| 来源： |
数字商业时代 |
发布时间： |
2011年01月17日 11:09 |
作者： |
James Hamilton |
| |
撰文/James Hamilton 译/张尚斌
把经济放缓完全归咎于政府是不对的。
有些人过分强调汇率问题。美国对中国贸易赤字的关键在于其长期性和结构性。当美国政府财政赤字达到现如今的规模时，我个人认为，美国再把经常账户赤字问题归咎于中国毫无意义。
另一个孤立的问题是，我认为中国的汇率政策加大了通胀压力带来的风险，这可能已经体现在诸如房地产和股票的估值上。我能想像到它所产生的重大问题，例如，政策是否加大了房地产和股票价格的泡沫，或者爆发范围更广的通货膨胀。因此，我认为中国让人民币升值是个不错的选择，但我不认为它会引起贸易赤字的巨大变化。
在北京遏制房地产价格泡沫的同时，欧洲国家也深陷主权债务问题当中，这直接削弱了信贷供应，导致支出被削减。有些证据也向我们表明，美国经济复苏正在远去。随着中国制造业产品出口市场的疲软，我认为汇丰银行的调研应该代表了基本面的真实疲软。尽管我相信中国的信贷措施是一个促成因素，但我不认为是惟一的因素。
我还要指出，如果真像许多观察家说的那样——出现了房地产价格泡沫，不管政府怎么做，最终结果必将是负面的。经济危机爆发的规模越大，危机维持的时间越长。从这个意义上说，把经济放缓完全归咎于政府是不对的。
如今，美元的总体趋势是兑日元下跌，对大多数货币也是如此。我相信美联储的二次量化宽松政策是导致这一趋势的重要因素之一。即使不考虑量化宽松政策，想想美国庞大的贸易赤字，美元的贬值也是一种必要的长期调整。不过，我不认为美联储的主要目的是让美元贬值。如果其他国家也以货币扩张来应对，我认为这不会刺激到包括美联储在内的决策者。
阻止美元-人民币汇率发生重大变化的做法不可持续，美国的量化宽松再一次加强了它的不可持续性。如果中国想维持汇率不变，那中国国内的通胀压力将变得愈发严重并具有破坏性。美联储的举动（二次量化宽松）为中国提供了一个重新评估其汇率政策强有力的理由。
The importance of the exchange rate has been overemphasized by some people. The key sources of the U.S. trade deficit with China areof a long-term, structural nature. Personally I do not feel it makes much sense for the U.S. to blame China for our current account deficit when our government budget deficit is as large as it is.
There is a separate question as to whether keeping the renminbi cheap is in China's own interests. I think the Chinese exchange rate policy raises a significant risk of pent-up inflation pressure, which may have been manifest up to this point in things like property and stock values. I could imagine this producing significant problems, for example, if the policy has helped fuel a bubble in real estate or stock prices that later collapses, or if inflation breaks out more broadly. So I feel it would be a good idea for China to allow more appreciation ofthe renminbi, but not because I think it will produce a huge change in the trade deficit.
Beijing’s efforts to curb the property price bubble came about the same time as sovereign debt concerns for several European countries, which impaired credit provision and reduced spending directly. We are also seeing evidence that the U.S. economic recovery is sputtering. With the weakening export market for China’s manufactured goods, I suspect that the HSBC survey could be indicating a true weakening of fundamentals. While I believe that the Chinese credit measures were a contributing factor, I would not regard them as the only factor.
I would also point out that, if it is true as many observers claim that there has been a property price bubble, there are eventually going to be negative ramifications of that, no matter what the government does. The size of the ultimate disruption gets bigger the longer it is put off. In that sense, it might also be a mistake to blame the slowdown entirely on the government’s credit measures.
Nowadays, the overall trend of the dollar is down against the yen, as it is down against most currencies. I believe that the anticipation of the recently announced second round of quantitative easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve has been one important factor in that trend. Even apart from quantitative easing, given the large U.S. trade deficit, depreciation of the dollar is a necessary long-run adjustment. However, I do not believe that the Fed's primary intention was to cause a dollar depreciation. If other countries respond with monetary expansions of their own, I do not think that would irritate policy makers within the U.S. Federal Reserve.
The idea of preventing big changes in the dollar-yuan exchange rate has never been sustainable, and quantitative easing makes it even less sustainable. If China tries to maintain the exchange rate, the inflationary pressures within China will become more significant and damaging. The recent moves by the Federal Reserve provide a strong reason for China to re-evaluate its exchange rate policy.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
