海外博客
08年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者认为今年是中国对世界经济有很重要影响的一年-非正面影响
StillH2ORunDeep 发表评论于
回复wenjuyuan的评论:
当今的全球经济大环境，避免本国经济的危机就是对全球经济的贡献，这是去年几次国际经济会议的共识。一向是共患难要比共“享福”容易，长治久安是多方一起努力的结果。
当今的全球经济大环境，避免本国经济的危机就是对全球经济的贡献，这是去年几次国际经济会议的共识。一向是共患难要比共“享福”容易，长治久安是多方一起努力的结果。
StillH2ORunDeep 发表评论于
欢迎大家各抒己见，但千万别“上火”，骂人就更没有道理了。遵守文学城规则，“请不要在评论中留下不友好信息或者类似侮辱性的言辞。”否则，只能采取适当措施了，望谅。
wenjuyuan 发表评论于
If only the US were willing to sell more things China wants to buy.
wenjuyuan 发表评论于
A little learning is a dangerous thing!!!
wenjuyuan 发表评论于
回复无名男英雄的评论:
Oh yeah!? The Chinese government at least is smart enough not to sacrifice own interests to save that order of the world you are referring to, and no country will do that, including the country which is responsible for the world economic crisis we are going thorugh.
Oh yeah!? The Chinese government at least is smart enough not to sacrifice own interests to save that order of the world you are referring to, and no country will do that, including the country which is responsible for the world economic crisis we are going thorugh.
wenjuyuan 发表评论于
有人說過，大意是看到有些人為拯救國家和民族而犧牲個人利益，但從未有看到哪個國家或民族犧牲自己而拯救世界的。看來文學城不少人希望中國開先河犧牲自己拯救以美國為首的世界才算聰明。
sunjkl 发表评论于
回复StillH2ORunDeep的评论:
》唉，发表评论就不能不带“火气”，只讨论问题吗？大过年的。《
那你以后最好不要发表易燃的文章，免得文学城的泼皮无赖摩拳擦掌的要为真理献身。
》唉，发表评论就不能不带“火气”，只讨论问题吗？大过年的。《
那你以后最好不要发表易燃的文章，免得文学城的泼皮无赖摩拳擦掌的要为真理献身。
StillH2ORunDeep 发表评论于
唉，发表评论就不能不带“火气”，只讨论问题吗？大过年的。
sunjkl 发表评论于
回复legend0109的评论:
你回去不幸反被共产党揍扁了，不用担心，文学城的民运分子会把你捧为为民主奋斗的烈士。
你回去不幸反被共产党揍扁了，不用担心，文学城的民运分子会把你捧为为民主奋斗的烈士。
sunjkl 发表评论于
回复legend0109的评论:
刘晓波是你的英雄，我想他有你一样的真-理，他缺的是你这样的拳头，建议你回去帮帮他，揍扁共产党。在文学城你是大材小用了。
刘晓波是你的英雄，我想他有你一样的真-理，他缺的是你这样的拳头，建议你回去帮帮他，揍扁共产党。在文学城你是大材小用了。
StillH2ORunDeep 发表评论于
回复edufmcn的评论:
谢谢列出Becker's 全文。不错，在这个问题上的确有不同意见，包括国内的人士。不是这方面的专家，但愿意了解这方面的见解。克鲁格曼的确提到过“美國這十幾年從中得到的好處”，但是08年开始的全球经济危机改变了不少与中美贸易有关的看法，中国和美国从未在经济利益上有这种类似双活的相关关系。也许经济学家的“高明”之处不是提供解决问题的方法，而是指出问题的所在，象Becker在文章最后所说， ：）
So my conclusion is that the US in its own interest should not be urging China to appreciate its currency- countries like India have a much greater potential gain from such an appreciation. On the other hand, I see very little sense at this stage of China's development in maintaining a very low value of its currency, and accumulating large quantities of reserves. Paradoxically, President Obama and President Jintao should each have been arguing the others positions on these economic issues.
谢谢列出Becker's 全文。不错，在这个问题上的确有不同意见，包括国内的人士。不是这方面的专家，但愿意了解这方面的见解。克鲁格曼的确提到过“美國這十幾年從中得到的好處”，但是08年开始的全球经济危机改变了不少与中美贸易有关的看法，中国和美国从未在经济利益上有这种类似双活的相关关系。也许经济学家的“高明”之处不是提供解决问题的方法，而是指出问题的所在，象Becker在文章最后所说， ：）
So my conclusion is that the US in its own interest should not be urging China to appreciate its currency- countries like India have a much greater potential gain from such an appreciation. On the other hand, I see very little sense at this stage of China's development in maintaining a very low value of its currency, and accumulating large quantities of reserves. Paradoxically, President Obama and President Jintao should each have been arguing the others positions on these economic issues.
