在美國華盛頓的加油站和超市里,飆升的物價讓消費者感到非常憤怒,很多人認為罪魁禍首很明確,因為貪婪的企業兇猛抬高價格攫取利潤。
為了回應民眾的憤怒,今年5月,民主黨領導的眾議院針對一項法案做了黨派立場投票,多數民主黨人支持,所有共和黨人反對。法案內容是希望打擊能源生產商涉嫌哄抬物價的行為。
無獨有偶,今年5月,英國也宣布計劃對石油天然氣公司的利潤征收25%的臨時暴利稅,并將相關收入發放給經濟困難的家庭。
然而盡管公眾怨聲載道,多數經濟學家卻表示,企業哄抬物價最多只是通脹失控的諸多原因之一,不是主要原因。
“針對當下情況,其實有更靠譜的元兇。”位于西班牙的納瓦拉大學(University of Navarra)的經濟學家何塞·阿扎爾表示。
其中包括:消費者強勁支出;工廠、港口和貨場供應中斷;工人短缺;美國總統喬·拜登的大規模疫情援助計劃;新冠病毒導致中國停產;俄烏沖突;最重要的是,美聯儲(Federal Reserve)維持超低利率水平的時間比專家說的長。
如果說譴責聲有愈演愈烈之勢,主要原因是今年5月,美國政府報告稱通脹率與去年同期相比上升8.6%,這是自1981年以來物價的最大漲幅。
為了對抗通脹,美聯儲大幅收緊信貸,但為時已晚。6月15日,美聯儲將基準利率上調了75個基點,這是自1994年以來最猛的一次加息,也預示會出現更多的大幅加息。美聯儲希望實現“軟著陸”,然而實現這一目標是出了名的艱難。所謂“軟著陸”是指放緩增長速度以抑制通脹,同時又要避免經濟陷入衰退。
多年來,通脹一直保持或低于美聯儲2%的年度目標,甚至失業率降至半個世紀以來最低水平時也能夠做到。然而當經濟從大規模衰退中以驚人速度和力度反彈時,美國的消費者價格指數(CPI)從2021年3月的同比增長2.6%不斷上升至今年5月的近40年來高點。
今年年初,標準普爾500指數(S&P 500)的成份股公司的利潤率下降之前,至少有一段時間的通脹飆升與企業盈利增長保持同步。消費者很容易從中發現蛛絲馬跡,從而認為企業似乎在哄抬物價。這可不是簡單的通脹。而是貪婪導致的通脹。
今年的4月末5月初,《華盛頓郵報》(Washington Post)和喬治·梅森大學(George Mason University)的沙爾政策與政府學院(Schar School of Policy and Government)對1055名美國人的民意調查中,被問及汽油價格飆升背后的罪魁禍首時,72%的人將之歸咎于營利性企業,超過了俄烏沖突(69%)、拜登(58%)或者新冠疫情帶來的影響(58%)。而且兩黨結果一致:86%的民主黨人和52%的共和黨人都指責企業抬高油價。
“消費者發現價格上漲,感到憤怒,然后找人責怪,這很自然。”紐約大學(New York University)的斯特恩商學院(Stern School of Business)研究企業競爭的經濟學家克里斯托弗·康倫表示。“不管是超市、加油站還是汽車經銷店,都輪不到普通人定價。所以人們自然會責怪企業,因為人們看到企業在提價。”
