附偶的翻译，欢迎赐教


经济聚焦

调整后的汉堡经济学

巨无霸指数表明人民币并未如想象的那样被低估

今年巨无霸指数将迎来它的第25个年头。这一指标由经济学人杂志在1986年确立并且成为衡量一国货币是否处于正常水平的轻松指标，人们从未计划将其视作货币偏离其价值的精确估计，它只是使汇率更加容易理解的工具。但是，巨无霸指数已经成为一个全球标准，甚至在很多经济学教科书以及至少20多个学术研究中都引用了它。美国的政客甚至引用这一指数来要求人民币大幅升值。由于这么多人如此严肃的对待这一指数，或许现在是该井这一指数的时候了。

汉堡经济学基于购买力平价理论，即长期来看汇率会使任何两个国家相同的一揽子商品和服务（在此指一个汉堡）趋于相同的价格水平。在美国一个巨无霸的价格为4.07美元；在中国，按市场汇率计算一个巨无霸的价格仅为2.27美元，比美国的价格低了44%。也就是说，巨无霸指数表明人民币兑美元的价值低估了44%。与此相反，苏格兰和挪威的货币高估了大约100%。欧元（根据欧元区成员国加权平均的价格计算）兑美元的汇率高估了21%；英镑稍稍被低估；日元似乎与美元相当。我们首次将印度纳入我们的调查。麦当劳在印度并不出售巨无霸，所以我们用王公鸡肉堡取而代之，这种汉堡用鸡肉制作而不是牛肉。一个汉堡的成本中肉类占的比重不到10%，所以这不可能大幅度的扭曲结果。数据表明印度卢比被低估了53%。

Ketchup growth

一些人发现汉堡经济学很难让人信服。汉堡很难进行跨国交易，并且价格会被当地的诸如租房成本和工人工资等非交易性生产要素扭曲。例如，巨无霸指数表明大多数新兴市场国家的货币都被明显低估（巴西、阿根廷例外）。但是，由于贫穷国家的劳动力成本低，你会认为贫穷国家的平均价格会低于发达国家的平均价格。这就是称之为“巴拉萨-萨缪尔森效应”的基础。由于发达国家的生产率较之不发达国家高出很多，因此贸易品部门的工资也会高于不发达国家。由于工厂为了争夺工人而相互竞争，这也推高了非贸易品和服务的价格，而在非贸易品领域发达国家的优势并不明显。所以贫穷国家的平均价格更加便宜。上表表明了以美元计算的巨无霸和人均GDP的强烈的正相关关系。

中国的人均收入只有美国的十分之一，经济理论表明在这种情况下汇率应当低于其长期的购买力平价（也就是，使两国购买一个汉堡的价格相等的比率）。购买力平价理论表明长期的汇率走势，也就是伴随着中国逐渐富裕的走势，但并不是指今天的汇率平衡。但是，价格和人均GDP的关系或许可以用来估计一种货币当前的合理价格。上图给出了48个国家巨无霸价格和人均GDP的最佳组合线。根据人均GDP计算的红线所示的每个国家的预期价格和实际价格之间的差额提供了比基于购买力平价理论巨无霸指数来平价一国货币是否被低估的更好的指标。

这种经过人均ＧＤＰ调整过的做法表明巴西里亚尔被炒得过了头，（比合理价格）贵出一倍还多（见下表）。欧元兑美元汇率高估了36%，我们经过改进的指数也表明了欧元区内的非竞争性的经济体。通过比较欧元区成员国的汉堡价格，经过调整的巨无霸指数表明意大利、西班牙、希腊以及葡萄牙的汇率与德国相比都大大被高估。对于中国而言，根据这种调整的方法计算人民币兑美元的汇率近于其合理水平，尽管两国的货币同其他货币相比都有所低估。

超大装周年纪念

按贸易加权计算我们的估计表明人民币只被低估了7%，尚未达到发动一场贸易战的水平。这远远低于先前预计的基于使人民币升值以使中国的经常账户盈余减少到占GDP3%的可控水平计算的人民币被低估20%到25%的状况。由于中国经常账户盈余的缩减，这种基于盈余的方法计算出来的人民币被低估的水平也在逐渐减少。几位经济学家预计今年中国的经常账户盈余将从2007年占GDP11%的水平降至只占GDP4%的水平。伴随着其生产率的提高，中国必须继续让其实际汇率提高（不管是通过货币升值的方法还是通过通货膨胀的方法），但是我们新的汉堡晴雨表表明而今人民币并未被大范围低估。

