Course: 2.10 政府的作用 | The Way To Learn

Section outline

Select section General

Collapse Expand
General

Collapse all Expand all
- Select activity 新闻通告
  
  新闻通告 Forum

政府的作用

The Role of the Government
::政府的作用

Government plays a role in the marketplace. Sometimes the government creates laws to protect labor, consumers, or industries. In other cases, the government is concerned with encouraging competition and regulating big business for the public welfare. When this happens, the government is modifying the marketplace. Economists would then define our economic system as a “modified free enterprise economy” because it consists of three different market structures, various types of business organizations, and a varying degree of government laws and regulations.
::政府在市场中扮演着角色。有时,政府制定法律来保护劳工、消费者或产业。在另一些情况下,政府关心的是鼓励竞争和为公共福利监管大企业。当这种情况发生时,政府正在改变市场。然后经济学家将我们的经济体系定义为“改革后的自由企业经济 ” , 因为它由三种不同的市场结构、各种类型的商业组织和不同程度的政府法律和规章组成。

Universal Generalizations
::普遍化

Public disclosure is used to promote competition.
::公开披露用于促进竞争。

Today, the United States government takes part in economic affairs to promote and encourage competition.
::今天,美国政府参与经济事务,以促进和鼓励竞争。

The modern American free enterprise market is a mixture of various markets, business organizations, and government regulations.
::现代美国自由企业市场是各种市场、商业组织和政府规章的混合体。

Guiding Questions
::问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问问

Should the United States government still enforce anti-monopoly legislation?
::美国政府是否仍应继续执行反垄断立法?

How does the federal government attempt to preserve competition among businesses?
::联邦政府如何试图维护企业之间的竞争?

How can public disclosure be used to prevent market failures?
::如何利用公开披露防止市场失灵?

Regulating Anticompetitive Behavior
::管制反竞争行为

In the closing decades of the 1800s, many industries in the U.S. economy were dominated by a single firm that had most of the sales for the entire country. Supporters of these large firms argued that they could take advantage of economies of scale and careful planning to provide consumers with products at low prices. However, critics pointed out that when competition was reduced, these firms were free to charge more and make permanently higher profits, and that without the goading of competition, it was not clear that they were as efficient or innovative as they could be.
::在1800年代的近几十年中,美国经济的许多行业都由一家拥有整个国家大部分销售量的公司主宰,这些大公司的支持者认为,他们可以利用规模经济,并仔细规划,以低价向消费者提供产品。然而,批评家指出,竞争减少后,这些公司可以免费收取更多的费用,并永久提高利润,如果没有竞争的迷彩,它们是否具有尽可能高的效率或创新性并不明确。

Anti-Monopoly Legislation ::反垄断立法	Description ::说明说明
Sherman Anti-trust Act 1890 ::1890年《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》	First significant law against monopolies; sought to do away with monopolies and restraints that hinder competition ::第一部反对垄断的重要法律;试图消除阻碍竞争的垄断和限制
Clayton Anti-Trust Act 1914 ::1914年《克莱顿反信任法》	Law gives government greater power against monopolies; outlawed price discrimination ::法律赋予政府更大的权力,反对垄断;禁止价格歧视
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 1914 ::1914年联邦贸易委员会	Administers antitrust laws forbidding unfair competition, price fixing, and other deceptive practices; used in conjunction with the Clayton Act ::管理反托拉斯法,禁止不公平竞争、定价和其他欺骗性做法;与《克莱顿法》结合使用
Robin-Patman Act 1936 ::1936年《Robin-Patman法》	Strengthened the Clayton Act, companies cannot offer special discounts to some consumers while denying them to others ::加强《克莱顿法》,公司不能向一些消费者提供特别折扣,而拒绝给予其他消费者

Antitrust Laws
::反托拉斯法

In many cases, these large firms were organized in the legal form of a “trust” in which a group of formerly independent firms were consolidated together by mergers and purchases, and a group of “trustees” then ran the companies as if they were a single firm. Thus, when the U.S. government passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 to limit the power of these trusts, it was called an antitrust law. In an early demonstration of the law’s power, in 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to break up Standard Oil, which had controlled about 90% of the country’s oil refining. Standard Oil was broken into 34 independent firms, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, and Chevron. In 1914, the Clayton Antitrust Act outlawed mergers and acquisitions (where the outcome would be to “substantially lessen competition” in an industry), price discrimination (where different customers are charged different prices for the same product), and tied sales (where purchase of one product commits the buyer to purchase some other product). Also in 1914, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was created to define more specifically what competition was unfair. In 1950, the Celler-Kefauver Act extended the Clayton Act by restricting vertical and conglomerate mergers. In the twenty-first century, the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice continue to enforce antitrust laws.
::在许多案例中,这些大公司都是以法律形式的“托拉斯”形式组建的,在这种 " 托拉斯 " 形式中,一批前独立公司通过合并和购买而合并,而一批 " 受托人 " 则将公司视为单一公司管理。因此,当美国政府于1890年通过《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》以限制这些托拉斯的权力时,它被称为反托拉斯法。 1911年,美国最高法院在早期展示法律权力时,维护了政府解散标准石油的权利,标准石油控制了该国大约90%的石油提炼。标准石油被破碎为34家独立公司,包括埃克森、莫比勒、阿莫科和雪佛龙。 1914年,克莱顿反托拉斯法宣布合并和收购为非法(结果将是“大幅度削弱竞争 ”一个行业 ) , 价格歧视(对同一产品收取不同价格 ) , 以及捆绑销售(购买一种产品让买主购买其他产品。 1914年,联邦贸易委员会(FTC)成立34个独立公司,它们组成了34个独立公司。 1914年,更具体地界定了Creal-Creal-Creau法。

