Vickrey1996#13:6
いずれにせよ、インフレ率 が以前に予想されていたものから上下に乖離している場合、特定の総積の任意の再分配が発生するだけであり、実際にこれらの予測不可能な場合を除き、合法化された横領に最低限相当することに留意することが重要 です。変動は非常に急速で、交換手段としての通貨の有用性を破壊するほどです。一方、失業は、流通する製品の総数を減らします。それはせいぜい破壊行為と同等であり[it is at best equivalent to vandalism]、犯罪に寄与する場合は殺人放火と同等になります。米国では、スーパーマーケットやその他の場所で現金自動預け払い機が広く利用されているため、高いが予測可能なインフレ率の「靴革のコスト」は非常に無視できます。
Vickrey, William. 1996. 15 Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism
it is at best equivalent to vandalism
チャーネバ2020が引用
Public Economics: Selected Papers by William Vickrey
Cambridge University Press, 1997/02/13 - 572 ページ
The late Nobel Prize winner William Vickrey was one of the truly important figures in contemporary economics. Over the past fifty-five years he published several books and some 140 papers scattered over many journals. This book offers a thoughtful selection from these papers, organized to bring out the scope as well as the unity of the work. Vickrey had the unique distinction of having contributed
1997
Introduction: William Vickrey Jacques Drèze and Richard Arnott
Part I. Social Choice and Allocation Mechanisms: Introduction Kenneth Arrow
1. Measuring marginal utility by reactions to risk
2. Utility, strategy and social decision rules
3. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders
4. Auctions and bidding games
Part II. Taxation: Introduction Anthony Atkinson
5. Averaging of income for income tax purposes
6. Cumulative averaging after thirty years
7. An integrated successions tax
8. Expenditure, capital gains and the basis of progressive taxation
9. The problems of progression
Part III. Marginal Cost Pricing: Introduction Jacques Drèze
10. Marginal and average cost pricing
11. Some objections to marginal cost pricing
12. Responsive pricing of public utility services
13. Airline overbooking: some further solutions
Part IV. Pricing Urban Transportation: Introduction Richard Arnott
14. A proposal for revising New York's subway fare structure
15. Pricing in urban and suburban transport
16. Congestion theory and transport investment
Part V. Urban Economics: Introduction Richard Arnott
17. The city as a firm
18. General and specific financing of urban services
19. The impact on land values of taxing building
Part VI. Macroeconomic Policy: Introduction Jacques Drèze
20. The optimum trend of prices
21. Design as a market anti-inflation program
22. Necessary and optimum government debt
23. Today's tasks for economists
Part VII. Miscellany: Introduction Richard Arnott
24. Resources distribution patterns and the classification of families
25. On the prevention of gerrymandering
26. One economist's view of philanthropy
Bibliography of William Vickrey.
‹ 商品の概要に戻る
1997
Introduction: William Vickrey Jacques Drèze and Richard Arnott
Part I. Social Choice and Allocation Mechanisms: Introduction Kenneth Arrow
1. Measuring marginal utility by reactions to risk
2. Utility, strategy and social decision rules
3. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders
4. Auctions and bidding games
Part II. Taxation: Introduction Anthony Atkinson
5. Averaging of income for income tax purposes
6. Cumulative averaging after thirty years
7. An integrated successions tax
8. Expenditure, capital gains and the basis of progressive taxation
9. The problems of progression
Part III. Marginal Cost Pricing: Introduction Jacques Drèze
10. Marginal and average cost pricing
11. Some objections to marginal cost pricing
12. Responsive pricing of public utility services
13. Airline overbooking: some further solutions
Part IV. Pricing Urban Transportation: Introduction Richard Arnott
14. A proposal for revising New York's subway fare structure
15. Pricing in urban and suburban transport
16. Congestion theory and transport investment
Part V. Urban Economics: Introduction Richard Arnott
17. The city as a firm
18. General and specific financing of urban services
19. The impact on land values of taxing building
Part VI. Macroeconomic Policy: Introduction Jacques Drèze
20. The optimum trend of prices
21. Design as a market anti-inflation program
22. Necessary and optimum government debt
23. Today's tasks for economists
Part VII. Miscellany: Introduction Richard Arnott
24. Resources distribution patterns and the classification of families
25. On the prevention of gerrymandering
26. One economist's view of philanthropy
Bibliography of William Vickrey.
