手機版
UNDERCOVER ECONOMIST: FOR BETTER OR WORTH
可樂價格為何60年不變？
The price of the first serving of Coca-Cola was five cents in 1886, which is about a dollar (50p) in today's money. Coke no longer sells for a nickel, and that is not terribly surprising. What is surprising is that it took more than 60 years for the price of Coca-Cola to change.
1886年，一罐可口可樂(Coca-Cola)的價格是5美分，大約相當於今天的1美元（50便士）。如今的可樂售價不再是5美分了，而這並不特別令人驚詫。真正令人驚詫的是，可口可樂的價格用了60多年的時間才發生變化。
Economists call this nominal price rigidity. My salary is not tweaked each month to reflect the latest inflation figures, and neither is yours. Restaurants do not reprint their menus, nor wholesale companies their catalogues, if the cost of their inputs changes by a penny.
經濟學家將這稱為名義價格剛性。我的工資並非每個月進行調整，以反映最新的通貨膨脹數據；你的工資也一樣。如果原材料成本發生一分錢的變化，餐館不會重新印製菜單，批發公司也不會修改商品目錄。
That might be a problem. Prices keep the economy running smoothly by adjusting to reflect demand and the underlying costs of production. If prices don't adjust smoothly for any reason then the economic consequences could be serious. If wages can't fall in a recession then people will lose their jobs instead. If prices can't fall when demand does, sales will collapse with much the same effect.
這(zhe)可(ke)能(neng)是(shi)個(ge)問(wen)題(ti)。價(jia)格(ge)之(zhi)所(suo)以(yi)能(neng)夠(gou)保(bao)持(chi)經(jing)濟(ji)平(ping)穩(wen)運(yun)行(xing)，是(shi)因(yin)為(wei)它(ta)會(hui)做(zuo)出(chu)調(tiao)整(zheng)，以(yi)反(fan)映(ying)需(xu)求(qiu)和(he)潛(qian)在(zai)的(de)生(sheng)產(chan)成(cheng)本(ben)。如(ru)果(guo)價(jia)格(ge)因(yin)為(wei)某(mou)種(zhong)原(yuan)因(yin)而(er)沒(mei)有(you)進(jin)行(xing)平(ping)穩(wen)調(tiao)整(zheng)，那(na)就(jiu)可(ke)能(neng)造(zao)成(cheng)非(fei)常(chang)嚴(yan)重(zhong)的(de)經(jing)濟(ji)後(hou)果(guo)。經(jing)濟(ji)衰(shuai)退(tui)時(shi)，如(ru)果(guo)工(gong)資(zi)未(wei)能(neng)下(xia)降(jiang)，那(na)麼(me)人(ren)們(men)將(jiang)會(hui)失(shi)業(ye)。需(xu)求(qiu)下(xia)降(jiang)時(shi)，如(ru)果(guo)價(jia)格(ge)不(bu)能(neng)下(xia)跌(die)，那(na)麼(me)銷(xiao)售(shou)將(jiang)崩(beng)潰(kui)，結(jie)果(guo)還(hai)是(shi)一(yi)樣(yang)。
Coke was clearly an exceptional example of rigid prices. Daniel Levy and Andrew Young, the economists who analysed the case, report that Coke's price stayed at five cents a serving while the price of other products bounced all over the place. The price of sugar tripled after the first world war before falling back somewhat; over the six decades, the price of coffee went up eightfold. Coke itself was taxed first as a medicine, then as a soft drink, and survived sugar rationing. All the while the price stayed at a nickel.
可樂顯然是價格剛性的一個突出案例。經濟學家丹尼爾•利維(Daniel Levy)和安德魯•楊(Andrew Young)對此進行了分析。他們撰寫報告稱，當其它商品價格都在上漲時，可樂價格一直保持每罐5美分。糖價在第一次世界大戰後上漲了兩倍，然後略有回落；在60年期間裏，咖啡價格上漲7倍。可樂本身最早作為一種藥品納稅，然後作為軟飲料納稅，還承受了糖配給供應。但自始至終，它的價格都保持在5美分。
Part of Coke's problem was the cost of replacing vending machines that accepted only nickels - and the fact that the alternative, dimes, represented a 100 per cent price hike. (The boss of Coca-Cola wrote to his friend President Eisenhower in 1953 to suggest, in all seriousness, a 7.5 cent coin.)
