[讨论]从“按人发钱”到“财政发行”，逐步逼近问题的核心——谁是受损者？

以下是引用猫爪在2008-11-21 20:55:00的发言：

但两位网友的意思是，1、停止出口；2、由央行发放同样数量的人民币，以补偿出口的减少。 

这当然不对，并且十分谎唐

中国人比较喜欢说“诛心之言”，那么，到底“按人发钱”背后是什么呢？

如果真正追求公平，就应该支持对于农机化肥种子农村公共设施，城市低保医保太阳能之类的补贴。

而不是说什么一人一份，那叫追求公平？

在目前的经济形势下，我完全支持首先满足公平，真正的公平。

我提醒大家，社会很复杂，有些人打着“公平”的旗号，装出一副伪善的外貌，

其实是想把中央的“以民为本”的思想推向一个荒谬无比的结论，

从而使善良的人民对中央的某些决策产生怀疑和动摇。

这样的伎俩在任何时候都是有市场的，比如地震期间，写那首“肉麻诗”的文联主席，

我认为不是真想表达他的一片赤胆忠心，而是刻毒无比，否则他为何说：

“既然已经写出，一切任人评说。 ”

（类似的，还有发“猪坚强”之类的媒体。）

要看新的论文，你先说一下你把“工资与就业的关系”搞清楚了没有？是正相关、负相关、还是弱相关或无关？我的那篇论文你看了没有？文献够不够权威？是不是让你们一下子从一个三流的讲师提升到一流经济学家的高度。你再去问一下你周围的那些个博导，看他们有没有掌握这些最新的研究成果，给学生是怎样讲的——是不是在胡说八道。

学了这么多，要不要感谢一下。

发钱的论文你们现在还看不到，因为你们的接受能力太差了，怕把你们吓着。因为我说到“工资与就业的关系”时有的人就想吐。我在万科那么长时间，很多人都吐过，后来乖乖地把吐出来的东西全吃下去了。我可不想折腾你们。

以下是引用求心在2008-11-21 22:16:00的发言：

要看新的论文，你先说一下你把“工资与就业的关系”搞清楚了没有？是正相关、负相关、还是弱相关或无关？我的那篇论文你看了没有？文献够不够权威？是不是让你们一下子从一个三流的讲师提升到一流经济学家的高度。你再去问一下你周围的那些个博导，看他们有没有掌握这些最新的研究成果，给学生是怎样讲的——是不是在胡说八道。

学了这么多，要不要感谢一下。

发钱的论文你们现在还看不到，因为你们的接受能力太差了，怕把你们吓着。因为我说到“工资与就业的关系”时有的人就想吐。我在万科那么长时间，很多人都吐过，后来乖乖地把吐出来的东西全吃下去了。我可不想折腾你们。

又是这套小伎俩。

先不管别人说的是什么，上来就说“要看新的论文，你先说一下你把“工资与就业的关系”搞清楚了没有？”

我并不是在向你请教啊，请您有点自知之明好吧。

您连上面的我提出的问题都回答不了，您自己最基础的理论“是财政还是货币”都难以自圆其说。

还好意思说这些？

[em01][em01]

以下是引用猫爪在2008-11-21 20:13:00的发言：

思路到底是什么？

首先看看这句话：按人发钱是最稳健、最有效率、最公平的货币政策。

既然是“按人发钱”，又怎么会是“货币政策”呢？

也许两位网友可以用“我学的不是你们那套西方经济学”来解释，

但是为何这许多人向你们要求说明，

为何两位还是迟迟不愿说出自己的理论体系呢？

用曹院士的话说，只要上网一搜就有了，呵呵呵。

因此，我只能猜想，也许和国外的食品券教育券不同，两位网友希望发放的“现金”，

是需要央行印刷出来相当于出口货物的价值的人民币，直接提供给每个人的。

呵呵，一直没理这个贴子，闹是半天阁下是在找我麻烦啊。那好吧，在求心那个贴子上我是不好卖弄的观点的，这里就卖弄吧。

首先，我认为央行每年增加印制的货币应该无偿发行，这就是所谓的货币无偿发行原理。 http://www.xslx.com/htm/jjlc/csjr/2008-03-27-22615.htm 。文中说乘数货币是对公众财富的掠夺，这部分是错的，这里也予以纠正。

