The paradox of value - Akshita Agarwal

譯者: Aaron Shoo 審譯者: SF Huang

Imagine you're on a game show, and you can choose between two prizes:

想像你在節目上玩遊戲，

有兩樣獎品給你選：

a diamond

一顆鑽石，

or a bottle of water.

或是一瓶水。

It's an easy choice.

太好選了。

The diamonds are clearly more valuable.

鑽石顯然比較有價值。

假設相同的選項，再選一次，

Now imagine being given the same choice again,

only this time, you're not on a game show,

但這次不是在遊戲節目中，

but dehydrated in the desert after wandering for days.

而是在沙漠遊蕩數天後， 身體呈現脫水狀態時。

Do you choose differently?

你的選擇會不同嗎？

Why? Aren't diamonds still more valuable?

為什麼？

鑽石的價值不是更高嗎？

This is the paradox of value,

這就是「價值悖論」，

famously described by pioneering economist Adam Smith.

由知名的經濟學家 亞當‧史斯密提出。

And what it tells us is that defining value is not as simple as it seems.

他說，定義價值， 並不像表面上看起來這麼簡單。

On the game show, you were thinking about each item's exchange value,

在節目上，你想到的是「交換價值」，

what you could obtain for them at a later time,

也就是之後可以換到多少錢，

but in an emergency, like the desert scenario,

但像在沙漠缺水的緊急情況下，

what matters far more is their use value,

「實用價值」更重要，

how helpful they are in your current situation.

也就是在當下對你有沒有用。

And because we only get to choose one of the options,

因為只能選一種，

we also have to consider its opportunity cost,

我們也要考慮「機會成本」，

or what we lose by giving up the other choice.

也就是放棄另一個選項的代價。

After all, it doesn't matter how much you could get from selling the diamond

畢竟，鑽石能換多少錢並不重要，

if you never make it out of the desert.

如果無法活著走出沙漠， 一切都是枉然。

Most modern economists deal with the paradox of value

當代經濟學家處理「價值悖論」，

by attempting to unify these considerations

會將這些情況納入考量，

整合成「效用」的概念，

under the concept of utility,

how well something satisfies a person's wants or needs.

意即滿足需求的程度。

Utility can apply to anything from the basic need for food

效用可以套用在基本的食物需求，

to the pleasure of hearing a favorite song,

到聽音樂的喜悅程度，

and will naturally vary for different people and circumstances.

而且會因人或情況有所差異。

市場經濟讓我們能輕鬆地衡量效用。

A market economy provides us with an easy way to track utility.

Put simply, the utility something has to you

簡單地說，某個東西對你的效用，

is reflected by how much you'd be willing to pay for it.

反映在你願意付出的金錢。

Now, imagine yourself back in the desert,

現在，想像你再度回到沙漠，

only this time, you get offered a new diamond or a fresh bottle of water

但這次每隔 5 分鐘

就可以選一次鑽石或水。

every five minutes.

If you're like most people, you'll first choose enough water to last the trip,

如果你跟大部分的人一樣， 就會先選擇足夠旅程所需的水，

and then as many diamonds as you can carry.

然後再帶走能力所及範圍內 所能帶走的鑽石。

This is because of something called marginal utility,

這就是所謂的「邊際效用」，

and it means that when you choose between diamonds and water,

當你在鑽石和水之間做抉擇，

you compare utility obtained from every additional bottle of water

會比較每多一瓶水的效用，

to every additional diamond.

和每多一顆鑽石的效用。

And you do this each time an offer is made.

每做一次抉擇你都會比較。

The first bottle of water is worth more to you than any amount of diamonds,

第一瓶水，再多的鑽石都比不上，

but eventually, you have all the water you need.

但水的需求，最終會被滿足。

After a while, every additional bottle becomes a burden.

之後，每多一瓶水都是負擔。

That's when you begin to choose diamonds over water.

這時候你就會開始選擇鑽石。

And it's not just necessities like water.

不只是水這樣的生活必需。

When it comes to most things, the more of it you acquire,

大部分的東西當你擁有越多，

the less useful or enjoyable every additional bit becomes.

對你的用處和樂趣就越少。

This is the law of diminishing marginal utility.

這是「邊際效用遞減」的法則。

You might gladly buy two or three helpings of your favorite food,

你可能會買兩、三份愛吃的食物，

but the fourth would make you nauseated,

但第四份會開始覺得膩，

and the hundredth would spoil before you could even get to it.

到了第一百份你連碰都不想碰。

Or you could pay to see the same movie over and over until you got bored of it

或是你可以重複看同一部電影，

直到你看膩或是沒錢。

or spent all of your money.

Either way, you'd eventually reach a point

無論如何，最後會演變成

where the marginal utility for buying another movie ticket became zero.

多買一張電影票的邊際效用為零。

Utility applies not just to buying things, but to all our decisions.

效用的概念不只應用在買賣， 也包括所有決策過程。

And the intuitive way to maximize it and avoid diminishing returns

要最大化效用並避免產生遞減效應，

is to vary the way we spend our time and resources.

就要改變分配時間和資源的方式。

After our basic needs are met,

當基本需求被滿足後，

we'd theoretically decide to invest in choices

理論上，我們對不同選項的投資，

only to the point they're useful or enjoyable.

會維持在實用或樂趣的均衡點上。

Of course, how effectively any of us manage to maximize utility in real life

當然，在現實生活中要如何 有效最大化每個人的效用，

is another matter.

又是另一回事了。

But it helps to remember that the ultimate source of value comes from us,

但至少我們知道， 價值的根源來自我們，

the needs we share,

來自我們共享的需求、

the things we enjoy,

我們喜愛的事物

and the choices we make.

和我們所做的選擇。