Federal Regulatory Agency ::联邦联邦管制局	Description ::说明说明
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1906 ::食品和药物管理局(FDA)1906	Enforces laws to ensure purity, effectiveness, and truthful labeling of food, drugs cosmetics; inspections production and shipment of these products ::实施法律,确保食品、美药化妆品的纯洁、有效和真实标签;对这些产品的生产和装运进行检查
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 1914 ::1914年联邦贸易委员会	Administers antitrust laws forbidding unfair competition, price fixing, and other deceptive practices ::管理反托拉斯法,禁止不公平竞争、定价和其他欺骗做法
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 1934 ::1934年联邦通信委员会	Licenses and regulates radio and television stations and regulates interstate telephone, telegraph rates and services ::颁发许可证,管理电台和电视台,管理州际电话、电报费率和服务
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 1934 ::1934年证券交易委员会	Regulates and supervises the sale of securities and the brokers, dealers, and bankers who sell them ::管制和监督证券的出售和出售证券的经纪人、经销商和银行行长;
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 1935 ::1935年国家劳资关系委员会	Administers federal labor-management relations laws; settles labor disputes; prevents unfair labor practices ::管理联邦劳资关系法;解决劳资纠纷;防止不公平劳动做法
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 1958 ::联邦航空管理局(联邦航空管理局) 1958年	Oversees the airline industry ::监督航空业
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 1964 ::1964年平等就业机会委员会(EEOC)	Investigates and rules on charges of discrimination by employers and labor unions ::关于雇主和工会歧视指控的调查和规则
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1970 ::1970年环境保护局(环保局) 1970年	Protects the environment ::保护环境
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 1970 ::1970年职业安全和卫生管理局(OSHA)	Investigates accidents at the workplace; enforces regulations to protect employees at work ::调查工作场所的事故;执行保护工作场所雇员的条例
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 1972 ::1972年消费者产品安全委员会	Develops standards of safety for consumer goods ::制定消费品安全标准
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1974 ::1974年核管制委员会(NRC)	Regulates civilian use of nuclear materials and facilities ::管制民用核材料和核设施
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 1977 ::1977年联邦能源管理委员会	Supervises transmission of the various forms of energy ::监督各种形式的能源的传输

The U.S. antitrust laws reach beyond blocking mergers that would reduce competition to include a wide array of anticompetitive practices. For example, it is illegal for competitors to form a cartel to collude to make pricing and output decisions as if they were a monopoly firm. The Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice prohibit firms from agreeing to fix prices or output, rigging bids, or sharing or dividing markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories, or lines of commerce.
::美国反托拉斯法超越了阻止将减少竞争的兼并,包括一系列反竞争做法。比如,竞争者组成卡特尔,串通定价和产出决定,仿佛它们是一个垄断公司,是非法的。联邦贸易委员会和美国司法部禁止公司同意确定价格或产出,操纵投标,或通过分配客户、供应商、领土或商业渠道分享或分割市场。

In the late 1990s, for example, the antitrust regulators prosecuted an international cartel of vitamin manufacturers, including the Swiss firm Hoffman-La Roche, the German firm BASF, and the French firm Rhone-Poulenc. These firms reached agreements on how much to produce, how much to charge, and which firm would sell to which customers. The high-priced vitamins were then bought by firms like General Mills, Kellogg, Purina-Mills, and Proctor and Gamble, which pushed up the prices more. Hoffman-La Roche pleaded guilty in May 1999 and agreed both to pay a fine of $500 million and to have at least one top executive serve four months of jail time.
::例如,在1990年代后期,反托拉斯监管者起诉了一个国际维生素制造商卡特尔,包括瑞士公司Hoffman-La Roche、德国公司BASF和法国公司Rhone-Poulenc。这些公司就生产多少、收费多少以及向哪家公司出售哪些客户达成了协议。高价维生素随后被Mills将军、Kellogg、Purina-Mills以及Proctor和Gamble等公司购买,这些公司进一步抬高了价格。霍夫曼-La Roche于1999年5月认罪,同意支付5亿美元的罚款,并至少有一个顶级执行官服四个月的刑期。

Under U.S. antitrust laws, a monopoly itself is not illegal. If a firm has a monopoly because of a newly patented invention, for example, the law explicitly allows a firm to earn higher-than-normal profits for a time as a reward for innovation. If a firm achieves a large share of the market by producing a better product at a lower price, such behavior is not prohibited by antitrust law.
::根据美国反托拉斯法,垄断本身不是非法的。比如,如果公司由于新专利发明而拥有垄断权,法律明确允许公司在一段时间内赚取高于正常的利润,作为对创新的奖励。如果公司通过以较低价格生产更好的产品而获得市场的一大部分,这种行为不受反托拉斯法的禁止。

Restrictive Practices
::限制性做法

The antitrust law includes rules against restrictive practices—practices that do not involve outright agreements to raise price or to reduce the quantity produced, but that might have the effect of reducing competition. Antitrust cases involving restrictive practices are often controversial because they delve into specific contracts or agreements between firms that are allowed in some cases but not in others.
::反托拉斯法包括禁止限制性惯例的规则,这些惯例并不涉及直接协议来提高价格或减少生产的数量,但可能产生减少竞争的效果,涉及限制性惯例的反托拉斯案件往往引起争议,因为它们探讨的是某些情况下允许但另一些情况下不允许的具体合同或公司之间的协议。

For example, if a product manufacturer is selling to a group of dealers who then sell to the general public it is illegal for the manufacturer to demand a minimum resale price maintenance agreement, which would require the dealers to sell for at least a certain minimum price. A minimum price contract is illegal because it would restrict competition among dealers. However, the manufacturer is legally allowed to “suggest” minimum prices and to stop selling to dealers who regularly undercut the suggested price. If you think this rule sounds like a fairly subtle distinction, you are right.
::例如,如果一个产品制造商向一批经销商出售,然后向一般公众出售,制造商要求一份最低转售价格维持协议是非法的,该协议要求经销商至少以某种最低价格出售,最低价格合同是非法的,因为它会限制经销商之间的竞争,然而,在法律上允许制造商“提出”最低价格,并停止向经常降低建议价格的经销商出售。如果你认为这一规则听起来相当微妙,你是对的。

An exclusive dealing agreement between a manufacturer and a dealer can be legal or illegal. It is legal if the purpose of the contract is to encourage competition between dealers. For example, it is legal for the Ford Motor Company to sell its cars to only Ford dealers, for General Motors to sell to only GM dealers, and so on. However, exclusive deals may also limit competition. If one large retailer obtained the exclusive rights to be the sole distributor of televisions, computers, and audio equipment made by a number of companies, then this exclusive contract would have an anticompetitive effect on other retailers.
::制造商和经销商之间的独家经营协议是合法或非法的,如果合同的目的是鼓励经销商之间的竞争,则该合同是合法的,例如,福特汽车公司将其汽车出售给只有福特的经销商是合法的,一般汽车公司出售给只有GM的经销商也是合法的,然而,独家经营协议也可能限制竞争,如果一个大零售商获得作为由若干公司制作的电视、计算机和音频设备的唯一经销商的独家经营权,那么这一独家合同就会对其他零售商产生反竞争的影响。

