In depression conditions, the bar over which government spending must leap to pay for itself is low. The questions that remain: are we really in depression conditions? (Almost certainly.)
在萧条的情况下,政府支出为自己买单必须跨越的门槛很低。问题仍然是:我们是否确实处于萧条之中?(几乎肯定如此。)
Can governments find halfway sensible things to spend money on? (Probably; remember they only have to be halfway sensible.)
政府能否找到还算合理的花钱的地方?(可能会;记住这些花钱的地方只需要还算合理。)
Two-and-a-half cheers, then, for Krugman. But something has been nagging at me ever since I read the original story of the Capitol Hill babysitting co-op, published in 1977 by Joan and Richard Sweeney. Paul Krugman's most recent retelling does not mention how the original story ends: the co-op prints too much scrip, inflationary pressures spring up and are suppressed, and the co-op seizes up again because nobody wants to stay at home babysitting. Krugman is right when he says that economies sometimes suffer from problems that have technical solutions. Perhaps he is too quick to suggest that those technical solutions are simple.
那么,让我们送给克鲁格曼“两声半的欢呼吧。但自从我读了1977年发表、由琼·斯温尼(Joan Sweeney)和理查德·斯温尼(Richard Sweeney)合著的关于国会山保姆合作社的原始故事后,有个问题一直困扰着我。保罗·克鲁格曼的最新复述没有提及这个原始故事的结局:合作社印制了太多的保姆券,通胀压力抬头,而后又得到抑制,合作社再次停止运转,因为没有人愿意呆在家里照管孩子。克鲁格曼表示,经济学有时会遇到一些可以通过技术手段解决的问题,这是正确的。或许,他说这种技术手段都很简单是太早下结论了。
【国会山保姆合作社失败的教训】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15