|
|
海耶克的「How to Avoid Inflation?」
|
2005/06/22 21:56 瀏覽4,647 ｜回應31｜推薦3 |
|
|
|
Blackjack兄所附那篇「我們還能夠避免通貨膨脹嗎？」的譯文有不少錯誤的地方，以致於其後胡卜凱兄的評論也跟著發生錯誤，因此我根據原文「Can we still avoid inflation?」閱讀，談不上評論，因為當初海耶克在這篇1970年的演講內容，大體上都已經被接受，而且我覺得並沒有什麼太大的問題。以下我先提一下海耶克及那篇演講的背景，然後簡單說明海耶克所認為的通貨膨脹的來源。
1.海耶克其實是個老牌的自由主義者，在經濟思想方面，他屬於奧地利學派，本身還曾經是該學派的掌門人。這個學派強調的是自由市場機制，反對政府干預，因此與經濟學的古典學派、新古典學派一脈相承。
2.那篇「Can we still avoid inflation?」是1970年的演講辭，當時世界經濟頗受通貨膨脹之苦，與1980年中期至2004年這段長期間的環境不太一樣，因此很自然地他會注意到通貨膨脹的問題。
演講辭的一開頭，海耶克就明講他的重點不是如何對抗通貨膨脹，因為他認為一國的貨幣當局只要有決心，都可以控制通貨膨脹，技術上不成問題，因此他的重點在於應該避免某些問題，這些問題使得通貨膨脹的現象存在。是那些問題呢？
1.貨幣支出流量不斷地增長，會造成通貨膨脹。至於支出流量增加的來源包括政府不斷提高政府員工的薪資、投資者動員現金流量或以借錢的方式增加支出等。
2.一開始視通貨膨脹無害，但價格水準上升使得生產者獲得更高的利潤，於是大家為了牟利紛紛投入生產，每個人都認為所生產的商品可以賣得出去，也因為生產增加而促進就業，迫使生產因素價格不斷上漲，加速了通貨膨脹。政府的充分就業政策也會導致這一種情況發生。
3.工業化國家的工會政策，促使工會過於強大，以追求高成長與高度就業，但這一個政策會導致工資的向下僵硬性，並使得工會不必為失業現象負責，而政府的貨幣與財政政策卻須肩負起充分就業的責任，於是政府不斷採取政策以刺激就業，因而導致通貨膨脹。
這是大致海耶克演講的重點，其他他所講到的，這裏我就不提了。海耶克一向主張自由市場機制，反對政府對經濟體系干預，尤其是充分就業政策會對通貨膨脹產生推波助瀾的效果，因此可以說是「一路走來，始終如一」。現代經濟學也大致與海耶克的觀點一致，認為充就業水準與通貨膨脹有著抵換(trade off)關係，也就是如果要追求高就業，會以高通貨膨脹率為代價。
當然我們在1990年代看到高就業與低通膨的現象，當時不少學者是以內生經濟成長理論(theory of endogenous growth)解釋，認為生產因素的技術進步為主要原因，而且認為這一個現象可以一直持續下去。不過這個解釋是有爭議的，有些著名的學者(例如西北大學的Gordon)認為傳統的理論就可以解釋，而且在實際上，那個高成長的現象到了1999~2000年因資訊科技泡沫(IT bubble)破滅而崩盤。但這是另外一個話題了，要在一篇貼文扯也扯不完，就此打住。
p.s. 原文題目應為「Can we still avoid inflation?」，而不是「How to avoid inflation？」，這裏在內文做個修改，貼文題目就改不動了。
本文於 2005/06/22 22:42 修改第 3 次
|
|
|
|
回應sami網友《要搞清楚重點啊！》(2006/04/03)一文中五點評論：
首先我想指出由於每個人的經驗、學識、立場等等不同，因此每個人的「重點」，甚至於可能對「重點」的定義(或標準)也不同。
1. 「你自己看看Alex所說的是不是成立？有沒有意義？合不合乎邏輯？」
我在《關於 菲力普曲線 的討論》中說：
「不論Alex網友有沒有提到菲力普 A. W. 的大名，在1980年以後的「現代」，第二個命題並不成立。」 「現代經濟學已不再認為充分就業水準與通貨膨脹有著抵換(trade-off)關係。」
我在《禮貌的說法 vs 白一點的說法》中說：
「我不喜歡用對、錯兩字，是我的風格。因為(我認為)講對、錯需要一個共同認可的標準或基準線。一般來說比較困難。有意義或沒有意義，只需要對事實或文字有共識即可。一般來說比較容易。」
這三段文字中，那一個字，那一句話你看不懂？
用「錯誤」一詞批評別人，也許是你的風格或「自以為是」。對我來說，「不成立」是嚴格的評論。(「不成立」相當於invalid。)