那么为什么货币（纸币）要无偿发行呢？这在于纸币与金属货币不同，金属货币是以其本身的价值（购置价）与其它商品交换，正好符合等价交换原则；纸币是以其面值与其它商品交换，由于其面值远远大于生产它的成本，这违反等价交换原则。所以央行得无偿发行其印制的纸币，否则就是掠夺公众的财富。注意：西经讲的货币发行与这里的货币发行不是一回事。商行的贷款行为是不能真正发行货币的，因为借款＝还款。西经显然忘记了还款。

其次，是货币注入口（发行渠道）问题，即央行是通过那个途径发行其货币。理论上看。实际经济体系中任何位子都可以是货币的注入口，发给你与发给我是等效的。但是由于发行的货币均匀分布到整个经济系统有个时间过程，自然注入口处收益最大。毫无疑问，我这个理论中不排除按人发钱方式。

再此，那些货币注入口是合理的问题。就目前来看，央行印制的货币好像只是发给政府，这自然是无偿的，不是有偿的。这样，发行渠道显得单调，问题多多。目前最大的问题是政府总是按照凯恩斯理论投资于生产领域，这离政府要解决的问题很远（比如提高国民收益），不直接，效率低下。这次我赞同多选择几个货币注入口，其中包含按人发钱。

最后，由于央行将货币发给政府后就与财政收入混为一体了，所以，这里除非政府收入是透明的，我们知道政府和央行的来往明晰帐目，否则我们不太好区分二者。

好了，你批判吧。很多人士用主经批判我的货币无偿发行原理，如果阁下也这样的话，希望你能将“还款表”拿出来，别用“只借不还”的主流教条来浪费我的时间。

按人发钱/基本收入的倡导者名单

Advocates

Many countries have political parties that advocate a basic income, such as the Green Party of Canada, Green Party of England and Wales, Vivant (Belgium), De Groenen (The Netherlands), the Scottish Green Party, and the New Zealand Democratic Party.

Worldwide, supporters of a basic income have united in the Basic Income Earth Network. BIEN recognizes numerous national advocacy groups.

The world's most noted advocate of a basic income system may be the Belgian economist Philippe van Parijs.^[7] Other advocates include Gunnar Adler-Karlsson (Sweden), Dieter Althaus (Germany)^[8], Saar Boerlage (Netherlands)^[9], Herwig Büchele (Austria), Andre Gorz (France)^[10], Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri^[11], Charles Murray (USA), Keith Rankin (New Zealand)^[12], Daniel Raventós (Spain)^[13], Osmo Soininvaara (Finland))^[14], Eduardo Suplicy (Brazil)^[15], Walter van Trier (Belgium)^[16] and Götz W. Werner (Germany).

In 1968, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and another 1,200 economists signed a document calling for the US Congress to introduce in that year a system of income guarantees and supplements. In the 1972 presidential campaign, Senator George McGovern called for a 'demogrant' that was very similar to a basic income. Mike Gravel, a former candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President of the United States and a candidate for the 2008 Libertarian nomination for the President of the United States, advocates for a tax rebate paid in a monthly check from the government to all citizens.^[17]

Winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics that fully support a basic income include Herbert Simon^[18], Friedrich Hayek, James Meade, Robert Solow, and Milton Friedman^[19].

In his final book Full employment regained? James Meade states that a return to full employment can only be achieved if, among other things, workers offer their services at a low enough price, that the required wage for unskilled labour would be too low to generate a socially desirable distribution of income, and that therefore a citizen's income would be necessary.^[20]

In his Robotic Nation essays, Marshall Brain argues that the growing amount of automation in the workplace will eventually displace a large percentage of workers, and that in order to be able to maintain the economy, an annual stipend will be needed.^[21] A similar argument was made by Jeremy Rifkin, in his book The End of Work.^[22]

 17 Gravel presidential campaign 2008: "How Mark stands on the issues".

18 ^ Herbert A. Simon, "UBI and the Flat Tax. A response to 'A Basic Income for All' by Philippe van Parijs", Boston Review, 2000

19^ Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom", University of Chicago Press, 1962

20^ James Edward Meade, "Full Employment Regained?", Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 052155697X

21^ [11] Marshall Brain, "Robotic Freedom", 2003

22^ Jeremy Rifkin, "The End of Work - The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era", Tarcher/Putnam, New York, 1995

以下是引用曹国奇在2008-11-21 22:31:00的发言：

呵呵，一直没理这个贴子，闹是半天阁下是在找我麻烦啊。那好吧，在求心那个贴子上我是不好卖弄的观点的，这里就卖弄吧。

首先，我认为央行每年增加印制的货币应该无偿发行，这就是所谓的货币无偿发行原理。 http://www.xslx.com/htm/jjlc/csjr/2008-03-27-22615.htm 。文中说乘数货币是对公众财富的掠夺，这部分是错的，这里也予以纠正。