然而,康倫和其他很多經濟學家不愿意指控,也不支持懲罰美國企業。本月,芝加哥大學(University of Chicago)的布斯商學院(Booth School of Business)詢問經濟學家,愿不愿意支持通過法律禁止市場震蕩期間大企業以“不合理的過高價格”出售商品或服務,65%的經濟學家表示不支持。支持者僅占5%。
經濟學家阿扎爾承認,哪些因素組合導致價格飆升“仍然懸而未決”。新冠疫情及其后果導致人們很難評估經濟狀況。當今的經濟學家并不具備分析新冠疫情在財務方面影響的經驗。
面對2020年3月新冠疫情爆發以來的經濟走勢,政策制定者和分析師一再判斷失誤:他們沒有料到在龐大的政府支出、美聯儲及其他央行創造的創紀錄低利率的推動下,經濟可以迅速從低迷中復蘇。之后,他們又遲遲沒有意識到高通脹壓力日益增大的威脅,剛開始認為只是供應中斷引發的暫時影響。
然而,經濟有一個方面無可爭議:近幾十年的并購浪潮已經扼殺或削弱了航空公司、銀行、肉類包裝和其他行業的競爭。整合后幸存的公司能夠要求供應商降價,壓低工人工資,將更高成本轉嫁給客戶,畢竟客戶除了付錢沒有什么選擇。
波士頓聯邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of Boston)的研究人員發現,競爭越少,企業就越容易將更高的成本轉嫁給客戶,并將其稱之為通脹復蘇的“放大因素”。
自由派的經濟政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)的研究主任喬希·比文斯估計,自2020年年中以來,非金融企業近54%的價格上漲原因在于“追求更豐厚的利潤”,而從1979年到2019年,該比例僅為11%。
比文斯承認,過去兩年企業貪婪和市場影響力都不太可能顯著增長。但他表示,新冠疫情通脹飆升期間,公司確實改變了利用市場力量的方向:很多公司不再向供應商施壓以削減成本,也不再限制員工工資,而是面向客戶提價。
上周一項針對近3700家公司的研究中,左傾的羅斯福研究所(Roosevelt Institute)得出結論,去年提價和利潤率均達到20世紀50年代以來最高水平。羅斯福研究所還發現,新冠疫情之前曾經大舉提價的公司在疫情爆發后漲價可能性更高,“表明市場力量具有驅動通脹的作用。”
然而,很多經濟學家并不認同企業貪婪是罪魁禍首。美國前總統貝拉克·奧巴馬的白宮高級經濟顧問杰森·弗曼表示,一些證據甚至表明,與因為成本上升而面臨激烈競爭的公司相比,壟斷企業的提價速度相對較慢,“部分原因是壟斷企業定價一開始就很高。”
紐約大學的康倫還列舉了競爭激烈的市場中價格飆升的例子。例如,全美國各地的眾多個人大量出售二手車。然而過去一年,二手車平均價格飆升了16%。今年5月,另一個競爭對手眾多的市場——大型家電的平均價格較去年同期也漲了近10%。
相比之下,盡管啤酒市場由百威英博(AB-Inbev)壟斷,百加得(Bacardi)和帝亞吉歐(Diageo)主導烈酒市場,酒精飲料的價格比一年前僅上漲了4%。
“如果非要說百威英博沒有家電公司美泰克(Maytag)貪婪,很難讓人相信。”康倫說。
那么,是什么推動了通脹飆升?
