The Blessings of Destruction
第3章  战祸之福

So we have finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments’ thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio and television commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon the advantages of destruction.

讲完粗浅的“破窗谬论”，有人会说，任何人只要动脑筋想一想，一定不会犯这样的错误。事实上，穿着各种伪装的破窗谬论，在经济学历史上却最为顽固不化，而且此种谬论在过去任何时候都没有现在这么盛行。如今，每天都有许多人在一本正经地重复着同样的错误。这些人包括工业巨头、商会和工会领袖、社论主笔、报纸专栏作家、电台与电视台的评论员、技巧高深的统计专家、一流大学的经济学教授。他们正在用各自的方式宣扬破坏行为所带来的好处。

Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see “miracles of production” which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a world made prosperous by an enormous “accumulated” or “backed-up” demand. In Europe, after World War II, they joyously counted the houses, the whole cities that had been leveled to the ground and that “had to be replaced.” In America they counted the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent radios and refrigerators. They brought together formidable totals.

尽管他们中有些人不屑于承认小小的破坏行为中也存在着净利益，但他们都确信，巨大的破坏行为能让人们受益无穷。他们吹嘘战争对经济是如何如何的有利，非和平时期能比，并向我们展示通过战争才能实现的“生产奇迹”。他们认为，战争时期庞大的需求“累积”或“堵塞”，会给战后的世界带来繁荣。第二次世界大战结束后，他们兴致勃勃地清点那些在欧洲被战火夷为平地、必须重建的房子和城市。在美国，他们清点出战争期间无力兴建的房子、短缺的尼龙袜、破旧的汽车和轮胎、过时的收音机和电冰箱。他们得出了一个令人生畏的经济总量。

It was merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond recognition. This time it was supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It confused need with demand. The more war destroys, the more it impoverishes, the greater is the postwar need. Indubitably. But need is not demand. Effective economic demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power. The needs of India today are incomparably greater than the needs of America. But its purchasing power, and therefore the “new business” that it can stimulate, are incomparably smaller.

这种“需求堵塞”谬论只不过是我们所熟悉的老朋友——破窗谬论——换上一件臃肿的马甲之后的形象而已。不过这一次，有更多相关的谬误绞缠在一起，需要我们逐一驳斥。首先，它把需要（need）和需求（demand）混为一谈。战火摧毁的东西越多，它所造成的贫困越严重，战后的需要量就越大。这是毫无疑问的。但是，需要并不等于需求。有效的经济需求，光有需要还不算，还必须要有相当的购买力才行。当今印度对产品的实际需要相对于美国的需要来讲简直大得不可比，但是它的购买力，以及由此可以刺激起来的“新的生意”相对于美国来讲却是微不足道的。

But if we get past this point, there is a chance for another fallacy, and the broken-windowites usually grab it. They think of “purchasing power” merely in terms of money. Now money can be run off by the printing press. As this is being written, in fact, printing money is the world’s biggest industry—if the product is measured in monetary terms. But the more money is turned out in this way, the more the value of any given unit of money falls. This falling value can be measured in rising prices of commodities. But as most people are so firmly in the habit of thinking of their wealth and income in terms of money, they consider themselves better off as these monetary totals rise, in spite of the fact that in terms of things they may have less and buy less. Most of the “good” economic results which people at the time attributed to World War II were really owing to wartime inflation. They could have been, and were, produced just as well by an equivalent peacetime inflation. We shall come back to this money illusion later.

不过，就算绕过了上一个谬误，接下来还有可能陷入另一种谬误。持破窗谬论的人常犯只从货币的角度去思考“购买力”的错误。其实，只要让印钞机开足马力，不愁没有钞票。要是以货币来衡量“产品”价值的话，那么以钞票为产品的印钞业，无疑是当今世上规模最大的产业。但是用这种方式去解决购买力问题，所印制的钞票数量越多，单位货币的价值就越贬值，货币贬值的程度可以用物价上涨的幅度来衡量。然而，大多数人只习惯于用金钱来衡量自己的财富和收入，所以只要手头多了几张钞票，便以为自己过得更好，尽管拿这些钱能买到的东西比从前少，自己实际拥有的东西可能不如从前。现在，很多人把一些“好的”经济成果归功于第二次世界大战，其实，其中绝大部分是战时通货膨胀造成的。哪怕在和平年代，同等规模的通货膨胀也能带来这样的结果，并且的确产生过这些结果。后面我们还会回过头来谈这种货币幻觉。

