某人桑吧吧 关注:5贴子:3,781
  • 1回复贴,共1

Most economists in the United States seem captivated bythe spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal thatdoes not accord with the requirements of the free market. A price that isdetermined by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious.Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price-fixing (thedetermination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having avaluable economic function. In fact, price- fixing is normal in allindustrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as aneffortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that itrequires. Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence, acomparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same groupof consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needsand thus avoid selling its produces for more than its competitors charge iscommonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. But eachlarge firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has incommon with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each largefirm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would beprejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Mosteconomists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to bebrought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing thefree market to operate without interference is the most efficient method ofestablishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialistcountries other than the United states. These economies employ intentionalprice-fixing, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel andinformal price-fixing by agreements covering the member of an industry arecommon-place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free marketand inefficient about price-fixing, the countries that have suffereddrastically in their economic development. There is no indication that theyhave.
Socialist industry also works within a framework ofcontrolled price. In the early 1970's, the Soviet Unionbegan to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting pricesthat a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economistsin the United Stateshave hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are nomore subject to prices established by a free market over which they exerciselittle influence than are capitalist forms; rather, Soviet firms have beengiven the power to fix prices.


1楼2013-04-28 15:54回复
    翻译:
    大部分的经济学家都被市场经济形式深深的吸引。因此,一切不符合市场经济的事情就是糟糕的或不正常的。在他们看来,价格是由某些人决定而不是由商品在消费者之间的竞争决定是很不合理的。由此,如果是协议定价,经销商就需要考虑很多问题才能使经济机制既合理又有效。事实上,协议定价在工业化社会中是很经常的,它能弥补市场自主定价的无效性。
    现代工业要求和赞成大规模生产。因此,几家大企业就需要竞争相同的客户群。支持市场经济理论的人认为,每一个大企业会考虑到自身的利益而不会比自己竞争对手定价高。但是每一个大企业也会考虑到自身与其他企业在消费者需求和商品上的同质性。因此,每一个大企业都会尽量避免大幅度降价,因为这样就会损害消费者对这些相同商品的稳定的需求。在协议定价出现的时候,大部分经济学没有觉察出来,因为他们以为这样的价格是那些企业经过明确的协商后的结果,但事实不是这样的。另外,那些认为不加干预的自由市场经济自主定价是最有效的方式的科学家没有考虑到除了美国的非工业化国家。这些企业家用明显的方式使用有意的协议定价。正式的卡特尔定价和非正式的协议定价遮蔽了正常市场的协议定价。对于正在高速发展的国家,是自由市场经济定价好,还是协议定价好?还没有明确的信息可以论证。社会主义国家仍采用管制价格的模式。在70年代早期,前苏联开始适当的允许企业采用灵活的定价方式,这是一个与资本主义国家接近的重要转变。美国的经济学家非常高兴地认为这个改变代表苏联正回到市场经济。但苏联的企业因为不熟悉而还是更倾向于管制价格而不是资本主义的市场经济,再者,苏联企业也被给予了很强的管制定价的许可。


    2楼2013-04-28 15:54
    回复