可樂的價格問題，部分在於更換自動售貨機的成本（這些機器隻接受5分鎳幣），以及若改為接受一角硬幣，意味著價格將上漲100%。（可口可樂的老板曾於1953年寫信給他的朋友、美國總統艾森豪威爾，非常嚴肅地建議使用7.5美分的硬幣。）
Most companies don't wait so long to change prices if they need to. Researchers have tended to conclude that many prices change every year or so, and often sooner. Levy and some colleagues looked at supermarket pricing in the mid-1990s and found, based on detailed accounting data, that to change the price of a single type of product in a typical supermarket cost 52 cents in printing, labour and errors. The total of all such changes was about $100,000 per store per year - still less than one per cent of revenue.
對dui於yu多duo數shu公gong司si而er言yan，如ru果guo有you必bi要yao改gai變bian價jia格ge，它ta們men一yi般ban不bu會hui等deng太tai久jiu。研yan究jiu者zhe往wang往wang得de出chu結jie論lun稱cheng，許xu多duo商shang品pin價jia格ge變bian化hua的de周zhou期qi是shi一yi年nian左zuo右you，往wang往wang還hai會hui更geng快kuai一yi些xie。利li維wei和he一yi些xie同tong事shi考kao查zha了le上shang世shi紀ji90年代中期的超市定價，在詳細研究了會計數據後發現，一家典型的超市要改變某類商品的價格，需要在印刷、勞動力和誤差方麵花費52美分的成本。一家商店每年進行價格變化的總成本為10萬美元——仍不足其營業收入的1%。
Technology makes it ever easier to change prices using bar codes, websites, and laser-printed menus. Amazon always seems to be changing book prices. Coke vending machines now take very little effort to reprogram. So should we conclude that ”menu costs” no longer matter?
運用條形碼、網站和激光打印的菜單，科技使得調價變得更容易。亞馬遜(Amazon)似乎總是在改變圖書的價格。如今，改編可樂售貨機的程序幾乎不用費什麼力氣。因此，我們是否應該得出“菜單成本”(menu costs)不再重要的結論呢？
That would be too optimistic. Economists have long argued that even small ”menu costs” could cause large economic distortions, because when companies are pondering whether to pay those costs, they don't consider the social benefits of a more accurate price, only their own profits.
這一看法可能過於樂觀。經濟學家長期以來一直主張，即便是微小的“菜單成本”也(ye)可(ke)能(neng)導(dao)致(zhi)嚴(yan)重(zhong)的(de)經(jing)濟(ji)扭(niu)曲(qu)，原(yuan)因(yin)是(shi)當(dang)企(qi)業(ye)考(kao)慮(lv)是(shi)否(fou)支(zhi)付(fu)這(zhe)些(xie)成(cheng)本(ben)時(shi)，它(ta)們(men)想(xiang)到(dao)的(de)隻(zhi)是(shi)自(zi)己(ji)的(de)利(li)潤(run)，而(er)不(bu)會(hui)考(kao)慮(lv)提(ti)高(gao)價(jia)格(ge)準(zhun)確(que)性(xing)所(suo)帶(dai)來(lai)的(de)社(she)會(hui)利(li)益(yi)。
A prize-winning paper from Carlos Carvalho recently showed that it does not even help if many prices adjust quickly, because those that change slowly will distort the rest. Amazon may be able to adjust its prices easily to reflect its costs, but that is little use if those costs are distorted by slow adjustments from, say, the bookbinders or the freight handlers.
