阅读大全 9/63 第8题，原文有一句话不能理解 求教一下

lisiberry

Passage 9 (9/63)
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal thatdoes not accord with the requirements of the free market. A price that isdetermined by the seller or,for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious. Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think ofprice-fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” andhaving a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in allindustrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as aneffortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that itrequires. Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence, acomparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same groupof consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing thefree market to operate without interference is the most efficient method ofestablishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialistcountries other than the United  states
. These economies employ intentionalprice-fixing, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel andinformal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry arecommonplace. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free marketand inefficient about price-fixing, the countries that have avoided the firstand used the second would have suffered drastically in their economsices established by a free market over which they exerciselittle influence than are capitalist firms; rather, Soviet firms have beengiven the power to fix prices.



看了半天也没明白这两句话的意思。粉色的部分，“common interest”是指大众？ in a stable demand for products 是形容什么的呢？
第二句，经济学家看不到它会发生？是认为它不会发生吗？




请问能不能帮忙指点一下这两句，最好有中文翻译。跪谢。。。

lisiberry

顶一下

sylivy860708

     我觉得common interest 只得是其他企业的共同利益，意思就是说大型企业会避免明显的降价，因为降价会损坏大家（其他企业）的共同利益当（消费者）对产品的需求是稳定的情况下。
     这里需要考虑自由市场经济中的供求关系，如果需求量没有降低自己降价的话等于是竞价竞争，那其他企业为了卖出产品也势必会进行降价，这就会造成恶性竞争，导致大家都没钱赚。如果需求量降低了，那就说明供给过多，那么降价销售是正常的经济现象；另外如果需求增加，那么供给就是过少，价格会上升。
     第二句是说经济学家没发现价格垄断当其发生时，这是因为他们认为价格垄断需要通过一系列的大企业之间的价格谈判来达成，但事实可能不是。
     就是说经济学家认为价格都是通过供求关系的改变自己形成的，而不是几个寡头企业之间商议垄断的结果，他们认为价格垄断是很复杂的过程需要很多大企业之间的商议才能达到。实际上他们可能漏估了美国以外的非社会主义经济国家的市场经济。这里可能有国家有意造成的价格垄断~

lisiberry

sylivy860708 发表于 2017-4-3 08:03
我觉得common interest 只得是其他企业的共同利益，意思就是说大型企业会避免明显的降价，因为降价会 ...

结衣，谢谢。4个月前发的，我得重看一遍。稍等

lisiberry

sylivy860708 发表于 2017-4-3 08:03
我觉得common interest 只得是其他企业的共同利益，意思就是说大型企业会避免明显的降价，因为降价会 ...

common interest你说的对。是市场的集体利益。
第二个大概意思也是你说的那样，就是price-fixing不是垄断，只是“定价”的意思。

还是感觉这篇文章挺难的。看了老长时间了。。。