第二编 货币的价值
第八章 货币的客观交换价值或购买力的影响因素
摘要
The usefulness of money derives solely from its purchasing power. Therefore, today’s valuation of money is dependent on its purchasing power yesterday, which in turn was influenced by money’s purchasing power two days ago. Such reasoning does not lead to an infinite regress, because at some point in the past we arrive at the state of direct exchange, when goods were only valued for their direct use. This theory of the origin of money is the only one compatible with a subjectivist explanation.
货币的有用性完全来自于其购买力。因此，今天的货币估值取决于其昨天的购买力，而这反过来又受到两天前货币购买力的影响。这样的推理不会导致无限的回归，因为在过去的某个时刻，我们到达了直接交换的状态，那时商品的估值只来自它的直接用途。这种货币起源理论是唯一与主观主义解释相兼容的理论。
The historical continuity in the value of money distinguishes it from all other commodities. People do not derive their utility from apples or oranges based on their prices, but people do evaluate the usefulness of a quantity of money based on its purchasing power.
货币价值的历史连续性使它区别于所有其它商品。人们不会根据价格而从苹果或橙子中获取效用，但人们会根据购买力来评估一定数量的货币的有用性。
The problem with many rival theories of the purchasing power of money—such as a simple quantity theory or “supply and demand” explanation—is that they have to take the value of money as given, and can only explain deviations from this stipulated starting point. They can’t explain the absolute level of money-prices, i.e., they can’t explain the actual exchange ratio between money and other goods at a particular time. The subjectivist, marginal-utility theory developed by Menger and his successors can explain the precise, absolute money-prices of the market today.
货币购买力的许多对立理论 - 例如简单的数量理论或“供求”解释 - 的问题是它们必须将货币价值视为已经给定，并且只能解释偏离这个规定起点的情况。它们无法解释货币价格的绝对水平，也就是说，它们无法解释货币与其他商品在特定时间的实际兑换率。由门格尔及其继任者开发的主观主义、边际效用理论可以解释当今市场的精确、绝对的货币价格。
The exchange ratio between money and all other goods—in other words, the purchasing power of money—may be affected by changes in people’s valuations of the money side or the (other) commodities side of the ratio.
货币与所有其它商品之间的交换比率 - 或者叫货币的购买力 - 可能受到人们对该比率的货币一侧或（另外的）商品一侧的估值变化的影响。
In its crudest form, the quantity theory of money is obviously wrong: It is simply not true that, say, a doubling in the quantity of money will lead to an exact doubling of all prices (quoted in money).
在其最粗糙的形式中，货币数量理论显然是错误的：说货币数量翻倍将导致所有价格（以货币报价）精确翻倍，这显然是不正确的。
Modern value theory must explain the demand to hold money by starting with the subjective preferences of the individual. The community’s demand to hold money is simply the summation of the individual demands. No individual can make use of the popular “macro” approaches, which employ formulas involving “total volume of transactions” and “velocity of circulation.” Economists therefore should not use such concepts when explaining the purchasing power of money.
现代价值论必须从个人的主观偏好出发来解释持有货币的需求。社会持有货币的要求只是个人需求的总和。流行的使用涉及“交易总量”和“流通速度”公式的“宏观”方法不能被用于分析个体。因此，经济学家在解释货币购买力时不应使用这些概念。
Money certificates are money substitutes that are fully “covered” by money proper, while fiduciary media are money substitutes that are issued above the redemption fund.
货币兑换凭证是货币替代品，完全由货币“覆盖”，而信用媒介是在赎回基金之上发行的货币替代品。
章节大纲
Ⅰ. 货币客观交换价值中的持续性因素
一、货币主观估值以客观交换价值的存在为基础
In order for individuals to evaluate the subjective value of money, they must first consider its usefulness which is derived solely from its purchasing power. In this sense, today’s valuation of money is dependent on people’s observations of its purchasing power yesterday. And yesterday’s purchasing power, in turn, was influenced by money’s purchasing power two days ago.
个人为了评估货币的主观价值必须首先考虑货币的有用性，而货币的有用性完全来自于货币的购买力。从这个意义上说，今天对货币的估值取决于人们昨天对其购买力的观察。而昨天的购买力，反过来又受到两天前货币购买力的影响。
Such reasoning does not lead to an infinite regress, because at some point in the past we arrive at the state of direct exchange, when goods were only valued for their direct use. At that time, goods such as gold and silver—which would become money, down the road—were valued exclusively for their industrial and ornamental purposes.
这样的推理不会导致无限的回归，因为在过去的某个时刻，我们到达了直接交换的状态，那时商品的估值只来自它的直接用途。当时，诸如黄金和白银等会在将来的某个时候成为货币的商品，只因其工业和装饰用途而被估价。
二、物品充当货币前具有独立于货币职能的价值的必要性
The previous discussion has established that in order for individuals to place a value upon money, they must have some basis for forecasting its future purchasing power. The only way they can do this, is if the money good already has a history of objective exchange value, which the individuals can consult.