元好问 发表评论于
"legend0109"被"*meow*"说中心思, 恼羞成怒lo...刘晓波希望全中国象香港一样被殖民统治一百年, 象我这样的中国人不需要这样的利益"被维护".这样的"真理"三拳打死得了, 无知 ...
edufmcn 发表评论于
此公聲稱“中国在未来几年中的重商主义最终可能减少美国大约140万个就业机会”。但他故意不提起美國這十幾年從中得到的好處。
根据Gary Becker，（另一位诺贝尔经济学奖获得者）， 他认为人民币是刻意地偏低了，而这偏低是因为钩着美元。他认为对美国有利，因为美国的平民能廉价享受中国货。他认为这享受的利益是远高于美国因而减少就业机会的害处。
附Becker's 全文
Should China Allow its Currency to Appreciate? Becker
18:06 23/11/2009
By all accounts, President Obama's visit to China last week was pretty much a failure on all the major issues, which include China's contributions to climate change, nuclear weapons, and various aspects of the world economy. I will concentrate my discussion on two of the most important and closely related economic issues: the valuation of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, and the huge assets accumulated by China that are mainly held in the form of US Treasury bills and other US government assets.
The Chinese central bank held the value of the renminbi fixed relative to the US dollar at a little over 8 renminbi per dollar during the 1990s, and until 2005. It then allowed the renminbi to appreciate gradually to less than 7 per dollar until 2008, when it again fixed the rate of exchange between these currencies at about 6.9 renminbi per dollar. This exchange rate is considerably above a free market rate that would be determined in a regime of flexible exchange rates. So there is no doubt that China is intentionally holding the value of its currency below the rate that would equate supply and demand.
The dollar has depreciated substantially relative to other currencies since May of 2009. Since the renminbi is tied again to the dollar, the renminbi has depreciated by the same amounts, including 16% against the euro, 34 % against the Australian dollar, 25% against the Korean won, and 10 % against the Japanese yen. This substantially depreciation of the Chinese currency has made many other countries angry at China's policy of locking it to the US dollar.
President Obama apparently complained to Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, about the low value of the renminbi, and urged China to allow it to appreciate substantially. The US and other countries worry that the undervaluation of the Chinese currencyi increases the demand for Chinese exports, and reduces China's demand for imports from countries like the US because China keeps the dollar and the currencies of other countries artificially expensive relative to their currency. America and other countries hope that greater demand from China for their exports resulting from a higher value of the renminbi will help these countries resume sizable economic growth as they recover from this severe recession. They especially want to help reduce the high levels of unemployment found in many of these nations.
Indeed, in good part due to the low value of its currency, China has run substantial surpluses on its current trade account as it imports fewer goods and services than it exports. The result is that China has accumulated enormous reserves of assets in foreign currencies, especially in the form of US government assets denominated in dollars. As of September of this year, China had the incredible sum of over 2 trillion dollars in foreign currency reserves, such as US Treasury bills. This is by far the highest reserve in the world, and it amounts to the enormous ratio of more than one quarter of China's GDP of about $8 trillion (purchasing power parity adjusted).
I am dubious about the wisdom of both America's complaints about China's currency policy and of China's responses. On the whole, I believe that most Americans benefit rather than are hurt by China's long standing policy of keeping the renminbi at an artificially low exchange value. For that policy makes the various goods imported from China, such as clothing, furniture, and small electronic devices, much cheaper than they would be if China allowed its currency to appreciate substantially in value. The main beneficiaries of this policy are the poor and lower middle class Americans and those elsewhere who buy Chinese made goods at remarkably cheap prices in stores like Wal-Mart's that cater to families who are cost conscious.
To be sure, US companies that would like to export more to China are hurt by the maintenance of the Chinese currency at an artificially low value relative to the dollar. As a result, employment by these companies is lower than it would be, so that this may contribute a little to the high rate of US unemployment. But I believe the benefits to American consumers far outweigh any loses in jobs, particularly as the US economy continues its recovery, and unemployment rates come back to more normal levels.
Since the opposite effects hold for China, I cannot justify their policies from the viewpoint of their interests. Their consumers and importers are hurt because the cost of foreign goods to them is kept artificially high. Their exporters gain, but as in the US, that gain is likely to be considerably smaller than the negative effects on the wellbeing of the average Chinese family.
