wxwx asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago

急~~~~有誰能幫我翻譯啊20點

1our discussion of both additive and maximin social welfare functions assumed that redistribution makes some people better off and others worse off. redistribution was never a pareto improvement---a change that allowed all individuals to be at least as well off as under the status quo. this is a consequence of the assumption that each individual's utility depends on his or her income only. in contrast, imagine that high-income individuals are altruistic, so their utilities depend not only on their own incomes but those

of the poor as well. under such circumstances, redistribution can actually be a pareto improvement.

there are other reasons self-interest might favor income redistribution.for one, there is always somechance that through circumstances beyond yourcontrol, you will become poor.an income distribution policy is a bit like insurance . when you are well off , you pay"premiums"in the form of tax payments to those who are currently poor. if bad times hit, the"policy"pays off , and you receive relief. the idea that government should provide a safety net is an old one.

2in addition,somebelieve that income distribution programs help purchase social stability.if poor people become too poor, they may engage in antisocial activities such as crime and rioting. a norwegian businessman,commenting on his government's very large redistributional program, said,"it may be costly but there is social peace"the link between social stability adn changes in income distribution is not totally clear, however. somesocial commentators argue that in the united states, at least the distribution of income has been of little political importance, perhaps because of an individualist strain in the characters of its citizens.

3a less extreme proposal is that only special commodities should be distributed equally, a position sometimes called commodity egalitarianism.

2 Answers

Rating
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    附加和 maximin 的社會福利功能的 1我們的 討論(論述)認為再分發離開離開使一些人和其他(人)得更好壞(差)。再分發從未是 pareto 改進過--- 允許所有個人(個體)如同在等級(狀況) quo 下至少好離開作為的變化。 這是每一個個人(個體)的實用都僅僅取決於(相信)他的假定或者她的收入的一個結果。 相對, 地想像(以為)高收入個人(個體)是 利他的 的, 所以他們的實用也取決於(相信)不僅自己的收入而且窮人的那些。 在這樣的環境下, 再分發實際上可能是 pareto 改進。

    有其他原因私利可以(可能)喜愛收入再分發。 對於一(個), 在 yourcontrol 那邊透過環境總是有 somechance 那, 你(們)將變得窮(可憐)。 一個收入分發策略是像保險那樣的一點。 當你(們)是好離開時, 你(們)以稅金支付形式對目前窮(可憐)的那些人付" 保險費" 。 如果壞時代打了, " 策略" 合算, 並且你(們)收到緩解。 主意(想法)那個政府應該規定一個安全網是一個老(舊)的。

    收入分發程式幫助購買社會穩定性的 2銦 增加, somebelieve 。 如果窮(可憐)人變得太窮(可憐), 他們可以(可能)從事例如犯罪的可社會的活動和鬧事。 然而, 挪威商人, 評論他的政府的很大的 redistributiona 程式, 說了, " 它(這)也許昂貴但是有社會和平" 收入分發中社會穩定性 先進數位網路 變化之間的聯結不完全清楚。 somesocial commentators 美國的那辯論(表明), 收入的分發, 也許由於它的公民的特性(字符)中的個人主義者緊張至少具有很少政治重要(性)。

    3 一 更不極端的提議是應該平等地分發僅僅特別的日用品, 有時一個位置叫日用品 平等主義 。

    Source(s): 翻譯程式
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    1our 關於添加劑和maximin 社會保障作用的討論假設, 再分配使某些人民更好並且其他人壞再分配從未是和在現狀之下。這假定的承認所有個體是至少的pareto 改善變動後果各個體的公共事業取決於他們的收入唯一。相反, 想像, 高收入個體是利他的, 因此他們的公共事業和很好在這些情況下, 再分配可能實際上pareto 改善那裡利己主義依靠不僅他們自己的收入但那些貧寒也雀犰V收入redistribution.for 一個的其它原因, 那裡總通過情況在yourcontrol 之外, 您將成為poor.an 收入分佈政策是像保險的somechance 。當您很好, 您pay"premiums"in 付稅的形式對那些當前是貧寒。如果壞時期命中, the"policy"pays, 和您接受安心想法政府應該提供安全網是老一2.in 加法, somebelieve, 收入分佈節目幫助購買社會stability.if 可憐的人民變得太窮, 他們也陸捋P反社會活動譬如罪行和暴亂。挪威商人, 評論對他的政府的非常大redistributional 節目, 說, "它也閉O昂貴的但有社會peace"the 鏈接在社會穩定adn 變化之間在收入分佈上不是完全清楚, 然而somesocial 評論員爭辯說, 在美國, 至少收入分配是一點政治重要, 或野悕颻茪H主義者張力在它的公民字符。3.a 較不極端提案是, 唯一特別商品應該相等地被分佈, 位置有時叫的商品平等主義。

    拍水啦~><英文請自己翻譯! 英文不好怎麼在社會上立足啊?!

    (以上不代表本人立場)

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.