“需求。”現供職哈佛大學(Harvard University)的弗曼說,“大量的政府支出,龐大的貨幣供應,共同支撐了極高的需求水平。然而供應跟不上,所以導致了價格上漲。”
舊金山聯邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)的研究人員估計,自2021上半年以來,美國政府在新冠疫情期間的經濟援助導致通脹率上升了約3個百分點。經濟援助直接給消費者發錢,幫助人們渡過危機,也引發了消費熱潮。
今年4月發布的報告中,圣路易斯聯邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis)的研究人員指出,工廠成本之所以上漲,全球供應鏈瓶頸是“重要原因”。研究人員發現,去年11月,制造業的批發通脹率增加了高達20個百分點,達到30%。
盡管如此,不少經濟學家,甚至連一些認為過去一年價格飆升原因并非貪婪的經濟學家也表示,政府應該限制壟斷企業的市場力量,比如阻止減少競爭的合并。關鍵在于,要讓更多的公司爭奪客戶從而鼓勵創新,提升經濟效率。
即便如此,采取更嚴厲的反壟斷政策也不太可能短期減緩通脹壓力。
“我發現可以把競爭比作飲食和鍛煉。”紐約大學的康倫說。“競爭加大是好事。但就像節食和鍛煉一樣,要等很久才能夠看到回報。”
“現在的情況是,病人躺在急診室里奄奄一息。飲食和鍛煉當然還是好事。但首先要治療嚴重的通脹問題。”(財富中文網)
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
在美國華盛頓的加油站和超市里,飆升的物價讓消費者感到非常憤怒,很多人認為罪魁禍首很明確,因為貪婪的企業兇猛抬高價格攫取利潤。
為了回應民眾的憤怒,今年5月,民主黨領導的眾議院針對一項法案做了黨派立場投票,多數民主黨人支持,所有共和黨人反對。法案內容是希望打擊能源生產商涉嫌哄抬物價的行為。
無獨有偶,今年5月,英國也宣布計劃對石油天然氣公司的利潤征收25%的臨時暴利稅,并將相關收入發放給經濟困難的家庭。
然而盡管公眾怨聲載道,多數經濟學家卻表示,企業哄抬物價最多只是通脹失控的諸多原因之一,不是主要原因。
“針對當下情況,其實有更靠譜的元兇。”位于西班牙的納瓦拉大學(University of Navarra)的經濟學家何塞·阿扎爾表示。
其中包括:消費者強勁支出;工廠、港口和貨場供應中斷;工人短缺;美國總統喬·拜登的大規模疫情援助計劃;新冠病毒導致中國停產;俄烏沖突;最重要的是,美聯儲(Federal Reserve)維持超低利率水平的時間比專家說的長。
如果說譴責聲有愈演愈烈之勢,主要原因是今年5月,美國政府報告稱通脹率與去年同期相比上升8.6%,這是自1981年以來物價的最大漲幅。
為了對抗通脹,美聯儲大幅收緊信貸,但為時已晚。6月15日,美聯儲將基準利率上調了75個基點,這是自1994年以來最猛的一次加息,也預示會出現更多的大幅加息。美聯儲希望實現“軟著陸”,然而實現這一目標是出了名的艱難。所謂“軟著陸”是指放緩增長速度以抑制通脹,同時又要避免經濟陷入衰退。
多年來,通脹一直保持或低于美聯儲2%的年度目標,甚至失業率降至半個世紀以來最低水平時也能夠做到。然而當經濟從大規模衰退中以驚人速度和力度反彈時,美國的消費者價格指數(CPI)從2021年3月的同比增長2.6%不斷上升至今年5月的近40年來高點。
今年年初,標準普爾500指數(S&P 500)的成份股公司的利潤率下降之前,至少有一段時間的通脹飆升與企業盈利增長保持同步。消費者很容易從中發現蛛絲馬跡,從而認為企業似乎在哄抬物價。這可不是簡單的通脹。而是貪婪導致的通脹。