但對我自己來說，我願意用「錯了」來描述。例如，在《關於 菲力普曲線 的討論》中我說：
「這也就是我一開始所引自己的話中，我所指『說錯了』的那一半。」
一位不用敵視態度來讀這整篇文章的人，應該可以看出我是禮貌但很明確的指出Alex網友那段話中，(我認為) 「不成立」(你堅持「錯誤」)的部分。
你、我在這個議題上，「重點」的確不同。
你的「重點」大概在批判Alex網友， 我的「重點」在討論「現代經濟學是否還接受充分就業水準與通貨膨脹有著抵換(trade-off)關係。」
2. 「但中文教科書在論及物價上漲率與失業率之反向關聯時(此即Alex所言『如果要追求高就業，會以高通貨膨脹率為代價』)，絕對不會忘了「菲力普曲線」這五個字！」
我想你到現在，在我用了《懂得什麼是「反比」嗎?》這麼直接的標題後，還是沒有「搞清楚」所謂「菲力普曲線」的「重點」。
「如果要追求高就業，會以高通貨膨脹率為代價」並不能說是「菲力普曲線」的結論。因為：
「如果要追求高就業，會以高通貨膨脹率為代價」本身不代表：
「物價上漲率與失業率之反向關聯」。
「物價上漲率與失業率有反向關聯」這句話「成立」的條件是：
「低失業率(高就業)導致高通膨率；同時，高失業率(低就業)導致低通膨率。」
請務必注意同時一詞在這裏的文法和表意功能。
我有說，你有沒有在聽？
「什麼是成反比？」「什麼是成反比？」「什麼是成反比？」
你沒有在聽嘛！(我差點把電腦丟出去！！)
在這整個爭議中，
你的重點是：「Alex不知道『菲力普曲線』」。 我的重點是：「『菲力普曲線』已不那麼重要，也就不是『重點』；『不知道』或『忘掉了』菲力普曲線也就不是什麼『重點』。」
另一個「重點」也許可說是：「什麼是成反比？」
3. 「還有，誰告訴你「大恐慌」是在1920 - 1930年代？」
在英文中，發生在1920 - 1929 十年間，稱為"in the 1920's"。在上一世紀，簡寫為"in the 20's"。我不知道什麼是適當的翻譯，所以我用「1920年代」或「20年代」來翻譯。同樣的，「1930年代」表示發生在1930 - 1939 十年間。如果起訖時間分別在1920 - 1929和1930 - 1939任何年代之間，一般西方學者會用"in the 20 - 30's"表示，也就是我的：「1920 - 1930年代」。(因為現在是21世紀，加上"19"以免混淆。)
搞清楚了嗎？
其次，戰爭做為一個事件，它有爆發的時間和地點。但一般而言，戰爭決不是突發於一時一地的事件，而是各種因素長期醞釀的結果。同樣的，經濟蕭條不會是突發於一時一地的事件，也是各種因素長期醞釀的結果。在經濟學上這是「經濟循環」概念。你當然一定「知道」這個概念，但「重點」是你未必有能力把它「應用」在思考問題上。
美國的「大恐慌」做為一個事件，如你所說，在1929年10月某日某時某地引爆。大概到1933年時，美國經濟逐漸走出蕭條開始復甦，這個情況一直延續到1937年。1937 - 1938期間，美國經濟再度下滑。1939 - 40年美國經濟復甦，然後接著一段長期的繁榮。這和所謂的「戰時經濟活動」有相當的關係(第二次世界大戰及韓戰)。
「大恐慌」不只是1929年10月在美國華爾街發生的事件，也不只指1929 - 1933美國的經濟蕭條。在美國「大恐慌」發生前，歐洲經濟已開始衰退，在美國「大恐慌」發生的同時，歐洲和世界其他各地的經濟更是一片蕭條。
「恐慌」的英文是depression，在經濟學上可以翻譯成「(經濟)衰退」或「(經濟)蕭條」。「大恐慌」是Great Depression一詞約定俗成的譯名。我們不能以詞害義，把它當成一個突發於一時一地的事件。「衰退」或「蕭條」是經濟活動的狀態，是一個需要一段時間發展的過程。用圖形表示是個波浪形曲線，不是尖細麥穗形的直線。
Hayek是奧地利人，出生於1889。1920年代Hayek在維也納活動，1931年受邀至倫敦經濟學院，1936歸化為英國公民。
綜上所述，從我討論Hayek這位歐洲出身學者經歷的角度，及以「經濟循環」的概念思考來看，我用「(Hayek)也經歷1920 - 1930年代的『大恐慌』。」來表達並無不妥。
你的「重點」在談美國經濟中一個事件， 我的「重點」在談世界(美國、歐洲、和其他各地)經濟活動。
搞清楚了嗎？
4. 「『由於充分就業(需要預算赤字支出)會引起通貨膨脹』？？」