Tying sales happen when a customer is required to buy one product only if the customer also buys a second product. Tying sales are controversial because they force consumers to purchase a product that they may not actually want or need. Further, the additional, required products are not necessarily advantageous to the customer. Suppose that to purchase a popular DVD, the store required that you also purchase a portable TV of a certain model. These products are only loosely related, thus there is no reason to make the purchase of one contingent on the other. Even if a customer was interested in a portable TV, the tying to a particular model prevents the customer from having the option of selecting one from the numerous types available in the market. A related, but not identical, concept is called bundling, where two or more products are sold as one. Bundling typically offers an advantage for the consumer by allowing them to acquire multiple products or services for a better price. For example, several cable companies allow customers to buy products like cable, internet, and a phone line through a special price available through bundling. Customers are also welcome to purchase these products separately, but the price of bundling is usually more appealing.
::套期销售只有在客户需要购买一种产品时,客户才必须购买第二种产品。套期销售具有争议性,因为他们迫使消费者购买一种他们实际上并不想要或需要的产品。此外,额外的所需产品不一定对客户有利。假设购买流行的DVD,商店需要你购买一种特定型号的便携式电视机。这些产品只是松散的,因此没有理由将购买一个条件附加在另一个条件上。即使客户对便携式电视感兴趣,但套期销售使客户无法选择从市场上多种类型的产品中选择一种。一个相关但并不完全相同的概念被称作捆绑,其中两种或两种以上的产品被作为一个销售。捆绑通常给消费者带来优势,允许他们以更好的价格获得多种产品或服务。比如,几个有线公司允许客户购买电缆、互联网等产品,并通过捆绑的特殊价格购买一条电话线。客户也欢迎单独购买这些产品,但捆绑的价格通常更具有吸引力。

In some cases, tying sales and bundling can be viewed as anticompetitive. However, in other cases, they may be legal and even common. It is common for people to purchase season tickets to a sports team or a set of concerts so that they can be guaranteed tickets to the few contests or shows that are most popular and likely to sell out. Computer software manufacturers may often bundle together a number of different programs, even when the buyer wants only a few of the programs. Think about the software that is included in a new computer purchase, for example.
::在某些情况下,搭售和捆绑可以被视为反竞争,但在另一些情况下,它们可能是合法的,甚至很常见。人们通常会购买体育队或一系列音乐会的赛季票,以便保证他们能拿到最受欢迎和最有可能出售的少数竞赛或表演的票。计算机软件制造商往往会把一些不同的程序捆绑在一起,即使买主只想要少数程序。例如,想想新计算机采购中包括的软件。

Recall that predatory pricing occurs when the existing firm (or firms) reacts to a new firm by dropping prices very low until the new firm is driven out of the market, at which point the existing firm raises prices again. This pattern of pricing is aimed at deterring the entry of new firms into the market. But in practice, it can be hard to figure out when pricing should be considered predatory. Say that American Airlines is flying between two cities, and a new airline starts flying between the same two cities, at a lower price. If American Airlines cuts its price to match the new entrant, is this predatory pricing? Or is it just market competition at work? A commonly proposed rule is that if a firm is selling for less than its average variable cost—that is, at a price where it should be shutting down—then there is evidence for predatory pricing. But calculating in the real world what costs are variable and what costs are fixed is often not obvious, either.
::回顾当现有公司(或公司)对新公司作出反应时,就会出现掠夺性定价,在新公司被挤出市场之前,价格会下跌到非常低的水平,而新公司则会再次抬高价格。这种定价模式的目的是阻止新公司进入市场。但实际上,很难确定何时应该将定价视为掠夺性。说美国航空公司在两个城市之间飞行,而一家新航空公司开始在同一两个城市之间以较低的价格飞行。如果美国航空公司为了与新入侵者匹配而削减价格,这是这种掠夺性定价吗? 还是只是工作上的市场竞争? 通常提出的一条规则是,如果一家公司以低于其平均可变成本的价格出售 — — 也就是说,以应该关闭的价格出售 — — 那么就有掠夺性定价的证据。但在现实世界中计算什么成本是可变的,什么成本是固定的,也往往不明显。

Did Microsoft ^® engage in anticompetitive and restrictive practices?
::微软公司是否从事反竞争和限制性做法?

The most famous restrictive practices case of recent years was a series of lawsuits by the U.S. government against Microsoft—lawsuits that were encouraged by some of Microsoft’s competitors. All sides admitted that Microsoft’s Windows program had a near-monopoly position in the market for the software used in general computer operating systems. All sides agreed that the software had many satisfied customers. All sides agreed that the capabilities of computer software that was compatible with Windows—both software produced by Microsoft and that produced by other companies—had expanded dramatically in the 1990s. Having a monopoly or a near-monopoly is not necessarily illegal in and of itself, but in cases where one company controls a great deal of the market, antitrust regulators look at any allegations of restrictive practices with special care.
::近年来最著名的限制性做法案例是美国政府针对微软公司的一些竞争者鼓励的微软公司诉讼的一系列诉讼。所有各方都承认微软的Windows程序在一般计算机操作系统所用软件的市场上拥有近乎垄断的地位。所有各方都同意软件有许多满意的客户。所有各方都同意,与微软公司和其他公司生产的软件的微软软件相兼容的计算机软件能力在1990年代急剧扩大。垄断或近乎垄断本身不一定是非法的,但在一家公司控制大量市场的情况下,反托拉斯监管者会特别小心地看待任何限制性做法的指控。

The antitrust regulators argued that Microsoft had gone beyond profiting from its software innovations and its dominant position in the software market for operating systems, and had tried to use its market power in operating systems software to take over other parts of the software industry. For example, the government argued that Microsoft had engaged in an anticompetitive form of exclusive dealing by threatening computer makers that, if they did not leave another firm’s software off their machines (specifically, Netscape’s Internet browser), then Microsoft would not sell them its operating system software. Microsoft was accused by the government antitrust regulators of tying together its Windows operating system software, where it had a monopoly, with its Internet Explorer browser software, where it did not have a monopoly, and thus using this bundling as an anticompetitive tool. Microsoft was also accused of a form of predatory pricing; namely, giving away certain additional software products for free as part of Windows, as a way of driving out the competition from other makers of the software.
::反托拉斯监管者认为微软已经超越了从软件创新及其在操作系统软件市场上的支配地位中获益的范围,并试图利用其在操作系统软件中的市场实力来接管软件行业的其他部分。比如,政府辩称微软从事了威胁计算机制造者的反竞争独家交易形式,即如果他们不将另一家公司的软件从机器(具体而言,Netscape的互联网浏览器)上丢弃,微软就不会出售其操作系统软件。微软被政府反托拉斯监管者指责将其拥有垄断权的Windows操作系统软件与互联网探索者浏览器软件捆绑在一起,并因此将这种捆绑作为反竞争工具。微软还被指控是一种掠夺性定价形式,即将某些额外的软件产品免费出售作为视窗的一部分,以此将软件其他制造者的竞争排除在外。