之前的讨论已经确定，个人为了能够给货币估值，他们必须有一些基础来预测其未来的货币购买力。他们能做到这一点的唯一方法就是，货币商品是否已经具有了可供个人参考的客观交换价值的历史。
This reasoning shows the flaw in the myths about the creation of money being due to a social pact. Rather, Menger’s theory of the origin of money—in which the money commodities were originally used as ordinary commodities—is the only one compatible with a subjectivist explanation.
这一推理表明了“社会契约创造了货币”这一神话的缺陷。与此相对，门格尔关于货币起源的理论 - 其中货币商品最初被当作普通商品使用 - 是唯一与主观主义解释相兼容的理论。
三、事先存在的价格在市场交换比率决定中的重要性
The historical continuity in the value of money distinguishes it from all other commodities. It is true that there appears to be “inertia” with respect to exchange ratios between goods; if 2 apples trade for 1 orange on Tuesday, it is unlikely that 20 apples will trade for 1 orange on Wednesday. But it is not true that Tuesday’s exchange ratio somehow influences Wednesday’s. Rather, the underlying determinants of Tuesday’s price (such as people’s subjective preferences for the two fruits) probably will not change very much by Wednesday.
货币价值的历史连续性使它区别于所有其它商品。事实上，商品之间的交换比率似乎存在“惯性”；如果周二时两个苹果换一个橘子，那么周三时20个苹果换一个橘子的可能性不大。但认为周二的交换比率在某种程度上影响了周三的交换比率是不正确的。相反，周二价格的潜在决定因素（例如人们对这两种水果的主观偏好）可能在周三之前不会发生太大变化。
In contrast, economic theory does need to rely on Tuesday’s purchasing power of money, in order to explain Wednesday’s purchasing power of money. People do not derive their utility from apples or oranges based on their prices, but people do evaluate the usefulness of a quantity of money based on its purchasing power.
相比之下，经济理论确实需要依赖周二的货币购买力来解释周三的货币购买力。人们不会根据价格从苹果或橙子中获取效用，但人们会根据购买力来评估一定数量的货币的有用性。
四、边际效用理论在货币中的适用性
The problem with many rival theories of the purchasing power of money—such as a simple quantity theory or “supply and demand” explanation—is that they have to take the value of money as given, and can only explain deviations from this stipulated starting point. For example, it is correct to say, “If a car originally has a price of 1000.”
货币购买力的许多对立理论 - 例如简单的数量理论或“供求”解释 - 的问题是，它们必须采取给定的货币价值，并且只能解释偏离这一规定起点的情况。例如，这样说是正确地：“如果一辆车最初的价格是1000美元，其它条件不变，那么货币存量增加将导致新车价高于1000美元。”
Yet this isn’t really a full explanation; why wasn’t the car’s original price 100000? The simple “supply and demand” approach—correct as far as it goes—by itself can’t explain the absolute level of money-prices, i.e., it can’t explain the actual exchange ratio between money and other goods at a particular time.
然而，这并不是一个完整的解释。为什么这辆车的原价不是10美元或10万美元？简单的“供求”方法虽然本身是正确的，但无法解释货币价格的绝对水平，即不能解释货币与其它商品在特定时间的实际交换比率。
The subjectivist, marginal-utility theory developed by Menger and his successors can explain the precise, absolute money-prices of the market today, just as it can explain the precise exchange ratios between apples and oranges.
由门格尔及其继任者开发的主观主义、边际效用理论可以解释当今市场的精确、绝对的货币价格，正如它可以解释苹果和橙子之间的精确交换比率一样。
At first it appears that money is a peculiar case that cannot be handled this way, because people’s marginal utility of money is itself derived from its objective purchasing power. But once we introduce the time element, we are not arguing in a circle. We are explaining today’s purchasing power of money by reference to yesterday’s purchasing power, and so on. We can logically follow the chain all the way back in time, until the point at which the money commodity was valued solely for its nonmonetary uses, i.e., before it became a medium of exchange.
起初看来，货币似乎是一种特殊的情况，不能以这种方式处理，因为人们对货币的边际效用本身来源于它的客观购买力。但是一旦我们引入时间元素，我们就不会在一个圆圈内争论了。我们参考昨天的购买力来解释今天的货币购买力，等等。从逻辑上讲，我们可以沿着这条链条一直追溯到过去，直到货币商品的估值完全来自它的非货币用途，即在它成为交换媒介之前。
五、影响货币客观交换价值的“货币”和“非货币”因素
The preceding sections have established the origin of the value of money. (Namely, subjective marginal utility analysis—coupled with Menger’s explanation of the origin of money—can explain today’s absolute level of the purchasing power of money.) It is now acceptable to focus on the laws or principles governing changes in the value of money. Economists usually start at this step, even though logically they should have explained the original value of money first.