我已說過，我不是學經濟的，我的經濟常識來自閱讀報紙和一般書籍。我1967出國，1993回國。所以，我對這段時期的國內經濟，毫無常識或概念。
我在美國期間，美國失業率大概在7 - 12%左右，1970年代美國的通貨膨脹一般在10%上下。至少這和我回國後，前幾年我所知道的台灣失業率及通貨膨脹率不在同一個層次。我所說的「充分就業」和你所說的「充分就業」在實質上不同，所需要的解決方案自然有異。你那套說法，大概不適用於美國。
這也是我一再強調的「重點」：
因為各個社會有其不同的內在因素(變數)，和各自的起始/周邊情況，社會科學中的定律或理論有其特定的應用時空。
5. 「小的何嘗不知道」
你「知不知道」這個那個，是你自己的事，與我何干？也不用公告週知，大家自然看得出 來。
「大家自然看得出來」才是公共領域論述的「重點」， 「喋喋不休」或「自說自話」不是公共領域論述的「重點」。
你搞清楚了嗎？
(本文關於1920 - 1930年代經濟蕭條及Hayek相關資料取自：
Muller, J. Z. 2003, The Mind and The Market: Capitalism In Western Thought, Anchor Books, NYC, Chapters 11 and 13 Shapiro, E. 1966, Macroeconomic Analysis, Hardcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., NYC, 和 depression, Great Depression, business cycle等項目相關內容。
本文於 2006/04/20 02:09 修改第 15 次
|
|
|
|
Well, there are laws and there are laws. It all depends on what you take a law to be. All I am saying is laws in social sciences are different in nature from laws in natural sciences. Take whatever sense you want to make with this statement, and I am not in the least interested. However, I don't think anyone with "common sense" will mix common sense up with laws. So here is your whatever. Although the only book I read by Professor Feynman is his Quantum Electrodynamics, I think the comments you quoted are, if I'm not mistaken, against dogmatists, pseudo-scientists, and self-appointed TRUTH-upholders and the like. Even if they were not, I could not have said any better myself regarding these pompous fellows. I don't have Professor Feynman's status, so I'll refrain from using the word "fools". And that is one of the resons why I despise them, pompous on my part or not.
本文於 2006/04/05 03:55 修改第 3 次
|
|
|
|
Everyone knows economics doesn't have a good quantitative theory. However, I don’t see any relevance of the philosophical issues concerning the nature of knowledge to this discussion. It is a quintessential non-sequitur.
