的因素（以下將要講到），這些因素的影響，可以說明爲什麼在較窮國家的這種毛利率，通常總比在較富國家的高些。

It is generally asserted that, other things being equal, the better individuals are supplied for the immediate future, the better they provide for wants for the remoter future. Consequently, it is said, the amount of total saving and capital accumulation within an economic system depends on the arrangement of the population into groups of different income levels. In a society with approximate income equality there is, it is said, less saving than in a society in which there is more inequality. There is a grain of truth in such observations. However, they are statements about psychological facts and as such lack the universal validity and necessity inherent in praxeological statements. Moreover, the other things the equality of which they presuppose comprehend the various individuals' valuations, their subjective value judgment in weighing the pros and cons of immediate consumption and of postponement of consumption. There are certainly many individuals whose behavior they describe correctly, but there also are other individuals who act in a different way. The French peasants, although for the most part people of moderate wealth and income, were in the nineteenth century widely known

一般的說法是這樣：在其他情形不變的假定下，人們爲最近的將來所作的準備愈好，則他們爲較遠的將來的慾望準備得就愈好；因而一個經濟制度裡面，儲蓄和资本累積的總額，繋乎這個經濟的人口如何安排在不同的所得階層。在一個所得接近平等的社會，據說，比一個所得較不平等的社會，儲蓄得少些。這樣的一些說法當中有一點眞理。但是，它們是關於一些心理事實的陳述，因而缺乏行爲學陳述中固有的一般有效性和必然性。而且，這些說法所假定的「其他的情形不變」的「其他情形」包括各個人的評値，也即，各個人對於立即消費和延緩消費的贊成和反對所作的主觀價値判斷。當然，有許多人的行爲是這些說法所描述的，但也有些人的行爲不是這樣的。法國的農夫們，儘管大部份有中等收入和財富，在十九世紀當中是以節儉習慣著稱的，而那些貴族的富有份子和工商業富有的子弟則以揮霍著名。

It is therefore impossible to formulate any praxeological theorem concerning the relation of the amount of capital available in the whole nation or to individual people on the one hand and the amount of saving or capital consumption and the height of the originary rate of interest on the other hand. The allocation of scarce resources to want-satisfaction in various periods of the future is determined by value judgments and indirectly by all those factors which constitute the individuality of the acting man.

所以，關於一方面全國或個人可以利用的資本量，與另一方面儲蓄量或資本消費以及原始利率的高度之間的關係，我們不可列出行爲學的任何公式。稀少的資源配置於不同的未來期慾望之滿足，是決定於價値判斷，而且，間接地決定於所有的構成行爲人之個性的因素。

4. Originary Interest in the Changing Economy

四、變動經濟中的原始利息

So far we have dealt with the problem of originary interest under certain assumptions: that the turnover of goods is effected by the employment of neutral money; that saving, capital accumulation, and the determination of interest rates are not hampered by institutional obstacles; and that the whole economic process goes on in the frame of an evenly rotating economy. We shall drop the first two of these assumptions in the following chapter. Now we want to deal with originary interest in a changing economy.

到這裡爲止，我們已經把原始利息這個問題放在一些假定之下討論：財貨的周轉受到中立的貨幣之使用的影響；儲蓄、資本累積，和利率的決定，不受制度上的障礙；以及整個經濟程序在均勻輪轉的經濟架構中進行。在下一章裡面，我們將要取消前兩個假定。現在我們想討論變動經濟中的原始利息。

He who wants to provide for the satisfaction of future needs must correctly anticipate these needs. If he fails in this understanding of the future, his provision will prove less satisfactory or totally futile. There is no such thing as an abstract saving that could provide for all classes of want-satisfaction and would be neutral with regard to changes occurring in conditions and valuations. Originary interest can therefore in the changing economy never appear in a pure unalloyed form. It is only in the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy that the mere passing of time matures originary interest; in the passage of time and with the progress of the process of production more and more value accrues, as it were, to the complementary factors of production; with the termination of the process of production the lapse of time has generated in the price of the product the full quota of originary interest. In the changing economy during the period of production there also arise synchronously other changes in valuations. Some goods are valued higher than previously, some lower. These alterations are the source from which entrepreneurial profits and losses stem. Only those entrepreneurs who in their planning have correctly anticipated the future state of the market are in a position to reap, in selling the products, an excess over the costs of production (inclusive of net originary interest) expended. An entrepreneur

凡是想爲未來的需要滿足而作準備的人，必須正確地預料到那些需要：如果他不能做到這一點，則他的準備就會欠周或完全無用。我們不會有一種抽象的儲蓄可以爲所有各類的慾望滿足作準備，而不受情況和評値方面發生變動的影響。所以，原始利息在變動經濟裡面不會以純粹而不夾雜的形式出現。只有在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，單憑時間的經過就可產生原始利息；在時間的經過和隨著生產程序的進行，發生於那些補助的生產要素之價値愈來愈多；隨著生產程序的終止，時間的經過在產品的價格中產生了原始利息全額。在變動經濟裡面，生產期當中，也會同時發生評値方面的其他變動。有些財貨比以前的評値高，有些則較低。這些變動是企業家的利潤和躬損的來源。只有那些在生產計畫中已經正確地預料到市場的將來情況的企業家們，在出售產品的時候，能夠享有超過生產成本（包括原始利息）的收益。至於不能預料將來的企業家，如果他還能出售其產品的話，他的收入就不能包括原始利息在內的全部成本。

Like entrepreneurial profit and loss, interest is not a price, but a magnitude which is to be disengaged by a particular mode of computation from the price of the products of successful business operations. The gross difference between the price at which a commodity is sold and the costs expended in its production (exclusive of interest on the capital invested) was called profit in the terminology of British classical economics.[5] Modern economics conceives this magnitude as a complex of catallactically disparate items. The excess of gross receipts over expenditures which the classical economists called profit includes the price for the entrepreneur's own labor employed in the process of production, interest on the capital invested, and finally entrepreneurial profit proper. If such an excess has not been reaped at all in the sale of the products, the entrepreneur not only fails to get profit proper, he receives neither an equivalent for the market value of the labor he has contributed nor interest on the capital invested.

像企業家的利潤和虧損一樣，利息不是價格，而是用一特殊的計算方式，從成功的營業所出賣的產品價格中分解出來的一個數量。一件貨物賣得的價格和在生產中花掉的成本（包括投下資本的利息），兩者間毛差額在英國古典經濟學的術語中叫做利潤[5]。現代經濟學則把這個數量看作交換學上一些不同項目的一個綜合。古典經濟學家叫做利潤的那份超過費用的毛收入，包括企業家用在生產過程中自己勞動的工資、投下資本的利息、以及最後的企業利潤本身。如果在產品的銷售中沒有收到這份超過額，則這位企業家不僅沒有得到利潤本身，他也沒有收到他所貢獻的勞動的市場價値的等値，也沒有收到所投下的資本的利息。

The breaking down of gross profit (in the classical sense of the term) into managerial wages, interest, and entrepreneurial profit is not merely a device of economic theory. It developed, with progressing perfection in business practices of accountancy and calculation, in the field of commercial routine independently of the reasoning of the economists. The judicious and sensible businessman does not attach practical significance to the confused and garbled concept of profit as employed by the classical economists. His notion of costs of production includes the potential market price of his own services contributed, the interest paid on capital borrowed, and the potential interest he could earn, according to the conditions of the market, on his own capital invested in the enterprise by lending it to other people. Only the excess of proceeds over the costs so calculated is in his eyes entrepreneurial profit.[6]

把毛利潤（古典的意義）分解爲經理的工資、利息、和企業的利潤，這不僅是經濟理論的一個設計。它是隨著商業會計的趨向於周密，而在商業慣例中發展出來的，商業上的慣例與經濟學家的推理無關。精明的商人不重視古典經濟學家所使用的那個混亂的利潤觀點。他的成本觀念包括他自己貢獻的勞務的可能市場價格，付給借入的資本的利息、以及他自己投下的資本如果是供給別人，按照巿場情況他所能賺得的利息。只有收入抵補了這樣計算的成本以後還有剩餘，在他的心目中，才是企業利潤[6]。

The precipitation of entrepreneurial wages from the complex of all the other items included in the profit concept of classical economics presents no particular problem. It is more difficult to sunder entrepreneurial profit from originary interest. In the changing economy

把企業家的工資從那些包括在古典經濟學家的利潤概念中的一切其他項目的綜合裡面分解出來，不引起什麼特殊問題。至於要從原始利息中分解出企業利潤則較爲困難。在變動的經濟裡面，借貸契約上所載的利息總是一個毛値；從這個毛値當中，必須用一特殊的計算程序和分析，算出純粹的原始利率。我們曾經指出，在每一借貸行爲中，即令貨幣單位的購買力不發生變動，都有企業風險的因素。信用的授予必然是一可能歸於失敗的企業投機，貸出的金額可能一部份或全部損失。借貸中約定的和支付的每一筆利息，不僅是包括原始利息，也包括企業利潤。

This fact for a long time misled the attempts to construct a satisfactory theory of interest. It was only the elaboration of the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy that made it possible to distinguish precisely between originary interest and entrepreneurial profit and loss.

好久以來，這個事實誤導了一些想建立滿意的利息理論的企圖。使正確地區分原始利息與企業的利潤和虧損成爲可能的，那只有均勻輪轉的經濟結構那樣的精心構想。

----------------------

[5] Cf. R. Whatley, Elements of Logic (9th ed. London, 1848), pp. 354 ff.; E. Cannan, A History of the Theories of Production and Distribution in English Political Economy from 1776 to 1848 (3d ed. London, 1924), pp. 189 ff.

[5] 參考R. Whatley, Elements of Logic (9th ed. London, 1848), pp. 354 ff.; E. Cannan, A History of the Theories of Production and Distribution in English Political Economy from 1776 to 1848 (3d ed. London, 1924), pp. 189 ff.

[6] But, of course, the present-day intentional confusion of all economic concepts is conducive to obscuring this distinction. Thus, in the United States, in dealing with the dividends paid by corporations people speak of "profits."

[6] 但是，現在有些人把經濟學的一切概念故意弄得混淆，這有助於蒙蔽這種區別。所以，在美國，大家把公司所發的股利（dividends）叫做「利潤」。

5. The Computation of Interest

五、利息的計算

Originary interest is the outgrowth of valuations unceasingly fluctuating and changing. It fluctuates and changes with them. The custom of computing interest pro anno is merely commercial usage and a convenient rule of reckoning. It does not affect the height of the interest rates as determined by the market.

原始利息是一些不斷搖動的評値之結果。它也隨著它們而動搖。以一年作時間單位來計算利息，只是商業上的慣例，一個便於計算的規律而已。它不影響市場所決定的利率之高低。

The activities of the entrepreneurs tend toward the establishment of a uniform rate of originary interest in the whole market economy. If there turns up in one sector of the market a margin between the prices of present goods and those of future goods which deviates from the margin prevailing in other sectors, a trend toward equalization is brought about by the striving of businessmen to enter those sectors in which this margin is higher and to avoid those in which it is lower. The final rate of originary interest is the same in all parts of the market of the evenly rotating economy.

企業家的活動，趨向於在整個市場經濟裡面建立一致的原始利率。如果在市場的某一部門現在財的價格與未來財的價格之間的差距不同於其他部門的差距，則會出現一個傾向於一致的趨勢；這種趨勢是由於商人們大家擠進差距較大的那些部門，返出差距較小的部門而引起的。在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，最後的原始利率在市場的一切部門都是―致的。

The valuations resulting in the emergence of originary interest prefer satisfaction in a nearer period of the future to satisfaction of the same kind and extent in a remoter period of the future. Nothing would justify the assumption that this discounting of satisfaction in remoter periods progresses continuously and evenly. If we were to assume this, wi would imply that the period of provision is infinite. However, the mere fact that individuals differ in their provision for future needs and that even to the most provident actor provision beyond a definite period appears supererogatory, forbids us to think of the period of provision as infinite.

歸結於原始利息之出現的那些評値，把較近未來的滿足，看得比較遠未來同類、同程度的滿足更重要些。但是，我們沒有理由可以假定，這種對較遠未來的滿足打折扣會繼續地、均勻地推進。如果我們這樣假定，我們就是意涵準備期是無限的。但是，人們對未來所作的準備，彼此是不同的，即令就最謹慎的行爲人看來，超過了一定時期的準備也是不必要的。單憑這個事實，我們就不應想到無限期的準備。

The usages of the loan market must not mislead us. It is customary

借貸市場的慣例不應誤導我們。慣例是爲借貸契約的全期規定一個一致的利率，[7]並用一致的利率來計算複利。利率的眞正決定是獨立於這些和其他的算術方法。如果利率被契約規定在某一時期中固定不變，市場利率在這期中發生的變動，就反映在本金價格的相對變動上，這是考盧到到期時要償還的本金數額是規定不變的。至於我們是用不變的利率和變動本金來計算，或用變動的利率和不變的本金來計算，或用變動的利率和本金來計算，都不影響其結果。

The terms of a loan contract are not independent of the stipulated duration of the loan. Not only because those components of the gross rate of market interest which made it deviate from the rate of originary interest are affected by differences in the duration of the loan, but also on account of factors which bring about changes in the rate of originary interest, loan contracts are valued and appraised differently according to the duration of the loan stipulated.

借貸契約的一些條件，不是與規定的借貸期無關的。借貸拜約按照所規定的借貸時期之長短，而有不同的評値和估價，這不僅是因爲，「使市場利息違離原始利率的那些組成市場利息毛率的因素」受到了借貸時期長短不同的影響，而且也由於那些引起原始利率變動的因素發生作用。

---------------------

[7] There are, of course, also deviations from this usage.

[7] 當然，也有些不同於這個慣例的作法。

XX. INTEREST, CREDIT EXPANSION, AND THE TRADE CYCLE

第20章 利息、信用擴張和商業循環

1. The Problems

一、一些問題

In the market economy in which all acts of interpersonal exchange are performed by the intermediary of money, the category of originary interest manifests itself primarily in the interest on money loans.

在市場經濟裡面，一切人際的交換行爲都是靠貨幣這個媒介來完成的；在這種經濟當中，原始利息的元範主要地表現於貨幣借貸的利息上。

It has been pointed out already that in the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy the rate of originary interest is uniform. There prevails in the whole system only one rate of interest. The rate of interest on loans coincides with the rate of originary interest as manifested in the ration between prices of present and of future goods. We may call this rate the neutral rate of interest.

我們曾經講過，在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，原始利率是一致的。在整個體系當中，只有一個利率。放款利率與那表現於現在財和未來財價格間的比率是相符的。我們可以把它叫做中立的利率。

The evenly rotating economy presupposes neutral money. As money can never be neutral, special problems arise.

均勻輪轉的經濟以中立的貨幣爲前提條件。由於貨幣之不會中立，於是有些特別問題發生。

If the money relation--i.e., the ratio between the demand for and the supply of money for cash holding--changes, all prices of goods and services are affected. These changes, however, do not affect the prices of various goods and services at the same time and to the same extent. The resulting modifications in the wealth and income of various individuals can also alter the data determining the height of originary interest. The final state of the rate of originary interest to the establishment of which the system tends after the appearance of changes in the money relation, is no longer that final state toward which it had tended before. Thus, the driving force of money has the power to bring about lasting changes in the final rate of originary interest and neutral interest.

如果貨幣關係——也即關於現金握存的貨幣供需之間的比率——有了變動，所有的財貨和勞務的價格都要受影饗。但是，這些變動對於各種財貨和勞務的價格的影響，並不是同時發生的，也不是同程度的。各個人的財富和所得所受到的影響，又會影響到那些決定原始利息的因素。在貨幣關係方面出現了這些變動以後，這個體系所趨向於建立的原始利息的最後情況，再也不是這個體系以前所趨向於建立的那個最後情況。因此，貨幣的推動力足以在原始利息和中立利息的最後比率方面，引起一些持續的變動。

Then there is a second, even more momentous, problem which, of course, may also be looked upon as another aspect of the same problem. Changes in the money relation may under certain circumstances first affect the loan market rate of interest on loans, which we may call the gross money (or market) rate of interest. Can such changes in the gross money rate cause the net rate of interest included in it to deviate lastingly from the height which corresponds to the

於是就有了第二個，甚至更重大的問題。這個問題自然也可看作同一問題的另一面。貨幣關係的變動，在某些環境下可能首先影響到由供需左右其利率的放款市場，那種利率我們可叫做貨幣毛利率（或市場毛利率）。貨幣毛利率這樣的一些變動，會使其中的淨利率永久脫離那個相當於原始利率（即現在財與未來財評值的差額）的高度嗎？放款市場的一些情況會部份地或全部地消滅原始利率嗎？沒有一位經濟學家對於這些問題不是断然否定的。但是，接著又有一個問題發生了：市場因素的相互作用如何重新調整毛利率，使其相當於原始利率所限定的高度？

These are great problems. These were the problems economists tried to solve in discussing banking, fiduciary media and circulation credit, credit expansion, gratuitousness or nongratuitousness of credit, the cyclical movements of trade, and all other problems of indirect exchange.

這都是些大問題；是經濟學家在討論銀行、信用媒介、信用的流通與擴張、商業循環以及一切關於間接交換的其他問題時，所試圖解決的問題。

2. The Entrepreneurial Component in the Gross Market Rate of Interest

二、市場毛利率中的企業成份

The market rates of interest on loans are not pure interest rates. Among the components contributing to their determination there are also elements which are not interest. The moneylender is always an entrepreneur. Every grant of credit is a speculative entrepreneurial venture, the success or failure of which is uncertain. The lender is always faced with the possibility that he may lose a part or the whole of the principal lent. His appraisal of this danger determines his conduct in bargaining with the prospective debtor about the terms of the contract.

放款的市場利率不是純利率。在有助於市場利率之決定的那些成份當中，也有些非利率的因素。貨幣的貸放者總是個企業家。每一筆放款都是一項投機性的冒險，成功或失敗是不確定的。放款者總冒著全部或部份喪失其本金的危險。他對於這個危險的估量，決定他簽訂借貸契約的一些條件。

There can never be perfect safety either in moneylending or in other classes of credit transactions and deferred payments. Debtors, guarantors, and warrantors may become insolvent; collateral and mortgages may become worthless. The creditor is always a virtual partner of the debtor or a virtual owner of the pledged and mortgaged property. He can be affected by changes in the market data concerning them. He has linked his fate with that of the debtor or with the changes occurring in the price of the collateral. Capital as such does not bear interest; it must be well employed and invested not only in order to yield interest, but also lest it disappear entirely. The dictum pecunia pecuniam parere non potest (money cannot beget money) is meaningful in this sense, which, of course, differs radically from the sense which ancient and medieval philosophers attached to it. Gross interest can be reaped only by creditors who have been successful in their lending. If they earn any net interest at all, it is included in a yield which contains more than merely net interest. Net interest is a magnitude which only analytical thinking can extract from the gross proceeds of the creditor.

在放款或其他的信用交易和延期支付的場合，決沒有絕對的安全。債務人、保證人、以及擔保者都會變成破產者，保證品或抵押權會變成無價値的東西。債權人總歸是債務人的實際合夥人，或者是那項抵押品的實際所有者。他是會因它們的市場情況之變動而受影響的。他的命運與債務人的命運是相關聯的，或者是與那些抵押品價格變動相關聯的。資本的本身並不產生利息；資本必須好好地被利用，這不僅是爲的生利，也爲的免於完全消失。「錢不能生錢」（pecunia pecuniam parere non potest）這句成語，在這個意義下是適切的。這自然與上古和中古的一些哲學家所想的完全不同。毛利息只有那些在放債方面已經成功的債權人才能收穫。如果他們終於賺得一點淨利息，則毛利息就包括在比淨利息較多的一項收入中。淨利息是從債權人的毛收入中，用分析的思考抽繹出來的一個量。

The entrepreneurial component included in the creditor's gross proceeds is determined by all those factors which are operative in every entrepreneurial venture. It is, moreover, codetermined by the legal and institutional setting. The contracts which place the debtor and his fortune or the collateral as a buffer between the creditor and the disastrous consequences of malinvestment of the capital lent, are conditioned by laws and institutions. The creditor is less exposed to loss and failure than the debtor only in so far as this legal and institutional framework makes it possible for him to enforce his claims against refractory debtors. There is, however, no need for economics to enter into a detailed scrutiny of the legal aspects involved in bonds and debentures, preferred stock, mortgages, and other kinds of credit transactions.

【中文版無此段。】

The entrepreneurial component is present in all species of loans. It is customary to distinguish between consumption or personal loans on the one hand, and productive or business loans on the other. The characteristic mark of the former class is that it enables the borrower to spend expected future proceeds. In acquiring a claim to a share in these future proceeds, the lender becomes virtually an entrepreneur, as in acquiring a claim to a share in the future proceeds of a business. The particular uncertainty of the outcome of his lending consists in the uncertainty about these future proceeds.

在各種各類的放款中，都有企業成份。通常是把借貸區別爲消費借貸或個人借貸，與生產借貸或營利事業借貸。前一類借貸的特徵是它使借款人能夠把預期中的將來收入提前消費。放款人在取得那些將來收入的一份要求權的時候，他成爲一個企業家，正同在取得一個營利事業的將來收入的一份要求權一樣。他這筆放款的結果之特別不確定，在於這些將來收入之不確定。

It is furthermore customary to distinguish between private and public loans, i.e., loans to governments and subdivisions of governments. The particular uncertainty inherent in such loans concerns the life of secular power. Empires may crumble and governments may be overthrown by revolutionaries who are not prepared to assume responsibility for the debts contracted by their predecessors. That there is, besides, something basically vicious in all kinds of long-term government debts, has been pointed out already.[1]

還有一個通常的區分是私債和公債，公債是指，借給政府和政府附屬機構的那些債。這種債之不安全，是在於政府權力之不可靠。帝國會崩潰而政府會被革命者推翻，而那些革命者每每不承認被推翻的政府所借的債。除此之外，在各類長期的公債中還有一些基本的壞處我們已經指出過[1]。

Over all species of deferred payments hangs, like the sword of Damocles, the danger of government interference. Public opinion has always been biased against creditors. It identifies creditors with the idle rich and debtors with the industrious poor. It abhors the former as ruthless exploiters and pities the latter as innocent victims of oppression. It considers government action designed to curtail the claims of the creditors as measures extremely beneficial to the immense majority at the expense of a small minority of hardboiled usurers. It did not notice at all that nineteenth-century capitalist innovations have wholly changed the composition of the classes of creditors and debtors. In the days of Solon the Athenian, of ancient

各種各類的延期支付，隨時有被政府干涉的危險。輿論總是不利於債權人的。它認爲債權人就是懶閒的富人，債務人就是辛勞的窮人。它把前者視爲無情的剝削者而憎惡之，把後者視爲無辜的受壓迫者而憐憫之。它把政府爲削減債權人的權利而採取的一切措施，認爲有利於大衆而只有損於少數重利盤剝者。輿論完全昧於十九世紀的資本主義的創革已完全改變了債權人與債務人的組成份。在雅典索倫時代、在已往羅馬實行土地法的時代，以及在中世紀，債權人大都是富人，債務人大都是窮人。但是到了有股票、債票、抵押銀行、儲蓄銀行、人壽保險公司、以及一些社會安全福利的這個時代，有了相當收入的大衆倒成爲債權人了。另一方面，富人們，以股東的資格，以工廠、農場和不動產所有主的資格，成爲債務人的時候比成爲債權人的時候更多些。一般大衆在要求削減債權人利益的時候，不知不覺地是在攻擊他們自己的利益。

With public opinion in this state, the creditor's unfavorable chance of being harmed by anticreditor measures is not balanced by a favorable chance of being privileged by antidebtor measures. This unbalance would bring about a unilateral tendency toward a rise of the entrepreneurial component contained in the gross rate of interest if the political danger were limited to the loan market, and would not in the same way affect today all kinds of private ownership of the means of production. As things are in our day, no kind of investment is safe against the political dangers of anticapitalistic measures. A capitalist cannot reduce the vulnerability of his wealth by preferring direct investment in business to lending his capital to business or to the government.

有了這樣的輿論，對債權人不利的機會，大於對他有利的機會而不平衡。這種不平衡將引起一個片面的趨勢，趨向於包含在毛利率裡面的企業成份之增加，如果政治的危險限之於借貸市場的話，而不會同樣地影響到所有各類的私有財產權。就我們這個時代的事情來看，沒有一種投資是安全可靠而免於政治沒收之危險的。一個資本家不能把他的財富用之於直接投資，而不用之於貸給私人的營利事業或政府以減少風險。

The political risks involved in moneylending do not affect the height of originary interest; they affect the entrepreneurial component included in the gross market rate. In the extreme case---i.e., in a situation in which the impending nullification of all contracts concerning deferred payments is expected--they would cause the entrepreneurial component to increase beyond all measure.[2]

涉及放款的一些政治危險，不影響原始利率的高度；包含在市場毛利率裡面的企業成份，卻受到這些危險的影響。如果一切有關延期支付的契約，一般人認爲有立即被廢棄的可能，則毛利率的企業成份就會因之而增加到無法計量[2]。

-----------------------

[1] Cf. above, pp. 226-228.

[1] 參考前面的第十二章第五節。

[2] The difference between this case (case b) and the case of the expected end of all earthly things dealt with on p. 527 (case a) is this: in case a, originary interest increases beyond all measure because future goods become entirely worthless; in case b, originary interest does not change while the entrepreneurial component increases beyond all measure.

[2] 這種情形（事例b）與第十九章第二節所討論的情形（事例a）不同的地方在於：在事例a中，原始利率之增加到無法計量，是因爲未來財完全變成了無價值的；在事例b中，儘管企業成份增加到無法計量，而原始利率並不變動。

3. The Price Premium as a Component of the Gross Market Rate of Interest

三、作爲市場毛利率一個成份的價格貼水

Money is neutral if the cash-induced changes in the monetary unit's purchasing power affect at the same time and to the same extent the prices of all commodities and services. With neutral money, a neutral rate of interest would be conceivable, provided there were no deferred payments. If there are deferred payments and if we disregard the entrepreneurial position of the creditor and the ensuing entrepreneurial component in the gross rate of interest, we must furthermore assume that the eventuality of future changes in purchasing

如果現金引起的貨幣單位購買力的變動，同時而且同程度影響到一切貨物和勞務的價格，則貨幣是中立的。有了中立的貨幣，則中立的利率就會可能，假若沒有延期支付的話。如果有延期支付，如果我們不管債權人的企業地位和因而產生的毛利率中的企業成份，我們就要進而假定購買力將來的變動莫測，在契約條件的規定中已考慮到。借貸的本金就要週期地用物價指數來乘，因而隨著貨幣購買力的變動而增加或減少。隨著本金的調整，利率所從而算出的數額也爲之變動。所以這個利率是個中立的利率。

With neutral money, neutralization of the rate of interest could also be attained by another stipulation, provided the parties are in a position to anticipate correctly the future changes in purchasing power. They could stipulate a gross rate of interest containing an allowance for such changes, a percentile addendum to, or subtrahendum from, the rate of originary interest. We may call this allowance the--positive or negative-- price premium. In the case of a quickly progressing deflation, the negative price premium could not only swallow the whole rate of originary interest, but even reverse the gross rate into a minus quantity, an amount charged to the creditor's account. If the price premium is correctly calculated, neither the creditor's nor the debtor's position is affected by intervening changes in purchasing power. The rate of interest is neutral.

有了中立貨幣，利率的中立化也可用另一個約定做到，假若有關方面能夠正確地預料到購買力的將來變動。他們可以約定一個毛利率，而這個利率已考慮到那些變動，就原始利率加上百分之幾，或減去百分之幾。我們可以把這種辦法叫做價格貼水——正的或負的價格貼水。在加速通貨緊縮的情形下，負的價格貼水不僅能夠呑沒全部原始利率，甚至把毛利率倒轉爲一個負數，也即付給債務人的一個利率。如果這價格貼水計算得正確的話，則債權人和債務人的境況都不受貨幣購買力變動的影響。利率是中立的。

However, all these assumptions are not only imaginary, they cannot even hypothetically be thought of without contradiction. In the changing economy, the rate of interest can never be neutral. In the changing economy, there is no uniform rate of originary interest; there only prevails a tendency toward the establishment of such uniformity. Before the final state of originary interest is attained, new changes in the data emerge which divert anew the movement of interest rates toward a new final state. Where everything is unceasingly in flux, no neutral rate of interest can be established.

但是，所有的這些假定不僅是虛構的，甚至也無法擺脫一些矛盾而設想。在變動的經濟裡面，利率決不會是中立的。在變動的經濟裡面，沒有一致的原始利率；有的只是傾向於這種一致的一個趨勢。在原始利率的最後情況達成以前，有些新的變動發生，而這些變動又促使利率的重新趨向於一個新的最後情況。在一切一切都在流變中的環境下，不會有什麼中立的利率。

In the world of reality all prices are fluctuating and acting men are forced to take full account of these changes. Entrepreneurs embark upon business ventures and capitalists change their investments only because they anticipate such changes and want to profit from them. The market economy is essentially characterized as a social system in which there prevails an incessant urge toward improvement. The most provident and enterprising individuals are driven to earn profit by readjusting again and again the arrangement of production activities so as to fill in the best possible way the needs of the consumers, both those needs of which the consumers themselves are already aware and those latent needs of the satisfaction of which they have not yet thought themselves. These speculative ventures of the promoters revolutionize afresh each day the structure of prices and thereby also the height of the gross market rate of interest.

在現實的世界上，所有的價格都是波動的，行爲人不得不充份考慮到這些波動。企業家之從事冒險，和資本家之變更他們的投資，只是因爲他們預料到這樣的一些變動而想從中謀利。市場經濟這個社會制度的主要特徵，是在這裡有個不斷的促進改善的刺激。最精明而有企業精神的人們，被謀利心的驅使一再地調整他們的生產活動，用可能最好的方法來滿足消費者的需要——包括消費者自己已經知道的那些需要，和他們自己尙未察覺到的那些潜在的需要。這些發起人（promoters）的這些投機活動，使物價結構天天在更新，因而市場毛利率的高度也天天在變動。

He who expects a rise in certain prices enters the loan market as a borrower and is ready to allow a higher gross rate of interest than he would allow if he were to expect a less momentous rise in prices or no rise at all. On the other hand, the lender, if he himself expects a rise in prices, grants loans only if the gross rate is higher than it would be under a state of the market in which less momentous or no upward changes in prices are anticipated. The borrower is not deterred by a higher rate if his project seems to offer such good chances that it can afford higher costs. The lender would abstain from lending and would himself enter the market as an entrepreneur and bidder for commodities and services if the gross rate of interest were not to compensate him for the profits he could reap this way. The expectation of rising prices thus has the tendency to make the gross rate of interest rise, while the expectation of dropping prices makes it drop. If the expected changes in the price structure concern only a limited group of commodities and services, and are counterbalanced by the expectation of an opposite change in the prices of other goods, as is the case in the absence of changes in the money relation, the two opposite trends by and large counterpoise each other. But if the money relation is sensibly altered and a general rise or fall in prices of all commodities and services is expected, one tendency carries on. A positive or negative price premium emerges in all deals concerning deferred payments.[3]

預料某些物價上漲的人，將進到借貸巿場去借款，而他所準備支付的毛利率，將高於如果他預料物價上漲得較低或全完不上漲的時候所準備支付的。另一方面，就貸款人來講，如果他自己也預料物價將上漲，這時如要他願意放款，那只有毛利率高於在預料中的物價上漲較緩或完全不上漲的情況下的毛利率。如果借款人的計畫似乎有這麼樣的成功希望，足以承擔較高的成本，他就不會因較高的利率而不借款。就貸款人來講，如果毛利率不足以補償他自己進到市場購買貨物和勞務所可預料賺到的利潤，他就不會把款貸出而將留給自己這樣運用。所以物價上漲的預期，趨向於使毛利率上昇；而物價下跌的預期，趨向於使利率下降。如果預期中物價結構的變動，只關於有限的幾種貨物和勞務，而且其中有些相反的變動，在貨幣關係沒有變動的情形下，則這兩個相反的趨勢大體上會抵消。但是，如果貨幣關係很敏感地發生了變動，而所有的貨物和勞務的價格在預期中將有一般的上漲或下跌，於是就有個趨勢發生。也即，在所有關於延期支付的交易中就發生正的或負的物價貼水[3]。

The role of the price premium in the changing economy is different from that we ascribed to it in the hypothetical and unrealizable scheme developed above. It can never entirely remove, even as far as credit operations alone are concerned, the effects of changes in the money relation; it can never make interest rates neutral. It cannot alter the fact that money is essentially equipped with a driving force of its own. Even if all factors were to know correctly and completely the quantitative data concerning the changes in the supply of money (in the broader sense) in the whole economic system, the dates on which such changes were to occur and what individuals were to be first affected by them, they would not be in a position to know beforehand whether and to what extent the demand for money for cash holding would change and in what temporal sequence and to what extent the prices of the various commodities would change. The price premium could counterpoise the effects of changes in the money relation upon the substantial importance and the economic significance of credit contracts only if its appearance were to precede the occurrence of the price changes generated by the alteration in the money relation. It would have to be the result of a reasoning by virtue

在變動的經濟裡面，價格貼水的作用，異於我們在上面所講述的那個假設的（不能實現的）情況下價格貼水的作用。它決不能完全消除——即令僅就信用運作而言——貨幣關係變動的影響；它決不能使利率成爲中立的。它決不能變更「貨幣本質上有它自己的推動力」這個事實。即令所有的行爲者可能正確地且完全地知道：關於整個經濟制度中貨幣供給（廣義的）變動的一些數量的資料、這些變動將會發生的時日、以及那些人將會首先受到這些變動的影響，他們也不能事先知道來自現金握存的貨幣需求是不是會有變動、變動到什麼程度、接著的結果怎樣、以及各種貨物的價格變動到什麼程度。價格貼水只有在因貨幣關係的變更而引起的那種價格變動發生之前就已出現，才能使貨幣關係變動的重大影響和信用緊縮的經濟後果保持平衡。這必須是個推理的結果。行爲者用這推理，試圖估計一切直接或間接有關他的滿足的貨物與勞務的價格變動將會發生的時日和其程度。但是，這樣的估計是無法確定的，因爲這需要對未來的情況完全知道。

The emergence of the price premium is not the product of an arithmetical operation which could provide reliable knowledge and eliminate the uncertainty concerning the future. It is the outcome of the promoters' understanding of the future and their calculations based on such an understanding. It comes into existence step by step as soon as first a few and then successively more and more actors become aware of the fact that the market is faced with cash-induced changes in the money relation and consequently with a trend orientated in a definite direction. Only when people begin to buy or to sell in order to take advantage of this trend, does the price premium come into existence.

價格貼水，不是產生於一個可以提供可靠的知識和消除關於未來的不確定的算術運作。它是產生於發起人對未來的領悟以及基於這樣的領悟而作的計算。它是一步一步地出現的，首先只有少數行爲者，漸漸地有更多的行爲者知道了「市場上有了現金引起的貨幣關係的變動，因而有了傾向於某一方向的趨勢」這個事實。只有在人們開始利用這個趨勢而從事買進或賣出的時候，價格貼水才出現。

It is necessary to realize that the price premium is the outgrowth of speculations anticipating changes in the money relation. What induces it, in the case of the expectation that an inflationary trend will keep on going, is already the first sign of that phenomenon which later, when it becomes general, is called "flight into real values" and finally produces the crack-up boom and the crash of the monetary system concerned. As in every case of the understanding of future developments, it is possible that the speculators may err, that the inflationary or deflationary movement will be stopped or slowed down, and that prices will differ from what they expected.

價格貼水是由於預料到貨幣關係將有變動而發生的，對於這一點的認識是必要的。當大家認爲通貨膨脹的趨向將會繼續進展的時候，誘發價格貼水的，已經是那後來叫做「逃避到有實値的東西」（flight into real values）這個現象的初期跡象，最後將產生病態的市面繁榮和有關的貨幣制度的崩潰。關於未來的發展之領悟，投機者可能錯誤，通貨膨脹或緊縮的動向可能停頓或緩和，價格也可能不同於預料中的。

The increased propensity to buy or sell, which generates the price premium, affects as a rule short-term loans sooner and to a greater extent than long-term loans. As far as this is the case, the price premium affects the market for short-term loans first, and only later, by virtue of the concatenation of all parts of the market, also the market for long-term loans. However, their are instances in which a price premium in long-term loans appears independently of what is going on with regard to short-term loans. This was especially the case in international lending in the days in which there was still a live international capital market. It happened occasionally that lenders were confident with regard to the short-term development of a foreign country's national currency; in short-term loans stipulated in this currency there was no price premium at all or only a slight one. But the appraisal of the long-term aspects of the currency concerned was less favorable, and consequently in long-term contracts a

引起價格貼水的買進或賣出的那種增強了的傾向，對於短期借貸的影響，常總比對於長期借貸的影響來得快、而且程度也較大。就這種情形講，價格貼水首先影響到短期借貸市場，只是到後來由於市場各方面的連續作用，也就影響到長期借貸市場。但是，長期借貸中的價格貼水，與短期借貸中所進行的無關而獨立出現的事例，也是有的。這種事例特別見之於一個生動的國際資本市場還存在的時代的國際借貸中。偶爾也發生這種情形：放款人對於一個外國的國幣具有信心；用這種貨幣規定的短期借貸，其中就沒有價格貼水或只有一點輕微的價格貼水。但是，關於這種貨幣的長期估價，就不是那麼良好了，因而在長期借貸契約中就會考慮到一個相當的價格貼水。其結果是這樣：用這種貨幣規定的長期債券之能發行，只有其利率高於同一個債務人用黃金或外滙規定的借款利率。

We have shown one reason why the price premium can at best practically deaden, but never eliminate entirely, the repercussions of cash-induced changes in the money relation upon the content of credit transactions. (A second reason will be dealt with in the next section.) The price premium always lags behind the changes in purchasing power because what generates it is not the change in the supply of money (in the broader sense), but the --necessarily later occurring--effects of these changes upon the price structure. Only in the final state of a ceaseless inflation do things become different. The panic of the currency catastrophe, the crack-up boom, is not only characterized by a tendency for prices to rise beyond all measure, but also by a rise beyond all measure of the positive price premium. No gross rate of interest, however great, appears to a prospective lender high enough to compensate for the losses expected from the progressing drop in the monetary unit's purchasing power. He abstains from lending and prefers to buy himself "real" goods. The loan market comes to a standstill.

我們曾經指出一個理由說明，爲什麼價格貼水至多只能緩和而決不能完全消除「現金引起的貨幣關係的變動對於信用收縮所給的反擊」。（第二個理由將在下節指出）價格貼水總是落在購買力發生變動之後，因爲引起它的，不是貨幣供給（廣義的）的變動，而是這些變動對於物價結構的影響——這必然是較遲發生的。只有在一個不停的通貨膨脹的最後階段，事情才變得不一樣。幣制崩潰的恐慌、過度的繁榮，其特徵不僅是表現於物價異常上漲的趨勢，而且也表現於超過了正的價格貼水而上漲。不管毛利率有多高，在精明的放債者心目中，總是沒有高到足以抵補預料中的來自貨幣購買力繼續下降的損失。他不願放款，寧可自己購買「實在的」東西。借貸巿場到了這個時候就陷於停頓了。

------------

[3] Cf. Irving Fisher, The Rate of Interest (New York, 1907), pp. 77 ff.

[3] 參考Irving Fisher, The Rate of Interest (New York, 1907), pp. 77 ff.

4.The Loan Market

四、借貸市場

The gross rates of interest as determined on the loan market are not uniform. The entrepreneurial component which they always include varies according to the peculiar characteristics of the specific deal. It is one of the most serious shortcomings of all historical and statistical studies devoted to the movement of interest rates that they neglect this factor. It is useless to arrange data concerning interest rates of the open market or the discount rates of the central banks in time series. The various data available for the construction of such time series are incommensurable. The same central bank's rate of discount meant something different in various periods of time. The institutional conditions affecting the activities of various nations' central banks, their private banks, and their organized loan markets are so different, that it is entirely misleading to compare the nominal interest rates without paying full regard to these diversities. We know a priori that, other things being equal, the lenders are intent upon preferring high interest rates to low ones, and the debtors upon preferring low rates to high ones. But these other things are never equal. There prevails upon the loan market a tendency toward the equalization of gross interest rates for loans for which the factors determining

借貸市場所決定的毛利率是不一致的。毛利率裡面所包含的企業成份，因各個借貸各有其特點而不同。所有對於利率動向所作的歷史硏究和統計研究，都忽略了這個事實，這是它們最嚴重的缺陷。把那些關於公開市場的利率資料或中央銀行貼現率的資料安排在時間的序列中，這是無用的。可以用來這樣作的各種资料，是不能相互比較的。同一中央銀行的貼現率所意謂的，是不同時期的不同事情。影響各國中央銀行活動、私營銀行活動，以及有組織的借貸市場活動的那些制度上的情形，有很多的差異。如果比較那些名目上的利率，而不充份注意這些差異，那就要使人完全誤解。我們憑先驗知道，在其他情形不變的條件下，放款人願意在較高的利率下貸出，借款人願意在較低的利率下借入。但是，其他情形決不會是不變的。有些放款，決定其中企業成份之高度的那些因素和價格貼水是一樣的，在這種情形下的毛利率就有個趨向於相等的趨勢。這個知識提供了一個心智的工具，可用以解釋關於利率史的那些事實。如果沒有這個知識的幫助，則那大量的歷史和統計材料，只是些無意義的數字的一個累積。在安排某些重要商品價格的時間序列的時候，經驗主義至少有一個明顯的辯護理由在於「所處理的價格資料涉及相同的物質體」這個事實。那誠然是個假造的口實，因爲價格不是與一些東西的不變的物理性質有關，而是與行爲人賦與它們的變動價値有關。但是，在利率的研究中，甚至這種不中用的辯解也不能提出。一些毛利率當其實際上出現的時候，除掉交換理論在它們當中所看出的那些特徵以外，沒有其他的共同點。它們是些複雜現象，決不能用來建構一個經驗的利率理論。它們對於經濟學在那些有關問題方面所講的，旣不能證實，也不能證妄。如果我們利用經濟學的一切知識來仔細分析，它們可成爲非常珍貴的經濟史資料；對於經濟理論，它們毫無用處。

It is customary to distinguish the market for short-term loans (money market) from the market for long-term loans (capital market). A more penetrating analysis must even go further in classifying loans according to their duration. Besides, there are differences with regard to the legal characteristics which the terms of the contract assign to the lender's claim. In short, the loan market is not homogeneous. But the most conspicuous differences arise from the entrepreneurial component included in the gross rates of interest. It is this that people refer to when asserting that credit is based on trust or confidence.

習慣上是把借貸市場區分爲短期借貸市場（貨幣市場）和長期借貸市場（资本市場）。較透徹的分析甚至要更進而按照它們的持續期來把放款分類。此外，還有些關於契約上法律特徵的差異。簡言之，借貸市場不是同質的。但是，最明顯的一些差異是發生於毛利率所包含的企業成份。當人們說到「信用是基於信賴或信心」的時候，所指的就是這回事。

The connexity between all sectors of the loan market and the gross rates of interest determined on them is brought about by the inherent tendency of the net rates of interest included in these gross rates toward the final state of originary interest. With regard to this tendency, catallactic theory is free to deal with the market rate of interest as if it were a uniform phenomenon, and to abstract from the entrepreneurial component which is necessarily always included in the gross rates and from the price premium which is occasionally included.

借貸市場的所有部份和那些部份所決定的一些毛利率之間的關聯，是由「這些毛利率中，淨利率的那個趨向於原始利率的固有趨勢」而引起的。關於這個趨勢，交換理論可以把市場利率當作一個一致的現象來處理，也可把它從那必然包括在毛利率中的企業成份和那偶爾包括著的價格貼水分開。

The prices of all commodities and services are at any instant moving toward a final state. If this final state were ever to be reached, it would show in the ratio between the prices of present goods and

一切貨物和勞務的價格，任何時候都是趨向於一個最後情況的。如果這個最後情況眞的達到了，那就會在現在財和未來財之間的比率上，顯現在原始利率這個最後情況。但是，變動的經濟永久不會達到這種想像的最後情況。新的情況一再地發生，使物價的趨勢轉變方向，從原先的目標轉到一個不同的最後情況，相應這個新的最後情況的，是個不同的原始利率。原始利率並不比物價和工資率更能持久不變。

Those people whose provident action is intent upon adjusting the employment of the factors of production to the changes occurring in the data--viz., the entrepreneurs and promoters--base their calculations upon the prices, wage rates, and interest rates as determined on the market. They discover discrepancies between the present prices of the complementary factors of production and the anticipated prices of the products minus the market rate of interest, and are eager to profit from them. The role which the rate of interest plays in these deliberations of the planning businessman is obvious. It shows him how far he can go in withholding factors of production from employment for want-satisfaction in nearer periods of the future and in dedicating them to want-satisfaction in remoter periods. It shows him what period of production conforms in every concrete case to the difference which the public makes in the ratio of valuation between present goods and future goods. It prevents him from embarking upon projects the execution of which would not agree with the limited amount of capital goods provided by the saving of the public.

有些人的精明行爲，是想調整生產要素的僱用，以適應那些出現於極據方面的變動（也即企業家和發起人方面的變動），這些人是以市場所決定的物價、工資率以及利率作基礎來作計算的。他們發現，在一些輔助的生產要素的現在價格與那些減去了利率以後的產品的預期價格之間，有些差額，於是他們就想從中取利。在這樣有計畫的商人的一些深謀遠慮中，利率所扮演的角色是很明顯的。利率告訴他：可以把生產要素從滿足較近期慾望的用途中抽出多少，用以滿足較遠期的慾望。利率吿訴他：在每一實際情況下，生產期要多久才是適應大衆在現在財和未來財之間所作的評値之差。利率使他不至於著手大衆的儲蓄所提供的資本財之有限的數量所不可容許的那些計畫的實行。

It is in influencing this primordial function of the rate of interest that the driving force of money can become operative in a particular way. Cash-induced changes in the money relation can under certain circumstances affect the loan market before they affect the prices of commodities and of labor. The increase or decrease in the supply of money (in the broader sense) increases

貨幣的推動力之能以某一特殊方式成爲有效力的，是在影響利率的這種基本功用上面。現金引起的貨幣關係的變動，在某些情況下，會首先影響借貸市場，然後才影響到物價和工資。貨幣供給（廣義的）增加或減少，會使借貸市場所提出的貨幣供給增加或減少，因而降低或提高市場的毛利息，儘管原始利率沒有發生變動。如果這種情形發生，市場利率就脫離了原始利率和可用之於生產的資本財供給所要求的高度。於是，市場利率就不能完成其指導企業作決定的那個功能。這就使企業家的計算失效，而使他的行爲轉向，從那些原可以最好的方法滿足消費者最迫切慾望的行徑，轉向到不如此的行徑。

Then there is a second important fact to realize. If, other things being equal, the supply of money (in the broader sense) increases or decreases and thus brings about a general tendency for prices to rise or to drop, a positive or negative price premium would have to appear and to raise or lower the gross rate of market interest. But if such changes in the money relation affect first the loan market, they bring about just the opposite changes in the configuration of the gross market rates of interest. While a positive or negative price premium would be required to adjust the market rates of interest to the changes in the money relation, gross interest rates are in fact dropping or rising. This is the second reason why the instrumentality of the price premium cannot entirely eliminate the repercussions of cash-induced changes in the money relation upon the content of contracts concerning deferred payments. Its operation begins too late, it lags behind the changes in purchasing power, as has been shown above. Now we see that under certain circumstances the forces that push in the opposite direction manifest themselves sooner on the market than an adequate price premium.

講到這裡，有第二個重要的事實我們要認識。假若其他的一些事情不變，貨幣供給（廣義的）增加或減少，因而引起一般的物價趨向於上漲或下跌，正的或負的價格貼水就會出現，而且提昇或降低市場利息的毛率。但是，如果貨幣關係這樣的變動首先影響借貸市場，則這些變動就只引起市場毛利率結構相反的變動。一方面必須要有正的或負的價格貼水來調整市場利率使其適應貨幣關係的變動，可是事實上毛利率是在下降或上昇。這是用以解釋「爲什麼價格貼水這個工具不能完全消除現金引起的貨幣關係的變動對於延期支付的契約所發生的影響」的第二個理由。價格貼水這個工具的運作，開始得太遲，像上面所講的，它落在購買力變動之後。現在我們知道在某些情況下，那些往相反方向推動的力量之出現於市場，比價格貼水來得早些。

5. The Effects of Changes in the Money Relation Upon Originary Interest

五、貨幣關係的變動對於原始利息的影響

Like every change in the market data, changes in the money relation can possibly influence the rate of originary interest. According to the advocates of the inflationist view of history, inflation by and large tends to increase the earnings of the entrepreneurs. They reason this way: Commodity prices rise sooner and to a steeper level than wage rates. On the one hand, wage earners and salaried people, classes who spend the greater part of their income for consumption and save little, are adversely affected and must accordingly restrict their expenditures. On the other hand, the proprietary strata of the population, whose propensity to save a considerable part of their income is much greater, are favored; they do not increase their consumption in proportion, but also increase their savings. Thus in the community as a whole there arises a tendency toward an intensified accumulation of new capital. Additional investment is the corollary of the restriction of consumption imposed upon that part of the population which consumes the much greater part of the annual produce of the economic system. This forced saving lowers the rate of originary interest. It accelerates the pace of economic progress and the improvement in technological methods.

貨幣關係的一些變動，像市場資料的每一變動一樣，可能影響到原始利率。依照通貨膨脹主義者的歷史觀，通貨膨脹大都有助於企業的收入之增加。物價比工資率上漲的較快、較劇烈。一方面，靠工資、薪水過活的人們——也即收入的大部份用在消費，而很少儲蓄的階級——受到不利的影響而必須限制支出。另一方面，有產階級——也即儲蓄傾向較大的人們——得到利益：他們並不比例地增加他們的消費，而也增加他們的儲蓄。因此，就整個社會看，新的資本將有加緊累積的趨勢。由於那些消費每年產品的絕大部份的人們之不得不限制消費，額外的投資是其必然的結果。這種強迫的儲蓄降低了原始利率。它加速經濟進步和技術改進的進度。

It is true that such forced saving can originate from an inflationary movement and occasionally did originate in the past. In dealing with the effects of changes in the money relation upon the height of interest rates, one must not neglect the fact that such changes can under

重要的是要認識這樣的強迫儲蓄，會從通貨膨脹的過程中發生，實際上過去也常如此。在討論貨幣關係的一些變動對於利率高度所發生的影響的時候，我們不可忽略一個事實，即這樣的一些變動，在某些情況下會眞正改變原始利率。但是，還有一些其他的事實也要考慮到。

First one must realize that forced saving can result from inflation, but need not necessarily. It depends on the particular data of each instance of inflation whether or not the rise in wage rates lags behind the rise in commodity prices. A tendency for real wage rates to drop is not an inescapable consequence of a decline in the monetary unit's purchasing power. It could happen that nominal wage rates rise more or sooner than commodity prices.[4]

第一，我們必須了解，強迫儲蓄會因通貨膨脹而發生，但不必然如此。這要看通貨膨脹的情形是不是工資率的上漲落在物價上漲之後。實質工資率下跌的趨勢，不是貨幣單位購買力低落的一個不可避免的結果。名目工資率的上漲比物價上漲得更多更早，也是可能發生的[4]。

Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the greater propensity of the wealthier classes to save and to accumulate capital is merely a psychological and not a praxeological fact. It could happen that these people to whom the inflationary movement conveys additional proceeds do not save and invest their boon but employ it for an increase in their consumption. It is impossible to predict with the apodictic definiteness which characterizes all theorems of economics, in what way those profiting from the inflation will act. History can tell us what happened in the past. But it cannot assert that it must happen again in the future.

而且，富有階級之有較大的儲蓄和累積資本的傾向，只是個心理學上的，而非行爲學上的事實，這一點是必要記住的。在通貨膨脹過程中，得到額外收益的那些人，不把這份收益用之於儲蓄和投資，而用之於消費的增加，這也是可能的。我們不可能正確地預言，從通貨膨脹中得到利益的那些人，將如何行爲，這是經濟學的一切命題所共有的特徵。歷史會吿訴我過去發生的事情。但不能断言將來一定會發生什麼事情。

It would be a serious blunder to neglect the fact that inflation also generates forces which tend toward capital consumption. One of its consequences is that it falsifies economic calculation and accounting. It produces the phenomenon of illusory or apparent profits. If the annual depreciation quotas are determined in such a way as not to pay full regard to the fact that the replacement of worn-out equipment will require higher costs than the amount for which it was purchased in the past, they are obviously insufficient. If in selling inventories and products the whole difference between the price spent for their acquisition and the price realized in the sale is entered in the books as a surplus, the error is the same. If the rise in the prices of stocks and real estate is considered as a gain, the illusion is no less manifest. What makes people believe that inflation results in general prosperity is precisely such illusory gains. They feel lucky and become openhanded in spending and enjoying life. They embellish their homes, they build new mansions and patronize the entertainment business. In spending apparent gains, the fanciful result of false reckoning, they are consuming capital. It does not matter who these spenders are. They may be businessmen or stock jobbers. They may be wage earners whose demand for higher pay is satisfied by the easygoing employers who think that they are getting richer from

通貨膨脹也產生一些促成資本消耗的力量，如果忽略這個事賈，那就是個嚴重的大錯。其結果之一是，使經濟計算和會計歸於無效。它產生假想的或表面的利潤現象。如果每年折舊額的決定沒有充份注意到再製成本將高於過去的購買成本這個事實，則折舊額顯然是不夠的。如果在出售存貨和產品的時候，把那售得的價款和前此取得這些存貨和產品的價格之全部差額，當作盈餘記在帳上，其錯誤一樣的。如果把存貨和不動產的價格上漲看作是一項利得，也是同樣的幻覺。使得人們相信通貨膨脹的結果是普遍繁榮的，正是一些這樣的虛幻利得。有了這樣的虛幻利得，人們就覺得運氣好，因而慷慨花錢、享受生活、裝飾他們的家、添建新的寓所、資助遊樂事業。在花費那些表面利得（錯误計算的虛幻結果）的時候，他們是在消耗資本。至於這些浪費者是誰，這是不關重要的。他們也許是商人或證券經紀商。他們也許是工資勞動者，他們增加工資的要求被慷慨的僱主允許了，而那些僱主們覺得他們自己是一天比一天更富有。他們也許是些靠政府的稅收過活的人，這時的稅收課去了表面利得的大部份。

Finally, with the progress of inflation more and more people become aware of the fall in purchasing power. For those not personally engaged in business and not familiar with the conditions of the stock market, the main vehicle of saving is the accumulation of savings deposits, the purchase of bonds and life insurance. All such savings are prejudiced by inflation. Thus saving is discouraged and extravagance seems to be indicated. The ultimate reaction of the public, the "flight into real values," is a desperate attempt to salvage some debris from the ruinous breakdown. It is, viewed from the angle of capital preservation, not a remedy, but merely a poor emergency measure. It can, at best, rescue a fraction of the saver's funds.

最後，隨著通貨膨脹的進展，領會到貨幣購買力在跌落的人愈來愈多。對於那些非親身從事工商業而又不熟悉證券市場的人們，主要的儲蓄方式是增加儲蓄存款、購買債券和人壽保險。所有這些儲蓄都要被通貨膨脹傷害。因而儲蓄的意念受到挫折，奢侈浪費似乎成爲當然。大衆最後的反應——「逃避到有實値的東西」——是想從大破壞的廢墟上救去一點斷瓦殘垣而作的拚命努力。從資本保存的觀點來看，這不是一種補救，而只是一種可憐的緊急措施。至多，這只能把儲蓄者的资金救出一個零頭而已。

The main thesis of the champions of inflationism and expansionism is thus rather weak. It may be admitted that in the past inflation sometimes, but not always, resulted in forced saving and an increase in capital available. However, this does not mean that it must produce the same effects in the future too. On the contrary, one must realize that under modern conditions the forces driving toward capital consumption are more likely to prevail under inflationary conditions than those driving toward capital accumulation. At any rate, the final effect of such changes upon saving. capital, and the originary rate of interest depends upon the particular data of each instance.

由此可知，通貨膨脹主義和擴張主義的擁護者所持的主要論旨，是相當脆弱的。在過去，通貨膨脹的結果常常——但不總是——強迫儲蓄而使可用的資本爲之增加。可是，這並不是說，在將來也一定會產生同樣的結果。相反地，我們必須了解，在現代情況下，傾向於資本消耗的那些推動力，在通貨膨脹的過程中，比那些傾向於資本累積的推動力更易於形成。無論如何，這樣的一些變動，對於儲蓄、資本、和原始利率的最後影響，因每次特殊的情況而定。

The same is valid, with the necessary changes, with regard to the analogous consequences and effects of a deflationist or restrictionist movement.

這個結論，加以必要的變更以後，也適用於通貨緊縮主義或收縮主義的運動所帶來的後果。

-----------------

[4] We are dealing here with conditions on an unhampered labor market. About the arugment advanced by Lord Keynes, see below, pp. 777 and 792-793.

[4] 在這裡，我們所討論的，是個自由的勞動市場的一些情況。關於凱因斯爵士提出的議論，見第三十章第三節及第三十一章第四節。

6. The Gross Market Rate of Interest as Affected by Inflation and Credit Expansion

六、受了通貨膨脹舆信用擴張之影響的市場毛利率

Whatever the ultimate effects of an inflationary or deflationary movement upon the height of the rate of originary interest may be, there is no correspondence between them and the temporary alterations which a cash-induced change in the money relation can bring about in the gross market rate of interest. If the inflow of money and money-substitutes into the market system or the outflow from it affects the loan market first, it temporarily disarranges the congruity between the gross market rates of interest and the rate of originary interest. The market rate rises or drops on account of the decrease or increase in the amount of money offered for lending, with no correlation to changes in the originary rate of interest which in the later course of events can possibly occur from the changes in the money relation. The market rate deviates from the height determined by

不管通貨膨脹動向或通貨緊縮動向如何影響原始利率，在「這些影響」和「那些由於現金引起的貨幣關係的變動所能帶來的市場毛利率的臨時變更」之間，沒有對應的關係。如果貨幣和貨幣代用品之流入或流出市場系統，首先影響到借貸市場，那就要使市場毛利率和原始利率之間的調和陷於一時的混亂。市場利率的上昇或下降，是因爲拿出來貸放的貨幣量之減少或上昇，與那在稍後階段可能因貨幣關係的變動而發生的原始利率的一些變動，沒有對應的關係。市場利率離開了原始利率的高度所決定的那個高度，然後有些力量發生作用，而這些力量傾向於重新調整市場利率，使其適應原始利率的變動。在調整過程所需要的時期當中，原始利率的高度也可能發生變動，這種變動也會是那個使市場利率與原始利率相違的通貨膨脹或通貨緊縮的過程所促動的。於是，那個決定最後市場利率的最後原始利率，就不是混亂前夕的同樣利率。這種事件的發生，可能影響調整過程的一些資料，但不影響它的本質。

The phenomenon to be dealt with is this: The rate of originary interest is determined by the discount of future goods as against present goods. It is essentially independent of the supply of money and money-substitutes, notwithstanding the fact that changes in the supply of money and money[substitutes can indirectly affect its height. But the gross market rate of interest can be affected by changes in the money relation. A readjustment must take place. What is the nature of the process which brings it about?

我們所要討論的現象是：原始利率是決定於未來財對現在財的折扣。在本質上，它與貨幣和貨幣代用品的供給無關，儘管貨幣和貨幣代用品的供給發生變動，會間接影響到它的高度。但是，市場毛利率會受到貨幣關係之變動的影響。重新的調整一定發生。引起重新調整的過程是怎樣的性質呢？

In this section we are concerned only with inflation and credit expansion. For the sake of simplicity we assume that the whole additional amount of money and money-substitutes flows into the loan market and reaches the rest of the market only via the loans granted. This corresponds precisely to the conditions of an expansion of circulation credit.[5] Our scrutiny thus amounts to an analysis of the process caused by credit expansion.

在這一節，我們只涉及通貨膨脹和信用擴張。爲簡單起見，我們假定貨幣和貨幣代用品的全部增加量都流入借貸市場，至於流到市場的其他部份的，則只是經由已貸的貸款。這正符合流通信用之擴張的條件[5]。所以，我們的探究等於對信用擴張所引起的過程加以分析。

In dealing with this analysis, we must refer again to the price premium. It has been mentioned already that at the very beginning of a credit expansion no positive price premium arises. a price premium cannot appear until the additional supply of money (in the broader sense) has already begun to affect the prices of commodities and services. but as long as credit expansion goes on and additional quantities of fiduciary media are hurled on the loan market, there continues a pressure upon the gross market rate of interest. The gross market rate would have to rise on account of the positive price premium which, with the progress of the expansionist process, would have to rise continually. but as credit expansion goes on, the gross market rate continues to lag behind the height at which it would cover both originary interest plus the positive price premium.

在作這個分析的時候，我們又要提到價格貼水。前面已經說過，在信用擴張剛開始的時候，不發生正面的價格貼水。在貨幣（廣義的）供給的增加額已經開始影響到貨物和勞務的價格以前，價格貼水不會出現。但是，只要信用擴張繼續進展，而信用媒介的增加量在借貸市場上被圍堵住，則對市場毛利率會有一個持續的壓力。市場毛利率將因正的價格貼水而上漲，而這正的價格貼水，隨著擴張的過程而繼續上昇。但是，當信用擴張繼續進展的時候，市場利率的高度總趕不上原始利率加上正的價格貼水。

It is necessary to stress this point because it explodes the customary methods according to which people distinguish between what they consider low and high rates of interest. It is usual to take into account

這一點有強調之必要，因爲它推翻了一般人用以區分他們所認爲低利率和高利率的那些通常的方法。通常只考慮利率的算術高度或其趨勢。一般人關於「正常」利率有個定見，大概是在3%或4%之間。當市場利率漲到超過了這個高度的時候，或者當市場的一些利率——不管它們的算術上的比率——在超過它們以前的水準而上漲的時候，一般人就以爲這應該說是高的利率或上漲的利率。針對這些謬見，我們必須強調：在物價普遍上漲（貨幣單位購買力的下降）的這些情況下，這個市場毛利率可以看作是未變動的。在這個意義下，德國國家銀行在一九二三年秋季的九〇%的貼現率是一個低的利率——確是一個低得荒唐的利率——因爲它遠落在價格貼水而沒有爲市場毛利率的其他組成份留下甚麼。原來這同樣的現象出現在每次長期的信用擴張中。市場毛利率在每次擴張的過程中上漲，但是因爲上漲得趕不上預期中一般物價上漲的高度，所以它還是低的。

In analyzing the process of credit expansion, let us assume that the economic system's process of adjustment to the market data and of movement toward the establishment of final prices and interest rates is disturbed by the appearance of a new datum, namely, an additional quantity of fiduciary media offered on the loan market. At the gross market rate which prevailed on the eve of this disturbance, all those who were ready to borrow money at this rate, due allowance being made for the entrepreneurial component in each case, could borrow as much as they wanted. Additional loans can be placed only at a lower gross market rate. It does not matter whether this drop in the gross market rate expresses itself in an arithmetical drop in the percentage stipulated in the loan contracts. It could happen that the nominal interest rates remain unchanged and that the expansion manifests itself in the fact that at these rates loans are negotiated which would not have been made before on account of the height of the entrepreneurial component to be included. Such an outcome too amounts to a drop in gross market rates and brings about the same consequences.

在分析信用擴張過程的時候，我們假定：這個經濟適應市場情況而調整以及趨向於建立最後價格和利率的那個過程，被一個新的事件——即在借貸市場上提出的一項信用媒介增加量——擾亂。在流行於這個擾亂之前夕的市場毛利率下，所有準備在這個利率下借錢的人們，在考慮到每次的企業成份以後，他們想借多少就可借到多少。另外的放款只有在一個更低的市場毛利率下才可貸出。至於市場毛利率的這個下降，是否出現在借貸契約所定的百分數，這是不關重要的。名目上的一些利率仍然不變，而在這些利率下，以前因爲所包括的企業成份之高而不會貸放的款，現在也可貸放了，信用擴張就出現在這裡。這種情形是可能發生的。這也等於市場毛利率的下降，因而帶來同樣的後果。

A drop in the gross market rate of interest affects the entrepreneur's calculation concerning the chances of the profitability of projects considered. Along with the prices of the material factors of production, wage rates, and the anticipated future prices of the products,

巿場毛利率的下降，影響到企業家關於計畫中的利潤機會的計算。利率，連同物質的生產要素的價格、工資、以及預期中產品的未來價格，都是作計畫的企業家所要計算的項目。這種計算的結果，吿訴企業家某一計畫値不値得實行。它吿訴他在大衆對未來財相對於現在財的某一估値比率下，怎樣的投資才可以作。它使他的行爲符合這個估値。它敎他不要實行那些與大衆的那個估値不相符的計畫。它強迫他以最能滿足消費者最迫切慾望的方法來僱用資本財。

But now the drop in interest rates falsifies the businessman's calculation. although the amount of capital goods available did not increase, the calculation employs figures which would be utilizable only if such an increase had taken place. The result of such calculations is therefore misleading. They make some projects appear profitable and realizable which a correct calculation, based on an interest rate not manipulated by credit expansion, would have shown as unrealizable. Entrepreneurs embark upon the execution of such projects. Business activities are stimulated. A boom begins.

但是，現在利率降低使企業家的計算歸於無效。儘管可用的資本財的數量沒有增加，計算所用的數字是些只有在發生這種增加的時候才可使用的數字。所以，這樣的一些計算，其結果是會引起誤解的。有些計畫，如果用一個正確的計算——根據一個沒有受信用擴張之影響的利率而作的計算——將可知其不可實行，如用上述的計算，則使這些計畫顯得有利而可實行。於是，企業家就去實行那樣的計畫。商業活動被鼓勵起來。市面繁榮就因而開始。

The additional demand on the part of the expanding entrepreneurs tends to raise the prices of producers' goods and wage rates. With the rise in wage rates, the prices of consumers' goods rise too. Besides, the entrepreneurs are contributing a share to the rise in the prices of consumers' goods as they too, deluded by the illusory gains which their business accounts show, are ready to consume more. The general upswing in prices spreads optimism. If only the prices of producers' goods had risen and those of consumers' goods had not been affected, the entrepreneurs would have become embarrassed. They would have had doubts concerning the soundness of their plans, as the rise in costs of production would have upset their calculations. But they are reassured by the fact that the demand for consumers' goods is intensified and makes it possible to expand sales in spite of rising prices. Thus they are confident that production will pay, notwithstanding the higher costs it involves. They are resolved to go on.

擴張的企業之新增的需求把生產財的價格和工資率提高。隨著工資率的上漲，消費財的價格也上漲。此外，企業家因爲被帳上表現出來的利得所迷惑，而提高消費水準，這也有助於消費財價格的上漲。物價的一般上漲，擴展了樂觀情緒。如果只有生產財的價格上漲，而消費財的價格不受影響，企業家就會陷於困窘，於是將會懷疑他們的計畫是否健全，因爲生產成本的上漲推翻了他們的計算。但是由於消費財的需求加強了，儘管物價在上漲，銷售量的擴增，已成爲可能。這個事實又使企業家們安心。於是，他們相信生產是値得的，雖然成本較高。他們就這樣繼續前進。

Of course, in order to continue production on the enlarged scale brought about by the expansion of credit, all entrepreneurs, those who did expand their activities no less than those who produce only within the limits in which they produced previously, need additional funds as the costs of production are now higher. If the credit expansion consists merely in a single, not repeated injection of a definite

自然，爲著繼續由信用擴張而引起的大規模生產，所有的企業家都因生產成本現在較高而需要額外資金。如果信用擴張只是單獨一次的定量信用媒介流入借貸市場，而且一次以後就完全停止，不是一再流入的話，則市面繁榮就會很快終止。企業家不能得到爲進一步擴張活動而需要的資金。市場的毛利率因爲借貸市場的供不應求而上昇。物價則因爲有些企業脫售存貨和其他的一些企業家停止購買而下跌。商業活動的規模再度萎縮。繁榮之結束，因爲引起它的那些力量已不發生作用。那份增加的流通信用量，在物價和工資上面發生的影響已經吿罄。物價、工资率、以及各個人的現金握存，已就新的貨幣關係而調整；它們趨向於與這種貨幣關係相適應的最後情況，而不再受到額外的信用媒介再流入的騷擾。適合這新的市場結構的原始利率，大大地影響到市場毛利率。市場毛利率再也不受因現金引起的貨幣（廣義的）供給的騒擾。

The main deficiency of all attempts to explain the boom--viz., the general tendency to expand production and of all prices to rise--without reference to changes in the supply of money or fiduciary media, is to be seen in the fact that they disregard this circumstance. A general rise in prices can only occur if there is either a drop in the supply of all commodities or an increase in the supply of money (in the broader sense). Let us, for the sake of argument, admit for the moment that the statements of these nonmonetary explanations of the boom and the trade cycle are correct. Prices advance and business activities expand although no increase in the supply of money has occurred. Then very soon a tendency toward a drop in prices must arise, the demand for loans must increase, the gross market rates of interest must rise, and the short-lived boom comes to an end. In fact, every nonmonetary trade-cycle doctrine tacitly assumes--or ought logically to assume--that credit expansion is an attendant phenomenon of the boom.[6] It cannot help admitting that in the absence of such a credit expansion no boom could emerge and that the increase in the supply of money (in the broader sense) is a necessary condition of the general upward movement of prices. Thus on close inspection the statements of the nonmonetary explanations of cyclical fluctuations shrink to the assertion that credit expansion, while an indispensable

凡是想解釋繁榮（即擴張生產和所有物價都上漲的一般趨勢），而又不涉及貨幣或信用媒介的供給變動的一切企圖，其主要缺陷見之於這些企圖忽視了這個環境。物價的普遍上漲只有在兩種情形下發生，或者是所有的貨物供給都減少，或者是貨幣（廣義的）供給的增加。爲著便於討論，讓我們暫時承認，關於繁榮和商業循環的一些非貨幣的解釋是對的。儘管貨幣供給沒有增加，物價在上漲，商業活動在擴增。接著很快地就一定有物價跌落的趨勢發生，貸款的需求一定增加，市場毛利率一定上昇，於是，短期的繁榮就吿結束。事實上，凡每個非貨幣的商業循環論都暗中假定——或者說在邏輯上也應該假定——信用擴張是繁榮的一個附隨現象[6]。它不得不承認：在沒有這樣的信用擴張的時候，繁榮就不會發生，而且，貨幣（廣義的）供給的增加，是物價普遍上漲的一個必要條件。所以在仔細檢査以後，我們可以看出：關於循環波動的一些非貨幣的解釋，可以濃縮地說，信用擴張固然是繁榮的必要條件，但僅是它的本身尙不足以引起繁榮，還需要一些其他的條件，繁榮才會出現。

Yet, even in this restricted sense, the teachings of the nonmonetary doctrines are vain. It is evident that every expansion of credit must bring about the boom as described above. The boom-creating tendency of credit expansion can fail to come only if another factor simultaneously counterbalances its growth. If, for instance, while the banks expand credit, it is expected that the government will completely tax away the businessmen's "excess" profits or that it will stop the further progress of credit expansion as soon as "pump-priming" will have resulted in rising prices, no boom can develop. The entrepreneurs will abstain from expanding their ventures with the aid of the cheap credits offered by the banks because they cannot expect to increase their gains. It is necessary to mention this fact because it explains the failure of the New Deal's pump-priming measures and other events of the 'thirties.

可是，即令在這個限定的意義下，非貨幣論的一些敎義也是無用的。很明顯地，信用的每一擴張一定引起上述的繁榮。信用擴張創造繁榮的這個趨勢，只有其他因素對它同時發生反作用的場合才會不出現。例如，當銀行擴張信用的時候，預見政府將要把商人們的「過份」利潤課掉，或者預見政府一到了幫浦發動了物價上漲，馬上就停止信用的再擴張，繁榮也就不能發展了。企業家將不會藉助於銀行的廉價信用來擴大他們的企業，因爲他們不能指望靠此增加他們的利得了。我們之所以要講到這個事實，因爲它可以解釋「新政」的幫浦政策和三〇年代的一些其他措施之所以失敗。

The boom can last only as long as the credit expansion progresses at an ever-accelerated pace. The boom comes to an end as soon as additional quantities of fiduciary media are no longer thrown upon the loan market. But it could not last forever even if inflation and credit expansion were to go on endlessly. It would then encounter the barriers which prevent the boundless expansion of circulation credit. It would lead to the crack-up boom and the breakdown of the whole monetary system.

繁榮之能永久持續，必須信用繼續而且加速地擴張。當借貸市場再也沒有信用媒介的增加量投入的時候，繁榮就馬上停止。但是，即令通貨膨脹和信用膨脹不停地繼續下去，繁榮不會是永久持續的。它終會碰到一些防止信用無限擴張的障壁。它會走到瘋狂式的繁榮，而整個貨幣制度將隨之崩潰。

The essence of monetary theory is the cognition that cash-induced changes in the money relation affect the various prices, wage rates, and interest rates neither at the same time nor to the same extent. If this unevenness were absent, money would be neutral; changes in the money relation would not affect the structure of business, the size and direction of production in the various branches of industry, consumption, and the wealth and income of the various strata of the population. Then the gross market rate of interest too would not be affected--either temporarily or lastingly--by changes in the sphere of money and circulation credit. The fact that such changes can modify the rate of originary interest is caused by the changes which this unevenness brings about in the wealth and income of various individuals. The fact that, apart from these changes in the rate of originary interest, the gross market rate is temporarily affected is in itself a manifestation of this unevenness. If the additional quantity of money enters the economic system in such a way as to reach the loan market only at a date at which it has already made commodity prices and wage rates rise, these immediate temporary effects upon the

貨幣理論的精髓，在於認淸了現金引起的貨幣關係的變動對於各種物價、工資率，和利率之影響，旣不是同時的，也不是同程度的。如果沒有這樣的不一致，貨幣就是中立的；貨幣關係的變動，對於商業結構、工業各部門的生產規模和方向、消費、各階層的財富與所得，也就沒有影響。於是，巿場毛利率也不受貨幣和流通信用方面的變動之影響（暫時的或持久的）了。這些變動能夠變更原始利率，這是個事實。這個事實之所以發生，是由於上述的不一致，在各個人的財富與所得中，引起了一些變動。除原始利率的這些變動以外，市場毛利率臨時受到影響，這個事實的本身，就是這個不一致的一個表現。假若貨幣的增加量之流入經濟體系是這樣流入的：即，只在它已經使得物價和工資率上漲的日子，才達到借貸市場，那麼，對市場毛利率的這些立即的、暫時的影響或者輕微，或者完全沒有。貨幣或信用媒介流進的增加量到達借貸市場愈快，則市場毛利率所受的影響愈是劇烈。

When under the conditions of credit expansion the whole amount of the additional money substitutes is lent to business, production is expanded. The entrepreneurs embark either upon lateral expansion of production (viz., the expansion of production without lengthening the period of production in the individual industry) or upon longitudinal expansion (viz., the lengthening of the period of production). In either case, the additional plants require the investment of additional factors of production. But the amount of capital goods available for investment has not increased. Neither does credit expansion bring about a tendency toward a restriction of consumption. It is true, as has been pointed out above in dealing with forced saving, that in the further progress of the expansion a part of the population will be compelled to restrict its consumption. But it depends on the particular conditions of each instance of credit expansion whether this forced saving of some groups of the people will overcompensate the increase in consumption on the part of other groups and will thus result in a net increase in the total amount of saving in the whole market system. At any rate, the immediate consequence of credit expansion is a rise in consumption on the part of those wage earners whose wages have risen on account of the intensified demand for labor displayed by the expanding entrepreneurs. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the increased consumption of these wage earners favored by the inflation and the forced saving of other groups prejudiced by the inflation are equal in amount and that no change in the total amount of consumption has occurred. Then the situation is this: Production has been altered in such a way that the length of waiting time has been extended. But the demand for consumers' goods has not dropped so as to make the available supply last for a longer period. Of course, this fact results in a rise in the prices of consumers' goods and thus brings about the tendency toward forced saving. However, this rise in the prices of consumers' goods strengthens the tendency of business to expand. The entrepreneurs draw from the fact that demand and prices are rising the inference that it will pay to invest and to produce more. They go on and their intensified activities bring about a further rise in the prices of producers' goods, in wage rates, and thereby again in the prices of consumers' goods. Business booms as long as the banks are expanding credit more and more.

當信用擴張而貨幣代用品的全部增加量都供給商人們的時候，生產就隨之擴增，企業家或者從事橫的生產擴充（即在其行業中不延長生產期的生產擴充），或者從事縱的生產擴充（即延長生產期的生產擴充）。無論那一種生產擴充，都需要新增的生產要素的投資。但是，可用以投資的資本財數量未曾增加。信用擴張也沒有引起消費節約的趨勢。誠然，在前面討論強迫儲蓄的時候曾經指出，當信用擴張再進展的時候，有一部份人會被迫節約消費。但是，這種來自某些人羣的強迫儲蓄，是否足以超過其他人羣消費的增加，而在整個市場經濟中總儲蓄量有淨增加額，這就要看每次信用擴張的一些特殊情形是怎樣。無論如何，信用擴張的立即結果，是有些工資所得者的消費增加，這是因爲企業家的擴充生產，因而對工資所得者的勞動有了更大的需求，於是，他們的工資率提高，消費也就隨之增加。爲著討論方便起見，我們假定：那些受到通貨膨脹之利的工資所得者的消費增加額，與那些受到通貨膨脹之害的人們的強迫儲蓄額恰好相等，因而消費總額沒有變動。於是，情形就是這樣：生產方面有了變動，其變動是等待期的延長。但是，消費財的需求並未降到使其有效的供給維持一個較長的時期。自然，這個事實的結果是消費財的價格上漲，因而引起強迫儲蓄的趨勢。可是，消費財的價格這樣上漲，加強了商業擴展的趨勢。企業家從需求和物價上漲這個事實而推斷更多的投資和生產是値得的。於是他們前進，而他們的加緊活動促使生產財的價格和工資又進一步上漲，接著消費財又再上漲。只要銀行願意一再地擴張信用，商業就隨之繁榮。

On the eve of the credit expansion all those production processes were in operation which, under the given state of the market data, were deemed profitable. The system was moving toward a state in which all those eager to earn wages would be employed and all nonconvertible factors of production would be employed to the extent that the demand of the consumers and the available supply of nonspecific material factors and of labor would permit. A further expansion of production is possible only if the amount of capital goods is increased by additional saving, i.e., by surpluses produced and not consumed. The characteristic mark of the credit-expansion boom is that such additional capital goods have not been made available. The capital goods required for the expansion of business activities must be withdrawn from other lines of production.

在信用擴張的前夕，所有的那些生產程序，在旣定的市場情況下，都是註定有利的在運作。這個經濟正走向一個境界，即，凡是想賺取工資的人都會被僱用，而那些不可變的生產要素，會僱用到消費者的需求和非特殊化的物質要素與勞動的有效供給所可容許的程度。再進一步的擴張，只有在資本財的數量因儲蓄的增加而增加，才有可能。儲蓄的增加就是生產超過消費。信用擴張的繁榮，其特徵在於資本財沒有這樣的增加。商業活動之擴張所需要的資本財，必須從其他生產部門拉過來。

We may call p the total supply of capital goods available on the eve of the credit expansion, and g the total amount of consumers' goods which these p could, over a definite period of time, make available for consumption without prejudice to further production. Now the entrepreneurs, enticed by credit expansion, embark upon the production of an additional quantity of g3 of goods of the same kind which they already used to produce, and of a quantity of g4 of goods of a kind not produced by them before. For the production of g3 a supply of p3 of capital goods is needed, and for the production of g4 a supply of p4. But as, according to our assumptions, the amount of capital goods available has remained unaltered, the quantities p3 and p4 are lacking. It is precisely this fact that distinguishes the "artificial" boom created by credit expansion from a "normal" expansion of production which only the addition of p3 and p4 to p can bring about.

我們把信用擴張前夕的資本財總供給叫做p，把「這些p在一定的時期可以生產出來，而又不會妨礙進一步生產的消費財總量」叫做g。企業家們，誘於信用擴張，生事生產他們原已生產的同類貨物的一個增加量，我們把這個增加量叫做g3，同時也生產他們以前沒有生產過的一種貨物，我們把這種貨物的生產量叫做g4。爲著生產g3，就需要一個資本財p3的供給量，爲著生產g4，就需要一個資本財p4的供給量。但是，照我們的假定，可用的資本財其數量仍然不變，p3和p4就是缺乏的。正是這個事實，區別了信用擴張引起的「虛假的」繁榮和「正常的」生產擴張。後者只有p3和p4加在p上才會引起的。

Let us call r that amount of capital goods which, out of the gross proceeds of production over a definite period of time, must be reinvested for the replacement of those parts of p used up in the process of production. If r is employed for such replacement, one will be in a position to turn out g again in the following period of time; if r is withheld from this employment, p will be reduced by r, and p - r will turn out in the following period of time only g - a. We may further assume that the economic system affected by credit expansion is a progressing system. It produced "normally," as it were, in the period of time preceding the credit expansion a surplus of capital goods p1 + p2. If no credit expansion had intervened, p1 would have been employed for the production of an additional quantity of g1 of the kind of goods produced previously, and p2 for the production of the supply of g2 of a kind of goods not produced before. The total

經過一定的時期，必須在生產毛額當中，有某一數量的資本財是用以換置在這個時期中消耗掉的那些p；我們把這個數量的資本財叫做r。如果r是用作這樣的換置，你就可以在下個時期再生產出g來；如果r不用在這個用途，p將會因r而減少，而p-r在下個時期就只生產g-a。我們還可進而假定，受信用擴張之影饗的經濟制度，是個進步中的制度。這個制度，在信用擴張的前期可以說是「正常地」生產了一批超額的資本財p1+p2。如果沒有信用擴張的發生干擾，p1將會用來生產原已生產過的那種財貨的一個增加額g1，p2將會用來生產以前沒有生產過的那種財貨的一個供給量g2。企業家所可自由支配，而用來制定計畫的資本財總量是r+p1+p2但是，企業家受了低利貸款的騸，因而他們的行爲微是有了r+p1+p2+p3+p4可以利用，好像他們所能生產的不只是g+g1+g2，且會超過而生產出g3+g4。於是他們相互競買那批不足以實現他們太大野心的計畫之資本財，而把資本財的價格叫髙。

The ensuing boom in the prices of producers' goods may at the beginning outrun the rise in the prices of consumer's goods. It may thus bring about a tendency toward a fall in the originary rate of interest. But with further progress of the expansionist movement the rise in the prices of the consumers' goods will outstrip the rise in the prices of producers' goods. The rise in wages and salaries and the additional gains of the capitalists, entrepreneurs, and farmers, although a great part of them is merely apparent, intensify the demand for consumers' goods. There is no need to enter into a scouting of the assertion of the advocates of credit expansion that the boom can, by means of forced saving, really increase the total supply of consumers' goods. At any rate, it is certain that the intensified demand for consumers' goods affects the market at a time when the additional investments are not yet in a position to turn out their products. The gulf between the prices of present goods and those of future goods widens again. A tendency toward a rise in the rate of originary interest is substituted for the tendency toward the opposite which may have come into operation at the earlier stages of the expansion.

接著，發生於資本財價格的上漲，在開始時，也許會超過消費財價格的上漲。因此它會引起原始利率低落的趨勢。但是隨著信用擴張的繼績進展，消費財價格的上漲將會超過生產財價格的上漲。工资、薪水的上漲，资本家、企業家和農民的額外利得，儘管其中的大部份是表面上的，卻加強了消费財的需求。這裡，不必要進而檢討信用擴張的主張者所說的，這個繁榮藉強迫儲蓄而實在增加的消费財的總供給。無論如何，我們可以確信：加強了的消費財需求，在額外投資尙未生產出它們的產品時，是要影饗市場的。現在財價格與未來財價格之間的差距再度擴大。在擴張初期所會出現的原始利率下降趨勢，就被一個相反的趨勢來代替了。

This tendency toward a rise in the rate of originary interest and the emergence of a positive price premium explain some characteristics of the boom. The banks are faced with an increased demand for loans and advances on the part of business. The entrepreneurs are prepared to borrow money at higher gross rates of interest. They go on borrowing in spite of the fact that banks charge more interest. Arithmetically, the gross rates of interest are rising above their height on the eve of the expansion. Nonetheless, they lag catallactically behind the height at which they would cover originary interest plus entrepreneurial component and price premium. The banks believe that they have done all that is needed to stop "unsound" speculation when they lend on more onerous terms. They think that those critics who blame them for fanning the flames of the boom-frenzy of the market are wrong. They fail to see that in injecting more and more fiduciary media into the market they are in fact kindling the boom. It is the continuous increase in the supply of the fiduciary media that produces, feeds, and accelerates the boom. The state of the gross

原始利率上漲這個趨勢，以及正的價格貼水之出現，對於這個繁榮的某些特徵，可以提供解釋。銀行面對著工商界對貸款和墊款更大的需求。企業家準備以較高的毛利率來借款。儘管銀行收取較多的利息，他們繼纊照借。就算術上講，一些毛利率超過了擴張前夕的高度而上漲。可是，就交換學的意義講，它們落在原始利率加上企業成份和價格貼水所應有的髙度後面。那些銀行都認爲：當他們以較苛的條件放款，以停止「不健全的」投機的時候，已經做到他們所應做的一切。他們以爲，那些指责他們在市場狂熱的時候火上加油的批評者是錯誤的。他們不知道，把更多的信用媒介一再地投入市場，事實上就是給虛假的繁榮加油。產生、促進、和加速這虛假繁榮的，正是信用媒介的供給量之繼續增加。市場毛利率的情況只是信用媒介增加的結果。如果你想知道信用是否擴張，你必須注意信用媒介的供給量，而不要注意利率的高低。

It is customary to describe the boom as overinvestment. However, additional investment is only possible to the extent that there is an additional supply of capital goods available. As, apart from forced saving, the boom itself does not result in a restriction but rather in an increase in consumption, it does not procure more capital goods for new investment. The essence of the credit-expansion boom is not overinvestment, but investment in wrong lines, i.e., malinvestment. The entrepreneurs employ the available supply of r + p1 + p2 as if they were in a position to employ a supply of r + p1 + p2 + p3 + p4. They embark upon an expansion of investment on a scale for which the capital goods available do not suffice. Their projects are unrealizable on account of the insufficient supply of capital goods. They must fail sooner or later. The unavoidable end of the credit expansion makes the faults committed visible. There are plants which cannot be utilized because the plants needed for the production of the complementary factories of production are lacking; plants the products of which cannot be sold because the consumers are more intent upon purchasing other goods which, however, are not produced in sufficient quantities; plants the construction of which cannot be continued and finished because it has become obvious that they will not pay.

習慣上是把虚假的繁榮說成投資過剩。但是，額外的投資所可達到的程度，受限於可用資本財的供給增加額，除了強迫儲蓄，虛假繁榮的本身並不使消費減縮，而是使它增加，所以，虛假繁榮不會得到較多的资本財用之於新投資。信用擴張引起的繁榮，其本質不是過多的投資，而是錯誤了的行業投資。企業家們使用r+p1+p2的有效供給量，赚他們能夠使用r+p1+p2+p3+p4的有效供給量。於是，他們把投資擴張到可用的資本財不足以適應的規模。他們的計畫因爲資本財的供給之不足，而不能實現。那些計畫遲早終歸失敗。信用擴張不可避免的結果，使所犯的一些錯誤明顯地表現出來。有些廠房之所以不能使用，是因爲生產它們所需要的輔助生產要素的廠房之缺乏；有些工廠的產品資不掉，是因爲消費者更想購買別的貨物，而那些別的貨物，其產量又不足夠；有些工廠，其建設工程不能繼續到完成，是因爲那些工程已明顯地看出是不合算的。

The erroneous belief that the essential feature of the boom is overinvestment and not malinvestment is due to the habit of judging conditions merely according to what is perceptible and tangible. The observer notices only the malinvestments which are visible and fails to recognize that these establishments are malinvestments only be cause of the fact that other plants--those required for the production of the complementary factors of production and those required for the production of consumers' goods more urgently demanded by the public--are lacking. Technological conditions make it necessary to start an expansion of production by expanding first the size of the plants producing the goods of those orders which are farthest removed from the finished consumers' goods. In order to expand the production of shoes, clothes, motorcars, furniture, houses, one must begin with increasing the production of iron, steel, copper, and other such goods. In employing the supply of r + p1 + p2 which would suffice for the production of a + g1 + g2 as if it were r + p1 + p2 + p2 + p3 + p4 and would suffice for the production of a + g1 + g2 + g3 + g4,

「虛假的繁榮，其本質是過分投資而不是投資錯誤」這個謬見，是由於只就有形的、可看得出的東西來作判斷的習慣。觀察者所注意到的錯誤投資，只是一些顯而易見的，他不知道這些投資之所以錯誤，只因爲其他的一些工廠——生產那些輔助的生產要素所必要的工廠，以及生產大衆更迫切需要的那些消費財所必要的工廠——之缺乏。由於技術條件的關係，必須把生產遠離最後消費財的那些等級的財貨的工廠首先擴充。爲著擴充鞋子、衣著、汽車、家具、房子的生產，你必須先開始增加鐵、鋼、銅等等財貨的生產。在使用僅夠生產a+g1+g2的r+p1+p2這個供給量，而好像是在使用r+p1+p2+p3+p4而足以生產a+g1+g2+g3+g4，那麼，你就要首先去增加那些在技術上必要的產品和必要的建構。把全部企業家看作一個營造師，他的任務是要用有限的建材供給量造出一座建築物。如果這個人高估了這個有效供給量，則他所擬的計畫就是一個沒有足夠資料來實現的計畫。他把基礎打得太大，直到後來，在建造的過程中才發現，他完成這個建築所必要的材料不夠。很明顯地，這位營造師的錯誤不是過份投資，而是資源使用得不適當。

It is no less erroneous to believe that the events which resulted in the crisis amounted to an undue conversion of "circulating" capital into "fixed" capital. The individual entrepreneur, when faced with the credit stringency of the crises, is right in regretting that he has expended too much for an expansion of his plant and for the purchase of durable equipment; he would have been in a better situation if the funds used for these purposes were still at his disposal for the current conduct of business. However, raw materials, primary commodities, half-finished manufactures and foodstuffs are not lacking at the turning point at which the upswing turns into the depression. On the contrary, the crisis is precisely characterized by the fact that these goods are offered in such quantities as to make their prices drop sharply.

同樣的錯誤，是認爲形成這個危機的一些事情，等於把「流動」資本不適當地變成「固定」資本。企業家在遇到信用緊縮的時候，他後悔在擴充工廠和購買耐久性設備方面花的錢太多；如果用在那些方面的錢還留在手頭運用，他現在的處境就會好些。這個後悔是對的。但是，原料、農產品、半製品、食品等在商業循環開始向下轉的當兒，並不缺乏。相反地，危機的特徵正是這些財貨的供給量多到使它們的價格劇烈下降。

The foregoing statements explain why an expansion in the production facilities and the production of the heavy industries, and in the production of durable producers' goods, is the most conspicuous mark of the boom. The editors of the financial and commercial chronicles were right when--for more than a hundred years--they looked upon production figures of these industries as well as of the construction trades as an index of business fluctuations. They were only mistaken in referring to an alleged overinvestment.

以上的陳述，可以解釋爲什麼生產設備和重工業的生產，以及耐久性消費財的生產之擴充，是繁榮的最顯著標誌。一百多年以來，金融商業刊物的編者們，把這些工業和建築業的生產數字看作商業波動的指數，這是對的。他們只錯在說到所謂過份投資的時候。

Of course, the boom affects also the consumers' goods industries. They too invest more and expand their production capacity. However, the new plants and the new annexes added to the already existing plants are not always those for the products of which the demand of the public is most intense. They may well have agreed with the whole plan aiming at the production of r + g1 + g2 + g3 + g4. The failure of this oversized plan discloses their inappropriateness.

自然，繁榮也影響一些消費財的生產事業。它們也會作更多的投資以擴充生產能力。但是，那些新建的工廠以及對原有工廠的一些添建，總不是其產品爲大衆最迫切需要的工廠和添建。它們大概適合於以生產r+g1+g2+g3+g4爲目的的那整個計畫。這個過大的計畫之失敗，顯露了它們的不適當。

A sharp rise in commodity prices is not always an attending phenomenon of the boom. The increase of the quantity of fiduciary media certainly always has the potential effect of making prices rise.

物價的劇烈上漲並不總是繁榮的附隨現象。倒是信用媒介數量的增加，確有使物價上漲的影響力。但是，有時也會有相反的力量同時發生，而其強度足夠使物價上漲限之於狹隘的範圍，甚至完全了消除了物價上漲。市場經濟的順利運作一再地因擴張活動而中斷的歷史時期，是一個經濟繼續進步的時期。新資本的漸漸累積，使技術的改進成爲可能。每單位投入的產出增加了，市場上充滿了更多、更廉的財貨。如果同時的貨幣（廣義的）供給之增加比實際上的少些，則一般物價就會出現一個下跌的趨勢，歷史的事實則是：信用擴張出現的環境，每每是—些有力的因素在抵觸它提高物價的趨勢。相反力量牴觸的結果，通常總是那些引起物價上漲的因素占優勢。但是，也有些例外，即物價只些微上漲。一九二六～二九年，美國的繁榮就是最顯著的一個例子。

The essential features of a credit expansion are not affected by such a particular constellation of the market data. What induces an entrepreneur to embark upon definite projects is neither high prices nor low prices as such, but a discrepancy between the costs of production, inclusive of interest on the capital required, and the anticipated prices of the products. A lowering of the gross market rate of interest as brought about by credit expansion always has the effect of making some projects appear profitable which did not appear so before. It actuates business to employ r + p1 + p2 as if it were r + p1 + p2 + p3 + p4. It necessarily brings about a structure of investment and production activities which is at variance with the real supply of capital goods and must finally collapse. That sometimes the price changes involved are laid against a background of a general tendency toward a rise in purchasing power and do not convert this tendency into its manifest opposite but only into something which may by and large be called price stability, modifies merely some accessories of the process.

信用擴張的一些本質不受這樣的一簇市場情況之影響。促使企業家從事一定計畫的，旣不是高的物價也不是低的物價，而是一些生產成本（包括資本的利息）和那預期中的產品價格之間的差距。由於信用擴張而引起的市場毛利率的下降，總會使某些計畫顯得比以前更爲有利。這鼓勵了工商界僱用r+p1+p2好像它是r+p1+p2+p3+p4。這必然引起一個投資結構和一些生產活動，而與資本財的實際供給不相容，因而終於失敗。有時候，那些有關物價的變動是與購買力上漲的一般趨勢相反的，但是，它們並未把這個趨勢扭轉到相反的方向，只是做到通常所說的物價安定，這種情形僅僅變更了過程中的某些不關重要的事情。

However conditions may be, it is certain that no manipulations of the banks can provide the economic system with capital goods. What is needed for a sound expansion of production is additional capital goods, not money or fiduciary media. The credit expansion boom is built on the sands of banknotes and deposits. It must collapse.

不管情形怎樣，銀行的任何操作決不能爲經濟制度提供資本財，這是確定的。健全的生產擴張所需要的，是增加资本財，而不是增加貨幣或信用媒介。虚假的繁榮是建立在銀行鈔票和存款的沙灘上。那一定是要崩潰的。

The breakdown appears as soon as the banks become frightened

—到諸銀行凜於這種繁榮的加速進展而停止信用再度擴張的時候，崩潰就馬上出現。這種繁榮只能在諸銀行對所有爲實行過份擴張計畫所需要的借款都願意慷慨貸放的時候，才能繼纘下去；可是，銀行的這種作爲完全不符合生產要素供給的真實情況和消费者的評值。低利的貨幣政策助成營業計算的錯誤，而營業計算的錯誤又助成這些虛妄的計畫，這些虛妄的計畫，只有新的信用按很低的市場毛利率（不自然地低到自由市場所應達到的离度以下）就可以得到的時候才可進行。使得這些計畫似乎有利的，就是這個差額。銀行操作的變動並不創造這個危機。它只是使工商界在這種繁榮期犯了的錯誤所擴大的破壞明朗化而已。

Neither could the boom last endlessly if the banks were to cling stubbornly to their expansionist policies. Any attempt to substitute additional fiduciary media for nonexisting capital goods (namely, the quantities p3 and p4) is doomed to failure. If the credit expansion is not stopped in time, the boom turns into the crack-up boom; the flight into real values begins, and the whole monetary system founders. However, as a rule, the banks in the past have not pushed things to extremes. They have become alarmed at a date when the final catastrophe was still far away. [8]

假若諸銀行眞的把他們的擴張政策固執地推行下去，這種繁榮也不會永久延纊。凡是想把額外的信用媒介用來替代不存在的資本財（也即，p3和p3的數量）的企圆，註定是要失敗的。如果信用擴張不及時停止，這個繁榮就要變成崩潰的繁榮；逃進實値的現象於是開始，而整個貨幣制度隨之倒塌。但是，諸銀行在過去並沒有把事情弄壞到這麼極端。他們在距離最後大崩潰還遠的日子已有警覺了[7]。

As soon as the afflux of additional fiduciary media comes to an end, the airy castle of the boom collapses. The entrepreneurs must restrict their activities because they lack the funds for their continuation on the exaggerated scale. Prices drop suddenly because these distressed firms try to obtain cash by throwing inventories on the market dirt cheap. Factories are closed, the continuation of construction projects in progress is halted, workers are discharged. As on the one hand many firms badly need money in order to avoid bankruptcy, and on the other hand no firm any longer enjoys confidence, the entrepreneurial component in the gross market rate of interest jumps to an excessive height.

信用媒介一旦停止增加，空中樓閣的繁榮馬上隨著消滅。企業家必須縮減他們的活動，因爲他們缺乏資金以繼纊那些規模過大的營業計畫。物價突然下跌，因爲這些窘困的公司行號爲取得現金不得不向市場賤僙抛售他們的存貨。工廠關門，在建築中的一些工程也中途停頓，工人多被解僱。一方面，許多公司行號急於需要現金以免陷於破產，另一方面，沒有一個公司行號還可享有信賴，市場毛利率當中的企業成份，一躍而昇到非常的高度。

Accidental institutional and psychological circumstances generally turn the outbreak of the crisis into a panic. The description of these awful events can be left to the historians. It is not the task of catallactic theory to depict in detail the calamities of panicky days and weeks and to dwell upon their sometimes grotesque aspects. Economics is not interested in what is accidental and conditioned by the individual historical circumstances of each instance. Its aim is, on the contrary, to distinguish what is essential and necessary from what is merely adventitious. It is not interested in the psychological aspects of the panic, but only in the fact that a credit-expansion boom must unavoidably lead to a process which everyday speech calls the depression. It must realize that the depression is in fact the process of readjustment, of putting production activities anew in agreement with the given state of the market data: the available supply of factors of production, the valuations of the consumers, and particularly also the state of originary interest as manifested in the public's valuations.

制度上和心理上的偶然事件，常常把一個危機促發成一個大恐慌。關於這些悲慘情況的描述可以留給歷史家去做。詳細記述恐慌時日的那些災難和偶有的奇怪情形，並不是交換理論所要涉及的。經濟學與偶然事件和一些個別的歷史環境所限定的事象無關。相反地，它的目的是在把那本質必然的，與那僅屬偶然的加以區分。它不涉及恐慌的心理方面，而只涉及「信用擴張的繁榮一定要走上大家所常說的經濟蕭條這條路上去」這個事實。我們必須認識：經濟蕭條事實上是個重新調整的過程，重新調整生產活動，使其適應市場的一些旣定情況：生產要素方面可用的供給，消費者的評値，以及尤其是表現於大家評値中的原始利率的情形。

These data, however, are no longer identical with those that prevailed on the eve of the expansionist process. A good many things have changed. Forced saving and, to an even greater extent, regular voluntary saving may have provided new capital goods which were not totally squandered through malinvestment and overconsumption as induced by the boom. Changes in the wealth and income of various individuals and groups of individuals have been brought about by the unevenness inherent in every inflationary movement. Apart from any causal relation to the credit expansion, population may have changed with regard to figures and the characteristics of the individuals comprising them; technological knowledge may have advanced, demand for certain goods may have been altered. The final state to the establishment of which the market tends is no longer the same toward which it tended before the disturbances created by the credit expansion.

但是，這些情況已經不同於擴張前夕的那些情況。有許多事情已經變了。強迫的儲蓄，以及正常的意願儲蓄，可能提供一些新的資本財，而這些新的資本財是那繁榮期的錯誤投資和過份消費所未完全浪費掉的。各個人和不同的人羣間的財富與所得發生了變動，這是每次通貨膨脹不一致的波動所必然引起的，且莫說與信用擴張的任何因果關係，人口的數字可能有了變動，而個人的特質也會改變；技術知識可能進歩，對某些財貨的需求也會有變動。市場所趨向於建立的最後情況，再也不是在信用擴張所引起的動亂以前，所趨向於建立的同樣情況。

Some of the investments made in the boom period appear, when appraised with the sober judgment of the readjustment period, no longer dimmed by the illusions of the upswing, as absolutely hopeless failures. They must simply be abandoned because the current means required for their further exploitation cannot be recovered in selling their products; this "circulating" capital is more ungently needed in other branches of want-satisfaction; the proof is that it can be employed in a more profitable way in other fields. Other malinvestments offer somewhat more favorable chances. It is, of course, true that one would not have embarked upon putting capital goods into them if one had correctly calculated. The inconvertible investments made on their behalf are certainly wasted. But as they are inconvertible, a fait accompli, they present further action with

在這種繁榮時期的投資，如果就再調整期的淸醒判斷來品評（在再調整期間就不會受物價上涨的一些幻覺所迷惑），其中有些投資顯得絕無希

望，而註定要失敗。這些投資計畫必須乾脆地放棄，因爲推行這些計畫所需要的資金不能從其產品的銷售收回；這種「周轉的」資本在其他滿足慾望的生產部門，需要得更爲迫切；其證據是：它可以在其他部門以更有利的方式來使用。其他的一些錯誤投資，多少會提供一些較好的機會。自然，如果你曾經正確地計算過，你就不會把資本投到這些錯誤的途徑，這一點是不錯的。在這些途徑所作的不可轉變的投資，的確是浪費。但是，因爲它們是不可轉變——這是個旣成事實——它們就給進一歩的行爲帶來一個新問題。如果產品銷售所可得到的收入有超過營運成本的希望，則繼續經營是有利的。即使購買的人們對這些產品所願意支付的一些價格，沒有高到足以使這整個不可轉變的投資成爲有利，它們卻足以使這投資的一部份（儘管是小部份）成爲有利。其餘的投資就得視爲沒有補償的支出，視爲浪費和損失掉的資本。

If one looks at this outcome from the point of view of the consumers, the result is, of course, the same. The consumers would be better off if the illusions created by the easy-money policy had not enticed the entrepreneurs to waste scarce capital goods by investing them for the satisfaction of less urgent needs and thereby withholding them from lines of production in which they would have satisfied more urgent needs. but as things are now, they cannot but put up with what is irrevocable. They must for the time being renounce certain amenities which they could have enjoyed if the boom had not engendered malinvestment. but, on the other hand, they can find partial compensation in the fact that some enjoyments are now available to them which would have been beyond their reach if the smooth course of economics activities had not been disturbed by the orgies of the boom. It is slight compensation only, as their demand for those other things which they do not get because of inappropriate employment of capital goods is more intense than their demand for these "substitutes," as it were. But it is the only choice left to them as conditions and data are now.

如果你從消費者的觀點來看，其結果當然是一樣的。假若那些由放鬆銀根政策而引起的幻覺，未曾誘導企業家們把稀少的資本財浪費於較不迫切的需要之滿足，因而使它們不能用於生產更迫切需要的產品，則消費者的境況當更好些。但是，現在的事情旣是這樣，他們也只好忍受了。如果這繁榮沒有走向錯誤的投資，消費者當可有些更好的享受，現在，他們不得不犧牲那些享受。但是，另一方面，他們會得到部份的補償，因爲，如果經濟活動的順利進展沒有受虛假的繁榮之干擾，則消費者現在的某些享受也就享受不到了。這只是點輕微的補償而已，因爲，資本財的使用不當，而他們所沒有得到的那些東西，是他們需要得更迫切的東西。但是，現在他們只能得到這些「代替品」而別無選擇。

The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment. Some people may have increased their wealth; they did not let their reasoning be obfuscated by the mass hysteria, and took advantage in time of the opportunities offered by the mobility of the individual investor. Other individuals and groups of individuals may have been favored, without any initiative of their own, by the mere time lag between the rise in the prices of the goods they sell and those they buy. But the immense majority must foot the bill for the malinvestments and the overconsumption of the boom episode.

信用擴張的最後結果是普遍的窮困。有的人也許增加了他們的財富；他們沒有讓他們的理知迷惑於羣衆的歇斯底里（hysteria）而及時利用了有利的機會。另外還有些人或人羣，不是因爲他們自己的主動，而僅是由於他們所賣出的貨物之價格上漲，與所買進的貨物之價格上漲，其間有個時間距離，他們就因這個時差而得到利益。但是，絕大多數的人必定要爲這種繁榮期的錯誤投資和過份消費而支付代價的。

One must guard oneself against a misinterpretation of this term impoverishment. It does not necessarily mean impoverishment when compared with the conditions that prevailed on the eve of the credit expansion. Whether or not an impoverishment in this sense takes place depends on the particular data of each case; it cannot be predicated apodictically by catallactics. What catallactics has in mind when asserting that impoverishment is an unavoidable outgrowth of credit

我們切不可誤解「窮困」這個名詞。如果與擴張前夕的情況比較，那不算是窮困。這種意義的窮困是否發生，這要看各別的情形如何，我們不能憑交換學明確地斷定。交換學在說到「信用擴張的必然後果是窮困」的時候，其所說的「貧困」，是與那沒有信用擴張、沒有市面繁榮時的情況相比較而言的。在資本主義制度下，經濟史的特徵是不停的經濟進歩，是資本財的數量穩妥地增加，是一般人的生活標準不斷地趨向改善。這種進步的速度是很快的，以致在市面繁榮期中，它會超越錯誤投資和過度消費所引起的一些損失。於是，就整個經濟體系來看，在市面繁榮結束的時候，比在剛開始的時候更繁榮些；只有與那些更好的潛在可能性比較時，才顯得是窮困的。

The Alleged Absence of Depressions Under Totalitarian Management

所謂「在全盤管制下沒有蕭條」

Many socialist authors emphasize that the recurrence of economic crises and business depressions is a phenomenon inherent in the capitalist mode of production. On the other hand, they say, a socialist system is safe against this evil.

許多社會主義的著作者，強調經濟恐慌和商業蕭條的一再出現，是資本主義生產制度的一個必然現象。社會主義制度就可免於這種禍患。

As has already become obvious and will be shown later again, the cyclical fluctuations of business are not an occurrence originating in the sphere of the unhampered market, but a product of government interference with business conditions designed to lower the rate of interest below the height at which the free market would have fixed it.[9] At this point we have only to deal with the alleged stability as secured by socialist planning.

商業的循環波動，不是發源於自由市場的一個現象，而是由於政府要把利率壓低到自由市場所應有的利率水準以下，因而干擾商業所引起的結果。關於這一點，前面已經說明，以後還要講到[8]。這裡，我們只要討論所謂社會主義計畫所獲致的安定。

It is essential to realize that what makes the economic crisis emerge is the democratic process of the market. The consumers disapprove of the employment of the factors of production as effected by the entrepreneurs. They manifest their disapprobation by their conduct in buying and abstention from buying. The entrepreneurs, misled by the illusions of the artificially lowered gross market rate of interest, have failed to invest in those lines in which the most urgent needs of the public would have been satisfied in the best possible way. As soon as the credit expansion comes to an end, these faults become manifest. The attitudes of the consumers force the businessmen to adjust their activities anew to the best possible want-satisfaction. It is this process of liquidation of the faults committed in the boom and of readjustment to the wishes of the consumers which is called the depression.

使經濟恐慌出現的，是市場的民主過程，這是必須認淸的一個事實。消费者對於企業家所作的生產要素的僱用不贊成。他們的不贊成，表現於他們的行為——購買和不購買。企業家，受到壓低了的市場毛利率這個幻覺的誤導，因而沒有投資在大衆最迫切需要的生產部門。—到信用擴張停止的時候，這些錯誤就顯露出來了。消費者的態度逼得企業家重新調整他們的活動，以滿足消費者的慾望。通常所謂的蕭條，就是這個淸算的過程——淸算市面繁榮期所犯的錯誤，而就消費者的願望重新調整。

But in a socialist economy it is only the government's value judgments that count, and the people are deprived of any means of making their own value judgments prevail. A dictator does not bother about whether or not the masses approve of his decision concerning how

但是，在一個社會主義的制度下，只有政府的價値判斷是算數的，人民不容許用任何方法使自己的價値判断有效。獨裁者並不煩心於大衆是否贊成他所作的決定，把生產要素投多少於消費財的生產，投多少於资本財的生產，他獨斷獨行，毫無顧慮。如果這個獨裁者投資過多，因而削減了目前的消費財貨，人民必得餓著肚子、閉著嘴。這當然不會有恐慌發生，因爲社會主義制度所統治的人民，沒有機會宣洩他們的不滿。在完全沒有商業的地方，商業旣不會是好的，也不會是壞的。這種地方有的是饑荒，但沒有用在市場經濟問題的那種意義的蕭條。在個人沒有選擇自由的地方，他們不能反對那些指揮生產活動的人們所採的一些方法。

It is no answer to this to object that public opinion in the capitalist countries favors the policy of cheap money. The masses are misled by the assertions of the pseudo-experts that cheap money can make them prosperous at no expense whatever. They do not realize that investment can be expanded only to the extent that more capital is accumulated by saving. They are deceived by the fairy tales of monetary cranks. Yet what counts in reality is not fairy tales, but people's conduct. If men are not prepared to save more by cutting down their current consumption, the means for a substantial expansion of investment are lacking. l'hcse means cannot be provided by printing banknotes and by credit on the bank books.

如果說資本主義國的輿論是贊成低利政策的，這不是對這個問題的答覆。大衆是受了一些假專家的說詞之誤導，以爲低利政策可使他們不付任何代價而享受繁榮。他們不了解，投資的擴張只能做到儲蓄所積的資本增加的程度。他們被一些貨幣方面荒誕的神話所欺騙。在實際上算數的不是神話，而是人們的行爲。如果人們不準備減削他們目前的消費而多儲蓄一點，則擴張投資的資金就缺乏。這種資金不能靠印刷鈔票，也不能由銀行的信用放款來供給。

It is a common phenomenon that the individual in his capacity as a voter virtually contradicts his conduct on the market. Thus, for instance, he may vote for measures which will raise the price of one commodity or of all commodities, while as a buyer he wants to see these prices low. Such conflicts arise out of ignorance and error. As human nature is, they can happen. But in a social organization in which the individual is neither a voter nor a buyer, or in which voting and buying are merely a sham, they are absent.

作爲一個在政治上投票者的個人，事實上是在反對他自己在市場上的行爲，這是一個通常的現象。例如，他會投票贊成勢將提高某一貨物價格或所有貨物價格的那些措施，可是，作爲一購買者，他是希望這些價格低落的。像這樣的一些矛盾之所以發生，是由於無知和謬見。人性如此，這些矛盾自會發生。但在個人旣非政治上的投票者，也非市場上的購買者的那種社會制度下，或者說在投票和購買只是一個幌子的社會制度下，這些矛盾當然不會有。

-----------------

[5] About the "long-wave" fluctuations, see below, p. 575.

[5] 關於「長波」的動盪，見第二十章第九節。

[6] Cf. G.v. Haberler, Prosperity and Depression (new ed. League of Nations' Report, Geneva, 1939), p. 7.

[6] 參考G.v. Haberler, Prosperity and Depression (new ed. League of Nations' Report, Geneva, 1939), p. 7.

[7] Cf. M.N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Princeton, 1963).

[8] One should not fall prety to the illusion that these changes in the credit policies of the banks were caused by the bankers' and the monetary authorities' insight into the unavoidable consequences of a continued credit expansion. What induced the turn in the banks' conduct was certain institutional conditions to be dealt with further below, on pp. 796-797. Among the champions of economics some private bankers were prominent; in particular, the elaboration of the early form of the theory of business fluctuations, the Currency Theory, was for the most part an achievement of the British bankers. But the management of the central banks and the conduct of the various governments' monetary policies was as a rule entrusted to men who did not find any fault with boundless credit expansion and took offense at every criticism of their expansionist ventures.

[7] 你不可陷於這個幻覺：以爲諸銀行在信用政策上的這些轉變，是由於銀行家和貨幣當局察覺到繼續的信用擴張之必然後果。其實，促成諸銀行行爲轉變的，是我們在下面還要進一步討論的（第三十一章第六節）那些制度上的東西。在經濟學者當中，有些民間的銀行家是傑出的；尤其是早期的商業循環論——通貨理論（the Currency Theory）——是英國銀行家深思熟慮的一項大成就。但是，一些中央銀行的經營和各國政府貨幣政策的操作，通常是付託於那些不知道無限的信用擴張有何不對，而又不接受對他們的擴張政策提出的批評的那般人。

[9] Cf. below, pp. 793-795.

[8] 參考第三十一第五節。

7. The Gross Market Rate of Interest as Affected by Deflation and Credit Contraction

七、受了通貨緊縮舆信用收縮之影響的市場毛利率

We assume that in the course of a deflationary process the whole amount by which the supply of money (in the broader sense) is reduced is taken from the loan market. Then the loan market and the gross market rate of interest are affected at the very beginning of the process, at a moment at which the prices of commodities and services are not yet altered by the change going on in the money relation. We may, for instance, posit that a government aiming at deflation floats a loan and destroys the paper money borrowed. Such a procedure has been, in the last two hundred years, adopted again and again. The idea was to raise, after a prolonged period of inflationary policy, the national monetary unit to its previous metallic parity. Of course, in most cases the deflationary projects were son abandoned as their execution encountered increasing opposition and, moreover, heavily burdened the treasury. Or we may assume that the banks, frightened by their adverse experience in the crisis brought about by credit expansion, are intent upon increasing the reserves held against their liabilities and therefore restrict the amount of circulation credit. A third possibility would be that the crisis has resulted in the bankruptcy of banks which granted circulation credit and that the annihilation of the fiduciary media issued by these banks reduces the supply of credit on the loan market.

我們假定在通貨緊縮的過程中，貨幣（廣義的）供給減少的全部數量，是從借貸市場取出的。這時，借貸市場和市場毛利率在這個過程一開始的時候，就受到影響，這時，貨物與勞務的價格還沒有因貨幣關係方面的發生變動而變動。例如，我們可以假想，一個力求通貨緊縮的政府，借一筆公債，然後把借到的紙幣都銷毀掉。這種辦法在過去兩百年當中曾經一再使用過。其目的是要在一個長期的膨脹政策以後，把貨幣單位價値提高到以前的金屬平價。自然，在大多數情形下，緊縮計畫一遇到反對，尤其是一遇到國庫的負擔沉重地增加，就馬上放棄了。我們或可假想：諸銀行在信用擴張所引起的危機中，有了痛苦的經驗，力求增加它們的準備以策安全，因而限制流通信用量。第三個可能，就是那些授信的銀行終於宣吿破產，而它們所發行的信用媒介之毀滅，減低了借貸市場的信用供給量。

In these cases a temporary tendency toward a rise in the gross market rate of interest ensues. Projects which would have appeared profitable before appear so no longer. A tendency develops toward a fall in the prices of factors of production and later toward a fall in the prices of consumers' goods also. Business becomes slack. The deadlock ceases only when prices and wage rates are by and large adjusted to the new money relation. Then the loan market too adapts itself to the new state of affairs, and the gross market rate of interest is no longer disarranged by a shortage of money offered for advances.

在所有這些情形下，市場毛利率暫時傾向於上昇的趨勢隨之發生。以前顯得有利的那些計畫，再也不然了。生產要素的價格趨向於跌落，接著，消費財的價格也如此。商業變得冷淡。這種冷淡的情形只有在物價和工資率大體上適應新的貨幣關係而重新調整的時候才終止。這時，借貸市場也適應新情勢而調整，市場毛利率再也不因貸款的短缺而受干擾。由此可知，現金方面引起的市場毛利率的上昇，會產生暫時的商業停滯。通貨緊縮與信用收縮之擾亂經濟運作而爲動亂的根源，並不次於通貨膨脹與信用擴張。但是，如果把通貨緊縮與信用收縮看作僅僅是通貨膨脹與信用擴張的相對現象，那就是一大錯誤。

Expansion produces first the illusory appearance of prosperity. It is extremely popular because it seems to make the majority, even everybody, more affluent. It has an enticing quality. A special moral effort is needed to stop it. On the other hand, contraction immediately produces conditions which everybody is ready to condemn as evil. Its unpopularity is even greater than the popularity of expansion. It creates violent opposition. Very soon the political forces fighting it become irresistible.

擴張，一開始就會產生繁榮的幻覺。它是特別受歡迎的，因爲它似乎使大多數人，甚至會使每個人更爲富有，它具有誘惑性。要阻止它，必須有一種特別的精神力量。另一方面，緊縮將會立即產生每個人都要咒罵爲禍患的一些情況。它的不受歡迎更甚於擴張之受歡迎。它引起激烈的反對。那些反對的政治力量，很快地就變成不可抗拒的勢力。

Fiat money inflation and cheap loans to the government convey additional funds to the treasury; deflation depletes the treasury's vaults. Credit expansion is a boon for the banks, contraction is a forfeiture. There is a temptation in inflation and expansion and a repellent in deflation and contraction.

信用貨幣的膨脹與對政府的低利放款，是給國庫更多的資金；緊縮則是使國庫空虛。信用擴張則銀行受惠，緊縮則銀行的利益喪失。通貨膨脹與信用擴張有誘惑力，通貨緊縮與信用收縮有排拒力。

But the dissimilarity between the two opposite modes of money credit manipulation not only consists in the fact that while one of them is popular the other is universally loathed. Deflation and contraction are less likely to spread havoc than inflation and expansion not merely because they are only rarely resorted to. They are less disastrous also on account of their inherent effects. Expansion squanders scarce factors of production by malinvestment and overconsumption. If it once comes to an end, a tedious process of recovery is needed in order to wipe out the impoverishment it has left behind. But contraction produces neither malinvestment nor overconsumption. The temporary restriction in business activities that it engenders may by and large be offset by the drop in consumption on the part of discharged wage earners and the owners of the material factors of production the sales of which drop. No protracted scars are left. When the contraction comes to an end, the process of readjustment does not need to make good for losses caused by capital consumption.

但是，在貨幣與信用方面，這兩個相反的操作方式之間的不同，不僅是在於「一是受歡迎的，一是叫人討厭的」這個事實。通貨緊縮與信用收縮不像通貨膨脹與信用擴張那樣會造成大破壞，這不僅是因爲緊縮與收縮的政策很少採用。它們的壞處較小，也由於它們的一些固有的效果。擴張則因錯誤投資和過份消費而浪費有限的生產要素。如果它一且停止，則需要一個沉悶的過程來消除它遺留下來的病毒。但是，緊縮旣不引起錯誤投資，也不引發過份消費。它所引起的商業活動之一時的緊束，大體上會因那些失業工人和銷售額跌落了的物質的生產要素所有者的消費減少而對消。決沒有後患遺留下來。當緊縮結束的時候，重新調整的過程無須補償資本消耗所引起的一些損失。

Deflation and credit restriction never played a noticeable role in economic history. The outstanding examples were provided by Great Britain's return, both after the wartime inflation of the Napoleonic wars and after that of the first World War, to the prewar gold parity of the sterling. In each case Parliament and Cabinet adopted the deflationist policy without having weighed the pros and cons of the two methods open for a return to the gold standard. In the second

通貨緊縮與信用收縮從未在經濟史上扮演一個引人注目的角色。顯著的事例是，英國在拿破崙戰爭時期通貨膨脹以後和第二次世界大戰通貨膨脹以後，把幣値回復到戰前金本位的平價。在這兩次事例當中，國會與內閣採取緊縮政策，以恢復金本位，對於膨脹與緊縮這兩個方法的一些贊成論與反對論並未加以重視。在十九世紀的第二個十年當中，那是可以原諒的，因爲那時的貨幣理論，還沒有弄淸那些有關的問題。到了一百多年以後，那簡直是表現對於經濟學和經濟史的無知，這是不可原諒的[9]。

Ignorance manifests itself also in the confusion of deflation and contraction and of the process of readjustment into which every expansionist boom must lead. It depends on the institutional structure of the credit system which created the boom whether or not the crisis brings about a restriction in the amount of fiduciary media. Such a restriction may occur when the crisis results in the bankruptcy of banks granting circulation credit and the falling off is not counterpoised by a corresponding expansion on the part of the remaining banks. But it is not necessarily an attendant phenomenon of the depression; it is beyond doubt that it has not appeared in the last eighty years in Europe and that the extent to which it occurred in the United States under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has been grossly exaggerated. The dearth of credit which marks the crisis is caused not by contraction but by the abstention from further credit expansion. It hurts all enterprises--not only those which are doomed at any rate, but no less those whose business is sound and could flourish if appropriate credit were available. As the outstanding debts are not paid back, the banks lack the means to grant credits even to the most solid firms. The crisis becomes general and forces all branches of business and all firms to restrict the scope of their activities. But there is no means of avoiding these secondary consequences of the preceding boom.

無知也表現於把緊縮、收縮與那擴張性繁榮所引起的重新調整的過程弄得混淆不淸。緊急的關頭是否引起信用媒介量的收縮，那要看產生巿面繁榮的那個信用制度的結構是怎樣。當這個危機終於使那些授信的銀行宣吿破產，而其餘的銀行沒有相對的信用擴張來抵補的時候，信用媒介量的收縮就會發生。但是，這不一定是經濟蕭條的一個附隨的現象；在歐洲，最近八十年來它未曾發生過，美國在一九一三年的聯邦準備法之下，它雖然發生過，但其程度被人們大大地誇張了。顯出經濟蕭條的那種信用枯竭，不是因爲收縮而引起的，而是由於信用的不再擴張。信用的不再擴張，傷害到所有的企業——不限於那些註定要失敗的企業，就是那些本身很健全，如有適當的信用授與就可興旺的企業，也同樣受到傷害。因爲放出的款子收不回，銀行對於那些最健全的企業也缺乏資金貸放了。於是，蕭條成爲普遍的現象，使所有營業部門和所有公司行號不得不縮小它們的活動範圍。但是，我們沒有任何方法可以避免前期市面繁榮所引起的這些後果。這些是不可避免的。

As soon as the depression appears, there is a general lament over deflation and people clamor for a continuation of the expansionist policy. Now, it is true that even with no restrictions in the supply of money proper and fiduciary media available, the depression brings about a cash-induced tendency toward an increase in the purchasing power of the monetary unit. Every firm is intent upon increasing its cash holdings, and these endeavors affect the ratio between the supply of money (in the broader sense) and the demand for money (in the broader sense) for cash holding. This may be properly called deflation. But it is a serious blunder to believe that the fall in commodity prices is caused by this striving after greater cash holding. The causation is the other way around. Prices of the factors of production--both material and human--have reached an excessive height in the boom period. They must come down before business can become profitable again. The entrepreneurs enlarge their cash holding because they

蕭條的局面一旦出現，到處瀰漫著悲歎之聲，人們對緊縮抱怨而要求擴張政策的延續。這時，即令貨幣本身和信用媒介的供給量沒有收縮，蕭條也會帶來貨幣購買力傾向於上昇的趨勢。每個公司行號都力求增加它們的現金握存，而這些努力影響到貨幣供給（廣義的）和爲握存的貨幣需求（廣義的）之間的比率。這種現象宜於叫做通貨緊縮。但是，如果認爲物價的下跌是由於這種力求較多的現金握存而引起的，那就是個嚴重的大錯誤。其因果關係不是這樣的。生產要素——物質的和人力的——的價格，在市面繁榮時期已經過份高漲。這些價格必須在商業能夠再成爲有利可圖的事業以前跌下來。企業家們增加他們的現金握存，因爲在物價與工資結構還沒有適應市場的眞實情況而調整的時候，他們停止購買貨物、停止僱用工人，因而政府或工會想防止或延緩道種調整的任何企圖，只是把這個停頓的局面予以延長而已。

Even economists often failed to comprehend this concatenation. They argued thus: The structure of prices as it developed in the boom was a product of the expansionist pressure. If the further increase in fiduciary media comes to an end, the upward movement of prices and wages must stop. But, if there were no deflation, no drop in prices and wage rates could result.

甚至經濟學家們也常常不了解這個聯繋。因而他們講：市面繁榮期形成的物價結氣是擴張壓力的一個產物。如果信用媒介的再增加終於停止，則物價與工资的上漲也一定停止。但是，如果不是通貨緊縮，則物價與工資不會下跌。

This reasoning would be correct if the inflationary pressure had not affected the loan market before it had exhausted its direct effects upon commodity prices. Let us assume that a government of an isolated country issues additional paper money in order to pay doles to the citizens of moderate income. The rise in commodity prices thus brought about would disarrange production; it would tend to shift production from the consumers' goods regularly bought by the nonsubsidized groups of the nation to those which the subsidized groups are demanding. If the policy of subsidizing some groups in this way is later abandoned, the prices of the goods demanded by those formerly subsidized will drop and the prices of the goods demanded by those formerly nonsubsidized will rise more sharply. But there will be no tendency of the monetary unit's purchasing power to return to the state of the pre-inflation period. The structure of prices will be lastingly affected by the inflationary venture if the government does not withdraw from the market the additional quantity of paper money it has injected in the shape of subsidies.

如果通貨膨脹的壓力在盡其對物價的直接影響以前未曾影響到借貸市場，則這個推理是對的。讓我們假定一個孤立國的政府，爲著對低所得的公民給予津貼而增發更多的紙幣。這樣引起的物價上漲，將會干擾到生產：它趨向於使那些未受津貼的公民們通常購買的消費財之生產，轉到那些受津貼的公民們所需求的消費財之生產。如果用這種方法來津貼某些人羣的政策，後來放棄了，則以前受津貼的那些人所需求的貨物價格將會下跌，而未受津貼的那些人所需求的貨物價格將會上漲得更属害。但是，貨幣單位的購買力不會回復到通貨膨脹以前的那種情況。如果政府不把它那些以津貼的方式用出的額外紙幣，從市場上收回，則物價結構將要永遠地受通貨膨脹的影響。

Conditions are different under a credit expansion which first affects the loan market. In this case the inflationary effects are multiplied by the consequences of capital malinvestment and overconsumption. Overbidding one another in the struggle for a greater share in the limited supply of capital goods and labor, the entrepreneurs push prices to a height at which they can remain only as long as the credit expansion goes on at an accelerated pace. A sharp drop in the prices of all commodities and services is unavoidable as soon as the further inflow of additional fiduciary media stops.

如果信用擴張首先影響到借貸市場，情形就不同了。在這種情形下，通貨膨脹的影響將受錯誤投資和過份消費的影響而產生乘數效果。企業家們對於有限的資本財和勞工的競爭僱用，把它們的價格和工資抬高到只有信用擴張加速進展才可維持的那個高度。一到信用媒介不再加速增加的時候，所有貨物和勞務的價格都劇烈下降，這是不可避免的。

While the boom is in progress, there prevails a general tendency to buy as much as one can buy because a further rise in prices is anticipated. In the depression, on the other hand, people abstain from buying because they expect that prices will continue to drop. The recovery and the return to "normalcy" can only begin when prices and wage rates are so low that a sufficient number of people assume

當市面繁榮在進展中的時候，一般的趨勢，是大家盡可能地多買，因爲他們預料物價還要上漲。另一方面，在經濟蕭條的時候，大家都不購買，因爲他們預料物價還要下跌。「正常狀態」的回復，只能開始於物價和工資已低到有足夠的人數認爲不會再跌落的時候。所以，縮短蕭條時期的唯一方法，是不要限制物價和工資的下跌。

Only when the recovery begins to take shape does the change in the money relation, as effected by the increase in the quantity of fiduciary media, begin to manifest itself in the structure of prices.

只有在恢復開始實現的時候，貨幣關係的變動——因爲信用媒介的增加而引起的——才開始在價格結構中顯現出來。

The Difference Between Credit Expansion and Simple Inflation

信用擴張與單純的通貨膨脹的區別

In dealing with the consequences of credit expansion we assumed that the total amount of additional fiduciary media enters the market system via the loan market as advances to business. All that has been predicated with regard to the effects of credit expansion refers to this condition.

在討論信用擴張的一些後果時，我們是假定信用媒介的全部增加額都經由借貸市場對商業的貸款而進入市場體系。所有關於信用擴張的一些後果的陳述，都是指涉這種情形。

There are, however, instances in which the legal and technical methods of credit expansion are used for a procedure catallactically utterly different from genuine credit expansion. Political and institutional convenience sometimes makes it expedient for a government to take advantage of the facilities of banking as a substitute for issuing government fiat money. The treasury borrows from the bank, and the bank provides the funds needed by issuing additional banknotes or crediting the government on a deposit account. Legally the bank becomes the treasury's creditor. In fact the whole transaction amounts to fiat money inflation. The additional fiduciary media enter the market by way of the treasury as payment for various items of government expenditure. It is this additional government demand that incites business to expand its activities. The issuance of these newly created fiat money sums does not directly interfere with the gross market rate of interest, whatever the rate of interest may be which the government pays to the bank. They affect the loan market and the gross market rate of interest, apart from the emergence of a positive price premium, only if a part of them reaches the loan market at a time at which their effects upon commodity prices and wage rates have not yet been consummated.

但是，在有些情況下，信用擴張的法律手續和技術方法，是用在一個完全不同於眞正信用擴張的程序。政治的和制度上的考慮，有時利用銀行機構來替代政府發行法幣更爲方便。財政部向銀行借債，銀行發行額外的銀行鈔票或讓政府開立支票存款帳，以提供政府所需要的資金。從法律上講，銀行成爲財政部的債權人。事實上，這全部交易等於法幣的膨脹。這筆額外的信用媒介經由財政部供應政府各項支出而流入市場。引起工商業擴張活動的，是這份額外的政府需求。不管政府支付銀行的利率是怎樣，這些新創造的法幣數額的發行，並不直接干涉到市場毛利率。除掉價格貼水之出現以外，它們之影響借貸市場和市場毛利率，只有在一種情形才可能，即：這些新創造的法幣的一部份進到借貸市場的時候，它們對於物價和工資率的影響還沒有完成。

Such were, for example, the conditions in the United States in the second World War. Apart from the credit expansion policy, which the Administration had already adopted before the outbreak of the war, the government borrowed heavily from the commercial banks. This was technically credit expansion; essentially it was a substitute for the issuance of greenbacks. Even more complicated techniques were resorted to in other countries. Thus,for instance, the German Reich in the first World War sold bonds to the public. The Reichsbank financed these purchases by lending the greater part of the funds needed to the buyers against the same bonds as collateral. Apart from the fraction which the buyer contributed from his own funds, the role that the Bank and the public played in the whole transaction was merely formal.

例如，美國在第二次世界大戰時的情形就是這樣。除掉信用擴張政策以外（這個政策在大戰爆發以前行政當局已經採用），政府向商業銀行大量借貸。這是技術上的信用擴張；本質上它是替代綠背紙幣的發行。在許多國家還有些更複雜的技術被採用過。例如德國在第一次世界大戰時向大衆賣出公債。德意志帝國銀行向購買公債的人貸款，那些人可以用公債作抵押，借到購買公債所需要的大部份款項。除掉購買者從自己的口袋拿出的那一小部份資金以外，在這全部交易中，帝國銀行和大衆所扮演的角色只是形式上的。實質上，這額外增加的銀行鈔票也就是不兌現的紙幣。

It is important to pay heed to these facts in order not to confuse the consequences of credit expansion proper and those of government made fiat money inflation.

爲要不把信用擴張本身的一些後果與政府所幹的法幣膨脹的一些後果相混淆，必須留心這些事實。

-----------------

[10] See below, p. 784.

[9] 見第二十一章第二節。

8. The Monetary or Circulation Credit Theory of the Trade Cycle

八、貨幣的或流通信用的商業循環論

The theory of the cyclical fluctuations of business as elaborated by the British Currency School was in two respects unsatisfactory.

英國通貨學派所提出的商業循環理論，有兩點是不能叫人滿意的。

First it failed to recognize that circulation credit can be granted not only by the issue of banknotes in excess of the banks' holding of cash reserves, but also by creating bank deposits subject to check in excess of such reserves (checkbook money, deposit currency). Consequently it did not realize that deposits payable on demand can also be used as a device of credit expansion. This error is of little weight, as it can be easily amended. It is enough to stress the point that all that refers to credit expansion is valid for all varieties of credit expansion no matter whether the additional fiduciary media are banknotes or deposits. However , the teachings of the Currency School inspired British legislation designed to prevent the return of credit-expansion booms and their necessary consequence, depressions, at a time when this fundamental defect was not yet widely enough recognized. Peel's Act of 1844 and its imitations in other countries did not attain the ends sought, and this failure shook the prestige of the Currency School. The Banking School triumphed undeservedly.

第一，它沒有看出，流通信用的授與不僅是可以經由銀行鈔票超過銀行所握存的現金而發行，而且也可以靠創造超過現金準備的支票存款來授與。因而它沒有了解見票即付的存款也可用來作信用擴張的工具。這個錯誤不很重要，因爲它易於修正。這裡只要強調一點就夠了，即：凡是涉及信用擴張的討論，對於各形各色的信用擴張都有效，不管所增加的信用媒介是銀行鈔票或支票存款。但是，通貨學派的敎義激發了英國以法律防止信用擴張的市面繁榮和其必然的結果——經濟蕭條——的再出現，那時，這個基本的缺點還沒有被揭開。一八四四年的Peel條例和其他一些國家所制定一些類似條例，並未達成所追求的目的。這個失敗，動搖了通貨學派的聲望。於是，銀行學派不應該地勝利了。

The second shortcoming of the Currency Theory was more momentous. It restricted its reasoning to the problem of the external drain. It dealt only with a particular case, viz., credit expansion in one country only while there is either no credit expansion or only credit expansion to a smaller extent in other areas. This was, by and large, sufficient to explain the British crises of the first part of the nineteenth century. But it touched only the surface of the problem. The essential question was not raised at all. Nothing was done to clarify the consequences of a general expansion of credit not confined to a number of banks with a restricted clientele. The reciprocal relations between the supply of money (in the broader sense) and the rate of interest were not analyzed. The multifarious projects to lower or to abolish interest altogether by means of a banking reform were haughtily derided as quackery, but not critically dissected and refuted. The naive presumption of money's neutrality was tacitly ratified. Thus a free hand was left to all futile attempts to interpret crises and business fluctuations by means of the theory of direct exchange. Many decades passed before the spell was broken.

通貨學派的第二個缺點是更重大的。它把它的推理限之於黃金外流的問題。它只討論一個特例，即只有一國有信用擴張，而其他的一些地區，或者根本沒有信用擴張，或者只有小規模的信用擴張。這種討論，大體上足以解釋十九世紀前期英國的經濟危機。但是，它只觸及問題的表面，基本問題完全沒有提到。對於一般性的信用擴張（不限之於一些銀行對於有限顧客的信用擴張）沒有作任何解說。貨幣供給（廣義的）與利率之間的相互關係沒有分析到。想靠銀行制度的改良來降低利率或完全廢除利率的各形各色的計畫，只是受到嘲笑，卻沒有受到嚴肅的剖析和駁斥。貨幣的中立這個天眞的假定是被默認的。於是，就出現了一切用直接交換的理論來解釋經濟危機和商業波動的徒勞無功的企圖。這個迷惑在經過十年之後才被打破。

The hindrance that the monetary or circulation credit theory had to overcome was not merely theoretical error but also political bias. Public opinion is prone to see in interest nothing but a merely institutional obstacle to the expansion of production. It does not realize that the discount of future goods as against present goods is a necessary and eternal category of human action and cannot be abolished by bank manipulation. In the eyes of cranks and demagogues, interest is a product of the sinister machinations of rugged exploiters. The age-old disapprobation of interest has been fully revived by modern interventionism. It clings to the dogma that it is one of the foremost duties of good government to lower the rate of interest as far as possible or to abolish it altogether. All present-day governments are fanatically committed to an easy money policy. As has been mentioned already, the British Government has asserted that credit expansion has performed "the miracle...of turning a stone into bread." [11] A Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has declared that "final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity." [12] Many governments, universities, and institutes of economic research lavishly subsidize publications whose main purpose is to praise the blessings of unbridled credit expansion and to slander all opponents as illintentioned advocates of the selfish interests of usurers.

貨幣理論或流動信用理論所必須克服的障礙，不僅是理論上的錯誤，還有政治上的偏見。一般人心目中的利息，不是別的，只是妨害生產擴張的一個制度上的障礙。他們不了解未來財相對於現在財必須打折扣，是人的行爲的一個必要的、永恆的元範，而不能靠銀行的操作來廢除的。在幻想家和野心家的心目中，利息是由於剝削者的邪惡陰謀而產生的。古老的利息反對論，經由現代的干涉主義者而復活。它堅持：盡可能地降低利息或根本廢除利息，是善良政府的基本職責之一。所有現代的政府都狂熱的推行低利政策。前面曾經提到，英國政府說過：信用擴張曾經完成「把石頭變成麵包……的奇蹟。」[10]紐約聯邦準備銀行的一位總經理宣吿過：「每個主權國家要免於國內貨幣市場的約束，就要靠一個以現代中央銀行的那種方式來發生作用的制度，而其通貨是不能兌換黃金或其他貨物的」[11]許多政府、大學、以及經濟研究機構，對那些「以讚揚無限制的信用擴張和詆毀反對者爲重利盤剝者的發言人爲主要目的」的刊物，不惜予以慷慨的金錢補助。

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

影響經濟制度的這種波浪似的動態，導致經濟蕭條的巿面繁榮期之一再出現，是那些一再發生的、藉信用擴張來降低市場毛利率的企圖所必然引起的後果。我們沒有任何方法可用以避免信用擴張所引起的市面繁榮的最後崩潰。只是，危機的到來或遲或早而已：而前者是有意放棄信用再擴張的結果，後者是貨幣制度最後而全部的崩潰。

The only objection ever raised against the circulation credit theory is lame indeed. It has been asserted that the lowering of the gross market rate of interest below the height it would have reached on an unhampered loan market may appear not as the outcome of an intentional policy on the part of the banks or the monetary authorities but as the unintentional effect of their conservatism. Faced with a

對於流通信用理論曾經提出的這個唯一的反對論，的確是不完全的。據說，市場毛利率低落到在自由的借貸巿場所將達到的那個高度以下，可能不是銀行或貨幣當局方面有意的政策所造成的結果，而是他們保守作風無意形成的後果。這一種情況，如果讓它去的話，就會引起市場利率的上昇，諸銀行遇著這種情況而不變動它們的放款利息，因而不自主地走上擴張[12]。這些說法是不能承認的。但是，如果我們爲著辯論起見，姑且承認它們是對的，它們也毫不影響商業循環的貨幣解釋之要點。至於是些什麼特殊情形引誘一些銀行擴張信用，而把自由市場所決定的巿場毛利率壓低，那是沒有關係的事情。成爲問題的只是：銀行和金融當局受下面這個觀念的指導：自由借貸市場所決定的那個利率高度，是個罪過，善良的經濟政策是要把這個利率降低，信用擴張是達成這個目的的適當手段，而這個手段除對那些放債的寄生蟲以外，對於任何人沒有傷害。使銀行和金融當局做那些最後必然引起經濟蕭條的事情的，就是這種迷惑。

If one takes these facts into consideration one could be tempted to abstain from any discussion of the problems involved in the frame of the theory of the pure market economy and to relegate it to the analysis of interventionism, the interference of government with the market phenomena. It is beyond doubt that credit expansion is one of the primary issues of interventionism. Nevertheless the right place for the analysis of the problems involved is not in the theory of interventionism but in that of the pure market economy. For the problem we have to deal with is essentially the relation between the supply of money and the rate of interest, a problem of which the consequences of credit expansion are only a particular instance.

如果你考慮到這些事實，你就會不想對純粹巿場經濟這個理論架構所涉及的一些問題作任何討論，而去分析政府對於市場現象的干涉。信用擴張，無疑地是干涉主義的一些主要問題之一。但是，分析這些有關問題的適當處所，不是在干涉主義的理論中，而是在純粹市場經濟的理論中。因爲，我們所要討論的問題，基本上是貨幣供給與利率之間的關係。信用擴張的一些後果只是這個問題的特殊實例。

Everything that has been asserted with regard to the effects of any increase in the supply of money proper as far as this additional supply reaches the loan market at an early stage of its inflow into the market system. If the additional quantity of money increases the quantity of money offered for loans at a time when commodity prices and wage rates have not yet been completely adjusted to the change in the money relation, the effects are no different from those of a credit expansion. In analyzing the problem of credit expansion, catallactics completes the teachings of the theory of money and of interest. It implicitly demolishes the age-old errors concerning interest and explodes the fantastic plans to "abolish" interest by means of monetary or credit reform.

關於信用擴張方面所講過的每一句話，對於貨幣本身的供給量增加，都是有效的，只要這增加的供給量是在流進市場體系的早期就到達了借貸市場。也就是說，如果這個法幣增加量是在物價和工資還沒有適應貨幣關係的變動，而完全調整的時候就增加了貸放的貨幣數量，則其後果與信用擴張的後果沒有差異。在分析信用擴張問題的時候，交換學完成了貨幣與利息的理論結構。它暗中推翻了關於利息的一些古老的謬見，也摧毀了想用貨幣或信用改革的手段來「廢除」利息的那些狂熱企圖。

What differentiates credit expansion from an increase in the supply

信用擴張，與一個只使用商品貨幣而完全沒有信用媒介的經濟所可能出現的貨幣供給量之增加，是不同的。這個不同之所以發生，是由於這種貨幣供給量之增加，與其對市場各部份之發生影響，在時間上有差距。即令貴金屬的生產很快地增加，也不會有信用擴張所可增加的那個幅度。金本位對於信用擴張是一有效的限制，因爲它使銀行不能超過某一限到來擴張放款[13]。金本位本身的通貨膨脹潜力，受到金鑛開採量的變動之限制。而且，這增產的黄金只有一部份是立即流入借貸市場的。其中，大部份是首先影響物價與工資，只在通貨膨脹的後期才影響到借貸市場。

However, the continuous increase in the quantity of commodity money exercised a steady expansionist pressure on the loan market. The gross market rate of interest was, in the course of the last centuries, continually subject to the impact of an inflow of additional money into the loan market. Of course, this pressure for the last hundred and fifty years in the Anglo-Saxon countries and for the last hundred years in the countries of the European continent, was far exceeded by the effects of the synchronous development of circulation credit as granted by the banks apart from their--from time to time reiterated--straightforward endeavors to lower the gross market rate of interest by an intensified expansion of credit. Thus three tendencies toward a lowering of the gross market rate of interest were operating at the same time and strengthening one another. One was the outgrowth of the steady increase in the quantity of commodity money, the second the outgrowth of a spontaneous development of fiduciary media in banking operations, the third the fruit of intentional anti-interest policies sponsored by the authorities and approved by public opinion. It is, of course, impossible to ascertain in a quantitative way the effect of their joint operation and the contribution of each of them; an answer to such a question can only be provided by historical understanding.

但是，商品貨幣數量的繼續增加，對於借貸市場也會發生擴張的壓力。在過去幾百年當中，市場毛利率連續地受到貨幣增加量流入借貸市場的影響。當然，這種壓力，在過去一百五十年的安格魯薩克遜國家和過去一百年的歐陸國家，被當時銀行授予的流通信用的後果大大地超過。此外，那些銀行還直截了當地擴張信用，以降低市場毛利率。所以，有三個壓低巿場毛利率的趨勢同時發生作用，而且彼此間相互加強。一是商品貨幣數量繼續增加的結果，第二是信用媒介同時發展的結果，第三是官方和輿論所支持的那些反利息政策的結果。想以定量的方法來確定它們連合運作的後果，以及它們當中每一個後果，那當然是不可能的；對於這個問題的答案，只能由歷史的了解來提供。

What catallactic reasoning can show us is merely that a slight although continuous pressure on the gross market rate of interest as originating from a continuous increase in the quantity of gold, and also from a slight increase in the quantity of fiduciary media, which is not overdone and intensified by purposeful easy money policy, can be counterpoised by the forces of readjustment and accomodation inherent

交換學的推理所能吿訴我們的只是：黃金產量的繼續增加，以及信用媒介量的微微增加（不是在有意的低利政策下的那種大量增加）所引起的對市場毛利率的一個輕微而繼續的壓力，會被市場經濟固有的重新調整和適應的力量平衡。沒有受到市場以外的力量破壞的工商業的適應性，有足夠的力量可以抵銷借貸市場這樣的輕微騒動所能引起的一些後果。

Statisticians have tried to investigate long waves of business fluctuations with statistical methods. Such attempts are futile. The history of modern capitalism is a record of steady economic progress, again and again interrupted by feverish booms and their aftermath, depressions. It is generally possible to discern statistically these recurring oscillations from the general trend toward an increase in the amount of capital invested and the quantity of products turned out. It is impossible to discover any rhythmical fluctuation in the general trend itself.

統計人員想用統計方法來觀察商業波動的一些長期趨勢。這些企圖是落空的。現代資本主義史是一部穩健的經濟進步記錄，在進歩過程中一再地有熱烘烘的市面繁榮和其後果一蕭條出現，從這個投資數量和產品數量趨向於增加的一般趨勢中，用統計方法來觀察這些一再出現的波動，這大概是可能的。至於想在這一般趨勢的本身發現什麼規律性的波動，那是不可能的。

--------------

[11] See above, p. 470.

[10] 見前面第十七章第十八節。

[12] Beardsley Ruml, "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete," American Affairs, VIII (1946), 35-36.

[11] Beardsley Ruml, "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete," American Affairs, VIII (1946), 35-36.

[13] Machlup (The Stock Market, Credit and Capital Formation, p. 248) calls this conduct of banks "passive inflationism."

[12] Machlup (The Stock Market, Credit and Capital Formation, p. 248) 把銀行的這種行爲叫做「消極的通貨膨脹主義」（passive inflationism）。

[14] Cf. above, p. 475.

[13] 參考第十八章第二節。

9. The Market Economy as Affected by the Recurrence of the Trade Cycle

九、受了商業循環影響的市場經濟

The popularity of inflation and credit expansion, the ultimate source of the repeated attempts to render people prosperous by credit expansion, and thus the cause of the cyclical fluctuations of business, manifests itself clearly in the customary terminology. The boom is called good business, prosperity, and upswing. Its unavoidable aftermath, the readjustment of conditions to the real data of the market, is called crisis, slump, bad business, depression. People rebel against the insight that the disturbing element is to be seen in the malinvestment and the overconsumption of the boom period and that such an artificially induced boom is doomed. They are looking for the philosophers' stone to make it last.

通貨膨脹和信用擴張之受歡迎，想以信用擴張使人們富足這種企圖的最後根源，以及商業循環波動的原因，出現在習慣的用語上。人們慣於把市面的忽然興旺叫做生意好、繁榮、向上。把那不可避免的後果——適應市場的實際情況而重新調整——叫做危機、消沉、生意壞、蕭條。人們拒絕了解：市面興旺期的錯誤投資和過份消費，是促成波動的因素，而這樣人爲的市面興旺，終歸是要崩潰的。他們卻想用仙術使它永久持續下去。

It has been pointed out already in what respect we are free to call an improvement in the quality and an increase in the quantity of products economic progress. If we apply this yardstick to the various phases of the cyclical fluctuations of business, we must call the boom retrogression and the depression progress. The boom squanders through malinvestment scarce factors of production and reduces the stock available through overconsumption; its alleged blessings are paid for by impoverishment. The depression, on the other hand, is the way back to a state of affairs in which all factors of production are employed for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers.

關於這一點，我們在直率地把產品的質量改進和數量增加叫做經濟進步的時候曾經指出。如果我們把這個碼尺用於商業循環的各個階段，我們應該把市面的忽然興旺叫做退步，把蕭條叫做進步。市面興旺是經由錯誤投資而浪費稀少的生產要素，同時，也經由過度消費而減少了物資的存量；它的所謂利益是以窮困作代價的。相反地，蕭條是個回頭走的路，走向所有的生產要素都用在使消費者最迫切的慾望得到最大滿足的境界。

Desperate attempts have been made to find in the boom some positive contribution to economic progress. Stress has been laid upon the role forced saving plays in fostering capital accumulation. The argument is vain. It has been shown already that it is very questionable

有人竭力想從市面興旺當中，找出它對經濟進歩的積極貢獻。他們曾強調，強迫儲蓄有促進資本累積的功用。這個議論是白費的。我們曾經說過，強迫儲蓄能否補償市面興旺所引起的資本消耗之一部份，是很可疑的。如果那些推崇強迫儲蓄的所謂有利後果的人們保持一貫的想法，他們就應當提倡一種對中級所得者課稅，而用這稅款來津貼富人的財政制度。用這種方法所做到的強迫儲蓄，將會使可用的資本量淨額增加，而又不同時引起更大規模的资本消耗。

Advocates of credit expansion have furthermore emphasized that some of the malinvestments made in the boom later become profitable. These investments, they say, were made too early, i.e., at a date when the state of the supply of capital goods and the valuations of the consumers did not yet allow their construction. However, the havoc caused was not too bad, as these projects would have been executed anyway at a later date. It may be admitted that this description is adequate with regard to some instances of malinvestment induced by a boom. But nobody would dare to assert that the statement is correct with regard to all projects whose execution has been encouraged by the illusions created by the easy money policy. However this may be, it cannot influence the consequences of the boom and cannot undo or deaden the ensuing depression. The effects of the malinvestment appear without regard to whether or not these malinvestments will appear as sound investments at a later time under changed conditions. When, in 1845, a railroad was constructed in England which would not have been constructed in the absence of credit expansion, conditions in the following years were not affected by the prospect that in 1870 or 1880 the capital goods required for its construction would be available. The gain which later resulted from the fact that the railroad concerned did not have to be built by a fresh expenditure of capital and labor, was in 1847 no compensation for the losses incurred by its premature construction.

信用擴張的主張者又強調：市面興旺期的錯誤授資，有些到後來變成了有利的投資。他們說，這些投資投得太早，也即是說，投在資本財的供給情形和消费者的評値還沒有容許這些投资的時候。但是，所引起的破壞並不太大，因爲這些計畫無論如何在稍後的時期是要實施的。這個說法，就市面興旺所引起的錯誤投資的某些事例來講，我們可以承認是對的。但是，誰也不敢斷言，凡是受低利政策形成的幻覺的鼓勵而付諸實行的一切計畫，都適用這個說法。不管怎樣，這個說法毫不影響市面興旺的一些後果，也不能取消接著來的經濟蕭條。錯誤投資的後果之出現，無關乎這些錯誤投資在後來的不同環境下是否變成健全的投資。當一八四五年，鐵路在英國建築的時候——如果不是信用擴張是不會建築的——隨後幾年的情況並沒有受到「在一八七〇或一八八〇年這項建築所需求的資本財將可供應無缺」這個展望的影響。後來，從「這條鐵路並未靠資本和勞力的新耗費而建築起來的」這個事實，而得到的利益，在一八四七年，對於過早建築所惹起的損失沒有補償。

The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration. The individual is always ready to ascribe his good luck to his own efficiency and to take it as a well-deserved reward for his talent, application, and probity. But reverses of fortune he always charges to other people, and most of all to the absurdity of social and political institutions. He does not blame the authorities for having fostered the boom. He reviles them for the inevitable collapse. In the opinion of the public, more inflation and more credit expansion are the only remedy

市面興旺產生貧乏。更壞的是招致精神頹喪。它使人們心灰意冷。在巿面興旺的虛幻繁榮下，愈是樂觀的人，他們的沮喪心情和受了委屈的感覺愈大。人，總是喜歡把他的好運歸之於他自己的效率，而把它看作他的才幹和品德所應有的報酬。但是，到了運氣轉壞了時，就總是责怪別人，大多數是責怪社會和政治制度的荒謬。他從不指責原先促成市面興旺的那些當局。在輿論方面，通貨的更膨脹和信用的更擴張，是補救通貨膨脹和信用擴張所惹出的禍患。

Here, they say, are plants and farms whose capacity to produce is either not used at all or not to its full extent. Here are piles of unsalable commodities and hosts of unemployed workers. But here are also masses of people who would be lucky if they only could satisfy their wants more amply. All that is lacking is credit. Additional credit would enable the entrepreneurs to resume or to expand production. The unemployed would find jobs again and could buy the products. This reasoning seems plausible. Nonetheless it is utterly wrong.

