Too "Complex"?

Too \"Complex\"?

By Thomas Sowell

Some people think that the reason the public misunderstands so many issues is that these issues are too \"complex\" for most voters. But is that really so?

With all the commotion in the media and in politics about the high price of gasoline, is there really some terribly complex explanation?

Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries-- India and China-- having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations 8 times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world\'s oil supply?

The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.

It is clear that many people prefer to blame President Bush. Others prefer to blame the oil companies, who have long been the favorite villains of the left.

Politicians understand that. Numerous times they have summoned the heads of oil companies before Congressional committees to be denounced on nationwide television for \"greed,\" with the politicians calling for a federal investigation to \"get to the bottom of this!\"

Now that is emotionally satisfying, which is the whole point. By the time yet another federal investigation is completed-- and turns up nothing to substantiate the villainy that is supposed to be the reason for high gasoline prices-- most people\'s attention will have turned to something else.

Newspapers that carried the original inflammatory charges with banner headlines on page 1 will carry the story of the completed investigation that turned up nothing as a small item deep inside the paper.

This has happened at least a dozen times over the past few decades and it will probably happen again.

What about those \"obscene\" oil company profits we hear so much about?

An economist might ask, \"Obscene compared to what?\" Compared to the investments made? Compared to the new investments required to find, extract and process additional oil supplies?

Asking questions like these are among the many reasons why economists have never been very popular. They frustrate people\'s desires for emotionally satisfying explanations.

If corporate \"greed\" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the government\'s taxes not an even bigger sign of \"greed\" on the part of politicians-- since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do?

Whatever the merits or demerits of Senator John McCain\'s proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies\' profits.

But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people\'s emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies.

How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician\'s problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.

You have heard of the cavalry to the rescue. But have you ever heard of economists to the rescue?

While economists are talking supply and demand, politicians are talking compassion, \"change\" and being on the side of the angels-- and against drilling for our own oil.

Has any economist ever attracted the kinds of cheering crowds that Barack Obama has-- or even the crowds attracted by Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

If you want cheering crowds, don\'t bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear-- and they don\'t want to hear about supply and demand.

No, supply and demand is not too \"complex.\" It is just not very emotionally satisfying.

太“复杂”？

太“复杂”？

作者：Thomas Sowell

一些人认为，公众之所以对一些社会议题感到误解是因为这些议题对多数选民而言太过复杂。事实真是如此吗？

昂贵的汽油价格在媒体和公众中间产生了嘈杂的议论，真的有什么复杂的不得了的解释吗？

印度和中国这两个正在进行快速经济增长的国家，其人口总和是美国的8倍，他们对世界石油供应正产生增长的需求，对这一事实的解释会很复杂吗？

问题不是供求关系难于解释。问题是，供求关系分析并不是让情绪得到满足的解释。因此，大家需要的是样板戏，是英雄，是恶棍。

很明显，大家很愿意指责布什总统。另一些人喜欢指责石油公司，石油公司长久以来就是被当作恶棍了。

政客认识到了这点。他们很多次在全国范围的电视上，当着国会委员面，指责几个石油巨头贪婪，呼吁对此进行彻底的联邦调查。

这才是整体的关键点，仅仅在情绪上去满足。至于等到联邦调查结束，无法证明之前假定的推论是高油价的原因时，大家的注意力将会转移到其它方面去了。

那些最初在头版头条刊载煽动性攻击的报纸又会刊登有关这个调查的文章去证明这个调查报告一无是处。

在近几十年，这样的事情已经发生了十多次了，而且将来可能还会继续发生。

对于这些“丑恶”的石油公司的利润又有些什么说法呢？

经济学家会问，根据什么来判断是“丑恶”的？根据完成的投资？根据新的探矿投资，提取并加工了额外石油供应？

如此的提问题，就是部分经济学家不受欢迎的原因了。他们打破了公众渴望得到情绪上的满足的愿望。

如果公司的“贪婪”是对高油价的解释，按照政客的说法，为什么政府的税收不是更大的“贪婪”标志呢？因为税收比石油公司的利润更抬高了油价。

无论约翰.麦凯恩议员提议的利弊，暂停征收汽油联邦税，的确会比没收石油公司的利润更能降低汽油价格。

但是，这并不能使公众得到情绪上的满意。

布莱克.奥巴马很清楚公众的感情需要并知道如何去迎合他们。他要提高针对石油公司的税收。

如此做会给我们带来更多的石油还是更低的石油价格，，则留给经济学家去困扰吧。政客关注的是如何获取更多的选票。一个非常有效的方式就是当一个英雄，把我们从恶棍手中解救出来。

你也许听说过骑士救人。你何时听说过经济学家救人？

当经济学家在谈论供求关系时，政客们正在谈论同情，装扮成天使，却不去为我们开采更多的石油。

哪个经济学家曾经像布莱克.奥巴马一样吸引过那么多的欢呼的公众？哪怕跟希拉里.克林顿或约翰.麦凯恩比。

如果你想要欢呼的人群，不要去研究经济。这只会拖你的后腿。说公众想听的，不要去谈什么供求关系。

供求关系并不“复杂”。它只是不能让你情绪上得到满足罢了。

（译者注：布莱克.奥巴马、希拉里.克林顿、约翰.麦凯恩是这次美国大选的竞选人。）