那么为什么货币（纸币）要无偿发行呢？这在于纸币与金属货币不同，金属货币是以其本身的价值（购置价）与其它商品交换，正好符合等价交换原则；纸币是以其面值与其它商品交换，由于其面值远远大于生产它的成本，这违反等价交换原则。所以央行得无偿发行其印制的纸币，否则就是掠夺公众的财富。注意：西经讲的货币发行与这里的货币发行不是一回事。商行的贷款行为是不能真正发行货币的，因为借款＝还款。西经显然忘记了还款。

其次，是货币注入口（发行渠道）问题，即央行是通过那个途径发行其货币。理论上看。实际经济体系中任何位子都可以是货币的注入口，发给你与发给我是等效的。但是由于发行的货币均匀分布到整个经济系统有个时间过程，自然注入口处收益最大。毫无疑问，我这个理论中不排除按人发钱方式。

再此，那些货币注入口是合理的问题。就目前来看，央行印制的货币好像只是发给政府，这自然是无偿的，不是有偿的。这样，发行渠道显得单调，问题多多。目前最大的问题是政府总是按照凯恩斯理论投资于生产领域，这离政府要解决的问题很远（比如提高国民收益），不直接，效率低下。这次我赞同多选择几个货币注入口，其中包含按人发钱。

最后，由于央行将货币发给政府后就与财政收入混为一体了，所以，这里除非政府收入是透明的，我们知道政府和央行的来往明晰帐目，否则我们不太好区分二者。

好了，你批判吧。很多人士用主经批判我的货币无偿发行原理，如果阁下也这样的话，希望你能将“还款表”拿出来，别用“只借不还”的主流教条来浪费我的时间。

曹院士误会了，我没想和你为难。

实事求是的说，你的理论正确与否，还在其次，关键你还是说出你的思路了，说明您还是敢于面对问题的。

而这两位先生则是始终不肯说明自己的想法，究竟为何？

今天晚了，您的理论的问题，我们明天再提。

http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%E8%B4%A7%E5%B8%81%E5%8F%91%E8%A1%8C

国家授权发行货币的银行将货币从发行基金保管库调拔给银行业务库，并通过它向流通界投放货币的活动。
　　货币发行就其性质来说，可以分为经济发行和财政发行。经济发行是为了满足商品流通的需要而发行的货币。这种发行是符合货币流通规律要求的，因此，它既能满足国民经济需要，又能保持币值稳定。财政发行是为弥补财政赤字（见财政收支）而发行的货币。这种发行超过商品流通的实际需要，往往会导致通货膨胀。
　　在中国，货币发行权属于国家。国家根据国民经济发展的需要，核准年度人民币最高发行限额。中国人民银行根据国务院批准的发行限额，具体办理人民币的发行工作，并集中管理发行基金。
　 　中国人民银行设有发行基金保管库（简称发行库）保管发行基金。发行基金是尚未发行的人民币，它不是流通中的货币。各专业银行则设有业务库，是为办理日常 现金收付而建立的。它核定现金库存限额。现金超过库存限额的部分，应交存发行库。当业务库存现金不足以满足需要时，就得从中国人民银行的发行库调入现金。 将发行基金调入业务库，就是货币发行。
　　中国长期以来，要求货币发行不用于弥补财政赤字，不用于没有物资保证的信贷投放，而用于满足商品流通的需要。因此，中国货币发行一般来说是经济发行。但在个别年度，由于各种原因出现了财政赤字，需要发行货币弥补部分财政赤字，这种发行属于财政发行性质。

http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/%E8%B4%A2%E6%94%BF%E5%8F%91%E8%A1%8C

财政发行概述

　　财政发行是经济发行的对称。是国家为弥补财政赤字而增加的货币发行。

　　财政发行是国家为弥补财政赤字或财政透支而增加的纸币发行。国家通过财政发行能够取得财政收入。财政发行具有无偿性，人们叫它“发行税”或“隐蔽的税收”。其强制性表面不明显，实际上由于货币是国家规定流通和使用的，所以财政发行具有很强的强制性。

[编辑]