他們說，這裡有些工廠農場，而其生產能力或者完全沒有利用，或者利用得不夠充份。這裡有堆積如山的貨物賣不掉，有許許多多的工人失業。但是，這裡也有許多人應該是幸運的，如果他們的慾望有較多的滿足。所缺乏的只是信用。更多的信用就會使企業家們能恢復生產或擴大生產。失業的工人會找到職業而能購買一些產品。這個理論似乎很有理。然而，它是完全錯誤的。

If commodities cannot be sold and workers cannot find jobs, the reason can only be that the prices and wages asked are too high. He who wants to sell his inventories or his capacity to work must reduce his demand until he finds a buyer. Such is the law of the market. Such is the device by means of which the market directs every individual's activities into those lines in which they can best contribute to the satisfaction of the wants of the consumers. The malinvestments of the boom have misplaced inconvertible factors of production in some lines at the expense of other lines in which they were more urgently needed. There is disproportion in the allocation of nonconvertible factors to the various branches of industry. This disproportion can be remedied only by the accumulation of new capital and its employment in those branches in which it is most urgently required. This is a slow process. While it is in progress, it is impossible to utilize fully the productive capacity of some plants for which the complementary production facilities are lacking.

如果貨物賣不掉，工人找不著職業，其理由只是他們要求的物價和工資太高。凡是想賣掉他的存貨或賣出他的勞力的人，必須降低他的要求，直到找到一個買主爲止。這是市場法則。靠這個法則，巿場指揮每個人的活動，使其活動的途徑封於消費者的慾望之滿足最有貢獻。市面興旺期的錯誤投資，把一些不可轉換的生產要素放錯了地方，以致犧牲了消費者更迫切需要的生產。那些不可轉換的生產要素，在各種生產部門間配置得不勻稱。這種不勻稱之糾正，只有靠新資本的累積，以及把它用之於最迫切需要的那些部門。這是一個緩慢的進歩。這是在進步中，但是，我們卻不可能充份利用那些缺乏補助性的生產設備的工廠之生產能力。

It is vain to object that there is also unused capacity of plants turning out goods whose specific character is low. The slack in the sale of these goods, it is said, cannot be explained by disproportionality ion the capital equipment of various branches; they can be used and are needed for many different employments. This too is an error. If steel and iron works, copper mines, and sawmills cannot be operated to their full capacity, the reason can only be that there are not enough buyers on the market ready to purchase their whole output at prices which cover the costs of their current exploitation. As the variable costs can merely consist in prices of other products and in wages, and as the same valid with regard to the prices of these other products, this always means that wage rates are too high to provide all those eager to work with jobs and to employ the inconvertible equipment to the full limits drawn by the requirement that nonspecific capital goods and labor should not be withdrawn from employments in which they fill more urgent needs.

有些工廠的生產品，其特徵是很少的，這種工廠的生產力也有的未被利用。有人說，這些產品的賣不掉，不能用「資本設備在各部門間配置得不勻稱」這個理由來解釋。這個說法也是一個錯誤。如果鋼鐵廠、銅鑛廠、鋸木廠不能充份運用它們的生產力，其理由只能是：在市場上沒有足夠的買者願意在足敷成本的價格下購買它們的全部產品。因爲變動成本只能依存於其他產品的價格和工具，而且因爲這些其他產品的價格也如此，所以上面那句話的涵義也包括工資太高，以致不能讓所有急於找工作的人都有職業，也不能把那些不可轉換的生產設備充份利用，這裡所說的「充份」，其限度是，那些「與不可轉換的生產設備相配合的非特殊的資本財和勞動」不至於從更需要的用途轉移出來。

Out of the collapse of the boom there is only one way back to a state of affairs in which progressive accumulation of capital safeguards a steady improvement of material well-being: new saving must accumulate the capital goods needed for a harmonious equipment of all branches of production with the capital required. One must provide the capital goods lacking in those branches which were unduly neglected in the boom. Wage rates must drop; people must restrict their consumption temporarily until the capital wasted by malinvestment is restored. Those who dislike these hardships of the readjustment period must abstain in time from credit expansion.

要想從市面繁榮的崩潰回復到「資本的繼續累積保證了物質福利穩健改進」的那種情況，只有一個方法：新的儲蓄必須足以構成一些資本財，以適應所有生產部門的適當需要。那些在市面繁榮期被忽視，因而缺乏資本財的生產部門必須供給它們。工資率必須降低，人們必須暫時削減他們的消費，等到那些因錯誤投資而浪費掉的資本恢復的時候爲止。凡是不喜歡重新調整期的這些困苦的人們，應該及時停止信用擴張。

There is no use in interfering by means of a new credit expansion with the process of readjustment. This would at best only interrupt, disturb, and prolong the curative process of the depression, if not bring about a new boom with all its inevitable consequences.

至於想用新的信用擴張來重新調整，那是沒有用的。這種辦法如果不是引起一個新的市面繁榮而帶來所有的必然後果，那就是對蕭條的矯枉過程加以干擾，使它中斷，使它延緩而已。

The process of readjustment, even in the absence of any new credit expansion, is delayed by the psychological effects of disappointment and frustration. People are slow to free themselves from the self-deception of delusive prosperity. Businessmen try to continue unprofitable projects; they shut their eyes to an insight that hurts. The workers delay reducing their claims to the level required by the state of the market; they want, if possible, to avoid lowering their standard of living and changing their occupation and their dwelling place. People are the more discouraged the greater their optimism was in the days of the upswing. They have for the moment lost self-confidence and the spirit of enterprise to such an extent that they even fail to take advantage of good opportunities. But the worst is that people are incorrigible. After a few years they embark anew upon credit expansion, and the old story repeats itself.

即令沒有新的信用擴張，重新調整的過程也會受失望和沮喪的心理影響而延緩。人們不會輕易地從虛幻繁榮的自欺中淸醒過來。工商界的人士還想繼續那些沒有實質利益的營業計畫；他們對於不樂意的事實閉目不看。工人們不願意及時降低他們的工資要求，以符市場所決定的水準：如果可能的話，他們還想避免降低他們的生活水準，避免改變行業和遷移地址。在市面繁榮期愈是樂觀的人，沮喪的心情愈重，他們失掉了自信心和企業精神，以致即令有好的機會，他們也不能利用了。過了幾年以後，他們又開始信用擴張，老故事又重演。

The Role Played by Unemployed Factors of Production in the First Stages of a Boom

失業的生產要素在市面繁榮期第一階段發生的作用

There are in the changing economy always unsold inventories (exceeding those quantities which for technical reasons must be kept in stock), unemployed workers, and unused capacity of inconvertible production facilities. The system is moving toward a state in which there will be neither unemployed workers nor surplus inventories.[15] But as the appearance of new data continually diverts the course toward a new goal, the conditions of the evenly rotating economy are never realized.

在變動中的經濟總是有些未賈掉的存貨（超出因爲技術的理由所必須保持的存量）、有些失業的工人，以及未使用的、不能轉換的生產設備。這個經濟制度是趨向於旣無失業工人，也無過剩存貨那種境界的[14]。但是，由於一些發生牽制作用的新情況之出現，均勻輪轉的經濟境界永久不會實現。

The presence of unused capacity of inconvertible investments is an outgrowth of errors committed in the past. The assumptions made by the investors were, as later events proved, not correct; the market asks more intensively for other goods than for those which these plants can turn out. The piling up of excessive inventories and the catallactic unemployment of workers are speculative. The owner of the stock refuses to sell at the market price because he hopes to obtain a higher price at a later date. The unemployed worker refuses to change his occupation or his residence or the content himself with lower pay because he hopes to obtain at a later date a job with higher pay in the place of his residence and in the branch of business he likes best. Both hesitate to adjust their claims to the present situation of the market because they wait for a change in the data which will alter conditions to their advantage. Their hesitation is one of the reasons why the system has not yet adjusted itself to the conditions of the market.

不可轉換的投資，其生產力之未被利用，是由於過去所犯的錯誤。投資者所作的假定，經後來的事實證明，是不對的；市場更急於需要的東西，不是這些工廠所生產的。過剩的存貨堆積和工人們在這種情形下的失業，都是投機性的。存貨的所有者拒絕在市場價格下出賣，因爲他希望回復可賣較高的價格。失業的工人拒絕改變他的行業或住址，或者寧可接受較低的工資，因爲他希望日後在他所住的地方和他最喜歡的部門找到工資較高的職業。存貨的所有者和工人，雙方都不及時調整他們的行爲，以適應當時的市場情況，因爲他們要等待情況轉變，變得有利於他們。他們的猶疑，是這個制度未曾達到均勻輪轉經濟的一些理由之一。

The advocates of credit expansion argue that what is wanted is more fiduciary media. Then the plants will work at full capacity the inventories will be sold at prices their owners consider satisfactory, and the unemployed will get jobs at wages they consider satisfactory. This very popular doctrine implies that the rise in prices, brought about by the additional fiduciary media, would at the same time and to the same extent affect all other commodities and services, while the owners of the excessive inventories and the unemployed workers would content themselves with those nominal prices and wages they are asking--in vain, or course--today. For if this were to happen, the real prices and the real wage rates obtained by these owners of unsold inventories and unemployed workers would drop--in proportion to the prices of other commodities and services--to the height to which they must drop in order to find buyers and employers.

信用擴張的主張者辯稱：我們所需要的是更多的信用媒介。有了更多的信用媒介，工廠就可充份發揮生產力，存貨就可在它的主人認爲滿意的價格下賣掉，失業的工人就可找到他們認爲工资滿意的職業。這個非常有名的議論意涵：由於增加了的信用媒介而引起的價格上漲，將會同時、而且同程度影饗到所有其他的貨物和勞動，同時，過剩存貨的所有者和失業工人們，將會滿足於他們所要求的名義上的價格和工資——這自然是妄想。因爲如果眞的出現這種情況的話，則這些未賣掉的存貨的主人們和失業的工人們，所取得的實質價格和實質工資率就會降低（比例於其他貨物和勞動的價格）到爲找到買主和僱主所必須降低的那種程度。

The course of the boom is not substantially affected by the fact that at its eve there are unused capacity, unsold surplus inventories, and unemployed workers. Let us assume that there are unused facilities for the mining of copper, unsold piles of copper, and unemployed workers of copper mines. The price of copper is at a level at which mining dies not pay for some mines; their workers are discharged; there are speculators who abstain from selling their stocks. What is needed in order to make these mines profitable again, to give jobs to the unemployed, and to sell the piles without forcing prices down below costs of production, is an increment p in the amount of capital goods available large enough to make possible such an increase in investment and in the size of production and consumption that an adequate rise in the demand for copper ensues. If, however, this increment p does not appear and the entrepreneurs, deceived by the credit expansion, nevertheless act as if p had really been available, conditions on the copper market, while the boom lasts, are as if p had really been added to the amount of capital goods available. But everything that has been predicated about the inevitable consequences of credit expansion fits this case too. The only difference is that, as far as copper is concerned, the inappropriate expansion of production need not be achieved by the withdrawal of capital and labor from employments in which they would better have filled the wants of the consumers. As far as copper is concerned, the new boom encounters a piece of malinvestment of capital and malemployment of labor already effected in a previous boom, which the process of readjustment has not yet absorbed.

在市面繁榮的前夕，有些未利用的生產力，有些未賣掉的過剩存貨，有些失業工人，這個事實對於市面繁榮的過程沒有什麼重要的影響。我們假設：銅鑛的生產設備有些未利用的，銅的存貨有些未賣掉，銅鑛工人有些是失業的。銅的價格低到有些銅鑛不値得開採的水準；它們的工人被解僱了；有些投機者不出賣他們的存貨。爲使這些銅鑛再有利可圇，爲使失業者有職業，以及爲了寶掉那些堆積的存貨而不至於把價格壓低到不夠成本的程度，所必要作的事情，是增加资本財供給量p，使投资方面以及生產和消费方面可能增加到引起對於銅的需求之相當上昇。但是，如果p的這種增加沒有實現，而企業家在信用擴張的幻覺下所作所爲儼如p已經眞的實現了，則銅市場的一些情況，在市場繁榮持績的時期當中，就好像p已經眞的增加在可使用的資本財的數量中。但是，凡是關於信用擴張的那些必然後果所已經講過的一切一切，也都適合這種情形。唯一不同的是：就銅來講，不適當的生產擴張不一定要靠把資本和勞力從那些能滿足消費者更迫切需要的部門拉過來。就銅的事例來講，新的市面繁榮，遭遇著以前的市面繁榮所已引起的資本的誤投和勞力的錯誤僱用，而這些錯誤還沒有在重新調整的過程中調整過來。

Thus it becomes obvious how vain it is to justify a new credit expansion by referring to unused capacity, unsold--or, as people say incorrectly, "unsalable"--stocks, and unemployed workers. The beginning of a new credit expansion runs across remainders of preceding malinvestment and malemployment, not yet obliterated in the course of the readjustment process, and seemingly remedies the faults involved. In fact, however, this is merely an interruption of the process of readjustment and of the return to sound conditions.[16] The existence of unused capacity and unemployment is not a valid argument against the correctness of the circulation credit theory. The belief of the advocates of credit expansion and inflation that abstention from further credit expansion and inflation would perpetuate the depression is utterly false. The remedies these authors suggest would not make the boom last forever. They would merely upset the process of recovery.

由此可知：想以未利用的生產力，未賈掉的——或者用一般人不正確的說法「賣不掉的」——存貨，和失業的工人爲理由，認爲應該有個新的信用擴張，這很明顯的是個妄想。新的信用擴張開始時遇到—些在重新調整的過程中尙未消除掉的以前的錯誤投資和錯誤僱用遺留下來的事象，在表面上，新的信用擴張似乎會補救這些有關的過失。但是，事實上這只是重新調整的過程和回復到健全情況的過程之中斷[15]。未利用的生產力和失業工人，不是一個作爲反對流通信用說的正確性的有效理由。信用擴張和通貨膨脹的主張者，認爲如不再度信用擴張和通貨膨脹，就會使經濟蕭條長期持續下來。這個信念是完全錯誤的。這些著作者所建議的補救方法，不會使市面繁榮長期維持住。它們只是攪亂了恢復的過程。

The Fallacies of the Nonmonetary Explanations of the Trade Cycle

對於痛業循環給以非貨幣的解釋之謬誤

In dealing with the futile attempts to explain the cyclical fluctuations of business by a nonmonetary doctrine, on point must first of all be stressed which has hitherto been unduly neglected.

凡想用非貨幣的理論來解釋景氣的循環波動，都是些無益的企圖。在討論這些企圖的時候，首先要特別強調一點，這一點從未得到應有的注意：

There were schools of thought for whom interest was merely a price paid for obtaining the disposition of a quantity of money or money substitutes. From this belief they quite logically drew the inference that abolishing the scarcity of money and money-substitutes would abolish interest altogether and result in the gratuitousness of credit. If, however, one does not endorse this view and comprehends the nature of originary interest, a problem presents itself the treatment of which one must not evade. An additional supply of credit, brought about by an increase in the quantity of money or fiduciary media, has certainly the power to lower the gross market rate of interest. If interest is not merely a monetary phenomenon and consequently cannot be lastingly lowered or brushed away by any increase, however large, in the supply of money and fiduciary media, it devolves upon economics to show how the height of the rate of interest conforming to the state of the market's nonmonetary data reestablishes itself. It must explain

有些思想派別，認爲利息只是取得某一數量的貨幣或貨幣代替品使用權的代價。從這個信念，他們就邏輯地得到這樣一個結論：把貨幣和貨幣代替品的稀少性消滅掉，也就消滅了利息，其結果就是信用的無償授與。但是，如果你不贊成這個意見，並且了解原始利息的性質，那就出現了一個你所不能不處理的問題。由於貨幣或信用媒介的數量之增加而引起的信用供給量的增加，確有降低市場毛利率的力量。如果利息不僅是一個貨幣現象，因而不能因貨幣和信用媒介的供給量之增加（無論增加得多麼大）而永久降低或歸於消滅，那麼，「適應市場上非貨幣的情況的那個利率高度，將如何自動地建立起來」這個問題的說明，其責任就落在經濟學方面。經濟學必須解釋，怎樣的過程會使現金引起市場利率不至於違離人們對於現在財與未來財評値的比率。如果經濟學對於這個問題不能解答，它就無異於承認利息是一貨幣現象，在貨幣關係的變動過程中，甚至會完全消失。

For the nonmonetary explanations of the trade cycle the experience that there are recurrent depressions is the primary thing. Their champions first do not see in their scheme of the sequence of economic events any clue which could suggest a satisfactory interpretation of these enigmatic disorders. They desperately search for a makeshift in order to patch it onto their teachings as an alleged cycle theory.

對於商業循環的那些非貨幣解釋來講，「經濟蕭條一再發生」這個經驗是主要的事情。那些解釋的主張者，首先沒有在他們的經濟事象關係圖型裡面看出可以對這些謎似的混亂提供一個滿意解答的任何線索來。他們爲著把這個經驗在他們的敎義下彌縫起來，作爲一個所謂確實的循環理論，而拚命地尋求權宜的辦法。

The case is different with the monetary or circulation credit theory. Modern monetary theory has finally cleared away all notions of an alleged neutrality of money. It has proved irrefutably that there are in the market economy factors operating about which a doctrine ignorant of the driving force of money has nothing to say. The catallactic system that involves the knowledge of money's non-neutrality and driving force presses the questions of how changes in the money relation affect the rate of interest first in the short run and later in the long run. The system would be defective if it could not answer these questions. It would be contradictory if it were to provide an answer which would not simultaneously explain the cyclical fluctuations of trade. Even if there had never been such things as fiduciary media and circulation credit, modern catallactics would have been forced to raise the problem concerning the relations between changes in the money relation and the rate of interest.

貨幣的或流通信用的理論，就不同了。現代貨幣理論終於淸除了所謂貨幣中立的一切想法。它已確切證明，在市場裡面有些發生作用的經濟要素；一個忽略貨幣推動力的學說，關於這些要素就沒有什麼可說的了。包含著貨幣非中立而有它的推動力這個知識的交換論體系，特別強調「貨幣關係的一些變動，如何首先影響短期利率，後來又影響長期利率」這一些問題。這個理論體系如不能解答這些問題，它就是有缺陷的。如果它所能提供的解答沒有同時解釋商業的循環波動，它是矛盾的。即令沒有信用媒介和流通信用這類東西，現代交換理論也不得不提出「關於貨幣關係的變動與利率之間的一些關係」這個問題。

It has been mentioned already that every nonmonetary explanation of the cycle is bound to admit that an increase in the quantity of money or fiduciary media is an indispensable condition of the emergence of a boom. It is obvious that a general tendency of prices to rise which is not caused by a general drop in production and in the supply of commodities offered for sale, cannot appear if the supply of money (in the broader sense) has not increased. Now we can see that those fighting the monetary explanation are also forced to resort to the theory they slander for a second reason. For this theory alone answers the question of how an inflow of additional money and fiduciary media affects the loan market and the market rate of interest. Only those for whom interest is merely the outgrowth of an institutionally conditioned scarcity of money can dispense with an implicit acknowledgment of the circulation credit theory of the cycle. This explains why no critic has ever advanced any tenable objection against this theory.

凡是對於循環的非貨幣解釋，都要承認貨幣或信用媒介的數量增加，是巿面繁榮的一個必要條件。這一點在前面已經提到。很明顯的，凡不是由於生產和貨物供給量的普遍跌落而引起的物價上漲的一般趨勢，如果貨幣（廣義的）供給量未曾增加，就不會出現。現在我們會看到，那些反對貨幣解釋的人們，因爲一個其他的理由，也不得不求助於他們所詆毀的理論。因爲只有這個理論會解答「額外的貨幣和信用媒介的流入如何影響借貸市場和市場利率」這個問題。只有那些認爲利息僅是貨幣稀少性的結果的人們，才會不要承認商業循環的流通信用論。這可以解釋爲什麼從來沒有一個批評者對於這個理論提出任何站得住的反對。

The fanaticism with which the supporters of all these nonmonetary doctrines refuse to acknowledge their errors is, of course, a display of

所有這些非貨幣論的支持者，拒絕承認他們的錯誤時所表現的那股狂熱，自然是政治偏見的一個展示。馬克斯主義的信徒們有把商業危機解釋爲資本主義固有的罪惡，解釋爲資本主義「無政府狀態的」生產之必然結果[16]。非馬克斯的社會主義者和干涉主義者，也同樣地急於論證市場經濟不能避免經濟蕭條之一再出現。因爲，今天通貨和信用的操縱，是一些反資本主義的政府爲建立萬能的統治權而採用的主要手段，所以他們更熱心於攻擊貨幣理論[17]。

The attempts to connect business depressions with cosmic influences, the most remarkable of which was William Stanley Jevons' sunspot theory, failed utterly. The market economy has succeeded in a fairly satisfactory way in adjusting production and marketing to all the natural conditions of human life and its environment. It is quite arbitrary to assume that there is just one natural fact--namely, allegedly rhythmic harvest variations--with which the market economy does not know how to cope. Why do entrepreneurs fail to recognize the fact of crop fluctuations and to adjust business activities in such a way as to discount their disastrous effects upon their plans?

想把經濟蕭條和宇宙的影響聯繫起來的一些企圖，已經完全失敗了，其中最著名的是傑逢斯的太陽黑子說。市場經濟以頗爲滿意的方法調整生產和推銷，以適應人生的一切自然環境和遭遇，已經相當成功。如果認爲市場經濟所不知道如何對付的只有一個自然界的事實——也即所謂的週期性的收穫變動，那完全是武斷的。爲什麼企業家們看不出收穫波動這個事實而把營業活動調整到使它們的損害減輕呢？

Guided by the Marxian slogan "anarchy of production," the present-day nonmonetary cycle doctrines explain the cyclical fluctuations of trade in terms of a tendency, allegedly inherent in the capitalist economy, to develop disproportionality in the size of investments made in various branches of industry. Yet even these disproportionality doctrines do not contest the fact that every businessman is eager to avoid such mistakes, which must bring him serious financial losses. The essence of the activities of entrepreneurs and capitalists is precisely not to embark upon projects which they consider unprofitable. If one assumes that there prevails a tendency for businessmen to fail in these endeavors, one implies that all businessmen are short-sighted. They are too dull to avoid certain pitfalls, and thus blunder again and again in their conduct of affairs. The whole of society has to foot the bill for the shortcomings of the thick-headed speculators, promoters, and entrepreneurs.

受了馬克斯的「無政府狀態的生產」這個口號的指導，現在的一些貨幣的循環理論，用「趨勢」的說法來解釋商業的循環波動，認爲資本主義的經濟有個固有的趨勢，即各生產部門的投資額趨向於不平衡的發展。這些不平衡的學說，並不否認每個商人都想避免這樣的錯誤，這樣的錯誤是要使他受到嚴重的金錢損失的。企業家們和資本家們的活動，最要緊的是，不從事那些他們認爲無利可圖的營業計畫。如果你假想商人們在這些努力中有個趨勢是趨向於失敗的，你就是意涵所有的商人都是短視的。他們也笨到不能避免某些陷阱，因而一再地在事業上失敗。整個社會要爲這些笨拙的投機者、發起人、和企業家的過失而承受損害。

Now it is obvious that men are fallible, and businessmen are certainly not free from this human weakness. But one should not forget that on the market a process of selection is in continual operation. There prevails an unceasing tendency to weed out the less efficient entrepreneurs, that is, those who fail in their endeavors to anticipate correctly the future demands of the consumers. If one group of entrepreneurs produces commodities in excess of the demand of the consumers and consequently cannot sell these goods at remunerative

人，是會犯錯的，商人們必然也不免於這個人性的缺陷。但是，我們不可忘記，在市面裡面，有個選擇過程是在繼績發生作用，效率較差的企業家們不斷地被淘汰，所謂效率較差的企業家，是指那些在營業活動中，未能正確地預料到消費者未來需求的人們。如果有一組企業家，生產貨物超過了消費者的需求，因而不能在有利的價格下把這些貨物都資掉以致蒙受損失，其他各組企業家生產的貨物爲大衆所搶氣因而他們賺大錢。某些營業部門受窘，同時，其他一些部門卻與旺，決沒有一般的商業蕭條會出現。

But the proponents of the doctrines we have to deal with argue differently. They assume that not only the whole entrepreneurial class but all of the people are struck with blindness. As the entrepreneurial class is not a closed social order to which access is denied to outsiders, as every enterprising man is virtually in a position to challenge those who already belong to the class of entrepreneurs, as the history or capitalism provides innumerable examples of penniless newcomers who brilliantly succeeded in embarking upon the production of those goods which according to their own judgment were fitted to satisfy the most urgent needs of consumers, the assumption that all entrepreneurs regularly fall prey to certain errors tacitly implies that all practical men lack intelligence. It implies that nobody who is engaged in business and nobody who considers engaging in business if some opportunity is offered to him by the shortcomings of those already engaged in it, is shrewd enough to understand the real state of the market. But on the other hand the theorists, who are not themselves active in the conduct of affairs and merely philosophize about other people's actions, consider themselves smart enough to discover the fallacies leading astray those doing business. These omniscient professors are never deluded by the errors which cloud the judgment of everyone else. They know precisely what is wrong with private enterprise. Their claims to be invested with dictatorial powers to control business are therefore fully justified.

但是，我們所要討論的那些學說,倡者，不是這樣講的。他們認爲：受了盲目的損害的，不僅是整個企業家的階級，而且是所有的人。因爲，企業家階級不是一個不讓外人加入的封閉式的社會階層，因爲，每個有企業心的人，實際上是那些已經屬於企業家階級的人們的挑戰者，因爲，資本主義的歷史記載著許許多多一文沒名的窮人，憑他們自己的判斷，從事於可以滿足消費者最迫切需要的貨物之生產，因而有顯赫的成功，因爲這些事實，如果假定所有的企業家一律地要因某些錯誤而受襯牲，那無異於暗示：所有注重實行的人物都缺乏智慧，那也暗示：從事工商業的人們，以及考慮從事工商業的人們，沒有一個精明到足以懂得市場的眞實情況。但是，另一方面，那些不親身從事實際的事務活動，而專門把別人的行爲理論化的理論家，把他們自己看成聰明得足以發現那些導致工商界人士失敗的一些錯誤。這些全知的敎授們，從不被那些混淆其他毎個人之判斷的謬見所迷惑。他們正確地知道，私營企業的錯誤是什麼。所以他們所主張的對工商業的專断管制，有了充份的理由。

The most amazing thing about these doctrines is that they furthermore imply that businessmen, in their littleness of mind, obstinately cling to their erroneous procedures in spite of the fact that the scholars have long since unmasked their faults. Although every textbook explodes them, the businessmen cannot help repeating them. There is manifestly no means to prevent the recurrence of economic depression other than to entrust--in accordance with Plato's utopian ideas--supreme power to the philosophers.

關於這些學說，最叫人驚訝的事情，是它們還進而暗示：工商業者在他們偏狹的心中，固執於他們錯誤的作法，而不管「學者們早已揭發了他們的謬見」這個事實。儘管毎本敎科書都駁斥這些謬見，而工商業界還在不斷地重犯。這很明白，除了把最高權力授與哲學家——這是依照柏拉圖的空想——以外，別無他法可以防止經濟蕭條的一再出現。

Let us examine briefly the two most popular varieties of these disproportionality doctrines.

這裡，讓我們簡單地檢討這些不平衡的學說當中最著名的兩個變例。

There is first the durable goods doctrine. These goods retain their serviceableness for some time. As long as their life period lasts, the buyer who has acquired a piece abstains from replacing it by the purchase of a new one. Thus, once all people have made their purchases, the demand for new products dwindles. Business becomes bad. A revival is possible only when, after the lapse of some time, the old houses, cars, refrigerators, and the like are worn out, and their owners must buy new ones.

第一個是耐久性財貨的學說。這些財貨可以把它們的功用保持一段相當長的時期。只要它們的生命期還在繼績，已經有了一件的購買者就不會買一件新的來替換它。所以，一旦所有的人都已購買了，新產品的需求就要萎縮。工商業的行情就要變壞。好景的恢復只有等到相當時期以後，舊的房子、舊的汽車、舊的冰箱等等不能再用了，於是，它們的主人就必須買新的。

However, businessmen are as a rule more provident than this doctrine assumes. They are intent upon adjusting the size of their production to the anticipated size of consumers' demand. The bakers take account of the fact that every day a housewife needs a new loaf of bread, and the manufacturers of coffins take into account the fact that the total annual sale of coffins cannot exceed the number of people deceased during this period. The machine industry reckons with the average "life" of its products no less than do the tailors, the shoemakers, the manufacturers of motorcars, radio sets, and refrigerators, and the construction firms. There are, to be sure, always promoters who in a mood of deceptive optimism are prone to overexpand their enterprises. In the pursuit of such projects they snatch away factors of production from other plants of the same industry and from other branches of industry. Thus their overexpansion results in a relative restriction of output in other fields. One branch goes on expanding while others shrink until the unprofitability of the former and the profitability of the latter rearranges conditions. Both the preceding boom and the following slump concern only a part of business.

但是，工商業者通常是比這個學說所假想的更精明些。他們是一心一意地要把他們的產量調整和他們所預料的消費者的需求量相配合。麵包店的老闆要考慮到每天一個家庭主婦需要一塊麵包，棺材店的老闆要想到棺材的銷售量不會超過在這個期間死亡的人數。機器工業之計算其產品的平均「生命」，並不遜於成衣匠、製鞋匠、汽車、收音機、冰箱的製造者，以及建築商。誠然，經常有些過份樂觀的發起人，傾向於過份擴張他們的企業。在實行這樣的營業計畫時，他們從同業中其他廠商或其他行業部門，搶購到一些生產要素。由於他們的過份擴張，使得其他方面相當萎縮。某一部門走向擴張，同時，其他部門則趨於萎縮，直到前者的賠本和後者的賺錢重新把情況調整過來爲止。這先前的市面繁榮與後來的市面蕭條，只關乎一部份的工商業。

The second variety of these disproportionality doctrines is known as the acceleration principle. A temporary rise in the demand for a certain commodity results in increased production of the commodity concerned. If demand later drops again, the investments made for this expansion of production appear as malinvestments. This becomes especially pernicious in the field of durable producers' goods. If the demand for the consumers' good a increases by 10 per cent, business increases the equipment p required for its production by 10 per cent. The resulting rise in the demand for p is the more momentous in proportion to the previous demand for p, the longer the duration of serviceableness of a piece of p is and the smaller consequently the previous demand for the replacement of worn-out pieces of p was. If the life of a piece of p is 10 years, the annual demand for p for replacement was 10 per cent of the stock of p previously employed by the industry. The rise of 10 per cent in the demand for a doubles therefore the demand for p and results in a 100 per cent expansion in the equipment r needed for the production of p. If then the demand for a stops increasing, 50 per cent of the production capacity of r remains idle. If the annual increase in the demand for a drops from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, 25 per cent of the production capacity of r cannot be used.

這些不平衡學說的第二個變例，是有名的加速原理。對於某一貨物需求的暫時上昇，其結果是該貨物增加生產。於是，如果這個需求後來又下降，則這個爲擴大生產而作的投資，就顯得是些錯誤的投資。這種情形在耐久性的生產財方面，更是有害的。如果消費財的需求a增加了一〇%，生產這種消費財的設備p也要增加一〇%。這樣引起的p的需求之增加，比例於前者對p的需求而言愈是大，則一件p的功用耐久性愈是長，因而前者對用壞了的p的換置需求愈小。如果一件p的生命期是十年，則爲換置而每年對p的需求就是這個產業原已使用的p的存量的一〇%。所以對a的需求有一〇%的增加，就要加倍對p的需求，其結果，生產設備的r的擴張就是一〇〇%了。如果對a的需求停止增加了，則r的五〇%的生產力賦閒了。如果每年對a的需求增加率從一〇%降到五%，則r的生產力就有二五%的閒置。

The fundamental error of this doctrine is that it considers entrepreneurial activities as a blindly automatic response to the momentary state of demand. Whenever demand increases and renders a branch of business more profitable, production facilities are supposed instantly to expand in proportion. This view is untenable. Entrepreneurs often err. They pay heavily for their errors. But whoever acted in the way the acceleration principle describes would not be an entrepreneur, but

這個學說的基本錯誤是，它把企業家的一些活動看成一時的需求情況所引起的盲目地自動反應。當需求增加使一個營業部門更爲有利的時候，就認爲生產設備就會馬上比例地擴充。這個見解是站不住的。企業家們常常犯錯誤。他們因爲錯誤而受到很大的損失。但是，一個人如果是按照加速原理所描述的那種方式而行爲，則他就不是一個企業家，而是一部沒有靈魂的自動機器。可是，實在的企業者是一個投機者[18]；所謂投機者，就是一個要利用自己的關於市場未來情況的見解，以從事營利活動的人。這種對不確定的未來情況預先的領悟，是不管什麼規律和體系化的。那旣不是可以敎的，也不是可以學的。否則每個人都可從事企業活動而有同樣的成功希望。成功的企業家和發起人，與別人不同的地方，正是因爲他不讓他自己受「曾經是什麼，現在又是什麼」這一類的指導，而是按照他自己關於未來情況的意見而處理他的業務。他之看過去和現在，與別人一樣；但他對於未來的判斷，則與別人的方法不同。在他的行爲中，他是受一個關於未來的意見的指導的，這個意見與一般大衆所持有的不一樣。他的行爲推動力是來自他對於一些生產要素和這些要素所可生產出來的貨物的未來價格所作的估價與別人不同。如果現在的價格結構使那些現在正在出售有關貨物的工商業非常有利，他們的生產擴充只會擴充到一定的程度，即企業家們認爲，這有利的市場情況將會持續到足以使新的投資値得投的程度。如果企業家不存這樣的指望，即令這個已經在經營的企業有很高的利潤，也不會引起擴充。资本家和企業家們不願意在他們認爲無利可圖的行業投下資本，這正是那些不了解市場經濟運作情形的人們所劇烈批評的。囿於技術觀點的工程人員，每每責怪「利潤動機的至上」妨礙了消費者得不到技術知識所可能提供的那麼豐富的物質享受，政治煽動家大聲疾呼，攻擊資本家的貪婪有意地要維持物資稀少的局面。

A satisfactory explanation of business fluctuations must not be built upon the fact that individual firms or groups of firms misjudge the future state of the market and therefore make bad investments. The objective of the trade cycle is the general upswing of business activities, the propensity to expand production in all branches of industry, and the following general depression. These phenomena cannot be brought about by the fact that increased profits in some branches of business result in their expansion and a corresponding overproportional investment in the industries manufacturing the equipment needed for such an expansion.

對於商業循環的滿意解釋，決不可基於「個別的廠商或幾組廠商，對於市場的未來情況判斷錯誤，所以作了不利的投资」這個事實。商業循環理論的目標，是商業活動「一般的」上昇，所有產業部門都傾向於擴張生產，以及接著而來的「一般的」經濟蕭條。這些現象不會因爲「某些營業部門的利潤上昇，結果它們擴張生產，爲適應這種擴張，於是製造資本財的產業就超比例地投資」這個事寅而引起。

It is a very well known fact that the more the boom progresses, the harder it becomes to buy machines and other equipment. The plants producing these things are overloaded with orders. Their customers

大家都知道：市面繁榮愈是向前發展，機器和其他生產設備的購買愈是增多。生產這些東西的工廠收到的定單也就堆積起來。他們的顧客必須等待一個相當長的時期才可收到訂購的機器。這很明白地說明：生產財的製造業，擴充它們自己的生產設備，並不像加速原理所假定的那麼快。

But even if, for the sake of argument, we were ready to admit that capitalists and entrepreneurs behave in the way the disproportionality doctrines describe, it remains inexplicable how they could go on in the absence of credit expansion. The striving after such additional investments raises the prices of the complementary factors of production and the rate of interest on the loan market. These effects would curb the expansionist tendencies very soon if there were no credit expansion.

但是，爲著便於討論，即令我們承認資本家和企業家是像不平衡學說所描述的那樣行爲，可是，在沒有信用擴張的時候，他們如何能繼績進行呢？這仍然是不可解的。這樣拚命地增加投資，提高了那些輔助的生產要素的價格和借貸市場的利率。這些後果，如果沒有信用擴張，就會馬上限制了擴張的趨勢。

The supporters of the disproportionality doctrines refer to certain occurrences in the field of farming as a confirmation of their assertion concerning the inherent lack of provision on the part of private business. However, it is impermissible to demonstrate characteristic features of free competitive enterprise as operation in the market economy by pointing to conditions in the sphere of medium-size and small farming. In many countries this sphere is institutionally removed from the supremacy of the market and the consumers. Government interference is eager to protect the farmer against the vicissitudes of the market. These farmers do not operate in a free market; they are privileged and pampered by various devices. The orbit of their production activities is a reservation, as it were, in which technological backwardness, narrow-minded obstinacy, and entrepreneurial inefficiency are artificially preserved at the expense of the nonagricultural strata of the people. If they blunder in their conduct of affairs, the government forces the consumers, the taxpayers, and the mortgagees to foot the bill.

不平衡學說的支持者，引用農業方面的某些事象，來證實他們關於私營企業必然缺乏供應的說法。但是，用中型或小型的農業生產來論證在市場經濟裡面活動的自由競爭企業的一些特徵，這是不可以的。在許多國家當中，農業在市場上，以及在消費者中，已失去最高的地位。政府的干涉是要保護農民使其免於市場變化的損害。這些農民們不是在一個自由市場上活動；他們享有特權而受種種特別優待。他們的生產活動，靠的是權益的保留，於是，技術的落後、小心眼的固執、企業精神的缺乏，統統被保留下來，農業以外的人們，也因此而受損害。如果他們在業務的處社犯了大錯，政府就強迫消费者、納稅人，以及抵押權人來補償。

It is true that there is such a thing as the corn-hog cycle and analogous happenings in the production of other farm products. But the recurrence of such cycles is due to the fact that the penalties which the market applies against inefficient and clumsy entrepreneurs do not affect a great part of the farmers. These farmers are not answerable for their actions because they are the pet children of governments and politicians. If it were not so, they would long since have gone bankrupt and their former farms would be operated by more intelligent people.

不錯，在這裡，也有「玉米－豬循環」（corn-hog cycle）這樣的事情，以及在其他農產品的生產中，也有類似的事象。但是，這樣的循環是由於「市場給那些低效率而笨拙的企業家們的憋罰不影響大部份的農民」這個事實。這些農民對於他們的行爲不負責任，因爲，他們是一些政府和政客們的寵兒。如果不是這樣的話，他們老早走向破產，而他們的那些農田，早已由一些更明智的人們來利用了。

----------------

[15] In the evenly rotating economy also there may be unused capacity of inconvertible equipment. Its nonutilization does not disturb the equilibrium any more than the fallowness of submarginal soil.

[14] 在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，也會有未使用的不可轉換的生產設備。這正同邊際以下的土地之未被使用，對於均衡並不發生干擾。

[16] Hayek (Prices and Production [2d ed. London, 1935], pp. 96 ff.) reaches the same conclusion by way of a somewhat different chain of reasoning.

[15] Hayek (Prices and Production [2d ed. London, 1935], pp. 96 ff.) 用一個稍微不同的推理得到相同的結論。

[17] About the fundamental fault of the Marxian and all other underconsumption theories, cf. above, p. 301.

[16] 關於馬克斯的和所有其他的消費不足理論，參考前面的第十五章第九節。

[18] About these currency and credit manipulations, cf. below, pp. 780-803.

[17] 關於這些通貨和信用操縱，參考第三十一章第一至九節。

[19] It is noteworthy that the same term is employed to signify the premeditation and the ensuing actions of the promoters and entrepreneurs and the purely academic reasoning of theorists that does not directly result in any action.

[18] 値得注意的，是這同一名詞（speculation）用來指稱營利事業發起人和企業家的事前考慮和接著的一些行爲，也用來指稱理論家們純學術上的推理，這種推理並不直接引起任何行爲。

XXI. WORK AND WAGES

第20章 工作與工資

1. Introversive Labor and Extroversive Labor

一、內向的勞動與外向的勞動

A man may overcome the disutility of labor (forego the enjoyment of leisure) for various reasons.

一個人可能爲種種理由去克服勞動的負效用（也即放棄閉暇的享受）。

1. He may work in order to make his mind and body strong, vigorous, and agile. The disutility of labor is not a price expended for the attainment of these goals; overcoming it is inseparable from the contentment sought. The most conspicuous examples are genuine sport, practiced without any design for reward and social success, and the search for truth and knowledge pursued for its own sake and not as a means of improving one's own efficiency and skill in the performance of other kinds of labor aiming at other ends.[1]

一、他可能爲使他的身心健康活潑而工作。勞動的負效用不是爲這些目的的獲得而付的代價；克服勞動的負效用與所追求的滿足是不可分的。最明顯的例子是眞正的運動，不以取得獎品和成功的聲譽爲目的的的運動；眞理和知識的追求，目的在其本身，而不是爲的改進當事人自己的效率和技能以完成其他目的。[1]

2. He may submit to the disutility of labor in order to serve God. He sacrifices leisure to please God and to be rewarded in the beyond by eternal bliss and in the earthly pilgrimage by the supreme delight which the certainty of having complied with all religious duties affords. (If, however, he serves God in order to attain worldly ends--his daily bread and success in his secular affairs--his conduct does not differ substantially from other endeavors to attain mundane advantages by expending labor. Whether the theory guiding his conduct is correct and whether his expectations will materialize are irrelevant to the catallactic qualification of his mode of acting.[2])

二、他可能爲侍奉神而甘受勞動的負效用。他犧牲閒暇來崇拜神，以求另一個世界的永福，以及在朝聖的過程中，求得宗敎上祭務執行所提供的至樂。（但是，如果他之侍奉神是爲的達到一些世俗的目的——他每天的麵包和俗務上的成功——則他的行爲，本質上無異於用勞動來換得世俗利益的其他行爲[2]。）

3. He may toil in order to avoid greater mischief. He submits to the disutility of labor in order to forget, to escape from depressing thoughts and to banish annoying moods; work for him is, as it were, a perfected refinement of play. This refined playing must not be confused with the simple games of children which are merely pleasure-producing. (However, there are also other children's games. Children too are sophisticated enough to indulge in refined play.)

三、他可能爲著避免更大的禍患而作苦工。他甘受勞動的負效用，爲的是忘掉或逃避一些沮喪的想頭，爲的是排遣一些煩惱的情緒；爲他自己而工作，好像是遊戲的完全改進。這種改進了的遊戲決不可與小孩們的單純遊戲相混淆，後者僅僅是發生快樂（但是，也有些其他的小孩遊戲。小孩也會懂得排遣於改進的进戲中。）

4. He may work because he prefers the proceeds he can earn by working to the disutility of labor and the pleasures of leisure.

四、他之工作，可能是因爲他寧可工作賺錢取收入，而不享受閒暇的快樂。

The labor of the classes 1, 2, 3 is expended because the disutility of labor in itself--and not its product--satisfies. One toils and troubles not in order to reach a goal at the termination of the march, but for the very sake of marching. The mountain-climber does not want simply to reach the peak, he wants to reach it by climbing. He disdains the rack railway which would bring him to the summit more quickly and without trouble even though the fare is cheaper than the costs incurred by climbing (e.g., the guide's fee). The toil of climbing does not gratify him immediately; it involves disutility of labor. But it is precisely overcoming the disutility of labor that satisfies him. A less exerting ascent would please him not better, but less.

第一第二和第三類的勞動，是因爲勞動負效用的本身——不是它的產品——提供滿足。辛勤勞苦不是爲的達到在過程終點的一個目的，而是爲的這個過程的本身。爬山的人不僅是想爬到山頂，他是想靠「爬」來達到山頂。上山的高架鐵路會把他更快地送上山頂而無麻煩，甚至車費還比爬山的費用（例如導遊的收資）便宜些，但爬山的人不願意乘這種火車。爬山的那種辛苦不會直接使他快樂；它有勞動負效用。但是，正由於克服了勞動的負效用，所以他得到滿足。較不費力的下山，並不給他較大的快樂，而是給他較小的快樂。

We may call the labor of classes 1, 2, and 3 introversive labor and distinguish it from the extroversive labor of class 4. In some cases introversive labor may bring about--as a by-product as it were--results for the attainment of which other people would submit to the disutility of labor. The devout may nurse sick people for a heavenly reward; the truth seeker, exclusively devoted to the search for knowledge, may discover a practically useful device. To this extent introversive labor may influence the supply on the market. But as a rule catallactics is concerned only with extroversive labor.

我們可以把第一第二和第三類的勞動叫做內向的勞動（introversive labor），以示別於第四類的外向的勞動。在某些情形下，內向的勞動可能得到——好像是一種副產品——一些結果，由於這些結果的成就，其他的一些人會甘受勞動的負效用。虔誠的敎徒會爲天國的報酬而去看護病人；眞理的追求者，只爲知識的尋求而努力的人，可能發現一個實際上有用的東西。就這個程度以內，內向的勞動可能影響市場上的供給。但是，交換學通常只討論外向的勞動。

The psychological problems raised by introversive labor are catallactically irrelevant. Seen from the point of view of economics introversive labor is to be qualified as consumption. Its performance as a rule requires not only the personal efforts of the individuals concerned, but also the expenditure of material factors of production and the produce of other peoples' extroversive, not immediately gratifying labor that must be bought by the payment of wages. The practice of religion requires places of worship and their equipment, sport requires diverse utensils and apparatus, trainers and coaches. All these things belong in the orbit of consumption.

內向勞動引起的那些心理學上的問題，在交換學上是些不相干的問題。從經濟學的觀點看，內向的勞動應該叫做消費。它的完成，照例不僅是需要當事人本人的努力，而且也需要一些物質的生產要素和別人外向勞動的產品。宗敎儀式的舉行，需要作禮拜的場所和其中的設備；運動，需要種種器具和裝置、訓練員和敎練師。所有這些都應歸入消費類。

-------------

[1] Cognition does not aim at a goal beyond the act of knowing. what satisfies the thinker is thinking as such, not obtaining perfect knowledge, a goal inaccessible to man.

[1] 認知不是爲的達到「知，這一行爲」以外的目的。使思想家得到滿足的是思想本身，而不是在獲得完全的知識，完全的知識是我們人類所不可及的。

[2] It is hardly necessary to remark that comparing the craving for knowledge and the conduct of a pious life with sport and play dos not imply any disparagement of either.

[2] 把渴求知識和虔誠的宗敎行爲與運動和遊戲相提並論，並不意涵對前者或後者有何輕蔑之意。

2. Joy and Tedium of Labor

二、勞動的喜悅與厭惡

Only extroversive, not immediately gratifying labor is a topic of catallactic disquisition. The characteristic mark of this kind of labor is that it is performed for the sake of an end which is beyond its performance and the disutility which it involves. People work because they want to reap the produce of labor. The labor itself causes disutility. But apart from this disutility which is irksome and would enjoin upon man the urge to economize labor even if his power to work were not limited and he were able to perform unlimited work, special

只有外向勞動才是交換學討論的題目，直接叫人滿足的勞動不包括在內。外向勞動的特徵是它所要達成的目的，是在這種勞動的完成和其涉及的負效用以外。勞動本身引起負效用。但是，除掉這負效用——負效用是令人厭煩的，而且，即令他的工作能力是無限的，他能夠完成無限的工作，這負效用也會敎他節省勞動——以外，有時還有些感情的現象發生，隨著某種勞動的進行，喜悅或厭惡的情緒油然而生。

Both,the joy and the tedium of labor, are in a domain other than the disutility of labor. The joy of labor therefore can neither alleviate nor remove the disutility of labor. Neither must the joy of labor by confused with the immediate gratification provided by certain kinds of work. It is an attendant phenomenon which proceeds either from labor's mediate gratification, the produce or reward, or from some accessory circumstances.

勞動的喜悅與厭惡，都屬於勞動負效用以外的領域。所以，勞動的喜悅旣不能減輕，也不能消除勞動的負效用。勞動的喜悅也不可與某種工作所提供的直接滿足相混淆。那是一個附隨的現象，或發生於勞動的間接滿足——產品或報酬，或發生於某些附帶的環境。

People do not submit to the disutility of labor for the sake of the joy which accompanies the labor, but for the sake of its mediate gratification. In fact the joy of labor presupposes for the most part the disutility of the labor concerned.

人們不會爲了附隨勞動的那份喜悅而甘受勞動的負效用，而是爲了它的間接滿足。事實上，勞動的喜悅大都是以該勞動的負效用爲先決條件。

The sources from which the joy of labor springs are:

勞動的喜悅來自下面幾個源頭：

1. The expectation of the labor's mediate gratification, the anticipation of the enjoyment of its success and yield. The toiler looks at his work as an means for the attainment of an end sought, and the progress of his work delights him as an approach toward his goal. His joy is a foretaste of the satisfaction conveyed by the mediate gratification. In the frame of social cooperation this joy manifests itself in the contentment of being capable of holding one's ground in the social organism and of rendering services which one's fellow men appreciate either in buying the product or in remunerating the labor expended. The worker rejoices because he gets self-respect and the consciousness of supporting himself and his family and not being dependent on other people's mercy.

一、對於勞動的間接滿足之期待，預先想到成功和收穫而喜悅。辛苦工作的人，把他的工作看作達成所追求的目的的一個手段，他的工作進展，正是向這個目的愈來愈接近，因而他高興。他的喜悅是預先體會到那個將要到來的滿足。在社會合作的體制中，這種喜悅顯現於「能夠保持自己的社會地位和能夠提供同胞們所欣賞的勞務（同胞們的欣赏，表現於購買他的產品或對他的勞動給予報酬）這個滿足上。工作者對工作喜悅，因爲他享有自尊，他供養他自己和他的家庭，而不依賴別人的恩惠。

2. In the pursuit of his work the worker enjoys the aesthetic appreciation of his skill and its product. This is not merely the contemplative pleasure of the man who views things performed by other people. It is the pride of a man who is in a position to say: I know how to make such things, this is my work.

二、在做工作的時候，工人對於自己的技能和其產品會產生一種美的欣賞而喜悅。這不只是鑑賞別人成就的東西所感到的那種喜悅。這是一個能講下面這句話的人所感到的驕傲：「我知道如何做這樣的一些事情，這是我的工作」。

3. Having completed a task the worker enjoys the feeling of having successfully overcome all the toil and trouble involved. He is happy in being rid of something difficult, unpleasant, and painful, in being relieved for a certain time of the disutility of labor. His is the feeling of "I have done it."

三、在完成一件工作以後，工作者因想到已經成功地克服了所有的辛苦和煩難而喜悅。困難的、不愉快的，乃至痛苦的事情，已做完了，在一個相當的時間以內，已解脫了勞動的負效用，因而他喜悅。他覺得「我已經做好了」。

4. Some kinds of work satisfy particular wishes. There are, for example, occupations which meet erotic desires--either conscious or subconscious ones. These desires may be normal or perverse. Also fetishists, homosexuals, sadists and other perverts can sometimes find in their work an opportunity to satisfy their strange appetites. There are occupations which are especially attractive to such people. Cruelty

四、有些種類的工作可滿足某些特殊的願望。例如，有些職業是在滿足色情慾望一意識的或下意識的。這種慾望或者是正常的，或者是變態的。拜物敎的敎徒們、同性戀者、虐待狂者，以及其他變態人物，有時會在他們的工作中，得到滿足他們怪癖的機會。有些職業對於這樣的一些人，特別有吸引力。殘酷屠殺的工作，在種種堂堂皇皇的職業掩飾下，到處盛行。

The various kinds of work offer different conditions for the appearance of the joy of labor. These conditions may be by and large more homogeneous in classes 1 and 3 than in class 2. It is obvious that they are more rarely present for class 4.

種種不同的工作，爲勞動的快樂提供一些不同的情況。這些情況的上述的第一和第三類比第二類更爲同質。就第四類講，它們較少有。

The joy of labor can be entirely absent. Psychical factors may eliminate it altogether. On the other hand one can purposely aim at increasing the joy of labor.

勞動的喜悅會完全沒有。精神因素可能完全把它消除。另一方面，你可以有意地以增加工作的喜悅爲目的。

Keen discerners of the human soul have always been intent upon enhancing the joy of labor. A great part of the achievements of the organizers and leaders of armies of mercenaries belonged to this field. Their task was easy as far as the profession of arms provides the satisfactions of class 4. However, these satisfactions do not depend on the arms-bearer's loyalty. They also come to the soldier who leaves his war-lord in the lurch and turns against him in the service of new leaders. Thus the particular task of the employers of mercenaries was to promote an esprit de corps and loyalty that could render their hirelings proof against temptations. There were also, of course, chiefs who did not bother about such impalpable matters. In the armies and navies of the eighteenth century the only means of securing obedience and preventing desertion were barbarous punishments.

對於人的心靈深處有敏銳觀察的人，常常有意地提高勞動的喜悅。傭兵的組織者和軍頭們的一些成就，大部份是在這方面。他們的工作就其提供第四類的滿足這方面來講，是容易的。但是，這些滿足並不靠當兵的忠誠。在危急的時候開小差，後來又投到新的軍頭名下的士兵，也可得到這些滿足。所以傭兵的僱主的特殊工作是要加強團體精神和忠誠的訓練；有了團體精神和忠誠，才可使那些被僱的傭兵不致被引誘而叛離。當然也有些軍頭們不耐煩做這些微妙的事情。在十八世紀的陸海軍中，確保忠誠和防止叛離的唯一方法，是些野蠻殘暴的懲罰。

Modern industrialism was not intent upon designedly increasing the joy of labor. It relied upon the material improvement that it brought to its employees in their capacity as wage earners as well as in their capacity as consumers and buyers of the products. In view of the fact that job-seekers thronged to the plants and everyone scrambled for the manufactures, there seemed to be no need to resort to special devices. The benefits which the masses derived from the capitalist system were so obvious that no entrepreneur considered it necessary to harangue the workers with procapitalist propaganda. Modern capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses. The buyers of the products are by and large the same people who as wage earners cooperate in their manufacturing. Rising sales provided dependable information to the employer about the improvement of the masses' standard of living. He did not bother about the feelings of his employees as workers. He was exclusively intent upon serving them as consumers. Even today, in face of the most persistent and fanatical anticapitalist propaganda, there is hardly any counter-propaganda.

現代的工業制度並不專心於增加勞動的喜悅，它靠物質方面的改進。有了物質方面的改進，對於它的僱工們作爲工資收入者也好，作爲消費者和產品的購買者也好，都得到利益。找工作的人這麼多，用不著特殊的方法來維繋工人。大衆從資本主義制度得到的利益是很明顯的，沒有一個企業家認爲有向工人們做資本主義以前那種宣傳之必要。現代資本主義制度，本質上是爲大衆的需要而大規模生產的制度。產品的購買者也就是在生產過程中合作生產的工資收入者。績漲增高的銷售量，給僱主提供了可靠的關於大衆生活標準提高了的情報。他並不煩心於他的工人們作爲工人的感覺怎樣。他只專心於把他們當作消費者而爲他們服務。甚至在今天，面對那最頑固、最狂熱的反資本主義的宣傳而反擊的宣傳，卻不多見。

This anticapitalist propaganda is a systematic scheme for the substitution of tedium for the joy of labor. The joy of labor of classes 1 and 2 depends to some extent on ideological factors. The worker

這種反資本主義的宣傳，是一個組織的計謀，其目的是要以勞動的厭惡代替勞動的喜悅。上述第一和第二類勞動的喜悅，在某種程度以內，是憑一些意理因素的。工人在社會上有他的地位，在社會的生産過程中，他是積極合作的份子，因而他感受到勞動的快樂。如果你蔑視這個意理，而代之以「把工資收入者看作殘忍剝削者手下的犧牲品」這個意理，那就會把勞動的喜悅變成厭惡勞動的心情。

No ideology, however impressively emphasized and taught, can affect the disutility of labor. It is impossible to remove or to alleviate it by persuasion or hypnotic suggestion. On the other hand it cannot be increased by words and doctrines. The disutility of labor is a phenomenon unconditionally given. The spontaneous and carefree discharge of one's own energies and vital functions in aimless freedom suits everybody better than the stern restraint of purposive effort. The disutility of labor also pains a man who with heart and soul and even with self-denial is devoted to his work. He too is eager to reduce the lump of labor if it can be done without prejudice to the mediate gratification expected, and he enjoys the joy of labor of class 3.

意理，不管怎樣被強調、被敎導，決不會影響勞動的負效用。想用勸說或催眠術來消除或減輕它，那是不可能的。另一方面，我們也不能用語言或敎條來增加它。勞動負效用是一個絕對旣定的現象。精力和生活機能的自然而輕鬆地發洩，比嚴厲督促下的努力對於任何人都更適合些。勞動的負效用，也會使一個全心全意、甚至以自我克制的精神專注於工作的人感受痛苦。如果無損於他所期待的間接滿足，他也想減輕他的勞動量，而且，他會享受第三類的勞動快樂。

However, the joy of labor of classes 1 and 2 and sometimes even that of class 3 can be eliminated by ideological influences and be replaced by the tedium of labor. The worker begins to hate his work if he becomes convinced that what makes him submit to the disutility of labor is not his own higher valuation of the stipulated compensation, but merely an unfair social system. Deluded by the slogans of the socialist propagandists, he fails to realize that the disutility of labor is an inexorable fact of human conditions, something ultimately given that cannot be removed by devices or methods of social organization. He falls prey to the Marxian fallacy that in a socialist commonwealth work will arouse not pain but pleasure.[3]

但是，第一類和第二類勞動的喜悅，會受意理的影響而消減，並且被勞動的厭惡代替。第三類勞動的喜悅，有時也如此。一個工人，如果他自己覺得：「使他們甘受勞動負效用的，不是他自己對那約定的報酬有較高的評値，而只是不公平的社會制度」，那麼，他就開始恨他的工作了。他受了社會主義宣傳的口號之騙，因而不了解勞動負效用是不能用任何社會組織方法來消除的一個旣定事實。他迷惑於馬克斯主義的謬見，以爲在一個社主義的社會裡面，工作不會帶來痛苦，帶來的卻是快樂[3]。

The fact that the tedium of labor is substituted for the joy of labor affects the valuation neither of the disutility of labor nor of the produce of labor. Both the demand for labor and the supply of labor remain unchanged. for people do not work for the sake of labor's joy, but for the sake of the mediate gratification. What is altered is merely the worker's emotional attitude. His work, his position in the complex of the social division of labor, his relations to other members of society and to the whole of society appear to him in a new light. He pities himself as the defenseless victim of an absurd and unjust system. He becomes an ill-humored grumbler, an unbalanced personality, an easy prey to all sorts of quacks and cranks. To be joyful in the performance of one's tasks and in overcoming the disutility of labor makes people cheerful and strengthens their energies and vital forces. To feel tedium in working makes people morose and neurotic. A

以勞動的厭惡代替勞動的喜悅這件事，旣不影響勞動負效用的評値，也不影響勞動產品的評値。勞動的需求也好，勞動的供給也好，仍然沒有變動，因爲人們工作不是爲的勞動的快樂，而是爲的間接滿足。變動了的，只是工人的心情。他的工作，他在這個社會分工的複雜制度中的地位，他和社會的其他份子，以及社會全體的閼係，自他看來，都換成新的了。他把自己看作一個荒謬不公平的社會的犧牲者而自憐。他變成一個落落寡歡、成天發牢騷的人，人格不平衡，而且易於相信各形各色的謊言妄語。克服了勞動負效用，完成了自己的工作而感到的偸快，使人與致蓬勃、精力充沛。工作中感到的厭煩，使人脾氣乖張，甚至成爲精神患者。一個社會如果瀰漫著勞動的厭惡，這個社會就是一些懐恨的、爭吵的、憤怨的不滿分子的大會合。

However, with regard to the volitional springs for overcoming the disutility of labor, the role played by the joy and the tedium of labor is merely accidental and supererogatory. There cannot be any question of making people work for the mere sake of the joy of labor. The joy of labor is no substitute for the mediate gratification of labor. The only means of inducing a man to work more and better is to offer him a higher reward. It is vain to bait him with the joy of labor. When the dictators of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy tried to assign to the joy of labor a definite function in their system of production, they saw their expectations blighted.

但是，關於克服勞動負效用的那種意志的活力，勞動的喜悅和厭惡所扮演的角色，只是偶然附隨的、份外的。想使人們只爲勞動的快樂而工作，那是不可能的。勞動的喜悅決不能代替勞動的間接報酬。要使人做更多、更好的工作，唯一的方法是給他更高的報酬。若以勞動的快樂來誘惑他，那是無效的。當蘇俄、納粹德國，和法西斯意大利的獨裁者們，想在他們的生産制度中給勞動的快樂派上確定任務時，他們的希望落空了。

Neither the joy nor the tedium of labor can influence the amount of labor offered on the market. As far as these feelings are present with the same intensity in all kinds of work, the case is obvious. But it is the same with regard to joy and tedium which are conditioned by the particular features of the work concerned or the particular character of the worker. Let us look, for example, at the joy of class 4. The eagerness of certain people to get jobs which offer an opportunity for the enjoyment of these particular satisfactions tends to lower wage rates in this field. But it is precisely this effect that makes other people, less responsive to these questionable pleasures, prefer other sectors of the labor market in which they can earn more. Thus an opposite tendency develops which neutralizes the first one.

勞動的喜悅也好，勞動的厭惡也好，都不能影響提供到市場的勞動量。就這些心情在各種各類的工作中是相同的強度而言，這種情形是顯而易見的。但是，就那受了工作的特徵或工人的特性之影響的喜悅和厭惡而言，情形也是一樣。例如，讓我看看第四類的勞動喜悅吧。有些職業是會提供一個機會得以享受這些特殊滿足的，謀取這些職業的某些人們的那般渴望，傾向於降低這方面的工資率。但是，正是這個後果，使得那些謀取這些職業的渴望比較低些的人們，寧可到他們能夠賺得較多的勞動市場的其他部門去找工作。於是，就有一個相反的趨勢發生，把第一個趨勢抵銷了。

The joy and the tedium of labor are psychological phenomena which influence neither the individual's subjective valuation of the disutility and the mediate gratification of labor nor the price paid for labor on the market.

勞動的喜悅和厭惡是心理現象，它們旣不影響各個人對勞動的負效用和勞動的間接滿足的主觀評値，也不影響市場上對勞動所付的價格。

----------------

[3] Engels, Herrn Eugen Dührings Umw?lzung der Wissenschaft (7th ed. Stuttgart, 1910), p. 317. See above, p. 137

[3] Engels, Herrn Eugen Dührings Umw?lzung der Wissenschaft (7th ed. Stuttgart, 1910), p. 317. See above, p. 137

3. Wages

三、工資

Labor is a scarce factor of production. As such it is sold and bought on the market. The price paid for labor is included in the price allowed for the product or the services if the performer of the work is the seller of the product or the services. If bare labor is sold and bought as such, either by an entrepreneur engaged in production for sale or by a consumer eager to use the services rendered for his own consumption, the price paid is called wages.

勞動是種稀少的生產要素。因此，它能在市場上賣出和買進。如果工作的人同時也是其牽品或勞務的出售者，勞動的價格就包括在這產品或這勞務的價格裡面，如果僅是勞動本身的買資，而勞動的產品是由購買勞動的企業家出賣，或者勞動所提供的服務是由一個消費者自己享受，則勞動的價格就叫做工資。

For acting man his own labor is not merely a factor of production but also the source of disutility; he values it not only with regard to the mediate gratification expected but also with regard to the disutility it causes. But for him, as for everyone, other people's labor as offered for sale on the market is nothing but a factor of production. Man deals with other people's labor in the same way that he deals

就行爲人而言，他自己的勞動不僅是一種生產要素，而且也是負效用的來源；他不僅是就期待中的間接滿足，而且也要就它引起的負效用來對它評値。但是，凡是在市場上出賣的別人的勞動，自他看來（任何人看來也是一樣）不過是一項生產要素。一個人處理別人的勞動，與他處理所有稀少性的物質生產要素完全一樣。他對它的評價是按照他用之於其他所有財貨的一些評價法則。工資率和一切貨物的價格，是經由同樣的過程，在市場上決定的。在這個意義下，我們可以說，勞動是一種貨物。受了馬克斯敎條影響的人們，對這個名詞的感情方面的聯想，是不相干的。這裡，我們只要附帶地提一提下面這句話就夠了：僱主們處理勞動之所以和他們處理貨物一樣，因爲消費者的行爲逼得他們不得不如此。

It is not permissible to speak of labor and wages in general without resorting to certain restrictions. A uniform type of labor or a general rate of wages do not exist. Labor is very different in quality, and each kind of labor renders specific services. each is appraised as a complementary factor for turning out definite consumers' goods and services. Between the appraisal of the performance of a surgeon and that of a stevedore there is no direct connection. But indirectly each sector of the labor market is connected with all other sectors. An increase in the demand for surgical services, however great, will not make stevedores flock into the practice of surgery. Yet the lines between the various sectors of the labor market are not sharply drawn. There prevails a continuous tendency for workers to shift from their branch to other similar occupations in which conditions seem to offer better opportunities. Thus finally every change in demand or supply in one sector affects all other sectors indirectly. All groups indirectly compete with one another. If more people enter the medical profession, men are withdrawn from kindred occupations who again are replaced by an inflow of people from other branches and so on. In this sense there exists a connexity between all occupational groups however different the requirements in each of them may be. There again we are faced with the fact that the disparity in the quality of work needed for the satisfaction of wants is greater than the diversity in men's inborn ability to perform work.[4]

如果籠統地說到勞動和工資，而不加以某些界限，這是不可以的，一律的勞動或一般的工資率，實際上是不存在的。勞動在質的方面有很大的差異，每類勞動都提供特殊服務。每類勞動都要看作產出消費財和勞務的一種輔助要素而予以評價。對於一位外科醫生的工作，與對於一位碼頭工人的工作所作的評價，其間沒有直接的關係。但是，就間接方面看，勞動市場的毎一部門與其他所有部門都有關聯。外科醫生的需求增加了，無論增加到什麼程度，不會使碼頭工人成羣地轉到外科醫生這個行業。可是，勞動市場各部門之間的一些界線不是劃得那麼嚴謹明朗的。勞動市場有個持續的趨勢，就是工人們經常從他們的工作部門轉到條件較優的其他相類似或相接近的部門。因此，一個部門的勞動需求或供給發生變動，最後會間接地影響到其他所有的部門。所有的組合直接地彼此競爭。如果有較多的人加入醫生的行業，必定有些人是從接近或類似的行業退出來；而這些類似或接近醫生行業的行業，又會有與其類似或接近的行業的人返出來補充。這樣可以例推到勞動市場的所有部門。在這個意義下，所有的行業之間都有一個關聯，不管每個行業封工作者要求的必備條件，彼此間有多大的差異。這裡，我們又想到這個事實：爲滿足慾望而要求的工作品質的差異，大於人們先天的工作能力的參差[4]。

Connexity exists not only between different types of labor and the prices paid for them but no less between labor and the material factors of production. Within certain limits labor can be substituted for material factors of production and vice versa. The extent that such substitutions are resorted to depends on the height of wage rates and the prices of material factors.

不僅是各型勞動與它們的價格之間有關聯，勞動與物質的生產要素之間也有關聯。在某些限度以內，勞動可用物質的生產要素來替代，而後者也可用前者來替代。替代的程度或大或小，決定於工資率和物質要素的價格之高低。

The determination of wage rates--like that of the prices of material factors of production--can be achieved only on the market. There is no such thing as nonmarket wage rates, just as there are no nonmarket prices. As far as there are wages, labor is dealt with like any

工資率的決定——與物質要素的價格之決定一樣——只有在市場上可以達成。沒有所謂「非巿場的工資率」這回事，正如同沒有所謂非市場的價格。就市場上之有工資來講，勞動的交易是和任何物質的生產要素一樣，是在市場上資出和買進。通常是把僱用勞動的那一部門的生產財市場叫做勞動市場。勞動市場，連同市場的其他所有部門，都是因企業家要謀取利潤而開動的。每個企業家都想以最低的價格來買他爲實現他的計畫而需要的各種勞動。但是，他所叫出的工資必須高到足以從競爭的行業拉出他所要僱的工人。其最高限是決定於他預期中的從這個工人的僱用而增加的銷售所可得到的收益。其最低限決定於競爭的企業家們叫出的工資，而那些企業家也在一些類似的考慮下作決定。這就是經濟學家說到「每種勞動的工資率高低決定於它的邊際生產力」這句話時，心中所想的情況。這個眞理的另一個表達方式就是說：工資率決定於勞動和物質的生產要素之供給與預期中的消費財將來的價格。

This catallactic explanation of the determination of wage rates has been the target of passionate but entirely erroneous attacks. It has been asserted that there is a monopoly of the demand for labor. Most of the supporters of this doctrine think that they have sufficiently proved their case by referring to some incidental remarks of Adam Smith concerning "a sort of tacit but constant and uniform combination" among employers to keep wages down.[5] Others refer in vague terms to the existence of trade associations of various groups of businessmen. The emptiness of all this talk is evident. However, the fact that these garbled ideas are the main ideological foundation of labor unionism and the labor policy of all contemporary governments makes it necessary to analyze them with the utmost care.

這種從交換論上對工資率的決定所作的解釋，已成爲感情上的攻撃目標，但這完全是錯誤的攻撃。有人說：勞動的需求有獨占的勢力在。支持這個說法的大多數人，總以爲拿出亞當斯密偶然說到的僱主之間爲壓低工資而有「一種默契的，但是永恒的、一致的聯合」這句話[5]就足以證實他們的看法。其他的一些人則含含糊糊地指出，工商各行都有些同業組合。所有這些說法，顯然都是空洞的。但是，這些零零碎碎的想法，是工會組織和所有現代政府的勞工政策的主要意理基礎，因此，我們有必要對這些想法加以徹底的分析。

The entrepreneurs are in the same position with regard to the sellers of labor as they are with regard to the sellers of the material factors of production. They are under the necessity of acquiring all factors of production at the cheapest price. But if in the pursuit of this endeavor some entrepreneurs, certain groups of entrepreneurs, or all entrepreneurs offer prices or wage rates which are too low, i.e., do not agree with the state of the unhampered market, they will succeed in acquiring what they want to acquire only if entrance into the ranks of entrepreneurship is blocked through institutional barriers. If the emergence of new entrepreneurs or the expansion of the activities

企業家們對於勞動出賣者所採取的立場，完全同於對物質要素的出資者所採取的立場。他們必須以最低的價格來取得所有的生產要素。但是，如果爲著這個目的，某些企業家，某幾組企業家，或所有的企業家所提出的價格或工資率太低——也即不符自由市場所決定的——則他們只有在一種情形下才可得到他們所想得到的，這種情形，即加入企業家這一階層的途逕，藉制度的障礙封閉起來了。如果對於新的企業家之出現，或已經在營業的企業家的活動之擴張沒有防止，則生產要素的價格不符市場結構而跌落，勢必爲利潤的賺取提供了新機會。於是，將會有些想利用現行工資率與勞動邊際生產力之間的差距而謀利的人出來活動。他們對勞動的需求將使工資率達到由勞動邊際力所限定的髙度。亞當斯密所說的僱主之間的默契聯合，即令存在，也不能把工資壓到競爭市場的工資率之下，除非進到企業家這個階層的必要條件不只是頭腦和資本，而且也要具有爲特權階級保留的頭銜、專利、或特許。

It has been asserted that a job-seeker must sell his labor at any price, however low, as he depends exclusively on his capacity to work and has no other source of income. He cannot wait and is forced to content himself with any reward the employers are kind enough to offer him. This inherent weakness makes it easy for the concerted action of the masters to lower wage rates. They can, if need be, wait longer, as their demand for labor is not so urgent as the worker's demand for subsistence. The argument is defective. It takes it for granted that the employers pocket the difference between the marginal-productivity wage rate and the lower monopoly rate as an extra monopoly gain and do not pass it on to the consumers in the form of a reduction in prices. For if they were to reduce prices according to the drop in costs of production, they, in their capacity as entrepreneurs and sellers of the products, would derive no advantage from cutting wages. The whole gain would go to the consumers and thereby also to the wage-earners in their capacity as buyers; the entrepreneurs themselves would be benefitted only as consumers. To retain the extra profit resulting from the "exploitation" of the workers' alleged poor bargaining power would require concerted action on the part of employers in their capacity as sellers of the products. It would require a universal monopoly of all kinds of production activities which can be created only by an institutional restriction of access to entrepreneurship.

有人說：一個求職者必須在任何價格下出賣他的勞動，不管這價格如何低，因爲他完全要靠他的工作能力謀生，別無其他的所得來源。他不能等待，他不得不接受僱主所提出的任何報酬。工人方面的這個固有的弱點使得僱主們容易壓低工資率。僱主們，如果必要的話，可以等待較長的時間，因爲他們對於勞動的需求不像工人對於生活之資的需求那麼迫切。這種說法是有瑕疵的。它把「僱主們將邊際生產力的工資率與較低的獨占工資率之間的差額當作額外的獨占利得掠爲私有，不經由產品價格的減低而轉到消費者」視爲當然。因爲如果他們按照生產成本的降低而減低產品價格，他們以企業家和產品出賣者的身份，就不能從工資的削減而得到利益了。這全部的利得將轉到消費者，因而也轉到工資收入者（因爲他們同時也是產品的消费者）；企業家本身只能以消費者的身份分享這份利得。但是，僱主們如要能夠扣留來自「剝削」工人的那份額外利潤的話，他們在出賣其產品的時候，必須相互結合，把所有的各種生產活動都統一起來，形成一個普遍獨占，可是，這種局面的形成，只有靠在制度上把進到企業家階層的途徑嚴密地封閉起來。

The essential point of the matter is that the alleged monopolistic combination of the employers about which Adam Smith and a great part of public opinion speak would be a monopoly of demand. But we have already seen that such alleged monopolies of demand are in fact monopolies of supply of a particular character. The employers would be in a position enabling them to lower wage rates by concerted action only if they were to monopolize a factor indispensable for every kind of production and to restrict the employment of this factor

問題的要點是在：亞當斯密和大部份輿論所說到的所謂僱主們的獨占結合，必然是一種需求的獨占。但是，我們已經知道，這樣的所謂需求的獨占，事實上是一特殊性質的供給獨占。僱主們之能夠靠結合的行動來壓低工資，只有在一種情形下才有可能，即他們獨占了每種生產所不可少的那種要素，而又以獨占的方式來限制這種要素的供給。因爲，事實上決沒有某一物質要素是每種生產所不可少的，他們就得獨占所有的物質要素了。這種情形只有在一個社會主義的社會才會出現，在那裡，旣沒有巿場，也沒有物價和工資。

Neither would it be possible for the proprietors of the material factors of production, the capitalists and the landowners, to combine in a universal cartel against the interests of the workers. The characteristic mark of production activities in the past and in the foreseeable future is that the scarcity of labor exceeds the scarcity of most of the primary, nature-given material factors of production. The comparatively greater scarcity of labor determines the extent to which the comparatively abundant primary natural factors can be utilized. There is unused soil, there are unused mineral deposits and so on because there is not enough labor available for their utilization. If the owners of the soil that is tilled today were to form a cartel in order to reap monopoly gains, their plans would be frustrated by the competition of the owners of the submarginal land. The owners of the produced factors of production in their turn could not combine in a comprehensive cartel without the cooperation of the owners of the primary factors.

就物質要素的所有主來講，就資本家來講，以及就地主來講，他們就不可能組成一個與工人利益衝突的普遍性的卡特爾。生產活動的特徵，在過去以及在可預見的將來，都是：勞動的稀少性大過自然賦與的物質的生產要素的稀少性。因而勞動的稀少性決定了比較豐富的自然要素被利用的程度。我們有些未耕種的土地，有些未開採的鑛藏等等，因爲，我們沒有足夠的勞動來利用它們，如果現在在耕種的那些土地的地主們，爲著謀取獨占利得而組成一個卡特爾，他們的計畫將會被邊際下的土地所有主們的競爭而歸於失敗。同樣的道理，人造的生產要素的所有主們，如果沒有自然要素的所有主們的合作，也不能組成一個普遍性的、有效的卡特爾。

Various other objections have been advanced against the doctrine of the monopolistic exploitation of labor by a tacit or avowed combine of employers. It has been demonstrated that at no time and at no place in the unhampered market economy can the existence of such cartels be discovered. It has been shown that it is not true that the job-seekers cannot wait and are therefore under the necessity of accepting any wage rates, however low, offered to them by the employers. It is not true that every unemployed worker is faced with starvation; the workers too have reserves and can wait; the proof is that they really do wait. On the other hand waiting can be financially ruinous to the entrepreneurs and capitalists too. If they cannot employ their capital, they suffer losses. Thus all the disquisitions about an alleged "employers' advantage" and "workers' disadvantage" in bargaining are without substance.[6]

對於「僱主們爲剝削勞工而默契地或明示地組成獨占」這個說法的反對理由，除上述的以外，還有些別的理由。我們曾經論證：在自由巿場經濟裡面的任何地方、任何時期，絕不會發現這樣的卡特爾存在。我們已經說明，「找工作的人不能等待，所以必須接受僱主們所提出的工資率，不管它是如何低」這不是眞的。每個失業的工人都面對餓死的威脅的說法，也不是眞的，工人們也有儲蓄而且能等待；事實證明他們能等待。另一方面，等待也會給企業家和資本家財務方面的傷害。如果他們不能利用他們的資本，他們將受損失。所以，關於在議價中的所請「僱主們的利益」和「工人們的不利」的一切論著，都是沒有什麼內容的。[6]

But these are secondary and accidental considerations. The central fact is that a monopoly of the demand for labor cannot and does not exist in an unhampered market economy. It could originate only as an outgrowth of institutional restrictions of access to entrepreneurship.

但是，這都是些次要的和附帶的考慮。中心的事實是：凡是對勞動的需求獨占，在一個自由市場經濟裡面不能存在，而且事實上也不存在。它的出現，只是由於制度上堵塞了進到企業家階層的途徑。

Yet one more point must be stressed. The doctrine of the monopolistic

還有一點我們必須特別指出的。「僱主們獨占地操縱工資率」這個敎條，一說到勞動的時候，好像勞動是一個同質的實體。它討論像對「一般勞動」的需求，和「一般勞動」的供給這樣的一些骶念。但是，這樣的概念沒有實際上相符的東西。在勞動市場買賣的不是「一般的勞動」，而是提供某些特定勞務的特定勞動。每個企業家是在尋找適於完成他計畫中的特定工作的那些工人。他必須把這樣的專門人才從他們當時的工作部門拉出來。要達成這個目的，唯一的方法是給他們較高的工資。一個企業家所計畫的每個創新（一種新物品的生產，一種新的生產程序之採用，爲一個分支機構選擇一個新的地點，或者只是把自巳的或別人的原有的企業加以擴充）都要僱用當時已在別處受僱了的工人。企業家們不是單純地面對著「一般的勞動」之缺乏，而是面對著他們所需要的那些特殊勞動的缺乏。企業家們之間爲取得最適當的職工而發生的競爭，其劇烈程度並不低於爲取得必要的原料、工具、機器、以及在資本借貸市場上爲取得他的資本而發生的競爭。個別廠商的活動之擴張，也如同整個社會的活動之擴張一樣，不僅是受限於可以使用的資本財的數量和「一般勞動」的供給量。在每個生產部門，活動的擴張也受限於專門人才的供給量。這當然只是一個暫時的障礙，在長期當中，有較多的工人，因爲那些缺乏專門人才的部門對專門人才給以較高的工資而受到鼓勵，將會把他們自己訓練到適於那些有關的專門工作。但是，在變動的經濟理論裡面，這專門人才之缺乏這個現象，每天都會重新出現，因而決定了僱主們經常在尋求工人。

Every employer must aim at buying the factors of production needed, inclusive of labor, at the cheapest price. An employer who paid more than agrees with the market price of the services his employees render him, would be soon removed from his entrepreneurial position. On the other hand an employer who tried to reduce wage rates below the height consonant with the marginal productivity of labor would not recruit the type of men that the most efficient utilization of his equipment requires. There prevails a tendency for wage rates to reach the point at which they are equal to the price of the marginal product of the kind of labor in question. If wage rates drop below this point, the gain derived from the employment of every

每個僱主一定要力求以最便宜的代價買到他所需要的各種生產要素，包括勞動在內。一位僱主，如果對他的傭工所提的勞動給以較高於市場所決定的價格，這位僱主就會馬上保不住他的企業地位。另一方面，一位雇主如果想把工資率壓低到相當於勞動邊際力的那個高度以下，這位僱主就不會僱到他的生產設備所賴以充份利用的那些工人。工資率有個必然的趨勢，即趨向於與那種勞動的邊際產品的價格相等。如果工资率跌到這一點以下，則來自增僱工人的利益就會提髙勞動的需求，因而工資率又再上昇。如果工資率高於這一點，則來自傕用工人的損失就會使僱主不得不解僱工人。失業者求職的競爭，將形成工資率下降的趨勢。

-----------------

[4] Cf. above, pp. 133-135.

[4] 參考前面第七章第三節。

[5] Cf. Adam Smith, an Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Basle, 1791), vol. I, Bk. I, chap. viii, p. 100. Adam Smith himself seems to have unconsciously given up the idea. Cf. W.H. Hutt, The Theory of Collective Bargaining (London, 1930), pp. 24-25.

[5] 參考Adam Smith, an Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Basle, 1791), vol. I, Bk. I, chap. viii, p. 100. Adam Smith 自己似乎已無意地放棄了這個想法。參考W.H. Hutt, The Theory of Collective Bargaining (London, 1930), pp. 24-25.

[6] All these and many other points are carefully analyzed by Hutt, op. cit., pp. 35-72.

[6] 所有這些以及許多其他論點，在上列Hutt的書中（pp. 35-72）都有仔細的分析。

4. Catallactic Unemployment

四、交換論上的失業

If a job-seeker cannot obtain the position he prefers, he must look for another kind of job. If he cannot find an employer ready to pay him as much as he would like to earn, he must abate his pretensions. If he refuses, he will not get any job. He remains unemployed.

一個找職業的人，如果找不到他所希望的位置，他就必得去找其他的職業。如果他找不到能賺得他所希望的那個報酬的職業，他就必得降低他的要求。如果他不如此，他就找不到任何職業。他只好繼續失業。

What causes unemployment is the fact that--contrary to the above-mentioned doctrine of the worker's inability to wait--those eager to earn wages can and do wait. A job-seeker who does not want to wait will always get a job in the unhampered market economy in which there is always unused capacity of natural resources and very often also unused capacity of produced factors of production. It is only necessary for him either to reduce the amount of pay he is asking for or to alter his occupation or his place of work.

引起失業的，是那些想賺得工資的人們能夠等待，而且是在等待。這個事實正與上面提到的「工人不能等待」的說法相反。一個找職業的人，如果不想等待的話，他在自由市場的經濟理論裡面，總可找到一個職業，因爲，在市場經濟裡面，經常有些自然資源未被利用，而且，也常常有些人爲的生產要素未被利用。只要他肯降低他所希望的報酬，或變更他所希望的職位或工作地點就行了。

There were and still are people who work only for some time and then live for another period from the savings they have accumulated by working. In countries in which the cultural state of the masses is low, it is often difficult to recruit workers who are ready to stay on the job. The average man there is so callous and inert that he knows of no other use for his earnings than to buy some leisure time. He works only in order to remain unemployed for some time.

有些人，只是在某些時候工作，在其他時期，他們就靠工作時累積的儲蓄來過活，在一些大衆的文化水準很低的國家，要發動那些準備休息的工人繼續工作，常常是件難事。一般人只知道賺錢爲的是買得閒暇。他之所以工作只是爲的將來不做事。

It is different in the civilized countries. Here the worker looks upon unemployment as an evil. He would like to avoid it provided the sacrifice required is not too grievous. He chooses between employment and unemployment in the same way in which he proceeds in all other actions and choices: he weighs the pros and cons. If he chooses unemployment, this unemployment is a market phenomenon whose nature is not different from other market phenomena as they appear in a changing market economy. We may call this kind of unemployment market-generated or catallactic unemployment.

在文明國家，情形就不一樣了。這裡的工人是把失業看作一種壞事。爲著避免失業，他寧可忍受一點別的犧牲，如果犧牲不太大的話，他在就業與失業之間作選擇，也和在其他的一些行爲之間的選擇一樣；他權衡其間的利害得失。如果他選擇失業，這種失業就是一種市場現象，這種現象的性質和那些在一個變動的市場經濟裡面所出現的其他市場現象沒有什麼不同。我們可以把這種失業叫做市場形成的失業或交換論上的失業。

The various considerations which may induce a man to decide for unemployment can be classified in this way:

有幾種考慮會使一個人作「寧可失業」的決定。這些考慮可以分類如下：

1. The individual believes that he will find at a later date a remunerative job in his dwelling place and in an occupation which he likes better and for which he has been trained. He seeks to avoid the expenditure and other disadvantages involved in shifting from one occupation to another and from one geographical point to another. There may be special conditions increasing these costs. A worker who

一、這個人相信他不久會在他的居住地，或在他所更喜歡的和受過訓練的職業中，找到一個合意的工作。他是要免得從一個職業轉到另一個職業，從一個地區轉到另一個地區的費用和其他的不利。這種費用有時因某些特殊情形而增加。一位有自己住宅的工人比那些租房子住的工人，更不願遷離他的居住地。已婚的婦女比未婚的婦女更少流動性。還有一種情形，就是某些職業會傷害工人日後回到原來職業的工作能力。例如製鐘錶的工人如果轉到伐木業去做一個時期的工作，他就可能把製鐘錶的那種技巧失掉了。在所有這些情形下，個人之選擇暫時的失業，是因爲他相信這個選擇從長期看是合算的。

2. There are occupations the demand for which is subject to considerable seasonal variations. In some months of the year the demand is very intense, in other months it dwindles or disappears altogether. The structure of wage rates discounts these seasonal fluctuations. The branches of industry subject to them can compete on the labor market only if the wages they pay in the good season are high enough to indemnify the wage earners for the disadvantages resulting from the seasonal irregularity in demand. Then many of the workers, having saved a part of their ample earnings in the good season, remain unemployed in the bad season.

二、有些職業，其需求是受季節變動之影響的。在一年當中的某些月份，對它的需求非常強烈，在其他的一些月份，就變得很弱，或完全消失。工資率的結構減低這些季節性的波動。受這種季節變動之影響的行業，要想在勞動市場上僱用到工人，必須在好的季節所付的工資，高到足以補償他們因不規律的季節需要而受的損失。於是，有些工人已經把興旺季節所賺的高工資之一部份，積蓄起來，到了壞的季節就可以不就業了。

3. The individual chooses temporary unemployment for considerations which in popular speech are called uneconomic or even irrational. He does not take jobs which are incompatible with his religious, moral, and political convictions. He shuns occupations the exercise of which would impair his social prestige. He lets himself be guided by traditional standards of what is proper for a gentleman and what is unworthy. He does not want to lose face or caste.

三、有些人之所以選擇暫時失業，是由於通常所說的一些非經濟的考慮，或甚至不合理的考慮。他不接受與他的宗敎、道德、和政治信念不相容的那些工作。有損他的社會聲望的職業，他也是要拒絕的。他受「所謂紳士應當作的和不應當作的那種傳統的行爲標準」的影響。他不願意丟面子或身份。

Unemployment in the unhampered market is always voluntary. In the eyes of the unemployed man, unemployment is the minor of two evils between which he has to choose. The structure of the market may sometimes cause wage rates to drop. But, on the unhampered market, there is always for each type of labor a rate at which all those eager to work can get a job. The final wage rate is that rate at which all job-seekers get jobs and all employers as many workers as they want to hire. Its height is determined by the marginal productivity of each type of work.

在自由市場上，失業總是自願的。在失業者的心目中，失業是兩害相權取其輕。市場結構有時會使工資率下降。但是，一個未受限制的市場上，對於每樣勞動，總有一個凡是想工作的人都可得到工作的工資率。最後的工資率，是那些找工作的人都得到工作的工資率，而且是所有的僱主想僱用多少工人就可僱用多少的工資率。這種工資率的高度，決定於工人在每樣工作的邊際生產力。

Wage rate fluctuations are the device by means of which the sovereignty of the consumers manifests itself on the labor market. They are the measure adopted for the allocation of labor to the various branches of production. They penalize disobedience by cutting wage rates in the comparatively overmanned branches and recompense obedience by raising wage rates in the comparatively undermanned branches. They thus submit the individual to a harsh social pressure. It is obvious that they indirectly limit the individual's freedom to choose his occupation. But this pressure is not rigid. It leaves to the

工資率的一些波動，是消費者的主權所賴以在市場上表現的手段，有了這些波動，勞動才會適當地配置在各種生產部門。在工人過多的生產部門，工資率下降，在工人過少的生產部門，工資率上漲。於是給個人一種嚴厲的社會壓力。很明顯地，它們直接限制了個人選擇職業的自由。但是，這個強制性不是嚴密的。它還爲人留有餘地，讓他能夠選擇他所認爲較適合的。在這個範圍以內，他可照自己的意願自由行爲。這是個人在社會分工的架構裡所可享有的最大量的自由，而這個強制，是爲保持社會合作制度所不可少的最低度的強制。如果說由工資制度發揮出來的這種壓力不好，那只有一個代替的辦法：即由一個絕對的權威——計畫一切生產活動的一個中央統制機構——用命令來爲每個人分配工作。這就等於消滅所有的自由。

It is true that under the wages system the individual is not free to choose permanent unemployment. But no other imaginable social system could grant him a right to unlimited leisure. That man cannot avoid submitting to the disutility of labor is not an outgrowth of any social institution. It is an inescapable natural condition of human life and conduct.

不錯，在工資制度下，個人沒有選擇永久失業的自由。但是，也沒有其他可以想像的社會制度，可以容許一個人享有無限休閒的權利。人之不能免於勞動的負效用，並不是什麼社會制度的結果。它是人生和人的行爲不可避免的一種自然情況。

It is not expedient to call catallactic unemployment in a metaphor borrowed from mechanics "frictional" unemployment. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy there is no unemployment because we have based this construction on such an assumption. Unemployment is a phenomenon of a changing economy. The fact that a worker discharged on account of changes occurring in the arrangement of production processes does not instantly take advantage of every opportunity to get another job but waits for a more propitious opportunity is not a consequence of the tardiness of the adjustment to the change in conditions, but is one of the factors slowing down the pace of this adjustment. It is not an automatic reaction to the changes which have occurred , independent of the will and the choices of the job-seekers concerned, but the effect of their intentional actions. It is speculative, not frictional.

從力學借來一個形容詞，把交換論上的失業叫做「摩擦的」（frictional）失業，這是不妥當的。在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，沒有失業，因爲我們把這種結構建立在這樣的一個假定上。失業是變動經濟中的一個現象。因爲在生產過程的安排中，發生變動而被解僱的工人，沒有馬上利用到每個機會取得另一個工作，而要等待較有利的機會。這種事情，不是對情況變動而作的調整之遲緩的結果，而是延遲了調整步驟的那些因素的結果。那不是對那些已發生的變動的一個自動反應，不是與找工作的人們的意願和選擇無關的，而是他們有意的行爲結果。那是經過考慮的，不是什麼「摩擦的」。

Catallactic unemployment must not be confused with institutional unemployment. Institutional unemployment is not the outcome of the decisions of the individual job-seekers. It is the effect of interference with the market phenomena intent upon enforcing by coercion and compulsion wage rates higher than those the unhampered market would have determined. The treatment of institutional unemployment belongs to the analysis of the problems of interventionism.

交換論上的失業不可與制度上的失業相混淆。制度上的失業不是各個找工作的人有意決定的結果。那是用強制力把工資率規定得高於自由市場所決定的工資率的結果。制度上失業的討論，屬於干涉主義的諸問題之分析，這裡將不涉及。

5. Gross Wage Rates and Net Wage Rates

五、毛工資率與淨工資率

What the employer buys on the labor market and what he gets in exchange for the wages paid is always a definite performance which he appraises according to its market price. The customs and usages

僱主在勞動市場所買的以及他以工資所換得的，總是一項確定工作的成就。勞動市場各部門的習慣並不影響對那些特殊成就的確定數量所支付的價格。毛工資率所趨向的一點總是等於來自僱用邊際工人而增加的生產在市場上所可賣到的慣格（這當然要考慮到那些必要原料的價格，以及那必要的資本的原始利息）。

In weighing the pros and cons of the hiring of workers the employer does not ask himself what the worker gets as take-home wages. The only relevant question for him is: What is the total price I have to expend for securing the services of this worker? In speaking of the determination of wage rates catallactics always refers to the total price which the employer must spend for a definite quantity of work of a definite type, i.e., to gross wage rates. If laws or business customs force the employer to make other expenditures besides the wages he pays to the employee, the take-home wages are reduced accordingly. Such accessory expenditures do not affect the gross rate of wages. Their incidence falls upon the wage-earner. Their total amount reduces the height of take-home wages, i.e., of net wage rates.

僱主在考慮要不要僱用工人的時候，他並不問工人拿回家的工資是多少。僱主關心的問題只是：爲著得到這個工人的一些勞務，我必須支付的全部代價是多少？交換論在講到工資率之決定的時候，總是指的僱主爲取得某種勞動的一個確定工作量，所必須支付的全部代價，也即，指的是毛工資率。如果法律或習慣規定僱主除付僱工的工資以外，必須還有其他的支出，這時，工人拿回家的工資就要因之而減少。這種附帶的一些支出，不影響毛工資率。這些支出完全歸於工資收入者。它們的總額使淨工資率減低。

It is necessary to realize the following consequences of this state of affairs:

了解這種情況所引起的下列一些後果，這是必要的。

1. It does not matter whether wages are time wages or piecework wages. Also where there are time wages, the employer takes only one thing into account; namely, the average performance he expects to obtain from each worker employed. His calculation discounts all the opportunities time work offers to shirkers and cheaters. He discharges workers who do not perform the minimum expected. On the other hand a worker eager to earn more must either shift to piecework or seek a job in which pay is higher because the minimum of achievement expected is greater.

1. 工資是就時間計算的，或就件數計算的，都沒有關係。同樣地，在以時間計算工資的地方，僱主只考慮一件事情，那就是，他希望從所僱的每個工人身上得到的平均工作量。他會把在論時計算工資的制度下，給那些偷懶和不誠賁的工人們的一切作爲都考慮到。他開革不完成最低工作量的工人。另一方面，想賺得較多工資的工人必定轉到論件計算工資的職業，或者去找一個最低工作量規定得較高因而工資也較髙的職業。

Neither does it matter on an unhampered labor market whether time wages are paid daily, weekly, monthly, or as annual wages. It does not matter whether the time allowed for of discharge is longer or shorter, whether agreements are made for definite periods or for the worker's lifetime, whether the employee is entitled to retirement and a pension for himself, his widow, and his orphans, to paid or unpaid vacations, to certain assistance in case of illness or invalidism or to any other benefits and privileges. The question the employer faces is always the same: Does it or does it not pay for me to enter into such a contract? Don't I pay too much for what I am getting in return?

在一個自由的勞動市場上，論時計算的工資是每天支付，每週支付，或每月支付，都沒有關係。解僱前的通知期限是長是短，契約是就一定的期限訂立的，還是就工人終生訂立的，僱工是否有權利返休，而他自己、他的遺孀，他的孤兒是否享有年金，休假曰是否還有工資，生病或殘廢時是否有救濟金或其他的利得，這都沒有關係。僱主面對的問題總是一樣的：訂立這樣的一個契約，値不値得呢？就我所可得到的報酬來講，我不是支付太多嗎？

2. Consequently the incidence of all so-called social burdens and gains ultimately falls upon the worker's net wage rates. It is irrelevant whether or not the employer is entitled to deduct the contributions

2. 所以，一切所謂的社會負擔和利得的歸宿，最後都著落在工人的淨工資率上。至於僱主是否有權從他付給工人的工資中扣繳各種各類的社會安全捐，這是不相干的問題。無論如何，這些稅捐是僱工的負擔，不是僱主的負擔。

3. The same holds true with regard to taxes on wages. Here too it does not matter whether the employer has or has not the right to deduct them from take-home wages.

3. 在工資上面課稅，也是如此。至於僱主是否有權從工人拿回家的淨工資中扣掉這些稅，這也是不相干的問題。

4. Neither is a shortening of the hours of work a free gift to the worker. If he does not compensate for the shorter hours of work by increasing his output accordingly, time wages will drop correspondingly. If the law decreeing a shortening of the hours of work prohibits such a reduction in wage rates, all the consequences of a government-decreed rise in wage rates appear. The same is valid with regard to all other so-called social gains, such as paid vacations and so on.

4. 工作時間的縮短，也不是對工人的免費贈與。如果他不增方口他的產出量以抵補工作時間的縮短，則論時計算的工資就會降低。如果法律規定工作時間必須縮短而工資率不許降低，其結果就是政府命令工資率提高所必然引起的那些結果一齊出現。同樣的結果，也發生於所有其他的所謂社會利得，例如不扣工資的假期等等。

5. If the governments grants to the employer a subsidy for the employment of certain classes of workers, their take-home wages are increased by the total amount of such a subsidy.

5. 如果政府對於僱用某類工人的雇主給以補助金，則這類工人拿回家的淨工資就增加了這個補助金的數額。

6. If the authorities grant to every employed worker whose own earnings lag behind a certain minimum standard an allowance raising his income to this minimum, the height of wage rates is not directly affected. Indirectly a drop in wage rates could possibly result as far as this system could induce people who did not work before to seek jobs and thus bring about an increase in the supply of labor. [7]

6. 如果政府對於工資不夠某一最低標準的每個工人給以津貼，使他的收入提高到這個最低標準，工資率的高度沒有直接受到影響。可是，間接地由於這個制度會誘發原來未工作的人們出來找工作，因而使勞動的供給增加。以致工資率可能降低[7]。

------------

[7] In the last years of the eighteenth century, amidst the distress produced by the protracted war with France and the inflationary methods of financing it, England resorted to this makeshift (the Speenhamland system). the real aim was to prevent agricultural workers from leaving their jobs and going into the factories where they could earn more. The Speenhamland system was thus a disguised subsidy for the landed gentry saving them the expense of higher wages.

[7] 十八世紀末年，英國由於對法國的長期戰爭以及用通貨膨脹辦法籌取戰費而陷於貧困；在這贫困中採用了這種權宜的手段（the Speenhamland system）。這個手段的眞正目的，是防止農業方面的工人離開他們的農場到工廠去工作，因爲，在工廠裡面可賺得較高的工資。所以這個制度實際上的給地主的津貼，使地主免於支付較高的工资。

6. Wages and Subsistence

六、工資舆生活費

The life of primitive man was an unceasing struggle against the scantiness of the nature-given means for his sustenance. In this desperate effort to secure bare survival, many individuals and whole families, tribes, and races succumbed. Primitive man was always haunted by the specter of death from starvation. Civilization has freed us from these perils. Human life is menaced day and night by innumerable dangers; it can be destroyed at any instant by natural forces which are beyond control or at least cannot be controlled at the present stage of our knowledge and our potentialities. But the horror of starvation no longer terrifies people living in a capitalist society. He who is able to work earns much more than is needed for bare sustenance.

原始人的生活是個不停止的爭取，對那自然賦與的、稀少的生活資料的爭取。在這種拚命的鬥爭中，許許多多的人和整個家族、部落、乃至種族歸於滅亡。原始人總是在餓死的威脅下。文明曾經使我們解脫了這些危險。人的生命時時刻刻有危險發生：它會隨時被那些不可控制的，或至少是我們現有的知識和潛力所不可控制的自然力量毀滅，但是，餓死的恐怖再也不會威脅我們這些生活在資本主義社會的人們了。凡是能工作的人，一定會賺到多於基本生活所必需的所得。

There are also, of course, disabled people who are incapable of

當然，社會上也有些不能工作的殘廢人。還有些只能作少量工作的病弱者，他們不能賺到正常工人所賺到的那麼多；有時他們所能賺到的工資率低到無法維持生存。這些人只能靠別人的幫助才可過活。親戚、朋友、慈善家、救貧機構照顧這些貧窮人。受救濟的人們不是在社會生產過程中合作生產；就其滿足慾望的資料之得以供應而言，他們沒有行爲；他們之得以生活，是因爲得到別人的照顧。關於救貧的一些問題，是屬於消費安排的問題，不屬於生產活動的問題。人的行爲理論只涉及消費之資的供應，不涉及消費的方式，因而關於救貧的一些問題是人的行爲理論這個架構以外的問題，交換理論之討論救貧方法，只就其可能影響勞動供給這個範圍以內討論。救貧政策有時會促使一些身體健康的成年人懶於工作。

In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. The accumulation of capital soars above the increase in population figures. Consequently the marginal productivity of labor, real wage rates, and the wage earners' standard of living tend to rise continually. But this improvement in well-being is not the manifestation of the operation of an inevitable law of human evolution; it is a tendency resulting from the interplay of forces which can freely produce their effects only under capitalism. It is possible and, if we take into account the direction of present-day policies, even not unlikely that capital consumption on the one hand and an increase or an insufficient drop in population figures on the other hand will reverse things. Then it could happen that men will again learn what starvation means and that the relation of the quantity of capital goods available and population figures will become so unfavorable as to make part of the workers earn less than a bare subsistence. The mere approach to such conditions would certainly cause irreconcilable dissensions within society, conflicts the violence of which must result in a complete disintegration of all societal bonds. The social division of labor cannot be preserved if part of the cooperating members of society are doomed to earn less than a bare subsistence.

在資本主義的社會中，每人平均投資額有個穩定增加的趨勢。資本累積超過人口增加而增加。因而勞動的邊際生產力、工資率、以及工人的生活水準，趨向於繼續上昇。但是，這種福利的增進，並不是一個必然的人類演進法則的作用之表現；而是那些只有在資本主義制度下才能自由發生作用的力量相激相盪的結果。一方面資本耗損，一方面人口增加或減少得不夠，那是可能把事情弄得逆轉的，如果我們考慮當前的一些政策的取向，那甚至是必會如此的。於是，人們又要再來領會餓死是怎麼一回事，可利用的資本財數量與人口數字之間的關係將變得那麼不利，以致有些工人賺不到足以維持最低生活的工資。只要這些情況一接近，一定會在社會內部引起一些不可和解的衝突，這些衝突的劇烈可使一切社會紐帶完全崩解。如果社會的合作份子有一部份註定賺不夠他們的基本生活費用，社會分工就不能維持下去。

The notion of a physiological minimum of subsistence to which the "iron law of wages" refers and which demagogues put forward again and again is of no use for a catallactic theory of the determination

「工資鐵則」所指的和政治煽動家們所一再提倡的生理上最低生活這個觀念，在交換理論的工資理論中沒有用處。社會合作所賴以建立起的一個基礎是這個事實：依照分工原則而合作的勞動，比個人單獨努力更能生產得多，因而身體健康的人們再也不擔心飢餓的威脅了。在資本主義社會裡面，「最低生活」這個觀念，沒有交換論上的地位了。

Furthermore, the notion of a physiological minimum of subsistence lacks that precision and scientific rigor which people have ascribed to it. Primitive man, adjusted to a more animal-like than human existence, could keep himself alive under conditions which are unbearable to his dainty scions pampered by capitalism. There is no such thing as a physiologically and biologically determined minimum of subsistence, valid for every specimen of the zoological species homo sapiens. No more tenable is the idea that a definite quantity of calories is needed to keep a man healthy and progenitive, and a further definite quantity to replace the energy expended in working. The appeal to such notions of cattle breeding and the vivisection of guinea pigs does not aid the economist in his endeavors to comprehend the problems of purposive human action. The "iron law of wages" and the essentially identical Marxian doctrine of the determination of "the value of labor power" by "the working time necessary for its production, consequently also for its reproduction," [8] are the least tenable of all that has ever been taught in the field of catallactics.

而且，「生理上最低生活」這個觀念，缺乏人們賦與它的那種精密性和科學的嚴格性。原始人的生活環境，是那些受了资本主義的縱容，而慣於享受的後裔所絕不能忍受的，可是原始人卻能適應。可見沒有所謂生理的最低生活這麼一回事。爲維持一個人的健康和其生殖力，需要一定量的卡路里，爲補充在工作上消耗的體力，需要更多的、一定量的卡路里。這個想法，同樣是站不住的。這些關於豢養牲畜和解剖試鼠的觀念，無助於經濟學家封於有目的的人的行爲之了解。「工資鐵則」以及本質上相同的馬克斯敎條中所謂的決定於「爲它的生產，因而也爲它的生產所必要的工作時間」的「勞動力價値」[8]，是交換論所講的，一切站不住的觀念中最站不住的。

Yet it was possible to attach some meaning to the ideas implied in the iron law of wages. If one sees in the wage earner merely a chattel and believes that he plays no other role in society, if one assumes that he aims at no other satisfaction than feeding and proliferation and does not know of any employment for his earnings other than the procurement of those animal satisfactions, one may consider the iron law as a theory of the determination of wage rates. In fact the classical economists, frustrated by their abortive value theory, could not think of any other solution of the problem involved. For Torrens and Ricardo the theorem that the natural price of labor is the price which enables the wage earners to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without any increase or diminution, was the logically inescapable inference from their untenable value theory. But when their epigones saw that they could no longer satisfy themselves with this manifestly preposterous law, they resorted to a modification of it which was tantamount

可是，對於工資鐵則所隱含的一些觀念加以某種意義，這是可能的。如果你把工資收入者僅看作一種動產——奴隸，而認爲他在社會上沒有其他作用，如果你假定除掉食色的滿足以外，他沒有其他的追求，而且除掉爲滿足這些獸慾以外，他也不知道爲賺取收入而就任何職業，那麼，你就可以把工資鐵則看作工資率所依以決定的一個理論。事實上，古典的經濟學家們——受挫於錯誤的價値論——對於這裡所涉的問題想不出任何其他的解答。就Torrens和李嘉圖來講，「勞動的自然價格，是使工資收入者得以維持他們自己的生存和延續他們後代的那個價格，不會有任何的增多或減少」這個定理，從邏輯上講，是他們不健全的價値論必然推演出來的結論。但是，當他們的門徒們發現，這種明明白白的荒謬法則再也不能叫他們自己滿意的時候，他們就來修正這個法則，這一修正等於完全放棄對工資率的決定作一經濟解釋的任何企圖。他們想用一個「社會的」最低限的觀念，代替生理的最低限的觀念，以保持他們所珍愛的最低生活費的想法。他們不再說「爲維持工人必要的生活和保持不減少的勞動供給所必需的最低限」。他們換個方式來說：爲維持歷史傳統和風俗習慣所承認的生活標準所必需的最低限。儘管日常的經驗明明白白地吿訴我們：在資本主義制度下的實質工資和工資收入者的生活水準是穩定地上昇，儘管由於產業工人社會地位的改善、推翻了社會等級和社會尊嚴的那些旣有的觀念，而那些把人們分隔成各種階層的傳統藩籬，已顯得再也不能維持，可是，這些空想家們卻宣稱，古老的風俗習慣決定工資率的高度！我們現在這個時代，是工業生產爲大衆的消費一再提供前所未有的新奇產品，這些新產品是過去的帝王們所夢想不到的，現在的一般工人卻可享受，在這樣的一個時代，只有那些蔽於先入的偏見和黨派偏見的人們，才會用上述的那種解釋來解釋工資率。

It is not especially remarkable that the Prussian Historical School of the wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften viewed wage rates no less than commodity prices and interest rates as "historical categories" and that in dealing with wage rates it had recourse to the concept of "income adequate to the individual's hierarchical station in the social scale of ranks." It was the essence of the teachings of this school to deny the existence of economics and to substitute history for it. But it is amazing that Marx and the Marxians did not recognize that their endorsement of this spurious doctrine entirely disintegrated the body of the so-called Marxian system of economics. When the articles and dissertations published in England in the early 'sixties convinced Marx that it was no longer permissible to cling unswervingly to the wage theory of the classical economists, he modified his theory of the value of labor power. He declared that "the extent of the so-called natural wants and the manner in which they are satisfied, are in themselves a product of historical evolution" and "depend to a large extent on the degree of civilization attained by any given country and, among other factors, especially on the conditions and customs and pretensions concerning the standard of life under which the class of free laborers has been formed." Thus "a historical and moral element enter into the determination of the value of labor power." But when Marx adds

普魯士的所謂政治經濟學的歷史學派，把工資率看作和物價及利率一樣，都是「歷史的題目」；在討論工資率的時候，它藉助於「適合個人社會地位的所得」這個概念。這不是特別可驚異的事情。這個學派的要旨是在否認經濟學而代之以歷史。但是，我們覺得驚奇的，倒是馬克斯和馬克斯門徒們，竟不知道他們對這個學派的贊成正是粉碎所謂馬克斯的經濟學體系。當十九世紀六十幾年，英國出版的那些論著使馬克斯相信，再也不容堅持古典經濟學家的工資理論的時候，他就修正了他的勞動力價値說。他宣稱「所謂自然慾望的廣狭和其滿足的方式，其本身史演進的結果」，而且「大體上決定於那個國家所達到的文明程度，尤其是決定於自由勞動階級所賴以形成的那種生活水準的一些條件和習俗。因此，「歷史的和道德的因素進到勞動力價値的決定」。但是，當再說到「就某一定的時間、某一定的國家而言，最低生活所必需的平均量，是一個旣定的事實」[9]的時候，他是自相矛盾而且給讀者的誤導。在他的心中，再也沒有「不可少的必需品」了，若有，也是從傳統的觀點，而認爲不可少的一些東西，也即，爲維持那種適合工人們在傳統社會階層中的地位，而必需的那些東西。藉助於這樣的解釋，那就等於放棄了任何經濟學的或交換論的關於工資率決定的說明。工資率被解釋爲歷史事實，不再被看作市場現象，而被看作來自市場以外的東西。

However, even those who believe that the height of wage rates as they are actually paid and received in reality are forced upon the market from without as a datum cannot avoid developing a theory which explains the determination of wage rates as the outcome of the valuations and decisions of the consumers. Without such a catallactic theory of wages, no economic analysis of the market can be complete and logically satisfactory. It is simply nonsensical to restrict the catallactic disquisitions to the problems of the determination of commodity prices and interest rates and to accept wage rates as a historical datum. An economic theory worthy of the name must be in a position to assert with regard to wage rates more than that they are determined by a "historical and moral element." The characteristic mark of economics is that it explains the exchange ratios manifested in market transactions as market phenomena the determination of which is subject to a regularity in the concatenation and sequence of events. It is precisely this that distinguishes economic conception from the historical understanding, theory from history.

但是，認爲實際上工資率的高度是在市場以外決定而強使市場遵照的那些人，不能免於推演出一種理論，而把工資率的決定解釋爲消費者們評値和抉擇的結果。如果沒有這樣的交換論的工資說，則市場的經濟分析就不會是完全的，在邏輯上不會是圓滿的。把交換論所硏究的對象，限之於物價和利率的決定問題，把工資看作歷史事實而接受，那簡直是荒謬的。經濟理論値得稱之爲經濟理論的，必須能夠對於工資率所講的，不只是說決定於一個「歷史的和道德的因素」。經濟學的特徵，是它把那些市場交易上表現出來的交換率，解釋爲市場現象，而其決定是受一些事象連續的規律性之影響的這一點，正是經濟概念與歷史了解不同的地方，也是理論與歷史不同的地方。

We can well imagine a historical situation in which the height of wage rates is forced upon the market by the interference of external compulsion and coercion. Such institutional fixing of wage rates is one of the most important features of our age of interventionist policies. But with regard to such a state of affairs it is the task of economics to investigate what effects are brought about by the disparity between the two wage rates, the potential rate which the unhampered market would have produced by the interplay of the supply of and the demand for labor on the one hand, and on the other the rate which external compulsion and coercion impose upon the parties to the market transactions.

我們很可以想像一種歷史情況，在這種情況下，工資率的高度是由市場以外的干涉力量強使市場遵照的。這樣用法令來規定的工資率，是我們這個干涉政策盛行的時代最主要的特色之一。但是，關於這樣的事情，這就要靠經濟學來査究它的後果了——查究兩個工資率之不一致所引起的一些後果，一個是由勞動的供給和需求的相互作用，應該在自由市場上出現的工資率，一個是市場以外的強制力，命令市場交易的雙方必須遵行的工資率。

It is true, wage earners are imbued with the idea that wages must be at least high enough to enable them to maintain a standard of living at least high enough to enable them to maintain a standard of living adequate to their station in the hierarchical gradation of society. Every single worker has his particular opinion about the claims he is entitled to raise on account of "status," "rank," "tradition," and "custom" in the same way as he has his particular opinion about his own efficiency and his own achievements. But such pretensions and self-complacent assumptions are without any relevance for the determination of wage rates. They limit neither the upward nor the downward movement of wage rates. The wage earner must sometimes satisfy himself with much less than what, according to his opinion, is adequate to his rank and efficiency. If he is offered more than he expected, he pockets the surplus without a qualm. The age of laissez faire for which the iron law and Marx's doctrine of the historically determined formation of wage rates claim validity witnessed a progressive, although sometimes temporarily interrupted, tendency for real wage rates to rise. The wage earners' standard of living rose to a height unprecedented in history and never thought of in earlier periods.

不錯，工資收入者確有這個想法——工資至少要高到足以使他能夠維持一個符合他的社會地位的生活標準。每一個工人關於他應有的社會地位，各有其特殊的想法，正如同他關於他自己的效率和自己的成就各有其特殊的想法是一樣的。但是，這樣的「自以爲」和自我陶醉的想法，對於工資率的決定毫不相干。旣不影響工資率的上昇，也不影響工資率的下降。有時工資收入者所樂意接受的工資率比那依照他自己的想法，符合他的地位和效率的工資率要低得多。假若僱主給他的工資高於他所希望的，他是受之無愧的。在工資鐵則和馬克斯的「工資率决定於歷史」的說法暢行的那個自由放任的時代當中，實質工資率有個逐漸上昇的趨勢，儘管這個趨勢有時短暫地中斷。工資收入者的生活標準上昇到史無前例的高度，也是以前所夢想不到的高度。

The labor unions pretend that nominal wage rates at least must always be raised in accordance with the changes occurring in the monetary unit's purchasing power in such a way as to secure to the wage earner the unabated enjoyment of the previous standard of living. They raise these claims also with regard to wartime conditions and the measures adopted for the financing of war expenditure. In their opinion even in wartime neither inflation nor the withholding of income taxes must affect the worker's take-home real wage rates. This doctrine tacitly implies the thesis of the Communist Manifesto that "the working men have no country" and have "nothing to lose but their chains"; consequently they are neutral in the wars waged by the bourgeois exploiters and do not care whether their nation conquers or is conquered. It is not the task of economics to scrutinize these statements. It only has to establish the fact that it does not matter what kind of justification is advanced in favor of the enforcement of wage rates higher than those the unhampered labor market would have determined. If as a result of such claims real wage rates are really raised above the height consonant with the marginal productivity of the various types of labor concerned, the unavoidable consequences must appear without any regard to the underlying philosophy.

工會要求：名目的工資率至少要適應貨幣購買力的變動而經常提高，使工人可以保持原先的生活標準而不致降低享受。他們的這些要求，在戰時也一樣提出。他們認爲，即令在戰時，通貨膨脹也好，所得稅的扣繳也好，都不可影饗實質工資的淨額。這個主張隱含著共產黨宣言所說的「工人無祖國」和「所失掉的只有鎖鍊」的意旨；因此，他們在資產階級剝削者之間的戰爭中，是中立的，國家的勝利或滅亡，他們都不關心。對於這些說法的檢討，不是經濟學的事情。經濟學兵要確認一個事實，即：無論對於把工資率提高到高於自由的勞動市場所會決定的那個工資率以上這件事，提出怎樣的贊成理由，都是不相干的。如果由於上述的那些要求，實質工資率眞的提高到有關的勞動邊際生產力所決定的高度以上，則那些不可避免的後果一定會出現，至於這些工資率所賴以提高的理論是什麼，與這些後果之是否出現毫無關聯。

【英文第四版無此段。】

上面所說的，同樣適用於「工人有權取得來自工會主持人所說的勞動生產力的改進的全部利益」這個曖昧的敎條。在自由的勞動市場上，工資率總是趨向於勞動邊際生産力相一致的那一點。籠統地說勞動生產力，正和籠統地說鐵的價値或金的價値一樣，都是空洞的概念。說到勞動生產力而不是指的邊際的生產力，那就毫無意義。工會主持人所想的，是要爲他們的政策加以道德上的辯護。但是，這些政策的後果並不因爲辯護的理由而有所改變。

In reviewing the whole history of mankind from the early beginnings of civilization up to our age, it makes sense to establish in general terms the fact that the productivity of human labor has been

【中文版無此段。】

Present-day labor-union doctrine operates with a concept of productivity of labor that is designedly constructed to provide an alleged ethical justification for syndicalistic ventures. It defines productivity either as the total market value in terms of money that is added to the products by the processing (either of one firm or by all the firms of a branch of industry), divided by the number of workers employed, or as output (of this firm or branch of industry) per manhour of work. Comparing the magnitudes computed in this way for the beginning of a definite period of time and for its end, they call the amount by which the figure computed for the later date exceeds that for the earlier date "increase in productivity of labor," and they pretend that it by rights belongs entirely to the workers. They demand that this whole amount should be added to the wage rates which the workers received at the beginning of the period. Confronted with these claims of the unions, the employers for the most part do not contest the underlying doctrine and do not question the concept of productivity of labor involved. They accept it implicitly in pointing out that wage rates have already risen to the full extent of the increase in productivity, computed according to this method, or that they have already risen beyond this limit.

【中文版無此段。】

Now this procedure of computing the productivity of the work performed by the labor force of a firm or an industry is entirely fallacious. One thousand men working forty hours a week in a modern American shoe factory turn out every month m pairs of shoes. One thousand men working with the traditional old-fashioned tools in small artisan shops somewhere in the backward countries of Asia produce over the same period of time, even when working much longer than forty hours weekly, many fewer than m pairs. Between the United States and Asia the difference in productivity computed according to the methods of the union doctrine is enormous. It is certainly not due to any inherent virtues of the American worker. He is not more diligent, painstaking, skillful, or intelligent than the Asiatics. (We may even assume that many of those employed in a modern factory perform much simpler operations than those required from a man handling the old-fashioned tools.) The superiority of the American plant is entirely caused by the superiority of its equipment and the prudence of its entrepreneurial conduct. What

【中文版無此段。】

On the eve of the "Industrial Revolution," conditions in the West did not differ much from what they are today in the East. The radical change of conditions that bestowed on the masses of the West the present average standard of living (a high standard indeed when compared with precapitalistic or with Soviet conditions) was the effect of capital accumulation by saving and the wise investment of it by farsighted entrepreneurship. No technological improvement would have been possible if the additional capital goods required for the practical utilization of new inventions had not previously been made available by saving.

【中文版無此段。】

While the workers in their capacity as workers did not, and do not, contribute to the improvement of the apparatus of production, they are (in a market economy which is not sabotaged by government or union violence), both in their capacity as workers and in their capacity as consumers, the foremost beneficiaries of the ensuing betterment of conditions.

【中文版無此段。】

What initiates the chain of actions that results in an improvement of economic conditions is the accumulation of new capital through saving. These additional funds render the execution of projects possible which, for the lack of capital goods, could not have been executed previously. Embarking upon the realization of the new projects, the entrepreneurs compete on the market for the factors of production with all those already engaged in projects previously entered upon. In their attempts to secure the necessary quantity of raw materials and of manpower, they push up the prices of raw materials and wage rates. Thus the wage earners, already at the start of the process, reap a share of the benefits that the abstention from consumption on the part of the savers has begotten. In the farther course of the process they are again favored, now in their capacity as consumers, by the drop in prices that the increase in production tends to bring about.[10]

【中文版無此段。】

Economics describes the final outcome of this sequence of changes thus: An increase in capital invested results, with an unchanged number of people intent upon earning wages, in a rise of the marginal utility of labor and therefore of wage rates. What raises wage rates is an increase in capital exceeding the increase in population or, in other words, an increase in the per-head quota of capital invested. On the unhampered labor market, wage rates always tend toward the height at which they equal the marginal productivity of each kind of

【中文版無此段。】

Wage rates are ultimately determined by the value which the wage earner's fellow citizens attach to his services and achievements. Labor is appraised like a commodity, not because the entrepreneurs and capitalists are hardhearted and callous, but because they are unconditionally subject to the supremacy of the consumers of which today the earners of wages and salaries form the immense majority. The consumers are not prepared to satisfy anybody's pretensions, presumptions, and self-conceit. They want to be served in the cheapest way.

工資率最後決定於工資收入者的國人對於他的勞務和成就所給的評値。勞動之所以和貨物一樣論價，不是因爲企業家和資本家的狠心和無情，而是因爲他們是無條件地受到無情的消費者的支配。消費者不會讓任何人的自我陶醉得以滿足。他們是要得到最便宜的服務。

A Comparison Between the Historical Explanation of Wage Rates and the Regression Theorem

工資率的歷史解釋與回溯定理的比較

It may be useful to compare the doctrine of Marxism and the Prussian Historical School, according to which wage rates are a historical datum and not a catallactic phenomenon, with the regression theorem of money's purchasing power.[11]

照馬克斯主義和普魯士歷史學派的敎條之說法，工資率是個歷史事實而不是個交換論上的現象。我們把這種說法與貨幣購買力回溯定理[10]作一比較，也許是有用的。

The regression theorem establishes the fact that no good can be employed for the function of a medium of exchange which at the very beginning of its use for this purpose did not have exchange value on account of other employments. This fact does not substantially affect the daily determination of money's purchasing power as it is produced by the interplay of the supply of and the demand for money on the part of people intent upon keeping cash. The regression theorem does not assert that any actual exchange ratio between money on the one hand and commodities and services on the other hand is a historical datum not dependent on today's market situation. It merely explains how a new kind of media of exchange can come into use and remain in use. In this sense it says that there is a historical component in money's purchasing power.

回溯定理確認一個事實，即：凡是可以用來作爲交換媒介的東西，在開始作爲交換媒介的時候，總會因爲其他用途而有交換價値。這個事實並不嚴重地影響貨幣購買力的逐日決定；貨幣購買力的逐日決定，是貨幣的供給和那些想保持現金的人們，對貨幣的需求相互作用的結果。回溯定理並沒有說貨幣與貨物、勞動之間的任何實際交換率是個歷史事象，而與今天的市場情況無關。它只解釋，一種新的交換媒介如何能夠開始被使用和繼續使用。在這個意義下，它說在貨幣購買力當中，有個歷史的成份。

It is quite different with the Marxian and Prussian theorems. As this doctrine sees it, the actual height of wage rates as it appears on the market is a historical datum. The valuations of the consumers who mediately are the buyers of labor and those of the wage earners, the sellers of labor, are of no avail. Wage rates are fixed by historical events of the past. They can neither rise above nor drop below this

這與馬克斯和普魯士的定理完全不同。照它們的說法，出現於市場的工資率的髙度是個歷史事象。消費者（勞動的閑接買者）和工資收入者（勞動的賣者）的評値是完全不關事的。工資率是過去的歷史事件所決定。旣不會高於，也不會低於歷史所決定的高度。今天，瑞士的工資率比中國的較高這個事實，只能用歷史來解釋，正如同只有歷史才可解釋，爲什麼拿破畨第一成爲法國人而不成爲意大利人，成爲一位皇帝而不成爲科西嘉的一名律師。在解釋這兩國的牧人或泥水匠的工資率之差異的時候，藉助於在每個市場上運作的那些因素，是不可以的。解釋，只能由這兩國的歷史資料來提供。

------------------

[8] Cf. Marx, Das Kapital (7th ed. Hamburg, 1914), I, 133. In the Communist Manifesto (Section II) Marx and Engels formulate their doctrine in this way: "The average price of a wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of means of subsistence which is absolutely required to keep the laborer in bare existence as laborer." It "merely suffices to prolong and produce a bare existence."

[8] 參考Marx, Das Kapital (7th ed. Hamburg, 1914), I, 133. In the Communist Manifesto（第二節）裡面，馬克斯和恩格斯把他們的敎條寫成這樣一個公式：「工资勞動的平均價格是最低工資，也即，爲維持一個工人作爲工人而生存的絕對必需的最低生活費。」這種平均工資「只夠延長工人的生命而讓他生殖」。

[9] Cf. Marx, Das Kapital, p. 134. Italics are mine. The term used by Marx which in the text is translated as "necessaries of life" is "Lebensmittel." the Muret- Sanders Dictionary (16 ed.) translates this term "articles of food, provisions, victuals, grub."

[9] 參考Marx, Das Kapital, p. 134。文中所說的「生活所必需的」這個詞是馬克斯原著的「Lebensmittel」這個詞的翻譯。

[10] See above, pp. 296-297.

[11] See above, pp. 408-410.

[10] 參考第十七章第四節。

7. The Supply of Labor as Affected by the Disutility of Labor

七、受了勞動負效用之影響的勞動供給

The fundamental facts affecting the supply of labor are:

影響勞動供給的一些基本事實是：

1. Every individual can expend only a limited quantity of labor.

1. 每個人只能支付有限的勞動量。

2. This definite quantity cannot be performed at any time desired. The interpolation of periods of rest and recreation is indispensable.

2. 這個一定量的勞動不能在任何想用的時候使用。【歧義。應為“並非隨時可用”。】休息和消遣的時期是不可少的。

3. Not every individual is able to perform any kind of labor. There are innate as well as acquired diversities in the abilities to perform certain types of work. The innate faculties required for certain types of work cannot be acquired by any training and schooling.

3. 不是每個人都可提供任何種類的勞動。先天的秉賦和後天的學習有很大的不同，因而各人所能做的工作也不一樣。有些種類的工作所必要的先天秉賦，不是任何訓練和敎育所可成就的。

4. The capacity of work must be dealt with appropriately if it is not to deteriorate or to vanish altogether. Special care is needed to preserve a man's abilities--both the innate and the acquired--for such a period as the unavoidable decline of his vital forces may permit.

4. 如果工作能力沒有減退或完全消失，它必須有適當的照顧。一個人在精力必然減返的時期，爲與維持他先天秉賦的和後天學習的那些能力，尤其需要特別的照顧。

5. As work approaches the point at which the total amount of work a man can perform at the time is exhausted and the interpolation of a period of recreation is indispensable, fatigue impairs the quantity and the quality of the performance.[12]

5. 當工作接近於一個人在當時所能作的全部工作量的頂點，而休閒的時間成爲必要的時候，疲勞會傷害工作的量和質[11]。

6. Men prefer the absence of labor, i.e., leisure, to labor, or as the economists put it: they attach disutility to labor.

6. 人們樂於不勞動，也即樂於休閒。用經濟學家的說法，人們認爲勞動有負效用。

The self-sufficient man who works in economic isolation for the direct satisfaction of his own needs only, stops working at the point at which he begins to value leisure, the absence of labor's disutility, more highly than the increment in satisfaction expected from working more. Having satisfied his most urgent needs, he considers the satisfaction of the still unsatisfied needs less desirable than the satisfaction of his striving after leisure.

僅爲自己的需要而求直接滿足，工作於經濟孤立狀態自給自足的人，在他開始感覺到閒暇的價値比從工作得到的滿足之增加更大的時候，就停止他的工作。滿足了最迫切的需要以後，他就認爲，那些尙未滿足的需要比閒暇次要了。

The same is true for wage earners no less than for an isolated autarkic worker. They too are not prepared to work until they have

就一個孤立的自給自足的工人而言是如此，就工资收入者們而言，也是一樣。到了他們已經把他們所能用的全部工作能力用完的時候，他們也就不想工作了。這時，從增加工作所可得到的直接滿足，再也不能補償增加工作所帶來的負效用，於是他們也要停止工作。

Popular opinion, laboring under atavistic representations and blinded by Marxian slogans, was slow in grasping this fact. It clung and even today clings to the habit of looking at the wage earner as a bondsman, and at wages as the capitalist equivalent of the bare subsistence which the slave owner and the cattle owner must provide for their slaves and animals. In the eyes of this doctrine the wage earner is a man whom poverty has forced to submit to bondage. The vain formalism of the bourgeois lawyers, we are told, calls this subjection voluntary, and interprets the relation between employer and employee as a contract between two equal parties. In truth, however, the worker is not free; he acts under duress; he must submit to the yoke of virtual serfdom because no other choice is left to him, society's disinherited outcast. Even his apparent right to choose his master is spurious. The open or silent combination of the employers fixing the conditions of employment in a uniform way by and large makes this freedom illusory.

一般的見解，囿於隔代遺傳和馬克斯的口號，對於這個事實的了解非常遲鈍。它固執，甚至今天還在固執著一個習慣，即慣於把工資收入者看作奴隸，把工資看作資本家給工人維持生命的生活費，等於奴隸和畜牲的主人們給他們的奴隸和畜牲的生活資料。一般的見解總以爲：資本階級法律家的形式主義把這種隸屬關係叫做自願的，解釋爲僱主和受僱者雙方平等的契約關係，其實，工人是不自由的；他是在被迫下行爲；他不得不受制於實際上是奴隸的枷鎖，因爲被社會遺棄的人是沒有其他選擇的。甚至那些表面上的選擇主人的權利也是假的。僱主們之間公開的或默契的結合，把僱傭條件規定得一致，以致這種表面上的自由成爲虚幻。

If one assumes that wages are merely the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the worker in the preservation and reproduction of labor power or that their height is determined by tradition, it is quite consistent to consider every reduction in the obligations which the labor contract imposes on the worker as a unilateral gain for the worker. If the height of wage rates does not depend on the quantity and quality of the performance, if the employer does not pay to the worker the price the market assigns to his achievement, if the employer does not buy a definite quantity and quality of workmanship, but buys a bondsman, if wage rates are so low that for natural or "historical" reasons they cannot drop any further, one improves the wage earner's lot by forcibly shortening the length of the working day. Then it is permissible to look at the laws limiting the hours of work as tantamount to the decrees by means of which European governments of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries step by step reduced and finally entirely abolished the amount of the unpaid statute labor (corvee) which the peasant bondsmen were liable to give to their lords, or to ordinances lightening the work to be done by convicts. Then the shortening of daily hours of work which the evolution of capitalist industrialism brought about is appraised as a victory of the exploited wage-slaves over the rugged selfishness of their tormentors. All laws imposing upon the employer the duty to make definite expenditures to the benefit of the employees are

如果你以爲工資只是對於工人爲保持勞動力和生殖【再生產】勞動力的費用所作的補償，或以爲工資的高度是決定於傳統，那麼，你把勞動契約課於工人方面的那些職責的每一減輕，視作工人方面的片面利益，這是很一貫的。如果工資的高度不隨工作的量和質轉移，如果僱主給工人的工資不是按照市場對這工人的成就所決定的價格，如果僱主不是購買一個確定的量和質的勞動，而是購買一個奴隸，如果工資率低到基於自然或歷史的理由，而不能再低的程度，那麼，你就可以用強迫方式，縮短工作曰的時間，以改善工資收入者的命運。於是就可以把限制工時的法律看作等於十七世紀、十八世紀、以及十九世紀初期，歐洲各國用以逐歩減輕而終於完全廢除地主對農奴徭役之徵的那些法令，或看作等於減輕囚徒們工作的那些勒令。於是，由於資本主義工業化而引起的工作日的時間縮短，被認爲受剝削的工資奴隸們爭來的勝利。凡是責成僱主爲工人們謀福利的一切法律，都被稱爲「社會利得」，被稱爲「工人無須任何犧牲而得到的施捨」。

It is generally assumed that the correctness of this doctrine is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that the individual wage earner has only a negligible influence on the determination of the terms of the labor contract. The decisions concerning the length of the working day, work on Sundays and holidays, the time set for meals and many other things are made by the employers without asking the employees. The wage earner has no other choice than to yield to these orders or to starve.

一般人認爲，這個說法的正確性可由一個事實充份證明，即工資收入者個人，對於勞動契約條件的決定，只有一點微不足道的影響。關於工作日的時間長短，星期天和其他假期的工作，以及對於用餐和其他許多事情所規定的時間等等所作的決定，都是沒有問過工人們的。工資收入者只有屈服於這些規定，否則就要餓死。

The cardinal fallacy involved in this reasoning has already been pointed out in the preceding sections. The employers are not asking for labor in general, but for men who are fitted to perform the kind of labor they need. Just as an entrepreneur must choose for his plants the most suitable location, equipment, and raw materials, so he must hire the most efficient workers. He must arrange conditions of work in such a way as to make them appear attractive to those classes of workers he wants to employ. It is true that the individual worker has but little to say with regard to these arrangements. They are, like the height of wage rates itself, like commodity prices, and the shape of articles produced for mass consumption, the product of the interaction of innumerable people participating in the social process of the market. They are as such mass phenomena which are but little subject to modification on the part of a single individual. However, it is a distortion of truth to assert that the individual voter's ballot is without influence because many thousands or even millions of votes are required to decide the issue and that those of people not attached to any party virtually do not matter. Even if one were to admit this thesis for the sake of argument, it is a non sequitur to infer that the substitution of totalitarian principles for democratic procedures would make the officeholders more genuine representatives of the people's will than election campaigns. The counterparts of these totalitarian fables in the field of the market's economic democracy are the assertions that the individual consumer is powerless against the suppliers and the individual employee against the employers. It is, of course, not an individual's taste, different from that of the many, that determines the features of articles of mass production designed for mass consumption, but the wishes and likes of the majority. It is not the individual job-seeker, but the masses of job-seekers whose conduct determines the terms of the labor contracts prevailing in definite areas or branches of industry. If it is customary to have lunch between noon and one o'clock, an individual worker who prefers to have it between two and three p.m. has little chance of having his

這樣的推理所犯的基本錯誤，在前面幾節中已經指出。僱主們要的不是一般勞動，要的是適於完成他們所需要的那種工作的那些人。正如同一個企業家必須爲他的工廠選擇最適當的位置、設備、和原料一樣，他必須僱用最有效率的工人。他必須把工作條件安排得可以吸引他所想僱用的那些類別的工人。不錯，單獨一個工人對於工作條件的安排，沒有什麼影響。工作條件，像工資率本身的高度、像物價、像那些爲大衆消費而產生的產品樣式一樣，是無數的人們在市場活動中相激相盪的結果。它們都是些大量現象，因而不大受到單獨一個人的影響。但是，如果你說個人的投票是沒有影饗的，因爲決定這個問題必須有幾千甚至幾百萬的票；或者說，不屬於任何黨派的人的投票實際上是沒有關係的，這種說法是扭曲事實。即令你爲了爭辯而準備承認這個說法，也不能據以推論出：用極權主義替代民主程序的選舉，更能使政府官吏眞正代表民意。在市場的經濟民主方面與這極權的神話相對稱的，是說：個別的消費者無力對付供給者們，個別的被僱者無力對付僱主們。當然，爲大衆消費而大量生產的那些貨物的品質，不是決定於一個人的嗜好，而是決定於大多數人的願望和喜好。某些地區或某些工業部門勞動契約的一些條件，不是決定於單獨一個找工作者的行爲，而是決定於大多數找工作者的行爲。如果午飯的時間習慣上是排在中午和一點鐘之間，一個想在下午二時至三時之間用餐的工人，就沒有滿足他的希望的機會。但是，在這個事例中，這個工人所不得不服從的社會壓力，不是來自僱主，而是來启這個工人的大多數夥伴。

Employers in their search for suitable workers are forced to accommodate themselves even to serious and costly inconveniences if they cannot find those needed on other terms. In many countries, some of them stigmatized as socially backward by the champions of anticapitalism, employers must yield to various wishes of workers motivated by considerations of religious ritual or caste and status. They must arrange hours of work, holidays, and many technical problems according to such opinions, however burdensome such an adjustment may be. Whenever an employer asks for special performances which appear irksome or repulsive to the employees, he must pay extra for the excess of disutility the worker must expend.

僱主們在物色適當工人的時候，如果無法在其他的條件下找到，他們也不得不適應環境來牽就諸多的不便。在許多國家裡面，僱主們必須滿足工人們基於宗敎、階級、身份等的考慮而表示的願望，這樣的僱主們，有的被一些反資本主義的鬥士汚衊爲社會的落伍份子。這些僱主必須把工作時間、假期、以及許多技術上的問題，按照工人們這樣的一些願望來安排，不管這樣的安排是如此的麻煩或不便。一個僱主所要尋找的工人，如果其工作是人所厭惡的，他必須用額外的報酬來補償。

The terms of the labor contract refer to all working conditions, not merely to the height of wage rates. Teamwork in factories and the interdependence of various enterprises make it impossible to deviate from the arrangements customary in the country or in the branch concerned and thus result in a unification and standardization of these arrangements. But this fact neither weakens nor eliminates the employee contribution in their setting up. For the individual workers they are, of course, an unalterable datum as the railroad's timetable is for the individual traveler. But nobody would contend that in determining the timetable the company does not bother about the wishes of the potential customers. Its intention is precisely to serve as many of them as possible.

勞動契約所規定的，涉及一切工作條件，不僅涉及工資率的高低。工廠裡面的協同工作以及各種企業的相互依存，使勞動契約的內容不可能違離這個國家或這個有關行業習慣上的安排，因而形成了一致的棣準。但是，這種情形旣不減弱、也不消除工人們在這些安排上所發生的作用。對於各個工人來講，這些安排正如同鐵路的行車時間表對於各個旅客那樣地不可變。但是，誰也不能講：鐵路公司在決定行車表的時候，不考慮到潜在的顧客們的願望。鐵路公司是要盡可能使更多的旅客滿意。

The interpretation of the evolution of modern industrialism has been utterly vitiated by the anticapitalistic bias of governments and professedly prolabor writers and historians. The rise in real wage rates, the shortening of hours of work, the elimination of child labor, and the restriction of the labor of women, it is asserted, were the result of the interference of governments and labor unions and the pressure of public opinion aroused by humanitarian authors. But for this interference and pressure the entrepreneurs and capitalists would have retained for themselves all the advantages derived from the increase in capital investment and the consequent improvement in technological methods. The rise in the wage earners' standard of living was thus brought about at the expense of the "unearned" income of capitalists, entrepreneurs, and landowners. It is highly desirable to continue these policies, benefiting the many at the sole expense of a few selfish exploiters, and to reduce more and more the unfair take of the propertied classes.

關於現代工業化的演進之解釋，已被反資本主義的一些偏見弄糟了。這些偏見包括政府方面的、大衆方面的，以及所謂親勞工的作家們和歷史家們。照他們的說法，實質工資率的上昇、工作時間的縮短、童工的消滅、已婚女工的限制，都是政府和工會的干涉，以及人道主義的作家所激發的輿論的壓迫之結果。如果沒有這些干涉和壓迫，企業家和資本家就會把那些來自投资增加和技術改良的利益，全部據爲己有。所以，工資收入者生活水準的提高是要犧牲資本主、企業家、和地主們不勞而獲的利益的。這些干涉政策之繼續推行是特別可取的。因爲，有利於多數人而只犧牲少數自私自利的剝削者，而且使那些有產階級不公平的利得日漸減少。

The incorrectness of this interpretation is obvious. All measures restricting the supply of labor directly or indirectly burden the capitalists as far as they increase the marginal productivity of labor and reduce the marginal productivity of the material factors of production. As they restrict the supply of labor without reducing the supply of capital, they increase the portion allotted to the wage earners out of the total net product of the production effort. But this total net produce will drop too, and it depends on the specific data of each case whether the relatively greater quota of a smaller cake will be greater or smaller than the relatively smaller quota of a bigger cake. Profits and the rate of interest are not directly affect by the shortening of the total supply of labor. The prices of material factors of production drop and wage rates per unit of the individual worker's performance (not necessarily also per capita of the workers employed) rise. The prices of the products rise too. Whether all these changes result in an improvement or in a deterioration of the average wage earner's income is, as has been said, a question of fact in each instance.

這種解釋的不正確，是很明顯的。凡是限制勞動供給的一切措施，在其增加的勞動的邊際生產力和減低物質生產要素的邊際生產力的程度以內，直接或間接加重資本家們的負擔。因爲這些措施限制勞動的供給而不減少資本的供給，它們增加了那來自生產努力的淨生產總額而用以分配給工資收入者的那部份。但是，這淨生產總額將也降低。至於一個較小的餅的相對較大的配額是大於或小於一個較大的餅的相對較小的配額，那就決定於各個場合的特殊情況。利率和利潤不受勞動總供給滅縮的直接影響。物質生產要素的價格下跌，各個工人完成的工作每個單位的工資率（不一定也是被倮工人的每人的工資率）上漲。產品的價格也上漲。至於所有這些變動的結果是平均收入者的所得改善或變壞，那就是個別情況下的一個事實問題。

But our assumption that such measures do not affect the supply of material factors of production is impermissible. The shortening of the hours of work, the restriction of night work and of the employment of certain classes of people impair the utilization of a part of the equipment available and are tantamount to a drop in the supply of capital. The resulting intensification of the scarcity of capital goods may entirely undo the potential rise in the marginal productivity of labor as against the marginal productivity of capital goods.

但是，我們的這個假定——這樣的一些措施不影響物質的生產要素的供給——是不可以的。工作時間的縮短、夜間工作的限制，以及對某類工人的僱用所加的限制，都有損於一部份資本設備的利用，也即等於資本供給的降低。資本財的稀少性因之加甚，這會完全消除勞動邊際生產力相對於資本財邊際生產力的可能上漲。

If concomitantly with the compulsory shortening of the hours of work the authorities or the unions forbid any corresponding reduction in wage rates which the state of the market would require or if previously prevailing institutions prevent such a reduction, the effects appear that every attempt to keep wage rates at a height above the potential market rate brings about: institutional unemployment.

如果政府或工會在強迫縮短工作時間的同時，又禁止市場情況所必需的工資率下降，或者，如果原有一些制度防止這樣的下降，則其結果必然是「制度的失業」。

The history of capitalism as it has operated in the last two hundred years in the realm of Western civilization is the record of a steady rise in the wage earners' standard of living. The inherent mark of capitalism is that it is mass production for mass consumption directed by the most energetic and far-sighted individuals, unflaggingly aiming at improvement. Its driving force is the profit-motive the instrumentality of which forces the businessman constantly to provide the consumers with more, better, and cheaper amenities. An excess of profits over losses can appear only in a progressing economy and only to the

過去兩百年，在西方文明中留下的資本主義史，是工資收入者的生活水準續漲增高的記錄。資本主義固有的特徵，是爲大衆消費而大規模的生產。它的推動力是利潤動機：藉助於利潤動機，工商業者經常爲消費者提供更多、更好、更廉價的一些享受。超過損失的利潤只能在進展的經濟中才會出現，而且，其程度也以大衆生活水準改善的程度爲限[12]。所以，資本主義是促使一些最敏捷的人盡他們的能力爲遲鈍的大衆增進福利的制度。

In the field of historical experience it is impossible to resort to measurement. As money is no yardstick of value and want-satisfaction, it cannot be applied for comparing the standard of living of people in various periods of time. However, all historians whose judgment is not muddled by romantic prepossessions agree that the evolution of capitalism has multiplied capital equipment on a scale which far exceeded the synchronous increase in population figures. Capital equipment both per capita of the population and per capita of those able to work is immensely larger today than fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago. Concomitantly there has been a tremendous increase in the quota which the wage earners receive out of the total amount of commodities produced, an amount which in itself is much bigger than in the past. The ensuing rise in the masses' standard of living is miraculous when compared with the conditions of ages gone by. In those merry old days even the wealthiest people led an existence which must be called straitened when compared with the average standard of the American or Australian worker of our age. Capitalism, says Marx, unthinkingly repeating the fables of the eulogists of the Middle Ages, has an inevitable tendency to impoverish the workers more and more. The truth is that capitalism has poured a horn of plenty upon the masses of wage earners who frequently did all they could to sabotage the adoption of those innovations which render their life more agreeable. How uneasy an American worker would be if he were forced to live in the style of a medieval lord and to miss the plumbing facilities and the other gadgets he simply takes for granted!

在歷史的經驗方面，是不能依靠衡量的，貨幣決不是價値和慾望滿足的碼尺，因而不能用它來比較不同時期的人們的生活標準。但是，凡未被一些離奇的偏見弄混了對事物的判斷的歷史家們，一致地認爲：資本主義的演進曾經使資本財大大地超過同時期的人口增加而倍增。今天的資本設備，就全部人口的每個人來講也好，或就能夠工作的每個人來講也好，都比五十年以前，一百年以前，或二百年以前多得多。同時，工資收入者從產出的貨物總額中得到的配額也已大大地增加，而這個總額本身也比過去的大得多。接著來的大衆生活水準的上昇，與已往的情形比較，眞是像奇蹟一樣。在快樂的往昔，甚至最富有的人們所過的生活與今天美國工人或澳洲工人的平均生活水準比起來，只能說是平凡。不假思索地一再稱頌中古時期的馬克斯曾說，資本主義有個必然的趨勢，就是把工人們弄得愈來愈窮。其實，資本主義已使工資收入者的生活過得日益豐富，儘管工人們經常反對採用那些使他們的生活過得更好的發明創新。請試想想，如果一個美國工人被迫生活在中古地主的莊園中，沒有鉛管類的設備和其他一些被視爲當然的新玩意兒，他將如何地苦惱！

The improvement in his material well-being has changed the worker's valuation of leisure. Better supplied with the amenities of life as he is, he sooner reaches the point at which he looks upon any further increment in the disutility of labor as an evil which is no longer outweighed by the expected further increment in labor's mediate gratification. He is eager to shorten the hours of daily work and to spare his wife and children the toil and trouble of gainful employment. It is not labor legislation and labor-union pressure that have shortened hours of work and withdrawn married women and children from the factories; it is capitalism, which has made the wage earner so prosperous that he is able to buy more leisure time for himself and

物質福利的改善，改變了工人對閒暇的評値。當他的生活過得較舒服，他就會把增額勞動帶來的負效用看作一個再也不能被它帶來的直接滿足所勝過的苦痛。於是，他就急於想縮短每天的工作時間，而且也急想不讓他的妻子兒女爲賺錢而就辛勞的職業。由此可知，使工作時間得以縮短，使已婚婦女和兒童得以脫離工廠的，不是勞工立法和工廠的壓力，而是資本主義。資本主義使工資收入者能夠有力量爲他自己和他家屬購買較多的閒暇時間。十九世紀的勞工立法，大體上不過是把當時市場力量相激相盪所已促成的一些變動，給以法律的承認而已。勞工立法有時候走在工業演進的前面，可是，財富的迅速增加馬上又使立法與實況相適應了。如果那些所請利於勞工的法律所規定的內容，不只是對那些已發生的變動予以承認，或者不只是對於那些即將發生的變動預作準備，這些立法就要損害工人們的物質利益。

The term "social gains" is utterly misleading. If the law forces workers who would prefer to work forty-eight hours a week not to give more than forty hours of work, or if it forces employers to incur certain expenses for the benefit of employees, it does not favor workers at the expense of employers. Whatever the provisions of a social security law may be, their incidence ultimately burdens the employee, not the employer. They affect the amount of take-home wages; if they raise the price the employer has to pay for a unit of performance above the potential market rate, they create institutional unemployment. Social security does not enjoin upon the employers the obligation to expend more in buying labor. It imposes upon the wage earners a restriction concerning the spending of their total income. It curtails the worker's freedom to arrange his household according to his own decisions.

「社會利得」這個名詞，是個完全叫人誤解的名詞。願意每星期工作四十八小時的工人，如果法律強迫他不得工作四十小時以上，或者強迫僱主們爲僱工們的利益而承擔某些費用，這樣的法律並不損僱主而利工入。不管社會安全法的內容是些什麼，它們的負擄最後還是落在被僱者的身上，而不是落在僱主的身上。它們影響那些拿回家去的工資數量：如果它們把工人看一次戲所必須付的價格提高了，它們就製造了制度上的失業。社會安全法沒有責成僱主們多花些錢購買勞動，而是對工資收入者花費他們的總所得加以限制。限制了工人照自己的决定來安排自己家務的自由。

Whether such a system of social security is a good or a bad policy is essentially a political problem. One may try to justify it by declaring that the wage earners lack the insight and the moral strength to provide spontaneously for their future. But then it is not easy to silence the voices of those who ask whether it is not paradoxical to entrust the nation's welfare to the decisions of voters whom the law itself considers incapable of managing their own affairs; whether it is not absurd to make those people supreme in the conduct of government who are manifestly in need of a guardians? It is no accident that Germany, the country that inaugurated the social security system, was the cradle of both varieties of modern disparagement of democracy, the Marxian as well as the non-Marxian.

這樣的一種社會安全制度是好的政策或是壞的政策，本質上是政治問題。也許有人會說，工人的見識和自制力不足以自動地爲自己的將來作準備，所以社會安全制度是對的。但是，另一方面卻不易於平息像下面這樣的一些質問：把國民福利委之於投票人決定，而這些投票人正是法律本身所認爲沒有能力管理他們自己事務的人們，這不是矛盾嗎？明明是些需要一個監護人來防止把他們自己的所得胡亂花掉的人們，而又使他們在政治行爲中居高位，這不是荒謬嗎？把選擇監護人的權力委之於被監護人，這是合理的嗎？德國，創立社會安全制度的這個國家，是現代兩種反民主的制度——馬克斯主義的和非馬克斯主義的——的搖籃，這決不是偶然的。

Remarks About the Popular Interpretation of the "Industrial Revolution"

關於「工業革命」一般解釋的批評

It is generally asserted that the history of modern industrialism and especially the history of the British "Industrial Revolution" provide an

一般的說法，以爲現代工業制度史，尤其是英國「工業革命」史，對於「現實的」或「制度上的」敎義，提供了實證的說明，而且完全推翻了經濟學家們的「抽象的」敎條[13]。

The economists flatly deny that labor unions and government prolabor legislation can and did lastingly benefit the whole class of wage earners and raise their standard of living. But the facts, say the anti-economists, have refuted these fallacies. The statesmen and legislators who enacted the factory acts displayed a better insight into reality than the economists. While laissez-faire philosophy, without pity and compassion, taught that the sufferings of the toiling masses are unavoidable, the common sense of laymen succeeded in quelling the worst excesses of profit-seeking business. The improvement in the conditions of the workers is entirely an achievement of governments and labor unions.

經濟學家直率地否定工會和政府的勞工立法能夠永久爲所有工資收入者謀取利益，而提高他們的生活水準。但是，那些非經濟學家卻說：事實已經駁斥了這些謬論；努力於工廠立法的那些政治家和立法者，對於實際問題比經濟學家看得更透徹；自由放任的哲學，毫無憐惜地宣稱，勞苦大衆的遭殃受罪是不可避免的，倒是—些外行人的常識終於抑制了工商業者過份的利潤之追求；工人們生活情況的改善，完全是政府和工會的一種成就。

Such are the ideas permeating most of the historical studies dealing with the evolution of modern industrialism. The authors begin by sketching an idyllic image of conditions as they prevailed on the eve of the "Industrial Revolution." At that time, they tell us, things were, by and large, satisfactory. The peasants were happy. So also were the industrial workers under the domestic system. They worked in their own cottages and enjoyed a certain economic independence since they owned a garden plot and their tools. But then "the Industrial Revolution fell like a war or a plague" on these people. [15] The factory system reduced the free worker to virtual slavery; it lowered his standard of living to the level of bare subsistence; in cramming women and children into the mills it destroyed family life and sapped the very foundations of society, morality, and public health. A small minority of ruthless exploiters had cleverly succeeded in imposing their yoke upon the immense majority.

目前對於現代工業化演進史的研究，大部份被這樣的見解滲透。那方面的一些歷史作家，一開始就用詩情畫意來描寫「工業革命」前夕的境況。同時吿訴我們，一切事情都是叫人滿意的。農民是快樂的，家庭工業的工人也如此。他們在自己房子裡面工作而享有經濟獨立，因爲他們保有一塊場地和一些工具。但是，「工業革命的災害像戰爭或時疫一樣落在這些人的身上。」[14]工廠制度把自由工人變成實際的奴隸；把他們的生活降低到僅夠生存的水準；把婦女和兒童塞進工廠，因而摧毀家庭生活，動搖社會、道德以及公共健康的基礎，至於少數無情的剝削者，則靈巧地奴役大多數人以達成他們的利益。

The truth is that economic conditions were highly unsatisfactory on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. The traditional social system was not elastic enough to provide for the needs of a rapidly increasing population. Neither farming nor the guilds had any use for the additional hands. Business was imbued with the inherited spirit of privilege and exclusive monopoly; its institutional foundations were licenses and the grant of a patent of monopoly; its philosophy was restriction and the prohibition of competition both domestic and foreign. The

事實是這樣：「工業革命」前夕的經濟情況是很壞的。傳統的社會制度沒有足夠的彈性可以適應劇增的人口。農業或行會對於增加的人手都不能容納。工商業大都具有某種特權和獨占力量；它的法制基礎是些特許狀和專利權；它的哲學是束縛性的，是限制國內外競爭的。在這種廳的家長制和政府指導的工商擁面，無地可容的人數迅速增加。他們實際上是些被遺棄的份子。他們當中的大多數是靠那些旣得階級的殘羹冷炙過生活。在豐收的季節，他們可在農場上做點零工賺得些許生活費用；其餘的季節則依賴私人的慈善事業和社會救貧組織過活。這些階層中，精力最旺盛的靑年，成千上萬地被迫當兵；其中，有許多是在作戰中被殺掉或傷殘；有更多的是沒沒無聞死亡於野蠻的訓練與懲罰，死亡於時疫或梅毒[15]。其他成千上萬的靑年，最強悍最殘忍的，則成爲流氓、盜匪和娼妓，政府當局對於這些人無可奈何。大家對於一些新的發明和節省勞力的機械羣起反對，而政府卻支持這種反對。這，使得事情完全無改善的希望。

The factory system developed in a continuous struggle against innumerable obstacles. It had to fight popular prejudice, old established customs, legally binding rules and regulations, the animosity of the authorities, the vested interests of privileged groups, the envy of the guilds. The capital equipment of the individual firms was insufficient, the provision of credit extremely difficult and costly. Technological and commercial experience was lacking. Most factory owners failed; comparatively few succeeded. Profits were sometimes considerable, but so were losses. It took many decades until the common practice of reinvesting the greater part of profits earned accumulated adequate capital for the conduct of affairs on a broader scale.