今年的4月末5月初,《華盛頓郵報》(Washington Post)和喬治·梅森大學(George Mason University)的沙爾政策與政府學院(Schar School of Policy and Government)對1055名美國人的民意調查中,被問及汽油價格飆升背后的罪魁禍首時,72%的人將之歸咎于營利性企業,超過了俄烏沖突(69%)、拜登(58%)或者新冠疫情帶來的影響(58%)。而且兩黨結果一致:86%的民主黨人和52%的共和黨人都指責企業抬高油價。
“消費者發現價格上漲,感到憤怒,然后找人責怪,這很自然。”紐約大學(New York University)的斯特恩商學院(Stern School of Business)研究企業競爭的經濟學家克里斯托弗·康倫表示。“不管是超市、加油站還是汽車經銷店,都輪不到普通人定價。所以人們自然會責怪企業,因為人們看到企業在提價。”
然而,康倫和其他很多經濟學家不愿意指控,也不支持懲罰美國企業。本月,芝加哥大學(University of Chicago)的布斯商學院(Booth School of Business)詢問經濟學家,愿不愿意支持通過法律禁止市場震蕩期間大企業以“不合理的過高價格”出售商品或服務,65%的經濟學家表示不支持。支持者僅占5%。
經濟學家阿扎爾承認,哪些因素組合導致價格飆升“仍然懸而未決”。新冠疫情及其后果導致人們很難評估經濟狀況。當今的經濟學家并不具備分析新冠疫情在財務方面影響的經驗。
面對2020年3月新冠疫情爆發以來的經濟走勢,政策制定者和分析師一再判斷失誤:他們沒有料到在龐大的政府支出、美聯儲及其他央行創造的創紀錄低利率的推動下,經濟可以迅速從低迷中復蘇。之后,他們又遲遲沒有意識到高通脹壓力日益增大的威脅,剛開始認為只是供應中斷引發的暫時影響。
然而,經濟有一個方面無可爭議:近幾十年的并購浪潮已經扼殺或削弱了航空公司、銀行、肉類包裝和其他行業的競爭。整合后幸存的公司能夠要求供應商降價,壓低工人工資,將更高成本轉嫁給客戶,畢竟客戶除了付錢沒有什么選擇。
波士頓聯邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of Boston)的研究人員發現,競爭越少,企業就越容易將更高的成本轉嫁給客戶,并將其稱之為通脹復蘇的“放大因素”。
自由派的經濟政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)的研究主任喬希·比文斯估計,自2020年年中以來,非金融企業近54%的價格上漲原因在于“追求更豐厚的利潤”,而從1979年到2019年,該比例僅為11%。
比文斯承認,過去兩年企業貪婪和市場影響力都不太可能顯著增長。但他表示,新冠疫情通脹飆升期間,公司確實改變了利用市場力量的方向:很多公司不再向供應商施壓以削減成本,也不再限制員工工資,而是面向客戶提價。
上周一項針對近3700家公司的研究中,左傾的羅斯福研究所(Roosevelt Institute)得出結論,去年提價和利潤率均達到20世紀50年代以來最高水平。羅斯福研究所還發現,新冠疫情之前曾經大舉提價的公司在疫情爆發后漲價可能性更高,“表明市場力量具有驅動通脹的作用。”
然而,很多經濟學家并不認同企業貪婪是罪魁禍首。美國前總統貝拉克·奧巴馬的白宮高級經濟顧問杰森·弗曼表示,一些證據甚至表明,與因為成本上升而面臨激烈競爭的公司相比,壟斷企業的提價速度相對較慢,“部分原因是壟斷企業定價一開始就很高。”
紐約大學的康倫還列舉了競爭激烈的市場中價格飆升的例子。例如,全美國各地的眾多個人大量出售二手車。然而過去一年,二手車平均價格飆升了16%。今年5月,另一個競爭對手眾多的市場——大型家電的平均價格較去年同期也漲了近10%。
相比之下,盡管啤酒市場由百威英博(AB-Inbev)壟斷,百加得(Bacardi)和帝亞吉歐(Diageo)主導烈酒市場,酒精飲料的價格比一年前僅上漲了4%。
“如果非要說百威英博沒有家電公司美泰克(Maytag)貪婪,很難讓人相信。”康倫說。
那么,是什么推動了通脹飆升?