财政发行的作用

　　一国的财政预算，主要靠政府收入来保持政府支出，并保持财政收支的基本平衡。当政府支出增长过快，而收入增长有限时,就会发生财政赤字。出现赤字以后,可能采用多种筹资措施，如增加税种、提高税率以扩大税收来源,向社会发行财政债券,向银行借款（或透支）或要求中央银行购买财政债券。财政扩大税收或向企业与个人出售财政债券不会引起中央银行货币供应量的扩张，因而也不会出现直接的财政发行;而向中央银行借款要求中央银行购买财政债券，则会直接影响中央银行的货币供应量，是一种因财政赤字引起的货币创造，有可能导致通货膨胀。

　　财政发行不直接等同于通货膨胀。用货币创造来弥补财政赤字，还有赤字性质、赤字变化趋势以及赤字额度大小与时期长短的区别在政府非生产 性支出膨胀战争与社会波动而造成财政赤字，或财政赤字延续时间很长的情况下，国家只能靠增发货币来弥补预算赤字，这样，必然会使货币供应量不断增长，引起 物价水平上升，从而导致通货膨胀。如果是由于政府对生产建设的早期投资过大而出现赤字，但在一定生产和投资周期中有可靠的收入增长，且赤字的数量不大或持 续时间很短，那么，即使用增发货币来弥补财政赤字，一般在货币滞后效应的6～24个月以内,也不一定导致通货膨胀；因出现暂时性的财政赤字而增发的货币只会引起物价水平的一次性上升，而不会助长通货膨胀。

　　中国在1958～1960年60年代末到70年代中期1985年后的几年中都出现过数额不等的财政发行，其方式主要是财政部向中国人民银行的借款和存款帐户透支。在经济体制改革中，财政部对企业发行国库券和其他债券来平衡预算,在理论上不影响中央银行的货币供应量但由于中国的资金市场不发达，企业管理中漏洞多，银行几乎承担全社会的流动资金供应，因而一部分财政赤字和企业虚盈实亏与挤占挪用，间接而迂回地转化为财政发行，加大了货币供给的压力，成为通货膨胀的一个重要因素。

[编辑]

财政发行与税收的区别

　　财政发行与税收的最大区别，在于税收是以社会总产品为基础，是国民收入的一部分，有物资保证，一般不会引起物价上涨和经济紊乱。而财政发行，则没有相应的社会产品作基础。在商品数量和货币流通速度不变的情况下，物价高低同货币多少成正比例，滥发纸币造成虚假的购买力，这样就会导致货币贬值，物价上涨，社会经济紊乱。马克思曾经指出：“这种使本国货币贬值的措施，也许是在征税方面的登峰造极的发明，因为这种做法就是税上加税。”财政发行在资本主义国家是经常现象，政府把它作为弥补财政收支差额的良方。我国早在宋、元时代，就采用这种办法。新中国成立后，国家严格控制货币发行。

　　由此可见，财政发行虽具有无偿性、强制性，取得财政收入收款快，办法简单，但容易引起通货膨胀，破坏社会经济秩序，危害人民生活。因此，财政发行不宜作为国家取得财政收入的形式。

你当我不懂英语啊. 老大, 保证最低收入和你的 货币增发能画上等号吗?

还有你的REFFERENCE 根本就有问题.   这就是一个明显的问题所在. 

Winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics that fully support a basic income include Herbert Simon[18], Friedrich Hayek, James Meade, Robert Solow, and Milton Friedman[19].

18 ^ Herbert A. Simon, "UBI and the Flat Tax. A response to 'A Basic Income for All' by Philippe van Parijs", Boston Review, 2000

19^ Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom", University of Chicago Press, 1962

之后我自己又把 UBI and the Flat Tax. A response to 'A Basic Income for All' 这文章看了.  根本就和你这种通货货币增发之后再发钱的搞笑理论完全碰不上边.

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html  原本在这里. 各位自己看.

UBI and the Flat Tax

A response to "A Basic Income for All"by Philippe van Parijs.

Herbert A. Simon

I am in strong general agreement with Philippe Van Parijs’s argument for a UBI or "patrimony"–a portion of the product of a society that should be shared by all of those who inhabit that society. To establish such a patrimony is equivalent to recognizing shared ownership of a significant fraction of the resources, physical and intellectual, that enable the society to produce what it produces. As the essay makes a very strong case for the UBI and its feasibility, I will limit my comments to just two issues: (1) why a UBI (or patrimony) would be just; and (2) some problems of incentives that such a system poses and that need to be handled effectively.

Justice
When we compare average incomes in rich nations with those in Third World countries, we find enormous differences that are surely not due simply to differences in motivations to earn. Laziness is not a principal cause of poverty. A more plausible explanation for the differences, in fact the explanation that is universally put forward, is that much greater resources per capita are available to some countries than to others. These differences are not simply a matter of acres of land or tons of coal or iron ore, but, more important, differences in social capital that takes primarily the form of stored knowledge (e.g., technology, and especially organizational and governmental skills).