In April 2000, a federal court held that Microsoft’s behavior had crossed the line into unfair competition, and recommended that the company be broken into two competing firms. However, that penalty was overturned on appeal, and in November 2002 Microsoft reached a settlement with the government that it would end its restrictive practices.
::2000年4月,一家联邦法院认定微软的行为已经越过了界线,进入了不公平竞争,并建议将公司分为两家竞争公司。但是,这一处罚在上诉中被推翻,微软于2002年11月与政府达成解决方案,要求结束其限制性做法。

The concept of restrictive practices is continually evolving, as firms seek new ways to earn profits and government regulators define what is permissible and what is not. A situation where the law is evolving and changing is always somewhat troublesome since laws are most useful and fair when firms know what they are in advance. In addition, since the law is open to interpretation, competitors who are losing out in the market can accuse successful firms of anticompetitive restrictive practices, and try to win through government regulation what they have failed to accomplish in the market. Officials at the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are, of course, aware of these issues, but there is no easy way to resolve them.
::限制性做法的概念在不断演变,因为公司寻求新的利润方式,政府监管者界定哪些是允许的,哪些是不允许的。法律正在演变和变化的情况总是有些麻烦,因为当公司事先知道法律最有用和最公平的时候,法律是事先知道的。此外,由于法律可以解释,在市场上输掉的竞争者可以指责成功的公司采取反竞争的限制性做法,并试图通过政府监管赢得他们在市场上未能完成的工作。当然,联邦贸易委员会和司法部的官员知道这些问题,但解决这些问题没有容易的办法。

Firms are blocked by antitrust authorities from openly colluding to form a cartel that will reduce output and raise prices. Companies sometimes attempt to find other ways around these restrictions and, consequently, many antitrust cases involve restrictive practices that can reduce competition in certain circumstances, like tie-in sales, bundling, and predatory pricing.
::反托拉斯当局阻止公司公开串通组成卡特尔,从而降低产出并抬高价格。公司有时试图寻找其他办法来绕过这些限制,因此许多反托拉斯案件都涉及限制性做法,在某些情况下可以减少竞争,如捆绑销售、捆绑和掠夺性定价。

Visit this website to read an article about Google’s run-in with the FTC:
::访问这个网站阅读Google与公平贸易委员会连线的文章:

How Governments Can Encourage Innovation
::政府如何鼓励创新

A number of different government policies can increase the incentives to innovate, including: guaranteeing intellectual property rights, government assistance with the costs of research and development, and cooperative research ventures between universities and companies.
::一些不同的政府政策可以增加对创新的激励,包括:保障知识产权、政府在研究与开发费用方面的援助、大学与公司之间的合作研究企业。

Intellectual Property Rights
::知识产权

One way to increase new technology is to guarantee the innovator an exclusive right to that new product or process. Intellectual property rights include patents, which give the inventor the exclusive legal right to make, use, or sell the invention for a limited time, and copyright laws, which give the author an exclusive legal right over works of literature, music, film/video, and pictures. For example, if a pharmaceutical firm has a patent on a new drug, then no other firm can manufacture or sell that drug for twenty-one years, unless the firm with the patent grants permission. Without a patent, the pharmaceutical firm would have to face competition for any successful products, and could earn no more than a normal rate of profit. With a patent, a firm is able to earn monopoly profits on its product for a period of time—which offers an incentive for research and development. In general, how long can “a period of time” be? The Clear it Up discusses patent and copyright protection timeframes for some works you might have heard of.
::增加新技术的方法之一是保障创新者对新产品或新工艺的专属权利。知识产权包括专利,赋予发明人在有限时间内生产、使用或销售发明的专属法律权利,以及版权法,赋予作者对文学、音乐、电影/录像和图片作品的专属法律权利。例如,如果制药公司对新药拥有专利,那么,除非有专利许可的公司允许,否则其他任何公司都无法在21年内制造或销售该药物。没有专利,制药公司将不得不面对任何成功产品的竞争,并且只能赚取正常利润率。有了专利,公司就能在一段时间内从产品上获得垄断利润,这为研究和开发提供了激励。一般而言,“一段时间”能持续多久?“时间”是多久?“澄清”它讨论一些你可能听说过的作品的专利和版权保护时限。

1 illustrates how the total number of patent applications filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the total number of patents granted, surged in the mid-1990s with the invention of the Internet, and is still going strong today.
::1 说明1990年代中期随着因特网的发明,向美国专利和商标局提出的专利申请总数以及授予的专利总数在1990年代中期猛增,今天仍然强劲。

Patents Filed and Granted, 1981–2008
::1981-2008年提交和授予专利

lesson content

The number of applications filed for patents increased substantially from the mid-1990s into the first years of the 2000s, due in part to the invention of the Internet, which has led to many other inventions and to the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act. (Source: )

While patents provide an incentive to innovate by protecting the innovator, they are not perfect. For example:
::虽然专利通过保护创新者鼓励创新,但它们并非完美无缺。

In countries that already have patents, economic studies show that inventors receive only one-third to one-half of the total economic value of their inventions.
::在已经拥有专利的国家,经济研究表明,发明者只得到其发明总经济价值的三分之一至一半。

In a fast-moving high-technology industry like biotechnology or semiconductor design, patents may be almost irrelevant because technology is advancing so quickly.
::在生物技术或半导体设计等快速发展的高技术工业中,专利可能几乎无关紧要,因为技术发展如此之快。

Not every new idea can be protected with a patent or a copyright—for example, a new way of organizing a factory or a new way of training employees.
::并不是每一个新想法都可以以专利或版权来保护——例如,组织工厂的新方法或培训雇员的新方法。

