楼主: lwzxy
2929 12

[其他] The Austrian Answer to Thomas Piketty [推广有奖]

  • 1关注
  • 95粉丝

学术权威

25%

还不是VIP/贵宾

-

威望
2
论坛币
46295 个
通用积分
31.2488
学术水平
1100 点
热心指数
1050 点
信用等级
868 点
经验
987 点
帖子
4077
精华
7
在线时间
5466 小时
注册时间
2007-10-5
最后登录
2024-1-7

+2 论坛币
k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群
赵安豆老师微信:zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币!

+2 论坛币

How Fractional Reserves and Inflation Cause Economic Inequality


By Andreas Marquart, mises.org,五月 19日, 2014


[Editor’s Note: Andreas Marquart and Philipp Bagus recently released a new German-language book, Warum anderen auf Ihre Kosten immer reicher werden — und welche Rolle Staat und Papiergield dabei spielen, about “why others are getting richer at your expense,” now available from FinanzBuch publishers. Mr. Marquart spoke with us about income inequality, Thomas Piketty, and the new book.]

Mises Institute: How would you translate your new book’s title into English?

Andreas Marquant: I would like to say The State Causes the Poverty It Later Claims to Solve. This is the title of my article on mises.org last December. An even better title could be The Austrian Answer to Thomas Piketty.

MI: Your book addresses the issue of income inequality. Is income inequality a bad thing?

AM: First of all, inequality and income inequality are natural phenomena because people are different. They all have different talents and that is a reason for the division of labor. It’s also a reason people work together and it’s a basic part of any complex society. Furthermore, some people are hardworking, others are more lazy. Income inequality is the logical consequence of this. The key question is: is income inequality the result of the free market and the free decisions of voluntary interacting actors; or is income inequality the result of the expansion of fiat money and the creation of money out of thin air that benefits the privileged few at the expense of many? That is, is it the result of state intervention? If the latter, case we have a problem.


MI: When caused by state intervention, what is the primary source of the problem?

AM: The primary source is fiat money inflation and the artificial increase of the money supply by bank credit. The greater fiat money inflation is, the more unjust are the consequences. The early recipients of newly-created money are the winners. The later receivers of the new money are the losers. This is certainly true when prices are clearly increasing, but the same redistribution effect also exists when money creation takes place in a situation where prices for goods and services should be falling but are not. For example, in an economy where worker productivity is increasing, prices should be falling. But even if prices remain more or less constant, a gigantic redistribution through the money printing press may be under way as workers become more productive but see no benefit from it, thanks to inflation.

But the redistribution does not only work through its effects on the prices of goods and services. Have a look at the equity markets. The money created by the FED or the European Central Bank leads to new record-breaking prices at the equity markets. If you have a big block of shares already, you can benefit when this happens, but what if you cannot afford to buy stocks because your energy bill and food expenditures are rising continuously? And often, one very important point is forgotten: the transfer of wealth is irreversible, even if the new money disappears again.

MI: In your book you contend that “good money” is important for economic prosperity. What is good money and why is this true?

AM: Commodity money is good money because it is free-market money. The money supply would be expanded by natural and free production only, through voluntary exchange. This is the reason that in the past, precious metals such as gold and silver were used as money very often. We have good money when the government has nothing to do with the monetary system and people themselves can decide what money they want to use spontaneously and without any coercion from the state.

MI: Someone who objects to your argument might say “Just look at the 19th century. That was a period with a gold standard and capitalism, and yet we saw lots of inequality at that time, didn’t we?”

AM: In that case, banks had the privilege of holding only a fractional gold reserve, which is clearly not a true gold standard. That is, they still could create money out of thin air and give it to some people, while others did not receive this money but had to deal with prices that were higher than they otherwise would have been. So there was indeed a redistribution stemming from the inflationary production of fiduciary media also in the 19th century. And in that case also, the redistribution had a tendency of being in favor of the already well-off since the already-wealthy could provide better guarantees for the loans created out of thin air. Of course, the scale of the monetary redistribution of the 19th century was tiny in comparison with the creation of fiat money today.