卡洛斯•卡瓦略(Carlos Carvalho)最(zui)近(jin)獲(huo)獎(jiang)的(de)一(yi)篇(pian)論(lun)文(wen)表(biao)明(ming)，即(ji)便(bian)是(shi)許(xu)多(duo)商(shang)品(pin)價(jia)格(ge)進(jin)行(xing)了(le)迅(xun)速(su)調(tiao)整(zheng)，結(jie)果(guo)也(ye)無(wu)濟(ji)於(yu)事(shi)，因(yin)為(wei)變(bian)動(dong)緩(huan)慢(man)的(de)價(jia)格(ge)將(jiang)會(hui)扭(niu)曲(qu)其(qi)它(ta)價(jia)格(ge)。亞(ya)馬(ma)遜(xun)或(huo)許(xu)能(neng)夠(gou)輕(qing)鬆(song)調(tiao)整(zheng)圖(tu)書(shu)價(jia)格(ge)，以(yi)反(fan)映(ying)其(qi)成(cheng)本(ben)，但(dan)如(ru)果(guo)圖(tu)書(shu)裝(zhuang)訂(ding)商(shang)或(huo)貨(huo)運(yun)商(shang)的(de)價(jia)格(ge)調(tiao)整(zheng)緩(huan)慢(man)，導(dao)致(zhi)這(zhe)些(xie)成(cheng)本(ben)扭(niu)曲(qu)，那(na)麼(me)，亞(ya)馬(ma)遜(xun)的(de)做(zuo)法(fa)就(jiu)沒(mei)什(shen)麼(me)作(zuo)用(yong)。
Coca-Cola's experience reflected exactly that: long before the introduction of vending machines, they had signed a perpetual fixed-price contract to supply their bottlers, at a time of very low inflation.
可口可樂的案例反映的正是這種情況：早在引入售貨機之前很久，該公司就在通脹非常低的時候簽署了長期的固定價格合同，向罐裝商供應可樂。
I drank a 500ml bottle of Coke while writing this article, and it cost me 85p ($1.70) from the corner shop. I'd rather have paid a nickel, but price changes are important. Perhaps I shouldn't be too ungrateful.
在撰寫本文時，我喝掉了一瓶500毫升的可樂。這是我從街角的商店以85便士（合1.70美元）的價格買的。我寧願付的是5美分，但價格變化非常重要。或許我不應該太不知感激。
可樂價格為何60年不變？
| 作者：英國《金融時報》專欄作家蒂姆•哈福德(Tim Harford) |
| 2007年5月15日 星期二 |
The price of the first serving of Coca-Cola was five cents in 1886, which is about a dollar (50p) in today's money. Coke no longer sells for a nickel, and that is not terribly surprising. What is surprising is that it took more than 60 years for the price of Coca-Cola to change.
1886年，一罐可口可樂(Coca-Cola)的價格是5美分，大約相當於今天的1美元（50便士）。如今的可樂售價不再是5美分了，而這並不特別令人驚詫。真正令人驚詫的是，可口可樂的價格用了60多年的時間才發生變化。
Economists call this nominal price rigidity. My salary is not tweaked each month to reflect the latest inflation figures, and neither is yours. Restaurants do not reprint their menus, nor wholesale companies their catalogues, if the cost of their inputs changes by a penny.
經濟學家將這稱為名義價格剛性。我的工資並非每個月進行調整，以反映最新的通貨膨脹數據；你的工資也一樣。如果原材料成本發生一分錢的變化，餐館不會重新印製菜單，批發公司也不會修改商品目錄。
That might be a problem. Prices keep the economy running smoothly by adjusting to reflect demand and the underlying costs of production. If prices don't adjust smoothly for any reason then the economic consequences could be serious. If wages can't fall in a recession then people will lose their jobs instead. If prices can't fall when demand does, sales will collapse with much the same effect.
