60秒读懂经济学概念(中英文对照)

60秒读懂经济学概念第一讲看不见的手经济是一个管理起来很头痛的系统，而政府总是尝试找到管理经济的方法。

1776年，经济学家亚当-斯密的观点让人震惊。

他认为政府要做的仅仅是什么都不做，让人们自由买卖。

如果政府让自负盈亏的交易主体充分参与竞争，市场就会导向积极的发展方向，“就像被一只看不见的手引导”。

如果有人卖的价格比你低，顾客自然会去买他们的东西。

这样你就只能降低价格，或者提高质量。

只要人们有足够的需求，市场就会满足他们，像娇惯的孩子一样，这样，人人都会满意。

后世的自由市场主义者，像哈耶克，这种“不干涉”政策实际上胜过任何的宏观调控。

但问题在于，经济需要很长的时间才能实现“均衡”，更有可能停滞不前。

市场调控期间，人们会失去信心。

这就是政府用“看得见的手”的原因。

第二节节约悖论就像小孩子拿到零花钱不知道怎么花一样，经济学最大的问题之一是，储蓄和消费哪个更好。

自由市场主义者，像哈耶克和弗里德曼认为，即使在经济困难时期，节约和储蓄仍然是最好的。

这样银行就能把储蓄用于投资，建立新工厂，发展新技术，提高生产力。

这样即使新技术可能减少工作岗位，降低薪水，新兴事业也会需要雇佣更多人手，最终失业率还是会下降。

逻辑很简单，至少从长期以来看是这样，但是另一个主张“人生苦短”的家伙——凯恩斯认为，长期来看我们都死了，因此，为了避免失业的阵痛，政府应该增加支出，创造工作机会。

如果政府勒紧腰带，而民众和企业也不愿花钱，消费就会下降，事业也会变得更严重。

这就是所谓的“节约悖论”。

因此政府要加大投入，当人们乐意时再收税。

尽管让人们乐意去交税，是连凯恩斯都完成不了的任务。

第三讲菲利普斯曲线新西兰鳄鱼猎手比尔—菲利普斯也是一位经济学家，他指出，当就业率高时，薪水就会涨的快。

人们有更多的钱去消费，于是价格上涨，通货膨胀出现。

反之，当失业率高时，投入消费的钱变少，通涨也会减退。

这就被称作为“菲利普斯曲线”。

政府甚至根据这个曲线制定政策，当加大投入创作工作机会时，会适当的容忍随之而来的通涨。

但他们忘了劳动者也会看到这个曲线，所以失业率下降时，人们就会期待通涨出现，要求更高的薪水。

反而会导致失业率搞到原来的水平。

如果通胀率一直很高，就像70年代发生的一样，通胀和失业率同时升高。

而在90年代，失业率下降，通胀一直保持在低水平，好像摆脱了菲利普斯曲线的限制。

但至少菲利普斯曲线的部分影响还在继续，当经济的快速增长和高就业率恢复时，你保证有会看见通胀把事情搞的一团糟。

第四讲比较优势原则不管你认为让经济自由发展更好，还是认为政府应该插手调控经济，全球市场都是一个不可控因素。

对外国竞争的畏惧导致一些国家师徒自己生产所有必需品，提高关税，把外国货挡在门外。

但是，经济学家大卫李嘉图指出，国际贸易实际上可以使所有参与者受益，通过引进最伟大的早期经济模型之一。

李嘉图指出，即便一个国家能以最低的成本生产产品——这被经济学家成为“绝对优势”，专注于生产最高效的仍然是更好的选择，这样就放弃了少量其他非优势产品，国际市场中的各国都这样发挥比较优势，通过专业化的生产，各国互相出口富余产品，这样各方都能获利，这就是比较优势原理。

它说服了许多国家签署自由贸易协定，但不幸的是，对许多国家来说贸易致富需要很长时间。

因为当今财富的流动与聚集更加便捷，商品的跨国流动快速增长，人口的跨国流动也同样增长——一定程度上冲击了李嘉图的理论基础。

第五讲三元悖论大多数国家间的跨国贸易，对参与各方都有好处，这也同时意味着各国更难控制本国的财政和汇率。

各国政府热衷于三个目标。

首先，各国希望保持汇率稳定，这样进出口价格就不会忽升忽降；第二，政府希望能稳定利率，这样能保证企业更乐于借贷，而不是储蓄；第三，各国都希望资本的进入和流出不会有太多障碍。