Now there is a half-truth in the “backed-up” demand fallacy, just as there was in the broken-window fallacy. The broken window did make more business for the glazier. The destruction of war did make more business for the producers of certain things. The destruction of houses and cities did make more business for the building and construction industries. The inability to produce automobiles, radios, and refrigerators during the war did bring about a cumulative postwar demand for those particular products.

“需求堵塞”谬论只讲出了一半的真相，这点跟破窗谬论一样。被砸破的橱窗的确会给玻璃店带来生意，战争造成的破坏也的确给某些产品的制造商带来了大量的商机。房子和城市的毁于战火，为建筑业赢得了更多业务，而战争期间没办法生产的汽车、收音机和电冰箱，确实为那些特定的产品带来累积性的战后需求。

To most people this seemed like an increase in total demand, as it partly was in terms of dollars of lower purchasing power. But what mainly took place was a diversion of demand to these particular products from others. The people of Europe built more new houses than otherwise because they had to. But when they built more houses they had just that much less manpower and productive capacity left over for everything else. When they bought houses they had just that much less purchasing power for something else. Wherever business was increased in one direction, it was (except insofar as productive energies were stimulated by a sense of want and urgency) correspondingly reduced in another.

这一半的真相在大部分人看来，就像是总需求增加了。从单位货币的购买力降低的角度来说，一部分增长是的确如此【通胀导致需求增加是一个宏观经济学的结论——译者注】。不过更主要的原因还是需求从其他地方转向了这些特定的产品。欧洲人盖出了空前数量的新房子，因为他们必须先解决安居问题。可是，在他们兴建更多房屋时，可用于生产其他产品的人力和生产能力的减少程度与之相当。人们买了房子之后，可用于购买其他产品的支付能力的减少程度与之相当。人总是顾得了一头，就顾不了另一头（当然，要除开额外增加的被饥寒交迫的紧张感所激发出来的更大的生产能量）。

The war, in short, changed the postwar direction of effort; it changed the balance of industries; it changed the structure of industry.

简单地说，战争改变了人们在战后的努力方向；战争打破了各行各业原有的平衡；战争重塑了工业的结构。

Since World War II ended in Europe, there has been rapid and even spectacular “economic growth” both in countries that were ravaged by war and those that were not. Some of the countries in which there was greatest destruction, such as Germany, have advanced more rapidly than others, such as France, in which there was much less. In part this was because West Germany followed sounder economic policies. In part it was because the desperate need to get back to normal housing and other living conditions stimulated increased efforts. But this does not mean that property destruction is an advantage to the person whose property has been destroyed. No man burns down his own house on the theory that the need to rebuild it will stimulate his energies.

二战后的欧洲各国都出现了高速甚至奇迹般的“经济增长”，那些惨遭战火蹂躏的国家是如此，那些未受劫掠的国家也是如此。遭受的破坏最为严重的德国等国，其经济增长速度比破坏不那么严重的法国等国要快。部分原因是因为西德实行了较为稳健的经济政策，部分原因是想尽快过上正常生活的念头使人们工作更加努力。但它并不表示财物毁损对失去财物的人有利。没有人会因为需要激发出斗志而刻意烧毁自家的房屋。

After a war there is normally a stimulation of energies for a time. At the beginning of the famous third chapter of his History of England, Macaulay pointed out that:

No ordinary misfortune, no ordinary misgovernment, will do so much to make a nation wretched as the constant progress of physical knowledge and the constant effort of every man to better himself will do to make a nation prosperous. It has often been found that profuse expenditure, heavy taxation, absurd commercial restriction, corrupt tribunals, disastrous wars, seditions, persecutions, conflagrations, inundations, have not been able to destroy capital so fast as the exertions of private citizens have been able to create it.