‹ 商品の概要に戻る
Public Economics: Selected Papers by William Vickrey (英語) ハードカバー – 1994/2/25
William Vickrey (著), Richard Arnott (編集), Anthony B. Atkinson (編集), Kenneth Arrow (編集), Jacques H. Drèze (編集)
>veil of ignoranceもVickreyのこの論文が最初だと言われますよね。
>Vickrey (1945, Econometrica) "Measuring Marginal Utility by Reactions to Risk"
jstor.org/stable/1906925…
>Vickrey (1945, Econometrica) "Measuring Marginal Utility by Reactions to Risk"
jstor.org/stable/1906925…
以下2004と3つ重複
#3,7,10
William S. Vickrey, Full Employment and Price Stability: The Macroeconomic Vision of William S. Vickrey, edited by Mathew Forstater and Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Edward Elgar, 2004.
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/full-employment-and-price-stability-9781843764090.html
Contents:
Preface by David Colander
Introduction
1. Budget-Smudget: Why Balance What, How and When?
2. The Need for a Direct Anti-Inflation Program
3. Design of a Market Anti-Inflation Program
4. Meaningfully Defining Deficits and Debt
5. Chock-Full Employment without Increased Inflation: A Proposal for Marketable Markup Warrants
6. An Updated Agenda for Progressive Taxation
7. Today’s Task for Economists
8. My Innovative Failures in Economics
9. The Other Side of the Coin
10. Necessary and Optimum Government Debt
11. Why Not Chock-Full Employment?
12. A Trans-Keynesian Manifesto
13. Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism: A Disquisition on Demand Side Economics
14. We Need a Bigger ‘Deficit’
Epilogue by James K. Galbraith
Index
7. Today’s Task for Economists
8. My Innovative Failures in Economics
9. The Other Side of the Coin
10. Necessary and Optimum Government Debt
11. Why Not Chock-Full Employment?
12. A Trans-Keynesian Manifesto
13. Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism: A Disquisition on Demand Side Economics
14. We Need a Bigger ‘Deficit’
Epilogue by James K. Galbraith
Index
"The Other Side of the Coin" by Vickrey, William S. - American Economist, Vol. 37, Issue 2, Fall 1993 | Online Research Library: Questia
"Why Not Chock-Full Employment?" by Vickrey, William S. - Atlantic Economic Journal, Vol. 22, Issue 1, March 1994 | Online Research Library: Questia
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-16083745/why-not-chock-full-employmentWhy Not Chock-Full Employment?
Academic journal article Atlantic Economic Journal
Article excerpt
Rather than talk about developments in pure theory, I would like to stress certain changes in the characteristics of mature industrial economies that require new thinking in terms of Keynesian models.
The last time we had in peace time, what I would consider an acceptable level of employment, was in 1926 when it is estimated that unemployment in terms of the currently used definition was about 1.8 percent for the year as a whole. We have not had anything like that since, except in war time. Unemployment did get down to 1.2 percent at the height of World War II in spite of, or perhaps because of, the large influx of women into the remunerated labor force. Since then, while we got down to 2.9 or 3.0 percent during the Korean and Vietnam wars, there has not been anything much below 4 percent in between. It has been up to 10 percent and recently has been about 7 percent.
Currently, there has been in some quarters a move to speak of a rate of between 4 and 6 percent as a "non-inflation-accelerating rate of unemployment" or NIARU, and even to term this the "natural" rate of unemployment in one of the most vicious euphemisms ever coined. Five percent unemployment might be barely tolerable if it meant that everyone would have to take an extra two weeks of furlough without pay. When it means unemployment rates of 10, 20, and 40 percent among disadvantaged groups, with the consequent aggravation of problems of poverty, homelessness, prostitution, drug trafficking and crime, to say nothing of the resulting increase in the opposition to trade liberalization, rationalization of defense outlays, and conservation measures, even 5 percent unemployment becomes totally unacceptable.
What has gone wrong? Why have we not been able to get unemployment back down to 1.5 percent, so that any reasonably responsible individual, not too finicky about the type of work he will accept, can find work at a living wage within 48 hours? One difficulty has been that we have failed to recognize that there is no automatic mechanism imbedded in the intricacies of the "capital market" that would cause interest rates to converge towards a level that balances savings and investment at full employment. Recent developments are such that there may not even exist a state of capital markets that will do this.
It is possible to think of the 1920s as the culmination of the industrial revolution, during which it would have been possible to imagine savings and investment at a full employment activity level as being equated by a market rate of interest, in a manner analogous to the way a price of potatoes above equilibrium is brought down by the presence of stocks of unsold potatoes and up in the case of unsatisfied demand. But, in the so-called capital market, there is no such thing as a corresponding stock of uninvested savings. While planned savings may differ from planned investment, in the event actual realized ("ex post") savings are always equal to realized investment.