25年之后，汉堡经济学仍然尚未完善，但是通过人均GDP调整之后这一指标变得更加合理。益发促使我们把钱放在我们的胃口所钟爱的地方。

谢谢了。呵呵

3# 电商的孩子
你学电子商务的？

我找到了wallace_w本贴的另外一个版本：
http://www.ecocn.org/thread-55451-1-1.html，里面排版比较好，有图。

Beefed-up burgernomics
A gourmet version of the Big Mac index suggests that
the yuan is not that undervalued

THE Big Mac index celebrates its 25th birthday this year. Invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether currencies are at their “correct” level, it was never intended as a precise gauge of currency misalignment, merely a tool to make exchange-rate theory more digestible. Yet the Big Mac index has become a global standard, included in several economic textbooks and the subject of at least 20 academic studies. American politicians have even cited the index in their demands for a big appreciation of the Chinese yuan. With so many people taking the hamburger standard so seriously, it may be time to beef it up.
Burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in any two countries. The average price of a Big Mac in America is $4.07; in China it is only $2.27 at market exchange rates, 44% cheaper. In other words, the raw Big Mac index suggests that the yuan is undervalued by 44% against the dollar. In contrast, the currencies of Switzerland and Norway appear to be overvalued by around 100%. The euro (based on a weighted average of prices in member countries) is overvalued by 21% against the dollar; sterling is slightly undervalued; the Japanese yen seems to be spot-on. For the first time, we have included India in our survey. McDonald’s does not sell BigMacs there, so we have taken the price of a Maharaja Mac, made with chicken instead of beef. Meat accounts for less than 10% of a burger’s total cost, so this is unlikely to distort results hugely. It indicates that the rupee is 53% undervalued.

Ketchup growth
Some find burgernomics hard to swallow. Burgers cannot easily be traded across borders, and prices are distorted by big differences in the cost of non-traded local inputs such as rent and workers’ wages. The Big Mac index suggests that most emerging-market currencies are significantly undervalued, for instance (Brazil and Argentina are the big exceptions). But you would expect average prices to be cheaper in poor countries than in rich ones because labour costs are lower. This is the basis of the so-called “Balassa-Samuelson effect”. Rich countries have much higher productivity and hence higher wages in the traded-goods sector than poor countries do. Because firms compete for workers, this also pushes up wages in non-tradable goods and services, where rich countries’ productivity advantage is smaller. So average prices are cheaper in poor countries. The top chart shows a strong positive relationship between the dollar price of a Big Mac and GDP per person

China’s average income is only one-tenth of that in America so economic theory would suggest that its exchange rate should be below its long-run PPP (ie, therate that would leave a burger costing the same in the two countries). PPP signals where exchange rates should be heading in the long run, as China gets richer, but it says little about today’s equilibrium rate. However, the relationship between prices and GDP per person can perhaps be used to estimate the current fair value of a currency. The top chart shows the “line of best fit” between Big Mac prices and GDP per person for 48 countries. The difference between the price predicted by the red line for each country, given its income per head, and its actual price offers a better guide to currency under- and overvaluation than the PPP-based “raw” index.
This alternative recipe, with its adjustment for GDP per person, indicates that the Brazilian real is still badly overcooked, at more than 100% too dear (see lower chart). The euro is 36% overvalued against the dollar, and our beefed-up index also throws useful light on the uncompetitiveness of some economies within the euro area. Comparing burger prices in member countries, the adjusted Big Mac index shows that the “exchange rates” of Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal are all significantly overvalued relative to that of Germany. As for China, the yuan is close to its fair value against the greenback on the adjusted measure, although both are undervalued against many other currencies.

Super-size jubilee
In trade-weighted terms our calculations suggest that the yuan is a modest 7% undervalued, hardly grounds for a trade war. That is less than previous estimates of a 20-25% undervaluation, based on models that calculate the appreciation in the yuan needed to reduce China’s current-account surplus to a manageable level of, say, 3% of GDP. Even this surplus-based method now points to a smaller yuan undervaluation than it used to because China’s surplus has shrunk. Several private-sector economists forecast that it could drop below 4%of GDP this year, down from nearly 11% in 2007. As its productivity rises overtime China must continue to allow its real exchange rate to rise (either through currency appreciation or through inflation), but our new burger barometer suggests that the yuan is not hugely undervalued today.
A quarter of a century after its first grilling, burgernomics is still far from perfect, but if adjusted for GDP per person it becomes tastier.
All the more reason to keep putting our money where our mouth is.