2023考研英語(yǔ)閱讀國(guó)富實(shí)論

　　The realwealth of nations

　　國(guó)富實(shí)論

　　A new report comes up with a better way to size upwealth

　　新報(bào)告，新思路，衡量真財(cái)富。

　　Wealth is not without its advantages, JohnKenneth Galbraith once wrote, and the case to thecontrary, although it has often been made, hasnever proved widely persuasive. Despite theobvious advantages of wealth, nations do a poor job of keeping count of their own. Theymay boast about their abundant natural resources, their skilled workforce and theirworld-class infrastructure. But there is no widely recognised, monetary measure that sumsup this stock of natural, human and physical assets.

　　約翰肯尼斯加爾布雷恩曾經(jīng)寫道：盡管事實(shí)反復(fù)證明財(cái)富并非一無(wú)是處，而其劣勢(shì)沒(méi)人說(shuō)地明白，其優(yōu)勢(shì)誰(shuí)又真正知道呢。即便財(cái)富優(yōu)勢(shì)清晰可辨，然而各個(gè)國(guó)家在清點(diǎn)財(cái)富時(shí)，卻總做著一筆糊涂賬。他們也許會(huì)驕傲地宣稱，我國(guó)自然資源豐富，勞動(dòng)力技術(shù)嫻熟并且基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施世界一流。但是，我們卻沒(méi)有一個(gè)一致認(rèn)可的貨幣量度來(lái)總括這些自然，人力和實(shí)物資產(chǎn)。

　　Economists usually settle instead for GDP. But that is a measure of income, not wealth. Itvalues a flow of goods and services, not a stock of assets. Gauging an economy by its GDP islike judging a company by its quarterly profits, without ever peeking at its balance-sheet.Happily, the United Nations this month published balance-sheets for 20 nations in a reportoverseen by Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University. They included three kinds of asset: manufactured, or physical, capital ; humancapital ; and natural capital .

　　經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家總是用國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值來(lái)解決問(wèn)題。但是國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值 是衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家收入的指標(biāo)，并非資本。它體現(xiàn)了商品和服務(wù)的流量，而不是資本的存量。使用國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體， 恰如，從不往資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上掃一眼，卻以季度盈利來(lái)判斷一家企業(yè)的走向一樣。值得慶幸的是，本月聯(lián)合國(guó)在劍橋大學(xué)帕薩達(dá)斯古普塔爵士的監(jiān)督下，發(fā)表了20個(gè)國(guó) 家的資本決算報(bào)告，包含制造或物質(zhì)資本，人力資本，自然資本。

　　By this gauge, America s wealth amounted to almost $118 trillion in 2008, over ten times itsGDP that year. Its wealthper person was, however, lower than Japan s, which tops the league on this measure.Judged by GDP, Japan s economy is now smaller than China s. But according to the UN, Japanwas almost 2.8 times wealthier than China in 2008 .

　　根據(jù)該指標(biāo)，2008年，美國(guó)的財(cái)富總額近118萬(wàn)億美元，是其當(dāng)年國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的十倍多。然而，其人均財(cái)富卻低于日本，后者在這項(xiàng)指標(biāo)中獨(dú)占鰲頭。僅以國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量，日本的經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模比中國(guó)小。但是，根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)的報(bào)告，在2008年，日本的財(cái)富幾乎是中國(guó)的2.8倍。

　　Officials often say that their country s biggest asset is their people. For all of the countries inthe report except Nigeria, Russia and Saudi Arabia, this turns out to be true. The UNcalculates a population s human capital based on its average years of schooling, the wage itsworkers can command and the number of years they can expect to work before they retire. Human capital represents 88% of Britain s wealth and 75% of America s. Theaverage Japanese has more human capital than anyone else.

