a theory in which they assume that people are rational, utility maximizers. The two

對於此理論我一向感到非常的不適 其中包含了兩個我不喜歡的元素

elements that I don't like...one, is the idea that they are rational and the other thing

第一是認為人類有理性的概念

is, what they're rational about, namely, maximizing utility. And I don't know whether you in your

第二則是人類理性的標的 也就是要達到效用最大化

writing use this phrase, but lots of economists do. Let's start with utility. I don't understand

我不清楚你在寫文章時是否會用到這個片語 但是很多的經濟學家會這麼做 讓我們先從效用開始談起

what it even means, because you can't put a little measure into a person's brain and

我根本不知道這是甚麼意思 因為你不能把一個小小的量測儀器放在人的腦袋裡判讀效用

read off utility and Irving Fisher had the idea of this unit...until...we know there

歐文費雪抱持著這個效用的概念 我們知道實際上並沒有這樣的一個單位

isn't such a unit. Why can you talk about maximizing something that you can't measure?

你要怎麼樣最大化一個根本無法測量的東西呢

BECKER: Alright, this is a good subject to start with, because I think we do disagree

貝克：好的 我想這裡是個不錯的開端 我們在這個議題上有著不同的看法

on this one. And I think you hit the nail right on the head with (regards to this being)

我也認為你正確地描述了這個意見分歧的情況

a serious disagreement. I do believe that it's useful. And that's all I would say, it's

但我只能說我認為效用理論是非常有用的

a useful way of looking at consumer behavior...to assume that they're maximizing utility. Whether

藉由假設人們想最大化效用 效用理論能幫助我們看清消費者的行為

we want to call that rational or not...to me (that) is a secondary issue, but I do believe

至於那樣是否該叫做理性又是另一回事了

they are maximizing utility. It's not that I believe there is such a unit of until that

但我相信人們是效用最大化的 也不是我相信真有個我們永遠無法測量的單位

we could ever measure. To me, maximizing utility simply means the following: That consumers

對我來說 效用最大化的意義是這個樣子的

can order all the opportunities they have available to them...possible choices. They

消費者能夠將所有可能的選擇排先後順序

can order them so they prefer some more then to others. They can rank them. And they have

能夠排序代表人們偏好某些選擇勝於其他選擇 除了選擇依照等級分次序外

limited resources. They have limited income...wealth, time, whatever it may be. And that they attempt

人們有著有限的資源 財富、金錢或是時間之類的

to choose that possibility...that combination of goods and so on that is ranked the highest

人們試著要在有限的資源下挑選出排序最優先的財貨選擇組合

consistent with their limited resources. Now I think this is a testable theory. That we

我認為這才是個可測的理論

can test it by various implications about how they would respond to prices, income,

藉由測試人們對於價格、收入與其他因素變動的反應

changes in wages, whole host of other patterns. It can become a very rich theory. I think

這會成為一個非常豐富的理論

it is becoming a very rich theory. It's not an empty theory. But it does not require the

我認為這是個豐富而不空洞的理論

assumption that everybody has some kind of utils in their head that they're calibrating

但這並不需要建立在計算效用的假設上

and they convey this gives me ten utils and five...Anyone can do away with utils entirely,

這樣做可以給我十點效用而那樣只有五點...沒有人需要效用這個概念

but just ask where do they prefer...they want to get more rather than less. They want to

僅僅需要問他們偏好甚麼 人們喜歡多更勝於少

do that in goods that they have a higher preferences for, rather than others. And my claim would

他們希望擁有更多自己更為偏好的財貨

be, this isn't the best theory possible, but it's the best theory that we have. I don't

儘管這不是最好的理論 不過就我們目前所能得到的理論當中算是最好的了

know of any alternative that gives us the insight that this does.

我不認為其他的替代選擇能夠給予我們更佳的觀點

COASE: You just said that one can get rid of it, why don't we get rid of it and just

寇斯：你剛才說可以拋棄掉效用的想法 那為何我們不放棄掉它

study choices? People choose and we can study what choices they make and we can then discuss

直接去研究選擇呢？ 我們可以探討人們所做的選擇是否具有一致性

whether their consistent or not...which is in some ways necessary for some of the tests.

在某種程度上 這對部分測試來說是必要的

My guess would be that you find a lot of inconsistencies in consumer behavior.

我猜想這是因為你發現消費者行為有許多的不一致性存在

BECKER: Well, I think consistency is the task that, in fact, one can show that the usual

貝克：我認為當一個人可以做等級排名的時候 自然會表現出他的一致性來

theory in terms of ranking and ordering, complete ordering of opportunities, is basically equivalent

完整地排序機會基本上就相當於判定人們是否具有一致性的測驗

to inconsistency tests that people behave consistently. Now maybe there had be a lot

或許是有許多的不一致性存在

of inconsistencies. But let me sort of point out that there had been a few attempts to

不過已經有些人嘗試去研究一致性的問題了

study the problem of consistency. Not so much with individual household data, but with more

不過由於我們缺乏豐富的個別家戶資料

group data, because one hasn't had the rich household data to do that, which is a limitation.

只能採用群體資料來研究

Let's say if people looked at long term English consumption patterns, American patterns, patterns

如果我們檢視英國的長期消費模式 或者是美國的長期消費模式

of different groups comparing different countries...and it had been very difficult to find dramatic,

以不同群體的資料來比照不同國家的情況時

very common examples of inconsistent behavior in that type of data. I'm sure they'll show

很難找到不一致性行為的戲劇性代表 我相信這種例子更容易出現在個人資料中

up more commonly in individual... COASE: You know a lot of work is being done

寇斯：已經有很多研究指出個體行為當中的反常現象存在

in showing that there are anomalies in individual behavior. I don't know about this well, but

對此我並不是很清楚

it wouldn't surprise me if they're right. In fact...

但如果他們是正確的我也不訝異 事實上...

BECKER: But its been only based on experimental evidence not on actual choices. And I think

貝克：不過那是基於實驗性的證據來說 而非實際的選擇

you and I would agree that we don't necessarily have this same theory to predict how people

我認為你我都會同意這一點 人們在實驗當中的行為模式

behave in experimental situations as they would behave in market situations.

跟他們在真實世界中的行為模式未必相同