国会山保姆合作社失败的教训

One of the most renowned parables in economics is that of the Capitol Hill babysitting co-operative.

经济学中最著名的案例之一是“国会山照看婴儿合作社(Capitol Hill babysitting co-operative)的故事。

It became famous because of Paul Krugman, a winner of the Nobel memorial prize in economics and a pugnacious columnist for The New York Times.

这个故事之所以出名是因为诺贝尔(Nobel)经济学奖得主、好斗的《纽约时报》(The New York Times)专栏作家保罗·克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)。

Long, long ago (the 1970s) in a town far, far away (Washington, DC) there was a babysitting co-op with a problem. The 150 or so families in the co-op, mostly congressional staffers, shared babysitting duties and kept track of who was owed babysitting, and who was owing, with a system of “scrip - tokens good for a half-hour's sitting.

很久很久以前（上世纪70年代），在一个遥远的地方（华盛顿特区），有一家照看婴儿合作社出了问题。合作社由大约150户人家组成，他们多数为国会工作人员，成员之间互相帮忙照看婴儿。他们采用“保姆券（一种票证，每张代表半小时的保姆服务），用以表示谁家帮别人照管了孩子，谁家的孩子请人照管了。

Thanks to an administrative misstep, the co-op ended up short of tokens. Most families wanted more, as a buffer in case they had a run of social engagements, and so most families wanted to stay in and sit for others. Of course, if everyone wants to babysit, nobody goes out, and that means nobody babysits either. The co-op suffered a demand-led depression: there was no shortage of people willing to supply babysitting services, but because of a failure of monetary policy, this potential supply was not called into play. As a hint of how serious things became, the co-op introduced a rule compelling families to go out at least twice a year; I am no party animal but that seems a low hurdle.

由于管理失误，这个合作社最后出现保姆券短缺。多数家庭希望储存更多保姆券，以备在自己参加一系列社会活动时把孩子交给别人照管，因此多数家庭希望留在家里照管其他人的孩子。当然，如果所有人都希望照管他人的孩子，那就没有人外出，这也意味着所有人都没有机会照管别人的孩子。这个合作社由此遭遇了一场由需求导致的萧条：愿意提供保姆服务的人并不短缺，但由于“货币政策失灵，这种潜在供应没有发挥出它的效用。情况变得非常严重，致使这个合作社硬性规定，每个家庭每年至少要外出两次；我不是一个特别喜欢参加聚会的人，但这个门槛似乎低了点。

These administrative measures failed. But then a wonderful thing happened: the co-op decided to print more scrip. The depression immediately ended. Krugman likes the story for two reasons: first, because it shows that it is possible for an economy to fall into depression because of a lack of demand, something which not everyone accepts; second, because it shows that sometimes economic problems have simple technical solutions.

这些行政手段没有奏效。但接着一件奇妙的事情发生了：这个合作社决定印制更多保姆券。萧条随即结束。克鲁格曼之所以喜欢这个故事有两个原因：首先，这个故事表明，经济可能会因为需求短缺而陷入萧条——并非所有人都赞同这点；第二，它还表明，经济问题有时有着简单的技术性解决方案。

Is the developed world suffering a babysitting co-op recession? The parallels are not exact - for one thing, the authorities in the US and the UK have hardly been slow to create new money - but they are close enough to be instructive. The babysitting co-op's income equalled its spending; when everyone tried to earn more but spend less, the laws of arithmetic intervened.

发达国家是否正遭遇类似这个保姆合作社那样的衰退？这样的类比并不确切——美国和英国政府印制新钞票的动作很难算的上缓慢——但这两个例子有一定的相似性，因而具有启发意义。这家保姆合作社的收入与支出相等；当所有人都试图增加收入、减少支出时，算术法则就起作用了。

Since the world's total income also equals the world's total expenditure, who is going to do the spending when consumers start trying to save up? Krugman says it will have to be governments.

全球总收入也与全球总支出相等，当消费者开始努力存钱时，谁来增加支出？克鲁格曼回答，必须是政府。

The case is not quite as open-and-shut as it was for the babysitting co-op, although he has a point. Business investment or housing could, in principle, take up some slack, but it is hardly a propitious time for that sort of thing.

尽管他说得有道理，但这里面的理由不像那家保姆合作社的故事那样让人一目了然。基本上，商业投资或住宅投资可以起到一定的拉动作用，但现在对这类投资来说并不是有利的时机。

In depression conditions, the bar over which government spending must leap to pay for itself is low. The questions that remain: are we really in depression conditions? (Almost certainly.)

在萧条的情况下，政府支出为自己买单必须跨越的门槛很低。问题仍然是：我们是否确实处于萧条之中？（几乎肯定如此。）

Can governments find halfway sensible things to spend money on? (Probably; remember they only have to be halfway sensible.)

政府能否找到还算合理的花钱的地方？（可能会；记住这些花钱的地方只需要还算合理。）

Two-and-a-half cheers, then, for Krugman. But something has been nagging at me ever since I read the original story of the Capitol Hill babysitting co-op, published in 1977 by Joan and Richard Sweeney. Paul Krugman's most recent retelling does not mention how the original story ends: the co-op prints too much scrip, inflationary pressures spring up and are suppressed, and the co-op seizes up again because nobody wants to stay at home babysitting. Krugman is right when he says that economies sometimes suffer from problems that have technical solutions. Perhaps he is too quick to suggest that those technical solutions are simple.

那么，让我们送给克鲁格曼“两声半的欢呼吧。但自从我读了1977年发表、由琼·斯温尼(Joan Sweeney)和理查德·斯温尼(Richard Sweeney)合著的关于国会山保姆合作社的原始故事后，有个问题一直困扰着我。保罗·克鲁格曼的最新复述没有提及这个原始故事的结局：合作社印制了太多的保姆券，通胀压力抬头，而后又得到抑制，合作社再次停止运转，因为没有人愿意呆在家里照管孩子。克鲁格曼表示，经济学有时会遇到一些可以通过技术手段解决的问题，这是正确的。或许，他说这种技术手段都很简单是太早下结论了。

But let me look for compromise. The babysitting co-op was ruined because it was run, incompetently, by a bunch of Capitol Hill lawyers. In this respect I think we can all agree that it remains an important cautionary tale.

不过，让我找个折衷的说法吧。这家保姆合作社之所以经营不下去，是因为管理者是一帮国会山的律师，他们管理无方。从这点来看，这仍是一个重要的警示性故事，我想我们都能同意这种说法。