立即打开
通货膨胀对弱势群体竟然有好处?

通货膨胀对弱势群体竟然有好处?

Gustavo Flores-Macías 2021-11-17
如果美联储和乔·拜登政府不改变目前的做法,那么通胀水平将对社会最弱势群体(穷人、妇女和其他少数群体)产生最严重的影响。

美国消费者价格正在以1990年以来前所未有的速度上涨——但并不是每个人都记得当年高通胀到底是什么样子,尤其是年轻一代。图片来源:BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

今年10月,美国的通货膨胀率达到6.2%,创下30年来新高。如果美联储(Federal Reserve)和乔·拜登政府不改变目前的做法,那么通胀水平将对社会最弱势群体(穷人、妇女和其他少数群体)产生最严重的影响。

当局有理由担心新冠疫情会导致重大的经济萎缩——这也是美联储和美国政府采取了旨在刺激经济的货币政策和财政政策的原因。直到最近,人们在担心的还不是物价会上涨,而是物价会像日本的通货紧缩那样跌得太多。价格跳水令人担忧,因为它们会导致消费减少——消费者在等待未来更好的价格。

出于这种惯性,以及担心过早打断经济复苏的势头,美联储对通胀上升的担忧未予理会,反而表示,通胀只是暂时性的。这与人们的一致认同——通货膨胀有好处——不谋而合。正如贝莱德(BlackRock)的一位前董事总经理所言:“许多美国人,尤其是那些不那么富有的人,实际上会从较高的通胀水平中获益。”人们的直觉是,在新冠疫情期间,工资稳步上涨,通胀侵蚀了家庭债务的价值,提高了领薪工人的购买力,减轻了他们的债务负担。

在过去的三十年里,每年的通货膨胀率一致低于5%,美国总人口中约有一半人没有经历过高通货膨胀,年龄中位数为38岁。没有经历过通货膨胀的人,很难具体地把握其后果。赞美通货膨胀的人,在一开始可能会和关注贫困和不平等的人产生共鸣,但现实却往往更加复杂。

通货膨胀率高涨,会导致三个重要问题。

首先,通胀会对分配产生重要影响,对最不富裕阶层的伤害比对富人的伤害更大。虽然通货膨胀侵蚀了每个人的购买力,但富人往往拥有能够更好地抵御通货膨胀的资产。例如,房地产资产的价格往往会随着社会总体价格的上涨而升值,租金收入也进行调整,以跟上生活成本的上涨,这可以为房产所有者提供一些保护,从而抵御通货膨胀。富人也往往有机会获得对冲通货膨胀的机制,比如将资产转移到国外、交易货币,以及购买黄金和加密货币。

相反,工人阶级依赖于工资和薪金保持在通货膨胀水平之上,而一旦通货膨胀螺旋式上升,这种依赖就荡然无存。事实上,不断上升的通货膨胀已经侵蚀了美国工人在新冠疫情爆发早期的工资收益的增长,现在工人的实际报酬已经低于新冠疫情之前的趋势。

第二,随着通货膨胀的上升,抑制通货膨胀的成本也在增加。当通货膨胀预期变得根深蒂固时,就需要付出更大的努力来控制——这就是拉丁美洲在20世纪八九十年代的经验。商业团体和工会之间承诺维持价格和工资水平的协议一再失败,因为没有人相信其他人会遵守。在美国,纽约联邦储备银行(New York Federal Reserve)的一项调查指出,预计今后一年的预期通胀率为5.7%,这是自2013年开始收集数据以来的最高值。

在通货膨胀周期中,政府就不得不采取更严格的措施,而这些措施也往往会对弱势群体产生影响。更严格的加息和财政支出的减少,导致经济活动放缓更严重,从而导致裁员和更高的借贷成本,影响到更多依靠工资为生的人。

第三,通货膨胀不仅仅是一种经济现象,其还导致了普遍的政治和社会后果。高通胀会让人对自己的未来产生普遍的不确定性和焦虑。杂货店、加油站的价格上涨,房租、取暖费用上涨,每天都在提醒着人们这种不确定的未来。对那些最无力保护自己免受意外事件影响的穷人来说,尤其如此。

由于所有的政治都是地方性的,人们直接从自己的口袋里感受到这些影响,因此,通货膨胀以损害政治在任者而臭名昭著,也就不足为奇了。研究指出,通货膨胀是影响投票决定的一个关键因素,在位者需要为他们无力控制通货膨胀付出代价。现在,在美国,大约十分之六的受访者已经称经济状况不佳。

由于通胀对弱势群体的有害后果,一旦高涨,控制它以及它产生的社会和政治后果的成本很高,因此,通货膨胀必须在问题变多、变复杂之前得到解决。拜登政府和美联储都有共同的责任来采取行动。