　　官員們經(jīng)常說(shuō)人民是國(guó)家最大的財(cái)富。除尼日利亞，俄羅斯和沙特阿拉伯外，該報(bào)告中的其他國(guó)家均證明了此言非虛。根據(jù) 一國(guó)國(guó)民平均受教育年限，工人應(yīng)得工資和該國(guó)國(guó)民退休前的工作年數(shù)，聯(lián)合國(guó)計(jì)算出了該國(guó)的人力資本。人力資本占英國(guó)財(cái)富的88%，美國(guó)的 75%。而日本人均蘊(yùn)藏的人力資本比任何其他國(guó)家都要高。

　　Japan is also one of only three countries in the report that did not deplete their naturalcapital between 1990 and 2008. All of the countries except Russia nonetheless increasedtheir wealth, accumulating enough other assets to offset the erosion of their naturalpatrimony. In 14 of the 20 countries studied, these increases in wealth outpaced the growthof their population, leaving per-person wealth higher in 2008 than in 1990. Germany, forexample, increased its human capital by over 50%. China expanded its manufacturedcapital by an extraordinary 540%.

　　該報(bào)告中，僅有三個(gè)國(guó)家在1990 2008年間，沒(méi)有損耗自然資本，日本也位列其一。盡管如此，除俄羅斯外，其他國(guó)家的財(cái)富均有增加，因?yàn)槿肆臀镔|(zhì)資本的積累抵消了自然資本損耗所帶來(lái)的損 失。在調(diào)研的20個(gè)國(guó)家中，14個(gè)國(guó)家的財(cái)富增長(zhǎng)速度超過(guò)人口增速，使得2008年的人均財(cái)富高于1990年。比如說(shuō)，德國(guó)的人力資本增長(zhǎng)了50%多。中 國(guó)的制造資本神一樣地增長(zhǎng)了540%。

　　By putting a dollar value on everything from bauxite to brainpower, the UN s exercise makesall three kinds of capital comparable and commensurable. It also implies that they aresubstitutable. A country can lose $100 billion-worth of pastureland, gain $100 billion-worth ofskills and be no worse off than before. The framework turns economic policymaking into anasset-management problem, says Sir Partha.

　　聯(lián)合國(guó)評(píng)估了從鋁土礦到智力資源，一切事物的價(jià)值，此次實(shí)踐使三種資本具備了可比性和 可衡量性，也意味著它們之間可以互相替代。一個(gè)國(guó)家若失去了價(jià)值1000億美元的牧場(chǎng)，卻獲得了1000億美元的技術(shù)，那她的狀況并不比之前差。帕薩爵士 說(shuō)：該框架將經(jīng)濟(jì)政策制定轉(zhuǎn)變成資產(chǎn)管理問(wèn)題。

　　A country like Saudi Arabia, for example, depleted its stock of fossil fuels by $37 billionbetween 1990 and 2008, while adding to its stock of school-leavers and university graduates. In some richer countries, however,investments in human capital appear to have hit diminishing returns, the report argues.Perhaps governments should redirect their investment into natural capital instead,restocking their forests rather than their libraries.

　　比如，沙特阿拉伯，在19902008年間，雖然損耗了 370億美元的化石燃料，但高中和大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的人數(shù)大大增加。報(bào)告指出，在一些更富裕的國(guó)家，人力資本的投資收益卻日漸萎 縮，也許這部分國(guó)家應(yīng)再度投資自然資產(chǎn)，重新武裝森林，而不是圖書館。

　　The idea that natural assets are substitutable makes some environmentalists nervous. Many of the services the environment provides, likeclean water and air, are irreplaceable necessities, they point out. In theory, however, theundoubted value of these natural treasures should be reflected in their price, which shouldrise steeply as they become more scarce. A good asset manager will then husband themcarefully, knowing that it will take an ever-increasing amount of human or physical capital tomake up for further losses of the natural kind.