前面的章节确定了货币价值的起源。（即，主观边际效用分析 - 加上门格尔对货币起源的解释 - 可以解释当今货币购买力的绝对水平。）现在可以接受来关注货币价值变化的法律或原则。 经济学家们通常从这一步开始，尽管从逻辑上说他们应该首先解释货币的原始价值。
The exchange ratio between two goods can be affected by changes in the valuation for just one of the goods. For example, on Tuesday Jim may choose to drink soda over cough medicine. But on Wednesday he may reverse his preferences, and choose the medicine over the soda. This obviously needn’t be due to Jim’s sudden distaste for soda.
两种商品之间的交换比率可能会受到其中一种商品估值变化的影响。例如，周二吉姆可能会选择喝苏打水而不是咳嗽药。但在周三，他可能会改变自己的偏好，选择药物而不是苏打水。这显然不一定是由于吉姆突然厌恶苏打水。
In the same way, the exchange ratio between money and all other goods—in other words, the purchasing power of money—may be affected by changes in people’s valuations of the money side or the (other) commodities side of the ratio.
同样地，货币与所有其它商品之间的交换比率 - 或者叫货币的购买力 - 可能受到人们对该比率的货币一侧或（另外的）商品一侧的估值变化的影响。
Ⅱ. 货币供求比率变化引起的货币客观交换价值的波动
六、数量论
In its crudest form, the quantity theory of money is obviously wrong: It is simply not true that, say, a doubling in the quantity of money will lead to an exact doubling of all prices (quoted in money).
在其最粗糙的形式中，货币数量论显然是错误的：说货币数量翻倍将导致所有价格（以货币报价）精确翻倍，这显然是不正确的。
The germ of truth in the historical expositions of the quantity theory is that a connection exists between variations in the value of money on the one hand, and variations in the relations between the demand for money and the supply of it on the other. Through-out history, writers have noted the patterns, but the task for the modern economist is to express these truisms with the tools of modern subjective value theory.
数量论的历史阐述中诞生了真理的萌芽：一方面是货币价值的变化，另一方面是货币需求与货币供给之间关系的变化，这两方面之间存在联系。 纵观历史，创作者们已经注意到了这些规律，但现代经济学家的任务是用现代主观价值理论的工具来表达这些真理。
七、货币存量和货币需求
Modern value theory must explain the demand to hold money by starting with the subjective preferences of the individual. The community’s demand to hold money is simply the summation of the individual demands. No individual can make use of the popular “macro” approaches, which employ formulas involving “total volume of transactions” and “velocity of circulation.” Economists therefore should not use such concepts when explaining the purchasing power of money.
现代价值论必须从个人的主观偏好出发来解释持有货币的需求。社区持有货币的需求只是个人需求的总和。流行的使用涉及“交易总量”和“流通速度”公式的“宏观”方法不能被用于分析个体。因此，经济学家在解释货币购买力时不应该使用这些概念。
In certain cases it is useful to distinguish between the individual’s demand to hold money in the broader sense versus money in the narrower sense. The former is the individual’s demand to hold both money and money substitutes (i.e., perfectly secure and immediate claims on money). The latter is the individual’s demand to hold money proper.
在某些情况下，区分个人持有广义货币的需求与狭义货币的需求是有用的。前者是个人持有货币和货币替代品（即对货币的完全安全和即时的要求权）的需求。后者是个人持有货币的需求。
Money certificates are money substitutes that are fully “covered” by money proper, while fiduciary media are money substitutes that are issued above the redemption fund. For example, if a particular commercial bank accepts 1000 ounces of gold in deposits which it keeps in the vault, but issues 1100 paper banknotes entitling the bearer to an ounce of gold upon presentation, then 1000 of the notes are money certificates, while 100 are fiduciary media. (In commercial practice the notes are indistinguishable, and so we can say that about 91 percent of a given note is “covered” while the remainder is “unbacked.”)
货币兑换凭证是货币本身完全“覆盖”的货币替代品，而信用媒介是在赎回基金之上发行的货币替代品。例如，如果一家特定的商业银行接收了1000盎司黄金存放在保险库中，但发行了1100张纸币，使持有人有权在出示纸币时获得一盎司黄金，那么1000张纸币是货币兑换凭证，而100张纸币是信用媒介。（在商业实践中，这些纸币是难以区分的，因此我们可以说大约91％的给定纸币是“被覆盖的”，而其余部分是“无支持的”。）
八、货币需求不变或未增加到同等程度时货币数量增加的结果
A crude, mechanical version of the quantity theory of money holds that a doubling of the stock of money will lead to a uniform doubling of the money prices of all other goods and services. The logic behind such a view rests on the true observation that any given quantity of money can perform all the services of money for the community, with the appropriate “price level.” For example, we can imagine two economies side-by-side, which are equal in all ways except that the second community has twice the amount of money as the first. It is clear that in the second community, the prices of all goods and services have to be exactly double their values in the first community, in order to render these economies equal in all “real” respects.
