《Basic Economics》的原文摘录

  • However, politicians’ success does not depend on their learning the lessons of history or of economics. It depends far more on their going along with what is widely believed by the public and the media, which may include conspiracy theories or belief that higher prices are due to “gouging” or “greed.” (查看原文)
    NewmanLoathesU 1回复 2013-04-20 15:44:08
    —— 引自章节:Regulatory Commissions
  • 印度国民大会党在印度卡纳塔克邦是执政党,该党曾努力调整电价,却遭到某个反对党的街头游行反对。然而,在相邻的安得拉邦,印度国民大会党是当地的反对党,却领导了游行示威来反对电价的上涨。换句话说,这些游行示威既不关乎意识形态,也不关乎政党,而是对公众误解的伺机玩弄。 (查看原文)
    特立独行的猪 1赞 2019-11-21 23:36:08
    —— 引自章节:第 8 章 管制与反托拉斯法
  • 从最终的结果来看,资源的总量当然是在减少的。但如果一种资源在人们已经不再使用后的几个世纪之后才用完,或在太阳变冷后的几千年之后才用完的话,那么这就不是什么严重的实际问题了。如果其用完的时间真的是一个与实际相关的问题的话,那么这种就将要被用尽的资源的上升的现值就将自动地迫使人们对其进行保护,而不需要引起公众的恐慌,也不需要政治上的劝导。 (查看原文)
    大小宏 1赞 2013-01-29 11:16:46
    —— 引自第247页
  • Prices not only ration existing supplies, they also act as powerful incentives to cause supplies to rise or fall in response to changing demand. When a crop failure in a given region creates a sudden increase in demand for imports of food into that region, food suppliers elsewhere rush to be the first to get there, in order to capitalize on the high prices that will prevail until more supplies arrive and drive food prices back down again through competition. What this means, from the standpoint of the hungry people in that region, is that food is being rushed to them at maximum speed by “greedy” suppliers, probably much faster than if the same food were being transported to them by salaried government employees sent on a humanitarian mission. Those spurred on by a desire to earn top dollar... (查看原文)
    NewmanLoathesU 2013-04-20 15:19:47
    —— 引自章节:Prices and Supplies
  • Halfway around the world, in eighteenth-century India, a local famine in Bengal brought a government crackdown on food dealers and speculators, imposing price controls on rice. Here the resulting shortages led to widespread deaths by starvation. However, when another famine struck India in the nineteenth century, now under the colonial rule of British officials and during the heyday of free market economics, opposite policies were followed, with opposite results: In the earlier famine one could hardly engage in the grain trade without becoming amenable to the law. In 1866 respectable men in vast numbers went into the trade; for the Government, by publishing weekly returns of the rates in every district, rendered the traffic both easy and safe. Everyone knew where to buy grain cheapest and ... (查看原文)
    NewmanLoathesU 2013-04-20 15:33:08
    —— 引自章节:The Politics of Price Controls
  • 有关质量下降的一些最让人痛苦的例子发生在对医疗保健实施价格管制的国家。人为造成的低价会使更多的人跑去看医生,即使得的仅仅是一些如鼻塞或皮疹之类的小兵,本来他们可能都不会理会,或者问一下药剂师可以利用非处方药来解决。但当价格管制低了看医生的成本,特别是当费用将由政府来付,从而对于病人来说看医生变成免费的时候,所有这些就都改变了。 简言之,在价格管制下,会有更多的人占用医生的时间,从而留给那些重病,疾病患者的时间就会更少。这样,在英国由政府管制的医疗系统之下,当有10000人为了动手术需要 等上15个月甚至更多时间时(这其中包括一个患有癌症,但由于一拖再拖以致最后已经不适宜动手术了的妇女),一个12岁的女孩却做了一个丰胸手术,价格能够自动让人们对于事情的轻重缓急进行考虑,因此这个作用的丧失就成为价格管制的首要危害之一。 (查看原文)
    Haruko 1回复 1赞 2013-08-03 19:55:50
    —— 引自第46页
  • 价格管制之所以这么流行,其中一个原因就是人们对于价格和成本的误解。例如,当政治家们说他们将“降低医疗服务的成本”时,几乎都无一例外的是想说他们将降低医疗服务的价格。医疗服务的真正成本——对于医生的数年的培训,医院的建造与其设施的配备所使用的资源,花了数年时间研制出一种新药所需要的数亿美元的研究经费——都是不可能有哪怕一点点的减少。这些东西甚至都不可能被政治家们在讲话中提到。他们所说的要降低医疗服务的成本其实是在说要降低药品的价格,减少医生或医院收取的费用。 (查看原文)
    Haruko 1回复 1赞 2013-08-03 19:55:50
    —— 引自第46页
  • 资本主义社会存在一种社会主义社会所没有的看得见的成本,即利润,而社会主义社会则存在一种资本主义社会所没有的看不见的成本,即无效率,因为这种成本在资本主义社会中被亏损与破产现象给清除掉了。资本主义经济中的大多数产品能让更多人负担得起的事实表明利润的成本要比无效率的成本低。换句话说,利润就是效率的价格。 (查看原文)
    樱桃Yuri 1赞 2013-11-21 11:29:10
    —— 引自第98页
  • 价格的上下波动能够配置具有多种用途的稀缺资源,而在价格管制下价格波动受到限制,也就降低了价格波动的这种激励,无法促使个人限制自己使用被许多人需要的稀缺资源。比如,房租管制导致了许多公寓只有一个人租住。 (查看原文)
    琵琶鱼 1赞 2020-02-15 22:27:30
    —— 引自章节:第 3 章 价格管制有效吗?
