汇率问题之外(by 邓铮) - 思维的乐趣BLOG

3 上一篇为什么你写不出卓越的书？下一篇《长尾》笔记 (2) 4
汇率问题之外
By [ 邓铮 ] 2006-10-5 4:48:32

马丁·沃尔夫，FT御用经济学家，新言论：中国成长商业背后的储蓄“问题”。

读完今天他发表在FT-13评论版的大作——"Why Beijing should dip into China's corporate piggy bank?"，印象最深的不是他指手画脚中国经济的新视点，却是他引用英国小说型侦探家夏洛克·福尔摩斯的话："As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The truth, in this case, is that China's corporates are generating vast savings."

按照宏观经济学的经典观点，从长期来看，消费和储蓄处于一种交换的平衡状态(Trade-off)。如果一个国家在今天储蓄较多，那么明天它的消费量将要增加。各个国家政府将分析各自经济运行的实际情况，通过宏观政策来反映它决定今天储蓄或明天消费之间的交换。然而，在理论化的宏观经济学中的确提供了找出最优现时消费量和投资量的公式，但不可避免理论化的公式计算出的答案，在现实宏观经济运行中发挥指导作用时的局限之处。

文章中，沃尔夫认为，“没有降低储蓄，中国的经常账户盈余将继续增加”。这将是“全球性的破坏”，并且“不会给中国带来实在的好处”。("Now consider, instead, what might happen if gross investment were reduced, as those fearful of overheating and excessive investment suggest, but without cutting savings. Then the current account surplus would explode upwards. This would be globally disruptive and would bring no obvious benefit to China itself.")

令人遗憾的是，他并没有解释中国的经常账户盈余增加为什么会带来“全球性的破坏”，还有通过降低中国的储蓄水平，特别是国内企业的储蓄水平如何给中国带来实在的好处了。但是他的开篇，所谓的起点，还有最后一段话似乎让读者嗅到了些许意味：

开篇："China represents something new in the history of the morden world: a developing country that has a vast global impact. This is why Hank Paulson, the US treasury secretory, has followed Robert Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state, in calling it to a 'responsible stakeholder'."

起点："The starting point then must be whether it makes sense for a poor country to export so much capital. The answer I would argue, is 'No'."

最后："I would argue that the government needs not a policy to cut investment, but one to cut saving. Morover, it can easily achive this aim, because it is itself directly or indirectly responsible for the bulk of these savings. Above all, such a change is in the interest of Chinese people. All the government needs do is exercise its rights of ownership. This, not a change in exchange-rate policy, is the most important step towards external adjustment. It would make sense for China. It would also make sense for the world. Mr Paulson should be pleased."

不知道我有没有“误解”他的言论？

Comments [5] | 4156 views

- 评论 -

daisy 说：

“权衡利弊”
——“权衡”是有平衡的意思，我刚看了金山词霸中“权衡”的古语来源和“权衡利弊”的意思，但无论“权衡”还是“权衡利弊”都只注重一种静态的“评量”和“比较”。况且消费和储蓄之间并没有真正的“利弊”之分，而只是今天和明天的一种选择和交换

然而在英语中，trade-off （加了连字符是名词）指的是"an acceptable balance between two opposing things that you want"；如果不加连字符，那就是一个动词+介词的组合，意思是"to balance one situation or quality aganist another, in order to produce an acceptable result." 关键词"balance"其实指的是一种动态的平衡过程，毕竟经济总是在运行。

而宏观经济学能得出这样的“平衡论”，那是因为它假设国民的生产值在“短期”内不会发生较大的变化（也就是PPF——Production Possibility Frontier在短期内不会外移），也就是今天储蓄的总量（无论如何变化）和明天消费的总量（也无论如何变化），相加后总量总是不变。但在宏观经济上的“短期”对于个人而言，则是一种相对的“长期”。假设宏观经济的政策制定者对此“平衡论”知晓，那么他们就会根据自己国家的实际需要（投资量）在今天储蓄还是明天消费之中作出选择。

因此我认为“交换”体现了消费和储蓄之间动态的变化地达到一种“平衡”的过程，对解释"trade-off"，还是合理的。哈~突然醒悟飞猪的建议是我疏忽的地方！

改之~