一种粗糙的、机械的货币数量论认为，货币存量加倍将导致所有其它商品和服务的货币价格统一翻倍。这种观点背后的逻辑是基于真实的观察，即任何给定数量的货币都能以适当的“价格水平”为社区提供所有货币服务。例如，我们可以想象并列的两个经济体，除了第二个经济体的货币量是第一个经济体的两倍，在其它所有方面都是相同的。很明显，在第二个经济体中，所有商品和服务的价格必须正好是第一个经济体中价格的两倍，以使这两个经济体在所有“现实”方面都相同。
Yet from this thought experiment, we cannot conclude that if we started with the first community, and then magically doubled everyone’s holding of money, that we would end up with the second community. For one thing, different individuals would respond differently to the increase in their holdings of money. Everyone would of course revise downward his or her marginal utility for a unit of money—because the stock in possession increased—but these downward movements would not be equal for all people. Because the marginal unit of money would be less valuable than before the magical increase, people would now go out and buy more goods, tending to push up prices. But different people would increase their purchases in different ways, and (in any realistic scenario) would push up the prices of some goods more than others.
然而，从这个思想实验中，我们不能得出这样的结论：如果我们从第一个经济体开始，然后神奇地将每个人持有的货币翻倍，那么我们最终将成为第二个经济体。首先，不同的人对他们持有的货币的增加会有不同的反应。当然，每个人都会为了一个单位的货币而向下修正其边际效用，- 因为财产的库存增加了- 但这些向下的变动对所有人来说并不相同。因为单位货币的边际价值比神奇增长之前要低，人们现在会出去买更多的商品，从而推高价格。但是不同的人会以不同的方式增加他们的购买量，并且（在任何现实情况下）相对于其它商品的价格升高，某一些商品的价格会被推到更高。
Another complication is that in the real world, new influxes of money do not magically augment the cash balances of everyone in the community proportionally. Instead, new money enters the community through increased holdings of a small group of people (such as the owners of gold mines, or the customers who borrow money from a bank issuing fiduciary media). Thus the new money ripples out into the economy, as the first recipients spend the new money, then the second recipients spend it, and so on.
另一个复杂的问题是，在现实世界中，新的货币流入并不会神奇地按比例增加社区中每个人的现金余额。相反，新的货币通过增加一小部分人（比如金矿的所有者，或者从发行信用媒介的银行借钱的客户）的持有量进入社区。随着第一个接受者花费新的货币，然后是第二个接受者花费它，依此类推，从而新的货币像波浪一样涌入经济。
Nobody would ever be so foolish as to claim that, say, a doubling of the quantity of sugar would lead to an exact halving of the exchange ratio of sugar against all other goods and services. Yet that is precisely what the crude Quantity Theorists assert when it comes to money.
没有人会如此愚蠢地声称，糖的数量翻倍将导致糖与所有其它商品和服务的交换比率精确减半。然而，这正是原始数量论者在谈到货币时所断言的。
九、针对数量论一些论述的批评
Although in its crude form, the quantity theory is erroneous, even so we can defend it from some invalid objections. For example, some writers object that the quantity theory only holds ceteris paribus (i.e., when “other things are held equal”). Yet this is hardly a good objection against the quantity theory, since a critic could say the same thing about any law or principle in economic science.
虽然粗糙形式的数量论是错误的，即便如此，我们还是可以从一些无效的反对意见中为它辩护。例如，一些作家反对数量论只允许其它条件不变（即当“其它事物保持相等”时）。然而，这并不是一个针对数量论的很好的反对意见，因为批评家可以对经济科学中的任何定律或原理说同样的话。
Another objection people have raised against the quantity theory is that its predictions are in actual practice nullified by the behavior of “hoards.” For example, the critic of the quantity theory might say that a large influx of new money won’t have a tendency to push up prices, because some people in the community will simply expand their holdings of cash. On the other hand, say these critics, if the demand to hold money (for reasons of commerce) should suddenly increase, this won’t lead to a fall in prices (as the quantity theory would predict), because the hoards will release some of their cash into the community to satisfy the new demand.
人们对数量论提出的另一个反对意见是，它的预测在实际应用中被“囤积”的行为所抵消。例如，数量论的批评者可能会说，大量涌入的新资金不会有推高价格的趋势，因为社区中的一些人会简单地扩大他们的现金持有量。另一方面，这些批评者说，如果持有货币的需求（出于商业原因）突然增加，并不会导致价格下跌（正如数量理论所预测的那样），因为囤积者将释放一些他们的现金进入社区来满足新的需求。
The fundamental problem with this view is that economically, there is no distinction between the normal demand to hold cash versus “hoarding.” At any moment in time, every unit of money in the community is in someone’s cash balance; there is no such thing as money “in circulation” that could be contrasted with money “sitting idle.”