If, induced by the offer of an IRA account or urgings that the country should save more in order to provide for growth, I were to try to increase my savings by foregoing a visit to the barber this month, there would be $8 more in my bank account, but $8 less in the barber's bank account. There would be no increase in bank funds available for investment and nothing to produce a reduction in interest rates or to induce anyone to expend additional funds in the creation of capital, so as to offset the partial unemployment of the barber. Indeed, if the barber reacts by cutting back on his expenditure, the result is a reduction in aggregate spending and income and a reduction in aggregate savings. I may succeed in saving more but only by reducing the income and saving of others. Planned savings are brought into balance with planned investment, if at all, only by a long drawn out process of changes in the price level or in total activity or both, not by an immediate change in interest rates. …
★
The Other Side of the Coin
Academic journal article American Economist
Article excerpt
A major decision-maker is reported to have pleaded "Find me a one-armed economist, who won't always be telling me 'on the one hand, but on the other'." Unfortunately for his search for simple answers, there are usually two or more sides to a question, and ignoring one side or the other runs a serious danger of making woefully wrong decisions.
Saving, Investment and National Income
More important for my purposes this evening, most economic transactions have at least two aspects, and much of our present plight is the result of looking at only one aspect and failing to follow through on the obverse aspects and their consequences. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the popular discussions of the levels of saving and capital formation and their impact on the health and growth of our economy. With the idea of promoting a desirable increase in investment in growth and productivity, we find an advocacy of various measures to encourage individuals to attempt to save more, ranging from tax advantages for pension plans, individual retirement accounts, and the like, to proposals to substitute sales taxes, consumption taxes, or value added taxes for part or all of the income tax.
Now it is true that in a world in which resources were being fully utilized, devoting more resources to capital formation requires that fewer resources be devoted to consumption, financed in the standard model by more saving out of the given amount of income being generated. In the classical full employment world the capital markets were supposed to adjust the rate of interest to assure the use in capital formation of whatever resources people decide to release by consuming less than their entire income.
Unfortunately we have not had anything like full employment of resources since the Korean War, or over the entire adult lifetime of many of you here. In spite of this the thinking of establishment economists seems to operate oblivious to the fact that there are idle resources waiting to be brought into play, much as in the tale of the economist marooned on a desert island with two colleagues faced with the problem of dealing with some canned goods washed ashore. After the physicist had wondered whether the sun's rays could be concentrated so as to burst the cans, and the chemist had suggested that perhaps sea-water could be made to corrode them, the economist declared "the thing to do is just to assume we have a can-opener." But policies that might be appropriate on the assumption of fully utilized resources are simply absurd when idle resources of all kinds are waiting to be put to use.
