第二編 貨幣的價(jià)值
第九章 貨幣客觀交換價(jià)值的地域差異存在的問(wèn)題
章節(jié)大綱
一、地區(qū)間的價(jià)格關(guān)系
Money can perform its services from virtually any location. Gold stored in the cellars of the Bank of England can be used as a common medium of exchange anywhere in the world, through the use of banknotes, checks, and clearing systems. In contrast, physical location is a crucial feature of other economic goods. “Coffee in Brazil” is not the same good as “coffee in England,” from the perspective of English consumers.
貨幣可以在任何地方提供服務(wù)。存儲(chǔ)在英格蘭銀行地下室的黃金可以通過(guò)使用紙幣、支票和清算系統(tǒng)，在世界任何地方用作通用的交換媒介。相比之下，物理位置是其他經(jīng)濟(jì)商品的關(guān)鍵特征。從英國(guó)消費(fèi)者的角度來(lái)看，“巴西的咖啡”與“英國(guó)的咖啡”不同。
If we completely disregard the possible (but small) influence of the position of money on its valuation, then we can derive the law that every economic good that is ready for consumption, has a subjective use-value qua consumption good at the place where it is, and qua production good at those places to which it may be transported for consumption. Therefore, the money-price of any commodity in any place must be the same as the money-price at any other place, once we adjust for the money-cost of transportation, unless there are institutional limits restricting exchange. (In the real world, there are possible costs of the transport of money, the need to re-coin it, and so on, that would affect the foreign-exchange rate such as the cable rate. These complications do not arise if we assume the money itself stays put.)
如果我們完全忽視貨幣位置對(duì)其估值的可能（但很小）的影響，那么我們可以得出這樣一個(gè)規(guī)律：每一種可供消費(fèi)的經(jīng)濟(jì)商品，在其所在地都有一個(gè)作為消費(fèi)品的主觀使用價(jià)值，同時(shí)在需要運(yùn)輸過(guò)去以供消費(fèi)的地方，它具有作為生產(chǎn)品的主觀使用價(jià)值。因此，一旦我們排除了運(yùn)輸?shù)呢泿懦杀荆我馍唐吩谌魏蔚胤降呢泿艃r(jià)格一定與任何其它地方的貨幣價(jià)格相同，除非存在制約交換的制度限制。（在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中，可能會(huì)有運(yùn)輸貨幣的成本，需要重新鑄造貨幣等等，這將影響諸如電匯匯率之類的外匯匯率。如果我們假設(shè)貨幣本身保持不變，就不會(huì)出現(xiàn)這些復(fù)雜情況。）
二、所謂的貨幣購(gòu)買力的地域差異
Despite the arguments put forward in the previous section, many people still cling to the belief that one’s money “goes further” in some regions compared to others. However, this erroneous view neglects the fact that the same physical item is a different good, economically speaking, depending on its location. A cocktail in a bar in Manhattan is a different good from the “same drink” in a bar in Boise, so their different money-prices cannot lead us to conclude that the “value of money” is higher in Boise than in Manhattan. On the contrary, the purchasing power of money will tend to be equalized in all regions where it is used, and any apparent discrepancies are due to differences on the commodity side.
盡管上一節(jié)提出了這些論點(diǎn)，但許多人仍然堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，與其它地區(qū)相比，一個(gè)人的貨幣在某些地區(qū)“走得更遠(yuǎn)”。然而，這種錯(cuò)誤的觀點(diǎn)忽略了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度來(lái)看，具有同樣物理屬性的物品處于不同地理位置時(shí)，是不同的商品。曼哈頓一家酒吧的一杯雞尾酒與博伊西一家酒吧的“同一杯酒”是不同的，因此它們不同的貨幣價(jià)格不能讓我們得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為博伊西的“貨幣價(jià)值”比曼哈頓的要高。正相反，貨幣購(gòu)買力在使用貨幣的所有地區(qū)都會(huì)趨于均衡，任何明顯的差異都是由于商品方面的差異造成的。
三、所謂的生活成本的地域差異
Closely related to the fallacy that the purchasing power of money can vary from region to region, is the claim that the “cost of living” is higher in one area versus another. Here too we need to consider the subjective valuations of individuals, rather than the physical attributes of goods and services. An apartment carries a higher rental price in a resort town near a popular beach, versus a rural area with no special attractions, precisely because people value the proximity to the beach, the local night life, etc. It is simply not true that the same lifestyle can be obtained more cheaply in the rural town than in the resort town. If the “cost of living” really were higher in one location, people would move out of the area until its prices had fallen enough to eliminate the discrepancy.
與貨幣購(gòu)買力因地區(qū)而異這一謬論密切相關(guān)的是，有人聲稱一個(gè)地區(qū)的“生活成本”高于另一個(gè)地區(qū)的。在這里，我們也需要考慮個(gè)人的主觀評(píng)價(jià)，而不是商品和服務(wù)的物理屬性。與沒(méi)有特殊景點(diǎn)的農(nóng)村地區(qū)相比，在靠近熱門海灘的度假小鎮(zhèn)，公寓的租金更高，這正是因?yàn)槿藗兛粗睾└浇沫h(huán)境、當(dāng)?shù)氐囊股畹?。認(rèn)為在鄉(xiāng)村小鎮(zhèn)可以比在度假小鎮(zhèn)更便宜地獲得同樣的生活方式明顯是不真實(shí)的。如果一個(gè)地方的“生活費(fèi)用”真的更高，那么人們就會(huì)搬離該地區(qū)，直到它的價(jià)格下降到足以消除這種差異為止。
技術(shù)說(shuō)明
Mises says on page 171 that the money-price of a commodity must be the same in all places, due account being made for the money-cost of transport, and disregarding “the time taken in transit.” This caveat is necessary because the time dimension affects the subjective valuation of goods. For an extreme example, if it takes one year to ship a new computer to a colony on Mars, the manufacturer would insist on a higher retail price (obtainable in one year) than the current spot price on Earth, even after adding in explicit shipping expenses. This is because the computer manufacturer could receive revenues from Earth-based customers immediately, which is more valuable than having to wait a year to receive the same amount of money from Martian consumers.