I see. Your opinion of deficit spending and unemployment and inflation is common sense while the fundamental laws of supply and demand is limited and exaggerated.
By the way, nobody is debating the technical issues. Nothing I have said goes beyond sophomore basics and is no more technical than the common sense you are trying to express. This is another straw man.
I am not an economist and what I said is open to debate and discussion, but I did expect a rational discussion on economics. Instead, you responded with page after page of non-sequitur. Your last essay is a good example. It contains two sentences on your supposed common sense with no support or discussion, but followed by pages of digression designed to avoid the issue at hand. The essay before that contains nothing economic. I think I will quit at this point.
The whole discussion reminds me of the following passage. I hesitate to quote it here, but I don’t have a better way to put it and sometime things need to be said. All I can say is that I quote it without malice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were a lot of fools at that conference - pompous fools - and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools - guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus - THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!"
--Richard Feynman in “Is Electricity Fire?” in “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman.”
|
|
|
|
I said the full employment policy requires deficit spending, and deficit spending will cause inflation. This is all my economic common sense tells me. If there are other relations between the two, I wouldn't know them. And I would not contest them either. Like I said before, I was not particularly interested in technical issues in economics because I am not qualified to discuss them. The only reason I responded to sami is because his persistence, and I am responsible for managing this website.
I'm honest enough to admit there are a lot of things I have no knowledge about and certainly have no need to avoid any issue in a round about way.
I am very much interested in the cognitive science in general and the methodological problem in particular. I alluded to the latter in my response to sami on 04/01 (please see note 3). Your articles on 04/02 and 04/03 only happen to provide an opportunity for me to elaborate on them. So there is no straw man issue as far as I am concerned. If you are not interested in these issues, you don't need to participate.
I never said the economics is not a science, nor did I ever imply that laws in economics have NO application in the real world.
All I said were:
"Any 'law' in social sciences is just an exaggeration, or worse, a pipe dream." And
"So called 'laws' in social sciences have only a limited application either in time or in space, i.e., restricted to certain period or societies or both."
And I said specifically:
"Science, both natural and social (including the Humanities), in this sense is something we must have, in so far as we do desire to survive as a group or a species."
And
" With both extensive and intensive study and research done during the last two or three centuries, we do compiled a lot of information, knowledge, and insight on why and how we human behave. As far as I am concerned, social sciences and Humanities are indeed worthy the name of Science." With highlighted words, I think you are probably overreacting regarding my stand on the nature of knowledge.
As a matter of fact, the statement of mine quoted above is specifically made to counter the sort of post-modern discourses disputing the possibility of science. In my other essays I criticized Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida on their respective major claim.
I am not a post-modernist, and even if I were, I could not think of any reason why I, or anyone for that matter, would want to hide it. After all, it is a popular and fashionable stance and can boast quite a few well-known and highly esteemed scholars among its rank.
In summary,
I defined or stated my notion of knowledge above. I am a relativist with my own brand of relativism defined somewhere else. I also discussed my conception on objectivity in another article. I don't think there is TRUTH if it is conceived as "some statement that is valid at all the time and over all the places." However, I do accept there are "local" truths and/or truths that hold for a limited time span. On the other hand, I do despise dogmatism.
本文於 2006/04/04 02:27 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
|
You are setting up a straw man and deliberately avoiding the issue. Does there or does there not exist a positive correlation between employment rate and inflation rate? If the government takes action to increase the employment rate, does this action induce inflationary pressure? These are the issues, not some pompous philosophical discourses on science and its methodology. If you think the economic theory is not science, hence, not applicable to the real world, then on what basis do you draw your own claims in economics? If you try to hide like the post-modern philosophers and claim there is no objective truth or that the truth is not knowable and that everything is just an opinion, then there is no basis for further discussion, not just on this particular problem, but on everything.
|
A few Words On the Scientific Methodology
|
|
|
2006/04/03 14:45 推薦0 |
|
|
|
Indeed, it does look as if I was kind of jumping to conclusion in my short message prima-faciely. Let me try it again.
1. The Basic Assumption
My basic assumption is that we human being obtain knowledge by observation and by experiences in general. This of course is the fundamental tenet of empiricism (1).