　　自 然資產(chǎn)可替代論讓一些環(huán)保主義者不由捏一把冷汗。他們指出，自然所給予人類的供養(yǎng)，如潔凈的水和空氣是無(wú)法替代的必需品。然而，理 論上，這些自然財(cái)富不容置疑的價(jià)值應(yīng)該通過(guò)價(jià)格體現(xiàn)出來(lái)，而價(jià)格會(huì)隨著它們的稀缺而水漲船高。一位資深的資產(chǎn)管理人會(huì)謹(jǐn)慎使用這些資產(chǎn)，因?yàn)樗雷匀毁Y 本的空洞將變本加厲地吸取人力資本或物質(zhì)資本。

　　In practice, however, natural assets are often hard to price well or at all. As a consequence,the UN report has to steer clear of assets like clean air that cannot be directly owned, boughtor sold. It confines itself to resources like gas, nickel and timber, for which market pricesexist. But even these market prices may not reflect a commodity s true social value.Beekeeping is one example beloved by economic theorists. Bees create honey, which can besold on the market. But they also pollinate nearby apple trees, a useful service that is notpurchased or priced.

　　但是，實(shí)際上，我們很難或根本無(wú)法給自然資產(chǎn)標(biāo)上合適的價(jià)格。聯(lián) 合國(guó)的報(bào)告中避開了像潔凈空氣這樣無(wú)法直接擁有和買賣的自然資產(chǎn)，而只計(jì)算可以用市場(chǎng)價(jià)表示的自然資產(chǎn)，如天然氣，鎳和木材。即便如此，也許市場(chǎng)價(jià)無(wú)法反映出商品 真正的社會(huì)價(jià)值。經(jīng)濟(jì)理論家愛以養(yǎng)蜂為例，蜜蜂釀下可以在市場(chǎng)上兜售的蜂蜜，但它們也為周邊的蘋果樹授粉，而這個(gè)有益的舉動(dòng)卻不能被出售，也無(wú)法標(biāo) 價(jià)。

　　No one is more aware of these limitations than the report s authors. Their estimates areillustrative, not definitive, says Sir Partha. The calculations are inevitably crude, just asthe first guesstimates of GDP were crude over 70 years ago. He hopes more economists willdo the hard but valuable work of pricing the seemingly priceless. The profession does notreally reward this work, says Sir Partha. But some economists do it anyway. Taylor Rickettsof the University of Vermont and his co-authors have even calculated the value ofpollination, showing that one Costa Rican coffee-grower benefited by $62,000 a year fromthe feral honey bees in two nearby patches of forest.

　　沒(méi)有誰(shuí)比該報(bào)告的作者更清楚它的局限性。帕特爵士說(shuō)：他們的估算是對(duì)現(xiàn)有資本的補(bǔ)充性解釋，并不是最 佳版本。報(bào)告的結(jié)果不免有不準(zhǔn)確的地方，正如70多年前人們第一次約摸著估算GDP一樣。他希望更多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家能做出艱苦且有價(jià)值的工 作，為世界的無(wú)價(jià)資產(chǎn)標(biāo)價(jià)。帕特爵士還說(shuō)：這項(xiàng)工作在業(yè)界并非真地有利可圖。不管怎樣，還有經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家為此奉獻(xiàn)著，佛蒙特大學(xué)的泰勒立克次和他的合著 者們甚至計(jì)算出了蜜蜂授粉的價(jià)值。結(jié)果顯示，哥斯達(dá)黎加兩小片樹林中的野蜜蜂就能為一位咖啡種植主帶來(lái)62000美元的利潤(rùn)。

　　Now that economists have shown that such wealth can be measured, they must decide whatit should be called. In his earlier academic work Sir Partha calls it comprehensivewealth. The UN report dubs it inclusive wealth. If the notion catches on, neither name maybe needed. Pretty soon, says Sir Partha, we ought to drop both adjectives and just call itwealth .

　　既然經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家已經(jīng)證明自然財(cái)富可以計(jì)算，那他們必須為它取個(gè)名字。在其早前的學(xué)術(shù)專著中帕特爵士曾稱它為全部財(cái) 富。聯(lián)合國(guó)的報(bào)告中則叫它天地財(cái)富。一旦這個(gè)概念流行開來(lái)，這兩個(gè)名稱都可能被淘汰，很快，帕特爵士說(shuō)，我們應(yīng)把形容詞都去掉，就叫它財(cái) 富!

