幾乎所有經濟學家都認為人民幣低估。
當我還在唸書的時代，政府總是愛宣揚我們有多少外匯存底，基本上，這個數字是穩定的上升，總可以感覺到ㄧ絲光榮與驕傲；若是減少，也ㄧ定有解說為什麼減少。在如此艱困的國際環境，只有兩千萬人口，沒有甚麼天然資源的國家，這誠屬難得。然而從上個世紀末以來，把外匯存底當成ㄧ種成就的氣氛就已經淡去了。而現今的中國，就彷彿是八零年代的台灣，處心積慮的累積外匯準備－－原來「具有中國特色的社會主義市場經濟制度」的體現與「重商主義」(mercantilism)無異。
中國有龐大的外匯存底，二兆美元的外匯存底，這是國力的展現嗎？是的！但這只是一種虛榮罷了！擁有二兆美元的外匯存底即意味著美國(政府與人民)欠中國(政府與人民)價值二兆美元的商品與勞務。債權是一種資產，但是只熱衷累積債權，對於國計民生，何益之有？美國欠中國二兆美元的商品與勞務，事實上是：中國已經出的貨和幫美國人做工的工資總額高達二兆美元，美國人給ㄧ種叫美鈔的綠色印刷紙，中國人再拿這種紙去和中國人民銀行換成人民幣。這些美鈔大部分又借給美國人，讓美國可以有足夠的美鈔抑制通貨膨脹，並維持低利率水準。這就是美國房市泡沫的主要經濟背景！
中國的貿易夥伴承受巨大的入超，中國又拒絕人民幣升值，好平衡貿易逆差，迫使各國又開始採取保護主義的政策。可以預見的，貿易不平衡不會因為部份保護主義措施而明顯改善，只會有更多保護主義措施會被端上檯面。美國無力要求人民幣升值，以減少貿易赤字，而那些對美貿易順差，又會屈服於美國壓力的國家是否面臨更大的升值壓力呢？日幣近幾個月漲那麼多會不會就是如此？！台幣是否也會接著升值呢？
Op-Ed Columnist
Chinese New Year
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 31, 2009
It’s the season when pundits traditionally make predictions about the year ahead. Mine concerns international economics: I predict that 2010 will be the year of China. And not in a good way.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Actually, the biggest problems with China involve climate change. But today I want to focus on currency policy.
China has become a major financial and trade power. But it doesn’t act like other big economies. Instead, it follows a mercantilist policy, keeping its trade surplus artificially high. And in today’s depressed world, that policy is, to put it bluntly, predatory.
mercantilism n. 重商主義 mercantilist n. 重商主義者
predatory adj 捕食性的;(在金錢或性關係上）欺負弱小的，壓榨他人的
Here’s how it works: Unlike the dollar, the euro or the yen, whose values fluctuate freely, China’s currency is pegged by official policy at about 6.8 yuan to the dollar. At this exchange rate, Chinese manufacturing has a large cost advantage over its rivals, leading to huge trade surpluses.
Under normal circumstances, the inflow of dollars from those surpluses would push up the value of China’s currency, unless it was offset by private investors heading the other way. And private investors are trying to get into China, not out of it. But China’s government restricts capital inflows, even as it buys up dollars and parks them abroad, adding to a $2 trillion-plus hoard of foreign exchange reserves.
hoard n. （錢、食物、貴重物品等的）貯存，聚藏；（尤指）秘藏
This policy is good for China’s export-oriented state-industrial complex, not so good for Chinese consumers. But what about the rest of us?
In the past, China’s accumulation of foreign reserves, many of which were invested in American bonds, was arguably doing us a favor by keeping interest rates low — although what we did with those low interest rates was mainly to inflate a housing bubble. But right now the world is awash in cheap money, looking for someplace to go. Short-term interest rates are close to zero; long-term interest rates are higher, but only because investors expect the zero-rate policy to end some day. China’s bond purchases make little or no difference.
awash adj. 被淹沒；被漫過 ~ ;充滿
inflate v. 使充氣；膨脹; 鼓吹；吹捧;（使）漲價
Meanwhile, that trade surplus drains much-needed demand away from a depressed world economy. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that for the next couple of years Chinese mercantilism may end up reducing U.S. employment by around 1.4 million jobs.
The Chinese refuse to acknowledge the problem. Recently Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, dismissed foreign complaints: “On one hand, you are asking for the yuan to appreciate, and on the other hand, you are taking all kinds of protectionist measures.” Indeed: other countries are taking (modest) protectionist measures precisely because China refuses to let its currency rise. And more such measures are entirely appropriate.
Or are they? I usually hear two reasons for not confronting China over its policies. Neither holds water.
First, there’s the claim that we can’t confront the Chinese because they would wreak havoc with the U.S. economy by dumping their hoard of dollars. This is all wrong, and not just because in so doing the Chinese would inflict large losses on themselves. The larger point is that the same forces that make Chinese mercantilism so damaging right now also mean that China has little or no financial leverage.
wreak 造成（巨大的破壞或傷害)
havoc n. 大損壞；大破壞；浩劫
Again, right now the world is awash in cheap money. So if China were to start selling dollars, there’s no reason to think it would significantly raise U.S. interest rates. It would probably weaken the dollar against other currencies — but that would be good, not bad, for U.S. competitiveness and employment. So if the Chinese do dump dollars, we should send them a thank-you note.
Second, there’s the claim that protectionism is always a bad thing, in any circumstances. If that’s what you believe, however, you learned Econ 101 from the wrong people — because when unemployment is high and the government can’t restore full employment, the usual rules don’t apply.
Let me quote from a classic paper by the late Paul Samuelson, who more or less created modern economics: “With employment less than full ... all the debunked mercantilistic arguments” — that is, claims that nations who subsidize their exports effectively steal jobs from other countries — “turn out to be valid.” He then went on to argue that persistently misaligned exchange rates create “genuine problems for free-trade apologetics.” The best answer to these problems is getting exchange rates back to where they ought to be. But that’s exactly what China is refusing to let happen.
debunk v. 批判；駁斥；揭穿…的真相
apologetics n. (作單數用)(神學)護教學,辯惑學;系統辯護
The bottom line is that Chinese mercantilism is a growing problem, and the victims of that mercantilism have little to lose from a trade confrontation. So I’d urge China’s government to reconsider its stubbornness. Otherwise, the very mild protectionism it’s currently complaining about will be the start of something much bigger.
A version of this article appeared in print on January 1, 2010, on page A29 of the New York edition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01krugman.html?ref=opinion
The story was taken from The New York Times. The copyright remains with its original owners. Mr. Kurgman and The New York Times are not involved with, nor endorse the production of this blog.
文章定位：