工廠制度是在不斷的克服無數障礙而發展起來的。它必須克服大衆的偏見、古老的習俗、法制方面的規律、各方權威的憎惡、特權集團的旣得利益、行會的嫉妒。各個廠商的資本設備是不夠的，信用的提供極端困難、而且昂貴。技術的和商業的經驗都缺乏。許多工廠的老闆失敗了；只有少數是成功的。利潤有時很大，但是，損失也有時很大。這種情形持續了幾十年，直到大家有了經驗，知道把賺得的利潤之大部份用之於再投資，以擴大生產規模爲止。

That the factories could thrive in spite of all these hindrances was due to two reasons. First there were the teachings of the new social philosophy expounded by the economists. They demolished the prestige of Mercantilism, paternalism, and restrictionism. They exploded the superstitious belief that labor-saving devices and processes cause unemployment and reduce all people to poverty and decay. The laissez-faire economists were the pioneers of the unprecedented technological achievements of the last two hundred years.

儘管有這些障礙，但工廠制度終於能夠發展起來，這是由於兩個理由：第一，有些新的社會哲學的敎義被一些經濟學家說明。這些敎義推翻了重商主義、家長主義、和限制主義的威望。它們打破了「節省勞力的機器和程序造成失業而使大家趨於貧困」這個迷信。有了這些不干涉主義的經濟學家，才會有近二百年來技術的空前成就。

Then there was another factor that weakened the opposition to innovations. The factories freed the authorities and the ruling landed aristocracy from an embarrassing problem that had grown too large for them. They provided sustenance for the masses of paupers. They emptied the poor houses, the workhouses, and the prisons. They converted starving beggars into self-supporting breadwinners.

其次，還有另一個因素，也是使創新的反對力量爲之滅弱的。工廠使各級政府和當權的地主階級解脫了一個重大的、不堪困擾的問題。工廠爲貧民大衆提供了生計。工廠使救貧院、貧民習藝所、和監獄騰空了。工廠把飢餓的乞丐變成了自力贍養家屬的人。

The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to

工廠的老闆沒有力量強迫任何人來做工。他們只能僱用那些願意在現行工資率下作工的人們。這些工資率雖然是低的，可是比這些貧民在任何其他途徑所可賺得的要多得多。如果說工廠把主婦們從育兒室和廚房裡拉出來，把兒童從他們的遊戲中拉出來，那簡直是歪曲的說法。這些婦人事實上沒有什麼東西可烹調，也沒有什麼東西可餵養他們的小孩。這些小孩是在飢餓狀態下生存。他們唯一的避難所是工廠。嚴格地講，工廠解救了他們，工廠使他們免於餓死。

It is deplorable that such conditions existed. But if one wants to blame those responsible, one must not blame the factory owners who--driven by selfishness, of course, and not by "altruism"--did all they could to eradicate the evils. What had caused these evils was the economic order of the precapitalistic era, the order of the "good old days."

這種情況，確是悲慘的。但是，如果你想責備那負責的人，你決不可責備工廠的老闆；工廠的老闆——自然是受自利心而非「利他心」的驅使——盡了他們的一切能力來消除這些悲慘事。引起這些悲慘的是，資本主義以前的經濟秩序，也即所謂「好的舊時代」的秩序。

In the first decades of the Industrial Revolution the standard of living of the factory workers was shockingly bad when compared with the contemporary conditions of the upper classes and with the present conditions of the industrial masses. Hours of work were long, the sanitary conditions in the workshops deplorable. The individual's capacity to work was used up rapidly. But the fact remains that for the surplus population which the enclosure movement had reduced to dire wretchedness and for which there was literally no room left in the frame of the prevailing system of production, work in the factories was salvation. These people thronged into the plants for no reason other than the urge to improve their standard of living.

在「工業革命」頭幾十年的工廠工人的生活標準，如和現代高階層以及工業界大衆的生活情況相比，是壞得驚人的。工作時間很長，工場的衛生環境惡劣。個人的工作能量很快地被用完。但是，事實仍然是：對於那些因圈地運動陷於困境，而在當時、生產制度下無地容身的過剩人口而言，工廠的工作是一種解脫。那些擠進工廠的人們不是爲的別的，而是爲的改善他們的生活。

The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the "Industrial Revolution," blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. The processing trades of earlier ages had almost exclusively catered to the wants of the well-to-do. Their expansion was limited by the amount of luxuries the wealthier strata of the population could afford. Those not engaged in the production of primary commodities could earn a living only as far as the upper classes were disposed to utilize their skill and services. But now a different principle came into operation. The factory system inaugurated a new mode of marketing as well as of production. Its characteristic feature was that the manufactures were not designed for the consumption of a few well-to-do only, but for the consumption of those who had hitherto played but a negligible role as consumers. Cheap things for the many, was the objective of the factory system. The classical factory of the early days of the Industrial Revolution was the cotton mill. Now, the cotton goods it turned out were not something the rich were asking for. These wealthy people clung to silk, linen, and cambric. Whenever the factory with its methods of mass production by means of power-driven machines invaded a new branch of production, it started

自由放任的意理和其衍生物——工業革命，摧毀了那些意理上和法制上進步與福利的障礙。它們推翻了那個不斷增加窮民人數的社會制度。早期的加工業幾乎完全是迎合富人們的慾望。這些工業的擴張受限於富有階級所能購買的奢侈品的數量。凡是未從事農產品生產的人們，謀生之道只有靠富有階層樂於利用他們的技能和服務。但是，現在的情形就不同了。工廠制度開始了一個嶄新的生產方式，同時也開始了一個嶄新的推銷方式。它的特徵是：產品的製造不是爲那少數富人的消費而設計，而是爲那些向來在巿場上是無足輕重的消費者而設計的。爲多數人製造便宜東西，是工廠制度的目的。工業革命初期的典型工廠，是棉織品工廠。當時的棉織品不是富人們所要的東西。富人們所要的是絲織品和麻紗製品。一到用機器的動力從事大規模生產的工廠侵入一個新的生產部門，它就開始爲大衆生產便宜的貨物。只有到後來，大衆的生活水準因爲工業革命而空前地提高了，工廠才把大規模的生產方法也用來製造一些較精良、較昂貴的貨物，因爲要到這個時候，工廠才能這樣作而有利。例如，工廠製造的鞋子有很久的時間只由「普羅階級」購買，較富的消費者繼續找個別的鞋匠定做。那些甚遭物議的「汗衫工廠」，並不爲富人，而只爲一般平民製造衣服。紳士淑女們總是喜歡定做的服裝。

The outstanding fact about the Industrial Revolution is that it opened an age of mass production for the needs of the masses. The wage earners are no longer people toiling merely for other people's well-being. They themselves are the main consumers of the products the factories turn out. Big business depends upon mass consumption. There is, in present-day America, not a single branch of big business that would not cater to the needs of the masses. The very principle of capitalist entrepreneurship is to provide for the common man. In his capacity as consumer the common man is the sovereign whose buying or abstention from buying decides the fate of entrepreneurial activities. There is in the market economy no other means of acquiring and preserving wealth than by supplying the masses in the best and cheapest way with all the goods they ask for.

關於工業革命的顯著事實是，它爲適應大衆的需求開啓了一個大規模生產的時代。工資收入者不再是只爲別人的福利而辛苦工作的人，他們自己是工廠生產品的主要消費者。大的企業，靠的是大衆消費。在今天的美國，大規模企業內沒有一個部門不是迎合大衆的需要的，資本主義企業的經營原則就是爲一般大衆服務。做爲消费者身份的一般大衆，其購買或不購買，對於企業的命運有決定的力量。就這一點講，他們是握有主權的。在市場經濟裡面，財富的取得和保持，只有靠以價廉質美的東西來滿足大衆的需要，此外別無他法。

Blinded by their prejudices, many historians and writers have entirely failed to recognize this fundamental fact. As they see it, wage earners toil for the benefit of other people. They never raise the question who these "other" people are.

許多歷史家和著作人，蔽於他們的偏見，對於這個基本事實完全不了解。照他們看來，工資收入者是爲別人辛勞的。他們從不提出這些「別」人究竟是誰的問題。

Mr. and Mrs. Hammond tell us that the workers were happier in 1760 than they were in 1830.[17] This is an arbitrary value judgment. There is no means of comparing and measuring the happiness of different people and of the same people at different times. We may agree for the sake of argument that an individual who was born in 1740 was happier in 1760 than in 1830. But let us not forget that in 1770 (according to the estimate of Arthur Young) England had 8.5 million inhabitants, while in 1831 (according to the census) the figure was 16 million.[18] This conspicuous increase was mainly conditioned by the Industrial Revolution. With regard to these additional Englishmen the assertion of the eminent historians can only be approved by those who endorse the melancholy verses of Sophocles: "Not to be born is, beyond all question, the best; but when a man has once seen the light of day, this is next best, that speedily he should return to that place whence he came."

Hammond夫婦吿訴我們：一七六〇年的工人比一八三〇年快樂[16]。這是個任意的價値判斷。我們沒有任何方法可用以比較和衡量不同的人或同一個人不同時間的快樂。爲著論辨起見，我們無妨同意一七四〇年出生的人，在一七六〇年比在一八三〇年更快樂些。但是我們不可忘記：一七七〇年英國的居民只有八百五十萬人（依照Arthur Young的估計），到了一八三一年，就有一千六百萬人（依照人口調查）[17]。這種顯著的人口增加，主要地是決定於工業革命。若干傑出的歷史家關於這些增加的人口的陳述，只有那些欣赏Sophocles的悲慘詩句的人們才能同意。Sophocles的詩句：生，的確不是最好的事情，一個人一經誕生，最好是快快地回到他所從來之處。

The early industrialists were for the most part men who had their origin in the same social strata from which their workers came. They lived very modestly, spent only a fraction of their earnings for their households and put the rest back into the business. But as the entrepreneurs grew richer, the sons of successful businessmen began to intrude into the circles of the ruling class. The highborn gentlemen envied the wealth of the parvenus and resented their sympathies with the reform movement. They hit back by investigating the material and moral conditions of the factory hands and enacting factory legislation.

早期的工業家，大多數是和他們所僱用的工人來自相同的社會階層。他們的生活過得非常簡樸，他們所賺得的金錢，只一小部份用在他們的生計，其餘的都用在事業上面。但是，當企業家愈來愈富的時候，他們的兒子就開始擠進統治階級的圈子。那些生長名門的紳士，嫉妒這些暴發戶的財富，並怨恨他們對改革運動的同情。他們就以研究工廠員工的物質精神狀況並促成工廠立法來打擊。

The history of capitalism in Great Britain as well as in all other capitalist countries is a record of an unceasing tendency toward the improvement in the wage earners' standard of living. This evolution coincided with the development of prolabor legislation and the spread of labor unionism on the one hand and with the increase in the marginal productivity of labor on the other hand. The economists assert that the improvement in the workers' material conditions is due to the increase in the per capita quota of capital invested and the technological achievements which the employment of this additional capital brought about. As far as labor legislation and union pressure did not exceed the limits of what the workers would have got without them as a necessary consequence of the acceleration of capital accumulation as compared with population, they were superfluous. As far as they exceeded these limits, they were harmful to the interests of the masses. They delayed the accumulation of capital thus slowing down the tendency toward a rise in the marginal productivity of labor and in wage rates. They conferred privileges on some groups of wage earners at the expense of other groups. They created mass unemployment and decreased the amount of products available for the workers in their capacity as consumers.

英國的一部資本主義史也和其他資本主義國家的一樣，是一部不斷地改良工人生活水準的記錄。這個演進，一方面是與勞動立法和工會組織的發展相一致，另一方面是與勞動邊際生產力的增加相一致。經濟學家說，工人物質生活的改善，是由於按每人計算的投资額的增加，以及這份增加的資本之利用所引起的技術成就。勞動立法和工會的壓力所提高的工資，如果未超過工人們在生產力的檫準下所應得的，那就無害於事。如果超過了，則有害於大衆利益，因爲資本的累積延緩了，因而勞動邊際生產力和工資率的上漲趨勢也爲之遲緩了。這是對某些工資收入者賦與特權而以其他一些工資收入者作犧牲。這是製造大量失業並減少工人們以消費者的身份所可得到的產品數量。

The apologists of government interference with business and of labor unionism ascribe all the improvements in the conditions of the workers to the actions of governments and unions. Except for them, they contend, the workers' standard of living would be no higher today than it was in the early years of the factory system.

爲政府的干涉政策辯護的人們，以及爲工會辯護的人們，每每把工人生活的一切改善，歸功於政府和工會的作爲。他們說，如果沒有政府和工會，今天的工人生活水準就不會比工廠制度初期的更高。

It is obvious that this controversy cannot be settled by appeal to historical experience. With regard to the establishment of the facts there is no disagreement between the two groups. Their antagonism concerns the interpretation of events, and this interpretation must be guided by the theory chosen. The epistemological and logical considerations which determine the correctness or incorrectness of a theory are logically and temporally antecedent to the elucidation of the historical problem involved. The historical facts as such neither prove nor disprove any theory. They need to be interpreted in the light of theoretical insight.

這種爭辯，當然不能靠歷史經驗來解決。關於這些事實的存在，爭辯的雙方是沒有異議的。他們之間的對立，在於對這些事實的解釋，而其解釋一定是受他們所選擇的理論之指導的。那些決定一個理論之正確與否的認識論的和邏輯的考慮，在邏輯上和時間上都是先於有關的歷史問題的聞釋。歷史事實之爲歷史事實，旣不證明任何理論爲眞，也不證明任何理論爲僞。歷史事實必須藉理論的洞察力來解釋。

Most of the authors who wrote the history of the conditions of labor

有很多寫資本主義下工人生活史的歷史家，不僅對經濟無知，而且誇耀此無知。可是，對於健全的經濟理論的蔑視，並不意味他們著手他們的研究時，沒有任何理論的成見或偏見。他們是受了政府萬能和工會神聖這一類流行的謬見的支配。的的確確，韋伯夫婦和Lujo Bretano以及一些二、三流的作家一樣，在他們的學問方面，一開始就感染了一個偏見，即對市場結構極端厭惡，對社會主義和干涉主義熱烈贊成。他們確實是忠於他們的信念而力求實現。把他們作爲「個人」來看，因爲他們的坦白和誠實，我們可以寬恕他們；把他們作爲歷史家來看，我們就不能因爲他們的坦白和誠實而寬恕。一位歷史家的意旨不管怎樣純潔，決不能因此純潔而寬恕他採用荒謬的學說。歷史家的第一個職責，是要對他自己所用以處理問題的一切學說加以仔細的撿查。如果他忽略這一點而不這樣作，輕率地接受時論中一些歪曲和混淆的想法，那麼，他就不是一位歷史家，而是一個辯護者和宣傳家。

The antagonism between the two opposite points of view is not merely a historical problem. It refers no less to the most burning problems of the present day. It is the matter of controversy in what is called in present-day America the problem of industrial relations.

這兩個相反的觀點之敵對，不僅是個歷史問題。它也一樣地涉及今天一些最熱門的問題。這是關於現在美國所謂的工業關係問題的爭辯。

Let us stress one aspect of the matter only. Vast areas--Eastern Asia, the East Indies, Southern and Southeastern Europe, Latin America--are only superficially affected by modern capitalism. Conditions in these countries by and large do not differ from those of England on the eve of the "Industrial Revolution." There are millions of people for whom there is no secure place left in the traditional economic setting. The fate of these wretched masses can be improved only by industrialization. What they need most is entrepreneurs and capitalists. As their own foolish policies have deprived these nations of the further enjoyment of the assistance imported foreign capital hitherto gave them, they must embark upon domestic capital accumulation. They must go through all the stages through which the evolution of Western industrialism had to pass. They must start with comparatively low wage rates and long hours of work. But, deluded by the doctrines prevailing in present-day Western Europe and North America, their statesmen think that they can proceed in a different way. They encourage labor-union pressure and alleged prolabor legislation. Their interventionist radicalism nips in the bud all attempts to create domestic industries. Their stubborn dogmatism spells the doom of the Indian and Chinese coolies, the Mexican peons, and millions of other peoples, desperately struggling on the verge of starvation.

讓我們只強調這個問題的一方面。廣大的地區——東亞、東印度羣島、南歐和東南歐、拉丁美洲——只是表面上受到現代資本主義的影響。這些地區的情況，大體上無異於「工業革命」前夕的英國情況。那裡有千千萬萬的人在傳統的經濟環境中無以爲生，這些可憐的大衆只有靠工業化才能改善他們的命運。他們所迫切需要的是企業家和資本家。因爲他們自己的愚蠢政策使這些國家不能大大地享受外國資本給他們的幫助，他們必須力求本國的資本累積。他們必須經歷西方工業化所已經歷的那些階段。他們必須從較低的工資率、較長的工作時間來開始。但是，誤於西歐和北美今天流行的一些學說，他們的政治家們以爲，他們能夠走一條不同的路。他們鼓勵工會的壓力和所謂有利於勞工的立法。他們那種狂熱的干涉主義，把國內工業所賴以創造的一切企圖，在萌芽中都摧毀了。這些人們不了解，工業化決不可以國際勞工局（The International Labor Ofice）和美國產業組織的工會（American Congress of Industrial Organization）的那些信條來開始。他們所固執的這些敎條，爲印度和中國的苦力（coolies）、墨西哥的匹鞍（peons——以勞力代替還債的工人），以及其他千千萬萬在飢餓邊緣拚命掙扎的人們，帶來這悲慘的命運。

-------------------

[12] Other fluctuations in the quantity and quality of the performance per unit of time, e.g., the lower efficiency in the period immdiately following the resumption of work interrupted by recreation, are hardly of any importance for the supply of labor on the market.

[11] 毎個單位時間的工作量和質的其他一些波動——也即，緊接著休閒之後的再工作時間的較低效率——就市場的勞動供給而言不是很重要的。

[13] See above, pp. 294-300

[12] 見第十五章第九節。

[14] The attribution of the phrase "the Industrial Revolution" to the reigns of the two last Hanoverian Georges was the outcome of deliberate attempts to melodramatize economic history in order to fit it into the Procrustean Marxian schemes. The transition from medieval methods of production to those of the free enterprise system was a long process that started centuries before 1760 and, even in England, was not finished in 1830. Yet, it is true that England's industrial development was considerably accelerated int he second half of the eighteenth century. It is therefore permissible to use the term "Industrial Revolution" in the examination of the emotional connotations with which Fabianism, Marxism, the Historical Schoo, and Institutionalism have loaded it.

[13] 把「工業革命」一詞形容英國Hanover王室兩個George的朝代，是由於有人故意要把經濟史弄成通俗的戲劇化，以期使它適合那些強求平等的馬克斯策略（the Procrustean Marxian schemes）。從中古的生產方法轉變到自由企業制度的生產方法是一七六〇年以前的一個長遠過程。即令就英國來講，直到一八三〇年尙未完成。可是，英國的工業在十八世紀後半期已大大加速地發展，這卻是眞的。所以我們無妨把「工業革命」一詞用在對費邊主義（Fabianism）、馬克斯主義、歷史學派、以及制度學派賦與它的情感意義的檢討上。

[15] J.L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, the Skilled Labourer 1760-1832 (2d ed. London, 1920), p. 4.

[14] J.L. Hammond和Barbara Hammond, the Skilled Labourer 1760-1832 (2d ed. London, 1920), p. 4.

[16] In the Seven Years' War, 1,512 British seamen were killed in battle while 133,708 died of disease or were missing. Cf. W.L. Dorn, Competition for Empire 11740-1763 (New York, 1940), p. 114.

[15] 在七年戰爭當中，有1,512名英國水兵在作戰中死亡，同時有133,708名病死或失蹤。參考W.L. Dorn, Competition for Empire 11740-1763 (New York, 1940), p. 114.

[17] J.L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, loc. cit.

[16] J.L. Hammond和Barbara Hammond，同[14]所引之上書。

[18] F.C. Dietz, An Economic History of England (New York, 1942), pp. 279 and 392.

[17] F.C. Dietz, An Economic History of England (New York, 1942), pp. 279 and 392.

8. Wage Rates as Affected by the Vicissitudes of the Market

八、受市場變化之影響的工資率

Labor is a factor of production. The price which the seller of labor can obtain on the market depends on the data of the market.

勞動是種生產要素。勞動出賣者在市場上所可得到的價格，隨市場的情況而變動。

The quantity and the quality of labor which an individual is fitted to deliver is determined by his innate and acquired characteristics. The innate abilities cannot be altered by any purposeful conduct. They are the individual's heritage with which his ancestors have endowed him on the day of his birth. He can bestow care upon these gifts and cultivate his talents, he can keep them from prematurely withering away; but he can never cross the boundaries which nature has drawn to his forces and abilities. He can display more or less skill in his endeavors to sell his capacity to work at the highest price which is obtainable on the market under prevailing conditions; but he cannot change his nature in order to adjust it better to the state of the market data. It is good luck for him if market conditions are such that a kind of labor which he is able to perform is lavishly remunerated; it is chance, not personal merit if his innate talents are highly appreciated by his fellow men. Miss Greta Garbo, if she had lived a hundred years earlier, would probably have earned much less than she did in this age of moving pictures. As far as her innate talents are concerned, she is in a position similar to that of a farmer whose farm can be sold at a high price because the expansion of a neighboring city converted it into urban soil.

一個人所適於提供的勞動量和勞動質，決定於他的先天稟賦和後天學習的那些特徵。天賦的才能不會因任何有意的作爲而改變，那是他的祖先遺傳給他的。他可以珍惜這些稟賦而培養他的才能，他可以保持這些稟賦不讓它們過早地衰退；但是，他決不能超越自然給他的才能所劃定的界限。他可以在他的努力中表現幾分技巧，以期在市場現況下所可賺得的最高價格來出賣他的工作能力；但是，他不能改變他的性質使它更，市場情況。如果市場情況使他所能提供的那種勞動得到很高的報酬，這是他的好運；如果他的先天稟賦被他同時的人們特別欣賞，這是機會，而不是他自己的功勞。Greta Garbo小姐（電影明星）如果生在一百年以前，她所能賺到的錢一定比她在電影時代所賺到的要少得多。就她天賦的才能來講，正如同一個農夫保有的一塊土地，因爲鄰近城市的發展由耕地變成了都市土地，可以很高的價格出售了。這都是幸運。

Within the rigid limits drawn by his innate abilities, a man's capacity to work can be perfected by training for the accomplishment of definite tasks. The individual--or his parents--incurs expenses for a training the fruit of which consists in the acquisition of the ability to perform certain kinds of work. Such schooling and training intensify a man's one-sidedness; they make him a specialist. Every special training enhances the specific character of a man's capacity to work. The toil and trouble, the disutility of the efforts to which an individual must submit in order to acquire these special abilities, the loss of potential earnings during the training period, and the money expenditure required are laid out in the expectation that the later increment in earnings will compensate for them. These expenses are an investment and as such speculative. It depends on the future state of the market whether or not they will pay. In training himself the worker becomes a speculator and entrepreneur. The future state of the market will determine whether profit or loss results from his investment.

在天賦才能的限度以內，一個人的工作能力靠訓練來加強，使其最適於某些特定工作。這個人——或他的父母——負擔訓練的費用，而其收穫，就是學到做某種工作的能力。這樣的敎育和訓練，增加了一個人的專長，使他成爲專家。每種特別訓練都是使一個人的工作技能特殊化的。爲著學習這些特殊技能，一個人所受到的辛苦和麻煩，訓練期間損失掉賺錢的機會，以及支付的一些必要費用，都是基於一個希望，希望提高將來賺錢的能力以補償。所以，這些損失的忍受可說是一種投資，因其爲投資，所以也可說是一種投機。這種投資値不値得，要看將來的市場情況。一個工人在訓練他自己的時候，可說是一個投機者，是個企業家。將來的市場情況會決定他的投資是獲利或是虧損。

Thus the wage earner has vested interests in a twofold sense, as a

所以一個工資收入者每每有雙重意義的身份：一爲具有天賦的特定才能的人，一爲具有後天學得的特定技能的人。

The wage earner sells his labor on the market at the price which the market allows for it today. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy the sum of the prices which the entrepreneur must expend for all the complementary factors of production together must equal--due consideration being made for time preference--the price of the product. In the changing economy changes in the market structure may bring about differences between these two magnitudes. The ensuing profits and losses do not affect the wage earner. Their incidence falls upon the employer alone. The uncertainty of the future affects the employee only as far as the following items are concerned:

工資收入者就當時市場所允許的價格出賣他的勞動。在一個假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，企業家所必須支付的一切生產要素的價格的總和，一定等於（對於時間偏好加以適當考慮以後）產品的價格。在一個變動的經濟裡面，市場結構的變動會引起這兩者間的差額。如果後者大於前者則有利潤，前者大於後者則有虧損。利潤或饀損不影響工資收入者，盈虧都只落在僱主的身上。至於未來的不確定影響到僱工的，只限於下列幾項：

1. The expenses incurred in time, disutility, and money for training.

1. 因爲訓練而蒙受的時間犧牲、金錢犧牲，以及辛苦和麻煩。

2. The expenses incurred in moving to a definite place of work.

2. 爲轉到某一特定的工作地點而花的費用。

3. In case of a labor contract stipulated for a definite period of time, changes in the price of the specific type of labor occurring in the meantime and changes in the employer's solvency.

3. 在勞動契約訂明了一個確定時期的場合，在這個時期裡面，這種持定勞動的價格發生變化，以及僱主的資力發生變化。

9. The Labor Market

九、勞動市場

Wages are the prices paid for the factor of production, human labor. As is the case with all the other prices of complementary factors of production their height is ultimately determined by the prices of the products as they are expected at the instant the labor is sold and bought. It does not matter whether he who performs the labor sells his services to an employer who combines them with the material factors production and with the services of other people or whether he himself embarks upon his own account and peril upon these acts of combination. The final price of labor of the same quality is at any rate the same in the whole market system. Wage rates are always equal to the price of the full produce of labor. The popular slogan "the worker's right to the full produce of labor" was an absurd formulation of the claim that the consumers' goods should be distributed exclusively among the workers and nothing should be left to the entrepreneurs and the owners of the material factors of production. From no point of view whatever can artifacts be considered as the products of mere labor. They are the yield of a purposive combination of labor and of material factors of production.

工资是付給生產要素——人力——的價格。正如同所有其他生產要素的價格一樣，工資的高度最後決定於勞動買資的時候對於該勞動所將生產的產品所預期的價格。至於勞動者，是把他的勞動資給一個僱主，由這位僱主把他的勞動和別人的勞動，以及和一些物質的生產要素結合起來，或者是他自己獨立從事生產而把這些結合的行爲自己承擔起來，這是與本問題無關的事情。同質勞動的最後價格在整個市場體系中無論如何是一致的。工資率總是等於勞動的全部產品的價格。「工人有權取得勞動的全部產品」這個流行的口號，是主張消費財應該全部分配給工人們，一點也不該留給企業家和物質生產要素的所有者。這是個荒謬的主張。不管從那個觀點來看，凡是人爲的東西決不能看作完全是勞動的產品。它們都是勞動和一些物質生產要素經由有意地結合而製造出來的。

In the changing economy there prevails a tendency for market wage rates to adjust themselves precisely to the state of the final wage rates. This adjustment is a time-absorbing process. The length of the period of adjustment depends on the time required for the training

在變動的經濟裡面，市場的工資率有個自動調整的趨勢，即調整到最後工資率的那種情況。這種調整是個費時間的過程。調整期的長短，決定於新工作訓練所需要的時間和工人們遷居到新地址所需要的時間。而且還決定於若干主觀因素，例如工人們對於勞動市場的現狀和其前途的展望是否熟習。這種調整，就新工作的訓練和住址的遷移所引起的費用來講，是一種投機行爲，因爲這些費用的支出只是由於當事人相信勞動市場的未來情況會使這些支出得到補償而有餘。

With regard to all these things there is nothing that is peculiar to labor, wages, and the labor market. What gives a particular feature to the labor market is that the worker is not merely the purveyor of the factor of production labor, but also a human being and that it is impossible to sever the man from his performance. Reference to this fact has been mostly used for extravagant utterances and for a vain critique of the economic teachings concerning wage rates. However, these absurdities must not prevent economics from paying adequate attention to this primordial fact.

關於所有這些事情，並沒有什麼東西是勞動、工資、和勞動市場所特有的。形成勞動市場之特徵的，是工人不僅是勞動這個生產要素的提供者，而且也是一個人；一個人和他的行爲是不能分離的。這個事實常被用來批評工資理論，這種批評是不適當的、荒謬的。但是，這些荒謬決不可以妨礙經濟學對於這個基本事實予以適當的注意。

For the worker it is a matter of consequence what kind of labor he performs among the various kinds he is able to perform, where he performs it, and under what particular conditions and circumstances. An unaffected observer may consider empty or even ridiculous prejudices the ideas and feelings that actuate a worker to prefer certain jobs, certain places of work, and certain conditions of labor to others. However, such academic judgments of unaffected censors are of no avail. For an economic treatment of the problems involved there is nothing especially remarkable in the fact that the worker looks upon his toil and trouble not only from the point of view of the disutility of labor and its mediate gratification, but also takes into account whether the special conditions and circumstances of its performance interfere with his enjoyment of life and to what extent. The fact that a worker is ready to forego the chance to increase his money earnings by migrating to a place he considers less desirable and prefers to remain in his native place or country is not more remarkable than the fact that a wealthy gentleman of no occupation prefers the more expensive life in the capital to the cheaper life in a small town. The worker and the consumer are the same person; it is merely economic reasoning that integrates the social functions and splits up this unity into two schemes. Men cannot sever their decisions concerning the utilization of their working power from those concerning the enjoyment of their earnings.

對於工人而言，在他所可做的各種勞動當中，他究竟做那種勞動、在什麼地方以及在些什麼特殊條件與環境下做這種勞動，這都是很重要的事情。有一些想法和一些情感，使一個工人寧可就某些工作，不願就其他的一些工作；寧可往某些地區工作，不願到其他的一些地區工作；寧可接受某些條件而工作，不願接受其他的一些條件。一個天眞的觀察者也許認、爲，這些想法和感情是沒意義的，甚至是荒唐可笑的偏見。但是這樣天眞的學究式的判斷，畢竟是無用的。關於這些問題的經濟處理，在下述的那個事實當中，沒有什麼特別値得注意的，這個事實是：工人不僅是從勞動負效用的觀點來看他在勞動中所受的辛苦和煩惱，而且也考慮到那些工作的特殊條件和環境是否干擾他的生活享受以及干擾到什麼程度。一個工人寧可留在他的本鄕本土，不願遷居到他所不喜歡的地方，因而放棄增加貨幣所得的機會。這個事實並不比下述的事實更値得注意：一個富有而沒有職業的紳士，寧可在繁華的都市過昂貴的生活，而不願遷居到小的村鎭過便宜的生活。工人與消費者是同一個人；經濟理論把工人與消費者的功能統合起來而又把這個單元分裂爲二，這只是推理過程所不得不然。人們所作的決定，有關於他們的工作能力之使用者，有關於他們賺得的錢之享受者，可是，他們不能把前者與後者分離。

Descent, language, education, religion, mentality, family bonds, and social environment tie the worker in such a way that he does not choose the place and the branch of his work merely with regard to the height of wage rates.

世系、語言、敎育、宗敎、心境、家庭的牽絆，以及社會環境，都把工人束縛得不能僅憑工資的高度來選擇工作地點和工作部門。

We may call that height of wage rates for definite types of labor which would prevail on the market if the workers did not discriminate between various places and, wage rates being equal, did not discriminate between various places and, wage rates being equal, did not prefer one working place to another, standard wage rates (S). If, however, the wage earners, out of the above-mentioned considerations, value differently work in different places, the height of market wage rates (M) can permanently deviate from the standard rates. We may call the maximum difference between the market rate and the standard rate which does not yet result in the migration of workers from the places of lower market wage rates to those of higher market wage rates the attachment component (A). The attachment component of a definite geographical place or area is either positive or negative.

如果工人們對於不同的一些工作地點一律看待，在工資率相等的情形下，他們不會捨此就彼或捨彼就此。在此假定下，市場上某些特定種類的勞動當會有些通行的工資率，我們可以把這些工資率叫做標準工資率（S）。但是，如果工人們基於上述的考慮，對於不同地點的工作作不同的評値，則市場工資率（M）的高度會經常與標準工資率差異。在市場工資率與標準工資率之間，有一個尙不致引起工人們從市場工資率較低的地點轉移到市場工資率較高的地點去的最高差額，我們可以把這個最高差額叫做附著成份（A）。某一特定地區的附著成份可以是正的，也可以是負的。

We must furthermore take into account that the various places and areas differ with regard to provision with consumers' goods as far as transportation costs (in the broadest sense of the term) are concerned. These costs are lower in some areas, higher in other areas. Then there are differences with regard to the physical input required for the attainment of the same amount of physical satisfaction. In some places a man must expend more in order to attain the same degree of want-satisfaction which, apart from the circumstances determining the amount of the attachment component, he could attain elsewhere more cheaply. On the other hand, a man can in some places avoid certain expenses without any impairment of his want-satisfaction while renunciation of these expenses would curtail his satisfaction in other places. We may call the expenses which a worker must incur in certain places in order to attain in this sense the same degree of want-satisfaction, or which he can spare without curtailing his want-satisfaction, the cost component (C). The cost component of a definite geographical place or area is either positive or negative.

我們還要進一步考慮到：個別地區因爲運輸成本（廣義的）的關係，關於消費財的供應也有所不同。這些成本有的地區較低，有些地區較高。因此，同量的物質滿足所需要的物質投入也就不同了。在某些地區，一個人爲著得到同程度的慾望滿足，必須花更多的錢，而這種程度的慾望滿足（且不说那些決定附著成份的環境），他可以在別處較便宜地得到。另一方面，一個人在某些地區可以省掉某些費用而無損於他的慾望滿足，但在其他地區，如果省掉這些費用就會減少他的滿足。我們可以把一個工人在某些地區爲得到這種意義的同等程度的慾望滿足而必須支付的那筆費用，或者他可以省掉而不致減少他的慾望滿足的那筆費用，叫做成本成份化（C）。某一地區的成本成份可以是正的，也可以是負的。

If we assume that there are no institutional barriers preventing or penalizing the transfer of capital goods, workers, and commodities from one place or area to another and that the workers are indifferent with regard to their dwelling and working places, there prevails a tendency toward a distribution of population over the earth's surface in accordance with the physical productivity of the primary natural factors of production and the immobilization of inconvertible factors of production as affected in the past. There is, if we disregard the cost component, a tendency toward an equalization of wage rates for the same type of work all over the earth.

如果我們假定沒有任何法制上的障礙阻止資本財、工人，以及貨物從甲地轉到乙地，而工人們對於他們的住址和工作地，無論在何處都一律看待，那麼，地球的人口分佈，將會趨向於按照基本的自然的生產要素之物質生產力以及過去所形成的那些不可轉變的生產要素之不動性來分佈。如果我不管成本成份，則全球同類勞動的工資率將趨向於一致。

It would be permissible to call an area comparatively overpopulated if in it market wage rates plus the (positive or negative)

如果在某個地區，市場工資率加上（正的或負的）成本成份還低於標準工資率，我們就可把這個地區看作一個人口比較稠密的地區；如果在某個地區、市場工資率加上（或正或負）成本成份，高於標準工資率，我們就可把它看作人口比較稀少的地區。但是，這樣說法是很不方便的。它不能幫助我們檢討工資率的形成和工人們的行爲之一些眞實情況。選擇另一種說法就比較方便。如果一個地區的市場工資率低於標準工資率加上（正或負的）附著成份和（正或負的）成本成份，也即M<(S+A+C)，我們就可把它看作人口比較稠密的地區。因此，在一個M>(S+A+C)的地區，則這個地區就應看作人口比較稀少的地區。如果沒有法制上的障礙，則工人們會從人口比較稠密的地區遷移到人口比較稀少的地區，這種遷移一直要繼續到每個地區的M=S+A+C爲止。

The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for the migration of individuals working on their own account and selling their labor in disposing of its products or in rendering personal services.

上面這個結論，加以必要的修改以後，同樣適用於自力勞作或提供個人服務的那些人們的遷徙。

The concepts of the attachment component and the cost component apply in the same way to shifting from one branch of business or occupation to another.

附著成份和成本成份這些概念，同樣地適用於從某一行業轉移到另一行業。

It is hardly necessary to observe that the migrations which these theorems describe come to pass only in so far as there are no institutional barriers to the mobility of capital, labor, and commodities. In this age aiming at the disintegration of the international division of labor and at each sovereign nation's economic self-sufficiency, the tendencies they describe are fully operative only within each nation's boundaries.

這裡所描述的一些遷徙，只在沒有法制上的障礙防止資本、勞工、和貨物流通的情形下才發生的，這幾乎是不必說的。我們這個時代是在瓦解國際的分工而力求每個主權國的經濟自足。在這樣的一個時代，上面所描述的那些趨勢只有在每個國界以內出現。

The Work of Animals and of Slaves

畜牲舆奴隸的工作

For man, animals are a material factor of production. It may be that one day a change in moral sentiments will induce people to treat animals more gently. Yet, as far as men do not leave the animals alone and let them go their way, they will always deal with them as mere objects of their own acting. Social cooperation can exist only between human beings because only these are able to attain insight into the meaning and the advantages of the division of labor and of peaceful cooperation.

對於人而言，畜牲是一種物質的生產要素。也許有一天，人類的道德情操有個改變，因而人給畜牲待遇變得更友善點。可是，只要人們不放任畜牲自由過它們自己的生活，他們總是把畜牲當作他們自己行爲的標的來處理的。社會合作關係只會存在於人與人之間，因爲只有人纔能洞察分工與和平合作的意義和利益。

Man subdues the animal and integrates it into his scheme of action as a material thing. In taming, domesticating, and training animals man often displays appreciation for the creature's psychological peculiarities; he appeals, as it were, to its soul. But even then the gulf that separates man from animal remains unbridgeable. An animal can never get anything else than satisfaction of its appetites for food and sex and adequate protection against injury resulting from environmental factors. Animals are bestial and inhuman precisely because

人把畜牲當作一件物質的東西而納入他的行爲計畫。在馴養、訓練畜牲的時候，人也常常對這動物的心理特徵表現欣賞；這好像是和它的心靈發生共鳴。但是，即令在這個時候，人與畜牲之間的鴻溝仍然是不可搭橋的。一個畜牲除掉可以得到食慾、性慾的滿足，以及免於環境傷害的適當保護以外，再也不能得到更多的東西。畜牲畢竟是獸類而非人類，正因爲它們像工資鐵則所想像的工人那樣。如果人類只致力於飮食和交配，此外無所事事，人類文明就決不會產生。畜牲之旣不能結合成一個社會，也不能參加人類社會，就是因爲它們只求食慾、性慾的滿足而不知其他。

People have tried to look upon fellow men as they look upon animals and to deal with them accordingly. They have used whips to compel galley slaves and barge haulers to work like capstan-horses. However, experience has shown that these methods of unbridled brutalization render very unsatisfactory results. Even the crudest and dullest people achieve more when working of their own accord than under the fear of the whip.

有些人也曾以看待畜牲的態度來看待他們的同類，而把同類當作畜牲來對付。他們用過鞭子強迫船奴們像起錨的馬那樣地工作。但是，經驗曾經指出：這丝放縱的野蠻辦法，其結果是很壞的。即令最笨拙的人，當他自由工作的時候，其成就總比在鞭子威脅下的工作要好得多。

Primitive man makes no distinction between his property in women, children, and slaves on the one hand and his property in cattle and inanimate things on the other. But as soon as he begins to expect from his slaver services other than such as can also be rendered by draft and pack animals, he is forced to loosen their chains. He must try to substitute the incentive of self-interest for the incentive of mere fear; he must try to bind the slave to himself by human feelings. If the slave is no longer prevented from fleeing exclusively by being chained and watched and no longer forced to work exclusively under the threat of being whipped, the relation between master and slave is transformed into a social nexus. The slave may, especially if the memory of happier days of freedom is still fresh, bemoan his misfortune and hanker after liberation. But he puts up with what seems to be an inevitable state of affairs and accommodates himself to his fate in such a way as to make it as bearable as possible. The slave becomes intent upon satisfying his master through application and carrying out the tasks entrusted to him; the master becomes intent upon rousing the slave's zeal and loyalty through reasonable treatment. There develop between lord and drudge familiar relations which can properly be called friendship.

原始人把婦、孺和奴隸當作他的財產，正如同把畜牲和無生物當作財產，其間是沒有區別的。但是，一旦他開始想從奴隸的身上得到一點不同於牛馬所能提供的勞務的時候，他就不得不放鬆奴隸們的鎖鏈了。他必須以自利的刺激來代替單純的威脅；他必須以人際的情感来維繋奴隸和自己的關係。如果不再專靠鎖鏈和鞭子來防止奴隸逃亡和強迫奴隸工作，則主人與奴隸的關係就變成一種社會關係。這個奴隸也許悲歎他的不幸而力求解脫，尤其是較快樂的自由日子如果記憶猶新的話，更是如此。但是，儘管如此，他還可忍受那些似乎是不可避免的事態而自作排遣。於是奴隸變得靠勤勉、靠完成那些派給他的工作來滿足他的主人；而主人也變得靠合理待遇來激發奴隸的熱心與忠忱。於是，在主人與役工之間，發展出一些可稱之爲友誼的親密關係。

Perhaps the eulogists of slavery were not entirely wrong when they asserted that many slaves were satisfied with their station and did not aim at changing it. There are perhaps individuals, groups of individuals, and even whole peoples and races who enjoy the safety and security provided by bondage; who, insensible of humiliation and mortification, are glad to pay with a moderate amount of labor for the privilege of sharing in the amenities of a well-to-do household; and in whose eyes subjection to the whims and bad tempers of a master is only a minor evil or no evil at all.

奴隸制度的頌揚者，當他們說「許多奴隸安於他們的地位而並不想變更它」的時候，或許不是完全錯的。事實上，可能有些人、有些人羣，甚至有些民族或種族，是樂於在奴役之下享受安全保障的；他們不感覺到什麼羞辱，而樂於提供適度的勞動，以分享寄人籬下的舒適生活，在他們的心目中，偶爾忍受一下主人的壞脾氣，不過是一點小小的痛苦，或根本不算是什麼痛苦。

Of course, the conditions under which the servile workers toiled in big farms and plantations, in mines, in workshops, and galleys were very different from the idyllically described gay life of domestic valets, chambermaids, cooks, and nurses and from the conditions of unfree laborers, dairymaids, herdsmen, and shepherds of small farming. No apologist of slavery was bold enough to glorify the lot of the Roman

當然，在大規模的農場、鑛區、工場，以及古代希臘羅馬的軍艦中辛苦工作的奴工們所處的環境，與家庭僕人、旅館侍女、廚司、和保母們的輕快生活大不相同，而且也不同於小農場的那些不自由的勞工們，擠牛奶的女工、牧人們的生活環境。爲奴隸制度辯護的人，誰也不敢讚美羅馬農奴或者美國棉田蔗園黑奴的命運。[18]

The abolition of slavery and serfdom is to be attributed neither to the teachings of theologians and moralists nor to weakness or generosity on the part of the masters. There were among the teachers of religion and ethics as many eloquent defenders of bondage as opponents. [20] Servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its unprofitability sealed its doom in the market economy.

奴隸和農奴制度的廢除，旣不能歸功於神學家與道德家的敎義，也不能歸因於奴隸主的衰弱或仁慈。在宗敎和倫理的敎師中，贊成奴隸的人數和反對的人數同樣地多[19]。奴工的消滅，是因爲在自由勞動的競爭下站不住；在市場經濟裡面，再也不會有奴工了。

The price paid for the purchase of a slave is determined by the net yield expected from his employment (both as a worker and as a progenitor of other slaves) just as the price paid for a cow is determined by the net yield expected from its utilization. The owner of a slave does not pocket a specific revenue. For him there is no "exploitation" boon derived from the fact that the slave's work is not remunerated and that the potential market price of the services he renders is possibly greater than the cost of feeding, sheltering, and guarding him. He who buys a slave must in the price paid make good for these economies as far as they may be expected; he pays for them in full, due allowance being made for time preference. Whether the proprietor employs the slave in his own household or enterprise or rents his services to other people, he does not enjoy any specific advantage from the existence of the institution of slavery. The specific boon goes totally to the slave-hunter, i.e., the man who deprives free men of their liberty and transforms them into slaves. But, of course, the profitability of the slave-hunter's business depends upon the height of the prices buyers are ready to pay for the acquisition of slaves. If these prices drop below the operation and transportation costs incurred in the business of slave-hunting, business no longer pays and must be discontinued.

購買一個奴隸所支付的價格，決定於從利用他（包括他本人和他的子孫）所可能得到的淨收益，這和購買一條牛所支付的價格決定於利用這條件所可能得到的淨收益是一樣的。奴隸的所有者並沒有把什麼特別收益據爲己有，對於他，並沒有在下述的事實中有所謂的「剝削」：奴隸的工作沒有報訓，而他對於奴隸的勞務所支付的市場價格，可能大於蓄奴所花的衣食住等的費用。購買奴隸的人，必須以他後來所收到的價格來抵償他已整付的價格，這裡，也要考慮到時間偏好這個因素。不管奴隸的所有者是在他自己的家庭中或企業中使用奴隸，或者是把奴隸的勞務租給別人，他都沒有因奴隸制度的存在而享受到任何特殊利益。特殊利益完全歸於奴隸的販賣者，即虜掠自由人而去販賣的人。但是，販賣奴隸這一行業的利得，當然是取決於購買奴隸的人出價的高低。如果這個價格跌到低於奴隸販賣業的成本，則這個行業也就不値得做而歸於消滅了。

Now, at no time and at no place was it possible for enterprises employing servile labor to compete on the market with enterprises employing free labor. Servile labor could always be utilized only where it did not have to meet the competition of free labor.

在市場經濟裡面，利用奴工的企業決不可能與僱用自由勞工的企業競爭。奴工，只能在沒有遇到自由競爭勞工的處所才會被利用。

If one treats men like cattle, one cannot squeeze out of them more than cattle-like performances. But it then becomes significant that man is physically weaker than oxen and horses, and that feeding and guarding a slave is, in proportion to the performance to be reaped, more expensive than feeding and guarding cattle. When treated as a chattel, man

如果你把人當作畜牲來對付，你從他身上所能搾出的東西，就不會比畜牲所能提供的更多。但是，這時有一個事實更顯得重要，那就是就生理上講，人比牛和馬軟弱，而且，對於一個奴隸的養育和保護所必要的費用，比例於所可收穫的結果而言，比養育和保護一匹牛或馬的費用，要昂貴得多。如果你想從一個非自由的勞工得到自由人所做的成就，你就必須對他給以特屬於人的鼓勵。假若這個僱主所想得到的產品，其質與量均勝過在鞭子威脅下所逼出來的產品的質和量，皿必須讓辛苦工作的人也分享他的努力成果。不要對懶惰、疏忽加以懲罰，而要對勤勉、熟練、熱忱加以獎賞。但是，不管他在這方面怎樣做，他決不會從一個受束縛的工人（也即，不能享受他所作的貢獻的全部市場價格的人）得到一份等於自由人（也即在自由的勞動市場上被傢用的人）所做的成就。奴隸和農奴所產生的産品和提供的勞務，其質和量所不能超越的最高限，遠比自由勞工的標準要低得多。在產物的品質特別精緻的行業中，那些僱用廉價而非自由的勞工的廠商，決不能和那些僱用自由勞工的廠商競爭。正是這個事實，使得一切的強迫工作歸於消滅。

Social institutions once made whole areas or branches of production reservations exclusively kept for the occupation of unfree labor and sheltered against any competition on the part of entrepreneurs employing free men. Slavery and serfdom thus became essential features of a rigid caste system that could be neither removed nor modified by the actions of individuals. Wherever conditions were different, the slave owners themselves resorted to measures which were bound to abolish, step by step, the whole system of unfree labor. It was not humanitarian feelings and clemency that induced the callous and pitiless slaveholders of ancient Rome to loosen the fetters of their slaves, but the urge to derive the best possible gain from their property. They abandoned the system of centralized big-scale management of their vast landholdings, the latifundia, and transformed the slaves into virtual tenants cultivating their tenements on their own account and owing to the landlord merely either a lease or a share of the yield. In the processing trades and in commerce the slaves became entrepreneurs and their funds, the peculium, their legal quasi-property. Slaves were manumitted in large numbers because the freedman rendered to the former owner, the patronus, services more valuable than those to be expected from a slave. For the manumission was not an act of grace and a gratuitous gift on the part of the owner. It was a credit operation, a purchase of freedom on the installment plan, as it were. The freedman was bound to render the former owner for many years or even for a lifetime definite payments and services. The patronus moreover had special rights of inheritance to the estate of the deceased freedman.

有些社會制度曾經把整個生產界或某些生產部門完全爲非自由的勞工而保留，不讓僱用自由勞工的企業來競爭。於是奴隸和農奴就成爲一個森嚴的階級制度的基本特徵；旣不能因某些個人的行爲來廢除，也不能加以改變。至於情形不是這樣的地方，奴隸主本身的所作所爲終於一步一步地廢除了這全部奴工制度。使得古代羅馬那些冷漠無情的奴隸主放鬆奴隸們的束縛的，不是人道主義的情操和仁慈心，而是想從他們的財產上面得到最大收益的這個動機。他們放棄了大規模集中管理的領地制，而把奴隸變成實際上的佃農，讓他們基於自己的利益來耕種他們的佃田，對於地主只就產品的一部份繳納地租。在加工業和商業方面，奴隸變成了企業家，而他們得自主人所給的資金變成他們的合法準財產。奴隸之大量釋放，是因爲自由人對於以前的主人所提供的勞務比一個奴隸所可提供的更可貴。奴隸解放，不是奴隸主這方面的恩賜。那是一次信用運作，好像是用分期付款的辦法買自由。自由人有義務在許多年當中，乃至終身對那以前的主人報答定額的金錢和勞務。這個自由人以前的主人，在自由人死亡的時候，對於後者的土地還有特別世襲權[20]。

With the disappearance of the plants and farms employing unfree laborers, bondage ceased to be a system of production and became a political privilege of an aristocratic caste. The overlords were entitled to definite tributes in kind or money and to definite services on the part of their subordinates; moreover their serfs' children were obliged to serve them as servants or military retinue for a definite length of time. But the underprivileged peasants and artisans operated their farms and shops on their own account and peril. Only when their processes of production were accomplished did the lord step in and claim a part of the proceeds.

隨著那些使用非自由勞工的莊園之消滅，奴役就再也不是一種生產制度而變成資族階級制的一種政治特權。一些君主們有權要他們的屬下貢獻定量的實物或金錢以及定量的勞務；而且，他們的奴隸的子孫也有義務爲他們服定期的勞役，或當家事的奴僕，或當軍事的侍從。但是，那些非特權階級的農人和工人，則爲他們自己的利益打算而經營他們的農田和工場。僅僅是在他們的生產過程完成的時候，君主才來要索他們的生產成果之一部份。

Later, from the sixteenth century on, people again began to employ unfree workers in agricultural and even sometimes in industrial big-scale production. In the American colonies Negro slavery became the standard method of the plantations. In Eastern Europe--in Northeastern Germany, in Bohemia and its annexes Moravia and Silesia, in Poland, in the Baltic countries, in Russia, and also in Hungary and its annexes--bit-scale farming was built upon the unpaid statute labor of serfs. Both these systems of unfree labor were sheltered by political institutions against the competition of enterprises employing free workers. In the plantation colonies the high costs of immigration and the lack of sufficient legal and judicial protection of the individual against the arbitrariness of government officers and the planter aristocracy prevented the emergence of a sufficient supply of free labor and the development of a class of independent farmers. In Eastern Europe the caste system made it impossible for outsiders to enter the field of agricultural production. Big-scale farming was reserved to members of the nobility. Small holdings were reserved to unfree bondsmen. Yet the fact that the enterprises employing unfree labor would not be able to stand the competition of enterprises employing free labor was not contested by anybody. On this point the eighteenth and early nineteenth-century authors on agricultural management were no less unanimous than the writers of ancient Rome on farm problems. But the abolition of slavery and serfdom could not be effected by the free play of the market system, as political institutions had withdrawn the estates of the nobility and the plantations from the supremacy of the market. Slavery and serfdom were abolished by political action dictated by the spirit of the much-abused laissez faire, laissez passer ideology.

後來，在十六世紀以後，人們也開始在農業方面使用非自由的工人，有時甚至在工業的大規模生產中也如此。在美洲的一些殖民，使用黑奴成爲農場的標準生產方法。在東歐——德國的西北部，Bohemia及其属地Moravia和Silesia、波蘭、波羅的海的諸國、俄國、匈牙利及其屬地——大規模的農業經營靠的是奴隸的勞動。美洲和東歐的這兩個非自由的勞工制，是受政治制度保障而免於那些僱用自由工人的企業的競爭。在那些殖民地裡面，有許多因素妨阻了自由勞動的充份供給和獨立農民這個階級的成長：例如人口遷入的費用高，保護個人使免於政府官吏和地主貴族的任意虐待的法制之缺乏。在東歐，階級制度使外面人無法進到農業生產部門。大規模農業爲上流社會的份子所占據。小規模的，爲非自由的農奴保留。可是，「使用非自由的勞工的企業不能夠與僱用自由勞工的企業競爭」這個事實，誰也沒有封它發生爭論。在這一點上面，十八世紀和十九世紀初期，論農業管理的作家們的意見之一致，不下於古代羅馬論農業問題的作家們。但是，奴隸和農奴制不會受市場自由活動的影響而廢除，因爲，這個時候的政治制度已經破壞了市場作用。奴隸和農奴制的廢除是靠自由放任的意理所支配的政治行動。

Today mankind is again faced with endeavors to substitute compulsory labor for the labor of the freeman selling his capacity to work as a "commodity" on the market. Of course, people believe that there is an essential difference between the tasks incumbent upon the comrades of the socialist commonwealth and those incumbent upon slaves or serfs. The slaves and serfs, they say, toiled for the benefit of an exploiting lord. But in a socialist system the produce of labor goes to society of which the toiler himself is a part; here the worker works for himself,

今天，人類又面對著「以強迫勞動代替自由，人把他的工作能力當作『商品』在巿場上出賣的那種勞動」的搞法。當然，有些人認爲，社會主義國家的同志們所應做的工作與奴隸或農奴所應做的工作，其間有本質的不同。他們說：奴隸和農奴的血汗是爲一個剝削的地主的利益而流的。但在社會主義制度下，勞動的產物是歸之於社會，而辛苦工作者是社會的一份子；這裡，工作者是爲自己而工作。這個理論所忽視的是：把各個同志與那據有一切工作成果的全體同志的集體，視爲相同。這只是不符事實的虛構。政府官吏所追求的目的與各個同志的願望或希求是否相同，這還是一次要問題。重要的是，個人對這集體財富所作的貢獻，不是以市場決定的工資形式來報酬的。一個社會主義國家缺乏任何經濟計算方法；它不能分別決定在產品總量中各種補助的生產要素所應有的配額。因爲它不能確定社會得自各個人所貢獻的量，所以它不能按照各人的成就來給報酬。

In order to distinguish free labor from compulsory labor no metaphysical subtleties concerning the essence of freedom and compulsion are required. We may call free labor that kind of extroversive, not immediately gratifying labor that a man performs either for the direct satisfaction of his own wants or for their indirect satisfaction to be reaped by expending the price earned by its sale on the market. Compulsory labor is labor performed under the pressure of other incentives. If somebody were to take umbrage at this terminology because the employment of words like freedom and compulsion may arouse an association of ideas injurious to a dispassionate treatment of the problems involved, one could as well choose other terms. We may substitute the expression F labor for the term free labor and the term C labor for the term compulsory labor. The crucial problem cannot be affected by the choice of the terms. What alone matters is this: What kind of inducement can spur a man to submit to the disutility of labor if his own want-satisfaction neither directly nor--to any appreciable extent--indirectly depends on the quantity and quality of his performance?

爲著區分自由勞動與強迫勞動，不必涉及關於自由與強迫的本質那些玄學上的微妙問題。我們可以叫做自由勞動的，是指一個人或者爲著他自己的慾望直接滿足而提供的勞動，或者先把它出賣於市場，再把賣得的錢用來滿足自己慾望的勞動。強迫勞動是指，在其他的一些誘因的壓迫下，所提供的勞動。如果有人不滿意這樣的說法，因爲像自由和強迫這些字眼的使用，會惹起一些足以傷害問題之冷靜處理的聯想，那麼，就無妨選用其他名詞。我們可用F來代替自由勞動，用C來代替強迫勞動。最基本的問題並不受名詞選擇的影響。要緊的事情只是：如果一個人自己的慾望滿足，旣不直接、也不間接繫於他的工作量和工作質，那麼，什麼誘因可以激發他甘心忍受勞動的負效用呢？

Let us assume for the sake of argument that many workers, perhaps even most of them, will of their own accord dutifully take pains for the best possible fulfillment of the tasks assigned to them by their superiors. (We may disregard the fact that the determination of the task to be imposed upon the various individuals would confront a socialist commonwealth with insoluble problems.) But how to deal with those sluggish and careless in the discharge of the imposed duties? There is no other way left than to punish them. In their superiors must be vested the authority to establish the offense, to give judgment on its subjective reasons, and to mete out punishment accordingly. A hegemonic bond is substituted for the contractual bond. The worker becomes subject to the discretionary power of his superiors, he is personally subordinate to his chief's disciplinary power.

爲著辯解起見，讓我假定：有許多工人，甚至大多數工人，忠誠地以最大努力來完成上司派給他們的工作。（我們且不提社會主義國家在分派工作的時候所將遭遇的一些無法解決的問題。）但是，對於那些在指派的工作上偷懶和不經心的人怎樣處分？除掉懲罰別無他法。他們的一些上司必須具有提出主觀的理由，作爲判罪、定刑的權威。這是以統治的束縛代替契約的束縛。工人動不動就受上司們任意權力的支配，他是以人身隸屬於他主子的任意權力。

In the market economy the worker sells his services as other people

在市場經濟裡面，工人之出賣他們的勞務，正如同別人之出賣他們的貨物一樣。僱用者不是被僱者的主人。他只是勞務的購買者，而且，他必須按市場價格來購買那些勞務。當然，勞動的僱用者像其他的購買者一樣，也會任意作爲的。但是，如果他在僱用或解僱工人的時候，任意作爲，他就要承受其後果。一個僱主或僱員擔任了一個企業部門的經理，就可自由決定僱用工人，也可自由開除他們或削減他們的工資。但是，如果他過於任意行動，他就是損害他的企業或其部門的利益，因而損害他自己的所得以及在這個經濟制度中的地位。也就是說，在巿場經濟裡面的任意作爲，將招致對自己的懲罰。市場經濟唯一眞實而有效的工資收入者的保障，那些決定價格形成的因素的相互作用。市場使工人得以免於僱主和其助手的胡作妄爲。工人們和他們的僱主們一樣，只受制於消費者的最高權力。靠購買或不購買而決定產品價格和生產要素的僱用時，消費者就給每種勞動確定了它的市場價格。

What makes the worker a free man is precisely the fact that the employer, under the pressure of the market's price structure, considers labor a commodity, an instrument of earning profits. The employee is in the eyes of the employer merely a man who for a consideration in money helps him to make money. The employer pays for services rendered and the employee performs in order to earn wages. There is in this relation between employer and employee no question of favor or disfavor. The hired man does not owe the employer gratitude; he owes him a definite quantity of work of a definite kind and quality.

使得工人成爲自由人的是這個事實：僱主在市場價格結構的壓力下，把勞動看作一種商品、一種謀利的工具。在僱主謀利的心目中，僱工只是一個幫助他賺錢的一個人。僱主對僱工所提供的勞務支付工資，僱工爲賺得工資而提供勞務。在他們之間的這種關係裡面，沒有什麼恩惠或刻薄的問題。被僱用的人不感激僱用者的恩寵；他只對他提供定量的某種性質的勞動。

That is why in the market economy the employer can do without the power to punish the employee. All nonmarket systems of production must give to those in control the power to spur on the slow worker to more zeal and application. As imprisonment withdraws the worker from his job or at least reduces considerably the value of his contribution, corporal punishment has always been the classical means of keeping slaves and serfs to their work. With the abolition of unfree labor one could dispense with the whip as a stimulus. Flogging was the symbol of bond labor. Members of a market society consider corporal punishment inhuman and humiliating to such a degree that it has been abolished also in the schools, in the penal code, and in military discipline.

這就是爲什麼在市場經濟裡面，僱主用不著對僱工有懲罰權的道理。至於非市場經濟的生產，管理人員必須握有封工人的懲罰權，以促使遲鈍懶惰的工人加緊工作。因爲監禁的慜罰會使工人不能工作，或至少是大大減低他的工作量，所以體罰曾經是促使奴隸和農奴工作的典型手段。隨著非自由勞動的廢除，我們不用鞭子作驅策的工具也行。鞭打曾經是奴工的象徵。市場社會的份子，把體罰看作不人道的、羞辱的，以致在學校裡面、刑法裡面，和軍隊的訓練裡面，也都廢除了。

He who believes that a socialist commonwealth could do without compulsion and coercion against slothful workers because everyone will spontaneously do his duty, falls prey to the illusions implied in the doctrine of anarchism.

如果有人相信：一個社會主義國家對付疏懶的工人不用強迫手段也行，因爲每個人將會自願地盡他的義務，這人就是陷於無政府主義者同樣的幻想。

------------------

[19] Margaret Mitchell, who in her popular novel Gone With the Wind (New York, 1936) eulogizes the South's slavery system, is catious enough not to enter into particulars concerning the plantation hands, and prefers to dwell upon the conditions of domestic servants, who even in her account appear as an elite of their caste.

[18] Margaret Mitchell在她的那部名著《飄》（Gone With the Wind）裡頌揚南方的奴隸制度，可是，她足夠小心地不涉及農場奴隸的生活細節，而只描述家庭奴僕的生活情形。在她的故事中，家庭奴僕顯得像是奴隸羣中的「貴族」。

[20] Cf. about the American proslavery doctrine Charles and Mary Beard. The Rise of American Civilization (1944), I, 703-710; and c.e. Merriam, A History of American Political Theories (New York, 1924), pp. 227-251.

[19] 關於讚美奴隸制度的文獻，可參考Charles和Mary Beard. The Rise of American Civilization (1944), I, 703-710; 以及c.e. Merriam, A History of American Political Theories (New York, 1924), pp. 227-251.

[21] Cf. Ciccotti, Lew Declin de l'esclavage antique (Paris, 1910), pp. 292 ff.; Salvioli, Le Capitalisme dans de monde antique (Paris, 1906), pp. 141 ff.; Cairnes, the Slave Power (London, 1862), p. 234.

[20] 參考Ciccotti, Lew Declin de l'esclavage antique (Paris, 1910), pp. 292 ff.; Salvioli, Le Capitalisme dans de monde antique (Paris, 1906), pp. 141 ff.; Cairnes, the Slave Power (London, 1862), p. 234.

XXII. THE NONHUMAN ORIGINAL FACTORS OF PRODUCTION

第22章 非人的原始的生產要素

1. General Observations Concerning the Theory of Rent

一、關於地租理論的一般觀察

In the frame of Ricardian economics the idea of rent was an attempt at a treatment of those problems which modern economics approaches by means of marginal-utility analysis.[1] Ricardo's theory appears rather unsatisfactory when judged from the point of view of present-day insight; there is no doubt that the method of the subjective-value theory is far superior. Yet the renown of the rent theory is well deserved; the care bestowed upon its initiation and perfection brought forth fine fruits. There is no reason for the history of economic thought to feel ashamed of the rent theory.[2]

在李嘉圖的經濟學架構裡面，地租這個觀念是用來處理現代經濟學用邊際效用分析[1]來處理的那些問題。李嘉圖的理論，從今天透徹的觀點來判斷，顯得不能叫人滿意；無疑地，主觀價値論的方法是優越得多。但是，這個地租論之享盛名仍然是應該的；其創意產生了一些好的結果。就經濟思想史來講，我們沒有理由以這個地租論爲羞[2]。

The fact that land of different quality and fertility, i.e., yielding different returns per unit of input, is valued differently does not pose any special problem to modern economics. As far as Ricardo's theory refers to the gradation in the valuation and appraisement of pieces of land, it is completely comprehended in the modern theory of the prices of factors of production. It is not the content of the rent theory that is objectionable, but the exceptional position assigned to it in the complex of the economic system. Differential rent is a general phenomenon and is not limited to the determination of the prices of land. The sophisticated distinction between "rents" and "quasi-rents" is spurious. Land and the services it renders are dealt with in the same way as other factors of production and their services. Control of a better tool yields "rent" when compared with the returns of less suitable tools which must be utilized on account of the insufficient supply of more suitable ones. The abler and more zealous worker earns a "rent" when compared with the wages earned by his less skillful and less industrious competitors.

品質和肥沃度不同的土地（也即每一投入單位所收獲的報酬不同的土地）其評價也不一樣。這個事實對於現代經濟學並不提出任何特殊問題。就李嘉圖理論所說的土地分級評價，完全容納在現代的生產要素價格論中。這不是客觀的地租論的要旨，而是在這個複雜的經濟體系中，派給它的特別地位。差別租是一個普遍現象，而不限於土地價格的決定。「租」和「準租」這種強詞奪理的區分是杜撰的。土地和它的功用與其他的一些生產要素和它們的功用，是要以相同的方法討論的。在生產中，控制一個較好的工具與控制一個較差的（因爲較好的工具供給量不夠，不得不利用較差的）比較，前者就有「租」的收穫。較能幹、較熱忱的工人所賺的工資，與那笨拙而懶惰的工人所賺的工資比較，前者就有「租」的成份。

The problems which the rent concept was designed to solve were for the most part generated by the employment of inappropriate

靠地租概念來解決的那些問題，絕大部份是由於使用一些不妥當的名詞而引起的。日常用語中，那些概括的概念和通俗的想法，不是就行爲學和經濟學的需要而形成的。早期的經濟學家毫不遲疑地誤用了它們。只有天眞地執著於像「土地」或「勞動」這樣概括的名詞的人，才會對「爲什麼『土地』和『勞動』有不同的評價」這個問題感到迷惘。至於不受語言的欺騙，而能看到生產要素與人的慾望滿足之關聯的人，就會把「不同的勞務而有不同的評價」看作當然的事情。

The modern theory of value and prices is not based on the classification of the factors of production as land, capital, and labor. Its fundamental distinction is between goods of higher and of lower orders, between producers' goods and consumers' goods. When it distinguishes within the class of factors of production the original (nature-given) factors from the produced factors of production (the intermediary products) and furthermore within the class of original factors the nonhuman (external) factors from the human factors (labor), it does not break up the uniformity of its reasoning concerning the determination of the prices of the factors of production. The law controlling the determination of the prices of the factors of production is the same with all classes and specimens of these factors. The fact that different services rendered by such factors are valued, appraised, and dealt with in a different way can only amaze people who fail to notice these differences in serviceableness. He who is blind to the merits of a painting may consider it strange that collectors should pay more for a painting of Velasquez than for a painting of a less gifted artist; for the connoisseur it is self-evident. It does not astonish the farmer that buyers pay higher prices and tenants higher leases for more fertile land than for less fertile. The only reason why the old economists were puzzled by this fact was that they operated with a general term land that neglects differences in productivity.

現代的價値價格論，不是基於生產要素之分類爲土地、資本、和勞動。它的基本區別是在高級財貨與低級財貨，生產財與消費財。當它在生產要素這一類裡面區分原始的（自然賦與的）要素與產出的要素（中間產品），以及進一步在原始的要素這一類裡面再區分非人的（外在的）要素與人的要素（勞動）的時候，它並沒有破壞它的理論——關於生產要素價格決定的理論——的一致性。決定生產要素價格的法則，對於各種各類的生產要素都是同樣有效的。生產要素的功用不一樣，人們對它的評値、估價、和處理的方法也不一樣。這個事實只會使那些沒有注意到這些功用不同的人們感到迷惑。不懂得繪畫的人看到收藏家願意出較高的價錢來買梵谷的作品而不買天資較差的畫家的作品而覺得奇怪；可是，就藝術鑑賞家看來，這是自明之理。買土地或租土地的人，對比較肥沃的土地出較高的價錢或較高的租金，這不會使農人驚奇。老辈經濟學家對於這種事情覺得奇怪的唯一理由，是他們用了「土地」這個概括的名詞來想問題，而忽略了生產力的差異。

The greatest merit of the Ricardian theory of rent is the cognizance of the fact that the marginal land does not yield any rent. From this knowledge there is but one step to the discovery of the principle of valuational subjectivism. Yet blinded by the real cost notion neither the classical economists nor their epigones took this step.

李嘉圃的地租論的最大優點是，認識了「邊際土地不產生地租」這個事實。從這個知識，只要再進一步就可發現主觀價値論的原理。可是，古典的經濟學家和他們的門徒，都蔽於「實質的成本」觀念而不能再進到這一歩。

While the differential-rent idea, by and large, can be adopted by the subjective-value theory, the second rent concept derived from Ricardian economics, viz., the residual-rent concept, must be rejected altogether. This residual-claimant idea is based on the notion of real or physical costs that do not make any sense in the frame of the modern explanation of the prices of factors of production. The reason

差別租這個觀念，大體上尙可容納於主觀價値論，但是，從李嘉圖的經濟學派生出來的第二個地租概念，也即「剩餘租」這個概念，必須完全抛棄。這個概念是基於「實質的」或「有形的」成本觀念，這種成本觀念在現代的生產要素價格論的架構中，毫無意義。法國Burgundy（Burgundy這個地方生產的紅葡萄酒——譯者附註）的價格之所以高於Chianti（意大利Tuscany這個地方生產的紅葡萄酒——譯者附註）的價

格的理由，不是Burgundy的葡萄園的價格高於Tuscany的葡萄園的價格，其因果關係是顚倒的。因爲人們願意支付比Chianti的價格較高的價格來買Burgundy，所以種葡萄的人們願意支付比Tuscany的葡萄園的價格較高的價格來買或租Burgundy的葡萄園。

In the eyes of the accountant profits appear as a share left over when all costs of production have been paid. In the evenly rotating economy such a surplus of the prices of products over and above costs could never appear. In the changing economy differences between the prices of the products and the sum of the prices that the entrepreneur has expended for the purchase of the complementary factors of production plus interest on the capital invested can appear in either direction, i.e., either as profit or as loss. These differences are caused by changes which arise in the prices of the products in the time interval. He who succeeds better than others in anticipating these changes in time and acts accordingly, reaps profits. He who fails in his endeavors to adjust his entrepreneurial ventures to the future state of the market is penalized by losses.

利潤不是一切生產成本都支付了的時候的一份剩餘。在均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，產品的價格永久不會有超過成本的剩餘。在變動的經濟裡面，產品的價格與「企業家爲購買各種補助的生產要素，所已支付的代價再加上資本的利息的總額」之間的差額是可正可負的，也即，其差額或爲利潤或爲虧損。這些差額之所以發生，是因爲產品的價格在時間的間隔中有了變動。凡是能夠預測這些變動而據以採取行動的人，就可賺到利潤。凡是不能預測將來的市場情況而據以調整他的企業經營的人，就會受到虧損的懲罰。

The main deficiency of Ricardian economics was that it was a theory of the distribution of a total product of a nation's joint efforts. Like the other champions of classical economics Ricardo failed to free himself from the Mercantilist image of the Volkswirtschaft. In his thought the problem of the determination of prices was subordinated to the problem of the distribution of wealth. The customary characterization of his economic philosophy as "that of the manufacturing middle classes of contemporary England" [3] misses the point. These English businessmen of the early nineteenth century were not interested in the total product of industry and its distribution. They were guided by the urge to make profits and to avoid losses.

李嘉圖的經濟學的主要缺點，在於它是一個一國的聯合努力的總產品的分配論。像其他的古典經濟學家一樣，李嘉圖沒有把他自己從重商主義的那個「國家經濟」的影像下擺脫出來。在他的思想中，價格決定這個問題是附屬於財富分配問題。一般的說法是說，他的經濟哲學的特徵是代表當時英國中層階級工業家的哲學[3]。這個說法離了譜。十九世紀早期，英國工商業人士並不關心總生產和其分配。他們是受「謀取利潤避免虧損的動機」所驅使。

Classical economics erred when it assigned to land a distinct place in its theoretical scheme. Land is, in the economic sense, a factor of production, and the laws determining the formation of the prices of land are the same that determine the formation of the prices of other factors of production. All peculiarities of the economic teachings concerning land refer to some peculiarities of the data involved.

古典經濟學當它在它的理論結構中給土地以特殊地位的時候，就犯了錯誤。就經濟的意義講，土地是個生產要素；決定土地價格的那些法則，也同樣地決定其他生產要素的價格。關於土地的經濟敎義的一切特點，都涉及有關資料的某些特點。

----------------

[1] It was, says Fetter (Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, XIII, 291), "a garbled marginality theory."

[1] Fetter在Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, XIII, 291說，這是「一個斷章取義的邊際理論」。

[2] Cf. Amonn Ricard als Begründer der theoretischen National?konomie (Jena, 1924), pp. 54 ff.

[2] 參考Amonn Ricard als Begründer der theoretischen National?konomie (Jena, 1924), pp. 54 ff.

[3] Cf., for example, Haney, History of Economic Thought (rev. ed. New York, 1927), p. 275.

[3] 例如，參考Haney, History of Economic Thought (rev. ed. New York, 1927), p. 275.

2. The Time Factor in Land Utilization

二、土地利用中的時間因素

The starting point of the economic teachings concerning land is the distinction between two classes of original factors of production, viz., human and nonhuman factors. As the utilization of the nonhuman

關於土地的經濟敎義，其出發點是把原始的生產要素分作兩類，即人的與非人的要素。因爲非人的要素之利用，通常總要關聯到地球的一片斷，所以當我說到非人的要素時，我們所指的就是土地[4]。

In dealing with the economic problems of land, i.e., the nonhuman original factors of production, one must neatly separate the praxeological point of view from the cosmological point of view. It may make good sense for cosmology in its study of cosmic events to speak of permanency and of the conservation of mass and energy. If one compares the orbit within which human action is able to affect the natural environmental conditions of human life with the operation of natural entities, it is permissible to call the natural powers indestructible and permanent or--more precisely--safe against destruction by human action. For the great periods of time to which cosmology refers, soil erosion (in the broadest sense of the term) of such an intensity as can be effected by human interference is of no importance. Nobody knows today whether or not cosmic changes will in millions of years transform deserts and barren soil into land that from the point of view of our present-day knowledge will have to be described as extremely fertile and the most luxuriant tropical gardens into sterile land. Precisely because nobody can anticipate such changes nor venture to influence the cosmic events which possibly could bring them about, it is supererogatory to speculate about them in dealing with the problems of human action. [5]

在討論土地（也即非人的原始生產要素）的經濟問題時，我們必須淸淸爽爽把行爲學的觀點與宇宙論的觀點分開。宇宙論在研究宇宙事象時，常說到質量和能量的不滅，這種說法是很有意義的。如果我們把「人的行爲能夠在其中影響生活之自然環境的那個軌道」和「自然的實體之運作」加以比較的時候，我們無妨說，自然的力量是永久存在而不毀滅的——或更精確地講——不是人的行爲所可毀滅的。就宇宙論所指涉的那些悠長的時期來講，由於人爲的影響而引起的土壤蝕損是微不足道的。今天，誰也不知道宇宙的變化在幾百萬年當中是不是會把沙漠變成良田，把良田變成沙漠。正因爲沒有人能預測這樣的變動，也沒有人敢於干擾那些會引起變化的宇宙事象，因此，如果在討論人的行爲問題時去預測它們，那就是不安份[5]。

The natural sciences may assert that those powers of the soil that condition its serviceableness for forestry, cattle breeding, agriculture, and water utilization regenerate themselves periodically. It may be true that even human endeavors deliberately directed toward the utmost devastation of the productive capacity of the earth's crust could at best succeed only with regard to small parts of it. But these facts do not strictly count for human action. The periodical regeneration of the soil's productive powers is not a rigid datum that would face man with a uniquely determined situation. It is possible to use the soil in such a way that this regeneration is slowed down and postponed or the soil's productive power either vanishes altogether for a definite period of time or can be restored only by means of a considerable input of capital and labor. In dealing with the soil man has to choose between various methods different from one another with regard to the preservation and regeneration of its productive power. No less than in any other branch of production the time factor enters also

自然科學可以這樣講：土壤利於植林、畜牧、農田、水利的那些能力是會周期更生的。人類即令故意以最大的努力來破壞地殼的生産力，至多也只能破壞它的幾個小部份。但是嚴格地說，這些事實無關乎人的行爲。土壤能力的周期更生，並不是怎麼規律的。土地的利用，情形不一樣：有的會使這種更生減弱和遲緩，或者土壤的能力在某個時期當中完全消失，或者要靠很大的資本和勞力投入才能恢復它。人在利用土地的時候，必須在一些不同的方法中選擇某一方法，而這些方法對於地力的保持和更生，各有不同的影響。和在其他的生產部門一樣，在漁、獵、畜牧、農、林、水利的活動中，也有時間因素發生作用。在這裡，人也要在即時的滿足與較遠將來的滿足之間加以選擇。在這裡，表現在人的一切行爲中的原始利息這個現象，也發生它的重要作用。

There are institutional conditions that cause the persons involved to prefer satisfaction in the nearer future and to disregard entirely or almost entirely satisfaction in the more distant future. If the soil is on the one hand not owned by individual proprietors and on the other hand all, or certain people favored by special privilege or by the actual state of affairs, are free to make use of it temporarily for their own benefit, no heed is paid to the future. The same is the case when the proprietor expects that he will be expropriated in the not too distant future. In both cases the actors are exclusively intent upon squeezing out as much as possible for their immediate advantage. They do not concern themselves about the temporally more remote consequences of their methods of exploitation. Tomorrow does not count for them. The history of lumbering, hunting, and fishing provides plenty of illustrative experience; but many examples can also be found in other branches of soil utilization.

有些制度上的情況使得人們只顧眼前的最大滿足，完全或幾乎完全忽視較遠將來的滿足。如果土地不歸某些人所有，同時所有的人或某些人們因爲特權或實際情勢的關係，可以按照自己的利益暫時自由利用它，這些人對於將來就不會加以注意。當土地有地主的時候，如果這些地主知道他們的土地所有權不久將會被沒收，情形也會如此。在上述的兩種情況下，當事人會專心於盡可能地搾出眼前的利益，至於他們所用的那些方法，在較遠的將來有什麼後果，他們就一概不管。伐林、打獵和捕魚的歷史，對於這種，提供了充份的證據：但在其他部門的土地利用方面，也可看到許多這樣的事例。

From the point of view of the natural sciences, the maintenance of capital goods and the preservation of the powers of the soil belong to two entirely different categories. The produced factors of production perish sooner or later entirely in the pursuit of production processes, and piecemeal are transformed into consumers' goods which are eventually consumed. If one does not want to make the results of past saving and capital accumulation disappear, one must, apart from consumers' goods, also produce the amount of capital goods which is needed for the replacement of those worn out. If one were to neglect this, one would finally consume, as it were, the capital goods. One would sacrifice the future to the present; one would live in luxury today and be in want later.

從自然科學的觀點來看，資本財的維持與土壤力的維護，屬於兩個完全不同的類目。製造出來的生產要素或遲或早要在生產過程中完全消掉，也即一點一點地轉化成終被消费的消費財。如果我們不想讓過去的儲蓄和資本累積消滅，我們除去生產消費財以外，也要生產一些资本財，而其數量要足以抵補消耗掉的資本財。如果我們忽視這一點，我們最後就要「消費」资本財。這就是爲現在而犠牲將來：今天的享受奢侈，日後要陷於貧困。

But, it is often said, it is different with the powers of land. They cannot be consumed. Such a statement is meaningful, however, only from the point of view of geology. But from the geological point of view one could, or should, no less deny that factory equipment or a railroad can be "eaten up." The gravel and stones of a railroad's substructure and the iron and steel of the rails, bridges, cars, and engines do not perish in a cosmic sense. Only from the praxeological point of view is it permissible to speak of the consumption, the eating up, of a tool, a railroad, or a steel mill. In the same economic sense we speak of the consumption of the productive powers of the soil. In forestry, agriculture, and water utilization these powers are dealt with

但是，我們常常聽說，地力不是如此。地力是不會「消耗掉的」。這種說法只有從地質學的觀點講才有意義。但是，從地質學的觀點，我們也可以或應該同樣否認，工廠的設備或一條鐵路會被「吃光」。鐵路纏的砂礫石頭和路軌的鋼鐵，以及橋樑、車廂、機車等等，在宇宙的意義下是不會消滅的。只有就行爲學的觀點才可以說：一個工具、一條鐵路或一個紡織廠被消費掉、被吃光了。我們說土地的生產力被消費了，是在這同樣的經濟意義下說的。在農林和水利方面，土地的這些生產能力之被處理，是和處理其他生產要素一樣的。關於地力的利用，行爲人也必須在不同的生產過程中加以選擇，有的生產過程是犧牲後來的生產力以求眼前較髙的收穫，有的不傷害將來的生產力。把地力搾取到使將來的利用只提供較小的報酬（就所投下的資本和勞動量的每單位而言）或實際完全沒有報酬，這是可能的。

It is true that there are physical limits to the devastating powers of man. (These limits are sooner reached in lumbering, hunting, and fishing than in tilling the soil.) But this fact results only in a quantitative, not in a qualitative difference between capital decumulation and soil erosion.

不錯，人的這種破壞力是有些外界限制的。（這些限制在伐林、打獵、捕魚方面，比在耕地方面更快地達到。）但是，這個事實在資本消蝕與地力浸蝕之間所造成的差異，只是在量的方面而非在質的方面。

Ricardo calls the powers of the soil "original and indestructible." [6] However, modern economics must stress the point that valuation and appraisement do not differentiate between original and produced factors of production and that the cosmological indestructibility of mass and energy, whatever it may mean, does not enjoin upon land utilization a character radically different from other branches of production.

李嘉圆把這種地力叫做「原始的不會毀滅的」[6]。但是，現在經濟學必須強調：在原始的生產要素與製造出來的生產要素之間，評値與估價沒有差別；宇宙論的物質和能量的不滅，不管它的意指是什麼，並不是土地利用特異於其他生產部門的特徵。

-------------

[4] Legal provisions concerning the separation of the right of hunting, fishing, and extracting mineral deposits from the other rights of the owner of a piece of land are of no interest for catallactics. The term land as used in catallactics includes also expanses of water.

[4] 法律條文把漁、獵、和採鑛權從地主的其他權利分開，這與行爲學沒有關係。

[5] thus also the problem of entropy stands outside the sphere of praxeological meditation.

[5] 因而關於熵（entropy）的問題是在行爲學的思考範圍以外。

[6] Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, p. 34.

[6] Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, p. 34.

3. The Submarginal Land

三、邊際以下的土地

The services a definite piece of land can render in a definite period of time are limited. If they were unlimited, men would not consider land a factor of production and an economic good. However, the quantity of soil available is so vast, nature is so prodigal, that land is still abundant. Therefore, only the most productive pieces of land are utilized. There is land which people consider--either with regard to its physical productivity or with regard to its location--as too poor to be worth cultivating. Consequently the marginal soil, i.e., the poorest soil cultivated, yields no rent in the Ricardian sense.[7] Submarginal land would be considered entirely worthless if one were not to appraise it positively in anticipation of its being utilized in later days.[8]

一塊土地的功用在一定的時期當中總是有限的。如果是無限的話，人們就不會把土地看作一種生產要素和一種經濟財。可是，可用的土地，其量是那麼大，自然是那麼慷慨，以致到現在，土地還是豐富的。所以，只有那最有生產力的土地才被利用。有些土地，人們認為——就它的生產力來看，或就它的位置來看——太差，不値得利用。因而李嘉圖認爲，邊際土地（也即在耕種中的最差的土地）不產生地租[7]。邊際以下的土地，如果沒有人預料在不久的將來會被利用的話，那就被視爲毫無價値。[8]

The fact that the market economy does not have a more ample supply of agricultural products is caused by the scarcity of capital

市場經濟沒有更豐富的農產品供給這個事實，是由於資本和勞力的稀少而引起的，並非因爲可耕地的稀少。在其他事物不變的條件下，可用的土地面積之增加，引起穀類、肉類的供給增加，只有在一種情形下才可能，即，那增加的土地，其肥沃度超過已在耕種中的邊際土地的肥沃度。另一方面，農產品的供給會因可用的勞動和資本的數量之增加而增加，假使消費者不認爲這些新增的資本和勞動還有其他的用途更能滿足他們最迫切的慾望[9]。

The useful mineral substances contained in the soil are limited in quantity. It is true that some of them are the outgrowth of natural processes which are still going on and increasing the existing deposits. However, the slowness and length of these processes makes them insignificant for human action. Man must take into account that the available deposits of these minerals are limited. Every single mine or oil source is exhaustible; many of them are already exhausted. We may hope that new deposits will be discovered and that technological procedures will be invented which will make it possible to utilize deposits which today cannot be exploited at all or only at unreasonable costs. We may also assume that the further progress of technological knowledge will enable later generations to utilize substances which cannot be utilized today. But all these things do not matter for the present-day conduct of mining and oil drilling. The deposits of mineral substances and their exploitation are not characterized by features which would give a particular mark to human action dealing with them. For catallactics the distinction between soil used in agriculture and that used in mining is merely a distinction of data.

地下的有用鑛藏，其量是有限的。不錯，它們有些是自然演化過程中的產品，而這些過程還在繼續中，因而還在增加旣有的鍍藏量。但是，這些過程的進度遲緩和悠長，使得它們對於人的行爲而言，沒有什麼意義。人必須考慮到可用的鑛藏是有限的。每一個鑛藏或油源總會枯竭的；其中有些已經枯竭了。我們希望有新的鑛藏會被發現，我們也希望技術進歩將使今天所完全不能開採或只能在不合理的成本下開採的鑛藏也可開採。我們也可假想，技術知識的更進歩，會使後代的人們能夠利用今天所不利用的那些物質。但是，所有這些希望和假想，對於我們今天開鑛和鑽油井的行爲毫無關係。就交換論來講，農業用地與鑛業用地的區分，只是一種資料的區分。

Although the available quantities of these mineral substances are limited, and although we may academically concern ourselves with the possibility that they will be entirely exhausted one day, acting men do not consider these deposits rigidly limited. Their activities take into account the fact that definite mines and wells will become exhausted, but they do not pay heed to the fact that at an unknown later date all the deposits of certain minerals may come to an end. For to present-day action the supply of these substances appears to be so abundant that one does not venture to exploit all their deposits to the full extent which the state of technological knowledge permits. The mines are utilized only as far as there is no more urgent employment available for the required quantities of capital and labor. There are therefore submarginal deposits that are not utilized at all.

儘管這些鑛藏的可採量是有限的，儘管在理論上講，我們認爲這些鑛藏總有一天會枯竭，可是行爲人卻不把它們看作毫無彈性地有限。他們的活動固然會考慮到某些特定的鑛藏和油井將會枯竭這個事實，但是，他們並不關心某些鑛物的全部蘊藏在一個未知的來日也會完結。因爲，就今天的行爲來講，這些鑛藏的供給量豐富到誰也不會就想把它們開採到現在技術知識所可做到的充份程度。鑛藏的開採，只做到開採時所必須僱用的那些勞動和資本沒有更迫切的用途爲止。所以，有些邊際以下的鑛藏完全沒有利用。

In every mine operated the extent of the production is determined by the relation between the prices of the products and those of the required nonspecific factors of production.

每個已開採的鑛，其生產程度決定於產品價格與那些必須的非特殊的生產要素的價格之間的關係。

-------------

[7] There are areas in which practically every corner is cultivated or otherwise utilized. But this is the outcome of institutional conditions barring the inhabitants of these regions from access to more fertile unused soil.

[7] 有些地區幾乎毎個角落的土地都被耕種或作其他的利用。但是，這種情形是制度所形成的結果，制度限制了這些地區的居民接近那些較優良而未被利用的土地。

[8] The appraisal of a piece of soil must not be confused with the appriasal of the improvements, i.e., the irremovable and inconvertible results of the investment of capital and labor that facilitate its utilization and raise future outputs per unit and future inputs.

[8] 對於一塊土地的評價，不可以和對於土地改良的評價相混淆。所謂土地改良，是指爲裨益土地的利用和提高將來收穫率而投下的資本和勞動所引起的那些不能取消、不能轉換的效果。

[9] These observations, of course, refer only to conditions in which there are no institutional barriers to the mobility of capital and labor.

[9] 當然，這些說法僅就那些對於資本和勞動的流動沒有制度上任何障礙的情況而言。

4. The Land as Standing Room

四、容身之用的土地

The employment of land for the location of human residences, workshops, and means of transportation withdraws pieces of soil from other employments.

用在住宅、工廠、和道路方面的土地如果增加，則在其他用途的土地勢必減少。

The particular place which older theories attributed to urban site rent need not here concern us. It is not especially noteworthy that people pay higher prices for land they value more for housing than for land which they value less. It is a matter of fact that for workshops, warehouses, and railroad yards people prefer locations which reduce costs of transportation, and that they are ready to pay higher prices for such land in accordance with the economies expected.

古老的經濟學認爲，都市土地之所以產生地租的那種特殊地位，我們不必在這裡討論。人們對於可做住宅基地的土地評値較高，因而支付的價格比他們評値較低的爲高，這是當然的事情，不値得特別注意。爲著做工廠、倉庫、和鐵路的堆置場，人們要選擇那些位於可減低運輸費地點的土地，因而對這些工地願意支付較高價格。這也是當然的事情。

Land is also used for pleasure grounds and gardens, for parks and for the enjoyment of the grandeur and beauty of nature. With the development of the love of nature, this very characteristic feature of "bourgeois" mentality, the demand for such enjoyments increased enormously. The soil of the high mountain chains, once merely considered a barren dreariness of rocks and glaciers, is today highly appreciated as the source of the most lofty pleasures.

土地也可用來作娛樂場所、花園、公園以及其他美化環境之用。隨著對自然界愛好「布爾喬亞」所特有的心情，這一類享受的需求大大增高了。以前僅視爲荒蕪淒涼的懸崖深谷和冰河，今日卻成爲高尙的遊樂地帶而受到高度的欣賞。

From time immemorial access to these spaces has been free to everybody. Even if the land is owned by private individuals, the owners as a rule have not the right to close it to tourists and mountain-climbers or to ask an entrance fee. Whoever has the opportunity to visit these areas, has the right to enjoy all their grandeur, and to consider them his own, as it were. The nominal owner does not derive any advantage from the satisfaction his property gives to the visitors. But this does not alter the fact that this land serves human well-being and is appreciated accordingly. The ground is subject to an easement that entitles everybody to pass along and to camp on it. As no other utilization of the area concerned is possible, this servitude completely exhausts all the advantages the proprietor could reap from his ownership. Since the particular services which these rocks and glaciers can render are practically inexhaustible, do not wear out, and do not require any input of capital and labor for their conservation, this arrangement does not bring about those consequences which appeared wherever it was applied to lumbering, hunting, and fishing grounds.

自古以來，任何人都是可以免費進到這些地帶的。即令這帶土地是私人所有，地主們也無權禁止遊人和登山客前來觀光或向他們收费。誰有機會來遊覽這些地方，誰就有權享受這個地方的美景，好像是他自己所有的。名義上的主人並不因爲他的財產給了遊客的滿足而從遊客方面得到任何利益。但是，「這個地方爲人提供福利因而被人欣賞」這個事實並不因此而改變。私有土地是要讓別人可以通過的，這使得住何人有權在風景地帶遊覽或露營。這種地區或冰河，除供遊覽以外，不可能有其他用途。而供遊覽這一功用，是不會損耗、不會竭盡、不需要投入資本和勞動來維持的。這與伐林、打獵、捕魚的地區完全不同。

If, in the neighborhood of these mountain chains, the space available for the construction of shelters, hotels, and means of transportation (e.g., rack railroads) is limited, the owners of these scarce

如果這些風景地區的鄰近可用以建築旅館和交通工具（例如高架鐵路）的土地是有限的，這些土地的地主們就可在更有利的條件下出資或出租他們的土地，因而把觀光客免費享受的利益轉移一部份到他們自己了。否則這些觀光客就是無代價地享受這些利益的全部。

5. The Prices of Land

五、土地價格

In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy buying and selling of the services of definite pieces of land does not differ at all from buying and selling the services of other factors of production. All these factors are appraised according to the services they will render in various periods of the future, due allowance being made for time preference. For the marginal land (and, of course, for the submarginal land) no price is paid at all. Rent-bearing land (i.e., land that, compared with the marginal land, bears a higher output per unit of input of capital and labor) is appraised in accordance with the degree of its superiority. Its price is the sum of all its future rents, each of them discounted at the rate of originary interest.[10]

在那假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，買賣某些特定地皮的功用與買賣其他生產要素的功用沒有什麼不同。所有一切生產要素都是按照它們在未來時期所離供的功用而估價的。這裡，當然要考慮到時間偏好。對於邊際土地（邊際以下的土地當然也包括在内）完全不付地租。有地租的土地（與邊際土地比較，每單位資本和勞動有較高產品的土地）是按照它的優越程度來估價的。它的價格是它將來的全部地租的總額，那些將來的地租每一筆都要以原始利率來折算[10]。

In the changing economy people buying and selling land take due account of expected changes in the market prices for the services rendered by the soil. Of course, they may err in their expectations; but this is another thing. They try to anticipate to the best of their abilities future events that may alter the market data and they act in accordance with these opinions. If they believe that the annual net yield of the piece of land concerned will rise, the price will be higher than it would have been in the absence of such expectations. This is, for instance, the case with suburban land in the neighborhood of cities growing in population or with forests and arable land in countries in which pressure groups are likely to succeed in raising, by means of tariffs, the prices of timber and cereals. On the other hand, fears concerning the total or partial confiscation of the net yield of land tend to lower the prices of land. In everyday business language people speak of the "capitalization" of the rent and observe that the rate of capitalization is different with different classes of land and varies even within the same class with different pieces of soil. This terminology

在變動的經濟裡面，買賣土地的人們對於這塊土地的功用的市場價格之可能變動，要加以相當考慮。他們所考慮的或預測的，當然也會錯誤，伹這是另一回事。他們盡他們的能力來預測那些會影響市場情況的未來的事情，並按照這些預測來決定他們的行爲。如果他們認爲這塊土地的年收益淨額將會增加，則地價就會比沒有這種預測時爲高。例如，那些人口增加的城市的近郊土地，就是如此。另一方面，如果土地的淨收益有全部或局部被沒收的可能時，則地價趨向於下跌。在日常的商業用語中，人們常講到地租的「資本化」，常看到資本化的比率隨土地的等級不同而不同，而且即令在同一等級以內，每塊土地的资本化比率也不一定相同。這個名詞是頗不方便的，因爲它把它所要表現的這個過程表現得不對。

In the same way in which buyers and sellers of land take into account anticipated future events that will reduce the net return, they deal with taxes. Taxes levied upon land reduce its market price to the extent of the discounted amount of their future burden. The introduction of a new tax of this kind which is likely not to be abolished results in an immediate drop in the market price of the pieces of land concerned. This is the phenomenon that the theory of taxation calls amortization of taxes.

買賣土地的人對於租稅的考盧，正如同對於那些將會降低土地淨報酬的未來事件的考慮一樣。課在土地的稅將降低它的市場價格，降低的程度按照將來的負擔量來折算。這種不容易取消的新稅一經採行，其直接影響就是有關的那塊土地的市，格馬上下跌。這就是租稅理論裡面所說的「租稅折入資本」的現象。

In many countries the owners of land or of certain estates enjoyed special political legal privileges or a great social prestige. Such institutions too can play a role in the determination of the prices of land.

在許多國家裡面，地主或某些不動產的所有人享有政治上的一些特權或社會特權。這樣的制度對於地價的決定，也會發生作用。

The Myth of the Soil

關於土地的神話

Romanticists condemn the economic theories concerning land for their utilitarian narrow-mindedness. Economists, they say, look upon land from the point of view of the callous speculator who degrades all eternal values to terms of money and profit. Yet, the glebe is much more than a mere factor of production. It is the inexhaustible source of human energy and human life. Agriculture is not simply one branch of production among many other branches. It is the only natural and respectable activity of man, the only dignified condition of a really human existence. It is iniquitous to judge it merely with regard to the net returns to be squeezed out of the soil. The soil not only bears the fruits that nourish our body; it produces first of all the moral and spiritual forces of civilization. The cities, the processing industries, and commerce are phenomena of depravity and decay; their existence is parasitic; they destroy what the ploughman must create again and again.

浪漫主義者指實那些關於土地的經濟理論，以爲那都是些功利主義的狹隘想法。他們說，經濟學家是從冷漠無情的投機者的觀點來看土地，投機者只知道金錢和利潤，除此以外沒有什麼永恆的價値。但是，土地不僅是一種生產要素，它是人的活力和人的生命永不枯竭的來源。農業不只是許多生產部門中的一個部門，它是人的活動中唯一的自然而受敬重的活動，也即唯一的髙尙的生活境界。如果僅憑從土地榨取出來的淨收益來衡量農業，那是不正當的。土地不僅產生營養我們身體的食物；最重要的，它也產生道德的和精神的文明力量。城市、製造業、和商業，是些墮落的腐敗現象；它們的存在是寄生的；它們所毀壞的就是農夫所要繼續創造的。

Thousands of years ago, when fishing and hunting tribesmen began to cultivate the soil, romantic reverie was unknown. But if there had lived romanticists in those ages, they would have eulogized the lofty moral values of the hunt and would have stigmatized soil cultivation as a phenomenon of depravity. They would have reproached the ploughman for desecrating the soil that the gods had given to man as a hunting ground and for degrading it to a means of production.

幾千年以前，當漁獵的部落開始耕種土地的時候，不會有什麼浪漫的幻想。但是，如果在那些時代已有浪漫主義者，他們也會讚美打獵的道德價値，而把土地耕種說成邪惡現象。他們會指實農夫把神給人作爲打獵場所的土地褻凟了，把土地貶抑爲生產工具了。

In the preromantic ages in his actions no one considered the soil as anything other than a source of human well-being, a means to promote welfare. The magic rites and observances concerning the soil aimed at nothing else than improvement of the soil's fertility and increase in the quantity of fruits to be harvested. These people did not seek the unio mystica with the mysterious powers and forces hidden in the soil. All they aimed at was bigger and better crops. They resorted to magic rituals and adjurations because in their

在浪漫時代以前，誰也不會在行爲中，把土地看作人的福利來源（促進福利的手段）以外的東西。施之於土地方面的魔術儀式和典禮，無非是想改善土壤的品質，提高它的生產量。這些人們並非尋求藏在土地裡面的什麼神秘。他們的目的只是較多較好的收穫。他們之所以訴之於魔術的儀式和懇求，因爲在他們的見解中，這是達成目的的最有效手段。後人從「理想主義的」觀點來解釋這些儀式，這是錯誤的。一個實際的農夫，不會迷惑於關於土地的胡言亂語而相信它有什麼神秘力量。對於他而言，土地是一種生產要素，不是情感的標的。他之所以貪得土地，因爲他想增加他的所得以提高他的生活水準。農民們買、賣或抵押土地；他們出賈土地的產物，如果產物的價格沒有高到他們所想的程度，他們就非常憤怒。

Love of nature and appreciation of the beauties of the landscape were foreign to the rural population. The inhabitants of the cities brought them to the countryside. It was the city-dwellers who began to appreciate the land as nature, while the countrymen valued it only from the point of view of its productivity for hunting, lumbering, crop raising and cattle breeding. From time immemorial the rocks and glaciers of the Alps were merely waste land in the eyes of the mountaineers. Only when the townsfolk ventured to climb the peaks, and brought money into the valleys, did they change their minds. The pioneers of mountain-climbing and skiing were ridiculed by the indigenous population until they found out that they could derive gain from this eccentricity.

自然的愛好和美麗風景的欣賞，不是鄉下人的事情，是城市的居民帶到鄉下去的。只有在城市的居民開始把土地當作「自然」來欣賞的時候，鄉下人纔就一個不「限於從農林畜牧的生產力觀點」來給土地評値。阿爾卑士山脈的巖石和冰河，好久以來在山地人看來只是廢地。到了城市的人來冒險爬登山峰而帶來了一些金錢來花的時候，山地人纔改變他們的想法，最初前來爬山和滑冰的那些人，是被當地的土著嘲笑的，那，，他們尙未發現他們可從這種奇怪的行爲得到利益。

Not shepherds, but sophisticated aristocrats and city-dwellers were the authors of bucolic poetry. Daphnis and Chloe are creations of fancies far removed from earthy concerns. No less removed from the soil is the modern political myth of the soil. It did not blossom from the moss of the forests and the loam of the fields, but from the pavements of the cities and the carpets of the salons. The farmers make use of it because they find it a practical means of obtaining political privileges which raise the prices of their products and of their farms.

田園詩歌的寫作者，不是牧童農夫，而是貴族和城市中人。Daphnis和Chloe是遠離俗念的雅品創作家。現代的關於土地的政治神話，其遠離實際的程度不下於前者。但它不是從森林原野的泥淖中開出來的花，而是從城市的鋪路和沙龍的地毯開出來的花。農民之所以利用它，因爲他們知道了那是取得政治特權的一個實際手段，而那些特權會使他們的產品和他們農田的價格爲之提高。

------------------

[10] There is need to remember again that the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences (see above, p. 248). With regard to the problems of land one must stress two points: First, that in the frame of this imaginary construction, characterized by the absence of changes in the conduct of affairs, there is no room for the buying and selling of land. Second, that in order to integrate into this construction mining and oil drilling we must ascribe to the mines and oil wells a permanent character and must disregard the possibility that any of the operated mines and wells could be exhausted or even undergo a change in the quantity of output or of current input required.

[10] 這裡必須記著：假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構不能一貫地講到它的終極的邏輯結論（見第十四章第五節）。關於土地問題，我們必須強調兩點：第一、在這種假想的結構裡面，沒有土地買賣行爲發生的餘地。第二、爲著把開鑛和鑽油井這類的活動納入這個假想的結構裡面，我們必須把鑛藏和油井看作永久不變的，至於開採中的鑛和油井之可能枯竭，其產生量或投入量之可能變動，都要一概不管。

XXIII. THE DATA OF THE MARKET

第23章 市場的基料

1. The Theory and the Data

一、理論與基料

Catallactics, the theory of the market economy, is not a system of theorems valid only under ideal and unrealizable conditions and applicable to reality merely with essential restrictions and modifications. All the theorems of catallactics are rigidly and without any exception valid for all phenomena of the market economy, provided the particular conditions which they presuppose are present. It is, for instance, a simple question of fact whether there is direct or indirect exchange. But where there is indirect exchange, all the general laws of the theory of indirect exchange are valid with regard to the acts of exchange and the media of exchange. As has been pointed out,[1] praxeological knowledge is precise or exact knowledge of reality. All references to the epistemological issues of the natural sciences and all analogies derived from comparing these two radically different realms of reality and cognition are misleading. There is, apart from formal logic, no such thing as a set of "methodological" rules applicable both to cognition by means of the category of causality and to that by means of the category of finality.

交換論，也即市場經濟理論，不是一種純屬理想而不可實行的理論體系。交換學的全部定理，只要其所假定的一些特殊條件是具備的，對於市場經濟的一切現象都是一定有效而毫無例外的。例如，直接的或間接的交換之有無，這是一個單純的事實問題。但是，在有間接交換的地方，則間接交換理論的一切通則，對於交換行爲和交換媒介就是有效的。像已指出的[1]，行爲學的知識是關於現實的正確知識。凡涉及自然科學認識論問題的一切引證，以及把這兩個極端差異的現實和認知領域相比較而得來的類比，都是誤導的。撇開形式邏輯不談，決沒有「旣可用之於靠因果的認知，也可用之於靠最後元範的認知」的那一套「方法論的」規律。

Praxeology deals with human action as such in a general and universal way. It deals neither with the particular conditions of the environment in which man acts nor with the concrete content of the valuations which direct his actions. For praxeology data are the bodily and psychological features of the acting men, their desires and value judgments, and the theories, doctrines, and ideologies they develop in order to adjust themselves purposively to the conditions of their environment and thus to attain the ends they are aiming at. These data, although permanent in their structure and strictly determined by the laws controlling the order of the universe, are perpetually fluctuating and varying; they change from instant to instant. [2]

行爲學是用概括的方法就人的行爲來處理人的行爲。它旣不涉及行爲於其中的那些特殊環境，也不涉及促起行爲的那些價値的具體內容。因此，行爲學的基料是：行爲人身心方面的一些特徵，他們的願望和價値判斷，以及他們爲適應環境而調整自己，以達成他們所追求的目的而發展出來的那些理論、學說、和意理。這些基料，即使在它們的結構中是持久的，是全然決定於那些控制宇宙秩序的法則，可是它們是不斷地在變動；時時刻刻變動。[2]

The fullness of reality can be mentally mastered only by a mind resorting both to the conception of praxeology and to the understanding

眞實究竟是怎樣，只有靠行爲學的概念和歷史的了解才可以心領神會；後者必須具有運用自然科學的能力。認知和預測是知識的全體所提供的。科學的各個部門所提供的，總是片斷的知識；它必須以所有其他部門研究的成果來補充。從行爲人的觀點來看，知識的專門化，分作各種科學，這只是一個分工的設計。同樣地，消費者在利用各個生產部門的產品的時候，他必須根據各種思想部門和研究部門所形成的知識來作決定。

It is not permissible to disregard any of these branches in dealing with reality. The Historical School and the Institutionalists want to outlaw the study of praxeology and economics and to occupy themselves merely with the registration of the data or, as they call them nowadays, the institutions. But no statement concerning these data can be made without reference to a definite set of economic theorems. When an institutionalist ascribes a definite event to a definite cause, e.g., mass unemployment to the alleged deficiencies of the capitalist mode of production, he resorts to an economic theorem. In objecting to the closer examination of the theorem tacitly implied in his conclusions, he merely wants to avoid the exposure of the fallacies of his argument. There is no such thing as a mere recording of unadulterated facts apart from any reference to theories. As soon as two events are recorded together or integrated into a class of events, a theory is operative. The question whether there is any connection between them can only be answered by a theory, i.e., in the case of human action by praxeology. It is vain to search for coefficients of correlation if one does not start from a theoretical insight acquired beforehand. The coefficient may have a high numerical value without indicating any significant and relevant connection between the two groups.[3]

在處理「眞實」這個問題的時候，決不可不理睬這些部門的任何一個。歷史學派和制度學派想抛棄行爲學和經濟學的研究，專注於基料——或者照他們現在所說的，專注於制度——的記錄。但是，關於這些基料的陳述，決不可能不涉及一套確定的經濟法則而作成。一個制度學派的人，當他說某一事象由於某一原因的時候（例如他説大衆失業是由於資本主義生產方法的缺陷的時候），他總要憑藉一項經濟定理。在反對進一步檢討隱含在他的結論中的那個定理的時候，他只是想避免把他的論議中的錯誤暴露出來。不涉及任何理論的純粹事實的記錄，是不會有的。把兩件事記錄在一起或合爲一類的時候，也即一種理論的運作。至於它們之間有沒有任何關係的問題，只可靠理論來答覆。如果是屬於人的行爲，則靠行爲學來答覆。如果我們不預先從一個必須的理論的見識出發，而想尋求相關的係數，那是徒勞無功的。這個係數也許有高的數字値，但不指示兩組之間的任何意義和相關性。[3]

-------------

[1] See above, p. 39.

[1] 見第二章第三節。

[2] Cf. Strigl, Die okonomischen Kategorien und die Organisation der Wirtschaft (Jena, 1923), pp. 18 ff.

[2] 參考Strigl, Die okonomischen Kategorien und die Organisation der Wirtschaft (Jena, 1923), pp. 18 ff.

[3] Cf. Cohen and Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (New York, 1939), pp. 316-322.

[3] 參考Cohen and Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (New York, 1939), pp. 316-322.

2. The Role of Power

二、權力的作用

The Historical School and Institutionalism condemn economics for disregarding the role which power plays in real life. The basic notion of economics, viz., the choosing and acting individual, is, they say, an unrealistic concept. Real man is not free to choose and to act. He is subject to social pressure, to the sway of irresistible power. It is not the individuals' value judgments, but the interactions of the forces of power that determine the market phenomena.

歷史學派和制度學派指責經濟學不理睬權力在實際生活中所發生的作用。他們說，經濟學的基本概念，也即有選擇而行爲的個人，是一個不切現實的概念。眞實的人是不能自由選擇、自由行爲的。他受制於社會壓力，受制於不可抗的權力分配。決定市場現象的，不是個人的價値判斷，而是權力的一些力量相互影響。

These objections are no less spurious than all other statements of the critics of economics.

這些反對論之不切實，並不遜於所有其他對經濟學的批評。

Praxeology in general and economics and catallactics in particular do not contend or assume that man is free in any metaphysical sense attached to the term freedom. Man is unconditionally subject to the natural conditions of his environment. In acting he must adjust himself to the inexorable regularity of natural phenomena. It is precisely the scarcity of the nature-given conditions of his welfare that enjoins upon man the necessity to act.[4]

概括地說，行爲學，詳細地說，經濟學和交換學，並不就「自由」一詞的玄學意義而認爲人是自由的。人是絕對地受制於他所生活的環境中的自然條件。在行爲中，他必須把他自己調整得適於自然現象；自然現象的規律性是不會遷就他的。人之所以不得不行爲者，正是因爲自然對於他的生活福利之賜與是稀少的。[4]

In acting man is directed by ideologies. He chooses ends and means under the influence of ideologies. The might of an ideology is either direct or indirect. It is direct when the actor is convinced that the content of the ideology is correct and that he serves his own interests directly in complying with it. It is indirect when the actor rejects the content of the ideology as false, but is under the necessity of adjusting his actions to the fact that this ideology is endorsed by other people. The mores of their social environment are a power which people are forced to consider. Those recognizing the spuriousness of the generally accepted opinions and habits must in each instance choose between the advantages to be derived from resorting to a more efficient mode of acting and the disadvantages resulting from the contempt of popular prejudices, superstitions, and folkways.

在行爲中，人是受意理指導的。他在一些意理的影響下選擇目的和手段。一個意理的威力或是直接的或是間接的。行爲人有時確信某個意理的內涵是對的。因而遵照這個意理而行爲，以達成他自己的利益。這個時候，意理的威力是直接的。行爲人有時認爲某個意理是荒謬的因而拒絕它，但是，這個意理是別人所肯定的，他又不得不調整自己以遷就這個事實。這時，意理的威力就是間接的。社會的風俗習慣是人們不得不重視的一種力量。看出了大衆接受的見解和習俗是錯誤的那些人，必須作這樣的選擇：或者隨波逐流以求行爲的順利，或者甘犯大衆的偏見、迷信和傳統，而蒙不利。

The same is true with regard to violence. In choosing man must take into account the fact that there is a factor ready to exercise violent compulsion upon him.

關於強暴的場合也是如此。人在選擇中必須考慮到「有一個運用暴力的因素在壓迫他」這個事實。

All the theorems of catallactics are valid also with regard to actions influenced by such social or physical pressure. The direct of indirect might of an ideology and the threat of physical compulsion are merely data of the market situation. It does not matter, for instance, what kind of considerations motivate a man not to offer a higher bid for the purchase of a commodity than the one he really makes without obtaining the good concerned. For the determination of the market price it is immaterial whether he spontaneously prefers to spend his money for other purposes or whether he is afraid of being looked upon by his fellow men as an upstart, or as a spendthrift, afraid of

行爲學所有的定理，也適用於接受這樣的社會壓力或自然壓力之影饗的行爲。一個意理的直接威力或間接威力，以及自然界的壓力，只是市場情況的一些基料。至於何種考慮促使一個人不出更高的價格來買到他出了較低的價格而未能買到的貨物，那是無關緊要的問題。就市場價格的決定來講，一個人是否自願地把他的金錢用在其他的目的，或者是否怕別人把他看成一個暴發戶、或一個敗家子，或者是否怕犯了政府限價的命令，或是否怕一個競爭者的暴力報復，這些都是不閼重要的。在任何情形下，他之不出較高的價格，對於市場價格的出現是發生同程度的影響。[5]

It is customary nowadays to signify the position which the owners of property and the entrepreneurs occupy on the market as economic power or market power. This terminology is misleading when applied to the conditions of the market. All that happens in the unhampered market economy is controlled by the laws dealt with by catallactics. All market phenomena are ultimately determined by the choices of the consumers. If one wants to apply the notion of power to phenomena of the market, one ought to say: in the market all power is vested in the consumers. The entrepreneurs are forced, by the necessity of earning profits and avoiding losses, to consider in every regard--e.g. also in the conduct of the wrongly so-called "internal" affairs of their plants, especially personnel management--the best possible and cheapest satisfaction of the consumers as their supreme directive. It is very inexpedient to employ the same term "power" in dealing with a firm's ability to supply the consumers with automobiles, shoes, or margarine better than others do and in referring to the strength of a government's armed forces to crush any resistance.

把財產所有者在市場上所占的地位說成一種經濟力量，這是今天的惯例。這種說法是大有問題的。無論如何，這個名詞是不適當的，因爲它意涵，在這種經濟力量的影響下，市場現象是受一些非交換論所處理的法則所支配。

Ownership of material factors of production as well as entrepreneurial or technological skill do not--in the market economy--bestow power in the coercive sense. All they grant is the privilege to serve the real masters of the market, the consumers, in a more exalted position than other people. Ownership of capital is a mandate entrusted to the owners, under the condition that it should be employed for the best possible satisfaction of the consumers. He who does not comply with this imposition forfeits his wealth and is relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people's well-being.

【英文第四版無此段。】

-------------

[4] Most social reformers, foremost among them Fourier and Marx, pass over in silence the fact that the nature-given means of removing human uneasiness are scarce. As they see it, the fact that there is not an abundance of all useful thing is merely caused by the inadequacy of the capitalist mode of production and will therefore disappear in the "higher phase" of communism. An eminent Menshevik author who could not help referring to the nature-given barriers to human well-being, in genuinely Marxian style, calls Nature "the most relentless exploiter." Cf. Manya Gordon, Workers Before and After Lenin (New York, 1941), pp. 227; 458.

[4] 許多社會改革家，其中尤其是Fourier和馬克斯，對於「自然賜與人類的解除不舒適的手段，是稀少的」這個事實，不置一詞地放過。照他們看來，「一切有用的東西不是豐富的」這個事實，只是由於資本主義生產方法之不適當而引起的，所以，在共產主義這個「較高層次」的社會中就會消滅。有一位終於不得不講到自然對人類幸福給與的障礙的傑出的孟雪維克（Menshevik）作家，用典型的馬克斯口吻說，自然是最無情的剝削者。參考Manya Gordon, Workers Before and After Lenin (New York, 1941), pp. 227; 458.

[5] The economic consequences of the interference of external compulsion and coercion with the market phenomena are dealt with in the sixth part of this book.

[5] 對於市場現象加以強制的干涉所引起的一些經濟後果，在本書第六篇已經討論。

3. The Historical Role of War and Conquest

三、戰爭舆征服在歷史上發生的作用

Many authors glorify war and revolution, bloodshed and conquest. Carlyle and Ruskin, Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Spengler were harbingers of the ideas which Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini put into effect.

許多作家讚美戰爭和革命，流血和征服。卡萊爾（Carlyle）和拉斯金（Ruskin）、尼采、喬治斯·索里爾（Georges Sorel）和史賓格勒（Spengler）都是列寧和史達林、希特勒和墨索里尼所付諸實行的那些觀念的先鋒人物。

The course of history, say these philosophies, is not determined by the mean activities of materialistic peddlers and merchants, but by the heroic deeds of warriors and conquerors. The economists err in abstracting from the experience of the short-lived liberal

這些哲學家是說：歷史的行程不是決定於孜孜求利的行商坐賈們那些卑賤的活動，而是決定於鬥士和征服者的英雄事業。他們認爲：經濟學家錯在從短暫的自由時期的經驗，抽繹出他們認爲普遍有效的—套理論，這個自由主義的、個人主義的、資本主義的時代，民主的、寬容的、自由的時代，把一切「眞正的」、「永恆的」價値置之不理的時代，庶民最高的時代，現在是在消失中，而且永不再來了。大丈夫氣概的黎明時期，需要一套新的人的行爲理論。

However, no economist ever ventured to deny that war and conquest were of utmost importance in the past and that Huns and Tartars, Vandals and Vikings, Normans and conquistadors played an enormous part in history. One of the determinants of the present state of mankind is the fact that there were thousands of years of armed conflicts. Yet, what remains and is the essence of human civilization, is not the legacy inherited from the warriors. Civilization is an achievement of the "bourgeois" spirit, not of the spirit of conquest. Those barbarian peoples who did not substitute working for plundering disappeared from the historical scene. If there is still any trace left of their existence, it is in the achievements they accomplished under the influence of the civilization of the subdued peoples. Latin civilization survived in Italy, France, and the Iberian peninsula in defiance of all barbarian invasions. If capitalist entrepreneurs had not succeeded Lord Clive and Warren Hastings, British rule in India might one day have become such an insignificant historical reminiscence as are the one hundred and fifty years of Turkish rule in Hungary.

但是，經濟學家從來沒有否認，戰爭與征服在過去的重要性，從來沒有否認匈奴（Huns）和韃靼（Tartars）、凡達爾人（Vandals）和威京人（Vikings，第八世紀至十世紀侵掠歐西海岸的海賊）、諾爾曼民族（Normans）和拉丁美洲的征服者（conquistadors）在歷史上扮演的主要角色。決定人類現狀的因素之一，是過去有幾千年的武裝衝突。但是，現在仍遺存而爲人類文明之精髓的，不是從鬥士們繼承下來的。文明是「布爾喬亞」精神的成就，不是征服精神的成就。那些不以工作代替掠奪的野蠻民族，已從歷史的舞台上消失了。如果他們的存在還留有遺跡可尋的話，那就是在那些被征服的民族文明的影響下，他們所完成的事蹟。拉丁文明遺留於意大利、法國、和西班牙半島。假使Clive爵士和Warren Hastings在印度的統治沒有資本主義的企業家繼承，則英國在印度的統治，會有一天變成像土耳其在匈牙利一百五十年的統治那樣的無意義的歷史陳跡。

It is not the task of economics to enter into an examination of the endeavors to revive the ideals of the Vikings. It has merely to refute the statements that the fact that there are armed conflicts reduces its teachings to nought. With regard to this problem there is need to emphasize again the following:

經濟學的任務，不在於檢討那些想復活威京人精神的圖謀。它只是不得不駁斥「武裝衝突總是有的，這個事實把經濟學的敎義化爲烏有」的這些說法。關於這個問題，在這裡必須再強調下列各點：

First: The teachings of catallactics do not refer to a definite epoch of history, but to all actions characterized by the two conditions private ownership of the means of production and division of labor. Whenever and wherever, in a society in which there is private ownership of the means of production, people not only produce for the direct satisfaction of their own wants but also consume goods produced by other people, the theorems of catallactics are strictly valid.

第一、交換學的敎義並不涉及歷史的一個特定時期，而是關於以生產手段私有和分工制這兩個條件爲特徵的一切行爲。在生產手段是私有的社會裡面，任何時候、任何地方，人們不僅爲直接滿足他們自己的慾望而生產，同時也消費別人生產的貨物，交換學的一些定理的確是有效的。

Second: If apart from the market and outside of the market there is robbing and plundering, these facts are a datum for the market. The actors must take into account the fact that they are threatened by murderers and robbers. If killing and robbing become so prevalent that any production appears useless, it may finally happen that productive work ceases and mankind plunges into a state of war of every man against every other man.

第二、如果撇開市場而在市場以外有盜竊刼掠的事情，這些事實也是市場運作的一種基料。市場中的行爲者必須考慮到謀殺者和刼掠者的威脅。如果殺人刼掠風行到任何生產行爲都顯得無用的程度，則生產性的工作完全停止，而人類則陷於每個人對每個人戰鬥的局面。

Third: In order to seize booty, something to be plundered must be available. The heroes can only live if there are enough "bourgeois"

第三、爲要獲得戰利品，必須先有某些東西可被掠奪。英雄們必須靠有足夠的「布爾喬亞」可被剝削才能生活。生産者的生存，是征服者還可生存的一個條件。但是，生產者用不著有掠奪者才可生存。

Fourth: There are, of course, other imaginable systems of a society based on the division of labor besides the capitalist system of private ownership of the means of production. Champions of militarism are consistent in asking for the establishment of socialism. The whole nation should be organized as a community of warriors in which the noncombatants have no other task than that of supplying the fighting forces with all they need. (The problems of socialism are dealt with in the fifth part of this book.)

第四、當然，在生產手段私有的資本主義制度以外，還可想出基於分工的其他社會制度。黷武主義的鬥士們要實現社會主義，這是一貫的主張。整個國家必須組成一個鬥士的社會，在這裡，凡屬非戰鬥人員，除了供應戰鬥部隊所需要的一切東西以外，別無他事可做。（社會主義的問題，在本書第五篇裡面已纣論到。）

4. Real Man as a Datum

四、經濟學所處理的實實在在的人

Economics deals with the real actions of real men. Its theorems refer neither to ideal nor to perfect men, neither to the phantom of a fabulous economic man (homo oeconomicus) nor to the statistical notion of an average man (homme moyen). Man with all his weaknesses and limitations, every man as he lives and acts, is the subject matter of catallactics. Every human action is a theme of praxeology.

經濟學所處理的，是實在的人的一些實在的行爲。它的一些定理旣不涉及理想的或完全的人，也不涉及荒唐無稽的「經濟人」這個妖怪，也不涉及統計觀念的「平均人」。具有他的一切弱點和限度的人，像他所生活、所行爲的每個人，是交換學的題材。人的毎項行爲是行爲學的一個論題。

The subject matter of praxeology is not only the study of society, societal relations, and mass phenomena, but the study of all human actions. The term "the social sciences" and all its connotations are in this regard misleading.

行爲學的題材不只是社會、社會關係、和大量現象的硏究，也包括所有人的行爲之研究。「社會科學」這個名詞和它的一切內涵，在這方面是引起誤解的。

There is no yardstick that a scientific investigation can apply to human action other than that of the ultimate goals the acting individual wants to realize in embarking upon a definite action. The ultimate goals themselves are beyond and above any criticism. Nobody is called upon to establish what could make another man happy. What an unaffected observer can question is merely whether or not the means chosen for the attainment of these ultimate goals are fit to bring about the results sought by the actor. Only in answering this question is economics free to express an opinion about the actions of individuals and groups of individuals, or of the policies of parties, pressure groups, and governments.

除掉行爲人從事某一行爲時所想實現的那些最後目的可作爲衡量人的行爲的碼尺以外，再也沒有科學研究所可用的碼尺了。那些最後目的的本身，是超出任何批評而在任何批評以外的。誰也不能確定使別人快樂的是什麼。一位冷靜的觀察者所可問的問題只是：爲達成那些最後目的而採取的手段，是否適於達成行爲者所希望的結果。僅僅在答覆這個問題的時候，經濟學才可對個人的行爲、團體內個人們的行爲、或政黨的政策、壓力團體的政策、政府的政策，自由地表示意見。

It is customary to disguise the arbitrariness of the attacks launched against the value judgments of other people by converting them into a critique of the capitalist system or of the conduct of entrepreneurs. Economics is neutral with regard to all such statements.

對別人的價値判斷有所攻擊，而把這些攻擊變換爲對資本主義或對企業家的批評，以掩飾這些攻擊的武斷，這是通常的作法。經濟學關於所有這樣的陳述是保持中立的。

To the arbitrary statement that "the balance between the production of different goods is admittedly faulty under capitalism," [6] the economist does not oppose the statement that this balance is faultless.

「在資本主義社會，各種財貨生產間的平衡明明是錯誤的」[6]。經濟學家對於這個武斷的陳述並不提出反對。經濟學家所說的是：在不受束縛的市場經濟裡面，這種平衡是與消費者的行爲（從支用他們的所得表現出來的）符合的。[7]至於指責他的同胞，而說他們的行爲結果是錯的，這不是經濟學家的任務。

The alternative to the system in which the individual's value judgments are paramount in the conduct of production processes is autocratic dictatorship. Then the value judgments of the dictators alone decide although they are no less arbitrary than those of other people.

在市場經濟生產過程的行爲中，個人的價値判斷是至高無上的，如果不要這個制度，替代的就只有獨裁。在獨裁制下，只有獨裁者的價値判斷決定一切，儘管獨裁者價値判斷的武斷性並不下於別人的價値判斷。

Man is certainly not a perfect being. His human weakness taints all human institutions and thus also the market economy.

人，的確不是一個完善的東西。人性的弱點，汚染到所有的人類制度，因而也汚染到市場經濟。

-------------

[6] Cf. Albert L. Meyers, Modern Economics (New York, 1946), p. 672.

[6] 參考Albert L. Meyers, Modern Economics (New York, 1946), p. 672.

[7] This is the general feature of democracy whether political or economic. Democratic elections do not provide the guarantee that the man elected is free from faults, but merely that the majority of the voters prefer him to other candidates.

[7] 這是政治民主或經濟民主的共同特徵。民主的選舉並不保證被選的人是不犯錯誤的，而只保證大多數的投票人所選的人當選。

5. The Period of Adjustment

五、調整時期

Every change in the market data has its definite effects upon the market. It takes a definite length of time before all these effects are consummated, i.e., before the market is completely adjusted to the new state of affairs.

市場基料的每一變動，對於市場都發生一定的影響。在所有這些影響完全結束以前，也即，這個市場完全調整到新的情況以前，要經過一個一定長的時期。

Catallactics has to deal with all the various individuals' conscious and purposive reactions to the changes in the data and not, of course, merely with the final result brought about in the market structure by the interplay of these actions. It may happen that the effects of one change in the data are counteracted by the effects of another change occurring, by and large, at the same time and to the same extent. Then no considerable change in the market prices finally results. The statistician, exclusively preoccupied with the observation of mass phenomena and the outgrowth of the totality of market transactions as manifested in market prices, ignores the fact that the nonemergence of changes in the height of prices is merely accidental and not the outcome of a continuance in the data and the absence of specific adjustment activities. He fails to see any movement and the social consequences of such movements. Yet each change in the data has its own course, generates certain reactive responses on the part of the individuals affected and disturbs the relation between the various members of the market system even if eventually no considerable changes in the prices of the various goods and no changes at all in the figures concerning the total amount of capital in the whole market system result.[8]

交換學必須處理所有各個人對這基料的變動有意採取的反應，而不只是處理在市場結構中這些反應相互作用所引起的最後結果。基料的某一個變動的後果，被另一個同時、同程度的變動後果完全抵銷，這種情形是可能發生的。這時，市場價格最後就沒有多大的變動。統計人員只注意大量現象和市場交易總額表現於市場價格的結果，因而他們忽略了「價格高度方面的變動之不凸顯，只是偶然的，並非基料方面的連續而沒有一些特殊調整活動」。統計人員看不出這些動靜和這些動靜的社會後果。可是基料方面的每個變動，都有它自己的過程，在有關的人們方面引起某些反應，而且會攪動市場活動中各個份子間的關係，即令到了最後各種貨物的價格沒有多大變動，而且在整個市場裡面關於資本總額的數字也仍然不變[8]。

Economic history can give vague information, after the fact, about

經濟史會在事後對於調整期的長短提出含糊的情報。取得這樣情報的方法，自然不是測量，而是歷史了解。不同的調整過程，實際上不是孤立的。數目無限的調整同時發生，它們所循的途徑常常交叉，彼此相互影響。要解開這種錯綜複雜的現象，而觀察其中的主動和反應的連鎖關係，就歷史家的了解而言，是一件難事，因而其所了解的非常有限，而且是有問題的。

The understanding of the length of adjustment periods is also the most difficult task incumbent upon those eager to understand the future, the entrepreneurs. Yet for success in entrepreneurial activities mere anticipation of the direction in which the market will react to a certain event is of little significance if it is not supplemented by an adequate anticipation of the length of the various adjustment periods involved. Most of the mistakes committed by entrepreneurs in the conduct of affairs and most of the blunders vitiating the prognoses of future business trends on the part of "expert" forecasters are caused by errors concerning the length of adjustment periods.

企業家們是極想知道未來的，因而他們也要了解調整期的長短，可是，對於他們而言，這也是一件最困難的事。爲著企業活動的成功，僅僅預料到市場對於某一事件的反應所趨的方向，而沒有正確地預料到各個有關的調整期的長短，那就沒有什麼意義。企業家在營業行爲中所犯的錯誤，大多數也由於對調整期長短的預測有錯誤，而那些作預測的「專家」，對於未來的商業趨勢之所以預測錯了，大多數也是由於同一原因。

In dealing with effects brought about by changes in the data, it is customary to distinguish between the temporally nearer and the temporally remoter effects, viz., the short-run effects and the long run effects. This distinction is much older than the terminology in which it is expressed nowadays.

在處理那些因基料變動而引起的後果時，通常是把那些後果區分爲近期的和遠期的。這種區分由來已久，遠在現在所用的這些術語（短期、長期）以前。

In order to discover the immediate--the short-run--effects brought about by a change in a datum, there is as a rule no need to resort to a thorough investigation. The short-run effects are for the most part obvious and seldom escape the notice of a naive observer unfamiliar with searching investigations. What started economic studies was precisely the fact that some men of genius began to suspect that the remoter consequences of an event may differ from the immediate effects visible even to the most simple-minded layman. The main achievement of economics was the disclosure of such long-run effects hitherto unnoticed by the unaffected observer and neglected by the statesman.

爲著發現一個基料變動所引起的立即後果——短期後果，通常用不著徹底的硏究。短期後果大都是明顯的，一個不慣於研究工作的天眞的觀察者，也會看得出來。經濟學研究之所以開始，是因爲有些聰明人想到，一件事情的較遠後果會不同於頭腦最簡單的人所看得出的較近後果。經濟學主要的功績，是發現了一些長期的後果，而這些後果迄今未受一般觀察者和政治家的注意。

From their startling discoveries the classical economists derived a rule for political practice. Governments, statesmen, and political parties, they argued, in planning and acting should consider not only the short-run consequences but also the long-run consequences of their measures. The correctness of this inference is incontestable and indisputable. Action aims at the substitution of a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. Whether or not the outcome of a definite action will be considered more or less satisfactory

古典經濟學家從他們的一些驚人的發現中，爲政務導出了一個規律。他們說，政府、政治家、以及政黨，在作計畫和行動時，不僅要考慮短期的後果，也要考慮長期的後果。這個論断的正確性是不容爭辯的。行爲的目的在於，以更滿意的情況替代現在的情況。至於某一特定行爲的結果是不是被認爲更滿意，那就要看對於它的一切後果——短期的和長期的——的預測是否正確了。

Some people criticize economics for alleged neglect of the short-run affects and for alleged preference given to the study of the long-run effects. The reproach is nonsensical. Economics has no means of scrutinizing the results of a change in the data other than to start with its immediate consequences and to analyze, step by step, proceeding from the first reaction to the remoter reactions, all the subsequent consequences, until it finally arrives at its ultimate consequences. The long-run analysis necessarily always fully includes the short-run analysis.

有些人批評經濟學，說它忽視短期後果，只著重長期後果的硏究。這種批評毫無意義。經濟學除掉從直接的後果開始，一步一步地跟著那些連續的反應分析下去，一直分析到最後的後果以外，別無他法來研究變動的後果。長期分析必須充份地包括短期分析。

It is easy to understand why certain individuals, parties and pressure groups are eager to propagate the exclusive sway of the short-run principle. Politics, they say, should never be concerned about the long-run effects of a device and should never abstain from resorting to a measure form which benefits are expected in the short run merely because its long-run effects are detrimental. What counts is only the short-run effects; "in the long run we shall all be dead." All that economics has to answer to these passionate critics is that every decision should be based on a careful weighing of all its consequences, both those in the short run and those in the long run. there are certainly, both in the actions of individuals and in the conduct of public affairs, situations in which the actors may have good reasons to put up even with very undesirable long-run effects in order to avoid what they consider still more undesirable short-run conditions. It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But if he does, he should know what the remoter effects will be. He should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises.

某些人、某些政黨、某些壓力團體之所以極力宣揚短期後果的絕對重要，是容易了解的。他們說，政治決不可關心於一個計畫的長期後果，決不可因爲某一計畫雖有短期的利益而長期後果是有害的因而不去進行。値得重視的只是短期後果；「在長期，我們都死了」。對於這類激情的批評，經濟學家所要答覆的只是說：每一決定必須把它的所有後果——包括短期的和長期的——仔細權衡。在個人的行爲中，以及公務的行爲中，確實有些環境使行爲人有充份理由忍受很壞的長期後果，以避免他們認爲更壞的短期情況。把家具送進火爐去燒以取煖，對於某一個人也許是方便的辦法，但是，如他這樣作，他必須知道較遠的後果是怎樣。他決不可認、爲這是一個新奇取煖法的發現而欺哄自己。

That is all that economics opposes to the frenzy of the short-run principle==this revival of Madame de Pompadour's notorious phrase apres nous le deluge--played in the most serious crisis of Western civilization. It will have to show how welcome this slogan was to governments and parties whose policies aimed at the consumption of the spiritual and material capital inherited from earlier generations.

經濟學所要反對短期主義信徒們之狂熱的，盡於此矣。有一天，歷史將會說出更多的。它將會確定短期主義（這是路易十五的皇后所説的那句衆所周知的「死後的遭遇，管它的！」的遣留）在歐洲文明最嚴重的危機中所發生的作用。歷史將會吿訴大家：有些政府和政黨，其政策是要把前人遺傳下來的精神方面和物質方面的資本統統消耗掉，短期主義的口號受這種政府和政黨的歡迎。

----------------

[8] With regard to changes in the elements determining the purchasing power of money see above, p. 419. With regard to the documulation and accumulation of capital see above, pp. 515-516.

[8] 關於決定貨幣購買力的那些因素的變動，見第十七章第五節。關於資本的累積和耗損，見第十八章第七節。

6. The Limits of Property Rights and the Problems of External Costs and External Economies

六、財產權的限制以及外部成本與外部經濟的一些問題

Property rights as they are circumscribed by laws and protected by courts and the police, are the outgrowth of an age-long evolution. The history of these ages is the record of struggles aiming at the

受法律界定而由法院和警察保護的財產權，是個長時期演進的結果。這些時期的歷史，是一部爲取消私有財產而奮鬥的記錄。專制君主們和羣衆運動再三再四地想限制或完全廢除私有財產。不錯，這些企圖是失敗了。但是，它們的影響遺留在一些觀念上；而這些觀念決定著財產的法律形成和定義。財產的法律概念，沒有充份考慮到私有財產的社會功用，因而有一些疏漏和牴觸，從市場現象的決定中反映出來。

Carried through consistently, the right of property would entitle the proprietor to claim all the advantages which the good's employment may generate on the one hand and would burden him with all the disadvantages resulting from its employment on the other hand. Then the proprietor alone would be fully responsible for the outcome. In dealing with his property he would take into account all the expected results of his action, those considered favorable as well as those considered unfavorable. But if some of the consequences of his action are outside of the sphere of the benefits he is entitled to reap and of the drawbacks that are put to his debit, he will not bother in his planning about all the effects of his action. He will disregard those benefits which do not increase his own satisfaction and those costs which do not burden him. His conduct will deviate from the line which it would have followed if the laws were better adjusted to the economic objectives of private ownership. He will embark upon certain projects only because the laws release him from responsibility for some of the costs incurred. He will abstain from other projects merely because the laws prevent him from harvesting all the advantages derivable.

爲著一致地貫徹，財產權的內容應該是有兩方面的。一方面承認財產主有權取得來自財產運用的一切利益，一方面要他承擔來自財產運用的一切損害。這樣，就只有財產主對於財產運用的結果負起完全的責任。在處理他的財產時，他將會把他的行爲所可能引起的一切後果——認為有利的和認爲有害的——都考慮到。但是，如果他的行爲結果，有些不屬於他有權取得的利益範圍，有些不屬於他應承擔的損害範圍，那麼，在他的計畫中不會煩心於行爲的一切後果了。凡是不增加他自己滿足的利益和不增加他自己負擔的損害，他都置之不理。如果關於財產權的一些法律好好地調整到符合私有財產的經濟目標，則財產主的行爲就不會是這樣。現在，他之所以著手某些計畫，只因爲法律免除他對所引起一些損害的責任。他之所以不作其他的計畫，只因爲法律不許他取得所可得到的一切利得的權利。

The laws concerning liability and indemnification for damages caused were and still are in some respects deficient. By and large the principle is accepted that everybody is liable to damages which his actions have inflicted upon other people. But there were loopholes left which the legislators were slow to fill. In some cases this tardiness was intentional because the imperfections agreed with the plans of the authorities. When in the past in many countries the owners of factories and railroads were not held liable for the damages which the conduct of their enterprises inflicted on the property and health of neighbors, patrons, employees, and other people through smoke, soot, noise, water pollution, and accidents caused by defective or inappropriate equipment, the idea was that one should not undermine the progress of industrialization and the development of transportation facilities. The same doctrines which prompted and still are prompting many governments to encourage investment in factories and railroads through subsidies, tax exemption, tariffs, and cheap

關於損害賠償責任的法律，過去是缺乏的，現在在某些方面仍然是不夠的。「每個人如果行爲損害了別人，對於這種損害是要負責的」這個原則，大體上講，是被接受了的。但是，法律上還有許多漏洞，立法者拖拖拉拉沒有把它們彌補起來。這樣的拖拉，有的是故意，因爲這裡的漏洞正符合政府當局的意圖。以前在許多國家中，工廠和鐵路的所有主，對於他們的企業行爲所引起的對別人的損害——例如煤煙、噪音、汚水、以及不完善的設備所引起的意外事件，對於鄰居、顧客、員工、和其他人等的損害是不負責任的；那時的想法是：誰也不應妨礙工業化和交通發展。同樣的想法，曾經而且還在慫恿許多政府爲獎勵投資於工廠鐵路而給予津貼、租稅減免、關稅保護、以及低利貸款等等。在這種場合，這些企業的責任，或者是在法律上或者是在事實上，都減輕了。後來，在許多國家又有一個相反的趨勢：工業家和鐵路的責任，相對於別的公民和別的行業而言，加重了。這也是有個政治目標在發生作用，即立法者想保護窮人、工資收入者和農民，以對抗富有的企業家和資本家。

Whether the proprietor's relief from responsibility for some of the disadvantages resulting from his conduct of affairs is the outcome of a deliberate policy on the part of governments and legislators or whether it is an unintentional effect of the traditional working of laws, it is at any rate a datum which the actors must take into account. They are faced with the problem of external costs. Then some people choose certain modes of want-satisfaction merely on account of the fact that a part of the costs incurred are debited not to them but to other people.

財產主對於他的行爲所引起的某些損害不負責任，或者是由於政府和立法者的政策使然，或者是由於傳統的法律條文的漏洞，不管怎樣，這總是一些行爲者必須考盧到的一個基料。他們遇著「外部成本」這個問題。於是，有些人僅僅因爲「成本的一部份不由他們負擔而落在別人身上」這個事實而選擇某些滿足慾望的方式。

The extreme instance is provided by the case of no-man's property referred to above.[9] If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns--lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil--do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them the erosion of the soil, the depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down the trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds. In the early days of human civilization, when soil of a quality not inferior to that of the utilized pieces was still abundant, people did not find any fault with such predatory methods. When their effects appeared in a decrease in the net returns, the ploughman abandoned his farm and moved to another place. It was only when a country was more densely settled and unoccupied first class land was no longer available for appropriation, that people began to consider such predatory methods wasteful. At that time they consolidated the institution of private property in land. They started with arable land and then, step by step, included pastures, forests, and fisheries. The newly settled

極端的例子，是前面所講的無主的財產那種情形[9]。如果一塊土地不爲任何人所有，儘管法律的形式主義把它叫做公有財產，這塊土地之被利用是不會考慮到不利的後果的。能夠把這些報酬——森林的木材和獵物、水域的魚類、地下的鑛鐵等——據爲己有的那些人們，不會顧慮他們利用的方法所引起的後果。對於他們而言，土壤的蝕耗、鐮藏的枯竭、以及對於將來利用的其他損害，都是外部成本，不納入他們的投入產出的計算中。他們砍伐樹木，完全不想到新苗的重生。在打獵捕漁的時候，他們不會避免採用那些傷害漁獵資源的方法。在人類文明的初期，品質優良的土地還有許多沒有被利用，當然，人們並不覺得那些傷害資源的掠奪方法有什麼錯。當這些方法的後果顯現在淨報酬之減少的時候，耕種者放棄他的農田，遷徙到別處耕種。人們之開始想到那樣的一些掠奪方法是浪費的時候，只在人口的密度增加，而第一級土地再也沒有可以自由佔有的時候。在這個時候，他們才鞏固土地私有制。私有制開始於耕地，後來一步一步地推廣到牧場、森林、和漁業區域。新開闢的海外殖民地區——尤其是美國那麼大的空地，當歐洲第一批移民到來的時候，那驚人的農業潜力幾乎原封未動。這些殖民地之土地利用，也經過了上述的同樣過程。直到十九世紀後期的幾十年，那裡總有些空地讓新來者一拓荒者——自由占有。美國之有拓荒者和其拓荒的經過，都不是美國獨有的特徵。美國情形之特殊，在於當拓荒者銷跡的時候，一些意理的和制度的因素妨礙了土地利用方法適應基料的變動而調整。

In the central and western areas of continental Europe, where the institution of private property and been rigidly established for many centuries, things were different. There was no question of soil erosion of formerly cultivated land. There was no problem of forest devastation in spite of the fact that the domestic forests had been for ages the only source of lumber for construction and mining and of fuel for heating and for the foundries and furnaces, the potteries and the glass factories. The owners of the forests were impelled to conservation by their own selfish interests. In the most densely inhabited and industrialized areas up to a few years ago between a fifth and a third of the surface was still covered by first-class forests managed according to the methods of scientific forestry.[10]

在歐洲大陸中部和西部地區，私有財產制已堅固地建立了幾百年，情形就不同了。在那裡，以前耕種的土地沒有地力蝕耗的問題。在那裡，森林沒有被蹂躪的問題，儘管建築和開鑌用的材料，以及取煖、鑄鐵、做陶器和玻璃的燃料，長久以來都要靠國內的森林來供給木材。森林的所有主不得不基於他們的私利來保護它。直到最近幾年以前，在人口最密的工業地區，還有1/5至1/3的地面是第一級的森林區，而這些森林都是依照科學方法來管理經營的[10]。

It is not the task of catallactic theory to elaborate an account of the complex factors that produced modern American land-ownership conditions. Whatever these factors were, they brought about a state of affairs under which a great many farmers and lumber enterprises had reason to consider the disadvantages resulting from the neglect of soil and forest conservation as external costs.[11]

詳細說明現代美國土地所有權情況之所以形成的那些複雜因素，這不是交換學的任務。不管這些因素是什麼，它們畢竟造成了一種情形，在這種情形下，許許多多農民和大多數伐木業者都有理由把那些因土壤森林的疏於保養而發生的損害看作外部成本[11]。

It is true that where a considerable part of the costs incurred are external costs from the point of view of the acting individuals or firms, the economic calculation established by them is manifestly

如果從行爲的個人或行爲的商號的觀點看來，行爲的成本有大部份是外部成本的話，則他們所作的經濟計算就顯然是有缺陷的，而其結果也就是虛假的。這個說法是不錯的。但是，這不是像某些人所說的，是生產手段私有制固有的一些缺陷的結果。恰相反，這是遺留在這個制度裡面的一些漏洞的結果。這是可以靠修改有關的法律來改革的：修改那些有關損害責任的法律，並廢除那些妨害私有權充份運用的法制障礙。

The case of external economies is not simply the inversion of the case of external costs. It has its own domain and character. If the results of an actor's action benefit not only himself, but also other people, two alternatives are possible:

外部經濟，並不僅是外部成本的反面。它有它自己的境界和特徵。如果一個人的行爲結果不僅有利於自己，而且也有利於別人，那有兩種可能的情形。

1. The planning actor considers the advantages which he expects for himself so important that he is prepared to defray all the costs required. The fact that his project also benefits other people will not prevent him from accomplishing what promotes his own well-being. When a railroad company erects dikes to protect its tracks against snowslides and avalanches, it also protects the houses on adjacent grounds. But the benefits which its neighbors will derive will not hinder the company from embarking upon an expenditure that it deems expedient.

一、作計畫的行爲者認爲，他所期待的對於他自己的那些利益是很重要的，以致他情願支付這個計畫所必須的全部費用。至於這個計畫也有利於別人這個事實，並不妨礙他獨力完成這個計畫。例如，一個鐵路公司建築堤場保護它的軌道以免雪崩或山洪的冲擊，這個計畫也保護鄰近的房宅。但是，鄰近人家分享這個利益並不妨礙這個公司實施它所認爲重要的這一計畫。

2. The costs incurred by a project are so great that none of those whom it will benefit is ready to expend them in full. The project can be realized only if a sufficient number of those interested in it share in the costs.

二、一個計畫所需要的費用是很大的，以致因這個計畫而得到利益的人們，誰也不願意全部承擔。於是，這個計畫的實現，只有靠分享其利益的人多到足夠分攤這全部的費用的數目。

It would hardly be necessary to say more about external economies if it were not for the fact that this phenomenon is entirely misinterpreted in current pseudo-economic literature.

假使不是因爲這個現象完全被現行的偽經濟學誤解，關於外部經濟這個問題，似乎無須再多講了。

A project P is unprofitable when and because consumers prefer the satisfaction expected from the realization of some other projects to the satisfaction expected from the realization of P. The realization of P would withdraw capital and labor from the realization of some other projects for which the demand of the consumers is more urgent. The layman and the pseudo-economist fail to recognize this fact. They stubbornly refuse to notice the scarcity of the factors of production. As they see it, P could be realized without any cost at all, i.e., without foregoing any other satisfaction. It is merely the wantonness of the profit system that prevents the nation from enjoying gratuitously the pleasures expected from P.

當消費者們寧可犧牲某一計畫（我們把它叫做P）的實現所可得到的滿足而去實現某些別的計畫的時候，計畫P是不能賺錢的。P的實現要用掉許多資本和勞力，而這些資本和勞力是可以用來實現消費者所更迫切需求的那些別的計畫的。外行人和冒充的經濟學者不知道這個事實。他們堅不承認生產要素的稀少性。照他看來，P的實現無須任何代價，也即，無須放棄任何其他的滿足；使我們這個國家不能無償地享受P的利益的，只是利潤制度在作祟。

Now, these short-sighted critics go on to say, the absurdity of the profit system becomes especially outrageous if the unprofitability of P is merely due to the fact that the entrepreneur's calculations neglect those advantages of P which for them are external economies. From the point of view of the whole of society such advantages are not

這些短視的批評者還繼續說，如果P的不能賺錢，只是由於企業家的計算不顧那些對於他們而言是外部經濟的P的利益，則利潤制度更是荒謬了，從整個社會觀點來看，這些利益不是外部的。它們至少使社會的某些份子受益，因而會增加「總福利」。所以，P的未實現是社會的一項損失。因爲專心於別的營利事業，不願實現這些不能賺錢的計畫，填補這個空隙就是政府的責任。政府應該以公營事業的形式來經營，或者津貼民間企業家和投資者經營。津貼的方法，或者直接從公庫予以金錢津貼，或者間接地用保護關稅的手段來津貼，使關稅的負擔落在產品購買者的身上。

However, the means which a government needs in order to run a plant at a loss or to subsidize an unprofitable project must be withdrawn either from the taxpayers' spending and investing power or from the loan market. The government has no more ability than individuals to create something out of nothing. What the government spends more, the public spends less. Public works are not accomplished by the miraculous power of a magic wand. They are paid for by funds taken away from the citizens. If the government had not interfered, the citizens would have employed them for the realization of profit-promising projects the realization of which they must omit because their means have been curtailed by the government. For every unprofitable project that is realized by the aid of the government there is a corresponding project the realization of which is neglected merely on account of the government's intervention. Yet this nonrealized project would have been profitable, i.e., it would have employed the scarce means of production in accordance with the most urgent needs of the consumers. From the point of view of the consumers the employment of these means of production for the realization of an unprofitable project is wasteful. It deprives them of satisfactions which they prefer to those which the government-sponsored project can furnish them.

但是，政府爲著自己賠本經營或者津貼民間經營，使其不賠本而需要的那筆資金，必須靠課稅或借債得來，課稅就是減少納稅人的消費能力和投資能力，借債則是減少借貸市場可借給民營事業的資金。政府沒有比個人更多的能力可以從無生有。政府花的錢多，民間所能花的就少了。公共工程不是靠一根魔杖的神秘來完成的。它是靠取自民間的資金支付代價。如果政府不干預的話，民間將用這筆資金來經營有利的業務，現在因爲這筆資金被政府減削了，民間原可經營的有利業務就必須放棄。每一個要靠政府的資助才可實現的不賺錢的計畫，都有一個相對的計畫是由於政府的干預而被放棄的。可是這未實現的計畫卻是有利的，也即是說，它將按照消費者更迫切的需要使用有限的生產手段。從消費者的觀點來看，把這些生產手段用來實現不賺錢的計畫，是浪費。它剥奪了他們所想得到的滿足，而強迫他們接受政府所支持的計畫。

The gullible masses who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes are enraptured by the marvelous accomplishments of their rulers. They fail to see that they themselves foot the bill and must consequently renounce many satisfactions which they would have enjoyed if the government had spent less for unprofitable projects. They have not the imagination to think of the possibilities that the government has not allowed to come into existence.[12]

一般大衆是沒有想像力的，他們不能超越肉眼的視域來看事情，所以，他們易被欺騙，易被統治者的驚人成就弄得神魂顚倒。他們看不出他們自己爲那些成就支付了代價而終於放棄了「如果政府少作那些事情，而他們將可享受的」許多利益。他們沒有想像力想到政府所不許可實現的那些可能的事情[12]。

These enthusiasts are still more bewildered if the government's interference enables submarginal producers to continue producing

如果政府的干預使用一些邊際以下的生產者能夠擋得住更有效率的工廠、商店、或農場的競爭而繼續生產，則那些神魂顚倒者更是驚訝得手足無所措。這時，他們會說，這明明白白地是總產量增加了，如果沒有政府的幫助，就不會有這項增加的財富。事實上發生的事情恰好相反；總生產和總財富的數量是減少了。高成本的生產被促成了，或被保留了，低成本的生產就被迫減少了，或不繼續了。消費者所得到的不是更多，而是更少。

There is, for instance, the very popular idea that it is a good thing for the government to promote the agricultural development of those parts of the country which nature has poorly endowed. Costs of production are higher in these districts than in other areas; it is precisely this fact that qualifies a large part of their soil as submarginal. When unaided by public funds, the farmers tilling these submarginal lands could not stand the competition of the more fertile farms. Agriculture would shrink or fail to develop and the whole area would become a backward part of the country. In full cognizance of this state of affairs profit-seeking business avoids investing in the construction of railroads connecting such inauspicious areas with the centers of consumption. The plight of the farmers is not caused by the fact that they lack transportation facilities. The causation is the other way round; because business realizes that the prospects for these farmers are not propitious, it abstains from investing in railroads which are likely to become unprofitable for lack of a sufficient amount of goods to be shipped. If the government, yielding to the demands of the interested pressure groups, builds the railroad and runs it at a deficit, it certainly benefits the owners of farm land in those poor districts of the country. As a part of the costs that the shipping of their products requires is borne by the treasury, they find it easier to compete with those tilling more fertile land to whom such aid is denied. But the boon of these privileged farmers is paid for by the taxpayers who must provide the funds required to defray the deficit. It affects neither the market price nor the total available supply of agricultural products. It merely makes profitable the operation of farms which hitherto were submarginal and makes other farms, the operation of which was hitherto profitable, submarginal. It shifts production from land requiring lower costs to land requiring higher costs. It does not increase total supply and wealth, it curtails them, as the additional amounts of capital and labor required for the cultivation of high-cost fields instead of low-cost fields are withheld from employments in which they would have made possible the production of some other consumers' goods. The government attains its

例如，我們常聽到的一個說法，說政府在自然資源貧瘠的地區促進農業發展是件好事。這些地區的生產成本高於其他地區：這正是這些地區的大部份土地成爲邊際以下的土地的原因。如果沒有政府資助，耕種這些邊際以下的土地的農民就擋不住較肥沃的農場競爭。農業萎縮或不能發展，而這整個區域就成爲這個國家的落後地區。由於充份明瞭這個情況，營利事業就不會在這裡投資建築鐵路，把這些不幸的地區與一些消費中心聯接起來。這裡的農民們的困境不是由於缺乏交通便利而引起的。因果關係是反過來的；因爲營利的事業家看出了這裡的農民沒有好景的前途，他們不願投資建築一條缺乏貨運而勢必賠本的鐵路。如果政府屈服於一些壓力團體的要求，建築這條鐵路而在賠本的情形下經營，那確實有利於這些貧瘠地區的農地所有者。因爲運輪他們產品的成本有一部份由國庫負擔，他們就比較容易和那些耕種肥沃土地而沒有政府補助的農民競爭。但是，這些受惠的農民所得到的利益是由納稅人支付代價的，納稅人必須供給這條鐵路所虧損的資金，這旣不影響市場價格，也不影響農產品總供給量，而只使那些原爲邊際以下的農地經營變成有利，使其他原爲有利經營的農地變成邊際以下的土地而已。這是把生產活動從那些需要較低成本的土地轉移到需要較高成本的土地。這並不增加總供給和總財富，而是減少了它們。因爲那些用來耕種高成本土地的資本和勞動增加額是從其他的用途拉過來的，如果留在那些用途，它們將可生產些其他消費財而爲消費者所更迫切需要的。政府達到了它的目的一一使國家的某些地區能夠得到它們所不能得到的利益，但是，它在別處卻製造了一些損失，而這損失超過了受惠地區所得的利益。

The External Economies of Intellectual Creation

智慧創作的外部經濟

The extreme case of external economies is shown in the "production" of the intellectual groundwork of every kind of processing and constructing. The characteristic mark of formulas, i.e., the mental devices directing the technological procedures, is the inexhaustibility of the services they render. These services are consequently not scarce, and there is no need to economize their employment. Those considerations that resulted in the establishment of the institution of private ownership of economic goods did not refer to them. They remained outside the sphere of private property not because they are immaterial, intangible, and impalpable, but because their serviceableness cannot be exhausted.