　　The realwealth of nations

　　國(guó)富實(shí)論

　　A new report comes up with a better way to size upwealth

　　新報(bào)告，新思路，衡量真財(cái)富。

　　Wealth is not without its advantages, JohnKenneth Galbraith once wrote, and the case to thecontrary, although it has often been made, hasnever proved widely persuasive. Despite theobvious advantages of wealth, nations do a poor job of keeping count of their own. Theymay boast about their abundant natural resources, their skilled workforce and theirworld-class infrastructure. But there is no widely recognised, monetary measure that sumsup this stock of natural, human and physical assets.

　　約翰肯尼斯加爾布雷恩曾經(jīng)寫道：盡管事實(shí)反復(fù)證明財(cái)富并非一無(wú)是處，而其劣勢(shì)沒(méi)人說(shuō)地明白，其優(yōu)勢(shì)誰(shuí)又真正知道呢。即便財(cái)富優(yōu)勢(shì)清晰可辨，然而各個(gè)國(guó)家在清點(diǎn)財(cái)富時(shí)，卻總做著一筆糊涂賬。他們也許會(huì)驕傲地宣稱，我國(guó)自然資源豐富，勞動(dòng)力技術(shù)嫻熟并且基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施世界一流。但是，我們卻沒(méi)有一個(gè)一致認(rèn)可的貨幣量度來(lái)總括這些自然，人力和實(shí)物資產(chǎn)。

　　Economists usually settle instead for GDP. But that is a measure of income, not wealth. Itvalues a flow of goods and services, not a stock of assets. Gauging an economy by its GDP islike judging a company by its quarterly profits, without ever peeking at its balance-sheet.Happily, the United Nations this month published balance-sheets for 20 nations in a reportoverseen by Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University. They included three kinds of asset: manufactured, or physical, capital ; humancapital ; and natural capital .

　　經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家總是用國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值來(lái)解決問(wèn)題。但是國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值 是衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家收入的指標(biāo)，并非資本。它體現(xiàn)了商品和服務(wù)的流量，而不是資本的存量。使用國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體， 恰如，從不往資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上掃一眼，卻以季度盈利來(lái)判斷一家企業(yè)的走向一樣。值得慶幸的是，本月聯(lián)合國(guó)在劍橋大學(xué)帕薩達(dá)斯古普塔爵士的監(jiān)督下，發(fā)表了20個(gè)國(guó) 家的資本決算報(bào)告，包含制造或物質(zhì)資本，人力資本，自然資本。

　　By this gauge, America s wealth amounted to almost $118 trillion in 2008, over ten times itsGDP that year. Its wealthper person was, however, lower than Japan s, which tops the league on this measure.Judged by GDP, Japan s economy is now smaller than China s. But according to the UN, Japanwas almost 2.8 times wealthier than China in 2008 .

　　根據(jù)該指標(biāo)，2008年，美國(guó)的財(cái)富總額近118萬(wàn)億美元，是其當(dāng)年國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的十倍多。然而，其人均財(cái)富卻低于日本，后者在這項(xiàng)指標(biāo)中獨(dú)占鰲頭。僅以國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值衡量，日本的經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模比中國(guó)小。但是，根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)的報(bào)告，在2008年，日本的財(cái)富幾乎是中國(guó)的2.8倍。

　　Officials often say that their country s biggest asset is their people. For all of the countries inthe report except Nigeria, Russia and Saudi Arabia, this turns out to be true. The UNcalculates a population s human capital based on its average years of schooling, the wage itsworkers can command and the number of years they can expect to work before they retire. Human capital represents 88% of Britain s wealth and 75% of America s. Theaverage Japanese has more human capital than anyone else.

