主题：疑问 -- 赢政

各位前辈：

今日有关央行加息的声音此起彼伏，回顾去年九月至今年四月，央行已连续三次提高法定存款准备金，目前各方预测年内可能加息。请教各位前辈，央行会否于年内加息？中国经济是否真的已经过热，尤其于投资领域，五月公布的数据显示CPI同比增长4.4%，央行的一系列举措是否说明政府和货币当局已经承认经济过热呢？若要加息，加的幅度是多少呢？对于广大普通百姓的经济生活有什么直接和负面影响吗？人民币汇率是否将承受更大的国际压力？

以上问题，还请各位前辈不吝赐教，晚辈不胜感激。

1 中央已经承认经济过热，并乐令地方停止大规模基建；

2 银行存款保证金在中国是比较管用的手段，提高一个百分点，就意味着冻结10000*1%=100亿员的资金流入市场。

3 提高利率的手段在中国是不太管用的。只有对成本有意识的经济体，才会对利率作出反应，而中国银行的主要借款人是国有企业，国有企业的实际投资人是政府，各地官僚们对成本是不敏感的，能借到钱就是英雄，至于利率是10%还是15%没有多大区别。呵呵，气死格林斯潘和凯恩斯。

4 1998年金融风暴中，中国政府频频降息，一点用处都没有。加息，也没有什么用处，中国人里有几个是象美国和欧洲那样，每个月要还住房贷款，汽车贷款，还有信用卡的利息，非常少，他们也不会有反应。呵呵，这会得气死周小川。

• 【原创】为朱槠基时代宏观调控政策的辩护

不让放贷款，又要交储备金，可不得让提高贷款利息补点血么。

这些现象希望都是过渡性质的吧，大家伙联手把原材料，能源的价格压下来；海外投资者的胃口不变，银行的坏帐还是能卖个好价；金融机构改革顺利进行，和现在的经济成分匹配；那俺们就可以一起松一口气乐。

央行会不会动用利率杠杆? 众专家把脉CPI走势

2004年06月14日15:09 上海证券报

○邱晓华:夏粮上市有助于CPI企稳(全新优良投资工具，透视股市的智能波段王)

○张卓元:今年6月CPI预计达到5%

上周,国家统计局和中国人民银行相继发布5月份的统计数据。统计数据显示,金融宏观调控成效显著,宏观调控措施成效显现,国民经济运行质量良好。就此,记者采访了国家统计局副局长邱晓华和经济学家张卓元。(独家证券内参，365天资讯情报站……)

二季度涨幅大属正常

国家统计局副局长邱晓华告诉记者,夏粮将在6月底、7月初上市,届时,将有助于粮食价格的稳定。

中国消费价格指数中粮食所占权重约为1/3,因此,粮食价格上涨拉动CPI上涨。一旦粮食价格上涨走势发生改变,将直接影响CPI。而今年夏粮增产几十亿斤已成定局,早稻播种面积比去年增长7%左右。

邱晓华表示,统计显示,从4月份以来,许多地方粮食价格涨势开始趋缓,有的品种还稳中有降。

据对全国200个农产品主产县集贸市场农产品价格调查,5月份农产品市场总体趋于平稳。与上月相比,粮食、棉花和油料价格稳中趋降,蔬菜价格下降较多,水果和水产品价格明显上涨。其中,稻谷、小麦价格小幅回落,玉米和大豆价格涨势趋缓。5月份籼稻、粳稻价格比上月下降0.2%和0.9%,小麦价格下降1.1%。玉米和大豆价格比上月上涨0.9%和1.3%,但涨幅较上月下降5.3和4.9个百分点。

邱晓华认为,二季度的统计数据比一季度的统计数据高是正常的:一是因为去年同期由于非典,使得经济增长速度放缓,基数较低；二是因为今年一季度价格上涨后的滞后效应。

从历史上看,1992年、1993年的全国经济过热,先行上涨的是粮食价格。而经济增长速度在调整后回落,其先行指标也是粮食价格。

有研究显示,从中国粮食价格变化的历史资料看,再考虑到目前相当低的库存水平,2004年粮价的上涨可能在5%左右或者更高。预计2004年,由于粮食价格上升将推动CPI上升1.7个百分点。