Patents may sometimes cover too much or be granted too easily. In the early 1970s, Xerox had received over 1,700 patents on various elements of the photocopy machine. Every time Xerox improved the photocopier, it received a patent on the improvement.
::20世纪70年代初,Xerox在影印机各部件上获得了1,700多份专利,每次Xerox改进复印机,它都获得了改进专利。

The 21-year time period for a patent is somewhat arbitrary. Ideally, a patent should cover a long enough period of time for the inventor to earn a good return, but not so long that it allows the inventor to charge a monopoly price permanently.
::专利的21年期限有点武断。理想的情况是,专利应覆盖足够长的时间,让发明者获得好回报,但不会长到允许发明者永久收取垄断价格。

Public Goods
::公益物

Even though new technology creates positive externalities, so perhaps one-third or one-half of the social benefit of new inventions spills over to others, the inventor still receives some private return. What about a situation where the positive externalities are so extensive that private firms could not expect to receive any of the social benefits? This kind of good is called a public good. Spending on national defense is a good example of a public good. Let’s begin by defining the characteristics of a public good and discussing why these characteristics make it difficult for private firms to supply public goods. Then we will see how the government may step in to address the issue.
::尽管新技术创造了积极的外在因素,因此,也许新发明溢出给他人的社会好处的三分之一或二分之一,发明家仍然得到一些私人回报。积极外在因素如此之大以致私人公司无法指望得到任何社会福利的情况如何?这种公益物被称为公益物。国防开支是公益物的一个好例子。让我们从界定公益物的特点开始,并讨论这些特点为何使私人公司难以提供公益物。然后我们将看看政府如何介入解决这个问题。

The Definition of a Public Good
::公益的定义

Economists have a strict definition of a public good, and it does not necessarily include all goods financed through taxes. To understand the defining characteristics of a public good, first consider an ordinary private good, like a piece of pizza. A piece of pizza can be bought and sold fairly easily because it is a separate and identifiable item. However, public goods are not separate and identifiable in this way.
::经济学家对公益物有严格的定义,它不一定包括所有通过税收融资的商品。要理解公益物的界定特征,首先考虑普通的私人商品,比如披萨。一块披萨可以很容易地买卖,因为它是一个单独和可识别的物品。但是,公益物并不是以这种方式单独和可识别的。

Instead, public goods have two defining characteristics: they are nonexcludable and nonrivalrous. The first characteristic, a public good is nonexcludable, means that it is costly or impossible to exclude someone from using the good. If Larry buys a private good like a piece of pizza, then he can exclude others, like Lorna, from eating that pizza. However, if national defense is being provided, then it includes everyone. Even if you strongly disagree with America’s defense policies or with the level of defense spending, the national defense still protects you. You cannot choose to be unprotected, and national defense cannot protect everyone else and exclude you.
::相反,公共货物有两个明确特征:它们是不可排除的,并且非矛盾的。第一个特征 — — 公益物是不可排除的 — — 意味着将某人排除在使用公益物之外是昂贵的或者不可能的。如果拉里像一块披萨一样购买私人商品,那么他可以把其他人(如洛纳)排除在吃披萨之外。但是,如果提供国防,那么它就包括所有人。即使你强烈反对美国的国防政策或者国防支出水平,国防仍然保护你。你不能选择不受保护,国防也不能保护其他人,也不能排斥你。

The second main characteristic of a public good, that it is nonrivalrous, means that when one person uses the public good, another can also use it. With a private good like pizza, if Max is eating the pizza then Michelle cannot also eat it; that is, the two people are rivals in consumption. With a public good like national defense, Max’s consumption of national defense does not reduce the amount left for Michelle, so they are nonrivalrous in this area.
::公益物的第二个主要特征 — — 其非非两极性,意味着当一个人使用公益物时,另一个人也可以使用。有了像披萨这样的私人福利,如果马克思在吃披萨,米歇尔就不能也吃;也就是说,这两个人是消费对手。在像国防这样的公益物中,马克思对国防的消费不会减少留给米歇尔的金额,因此他们在这方面是非两极的。

A number of government services are examples of public goods. For instance, it would not be easy to provide fire and police service so some people in a neighborhood would be protected from the burning and burglary of their property, while others would not be protected at all. Protecting some necessarily means protecting others, too.
::一些政府服务是公益物的例子,例如,提供消防和警察服务并非易事,因此,一个街区的一些人将受到保护,免遭其财产被烧毁和盗窃,而其他人则根本得不到保护。保护某些人也必然意味着保护其他人。

Positive externalities and public goods are closely related concepts. Public goods have positive externalities, like police protection or public health funding. Not all goods and services with positive externalities, however, are public goods. Investments in education have huge positive spillovers but can be provided by a private company. Private companies can invest in new inventions such as the Apple iPad and reap profits that may not capture all of the social benefits. Patents can also be described as an attempt to make new inventions into private goods, which are excludable and rivalrous, so no one but the inventor is allowed to use them during the length of the patent.
::积极的外差因素和公益物是密切相关的概念。公益物具有积极的外差因素,如警察保护或公共卫生资金。但并非所有具有积极外差因素的商品和服务都是公益物。教育投资具有巨大的积极外溢效应,但可由私营公司提供。私人公司可以投资苹果iPad等新发明,并获取可能无法获取所有社会福利的利润。专利也可以被描述为试图将新发明转化为私人商品,这些商品是可排除的和竞争的,因此,在专利期,不允许任何人使用,但发明人可以在专利期内使用这些发明。

The Free Rider Problem of Public Goods
::公共货物的 " 自由骑士 " 问题

Private companies find it difficult to produce public goods. If a good or service is nonexcludable, like national defense, so that it is impossible or very costly to exclude people from using this good or service, then how can a firm charge people for it?
::私人公司很难生产公共产品。如果一项商品或服务是不可排除的,比如国防,那么将人们排除在使用这种商品或服务之外是不可能的或代价高昂的,那么公司怎么能为此向人们收费呢?