外部經濟的極端事例，見之於各種加工業和建築業智慧方面的產品。指導技術程序的那些聰明設計所提供的服務是無窮盡的，這是它們的特徵。因爲這些服務是不稀少的，所以沒有節省使用的必要。經濟財私有制所據以建立的那些考慮，不適用於智慧的創作。它們留在私有權的範圍以外，不是因爲它們是無形的、非物質的、不可觸知的，而是因爲它們的服務不會窮盡。

People began to realize only later that this state of affairs has its drawbacks too. It places the producers of such formulas--especially the inventors of technological procedures and authors and composers--in a peculiar position. They are burdened with the cost of production, while the services of the product they have created can be gratuitously enjoyed by everybody. What they produce is for them entirely or almost entirely external economies.

人們到後來才開始認知這種事象也有它的壞處。它把一些這樣秘訣的生產者——尤其是技術程序的發明者、和著作家、作曲家——安置在一個特殊地位。他們承擔了生產成本，而他們創造的產品所提供的服務卻可被每個人自由享受。就他們而言，他們所生產的，完全是或幾乎完全是外部經濟的。

If there are neither copyrights nor patents, the inventors and authors are in the position of an entrepreneur. They have a temporary advantage as against other people. As they start sooner in utilizing their invention or their manuscript themselves or in making it available for use to other people (manufacturers or publishers), they have the chance to earn profits in the time interval until everybody can likewise utilize it. As soon as the invention or the content of the book are publicly known, they become "free goods" and the inventor or author has only his glory.

假若我們旣沒有版權制度，也沒有專利制度，發明家和著作家就是處在企業家的地位。他們相對於別人而言，享受一種暫時的利益。當他們剛開始自己利用他們的發明或他們的稿本，或者使別人（製造者或出版者）得以利用它的時候，他們在這個當兒有機會賺得利潤，直到每個人可以同樣利用它爲止。一到這個發明或這本書的內容大家都知道的時候，它就成爲「自由財」，而這位發明者或著作家只享有榮譽了。

The problem involved has nothing to do with the activities of the creative genius. These pioneers and originators of things unheard of do not produce and work in the sense in which these terms are employed in dealing with the affairs of other people. They do not let themselves be influenced by the response their work meets on the part of their contemporaries. They do not wait for encouragement.[13]

這裡所涉及的問題與那有創造力的天才的一些活動無關。空前的事物的發明者或創造者們的作爲，不是用之於一般人的那種意義的「生產」或「工作」。他們的作爲不因當時的人對他有何反應而受影響。他們的作爲是無待鼓勵的[13]。

It is different with the broad class of professional intellectuals whose services society cannot do without. We may disregard the problem of second-rate authors of poems, fiction, and plays and second-rate composers and need not inquire whether it would be a serious disadvantage for mankind to lack the products of their efforts. But it is obvious that handing down knowledge to the rising generation and

至於其勞務爲社會所不可少的那些知識份子，情形就與此不同了。我們可以不管第二流的詩人、小說家、戲劇家和作曲家的問題，我們無須探究，如果沒有這些人的作品，對於人類是不是一個嚴重損失。但是，爲著把知識傳授給後代人，爲著使行爲人得以熟習他們爲實現他們的計畫所需要的一切知識，那就很明顯地要有一些敎科書、一些範本、一些手册、和一些其他非小說的作品。如果每個人可以自由免費複製這些作品，人們大概是不會辛辛苦苦地寫這種出版物。就技術方面的發明和發現來講，這種情形更爲明顯。這方面的一些成就所需要的廣博實驗，常常是很費錢的。如果，對於那些發明者和那些在實驗上花了很多錢的人們而言，他們所得的結果不是別的，只是一些外部經濟，那麼，技術的進步大概是要嚴重地受到妨礙的。

Patents and copyrights are results of the legal evolution of the last centuries. Their place in the traditional body of property rights is still controversial. People look askance at them and deem them irregular. They are considered privileges, a vestige of the rudimentary period of their evolution when legal protection was accorded to authors and investors only by virtue of an exceptional privilege granted by the authorities. They are suspect, as they are lucrative only if they make it possible to sell at monopoly prices. [14]. Moreover, the fairness of patent laws is contested on the ground that they reward only those who put the finishing touch leading to practical utilization of achievements of many predecessors. these precursors go empty-handed although their main contribution to the final result was often much more weighty than that of the patentee.

專利制和版權制是最近幾百年法律演進的結果。它們在財產權傳統的體系中的地位，還在爭論中。人們對它們側目而視，認爲它們是不正當的。它們被視爲特權，是當年僅靠政府當局授與作家和發明家的特權，因而得到法律保障的一個遺跡。它們的作用是可疑的，因爲它們只有在使獨占價格下的出賣成爲可能時才是有利的[14]。而且，專利法的是否公平，基於下列理由也發生爭論：專利法只是獎賞那些在最後階段完成某些發明而使這些發明進入實際用途的人們。這些發明是逐漸接近成功的，以前還有些人對於這些發明的貢獻比享有專利權的這個後繼者要大得多，但是，他們沒有享受到專利權的利益。

It is beyond the scope of catallactics to enter into an examination of the arguments brought forward for and against the institution of copyrights and patents. It has merely to stress the point that this is a problem of delimitation of property rights and that with the abolition of patents and copyrights authors and inventors would for the most part be producers of external economies.

對於贊成和反對版權與專利制的一些議論的檢討，不是交換學範圍以內的事。交換學只要強調一點，即：這是財産權劃定界域的問題，隨著專利和版權的廢除，作家和發明家大概就是些外部經濟的生產者。

Privileges and Quasi-privileges

特權與準特權

The restrictions which laws and institutions impose upon the discretion to choose and to act are not always so insurmountable that they could not be overcome under certain conditions. To some favorites exemption from the obligation binding the rest of the people may be granted as an explicit privilege either by the laws themselves or by an administrative act of the authorities entrusted with the law's enforcement. Some may be ruthless enough to defy the laws in spite of the vigilance of the authorities; their daring insolence secures them a quasi-privilege.

法律制度對於選擇自由和行動自由所加的限制，並不是在任何情形下都不可克服。法律本身，或法律執行機關的行政命令，對於某些特殊人物明白地給予特權，讓他們不履行別人所必須履行的義務。另外有些人敢於明目張膽地蔑視法律的限制：他們這種大膽的作爲，使他們享有一種準特權。

A law that nobody observes is ineffectual. A law that is not valid for all or which not all obey, may grant to those who are exempt--whether by virtue of the law itself or by virtue of their own audacity--the opportunity to reap either differential rent or monopoly gains.

無人遵守的法律，是無效的法律。不是對所有的人都有效的法律，或不是所有的人都遵守的法律，會給那些豁免了的人們（或由於法律本身或由於他們自己膽大妄爲）取得差別租或獨占利得的機會。

With regard to the determination of the market phenomena it does not matter whether the exemption is legally valid as a privilege or illegal as a quasi-privilege. Neither does it matter whether the costs, if any, incurred by the favored individual or firm for the acquisition of the privilege or quasi-privilege are legal (e.g., a tax levied on licensees) or illegal (e.g., bribes paid to corrupt officers). If an importation embargo is mitigated by the importation of a certain quantity, the prices are affected by the quantity imported and the specific costs incurred by the acquisition and the utilization of the privilege or quasi-privilege. But whether the importation was legal (e.g., a license granted under the system of quantitative trade control to some privileged people), or illegal contraband does not affect the price structure.

這種豁免，不管是合法的特權還是非法的準特權，對於市場現象的決定，都沒有關係。取得特權或準特權的個人或商號，在取得時如果支付了成本，這些成本不管是合法的（例如執照税）還是非法的（例如貪污官吏的納賄），也都沒有關係。如果輸入的禁令對某一數量的進口可以通融，市場價格就受到兩個因素的影響：（1）這個輸入數量，（2）爲取得和利用這個特權或準特權的特殊成本。至於這批輸入是合法的（例如在數量管制的輪入制下對某些人給予的特權）還是違法的走私，對於價格結構沒有關係。

------------

[9] See above, p. 639.

[9] 見第二十二章第二節。

[10] Late in the eighteenth century European goverments began to enact laws aiming at forest conservation. However, it would be a serious blunder to ascribe to these laws any role in the conservation of the forests. Before the middle of the nineteenth century there was no administrative apparatus available for their enforcement. Besides the governments of Austria and Prussia, to say nothing of those of the smaller German states, virtually lacked the power to enforce to such laws against the aristocratic lords. No civil servant before 1914 would have been bold enough to rouse the anger of a Bohemian or Silesian magnate or a German mediatized standesheer. These princes and counts were spontaneously committed to forest conservation because they felt perfectly safe in the possession of their property and were eager to preserve unabated the source of their revenues and the market price of their estates.

[10] 十八世紀後期，歐洲的一些政府開始制定保護森林的法律。但是，如果把保護森林的任何任務歸之於這些法律，那就是一個嚴重的錯誤。在十九世紀中葉以前，那裡還沒有什麼行政機構來執行這些法律，除掉奥國和俄國政府以外——較小的德意志各邦政府更不必說——實際上都沒有力量對抗那些貴族地主來執行這樣的法律。在一九一四年以前，政府的官吏誰也沒有足夠的勇氣敢於觸怒一位波希米亞的（Bohemian）或西利西亞的（Silesian ）貴人或一位德意志的大地主（mediatized standesheer）。這些名公巨擘自動自發地負起保護森林的責任，因爲他們從財產的保有得到充份的安全感，因而極想把他們的收入來源和財產的市場價値保持住，不讓它們減低。

[11] One could as well say that they considered the advantage to be derived from giving care to soil and forest conservation external economies.

[11] 我們也無妨說：他們把那些土壤森林的注意保護而產生的利益看作外部經濟（external economies）。

[12] Cf. the brilliant analysis of public spending in Henry Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson (new ed. New York, 1962), pp. 21 ff.

[12] 參考Henry Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson (new ed. New York, 1962)對於政府支出的明朗分析。

[13] See above, pp. 139-140.

[13] 見第七章第三節有創造力的天才。

[14] See above, pp. 364-365.

[14] 見第十六章第六節。

XXXIV. HARMONY AND CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

第24章 利益的和諧與衝突

1. The Ultimate Source of Profit and Loss on the Market

一、市場上的利潤舆虧損的最後根源

The changes in the data whose reiterated emergence prevents the economic system from turning into an evenly rotating economy and produces again and again entrepreneurial profit and loss are favorable to some members of society and unfavorable to others. Hence, people concluded, the gain of one man is the damage of another; no man profits but by the loss of others. This dogma was already advanced by some ancient authors. Among modern writers Montaigne was the first to restate it; we may fairly call it the Montaigne dogma. It was the quintessence of the doctrines of Mercantilism, old and new. It is at the bottom of all modern doctrines teaching that there prevails, within the frame of the market economy, an irreconcilable conflict among the interests of various social classes within a nation and furthermore between the interests of any nation and those of all other nations.[1]

市場情況反覆無常的變動，使經濟制度不能成爲均勻輪轉的經濟而一再地產生企業利潤和虧損，有些人受益，有些人吃虧。因此人們得到結論：「一個人的利得是另一個的損失；如果沒有別人損失，誰也不能得到」這個武斷的說法曾經某些已往的作家提出。在現代的作家中Montaigne是第一個複述的人；我們簡直可以把這個說法叫做Montaigne的武斷。這個武斷是新舊重商主義的精髓。在所有現代重商主義的敎義中，都含有這個意思：在市場經濟的架構裡面，一國內部各個社會階層的利益是衝突的，任何國家與其他所有的國家之間，更是衝突的[1]。

Now the Montaigne dogma is true with regard to the effects of cash-induced changes in the purchasing power of money on deferred payments. But it is entirely wrong with regard to any kind of entrepreneurial profit or loss, whether they emerge in a stationary economy in which the total amount of profits equals the total amount of losses or in a progressing or a retrogressing economy in which these two magnitudes are different.

就貨幣購買力因現金誘發的變動對於延期支付的影響而言，Montaigne的武斷是對的。但是，就任何種類的企業盈虧而言——不管這些盈虧是出現於靜態經濟（這裡，利潤的總額與虧損的總額相等），還是出現於進步的或退步的經濟（這裡，盈與虧的兩個總額不相等），這個武斷完全是錯的。

What produces a man's profit in the course of affairs within an unhampered market society is not his fellow citizen's plight and distress, but the fact that he alleviates or entirely removes what causes his fellow citizen's feeling of uneasiness. What hurts the sick is the plague, not the physician who treats the disease. The doctor's gain is not an outcome of the epidemics, but of the aid he hives to those affected. The ultimate source of profits is always the foresight of future conditions. Those who succeeded better than others in anticipating

在一個未受束縛的巿場社會裡面，一個人之所以獲得利潤，不是由於他的同胞們的困境或苦難，而是由於他減輕或完全消除同胞們的不適感。傷害病人的是那些病，而不是治病的醫生。醫生的利得不是來自疾病的流行，而是來自他給病人的診治。利潤的最後根源，總是關於將來的遠見。比別人看得遠、看得準，而又能把自己的活動調整到適於將來的市場情況的人們，賺得利潤，因爲，他們能夠滿足大衆最迫切的需要。有些人所生產的貨物或所提供的勞務，購買者搶著買，因而他們賺得利潤；有些人拿到市場去賣的商品是大衆不願以夠它總成本的代價購買的，因而他們賠本。但是，前者的利潤並不是來自後者的虧損。這些虧損是因爲對於未來的消費者需要缺乏先見之明。

External events affecting demand and supply may sometimes come so suddenly and unexpectedly that people say that no reasonable man could have foreseen them. Then the envious may consider the profits of those who gain from the change as unjustified. Yet such arbitrary value judgments do not alter the real state of interests. It is certainly better for a sick man to be cured by a doctor for a high fee than to lack medical assistance. If it were otherwise, he would not consult the physician.

影響供需的外來事件有時會來得很突然、很意外，以致有人這樣說：有理知的人，誰也不能料到這些事情。於是，嫉妒心強烈的人就認爲，從這種變動賺得的利潤是不公平的。但是，這樣武斷的價値判斷，並不改變利害關係的眞實情況。對於一位病人而言，用大的價錢請一位醤生診治，確比缺乏醫療要好些。否則他不會請敎醫生。

There are in the market economy no conflicts between the interests of the buyers and sellers. There are disadvantages caused by inadequate foresight. It would be a universal boon if every man and all the members of the market society would always foresee future conditions correctly and in time and act accordingly. If this were the case, retrospection would establish that no particle of capital and labor was wasted for the satisfaction of wants which now are considered as less urgent than some other unsatisfied wants. However, man is not omniscient.

在市場經濟裡面，買者和賣者之間的利益沒有任何衝突。虧損是由於對將來的缺乏遠見。如果每個人和市場社會的所有份子，都能正確地預料到將來情況而且據以行動，則大家都有利得。如果情形眞是這樣的話，則資本與勞力不會有一點浪費在較不迫切的慾望之滿足上。但是，人，畢竟不是全知的。

It is wrong to look at these problems from the point of view of resentment and envy. It is no less faulty to restrict one's observation to the momentary position of various individuals. These are social problems and must be judged with regard to the operation of the whole market system. What secures the best possible satisfaction of the demands of each member of society is precisely the fact that those who succeeded better than other people in anticipating future conditions are earning profits. If profits were to be curtailed for the benefit of those whom a change in the data has injured, the adjustment of supply to demand would not be improved but impaired. If one were to prevent doctors from occasionally earning high fees, one would not increase but rather decrease the number of those choosing the medical profession.

從怨恨和嫉妒的出發點來看這些問題，是錯的；把觀察點限之於各個人一時的地位，也同樣是錯的。這裡，有些社會問題，必須就整個市場制度的運作來判斷。可以保證社會每個份子的需要得到最可能滿足的，正是「那些比別人有更能預料將來的人們在賺取利潤」這個事實。如果要爲那些受害於市場變動的人們而削減利潤，則供給對於需求的調整不僅不會改善，而且弄得更糟。如果我們不許醫生有時收取高的診費，那並不是使選擇醫生職業的人數增加，而是這種人數減少。

The deal is always advantageous both for the buyer and the seller. Even a man who sells at a loss is still better off than he would be if he could not sell at all, or only at a still lower price. He loses on account

交易總歸是買賣雙方都有利的。即令一個人在賠本的價格下出賣，也比完全不出賣或只在更低的價格下出賣，還好些。他的賠本是因爲他缺乏遠見；即令他所接收的價格是低的，出賣畢竟使他的損失有一限度。如果買者和賣者都不認爲，在當時的情形下，交易是他們所能選擇的最好的行爲，他們就不會實行交易。

The statement that one man's boon is the other man's damage is valid with regard to robbery, war, and booty. The robber's plunder is the damage of the despoiled victim. But war and commerce are two different things. Voltaire erred when--in 1764--he wrote in the article "Patrie" of his Dictionnaire philosophique: "To be a good patriot is to wish that one's own community should enrich itself by trade and acquire power by arms; it is obvious that a country cannot profit but at the expense of another and that it cannot conquer without inflicting harm on other people." Voltaire, like so many other authors who preceded and followed him, deemed it superfluous to familiarize himself with economic thought. If he had read the essays of his contemporary David Hume, he would have learned how false it is to identify war and foreign trade. Voltaire, the great debunker of age-old superstitions and popular fallacies, fell prey unawares to the most disastrous fallacy.

「一個人的利得是別人的損失」這個說法，適用於盜竊、戰爭和刼掠。盜竊的贓物就是失主的損失，但是，戰爭與商業是兩件不同的事情，Voltaire在一七六四年寫他的哲學詞典Patrie這一條的時候，他寫著：「要做一個好國民就要希望本國以貿易致富，以武力致富；很明顯的，一個國家如果不犧牲別國就不能致富，如果不加害於別國，就不能稱強。」Voltaire和許多其他的作家（包括他的前辈和他的追随者）一樣，認爲研習經濟思想是不必要的。如果他讀過和他同時的休姆的論著，他就應該知道，把戰爭與對外貿易相提並論是如何地荒謬。Voltaire這位對一些古老的迷信和謬見的偉大揭發者，竟不知不覺地陷入這個最可悲的謬見中。

When the baker provides the dentist with bread and the dentist relieves the baker's toothache, neither the baker nor the dentist is harmed. It is wrong to consider such an exchange of services and the pillage of the baker's shop by armed gangsters as two manifestations of the same thing. Foreign trade differs from domestic trade only in so far as goods and services are exchanged beyond the borderlines separating the territories of two sovereign nations. It is monstrous that Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the later Emperor Napoleon III, should have written many decades after Hume, Adam Smith, and Ricardo: "The quantity of merchandise which a country exports is always in direct proportion to the number of shells it can discharge upon its enemies whenever its honor and its dignity may require it." [2] All the teachings of economics concerning the effects of the international division of labor and of international trade have up to now failed to destroy the popularity of the Mercantilist fallacy, "that the object of foreign trade is to pauperize foreigners." [3] It is a task of historical investigation to disclose the sources of the popularity of this and other similar delusions and errors. For economics the matter is long since settled.

麵包商人以麵包供給牙科醫生，牙科醫生爲麵包商人診治牙痛。麵包商人也好，牙科醫生也好，都未受害。如果把這樣的勞務交換與武裝流氓的搶劫麵包店，看作同一事情的兩個表現，那就是大錯。對外貿易不同於國內貿易的，只在於貨物和勞務的交換超越了兩個主權國的疆界。奇怪的是：在休姆、亞當斯密、李嘉圖以後的數十年，拿破崙皇子——也即後來的拿破崙第三——還寫著：「一國輸出的貨物數量，與這一國爲它的榮譽和尊嚴，對它的敵國所能放射的砲彈數量成正比。」[2]關於分析國際分工和國際貿易之後果的一切經濟敎義，到現在還不能摧毀重商主義這種謬見——「對外貿易的目的在於把外國人弄窮。」[3]——的勢力。揭發這種武斷和其他類似的一些幻想和錯誤的根源，這是歷史研究的工作。就經濟學而言，這個問題早已解決了。

-----------------

[1] Cf. Montaigne, Essais, ed. F. Strowski, Bk. I, chap. 22 (Bordeaux, 1906), I, 135-136; A. Oncken, Geschichte der National?konomie (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 152-153; E. F. Heckscher, Mercantilism, transl, by M. Shapiro (London, 1935), II, 26-27.

[1] 參考Montaigne, Essais, ed. F. Strowski, Bk. I, chap. 22 (Bordeaux, 1906), I, 135-136; A. Oncken, Geschichte der National?konomie (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 152-153; E. F. Heckscher, Mercantilism, transl, by M. Shapiro (London, 1935), II, 26-27.

[2] Cf. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, Extinction du pauperisme (?d. populaire, Paris, 1848), p. 6.

[2] 參考Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, Extinction du pauperisme (?d. populaire, Paris, 1848), p. 6.

[3] With these words H. G. Wells (The Worm of William Clissold, Bk. IV, sec. 10) characterizes the opinion of a typical representative of the British peerage.

[3] H. G. Wells（在他的The Worm of William Clissold, Bk. IV, sec. 10）用這些字句來描寫英國貴族們的典型見解。

2. The Limitation of Offspring

二、生育節制

The natural scarcity of the means of sustenance forces every living being to look upon all other living beings as deadly foes in the struggle for survival, and generates pitiless biological competition. But with man these irreconcilable conflicts of interests disappear when, and as far as, the division of labor is substituted for economic autarky of individuals, families, tribes, and nations. Within the system of society there is no conflict of interests as long as the optimum size of population has not been reached. As long as the employment of additional hands results in a more than proportionate increase in the returns, harmony of interests is substituted for conflict People are no longer rivals in the struggle for the allocation of portions out of a strictly limited supply. They become cooperators in striving after ends common to all of them. An increase in population figures does not curtail, but rather augments, the average shares of the individuals.

生活資料之天然的稀少，逼得每個生物在生存鬥爭中不得不把所有其他生物看作不共戴天的仇敵，而惹起殘酷的生物學上的競爭。但是，就人與人的關係來講，當分工制度代替了個人的、家庭的、部落的和國家的經濟自給自足的時候，不可解的利害衝突就消失了。在這個社會制度裡面，只要人口還沒有多過適度的數量，是不會有利害衝突的。只要增加的人口就業後的報酬，超過人口增加的比例，那就是利益和諧而不會利益衝突。這時，人們就不至於爲爭取有限的生活資料而彼此爲敵。他們在追求共同的目的下成爲合作者。人口數字的上昇並不削減而是增加各個人的平均份。

If men were to strive only after nourishment and sexual satisfaction, population would tend to increase beyond the optimum size to the limits drawn by the sustenance available. However, men want more than merely to live and to copulate; they want to live humanly. An improvement in conditions usually results, it is true, in an increase in population figures; but this increase lags behind the increase in bare sustenance. If it were otherwise, men would have never succeeded in the establishment of social bonds and in the development of civilization. As with rats, mice, and microbes, every increase in sustenance would have made population figures rise to the limits of bare sustenance; nothing would have been left for the seeking of other ends. The fundamental error implied in the iron law of wages was precisely the fact that it looked upon men--or at least upon the wage earners--as beings exclusively driven by animal impulses. Its champions failed to realize that man differs from the beasts as far as he aims also at specifically human ends, which one may call higher or more sublime ends.

假若人們所追求的只是營養和性的滿足，人口就會趨向於超過有限的生活資料所限定的適度數量，但是，人們所要的不止於單純地過活和性交；他們要過像人的生活。不錯，環境的改善，通常是引起人口增加；但是，人口增加會落在生活資料的增加之後。如果不然的話，人們決不會成功地建立社會關係，不會成功地發展文明，就鼠類和微生物而言，生活資料一增加，他們就繁殖到超過資料所能維持的限度；沒有一點東西剩下來以備其他的目的的尋求。工資鐵律的基本錯誤，在於它把人——至少是把工資收入者——看作只有動物衝動的東西。主張工資鐵律的人們沒有看出，人之異於禽獸是由於他還要追求一些特屬於人的目的，這些目的，我們無妨叫做較高尙的或較莊嚴的目的。

The Malthusian law of population is one of the great achievements of thought. Together with the principle of the division of labor it provided the foundations for modern biology and for the theory of evolution; the importance of these two fundamental theorems for the sciences of human action is second only to the discovery of the regularity in the intertwinement and sequence of market phenomena and their inevitable determination by the market data. The objections raised against the Malthusian law as well as against the law of returns are vain and trivial. Both laws are indisputable. But the role to be

馬爾薩斯的人口法則是偉大的思想造詣之一。連同分工原理，它給現代生物學和進化論提供了理論基礎；這兩個基本定理對於人的行爲科學之重要性，僅次於錯綜複雜的市場現象中的規律性之發現。對於馬爾薩斯法則提出的反對論，也如同對於報訓律提出的反對論一樣，是淺薄不足道的。這兩個法則都是不容爭辯的。但在人的行爲科學體系裡面派給它們的任務，與馬爾薩斯派給它們的不同。

Nonhuman beings are entirely subject to the operation of the biological law described by Malthus. [4] For them the statement that their numbers tend to encroach upon the means of subsistence and that the supernumerary specimens are weeded out by want of sustenance is valid without any exception. With reverence to the nonhuman animals the notion of minimum sustenance has an unequivocal, uniquely determined sense. But the case is different with man. Man integrates the satisfaction of the purely zoological impulses, common to all animals, into a scale of values, in which a place is also assigned to specifically human ends. Acting man also rationalizes the satisfaction of his sexual appetites. Their satisfaction is the outcome of a weighing of pros and cons. Man does not blindly submit to a sexual stimulation like a bull; he refrains from copulation if he deems the costs--the anticipated disadvantages--too high. In this sense we may, without any valuation or ethical connotation, apply the term moral restraint employed by Malthus. [5]

非人的生物完全受馬爾薩斯所描寫的生物學法則的支配[4]。對於它們而言，「它們繁殖的數目趨向於超過生活資料，因而那些得不到生活資料的『冗員』就被淘汰掉」這個說法是有效的。最低生活資料這個觀念，就非人的禽獸而言，有一個不含糊的、獨特的確定意義。但是，就人來講，情形就不同了。單純的動物學上的衝動是所有的動物所共有的。可是，人把這種衝動的滿足統合於一個價値系統，在這個系統裡面，特屬於人的一些目的，尤有它們的地位。行爲人也要把他的性慾滿足做到合理化；這是經過正反兩方面的考慮以後的結果。人並非像公牛一樣盲目地受性慾的支配，如果他認爲成本——預料中的不利——太高，他就會自制而不性交。在這個意義下，我們無妨採用馬爾薩斯所用的「道德的節制」（moral restraint）這個名詞，但不含任何價値或倫理的意思[5]。

Rationalization of sexual intercourse already involves the rationalization of proliferation. Then later further methods of rationalizing the increase of progeny were adopted which were independent of abstention from copulation. People resorted to the egregious and repulsive practices of exposing or killing infants and of abortion. Finally they learned to perform the sexual act in such a way that no pregnancy results. In the last hundred years the technique of contraceptive devices has been perfected and the frequency of their employment increased considerably. Yet the procedures had long been known and practiced.

性交的合理化已經包含生殖的合理化。後來又有一些與節制性交無關的節制後嗣的方法被採用。人們採用棄嬰或殺嬰，以及堕胎這些殘忍辦法。最後，他們學習了不致懷孕的性交行爲。在最近幾百年當中，避孕法已經改良，而且採用的人也大大增多了。可是這個方法是早已知道的、早已實行了的。

The affluence that modern capitalism bestows upon the broad masses of the capitalist countries and the improvement in hygienic conditions and therapeutical and prophylactic methods brought about by capitalism have considerably reduced mortality, especially infant mortality, and prolonged the average duration of life. Today in these countries the restriction kin generating offspring can succeed only if it is more drastic than in earlier ages. The transition to capitalism--i.e.,

現代資本主義帶給一般大衆的財富、以及資本主義帶來的衛生環境和醫療防治方法的改良，大大地滅低了人類的死亡率，尤其是嬰兒的死亡率，而使平均壽命延長。現在，在這些資本主義國家，節制生育如要成功，只有比以前更加厲行。進到資本主義的這個轉變——也即把以前曾經束縛私人創業和企業功能的那些障礙予以消除——已深深地影響到性行爲的習慣。新的事情並不是生育節制的實行，而只是實行生育節制的愈來愈多。尤其新的是生育節制的實行不再限於社會的上層階級，而且普及全社會。因爲資本主義使社會的所有階層都脫離了貧民境界，這是資本主義最重要的社會效果之一。它把手工勞動者羣的生活水準提高，因而他們也成爲「布爾喬亞丄也會像小康的市民們那樣想、那樣作。爲著他們自己和子女們都能保持住他們的生活水準，他們就也參與生育節制。隨著資本主義的擴展和進步，生育節制成爲一個普遍運動。由此所見，進到資本主義的這個轉變，伴著兩個現象：出生率和死亡率都降低。平均壽命延長。

In the days of Malthus it was not yet possible to observe these demographical characteristics of capitalism. Today it is no longer permissible to question them. But, blinded by romantic prepossessions, many describe them as phenomena of decline and degeneration peculiar only to the white-skinned peoples of Western civilization, grown old and decrepit. These romantics are seriously alarmed by the fact that the Asiatics do not practice birth control to the same extent to which it is practiced in Western Europe, North America, and Australia. As modern methods of fighting and preventing disease have brought about a drop in mortality rates with these oriental peoples too, their population figures grow more rapidly than those of the Western nations. Will not the indigenes of India, Malaya, China, and Japan, who themselves did not contribute to the technological and therapeutical achievements of the West, but received them as an unexpected present, in the end by the sheer superiority of their numbers squeeze out the peoples of European descent?

在馬爾薩斯的時代，還不可能看出資本主義在人口方面會發生的效果。今天再也不容懷疑了。但是，有許多人蔽於一些浪漫的偏見，竟說這是特屬於西方文明的白種人衰頹堕落的現象。這種浪漫思想引起一個嚴重的憂慮，那就是亞洲主義的亞洲人（the Asiatics）沒有把生育節制推行到西歐、北美、和澳洲人的同樣程度，因爲，治療和預防疾病的現代方法也使東方的人口死亡率降低，因而他們的人口增加比西方國家的快得多。在這種情形下，印度人、馬來亞人、中國人、和日本人（他們自己對於西方的技術和赞療的成就沒有貢獻，只是把它們當作意外的赠品來接受。）不會到最後僅憑其人數之優勢來壓榨西方人的子孫嗎？

These fears are groundless. Historical experience shows that all Caucasian peoples reacted to the drop in mortality figures brought about by capitalism with a drop in the birth rate. Of course, from such historical experience no general law may be deduced. But praxeological reflection demonstrates that there exists between these two phenomena a necessary concatenation. An improvement in the external conditions of well-being makes possible a corresponding increase in population figures. However, if the additional quantity of the means of sustenance is completely absorbed by rearing an additional number of people, nothing is left for a further improvement

這些恐懼是無稽的。歷史的經驗吿訴我們，所有高加索民族對於資本主義帶來的死亡率減低的反應，是降低出生率。當然，從這樣的歷史經驗不一定推論出一般的法則。但是，行爲學的思考會指出，這兩個現象有必然的連續性。關係生活福利的外在環境有了改善，使人口數字的增加成爲可能，但是，如果生活資料的增加量因養活增加的人口而完全消費，那就沒有剩餘的東西可用以再提高生活。文明的進步就到此爲止；人類就處在一個停滯狀態。

The case becomes still more obvious if we assume that a prophylactic invention is made by a lucky chance and that its practical application requires neither a considerable investment of capital nor considerable current expenditure. Of course, modern medical research and still more its utilization absorb huge amounts of capital and labor. They are products of capitalism. They would never have come into existence in a noncapitalist environment. But there were, in earlier days, instances of a different character. The practice of smallpox inoculation did not originate from expensive laboratory research and, in its original crude form, could be applied at trifling costs. Now, what would the results of smallpox inoculation have been if its practice had become general in a precapitalist country not committed to birth control? It would have increased population figures without increasing sustenance, it would have impaired the average standard of living. It would not have been a blessing, but a curse.

如果我們假定防治疾病的發明是由一種幸運所達成的，而這個發明的實際利用，又無須大量的投資，也無須大量的費用，則上述的那種結果更爲明顯。當然，現代的醫藥研究，尤其是硏究結果的應用，是需要大量資本和勞力的。它們都是資本主義的產物。它們決不會在非資本主義的環境中出現。但是，在以前曾有過不同的事例。天花的種痘預防法，不是來自費錢的實驗室硏究，而且那些原始的、粗疏的方法，應用起來所花的成本也有限。如果天花的種痘預防法，早已在那些沒有推行生育節制而又未進到資本主義階段的國家普遍採用，請試想現在的結果會怎樣？那就是人口大大增加，而生活資料沒有隨之增加，平均生活水準就要降低。於是，天花的預防不是一件好事而是一個禍因。

Conditions in Asia and Africa are, by and large, the same. These backward peoples receive the devices for fighting and preventing disease ready-made from the West. It is true that in some of these countries imported foreign capital and the adoption of foreign technological methods by the comparatively small domestic capital synchronously tend to increase the per capita output of labor and thus to bring about a tendency toward an improvement in the average standard of living. However, this does not sufficiently counterbalance the opposite tendency resulting from the drop in mortality rates not accompanied by an adequate fall in fertility rates. The contact with the West has not yet benefitted these peoples because it has not yet affected their minds; it has not freed them from age-old superstitions, prejudices, and misapprehensions; it has merely altered their technological and therapeutical knowledge.

亞洲和非洲的情形大體上是一樣的，這些落後地區的人民，從西方接受了一些現成的防治疾病的辦法。他們甚至有時可免費享有藥物、醫院設備，乃至醫生的服務。白種人支付這些成本，有時是出之於人道的想法，有時是爲他們自己的利害關係所迫。不錯，在這些落後國家，輸入的外國資本，以及用本國的小小資本而採用的外國技術，也會提高勞動的生產力，因而引起平均生活水準走向改善的趨勢。但是，這不足以抵銷由於死亡率降低，出生率沒有適度降低而引起的相反趨勢。落後地區的人民與西方接觸，並沒有得到利益，這是因爲這種接觸還沒有影響到他們的心；沒有把他們從一些古老的迷信、偏見，和誤解中解放出來；它只是改變了他們的技術和醫療知識而已。

The reformers of the oriental peoples want to secure for their fellow citizens the material well-being that the Western nations enjoy. Deluded by Marxian, nationalist, and militarist ideas they think that all that is needed for the attainment of this end is the introduction of European and American technology. Neither the Slavonic Bolsheviks and nationalists nor their sympathizers in the Indies, in China, and in Japan realize that what their peoples need most is not Western technology, but the social order which in addition to other achievements has generated this technological knowledge. They lack first of all economic freedom and private initiative, entrepreneurs and

東方民族的一些改革家，想爲他們的同胞得到西方國家所享受的物質福利。迷於馬克斯的、民族主義的、軍國主義的一些觀念，他們以爲，爲達到這個目的只要引進歐美的技術就行了。斯拉夫民族的布爾雪維克和民族主義者，以及他們在印度、中國、和日本的同路人，都不了解他們的人民所最需要的不是西方的技術，而是在一些別的成就以外還產生了這種技術知識的那個社會秩序。他們最缺乏的，是經濟自由和民間的原創力，企業家和資本主義。但是，他們實際上尋求的，只是工程師和機器。產生資本主義的那個西方精神，對於東方人還是陌生的。他們只輸入一些資本主義的行頭或道具，而不許資本主義原封輸入，這是沒有用的。資本主義文明的功績不會在非資本主義的環境中達成，也不能在一個沒有巿場經濟的世界裡保持住。

If the Asiatics and Africans really enter into the orbit of Western civilization, they will have to adopt the market economy without reservations. Then their masses will rise above their present proletarian wretchedness and practice birth control as it is practiced in every capitalistic country. No excessive growth of population will longer hinder the improvement in the standards of living. But if the oriental peoples in the future confine themselves to mechanical reception of the tangible achievements of the West without embracing its basic philosophy and social ideologies, they will forever remain in their present state of inferiority and destitution. Their populations may increase considerably, but they will not raise themselves above distress. These miserable masses of paupers will certainly not be a serious menace to the independence of the Western nations. As long as there is a need for weapons, the entrepreneurs of the market society will never stop producing more efficient weapons and thus securing to their countrymen a superiority of equipment over the merely imitative noncapitalistic Orientals. The military events of both World Wars have proved anew that the capitalistic countries are paramount also in armaments production. No foreign aggressor can destroy capitalist civilization if it does not destroy itself. Where capitalistic entrepreneurship is allowed to function freely, the fighting forces will always be so well equipped that the biggest armies of the backward peoples will be no match for them. There has even been great exaggeration of the danger of making the formulas for manufacturing "secret" weapons universally known. If war comes again, the searching mind of the capitalistic world will always have a head start on the peoples who merely copy and imitate clumsily.

假若亞洲人眞的進入西方文明的軌道，他們就得毫無保留地採納市場經濟。那時，他們的民衆將會超越現在的貧困境界而和每個資本主義國家的人民一樣實行節制生育。再也沒有過多的人口出生，以致妨礙生活水準的改善。但是，如果東方民族將來還是只接受西方的一些物質的成就，而不信奉它的基本哲學和社會意理，他們將永遠留在現在這樣劣勢的貧困地位。他們的人口可能大大增加，但是，他們將不會超脫出他們的困境。這些悲慘貧窮的民衆對於西方國家的獨立，不會構成嚴重的威脅。只要武器還有需要，市場社會的一些企業家決不會停止生産更有效力的武器，因而保障他們的國人得以優越的裝備勝過僅有黷武精神而非資本主義的東方人。兩次世界大戰的軍事經驗，已重新證明資本主義國家在軍需生產方面也是卓越的。资本主義文明，除非它自己毀滅自己，外國的侵略者決不能摧毀它。凡是资本主義的企業精神被容許自由發揮的地方，戰鬥部隊總會好好裝備而不是落後地區的龐大軍隊所可對抗的。我們常常聽說，「秘密」武器的製造公式被大家知道了是很危險的。這也未免過度誇張。如果戰爭再起，資本主義世界的研究人員，總會走在只知道抄襲模仿的那些民族的前面。

The peoples who have developed the system of the market economy and cling to it are in every respect superior to all other peoples. The fact that they are eager to preserve peace is not a mark of their weakness and inability to wage war. They love peace because they know that armed conflicts are pernicious and disintegrate the social division of labor. But if war becomes unavoidable, they show their superior efficiency in military affairs too. They repel the barbarian aggressors whatever their numbers may be.

發展了資本主義制度而繼續保持它的這些民族，在任何方面都比別的民族優越。他們之急想保持和平，並不是他們柔弱而不能作戰的說明。他們愛好和平，因爲他們知道武裝衝突是使社會分工解體而有害於各方面的。但是，如果戰爭終於不可避免，他們在軍事上也顯示他們的優越效率。他們會擊返野蠻的侵略，不管侵略者的人數有多少。

The purposive adjustment of the birth rate to the supply of the material potentialities of well-being is an indispensable condition of human life and action, of civilization, and of any improvement in wealth and welfare. Whether the only beneficial method of birth control is abstention from coitus is a question which must be decided from the point of view of bodily and mental hygiene. It is absurd to confuse the issue by referring to ethical precepts developed in ages which were faced with different conditions. However, praxeology is not interested in the theological aspects of the problem. It has merely to establish the fact that where there is no limitation of offspring there cannot be any question of civilization and improvement in the standard of living.

把出生率故意地調整到適於幸福生活的可能的物質供給量，這是人的生活和行爲所不可缺少的一個條件，也是文明和財富、福利的增進所不可缺少的一個條件。至於節制性交是不是唯一的節制生育的有利方法，這是一個要從身心衛生的觀點來決定的問題。如果把這個問題扯到世世代代發展出來的一些倫理敎條，那是荒唐可笑的。各個世代所面臨的情況不是一樣的。但是，行爲學無關乎這個問題的理論研究。它只是確定一個事實：凡是在沒有生育節制的地方，就不會有文明和生活水準改善的這一類的問題。

A socialist commonwealth would be under the necessity of regulating the fertility rate by authoritarian control. It would have to regiment the sexual life of its wards no less than all other spheres of their conduct. In the market economy every individual is spontaneously intent upon not begetting children whom he could not rear without considerably lowering his family's standard of life. Thus the growth of population beyond the optimum size as determined by the supply of capital available and the state of technological knowledge is checked. The interests of each individual coincide with those of all other individuals.

一個社會主義國家必得由政府來管制生育率。人民的性行爲也和其他方面的行爲一樣，要納入組織中。在市場經濟裡面，每個人自動自發地注意到這個問題，他不願生下「不降低他的家庭生活水準就不能養活的孩子」。因此，出生率受到限制，由資本供給量和技術知識水準所決定的那個適度人口不至於超過。各個人的利益與其他所有的人的利益是一致的。

Those fighting birth control want to eliminate a device indispensable for the preservation of peaceful human cooperation and the social division of labor. Where the average standard of living is impaired by the excessive increase in population figures. irreconcilable conflicts of interests arise. Each individual is again a rival of all other individuals in the struggle for survival. The annihilation of rivals is the only means of increasing one's own well-being. The philosophers and theologians who assert that birth control is contrary to the laws of God and Nature refuse to see things as they really are. Nature straitens the material means required for the improvement of human well-being and survival. As natural conditions are, man has only the choice between the pitiless war of each against each or social cooperation. But social cooperation is impossible if people give rein to the natural impulse of proliferation. In restricting procreation man adjusts himself to the natural conditions of his existence. The rationalization of the sexual passions is an indispensable condition of civilization and societal bonds. Its abandonment would in the long run not increase but decrease the numbers of those surviving, and would render life for everyone as poor and miserable as it was many thousands of years ago for our ancestors.

那些反對生育節制的人們，是想廢棄保持人類和平合作和社會分工所不可少的一個辦法。凡是平均生活水準因人口的過度增加而下降的地方，不可分解的利害衝突勢必發生。每個人又在生存鬥爭中成爲其他所有人的敵人，消滅敵人是增進自己福利的唯一辦法。那些宣稱生育節制違反上帝意旨或自然法則的哲學家和科學家，是在閉著眼睛不看事實的眞相。自然限制了改善人類生活所必要的資料。自然情況旣如此，人，就得在相互仇殺或社會合作二者來選擇。但是，如果人人縱慾生殖，社會合作就不可能。人在節制生育的行爲上，正是把他自己調整到適於自然情況。性行爲的合理化是人類文明和社會聯繫所不可少的一個條件。如果這個條件不具備，長期地看，生存的人數不會增加只會減少，而且將使每個人的生活窮困悲慘，和數千年前我們祖先所過的生活一樣。

-----------------

[4] The Malthusian law is, of course, a biological and not a praxeological law. However, its cognizance is indispensable for praxeology in order to conceive by contrast the essential characteristic of human action. As the natural sciences failed to discover it, the economists had to fill the gap. The history of the law of population too explodes the popular myth about the backwardness of the sciences of human action and their need to borrow from the natural sciences.

[4] 當然，馬爾薩斯法則是一個生物學的而不是行爲學的法則。但是，這個法則的認知，對於行爲是不可少的，因爲它有利於行爲學顯出人的行爲之特徵。因爲自然科學沒有發現它，經濟學家必須填補這個缺陷。人口法則的歷史也推翻了一個流行的神話，就是：關於人的行爲科學落後，要向自然科學借用若干東西的神話。

[5] Malthus too employed this term without any valuation or ethical implication. Cf. Bonar, Malthus and His Work (London, 1885), p. 53. One could as well substitute the term praxeological restraint for moral restraint.

[5] 馬爾薩斯用這個名詞也是沒有住何價値或倫理涵義的。參考Bonar, Malthus and His Work (London, 1885), p. 53.我們還可用「行爲學的節制」代替「道德的節制」。

3. The Harmony of the "Rightly Understood" Interests

三、「正確了解的」利益和諧

From time immemorial men have prattled about the blissful conditions their ancestors enjoyed in the original "state of nature." From old myths, fables, and poems the image of this primitive happiness passed into many popular philosophies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In their language the term natural denoted what was good and beneficial in human affairs, while the term civilization had the connotation of opprobrium. The fall of man was seen in the deviation from the primitive conditions of ages in which there was but little deference between man and other animals. At that time, these romantic eulogists of the past asserted, there were no conflicts between men. Peace was undisturbed in the Garden of Eden.

自古以來就有許多人盲目地讚美他們的祖先在原始的「自然境界」所享受的幸福。經由這些古老的神話、童話、和詩歌，這種原始幸福的影像就成了十七、十八世紀一些流行的哲學的成份。在他們的用語中，「自然的」這個形容詞，是指在人事方面是好的和有利的，而「文明」一詞則有「臭名」或「恥辱」的涵義。人脫離了原始境界（在原始境界裡面，人與其他動物很少差異）就被認爲人的墮落。當時，這些讚美往古的浪漫主義者宣稱：那時人與人之間沒有衝突。在伊甸園裡面，和平不受干擾。

Yet nature does not generate peace and good will. The characteristic mark of the "state of nature" is irreconcilable conflict. Each specimen is the rival of all other specimens. The means of subsistence are scarce and do not grant survival to all. The conflicts can never disappear. If a band of men, united with the object of defeating rival bands, succeeds in annihilating its foes, new antagonisms arise among the victors over the distribution of the booty. The source of the conflicts is always the fact that each man's portion curtails the portions of all other men.

可是，自然並不造就和平和善意。「自然境界」的特徵是不可和解的衝突。每個人是其他所有的人的敵對者。生活資料是稀少的，養不活所有的人。衝突決不會消滅。如果有一幫人爲打擊共同的敵人而聯合起來，在敵人被消滅了以後，在這幫勝利者當中又會爲戰利品的分配問題而發生新的衝突。衝突的根源，總是在每個人的所得份都會減削別人的所得份。這是一個不容和平解決的難題。

What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. It removes the natural conflict of interests. For where there is division of labor, there is no longer question of the distribution of a supply not capable of enlargement. Thanks to the higher productivity of labor performed under the division of tasks, the supply of goods multiplies. A pre-eminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions. Catallactic competition is substituted for biological competition. It makes for harmony of the interests of all members of society. The very condition from which the irreconcilable conflicts of biological competition arise--viz., the fact that all people by and large strive after the same things--is transformed into a factor making for harmony of interests. Because many people or even all people want bread, clothes, shoes, and cars, large-scale production of these goods becomes feasible and reduces the costs of production to such an extent that they are accessible at low prices. The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier. What enhances the price of shoes is the fact that nature does not provide a more ample supply of leather

使得人與人之間的友好關係成爲可能的，是分工後的較高生產力。它消除了自然的利益衝突。因爲凡是有分工的地方，就不會再有「不可增加的供給量」的分配問題。幸虧在分工下勞動的較高生產力使財貨的供給量加倍增加。這是個顯著的共同利益。保持並加強分工與合作，會消滅一切根本上的衝突。行爲學上的競爭，代替了生物學上的競爭。它使社會全體份子的利益達於和諧。不可和解的生物學上的競爭所從而發生的那個條件——也即所有的人大體上是爭奪一些相同的東西這個事實——轉變成有利於利益協調的一個因素。因爲許多人，甚至所有的人都要麵包、衣服、鞋子、和車輛，所以，這些貨物的大規模生產才行得通，而且生產成本也因之減低，大家可以低價買到。與我同時同地的一些人，和我一樣，也需要鞋子這個事實，並不使我更難於得到鞋子，而是使我更易於得到，抬髙鞋子價格的是「自然沒有供給更多的皮革和其他必然的原料」以及「要把這些原料做成鞋子，必須忍受勞動的負效用」這個事實。那些和我一樣急想買到較便宜鞋子的人們的行爲學上的競爭，使鞋價便宜，而不是使鞋價更貴。

This is the meaning of the theorem of the harmony of the rightly understood interests of all members of the market society.[6] When the classical economists made this statement, they were trying to stress two points: First, that everybody is interested in the preservation of the social division of labor, the system that multiplies the productivity of human efforts. Second, that in the market society consumers' demand ultimately directs all production activities. The fact that not all human wants can be satisfied is not due to inappropriate social institutions or to deficiencies of the system of the market economy. It is a natural condition of human life. The belief that nature bestows upon man inexhaustible riches and that misery is an outgrowth of man's failure to organize the good society is entirely fallacious. The "state of nature" which the reformers and utopians depicted as paradisiac was in fact a state of extreme poverty and distress. "Poverty," says Bentham, "is not the work of the laws, it is the primitive condition of the human race." [7] Even those at the base of the social pyramid are much better off than they would have been in the absence of social cooperation. They too are benefitted by the operation of the market economy and participate in the advantages of civilized society.

這就是關於市場社會中，全體份子之利益的正確了解的利益和諧定理的意義[6]。當古典經濟學家作這個陳述時，他們是要強調兩點：第一、每個人都利於社會分工的保持，這個制度使勞動的生產力加倍增多。第二、在市場社會裡面，消費者的需求終於指導一切生產活動。「不是所有的人的慾望都可滿足」這個事實，不是由於不適當的社會制度或市場經濟制度的缺陷。這是人生的一個自然狀態。「启然賜予人類不竭的財富丄「貧窮苦難是由於人們不能組成一個好的社會」這個信念是完全錯誤的。改革家和空想家描述成天堂般的那種「自然境界」，事實上是一個極端貧困的境界。邊沁說過：「貧窮不是法律的作品，而是人類的原始狀態」[7]。這就是說，就社會最底層的人們來講，也比沒有社會合作時的人們，生活好得多。他們也受惠於市場經濟的運作而分享文明社會的利益。

The nineteenth-century reformers did not drop the cherished fable of the original earthly paradise. Frederick Engels incorporated it in the Marxian account of mankind's social evolution. However, they no longer set up the bliss of the aurea aetas as a pattern for social and economic reconstruction. They contrast the alleged depravity of capitalism with the ideal happiness man will enjoy in the socialist Elysium of the future. The socialist mode of production will abolish the fetters by means of which capitalism checks the development of the productive forces, and will increase the productivity of labor and wealth beyond all measure. The preservation of free enterprise and the private ownership of the means of production benefits exclusively the small minority of parasitic exploiters and harms the immense majority of working men. Hence there prevails within the frame of the market society an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of "capital" and those of "labor." This class struggle can disappear only when a fair system of social organization--either

十九世紀的改革家們也未放棄原始的人間天堂這種神話。恩格斯（Frederick Engels）把它納入馬克斯的人類社會進化論。但是，他們不再把黃金時代的極樂世界作爲社會經濟制度改造的模型。他們把他們所謂的資本主義的邪惡，和將來人們在社會主義的福地所可享受的理想幸福相對照。社會主義的生產方式將會解除資本主義用以箝制生產力發展的那些束縛，將會無限地提高勞動的生產力，無限地增加財富。自由企業和生產手段私有制的保存，只是有利於少數寄生的剝削者，對於大多數的工人是有害的。因此，在市場社會的架構裡面，「資方」和「勞方」之間不可和解的衝突總是盛行的。這種階級鬥爭的消失，只有在一個公平的社會組織——或者是社會主義的，或者是干涉主義的——代替了顯然不公平的資本主義生產方式的時候。

Such is the almost universally accepted social philosophy of our age. It was not created by Marx, although it owes its popularity mainly to the writings of Marx and the Marxians. It is today endorsed not only by the Marxians, but no less by most of those parties who emphatically declare their anti-Marxism and pay lip service to free enterprise. It is the official social philosophy of Roman Catholicism as well as of Anglo-Catholicism; it is supported by many eminent champions of the various Protestant denominations and of the Orthodox Oriental Church. It is an essential part of the teachings of Italian Fascism and of German nazism and of all varieties of interventionist doctrines. It was the ideology of the Sozialpolitik of the Hohenzollerns in Germany and of the French royalists aiming at the restoration of the house of Bourbon-Orleans, of the New Deal of President Roosevelt, and of the nationalists of Asia and Latin America. The antagonisms between these parties and factions refer to accidental issues--such as religious dogma, constitutional institutions, foreign policy--and, first of all, to the characteristic features of the social system that is to be substituted for capitalism. But they all agree in the fundamental thesis that the very existence of the capitalist system harms the vital interests of the immense majority of workers, artisans, and small farmers, and they all ask in the name of social justice for the abolition of capitalism.[8]

這樣的說法幾乎是我們這個時代普遍接受的社會哲學。這不是馬克斯創造的，儘管它的流行是由於馬克斯和馬克斯門徒們的著作。現在接受這個說法的，不僅是馬克斯的門徒們，有許多強調反馬克斯主義的人們以及口頭上贊成自由企業的人也接受它。它是羅馬天主敎的社會哲學，也是安格魯天主敎的社會哲學；新敎各派和東正敎中許多有名的人物也支持它。它是意大利的法西斯主義、德國的納粹主義，乃至各形各色干涉主義所共有的一個主要部份。它是德國Hohenzollerns皇室和法國力圖復辟Bourbon-Orleans王朝的保皇黨人的社會政治哲學，乃至美國羅斯福總統的新政以及亞洲和拉丁美洲的民族主義者所共同的意理。至於這些方面和黨派之間的對立或敵對，只是關於一些偶然事件——例如宗敎、敎條、憲政制度、外交政策——尤其重要的，是關於用以代替資本主義的那個社會制度的特質。但是，他們都同意於一個基本的說法，即：資本主義制度的存在，是有害於工人農民這絕大多數人的主要利益的；他們都以「社會正義」的口號要求廢除資本主義[8]。

All socialist and interventionist authors and politicians base their analysis and critique of the market economy on two fundamental

所有的社會主義和干涉主義的作家以及一些政客們，都是從兩個基本的錯誤觀點來分析批評市場經濟。第一、他們沒有看出：凡是爲將來的慾望滿足而作準備的一些努力——也即人的一切行爲——必然是投機性的。他們天眞地假定，關於用來爲消費者作最好準備的那些方法，是沒有什麼可懷疑的。在一個社會主義國家，不需要主管生産的獨裁者（production tsar或中央生產管理局）來投機（推測）。他「只」要用那些有利於他的子民們的那些方法。主張計畫經濟的人們從來沒有想到這個工作是要爲將來的慾望滿足作準備——將來的慾望是與今天的慾望不同的；是要以最方便的辦法爲這些不確定的未來慾望作最好的準備，而使用各種可用的生產因素。他們沒有想到，這個問題是要把稀少的生產要素分派在各種生產部門，而分派得使那些被認爲更迫切的慾望較那些次迫切的慾望先得到滿足。這個經濟問題決不可與技術問題混淆。技術知識只會吿訴我們，在我們現在的科學知識水準下，可以成就些什麼。它不答覆像「生産什麼」、「生產多少」，以及「在許多可採用的生產程序中，應該採用那一個」這一類的問題。主張計畫社會的人們，不懂得這個要點，所以，他們迷信主管生產的獨裁者在他的決定中不會有錯。在市場經濟裡面，企業家和資本家不能避免犯嚴重的錯誤，因爲他們旣不能正確地知道消費者想要什麼，也不能正確地知道，他們的競爭者要做什麼。社會主義國家的總經理，是不會犯錯的，因爲，只有他有權決定生產什麼和如何生產，也因爲沒有別人的行爲會干擾他的計畫[9]。

The second fundamental error involved in the socialists' critique of the market economy stems from their faulty theory of wages. They have failed to realize that wages are the price paid for the earner's achievement, i.e., for the contribution of his efforts to the processing of the good concerned or, as people say, for the value which his services add to the value of the materials. No matter whether there are time wages or piecework wages, the employer always buys the worker's performance and services, not his time. It is therefore

社會主義者對市場經濟的批評所涉及的第二個錯誤，是來自他們錯誤的工資理論。他們沒有看出工資是對工人的成就——他的努力對有關貨物之加工的貢獻——所支付的代價，或者如一般人所說，工人的勞務增加了原料的價値，工資是對這個價値所支付的代價。不管是計時的工資或計件的工資，僱主總是購買工人的勞務而不是購買他的時間。所以，「在未受束縛的市場經濟裡面，工人對於他的工作沒有親身的興趣」這種說法是不對的。社會主義者說，那些以每小時、每天、每週、每月，或每年爲單位賺得工資的工人，當工作有效率的時候，並不是受他們自己的自利心所驅使；這是最錯誤的說法。在論時計工制下的工人，之所以不敢疏忽、不敢胡混，並不是崇高的理想和責任感發生作用，而是一些很實在的論證在督促他。工作愈多、愈好的工人，协到愈高的報酬，想賺得更多的工人，必須增加他所完成的量，並改善他所完成的質。僱主們決不會糊塗到讓他們自己受懶惰工人的欺騙；他們決不會糊塗到像那些給成羣胡混的官僚們照例發放薪水的政府。工人們也不會愚昧到不知道偷懶和無效率是要在勞動市場上受嚴重懲罰的[10]。

On the shaky ground of their misconception of the catallactic nature of wages, the socialist authors have advanced fantastic fables about the increase in the productivity of labor to be expected from the realization of their plans. Under capitalism, they say, the worker's zeal is seriously impaired because he is aware of the fact that he himself does not reap the fruits of his labor and that his toil and trouble enrich merely his employer, this parasitic and idle exploiter. But under socialism every worker will know that he works for the benefit of society, of which he himself is a part. This knowledge will provide him with the most powerful incentive to do his best. An enormous increase in the productivity of labor and thereby in wealth will result.

社會主義的作家們旣把工資在行爲學上的性質誤解了，而又以這個誤解的工資論作基礎（這是個不穩定的基礎），提出關於「勞動生產力將因他們的計畫之實現而增加」這種異想天開的神話。他們說，在資本主義制度下，工人的工作熱情受到嚴重的損害，因爲他知道他自己不收穫他的勞動成果，他的辛辛苦苦只是增加僱主——寄生的不作事的剝削者——的財富。但是，在社會主義制度下，每個工人將會知道，他的工作是爲社會的利益，而他是這個社會的一份子。這個認識會促使他盡最大的努力來工作。勞動生產力於是大大地增加，因而財富也大大地增加。

However, the identification of the interests of each worker and those of the socialist commonwealth is a purely legalistic and formalistic fiction which has nothing to do with the real state of affairs. While the sacrifices an individual worker makes in intensifying his own exertion burden him alone, only an infinitesimal fraction of the produce of his additional exertion benefits himself and improves his own well-being. While the individual worker enjoys completely the pleasures he may reap by yielding to the temptation to carelessness and laziness, the resulting impairment of the social dividend curtails his own share only infinitesimally. Under such a socialist mode of production all personal incentives which selfishness provides under capitalism are removed, and a premium is put upon laziness and negligence. Whereas in a capitalist society selfishness incites everyone to the utmost diligence, in a socialist society it makes for inertia and laxity. The socialists may still babble about the miraculous change in human nature that

但是，把每個工人的利益與社會主義國家的利益視同一體，這純然是個法律上的和形式上的虛構，而與眞實的事情無關。一個工人在加強他的努力時所作的犧牲，只是他一個人單獨承擔，而那因他的加強努力而增加的生產，只有極小極小的一部份分到他，而改善他的福利。如果一個工人偷懶怠工，他就完全享受這休閒的快樂，至於因他的偷懶而減少的生產，對於他所分得的那一份，減少得微乎其微。在這樣一個社會主義的生產方式下，所有在資本主義制度下個人自利心發生的一切誘因，完全消失了，而且，還對偷惰的人給以獎賞。在資本主義制度下，自利心激發每個人的勤勞，在社會主義制度下，它使每個人懶惰。社會主義者還可胡扯地說：社會主義社會的降臨，會使人性發生神奇的改變，高尙的利他心將會取代卑鄙的自利心。但是，面對現有的經驗，他們再也不應該沉溺於這種神話了。[11]

No judicious man can fail to conclude from the evidence of these considerations that in the market economy the productivity of labor is incomparably higher than it would be under socialism. However, this cognition does not settle the question between the advocates of capitalism and those of socialism from a praxeological, i.e., scientific, point of view.

凡頭腦淸醒的人，都會從這些彰明較著的理由得到這個結論——在市場經濟裡面，勞動生產力比在社會主義制度下的，高得不能相提並論。但是，這個認識並沒有從行爲學的，也即科學的觀點，解決資本主義的擁護者與社會主義的擁護者之間的爭論。

A bona fide advocate of socialism who is free from bigotry, prepossession, and malice could still contend: "It may be true that P, the total net income turned out in a market society, is larger than p, the total net income turned out in a socialist society. But if the socialist system assigns to each of its members an equal share of p (viz., p/z = d), all those whose income in the market society is smaller than d are favored by the substitution of socialism for capitalism. It may happen that this group of people includes the majority of men. At any rate it becomes evident that the doctrine of the harmony between the rightly understood interests of all members of the market society is untenable. There is a class of men whose interests are hurt by the very existence of the market economy and who would be better off under socialism." The advocates of the market economy contest the conclusiveness of this reasoning. They believe that p will lag so much behind P that d will be smaller than the income which even those earning the lowest wages get in the market society. there can be no doubt that this objection is well founded. However, it is not based on praxeological considerations and therefore lacks the apodictic and incontestable argumentative power inherent in a praxeological demonstration. It is based on a judgment of relevance, the quantitative appraisal of the difference between the two magnitudes P and p. In the field of human action such quantitative cognition is obtained by understanding, with regard to which full agreement between men cannot be reached. Praxeology, economics, and catallactics are of no use for the settlement of such dissensions concerning quantitative issues.

不頑固、沒有偏見，且具有善意的社會主義者還可這樣說：「在市場社會裡面生產出來的淨所得總額P，可能大於社會主義社會所生產出來的淨所得總額p。但是，如果社會主義制度把p平均地分攤給社會所有的份子（也即，p/z=d），則那些在市場社會裡面，其所得小於d的人們，將會因爲社會主義替代了資本主義而得到利益。而且，這一組人可能是社會的大多數。不管怎樣，市場社會全體份子的利益和諧這個說法之站不住，是很明顯的。由於市場經濟的存在，有一羣人的利益是受害的，如果在社會主義制度下，他們的生活就好得多。」對於這個論斷，自由主義者們有異議。他們相信p會遠遠地落在P後，以致d會小於市場經濟裡面賺得最低工資的那些人的所得。自由主義者提出的這個反對論，無疑地很有根據。但是，他們對社會主義者的一些論點所加的駁斥，卻不是基於行爲學上的考慮，所以缺少行爲學的論證所固有的那種明確而不容爭辯的說服力。它是基於一個有關聯的判斷，P與p兩個數量之差的估計。在人的行爲方面，這種數量的知識是得之於領悟，關於領悟是不能得到大家完全同意的。行爲學、經濟學、和交換論都無助於這樣的數量問題的紛爭之解決。

The advocates of socialism could even go farther and say: "Granted that each individual will be worse off under socialism than even the poorest under capitalism. Yet we spurn the market economy in spite of the fact that it supplies everybody with more goods than socialism. We disapprove of capitalism on ethical grounds as an unfair and amoral system. We prefer socialism on grounds commonly called non-economic and put up with the fact that it impairs everybody's well-being." [12] It cannot be denied that this haughty indifference with regard to material well-being is a privilege reserved to ivory-tower intellectuals, secluded from reality, and to ascetic anchorites. What made socialism popular with the immense majority of its supporters was, on the contrary, the illusion that it would supply them with more amenities than capitalism. But however this may be, it is obvious that this type of prosocialist argumentation cannot be touched by the liberal reasoning concerning the productivity of labor.

社會主義的鼓吹者還可再進一步說：「即令在社會主義制度下，每個人比資本主義制度下最窮的人還窮，我們還是要拒絕資本主義。我們基於倫理的理由，看到資本主義是不公平的、不道德的制度而不贊成它。我們基於通常所說的非經濟的理由而贊成社會主義，即令它減損了每個人的物質福利，我們也寧願忍受。」[12]這種對物質福利傲然無動於中的態度，是一些逃避現實的象牙塔裡的知識份子和禁慾的隱士們的特權，這是不容否認的。可是，相反地，使得社會主義受人歡迎而博得許許多多的人擁護它的，卻是「它會比资本主義給大家更多的生活舒適」這一幻想。但是，無論如何，這樣偏袒社會主義的議論，不是那些從勞動生產力方面來理論的自由主義者所能影響的。這一點是很明顯的。

If no other objections could be raised to the socialist plans than that socialism will lower the standard of living of all or at least of the immense majority, it would be impossible for praxeology to pronounce a final judgment. Men would have to decide the issue between capitalism and socialism on the ground of judgments of value and of judgments of relevance. They would have to choose between the two systems as they choose between many other things. No objective standard could be discovered which would make it possible to settle the dispute in a manner which allows no contradiction and must be accepted by every sane individual. The freedom of each man's choice and discretion would not be annihilated by inexorable necessity. However, the true state of affairs is entirely different. Man is not in a position to choose between these two systems. Human cooperation under the system of the social division of labor is possible only in the market economy. Socialism is not a realizable system of society's economic organization because it lacks any method of economic calculation. To deal with this fundamental problem is the task of the fifth part of this book.

如果對於社會主義的計畫所提出的反對理由只是說「社會主義將會降低所有的人，或者至少是大多數人的生活水準」，再也沒有其他的理由提出，那麼，就行爲學來講，要宣佈一個最後判斷，那是不可能的。人們應該基於價値判斷的立場和關聯判斷的立場，來判決资本主義與社會主義之間的爭論。他們應該在兩個制度之間來選擇，正如同在許多別的東西之間加以選擇。我們無法發現一個客觀的標準，可以把這個爭論解決得叫每個頭腦淸醒的人都同意。每個人的選擇自由和判斷自由，不可用任何藉口來消滅。可是，事情的眞相完全不同。在這兩個制度之間是不容選擇的。人類的分工合作只有在市場經濟裡面才有可能。社會主義是一個不能實現的社會經濟組織制度，因爲它缺乏任何經濟計算法。對於這個基本問題的討論，是本書第五篇的事情。

The establishment of this truth does not amount to a depreciation of the conclusiveness and the convincing power of the antisocialist argument derived from the impairment of productivity to be expected

確認這個事實，並不等於眨抑從生產力方面推論出來的社會主義反對論的確實性和說服力。這個反對論是很有力的，以致淸醒的人誰都不遲疑地選擇資本主義。可是，這種說法仍然是社會經濟組織的不同制度之間的一種選擇，接受一個制度，拒絕另一個制度。但是，這不是二中取一的事情。社會主義不可能實現，因爲這樣的一個社會制度之建立是人力做不到的。這個選擇不是兩個制度之間的選擇，而是資本主義與混亂之間的選擇。在一杯牛乳和一杯鉀氰化合的溶液之間來選擇的人，不是在兩種飮料之間選擇，而是選擇於生死之間。一個社會，在資本主義和社會主義之間選擇，不是在兩種社會制度之間選擇，而是選擇於社會合作和社會解體之間。社會主義不是資本主義的替代物；它是我們人類能在其中過著人的生活的任何制度的替代物。強調這一點，是經濟學的任務，正如同強調鉀氰化合的溶液不是飮料，而是致命的毒物，乃是生物學和化學的任務一樣。

The convincing power of the productivity argument is in fact so irresistible that the advocates of socialism were forced to abandon their old tactics and to resort to new methods. They are eager to divert attention from the productivity issue by throwing into relief the monopoly problem. All contemporary socialist manifestoes expatiate on monopoly power. Statesmen and professors try to outdo one another in depicting the evils of monopoly. Our age is called the age of monopoly capitalism. The foremost argument advanced today in favor of socialism is the reference to monopoly.

事實上，生產力的議論是有堅強的說服力的，以致社會主義的鼓吹者不得不放棄他們的舊策略而耍新的手法。他們急於想轉移論點，而把獨占問題抬出來大事喧嚷。所有現代的社會主義宣言，無不在獨占這個問題上面大做文章。政治家和敎授們也爭先恐後地描述獨占的罪惡。我們這個時代，簡直被叫做獨占資本主義的時代。今天，偏袒社會主義的前鋒議論，都是涉及獨占問題的。

Now, it is true that the emergence of monopoly prices (not of monopoly as such without monopoly prices) creates a discrepancy between the interests of the monopolist and those of the consumers. The monopolist does not employ the monopolized good according to the wishes of the consumers. As far as there are monopoly prices, the interests of the monopolists take precedence over those of the public and the democracy of the market is restricted. with regard to monopoly prices there is not harmony, but conflict of interests.

不錯，獨占價格的出現（不是指未索取獨占價格的獨占之出現），引起了獨占者與消費者之間的利益衝突。獨占者不是按照消費者的願望來生產獨占貨物的。獨占價格高到什麼程度，獨占者利益就優於大衆的利益到什麼程度，而且，市場的民主也就受到限制。有了獨占價格，就有了利益衝突，而非利益和諧。

It is possible to contest these statements with regard to the monopoly prices received in the sale of articles under patents and copyrights. One may argue that in the absence of patent and copyright legislation these books, compositions, and technological innovations would never have come into existence. The public pays monopoly prices for things it would not have enjoyed at all under competitive prices. However, we may fairly disregard this issue. It has little to do with the great monopoly controversy of our day. When people deal with the evils of monopoly, they imply that there prevails within the unhampered

關於在專利權和版權制度下，因出賣物品而接受獨占價格的那些說法，是可能發生爭論的。我們可以這樣說：如果沒有專利權和版權的立法，則這些書籍、樂譜、技術的創新不會出現。大衆支付獨占價格所買到的東西，是在競爭價格下所買不到的東西。但是，我們很可不管這個問題。這與我們今天大獨占的爭論沒有什麼關係。當人們討論獨占的壞處的時候，他們所指的是，在那未受束縛的市場經濟裡面，有個一般的而不可避免的趨勢，趨向於以獨占價格替代競爭價格。他們說，這是「成熟的」或「後期的」資本主義的特徵。不管在早期資本主義的演進中情形是怎樣，也不管對古典經濟學家關於正確了解的利益和諧這個說法的有效性是如何想法，現在再也沒有像和諧這樣的問題了。

As has been pointed out already, [13] there is no such tendency toward monopolization. It is a fact that with many commodities in many countries monopoly prices prevail, and moreover, some articles are sold at monopoly prices on the world market. However, almost all of these instances of monopoly prices are the outgrowth of government interference with business. They were not created by the interplay of the factors operating on a free market. They are not products of capitalism, but precisely of the endeavors to counteract the forces determining the height of the market prices. It is a distortion of fact to speak of monopoly capitalism. It would be more appropriate to speak of monopoly interventionism or of monopoly statism.

上面曾經指出[13]獨占化的趨勢是沒有的。許多國家有許多貨物是以獨占價格出賣的，而且，還有許多貨物在世界市場上以獨占價格出賣。但是，幾乎所有的這些獨占價格的事例，都是政府干涉的結果。它們不是產生於那些活動於自由市場上的因素的相互作用。它們不是資本主義的產物，而是爲抵銷巿場價格的決定力量而作的那些努力所引起的後果。說到「獨占的資本主義」，這是歪曲事實的說法，更恰當的說法應該是說「獨占的干涉主義」，或「獨占的國家主義」。

Those instances of monopoly prices which would appear also on a market not hampered and sabotaged by the interference of the various national governments and by conspiracies between groups of governments are of minor importance. They concern some raw materials the deposits of which are few and geographically concentrated, and local limited-space monopolies. However, it is a fact that in these cases monopoly prices can be realized even in the absence of government policies aiming directly or indirectly at their establishment. It is necessary to realize that consumers' sovereignty is not perfect and that there are limits to the operation of the democratic process of the market. There is in some exceptional and rare cases of minor importance even on a market not hampered and sabotaged by government interference an antagonism between the interests of the owners of factors of production and those of the rest of the people. However, the existence of such antagonisms by no means impairs the concord of the interests of all people with regard to the preservation of the market economy. The market economy is the only system of society's economic organization that can function and really has been functioning. Socialism is unrealizable because of its inability to develop a method for economic calculation. Interventionism must result in a state of affairs which, from the point of view of its advocates,

至於那些在一個不受束縛和政府干涉的市場上也會出現的獨占價格，是屬於次要的。這些獨占價格是些產量不多，而集中於某些地區的原料的價格，因而是地域性的有限空間的獨占。可是，在這種情形下，即令政府的政策旣沒有直接也沒有間接要建立獨占價格，而獨占價格也是會出現的。消費者的主權，不是完全的，市場的民主程序，也是有些運作上的限制的，這是我們所必須承認的。在某些例外而稀少的次要事例中，即令在一個未受政府干涉的束縛和破壞的市場上，生產要素的所有主和別人之間的衝突也是有的。但是，這些衝突的存在，並不損害市場經濟裡面大家利益的一致性。市場經濟是個唯一能夠運作，而且實際上已經在運作的社會經濟組織。社會主義是不能實現的，因爲它弄不出一個經濟計算的方法。干涉主義所引起的後果，從它的主張者的觀點來看，一定比它所想更換的那個不受束縛的市場經濟的情形要壞些。而且，當它推行到超越了一個狭窄的實用範圍以後，它就要馬上毀掉它自己[14]。情形旣是這樣，唯一能夠保持並進而加強社會分工的社會秩序，就是市場經濟。凡是不願社會合作歸於瓦解，而回復到原始野蠻狀態的人們，都樂於市場經濟永久保持下去。

The classical economists' teachings concerning the harmony of the rightly understood interests were defective in so far as they failed to recognize the fact that the democratic process of the market is not perfect, because in some instances of minor importance, even in the unhampered market economy, monopoly prices may appear. But much more conspicuous was their failure to recognize that and why no socialist system can be considered as a system of society's economic organization. They based the doctrine of the harmony of interests upon the erroneous assumption that there are no exceptions to the rule that the owners of the means of production are forced by the market process to employ their property according to the wishes of the consumers. Today this theorem must be based on the knowledge that no economic calculation is feasible under socialism.

古典經濟學家關於正確了解的利益和諧那些敎義，是有些缺點的，他們沒有看到市場的民主程序是不完全的，因爲，在某些次要的事例中，即令在未受束縛的市場經濟裡面，獨占價格也會出現。但是，更爲明顯的是，他們沒有看到社會主義決不能被認爲是社會經裙組織的一個制度。古典經濟學家的利益和諧論，是基於一個錯誤的假設，以爲毫無例外地，生產要素的所有主總是受市場程序的驅使，不得不按照消費者的願望來運用他的資產。現在，這個命題必須放在「在社會主義下沒有經濟計算的可能」這個知識的基礎上。

-----------------

[6] For "rightly understood" interests we may as well say interests "in the long run."

[6] 我們也可用「長期的利益」來代替「正確了解的利益」。

[7] Cf. Betham, Pinricples of the Civil Code, in "Works," I, 309.

[7] 參考Betham, Pinricples of the Civil Code, in "Works," I, 309.

[8] The offical doctrine of the Roman Church is outlined in the encyclical Quadragismo anno of Pope Pius XI (1931). The Anglo-Catholic doctrine is presented by the late William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the book Christianity and the Social Order (Penguin Special, 1942). Representative of the ideas of Eureopean continental Protestantism is the book of Emil Brunner, Justice and the Social Order, trans. by M. Hottinger (New York, 1945). A highly significant document is the section on "The Church and Disorder of Society" of the draft report which the World Council of Chruches in September, 1948, recommnded for appropriate action to the one hundred and fifty odd denominations whose delegates are member of the Council. For the ideas of Nicolas Berdyawe, the most eminent apolgist of Russian Orthodosy, cf. his book The Origin of Russian Communism (London, 1937), especially pp. 217-218 and 225. It is often asserted that an essential difference between the Marxians and the other socialist and interventionist parties is to be found in the fact that the Marxians stand for class struggle, while the latter parties look at the class struggle as upon a deplorable outgrowth of the irreconcilable conflict of class interest inherent in capitalism and want to overcome it by the realization of the reforms they recommend. However, the Marxians do not praise and kindle the class struggle for its own sake. In their eyes the class struggle is good only because it is the device by means of which the "productive forces," those mysterious forces directing the course of human evolution, are bound to bring about the "classless" society in which there will be enither classes nor class conflicts.

[8] 羅馬敎會的官方敎條摘錄於敎皇Pius XI的通諭Quadragismo anno (1931)。安格魯天主敎的敎條是由Canterbury的大主敎William Temple寫在Christianity and the Social Order (Penguin Special, 1942)這本書裡面的。歐洲大陸新敎敎義的代表作，是Emil Brunner的Justice and the Social Order這本書（M. Hottinger譯。New York, 1945。）。一件很有意義的文獻是一九四八年九月the World Council of Chruches提出的報吿裡面論「敎會與社會混亂」這一節。這件報吿是向出席會議的一百五十個舊宗派的代表們建議採取適當行動。關於俄國東正敎最傑出的說敎者Nicolas Berdyawe的一些想法，參考他的The Origin of Russian Communism (London, 1937)，尤其是pp.217-218和225。我們常常聽說：馬克斯黨人與其他社會主義及干涉主義黨人之間的主要不同，是馬克斯黨人主張階級鬥爭，而其他黨派則把階級鬥爭看作資本主義制度下階級利益衝突的一個可悲的結果，而想用他們所推薦的改革來消除它。但是，馬克斯黨人並不是爲階級鬥爭而鼓吹階級鬥爭。在他們的心目中，階級鬥爭之所以是好的，只是因爲它是一個有用的手段，憑這個手段，「生產力」（在馬克斯主義中，生產力是指導人類演進過程的一個神秘力量）就必然使「無階級的」社會實現，在這樣的社會裡面，旣無階級，當然也就無階級衝突。

[9]The thorough exposure of this delusion is provided by the proof of the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. See below the fifth part of this book.

[9] 關於這個迷信的徹底揭穿，見本書第五篇論社會主義制度下經濟計算的不可能。

[10] Cf. above, pp. 600-602.

[10] 參考第二十一章第五節。

[11] The doctrine refuted in the text found its most brilliant expositor in John Stuard Mill (Principles of Political Economy

[11] 本文所駁斥的這個敎條，John Stuard Mill是個最好的說明者。（參考Principles of Political Economy

[12] This mode of reasoning was mainly resorted to by some eminent champions of Christian socialism. The Marxians used to recommend socialism on the ground that it would multiply productivity and bring unprecedented material wealth to everybody. Only lately have they changed their tactics. They declar that the Russian worker is happier than the American worker in spite of the fact that his standard of lving is much lower; the knowledge that he lives under a fair system compensates by far for all his material hardships.

[12] 這種議論方式，是許多有名的基督敎社會主義的宣傳家所常用的。馬克斯的門徒之宣揚社會主義，則是基於「社會主義會使生產力倍增，而爲每個人帶來空前的物質福利」這個理由。僅僅是在最近，他們才改變他們的宣傳策略。他們宣稱，蘇俄的工人比美國的工人更快樂，儘管他們的生活水準比美國工人低得多；因爲，他們知道，他們是生活在一個公平的社會制度下，就憑這一點，就可補償物質的困苦而有餘。

[13] Cf. above, p. 366.

[13] 參考第十六章第六節。

[14] Cf. the sixth part of this book.

[14] 參考本書第六篇。

4. Private Property

四、私有財產

Private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental institution of the market economy. It is the institution the presence of which characterizes the market economy as such. Where it is absent, there is no question of a market economy.

生產手段的私有權，是市場經濟的基本建構。這個建構的存在是市場經濟之所以爲市場經濟的特徵。凡是沒有這個建構的地方，那就沒有市場經濟的問題。

Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good. This catallactic notion of ownership and property rights is not to be confused with the legal definition of ownership and property rights as stated in the laws of various countries. It was the idea of legislators and courts to define the legal concept of property in such a way as to give to the proprietor full protection by the governmental apparatus of coercion and compulsion and to prevent anybody from encroaching upon his rights. As far as this purpose was adequately realized, the legal concept of property rights corresponded to the catallactic concept. However, nowadays there are tendencies to abolish the institution of private property by a change in the laws determining the scope of the actions which the proprietor is entitled to undertake with regard to the things which are his property. While retaining the term private property, these reforms aim at the

所有權就是對那些會來自財貨的勞務之充份控制。這個行爲學上的所有權和財產權觀念，有別於各國法律所陳述的所有權和財產權的定義。政府機構以強制辦法使任何人得免於權利之被侵佔，因而給了財產所有者之充份的保障，這是立法者和法庭所持有的財產的法律概念。如果這個目的適當地實現了，則財產權的法律概念與行爲學的概念是一致的。但是，現在的情形不是如此，而是有了一些廢除私有財產的趨勢，即經由法律的改變，把財產所有主對他的財產有權作的那些事情的範圍改變了。這些改革，固然保留私有財產這個名詞，而其目的在於以公有替代私有。這個趨勢是各派基督敎社會主義和國家社會主義者所提出的計畫的顯著特徵。但是，這些派別的領袖們，像納粹哲學家Othmar Spann那樣直言不諱的倒也不多。Spann曾明白宣稱，他的計畫一實現，私有權這個建構，將只保留「形式的意義，事實上只有公有權。」[15]爲著免於流行的謬見和混淆，對於這些事情有提出的必要。行爲學在討論私有財產的時候，是討論實際的控制，而不是討論法律的一些名詞、概念和定義。私有財產是指財產所有主決定生產要素的使用，而財產公有，則是指政府控制生產要素的使用。

Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor.

私有財產是個合乎人性的設計。它不是神聖的。它在歷史的早期就已出現了，那時，人們用他們自己的能力，把那些尙未成爲任何人財產的東西據爲己有。有財產的人，其財產一再地被沒收。私有財產史可追溯到它是發源於一些非合法的行爲。但是，現在每個財產所有主或者是直接的，或者是間接的合法繼承人，被繼承者之得到所有權，或由於據有無主之物，或由於強奪別人。

However, the fact that legal formalism can trace back every title either to arbitrary appropriation or to violent expropriation has no significance whatever for the conditions of a market society. Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind's history, are no longer of any concern for our day. For in an unhampered market society the consumers daily decide anew who should own and how much he should own. The consumers allot control of the means of production to those who know how to use them best for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Only in a legal and formalistic sense can the owners be considered the successors of appropriators and expropriators. In fact, they are mandataries of the consumers, bound by the operation of the market to serve the consumers best. Under capitalism, private property is the consummation of the self-determination of the consumers.

每一筆合法財產權或可追溯到自由據有，或可追溯到強行掠奪。但是，不管怎樣，這對於市場社會的情況沒有什麼關係。市場經濟的所有權，再也不和私有財產的遠古起源相聯關。遠古發生的那些事情，淹沒在原始人類史的黑暗中，無關於我們的今天。因爲，在一個未受束縛的市場社會裡面，消費者天天在重新決定，誰應該保有財產以及自該保有多少。消費者把生產手段的支配權分派給那些最善於用它們來滿足消費者最迫切慾望的那些人。只有在法律的和形式主義的意義下，財產所有主纔可被看作自由占有者或強行掠奪者的繼承人。事實上，他們是受消費者的委託，受市場運作的指導而爲消費者好好服務的一些人。資本主義，是消費者羣的自決所成就的一種經濟秩序。

The meaning of private property in the market society is radically different from what it is under a system of each household's autarky.

私有財產在市場社會裡面的意義，與那在每個家庭自給自足制度下的意義，根本不同。在每個家庭經濟自給自足的場合，私有的生產手段，完全是爲財產所有主服務。只有他收穫那些從財產運用得來的全部利益。在市場社會裡面，資本和土地的所有主如想享受財產的利益，必須利用財產來滿足別人的慾望。爲著要從自己的所有權得到利益，他們必須爲消費者服務。正由於他們保有生產手段這個事實，使得他們不得不順從大衆的願望。財產權只對那些知道以最好方法爲消費者的利益來利用的人們而言，纔是一項資產。這是一個社會功能。

--------------

[15] Cf. Spann, der wahre Staat (Leipzig, 1921), p. 249.

[15] 參考Spann, der wahre Staat (Leipzig, 1921), p. 249.

5. The Conflicts of Our Age

五、我們這個時代的一些衝突

Popular opinion sees the source of the conflicts which bring about the civil wars and international wars of our age in the collision of "economic" interests inherent in the market economy. Civil war is the rebellion of the "exploited" masses against the "exploiting" classes. Foreign war is the revolt of the "have-not" nations against those nations who have appropriated to themselves an unfair share of the earth's natural resources and, with insatiable greed, want to snatch even more of this wealth destined for the use of all. He who in face of these facts speaks of the harmony of the rightly understood interests, is either a moron or an infamous apologist of a manifestly unjust social order. No intelligent and honest man could fail to realize that there prevail today irreconcilable conflicts of material interests which can be settled only by recourse to arms.

通常的看法總以爲，我們這個時代引起國內和國際戰爭的根源是市場經濟所固有的一些「經濟」利益的衝突。內戰是「被剝削的」大衆對「剝削」階級的造反。國際戰爭是一些「無」的國家對那些把自然資源不公平地據爲己有的國家的反抗。面對這些事實而還講正確了解的利益和諧，這種人如果不是白癡，就是替不公平的社會秩序做辯護的壞人。明智而誠實的人，誰也不會看不出今天有些不可和解而只能用武力解決的衝突普及各處。

It is certainly true that our age is full of conflicts which generate war. However, these conflicts do not spring from the operation of the unhampered market society. It may be permissible to call them economic conflicts because they concern that sphere of human life which is, in common speech, known as the sphere of economic activities. But it is a serious blunder to infer from this appellation that the source of these conflicts are conditions which develop within the frame of a market society. It is not capitalism that produces them, but precisely the anticapitalistic policies designed to check the functioning of capitalism. They are an outgrowth of the various governments' interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital.

我們這個時代確確實實充滿了引起戰爭的衝突。但是這些衝突不是發生於未受束縛的市場社會的運作。我們也可以把它叫做經濟衛突，因爲它們關涉到通常所說的經濟活動方面的生活面。但是，如果從這個名稱而推論到這些衝突的根源是在市場社會裡面發展出來的那些情況，這就是嚴重的大錯。產生這些衝突的，不是資本主義，倒是那些目的在於阻礙資本主義功能的反資本主義的政策。這些衝突是來自各形各色的政府干涉：干涉工商業、限制移民、歧視外國的勞工、外國的產品、外國的資本。

None of these conflicts could have emerged in an unhampered market economy. Imagine a world in which everybody were free to live and work as entrepreneur or as employee where he wanted and how he chose, and ask which of these conflicts could still exist.

這些衝突，不會從未受束縛的市場經濟裡面產生。試想像這樣的一個世界：在那裡面每個人都自由生活、自由工作，想到那裡去就可到那裡去，想如何選擇就可如何選擇，試問這些衝突的那一項還會存在。試想像這樣的一個世界，在那裡面生產手段私有這個原則完全實現，資本、勞動和貨物的流動沒有任何障礙，法律、法庭、和行政官吏都不歧視任何個人或團體，不管是本國的或外國的。試想像這樣的一種情況：政府的任務只限於保護個人的生命、健康、和財產，以免暴力或詐欺的侵害。在這樣的一個世界裡面，畫在地圖上的國家疆界不妨礙任何人追求他所認爲値得追求的事物。在這種情形下，任何人都不會對自己國家疆界的擴張有何興趣，因爲他不能從這擴張得到什麼利益。征服別國不値得，戰爭變成無用的行爲。

In the ages preceding the rise of liberalism and the evolution of modern capitalism, people for the most part consumed only what could be produced out of raw materials available in their own neighborhood. The development of the international division of labor has radically altered this state of affairs. Food and raw materials imported from distant countries are articles of mass consumption. the most advanced European nations could do without these imports only at the price of a very considerable lowering of their standard of living. They must pay for the badly needed purchase of minerals, lumber, oil, cereals, fat, coffee, tea, cocoa, fruit, wool, and cotton by exporting manufactures, most of them processed out of imported raw materials. Their vital interests are hurt by the protectionist trade policies of the countries producing these primary products.

在自由主義興起和現代資本主義出現以前的時代，絕大部份的人們只消費在他們附近可以得到的那些原料製成的東西。國際分工的發展大太地改變了這個情勢。從遙遠的國家輸進來的食物和原料是一般大衆消費的東西。歐洲最進步的一些國家，只有在物價高到使他們的生活標準大大降低的時候才不要這些輸入品。他們對於那些迫切需要的鑛物、木材、油類、穀物、脂肪、咖啡、茶葉、可可、水果、羊毛、和棉花等的輸入，必須靠輸出工業產品以支付代價，這些工業產品大都由輸入的原料加工製成的。他們的主要利益受害於農產品生產國的保護貿易政策。

Two hundred years ago it was of little concern to the Swedes or the Swiss whether or not a non-European country was efficient in utilizing its natural resources. But today economic backwardness in a foreign country, endowed by rich natural resources, hurts the interests of all those whose standard of living could be raised if a more appropriate mode of utilizing this natural wealth were adopted. The principle of each nation's unrestricted sovereignty is in a world of government interference with business a challenge to all other nations. The conflict between the have-nots and the haves is a real conflict. But it is present only in a world in which any sovereign government is free to hurt the interests of all peoples--its own included--by depriving the consumers of the advantages a better exploitation of this country's resources would give them. It is not sovereignty as such that makes for war, but sovereignty of governments not entirely committed to the principles of the market economy.

兩百年以前，一個非歐洲國家是否有效率地利用它的自然資源，對於瑞典或瑞士，沒有什麼關係。今天的情形，就不同了。一個富有自然資源的外國，如果經濟落後，就會傷害到所有別的國家，假定這些別的國家的生活水準要靠那些國家的自然資源之適當利用才可提高的話。每個國家的無限主權這個原則，在政府干涉工商業的世界裡面，是對所有國家的一個挑戰。「有的」國家與「無的」國家之間的衝突是實在的衝突。但是，這種衝突只是在一定的情況下才發生，即任何主權政府可以自由妨害本國資源的好好利用，以致剝奪了消費者所可得到的利益，因而傷害了所有有關的各國人民（包括本國的）。在這種情況下，上述的衝突才會發生。引起戰爭的，不是主權本身，而是那些不服從市場經濟原則的政府所運用的主權。

Liberalism did not and does not build its hopes upon abolition of

自由主義不會、而且也未曾把它的希望建立在各國政府的主權之廢除上，這是個會引起不斷戰爭的冒險。自由主義的目的在於經濟自由這個觀念之獲得普遍承認。如果所有各國的人民都成爲自由主義者而認識到經濟自由最有益於他們自己，則國家主權再也不會惹起衝突和戰爭。維持永久和平的必要條件，旣不是國際條約和盟約，也不是國際法庭以及那已瓦解的國際聯盟和它的後繼者聯合國這一類的組織。如果市場經濟的原則被普遍接受，則像這一類的權宜辦法都是不必要的；如果這個原則不被接受，那些辦法終歸無用。永久和平只會是些意理改變的結果。只要人們固執Montaigne敎條而認爲經濟繁榮只有靠犧牲別國才可求得，則和平也者，不過是下一次戰爭的預備期。

Economic nationalism is incompatible with durable peace. Yet economic nationalism is unavoidable where there is government interference with business. Protectionism is indispensable where there is no domestic free trade. Where there is government interference with business, free trade even in the short run would frustrate the aims sought by the various interventionist measures.[16]

經濟國家主義與永久和平是不相容的。可是凡在政府干涉工商業的地方，經濟國家主義是無法避免的。凡在沒有國內自由貿易的地方，保護主義是免不了的。凡在政府干涉工商業的地方，自由貿易即令在短期以內，也會使各種干涉政策所追求的目標終歸失敗[16]。

It is an illusion to believe that a nation would lastingly tolerate other nations' policies which harm the vital interest of its own citizens. Let us assume that the United Nations had been established in the year 1600 and that the Indian tribes of North America had been admitted as members of this organization. Then the sovereignty of these Indians would have been recognized as inviolable. They would have been given the right to exclude all aliens from entering their territory and from exploiting its rich natural resources which they themselves did not know how to utilize. Does anybody really believe that any international covenant or charter could have prevented the Europeans from invading these countries?

如果相信一個國家會長久容忍別國嚴重地傷害本國國民的那些政策，那就是個幻想。我們假想聯合國早在一六〇〇年已經成立，而北美的一些印第安部落被承認爲聯合國的會員國。於是這些印第安國的主權應該被承認爲不可侵犯的。他們有權排斥所有的外人，不讓外人進入他們的領土，不讓外人利用他們自己所不知道利用的自然资源。有誰眞會相信國際盟約或窻章會防止歐洲人不侵入這些國家？

Many of the richest deposits of various mineral substances are located in areas whose inhabitants are too ignorant, too inert, or too dull to take advantage of the riches nature has bestowed upon them. If the governments of these countries prevent aliens from exploiting these deposits, or if their conduct of public affairs is so arbitrary that no foreign peoples whose material well-being could be improved by a more adequate utilization of the deposits concerned. It does not matter

地球上有許多極豐富的鑛藏而所在地的居民太無知、太懶情、或太笨拙，因而不能利用自然賜予的這些資源。如果這些國家的政府阻止外人開發，或者那些政府的作爲，武斷到使外人的投資沒有完全保障，那麼，對於所有有關各國的人民是嚴重的損害。因爲他們的物質福利可以因這些鑛藏的更善利用而增進。這些政府的這種政策無論是文化落後的結果，還是推行干涉主義和經濟國家主義這一類時髦觀念的結果，這都不關事。這兩種情形的結果是一樣的。

There is no use in conjuring away these conflicts by wishful thinking. What is needed to make peace durable is a change in ideologies. What generates war is the economic philosophy almost universally espoused today by governments and political parties. As this philosophy sees it, there prevail within the unhampered market economy irreconcilable conflicts between the interests of various nations. Free trade harms a nation; it brings about impoverishment. It is the duty of government to prevent the evils of free trade by trade barriers. We may, for the sake of argument, disregard the fact that protectionism also hurts the interests of the nations which resort to it. But there can be no doubt that protectionism aims at damaging the interests of foreign peoples and really does damage them. It is an illusion to assume that those injured will tolerate other nations' protectionism if they believe that they are strong enough to brush it away by the use of arms. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. The wars of our age are not at variance with popular economic doctrines; they are, on the contrary, the inescapable result of a consistent application of these doctrines.

靠一廂情願的想法來消除這些衝突，是無濟於事的。造就持久和平的必要條件是一些意理的改變。惹起戰爭的，是現在的一些政府和政黨所幾乎一致採納的那個經濟哲學。照這種哲學看來，在未受束縛的市場經濟裡面，各國間的利益有些不可和解的衝突。自由貿易對國家有害；它帶來貧窮。用貿易壁壘來阻止自由貿易爲害，這是政府的職責。爲著論證簡便起見，我們且不提「保護政策也會傷害採行這個政策的國家利益」這個事實。但是無疑地，保護主義的目的在損害外國人的利益，而且也實實在在損害了他們。如果那被害者自認爲其國力已經到足以武力排除別國的保護政策的時候，而你還相信那被害者仍會容忍別國的保護政策，那眞是幻想。保護主義的哲學是一種戰爭哲學。我們這個時代的一些戰爭，不是與流行的一些經濟學說不相容的，恰相反，它們正是實行這些學說的必然結果。

The League of Nations did not fail because its organization was deficient. It failed because it lacked the spirit of genuine liberalism. It was a convention of governments imbued with the spirit of economic nationalism and entirely committed to the principles of economic warfare. While the delegates indulged in mere academic talk about good will among the nations, the governments whom they represented inflicted a good deal of evil upon all other nations. The two decades of the League's functioning were marked by each nation's adamant economic warfare against all other nations. The tariff protectionism of the years before 1914 was mild indeed when compared with what developed in the 'twenties and 'thirties--viz., embargoes, quantitative trade control, foreign exchange control, monetary devaluation, and so on.[17]

國際聯盟的失敗，不是失敗於組織的不健全，而是失敗於缺乏眞正的自由主義精神。它是一些感染了經濟國家主義而專心於經濟戰爭的政府的一個集會。一方面，那些代表画只是空談國與國之間的善意，另一方面，他們所代表的那些政府則在加害其他國家。國際聯盟二十多年的作爲，表徵在每個國家對所有其他國家的經濟作戰。在一九一四年以前的保護關稅與二十幾年代及三十幾年代發展出來的那些辨法一即，禁運、貿易量的控制、外滙控制、貨幣貶値等等^較，的確溫和些。[17]

The prospects for the United Nations are not much better, but rather worse. Every nation looks upon imports, especially upon imports of manufactured goods, as upon a disaster. It is the avowed goal of

聯合國的前途不是較好，而是更壞。每個國都把輸入，尤其是工業製成品的輸入，看作一個災難。儘量地排斥外國的工業製成品不讓進入本國市場，這幾乎是所有的國明明宣吿的目標。幾乎所有的國都要反對貿易入超。他們不要合作；他們是要保護自己免受他們所認爲的合作的危害。

---------------

[16] Cf. above, pp. 366-368, and below, pp. 823-825.

[16] 參考第十六章第六節及後面的第三十四章第一節。

[17] For an appraisal of the abortive attempts of the League to do away with economic warfare, cf. Rappard, Le Nationalisme économique et la Société des Nations (Paris, 1938).

[17] 關於國際聯盟爲消除經濟戰而作的那些努力之失敗，參考Rappard, Le Nationalisme économique et la Société des Nations (Paris, 1938).

XXV. THE IMAGINARY CONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIALIST SOCIETY

第25章 一個社會主義社會的想像結構

1. The Historical Origin of the Socialist Idea

一、社會主義這個構想的歷史根源

When the social philosophers of the eighteenth century laid the foundations of praxeology and economics, they were confronted with an almost universally accepted and uncontested distinction between the petty selfish individuals and the state, the representative of the interests of the whole society. However, at that time the deification process which finally elevated the men managing the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion into the ranks of the gods was not yet completed. What people had in mind when speaking of government was not yet the quasi-theological notion of an omnipotent and omniscient deity, the perfect embodiment of all virtues; it was the concrete governments as they acted on the political scene. It was the various sovereign entities whose territorial size was the outcome of bloody wars, diplomatic intrigues, and dynastic intermarriage and succession. It was the princes whose private domain and revenue were in many countries not yet separated from the public treasury, and oligarchic republics, like Venice and some of the Swiss cantons, in which the ultimate objective of the conduct of public affairs was to enrich the ruling aristocracy. The interests of these rulers were in opposition to those of their "selfish" subjects exclusively committed to the pursuit of their own happiness on the one hand, and to those of foreign governments longing for booty and territorial aggrandizement on the other hand. In dealing with these antagonisms, the authors of books on public affairs were ready to espouse the cause of their own country's government. They assumed quite candidly that the rulers are the champions of the interests of the whole society, irreconcilably conflicting with those of the individuals. In checking the selfishness of their subjects, governments were promoting the welfare of the whole of society as against the mean concerns of individuals.

當十八世紀的社會哲學家們奠立行爲學和經濟學的基礎時，他們碰到一個幾乎被普遍接受而無爭論的「自私的個人」與「國家」——整個社會利益的代表——之間的區別。但是在這個時候，那種終於把那些掌握社會強制機構的人們奉之爲神的神化程序，還沒有完成。當大家說到政府的時候，他們心中所想的還不是「全知全能的神，一切美德皆歸焉」那種半神學的觀念；而是在政治舞臺上活動的實實在在的那些政府。那是一些不同的主權體，其領土的廣濶是流血戰爭、外交陰謀、以及異族通婚和繼承的結果。那是一些君主，而其私人財產和收入大都是與公庫不分的，那是一些寡頭政制的共和國，像威尼斯（Venice）和瑞士的一些州，在那裡，公共行政的終極目的，是在爲執政的貴族們增加財富。這些統治者的利益，一方面與他們的那些「自私」而只追求自己福利的子民們的利益相衝突，一方面又與那些渴求征服以擴張領土的外國政府的利益相衝突。在講到這些衝突的時候，許多討論公務的刊物的作者們總是袒護他們本國的政府所持的理由。他們非常眞誠地認爲：統治者是爲全社會謀利益的一些鬥士，不可避免地是要與個人們的利益衝突的，在抑制子民們的自私自利的時候，正是政府在增進全社會的福利以替代各個人各自爲謀的小利。

The liberal philosophy discarded these notions. From its point of view there are within the unhampered market society no conflicts of the rightly understood interests. The interests of the citizens are not opposed to those of the nation, the interests of each nation are not opposed to those of other nations.

自由主義的哲學抛棄這些想法。從它的觀點來看，在未受束縛的市場社會裡面，正確了解的利益是沒有衝突的。人民的利益與國的利益不衝突，每個國的利益與其他所有的國的利益也不衝突。

Yet in demonstrating this thesis the liberal philosophers themselves contributed an essential element to the notion of the godlike state. They substituted in their inquiries the image of an ideal state for the real states of their age. They constructed the vague image of a government whose only objective is to make its citizens happy. This ideal had certainly no counterpart in the Europe of the ancien regime. In this Europe there were German princelings who sold their subjects like cattle to fight the wars of foreign nations; there were kings who seized every opportunity to rush upon the weaker neighbors; there was the shocking experience of the partitions of Poland; there was France successively governed by the century's most profligate men, the Regent Orleans and Louis XV; and there was Spain, ruled by the ill-bred paramour of an adulterous queen. However, the liberal philosophers deal only with a state which has nothing in common with these governments of corrupt courts and aristocracies. The state, as it appears in their writings, is governed by a perfect superhuman being, a king whose only aim is to promote the welfare of his subjects. Starting from this assumption, they raise the question of whether the actions of the individual citizens when left free from any authoritarian control would not develop along lines of which this good and wise king would disapprove. The liberal philosopher answers this question in the negative. It is true, he admits, that the entrepreneurs are selfish and seek their own profit. However, in the market economy they can earn profits only by satisfying in the best possible way the most urgent needs of the consumers. The objectives of entrepreneurship do not differ from those of the perfect king. For this benevolent king too aims at nothing else than such an employment of the means of production that the maximum of consumer satisfaction can be reached.

可是在論證這個命題的時候，自由主義哲學家自己也對於「像神的國」這個想法貢獻了一個精製的因素。他們在他們的研究中，用了一個理想國的影像替代他們那個時代實在的國。他們構想一個模模糊糊的政府影像，而這個政府的唯一目的是在使它的人民快樂。這樣的理想，在歐洲舊制度下，確實找不著與它相類似的東西。當時的歐洲，有德國那樣的一些兒童皇帝，把他們的子民當作牛馬賈給外國打杖；有些皇帝一有機會就侵襲鄰近的弱國；有分割波蘭的驚人事實；有與最荒淫無度之徒——the Regent Orleans和Louis XV——連續統治的法國；有與皇后私通的魯莽姦夫統治的西班牙。但是，自由主義哲學家只討論和那些腐敗宮廷貴族政府毫無共同點的一個國家。在他們的著作中出現的國家，是由一個完全的超人統治的，這個超人的王國只有一個目的，就是增進人民的福利。從這個假定出發，他們提出這樣的一個問題：公民們的個人行爲，如果讓它自由不受政府任何管制，會不會走向這位賢明的國王所不贊成的方向去呢？自由主義哲學家對這個問題的答覆是否定的。他們承認，企業家們是自私自利，尋求他們自己的利潤的，這是事實。但是在市場經濟裡面，他們要想賺得利潤，只有以最好的方法來滿足消費者最迫切的慾望。企業家的目的與那完善的國王的目的沒有差異。就這仁慈的國王來講，也是要善用生產手段使消費者得到最大的滿足，除此別無目的。

It is obvious that this reasoning introduces value judgments and political bias into the treatment of the problems. This paternal ruler is merely an alias for the economist who by means of this trick elevates his personal value judgments to the dignity of a universally valid standard of absolute eternal values. The author identifies himself with the perfect king and calls the ends he himself would choose if he were equipped with this king's power, welfare, commonweal, and volkswirtschaftliche productivity as distinct from the ends toward which the selfish individuals are striving. He is so naive as not to see that this hypothetical chief of state is merely a hypostatization of his own arbitrary value judgments, and blithely assumes that he has discovered an incontestable standard of good and evil. Masked as the benevolent paternal autocrat, the author's own Ego is enshrined as the voice of the absolute moral law.

很明顯地，這樣的理論是把一些價値判断和政治偏見引進問題的討論。這種愛民如子的父權統治者，不過是這種經濟學家的別名，這種經濟學家利用這個詭論，把他個人的價値判斷抬舉成普遍有效的、絕對的、永恆的價値標準那麼尊嚴。他把他自己和那完善的國王視爲一體，如果他具有國王的權力，他會把他自己所要選擇的那些目的叫做「福利」、「公益」和「國民經濟的生產力丄以示別於自私的個人所追求的那些目的。他竟天眞到看不出這個假想的國家元首只是他自由任意的價値判斷的化身，而沾沾自喜地以爲他自己發現了一個不容爭辯的善惡標準。在這個仁慈的父權的獨裁者假面具之下，他本人的那個「自我」被奉爲絕對道德律的綸音。

The essential characteristic of the imaginary construction of this king's ideal regime is that all its citizens are unconditionally subject to authoritarian control. The king issues orders and all obey. This is not a market economy; there is no longer private ownership of the means of production. The terminology of the market economy is retained, but in fact there is no longer any private ownership of the means of production, no real buying and selling, and no market prices. Production is not directed by the conduct of the consumers displayed on the market, but by authoritarian decrees. The authority assigns to everybody his station in the system of the social division of labor, determines what should be produced, and how and what each individual is allowed to consume. This is what nowadays can properly be called the German variety of socialist management. [1]

這個假想的國王的理想政權，其特徵是所有的國民都無條件地服從極權統治。國王發號施令，大家服從。這不是一個市場經濟：這裡沒有生產手段私有權。市場經濟這個名詞是保留著，但事實上再也沒有任何生產手段私有權，沒有眞正的買和寶，也沒有市場價格。生產不是由消費者在市場上所表現的行爲來指導的，而是官方的命令在指揮。政府指派每個人在社會分工的體系中所處的地位，決定應該生產什麼、如何生產，以及每個人可以消費多少。這就是現在所可叫做德國型的社會主義統制[1]。

Now the economists compare this hypothetical system, which in their eyes embodies the moral law itself, with the market economy. The best they can say of the market economy is that it does not bring about a state of affairs different from that produced by the supremacy of the perfect autocrat. They approve of the market economy only because its operation, as they see it, ultimately attains the same results the perfect king would aim at. Thus the simple identification of what is morally good and economically expedient with the plans of the totalitarian dictator that characterizes all champions of planning and socialism was not contested by many of the old liberals. One must even assert that they originated this confusion when they substituted the ideal image of the perfect state for the wicked and unscrupulous despots and politicians of the real world. Of course, for the liberal thinker this perfect state was merely an auxiliary tool of reasoning, a model with which he compared the operation of the market economy. But it was not amazing that people finally raised the question as to why one should not transfer this ideal state from the realm of thought into the realm of reality.

現在，有些經濟學家把這個假想的制度——這個制度在他們的心目中是道德律本身的具體化——與市場經濟比較。他們所能說的市場經濟的最好處是，它不會引起一個不同於完善的獨裁所做成的情況。他們之贊成市場經濟，只是因爲市場的運作——照他們看來——最後會達成完善的國王所要達成的同樣結果。所以把「那道德上是善的、經濟上是有利的東西」與「極權的獨裁者的一些計畫」（極權的獨裁是所有主張计盡經濟和社會主義的鬥士們共有的特徵）視爲二而一、一而二，這是已往許多自由主義者所不爭辯的。我們甚至必須這樣講：當他們把這個理想的影像來替代那個充滿了邪惡的、無恥的暴君和政客的實現世界的時候，他們就開始陷於這種混淆了。當然，自由主義的思想家會以爲，這個完善的境界只是一個推理補助工具，也即用以比較市場經濟運作的一個模型。但是，人們終於提出這樣的一個問題：爲什麼我們不把這個理想的情況從思想方面搬到現實方面呢。這個問題的提出是不足爲怪的。

All older social reformers wanted to realize the good society by a confiscation of all private property and its subsequent redistribution; each man's share should be equal to that of every other, and continuous vigilance by the authorities should safeguard the preservation of this equalitarian system. These plans became unrealizable when the large-scale enterprises in manufacturing, mining, and transportation appeared. There cannot be any question of splitting up large-scale business units and distributing the fragments in equal shares. [2]

所有已往的社會改革家都想沒收一切私有財產，來個重新分配以實現好的社會：每個人的所得份，應該彼此相等，政府應該不斷地警戒，保陣這種平等制維繽維持住。這些計畫，當大規模的工鑛交通事業出現的時候，已成爲不可實現的計畫。把大規模的企業單位分解成小單位而平均分配，這是絕對做不到的[2]。於是，古老的重分配計畫被社會化的想法代替了。生產手段是要沒收的，但不是用來重分配。而是國家本身來經營所有的工廠和農場。

This inference became logically inescapable as soon as people began to ascribe to the state not only moral but also intellectual perfection. The liberal philosophers had described their imaginary state as an unselfish entity, exclusively committed to the best possible improvement of its subjects' welfare. They had discovered that in the frame of a market society the citizens' selfishness must bring about the same results that this unselfish state would seek to realize; it was precisely this fact that justified the preservation of the market economy in their eyes. but things became different as soon as people began to ascribe to the state not only the best intentions but also omniscience. Then one could not help concluding that the infallible state was in a position to succeed in the conduct of production activities better than erring individuals. It would avoid all those errors that often frustrate the actions of entrepreneurs and capitalists. There would no longer be malinvestment or squandering of scarce factors of production; wealth would multiply. The "anarchy" of production appears wasteful when contrasted with the planning of the omniscient state. The socialist mode of production then appears to be the only reasonable system, and the market economy seems the incarnation of unreason. In the eyes of the rationalist advocates of socialism, the market economy is simply an incomprehensible aberration of mankind. In the eyes of those influenced by historicism, the market economy is the social order of an inferior stage of human evolution which the inescapable process of progressive perfection will eliminate in order to establish the more adequate system of socialism. Both lines of thought agree that reason itself postulates the transition to socialism.

一到人們開始不僅把道德的完全而且也把智慧的完全歸之於「國」的時候，這種論斷已成爲邏輯上的不可避免。自由主義的哲學家們，曾經把他們想像中的國形容爲不自私的存在體，只專注於增進其子民的福利。他們曾經發現，在一個市場社會的架,面，公民們的自私自利一定引起與這個不自私的國所力求實現的目的相同的結果；正是因爲這個事實，所以他們認爲市場經濟是應該保留的。但是，一到人們開始不僅把至善、而且也把全知歸之於「國」的時候，事情就變得不一樣了。這時你就不得不得到這樣的一個結論：不會犯錯的國，在生產活動方面，能夠比犯錯的個人做得更好些。企業家和資本家常常因爲錯誤以致計畫失敗，所有的這些錯誤，這個國都可避免。錯誤的投資和稀少資源的浪費，都不會有；財富將倍增。「無政府」的生產，與萬能國的計畫相比較的時候，就顯得浪費，於是，社會主義的生產方式顯然是唯一的合理制度，而市場經濟似乎是不合理的具體化。在社會主義者的心目中，市場經濟只是人類史一個短暫時期的越軌。在那些受了歷史自足主義（historicism）影響的人們心目中，市場經濟是人類進化過程中一個低級的社會秩序，這個社會秩序是那必然的進化程序爲建立社會主義制度所將消除的。這兩個思想路線都同意，理知的本身就會保證進化到社會主義。

What the naive mind calls reason is nothing but the absolutization of its own value judgments. The individual simply identifies the products of his own reasoning with the shaky notion of an absolute reason. No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power--whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government--could act in a way of which he himself disapproves. A socialist advocates socialism because he is fully convinced that the supreme dictator of the socialist commonwealth will be reasonable from his--the individual socialist's--point of view, that he will aim at those ends of which he--the individual socialist--fully approves, and that he will try to attain these ends by choosing means which he--the individual socialist--would

天眞的人所說的「理知」，不過是他自己的價値判斷之絕對化。這個人，天眞地把他自己理知的產物和絕對理知這個漠然的総視同一體。沒有一個社會主義者曾經想一想：他所想賦與無限權力的那個抽象東西——不管是叫做「人類」、「社會」、「民族」、「國家」、或「政府」——可能做出他所不贊成的事情。社會主義者鼓吹社會主義，因爲他充份相信，社會主義國家的最高統治者，從他的——這個社會主義者

的——觀點看來，一定是明白道理的；他會努力達成他——這個社會主義者——所完全贊成的那些目的；他會選擇他——這個社會主義者——也會選擇的那些手段。每個社會主義者只把這個制度——即完全滿足了上述那些條件的——叫做眞正的社會主義；所有其他號稱社會主義的都是假的，完全不同於眞的社會主義。每個社會主義者都是一個僞装的獨裁者。所有反對的人遭殃了！他們喪失了他們的生存權而一定受到「淸算」。

The market economy makes peaceful cooperation among people possible in spite of the fact that they disagree with regard to their value judgments. In the plans of the socialists there is no room left for dissenting views. Their principle is Gleichschaltung, perfect uniformity enforced by the police.

市場經濟使人與人之間的和平合作成爲可能，儘管關於他們的價値判斷彼此不能一致。在社會主義者的計畫中，沒有包容異議的餘地。他們的原則是在警察力量的強制下完全一致。

People frequently call socialism a religion. It is indeed the religion of self-deification. The State and Government of which the planners speak, the People of the nationalists, the Society of the Marxians and the Humanity of Comte's positivism are name for the God of the new religions. But all these idols are merely aliases for the individual reformer's own will. In ascribing to his idol all those attributes which the theologians ascribe to God. the inflated Ego glorifies itself. It is infinitely good, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal. It is the only perfect being in this imperfect world.

人們常常把社會主義叫做宗敎。它確是一個自我神化的宗敎。計畫者所說的「國」和「政府」，民族主義者所說的「民族」，馬克斯主義者所說的「社會」實證主義者所說的「人類」，無非是這些新宗敎的神的名稱。但是所有這些偶像，僅是那個改革者自己的意志的別名。把神學家們歸之於上帚的那些属性，全部歸之於他的偶像，改革者在這樣做的時候，那個膨脹了的「自我」給它自己增光。它是至善、全能、全知、無所不在、無時不在的。它是這個不完全的世界裡面唯一完全的東西。

Economics is not called to examine blind faith and bigotry. The faithful are proof against every criticism. In their eyes criticism is scandalous, a blasphemous revolt of wicked men against the imperishable splendor of their idol. Economics deals merely with the socialist plans, not with the psychological factors that impel people to espouse the religion of statolatry.

經濟學並不是用來檢討盲目的信仰和執迷的。誠實的人經得起任何批評。在那些計畫者的心目中，批評是羞辱的，是壞人的反叛，褻凟到他們的偶像尊嚴。經濟學只討論社會主義者的一些計畫，不管那些驅使人們信奉那些新宗敎的心理因素。

-------------------------

[1] Cf. below, pp. 717-718.

[1] 參考後面第二十七章第二節。

[2] There are, however, even today in the United States people who want to knock to pieces large-scale production and to do away with corporate business.

[2] 但是，甚至在今日的美國，還有些人想粉粹大規模的生產而且解散公司組織。

2. The Socialist Doctrine

二、社會主義的敎條

Karl Marx was not the originator of socialism. The ideal of socialism was fully elaborated when Marx adopted the socialist creed. Nothing could be added to the praxeological conception of the socialist system as developed by his predecessors, and Marx did not add anything. Neither did Marx refute the objections against the feasibility, desirability, and advantageousness of socialism raised by earlier authors and by his contemporaries. He never even embarked upon such a venture, fully aware as he was of his inability to succeed in it. All that he did to fight the criticisms of socialism was to hatch out the doctrine of polylogism.

馬克斯不是社會主義的創作人。社會主義的觀念，在馬克斯接受社會主義信條的時候，已經很充實了。對於他的前輩所發展出來的關於社會主義制度行爲學上的記述，已沒有什麼可以增加的，馬克斯也確未增加什麼。馬克斯也沒有駁斥早期作家以及他同時的人們對社會主義所提出的那些反對論。他甚至從未著手於這件事情，好像他已完全知道在這件事上他不能成功。他在對付社會主義所遭受的批評所做的事情，只是想出了「多元邏輯論」（polylogism）而已。

However, the services that Marx rendered to the socialist propaganda were not confined to the invention of polylogism. Still more important was his doctrine of the inevitability of socialism.

但是，馬克斯對於社會主義的宣傳所提供的貢獻，就不限於多元邏輯的發明。更重要的是他的「社會主義不可避免」說。

Marx lived in an age in which the doctrine of evolutionary meliorism

馬克斯是生活在社會進化論被普遍接受的時代。神的無形之手指引人從較低的、較不完全的階段走向較高的、較完全的階段，而人不自覺。在人類的歷史過程中有個不斷進步和改善的趨勢，是不可抵禦的。人事的每一較後階段，正因爲其爲較後，也就是較高的、較善的階段。在人事方面除掉這個不可抵抗的進步趨勢以外，別無永久不變的事物。黑格爾，在馬克斯初露頭角的前幾年死去，曾經把這個論斷陳述在他那迷人的歷史哲學裡面。尼采，正在馬克斯引退的時候初露頭角，也使這個論斷成爲他那同樣迷人的一些論著的焦點。這是最近二百年的一個大神話。

What Marx did was to integrate the socialist creed into this meliorist doctrine. The coming of socialism is inevitable, and this by itself proves that socialism is a higher and more perfect state of human affairs than the preceding state of capitalism. It is vain to discuss the pros and cons of socialism. socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature." [3] Only morons can be so stupid as to question whether what is bound to come is more beneficial than what preceded it. Only bribed apologists of the unjust claims of the exploiters can be so insolent as to find any fault with socialism.

馬克斯所做的，是把社會主義信條統合在這個社會進化論。社會主義的到臨是不可避免的，就憑這一點，即可證明社會主義比资本主義更高級、更好。因爲資本主義是前一階段的，社會主義是後一階段的。贊成或反對社會主義這一類的討論是無用的。社會主義將因「自然法的不受商量」[3]而必然到臨。只有白癡才會笨拙到提出「必然到來的東西是否比以前的更好」這個問題。只有受了剝削者的賄賂的人，纔會蠻橫到尋找社會主義的毛病。

If we attribute the epithet Marxian to all those who agree with this doctrine, we must call the immense majority of our contemporaries Marxians. These people agree that the coming of socialism is both absolutely inevitable and highly desirable. The "wave of the future" drives mankind toward socialism. Of course, they disagree with one another as to who is to be entrusted with the captaincy of the socialist ship of state. There are many candidates for this job.

如果我們把「馬克斯主義者」這個稱呼來稱呼所有接受這個論断的人，那麼我們就要把我們同時代的大多數人叫做「馬克斯主義者」。這些人同意社會主義的到來是絕對不可避免的，而且也是非常可喜的。「將來的潮流」驅使人類走向社會主義。當然，他們對於誰應該受託來駕駛這隻社會主義的船，彼此間是有異議的。這個職位有多數的候選人。

Marx tried to prove his prophecy in a twofold way. The first is the method of Hegelian dialectics. Capitalist private property is the first negation of individual private property and must beget its own negation, viz., the establishment of public property in the means of production. [4] Things were as simple as that for the hosts of Hegelian writers who infested Germany in the days of Marx.

馬克斯想以雙重方法證明他的預言。第一是黑格爾的辯證法。資本主義的私有財產是個人財產的第一個否定，必然產生它自己的否定，也即生產手段公有制的建立[4]。事情會這麼簡單，簡單到像馬克斯時代横行德國的那許許多多黑格爾主義的作家們所想像的！

The second method is the demonstration of the unsatisfactory conditions brought about by capitalism. Marx's critique of the capitalist mode of production is entirely wrong. Even the most orthodox Marxians are not bold enough to support seriously its essential thesis, namely, that capitalism results in a progressive impoverishment of the wage earners. But if one admits for the sake of argument all the

第二個方法是渲染资本主義帶來的一些叫人不滿意的情況。馬克斯對耷本主義生產方式的批評，完全是錯誤的。甚至最正統的馬克斯主義者也不敢認眞地支持它的要義，即資本主義將使工資賺取者愈來愈窮困。但是，如果爲著討論方便起見，姑且接受馬克斯分析資本主義的那一切謬見，也得不到這兩個結論——社會主義是必定到來的，而且它不僅是比资本主義更好的制度，甚至是最完善的制度。這個制度的終於實現將帶給人世間永恆的至福。所有馬克斯的、恩格斯的、以及許多馬克斯信徒們的那些論著中所用的推論式，都不能掩蓋一個事實，即：馬克斯的預言所由出的唯一、而最後的根源是他們所認爲的「靈感」，靠這個靈感，馬克斯宣稱他看出了決定歷史行程的那些神秘力量。像黑格爾一樣，馬克斯是個先知，把自己得之於神靈啓示的那個秘密之音傳播給大衆的先知。

The outstanding fact in the history of socialism between 1848 and 1920 was that the essential problems concerning its working were hardly ever touched upon. The Marxian taboo branded all attempts to examine the economic problems of a socialist commonwealth as "unscientific." Nobody was bold enough to defy this ban. It was tacitly assumed by both the friends and the foes of socialism that socialism is a realizable system of mankind's economic organization. The vast literature concerning socialism dealt with alleged shortcomings of capitalism and with the general cultural implications of socialism. It never dealt with the economics of socialism as such.

在一八四八到一九二〇年之間，社會主義史的突出事件，是關於它的運作的一些根本問題幾乎沒有討論到。馬克斯主義者把所有想檢討社會主義國的經濟問題的企圖之爲「不科學的」。誰也沒有足夠的勇氣冒犯這個禁忌。社會主義的朋友也好，敵人也好，都默認社會主義是個可實現的人類經濟組織。有許許多多關於社會主義的文獻討論所謂資本主義的缺點，也討論社會主義的一般文化內容。但是從來沒有，像社會主義那樣的經濟學。

The socialist creed rests upon three dogmas:

社會主義的信條基於三個「獨格碼」（dogma）：

First: Society is an omnipotent and omniscient being, free from human frailty and weakness.

第一、「社會」是一個全能全知的東西，擺脫了人類的缺陷和弱點。

Second: The coming of socialism is inevitable.

第二、社會主義的到來是不可避免的。

Third: As history is a continuous progress from less perfect conditions to more perfect conditions, the coming of socialism is desirable.

第三、歷史是不斷進化的，從較不完善的情況進到較完善的情況，社會主義的到來是可喜的。

For praxeology and economics the only problem to be discussed in regard to socialism is this: Can a socialist system operate as a system of the division of labor?

在行爲學和經濟學的範圍以內，關於社會主義所應討論的唯一問題是：社會主義能作爲一個分工制度而運作嗎？

-------------------------

[3] Cf. Marx, Das Kapital, (7th ed. Hamburg, 1914), I, 728.

[3] 參考Marx, Das Kapital, (7th ed. Hamburg, 1914), I, 728.

[4] Ibid.

[4] 同上。

3. The Praxeological Character of Socialism

三、社會主義在行爲學上的特徵

The essential mark of socialism is that one will alone acts. It is immaterial whose will it is. The director may be an anointed king or a dictator, ruling by virtue of his charisma, he may be a Fuhrer or a board of Fuhrers appointed by the vote of the people. The main thing is that the employment of all factors of production is directed by one agency only. One will alone chooses, decides, directs, acts, gives orders. All the rest simply obey orders and instructions. Organization and a planned order are substituted for the "anarchy"

社會主義的主要特徵是：只有一個意志發生作用。至於這個意志是誰的意志，這是不重要的問題。這個統治者或者梟一個神化了的國王或獨裁者，靠天授的權力來統治，或者是民選的希特勒型的一個領袖，或領袖們的集體統治。主要的事情是一切生產要素的利用都由一個發動力來指揮。只有一個意志作選擇、作決定、和發號施令。其除所有的人只是服從命令和敎導。組織和計畫的秩序替代「無政府的」生產，替代各個人的創造力。分工合作要由一個箝剁的制度來保障，在這個制度下，一個統治者獨斷獨行地命令他所有的子民絕對服從。

In terming the director society (as the Marxians do), state (with a capital S), government, or authority, people tend to forget that the director is always a human being, not an abstract notion or a mythical collective entity. We may admit that the director or the board of directors are people of superior ability, wise and full of good intentions. But it would be nothing short of idiocy to assume that they are omniscient and infallible.

這個統治者旣名之曰「社會」（馬克斯主義者是這様做的）、「國家」、「政府」、或「當局」，人民就易於忘記這個統治者畢竟是一個人，而不是一個抽象的觀念或一個神秘的集合體。我們也可承認這個統治者或統治者們的集團，是些能力卓越的人，又聰明、又滿懐善意。但是如果認爲他們是全知的，是不犯錯的，那就完全是白癡的想法。

In a praxeological analysis of the problems of socialism, we are not concerned with the moral and ethical character of the director. Neither do we discuss his value judgments and his choice of ultimate ends. What we are dealing with is merely the question of whether any mortal man, equipped with the logical structure of the human mind, can be equal to the tasks incumbent upon a director of a socialist society.

就行為學來分析社會主義的一些問題，我們不要涉及這個統治者的道德或倫理性格。我們也不討論他的價値判斷和他的最後目的的選擇。我們所要研究的只是這個問題：像我們這樣不是神的人，裝備著「人」心的邏輯結構，能不能勝任社會主義社會的統治者所要承擔的那些任務。

We assume that the director has at his disposal all the technological knowledge of his age. Moreover, he has a complete inventory of all the material factors of production available and a roster enumerating all manpower employable. In these respects the crowd of experts and specialists which he assembles in his offices provide him with perfect information and answer correctly all questions he may ask them. Their voluminous reports accumulate in huge piles on his desk. But now he must act. He must choose among an infinite variety of projects in such a way that no want which he himself considers more urgent remains unsatisfied because the factors of production required for its satisfaction are employed for the satisfaction of wants which he considers less urgent.

我們假定這個統治者具有他那個時代的一切技術知識而可自由運用。而且，他還有一份詳盡記載一切可用的物質生產要素的淸單，和一本可僱用的全部人力的名册。在這些方面，他還可把成羣的專家召集到他的辦公室向他提供完全的情報，並正確地答覆他所問的一切問題。各方面的報吿成堆地累積在他的桌上。但是，現在他必須行動。他必須在許許多多不同的計畫中來選擇，選擇的結果，是使他自己所認爲的那更迫切的慾望，不因爲那些必要的生產要素用在他認爲次要的慾望滿足而得不到滿足。

It is important to realize that this problem has nothing at all to do with the valuation of the ultimate ends. It refers only to the means by the employment of which the ultimate ends chosen are to be attained. We assume that the director has made up his mind with regard to the valuation of ultimate ends. We do not question his decision. Neither do we raise the question of whether the people, the wards, approve or disapprove of their director's decisions. We may assume for the sake of argument, that a mysterious power makes everyone agree with one another and with the director in the valuation of ultimate ends.

這個問題與最後目的的價値判斷根本無關；這個認識是很重要的。它只涉及爲達成最後目的而選擇的手段。我們假定這個統治者對於最後目的的價値判斷已有決定。我們不問他的決定如何。我們也不問他的人民或子民對於這個統治者的決定是贊成或反對。爲著討論簡便起見，我們也可假定有個神秘的力量，使得每個人一致地同意這個統治者對最後目的的價値判斷。

Our problem, the crucial and only problem of socialism, is a purely economic problem, and as such refers merely to means and not to ultimate ends.

我們的問題——決定性而且唯一的社會主義問題——是個純粹的經濟問題，因爲如此，所以僅涉及手段而不涉及最後目的。

XXVI. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ECONOMIC CALCULATION UNDER SOCIALISM

第26章 社會主義不可能有經濟計算

1. The Problem

一、問題

The director wants to build a house. Now, there are many methods that can be resorted to. Each of them offers, from the point of view of the director, certain advantages and disadvantages with regard to the utilization of the future building, and results in a different duration of the building's serviceableness; each of them requires other expenditures of building materials and labor and absorbs other periods of production. Which method should the director choose? He cannot reduce to a common denominator the items of various materials and various kinds of labor to be expended. Therefore he cannot compare them. He cannot attach either to the waiting time (period of production) or to the duration of serviceableness a definite numerical expression. In short, he cannot, in comparing costs to be expended and gains to be earned, resort to any arithmetical operation. The plans of his architects enumerate a vast multiplicity of various items in kind; they refer to the physical and chemical qualities of various materials and to the physical productivity of various machines, tools, and procedures. But all their statements remain unrelated to each other. There is no means of establishing any connection between them.

統治者想建造一座房子，現在有許多可用的方法。從這個統治的觀點看來，這些方法的每一個有利也有弊，花在建築材料和人工上面的經費不一樣，所需要的時期也不一樣。這個統治者將選擇那一個方法呢？他不能把那些要用的各種材料和各類勞動放在一個共同的標準來計算。因此他不能比較它們。他旣不能對這個等待期（即建築所費的時期）也不能封這座房子的耐用期，用個確定的數字來表示。簡言之，在比較要花的成本和預期的利益時，他不能用算術來運算。他的工程師們的計畫列舉許許多多分類的項目；它們所指涉的是各種材料的物理和化學的性能，以及各種機器、工具和程序的實物生產力。但是，所有這些項目彼此之間仍然不相干。沒有方法把它們聯繋起來。

Imagine the plight of the director when faced with a project. What he heeds to know is whether or not the execution of the project will increase well-being, that is, add something to the wealth available without impairing the satisfaction of wants which he considers more urgent. But none of the reports he receives give him any clue to the solution of this problem.

試想這個統治者在面對一個方案的時候所處的苦境。他所要知道的是：這個方案的執行會不會增加福利，也即，會不會使財富有所增加，而又不損害他所認爲更迫切的需要之滿足。但是，他所有收到的報吿都沒有給他提供解決這個問題的線索。

We may for the sake of argument at first disregard the dilemmas involved in the choice of consumers' goods to be produced. We may assume that this problem is settled. But there is the embarrassing multitude of producers' goods and the infinite variety of procedures that can be resorted to for manufacturing definite consumers' goods. The most advantageous location of each industry and the optimum size of each plant and of each piece of equipment must be determined.

爲著討論簡便起見，我們首先無妨把消费財的生產如何選擇這個難題撇開。我們可假定這個問題已經解決了。但是，生產財的種類多得無法列舉，而可用以製造消費財的程序也是無數的。每個產業最有利的地點，每個工廠和每件工具最適度的大小，都要作決定。毎個產業應該用那一類的動力，在發動動力的許多方法中又該選擇那個方法。所有這些問題每天都會發生，發生時的情況又各不相同。在每個不同的情況下，又要有適於這個特殊情況的個別解決法。這個統治者的決定所要涉及的因素之多，遠超過僅從技術的觀點就物理和化學來分類列舉的生產財的數目。以煤爲例來講吧，這個統治者不僅要考慮煤的本身，還要考慮千千萬萬已在各地開採的煤鑛，還要考慮新鑛開採的可能，還要考慮各種不同的開鑌法，還要考慮不同鑛藏的不同煤質，還要考盧利用煤來產生熱、產生力以及產生其他許多衍生物的種镡方法。我可以說，現在的技術知識水準，差不多可以做到從任何東西產生出每樣東西。例如我們的祖先只知道木材的有限用途。現在技術爲它增加了許許多多的新用途。木材可用以造紙、造各種纖維、食品、藥物、以及許多其他綜合產品。

Today two methods are resorted to for providing a city with clean water. Either one brings the water over long distances in aqueducts, an ancient method long practiced, or one chemically purifies the water available in the city's neighborhood. Why does one not produce water synthetically in factories? Modern technology could easily solve the technological problems involved. The average man in his mental inertia is ready to ridicule such projects as sheer lunacy. However, the only reason why the synthetic production of drinking water today--perhaps not at a later day--is out of the question is that economic calculation in terms of money shows that it is a more expensive procedure than other methods. Eliminate economic calculation and you have no means of making a rational choice between the various alternatives.

今天有兩個方法可用來供應一個城市的淸水。一個是用些引水管從遙遠的水源把水引來，這是個用了很久的老方法。一個是化學方法，把這個城市鄰近的水加以澄淸。爲什麼我們不在工廠裡面用綜合法生產「人造水」呢？現代的技術知識當可容易解決有關人造水的一些問題。可是，一個平常人憑他的常識也會把這樣的計畫視爲瘋癲的行爲而加以嘲笑。今天，人造水之不成爲問題——今後也許不然——的唯一理由是：用金錢作出的經濟計算吿訴我們，這是一個比其他方法更費的方法。由此可知，沒有經濟計算，你就不能在不同的辦法中作合理的選擇。

The socialists, it is true, object that economic calculation is not infallible. They say that the capitalists sometimes make mistakes in their calculation. Of course, this happens and will always happen. For all human action points to the future and the future is always uncertain. The most carefully elaborated plans are frustrated if expectations

社會主義者的反對是說經濟計算不是不會錯的。他們說資本家在他們的計算中常常錯誤。當然，錯誤是有的，而且是永久會有的。因爲人的行爲都是對著將來的，將來總歸是不確定的。即令最周密的計畫，如果關於未來的預測成爲泡影，它就要失敗。今天，我們是從我們現在的知識觀點，來計算我們現在預測中的未來情況。我們不涉及這個統治者能不能預測將來情況這個問題。我們所考慮的是，這個統治者不能從他自己現在的價値判斷的觀點來計算他自己預測中的未來情況，不管他的價値判斷是些什麼。如果他今天投資於罐頭工業，有一天消費者嗜好的改變或者關於罐頭食物的衛生觀念有了改變，他的投資就變成錯誤的投資。這是可能發生的事情。但是，他在「今天」如何能夠算出要怎樣建築和裝備這個罐頭工廠才是最經濟的呢？

Some railroad lines constructed at the turn of the century would not have been built if people had at that time anticipated the impending advance of motoring and aviation. But those who at that time built railroads knew which of the various possible alternatives for the realization of their plans they had to choose from the point of view of their appraisements and anticipations and of the market prices of their day in which the valuations of the consumers were reflected. It is precisely this insight that the director will lack. He will be like a sailor on the high seas unfamiliar with the methods of navigation, or like a medieval scholar entrusted with the technical operation of a railroad engine.

如果在十九、二十世紀之交，大家預料到公路運輸和空中運輸將要大大發展，那時就不會建築那許多鐵路了。但是，當時建築鐵路的那些人知道從他們的估量預測以及由當時消費者的評値反映出來的巿場價格的觀點，在一些可能的方法中來選擇其中的一個，來實現他的築路計畫。這就是這個統治者所缺乏的識見。他像一個不熟習航海術而在遠洋航行的水手，或者像一位中古時代的學者在搞鐵路工程。

We have assumed that the director has already made up his mind with regard to the construction of a definite plant or building. However, in order to make such a decision he already needs economic calculation. If a hydroelectric power station is to be built, one must know whether or not this is the most economical way to produce the energy needed. How can he know this if he cannot calculate costs and output?

我們已假定這個統治者已經決心建築某一個工廠或其他建築物。但是，爲作這樣一個決定，他早已要有經濟計算。如果是一座水力發電廠要建築，他就要知道這是不是提供能源最經濟的方法。如果他不能計算成本和產出量，他如何知道這個方法是不是最經濟？

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949?

我們無妨承認，在初期，一個社會主義的政府在某種程度以內可以依賴以前資本主義的經驗。但是，情況愈來愈有變化，以後怎麼辦呢？一九〇〇年的物價對於一九四九年的統治者有何用處？一九八〇年的統治者能從一九四九年的物價知識得到什麼敎益呢？

The paradox of "planning" is that it cannot plan, because of the absence of economic calculation. What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark. There is no question of a rational choice of means for the best possible

「計畫」的矛盾，是它不能計畫，因爲缺少經濟計算。凡是叫做「計畫經濟」的，根本就不是經濟。它只是一個黑暗中摸索的辦法。沒有「爲達成最後目的而合理選擇手段」這個問題。所謂有意識的計畫也者，正是有意識、有目的的行爲之消滅。

2. Past Failures to Conceive the Problem

二、過去沒有認淸這個問題

For more than a hundred years the substitution of socialist planning for private enterprise has been the main political issue. Thousands and thousands of books have been published for and against the communist plans. No other subject has been more eagerly discussed in private circles, in the press, in public gatherings, in the meetings of learned societies, in election campaigns, and in parliaments. Wars have been fought and rivers of blood have been shed for the cause of socialism. Yet in all these years the essential question has not been raised.

一百多年以來，社會主義的計畫替代私人企業，是個主要的政治問題。贊成和反對共產黨計畫的書籍成百成千地出版。在私人圈子裡、在報刊上、在公開集會中、在知識份子的團體內、在競選的場合、在國會內，沒有別的問題比這個問題討論得更熱烈的。爲著社會主義這個問題，戰爭打過了多少次，血也流成了不少的河。可是，在這些歲月當中，基本問題還沒有被提出。

It is true that some eminent economists--Hermann Heinrich Gossen, Albert Schaffle, Vilfredo Pareto, Nikolaas G. Pierson, Enrico Barone--touched upon the problem. But, with the exception of Pierson, they did not penetrate to the core of the problem, and they all failed to recognize its primordial importance. Neither did they venture to integrate it into the system of their theory of human action. It was these failures which prevented people from paying attention to their observations. They were disregarded and soon fell into oblivion.

不錯，有些傑出的經濟學家——Hermann Heinrich Gossen, Albert Schaffle, Vilfredo Pareto, Nikolaas G. Pierson, Enrico Barone——觸及了這個問題。但是，除掉Pierson這個例外，他們都沒有透察這個問題的核心，他們都沒有看出它的基本重要性。他們也不敢把它統合於人的行爲理論體系中。正是這些失敗，使大家不大注意他們的言論。他們旣被忽視，不久也就淹沒無聞了。

It would be a serious mistake to blame the Historical School and Institutionalism for this neglect of mankind's most vital problem. these two lines of thought fanatically disparage economics, the "dismal science," in the interests of their interventionist or socialist propaganda. However, they have not succeeded in suppressing the study of economics entirely. The puzzling thing is not why the detractors of economics failed to recognize the problem, but why the economists were guilty of the same fault.

如果責備歷史學派和制度學派對於人類最重要的問題置之不理，那是個嚴重的錯誤。這兩個思想路線，狂熱地毀謗經濟學，在他們的那種干涉主義或社會主義的宣傳中，經濟學是「憂鬱的科學」。但是，他們並沒有做到完全消滅經濟學的研究。費解的事情，不是這些誹謗經濟學的人爲什麼看不出這個問題，而是爲什麼經濟學家也犯同樣的罪過。

It is the two fundamental errors of mathematical economics that must be indicted.

數理經濟學有兩個基本錯誤，我們應該指出。

The mathematical economists are almost exclusively intent upon the study of what they call economic equilibrium and the static state. Recourse to the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy is, as has been pointed out,[1] an indispensable mental tool of economic reasoning. But it is a grave mistake to consider this auxiliary tool as anything else than an imaginary construction, and to overlook the fact that it has not only no counterpart in reality, but

數理經濟學家幾乎只專心於他們所說的經濟均衡和靜態的研究。前面曾經說到[1]，一個假想的均勻輪轉經濟結構是經濟推理所不可少的心智工具。但是，如果把這個輔助的工具看作非假想的結構，同時忽視這個事實——它不僅是實際上沒有這麼回事，甚至也不能把它一貫地想通到它最後的邏輯結論——那就是嚴重的錯誤。數理經濟學家蔽於一個偏見，總以爲經濟學必須按照牛頓力學的模型來構想，而且可用數學方法來研究，他完全誤解了他的研究對象，他不是在研究人的行爲，而是在研究一個沒有靈魂的機械，這個機械被一些不可再分析的力量神秘地驅使著。在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面，當然沒有企業功能活動的餘地。所以數理經濟學家在他的思想中排除了企業家。他不需要這種引起變動的人物（指企業家），因爲他那不停的干擾使那假想的制度不能達到完全均衡的靜態。他恨企業家這個擾亂因素，照數理經濟學家看來，生產要素的價格決定於兩條曲線的相交，而非決定於人的行爲。

Moreover, in drawing his cherished curves of cost and price, the mathematical economist fails to see that the reduction of costs and prices to homogeneous magnitudes implies the use of a common medium of exchange. Thus he creates the illusion that calculation of costs and prices could be resorted to even in the absence of a common denominator of the exchange ratios of the factors of production.

而且，在畫他所寵愛的成本和價格曲線時，數理經濟學家也沒有看出，把成本和價格化成可比較的同質的量，就要涉及一種共同的交易媒介的使用。他創造了這個幻想——即令在沒有可表現生產要素間交換率的共同分母的場合，成本和價格的計算也可以做到。

The result is that from the writings of the mathematical economists the imaginary construction of a socialist commonwealth emerges as a realizable system of cooperation under the division of labor, as a full-fledged alternative to the economic system based on private control of the means of production. The director of the socialist community will be in a position to allocate the various factors of production in a rational way, i.e., on the ground of calculation. Men can have both socialist cooperation under the division of labor and rational employment of the factors of production. They are free to adopt socialism without abandoning economy in the choice of means. Socialism does not enjoin the renunciation of rationality in the employment of the factors of production. It is a variety of rational social action.

其結果是這樣的：從數理經濟學家的著作中出現了一個社會主義的想像結構，而這個結構被看作一個可實現的分工合作制度，被看作一個足以代替那個以「生產手段由私人控制」作基礎的經濟制度。於是，這個社會主義社會的統治者能夠把各種生產要素合理地配置，也即靠計算來配置。人們旣有社會主義的分工合作，而生產要素也合理使用。他們自由地採行社會主義而又不放棄在手段選擇方面的經濟。社會主義並不是不考慮生產要素的合理使用。它是合理的社會行爲的另一型態。

An apparent verification of these errors was seen in the experience of the socialist governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. People do not realize that these were not isolated socialist systems. They were operation in an environment in which the price system still worked. They could resort to economic calculation on the ground of the prices established abroad. Without the aid of these prices their actions would have been aimless and planless. Only because they were

這些錯誤的一個明顯的證明，見之於蘇俄和納粹德國的社會主義的經驗。人們沒有看出，它們不是孤立的社會主義制度。它們是在價格制度邇在工作的環境中運作。它們之能夠作經濟計算，靠的是國外的物價。如果沒有這些物價的幫助，他們的行爲將成爲無目的、無計畫的。只因爲他們能夠藉助於外國的物價，他們才能計算、才能記帳、才能準備他們所常說的計畫。

--------------------

[1] Cf. above, pp. 246-250.

[1] 參考第十四章第五節。

3. Recent Suggestions for Socialist Economic Calculation

三、最近對於社會主義的經濟計算的一些建議

The socialist tracts deal with everything except the essential and unique problem of socialism, viz., economic calculation. It is only in the last years that socialist writers have no longer been able to avoid paying attention to this primordial matter. They have begun to suspect that the Marxian technique of smearing "bourgeois" economics is not a sufficient method for the realization of the socialist utopia. They have tried to substitute a theory of socialism for the scurrilous Hegelian metaphysics of the Marxian doctrine. They have embarked upon designing schemes for socialist economic calculation. Of course, they have lamentably failed in this task. It would hardly be necessary to deal with their spurious suggestions were it not for the fact that such examination offers a good opportunity to bring into relief fundamental features both of the market society and of the imaginary construction of a nonmarket society.

社會主義者的論著曾經討論到每一件事情，就是不討論社會主義的基本的和獨特的問題——經濟計算。只是到了最近幾年，社會主義的作家們再不能逃避這個根本問題而不予注意了。他們已開始覺得，馬克斯的門徒臭罵「布爾喬亞的」經濟學這個策略，不是一個實現社會主義烏托邦的有效方法，他們在嘗試用一套社會主義的理論，替代馬克斯敎條裡面的黑格爾玄學。他們已著手設計社會主義的經濟計算。在這個工作上，他們自然是要慘敗的。對於他們的那些不是建議的建議，本來沒有檢討的必要，可是對它們加以檢討，可以使市場社會和假想的非市場社會，這兩方面的基本特徵有個顯明對照的機會，所以我們践講一講它們的那些建議。

The various schemes proposed can be classified in the following way:

那些建議可分類如下：

1. Calculation in kind is to be substituted for calculation in terms of money. This method is worthless. One cannot add or subtract numbers of different kinds (heterogeneous quantities).[2]

1. 以實物計算替代以貨幣計算。這個方法是沒有價値的。誰也不能給不同類的數量加減[2]。

2. Starting from the ideas of the labor theory of value, the labor-hour is recommended as the unit of calculation. This suggestion does not take into account the original material factors of production and ignores the different qualities of work accomplished in the various labor-hours worked by the same and by different people.

2. 從勞動價値說的觀念出發，建議用勞動作計算單位。這個建議沒有考慮到原始的物質生產要素，而且忽略了同一個人和不同的人在不同的工作時間所完成的工作品質不一樣。

3. The unit is to be a "quantity" of utility. However, acting man does not measure utility. He arranges it in scales of gradation. Market prices are not expressive of equivalence, but of a divergence in the valuation of the two exchanging parties. It is impermissible to neglect the fundamental theorem of modern economics, namely, that the value attached to one unit of a supply of n-1 units is greater than that attached to one unit of a supply of n units.

3. 以效用的「量」作單位。但是，行爲人並不衡量效用。他只把效用分等級。市場價格不是等値的表現，而是交換雙方評値的一個分歧。現代經濟學有個基本定理是不可忽略的，即：附著在n-1個單位供給量當中，一個單位的價値，大於附著在n個單位供給量當中的一個單位的價値。

4. Calculation is to be made possible by the establishment of an artificial quasi-market. This scheme is dealt with in section 5 of this chapter.

4. 建立一個人爲的準市場，使計算成爲可能。對於這個設計將在本章第五節討論。

5. Calculation is to be made with the aid of the differential equations of mathematical catallactics. This scheme is dealt with in section 6 of this chapter.

5. 靠微分方程式的幫助來作計算，對於這個設計將在本章第六節討論。

6. Calculation is to be made superfluous by resorting to the method of trial and error. This idea is dealt with in section 4 of this chapter.

6. 靠試試改改的辦法使計算成爲多餘的，對於這個想頭，在本章第四節討論。

-------------------------

[2] It would hardly be worth while even to mention this suggestion if it were not the solution that emanated from the very busy and obtrusive circle of the "logical positivists" who flagrantly advertise their program of the "unified science." Cf. the writings of the late chief organizer of this group, Otto Neurath, who in 1919 acted as the head of the socialization bureau of the short-lived Soviet republic of Munich, especially his Durch die Kriegswirtschaft zur Naturalwirtschaft (Munich, 1919), pp. 216 ff. Cf. also C. Landauer, Planwirtschaft und Verkehrswirtschaft (Munich and Leipzig, 1931), p. 122.

[2] 如果這個方法不是由「邏輯實證論者」（logical positivists）提出而且大力宣揚這是「科學單位」的話，甚至連提一提都不値得。參考這個集團已故的主要組織者Otto Neurath的論著，尤其是他的Durch die Kriegswirtschaft zur Naturalwirtschaft (Munich, 1919), pp. 216 ff.也參考C. Landauer, Planwirtschaft und Verkehrswirtschaft (Munich and Leipzig, 1931), p. 122.

4. Trial and Error

四、試試改改的辦法

The entrepreneurs and capitalists do not have advance assurance about whether their plans are the most appropriate solution for the allocation of factors of production to the various branches of industry. It is only later experience that shows them after the event whether they were right or wrong in their enterprises and investments. The method they apply is the method of trial and error. Why, say some socialists, should not the socialist director resort to the same method?

企業家和資本家對於他們自己的計畫是否最適於生產要素之配置於各個生產部門，並不能預先確定。只有事後的經驗吿訴他們，他們的計畫和投資是對還是錯，他們所用的方法是試試改改的方法。有些社會主義者說，企業家和資本家旣可用此方法，爲什麼社會主義的統治者不可以用呢？

The method of trial and error is applicable in all cases in which the correct solution is recognizable as such by unmistakable marks not dependent on the method of trial and error itself. If a man mislays his wallet, he may hunt for it in various places. If he finds it, he recognizes it as his property; there is no doubt about the success of the method of trial and error applied; he has solved his problem. When Ehrlich was looking for a remedy for syphilis, he tested hundreds of drugs until he found what he was searching for, a drug that killed the spirochetes without damaging the human body. The mark of the correct solution, the drug number 606, was that it combined these two qualities, as could be learned from laboratory experiment and from clinical experience.

試試改改的方法，可以應用於「凡是其正確的解決可以從那些不易誤會的標記看得出來，而那些特徵又是與試試改改的辦法本身無關的」一切場合。如果一個人遺失了他的皮夾子，他會到處尋找。如果他找著它，他就認得這是他的東西；無疑地，他所用的試試改改的方法成功了；他解決了他的問題。當Ehrlich硏究梅毒治療法的時候，他試驗過幾百種藥物，最後才發現他所要找的一種藥旣可以殺螺旋狀菌而又不損害人的身體：這個正確解決的標記——藥號606——就是它兼有這兩個性質，這是從實驗室的試驗和臨床經驗知道的。

Things are quite different if the only mark of the correct solution is that it has been reached by the application of a method considered appropriate for the solution of the problem. The correct result of a multiplication of two factors is recognizable only as the result of a correct application of the process indicated by arithmetic. One may try to guess the correct result by trial and error. But here the method of trial and error is no substitute for the arithmetical process. It would be quite futile if the arithmetical process did not provide a yardstick for discriminating what is incorrect from what is correct.

如果正確解决的唯一標記，是由一個被認爲適於解決這個問題的方法達成的，事情就不同了。兩個因數相乘的正確答數只有從算術程序的正確運用才可看得出來。用試試改改的方法來猜，固然也可以，但是在這種場合，試試改改的方法決不是算術程序的替代法。如果算術程序未曾提供一個區別對錯的碼尺，它就無用。

If one wants to call entrepreneurial action an application of the method of trial and error, one must not forget that the correct solution is easily recognizable as such; it is the emergence of a surplus of proceeds

如果想把企業家的行爲叫做試試改改的方法之應用，那就不要忘記，這正確的解決是容易看出其爲正確的；那就是收入有超過成本這個現象的出現。利潤吿訴企業家，消費者贊成他的作法；虧損吿訴他，消費者不贊成他的作法。

The problem of socialist economic calculation is precisely this: that in the absence of market prices for the factors of production, a computation of profit or loss is not feasible.

社會主義經濟計算的問題確是這樣：沒有生產要素的市場價格，盈虧的計算是不可能的。

We may assume that in the socialist commonwealth there is a market for consumers' goods and that money prices for consumers' goods are determined on this market. We may assume that the director assigns periodically to every member a certain amount of money and sells the consumers' goods to those bidding the highest prices. Or we may as well assume that a certain portion of the various consumers' goods in kind is allotted to each member and that the members are free to exchange these goods against other goods on a market in which the transactions are effected through a common medium of exchange, a sort of money. But the characteristic mark of the socialist system is that the producers' goods are controlled by one agency only in whose name the director acts, that they are neither bought nor sold, and that there are no prices for them. Thus there cannot be any question of comparing input and output by the methods of arithmetic.

