【分享】香港岭南大学何泺生教授论文讨论（世界货币单位&医疗改革讨论）

到时候都直接用信用卡交易了

实际意义的货币都将消失,最多留下虚拟的货币而已

更用不着什么世界货币了

+gold coin

[此贴子已经被王平于2006-10-26 9:15:04编辑过]

如有何泺生教授的中文原文那就好了。

以下是引用ccggqq在2006-10-23 0:31:00的发言：
如有何泺生教授的中文原文那就好了。

主帖有中文摘要

至何泺生教授: 由于没有看到原文，所以只能以主帖中的信息为基础来谈谈个人看法。

一、如果“WCU 就是一篮子的世界主要市场经济的总产值.”，那么你理论一开始就是同义重复，因为总产值就是价格总量（各商品价格乘其商品量，再和积），价格总量分别除以各商品数量再平均就是物价水平。除非你能有不依靠价格而求算总产值的理论方法（实际可不可行，暂可以不管）。显然汇率、物价总水平始终与总产值密切相关，如何求算逐年总产值？

二、我认为实行世界货币有两个基本条件，一是商品（尤其是劳动力）的自由流通度为世界范围；二是得有使各国都听令的强权机构。这二者是缺一不可的。

三、关于理想货币的选择，我认为我们已有的经济理论还不能为这种选择指明方向，所以在此我得用我的理论来说明，希望你有时间看。依照我的价格理论，价格的运动有一个规律——价格互动规律（http://www.xslx.com/htm/jjlc/lljj/2005-06-22-18904.htm）或，（http://www.jjxj.com.cn/news_detail.jsp?keyno=538），

这个规律是：

一商品的生产率提高后其价格要降低，但是与此同时，其它所有商品的价格都要因此而上涨，且降低总量与上涨总量相等。工资因此而上涨。这便是价格互动规律，亦称价格第一规律。该规律决定四种价格现象：

一、凡长期发展较慢的部门﹝（以生产和管理技术更新速度为依据）﹞，其商品的价格不断上涨。如农业、手工业、建筑业。这是由于发展快的部门不断将多创造的价值无偿送给它们的结果。尽管这些部门的生产率也在不断提高，但是由于提高的速度相对较小，其交“公”的价值小于“公家”分给它们的价值，所以其价格只能上涨。

﹝二、﹞凡生产方式相同﹝或相似﹞的商品，其价格在落后的地区和国家低，在发达的地区和国家高。如火箭、理发的价格在中国比在美国低。这是因为其它部门的生产率在发达的地区和国家较高，它们向这些部门无偿提供的价值更多。

﹝三、﹞随经济发展人们的工资不断上涨。如我们的工资现在比过去高。尽管人们支出的活劳动还是以前那么多，但是现在的平均生产率较以前高，创造的价值较以前多，所以人们的工资要不断上涨。

﹝ 四、﹞同样的劳务消耗所挣的报酬，在落后地区和国家低，在发达地区和国家高。如美国的工资比中国高。这是因为发达地区和国家的平均生产率较高，创造的价值更多，从而更多的价值形成人们的工资。

从这个规律可以看出，同一方式生产的商品在不同的地区和国家是不一样的，这样无论我们选择怎样的一篮子商品（或你说的WCU），它都不会具备我们所希望的代表性和稳定性，它本身的大小必须随不同时间、不同地区、不同国家而不同（阁下可以任选几组标准WCU进行统计分析）。这其中原因在于各商品的价格（包括工资）之间是互动的。那怕是商品自己的生产情况不变（在供求平衡时），但是由于其它商品的生产情况变了，该商品的价格也得变。阁下的那个图就很不具备代表性，阁下说“从图上的资料看, 2004年120美元的购买力就跟班1973年的25 美元差不多.”，我看如果你的WCU主要由电子产品组成，那么情况将会反过来，变成“从图上的资料看, 1973年120美元的购买力就跟2004年的25 美元差不多”。