If empiricism is accepted, then it follows that until we get to observe the complete picture of the whole universe, all theories are tentative and hypothetical. The received dictum is:
Any theory based on past empirical evidence could be refuted by future empirical evidence.
2. The Facts
2.1 Natural Phenomena
a. All theories in natural sciences are starting with certain premises, stated or unstated.
b. In natural science, the variables are few and the initial/boundary conditions limited. So it is much easier to make "controlled experiment" to verify or falsify a proposed theory. Therefore, the surviving theories in natural sciences usually are treated with deference and considered authoritative (until it is falsified).
c. The natural phenomena will not change due to the volition of their element, inorganic most of the time, because they have none. These elements are the objects or subject-matter of research. The researcher will in no way affect the behavior of these elements either. Finally, the researcher's pre-supposition and conclusions are subjected to rigorous and inter-subjective validation procedures.
2.2 Social Phenomena
The situation is quite different in social sciences. As I said last time (with added descriptions),
"There are just too many inter-related (mutually affecting) variables (for any phenomena) and countless initial and/or boundary conditions (affecting the development of any event)."
a. We can hardly observe ALL phenomena in the whole range of their respective varieties. And therefore, there is no possibility of getting the WHOLE picture for any phenomena under study.
b. Since the variables and initial/boundary conditions are too numerous to handle (systematize), even with the advent of the computer technology, e.g., abilities of number crunching and simulation, one can and must always pick and choose the phenomena (pertinent or impertinent data) that fit, suit, or support his or her presupposition or conclusion, which most of the time are presumed or deduced from a very limited number of observations.
c. Last but not the least, the conclusion scientists deduce or infer not only depend on the volition of people out there, e.g., when they buy, why they buy, and how they buy, but also depend on the researcher's idiosyncrasy, i.e., his or her personal mood, desire, ideology, purpose of research, presupposition, etc., you name it.
My conclusion in my last message was not a non sequitur; rather it is based on aforementioned reasoning. By the way, it is also the general and current opinions of scientists or philosophers who worked in the field of the Scientific Methodology or Philosophy of Science (Ladyman 2002, Kuhn 1996).
3. Is Science Possible?
However, I must stress I am NOT saying social sciences are useless or nonsense. Science is nothing but a systematic compilation of our past experience with plausible, educated, or explanatory interpretations of these experiences and their associated phenomena. In Kant's terminology, the totality of these interpretations or representations is UNDERSTANDING or KNOWLEDGE depending on their level of sophistication.
All our past experiences are useful and vital for our SURVIVAL as references or tools in dealing with our current and future PROBLEMS. Science, both natural and social (including the Humanities), in this sense is something we must have, in so far as we do desire to survive as a group or a species.
Therefore, it is imperative we engage in scientific research or knowledge-building and have a good understanding of what science, social sciences in particular, is and is not.
For example, Freudian Psychoanalysis and Marxism are among the most prominent theories in the early to middle 20th century. A lot of people made and are still making their living with both theories, and some even made or maintain regimes with the second one. However, according to Professor Popper, both are pseudo-sciences (Popper 1968). I am not necessarily endorsing Professor Popper's point of view, I mentioned it here just to show whether a theory is or is not scientific is far from unanimous.
As a second example regarding the nature of social sciences and particularly on my comment on the WHOLE picture, let me quote one commentator on the Phillips curve:
"The main reason behind the failure of the Phillips curve is believed to be that it was a result of a statistical method used by taking data only from the UK and Germany" (Wikipedia 2006：section entitled "Stagflation").
sami's problem is that he sticks to something that has been outdated or refuted for some twenty years without knowing it or simply refusing to accept it. That is only funny or ludicrous on a personal level. However, if he ever were appointed to be the Minister of Finance or Economics, it could bring disaster.