I reach similar conclusions about China's accumulation of their excessive reserves. The US has little to complain if China wants to hold such high levels of low interest-bearing US government assets in exchange for selling goods cheaply to the US and other countries. China's willingness to save so much reduces the need for Americans and others to save more, but is not differences in savings rates also part of the international specialization that global markets encourage? To be sure, why China is willing to do this is difficult to understand since they are giving away goods made with hard work and capital for paper assets that carry little returns.
One common answer is that China hopes to increase its influence over economic and geo-political policies by holding so many foreign assets. Yet it seems to me just the opposite is true, that China's huge levels of foreign assets puts China more at the mercy of US and other policies than visa versa. China can threaten to sell large quantities of its US Treasury bills and other US assets, but what will they buy instead? Presumably, they would buy EU or Japanese government bills and bonds. That will put a little upward pressure on interest rates on US governments, but to a considerable extent, the main effect in our integrated world capital market is that sellers to China of euro and yen denominated assets would then hold the US Treasuries sold by China.
On the other hand, the US can threaten to inflate away some of the real value of its dollar denominated assets-not an empty threat because of the large US government fiscal deficits, and the sizable growth in US bank excess reserves. Inflation would lower the exchange value of the dollar, and also of the renminbi, as long as China keeps it tied to the dollar. That would further increase the current account surpluses of China, and thereby induce China to hold more US and other foreign assets, not a very attractive scenario to China.
So my conclusion is that the US in its own interest should not be urging China to appreciate its currency- countries like India have a much greater potential gain from such an appreciation. On the other hand, I see very little sense at this stage of China's development in maintaining a very low value of its currency, and accumulating large quantities of reserves. Paradoxically, President Obama and President Jintao should each have been arguing the others positions on these economic issues.
根据Gary Becker，（另一位诺贝尔经济学奖获得者）， 他认为人民币是刻意地偏低了，而这偏低是因为钩着美元。他认为对美国有利，因为美国的平民能廉价享受中国货。他认为这享受的利益是远高于美国因而减少就业机会的害处。
附Becker's 全文
Should China Allow its Currency to Appreciate? Becker
18:06 23/11/2009
By all accounts, President Obama's visit to China last week was pretty much a failure on all the major issues, which include China's contributions to climate change, nuclear weapons, and various aspects of the world economy. I will concentrate my discussion on two of the most important and closely related economic issues: the valuation of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, and the huge assets accumulated by China that are mainly held in the form of US Treasury bills and other US government assets.
The Chinese central bank held the value of the renminbi fixed relative to the US dollar at a little over 8 renminbi per dollar during the 1990s, and until 2005. It then allowed the renminbi to appreciate gradually to less than 7 per dollar until 2008, when it again fixed the rate of exchange between these currencies at about 6.9 renminbi per dollar. This exchange rate is considerably above a free market rate that would be determined in a regime of flexible exchange rates. So there is no doubt that China is intentionally holding the value of its currency below the rate that would equate supply and demand.
The dollar has depreciated substantially relative to other currencies since May of 2009. Since the renminbi is tied again to the dollar, the renminbi has depreciated by the same amounts, including 16% against the euro, 34 % against the Australian dollar, 25% against the Korean won, and 10 % against the Japanese yen. This substantially depreciation of the Chinese currency has made many other countries angry at China's policy of locking it to the US dollar.
President Obama apparently complained to Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, about the low value of the renminbi, and urged China to allow it to appreciate substantially. The US and other countries worry that the undervaluation of the Chinese currencyi increases the demand for Chinese exports, and reduces China's demand for imports from countries like the US because China keeps the dollar and the currencies of other countries artificially expensive relative to their currency. America and other countries hope that greater demand from China for their exports resulting from a higher value of the renminbi will help these countries resume sizable economic growth as they recover from this severe recession. They especially want to help reduce the high levels of unemployment found in many of these nations.
Indeed, in good part due to the low value of its currency, China has run substantial surpluses on its current trade account as it imports fewer goods and services than it exports. The result is that China has accumulated enormous reserves of assets in foreign currencies, especially in the form of US government assets denominated in dollars. As of September of this year, China had the incredible sum of over 2 trillion dollars in foreign currency reserves, such as US Treasury bills. This is by far the highest reserve in the world, and it amounts to the enormous ratio of more than one quarter of China's GDP of about $8 trillion (purchasing power parity adjusted).
I am dubious about the wisdom of both America's complaints about China's currency policy and of China's responses. On the whole, I believe that most Americans benefit rather than are hurt by China's long standing policy of keeping the renminbi at an artificially low exchange value. For that policy makes the various goods imported from China, such as clothing, furniture, and small electronic devices, much cheaper than they would be if China allowed its currency to appreciate substantially in value. The main beneficiaries of this policy are the poor and lower middle class Americans and those elsewhere who buy Chinese made goods at remarkably cheap prices in stores like Wal-Mart's that cater to families who are cost conscious.