央行不会轻易动用利率杠杆

张卓元对记者表示,CPI今年6月预计达到5%左右。

他的一贯主张是,只要今年能够控制在5%以下,不要突破5%,还是可以容忍的,央行就不会动用经济杠杆进行调控经济。

日前,央行负责人曾多次表示,物价水平是其考虑利率政策时必须密切监测的一个重要指标。而央行的忍耐限度,按照央行副行长吴晓灵的说法,是贷款实际利率为负。

他告诉记者,5%是一个重要的指标,但同时还要看其他影响经济的因素。

张卓元认为,在经济逐步全球化的今天,央行采取调控措施不会单一观察CPI指标,还必须考虑套利套汇的问题。近两年来,资本流入导致外汇占款大量增加,资本流入与本、外币利差有直接关系。目前人民币一年期存款利率为1.98%,境内美元一年期存款利率为0.5625%,本、外币利差达1.4个百分点；美国美元一年期大额CD存款利率为1.06%,境内外本外币利差为0.92个百分点。因此,货币政策要在兼顾内外均衡的前提下,灵活调节利率水平。也就是说,央行要动用利率杠杆一是要看内地CPI会否超过5%,一是要看美元的动向,另外还要看影响经济的其他因素。（记者卢晓平）

赢政兄，难道国内现在老百姓的经济生活和利率联系得很很密切吗？总的来讲，现在在中国大家的经济收支基本上是与利率没有显著的相关性吧，如果这个假设成立，那么加息对老百姓的经济生活影响并不大。

至于汇率，加不加息，压力都在那里。中央应该抗得住吧，如果抗不住，也许就不会仅仅是经济问题，还会牵涉到一系列的社会和政治问题。

赢政兄欢迎常来。

• 【原创】为朱槠基时代宏观调控政策的辩护

多谢列位前辈指点,虽然国内百姓与加息并无非常密切的联系,即使加可能影响也不大,但整日听一些学者,专家叫嚷着通货膨胀,通货紧缩也挺烦的,毕竟学的这个专业.如果出现通货膨胀,对国内广大百姓来讲应该不是好消息.前段时间粮油价格有一定幅度的上涨,对我们这个恩格尔系数还是很高的国家来说,粮油价格的波动还是关系的广大民众的切实利益的.

晚辈再次顿首

赢政兄以后多发言呵。适度的通胀，在我看来没有什么不好，呵呵，这也是一个有争议的话题。关键要看通胀的原因是什么，不同的原因对经济有不同的影响。

将军所言极是,适度的通胀对经济有一定的刺激作用,可在下不知通胀率和价格指数之间应保持怎样的关联可确保经济能平稳健康的发展?以国内经济而言,通胀率保持在2.5~3%,经济增长率保持在8~8.5%之间,也许比较合适.

西风兄所言甚是,就指那点银行坏帐卖个好价钱.还大肆向四大国有银行注资450亿美圆哦!!!我说这国有银行的股份化改制有戏吗?包括国内的众多学者对此也莫衷一是,多持低调,实在是我们的根源是在体制个制度上,闹股份制,说到底,最后还是党政领导班子开会,那里有董事会高层会议的味道啊?

摩根的史帝芬罗奇说中国现在正在向世界输出通货膨胀,中国的原材料越发依赖进口了,可出口商品却又在向世界输出通货紧缩???看的我都糊涂了??

通胀率一般是由价格指数来计算的吧。

至于多大的通胀较为合适，我想这个需要一定的数据分析才能得到一个可能的答案。也许赢政兄的估计是对的，不过我实在不知道，呵呵。看看那位来说说，呵呵。

也许中国既输出通货膨胀又向世界输出通货紧缩，呵呵，不过在某个时期，其中的一个会占主导地位而表现出来，如此而已。

The China Syndrome

Joachim Fels (London)

I cannot remember a single discussion on global macro issues with clients or fellow economists over the past year that did not, at some stage, touch upon deflation, China, or both. More often than not, the two topics are seen as one these days. China is a major factor behind global deflationary pressures, or so the story goes. Hence, we decided to probe the issue in a client workshop on "Deflation: Made in China?", which formed part of Morgan Stanley's annual MacroVision event in New York last week (for a summary of the conclusions from the entire MacroVision exercise, see Stephen Roach's dispatch "The Least Likely Outcome," 3 February 2003).

Andy Xie, Morgan Stanley's Greater China economist, kicked off the workshop by describing eloquently and convincingly the huge global competitive pressures emanating from China's growing integration into the world economy. Then, I took issue with the prevailing consensus and tried to explain why, in my view, China was NOT to blame for the world's deflationary perils. Some clients nodded politely, a few even took notes. Yet when we went around the table afterwards, one by one they declared that they, of course, saw China as a major source of global deflation. Where did I go wrong? Maybe you can help me. All you need to do is scan my three main arguments below and drop me an e-mail ([email protected]) to point me in the right direction. Here we go.