我們可假定，在社會主義國裡面，有消費財的市場，而且，消費財的貨幣價格是在這個市場決定的。我們可假定統治者按期配給每個份子一定量的金錢，而且把消費財賣給那些出價最高的人。或者我們也無妨假定，把各種消費財的一定部份，用實物配給的方式配給每個份子，而這些份子可以自由地在一個有交易媒介（一種貨幣）的市場相互交換。但是，這個社會主義國的特徵是生產財被一個機構管制，統治者藉這個機構的名義而行爲。生產財不是買賣的，它們沒有價格。像這樣，投入和產出自然不能用算術方法來比較。

We do not assert that the capitalist mode of economic calculation guarantees the absolutely best solution of the allocation of factors of production. Such absolutely perfect solutions of any problem are out of reach of mortal men. What the operation of a market not sabotaged by the interference of compulsion and coercion can bring about is merely the best solution accessible to the human mind under the given state of technological knowledge and the intellectual abilities of the age's shrewdest men. As soon as any man discovers a discrepancy between the real state of production and a realizable better[3] state, the profit motive pushes him toward the utmost effort to realize his plans. The sale of his products will show whether he was right or wrong in his anticipations. The market daily tries the entrepreneurs anew and eliminates those who cannot stand the test. It tends to entrust the conduct of business affairs to those men who have succeeded in filling the most urgent wants of the consumers. This is the only important respect in which one can call the market economy a system of trial and error.

我們並不是說資本主義的經濟計算法可以保證生產要素配置問題得到絕對最好的解決。任何問題絕對完全的解決，不是人力所能做到的。一個未受強制力干擾的市場運作所能實現的，只是在旣有的技術知識水準，以及當時最聰明的人們的智慧下所可想出、所可做到的最好的解決法而已。一旦有人發現生產的實際情況與一個可以實現的較好[3]情況之間有了差距的時候，利潤動機就會驅使他盡最大努力來實現他的計畫。到了他出賣他的產品的時候，就可知道他事先的預測是對還是錯。市場天天在重新考驗企業家，凡是經不起考驗的就受淘汰。它總是把生產事業委託那些能夠滿足消費者最迫切需要的人。只有就這唯一的要點來講，我們才可以把市場經濟叫做試試改改的制度。

-------------------------

[3] "Better" means, of course, more satisfactory from the point of view of the consumers buying on the market.

[3] 這裡所說的「較好」，自然是就市場上從事購買的消費者的觀點來講的。

5. Quasi-market

五、準市場

The distinctive mark of socialism is the oneness and indivisibility of the will directing all production activities within the whole social

社會主義的特徵，是只有「一個」意志指揮整個社會的一切生產活動。當社會主義者宣稱「要以『秩序』和『組織』替代『無政府的』生産，以有意識的行動替代所謂社會主義的無計畫，以眞正的合作替代競爭，以爲使用而生產替代爲利潤而生産」的時候，他們心中所想的無非是以「一個」機構的獨占權力來替代消費者們、以及那些爲消費者服務的企業家和資本家們無數的計畫。社會主義的精髓是完全消滅市場和行爲學上的競爭。社會主義制度，是個沒有市場、沒有生產要素的市場價格，沒有競爭的制度；這就是把一切一切無限制地集中、統一於一個權威之手。在那個指揮一切經濟活動的獨特計畫的草擬中，公民的合作——如果有點合作的話——有靠選舉統治者或選舉統治者們組織委員會。在其餘的事情上面，他們只是無條件地服從統治者的命令，而他們的福利也由統治者照顧。社會主義者所說的社會主義的一切優點，以及他們希望因社會主義的實現而得到的一切幸福，被說成是這絕對的統一和集中的必然結果。

It is therefore nothing short of a full acknowledgment of the correctness and irrefutability of the economists' analysis and devastating critique of the socialists' plans that the intellectual leaders of socialism are now busy designing schemes for a socialist system in which the market, market prices for the factors of production, and catallactic competition are to be preserved. The overwhelmingly rapid triumph of the demonstration that no economic calculation is possible under a socialist system is without precedent indeed in the history of human thought. The socialists cannot help admitting their crushing final defeat. They no longer claim that socialism is matchlessly superior to capitalism because it brushes away markets, market prices, and competition. On the contrary. They are now eager to justify socialism by pointing out that it is possible to preserve these institutions even under socialism. They are drafting outlines for a socialism in which there are prices and competition.[4]

社會主義的知識領袖們現在正忙於設計一種社會制度，在這個制度裡面，預備把市場、生產要素的市場價格以及行爲學上的競爭，都保存下來。他們之所以這樣作，因爲他們已完全承認經濟學家對於社會主義者的計畫所作的分析和批評是正確的，是不容反駁的。「在社會主義制度下不可能有經濟計算」這個論斷的迅速得勢，是人類思想史上空前的事情。社會主義者不得不承認他們的最後失敗。他們再也不能說，因爲社會主義消滅市場、市場價格、和競爭，所以它是無比地優於資本主義。相反地，他們現在急於想指出，即令在社會主義制度下，也能保存這些東西。他們正在草擬一種有市場價格和競爭的社會主義的綱領[4]。

What these neosocialists suggest is really paradoxical. They want to abolish private control of the means of production, market exchange, market prices, and competition. But at the same time they want to organize the socialist utopia in such a way that people could

這些新社會主義者的提議，實在是矛盾的。他們想廢除生產手段的私有權、市場交易、市場價格、以及競爭。但是，同時他們又想組織一個社會主義烏托邦，在那裡面，讓人民的行爲能夠像在這些東西都還存在的環境中一樣。他們想人民玩耍市場像小孩們玩耍戰爭、鐵路、或學校一樣。他們不了解小孩們的這種遊戲爲何不同於所模仿的眞實事情。

It was, say these neosocialists, a serious mistake on the part of the older socialists (i.e., of all socialists before 1920) to believe that socialism necessarily requires the abolition of the market and of market exchange and even that this fact is both the essential element and the preeminent feature of a socialist economy. This idea is, as they reluctantly admit, preposterous and its realization would result in a chaotic muddle. But fortunately, they say, there is a better pattern for socialism available. It is possible to instruct the managers of the various production units to conduct the affairs of their unit in the same way they did under capitalism. The manager of a corporation operates in the market society not on his account and at his own peril, but for the benefit of the corporation, i.e., the shareholders. He will go on under socialism in the same way with the same care and attention. The only difference will consist in the fact that the fruits of his endeavors will enrich the whole society, not the shareholders. For the rest he will buy and sell, recruit and pay workers, and try to make profits in the same way he did before. The transition from the managerial system of mature capitalism to the managerial system of the planned socialist commonwealth will be smoothly effected. Nothing will change except the ownership of the capital invested. Society will be substituted for the shareholders, the people will henceforth pocket the dividends. That is all.

這些新社會主義者說：老輩社會主義者（指1920年以前的所有社會主義者）的嚴重錯誤，在於相信社會主義必然要廢除市場和市場交易，乃至相信社會主義經濟的要義和特徵就在此。這個信念是新社會主義者無可奈何地承認這個想法是荒謬的，如果實行的話，其結果就是亂得一團糟。他們又說，所幸者，還有較好的方法實行社會主義。他們認爲，叫各種生產單位的經理們用他們在資本主義制度下所用的方法來經營他們那個單位的業務，市場社會的一個公司經理之經營業務，不是爲自己打算而自冒風險的，而是爲的公司利益，也即爲的股東利益。在社會主義制度下，他也可以同樣的心情來作，唯一不同的，是他的努力成果使整個社會富有，而不是使股東們富有。至於其餘的，他仍然是買進和賣出、招募工人、給工人發放工資、設法謀取利潤等等和以前所作的一樣。從成熟的資本主義經理制度轉變到計畫的社會主義經理制，將會很順利地做到，除掉投下的資本的所有權以外，沒有任何改變。用「社會」來替代股東，因而人民就分享股利。如是而已矣。

The cardinal fallacy implied in this and all kindred proposals is that they look at the economic problem from the perspective of the subaltern clerk whose intellectual horizon does not extend beyond subordinate tasks. They consider the structure of industrial production and the allocation of capital to the various branches and production aggregates as rigid, and do not take into account the necessity of altering this structure in order to adjust it to changes in conditions. What they have in mind is a world in which no further changes occur and economic history has reached its final stage. They fail to realize that the operations of the corporate officers consist merely in the loyal execution of the tasks entrusted to them by their bosses, the shareholders, and that in performing the orders received they are forced to adjust themselves to the structure of the market prices, ultimately determined by factors other than the various managerial operations. The operations of the managers, their buying and selling, are only a small segment of the totality of market operations. The market of the capitalist society also performs all those operations

這個提議和所有類似的提議有同樣的一個基本錯誤，就是這些提議人是從知識範圍不超過附屬工作的低級職員的眼界來看經濟問題。他們把生產結構和資本配置看作不變的，而沒有考慮到爲適應情況的變動，這個結構有改變的必要。在他們心目中的世界，是個不會再有改變的世界，而經濟史已到了它的最後階段。他們不知道公司職員們的工作範圍只在於忠實執行他們的老闆——股東——所委託的事情，而在完成所接受的命令時，他們是要調整他們自己以適應市場價格結構，市場價格最後是決定於經理的工作範圍以外的一些因素。經理們的工作，他的買進和賣出，只是市場運作的一個小部份。資本主義社會的市場，也完成所有資本財配置於各種生產部門的工作。企業家和資本家創設公司和其他行號，擴大或縮減它們，解散它們或把它們與別的企業合併；他們買進和寶出老公司和新公司的股票債券；他們授與或收回信用：簡言之，他們的所作所爲，遍及資本和貨幣市場的全部活動。指揮生產事業以最好的方法去滿足消費者最迫切的慾望的，是發起人和投機者的這些金融交易。這些交易構成這樣的巿場。如果你廢除它們，你就不能保存市場的任何部份。因爲遺留下來的，是個不能單獨存在的片斷，而且不能發揮市場的功能。

The role that the loyal corporation manager plays in the conduct of business is much more modest than the authors of these plans assume. His is only a managerial function, a subsidiary assistance granted to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, which refers only to subordinate tasks. It can never become a substitute for the entrepreneurial function.[5] The speculators, promoters, investors and moneylenders, in determining the structure of the stock and commodity exchanges and of the money market, circumscribe the orbit within which definite minor tasks can be entrusted to the manager's discretion. In attending to these tasks the manager must adjust his procedures to the structure of the market created by factors which go far beyond the managerial functions.

忠實的公司經理在業務經營中所扮演的角色，比這些計畫的擬訂者所假定的要謹愼得多。他的功能只是一個經理的功能，是給企業家和資本家的一個輔助，他們只做些從屬的工作。經理的功能決不能替代企業家的功能[5]。投機者、發起人、投資者、以及貸放金錢的人們，在決定證券和貨物交易所與貨幣市場的結構時，就形成一個軌道，經理們受託應做的工作限於這個軌道以內，經理們在做這些工作時，必須調整他的程序以適應越出經理任務以外的那家因素所創造的市場結構。

Our problem does not refer to the managerial activities; it concerns the allocation of capital to the various branches of industry. The question is: In which branches should production be increased or restricted, in which branches should the objective of production be altered, what new branches should be inaugurated? With regard to these issues it is vain to cite the honest corporation manager and his well-tried efficiency. Those who confuse entrepreneurship and management close their eyes to the economic problem. In labor disputes the partied are not management and labor, but entrepreneurship (or capital) and the salaried and wage-receiving employees. The capitalist system is not a managerial system; it is an entrepreneurial system. One does not detract from the merits of corporation managers if one establishes the fact that it is not their conduct that determines the allocation of the factors of production to the various lines of industry.

我們的問題不涉及經理的活動；它是關於資本之配置於各種生產部門。問題是：那個部門的生產應該增多或減少，那個部門的生產目標應該改變，什麼新的生產部門應該創設？關於這些問題不是忠實的公司經理和他的高度效率所可解答的。凡是把企業精神與經理才幹弄混淆了的人，是看不淸經濟問題的。在勞工的爭執中，有關的雙方不是經理部門與勞工，而是企業（或資本）與薪資收入的受僱員工。資本主義制度不是一個經理制度，它是一個企業制度。如果我們說決定生產要素配置於各種生產部門的不是經理們的事情，這並不損傷經理之爲經理的功績。

Nobody has ever suggested that the socialist commonwealth could

誰也沒有建議過社會主義可以招來一些發起人和投機者繼續他們的投機事業，然後把他們的利潤移交公庫。那些建議爲社會主義制度創立準市場的人們，也未曾想到保留證券和貨物交易所、遠期交易、以及銀行家和金錢貸放者，作爲準市場的建置。我們不能把投機與投資當作遊戲。投機者和投資者是把他們自己的財富命運作賭的。這個事實使得他們要向消費者負責任。如果我們解除他們這個責任，我們就是取消了他們的特徵，他們也就不是生意人，而只是一羣由統治者交付任務的人，統治者把他的主要任務——也即指揮一切工作的最高權力——交給他們，於是他們（不是那名義上的统治者）就變成一些眞正的統治者，要面對那些名義的統治者所不能解決的同樣問題：計算問題。

In recognition of the fact that such an idea would be simply nonsensical, the advocates of the quasi-market plan sometimes vaguely recommend another way out. The director should act as a bank lending the available funds to the highest bidder. This again is an abortive idea. All those who can bid for these funds have, as is self-evident in a socialist order of society, no property of their own. In bidding they are not restrained by any financial dangers they themselves run in promising too high a rate of interest for the funds borrowed. They do not in the least alleviate the burden of responsibility incumbent upon the director. The insecurity of the funds lent to them is in on way restricted by the partial guarantee which the borrower's own means provide in credit transactions under capitalism. All the hazards of this insecurity fall only upon society, the exclusive owner of all resources available. If the director were without hesitation to allocate the funds available to those who bid most, he would simply put a premium upon audacity, carelessness, and unreasonable optimism. He would abdicate in favor of the least scrupulous visionaries or scoundrels. He must reserve to himself the decision on how society's funds should be utilized. But then we are back again where we started: the director, in his endeavors to direct production activities, is not aided by the division of intellectual labor which under capitalism provides a practicable method for economic calculation.[6]

鼓吹準市場計畫的那些人，在看出了這個想法是荒唐的以後，有時又含含糊糊地推薦另一個辦法。即這個統治者應該像一個銀行一樣，放款給那出價最高的人。這又是一個要失敗的想法。在社會主義的社會裡面，很顯然地，凡是能叫價借款的人，都是自己沒有財產的人。在叫價時，他們不怕借款的利率太高對自己有何金錢上的危險而受到限制。他們一點也不減輕統治者的責任負擔。貸給他們的那些款子的不安全，無論如何決不會像在資本主義制度下的信用借款，可因受借款人自己的財產所提供的部份保證而減少。所有這些不安全的危險，只有落在「社會」，社會是一切可用資源的所有者。如果統治者毫不遲疑地把可用的資金借給那些叫價最高的人，那他簡直是在獎勵粗心大膽以及無理由的樂觀。他那等於讓位給最不小心的空想家或惡棍。他應該把社會資金如何利用的決定權給自己保留。但是這樣一來，我們又回到我們所從而出發的地方：統治者，在指揮生產活動的時候，不藉助於資本主義制度下爲經濟計算提供一個實際可行方法的那種智力分工[6]。

The employment of the means of production can be controlled either by private owners or by the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. In the first case there is a market, there are market prices

生產手段的使用，可以由私人控制，也可以由行使強制力的社會機構控制。在第一種情形下，有市場，一切生產要素也有市場價格，而且，經濟計算是可能的。在第二種情形下，這些東西都沒有。如果集體經濟的一些機關將是「無所不在」、「無所不知」的[7]以這個希望來安慰自己，那是落空的。我們在行爲裡面，不討論無所不在、無所不知的上帝的行爲，而只討論具有人心的凡人的行爲。這樣的人心沒有經濟計算就不能計畫。

A socialist system with a market and market prices is as self-contradictory as is the notion of a triangular square. Production is directed either by profit-seeking businessmen or by the decisions of a director to whom supreme and exclusive power is entrusted. There are produced either those things from the sale of which the entrepreneurs expect the highest profits or those things which the director wants to be produced. The question is: Who should be master, the consumers or the director? With whom should the ultimate decision rest whether a concrete supply of factors of production should be employed for the production of the consumers' good a or the consumers' good b? Such a question does not allow of any evasive answer. It must be answered in a straightforward and unambiguous way.[8]

一個有市場和有市場價格的社會主義制度這個觀念，正如同一個「三角的四方形」的觀念同樣是自相矛盾。生產，或者由追求利潤的生產人來指揮，或者由一個享有絕對權力的統治者來決定。所生產出來的，或者晕企業家希望賺得最高利潤的那些東西，或者是這個統治者所要生產的那些東西。誰應該是主人，消費者或統治者？一些生產要素的一定供給量應該用來生產消費財a呢，還是消費財b呢？應該讓誰來作這最後的決定？這樣的一個問題，不容許含糊的答覆。我們必須答覆得直截了當、毫不模稜兩可[8]。

------------------

[4] This refers, of course, only to those socialists or communists who, like professors H. D. Dickinson and Oskar Lange, are conversant with economic thought. The dull hosts of the "intellectuals" will not abandon their superstitious belief in the superiority of socialism. Superstitions die hard.

[4] 這裡，自然只是指像H. D. Dickinson和Oskar Lange這兩位敎授的社會主義者和共產主義者。他們是熟習經濟思想的。遲鈍的「知識份子」們不會放棄「社會主義優越」這個迷信。迷信是難於消釋的。

[5] Cf. above, pp. 305-308.

[5] 參考第十五章第十節。

[6] Cf. Mises, Socialism, pp. 137-142; Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 119-208; T. J. B. Hoff, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society (London, 1949), pp. 129 ff.

[6] 參考Mises, Socialism, pp. 137-142; Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago, 1948), pp. 119-208.

[7] Cf. H. D. Dickinson, Economics of Socialism (Oxford, 1939), p. 191.

[7] 參考H. D. Dickinson, Economics of Socialism (Oxford, 1939), p. 191.

[8] For an analysis of the scheme of a corporative state see below, pp. 816-820.

[8] 關於勞資協會主義國家（corporative state）這個計畫的分析，見第三十三章第四節。

6. The Differential Equations of Mathematical Economics

六、數理經濟學的一些微分方程式

In order to appraise adequately the idea that the differential equations of mathematical economics could be utilized for socialist economic calculation, we must remember what these equations really mean.

爲著適當地鑑定「數理經濟學的一些微分方程可以用來作社會主義的經濟計算」這個觀點，我們必須記住這些方程式的實際意義是什麼。

In devising the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy we assume that all the factors of production are employed in such a way that each of them renders the most highly valued services it can possibly render. No further change in the employment of any of these factors could improve the state of want-satisfaction under prevailing conditions. This situation, in which no further changes in the disposition of the factors of production are resorted to, is described by systems of differential equations. However, these equations do not provide any information about the human actions by means of which the hypothetical state of equilibrium has been reached. All they say is this: If, in this state of static equilibrium, m units of a are employed for the production of p, and n units of a for the production of q, no further change in the employment of the available units of a could result in an increment in want-satisfaction. (Even if we assume that a is perfectly divisible and take the unit of a as infinitesimal, it would

在設計那個均勻輪轉經濟的假想結構時，我們是假定所有的生產要素都是僱用在這種情形下：每種要素提供它所可能提供的最高價値的勞務。在現狀下，再也不能變動任何一種要素的僱用而可改善慾望滿足的情況。這種情形——也即，不再改變生產要素的處分——是微分方程式所陳述的情形。但是，這些方程式對於這個假想的均衡狀態所賴以達成的那些「人的行爲」並未提供任何訊息，它們所說的不過是：如果在這個靜態均衡的狀態下，a的m個單位用來生產p，a的n個單位用來生產q，再改變a的那些單位的僱用，不會使慾望的滿足有何增加。（即令我們假定a是完全可以分割的，而且可以把a的單位分到無限小，我們也不能说a的邊際效用在兩個僱用中是相等的。如果這樣講，那是個嚴重的錯誤。）

This state of equilibrium is a purely imaginary construction. In a changing world it can never be realized. It differs from today's state as well as from any other realizable state of affairs.

這個均衡狀態純粹是個假想結構。在一個變動的世界中，那是決不會實現的。它不同於今日的情況，也不同於任何其他可實現的情況。

In the market economy it is entrepreneurial action that again and again reshuffles exchange ratios and the allocation of the factors of production. an enterprising man discovers a discrepancy between the prices of the complementary factors of production and the future prices of the products as he anticipates them, and tries to take advantage of this discrepancy for his own profit. The future price which he has in mind is, to be sure, not the hypothetical equilibrium price. No actor has anything to do with equilibrium and equilibrium prices; these notions are foreign to real life and action; they are auxiliary tools of praxeological reasoning for which there is no mental means to conceive the ceaseless restlessness of action other than to contrast it with the notion of perfect quiet. For the theorists' reasoning every change is a step forward on a road which, provided no further new data appear, finally leads to a state of equilibrium. Neither the theorists, not the capitalists and entrepreneur, in embarking upon a definite project, has in mind is only the first steps of a transformation which, provided no changes in the data occur other than those induced by his project, would result in establishing the state of equilibrium.

在市場經濟裡面，一再改變交換率和生產要素之配置的，是企業家的行爲。一個有企業心的人發現生產要素的時價與他所預期的產品的將來價格，兩者之間有差距，於是就利用這個差距爲自己謀利。他心中的那個未來價格當然不是假想的均衡價格。凡是行爲人，誰也不管什麼均衡和均衡價格；這些觀點無關乎實際生活和行爲；它們是行爲學推理的輔助工具，就行爲學的推理來講，沒有其他的心智工具可用來想像行爲的永不停止，只好用這個完全靜止的觀念來和它對照。就理論家的推理來講，每一變動都是趨向於——假定沒有新的變動發生——最後到均衡状態的那條途徑的一個歩驟。理論家也好，企業家和資本家也好，消費者也好，對於這樣的均衡價格究有多高這個問題，誰也不能基於他們所熟知的現況而形成一個意見。他們也不需要這樣的意見。驅使他們趨向於改變和創新的，不是什麼均衡價格的幻想，而是他所預期的某些貨物在他預備出寶的時日市場價格的高度。企業家在開始作某一計畫時心中所想的，只是走向那最後歸結於均衡狀況的一個轉變——假定除他的計畫所引起的變動以外，沒有其他的任何變動發生——的第一歩。

But for a utilization of the equations describing the state of equilibrium, a knowledge of the gradation of the values of consumers' goods in this state of equilibrium is required. This gradation is one of the elements of these equations assumed as known. Yet the director knows only his present valuations, not also his valuations under the hypothetical state of equilibrium. He believes that, with regard to his present valuations, the allocation of the factors of production is unsatisfactory and wants to change it. But he knows nothing about how he himself will value on the day the equilibrium will be reached. These valuations will reflect the conditions resulting from the successive changes in production he himself inaugurates.

如果沒有利用描述均衡狀態的那些方程式，則需要知道在這均衡狀態下消費財的價値等差。這種等差是假定已知的那些方程式的諸因素之一。可是統治者只知道他現在的評値，不會也知道在假定的均衡狀態下他的評値。他相信，就他現在的評値講，生產要素的配置是不滿意的，因而想改變它。但是，對於在均衡達到的那一天，他自己將如何評値這個問題，他一無所知。這些評値是要反映他自己在生產方面發動的連續變動所引起的那些情況的。

We call the present day D1 and the day the equilibrium will be

我們把今天叫做D1，均衡達成的那一天叫做Dn，依此類推，我們把下述的這些數値按照這兩天分別命名：第一級財貨的評値標準分別稱爲V1和Vn；所有原始的生產要素的總供給[9]分別稱爲O1和On：所有人造的生產要素的總供給分別稱爲P1和Pn。簡約地講，O1+P1爲M1；On+Pn爲Mn。最後，我們把技術知識的水準分別稱爲T1和Tn。爲著解開這些方程式，必須知道Vn，On+Pn=Mn，以及Tn。但是我們今天所知道的只是V1，O1+P1=M1，以及T1。

It would be impermissible to assume that these magnitudes for D1 are equal to those for Dn because the state of equilibrium cannot be attained if further changes in the data occur. The absence of further changes in the data which is the condition required for the establishment of equilibrium refers only to such changes as could derange the adjustment of conditions to the operation of those elements which are already operating today. The system cannot attain the state of equilibrium if new elements, penetrating from without, divert it from those movements which tend toward the establishment of equilibrium.[10] But as long as the equilibrium is not yet attained, the system is in a continuous movement which changes the data. The tendency toward the establishment of equilibrium, not interrupted by the emergence of any changes in the data coming from without, is in itself a succession of changes in the data.

我們不可以假定D1所代表的數値等於Dn所代表的。因爲如果資料再有變動發生，均衡狀態就不會達成。「資料之不再變動」（這是達成均衡的必要條件）這句話裡面所說的變動，只是指會擾亂對今天已在發生作用的那些因素所作的調整的那些變動。如果有些新的因素，從外面滲入的，把這個制度干擾得轉向，轉離了達成均衡的方向，則這個制度就不能達成均衡[10]。但是，只要均衡還沒有達成，這個制度就繼續地在一個變動資料的運動中。這個趨向於均衡建立的趨勢，如果不因外來的干擾而中斷，其本身是個資料變動的連續。

P1 is a set of magnitudes that do not correspond to today's valuations. It is the outcome of actions which were guided by past valuations and faced a state of technological knowledge and of information about available resources of primary factors of production which was different from the present state. One of the reasons why the system is not in equilibrium is precisely the fact that P1 is not adjusted to present conditions. There are plants, tools, and supplies of other factors of production which would not exist under equilibrium, and other plants, tools, and supplies must be produced in order to establish equilibrium. Equilibrium will emerge only when these disturbing parts of P1, as far as they are still utilizable, will be worn out and replaced by items which correspond to the state of the other synchronous data, viz., V, O, and T. What acting man needs to know is not the state of affairs under equilibrium, but information about

P1是一組與今天的評値不相符的數値。它是過去的評値所指導的那些行爲的結果，那些行爲所面對的技術知識以及關於基本生產要素的信息都與今天的不同。這個制度之不均衡的理由之一，正是因爲P1不是就現在的情況而調整的。有些工廠、工具、和別的生產要素的供給，是不會在均衡狀態下存在的，而其他的一些工廠、工具和別的生產要素的供給，又是爲建立均衡而必須生產的。均衡的出現，只有在的這些紊亂部份。就其尙可利用的來講，將要耗完而被那些相當於別的建期資料（也即V，O和T）的項目所替換的時候。行爲人所要知道的，不是均衡狀態下的事象，而是關於把P1變換成——以連續的步驟——Pn的最適當的方法的訊息。就這個任務來講，方程式是無用的。

One cannot master these problems by eliminating P and relying only upon O. It is true that the mode of utilizing the original factors of production uniquely determines the quality and quantity of the produced factors of production, the intermediary products. But the information that could be won in this way refers only to the conditions of equilibrium. It does not tell us anything about the methods and procedures to be resorted to for the realization of equilibrium. Today we are confronted with a supply of P1 which differs from the state of equilibrium. We must take into account real conditions, i.e., P1, and not the hypothetical conditions of Pn.

我們不能排除P而專靠O來解決這些問題。不錯，利用原始生產要素的那個方式，獨特地決定了人爲的生產要素（中間產品）的質和量；但是，在這方面所可得到的訊息只關於均衡的條件。它沒有吿訴我們關於要實現均衡而必用的那些方法和程序的任何事情。今天，我們面對著一個不同於均衡狀態的P1的供給量。我們必須考慮的是實在的情形，也即P1，而不是考慮Pn的假設條件。

This hypothetical future state of equilibrium will appear when all methods of production have been adjusted to the valuations of the actors and to the state of technological knowledge. Then one will work in the most appropriate locations with the most adequate technological methods. Today's economy is different. It operates with other means which do not correspond to the equilibrium state and cannot be taken into account in a system of equations describing this state in mathematical symbols. The knowledge of conditions which will prevail under equilibrium is useless for the director whose task it is to act today under present conditions. What he must learn is how to proceed in the most economical way with the means available today which are the inheritance of an age with different valuations, a different technological knowledge, and different information about problems of location. He must know which step is the next he must make. In this dilemma the equations provide no help.

這個假設的未來的均衡狀態，將出現於一切生產方法都已按照行爲者的評値和技術知識水準而調整的時候。那時，我們就在最適當的場所，用最適當的技術工作。今天的經濟不是這樣。它是用一些與均衡狀態不相符的其他手段在運作，而且不能把它放在一個用數學符號來描述均衡狀態的方程式體系中來考慮。知道了均衡時的那些情形，對於統治者也無用處，統治者的任務是要在今天的現況下作爲。他所必須知道的，是如何利用今天所可利用的手段以最經濟的方法來作爲。他還要知道下一個步驟應該做什麼。這都不是方程式可給他幫助的。

Let us assume that an isolated country whose economic conditions are those of Central Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century is ruled by a dictator who is perfectly familiar with the American technology of our day. This director knows by and large to what goal he should lead the economy of the country entrusted to his care. Yet even a full knowledge of today's American conditions could not be of use to him in regard to the problem of transforming by successive steps, in the most appropriate and expedient way, the given economic system into the system aimed at.

我們假定有個孤立的國家，它的經濟情況是十九世紀中期中歐的那種情形，由一個完全熟習我們這個時代美國技術的統治者統治。這個統治者大體上知道他受託要把這個國家的經濟導向怎樣的目標。可是，即令充份知道今天美國的情形，也不能幫助他逐步地用最適當、最便利的方法，把旣定的經濟制度變成他所希求的制度。

Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that a miraculous inspiration has enabled the director without economic calculation to solve all problems concerning the most advantageous arrangement of all production activities and that the precise image of the final goal he must aim at is present to his mind, there remain essential problems which cannot be dealt with without economic calculation. For the

爲著討論簡便起見，即令我們假定有個神秘的靈感，使這位統治者能夠不靠經濟計算來解決湖於生產活動如何作最有利安排的一切問題，並且假定他所必須追求的那個最後目檫的淸晰影像常留在他心中，仍然有些基本問題不能不靠經濟計算來解決。因爲這位統治者的工作不是從文明的眞空開始的，不是寫經濟史的第一頁。他的作爲所必藉助的東西，不僅是未經動用的自然资源，還要有過去生產出來而不能改作或不能完全改作別用的一些资本財。我們的財富正是體現在這些人工做成的東西上面；這些東西是在一些不同於今天的評値、技術知識、以及許多其他事物的一個大聚合下生產出來的。這些東西的結構、品質、數量、和位置，對於選擇進一步的經濟運作非常重要。其中有些也許是完全不能再用的；但是，其中的大部份，我們必須利用，否則我們就要像原始人一樣從一無所有作起，而且也難以渡過按照新計畫製造資本財的那個等待期。統治者不能只是來個新建設而不顧及子民們在等待期的死活。他必須把已有而且可用資本財儘量地善於利用。

Not only the technocrats, but socialists of all shades of opinion, repeat again and again that what makes the achievement of their ambitious plans realizable is the enormous wealth hitherto accumulated. But in the same breath they disregard the fact that this wealth consists to a great extent in capital goods produced in the past and more or less antiquated from the point of view of our present valuations and technological knowledge. As they see it, the only aim of production is to transform the industrial apparatus in such a way as to make life more abundant for later generations. In their eyes contemporaries are simply a lost generation, people whose only purpose it must be to toil and trouble for the benefit of the unborn. However, real men are different. They want not only to create a better world for their grandsons to live in; they themselves also want to enjoy life. They want to utilize in the most efficient way those capital goods which are now available. They aim at a better future, but they want to attain this goal in the most economical way. For the realization of this desire too they cannot do without economic calculation.

不僅是技術主義者，就連各形各色的社會主義者也一再地說：使他們的大計畫得以成功的，是迄今累積的大量財富。但是，同時他們又漠視這個事實一這些財富大部份是依存於過去生產出來的資本財，從現在的評値和技術知識的觀點來看，或多或少是陳舊了的。照他們看來，生産的唯一目的是利用產業的裝備把後代人的生活變得更豐富。在他們的心目中，現代的人簡直是被丟掉的一代，他們唯一的意旨是爲那些尙未出生的人的福利而勞碌辛苦。但是，寞在的人並不是這樣。他們不僅是要爲他們的子孫謀福利，他們自己也要享受生活。他們要用最有效率的方法來利用現在所可利用的資本財。他們追求較好的將來，但是，他們想以最經濟的方法達到這個目的。爲著實現這個願望，他們不能不靠經濟計算。

It was a serious mistake to believe that the state of equilibrium could be computed, by means of mathematical operations, on the basis of the knowledge of conditions in a nonequilibrium state. It was no less erroneous to believe that such a knowledge of the conditions

如果相信均衡狀態可以憑非均衡狀態下的那些情況的了解，而以數學運算計算出來，那是個嚴重的錯誤。如果相信對那些在一個假設的均衡狀態下的情況的了解，會給行爲人在尋求最好的方法以解決其日常的選擇和活動中所遇到的問題時有所用處，那也是同樣嚴重的錯誤。一個人爲著數學方法的實際應用，他必須每天重新解答的那些方程式的荒唐數字，將會使整個觀念成爲荒唐，即令它眞的是個合理的替代市場經濟計算的東西[11]。關於這一點，沒有再加強調之必要了。

-----------------

[9] Supply means a total inventory in which the whole supply available is specified in classes and quantities. Each class comprehends only such items as have in any regard (for instance, also in regard to their location) precisely the same importance for want-satisfaction.

[9] 供給是指全部存貨。在存貨裡面，全部有效的供給都記明等級和數量。每一級所包括的項目，只限於就任何方面講，對慾望的滿足有相同的重要性者。

[10] Of course, wemay assume that T1 is equal to Tn if we are prepared to imply that technological knowledge has reached its final stage.

[10] 當然，如果我們假定技術知識已到了最後階段的話，則T1就等於Tn。

[11] With regard to this algebraic problem, cf. Pareto, Manuel d'economie politique (2d ed. Paris, 1927), pp. 233 f.; and Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning (London, 1935), pp. 207-214.-Therefore the construction of electronic computers does not affect our problem.

[11] 關於這個代數上的問題，參考Pareto, Manuel d'economie politique (2d ed. Paris, 1927), pp. 233 f.; and Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning (London, 1935), pp. 207-214.

XXVII. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MARKET

第27章 政府與市場

1. The Idea of a Third System

一、第三制度的構想

Private ownership of the means of production (market economy or capitalism) and public ownership of the means of production (socialism or communism or "planning") can be neatly distinguished. Each of these two systems of society's economic organization is open to a precise and unambiguous description and definition. They can never be confounded with one another; they cannot be mixed or combined; no gradual transition leads from one of them to the other; they are mutually incompatible. With regard to the same factors of production there can only exist private control or public control. If in the frame of a system of social cooperation only some means of production are subject to public ownership while the rest are controlled by private individuals, this does not make for a mixed system combining socialism and private ownership. The system remains a market society, provided the socialized sector does not become entirely separated from the non-socialized sector and lead a strictly autarkic existence. (In this latter case there are two systems independently coexisting side by side--a capitalist and a socialist.) Publicly owned enterprises operating within a system in which there are privately owned enterprises and a market, and socialized countries, exchanging goods and services with nonsocialist countries, are integrated into a system of market economy. They are subject to the law of the market and have the opportunity of resorting to economic calculation.[1]

生產手段的私有制（市場經濟或資本主義）和生產手段公有制（社會主義或共產主義或「計畫」經济）可以淸淸楚楚地區分。社會經濟組織的這兩種制度的每一種，都可給以明確的描述和界說。它們決不會彼此混淆；它們不會混合或合併；決不會逐漸地從這一種轉變成那一種；它們的轉變，就是矛盾。就某一個生產要素來講，不是受私人控制的，就是受一個社會機構控制的，只能是其中之一，而不能同時兼是。如果在一個社會合作制的架構裡面，只有某些生產手段是公有的，其餘的是由私人控制，這也不助成社會主義和私有制兩者合併的混合制度。這個制度仍然是個市場社會，假使那社會化的部份沒有和那未社會化的部份完全隔離而成爲一個自給自足的單位的話（否則就是兩個制度獨立共存：一個資本主義的，一個社會主義的）。公有的企業（在一個有私人企業和市場制度裡面經營的公有企業）和社會主義國家（與非社會主義的國家交換貨物和勞務的社會主義國家）是統合在一個市場經濟的體系裡面，與市場經濟成爲一體。因而它們要受市場法則的支配，因而有機會用經濟計算[1]。

If one considers the idea of placing by the side of these two systems or between them a third system of human cooperation under the division of labor, one can always start only from the notion of the market economy, never from that of socialism. The notion of socialism with its rigid monism and centralism that vests the powers to choose and to act in one will exclusively does not allow of any compromise or concession; this construction is not amenable to any adjustment or alteration. but it is different with the scheme of the market economy. Here the dualism of the market and the government's power of coercion and compulsion suggests various ideas. Is it really peremptory

如果我們想在這兩個制度之間加上一個分工合作的第三制度，我們只能從巿場經濟這個觀念出發，而決不能從社會主義觀念出發。社會主義是一元論的中央集權主義，主張把選擇和行爲權委之於唯一的意志，因而社會主義觀念不容任何妥協或折讓；這樣的建構是不會接受任何調整或改變的。但是，市場經濟就不同了。在市場制度下，市場與政府的強制權力之二重性，會提示一些不同的意義。人們會這樣問：政府遠離市場，眞的是絕對必要還是爲的方便？干涉或糾正市場的運作，不應該是政府的任務嗎？只能在資本主義或社會主義之間加以選擇嗎？是否還有其他可以實現的社會組織，旣非共產主義，也非純粹的未受束縛的市場經濟呢？

Thus people have contrived a variety of third solutions, of systems which, it is claimed, are as far from socialism as they are from capitalism. Their authors allege that these systems are nonsocialist because they aim to preserve private ownership of the means of production and that they are not capitalistic because they eliminate the "deficiencies" of the market economy. For a scientific treatment of the problems involved which by necessity is neutral with regard to all value judgments and therefore does not condemn any features of capitalism as faulty, detrimental, or unjust, this emotional recommendation of interventionism is of no avail. The task of economics is to analyze and to search for truth. It is not called upon to praise or to disapprove from any standard of preconceived postulates and prejudices. with regard to interventionism it has only one question to ask and to answer: How does it work?

於是，人們就想出了一些第三制度，據說，這些第三制度遠非社會主義，也遠非資本主義。它們的設計者宣稱，這些制度是「非社會主義的」，因爲它們的目的在於保留生產手段的私有權；同時它們也不是資本主義的，因爲它們消滅了市場經濟的一些「缺陷」。處理問題的科學方法是不涉及一切價値判斷的，所以不把資本主義的任何方面譴責爲罪過、有害、或不公平，干涉主義的這種情感上的說詞全然無用。經濟學的任務是要分析和尋求眞實。它不從任何預定的標準或成見來表示贊成或反對。它對於干涉制只有一個問題要提出，要答覆：它如何作？

------------------------

[1] See above, pp. 258-259.

[1] 見第九章第一節。

2. The Intervention

二、政府的干涉

There are two patterns for the realization of socialism.

社會主義的現實【實現】有兩個不同的典型。

The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or the Russian pattern) is purely bureaucratic. All plants, shops, and farms are formally nationalized (verstaatlicht); they are departments of the government operated by civil servants. Every unit of the apparatus of production stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a local post office to the office of the postmaster general.

第一個典型（我們可把它叫做列寧型的或俄國型的）是純官僚的。所有的工廠、商店、和農場都正式地國有化；它們都是政府的一些部門，由公務人員來經營。生產機構的每個單位與最高級的中央組織的關係，正如同一個郵局與郵政總局局長的關係一樣。

The second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (The Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from

第二個典型（我們可把它叫做興登堡型的或德國型的）名義上表面上保留生產手段私有制，也保留市場、物價、工資、利率的面貌。但是，再也沒有企業家，只有一些工場店舖的經理（在纳粹的立法術语叫做Betriebsfuhrer）。這些經理們都是些工具；他們做買賣、僱用和解僱員工、給員工發薪資、借債付息、乃至做質押。但是，在這—切的活動中，他們必得無條件地服從政府的上級管理機關所發的命令。這個機關（在納粹德國叫做Reichswirtschaftsministerium）吿訴這些經理們生產些什麼、如何生產、按什麼價格從誰買進、按什麼價格向誰賣出。它指派每個工人的工作，也規定每個工人的工資。它命令資本家把他們的資金按什麽條件委之於什麼人。市場的交換只是一個幌子。所有的工資、物價、和利率都是政府規定的；它們不過是形式上的工資、物價、和利率；事實上，它們只是政府規定每個人的工作、所得、消費和生活標準的那些命令中的一些數量名詞。這些經理們是服從政府的，不是服從消費者的需求和市場的價格結構。這是在資本主義這個名義的掩飾下的社會主義。資本主義市場經濟的一些事物的名稱是保留著了，但是，這些名稱所指的東西，完全不同於市場經濟裡面的那些東西。

It is necessary to point out this fact in order to prevent a confusion of socialism and interventionism. The system of interventionism or of the hampered market economy differs from the German pattern of socialism by the very fact that it is still a market economy. The authority interferes with the operation of the market economy, but does not want to eliminate the market altogether. It wants production and consumption to develop along lines different from those prescribed by an unhampered market, and it wants to achieve its aim by injecting into the working of the market orders, commands, and prohibitions for whose enforcement the police power and its apparatus of violent compulsion and coercion stand ready. But these are isolated acts of intervention. It is not the aim of the government to combine them into an integrated system which determines all prices, wages and interest rates and thus places full control of production and consumption into the hands of the authorities.

爲著免於社會主義與干涉制的混淆，我們必須指明這個事實。干涉制或受束縛的市場經濟不同於德國型的社會主義，前者仍然是一個市場經濟。政府干涉市場經濟的運作，但是，政府並不想完全消滅市場。它要生產和消費循著那些不同於自由市場所形成一些線路發展，它要在市場的運作中加上一些命令和禁令，以達成它的目的，爲著這些命令和禁令的執行，就有警察權和其他的一些運用強制力的機構。但是，這都是干涉制下的一些「隔離分散的」行動。政府並不要把這些行動併爲一個整體的制度而用以決定所有的物價、工资和利率，因而生產和消费都全盤控制在政府的手中。

The system of the hampered market economy or interventionism aims at preserving the dualism of the distinct spheres of government activities on the one hand and economic freedom under the market system on the other hand. What characterizes it as such is the fact that the government does not limit its activities to the preservation of private ownership of the means of production and its protection against violent or fraudulent encroachments. The government interferes with the operation of business by means of orders and prohibitions.

受束縛的市場經濟或干涉制，是要把政府和市場這兩方面的活動都保持住。它的特徵是在政府不把它的活動限之於生產手段私有權的維持和保護。政府也用命令或禁令來干涉工商業。

The intervention is a decree issued directly or indirectly, by the authority in charge of society's administrative apparatus of coercion and compulsion which forces the entrepreneurs and capitalists to employ some of the factors of production in a way different from what they would have resorted to if they were only obeying the

干涉是由政府直接或間接發出的命令強迫實行的。強迫企業家們和资本家們以不同於市場所決定的方法來使用生產要素。這樣的命令，或者是命令作某些事情，或者是命令不作某些事情。這種命令不一定要由旣定的和一致承認的政府本身直接發出。也會有些其他機構擅自發佈這樣的命令或禁令，而用它們自己的強制力來執行（這似指工會而言——譯者附註）。如果公認的政府寬容它們或者支持它們，那就無異於政府本身在如此作。如果政府反對其他機構的強暴行動而又不能用自己的武力來鎮壓，其結果就陷於無政府狀態。

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

政府的干涉總歸是強暴的行動或以強暴的行動來威脅，這一點是要緊記著的。政府的最後手段是使用武力、警察、憲兵、軍隊、牢獄、和死刑。政府的基本特徵是靠打、殺、和牢獄來執行它的命令。要求政府更多干涉的那些人，正是要求更多的強迫，更少的自由。

To draw attention to this fact does not imply any reflection upon government activities. In stark reality, peaceful social cooperation is impossible if no provision is made for violent prevention and suppression of antisocial action on the part of refractory individuals and groups of individuals. One must take exception to the often-repeated phrase that government is an evil, although a necessary and indispensable evil. What is required for the attainment of an end is a means, the cost to be expended for its successful realization. It is an arbitrary value judgment to describe it as an evil in the moral connotation of the term. However, in face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God.

注意到這個事實並不意涵對政府的活動有何非難。事實上如果對那些強悍執拗的個人或人羣所作的反社會行爲不用強暴的手段來鎭制，則和平的社會合作勢必不可能。「政府畢竟是個禍害，儘管是必要的、不可少的禍害。」對於這句常常被引用的話，我們必須反對。爲達成一個目的必須有個手段，也即必須支付代價。如果把政府說成一個禍害——道德意義的禍害，那就是武斷的價値判斷。但是，當今的趨勢是把國家和政府奉爲神聖，在這個趨勢下，我們最好是記著：古代羅馬人把一束棍子圍繞著一個斧頭來象徵國家，那比我們現代人把上帝的一切屬性都歸之於國家，要更切實際些。

3. The Delimitation of Governmental Functions

三、政府職務的界限

Various schools of thought parading under the pompous names of philosophy of law and political science indulge in futile and empty

在法律哲學和政治科學這些冠冕堂皇的名稱下誇耀的一些思想派別，耽迷於思索政府職務的界限，這是徒勞無益的。他們從一些關於所謂永恆的、絕對的價値與正義純武斷的假定出發，而自以爲對於世俗事務有最後裁判的職責。他們把他們自己的那些來自直覺的武斷的價値判斷，誤解爲全能之神的聲音或事理之當然。

There is, however, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at.

但是，所謂自然法，所謂正義和非正義的永恆標準，根本沒有這樣的東西。「自然」不知道什麼叫做對錯。「你不可以殺人」確不是自然法的成份。自然狀態的特徵是動物與動物間的殺鬥，有許多種類的動物非殺害其他動物就不能保持自己的生命。對錯的觀念是人類的設計，是爲使分工合作成爲可能的設計的一個功效概念。一切道德律和人的行爲法則，都是達成一些確定的目的的手段。這些規律法則只能從它們能否達成我們所選擇的目的來評判它們的好壞，此外沒有其他的方法可用以評判。

From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement.

有些人從自然法的觀點推斷生產手段私有制是符合正義的。也有些人用自然法來主張廢除生產手段私有制。因爲自然法觀念是十分武斷的，所以像這樣的討論無法得到結論。

State and government are not ends, but means. Inflicting evil upon other people is a source of direct pleasure only to sadists. Established authorities resort to coercion and compulsion in order to safeguard the smooth operation of a definite system of social organization. The sphere in which coercion and compulsion is applied and the content of the laws which are to be enforced by the police apparatus are conditioned by the social order adopted. As state and government are designed to make this social system operate safely, the delimitation of governmental functions must be adjusted to its requirements. The only standard for the appreciation of the laws and the methods for their enforcement is whether or not they are efficient in safeguarding the social order which it is desired to preserve.

國家和政府不是目的而是手段。加害別人以取樂，只有虐待狂者才如此。旣存的政府之使用強制力來壓迫人民，爲的是保障一個確定的社會制度得以順利運作。強制力使用的範圍以及警察所執行的那些法律內容，都要受限於已有的社會秩序。因爲國家和政府是用來使這社會制度安全運作，所以政府職務的界限必須隨社會制度的要求而調整。對於法律和其執行的方法要加以評判，唯一的評判標準是看它們對那個應予維持的社會秩序是否有效地予以保障。

The notion of justice makes sense only when referring to a definite system of norms which in itself is assumed to be uncontested and safe against any criticism. Many peoples have clung to the doctrine that what is right and what is wrong is established from the dawn of the remotest ages and for eternity. The task of legislators and courts was not to make laws, but to find out what is right by virtue of the unchanging idea of justice. This doctrine, which resulted in an

公平這個觀念，只有在涉及那些本身被認爲沒有爭論而可免於批評的規範的時候才有意義。有許多人固執地認爲，對的和錯的是自古以來就確定了的，而且是永遠如此的。立法者和法官的任務不是要造法，只是要尋求那不變的公平觀念所確定的對是什麼。這種學說，其流弊是頑固的保守，把老的慣例和制度保持得一成不變，這是自然正義說所否認的。「較高的」法，自然法這個觀念，是與成文法不相容的。從自然法的武斷標準來看，有效的法規制度叫做公平的或不公平的。遵照自然法來製造成文法，是優良的立法者所承受的任務。

The fundamental errors involved in these two doctrines have long since been unmasked. For those not deluded by them it is obvious that the appeal to justice in a debate concerning the drafting of new laws is an instance of circular reasoning. De lege ferenda there is no such a thing as justice. The notion of justice can logically only be resorted to de lege lata. It makes sense only when approving or disapproving concrete conduct from the point of view of the valid laws of the country. In considering changes in the nation's legal system, in rewriting or repealing existing laws and writing new laws, the issue is not justice, but social expediency and social welfare. There is no such thing as an absolute notion of justice not referring to a definite system of social organization. It is not justice that determines the decision in favor of a definite social system. It is, on the contrary, the social system which determines what should be deemed right and what wrong. There is neither right nor wrong outside the social nexus. For the hypothetical isolated and self-sufficient individual the notions of just and unjust are empty. Such an individual can merely distinguish between what is more expedient and what is less expedient for himself. The idea of justice refers always to social cooperation.

這兩個學說所犯的那些基本謬見，早經揭發。就那些未受欺騙的人們看來，在辯論關於制定新法的時候訴之於公平，這很明顯的是個循環推理的實例。因爲就立法而言，沒有公平這樣的東西。公平的觀念，邏輯地講只能訴之於現行法（已制定的法律）。公平，只有從一些有效的法律觀點來贊成或反對實際的行爲時才有意義。在考慮法制變革的時候，在修改或廢除現行法以及制定新法的時候，面臨的問題不是公平不公平的問題，而是社會便利和社會福祉的問題。絕對的，不涉及明確的社會組織的公平觀念，是沒不會有的。決定贊成某一社會制度的，不是公平，相反地，決定什麼是對，什麼是錯的，倒是社會制度。離開了社會關係旣無所謂對，也無所謂錯，就假想中的孤立而自足的個人而言，公平不公平的觀念畢竟是空洞的。這樣的個人只會區分什麼對他是更便利的，什麼對他是較不便利的。至於公平觀念，總要涉及社會合作。

It is nonsensical to justify or to reject interventionism from the point of view of a fictitious and arbitrary idea of absolute justice. It is vain to ponder over the just delimitation of the tasks of government from any preconceived standard of perennial values. It is no less impermissible to deduce the proper tasks of government from the very notions of government, state, law and justice. It was precisely this that was absurd in the speculations of medieval scholasticism, of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, and the German Bergriffsjurisprudenz. Concepts are tools of reasoning. They must never be considered as regulative principles dictating modes of conduct.

從一個虛構的、武斷的、絕對公平的觀念來判斷干涉主義的是非，這是無意義的。從任何成見的永恆價値的標準來考慮政府任務的適當界限，這是徒勞無功的。甚至於從政府、國家、法律和公平這些觀念來推論政府固有的任務，也同樣是不可以的。這正是中古煩瑣哲學的【這裡應以頓號隔開，與後面諸家現代哲學並列。】費希特（Fichte）的、謝林（Schelling）的、黑格爾的，以及德國的理想法理學派（Bergriffsjurisprudenz）的那些空論的荒唐無稽。概念，是推理的工具。決不可把概念看作行爲方式的指導原則。

It is a display of supererogatory mental gymnastics to emphasize that the notions of state and sovereignty logically imply absolute supremacy and thus preclude the idea of any limitations on the state's activities. Nobody questions the fact that a state has the power to establish totalitarianism within the territory in which it is sovereign. The problem is whether or not such a mode of government is expedient

如果強調「國家和主權這兩個觀念在邏輯上必然意涵絕對的至高無上」，這是一種過份的精神訓練的把戲。誰也不懷疑「一個國家有權力在其轄區以內建立極權的統治」這個事實。問題是在從社會合作的觀點來看，這樣的統治方式是否便利。關於這個問題決非概念和觀念的精確註釋所可解答的。那要靠行爲學而不能靠捏造的國家和權利的玄學來判斷。

The philosophy of law and political science are at a loss to discover any reason why government should not control prices and not punish those defying the price ceilings decreed, in the same way as it punishes murderers and thieves. As they see it, the institution of private property is merely a revocable favor graciously granted by the almighty sovereign to the wretched individuals. There cannot be any wrong in repealing totally or partially the laws that granted this favor; no reasonable objection can be raised against expropriation and confiscation. The legislator is free to substitute any social system for that of the private ownership of the means of production, just as he is free to substitute another national anthem for that adopted in the past. The formula car tel est notre bon plasir is the only maxim of the sovereign lawgiver's conduct.

爲什麼政府不應管制物價，也不應懲罰那些蔑視限價法令的人如同懲罰殺人犯和盜賊那樣，法律哲學和政治科學對於這個問題難於發現任何理由來解釋。照他們的看法，私有財產制不過是全能的主權對這些可憐的人們的一個恩賜，而這個恩賜是可以撤回的。把這種恩賜的法制完全取消或局部取消，沒有什麼不對。立法者之可以自由地用任何社會制度來代替生產手段私有制，正如同可以自由地用另一首國歌來代替已經採用的國歌。「這是我所喜歡的」（car tel est notre bon plasir）這個公式，是立法者行爲的唯一箴言。

As against all this formalism and legal dogmatism, there is need to emphasize again that the only purpose of the laws and the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion is to safeguard the smooth functioning of social cooperation. It is obvious that the government has the power to decree maximum prices and to imprison or to execute those selling or buying at a higher price. But the question is whether such a policy can or cannot attain the ends which the government wants to attain by resorting to it. This is a purely praxeological and economic problem. Neither the philosophy of law nor political science can contribute anything to its solution.

對於這個形式主義和法律的獨斷論，我們必須再度強調：法律和強制性的社會機構的唯一目的，是在保障社會合作的順利進行。顯然地，政府有權力規定最高價格，有權力把那些違反限價的人關進監牢或甚至殺掉。但是問題在於這樣的政策能否達成政府用此政策所想達成的那些目的。這是一個純粹的行爲學的經濟問題。法律哲學也好，政治科學也好，都無助於這個問題的解決。

The problem of interventionism is not a problem of the correct delimitation of the "natural," "just," and "proper" tasks of state and government. The issue is: How does a system of interventionism work? Can it realize those ends which people, in resorting to it, want to attain?

干涉主義這個問題，不是一個對國家和政府的「自然的」「正當的」「適常的」任務加以正確的界定問題，問題是：一個干涉主義的制度如何行得通？它會實現人們想靠它實現的那些目的嗎？

The confusion and lack of judgment displayed in dealing with the problems of interventionism are amazing indeed. There are, for instance, people who argue thus: It is obvious that traffic regulations on the public roads are necessary. Nobody objects to the government's interference with the car driver's conduct. The advocates of laissez faire contradict themselves in fighting government interference with market prices and yet not advocating the abolition of government traffic regulation.

在討論干涉主義的一些問題時所顯現的混淆和缺乏判斷，確是叫人吃驚的。例如有些人竟這樣講：公路上的交通管制，顯然是必要的。誰也不反對政府干涉司機者的行爲。主張自由放任的人，旣反對政府干涉市場價格，但不主張廢除交通管制，這是自相矛盾的。

The fallacy of this argument is manifest. The regulation of traffic on a road is one of the tasks incumbent upon the agency that operates

這種議論的荒謬是顯而易見的。公路上的交通管制是經營這條公路的機關的職责之一。如果這個機關是政府或市政當局，它就不得不照料這件事。規定行車時間表，是鐵路管理局的事情；決定餐廳裡要不要音樂節目，是旅館經理的事情。如果政府經營一條鐵路或一家旅館，則這些事情的管理，就是政府的職責。至於郵政總長選擇郵票的画案和色彩，這不是政府干涉市場經濟的一個例子。在一個國營的歌劇場中，政府决定什麼歌劇可以演出，什麼歌劇不可以演出；但是，如果從這個事實推論出，政府對於非國營的歌劇場也決定這些事情，那就是不合邏輯。

The interventionist doctrinaires repeat again and again that they do not plan the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, of entrepreneurial activities, and of market exchange. Also the supporters of the most recent variety of interventionism, the German "soziale Marktwirtschaft," stress that they consider the market economy to be the best possible and most desirable system of society's economic organization, and that they are opposed to the government omnipotence of socialism. But, of course, all these advocates of a middle-of-the-road policy emphasize with the same vigor that they reject Manchesterism and laissez-faire liberalism. It is necessary, they say, that the state interfere with the market phenomena whenever and wherever the "free play of the economic forces" results in conditions that appear as "socially" undesirable. In making this assertion they take it for granted that it is the government that is called upon to determine in every single case whether or not a definite economic fact is to be considered as reprehensible from the "social" point of view and, consequently whether or not the state of the market requires a special act of government interference.

【中文版無此段。】

All these champions of interventionism fail to realize that their program thus implies the establishment of full government supremacy in all economic matters and ultimately brings about a state of affairs that does not differ from what is called the German or the Hindenburg pattern of socialism. If it is in the jurisdiction of the government to decide whether or not definite conditions of the economy justify its intervention, no sphere of operation is left to the market. Then it is no longer the consumers who ultimately determine what should be produced, in what quantity, of what quality, by whom, where, and how--but it is the government. For as soon as the outcome brought about by the operation of the unhampered market differs from what the authorities consider "socially" desirable, the government interferes. That means the market is free as long as it does precisely what the government wants it to do. It is "free" to

【中文版無此段。】

4. Righteousness as the Ultimate Standard of the Individual's Actions

四、作爲個人行為最後標準的正義

According to a widespread opinion it is possible, even in the absence of government interference with business, to divert the operation of the market economy from those lines along which it would develop if left to exclusive control by the profit motive. Advocates of a social reform to be accomplished by compliance with the principles of Christianity or with the demands of "true" morality maintain that conscience should also guide well-intentioned people in their dealings on the market. If all people were prepared not only to concern themselves about profit, but no less about their religious and moral obligations, no government compulsion and coercion would be required in order to put things right. What is needed is not a reform of government and the laws of the country, but the moral purification of man, a return to the Lord's commandments and to the precepts of the moral code, a turning away from the vices of greed and selfishness. Then it will be easy to reconcile private ownership of the means of production with justice, righteousness, and fairness. The disastrous effects of capitalism will be eliminated without prejudice to the individual's freedom and initiative. People will dethrone the Moloch capitalism without enthroning the Moloch state.

據一個普遍的見解，即令政府不干涉買賣，市場經濟的運作也可能從那完全由利潤動機控制的發展方向轉變到別的方向。那些主張遵照基督敎義或遵照「眞正的」道德要求而實行社會改革的人們以爲：善良的人在市場交易時，良心也會發生指導作用。如果所有的人不僅是關心自己的私利，同樣也關心宗敎的和道德的義務，則無須政府的強制力以維持秩序。我們所需要的不是政府和法律的改革，而是人的道德凈化，皈依於上帝的訓誡，皈依於道德律，從貪婪自私的罪惡轉過頭來。於是生產手段的私有和公平正義才易於調和。资本主義的一些惡果將可消滅，而又無害於個人的自由和創造。這樣就是廢除了作惡的資本主義而又不建立作惡的政府。

The arbitrary value judgments which are at the bottom of these opinions need not concern us here. What these critics blame capitalism for is irrelevant; their errors and fallacies are beside the point. What does matter is the idea of erecting a social system on the twofold basis of private property and of moral principles restricting the utilization of private property. The system recommended, say its advocates, will be neither socialism nor capitalism nor interventionism. Not socialism, because it will preserve private ownership of the means of production; not capitalism, because conscience will be supreme and not the urge for profit; not interventionism, because there will be no need for government interference with the market.

在這些見解底層的那些任意的價値判斷，我們不必在這裡討論。這些批評者對於資本主義的指責都是不相干的；他們的謬誤，是不中肯。要緊的是把社會制度建立在雙重基礎上這個想頭，一方面以財產私有權爲基礎，一方面又以一些限制私有財產使用權的道德原理爲基礎。主張這種制度的人們說，這種制度旣非資本主義，也非社會主義，也非干涉主義。之所以非社會主義，因爲它仍維持生產手段的私有權；之所以非資本主義，因爲良心主宰一切而非發動於謀利的動機；之所以非干涉主義，因爲無須政府干涉市場。

In the market economy the individual is free to act within the orbit of private property and the market. His choices are final. For his fellow men his actions are data which they must take into account

在市場經濟裡面，個人在私有財產和市場這個軌道上是行動自由的。他的選擇是最後的。他的行爲是他的同胞在他們自己的行爲中所必考慮的資料。每個人自主自發的那些行爲的協調，是由市場的運作來完成的。用不著什麼特別的法令或禁令強求協調。非協調的行爲會懲罰它本身。適應社會的努力生產之要求而調整，與追求個人自己的利益，彼此並不衝突。因而不需要任何機構來解決什麼衝突。這個制度自會運行，自會完成它的任務，用不著一個發號施令和實行懲罰的機構來干涉。

Beyond the sphere of private property and the market lies the sphere of compulsion and coercion; here are the dams which organized society has built for the protection of private property and the market against violence, malice, and fraud. This is the realm of constraint as distinguished from the realm of freedom. Here are rules discriminating between what is legal and what is illegal, what is permitted and what is prohibited. And here is a grim machine of arms, prisons, and gallows and the men operating it, ready to crush those who dare to disobey.

在私有財產和巿場這方面以外，就是要用強制力的地方；這裡有些隄防，是有組織的社會建築起來，用以保護私有財產和市場，使其免於暴力和欺詐的侵害，這裡是個不同於自由領域的限制領域。這裡有些規律，區分什麼是合法的，什麼是非法的，什麼是許可的，什麼是不許可的。這裡有軍警、有監獄、有殺人的刑具和執刑的劊子手，用以壓服那些敢於不服從的人們。

Now, the reformers with whose plans we are concerned suggest that along with the norms designed for the protection and preservation of private property further ethical rules should be ordained. They want to realize in production and consumption things other than those realized under the social order in which the individuals are not checked by any obligation other than that of not infringing upon the persons of their fellow men and upon the right of private property. They want to ban those motives that direct the individual's action in the market economy (they call them selfishness, acquisitiveness, profit-seeking) and to replace them with other impulses (they call them conscientiousness, righteousness, altruism, fear of God, charity). They are convinced that such a moral reform would in itself be sufficient to safeguard a mode of operation of the economic system, more satisfactory from their point of view than that of unhampered capitalism, without any of those special governmental measures which interventionism and socialism require.

其計畫爲我們所關心的那些改革家，主張倫理的規範連同那些用以保持私有財產的規範都要由政府制定，他們想在生產和消費方面實現的一些事情，不同於那些實現於自由的社會秩序下的事情，在自由的社會秩序裡面，個人所受的限制只限於不侵害私人的人身和其私有財產。他們想扼殺在市場經濟中指揮個人行爲的那些動機（他們把這些動機叫做自私、貪婪、追逐利瀾）而代之以其他的推動力（他們把這些推動力叫做良心、正義、利他心、敬畏上帝、仁慈）。他們相信，這樣的道德改革其本身就是以保障一個從他們的觀點看來比不受束縛的資本主義更叫人滿意的經濟制度的運作，而又不用干涉主義和社會主義所要用的那些特別的行政措施。

The supporters of these doctrines fail to recognize the role which those springs of action they condemn as vicious play in the operation of the market economy. The only reason why the market economy can operate without government orders telling everybody precisely what he should do and how he should do it is that it does not ask anybody to deviate from those lines of conduct which best serve his own interests. What integrates the individual's actions into the whole of the social system of production is the pursuit of his own purposes.

這些學說的支持者，沒有認淸他們所指責爲邪惡的那些行爲動機在市場經濟的運作中所發生的作用。市場經濟之所以能夠運作而無須政府命令每個人應該作什麼以及如何作它，其唯一的理由是，市場經濟並不要求任何人違背他自己的利益而行事。把個人的行爲統合於社會生產制度全體的，是他自己的目標的追求。每個行爲人耽於他的「貪得」，他乃貢獻他的部份於生產活動。因此，在私有財產和保護私有財產的那些法律範圍以內，個人的利益與社會利益之間沒有任何牴觸。

The market economy becomes a chaotic muddle if this predominance of private property which the reformers disparage as selfishness is eliminated. In urging people to listen to the voice of their conscience and to substitute considerations of public welfare for those of private profit, one does not create a working and satisfactory social order. It is not enough to tell a man not to buy on the cheapest market and not to sell on the dearest market. It is not enough to tell him not to strive after profit and not to avoid losses. One must establish unambiguous rules for the guidance of conduct in each concrete situation.

私有財產是改革家們汚衊爲自私自利的東西，但是，如果私有財產權廢除了，市場經濟就變得一團糟。敦促人們靜聽良心之音而以公共福利的考慮代替私人利潤的考慮，這是不會創立一個可行的滿意的社會秩序的。吿訴一個人「不要」到價格最低的市場去買，「不要」到價格最高的市場去賣，這是不夠的。吿訴他「不要」追求利潤，「不要」避免虧損，也是不夠的。我們必須建立一些不含糊的規律，作爲實際情況下行爲的指導。

Says the reformer: The entrepreneur is rugged and selfish when, taking advantage of his own superiority, he underbids the prices asked by a less efficient competitor and thus forces the man to go out of business. But how should the "altruistic" entrepreneur proceed? Should he under no circumstances sell at a price lower than any competitor? Of are there certain conditions which justify underbidding the competitor's prices?

改革家說：企業家每每利用他自己的優勢，把價格叫低到效率低的競爭者所叫的價格以下，因而把這個競爭者排斥於這個行業以外。這個時候企業家是蠻橫而自私的。但是，「利他的」企業家應該怎樣呢？是不是在任何情況下他都不可以把價格叫低到任何競爭者所叫的價格之下呢？或者是有在某些情況下他可以這樣呢？

Says the reformer on the other hand: The entrepreneur is rugged and selfish when, taking advantage of the state of the market, he asks a price so high that poor people are excluded from purchasing the merchandise. But what should the "good" entrepreneur do? Should he give away the merchandise free of charge? If he charges any price, however low, there will always be people who cannot buy at all or not so much as they would buy if the price were still lower. What group of those eager to buy is the entrepreneur free to exclude from getting the merchandise?

另一方面改革家又說：企業家每每利用市場結構把價格叫高到使窮人們買不起。這個時候企業家是蠻橫而自私的。但是，「善良的」企業家應該怎樣呢？他應該白白地把貨物送給別人嗎？如果他可以索取代價，這代價不管低到什麼程度，總歸是有人買不起的，那麼企業家應該讓那些人買得起，那些人買不起呢？

There is no need to deal at this point of our investigation with the consequences resulting from any deviation from the height of prices as determined on an unhampered market. If the seller avoids underbidding his less efficient competitor, a part at least of his supply remains unsold. If the seller offers the merchandise at a price lower than that determined on an unhampered market, the supply available is insufficient to enable all those ready to expend this lower price to get what they are asking for. We will analyze later these as well as other consequences of any deviation from the market prices.[2] What we must

在這裡，我們不必討論由於遠離了自由巿場所決定的價格高度而引起的那些後果。如果賣者避免把價格叫低到效率較低的競爭者所叫的價格之下，則他的供給至少有一部份是賣不掉的。如果賈者把價格叫低到自由市場所決定的高度以下，則他的供給就不足以使那些在此較低的價格下願意購買的人們都買得他們所要買的數量。價格如果違離市場所決定的高度，還有一些其他的後果，我們將在後面一併分析[2]。在這裡，我們所要認識的是：我們不能僅以吿訴企業家不要受市場情況的指導爲已足。要緊的是要吿訴他叫價和付價應做到什麼程度。如果沒有利潤的動機來指導企業家的行爲，來決定他們生產些什麼，來促使他們爲消費者提供最佳的服務，那就必須給他們一些明確的指令，要他們做些什麼、禁止他們做些什麼，這些指令正是政府干涉的標誌。凡是想用良心之聲、仁慈、博愛來代替這些干涉的企圖，都是白费的。

The advocates of a Christian social reform pretend that their ideal of greed and profit-seeking tamed and restrained by conscientiousness and compliance with the moral law worked rather well in the past. All the evils of our day are caused by defection from the precepts of the church. If people had not defied the commandments and had not coveted unjust profit, mankind would still enjoy the bliss experienced in the Middle Ages when at least the elite lived up to the principles of the Gospels. What is needed is to bring back those good old days and then to see that no new apostasy deprives men of their beneficent effects.

基督敎社會改革的鼓吹者，總以爲人們貪婪求利心因爲良知的約束而被制服了，道德律的遵守，在過去做得相當好。當今的一切罪惡都是由於不履行敎會的戒律而引起的。如果人們不違反這些戒律，不貪求不義的利益，人類還可享受中古時期的幸福，那時，至少有些優秀份子遵從福音的原則而行爲。現在所要的，是回復到那良好的古代，然後再防止新的叛敎使人們失去他們的善果。

There is no need to enter into an analysis of the social and economic conditions of the thirteenth century which these reformers praise as the greatest of all periods of history. We are concerned merely with the notion of just prices and wage rates which was essential in the social teachings of the doctors of the church and which the reformers want to raise to the position of the ultimate standard of economic conduct.

這些改革家把十三世紀的社會經濟情況稱讚爲人類史上最偉大的時期，在這裡，我們對於那種情況無須加以分析。我們所關心的只是「公平的」物價與工資率這個觀念，這個觀念是基督敎的長老們的社會敎義的精髓，也是改革家們想奉之爲經濟行爲最後標準的。

It is obvious that with theorists this notion of just prices and wage rates always refers and always referred to a definite social order which they considered the best possible order. They recommend the adoption of their ideal scheme and its preservation forever. No further changes are to be tolerated. Any alteration of the best possible state of social affairs can only mean deterioration. The world view of these philosophers does not take into account man's ceaseless striving for improvement of the material conditions of well-being. Historical change and a rise in the general standard of living are notions foreign to them. They call "just" that mode of conduct that is compatible with the undisturbed preservation of their utopia, and everything else unjust.

很明顯地，就理論家看來，公平的物價和工資率這個觀念總是指稱他們所認爲可能最好的那個社會秩序，他們建議採行他們的理想計畫，並保持到永久。任何改變皆不容許。因爲社會事務任何可能最好的改變，只會是變壞。這些理論家的世界觀，沒有考慮到人之爲著改善物资環境而不断的努力。歷史的變動和一般生活水準的上昇，對於他們都是陌生的觀念。他們把那符合他們所想像的行爲方式叫做「公平的」，其他的都是不公平的。

However, the notion of just prices and wage rates as present to the

但是，公平的物價和工资率這個觀念，在一般人的心中與在哲學家的心中是很不同的。非哲學家把一物價叫做公平的時候，他的意思是說，這個物價的保持就可改善或者至少不損害他自己的收入和社會地位。凡是損害他的財富和地位的任何價格，他都叫做不公平的。他所出資的那些財貨和勞務的價格，如果愈來愈漲，而他所買進的如果愈來愈跌，那就是公平的。小麥的價無論漲到多高，在農民的心中沒有什麼不公平。工資無論漲到多高，在工人的心中也沒有什麼不公平。但是，當小麥的價格每一下跌的時候，農民就立刻說是違犯了神的和人的法律；當工資下降的時候，工人們就起來反對。可是，市場社會卻沒有方法調整生產以適應市場運作以外的一些變動情況。市場只能靠價格的變動來強迫人們減少那些不大受人歡迎的物品之生産，而去擴張那些爲人所更需要的物品之生產。一切安定物價的企圖，其荒謬正在於安定會防止任何改善，因而形成僵固停滯。物價與工資率的彈性，是調整、改善、和進歩所依賴的工具。把物價工資的變動叫做不公平的那些人，和要求保持他們所謂的公平價格的那些人，事實上是在對那些使經濟情況更滿意的努力作戰。

It is not unjust that there has long prevailed a tendency toward such a determination of the prices of agricultural products that the greater part of the population abandoned farming and moved toward the processing industries. But for this tendency, 90 per cent or more of the population would still be occupied in agriculture and the processing industries would have been stunted in their growth. All strata of the population, including the farmers, would be worse off. If the scholastic doctrine of the just price had been put into practice, the thirteenth century's economic conditions would still prevail. Population figures would be much smaller than they are today and the standard of living much lower.

農產品的價格決定，很久以來就有這樣一個趨勢，即：人口的大部份不得不放棄農業而轉到工業方面去。如果沒有這個趨勢，則人口的九〇%或者更多，仍然會停留在農業方面，而工業的成長會受到阻礙。這樣，各階層的人，包括農民在內，生活過得更壞。假若Thomas Aquinas的公平價格的主張見諸實行，則現在的經濟情況會和十三世紀的一樣。人口會比現在的少得多，生活水準也會低得多。

Both varieties of the just price doctrine, the philosophical and the popular, agree in their condemnation of the prices and wage rates as determined on the unhampered market. But this negativism does not in itself provide any answer to the question of what height the just prices and wage rates should attain. If righteousness is to be elevated to the position of the ultimate standard of economic action, one must unambiguously tell every actor what he should do, what prices he should ask, and what prices he should pay in each concrete case, and

兩個不同的公平價格學說——哲學的和通俗的，都非難自由市場所決定的物價和工资率。但是，這種否定論對於「公平的物價和工資率應該達到什麼高度」這個問題，其本身並未提供任何答案。如果要把「正義」抬舉爲經濟行爲的最後標準，那就要在每個場合毫不含糊地吿訴每個行爲者他應該做什麼，他應該要什麼價格，以及他應該付什麼價格，而且必須強迫——用威脅和壓制的機構——所有想違反的人都不得不服從命令。這就要建立一個至高無上的權威來頒佈規律以管制各方面的行爲，如有必要，則由它修改這些規律，它是這些規律的唯一解釋者，也是這些規律的執行者。這樣一來，用社會正義來代替自私的謀利心這個理想的實現所必要的手段，正是這些主張人類道德淨化的人們所想使其成爲不必要的政府干涉。我們無法想像不用極權的管制而可越出自由市場經濟的正軌。至於這個極權是世俗的政府或神權的敎職，那毫無區別。

The reformers, in exhorting people to turn away from selfishness, address themselves to capitalists and entrepreneurs, and sometimes, although only timidly, to wage earners as well. However, the market economy is a system of consumers' supremacy. The sermonizers should appeal to consumers, not to producers. They should persuade the consumers to renounce preferring better and cheaper merchandise to poorer and dearer merchandise lest they hurt the less efficient producer. They should persuade them to restrict their own purchases in order to provide poorer people with the opportunity to buy more. If one wants the consumers to act in this way, one must tell them plainly what to buy, in what quantity, from whom, and at what prices; and one must provide for enforcing such orders by coercion and compulsion. But then one has adopted exactly that system of authoritarian control which moral reform wants to make unnecessary.

這些改革家們，在勸吿人們擺脫自私心的時候，總是以資本家、企業家、有時也以工人爲勸吿的對象。但是，市場經濟是個消費者至上的制度。這些講仁義說道德的人們，應該以消費者作對象不以生產者作對象。他們應該說服消費者不買價廉物美的東西而買價貴物劣的，以免傷害那些效率較低的生產者。他們應該說服消費者限制他們自己的購買以便較窮的人們有機會多買。如果想消費者這樣作的話，那就必須明明白白地吿訴他們買什麼，買多少，向誰買，以及在什麼價格下買；而且爲著執行這些命令，還要用強制力的機構。但是，這又正是道德改革所要使其成爲不必要的極權控制制度。

Whatever freedom individuals can enjoy within the framework of social cooperation is conditional upon the concord of private gain and public weal. Within the orbit in which the individual, in pursuing his own well-being, advances also--or at least does not impair--the well-being of his fellow men, people going their own ways jeopardize neither the preservation of society nor the concerns of other people. A realm of freedom and individual initiative emerges, a realm in which man is allowed to choose and to act of his own accord. This sphere of freedom, by the socialists and interventionists contemptuously dubbed "economic freedom," is alone what makes any of those conditions possible that are commonly called freedoms within a system of social cooperation under the division of labor. It is the market economy or capitalism with its political corollary (The Marxians would have to say : with its "superstructure"), representative government.

在社會合作的架構裡面，個人們所可享受的任何自由，都是以私利與公利之協調爲條件的。個人在追求自己的福利時也促進——至少是不妨害——別人的福利，在這種生活軌道上，我行我素的人們，旣不妨害社會的安寧，也不妨害別人的利益。於是，自由而個人創發的境界爲之出現，這是個人們被容許選擇而照己意行事的境界。經濟自由這個領域是所有適於分工合作的其他自由的基礎。這就是市場經濟或資本主義的政治上的必然結果（馬克斯主羲者说是它的上層結構），是代議政治。

Those who contend that there is a conflict between the acquisitiveness of various individuals or between the acquisitiveness of individuals

有些人認爲各個人的貪求利得，其間是有衝突的，或者認爲個人們的貪求利得與別人的公益之間是有衝突的。這些人就不免要主張封個人的選擇和行動權加以壓制。他們必定要以一個中央生產管制局的權威來取代人民的決定，在他們「好的」社會計畫中，沒有個人創發的餘地。只有一個權威發佈命令，每個人不得不服從。

----------------------

[2] See below, pp. 758-767.

[2] 見第三十章第一節。

5. The Meaning of Laissez Faire

五、放任的意義

In eighteenth-century France the saying laissez faire, laissez passer was the formula into which some of the champions of the cause of liberty compressed their program. Their aim was the establishment of the unhampered market society. In order to attain this end they advocated the abolition of all laws preventing more industrious and more efficient people from outdoing less industrious and less efficient competitors and restricting the mobility of commodities and of men. It was this that the famous maxim was designed to express.

在十八世紀的法國，放任（laissez faire, laissez passer）這個口號是一些自由主義的鬥士們所常喊的。他們的目的是要建立無束縛的市場社會。爲達成這個目的，他們認爲，較勤勉而較有效率的人是應該打敗較不勤勉而效率差的競爭者，貨物和人是應該自由流動的，凡是妨礙這些事情的法律，他們主張都廢除。這就是「放任」這個格言的涵義。

In our age of passionate longing for government omnipotence the formula laissez faire is in disrepute. Public opinion now considers it a manifestation both of moral depravity and of the utmost ignorance.

我們這個時代是熱中於政府萬能的時代，在這個時代當中，「放任」這個格言是聲名狼藉的。當今的輿論把它看作一個道德墮落和完全無知的表示。

As the interventionist sees things, the alternative is "automatic forces" or "conscious planning."[3] It is obvious, he implies, that to rely upon automatic processes is sheer stupidity. No reasonable man can seriously recommend doing nothing and letting things go as they do without interference on the part of purposive action. A plan, by the very fact that it is a display of conscious action, is incomparably superior to the absence of any planning. Laissez faire is said to mean: Let the evils last, do not try to improve the lot of mankind by reasonable action.

照干涉主義者的幻覺，要就是憑「自動力」，要就是憑「有意的計畫」[3]。他的意思是說，憑自動力顯然是愚蠢的。沒有一個有理知的人眞會主張無爲而讓一切事情自由發展而不以有意的行動干涉之。一個計畫——正因爲它是有意的行爲——是絕對優於無計畫。「放任」的意義，據他們講，是：讓那些壞事繼續下去，不預備用理知的行爲來改善人類的命運。

This is utterly fallacious talk. The argument advanced for planning is entirely derived from an impermissible interpretation of a metaphor. It has no foundation other than the connotations implied in the term "automatic" which it is customary to apply in a metaphorical sense for the description of the market process.[4] Automatic, says the Concise Oxford Dictionary,[5] means "unconscious, unintelligent, merely mechanical." Automatic, says Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,[6] means "not subject to the control of the will, ... performed without active thought and without conscious intention or direction." What a triumph for the champion of planning to play this trump card!

這是絕對的謬論。主張計畫的議論完全來自一個隱喻的不應有的解釋。這個隱喻是把市場程序描述成「自動的」，蘊含於「自動的」這個形容詞的語意，就是這個議論唯一的論據[4]。照Concise Oxford Dictionary [5]的說法，「自動」的意思是「無意識的，不了解的，僅僅機械的」。照Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [6]的說法，「自動的」的意思是，「不受意志支配的……未經思考，也非志願而完成的。」主張計畫的人利用這張王牌是多麼得意啊！

The truth is that the alternative is not between a dead mechanism or a rigid automatism on one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.

眞實的情形是這樣：兩者之間的選擇，不是在死板的或機械的自動與有意的計畫之間選擇，也即是說，兩不相容的，不是計畫與無計畫。問題是誰在計畫？社會的每個份子爲他自己計畫呢？還是僅由一個行仁政的政府爲他們全體計畫呢？這個問題就不是無意識的自動對有意的行爲；而是每個人自動自發的行爲對政府包辦一切的行爲。也即個人自由對政府萬能。

Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion.

放任並不意謂：讓那些沒有靈魂的機械力量自由運作。而是意謂：讓各個人選擇如何在社會分工中合作之道；讓消費者決定企業家生產什麼。計晝的意思是：讓政府單獨選擇的情況下，以強制的機構來執行它的決定。

Under laissez faire, says the planner, it is not those goods which people "really" need that are produced, but those goods from the sale of which the highest returns are expected. It is the objective of planning to direct production toward the satisfaction of the "true" needs. But who is to decide what the "true" needs are?

主張計畫的人說：在放任下所生產出來的那些財貨，不是人民「眞正」需要的財貨，而是可希望買得最髙報酬的一些財貨。計畫的目的是要指導生產，使其滿足「眞正的」需要。但是，誰來決定什麼東西才是「眞正的」需要呢？

Thus, for instance, Professor Harold Laski, the former chairman of the British Labor Party, would determine as the objective of the planned direction of investment "that the use of the investor's savings will be in housing rather than in cinemas."[7] It is beside the point whether or not one agrees with the professor's view that better houses are more important than moving pictures. It is a fact that the consumers, in spending part of their money for admission to the movies, have made another choice. If the masses of Great Britain, the same people whose votes swept the Labor Party into power, were to stop patronizing the moving pictures and to spend more for comfortable homes and apartments, profit-seeking business would be forced to invest more in building homes and apartment houses and less in the production of expensive pictures. It was Mr. Laski's desire to defy the wishes of the consumers and to substitute his own will for that of the consumers. He wanted to do away with the democracy of the market and to establish the absolute rule of the production tsar. Perhaps he believed that he was right from a higher point of view, and that as a superman he was called upon to impose his own valuations on the masses of inferior men. But then he ought to have been frank enough to say so plainly.

例如，英國工黨前主席拉斯基敎授（Professor Harold Laski）以爲，「把投資者的儲蓄用之於住宅的建造而不用之於零影院的建築」[7]是計畫投资的目標。拉斯基敎授的見解以爲較好的住宅比電影院更重要。至於你同意或不同意這個見解，與這個問題不相干。可是，那些把部份的金錢花費在看電影的消費者們，作了別的決定，這是一個事實。再假定英國的大衆，也即票選工黨上臺的那些人，不想光顧電影院而要在舒適的住宅和公寓方面多花錢，那麼，謀利的企業家自會在住宅和公寓的建築上多投資，在電影方面少投資。可是，拉斯基先生的想頭，抹煞了消費者們的願望，而以他自己的願望代替消費者們的願望。他是想消除市場的民主而建立一個絕對權力的生產界的沙皇。他也許自信：從「較高的」觀點看，他是對的，他自視是一個超人，有使命把自己的價値判斷加在大衆。但是，他應該坦坦白白地這樣講。

All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action

所有這些對政府的作爲加以熱烈讚揚的人，不過是干涉主義自我神化的一個可憐的僞装。偉大的神國之所以是一個神，只是因爲要靠它來做干涉主義者個人所想做成的事。只有這位計畫者所完全贊成的計畫才是純正的。所有其他的計畫只是冒牌的。討論計畫之利的書籍，其作者在說到「計畫」的時候，在他的心中自然是他自己的計畫。各個計畫者相同的一點，只是他們都反對放任，也即，都反對個人的選擇和行爲的自由。至於選擇那一個計畫來實行，他們完全不能同意。如果有人揭發干涉政策的缺陷——明顯而不容爭辯的缺陷，他們總是用同樣的方法對付。他們說，這些缺陷是那些冒牌的干涉主義所造成的後果；我們所提倡的是好的干涉主義，不是壞的干涉主義。自然，好的干涉主義是他們自己所取的品牌。

Laissez faire means: Let the common man choose and act; do not force him to yield to a dictator.

放任的意思是：讓普通人自己選擇、自己行爲；不要強迫他服從獨裁者。

----------------------

[3] Cf. A. H. Hansen, “Social Planning for Tomorrow,” in The United States after the War (Cornell University Lectures, Ithaca, 1945), pp. 32-33.

[3] 參見A. H. Hansen, “Social Planning for Tomorrow,” in The United States after the War (Cornell University Lectures, Ithaca, 1945), pp. 32-33.

[4] See above, pp. 315-316.

[4] 上書，pp. 315-316.

[5] (3rd. ed. Oxford, 1934), p. 74.

[5] (3rd. ed. Oxford, 1934), p. 74.

[6] (5th ed. Springfield, 1946), p. 73.

[6] (5th ed. Springfield, 1946), p. 73.

[7] Cf. Laski’s broadcast, “Revolution by Consent,” reprinted in Talks, X, no.10 (October, 1945), 7.

[7] 參考拉斯基的廣播Revolution by Consent，刊在Talks, X, no.10 (October, 1945), 7.

6. Direct Government Interference with Consumption

六、政府對於消費的直接干涉

In investigating the economic problems of interventionism we do not have to deal with those actions of the government whose aim it is to influence immediately the consumer's choice of consumers' goods. Every act of government interference with business must indirectly affect consumption. As the government's interference alters the market data, it must also alter the valuations and the conduct of the consumers. But if the aim of the government is merely to force the consumers directly to consume goods other than what they would have consumed in the absence of the government's decree, no special problems emerge to be scrutinized by economics. It is beyond doubt that a strong and ruthless police apparatus has the power to enforce such decrees.

政府的作爲，有時是爲的要直接影響消費者對於消費財的選擇，我們在查究干涉主義的經濟問題時，無須討論政府的這種行爲。政府對於工商業的每一干涉，一定間接地影響消費。因爲政府的干涉會變動市場資料，它也一定會變動消費者的評値和行爲。但是，如果政府的目的只是直接強迫消費者消費別的財貨，而非他們在沒有政府強迫的命令下所願意消費的財貨，那就不發生什麼特別問題需要經濟學來研究的。無疑地，一個強暴的警察機構有力量執行這樣的命令。

In dealing with the choices of the consumers we do not ask what motives induced a man to buy a and not to buy b; they depend only on the real acts of buying and abstention from buying. It is immaterial for the determination of the prices of gas masks whether people buy them of their own accord or because the government forces everybody

在討論消費者的選擇時，我們並不問是什麼動機促使一個人購買甲物而不購買乙物。我們只查究消費者的實際行爲對於市場價格的決定發生了什麼影響，因而對於生產發生什麼影響。這些影響不是決定於促使人們購買甲物而不購買乙物的那些考慮；它們只決定於購買和不購買這些實際的行爲。人們之購買防毒面具是出自志願或由於政府的命令強迫，這對於防毒面具的價格決定是不重要的。重要的只是需求的大小。

Governments which are eager to keep up the outward appearance of freedom even when curtailing freedom disguise their direct interference with consumption under the cloak of interference with business. The aim of American prohibition was to prevent the individual residents of the country from drinking alcoholic beverages. But the law hypocritically did not make drinking as such illegal and did not penalize it. It merely prohibited the manufacture, the sale and the transportation of intoxicating liquors, the business transactions which precede the act of drinking. The idea was that people indulge in the vice of drinking only because unscrupulous businessmen prevail upon them. It was, however, manifest that the objective of prohibition was to encroach upon the individuals' freedom to spend their dollars and to enjoy their lives according to their own fashion. The restrictions imposed upon business were only subservient to this ultimate end.

有些政府甚至在削減自由的時候還想維持自由的外表，於是，他們就在干涉工商業的外衣下掩蓋他們對於消費的直接干涉。美國禁酒的目的是在防止本國的居民服用酒精的飮料。但是，禁酒的法律卻僞善地不規定飮酒是違法的，不懲罰飮酒。它只禁止酒類的製造、銷售和運輸，這都是在飮酒這個行爲以前的一些事情。其想法是：人們之所以染上飮酒的惡習只因爲奸商們害了他們。但是，很明顯地，禁酒的目的是在侵犯個人花錢的自由，不讓他們按照他們自己的興趣享受。對於工商業的限制只是爲的這個最後目的。

The problems involved in direct government interference with consumption are not catallactic problems. They go far beyond the scope of catallactics and concern the fundamental issues of human life and social organization. If it is true that government derives its authority from God and is entrusted by Providence to act as the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace, then it is certainly its task to regiment every aspect of the subject's conduct. The God-sent ruler knows better what is good for his wards than they do themselves. It is his duty to guard them against the harm they would inflict upon themselves if left alone.

政府直接干涉消費所涉及的一些問題不是市場經濟學問題。這些問題越出市場經濟學的範圍以外很遠，而關乎人的生活和社會組織的基本問題。如果政府的權力眞的是來自神授，而且是受天命來保護無知的庶民，那麼，規定人民的每一行動就確是政府的職責。上帝派遣的統治者對於他所保護的庶民的利益知道得比他們自己知道的更淸楚。如果讓那些無知的庶民自由選擇、自由行動，他們會傷害自己，所以這位統治者有責任使他們免於傷害。

Self-styled "realistic" people fail to recognize the immense importance of the principles implied. They contend that they do not want to deal with the matter from what, they say, is a philosophic and academic point of view. Their approach is, they argue, exclusively guided by practical considerations. It is a fact, they say, that some people harm themselves and their innocent families by consuming narcotic drugs. Only doctrinaires could be so dogmatic as to object to the government's regulation of the drug traffic. Its beneficent effects cannot be contested.

自以爲是「現實的」人們，沒有看到這裡所涉及的一些原則的極大重要性。他們以爲他們不想從他們所說的哲學或學術的觀點來討論這件事情。他們辯稱，他們只就實際方面來考慮。他們說，有些人因爲消費麻醉品傷害了自己和他們無辜的家人，這是事實。反對政府管制麻醉品買賣，那只是一些偏激的武斷。管制的利益是不容爭辯的。

However, the case is not so simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's

但是，問題不是這樣簡單。鴉片、嗎啡確是有害的上癱的毒物。但是，如果「保護人民使其免於受自己的愚昧之害，是政府的責任」這個原則一被承認，則我們就不能對政府進一步的侵犯自由提出嚴重的反對了。我們有很好的理由贊成政府禁止飮酒吸毒。爲什麼把政府的好意只限之於保護人民的身體呢？一個人傷害他自己的心靈不比傷害身體更糟嗎？爲什麼不禁止他讀壞的書刊，看壞的戲劇、繪畫、雕刻、以及聽壞的音樂呢？壞的意理所造成的災禍，對於個人、對於社會，確比飮酒吸毒所造成的要嚴重得多。

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

這些恐懼並不是想像中的。沒有一個父權式的政治——古代的也好，現代的也好——不管制人民的心靈、信仰和意見。這是個事實。如果剝奪了一個人的消費自由，也即剝奪了他的一切自由。那些主張政府干涉消費的人，太天眞了；當他們不理睬他們所認爲的學究式問題的時候，他們是在欺騙自己。他們無意中對於檢查制度、宗敎的不容忍，給反對者的迫害，都予以支持。

In dealing with the catallactics of interventionism we do not discuss these political consequences of direct government interference with the citizens' consumption. We are exclusively concerned with those acts of interference which aim at forcing the entrepreneurs and capitalists to employ the factors of production in a way different from what they would have done if they merely obeyed the dictates of the market. In doing this, we do not raise the question of whether such interference is good or bad from any preconceived point of view. We merely ask whether or not it can attain those ends which those advocating and resorting to it are trying to attain.

從市場經濟的觀點來看干涉主義，我們不討論政府干涉人民的消费所引起的這些政治後果。我們只討論爲要強迫企業家和資本家把生產要素用之於非市場所指導的用途，政府所採取的那些干涉。在這樣的討論中，我們不憑任何成見提出「這樣的干涉是好是壞」的問題。我們只問它會不會達到干涉主義者所想達成的目的。

Corruption

貪汚腐敗

An analysis of interventionism would be incomplete if it were not to refer to the phenomenon of corruption.

對於干涉主義的分析，如果不講到貪汚腐敗的現象，那就不夠完全。

There are hardly any acts of government interference with the market process that, seen from the point of view of the citizens concerned, would not have to be qualified either as confiscations or as gifts. As a rule, one individual or a group of individuals is enriched at the expense of other individuals or groups of individuals. But in many cases, the harm done to some people does not correspond to any advantage for other people.

政府干涉市場的任何作爲，從有關的人民看來，幾乎沒有例外地不是沒收就是贈與。通常是一個人或一羣人因政府的干涉而增加財富，另一個人或另一羣人因而受損害。但在許多情形下，給某些人的損害並不相當於另些人的受益。

There is no such thing as a just and fair method of exercising the tremendous power that interventionism puts into the hands of the legislature and the executive. The advocates of interventionism pretend to substitute for the --as they assert, "socially" detrimental--effects of private property and vested interests the unlimited discretion of the

干涉主義給立法者和行政者的那種大權，決沒有什麼可以叫做公平的運用法。干涉主義的主張者，自以爲是以賢明無私的立法者和那些善良勤謹的官僚們的自由裁決，來代替私有財產和旣得私益所產生的那些後果——照他們的講法，這些後果是對社會有害的。在他們的心目中，一般平凡人是無能、無用的小孩，急於需要父親的保護以免受壞人傷害。他們以「較高尙的」正義作藉口，排斥傳統的法治觀念。他們自己的所作所爲總是對的。因爲那是打擊那些自私的人，從他們所謂較高尙的正義來看，自私的人是想把一些應該屬於別人的東西據爲己有。

The notions of selfishness and unselfishness as employed in such reasoning are self-contradictory and vain. As has been pointed out, every action aims at the attainment of a state of affairs that suits the actor better than the state that would prevail in the absence of this action. In this sense every action is to be qualified as selfish. The man who gives alms to hungry children does it, either because he values his own satisfaction expected from this gift higher than any other satisfaction he could buy by spending this amount of money, or because he hopes to be rewarded in the beyond. The politician is, in this sense, always selfish no matter whether he supports a popular program in order to get an office or whether he firmly clings to his own--unpopular--convictions and thus deprives himself of the benefits he could reap by betraying them.

用在這種推理的「自私」和「不自私」觀念是自相矛盾的。前面曾講過，每個行爲都是爲要達到一個比沒有這個行爲時較好的情况。在這個意義下，每個行爲都可說是自私的。對飢餓兒童施捨的人之所以施捨，或者是因爲他對施捨行爲帶來的滿足所作的評値，髙於對這筆錢用在購買所帶來的滿足，或者是因爲他希望來生得到好報。在這個意義下，政客們總是自私的，不管他是爲取得一份官職而支持一個趨時的方案，或是固執他自己的——不合時尙的——意些信念，因而喪失掉「如果違背那些信念所可得到的利益」。

In the terminology of anticapitalism the words selfish and unselfish are used to classify people from the point of view of a doctrine that considers equality of wealth and income as the only natural and fair state of social conditions, that brands those who own or earn more than the average as exploiters, and that condemns entrepreneurial activities as detrimental to the common weal. To be in business, to depend directly on the approval or disapproval of one's actions by the consumers, to woo the patronage of the buyers, and to earn profit if one succeeds in satisfying them better than one's competitors do is, from the point of view of officialdom's ideology, selfish and shameful. Only those on the government's payroll are rated as unselfish and noble.

在反資本主義的用語中，「自私」和「不自私」這種字眼，是用來把人分類的。分類的標準是以財富與所得的平等看作唯一的自然而公平的社會情況。凡是保有或賺得超過了平均數的人都歸入自私的剝削者的一類，而把企業家的活動斥之爲公害。凡是從事工商業的，凡是完全憑消費者來裁判其行爲對錯的，凡是迎合購買者爭取其光顧的，凡是能夠比其競爭者更能滿足購買者而賺？寻利潤的，從官方的觀點看來，都是自私的、可恥的。只有在政府機關支領薪俸的人們，才可說是不自私的、高尙的。

Unfortunately the office-holders and their staffs are not angelic. They learn very soon that their decisions mean for the businessmen either considerable losses or--sometimes--considerable gains. Certainly there are also bureaucrats who do not take bribes; but there are others who are anxious to take advantage of any "safe" opportunity of "sharing" with those whom their decisions favor.

不幸地，政機關的首長和他們的屬僚們並不是天使般的人物。他們會很快地知道，他們所作的那些決定，對於工商業者或者是大大的損失，或者——有時——是大大的利得。不錯，官僚們也有不接受賄賂的，但是，有些人是很想利用一切「安全的」機會來「分享」在他們的決定下得到利益的人的利益的。

In many fields of the administration of interventionist measures, favoritism simply cannot be avoided. Take, for example, the case of export or import licenses. Such a license has for the licensee a definite cash value. To whom ought the government grant a license and to whom should it be denied? There is no neutral or objective yardstick available to make the decision free from bias and favoritism. Whether

在干涉的措施中，有許多地方，簡直是無法避免循私的。國際貿易的輸出或輸入特許制，就是一個例子。這種特許對於被特許者有一明確的金錢利益。政府應該給誰特許，對誰不特許呢？這決沒有中立的或客觀的標準可用以判斷而可免於偏私。至於在這種場合有沒有金錢過手，這是無關重要的。只要接受特許者對那作特許決定的人報以或將會報以其他的好處（例如投他的票），同樣也是循私舞弊。

Corruption is a regular effect of interventionism. It may be left to the historians and to the lawyers to deal with the problems involved.

貪汚腐敗，是干涉主義一定【通常】的後果。對於這裡的一些有關問題的處理，可以留待歷史家和法律家。

XXVIII. INTERFERENCE BY TAXATION

第28章 用租稅干涉

1. The Neutral Tax

一、中立的稅

To keep the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion running requires expenditure of labor and commodities. Under a liberal system of government these expenditures are small compared with the sum of the individuals' incomes. The more the government expands the sphere of its activities, the more its budget increases.

要使社會的強制建構能夠運作，必須花費人力物力。在一個自由政治制度下，這些費用只佔全國個人所得總和的一小部份。政府的活動範圍愈擴大，它的預算也就愈增加。

If the government itself owns and operates plants, farms, forests, and mines, it might consider covering a part or the whole of its financial needs from interest and profit earned. But government operation of business enterprises as a rule is so inefficient that it results in losses rather than in profits. Governments must resort to taxation, i.e., they must raise revenues by forcing the subjects to surrender a part of their wealth or income.

如果政府本身保有並經營工廠、農場、森林、鑛產，它也許想用所賺得的收益和利潤來支付財政需要的全部或一部份。但是，公營事業照例是效率很低的，賠本的時候多，賺錢的機會少。所以政府必得靠課稅收入。也即，必須強迫人民把他們的財富或所得繳出一部份。

A neutral mode of taxation is conceivable that would not divert the operation of the market from the lines in which it would develop in the absence of any taxation. However, the vast literature on problems of taxation as well as the policies of governments have hardly ever given thought to the problem of the neutral tax. They have been more eager to find the just tax.

中立的稅，是不干擾市場運作的稅。但是，關於課稅問題和財政政策問題的大量文獻，幾乎沒有想到中立的稅這個問題。它們是更急於尋求「公平的」稅。

The neutral tax would affect the conditions of the citizens only to the extent required by the fact that a part of the labor and material goods available is absorbed by the government apparatus. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy the treasury continually levies taxes and spends the whole amount raised, neither more nor less, for defraying the costs incurred by the activities of the government's officers. A part of each citizen's income is spent for public expenditure. If we assume that in such an evenly rotating economy there prevails perfect income equality in such a way that every household's income is proportional to the number of its members, both a head tax and a proportional income tax would be neutral taxes. Under these assumptions there would be no difference between them. A part of each citizen's income would be absorbed by public expenditure, and no secondary effects of taxation would emerge.

中立的稅當然也影饗到人民的境況，但其影響的程度，只限於政府機關所課去的那部份人力和物力。在假想的均勻輪轉經濟結構當中，財政部繼續地課稅，同時把全部稅收用出去，不多也不少。以支付政府活動所必須的經費。每個公民，以其所得的一部份用之於公共支出。如果我們假定，在這個均勻輪轉的經濟裡面，所得分配是完全平等的，即每個家庭的所得比例於各家庭的成員，那麼，人頭稅也好，比例的所得稅也好，都是中立的稅，兩者之間沒有區別。這樣，每個公民的所得被公共支出用去一部份，再也沒有第二種後果發生。

The changing economy is entirely different from this imaginary

變動的經濟與這假想的均勻輪轉而又所得平等的經濟結構，完全不同。不斷的變動與財富所得的不平等，是變動的市場經濟之必要的特徵，也即，市場經濟唯一眞實可行的體制。在這樣的體制架構中，沒有任何租稅是會中立的。中立稅這個觀念，正如同中立的貨幣觀念一樣，是不能實現的。但是，這兩者之必然非中立的理由，彼此不同。

A head tax that taxes every citizen equally and uniformly without any regard to the size of his income and wealth, falls more heavily upon those with more moderate means than upon those with more ample means. It restricts the production of the articles consumed by the masses more sharply than that of the articles mainly consumed by the wealthier citizens. On the other hand, it tends to curtail saving and capital accumulation less than a more burdensome taxation of the wealthier citizens does. It does not slow down the tendency toward a drop in the marginal productivity of capital goods as against the marginal productivity of labor to the same extent as does taxation discriminating against those with higher income and wealth, and consequently it does not to the same extent retard the tendency toward a rise in wage rates.

人頭稅是不管各個人的所得和財富多寡，一律課以相等的稅額。這種稅，經濟情況較差的人負擔重，而經濟情況較好的人卻負擔輕。大衆消費的商品比富人們消費的商品之生產，受到較大的妨害。另一方面，這種稅之損害儲蓄和資本累積，卻比對富人課的重稅來得輕些。這種稅不會把邊際資本財的生產力相對於邊際勞動的生產力而降低的趨勢減緩到那種歧視富人的課稅所會減緩的程度，因此，它也不致把工資率上漲的趨勢減緩到相同的程度。

The actual fiscal policies of all countries are today exclusively guided by the idea that taxes should be apportioned according to each citizen's "ability to pay." In the considerations which finally resulted in the general acceptance of the ability-to-pay principle there was some dim conception that taxing the well-to-do more heavily than those with moderate means renders a tax somewhat more neutral. However this may be, it is certain that any reference to tax neutrality was very soon entirely discarded. The ability-to-pay principle has been raised to the dignity of a postulate of social justice. As people see it today, the fiscal and budgetary objectives of taxation are of secondary importance only. The primary function of taxation is to reform social conditions according to justice. From this point of view, a tax appears as the more satisfactory the less neutral it is and the more it serves as a device for diverting production and consumption from those lines into which the unhampered market would have directed them.

現在，所有的國家所採行的財政政策，完全是受一個想法的支配，即稅負應按每人的「付稅能力」來分攤。在那些最後歸結於能力原則之普遍接受的考慮中，有個頗爲模糊的概念，即：對富有者課得較重的稅，是比較中立的稅。不管怎樣，凡是說到稅的中立性，都是不足置信的。能力原則已被抬舉爲社會公平的一個條件。現在大家都認爲，課稅的財政目的、預算目的只是次要的。課稅的主要功用是要社會情況改造得公平。課稅是政府干涉的手段。愈是良好的稅、愈是不中立的稅，愈是使生產消費違離自由市場所指導的途徑。

2. The Total Tax

二、全部課稅

The idea of social justice implied in the ability-to-pay principle is that of perfect financial equality of all citizens. As long as any

隱含於能力原則的社會正義之想法，是所有的人財富完全相等。只要所得或財產的不平等還存在，那就振振有詞地說：這些較大的所得和財產，不管它們的絕對量是多麼小，即表示有了超額的付稅能力，也可以說：所得和財產一有不平等的事實，即表示付稅能力的差異。能力說在邏輯上唯一的終點，是把所有的所得和財產高於任何人的最低數量的部份沒收[1]以實現完全的平等。

The notion of the total tax is the antithesis of the notion of the neutral tax. The total tax completely taxes away--confiscates--all incomes and estates. Then the government, out of the community chest thus filled, gives to everybody an allowance for defraying the costs of his sustenance. Or, what comes to the same thing, the government in taxing leaves free that amount which it considers everybody's fair share and completes the shares of those who have less up to the amount of their fair share.

全部課稅這個想法，是與中立稅的想法相反的。全部課稅即完全課掉——沒收——所有的所得和財產。然後政府就從裝滿了的公庫拿出錢來給每個人的生活費用。或者，政府在課稅的時候，留下被認爲是每個人應得的公平份，對於那些不夠公平份的人們則補足之。這個作法其結果是一樣的。

The idea of the total tax cannot be thought out to its ultimate logical consequences. If the entrepreneurs and capitalists do not derive any personal benefit or damage from their utilization of the means of production, they become indifferent with regard to the choice between various modes of conduct. Their social function fades away, and they become disinterested irresponsible administrators of public property. They are no longer bound to adjust production to the wishes of the consumers. If only the income is taxed away while the capital stock itself is left free, an incentive is offered to the owners to consume parts of their and thus to hurt the interests of everyone. A total income tax would be a very inept means for the transformation of capitalism into socialism. If the total tax affects wealth no less than income, it is no longer a tax, i.e., a device for collecting government revenue within a market economy. It becomes a measure for the transition to socialism. As soon as it is consummated, socialism has been substituted for capitalism.

全部課稅這個想頭，終極的邏輯結果是不堪設想的。如果企業家和資本家不能從他們的生產手段的利用中有任何的個人利潤與損失，他們對於行爲方式之選擇，就無可無不可了。他們的社會功用於是消失了，他們成爲不關心不負責的公有財產的管理人了。他們再也不必適應消費者的願望來調整生產。如果只把所得課掉，而把財產本身留給個人自由處分，那就是鼓勵財產所有人消費他們的財產，因而也傷害到每個人的利益。爲著實現社會主義，全部的所得課稅，畢竟是一個非常不適當的手段。如果全部課稅，對財產也和對所得一樣的課稅，那就不是稅了——稅，只是在市場經濟裡面籌取政府收入的一個方法。否則就變成了轉到社會主義的一個措施。一旦完成了的時候，社會主義就取代了資本主義。

Even when looked upon as a method for the realization of socialism, the total tax is disputable. Some socialists launched plans for a prosocialist tax reform. They recommended either a 100 per cent estate and gift tax or taxing away totally the rent of land or all unearned income--i.e., in the socialist terminology, all revenue not derived from manual labor performed. The examination of these projects is superfluous. It is enough to know that they are utterly incompatible with the preservation of the market economy.

即令我們把它看作實現社會主義的一個方法，全部課稅也是有爭論的。有些社會主義者發動了傾向社會主義的稅制改革計畫。他們有的提議百分之百的遺產贈與稅，有的提議課掉全部的地租或全部的「不勞而獲」——在社會主義的用語中，凡不是經由勞動賺得的，都叫做不勞而獲。對於這些計畫的檢討是多餘的。我們只要知道那些計畫與市場經濟的保持是絕不相容的。

-----------------

[1] Cf. Harley Lutz, Guideposts to a Free Economy (New York, 1945). p. 76.

[1] 參考Harley Lutz, Guideposts to a Free Economy (New York, 1945). p. 76.

3. Fiscal and Nonfiscal Objectives of Taxation

三、課稅的財政目的和非財政目的

The fiscal and nonfiscal objectives of taxation do not agree with one another.

課稅的財政目的和非財政目的是不一致的。

Consider, for instance, excise duties on liquor. If one considers them as a source of government revenue, the more they yield the better they appear. Of course, as the duty must enhance the price of the beverage, it restricts sales and consumption. It is necessary to find out by testing under what rate of duty the yield becomes highest. But if one looks at liquor taxes as a means of reducing the consumption of liquor as much as possible, the rate is better the higher it is. Pushed beyond a certain limit, the tax makes consumption drop considerably, and also the revenue concomitantly. If the tax fully attains its nonfiscal objective of weaning people entirely from drinking alcoholic beverages, the revenue is zero. It no longer serves any fiscal purpose: its effects are merely prohibitive. The same is valid not only with regard to all kinds of indirect taxation but no less for direct taxation. Discriminating taxes levied upon corporations and big business would, if raised above a certain limit, result in the total disappearance of corporations and big business. Capital levies, inheritance and estate taxes, and income taxes are similarly self-defeating if carried to extremes.

就酒稅爲例來講。如果把酒稅看作政府收入的一個來源，那就是稅收愈多愈好。當然，酒稅是會增加酒的價格的，因此限制了銷售量和消費量。所以，必須設法找出在什麼稅率下才可有最大的稅收。但是，如把酒稅看作寓禁於徵的手段，稅率就愈高愈好。高到某一程度以上，就可使消費大減，同時稅收也大減。如果酒稅完全達成了使人們戒酒的非財政目的，稅收就是零。它再也不爲財政的目的服務，它的效果只是禁止的。這樣的情形不限於所有的間接稅，直接稅也是如此。對於公司和大規模企業所課的差別稅，如果高到某一程度以上，其結果就會是那些公司和大企業的完全消滅。資本捐、遺產稅，以及所得稅，如果推行到極端，就會同樣地自我摧毀。

There is no solution for the irreconcilable conflict between the fiscal and the nonfiscal ends of taxation. The power to tax involves, as Chief Justice Marshall pertinently observed, the power to destroy. This power can be used for the destruction of the market economy, and it is the firm resolution of many governments and parties to use it for this purpose. With the substitution of socialism for capitalism, the dualism of the coexistence of two distinct spheres of action disappears. The government swallows the whole orbit of the individual's autonomous actions and becomes totalitarian. It no longer depends for its financial support on the means exacted from the citizens. There is no longer any such thing as a separation of public funds and private funds.

課稅的財政目的與非財政目的之間不可調和的衝突，是沒有方法解的。大法官Marshall說得很對：課稅的權力是破壞的權力。這權力可以用來摧毀市場經濟，有些政府和政黨確有決心用它達到這個目的。社會主義接替了資本主義以後，兩個顯然不同的行爲領域，就不再並存了。政府把個人自發行爲的軌道完全呑沒，而成爲極權的政府。爲著財政目的，它再也不靠取之於民的手段。再也沒有公產與私產之分

了。

Taxation is a matter of the market economy. It is one of the characteristic features of the market economy that the government does not interfere with the market phenomena and that its technical apparatus is so small that its maintenance absorbs only a modest fraction of the total sum of the individual citizens' incomes. Then taxes are an appropriate vehicle for providing the funds needed by the government. They are appropriate because they are low and do not perceptibly disarrange production and consumption. If taxes grow beyond a

課稅是市場經濟的事情。市場經濟的特徵之一是政府不干涉市場現象，它的技術建構很小，因而這個建構的維持費只要徵取全部個人所得的一小部份。這時，稅是籌取政府經費的一個適當辦法。之所以適當，因爲它們是低的，對於生產和消費沒有什麼可察覺到的干擾。如果它們高到某一程度以上，它們就不是稅了，就變成了破壞市場經濟的工具。

This metamorphosis of taxes into weapons of destruction is the mark of present-day public finance. We do not deal with the quite arbitrary value judgments concerning the problems of whether heavy taxation is a curse of a benefit and whether the expenditures financed by the tax yield are or are not wise and beneficial.[2] What matters is that the heavier taxation becomes, the less compatible it is with the preservation of the market economy. There is no need to raise the question of whether or not it is true that "no country was ever yet ruined by large expenditures of money by the public and for the public."[3] It cannot be denied that the market economy can be ruined by large public expenditures and that it is the intention of many people to ruin it in this way.

租稅變成破壞的工具這種轉變，是現代財政的特徵。重的稅是好是壤，用稅收來應付支出是否明智、有利，關於這些問題的十分武斷的價値判斷，我們不加討論[2]。要緊的事情是要知道，稅課變得愈重，它愈是與市場經濟的保持不相容。這裡，無須提出這個問題——「現在還沒有一個國家因爲大衆大量花錢而被拖垮」[3]這句話是否眞實。市場經濟是會被巨額的公共支出摧毀的。而且，有許多人是想用這個方法來摧毀它，這是不容否認的。

Businessmen complain about the oppressiveness of heavy taxes. Statesmen are alarmed about the danger of "eating the seedcorn." Yet, the true crux of the taxation issue is to be seen in the paradox that the more taxes increase, the more they undermine the market economy and concomitantly the system of taxation itself. Thus the fact becomes manifest that ultimately the preservation of private property and confiscatory measures are incompatible. Every specific tax, as well as a nation's whole tax system, becomes self-defeating above a certain height of the rates.

工商界時常爲重稅的壓迫訴苦。政治家常被警吿：不要「吃掉了種籽」。可是，課稅問題的眞正難點，見之於「稅愈是增加，愈是破壞市場經濟，同時也毀滅稅制本身」這個矛盾。所以，私有財產的維持與沒收式的措施之不相容的這個事實，是很明顯的。單一的稅目也好，整個稅制也好，當其稅率高過某一程度的時候，都是要自我毀滅的。

-----------------------

[2] This is the customary method of dealing with problems of public finance. Cf., e.g., Ely Adams, Lorenz, and Young, Outlines of Economics (3d ed. New York, 1920), p. 702.

[2] 這是處理財政問題的習慣方法，參考Ely Adams, Lorenz, and Young, Outlines of Economics (3d ed. New York, 1920), p. 702.

[3] Ibid.

[3] 同上。

4. The Three Classes of Tax Interventionism

四、租稅干涉的三個類別

The various methods of taxation which can be used for the regulation of the economy--i.e., as instruments of an interventionist policy--can be classified in three groups:

有幾種課稅方法可用來管制經濟——即作爲干涉政策的工具。這些方法可分爲三類：

1. The tax aims at totally suppressing or at restricting the production of definite commodities. It thus indirectly interferes with consumption too. It does not matter whether this end is aimed at by the imposition of special taxes or by exempting certain products from a general tax imposed upon all other products or upon those products which the consumers would have preferred in the absence of fiscal discrimination. Tax exemption is employed as an instrument of interventionism in the case of customs duties. The domestic product is not burdened by the tariff which affects only the merchandise imported from abroad. Many countries resort to tax discrimination in regulating

一、對於某些特定貨物的生產加以遏止或限制的稅。這種稅也間接地干涉到消費。爲達到干涉消費這個目的，有的是徵課某些特殊的稅，有的是豁免某些產品，而課在所有其他產品的一般的稅，或者豁免消費者在沒有租稅歧視時所願意購買的那些產品的稅。採用那一種方法是不關緊要的。稅的豁免，在關稅方面用作干涉的工具。國內產品不負擔關稅；關稅只課在國外輸入的貨物上。有些國家用差別的課稅來管制國內的生產。例如，他們想鼓勵葡萄酒的生產（中小規模的葡萄種植者的產品）以對抗大規模製造的啤酒生產而課啤酒更重的貨物稅。

2. The tax expropriates a part of income or wealth.

二、徵收所得和財產一部分的稅。

3. The tax expropriates income and wealth entirely.

三、徵收全部所得和財產的稅。

We do not have to deal with the third class, as it is merely a means for the realization of socialism and as such is outside the scope of interventionism. The first class is in its effects not different from the restrictive measures dealt with in the following chapter.The second class encompasses confiscatory measures dealt with in Chapter XXXII

第三類的稅我們不要討論，因爲它只是實現社會主義的一種手段，因而在干涉主義的範圍以外。第一類的稅，在它的效果方面無異於下一章所討論的那些限制政策。第二類的稅包含第三十二章所討論的那些沒收的辦法。

XXIX. RESTRICTION OF PRODUCTION

第29章 生產的拘限

1. The Nature of Restriction

一、拘限的性質

We shall deal in this chapter with those measures which are directly and primarily intended to divert production (in the broadest meaning of the word, including commerce and transportation) from the ways it would take in the unhampered market economy. Each authoritarian interference with business diverts production, of course, from the lines it would take if it were only directed by the demand of the consumers as manifested on the market. The characteristic mark of restrictive interference with production is that the diversion of production is not merely an unavoidable and unintentional secondary effect, but precisely what the authority wants to bring about. Like any other act of intervention, such restrictive measures affect consumption also. But this again, in the case of the restrictive measures we are dealing with in this chapter, is not the primary end the authority aims at. The government wants to interfere with production. The fact that its measure influences the ways of consumption also is, from its point of view, either altogether contrary to its intentions or at least an unwelcome consequence with which it puts up because it is unavoidable and is considered as a minor evil when compared with the consequences of nonintervention.

在這一章裡面，我們將討論那些想轉變生產（廣義的，包括商業和交通事業）方向的措施。在一個無束縛的市場經濟裡面，生產活動的方向是由消費者的需求指導的，極權政府對於工商業的每一干涉，都使生產活動轉向。對於生產加以拘限的干涉，其特徵是：生產的轉向不是一個不可避免的非意圖的附隨的後果，而是政府當局所想達成的後果。和任何其他的干涉一樣，這樣的拘限性措施也影響消費。但是，就我們在這一章所討論的拘限措施而言，這也不是政府當局的首要目的。政府所直接干涉的是生產。它的措施影響到消費方式這一事實，從它的觀點來看，也是與它的意圖完全相反的，或者至少是它所不歡迎的後果，它之所以忍受這個後果，是因爲這是不可避免的，而且與不干涉的後果比較，這可視爲較小的害。

Restriction of production means that the government either forbids or makes more difficult or more expensive the production, transportation, or distribution of definite articles, or the application of definite modes of production, transportation, or distribution. The authority thus eliminates some of the means available for the satisfaction of human wants. The effect of its interference is that people are prevented from using their knowledge and abilities, their labor and their material means of production in the way in which they would earn the highest returns and satisfy their needs as much as possible. Such interference makes people poorer and less satisfied.

生產拘限是指政府對生產、或對運輸、或對某些特定貨物的分配、或對生產、運輸或分配的一些特定方式的採用加以禁止，或使其更難、更費。於是乎政府消滅了某些可用以滿足人的慾望的手段。干涉的結果是：使人們不能把他們的知識和能力、他們的勞動、以及他們的物質的生產手段用於賺得最高報酬和最滿足他們需要的途徑。這樣的干涉是使人民更窮、更不滿足。

This is the crux of the matter. All the subtlety and hair-splitting wasted in the effort to invalidate this fundamental thesis are vain. On the unhampered market there prevails an irresistible tendency to employ every factor of production for the best possible satisfaction

這是這件事的難題。凡是想推翻這個基本結論的任何努力都是白費的。在無束縛的巿場裡面，有個不可抗拒的趨勢，即每個生產要素都僱用在最能滿足消費者最迫切的需要方面。如果政府干涉這個過程，那只會減損滿足而決不會促進滿足。

The correctness of this thesis has been proved in an excellent and irrefutable manner with regard to the historically most important class of government interference with production, the barriers to international trade. In this field the teaching of the classical economists, especially those of Ricardo, are final and settle the issue forever. All that a tariff can achieve is to divert production from those locations in which the output per unit of input is higher to locations in which it is lower. It does not increase production; it curtails it.

這個結論的正確性，已經從國際貿易的一些人爲的障礙得到證明。在古典經濟學國際貿易的敎義中，尤其是李嘉圖的敎義中，是最後的，再也沒有更正確的。關稅所能達成的目的，只是把生產方向從每單位投入的產出量較高的途徑扭轉到較低的途徑。這不是增加生產，而是削減生產。

People expatiate on alleged government encouragement of production. However, government dies not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches. It withdraws the factors of production from those branches in which the unhampered market would employ them and directs them into other branches. It little matters what kind of administrative procedures the government resorts to for the realization of this effect. It may subsidize openly or disguise the subsidy in enacting tariffs and thus forcing its subjects to defray the costs. What alone counts is the fact that people are forced to forego some satisfactions which they value more highly and are compensated only by satisfactions which they value less. At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending. As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.

人們常常說政府鼓勵生產。可是，爲著實現這個目的，政府採取什麼行政程序，倒是沒有什麼關係的。它可以公開津貼，或者用保護關稅給以變相津貼而增加一般人的負擔。値得重視的只有一點，即：—般人不得不放棄他們評値較高的某些滿足，而得到的補償只是他們評値較低的滿足。在干涉主義者的議論中，最基本的想法是：政府或國家是社會生產過程以外和以上的存在體，它保有一些非靠課稅於民而得來的東西，它可以爲某些特定的目的，支用這項神秘的東西。凡是希望從政府的支出得到個人利益的人們，都相信這個神話。爲著駁斥這些通行的謬見，我們必須強調：一個政府的支用和投資只能取之於民，它的支用和投資增加，民間的支用和投資就要同額減少。這是自明之理。

While government has no power to make people more prosperous by interference with business, it certainly does have the power to make them less satisfied by restriction of production.

政府的干涉不會使人民更富有，但它確可使生產削減，因而使人民的滿足較差。

2. The Price of Restriction

二、拘限的代價

The fact that restricting production invariably involves a curtailment of the individual citizens' satisfaction does not mean that such restriction is necessarily to be regarded as a damage. A government

拘限生產一定會減損衆人的滿足。這個事實並不意味這樣的限制必然地被視爲有害的。一個政府之採用限制措施，並不是隨隨便便毫無目的的。它是想達到某些目的，而認爲這些限制是實現那些計畫的適當手段。所以，對於限制政策麵價是基於兩個問題的解答：政府所選擇的手段是適於達成所追求的目的嗎？這個目的的實現足以補償大衆因限制而遭受的損害嗎？在提出這些問題的時候，我們之視生產拘限與我們之視租稅是一樣的。繳納租稅也直接減損納稅人的滿足。但是，這是他對於政府爲社會和社會每個份子所提供的服務所支付的代價。只要政府完成它的社會功用，而稅收不超過爲使政府機構得以順利運作所需要的數額，那些租稅就是些必要的成本而有所報償的。

The adequacy of this mode of dealing with restrictive measures is especially manifest in all those cases in which restriction is resorted to as a substitute for taxation. The bulk of expenditure for national defense is defrayed by the treasury out of the public revenue. But occasionally another procedure is chosen. It happens sometimes that the nation's preparedness to repel aggression depends on the existence of certain branches of industry which would be absent in the unhampered market. These industries must be subsidized, and the subsidies granted are to be considered as any other armaments expenditure. Their character remains the same if the government grants them indirectly by the imposition of an import duty for the products concerned. The difference is only that then the consumers are directly burdened with the costs incurred, while in the case of a government subsidy they defray these costs indirectly by paying higher taxes.

處理拘限措施的這種方法的適當性，在把拘限當作租稅的代替品來使用的那些場合尤其明顯。國防經費的大部份是國庫用公共收入來支應的。但是，也偶爾採用其他的辦法。國家的抵抗侵略，有時也要依賴自由市場裡面不會存在的某些工業部門。這些工業必須給予補助，而所給的補助可看作軍費的一部份。如果政府對於有關的產品課以進口稅而間接地來補助這些工業，結果也是一樣的。所不同的是，這時消費者直接負擔所發生的成本，而在政府直接補助時，他們則是經由繳納較高的租稅而間接支付這些費用的。

In enacting restrictive measures governments and parliaments have hardly ever been aware of the consequences of their meddling with business. Thus, they have blithely assumed that protective tariffs are capable of raising the nation's standard of living, and they have stubbornly refused to admit the correctness of the economic teachings concerning the effects of protectionism. The economists' condemnation of protectionism is irrefutable and free of any party bias. For the economists do not say that protection is bad from any preconceived point of view. They show that protection cannot attain those ends which the governments as a rule want to attain by resorting to it. They do not question the ultimate end of the government's action; they merely reject the means chosen as inappropriate to realize the ends aimed at.

在實行拘限措施的時候，政府和國會幾乎從未想到對於工商業的干擾所發生的一些後果。所以，他們很輕鬆地認爲，保護關稅能夠提高國民的生活水準，而堅不承認關於保護制度之後果的那些經濟理論的正確性。經濟學家對於保護制度的譴貴是無法反駁的，也是無任何偏見的。因爲，經濟學家並不是有贿成見而說保護都是壞的，他們是指出，保護制度不能達到政府想靠它來達成的那些目的。他們也不對政府這項措施的最後目的表示異議，他們只不承認它是實現那個目的的適當手段。

Most popular among all restrictive measures are those styled prolabor legislation. Here too the governments and public opinion badly

在一切拘限的措施中，最風行的是那些所謂保護勞工的立法。這又是政府和輿論對其後果作了錯誤判斷的地方。他們認爲限制工時和禁止童工只是加重僱主的負擔，對於工資收入者是一「社會利得」。但是，這只有在這些法律減少了勞動供給，因而使勞動邊際生產力相對於资本邊際生產力而提高的程度內，才會如此。可是，勞動供給的減少也將減少產品的總量，因而每人的平均消費量也將爲之減少。整個餅縮小了，而這個較小的餅分給工資收入者的那部份，在「比例上」將高於他們從較大的餅所分攤到的；同時，資本家的那部份在「比例上」降低了[1]。這要看每個場合的具體情況，也即是看，這個結果是否改善或損傷各業工資收入者的實質工资率。

The popular appraisal of prolabor legislation was based on the error that wage rates have no causal relation whatever to the value that the workers' labor adds to the material. Wage rates, says the "iron law," are determined by the minimum amount of indispensable necessities of life;; they can never rise above the subsistence level. The difference between the value produced by the worker and the wages paid to him goes to the exploiting employer. If this surplus is curtailed by restricting the working hours, the wage earner is relieved of a part of his toil and trouble, his wages remain unchanged, and the employer is deprived of a part of his unfair profit. The restriction of total output curtails only the income of the exploiting bourgeois.

通常對於勞工立法的評價是基於這個謬見：工資率與工人的勞動增加對雜質的價値，沒有任何因果關係。照工資「鐵則」的講法，工资率決定於必須的最低的生活費：它決不會超過這個水準以上。工人所生產的價値與他所收到的工資，兩者間的差額，歸於剝削的僱主。如果這項剩餘因工時的限制而減少，則工資收入者解脫了一部份辛苦，他的工資仍舊不變，只是僱主的不當利得削減了一部份。總產量的減少，只是減少剝削的資產階級的所得。

It has been pointed out already that the role which prolabor legislation played in the evolution of Western capitalism was until a few years ago much less important than would be suggested by the vehemence with which the problems involved have been publicly discussed. Labor legislation, for the most part, merely provided a legal recognition of changes in conditions already consummated by the rapid evolution of business.[2] But in the countries which were slow in adopting capitalistic modes of production and are backward in developing modern methods of processing and manufacturing, the problem of labor legislation is crucial. Deluded by the spurious doctrines of interventionism, the politicians of these nations believe that they can improve the lot of the destitute masses by copying the labor legislation of the most advanced capitalistic countries. They look upon the problems involved as if they were merely to be treated from what

我們曾經指出，勞工立法在西方資本主義的演進中發生的作用，直到最近幾年前，其重要性遠比熱烈主張的人所講的小得多。勞工立法大部份只是對那些已經因工商業的迅速發展而引起的情況變動予以法律承認而已[2]。但是，在那些遲緩採取資本主義生產方法而工業落後的國家裡面，勞工立法這個問題是很嚴重的問題。這些國家的政客們誤於干涉主義的敎條，以爲他們可以靠抄襲先進的资本主義國家的勞工立法，來改善窮苦大衆的命運。他們對於這裡一些有關的問題，好像只要從所謂「人道的觀點」來處理就行了，他們沒有認淸眞實的問題。

It is a sad fact indeed that in Asia many millions of tender children are destitute and starving, that wages are extremely low when compared with American or Western European standards, that hours of work are long, and that sanitary conditions in the workshops are deplorable. But there is no means of eliminating these evils other than to work, to produce, and to save more and thus to accumulate more capital. This is indispensable for any lasting improvement. The restrictive measures advocated by self-styled philanthropists and humanitarians would be futile. They would not only fail to improve conditions, they would make things a good deal worse. If the parents are too poor to feed their children adequately, prohibition of child labor condemns the children to starvation. If the marginal productivity of labor is so low that a worker can earn in ten hours only wages which are substandard when compared with American wages, one does not benefit the laborer by decreeing the eight-hour day.

在亞洲有幾百萬孱弱的兒童是窮苦飢餓的，那裡的工資與美國或西歐的比較，是極端的低的，工作時間很長、工廠的衛生環境又很壞，這確是悲慘的事實。但是，要消除這些慘象，只有工作、生產、多儲蓄，因而多累積資本；此外別無他法。凡是長久持績的改善必須如此。至於一些自以爲的慈善家和人道主義者所主張的那些限制措施，終歸是無效的。它們不僅是不能改善情況，反而會把事情弄得更糟。假如做父母的人窮到養不起他們的小孩子，禁止童工就等於要那些小孩餓死。如果勞動的邊際生產力低到一個工人十小時的工作只能賺得僅夠綳口的工資收入，這時，要以命令把工作時間減到八小時，那不是有利於工人的。

The problem under discussion is not the desirability of improving the wage earners' material well-being. The advocates of what are miscalled prolabor laws intentionally confuse the issue in repeating again and again that more leisure, higher real wages, and freeing children and married women from the necessity of seeking jobs would make the families of the workers happier. They resort to falsehood and mean calumny in calling those who oppose such laws as detrimental to the vital interests of the wage earners "labor-baiters" and "enemies of labor." The disagreement does not refer to the ends sought; it concerns solely the means to be applied for their realization. The question is not whether or not improvement of the masses' welfare is desirable. It is exclusively whether or not government decreed restricting the hours of work and the employment of women and children are the right means for raising the workers' standard of living. This is a purely catallactic problem to be solved by economics. Emotional talk is beside the point. It is a poor disguise for the fact that these self-righteous advocates of restriction are unable to advance any tenable objections to the economists' well-founded argumentation.

這裡所要討論的問題，不是改善工資收入者物質福利這個願望。主張所謂勞工保護法的人們一再講：較多的閒暇、較高的實質工資，以及使小孩和已婚婦女不必找工作，這就可使工人的家庭更快樂。這種講法是有意地把問題弄混淆。他們靠說謊和卑劣的毀謗，把那些認爲這樣的法律是傷害工資收入者主要利益而加以反對的人們，叫做「勞工的陷害者」或「勞工的敵人」。其實，反對這些法律的人們所不同意的，不涉及前者所追求的目的；而只涉及他們爲著目的的實現而採用的那些手段。問題不是在大衆福利的改善是不是可欲的。它只是在政府命令限制工時和女工、童工的僱用是不是提高工人生活水準的正確手段。這是一個要靠經濟學來解決的純粹的市場交換問題。感情的言論是不相干的。它是對於「這些自以爲是的限制政策的主張者不能提出任何有力的反對來反對經濟學家健全的理論」這個事實的一個可憐的託詞。

The fact that the standard of living of the average American worker is incomparably more satisfactory than that of the average Hindu worker, that in the United States hours of work are shorter and that the children are sent to school and not to the factories, is not an achievement of the government and of the laws of the country. It is the outcome of the fact that the capital invested per head of the employees is much greater than in India and that consequently the

美國工人的平均生活水準比中國的高，美國工人的工作時間短，兒童被送到學校而不是送到工廠，這不是美國的政府和法律的一個成就。這是因爲，就每個工人平均使用的資本財遠多於中國的，因而勞動的邊際生產力也遠高於中國的。這不是「社會政策」的好處；這是由於過去的放任政策沒有妨礙資本主義的演進。如果亞洲人想改善他們人民的命運，他們所應採取的是這放任政策。

The poverty of Asia and other backward countries is due to the same causes which made conditions unsatisfactory in the early periods of Western capitalism. While population figures increased rapidly, restrictive policies delayed the adjustment of production methods to the needs of the growing number of mouths. It is to the imperishable credit of the laissez faire economists, whom the typical textbooks of our universities dismiss as pessimists and apologists of the unfair greed of exploiting bourgeois, that they paved the way for economic freedom which raised the average standard of living to an unprecedented height.

亞洲和其他落後國家之所以貧窮，其原因和西方資本主義早期的情況之所以叫人不滿，原因是相同的。人口迅速地增加，而限制政策卻延緩了爲適應人口增加的需要而作的生產方法的調整。經濟自由把一般生活水準提高到空前的高度，爲經濟自由鋪路的是一些主張放任的經濟學家，他們的功績是不朽的，可是，我們現在一些大學裡所用的標準敎科書，卻把他們貶之爲悲觀主義者和貪婪的、剝削的資產階級的辯護人。

Economics is not dogmatic, as the self-styled "unorthodox" advocates of government omnipotence and totalitarian dictatorship contend. Economics neither approves nor disapproves of government measures restricting production and output. It merely considers it its duty to clarify the consequences of such measures. The choice of policies to be adopted devolves upon the people. But in choosing they must not disregard the teachings of economics if they want to attain the ends sought.

經濟學不是像那些自命爲「非傳統的」鼓吹政府萬能和極權獨裁的人們所主張的獨斷。經濟學對於政府限制生產的措施，旣不贊成也不反對。它只是說明這些措施的一些結果。這是經濟學的責任。至於政策的選擇則是人民的事情，但在選擇政策時，如果他們想達成所追求的目標，他們就不可忽視經濟學的敎義。

There are certainly cases in which people may consider definite restrictive measures as justified. Regulations concerning fire prevention are restrictive and raise the cost of production. But the curtailment of total output they bring about is the price to be paid for avoidance of greater disaster. The decision about each restrictive measure is to be made on the ground of a meticulous weighing of the costs to be incurred and the prize to be obtained. No reasonable man could possibly question this rule.

確也有些場合，人們會把某些特定的限制視爲正當的。關於防火的管制是拘束的，而且提高生產成本。但是，這些管制所引起的總產量的減少，是爲著避免更大的災難所付的代價。關於每一限制措施的決定，必須仔細權衡得失利弊。這是一個誰也不會置疑的常例。

---------------------

[1] Entrepreneurial profits and losses are not affected by prolabor legislation as they entirely depend on the more or less successful adjustment of production to the changing conditions of the market. With regard to these, labor legislation counts only as a factor producing change.

[1] 企業的利潤和虧損不受保護勞工的立法的影響，因爲，企業的盈虧完全要看適應市場變動而作的生產調整的成敗。關於這方面，勞工立法只有作爲引起變動的一個因素來看，才成問題。

[2] Cf. above, pp. 614-617.

[2] 参考第二十一章第七節。

3. Restriction as a Privilege

三、作爲一種特權的拘限

Every disarrangement of the market data affects various individuals and groups of individuals in a different way. For some people it is a boon, for others a blow. Only after a while, when production is adjusted to the emergence of the new datum, are these effects exhausted. Thus a restrictive measure, while placing the immense majority at a disadvantage, may temporarily improve some people's position. For those favored the measure is tantamount to the acquisition of a privilege. They are asking for such measures because they want to be privileged.

市場情勢的每一擾亂，對於不同的個人和不同的人羣會有不同的影響。對於某些人有利，對於其他的人有害。只有在相當的時間以後，生產適應了新的情勢而調整的時候，這些影響才消失。所以，一個限制的措施，雖然是不利於大多數人的，也會暫時地改善某些人的境況。對於那些受益的人而言，這個措施等於一種特權的取得。他們要求這些措施，因爲他們想享有特權。

Here again the most striking example is provided by protectionism. The imposition of a duty on the importation of a commodity burdens the consumers. But to the domestic producers it is a boon. From their point of view decreeing new tariffs and raising already existing tariffs is an excellent thing.

我們還可舉出保護政策所提供的最顯著例子。對進口货物所課的保護關稅是增加消費者的負擔的。但是，對於這種貨物的國內生產者卻是一種恩物。就他們的觀點來看，制定新的關稅和提高原有的關稅稅率，都是極好的事情。

The same is valid with regard to many other restrictive measures. If the government restricts--either by direct restriction or by fiscal discrimination--big business and corporations, the competitive position of small-size enterprises is strengthened. If it restricts the operation of big stores and chain stores, the small shopkeepers rejoice.

許多其他的拘限措施也是如此。如果政府對於大規模的公司加以限制——或直接限制或用差別課稅的辦法，則小規模的競爭力量就因之而加強。如果它限制大商店和連鎖商店的活動，則小店的老闆就開心。

It is important to realize that what those benefitted by these measures consider an advantage for themselves lasts only for a limited time. In the long run the privilege accorded to a definite class of producers loses its power to create specific gains. The privileged branch attracts newcomers, and their competition tends to eliminate the specific gains derived from the privilege. Thus the eagerness of the law's pet children to acquire privileges is insatiable. They continue to ask for new privileges because the old ones lose their power.

這些措施的受益人所認爲是他們自己的那種利益，只會在有限的時期以內可以繼續保有。對於這一點的認識是很要緊的。在長期中，某一部門的生產者得到的特權終會喪失它可取得特別利益的那個能力。這是因爲，享有特權的那個生產部門吸引了新來者，他們的競爭，趨向於消滅那些來自特權的特別利益。所以，爲想取得特權而尋求法律恩龍的這種慾求，是永不滿足的。他們樾績要求新的特權，因爲舊的特權喪失了它的能力。

On the other hand, the repeal of a restrictive measure to the existence of which the structure of production has already been adjusted means a new disarrangement of the market data, favors the short-run interests of some people and hurts the short-run interests of other people. Let us illustrate the issue by referring to a tariff item. Ruritania years ago, let us say in 1920, decreed a tariff on the importation of leather. This was a boon for the enterprises which at the moment happened to be engaged in the tanning industry. But then later the size of the industry expanded and the windfall gains which the tanners enjoyed in 1920 an in the following years petered out. What remains is merely the fact that a part of the world's leather production is shifted from locations in which the output per unit of input is higher, to locations in Ruritania in which production requires higher costs. The residents of Ruritania pay higher prices for leather than they would pay in the absence of the tariff. As a greater part of Ruritania's capital and labor is employed in the tanneries than would be the case under free trade for leather, some other domestic industries shrank or were at least prevented from growing. Less leather is imported from abroad and a smaller amount of Ruritanian products is exported as payment for leather imported. The volume of Ruritania's foreign trade is curtailed. Not a single soul in the whole world derives any advantage from the preservation of the old tariff. On the contrary, everyone is hurt by the drop in the total output of mankind's industrial effort. If the policy adopted by Ruritania with regard to leather were to be

另一方面，生產結構已經適應它的存在而作過調整，因此，如果那個限制措施一旦取消，那也是市場情勢的一個新擾亂，也同樣地短期有利於某些人，短期有害於其他的人。讓我就一個關稅項目來說明這個問題。我們假設多年以前，比方說一九二〇年吧，R國對於進口的皮革課以關稅。這是對於當時的硝皮業的一項恩寵。但是，後來這個行業擴大了，在一九二〇年及以後的幾年，硝皮業所享受的淌來之利就消失了。所遺留下的只是這樣一個事情：世界上皮革的生產有一部份轉移了地區，從生產成本較低的地區轉移到生產成本較高的R國以內的地區。R國的居民就要比課關稅前支付較高的價來買皮革。同時，R國的资本與勞力僱用在硝皮工業的數量，也比在皮革自由貿易下所僱用的數量較多。於是，R國其他的生產業勢將滅縮，至少是擴張受到了限制。從國外輸入的皮革減少了，爲償付進口皮革而輸出的產品也隨之減少。R國的對外貿易總量也就因而減削。這樣一來，全世界沒有一個人因爲保留這個舊關稅而得到一點利益。相反地，每個人都因爲人類生產努力的總產量滅少了而受害。假設R國對於皮革輸入所採的政策被所有的國家用來對付所有的輸入品，因而完全消滅國際貿易，使毎個國家完全自給，那麼，所有的人都完全放棄了國際分工所帶來的利益。

It is obvious that the repeal of the Ruritanian tariff on leather must in the long run benefit everybody, Ruritanians as will as foreigners. However, in the short run it would hurt the interests of the capitalists who have invested in Ruritanian tanneries. It would no less hurt the short-run interests of the Ruritanian workers specialized in tannery work. A part of them would have either to emigrate or to change their occupation. These capitalists and workers passionately fight all attempts to lower the leather tariff or to abolish it altogether.

很明顯地，如果R國取消皮革的進口關稅。就長期看，對於毎一個人——R國本國的和外國的——都有利。但在短期當中，這會損害曾在R國製革業投资的資本家的利益。也同樣損害R國專長於製革的工人的利益。這些人當中，就得有一部份遷居國外，或者轉業。所以，這些資本家和工人勢必熱烈反對皮革進口關稅的降低或完全取消。

This shows clearly why it is politically extremely difficult to brush away measures restricting production once the structure of business has been adjusted to their existence. Although their effects are pernicious to everybody, their disappearance is in the short run disadvantageous to special groups. These special groups interested in the preservation of the restrictive measures are, of course, only minorities. In Ruritania only the small fraction of the population engaged in the tanneries can suffer from the abolition of the tariff on leather. The immense majority are buyers of leather and leather goods and would be benefitted by a drop in their prices. Outside the boundaries of Ruritania, only those people would be hurt who are engaged in those industries which will shrink because the leather industry will expand.

這就明白地指出，爲什麼限制生產的一些措施一經產業結構相應調整以後，要想取消就極爲困難了。儘管這些措施的後果對於任何人都是有害的，把它們取消只在短期內對於某些特定的人羣有害。這些利於保持限制措施的人羣，當然只是少數。在R國只是人口中的一小部份從事製革業，這一小部份的人會因皮革進口關稅的取消而受害。大部份的人是皮革和皮革製品的購買者，他們將因皮革跌價而受益。在R國以外，只有那些因爲皮革業擴張而他們所從事的行業將隨之萎縮的人們才受到損害。

The last objection advanced by the opponents of free trade runs this way: Granted that only those Ruritanians engaged in tanning hides are immediately interested in the preservation of the tariff on leather. But every Ruritanian belongs to one of the many branches of production. If each domestic product is protected by the tariff, the transition to free trade hurts the interests of each industry and thereby those of all specialized groups of capital and labor the sum of which is the whole nation. It follows that repealing the tariff would in the short run be prejudicial to all citizens. And it is short-run interests only that count.

反對自由貿易的人們所提出的最後理由是這樣說的：即令只是那些從事製革的R國人直接與皮革關稅的保持有關，但是，R國的每個人屬於許多生產部門的一個部門。如果每種國內產品都是受關稅保護的，則從保護轉到自由貿易就會損害每個行業的利益，因而也損害所有的勞資的專業集團，也即全國的人。於是，就得到一個結論：取消保護關稅，在短期內將不利於所有的國民。而且値得我們計較的，也正是短期的利益。

This argument involves a threefold error. First, it is not true that all branches of industry would be hurt by the transition to free trade. On the contrary. Those branches in which the comparative costs of production are lowest will expand under free trade. Their short-run interests would be favored by the abolition of the tariff. The tariff on those products they themselves turn out is of no advantage for

這個議論涉及三重錯誤。第一、所有的生產部門都會因爲取消保護關稅轉向自由貿易而受害，這一說法是不對的。相反地，那些比較成本最低的生產部門在自由貿易下將會擴張。它們的短期利益會因關稅的取消而增進。對於他們自己產出的那種產品所課的關稅，對於它們沒有好處，因爲它們在自由貿易下不僅可以生存，而且可以發展。至於對尺國內的生產成本高於國外的那些產品所課的關稅，也損害他們，因爲原可用來使它們多生產的資本和勞力，轉到那些被關稅保護的生產部門。

Second, the short-run principle is entirely fallacious. In the short run every change in the market data hurts those who did not anticipate it in time. A consistent champion of the short-run principle must advocate perfect rigidity and immutability of all data and oppose any change, including any therapeutical and technological improvement.[3] If in acting people were always to prefer the avoidance of an evil in the nearer future to the avoidance of an evil in the remoter future, they would come down to the animal level. It is the very essence of human action as distinct from animal behavior that it consciously renounces some temporally nearer satisfaction in order to reap some greater but temporally remoter satisfaction.[4]

第二、短期原則完全是謬見。在短期中，市場情勢的每一變動不利於那些未及時料到這種變動的人們。主張短期原則的人如果是一貫的話，一定會主張一切情況的完全固定不動，反對任何變動，乃至包括醫療學和工藝學的改進[3]。如果人們在行爲中一味地只想避免眼前的損害而無遠慮，他們就會淪爲禽獸。人之所以異於禽獸者，就是人會自覺地爲著達成某些較大的、較遠的滿足而放棄某些近利。對於人而言，時間偏好不是絕對的；它只是用以權衡利弊得失的一些項目當中的一個項目而已。人會知道苦口的良藥會有治病的後果。他不會無條件地放棄長期利益而取短期利益；想像中的不同時期的滿足，他都考慮到。

Finally, if the problem of the abolition of Ruritania's comprehensive tariff system is under discussion, one must not forget the fact that the short-run interests of those engaged in tanning are hurt only by the abolition of one of the items of the tariff while they are favored by the abolition of the other items concerning the products of the industries in which comparative cost is high. It is true that wage rates of the tannery workers will drop for some time as against those in other branches and that some time will elapse until the appropriate long-run proportion between wage rates in the various branches of Ruritanian production will be established. But concomitantly with the merely temporary drop in their earnings, these workers will experience a drop in the prices of many articles they are buying. And this tendency toward an improvement in their conditions is not a phenomenon only of the period of transition. It is the consummation of the lasting blessings of free trade which, in shifting every branch of industry to the location in which comparative cost is lowest, increases the productivity of labor and the total quantity of goods produced. It is the lasting long-run boon which free trade secures to every member of the market society.

最後，如果R國的全部關稅一律廢除這個問題是在討論中，我們就不可忘記這個事實：那些製皮革的人們的短期利益之受害，只是由於許多稅目中的一個稅目的取消，至於其他的一些稅目之取消，對於他們是有利的，因爲那些稅目所涉及的產品是一些本國生產成本較高的產品。製革業的工資率相對於其他行業的工資率而言，誠然有一些時是會下降，直到各種行業的工資率之間的適當的長期的比例重新建立的時候爲止。但是，製革業的工人們在其收入暫時減少的同時，他們所買的許多物品的價格也在下跌。而且，這個有利於他們的趨勢，不是一個暫時的現象。這是自由貿易的一些持久福利的極致，它把每個生產部門安排在比較成本最低的地區，因而提高勞動的生產力而使產品的總量增加。這是自由貿易給市場社會每一份子的長期的、持久的利益。

The opposition to the abolition of tariff protection would be reasonable from the personal point of view of those engaged in the leather industry if the tariff on leather were the only tariff. Then one could explain their attitude as dictated by status interests, the interests of a

如果保護關稅只課在進口的皮革，那麼，從製革業者的觀點來講，反對關稅的廢除可說是合理的。這時，我們可把他們的反對態度解釋爲特殊利益所使然，這種屬於一個行業的利益，由於這個特權的廢除是會受到損害的。但是，在這個假設的事例中，製革者的反對一定是無效的。因爲大多數的國人會推翻它。保護關稅的主張者之所以能夠得勢，是由於許多的生產部門都同樣接受保護，而不只限於製革業一個部門，因而這許多部門都反對關於自己部門的那些稅目的廢除。這種情形，自然不是基於每個集體特殊利益的一個聯盟。如果每個人受到同樣程度的保護，每個人不僅是以消費者的身份所受的損失等於以生產者的身份所得的利益。而且，每個人將因勞動生產力的普遍降低而受害。勞動生產力之所以普遍降低，是由於一些生產事業從較有利的地區轉移到較不利的地區而引起的。相反地，把所有的稅目一律廢除將使毎個人享受長期的利益，同時，由於廢除某些特定稅目而使有關的集團受到的暫時損失，已經在短期內至少有一部份是會抵銷的——因爲所廢除的稅目中，有的是屬於這個集團所購買、所消费的東西。

Many people look upon tariff protection as if it were a privilege accorded to their nation's wage earners, procuring them, for the full duration of its existence, a higher standard of living than they would enjoy under free trade. This argument is advanced not only in the United States, but in every country in the world in which average real wage rates are higher than in some other country.

有許多人把保護關稅看作是給與本國工資收入者的一種特權；當保護關稅存在的時候，他們可賺得比在自由貿易下更高的工资，而享受較高的生活水準。這種說法不僅聞之於美國，凡是平均實質工資高於別國的國家都有這種說法。

Now, it is true that under perfect mobility of capital and labor there would prevail all over the world a tendency toward an equalization of the price paid for labor of the same kind and quality.[5] Yet, even if there were free trade for products, this tendency is absent in our real world of migration barriers and institutions hindering foreign investment of capital. The marginal productivity of labor is higher in the United States than it is in India because capital invested per head of the working population is greater, and because Indian workers are prevented from moving to America and competing on the American labor market. There is no need, in dealing with the explanation of this difference, to investigate whether natural resources are or are not more abundant in America than in India and whether or not the Indian worker is racially inferior to the American worker. However this may be, these facts, namely, the institutional checks upon the mobility of capital and labor, suffice to account for the absence of the equalization tendency. As the abolition of the American tariff could

如果資本與勞動的流動有完全的自由，則全世界同類、同質的勞動價格（工資）當然有趨向於相等的趨勢[4]。可是，即令產品是自由貿易的，但在移民和資本輸入方面卻有障礙，這個趨勢也就不會出現了。美國的勞動邊際生產力高於中國的，因爲美國所投的資本，就平均每個工人而言，高於中國的，同時，也因爲中國的工人不能自由進入美國的勞動市場來與美國工人競爭。在解釋這種差異的時候，我們不必過問是不是美國的自然資源比中國的多，也不必問是不是中國的工人比美國的差勁。不管怎樣，妨害资本與勞動流動自由的那些法制上的障礙，已足夠說明工资相等的趨勢之所以缺乏的理由。因爲美國關稅的廢除不影響這方面，那就不會損害美國工資收入者的生活水準。

On the contrary. Given a state of affairs in which the mobility of capital and labor is restricted, the transition to free trade for products must necessarily raise the American standard of life. Those industries in which American costs are higher (American productivity is lower) would shrink and those in which costs are lower (productivity is higher) would expand.

相反地，在资本與勞動的流動受到限制的場合，產品的貿易轉變到自由貿易，必然提高美國人的生活水準。美國的成本較高的（也即美國的生產力较低的）那些工業勢將萎縮，而其成本較低的（也即生產力較高的）那些工業勢將擴展。

Under free trade the Swiss watchmakers would expand their sales on the American market and the sales of their American competitors would shrink. But this is only a part of the consequences of free trade. Selling and producing more, the Swiss would earn and buy more. It does not matter whether they themselves buy more of the products of other American industries or whether they increase their domestic purchases and those in other countries, for instance, in France. Whatever happens, the equivalent of the additional dollars they earned must finally go to the United States and increase the sales of some American industries. If the Swiss do not give away their products as a gift, they must spend these dollars in buying.

瑞士製錶業的工資率和中國刺繡業的工資率，美國這兩業的工资率確實是低些。在自由貿易下，瑞士人和中國人在美國市場將會擴展他們銷路，美國競爭者的銷路將會萎縮。但是，這只是自由貿易的一些後果的一部份。瑞士人和中國人，因爲賣出的較多，生產的較多，也就有較多的賺得，較多的購買。至於他們是多買美國其他工業的產品，還是多買他們本國或別國（例如法國）的產品，那是不關緊要的。不管怎樣，他們所多賺的那筆錢終歸會流進美國，增加對美國產品的購買。如果瑞士人和中國人不是把他們產品當作禮物白送，他們就得把那筆錢花在購買上。

The popular opinion to the contrary is due to the illusory idea that America could expand its purchases of imported products by reducing the total sum of its citizens' cash holdings. This is the notorious fallacy according to which people buy without regard to the size of their cash holdings, and according to which the very existence of cash holdings is simply the outcome of the fact that something is left over because there is nothing more to buy. We have already shown why this Mercantilist doctrine is entirely wrong.[6]

相反的流行見解是由於這個幻想：美國可以靠減少公民們現金握存的總量來增加輸入品的購買。這是個有名的謬見。照這個謬見，人們可以不管他們現金握存額的多少而購買，而且照這個謬見，現金握存的存在，只是因爲沒有更多的東西可買而剩餘下來的。我們曾經指出，這種重商主義的敎條是如何地完全錯誤[5]。

What the tariff really brings about in the field of wage rates and the wage earners' standard of living is something quite different.

保護關稅在工資率和工人生活水準方面所發生的影響，實際上不是這回事。

In a world in which there is free trade for commodities, while the migration of workers and foreign investment are restricted, there prevails a tendency toward an establishment of a definite relation between the wages paid for the same kind and quality of labor in various countries. There cannot prevail a tendency toward an equalization of wage rates. But the final price to be paid for labor in various countries is in a certain numerical relation. This final price is characterized by the fact that all those eager to earn wages get a job and all those eager to employ workers are able to hire as many hands as they want. There is "full employment."