這(zhe)可(ke)能(neng)是(shi)個(ge)問(wen)題(ti)。價(jia)格(ge)之(zhi)所(suo)以(yi)能(neng)夠(gou)保(bao)持(chi)經(jing)濟(ji)平(ping)穩(wen)運(yun)行(xing)，是(shi)因(yin)為(wei)它(ta)會(hui)做(zuo)出(chu)調(tiao)整(zheng)，以(yi)反(fan)映(ying)需(xu)求(qiu)和(he)潛(qian)在(zai)的(de)生(sheng)產(chan)成(cheng)本(ben)。如(ru)果(guo)價(jia)格(ge)因(yin)為(wei)某(mou)種(zhong)原(yuan)因(yin)而(er)沒(mei)有(you)進(jin)行(xing)平(ping)穩(wen)調(tiao)整(zheng)，那(na)就(jiu)可(ke)能(neng)造(zao)成(cheng)非(fei)常(chang)嚴(yan)重(zhong)的(de)經(jing)濟(ji)後(hou)果(guo)。經(jing)濟(ji)衰(shuai)退(tui)時(shi)，如(ru)果(guo)工(gong)資(zi)未(wei)能(neng)下(xia)降(jiang)，那(na)麼(me)人(ren)們(men)將(jiang)會(hui)失(shi)業(ye)。需(xu)求(qiu)下(xia)降(jiang)時(shi)，如(ru)果(guo)價(jia)格(ge)不(bu)能(neng)下(xia)跌(die)，那(na)麼(me)銷(xiao)售(shou)將(jiang)崩(beng)潰(kui)，結(jie)果(guo)還(hai)是(shi)一(yi)樣(yang)。
Coke was clearly an exceptional example of rigid prices. Daniel Levy and Andrew Young, the economists who analysed the case, report that Coke's price stayed at five cents a serving while the price of other products bounced all over the place. The price of sugar tripled after the first world war before falling back somewhat; over the six decades, the price of coffee went up eightfold. Coke itself was taxed first as a medicine, then as a soft drink, and survived sugar rationing. All the while the price stayed at a nickel.
可樂顯然是價格剛性的一個突出案例。經濟學家丹尼爾•利維(Daniel Levy)和安德魯•楊(Andrew Young)對此進行了分析。他們撰寫報告稱，當其它商品價格都在上漲時，可樂價格一直保持每罐5美分。糖價在第一次世界大戰後上漲了兩倍，然後略有回落；在60年期間裏，咖啡價格上漲7倍。可樂本身最早作為一種藥品納稅，然後作為軟飲料納稅，還承受了糖配給供應。但自始至終，它的價格都保持在5美分。
Part of Coke's problem was the cost of replacing vending machines that accepted only nickels - and the fact that the alternative, dimes, represented a 100 per cent price hike. (The boss of Coca-Cola wrote to his friend President Eisenhower in 1953 to suggest, in all seriousness, a 7.5 cent coin.)
可樂的價格問題，部分在於更換自動售貨機的成本（這些機器隻接受5分鎳幣），以及若改為接受一角硬幣，意味著價格將上漲100%。（可口可樂的老板曾於1953年寫信給他的朋友、美國總統艾森豪威爾，非常嚴肅地建議使用7.5美分的硬幣。）
Most companies don't wait so long to change prices if they need to. Researchers have tended to conclude that many prices change every year or so, and often sooner. Levy and some colleagues looked at supermarket pricing in the mid-1990s and found, based on detailed accounting data, that to change the price of a single type of product in a typical supermarket cost 52 cents in printing, labour and errors. The total of all such changes was about $100,000 per store per year - still less than one per cent of revenue.
對dui於yu多duo數shu公gong司si而er言yan，如ru果guo有you必bi要yao改gai變bian價jia格ge，它ta們men一yi般ban不bu會hui等deng太tai久jiu。研yan究jiu者zhe往wang往wang得de出chu結jie論lun稱cheng，許xu多duo商shang品pin價jia格ge變bian化hua的de周zhou期qi是shi一yi年nian左zuo右you，往wang往wang還hai會hui更geng快kuai一yi些xie。利li維wei和he一yi些xie同tong事shi考kao查zha了le上shang世shi紀ji90年代中期的超市定價，在詳細研究了會計數據後發現，一家典型的超市要改變某類商品的價格，需要在印刷、勞動力和誤差方麵花費52美分的成本。一家商店每年進行價格變化的總成本為10萬美元——仍不足其營業收入的1%。
Technology makes it ever easier to change prices using bar codes, websites, and laser-printed menus. Amazon always seems to be changing book prices. Coke vending machines now take very little effort to reprogram. So should we conclude that ”menu costs” no longer matter?
