
許多美國(guó)人對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)感到不滿的一大主要原因是:物價(jià)太高了,。
也許物價(jià)上漲的速度沒(méi)有過(guò)去那么快了,,但平均價(jià)格仍高于三年前的水平,令人痛苦,,而且物價(jià)大多還在繼續(xù)上漲,。
以2升的瓶裝汽水為例:2021年2月,在通貨膨脹開始升溫之前,,全美超市的平均價(jià)格為1.67美元,。三年后呢,?這瓶汽水的售價(jià)為2.25美元,,漲幅高達(dá)35%,。
雞蛋價(jià)格也是如此,。雞蛋價(jià)格在2022年飆升,隨后回落,,但仍比三年前高出43%,。
同樣,二手車的平均價(jià)格也是如此:從2021年2月的約2.3萬(wàn)美元飆升至2022年4月的3.1萬(wàn)美元,。到上個(gè)月,,平均價(jià)格降至26752美元,,但仍比2021年2月高出16%。
如果物價(jià)確實(shí)下跌,,也就是經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家所說(shuō)的通貨緊縮,,那豈不美哉?誰(shuí)不想啟動(dòng)時(shí)光機(jī),,回到經(jīng)濟(jì)擺脫疫情時(shí)期的衰退,、物價(jià)飆升之前的日子呢,?
至少現(xiàn)在物價(jià)上漲得更慢了,,這就是所謂的反通貨膨脹。例如,,美國(guó)政府公布的一項(xiàng)關(guān)鍵物價(jià)指標(biāo)顯示,,2月份物價(jià)上漲0.3%,,低于1月份0.4%的漲幅,。與去年同期相比,,物價(jià)上漲了2.5%,遠(yuǎn)低于2022年年中7.1%的峰值,。
但這些漸進(jìn)式的改善還不足以讓公眾滿意,他們對(duì)物價(jià)的不滿給總統(tǒng)喬·拜登的連任競(jìng)選帶來(lái)了風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。
美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)理事會(huì)成員麗莎·庫(kù)克去年表示:“大多數(shù)美國(guó)人并不只是在尋求實(shí)現(xiàn)反通貨膨脹,,而是通貨緊縮。他們希望物價(jià)回到疫情前的水平,?!?/p>
然而,,許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家警告說(shuō),消費(fèi)者應(yīng)該當(dāng)心自己的愿望成真,。整體經(jīng)濟(jì)的物價(jià)下跌實(shí)際上是亞健康信號(hào),。
英國(guó)央行警告稱:“物價(jià)下跌帶來(lái)的后果遠(yuǎn)比我們看到的要嚴(yán)重?!?/p>
物價(jià)下跌有什么弊端呢,?
什么是通貨緊縮?
通貨緊縮是指總體物價(jià)普遍和持續(xù)下降,。偶爾出現(xiàn)的消費(fèi)者價(jià)格逐月下降不算在內(nèi),。自20世紀(jì)30年代的大蕭條以來(lái),美國(guó)從未出現(xiàn)過(guò)真正的通貨緊縮,。
日本最近經(jīng)歷了一輪通貨緊縮,。從20世紀(jì)90年代初房地產(chǎn)和金融市場(chǎng)的崩潰開始,日本經(jīng)歷了數(shù)十年的物價(jià)下跌,,現(xiàn)在才擺脫困境,。
通貨緊縮有什么問(wèn)題?
西班牙央行(Banco de Espa?a)在其網(wǎng)站上表示:“盡管物價(jià)下跌似乎是件好事,但通貨緊縮實(shí)際上可能對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害,?!?/p>
為什么這么說(shuō)呢?主要是因?yàn)槲飪r(jià)下跌往往會(huì)抑制消費(fèi)者消費(fèi),。畢竟,,如果你能以更低的價(jià)格買到想要的東西——汽車、家具,、電器以及去度假,,為什么現(xiàn)在購(gòu)買呢?
現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是,,經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康有賴于穩(wěn)定的消費(fèi)。在美國(guó),,家庭支出約占總體經(jīng)濟(jì)的70%,。如果消費(fèi)者為了等待更低的價(jià)格而集體減少消費(fèi),企業(yè)將面臨更大的降價(jià)壓力,,以刺激銷售,。
與此同時(shí),雇主可能被迫裁員或減薪,,或者兩者兼而有之,。當(dāng)然,失業(yè)者更不可能消費(fèi),,所以物價(jià)很可能繼續(xù)下跌,。所有這些都有引發(fā)“螺旋式通貨緊縮”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),,即降價(jià)、裁員,、進(jìn)一步降價(jià),、進(jìn)一步裁員,如此循環(huán)往復(fù),,而且隨之而來(lái)的可能是另一場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退,。
正是為了防止這種經(jīng)濟(jì)惡性循環(huán),日本央行才會(huì)在2016年實(shí)施負(fù)利率,,美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)才會(huì)在2007—2009年大衰退期間和之后連續(xù)七年將美國(guó)利率維持在近零水平,。
通貨緊縮還會(huì)產(chǎn)生另一種痛苦的影響:通貨緊縮使借款人的經(jīng)通脹調(diào)整后的貸款成本更高,從而損害了借款人的利益,。
通貨緊縮有什么益處嗎?
