評論
打印
Monetary policy
貨幣政策
Tight, loose, irrelevant
或緊或松沒有關系
Interest rates do not seem to affect investment as economists assume
利率似乎并不像經濟學家假設的那樣影響投資
IT IS Economics 101. If central bankers want to spur economic activity, they cut interest rates. If they want to dampen it, they raise them. The assumption is that, as it becomes cheaper or more expensive for businesses and households to borrow, they will adjust their spending accordingly. But for businesses in America, at least, a newstudy* suggests that the accepted wisdom on monetary policy is broadly (but not entirely) wrong.
上過經濟學101課程的人都知道：如果中央銀行想刺激經濟，那么它會降低利率；而如果它想遏制經濟過度膨脹，就會提高利率。我們這樣說的前提假設是：當企業家或家庭貸款的成本增加或降低時，他們會相應地調整支出。但是一項最新的調查顯示，對于企業家們，至少是美國的企業家，這個公認的貨幣政策原理在經常是錯誤的（但不完全錯誤）。
Using data stretching back to 1952, the paper concludes that market interest rates, which central banks aim to influence when they set their policy rates, play some role in how much firms invest, but not much. Other factors—most notably how profitable a firm is and how well its shares do—are far more important (see chart). A government that wants to pep up the economy, says S.P. Kothari of the Sloan School of Management, one of the authors, would have more luck with other measures, such as lower taxes or less onerous regulation.
使用1952年以來的數據，這篇論文得出這樣一個結論：央行希望通過制定利率政策來控制市場利率，這個市場利率對企業投資具有一定影響作用，但作用并不大。而其他因素，尤其是企業獲利能力和股票收益情況，則更加顯著地影響投資。其中一名來自斯隆管理學院的作者S.P. Kothari說道：如果政府希望刺激經濟，應該多采取除貨幣政策以外的其他措施，比如降低企業稅收、減少企業法律義務。
Establishing what drives business investment is difficult, not least because it expands and contracts far more dramatically than the economy as a whole. These shifts were particularly manic in the late 1950s (both up and down), mid-1960s (up), and 2000s (down, up, then down again). Overall, investment has been in slight decline since the early 1980s.
建立一種刺激企業投資的機制是很困難的，不僅僅是因為它擴張和相互聯系的方式遠遠比經濟整體更加復雜。這種波動在這些時段表現得尤為顯著：20世紀50年代末（有上漲也有下跌）、60年代中葉（上漲）、2000年代（先漲后跌，然后又漲）。總體來說，從20世紀80年代早期開始，投資增速就開始慢慢減緩了。
Having sifted through decades of data, however, the authors conclude that neither volatility in the financial markets nor credit-default swaps, a measure of corporate credit risk that tends to influence the rates firms pay, has much impact. In fact, investment often rises when interest rates go up and volatility increases.
然而，通過仔細研究幾十年的數據，這篇論文的作者得出這樣一個結論：無論是金融市場波動率還是信用違約掉期費率（一個衡量企業信貸風險的指標，通常會影響企業投資所支付的利率），對企業投資都無顯著沖擊。實際上，當利率提高、市場波動增強時，企業投資通常會增加。
Investment grows most quickly, though, in response to a surge in profits and drops with bad news. These ups and downs suggest shifts in investment go too far and are often ill-timed. At any rate, they do little good: big cuts can substantially boost profits, but only briefly; big increases in investment slightly decrease profits.
雖然投資隨著繁榮而快速增加，隨著經濟下滑而快速減少；但是這種波動卻表明，投資的變動波幅太大，并且通常是滯后的。不管利率是高是低，投資的變動對經濟刺激作用都很小：大幅增加投資確實可以持續促進盈利，但這個作用很小；而大幅減少投資也只能輕微地降低利潤。
Companies, Mr Kothari says, tend to dwell too much on recent experience when deciding how much to invest and too little on how changing circumstances may affect future returns. This is particularly true in difficult times. Appealing opportunities may exist, and they may be all the more attractive because of low interest rates. That should matter—but the data suggest it does not.
Kothari先生說，企業在決定投資多少時，往往過多地關注于近期的經驗，而很少關注利率變動對未來收益會有何影響。在低谷的時候這種現象更加嚴重。賺大錢的機會是存在的，并且當利率很低時，投資會變得更具吸引力。利率應當是影響投資的--但數據表明事實并非如此。譯者：柯維
譯文屬譯生譯世
