平台严格禁止发布违法/不实/欺诈等垃圾信息，一经发现将永久封禁帐号，针对违法信息将保留相关证据配合公安机关调查！
2010-5-30 06:05
We need shoes come rain or shine and the more shoes we have, the better prepared we are for the unpredictable circumstances we face in our daily lives. Because of this, we should buy shoes no matter how much they increase in price, because their demand will always exist – we can't walk around barefoot. Perhaps I'm just trying to convince myself that £60 on a pair of shoes is a solid investment.
Shoe-shopper Dear Shoe-shopper, I am unschooled in The Way of the Shoe and hesitate to offer my usual unambiguous advice, but I draw the line at the use of the politician's favourite euphemism, “investment”. I regard my lunch money as well spent, but let's not pretend that my lunch is a hundred shares in General Electric, shall we? To answer your question, shoes are “income inelastic” if you do not cut back much on shoes when your income falls. They are “price inelastic” if you do not cut back much on shoes when their price rises. Something tells me you think shoes are inelastic in both respects. I would argue that a more pertinent term here is “diminishing marginal utility”. The first pair of shoes protects your feet. All subsequent pairs of shoes are merely variety. I write without fear of contradiction when I suggest that the more shoes any one person has, the more time each pair will spend at home in the shoe cupboard. In short, whether you are wise to spend £60 on new shoes rather depends on whether you now have no shoes (the scenario you gesture towards) or whether you have a spare bedroom full of them, which I fear may be the truth. Let's face it, you don't want advice from me. Why don't you look to Carrie Bradshaw, the Sex and the City character who once explained: “My new shoes shouldn't be punished just because I can't budget.” Questions to economist@ft.com 亲爱的经济学家，
无论晴雨，我们都需要穿鞋。我们的鞋越多，为日常生活中不可预测的情况准备得就越充分。由此，不管价格上涨多少，我们都应该买鞋，因为需求总是存在——我们不能光着脚到处走。或许我只是试图让自己相信，花60英镑买一双鞋子是一种稳健的投资。 买鞋人 亲爱的买鞋人： 我没学过“鞋学”，因此对于像往常一样给出清晰的建议感到颇为踌躇。但我不会使用政客钟爱的委婉语——投资。我认为自己的午餐钱花得很值，但不要假装我的午餐是100股通用电气(General Electric)股份，好吗？ 要回答你的问题，首先要明白，如果收入下降，你不会明显减少买鞋支出的话，鞋子就是“收入缺乏弹性”；而如果鞋价上涨，你不会明显减少买鞋支出的话，它们就是“价格缺乏弹性”。从你的信中可以看出，你认为鞋子在两方面都缺乏弹性。 而我认为，更贴切的术语是“边际效用递减”。第一双鞋保护你的脚，随后买的所有鞋都只是增加多样性而已。我认为，一个人拥有的鞋越多，每双鞋呆在家里鞋柜的时间就越长。我这么写并不担心有人会反驳。 简而言之，你花60英镑买新鞋是否明智，主要取决于目前你是没有鞋穿呢（你信中流露出的情形），还是你有一满屋子的鞋——我猜这可能是事实。 让我们面对现实吧，你不想要我的建议。你为何不问一下《欲望都市》(the Sex and the City)的主角凯丽•布拉德肖(Carrie Bradshaw)？她曾说过：“不能只是因为我不能列入预算就不让我买新鞋。” 提问请发送至economist@ft.com 译者/君悦 |