究竟什么是量化宽松

在量化宽松政策影响下，经济似乎有所增长。但百姓的收入却不增反跌，那么谁又是受益者，谁又在操纵金融市场。答案就是：金融寡头。

Stripped from its fancy (and mystifying) jargon, quantitative easing (QE) simply means increasing the quantity of money supply, or easing credit conditions -- in the hope of stimulating a stagnant economy. This is usually done by having central banks inject a predetermined quantity of money into the coffers of commercial banks in return for the purchase of their financial assets, which consist largely of government bonds. Although it is typically done electronically, or on paper, its practical effect is the same as printing money.

抛开奇怪晦涩的术语，量化宽松是指增加货币供给或放松信贷要求，并希望能够刺激萧条的经济。为此，央行通常会向商业银行的金库注入预先定好额度的资金，回报是购入商业银行的金融资产，而这些资产大部分是债券。虽然这一过程一般通过电子数据或是书面文件完成，但其实际效果无异于印刷钞票。

This is supposed to be an expansionary monetary policy designed to promote economic recovery. The rationale behind the policy is that the addition of new funds to the capital base of the commercial banks (at, or near, zero interest rates) will enable them to, in turn, extend new credit to businesses and/or manufacturers at reasonably low rates so that they would, then, be encouraged to borrow, to expand, to hire and, therefore, create growth and prosperity.

量化宽松被认为是一种扩张性的货币政策，意图推动经济复苏。该政策所依据的原理是以（近似）零利率向商业银行的资本基数注资来换取银行以合理的较低利率向商业团体和生产型企业投放信贷，使这些企业有信心借贷、扩大规模、雇用劳动力，从而创造增长与繁荣。

While under certain circumstances (when money supply or capital markets are tight, interest rates are too high and effective demand or purchasing power is strong) this may work, under the current market conditions (where there is no shortage of capital, low interest rates or the cost of borrowing is already low, and effective demand is very weak) it is bound to fail -- as it has actually failed miserably.
在某些情况下，如资金供给或资本市场紧缩、利率高涨、有效需求或购买力强健时，这一政策或许有效。但在目前的市场条件下（不缺乏资金、利率和借贷成本较低、有效需求有限），该政策注定失败，实际上它已经一败涂地。

Borrowing and investing in the production of goods and manufactures is weak not because there is a shortage of investible funds (corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash but not hiring) or because the cost of borrowing is too high, as is implicitly assumed by the QE gurus, but because the macro-level purchasing power is too weak, and the uncertain market conditions do not warrant investment and expansion. Furthermore, corporations prefer to produce not at home but where the labor is cheapest globally.

低迷的商品制造类借贷投资不是因为缺少可供投资的资金（各大公司做拥20亿美元的现金，但不租借），也不是因为借贷的成本过高（量化宽松政策专家的认为如此），却是因为宏观层面的购买力不足，飘忽的市场行情也支持投资扩张。而且，企业倾向于在全球劳动力成本最低处进行生产，而非在本土制造。

Likewise, the reluctance on the part of banks to extend credit to manufacturers is not because they lack capital, but because they find it more profitable to invest in speculation, that is, in buying and selling of assets and/or securities such as bonds, stocks, commodities, real estate, currencies, and the like -- destabilizing activities that tend to create asset price bubbles, inevitably followed by bursts. Parasites discovered long time ago that it is easier to suck the existing blood out of the body of living organisms than producing it from scratch. Karl Marx used an even better metaphor to characterize parasitic finance capital, "The complete objectification, inversion and derangement of capital as interest-bearing capital...It appears as a Moloch demanding the whole world as a sacrifice belonging to it of right."

同样，银行对制造业惜贷不是因为他们缺少资金，而是因为投资投机生意更赚钱，即买卖资产和证券，如债券、股票、商品、房地产、货币等。这些扰乱市场的行为易造成资产价格泡沫，而这些泡沫随后一定会崩裂。很早以前，寄生虫就发现比起自己从头造血，从生物体吸取现成的血液更容易。卡尔.马克思对寄生金融资本的比喻更绝，他说：“将资本完全对象化、倒置和扰乱作为带息资金……这就好像莫洛克神要把全世界作为在法律上属于它的祭品。”

This explains why instead of increasing industrial production and raising employment the $1.2 trillion dollars of money that the Federal Reserve Bank has pumped into the coffers of commercial banks through two rounds of QEs has simply resulted in further financialization of the economy; which goes to explain the significant bubbling of some asset prices of the past few years, especially the considerable rise in certain share prices as well as the drastic rise in the price of a number of important commodities such as rice, wheat, and oil.