如果拜登政府需要向经济中注入急需的资源,用于基础设施、环境和社会支出,那么这种做法必须明智而审慎。同时,美联储必须在通货膨胀失去控制之前迅速收紧货币政策。当我们确信通货膨胀不是暂时的时候,要想顺利管理通胀就为时已晚了,那些最弱势的人将会为此买单。(财富中文网)

本文作者古斯塔沃·弗洛里斯-马西亚斯是康奈尔大学(Cornell University)负责国际事务的副教务长。

编译:杨二一

今年10月,美国的通货膨胀率达到6.2%,创下30年来新高。如果美联储(Federal Reserve)和乔·拜登政府不改变目前的做法,那么通胀水平将对社会最弱势群体(穷人、妇女和其他少数群体)产生最严重的影响。

当局有理由担心新冠疫情会导致重大的经济萎缩——这也是美联储和美国政府采取了旨在刺激经济的货币政策和财政政策的原因。直到最近,人们在担心的还不是物价会上涨,而是物价会像日本的通货紧缩那样跌得太多。价格跳水令人担忧,因为它们会导致消费减少——消费者在等待未来更好的价格。

出于这种惯性,以及担心过早打断经济复苏的势头,美联储对通胀上升的担忧未予理会,反而表示,通胀只是暂时性的。这与人们的一致认同——通货膨胀有好处——不谋而合。正如贝莱德(BlackRock)的一位前董事总经理所言:“许多美国人,尤其是那些不那么富有的人,实际上会从较高的通胀水平中获益。”人们的直觉是,在新冠疫情期间,工资稳步上涨,通胀侵蚀了家庭债务的价值,提高了领薪工人的购买力,减轻了他们的债务负担。

在过去的三十年里,每年的通货膨胀率一致低于5%,美国总人口中约有一半人没有经历过高通货膨胀,年龄中位数为38岁。没有经历过通货膨胀的人,很难具体地把握其后果。赞美通货膨胀的人,在一开始可能会和关注贫困和不平等的人产生共鸣,但现实却往往更加复杂。

通货膨胀率高涨,会导致三个重要问题。

首先,通胀会对分配产生重要影响,对最不富裕阶层的伤害比对富人的伤害更大。虽然通货膨胀侵蚀了每个人的购买力,但富人往往拥有能够更好地抵御通货膨胀的资产。例如,房地产资产的价格往往会随着社会总体价格的上涨而升值,租金收入也进行调整,以跟上生活成本的上涨,这可以为房产所有者提供一些保护,从而抵御通货膨胀。富人也往往有机会获得对冲通货膨胀的机制,比如将资产转移到国外、交易货币,以及购买黄金和加密货币。

相反,工人阶级依赖于工资和薪金保持在通货膨胀水平之上,而一旦通货膨胀螺旋式上升,这种依赖就荡然无存。事实上,不断上升的通货膨胀已经侵蚀了美国工人在新冠疫情爆发早期的工资收益的增长,现在工人的实际报酬已经低于新冠疫情之前的趋势。

第二,随着通货膨胀的上升,抑制通货膨胀的成本也在增加。当通货膨胀预期变得根深蒂固时,就需要付出更大的努力来控制——这就是拉丁美洲在20世纪八九十年代的经验。商业团体和工会之间承诺维持价格和工资水平的协议一再失败,因为没有人相信其他人会遵守。在美国,纽约联邦储备银行(New York Federal Reserve)的一项调查指出,预计今后一年的预期通胀率为5.7%,这是自2013年开始收集数据以来的最高值。

在通货膨胀周期中,政府就不得不采取更严格的措施,而这些措施也往往会对弱势群体产生影响。更严格的加息和财政支出的减少,导致经济活动放缓更严重,从而导致裁员和更高的借贷成本,影响到更多依靠工资为生的人。

第三,通货膨胀不仅仅是一种经济现象,其还导致了普遍的政治和社会后果。高通胀会让人对自己的未来产生普遍的不确定性和焦虑。杂货店、加油站的价格上涨,房租、取暖费用上涨,每天都在提醒着人们这种不确定的未来。对那些最无力保护自己免受意外事件影响的穷人来说,尤其如此。

由于所有的政治都是地方性的,人们直接从自己的口袋里感受到这些影响,因此,通货膨胀以损害政治在任者而臭名昭著,也就不足为奇了。研究指出,通货膨胀是影响投票决定的一个关键因素,在位者需要为他们无力控制通货膨胀付出代价。现在,在美国,大约十分之六的受访者已经称经济状况不佳。

由于通胀对弱势群体的有害后果,一旦高涨,控制它以及它产生的社会和政治后果的成本很高,因此,通货膨胀必须在问题变多、变复杂之前得到解决。拜登政府和美联储都有共同的责任来采取行动。

