????但這可能有些失實。《紐約時報》的文章稱，可口可樂和其他鋁材用戶已經開始從金屬生產商（很可能是礦業公司）那里直接購買鋁材，以此規避倉儲費用。因此，對于可口可樂以及通用汽車來說，鋁價很可能并沒有明顯上漲，甚至根本就沒有上漲。對于普通消費者而言，罐裝汽水或汽車的成本也是如此。為了證明這一點，《紐約時報》指出，鋁價從2008年到2011年飆升，而高盛集團倉庫中鋁庫存也從5萬噸上升到85萬噸。

????但《紐約時報》沒有提到的是，2007年末至2008年初經濟大衰退（Great Recession）開始時，鋁價大跌，之后才出現上面提到的飆升。即便如此，鋁價也沒有完全恢復到原來的水平。更重要的是，自2011年年中起，鋁價開始下跌，而與此同時高盛的鋁材庫存卻仍然在持續增長。

????正如《紐約時報》報道所述，可口可樂可能對現貨市場上鋁價（倫敦金屬交易所的報價）的上漲表示過不滿，但是這很可能因為可口可樂和其他制造商一樣喜歡借助金融工具對沖大宗商品價格波動風險。如果交易市場價格高于鋁材實際價格，可口可樂就要支付更多的費用用于對沖風險。但是事實上，即使是成本上升，可口可樂公司仍可能通過對沖鋁價波動風險來省錢。否則可口可樂公司為什么繼續對沖？

????《紐約時報》的這篇報道在指責高盛集團為幕后黑手時，最大的問題就在于用了經不起推敲的證據來證明基本上所有大宗商品市場都由華爾街操縱這一觀點。這篇報道只是稱，根據高盛集團內部的一份備忘錄，投機者把每桶石油價格推高了33%。這篇報道沒有指出的是，同時也有大量研究表明，投機活動并沒有導致汽油價格或其他普通消費價格的上漲。

????文中還將監管機構對摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）的指控作為證據。監管機構稱，摩根大通利用收購貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）獲得的發電廠資產操縱加利福尼亞電價。但這種情況似乎屬于違法行為。

????華爾街欺詐的確似乎會拖累經濟，但僅局限于欺詐。華爾街的公司有很多途徑可以參與到大宗商品市場中，這些途徑有些是合法的，有些是非法的。

????最終，我們要辯論的并不是高盛有沒有違規（《紐約時報》稱沒有證據表明高盛違規），而是投機者是否可以去押注影響我們生活的基本材料的價格。我們所說的投機者不僅僅是指像高盛集團一樣的大型機構。過去的幾年中，允許普通個人對石油和其他大宗商品進行投資的交易所交易基金（ETF）已經蓬勃發展。

????我認為，雖然大量投資者的參與流動性市場會使得成本增加，但是由他們的參與決定石油、電力、鋁材或者股票的價格是一件好事。盡管有些情況下，我們的這個前提假設也許是錯的。而有關華爾街是大宗商品市場害蟲的論調也肯定存在。國會和聯邦儲備委員會（ Federal Reserve）顯然也正在調查這個問題，同時考慮提出新的法規。不過，希望它們不要把《紐約時報》針對高盛集團的這篇報道拿來當成推進變革的理由。（財富中文網）

????譯者：默默

????But that's probably not even the real story. The NYT article says that Coke and other aluminum users have started buying directly from producers of the metal, presumably mining companies, in order to get around rising warehouse costs. So the price of aluminum to Coke and GM, and the cost of a can of soda or a car to an average consumer, probably isn't going up much, or at all. To prove its point, the NYT states that the price of aluminum spiked from 2008 to 2011 as the stockpiles of aluminum in Goldman's warehouses rose from 50,000 tons to 850,000.

????What the NYT doesn't mention is that the spike came only after a much bigger plunge in the price of aluminum in late 2007 and early 2008 at the start of the Great Recession. It still hasn't fully recovered. What's more, aluminum prices have fallen since mid-2011, even as Goldman's stockpiles have continued to grow.

????Coke may have, as the article states, complained about the rising cost of the aluminum in the so-called spot market, which is the price that gets quoted on exchanges like the LME. But that's probably because Coke and other manufactures like to hedge against commodity price swings. If the price in the traded market is higher than the actual price of the metal, Coke would have have to pay more for their hedges. But the fact that Coke can hedge its price still likely saves the company money, even at the higher price. Why else would Coke continue to hedge?

????But perhaps the biggest problem with the NYT's case against Goldman is that it uses its flimsy evidence against the investment bank to justify the argument that basically all commodity markets are being manipulated by Wall Street. The article states plainly, according to a Goldman internal memo no less, that speculators have driven up the price of a barrel of oil by 33%. What the article, again, does not say is that there is a mountain of studies on the other side of that debate that have found that speculators do little to drive up the costs that you and I pay at the pump or elsewhere.

????The article also lumps in as evidence the case being made by regulators that JPMorgan Chase (JPM) used power plants it inherited from Bear Stearns to manipulate electricity prices in California. In that instance, it appears that laws were broken.

????And there Wall Street fraud does seem to be a drag on the economy. But that's always the case with fraud. There are a number of ways Wall Street firms can jump into the commodities markets. Some of them are illegal, and some of them are not.

????In the end, the debate we should be having is not over whether Goldman is breaking any rules -- the NYT article says there is no evidence to suggest it is -- but whether speculators should be able to bet on the price of basic materials that affect our lives. And the speculators we are talking about are not just large institutions like Goldman. In the past few years, ETFs that allow average individual investors to bet on the price of oil and other commodities have flourished.

????My guess is that liquid markets in which lots of investors get to participate to determine the price of oil or electricity or aluminum or stocks is a good thing despite the costs that go along with it. But maybe there are cases where that assumption is wrong. And the idea that Wall Street is bad for the commodities market is certainly in the air. Congress and the Federal Reserve are apparently looking into this question and thinking of proposing new regulations. Hopefully, they won't be using the NYT's case against Goldman as evidence that change is needed.