　　官員們經(jīng)常說(shuō)人民是國(guó)家最大的財(cái)富。除尼日利亞，俄羅斯和沙特阿拉伯外，該報(bào)告中的其他國(guó)家均證明了此言非虛。根據(jù) 一國(guó)國(guó)民平均受教育年限，工人應(yīng)得工資和該國(guó)國(guó)民退休前的工作年數(shù)，聯(lián)合國(guó)計(jì)算出了該國(guó)的人力資本。人力資本占英國(guó)財(cái)富的88%，美國(guó)的 75%。而日本人均蘊(yùn)藏的人力資本比任何其他國(guó)家都要高。

　　Japan is also one of only three countries in the report that did not deplete their naturalcapital between 1990 and 2008. All of the countries except Russia nonetheless increasedtheir wealth, accumulating enough other assets to offset the erosion of their naturalpatrimony. In 14 of the 20 countries studied, these increases in wealth outpaced the growthof their population, leaving per-person wealth higher in 2008 than in 1990. Germany, forexample, increased its human capital by over 50%. China expanded its manufacturedcapital by an extraordinary 540%.

　　該報(bào)告中，僅有三個(gè)國(guó)家在1990 2008年間，沒(méi)有損耗自然資本，日本也位列其一。盡管如此，除俄羅斯外，其他國(guó)家的財(cái)富均有增加，因?yàn)槿肆臀镔|(zhì)資本的積累抵消了自然資本損耗所帶來(lái)的損 失。在調(diào)研的20個(gè)國(guó)家中，14個(gè)國(guó)家的財(cái)富增長(zhǎng)速度超過(guò)人口增速，使得2008年的人均財(cái)富高于1990年。比如說(shuō)，德國(guó)的人力資本增長(zhǎng)了50%多。中 國(guó)的制造資本神一樣地增長(zhǎng)了540%。

　　By putting a dollar value on everything from bauxite to brainpower, the UN s exercise makesall three kinds of capital comparable and commensurable. It also implies that they aresubstitutable. A country can lose $100 billion-worth of pastureland, gain $100 billion-worth ofskills and be no worse off than before. The framework turns economic policymaking into anasset-management problem, says Sir Partha.

　　聯(lián)合國(guó)評(píng)估了從鋁土礦到智力資源，一切事物的價(jià)值，此次實(shí)踐使三種資本具備了可比性和 可衡量性，也意味著它們之間可以互相替代。一個(gè)國(guó)家若失去了價(jià)值1000億美元的牧場(chǎng)，卻獲得了1000億美元的技術(shù)，那她的狀況并不比之前差。帕薩爵士 說(shuō)：該框架將經(jīng)濟(jì)政策制定轉(zhuǎn)變成資產(chǎn)管理問(wèn)題。

　　A country like Saudi Arabia, for example, depleted its stock of fossil fuels by $37 billionbetween 1990 and 2008, while adding to its stock of school-leavers and university graduates. In some richer countries, however,investments in human capital appear to have hit diminishing returns, the report argues.Perhaps governments should redirect their investment into natural capital instead,restocking their forests rather than their libraries.

　　比如，沙特阿拉伯，在19902008年間，雖然損耗了 370億美元的化石燃料，但高中和大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的人數(shù)大大增加。報(bào)告指出，在一些更富裕的國(guó)家，人力資本的投資收益卻日漸萎 縮，也許這部分國(guó)家應(yīng)再度投資自然資產(chǎn)，重新武裝森林，而不是圖書館。

　　The idea that natural assets are substitutable makes some environmentalists nervous. Many of the services the environment provides, likeclean water and air, are irreplaceable necessities, they point out. In theory, however, theundoubted value of these natural treasures should be reflected in their price, which shouldrise steeply as they become more scarce. A good asset manager will then husband themcarefully, knowing that it will take an ever-increasing amount of human or physical capital tomake up for further losses of the natural kind.