在一個貨物貿易是自由的，而勞動和資本的流動是受限制的世界裡面，有一個趨勢是趨向於在各國對於同類、同質的勞動所付的價格之間建立一個確定的關係。這裡不含有工資率趨於相等的趨勢。但是，各國對於勞動所付的最後價格保有某種數字關係。這個最後價格的特徵表現於這個事實：凡是想賺取工資的人都得到一個職業，凡是想僱用工人的人，都能僱到他所想僱的人數。這就是「充份就業」。

Let us assume that there are two countries only--Ruritania and Laputania. In Ruritania the final wage rate is double what it is in

讓我們假設只有兩個國家——R國和M國。在R國裡面，最後工資是M國的一倍。R國的政府採用那些被誤稱爲「保護勞工」的方法。它增加僱主的負擔，使他們比例於僱用的人數而負擔一筆額外開支。例如，它減少工作時間而不許相對地降低每週的工資率。其結果是，產出的貨物數量滅少，而貨物的單價上昇。工人享受了較多的閒暇，但是，他們的生活水準卻降低了。可用的貨物量一般的減少會引起什麼別的後果嗎？

This outcome is an internal event in Ruritania. It would emerge also in the absence of any foreign trade. The fact that Ruritania is not autarkic, but buys from and sells to Laputania, does not alter its essential features. But it implicates Laputania. As the Ruritanians produce and consume less, they will buy less from Laputania. In Laputania there will not be a general drop in production. But some industries which produced for export to Ruritania will henceforth have to produce for the domestic Laputanian market. Laputania will see the volume of its foreign trade drop; it will become, willy-nilly, more autarkic. This is a blessing in the eyes of the protectionists. In truth, it means deterioration in the standard of living; production at higher costs is substituted for that at lower costs. What Laputania experiences is the same thing that the residents of an autarkic country would experience if an act of God were to curtail the productivity of one of the country's industries. As far as there is division of labor, everybody is affected by a drop in the amount other people contribute to supplying the market.

這個結果是在R國內部發生的。R國不是自給自足的，它與M國有輸出輸入的貿易關係，這個事實並不改變上述的結果。但是這涉及M國。當R國的人們生產少了，消費少了，他們也就少買M國的產品。在M國，生產沒有普遍滅少。伹是，有些爲輸出R國而生產的工業將因此不得不爲M本國市場而生產。M國眼見國外貿易量減少；它將變得更自給自足了。這是保護主義者認爲的好事。其實，這是生活水準的降低；成本較高的生產代替了成本較低的生產。人們削減其對市場的供給量，對於每個人的損害將隨分工的程度髙低而或大或小。

However, these inexorable final international consequences of Ruritania's new pro-labor law will not affect the various branches of Laputania's industry in the same way. A sequence of steps is needed in both countries until at last a perfect adjustment of production to the new state of data is brought about. These short-run effects are different from the long-run effects. They are more spectacular than the long-run effects. While hardly anybody can fail to notice the short-run effects, the long-run effects are recognized only by economists. While it is not difficult to conceal the long-run effects from the public, something must be done about the easily recognizable short-run effects lest the enthusiasm for such allegedly pro-labor legislation fade away.

可是，R國的保護勞工的新法律所引起的這些國際後果，並不同樣地影響M國的工業各部門。生產之適應新情勢而作的調整，從開始到最後完成，必須經過一連串的步驟。這些短期效果與長期效果不同。它們比長期效果更顯得可觀。短期效果幾乎每個人都會注意到，長期效果只有經濟學家才看得出來。掩蓋長期效果不讓大家知道，這不是一件難事，可是，爲免於那股贊助所謂勞工保護法的熱情消失，關於容易看出的那些短期效果，卻有些事情要作。

The first short-run effect to appear is the weakening of the competitive power of some Ruritanian branches of production as against those of Laputania. As prices rise in Ruritania, it becomes possible for

第一個出現的短期效果，是R國的某些生產部門的競爭力，相對於M國的而言減弱了。因爲R國的物價上漲，就可能有些M國的人在R國擴張他們的銷售量。這只是暫時的效果；到了最後，所有M國的工業在R國的銷售總額是會減少的。儘管M國對R國的輸出總額一般地說，是減少了，但是，M國的某些工業仍可能在長期中擴張他們的銷售量（這就要看比較成本的新情勢如何）。但是，在短期效果與長期效果之間沒有必然的相互關係。過渡期的一些調整，會引起一些完全不同於最後結果的千變萬化的變動情況。可是，缺乏遠見的大衆，其注意力完全被這些短期效果吸引住。他們聽到商人們訴苦，說R國的新法律使M國人有機會在R國和M國低價出賣。他們看到有些R國的商人不得不限制他們的生產並裁減工人。於是，他們開始懷疑那些自以爲「非正統的勞工朋友們」的敎義可能有什麼毛病。

But the picture is different if there is in Ruritania a tariff high enough to prevent Laputanians from even temporarily expanding their sales on the Ruritanian market. Then the most spectacular short-run effects of the new measure are masked in such a way that the public does not become aware of them. The long-run effects, of course, cannot be avoided. But they are brought about by another sequence of short-run effects which is less offensive because less visible. The talk about alleged "social gains" produced by the shortening of the hours of work is not exploded by the immediate emergence of effects which everyone, and most of all the discharged workers, consider undesirable.

但是，如果在R國有一種關稅，其稅率高到足以防止M國人在R國市場擴展他們的銷售（甚至暫時的擴展也不可能），情形就不一樣了。這時，這個新方法最顯著的短期效果，就被掩蔽得大家看不出來了。長期效果，自然是不能避免的。但是，它們是由一些短期效果的另一個次序引起的，而這個次序因爲比較不明顯而較少令人不快。關於因縮短工作時間而產生的所謂「社會利得」的傳說，不是憑每個人和被解僱的工人所認爲不好的那些後果之立即出現而推翻的。

The main function of tariffs and other protectionist devices today is to disguise the real effects of interventionist policies designed to raise the standard of living of the masses. Economic nationalism is the necessary complement of these popular policies which pretend to improve the wage earners' material well-being while they are in fact impairing it.[7]

今日，關稅和其他一些保護策略的主要功用，是在掩飾那些用來提高大衆生活水準的干涉政策的眞實後果。經濟的國家主義是這些風行的政策的必要補充，而這些政策號稱爲改善工資收入者的物質福利，事實上是損害他們福利的[6]。

---------------------

[3] This consistency was displayed by some Nazi philosophers. Cf. Sombart, A New Social Philosophy, pp. 242-245.

[3] 這種一貫已見之於某些納粹黨的哲學家。參考Sombart, A New Social Philosophy, pp. 242-245.

[4] See above, pp. 479-488.

[5] For a detailed analysis, cf. above, p. 627.

[4] 關於詳細的分析，參考前面第二十一章第九節。

[6] See above, pp. 448-452.

[5] 見前面第十七章第十三節。

[7] See also what has been said about the function of cartels on pp. 365-369.

[6] 參考第十六章第六節關於卡特爾的功用的分析。

4. Restriction as an Economic System

四、作爲一個經濟制度的拘限

There are, as has been shown, cases in which a restrictive measure can attain the end sought by its application. If those resorting to such a measure think that the attainment of this goal is more important than the disadvantages brought about by the restriction--i.e., the curtailment in the quantity of material goods available for consumption--the

我們曾講過，有些場合，拘限的策略是可以達成所追求的目的的。如果採取那個策略的人們認爲，那個目的比拘限所引起的不利——即，可用以消費的物質財貨的數量減少——更爲重要，則採取拘限策略，從他們的價値判斷來講，是對的。他們蒙受損失，支付代價，爲的是取得他們所評値較高的東西。任何人，包括理論家在內，都不能與他們議論關於他們的價値判斷之是否適當。

The only adequate mode of dealing with measures restricting production is to look at them as sacrifices made for the attainment of a definite end. They are quasi-expenditures and quasi-consumption. They are an employment of things that could be produced and consumed in one way for the realization of certain other ends. These things are prevented from coming into existence, but this quasi-consumption is precisely what satisfies the authors of these measures better than the increase in goods available which the omission of the restriction would have produced.

處理那些拘限生產的策略之唯一適當的方式，是把這些策略看作爲達成一個特定目的而作的犧牲。這些策略是些「準開銷」和「準消費」。它們是使用那些可以爲實現某些別的目的而生產、而消費的東西。這些東西不能出現了，但是，這準消費對於這些策略的製作人所給的滿足，卻勝於取消這些策略所可產生的財貨之增加。

With certain restrictive measures this point of view is universally adopted. If a government decrees that a piece of land should be kept in its natural state as a national park and should be withheld from any other utilization, nobody would classify such a venture as anything else than an expenditure. The government deprives the citizens of the increment in various products which the cultivation of this land could bring about, in order to provide them with another satisfaction.

就某些拘限策略而言，這個觀點是被普遍採納的。如果政府規定一塊土地必須保存它的自然狀態作爲一個國家公園，而不許作任何其他的利用，這種作法，誰也不會認爲不是消費。政府剝奪了人民耕種這塊土地所可獲致的增產，而供給他們另一種滿足。

It follows that restriction of production can never play any role other than that of an ancillary complement of a system of production. One cannot construct a system of economic action out of such restrictive measures alone. No complex of such measures can be linked together into an integrated economic system. They cannot form a system of production. They belong in the sphere of consumption, not in the sphere of production.

由此可知，對於生產加以拘限，只可輔助生產體系的運作，決不會有其他的作用。我們不能單單靠一些拘限的策略來建立一個經濟行爲的體系。它們不能形成一個生產體系。它們屬於消费領域，不属於生產領域。

In scrutinizing the problems of interventionism we are intent upon examining the claims of the advocates of government interference with business that their system offers an alternative to other economic systems. No such claim can reasonably be raised with regard to measures restricting production. The best they can attain is curtailment of output and satisfaction. Wealth is produced by expending a certain quantity of factors of production. Curtailing this quantity does not increase, but decreases, the amount of goods produced. Even if the ends aimed at by shortening the hours of work could be attained by such a decree, it would not be a measure of production. It is invariably a way of cutting down output.

在檢視干涉主義所引起的那些問題時，我們是專心於討論干涉主義者所宣稱的他們的制度可替代其他的一些經濟制度。這種說法是沒有理由的。拘限生產的干涉措施是削減產量和滿足。財富的生產是要消耗生產要素的。減少生產要素就是減少產品的數量，而不是增加它們。即令減少工時所想達成的目的可以靠命令來達到，那也不是一個生產的策略。那一定是減少產量的一個途徑。

Capitalism is a system of social production. Socialism, say the socialists, is also a system of social production. But with regard to measures restricting production, even the interventionists cannot raise

資本主義是個社會生產制度。社會主義，照社會主義者的說法，也是個社會生產制度。但是，關於拘限生產的那些策略，即令是干涉主義者也不能提出同樣的說法。他們只能說在资本主義下生產太多了，因而說爲實現其他的一些目的，他們想防止這過剩的生產。他們自己也得承認拘限策略的應用是有限度的。

Economics does not contend that restriction is a bad system of production. It asserts that it is not at all a system of production but rather a system of quasi-consumption. Most of the ends the interventionists want to attain by restriction cannot be attained this way. But even where restrictive measures are fit to attain the ends sought, they are only restrictive.[8]

經濟學並不認爲拘限是個壞的生產制度。它是說那根本不是一個生產制度，而是個準消费制度。干涉主義者想用拘限的策略達成的目的，大都不能靠這種策略達成。但是，即令在拘限策略適於達成所追求的目的的場合，它們也只是拘限的[7]。

The enormous popularity which restriction enjoys in our day is due to the fact that people do not recognize its consequences. In dealing with the problem of shortening the hours of work by government decree, the public is not aware of the fact that total output must drop and that it is very probable that the wage earners' standard of living will be potentially lowered too. It is a dogma of present-day "unorthodoxy" that such a "prolabor" measure is a "social gain" for the workers and that the costs of these gains fall entirely upon the employers. Whoever questions this dogma is branded as a "sycophantic" apologist of the unfair pretensions of rugged exploiters, and pitilessly persecuted. It is insinuated that he wants to reduce the wage earners to the poverty and the long working hours of the early stages of modern industrialism.

拘限策略今日之所以風行，是由於人們不知道它的一些後果。在討論政府規定縮短工時這個問題的時候，人們不了解總產量一定減少，而工資收入者生活水準也將隨之降低。至於說這樣的「保護」勞工的策略是一「社會利得」，而其成本完全完全落在僱主的身上，這完全是今日「非正統派」的一種獨断。誰懷疑這個獨断，誰就被扣上「剝削者的辯護人」的帽子，而遭受殘酷的打擊，他就被暗示爲：想把工資收入者壓成窮人，想把工作時間延長到現代工業化的早期狀態。

As against all this slander it is important to emphasize again that what produces wealth and well-being is production and not restriction. That in the capitalist countries the average wage earner consumes more goods and can afford to enjoy more leisure than his ancestors, and that he can support his wife and children and need not send them to work, is not an achievement of governments and labor unions. It is the outcome of the fact that profit-seeking business has accumulated and invested more capital and thus increased the marginal productivity of labor.

爲著駁斥這種汚衊，我們必須再強調：帶來財產和福利的，是生產不是拘限，在資本主義國家裡面，一般工資收入者比他的祖先們消費更多的財貨，而且能夠享受更多的閒暇，他能夠撫養妻兒而不必送他們去工作，這都不是政府和工會的成就。而是由於謀取利潤的工商業累積了更多的資本，投下了更多的資本，因而把勞動生產力提高了百倍乃至千倍。

--------------------

[8] As for the objections raised against this thesis from the point of view of the Ricardo effect, see below, pp. 773-776.

[7] 關於從李嘉園效果的觀點提出的對於這個命題的反對，參閱第三十章第三節。

XXX. INTERFERENCE WITH THE STRUCTURE OF PRICES

第30章 對於價格結構的干涉

1. The Government and the Autonomy of the Market

一、政府與巿場的自律

Interference with the structure of the market means that the authority aims at fixing prices for commodities and services and interest rates at a height different from what the unhampered market would have determined. It decrees, or empowers--either tacitly or expressly--definite groups of people to decree, prices and rates which are to be considered either as maxima or as minima, and it provides for the enforcement of such decrees by coercion and compulsion.

對於市場結構的干涉，就是政府要把貨物與勞動的價格和利率規定在一個不同於自由市場所決定的高度。政府公吿，或暗示或明示地授權一些特定的人，公吿被認爲最高限的或最低限的一些價格與費率，政府並提供強制力來執行這些公吿。

In resorting to such measures the government wants to favor either the buyer--as in the case of maximum prices--or the seller--as in the case of minimum prices. The maximum price is designed to make it possible for the buyer to procure what he wants at a price lower than that of the unhampered market. The minimum price is designed to make it possible for the seller to dispose of his merchandise or his services at a price higher than that of the unhampered market. It depends on the political balance of forces which groups the authority wants to favor. At times governments have resorted to maximum prices, at other times to minimum prices for various commodities. At times they have decreed maximum wages rates, at other times minimum wage rates. It is only with regard to interest that they have never had recourse to minimum rates; when they have interfered, they have always decreed maximum interest rates. They have always looked askance upon saving, investing, and moneylending.

政府用這樣的策略或者是想加惠於買者——在最高價格的場合，或者是想加惠於賣者——在最低價格的場合。最高價格的目的是要使買者可能用低於自由市場的價格買到他所想買的。最低價格的目的是要使賣者可能以高於自由市場的價格賣掉他所想賣的貨物或勞務。至於政府想加惠於那些集團，這就要看政治力的差異。對於某些貨物，政府有時採用最高價格，有時也採用最低價格。對於工資，政府有時公佈最高工資率，有時也公佈最低工資率。至於利息，政府從未公佈過最低的利率；當政府干涉利息的時候，總是公佈最高利率。政府對儲蓄、投資和放款總是嫉視的。

If this interference with commodity prices, wage rates, and interest rates includes all prices, wage rates, and interest rates, it is tantamount to the full substitution of socialism (of the German pattern) for the market economy. Then the market, interpersonal exchange, private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and private initiative, virtually disappear altogether. No individual any longer has the opportunity to influence the process of production of his own accord; every individual is bound to obey the orders of the supreme board of production management. What in the complex of these orders are called prices, wage rates, and interest rates are no longer prices, wage rates, and interest rates in the catallactic sense of these

如果對於物價、工資、利率的干涉，包括所有物價、工資和利息，那就是充份地以社會主義（德國型的）替代市場經濟。於是，市場、人際交換、生產手段私有權、企業、以及民間的創發，也就統統消滅了。任何人再也沒有機會按照自己的本意來改變生產程序；每個人都得服從生產管理局的命令。在這些命令之下的所謂價格、工資率、和利率，再也沒有交換論中這些名詞的意義了。它們只是由指揮者所作的一些數量决定，無關乎市場程序。如果採用價格管制的政府和主張價格管制的改革家總是想建立德國型的社會主義，那就無須經濟學來各別討論價格管制問題。關於這樣價格管制所要說的，已經全部包括在社會主義的分析中。

Many advocates of government interference with prices have been and are very much confused with regard to this issue. They have failed to recognize the fundamental difference between a market economy and a nonmarket society. The haziness of their ideas has been reflected in vague and ambiguous language and in a bewildering terminology.

許多主張價格管制的人，對於這個問題非常模糊。他們不知道市場經濟與非市場社會的基本區別。他們觀念上的模糊，反映在他們的用語中。他們常常把這些完全不相容的東西併湊起來。他們的一些主要概念都是邏輯學家所說的「contradictio in adjecto」[1]那種矛盾的例子。

There were and are advocates of price control who have declared that they want to preserve the market economy. They are outspoken in their assertion that government fixing of prices wage rates, and interest rates can attain the ends the government wants to attain by their promulgation without abolishing altogether the market and private ownership of the means of production. They even declare that price control is the best or the only means of preserving the system of private enterprise and of preventing the coming of socialism. They become very indignant if somebody questions the correctness of their doctrine and shows that price control, if it is not to make things worse from the point of view of the governments and the interventionist doctrinaires, must finally result in socialism. They protest that they are neither socialists nor communists, and that they aim at economic freedom and not at totalitarianism.

但是，居然有些主張價格管制的人，公開宣稱他們要保持市場經濟。他們竟直率地說：規定物價、工資和利率的政府，可以靠頒佈命令達成所想達成的目的，而不完全廢除市場和生產手段私有權。他們甚至於宣稱，價格管制是保持私有企業制和防止社會主義到來最好的或唯一的辦法。如果有人懐疑他們這種說法的正確性而指出「價格管制，如果不是從政府和干涉主義者的觀點看來把事情弄得更糟，那就是歸結於社會主義」，他們就變得憤怒。他們抗議說，他們旣不是社會主義者，也不是共產主義者，他們的目的是經濟自由而不是極權統治。

It is the tenets of these interventionists that we have to examine. The problem is whether it is possible for the police power to attain the ends it wants to attain by fixing prices, wage rates, and interest rates at a height different from what the unhampered market would have determined. It is beyond doubt that a strong and resolute government has the power to decree such maximum or minimum rates and to take revenge upon the disobedient. But the question is whether or not the authority can attain those ends which it wants to attain by resorting to such decrees.

我們所要檢討的就是干涉主義的這些說詞。問題是在用警察的力量能否達成想靠物價、工資和利率規定在不同於自由市場所決定的高度來達成的那些目的。當然，一個堅強而有決心的政府，有力量規定這樣的最高價格或最低價格，而對於不服從的人給以嚴厲的慜罰。但是，問題在於政府不能靠這樣的命令達成它所想達成的那些目的。

History is a long record of price ceilings and anti-usury laws. Again and again emperors, kings, and revolutionary dictators have tried to meddle with the market phenomena. Severe punishment was inflicted on refractory dealers and farmers. Many people fell victim to persecutions which met with the enthusiastic approval of the masses. Nonetheless, all these endeavors failed. The explanation which the writings of lawyers, theologians and philosophers provided for the

歷史，是物價管制和反高利貸的一部長編記錄。皇帝們、國王們，以及革命的獨裁者，一再地干擾市場現象。嚴厲的懲罰加在那些不服從的商人和農民之上。許多人在羣衆所熱烈支持的迫害下被犧牲了。但是，所有這些作法都是失敗的。法律家、神學家以及哲學家們對於這種失敗所提供的解釋，與統治者和羣衆的想法完全一樣。他們說，人是生來自私的、有罪的，政府在執行法律的時候未免太鬆懈了。權力的行使應該還要更毅然決然。

Cognizance of the issue involved was first reached with regard to a special problem. Various governments long practiced currency debasement. They substituted baser and cheaper metals for a part of the gold or silver which the coins previously contained, or they reduced the weight and the size of the coins. But they retained for the debased coins the customary names of the old ones and they decreed that they should be given and received at the nominal par. Then later the governments tried to enjoin on their subjects analogous constraint with regard to the exchange ratio between gold and silver and that between metallic money and credit money or fiat money. In searching for the causes which made all such decrees abortive, the forerunners of economic thought had already discovered by the last centuries of the Middle Ages the regularity which was later called Gresham's Law. There was still a long way to go from this isolated insight to the point where the philosophers of the eighteenth century became aware of the interconnectedness of all market phenomena.

對於這一點的認識，是從一個問題開始的。許多政府早已實行通貨貶質（currency debasement）。他們用較劣、較便宜的金屬滲進鑄幣原先所含的金銀成份，或者把鑄幣的重量和體積減低、減小，但是，他們仍使這貶質的通貨保持原先的名稱，而且規定要按照名義上的平價授受。後來，那些政府又規定金與銀之間以及金屬幣與信用之間的比率，命令人民必須按照這法定的比率交換。在追究這些企圖之所以歸於無效的原因時，中世紀後期的經濟思想的一些先驅們，已經發現了後來叫做葛萊欣法則（Gresham's Law）的那個規律性。可是，從這個孤立的透視進到十八世紀的哲學家們認知了所有市場現象的互相關聯，其間經過了一段很長的時期。

In describing the results of their reasoning the classical economists and their successors sometimes resorted to idiomatic expressions which could easily be misinterpreted by those who wanted to misinterpret them. They occasionally spoke of the "impossibility" of price control. What they really meant was not that such decrees are impossible, but that they cannot attain those ends which the governments are trying to attain and that they make things worse, not better. They concluded that such decrees are contrary to purpose and inexpedient.

古典的經濟學家和他們的繼承人有時說到價格管制的「不可能」。這個說法很容易被那些想曲解的人曲解。古典學派經濟學家的眞正意思不是說價格管制的規定不可能的，而是說那些管制不可能達到政府想用以達成的目的，而且會把事情弄得更糟。他們的結論是說：這樣的一些規定是與目的衝突的，而且是不利的。

It is necessary to see clearly that the problem of price control is not merely one of the problems to be dealt with by economics, not a problem with regard to which there can arise disagreement among various economists. The issue involved is rather: Is there any such thing as economics? Is there any regularity in the sequence and interconnectedness of the market phenomena? He who answers these two questions in the negative denies the very possibility, rationality and existence of economics as a branch of knowledge. He returns to the beliefs held in the ages which preceded the evolution of economics. He declares to be untrue the assertion that there is any economic law and that prices, wage rates, and interest rates are uniquely determined by the data of the market. He contends that the police have the power to determine these market phenomena ad libitum. An advocate of socialism need not necessarily negate economics; his postulates do not

價格管制問題不僅是經濟學所應討論的問題之「一」，不是在不同的經濟學家之間所可引起爭論的一個問題：這是必要看淸的一點。這裡的問題無寧說是：是不是有所謂經濟學這樣的東西？在巿場現象的連續與相互的關聯中，有沒有什麼規律性？對於這兩個問題給以否定答覆的人，否認作爲一個知識部門的經濟學的可能存在。他回復到經濟學誕生以前的時代所保持的那些信念。他斷言沒有什麼經濟法則；物價、工資和利率，是由市場情勢所決定的這個說法是不確實的。他說警察有力量任意決定這些市場現象。社會主義的鼓吹者不一定要取消經濟學；他的基本假設不一定意涵巿場現象的不確定。但是干涉主義者，在主張價格管制的時候，卻不得不抛棄經濟學。如果否認巿場法則，經濟學就沒有什麼東西了。

The German Historical School was consistent in its radical condemnation of economics and in its endeavors to substitute wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften (the economic aspects of political science) for economics. So were many adepts of British Fabianism and American Institutionalism. But those authors who do not totally reject economics and yet assert that price control can attain the ends sought lamentably contradict themselves. It is logically impossible to reconcile the point of view of the economist and that of the interventionist. If prices are uniquely determined by the market data, they cannot be freely manipulated by government compulsion. The government's decree is just a new datum, and its effects are determined by the operation of the market. It need not necessarily produce those results which the government wants to realize in resorting to it. It may happen that the final outcome of the interference is, from the point of view of the government's intention, even more undesirable than the previous state of affairs which the government wanted to alter.

德國歷史學派猛烈攻擊經濟學而想以政治學的經濟部份（wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften）來替代經濟學，這是一貫的。英國費邊

主義（British Fabianism）和美國的制度學派也是如此。但是，那些不完全抛棄經濟學而又宣稱價格管制可以達成所追求的目標的人們，卻是自相矛盾了。經濟學家的觀點與干涉主義者的觀點之妥協，邏輯上是不可能的。如果價格唯一地是由市場情勢決定的，那就不能由政府的強制力來自由操縱。政府的命令只是一個新的情勢，所以，它的效果是由市場運作決定的。它不一定產生政府所想用以實現的那些後果。干涉的最後結果，從政府所企圖的那個觀點來看，可能比政府所想革除的那些弊病更壞些。

One does not invalidate these propositions by putting the term economic law in quotation marks and by finding fault with the notion of the law. In speaking of the laws of nature we have in mind the fact that there an inexorable interconnectedness of physical and biological phenomena and that action man must submit to this regularity if he wants to succeed. In speaking of the laws of human action we refer to the fact that such an inexorable interconnectedness of phenomena is present also in the field of human action as such and that acting man must recognize this regularity too if he wants to succeed. The reality of the laws of praxeology is revealed to man by the same signs that reveal the reality of natural law, namely, the fact that his power to attain chosen ends is restricted and conditioned. In the absence of laws man would either be omnipotent and would never feel any uneasiness which he could not remove instantly and totally, or he could not act at all.

任何人不能把經濟法則這個名詞放到括號裡面並挑剔法則這個概念的缺點，而使上述的那個命題歸於無效。在說到自然法則時，我們心中所想的是物理與生物現象有個不可變動的關聯存在於其間，而行爲人如果想行爲成功，就得受這種規律的支配。在說到人的行爲法則時，我們所指的是，在人的行爲領域也有個不可變動的關聯存在，而行爲人如果想行爲成功，也必得承認這個規律。行爲法則的眞實性之顯現與自然法則的眞實性之顯現，是經由相同的信號，即：「人的達成目的的力量總是受限制的」這個事實。如果沒有法則，人就會是萬能的，而永不感覺到任何他所不能即刻完全消除的煩惱，或者他根本不能行爲。

These laws of the universe must not be confused with the man-made laws of the country and with man-made moral precepts. The laws of the universe about which physics, biology, and praxeology provide knowledge are independent of the human will, they are primary ontological facts rigidly restricting man's power to act. The moral precepts and the laws of the country are means by which men seek to attain certain ends. Whether or not these ends can really be attained this way depends on the laws of the universe. The man-made

這些宇宙法則決不可與人爲的國家法律以及人爲的道德規律相混淆。與物理學、生物學、和人的行爲學所提供的知識有關的那些宇宙法則，是和人的意願無關的，它們是些本體論上的事實，嚴格地限制著人的行爲能力。至於道德規律和國家法律是人們爲想達成某些目的而採取的手段。這些目的能否靠這些手段眞的達成，這就要決定於一些宇宙法則。人爲的一些法則如果適於達成其目的，那就是合宜的，如果不適於達成其目的，那就是與意願相反的。所以，這些人爲的法則要從適宜與否的觀點來加以檢討。至於那些宇宙法則，我們不能過問它們是否適宜。它們就是它們那樣，誰也管不了它們，違犯了它們，違犯的本身就是懲罰。但是，那些人爲的法則必須靠一些特定的制裁來實施。

Only the insane venture to disregard physical and biological laws. But it is quite common to disdain praxeological laws. Rulers do not like to admit that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the violation of economic law.

只有瘋子才敢於不顧物理和生物法則。但是，藐視經濟法則卻是極普通的事情。統治者們不願意承認他們的力量也受物理學和生物學以外的法則之限制。他們決不會把他們的失敗和挫折歸因於對經濟法則的違犯。

Foremost in the repudiation of economic knowledge was the German Historical School. It was an unbearable idea to those professors that their lofty idols, the Hohenzollern Electors of Brandenburg and Kings of Prussia, should have lacked omnipotence. To refute the teachings of the economists, they buried themselves in old documents and compiled numerous volumes dealing with the history of the administration of these glorious princes. This, they wrote, is a realistic approach to the problems of state and government. Here you find unadulterated facts and real life, not the bloodless abstractions and faulty generalizations of the British doctrinaires. In truth, all that these ponderous tomes report is a long record of policies and measures which failed precisely because of their neglect of economic law. No more instructive case history could ever be written than these Acta Borussica.

最不承認經濟知識的是德國的歷史學派。對於這個學派的一些敎授而言，「他們所崇拜的那些偶像——勃蘭可登堡·霍亨索倫的選侯們（the Hohenzollern Electors of Brandenburg）和普魯士的國王們 不是萬能的」這個想法，是不能忍受的。爲拒絕經濟學家的敎義，他們埋首於記述那些光榮君主們之史蹟的故紙堆中。他們說，這是對國家政治問題的一個切實研究法。在這裡，你可看到眞正的事實和眞實的生活，而非英國學院的那種無生氣的抽象和錯誤的概念化。其實，所有這些汗牛充棟的卷册，都是因爲藐視經濟法則而歸於失敗的那些政策和措施的冗長記錄。這些Acta Borussica [2]是最有敎益的歷史文件。

However, economics cannot acquiesce in such exemplification. It must enter into a precise scrutiny of the mode in which the market reacts to government interference with the price structure.

但是，經濟學對於這樣的例解是不能同意的。它必得進而仔細檢討市場對於政府干涉價格結構而起的反應方式。

----------------

[1] 譯者註：這是拉丁文。即一個名詞和它的形容詞之間的邏輯矛盾。例如：「四方的三角形」、「開明的專制」、「管制的或非市場的價格」。

[2] 譯者註：Acta Borussica（拉丁文）。這是官方文件的一個集子的名稱：這個集子所收集的，都是關於勃蘭登堡和普魯士王國選侯的歷史文件，在歷史學派的領袖Gustav von Schmoller (1838-1917) 的指導下，由普魯士的檔案保管局編輯印行的。Borussica是普魯士這個地區原來的名稱。——見Percy L. Greaves, Jr. Mises Made Easier p.1.

2. The Market's Reaction to Government Interference

二、市場對於政府干涉的反應

The characteristic feature of the market price is that it tends to equalize supply and demand. The size of the demand coincides with the size of supply not only in the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy. The notion of the plain state of rest as developed by the elementary theory of prices is a faithful description of what come to pass in the market at every instant. Any deviation of a market price from the height at which supply and demand are equal is--in the unhampered market--self-liquidating.

市場價格的特徵是它使供需相等。需求量與供給量不僅是在假想的均勻輪轉的經濟結構裡面相等。基本價格論所發展出來的那個靜態概念，是市場上每一瞬息所發生的情形的忠實描述。在未受束縛的市場上，價格一離開供需相等的那個高度，馬上就會自動更正過來。

But if the government fixes prices at a height different from what the market would have fixed if left alone, this equilibrium of demand and supply is disturbed. Then there are--with maximum prices--potential

但是，如果政府把物價規定在一個異於自由市場所決定的高度，則這個供需均衡就被打破。這時（在限定最高價的場合）就有些潜在的買者儘管願意照政府所規定的價格乃至更高的價格來買，也不能買到。如果在限定最低價格的場合，就有些潜在的寶者儘管願意照政府所規定的價格乃至更低的價格來寶，也不能賈掉。這個法定的價格再也不能把那些能買或能賣的潜在的買者或資者與那些不能買賈的潜在的買者寶者分開。於是，關於財貨和勞務的分配，以及關於誰可得到那部份的供給，就必然由一個不同的原則來決定。那就是能夠買到貨物和勞務的人，只有那些先到的人，或者只有那些有特殊人身關係的人，或者只有那些用威脅或暴力來搶過別人的人。如果官方不想讓機會或暴力來決定供給的分配，不想讓情況變成混亂，它就要出來管制每個人所可購買的數量。這就是實行配給制[3]。

But rationing does not affect the core of the issue. The allocation of portions of the supply already produced and available to the various individuals eager to obtain a quantity of the goods concerned is only a secondary function of the market. Its primary function is the direction of production. It directs the employment of the factors of production into those channels in which they satisfy the most urgent needs of the consumers. If the government's price ceiling refers only to one consumers' good or to a limited amount of consumers' goods while the prices of the complementary factors of production are left free, production of the consumers' goods concerned will drop. The marginal producers will discontinue producing them lest they suffer losses. The not absolutely specific factors of production will be employed to a greater extent for the production of other goods not subject to price ceilings. A greater part of the absolutely specific factors of production will remain unused than would have remained in the absence of price ceilings. There emerges a tendency to shift production activities from the production of the goods affected by the maximum prices into the production of other goods. This outcome is, however, manifestly contrary to the intentions of the government. In resorting to price ceilings the authority wanted to make the commodities concerned more easily accessible to the consumers. It considered precisely those commodities so vital that it singled them

但是，配給制並不影響這個問題的核心。把已經生產出來的東西分配給那些急於想取得它的人們，這只是市場的次級功能。市場的主要功能是在指揮生產。它把生產要素導向那些可以滿足消費者最迫切的需要途徑。如果政府的限價只涉及一種消費財或涉及消費財有限的數量，而讓那些輔助的生產要素的價格自由，則有關的消費財的生產就會減少。邊際生產者將不繼續生產它們，以免損失。那些非絕對特殊的生產要素將被僱用得更多，因爲可用來生產那些未受價格管制的其他貨物。於是，那些絕對特殊的生產要素將有更大的部份（比不限價的場合）未被僱用。生產活動趨向於從那些受到限價影響的生產轉到其他貨物的生產。這齒結果，顯然是與政府的意願相反的，政府採取限價政策，是想使消費者更易於取得那些貨物。政府認爲那些貨物是生活上特別重要的，特意挑選出來加以特別管制，以期即令是窮人也能得到充份供給的。但是，政府干涉的結果卻是這些貨物的產量減少或完全停頓。這是個徹底的失敗。

It would be vain for the government to try to remove these undesired consequences by decreeing maximum prices likewise for the factors of production needed for the production of the consumers' goods the prices of which it has fixed. Such a measure would be successful only if all factors of production required were absolutely specific. As this can never be the case, the government must add to its first measure, fixing the price of only one consumers' good below the potential market price, more and more price ceilings, not only for all other consumers' goods and for all material factors of production, but no less for labor. It must compel every entrepreneur, capitalist, and employee to continue producing at the prices, wage rates, and interest rates which the government has fixed, to produce those quantities which the government orders them to produce, and to sell the products to those people--producers or consumers--whom the government determines. If one branch of production were to be exempt from this regimentation, capital and labor would flow into it; production would be restricted precisely in those other--regimented --branches which the government considered so important that it interfered with the conduct of their affairs.

如果政府想免於失敗而再把生產這些被限價物品的生產要素的價格，也規定一最高限，那也是白費的。這種做法，只有在所有的那些必須的生產要素都是絕對特殊化的場合，才會成功。因爲這種場合決不必有，所以政府在採取了第一個辦法——把一種消費財的價格限制在潛在的市場價格之下——以後，必須接二連三地推廣限價的範圍，不僅是對所有的消費財和所有的物質生產要素限價，而且也要限定工資。那就是要強迫每個企業家、每個資本家、每個僱主按照政府所規定的物價、工資和利率來生產政府命令他們生產的數量，並賣給政府所指定的那些人——生產者或消費者。如有一個生產部門不受這些限制，資本和勞力就會流進這個部門；生產之受到限制的，只是政府認爲極關重要，因而必須加以干涉的那些部門。

Economics does not say that isolated government interference with the prices of only one commodity or a few commodities is unfair, bad, or unfeasible. It says that such interference produces results contrary to its purpose, that it makes conditions worse, not better, from the point of view of the government and those backing its interference. Before the government interfered, the goods concerned were, in the eyes of the government, too dear. As a result of the maximum price their supply dwindles or disappears altogether. The government interfered because it considered these commodities especially vital, necessary, indispensable. But its action curtailed the supply available. It is therefore, from the point of view of the government, absurd and nonsensical.

政府只對一種貨物或少數貨物加以管制，經濟學並不認爲是不公平的，是壞的，或行不通的。它只說這樣的干涉所產生的結果將與干涉的目的相反，將使情形更壞，而不是更好，這裡所說的更壞而不是更好，當然是就政府和那些支持干涉政策的人們的觀點來說的。在政府干涉以前，那些有關的貨物，在政府的眼中是太貴。可是限價的結果，那些貨物的供給減少了或完全絕跡。政府的干涉是因爲它認、爲這些貨物特別重要、必須、絕不可少。但是，它的行動卻削減了它們的供給量。所以，從政府的觀點來看，這是荒謬的。

If the government is unwilling to acquiesce in this undesired and undesirable outcome and goes further and further , if it fixes the prices of all goods and services of all orders and obliges all people to continue producing and working at these prices and wage rates, it eliminates the market altogether. Then the planned economy, socialism of the German Zwangswirtschaft pattern, is substituted for the market economy. The consumers no longer direct production by their buying and abstention from buying; the government alone directs it.

假使政府不願意承受這個不好的結果，而再來更多的干涉，假使它對所有各級的一切貨物和勞務的價格都加以規定，同時命令所有的人按照這些規定的物價和工資繼續生產、繼續工作，這就是把市場完全消滅掉。於是，計畫經濟、德國的強制經濟型（German Zwangswirtschaft pattern）的社會主義取代了市塲經濟。消費者再也不以他們的購買和不購買來指揮生產了；只有政府指揮它。

There are only two exceptions to the rule that maximum prices restrict supply and thus bring about a state of affairs which is contrary to the aims sought by their imposition. One refers to absolute rent, the other to monopoly prices.

限價的結果是減縮供給，因而與限價所想達成的目的完全相反。這個定律只有兩個例外。一是關於絕對租的，一是關於獨佔價格的。

The maximum price results in a restriction of supply because the marginal producers suffer losses and must discontinue production. The nonspecific factors of production are employed for the production of other products not subject to price ceilings. The utilization of the absolutely specific factors of production shrinks. Under unhampered market conditions they would have been utilized up to the limit determined by the absence of an opportunity to use the nonspecific among the complementary factors for the satisfaction of more urgent wants. Now only a smaller part of the available supply of these absolutely specific factors can be utilized; concomitantly that part of the supply that remains unused increases. But if the supply of these absolutely specific factors is so scanty that under the prices of the unhampered market their total supply was utilized, a margin is given within which the government's interference does not curtail the supply of the product. The maximum price does not restrict production as long as it has not entirely absorbed the absolute rent of the marginal supplier of the absolutely specific factor. But at any rate it results in a discrepancy between the demand for and the supply of the product.

限價的結果是供給萎縮，這是因爲邊際生產者遭受損失而不得不停止生產。非特殊化的生産要素被用在那些未限價的其他產品的生產。絕對特殊的那些生產要素的使用量爲之減縮。在自由市場的情形下，絕對特殊的生產要素被利用的程度，只受限於爲滿足更迫切的慾望在那些輔助要素當中使用非特殊化要素的機會之缺少。現在，這些絕對特殊的要素只有較小部份的供給可被利用：而未被利用的那部份供給隨之增加。但是，如果這些絕對特殊的要素之供給是如此稀少，以致在自由市場的價格下它們的全部供給都被利用，那麼，政府的干涉所不會在其間減削其產品之供給者的那個領域就是旣定的。只要它沒有完全呑沒這絕對特殊要素的邊際供給者的絕對租，這最高價格的限定就不減削供給。但是無論如何，其結果總歸是產品的需求與其供給的不配合。

Thus the amount by which the urban rent of a piece of land exceeds the agricultural rent provides a margin in which rent control can operate without restriction the supply of rental space. If the maximum rents are graduated in such a way as never to take away from any proprietor so much that he prefers to use the land for agriculture rather than for the construction of buildings, they do not affect the supply of apartments and business premises. However, they increase the demand for such apartments and premises and thus create the very shortage that the governments pretend to fight by their rent ceilings. Whether or not the authorities resort to rationing the space available is catallactically of minor importance. At any rate, their price ceilings do not abolish the catallactic phenomenon of the urban rent. They merely transfer the rent from the landlord's income into the tenant's income.

一塊土地在都市的租金超過在農村的租金，在這個超過額以內的租金管制，可以不致於使租地的供給爲之減少。如果租金的限額還沒有限到使地主寧可把土地用之於農業而不用之於建築的那個程度，那就不會影響到公寓和商業房屋的供給。但是，租金的限價會增加公寓和商業房屋的需求，因而鬧房荒，而房荒是政府想用限制租金的手段來解決的問題。政府是否配給土地，這是次要的問題，無論如何，政府這樣的限價並未消滅都市地租這個現象，不過是把這種租從地主的所得中轉到房客的所得中。

In practice, of course, governments resorting to rent restriction never adjust their ceilings to these considerations. They either rigidly freeze gross rents as they prevailed on the eve of their interference or allow only a limited addition to these gross rents. As the proportion between the two items included in the gross rent, urban rent proper and price paid for the utilization of the superstructure, varies according

事實上，限制租金的政府從未基於這些考慮來調整租金的最高限。政府或者就干涉之前夕的毛租金予以凍結，或者是照那毛租金稍稍增加一點。毛租金包括兩個項目：都市租金的本身和利用地面建築物所支付的代價。這兩個項目之間的比率是因每幢房屋的特殊環境而不同的，因而租金限制的後果也不一樣。在某些場合，從地主轉給承租人的利益，只是都市租與農地租之間的差額之一部份，在其他的一些場合，它會大大地超過這個差額。但是，不管怎樣，租金的限制總歸要引起房荒。因爲它增加了需求而未增加供給。

If maximum rents are decreed not only for already available rental space, but also for buildings still to be constructed, the construction of new buildings is no longer remunerative. It either stops altogether or slumps to a low level; the shortage is perpetuated. But even if rents in new buildings are left free, construction of new buildings drops. Prospective investors are deterred because they take into account the danger that the government will at a later date declare a new emergency and expropriate a part of their revenues in the same way as it did with the old buildings.

如果租金最高限不只是爲那些已有的出租場所而規定，而且也爲尚待建築的房屋而規定，則新房屋的建築就不再有利了。這種建築或者完全停止，或者減縮到一個低水準；房荒現象就持績下去。但是，即令新房屋的租金不受管制而可自由索取，新房屋的建築也會減少。有先見之明的投资者不願在這方面投资，因爲他們考慮到政府在稍後的時日會宣佈新的緊急情勢到臨，因而會以對付舊房屋的同樣方法來徵收他們的收益的一部份。

The second exception refers to monopoly prices. The difference between a monopoly price and the competitive price of the commodity in question provides a margin in which maximum prices could be enforced without defeating the ends sought by the government. If the competitive price is p and the lowest among the possible monopoly prices m, a ceiling price of c, c being higher than p and lower than m, would make it disadvantageous for the seller to raise the price above p. The maximum price could reestablish the competitive price and increase demand, production, and the supply offered for sale. A dim cognizance of this concatenation is at the bottom of some suggestions asking for government interference in order to preserve competition and to make it operate as beneficially as possible.

第二個例外是關於獨佔價格。某一有關貨物的獨占價格與競爭價格之間的差額，就是最高價格可以在其間限定而不致不能達成政府所追求的目的。如果競爭價格是p，而在一切可能的獨占價格之中的最低者爲m，最高限價爲c，c低於m，這個c使得出賣者不利於把價格抬到p以上。於是，這個最高限價重新建立競爭價格，並且使需求、生産和供給都增加。基於對這種連績關係的模糊認識，所以有人主張政府干涉以保持競爭，使競爭盡可能地順利進行。

We may for the sake of argument pass over the fact that all such measures would appear as paradoxical with regard to all those instances of monopoly prices which are the outcome of government interference. If the government objects to monopoly prices for new inventions, it should stop granting patents. It would be absurd to grant patents and then to deprive them of any value by forcing the patentee to sell at the competitive price. If the government does not approve of cartels, it should rather abstain from all measures (such as import duties) which provide business with the opportunity to erect combines.

爲著便於討論起見，我們可不提「這樣的一些建議如果用在那些因政府干涉而形成的獨占價格上面，那是不切實際的」這個事實。假若政府反對新發明的獨占價格，它就應當停止專利權的授與。旣授與專利權而又強迫享有專利權的人，按競爭價格出售因而剝奪他們的專利，這眞是荒謬可笑。假若政府不准許卡特爾，那就應當把所有讓商人有聯營機會的一切措施都放棄掉。

Things are different in those rare instances in which monopoly prices come into existence without assistance form the governments. Here governmental maximum prices could reestablish competitive conditions if it were possible to find out by academic computation at which height a nonexisting competitive market would have determined

凡不是由於政府的幫助而存在的獨占價格，情形就不同了。如果能夠研究出事實上不存在的競爭市場所會決定的價格高度，政府的最高限價就可重建競爭環境。凡是想建立非市場價格的一切努力都是白費的，關於這一點前已講過[4]。公用事業的勞務價格怎樣才算公平，對於這問題所做的決定，都是不能叫人滿意的，這是所有的經濟學家熟知的事實。

Reference to these two exceptions explains why in some very rare cases maximum prices, when applied with very great caution within a narrow margin, do not restrict the supply of the commodity or the service concerned. It does not affect the correctness of the general rule that maximum prices bring about a state of affairs which, from the point of view of the government decreeing them, is more undesirable than conditions as they would have been in the absence of price control.

這兩個例外說明了爲什麼在稀少的情況下最高限價（很謹慎地用在一個狹小的領域内）不致於減縮有關貨物或勞務的供給。這究竟是例外，它不影響上述的一般原則的正確性，即：最高限價所導致的情況，從頒佈限價辦法的政府的觀點來看，比不限價的情況更壞。

Observations on the Causes of the Decline of Ancient Civilization

對於上古文明衰落的原因之觀察

Knowledge of the effects of government interference with market prices makes us comprehend the economic causes of a momentous historical event, the decline of ancient civilization.

知道了政府干涉市場價格的一些後果，我們就可了解上古文明之所以衰落的若干經濟原因。

It may be left undecided whether or not it is correct to call the economic organization of the Roman Empire capitalism. At any rate it is certain that the Roman Empire in the second century, the age of the Antonines, the "good" emperors, had reached a high stage of the social division of labor and of interregional commerce. Several metropolitan centers, a considerable number of middle-sized towns, and many small towns were the seats of a refined civilization. The inhabitants of these urban agglomerations were supplied with food and raw materials not only from the neighboring rural districts, but also from distant provinces. A part of these provisions flowed into the cities as revenue of their wealthy residents who owned landed property. But a considerable part was bought in exchange for the rural population's purchases of the products of the city-dwellers' processing activities. There was an extensive trade between the various regions of the vast empire. Not only in the processing industries, but also in agriculture there was a tendency toward further specialization. The various parts of the empire were no longer economically self-sufficient. They were interdependent.

把羅馬帝國的經濟組織叫做資本主義是否正確，這是個不必決定的問題。可是，無論如何，有一點是確實的，即在第二世紀的羅馬帝國，「好」皇帝安東尼的時代，已經發展到高度的社會分工和區域間的貿易。幾個大都巿中心，一些中級的城市、和許多小鎭市是高度文明的所在地。這些城市的居民們不僅是由附近地區供應食糧和原料，而且也由遙遠的地方供應。這些供應的一部份流進了這些城市，成爲那些擁有地產的富人們的收益。但是，其中的大部份是由鄉村農民購買市民的加工產品而得來的。在廣大的帝國領土上，不同的區域間有很繁盛的貿易。分工又分工的趨勢，不僅見之於工業部門，而且也見之於農業部門。帝國的很多部份已經不是經濟的自給自足。它們是互相依存的。

What brought about the decline of the empire and the decay of its civilization was the disintegration of this economic interconnectedness, not the barbarian invasions. The alien aggressors merely took advantage of an opportunity which the internal weakness of the empire offered to them. From a military point of view the tribes which invaded the empire in the fourth and fifth centuries were not more formidable than the armies which the legions had easily defeated

羅馬帝國的式微與其文明的衰落，其原因是這種相互的經濟關聯的解體，而不是野蠻民族的侵入。外來的侵略者只是利用帝國本身的內部衰落的機會而已。從軍事的觀點看，第四、第五世紀侵入帝國的那些部落，並不比早期羅馬軍團所輕易擊敗的那些軍隊更可怕，但是，帝國已經變質了。它的經濟社會結構已經是中古型的。

The freedom that Rome granted to commerce and trade had always been restricted. With regard to the marketing of cereals and other vital necessities it was even more restricted than with regard to other commodities. It was deemed unfair and immoral to ask for grain, oil, and wine, the staples of these ages, more than the customary prices, and the municipal authorities were quick to check what they considered profiteering. Thus the evolution of an efficient wholesale trade in these commodities was prevented. The policy of the annona, which was tantamount to a nationalization or municipalization of the grain trade, aimed at filling the gaps. But its effects were rather unsatisfactory. Grain was scarce in the urban agglomerations, and the agriculturists complained about the unremunerativeness of grain growing.[3] The interference of the authorities upset the adjustment of supply to the rising demand.

羅馬給與工商業的自由已經減縮了。對於穀物和其他重要必需品的市場所加的限制，更甚於對別的貨物。凡是穀物、油類、酒（這是當時大宗的主要產品）叫價高於平常價格的，都認爲不公平、不道德，而市政當局馬上就査核他們所認爲的不法利潤。於是，這些貨物有效率的批發貿易的進展就被阻礙了。annona [5]政策（這等於榖物貿易的國營或市營）是想用來補救這個缺陷。但是，它的後果是不好的。穀物在城市裡面顯得稀少，而農民們又以種植穀物無利可圖叫苦[6]。政府的干涉打翻了供給適於需求的調整。

The showdown came when in the political troubles of the third and fourth centuries the emperors resorted to currency debasement. With the system of maximum prices the practice of debasement completely paralyzed both the production and the marketing of the vital foodstuffs and disintegrated society's economic organization. The more eagerness the authorities displayed in enforcing the maximum prices, the more desperate became the conditions of the urban masses dependent on the purchase of food. Commerce in grain and other necessities vanished altogether. To avoid starving, people deserted the cities, settled on the countryside, and tried to grow grain, oil, wine, and other necessities for themselves. On the other hand, the owners of the big estates restricted their excess production of cereals and began to produce in their farmhouses--the villae--the products of handicraft which they needed. For their big-scale farming, which was already seriously jeopardized because of the inefficiency of slave labor, lost its rationality completely when the opportunity to sell at remunerative prices disappeared. As the owner of the estate could no longer sell in the cities, he could no longer patronize the urban artisans either. He was forced to look for a substitute to meet his needs by employing handicraftsmen on his own account in his villa. He discontinued big-scale farming and became a landlord receiving rents from tenants or sharecroppers. These coloni were either freed slaves or urban proletarians who settled in the villages and turned to tilling the soil. A tendency toward the establishment of autarky of each landlord's estate emerged. The economic function of the cities, of commerce, trade, and urban handicrafts, shrank. Italy and the provinces of the empire returned to a less advanced state of the social

當第三、第四世紀政治紛亂的時候，羅馬帝國的皇帝們又採取通貨貶質政策，這是最後無可奈何的一手。通貨貶質和限價制度，完全癱瘓了主要食糧的生產和貿易，而使社會經濟組織解體。政府愈是急於推行限價政策，而那些靠購買糧食過活的城市居民愈陷於苦境。穀物和其他必需品的貿易完全消滅了。爲著免於餓死，人們離開城市，遷居鄉下，爲自己的需要而種植穀物；製造油、酒、和其他必需品。另一方面，擁有大地產的人們減縮他們過剩的穀物生產而開始在他們的農舍裡面製造自己所需要的手工製品。大規模的耕種在當時是不合理的，因爲，生產出來的大量穀物，再也不能賣到有利的價格。大地主旣不能像以前那樣，在城巿裡面出賣他們的穀物，他們也就不能再做城市工人的僱主了。他們不得不找個替代的方法來滿足需要，於是，照著自己的打算僱用手藝工人在他們的農舍中工作。他們中斷了大規模的農業經營，而變成向佃戶收取租金的地主了。這些佃戶或者是解放了的奴隸，或者是遷居到村莊來的城市貧民。這樣一來，每個地主的領地都趨向於自給自足。城市的功用、工商業的功能萎縮了，意大利和帝國的一些省份，都轉變到社會分工落伍的境況了。上古文明中高度發展的經濟結構，返化到現在大家所熟知的中古時期的莊園組織。

The emperors were alarmed with that outcome which undermined the financial and military power of their government. But their counteraction was futile as it did not affect the root of the evil. The compulsion and coercion to which they resorted could not reverse the trend toward social disintegration which, on the contrary, was caused precisely by too much compulsion and coercion. No Roman was aware of the fact that the process was induced by the government's interference with prices and by currency debasement. It was vain for the emperors to promulgate laws against the city-dweller who "relicta civitate rus habitare maluerit." [4] The system of the leiturgia, the public services to be rendered by the wealthy citizens, only accelerated the retrogression of the division of labor. The laws concerning the special obligations of the shipowners, the navicularii, were no more successful in checking the decline of navigation than the laws concerning grain dealing in checking the shrinkage in the cities' supply of agricultural products.

羅馬帝國的皇帝們面對這種結果，驚慌起來，但是，他們的反應是徒勞無功的，因爲沒有觸及禍根。他們所依賴的強制和暴力，畢竟不能挽回社會瓦解的趨勢；相反地，這個趨勢正因爲過份的強制和暴力而促成。羅馬人誰也不了解這種情況是政府干涉物價和通貨貶質所引起的。政府頒佈法令不許人民遷離城市到鄉村居住[7]的法律，結果也是無效的。富人必須服公役的那個leiturgia [8]制度，只是加速分工的退化。那些關於船主們特殊義務的法律，赖用以防止航運的衰返。其結果也和那些爲防止農產品在城市的供給量之減縮的穀物處理法一樣地不成功。

The marvelous civilization of antiquity perished because it did not adjust its moral code and its legal system to the requirements of the market economy. A social order is doomed if the actions which its normal functioning requires are rejected by the standards of morality, are declared illegal by the laws of the country, and are prosecuted as criminal by the courts and the police. The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.

叫人驚羨的古代文明之所以毀滅，是因爲它沒有把它的道德律和法律韹制適應市場經濟的要求而調整。一個社會秩序的正常功能所必須的那些行爲，如果被道德標準反對，被國家法律宣佈爲非法，被法院和警察看作犯罪來懲罰，社會秩序註定要崩潰。羅馬帚國的冰消瓦解，因爲它缺少了自由主義的精神和自由企業。干涉政策和其政治上的必然結果——領袖主義，毀了強大的帝國：這種政策和這種主義也同樣地要瓦解和毀滅任何社會組織。

----------------

[1] For the sake of simplicity we deal in the further disquisitions of this section only with maximum prices for commodities and in the next section only with minimum wage rates. However, our statements are, mutatis mutandis, equally valid for minimum prices for commodities and maximum wage rates.

[3] 爲說明簡單起見，在這一節的進一步討論將只涉及限定的最高物價，在下一節只涉及最低的工资率。但是，我們的這些陳述，加以必要的若干變更，即可同樣地適用於法定的最低物價和最高工资率。

[2] Cf. above, pp. 395-397.

[4] 參考第十六章第十五節。

[5] 譯者註：annona是個拉丁字。指羅馬帝國（27 B.C.-476 A.D.）所實行的政策。這個政策是把一些最重要的食物——穀物、酒、和油類免費分配給窮苦的市民。這個政策鼓勵了人們擁擠到城市來，而其結果是穀物大量地運進城市而城市仍鬧糧荒。見Percy L. Greaves (dr.) Mises Made Easier p.3.

[3] Cf. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1926), p. 187.

[6] 參見Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1926), p. 187.

[4] Corpus Juris Civilis, 1. un. C. X. 37.

[7] Corpus Juris Civilis, 1. un. C. X. 37.

[8] 譯者註：這是來自希臘文的一個古拉丁字。富人對國家必須履行的強制性服役或貢獻；古代的希臘城市如雅典和後來的埃及與羅馬帝國課在富人身上的一種特稅。原先，富人必須無僂地幫助一些重要公務的推行，如徵收租稅、辦理公務、災難時供給貧民的糧食，供應軍隊的食住、國家如要運输人員和货物時，就要供應牲口及趕牲口的人，或供應船隻等等。後來，這些強徵法變成了當權者掠奪富人財富和對付政治上失寵者的一個手段，其結果加速了經濟崩濟。

3. Minimum Wage Rates

三、最低工資率

The very essence of the interventionist politicians' wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action or the threat of such action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. Many of our contemporaries look upon people who are foolhardy enough "to cross a picket line" as primitive tribesmen looked upon those who violated the precepts of taboo conceptions. Millions are jubilant if such scabs receive their well-deserved punishment from the hands of the strikers while the

主張干涉政策的政客們的聰明辦法是靠政府的法令或工會的暴行來提高工資。把工資提高到自由市場所會決定的高度以上，這是被認爲是永恒的道德律的一個基本要求，也是從經濟觀點認爲是必要的。誰向這個倫理的和經濟「獨格碼」（dogma）挑戰，誰就被罵爲卑鄙的、無知的。許多現代的人看那些愚勇得敢於違犯工會糾察隊的人，正如同原始部落時代的人看那些敢於違犯禁忌戒律的人一樣。如果那些敢於不參加罷工的「工賊」們，從罷工者的手頭受到「應有的」慜罰，而警察、檢察官、和刑事法庭都持超然中立的態度，這時就有成千成萬的人歡呼叫好。

The market wage rate tends toward a height at which all those eager to earn wages get jobs and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. It tends toward the establishment of what is nowadays called full employment. Where there is neither government nor union interference with the labor market, there is only voluntary or catallactic unemployment. But as soon as external pressure and compulsion, be it on the part of the government or on the part of the unions, tries to fix wage rates at a higher point, institutional unemployment emerges. While there prevails on the unhampered labor market a tendency for catallactic unemployment to disappear, institutional unemployment cannot disappear as long as the government or the unions are successful in the enforcement of their fiat. If the minimum wage rate refers only to a part of the various occupations while other sectors of the labor market are left free, those losing their jobs on its account enter the free branches of business and increase the supply of labor in them. When unionism was restricted to skilled labor mainly, the wage rise achieved by the unions did not lead to institutional unemployment. It merely lowered the height of wage rates in those branches in which there were no efficient unions or no unions at all. The corollary of the rise in wages for organized workers was a drop in wages for unorganized workers. But with the spread of government interference with wages and with government support of unionism, conditions have changed. Institutional unemployment has become a chronic or permanent mass phenomenon.

市場工資率所趨向的高度，是供需趨於相符的高度，即所有想賺工资的人都可得到職業，而所有想僱用工人的人都可僱到他們所想僱用的人數。它趨向於達成現代人所說的充份就業的境界。在沒有政府或工會干涉勞動市場的地方，就只有自願的失業。但是，一旦有了外來的壓力或強制，不管是政府或工會把工資規定在一高較高點，制度性的失業就馬上發生。在自由市場上，自願的失業可能歸於消滅，可是只要政府或工會的命令執行得有效，制度性的失業就不會消滅。如果最低工資率只涉及一部份的職業，而勞動市場的其他部門得准許自由，則那些因最低工資率的規定而失業的人們，就進到自由的部門，因而增加這些部門的勞動供給。如果工會組織只限之於技術工人，則工資的提高不致引起制度性的失業。它只是使那些沒有工會組織或工會組織鬆懈的部門的工资率降低。有組織的工人的工資提髙，必然的結果是無組織的工人的工資降低。但是，如果政府出來普遍地干涉工资或者出來支持工會的強制行爲，情形就改變了。制度性的失業就變成長期的或永久的普遍現象。

Writing in 1930, Lord Beveridge, later an advocate of government and union meddling with the labor market, pointed out that the potential effect of "a high-wages policy" in causing unemployment is "not denied by any competent authority." [5] In fact, to deny this effect is tantamount to a complete disavowal of any regularity in the sequence and interconnectedness of market phenomena. Those earlier economists who sympathized with the unions were fully aware of the fact that unionization can achieve its ends only when restricted to a minority of workers. They approved of unionism as a device beneficial to the group interests of a privileged labor aristocracy, and did not concern themselves about its consequences for the rest of the wage earners.[6] No one has ever succeeded in the effort

Beveridge爵士，現在是一位熱心主張政府和工會干涉勞動市場的人，他在一九三〇年指出「髙工资政策」招致失業這個可能的後果，是「任何夠格的專家所不否認的」[9]。事實上，否認這個後果，等於是完全推翻市場現象的連續和相互關聯的任何規律性。那些同情工會的早期經濟學家，都充份了解工會要成功地達到它的目的，只有在少數工人組織工會的時候才可能。他們把工會看作有利於特權的勞動貴族的一個策略而予以支持，他們可沒有想到對於其餘的工資收入的影響[10]。誰也不能有效地說明，工會的那套辦法會改善、會提高「所有的」工資勞動者的生活標準。

It is important to remember also the Karl Marx did not contend that unions could raise the average standard of wages. As he saw it, "the general tendency of capitalistic production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages." Such being the tendency of things, all that unionism can achieve with regard to wages is "making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement." [7] The unions counted for Marx only as far as they attacked "the very system of wage slavery and present-day methods of production." [8] They should understand that "instead of the conservative motto, A fair day's wages for a fair day's work! they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, Abolition of the wages system." [9] Consistent Marxians always opposed attempts to impose minimum wage rates as detrimental to the interests of the whole labor class. From the beginning of the modern labor movement there was always an antagonism between the unions and the revolutionary socialists. The older British and American unions were exclusively dedicated to the enforcement of higher wage rates. They looked askance upon socialism, "utopian" as well as "scientific." In Germany there was a rivalry between the adepts of the Marxian creed and the union leaders. Finally, in the last decades preceding the outbreak of the first World War, the unions triumphed. They virtually converted the Social Democratic Party to the principles of interventionism and unionism. In France, Georges Sorel aimed at imbuing the unions with that spirit of ruthless aggression and revolutionary bellicosity which Marx wanted to impart to them. There is today in every nonsocialist country a manifest conflict between two irreconcilable factions within the unions. One group considers unionism a device for the improvement of the workers' conditions within the frame of capitalism. The other group wants to drive the unions into the ranks of militant communism and approves of them only as far as they are the pioneers of a violent overthrow of the capitalistic system.

馬克斯沒有講過工會可以提高工資的平均水準，記著這一點也是重要的。照馬克斯的說法，「資本主義的生產不是提高，而是壓低工資的平均水準。」趨勢旣是如此，工會在工資方面的努力只能做到「盡可能地利用偶然的機會謀暫時的改善而已」[11]。馬克斯之看得起工會，僅僅是因爲工會攻擊「工資奴隸制和當今的生產方法」[12]。照馬克斯的說法，工會應該懂得「放棄保守的標語（公平的以日計的工作，得到公平的以日計的工資！）而代以革命的旗幟（打倒工資制度！）」[13]。現代的勞工運動，一開始就有了工會與社會主義者之間的對立。較老的英美兩國的工會，完全是努力於工資率的提高。他們討厭社會主義，「烏托邦的」社會主義也好，「科學的」社會主義也好，他們一律看待。在德國，馬克斯主義的信徒們與工會的領袖也是衝突的。最後，在第一次世界大戰之前的幾十年，工會勝利了。它們實際上轉變了「社會民主黨」的性質，使該黨的黨員接受了干涉主義和工會的主張。在法國，Georges Sorel志在把馬克斯曾想滲進工會的那種殘酷的革命的戰鬥精神灌注到工會。今天，在每個非社會主義的國家裡面，工會內部都有兩個不相容的派系間的衝突。一派是把工會作爲在資本主義制度下改善工人情況的一個工具。另一派是想把工會帶到戰鬥性的共產主義的陣營，他們之所以支持工會，只是要工會在暴力推翻資本主義制度的革命中做先鋒。

The problems of labor unionism have been obfuscated and utterly confused by pseudo-humanitarian blather. The advocates of minimum wage rates, whether decreed and enforced by government or by violent action, contend that they are fighting for the improvement of the conditions of the working masses. They do not permit

關於工會的一些問題，曾被僞人道主義者的胡言亂語弄混淆了。最低工資率（或者是政府所規定的，或者是工會用暴力要挾的）的主張者總以爲那是可以改善勞工大衆的生活情況。他們武斷地說，最低工資率是爲所有急於賺得工資的人們永久提高工資的唯一的適當的辦法。他們不容許任何人對於這個武斷的說法提出質問。他們自以爲他們是「勞工的」、「普通人的」、「進步的」，以及「社會正義的」眞正朋友，並以此自傲。

However, the problem is precisely whether there is any means for raising the standard of living of all those eager to work other than raising the marginal productivity of labor by accelerating the increase of capital as compared with population. The union doctrinaires are intent upon obscuring this primary issue. They never refer to the only point that matters, viz., the relation between the number of workers and the quantity of capital goods available. But certain policies of the unions involve a tacit acknowledgement of the correctness of the catallactic theorems concerning the determination of wage rates. Unions are anxious to cut down the supply of labor by anti-immigration laws and by preventing outsiders and newcomers from competing in the unionized sectors of the labor market. They are opposed to the export of capital. These policies would be nonsensical if it were true that the per capita quota of capital available is of no importance for the determination of wage rates.

但是，問題是在於除掉靠加速資本對人口的增加以提高勞動的邊際生產力以外，還沒有什麼方法提高所有想工作的人們的生活水準。工會的一些空論家，一心想把這個要點弄模糊。他們從來不觸及這唯一的要點，即，工人的人數與可用的資本財的數量之間的關係。但是，工會的某些政策卻又暗地承認，關於工資率決定的交換理論的正確性。工會總想用移民限制法防止外來的人在勞動市場發生競爭作用，因而削減勞動供給。他們也反對資本輸出。如果每人可使用的資本配額對於工資的決定眞的沒有什麼重要性的話，則工會所採的這些政策也就沒有理由了。

The essence of the union doctrine is implied in the slogan exploitation. According to the union variety of the exploitation doctrine, which differs from the Marxian creed, labor is the only source of wealth, and expenditure of labor the only real costs. By rights, all proceeds from the sale of products should belong to the workers. The manual worker has a fair claim to the "whole produce of labor." The wrong that the capitalistic mode of production does to the worker is seen in the fact that it permits landowners, capitalists, and entrepreneurs to withhold a part of the workers' portion. The share which goes to these parasites is called unearned income. The workers are right in their endeavors to raise wage rates step by step to such a height that finally nothing will be left for the support of a class of idle and socially useless exploiters. In aiming at this end, the unions pretend to continue the battle which earlier generations fought for the emancipation of slaves and serfs and for the abolition of the imposts, tributes, tithes, and unpaid statute labor with which the peasantry was burdened for the benefit of aristocratic landlords. The labor movement is a struggle for freedom and equality, and for the vindication of the inalienable rights of man. Its ultimate victory is beyond doubt, for it is the inevitable trend of historical evolution to wipe out all class privileges and to establish firmly the realm of freedom and equality. The attempts of reactionary employers to halt progress are doomed.

工會敎條的精義隱含在「剝削」這個口號中。按照工會對「剝削」一詞的解釋（有些地方與馬克斯主義者的解釋不同），勞動是唯一的財富源泉，勞動的消耗是唯一的實質成本。就正義講，出賣產品所得到的收入應該全部屬於工人。工人有權要求勞動的全部產物。資本主義生產方法對工人的不平待遇，在於它允許地主、資本家和企業家扣留了工人份內的一部份。這些寄生蟲所扣留的部份是不勞而獲的所得。這顯然是掠奪的收入，也即贓物。工人們努力於提高工資率，一步一步地提高到沒有一點剩餘可以供養那些懶散而無用的剝削者，這是對的。爲達成這個目的，他們接著前輩的鬥爭來解放自己，前辈的鬥爭爲的是解放奴隸、農奴、和解除農民所負擔的苛捐雜稅。勞工運動是爲爭取自由平等，是爲維護那些不可出讓的人權。它的最後勝利是不容懷疑的，因爲，它是歷史演進不可避免的趨勢，這一趨勢在於掃蕩所有的階級特權，而堅牢地建立自由平等的社會。反動的僱主們阻止進步的企圖，註定要失敗的。

Such are the tenets of present-day social doctrine. It is true that some people, although in perfect agreement with its philosophical ideas, support the practical conclusions derived by the radicals only with certain reservations and qualifications. These moderates do not propose to abolish "management's" share altogether; they would be satisfied with cutting it down to a "fair" amount. As the opinions concerning the fairness of the revenues of the entrepreneurs and capitalists vary widely, the difference between the point of view of the radicals and that of the moderates is of little moment. The moderates also endorse the principle that real wage rates should always rise and never drop. In both world wars few voices in the United States disputed the claim of the unions that the wage earners' take-home pay, even in a national emergency, should go up faster than the cost of living.

這些說法是今天的社會敎條的主要內容。有些人，儘管完全同意它的一些啓學觀點，但對於激進份子所推演出來的那些實際結論，只附以某些保留和修正而予以支持。這種溫和派的人們並不主張完全廢除「經理部門的」應得份；他們滿意於把它削滅到「公平旳」數量。因爲，關於公平的見解是有很大差異的，激進者的與溫和者的觀點之間的不同也就無關重要了。溫和者也贊成「實質工資必須經常提高而永不降落」這個原則。在兩次世界大戰時期，美國人幾乎沒有對工會的要求提出異議的，他們的要求是：工人拿回家的淨工資應該比生活費增加的更快。

【英文第四版無此段。】

所有這些感情上的議論，沒有考慮到重要的問題，即，這個爭點的經濟方面。他們沒有注意到制度性的失業；這種失業是把工資提高到自由市場所決定的高度以上時必不可免的結果。

As the union doctrine sees it, there is no harm in confiscating the specific revenue of the capitalists and entrepreneurs partially or altogether. In dealing with this issue they speak of profits in the sense in which the classical economists applied this term. They do not distinguish between entrepreneurial profit, interest on the capital employed, and compensation for the technical services rendered by the entrepreneur. We will deal later with the consequences resulting from the confiscation of interest and profits and with the syndicalist elements involved in the "ability to pay" principle and in profit-sharing schemes.[10] We have examined the purchasing power argument as advanced in favor of a policy of raising wage rates above the potential market rates.[11] What remains is to scrutinize the purport of the alleged Ricardo effect.

照工會的敎條看來，沒收資本家和企業家特有的收入之一部份或全部，是決無害處的。在講到這一點時，他們所說的「利潤」，是用古典經濟學家賦與這個名詞的意義。他們對於企業家的利潤，使用資本的利息，與企業家所提供的技術服務的報酬這三種性質不同的東西不加區分。在後面，我們將要討論沒收利潤利息所引起的後果，以及包含在「量能付稅」原則和利潤分享制度的工團主義的成份[14]。我們曾經檢討過，爲贊成把工資昇到潜在的市場工资率以上的政策而提出的購買力理論[15]。剩下來有待檢討的是所謂李嘉圖效果的要旨。

Ricardo is the author of the proposition that a rise in wages will encourage capitalists to substitute machinery for labor and vice versa. Hence, conclude the union apologists, a policy of raising wage rates, irrespective of what they would have been on the unhampered labor market, is always beneficial. It generates technological improvement and raises the productivity of labor. Higher wages always pay for themselves. In forcing the reluctant employers to raise wage rates, the unions become the pioneers of progress and prosperity.

「工资上漲會鼓勵資本家以機器代替勞工，工資下跌則相反。」李嘉圆是這個說法的提出者[16]。因此，工會的辯護人就從這個問題得到結論：不管自由勞動市場的工資率如何，提高工资率的政策總是有利的。它會引起技術進步因而提高勞動生產力。較髙的工資是値得支付的。工會在強迫僱主提高工資的時候，竞成了進步與繁榮的先驅！

Many economists approve of the Ricardian proposition although few of them are consistent enough to endorse the inference the union apologists draw from it. The Ricardo effect is by and large a stock-in-trade

許多經濟學家承認李嘉圖的這個說法，儘管他們當中同意工會辯護人的推論的很少。這個李嘉圖效果無非是大衆經濟學常識當中的存貨。但從它推論出的結論卻是最壞的經濟謬論之一。

The confusion starts with the misinterpretation of the statement that machinery is "substituted" for labor. What happens is that labor is rendered more efficient by the aid of machinery. The same input of labor leads to a greater quantity or a better quality of products. The employment of machinery itself does not directly result in a reduction of the number of hands employed in the production of article A concerned. What brings about this secondary effect is the fact that--other things being equal--an increase in the available supply of A lowers the marginal utility of a unit of A as against that of the units of other articles and that therefore labor is withdrawn from the production of A and employed in the turning out of other articles. The technological improvement in the production of A makes it possible to realize certain projects which could not be executed before because the workers required were employed for the production of A for which consumers' demand was more urgent. The reduction of the number of workers in the A industry is caused by the increased demand of these other branches to which the opportunity to expand is offered. Incidentally, this insight explodes all talk about "technological unemployment."

觀點的混淆開始於對「機器『代替』勞工」這一陳述的誤解。實際發生的事情是勞工因機器的幫助而更有效率。因而同量的勞動，產出較多或較好的產品。使用機器這件事的本身，並不直接使僱用的人手滅少。引起這個間接結果的是：「其他事物不變」，A產品的供給增加，相對於其他產品單位的邊際效用而言，一個單位A的邊際效用就降低了，所以勞動就從A的生產中返出而轉僱於其他產品的牟產。生產A的技術改進，使某些在以前不能實現的計畫能夠實現，那些計畫之能夠實現，之所以在以前不能實現，是因爲所要僱用的工人被僱用在消費者所更需要的A的生產上。這個A行業僱用的工人之所以減少，是這些有了擴張機會的其他部門的增加需求所引起的。附帶地在這裡提一句：這個透視推翻了所有關於所謂「技術性失業」的無稽之談。

Tools and machinery are primarily not labor-saving devices, but means to increase output per unit of input. They appear as labor-saving devices if looked upon exclusively from the point of view of the individual branch of business concerned. Seen from the point of view of the consumers and the whole of society, they appear as instruments that raise the productivity of human effort. They increase supply and make it possible to consume more material goods and to enjoy more leisure. Which goods will be consumed in greater quantity and to what extent people will prefer to enjoy more leisure depends on people's value judgments.

工具與機器主要地不是節省勞動的東西，而是增加每個投入單位的產出量的手段。如果只就有關的個別生產部門的觀點來看，它們似乎是些節省勞動的東西。如果從消費者和全社會觀點來看，它們就顯出是提高工人生產力的東西。它們的供給增加，使我們能夠消費更多的物資財貨，享受更多的閒暇。至於那些財貨會消費得更多，以及人們所可享受的更多閒暇，多到什麼程度，那就取決於人們的價値判斷。

The employment of more and better tools is feasible only to the extent that the capital required is available. Saving--that is, a surplus of production over consumption--is the indispensable condition of every further step toward technological improvement. Mere technological knowledge is of no use if the capital needed is lacking. Indian businessmen are familiar with American ways of production. What prevents them from adopting the American methods is not the lowness of Indian wages, but lack of capital.

較多較好的工具之利用，受限於必要的資本額。儲蓄——也即生產超出消費的一部份剩餘——是趨向技術改進的每一步驟所不可缺少的條件。僅僅是技術的知識而缺乏必要的資本，那是無用的。中國的工商業者熟習美國的生產方法。他們之所以不能採用美國方法，不是因爲中國的工資低，而是因爲缺乏資本。

On the other hand, capitalist saving necessarily causes employment of additional tools and machinery. The role that plain saving, i.e., the piling up of stocks of consumers' goods as a reserve for rainy days,

另一方面，資本家的儲蓄必然地促成更多的工具和機器的使用。單純的儲蓄（即爲準備不時之需的消费財的積存）在市場經濟所擔任的角色是不足道的。在資本主義下，儲蓄，通常是資本家的儲蓄。生產超過消費的那份剩餘或者直接投資於儲蓄者本人的生產事業，或者經由儲蓄存款、普通股、優先股、公司債等工具間接投資於別人的企業[17]，人們把他們的消費保持在淨所得以下的那個程度，就是資本被創造的程度，同時，也就可以用來擴張資本設備的程度，前面曾經講到，這個結果不會因現金握存的趨向於增加而受影響[18]。一方面，更多、更好的工具之使用所絕對必要的，是額外的資本累積。另一方面，額外資本之得被利用，又必須有更多、更好的工具之被採用。

Ricardo's proposition and the union doctrine derived from it turn things upside down. A tendency toward higher wage rates is not the cause, but the effect, of technological improvement. Profit-seeking business is compelled to employ the most efficient methods of production. What checks a businessman's endeavors to improve the equipment of his firm is only lack of capital. If the capital required is not available, no meddling with wage rates can provide it.

李嘉圖的說法和工會所推出的結論，把一些事情弄得顚顚倒倒。工資率的趨髙，不是技術改進的原因，而是技術改進的結果。以謀利爲目的的工商業，不得不使用最有效率的生產方法。妨礙工商業者改善他的作業設備的，只是資本的不夠。如果得不到必要的資本，決不是干涉工資率所可濟事的。

All that minimum wage rates can accomplish with regard to the employment of machinery is to shift additional investment from one branch into another. Let us assume that in an economically backward country, Ruritania, the stevedores' union succeeds in forcing the entrepreneurs to pay wage rates which are comparatively much higher than those paid in the rest of the country's industries. Then it may result that the most profitable employment for additional capital is to utilize mechanical devices in the loading and unloading of ships. But the capital thus employed is withheld from other branches of Ruritania's business in which, in the absence of the union's policy, it would have been employed in a more profitable way. The effect of the high wages of the stevedores is not an increase, but a drop in Ruritania's total production.[15]

關於機器的使用這件事，最低工資政策所能做到的，不過是把增加的投資從一個生產部門轉移到另一個生產部門。我們假設，在一個經濟落後的R國裡面，碼頭工人工會成功地壓迫工商業者支付很高的工資——遠高於其他行業的工資。其結果就會是：增加的資本最有利的用途是採用機器在船上裝卸貨物，但是，這樣使用的資本，是從R國其他的一些生產部門移轉過來的，而那些其他的生產部門沒有工會政策，那些资本本來可以用在更有利的途徑。由此可見，碼頭工人高工資的結果，不是R國總生產的增加而是它的減少[19]。

Real wage rates can rise only to the extent that, other things being equal, capital becomes more plentiful. If the government or the

實質工資的提高要靠資本的增多。在其他事物不變的假定下，前者提高的程度取決於後者增多的程度。如果政府或工會成功地把工資強迫提高到自由的勞動市場所決定的工資率以上，勞動的供給就會超過勞動的需求，於是制度性的失業發生。

Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check this undesired result of their interference by resorting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment policy: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.

有些固執干涉政策的政府，爲要防止干涉所引起的上述不良後果而又採取今日所叫做的充份就業政策：包括失業津貼，勞資爭議的仲裁、揮霍公帑興辦公共工程、通貨膨脹、信用擴張。所有這些補救的方法，比所想補救的弊病更壞。

Assistance granted to the unemployed does not dispose of unemployment. It makes it easier for the unemployed to remain idle. The nearer the allowance comes to the height at which the unhampered market would have fixed the wage rate, the less incentive it offers to the beneficiary to look for a new job. It is a means of making unemployment last rather than of making it disappear. The disastrous financial implications of unemployment benefits are manifest.

失業津貼沒有解決失業。它是使失業者較易於過閒散的生活。這種津貼的高度愈是接近於自由市場所會決定的工資率，它就使受益者愈不想找工作。這是使失業繼續存在，而不是使失業消滅的方法。失業津貼所引起的這種後果是很明顯的。

Arbitration is not an appropriate method for the settlement of disputes concerning the height of wage rates. If the arbitrators' award fixes wage rates exactly at the potential market rate or below that rate, it is supererogatory. If it fixes wage rates above the potential market rate, the consequences are the same that any other mode of fixing minimum wage rates above the market height brings about, viz., institutional unemployment. It does not matter to what pretext the arbitrator resorts in order to justify his decision. What matters is not whether wages are "fair" or "unfair" by some arbitrary standard, but whether they do or do not bring about an excess of supply of labor over demand for labor. It may seem fair to some people to fix wage rates at such a height that a great part of the potential labor force is doomed to lasting unemployment. But nobody can assert that it is expedient and beneficial to society.

仲裁，不是解決關於工資爭論的一個適當方法。如果仲裁者把工資定得和潛在的市場工資率一樣高或者較低，那就是仲裁者做了超出本份的事。如果把工資定得高於潛在的市場工資率，其結果就和其他規定最低工資率的一些方法所招致的結果是一樣的，即引起制度性的失業。至於仲裁用什麼理由來辯護他的裁定，那是毫無關係的。有關係的，不是從某種武斷的標準來看工資的「公平」或「不公平」，而是看工資會不會引起勞動的供給超過勞動的需求。照某些人看來，把工資定在讓大部份潛在的勞動力長期失業的那個高度似乎是公平的。但是，誰也不會說這是對社會方便的、有利的。

If government spending for public works is financed by taxing the citizens or borrowing from them, the citizens' power to spend and invest is curtailed to the same extent as that of the public treasury expands. No additional jobs are created.

如果政府用以津貼失業的經費來自對人民的課稅或向人民借債，則人民的消費力量和投資力量爲之削減，而其削減的數額與政府支出的數額相等。因而不會創造更多的工作機會。

But if the government finances its spending program by inflation--by an increase in the quantity of money and by credit expansion--it causes a general cash-induced rise in the prices of all commodities and services. If in the course of such an inflation the rise in wage rates sufficiently lags behind the rise in the prices of commodities, institutional unemployment may shrink or disappear altogether. But what

但是，如果政府用通貨膨脹的辦法來籌取這項經費——即增加貨幣量和擴張信用——那就使所有的貨物和勞務的價格來一個普遍的「現金引發的」上漲。如果在這樣的通貨膨脹過程中，工资率的上漲落在物價上漲之後而落後得足夠，制度性的失業可以減少或者完全消滅。但是，使得失業減少或消滅的，正是「這樣的一個結果等於『實質』工資率的下降」這個事實。凱因斯爵士把信用擴張看作消除失業的有效辦法；他認爲，「由於物價上昇的結果實質工資率的漸渐而自動的下降」不至於受到工人像反抗貨幣工資率下降的那麼強烈的反抗[20]。可是，這樣一個削減工資的計畫，其成功就要靠工人那方面的無知和糊塗到了一個不大可能的程度。只要工人們相信最低工资率有利於他們，他們就不至於讓這樣的狡計來欺騙。

In practice all these devices of an alleged full employment policy finally lead to the establishment of socialism of the German pattern. As the members of an arbitration court whom the employers have appointed and those whom the unions have appointed never agree with regard to the fairness of a definite rate, the decision virtually devolves upon the members appointed by the government. The power to determine the height of wage rates is thus vested in the government.

實際上，這些所謂充份就業政策的一切方法，最後都是導向德國型的社會主義。因爲仲裁法庭的仲裁人是由資方和勞方指派的，決不會彼此同意某一工資率是公平的。工資的裁定，實際上是落在政府所指派的仲裁人手中。因此，規定工资率的權力仍然是在政府。

The more public works expand and the more the government undertakes in order to fill the gap left by the alleged "private enterprise's inability to provide jobs for all," the more the realm of private enterprise shrinks. Thus we are again faced with the alternative of capitalism or socialism. There cannot be any question of a lasting policy of minimum wage rates.

公共工程愈是擴大，政府爲塡補「民間企業不能爲大家提供就業機會」而遺留下來的缺口而作的事情愈多，則民間企業愈是萎縮。所以，我們所面臨的問題，又是一個資本主義或社會主義的選擇問題。決不會有什麼持久不變的最低工資率的問題存在。

The Catallactic Aspects of Labor Unionism

從行爲學的觀點来看工會政策

The only catallactic problem with regard to labor unions is the question of whether or not it is possible to raise by pressure and compulsion the rates of all those eager to earn wages above the height the unhampered market would have determined.

關於工會政策唯一的行爲上的問題是：「用強迫的手段把所有想賺工资的人的工资率提髙到自由市場所會決定的高度以上，是否可能」這個問題。

In all countries the labor unions have actually acquired the privilege of violent action. The governments have abandoned in their favor the essential attribute of government, the exclusive power and right to resort to violent coercion and compulsion. Of course, the laws which make it a criminal offense for any citizen to resort--except in case of self-defense--to violent action have not been formally repealed or amended. However, actually labor union violence is tolerated within broad limits. The labor unions are practically free to prevent by force anybody from defying their orders concerning wage rates

在所有的國家，工會實際上取得了暴力行動的特權。暴力強制本應屬於政府的獨占權利，政府爲取得工會的歡心，現已放棄了這種獨占。法律上規定任何人如果不是因爲自衛而採用暴力行爲是要治罪的，這樣的法律在形式上並未廢除或修改。可是，工會的暴力行爲卻在一個宽大的限度內容恕。工會在實際上可以自由使用暴力來防止任何人違背他們闢於工资率和其他勞動條件的命令。他們可以自由加害於破壊罷工的工人和僱用這些工人的企業家和企業家的代理人。他們可以自由搗毀這樣的僱主的財産，甚至還傷害到這些僱主商店的顧客們。政府寬恕這樣的暴力行爲，還可得到舆論的支持。警察不制止這樣的罪犯，國家檢察官不控吿他們，因而沒有機會使他們的行爲受到刑事法庭裁判。如果暴力行爲來得過份激烈的時候，就有些畏畏縮縮的鎭壓或抑制的措施。但是，這些措施照例是失敗的。它們的失敗，有時是由於官僚作風的沒有效率，或者是由於政府所用的方法無效，但是，通常總是由於整個政府機構不願意有效地鎮壓這類的暴行。

Such has been the state of affairs for a long time in all nonsocialist countries. The economist in establishing these facts neither blames nor accuses. He merely explains what conditions have given to the unions the power to enforce their minimum wage rates and what the real meaning of the term collective bargaining is.

這是在所有非社會主義國家已經出現了很久的事態。經濟學家們在確認這些事黉的時候，旣不歸咎於任何人，也不責備任何人。他們只是解釋，什麼條件使得工會有力量厲行他們所規定的最低工資率，以及「集體議價」這個名詞的實在意義是什麼。

As union advocates explain the term collective bargaining, it merely means the substitution of a union's bargaining for the individual bargaining of the individual workers. In the fully developed market economy bargaining concerning those commodities and services of which homogeneous items are frequently bought and sold in great quantities is not effected by the manner in which nonfungible commodities and services are traded. The buyer or seller of fungible consumers' goods or of fungible services fixes a price tentatively and adjusts it later according to the response his offer meets from those interested until he is in a position to buy or to sell as much as he plans. Technically no other procedure is feasible. The department store cannot haggle with its patrons. It fixes the price of an article and waits. If the public does not buy sufficient quantities, it lowers the price. A factory that needs five hundred welders fixes a wage rate which, as it expects, will enable it to hire five hundred men. If only a minor number turns up, it is forced to allow a higher rate. Every employer must raise the wages he offers up to the point at which no competitor lures the workers away by overbidding. What makes the enforcement of minimum wage rates futile is precisely the fact that with wages raised above this point competitors do not turn up with a demand for labor big enough to absorb the whole supply.

按照工會的提倡者對「集體議價」這個名詞的解釋，那只意謂，以工會的議價代替各個工人的個別議價。在充份發展的市場經濟裡面，關於同類、同質而又經常以大量買資的那些財貨和勞務的議價，並不受非同類、同質而不可相互替代的那些財貨和勞務的貿易方式之影響。可替代的消費財或可替代的勞務的買者或賫者，在定價或叫價的時候是試試看的，接著他會按照有關方面的反應而加以調整，一直調整到他能夠買到或賣出他計畫買到或寳出的數量爲止。就技術上講，沒有其他可行的程序。百貨商店不會和它的顧客齗齗計較。它是把毎件貨物定一個價格，然後就等候。如果在這個價格下賣不掉足夠的數量，它就把它減低。一個需要五百名焊接工人的工廠，把工資率定在它希望能夠僱到這麼多工人的高度。如果僱不足這個人數，它就不得不提高工資。每個僱主都得把他所給付的工資提高到沒有競爭者可以拉去他所需要的工人的那個程度。最低工資率之所以沒有用，正是因爲工資率提高到超過了這一點時，勞動的需求就不足夠消納勞動的全部供給。

If the unions were really bargaining agencies, their collective bargaining could not raise the height of wage rates above the point of

如果工會眞的是議價的經辦所，他們的集體議價就不會把工資率提高到高於自由市場所決定的水準。只要還有失業的工人存在，就沒有理由要僱主提高他所付的工資。眞正的集體議價不應有異於個別的議價。它應該像個別的議價一樣，讓那些正在尋找工作，而還沒得到工作的人們有機會說出他們的希望。

However, what is euphemistically called collective bargaining by union leaders and "pro-labor" legislation is of a quite different character. It is bargaining at the point of a gun. It is bargaining between an armed party, ready to use its weapons, and an unarmed party under duress. It is not a market transaction. It is a dictate forced upon the employer. And its effects do not differ from those of a government decree for the enforcement of which the police power and the penal courts are used. It produces institutional unemployment.

但是，工會的領袖們，以及偏袒勞工的立法所婉轉叫做的「集體議價」，是屬於一個完全不同的性質。它是在槍口之下的議價。它是在一個武裝團體（準備使用它的武器的團體）和一個被威脅的非武装團體之間的議價。這不是一個市場交易，而是強加於僱主的命令。其後果無異於一個政府用警察和刑事法庭來執行的那種命令的後果。這種議價引起制度上的失業。

The treatment of the problems involved by public opinion and the vast number of pseudo-economic writings is utterly misleading. The issue is not the right to form associations. It is whether or not any association of private citizens should be granted the privilege of resorting with impunity to violent actions. It is the same problem that relates to the activities of the Ku Klux Klan.

輿論方面以及許多冒牌的經濟論者，對於這些問題的討論完全錯誤。這不是一個結社的權利問題，而是對於民間的結社應不應該允許授之以特權，使其可用暴力而不虞懲罰。這個問題與那關於三K黨（Ku Klux Klan）活動的問題是同一性質。

Neither is it correct to look upon the matter from the point of view of a "right to strike." The problem is not the right to strike, but the right--by intimidation or violence--to force other people to strike, and the further right to prevent anybody from working in a shop in which a union has called a strike. When the unions invoke the right to strike in justification of such intimidation and deeds of violence, they are on no better ground than a religious group would be in invoking the right of freedom of conscience as a justification of persecuting dissenters.

從「罷工權」的觀點來看這個問題，也是不對的。這不是罷工權的問題，而是用威脅或暴力逼迫他人罷工，因而制止任何人在工會已經宣吿罷工的工廠中工作的這種「權利」問題。工會利用罷工權這個說法爲使用威脅和暴力作辯護，這和一個宗敎團體利用良心自由權的說法，爲迫害異敎徒作辯護沒有什麼區別。

When in the past the laws of some countries denied to employees the right to form unions, they were guided by the idea that such unions have no objective other than to resort to violent action and intimidation. When the authorities in the past sometimes directed their armed forces to protect the employers, their mandataries, and their property against the onslaught of strikers, they were not guilty of acts hostile to "labor." They simply did what every government considers its main duty. They tried to preserve their exclusive right to resort to violent action.

過去，有些國家的法律不承認工人組織工會的權利，那時立法者的想法，是認爲這樣的工會除掉使用暴力和威脅以外別無目的。以前的政府有時指揮武裝力量來對抗罷工者的暴動以保護僱主、僱主的經理們、以及僱主的財產，這時，那些政府的行動並不是敵視「勞動」。他們只是盡了每個政府認爲是它的主要職責。暴力的行使是政府的獨占權。他們只是維持這個獨占權而已。

There is no need for economics to enter into an examination of the problems of jurisdictional strikes and of various laws, especially of the American New Deal, which were admittedly loaded against the employers and assigned a privileged position to the unions. There is only one point that matters. If a government decree or labor union pressure and compulsion fix wage rates above the height of the potential market rates, institutional unemployment results.

經濟學無須進而檢討關於罷工的一些法律問題，尤其是美國新政時期的一些法律，明白地不利於僱主，而使工會處於特權的地位，我們在這裡都不必討論。這裡只要指出重要的一點。即：如果一個政府下命令或工會用暴力把工資提到高於自由市場所將決定的那個水準，制度的失業就會發生。

---------------

[5] Cf. W.H. Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society (London, 1944), pp. 92 f.

[9] 參見W.H. Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society (London, 1944), pp. 92 f.

[6] Cf. Hutt, The Theory of Collective Bargaining, pp. 10-21.

[10] 參見Hutt, The Theory of Collective Bargaining, pp. 10-21.

[7] Cf. Marx, Value, Price, and Profit, ed. E. Marx Aveling (Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Company), p. 125.

[11] 參見Marx, Value, Price, and Profit, ed. E. Marx Aveling (Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Company), p. 125.

[8] Cf. A Lozovsky, Marx and the Trade Unions (New York, 1935), p. 17.

[12] 參見A Lozovsky, Marx and the Trade Unions (New York, 1935), p. 17.

[9] Cf. Marx, op. cit., pp. 126-127.

[13] 參見Marx, op. cit., pp. 126-127.

[10] Cf. below, pp. 804-820.

[14] 參考後面的第三十二章第一～三節。

[11] Cf. above, pp. 310-303.

[15] 參考前面的第十五章第九節的末尾。

[12] Cf. Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chap. i, sec. v. The term "Ricardo effect" is used by Hayek, Profits, Interest, and Investment (London, 1939), p. 8.

[16] 參考Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chap. i, sec. v.李嘉圖效果這個名詞是Hayek所使用的，見之於Hayek, Profits, Interest, and Investment (London, 1939), p. 8.

[13] As we are dealing here with the conditions of the unhampered market economy, we may disregard the capital-consuming effects of government borrowing.

[17] 因爲我們在這裡是討論未受拘束的市場經濟，我們可以不管政府借债所引起的资本消耗的後果。

[14] See above, pp. 522-523

[18] 見前面第十八章第九節。

[15] The example is merely hypothetical. Such a powerful union would probably prohibit the employment of mechanical devices in the loading and unloading of ships in order to "create more jobs."

[19] 這不過是假設的事例，這樣強而有力的工會大概會妨害貨物装卸方面採用機器以創造更多工作機會。

[16] Cf. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (London, 1936), p. 264. For a critical examination of this idea see Albert Hahn, Deficit Spending and PRivate Enterprise, Postwar Readjustments Bulletin No. 8, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pp. 28-29; Henry Hazlitt, The Failure of the 'New Economics' (Princeton, 1959), pp. 263-295. About the success of the Keynesian stratagem in the 'thirties, cf. below, pp. 792-793.

[20] 參考Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (London, 1936), p. 264.關於對這個想法的批評，參考Albert Hahn, Deficit Spending and PRivate Enterprise, Postwar Readjustments Bulletin No. 8, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pp. 28-29,關於凱因斯的政策在三十幾年代的成功，參考後面第三十一章第四節。

[17] Cf. Sylvester Petro, The Labor Policy of the Free Society (New York, 1957); Roscoe Pound, Legal Immunities of Labor Unions (Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute, 1957).

XXXI. CURRENCY AND CREDIT MANIPULATION

第31章 通貨與信用的操縱

1. The Government and the Currency

一、政府與通貨

Media of exchange and money are market phenomena. What makes a thing a medium of exchange or money is the conduct of parties to market transactions. An occasion for dealing with monetary problems appears to the authorities in the same way in which they concern themselves with all other objects exchanged, namely, when they are called upon to decide whether or not the failure of one of the parties to an act of exchange to comply with his contractual obligations justifies compulsion on the part of the government apparatus of violent oppression. If both parties discharge their mutual obligations instantly and synchronously, as a rule no conflicts arise which would induce one of the parties to apply to the judiciary. But if one or both parties' obligations are temporally deferred, it may happen that the courts are called to decide how the terms of the contract are to be complied with. If payment of a sum of money is involved, this implies the task of determining what meaning is to be attached to the monetary terms used in the contract.

交換媒介與貨幣是些市場現象。使一種東西成爲交換媒介或貨幣的，是那些在市場交易中的人們的行爲。政府干涉貨幣問題的一個時機，與他們干涉所有其他交換物的時機是一樣的，即從事交換的某一方沒有履行他的契約義務的時候，我們需要政府來判斷這個行爲應否加以嚴厲的制裁。如果交易的雙方都如期履行他們相對的義務，那就沒有要訴之於法庭的爭執發生，但是，如果一方或雙方的義務沒有如期履行，那就會訴之於法庭，請其判決如何履行契約的條款；如果涉及一筆金錢數額，那就要法庭判決契約中所定的金錢條款是什麼意義。

Thus it devolves upon the laws of the country and upon the courts to define what the parties to the contract had in mind when speaking of a sum of money and to establish how the obligation to pay such a sum is to be settled in accordance with the terms agreed upon. They have to determine what is and what is not legal tender. In attending to this task the laws and the courts do not create money. A thing becomes money only by virtue of the fact that those exchanging commodities and services commonly use it as a medium of exchange. In the unhampered market economy the laws and the judges in attributing legal tender quality to a certain thing merely establish what, according to the usages of trade, was intended by the parties when they referred in their deal to a definite kind of money. They interpret the customs of the trade in the same way in which they proceed when called to determine what is the meaning of any other terms used in contracts.

因此，國家的法律和法庭，就要判定簽約的雙方在說到一筆金錢數額的時候，心中所想的是什麼，以及確定如何按照同意的條件來解決支付這筆金錢的義務。他們必須確定什麼是法償和什麼不是法償。在作這件事的時候，法律和法庭都不是「創造」貨幣。一種東西之所以成爲貨幣，只是因爲那些交換貨物和勞務的人們，通常都用它作爲交換媒介。在不受拘束的市場經濟裡面，法律和法官在認爲某種東西具有法償資格的時候，不過是把從事買賣的當事人所習以爲常地認爲是貨幣的東西加以確認而已。他們對於商業慣例作解釋，與對於契約所定的任何其他條款的意義作判決，是用的同樣方法。

Mintage has long been a prerogative of the rulers of the country. However, this government activity had originally no objective other

鑄造貨幣，很久以前就是國家統治者的一種特權。但是，政府這種活動的原始目的只是要標明和保證它的重量和成色，別無其他企圖。到了後來，國君們用些質劣價廉的金屬來代替貴金屬的一部份，同時還仍保留它原有的名稱和面値，他們偷偷摸摸地這樣作，因爲他們自己完全知道這是一種欺騙行爲。一到人民發現這種詭計，這些劣質的鑄幣馬上就按原來優質的鑄幣打折扣。政府的反應是訴之於強力的壓制。凡在交易中或在賡務的償付中區分「優」幣和「劣」幣的就是違法，同時採取限價政策。可是，其結果並不是政府所想達成的。他們的命令不能阻止物價對劣幣發生調整作用的那個過程。而且，葛來欣法則（Gresham's Law）所描述的那些後果隨之發生。

The history of government interference with currency is, however, not merely a record of debasement practices and of abortive attempts to avoid their inescapable catallactic consequences. There were governments that did not look upon their mintage prerogative as a means of cheating that part of the public who placed confidence in their rulers' integrity and who, out of ignorance, were ready to accept the debased coins at their face value. These governments considered the manufacturing of coins not as a source of surreptitious fiscal lucre but as a public service designed to safeguard a smooth functioning of the market. But even these governments--out of ignorance and dilettantism--often resorted to measures which were tantamount to interference with the price structure, although they were not deliberately planned as such. As two precious metals were used side by side as money, authorities naively believed that it was their task to unify the currency system by decreeing a rigid exchange ratio between gold and silver. The bimetallic system proved a complete failure. It did not bring about bimetallism, but an alternating standard. That metal which, compared with the instantaneous state of the fluctuating market exchange rate between gold and silver, was overvalued in the legally fixed ratio, predominated in domestic circulation, while the other metal disappeared. Finally the governments abandoned their vain attempts and acquiesced in monometallism. The silver purchase policy that the United States practiced for many decades was virtually no longer a device of monetary policy. It was merely a scheme for raising the price of silver for the benefit of the owners of silver mines,

政府干涉貨幣的歷史，不單是貶値而又想避免那些必然後果的無效企圖的一部記錄。有些政府並不把他們的鑄幣特權看作是欺騙的手段來欺騙那些信賴統治者誠實的人民，以及由於無知而肯按照面値來接受劣幣的人民。這些政府不把鑄幣看作一個鬼鬼祟祟的財政收入的來源，而視爲保證市場運作圓滑進行而作的一項大衆服務。伹是，甚至這些政府——由於無知和一知半解——也常採用那些等於干涉價格結構的方法，儘管他們不是故意要如此作。在兩種貴金屬同時當作貨幣用的時候，有些政府當局天眞地相信，用命令來規定金銀之間不變的比率，是他們爲統一幣制所應作的事情。這種複本位的幣制完全失敗了。複本位沒有形成，形成的是一個交替的本位。在金銀之間瞬息萬變的市場交換率之下，法定比率過高的那種金屬，在國內的流通中佔優勢，而另一種金屬的貨幣爲之絕跡。最後，政府放棄了他們無效的企圖而老老實實地接受單一金屬的幣制。現在美國政府的購銀政策不是一個當眞的貨幣政策。那只是爲提高銀價以利於銀鑛的主人和其僱工以及銀鑛所在地的那些州而作的一件事。那是一種變相的津貼。它的貨幣意義僅在於：靠增發鈔票來購買白銀，而所增發的鈔票與聯邦準備銀行的鈔票同樣具有法償資格，儘管前者印上了那毫無實際意義的字樣的「銀券」。

Yet economic history also provides instances of well-designed and successful monetary policies on the part of governments whose only intention was to equip their countries with a smoothly working currency system. Laissez-faire liberalism did not abolish the traditional government prerogative of mintage. But in the hands of liberal governments the character of this state monopoly was completely altered. The ideas which considered it an instrument of interventionist policies were discarded. No longer was it used for fiscal purposes or for favoring some groups of the people at the expense of other groups. The government's monetary activities aimed at one objective only: to facilitate and to simplify the use of the medium of exchange which the conduct of the people had made money. A nation's currency system, it was agreed, should be sound. The principle of soundness meant that the standard coins--i.e., those to which unlimited legal tender power was assigned by the laws--should be properly assayed and stamped bars of bullion coined in such a way as to make the detection of clipping, abrasion, and counterfeiting easy. To the government's stamp no function was attributed other than to certify the weight and the fineness of the metal contained. Pieces worn by usage or in any other way reduced in weight beyond the very narrow limits of tolerated allowance lost their legal tender quality; the authorities themselves withdrew such pieces from circulation and reminted them. For the receiver of an undefaced coin their was no need to resort to the scales and to the acid test in order to know its weight and content. On the other hand, individuals were entitled to bring bullion to the mint and to have it transformed into standard coins either free of charge or against payments of a seigniorage generally not surpassing the actual expenses of the process. Thus the various national currencies became genuine gold currencies. Stability in the exchange ratio between the domestic legal tender and that of all other countries which had adopted the same principles of sound money was brought about. The international gold standard came into being without intergovernmental treaties and institutions.

可是，經濟史裡面也有些設計得很好，而又成功的貨幣政策的事例，制定這種貨幣政策的政府，只是想爲他們的國家裝置一種可以圓滑運作的貨幣制度。自由放任主義並不放棄傳統的政府鑄幣特權。但是，在自由的政府手中，這種國家獨佔權的性質完全改變了。把它看作政府干涉工具的這個想法被抛棄了。再也不把它用作財政目的的手段，也不用它特惠於某些人羣而犧牲其他的人羣。政府的貨幣活動只有一個目的，那就是要使交易媒介的使用順利而簡單。這裡所說的交換媒介是人民的行爲所已形成的貨幣，一個國家的幣制，必須是健全的。健全的原則是指，那些本位幣——也即法律上承認它們具有無限法償資格的鑄幣——必須是經過適當的檢驗和戳記的，如有剪削磨損或僞造就很容易發現。政府戳記的唯一目的，是在保證鑄幣金屬的重量和成色，別無其他作用。鑄幣因流通太久而磨損，或者因爲別的原故，其重量減低到某一限度以外，它們就失去法償的資格；政府本身就要把這樣的鑄幣收回，重新鑄造。凡是外表沒有磨損的鑄幣，接收的時候用不著天秤和熔爐來鑑定它的重量和成色。另一方面，人民也可把金塊送到鑄幣廠請其鑄成本位幣，鑄幣費僅按成本收取，或者完全免費。在這種情形下，有些國家的通貨成爲眞正的金本位。凡是遵守這健全幣制原則的國家，國內的法償與國際間的滙率就趨於穩定了。國際金本位的成立，各國政府間並沒有什麼條約和建置。

In many countries the emergence of the gold standard was effected by the operation of Gresham's Law. The role that government policies

在許多國家裡面，金本位的出現是葛來興法則發生的後果。政府的政策在英國扮演的角色，僅在於批准葛來欣法則形成的結果；它把事實的存在變爲合法的存在。其他一些國家的政府，是在金銀的市場比率變動到應該引起以事實上存在的銀幣作爲那時事實上存在的金幣的代用品的時候，經過深思熟慮而放棄複本位的。在這些國家，金本位的正式採用，只要就旣有的事實制定法律而已，除此以外，並不需要行政當局和立法機關有何其他的作爲。

It was different in those countries which wanted to substitute the gold standard for a --de facto or de jure--silver or paper currency. When the German Reich in the 'seventies of the nineteenth century wanted to adopt the gold standard, the nation's currency was silver. It could not realize its plan by simply imitating the procedure of those countries in which the enactment of the gold standard was merely a ratification of the actual state of affairs. It had to replace the standard silver coins in the hands of the public with gold coins. This was a time-absorbing and complicated financial operation involving vast government purchases of gold and sales of silver. Conditions were similar in those countries which aimed at the substitution of gold for credit money or fiat money.

另外，有些國家想以金本位替代一種——事實上或法律上的——貨幣或紙幣，情形就不同了。在十九世紀七十年代，德意志帝國想採用金本位的時候，國家的貨幣是銀幣。它想仿效那些僅靠批准旣存事實而使金本位具有法律基礎的國家那個簡單程序，是不能實現它的目的的。它必須把大家手上的銀本位幣換成金幣。這需要一段相當長的時間，而且是一個很複雜的金融運作，其情形與那些想以金幣代替信用幣或法幣的國家的情形相類似。

It is important to realize these facts because they illustrate the difference between conditions as they prevailed in the liberal age and those prevailing today in the age and those prevailing today in the age of interventionism.

認識這些事實是很重要的，因爲，它們說明了自由時代的情形與今天干涉主義時代的情形之所以不同。

2. The Interventionist Aspect of Legal Tender Legislation

二、法償立法上的干涉主義

The simplest and oldest variety of monetary interventionism is debasement of coins or diminution of their weight or size for the sake of debt abatement. The authority assigns to the cheaper currency units the full legal tender power previously granted to the better units. All deferred payments can be legally discharged by payment of the amount due in the meaner coins according to their face value. Debtors are favored at the expense of creditors. But at the same time future credit transactions are made more onerous for debtors. A tendency for gross market rates of interest to rise ensues as the parties take into account the chances for a repetition of such measures of debt abatement. While debt abatement improves the conditions of those who were already indebted at the moment, it impairs the position of those eager or obliged to contract new debts.

最簡單而最古老的貨幣干涉，是爲著滅輕債務而降低鑄幣的品質或減輕它們的重量，縮小它們的面積。政府給這種貶値的貨幣完全的法償资格。所有的延期支付都可按照它們的面値償付。債務人得到利益，債權人遭受損失。但是，在這同時，卻使未來的信用交易對於債務人更爲不利。因爲，當事人考慮到這樣減輕債務的把戲會重演，市場毛利率上漲的趨勢就接著發生。幣値的降低固然有利於那些已經是債務人的人們，但它有損於那些想借新債的人們。

The antitype of debt abatement--debt aggravation through monetary measures--has also been practiced, though rarely. However, it has never deliberately been planned as a device to favor the creditors

減債的這種典型——經由貨幣手段的債務變値——也曾經被採用過，儘管採用的時候不多。但是，這種手段卻從來沒有被故意地用來加惠於債權人而使債務人受損。如果這種事情發生了，那只是幣制變動的副作用，不是故意地以此爲目的。幣制變動是從其他的一些觀點認爲必要的。在採用這種貨幣手段的時候，那些政府忍受它對於延期支付的後果，或者是因爲這些政府認爲這個手段是不可避免的，或者是因爲這些政府已假定債權人與債務人在決定契約條件時，已經預料到這種變動而作了適當的考慮。英國在拿破崙戰爭以後以及第一次世界大戰以後的幣制變動，就是最好的例子。在這兩次事例中，英國都是在戰爭結束後或遲或早地用緊縮政策回復到戰前英鎊制的金平價。至於用金本位來替換戰時的信用幣而承認英鎊與黄金間已經發生的市場比率的變動，把這個比率當作新的法定平價來採用，這個想法沒有被接受。之所以未被接受，是被視爲國家的破產，被視爲不公平的賴債行爲，被視爲對所有那些在銀行鈔票無條件兌現時期取得要求權的人們的權利所加的惡意侵犯。人們在「通貨膨脹引起的害處，終會因接著的通貨緊縮而矯正」這個幻想下而努力工作。可是，回復到戰前金本位，對於債權人損失的補償並不能補償到在貨幣貶値期間債務人已經償還他們舊債的那個程度。而且，這是有利於所有在這個期間已經放債的人，而有害於所有在這個期間已經借債的人。但是，那些負責採用這種緊縮政策的政治家們，不知道他們的行爲的重要性。他們沒有看出那些不良的（即令在他們的眼中也是不良的）後果，而且，假若他們及時地看出這些後果，他們也不會知道如何避免它們。他們的行爲確實是加惠於債權人而使債務人受損，尤其是有利於公債持有人而不利於納稅人。在十九世紀二十幾年當中，這個行爲使英國農業的困境更加嚴重，而在以後的一百年，英國出口貿易的處境也如此。但是，如果把英國這兩次的幣制改革叫做有意的干涉而目的在於債務變値，那就是錯誤的。債務變値僅是一個爲達成其他目的的政策所引起的副作用而已。

Whenever debt abatement is resorted to, its authors protest that the measure will never be repeated. They emphasize that extraordinary

政府每次實行債務變値的時候，總是說，這個手段以後再也不用了。他們強調：那些再也不會發生的非常情況已經引起了一個不得不採取這種壞手段的緊急關頭，在其他的環境下，這種手段是絕對應該譴責的。他們宣稱，只此一次，下不爲例。債務變値的實行者和支持者爲什麼不得不作此諾言，這是易於想到的。假若消滅債權人的全部或部份權利成爲經常的政策，放債的事情也就會完全消滅了。延期支付的契約，靠的是有收回債款的希望，如果早知這個希望是不可靠的，也就沒有人肯放債了。

It is therefore not permissible to look upon debt abatement as a device of a system of economic policies which could be considered as an alternative to any other system of society's permanent economic organization. It is by no means a tool of constructive action. It is a bomb that destroys and can do nothing but destroy. If it is applied only once, a reconstruction of the shattered credit system is still possible. But if the blows are repeated, total destruction results.

所以，我們不允許把債務變値看作經濟政策的一個制度，可用來替代常設的社會經濟組織的其他制度。這決不是建設行爲的一個工具，而是一個破壞性的炸彈，除破壞外另無作爲。如果只用一次，被破壞的信用制度還可重建。但是，如果爆炸一再發生，其結果是總毀滅。

It is not correct to look upon inflation and deflation exclusively from the point of view of their effects upon deferred payments. It has been shown that cash-induced changes in purchasing power do not affect the prices of the various commodities and services at the same time and to the same extent, and what role this unevenness plays in the market.[1] But if one regards inflation and deflation as means of rearranging the relations between creditors and debtors, one cannot fail to realize that the ends sought by the government resorting to them are attained only in a very imperfect degree and that, besides, consequences appear which, from the government's point of view, are highly unsatisfactory. As is the case with every other variety of government interference with the price structure, the results obtained not only are contrary to the intentions of the government but produce a state of affairs which, in the opinion of the government, is more undesirable than conditions on the unhampered market.

只從它們對於延期支付的後果這個觀點來看，通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮，都是不對的。我們曾經說過，現金引起的購買力變動對於各種貨物勞務的價格不是同時、同程度地發生影響；這種不一致的影響在市場上發生的作用，我們也曾經講過[1]。但是，如果把通貨膨脹和通貨緊縮作爲一個手段而用以重新安排債權人與債務人之間的關係，則用此手段的政府所想達成的目的，必然只是在很不完全的程度下達到。而且，即使從這個政府的觀點來看，其結果也是很不滿意的。正如同對於物價結構政府所採的各種各樣的干涉一樣，其結果不僅是與政府的意願相反，而且引起的情況，就政府的觀點來看，比那不受束縛的市場情況更壞。

As far as a government resorts to inflation in order to favor the debtors at the expense of the creditors, it succeeds only with regard to those deferred payments which were stipulated before. Inflation does not make it cheaper to contract new loans; it makes it, on the contrary, more expensive by the appearance of a positive price premium. If inflation is pushed to its ultimate consequences, it makes any stipulation of deferred payments in terms of the inflated currency cease altogether.

政府用通貨膨脹手段圖利於債務人而損及債權人這個企圖，其成功也只限於以前約定的那些延期支付。通貨膨脹並不能使借新債者佔便宜；相反地，由於放債者考慮到物價是在上漲而加在利率中的補貼將使債務人更費。如果通貨膨脹推進到它的極點，凡是以膨脹的通貨作延期支付手段的一切契約，就完全銷毀了。

--------------

[1] See above, pp. 411-413.

[1] 見第十七章第四節。

3. The Evolution of Modern Methods of Currency Manipulation

三、現代通貨操縱法的演進

A metallic currency is not subject to government manipulation. Of course, the government has the power to enact legal tender laws. But then the operation of Gresham's Law brings about results which may frustrate the aims sought by the government. Seen from this point of view, a metallic standard appears as an obstacle to all attempts to interfere with the market phenomena by monetary policies.

金屬通貨不受政府的操縱。當然，政府有權力制定一些的法律。但是，葛來欣法則所引發的後果會使政府追求的目的無法達成。從這個觀點來看，金屬本位對於想用貨幣政策干涉市場現象的一切企圖，是一個障礙。

In examining the evolution which gave governments the power to manipulate their national currency systems, we must begin by mentioning one of the most serious shortcomings of the classical economists. Both Adam Smith and David Ricardo looked upon the costs involved in the preservation of a metallic currency as a waste. As they saw it, the substitution of paper money for metallic money would make it possible to employ capital and labor, required for the production of the quantity of gold and silver needed for monetary purposes, for the production of goods which could directly satisfy human wants. Starting from this assumption, Ricardo elaborated his famous Proposals for an Economical and Secure Currency, first published in 1816. Ricardo's plan fell into oblivion. It was not until many decades after his death that several countries adopted its basic principles under the label gold exchange standard in order to reduce the alleged waste involved in the operation of the gold standard nowadays decried as "classical" or "orthodox."

要檢討政府之所以有權力操縱本國貨幣制度的這個演進過程，我們必得首先提到古典經濟學家們最嚴重的缺點之一。亞當斯密也好，李嘉圖也好，都把維持金屬通貨所費的成本看作浪費。照他們的看法，紙幣替代金屬幣就可把那些用在貨幣用途的金銀的生產費——也即資本與勞力——用來生產可以直接滿足慾望的東西。從這個假定開始，李嘉圖就想出了他那個有名的，而於一八一六年發表的關於建立一種旣經濟又安全的通貨制的若干建議（Proposals for an Economical and Secure Currency）。李嘉圖的計畫淹沒無閡了。一直到他死後幾十年，有些國家才在「金滙兌本位」這個名稱下採用了李嘉圖計畫的基本原則，金滙免本位的採用，是爲的滅少所謂金本位的浪費。

Under the classical gold standard a part of the cash holdings of individuals consists in gold coins. Under the gold exchange standard the cash holdings of individuals consist entirely in money-substitutes. These money-substitutes are redeemable at the legal par in gold or foreign exchange of countries under the gold standard or the gold exchange standard. But the arrangement of monetary and banking institutions aims at preventing the public from withdrawing gold from the Central Bank for domestic cash holdings. The first objective of redemption is to secure the stability of foreign exchange rates.

在金本位（現在叫做「古典的」或「正統的」金本位）下，個人的現金握存有一部份是金幣。在金匯兌本位下，個人的現金握存全部是代用幣。這些代用幣可以按照黃金或採用金本位或金滙兌本位的那些國家的外滙的法定平價兌現。但是，這樣的貨幣銀行制度，是要用來防止大衆向中央銀行提取黃金作爲國內的現金提存。兌現的基本目的，在於維持滙率的穩定。

In dealing with problems of the gold exchange standard all economists--including the author of this book--failed to realize the fact that it places in the hands of governments the power to manipulate their nations' currency easily. Economists blithely assumed that no government of a civilized nation would use the gold exchange standard intentionally as an instrument of inflationary policy. Of course, one must not exaggerate the role that the gold exchange standard played in the inflationary ventures of the last decades. The

在討論金滙兌本位問題的時候，所有的經濟學家——包括本書的著者——都未曾認淸一個事實，即：這個制度給了政府容易操縱本國通貨的權力。經濟學家們輕易地假定，文明國的政府決不會故意地把金滙兌本位作爲通貨膨脹政策的工具。當然，最近幾十年，在通貨膨脹中，金滙兌本位所扮演的角色我們不應該講得過份，主要的因素畢竟是那個贊成通貨膨脹的意理。金滙兌本位不過是實現通貨膨脹計畫的一個方便工具而已，如果沒有它，通貨膨脹的一些策略也不見得不採用。美國在一九三三年，大體上還是在古典的金本位制度下，這個事實並未阻止「新政」的通貨膨脹。美國是用沒收人民握存的黃金的方法，一下子放棄了古典的金本位而將美元眨値（對黄金眨值）。

The new variety of the gold exchange standard as it developed in the years between the first and the second World Wars may be called the flexible gold exchange standard or, for the sake of simplicity, the flexible standard. Under this system the Central Bank or the Foreign Exchange Equalization Account (or whatever the name of the equivalent governmental institution may be) freely exchanges the money-substitutes which are the country's national legal tender either against gold or against foreign exchange, and vice versa. The ratio at which these exchange deals are transacted is not invariably fixed, but subject to changes. The parity is flexible, as people say. This flexibility, however, is almost always a downward flexibility. The authorities used their power to lower the equivalence of the national currency in terms of gold and of those foreign currencies whose equivalence against gold did not drop; they never ventured to raise it. If the parity against another nation's currency was raised, the change was only the consummation of a drop that had occurred in that other currency's equivalence (in terms of gold or of other nations' currencies which had remained unchanged). Its aim was to bring the appraisal of this definite foreign currency into agreement with the appraisal of gold and the currencies of other foreign nations.

在第一次與第二次世界大戰之間的那些年份發展出來的那種新式的金滙兌本位，也可叫做彈性金滙兌本位，或者爲簡單起見就叫做彈性本位。在這個制度下，中央銀行或外滙平準帳戶（或同性質的玫府機構所定的任何名稱）自由地將本國具有法償的代用幣兌換黃金或兌換外滙，同時，也自由地將黃金或外滙兌換本國的代用幣。這些兌換所依據的比率，不是一成不變，而是隨時變更的。正如人們所說，平價是有彈性的。但是，這個彈性實際上總是下降的彈性。政府當局總是運用他們的權力降低本國貨幣對黃金的平價，以及對那些幣値對黃金尙未降低的國家的貨幣的平價；他們從來沒有把這平價提高過。如果對別國通貨的平價眞的提高了，那只是由於別國通貨對黃金的平價，或者對那些通貨平價維持不變的國家的通貨的平價之降低。

If the downward jump of the parity is very conspicuous, it is called a devaluation. If the alteration of the parity is not so great, editors of financial reports describe it as a weakening in the international appraisal of the currency concerned.[2] In both cases it is usual to refer to the event by declaring that the country concerned has raised the price of gold.

如果平價的向下跳動是很顯著的，這就叫做貶値。如果平價的變動不怎麼大，金融報吿的撰稿人就把它說成這種通貨在國際評價中疲弱[2]。在這兩種情形下，那總是指這個國家已經提高黃金價格這件事。

The characterization of the flexible standard from the catallactic point of view must not be confused with its description from the legal point of view. The catallactic aspects of the issue are not affected by the constitutional problems involved. It is immaterial whether the power to alter the parity is vested in the legislative or in the administrative branch of the government. It is immaterial whether the authorization

從交換論的觀點來看彈性本位的特徵，與從法律的觀點來看的，決不可混淆。交換論的那些方面，不受法制問題的影饗。變更平價的權力是賦與立法機關的還是賦與行政部門的，這不關重要。對於行政當局的授權是無限的還是有限的（像美國的新政立法是有限的授權），也是不關重要的。就這件事的經濟論述來講，重要的只是彈性平價的原則替代了固定平價的原則。不管法制方面的情形怎樣，如果輿論反對「提高黃金價格」，政府就不會這樣作。相反地，如果輿論贊成這樣作，法制方面就不會完全置之不顧，甚至不會稍爲延緩。一九三一年在英國、一九三三年在美國、一九三六年在法國和瑞士所發生的事情，明明白白地吿訴我們：如果輿論贊成所謂專家們關於通貨貶値的意見，代議政治這個機構就能夠以最大的速度來實行。

One of the main objectives of currency devaluation--whether large-scale or small-scale--is, as will be shown in the next section, to rearrange foreign trade conditions. These effects upon foreign trade make it impossible for a small nation to take its own course in currency manipulation irrespective of what those countries are doing with whom its trade relations are closest. Such nations are forced to follow in the wake of a foreign country's monetary policies. As far as monetary policy is concerned they voluntarily become satellites of a foreign power. By keeping their own country's currency rigidly at par against the currency of a monetary "suzerain-country," they follow all the alterations which the "suzerain" brings about in its own currency's parity against gold and the other nations' currencies. They join a monetary bloc and integrate their country into a monetary area. The most talked about bloc or area is the sterling bloc or area.

通貨貶値——不管是大規模的或小規模的——的主要目的之一是要重新安排國外貿易的一些情況，下一節就要講到這一點。這些對於國外貿易的影響，使一個小國在通貨操縱方面不可能照它自己的意思，而不管與它的國際貿易有最密切關係的國家如何作。這樣的一些國家，不得不跟隨一個外國的貨幣政策。在貨幣政策上，它們自然成爲一個外強的衞星國。它們把本國的通貨與一個幣制「宗主國」的通貨維繫在一個固定的平價上，因而凡是「宗主國」在它本國通貨對黃金和對別國通貨的平價上有何變動，它們也就跟著變動。它們結合成一個貨幣集團，把它們的國統合爲一個貨幣區。我們講得最多的是英鎊集團或英鎊區。

The flexible standard must not be confused with conditions in those countries in which the government has merely proclaimed an official parity of its domestic currency against gold and foreign exchange without making this parity effective. The characteristic feature of the flexible standard is that any amount of domestic money-substitutes can in fact be exchanged at the parity chosen against gold or foreign exchange, and vice versa. At this parity the Central Bank (or whatever the name of the government agency entrusted with the task may be) buys and sells any amount of domestic currency and of foreign currency of at least one of these countries which themselves are either under the gold standard or under the flexible standard. The domestic banknotes are really redeemable.

有些國家的政府，僅是宣吿本國貨幣對黄金和對外滙的官定平價，而並不眞正使這個平價有效；這種情況也不可與彈性本位的情況相混淆。彈性本位的特徵是：任何數量的本國代用幣，事實上可以按照所選定的對黃金或對外滙的平價自由兌換，而且是相互地自由兌換。按照這個平價，中央銀行（或其他名稱而作這個工作的政府機構）自由買賣任何數量的本國代用幣，以及任何數量的外滙——這裡所說的外滙，是指那些採用金本位或彈性本位的國家的外滙。本國的銀行鈔票是實實在在地兌現的。

In the absence of this essential feature of the flexible standard,

不具備彈性本位的這種基本特徵而公吿一個官定平價的那些命令，有個完全不同的意義，而且引發一些完全不同的後果。[3]

---------------

[2] See above, p. 461.

[2] 見第十七章第十六節。

[3] See below, section 6 of this chapter.

[3] 參考本章第六節。

4. The Objectives of Currency Devaluation

四、通貨貶値的目的

The flexible standard is an instrument for the engineering of inflation. The only reason for its acceptance was to make reiterated inflationary moves technically as simple as possible for the authorities.

彈性本位是一個便於通貨膨脹的工具。採用它的唯一理由，是它會使一再的通貨膨脹，在技術上非常簡單。

In the boom period that ended in 1929 labor unions had succeeded in almost all countries in enforcing wage rates higher than those which the market, if manipulated only by migration barriers, would have determined. These wage rates already produced in many countries institutional unemployment of a considerable amount while credit expansion was still going on at an accelerated pace. When finally the inescapable depression came and commodity prices began to drop, the labor unions, firmly supported by the governments, even by those disparaged as anti-labor, clung stubbornly to their high-wages policy. They either flatly denied permission for any cut in nominal wage rates or conceded only insufficient cuts. The result was a tremendous increase in institutional unemployment. (On the other hand, those workers who retained their jobs improved their standard of living as their hourly real wages went up.) The burden of unemployment doles became unbearable. The millions of unemployed were a serious menace to domestic peace. The industrial countries were haunted by the specter of revolution. But union leaders were intractable, and no statesman had the courage to challenge them openly.

在一九二九年結束的那個市面興旺時期，幾乎所有各國的工會都成功地把工資率提高到勞動市場（如果這個勞動市場只有移民的限制）所決定的水準以上。當這種工資率在許多國家已經引起了大量的制度性失業的時候，信用還在加速地擴張。最後，不可避免的蕭條到來了，物價開始降落了，這時，工會還要固執他們的高工資政策，政府堅決地支持工會的立場，甚至那些被罵爲反勞工的人們也表示支持。工會或斷然地拒絕名目工資率的任何減低，或稍示讓步作輕微的減低。其結果是，制度性的失業大大地增加了。（另一方面，那些保持住職業的工人，由於每小時的實質工資的上昇而改善他們的生活水準。）失業津貼的支出，大到不堪負擔的程度。幾百萬的失業者對於國內和平構成一個嚴重的威脅。工業國家籠罩在革命陰影之下。但是，工會的領袖們是倔強得難以相處的，沒有一個政治家有勇氣敢於公開地向他們挑戰。

In this plight the frightened rulers bethought themselves of a makeshift long since recommended by inflationist doctrinaires. As unions objected to an adjustment of wages to the state of the money relations and commodity prices, they chose to adjust the money relation and commodity prices to the height of wage rates. As they saw it, it was not wage rates that were too high; their own nation's monetary unit was overvalued in terms of gold and foreign exchange and had to be readjusted. Devaluation was the panacea.

在這個苦境中，那些被嚇住了的統治者，想起了好久以前通貨膨脹主義者所推薦的一個權宜之計。由於工會拒絕調整工资以適應貨幣關係和物價的情況，他們就來調整貨幣關係與物價，以適應工資率的高度。照他們看來，太高的不是工資率；他們本國的貨幣單位就黃金與外滙來講，價値高估了，所以必得重新調整。貶値是一帖萬靈藥。

The objectives of devaluation were:

貶値的目的是：

1. To preserve the height of nominal wage rates or even to create the conditions required for their further increase, while real wage rates should rather sink.

1. 保持名目工資率的高度，甚至創造一些爲將來提昇工資率所需要的條件，可是實質工資率則是下降的。

2. To make commodity prices, especially the prices of farm products, rise in terms of domestic money or, at least, to check their further drop.

2. 使物價，尤其是農業品的價格（以本國貨幣計的）上漲，或者至少阻止它們再下跌。

3. To favor the debtors at the expense of the creditors.

3. 使債務人受益，債權人受損。

4. To encourage exports and to reduce imports.

4. 鼓勵輸出，抑制輸入。

5. To attract more foreign tourists and to make it more expensive (in terms of domestic money) for the country's own citizens to visit foreign countries.

5. 吸引更多的外國觀光客，使本國人民出國旅行的費用（以本國貨幣計算）增加。

However, neither the governments nor the literary champions of their policy were frank enough to admit openly that one of the main purposes of devaluation was a reduction in the height of real wage rates. They preferred for the most part to describe the objective of devaluation as the removal of an alleged "fundamental disequilibrium" between the domestic and the international "level" of prices. They spoke of the necessity of lowering domestic costs of production. But they were anxious not to mention that one of the two cost items they expected to lower by devaluation was real wage rates, the other being interest stipulated on long-term business debts and the principal of such debts.

但是，政府也好，擁護政府政策的人們也好，從未坦白地公開承認，貶値的主要目的之一是要降低實質工資率的高度。他們大都是說，貶値的目的在於消除所謂國內外物價「水準」之間「基本的失衡」。他們說到降低國內生產成本的必要。但是，他們極力避免說到他們希望用貶値來降低的兩種成本之一是實質工資率，另一種成本是長期的營業借款的利息和這種借款的本金。

It is impossible to take seriously the arguments advanced in favor of devaluation. They were utterly confused and contradictory. For devaluation was not a policy that originated from a cool weighing of the pros and cons. It was a capitulation of governments to union leaders who kid not want to lose face by admitting that their wage policy had failed and had produced institutional unemployment on an unprecedented scale. It was a desperate makeshift of weak and inept statesmen who were motivated by their wish to prolong their tenure of office. In justifying their policy, these demagogues did not bother about contradictions. They promised the processing industries and the farmers that devaluation would make prices rise. But at the same time they promised the consumers that rigid price control would prevent any increase in the cost of living.

爲支持貶値而提出的那些議論，我們不可能把它們當眞的。它們完全是混淆而又矛盾的。眨値不是一個對贊否兩方的理由作了冷靜權衡以後所制定的政策。工會的領袖爲怕丟面子而不承認他們的工資政策已經失敗，並且已經產生空前的大規模的制度性失業，貶値是政府對這些工會領袖們的投降。也即，那些專想保持自己官職而軟弱愚昧的政客們的一個非常手段。在爲自己的政策作辯護時，這些政客們也就不管言詞的矛盾了。他給製造業者和農民的諾言，是說貶値將使物價上漲。但是，同時他們又向消費者說，嚴格的物價管制將會防止生活費用的增高。

After all, the governments could still excuse their conduct by referring to the fact that under the given state of public opinion, entirely under the sway of the doctrinal fallacies of labor unionism, no other policy could be resorted to. No such excuse can be advanced for those authors who hailed the flexibility of foreign exchange rates as the perfect and most desirable monetary system. While governments were still anxious to emphasize that devaluation was an emergency measure not to be repeated again, these authors proclaimed the flexible standard as the most appropriate monetary system and were eager to demonstrate the alleged evils inherent in stability of foreign exchange rates. In their blind zeal to please the governments and the powerful pressure groups of unionized labor and farming, they overstated tremendously the case of flexible parities. But the drawbacks of standard flexibility became manifest very soon. The enthusiasm for

政府畢竟還可以輿論作藉口來辯護他們的行爲，說是在這旣定的輿論——完全受工會武斷的謬見所支配的輿論——下，沒有別的政策可行。至於那些把彈性滙率捧爲完善的最好的幣制的人們，卻不能以此作藉口。政府方面還可強調，貶値是個緊急措施，以後不再採用，可是，那些鼓吹彈性滙率的人們卻宣稱，彈性本位是最好的幣制，而且急於說明所謂滙率安定的一些壞處。他們盲目地熱心於取悅政府和有力量、有組織的農工壓力團體，過份誇張彈性平價的好處。但是，彈性本位的一些缺點很快地暴露出來了。貶値的熱情也隨之冷卻。在第二次世界大戰期間，也即，英國創立彈性本位以後將近十年的時候，甚至凱因斯和他的高足們也發現，滙率的安定有它的一些好處。國際貨幣基金（the International Monetary Fund，簡稱IMF）所宣佈的目的之―，是在安定滙率。

If one looks at devaluation not with the eyes of an apologist of government and union policies, but with the eyes of an economist, one must first of all stress the point that all its alleged blessings are temporary only. Moreover, they depend on the condition that only one country devalues while the other countries abstain from devaluing their own currencies. If the other countries devalue in the same proportion, no changes in foreign trade appear. If they devalue to a greater extent, all these transitory blessings, whatever they may be, favor them exclusively. A general acceptance of the principles of the flexible standard must therefore result in a race between the nations to outbid one another. At the end of this competition is the complete destruction of all nations' monetary systems.

如果不以政府和工會的辯護者的觀點，而以經濟學家的觀點來看貨幣貶値，那麼，首先就要強調所謂貶値的一切好處都是暫時性的。而且，這些好處還要靠一個條件，即，只有一個國家貨幣貶値，其他所有的國家都不這樣做。如果其他國家的貨幣也同比例砭値，則對外貿易就沒有什麼變動發生。如果別國貶値的程度更大，則所有暫時性的好處只宥它們才會享有。由此可知，如果彈性滙率的那些原則普遍地被接受，其結果將是國家間爭先恐後地相互貶値。競爭的結果是，所有國家的貨幣制度完全崩潰。

The much talked about advantages which devaluation secures in foreign trade and tourism, are entirely due to the fact that the adjustment of domestic prices and wage rates to the state of affairs created by devaluation requires some time. As long as this adjustment process is not yet completed, exporting is encouraged and importing is discouraged. However, this merely means that in this interval the citizens of the devaluating country are getting less for what they are selling abroad and paying more for what they are buying abroad; concomitantly they must restrict their consumption. This effect may appear as a boon in the opinion of those for whom the balance of trade is the yardstick of a nation's welfare. In plain language it is to be described in this way: The British citizen must export more British goods in order to buy that quantity of tea which he received before the devaluation for a smaller quantity of exported British goods.

常常被講到的貨幣貶値，在對外貿易和觀光事業方面所得到的利益，完全是由於國內物價和工資率適應貶値所造成的情勢而調整，需要相當的時間才能完成。只要這個調整過程還沒有完成，輸出就受到鼓勵，輸入受到抑制。可是，這只是說，在這個過程中，貶値國的人民得之於出口的漸漸減少了，支付於進口的漸漸增多了，因而他們必須減縮他們的消費。這種後果，照那些把貿易平衡看作國家福利的碼尺的人們的說法，顯得像是繁榮。用簡潔的話來講，可以這樣說：英國人必須輸出更多的英國貨，才能買到眨値以前他輸出較少的英國貨所能買到的那個數量的茶葉。

The devaluation, say its champions, reduces the burden of debts. This is certainly true. It favors debtors at the expense of creditors. In the eyes of those who still have not learned that under modern conditions the creditors must not be identified with the rich not the debtors with the poor, this is beneficial. The actual effect is that the indebted owners of real estate and farm land and the shareholders of indebted corporations reap gains at the expense of the majority of people whose savings are invested in bonds, debentures, savings-bank deposits, and insurance policies.

主張貶値的人們說：貶値會減輕債務負擔。這確是眞的。它有利於債務人、損害債權人。他們認爲這是有益的。因爲他們還沒有認淸，在現代經濟中，債權人並不就是富人，債務人也不就是窮人。實際的後果是，借債的不動產所有主、農地所有主、以及借債公司的股東，都得到利益，而那些把儲蓄投之於公私債券、儲蓄銀行存款、以及保險單的大衆，受到損失。

There are also foreign loans to be considered. When Great Britain, the United States, France, Switzerland and some other European creditor countries devalued their currencies, they made a gift to their foreign debtors.

我們也要考慮到外債。當英國、美國、法國、瑞士、以及某些別的歐洲債權國，把他們的貨幣貶値時，就是對他們的外國債務者送一次禮。

One of the main arguments advanced in favor of the flexible standard is that it lowers the rate of interest on the domestic money market. Under the classical gold standard and the rigid gold exchange standard, it is said, a country must adjust the domestic rate of interest to conditions on the international money market. Under the flexible standard it is free to follow in the determination of interest rates a policy exclusively guided by considerations of its own domestic welfare.

贊成彈性本位的主要說法之一，是它減低國內貨幣巿場的利率。據說，在古典的金本位以及固定的金滙兌本位下，一個國家必須適應國際貨幣市場的情況來調整國內的利率。在彈性本位下，利率的決定可以自由採用一個完全就本國福利來考慮的政策。

The argument is obviously untenable with regard to those countries in which the total amount of debts to foreign countries exceeds the total amount of loans granted to foreign countries. When in the course of the nineteenth century some of these debtor nations adopted a sound money policy, their firms and citizens could contract foreign debts in terms of their national currency. This opportunity disappeared altogether with the change in these countries' monetary policies. No foreign banker would contract a loan in Italian lire or try to float an issue of lire bonds. As far as foreign credits are concerned, no change in a debtor country's domestic currency conditions can be of any avail. As far as domestic credits are concerned, devaluation abates only the already previously contracted debts. It enhances the gross market rate of interest of new debts as it makes a positive price premium appear.

這個說法顯然不適用於所有的國家，因爲有些國家欠外國的債務總額大於對外國的債權總額，就這種國家來講，這個說法是站不住的。在十九世紀當中，有些這樣的債務國採行一種健全的貨幣政策，它們的廠商和人民個人，可以用他們本國的貨幣訂約借外債。這種機會隨著這些國家的貨幣政策之改變而完全消失了。決沒有一個美國銀行家願意用意大利的貨幣訂約放債或發行債券。就國外借貸來講，債務國本國貨幣情況的變動不會有何作用。就國內借貸來講，貨幣眨値只減輕那些已經訂約的債務。至於新的債務則提高了它的市場毛利率，因爲它加上了物價上漲的貼水。

This is valid also with regard to interest rate conditions in the creditor nations. There is no need to add anything to the demonstration that interest is not a monetary phenomenon and cannot in the long run be affected by monetary measures.

就債權國的利率來講，這也是有效的。利息，不是一種貨幣現象，就長期看，不會受到貨幣政策的影響，對於這個論證無須增加什麼。

It is true that the devaluations which were resorted to by various governments between 1931 and 1938 made real wage rates drop in some countries and thus reduced the amount of institutional unemployment. The historian in dealing with these devaluations may therefore say that they were a success as they prevented a revolutionary upheaval of the daily increasing masses of unemployed and as, under the prevailing ideological conditions, no other means could be resorted to in this critical situation. But the historian will no less have to add that the remedy did not affect the root causes of institutional unemployment, the faulty tenets of labor unionism. Devaluation was a cunning device to elude the sway of the union doctrine. It worked because it did not impair the prestige of unionism. but precisely because it left the popularity of unionism untouched, it could work

一九三一年與一九三八年之間，若干政府所實行的貨幣貶値，在若干國家使實質工資率降低，因而也減少了制度性的失業人數，這是確實的。所以歷史家在陳述這些貶値的時候，他們會說：這些貶値是成功的，因爲它們防止了不斷增加的失業所會引起的革命動亂，在當時流行的意理下，都認爲在這種緊急關頭沒有別的方法可用。但是歷史家應該再加說一句話：這個藥方並沒有醫到制度性失業的病根——工會的那些謬誤的說詞。貶値是爲著閃避工會行動的支配力而想起的一個詭計。它之所以行得通，因爲它不傷害工會的尊嚴。但是，正因爲它讓工會的聲譽不受損傷。它只能在短期內行得通。工會的領袖們後來也懂了名目工資率與實質工資率的區別。現在，他們的政策是在提高實質工資率。他們再也不受騙於貨幣單位購買力的低落了。作爲減少制度性失業的一個設計——貨幣貶値，已失去它的效用了。

Cognizance of these facts provides a key for a correct appraisal of the role which Lord Keynes's doctrines played in the years between the first and second World Wars. Keynes did not add any new idea to the body of inflationist fallacies, a thousand times refuted by economists. His teachings were even more contradictory and inconsistent than those of his predecessors who, like Silvio Gesell, were dismissed as monetary cranks. He merely knew how to cloak the plea for inflation and credit expansion in the sophisticated terminology of mathematical economics. The interventionist writers were at a loss to advance plausible arguments in favor of the policy of reckless spending; they simply could not find a case against the economic theorem concerning institutional unemployment. In this juncture they greeted the"Keynesian Revolution" with the verses of Wordsworth: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven." [4] It was, however, a short-run heaven only. We may admit that for the British and American governments in the 'thirties no way was left other than that of currency devaluation, inflation and credit expansion, unbalanced budgets, and deficit spending. Governments cannot free themselves from the pressure of public opinion. They cannot rebel against the preponderance of generally accepted ideologies, however fallacious. But this does not excuse the officeholders who could resign rather than carry out policies disastrous for the country. Still less does it excuse authors who tried to provide a would-be scientific justification for the crudest of all popular fallacies, viz., inflationism.

認識了這些事實，就可扼要地對於凱因斯的理論在第一次與第二次世界大戰之間所扮演的角色給以正確的評價。凱因斯對膨脹主義的一團謬化並沒有增加什麼新的觀念，而那膨脹主義的謬見，是被經濟學家駁斥過千百次的。凱因斯的敎義甚至比他的前輩們的敎義更矛盾、更不一貫，他的前輩們，像Silvio Gesell這種人，曾被斥爲貨幣奇想者（monetary cranks）。凱因斯只知道如何用些數理經濟學的那些牽強的術語，來掩飾通貨膨脹和信用擴張的主張。干涉主義者不知道如何提出有力的說詞來贊成隨便支出的政策；他們簡直找不出理由來反對關於制度性失業的經濟理論。在這個當兒，他們用Wordsworth讚美天堂的詩句來歡迎「凱因辦革命」[4]。我們也可承認，在本世紀三十幾年當中，就英國和美國政府來說，除掉貨幣貶値、通貨膨脹、信用擴張、不平衡的預算、以及赤字支出以外，沒有別的路子可走。政府不能擺脫輿論的壓力。他們不能反對那些普遍接受的意理，不管這些意理如何荒謬。但是，這並不是爲政府官吏辯護，他們可以辭職而不執行這些爲害國家的政策。最不可寬恕的，是替膨脹主義的謬見提供所謂科學的辯護的那些作者。由於他們的寫作，謬見變成眞理，而且更爲普及。

---------------------

[4] Cf. P.A. Samuelson, "Lord Keynes and the General Theory," in Econometrica, 14, 1946), 187; reprinted in the New Economics, ed. S.E. Harris (New York, 1947), p. 145.

[4] 參考P.A. Samuelson, "Lord Keynes and the General Theory," in Econometrica, 14, 1946), 187; 重刊於the New Economics, ed. S.E. Harris (New York, 1947), p. 145.

5. Credit Expansion

五、信用擴張

It has been pointed out that it would be an error to look upon credit expansion exclusively as a mode of government interference with the market. The fiduciary media did not come into existence as instruments of government policies deliberately aiming at high prices and high nominal wage rates, at lowering the market rate of interest and at debt abatement. They evolved out of the regular business of banking. When the bankers, whose receipts for call money deposited were

前面曾經指出，把信用擴張看作完全是政府干涉市場的一個方式，這是錯誤的。信用媒介的出現，並不是由於政府有意提高物價、提高名目工資率、降低市場利率，以及減輕債務而設計的政策工具。信用媒介是從銀行業務演化出來的。銀行給活期存款戶的收據（也即銀行鈔票）被大衆當作貨幣代用品。當銀行利用這種情形，開始把存款的一部份貸放出去的時候，他們只就自己業務的利益打算。他們認爲，對於存款不保持十足準備，是沒有什麼害處的。他們相信，即令把存款貸出一部份，他們總可以履行兌現的義務而不致遲緩。在自由市場經濟的運作中，銀行鈔票成了信用媒介。信用擴張的醸成者，是銀行不是政府。

But today credit expansion is exclusively a government practice. As far as private banks and bankers are instrumental in issuing fiduciary media, their role is merely ancillary and concerns only technicalities. The governments alone direct the course of affairs. They have attained full supremacy in all matters concerning the size of circulation credit. While the size of the credit expansion that private banks and bankers are able to engineer on an unhampered market is strictly limited, the governments aim at the greatest possible amount of credit expansion. Credit expansion is the governments' foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.

但是，今天的信用擴張，卻是政府的絕對特權。就私人銀行有助於信用媒介之發行而言，它們的作用只是輔助的，只與技術上的事情有關。惟有政府在全程中是指揮者。關於信用流通量的一切事情，政府握有充份的最高權力。私人銀行在自由市場上所能操縱的信甩擴張量，是嚴格地受限制的，可是，政府卻以最大可能的信用擴張爲目的。信用擴張是政府用以對付市場經濟最重要的鬥爭工具。這個工具在政府的手中成爲可以用來耍許多把戲的魔杖：可用它驅除資本財的稀少性，可用它降低或完全消除利率，可用它供應政府的浪費支出，可用它沒收資本家的財富，可用它「激發持久的繁榮」，可用它「使每個人富有」。

The inescapable consequences of credit expansion are shown by the theory of the trade cycle. Even those economists who still refuse to acknowledge the correctness of the monetary or circulation credit theory of the cyclical fluctuations of business have never dared to question the conclusiveness and irrefutability of what this theory asserts with regard to the necessary effects of credit expansion. These economists too must admit and do admit that the upswing is invariably conditioned by credit expansion, that it could not come into being and continue without credit expansion, and that it turns into depression when the further progress of credit expansion stops. Their explanation of the trade cycle in fact boils down to the assertion that what first generates the upswing is not credit expansion, but other factors. The credit expansion which even in their opinion is an indispensable requisite of the general boom, is, they say, not the outcome of a policy deliberately aiming at low interest rates and at encouraging additional investment for which the capital goods needed are lacking. It is something which, without active interference on the part of the authorities, in a miraculous way always appears whenever these factors begin their operation.

信用擴張不可避免的後果，已由商業循環論指出。即令那些拒絕承認商業循環的貨幣論或流通信用論的正確性的經濟學家，也不敢對這個理論所說的信用擴張的必然後果表示懷疑。這些經濟學家也要承認，而且確已承認：信用擴張必然引起循環上昇的趨勢；如果沒有信用擴張，上昇的趨勢不會發生，也不會繼續；當信用擴張一旦停止的時候，蕭條馬上到臨。他們給商業循環的解釋，事實上也即是說，最初引起上昇趨勢的不是信用擴張，而是其他的一些因素。甚至在他們的見解中，那種爲一般繁榮之必要條件的信用擴張，也不是一個故意降低利率和促進投資的政策之後果，信用擴張總是在那些其他因素開始發生作用的時候，莫名其妙地出現，無須政府方面有何積極的作爲。

It is obvious that these economists contradict themselves in opposing plans to eliminate the fluctuations of business by abstention from credit expansion. The supporters of the naive inflationist vies of history are consistent when they infer from their--of course, utterly fallacious and contradictory--tenets that credit expansion is the economic panacea. But those who do not deny that credit expansion brings about the boom that is the indispensable condition of the depression disagree with their own doctrine in fighting the proposals to curb credit expansion. Both the spokesmen of the governments and the powerful pressure groups and the champions of the dogmatic "unorthodoxy" that dominates the university departments of economics agree that one should try to avert the recurrence of depressions and that the realization of this end requires the prevention of booms. They cannot advance tenable arguments against the proposals to abstain from policies encouraging credit expansion. But they stubbornly refuse to listen to any such idea. They passionately disparage the plans to prevent credit expansion as devices which would perpetuate depressions. Their attitude clearly demonstrates the correctness of the statement that the trade cycle is the product of policies intentionally aimed at lowering the rate of interest and engendering artificial booms.

很明顯地，這些經濟學家在反對不以信用擴張來消除經濟波動的那些計畫時，是自相矛盾的。至於那些膨脹主義歷史觀的天眞的支持者，當他們從他們的信念——信用擴張是經濟的萬靈藥——來推理的時候，倒是一貫的，儘管他們的信念是錯誤的。但是，那些不否認信用擴張是繁榮的必要條件的人們，在反對抑制信用擴張的計畫時，卻違背了他們自己的信條。政府和壓力團體的發言人，以及現在支配大學經濟學系的「非正統理論」的擁護者，都同意經濟蕭條是應該設法避免的，而且也同意要達成這個目的必須防止市面的突然興旺。他們提不出站得住的議論來反對放棄鼓勵信用擴張的那些建議。但是，他們頑固地拒絕聽取這方面的任何意見。他們熱烈地駡那些防止信用擴張的計畫，認爲那些計畫會使經濟蕭條延續下去。這種態度很明白地指出，「商業循環是那些故意降低利率促進人爲的繁榮的政策的後果」這一說法是正確的。

It is a fact that today measures aimed at lowering the rate of interest are generally considered highly desirable and that credit expansion is viewed as the efficacious means for the attainment of this end. It is this prepossession that impels all governments to fight the gold standard. All political parties and all pressure groups are firmly committed to an easy money policy.[5]

凡是用以降低利率的方法，現在普遍地被認爲極有利，而信用擴張被認爲是達到這個目的的有效方法。這個偏見使得所有的政府都反對金本位。擴張是我們這個時代的大口號。所有的政黨，所有的壓力團體，都堅決地致力於放鬆銀根的政策[5]。

The objective of credit expansion is to favor the interests of some groups of the population at the expense of others. This is, of course, the best that interventionism can attain when it does not hurt the interests of all groups. But while making the whole community poorer, it may still enrich some strata. Which groups belong to the latter class depends on the special data of each case.

信用擴張的目的是有利於某些人羣而損及其他的人羣。干涉主義在不損害所有的人羣時自然是最好的。但是，它固然使全社會更爲貧窮，它還可使某些階層富有。至於富有的是屬於那些階層，那就要看個別的情形。

The idea which generated what is called qualitative credit control

現在有所謂「質的信用控制」。這種控制之所由産生的想法，是要把信用擴張所引起的所謂利益給某些人羣而不給其他的人羣。據說，信用不應流進證券交易所，不應使股票價格飛漲。信用的授與應該是利於加工業、鑛業、「合法的商業」，尤其是農業的「合法的生產活動」。此外，有些主張質的信用控制的人們，想防止增加的信用用之於固定資本的投資因而被凍結不動。他們想把增加的信用只用之於流動財貨的生產。按照這些計畫，政府給銀行一些具體的指示，那些款可以放，那些不可以放。

However, all such schemes are vain. Discrimination in lending is no substitute for checks placed on credit expansion, the only means that could really prevent a rise in stock exchange quotations and an expansion of investment in fixed capital. The mode in which the additional amount of credit finds its way into the loan market is only of secondary importance. What matters is that there is an inflow of newly created credit. If the banks grand more credits to the farmers, the farmers are in a position to repay loans received from other sources and to pay cash for their purchases. If they grant more credits to business as circulating capital, they free funds which were previously tied up for this use. In any case they create an abundance of disposable money for which its owners try to find the most profitable investment. Very promptly these funds find outlets in the stock exchange or in fixed investment. The notion that it is possible to pursue a credit expansion without making stock prices rise and fixed investment expand is absurd.[6]

但是，這些計畫是白費的。放款的差別待遇，決不可替代對信用擴張所加的限制。對信用擴張加以限制，是眞正能夠防止證券市場風險，和防止固定資本投資擴展的惟一方法。至於信用的增加量如何進到借貸市場，只是次要的問題。重要的是有了一筆新生的信用流入。如果銀行對於農民的授信較多，農民就能夠償還從別方面借到的債，以及能夠用現款來購買東西。如果銀行以較多的信用授與商人作爲流通資本，商人就可把原先用作流通資本的資金用在其他用途。在任何情形下，銀行創造出許多可支用的貨幣，而這些貨幣的所有者用來作最有利的投資。很快地這些資金會在證券市場或固定的投資方面找它們的出路。信用擴張而不引起股票價格上漲和固定的投資擴張這個想法，是荒謬的[6]。

The typical course of events under credit expansion was until a few decades ago determined by two facts: that it was credit expansion under the gold standard, and that it was not the outcome of concerted action on the part of the various national governments and the central banks whose conduct these governments directed. The first of these facts meant that governments were not prepared to abandon the convertibility of their country's banknotes according to the rigidly fixed parity. The second fact resulted in a lack of quantitative uniformity in the size of credit expansion. Some countries got ahead of other countries and their banks were faced with the danger of a serious external drain upon their reserves in gold and foreign exchange. In order to preserve their own solvency, these banks were forced to take recourse to drastic credit restriction. Thus they

信用擴張的典型過程，直到幾年前才由兩個事實確定：一是金本位下的信用擴張，一是各國政府和受這些政府指揮的一些中央銀行不一致的行動結果。第一個事實就是政府不準備放棄銀行鈔票按照固定的平價兌換黃金。第二個事實的結果是信用擴張的規模缺乏量的一致。有些國家跑在其他國家的前面，而它們的銀行面對黃金和外滙準備有大量外流的嚴重危險。爲保持它們自己的償付能力，這些銀行不得不採嚴厲的信用限制。於是，它們就引起經濟恐慌，使國內市場陷於蕭條。這種恐慌很快地蔓延到其他國家。而這些其他國家的商人也就開始戒懼，因而增加借款以加強他們的流通資金以備萬一。正由於這新的信用薷求的增加使得本國的貨幣當局——已經因第一個國家的經濟恐慌而引起戒懼的——也採取緊縮政策。於是，在幾天或幾週以內，經濟蕭條就成爲國際現象。

The policy of devaluation has to some extent altered this typical sequence of events. Menaced by an external drain, the monetary authorities do not always resort to credit restriction and to raising the rate of interest charged by the central banking system. They devalue. Yet devaluation does not solve the problem. If the government does not care how far foreign exchange rates may rise, it can for some time continue to cling to credit expansion. But one day the crack-up boom will annihilate its monetary system. On the other hand, if the authority wants to avoid the necessity of devaluing again and again at an accelerated pace, it must arrange its domestic credit policy in such a way as not to outrun in credit expansion the other countries against which it wants to keep its domestic currency at par.