这种观点的根本问题在于，在经济上，持有现金的正常需求与“囤积”之间没有区别。在任何时候，社区中的每一单位货币都在某人的现金余额中；没有“流通中的”货币可以与“闲置的”货币形成对比。
The money held by a hoarder performs the same economic function as the money held by a normal businessperson; they are both holding the money because they expect to achieve greater satisfactions from what it can buy in the future, than from what it could buy in the present. Because of uncertainty, people do not necessarily “earmark” every unit of money for a particular future purchase. Nonetheless, when we analyze why people hold money at all, we realize that there is no qualitative difference between the hoarder and the nonhoarder. All hoarding really means, is that someone carries cash balances larger than his peers’.
囤积者持有的货币与普通商人持有的货币具有相同的经济功能；他们持有货币，都是因为相对于现在可以买到的东西，他们期望从未来可以买到的物品中获得更大的满足感。由于存在不确定性，人们不一定会“指定”每一单位货币未来用于购买什么。然而，当我们分析人们为什么持有货币时，我们意识到囤积者和非囤积者之间没有质的区别。所有的囤积实际上意味着，有人持有的现金余额比他的同龄人要大。
十、数量论的进一步应用
Generally speaking, the demand for money increases over time, due to population increases and the intensification of the division of labor (and hence the need for exchange transactions). For this reason, it was only a theoretical curiosity for economists to try to explain what would happen if the demand for money fell, while the stock of money remained the same.
一般而言，由于人口增加和劳动分工的加剧（以及因此需要兑换交易），对货币的需求会随着时间的推移而增加。由于这个原因，经济学家们出于理论上的好奇心，试图解释，如果货币需求下降而货币存量保持不变会发生什么。
If we were to mechanically apply the quantity theory to such a situation, we would conclude that prices would rise (i.e., the purchasing power of money would fall) uniformly, in direct proportion to the drop in demand for money. However, a more satisfactory explanation needs to take into account the subjective valuations of individuals. Rather than focusing merely on crude aggregates, it is better to analyze the scenario by saying that when the demand for money falls (while the stock of it remains constant), individuals discover that they are holding larger cash balances than they desire. To improve their position, they seek to exchange some of their excess cash holdings for other goods or services. In doing so, they push up the prices of these items.
如果我们将数量论机械地应用于这种情况，我们就会得出结论：价格将一致上涨（即货币购买力会下降），而且与货币需求的下降成正比。然而，更令人满意的解释需要考虑到个人的主观评价。与其粗糙地关注总量，不如分析一下具体情况，即当货币需求下降时（尽管库存保持不变），个人会发现他们持有的现金余额超出了他们的预期。为了改善自身的情况，他们试图把自己持有的多余现金换成其它商品或服务。在这样做的过程中，他们推高了这些商品的价格。
Eventually, the fall in money’s purchasing power reduces the “real” size of an individual’s cash balance until he is happy with it. If everyone in the community decides he or she is holding “too much money,” the only way to restore equilibrium is for prices to rise. If one person reduces his cash balance by spending, the seller necessarily increases his cash balance by the same amount. The given stock of money is rearranged among the people in the community; per capita cash balances have to remain the same. Even so, the rise in prices can satisfy everyone’s desire to hold smaller cash balances, because cash is held for the purpose of acquiring other goods and services. People evaluate the size of their cash holdings in terms of its purchasing power, not really by how many units of money they possess.
最终，货币购买力下降会降低个人现金余额的“实际”规模，直到他对余额感到满意为止。如果社区中的每个人都认为他或她自己持有“太多货币”，恢复均衡的唯一方法就是让价格上涨。如果一个人通过消费来减少现金余额，卖方必然会增加相同金额的现金余额。给定的货币存量在社区居民中重新安排，而人均现金余额必须保持不变。即便如此，价格的上涨也可以满足每个人持有较小现金余额的愿望，因为持有现金是为了获得其它商品和服务。人们用购买力来衡量他们持有的现金的规模，而不是他们拥有多少单位的货币。
Although historically the demand for money itself generally grows—except perhaps for financial crises—there are cases where the demand for particular kinds of money may fall dramatically. A notable example is the demonetization of silver. As this precious metal ceased being used as a medium of exchange, and became valued solely for its industrial and ornamental applications, its exchange value fell.