The obverse of saving, in such a context, is non-spending. Savings are not like sacks of potatoes which if left unsold today will induce sellers to lower their prices tomorrow. For most people, saving more is not accomplished by working harder to earn more income but by spending less. Income set aside as savings, if not taken up by capital-forming activity or used to finance government outlays so that they are recycled into the income stream, simply vanish in reduced income to others.
If I were to respond to the tax advantages of IRA accounts by not having my hair cut this month, there will be eight dollars more in my bank account, but eight dollars less in the barber's account; there is no easing of the terms on which anyone can obtain funds with which to create capital. As Gertrude Stein remarked, "The money's always there, it's just the pockets that keep changing." Indeed, if the barbers react by reducing their consumption in an attempt to restore their savings to the previous level, the resulting reduction in consumer demand has a depressing effect on capital formation, further depressing national income. My attempt to save more may have been individually successful, but has resulted in a reduction in national income and total savings and investment. To ignore the fact that the flip side of saving is non-spending is to arrive at horribly perverse policy choices. …
Review of “BUDGET – SMUDGET Why balance what, how, and when?” a paper by William Vickrey
Review of “BUDGET – SMUDGET Why balance what, how, and when?” a paper by William Vickrey
「予算–予算なぜ、何を、どのように、いつバランスをとるのか」のレビュー ウィリアム・ヴィクレイによる論文
https://www.monetary.org/book-reviews/78-review-of-budget-smudget-why-balance-what-how-and-when-a-paper-by-william-vickrey「予算–予算なぜ、何を、どのように、いつバランスをとるのか」のレビュー ウィリアム・ヴィクレイによる論文
Copyright 1996 by American Monetary Institute。
*元の論文は、1部あたり8ドルで入手できます。コロンビア大学、広報室、ニューヨーク、ニューヨーク、10027（完全な住所）
はじめ
に1996年10月9日の夜、ハッチンソンパークウェイでアメリカ人の悲劇が発生しました。ここから約1時間で、ウィリアムヴィクレイがノーベル経済学賞を受賞した3日後に心臓発作で亡くなりました。名誉ある82歳の紳士の死の悲劇はどこにありますか？アメリカ社会では、バランスの取れた連邦予算の要求に向けて、現在の政治的および経済的議論、あるいは大々的な議論に対して彼が決定した決定的かつ完全にユニークな貢献が欠けています。現状では、ヴィクレイ教授は予算の均衡化に強く反対していました。
に1996年10月9日の夜、ハッチンソンパークウェイでアメリカ人の悲劇が発生しました。ここから約1時間で、ウィリアムヴィクレイがノーベル経済学賞を受賞した3日後に心臓発作で亡くなりました。名誉ある82歳の紳士の死の悲劇はどこにありますか？アメリカ社会では、バランスの取れた連邦予算の要求に向けて、現在の政治的および経済的議論、あるいは大々的な議論に対して彼が決定した決定的かつ完全にユニークな貢献が欠けています。現状では、ヴィクレイ教授は予算の均衡化に強く反対していました。
最近10月5日（AMIホームページの「最終警告」を参照）、「赤字削減コストジョブズ」というタイトルのプレスリリースを発行し、100億ドルの赤字削減ごとに80億ドルの売上と生産の減少がもたらされ、 10万人が仕事を失っています。
1988年に、VickreyはBUDGET – SMUDGETを書きました。これは、バランスの取れた予算アジェンダを推進している人たちの率直な説明で注目に値する15ページのペーパーです。このペーパーは、予算のバランスをとるための想定された理論的根拠を調べて反論し、そのようなバランスの実際の効果を説明し、経済のためのいくつかのより良い代替案を概説しました。
不思議なことに、連邦予算の削減を支持するすべての思いもよらない勧めがネットワークの注目を集めているようです（私は1993年に個人的に見ました、または94ダウンの症候群に苦しんでいる不幸な青年期は、彼が成長したとき、彼が欲しかったと言ったネットワークTVドキュメンタリーで特集しました連邦政府が予算のバランスを取るのを助けるために！）; しかし、この重要な問題に関するウィリアム・ヴィクレイの助言と知恵は無視されています。
したがって、AMIは彼の見解をここに提示するために特別な努力をしました。幸運にも、ヴィックリー教授が2年前に地元の保守的なシンクタンクで名誉あるセミナーに出席している20人のエコノミストのグループにこれらの見解のいくつかを提示したことを聞いた。彼の予算の見解に反応したほとんどの人は、そうする正当な理由を提示することなく、彼に反対しました。少数派は、おそらく彼と同意して、それについて著しく静かでした。
彼の話の後、他の全員が昼食または夕食のために部屋を出ており、私は予算についての彼の見解に強く同意するが、経済学でPHDのない部屋ではほとんど私だけであるとヴィックリー教授に話しました（私はまた、政府が連邦準備制度によって作成されたお金を借りるのではなく直接お金を作成する問題について私が以前彼に異議を唱えた理由を彼と話しました-金融の歴史の公平で慎重な分析（現在、全米の大学では利用できません） ）民間銀行によるよりも米国政府による金融管理の優れた記録を示した）。