战争结束后，迎来和平的人们通常会在一段时间内激发出旺盛的精力。托马斯·麦考利（Thomas Macaulay）在《英格兰史》（History of England）的第三章开门见山这么写道：
不幸的事件、政府的失误，可能将一个国家置于悲惨的境地，但与之相比，科技的持续进步、人们改善自身生活的恒久努力，却能在更大程度上促进国家的繁荣。我们经常发现，肆意挥霍、苛捐杂税、荒谬的商业管制、贪渎腐化的司法体系、伤亡惨重的战争、叛乱、迫害、烈火、洪水，它们都在摧毁财富，但人民通过努力创造财富的速度却更快。

No man would want to have his own property destroyed either in war or in peace. What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation.

没有人愿意让自己的财物毁于战争或和平年代。对个人来说是伤害、是灾难的东西，对由个人组成的国家来说也一定是伤害和灾难。

Many of the most frequent fallacies in economic reasoning come from the propensity, especially marked today, to think in terms of an abstraction—the collectivity, the “nation”—and to forget or ignore the individuals who make it up and give it meaning. No one could think that the destruction of war was an economic advantage who began by thinking first of all of the people whose property was destroyed.

经济推理中最常见的许多谬论，源于人们倾向于将国家与集体当成抽象的名词去思考，而忘记或忽视了组成它、并赋予它意义的个人。这种倾向在今天尤为明显。如果一开始就从惨遭横祸的个人角度去思考，那就不会有人认为战争造成的破坏对经济有利。

Those who think that the destruction of war increases total “demand” forget that demand and supply are merely two sides of the same coin. They are the same thing looked at from different directions. Supply creates demand because at bottom it is demand. The supply of the thing they make is all that people have, in fact, to offer in exchange for the things they want. In this sense the farmers’ supply of wheat constitutes their demand for automobiles and other goods. All this is inherent in the modern division of labor and in an exchange economy.

那些认为战争造成的破坏能增加总“需求”的人，还遗漏了一个基本事实：需求和供给就像硬币的两面，其实是从不同角度观察到的同一样东西。供给会创造需求，因为归根结底供给就是需求。人们的供给，就是他们为了换取自己需要的产品而必须贡献出来的东西。农民为城市供应小麦，即构成了他们对于汽车或其他商品的需求。所有这些，是现代劳动分工和交换经济中固有的特点。

This fundamental fact, it is true, is obscured for most people (including some reputedly brilliant economists) through such complications as wage payments and the indirect form in which virtually all modern exchanges are made through the medium of money. John Stuart Mill and other classical writers, though they sometimes failed to take sufficient account of the complex consequences resulting from the use of money, at least saw through “the monetary veil” to the underlying realities. To that extent they were in advance of many of their present-day critics, who are befuddled by money rather than instructed by it. Mere inflation—that is, the mere issuance of more money, with the consequence of higher wages and prices may look like the creation of more demand. But in terms of the actual production and exchange of real things it is not.

毋庸置疑，这个基本事实对于大部分人（包括一些被誉为杰出的经济学家的人）来讲，由于工资支付与以及几乎所有的现代交易都以货币为媒介的间接形式等形成的复杂机制，他们认识不清。约翰·穆勒（John Stuart Mill）等一批古典经济学家，虽然有时未能对那些由于货币的使用而产生的复杂后果给予充分的重视，但他们至少透过“货币的面纱”认识到了基本的现实。就这一点来说，他们比当今那些批评他们的人更胜一筹。那些批评者非但没能从中得到启示，反而被金钱的表象搞糊涂了。单纯的通货膨胀——也就是发行更多的货币，造成工资和物价上扬——看起来也许像创造了更多的需求。但从实际物品的产量和交易量来看，则完全不是这么回事。

It should be obvious that real buying power is wiped out to the same extent as productive power is wiped out. We should not let ourselves be deceived or confused on this point by the effects of monetary inflation in raising prices or “national income” in monetary terms.

