经济学人：
where other historians saw a mob of hungry peasants, E.P. Thompson saw resistance to capitalism. Studying England’s 18th-century food riots, the Marxist historian coined the term “moral economy”. The rioters, he argued, were not motivated purely by empty bellies, but by a belief that the bakers, farmers and millers had violated paternalist customs, which suggested they should limit their profit, sell locally and not hold back grain. Gradually, Thompson argued, the moral economy was being displaced by a market economy, in which prices follow the amoral logic of supply and demand, rather than ideas of what would be a “fair price” in times of scarcity.
其他历史学家看到的是一群饥饿的农民，而 E.P.汤普森看到了对资本主义的抵制。这位马克思主义历史学家在研究英国 18 世纪的粮食骚乱时，创造了“道德经济”一词。他认为，骚乱者的动机并不纯粹是空腹，而是认为面包师、农民和磨坊主违反了家长式的习俗，这表明他们应该限制利润，在当地销售，而不是扣留粮食。汤普森认为，道德经济逐渐被市场经济所取代，在市场经济中，价格遵循非道德的供求逻辑，而不是稀缺时期的“公平价格”理念。
Americans may not be rioting over bread prices, but they are angry. President Joe Biden now faces a tight race for re-election. Swing voters are particularly annoyed about inflation, as the price level has risen by a cumulative 19% since Mr Biden’s inauguration. Yet this frustrates many left-wing economists, who see the tight labour market and rising real wages in America as a great success. To them, inflation is an irritating—and now stubborn—by-product of the mixture of fiscal stimulus and industrial policy pursued by Mr Biden. It is not the main story.
美国人可能不会因为面包价格而骚乱，但他们很愤怒。乔·拜登总统现在面临着激烈的连任竞选。摇摆选民对通货膨胀尤其恼火，自拜登就职以来物价水平已累计上涨 19%。然而，这让许多左翼经济学家感到沮丧，他们认为美国劳动力市场紧张和实际工资上涨是巨大的成功。对他们来说，通货膨胀是拜登推行的财政刺激和产业政策相结合的令人恼火且现在很顽固的副产品。这不是主要故事。
A new working paper by Stefanie Stantcheva of Harvard University helps explain the divergence. Ms Stantcheva asks, “Why do we dislike inflation?”, which updates a paper published in 1997 by Robert Shiller, who later won a Nobel prize in economics. Using two surveys, she posed Americans a series of closed questions, such as “How have your savings been affected by inflation?”, and open-ended ones, such as “How would you define ‘inflation’ in your own words?”. The results show that Thompson’s concept of the “moral economy”, which he thought had been displaced by the cold logic of the market, still has popular appeal.
哈佛大学的 Stefanie Stantcheva 发表的一篇新工作论文有助于解释这种差异。 Stantcheva 女士问道：“我们为什么不喜欢通货膨胀？”该问题更新了后来获得诺贝尔经济学奖的罗伯特·希勒 (Robert Shiller) 1997 年发表的一篇论文。通过两项调查，她向美国人提出了一系列封闭式问题，例如“您的储蓄如何受到通货膨胀的影响？”，以及开放式问题，例如“您如何用自己的话说定义‘通货膨胀’？”。结果表明，汤普森认为“道德经济”的概念已经被冷酷的市场逻辑所取代，但仍然具有广泛的吸引力。
Americans who responded to Ms Stantcheva’s surveys were angry for a number of reasons. Most believed that inflation inevitably meant a reduction in real incomes. They said that rising prices made life more unaffordable and prompted them to worry they would not be able to afford the basics. Respondents did not see a trade-off between inflation and unemployment—referred to as the “Phillips curve” by economists—but thought that the two would rise in parallel. Some 70% did not view inflation as a sign of a booming economy, but as an indication of one in a “poor state”. Around a third saw reducing inflation as a bigger priority than financial stability, reducing unemployment or increasing growth. In short, respondents really hated rising prices.
对斯坦切娃女士的调查做出回应的美国人出于多种原因感到愤怒。大多数人认为，通货膨胀不可避免地意味着实际收入的减少。他们表示，物价上涨使生活变得更加难以负担，并促使他们担心自己买不起基本生活用品。受访者没有看到通货膨胀和失业之间的权衡（经济学家称之为“菲利普斯曲线”），但认为两者会平行上升。大约 70% 的人并不认为通货膨胀是经济繁荣的标志，而是经济处于“贫困状态”的标志。大约三分之一的人认为降低通胀比金融稳定、减少失业率或提高经济增长更重要。简而言之，受访者确实讨厌物价上涨。
Some of their beliefs reflected what has happened during the current spell of inflation. Following the covid-19 pandemic, real incomes did indeed fall, as prices rose faster than wages. It is only over the past couple of years that wages have grown sufficiently to make up the difference. The price of basics, such as food and fuel, has risen faster than other items in the inflation basket. And even if your income is rising, it is irritating to see a greater share go on necessities. Nor does inflation always accompany a strong labour market. During the global financial crisis of 2007-09, for instance, high commodity prices produced a situation in which inflation rose at the same time as the global economy weakened. During the inflation of the 1970s, which looms large in the popular memory, unemployment rose.