尽管从历史上看，除了金融危机之外，对货币本身的需求通常都在增长，但在某些情况下，对特定种类货币的需求可能会急剧下降。一个显著的例子是白银的非货币化。由于这种贵金属不再被用作交换媒介，仅仅因其工业和装饰应用而被估值，其交换价值下降。
Ⅲ. 源于间接交换特殊性的货币客观交换价值变化的特殊原因
十一、“生活的昂贵”
Thus far in the chapter the analysis of the objective exchange value of money has only relied on determinants that could have just as well been applied to any commodity, not just the commonly accepted medium of exchange (i.e., the money commodity). In contrast, section III examines possible changes in the objective exchange value of money that can only apply because it is a medium of exchange. The context of the discussion is the layperson’s complaint of the “dearness of living,” meaning that every generation prices seem to be higher than before.
到目前为止，在本章中，对货币客观交换价值的分析仅仅依赖于可以同样适用于任何商品的决定因素，而不仅仅是被普遍接受的交换媒介（即货币商品）。相比之下，第3部分探讨了货币的客观交换价值可能发生的变化，这些探讨只适用于交换媒介。讨论的背景是非专业人士对“生活的昂贵”的抱怨，这意味着每一代人所面对的物价似乎都比以前更高。
十二、瓦格纳理论：供给方对价格决定的影响永远超过需求方
Wagner explains the general rise in prices—or what is the same thing, the general fall in the purchasing power of a unit of money— by the alleged superior power of the “supply side” of the economy. The sellers of goods and services stand more to gain from price hikes than their customers stand to lose, because the price of beef (say) affects the livelihood of the butcher far more than it affects the fortunes of the average household. Wagner’s theory is flawed, however, because it cannot easily incorporate the fact that retail prices must also respond to changes in wholesale prices.
瓦格纳解释了价格的普遍上涨 - 或者换句话说，即单位货币购买力的普遍下降 - 被所谓的经济体“供给侧”的优势力量所主导。商品和服务的销售者从价格上涨中获得的收益远远超过顾客的损失，因为牛肉的价格（比如说）对屠夫生计的影响远大于对普通家庭财富的影响。然而，瓦格纳的理论存在缺陷，因为它不能很容易地体现这样一个事实，即零售价格也必须对批发价格的变化作出反应。
十三、维塞尔理论：自然经济和货币经济之间关系的变化对货币价值施加的影响
Wieser attempts to explain the persistent rise in prices over time by the gradual transformation of a “Natural Economy” into a “Money Economy.” As more and more people and regions are brought into the practice of monetary exchange, Wieser argues that certain things that were previously handled through home production must now be included in the final price of goods intended for market. Wieser offers a specific example of the prices of milk and eggs rising in a rural village, once the villagers become involved with frequent trade with the much larger town. However, Wieser ignores the obvious flip-side of the development: the prices of milk and eggs will be lower in the town because of the new source of supply. The integration of the rural village into the monetary nexus gives no reason for a general rise in prices, it merely explains why the gap in prices (between the town and village) should be whittled away.
维塞尔试图通过从“自然经济”向“货币经济”的逐步转变来解释价格随着时间的推移而持续上涨。随着越来越多的人和地区开始实施货币交换，维塞尔认为某些事情以前是通过家庭生产来处理的，而现在必须体现在面向市场的商品的最终价格中。维塞尔提出了一个具体的例子，一旦一个乡村的村民开始与更大的城镇进行频繁的交易，乡村的牛奶和鸡蛋价格就会上涨。然而，维塞尔忽视了这个发展过程中明显发生的另一面：由于有了新的供应来源，城镇的牛奶和鸡蛋价格将会降低。乡村融入货币关系并没有给物价普遍上涨提供任何支持理由，而只是解释了为什么（城镇和乡村之间的）物价差距应该会缩小。
十四、作为一种支配力量的影响货币客观交换价值的市场机制
In direct exchange, if a potential buyer believes that the asking price of the seller is too high, the exchange will not occur. However, with the use of money, there is another possible outcome, that seems to happen in the real world. The buyer may go ahead and pay a price (in money) that he originally deemed “too high,” but will compensate by increasing the asking price for the goods that he has to sell. Thus wage earners might acquiesce in higher food prices, yet demand pay increases from their employers. The employers, in turn, might agree, knowing that they will raise prices themselves.
在直接交换中，如果潜在买方认为卖方的要价过高，就不会发生交换。然而，随着货币的使用，似乎还有另一种可能的结果发生在现实世界中。买方可以继续支付他原先认为“太高”的价格（以货币计算），但将通过提高他必须出售的商品的要价来弥补。因此，以工资为生的人可能会默许食品价格上涨，但要求雇主增加工资。相对的，雇主可能会同意增加工资，因为他们知道自己可以提高出售商品的价格。
None of this discussion renders the basic theory of price determination invalid. It merely underscores that with the special case of money, peculiar situations can affect its valuation that simply cannot occur in the case of direct exchange.