誠(chéng)然,,當(dāng)物價(jià)下跌時(shí),美國(guó)人可以讓自己的薪水更耐花,。如果食品或汽油價(jià)格暴跌,,美國(guó)家庭肯定會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn),只要他們?nèi)匀挥泄ぷ?,?gòu)買食品或支付通勤費(fèi)用的痛苦就會(huì)減輕,。
一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家甚至質(zhì)疑通貨緊縮會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重威脅的觀點(diǎn)。2015年,,國(guó)際清算銀行(Bank for International Settlements,,全球央行論壇)的研究人員回顧了38個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體140年來(lái)的通貨緊縮事件,得出了這樣的結(jié)論:物價(jià)下跌與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)之間的相關(guān)性“很弱,,主要源于大蕭條”,。
但唯一的例外也較為獨(dú)特:從1929年到1933年,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)出驟降了三分之一,,物價(jià)下跌了四分之一,,失業(yè)率從3%飆升至令人崩潰的25%。
該銀行的研究人員表示,,最大的經(jīng)濟(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并非來(lái)自商品和服務(wù)價(jià)格的下跌,,而是來(lái)自股票、債券和房地產(chǎn)等資產(chǎn)價(jià)格的自由落體,。反過(guò)來(lái),,這些崩潰的資產(chǎn)又會(huì)拖垮那些持有搖搖欲墜的投資或向陷入困境的房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商和購(gòu)房者提供貸款的銀行。
利益受損的銀行可能會(huì)切斷信貸,,而這是整體經(jīng)濟(jì)的命脈,。
可能帶來(lái)的結(jié)果是什么呢?令人痛苦的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
美聯(lián)社駐底特律汽車記者湯姆·克里舍(Tom Krisher)對(duì)此報(bào)道有貢獻(xiàn),。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
許多美國(guó)人對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)感到不滿的一大主要原因是:物價(jià)太高了,。
也許物價(jià)上漲的速度沒(méi)有過(guò)去那么快了,但平均價(jià)格仍高于三年前的水平,,令人痛苦,,而且物價(jià)大多還在繼續(xù)上漲。
以2升的瓶裝汽水為例:2021年2月,,在通貨膨脹開始升溫之前,,全美超市的平均價(jià)格為1.67美元。三年后呢,?這瓶汽水的售價(jià)為2.25美元,,漲幅高達(dá)35%。
雞蛋價(jià)格也是如此,。雞蛋價(jià)格在2022年飆升,,隨后回落,但仍比三年前高出43%,。
同樣,,二手車的平均價(jià)格也是如此:從2021年2月的約2.3萬(wàn)美元飆升至2022年4月的3.1萬(wàn)美元。到上個(gè)月,,平均價(jià)格降至26752美元,,但仍比2021年2月高出16%。
如果物價(jià)確實(shí)下跌,,也就是經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家所說(shuō)的通貨緊縮,,那豈不美哉?誰(shuí)不想啟動(dòng)時(shí)光機(jī),,回到經(jīng)濟(jì)擺脫疫情時(shí)期的衰退,、物價(jià)飆升之前的日子呢?
至少現(xiàn)在物價(jià)上漲得更慢了,,這就是所謂的反通貨膨脹,。例如,美國(guó)政府公布的一項(xiàng)關(guān)鍵物價(jià)指標(biāo)顯示,,2月份物價(jià)上漲0.3%,,低于1月份0.4%的漲幅。與去年同期相比,,物價(jià)上漲了2.5%,遠(yuǎn)低于2022年年中7.1%的峰值,。
但這些漸進(jìn)式的改善還不足以讓公眾滿意,,他們對(duì)物價(jià)的不滿給總統(tǒng)喬·拜登的連任競(jìng)選帶來(lái)了風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)理事會(huì)成員麗莎·庫(kù)克去年表示:“大多數(shù)美國(guó)人并不只是在尋求實(shí)現(xiàn)反通貨膨脹,,而是通貨緊縮,。他們希望物價(jià)回到疫情前的水平,。”
然而,,許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家警告說(shuō),,消費(fèi)者應(yīng)該當(dāng)心自己的愿望成真。整體經(jīng)濟(jì)的物價(jià)下跌實(shí)際上是亞健康信號(hào),。
英國(guó)央行警告稱:“物價(jià)下跌帶來(lái)的后果遠(yuǎn)比我們看到的要嚴(yán)重,。”
物價(jià)下跌有什么弊端呢,?