4. Two Technical Points.
4.1 For the supply and demand theory to hold, the premise is the RESOURCES are limited. Most materials are limited no doubt in our present world, but no one can say it is limited for all possible worlds, e.g., on Mars or Jupiter if we are ever able to colonize it. Secondly, for supply and demand theory to hold, there must be a need calling for supply and/or demand. Again, not EVERYTHING has the nature of calling for supply and/or demand intrinsically, i.e., whether things do depends on the volition of people out on the street. If there were such a thing lacking the attribute that calls for either supply or demand, the corresponding theory would not apply to it.
4.2 Newton's physics also has its premises, and Einstein has shown with his Theory of Relativity that under certain conditions, Newtonian physics does not apply. Even for Einstein, his theory is based on the assumptions that first, the speed of light is the utmost speed anything can have, and secondly it is a constant.
So far, the second assumption has been supported by numerous experiments, but that alone does not entail it will not be falsified in some future time with some unknown or to be developed technology. The first assumption is not even supported by any experiment physicists can devise at present time. Of course, it has not been falsified either. The Newtonian/Einsteinian physics or the Einstein/Bohr controversy regarding the quantum mechanics is a prime example of the tentative and hypothetical nature of all scientific theories, natural or social (2).
And that is my thesis in my last message.
5. After Thought
I would like to add a few words as clarification:
With both extensive and intensive study and research done during the last two or three centuries, we do compiled a lot of information, knowledge, and insight on why and how we human behave. As far as I am concerned, social sciences and Humanities are indeed worthy the name of Science.
Laws and theories in social sciences are a lot more restrictive in application than their counter parts in natural sciences because the variables and initial/boundary conditions in the former are just too numerous for us to get a handle on them, let alone to understand them thoroughly.
That of course does not mean the laws and theories in social sciences are no use or of very limited use. It only means we need to know when and how, i.e., under what CONDITIONS, to use so-called laws and theories developed or proposed in social sciences. May be equally important is to know when NOT to use them.
A small flashlight or even a candle is always helpful when one is in complete darkness.
Note:
1. This is only a working assumption, not a so-called TRUTH. As far as I am concerned, anyone can offer some sort of epistemology as the baseline for his or her discourse so long it makes sense and is rational. Starting with a different assumption, it is indeed possible as well as rational to come up with an opposite conclusion.
2. Presently, Einstein is considered by the physics community overwhelmingly, but not completely, the loser in the latter case.
Bibliography:
1. Kuhn, T. S. 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
2. Ladyman, J. 2002, Understanding Philosophy of Science, Routledge, NYC
3. Popper, K. R. 1968, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper Torchbooks, NYC
4. Wikipedia 2006, on Answers.com, Phillips Curve, http://www.answers.com/topic/phillips-curve?method=8
本文於 2024/06/09 15:13 修改第 10 次
|
|
You are offering a non-sequitur.
|
|
|
2006/04/03 01:16 推薦0 |
|
|
|
Instead of offering abstract criticism of economics as a whole, one should address the specific issues at hand. If economics is indeed nonsense, then why write long essays about Hayek and Phillips? The basic laws of supply and demand are solid. Like Newton’s laws of physics, the basic economic principles are simple and taught to freshmen and sophomore students. The difference is that physics laws are precise and quantitative and the hard part lies in solving the differential equations that model the physical systems in hand. In economics, we don’t have a good quantitative theory. The experts may have better intuition, but in terms of theoretical understanding, are no better than a good college sophomore major in economics. So instead of quoting experts, one should really argue from the fundamental principles.
