大家论坛

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1430|回复: 0

[经济学人] [2011.10.15] China, an appreciation 中国,正在增值

[复制链接]

1096

主题

1146

帖子

2万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
28159

社区建设奖终身成就奖突出贡献奖解答高手英语达人才华横溢优秀斑竹

发表于 2011-10-21 17:13 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
China's currency
中国的货币


China, an appreciation
中国,正在增值


WITH a China currency bill making its way through Congress, the debate over whether America ought to get tough with China is firing up yet again. The case for an aggressive American approach continues to look very weak to me. Some writers are taking on the idea that Chinese inflation is having much of an effect on its export competitiveness—that is, contributing to a real adjustment much larger than what's observed in the nominal exchange rate. Kash Mansori makes an argument to that effect in this post, which has gotten a lot of attention. He compares CPI data in America and China and figures that Chinese prices have risen just 6.7% more than American prices since 2005—less of a contribution to adjustment, in other words, than one might have assumed. 随着美国国会通过了一项针对中国货币的法案,关于美国是否应该对中国采取强硬的措施的争论再一次被点燃。在我看来,美国采取强硬措施的做法依旧起不了多大作用。一些作者认为中国国内的通货膨胀情况对其出口的竞争力上有很大的影响。目前,实际调整数字比预期的名义汇率要多的多。Kash Mansori 在一片文章中对这种影响做出了评论,引起了很多的关注。他对比了美国和中国的CPI数据,指出自从2005年起,中国的物价水平比美国的物价水平多增长了6.7%,换句话说,比预期的由调增带来的贡献要少。

That estimate seems unrealistically low to me. Looking at IMF figures on consumer prices and GDP deflators, the differential in inflation between 2005 and 2011 has been about 7 percentage points according to the former and 20 percentage points by the latter. The Economist put together an analysis of the real yuan-dollar rate and found that real appreciation has been significantly greater than nominal appreciation. From 2009 to early 2011, the analysis found, the yuan appreciated by just 4% in nominal terms, but by 17% in real terms, after accounting for inflation. The differential in wage growth has been more dramatic still. A Bureau of Labour Statistics report from earlier this year found that between 2002 and 2008, American manufacturing wages rose by just 20% while Chinese manufacturing wages doubled.
这次评估在我看来是非常的低。翻开看看国际货币基金组织在“消费者价格”和GDP缩减指数的数据,在2005年到2011年间,根据之前的统计通货膨胀的差异为7%,随后的统计为20%。本刊将实际的人民币与美元兑换汇率放在一起进行分析,发现人民币实际的增值幅度要远高于名义上的增值幅度。从2009年到今年早些时候,分析得出人民币在名义上只增值4%,在考虑通货膨胀的因素后,实际达到了17%。但在薪酬增长方面却表现十分平稳。根据劳动统计局今年早期发布的报告看,2002与2008年间,美国制造业的工资上涨了20%,在中国则是它的两倍。

Meanwhile, other writers seem not to appreciate the trade-off that's actually on the table. Noah Smith seems to imply that critics of a "get tough" approach mainly think there would be no benefit to a yuan appreciation. I readily agree that there would be some benefit to both China and America of an appreciation in the yuan. It's difficult to demonstrate that there would be substantial benefit, however. Mr Smith cites economist Menzie Chinn in support of the point that a yuan appreciation would benefit both parties. Fair enough, but Mr Chinn has also written that a dearer yuan might not lead to a big increase in Chinese imports and might not have much of an effect in the absence of a broader Asian appreciation. He also cites Eswar Prasad's argument that a yuan appreciation would likely have little impact on American employment. There is a benefit there, but it's not at all sure to be a large one.
同时,其他一些作者并不认为这项协定已经通过。Noah Smith 暗示到对于采取强硬措施的批评主要是因为人民币的升值没有一点好处。我非常同意人民币的升值对于中美双方都是有益的。但是很难去证实我们到底从中得到了多大的利益。Smith引用经济学家Menzie Chinn的观点来支持人民币的升值对中美双方是双赢的之一观点。这是毫无疑问的,但是Chinn先生同时也写到购买力更强的人民币不一定会给中国的出口方面带来多大的增长幅度,同样也不一定会对普遍的亚洲国家货币没有升值这一现象产生多大影响。Smith还引用Eswar Prasad的观点,人民币的升值对于美国的就业情况只会有很小的影响。从中获益是肯定的,但是肯定不会有多大。

Meanwhile, the yuan is appreciating, by a meaningful amount in nominal terms and by even more in real terms. And there is some set of potentially serious risks to getting tough with China, including the possibility of a major trade dispute between the world's two largest economies at a time of significant global uncertainty and broadly declining industrial output.
与此同时,人民币在名义上的升值已经具有重要意义,在实际层面上,意义将更为深远。对中国采取强硬的措施,是要冒一系列潜在的风险,比如在目前这样一个全球处在动荡并且工业出口量普遍下降的时期,中美两个经济大实体可能产生严重的贸易纠纷。

So the question is what the expected value of a get-tough approach is likely to be. How much faster an appreciation is American pressure likely to induce? It's hard to see how China would tolerate much more appreciation. So we have a small increase in the rate of change of a policy with relatively small benefits, and against that we have the risk of a major trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies at the worst possible time.
所以问题就在于我们对中国采取强硬措施所期待得到的回报是什么,美国给中国施加压力希望引起多快的升值速度?目前很难判断中国能容忍多快的升值幅度。所以我们应当选择在政策上的改变带来小幅度的人民币升值,从中获取适当收益,而不是在目前这样一个糟糕的时期,冒着于中国产生重大贸易纠纷的风险而追求更高的利益。

The issue is not that there's no gain from appreciation. It's that an aggressive American approach seems unlikely to generate appreciation over and above the current rate at an acceptable cost. The onus is on supporters of a get-tough approach to show that the trade-off is worth the trouble, and so far they've done nothing of the sort.
问题不在于人民币的升值有无好处,而是这样的强硬措施在现有的也是可以接受的代价的汇率下似乎不可能带来更多的利益。那些支持采取强硬措施的人们的责任是拿出证据表明这项协定值得冒险,但是到目前为止,他们并没有找到。

Time can both ruin everything and build everything-It depends on you
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则



诚聘英才|移动端|Archiver|版权声明|大家论坛 ( 京ICP备06071611号,京公网安备11010802018363号 )

GMT+8, 2020-1-27 12:29 , Processed in 0.072196 second(s), 8 queries , Redis On.

Powered by Discuz!

© Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表