運用條形碼、網站和激光打印的菜單，科技使得調價變得更容易。亞馬遜(Amazon)似乎總是在改變圖書的價格。如今，改編可樂售貨機的程序幾乎不用費什麼力氣。因此，我們是否應該得出“菜單成本”(menu costs)不再重要的結論呢？
That would be too optimistic. Economists have long argued that even small ”menu costs” could cause large economic distortions, because when companies are pondering whether to pay those costs, they don't consider the social benefits of a more accurate price, only their own profits.
這一看法可能過於樂觀。經濟學家長期以來一直主張，即便是微小的“菜單成本”也(ye)可(ke)能(neng)導(dao)致(zhi)嚴(yan)重(zhong)的(de)經(jing)濟(ji)扭(niu)曲(qu)，原(yuan)因(yin)是(shi)當(dang)企(qi)業(ye)考(kao)慮(lv)是(shi)否(fou)支(zhi)付(fu)這(zhe)些(xie)成(cheng)本(ben)時(shi)，它(ta)們(men)想(xiang)到(dao)的(de)隻(zhi)是(shi)自(zi)己(ji)的(de)利(li)潤(run)，而(er)不(bu)會(hui)考(kao)慮(lv)提(ti)高(gao)價(jia)格(ge)準(zhun)確(que)性(xing)所(suo)帶(dai)來(lai)的(de)社(she)會(hui)利(li)益(yi)。
A prize-winning paper from Carlos Carvalho recently showed that it does not even help if many prices adjust quickly, because those that change slowly will distort the rest. Amazon may be able to adjust its prices easily to reflect its costs, but that is little use if those costs are distorted by slow adjustments from, say, the bookbinders or the freight handlers.
卡洛斯•卡瓦略(Carlos Carvalho)最(zui)近(jin)獲(huo)獎(jiang)的(de)一(yi)篇(pian)論(lun)文(wen)表(biao)明(ming)，即(ji)便(bian)是(shi)許(xu)多(duo)商(shang)品(pin)價(jia)格(ge)進(jin)行(xing)了(le)迅(xun)速(su)調(tiao)整(zheng)，結(jie)果(guo)也(ye)無(wu)濟(ji)於(yu)事(shi)，因(yin)為(wei)變(bian)動(dong)緩(huan)慢(man)的(de)價(jia)格(ge)將(jiang)會(hui)扭(niu)曲(qu)其(qi)它(ta)價(jia)格(ge)。亞(ya)馬(ma)遜(xun)或(huo)許(xu)能(neng)夠(gou)輕(qing)鬆(song)調(tiao)整(zheng)圖(tu)書(shu)價(jia)格(ge)，以(yi)反(fan)映(ying)其(qi)成(cheng)本(ben)，但(dan)如(ru)果(guo)圖(tu)書(shu)裝(zhuang)訂(ding)商(shang)或(huo)貨(huo)運(yun)商(shang)的(de)價(jia)格(ge)調(tiao)整(zheng)緩(huan)慢(man)，導(dao)致(zhi)這(zhe)些(xie)成(cheng)本(ben)扭(niu)曲(qu)，那(na)麼(me)，亞(ya)馬(ma)遜(xun)的(de)做(zuo)法(fa)就(jiu)沒(mei)什(shen)麼(me)作(zuo)用(yong)。
Coca-Cola's experience reflected exactly that: long before the introduction of vending machines, they had signed a perpetual fixed-price contract to supply their bottlers, at a time of very low inflation.
可口可樂的案例反映的正是這種情況：早在引入售貨機之前很久，該公司就在通脹非常低的時候簽署了長期的固定價格合同，向罐裝商供應可樂。
I drank a 500ml bottle of Coke while writing this article, and it cost me 85p ($1.70) from the corner shop. I'd rather have paid a nickel, but price changes are important. Perhaps I shouldn't be too ungrateful.
在撰寫本文時，我喝掉了一瓶500毫升的可樂。這是我從街角的商店以85便士（合1.70美元）的價格買的。我寧願付的是5美分，但價格變化非常重要。或許我不應該太不知感激。
