一些资料

htatat

发表于: 22分钟前 - IP:*.*.*.* 只看楼主大中小楼主 本月阅读JJ原文确认 在自己整理阅读JJ。发现有些有GWD原文的，不知道得到确认否。大家帮忙看下。 1.1.2 财政赤字和通货膨胀率* Conventional wisdom has it that large deficits赤字 in the United States budget cause interest rates to rise.  Two main arguments are given for this claim.  According to the first, as the deficit increases, the government will borrow more to make up for the ensuing shortage of funds.  Consequently, it is argued, if both the total supply of credit (money available for borrowing) and the amount of credit sought by nongovernment borrowers remain relatively stable, as is often supposed, then the price of credit (the interest rate) will increase.  That this is so is suggested by the basic economic principles that if supplies of a commodity (here, credit) remain fixed and demand for that commodity increases, its price will also increase.  The second argument supposes that the government will tend to finance its deficits by increasing the money supply with insufficient regard for whether there is enough room for economic growth to enable such an increase to occur without causing inflation.  It is then argued that financiers will expect the deficit to cause inflation and will raise interest rates, anticipating that because of inflation the money they lend will be worth less when paid back. Unfortunately for the first argument, it is unreasonable to assume that nongovernment borrowing and the supply of credit will remain relatively stable.  Nongovernment borrowing sometimes decreases.  When it does, increased government borrowing will not necessarily push up the total demand for credit.  Alternatively, when credit availability increases, for example through greater foreign lending to the United States, then interest rates need not rise, even if both private and government borrowing increase. The second argument is also problematic.  Financing the deficit by increasing the money supply should cause inflation only when there is not enough room for economic growth.  Currently, there is no reason to expect deficits to cause inflation.  However, since many financiers believe that deficits ordinarily create inflation, then admittedly they will be inclined使倾向 to raise interest rates to offset mistakenly anticipated inflation.  This effect, however, is due to ignorance无知愚昧, not to the deficit itself, and could be lessened by educating financiers on this issue. 1.1.4服务行业和制造业 * (This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997) Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. Several explanations have been offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods. Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rate would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of technological resources, rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading edge service companies indicate that service sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces－such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation－that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources. 1.1.7 市场管理 Market regulation * Companies that must determine well in advance of the selling season how many units of a new product to manufacture often underproduce products that sell well and have overstocks of others. The increased incidence in recent years of mismatches between production and demand seems ironic, since point-of-sale scanners have improved data on consumers’ buying patterns and since flexible manufacturing has enabled companies to 24 produce, cost-effectively, small quantities of goods. This type of manufacturing has greatly increased the number of new products introduced annually in the United States. However, frequent introductions of new products have two problematic side effects. For one, they reduce the average lifetime of products; more of them are neither at the beginning of their life (when prediction is difficult) or at the end of their life (when keeping inventory is expensive because the products will soon become obsolete). For another, as new products proliferate, demand is divided among a growing number of stock-keeping units (SKU’s). Even though manufacturers and retailers can forecast aggregate demand with some certainty, forecasting accurately how that demand will be distributed among the many SKU’s they sell is difficult.  For example, a company may be able to estimate accurately the aggregate number of shoes it will sell, but it may be uncertain about which specific types of shoes will sell more than other types.