評(píng)論
打印
Finance & economics
財(cái)經(jīng)版塊
Free exchange
自由交換專欄
Stop crying your heart out
別再傷心哭泣（注：標(biāo)題是綠洲樂(lè)隊(duì)一首歌曲的名字。）
Why concert-goers should welcome dynamic pricing.
為什么去演唱會(huì)的人應(yīng)該歡迎動(dòng)態(tài)定價(jià)。
The hotly anticipated comeback of a 1990s British legend sold out fast.
一個(gè)90年代英國(guó)傳奇樂(lè)隊(duì)將進(jìn)行萬(wàn)眾期待的回歸演出，門票迅速售罄。
Fans took to social media to complain.
粉絲們?cè)谏缃幻襟w上抱怨。
“Poor effort and a load of hype,” wrote one.
“垃圾，全是炒作。”一個(gè)人寫道。
“What a shitshow,” added another.
“真是一場(chǎng)狗血大戲。”另一個(gè)人補(bǔ)充道。
“Anyone else loving the chaos?” asked an amused onlooker.
“還有誰(shuí)喜歡看他們亂作一團(tuán)的好戲嗎？”一個(gè)覺(jué)得有趣的旁觀者問(wèn)道。
To celebrate its 30th birthday, St. John, a restaurant that pioneered modern British cooking, brought back its menu from 1994, along with prices from 1994.
為了慶祝圣約翰餐廳的30歲生日，這家開創(chuàng)了現(xiàn)代英國(guó)烹飪的餐廳帶回了它在1994年的菜單，而且價(jià)格也與1994年一樣。
As punters rushed to take advantage, tables were booked up in seconds—leaving most empty-handed.
客人們爭(zhēng)先恐后地想撿這個(gè)便宜，于是桌位在幾秒鐘內(nèi)就被預(yù)訂一空，大多數(shù)人都沒(méi)能訂到。
Yet the fate of London’s foodies captured less attention than that of the parka-clad fans who missed out on tickets to see the reunion of Oasis, a laddish rock band.
然而，這些倫敦食客的命運(yùn)所得到的關(guān)注比不上那些穿著派克大衣、沒(méi)買到綠洲樂(lè)隊(duì)重組演出門票的粉絲，綠洲是一支有少年氣質(zhì)的搖滾樂(lè)隊(duì)。
Owing to algorithmic “dynamic pricing”, in which prices of tickets adjust in response to demand, the cost of a standing ticket rose from 135 pounds ($180) to 335 pounds in the time many were queuing online, often for hours, to book.
由于采用了“動(dòng)態(tài)定價(jià)”算法，即門票價(jià)格根據(jù)需求進(jìn)行調(diào)整，因此在許多人線上排隊(duì)數(shù)小時(shí)的訂票過(guò)程中，一張站票的價(jià)格從135英鎊（合180美元）漲到了335英鎊。
The government swiftly announced a probe.
政府迅速宣布將對(duì)定價(jià)進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
“We’ll grip this and make sure that tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford,” promised Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s prime minister.
“我們會(huì)控制住局面，確保門票價(jià)格在人們實(shí)際能夠承受的范圍內(nèi)。”英國(guó)首相基爾·斯塔默爵士承諾。
Price-gougers are popular villains.
哄抬物價(jià)者是常見(jiàn)的反派角色。
Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president in America, has promised a ban to stop grocery stores from indulging in the practice.
美國(guó)民主黨總統(tǒng)候選人卡瑪拉·哈里斯承諾，禁止雜貨店肆意哄抬物價(jià)。
Many states have similar laws, often aimed at firms that raise the cost of essentials following disasters.
許多州都有類似的法律，這些法律通常針對(duì)那些在災(zāi)難發(fā)生后提高生活必需品價(jià)格的公司。
The administration in which Ms Harris serves as vice-president has already filed an antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster, the company that ran the sale for the Oasis tour.
美國(guó)當(dāng)屆政府（哈里斯在其中擔(dān)任副總統(tǒng)）已經(jīng)對(duì)特瑪捷票務(wù)公司提起了反壟斷訴訟，這家公司也負(fù)責(zé)綠洲巡演門票的銷售。
Given that the firm has an estimated market share of 70% in America, it may have a case to answer.
