2011年西方原著选读全校公选课期末考试翻译资料doc.doc

西方原著选读期末作业（翻译）学院：材料与化工年级：2008级专业班级：化学工程与工艺1班姓名：吴景宾学号：20080401B033Adam Smith and His The Wealth of NationsThere is a fundamental dissent between classical and neoclassical economists about the central message of Smiths most influential work: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Neoclassical economists emphasise Smiths invisible hand, a concept mentioned in the middle of his work book IV, chapter II and classical economists believe that Smith stated his programme how to promote the Wealth of Nations in the first sentences.Smith used the term the invisible hand in History of Astronomy referring to the invisible hand of Jupiter and twice each time with a different meaning the term an invisible hand: in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations69 (1776). This last statement about an invisible hand has been interpreted as the invisible hand in numerous ways. It is therefore important to read the original:As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestiek to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good. Those who regard that statement as Smiths central message also quote frequently Smiths dictum:It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.Smiths statement about the benefits of an invisible hand is certainly meant to answer Mandevilles contention that Private Vices may be turned into Public Benefits. It shows Smiths belief that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society. Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices. Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price which can be squeezed out of the buyers. Smith also warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants .in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.The neoclassical interest in Smiths statement about an invisible hand originates in the possibility to see it as a precursor of neoclassical economics and its General Equilibrium concept. Samuelsons Economics refers 6 times to Smiths invisible hand. To emphasize this relation, Samuelson75 quotes Smiths invisible hand statement putting general interest where Smith wrote publick interest. Samuelson concluded: Smith was unable to prove the essence of his invisible-hand doctrine. Indeed, until the 1940s no one knew how to prove, even to state properly, the kernel of truth in this proposition about perfectly competitive market. And it was then when neoclassical economics was revived in Chicago from oblivion and Samuelson entered the scene.Very differently, classical economists see in Smiths first sentences his programme to promote The Wealth of Nations. Taking up the physiocratical concept of the economy as a circular process means that to have growth the inputs of period2 must excel the inputs of period1. Therefore the outputs of period1 not used or usable as input of period are regarded as unproductive labor as they do not contribute to growth. This is what Smith had learned in France with Quesnay. To this French insight that unproductive labor should be pushed back to use more labor productively, Smith added his own proposal, that productive labor should be made even more productive by deepening the division of labor. Deepening the division of labor means under competition lower prices and thereby extended markets. Extended markets and increased production lead to a new step of reorganising production and inventing new ways of producing which again lower prices, etc., etc. Smiths central message is therefore that under dynamic competition a growth machine secures The Wealth of Nations. It predicted Englands evolution as the workshop of the World, underselling all its competitors. The opening sentences of the Wealth of Nations summarize this policy:The annual labor of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes . This produce bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it .But this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances;first, by the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which its labor is generally applied; and,secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed emphasis added.Smiths Wealth of Nations offers many insights other theories disagree. It argues that agriculture offers fewer possibilities to a division of labour, raising its prices compared with industry. Us-American and European agriculture is therefore subsidised. To Smith, the genius and the natural talents of men are no natural dispositions which have to be paid for according to comparative advantages. It is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. Competition should reduce the prices of these talents. Smith suspects manufacturers of mischief and trusts landowners and labourers as consumers to represent the common good. Ricardo mistrusts landowners as earners of a monopoly income.Other worksShortly before his death, Smith had nearly all his manuscripts destroyed. In his last years, he seemed to have been planning two major treatises, one on the theory and history of law and one on the sciences and arts. The posthumously published Essays on Philosophical Subjects, a history of astronomy down to Smiths