楼主: 贺俊翔
4448 19

中国面临的人民币升值压力又上升了 [推广有奖]

  • 7关注
  • 5粉丝

已卖:505份资源

学科带头人

93%

还不是VIP/贵宾

-

TA的文库  其他...

Kindle电子书

威望
5
论坛币
49827 个
通用积分
18.6609
学术水平
50 点
热心指数
99 点
信用等级
38 点
经验
46262 点
帖子
1130
精华
0
在线时间
1634 小时
注册时间
2007-12-30
最后登录
2025-10-30

楼主
贺俊翔 发表于 2009-10-31 10:24:29 |AI写论文

+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

回中国可能要面临更大的人民币升值压力了。

至于中国会一下子解除人民币与美元的挂钩关系,还是允许仅仅有限的重新估值则是另外一码事。

但鉴于全球经济复苏力度不及市场预期,而且国际投资资金在通货膨胀问题初露端倪之际开始重新涌入中国,中国官员在人民币政策方面采取行动的压力正在增大。

自全球经济陷入衰退以来,中国让人民币升值的意愿下降,这一政策立场使得中国经济维持了相对强劲的水平,并在一定程度上帮助全球经济摆脱衰退。

但是,最近几周外界对人民币汇率的态度有了一种微妙的变化。

尽管一些经济体出现了复苏,甚至有的已经开始退出应对信贷危机的紧急策略,但包括美国、欧元区和日本在内的许多其他主要经济体的前景都不及预期。

因此,本周来自欧洲、加拿大和日本的官员再次提出人民币估值偏低的问题,呼吁中国允许人民币升值。

外界肯定预计他们将会于下周末在苏格兰召开的二十国集团(Group of 20, 简称G20)财长部长会议上传递这一信息。

当然,中国政府已经暗示,其将继续抵制任何压力。

但人民币升值问题面临的不仅仅是海外压力的增大。

纽约银行(Bank of New York Mellon)称,国际投资者已经大规模返回中国股市。


这不但会加剧中国流动性过剩,而且可能会导致中国经济面临更大的通货膨胀压力。目前,中国的消费者价格指数(CPI)可能仍在下滑,但其下降步伐正在放缓。

纽约银行称,中国央行若要有效行使其职责,其最不愿面对的问题就是国际资本大规模涌入中国。

上周诺奖得主 克鲁格曼在《纽约时报》的专栏上发文——《中国格格不入(The Chinese Disconnect) 》,文中指出中国的不良行为正对世界其他地方的经济形成越

来越严重的挑战。现在唯一的问题是,全世界、尤其是美国会如何应对。

原文地址——http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2

克鲁格曼的言论一出 立即激起国内经济学家的回击(张五常前辈就此事的文章下周二发布,他认为克鲁格曼的言论非学者所为)

无论这位诺奖得主看法对错,有一点是再清楚不过了,那就是人民币升值问题再次成为关注焦点,中国面临 的人民币升值压力又上升了。
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:人民币升值 人民币升 人民币 Disconnect 人民币升值问题 人民币 克鲁格曼

沙发
贺俊翔 发表于 2009-10-31 10:28:57

考虑到校园网无法登陆纽约时报,贴出克鲁格曼评论的全文

1# 贺俊翔


The Chinese Disconnect
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 22, 2009
Senior monetary officials usually talk in code. So when Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, spoke recently about Asia, international imbalances and the financial crisis, he didn’t specifically criticize China’s outrageous currency policy. (这个形容太过了吧)

But he didn’t have to: everyone got the subtext. China’s bad behavior is posing a growing threat to the rest of the world economy. The only question now is what the world — and, in particular, the United States — will do about it.

Some background: The value of China’s currency, unlike, say, the value of the British pound, isn’t determined by supply and demand. Instead, Chinese authorities enforced that target by buying or selling their currency in the foreign exchange market — a policy made possible by restrictions on the ability of private investors to move their money either into or out of the country.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with such a policy, especially in a still poor country whose financial system might all too easily be destabilized by volatile flows of hot money. In fact, the system served China well during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. The crucial question, however, is whether the target value of the yuan is reasonable.

Until around 2001, you could argue that it was: China’s overall trade position wasn’t too far out of balance. From then onward, however, the policy of keeping the yuan-dollar rate fixed came to look increasingly bizarre. First of all, the dollar slid in value, especially against the euro, so that by keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, Chinese officials were, in effect, devaluing their currency against everyone else’s. Meanwhile, productivity in China’s export industries soared; combined with the de facto devaluation, this made Chinese goods extremely cheap on world markets.

The result was a huge Chinese trade surplus. If supply and demand had been allowed to prevail, the value of China’s currency would have risen sharply. But Chinese authorities didn’t let it rise. They kept it down by selling vast quantities of the currency, acquiring in return an enormous hoard of foreign assets, mostly in dollars, currently worth about $2.1 trillion.

Many economists, myself included, believe that China’s asset-buying spree helped inflate the housing bubble, setting the stage for the global financial crisis. But China’s insistence on keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, even when the dollar declines, may be doing even more harm now.