When individuals make decisions about buying a public good, a free rider problem can arise, in which people have an incentive to let others pay for the public good and then to “free ride” on the purchases of others. The free rider problem can be expressed in terms of the prisoner’s dilemma game, which is discussed as a representation of oligopoly in . Say that two people are thinking about contributing to a public good: Rachel and Samuel. When either of them contributes to a public good, such as a local fire department, their personal cost of doing so is $4 and the social benefit of that person’s contribution is $6. Because society’s benefit of $6 is greater than the cost of $4, the investment is a good idea for society as a whole. The problem is that, while Rachel and Samuel pay for the entire cost of their contribution to the public good, they receive only half of the benefit, because the benefit of the public good is divided equally among the members of society. This sets up the prisoner’s dilemma illustrated in 2
::当个人决定购买公益物时,就会出现一个自由骑手问题,即人们有动力让其他人为公益物付费,然后用 " 免费搭车 " 购买他人。免费骑手问题可以用囚犯的两难游戏来表达,讨论的这个游戏是寡头垄断的代言。说两个人在考虑为公益物作出贡献:蕾切尔和塞缪尔。当他们中的任何一方为公益物作出贡献,例如当地消防局,他们这样做的个人成本是4美元,而此人贡献的社会利益是6美元。由于社会的6美元福利高于4美元,投资是整个社会的好主意。问题是,尽管瑞秋和塞缪尔支付他们为公益物所贡献的全部费用,但他们只得到一半的好处,因为公益物的好处在社会成员之间是平等的。这使得囚犯的两件困境是2件所说明的。

	Samuel (S) Contribute ::塞缪尔(塞缪尔)	Samuel (S) Do Not Contribute ::Sam Samuel (S) 不捐款
Rachel (R) Contribute ::瑞秋( RR) 贡献	R pays $4, receives $6, net gain +$2 ::R支付4美元,收到6美元,净收益+2 S pays $4, receives $6, net gain +$2 ::S支付4美元,收到6美元,净收益+2	R pays $4, receives $3, net gain –$1 ::R支付4美元,收到3美元,净收益1美元 S pays $0, receives $3, net gain +$3 ::S支付0美元,收到3美元净收益+3美元

Rachel (R) Do Not Contribute ::Rachel (RR) 不捐款	R pays $0, receives $3, net gain +$3 ::R支付0美元,收到3美元净收益+3美元 S pays $4, receives $3, net gain –$1 ::S支付4美元,收到3美元,净收益1美元	R pays $0, receives $0 ::R支付0美元,R支付0美元得到0美元 S pays $0, receives $0 ::S 支付 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到 $0 , 收到收到 $0 , 收到收到 $0 , 收到收到 $0 , 收到收到 $0

Contributing to a Public Good as a Prisoner’s Dilemma
::推动公众公益作为囚犯的困境

If neither Rachel nor Samuel contributes to the public good, then there are no costs and no benefits of the public good. Suppose, however, that only Rachel contributes, while Samuel does not. Rachel incurs a cost of $4, but receives only $3 of benefit (half of the total $6 of benefit to society), while Samuel incurs no cost, and yet he also receives $3 of benefit. In this outcome, Rachel actually loses $1 while Samuel gains $3. A similar outcome, albeit with roles reversed, would occur if Samuel had contributed, but Rachel had not. Finally, if both parties contribute, then each incurs a cost of $4 and each receives $6 of benefit (half of the total $12 benefit to society). There is a dilemma with the Prisoner’s Dilemma, though.
::如果瑞秋和塞缪尔都不为公益作出贡献,那么就不会有任何代价和好处。但是,假设只有瑞秋缴款,而撒缪尔不这样做。瑞秋只承担4美元的费用,但只领取3美元的福利(社会利益总额6美元的一半 ) , 而塞缪尔却不承担任何费用,但他也得到3美元的福利。在这一结果中,瑞秋实际上损失了1美元,塞缪尔却得3美元。如果塞缪尔缴款,也会出现类似的结果,尽管角色被颠倒了,但如果塞缪尔缴款,但瑞秋却没有。最后,如果双方都缴款,那么每一方得4美元的费用,每一方得6美元的福利(社会利益总额12美元的一半 ) 。但囚犯的Dilemma有两难。

Visit this to read about a connection between free riders and “bad" music:
::阅读自由骑手与“坏”音乐之间的联系:

The Role of Government in Paying for Public Goods
::政府在支付公益物方面的作用

The key insight in paying for public goods is to find a way of assuring that everyone will make a contribution and to prevent free riders. For example, if people come together through the political process and agree to pay taxes and make group decisions about the quantity of public goods, they can defeat the free rider problem by requiring, through the law, that everyone contributes.
::支付公共货物的关键洞察力是找到一种确保每个人都能作出贡献并防止自由骑车的方法。比如,如果人们通过政治进程走到一起,同意纳税,并就公共货物的数量做出集体决定,他们可以通过法律要求每个人都能作出贡献,从而战胜自由骑车者的问题。

However, government spending and taxes are not the only way to provide public goods. In some cases, markets can produce public goods. For example, think about radio. It is nonexcludable, since once the radio signal is being broadcast, it would be very difficult to stop someone from receiving it. It is nonrivalrous, since one person listening to the signal does not prevent others from listening as well. Because of these features, it is practically impossible to charge listeners directly for listening to conventional radio broadcasts.
::然而,政府开支和税收并不是提供公益的唯一方法,在某些情况下,市场可以生产公益物,例如,考虑收音机。这是不可排除的,因为一旦广播了收音机信号,就很难阻止别人接收它。这是非矛盾的,因为听信号的人不会阻止别人也收听。由于这些特点,几乎不可能直接向收听者收取收听常规电台广播的费用。

Radio has found a way to collect revenue by selling advertising, which is an indirect way of “charging” listeners by taking up some of their time. Ultimately, consumers who purchase the goods advertised are also paying for the radio service, since the cost of advertising is built into the product cost. In a more recent development, satellite radio companies, such as SirusXM, charge a regular subscription fee for streaming music without commercials. In this case, however, the product is excludable—only those who pay for the subscription will receive the broadcast.
::电台通过销售广告找到了赚取收入的途径,广告是间接地 " 收买 " 听众的方式,占用他们一些时间,最终,购买广告商品的消费者也支付广播服务费用,因为广告成本已计入产品成本,在较近期的开发中,SirusXM等卫星无线电公司对没有广告的流音乐收取定期订阅费,但这一产品是例外的 -- -- 只有那些支付订阅费的人才能得到广播。

Some public goods will also have a mixture of public provision at no charge along with fees for some purposes. For example, a public city park may be free to use, but the government charges a fee for parking your car, for reserving certain picnic grounds, and for food sold at a refreshment stand.
::某些公共物品还将混合提供免费公共用品,同时收取某些用途的收费。比如,公共城市公园可以免费使用,但政府收取停车费、保留某些野餐场费和在饮料店出售食品费。