Exactly the same claim can be made about the differences in incomes within any given society. In large part, these differences must be attributed to differences in capital ownership, of which the largest part is social capital: knowledge, and participation in kinship and other privileged social relations. In addressing the question of justice, therefore, we are assessing the justice of inheritance of such resources along bloodlines. This is a question of value, not of fact. I personally do not see any moral basis for an inalienable right to inherit resources, or to retain all the resources that one has acquired by means of economic or other activities.

The usual argument for such a right is based on the assumption of perfectly competitive markets where factors of production are paid their marginal values and where there are no externalities. But this assumption does not hold to any reasonable degree of approximation in real societies. Access to the social capital–a major source of differences in income, between and within societies–is in large part the product of externalities: membership in a particular society, and interaction with other members of that society under practices that commonly give preferred access to particular members.

How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned.

Incentives
Economists are always quick to point out that people must be properly motivated to be productive. If average returns to effort were uniformly reduced by a factor of three, it is not clear why motivation to earn more would be reduced. The behavior of two-income families in the United States suggests that the desire for income is related much more to processes of social comparison than to the real wage rate after taxes or the relative desire for goods and leisure. Similar questions may be raised about savings and capital accumulation, but in discussing them, private savings should not be dissociated from social saving (either by government or by the processes of social exchange themselves), which commonly produces externalities that are not evaluated by the market and appear nowhere in the social accounts. In any event, the questions about incentives to work and save are empirical questions that should be settled by experimentation and observation and not by philosophical debate.

I have focused on a UBI within a single nation. Let me leave aside questions of justice in reallocation of income among nations, and simply observe, as has been observed by many developmental economists, that reallocation can be accomplished at a relatively low cost by the export of knowledge rather than tangible resources. It is true that per capita income in wealthy nations might decline with increasing competition from those thereby endowed, but again, these effects of export of know-how need to be evaluated empirically and not simply posited by fiat. Meanwhile, the spread of multi-national corporations, with their power to allocate capital throughout the globe, may settle the question, for better or worse, before our empirical inquiries are complete. The historical record suggests that attempts to keep technological advantages within national boundaries are not usually successful for long.

No discussion of income redistribution should conclude without considering its impact on resource conservation and population. Sustainability must be a central concern in all questions of national and global social policy. Increase in income has, in recent centuries, been the most potent means that has been found for stabilizing populations, but at the cost, alas, of increased energy production, which aggravates the problems of maintaining the quality of life on our Earth. (Bringing the Third World up to Western energy levels would multiply the carbon dioxide problem by a factor of at least ten!) We must focus on converting income and savings to forms that are more benign in this respect.

Herbert A. Simon is University Professor of Psychology and Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. In 1978, he received the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.

所以说你这样的人无耻就是无耻.

而另外一篇文章, 就是这个讨论文章当中,连接就是在这里  http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

UBI Defined
By universal basic income I mean an income paid by a government, at a uniform level and at regular intervals, to each adult member of society. The grant is paid, and its level is fixed, irrespective of whether the person is rich or poor, lives alone or with others, is willing to work or not. In most versions–certainly in mine–it is granted not only to citizens, but to all permanent residents.

The UBI is called "basic" because it is something on which a person can safely count, a material foundation on which a life can firmly rest. Any other income–whether in cash or in kind, from work or savings, from the market or the state–can lawfully be added to it. On the other hand, nothing in the definition of UBI, as it is here understood, connects it to some notion of "basic needs." A UBI, as defined, can fall short of or exceed what is regarded as necessary to a decent existence.

但是这里面根本就没有说这是货币增发. 

而另外一种形式. 则就是  NIT

NIT
Though the details vary, the basic idea of a negative income tax is to grant each citizen a basic income, but in the form of a refundable tax credit. From the personal tax liability of each household, one subtracts the sum of the basic incomes of its members. If the difference is positive, a tax needs to be paid. If it is negative, a benefit (or negative tax) is paid by the government to the household. In principle, one can achieve exactly the same distribution of post-tax-and-transfer income among households with a UBI or with an NIT. Indeed, the NIT might be cheaper to run, since it avoids the to-and-fro that results from paying a basic income to those with a substantial income and then taxing it back.

假如说基本收入保障,或者说生活保障. 论坛上没有人会反对, 我反对的也只是过度的福利开支.

你真正恶心的就是,把完全不同的东西都混到一起去。