評論
打印
Subsequent economists have tried to make sense of Say's law in the following way.
后來的經濟學家試圖用下面這種方式理解薩伊定律。
Imagine an economy that consists only of shoes and hats.
假設一個經濟體，它僅由鞋子和帽子組成。
The cobblers intend to sell $100-worth of shoes in order to buy the equivalent amount of hats.
鞋匠想銷售價值100美元的鞋，以便購買總價等量的帽子。
The hatters intend to sell wares worth $80 so as to spend the same sum at the cobbler's.
帽匠想賣出價值80美元的貨物，以便在鞋匠那里花出等量的錢。
Each plan is internally consistent (planned spending matches revenue).
每一項計劃都是內在一致的（計劃支出與收入相匹配）。
Added together, they imply $180 of sales and an equal amount of purchases.
加在一起，它們意味著價值180美元的銷售和等量總價的購買。
Sadly, the two plans are mutually inconsistent.
不幸的是，這兩項計劃是相互不一致的。
In the shoe market the producers plan to sell more than the consumers will buy.
在鞋市場中，生產方計劃比消費者想要購買的多銷售一些。
In the hat market the opposite is the case.
帽子市場的情況正好相反。
A journalist, attentive to the woes of the shoe industry, might bemoan the economy's egregious overcapacity and look askance at its $180 GDP target.
關注制鞋行業痛苦的記者可能會對經濟體的嚴重產能過剩表示悲哀，并以懷疑的目光看待其180美元的GDP目標。
Cobblers, he would conclude, must grasp the nettle and cut production to $80.
他會總結道，鞋匠必須大膽地解決問題，將產量降至80美元。
The journalist might not notice that the hat market is also out of whack, in an equal and opposite way.
記者可能沒有注意到，帽子市場也亂了套了，以總價相等、方向相反的方式。
Hat-buyers plan to purchase $100 from producers who plan to sell only $80.
買帽子的人計劃從準備只銷售價值80美元貨物的生產方那里購買價值100美元的帽子。
Unfortunately, this excess demand for hats cannot easily express itself.
不幸的是，對帽子的這部分超額需求不能容易地表達自己。
If cobblers can only sell $80 of shoes, they will only be able to buy the equivalent amount of hats.
如果鞋匠只能賣出價值80美元的鞋，他們將只能夠購買總價相等的帽子。
No one will see how many hats they would have bought had their more ambitious sales plans been fulfilled.
沒有人會搞明白，他們在自己更加野心勃波的計劃得以實現的條件下會買多少帽子。
The economy will settle at a GDP of $160, $20 below its potential.
經濟體將定格在160美元的GDP，比潛力低了20美元。
Say believed a happier outcome was possible.
薩伊相信，一種更樂觀的結果是可能的。
In a free market, he thought, shoe prices would quickly fall and hat prices rise.
他認為，在自由市場中，鞋價會快速下跌，帽價會快速上升。
This would encourage shoe consumption and hat production, even as it discouraged the consumption of hats and production of shoes.
這會鼓勵鞋的消費和帽子的生產，縱然這打擊了帽子的消費和鞋的生產。
As a result, both cobblers and hatters might sell $90 of their good, allowing the economy to reach its $180 potential.
結果，帽匠和鞋匠可能會雙雙售出價值90美元的產品，使經濟體達到180美元的潛力。
In short: what the economy required was a change in the mix of GDP, not a reduction in its level.
簡言之：經濟體所需要的是GDP組合的變化，而不是GDP水平的縮減。
Or as one intellectual ally put it, “production is not excessive, but merely ill-assorted”.
正如薩伊的一位學界盟友所言：“生產不是過剩，而是協調得不好而已”。
Supply gives people the ability to buy the economy's output.
供給賦予人們購買經濟體產出的能力。
But what ensures their willingness to do so?
但是，是什么保證了他們做這種事的意愿呢？
According to the logic of Say and his allies, people would not bother to produce anything unless they intended to do something with the proceeds.
根據薩伊及其盟友的邏輯，除非想干點有盈利的事情，否則人們是不會費心去生產任何東西的。
Why suffer the inconvenience of providing $100-worth of labour, unless something of equal value was sought in return?
除非具有同等價值的東西是作為回報所追求的，不然，為什么要承擔提供價值100美元的勞動力的不方便呢？
Even if people chose to save not consume the proceeds, Say was sure this saving would translate faithfully into investment in new capital, like his own cotton factory.
即便人們選擇儲蓄而不是消費這些盈利，薩伊還是確信，這些儲蓄會如實地轉變為新資本中的投資，就像他自己的棉紡廠一樣。
And that kind of investment, Say knew all too well, was a voracious source of demand for men and materials.
而且，薩伊也很了解，這種投資是對人力和原材料需求的一個貪婪之源。
譯文來源考研英語時事閱讀