ちなみに、ヴィクレイ教授は彼の有名な「明らかに深い眠りから出て直接、問題の核心に飛び込んだ」偉業の1つをしました。伝説を聞いたことがないのに初めてこれを見るのは本当に楽しかったです！
レビュー
（すべての斜体と強調が追加されました）
予算プロセスについて
「Budget Smudget」では、Vickreyは、連邦予算編成プロセス自体の基本的な欠陥を指摘することから始めます。資本と経常勘定科目を区別できないため、「（名目上の）予算は政府支出と歳入の影響の不十分な指標になっています」 。」このような予算のバランスをとる圧力は、「オフィススペース、車両、コンピューター、その他の種類の機器ではなくリースするという非効率的な決定をもたらし、省庁の資本を政府機関全体に設置することをためらう」と言います。
合理的な意思決定では、「建物や高速道路などの有形資産だけでなく、反対に軍事年金や公務員年金の非積立型債務、社会保障も含めた完全なバランスシートアプローチが一般に必要です」と彼は指摘します。
教育について
教育への資金提供に関する現在の議論に直接関連しているのは、「ほぼすべての教育支出は、課税所得の向上という形で、または生活の質の向上という観点から将来の利益をもたらすかにかかわらず、資本支出と見なされるべきである」という見解です。
バランスの取れた予算スタンピードについて
ヴィックリーは、バランスの取れた予算の擁護者を説明するために、経済文書で見られる最も強力な言語のいくつかを使用し
ます。敵対者を監禁できると考えられている。」そして
「…政府を弱体化しようとする人々の結集点としてを除いて、あらゆる種類の予算のバランスをとるべきであるという要件についての真の正当化はありません。」そして
「…必要な赤字はインフレを生み出すという不当な信念に基づく、バランスの取れた予算の妥当性への神秘的な信念…」。
ます。敵対者を監禁できると考えられている。」そして
「…政府を弱体化しようとする人々の結集点としてを除いて、あらゆる種類の予算のバランスをとるべきであるという要件についての真の正当化はありません。」そして
「…必要な赤字はインフレを生み出すという不当な信念に基づく、バランスの取れた予算の妥当性への神秘的な信念…」。
インフレについて
「しかし、赤字自体はインフレを引き起こさず、バランスの取れた予算は安定した価格水準を保証しません。」彼が書きました。
Vickreyがインフレの原因を調べた結果（「個々の価格が個別に引き上げられた結果全体」）は、次のように述べています。「販売者は価格を次第に設定しており、...（可能）...売上を失うことなく十分に価格を引き上げ、利得。" 彼が言う価格を引き上げるこの能力は、「内在的であり、また人為的なものである、商品と製品の差別化の高度化に由来します。小売レベルでは、消費者はますますさまざまな広告や軽薄な多様性に悩まされているため、さまざまな売り手の製品の比較はますます困難になっています...」と製品の需要は弾力的です。
これらの理由およびその他の理由により、彼は「金融政策は、それがアイドル状態のリソースの極限に行く場合を除いて、本質的にこのプロセス（インフレのプロセス）を抑制できず、失業を引き起こすことができないと結論付けています。
ヴィクレイ氏は、これが正直に直面することはめったにないことを指摘している：「彼らは一般に失業率の増加に関して政策について話したり、考えたりすることさえ避けますが、制限的な金融政策が価格設定者による価格上昇を抑制するために行動する主な経路は、資源の需要を取り戻し、失業率を高めます。」
「現在、インフレが加速しないようにするには、7％以上の失業率が必要であるように思われます。これは、恒久的な状況としては許容できないレベルです。」
「さらに、制限的な金融政策の供給サイドの影響は、高金利がコストに入り、インフレ圧力をかけるだけでなく、キャパシティの拡大やコスト削減の導入による資本改善の導入を阻害するため、混乱を招く可能性があります。 。」
「このような状況では、名目予算のバランスをとっても何も解決されないことは明らかであり、そのような偽のバランスを達成しようとすると、多くの悪戯が発生します。」
失業の実際の社会的コストについて
ここでもヴィックリーは次のように語っています。
「そのようなレベルの失業の影響は、労働力のごく一部に集中している場合に特に有害であり、結果として犯罪や非行、家庭生活の混乱が増加する。たとえば、全員に3週間の休暇があります。短期的には、少なくとも2つが代替案と見なされれば、失業率よりもインフレ率の方がはるかに好ましいと言えます。」
「そのようなレベルの失業の影響は、労働力のごく一部に集中している場合に特に有害であり、結果として犯罪や非行、家庭生活の混乱が増加する。たとえば、全員に3週間の休暇があります。短期的には、少なくとも2つが代替案と見なされれば、失業率よりもインフレ率の方がはるかに好ましいと言えます。」
ヴィクレイズ教授の雇用の増加がどれほど重要であるかを示す尺度は、彼が許容できると考えるインフレ率に見ることができます。
「失業率を2％と言っても、インフレ率が年間10％、または20％と保証されていれば、お買い得です。」
読者は、これらの結論が、印象的な実践的成果の生涯を備えた、経験豊富な経済オブザーバーおよび理論家のものであることを考慮する必要があります。ヴィックリー氏は、インフレ率が10％または20％で安定しない場合があるが、「最終的には通常の経済計算を非常に混乱させるレベルに達する」と加速する可能性があることを懸念しています。必要なのは「大量の失業を伴わないインフレ抑制のためのいくつかの新しい手段」だと彼は言う。
新しい楽器の提案–過剰なマークアップのペナルティ
「インフレを加速させることなくかなりの程度の雇用を達成するには、いくつかの追加のツールの開発が必要になります。」必要な手段の例として、ヴィックリー教授は、インフレを抑制する手段として、過剰な値上げに対するペナルティ税を提案しています。A.ラーナー教授の提案による「価格を引き上げる権利のある市場。価格を上げたいという人は、他の人から相応の程度まで引き下げようとする権利を購入することによってのみ許可されます」、ヴィックリー価格ではなく実行可能にするためには、グロスマークアップが開始点である必要があると結論付けます。「企業には、過去のパフォーマンスに基づいてグロスマークアップへの最初の資格が与えられます。」
これらの資格は譲渡可能であり、それらの市場が開発されます。この計画は、「権利が直接取引可能であるという事実を除いて、戦時の超過利益税にいくつかの点で匹敵する、超過付加価値税に多少似ています」と動作します。
究極のインフレ率を制御することに関して、ヴィクレイはプログラムがどのように構成されているかで決定されることができると考えました。「エンタイトルメントが確立される方法によって、価格上昇の全体的な平均度合いが決まります。結果として得られるエンタイトルメントの均衡価格は、インフレをこの所定のレベルに保つための抑制圧力の度合いを提供するように自動的に調整されます。」
Vickreyの提案の多くは、彼が考えてから最終的に一般に受け入れられるまでにかなりの時間の遅れを経験したので、後ではなく、より早く完全な研究に値する魅力的な提案です。
Recomendation
予算Smudgetは、すべての経済学者によって読まれるべきです。政府関係者; 労働組合の人々; 政治補佐官およびコンサルタント; 戦車兵を考える; そして、報道機関の従業員と性格は、どういうわけか、大規模なバランスの取れた予算スタンピングの要因です–議論。
予算Smudgetは、すべての経済学者によって読まれるべきです。政府関係者; 労働組合の人々; 政治補佐官およびコンサルタント; 戦車兵を考える; そして、報道機関の従業員と性格は、どういうわけか、大規模なバランスの取れた予算スタンピングの要因です–議論。