什么是通貨緊縮,?
通貨緊縮是指總體物價(jià)普遍和持續(xù)下降。偶爾出現(xiàn)的消費(fèi)者價(jià)格逐月下降不算在內(nèi),。自20世紀(jì)30年代的大蕭條以來(lái),,美國(guó)從未出現(xiàn)過(guò)真正的通貨緊縮。
日本最近經(jīng)歷了一輪通貨緊縮,。從20世紀(jì)90年代初房地產(chǎn)和金融市場(chǎng)的崩潰開始,,日本經(jīng)歷了數(shù)十年的物價(jià)下跌,現(xiàn)在才擺脫困境,。
通貨緊縮有什么問(wèn)題?
西班牙央行(Banco de Espa?a)在其網(wǎng)站上表示:“盡管物價(jià)下跌似乎是件好事,,但通貨緊縮實(shí)際上可能對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害?!?/p>
為什么這么說(shuō)呢,?主要是因?yàn)槲飪r(jià)下跌往往會(huì)抑制消費(fèi)者消費(fèi)。畢竟,,如果你能以更低的價(jià)格買到想要的東西——汽車,、家具、電器以及去度假,,為什么現(xiàn)在購(gòu)買呢,?
現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是,經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康有賴于穩(wěn)定的消費(fèi),。在美國(guó),,家庭支出約占總體經(jīng)濟(jì)的70%。如果消費(fèi)者為了等待更低的價(jià)格而集體減少消費(fèi),,企業(yè)將面臨更大的降價(jià)壓力,,以刺激銷售。
與此同時(shí),,雇主可能被迫裁員或減薪,,或者兩者兼而有之。當(dāng)然,失業(yè)者更不可能消費(fèi),,所以物價(jià)很可能繼續(xù)下跌,。所有這些都有引發(fā)“螺旋式通貨緊縮”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),即降價(jià),、裁員,、進(jìn)一步降價(jià)、進(jìn)一步裁員,,如此循環(huán)往復(fù),,而且隨之而來(lái)的可能是另一場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退。
正是為了防止這種經(jīng)濟(jì)惡性循環(huán),,日本央行才會(huì)在2016年實(shí)施負(fù)利率,,美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)才會(huì)在2007—2009年大衰退期間和之后連續(xù)七年將美國(guó)利率維持在近零水平。
通貨緊縮還會(huì)產(chǎn)生另一種痛苦的影響:通貨緊縮使借款人的經(jīng)通脹調(diào)整后的貸款成本更高,,從而損害了借款人的利益,。
通貨緊縮有什么益處嗎?
誠(chéng)然,當(dāng)物價(jià)下跌時(shí),,美國(guó)人可以讓自己的薪水更耐花,。如果食品或汽油價(jià)格暴跌,美國(guó)家庭肯定會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn),,只要他們?nèi)匀挥泄ぷ?,?gòu)買食品或支付通勤費(fèi)用的痛苦就會(huì)減輕。
一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家甚至質(zhì)疑通貨緊縮會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重威脅的觀點(diǎn),。2015年,,國(guó)際清算銀行(Bank for International Settlements,全球央行論壇)的研究人員回顧了38個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體140年來(lái)的通貨緊縮事件,,得出了這樣的結(jié)論:物價(jià)下跌與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)之間的相關(guān)性“很弱,,主要源于大蕭條”。
但唯一的例外也較為獨(dú)特:從1929年到1933年,,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)出驟降了三分之一,,物價(jià)下跌了四分之一,失業(yè)率從3%飆升至令人崩潰的25%,。
該銀行的研究人員表示,,最大的經(jīng)濟(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并非來(lái)自商品和服務(wù)價(jià)格的下跌,而是來(lái)自股票,、債券和房地產(chǎn)等資產(chǎn)價(jià)格的自由落體,。反過(guò)來(lái),這些崩潰的資產(chǎn)又會(huì)拖垮那些持有搖搖欲墜的投資或向陷入困境的房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商和購(gòu)房者提供貸款的銀行,。
利益受損的銀行可能會(huì)切斷信貸,,而這是整體經(jīng)濟(jì)的命脈,。
可能帶來(lái)的結(jié)果是什么呢?令人痛苦的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
美聯(lián)社駐底特律汽車記者湯姆·克里舍(Tom Krisher)對(duì)此報(bào)道有貢獻(xiàn)。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Many Americans are in a sour mood about the economy for one main reason: Prices feel too high.