但是当你试图同时实现这三个目标时，问题就来了。

举例说明，欧元区国家试图降低利率来加速投资，减少失业。

这样资本就会向其他利率更高的国家流出，于是汇率就会下降，导致通货膨胀。

最终欧元利率又被迫上升到原来的水平。

你要么只能稳定汇率，保证资本自由跨国流动，但同时也会失去对利率的控制，后者同时保证汇率和利率的稳定，但这样你就无法阻止资本的流入和流出。

就像参与铁人三项的运动员一样，你无法同时实现这三个目标。

第六讲理性选择理论在影响经济的所有因素中，最麻烦的就是人。

总体来说，认识理性的。

当某种商品的价格上升，人们就生产更多这样的商品，买的更少。

如果人们预期通胀率会上升，他们就会要求更高的薪水。

如果一国的利率或者汇率出现下降，拥有大量资本的人们就会试图把钱转出去，比你喊出“双底衰退”的数度更快。

各国政府制定经济政策正是奖励在“理性人”的假定之上。

这样很好，不过也会有意外。

有些讨厌鬼并不总能做出最好的选择，有时人们会误以为自己知道了真相，或者真相泰国复杂难以理解。

有时人们倾向于随大流，依靠他们才能了解自己真正在做什么。

比如2007年，房屋贷款利率普遍很低，很多人并不明白背后发生了什么。

更多人只是跟着大流贷款，一些放款方或者能够“理性的”思考，他们相信当信贷出现问题时，危机的严重性会迫使政府为他们买单。

对于银行，这是对的。

可惜对于他们的顾客来说不是这样。

60 second adventures in EconomicsNumber one: The Invisible HandAn economy is a tricky thing to control, and governments are always trying to figure out how to d o it. Back in 1776 economist Adam Smith shocked everyone by saying that what governments sho uld actually do is just leave people alone to buy and sell freely among themselves. He suggested t hat if they just leave self-interested traders to compete with one another, markets are guided to positive outcom es” as if by an invisible hand”. If someone charges less than you customers will bu y from them instead as you have to lower the price or offer something better. Wherever enough people demand something, they will be supplied by the market like spoilt children only in this cas e, everyone is happy. Later free-marketeers like Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, argued that t his “hands off” approach actually works better than any kind of central plan. But the problem is, economies can take a long time to reach t heir”equilibrium”, and may even stall along the way. A nd in the meantime people can get a little frustrated, which is why governments usually end up t aking things into their own more visible hands instead.Number 2: The Paradox of ThriftMuch like a child getting his pocket money, one of the biggest economic questions is still whether it’s better to save or spend. Free-marketeers like Hayek and Milton Friedman say that, even in dif ficult times, it’s best to be thrifty and save. Bank then channel the savings into investment, in new plants, skills and techniques that let us produce more. And even if this new technology destroys j obs, wages will drop, and businesses hire more people so unemployment falls again. Simple. At le ast in the long run. But then a “live-fast-die-young” kinda chap called John Maynaed Keynes chee rfully pointed out that “in the long run we’re all dead”. So , to avoid the misery of unemployment, the government should instead spend money to create jobs. Whereas if the government tightens its belt when people and businesses are doing the same, less is spent, so unemployment gets ev en worse. That is the paradox of thrift. So instead they should spend now and tax later when ever yone’happy to pay. Though making people happy to pay tax was something even Keynes didn’t so lve.Number Three: The Phillips Curve.Bill Phillips was crocodile hunter and economist from New Zealand, who spotted that, when empl oyment levels are high, wages rise faster people have more money to spend, so prices go up and so does inflation. And likewise, then unemployment is high, the lack of money to spend means th at inflation goes down. This became known as the Phillips Curve. Governments even set policy by the curve, tolerating the inflation when they spent extra money creating jobs. But they forgot th at the workers could also see the effects of the curve. So , when unemployment went down, they expected inflation and demanded higher wages, causing unemployment to go back up, while infl ation remained high. Which is what happened in the 1970s when both inflation and unemployme nt rose. Then in the 90s,umployment dropped while inflation stayed low, which all rather took th e bend out of Phillips’curve. But at least part of Phillips’trouble some trade –off lives on: when fas ter growth and full employment return. You can bet inflation will be along to spoil the party.Number Four: The Principle of Comparative Advantage.Whether you think the economies work best if they’re left alone, or that governments need to d o something to get them working, the one thing that can’t be controlled is the rest of the world. F ear of foreign competition once led countries to try and produce everything they needed, and im pose heavy taxes to keep out foreign goods. However, economist David Ricardo showed that international trade would actually make everyone better off, bringing in one of the first great economic models. He pointed out that, even if a country can produce pretty much everything at the lowest possible cost, with what e conomists call an “absolute advantage”, it’s still better to focus on the products it can make most efficiently. That sacrifice the least amount of other goods, and let the rest of the world do the same. By specializing, they can then export these surpluses to each other and both end up better off. This is the principle of comparative advantages, and it has persuaded many countries to sign up to free-trade agreements, but unfortunately, it take long time for countries to trade their way to prosperity. And b ecause it’s much easier to move to where the money is, it increasingly not only goods that cross borders, but people which has somewhat uprooted Ricardo’ theory.Number Five: The Impossible Trinity. Most counties trade with one an other, which is usually pretty good for all involved, but it does mean it’s a big harder for each to keep control of its ownfinances. There are three things that governments are particularly keep on. They like to keep the exchange rate stable, so that import and export prices d on’t suddenly jump around. They also like to control interest rates, so they can keep borrowers happy, without upsetting savers. And they like money flow in and out of their country, without causing too much disruption. But there’s a problem, when you try all of it at once. Say for example, the Eurozone tries to lower its interest rate, to boost investment and reduce unemployment. Money flows out to earn higher interest rates everywhere. Exchange rates low, which causes inflation, so the Euro interest rate is forced back up again. You can either fix your exchange rate, and let money flows freely across national borders, but have no control over your interest rates. Or control your interest and exchange rates, but then you can’t stop the capital flowing in a nd out. But, like an overzealous triathlete, you can’t do all three at once.Number Six: Rational Choice Theory. Of all the things to factor in when to running an economy, the most troublesome is people. Now by and largehumans are rational lot. When the price of something rises, people would supply more of it and buy less of it. If they expect inflation to go up, people would usually ask for higher wages. And if they can see interest and exchange rates fall in one country, people with lots of money there will try to move it out, faster than you can say “double dip”. And government often decide economic policies, assuming such rational actions. Which would be great, if it weren’t for the fact that those pesky humans don’t always do what’s best for them. Sometimes they mistakenly think they know all the facts, or may be the facts are just too complicated. And sometimes people just follow the crowd, relying on others to know what they are doing. When too many cheap mortgages were being sold in 2007,a lot of people do not know what was going on. And a lot of others just follow the crowd. Some lenders may have rationally believed that, when the crunch came, the scale of the problem would force the government to rescue them. Which was true for the banks.If not for all their customers.。