米塞斯在英文版第171頁(yè)說(shuō)，商品的貨幣價(jià)格在所有地方都一定相同。這句話適當(dāng)考慮到運(yùn)輸?shù)呢泿懦杀荆⑶液雎粤恕霸谶\(yùn)輸中花費(fèi)的時(shí)間”。這一警告是必要的，因?yàn)闀r(shí)間維度影響商品的主觀評(píng)價(jià)。舉個(gè)極端的例子，如果將一臺(tái)新計(jì)算機(jī)運(yùn)送到火星上的殖民地需要一年時(shí)間，即使加上明確的運(yùn)輸費(fèi)用，制造商也會(huì)堅(jiān)持要比地球上的現(xiàn)貨價(jià)格更高的零售價(jià)（一年內(nèi)可以獲得）。這是因?yàn)橛?jì)算機(jī)制造商可以立即從地球客戶那里獲得收入，這比等待一年再?gòu)幕鹦窍M(fèi)者那里獲得相同數(shù)額的貨幣更有價(jià)值。
Mises concedes on pages 176–77 that there is a limited sense in which a region’s higher “cost of living” is both valid theoretically and important in practice. Namely, for those workers who move to a region and do not subjectively value its amenities, the high money-prices for rent, parking, food, and so on must be compensated by an appropriate increase in their money-wages or salaries. For example, a hospital located in a resort beach town may need to offer a higher salary to attract (say) a qualified brain surgeon, if there happen to be no brain surgeons eager to live near the beach and who are therefore willing to accept the “normal” salary in the face of above-average prices for housing in the resort town.
米塞斯在英文版第176-177頁(yè)承認(rèn)，狹義所說(shuō)的某一個(gè)地區(qū)有較高的“生活費(fèi)用”，這種說(shuō)法不但在理論上有效，而且在實(shí)踐中也很重要。換句話說(shuō)，對(duì)于那些搬到某個(gè)地區(qū)的工人來(lái)說(shuō)，如果他們沒(méi)有主觀看重此地的便利設(shè)施，那么必須通過(guò)適當(dāng)增加其薪酬來(lái)補(bǔ)償他們?cè)诖说匦枰Ц兜母邇r(jià)房租、停車費(fèi)、食品等。例如，如果沒(méi)有渴望住在海灘附近并因此愿意接受“正?！毙匠甑哪X外科醫(yī)生，那么位于海濱度假小鎮(zhèn)的醫(yī)院可能需要提供更高的薪酬來(lái)吸引一名合格的腦外科醫(yī)生，因?yàn)槎燃傩℃?zhèn)的住房?jī)r(jià)格高于平均水平。
新術(shù)語(yǔ)
Clearing systems: Arrangements that cancel out or “clear” reciprocal financial claims, so that only net claims need be settled through the actual transfer of money.
清算系統(tǒng)：取消或“清除”彼此之間金融債權(quán)的安排，以便只需要通過(guò)實(shí)際轉(zhuǎn)賬結(jié)算凈債權(quán)。
Foreign-exchange rate: The exchange ratio between a domestic and foreign currency.
外匯匯率：國(guó)內(nèi)貨幣與外國(guó)貨幣之間的匯率。
Cable rate: Slang used by foreign-exchange traders to denote the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and British pound sterling.
電匯匯率（Cable rate）：外匯交易商用來(lái)表示美元和英鎊之間匯率的俚語(yǔ)。
研究問(wèn)題
What complementary good is necessary to turn the production good “coffee in Brazil” into the consumption good “coffee in Europe”? (p. 171)
將作為生產(chǎn)品的“巴西咖啡”轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樽鳛橄M(fèi)品的“歐洲咖啡”需要有什么補(bǔ)充商品？（英文版第171頁(yè)）Explain: “To what absurd conclusions should we not come if we regarded goods lying in bond in a customs or excise warehouse and goods of the same technological species on which the duty or tax had already been paid as belonging to the same species of goods in the economic sense?” (pp. 172–73)
解釋：“試問(wèn)，我們將海關(guān)保稅倉(cāng)庫(kù)中的保稅商品與那些制造工藝相同而已經(jīng)交稅的商品視為經(jīng)濟(jì)意義上的同種商品，那么還有什么荒謬的結(jié)論是我們提不出來(lái)的呢？”（英文版第172-173頁(yè)）Explain: “It is hardly possible to agree with these arguments [put forward by Wieser], which smack a little too much of the cost-of-production theory of value and are certainly not to be reconciled with the principles of the subjective theory.” (p. 174)
解釋：“很難同意[維塞爾提出的]這些論點(diǎn)，這些觀點(diǎn)有些過(guò)于強(qiáng)調(diào)價(jià)值的生產(chǎn)成本理論，而且顯然與主觀理論的原則不一致?！保ㄓ⑽陌娴?74頁(yè)）Can government restrictions on the movement of commodities and workers explain differences in retail prices? (p. 175)
政府對(duì)商品和工人流動(dòng)的限制能否解釋零售價(jià)格的差異？（英文版第175頁(yè)）What does Mises intend with his example of a hotel on the peaks and valleys of the Alps? (p. 176)
米塞斯舉了在阿爾卑斯山峰和山谷上的旅館的例子是想說(shuō)明什么？ （英文版第176頁(yè)）
