Politics

经济领域的离心力和向心力

Oct 30, 2017 Michael J. Boskin

发自斯坦福——早在几年前笔者就预测说由于政治机构无力应对经济，文化，种族和宗教方面的差异，全球各地都将出现权力下放，分裂和独立等结构性转变。

超国家经济和政治制度将权力集中于中央政府的做法显然引起了反弹。许多国家的公民开始觉得本国主权受到了侵蚀。此外他们也担心由于大衰退后复苏缓慢，生产力增长乏力和劳动力占收入份额下降，导致日渐增加的移民所产生的成本过高。

自那以后，英国决定退出欧盟。现在双方已经在进行“离婚”讨论以确定英国该向欧盟支付的金额以及未来的贸易关系。这一过程绝非轻而易举，因为欧盟谈判代表担心如果自己开出退出条款太过慷慨，其他成员国可能会纷纷仿效英国退盟。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Michael J. Boskin

Writing for PS since 2009
92 Commentaries

Michael J. Boskin is Professor of Economics at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was Chairman of George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 to 1993, and headed the so-called Boskin Commission, a congressional advisory body that highlighted errors in official US inflation estimates.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 3 Comments on this article

Wim Roffel Nov 6, 2017

"The process has not been easy, because EU negotiators are worried that if the exit terms are too generous, other member states might follow the UK out of the bloc."
That is a very polite way to say that the EU negotiators are negotiating in bad faith - pressuring the UK with the threat of no deal and very high import tariffs if they don't obey. This is very similar to the bad faith negotiations with Greece where they wanted to set an example too.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Oct 30, 2017

If this, if that, if the other. Thats not reality

The one thing you never do with consumers is break the repeat buying habit. That is exactly what has happened. Now consumers question stuff they automatically swallowed before and say it doesn't do what it says on the label, pass me by, pass me by, I dont happen to like it, pass me by. They have reset their buying habit and now that habit has to be changed and there is no real reason for it to.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Punabantu Oct 30, 2017

