最牛治理通胀的方法

看金融时报(Financial Times)报道说联合利华3月份由于放风说自己的产品要涨价,被发改委罚了30万美元。我实在太惊叹发改委这种治理通胀的方法了。敢涨价,罚死你。简单,粗暴,不过有没有效就很难讲了。除了惊叹于发改委这种赤裸裸的价格控制外,不太明白的是治理通胀什么时候成了发改委的工作了。难道不是中央银行的主要职能么?怪不得国内朋友说,中国现在最牛X的政府机关是发改委。什么经济政策都控制,控制过程中的油水自然少不了。

Advertisements

8 responses to “最牛治理通胀的方法

  1. 是啊,说到底如何能够真正转变政府职能,从管理型政府转变到服务性政府,这才是中国经济发展所面临的最深层次的瓶颈。

  2. 服务实在不敢妄想。只要不这么heavy-handed去干涉就很好了。希望发改委能好好学习一下尼克松70年代使用价格控制来对付通胀的案例。已经有前车之鉴了,就不要再做蠢事了,呵呵。

  3. 这其实就涉及到了政策的内生性问题。民主国家中政府受选民管;非民主国家中民众受政府管,所以政策的形成机制是非常不一样的。就经济效率而言,这两种体制各有长短,值得深究,中印比较就是蛮有意思的一个切入点。呵呵,赤裸裸地对自己研究的self-promotion:)

  4. It is possible that Unilever was fined not for raising prices, but for announcing raising prices in the future. The latter amounts to price communication and coordination and should be monitored. Last year, various companies in the U.S.announced, over a period of time, that they intend to raise their prices (sometimes by how much as well) in the future to cope with higher costs.

  5. 其实这种对涨价提前吹风,反而更有利于控制通胀预期。让信息更及时更透明,更有利于避免大家被一些小道消息,谣言扰乱市场。就像每次联储开会前都要提前吹吹风,就是不希望给市场一个shock。

  6. I agree with your assessment. This practice has another subtle impact, which is to make price increase “more acceptable” to consumers. The price increase is in the future, so no fuss about it now. But when future comes, you have already been warned (bounded rationality?).
    The downside of allowing such price communication is that, companies can also rely on it to collude in the future and it may be difficult to pin down the exact purpose of price communication.
    On a separate note, I am a bit surprised that prices have not gone up more. Are companies cutting their margins or are they reducing the quality/cost of goods, or both?

  7. Unless we believe that Unilever has sort of de facto monopoly power, I just don’t understand why the government should intervene and exercise a price control on this. The supply may become even more limited as a consequence of this regulation, which would make things even worse. The government can’t prevent the secondary market from emerging anyway. Simple theory tells us that people would buy less if price goes up, ceteris paribus. A company might use this as a stragety to promote current sales, or whatever, but the market competition will discipline their behaviors. What the government really should do is to find out the true roots behind the inflation and try to eliminate all the policy distortions in the whole process of production, transportation, storage, taxation, sales, and so on. This policy is not only stupid, ineffective, and counterproductive, but also cheating in the vein of pretending the consumers. If such a policy can be rationalized, I think it should be a political-economy story.

  8. 20110525
    http://news.qq.com/a/20110525/000077.htm
    日化巨头联合利华昨起涨价 上月刚遭发改委处罚
    2011年05月25日04:26广州日报我要评论(0) 字号:T|T

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s