1996年11月21日、キンダーフックでの スティーブンザレンガ
あとがき
ヴィクレイの提案されたマークアップ管理システムを導入するという政治的意思がある状況下では、国の資金創出プロセスのすべてまたは一部を直接連邦財務省に移すことも可能です。準備銀行システム。
そのような無利子の資金調達システム、特に適切に描かれた連邦予算の資本側を使用すると、金利を非常に低く保つ効果的な方法が提供され、プロジェクトは直接必要な雇用を直接提供します：橋、道路、学校、さらに、特定の銀行要素を除いて、すべての人に利益がある可能性があります。（私たちに貯蓄とローンのエンターテイメントをもたらした人々を覚えていますか？）
手始めに、ちょうど昨日、イリノイ州クインシー空港で小型の通勤飛行機が民間飛行機と衝突し、14人が死亡しました。ルポルタージュでは、「これらの厳しい連邦予算の時代」には、数千のそのような小さな空港には管制塔やレーダーがないと述べられました。それらを提供するために7億5000万ドルが必要になると推定されました。銀行家の代わりに政府が公益のための資金力を管理するプロジェクトが実現可能になります。あまりにも近視的である人々は、彼ら自身が使用する主要な空港で決定的に必要とされる技術のアップグレードに資金を提供することさえしません！
あなたのコメントや意見は大歓迎です。
Copyright 1996 by American Monetary Institute.
* The original paper is available at $8 per copy from : Columbia University, Office of Public Affairs, N.Y.,NY, 10027 (full address)
INTRODUCTION
An American tragedy occurred on the night of October 9, 1996 on the Hutchinson Parkway, about an hour from here, when William Vickrey died of a heart attack three days after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Where is the tragedy in the death of an honored 82 year old gentleman? It is in American society missing the crucial and completely unique contribution he was determined to make to the current political and economic debate, or one could say stampede, toward requiring a balanced Federal budget. You see, under present conditions, Prof. Vickrey was strongly opposed to balancing the budget.
An American tragedy occurred on the night of October 9, 1996 on the Hutchinson Parkway, about an hour from here, when William Vickrey died of a heart attack three days after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Where is the tragedy in the death of an honored 82 year old gentleman? It is in American society missing the crucial and completely unique contribution he was determined to make to the current political and economic debate, or one could say stampede, toward requiring a balanced Federal budget. You see, under present conditions, Prof. Vickrey was strongly opposed to balancing the budget.
As recently as October 5th (see “final warning” on AMI home page) he issued a press release titled “Deficit Reduction Costs Jobs”, warning that each $10 billion of deficit reduction causes a drop of $8 billion in sales and production which translates into 100,000 people losing their jobs.
In 1988, Vickrey wrote BUDGET – SMUDGET, a 15 page paper notable for some frank descriptions of those pushing the balanced budget agenda. The paper examined and refuted the supposed rationale for balancing the budget, described the real effects of such a balancing, and outlined some better alternatives for the economy.
Strangely, while every unthinking exhortation in favor of curtailing the federal budget seems to receive network attention (I have personally seen in 1993, or 94 an unfortunate adolescent suffering from Downe’s Syndrome featured on a network TV documentary saying that when he grew up, he wanted to help the federal government balance the budget!); yet the counsel and wisdom of William Vickrey on this crucial question is being ignored.
Therefore AMI has made a special effort to present his views here. I was fortunate to hear Professor Vickrey present some of those viewpoints to a group of 20 economists attending a prestigious seminar at a local conservative think tank, two years ago. Most who reacted to his budget views disagreed with him, without presenting good reasons for doing so. The minority, possibly in agreement with him, were noticeably quiet about it.