Successionist movement are symptoms of economic and financial flaws. Take the US and UK. The UK under went Brexit the US got Trump. The underlying economic undertones are the IMF fixed cross rates that are anchored to the US dollar and Britian Sterling pound. The cross-rates appear day in and day out, in value terms, in many national currencies. This implies that national money markets have the same money market currency liquidity and trade volumes to produce the same cross rates as observed between Britain and the United State of America. On the February 16th 2017 the Indian Rupee traded at INR0.01495 per US$1, while the Sterling pound was at INR0.01199 per £1, giving a IMF cross rate of 1.24. The Japanese Yen on the same date stood at JPY¥0.008782 per US$1 and JPY¥0.007033 per £1 giving a cross rate of 1.24. The Canadian dollar also on the same day had CAD$0.76569 per US$1 and CAD$0.61420 per £1 to give 1.24 as it's IMF fixed cross rate. The Chinese Yuan against the US dollar stood at CNY¥0.145541 per US$1, and CNY¥0.116789 per £1, on the same day to give a IMF cross rate of 1.24. The Mexican Pesos, Brazilian Real, South African Rand, on the same day like all currencies across the world had 1.24 as the IMF cross rate fixed on the US dollar and Sterling pound.
The reality on the ground is that Zambia, Britain, Canada, India, Japan, China, Mexico nor the EU has the same level and volume of trade to give credibility to the IMF fixed cross-rates. In fact, the demand of the Euro or the Zambian Kwacha, Euro against the US dollar and the British Sterling pound and other African, Asian, Latin American currencies in relation to trade, within their money markets, gives exchange rates that are outside the IMF fixed cross-rate system. There is no competition here with IMF fixed cross rates. It must be noted that IMF MD Mr. M. Gutt at his Harvard University address on the 13th February 1948 noted that the indirect exchange rate of the US dollar to the Sterling pound was £1 per US$2.6 as US$1 equalled 600 Lire and £1 equalled 1,560 Lire, while the direct Sterling pound-US dollar rate stood at £1 per US$4. American found it cheaper buying British goods via Italy. The IMF ruled in favour of Britain as if Italy's money markets had the same inflows as London's money market.
It is here that the real price of the US dollar in value terms is fixed. This has created in value terms a black market of value undermining national economic systems which in turn has undermined political systems. Take China with its mountain of US dollars. China's US dollars have been dished out as loans to other countries on generous terms and conditions as compared to the US dollar from the US. In effect the Chinese dollar in value terms is cheaper than the US dollar. Hence a black market US dollar has evolved. It is these black market values that has encouraged successionist movements. The reality is successionist movements are movement in the political realm but all echo the need of global economic reform. What is needed is the true value of the US dollar within and between markets should reflect trade positions. In other words the notion of one fixed value of the US dollar is more political , much like a decree, rather than the economic and financial realities on the ground. The reality of successionist is economic and financial succession being Free Floating Cross Rates and allowing all currencies to be convertible but the price of the currency between markets determine the degree of convertibility. The picture that emerges, in a free floating cross rate system for example, may see Country Z having trade surplus with Country J as it uses Yen to convert into Country Z’s currency the Kwachas to buy copper. This creates an exchange rate of ¥1,000 per K1 as Country J uses her Yen to purchase Kwachas, Country Z’s national currency. Country Z buys very little from Country J in relation to what Country Z exports to Country J. To this, Country J uses the purchased Country Z’s Kwachas to buy copper, against which Country Z accumulates Yen in its market as the Fund as noted in Article I of the Fund Agreement is, “to assist in the establishment of a [multilateral] system of payments in respect of current transactions between nations.” Although the exchange rate in Country Z for the US dollar, based on Country Z’s market liquidity may be K8 per US dollar, in Country J it may well be ¥200 per US dollar as Country J trades more with the United States than Country Z.
If a citizen in Country Z wanted to import an iphone from the United States pegged at US$500, it would be cheaper to buy the iphone via Country J, but this would in turn affect market liquidities in both Country Z and Country J money markets and hence exchange rates as exchange arbitrage operations occur. The US$500 iphone in Country Z in Kwacha terms based on its K8 per US dollar rate would cost K4,000, but through Country J the cost of the iphone would be ¥100,000 at ¥200 per US dollar, being through Country Z’s Kwacha/Yen exchange rate at ¥1,000 per K1 be worth K100, which is equal in US dollars based on Country Z’s US dollar/Kwacha exchange rate at US$12.50. At US$12.50 per iphone the United States would be on an equal footing to deal with another country called China with its cheap exports unless China’s cross-rates are lower in the countries China/United States/Country Z’s exchange rate configurations.
It would then be a question of quality and finding the best value in currency arbitrage operations.
The United States would still get its US$500 disregardless of the value step up or step down and the problem of external disequilibrium is addressed provided each country settled its exports in its national currencies. This follows the basic underlying tenets of Adam Smith's supply and demand doctrine. Economics 101 teaches us that Adam Smith's market doctrine is based on supply and demand. The underlying axiom is country X produces good X and is bought by currency X belonging to country X. If country Y wanted good X it has to change its currency Y into currency X to buy good X. That is why a Euro cannot directly buy goods from the US until it is changed into a US dollar hence Exchange Rate. But for Africa, Latin America, Asia that is not the case as seen in the London Metal Exchange. Africa's, Latin America's, Asia's mineral wealth on the LME that handles most of the world's non ferrous metals only allows the US dollar, the Sterling pound, the Japanese Yen, the Euro to buy Africa's, Latin America's, Asia's mineral wealth adding that wealth to the US dollar and the LME accepted Currencies. In 2015 the Chinese reminibi was added to the list while African, Latin America, and Asian currencies minus China and Japan are banned in this so called age of free markets and trade liberalisation. Trade liberalisation and free markets for whom? Do such policies follow the tenets of the market doctrine or corrupt it? It adds Africa's, Latin America's, and Asia's wealth in value terms to the US dollar.
Free trade, liberalisation go hand in hand with democracy. But under the current global economic structure of one fixed value system democracy becomes mobracacy that degenerates into tribalism, xenophobia, alt-right, corruption, that all distort and undermine human trust in systems to encourage successionist movements.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/hUcvx7Fzh

经济领域的离心力和向心力

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The Federalist Threat to Europe

Log in/Register

经济领域的离心力和向心力

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification