我对这种分析方法始终非常怀疑,虽然这种方法在许多经济学家看来能避免理论争端。问题在于,这种方法没有提到平衡点的产量是多少。另外,稳健货币的倡导者必须注意的是,这种办法也没提到平衡点的通胀水平。据我所知,上世纪20年代,德国在恶性通货膨胀时期,其财政结余正是完美的“零。
I mention this because flow of funds analysis is the basis of a recent BoE article that tries to give substance to all the rhetoric about “rebalancing the economy. It is, as one would expect, full of ifs, buts and maybes. Its tentative conclusion is that both the public and the external sectors need to improve their balances, while both the corporate and the household sectors could in time run their balances down. I am reminded of Cambridge arguments years ago, when Professor Austin Robinson used to dissect the British balance of payments, while Milton Friedman, then on a visiting sabbatical, thought all the authorities needed to do was to float the pound and maintain a stable monetary policy. He was not in the least bothered by budget deficits. Need I say where my sympathies lie?
我提到这一点,是因为资金流分析是英国央行最近一篇文章的基矗那篇文章试图为那些“平衡经济的说辞提供理由。可想而知,“如果、“但是和“也许这几个词在文中随处可见。那篇文章的初步结论是:公众部门和对外部门需要改善收支情况,这样企业和家庭两个部门就可以及时降低结余。这个结论让我我想起几年前在剑桥发生的一场争论,当时奥斯汀·鲁滨逊(Austin Robinson)喜欢剖析英国的收支平衡,而当时正在剑桥作学术休假的米尔顿·弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)则认为,政府应该做的是允许英镑汇率浮动,并维持货币政策的稳定。弗里德曼一点儿也不担心预算赤字。我赞同他们两人中谁的观点,这还用问么?
【英经济政策重演哈布斯堡的衰落】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15