In other cases, social pressures and personal appeals can be used, rather than the force of law, to reduce the number of free riders and to collect resources for the public good. For example, neighbors sometimes form an association to carry out beautification projects or to patrol their area after dark to discourage crime. In low-income countries, where social pressure strongly encourages all farmers to participate, farmers in a region may come together to work on a large irrigation project that will benefit all. Many fundraising efforts, including raising money for local charities and for the endowments of colleges and universities, also can be viewed as an attempt to use social pressure to discourage free riding and to generate the outcome that will produce a public benefit.
::在其他情况下,社会压力和个人呼吁可以用来减少免费骑手的人数和为公共利益筹集资源,而不是用法律的力量来利用社会压力和个人呼吁,例如,邻居有时会组成一个协会来实施美化项目或在黑暗之后在自己的地区巡逻以阻止犯罪。在低收入国家,社会压力强烈鼓励所有农民参与,一个区域的农民可能聚集在一起,开展一个将惠及所有人的大型灌溉项目。许多筹资努力,包括为当地慈善机构和学院及大学的捐赠物筹集资金,也可以被视为试图利用社会压力来阻止自由骑马,并产生能够产生公共利益的结果。

Common Resources and the “Tragedy of the Commons”
::B. 共同资源和“共同公域的分歧”

There are some goods that do not fall neatly into the categories of private good or public good. While it is easy to classify a pizza as a private good and a city park as a public good, what about an item that is nonexcludable and rivalrous, such as the queen conch?
::有些商品不完全属于私人商品或公益商品的类别。虽然很容易将比萨饼归类为私人商品,将城市公园归类为公益物,但像皇后螺旋这样的非排他性和竞争性物品呢?

In the Caribbean, the queen conch is a large marine mollusk found in shallow waters of seagrass. These waters are so shallow, and so clear, that a single diver may harvest many conch in a single day. Not only is conch meat a local delicacy and an important part of the local diet, but also, the large ornate shells are used in art and can be crafted into musical instruments. Because almost anyone with a small boat, snorkel, and mask, can participate in the conch harvest, it is essentially nonexcludable. At the same time, fishing for conch is rivalrous; once a diver catches one conch it cannot be caught by another diver.
::在加勒比海,王后海螺是在海草浅水中发现的大型海洋软体动物。这些水是如此浅浅,非常清楚,以至于一个潜水员一天之内可以收获许多海螺。不仅鱼肉是本地的精华,也是当地饮食的一个重要部分,而且大型壳壳也用于艺术,可以合成乐器。因为几乎所有有小船、潜水艇和面具的人都可以参加海螺的捕捞,因此基本上不可排除。与此同时,捕捞海螺是竞争的;潜水员一旦捕获一个海螺,它就不能被另一个潜水员捕捉。

Goods that are nonexcludable and rivalrous are called common resources. Because the waters of the Caribbean are open to all conch fishermen, and because any conch that you catch is conch that I cannot catch, common resources like the conch tend to be overharvested.
::不可排挤和竞争的商品被称为共同资源。因为加勒比海水域对所有海螺渔民开放,而且因为你们捕获的任何海螺都是我无法捕捉的海螺,像海螺这样的共同资源往往被过度捕捞。

The problem of overharvesting common resources is not a new one, but ecologist Garret Hardin put the tag “Tragedy of the Commons” to the problem in a 1968 article in the magazine Science . Economists view this as a problem of property rights. Since nobody owns the ocean, or the conch that crawl on the sand beneath it, no one individual has an incentive to protect that resource and responsibly harvest it. To address the issue of overharvesting conch and other marine fisheries, economists typically advocate simple devices like fishing licenses, harvest limits, and shorter fishing seasons. When the population of a species drops to critically low numbers, governments have even banned the harvest until biologists determine that the population has returned to sustainable levels. In fact, such is the case with the conch, the harvesting of which has been effectively banned in the United States since 1986.
::过度捕捞共同资源的问题不是新问题,而是生态学家加雷特·哈丁(Garret Hardin)在1968年《科学》杂志的一篇文章中将“公域的掠夺”作为这个问题的标签。经济学家认为这是一个产权问题。因为没有人拥有海洋,或者在海底沙滩上爬的海螺,没有人有保护这种资源和负责任地捕捞这种资源的积极性。为了解决过度捕捞海螺和其他海洋渔业的问题,经济学家通常倡导简单的装置,比如捕鱼许可证、收成限制和较短的捕鱼季节。当一个物种的数量降到极低的水平时,政府甚至禁止收割,直到生物学家确定那里的人口已经恢复到可持续水平。事实上,在海螺中,这种收割自1986年以来在美国被有效禁止。

Visit this for more on the queen conch industry:
::更多关于王后海螺产业的访查:

Positive Externalities in Public Health Programs
::公共卫生方案的积极外在因素

One of the most remarkable changes in the standard of living in the last several centuries is that people are living longer. Thousands of years ago, human life expectancy is believed to have been in the range of 20 to 30 years. By 1900, average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years. By the start of the twenty-first century, U.S. life expectancy was 77 years. Most of the gains in life expectancy in the history of the human race happened in the twentieth century.
::过去几个世纪生活水平最显著的变化之一是人们的寿命更长。几千年前,人们认为人类的预期寿命在20至30岁之间。到1900年,美国的平均预期寿命为47岁。到21世纪初,美国的平均预期寿命为77岁。人类历史上的预期寿命增长大部分发生在二十世纪。

The rise in life expectancy seems to stem from three primary factors. First, systems for providing clean water and disposing of human waste helped to prevent the transmission of many diseases. Second, changes in public behavior have advanced health. Early in the twentieth century, for example, people learned the importance of boiling bottles before using them for food storage and baby’s milk, washing their hands, and protecting food from flies. More recent behavioral changes include reducing the number of people who smoke tobacco and precautions to limit sexually transmitted diseases. Third, medicine has played a large role. Immunizations for diphtheria, cholera, pertussis, tuberculosis, tetanus, and yellow fever were developed between 1890 and 1930. Penicillin, discovered in 1941, led to a series of other antibiotic drugs for bringing infectious diseases under control. In recent decades, drugs that reduce the risks of high blood pressure have had a dramatic effect in extending lives.
::预期寿命的上升似乎来自三个主要因素。首先,提供清洁水和处理人类废物的系统有助于防止许多疾病的传播。其次,公共行为的变化提高了健康水平。比如,二十世纪初,人们在将沸水瓶用于食物储存和婴儿牛奶、洗手和保护食物免受苍蝇感染之前,就学会了煮水瓶的重要性。最近的行为变化包括减少吸烟者的人数和减少性传播疾病的预防措施。第三,药物发挥了很大的作用。白喉、霍乱、百日咳、肺结核、破伤风和黄热病的免疫在1890年至1930年期间发展。 1941年发现的Penicillin导致了一系列其他抗生素药物来控制传染病。近几十年来,降低高血压风险的药物在延长生命方面产生了巨大影响。

