Sorry, but we are not all “Keynesians.”

It is a well-known quote commenting economic policies:”We are all Keynesians right now.” It is true, at least in political arena, and even for free-market economists becoming careered politicians. Stimulus plans, aimed to substitute the lost purchasing power due to the financial crisis, are setup just within such a short time and are so roughly planned and enormously empowered comparing to their sizes and authority. However, majority public opinions overwhelming support these government expansions since “this crisis is not measurable and never had happened before.”

China should be spending like a Keynesian.

Throughout the post second world war period, America’s economy played the role of a shock absorber to the global economy by being the spender of the last resort. Now, with the government and private American in debt, it is up to the savers of foreign currency reserve to spend. (i put China in the title because they are the largest holder of foreign reserves.) These savers has been buying huge stockpiles of American debt partly for the purpose of keeping their currency cheap to encourage Americans to buy their export. Its time to spend what they have saved by cashing in their American debt to buy American export.

The Keynesian Proposition

Over at Economist.com, they got Brad DeLong and Luigi Zingales representing Keynesianism and Neoclassical respectively over an online debate on the proposition “We are all Keynesians now.”

The proposition is awkwardly framed, i mean come’on, arguing for the proposition is like arguing that entire political and economic elites agrees over the remedy needed to recover from the current financial crisis, which is an impossible position to defend. This forced DeLong to declare defeat in the opening sentence of his opening remarks. And belatedly, moderator re-frame the debate to be “whether we—or rather, economists and policymakers—should be [Keynesian].” on the third day.

anyway, here is the problem

ECFA與救台灣

英九先生前天正式將要跟中國簽的協議定調為「兩岸經濟合作架構協議」（Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement，ECFA），並引述中經院的報告說：如果不簽ECFA台灣會有11萬人失業。言下之意似乎是台灣與中國經濟開放，可以拯救台灣的經濟。啟銘也說「ECFA會擱發」。從總統大選時，英九便不斷宣稱與中國開放可以拯救台灣經濟，可是從520至今，一連串的開放政策似乎並未未達到英九和兆玄宣稱的效果，從經濟學人、CNN和紐約時報都爭相報導台灣經濟遭受這波金融海嘯衝擊為世界第一，便可知。問題究竟出在哪裡呢？

Out of Keynes’s shadow

當兵的日子, 寫文章的時間不多, 看東西的時間倒是變多了。

消費券與現金

昨天收到一封轉來轉去的e-mail，標題叫做「了解消費券的意義VS務必用消費券購買國貨!!」，儘管開頭就提到「經濟學」，我沒有讀到任何經濟學的邏輯，只看到通篇似是而非的論證。其中，文章提到：

消費券和現金的差別在哪裡？
如果大家拿到了現金都存起來，豈不又掉入「儲蓄的矛盾」、「貧窮的陷阱」之中？沒有儲蓄價值的消費券才能創造現金的流動啊！

正好最近幫妹妹複習大二個體，就用簡單的兩期模型，討論消費券與現金究竟有什麼不同。

如何評量消費券的效果？

看到最近沸沸揚揚的消費券議題, 從之前就想要寫些什麼討論一下這個公共政策, 但無論是在意識型態咖啡, 異鄉人或是 Evil Capitalist Heroes 都有淺白但是深刻的討論, 如果再多寫什麼, 都有班門弄斧的嫌疑, 只是手癢的時候還是停不住, 由於消費券政策的『勢在必行』, 不妨來討論一下, 怎麼樣衡量消費券的效果。

Freedom House Calls for Inquiry into Taiwan Clashes

Although our government is too arrogant to respond to the students on the Freedom Square, their actions seem to raise some international concerns.

****************************************

Washington

November 20, 2008

 

Freedom House urges Taiwan’s government to create an independent commission to thoroughly investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s historic visit and recommend needed reforms.

消費券與玉米片

看最近的新聞莫名地想起一則小故事，出處應該是「生命中的經濟遊戲」，內容大概是這樣的：

Remember, Remember, the Sixth of November…

那天傍晚，我也被架上了警備車……

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