本文於 2006/04/03 01:22 修改第 2 次
|
|
要搞清楚重點啊！
|
|
|
2006/04/03 01:15 推薦0 |
|
|
|
【現代經濟學已不再認為充分就業水準與通貨膨脹有著抵換(trade-off)關係。】以及【如 F. von 哈耶克認為﹕在通貨膨脹和失業之間並無選擇﹐失業必然跟隨著通貨膨脹】
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
如果是這樣，那麼Alex的論點就被推翻了(不用小的再貼出他的原文了吧)，更遑論他所說的【現代經濟學也大致與海耶克的觀點一致，認為充就業水準與通貨膨脹有著抵換(trade off)關係，也就是如果要追求高就業，會以高通貨膨脹率為代價。】<== 你自己看看Alex所說的是不是成立？有沒有意義？合不合乎邏輯？
但小的批評他的文章卻仍然成立，為什麼？因為
小的在『Alex 為何不出面指點一二？？』那篇文章中早就說了【雖然後來有人質疑此觀念，認為有時物價上漲率與失業率不一定具有反向關係，但中文教科書在論及物價上漲率與失業率之反向關聯時(此即Alex所言『如果要追求高就業，會以高通貨膨脹率為代價』)，絕對不會忘了「菲力普曲線」這五個字！ 】
所以即使菲力普曲線理論現在不成立，但是【充就業水準與通貨膨脹有著抵換(trade off)關係】仍是費雪或菲力普所提出的啊！
所以重點不在於菲力普曲線理論成不成立，而在於Alex隔空抓藥，誇大其辭！這就是小的說Alex「海耶克戴上凱因斯的帽子」的原因！
小的何嘗不知道菲力普曲線理論在1970開始就已經逐漸式微？
又怎會不知「反比」與「抵換」、物價與失業之間的連結關聯？
還有，誰告訴你「大恐慌」是在1920 - 1930年代？
大恐慌是從1929年10月24日開始的---美國歷史上著名的
「華爾街股市大崩盤」，持續到什麼時候~~嗯，大約是1938吧。所以你的年代再加個十年就對了。
『由於充分就業(需要預算赤字支出)會引起通貨膨脹』？？
1. 充分就業不一定需要赤字預算！---例子：蔣經國時代呈現低度失業，但當時是採保守預算，如果你要小的提出證據，小的只能告訴你是在前台大校長孫震的一本書裡看到的，另外有本公共經濟學的書也提到，書名小的忘了。小的的財政學老師也曾說過這句話，以前在網路上也看過中經院研究員說過。大家都知道，蔣經國一向很怕通貨膨脹，所以他會在1974年1月接受李國鼎孫運璿俞國華的建議而答應調高利率與油價，那可比Robert E Lucas成名的「理性預期理論」問世還早了一年！
2. 充分就業不一定會引起通膨！---蔣經國時代低度失業，但卻無明顯通膨。(當然你可能會說1973~~74的通膨，但那是國外因素影響供給面，而非菲力普所藉以分析的需求面，去翻翻書本就知道了)
3. 赤字預算不一定會引起通膨！---例如2000~2002這三年，台灣赤字預算嚴重，但卻並無通膨，其後(2005)雖有物價上漲，但並非需求面因素，因為台灣這幾年的需求面是屬於可笑的「無效需求」。
海耶克的問題也不少哦，下次再說吧...
|
|
"Laws" in Social Sciences
|
|
|
2006/04/03 00:19 推薦0 |
|
|
|
Thanks for Lohengrin's concise and penetrating elucidation.
I would like to add that in social sciences, there are just too many inter-related variables and countless initial and/or boundary conditions that any "law" in social sciences is just an exaggeration, or worse, a pipe dream.
So called "laws" in social sciences have only a limited application either in time or in space, i.e., restricted to certain period or societies or both. It is delusive or even dangerous to take any theory or observation and hold it to an exalted position it does not deserve.
本文於 2006/04/03 09:47 修改第 1 次
|
|
More basic econ 201
|
|
|
2006/04/02 23:37 推薦0 |
|
|
|
In economic calculation, labor is just another commodity and a major part of economy. If you increase its demand, you put pressure on wage/salary to rise, inducing an upward pressure on the inflation rate. The hyperinflation of the 70’s was induced by the oil shock. The high inflation rate and high unemployment rate of that period don’t suspend the basic laws of supply and demand. Had one attempted to increase the employment rate during that period, one would just get even higher inflation. Notice the current inflation rate and future expectation is built into wage/salary negotiation. If you want to increase employment beyond the expectation, you will increase the inflation rate beyond expectation as well. In the early 80’s, Paul Volker’s policy of reducing inflation at any price caused a drastic rise in unemployment rate and a major economic recession.
本文於 2006/04/02 23:38 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
回應給：