再看货币。对黄金这样的货币而言，它本身的大小是不断变化的，这种变化有两种因素决定：一，他本身就是一种商品，是以其自身的价值为基础与其它商品交换的，商品与它的兑换率等于“商品的价值/它自身的价值=商品的价格”，（我知道阁下可能不习惯价值这个概念，但是我必须用这个概念来表述。我的价值是指商品分得财富的量，不是马克思、斯密定义的价值）。我们没有办法改变这种变化。二，当黄金的发行量与实际要求不一致时，黄金分得的财富量——本身的大小就会变，出现黄金增值或贬值。有些人认为黄金不存在发行量的问题，只有纸币存在发行量的问题，那是不对的。从理论上讲，发行量是人为事件，是可控的。

相对于金属货币纸币大小的变化只受发行量的影响，这是因为纸币是以其象征的价值量（面值）与一般商品交换的，而其面值远大于本身的价值，所以生产领域的变化对其大小——象征的价值量（面值）的影响可以忽略不计。（注意：价格互动规律描述的是商品本身价值的变化）。由于发行量是人为事件，是可控的，所以我认为纸币是更理想的货币。由来已久我们没有认识到这一点，走了不少弯路。

最后谈谈增殖、贬值、供求、价格方面的问题。在理想的供求平衡状态下，在社会总财富一定时，为了保持系统稳定地发展，社会分给各部门的财富是一定的（注意：价值是商品分得财富的量），这样，当一种商品供给过多时，其单位商品分得的价值减少，于是价格降低。对于货币就是贬值；反之，单位商品分得的价值增加，于是价格上升。对于货币就是增值。经典理论一直在纳闷：究竟是价格决定供求还是供求决定价格，不得其解。其实他们的关系是我揭示的平均化规律与供求规律相互对峙的结果。——平均化规律要求平均和稳定，竞争要求不平均和不稳定。

+gold coin

[此贴子已经被王平于2006-10-26 9:19:08编辑过]

有点看不懂   深奥

好用 太爽了

各位老师、前辈：

对于以上大家所谈论的一切！我认为现在搞所谓的“世界货币统一”很难啊？也许这时多时少牵扯些政治等相关因素，但主要还是各国的经济体制不同，中国虽然一再坚持走可持续平稳发展经济道路，想让世界货币统一，我想很难，需要走很长一短路，现在走这条路好比登天而且有点不现实化！

+gold coin

[此贴子已经被王平于2006-10-26 9:22:03编辑过]

世界货币单位的统一实施起来相当困难,就象英语也不可能全球流通，货币代表一个国家的主权，世界货币到底怎样权重,主导力量也很难确定.现在是美国一家独大,他并不希望自己的美元霸权地位被世界货币所削弱.总之,世界货币方案实施前景渺茫。

在这里，货币是代表一个国家呢，还是代表人类所共同尊顺的一种规则呢？还是有美元为代表来衡量世界货币呢？就美元又是凭什么东西为衡量的呢？我认为这个问题是应该在理解资本是什么以后才容易作解答。如果我们不能认识资本是什么及把它与货币分离，就是把货币想的再好，也是不能解决和实现的。至于何教授相信世界货币在本世纪不能统一的论断我不好作评论。但是，我相信人类社会通过对资本的认识和铲除，各国的货币兑换标准和规则是会处在一个公平的平等的物资基础之中的，决不会有美元说了算的霸权规则的。

+gold coin

[此贴子已经被王平于2006-10-26 9:23:55编辑过]

Based on two papers written by Professor Ho, to some extent (I haven't totally understood his detailed analysis and modeling on stabilized WCU modeling yet) I do agree with his insightful discussion on the possibility of establishing WCU as the accumulative and measurable reference to anaylize the overall path of global monetary flows. This research is vitally important to explain certain questions concerning the diversified currencies and their possible nature of accountability, instead, as far as I understood, establishing the literal WCU to replace the existing currencies. I think Professor Ho's paper raised an important question or hypothesis for us all: instead of concerning the diversified currencies in the world, the framework of measurable reference can bring us a new look on the divergence and convergence of monetary flows among countries, currencies exchanges cross borders, the evaluation of domestic real purchasing power, nominal value or real GDP for PPC, real exchange rates etc. In all, enlightened by his distinguishable proposal on the accountability of monetary referencing framework, future studies have the opportunities to torch the light on dynamic factors driven global monetary system's integration, no matter they are theoretically correct or dedicated to pragmatic manner.