Although there has been a lot of doomsaying about the falling dollar, that decline is actually both natural and desirable. America needs a weaker dollar to help reduce its trade deficit, and it’s getting that weaker dollar as nervous investors, who flocked into the presumed safety of U.S. debt at the peak of the crisis, have started putting their money to work elsewhere.

But China has been keeping its currency pegged to the dollar — which means that a country with a huge trade surplus and a rapidly recovering economy, a country whose currency should be rising in value, is in effect engineering a large devaluation instead.

And that’s a particularly bad thing to do at a time when the world economy remains deeply depressed due to inadequate overall demand. By pursuing a weak-currency policy, China is siphoning some of that inadequate demand away from other nations, which is hurting growth almost everywhere. The biggest victims, by the way, are probably workers in other poor countries. In normal times, I’d be among the first to reject claims that China is stealing other peoples’ jobs, but right now it’s the simple truth.

So what are we going to do?

U.S. officials have been extremely cautious about confronting the China problem, to such an extent that last week the Treasury Department, while expressing “concerns,” certified in a required report to Congress that China is not — repeat not — manipulating its currency. They’re kidding, right?

The thing is, right now this caution makes little sense. Suppose the Chinese were to do what Wall Street and Washington seem to fear and start selling some of their dollar hoard. Under current conditions, this would actually help the U.S. economy by making our exports more competitive.

In fact, some countries, most notably Switzerland, have been trying to support their economies by selling their own currencies on the foreign exchange market. The United States, mainly for diplomatic reasons, can’t do this; but if the Chinese decide to do it on our behalf, we should send them a thank-you note.

The point is that with the world economy still in a precarious state, beggar-thy-neighbor policies by major players can’t be tolerated. Something must be done about China’s currency.

藤椅
liuchongshen 发表于 2009-10-31 10:41:29
我认为中国的国有私有经济都很脆弱因此希望能够中国能够坚持几个月,能拖就托,能推就推,真的不行,就在放个一两个基点,再拖在拉。

板凳
嵘嵘 发表于 2009-10-31 11:16:27
怎么觉得此文自相矛盾啊。 They kept it down by selling vast quantities of the currency, acquiring in return an enormous hoard of foreign assets, mostly in dollars, currently worth about $2.1 trillion.
这个是说用出售人民币增加美元储备不好。
In fact, some countries, most notably Switzerland, have been trying to support their economies by selling their own currencies on the foreign exchange market. The United States, mainly for diplomatic reasons, can’t do this; but if the Chinese decide to do it on our behalf, we should send them a thank-you note.
这个又是出售人民币对老美大大的好
难道他的意思是你必须出售人民币,但对象不能是咱美元,更不能增加美元储备以后待机抛售?

报纸
贺俊翔 发表于 2009-10-31 20:24:51
They kept it down by selling vast quantities of the currency, acquiring in return an enormous hoard of foreign assets, mostly in dollars, currently worth about $2.1 trillion.
这句 不是说出售美元。克鲁格曼的意图在于引出下面这句China’s asset-buying spree helped inflate the housing bubble, setting the stage for the global financial crisis.
这次经济危机原来是中国的错!?
有个问题必须澄清,世界经济的不平衡并不是此次危机的直接原因,但是助长了资产泡沫。

地板
gxm0426 发表于 2009-10-31 21:07:42
人民币的升值,资产价格泡沫,最终要破裂的,中国经济肯定要交学费的,看看日本的例子,千万别重蹈覆辙

7
贺俊翔 发表于 2009-11-1 09:58:30
对发展中国家来说 金融领域的改革是最重要的 98年东南亚金融危机就是例子
中国的改革 虽然已经30年了但是 未来任重道远 (进入了改革深水区)
(欧美国家尚不承认中国的市场经济地位)
人民币汇率改革 不能一步到位  关于日本90年代的经济问题 个人认为并不是日元升值直接造成的

8
yuanbing1351704 发表于 2009-11-2 19:16:39
中国人民币本来就被估值过低了,要不是我国政府一直控制着,人民币本来就升了啊,每年我国外贸顺差那么大,这么多的外汇涌入,人民币怎么不升值啊?????

9
贺俊翔 发表于 2009-11-2 19:59:38
人民币升值虽然可以降低海外投资者的人民币升值预期,使一部分专门赌人民币升值的热钱不再流入,但也会使海外投资者在华赚取的人民币收益折换成更多美元,推高其以美元计算的海外收益,这反而会鼓励更多热钱流入中国。
因此时机和节奏 都是决策者需要面对的

10
libyliu 发表于 2009-11-2 21:54:46
看看上世纪60年代以后美国人每次面临美元危机都干了什么就什么都清楚了。克鲁格曼这些人成天鼓吹中国人民币升值,叫个不停,理都不用理。美国佬自己就一直在操纵汇率,就好像它自己一边鼓吹世界和平,一边在到处制造矛盾和冲突一样。
对这些经济学,我们还是要警惕他的利益立场,少请他到中国来。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 我要注册

本版微信群
jg-xs1
拉您进交流群
GMT+8, 2026-1-2 05:29