That being said, the 19th century was a time of a great industrialization. Railroads and water delivery systems were being built, the steel industry was growing rapidly, and for many entrepreneurial people, it was the chance of a lifetime. Some were more clever and faster than others, so naturally, some people got richer than others in these exciting times of extraordinary growth. But where is the problem if it is the consequence of voluntary interactions? As I noted earlier, inequality is a natural phenomenon. What has to be criticized: if entrepreneurs get subsidies from government or they receive money created out of thin air, then that is a case where one group of people is being forced to benefit another group.

MI: When you looked at Piketty’s book what stood out to you as some of the biggest errors in it?

AM: Piketty’s biggest error is to conclude from the data collected that under capitalism the rich get richer in relation to everyone else. I’m afraid that such a claim is nonsense. Piketty takes his data from a period that is characterized by both capitalism and socialism, and then he attributes everything he dislikes to capitalism. Yet his data is not from a capitalist world. The economic system in which we live today is a crony capitalist system or, we might say, a system of money socialism. And that’s Piketty’s greatest error: to blame capitalism for the negative effects of crony capitalism and money socialism. But perhaps it is no error. Perhaps, he only wants to be loved by politicians and the IMF. I think they love him already, though.


二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

关键词:Austrian Austria Answer Thomas USTR available recently released getting income

培根说:“只知哲学的一些皮毛的人,思想会倒向无神论。但是,深入了解哲学,会把人带回宗教。”同样,只知经济学的一些皮毛的人,会相信类似“节俭悖论”之类的谬论,深入了解经济学,则会把人重新带回到普通常识。
沙发
graylens 发表于 2014-5-19 23:23:10 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽
签名被屏蔽

使用道具

藤椅
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-19 23:52:52 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
这有啥了不起,按照此人的逻辑来说,资本主义从来没有存在过,只要有大问题的社会,那就不是资本主义社会。按照这个逻辑,因为马克思著作里没有描述过社会主义国家,所以任何人都不能用斯大林主义的苏联或者任何社会主义国家的失败来批评马克思主义。

使用道具

板凳
remlus 发表于 2014-5-20 08:12:13 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-19 23:52
这有啥了不起,按照此人的逻辑来说,资本主义从来没有存在过,只要有大问题的社会,那就不是资本主义社会。 ...
一针见血。

使用道具

报纸
lwzxy 发表于 2014-5-20 09:28:30 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-19 23:52
这有啥了不起,按照此人的逻辑来说,资本主义从来没有存在过,只要有大问题的社会,那就不是资本主义社会。 ...
你说的对。所以,纵然是共产主义运动百年,全世界造成非正常死亡1亿人,仍有马克思主义的忠实信徒认为社会主义一定是可行的。因为,无论是纳粹德国、苏联,还是毛时代的中国,都不能算是马克思笔下的“社会主义”。

因此,若要批判一个自由市场经济理论(作者笔下的资本主义),或者是计划经济的社会主义理论,“实践检验”是毫无用处的。
培根说:“只知哲学的一些皮毛的人,思想会倒向无神论。但是,深入了解哲学,会把人带回宗教。”同样,只知经济学的一些皮毛的人,会相信类似“节俭悖论”之类的谬论,深入了解经济学,则会把人重新带回到普通常识。

使用道具

地板
lwzxy 发表于 2014-5-20 09:30:36 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
remlus 发表于 2014-5-20 08:12
一针见血。
他离“一针见血”还早呢。

若要“一针见血”,就针对作者观点提出有效的反驳。但是,不幸地,啥有营养的东西都没有。
培根说:“只知哲学的一些皮毛的人,思想会倒向无神论。但是,深入了解哲学,会把人带回宗教。”同样,只知经济学的一些皮毛的人,会相信类似“节俭悖论”之类的谬论,深入了解经济学,则会把人重新带回到普通常识。

使用道具

7
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-21 05:39:54 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
lwzxy 发表于 2014-5-20 09:30
他离“一针见血”还早呢。

若要“一针见血”,就针对作者观点提出有效的反驳。但是,不幸地,啥有营养 ...
请问,不能进行实践检验的观点怎么进行有效的反驳?这位奥派讲了一堆自己的理论,但是没有拿出任何实际例子来支撑,对待piketty的说法则采用声称对方研究的社会不是资本主义社会的方式。对于信仰本身是没有反驳的价值和意义的。

使用道具

8
lwzxy 发表于 2014-5-21 09:24:18 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-21 05:39
请问,不能进行实践检验的观点怎么进行有效的反驳?这位奥派讲了一堆自己的理论,但是没有拿出任何实际例 ...
勾股定理需要“实践检验”吗?

