are hard to get, but hundreds of millions of Americans have a kidney to spare. The numbers

儘管好幾億個美國人都有多餘的腎臟可以捐獻出來。移植手術所需的腎臟難以取得。

are heavily in our favor. The tragedy goes on year after year. Almost nobody wants to

這樣的悲劇每年仍不斷上演。幾乎沒有人願意無償地

do surgery to help a total stranger for free. And selling your kidney is illegal.

為了一個素未蒙面的人接受手術。何況買賣腎臟還是違法的。

Voters, and the politicians they elect, have banned the trading of cash for kidneys. Why?

選民以及他們所選出的政治人物，立法禁止腎臟的金錢交易，為什麼呢?

Because they underrate the social benefits of markets. They suffer from what I call anti-market

因為他們低估了器官買賣市場的社會效益。他們抱持著一種我稱之為 「反市場的偏見」。

bias. People who have never studied economics often equate greedy intentions with bad results.

那些對經濟學不了解的人們，經常將強烈的渴望與不好的結果劃上等號。

Economists share a standard objection to this bias. Thanks to competition, the surest way

經濟學家一致反對這種偏見。多虧了市場競爭，

to get rich is to make your customers happy. As the eighteenth-century economist Adam Smith

最可靠的致富方法就是讓消費者們開心。就像十八世紀的經濟學家亞當斯密所言:

put it, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own self-interest.

「我們的晚餐並不是出於屠夫,釀酒人或烘焙師的慈悲，而是出自他們的利己行為」。

Think about reviews on websites like Yelp. If you give your customers good value, they'll

想想例如Yelp等網站上面的評論，要是你提供顧客好的服務，那他們也會叫其他的顧客

come back and tell others to do the same. If you rip your customers off, they go elsewhere

一起回來消費。要是讓顧客有被敲竹槓的感覺，那他們下次就不會再光顧你的店，

next time and tell others to do the same. When customers are free to choose, firms can't

還會叫其他客人也別上門消費。當顧客有權力選擇時，企業絕對不能

put profits before people. If they do, they lose their people and their profits.

將利益置於顧客之前，因為要是這麼做的話，他們將會失去支持者與利潤。

Economists appreciation for markets leads us to unconventional solutions to all sorts

經濟學家對於市場的研究，讓我們能用非傳統的方法來解決各種問題。

of problems. Take the kidney shortage. Most people would shrug that there are no more

就拿腎臟短缺這問題來說，大多數人只會聳聳肩說腎臟就是不夠用。

kidneys available. But that's false. If just one person in a thousand donated a kidney,

但那是錯的，每一千個人當中只要其中一個人能捐出一顆腎臟，

everyone on dialysis could get one.

那麼每個需要洗腎的病人就都能接受換腎手術了。

There's just one problem. Asking someone to give you a kidney is a huge favor, the kind

問題只有一個。要別人捐給你一個腎臟可是很大的恩惠

of favor that only people who know and love you will agree to do. Love already saves a

一個只有認識你且深愛你的人才會同意幫這個忙。儘管人們互相的關愛已經拯救了許多人，

lot of lives, but it's clearly not enough. So why not legalize a market for human kidneys,

但很顯然地還不夠多。那為什麼不快點將人腎市場合法化，

where people who desperately need kidneys could buy one from a willing donor?

讓迫切需要腎臟的人們能從有意願的捐獻者那買顆腎臟呢?

Regardless of their politics, almost no one who isn't an economist sees merit to this

先不論大眾的政治立場，非經濟學家的人幾乎都不了解這個點子所會帶來的利益，

idea, and almost everyone who is an economist does. Some worry that low-income people would

但是，大部分經濟學家們則了解這個道理。有些人擔心低收入的人們會

be first in line to sell. But what's wrong with making poor people rich, and sick people well?

爭先恐後著要賣腎。但其實，讓窮人有錢賺，讓患者能健康這樣的事情，又有什麼不對呢?

This doesn't mean that economists always favor unregulated markets. Unlike a typical voter,

當然，這也不是說經濟學家們都喜歡這種不規律的市場。然而經濟學家與典型選民不同，

though, economists rarely complain because business is making money by solving a problem.

他們很少反對以解決問題的方式進行商業獲利。

Economists complain when business isn't making money by solving a problem.

而是在商業解決了問題卻沒賺到錢的時候。

When a market visibly isn't working, economists try to figure out ways to jump start markets.

當市場明顯無法正常運作時，經濟學家們會試著催動市場機制。

In many cases, slightly different government policies would do the trick.

在過去的許多例子裡，稍微改變政府的政策就會奏效。

Take air pollution. Many economists turn to government because they can't figure out how

比方說空氣汙染的問題，許多經濟學家向政府求助，因為他們不知要怎麼靠清淨空氣

a person could make money by cleaning the air. But that doesn't mean you can't have market.

賺錢。但這不代表你不能為此創造市場。

Liberal economist Alan Blinder promotes tradable pollution permits to cut the cost of reducing

自由經濟主義者 Alan Blinder 就推行可交易的污染許可，以降低減少汙染的成本。

pollution. Instead of telling firms how to cut emissions, government could cap their

與其要政府告訴企業如何減少廢氣排放量，不如限制企業的

total emissions, then let firms with spare pollution permits sell them to other firms

總排放量，然後讓有多餘排氣量許可的企業將許可轉賣給其他

that are over their quota. Blinder says this would reduce the cost of cleanup by at least

排放量已經超額的企業。Blinder 認為這樣的機制至少能夠減少清淨汙染的成本的一半

50 percent. When firms can sell their spare permits, they have a strong incentive to find cheaper ways to clean the air.

要是企業能夠轉賣多餘的排氣量許可，他們就會有強烈的動機去尋找能更便宜地清潔空氣的方法。

If markets can slash the cost of cleanup, why do voters resist the idea? Blinder blames

要是這樣的市場能夠削減環保成本，那為什麼選民們還要反對? Blinder將其歸咎於

anti-market bias. The public seems to recoil in horror at the idea of selling the right

「反市場偏見」。大眾似乎出於對於買賣汙染權的恐懼而退縮了，

to pollute, as if even a small emission of a pollutant were immoral. There's always going

他們認為彷彿就連一點點的污染都不道德。但零汙染本來就是不可能的事。

to be some pollution. As Blinder says, to think otherwise, is not to think.

就像Blinder說的，要是連這點都不了解，那就沒得談了。

When you can't imagine a way for business to make money solving a problem, it's tempting

要是你無法想像商業能透過解決問題而賺錢，那你就很有可能會做出

to conclude that no one will ever think of a way for business to make money solving a

商業無法同時兼顧解決問題與獲利 這樣的結論。

problem. Even economists, who pride themselves in their appreciation of markets, make this mistake.

就連那些以對市場的了解而自滿的經濟學家們，也都會犯這個錯。

If you went back in time to 1985 and described the Internet, most economists would have rolled

如果你回到1985年，然後對經濟學家們講述網路的概念，他們大多數人都會

their eyes millions of free websites providing everything from directions to histories of

對於「 數不清的免費網頁能夠提供人們從說明書到德國歷史的資訊」 的這個概念嗤之以鼻。

Germany. It'll never happen. Most economists would have been wrong, not because they had

還會對你說 「這不可能」。大部分的經濟學家可能是錯的，不是因為他們太相信市場機制，

too much faith in markets, but because they had too little faith in human imagination.

而是因為他們對於人類的想像力實在太沒信心。