“需求。”現供職哈佛大學(Harvard University)的弗曼說,“大量的政府支出,龐大的貨幣供應,共同支撐了極高的需求水平。然而供應跟不上,所以導致了價格上漲。”
舊金山聯邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)的研究人員估計,自2021上半年以來,美國政府在新冠疫情期間的經濟援助導致通脹率上升了約3個百分點。經濟援助直接給消費者發錢,幫助人們渡過危機,也引發了消費熱潮。
今年4月發布的報告中,圣路易斯聯邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis)的研究人員指出,工廠成本之所以上漲,全球供應鏈瓶頸是“重要原因”。研究人員發現,去年11月,制造業的批發通脹率增加了高達20個百分點,達到30%。
盡管如此,不少經濟學家,甚至連一些認為過去一年價格飆升原因并非貪婪的經濟學家也表示,政府應該限制壟斷企業的市場力量,比如阻止減少競爭的合并。關鍵在于,要讓更多的公司爭奪客戶從而鼓勵創新,提升經濟效率。
即便如此,采取更嚴厲的反壟斷政策也不太可能短期減緩通脹壓力。
“我發現可以把競爭比作飲食和鍛煉。”紐約大學的康倫說。“競爭加大是好事。但就像節食和鍛煉一樣,要等很久才能夠看到回報。”
“現在的情況是,病人躺在急診室里奄奄一息。飲食和鍛煉當然還是好事。但首先要治療嚴重的通脹問題。”(財富中文網)
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
WASHINGTON—Furious about surging prices at the gasoline station and the supermarket, many consumers feel they know just where to cast blame: On greedy companies that relentlessly jack up prices and pocket the profits.
Responding to that sentiment, the Democratic-led House of Representatives in May passed on a party-line vote—most Democrats for, all Republicans against—a bill designed to crack down on alleged price gouging by energy producers.
Likewise, Britain in May announced plans to impose a temporary 25% windfall tax on oil and gas company profits and to funnel the proceeds to financially struggling households.
Yet for all the public's resentment, most economists say corporate price gouging is, at most, one of many causes of runaway inflation—and not the primary one.
“There are much more plausible candidates for what’s going on," said Jose Azar an economist at Spain’s University of Navarra.
They include: Robust spending by consumers. Supply disruptions at factories, ports and freight yards. Worker shortages. President Joe Biden’s enormous pandemic aid program. COVID 19-caused shutdowns in China. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And, not least, a Federal Reserve that kept interest rates ultra-low longer than experts say it should have.
The blame game is, if anything, intensifying after the U.S. government reported that inflation hit 8.6% in May from a year earlier, the biggest price spike since 1981.
To fight inflation, the Fed is now belatedly tightening credit aggressively. On June 15, it raised its benchmark short-term rate by three-quarters of a point—its largest hike since 1994—and signaled that more large rate hikes are coming. The Fed hopes to achieve a notoriously difficult “soft landing”—slowing growth enough to curb inflation without causing the economy to slide into recession.
For years, inflation had remained at or below the Fed’s 2% annual target, even while unemployment sank to a half-century low. But when the economy rebounded from the pandemic recession with startling speed and strength, the U.S. consumer price index rose steadily—from a 2.6% year-over-year increase in March 2021 to May 2022's four-decade high.
For a while at least—before profit margins at S&P 500 companies dipped early this year—the inflation surge coincided with swelling corporate earnings. It was easy for consumers to connect the dots: Companies, it seemed, were engaged in price-gouging. This wasn’t just inflation. It was greedflation.
Asked to name the culprits behind the spike in gasoline prices, 72% of the 1,055 Americans polled in late April and early May by the Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government blamed profit-seeking corporations, more than the share who pointed to Russia's war against Ukraine (69%) or Biden (58%) or pandemic disruptions (58%). And the verdict was bipartisan: 86% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans blamed corporations for inflated gas prices.
“It's very natural for consumers to see prices rising and get angry about it and then look for someone to blame,” said Christopher Conlon, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business who studies corporate competition. “You and I don’t get to set prices at the supermarket, the gas station or the car dealership. So people naturally blame corporations, since those are the ones they see raising prices.”
Yet Conlon and many other economists are reluctant to indict—or to favor punishing—Corporate America. When the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business asked economists this month whether they'd support a law to bar big companies from selling their goods or services at an “unconscionably excessive price” during a market shock, 65% said no. Only 5% backed the idea.
