tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post4309332157395941425..comments2023-05-12T16:41:08.754+08:00Comments on Forecast Error: Why (Some) Economists Don't Like High Tax RateCCLuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08569770663341206042noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-34142756966839103432013-01-23T15:08:33.982+08:002013-01-23T15:08:33.982+08:00關於日圓長期貶值那篇文章,我的意見如下:
匯率是相對的,日圓想走弱,但是美元在 QE1~N 之下也...關於日圓長期貶值那篇文章,我的意見如下:<br /><br />匯率是相對的,日圓想走弱,但是美元在 QE1~N 之下也不得不弱。到時候大家還要看看相對之下供給需求如何。單方面看日本政府的政策就要做出推論來,是不切實際的。<br /><br />日本有高額儲蓄也不是一天兩天的事情了,而且他們事實上從去年三月開始為了國內經濟建設花了不少原先存放在海外的儲蓄,這是那段時間日圓升值的重要原因之一(將大量的外幣換回日圓,導致日圓需求大幅增加,但是供給沒有等量增加,導致日圓匯率上升)。在日本生產力不振的當下(請看 Sony 等廠商),他們要生出大量的新的外幣儲蓄需求沒那麼簡單。<br /><br />美國的 fiscal cliff 也並沒有解決,只是把問題一關一關延後引爆而已。今年第一季大家不會想到美國、歐洲以及日本等國家有什麼問題,所以股市應該不太受到這些總體因素影響。等天氣變熱之後,問題會慢慢再被大家想起來,到時候關關難過,雖然應該還是關關過,不過市場多少會受到影響。CCLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08569770663341206042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-79582205166735496562013-01-23T14:59:14.120+08:002013-01-23T14:59:14.120+08:00Fed 的 balance sheet 過度膨脹不是好事,不過為什麼大家都那麼緊張要幫 Fed 解套...Fed 的 balance sheet 過度膨脹不是好事,不過為什麼大家都那麼緊張要幫 Fed 解套?<br /><br />真正需要解套的是美國聯邦政府,不是 Fed 啊。CCLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08569770663341206042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-89665293267464432982013-01-22T17:04:03.430+08:002013-01-22T17:04:03.430+08:00http://www.wretch.cc/blog/izaax/13388339
這篇文章認為日圓長...http://www.wretch.cc/blog/izaax/13388339<br />這篇文章認為日圓長期貶值的趨勢會使大規模的日本套利資金幫Fed解套Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10652789180149366325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-20969881554918696492013-01-18T14:03:22.176+08:002013-01-18T14:03:22.176+08:00To 路人甲
我們應該不需要擔心 Federal Reserve 要怎麼退場,擔心聯邦政府的負債比...To 路人甲<br /><br />我們應該不需要擔心 Federal Reserve 要怎麼退場,擔心聯邦政府的負債比較重要。<br /><br />Fed 資產負債表太大,背後代表的是政府負債也很高(不太可能在不增加公債發行的情況下,Fed 莫名其妙抱了一堆資產,通常要增加應該兩個都會增加)。政府的舉債上限跟償債能力才是我們需要擔心的。<br /><br />至於 Fed 要調高利率不是難事,賣掉手上持有的債券就可以了。最糟的兩個情況是:<br /><br />1. Fed 手上的固定資產有很高比例違約,導致 Fed 資產負債表上面負債多於資產。<br /><br />2. 利率上升了,不過通貨膨脹還是壓不住。<br /><br />這兩種情況發生的可能性都不大。就算會發生,那也是在政府出問題之後。所以在擔心 Fed 的 exit strategy 之前,還是擔心聯邦政府好了。CCLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08569770663341206042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-26601315673588480372013-01-13T20:50:42.530+08:002013-01-13T20:50:42.530+08:00所以盧老師的意思是Fed根本沒有可行的退場機制?只能讓Fed手上的國債慢慢到期(要花數十年)
我有...所以盧老師的意思是Fed根本沒有可行的退場機制?只能讓Fed手上的國債慢慢到期(要花數十年)<br /><br />我有想過等到經濟好一點的時候 用逆向的OT(長債換短債) 畢竟短債到期的速度比較快 可能五年就能讓balance sheet瘦身成功 但是MBS卻不知道有什麼好方法路人甲https://www.blogger.com/profile/11112446507870983406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-82786389448498881702013-01-13T02:48:55.484+08:002013-01-13T02:48:55.484+08:00To Ivan,
Whenever you have a big policy change, i...To Ivan,<br /><br />Whenever you have a big policy change, it's always the payday for lawyers and accountants.CCLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08569770663341206042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-83940265163989838762013-01-13T02:47:10.059+08:002013-01-13T02:47:10.059+08:00To Hurwitz Erwin,