After his talk, everyone else had left the room for lunch or dinner and I told professor Vickrey that I strongly agreed with his views on the budget, but that I was almost the only one in the room without a PHD in economics.(I also discussed with him the reason I’d challenged him earlier on the question of the government creating its money directly rather than borrowing money created by the Federal Reserve System- that an unbiased and careful analysis of monetary history (presently unavailable in any of the nation’s universities) demonstrated a superior record of monetary management by the U.S. government than by private banks).
Incidentally Professor Vickrey did one of his famous “startled out of an apparently deep sleep directly into a heart of the matter question” feats. Seeing this for the first time without having heard the legend, was a real treat!
THE REVIEW
(all italics and emphasis have been added)
On The Budget Process
In “Budget Smudget”, Vickrey begins by pointing out the basic flaw in the federal budgeting process itself – the failure to distinguish between capital and current account items, “(making) the nominal budget a poor indicator of the impact of government outlays and revenues.” Pressure to balance such a budget “results in inefficient decisions to lease rather than own office space, vehicles, computers and other types of equipment, as well as a reluctance to install labor-saving capital throughout government agencies.”
Rational decision making, he points out “generally requires a full balance sheet approach that would include not only tangible assets such as buildings and highways, but on the other side the unfunded liabilities for military and civil service pensions, as well as social security.”
On Education
Of direct relevance to current debates on funding education is Vickrey’s view that “Nearly all educational expenditure should be considered a capital outlay, whether it provides a future return in the form of enhanced taxable income or in terms of an enhanced quality of life.”
On The Balanced Budget Stampede
Vickrey uses some of the strongest language seen in economic writing to describe balanced budget advocates:
“… an insistence on a balanced budget, however properly defined, can have no justification except as a means of providing a procrustean bed into which the operations of a government conceived of as an adversary can be confined.” and
“…there is no real justification for a requirement that a budget of any sort should be balanced, except as a rallying point for those who seek to hamstring government.” and
“… a mystical faith in the propriety of a balanced budget, based on an unreasoned belief that deficits necessary produce inflation…”.
“… an insistence on a balanced budget, however properly defined, can have no justification except as a means of providing a procrustean bed into which the operations of a government conceived of as an adversary can be confined.” and
“…there is no real justification for a requirement that a budget of any sort should be balanced, except as a rallying point for those who seek to hamstring government.” and
“… a mystical faith in the propriety of a balanced budget, based on an unreasoned belief that deficits necessary produce inflation…”.
On Inflation
“But deficits do not in themselves produce inflation, nor does a balanced budget assure a stable price level.” he wrote.
Vickrey’s examination of the cause of inflation (“the overall result of individual prices being independently increased”) notes that “…Increasingly prices are set by sellers, …(able)… to raise their prices without a loss of sales sufficient to wipe out the gain.” This ability to raise prices he says stems from “the increasing sophistication of goods and product differentiation, both inherent and contrived. At the retail level, consumers are increasingly bamboozled by specious advertising and frivolous variety so that comparison of the products of various sellers is increasingly difficult…” and the demand for the products is inelastic.
For these and other reasons he concludes that “Monetary policy is inherently incapable of curbing this process (of inflation) except insofar as it goes to the extreme of idling resources” and causing unemployment.
Vickrey points out that this is rarely faced honestly: “While they generally avoid speaking or even thinking of the policy in terms of increasing unemployment, the main channel through which restrictive monetary policy will act to restrain the raising of prices by price setters is by cutting back on the demand for resources and adding to unemployment.”
“Currently a level of unemployment of 7% or more seems to be required to keep inflation from accelerating, a level quite unacceptable as a permanent situation.”
“The supply -side effect of a restrictive monetary policy, moreover, is likely to be perverse, in that high interest rates enter into costs and thus exert inflationary pressure, as well as inhibiting the expansion of capacity or the introduction of cost reducing capital improvements.”
“In such a context it should be clear that balancing a nominal budget will solve nothing, and attempting to achieve such a spurious balance will produce much mischief.”
On The Real Social Costs Of Unemployment
Again Vickrey tells it like it is:
“The effects of such a level of unemployment are particularly harmful when it is concentrated on a small percentage of the labor force, with consequent increases in crime and delinquency and disruptions of family life, rather than expressing itself as, say, an extra three weeks vacation for everybody. In the short run, at least, inflation is far preferrable to unemployment if the two are considered alternatives.”
“The effects of such a level of unemployment are particularly harmful when it is concentrated on a small percentage of the labor force, with consequent increases in crime and delinquency and disruptions of family life, rather than expressing itself as, say, an extra three weeks vacation for everybody. In the short run, at least, inflation is far preferrable to unemployment if the two are considered alternatives.”
A measure of how important increasing employment is in Prof. Vickreys view can be seen in how much inflation he thinks would be acceptable:
“If unemployment could be brought down to say 2% at the cost of an assured steady rate of inflation of 10%per year, or even 20%, this would be a good bargain.”