这些讨论都没有使价格决定的基本理论失效。它只是强调，在货币的特例下，特殊情况会影响其估价，而直接交换时不会发生这种情况。
Ⅳ. 附录
十五、货币单位及其构成部分的大小对货币客观交换价值的影响
It is often asserted that the size of the monetary unit can affect its purchasing power, i.e., the general height of prices. In regard to wholesale prices, this is clearly absurd: merchants would adjust their large-scale transactions to achieve their desires, regardless of the unit.
人们经常断言，货币单位的大小会影响其购买力，即价格的总体高度。对于批发价格来说，这中说法显然是荒谬的：无论货币单位如何，商家会调整他们的交易规模以达成他们的愿望。
However, there is some truth to the assertion when it comes to retail trade. For practical reasons, everyday purchases that have very low prices compared to most other goods (such as letter postage or pieces of fruit) must correspond somewhat to the lowest available denomination of the money. The use of token coinage (which can represent fractions of the standard monetary unit) and money substitutes, as well as the practice of selling multiple units of goods (e.g., a dozen eggs) as a package, can provide a wide range of flexibility, but even so it must be admitted that the size of the monetary unit does have an influence on prices quoted at the retail level.
然而，在零售贸易方面，这一说法有些道理。出于实际原因，与大多数其它商品（如信件邮费或水果）相比，价格非常低的日常采购必须与最低可用货币面额相对应。使用辅币（可以代表标准货币单位细分的一部分）和货币替代品，以及将多个单位的商品（如一打鸡蛋）打包出售的做法，可以提供广泛的灵活性，但即便如此，也必须承认货币单位的大小确实会在零售层面对报价产生影响。
十六、方法论评议
In a review of the first edition of the book, Professor Walter Lotz defended Laughlin from the critique leveled by Mises (on pages 125–28 in the present edition of the book). To review, Laughlin had tried to explain the value of paper gulden (which for a time were not redeemable in precious metal) by the prospect of their eventual redemption. Mises examined the discount investors placed on bonds issued by the same government and concluded that there must be some other factor at work, to explain the premium investors placed on the paper gulden. The answer, of course, was that the paper gulden were used as money, whereas the bonds were not. Therefore the paper gulden were valued on account of their use as media of exchange.
在对本书第一版的回顾中，沃尔特·洛兹（Walter Lotz）教授针对米塞斯（在本书当前英文版的第125-128页）提出的批评为拉夫林（Laughlin）辩护。我们回顾一下，拉夫林曾试图通过最终赎回的前景来解释纸币的价值（纸币在一段时间内不能赎回贵金属）。米塞斯研究了投资者对同一政府发行的债券的贴现率，得出结论，一定还有其它因素在起作用，以解释投资者对纸币的溢价。当然，答案是纸币被用作货币，而债券却没有。因此，纸币的估值来自其被作为交换媒介使用。
Lotz defends Laughlin by referring to statements from influential figures that they truly did speculate on the eventual redemption of the paper gulden. Mises points out that this entirely misses the point of his critique: Even if it is admitted that the paper gulden would eventually be redeemable for gold, that fact wouldn’t explain why the notes traded at a premium to bonds issued by the same government. More generally, Lotz approaches economic problems not through theoretical reasoning, but by appeal to historical circumstances, a procedure that Mises rejects on methodological grounds.
洛兹引用了一些有影响力的人物的言论来为拉夫林辩护，他们确实推测最终将赎回纸币。米塞斯指出，这完全没有抓住他批评的要点：即使承认纸币最终可以赎回黄金，这个事实也无法解释为什么这些票据的交易价格高于同一政府发行的债券。一般地说，洛兹不是通过理论推理，而是通过诉诸历史条件来解决经济问题。米塞斯在方法论上拒绝这种程序。
重要贡献
On page 108, Mises alludes to Menger and Böhm-Bawerk’s explanations of how prices are determined in direct exchanges (i.e., what most people call “barter”). For example, suppose people in a community own horses, and others own cows. Each person will rank various units of each animal on his own subjective scale of values. Bill might consider his first horse as the most important animal, then his first cow, and then his second horse. John, in contrast, might consider his first and then second cows to occupy the highest- and second-highest ranks in his scale of values, while his first horse comes in at the third slot. (Note that everyone exhibits diminishing marginal utility in each animal.) People will trade horses for cows so long as there are mutually beneficial trades; perhaps Bill will trade his 17th and 18th cows for John’s 6th horse, because such a trade makes both men better off in their own subjective views. (In this case, the “price” of one horse is two cows.) To understand the description Mises gives to the range of possible market prices under bilateral competition, the reader should consult the numerical example in Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (scholar’s edition, 2nd edition; Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2009, pp. 106–26).