貶値政策已經使這種典型的過程有些改變。貨幣當局遇到黄金外滙準備有枯竭的危險時，他們不以信用限制來對付，而提高中央銀行體系所收取的利率。他們貶値。可是貶値解決不了問題。如果政府不管滙率上昇得多高，一律置之不顧，它還可以暫時繼績固執於信用擴張。但是，總有一天，市面的突然興旺會毀滅它的幣制。另一方面，如果政府想避免一再地加速眨値，它就必須把國內的信用政策安排得在信用擴張上不超過它所想與之保持貨幣平價的那些國家。

Many economists take it for granted that the attempts of the authorities to expand credit will always bring about the same almost regular alternation between periods of booming trade and of subsequent depression. They assume that the effects of credit expansion will in the future not differ from those that have been observed since the end of the eighteenth century in Great Britain and since the middle of the nineteenth century in Western and Central Europe and in North America. But we may wonder whether conditions have not changed. The teachings of the monetary theory of the trade cycle are today so well known even outside of the circle of economists, that the naive optimism which inspired the entrepreneurs in the boom periods of the past has given way to a certain skepticism. It may be that businessmen will in the future react to credit expansion in a manner other than they have in the past. It may be that they will avoid using for an expansion of their operations the easy money available because they will keep in mind the inevitable end of the boom. Some signs forebode such a change. But it is too early to make a definite statement.

擴張信用總會引起興旺期與後繼的蕭條期。這幾乎是有規律的交替。這是許多經濟學家所視爲當然的。他們以爲，信用擴張的後果，將來也不會不同於十八世紀末期以來，英國所經歷的，以及十九世紀中期以來，西歐、中歐和北美所經歷的那些後果。但是，我們不知道情況是否已經有了轉變。商業循環的貨幣說，到了今天已成爲大衆皆知的敎義，以致在過去興旺期激發企業家的那種天眞的樂觀，已經被某種戒懼心替代了。商人們將來對信用擴張所採取的反應態度也許不同於過去所採取的。他們也許不把便宜得到的金錢用之於擴張他們的營業，因爲他們將記住興旺的必然結局，有些跡象預示了這樣的改變。但是要作肯定的断言，卻還太早。

In another direction the monetary theory of the trade cycle has certainly affected the course of events. Although no official--whether he works in the bureaus of a government's financial services

【中文版無此段。】

The Chimera of Contracyclical Policies

反循環政策這個怪想

An essential element of the "unorthodox" doctrines, advanced both by all socialists and by all interventionists, is that the recurrence of depressions is a phenomenon inherent in the very operation of the market economy. But while the socialists contend that only the substitution of socialism for capitalism can eradicate the evil, the interventionists ascribe to the government the power to correct the operation of the market economy in such a way as to bring about what they call "economic stability." These interventionists would be right if their antidepression plans were to aim at a radical abandonment of credit expansion policies. However, they reject this idea in advance. What they want is to expand credit more and more and to prevent depressions by the adoption of special "contracyclical" measures.

所有的社會主義者和所有的干涉主義者所提出的一些「非正統」學說的精髓都是說，經濟蕭條的反覆出現是市場經濟的一個固有現象。但是，社會主義者認爲，只有以社會主義替代資本主義才能消除這個禍害，而干涉主義者則主張，把那糾正市場經濟運作的權力委之於政府，由政府運用權力達到他們所說的「經濟安定」。如果這些干涉主義者的反蕭條計畫是要徹底放棄信用擴張政策，那麼，他們是對的。可是，他們預先就拒目個想法。他們所想的是，把信用擴張再擴張，而採用特別的「反循環的」措施來防止蕭條。

In the contest of these plans the government appears as a deity that stands and works outside the orbit of human affairs, that is independent of the actions of its subjects, and has the power to interfere with these actions from without. It has at its disposal means and funds that are not provided by the people and can be freely used for whatever purposes the rulers are prepared to employ them for. What is needed to make the most beneficent use of this power is merely to follow the advice given by the experts.

在這些計畫的前後關係中，政府像神一樣地站在人事軌道以外而作爲，它獨立於人民的行爲以外，而具有從外部干涉這些行爲的權力。它保有可以自由處分的资金，而這資金不是人民提供的，可以自由地用在統治者所想的用途。要使這個權力運用得最有利，所需要的只是聽取專家們的建議。

The most advertised among these suggested remedies is contracyclical timing of public works and expenditure on public enterprises. The idea is not so new as its champions would have us believe. When depression came in the past, public opinion always asked the government to embark upon public works in order to create jobs and to

在這些建議中吹捧得最力的，是公共工程和公營事業支出的反循環的時間安排。這個想法並不是像它的鼓吹者希望我們相信的那麼新穎。過去，當蕭條到臨的時候，輿論總是要求政府興辦公共工程以創造就業機會，阻止物價下跌。但是，問題是在如何籌取公共工程的經費。如果政府向人民課稅，或向他們借債，這就對於凱因斯學派所說的總支出量沒有什麼增加。人民的消費或投資能力的減低，抵消了政府支出的增加。可是，如果政府採用素所喜歡的通貨膨脹這個方法來籌取經費，那就把事情弄得更糟，而不是弄得更好。它可以把物價暴跌的開始期延緩一時。但是，到了不可避免的後果終於到來的時候，激變的程度視其延緩時期的長短爲轉移，延緩的時期愈長，激變的程度愈厲害。

The interventionist experts are at a loss to grasp the real problems involved. As they see it, the main thing is "to plan public capital expenditure well in advance and to accumulate a shelf of fully worked out capital projects which can be put into operation at short notice." This, they say, "is the right policy and one which we recommend all countries should adopt." [7] However, the problem is not to elaborate projects, but to provide the material means for their execution. The interventionists believe that this could be easily achieved by holding back government expenditure in the boom and increasing it when the depression comes.

干涉主義的專家們，對於這裡的眞正問題沒有把握住。照他們的想法，主要的事情是「好好地預先計畫公共資本支出，並準備一些作好了的，而且隨時可以實行的方案」。他們說，這「是正確的政策，是我們建議的而所有的國家都應該採行的」[7]。但是，問題不在於製作一些方案，而在於如何籌取實施那些方案的資金。干涉主義者以爲這易於辦到，此即，在興旺期節省政府的支出，到了蕭條期增加支出。

Now, restriction of government expenditure may be certainly be a good thing. But it does not provide the funds a government needs for a later expansion of its expenditure. An individual may conduct his affairs in this way. He may accumulate savings when his income is high and spend them later when his income drops. But it is different with a nation or all nations together. The treasury may hoard a considerable part of the lavish revenue from taxes which flows into the public exchequer as a result of the boom. As far and as long as it withholds these funds from circulation, its policy is really deflationary and contracyclical and may to this extent weaken the boom created by credit expansion. But when these funds are spent again, they alter the money relation and create a cash-induced tendency toward a drop in the monetary unit's purchasing power. By no means can these funds provide the capital goods required for the execution of the shelved public works.

節省政府的支出確是一件好事。但它並不能供給政府在以後擴張支出時所需要的資金。個人可以這樣作。他可以在所得高的時候儲蓄，到了所得低的時候用它。但就一個國家或所有的國家而言，情形就不同了。因爲市面興旺，稅收增加，國庫可能保有一大部份稅收沒有用出去。就這筆退出流通的資金的數量和其返出的時期長短，其緊縮後果的大小和久暫也隨之確定，信用擴展所引起的市面興旺，將同程度地減弱。但是，當這些資金再用出去的時候，那又改變貨幣關係而創造一個現金引起的貨幣單位購買力降低的趨勢。這些資金決不能供應公共工程所需要的資本財。

The fundamental error of these projects consists in the fact that they ignore the shortage of capital goods. In their eyes the depression is merely caused by a mysterious lack of the people's propensity both to consume and to invest. While the only real problem is to produce more and to consume less in order to increase the stock of capital goods available, the interventionists want to increase both consumption and investment. They want the government to embark upon projects which are unprofitable precisely because the factors of production

干涉主義者的基本錯誤，在於他們不管資本財的缺乏。在他們的心目中，經濟蕭條只是因爲人們的消費傾向和投資傾向的神秘性的減返。惟一的眞正問題是，要生產得更多，消費得更少，以增加可以利用的資本財存量，干涉主義者卻想增加消費和投資。他們希望政府興辦那些沒有利潤的事業，而這些事業之所以沒有利潤，正因爲它們所需要的那些生產要素必須從其他的用途挪過來，而那些生產要素用在那些其他用途更能滿足消費者所認、爲的更迫切的慾望。他們不知道這樣的公共工程一定大大地加深這個眞正問題——資本財缺乏——的嚴重性。

One could, of course, think of another mode for the employment of the savings the government makes in the boom period. The treasury could invest its surplus in buying large stocks of all those materials which it will later, when the depression comes, need for the execution of the public works planned and of the consumers' goods which those occupied in these public works will ask for. But if the authorities were to act in this way, they would considerably intensify the boom, accelerate the outbreak of the crisis, and make its consequences more serious.[8]

當然，我們也可想到另一方式來利用政府在興旺期所留下的儲蓄。財政部可以把它的超收用來購買蕭條期到來時所要用以興辦公共工程的那些物資，以及做公共工程的員工們所需要的消費財。但是，如果政府這樣作，那就是使興旺更加興旺，加強激變的到來，而使後果更加嚴重[8]。

All this talk about contracyclical government activities aims at one goal only, namely, to divert the public's attention from cognizance of the real cause of the cyclical fluctuations of business. Ass governments are firmly committed to the policy of low interest rates, credit expansion, and inflation. When the unavoidable aftermath of these short-term policies appears, they know only of one remedy--to go on in inflationary ventures.

所有關於反環境的政府活動的說詞，其目的只有一個。即，使大家的注意轉向，使其不能認淸循環波動的商業景氣的眞正原因。所有的政府都固執於低利率政策、信用擴張、和通貨膨脹。當這些短期政策的必然後果出現了的時候，他們只知道一個挽救的辦法一走向通貨膨脹的冒險途徑。

-------------

[5] If a bank does not expand circulation credit by issuing additional fiduciary media (either in the form of banknotes or in the form of deposit currency), it cann generate a boom even if it lowers the amount of interest charged below the rate of the unhampered market. It merely makes a gift to debtors. The inference to be drawn from the monetary cycle theory by those who want to prevent the recurrence of booms and of the subsequent depressions is not that the banks should not lower the rate of interest, but that they should abstain from credit expansion. Of course, credit expansion necessarily entails a temporary downward movement of market interest rates. Professor Haberler (Prosperity and Depression, pp. 65-66) has completely failed to grasp this primary point, and thus his critical remarks are vain.

[5] 如果銀行不靠增發信用媒介（或者是銀行鈔票或者是存款通貨）來擴張流通信用，它就不會引起市面的突然興旺，即令它把收取的利息降低到自由市場的利率以下。降低利率只是對債務人的贈與。那些想防止突然興旺的重現，因而防止後繼的蕭條的人們，從貨幣的循環論所應推演出來的不是說銀行不應降低利率，而是說銀行應該不做信用擴張的事情。Haberler敎授（在他的Prosperity and Depression, pp. 65-66）完全沒有理解這個要點，因而他的評議是白費的。

[6] Cf. Machlup, The Stock Market, Credit and Capital Formation, pp. 256-261

[6] 參考Machlup, The Stock Market, Credit and Capital Formation, pp. 256-261

[7] Cf. League of Nations, Economic Stability in the Post-War World, Report of the Delegation on Economic Depressions, Pt. II. (Geneva, 1945), p. 173.

[7] 參考League of Nations, Economic Stability in the Post-War World, Report of the Delegation on Economic Depressions, Pt. II. (Geneva, 1945), p. 173.

[8] In dealing with the contracyclical policies the interventionists always refer to the alleged success of these policies in Sweden. It is true that public capital expenditure in Sweden was actually doubled between 1932 and 1939. But this was not the cause, but an effect, of Sweden's prosperity in the 'thirties. This prosperity was entirely due to the rearmament of Germany. This Nazi policy increased the German demand for Swedish products on the one hand and restricted, on the other hand, German competition on the world market for those products which Sweden could supply. Thus Swedish exports increased from 1932 to 1938 (in thousands of tons): iron ore from 2,219 to 12,485; pig iron from 31,047 to 92,980; ferro-alloys from 15,453 to 28,605; other kinds of iron and steel from 134,237 to 256,146; machinery from 46,230 to 70,605. The number of unemployed applying for relief was 114,000 in 1932 and 165,000 in 1933. It dropped, as soon as German rearmament came into full swing, to 115,000 in 1934, to 62,000 in 1935, and was 16,000 in 1938. The author of this "miracle" was not Keynes, but Hitler.

[8] 在討論反循環政策的時候，干涉主義者總會提到，這些政策在瑞典的所謂成功。在一九三二至一九三九年間，瑞典的公共資本支出，事實上誠然增加了一倍。但是，這不是本世紀三十幾年瑞典繁榮的原因，而是它的一個後果。瑞典的那個繁榮完全是由於德國的重新武裝。納粹的這個政策，一方面增加了德國對瑞典產品的需求，另方面縮減了德國在世界市場上對瑞典所能供給的產品的競爭。於是，瑞典的輸出大大地增加：鐵砂從2,219千噸增加到12,485千噸：鐵塊從31,047千噸增加到92,980千噸；鐵的混合物從15,453千噸增加到28,605千噸；其他各種鋼鐵從134,237千噸增加到256,146千噸：機器從46,230千噸增加到70,605千噸。申請救濟的失業人數在一九三二年是114,000人，一九三三年是165,000人。一到德國重新武裝進入高潮的時候，失業人數隨之大減：一九三四年減到115,000人；一九三五年減到62,000人；一九三八年減到16,000人。這個奇蹟造成者不是凱因斯，而是希特勒。

6. Foreign Exchange Control and Bilateral Exchange Agreements

六、外滙管制舆雙邊外滙協定

If a government fixes the parity of its domestic credit or fiat money against gold or foreign exchange at a higher point than the market--that is, if it fixes maximum prices for gold and foreign exchange below the potential market price--the effects appear which Gresham's Law describes. A state of affairs results which--very inadequately--is called a scarcity of foreign exchange.

如果一個政府把國內信用幣對黃金或外滙的平價規定在比市場所決定的更高水準——也即是說，如果一個政府把黃金和外滙價格的最高限規定得比潜在的市場價格爲低——那麼，葛來欣法則所說的那種後果就會出現。其後果就是一般所謂的「外滙稀少」——這個名詞非常不適當。

It is the characteristic mark of an economic good that the supply

凡是經濟財都具備的一個特徵，是它的有效供給不會豐富到可以滿足任何用途。在供給方面不缺乏的東西不是經濟財，不要爲它支付代價。因爲貨幣必然是經濟財，「不會稀少的貨幣」這個想法是荒謬的。可是，那些爲外滙稀少而訴苦的政府，所想到的「稀少」卻是不同的事情。那是他們定價政策必然的後果。那是在政府武斷規定的價格下，需求超過了供給。如果那個靠通貨膨脹降低本國貨幣早位對黃金、外滙、貨物和勞務的購買力的政府，不作控制滙率的任何企圖，那就不會有什麼「稀少」——就政府用這個名詞的意義來講的——問題發生。凡是願意照市價購買外滙的人，想買多少就可買多少。

But the government is resolved not to tolerate any rise in foreign exchange rates (in terms of the inflated domestic currency). Relying upon its magistrates and constables, it prohibits any dealings in foreign exchange on terms different from the ordained maximum price.

但是，政府卻決心不容許滙率上漲（就那膨脹的本國通貨而言）。政府靠它的法官和警察，不許人民用非官定的價格買賣外滙。

As the government and its satellites see it, the rise in foreign exchange rates was caused by an unfavorable balance of payments and by the purchases of speculators. In order to remove the evil, the government resorts to measures restricting the demand for foreign exchange. Only those people should henceforth have the right to buy foreign exchange who need it for transactions of which the government approves. Commodities the importation of which is superfluous in the opinion of the government should no longer be imported. Payment of interest and principal on debts due to foreigners is prohibited. Citizens must no longer travel abroad. The government does not realize that such measures can never "improve" the balance of payments. If imports drop, exports drop concomitantly. The citizens who are prevented from buying foreign goods, from paying back foreign debts, and from traveling abroad, will not keep the amount of domestic money thus left to them in their cash holdings. They will increase their buying either of consumers' or of producers' goods and thus bring about a further tendency for domestic prices to rise. But the more prices rise, the more will exports be checked.

照政府和它的從屬機構看來，滙率的上漲是由於支付平衡的逆差和投機者的購買而引起的。爲消除這件壞事，政府就用限制外滙需求的辦法。此後有權購買外滙的人，只限於做政府所許可的貿易而需要外滙的人。凡是政府認爲不必要的貨物，再也不許進口。外債的還本付息也被禁止。本國人民不許到國外旅行。這個政府卻不知道這樣的辦法決不會「改善」收支平衡。如果輸入減少，輸出也就隨之減少。不得買外貨、不得還外國債、不得到外國旅行的人民，並不把這省下的本國錢作爲他們的現金握有。他們會增加消費財或生產財的購買，因而促成國內物價更上漲。但是，物價愈是上漲，輸出愈是受阻礙。

Now the government goes a step further. It nationalizes foreign exchange transactions. Every citizen who acquires--through exporting, for example--an amount of foreign exchange, is bound to sell it at the official rate to the office of foreign exchange control. If this provision, which is tantamount to an export duty, were to be

現在，政府更進了一步。它把外滙交易直接國營。凡是取得了外滙——例如經由輸出而取得——的人民，必須按官價賣給外滙管制機關。如果這個規定（這等於一項輪出税）有效地執行，輸出就會大大減縮或完全停止。這個結果，當然是政府所不喜歡的。但是，它也不想承認它的干涉完全不能達到它所追求的目的，而且產生了比原先的情況更爲惡劣的情況，這裡所說的「更惡劣」，是從政府自己的觀點來說的。於是，政府又採用權宜手段。它給輸出商的津貼以補償它的政策對於輸出商造成的損失。

On the other hand, the government bureau of foreign exchange control, stubbornly clinging to the fiction that foreign exchange rates have not "really" risen and that the official rate is an effective rate, sells foreign exchange to importers at this official rate. If this policy were to be really followed, it would be equivalent to paying bonuses to the merchants concerned. They would reap windfall profits in selling the imported commodity on the domestic market. Thus the authority resorts to further makeshifts. It either raises import duties of levies special taxes on the importers or burdens their purchases of foreign exchange in some other way.

另一方面，管制外滙的政府機構，頑固地抱持「滙率未曾『眞正地』上漲，而官定的滙率是個有效的滙率」這個假想，把外滙按照這個官定的滙率資給輸入商。如果這個政策眞的遵行了，那就等於給那些有關的商人們一些獎金。他們把輸入的貨物在國內市場出資就可得到淌來之財。於是，政府又用些權宜手段。它或者提高進口關稅，或者對進口商人課特別稅，或者用其他方法增加他們購買外滙的負擔。

Then, of course, foreign exchange control works. But it works only because it virtually acknowledges the market rate of foreign exchange. The exporter gets for his proceeds in foreign exchange the official rate plus the subsidy, which together equal the market rate. The importer pays for foreign exchange the official rate plus a special premium, tax, or duty, which together equal the market rate. The only people who are too dull to grasp what is really going on and let themselves be fooled by the bureaucratic terminology, are the authors of books and articles on new methods of monetary management and on new monetary experience.

這樣一來，外滙管制當然行得通。但是它之所以行得通，只是因爲它實際上承認了市場的滙率。輸出商得之於外滙收入的是，按官定滙率所換到的本國貨幣，再加上政府所給的津貼，這兩者合計就等於市場滙率。輸入商付之於外滙的是按官定滙率折合的本國貨幣再加上一項特別貼水，稅，或捐，加起來也等於市場滙率。只有那愚蠢到不能了解眞實情況，而讓官方的言詞愚弄的人們，才會著書寫文章討論新的貨幣管理法和新的貨幣經驗。

The monopolization of buying and selling of foreign exchange by the government vests the control of foreign trade in the authorities . It does not affect the determination of foreign exchange rates. It does not matter whether or not the government makes it illegal for the press to publish the real and effective rates of foreign exchange. As far as foreign trade is still carried on, only these real and effective rates are in force.

政府獨占外滙的買賣，對外貿易也就在政府的控制中。這並不影饗滙率的決定。政府是否把報紙所發表的眞實有效的滙率視爲非法，這是不關重要的。只要對外貿易還在進行，只有眞實的滙率是有效的。

In order to conceal better the true state of affairs, governments are intent upon eliminating all reference to the real foreign exchange rate. Foreign trade, they think, should no longer be transacted by the intermediary of money. It should be barter. They enter into barter and clearing agreements with foreign governments. Each of the two contracting countries should sell to the other country a quantity of goods and services and receive in exchange a quantity of other goods

爲著把眞實的事實掩蓋得更周密，政府就想消滅關於實質滙率的一切消息。他們想，對外貿易再也不可用貨幣作媒介。它必須是物物交換。他們與外國政府訂立易貨和淸算協定。訂約國雙方的毎一方，必須以某一數量的貨物和勞務換取對方某一數量的其他貨物和勞務。在這些契約的文字中，小心地避免涉及實質的市場滙率。但雙方都是用那以黃金表示的世界市場價格來計算他們的銷售和購買。這些淸算和易貨協定，把兩國間的雙邊貿易代替自由時代的三角貿易或多邊貿易。但是，這決不影響這個事實：一個國家的本國通貨已經損失了對黃金、外滙、和貨物的一部份購買力。

As a policy of foreign trade nationalization, foreign exchange control is a step on the way toward a substitution of socialism for the market economy. From any other point of view it is abortive. It can certainly neither in the short run nor in the long run affect the determination of the rate of foreign exchange.

作爲對外貿易國營的政策，外滙管制是走向「以社會主義代替市場經濟」這個途徑的一個步驟。除此以外，從任何其他的觀點來看，它是無效的。它旣不能在短期中，也不能在長期中影響滙率的決定。

XXXII. CONFISCATION AND REDISTRIBUTION

第32章 沒收與再分配

1. The Philosophy of Confiscation

一、沒收哲學

Interventionism is guided by the idea that interfering with property rights does not affect the size of production. The most naive manifestation of this fallacy is presented by confiscatory interventionism. The yield of production activities is considered a given magnitude independent of the merely accidental arrangements of society's social order. The task of the government is seen as the "fair" distribution of this national income among the various members of society.

干涉主義是受這個想法的指導：對於財產權的干涉不會影響到生產量。這個謬見的最簡單表現是在沒收式的干涉。生產活動的收穫，被認爲與社會秩序的偶然安排無關，政府的干涉，被視爲在社會各份子間把國民所得作公平的分配。

The interventionists and the socialists contend that all commodities are turned out by a social process of production. When this process comes to an end and its fruits ripen, a second social process, that of distribution of the yield, follows and allots a share to each. The characteristic feature of the capitalist order is that the shares allotted are unequal. Some people--the entrepreneurs, the capitalists, and the landowners--appropriate to themselves more than they should. Accordingly, the portions of other people are curtailed. Government should by rights expropriate the surplus of the privileged and distribute it among the underprivileged.

干涉主義者和社會主義者以爲，一切貨物是由一個社會的生產過程製造出來的。等到這個過程結束了而其產品收穫了，第二個社會過程，也即分配過程，就跟著來把産品分配給各個份子。資本主義社會的特徵，是分配的不平等。有些人——企業家、資本家、和地主們——據爲己有的多於他們所應當分到的。因此，其餘的人所分到的就被削減了。政府當然要截長補短沒收前者的過多份以補償後者。

Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation.

在市場經濟裡面，沒有所謂兩個獨立過程——生產和分配過程——的雙重性，而只有一個過程。財貨不是先生產然後再分配的。把無主的財貨據爲己有，這樣的事情是決不會有的。產品總歸是以某人的財產而產生的。如果有人想分配它們，他首先就要沒收它們。政府是個使用強力的機構，所以，政府沒收是非常容易的。但是，這並不證明一個持久的經濟制度可以建立在這樣的沒收和據有的上面。

When the Vikings turned their backs upon a community of autarkic peasants whom they had plundered, the surviving victims began to work, to till the soil, and to build again. When the pirates returned after some years, they again found things to seize. But

八世紀與十世紀之間，西歐海岸的那些北欧海盜們，當其離去他們所刼掠的那個自給自足的農業社會的時候，那個刼後餘生的社會又開始工作、種田和造房子。過了幾年，海盜們再來的時候，他們又有了可刼掠的東西。但是，資本主義是經不起這樣反反覆覆的刼掠的。資本主義下的资本累積和投资，是基於一個希望，即希望沒有這樣的效掠或沒收的事情發生。如果這個希望幻滅了，人們就寧可消費他們的資本而不會爲刼掠者保存它。凡是一方面想維持私有財產權，一方面又想一再地沒收人民財富的一切計畫，都是荒謬的。

2. Land Reform

二、土地改革

The social reformers of older days aimed at the establishment of a community of autarkic farmers only. The shares of land allotted to each member were to be equal. In the imagination of these utopians there is no room for division of labor and specialization in processing trades. It is a serious mistake to call such a social order agrarian socialism. It is merely a juxtaposition of economically self-sufficient households.

早期的社會改革者，志在建立一個自給自足的農業社會。分配給社會每個份子的土地是相等的。在這些烏托邦的理想社會裡，沒有分工和專業化的餘地。如果把這樣的社會秩序叫做農地社會主義，那是個嚴重的錯誤。它只是一個經濟上自足的家計單位而已。

In the market economy the soil is a means of production like any other material factor of production. Plans aiming at a more or less equal distribution of the soil among the farming population are, under the conditions of the market economy, merely plans for granting privileges to a group of less efficient producers at the expense of the immense majority of consumers. The operation of the market tends to eliminate all those farmers whose cost of production is higher than the marginal costs needed for the production of that amount of farm products the consumers are ready to buy. It determines the size of the farms as well as the methods of production applied. If the government interferes in order to make a different arrangement of the conditions of farming prevail, it raises the average price of farm products. If under competitive conditions m farmers, each of them operating a 1,000-acre farm, produce all those farm products the consumers are ready to acquire, and the government interferes in order to substitute 5 m farmers, each of them operating a 200-acre farm, for m, the previous numbers of farmers, the consumers foot the bill.

在市場經玦裡面，土地是生產手段，和其他任何物質的生產要素是一樣的。把土地平均分配於農民的那些計畫，在市場經濟的情況下，即等於給那些效率較低的生產者特別優惠，而使消費大衆蒙受損失。有些農民，其生產成本高於爲生產「消費者所願意購買的那個數量」所必須的邊際成本；這樣的農民，在市場運作中是會完全被淘汰的。市場運作決定生產方法，也決定生產數量。如果政府為使農業方面有不同的安排而採取干涉政策，那就會提高農產品的平均價格。如果在競爭的情況下，m個農民，每個農民耕耘1,000畝土地，產出消費者所需要的全部農產品，現在政府爲要以5m個農民代替原先的m個農民，每個農民只耕耘200畝土地。這樣的干涉政策，是消費者承擔了損失。

It is vain to justify such land reforms by referring to natural law and other metaphysical ideas. The simple truth is that they enhance the price of agricultural products and that they also impair nonagricultural production. As more manpower is needed to turn out a unit of farm produce, more people are employed in farming and less are left for the processing industries. The total amount of commodities available for consumption drops and a certain group of people is favored at the expense of the majority.

用自然法和其他抽象的觀念爲這樣的土地改革作辯護，那是白費的。簡單的事實是農產品的價格被提高了，農業以外的生產，也受到傷害。由於生產一個單位的農產品所需要的人力增加了，在農業方面所僱用的人數就增多，因而可僱用於農業以外的生產事業的人數就減少了，可用以消費的貨物總量就降低，因此，某一羣人得利，而大多數人受害。

3. Confiscatory Taxation

三、沒收式的課稅

Today the main instrument of confiscatory interventionism is taxation. It does not matter whether the objective of estate and income taxation is the allegedly social motive of equalizing wealth and income or whether the primary motive is that of revenue. What alone counts is the resulting effect.

現在，沒收性的干涉之主要工具是課稅。至於財產和所得稅的目的，是所謂平均財富與所得的社會目的，還是以收入爲主要目的，這是不關重要的，重要的只是它的後果。

The average man looks at the problems involved with unveiled envy. Why should anybody be richer than he himself is? The lofty moralist conceals his resentment in philosophical disquisitions. He argues that a man who owns ten millions cannot be made happier by an increment of ninety millions more. Inversely, a man who owns a hundred millions does not feel any impairment of happiness if his wealth is reduced to a bare ten millions only. The same reasoning holds good for excessive incomes.

一般人是以赤裸裸的嫉妒心來看這些問題。爲什麼別人比他更富呢？至於有修養的人士就把他的感情隱藏在一些哲理的論著中。他說，一個保有千萬元的人，不會因爲再增加九千萬元而更快樂。相反地，一個保有一億元的人，如果他的財富減少到只有千萬元，不會感覺到他的快樂受到損害。這樣的推理對過份的所得都有效。

To judge in this way means to judge from an individualistic point of view. The yardstick applied is the supposed sentiments of individuals. Yet the problems involved are social problems; they must be appraised with regard to their social consequences. What matters is neither the happiness of any Croesus nor his personal merits or demerits; it is society and the productivity of human effort.

這樣的判斷，意即從個人主義的觀點來判斷。所用的碼尺是假想中的個人的情感。可是，這裡所涉及的問題是些社會問題：這些問題必須就它們的社會後果來評判。有關重要的，旣不是任何一個富翁的苦樂，也不是他個人的功過；而是社會，而是人們的生產力。

A law that prohibits any individual from accumulating more than ten millions or from making more than one million a year restricts the activities of precisely those entrepreneurs who are most successful in filling the wants of consumers. If such a law had been enacted in the United States fifty years ago, many who are multimillionaires today would live in more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man. It is manifestly contrary to the interest of the consumers to prevent the most efficient entrepreneurs from expanding the sphere of their activities up to the limit to which the public approves of their conduct of business by buying their products. Here again the issue is who should by supreme, the consumers or the government? In the unhampered market the behavior of consumers, their buying or abstention from buying, ultimately determines each individual's income and wealth. Should one vest in the government the power to overrule the consumers' choices?

凡是限制任何人的財富累積不得超過千萬元，或者限制任何人一年所賺的所得不得超過一百萬元的法律，正是限制那些最能滿足消費者慾望的企業家的活動，如果五十年前美國制定了這樣的法律，則今天那些擁有千百萬的富人們，會生活在更樸素的環境中。但是，所有爲大家提供前所未有的產品的那些新的工業部門，即令生產的話，也只能是很小規模的生產，而其產品不會普及到一般人的手上。最有效率的企業家是會有很廣大的活動範圍的，他們的活動範圍的擴張，是由於消費者購買他們的產品而促進的。如果對於企業家的活動加以限制，這顯然是與消費者的利益衝突的。這裡的問題又是「誰應當是至上的」，消費者呢，還是政府？在未受束縛的市場上，消費者的行爲——購買或不購買——最後決定每個人的所得和財富。我們應該授權給政府限制消費者的選擇嗎？

The incorrigible statolatrist objects. In his opinion what motivates the activities of the great entrepreneur is not the lust for wealth, but the lust for power. Such a "royal merchant" would not restrict his

這是那無可救藥的國家崇拜者（statolatrist）所反對的。在他的見解中，促使大企業家活動的不是財富慾，而是權力慾。像這樣的一個「高尙的商人」，不會因爲要把賺得的過多財富繳納於稅吏而減縮他的活動範圍。爲著討論方便起見，我們姑且承認這個心理學的說法。但是，商人的權力如果不基於他的財富，那是基於什麼呢？假若洛克斐勒（Rockefeller）和福特（Ford）不能賺得他們那麼多的財富，他們如何可以取得「權力」？可是，正因爲財富會給人經濟權力[1]，因而那些想限制財富累積的國家崇拜者，比上述的國家崇拜者，倒是站在較好的立場上。

Taxes are necessary. But the system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation of the successful capitalists and entrepreneurs. Whatever the governments' satellites may advance in its favor, it is incompatible with the preservation of the market economy. It can at best be considered a means of bringing about socialism. Looking backward on the evolution of income tax rates from the beginning of the Federal income tax in 1913 until the present day, one can hardly believe that the tax will not soon absorb 100 per cent of all the surplus above the average height of the common man's wages.

課稅是必要的。但是，在累進的所得稅和遺產稅這個誤導的名稱下，被普遍接受的那種差別稅制，與其說是一個課稅方式，不如說是對成功的資本家和企業家的一種變相的沒收方式。不管政府所豢養的食客們如何地稱讚它，它總歸是與市場經濟不相容的。累進的所得稅和遺產稅，至多也只能當作實現社會主義的手段。我們把一九一三年開始演變到現在的美國聯邦所得稅的稅率作一回顧，我們就難於相信，這個稅不會在很快的將來把那超過工會領袖們的薪水的所得統統用一〇〇%的稅率課掉。

Economics is not concerned with the spurious metaphysical doctrines advanced in favor of tax progression, but with its repercussions on the operation of the market economy. The interventionist authors and politicians look at the problems involved from the angle of their arbitrary notions of what is "socially desirable." As they see it, "the purpose of taxation is never to raise money," since the government "can raise all the money it needs by printing it." The true purpose of taxation is "to leave less in the hands of the taxpayer."[2]

經濟學對於那些主張累進稅的一些玄論，可以置之不管，而它所要討論的是，累進稅對於市場經濟的影響。干涉主義的作家們和政客們，是從他們那種武斷的所謂厂社會利益」的觀點，來看這裡涉及的一些問題。照他們的看法，「課稅的目的決不是爲了籌取經費」，因爲政府「可以印刷鈔票來籌取它所需要的經費」。課稅的眞正目的在於「讓納稅人的手中少留些錢」。[2]

Economists approach the issue from a different angle. They ask first: what are the effects of confiscatory taxation on capital accumulation? The greater part of that portion of the higher incomes which is taxed away would have been used for the accumulation of additional capital. If the treasury employs the proceeds for current expenditure, the result is a drop in the amount of capital accumulation. The same is valid, even to a greater extent, for death taxes. They force the heirs to sell a considerable part of the testator's estate. This capital

經濟學家們是從一個不同的角度來看這個問題。他們首先要問：沒收式的課稅對於資本累積的影響是怎樣？被課掉的高所得，有一大部份是會用在額外資本之累積的。如果財政部把這課到的稅收用之於經常支出，其結果就是資本累積的數量減少。對於遺產課累進稅，其結果也如此，而且，資本累積的數量甚至減少得更多。因爲這樣的遺產稅逼得繼承人不得不變賣遺產的大部份來完稅。當然，這項资本並沒有毀滅；它只是轉換了所有權而已。但是，購買這份財產的人們所用掉的那筆儲蓄，原是可以構成一筆資本淨增額的。所以，新的資本累積是減低了。因此，技術改進的實現也受到了損害；每個在職工人所分配到的資本額也滅少了；勞動生產力不能上昇，工人的實質工資率也就不能上昇了。通常的想法是，以爲這種沒收式的課稅只是有損於直接納稅的富人，這很明顯地是個謬見。

If capitalists are faced with the likelihood that the income tax or the estate tax will rise to 100 per cent, they will prefer to consume their capital funds rather than to preserve them for the tax collector.

如果資本家眼看著所得稅或遺產稅將有提高到一〇〇%的可能，他們就寧可把他們的資金都消費掉而不留給稅吏來徵收。

Confiscatory taxation results in checking economic progress and improvement not only by its effect upon capital accumulation. It brings about a general trend toward stagnation and the preservation of business practices which could not last under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy.

沒收式的課稅之妨害經濟進步與改善，不僅是由於它對資本消費的影響。它還引起一般的趨勢：即趨向於「在自由市場經濟裡面不會持久存在的」工商業活動的長期停滯。

It is an inherent feature of capitalism that it is no respecter of vested interests and forces every capitalist and entrepreneur to adjust his conduct of business anew each day to the changing structure of the market. Capitalists and entrepreneurs are never free to relax. As long as they remain in business they are never granted the privilege of quietly enjoying the fruits of their ancestors' and their own achievements and of lapsing into a routine. If they forget that their task is to serve the consumers to the best of their abilities, they will very soon forfeit their eminent position and will be thrown back into the ranks of the common man. Their leadership and their funds are continually challenged by newcomers.

资本主義的一個固有的特徵，就是不偏袒旣得的利益。它逼得每個资本家和企業家，每天都要適應市場的變動來重新調整他們的行爲。资本家與企業家永遠得不到輕鬆。只要他們還留在工商界，他們就無法安逸地享受他們的先人和他們自己所獲致的成果。如果他們忘記了他們的任務是在盡最大的努力爲消费者服務，他們就馬上喪失他們優越的地位而落到普通人的階層。他們的領導地位和他們的資金，不斷地受到新來者的挑戰。

Every ingenious man is free to start new business projects. He may be poor, his funds may be modest and most of them may be borrowed. But if he fills the wants of consumers in the best and cheapest way, he will succeed by means of "excessive" profits. He ploughs back the greater part of his profits into his business, thus making it grow rapidly. It is the activity of such enterprising parvenus that provides the market economy with its "dynamism." These nouveaux riches are the harbingers of economic improvement. Their threatening competition forces the old firms and big corporations either to adjust their conduct to the best possible service of the public or to go out of business.

毎個有才幹的人都可自由創辦新的企業。他也許是個窮人，他的资金也許很少，其中的大部份人也許是借别人的。但是，如果他能夠以價廉物美的東西滿足消費者的慾望，他就會靠「過份的」利潤而成功。他把利潤的大部份用來再投資，因而使他的企業快速發展。市場經濟之所以富有動力，就是由於這樣的一些暴發戶的活動。這些暴發戶是促動經濟改進的先鋒隊。他們那種恐嚇性的競爭，逼得老的、大的公司行號不得不調整作爲，爲大家提供最好的服務，否則就是退出工商界。

But today taxes often absorb the greater part of the newcomer's "excessive" profits. He cannot accumulate capital; he cannot expand

但是，今日的稅課常是沒收新來者的「過份」利潤的大部份。因而他不能累稹资本；他不能擴展他的營業；他不會成爲大規模的企業家而與旣得利益者抗衡。老的公司行號不必怕他的競爭；它們受到稅吏的庇護。他們就耽於例行的工作而無戒懼；對於大衆的慾望他們不予重視而變成保守的態度。所得稅固然也使他們不能累積新的資本，但是對於他們更重要的，是使那具有威脅性的新來者一點資本也不能累積。老的公司行號實際上是因爲這種稅制而受到特權保障。在這個意義下，累進稅妨礙了經濟進步而形成僵固。在未受束縛的資本主義制度下，資本所有權是一個責任，這個貴任逼得所有者不得不爲消費者服務，可是，現代的課稅方法卻把資本所有權變成一種特權。

The interventionists complain that big business is getting rigid and bureaucratic and that it is no longer possible for competent newcomers to challenge the vested interests of the old rich families. However, as far as their complaints are justified, they complain about things which are merely the result of their own policies.

干涉主義者有時發牢騷，說大的企業漸漸僵固，變成官僚化，有能力的新來者再也不可能向那些老而富有的家庭的旣得利益挑戰了，這些牢騒所涉及的事實是對的，可是這些事實，卻是干涉主義者自己的那些政策所引起的結果。

Profits are the driving force of the market economy. The greater the profits, the better the needs of the consumers are supplied. For profits can only be reaped by removing discrepancies between the demands of the consumers and the previous state of production activities. He who serves the public best, makes the highest profits. In fighting profits governments deliberately sabotage the operation of the market economy.

利潤是市場經濟的推動力。利潤愈多，消費者的需要愈是滿足。因爲利潤的獲得，只能靠把「消費者的需求」與「以前的生產活動狀況」之間的差異消除掉。最善於服務大衆的人就賺到最高利潤。政府之反對利潤，也即执意破壞市場經濟的運作。

Confiscatory Taxation and Risk-Taking

沒收式的課稅與風險承擔

A popular fallacy considers entrepreneurial profit a reward for risk-taking. It looks upon the entrepreneur as a gambler who invests in a lottery after having weighed the favorable chances of winning a prize against the unfavorable chances of losing his stake. This opinion manifests itself most clearly in the description of stock-exchange transactions as a sort of gambling. From the point of view of this widespread fable, the evil caused by confiscatory taxation is that it disarranges the ratio between the favorable and the unfavorable chances in the lottery. The prizes are cut down, while the unfavorable hazards remain unchanged. Thus capitalists and entrepreneurs are discouraged from embarking upon risky ventures.

有個流行的謬見把企業家的利潤看作承擔風險的報酬，把企業家看作一個賭徒，這個賭徒在權衡得失的機會以後投下他的賭注。這個意見最明顯地表現於，把證券市場的交易稱之爲賭博。從這個流行的錯誤觀點看來，沒收式的課稅所引起的弊病，是弄亂了得和失的機會之間的比率。赢得的數量削減了，而輸掉的機會仍然不變。因而資本家和企業家就不樂於承擔風險了。

Every word in this reasoning is false. The owner of capital does not choose between more risky, less risky, and safe investments. He is forced, by the very operation of the market economy, to invest his funds in such a way as to supply the most urgent needs of the consumers to the best possible extent. If the methods of taxation resorted to by the government bring about capital consumption or restrict the accumulation of new capital, the capital required for marginal employments

這種推理的每一個字都是錯誤的。資本的所有主不是在大危險的、小危險的、和安全的投資之間作選擇。他是在市場活動的壓力之下，不得不把他的資金投之於最能滿足消費者最迫切的慾望之途徑。如果政府所採的課稅方法引起資本消耗或妨害新資本的累積，則那筆爲邊際就業所必要的資本就缺少了，而在沒有這些課稅時所會發生的投資擴張也被阻止了。於是，消費者的慾望只在一個較低的程度下滿足。但是，這個結果並不是由於資本家的不願承擔風險，而是由於資本供給的降低。

There is no such thing as a safe investment. If capitalists were to behave in the way the risk fable describes and were to strive after what they consider to be the safest investment, their conduct would render this lone of investment unsafe and they would certainly lose their input. For the capitalist there is no means of evading the law of the market that makes it imperative for the investor to comply with the wishes of the consumers and to produce all that can be produced under the given state of capital supply, technological knowledge, and the valuations of the consumers. A capitalist never chooses that investment in which, according to his understanding of the future, the danger of losing his input is smallest. He chooses that investment in which he expects to make the highest possible profit.

沒有所謂安全的投資這樣的一回事。如果資本家眞的依照上述的避險神話而行爲，只向他們認爲最安全的逯徑去投資，那麼他們的行爲本身就會使這個投資途徑不安全，他們一定會喪失他們所投下的資金。就資本家來講，沒有任何方法可以逃避這個市場法則——投資者必須遵從消費者的願望而在資本供給、技術知識、和消費者評値的旣定情況下生產所可生產的東西。資本家之選擇投資，決不是照他對未來的了解來選擇那虧本的、危險性最小的途徑，他是選擇他認爲可賺得最高利潤的途徑。

Those capitalists who are aware of their own lack of ability to judge correctly for themselves the trend of the market do not invest in equity capital, but lend their funds to the owners of such venture capital. They thus enter into sort of partnership with those on whose better ability to appraise the conditions of the market they rely. It is customary to call venture capital risk capital. However, as has been pointed out, the success or failure of the investment in preferred stock, bonds, debentures, mortgages, and other loans depends ultimately also on the same factors that determine success or failure of the venture capital invested.[3] There is no such thing as independence of the vicissitudes of the market.

凡有自知之明，知道自己對於市場趨勢沒有正確判斷之能力的資本家，不會投資於普通股，而是把他們的資金借給那些投資於普通股的股東。於是，他們與他們認爲對巿場趨勢具有較好的判斷能力的那些人們之間，就有了休戚相關的關係。通常是把投之於普通股的資本叫做風險資本。但是，優先股、公司債、抵押、和其他放款等投資方式的成功或失敗，最後也是同樣地決定於所謂風險投資的成敗所賴以決定的那些因素[3]。市場的情況是變動不居的，沒有任何事物與市場的變動無關。

If taxation were to strengthen the supply of loan capital at the expense of the supply of venture capital, it would make the gross market rate of interest drop and at the same time, by increasing the share of borrowed capital as against the share of equity capital in the capital structure of the firms and corporations, render the investment in loans more uncertain. The process would therefore be self-liquidating.

如果課稅是要鼓勵貸放資本的供給，而以風險資本的供給作犧牲，那就會使市場毛利率降落，同時，在公司行號的資本結構中借到的資本，相對於普通股的資本比例爲之上昇，因而使貸放的投資也變得不安全。所以，這個過程是會自我抵消的。

The fact that a capitalist as a rule does not concentrate his investments, both in common stock and in loans, in one enterprise or one branch of business, but prefers to spread out his funds among various classes of investment, does not suggest that he wants to reduce his "gambling risk." He wants to improve his chances of earning profits.

一個資本家照例不願把他的資金全部投之於普通股或貸放，也不全部投之於一個行業或一個部門，而是把他的資金分散於許多不同的投資途徑。這個事實並不證明這個資本家想滅輕他的「賭博風險」，他只是想改善他賺得利潤的機會。

Nobody embarks upon any investment if he does not expect to make a good investment. Nobody deliberately chooses a malinvestment. It is only the emergence of conditions not properly anticipated by the investor that turns an investment into a malinvestment.

如果不是希望投資賺錢，誰也不會投資。誰也不會故意選擇一個錯誤的投資。使一項投資成爲錯誤投資的，是那位投資者事先沒有正確預料到的那些情況的發生。

As has been pointed out, there cannot be such a thing as noninvested capital.[4] The capitalist is not free to choose between investment and noninvestment. Neither is he free to deviate in the choice of his investments in capital goods from the lines determined by the most urgent among the still-unsatisfied wants of the consumers. He must try to anticipate these future wants correctly. Taxes may reduce the amount of capital goods available by bringing about consumption of capital. But they do not restrict the employment of all capital goods available. [5]

我們曾經指出，沒有所謂「非投入的資本」（noninvested capital）這麼一回事[4]。資本家不能在投资與非投資之間自由選擇。他在選擇投資的途徑時，也不能自由地違背消費者尙未滿足的慾望中最迫切的慾望所決定的那些途徑。他必須試圖正確地預測這些未來的需要。租稅會減少資本的可能增加量，甚至會引起原已累積的資本的消耗。但是，租稅並不影響可利用的資本之利用，不管資本的數量是多少。

With an excessive height of the income and estate tax rates for the very rich, a capitalist may consider it the most advisable thing to keep all his funds in cash or in bank balances not bearing any interest. He consumes part of his capital, pays no income tax and reduces the inheritance tax which his heirs will have to pay. But even if people really behave this way, their conduct does not affect the employment of the capital available. It affects prices. But no capital good remains uninvested on account of it. And the operation of the market pushes investment into those lines in which it is expected to satisfy the most urgent not yet satisfied demand of the buying public.

對於很富的人課以高的所得稅和遺產稅稅率，資本家就會認爲「以現金方式保存他的全部資金，或者存在銀行的活期存款戶而不孳生利息」是最聰明的辦法。他消費他的部份資本，不納所得稅，也可減少他的繼承人將來要納的遺產稅。但是，即令人們眞的這樣作，他們的行爲並不影響可以利用的資本之利用。它所影響的是物價。但是，決沒有資本財因爲這個緣故而成爲非投資的。市場的運作，把投資推到最適當的途徑上去。所謂最適當的途徑，也卽可以使消費者尙未滿足而又最迫切的慾望得以滿足的途徑。

------------

[1] There is no need to emphasize again that the use of the terminology of political rule is entirely inadequate in the treatment of economic problems.

[1] 在討論經濟問題時，使用政治的術語是完全不適當的。關於這一點，無須在這裡再強調。參考前面的第十五章第四節的「政治術語的比喩用法」。

[2] Cf. A.B. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Principles of Welfare Economic (New York, 1944), pp. 307-308.

[2] 參考A.B. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Principles of Welfare Economic (New York, 1944), pp. 307-308.

[3] Cf. above, pp. 539-540.

[3] 參考第二十章第三節。

[4] Cf. above, pp. 521-523.

[4] 參考第十八章第九節。

[5] In using the term "capital goods available," due consideration should be given to the problem of convertibility.

XXXIII. SYNDICALISM AND CORPORATIVISM

第33章 工團主義與勞資協作主義

1. The Syndicalist Idea

一、工團主義者的想頭

The term syndicalism is used to signify two entirely different things.

「工團主義」（syndicalism）這個名義用來指稱兩個完全不同的東西。

Syndicalism, as used by the partisans of Georges Sorel, means special revolutionary tactics to be resorted to for the realization of socialism. Labor unions, it implies, should not waste their strength in the task of improving the conditions of wage earners within the frame of capitalism. They should adopt action directe, unflinching violence to destroy all the institutions of capitalism. They should never cease to fight--in the genuine sense of the term--for their ultimate goal, socialism. The proletarians must not let themselves be fooled by the catchwords of the bourgeoisie, such as liberty, democracy, representative government. They must seek their salvation in the class struggle, in bloody revolutionary upheavals and in the pitiless annihilation of the bourgeois.

照Georges Sorel的黨徒們的用法，工團主義是指那些爲實現社會主義而使用的革命策略。它意涵：工會不應當在資本主義的架構下浪費他們的精力來求工人生活境況的改善。他們應當採取直接行動，不屈不撓地以暴力摧毀資本主義的一切建構。爲著最後目的——社會主義——的實現，他們決不可停止鬥爭。無產階級決不可讓自己受資產階級的那些口號——爲自由、民主、代議政制——的欺騙。他們必須從階級鬥爭中、在流血的革命中、在無情地消滅資產階級中，求自己的解放。

This doctrine played and still plays an enormous role in modern politics. It has provided essential ideas to Russian Bolshevism, Italian Fascism, and German Nazism. But it is a purely political issue and may be disregarded in a catallactic analysis.

這種敎條曾經發生作用，而且，在現代的政治中也還發生重大的作用。它曾經成爲俄國布爾雪維克、意大利法西斯、和德國納粹的中心思想。但是，這是一個政治問題，在交換行爲的分析中，可以不管它。

The second meaning of the term syndicalism refers to a program of society's economic organization. While socialism aims at the substitution of government ownership of the means of production for private ownership, syndicalism wants to give the ownership of the plants to the workers employed in them. Such slogans as "The railroads to the railroadmen" or "The mines to the miners" best indicate the ultimate goals of syndicalism.

「工團主義」這個名詞的第二個意義，是指社會經濟組織的一個方案。社會主義的目的是要以生產手段的公有制代替私有制，工團主義是要把工廠的所有權給與工廠所僱用的工人。「鐵路工人有其鐵路」、「鑛工有其鑛場」這一類的口號，最能表現工團主義的最後目的。

The ideas of socialism and those of syndicalism in the sense of action directe were developed by intellectuals whom consistent adepts of all Marxian sects cannot help describing as bourgeois. But the idea of syndicalism as a system of social organization is a genuine product of the "proletarian mind." It is precisely what the naive employee considers a fair and expedient means for improving his own material well-being. Eliminate the idle parasites, the entrepreneurs and capitalists,

就其「直接行動」這個意思來講，社會主義和工團主義的一些觀念，是由一些知識份子發展出來的。而這些知識份子，卻是馬克斯宗派中，那些思想一貫的信徒所不得不稱之爲資產階級的。但是作爲社會組織的一種制度而言，工團主義的觀念就是「無產階級的心靈」的一件產物。它正是天眞的傭工所認爲的改善他的物質福利的一個公平而便利的手段。消滅那些賦閒的寄生動物——企業家和資本家，把他們「不勞而獲的」所得給與工人！沒有比這更簡單的事情。

If one were to take these plans seriously, one would not have to deal with them in a discussion of the problems of interventionism. One would have to realize that syndicalism is neither socialism, nor capitalism, nor interventionism, but a system of its own different from these three schemes. However, one cannot take the syndicalist program seriously, and nobody ever has. Nobody has been so confused and injudicious as to advocate syndicalism openly as a social system. Syndicalism has played a role in the discussion of economic issues only as far as certain programs unwittingly contained syndicalist features. There are elements of syndicalism in certain objectives of government and labor-union interference with market phenomena. There are, moreover, guild socialism and corporativism, which pretended to avoid the government omnipotence inherent in all socialist and interventionist ventures by adulterating them with a syndicalist admixture.

如果有人把這些計畫認眞地想，他就不會在討論干涉主義的一些問題時來討論它們。他就會認識工團主義旣不是社會主義，也不是資本主義，也不是干涉主義，而是異乎這三個主義而自具特徵的一種制度。但是，你不會認眞地去想工團主義的方案，誰也未曾認眞地想過。誰也沒有糊塗到把工團主義當作一種社會制度來公開頌揚。在經濟問題的討論中，工團主義曾經扮演過角色的，只是在某些方案無意中包含著工團主義的一些特徵的場合。在政府和工會干涉市場現象的某些目標中，具有工團主義的一些要素。而且，還有基爾特社會主義（guild socialism）和勞資協作主義（corporativism），這兩種主義摻合工團主義的成份，來假裝避免一切社會主義和干涉主義所固有的政府萬能。

2. The Fallacies of Syndicalism

二、工團主義的謬誤

The root of the syndicalist idea is to be seen in the belief that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats who are free to conduct their affairs arbitrarily. Such a dictatorship must not be tolerated. The liberal movement, which has substituted representative government for the despotism of hereditary kings and aristocrats, must crown its achievements by substituting "industrial democracy" for the tyranny of hereditary capitalists and entrepreneurs. The economic revolution must bring to a climax the liberation of the people which the political revolution has inaugurated.

工團主義的思想根源，見之於「企業家和資本家是些任意作爲，而不負責任的橫行覇道的人」這個信念中。像這樣的橫行獨裁，決不可容忍。自由運動，曾經以代議制度代替世襲的君主和貴族專制的自由運動，必須以「產業民主」代替世襲的資本家和企業家的暴政而完成其功績。經濟革命一定會把政治革命所發動的人民解放推進到最高峰。

The fundamental error of this argument is obvious. The entrepreneurs and capitalists are not irresponsible autocrats. They are unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumers. The market is a consumers' democracy. The syndicalists want to transform it into a producers' democracy. This idea is fallacious, for the sole end and purpose of production is consumption.

這種議論的謬誤是顯而易見的。企業家和資本家不是不負責任的暴君。他們無條件受消費者的主權之支配。市場是消費者的民主。工團主義者想把巿場變成生產者的民主。這個想法是錯誤的，因爲生產的唯一目的是消費。

What the syndicalist considers the most serious defect of the capitalist system and disparages as the brutality and callousness of autocratic profit-seekers is precisely the outcome of the supremacy of the consumers. Under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy the entrepreneurs are forced to improve technological methods of production without regard to the vested interests of the workers. The employer is forced never to pay workers more than

工團主義所認爲資本主義制度最嚴重的缺點，以及他們所誣衊爲專橫的謀利者的殘忍無情，正是「消費者至上」的結果。在無拘束的市場經濟的競爭情況下，企業家不得不致力於改善生產技術，而不管工人的旣得利益。僱主付給工人的工資，勢必不能高於消費者對他們的成就所作的評價。如果一個工人因爲他的妻子生了一個小孩而要求加薪，僱主基於這個嬰兒的誕生無益於他的工廠這個理由而拒絕這個要求，這時，僱主的行爲是遵照消費者的命令。這些消費者不準備僅爲這個工人有個大的家庭而對他所生產的貨物支付較高的代價。工團主義者的天眞幼稚，可從「他們自己決不會因爲生產某一貨物的工人經濟情況不佳，而出較高的價錢來買這件貨物」這個事實看出來。

The syndicalist principle requires that the shares of every corporation should be taken away from "absentee ownership" and be equally distributed among the employees; payment of interest and principal of debts is to be discontinued. "Management" will then be placed in the hands of a board elected by the workers who are now also the shareholders. This mode of confiscation and redistribution will not bring about equality within the nation or the world. It would give more to the employees of those enterprises in which the quota of capital invested per worker is greater and less to those in which it is smaller.

工團主義的原則是要把每個公司的股份從不作工的股東手中拿出來，平均地分配於工人；債本債息的支付應當停止。管理權放在一個委員手中，這個委員由工人選出，這時的工人也就是公司的股東。這樣的沒收和重分配的方式，不會在一個國家內部或世界上實現平等。那將使一些工人收穫較多，而另一些工人收穫較少，前者是每個工人所使用的資本配額較大的那些工業所僱用的工人，後者是資本配額較小的那些工業所僱用的工人。

It is a characteristic fact that the syndicalists in dealing with these issues always refer to management and never mention entrepreneurial activities. As the average subordinate employee sees things, all that is to be done in the conduct of business is to accomplish those ancillary tasks which are entrusted to the managerial hierarchy within the frame of the entrepreneurial plans. In his eyes the individual plant or workshop as it exists and operates today is a permanent establishment. It will never change. It will always turn out the same products. He ignores completely the fact that conditions are in a ceaseless flux, and that the industrial structure must be daily adjusted to the solution of new problems. His world view is stationary. It does not allow for new branches of business, new products, and new and better methods for manufacturing the old products. Thus the syndicalist ignores the essential problems of entrepreneurship: providing the capital for new industries and the expansion of already existing industries, restricting outfits for the products of which demand drops, technological improvement. It is not unfair to call syndicalism the economic philosophy of short-sighted people, of those adamant conservatives who look askance upon any innovation and are so blinded by envy that they call down curses upon those who provide them with more, better, and cheaper products. They are like patients who grudge the doctor his success in curing them of a malady.

工團主義者在處理這些問題的場合，總是說到管理工作，從不提及企業家的一些活動。照一個平凡的低級職工的見解，工商業裡面所要做的事情都是一些委之於管理部門的輔助工作。在他的心目中，今天在開工的各個工廠或工場，是個永久的建構。它將永不變更。它總是生產同樣的產品。其實，一切情況是在一個不停的流變中，產業結樣必須天天調整以解決新的問題。他對這些現象一概置之不理。他的世界是靜態的。它不理會新的工商業部門、新的產品、新而更好的製造方法用以製造舊的產品，企業的基本問題是爲新的產業和已有的產業提供资本，縮減那些需求降低了的產品的生產部門，促進生產技術的改良。這些問題，工團主義者全不理會。如果我們把工團主義叫做短視者的經濟哲學，叫做頑固的保守份子的經濟哲學，不是不公平的。這樣的一些保守份子嫉視任何的創新，而其嫉妒心使他們蔽固到連那些爲他們提供較多、較好、較便宜貨物的人們也要咒罵。有些病人對於那個爲他們診好痼疾的醫生的成功，反而心懷嫉妒，這些保守份子正像這樣的病人。

3. Syndicalist Elements in Popular Policies

三、一些時髦政策中的工團主義的成份

The popularity of syndicalism manifests itself in various postulates of contemporary economic policies. The essence of these policies is always to grant privileges to a minority group at the expense of the immense majority. They invariably result in impairing the wealth and income of the majority.

工團主義的風行，顯現在當今一些經濟政策的各種標語中。這些政策的精髓，總是犧牲大多數人而使少數人的集團享有特權。這些政策的後果，總是損害大多數人的財富和所得的。

Many labor unions are intent upon restricting the number of workers employed in their field. While the public wants more and cheaper books, periodicals and newspapers, and would get them under the conditions of an unhampered labor market, the typographical unions prevent many newcomers from working in printing offices. The effect is, of course, an increase in the wages earned by the union members. But the corollary is a drop of wage rates for those not admitted and an enhancement in the price of printed matter. The same effect is brought about by union opposition to the utilization of technological improvements and by all sorts of featherbedding practices.

許多工會是要限制在被僱用的會員人數。一般大衆總希望有更多、更便宜的書刊、報紙可讀，如果在自由的勞動市場裡，他們是會實現這個希望的：可是，印刷業工會偏要限制印刷廠僱用新工人。其結果當然是會員工人所賺得的工資提高。但連帶發生的事情就是，那些不能進入印刷業的工人們的工資率降得很低，以及印刷品的價格上漲。工會的反對技術改良以及工作均攤的策略（featherbedding），也引起同樣的結果。

Radical syndicalism aims at entirely eliminating payment of dividends to shareholders and of interest to creditors. The interventionists in their enthusiasm for middle-of-the-road solutions want to appease the syndicalists by giving the employees a part of the profits. Profit-sharing is a very popular slogan. There is no need to enter anew into an examination of the fallacies implied in the underlying philosophy. It suffices to show the absurd consequences to which such a system must lead.

急進的工團主義是要完全消滅股東的股息和貸款人的利息。干涉主義者則熱心於中庸之道，他們想把利潤分一部份給工人，以緩和工團主義者的激烈情緖。利潤分享是個很響亮的口號。這個口號所涉及的一些謬見，沒有再進一歩檢討的必要，這裡，只要指出它所會引起的一些後果也就夠了。

It may sometimes be good policy for a small shop or for an enterprise employing highly skilled workers, to grant an extra bonus to employees if business is prosperous. But it is a non sequitur to assume that what under special conditions may be wise for an individual firm could work satisfactorily as a general system. There is no reason why one welder should make more money because his employer earns high profits and another welder less because his employer earns lower profits or no profits at all. The workers themselves would rebel against such a method of remuneration. It could not be preserved even for a short time.

如果生意賺錢給員工額外分紅，這在小規模的商店或僱用高級技術員工的企業，有時是個好的政策。但是，如果把這個在特殊情況下就單獨一個廠商而言是明智的政策，也視爲可以普遍實行的一般制度，那就不合邏輯了。我們沒有理由主張，一個接焊工人因爲他的僱主賺得高的利潤，他也應當賺得更多，其他的接焊工人因爲他的僱主賺得較低的利潤或完全沒有利潤，他就應當賺得少些。對於這樣的報酬法，工人們自己也會起來反對。即令是在短暫的時期，這個辦法也不能實行。

A caricature of the profit-sharing scheme is the ability-to-pay principle as recently introduced into the program of American labor unionism. While the profit-sharing scheme aims at an allocation to the employees of a part of profits already earned, the ability-to-pay scheme aims at a distribution of profits which some external observers believe the employer may earn in the future. The issue has been

利潤分享制的一個滑稽辦法，是美國工會最近採用的「給付能力」原則。原來的利潤分享是要把已經賺得的利潤分一部份給員工，「給付能力」制是要把某些局外人所認爲的僱主在將來會賺到的利潤提前分配。杜魯門政府在接受這個新的工會敎條以後，宣佈成立一個「事實調查」局，這個機構爲著決定僱主們較高工資的給付能力，有權查閱僱主們的帳册。可是，帳册所能提供的情報只是一些關於過去的成本與收益，以及過去的利潤與虧損。至於將來的產量、將來的銷售量、將來的成本、將來的利潤或虧損，都不是事實，而是預先的測度。關於將來的利潤是沒有什麼事實可查的[1]。

There cannot be any question of realizing the syndicalist ideal according to which the proceeds of an enterprise should completely go to the employees and nothing should be left for interest on the capital invested and profits. If one wants to abolish what is called "unearned income," one must adopt socialism.

依照工團主義的理想，企業的收益應該全部歸之於被僱的員工，不給所投的資本留下利息，也不留下利潤，要實現這個理想，是不會有任何問題的，但是，就我們所知，如果取消所謂「不勞而獲」，也即是採行社會主義。

----------------

[1] Cf. F.R. Fairchild, Profits and the Ability to Pay Wage (Irvington-on-Hudson, 1946), p. 47.

[1] 參考F.R. Fairchild, Profits and the Ability to Pay Wage (Irvington-on-Hudson, 1946), p. 47.

4. Guild Socialism and Corporativism

四、基爾特社會主義與勞資協作主義

The ideas of guild socialism and corporativism originated from two different lines of thought.

基爾特社會主義（guild socialism）與勞資協作主義（corporativism）的想法是淵源於兩個不同的思想路線。

The eulogists of medieval institutions long praised the eminence of the guilds. What was needed to wash away the alleged evils of the market economy was simply to return to the well-tried methods of the past. However, all these diatribes remained sterile. The critics never attempted to particularize their suggestions or to elaborate definite plans for an economic reconstruction of the social order. The most they did was to point out the alleged superiority of the old quasi-representative assemblies of the type of the French Etats-Generaux and the German Standische Landtage as against the modern parliamentary bodies. But even with regard to this constitutional issue their ideas were rather vague.

頌揚中世紀制度的一些人們，一向是讚美基爾特的。洗滌所謂市場經濟的罪惡所要作的事情，只是回復到那些經過多次試驗的老辦法。但是，對於市場經濟的這些惡罵，仍然是徒勞無益的。那些批評者從來沒有爲社會秩序的重建，具體地提出他們的辦法。他們至多只是妄說法國的Etats-Generaux和德國的Standische Landtage那些舊式的準代表制會議優於現代的國會。但是，即令在這種制度問題上，他們的觀念也是有些模糊的。

The second source of guild socialism is to be found in specific political conditions of Great Britain. When the conflict with Germany became aggravated and finally in 1914 led to war, the younger British socialists began to feel uneasy about their program. The state idolatry of the Fabians and their glorification of German and Prussian institutions was paradoxical indeed at a time when their own country was involved in a pitiless struggle against Germany. What was the use of fighting the Germans when the most "progressive" intellectuals of the country longed for the adoption of German social policies? Was it possible to praise British liberty as against Prussian bondage and at the same time to recommend the methods of Bismarck and his

基爾特社會主義的第二個淵源，可從英國的特殊政治環境中看出。當英國與德國的衝突愈來愈激烈，而終於在一九一四年引發戰爭的時候，英國年輕的社會主義者對於他們自己的方案開始感到不安。費邊社社員們的國家崇拜，以及他們對德國和普魯士的那些制度的讚揚，到了他們自己的國家和德國作殊死戰的時候，確實是很矛盾的。當本國最「進步的」知識份子渴望採行德國社會政策的時候，和德國人打仗有什麼用呢？頌揚英國的自由，譴責普魯士的奴役，同時又推薦俾斯麥和其後繼者的那些辦法，這是可能的嗎？於是，英國的社會主義者就想要有一種特屬於英國牌子的社會主義，盡可能地做到與條頓牌子的社會主義不同。這個問題就是要建立一個免於國家至上、國家萬能的社會主義制度，也即個人主義型的集體主義。

The solution of this problem is no less impossible than that of the construction of a triangular square. Yet the young men of Oxford confidently tried to solve it. They borrowed for their program the name guild socialism from the little known group of the eulogists of the Middle Ages. They characterized their scheme as industrial self-government, an economic corollary of the most renowned principle of English political rule, local government. In their plans they assigned the leading role to the most powerful British pressure group, the trade unions. Thus they did everything to make their device palatable to their countrymen.

要建立這樣的社會制度，正如同要製作一個「三角形的四方」―樣地不可能。可是，牛津的靑年們卻很自信地想解決這個問題。他們從一羣不著名的復古主義者（頌揚中世紀制度的人們）借來「基爾特社會主義」這個名稱以名他們的方案。他們宣稱，他們的方案特異於別國的社會主義，是産業自治，是最有名的英國政治制度——地方政府所衍生的一個經濟制度。在他們的計畫中，他們把領導的任務委之於英國最有力量的壓力團體——工會。他們盡力把他們的設計做得合乎本國人的口味。

However, neither these captivating adornments nor the obtrusive and noisy propaganda could mislead intelligent people. The plan was contradictory and blatantly impracticable. After only a few years it fell into complete oblivion in the country of its origin.

可是，這些迷人心竅的修飾也好，鹵莽煩囂的宣傳也好，對於明智的人們都不會發生誤導作用。計畫本身是矛盾的、行不通的，不到幾年以後，它就在它的發祥地完全湮沒了。

But then came a resurrection. The Italian Fascists badly needed an economic program of their own. After having seceded from the international parties of Marxian socialism, they could no longer pose as socialists. Neither were they, the proud scions of the invincible Roman legionaries, prepared to make concessions to Western capitalism or to Prussian interventionism, the counterfeit ideologies of the barbarians who had destroyed their glorious empire. They were in search of a social philosophy, purely and exclusively Italian. Whether or not they knew that their gospel was merely a replica of British guild socialism is immaterial. At any rate, the stato corporativo was nothing but a rebaptized edition of guild socialism. The differences concerned only unimportant details.

但是，後來又一度復活。意大利的法西斯黨人急於需要一種廳於他們自己的經濟方案。他們在返出馬克斯社會主義的國際政黨以後，就不能再以社會主義者的姿態出現。他們是那無敵於天下的古羅馬軍團的團員們的後裔，他們以此自傲，所以，他們旣不願對西方資本主義讓步，也不願向普魯士的干涉主義學習。普魯士的干涉主義，在他們的心目中是些偽裝的野蠻人的意理，而那些野蠻人曾經打垮他們的光榮帝國。他們要探求一種純粹的專屬於意大利的社會哲學。至於他們是否知道他們的信條只是英國基爾特社會主義的複製品，這一點是不關重要的。無論如何，勞資協作國家（the stato corporativo）不過是基爾特社會主義的一個再版。其間的差異只是一些不重要的枝節。

Corporativism was flamboyantly advertised by the bombastic propaganda of the Fascists, and the success of their campaign was overwhelming. Many foreign authors exuberantly praised the miraculous achievements of the new system. The governments of Austria and Portugal emphasized that they were firmly committed to the noble ideas of corporativism. The Pope's encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931) contained passages which could--but need not--be interpreted as an endorsement of corporativism. In any case it is a fact that Catholic authors supported this interpretation in books which were published with the imprimatur of the Church authorities.

勞资協作主義由於法西斯黨人的大肆宣傳而獲驚人的成功。許多外國的作家也極力讚揚這個新制度的奇蹟。奥國和葡萄牙的政府也特別強調，他們要堅決實行這個高尙的勞資協作主義。敎皇的通諭——Quadragesimo anno (1931)，也有些地方可以（但是不必）解釋爲協對作主義的承認。無論如何，天主敎的作家，在那些經敎會當局認可出版的書籍中，是支持這種解釋的。

Yet neither the Italian Fascists nor the Austrian and Portuguese

可是，意大利的法西斯黨人也好，奥國和葡萄牙的政府也好，都沒有認眞地想實現勞資協作的幻想。惫大利人給種種機構加上「勞資協作的」（corporativist）名稱，而且把大學的政治經濟學講座改爲「政治的與勞資協作的經濟」（economia politica e corporativa）講座。但是，關於勞資協作主義的本質，也即工商各部門的自治，只是見之於空談。法西斯的政府首先是固執干涉主義的同樣原則（干涉主義是我們這個時代所有名義上非社會主義的政府所已採行的經濟政策）。後來，它一歩一步轉向到德國的社會主義制度，即政府對經濟活動的全盤控制。

The fundamental idea both of guild socialism and of corporativism is that every branch of business forms a monopolistic body, the guild or corporazione.[2] This entity enjoys full autonomy; it is free to settle all its internal affairs without interference of external factors and of people who are not themselves members of the guild. The mutual relations between the various guilds are settled by direct bargaining from guild to guild or by the decisions of a general assembly of the delegates of all guilds. In the regular course of affairs the government does not interfere at all. Only in exceptional cases, when an agreement between the various guilds cannot be attained, is the state called in.[3]

基爾特社會主義和勞資協作主義的基本觀念都是：每個營業部門形成一個獨占體，這個獨占體叫做基爾特或勞資協作（corporazione）[2]這個存在體享有充份自治；它可自由處理所有的內部事務而不受外在因素的干涉、不受外人的干涉。各個基爾特之間的相互關係，則由它們直接商討處理，或由所有基爾特的代表大會來決定。在通常的情形下，政府不加任何干涉。只有在特殊情形下，當各個基爾特之間不能得到一致的意見時，才需要政府干預[3]。

In drafting this scheme the guild socialists had in mind the conditions of British local government and the relation between the various local authorities and the central government of the United Kingdom. They aimed at self-government of each branch of industry; they wanted, as the Webbs put it, "the right of self-determination for each vocation." [4] In the same way in which each municipality takes care of its local community affairs and the national government handles only those affairs which concern the interests of the whole nation, the guild alone should have jurisdiction over its internal affairs and the government should restrict its interference to those things which the guilds themselves cannot settle.

在草擬這個方案的時候，基爾特社會主義者是記住英國地方政府的情況，以及那些地方政府與中央政府之間的關係的。他們的目的是要使產業的毎個部門得以自治；像Webb夫婦所說的，他們想「給每個行業的自決權」。[4]這正如同每個地方政府管理它的地方事務，中央政府只處理那些有關全國利益的事務，基爾特對於它內部的事情應有處理權，政府應把它的干預限之於基爾特本身所不能解決的那些事情。

However, within a system of social cooperation under the division of labor there are no such things as matters of concern only to those

但是，在一個分工合作的社會制度下，決沒有僅僅關係一個特定的工場、特定的行業、或特定的產業部門，而與外人無關這樣的事情。任何基爾特或勞資協作團體，決沒有什麼內部事務而其處理不影響到全國的。一個營業部門不僅是爲它內部的人們服務，它是爲每個人服務。任何營業部門如果其內部缺乏效率，稀少的生產要素被浪費，或者不採用最適當的生產方法，則每個人的物質利益都受到損害。我們不能把那些關於生產技術、生產的數量與品質、工作時間、以及許許多多其他問題的決定委之於基爾特內部的成員，因爲這些事情不僅關係其成員的利益，也同樣地關係外人的利益。在巿場經濟裡面，企業家在做這些決定的時候，是無條件地受制於市場法則的。他是向消費者負責。如果他拒絕消費者的命令，他就要賠本，而且，會很快地喪失他的企業家地位。但是，獨占的基爾特卻不怕競爭。它在它的生產範圍以內享有處理一切的全權。如果置之不管而讓它自治自決，它就不是消費者的僕人，而是它們主人的僕人。它就可自由地採取犧牲別人以利其成員的一些辦法。

It is of no importance whether within the guild the workers alone rule or whether and to what extent the capitalists and the former entrepreneurs cooperate in the management of affairs. It is likewise without importance whether or not some seats in the guilds governing board are assigned to representatives of the consumers. What counts is that the guild, if autonomous, is not subject to pressure that would force it to adjust its operations to the best possible satisfaction of the consumers. It is free to give the interests of its members precedence over the interests of consumers. There is in the scheme of guild socialism and corporativism nothing that would take into account the fact that the only purpose of production is consumption. Things are turned upside down. Production becomes an end in itself.

在基爾特的內部，是僅由工人們統治，還是與資本家、企業家合作管理，這是不關重要的。基爾特的管理部門是不是有消費者的代表參加，這也是不關重要的。重要的是：如果基爾特是自治的，它就不受制於市場壓力以調整它的活動來滿足消費者。它就把其成員的利益放在消費者的利益之上。在基爾特社會主義和勞資協作主義的制度下，決不會想到「生產的唯一目的在於消費」。事情恰好顚倒。生產本身變成了目的。

When the American New Deal embarked upon the National Recovery Administration scheme, the government and its brain trust were fully aware of the fact that what they planned was merely the establishment of an administrative apparatus for full government control of business. The short-sightedness of the guild socialists and corporativists is to be seen in the fact that they believed that the autonomous guild or corporazione could be considered a device for a working system of social cooperation.

當美國的「新政」開始實行國家工業復興方案的時候，政府和它的智囊團完全知道，他們所計畫的不過是建立一個機構，以便政府對工商業的全盤控制。基爾特社會主義者和勞資協作主義者認爲，自治的基爾特或勞資協作團體可當作一個可行的社會合作制度。從這一點就可看出他們的短視。

It is very easy indeed for each guild to arrange its allegedly internal

每個基爾特要把它的所謂「內部事情」處理得叫它的成員們充份滿意，這是很容易做到的。縮短工作時間、提高工資率、不再做那些使成員們感覺不便的生產技術改良一好極了。但是，假若所有的基爾特都這樣作，其結果將會怎樣呢？

Under the guild system there is no longer any question of a market. There are no longer any prices in the catallactic sense of the term. There are neither competitive prices nor monopoly prices. Those guilds which monopolize the supply of vital necessities attain a dictatorial position. The producers of indispensable food stuffs and fuel and the suppliers of electric current and of transportation can with impunity squeeze the whole people. Does anybody expect that the majority will tolerate such a state of affairs? There is no doubt that any attempt to realize the corporativist utopia would in a very short time lead to violent conflicts, if the government did not interfere when the vital industries abused their privileged position. What the doctrinaires envisage only as an exceptional measure--the interference of the government--will become the rule. Guild socialism and corporativism will turn into full government control of all production activities. They will develop into that system of Prussian Zwangswirtschaft which they were designed to avoid.

在基爾特制度下，再也沒有市場的問題。再也沒有任何價格（行爲學意義的價格）。競爭價格也好、獨占價格也好，都不存在。那些獨占了必需品供給的基爾特，取得一種獨裁的地位。它是必需的食物和燃料的生產者，以及電力和交通的供應者，它可以榨取全民而無所恐懼。誰會認爲大多數人可忍受這種情形呢？假若這些與基本生活有關的產業，濫用它們的特權地位，而政府不加以干涉，則爲實現勞資協作這個烏托邦而作旳任何企圖，將會很快地導致暴力的衝突，這是不容置疑的。於是，這些空想家視爲僅是一個例外措施的——政府干涉——將會變成慣例。基爾特社會主義和勞資協作主義將會變成政府對一切生產活動的全盤控制。普魯士的統制經濟（Zwangswirtschaft）是基爾特社會主義和勞資協作主義所想避免的，但其發展的結果，卻正是這種統制經濟。

There is no need to deal with the other fundamental shortcomings of the guild scheme. It is as deficient as any other syndicalist project. It does not take into account the necessity of shifting capital and labor from one branch to another and of establishing new branches of production. It entirely neglects the problem of saving and capital accumulation. In short, it is nonsense.

對於基爾特社會主義的其他基本缺點，這裡沒有討論的必要。它和任何其他的工團主義者的方案一樣，都是有缺陷的。它沒有想到，資本和勞動從這個部門轉到另一個部門，以及創立一些新的生產部門，都是必要的。它完全忽視了儲蓄和資本累積的問題。總而言之，它是荒謬的。

----------------

[2] The most elaborate description of guild socialism is provided by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920); the best book on cprporativism is Ugo Papi, Lezioni di Economia Generale e Corporativa, Vol. III (Padova, 1934).

[2] 對基爾特社會主義敍述得最詳細的是Sidney and Beatrice Webb合著的A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920)；關於勞資協作的最好的一本書是Ugo Papi, Lezioni di Economia Generale e Corporativa, Vol. III (Padova, 1934).

[3] Mussolini declared on January 13, 1934, in the Senate: "Solo in un secondo tempo, quando le categorie non abbiano trovato la via dell' accordo e dell' equilibrio, lo stato porta intervenire," (Quoted by Papi, op. cit., p. 225).

[3] 一九三四年一月十三日，墨索里尼（Mussolini）在上議院宣佈：「只有在更後的階段，當基爾特相互間沒有達成協議的時候，政府才能干預。」（Papi上書，p. 225引用）

[4] Sidney and Beatrice Webb, op. cit., pp. 227 ff.

[4] Sidney and Beatrice Webb, op. cit., pp. 227 ff.

XXXIV. THE ECONOMICS OF WAR

第34章 戰爭經濟學

1. Total War

一、全體戰爭

The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.

市場經濟提供了和平合作。一到平民變成了兵士的時候，市場經濟就破碎了。於是，貨物、勞務的交換被相互的戰鬥替代。

The wars fought by primitive tribes did not affect cooperation under the division of labor. Such cooperation by and large did not exist between the warring parties before the outbreak of hostilities. These wars were unlimited or total wars. They aimed at total victory and total defeat. The defeated were either exterminated or expelled from their dwelling places or enslaved. The idea that a treaty could settle the conflict and make it possible for both parties to live in peaceful neighborly conditions was not present in the minds of the fighters.

原始部落間的戰爭並不影響分工下的合作。這樣的合作，在戰爭爆發以前並不存在於交戰雙方之間。這些戰爭是無限的，或全體的戰爭。它們的目的是全面勝利、全面征服。被征服的或者是被消滅，或者是被撵走，或者是收爲奴隸。至於說條約可以解決紛爭，可以使雙方和平相處，這一類的想法，不是戰鬥者的心中所會有的。

The spirit of conquest does not acknowledge restraints other than those imposed by a power which resists successfully. The principle of empire building is to expand the sphere of supremacy as far as possible. The great Asiatic conquerors and the Roman Imperators stopped only when they could not march farther. Then they postponed aggression for later days. They did not abandon their ambitious plans and did not consider independent foreign states as anything else than targets for later onslaughts.

征服者是不知道自我約束的，除非有個堅強的抗力阻止他。建立帝國的原則，是盡可能地擴張統治區域。亞洲的一些大征服者和羅馬帝國的一些大將軍，只有在他們不能再前進的時候才停止下來。這時，他們把侵略行爲向後延緩一些時。他們從不放棄征服的野心，在他們的心目中，獨立自主的外國不是別的，只是日後攻擊的對象。

This philosophy of boundless conquest also animated the rulers of medieval Europe. They too aimed first of all at the utmost expansion of the size of their realms. But the institutions of feudalism provided them with only scanty means for warfare. Vassals were not obliged to fight for their lord more than a limited time. The selfishness of the vassals who insisted on their rights checked the king's aggressiveness. Thus the peaceful coexistence of a number of sovereign states originated. In the sixteenth century a Frenchman, Bodin, developed the theory of national sovereignty. In the seventeenth century a Dutchman, Grotius, added to it a theory of international relations in war and peace.

這種無止境征服的哲學，也鼓勵了中世紀歐洲的統治者。他們的首要目的，在於儘量擴張他們的領土。但是，封建制度供應他們的戰爭經費只是微薄的。諸侯們爲他們的君主作戰，也只在有限的時間以內。諸侯們自己的打算，限制了君主的侵略。於是，若干主權國的和平共存就開始出現了。十六世紀有一位叫做布丁（Bodin）的法國人，就發展出國家主權學說。到了十七世紀，有一位荷蘭人叫做格老秀斯（Grotius）的，又給這個學說補充上戰時和平時國際關係學說。

With the disintegration of feudalism, sovereigns could no longer rely upon summoned vassals. They "nationalized" the country's armed forces. Henceforth, the warriors were the king's mercenaries.

隨著封建制度的瓦解，國家主權再也不能依賴諸侯們的支持，於是，就有了軍隊國家化。此後，作戰的人就是君主的一些傭兵。

The organization, equipment, and support of such troops were rather costly and a heavy burden on the ruler's revenues. The ambitions of the princes were unbounded, but financial considerations forced them to moderate their designs. They no longer planned to conquer a whole country. All they aimed at was the conquest of a few cities or of a province. To attain more would also have been unwise politically. For the European powers were anxious not to let any one of them become too powerful and a menace to their own safety. A too impetuous conqueror must always fear a coalition of all those whom his bigness has frightened.

這樣的軍隊，組織、裝備、和給養的費用是很大的，這對於統治者的財政，是個沉重的負擔。君主的野心無限，可是，財政的考慮使他們不得不節制他們的企圖。他們再也不想征服一整個國家。他們的目的只在征服少數幾個城市或一個州。佔有的過多，在政治上也許是不聰明的辦法。歐洲的列強都不願他們當中有一個變得太強，因而危害到他們的利益。極兇猛的征服者，也會恐懼那些被威脅者會結合起來對付他。

The combined effect of military, financial, and political circumstances produced the limited warfare which prevailed in Europe in the three hundred years preceding the French Revolution. Wars were fought by comparatively small armies of professional soldiers. War was not an affair of the peoples; it concerned the rulers only. The citizens detested war which brought mischief to them and burdened them with taxes and contributions. But they considered themselves victims of events in which they did not participate actively. Even the belligerent armies respected the "neutrality" of the civilians. As they saw it, they were fighting the supreme warlord of the hostile forces, but not the noncombatant subjects of the enemy. In the wars fought on the European continent the property of civilians was considered inviolable. In 1856 the Congress of Paris made an attempt to extend this principle to naval warfare. More and more, eminent minds began to discuss the possibility of abolishing war altogether.

由於這些軍事的、財政的、和政治的聯合影響，歐洲在法國革命以前的那三百年當中的一些戰爭，就成爲有限的戰爭。戰爭是由一些職業的兵士組成的小規模的軍隊來打的。戰爭不是人民的事情，它只與統治者有關，人民都厭惡那些帶給他們災難、增加他們租稅負擔的戰爭。他們認爲，他們自己是在一些他們所未參與的事情中的犧牲者。甚至交戰的軍隊，也尊重人民的「中立」。照他們的想法，他們是要爲奪取軍事的優勢而戰，至於敵方非戰鬥的人民，不是他們戰爭的對象。所以，歐洲大陸的那些戰爭中，平民的財產被認爲是不可侵犯的。一九五六年，巴黎會議已把這個原則應用到海軍作戰方面。接著，就有許多偉大的人物們開始討論完全廢除戰爭的可能性。

Looking at conditions as they had developed under the system of limited warfare, philosophers found wars useless. Men are killed or maimed, wealth is destroyed, countries are devastated for the sole benefit of kings and ruling oligarchies. The peoples themselves do not derive any gain from victory. The individual citizens are not enriched if their rulers expand the size of their realm by annexing a province. For the people wars do not pay. The only cause of armed conflict is the greed of autocrats. The substitution of representative government for royal despotism will abolish war altogether. Democracies are peaceful. It is no concern of theirs whether their nation's sovereignty stretches over a larger or smaller territory. They will treat territorial problems without bias and passion. They will settle them peacefully. What is needed to make peace durable is to dethrone the despots. This, of course, cannot be achieved peacefully. It is necessary to crush the mercenaries of the kings. But this revolutionary war of the people against the tyrants will be the last war, the war to abolish war forever.

看到無限戰爭所引起的情況，哲學家們發現，戰爭是無用的。一次戰爭下來，多少人被殘殺，多少財富被破壞，多少地方遭蹂躪，爲的是什麼？爲的是國王和少數統治者的利益。戰爭勝利了，對於人民沒有任何好處。他們的統治者擴張了統治區域，並不使他們富有。對於人民而言，戰爭是不値得的。武裝衝突的唯一原因，是專制君主的貪婪。民主政制替代君主專制，會完全消滅戰爭。民主政制是和平的。國家領域的或大或小，不是民主政制所關切的事情。領土問題的處理，不憑偏見和激情，而訴之於和平談判。要使和平得以永久維持，就要廢除獨裁政制。這自然不是循和平的途徑所可成功的。國王的傭兵必須完全擊潰。但是，人民對於專政君主的這種革命戰爭，將是最後的戰爭，也即根絕戰爭的戰爭。

This idea was already dimly present in the minds of the French revolutionary leaders when, after having repelled the invading armies of Prussia and Austria, they embarked upon a campaign of aggression. Of course, under the leadership of Napoleon they themselves very soon adopted the most ruthless methods of boundless expansion and annexation until a coalition of all European powers frustrated their ambitions. But the idea of durable peace was soon resurrected. It was one of the main points in the body of nineteenth-century liberalism as consistently elaborated in the much abused principles of the Manchester School.

這個觀念，在法國革命領袖們擊退了普、奥的侵略軍隊以後，他們自己發動侵略的時候，已經是模模糊糊地存在他們的心中，在拿破崙的領導下，他們自己很快地採取無限擴張、無限吞併的最殘忍的政策，一直到所有歐洲的列強聯合起來挫折了他們的野心時才放手。但是，持久和平這個觀念不久又復活了。這是十九世紀自由主義軀幹中的要點之一，也即是曼轍斯特學派（the Manchester School）所遵循的那些原則中所力圖實現的自由主義。

These British liberals and their continental friends were keen enough to realize that what can safeguard durable peace is not simply government by the people, but government by the people under unlimited laissez faire. In their eyes free trade, both in domestic affairs and in international relations, was the necessary prerequisite of the preservation of peace. In such a world without trade and migration barriers no incentives for war and conquest are left. Fully convinced of the irrefutable persuasiveness of the liberal ideas, they dropped the notion of the last war to abolish all wars. All peoples will of their own accord recognize the blessings of free trade and peace and will curb their domestic despots without any aid from abroad.

這些英國的自由主義者和歐洲大陸上他們的友人，都有敏銳的眼光看出了永久和平的維持不能單靠民主政治，而要靠自由放任的民主政治。在他們的心目中，自由貿易是保持和平的必要條件，就國內講如此，就國際講也是如此。在這樣一個沒有貿易障礙和移民障礙的世界裡，就沒有引起戰爭和征服的誘因了。他們充份相信，自由理念有不可抗拒的說服力，因而他們放棄了「根絕一切戰爭的最後戰爭」這個想法。所有的民族將會出自本意地承認，自由貿易與和平是大家的幸福，將會約束他們本國的專制君主而無須國外援助。

Most historians entirely fail to recognize the factors which replaced the "limited" war of the ancien regime by the "unlimited" war of our age. As they see it, the change came with the shift from the dynastic to the national from of state and was a consequence of the French Revolution. They look only upon attending phenomena and confuse causes and effects. They speak of the composition of the armies, of strategical and tactical principles, of weapons and transportation facilities, and of many other matters of military art and administrative technicalities.[1] However, all these things do not explain why modern nations prefer aggression to peace.

大多數的歷史家完全沒有看出使古代的「有限」戰爭被現代的「無限」戰爭代替的那些因素。照他們的看法，這個變更是隨「朝代的國家」轉變到「民族的國家」而俱來的，是法國革命的一個後果。他們只注意到附隨的現象，而把原因與結果弄混淆了。他們說到軍隊的組成份，說到數略和戰術的原則，說到武器和交通設備，說到軍事技術和行政技術的許多其他事情[1]。但是，所有這些事情都沒有解釋，爲什麼現代國家要侵略而不願和平。

There is perfect agreement with regard to the fact that total war is an offshoot of aggressive nationalism. But this is merely circular reasoning. We call aggressive nationalism that ideology which makes for modern total war. Aggressive nationalism is the necessary derivative of the policies of interventionism and national planning. While laissez faire eliminates the causes of international conflict, government interference with business and socialism creates conflicts for

全體戰爭是侵略性的民族主義的衍生物，這是一致公認的事實。但是，這只是個循環推理。我們把民族主義叫做形成現代全體戰爭的意理。侵略性的民族主義是干涉政策和國家計畫的衍生物。自由放任會把國際衝突的原因消除掉，干涉主義和社會主義則招致一些無法和平解決的衝突。在自由貿易和自由移民的場合，沒有人會關心到他的國家領土的大小，在經濟國家主義的保護措施下，幾乎每個國民在領土問題上都有利害關係。本國領土的擴大，對於他是福利的增進，至少是解脫外國政府對於他的福利所加的限制。使皇朝與皇朝之間有限戰爭變成民族之間的衝突的，不是軍事上的技術，而是福利國家替代了自由放任的國家。

If Napoleon I had reached his goal, the French Empire would have stretched far beyond the limits of 1815. Spain and Naples would have been ruled by kings of the house of Bonaparte-Murat instead of kings of another French family, the Bourbons. The palace of Kassel would have been occupied by a French playboy instead of one of the egregious Electors of the Hesse family. All these things would not have make the citizens of France more prosperous. Neither did the citizens of Prussia win anything from the fact that their king in 1866 evicted his cousins of Hanover, Hesse-Kassel and Nassau from their luxurious residences. But if Hitler had realized his plans, the Germans expected to enjoy a higher standard of living. They were confident that the annihilation of the French, the Poles, and the Czechs would make every member of their own race richer. The struggle for more Lebensraum was their own war.

假若拿破畨第一達成了他的目的，法蘭西帝國該已大大地超越了一八一五年的境界。西班牙和那不勒斯（Naples）該已被Bonaparte-Murat家族的皇帝統治，而不是統治於另一個家族The Bourbons的皇帝；Kassel皇宮該已被一個法國花花公子占據，而非Hesse家族的選侯們所保有。所有這些事情並不使法國的人民更爲富有，普魯士的人民並不因他們的國王於一八六六年把Hanover, Hesse-Kassel和Nassau的那些堂表兄弟們攆出豪華邸宅而得到什麼。但是，如果希特勒實現了他的計畫，德國人就可希望享受較高的生活水準。他們相信，消滅了法國人、波蘭人、和捷克人，就可使他們本族的每個份子更富有。爲爭取更多的「生存空間」而作戰，是關係他們自身利益的戰爭。

Under laissez faire peaceful coexistence of a multitude of sovereign nations is possible. Under government control of business it is impossible. The tragic error of President Wilson was that he ignored this essential point. Modern total war has nothing in common with the limited war of the old dynasties. It is a war against trade and migration barriers, a war of the comparatively overpopulated countries against the comparatively underpopulated. It is a war to abolish those institutions which prevent the emergence of a tendency toward an equalization of wage rates all over the world. It is a war of the farmers tilling poor soil against those governments which bar them from access to much more fertile soil lying fallow. It is, in short, a war of wage earners and farmers who describe themselves as underprivileged "have-nots" against the wage earners and farmers of other nations whom they consider privileged "haves."

在自由放任的經濟環境下，多國的和平共存是可能的。在政府統制經濟的環境下，那是不可能的。威爾遜（Wilson）總統的悲劇性錯誤，就在於忽視了這個要點。現代的全體戰爭，與古代皇朝的有限戰爭沒有什麼是相同的。那是對付貿易障礙和移民障礙的戰爭，人口過多的國家對人口較少的國家之戰爭；那是爲廢除有礙全世界工資率趨向於平等的那些制度的戰爭；那是一些耕種貧瘠土地的農民，反對政府不許他們去耕種更肥沃空地的戰爭。簡言之，那是一些把自稱爲特權的「沒有者」的工人和農民，反抗那些他們認爲特權的「有者」的其他國家的工人和農民的戰爭。

The acknowledgment of this fact does not suggest that victorious wars would really do away with those evils about which the aggressors complain. These conflicts of vital interests can be eliminated

對於這個事實的認知，並不是說，勝利的戰爭眞的會消除掉侵略者們所訴說的那些弊害。那也不是說，撤除了移民障礙即可以安撫侵略者而免於戰爭。就今日的情形看來，美洲和澳洲容許德國人、意大利人、和日本人移民進來，不過是對敵軍的先鋒隊敞開他們的大門而已。

It is futile to place confidence in treaties, conferences, and such bureaucratic outfits as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Plenipotentiaries, office clerks and experts make a poor show in fighting ideologies. The spirit of conquest cannot be smothered by red tape. What is needed is a radical change in ideologies and economic policies.

信賴條約、國際會議、以及國際聯盟（the League of Nations）、和聯合國（the United Nations）這樣的一些官僚建置，終歸是無用的。在意理之間的戰鬥中，全權大使們、政府官員們以及專率們所表現的，都是失敗。征服的野心不是官樣文章所可遏止的。所必要的是意理和經濟政策的改變。

------------------

[1] The best presentation of the traditional interpretation is provided by the book, Makers of Modern Strategy, Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler, ed. E.M. Earle (Princeton University Press, 1944); cf. especially the contributions of R.R. Palmer, pp. 49-53.

[1] 最有代表性的傳統解釋是E.M. Earle所編的這本書——Makers of Modern Strategy, Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler (Princeton University Press, 1944)，尤其是R.R. Palmer所編的那一篇pp. 49-53。

2. War and the Market Economy

二、戰爭與市場經濟

The market economy, say the socialists and the interventionists, is at best a system that may be tolerated in peacetime. But when war comes, such indulgence is impermissible. It would jeopardize the vital interests of the nation for the sole benefit of the selfish concerns of capitalists and entrepreneurs. War, and in any case modern total war, peremptorily requires government control of business.

社會主義者和干涉主義者說，市場經濟至好也不過是和平時期所可容許的一種制度。但是，當戰爭到臨的時候，這樣的放任是不可容許的。它只有利於資本家和企業家的私人事業而危害國家。戰爭，無論如何，現代的全體戰爭，絕對需要政府的經濟管制。

Hardly anybody has been bold enough to challenge this dogma. It served in both World Wars as a convenient pretext for innumerable measures of government interference with business which in many countries step by step led to full "war socialism." When the hostilities ceased, a new slogan was launched. The period of transition from war to peace and of "reconversion," people contended, requires even more government control than the period of war. Besides, why should one ever return to a social system which can work, if at all, only in the interval between two wars? The most appropriate thing would be to cling permanently to government control in order to be duly prepared for any possible emergency.

幾乎沒有人有足夠的勇氣敢於向這個「獨格碼」挑戰，在兩次世界大戰當中，這個「獨格碼」成爲許許多多經濟管制的口實。有些國家經由那些經濟管制，一步一步走向徹底的「戰時社會主義」。到了戰鬥結束的時候，一個新口號又開始叫起來了。他們說，從戰時到平時的過渡期間和「復原」時期，甚至比戰時更需要政府的經濟管制。而且，在兩次戰爭之間的時期，可以行得通的一種社會制度，爲什麼不把它長久維持下去，而爲任何可能的緊急變故作最適當的準備呢？

An examination of the problems which the United States had to face in the second World War will clearly show how fallacious this reasoning is.

我們對於美國在第二次世界當中所面對的那些問題作一檢討，即可明白地看出，這樣的推理是如何地荒謬。

What America needed in order to win the war was a radical conversion of all its production activities. All not absolutely indispensable civilian consumption was to be eliminated. The plants and farms were henceforth to turn out only a minimum of goods for nonmilitary use. For the rest, they were to devote themselves completely to the task of supplying the armed forces.

爲赢得戰爭，美國所需要的是很快地轉變所有的生產活動。凡非絕對必需的民間消費都得停止，工廠和農場除爲非軍事用途生產最低限的數量以外，把全部生產力用之於生產軍用品。

The realization of this program did not require the establishment of controls and priorities. If the government had raised all the funds needed for the conduct of war by taxing the citizens and by borrowing from them, everybody would have been forced to cut down his

這個方案的實現，並不需要建立經濟管制。如果政府用課稅和向人民借債的辦法來籌取全部戰費，每個人就不得不大大地削減他的消費。企業家與農民們也將轉而爲政府的需要而生產，因爲銷售給人民的貨物減少了。政府，這時由於大量的稅收和債款的收入，成爲市場的最大買者，因而它能夠取到它所需要的一切。即令政府籌取戰費大部份是靠增加貨幣流通量以及向商業銀行借債而非向一般人民借債，也不會改變這個事態。通貨膨脹，自然要引起所有的貨價和勞務價格的上漲。政府也得支付較高的名目價格。但是，政府仍然是市場上最有償付能力的買者。它能夠出高於人民所出的價來搶先購買，因爲，人民旣沒有爲自己的需要而製造貨幣的權利，同時也被沉重的租稅所榨取。

But the government deliberately adopted a policy which was bound to make it impossible for it to rely upon the operation of the unhampered market. It resorted to price control and make it illegal to raise commodity prices. Furthermore it was very slow in taxing the incomes swollen by the inflation. It surrendered to the claim of the unions that the worker's real take-home wages should be kept at a height which would enable them to preserve in the war their prewar standard of living. In fact, the most numerous class of the nation, the class which in peacetime consumed the greatest part of the total amount of goods consumed, had so much more money in their pockets that their power to buy and to consume was greater than in peacetime. The wage earners--and to some extent also the farmers and the owners of plants producing for the government--would have frustrated the government's endeavors to direct industries toward the production of war materials. They would have induced business to produce more, not less, of those goods which in wartime are considered superfluous luxuries. It was this circumstance that forced the Administration to resort to the systems of priorities and of rationing. The shortcomings of the methods adopted for financing war expenditure made government control of business necessary. If no inflation had been made and if taxation had cut down the income (after taxes) of all citizens, not only of those enjoying higher incomes, to a fraction of their peacetime revenues, these controls would have been supererogatory. The endorsement of the doctrine that the wage earners' real income must in wartime be even higher than in peacetime made them unavoidable.

但是，政府卻要故意地採取一個必然使它不能依賴自由市場之運作的政策。它採用物價管制政策，使提高物價成爲非法。而且在徵課通貨膨脹所膨脹的所得時，政府的動作是很緩慢的。政府對於工會的要求也總是屈從，工會要求戰時拿到家中的（意即扣掉一切税損以後的）實質工資必須使工人能夠維持戰前的生活標準。事實上，這個人數最多的階級，在平時消費了全部消費財最大部份的這個階級，在他們的口袋中有更多的錢，因而他們的購買力和消費力大於平時。這些工人，會使政府指揮生產界多生產軍用品的這種努力受到挫折，在某種程度內，農民以及爲政府生產的那些廠主，也會如此。他們會誘導生產界多生產而非少生產戰時被認爲的奢侈品。正是因爲這種情形，政府不得不採取優先制和配給制。這些籌取戰費的辦法，其缺點使得政府的經濟管制成爲必要。如果沒有通貨膨脹，如果稅課是把全民的所得，而不只是把那些賺得較高所得者的所得，都課掉一些，使全民的稅後所得都是戰前的稅後所得的一部份，則經濟管制的一切措施就是不必要的。但是，如果接受「工人的實質工資在戰時甚至要高於平時」這個信條，則經濟管制就無法避免了。

Not government decrees and the paper work of hosts of people on the governments payroll, but the efforts of private enterprise produced those goods which enabled the American armed forces to win the war and to provide all the material equipment its allies needed for their cooperation. The economist does not infer anything from these historical facts. But it is expedient to mention them as the interventionists would have us believe that a decree prohibiting the employment of steel for the construction of apartment houses automatically produces airplanes and battleships.

美國赢得戰爭的那些物資，以及美國供應盟國的那些装備，不是政府的命令和一些官吏們的紙上工作所生產出來的，而是民間企業所生產的。經濟學家並不從這些歷史事實來作何推論。但是，當干涉主義者要我們相信「一紙禁止鋼鐵用在民房建築的命令，就可自動地生產出飛機和軍艦」的時候，提一提這些事實來駁斥它，是個方便的辦法。

The adjustment of production activities to a change in the demand of consumers is the source of profits. The greater the discrepancy between the previous state of production activities and that agreeing with the new structure of demand, the greater adjustments are required and the greater profits are earned by those who succeed best in accomplishing these adjustments. The sudden transition from peace to war revolutionizes the structure of the market, makes radical readjustments indispensable and thus becomes for many a source of high profits. The planners and interventionists regard such profits as a scandal. As they see it, the first duty of government in time of war is to prevent the emergence of new millionaires. It is, they say, unfair to let some people become richer while other people are killed or maimed.

適應消費者的需求變動來調整生產活動，這是利潤的根源。調整前的生產活動與適應新的需求結構的生產活動，兩者間的差異愈大，則所需要的調整也就愈大，因而那些調整得最成功的人們所賺得的利潤也就最大。從平時突然地轉到戰時，這是對市場結構的革命，這使劇烈的調整成爲必要，因而成爲某些人高度利潤的來源。經濟計畫者和干涉主義者把這種利潤看作可恥的東西。照他們的看法，政府在戰時的首要任務在於防止新的百萬富翁的出現，他們說，當一些人在戰場上被殺或傷殘的時候，讓某些人發財是不公平的。

Nothing is fair in war. It is not just that God is for the big battalions and that those who are better equipped defeat poorly equipped adversaries. It is not just that those in the front line shed their life-blood in obscurity, while the commanders, comfortably located in headquarters hundreds of miles behind the trenches, gain glory and fame. It is not just that John is killed and Mark crippled for the rest of his life, while Paul returns home safe and sound and enjoys all the privileges accorded to veterans.

戰爭中沒有什麼是公平的。大軍團戰勝小軍圑，裝備精良的打敗裝備惡劣的，這不是公平的。在前線的兵士沒沒無聞地流血，司令官舒適地在戰壕後面幾百哩的司令部裡面享受榮譽，這不是公平的。一場戰爭結束，張三被殺掉，李四終生殘廢，王五安全回家，永久享受返役軍人的一切特權，這不是公平的。

It may be admitted that it is not "fair" that war enhances the profits of those entrepreneurs who contribute best to the equipment of the fighting forces. But it would be foolish to deny that the profit system produces the best weapons. It was not socialist Russia that aided capitalist America with lend-lease; the Russians were lamentably defeated before American-make bombs fell on Germany and before they got the arms manufactured by American big business. The most important thing in war is not to avoid the emergence of high profits, but to give the best equipment to one's own country's soldiers and sailors. The worst enemies of a nation are those malicious demagogues who would give their envy precedence over the vital interests of their nation's cause.

戰爭使那些最有貢獻於軍事裝備的企業家的利潤增加，是不「公平」的，這個說法我們也可承認。但是，如果否認利潤制度生產最好的武器，那就是愚昧了。社會主義的俄國並沒有用租借的辦法援助美國；俄國在用美製的炸彈投在德國以前，俄國軍隊在得到美國大公司製成的武器以前，是在戰場上慘敗。戰時最重要的事情，不是避免高度利潤的出現，而是要爲本國的兵士供給最好的裝備。一個國家最壞的敵人，是那些把嫉妒心的發洩置之於國家利益之上的人們。

Of course, in the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations. But this does not mean that a nation which is forced to repel foreign aggressors must substitute government control for private enterprise. If it were to do this, it would deprive itself of the most efficient means of defense. There is no record of a socialist nation which defeated a capitalist nation. In spite of their much glorified war socialism, the Germans were defeated in both World Wars.

當然，戰爭與市場經濟的維持，在長期中，是互不相容的。資本主義，本質上是和平國家的制度。但是這並不是說，一個被迫起而抵抗外來侵略的國家，必須以政府的管制來替代私人企業。如果政府這樣做，它就是自毀最有效的抗戰武器。社會主義的國家戰勝資本主義國家的記錄，從來沒有。儘管德國人特別推崇戰時社會主義，可是，在兩次世界大戰當中，他們都戰敗了。

What the incompatibility of war and capitalism really means is that war and high civilization are incompatible. If the efficiency of capitalism is directed by governments toward the output of instruments of destruction, the ingenuity of private business turn out weapons which are powerful enough to destroy everything. What makes war and capitalism incompatible with one another is precisely the unparalleled efficiency of the capitalist mode of production.

戰爭與資本主義是不相容的，這句話的眞義，是戰爭與高度文明的不相容。如果資本主義的效率被政府用之於毀滅性的工具之生產，則私人企業的發明潜力就會製造出其威力足以毀滅一切的武器。使得戰爭與資本主義彼此不相容的，正是資本主義的生產方法具有無與倫比的效率。

The market economy, subject to the sovereignty of the individual consumers, turns out products which make the individual's life more agreeable. It caters to the individual's demand for more comfort. It is this that made capitalism despicable in the eyes of the apostles of violence. They worshiped the "hero," the destroyer and killer, and despised the bourgeois and his "peddler mentality" (Sombart). Now mankind is reaping the fruits which ripened from the seeds sown by these men.

受制於消費者選擇的市場經濟，生產一些使大家的生活更爲舒適的物品。它投合消費者的需求。這一點正是那些主張暴力的狂徒們認爲資本主義是卑鄙的主因。他們所崇拜的是「英雄」、毀滅者和屠殺者，瞧不起資產階級和其「市儈氣」（peddler mentality－Sombart的名詞）。現在，我們人類的受苦受難，是由於這般人所種下的禍根。

3. War and Autarky

三、戰爭與自給自足

If an economically self-sufficient man starts a feud against another autarkic man, no specific problems of "war-economy" arise. But if the tailor goes to war against the baker, he must henceforth produce his bread for himself. If he neglects to do this, he will be in distress sooner than his adversary, the baker. For the baker can wait longer for a new suit than the tailor can for fresh bread. The economic problem of making war is therefore different for the baker and for the tailor.

如果一個在經濟上自足的人，對另一個經濟自足的人發動鬥爭，這不會有什麼特殊的「戰時經濟」問題發生。但是，如果一個成衣匠與麵包師傅鬥爭起來了，他以後就要爲自己製造麵包。如果他忽視這一點而貿然與麵包師傅作對，他就比他的敵人一麵包師傅一更快地陷於困境。因爲麵包師傅等新衣服穿可以等個較長的時期，成衣匠等麵包吃，是迫不及待的。所以，作戰的經濟問題，就他們兩人而言，是不一樣的。

The international division of labor was developed under the assumption that there would no longer be wars. In the philosophy of the Manchester School free trade and peace were seen as mutually conditioning one another. The businessmen who made trade international did not consider the possibility of new wars.

國際分工，是在「再也不會有戰爭」這個假定下發展起來的。曼徹斯特學派的哲學，是把自由貿易與和平看作互爲條件的。作國際貿易的商人們，不認爲新的戰爭有其可能。

Nor did general staffs and students of the art of warfare pay any attention to the change in conditions which international division of labor brought about. The method of military science consists in examining the experience of wars fought in the past and in abstracting

參謀本部和研究戰術的學生們，都沒有注意到國際分工所引起的情況變更。軍事學的方法在於檢討過去作戰的經驗，從而抽繹出一般的法則。

The European military experts slighted the study of the American Civil War. In their eyes this war was not instructive. It was fought by armies of irregulars led by nonprofessional commanders. Civilians like Lincoln interfered with the conduct of the operations. Little, they believed, could be learned from this experience. But it was in the Civil War that, for the first time, problems of the interregional division of labor played the decisive role. The South was predominantly agricultural; its processing industries were negligible. The Confederates depended on the supply of manufactures from Europe. As the naval forces of the Union were strong enough to blockade their coast, they soon began to lack needed equipment.

歐洲的軍事專家不重視美國內戰的硏究。在他們的心目中，那次戰爭沒有什麼敎益。那是一些非職業的軍官所率領的非正規軍所打的仗。像林肯這樣的一些文人參與戰役。他們認爲，沒有什麼可從這種戰爭經驗中學習的。但是，地域分工的問題第一次發生決定性的作用，是在這次內戰中。南方，大體上是農業地區；它的工業是不足道的。南方邦聯（The Confederates）要依賴歐洲輸入的工業產品。當北方聯邦的海軍強到足以封鎖南方海岸時，他們就馬上缺乏所需要的裝備。

The Germans in both World Wars had to face the same situation. They depended on the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials from overseas. But they could not run the British blockade. In both wars the outcome was decided by the battles of the Atlantic. The Germans lost because they failed in their efforts to cut off the British Isles from access to the world market and could not themselves safeguard their own maritime supply lines. The strategical problem was determined by the conditions of the international division of labor.

德國在兩次世界大戰中遇到這同樣的情形。德國人依賴海外輸入的糧食和原料。但是，他們不能衝破英國的封鎖。兩次大戰的結局都決定於大西洋的戰役。德國人之所以失敗，是因爲他們旣不能切斷英倫三島與世界市場的交通，又不能保護自己的海上運輸線，戰略的問題被國際分工旳情況所決定。

The German warmongers were intent upon adopting policies which, as they hoped, could make it possible for Germany to wage a war in spite of the handicap of the foreign trade situation. Their panacea was Ersatz, the substitute.

德國一些戰爭販子總想採用一些「不顧對外貿易的阻礙而可使德國從事戰爭」的政策。他們的秘方就是代替品（Ersatz）。

A substitute is a good which is either less suitable or more expensive or both less suitable and more expensive than the proper good which it is designed to replace. Whenever technology succeeds in manufacturing or discovering something which is either more suitable or cheaper than the thing previously used, this new thing represents a technological innovation; it is improvement and not Ersatz. The essential feature of Ersatz, as this term is employed in the economico-military doctrine, is inferior quality or higher costs or both together.[2]

代替品，或者比被代替品較不適用，或者比被代替品的成本高，或者旣較不適用而又成本較高。如果製造的技術改進了，或者發現了比原先使用的東西更適用或更便宜的東西，這就是創新，而不是代替。代替品，當這個名詞用在軍需方面的時候，其特徵就是品質較劣，或成本較高，或兩者兼備的東西。[2]

The Wehrwirtschaftslehre, the German doctrine of the economics of war, contends that neither cost of production nor quality are important in matters of warfare. Profit-seeking business is concerned with costs of production and with the quality of the products. But

德國的戰爭經濟學的敎條是說：生產成本也好，品質也好，對於戰爭都不是重要的。營利的事業關心產品的成本和品質。但是，優等民族的英雄氣概，那會計較這些孜孜求利的人所計較的事情。値得計較的，只是軍備。好戰的國家，爲著不依靠對外貿易，必須做到自給自足，它必須不顧拜金主義的一些計算而發展代替品的生產。要這樣做，非由政府全盤管制生產不可，否則人民的自私心會使領袖的計畫失敗。甚至在平時，總司令也得有經濟獨裁權。

Both theorems of the Ersatz doctrine are fallacious.

代替品主義（the Ersatz doctrine）的兩個命題，都是荒謬的：

First, it is not true that the quality and suitability of the substitute are of no importance. If soldiers are sent into battle badly nourished and equipped with weapons made of inferior material, the chances for victory are impaired. Their action will be less successful, and they will suffer heavier casualties. The awareness of their technical inferiority will weigh on their minds. Ersatz jeopardizes both the material strength and the morale of an army.

第一、「代替品的質和其適用性是不重要的」這個命題不是眞的。如果那些上戰場的士兵，營養很壞，而所裝備的武器又是劣質的材料做成的，戰勝的機會也就渺茫了。而且，兵士們知道了他們所用的武器是質劣的，這也影響他們作戰心理。Ersatz旣癱瘓軍隊的物質力量，也癰瘓他們的精神力量。

No less incorrect is the theorem that the higher costs of production of the substitutes do not count. Higher costs of production mean that more labor and more material factors of production must be expended in order to achieve the same effect which the adversary, producing the proper product, attains with a lower expenditure . It is tantamount to squandering scarce factors of production, material and manpower. Such waste under conditions of peace results in lowering the standard of living, and under conditions of war in cutting down the supply of goods needed for the conduct of operations. In the present state of technological knowledge it is only a slight exaggeration to say that everything can be produced out of anything. But what matters is to pick out from the great multitude of possible methods those with which output is highest per unit of input. Any deviation from this principle penalizes itself. The consequences in war are as bad as they are in peace.

「代替品的生產成本較高，値不得計較」這一命題，也是錯的。生產成本較高這句話的意思，是說，爲要在生產方面得到敵人所得到的同樣效果，我們必須花更多的勞力，更多的物質生產要素。這等於把有限的生產要素，物質和人力，浪費了。這樣的浪費，在平時則是使生活標準降低，在戰時則減少了軍需的供給。在現有的技術知識下，如果說任何東西都可生產得出來，這不算太誇張。但是，要緊的是，要從許許多多可能的方法中挑選那最經濟的方法——產出量就投入的每單位而言是最高的那個方法。違背這個原則就是損害自己。其後果，無論在平時或戰時，同樣是有害的。

In a country like the United States, which depends only to a comparatively negligible extent on the importation of raw materials from abroad, it is possible to improve the state of war preparedness by resorting to the production of substitutes such as synthetic rubber. The disadvantageous effects would be small when weighed against the beneficial effects. But a country like Germany was badly mistaken in the assumption that it could conquer with synthetic gasoline, synthetic rubber, Ersatz textiles and Ersatz fats. In both World Wars Germany was in the position of the tailor fighting against the man who supplies him with bread. With all their brutality the Nazis could not alter this fact.

像美國這樣的國家，只有很少很少的原料要仰賴外國輸入，所以它可能靠合成橡皮這類的代替品來改善軍備。合成橡皮當然不及被代替的橡皮，但其不利的後果與有利的後果比較，究竟是小的。但是，像德國這樣的國家，也認爲它可以用合成汽油、合成橡皮、劣質代用的纖維、劣質代用的脂肪來打勝仗，那就大錯特錯了。在兩次世界大戰中，德國都是處在成衣匠的地位與那個供給他麵包的人作戰。儘管納粹黨人殘忍暴虐，終不能改變這個事實。

---------------

[2] In this sense wheat produced, under the protection of an import duty, within the Reich's territory is Ersatz too: it is produced at higher costs than foreign wheat. The notion of Ersatz is a catallactic notion, and must be be defined with regard to technological physical properties of the articles.

[2] 就這個意義講，在德國境內，依賴關稅的保護而種的麥子，也是Ersatz：因爲它的成本比外國麥子的成本高。Ersatz這個概念是行爲學的概念，決不可就那些東西的技術和物理的特徵來下定義。

4. The Futility of War

四、戰爭無用

What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. Such is the essence of the laissez-faire philosophy of Manchester.

人之所以特異於其他動物的地方，是能夠看出分工合作的利益。爲著與別人合作，他會抑制他先天的侵略本能。他愈是想改善他的物質福利，他愈要擴展分工制度；同時，他愈是要避免軍事行動。完全廢除戰爭是國際分工的必要條件。這正是曼徹斯特的自由放任哲學的精髓。

This philosophy is, of course, incompatible with statolatry. In its context the state, the social apparatus of violent oppression, is entrusted with the protection of the smooth operation of the market economy against the onslaughts of antisocial individuals and gangs. Its function is indispensable and beneficial, but it is an ancillary function only. There is no reason to idolize the police power and ascribe to it omnipotence and omniscience. There are things which it can certainly not accomplish. It cannot conjure away the scarcity of the factors of production, it cannot make people more prosperous, it cannot raise the productivity of labor. All it can achieve is to prevent gangsters from frustrating the efforts of those people who are intent upon promoting material well-being.

這個哲學，當然是與國家崇拜（statolatry）不相容的。在這個哲學體系中，國家，這個使用暴力的社會建構，是用來對付那些反社會的個人和幫會的搗亂，使市場經濟得以順利操作。國家的這個功用是必要的、有利的。但是，我們沒有理由把警察權力當作偶像來崇拜，把它看作無所不能、無所不知的。有許許多多事情是它絕對做不到的。它不能用魔術來消除生產要素的稀少性，它不能使人民更爲富有，它不能提髙勞動的生產力。它所能做的充其量是防止歹徒們破壞那些專心於物質福利之促進的人們的所作所爲。

The liberal philosophy of Bentham and Bastiat had not yet completed its work of removing trade barriers and government meddling with business when the counterfeit theology of the divine state began to take effect. Endeavors to improve the conditions of wage earners and small farmers by government decree made it necessary to loosen more and more the ties which connected each country's domestic economy with those of other countries. Economic nationalism, the necessary complement of domestic interventionism, hurts the interests of foreign peoples and thus creates international conflict. It suggests the idea of amending this unsatisfactory state of affairs by war. Why should a powerful nation tolerate the challenge of a less powerful nation? Is it not insolence on the part of small Laputania to injure the citizens of big Ruritania by customs, migration barriers, foreign exchange control, quantitative trade restrictions, and expropriation of Ruritanian investments in Laputania? Would it not be easy for the army of Ruritania to crush Laputania's contemptible forces?

邊沁和Bastiat的自由哲學，當「國家神聖」這種揑造的神話開始風行的時候，還沒有做到把貿易障礙和政府對經濟活動的干涉完全消除。政府甩命令來改善工人和小農的生活而做的那些努力，必然把那些聯繋國際經濟的紐帶弄得愈來愈鬆解了。經濟國家主義一國內干涉主義必要的補充——傷害外國人的利益，因而引發國際衝突。有了國際衝突就會引起國際戰爭。爲什麼一個強國要容忍一個勢力較弱的國家之挑像呢？一個小國，用關稅、移民限制、外滙管制、貿易數量的限制等方法來傷害一個大國的國民，或者沒收大國國民在它國內的投資，這不是小國的傲慢嗎？大國的軍隊要打垮小國的那點武力，不是輕而易舉的嗎？

Such was the ideology of the German, Italian, and Japanese warmongers. It must be admitted that they were consistent from the point

這就是德國、意大利、和日軍的戰爭販子們的意理。我們必須承認，他們懷著這種意理，從那個新的「非正統的」敎義的觀點來看，卻是一貫的。干涉主義孕育出經濟國家主義，經濟國家主義孕育出黷武精神。如果人民和貨物不許越過疆界，爲什麼不用軍隊來打通這條路呢？

From the day when Italy, in 1911, fell upon Turkey, fighting was continual. There was almost always shooting somewhere in the world. The peace treaties concluded were virtually merely armistice agreements. Moreover they had to do only with armies of the great powers. Some of the smaller nations were always at war. In addition there were no less pernicious civil wars and revolutions.

自從一九一一年意大利攻擊土耳其的那一天以來，戰鬥一直在繼續，世界上總有一些地方在射擊。一些和平條約，實際上只是暫時的停戰協定而已。而且那些停戰協定只是與某些大國有關，有些小國經常是在戰爭中。此外還有些同樣有害的內戰和革命時常發生。

How far we are today from the rules of international law developed in the age of limited warfare! Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle.

我們現在離開了有限戰爭時代所發展出來的那些國際法的規律多麼遠啊！現代戰爭是殘忍無比的，它不寬恕孕婦和嬰兒；它不分靑紅皀白地殺戮和毀滅。它不尊重中立權。千千萬萬的人被殺、被奴役，或攆出世代定居的故鄉。誰也不能預言，在這永無止境的戰鬥中的下一回合，將會發生什麼事情。

This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of a new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization.

這與原子彈無關。禍根不在於新的更可怕的武器的製造。禍根是那征服慾。科學發現某些方法來防禦原子彈，這大概是可能的。但是，這並不改變情勢，不過是把文明完全毀滅的過程延長一點而已。

Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire. It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence. Statolatry owes much to the doctrines of Hegel. However, one may pass over many of hegel's inexcusable faults, for Hegel also coined the phrase "the futility of victory" (die Ohnmacht des Sieges).[3] To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.

現代文明是自由放任哲學的產物。它無法在政府萬能的意理下保持住。國家崇拜是來自黑格爾的敎條。但是，我們也可以放過黑格爾的許多不可寬恕的謬見，因爲黑格爾也說出「勝利無用」（die Ohnmacht des Sieges）[3]這句話，打敗侵略者不足以締造永久和平。主要的事情，是消除那個孕育戰爭的意理。

----------------

[3] Cf. Hegel Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte ed Lasson (Leipzig, 1920), IV, 930-931.

[3] 參考Hegel Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte ed Lasson (Leipzig, 1920), IV, 930-931.

XXXV. THE WELFARE PRINCIPLE VERSUS THE MARKET PRINCIPLE

第35章 福利原則與市場原則

1. The Case Against the Market Economy

一、反對市場經濟的理由

The objections which the various schools of Sozialpolitik raise against the market economy are based on very bad economics. They repeat again and again all the errors that the economists long ago exploded. They blame the market economy for the consequences of the very anticapitalistic policies which they themselves advocate as necessary and beneficial reforms. They fix on the market economy the responsibility for the inevitable failure and frustration of interventionism.

社會政治學（Sozialpolitik）各派對市場經濟提出反對的一些理由，是以一種很壞的經濟學作論據。他們一再地複述經濟學家在好久以前已經駁倒的那些謬論。他們把他們自己所鼓吹的那些反資本主義的政策所引起的後果歸咎於市場經濟。他們把干涉主義必然失敗的資任推到市場經濟。

These propagandists must finally admit that the market economy is after all not so bad ad their "unorthodox" doctrines paint it. It delivers the goods. From day to day it increases the quantity and improves the quality of products. It has brought about unprecedented wealth. But, objects the champion of interventionism, it is deficient from what he calls the social point of view. It has not wiped out poverty and destitution. It is a system that grants privileges to a minority, an upper class of rich people, at the expense of the immense majority. It is an unfair system. The principle of welfare must be substituted for that of profits.

這些宣傳者最後終於承認，市場經濟畢竟不是像他們的那些「非正統的」敎條所描述的那麼壞。市場經濟不負大家所望。它天天在增加產品的數量，在改進產品的素質。它曾經產生前所未有的財富。但是，干涉主義者卻表示異議，從他的所謂社會觀點來看，市場經濟是有缺陷的。它沒有消除貧窮。它是個犧牲大多數人而給少數富人以特權的制度。它是個不公平的制度。「福利」原則，應該用來替代利潤原則。

We may try, for the sake of argument, to interpret the concept of welfare in such a way that its acceptance by the immense majority of nonascetic people would be probable. The better we succeed in these endeavors, the more we deprive the idea of welfare of any concrete meaning and content. It turns into a colorless paraphrase of the fundamental category of human action, viz., the urge to remove uneasiness as far as possible. As it is universally recognized that this goal can be more readily, and even exclusively, attained by social division of labor, men cooperate within the framework of societal bonds. Social man as differentiated from autarkic man must necessarily modify his original biological indifference to the well-being of people beyond his own family. He must adjust his conduct to the requirements of social cooperation and look upon his fellow men's success as an indispensable condition of his own. From this point of

爲著討論方便起見，我們無妨把福利這個概念解釋爲非禁慾主義的大多數人所會歡迎的一種情況。這樣的解釋，是要使福利這個概念擺脫任何具體的意義和內容。這樣，它就成爲人的行爲基本元範的一個無顏色的詞句，即，盡可能消除不快之感的這個衝動。因爲大家都知道：爲便於消除不快之感，只有靠社會分工，於是，人們就在社會聯蘩的架構內相互合作。異於「自給自足之人」的「社會人」，必須把他的行爲調整到適於社會合作的要求，而把別人的成功看作自己成功的必要條件。從這個觀點來看，我們可以說，社會合作的目的，是要實現最多數人的最大幸福。不會有人敢於反對這個定義，而說多數人的最大幸福不是一件好事。所有對於邊沁這個公式的攻擊，都是集中於「幸福」這個概念的模糊和誤解；至於說「幸福」——不管它是什麼，——應該由大多數人分享，這是誰也不會反對的。

However, if we interpret welfare in this manner, the concept is void of any specific significance. It can be invoked for the justification of every variety of social organization. It is a fact that some of the defenders of Negro slavery contended that slavery is the best means of making the Negroes happy and that today in the South many Whites sincerely believe that rigid segregation is beneficial no less to the colored man than it allegedly is to the white man. The main thesis of racism of the Gobineau and Nazi variety is that the hegemony of the superior races is salutary to the true interests even of the inferior races. A principle that is broad enough to cover all doctrines, however conflicting with one another, is of no use at all.

但是，如果我們把「福利」如此解釋，這個概念就變得無意義了。它可以用來爲任何種類的社會組織作爲辯護。有些贊成黑奴制度的人，以爲奴隸制度是使黑人快樂的最好辦法；現在，美國南部還有些白人眞正相信嚴格的黑白分離對白人固然有利，對黑人也同樣有利。Gobineau和納粹（Nazi）種族主義的要旨，是說優等民族的覇權有签於劣等民族的眞正利益。凡是一個原則如果廣泛到足以包容一切互相衝突的學說，這個原則就毫無用處。

But in the mouths of the welfare propagandists the notion of welfare has a definite meaning. They intentionally employ a term the generally accepted connotation of which precludes any opposition. No decent man likes to be so rash as to raise objections against the realization of welfare. In arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to call their own program the program of welfare, the welfare propagandists want to triumph by means of a cheap logical trick. They want to render their ideas safe against criticism by attributing to them an appellation which is cherished by everybody. Their terminology already implies that all opponents are ill-intentioned scoundrels eager to foster their selfish interests to the prejudice of the majority of good people.

但是，在那些宣傳福利的人們口中，福利概念有一個確定的意義。他們故意使用一個大家都喜歡，而不容任何反對的名詞。一個正派人即令輕率，也不會輕率到反對「福利」方案的實施。宣傳福利的人們，把他們自己的方案叫做福利方案，這是想用一個簡易的邏輯把戲以取勝。他們想用每個人所喜愛的名稱作護符，使他們的一些計畫得以免於批評。他們採用「福利」這個名詞已經意涵：凡是反對者都是損人利己、不懷好意的壞人。

The plight of Western civilization consists precisely in the fact that serious people can resort to such syllogistic artifices without encountering sharp rebuke. There are only two explanations open. Either these self-styled welfare economists are themselves not aware of the logical inadmissibility of their reasoning; or they have chosen this mode of arguing purposely in order to find shelter for their fallacies behind a work which is intended beforehand to disarm all opponents. In each case their own acts condemn them.

這裡，只有兩個可能的解釋。這些自稱福利經濟學家的人們，或者是自己不知道他們的推理程序是邏輯所不容許的，在這種場合，他們缺乏必要的推理能力；或者是他們故意選擇這個手段，以一個可以預先塞住一切反對者之口的字眼來掩護他們的謬見。不管怎樣，他們的行爲都是有害於西方文明之持續的。

There is no need to add anything to the disquisitions of the preceding

前面幾章曾論到各形各色的干涉主義的後果，這裡沒有作任何補充的必要。篇章浩繁的福利經濟學，並沒有提出任何理由足以駁倒我們的結論。我們現在還要做的事情，只是檢討福利經濟學的宣傳品中指責市場經濟的那部份。

All this passionate talk of the welfare school ultimately boils down to three points. Capitalism is bad, they say because there is poverty, inequality of incomes and wealth, and insecurity.

福利經濟學派所有一切的情感語言，可以濃縮爲三點。他們說，資本主義是壞的，因爲那裡有貧窮，所得與財富不平等，以及不安定。

2. Poverty

二、貧窮

We may depict conditions of a society of agriculturists in which every member tills a piece of land large enough to provide himself and his family with the indispensable necessities of life. We may include in such a picture the existence of a few specialists, artisans like smiths and professional men like doctors. We may even go further and assume that some men do not own a farm, but work as laborers on other people's farms. The employer remunerates them for their help and takes care of them when sickness or old age disables them.

我們無妨描述一個農業社會的情況，在那裡，每個份子耕種一塊足夠生產自己和其家庭生活必需品的土地。我們也可把少數的專業者，如鐵匠、醫生，加進這個社會。我們甚至於還可假設，有的人自己沒有土地，而是在別人的土地上做工。地主對於他們的工作給以報酬，而在他們生病或年老的時候照顧他們的生活。

This scheme of an ideal society was at the bottom of many utopian plans. It was by and large realized for some time in some communities. The nearest approach to its realization was probably the commonwealth which the Jesuit padres established in the country which is today Paraguay. There is, however, no need to examine the merits of such a system of social organization. Historical evolution burst it asunder. Its frame was too narrow for the number of people who are living today on the earth's surface.

這種理想社會的組織，壓根兒是些烏托邦的計畫。在某些時候某些地區，大體上實現過這種組織。最接近這種組織的，大概是幾百年前在今天巴拉圭（Paraguay）這個國家裡面，西班牙耶穌會的神父們所建立的那個社會。可是，我們不必檢討這樣的社會制度有何優劣。歷史的演進把它消滅了。它的架構過於狹窄，容納不下現在生活在地球上面的這麼多人口。

The inherent weakness of such a society is that the increase in population must result in progressive poverty. If the estate of a deceased farmer is divided among his children, the holdings finally become so small that they can no longer provide sufficient sustenance for a family. Everybody is a landowner, but everybody is extremely poor. Conditions as they prevailed in large areas of China provide a sad illustration of the misery of the tillers of small parcels. The alternative to this outcome is the emergence of a huge mass of landless proletarians. Then a wide gap separates the disinherited paupers from the fortunate farmers. They are a class of pariahs whose very existence presents society with an insoluble problem. They search in vain for a livelihood. Society has no use for them. They are destitute.

這樣一個社會的固有缺點，是人口增加必然造成加劇的貧窮。如果一個農民死了，他的土地分派給他的兒子們，分割額最後就會小到不足以養活一個家庭。每個人是一個地主，但是，每個人都極端貧窮。見之於中國廣大地區的這種情況，是小農悲慘生活的寫照。另一種情況，就是無恆產大衆的出現，形成貧民與有產農民之間的鴻溝。他們是一個賤民（pariahs）階級，他們的存在，爲社會平添一個無法解決的問題。他們自己無法求生。社會用不著他們。他們只好窮困至死。

When in the ages preceding the rise of modern capitalism statesmen, philosophers, and lawyers referred to the poor and to the problems of poverty, they meant these supernumerary wretches. Laissez faire and its off-shoot, industrialism, converted the employable

在現代資本主義興起以前的時代，政治家、哲學家以及法律上所指稱的貧民和貧窮問題，就是指這過多的可憐人。自由放任和其衍生物——工業化——把這些可僱用的窮人變成賺取工資的工人。在一個未受束縛的市場社會裡面，有的人所得高，有的人所得低。但是，再也不會有能夠工作而又願意工作的人找不到正常工作，因爲，在這個社會生產制度下，不會沒有工作崗位留給他們。但是，自由主義和資本主義甚至在最盛時期，也只風行於西歐、中歐、北美、和澳洲的少數地區。在其他地區，千千萬萬的人仍然在餓死的邊緣掙扎。他們是古老意義的貧民，過多的可憐人，他們是他們自己的負擔，同時也是少數較幸運者的一個潜在威脅。

The penury of these miserable masses of--in the main colored--people is not caused by capitalism, but by the absence of capitalism. But for the triumph of laissez faire, the lot of the peoples of Western Europe would have been even worse than that of the coolies. What is wrong with Asia is that the per capita quota of capital invested is extremely low when compared with the capital equipment of the West. The prevailing ideology and the social system which is its off-shoot check the evolution of profit-seeking entrepreneurship. There is very little domestic capital accumulation, and manifest hostility to foreign investors. In many of these countries the increase in population figures even outruns the increase in capital available.

這些悲慘大衆——大都是有色人種——的貧窮，不是資本主義形成的，而是由於沒有資本主義。如果沒有自由放任主義的盛行，西歐的許多民族甚至比中國的苦力還要苦。亞洲的病根，在於以人口計的投資額遠低於西方。流行的意理和其衍生物的社會制度，阻礙了謀利的企業精神的發展。本國的資本累積極少，而又仇視外國人的投資。在這些國家當中，人口的增加率大都超過資本的增加率。

It is false to blame the European powers for the poverty of the masses in their former colonial empires. In investing capital the foreign rulers did all they could do for an improvement in material well-being. It is not the fault of the Whites that the Oriental peoples are reluctant to abandon their traditional tenets and abhor capitalism as an alien ideology.

把歐洲列強殖民地的大衆貧窮歸咎於那些列強，這是錯誤的。外國的統治者在投下資本的時候，他們曾盡可能地改善大衆的物質生活。東方人不肯放棄他們的傳統敎義，而把資本主義看作外來的意理而厭惡之，這不是白種人的錯處。東方人會很快地完全擺脫外人的統治而自由獨立。那時，他們大概會轉向到各形各色的極權統治。但是，這不會解決他們的經濟問題；因而不會使他們的民衆過更好一點的物質生活。

As far as there is unhampered capitalism, there is no longer any question of poverty in the sense in which this term is applied to the conditions of a noncapitalistic society. The increase in population figures does not create supernumerary mouths, but additional hands whose employment produces additional wealth. There are no ablebodied paupers. Seen from the point of view of the economically backward nations, the conflicts between "capital" and "labor" in the capitalist countries appear as conflicts within a privileged upper class. In the eyes of the Asiatics, the American automobile worker is an "aristocrat." he is a man who belongs to the 2 per cent of the earth's population whose income is highest. Not only the colored races, but also the Slavs, the Arabs, and some other peoples look upon the average income of the citizens of the capitalistic countries--about 12 or 15 per cent of the total of mankind--as a curtailment of their own

有了不受拘束的資本主義，就再也沒有資本主義以前的社會裡面那種意義的貧窮了。人口增加的結果，不再是過多的坐食者，而是增加一些生產更多財富的生產者。身心健全強壯的貧民再也沒有了。從那些經濟落後國家的人看來，資本主義國家裡面的「勞」、「資」衝突，顯得是特權的優越階級內部的衝突。在一個印度人的或中國苦力的心目中，美國的汽車工人是個「貴族」似的人。他是個屬於全世界所得最高的百分之二的人口中的人。不只是有色人種，甚至斯拉夫人、阿拉伯人，以及其他的一些民族，也把資本主義國家的人民所賺的平均所得——大約占全人類的百分之十二或十五——看作是來自他們自己的物質幸福的削減。他們沒有看出，那些被稱爲特權人羣的富有，並不是以他們的貧窮作代價得來的，他們的物質生活不能改善的主要障礙，是他們對資本主義的厭惡心。

Within the frame of capitalism the notion of poverty refers only to those people who are unable to take care of themselves. Even if we disregard the case of children, we must realize that there will always be such unemployables. Capitalism, in improving the masses' standard of living, hygienic conditions, and methods of prophylactics and therapeutics, does not remove bodily incapacity. It is true that today many people who in the past would have been doomed to life-long disability are restored to full vigor. But on the other hand many whom innate defects, sickness, or accidents would have extinguished sooner in earlier days survive as permanently incapacitated people. Moreover, the prolongation of the average length of life tends toward an increase in the number of the aged who are no longer able to earn a living.

在資本主義的架構裡面，貧窮這個概念只是指涉那些無能力照顧自己的人們。即令我們擺開兒童的事例，我們也得承認，總有些這樣不能就業的人。資本主義，固然改善了大衆的生活標準、衞生環境、醫藥的防治，但不會消除一切身體上的無能。不錯，今天有許多在往日就會終生殘廢的人，完全恢復了健康而保有充份活力。但是，另一方面，也有許多因先天的疾病或意外傷害，在往日就會早已死掉的人，成爲永久殘廢而活著。而且，平均生命期的延長，也使那些不能自己營生的老年人愈來愈多。

The problem of the incapacitated is a specific problem of human civilization and of society. Disabled animals must perish quickly. They either die of starvation or fall prey to the foes of their species. Savage man had no pity on those who were substandard. With regard to them many tribes practiced those barbaric methods of ruthless extirpation to which the Nazis resorted in our time. The very existence of a comparatively great number of invalids is, however paradoxical, a characteristic mark of civilization and material well-being.

體力衰弱無以謀生這個問題，是人類文明和人類社會的一個特殊問題。其他動物到了這樣的情境就會很快地消滅。它們或者是餓死，或者是被別的動物吃掉。野蠻人對於那些健康不夠標準的人，毫無憐憫心。有許多部落對於這種人就用納粹在我們這個時代所用的那種野蠻殘忍的方法來消滅。可是，殘弱者的人數之增多，卻成了文明和物質幸福的一個特徵，這是多麼矛盾啊！

Provision for those invalids who lack means of sustenance and are not taken care of by their next of kin has long been considered a work of charity. The funds needed have sometimes been provided by governments, more often by voluntary contributions. The Catholic orders and congregations and some Protestant institutions have accomplished marvels in collecting such contributions and in using them properly. Today there are also many nondenominational establishments vying with them in nobile rivalry.

供給這些無以謀生而又沒有親屬照顧的殘弱者的生活，這是人類社會自古以來所認爲的慈善工作。這種工作所需要的資金，有時是政府支付的，更多的是由私人捐助的。天主敎堂和基督敎會在收集這種慈善捐款和使用這種捐款，曾有輝煌的成績。現在，也有些非宗敎團體在這方面和宗敎組織作高尙的競爭。

The charity system is criticized for two defects. One is the paucity of the means available. However, the more capitalism progresses and increases wealth, the more sufficient become the charity funds. On the one hand, people are more ready to donate in proportion to the improvement in their own well-being. On the other hand, the number of the needy drops concomitantly. Even for those with moderate incomes the opportunity is offered, by saving and insurance policies, to provide for accidents, sickness, old age, the education of their

這樣的慈善事業因爲有兩個缺點而受到批評。一是資金常感不夠。但是，資本主義愈發展，財富愈增加，慈善的資金也就愈來愈充份。一方面，人們愈願意比例於他們自己的福利改善而提出捐助。另一方面，急待救助的人數也就減少。甚至那些賺取中等所得的人，也有機會——藉蓄和保險——來準備意外事故、疾病、年老、兒女敎育所需的資金，以及孤兒寡婦的生活費用。如果資本主義國家的政府不干擾妨礙市場經濟的運作，慈善事業所需要的資金很可能是足夠的。信用擴張和貨幣數量膨脹性的增加，挫喪了一般人儲蓄的打算，也挫喪了爲逆境作準備而積蓄的打算。但是，其他的一些干涉措施，也同樣地傷害工人、僱員、自由職業者，和小商人的主要利益。慈善機構所幫助的那些人之所以需要外來的幫助，大部份只是因爲政府的一些干涉措施弄得他們如此。另一方面，通貨膨脹以及把利率降低到潜在的市場利率以下的作法，實際上是把那些要捐給醫院、養育院、孤兒院，以及同類機構的資金沒收了。福利經濟的宣傳者指責慈善資金的不夠，他們所指責的正是他們所主張的那些政策所引起的後果之一。

The second defect charged to the charity system is that it is charity and compassion only. The indigent has no legal claim to the kindness shown to him. He depends on the mercy of benevolent people, on the feelings of tenderness which his distress arouses. What he receives is a voluntary gift for which he must be grateful. To be an almsman is shameful and humiliating. It is an unbearable condition for a self-respecting man.

慈善制度被指責的第二個缺點是說，那只是慈善和憐憫而已。貧困的人沒有權利要求別人對他施惠。他是靠好人的仁慈，靠他的困苦所引起的憐憫心。他所接受的是他所要感激的自願贈與。作爲一個受救濟的人，是件羞恥的事情。是自尊的人所不能忍受的。

These complaints are justified. Such shortcomings do indeed inhere in all kinds of charity. It is a system that corrupts both givers and receivers. It makes the former self-righteous and the latter submissive and cringing. However, it is only the mentality of a capitalistic environment that makes people feel the indignity of giving and receiving alms. Outside of the field of the cash nexus and of deals transacted between buyers and sellers in a purely businesslike manner, all interhuman relations are tainted by the same failing. It is precisely the absence of this personal element in market transactions that all those deplore who blame capitalism for hard-heartedness and callousness. In the eyes of such critics cooperation under the do ut des principle dehumanizes all societal bonds. It substitutes contracts for brotherly love and readiness to help one another. These critics indict the legal order of capitalism for its neglect of the "human side." They are inconsistent when they blame the charity system for its reliance upon feelings of mercy.

這些控訴都是對的。這樣的一些缺點確實是一切慈善工作所不免的。慈善事業旣敗壞施捨者，也敗壞受施者。它使前者煦煦以爲仁，使後者恭順畏縮。可是，使得人們覺得授受救濟物是恥辱的，只是資本主義的環境所形成的心境。除掉市場上買者與賣者之間的交易和金錢來往以外，所有的人際關係都沾染了這同樣的缺點。市場交易之沒有人身因素介入，正是那些指責資本主義冷酷無情的人們同聲感歎的。在這些批評者的心目中，在「有所取、有所與」的原則下的合作，使一切社會聯繋失去了人情味。這是以契約代替彼此間的相愛相助。這些批評者斥責資本主義的法律秩序忽視了「人的方面」。可是，他們又指責慈善事業的依賴憐憫心，這是他們的不一致。

Feudal society was founded on acts of grace and on the gratitude of those favored. The mighty overlord bestowed a benefit upon the

封建社會是基於一些恩惠行爲，以及受惠者的感恩圖報。強力的大君主給臣下的賞賜，臣下就對他效忠。就臣下必須親吻上司的手以表示忠貞這一點來看，是合乎人情的。在封建的環境中，來自慈善行爲的那種恩惠成份不會開罪於人。它與一般人所接受的意理和慣行是符合的。至於「給窮人一個法律上的要求權——要求社會給養的權利」這個觀念的出現，這只是在一個完全基於契約的社會建制中才有的事情。

The metaphysical arguments advanced in favor of such a right to sustenance are based on the doctrine of natural right. Before God of nature all men are equal and endowed with an inalienable right to live. However, the reference to inborn equality is certainly out of place in dealing with the effects of inborn inequality. It is a sad fact that physical disability prevents many people from playing an active role in social cooperation. It is the operation of the laws of nature that makes these people outcasts. They are stepchildren of God or nature. We may fully endorse the religious and ethical precepts that declare it to be man's duty to assist his unlucky brethren whom nature has doomed. But the recognition of this duty does not answer the question concerning what methods should be resorted to for its performance. It does not enjoin the choice of methods which would endanger society and curtail the productivity of human effort. Neither the able-bodied nor the incapacitated would derive any benefit from a drop in the quantity of goods available.

爲著主張這種權利而發展出來的那些形而上的議論，是以自然權利作基礎。在上帝或自然之前，人人平等，人人有個不可讓與的生存權，但是，說到天生的平等，那確與天生的不平等所形成的後果是不相符的。生理上的缺陷使許多人不能在社會合作中發生積極作用，這是個可悲的事實。這些人之所以見棄於社會的，也是自然法則的結果。他們似乎不是上帝或自然的親生子。我們也可完全贊成宗敎和倫理的信條——幫助那些天生殘廢的同胞，是人的義務。但是，承認這個義務並不是對於「用什麼方法來盡些義務」這個問題作解答。應該盡此義務並不意涵一定要甩那些有害社會削減生產力的方法。如果要用這樣的方法，則對於身心健全的人也好，對於身心有缺陷的人也好，都是不利的。

The problems involved are not of a praxeological character, and economics is not called upon to provide the best possible solution for them. They concern pathology and psychology. They refer to the biological fact that the fear of penury and of the degrading consequences of being supported by charity are important factors in the preservation of man's physiological equilibrium. They impel a man to keep fit, to avoid sickness and accidents, and to recover as soon as possible from injuries suffered. The experience of the social security system, especially that of the oldest and most complete scheme, the German, has clearly shown the undesirable effects resulting from the elimination of these incentives.[1] No civilized community has callously allowed the incapacitated to perish. But the substitution of a legally enforceable claim to support or sustenance for charitable relief does not seem to agree with human nature as it is. Not metaphysical prepossessions, but considerations of practical expediency make it inadvisable to promulgate an actionable right to sustenance.

這裡所涉及的一些問題，不是屬於行爲學的，而且，經濟學也不是用以對這些問題提供最佳解決的。這些問題是起因於生物學上的事實，也即怕貧窮和怕受救濟而貶損了自己，是人的心理均衡所賴以保持的重要因素。這些因素使一個人不得不自己保重、避免疾病、謹防意外；遇有傷害就力圖儘快地復原。社會安全制度的經驗，尤其是最老的、德國式的、已經明白地顯示出這些心理因素的消失而引起的一些不良後果[1]。凡是文明社會，決不會冷漠無情地置殘廢的人於不顧。但是，以法定的給養要求權來替代慈善性的救濟，不像是合乎人性之本然的。使「宣佈一種法定的給養要求權」成爲不妥的，不是一些形而上的偏見，而是實際上便利與否的一些考慮。

It is, moreover, an illusion to believe that the enactment of such laws could free the indigent from the degrading features inherent in receiving alms. The more openhanded these laws are, the more punctilious must their application become. The discretion of bureaucrats is substituted for the discretion of people whom an inner voice drives to acts of charity. Whether this change renders the lot of those incapacitated any easier, is hard to say.

而且，相信制定這樣的法律即可使窮人在接受救濟時免於羞辱之感，這也是個幻想。這些法律愈是訂得慷慨，它們的施行一定變得愈繁瑣而拘泥形式。這是以官僚的自由裁決來替代那些基於良心而行善的人們的自由判斷。這個變動，是否使那些不幸的人們過得舒服一點，這是很難講的。

--------------

[1] Cf. Sulzbach, German Experience with Social Insurance (New York, 1947), pp. 22-32.

[1] 參考Sulzbach, German Experience with Social Insurance (New York, 1947), pp. 22-32.

3. Inequality

三、不平等

The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy. [2]

所得和財富的不平等，是市場經濟固有的特徵。消除它，就會完全消除市場經濟[2]。

What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.

要求平等的那些人所想的，總是增加他們自己的消費力量。在贊成把平等原則列入政治綱領的時候，誰也不想把自己的所得分給所得較少的人。當美國工人說到平等的時候，他的意思是說股東們的紅利應該分給他。他決不會想把自己的所得分給那些所得更低的地球上百分之九十五的人口。

The role that income inequality plays in the market society must not be confused with the role it plays in a feudal society or in other types of noncapitalistic societies.[3] Yet in the course of historical evolution this precapitalistic inequality was of momentous importance.

所得不平等在市場經濟中所發生的作用，決不可與它在封建社會或其他非資本主義社會所發生的作用相混淆[3]。可是，在歷史演進的過程中，前資本主義的（inequality）不平等也是非常重要的。

Let us compare the history of China with that of England. China has developed a very high civilization. Two thousand years ago it was far ahead of England. But at the end of the nineteenth century England was a rich and civilized country while China was poor. Its civilization did not differ much from the stage it had already reached ages before. It was an arrested civilization.

讓我們把中國歷史和英國歷史作一比較。中國曾經發展到高度文明。兩千年前，它已走在英國的前面很遠。但是，到了十九世紀末期，英國是一個富而文明的國，而中國則是一個窮國。它的文明與它以前已經達到的階段，沒有很大的差異。它是一個阻塞了的文明。

China had tried to realize the principle of income equality to a greater extent than did England. Land holdings were divided and subdivided. There was no numerous class of landless proletarians. But in eighteenth-century England this class was very numerous. For a very long time the restrictive practices of nonagricultural business, sanctified by traditional ideologies, delayed the emergence of modern entrepreneurship. But when the laissez-faire philosophy had opened the way for capitalism by utterly destroying the fallacies of restrictionism, the evolution of industrialism could proceed at an accelerated pace because the labor force needed was already available.

中國曾經力圖實現所得平等原則，而且比英國所做的更進一步。土地可保有的面積，分割又分割。無地的貧農在中國不成爲一個階級。但在十八世紀的英國，這個階級的人數是非常多的。經過一個很長的時期，對於農業以外的職業所加的種種限制（這是傳统的意理所支持的）延緩了現代企業精神的出現。但是，當自由放任哲學完全摧毀限制主義的那些謬見而爲資本主義開闢了途徑的時候，工業化所需要的勞動力已經存在，所以，工業化的演進得以加速進展。

What generated the "machine age" was not, as Sombart imagined, a specific mentality of acquisitiveness which one day mysteriously got hold of the minds of some people and turned them into "capitalistic men." There have always been people ready to profit from better adjusting production to the satisfaction of the needs of the public. But they were paralyzed by the ideology that branded acquisitiveness as immoral and erected institutional barriers to check it. The substitution of the laissez-faire philosophy for the doctrines that approved of the traditional system of restrictions removed these obstacles to material improvement and thus inaugurated the new age.

引進「機器時代」的，不是Sombart所想像的，貪得無厭的慾望佔據了某些人的心，因而把他們變成了「資本主義的人」。而是經常有些人準備好好地調整生產以滿足大衆的需求而從中謀利。但是，他們受阻於「把謀利說成不道德而要建立一些障礙來限制它的」那個意理。到了自由放任哲學替代了那些支持限制的學說的時候，這個哲學就掃除那些物質進步的障礙而進到一個新的時代。

The liberal philosophy attacked the traditional caste system because its preservation was incompatible with the operation of the market economy. It advocated the abolition of privileges because it wanted to give a free hand to those men who had the ingenuity to produce in the cheapest way the greatest quantity of products of the best quality. In this negative aspect of their program the utilitarians and economists agreed with the ideas of those who attacked the status privileges from the point of view of an alleged right of nature and the doctrine of the equality of all men. Both these groups were unanimous in the support of the principle of the equality of all men under the law. But this unanimity did not eradicate the fundamental opposition between the two lines of thought.

自由哲學攻擊傳統的階級制度，因爲這個制度的保存是與市場經濟的運作不相容的。它主張廢除特權，因爲它要讓那些有聰明才智可以生產價廉物美而又量多的產品的人們得以自由發展。在這個消極面上，功效主義者和經濟學家，對於從所謂自然權利的觀點和人人平等的學說而攻擊特權的那些人的觀念是同意的。這兩組人都支持「法律之前人人平等」的原則。但是，這一點的同意，並不消除這兩個思想路線之間的基本衝突。

In the opinion of the natural law school all men are biologically equal and therefore have the inalienable right to an equal share in all things. The first theorem is manifestly contrary to fact. The second theorem leads, when consistently interpreted, to such absurdities that its supporters abandon logical consistency altogether and ultimately come to consider every institution, however discriminating and iniquitous, as compatible with the inalienable equality of all men. The eminent Virginians whose ideas animated the American Revolution acquiesced in the preservation of Negro slavery. The most despotic system of government that history has ever known, Bolshevism, parades as the very incarnation of the principle of equality and liberty of all men.

