外文精读｜在危机期间哄抬价格是道德的吗

Could price gouging during a crisis actually be moral?

在危机期间哄抬价格真的是道德的吗?

翻译：罗红霉素

At the Safeway grocery store in Southwest Washington, D.C., the toilet paper and paper towels section has been empty for most of the last two months. When the store does restock, supplies don’t last long on the shelves. “Do you know if they have paper towels?” a pedestrian outside the store asked a stranger exiting the Safeway in late April. The answer was no: “Still out.”

在华盛顿特区西南部的Safeway杂货店，卫生纸和纸巾区在过去两个月的大部分时间里都是空的。当商店重新进货时，供应品不会在货架上停留很长时间。“你知道他们是否有纸巾吗?” 四月下旬，商场外的一名行人问从Safeway出来的陌生人。答案是否定的：“仍然没有。”

Paper products, hand sanitizer, masks, and cleaning wipes—all are in high demand and short supply during the COVID-19 crisis. Shoppers across the country are facing empty shelves and out-of-stock signs.

在疫情期间，纸制品、洗手液、口罩和清洁湿巾都供不应求。美国各地的购物者都面临着货架空空如也、商品告罄的局面。

But any seller who reacts to current crisis conditions by increasing prices on in-demand products may be committing a crime. Thirty-four states have laws against price gouging. In March, a bipartisan group of state attorneys general wrote a letter urging online marketplaces to crack down on price spikes.

但是，任何卖家如果对当前的危机状况做出反应，提高有需求产品的价格，都可能是在犯罪。34个州有法律禁止哄抬物价。今年3月，一个由州检察长组成的两党联合小组写了一封信，敦促 络市场打击价格上涨。

“While we appreciate reports of the efforts made by platforms and online retailers to crack down on price gouging as the American community faces an unprecedented public health crisis, we are calling on you to do more at a time that requires national unity,” the letter said.

信中说：“尽管我们感谢有关平台和在线零售商努力打击价格欺诈的努力，但由于美国社会面临着前所未有的公共卫生危机，我们呼吁你们在需要国家团结的时刻采取更多行动。”

A price gouger makes a good temporary boogeyman. One could look at high prices during an emergency and think: They’re trying to profit off of my desperation.

哄抬物价的人是好魔鬼（boogeyman原意是吓唬小孩从而让小孩养成好习惯的魔鬼）。人们可能会在紧急情况下看着高价，然后想：他们正试图从我的绝望中获利。

What exactly is price gouging, and what distinguishes it from a normal price increase? New York Attorney General Letitia James told NPR that “there’s no definitive answer” but “you know it when you see it—[it’s] when individuals are taking advantage of the market, particularly when a neighboring store is selling the same product for much less.” New York’s price gouging complaint form, which consumers can use to report retailers, defines it as “unconscionably excessive pricing of necessary consumer goods and services during any abnormal disruption of the market.” However different states might define it, price gouging is widely understood to be exploitative, sleazy, and heartless. Laws against it are popular.

哄抬物价到底是什么？它与正常的物价上涨有何不同？纽约司法部长 Letitia James 告诉美国国家公共广播电台，“没有明确的答案”，但是“当你看到它的时候你就知道了——当个人利用市场的时候，尤其是当邻近的商店以更低的价格出售同样的产品的时候。”消费者可以用纽约的价格欺诈投诉表格来举 零售商，该表格将价格欺诈定义为“在市场出现任何异常混乱时，必需的消费品和服务的价格被不合理地高估。” 不管各州如何定义，哄抬物价被普遍认为是剥削性的、卑鄙的、无情的。反对它的法律很受欢迎。

图｜纵坐标价格，横坐标数量，D为需求曲线，S为供应曲线，危机中需求增加，价格上涨

But Michael Munger, professor of political science at Duke University, says that high prices are a crucial part of dealing with scarcity during an emergency.

但杜克大学政治学教授 Michael Munger表示，在紧急情况下，高价格是应对稀缺性的关键部分。

“If you use the police to keep prices artificially low, it makes the problem of scarcity much worse,” Munger says in a short Institute for Humane Studies video on price gouging. Price gouging during an emergency allows more people to get what they need as soon as possible. “And that’s true even for those who can’t afford the gouger’s prices,” Munger explains.