Maybe they’re not rising as fast as they had been, but average prices are still painfully above where they were three years ago. And they’re mostly heading higher still.
Consider a 2-liter bottle of soda: In February 2021, before inflation began heating up, it cost an average of $1.67 in supermarkets across America. Three years later? That bottle is going for $2.25 — a 35% increase.
Or egg prices. They soared in 2022, then fell back down. Yet they’re still 43% higher than they were three years ago.
Likewise, the average used-car price: It rocketed from roughly $23,000 in February 2021 to $31,000 in April 2022. By last month, the average was down to $26,752. But that’s still up 16% from February 2021.
Wouldn’t it be great if prices actually fell — what economists call deflation? Who wouldn’t want to fire up a time machine and return to the days before the economy rocketed out of the pandemic recession and sent prices soaring?
At least prices are now rising more slowly — what’s called disinflation. On Friday, for example, the government said a key price gauge rose 0.3% in February, down from a 0.4% gain in January. And compared with a year earlier, prices were up 2.5%, way down from a peak of 7.1% in mid-2022.
But those incremental improvements are hardly enough to please the public, whose discontent over prices poses a risk to President Joe Biden’s re-election bid.
“Most Americans are not just looking for disinflation,’’ Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, said last year. “They’re looking for deflation. They want these prices to be back where they were before the pandemic.’’
Many economists caution, though, that consumers should be careful what they wish for. Falling prices across the economy would actually be an unhealthy sign.
“There are,’’ the Bank of England warns, “more consequences from falling prices than meets the eye.’’
What could be so bad about lower prices?
WHAT IS DEFLATION?
Deflation is a widespread and sustained drop in prices across the economy. Occasional month-to-month drops in consumer prices don’t count. The United States hasn’t seen genuine deflation since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Japan has experienced a much more recent bout of deflation. It is only now emerging from decades of falling prices that began with the collapse of its property and financial markets in the early 1990s.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH DEFLATION?
“Although lower prices may seem like a good thing,’’ Banco de Espa?a, the Spanish central bank, says on its website, “deflation can in fact be highly damaging to the economy.’’
How so? Mainly because falling prices tend to discourage consumers from spending. Why buy now, after all, if you can purchase what you want — cars, furniture, appliances, vacations — at a lower price later?
The reality is that the economy’s health depends on steady consumer purchases. In the United States, household spending accounts for around 70% of the entire economy. If consumers were to pull back, en masse, to await lower prices, businesses would face intense pressure to cut prices even more to try to jump-start sales.
In the meantime, employers might have to lay off waves of employees or cut pay — or both. Unemployed people, of course, are even less likely to spend, so prices would likely keep falling. All of which risks triggering a “deflationary spiral’’ of price cuts, layoffs, more price cuts, more layoffs. And on and on. Another recession could follow.
It was to prevent that very kind of economic nastiness that explains why the Bank of Japan resorted to negative interest rates in 2016 and why the Fed kept U.S. rates near zero for seven straight years during and after the Great Recession of 2007-2009.
Deflation exerts another painful effect, too: It hurts borrowers by making their inflation-adjusted loans more expensive.
ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS OF DEFLATION?
It’s certainly true that Americans can make their paychecks go further when prices are falling. If food or gasoline prices were to tumble, households would surely find it less painful to afford groceries or their commutes to work — as long as they remained employed.
Some economists even question the notion that deflation poses a serious economic threat. In 2015, researchers at the Bank for International Settlements, a forum for the world’s central banks, reviewed 140 years of deflationary episodes in 38 economies and reached this conclusion: The correlation between falling prices and economic growth “is weak and derives mostly from the Great Depression.’’
But the exception was a doozy: From 1929-1933, U.S. economic output plummeted by a third, prices sank by a quarter and the unemployment rate shot up from 3% to a crushing 25%.
The bank’s researchers said the biggest economic risk came not from falling prices for goods and services but rather from a freefall in the price of assets — stocks, bonds and real estate. Those collapsing assets, in turn, can topple banks that hold crumbling investments or that made loans to struggling real estate developers and homebuyers.
The damaged banks may then cut off credit — the lifeblood of the broader economy.
The likely result? A painful recession.
AP Auto Writer Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.