These advances in public health have all been closely linked to positive externalities and public goods. Public health officials taught hygienic practices to mothers in the early 1900s and encouraged less smoking in the late 1900s. Many public sanitation systems and storm sewers were funded by government because they have the key traits of public goods. In the twentieth century, many medical discoveries came out of government or university-funded research. Patents and intellectual property rights provided an additional incentive for private inventors. The reason for requiring immunizations, phrased in economic terms, is that it prevents spillovers of illness to others—as well as helping the person immunized.
::1900年代初期,公共卫生官员向母亲传授卫生习惯,并鼓励减少吸烟。许多公共卫生系统和暴风雨下水道都由政府提供资金,因为它们具有公益的关键特征。20世纪,许多医学发现都来自政府或大学资助的研究。专利和知识产权为私人发明者提供了额外的激励。要求从经济角度进行免疫接种的原因是,它防止疾病蔓延到他人,以及帮助接受免疫接种的人。

Funding Innovation
::供资创新

If the private sector does not have sufficient incentive to carry out research and development, one possibility is for the government to fund such work directly. Government spending can provide direct financial support for research and development (R&D) done at colleges and universities, nonprofit research entities, and sometimes by private firms, as well as at government-run laboratories. While government spending on research and development produces technology that is broadly available for firms to use, it costs taxpayers money and can sometimes be directed more for political than for scientific or economic reasons.
::如果私营部门没有充分的动力来进行研究和发展,一种可能性是政府直接为这种工作提供资金,政府开支可以直接为在大学和大学、非营利研究实体、有时由私营公司以及政府管理的实验室进行的研究和发展提供财政支助,虽然政府用于研究和发展的开支产生技术,广泛供公司使用,但它需要纳税人的钱,有时可以更多地用于政治目的,而不是用于科学或经济目的。

The first column of shows the sources of total U.S. spending on research and development; the second column shows the total dollars of R&D funding by each source. The third column shows that, relative to the total amount of funding, 26% comes from the federal government, about 67% of R&D is done by industry, and less than 3% is done by universities and colleges.
::第一栏显示美国研发总开支的来源;第二栏显示每个来源的研发资金总额;第三栏显示,相对于供资总额而言,26%来自联邦政府,大约67%的研发资金由产业部门承担,不到3%由大专院校承担。

Sources of R&D Funding ::研发资金来源	Amount ($ billions) ::金额(10亿美元)	Percent of the Total ::占总数的百分比
Federal government ::联邦政府联邦政府联邦政府	$103.7	26.08%
Industry ::工业工业工业	$267.8	67.35%
Universities and colleges ::大学和学院	$10.6	2.67%
Nonprofits ::非营利组织	$12	3.02%
Nonfederal government ::非联邦政府	$3.5	0.88%
Total ::共计共计共计共计	$397.6

In the 1960s the federal government paid for about two-thirds of the nation’s R&D. Over time, the U.S. economy has come to rely much more heavily on industry-funded R&D. The federal government has tried to focus its direct R&D spending on areas where private firms are not as active. One difficulty with direct government support of R&D is that it inevitably involves political decisions about which projects are worthy. The scientific question of whether research is worthwhile can easily become entangled with considerations like the location of the congressional district in which the research funding is being spent.
::20世纪60年代,联邦政府支付了大约三分之二的国家研发费用。随着时间的推移,美国经济越来越严重地依赖工业资助的研发。联邦政府试图将其直接研发支出集中在私人企业不那么活跃的领域。政府直接支持研发的一个困难是,这不可避免地涉及哪些项目值得进行政治决策。研究是否有价值的科学问题很容易与研究资金所花费的国会区的地点等因素纠缠在一起。

Visit the NASA website and the USDA website to read about government research that would not take place w ithout government support.
::访问美国航天局网站和美国航天局网站,阅读政府研究的情况,如果没有政府的支持,这些研究不会进行。

Answer the self check questions below to monitor your understanding of the concepts in this section.
::回答下面的自我核对问题,以监测你对本节概念的理解。

Self Check Questions
::自查问题

1. What is a trust?
::1. 什么是信托?

2. Identify at least 4 pieces of anti-monopoly legislation.
::2. 确定至少4项反垄断立法。

3. Are all monopolies bad? Explain and justify your answer.
::3. 垄断是否都不好?解释和说明答案的理由。

4. Use the internet to find at least 12 regulatory agencies established by the U.S. government since 1906. Identify what they do and why they are important.
::4. 利用互联网找到美国政府自1906年以来设立的至少12个监管机构,查明它们的工作以及它们为何重要。

5. Identify 3 ways the internet is used by consumers, by companies, and by the government in relation to the economy.
::5. 确定消费者、公司和政府在经济方面使用互联网的三种方式。

6. Explain how the U.S. economy has evolved to a "modified free enterprise economy".
::6. 解释美国经济如何演变为“经修改的自由企业经济”。

Section outline

General

政府的作用

The Role of the Government ::政府的作用

Regulating Anticompetitive Behavior ::管制反竞争行为

Antitrust Laws ::反托拉斯法

Restrictive Practices ::限制性做法

Did Microsoft ® engage in anticompetitive and restrictive practices? ::微软公司是否从事反竞争和限制性做法?

How Governments Can Encourage Innovation ::政府如何鼓励创新

Intellectual Property Rights ::知识产权

The Definition of a Public Good ::公益的定义

The Free Rider Problem of Public Goods ::公共货物的 " 自由骑士 " 问题

Contributing to a Public Good as a Prisoner’s Dilemma ::推动公众公益作为囚犯的困境

The Role of Government in Paying for Public Goods ::政府在支付公益物方面的作用

Common Resources and the “Tragedy of the Commons” ::B. 共同资源和“共同公域的分歧”

Positive Externalities in Public Health Programs ::公共卫生方案的积极外在因素

Self Check Questions ::自查问题