Some people's comments are trying too hard to throw their immediate understanding or impressions about the "revolutionary" topic, which sound quite naive or without the spirit of criticism. "counter-revolution" of theoretical hypothesis are crucial to academic studies, it is also the very enlightenment all of us needed in our life-long journey of pursuing knowledge and truth.

I would like to discuss my thoughts as the following five:

1. Dynamic modeling of the overall framework. The accumulative model Professor Ho provided as based on the statistical surveys (which are relative short-term) to indicate the trends and nature of current monetary overall value (as Hong Kong and mainland), hence the sustainability and feasibility of predication and duplication of long-term inflation or devaluation could be a foreseeable matter remain challenged by other equivalent theories or testified by following years data. The time vector function could elaborate within the existing model, and, the establishment of cross-time variables is the very merit of the overall stability of this research.

2. The Stability of Value system - Political Economy Dominion. The institutional arrangements of exchange rates as well as value redistribution analysis in 4th part concerned "what constitute the Right exchange Rate", I believe this part is the most important issue to deal with uneven value of gross production for both regions. Path Dependency is successive monetary studies indicated that the interactions among currencies are not simply among the consumption power or real exchange rates by targeted currency (US dollars for instance, many developing countries used to have the tagged monetary system to against "Gold Standard" or US exchange rates). Actually, HOW TO indicate currency exchange flows by cross-time string vector is instable or lack of studied (maybe there are abundant researches on this topic, I haven't read much about them), hence, I think it is extremely difficult to establish a well recognized and unified interactive model on ideal monetary unification models. On the other hand, many great economists have thrown some lights on deriving factors of monetary analysis; I need read more works to reach my conclusion.

3. Limitations of Growth. As previously discussed, Professor and his commentators had the crossfire on the general base of production value, which as I understood, could be a very difficult dilemma to continue. As the past 50 years global economic growth, the gross production value literally has increased dramatically within NICs, BRICs, OCEDs, even the undeveloped countries listed by United Nations during the new millennium. Hence, successive literature on the global economic growth and gross value production increase has indicated the general trends of growth while the edge/limitations of growth are still unclear. Especially neoclassical endogenous growth model advocated by Romer and other economists stressed the uncertainty of technical innovation which are theoretically existing while hard to measure in real applications. Suppose the general basin or basket of gross value in A domestic region is settled or timely static, the exchange rates are much easier to simulate by current monetary models. The problem is involving two factors: (1) the statistic reliability of the "basket of gross value" (2) the dynamic factors driven economy growth. Information economy advocated by Stigliz and others had proven that information as well as technology innovation has great impact of endogenous economic growth; on the other hand, there are great disputes on the existence of ONE unified measurable model on above hypothesis, which also happened to institutional analysis.