own era, plus some thoughts on ancient physics and metaphysics, probably contain parts of what would have been the latter treatise. Lectures on Jurisprudence were notes taken from Smiths early lectures, plus an early draft of The Wealth of Nations, published as part of the 1976 Glasgow Edition of the works and correspondence of Smith. Other works, including some published posthumously, include Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896); A Treatise on Public Opulence (1764) (first published in 1937); and Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795).In economics and moral philosophyThe Wealth of Nations was a precursor to the modern academic discipline of economics. In this and other works, Smith expounded how rational self-interest and competition can lead to economic prosperity. Smith was controversial in his own day and his general approach and writing style were often satirized by Tory writers in the moralizing tradition of Hogarth and Swift, as a discussion at the University of Winchester suggests.George Stigler attributes to Smith the most important substantive proposition in all of economics and foundation of resource-allocation theory. It is that, under competition, owners of resources (for example labor, land, and capital) will use them most profitably, resulting in an equal rate of return in equilibrium for all uses, adjusted for apparent differences arising from such factors as training, trust, hardship, and unemployment.Paul Samuelson finds in Smiths pluralist use of supply and demand as applied to wages, rents, profit a valid and valuable anticipation of the general equilibrium modeling of Walras a century later. Smiths allowance for wage increases in the short and intermediate term from capital accumulation and invention added a realism missed later by Malthus, Ricardo, and Marx in their propounding a rigid subsistence-wage theory of labour supply.On the other hand, Joseph Schumpeter dismissed Smiths contributions as unoriginal, saying His very limitation made for success. Had he been more brilliant, he would not have been taken so seriously. Had he dug more deeply, had he unearthed more recondite truth, had he used more difficult and ingenious methods, he would not have been understood. But he had no such ambitions; in fact he disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.Classical economists presented competing theories of those of Smith, termed the labour theory of value. Later Marxian economics descending from classical economics also use Smiths labour theories, in part. The first volume of Karl Marxs major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital. The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing.The body of theory later termed neoclassical economics or marginalism formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term economics was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for economic science and a substitute for the earlier, broader term political economy used by Smith.8788 This corresponded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences.89 Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value of which Smith was most famously identified with in classical economics, in favour of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.The bicentennial anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations was celebrated in 1976, resulting in increased interest for The Theory of Moral Sentiments and his other works throughout academia. After 1976, Smith was more likely to be represented as the author of both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and thereby as the founder of a moral philosophy and the science of economics. His homo economicus or economic man was also more often represented as a moral person. Additionally, his opposition to slavery, colonialism, and empireclarification needed was emphasized, as were his statements about high wages for the poor, and his views that a common street porter was not intellectually inferior to a philosopher.亚当.史密斯和他的国富论史密斯最有影响力的成就是发表了古典和新古典经济学家最关心的工作：国民财富的性质和原因的研究。新古典经济学家强调史密斯的无形之手，他的作品中提到的一个概念，在第四册的第二章中，史密斯首次提出如何促进国家财富的积累。史密斯用“无形之手”来称呼，在天文学中有“朱庇特无形的手”和“两次”这两个不同的含义。所谓“无形之手”是指道德情绪论（1759）和国富论（1776年）。 “无形之手“的一条语句被解释为“看不见的手”在许多方面。有关的阅读原文如下：在每一个阶层中，和他一样的可以聘请国内的同行支持资金，产生他的最大的价值，每个人用一定的劳动力，以使每年的收入投入社会。事实上，这个阶层既不打算促进公共利益，也不知道他是多么的推广。只是由于本国的行业支持。在外国，他只考虑自己的利益，并通过该行业获得最大的价值。他想要的只是自己的利益，通过追求自己的利益，他便能促进社会的发展，尽管他无意要推动它 。那些认可这个观点的还引用史密斯的名言：他们不是屠夫，也没有酿酒师或面包师的仁慈，我们期望我们的晚餐，但他们对于自己的利益更感兴趣。 但他们自爱，从不根据我们的必需品，这是他们的优势。史密斯的“无形之手”的优点是肯定的回答曼德维尔的论点，即“恶习.私人的可转为公共利益”。这表明史密斯的看法，即当一个人追求自己的私利时，他会间接地推动了社会的的经济发展。自利的在自由市场竞争。他认为，产品往往会为了效益而维持低价格，同时在激励建设商品和服务的种类繁多性。不过，他谨慎的向商人警告说，“阴谋反对公众或在策划其他一些诡计，以提高价格。” 史密斯一遍又一遍的警告说，企业的合谋性质的利益，可能会形成垄断 ，史密斯还警告说，一个真正的自由放任经济将迅速成为企业和消费者的阴谋策划针对行业，前者已经影响政治和法律。 史密斯指出，厂家和商家的利益“在任何贸易或制成品特别是.，总是在某些方面有所不同，甚至相反，很多市民.任何新法律或法规的建议来自这一点，应该永远被倾听以用来制定预防措施，而且应该永远不会被采纳，直到最后是漫长的仔细检查。史密斯的观点关于“一个起源”于它的可能性为一个新古典经济学和一般均衡的概念。 萨缪尔森的 “经济学”是指史密斯的“看不见的手”。 为了强调这种关系，萨缪尔森75引用史密斯的“看不见的手”来说明“普遍利益”，其中史密斯写道：“公共的利益”。 萨缪尔森的结论是：“史密斯无法证明他的学说的本质。事实上，直到20世纪40年代，没有人知道如何证明，即使是国家竞争力的观点逐渐完善。就在那时，萨缪尔将新古典经济学发扬光大。不同的是，古典经济学家认为，在史密斯的前两个观点中，推动“国富论”使用了循环经济的概念。为此认为非生产性劳