在自然法學派的見解中，所有的人在生物學上是平等的，所以，有不可讓與的權利來平均分享一切東西。這句話的前一部份顯然與事實不符。後一部份，如果解釋得首尾一貫，則所導致的荒謬結果，會使這個見解的主張者完全放棄邏輯的一致，最後竟把毎個制度，不管是如何不平等的或不道德的，都看作與那人人不可讓與的平等權是相容的。激發美國革命的那些傑出的維吉尼亞人（Virginians）的理想，卻容許黑奴制度的保存。有史以來最專制的政治制度布爾雪維克，反而誇耀是人人自由平等原則的化身！

The liberal champions of equality under the law were fully aware of the fact that men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization. Equality under the law was in their opinion not designed to correct the inexorable facts of the universe and to make natural inequality disappear. It was, on the contrary, the device to secure for the whole of mankind the maximum of benefits it can derive from it. Henceforth no man-made institutions should prevent a man from attaining that

主張法律之前人人平等的自由主義者，充份知道人是生而不平等的，正因爲他們的不平等，才產生社會的合作和文明。在他們的見解中，法律之前的平等，不是用來糾正宇宙間的冷酷事實，使自然的不平等消滅。相反地，是使全人類能夠從在這個不平等的事實下謀最大利益的一個設計。因此，決不可有個人爲的制度妨礙一個人取得最善於爲他的同胞服務的地位。自由主義者接觸這個問題，不是從所謂不可讓與的個人權利的觀點出發，而是從社會的和功效的角度出發。法律之前的平等，在他們的心目中之所以是好的，因爲這最有利於所有的人。誰來掌握政權，讓投票者來決定；誰來指揮生產活動，讓消費者來決定。於是乎消除了暴力衝突的根源，而保證平平穩穩地進展到一個更滿意的人事環境。

The triumph of this liberal philosophy produced all those phenomena which in their totality are called modern Western civilization. However, this new ideology could triumph only within and environment in which the ideal of income equality was very weak. If the Englishmen of the eighteenth century had been preoccupied with the chimera of income equality, laissez-faire philosophy would not have appealed to them, just as it does not appeal today to the Chinese or the Mohammedans. In this sense the historian must acknowledge that the ideological heritage of feudalism and the manorial system contributed to the rise of our modern civilizations, however different it is.

這個自由哲學的得勢，產生了叫做現代西方文明的全部內容。但是，這個新的意理只有在所得平等這個理想非常微弱的環境下才能得勢。如果十八世紀的英國人迷於所得平等的妄想，自由放任哲學就不會投合他們的心意，正如同今天還不投合中國人或回敎國人的心意。在這個意義下，歷史家必須承認，封建制度和莊園建制在意理上的遺產有助於我們現代文明的興起；不管它是如何地不同。

Those eighteenth-century philosophers who were foreign to the ideas of the new utilitarian theory could still speak of a superiority of conditions in China and in the Mohammedan countries. They knew, it is true, very little about the social structure of the oriental world. What they found praiseworthy in the dim reports they had obtained was the absence of a hereditary aristocracy and of big land holdings. As they fancied it, these nations had succeeded better in establishing equality than their own nations.

十八世紀與新的功效學說無關的那些哲學家，也會講中國和回敎國的國情之優越。關於東方世界的社會結構，他們知道的很少。他們在一些模糊的報導中所發現的，是那裡沒有世襲的貴族階級和大地主。於是，他們以爲這些國家在建立平等這方面，比他們自己的國家更成功。

Then later in the nineteenth century these claims were renewed by the nationalists of the nations concerned. The cavalcade was headed by Panslavism, whose champions exalted the eminence of communal cooperation as realized in the Russian mir and artel and in the zadruga of the Yugoslavs. With the progress of the semantic confusion which has converted the meaning of political terms into their very opposite, the epithet "democratic" is now lavishly spent. The Moslem peoples, which never knew any form of government other than unlimited absolutism, are called democratic. Indian nationalists take pleasure in speaking of traditional Hindu democracy!

後來，到了十九世紀，這些說法又被有關國家的民族主義者重新提出。這隊人馬是由泛斯拉夫主義（Panslavism）率領的。這個主義的擁護者特別頌揚實行於俄國的mir和artel以及南斯拉夫的zadruga那樣的公社土地制的優點。由於把一些政治名詞的意義弄成相反的語意這種混淆愈來愈多，「民主的」這個形容詞，現在也被濫用了。回敎民族，除無限的專制政府以外，從來不知道還有任何形容式的其他政體，可是，他們也叫做民主的民族。印度的民族主義者常常會說到傳統的印度民主！

Economists and historians are indifferent with regard to all such emotional effusions. In describing the civilizations of the Asiatics as inferior civilizations they do not express any value judgments. They merely establish the fact that these peoples did not bring forth those ideological and institutional conditions which in the West produced

經濟學家和歷史學家不會有這樣的情感吐露。他們把亞洲的文明記述爲低級的文明的時候，並不表示任何價値判斷。他們只是確認這個事實：這些亞洲民族不具備在西方產生了資本主義文明的那些意理的和制度的條件，而西方文明的優越又是亞洲人今天所承認的；至少從他們急於追求西方文明工藝和醫藥治療的成就上，可看出他是默認的；許多亞洲民族的古代文明遠優於當時的西方文明，正在你看出了這個事實的時候，你就會問，是什麼原因阻止了東方的進歩呢？就印度文明來講，這個問題的效案是很明白的。印度文明中那種不可逾越的階級制度，阻塞了個人的原創力，凡是違背傳統標準的任何企圖，一開始就會被阻遏住。但是，中國和回敎國家，除掉人數比較少的奴隸以外，沒有嚴格的階級。他們被專制君主統治。但是，在君主之下的人民都是平等的。甚至於奴隸和宦官也可成爲高官顯要。今天，有些人說到東方民族的民主習俗，就是指這種統治者之前的平等。

The notion of the economic equality of the subjects to which these peoples and their rulers were committed was not well defined but vague. But it was very distinct in one respect, namely, in utterly condemning the accumulation of a large fortune by any private individual. The rulers considered wealthy subjects a threat to their political supremacy. All people, the rulers as well as the ruled, were convinced that no man can amass abundant means otherwise than by depriving others of what by rights should belong to them, and that the riches of the wealthy few are the cause of the poverty of the many. The position of wealthy businessmen was in all oriental countries extremely precarious. They were at the mercy of the officeholders. Even lavish bribes failed to protect them against confiscation. The whole people rejoiced whenever a prosperous businessman fell victim to the envy and hatred of the administrators.

這些民族和他們的統治者所要求的經濟平等，其觀念是很模糊的，沒有明確的定義。但是有一點非常明白，就是無條件地譴責私人累積大量財富。統治者把富有的人民看作對他的政治權位的一個威脅。所有的人，統治者也好，被統治者也好，都認爲誰也不能不靠剝奪別人的權利而累積大量財富，少數富人之富有，是許多窮人之所以窮的原因。在所有的東方國家中，富商巨賈的地位是極端不穩定的。他們受官吏們的擺佈。甚至，慷慨的賄賂還難於保障財產的不被沒收。當一個富商在官吏的嫉妒或怨恨下被犧牲了，所有的人都高興喝釆。

This antichrematistic spirit arrested the progress of civilization in the East and kept the masses on the verge of starvation. As capital accumulation was checked, there could be no question of technological improvement. Capitalism came to the East as an imported alien ideology, imposed by foreign armies and navies in the shape either of colonial domination or of extraterritorial jurisdiction. These violent methods were certainly not the appropriate means to change the traditionalist mentality of the Orientals. But acknowledgment of this fact does not invalidate the statement that it was the abhorrence of capital accumulation that doomed many hundreds of millions of Asiatics to poverty and starvation.

這種反營利的精神，阻礙了東西文明的進步，而使大衆掙扎於餓死的邊緣。由於資本的累積受到限制，就不會有何技術上的改善。資本主義是作爲一個外來的意理，在殖民主義或治外法權的做法下，由外國的海陸軍帶到東方的。這種用暴力的方法，的確不是改變東方人傳統心態的適當手段。但是，我們一方面承認這個事實，一方面我們還是可以說：使成萬成億的亞洲人窮困的，是他們對於資本累積的厭惡心。

The notion of equality which our contemporary welfare propagandists

我們這個時代一些社會福利的宣傳者的平等觀念，也就是亞洲人的這種平等觀念的複製品。儘管在其他每一方面都是模糊的，而在厭惡巨富這方面卻是很明白的。他們反對民營的大企業。他們主張用各種方法限制個人企業的發展，用沒收式的所得稅和遺產稅來實現平等。這是投合不能思辨的大衆的嫉妒心。

The immediate economic consequences of confiscatory policies have been dealt with already.[4] It is obvious that in the long run such policies must result not only in slowing down or totally checking the further accumulation of capital, but also in the consumption of capital accumulated in previous days. They would not only arrest further progress toward more material prosperity, but even reverse the trend and bring about a tendency toward progressing poverty. The ideals of Asia would triumph; and finally East and West would meet on an equal level of distress.

沒收式的政策所直接引起的那些經濟後果，我們已經論述過。[4]從長期看，這樣的政策顯然不僅是減緩或妨礙資本累積，而且也會消耗以前所累積的資本。這樣的政策，不僅是阻止物質繁榮的趨勢，甚至會逆轉這個趨勢，而趨向於窮而愈窮。亞洲的這些理想，也許會勝利；東方與西方到了最後也許會在一個平等的窮困水準上共存。

The welfare school pretends not only to stand for the interests of the whole of society as against the selfish interests of profit-seeking business; it contends moreover that it takes into account the lasting secular interests of the nation as against the short-term concerns of speculators, promoters, and capitalists who are exclusively committed to profiteering and do not bother about the future of the whole of society. This second claim is, of course, irreconcilable with the emphasis laid by the school upon short-run policies as against long-run concerns. However, consistency is not one of the virtues of the welfare doctrinaires. Let us for the sake of argument disregard this contradiction in their statements and examine them without reference to their inconsistency.

福利學派不僅是自以爲代表全社會的利益，以對抗營利事業的自私；他們還以爲，是爲國家長久的利益打算，打擊投機者和資本家的短期利益，投機者和資本家們只知道營求私利而不管全社會的將來。這第二點，是福利學派自相矛盾之處，因爲，他們是特別著重短期政策的，而不作長期考慮的。但是，福利經濟的那些議論，本來是不重視一致的。爲著討論方便起見，我們且不管他們議論中的矛盾，而只對那些議論本身加以檢討。

Saving, capital accumulation, and investment withhold the amount concerned from current consumption and dedicate it to the improvement of future conditions. The saver foregoes the increase in present satisfaction in order to improve his own well-being and that of his family in the more distant future. His intentions are certainly selfish in the popular connotation of the term. But the effects of his selfish conduct are beneficial to the lasting secular interests of the whole of society as well as of all its members. His conduct produces all those phenomena to which even the most bigoted welfare propagandist attributes the epithets economic improvement and progress.

儲蓄、资本累積和投資，是把那有關的款項不用於當前的消費，而把它用以改善將來的情況。儲蓄者放棄現在的滿足增加，以改善他自己和家庭將來的福利。他的動機確是自私的。但是，他自私的結果是有益於整個社會和社會所有的份子。他的行爲所產生的一切現象，即令是最固執的福利政策宣傳者，也得用「經濟改善與進步」這一類字眼來形容它們。

The policies advocated by the welfare school remove the incentive to saving on the part of private citizens. On one hand, the measures directed toward a curtailment of big incomes and fortunes seriously

福利經濟學派所主張的那些政策，消除了私人儲蓄的誘因。一方面，用以削減高所得和巨額財富的那些辦法，嚴重地削弱或破壞富人的儲蓄力。另一方面，中級所得的人們以前用於資本累積的那些款項，被導引到消費的途徑。過去，當一個人把錢儲蓄於銀行或拿到一份保險單的時候，這個銀行或保險公司就作同額的投資。即令儲蓄者後來消費所儲蓄的款項，也不會有反投資和资本消耗的事情發生。儲蓄銀行和保險公司的投資總額總是繼續增加，儘管有些這樣的提存。

Today there prevails a tendency to push banks and insurance companies more and more toward investment in government bonds. The funds of the social security institutions completely consist in titles to the public debt. As far as public indebtedness was incurred by spending for current expenditure, the saving of the individual does not result in capital accumulation. While in the unhampered market economy saving, capital accumulation, and investment coincide, in the interventionist economy the individual citizens' savings can be dissipated by the government. The individual citizen restricts his current consumption in order to provide for his own future; in doing this he contributes his share to the further economic advancement of society and to an improvement of his fellow men's standard of living. But the government steps in and removes the socially beneficial effects of the individuals' conduct. Nothing explodes better than this example the welfare cliche that contrasts the selfish and narrow-minded individual, exclusively committed to the enjoyment of the pleasures of moment and having no regard for the well-being of his fellow men and for the perennial concerns of society, and the far-sighted benevolent government, unflaggingly devoted to the promotion of the lasting welfare of the whole of society.

現在，有個風行的趨向，就是敦促銀行和保險公司多多投資於政府公憤。社會安全建制的資金完全是依存於公債。公債旣是爲當前的消費而借的，則個人用於買公債的那些儲蓄，就不形成資本累積。在不受束縛的市場經濟裡面，儲蓄、資本累積和投資是相一致的。但在干涉主義的經濟裡面，人民的儲蓄會被政府浪費掉。人民節省他當前的消費而爲他自己的將來作準備；他這樣作，旣有助於社會經濟的更發展，也有助於國人生活水準的提高。但是，政府揷手進來，把這些人的行爲所可導致的有利於社會的效果統統消除了。這是用以推翻福利的陳腔濫調再好不過的例證。福利的濫調是把個人說成自私的、窄心眼的，只顧一時的享樂，對於國人的福利和社會的長久安寧，一概置之不顧。相反地，政府是有遠見的，一心一意致力於促進整個社會的長期福利。

The welfare propagandist, it is true, raises two objections. First, that the individual's motive is selfishness, while the government is imbued with good intentions. Let us admit for the sake of argument that individuals are devilish and rulers angelic. But what counts in life and reality is--in spite of what Kant said to the contrary--not good intentions, but accomplishments. What makes the existence and the evolution of society possible is precisely the fact that peaceful cooperation under the social division of labor in the long run best serves the selfish concerns of all individuals. The eminence of the market society is that its whole functioning and operation is the consummation of this principle.

福利政策的宣傳者，提出兩點異議。第一、個人的動機是自私的，政府則是善意的。我們爲便於討論，姑且承認個人是像魔鬼那樣壞的，統治者是像天使那樣好的。但是，與現實的生活有關的——不管Kant會怎樣講——不是意願，而是成就。使社會可能存在，而又可能進化的，正由於「社會分工下的和平合作，總是最有益於人人的自私」這個事實。市場經濟的優越，在於它的全部功能和運作是這個原則的完成。

The second objection points out that under the welfare system

第二個異議是指出：在福利制度下，政府作的資本累積和公共投資是用以替代私人的資本累積和投資的。這就是說：政府過去所借到的債款，不是全部都用在當前的消費。有大部份是投之於建築公路、鐵路、港口、飛機場、發電廠和其他公共工程。另一不少的部份是用在防禦性的戰爭，這部份的費用，明明白白地不可能用其他方法籌取。但是，這種說法是不中肯的。這裡的要點是，私人儲蓄的一部份被政府用在當前的消費，什麼東西也不能防止政府把這部份擴大到全部。

It is obvious that if governments make it impossible for their subjects to accumulate and to invest additional capital, responsibility for the formation of new capital, if there is to be any, devolves upon government. The welfare propagandist, in whose opinion government control is a synonym for God's providential care that wisely and imperceptibly leads mankind to higher and more perfect stages of an inescapable evolutionary progress, fails to see the intricacy of the problem and its ramifications.

很明顯地，如果政府使人民不能累積資本、不能增加投資，那麼，新資本的形成，假若還要有的話，其責任就落到政府身上。這樣一來，問題就變得更複雜了。福利政策的宣傳者看不出這種複雜性；他們總以爲「政府管制」是「上帝保佑」的同義語，會把人類悄悄地引到進化過程中較高而又較完善的階段。

Not only further saving and accumulation of additional capital, but no less the maintenance of capital at its present level, require curtailing today's consumption in order to be more amply supplied later. It is abstinence, a refraining from satisfactions which could be reaped instantly.[5] The market economy brings about an environment in which such abstinence is practiced to a certain extent, and in which its product, the accumulated capital, is invested in those lines in which it best satisfies the most urgent needs of the consumers. The questions arise whether government accumulation of capital can be substituted for private accumulation, and in what way a government would invest additional capital accumulated. These problems do not refer only to a socialist commonwealth. They are no less urgent in an interventionist scheme that has either totally or almost totally removed the conditions making for private capital formation. Even the United States is manifestly more and more approaching such a state of affairs.

節省今天的消費，不僅是爲的增加儲蓄和更多資本的累積，即就維持資本於現在水準而言，也同樣要節省今天的消費。這叫做忍慾，把現在本可以滿足的慾望忍住，而不求滿足。[5]市場經濟形成一個可以使忍慾做到某一程度的環境，在這個環境中，忍慾的結果——累積的資本——投之於最能滿足消費者最迫切需要的途徑。講到這裡，問題就發生了：政府的資本累積可否替代私人的資本累積，政府把累積的資本投到什麼地方。這些問題不僅涉及社會主義的國家，同樣也涉及干涉主義的國家，不管這個干涉主義是全部地或近乎全部地摧毀了私人資本形成的環境。甚至就美國來看，也很明顯地是一步一步走向這個境界。

Let us consider the case of a government that has got control of the employment of a considerable part of the citizens' savings. The investments of the social security system, of the private insurance companies, of savings banks, and of commercial banks are to a great extent determined by the authorities and channeled into the public debt. The private citizens are still savers. But whether or not their savings bring about capital accumulation and thus increase the quantity of capital goods available for an improvement of the apparatus of production depends on the employment of the funds borrowed by the government. If the government squanders these sums either by spending them for current expenditure or y malinvestment, the process of capital accumulation as inaugurated by the saving of individuals and continued by the investment operations of the banks and insurance enterprises is cut off. A contrast between the two ways may clarify the matter:

現在，我們來看「政府已經控制了人民儲蓄的大部份的用途」這個事例。社會安全制度的投資、民營保險公司的投資、儲蓄銀行的投資、以及商業銀行的投資，大部份是由政府決定而投之於公債的購買。一般人民仍然是儲蓄者。但是，他們的儲蓄是否引起資本形成，因而增加資本財的數量，而有助於生產設備的改善，這就要看政府如何運用它所借得的那些資金。如果政府浪費了這些資金，或者用之於當前的消費，或者作錯誤的投資，那麼，人民的儲蓄所發動的，銀行和保險公司的投資所繼續的，那個資本形成的過程就要中斷。把市場經濟與政府干涉兩相比較，就可明白：

In the process of the unhampered market economy Bill saves one hundred dollars and deposits it with a savings bank. If he is wise in choosing a bank which is wise in its lending and investing business, an increment in capital results, and brings about a rise in the marginal productivity of labor. Out of the surplus thus produced a part goes to Bill in the shape of interest. If Bill blunders in the choice of his bank and entrusts his hundred dollars to a bank that fails, he goes emptyhanded.

在自由市場經濟的程序中，某甲儲蓄一百元，而把這一百元存進一家儲蓄銀行。如果他選擇這家儲蓄銀行選對了，這家銀行在放款投資的業務方面也做得很精明，其結果就是資本的增加，勞動生產力就因而提昇。增產的一部份就以利息的形式歸之於某甲。如果某甲選錯了他的銀行，把那一百元存到一個後來破產的銀行，他就落得兩手空空。

In the process of government interference with saving and investment, Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying one hundred dollars to the national social security institution.[6] He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU. If the government spends the hundred dollars for current expenditure, no additional capital comes into existence, and no increase in the productivity of labor results. The government's IOU is a check drawn upon the future taxpayers. In 1970 a certain Peter may have to fulfill the government's promise although he himself does not derive any benefit from the fact that Paul in 1940 saved one hundred dollars.

在政府干涉儲蓄投資的過程中，某乙於一九四〇年支付一百元給國家社會安全機構作爲儲蓄[6]。他換得一個要求權，也即一張無條件的政府借據。如果政府把這一百元用於當前的消費，就不會有新增加的資本，勞動生產力也不會提昇。這張政府的借據等於一張要向將來的納稅人索取現金的支票。到了一九七〇年，納稅人某丙爲政府償還了這筆債，儘管他自己並沒有因爲一九四〇年某乙儲蓄一百元而得到任何利益。

Thus it becomes obvious that there is no need to look at Soviet Russia in order to comprehend the role that public finance plays in our day. The trumpery argument that the public debt is no burden because "we owe it to ourselves" is delusive. The Pauls of 1940 do not owe it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe it to the Pauls of 1940. The whole system is the acme of the short-run principle. The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the statesmen of 1940 will be either

所以，爲著了解公債在今天所扮演的角色，我們不必去考察蘇俄。「公債沒有負擔，因爲那是我們對我們自己負債」。這是胡說八道。一九四〇年的一些某乙並不欠他們自己的這筆款。欠一九四〇年的那些某乙債的，是一九七〇年的一些某丙。這一套說詞，是主張短期原則者的極致。一九四〇年的政治家們，解決他們當代問題的手法是把那些問題推到一九七〇年的政治家們。到了那時，一九四〇年的政治家們或者已死了，或者已老了。

The Santa Claus fables of the welfare school are characterized by their complete failure to grasp the problems of capital. It is precisely this defect that makes it imperative to deny them the appellation welfare economics with which they describe their doctrines. He who does not take into consideration the scarcity of capital goods available is not an economist, but a fabulist. He does not deal with reality but with a fabulous world of plenty. Ass the effusions of the contemporary welfare school are, like those of the socialist authors, based on the implicit assumption that there is an abundant supply of capital goods. Then, of course, it seems easy to find a remedy for all ills, to give to everybody "according to his needs" and to make everyone perfectly happy.

福利學派的那些聖誕老人式的童話，是由於他們完全不懂得資本問題而產生的。就憑這個缺陷，就可否認他們對於他們自己的學說所形容的「福利經濟學」這個名稱。凡不考慮到資本財稀少性的人，就不是經濟學家，而是一個童話作家。他所說的不是實在的世界，而是個無限豐富的神話世界。現代福利學派的一切說詞，和社會主義作家們的說詞一樣，基於一個隱含的假定一資本財的豐富供給量。有了這樣一個假定，當然就容易找到醫治百病的萬靈藥，那就是「各取所需」使每個人百分之百的快樂。

It is true that some of the champions of the welfare school feel troubled by a dim notion of the problems involved. They realize that capital must be maintained intact if the future productivity of labor is not to be impaired.[7] However, these authors too fail to comprehend that even the mere maintenance of capital depends on the skillful handling of the problems of investment, that it is always the fruit of successful speculation, and that endeavors to maintain capital intact presuppose economic calculation and thereby the operation of the market economy. The other welfare propagandists ignore the issue completely. It does not matter whether or not they endorse in this respect the Marxian scheme or resort to the invention of new chimerical notions such as "the self-perpetuating character" of useful things. [8] In any event their teachings are designed to provide a justification for the doctrine which blames oversaving and underconsumption for all that is unsatisfactory and recommends spending as a panacea.

不錯，福利政策的主張者，也有些人對於一些有關的問題有個模糊的概念，因而感覺到事情的麻煩。他們知道：如果要不損害勞動的未來生產力，資本就得保持不變[7]。但是，這些人也不了解：即令僅僅保持資本不變，也要靠對投資問題的技巧處理，這總是深思熟慮的成果，而且，保持資本不變的那些作爲，必須先有精密的經濟計算，因而必有市場經濟的操作。這都是他們所不了解的。至於其餘的福利政策宣傳者，對於一切有關的問題一概置之不理。他們在這方面是否贊成馬克斯的方略，或是否憑藉一個新的幻想，例如，有用的事物的「自我永績性」（the self-perpetuating character）這一類的幻想[8]，這是不關緊要的。無論怎樣，他們都是認爲，儲蓄過多和消費不足引起不良的後果，因而把消費當作萬靈藥來提倡。他們的一切敎義都是爲這一點作辯護的。

When pushed hard by economists, some welfare propagandists and socialists admit that impairment of the average standard of living can only be avoided by the maintenance of capital already accumulated and that economic improvement depends on accumulation of additional capital. Maintenance of capital and accumulation of new capital, they say, will henceforth be a task of government. They will not longer be left to the selfishness of individuals, exclusively concerned with their own enrichment and that of their families; the authorities will deal with them from the point of view of the common weal.

福利政策宣傳者和社會主義者當中，有的人被經濟學家逼得太緊的時候不得不承認：要避免一般生活標準的降低，只有靠保持已經累積的资本；經濟進步則要靠更多的資本累積。他們說，資本的保持和新资本的累積，今後將成爲政府的任務。這種任務再也不能委之於私人。私人只關心他自己和他家庭的福利；政府是從公共利益的觀點來執行這個任務的。

The crux of the issue lies precisely in the operation of selfishness. Under the system of inequality this selfishness impels a man to save and always to invest his savings in such a way as to fill best the most urgent needs of the consumers. Under the system of equality this motive fades. The curtailment of consumption in the immediate future is a perceptible privation, a blow to the individuals' selfish aims. The increment in the supply available in more distant periods of the future which is expected from this immediate privation is less recognizable for the average intellect. Moreover, its beneficial effects are, under a system of public accumulation, so thinly spread out that they hardly appear to a man as an appropriate compensation for what he foregoes today. The welfare school blithely assumes that the expectation that the fruits of today's saving will be reaped equally by the whole of the future generation will turn everybody's selfishness toward more saving. Thus they fall prey to a corollary of Plato's illusion that preventing people from knowing which children's parents they are will inspire them with parental feelings toward all younger people. It would have been wise if the welfare school had been mindful of Aristotle's observation that the result will rather be that all parents will be equally indifferent to all children.[9]

問題的癥結，正在於自私心的發生作用。在不平等的制度下，自私心驅使一個人儲蓄，而且常常驅使他把他的儲蓄投之於最能滿足消費者最迫切慾望的生產途徑。在平等的制度下，這個動機消失了。節省當前的消費，是可感覺到的受苦，也即對個人自私目的的一個打擊。由於當前的節約，將來可能增加的供應，是一般人所不察覺的。而且，在一個公共積蓄的制度下，其有利的後果攤派到各個人身上也就微乎其微，微到不足以使一個人覺得這是以前節約的補償。福利學派的人很樂觀地認爲：今日儲蓄的成果將要平均分配給後代的每一個人，這就會促使每個人的自私心傾向於多多儲蓄。這種想法，無異於柏拉圖的「不讓人們知道他們自己是那些孩子的父母，將會使他們對所有的年輕人都有父母愛」這個幻想。亞里斯多德的看法不同，他認爲這樣的結果，是所有的父母對於所有的小孩一律不關心[9]。如果福利學派的人注意到亞里斯多德的說法，那就聰明了。

The problem of maintaining and increasing capital is insoluble for a socialist system which cannot resort to economic calculation. Such a socialist commonwealth lacks any method of ascertaining whether its capital equipment is decreasing or increasing. But under interventionism and under a socialist system which is still in a position to resort to economic calculation on the basis of prices established abroad, things are not so bad. Here it is at least possible to comprehend what is going on.

維持和增加資本這個問題，在社會主義下無法解決。因爲社會主義制度無法作經濟計算。它沒有任何方法可以確定，它的資本設備是在增加或減少。但是，在干涉主義的制度下，以及在還可靠國外價格作經濟計算的那種社會主義制度下，事情不至於這樣糟。在這裡，至少可能知道情況在怎樣發展。

If such a country is under a democratic government, the problems of capital preservation and accumulation of additional capital become the main issue of political antagonisms. There will be demagogues to contend that more could be dedicated to current consumption than those who happen to be in power or the other parties are disposed to allow. They will always be ready to declare that "in the present emergency" there cannot be any question of piling up capital for later days and that, on the contrary, consumption of a part of the capital already available is fully justified. The various parties will outbid one another in promising the voters more government spending and at the same time a reduction of all taxes which do not exclusively burden the rich. In the days of laissez faire people looked

如果這樣的國家是在一個民主政制下，則資本保持和新資本累積的問題，就成爲政爭的主題。那裡，將會有些在野的政治煽動家這樣說：我們用之於現在消費的東西，可以比執政者，或其他政黨所許諾的更多些。他們總喜歡說：「在現在非常時期」，沒有爲將來積蓄資本的必要。相反地，消耗一部份已有的資本是完全對的。各個政黨競相向選民提出諾言，承諾作更多的政府支出，同時，又承諾減課所有的稅，富人負擔的稅也不例外。在自由放任時代，人民心目中的政府，是個要他們納稅來支持其活動的機構。在人民的家庭預算中，政府是一個費用項目。今天絕大多數的人民，是把政府看作一個施捨利益的機構。工人和農民都希望得之於國庫的，比他們繳納於國庫的要多。在他們的心目中，政府是個支出者，不是一個收入者。這種流行的說法，現在已經凱因斯和其門徒們的加以合理化而成爲半吊子的經濟學說了。公共支出與不平衡的預算，不過是資本消耗的同義語。如果當前的消費——不管你把它想得如何有益——是靠課徵高所得者將用以投資的那部份所得，或靠課徵遺產稅，或靠借債，則政府就變成一個消耗資本的機構。現在的美國，每年的資本累積大概還會超過每年的資本消耗[10]，這個事實並不使下面這句話失效：聯邦政府、州政府和地方政府財政政策的全盤影響，是趨向於資本消耗。

Many who are aware of the undesirable consequences of capital consumption are prone to believe that popular government is incompatible with sound financial policies. They fail to realize that not democracy as such is to be indicted, but the doctrines which aim at substituting the Santa Claus conception of government for the night watchman conception derided by Lassalle. What determines the course of a nation's economic policies is always the economic ideas held by public opinion. No government, whether democratic or dictatorial, can free itself from the sway of the generally accepted ideology.

有些人知道資本消耗的不良後果，但他們卻以爲，受歡迎的政府是與健全的財政政策不相容的。他們沒有看出應受譴責的，不是民主本身，而是想以「聖誕老人」的政府觀念替代「守夜人」的政府觀念的那些學說。決定一個國家的經濟政策趨勢的，總是輿論所保持的那些經濟見解。民主的政府也好，獨裁的政府也好，都不能自免於普遍接受的意理之支配。

Those advocation a restriction of the parliament's prerogatives in budgeting and taxation issues or even a complete substitution of authoritarian government for representative government are blinded by the chimerical image of a perfect chief of state. This man, no less benevolent than wise, would be sincerely dedicated to the promotion of his subjects' lasting welfare. The real Fuhrer, however, turns out to be a mortal man who first of all aims at the perpetuation of his own supremacy and that of his kin, his friends, and his party. As far as he may resort to unpopular measures, he does so for the sake of these objectives. He does not invest and accumulate capital. He constructs fortresses and equips armies.

有些人主張對國會在預算和課稅方面的特權加以限制，甚至主張以極權政府替代代議政府。這些人是被一個完善的國家元首這個幻象所蔽。這樣的人，旣仁慈，又聰明，一定會誠心誠意致力於人民永久福利的增進。但是，那個實在的元首，畢竟還是一個人，他的行爲目的，首先在於保持他自己的優越地位於永久，其次就是他的親屬、他的朋友、他的政黨的優越地位。他爲著這些目的，他會採取一些惡劣手段。他不投資，不積蓄資本。他建築堡壘，充實軍備。

The much talked about plans of the Soviet and Nazi dictators involved restriction of current consumption for the sake of "investment." The Nazis never tried to suppress the truth that all these investments were designed as a preparation for the wars of aggression that they planned. The Soviets were less outspoken at the beginning. But later they proudly declared that all their planning was directed by considerations of war preparedness. History does not provide any example of capital accumulation brought about by a government. As far as governments invested in the construction of roads, railroads, and other useful public works, the capital needed was provided by the savings of individual citizens and borrowed by the government.. But the greater part of the funds collected by the public debts was spent for current expenditure. What individuals had saved was dissipated by the government.

我們常常聽說蘇俄和納粹的獨裁者爲著「投資」而節省當前的消費。德國納粹從來不掩蓋「一切投資都是爲戰爭作準備」這個事實。蘇俄在開始的時候不是這樣直言不諱的。但是，現在他們卻很驕傲地宣佈，他們的一切計畫都基於作戰的考慮。歷史上從來沒有政府累積資本的例子。政府固然有時建築公路、鐵路和其他有用的公共工程，但這些方面所需要的資金，都是人民的儲蓄，由政府借用的，但是，公債收入的更大部份是用在當前的消費。人民所儲蓄的被政府消耗掉。

Even those who look upon the inequality of wealth and incomes as a deplorable thing, cannot deny that it makes for progressing capital accumulation. And it is additional capital accumulation alone that brings about technological improvement, rising wage rates, and a higher standard of living.

即令把財富所得的不平等看作可悲的事情的那些人，也不能否認，這種不平等有助於資本繼續累積。只有新的資本累積，才會引起技術進步、工資率上昇、生活標準提高。

--------------------

[2] Cf. above, pp. 288-289 and pp. 806-808.

[2] 參考第十五章第七節及第三十二章第三節。

[3] Cf. above, p. 312.

[3] 參考第十五章第十一節。

[4] Cf. above, pp. 804-809.

[4] 參考第三十二章第一節。

[5] To establish this fact is, to be sure, not an endorsement of the theories which tried to describe interest interest as the "reward" of abstinence. There is in the world of realty no mythical agency that rewards or punishes. What originary interest really is has been shown above in Cahpter XIX. But as against the would-be ironies of Lassalle (Herr Bastiat-Schulze von Delitzsch in Gesammelte Reden und Schriften, ed. Bernstein, V, 167), reiterated by innumerable textbooks, it is good to emphasize that saving is privation (Entbehrung) in so far as it deprives the saver of an instantaneous enjoyment.

[5] 當然，確認這個事實並不是同意「把利息說成對忍慾的獎赏」的那些學說。在現實的世界裡面，沒有什麼神秘得不能見聞的機構在行赏或處罰。原始利息究竟是什麼，已經在第十九章說明。但是，作爲對付許多敎科書所一再引述的所謂Lassalle的反語（Herr Bastiat-Schulze von Delitzsch in Gesammelte Reden und Schriften, ed. Bernstein, V, 167），最好還是再度強調：儲蓄，就其儲蓄者放棄目前的享受這個程度來講，是一種受苦。

[6] It makes no difference whether Paul himself pays these hundred dollars or whether the law obliges his employer to pay it. Cf. above, p. 602.

[6] 不管是某乙本人支付這一百元，或者是法律規定由他的僱主支付，這是不關重要的。參考第二十一章第五節。

[7] This refers especially to the writings of A.C. Pigou, the various editions of his book The Economics of Welfare and miscellaneous articles. For a critique of Professor Pigou's ideas, cf. Hayek, Profits, Interest, and Investment (London, 1939), pp. 83-134.

[7] 這裡所指的，特別是A.C. Pigou敎授的一些論著，如The Economics of Welfare前後幾版和一些雜文。關於對Pigou敎授的批評，參考Hayek, Profits, Interest, and Investment (London, 1939), pp. 83-134.

[8] Cf. F.H. Knight, "Professor Mises and the Theory of Capital," Economica, VIII (1941), 409-427.

[8] 參考F.H. Knight, "Professor Mises and the Theory of Capital," Economica, VIII (1941), 409-427.

[9] Cf. Aristotle, Politics, Bk. II, chap, iii in The Basic Works of Artistotle, ed. R. McKeon (New York), pp. 1148 f.

[9] 參考Aristotle, Politics, Bk. II, chap, iii in The Basic Works of Artistotle, ed. R. McKeon (New York), pp. 1148 f.

[10] The attempts to answer this question by statistics are futile in this age of inflation and credit expansion.

[10] 用統計來答覆這個問題的一些企圓，在這個通貨膨脹和信用擴張的時代，是徒勞無功的。

4. Insecurity

四、不安全

The vague notion of security which the welfare doctrinaires have in mind when complaining about insecurity refers to something like a warrant by means of which society guarantees to everybody, irrespective of his achievements, a standard of living which he considers satisfactory.

主張福利政策的空想家，在申訴不安全的時候，心中懷有的那個安全觀念是很模糊的，好像就是認爲：我們的社會應保證每個份子（不管他的成就如何）得享受他所認爲滿意的生活。要如此，才算是有了安全。

Security in this sense, contend the eulogists of times gone by, was provided under the social regime of the Middle Ages. There is, however, no need to enter into an examination of these claims. Teal conditions even in the much-glorified thirteenth century were different from the ideal picture painted by scholastic philosophy; these schemes were meant as a description of conditions not as they were but as they ought to be. But even these utopias of the philosophers and theologians allow for the existence of a numerous class of destitute beggars, entirely dependent on alms given by the wealthy. This is not precisely the idea of security which the modern usage of the term suggests.

有些人說，這個意義的安全，在中古時期的社會中是有的。這班人是一味頌揚古代的。但是，我們不必進而檢討這些說詞。即令在極受稱讚的十三世紀，眞實的情況也不同於學究哲學所描繪的理想境界；那些被描繪的境界，不是指的曾經如此，而是指的應該如此。但是，甚至有些哲學家和神學家的烏托邦，也承認有個人數衆多而完全靠富人施捨過活的乞丐階級存在。這並不是安全這個觀念在現代用語中所蘊含的意義。

The concept of security is the wage earners' and small farmers' pendant to the concept of stability held by the capitalists.[11] In the same way in which capitalists want to enjoy permanently an income which is not subject to the vicissitudes of changing human conditions,

安全這個概念，是工人和小農對資本家所保有的安定概念的相對物[11]。資本家想永久享有一筆不受人事變化之影響的所得，同樣地，工人和小農也想使他們的收入不受市場變動的影響。這兩組人都想不捲入歷史事件的流變中。不要再有什麼事情發生損害他們自己的地位；另一方面，他們當然也不表示反對他們的物質福利的改善。過去，他們曾經調整他們的活動以適應市場結構，這個市場不應該再變動而使他們又重新調整。歐洲一個山谷的農民們遇到加拿大農民成本較低的農作物競爭時，就憤怒起來。房屋油漆匠遇到有新的裝置出現，影響到他們的那部份勞動市場時，也勃然憤怒。很明顯地，這些人的願望只有在一個完全靜止的世界才可達成。

A characteristic feature of the unhampered market society is that it is no respecter of vested interests. Past achievements do not count if they are obstacles to further improvement. The advocates of security are therefore quite correct in blaming capitalism for insecurity. But they distort the facts in implying that the selfish interests of capitalists and entrepreneurs are responsible. What harms the vested interests is the urge of the consumers for the best possible satisfaction of their needs. Not the greed of the wealthy few, but the propensity of everyone to take advantage of any opportunity offered for an improvement of his own well-being makes for producer insecurity. What makes the house painter indignant is the fact that his fellow citizens prefer cheaper houses to more expensive ones. and the house painter himself, in preferring cheaper commodities to dearer ones, contributes his share to the emergence of insecurity in other sectors of the labor market.

不受束縛的市場社會，其特徵是不尊重旣得利益。過去的成就，如果對將來的改善是障礙的話，那就不値得什麼。就這一點來講，安全的主張者指責資本主義不安全，這是十分對的。但是，他們卻意涵資本家和企業家的自私心要負責任，這是歪曲事實。損害旣得利益的，是消費者的衝動——衝動於慾望的最大滿足。使生產者不安全的，不是少數富人的貪婪，而是毎個人都具有的傾向——傾向於利用一切可能的機會，以增進自己的福利。激得房屋油漆匠憤怒的，是他的國人要買便宜的房子而不買華貴的，而且，這個油漆匠自己，在不買價貴的貨物而買便宜貨物的時候，也有助於引起勞動市場其他一些部份的不安全。

It is certainly true that the necessity of adjusting oneself again and again to changing conditions is onerous. But change is the essence of life. In an unhampered market economy the absence of security, i.e., the absence of protection for vested interests, is the principle that makes for a steady improvement in material well-being. There is no need to argue with the bucolic dreams of Virgil and of eighteenth-century poets and painters. There is no need to examine the kind of security which the real shepherds enjoyed. No one really wishes to change places with them.

爲著適應變動的情況，必得一再調整自己，這確確實實是件麻煩事。但是，變是生活的本質。在一個未受朿縛的市場經濟裡面，沒有安全，也即，對旣得利益沒有保障，這是促成物質福利不斷增進的重大因素。我們無須議論羅馬詩人Virgil，以及十八世紀詩人與畫家們的那些牧歌式夢境。我們無須撿討實在的牧人們所曾經享受的那種安全生活。現在，誰也不會眞正地想和他們掉換生活境界。

The longing for security became especially intense in the great depression that started in 1929. It met with an enthusiastic response from the millions of unemployed. That is capitalism for you, shouted the leaders of the pressure groups of the farmers and the wage earners. Yet the evils were not created by capitalism, but, on the contrary,

對於安全的想戀，在一九二九年開始的那個經濟大蕭條期間，特別強烈。那時，有幾百萬的失業者受到不安全的痛苦。農工壓力團體的領袖們大聲疾呼說：這是資本主義害了你們。但是事實恰好相反，禍患不是資本主義引起的，而是干涉主義者對於市場運作的「改良」、「促進」而搞出來的。經濟崩潰，是擴張信用、降低利率那些搞法的必然結果。制度性的失業，是最低工資率政策的必然結果。

-----------------

[11] Cf. above, pp. 225-227.

[11] 參考第十一及第十二章。

5. Social Justice

五、社會正義

In one respect at least present-day welfare propagandists are superior to most of the older schools of socialists and reformers. They no longer stress a concept of social justice with whose arbitrary precepts men should comply however disastrous the consequences may be. They endorse the utilitarian point of view. They do not oppose the principle that the only standard for appreciating social systems is judging them with regard to their ability to realize the ends sought by acting men.

現在，福利政策的宣傳者，至少有一點是比老派的社會主義者和改革家高明的。他們不再強調：不管結果如何不利，人們必須遵守那個武斷的所謂「社會正義」。他們贊成功效主義者的觀點。他們不反對「評論一切社會制度的唯一標準，是就它們能否實現行爲的人們所追求的目的來加判斷」這個原則。

However, as soon as they embark upon an examination of the operation of the market economy, they forget their sound intentions. They invoke a set of metaphysical principles and condemn the market economy beforehand because it does not conform to them. They smuggle in through a back door the idea of an absolute standard of morality which they had barred from the main entrance. In searching for remedies against poverty, inequality, and insecurity, they come step by step to endorse all the fallacies of the older schools of socialism and interventionism. They become more and more entangled in contradictions and absurdities. Finally they cannot help catching at the straw at which all earlier "unorthodox" reformers tried to grasp--the superior wisdom of perfect rulers. Their last word is always state, government, society, or other cleverly designed synonyms for the superhuman dictator.

但是，一到他們開始檢討市場經濟的運作時，他們馬上就忘掉了他們那些健全的意向。他們提出一套形而上的原則，預先把市場經濟責駡一頓，因爲它不合這些原則。他們讓那個被拒絕於正門的絕對標準的道德觀，從後門走私進來。在尋求方策對付貧窮、不平等和不安全的時候，他們一步一步地接受老派社會主義者和干涉主義者的一切謬見。他們就愈來愈陷入矛盾和荒謬中。最後，他們不得不抓住所有前期的「非正統的」改革家們所要抓住的那根草一統治者的超人智聰。他們最後的口號是國家、政府、社會、或其他用以隱射這個超人獨裁者的名詞。

The welfare school, foremost among them the German Kathedersozialisten and their adepts, the American Institutionalists, have published many thousands of volumes stuffed with punctiliously documented information about unsatisfactory conditions. In their opinion the collected materials clearly illustrate the shortcomings of capitalism. In truth they merely illustrate the fact that human wants are practically unlimited and that there is an immense field open for further improvements. They certainly do not prove any of the statements of the welfare doctrine.

福利學派，在他們以前的德國講壇社會主義者（Kathedersozialisten）和其支流——美國的制度學派，曾經發表過許許多多書刊，幾乎千篇一律地記載些不滿意的情況。在他們的見解中，這些搜集到的資料明明白白證實資本主義的缺點。其實，他們只是證明一個事實，即人的慾望無限，我們還有很多地方可以進一步改善。他們確沒有證明福利學說的任何命題。

There is no need to tell us that an ampler supply of various commodities would be welcome to all people. The question is whether there is any means of achieving a greater supply other than by increasing the productivity of human effort by the investment of additional

各種貨物較豐富的供給，是人人所歡迎的。這一點用不著他們吿訴我們。問題是在：除掉靠更多的投資以提高勞動的生產力以外，我們還有沒有什麼方法達成較多的供給。福利政策的宣傳者的一派胡說，只是一個目的，即在遮蔽這一個要點，而有這一點卻是特別重要的。更多的資本累積是促成經濟進步的必要手段，而這些人偏偏要說儲蓄過份了，投資過份了，偏偏要說更多的消費和限制產出是必要的。所以，他們是經濟倒退的領導者，他們所宣傳的，是一種使社會崩解的哲學。依照他們的格式來安排的社會，從一個武斷的所謂社會正義標準的觀點來看，也許有人覺得是公平的。但是，它一定是個使所有的份子愈來愈窮的社會。

For more than a century public opinion in Western countries has been deluded by the idea that there is such a thing as "the social question" or "the labor problem." The meaning implied was that the very existence of capitalism hurts the vital interests of the masses, especially those of the wage earners and the small farmers. The preservation of this manifestly unfair system cannot be tolerated; radical reforms are indispensable.

至少有一個世紀，西方一些國家的輿論被一個想法弄糊塗了。這個想法就是：有「社會問題」或「勞動問題」這樣的一個東西存在。它的含義是說，正是這個資本主義傷害了大衆的重要利益。尤其是工人和小農受害最大。保存這個顯然不公平的制度，是我們所不能忍受的；徹底改革是不可避免的。

The truth is that capitalism has not only multiplied population figures but at the same time improved the people's standard of living in an unprecedented way. Neither economic thinking nor historical experience suggest that any other social system could be as beneficial to the masses as capitalism. The results speak for themselves. The market economy needs no apologists and propagandists. It can apply to itself the words of Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph in St. Paul's: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. [12]

事實是這樣：資本主義不僅使人口倍增，同時以空前的進度把人的生活標準提高。經濟思想也好，歷史經驗也罷，都沒有吿訴我們有任何其他社會制度比資本主義更有利於大衆的。後果俱在，其本身就是證據。市場經濟用不著辯護者和宣傳者。它可以把Christopher Wren爵士所寫的聖保羅（St. Paul）墓誌銘裡面的一句話應用到它本身：如果你要尋找他的紀念物，你就四周望一望（Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.）[12]。

-----------------

[12] If you seek his monument, look around.

[12] If you seek his monument, look around.

XXXVI. THE CRISIS OF INTERVENTIONISM

第36章 干涉主義的危機

1. The Harvest of Interventionism

一、干涉主義的結果

The interventionist policies as practiced for many decades by all governments of the capitalistic West have brought about all those effects which the economists predicted. There are wars and civil wars, ruthless oppression of the masses by clusters of self-appointed dictators, economic depressions, mass unemployment, capital consumption, famines.

資本主義的西方國家幾十年來所實行的干涉政策，已經發生了經濟學家所預料的一切後果。國際戰爭與內戰、獨裁者給大衆的迫害、經濟蕭條、大量失業、資本消耗、饑荒，一一發生。

However, it is not these catastrophic events which have led to the crisis of interventionism. The interventionist doctrinaires and their followers explain all these undesired consequences as the unavoidable features of capitalism. As they see it, it is precisely these disasters that clearly demonstrate the necessity of intensifying interventionism. The failures of the interventionist policies do not in the least impair the popularity of the implied doctrine. They are so interpreted as to strengthen, not to lessen, the prestige of these teachings. As a vicious economic theory cannot be simply refuted by historical experience, the interventionist propagandists have been able to go on in spite of all the havoc they have spread.

但是，導致干涉主義之危機的，並不是這些災難。干涉主義的理論家和其徒衆，把所有這些壞的後果解釋爲資本主義不可避免的現象。照他們看，正因爲有這些不好的現象，所以必須加強政府的干涉。干涉政策的一些失敗，一點也不損傷那蘊含著的敎條的名望。他們對於這些失敗的解釋，並不削減那些敎義的名望，反而提高它的名望。正如同一種邪惡的經濟學說，不能僅以歷史的經驗來駁倒，干涉主義的宣傳家，能夠不顧他們自己所播出的災害而大言不慚。

Yet the age of interventionism is reaching its end. Interventionism has exhausted all its potentialities and must disappear.

可是，干涉主義的時代快到它的末期了。干涉主義已經是黔驢技窮，一定會消滅。

2. The Exhaustion of the Reserve Fund

二、準備金的枯竭

The idea underlying all interventionist policies is that the higher income and wealth of the more affluent part of the population is a fund which can be freely used for the improvement of the conditions of the less prosperous. The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution. Every measure is ultimately justified by declaring that it is fair to curb the rich for the benefit of the poor.

一切干涉政策的基本觀念是：富有者的較高所得和較多的財富，是可以自由用來改善窮人生活的一筆基金。干涉政策的精髓，是取之於一羣人用之於另一羣人。也即，沒收和分配。干涉主義者認爲，凡是刼富救貧的辦法都是對的。

In the field of public finance progressive taxation of incomes and estates is the most characteristic manifestation of this doctrine. Tax the rich and spend the revenue for the improvement of the condition of the poor, is the principle of contemporary budgets. In the

財政方面對所得與遺產課以累進稅，是這個敎條最明顯的具體化。課富人的稅，把稅收用於改善窮人的生活，是現代預算的原則。在工業的關係方面，縮短工時、提高工資、以及許許多多其他辦法的實行，都是被認爲有益於受僱者而增加僱主負擔的。所有政治問題和社會問題的處理，都從這個原則的觀點出發，而不管其他。

An illustrative example is provided by the methods applied in the operation of nationalized and municipalized enterprises. These enterprises very often result in financial failure; their accounts regularly show losses burdening the state or the city treasury. It is of no use to investigate whether the deficits are due to the notorious inefficiency of the public conduct of business enterprises or, at least partly, to the inadequacy of the prices at which the commodities or services are sold to the customers. What matters is the fact that the taxpayers must cover these deficits. The interventionists fully approve of this arrangement. They passionately reject the two other possible solutions: selling the enterprises to private entrepreneurs or raising the prices charged to the customers to such a height that no further deficit remains. The first of these proposals is in their eyes manifestly reactionary because they believe that the inevitable trend of history is toward more and more socialization. The second is deemed "antisocial" because it places a heavier load upon the consuming masses. It is fairer to make the taxpayers, i.e., the wealthy citizens, bear the burden. Their ability to pay is greater than that of the average people riding the nationalized railroads and the municipalized subways, trolleys, and busses. To ask that such public utilities should be self-supporting, is, say the interventionists, a relic of the old-fashioned ideas of orthodox finance. One might as well aim at making the roads and the public schools self-supporting.

國營事業和市營事業所採用的經營方法就是一個例證。這些事業大都是虧本的；其虧損就是國庫或市庫的負擔。虧損的原因是公營事業的缺乏效率呢，還是至少有一部份由於定價太低？這倒沒有檢討的必要。更重要的是，「納稅人必須承擔這些虧損」這個事實。干涉主義完全贊成這個辦法。他們從情感上反對其他的兩個解決法：把這些事業出賣給民營，或者把定價提高使其不再賠本。在干涉主義者的心目中，第一個辦法是反動的，因爲不可避免的歷史趨勢是一歩一步走向社會化。第二個辦法是「反社會的」，因爲它加重了消費大衆的負擔。要納稅人——也即富有的公民——承受這筆負擔是公平的。他們的支付能力大於那些乘國營火車和市營地下車、電車、公車的一般人們的支付能力。干涉主義者說，要這樣的一些公用事業自給自足而不由公庫貼補，那是過時的老式的財政觀念；如果這些公用事業應當自給自足，那麼，公路和國民學校也應當自給自足不用公庫貼補。

It is not necessary to argue with the advocates of this deficit policy. It is obvious that recourse to this ability-to-pay principle depends on the existence of such incomes and fortunes as can still be taxed away. It can no longer be resorted to once these extra funds have been exhausted by taxes and other interventionist measures.

我們無須和這些貼補政策的主張者辯論。很明顯的，「量能付費」這個原則（ability-to-pay principle）的採用，要靠一些還可以徵課的所得和財富的存在。一且到了那些可課徵的資金被租稅和其他干涉政策榨完了的時候，這個原則就再也不能應用了。

This is precisely the present state of affairs in most of the European countries. The United States has not yet gone so far; but if the actual trend of its economic policies is not radically altered very soon, it will be in the same condition in a few years.

歐洲許多國家現在的情況正是如此。美國還沒有到這種程度；但是，如果它的經濟政策的現在趨勢不趕快大大轉變，幾年以後美國也會是這種情況。

For the sake of argument we may disregard all the other consequences which the full triumph of the ability-to-pay principle must bring about and concentrate upon its financial aspects.

「量能付費」這個原則的徹底實施，一定會引起許多後果。爲著討論方便起見，我們只就金融方面的後果來講，而不管其他的一切後果。

The interventionist in advocating additional public expenditure is not aware of the fact that the funds available are limited. He does not realize that increasing expenditure in one department enjoins restricting

干涉主義者，在主張政府增加支出的時候，沒有想到「可以利用的資金是有限的」這個事實。他沒有想到一個部門的支出增加，必使另一部門的支出減少。在他的見解中，金錢是充裕無缺的。富人的所得與財富可以自由吸取。當他主張給學校较多津貼的時候，他只強調「在敎育方面多花些錢總是好事」這一點。他並不去證明爲學校籌取津貼比爲其他部門——例如保健部門——籌取津貼更方便些。他從未想到，嚴肅的辯論是會得到「限制公共支出，減輕租稅負擔」的結論。在他的心目中，凡是主張削減預算的人，都是維護富人階級利益的人。

With the present height of income and inheritance tax rates, this reserve fund out of which the interventionists seek to comer all public expenditure is rapidly shrinking. It has practically disappeared altogether in most European countries. In the United States the recent advances in tax rates produced only negligible revenue results beyond what would be produced by a progression which stopped at much lower rates. High surtax rates for the rich are very popular with interventionist dilettantes and demagogues, but they secure only modest additions to the revenue.[1] From day to day it becomes more obvious that large-scale additions to the amount of public expenditure cannot be financed by "soaking the rich," but that the burden must be carried by the masses. The traditional tax policy of the age of interventionism, its glorified devices of progressive taxation and lavish spending have been carried to a point at which their absurdity can no longer be concealed. The notorious principle that, whereas private expenditures depend on the size of income available, public revenues must be regulated according to expenditures, refutes itself. Henceforth, governments will have to realize that one dollar cannot be spent twice, and that the various items of government expenditure are in conflict with one another. Every penny of additional government spending will have to be collected from precisely those people who hitherto have been intent upon shifting the main burden to other groups. Those anxious to get subsidies will themselves have to foot the bill. The deficits of publicly owned and operated enterprises will be charged to the bulk of the population.

在現在這樣高的所得稅率和遺產稅率之下，干涉主義者所賴以吸取作爲全部公共支出之用的這項準備資金，很快地就要枯竭了。在歐洲的許多國家，這種資金差不多已經消滅了。在美國，最近提高稅率的結果，稅收的增加微乎其微。對高所得者課徵的高附加稅率，是干涉主義的半吊子們特別歡迎的，但是，這些高稅率只稍微增加一點稅收[1]。公共支出的大規模增加，不能靠「向富人榨取」，而其負擔必須由大衆承受，這種情形一天一天地明顯了。干涉主義時代的租稅政策、累進稅和浪費支出這一套設計，已經推行到再也無法掩飾其荒謬的程度了。「私經濟量入爲出，公經濟量出爲入」這個有藉藉之名的原則，否定了它自己。今後，政府該會知道，一塊錢不能用兩次；政府的各項支出是相互衝突的。政府支出中，每一文錢的增加，正是要取之於那些想把負擔轉移其他人羣的一些人。那些急於想得津貼的人們，必須爲這些津貼自行付帳。公有公營事業的虧損終歸要落在大衆的身上。

The situation in the employer-employee nexus will be analogous. The popular doctrine contends that wage earners are reaping "social gains" at the expense of the unearned income of the exploiting classes. The strikers, it is said, do not strike against the consumers but against "management." There is no reason to raise the prices of products when labor costs are increased; the difference must be borne by employers. But when more and more of the share of the entrepreneurs and capitalists is absorbed by taxes, higher wage rates, and other "social gains" of employees, and by price ceilings, nothing remains for such a buffer function. Then it becomes evident that every wage raise, with its whole momentum, must affect the prices of the products and that the social gains of each group fully correspond to the social losses of the other groups. Every strike becomes, even in the short run and not only in the long run, a strike against the rest of the people.

在僱主與僱工的關係中，情形也將類似。流行的敎條是說，工資的賺取者應當獲取「社會利得」，使剝削階級的「不勞而獲」受犧牲。據說，罷工的人不是爲打擊消費者，而是爲打擊「經理部門」。當勞動成本上昇的時候，沒有理由提高產品的價格；其間的差額應當由納稅人負擔。但是，到了企業家和資本家的份內所得漸漸被租稅、被更高的工資率、被其他名目的僱工的「社會利得」、以及被限價等等榨完了的時候，再也沒有什麼東西剩下來可作爲緩衝之用的。到了那個時候，很明顯地，工資提昇多少，產品的價格就會昇高多少，任何一羣人所得到的所謂社會利得，必然全部反映於其他人羣所遭受的社會損失。每一次罷工，即令是短期的，也會成爲對其餘所有的人的打擊。

An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.

干涉主義社會哲學的基礎，是要有一項可以永久榨取不竭的資金存在。當這個財源枯竭的時候，干涉主義的整體就要崩潰。聖誕老人的那種做法，是消滅這個做法本身的一種做法。

-------------------

[1] In the United States the surtax rate under the 1942 Act was 52 per cent on the taxable income bracket $22,000-26,000. If the surtax had stopped at this level, the loss of revenue on 1942 income would have been about $249 million or 2.8 per cent of the total individual income tax for that year. In the same year the total net incomes in the income classes of $10,000 and above was $8,912 million. Complete confiscation of these incomes would not have produced as much revenue as was obtained in this year from all taxable incomes, namely, $9,046 million. Cf. A Tax Program for a Solvent America, Committee on Postwar Tax Policy (New York, 1945), pp. 116-117, 120.

[1] 參考A Tax Program for a Solvent America, Committee on Postwar Tax Policy (New York, 1945), pp. 116-117, 120.

3. The End of Interventionism

三、干涉主義的終結

The interventionist interlude must come to an end because interventionism cannot lead to a permanent system of social organization. The reasons are threefold.

干涉主義這段歷史上的揷曲，一定會終結的，因爲它不能成爲社會組織的一種永久制度。其理由有三：

First: Restrictive measures always restrict output and the amount of goods available for consumption. Whatever arguments may be advanced in favor of definite restrictions and prohibitions, such measures in themselves can never constitute a system of social production.

第一、限制的辦法總歸是限制生產量，因而限制了可供消費的財貨量。對於某些特定的限制和禁止所提出的理由，不管是什麼，這些限制辦法的本身，決不能構成社會生產的一種制度。

Second: All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which-from the point of view of their authors' and advocates' valuations--is less desirable than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.

第二、所有干擾巿場現象的一切措施，不僅不能達成設計者和主張者所想達到的目的，而且會引起——從設計者和主張者的觀點來看——比他們所想改變的原先事態更不好的事態。如果對於這些更不好的事態再用干涉的辦法糾正再糾正，那就一定走向市場經濟的完全崩潰，社會主義取而代之的境界。

Third: Interventionism aims at confiscating the "surplus" of one part of the population and at giving it to the other part. Once this surplus is exhausted by total confiscation, a further continuation of this policy is impossible.

第三、干涉主義是要把某一部份人的「剩餘」沒收，而贈給另一部份人。到了這種剩餘被全部沒收無遺的時候，這種政策的再繼續，也就不可能了。

Marching ever further along the path of interventionism, all those countries that have not adopted full socialism of the Russian pattern

循著干涉主義的途徑再向前走，終於採用了中央計畫——興登堡型的社會主義（Hindenburg pattern of socialism），首先是德國，後來是英國和許多其他的歐洲國家。値得注意的是：在德國，採用決定性手段的，不是納粹，而是希特勒奪取政權以前的威瑪共和（The Weimar Republic）時期那位天主敎徒的總理布朗林（Brüning）；在英國，不是工黨，而是保守黨的首相邱吉爾。事實的眞象，被英倫銀行國有化、煤鑛和其他若干企業國有化這類的轟動事件掩蓋了。但是，這些企業的被沒收，不過是次要的事情。英國之應叫做社會主義國家，不是因爲某些企業已經正式被沒收和國有化，而是因爲每個人民的一切經濟活動都要受政府和它的許多機構的完全控制。政府機關指揮資本和人力配置於各部門；它們決定生產什麼、怎樣的品質、多大的數量，而且也規定每個消費者的配額。一切經濟問題的最高權力完全握在政府手中。人民都降到被保護者的地位。留給工商業者（也即以前的企業家）的，不過是些準經理功能而已。他們所可自由作的事情，不過是在有限的範圍以內，把政府機關所作的企業決定付之實行而已。

It is difficult to find out how many of the supporters of interventionism are conscious of the fact that the policies they recommend directly lead toward socialism, and how many hold fast to the illusion that what they are aiming at is a middle-of-the-road system that can last as a permanent system-a "third solution" of the problem of society's economic organization. At any rate, it is certain that all interventionists believe that the government, and the government alone, is called upon to decide in every single case whether one has to let things go as the market determines them or whether an act of intervention is needed. This means that they are prepared to tolerate the supremacy of the consumers only as far as it brings about a result of which they themselves approve. As soon as something happens in the economy that any of the various bureaucratic institutions does not like or that arouses the anger of a pressure group, people clamor for new interventions, controls, and restrictions. But for the inefficiency of the law-givers and the laxity, carelessness, and corruption of many of the functionaries, the last vestiges of the market economy would have long since disappeared.

【中文版無此段。】

The unsurpassed efficiency of capitalism never before manifested itself in a more beneficial way than in this age of heinous anticapitalism. While governments, political parties, and labor unions are sabotaging all business operations, the spirit of enterprise still succeeds in increasing the quantity and improving the quality of products and in rendering them more easily accessible to the consumers. In the countries that have not yet entirely abandoned the capitalistic system the common man enjoys today a standard of living for which the princes and nabobs of ages gone by would have envied him. A short time ago the demagogues blamed capitalism for the poverty of the masses. Today they rather blame capitalism for the "affluence" that it bestows upon the common man.

【中文版無此段。】

It has been shown that the managerial system, i.e., the assignment

我們曾經指出，管理制度——即：把營業行爲的輔助工作委於助手們，對於他們給以一定範圍內的決定權——只有在利潤制的架構以內才可能實行[2]。經理人員之所以爲經理人員，而異於純粹技術人員之特徵，就是在他的任務範圍以內，他自己決定那些使他的行爲得以符合利潤法則的方法。在社會主義制度下，旣沒有經濟計算，也沒有資本會計，也沒有利潤估計，因而就沒有管理活動的餘地。但是，社會主義的國家，只要還能靠國外市場所決定的價格作計算，它也可以在某種程度內，利用一種準管理的階層負責制。

It is a poor makeshift to call any age an age of transition. In the living world there is always change. Every age is an age of transition. We may distinguish between social systems that can last and such as are inevitable transitory because they are self-destructive. It has already been pointed out in what sense interventionism liquidates itself and must lead to socialism of the German pattern. Some European countries have already reached this phase, and nobody knows whether or not the United States will follow suit. But as long as the United States clings to the market economy and does not adopt the system of full government control of business, the socialist economies of Western Europe will still be in a position to calculate. Their conduct of business still lacks the most characteristic feature of socialist conduct; it is still based on economic calculation. It is therefore in every respect very different from what it would become if all the world were to turn toward socialism.

把任何一個時期叫做過渡時期，這是個拙劣的權宜之計。在現實的世界裡面，總是有變動的。每個時期都是個過渡時期。我們可以把那些會永久存在的社會制度，與那些由於自我毀滅而必然是過渡的社會制度區分得淸淸楚楚。這已經在上文講到干涉主義的自我毀滅，而終於走向德國型社會主義的時候指出。歐洲的大多數國家已經到了這個地步，誰也不知道美國會不會追隨。但是，只要美國堅守市場經濟而不採行全部旳政府統制，西歐的社會主義經濟還可以作計算。他們的營業行爲還不具備社會主義行爲的特徵；它還是基於經濟計算。如果全世界都轉到社會主義的話，情形就完全不同了。

It is often said that one half of the world cannot remain committed to the market economy when the other half is socialist, and vice versa. However, there is no reason to assume that such a partition of the earth and the coexistence of the two systems is impossible. If this is really the case, then the present economic system of the countries that have discarded capitalism may go on for an indefinite period of time. Its operation may result in social disintegration, chaos, and misery for the peoples. But neither a low standard of living nor progressive impoverishment automatically liquidates an economic system. It gives way to a more efficient system only if people themselves are intelligent enough to comprehend the advantages such a change might bring them. Or it may be destroyed by foreign invaders provided with better military equipment by the greater efficiency of their own economic system.

常常聽到這樣的說法：當半個世界是社會主義的時候，另外半個世界就不能仍然是市場經濟，反過來說，也是一樣。但是，我們沒有理由假定這樣的兩個制度把地球分割而又彼此併存是不可能的。如果眞的是如此，那麼，那些已經放棄資本主義的國家的現在經濟制度，也許會無限期地延續下去。這個制度的推行，會引起社會分解、混亂以及人民窮困。但是，低的生活水準也好、愈來愈窮困也好，都不會自動地消滅一個經濟制度。只有人民自己的明智足夠了解這種制度的改變是有利的時候，它才會由一個更有效率的制度代替。或者是被外國更厲害的武装力量摧毀，而那些外國的武裝力量是由於他們更有效率的本國經濟制度所供應的。

Optimists hope that at least those nations which have in the past developed the capitalist market economy and its civilization will cling to this system in the future too. There are certainly as many signs to confirm as to disprove such an expectation. It is vain to speculate about the outcome of the great ideological conflict between the principles of private ownership and public ownership, of individualism and totalitarianism, of freedom and authoritarian regimentation. All that we can know beforehand about the result of this struggle can be condensed in the following three statements:

樂觀的人們，總希望那些曾經發展資本主義的市場經濟和其文明的國家，至少也可堅守這個制度於將來。對於這個希望，確有些肯定的跡象，但也有同樣多的否定跡象。在財產私有與公有、個人主義與極權主義、自由與獨裁這些原則性的意理大衝突之間，預測其結果，是徒勞無益的。關於這個鬥爭的結果，我們所能預先知道的，可以濃縮成下列三點。

1. We have no knowledge whatever about the existence and operation of agencies which would bestow final victory in this clash on those ideologies whose application will secure the preservation and further intensification of societal bonds and the improvement of mankind's material well-being. Nothing suggests the belief that progress toward more satisfactory conditions is inevitable or a relapse into very unsatisfactory conditions impossible.

1. 在這個意理的大衝突中，我們不知道有沒有什麼力量，一定會使那些有利於人類的意理——社會的紐帶和人類的物質福利所賴以保持和促進的那些意理——得到最後勝利。沒有什麼東西叫我們堅信，人類前途一定是更滿意的情況，也沒有什麼東西叫我們堅信，人類前途不可能變得更壞。

2. Men must choose between the market economy and socialism. They cannot evade deciding between these alternatives by adopting a "middle-of-the-road" position, whatever name they may give to it.

2. 人們必須在市場經濟和社會主義之間選擇。想避免作這種選擇而採取所謂「中間路線」，這是做不到的，不管給這中間路線什麼名稱。

3. In abolishing economic calculation the general adoption of socialism would result in complete chaos and the disintegration of social cooperation under the division of labor.

3. 普遍地實行社會主義，廢除經濟計算，其結果一定是一團糟，社會的分工合作也就歸於解體。

------------

[2] Cf. above, pp. 305-308.

[2] 參考第十五章第十一節。

XXXVII. THE NONDESCRIPT CHARACTER OF ECONOMICS

第37章 難以形容的經濟學的特徵

1. The Singularity of Economics

一、經濟學的獨特性

What assigns economics its peculiar and unique position in the orbit both of pure knowledge and of the practical utilization of knowledge is the fact that its particular theorems are not open to any verification or falsification on the ground of experience. Of course, a measure suggested by sound economic reasoning results in producing the effects aimed at, and a measure suggested by faulty economic reasoning fails to produce the ends sought. But such experience is always still historical experience, i.e., the experience of complex phenomena. It can never, as has been pointed out, prove or disprove any particular theorem.[1] The application of spurious economic theorems results in undesired consequences. But these effects never have that undisputable power of conviction which the experimental facts in the field of the natural sciences provide. The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience.

經濟學在純粹知識方面和知識的實際應用方面，之所以具有它的獨特地位，是由於它的那些特殊的定理是不受經驗的證實或證妄的。當然，一個經由健全的經濟推理而採取的手段，定會收到所要達成的效果，一個經由錯誤的經濟推理而採取的手段，不會收到所想達成的效果。但是，像這樣的經驗總還是歷史經驗，也即複雜現象的經驗。前已講過，它決不能證明或反證任何特定的定理[1]。僞造的經濟定理之應用，將招致一些不良的後果。但是，這些後果決沒有自然科學在實驗室中提供的事實那樣，具有不可爭辯的說服力。鑑別經濟定理正確或不正確的最後標準，只是不藉助於經驗的理知。

The ominous import of this state of affairs is that it prevents the naive mind from recognizing the reality of the things economics deals with. "Real" is, in the eyes of man, all that he cannot alter and to whose existence he must adjust his actions if he wants to attain his ends. The cognizance of reality is a sad experience. It teaches the limits on the satisfaction of one's wishes. Only reluctantly does man resign himself to the insight that there are things, viz., the whole complex of all causal relations between events, which wishful thinking cannot alter. Yet sense experience speaks an easily perceptible language. There is no use arguing about experiments. The reality of experimentally established facts cannot be contested.

這種事態所預示的意義，是使天眞的人不能認淸經濟學所處理的那些事情的現實性。在人的眼光中，「現實」是他所不能變動的一切一切，如果他想達成他的目的，他就必須調整他的行爲以適應現實。承認現實，是個可悲的經驗。這個經驗敎我們知道一個人的慾望滿足，是有些限度的。有許多事情其間的因果關係非常複雜，不是一廂情願所能改變的。人，只好勉強自己來透視這個事實。但是，感官的經驗會說出一個易於了解的言詞。這裡用不著講什麼實驗。實驗所確定的那些事實是不可爭論的。

But in the field of praxeological knowledge neither success nor failure speaks a distinct language audible to everybody. The experience derived exclusively from complex phenomena does not bar escape into interpretations based on wishful thinking. The naive man's propensity to ascribe omnipotence to his thoughts, however confused

但是，在行爲知識的領域內，成功也好，失敗也好，都說不出每個人所聽得進的淸晰言詞。完全從複雜現象導出的那種經驗，難免會誤於一廂情願的解釋。天眞的人，每每把他的思想看成萬能。這個傾向，儘管是荒謬矛盾的，但决不會明明白白而毫不含糊地由經驗證明它的不實。經濟學界有些大言不慚的騙子，正如同醫術界有些江湖郞中。可是，經濟學家卻無法像醫生駁斥江湖郞中那樣駁斥經濟學界的騸子。歷史只對那些知道如何依據正確理論來解釋歷史的人們說話。

--------------

[1] Cf. above, pp. 31-32.

[1] 參考第二章第一節。

2. Economics and Public Opinion

二、經濟學與輿論

The significance of this fundamental epistemological difference becomes clear if we realize that the practical utilization of the teachings of economics presupposes their endorsement by public opinion. In the market economy the realization of technological innovations does not require anything more than the cognizance of their reasonableness by one or a few enlightened spirits. No dullness and clumsiness on the part of the masses can stop the pioneers of improvement. There is no need for them to win the approval of inert people beforehand. They are free to embark upon their projects even if everyone else laughs at them. Later, when the new, better and cheaper products appear on the market, these scoffers will scramble for them. However dull a man may be, he knows how to tell the difference between a cheaper shoe and a more expensive one, and to appreciate the usefulness of new products.

如果我們了解經濟學的實際應用必須有輿論的支持，則認識論的這個基本差異的重要性也就明白了。在市場經濟裡面，技術上的一些創新的實現，只要一個或少數開明人士承認那些創新是合理的就行了，羣衆方面的愚昧不能發生阻礙作用。就這些創新講，無須在事先赢得大衆的贊成。開始時即令有人嘲笑，它們也可自由進行。後來，到了新穎的、更好的、更便宜的產品出現在市場的時候，原先嘲笑的人們又爭先恐後地來搶購這些產品。一個人不管怎樣笨拙，他總會知道，雙鞋子的價錢有高低的差異，總會知道欣賞新穎而更合用的產品。

But it is different in the field of social organization and economic policies. Here the best theories are useless if not supported by public opinion. They cannot work if not accepted by a majority of the people. Whatever the system of government may be, there cannot be any question of ruling a nation lastingly on the ground of doctrines at variance with public opinion. In the end the philosophy of the majority prevails. In the long run there cannot be any such thing as an unpopular system of government. The difference between democracy and despotism does not affect the final outcome. It refers only to the method by which by which the adjustment of the system of government to the ideology held by public opinion is brought about. Unpopular autocrats can only be dethroned by revolutionary upheavals, while unpopular democratic rulers are peacefully ousted in the next election.

但是，在社會組織和經濟政策方面，情形就不是這樣。最好的學說，如果得不到輿論的支持，也就無用、也就行不通。政治制度不管是怎樣，決不會有個政府是以某些違反輿論的學說作爲政權的基礎而可長久統治的，終歸是大衆的哲學大行其道。從長期看，不會有不合輿情的政治制度這回事。民主與專制之間的差異，並不影響這最後的歸趨。這差異不過是方法上的差異：爲適應大衆所持的意理，政治制度所用以調整的方法有所不同。違反輿情的專制君主只有靠革命來打倒，民主政治下不合輿情的政治領袖，可以靠下次和平的選舉換掉。

The supremacy of public opinion determines not only the singular role that economics occupies in the complex of thought and knowledge. It determines the whole process of human history.

輿論的權威不僅是決定經濟學在思想和知識的複合體所佔的獨特角色。它也決定人類史的全部過程。

The customary discussions concerning the role the individual plays in history miss the point. Everything that is thought, done and accomplished is a performance of individuals. New ideas and innovations are always an achievement of uncommon men. But these great men

通常關於個人在歷史上扮演的角色的那些討論，都是不中肯的。凡是被想到、被作到，以及被完成了的事情，都是一些個人的成就。一些新的觀念和一些事物的創新，總是不平凡的人們的功績。但是，這些偉大的人物，如果不說服輿論，那就不能照他們的計畫來調整社會情況。

The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.

人類社會的發展，靠的是兩個因素：傑出之士的智力想出一些健全的社會經濟理論，以及這些人士或其他的人們能夠把這些意理說服大衆。

3. The Illusion of the Old Liberals

三、老輩自由主義者的幻想

The masses, the hosts of common men, do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster.

羣衆，大夥子的平凡人，不會有任何理念，健全的或不健全的都不會有。他們只是在知識領袖們所宣揚的一些意理之間加以選擇。但是，他們的選擇是最後的，而且決定了事情的趨勢。如果他們選擇壞的主張，那就無法防止災禍的到來。

The social philosophy of the Enlightenment failed to see the dangers that the prevalence of unsound ideas could engender. The objections customarily raised against the rationalism of the classical economists and the utilitarian thinkers are vain. But there was one deficiency in their doctrines. They blithely assumed that what is reasonable will carry on merely on account of its reasonableness. They never gave a thought to the possibility that public opinion could favor spurious ideologies whose realization would harm welfare and well-being and disintegrate social cooperation.

十八世紀啓蒙時期的社會哲學，沒有想到不健全的理念之流行所可引起的危險。古典經濟學家和功效主義思想家的理性主義，沒有什麼是可以反對的。但是，在他們的敎義中也有個缺陷。他們輕率地假定，只要是合理的事情僅憑其合理就可以行得通。他們從來沒有想到，輿論也可能贊成不健全的意理，這種意理的實現就會危害人們的福利，乃至破壞社會合作。

It is fashionable today to disparage those thinkers who criticized the liberal philosophers' faith in the common man. Yet, Burke and Haller, Bonald and de Maistre paid attention to an essential problem which the liberals had neglected. They were more realistic in the appraisal of the masses than their adversaries.

有些思想家批評自由主義的哲學家對於平凡人的信任，可是，對於這種思想家加以蔑視，卻成了今天的時髦風氣。但是，Burke和Haller，Bonald和de Maistre注意到自由主義者所忽視的一個基本問題。Burke等人對於羣衆的評估比他們的對方所作的評估要切實得多。

Of course, the conservative thinkers labored under the illusion that the traditional system of paternal government and the rigidity of economic institutions could be preserved. They were full of praise for the ancient regime which had made people prosperous and had even humanized war. But they did not see that it was precisely these achievements that had increased population figures and thus created an excess population for which there was no room left in the old system of economic restrictionism. They shut their eyes to the growth of a class of people which stood outside the pale of the social order they wanted to perpetuate. They failed to suggest any solution to the most burning problem with which mankind had to cope on the eve of the "Industrial Revolution."

保守的思想家基於這個幻想一傳統的父權政治制度和經濟建構的嚴肅性是可以保持的。他們特別讚美那種曾使大家富庶，甚至曾使戰爭人道化的舊的社會政治制度。但是，他們沒有想到：使人口增加因而在舊的制度下容納不下過剩人口的，也正是那舊制度的成就。他們對於站在他們所想永久保存的社會秩序以外的那個階層的人，閉目不見。他們對於「工業革命」前夕，人類所急於克服的那個迫切問題，沒有提出任何解決的辦法。

Capitalism gave the world what it needed, a higher standard of living for a steadily increasing number of people. But the liberals, the pioneers and supporters of capitalism, overlooked one essential point.

資本主義供應了世界所需要的，使繼續增加的人口可以過較高的生活水準。但是，自由主義者、資本主義的先鋒和支持者，忽視了一個要點。一個社會制度，不管怎樣有利，如果得不到大衆支持，總是行不通的。他們沒有預料到反資本主義的宣傳會成功。神化了的國王有其神聖使命這個神話，被自由主義者戳穿以後，自由主義者自己卻陷於另一個迷信，迷信不可抗拒的理知力量，迷信公意（the volonte generale），迷信大多數人的神靈啓示。他們以爲，在長期當中，社會情況的進歩、改良，是沒有什麼可以阻攔的。在揭開了古老的迷信的時候，啓蒙時期的哲學家一下子爲理知豎立了無上權威。他們以爲自由主義的一些措施，將會爲這個新意理之造福人羣提供十足的證據。聰明的人，誰也不會懷疑。在這些哲學家的心意中，絕大多數人是明智的，他們能夠正確地思想。

It never occurred to the old liberals that the majority could interpret historical experience on the ground of other philosophies. They did not anticipate the popularity which ideas that they would have called reactionary, superstitious, and unreasonable acquired in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They were so fully imbued with the assumption that all men are endowed with the faculty of correct reasoning that they entirely misconstrued the meaning of the portents. As they saw it, all these unpleasant events were temporary relapses, accidental episodes to which no importance could be attached by the philosopher looking upon mankind's history sub specie aeternitatis. Whatever the reactionaries might say, there was one fact which they would not be able to deny; namely, that capitalism provided for a rapidly increasing population a steadily improving standard of living.

這些老輩的自由主義者從未想到，大多數人會依據別的哲學來解釋歷史經驗。他們沒有料到他們所認爲反動的、迷信的，和不理智的那些想法，會在十九、二十世紀得勢。他們假定所有的人都具有正確推理的能力，而竟如此地深信這個假定，以致完全誤解了那些預示的意義。照他們看，所有那些叫人不愉快的事情，都是暫時的退步、偶然的揷曲，從永恆的觀點來看，人類歷史的哲學家對於這些事情是不重視的。不管反動者會說什麼，有一項事實是他們所不能否認的：即，資本主義爲激增的人口提供了一個不斷提高的生活標準。

It was precisely this fact that the immense majority did contest. The essential point in the teachings of all socialist authors, and especially in the teachings of Marx, is the doctrine that capitalism results in a progressive pauperization of the working masses. With regard to the capitalistic countries the fallacy of this theorem can hardly be ignored. With regard to the backward countries, which were only superficially affected by capitalism, the unprecedented increase in population figures does not suggest the interpretation that the masses sink deeper and deeper. These countries are poor when compared with the more advanced countries. Their poverty is the outcome of the rapid growth of population. These peoples have preferred to rear more progeny instead of raising the standard of living to a higher level. That is their own affair. But the fact remains that they had the wealth to prolong the average length of life. It would have been

正是這個事實爲大多數人所爭論的。所有社會主義的論著，尤其是馬克斯的敎義，其要點總是說，資本主義是使勞工大衆愈來愈窮。就一些資本主義的國家來講，這個謬論不會被忽視。就一些落後國家來講，這些國家僅僅受到資本主義一點虜淺的影響，空前的人口增加而大衆並沒有愈來愈窮。這些國家，與進歩國家比較的時候，是窮的。他們的窮是人口激增的結果。那裡的人民，寧可多生孩子而不期求較高的生活標準。這是他們自己的事情。但是，他們卻保有財富以延長平均生命，這個事實仍然存在。如果生活之資沒有增加的話，他們就不可能養活較多的孩子。

Nonetheless not only the Marxians but many allegedly "bourgeois" authors assert that Marx's anticipation of capitalist evolution has been by and large verified by the history of the last hundred years.

但是，有些人居然說，馬克斯關於資本主義癀進的預言，大體上被最近八十年的歷史證實了。說這種話的人，不僅是馬克斯主義者，而且許多是所謂「布爾喬亞」的作家們。

XXXVIII. THE PLACE OF ECONOMICS IN LEARNING

第38章 經濟學在知識界的地位

1. The Study of Economics

一、經濟學的研究

The natural sciences are ultimately based on facts as established by laboratory experiment. Physical and biological theories are confronted with these facts, and are rejected when in conflict with them. The perfection of these theories no less than the improvement of technological and therapeutical procedures requires more and better laboratory research. These experimental ventures absorb time, painstaking effort of specialists, and costly expenditure of material. Research can no longer be conducted by isolated and penniless scientists, however ingenious. The seat of experimentation today is in the huge laboratories supported by governments, universities, endowments, and big business. Work in these institutions has developed into professional routine. The majority of those employed in it are technicians recording those facts which the pioneers, of whom some are themselves experimenters, will one day use as building stones for their theories. As far as the progress of scientific theories is concerned, the achievements of the rank-and-file researcher are only ancillary. But very often his discoveries have immediate practical results in improving the methods of therapeutics and of business.

自然科學的最後基礎是實驗室裡試驗所確定的一些事實。物理學和生物學的理論要有事實印證，與事實衝突的時候，就得放棄。這些理論的完成，正如同工藝和醫療的進步一樣，需要更多、更好的實驗室的研究。這些試驗需要許多時間，專家們的辛苦工作，以及很大的經費。研究，再也不能由貧窮的科學家單獨來做，不管他如何聰明。今天，一些大規模的實驗室是由政府、一些大學、一些大企業、和一些基金支持的。在這些研究機構裡面的工作已經發展到職業性的例行工作。那些被僱用在實驗室的人們，大多數是些記錄事實的技工，而這些記錄下來的事實，可能有一天被一些發明家作爲他們新理論的基礎。這些做試驗的人當然也可能有些是發明家。就自然科學的理論進步來講，例行研究者的成績不過是輔助性的。但是，他的發現對於醫療法和經營法的改進，常常有直接的、實際的功效。

Ignoring the radical epistemological difference between the natural sciences and the sciences of human action, people believe that what is needed to further economic knowledge is to organize economic research according to the well-tried methods of the institutes for medical, physical, and chemical research. Considerable sums of money have been spent for what is labeled economic research. In fact the subject matter of the work of all these institutes is recent economic history.

忽視了自然科學與人的行爲科學之間這個基本差異的人們，總以爲要促進經濟知識，就必須按照醫學、物理學、化學的那些硏究機構實行得很好的方法來組織經濟研究機構。於是，大量的金錢花費在名之曰經濟研究的上面。事實上，所有這些機構的工作，主題都是最近的經濟史。

It is certainly a laudable thing to encourage the study of economic history. However instructive the result of such studies may be, one must not confuse them with the study of economics. They do not produce facts in the sense in which this term is applied with regard to the events tested in laboratory experiments. They do not deliver bricks for the construction of a posteriori hypotheses and theorems. On the contrary, they are without meaning if not interpreted in the

鼓勵經濟史的研究，的確是一件可稱讚的事情。這方面的硏究結果，不管如何有益，我們決不可把它們與經濟研究混爲一談。它們會發現事實——這裡所說的「事實」，是就這個名詞用在實驗室試驗方面的那個意義而言。它們不會爲演鐸的預設和定理提供資料。相反地，如果不就已有的理論來解釋，它們就毫無意義。關於這一點，在前幾章已講得很多，這裡無須再多講。關於一個歷史事實的成因的爭辯，不能靠那些未經明確的行爲理論指導的事實檢定來解決[1]。

The foundation of institutes for cancer research can possibly contribute to the discovery of methods for fighting and preventing this pernicious disease. But a business cycle research institute is of no help in endeavors to avoid the recurrence of depressions. The most exact and reliable assemblage of all the data concerning economic depressions of the past is of little use for our knowledge in this field. Scholars do not disagree with regard to these data; they disagree with regard to the theorems to be resorted to in their interpretation.

癌症研究機構的基金可能有助於這種惡性病的治療和預防方法的發現。但是，一個商業循環研究機構對於避免經濟蕭條卻毫無幫助。關於過去經濟蕭條的一切資料最精密可靠的集合，對於我們在這方面的知識，沒有什麼用處。學者們對於這些資料的看法不同；他們解釋這些資料所依據的理論，也彼此不一致。

Still more important is the fact that it is impossible to collect the data concerning a concrete event without reference to the theories held by the historian at the very outset of his work. The historian does not report all facts, but only those which he considers as relevant on the ground of his theories; he omits data considered irrelevant for the interpretation of the events. If he is misled by faulty theories, his report becomes clumsy and may be almost worthless.

更重要的事實是，捜集一個具體事件的有關資料，一開始就要受到這位歷史家所持的那些學說的影響。擺脫這種影響是不可能的。這位歷史家不是報吿所有的事實，他只是基於他所持的學說，而認爲相干的那些事實；他把那些他認爲與事件的解釋不相干的資料都丟掉。如果他被錯誤的學說誤導，他的報吿就成爲粗陋的，乃至毫無用處。

Even the most faithful examination of a chapter of economic history, though it be the history of the most recent period of the past, is no substitute for economic thinking. Economics, like logic and mathematics, is a display of abstract reasoning. Economics can never be experimental and empirical. The economist does not need an expensive apparatus for the conduct of his studies. What he needs is the power to think clearly and to discern in the wilderness of events what is essential from what is merely accidental.

即令是最可靠的一章經濟史，乃至最近時期的歷史，也不能替代經濟思考。經濟學，像邏輯和數學一樣，是一門抽象推理的展示。經濟學決不會是試驗的或經驗的科學。經濟學家用不著一套費用昂貴的研究裝備。他所要的是淸晰的思考力，靠這種思考力從茫茫浩瀚似的許許多多事件中，辨識出什麼是本質的，什麼是附隨的。

There is no conflict between economic history and economics. Every branch of knowledge has its own merits and its own rights. Economists have never tried to belittle or deny the significance of economic history. Neither do real historians object to the study of economics. The antagonism was intentionally called into being by the socialists and interventionists who could not refute the objections raised against their doctrines by the economists. The Historical School and the Institutionalists tried to displace economics and to substitute "empirical" studies for it precisely because they wanted to silence the economists. Economic history, as they planned it, was a means

經濟史與經濟學並沒有衝突。知識的每個部門，有它自己的價値和它自己的範圍。經濟學家從來不輕蔑或否認經濟史的意義。眞正的歷史家也不反對經濟學的研究。其間的敵對是一些社會主義者和干涉主義者故意引起的，這些社會主義者和干涉主義者無法駁倒經濟學家對於他們的敎條所提出的異議，因而製造出兩者之間的敵對。歷史學派和制度學派想以所謂「經驗的」研究來代替經濟學，因爲，他們要壓制經濟學家不能發言。在他們的計畫中，經濟史是摧毀經濟學聲望而宣傳干涉主義的一個工具。

---------------

[1] Cf., about the essential epistemological problems involve, pp. 31-41, about the problem of "qualitative" economics, pp. 55-57 and 350-350, and about the antagonistic interpretation of labor conditions under capitalism, pp. 617-623

[1] 關於這裡所涉及的一些基本的認識論上的問題，參考第二章第一節至第三節；關於經濟「計量」學的問題，參考第二章第八節及第十六章第五節；關於资本主義下勞工境況的敵意解釋，參考第二十一章第七節。

2. Economics as a Profession

二、作爲一門專業的經濟學

The early economists devoted themselves to the study of the problems of economics. In lecturing and writing books they were eager to communicate to their fellow citizens the results of their thinking. They tried to influence public opinion in order to make sound policies prevail in the conduct of civic affairs. They never conceived of economics as a profession.

早期的經濟學家致力於硏究經濟學的一些問題。在演講、寫信的時候，他們是要把他們思考的所得傳遞國人。他們想影響輿論，因而使政府所制定的政策健全、合理。他們從來不把經濟學看作一門專業。

The development of a profession of economists is an offshoot of interventionism. The professional economist is the specialist who is instrumental in designing various measures of government interference with business. He is an expert in the field of economic legislation, which today invariably aims at hindering the operation of the market economy.

經濟學家成爲一個專業者這種發展，是干涉主義的衍生物。專業的經濟學家是個工具性的專家，他幫助政府干涉民間經濟活動而設計種種措施。他在經濟立法方面是個專家，今天的經濟立法，其目的總是在妨礙市場經濟自由運作。

There are thousands and thousands of such professional experts busy in the bureaus of the governments and of the various political parties and pressure groups and in the editorial offices of party newspapers and pressure-group periodicals. Others are employed as advisers by business or run independent agencies. Some of them have nation-wide or even world-wide reputations; many are among the most influential men of their country. It often happens that such experts are called to direct the affairs of big banks and corporations, are elected into the legislature, and are appointed as cabinet ministers. They rival the legal profession in the supreme conduct of political affairs. The eminent role they play is one of the most characteristic features of our age of interventionism.

成千上萬的這種專家，在各級政府機關裡面、在各種政黨的總部裡面、在壓力團體裡面、在政黨報紙和壓力團體刊物的編輯室裡面，忙忙碌碌。還有一些被工商企業聘爲顧問，或經營獨立的顧問機構。其中有的聞名全國，甚至全世界；有許多是在他們國家裡面最有影響力的人物羣中。這樣的專家，常常被請去管理大銀行和大公司的業務，常常被選爲立法者，也常常被任命爲閣員或部長。他們在最高的政治事務方面與法律專家相抗衡。他們所扮演的這種突出的角色，是我們這個干涉主義時代最特殊的現象之一。

There can be no doubt that a class of men who are so preponderant includes extremely talented individuals, even the most eminent men of our age. But the philosophy that guides their activities narrows their horizon. By virtue of their connection with definite parties and pressure groups, eager to acquire special privileges, they become one-sided. They shut their eyes to the remoter consequences of the policies they are advocating. With them nothing counts but the shortrun concern of the group they are serving. The ultimate aim of their efforts is to make their clients prosper at the expense of other people. They are intent upon convincing themselves that the fate of mankind coincides with the short-run interests of their group. They try to sell this idea to the public. In fighting for a higher price of silver, of wheat, or of sugar, for higher wages for the members of their

這一羣如此重要的人物，無疑地包括著極有才能的人，甚至包括著我們這個時代最傑出的人物。但是，指導他們活動的那種哲學，卻縮小了他們的眼界。靠著與某些特定政黨和壓力團體的關係，而又急於獲取特權，於是，他們就變成偏於一方面的人物。他們對於他們所主張的政策所可招致的較遠的後果，置之不問，而只顧他們所服侍的團體的短期利益。他們努力的終極目的，是犧牲別人而爲他們所服侍的團體圖利。他們著意於使他們自己相信：人類的幸福與他們團體的短期利益是一致的。他們想把這個觀念推銷於大衆。爲較高的白銀價格、較高的小麥價格、或較高的食糖價格，爲他們工會份子的較高工資，或爲對較廉的外國產品課徵關稅而奮鬥的時候，他們聲稱是爲至善、自由和正義，爲他們國家的繁榮，乃至爲文明而奮鬥。

The public looks askance upon the lobbyists and blames them for the dismal features of interventionist legislation. However, the seat of the evil is much deeper. The philosophy of the various pressure groups has penetrated the legislative bodies. There are in the present-day parliaments representatives of wheat growers, of cattle breeders, of farmers' cooperatives, of silver, of the various labor unions, of industries which cannot stand foreign competition without tariffs, and of many other pressure groups. There are few for whom the nation counts more than their pressure group. The same holds true for the departments of the administration. The cabinet minister of agriculture considers himself the champion of the interests of farming; his main objective is to make food prices soar. The minister of labor considers himself the advocate of labor unions; his foremost aim is to make the unions as formidable as possible. Each department follows its own course and works against the endeavors of the other departments.

一般人大都厭惡國會的遊說者（lobbyists），而把干涉主義的立法所引起的不良後果歸咎於他們。其實，禍根比這更深遠。各種壓力圑體的哲學已滲透立法部門。現在，國會議員所代表的，是小麥的種植者、畜牲的飼養者、白銀的生產者、農民合作社、各種工會，以及那些不靠關稅就經不起外國產品競爭的工業，和許多別的壓力圑體。行政部門的情形也如此。農業部長把自己看作農民利益的保護者；他的主要目的在於使糧價高漲。勞工部長把自己看作工會的支持者；他的主要任務是使工會盡可能地龐大。每一部都有它自己工作的方針而彼此衝突。

Many people complain today about the lack of creative statesmanship. However, under the predominance of interventionist ideas, a political career is open only to men who identify themselves with the interests of a pressure group. The mentality of a union leader or of a secretary of farmers; associations is not what is required for a far-sighted statesman. Service to the short-run interests of a pressure group is not conducive to the development of those qualities which make a great statesman. Statesmanship is invariably long-run policy; but pressure groups do not bother about the long run. The lamentable failure of the German Weimar system and of the Third Republic in France was primarily due to the fact that their politicians were merely experts in pressure group interests.

今天，有許多人在感歎創造性的政治家太缺乏，可是，在干涉主義佔優勢之下，政治界的參與，只有那些和一個壓力團體相互提攜的人們才有份。一個工會領袖或一個農民協會的執行秘書的心境，不是一個有遠見的政治家所應具備的心境。爲一個壓力圑體的利益而服務，不會有助於一個大政治家之所以成爲大政治家的那些性質的發展。政治家的職份必然是長期政策的制定；但是，壓力團體是不關心長期的。德國威瑪憲政和法國第三共和的失敗，主要是由於當時的政客們只是些精通壓力團體利益的專家。

3. Forecasting as a Profession

三、預測

When the businessmen finally learned that the boom created by credit expansion cannot last and must necessarily lead to a slump, they realized that it was important for them to know in time the date of the break. They turned to economists for advice.

工商業者終於了解，信用擴張所創造的市面繁榮不會持久，而是必然要走向蕭條的。當他們有了這一了解的時候，他們就覺得趁早知道蕭條將要到來的時日，對於他們是很重要的。於是，他們就向經濟學家請敎。

The economist knows that such a boom must result in a depression. But he does not and cannot know when the crisis will appear. This depends on the special conditions of each case. Many political events can influence the outcome. There are no rules according to which

經濟學家知道這種市面繁榮終歸要導致蕭條。但是，他不知道、也不能知道危機何時會出現。這要看個案的一些特殊情況來決定。許多政治上的措施也會影響其結果。我們沒有什麼法則可據以估計這個市面繁榮可延續多久，或下一次的蕭條何時到來。而且，即令有這樣的一些法則，對於工商業者也沒有用處。個別的工商業者爲避免營業上的損失而需要的，是要在別的工商業者還相信經濟蕭條到來的時期還遠的時候，他會預先知道那個轉機的時曰。這樣，他的優越知識就可使他有機會調整他的業務，以免受到損失。但是，如果市面繁榮的結束可以按照一個公式來預測的話，則所有的工商業者都會同時預先知道這個時日。這樣一來，他們大家都依據這個消息來調整他們的業務，其結果就是立即顯現出百業蕭條。這時，任何一個工商業者要想避免損失能已太遲了。

If it were possible to calculate the future state of the market, the future would not be uncertain. There would be neither entrepreneurial loss nor profit. What people expect from the economists is beyond the power of any mortal man.

假若估計未來的市場結構是可能的話，未來也就不是不確定的了。如果眞的如此，那就沒有企業損失，也沒有企業利潤。一般人希望於經濟學家的，卻超越了人世間任何人的力量。

The very idea that the future is predictable, that some formulas could be substituted for the specific understanding which is the essence of entrepreneurial activity, and that familiarity with these formulas could make it possible for anybody to take over the conduct of business is, of course, an outgrowth of the whole complex of fallacies and misconceptions which are at the bottom of present-day anticapitalistic policies. There is in the whole body of what is called the Marxian philosophy not the slightest reference to the fact that the main task of action is to provide for the events of an uncertain future. The fact that the term speculator is today used only with an opprobrious connotation clearly shows that our contemporaries do not even suspect in what the fundamental problem of action consists.

「未來是可預測的：某些公式可用以代替企業活動之所以成爲企業活動的那種特別領悟；熟習了這些公式，任何人都可以從事工商業」。這個想法，正是成爲現代反資本主義政策之主因的那些謬見和誤解的衍生物。在所謂馬克斯哲學的整個體系中，一點也不提到「行爲的主要任務在於爲不確定的未來作準備」這個事實。「帶頭的人」（promoter）和「投機者」這兩名詞，現在只用作罵人的下流語，這個事實明白地表現出：我們這個時代的人，對於行爲的基本問題是什麼，甚至連想都沒有想。

Entrepreneurial judgment cannot be bought on the market. The entrepreneurial idea that carries on and brings profit is precisely that idea which did not occur to the majority. It is not correct foresight as such that yields profits, but foresight better than that of the rest. The prize goes only to the dissenters, who do not let themselves by misled by the errors accepted by the multitude. What makes profits emerge is the provision for future needs for which others have neglected to make adequate provision.

企業家的判斷，是巿場上不能買到的東西之一。企業觀念不是大多數人所會有的。它不只是產生利潤的正確的遠見，而是比其餘之人的遠見更好的遠見。獎金只歸於那些不受大衆所接受的謬見之誤導，而有其獨特判斷的人物。利潤之所以出現，是由於有人爲那些被別人忽視的未來需要而作準備，因而，這些人就得到別人所得不到的利潤。企業家和資本家如果深信他們的計畫是健全的，他們就把他們自己的物質福利拿來作賭注。他們決不會因爲一位專家敎他們怎樣做他們就怎樣做。靠秘密消息在證券和商品交易所做買賣的那些無知的人們，準會賠掉他們的本錢，不管他們所得到的靈感和「內幕」消息是什麼來源。

Entrepreneurs and capitalists expose their own material well-being if they are fully convinced of the soundness of their plans. They would never venture to take their economic life into their hands because an expert advised them to do so. Those ignorant people who

【中文版無此段。】

In fact reasonable businessmen are fully aware of the uncertainty of the future. They realize that the economists do not dispense any reliable information about things to come and that all that they provide is interpretation of statistical data referring to the past. For the capitalists and entrepreneurs the economists' opinions about the future count only as questionable conjectures. They are skeptical and not easily fooled. But as they quite correctly believe that it is useful to know all the data which could possibly have any relevance for their affairs, they subscribe to the newspapers and periodicals publishing the forecasts. Anxious not to neglect any source of information available, big business employs staffs of economists and statisticians.

事實上，經濟學家和工商業者都充份知道，未來是不確定的。工商業者知道經濟學家不會給他關於將來事情的任何可靠的消息，經濟學家所能提供的，不過是關於過去的統計資料的解釋。就資本家和企業家來講，經濟學家關於未來的意見，不過是些靠不住的推測。他們都是不容易受愚弄的。但是，因爲他們十分正確地相信：知道那些可能與他們業務有關的一切資料，終歸是有用的，所以他們訂閱一些刊登經濟預測的報紙和雜誌。他們只想不漏掉任何可利用的消息來源，大規模的企業總要饈用些經濟學家和統計家做他們的職員。

Business forecasting fails in the vain attempts to make the uncertainty of the future disappear and to deprive entrepreneurship of its inherent speculative character. But it renders some services in assembling and interpreting the available data about economic trends and developments of the recent past.

經濟預測不能使未來的不確定成爲確定，因而不能使企業精神失去它固有的投機性。但是，「預測」在收集和解釋那些關於最近經濟趨勢的資料方面，卻提供了很有價値的服務。

4. Economics and the Universities

四、經濟學和一些大學

Tax-supported universities are under the sway of the party in power. The authorities try to appoint only professors who are ready to advance ideas of which they themselves approve. As all nonsocialist governments are today firmly committed to interventionism, they appoint only interventionists. In their opinion, the first duty of the university is to sell the official social philosophy to the rising generation.[2] They have no use for economists.

靠稅收支持的一些大學，是要受執政黨的支配的。政府當局只任用那些準備宣揚他們所贊成的觀念的人們做敎授。因爲，所有非社會主義的政府，今天都堅信干涉主義，所以，他們只任用干涉主義者。在他們的見解中，大學的首要任務，是把官方的社會哲學向下一代推銷。[2]他們用不著經濟學家。

However, interventionism prevails also at many of the independent universities.

但是，干涉主義在許多獨立的大學也一樣地流行。

According to an age-old tradition the objective of the universities is not only teaching, but also the promotion of knowledge and science. The duty of the university teacher is not merely to hand down to the students the complex of knowledge developed by other men. He is supposed to contribute to the enlargement of this treasure by his own work. It is assumed that he is a full-fledged member of the world-embracing republic of scholarship, an innovator and a pioneer on the road toward more and better knowledge. No university would

按照古老的傳統來講，大學的目的不只是敎學，同時也要促進知識與科學。大學敎師的責任不只是把別人發展出的知識體系傳授給學生。他應該對他自己那一門的知識庫藏有所增益。他應該是舉世知識界的一位有充份資格的一份子，在走向更豐富、更優良的知識道路上，他是一位創新者或先鋒人物。一個大學不應甘心承認它的敎授在其專業領域中不及別人。每個大學敎授都要認爲，自己比得上他那門學科中其他的大師。像他們當中的最偉大者一樣，對於知識的進展，他也貢獻他的一份。

This idea of the equality of all professors is, of course, fictitious. There is an enormous difference between the creative work of the genius and the nomograph of a specialist. Yet in the field of empirical research it is possible to cling to this fiction. The great innovator and the simple routinist resort in their investigations to the same technical methods of research. They arrange laboratory experiments or collect historical documents. The outward appearance of their work is the same. Their publications refer to the same subjects and problems. They are commensurable.

「所有的敎授是同等的」這個想法，當然是個假想而非事實。在天才的創造性作品與專家的論著之間，有個很大的差異。可是，在經驗研究的領域裡，倒是可以抱持這個假想。偉大的創新者和簡單的例行工作者，在他們的硏究過程中，用的是相同的技術性的研究方法。他們做實驗室裡試驗或收集歷史性的記錄。他們的工作外表是相同的。他們發表的論著所指涉的是相同的科目和問題。他們是可等量齊觀的。

It is quite otherwise in theoretical sciences like philosophy and economics. Here there is nothing that the routinist can achieve according to a more or less stereotyped pattern. There are no tasks which require the conscientious and painstaking effort of sedulous monographers. There is no empirical research; all must be achieved by the power to reflect, to meditate, and to reason. There is no specialization, as all problems are linked with one another. In dealing with any part of the body of knowledge one deals actually with the whole. An eminent historian once described the psychological and educational significance of the doctoral thesis by declaring that it gives the author the proud assurance that there is a little corner, although small, in the field of learning in the knowledge of which he is second to none. It is obvious that this effect cannot be realized by a thesis on a subject of economic analysis. There are no such isolated corners in the complex of economic thought.

在理論科學，像哲學和經濟學方面，那就完全不一樣了。這裡，沒有什麼是例行工作者按照刻板的模式所能成就的。這裡沒有那些需要專門論著的作者勤勤懇懇不辭勞苦的工作。這裡沒有經驗方面的研究：所有的成就都要靠深思熟盧與推瑭的能力。這裡沒有什麼專門化，因爲所有的問題都是相互關聯的。處理這個知識體系的任何部份，實即處理它的全體。有一位傑出的歷史學家從心理和敎育的觀點形容博士論文的時候，他說，這種論文給作者一種驕傲自信，自信在他的那個知識領域裡有一個小角落，儘管小，他不比任何人差。很明顯地，這種後果，不會因一篇經濟分析的論文而發生。在經濟思想的集合體中，沒有這樣孤立的角落。

There never lived at the same time more than a score of men whose work contributed anything essential to economics. The number of creative men is as small in economics as it is in other fields of learning. Besides, many of the creative economists do not belong to the teaching profession. But there is a demand for thousands of university and college teachers of economics. Scholastic tradition requires that each of them should attest his worth by the publication of original contributions, not merely by compiling textbooks and manuals. An academic teacher's reputation and salary depend more on his literary work than on his didactic abilities. A professor cannot help publishing books. If he does not feel the vocation to write on economics, he turns to economic history or descriptive economics. But then, in order not to lose face, he must insist on the claim that the problems he treats are economics proper, not economic history.

對經濟學有重要貢獻的人，在同一時期從來沒有十個以上。有原創力的人，在經濟學方面如此之少，在其他知識領域也同樣地少。而且，有原創力的經濟學家，有許多不是雇於敎師羣的。但是，大學和學院所需要的經濟學敎師是數以千計。學術界的傳統是要求每位敎師發表原始貢獻以證明他的學問。僅是編敎科書和手册等不能算數。一位大學敎師的聲望和薪水，是看他的學術性著作而不是看他的敎導能力來決定的。一位敎授不得不出版幾本書。如果他覺得他沒有適合的能力寫經濟學的書，他就去寫經濟史或敍述經濟學。但是，爲著不丟面子，他又要堅稱他所處理的問題是純經濟學的，而不是經濟史。他甚至於還要強說，他的論著所包括的僅屬經濟硏究的正當範圍，只有這些論著才是經驗的、歸納的、和科學的，至於那些「講壇」理論家純抽象的著作，都是無用的空論。如果他不如此，他就得承認，在經濟學的敎師當中有兩類的人：一類是他們自己對於經濟思想的發展曾經有貢獻的人，一類是在這方面沒有貢獻，而在其他方面，如最近的經濟史方面，做得不錯的人。這樣一來，學術界的氣氛，就對他們變得不利了。許多敎授們——幸而不是所有的教授——存心輕蔑他們所謂的「空理論」（mere theory）。他們想用那個沒有系統的歷史的和統計的資料的湊合來替代經濟分析。他們把經濟學分散爲許多獨立的部門。他們專攻農業、勞工、拉丁美洲、和其他類似的一些分目。

It is certainly one of the tasks of university training to make students familiar with economic history in general and no less with recent economic developments. But all such endeavors are doomed to failure if not firmly grounded upon a thorough acquaintance with economics. Economics does not allow of any breaking up into special branches. It invariably deals with the interconnectedness of all the phenomena of action. The catallactic problems cannot become visible if one deals with each branch of production separately. It is impossible to study labor and wages without studying implicitly commodity prices, interest rates, profit and loss, money and credit, and all the other major problems. The real problems of the determination of wage rates cannot even be touched in a course on labor. There are no such things as "economics of labor" or "economics of agriculture." There is only one coherent body of economics.

使學生們熟習一般的經濟史，乃至最近的經濟發展，這確是大學敎育的工作之一。但是，所有這一類的敎學，如果沒有經濟學作基礎，一定是要失敗的。經濟學不容許割裂爲一些特殊部門。它所處理的，必定是一切行爲現象的相互關係。如果我們分別處理生產的每個部門，行爲學的一些問題就不會成爲顯而易見的。研究勞動和工資，而不涉及物價、利率、利潤和虧損、貨幣和信用，以及其他一切有關的重大問題，那是不可能的。工資率的決定這個問題的實質面，在「勞動」這一課程當中甚至不會接觸到。事實上，沒有「勞工經濟學」或「農業經濟學」這樣的東西。我們只有一個首尾一貫的經濟學。

What these specialists deal with in their lectures and publications is not economics, but the doctrines of the various pressure groups. Ignoring economics, they cannot help falling prey to the ideologies of those aiming at special privileges for their group. Even those specialists who do not openly side with a definite pressure group and who claim to maintain a lofty neutrality unwittingly endorse the essential creeds of the interventionist doctrine. Dealing exclusively with the innumerable varieties of government interference with business, they do not want to cling to what they call mere negativism. If they criticize the measures resorted to, they do it only in order to recommend their own brand of interventionism as a substitute for other people's interventionism. Without a qualm they endorse the fundamental thesis of both interventionism and socialism that the

這些專家們在他們的講演和發表的論文中所講的那些，都不是經濟學，而是各種壓力團體的論調。他們不理睬經濟學，因而不得不成爲某一壓力團體的意理的俘虜。甚至那些不公開偏袒某一壓力團體而號稱中立的專家們，也於無意中贊成干涉主義者一些基本信條。在討論各形各色的政府干涉的時候，他們並沒有堅持他們所說的「純消極主義」。如果他們批評政府所採的措施，他們只是爲的推薦他們自己的那個牌頭的干涉制以替代別人的干涉制。他們毫不愧疚地贊成干涉主義和社會主義的基本論點——自由的市場經濟只有利於無情的剝削者，不公平地傷害絕大多數人的重大利益。照他們的看法，凡是論證干涉主義徒勞無益的經濟學家，就是受大企業收買而爲不公平的權益作辯護的人。所以，他們主張必須把這樣的歹徒排斥於大學以外，而且，不讓他的論文發表在學校的刊物。

The students are bewildered. In the courses of the mathematical economists they are fed formulas describing hypothetical states of equilibrium in which there is no longer any action. They easily conclude that these equations are of no use whatever for the comprehension of economic activities. In the lectures of the specialists they hear a mass of detail concerning interventionist measures. They must infer that conditions are paradoxical indeed. because there is never equilibrium, and wage rates and prices of farm products are not so high as the unions or the farmers want them to be. It is obvious, they conclude that a radical reform is indispensable. But what kind of reform?

學生們迷惑了。在數理經濟學家所授的課程中，他們被塡塞了一些關於均衡狀態的公式，在均衡下再也沒有什麼動作了。他們很容易得到這樣的一個結論：這些方程式對於經濟活動的了解，沒有任何用處。在專家的演講中，他們聽到許許多多關於干涉措施的細節，他們必然推想到一些矛盾荒謬，因爲從來沒有一個均衡，而且工資率與農產品價格也沒有高到工會和農民所想的那麼高。於是，他們覺得激烈的改革，顯然是必要的。但是，怎麼樣改革呢？

The majority of the students espouse without any inhibitions the interventionist panaceas recommended by their professors. Social conditions will be perfectly satisfactory when the government enforces minimum wage rates and provides everybody with adequate food and housing, or when the sale of margarine and the importation of foreign sugar are prohibited. They do not see the contradictions in the words of their teachers, who one day lament the madness of competition and the next day the evils of monopoly, who one day complain about falling prices and the next day about rising living costs. They take their degrees and try as soon as possible to get a job with the government or a powerful pressure group.

大多數學生毫無抑制地擁護敎授們所推薦的干涉主義這種萬靈藥。他們相信，當政府實行最低工資率，供給每個人適當的食物和住宅的時候，或者當人造奶油的銷售和外國糖的輸入被禁止的時候，社會情況就叫人完全滿意了。他們沒有看出老師們所講的話裡面有許多矛盾，老師們某一天感歎競爭的瘋狂，第二天又感歎獨占的罪惡；某一天抱怨物價下跌，第二天又抱怨生活費上漲。這些矛盾，大多數的學生察覺不到。他們是要取得學位，是要儘快地向政府或某一有力量的壓力團體謀得一個職位。

But there are many young men who are keen enough to see through the fallacies of interventionism. They accept their teachers' rejection of the unhampered market economy. But they do not believe that the isolated measures of interventionism could succeed in attaining the ends sought. They consistently carry their preceptors' thoughts to their ultimate logical consequence. They turn toward socialism. They hail the Soviet system as the dawn of a new and better civilization.

但是，也有些頭腦敏銳的年輕人看透了干涉主義的那些謬誤。他們接受了老師們對自由市場經濟的反對，但是，他們不相信干涉主義的那些個別孤立的措施能夠達成它所追求的目的。他們一貫地把敎師們的思想推演到最後的邏輯結論。於是，他們轉向社會主義。他們向蘇維埃制度歡呼，認爲它是一個新的、更好的文明的開始。

However, what has made many of the present-day universities by and large nurseries of socialism is not so much the conditions prevailing in the departments of economics as the teachings handed down in other departments. In the departments of economics there can still be found some economists, and even the other teachers may be familiar with some of the objections raised against the practicability

可是，使得今天的許多大學成爲社會主義苗圃的上述情形，在經濟學系裡面卻不像其他各系那麼多。經濟學系裡面還可以找到若干傑出的經濟學家，甚至在經濟學系敎其他課程的敎師也熟習經濟學家反對社會主義的理由。這種情形與許多敎哲學、歷史、文學、社會學、和政治科學的敎師不同。這些敎師們是以斷章取義的粗疏的辯證唯物論作基礎來解釋歷史。其中，有些人即令是因爲唯物主義和無神論而熱烈反對馬克斯主義，他們仍然受著共產黨宣言和共產國際的政治綱領所表現的那些觀念的支配。他們把經濟蕭條、大量失業、通貨膨脹、戰爭和貧窮，解釋爲資本主義下必然的禍害。這些禍害只會隨資本主義的過去而消滅。

-----------------

[2] G. Santayana, in speaking of a professor of philosophy of the--then Royal Prussian--University of Berlin, observed that it seemed to this man "that a professor's business was to trudge along the govermental towpath with a legal cargo." (Persons and Places [New York, 1945], II, 7.)

[2] G. Santayana，在講到柏林大學（當時的普魯士大學）的一位哲學敎授的時候，他說，對於這個人而言，似乎是：「敎授的職責是循著政府指定的路線，拖著一船法定的貨色疲累地走」。(Persons and Places [New York, 1945], II, 7.)

5. General Education and Economics

五、一般教育與經濟學

In countries which are not harassed by struggles between various linguistic groups public education can work if it is limited to reading, writing, and arithmetic. With bright children it is even possible to add elementary notions of geometry, the natural sciences, and the valid laws of the country. But as soon as one wants to go farther, serious difficulties appear. Teaching at the elementary level necessarily turns into indoctrination. It is not feasible to represent to adolescents all the aspects of a problem and to let them choose between dissenting views. It is no less impossible to find teachers who could hand down opinions of which they themselves disapprove in such a way as to satisfy those who hold these opinions. The party that operates the schools is in a position to propagandize its tenets and to disparage those of other parties.

在那些沒有複雜的語言集團發生困擾的國家裡面，國民敎育，如果限之於讀、寫和計算，就會辦得很好。對於聰明的小孩，再敎點最淺顯的幾何學、自然科學和本國現行法律的基本概念，也是可以的。但是，一到他想更進一步，嚴重的困難就發生了。基層水準的敎育必然是注入式的。如果把一個問題的各方面看法都擺在靑年們的前面，讓他們在許多不同的意見中加以選擇，這是行不通的。另一方面，能夠把自己所不同意的意見，像自己所同意的一樣，樂於講給學生聽，這樣的敎師，也是難得找到的。還有，主辦這些學校的黨派，可以在校內宣傳它的主義或信條，而輕蔑其他黨派的主義或信條。

In the field of religious education the nineteenth-century liberals solved this problem by the separation of state and church. In liberal countries religion is no longer taught in public schools. But the parents are free to send their children into denominational schools supported by religious communities.

在敎會學校裡面，自由主義者解決這個問題是把政治與宗敎分開。在自由國家，公立學校不再講授宗敎的敎義。但是，學生的家長可以自由地把小孩們送到敎會所辦的學校去。

However, the problem does not refer only to the teaching of religion and of certain theories of the natural sciences at variance with the Bible. It concerns even more the teaching of history from the impact of nationalism and chauvinism. But few people realize that the problem of impartiality and objectivity is no less present in dealing with the domestic aspects of history. The teacher's or the textbook author's own social philosophy colors the narrative. The more the treatment must be simplified and condensed in order to be comprehensible

可是，這裡的問題不只涉及宗敎敎義及某些與聖經衝突的自然科學理論。它甚至與歷史和經濟學的敎學更有關係。―般人對於這件事所知道的，只是關於國際史的敎學。現在，有些人說到歷史的敎學必須避免民族主義和排外主義（chauvinism）的影響。但是，很少的人知道公平而客觀這個問題，同樣地，這也發生在國內史的敎學方面。敎師自己的和敎科書作者的社會哲學，會渲染他們所講的和所寫的故事內容。爲使小孩和靑年們易於了解，必須敎得簡單扼要；可是愈簡單扼要，效果也愈糟。

As the Marxians and the interventionists see it, the teaching of history in the schools is tainted by the endorsement of the ideas of classical liberalism. They want to substitute their own interpretation of history for the "bourgeois" interpretation. In Marxian opinion the English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution, the great French Revolution, and the nineteenth-century revolutionary movements in continental Europe were bourgeois movements. They resulted in the defeat of feudalism and in the establishment of bourgeois supremacy. The proletarian masses were not emancipated; they merely passed from the class rule of the aristocracy to the class rule of the capitalist exploiters. To free the working man, the abolition of the capitalist mode of production is required. This, contend the interventionists, should be brought about by Sozialpolitik or the New Deal. The orthodox Marxians, on the other hand, assert that only the violent overthrow of the bourgeois system of government could effectively emancipate the proletarians.

照馬克斯主義者和干涉主義者的看法，學校裡面所敎的歷史被古老的自由主義的觀點汚染了。他們想以他們自己的歷史解釋來替代「布爾喬亞」的歷史解釋。在馬克斯的見解中，一六八八年的英國革命、美國革命、法國大革命、以及十九世紀歐洲大陸的一些革命運動，都是布爾喬亞的運動。這些運動的結果，是封建制度的崩潰。資產階級的優勢隨著建立。無產階級的大衆沒有得到解放；他們只是從貴族階級的統治下轉而受資本主義剝削者的階級統治。爲著解放勞工，打倒資本主義的生產方式是必要的。干涉主義者主張用德國式的社會政策（Sozialpolitik）或美國式的新政來實現。另一方面，正統的馬克斯主義者則斷言：只有用暴力推翻資產階級的政治制度才會有效地解放無產階級。

It is impossible to deal with any chapter of history without taking a definite stand on these controversial issues and the implied economic doctrines. The textbooks and the teachers cannot adopt a lofty neutrality with regard to the postulate that the "unfinished revolution" needs to be completed by the communist revolution. Every statement concerning events of the last three hundred years involves a definite judgment on these controversies. One cannot avoid choosing between the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and that of the Communist Manifesto. The challenge is there, and it is useless to bury one's head in the sand.

【中文版無此段。】

On the high school level and even on the college level the handing down of historical and economic knowledge is virtually indoctrination. The greater part of the students are certainly not mature enough to form their own opinion on the ground of a critical examination of their teachers' representation of the subject.

在高中，甚至在學院這個階段，歷史和經濟學的傳授，實際上是注入式的。大多數的學生，確實不夠成熟到有自己的判斷。

If public education were more efficient than it really is, the political parties would urgently aim at the domination of the school system in order to determine the mode in which these subjects are to be taught. However, general education plays only a minor role in the formation of the political, social, and economic ideas of the rising generation. The impact of the press, the radio, and environmental conditions is much more powerful than that of teachers and textbooks. The propaganda of the churches, the political parties, and the pressure groups outstrips the influence of the schools, whatever they

如果國民敎育比實際的更有效率，那些政黨將更是要來控制學校，以決定這些課程的敎法。但是，普通敎育對於後代人政治的、社會的和經濟的觀念之形成，所發生的作用不大。報紙、廣播和周圍的環境的影響力，遠比敎師和敎科書的影響來的大。敎堂、政黨以及壓力團體的宣傳，也勝過學校的影響力，不管學校所敎的是什麼。學校裡面所學的東西常常是很快地就忘掉，不能夠長期保持住以對抗一個人所生活的環境繼續不斷的鎚擊。

6. Economics and the Citizen

六、經濟學與公民

Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's human existence.

經濟學不可拘限於學校敎室和統計官署裡面講授，更不可留在秘密傳授的圈子裡面。它是人的生活和行爲的哲學，它關係每個人和每件事。它是文明的精髓，也是我們人「合乎人情的存在」（man's human existence）所不可少的東西。

To mention this fact is not to indulge in the often derided weakness of specialists who overate the importance of their own branch of knowledge. Not the economists, but all the people today assign this eminent place to economics.

我提到這個事實並不是像某些專家一樣，故意誇大自己的知識部門的重要。今天，給經濟學重要地位的，不是經濟學家，而是所有的人。

All present-day political issues concern problems commonly called economic. All arguments advanced in contemporary discussion of social and public affairs deal with fundamental matters of praxeology and economics. Everybody's mind is preoccupied with economic doctrines. Philosophers and theologians seem to be more interested in economic problems than in those problems which earlier generations considered the subject matter of philosophy and theology. Novels and plays today treat all things human--including sex relations--from the angle of economic doctrines. Everybody thinks of economics whether he is aware of it or not. In joining a political party and in casting his ballot, the citizen implicitly takes a stand upon essential economic theories.

今天，一切政治問題都涉及廣義的經濟問題。當前關於社會公共事務的一切議論，都涉及行爲學和經濟學的基本因素。每個人都擺不脫經濟問題。哲學家和神學家對於經濟問題，似乎比對於前輩人所認爲的哲學和神學的主要問題，更有興趣。今天的小說和劇本，大都從經濟學說的角度來處理所有的人事——包括性的關係在內。每個人都會想到經濟學，不管他知道或不知道他所想的是經濟學。加入一個政黨和投他的選票，這個公民就是在無意中對於主要的經濟理論採取一個立場。

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries religion was the main issue in European political controversies. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe as well as in America the paramount question was representative government versus royal absolutism. Today it is the market economy versus socialism. This is, of course, a problem the solution of which depends entirely on economic analysis. Recourse to empty slogans or to the mysticism of dialectical materialism is of no avail.

在十六、十七世紀，宗敎是歐洲政治爭論中的主要問題。在十八、十九世紀，歐洲也好，美國也好，主要的問題是代表制政府對王權專制之爭。今天，是市場經濟對社會主義的問題。這是個完全要靠經濟分析來解決的問題。訴之於空洞的口號，或訴之辯證唯物論的神話，都是不管用的。

There is no means by which anyone can evade his personal responsibility. Whoever neglects to examine to the best of his abilities all the problems involved voluntarily surrenders his birthright to a self-appointed elite of supermen. In such vital matters blind reliance upon "experts" and uncritical acceptance of popular catchwords and prejudices is tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people's domination. As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and that of his progeny is at stake.

任何人沒有方法可用以逃避他的本身責任。凡是疏於檢討一切與自己有關的問題的人，就是自甘放棄他固有的權利而受制於一個自命爲超人的幹部，在生死攸關的重要事情上面，盲目地信賴「專家」，或不假思索地接受那些流行的標語和偏見，那就等於放棄自決權而聽任別人擺佈。在今天的情形下，對於每個有理解力的人而言，沒有比經濟學更重要的，他本人的命運以及他子孫的命運都與它密切相關。

Very few are capable of contributing any consequential idea to the body of economic thought. But all reasonable men are called upon to familiarize themselves with the teachings of economics. This is, in our age, the primary civic duty.

對於經濟思想體系能夠有所貢獻的人，是很少的。但是，所有懂道理的人，都得熟悉經濟學。在我們這個時代，這是公民的基本責任。

Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen.

經濟學再也不能是知識的秘授部門，再也不是少數的學者和專家所專有的知識。經濟學處理社會的一些基本問題；它關係到每個人，它屬於所有的人。它是每個公民所應當研習的。

7. Economics and Freedom

七、經濟學與自由

The paramount role that economic ideas play in the determination of civic affairs explains why governments, political parties, and pressure groups are intent upon restricting the freedom of economic thought. They are anxious to propagandize the "good" doctrine and to silence the voice of the "bad" doctrines. As they see it, truth has no inherent power which could make it ultimately prevail solely by virtue of its being true. In order to carry on, truth needs to be backed by violent action on the part of the police or other armed troops. In this view, the criterion of a doctrine's truth is the fact that its supporters succeeded in defeating by force of arms the champions of dissenting views. It is implied that God or some mythical agency directing the course of human affairs always bestows victory upon those fighting for the good cause. Government is from God and has the sacred duty of exterminating the heretic.

經濟觀念在公共事務的決定上所發生的主要作用，可以解釋一些政府、政黨、和壓力團體爲什麼一心一意地要限制經濟思想的自由。他們是要宣傳「好的」學說，同時不讓「壞的」學說聲張。照他們的看法，眞理並不僅僅憑它是眞理即有力量會使它最後勝利。爲著實現眞理，必須有警察或其他武裝的暴力行動作後援。在這個見解下，眞理的標準是看誰能以武力致勝。這意涵：指揮一切人事的上帝或某種神秘力量，總是使那些爲正義而奮鬥的人勝利。政府是來自上帝，因而它有消除異端邪說的神聖使命。

It is useless to dwell upon the contradictions and inconsistencies of this doctrine of intolerance and persecution of dissenters. Never before has the world known such a cleverly contrived system of propaganda and oppression as that instituted by contemporary governments, parties, and pressure groups. However, all these edifices will crumble like houses of cards as soon as a great ideology attacks them.

不寬容異端而加以迫害的這種學說，包含著許多矛盾，而且，在邏輯上是不一貫的。對於這種矛盾和不一貫，沒有詳加討論的必要。這個世界從來沒有像現代政府、政黨和壓力團體所建立的這麼靈巧的宣傳和壓迫制度。可是，所有這些龐大的建構，遇到一個偉大的意理向它們攻擊的時候，馬上就像小孩用紙牌做的房子一樣倒塌下來。

Not only in the countries ruled by barbarian and neobarbarian despots, but no less in the so-called Western democracies, the study of economics is practically outlawed today. The public discussion of economic problems ignores almost entirely all that has been said by economists in the last two hundred years. Prices, wage rates, interest rates, and profits are dealt with as if their determination were not subject to any law. Governments try to decree and to enforce maximum commodity prices and minimum wage rates. Statesmen exhort businessmen to cut down profits, to lower prices, and to raise wage rates as if these matters were dependent on the laudable intentions

今天，經濟學的硏究幾乎成爲法外的事情。不僅是在野蠻專制和新野蠻專制的國家是如此，在所謂西方民主國也如此。經濟問題的公開討論，幾乎完全抹煞了經濟學家在兩百年前所講的一切。他們在討論物價、工資、利率、利潤的時候，好像它們的決定，都不受扭可法則支配的。政治家勸吿工商業者減少利潤、降低價格、提高工資，好像這些事情都靠個人們的善意。在討論到國際經濟關係的時候，大家又很輕快地採納了最天眞的重商主義者的一些謬見。很少人知道所有這些著名學說的一些缺點，或認識到爲什麼基於這些學說的政策必然引起普遍的禍患。

These are sad facts. However, there is only one way in which a man can respond to them: by never relaxing in the search for truth.

這些都是可悲的事實。對於這些事實，我們該怎麼辦呢？只有一個方法，即，永不放鬆眞理的尋求。

XXXIX. ECONOMICS AND THE ESSENTIAL PROBLEMS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

第39章 經濟學與人類生存的一些基本問題

1. Science and Life

一、科學與人生

It is customary to find fault with modern science because it abstains from expressing judgments of value. Living and acting man, we are told, has no use for Wertfreiheit; he needs to know what he should aim at. If science does not answer this question, it is sterile. However, the objection is unfounded. Science does not value, but it provides acting man with all the information he may need with regard to his valuations. It keeps silence only when the question is raised whether life itself is worth living.

現代科學之所以常被指責，因爲它不表示價値判斷。我們常聽說，活生生行動的人，用不著「價値自由」（Wertfreiheit——價值自由是這個字的直譯，意指對於一切價值判斷採取中立立場。一切科學，包括經濟學在内，都是如此。——譯者附註）；他需要知道他應當追求什麼。如果科學不能答覆這個問題，它就是無用的。但是，這個異議是沒有理由的。科學不作價値判斷，可是，它給行爲人提供他在作價値判斷時所需要的一切訊息。只有在「生活本身是否值得活下去」這個問題提出時，科學是保持沉默的。

This question, of course, has been raised too and will always be raised. What is the meaning of all these human endeavors and activities if in the end nobody can escape death and decomposition? Man lives in the shadow of death. Whatever he may have achieved in the course of his pilgrimage, he must one day pass away and abandon all that he has built. Each instant can become his last. There is only one thing that is certain about the individual's future--death. Seen from the point of view of this ultimate and inescapable outcome, all human striving appears vain and futile.

這個問題，過去常被提出，將來也會常常被提出。結局是誰也逃避不了一死，那麼，生前的一切活動、努力，究竟有什麼意思？人是在死亡的陰影下過生活。在一生的過程中，不管他有什麼成就，終有一天他都要丟掉，丟掉他所有的成就。每一瞬間都可能是他最後的時刻。關於個人的未來，只有一件事是確定的，那就是「死」。從這個最後而不可逃避的結果的觀點來看，一切一切的人生努力，似乎都是徒勞無益。

Moreover, human action must be called inane even when judged merely with regard to its immediate goals. It can never bring full satisfaction; it merely gives for an evanescent instant a partial removal of uneasiness. As soon as one want is satisfied, new wants spring up and ask for satisfaction Civilization, it is said, makes people poorer, because it multiplies their wishes and does not soothe, but kindles, desires. All the busy doings and dealings of hard-working men, their hurrying, pushing, and bustling are nonsensical, for they provide neither happiness nor quiet. Peace of mind and serenity cannot be won by action and secular ambition, but only by renunciation and resignation. The only kind of conduct proper to the sage is escape into the inactivity of a purely contemplative existence.

而且，即令僅就直接的目標來判斷的時候，人的行爲也可說是空虚的。它決不能帶來充份滿足；它只在一剎那的時間使不愉快之感消失一部份而已。一個慾望剛剛滿足，馬上又產生新的慾望待滿足。據說，文明使人們更貧乏，因爲它繁殖人們的慾望，而且使慾望更強烈而不是使它減輕。辛苦工作的人們，忙忙碌碌所爲何來？旣得不到快樂，也得不到安靜。心靈的寧靜與明朗，不能得之於行動和世俗的野心，只能得之於制慾與忘形。唯一的聖哲型的生活方式是逃入沉思冥想的靜寂中。

Yet all such qualms, doubts, and scruples are subdued by the irresistible force of man's vital energy. True, man cannot escape death. But for the present he is alive; and life, not death, takes hold

可是，所有這樣的一些不安、懷疑和內疚，統統被那不可抗拒的生命力驅除了。不錯，人是逃避不了死的。但是，現在他是活著；旣活著，支配他的就是生活，而不是死亡。不管將來是怎麼樣，他總不能逃避當前的現實。一個人只要他還活著，他就不得不服從本能衝動（elan vital）的擺佈。人的本性是要保持和增強他的生命力，是要消除不舒適之感，是要尋求所謂的快樂。在每個人的身體內部，有個莫名其妙而不可分析的「意底」（id）發生作用。這個「意底」是一切衝動力的動源。是驅使人進到生活和行動的力量，是追求快樂人生的渴望。這個渴望是原始的，而又是根深柢固、不能拔除的。只要人活著，它就發生作用；只有生命結束時，它的作用才消失。

Human reason serves this vital impulse. Reason's biological function is to preserve and to promote life and to postpone its extinction as long as possible. Thinking and acting are not contrary to nature; they are, rather, the foremost features of man's nature. The most appropriate description of man as differentiated from nonhuman beings is: a being purposively struggling against the forces adverse to his life.

人的理知有益於這種本能衝動。理知在生物學上的功能，是保持和改善生活，以及盡可能延長生命期。思想和行爲不是違反自然的；它們是人性的主要特徵。人與非人動物的區別，最適當的描述是：爲反抗有害於他的生活的那些力量，而決心奮鬥的一個生物。

Hence all talk about the primacy of irrational elements is vain. Within the universe the existence of which our reason cannot explain, analyze, or conceive, there is a narrow field left within which man is capable of removing uneasiness to some extent. This is the realm of reason and rationality, of science and purposive action. Neither its narrowness nor the scantiness of the results man can obtain within it suggest the idea of radical resignation and lethargy. No philosophical subtleties can ever restrain a healthy individual from resorting to actions which--as he thinks--can satisfy his needs. It may be true that in the deepest recesses of man's soul there is a longing for the undisturbed peace and inactivity of a merely vegetative existence. But in living man these desires, whatever they may be, are outweighed by the urge to act and to improve his own condition. Once the forces of resignation get the upper hand, man dies; he does not turn into a plant.

因此，凡是說到非理性的因素如何重要的言論，都是廢話。宇宙的存在，不是我們的理知所可解釋、分析或想像的；在這個宇宙裡面，只有一個狹隘的範圍是我們人所可把不適之感消除到某種程度的。這就是理知和推理力、科學和有意的行爲所施展的領域。這個範圍的狹隘，以及在這個範圍以內，人所能獲得的成果之贫乏，都不會叫人抱持冷漠的態度。無論怎樣微妙的哲學理論，也不能說服一個健康的人不採取他所認爲可滿足其需要的行動。在一個人的心靈深處，也許是想得到一種純粹植物生態的安寧和靜止。但是，在活著的人的內部，這種想望終會被那個爲改善自己的情況而行爲的衝動勝過。一且冷漠的傾向佔上風的時候，人也就要死了。

It is true, praxeology and economics do not tell a man whether he should preserve or abandon life. Life itself and all the unknown forces that originate it and keep it burning are an ultimate given, and as such beyond the pale of human science. The subject matter of praxeology is merely the essential manifestation of human life, viz., action.

的確，行爲學和經濟學不會吿訴一個人應否保持或放棄他自己的生命。生命的本身以及創生它和維持它活躍的那些不可知的力量，是個極據（ultimate given），因此，它超出了人的科學範阖。行爲學的論題，只是人生的本質展示，也即，行爲。

2. Economics and Judgements of Value

二、經濟學與價値判斷

While many people blame economics for its neutrality with regard to value judgments, other people blame it for its alleged indulgence

有些人指責經濟學對於價値判斷保持中立；另外一些人認爲經濟學隨便作價値判斷而指責它。有些人說經濟學必然要作價値判断，所以不眞是科學，因爲科學是中立於價値判斷的；另外一些人又說，好的經濟學應該是、而且能夠是不偏不頗的，只有壞的經濟學家違犯這個基本要求。

The semantic confusion in the discussion of the problems concerned is due to an inaccurate use of terms on the part of many economists. An economist investigates whether a measure a can bring about the result p for the attainment of which it is recommended, and finds that a does not result in p but in g. an effect which even the supporters of the measure a consider undesirable. If this economist states the outcome of his investigation by saying that a is a bad measure, he does not pronounce a judgment of value. He merely says that from the point of view of those aiming at the goal p, the measure a is inappropriate. In this sense the free-trade economists attacked protection. They demonstrated that protection does not, as its champions believe, increase but, on the contrary, decreases the total amount of products, and is therefore bad from the point of view of those who prefer an ampler supply of products to a smaller. It is in this sense that economists criticize policies from the point of view of the ends aimed at. If an economist calls minimum wage rates a bad policy, what he means is that its effects are contrary to the purpose of those who recommend their application.

在這些問題的討論中之所以會有語意混淆，是由於許多經濟學家不適當地使用了一些名詞。一個經濟學家研究政策a能否達到它之所以被推薦而預定達到的結果p，他發現a的結果不是p而是g；這個結果，甚至從這個政策a的支持者來看也是不好的。如果這個經濟學家敍述他這一研究的結果，而說a是一個壞的政策，他並不是宜佈一個價値判斷。他僅是說，從那些想達成目的p的人們的觀點來講，這個政策a是不適當的，在這個意義下，主張自由貿易的經濟學家攻擊保護貿易政策。他們論證保護貿易，不會像它的主張者所相信的，增加財貨的總產量，而是相反地減少總產量；所以，從那些想有較多而非較少的物產供給的人們的觀點來講，保護貿易是壞的政策。經濟學家之批評政策，是從那些政策所想達成的目的的觀點來批評的。如果一個經濟學家說最低工資率是個壞政策，他的意思是說，這個政策的後果與推薦這個政策的人們的意願是相反的。

From the same point of view praxeology and economics look upon the fundamental principle of human existence and social evolution, viz., that cooperation under the social division of labor is a more efficient way of acting than is the autarkic isolation of individuals. Praxeology and economics do not say that men should peacefully cooperate within the frame of societal bonds; they merely say that men must act this way if they want to make their actions more successful than otherwise. Compliance with the moral rules which the establishment, preservation, and intensification of social cooperation require is not seen as a sacrifice to a mythical entity, but as the recourse to the most efficient methods of action, as a price expended for the attainment of more highly valued returns.

從相同的觀點，行爲學和經濟學都重視人類生存和社會合作的基本原則，即，在社會分工下的合作，比起自給自足的個人孤立，是個更有效率的行爲方式。行爲學和經濟學並不說人們應該在社會架構下和平合作；它們僅僅說，如果人們想使他們的行爲比別種方式的行爲更成功，他們就得這樣作。道德規律，是社會合作的建立、維持、和加強所必要的；遵守這些道德規律，不要認爲是爲一個神秘存在體而作的犠牲，而要認爲是採取最有效的行爲方法，是爲得到更高價値的報酬而支付的代價。

It is against this substitution of an autonomous, rationalistic and voluntaristic ethics for the heteronomous doctrines both of intuitionism and of revealed commandments that the united forces of all antiliberal schools and dogmatisms direct the most furious attacks. They all blame the utilitarian philosophy for the pitiless austerity of its description and analysis of human nature and of the ultimate springs of human action. It is not necessary to add anything more

這是以自律的、理性的、自願的倫理來替代直覺說和天啓的聖訓那一類的他律的敎條。這個替代，正是一切反自由的學派和敎義聯合起來猛烈攻擊的。他們一致指責功效哲學把人性以及人的行爲的最後原動力描述和分析得那麼冷酷嚴肅。對於這些批評的反駁，幾乎見之於本書的每一頁，再也不必多說了。只有一點必須再提到，因爲一方面它是所有現代唱反調者的中心論點，另一方面，它給那些怕學經濟學這門吃力學科的普通知識份子一個很好的藉口。

Economics, it is said, in its rationalistic prepossessions assumes that men aim only or first of all at material well-being. But in reality men prefer irrational objectives to rational ones. They are guided more by the urge to realize myths and ideals than by the urge to enjoy a higher standard of living.

他們說，經濟學，在其「合理」的前提假定下，假定人們惟一地，或最重要地志在追求物質福利。但在實際上，人們常常是不理性的。他們受那種想實現某些神話和幻想的衝動所支配的時候，較多於受那種想享受較高生活標準的衝動所支配的時候。

What economics has to answer is this:

經濟學所必須答覆的是這樣：

1. Economics does not assume or postulate that men aim only or first of all at what is called material well-being. Economics, as a branch of the more general theory of human action, deals with all human action, i.e., with man's purposive aiming at the attainment of ends chosen, whatever these ends may be. To apply the concept rational or irrational to the ultimate ends chosen is nonsensical. We may call irrational the ultimate given, viz., those things that our thinking can neither analyze nor reduce to other ultimately given things. Then every ultimate end chosen by any man is irrational. It is neither more nor less rational to aim at riches like Croesus than to aim at poverty like a Buddhist monk.

1. 經濟學並不假定人們惟一地或最重要地志在追求物質福利。經濟學，作爲較廣泛的人的行爲學之一部門，是處理所有的人的行爲，也即處理人的有意追求其所選擇的目標，不管這些目標是什麼。把「合理的」或「不合理的」的概念應用到所選擇的目標上，這是毫無意義的。我們也可把這個極據（也即，我們的思考既不能分析它，也不能把它約之於其他最後的什麽東西），叫做不合理的。但是，這樣一來，任何人所選擇

的毎個最後目標，也可說是不合理的。像第六世紀Croesus那樣的大富豪之以財富爲目的，並不比一個佛敎和尙之以貧窮爲目的更合理或更不合理。

2. What these critics have in mind when employing the term rational ends is the desire for material well-being and a higher standard of living. It is a question of fact whether or not their statement is true that men in general and our contemporaries especially are driven more by the wish to realize myths and dreams than by the wish to improve their material well-being. Although no intelligent being could fail to give the correct answer, we may disregard the issue. For economics does not say anything either in favor of or against myths. It is perfectly neutral with regard to the labor-union doctrine, the credit-expansion doctrine and all such doctrines as far as these may present themselves as myths and are supported as myths by their partisans. It deals with these doctrines only as far as they are considered doctrines about the means fit for the attainment of definite ends. Economics does not say labor unionism is a bad myth. It merely says it is an inappropriate means of raising wage rates for all those eager to earn wages. It leaves it to every man to decide whether the realization of the labor-union myth is more important than the avoidance of the inevitable consequences of labor-union policies.

2. 這些批評者，在使用「合理的目的」這個名詞時，心中所想的是對於物質福利和較高的生活標準的願望。他們是說，一般地講，尤其就我們現代人講，人們被那種想實現神話和夢想的願望所驅使的時候，較多於受那種想改善他們物質福利的願望所驅使的時候。這個說法是不是封，這是個事實問題。儘管有理解力的人，都會提出正確的答案，我們不妨不理這個問題。因爲經濟學對於神話，旣不說什麼贊成的話，也不說什麼反對的話。對於工會的理論、信用擴張的理論、以及所有那些被認爲神話的理論，經濟學都是完全中立的。它處理這些理論只是把它們看作關於手段的理論。經濟學並不說工會的那一套理論是一套壞的神話。它只是說，爲所有想賺得工資的人提高工資，那不是一個適當的手段。至於工會神話的實現，是否比工會政策的那些必然後果的避免更爲重要，那就留給每個人去作判斷。

In this sense we may say that economics is apolitical or nonpolitical,

在這個意義下，我們可以說，經濟學是脫離政治的，或非政治的，儘管它是一些政策和每種政治行爲的基礎。我們還可進一步說，它是完全中立於一切價値判斷的，因爲它總是說到手段，從不說到最後目的的選擇。

3. Economic Cognition and Human Action

三、經濟的認知與人的行爲

Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law.

人的選擇和行爲的自由，受三方面的限制。第一是物理學上的法則，這些法則是冷酷無情的，是絕對的。人，如果想活下去，就得調整他的行爲來適應它們。第二是個人的一些先天的特徵和氣質以及環境因素的運作；我們知道，它們旣影響目的的選擇，也影響手段的採取，儘管我們對於它們的運作所具有的認知頗爲模糊。最後第三方面，是關於手段與目的互相連結的那些現象的規律性，也即，不同於物理學和生物學法則的行爲學的法則。

The elucidation and the categorial and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.

關於這第三類的一些普通法則的說明，以及類型方面和形式方面的解釋，是行爲學，和其迄今最進步的部門——經濟學的主題。經濟知識的本體，是人類文明結構中的基本因素；它是現代工業化和最近一兩百年當中，所有道德的、知識的、技術的和醫療的成就所憑藉的基礎。至於經濟知識提供給人們的這些豐富寶藏，今後是否被善於利用，或置之不用，這就要由人們來決定。但是，如果他們不能善於利用它，且不理睬它的敎義和警吿，他們不會消滅經濟學；將被消滅的，是社會和人類。

Table of Contents

版本和來源

英文目錄

中文目錄

修訂版譯者序

原著第四版前言

原著第三版前言

原著第一版前言

緒論

一、經濟學與人的行爲通論

二、人的行爲通論在認識論上的一些問題

三、經濟理論與人的行為之實際

四、摘要

第一篇 人的行爲

第1章 行爲人

一、有目的的行爲與動物的反應

二、人的行爲的先決條件

三、作爲極據（Ultimate Given）的人的行爲

四、合理性和無理性；行爲學硏究的主觀論和客觀論

五、作爲行爲條件的因果關係

六、另一個我

第2章 行爲枓學的一些認識論的問題

一、行爲學與歷史

二、行爲學的形式的和演繹的特徵

三、先験和眞實

四、方法論的個人主義的原理

五、方法論的獨特性原理【方法論上的個體原則】

六、人的行爲的個性和變動性

七、歷史的範圍和其特殊方法

八、概念化與了解

九、論觀念的類型

十、經濟學的程序

十一、行爲學概念的一些限制

第3章 經濟學以及對理知的反叛

一、對理知的反叛

二、從邏輯學駁斥多邏輯論

三、從行爲學駁斥多邏輯論

四、種族的多通輯論

五、多邏輯論和了解

六、主張理知（reason）的理由

第4章 行爲元範第一個基本分析

一、目的和手段

二、價値的等級

三、需求的等級

四、作爲交換的行爲

第5章 時間

一、作爲行爲學的一個因素——時間

二、過去、現在和未來

三、時間的經濟

四、諸行爲之間的時序關係

第6章 不確定

一、不確定與行爲

二、或然率的意義

三、類的或然率

四、個案或然率

五、個案或然率的數的估値

六、打賭、賭博和競技

七、行爲學的預測

第7章 在這個世界裡面的行爲

一、邊際效用法則

二、報酬律

三、作爲手段的人的勞動

四、生產

第二篇 在社會架構裡面的行爲

第8章 人的社會

一、人的合作

二、對於整體主義的和玄學的社會觀之批評

三、分工

四、李嘉圖的協作法則

五、分工的一些效果

六、在社會裡面的個人

七、大社會

八、侵略與破壊的本能

第9章 觀念的功用

一、人的理知

二、世界觀舆意理

三、權力

四、改善論與進歩

第10章 在社會裡面的交換

一、獨自的交換與人際的交換

二、契約的拘束舆控制的拘束

三、計算的行爲

第三篇 經濟計算

第11章 不用計算的評値

一、手段的分級

二、價値價格原論中的虚構——直接交換

三、經濟計算問題

四、經濟計算與市場

第12章 經濟計算的範圍

一、貨幣記錄的特徵

二、經濟計算的限度

三、價格的可變性

四、安定

五、安定觀念的根源

第13章 作爲一個行爲工具的經濟計算

一、作爲一個思想方法的經濟計算

二、經濟計算與人的行爲科學

第四篇 市場社會的交換學或經濟學

第14章 交換學的範圍和方法

一、交換學的問題之界定

二、想像建構的方法

三、純粹的市場經濟

四、幻想的經濟

五、靜止狀態與均匀輪轉的經濟

六、靜態經濟

七、交換功能的統合

第15章 市場

一、市場經濟的一些特徵

二、資本財舆資本

三、資本主義

四、消費者主權

五、競爭

六、自由

七、財富與所得的不平等

八、企業家的利潤與虧損

九、在進歩經濟中企業家的利潤與虧損

十、發起人、經理、技術人員、官僚

十一、選擇的過程

十二、個人與市場

十三、商業宣傳

十四、國民經濟

第16章 價格

一、定價的過程

二、評値和估價

三、高級財貨的價格

四、成本計算

五、邏輯的交換學對數學的交換學

六、獨占價格

七、商譽

八、需求獨占

九、受了獨占價格影響的消費

十、賣方的價格歧視

十一、買方的價格歧親

十二、價格的相互關聯

十三、價格與所得

十四、價格與生產

十五、闢於非市場價格這個怪想

第17章 間接交換

一、交換媒介與貨幣

二、對於若干普遍誤解的觀察

三、貨幣需求與貨幣供給

四、貨幣購買力的決定

五、休姆（Hume）和穆勒（Mill）的問題以及貨幣的推進力

六、現金引起的和貨物引起的購買力的變動

七、貨幣的計算與購買力的變動

八、購買力變動的預期

九、貨幣的特殊價値

十、貨幣關係的意義

十一、貨幣代替品

十二、信用媒介發行量的限制

十三、現金握存的數額和成份

十四、收支平衡

十五、地域間的滙率

十六、利率和貨幣關係

十七、次級的交換媒介

十八、通貨膨脹主義者的歷史觀

十九、金本位

第18章 時間經過中的行爲

一、時間評値的透視

二、作爲行爲之一必要條件的時間偏好

三、資本財

四、生產期，等待的時間以及準備期

五、資本財的可變性

六、過去對於行爲的影響

七、資本的累積、保持與消耗

八、投資者的流動性

九、貨幣與資本；儲蓄舆投資

第19章 利率

一、利息現象

二、原始利息

三、利率的高度

四、變動經濟中的原始利息

五、利息的計算

第20章 利息、信用擴張和商業循環

一、一些問題

二、市場毛利率中的企業成份

三、作爲市場毛利率一個成份的價格貼水

四、借貸市場

五、貨幣關係的變動對於原始利息的影響

六、受了通貨膨脹舆信用擴張之影響的市場毛利率

七、受了通貨緊縮舆信用收縮之影響的市場毛利率

八、貨幣的或流通信用的商業循環論

九、受了商業循環影響的市場經濟

第20章 工作與工資

一、內向的勞動與外向的勞動

二、勞動的喜悅與厭惡

三、工資

四、交換論上的失業

五、毛工資率與淨工資率

六、工資舆生活費

七、受了勞動負效用之影響的勞動供給

八、受市場變化之影響的工資率

九、勞動市場

第22章 非人的原始的生產要素

一、關於地租理論的一般觀察

二、土地利用中的時間因素

三、邊際以下的土地

四、容身之用的土地

五、土地價格

第23章 市場的基料

一、理論與基料

二、權力的作用

三、戰爭舆征服在歷史上發生的作用

四、經濟學所處理的實實在在的人

五、調整時期

六、財產權的限制以及外部成本與外部經濟的一些問題

第24章 利益的和諧與衝突

一、市場上的利潤舆虧損的最後根源

二、生育節制

三、「正確了解的」利益和諧

四、私有財產

五、我們這個時代的一些衝突

第五篇 沒有市場的社會合作

第25章 一個社會主義社會的想像結構

一、社會主義這個構想的歷史根源

二、社會主義的敎條

三、社會主義在行爲學上的特徵

第26章 社會主義不可能有經濟計算

一、問題

二、過去沒有認淸這個問題

三、最近對於社會主義的經濟計算的一些建議

四、試試改改的辦法

五、準市場

六、數理經濟學的一些微分方程式

第六篇 受束縛的巿場經濟

第27章 政府與市場

一、第三制度的構想

二、政府的干涉

三、政府職務的界限

四、作爲個人行為最後標準的正義

五、放任的意義

六、政府對於消費的直接干涉

第28章 用租稅干涉

一、中立的稅

二、全部課稅

三、課稅的財政目的和非財政目的

四、租稅干涉的三個類別

第29章 生產的拘限

一、拘限的性質

二、拘限的代價

三、作爲一種特權的拘限

四、作爲一個經濟制度的拘限

第30章 對於價格結構的干涉

一、政府與巿場的自律

二、市場對於政府干涉的反應

三、最低工資率

第31章 通貨與信用的操縱

一、政府與通貨

二、法償立法上的干涉主義

三、現代通貨操縱法的演進

四、通貨貶値的目的

五、信用擴張

六、外滙管制舆雙邊外滙協定

第32章 沒收與再分配

一、沒收哲學

二、土地改革

三、沒收式的課稅

第33章 工團主義與勞資協作主義

一、工團主義者的想頭

二、工團主義的謬誤

三、一些時髦政策中的工團主義的成份

四、基爾特社會主義與勞資協作主義

第34章 戰爭經濟學

一、全體戰爭

二、戰爭與市場經濟

三、戰爭與自給自足

四、戰爭無用

第35章 福利原則與市場原則

一、反對市場經濟的理由

二、貧窮

三、不平等

四、不安全

五、社會正義

第36章 干涉主義的危機

一、干涉主義的結果

二、準備金的枯竭

三、干涉主義的終結

第七篇 經濟學在社會的地位

第37章 難以形容的經濟學的特徵

一、經濟學的獨特性

二、經濟學與輿論

三、老輩自由主義者的幻想

第38章 經濟學在知識界的地位

一、經濟學的研究

二、作爲一門專業的經濟學

三、預測

四、經濟學和一些大學

五、一般教育與經濟學

六、經濟學與公民

七、經濟學與自由

第39章 經濟學與人類生存的一些基本問題

一、科學與人生

二、經濟學與價値判斷

三、經濟的認知與人的行爲