4. Non-equilibrium Analysis and Pareto-optimal distribution of value/price/currency. As previously discussed, the domestic clearing price and value are accordingly varied in regions. The mainland economic structure as well as regional disparities could be reasoned by many excuses. Hysteresis on economic circles and development, surplus labor market, Nonperforming banking loans, inefficient banking system, lack of national financial alerting system, inefficient governance in different levels of government, dependent SOEs and heavy industries characterized in northeast and northwest China, lack of modern management training for most indigenous entrepreneur who have little knowledge upon currency index and the information beneath those figures. Back to the equilibrium analysis, accumulative equilibrium analysis recently has been applied in most economists' research are based on the statistic yearbook which there are already successive dispute on the credibility and reliability of statisitical accountability. Since Friedman (2002) argued that China's statistic data (since 1996-2002) indicated surprising malfunction with natural resources and energy consumption, the overall GDP growth rate as well as the equilibrium price for the nominal or real value of purchasing index are highly doubtful. Suppose the optimal resource allocation is theoretically correct in Hong Kong, while the Pareto efficiency could not explicitly implemented or testified in mainland. Institutional arrangements aruged the fact that socialism market economy has a paradoxical market function nothing but neoclassical doctrines. Hereby, allow me to quote Professor Ho's words:"From the equilibrium condition GDP = C + I + G + X- M, we can write Yd +T-B (disposable income plus net taxes minus government interest payment) = C + I + G + X- M. This transposes to T-G-B = I-S-(M-X). Thus the intersection of GS(≡T-G-B, public sector savings) with PD (≡I-S-(M-X) , private sector savings deficiency) determines equilibrium aggregate demand." Hence, Professor Ho drew the geometrical aberration advocating that aggregation of demand curve could be achieved at the full employment output simultaneously achieving fiscal budget balance. To prove above, Professor continued his modeling analysis by enforcing the full employment dynamic factor with deductive functions, which are convincing and impressive. This is the very merit to me, actually I do love this part, allow me to quote "A currency regime, in order to be sustainable(Bulir and Smidkova, 2004) and thus credible, needs to be adaptable and be compatible with full employment. If the currency regime produces an exchange rate that is not compatible with full employment and has no effective mechanism to adapt towards such a rate it cannot be sustainable and thus cannot be credible. In contrast, the system herein proposed, by allowing a to change as needed, is compatible with full employment and is therefore sustainable and credible." Professor Ho deliberately delivered the corellatin between currency regime and full employment, which is a simpler form of equilibrium price for other researchers to refer to, personally I think this is very important.

5. Safenet or Firewall for currency crisis? Who has a final say? Refer to previously discussed note 1 and 2, floating interesting rates among governments are varied according to domestic consumption power, foreign currency reservation as well as international trade volume, etc. People's Bank of China as the central bank, applied a "basket" combination for trade credit, bank credit, government, consumer, lease and international credit to leverage the overall discount rate on RMB's credit against US dollars. Especially in recent years, China government and central bank encountered great pressure from G7 or G8 on the government-led RMB devaluation, which the preferential interest rate favor to domestic industries and banks are prohibited by global open market indoctrination. The entry of WTO as well as other multilateral financial organizations enforced China financial system integrated to global "basket" gradually regardless China central government's will, hence, Professor Ho's ideal proposal is positive and optimistic in the coming decades. Unlike the promising global political economic environment, the final say eventually goes to the central government of mainland and, even to certain extent, regardless the will of Hong Kong. Observing from previous Asian financial crisis, governments and market have always some agreements or institutional interest arrangements on the distribution of value among countries and regions. Some, inevitably will be experiencing lose one way, and in another way, they gain their compensation or payoff politically or domestically supports by "black box" agreements. No political adjustments come from thin air, while, in most cases, the game theory also applies within their equilibrial resolutions.

Please allow my naive notes...actually, I am not professional to your sphere at all...

All friends, if you have any critism, please feel free to contact me: neotaoism@yahoo.com.cn

I have to confess that I didn't read enough papers of Professor Ho's works, hence, I do owe an apology to Professor Ho and my rush comments. The more I red about his papers, the more I realized that my words previously commentated were groundlessly rooted on personal construction of ideological perceptions with economics. A fair and intellectual comment is deserved here, I will try.

Actually, I think the above five notes are, literally the very thoughts I derived or stimulated from Professor Ho's first two papers, and then, gradually inspired me to continue my endless words by reading others papers of his. Thank you.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-30 0:08:50编辑过]

请稍等,何教授在出差

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-27 11:43:04编辑过]