萨姆·维姆斯“靴子”社会经济不公平理论
Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness

原始链接: https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/

保罗·基德比分析了特里·普拉切特《卫兵!卫兵!》中的“靴子社会经济不公理论”,强调了贫困如何制造一个恶性循环。萨姆·维姆斯警官观察到,富人通过最初投资高质量、耐用的商品,实际上*花费*更少。 虽然廉价商品最初看起来更便宜,但它们需要频繁更换,最终花费更多——并长期造成更多困苦。维姆斯自己那双破旧的靴子就是例证:反复购买廉价靴子,花费比一双好靴子用多年还要多,而且还会让他脚湿。 这个理论引起共鸣,因为它反映了一种普遍的经历:无力负担最初的投资,而这种投资在以后可以节省金钱和时间。这不仅仅局限于靴子,还延伸到电器、交通工具甚至食物,表明贫困不仅仅是缺乏金钱,而是一种昂贵且耗时的陷阱。富人受益于世代财富和高质量的购买,完全避免了这种循环。

一个黑客新闻的讨论围绕着萨姆·维姆斯提出的“靴子”社会经济不公理论,最初出自特里·普拉切特的《碟形世界》小说。该理论认为,经济不公在于穷人无力购买制作精良、耐用的商品——即使这些商品从长远来看更划算——而富人却可以。 然而,评论员指出该理论的相关性正在减弱。许多人认为质量不再可靠地与价格相关,昂贵商品往往制作粗糙或仅仅是重新贴牌的产品。现在需要研究才能找到真正好的产品,因为品牌质量在没有明确迹象的情况下下降。 对话还涉及个人消费习惯——快时尚与耐用品——并赞扬普拉切特是一位杰出的作家,尽管有一位评论员觉得《碟形世界》不好笑。
相关文章

原文
‘Fabricati Diem Pvnc’ by Discworld artist Paul Kidby

Perhaps one of the most popular quotes from the Discworld series is Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness, propounded in Men at Arms:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

Men at Arms

With the fifty-dollar boots, Vimes knew that he would save money in the long term and that his feet would be dry for many years, but lacking the money for that initial outlay he is caught in the trap of spending more money over the years, and a significantly longer time with wet feet.

This theory often goes viral during times of austerity and whenever cuts are made that disproportionately impact on the poorest in society. Its popularity is likely down to the fact that so many of us, at least at some point in our lives, can relate to being unable to scrape together the money for even moderately expensive items that might last and remain in peak condition for much longer than products within a much lower price range.

Vimes goes on to consider why society’s most wealthy, including his wife Sybil Ramkin, hardly ever had to buy anything.

The mansion was full of this big, solid furniture, bought by her ancestors. It never wore out . . . Lady Sybil Ramkin lived quite comfortably from day to day by spending, Vimes estimated, about half as much as he did.

Men at Arms

Vimes, and Terry, understood that being poor is like being caught in a trap. The well off can make decisions and purchases that leave them wealthier, more comfortable and with more free time. Consider how much time and money is spent taking clothes to a laundrette if you can’t afford a washing machine, or taking a car for repairs if you can only afford an old banger with far too many miles on the clock. Those most affected by food poverty end up spending more and shopping more often through lacking the finances to save money by bulk buying. It’s easy to save money when you are rich. Poverty is both expensive and time consuming.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com