The reader should consider that these conclusions are those of a seasoned economic observer and theorist, with a lifetime of impressive practical achievement. Vickrey is concerned though that the inflation rate might not remain steady, at 10 or 20%, but might accelerate “eventually reaching levels that would be extremely disruptive of normal economic calculations”. What is needed, he says is “some new instrument for controlling inflation that does not involve massive unemployment.”
Proposing A New Instrument – An Excess Markups Penalty
“The achievement of a reasonably full degree of employment without accelerating inflation will require development of some additional tool.” As an example of the kind of instrument needed, Prof. Vickrey proposes a penalty tax on excess markups, as a means of containing inflation. Starting from a proposal by Prof. A. Lerner to develop “a market in rights to raise prices, with those wishing to raise prices being permitted to do so only by purchasing the right from others willing to lower theirs to a corresponding degree”, Vickrey concludes that to make it workable, instead of prices, gross markups should be the starting point: “Firms would be given initial entitlements to gross markup on the basis of past performance.”
These entitlements would be transferable and a market in them would be developed. The plan would operate “somewhat similar to an excess value added tax, comparable in some respects to the wartime excess profits tax except for the fact that the entitlements would be directly tradable.”
As to controlling the ultimate rate of inflation Vickrey thought it could be determined in how the program was structured. “The way in which the entitlements are established would determine the overall average degree of price increase … the resulting equilibrium price of entitlements would automatically adjust to provide the degree of restraining pressure to keep inflation at this predetermined level.”
A fascinating proposal which deserves full study sooner, rather than later, as so many of Vickrey’s proposals suffered a great time delay between his thinking them up, and their finally being generally accepted.
Recomendation
Budget Smudget should be read by all economists; government officials; labor union people; political aides and consultants; think tank personell; and news organization employees and personalities, who in any way are factors in the great balanced budget stampede – er debate.
Budget Smudget should be read by all economists; government officials; labor union people; political aides and consultants; think tank personell; and news organization employees and personalities, who in any way are factors in the great balanced budget stampede – er debate.
Stephen Zarlenga
at Kinderhook, Nov. 21, 1996
at Kinderhook, Nov. 21, 1996
One Afterthought
Under conditions where there is the political will to institute Vickrey’s proposed markups control system, it may also be possible to shift all or a part of the nation’s money creation process directly to the Federal Treasury, without the debt creating and interest costing intermediary of the Federal Reserve banking system.
Using such an interest free system of funding particularly the capital side of a properly drawn federal budget, would present an effective way of keeping interest rates very low, and the projects would directly provide the much needed employment: rebuilding bridges, roads, schools, and more, with probable benefits to all, except certain banking elements. (Remember the folks who brought us the savings and loan entertainment?).
For starters, just yesterday a small commuter plane collided with a private plane at the Quincy, Illinois airport, leaving 14 dead. In the reportage it was stated that thousands of such small airports have no control towers or radar “in these times of tight federal budgets”. It was estimated that $750 million would be needed to provide them. The project becomes feasible, where the government controls the money power for the public interest, instead of the bankers; who are so myopic they won’t even fund the crucially needed technology upgrades at the major airports they themselves use!
Your comments and views are appreciated.
1997
返信削除Introduction: William Vickrey Jacques Drèze and Richard Arnott
Part I. Social Choice and Allocation Mechanisms: Introduction Kenneth Arrow
1. Measuring marginal utility by reactions to risk
2. Utility, strategy and social decision rules
3. Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders
4. Auctions and bidding games
Part II. Taxation: Introduction Anthony Atkinson
5. Averaging of income for income tax purposes
6. Cumulative averaging after thirty years
7. An integrated successions tax
8. Expenditure, capital gains and the basis of progressive taxation
9. The problems of progression
Part III. Marginal Cost Pricing: Introduction Jacques Drèze
10. Marginal and average cost pricing
11. Some objections to marginal cost pricing
12. Responsive pricing of public utility services
13. Airline overbooking: some further solutions
Part IV. Pricing Urban Transportation: Introduction Richard Arnott
14. A proposal for revising New York's subway fare structure
15. Pricing in urban and suburban transport
16. Congestion theory and transport investment
Part V. Urban Economics: Introduction Richard Arnott
17. The city as a firm
18. General and specific financing of urban services
19. The impact on land values of taxing building
Part VI. Macroeconomic Policy: Introduction Jacques Drèze
20. The optimum trend of prices
21. Design as a market anti-inflation program
22. Necessary and optimum government debt
23. Today's tasks for economists
Part VII. Miscellany: Introduction Richard Arnott
24. Resources distribution patterns and the classification of families
25. On the prevention of gerrymandering
26. One economist's view of philanthropy
Bibliography of William Vickrey.
‹ 商品の概要に戻る