Munger 在一段有关哄抬物价的短视频中说：“如果你利用警察来人为压低物价，这会使短缺问题更加严重。” 在紧急情况下哄抬物价可以让更多的人尽快得到他们需要的东西。Munger 解释说：“即使对那些付不起高格的价格的人也是如此。”

How? Increased prices prevent unnecessary hoarding. Buyers purchase only what they need when they need it. Also, producers are incentivized to make more. When the supply rises, prices will fall.

怎样呢？价格上涨防止了不必要的囤积。购买者只购买他们需要的东西。同时，生产者也有动力生产更多的产品。供应增加时，价格就会下降。

“Price gouging laws keep the shelves empty longer,” Munger says.

Munger 说：“禁止哄抬物价的法律会让货架上的商品空得更久。”

Matt Zwolinski, professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, argues in his paper “The Ethics of Price Gouging” that “most, though not all, cases of price gouging are at least morally permissible, if not morally praise-worthy.”

圣地亚哥大学哲学教授 Matt Zwolinski 在他的论文《哄抬物价的伦理学》中提出，“哄抬物价的大多数(尽管不是所有)案例至少在道德上是允许的，如果在道德上不值得称赞的话。”

“Relative to the baseline of no exchange at all, the gouger’s proposal stands to improve the lot of the buyer, not to worsen it,” Zwolinski writes. If a buyer purchases a product at an exceptionally high price during an emergency, the buyer has decided that their emergency need justifies the high price. As Zwolinski puts it: “While the price of generators might rise dramatically in the wake of a disaster which knocks out power to a certain population, so too does the need people have for generators.” A seller who raises prices did not create the buyer’s increased need; he or she is merely reacting to it.”

Zwolinski 写道:“与完全不交换的基准相比，古格尔的建议是改善买方的命运，而不是使其恶化。” 如果买家在紧急情况下以非常高的价格购买产品，那么他就认为他们的紧急需求证明了高价是合理的。正如他所指出的：“在一场使特定人群断电的灾难发生后，发电机的价格可能会大幅上涨，人们对发电机的需求也会大幅上升。”提高价格的卖家并没有增加买家的需求；他或她只是对它做出反应。

This doesn’t mean, of course, that the price gouger is motivated by altruism. “The fact that there are good arguments to be made for the moral permissibility of price gouging in certain cases does not mean that those who actually engage in the practice are motivated by these considerations,” Zwolinski writes. But that’s also true of normal market activity: As Adam Smith says in The Wealth of Nations, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” A price gouger makes a good temporary boogeyman. One could look at high prices during an emergency and think: They’re trying to profit off of my desperation.

当然，这并不意味着价格哄抬者的动机是利他主义。Zwolinski 写道:“在某些情况下，有充分的理由支持道德容许哄骗价格，但这并不意味着真正参与这种行为的人是出于这些考虑。”但这也适用于正常的市场活动：正如亚当·斯密在《国富论》中所说，“我们期待的晚餐并非来自屠夫、酿酒师或面包师的仁慈，而是来自他们对自身利益的考虑。” 哄抬物价的人是好魔鬼。人们可能会在紧急情况下看着高价，然后想：他们正试图从我的绝望中获利。

But if we heed the work of scholars like Michael Munger and Matt Zwolinski, we might begin to see price gouging as a rational and necessary part of emergency response. During normal times, a pack of hand sanitizer might cost the same as a bottle of red wine. But right now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, does anyone place nearly the same value on a bottle of wine as on a pack of hand sanitizer? By using the law to forcefully keep prices below what people would pay in an emergency, states enable hoarding. For Americans who would like to buy hand sanitizer—or paper towels, toilet paper, cleaning wipes, or masks—and can’t find any, price gouging laws are a cold comfort. Most would rather have the option of paying increased prices than no options at all.

但如果我们注意到 Michael Munger 和 Matt Zwolinski 等学者的工作，我们可能会开始把哄抬价格视为应急响应中合理且必要的一部分。在正常情况下，一包洗手液的价格可能相当于一瓶红酒。但是现在，在疫情期间，是否有人认为一瓶葡萄酒的价值几乎与一包洗手液的价值相同？通过使用法律强制将价格保持在人们在紧急情况下愿意支付的水平以下，各州可以进行囤积。对于那些想买洗手液或者纸巾、手纸、抹布或口罩却找不到的美国人来说，价格欺诈法只是一种冷冰冰的安慰。大多数人宁愿选择支付更高的价格，也不愿完全没有选择。