这就解释了为什么美联储通过两轮的量化宽松向各商业银行金库投放了12亿美元的资金仅使经济进一步金融化，却未能增加工业生产和就业。经济金融化则解释了过去几年某些资产价格严重泡沫化的原因，特别是某些股票和重要商品（如大米、小麦、石油）价格飙升。

By the same token, it also explains why the QE policy has further exacerbated income and wealth inequality, both in Europe and the United States, as it has helped only the financial elite without any help to the public. "The evidence suggests that QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it," reports Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research. Joshi further points out that real wages -- adjusted for inflation -- have fallen in both the U.S. and UK, where QE has been used to promote growth. "The shocking thing is, two years into an ostensible recovery, [UK] workers are actually earning less than at the depth of the recession. Real wages and salaries have fallen by £4 billion. Profits are up by £11 billion. The spoils of the recovery have been shared in the most unequal of ways." In Germany, meanwhile, where there has been no quantitative easing, real wages have risen.

出于同样的原因，为什么量化宽松政策进一步加剧了收入和财富的不平衡也得到了解释，无论是在美国还是欧洲，这一政策只是帮助了金融精英，对大众并没有任何帮助。“有证据显示量化宽松之现金最终会以不可阻挡之势变为利润，这就扩大了业已存在的收入极端不平衡并加剧了从中滋生出的社会矛盾。”BCA Research的Dhaval Joshi报道说。Joshi进一步指出在量化宽松政策被用于推动增长的美国和英国，实际工资（扣除通胀因素）变少了。“表面复苏两年来，英国的工人实际比经济危机最严重时挣钱更少，这简直骇人听闻。实际工资总共减少了40亿英镑，而利润却增加了110亿英镑。复苏的带来的好处没能以最公平的方式分享。”

It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that the financial oligarchy is using QE essentially as a legal, policy tool to further enrich itself at the expense of everybody else. Not only were the Wall Street gamblers able to bail themselves out by means of $16 trillion of taxpayers' dollars, but now they are also showering themselves with additional trillions of QE dollars to grow even richer and bigger.

因此，有理由下结论说金融寡头正利用货币宽松这一合法的政策工具，以牺牲其他人为代价，进一步塞满自己的口袋。华尔街的赌徒不仅可以利用纳税人的160亿美元保释自己，而且他们还在挥霍另外一笔几十亿美金的量化宽松货币，使自己变得越来越富有、越来越强大。

Let us assume for a moment that, as the Federal Reserve and the government claim, QE is honestly designed to be an expansionary monetary policy intended to stimulate the economy. If so, why is then the government at the same time pursuing a fiscal policy that is contra-actionary, that is, moving in the opposite direction of the monetary policy by cutting social spending at all levels of the public sector?

让我们暂且假设量化宽松实实在在是扩张性货币政策，用于刺激经济，就像美联储和联邦征服宣称的那样。如果真是如此，为什么当初还同时执行紧缩的财政政策，即与货币政策背道而驰，缩减各级公共社会开支？

The answer is that while from the viewpoint of national or public interests the two policies contradict each other, they are quite consistent from the viewpoint of Wall Street gamblers; both the supposedly expansionary monetary policy and the brutally austere contra-actionary fiscal policy serve the nefarious interests of the financial aristocracy. It is hard to believe that economic policy makers do not see the obvious: that their monetary and fiscal policies contradict each other. But, then, it is perhaps not so much a matter of economic know-how or policy expertise as it is of wicked preferences and warped loyalties to the powerful special interests to be served.

答案就是虽然从和公众利益的角度出发，这两项政策互相抵触，但在华尔街赌徒的眼中确是协调一致的。所谓的扩张性货币政策和冷酷无情的紧缩财政政策都服务于金融贵族的邪恶利益。难以想象经济政策的制定者看不出货币政策和财政政策如此明显的矛盾。不过当时，这可能与经济知识或政策能力没有多少关系，但却与他们的邪恶的倾和向对其所服务的强大特殊利益的扭曲忠诚有关。【完】