　　自 然資產(chǎn)可替代論讓一些環(huán)保主義者不由捏一把冷汗。他們指出，自然所給予人類的供養(yǎng)，如潔凈的水和空氣是無(wú)法替代的必需品。然而，理 論上，這些自然財(cái)富不容置疑的價(jià)值應(yīng)該通過(guò)價(jià)格體現(xiàn)出來(lái)，而價(jià)格會(huì)隨著它們的稀缺而水漲船高。一位資深的資產(chǎn)管理人會(huì)謹(jǐn)慎使用這些資產(chǎn)，因?yàn)樗雷匀毁Y 本的空洞將變本加厲地吸取人力資本或物質(zhì)資本。

　　In practice, however, natural assets are often hard to price well or at all. As a consequence,the UN report has to steer clear of assets like clean air that cannot be directly owned, boughtor sold. It confines itself to resources like gas, nickel and timber, for which market pricesexist. But even these market prices may not reflect a commodity s true social value.Beekeeping is one example beloved by economic theorists. Bees create honey, which can besold on the market. But they also pollinate nearby apple trees, a useful service that is notpurchased or priced.

　　但是，實(shí)際上，我們很難或根本無(wú)法給自然資產(chǎn)標(biāo)上合適的價(jià)格。聯(lián) 合國(guó)的報(bào)告中避開了像潔凈空氣這樣無(wú)法直接擁有和買賣的自然資產(chǎn)，而只計(jì)算可以用市場(chǎng)價(jià)表示的自然資產(chǎn)，如天然氣，鎳和木材。即便如此，也許市場(chǎng)價(jià)無(wú)法反映出商品 真正的社會(huì)價(jià)值。經(jīng)濟(jì)理論家愛以養(yǎng)蜂為例，蜜蜂釀下可以在市場(chǎng)上兜售的蜂蜜，但它們也為周邊的蘋果樹授粉，而這個(gè)有益的舉動(dòng)卻不能被出售，也無(wú)法標(biāo) 價(jià)。

　　No one is more aware of these limitations than the report s authors. Their estimates areillustrative, not definitive, says Sir Partha. The calculations are inevitably crude, just asthe first guesstimates of GDP were crude over 70 years ago. He hopes more economists willdo the hard but valuable work of pricing the seemingly priceless. The profession does notreally reward this work, says Sir Partha. But some economists do it anyway. Taylor Rickettsof the University of Vermont and his co-authors have even calculated the value ofpollination, showing that one Costa Rican coffee-grower benefited by $62,000 a year fromthe feral honey bees in two nearby patches of forest.

　　沒(méi)有誰(shuí)比該報(bào)告的作者更清楚它的局限性。帕特爵士說(shuō)：他們的估算是對(duì)現(xiàn)有資本的補(bǔ)充性解釋，并不是最 佳版本。報(bào)告的結(jié)果不免有不準(zhǔn)確的地方，正如70多年前人們第一次約摸著估算GDP一樣。他希望更多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家能做出艱苦且有價(jià)值的工 作，為世界的無(wú)價(jià)資產(chǎn)標(biāo)價(jià)。帕特爵士還說(shuō)：這項(xiàng)工作在業(yè)界并非真地有利可圖。不管怎樣，還有經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家為此奉獻(xiàn)著，佛蒙特大學(xué)的泰勒立克次和他的合著 者們甚至計(jì)算出了蜜蜂授粉的價(jià)值。結(jié)果顯示，哥斯達(dá)黎加兩小片樹林中的野蜜蜂就能為一位咖啡種植主帶來(lái)62000美元的利潤(rùn)。

　　Now that economists have shown that such wealth can be measured, they must decide whatit should be called. In his earlier academic work Sir Partha calls it comprehensivewealth. The UN report dubs it inclusive wealth. If the notion catches on, neither name maybe needed. Pretty soon, says Sir Partha, we ought to drop both adjectives and just call itwealth .

　　既然經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家已經(jīng)證明自然財(cái)富可以計(jì)算，那他們必須為它取個(gè)名字。在其早前的學(xué)術(shù)專著中帕特爵士曾稱它為全部財(cái) 富。聯(lián)合國(guó)的報(bào)告中則叫它天地財(cái)富。一旦這個(gè)概念流行開來(lái)，這兩個(gè)名稱都可能被淘汰，很快，帕特爵士說(shuō)，我們應(yīng)把形容詞都去掉，就叫它財(cái) 富!