他们的一些信念反映了当前通货膨胀时期所发生的情况。在 covid-19 大流行之后，实际收入确实下降了，因为物价上涨速度快于工资上涨速度。直到过去几年，工资才增长到足以弥补这一差额。食品和燃料等基本生活用品的价格上涨速度快于通胀篮子中的其他商品。即使你的收入在增加，看到更多的钱花在必需品上也会让人感到恼火。通胀并不总是伴随着强劲的劳动力市场。例如，在2007-09年的全球金融危机期间，大宗商品价格高涨，导致通货膨胀率上升，同时全球经济疲软。 20 世纪 70 年代的通货膨胀在人们的记忆中留下了深刻的印象，失业率上升。
Why, then, are some economists more relaxed about rising prices? Inflation does present difficulties: it can undermine central-bank credibility and causes arbitrary redistribution from creditors to debtors. The constant updating of prices also carries costs for companies. Yet if all prices are adjusting at the same rate, the change is not as consequential as many workers believe. It no more means that workers are getting poorer than measuring someone’s height in feet rather than centimetres would mean that they are getting shorter. What is more, inflation is often the consequence of a hot labour market, as is the case in America at the moment. It should, therefore, be accompanied by low unemployment and rising wages, which help compensate for the irritation of prices changing more frequently.
那么，为什么一些经济学家对物价上涨更加放松呢？通货膨胀确实带来了困难：它会损害央行的信誉，并导致债权人向债务人任意进行再分配。价格的不断更新也给企业带来了成本。然而，如果所有价格都以相同的速度调整，那么这种变化并不像许多工人认为的那么严重。这并不意味着工人变得更穷，就像用英尺而不是厘米来测量某人的身高并不意味着他们变得更矮一样。更重要的是，通货膨胀往往是劳动力市场过热的结果，就像目前美国的情况一样。因此，它应该伴随着低失业率和不断上涨的工资，这有助于弥补价格更频繁变化的刺激。
Thin gruel 稀粥
Much like rioters in 18th-century England, Americans believe that price rises are fundamentally unfair. Respondents to Ms Stantcheva’s surveys suggested that inflation widened the gap between rich and poor, while businesses allowed prices to rise because of corporate greed. They also “tend to believe that employers have a lot of power and discretion in setting wages”, notes Ms Stantcheva. In their view, inflation is not a phenomenon that emerges from hundreds of millions of people taking trillions of decisions. It is something inflicted on them by people at the top of totem pole.
就像 18 世纪英国的骚乱者一样，美国人认为物价上涨从根本上来说是不公平的。斯坦切娃女士调查的受访者表示，通货膨胀扩大了贫富差距，而企业则因企业贪婪而允许价格上涨。斯坦切娃女士指出，他们还“倾向于认为雇主在制定工资方面拥有很大的权力和自由裁量权”。在他们看来，通货膨胀并不是数亿人做出数万亿决定后出现的现象。这是图腾柱顶端的人强加给他们的东西。
Yet workers still gave little credit to businesses or the government for an astonishingly strong labour market. Wage rises were generally seen as the responsibility of the individual: a well-deserved reward for hard work. Those survey respondents who had received a pay rise were twice as likely to attribute it to their on-the-job performance as to inflation. However persuasive left wing-economists may be, Americans will not thank the Biden administration for what they see as their own success.
然而，工人们仍然很少相信企业或政府拥有如此强劲的劳动力市场。工资上涨通常被视为个人的责任：对辛勤工作的应得奖励。那些获得加薪的受访者将加薪归因于其在职表现的可能性是通胀的两倍。无论左翼经济学家多么有说服力，美国人都不会因为他们认为自己的成功而感谢拜登政府。
Riots are often counter-productive. In 18th-century England, according to Thompson, terrified farmers decided not to bring their crops to market. Shortages worsened in other parts of England as speculators were intimidated into keeping purchases in storage, rather than shipping them across the country. In a moral economy concerns about what is right and wrong outweigh efficiency, imposing a cost on those assigning blame as well as those being blamed. That does not make it any more comfortable for those being judged, as Mr Biden is now all too aware. ■
骚乱往往会适得其反。根据汤普森的说法，在 18 世纪的英国，惊恐的农民决定不将农作物推向市场。英格兰其他地区的短缺情况进一步恶化，因为投机者被迫将购买的货物储存起来，而不是运往全国各地。在道德经济中，对是非的关注超过了效率，这给那些指责者和被指责者都带来了成本。这并没有让那些被评判的人感到更舒服，拜登现在已经非常清楚了。
评论
发表评论