Fed 很可能不需要一個大規模的退場機制。在 Obama 目前...To Hurwitz Erwin,<br /><br />Fed 很可能不需要一個大規模的退場機制。在 Obama 目前的政策下,景氣復甦不是那麼容易的事情。他們真的要「退場」就只有先停止 QE,這就對利率會有明顯的效果了。<br /><br />他們可能被迫手上持滿 T-Bills 和 MBS,這些東西如果要賣掉當下就得承受 capital loss,所以他們大概也動彈不得。基本上他們退無可退,所以只能針對當下經濟情況微調。<br /><br />覺得現在情況很糟?相信 Obama,你還沒看到最差的情況。現在這年頭讓有錢人多負擔一點也是沒有辦法的辦法,但是想要用課有錢人的稅來達成景氣復甦,這種經濟學我沒學過。CCLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08569770663341206042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-5638973753445652872013-01-11T18:21:48.256+08:002013-01-11T18:21:48.256+08:00克魯曼曾說過一句話
"We all looked like Japan"
而日本...克魯曼曾說過一句話<br />"We all looked like Japan"<br />而日本,到今天還在QEN<br /><br />退場 ??<br />╮(╯_╰)╭漫步在雲間https://www.blogger.com/profile/00641549878506086073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-57724876128786968172013-01-10T19:16:50.990+08:002013-01-10T19:16:50.990+08:00盧老師 我最近看到一篇討論Fed"退場機制"的文章 我本來不應該再討論Tax...盧老師 我最近看到一篇討論Fed"退場機制"的文章 我本來不應該再討論Tax的文章裡討論這文不對題的事 但是我想問問盧老師Fed可能的退場機制<br /><br />那篇文章是說如果失業率真的降到6.5%以下或是通膨觸及2.5% Fed就停止連續數年的QE政策 但是這幾年QE的政策已經讓Fed的Balance sheet已經膨脹到數個trillion(大部分應該都是美國長期國債或是MBS) 到時候Fed要怎樣把手上的這些資產賣掉又不會引發市場劇烈波動?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17769008685494758565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-18570306183090729402013-01-09T23:35:32.248+08:002013-01-09T23:35:32.248+08:00其實我想講說Cochrane在對於協商結果出來之後他的一個反應:"Who won the ...其實我想講說Cochrane在對於協商結果出來之後他的一個反應:"Who won the fiscal cliff negotiations? Democrats? Republicans? VP Joe Biden? No. Tax lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. " 很多會計師是可以幫大家把現金流量偷偷省起來省在公司裡的XD<br /><br />Islaballenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06812473818767953264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261438457608174618.post-23230223213103035602013-01-07T16:14:55.351+08:002013-01-07T16:14:55.351+08:00I think John makes a good point that Buffet forgot...I think John makes a good point that Buffet forgot to address and that is risk. People often forget about the risk involved when looking simply at the numbers. Andsomething with a return of 5%, I would say it would have to be fairly low risk for someone to consider it a worthwhile investment if its going to be taxed at 50%. Or else, although the aforementioned investment still yields 2.5% profit after tax, the risk may actually deter people from investing. The first thought that popped up in my mind when I read the excerpt from Buffet's comment is that I would actually think about putting my money in the 1% if the tax rate was high enough that the risk isn't worth it. So the scenario is not uncommon as Buffet thinks. And for someone with his investment / business background to make such a superfluous comment, makes you wonder if he really did think it through. suntex01https://www.blogger.com/profile/06064836042241335267noreply@blogger.com