  • 2012年的一份关于自由市场的国际研究报告发现,世界上最自由的市场是香港,而治理香港的却是一个社会主义国家。 (查看原文)
    特立独行的猪 2019-11-18 21:18:50
    —— 引自章节:第 4 章 关于价格的其他问题
  • Economics is more than just a way to see patterns or to unravel puzzling anomalies. Its fundamental concern is with the material standard of living of society as a whole and how that is affected by particular decisions made by individuals and institutions. One of the ways of doing this is to look at economics policies and economics systems in terms of the incentives they create, rather than simply the goals they pursue.This meansthat consequences matter more than intentions -- and not the immediate consequences, but also the longer run repercussions of decisions, policies, and institutions. (查看原文)
    悠悠哉 2012-06-18 14:15:31
    —— 引自章节:Chapter 1 What is economics?
  • Economics is the study of the use of scare resources which have alternative uses. But it is not something as man-made as a budget which constrains them: Reality constrains them. These has never been enough to satisfy everyone completely. That is the real constraint. That is what scarcity means. (查看原文)
    悠悠哉 2012-06-18 14:15:31
    —— 引自章节:Chapter 1 What is economics?
  • Economics is also, and more fundamentally, about producing that output from scarce resources in the first place -- turning inputs into output. If each resource had only one use, economics would be much easier. (查看原文)
    悠悠哉 2012-06-18 14:15:31
    —— 引自章节:Chapter 1 What is economics?
  • What this all means as a general principle is that the price which one producer is willing to pay for any given ingredient becomes the price that other producers are forced to pay for that same ingredient. (查看原文)
    悠悠哉 2012-06-27 16:36:15
    —— 引自章节:Chapter 2 The role of prices
  • From the standpoint of society as a whole, the “cost” of anything is the value that it has in alternative uses. (查看原文)
    悠悠哉 2012-06-30 16:04:55
    —— 引自章节:Chapter 2 The Role of Price in
  • The separation of power and knowledge was at the heart of problem. (查看原文)
    悠悠哉 2012-06-30 17:51:26
    —— 引自章节:Chapter 2 The role of price in
  • 实际上,包工头投资的是工人的股票,而不是债券。 (查看原文)
    [已注销] 2012-11-05 17:32:05
    —— 引自第262页
  • 只有当价格是主观的,每个人得到的都比其主观上认为的要多的价值时,对于买者和卖者来说,继续进行交易才有意义。 (查看原文)
    大小宏 2012-12-25 13:46:14
    —— 引自第30页
  • 不管贪婪有多让人讨厌,它却可以使得食品运输得更快,从而挽救更多的生命。 (查看原文)
    大小宏 2012-12-25 14:05:39
    —— 引自第51页
  • 只要两种东西各自都有一定的价值,那么其中一种就不可能绝对的比另一种更有价值。一颗钻石也许比一个便士值钱很多,但足够多的便士放在一起就会比任何钻石都值钱。这就是为什么渐进式的权衡产生的结果要比设定的绝对的先后顺序更好的原因。 (查看原文)
    大小宏 2012-12-26 17:03:19
    —— 引自第70页
<前页 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 后页>