如果不懂奥派的方法论,就不要乱说话。按你的逻辑,数学也可称之为是“信仰”,因为它没有办法进行“实践检验”。

此外,你说作者“声称Piktetty研究的社会不是资本主义社会”,那么,Piketty用数据说话的所谓“资本主义社会”倒底是不是作者所说的“资本主义社会”呢?还是作者说的只是资本主义与社会主义的混合物(这是一个不精确的说法),抑或权贵资本主义呢?

无论如何,我想你不得不承认的一点是:历史上,即使是最近200多年,也从未实行过纯粹的自由市场经济(这不是说其不可行),正如没有实行过纯粹的计划经济一样。
培根说:“只知哲学的一些皮毛的人,思想会倒向无神论。但是,深入了解哲学,会把人带回宗教。”同样,只知经济学的一些皮毛的人,会相信类似“节俭悖论”之类的谬论,深入了解经济学,则会把人重新带回到普通常识。

使用道具

9
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-24 01:30:01 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
lwzxy 发表于 2014-5-21 09:24
勾股定理需要“实践检验”吗?

如果不懂奥派的方法论,就不要乱说话。按你的逻辑,数学也可称之为是“ ...
数学本来就不是科学,当然不需要实践检验。也没有啥实践检验能给欧几里得几何和非欧几何分个谁对谁错。
不过什么时候奥派也要把自己打扮成数学了?
纯粹的自由市场经济从来没有存在过,所以现在的问题不是自由市场经济的问题。这样我也可以说纯粹的计划经济也从来没有存在过,所以新中国前30年的问题都是没有更好的实行计划经济,所以为什么要搞市场经济内?建立纯粹的计划经济难道不好吗?

使用道具

10
lwzxy 发表于 2014-5-24 10:03:02 来自手机 |只看作者 |坛友微信交流群
海雨兴风 发表于 2014-5-24 01:30
数学本来就不是科学,当然不需要实践检验。也没有啥实践检验能给欧几里得几何和非欧几何分个谁对谁错。
...
孺子可教也。不过,重复我前面的观点,也算是对我的反驳?

只两点:

1,你说,数学不是科学。这自然取决于你对科学的定义。但是,在你说的科学这个定义上,你是凭什么认为经济学就一定是科学的?

2,勾股定理是怎样“检验”其正确的?靠的是“信仰”?

纯粹自由市场经济与纯粹计划经济可不可行也可由相同的方法“检验”。因为这同样也是一个纯粹经济理论上的问题,而不是实践经验问题。

因而,谁说“奥派要打扮成数学”了?用数学作类比,既不是说,奥派经济学是数学,也并非说其要用数学,而是说,其从认识论与方法论上,奥派经济学,更像是数学、逻辑学,而不是任意做出假设然后设计理论最后用经验验证的物理学。而后者恰恰是主流经济学在做的。

先把一个美女描绘成一只猴子,然后指责其丑陋,进而提出整容的建议。这便是被你等奉之为的“经济科学”。
培根说:“只知哲学的一些皮毛的人,思想会倒向无神论。但是,深入了解哲学,会把人带回宗教。”同样,只知经济学的一些皮毛的人,会相信类似“节俭悖论”之类的谬论,深入了解经济学,则会把人重新带回到普通常识。

使用道具

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 我要注册

本版微信群
加好友,备注ddjd
拉您入交流群

京ICP备16021002-2号 京B2-20170662号 京公网安备 11010802022788号 论坛法律顾问:王进律师 知识产权保护声明   免责及隐私声明

GMT+8, 2024-5-22 22:20