显然，生产力被摧毁多少，实际购买力就会被摧毁多少。尽管由于通货膨胀的影响，以金钱表示的产品价格或“国民收入”会上升，我们却不应该被此表象迷惑，甚至自欺欺人。

It is sometimes said that the Germans or the Japanese had a postwar advantage over the Americans because their old plants, having been destroyed completely by bombs during the war, they could replace them with the most modern plants and equipment and thus produce more efficiently and at lower costs than the Americans with their older and half-obsolete plants and equipment. But if this were really a clear net advantage, Americans could easily offset it by immediately wrecking their old plants, junking all the old equipment. In fact, all manufacturers in all countries could scrap all their old plants and equipment every year and erect new plants and install new equipment.

有人争辩说，德国人和日本人比美国人拥有“战后优势”，因为他们的老旧工厂在战时被完全摧毁，得以更换最现代化的厂房和设备，生产效率得以提高，成本得以降低，非美国那些老旧、过时的厂房与设备可比。如果真是这样，那美国人完全可以立即拆除老旧设施，从而一举抵消日本和德国的领先优势。实际上，只要能满足利润最大化，所有国家的所有制造商，都可以每年弃旧换新。

The simple truth is that there is an optimum rate of replacement, a best time for replacement. It would be an advantage for a manufacturer to have his factory and equipment destroyed by bombs only if the time had arrived when, through deterioration and obsolescence, his plant and equipment had already acquired a null or a negative value and the bombs fell just when he should have called in a wrecking crew or ordered new equipment anyway.

道理很简单，厂房、设备都有最适当的折旧率，也就是最佳的更新年限。只有在制造商的厂房、设备因为老化过时，净值接近于残值，正要找人来拆除，并且已经订购了新的设备之际，炸弹刚好在这一刻落下，帮忙拆毁了现有设施，才真的对当事人有利。

It is true that previous depreciation and obsolescence, if not adequately reflected in his books, may make the destruction of his property less of a disaster, on net balance, than it seems. It is also true that the existence of new plants and equipment speeds up the obsolescence of older plants and equipment. If the owners of the older plant and equipment try to keep using it longer than the period for which it would maximize their profit, then the manufacturers whose plants and equipment were destroyed (if we assume that they had both the will and capital to replace them with new plants and equipment) will reap a comparative advantage or, to speak more accurately, will reduce their comparative loss.

当然，如果厂房、设备以前的折旧和过时程度没有适当反映在会计帐簿上，实际损失就不会有账面损失那么更严重。新厂房、新设备的出现，也的确会加快老旧设施的淘汰速度。也就是说使用新装备能创造更大的利润，继续使用旧装备比较而言就是损失。如果那些拥有老厂房、老设备的制造商想继续使用过时装备，已经超过了利润最大化的正常期间（假定他们有预算来添置新厂房和新设备），那么厂房、设备此时被摧毁，将带来比较优势，或者讲得确切一点，可以减低他们的比较损失。

We are brought, in brief, to the conclusion that it is never an advantage to have one’s plants destroyed by shells or bombs unless those plants have already become valueless or acquired a negative value by depreciation and obsolescence.

我们从中得出一个初步结论：即用炮弹或炸弹来摧毁厂房绝对不会有什么好处，除非那些厂房破旧过时，残值收入远不足以抵补拆除费用。

In all this discussion, moreover, we have so far omitted a central consideration. Plants and equipment cannot be replaced by an individual (or a socialist government) unless he or it has acquired or can acquire the savings, the capital accumulation, to make the replacement. But war destroys accumulated capital.

此外，上述讨论还略去了一个关键问题。即，无论是个人还是社会主义政府，必须拥有或者能够获得相应资金储备、即资本积累，才能实现厂房和设备的更新换代。然而，战争却会摧毁累积下来的资本。

There may be, it is true, offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advances during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity. Postwar demand will never reproduce the precise pattern of prewar demand. But such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.

显然，战争也许会带来一些补偿性的因素。比方说，战争期间技术上的发明与进步，可以增加个人或国家在某一方面的生产力，最终甚至可能存在总体生产能力的净增长。另外，战后的社会需求形态绝对不会和战前完全相同。但是，我们不能因为这些错综复杂的情形而忽视最基本的事实：大肆破坏具有价值的任何东西，都会造成净损失、不幸和灾难。个别特殊情况下或许有这样那样的补偿性利益，但从总体上看，战争的破坏对社会绝不是恩赐或福音。