First, conventional wisdom has it that China is a source of deflation because it is flooding world markets with cheap exports. There is no denying the fact that China has become a major player in world trade; its share in world exports has doubled to around 5% over the past 10 years. However, China is not only growing its exports rapidly, but also its imports. In fact, in the 1999-2001 period China's imports have risen faster than its exports. China is thus not only a source of additional supply but also a source of additional demand. As a resource-constrained country, China is a major importer of commodities, and its demand for raw materials will continue to rise rapidly with industrialization. As Andy Xie points out, China's industrialization could easily have an impact on commodity prices similar to post-WWII reconstruction in Europe and Japan. Also, China is a big importer of capital goods. Last year, China even overtook the US as the world's biggest recipient of foreign direct investment. These FDI inflows are typically accompanied by imports of capital goods as multinational companies shift their production bases towards China. Last, but not least, with rising living standards, Chinese households’ appetite for imported consumer goods will rise rapidly over the next decade. Taken together, anybody who worries about the potential deflationary effects of Chinese exports should be equally worried about potential inflationary effects of China's rising import demand.

Against this backdrop, a slightly more refined version of the "China-causes-deflation" argument focuses on the fact that China is running a trade surplus with the rest of the world. Put differently, China supplies more to the world market than it absorbs from it, which is supposedly fuelling deflationary pressures. I have two quibbles with this argument. First, the size of the Chinese current-account surplus is hardly big enough to make any material impact. China's current-account surplus in 2001 was only US$18 billion and thus smaller than, to name just a few, Canada's (US$19 billion), France's (US$24 billion) and Switzerland’s (US$25 billion) surpluses. Yet nobody is accusing these countries of being a source of deflation for the world economy. Second, and more fundamentally, China's surplus savings (recall that the current-account surplus equals the excess of domestic savings over domestic investment) don't disappear in the (rice) mattresses but are recycled into the rest of the world via the acquisition of foreign assets, mainly in the form of US Treasuries and, increasingly, euro-area bonds. Thus, by being a net capital exporter, China is providing the means to (chiefly) the US government and US consumers to live beyond their means. I find it difficult to see why this should be deflationary. Which brings me to my third and last point.

In the last analysis, at least in my book, whether the world falls into deflation is not determined by the Chinese export sector, but by the world's major central banks. True, the emergence of China as a major supplier of manufactured goods has exerted downward pressure on traded goods prices and will continue to do so, especially if, as seems likely, the Chinese authorities continue to resist a revaluation of the renminbi. However, the downward pressure on traded goods prices implies that consumers will have more money to spend on other items (say, services), which should lead to rising prices there. A priori, there is no reason why this change in relative prices should affect the overall price level in any meaningful way. And even if there were some incipient downward pressure on the overall price level, don't forget that most central banks these days have explicit or implicit inflation targets. Thus, they would respond (or have already responded) to any signs of significant downward pressure on prices from deflation in the traded goods sector by cutting interest rates. This holds especially true these days, where most central banks have become deflation fighters, worrying more about the downside risk to prices than the upside risks.

And that’s precisely where today's situation differs from that of the late 19th century, when the emergence of the United States as a major player in world trade coincided with a prolonged period of deflation. Back then, the world was on the gold standard. Hence, the strong capital inflows into the US led to gold inflows in the US and outflows from the more developed countries, mainly in Europe. This gold-flow mechanism led to a monetary contraction in Europe, thus causing a fall in the overall price level. In today's paper currency world there is no such mechanism that would force the developed world to tighten monetary policy in response to strong growth in the emerging economies. Rather, the opposite holds true today: the downward pressure on traded goods prices emanating from China's exports enables the Fed, the ECB, and other central banks to pursue a more expansionary policy. As I have explained elsewhere, my personal worry is rather that central banks are overdoing it on the downside and will thus sow the seeds of a resurgence of global inflation in the next few years.

All in all, if you worry about deflation, don't point at China but focus on what the major central banks are doing (or not doing). The arrival of China as a major player in global trade and capital markets is a hugely positive event for the world economy. Put simply, the advent of a new kid on the block who is willing to offer its skills and products at a lower price makes the world economy at large better off. There are big gains from trade that will be reaped by both China and its trading partners in the process. After all, trade is a positive-sum game. All too often, such simple truths tend to be ignored in gloomy times like these.

云麾兄:

在下身出国内,西文实在不过关,满眼字母看的我一头雾水,不知所以然.然在下再谢大将军,顿首叩谢.看来不光要研读专业知识,这西文还是要努力学习的.让各位大侠,前辈见笑了.