Just what combination of factors is most responsible for causing prices to soar “is still an open question, ” economist Azar acknowledges. COVID-19 and its aftermath have made it hard to assess the state of the economy. Today’s economists have no experience analyzing the financial aftermath of a pandemic.
Policymakers and analysts have been repeatedly blindsided by the path the economy has taken since COVID struck in March 2020: They didn’t expect the swift recovery from the downturn, fueled by vast government spending and record-low rates engineered by the Fed and other central banks. Then they were slow to recognize the gathering threat of high inflation pressures, dismissing them at first as merely a temporary consequence of supply disruptions.
One aspect of the economy, though, is undisputed: A wave of mergers in recent decades has killed or shrunk competition among airlines, banks, meatpacking companies and many other industries. That consolidation has given the surviving companies the leverage to demand price cuts from suppliers, to hold down workers' pay and to pass on higher costs to customers who don’t have much choice but to pay up.
Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston have found that less competition made it easier for companies to pass along higher costs to customers, calling it an “amplifying factor” in the resurgence of inflation.
Josh Bivens, research director at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, has estimated that nearly 54% of the price increases in nonfinancial businesses since mid-2020 can be attributed to "fatter profit margins," versus just 11% from 1979 through 2019.
Bivens conceded that neither corporate greed nor market clout has likely grown significantly in the past two years. But he suggested that during the COVID inflationary spike, companies have redirected how they use their market power: Many have shifted away from pressuring suppliers to cut costs and limiting workers’ pay and have instead boosted prices for customers.
In a study of nearly 3,700 companies released last week, the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute concluded that markups and profit margins last year reached their highest level since the 1950s. It also found that companies that had aggressively raised prices before the pandemic were more likely to do so after it struck, “suggesting a role for market power as an explanatory driver of inflation.”
Yet many economists aren’t convinced that corporate greed is the main culprit. Jason Furman, a top economic adviser in the Obama White House, said that some evidence even suggests that monopolies are slower than companies that face stiff competition to raise prices when their own costs rise, “in part because their prices were high to begin with.”
Likewise, NYU’s Conlon cites examples where prices have soared in competitive markets. Used cars, for example, are sold in lots across the country and by numerous individuals. Yet average used-car prices have skyrocketed 16% over the past year. Similarly, the average price of major appliances, another market with plenty of competitors, surged nearly 10% in May from a year earlier.
By contrast, the price of alcoholic beverages has risen just 4% from a year ago even though the beer market is dominated by AB-Inbev and spirits by Bacardi and Diageo.
“It is hard to imagine that AB-Inbev isn’t as greedy as Maytag,” Conlon said.
So what has most driven the inflationary spike?
“Demand,” said Furman, now at Harvard University. “Lots of government spending, lots of monetary support—all combined together to support extraordinarily high levels of demand. Supply couldn’t keep up, so prices rose.”
Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimate that government aid to the economy during the pandemic, which put money in consumers' pockets to help them endure the crisis and set off a spending spree, has raised inflation by about 3 percentage points since the first half of 2021.
In report released in April, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis blamed global supply chain bottlenecks for playing a “significant role” in inflating factory costs. They found that it added a staggering 20 percentage points to wholesale inflation in manufacturing last November, raising it to 30%.
Still, even some economists who don’t blame greedflation for the price spike of the past year say they think governments should try to restrict the market power of monopolies, perhaps by blocking mergers that reduce competition. The idea is that more companies vying for the same customers would encourage innovation and makes the economy more productive.
Even so, tougher antitrust policies wouldn't likely do much to slow inflation anytime soon.
“I find it helpful to think about competition like diet and exercise,” NYU’s Conlon said. “More competition is a good thing. But, like diet and exercise, the payoffs are long term.”
“Right now, the patient is in the emergency room. Sure, diet and exercise are still a good thing. But we need to treat the acute problem of inflation.”