Affluence Happiness (and how to measure it)
HAVING grown at an annual rate of 3.2% per head since 2000, the world economy is over half way towards notching up its best decade ever. If it keeps going at this clip, it will beat both the supposedly idyllic 1950s and the 1960s. Market capitalism, the engine that runs most of the world economy, seems to be doing its job well.
But is it? Once upon a time, that job was generally agreed to be to make people better off. Nowadays that’s not so clear. A number of economists, in search of big problems to solve, and politicians, looking for bold promises to make, think that it ought to be doing something else: making people happy.
The view that economics should be about more than money is widely held in continental Europe. In debates with Anglo-American capitalists, wily bons vivants have tended to cite the idea of “quality of life” to excuse slower economic growth. But now David Cameron, the latest leader of Britain’s once rather materialistic Conservative Party, has espoused the notion of “general well-being” (GWB) as an alternative to the more traditional GDP. In America, meanwhile, inequality, over-work and other hidden costs of prosperity were much discussed in the mid-term elections; and “wellness” (as opposed to health) has become a huge industry, catering especially to the prosperous discontent of the baby-boomers.
Much of this draws on the upstart science of happiness, which mixes psychology with economics. Its adherents start with copious survey data, such as those derived from the simple, folksy question put to thousands of Americans every year or two since 1972:“Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?” Some of the results are unsurprising: the rich report being happier than do the poor. But a paradox emerges that requires explanation: affluent countries have not got much happier as they have grown richer. From America to Japan, figures for well-being have barely budged.
The science of happiness offers two explanations for the paradox. Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities—bringing to the masses what the elites have always enjoyed. But the flip side of this genius is that people come to take for granted things they once coveted from afar. Frills they never thought they could have become essentials that they cannot do without. People are stuck on a treadmill: as they achieve a better standard of living, they become inured to its pleasures.
Capitalism’s ability to take things downmarket also has its limits. Many of the things people most prize—such as the top jobs, the best education, or an exclusive home address—are luxuries by necessity. An elite schooling, for example, ceases to be so if it is provided to everyone. These “positional goods”, as they are called, are in fixed supply: you can enjoy them only if others do not. The amount of money and effort required to grab them depends on how much your rivals are putting in.
考研詞匯：
cater[[ˈkeitə]
vi.備辦食物，滿足(需要)，投合
[真題例句] “Instead of intimate shops catering to a knowledgeable elite.” these were stores “anyone could enter, regardless of class or background. This turned shopping into a public and democratic act.”[2006年閱讀1]
[例句精譯] “不像那些個(gè)人商店那樣，只滿足有學(xué)識(shí)的精英人士的需求”，這些商店“不論階級(jí)與背景，任何人都能進(jìn)入。這推進(jìn)了購(gòu)物大眾化和民主化的進(jìn)程�！�
prosperous[ˈprɔspərəs]
a.繁榮的，興旺的
[真題例句] America and Americans were prosperous beyond the dreams of the Europeans and Asians whose economies the war had destroyed.[2000年閱讀1]
[例句精譯] 美國(guó)的國(guó)富民強(qiáng)是那些經(jīng)濟(jì)遭到戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)破壞的歐亞諸國(guó)做夢(mèng)也無(wú)法想到的。
derive[diˈraiv]
v.取得，導(dǎo)出，引申