如果拜登政府需要向经济中注入急需的资源,用于基础设施、环境和社会支出,那么这种做法必须明智而审慎。同时,美联储必须在通货膨胀失去控制之前迅速收紧货币政策。当我们确信通货膨胀不是暂时的时候,要想顺利管理通胀就为时已晚了,那些最弱势的人将会为此买单。(财富中文网)

本文作者古斯塔沃·弗洛里斯-马西亚斯是康奈尔大学(Cornell University)负责国际事务的副教务长。

编译:杨二一

In October, U.S. inflation reached 6.2%—a 30-year high. Unless the Federal Reserve and the Joe Biden administration change their current approach, the consequences of these inflation levels are likely to be most severe for the most disadvantaged sectors of society—the poor, women, and underrepresented minorities.

Authorities were rightly worried about a major economic contraction resulting from the pandemic, which is why the Fed and the government adopted monetary policies and fiscal policies aimed at stimulating the U.S. economy. The worry until recently was not that prices would rise, but that they would fall too much, as with Japan’s deflation. Free-falling prices are a concern because they lead to lower spending as consumers wait for better prices in the future.

Out of this inertia and worried about interrupting economic recovery prematurely, the Fed has dismissed concerns about rising inflation, pointing instead to its transitory nature. This is in line with a chorus of opinions exalting the benefits of inflation. As a former managing director of BlackRock put it, “Many Americans, particularly the less wealthy, actually stand to benefit from higher levels of inflation.” The intuition is that wages have risen steadily during the pandemic and inflation erodes the value of household debt, improving the purchasing power of salaried workers and reducing their debt burden.

With annual inflation below 5% in the past three decades, about half of the total U.S. population has no experience with high inflation. The median age is 38. People who have not lived through inflation find it difficult to concretely grasp its consequences. Although the rosy picture exalting the benefits of inflation might initially resonate with those concerned about poverty and inequality, the reality is more complex.

There are three important problems with letting inflation run high.

First, inflation has important distributional consequences, disproportionately hurting the least affluent sectors more than the wealthy. Although inflation erodes everyone’s purchasing power, the wealthy tend to own assets better able to weather inflationary periods. The price of real estate assets, for example, tends to appreciate with the general price increases in society, and rental income can be adjusted to keep up with the rising cost of living, providing property owners some protection against inflation. The wealthy also tend to have access to hedging mechanisms against inflation, such as shifting assets abroad, trading currency, or purchasing gold and cryptocurrencies.

Conversely, the working class depends on wages and salaries staying above inflation, which is difficult to obtain in practice once an inflationary spiral takes hold. Indeed, rising inflation has already eroded the early pandemic wage gains of American workers, and real worker compensation is now lower than its pre-pandemic trend.

Second, as inflation rises, so does the cost of reining it in. And as inflation expectations become entrenched, a greater effort is required to put a lid on it. That’s what happened in the Latin American experience during the ’80s and ’90s. Agreements between business groups and labor unions pledging to maintain price and wage levels failed repeatedly because nobody believed others would comply. In the U.S., a New York Federal Reserve survey points to expected inflation at 5.7% a year from now—the highest since data collection began in 2013.

In inflationary cycles, governments then have to adopt more stringent measures, which also tend to affect disadvantaged groups disproportionately. Steeper interest rate hikes and reductions in fiscal spending result in a harsher slowdown of economic activity, with layoffs and a higher cost of borrowing affecting more of those living paycheck to paycheck.

Third, inflation is not merely an economic phenomenon. It also leads to pervasive political and social consequences. High inflation generates generalized uncertainty and anxiety about one’s own future. Higher prices at the grocery store or the gas pump, as well as higher rent and heating bills become everyday reminders of this uncertain future, especially among the poor who are least able to protect themselves against unforeseen events.

Since all politics is local and people feel these effects directly in their pockets, it is not surprising that inflation is notorious for hurting political incumbents. Research consistently points to inflation as a key consideration affecting voting decisions, with incumbents paying a price for their inability to rein it in. In the U.S. about six in 10 respondents already call the state of the economy poor.

Because of its harmful consequences for the disadvantaged, the high costs of reining it in once it is high, and the social and political costs it generates, inflation must be addressed before it becomes more of a problem. Both the Biden administration and the Fed have a shared responsibility to act.

If the Biden administration will inject much-needed resources into the economy for infrastructure, environmental, and social spending, it must do so judiciously. In turn, the Fed must be swift in tightening monetary policy before inflation gets out of control. By the time we have certainty that inflation is not temporary, it will have been too late for its smooth management, and those who have the least will be stuck with the bill.

Gustavo Flores-Macías is associate vice provost for international affairs at Cornell University.

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP