很多堅信全球金融不會有問題， 
否認有通貨膨脹疑慮的專家們，
都屬於經濟學中的「凱因斯」學派。
我在大學修過總體與個體經濟學，
凱因斯的理論蠻紮實的，也很有意思，
但是很多專家媒體都不提的是：
凱因斯學派的理論
是根據「無風險投資報酬率」為基礎
（萬一名詞不太對請學有專長的格友原諒
畢竟已經22年沒有碰經濟學了）
意思就是說：
一般人進行投資是要承擔風險的，
如果預期投資報酬率低或等於
「無風險投資報酬率」時，
那麼這些人們就不會選擇投資，
寧可去買能提供「毫無風險報酬率」
的投資工具就可以了。
凱因斯當時就是選擇用
美國政府長期公債的殖利率
來作為無風險投資的標準報酬率。
而且當時的交易媒介（貨幣）
是價值穩定的美元。
但是就如同大家所知，
美國公債真正的價值與安全性
已經受到質疑（有風險了）
而且美元的實質購買力
已經大大不如以往了。
所以說：
雖然凱因斯的理論仍然非常有參考性，
但是拿來分析（甚至有些專家擔保）
現在的經濟危機不會有問題，
的確有很大的問題存在。
這就是英國經濟教授
耐爾‧佛格森持反對意見，
認為不能只看債券殖利率來斷言
目前的經濟情況。
雖然經濟各項數據和以前相仿，
但是其根據的基礎已經大大不同了，
因此不能相提並論。
耐爾‧佛格森：別管債券的低殖利率
美國債務危機將會突然發生
Niall Ferguson: Ignore Low Bond Yields, The US Debt Crisis Will Come Suddenly
Joe Weisenthal | Jul. 19, 2010, 7:46 PM | 6,722
Image: TechTicker
The easiest (and arguably laziest) retort to the deficit fear-mongers is to point to uber-low yields on US debt.
In his latest column for FT, Niall Ferguson is having none of it.
The Keynesians retort by pointing at 10-year bond yields of around 3 per cent: not much sign of inflation fears there! The anti-Keynesians point out that bond market sell-offs are seldom gradual. All it takes is one piece of bad news – a credit rating downgrade, for example – to trigger a sell-off. And it is not just inflation that bond investors fear. Foreign holders of US debt – and they account for 47 per cent of federal debt in public hands – worry about some kind of future default.
The Keynesians say the bond vigilantes are a myth. The anti-Keynesians (notably Harvard economics professor Robert Barro) say the real myth is the Keynesian multiplier, which is supposed to convert a fiscal stimulus into a significantly larger boost to aggregate demand. On the contrary, supersized deficits are denting business confidence, not least by implying higher future taxes. And so the argument goes round and around, to the great delight of the financial media as the dog days of summer set in.
As we've argued, this Keynesian vs. Anti-Keynesian debate is getting a tad boring, though Ferguson adds a twist, suggesting this isn't really about stimulus vs. austerity about about policies that promote growth vs. those that stifle it.
And in Ferguson's view, it was the lean, pro-market governments of Thatcher and Reagan that out to win out, rather than the bloated version advocated by the Krugmanites.
原文（全）連結：
留言列表