[真題例句] “Anthropology” derives from the Greek words anthropos “human” and logos “the study of.”[2003年翻譯]
[例句精譯] Anthropology(人類學(xué))一詞來(lái)源于希臘詞anthropos(人類)和logos(研究)。
elite[eiˈli:t]]
n.①[總稱]上層人士，掌權(quán)人物，實(shí)力集團(tuán);②出類拔萃的人(集團(tuán))，精英
[真題例句] Reporters tend to be part of a broadly defined social and cultural elite (②), so their work tends to reflect the conventional values of this elite.[2001年閱讀3]
[例句精譯] 記者們屬于廣義的社會(huì)文化精英的一部分，因此他們的工作往往反映了這些精英傳統(tǒng)的價(jià)值觀。
stick[stik]
n.棍，棒，手杖;v.①刺，戳，扎;②粘合，附著;③堅(jiān)持，固守
[真題例句] This means that our noses are (3：limited) to perceiving those smells which float through the air, (4：missing) the majority of smells which stick (v.②) to surfaces.[2005年完形]
[例句精譯] 這就意味著人的鼻子只局限于察覺飄浮于空氣中的氣味;而錯(cuò)過大部分粘附于物體表面的氣味。
[真題例句] You will be on safer ground if you stick (v.③) to scapegoats like the Post Office or the telephone system.[2002年閱讀1]
[例句精譯] 如果你選擇去評(píng)論郵局或電話局這樣的替罪羊，那你就會(huì)處于比較安全的境地。
exclusive[ikˈsklu:siv]
a.①專有的，獨(dú)占的;②除外的，排他的
[真題例句] 61. Physical dependence on certain substances results from.[1997年閱讀3]
[B] exclusive (①) use of them for social purposes
[例句精譯] 61. 對(duì)某些物質(zhì)的生理依賴是由于。
[B] 出于社交目的而專用這些物質(zhì)
背景常識(shí)介紹：
GDP的數(shù)字在增加，可清澈的河流和蔚藍(lán)的天空卻越來(lái)越少。當(dāng)聽到一個(gè)天真無(wú)邪的孩子和父母爭(zhēng)論為什么天是灰色的時(shí)候，我們無(wú)言卻不驚訝。當(dāng)打開一幢漂亮別墅的窗子正要欣賞窗外美景的你突然聞到一股臭氣撲面而來(lái)，你的幸福感覺還剩多少?當(dāng)問一位病入膏肓的富翁他最想要的是什么時(shí)，他會(huì)毫不猶豫地回答是健康，即使散盡他的家財(cái)。
社會(huì)發(fā)展的最終目標(biāo)是使人民獲得幸福。然而用這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去考量GDP指標(biāo)時(shí)，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)它似乎并不是一個(gè)能夠完整體現(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)的指標(biāo)。是的，我們看到了經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)，但卻沒有看到由此帶來(lái)的人們幸福感同等程度的增加。GDP被薩繆爾森稱為“20世紀(jì)最大的發(fā)明之一”，它雖然是一個(gè)重要指標(biāo)，但卻不是萬(wàn)能的。
參考譯文：
富裕與幸福(如何衡量)
自2000年起就以人均3.2%的年速率增長(zhǎng)著的世界經(jīng)濟(jì)如今已離目標(biāo)——“創(chuàng)有史以來(lái)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展最好十年”——更加近了。如果繼續(xù)這樣大跨步前進(jìn)，將超越人們心中“美好的50年代及60年代”。市場(chǎng)資本主義——世界絕大多數(shù)國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的引擎，似乎遞交上了一份令人滿意的答卷。
真是這樣嗎?曾幾何時(shí)，大家都相信“滿意的答卷”就是讓人們生活更加富裕。但如今卻不那么確定了。許許多多想要解決大問題的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和想要做出大膽承諾的政治家們開始認(rèn)為，“滿意的答卷”應(yīng)該不止這些，還應(yīng)能使人們幸福。
歐洲大陸國(guó)家普遍接受這樣一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)：經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)絕不只是關(guān)于錢。在和盎格魯血統(tǒng)的美國(guó)人爭(zhēng)論時(shí)，那些老謀深算的奢華貴族們就常常打出“生活質(zhì)量”的招牌來(lái)美化本國(guó)緩慢的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)速度。而今大衛(wèi)·卡梅倫，作為一度十分崇尚物質(zhì)的英國(guó)保守黨的最新領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，也提出應(yīng)更加關(guān)注GWB(國(guó)內(nèi)幸福指數(shù))而不僅僅只看GDP(國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值)。同時(shí)在今年美國(guó)的中期選舉中，不公平超負(fù)荷工作以及其他一些繁榮背后的隱性成本也被大量討論，幸�！鳛榻】档膶�(duì)立面，成了一項(xiàng)巨大產(chǎn)業(yè)，也深深迎合了嬰兒潮一代對(duì)繁榮的不滿。
這些大都與現(xiàn)今正勢(shì)如破竹般發(fā)展的“快樂學(xué)”有關(guān)，這也將心理學(xué)融入經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)�！翱鞓穼W(xué)”的追隨者們從浩如煙海的數(shù)據(jù)調(diào)查出發(fā)，例如自1972年起每隔一兩年便要向數(shù)千名美國(guó)人進(jìn)行的問卷調(diào)查。問題簡(jiǎn)單又平常，如“總的來(lái)看，你覺得眼下自己過得如何?是非常幸福，基本幸福，還是不太幸福呢?” 得出的結(jié)論中有些是不足為奇的，如相比窮人，富人普遍感覺更幸福。但這里有一個(gè)矛盾沒法解釋——富裕國(guó)家卻并沒有隨著富裕程度的提高而增加幸福感。從美國(guó)到日本，幸福指數(shù)一直沒有變化。
快樂學(xué)為這一矛盾提供了兩個(gè)解釋。首先，它注意到，資本主義善于將奢侈品變成必需品， 給大多數(shù)人送去上層精英們慣于享受的一切。但這一美妙功能帶來(lái)的副作用是：人們把一度覬覦而現(xiàn)在擁有的一切都視作理所當(dāng)然。以前從未奢望擁有的那些浮華虛飾如今變成了不可或缺的必需品。人們陷入了一個(gè)怪圈：當(dāng)生活水平提高的時(shí)候，反倒為其所賦予的愉悅所傷。
資本主義把事物“低端化”的本領(lǐng)也有其不足之處。人們所看重的許多東西——如一流的工作、尖端的教育和自己擁有的住房這些奢侈品其實(shí)是和必需品相輔相成的。例如，精英教育如果針對(duì)每個(gè)人，便不再是精英教育。所謂的“地位性商品”都是限量供應(yīng)的，在別人得不到的情況下才是一種享受。為此所付出的人力財(cái)力就要看你的對(duì)手付出多少了。