To be sure, US companies that would like to export more to China are hurt by the maintenance of the Chinese currency at an artificially low value relative to the dollar. As a result, employment by these companies is lower than it would be, so that this may contribute a little to the high rate of US unemployment. But I believe the benefits to American consumers far outweigh any loses in jobs, particularly as the US economy continues its recovery, and unemployment rates come back to more normal levels.
Since the opposite effects hold for China, I cannot justify their policies from the viewpoint of their interests. Their consumers and importers are hurt because the cost of foreign goods to them is kept artificially high. Their exporters gain, but as in the US, that gain is likely to be considerably smaller than the negative effects on the wellbeing of the average Chinese family.
I reach similar conclusions about China's accumulation of their excessive reserves. The US has little to complain if China wants to hold such high levels of low interest-bearing US government assets in exchange for selling goods cheaply to the US and other countries. China's willingness to save so much reduces the need for Americans and others to save more, but is not differences in savings rates also part of the international specialization that global markets encourage? To be sure, why China is willing to do this is difficult to understand since they are giving away goods made with hard work and capital for paper assets that carry little returns.
One common answer is that China hopes to increase its influence over economic and geo-political policies by holding so many foreign assets. Yet it seems to me just the opposite is true, that China's huge levels of foreign assets puts China more at the mercy of US and other policies than visa versa. China can threaten to sell large quantities of its US Treasury bills and other US assets, but what will they buy instead? Presumably, they would buy EU or Japanese government bills and bonds. That will put a little upward pressure on interest rates on US governments, but to a considerable extent, the main effect in our integrated world capital market is that sellers to China of euro and yen denominated assets would then hold the US Treasuries sold by China.
On the other hand, the US can threaten to inflate away some of the real value of its dollar denominated assets-not an empty threat because of the large US government fiscal deficits, and the sizable growth in US bank excess reserves. Inflation would lower the exchange value of the dollar, and also of the renminbi, as long as China keeps it tied to the dollar. That would further increase the current account surpluses of China, and thereby induce China to hold more US and other foreign assets, not a very attractive scenario to China.
So my conclusion is that the US in its own interest should not be urging China to appreciate its currency- countries like India have a much greater potential gain from such an appreciation. On the other hand, I see very little sense at this stage of China's development in maintaining a very low value of its currency, and accumulating large quantities of reserves. Paradoxically, President Obama and President Jintao should each have been arguing the others positions on these economic issues.
legend0109 发表评论于
回复*meow*的评论:
你个chun货，难道美国如果说的对，你持赞同态度的话，也是以本民族为敌？一看你就是不学无术，80，90后的垃圾。人应该站在真理一遍。真理不姓社，也不姓资。刘晓波是维护中国人的利益，只不过他不是维护政党利益而已。如果你在我面前，我三拳打死你个chun货得了。你这么无知，还活着干什么？我C 你个M的！！！！
你个chun货，难道美国如果说的对，你持赞同态度的话，也是以本民族为敌？一看你就是不学无术，80，90后的垃圾。人应该站在真理一遍。真理不姓社，也不姓资。刘晓波是维护中国人的利益，只不过他不是维护政党利益而已。如果你在我面前，我三拳打死你个chun货得了。你这么无知，还活着干什么？我C 你个M的！！！！
StillH2ORunDeep 发表评论于
经济学家只为自己的国家“服务”？世界上恐怕不是没有，也有为政治服务的，但这样的“经济学家”经不起时间的考验，恐怕中国人见到得不少了。
任何一国的汇率是否合理，恐怕不是只有该国政府能说了算的，尤其在当今这个全球经济的环境下。互利的贸易关系才能长久。
任何一国的汇率是否合理，恐怕不是只有该国政府能说了算的，尤其在当今这个全球经济的环境下。互利的贸易关系才能长久。
sunjkl 发表评论于
美国是上帝所选，是正义的化身，全球经济危机都是别（坏）人捣蛋的原因。
只有猪脑袋才会人云亦云。记住：美国经济学家是美国的经济学家，不为他国服务，绝不为中国说话。
只有猪脑袋才会人云亦云。记住：美国经济学家是美国的经济学家，不为他国服务，绝不为中国说话。
无名男英雄 发表评论于
是的,不合理的汇率将毁掉整个世界经济秩序.中国政府是世界上最愚蠢的政府.
登录后才可评论.
WENXUECITY.COM does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by other users.
Copyright ©1998-2025 wenxuecity.com All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Terms of Use & User Privacy Protection Policy