鑒于該公司在美國(guó)市場(chǎng)的份額估計(jì)為70%，特瑪捷可能有場(chǎng)官司要打了。
Additional fees for booking certainly look a little like the actions of a rent-seeker.
對(duì)訂票額外收費(fèi)確實(shí)看起來(lái)有點(diǎn)像尋租者的行為。（注：尋租是經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)，指在不從事生產(chǎn)或創(chuàng)造財(cái)富的情況下，通過(guò)壟斷社會(huì)資源而獲利。）
But there is a difference between monopolistic behaviour and allowing prices to respond to demand.
但是壟斷行為和允許價(jià)格對(duì)需求做出反應(yīng)是有區(qū)別的。
In fact, dynamic pricing ought to be good for fans.
事實(shí)上，動(dòng)態(tài)定價(jià)應(yīng)該是對(duì)粉絲有好處的。
As the contrasting examples of St. John and Oasis show, availability and affordability are in tension.
就像圣約翰餐廳和綠洲演唱會(huì)的鮮明對(duì)比所表明的，可購(gòu)買性和可負(fù)擔(dān)性之間存在緊張關(guān)系。
In St. John’s case, ultra-low prices meant demand swamped supply.
在圣約翰餐廳的情況中，超低價(jià)格意味著需求淹沒(méi)了供應(yīng)。
The menu may have been affordable, yet only for the lucky few who grabbed a table.
菜單上的價(jià)格可能是可以負(fù)擔(dān)的，但只有少數(shù)幸運(yùn)兒能搶到座位。
Dedicated fans of Oasis can at least make the gigs, even if they have to pay through the nose.
雖然粉絲們不得不付出過(guò)于高昂的價(jià)格，但綠洲樂(lè)隊(duì)的忠實(shí)粉絲至少可以買到票去看演出。
In an ideal market prices reflect the willingness of consumers to pay.
在理想市場(chǎng)中，價(jià)格反映了消費(fèi)者的支付意愿。
If Oasis tickets were sold for 20 pounds—roughly the amount that they cost three decades ago—many would be snapped up by people looking for a cheap night out, rather than genuine devotees.
如果綠洲樂(lè)隊(duì)的門票售價(jià)為20英鎊——大致相當(dāng)于三十年前的價(jià)格——那么許多票會(huì)被那些只想找個(gè)便宜的夜間活動(dòng)的人搶購(gòu)，而不是被真正的粉絲買走。
A fair portion would probably not turn up, because they were not that keen to see the band in the first place.
相當(dāng)一部分人可能不會(huì)去演唱會(huì)，因?yàn)樗麄円婚_始就不是那么熱切地想看這個(gè)樂(lè)隊(duì)。
The crowd might sing along to the hits but remain silent for the deeper cuts.
觀眾可能會(huì)一起唱熱門歌曲，但對(duì)于較冷門的歌曲則默不作聲。
Britain’s government may also crack down on dynamic pricing for flights, arguing that parents should not be penalised for having to take holidays during school breaks.
英國(guó)政府可能還會(huì)打擊機(jī)票的動(dòng)態(tài)定價(jià)，認(rèn)為父母不應(yīng)該因?yàn)橹荒茉趯W(xué)校放假期間休假而受到價(jià)格懲罰。
Yet would parents really welcome competition from the childless, who would no longer enjoy a discount for travelling at other times?
然而，如果沒(méi)有孩子的人在其他時(shí)間旅行不再享受折扣，父母?jìng)冋娴臅?huì)歡迎讓這些人和自己一起搶票嗎？
Economists favour responsive prices since they can ensure that both consumer and producer “surplus” is maximised: those who value the good or service most get their hands on it; the seller gets a suitable reward.
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們青睞能響應(yīng)需求的價(jià)格，因?yàn)檫@種價(jià)格可以確保消費(fèi)者“剩余”和生產(chǎn)者“剩余”都能最大化：那些對(duì)商品或服務(wù)估價(jià)最高的人買到了商品或服務(wù)，賣家也得到了合適的回報(bào)。（注：消費(fèi)者剩余是買家的心理預(yù)期價(jià)格減去實(shí)際支付的價(jià)格，生產(chǎn)者剩余是賣家實(shí)際賣出的毛收入減去成本。）
