大多数经济学家都认为,通货紧缩既是一种疾病,也是经济其他问题的征兆。在《通货紧缩:好、坏和丑》一书中,《资本主义》杂志的唐·卢斯金考察了詹姆斯·鲍尔森对“好通货紧缩”和“坏通货紧缩”的区分。保尔森的定义清楚地将通货紧缩视为经济其他变化的征兆。他将“良好的通货紧缩”描述为当企业“由于削减成本和提高效率,能够不断以越来越低的价格生产商品”时发生的通货紧缩。这就是导致通货紧缩的四个因素中的第二个因素“其他商品的供应增加”。保尔森称之为“良好的通货紧缩”,因为它允许“GDP增长保持强劲,利润增长飙升,失业率下降,没有通货膨胀的后果”。保尔森简单地说,“严重的通货紧缩已经出现,因为即使销售价格通胀仍然趋向于更低,企业也不能再跟上成本降低和/或效率提高的步伐。”Luskin和我对这个答案都有困难,因为它似乎只是半个解释。卢斯金认为,严重的通货紧缩实际上是由“一国中央银行对一国货币账户单位的重估”造成的。从本质上讲,这是真正的因素1“货币供应量下降”从我们的名单。因此,“坏通货紧缩”是由货币供应量相对下降造成的,“好通货紧缩”是由商品供应量相对增加造成的。这些定义本质上是有缺陷的,因为通货紧缩是由相对变化引起的。如果一年的商品供应量增加了10%,而当年的货币供应量增加了3%,那么这种“良好的通货紧缩”还是“糟糕的通货紧缩”?由于商品供应增加,我们有“良好的通货紧缩”,但是由于中央银行没有迅速增加货币供应量,我们也应该有“坏的通货紧缩”。问“货物”或“货币”是否导致通货紧缩就像问“当你鼓掌时,是左手还是右手负责的声音?”说“商品增长太快”或“货币增长太慢”本质上是在说同一件事,因为我们将商品与货币进行比较,所以“良好通缩”和“不良通缩”是可能应该退休的术语。将通货紧缩视为一种疾病,往往会在经济学家之间达成更多共识。Luskin说,通货紧缩的真正问题在于,通货紧缩给商业关系带来了问题:“如果你是借款人,你在合同上承诺偿还贷款,这代表了越来越多的购买力,而与此同时,你在贷款开始时购买的资产。名义价格正在下降。如果你是贷款人,在这种情况下,你的借款人很可能会拖欠你借给他的贷款。”

美国佛罗里达大学经济学论文代写:通货紧缩

Most economists agree that deflation is both a disease and a symptom of other economic problems. In Deflation: Good, Bad and Ugly, Don Luskin of Capitalism examines James Paulson’s distinction between “good deflation” and “bad deflation”. Paulson’s definition clearly sees deflation as a sign of other changes in the economy. He describes “good deflation” as deflation that occurs when firms are able to produce goods at ever lower prices because of cost cuts and efficiency gains. This is the second of the four factors contributing to deflation, “the increase in the supply of other commodities”. Paulson calls it “good deflation” because it allows “strong GDP growth, soaring profit growth, falling unemployment and no inflationary consequences”. Paulson simply said, “Serious deflation has occurred, because even if sales price inflation still tends to be lower, companies can no longer keep pace with cost reduction and/or efficiency improvement.” Luskin and I have difficulties with this answer, because it seems to be only half an explanation. According to Luskin, severe deflation is actually caused by “the revaluation of a country’s currency account unit by a country’s central bank”. Essentially, this is the real factor 1 “the decline in money supply” from our list. Therefore, “bad deflation” is caused by the relative decline of money supply, and “good deflation” is caused by the relative increase of commodity supply. These definitions are inherently flawed because deflation is caused by relative changes. If one year’s commodity supply increases by 10% and that year’s money supply increases by 3%, is this “good deflation” or “bad deflation”? We have “good deflation” because of the increase in commodity supply, but since the central bank has not increased the money supply rapidly, we should also have “bad deflation”. Asking whether “goods” or “money” leads to deflation is like asking, “When you applaud, is it the voice of the left hand or the right hand?” Saying “commodity growth is too fast” or “money growth is too slow” is essentially the same thing, because we compare commodities with money, so “good deflation” and “bad deflation” are terms that may be retired. Considering deflation as a disease tends to lead to more consensus among economists. The real problem with deflation, Luskin says, is that it creates problems in business relationships: “If you’re a borrower, you’re contractually committed to repaying the loan, which represents more and more purchasing power, while at the same time, you’re buying assets at the beginning of the loan. Nominal prices are falling. If you are a lender, in this case, your borrower is likely to default on the loan you lent him.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注