在英文版第108页，米塞斯提到了门格尔和庞巴维克对直接交换（即大多数人所说的“易货交易”）中如何确定价格的解释。例如，假设社区中的人拥有马，而其他人拥有奶牛。每个人将按照自己的主观价值尺度对每只动物的各个单位进行排名。比尔可能会认为他的第一匹马是最重要的动物，然后是他的第一头奶牛，然后是他的第二匹马。相比之下，约翰可能会认为他的第一头奶牛和第二头奶牛在他的价值尺度上占据了排名最高和第二的位置，而他的第一匹马在第三位。（请注意，每只动物的边际效用都在下降。）只要有互利的交易，人们就会交换马匹和奶牛。也许比尔将用他的第17和第18头奶牛交易约翰的第6匹马，因为这样的交易使两个人都改善了自己的主观感受。（在这种情况下，一匹马的“价格”是两头奶牛。）为了理解米塞斯对双边竞争下可能的市场价格范围的描述，读者应该参考穆瑞·罗斯巴德的《人，经济与国家》（学者版，第2版；奥本，阿拉巴马州：米塞斯研究所，2009年，第106-126页）的数值案例。
The first sections of this chapter lay out Mises’s famous regression theorem, which successfully applies subjective value theory to the case of money. Earlier economists had been unable to accomplish this feat, because they thought the approach would lead to a circular argument in the case of money. (How can we explain the objective purchasing power of money by reference to subjective valuations, when those subjective valuations in turn are completely dependent on money’s objective purchasing power? It seemed to Mises’s predecessors that this approach said, “Money is valuable because money is valuable.”) Mises broke out of the circularity by introducing the time element: People are willing to sell other goods and services for money today because they expect that same money to command purchasing power tomorrow. (This explains money’s purchasing power today.) But people’s expectations about the future purchasing power of money are formed by their observations of the recent past, i.e., their observations of money’s purchasing power yesterday. We can push the explanation all the way back until the point at which (commodity) money had an objective exchange value due entirely to its use in nonmonetary applications.
本章的第一部分阐述了米塞斯着名的回溯定理，该定理成功地将主观价值理论应用于货币问题。早期的经济学家一直无法完成这一壮举，因为他们认为这种方法会导致货币问题的循环论证。（当货币的主观估值完全依赖于其客观购买力时，我们如何通过参考主观估值来解释货币的客观购买力？米塞斯的前辈们认为这相当于说：“货币是有有价值的，因为货币是有价值的。”米塞斯通过引入时间元素打破了这种循环：人们愿意今天出售商品和服务换取货币，因为他们预期这些货币明天具有同样的购买力。（这解释了今天的货币购买力。）但人们对货币未来购买力的预期是由他们对过去的观察形成的，即他们昨天对货币购买力的观察。我们可以把这种解释一直追溯到一个时刻，那时（商品）货币的客观交换价值完全来自于其在非货币应用中的使用。
On page 160 Mises gives a simple illustration (involving a pear, lemonade, etc.) of how an individual’s scale of values can be transformed with the possibility of market exchange.
在英文版第160页，米塞斯给出了一个简单的例子（包括梨，柠檬水等），说明了如何利用市场交换的可能性来改变一个人的价值尺度。
新术语
Quantity theory of money: An old doctrine explaining changes in the purchasing power of money by reference to the quantity of money and the demand to hold it. (There are many versions of the quantity theory, with the more mechanical ones—which posit that a doubling of the money stock will lead to a doubling of all prices—being obviously wrong.)
货币数量论：一种古老的理论，通过参考货币数量和持有货币的需求来解释货币购买力的变化。 （数量论有很多版本，其中更机械的那些 - 假设货币量增加一倍会导致所有价格翻倍 - 显然是错误的。）
Money certificates: Money substitutes that are fully backed by money (in the narrower sense).
货币兑换凭证：完全由货币支撑的货币替代品（狭义上）。
Fiduciary media: Money substitutes issued over and above the money (in the narrower sense) held in the redemption fund. Fiduciary media are “unbacked.”
信用媒介：在赎回基金中持有的货币（在狭义上）之上发行的货币替代品。信用媒介“无准备金支持”。
Hoards (noun): People who accumulate large cash balances in certain circumstances, allegedly counteracting the predictions of a naive quantity theory of money.
囤积者（名词）：在某些情况下积累大量现金余额的人，据称抵消了简单货币数量论的预测。
Regression Theorem: Mises’s argument that the current purchasing power of money is influenced by people’s memory of yesterday’s purchasing power. The causality is traced back in time, until the point at which the money good was valued as a regular commodity in direct exchange.
回溯定理：米塞斯的论点，认为当前货币的购买力受到人们对昨天购买力的记忆的影响。因果关系可沿时间往回追溯，直到货币商品作为一种普通商品在直接交换中被估价的时候。
研究问题
Explain:“The subjective value of money must be measured by the marginal utility of the goods for which the money can be exchanged.” (p. 109)
解释：“货币的主观价值必须通过货币可以兑换的商品的边际效用来衡量。”（英文版第109页）If all types of money must have originally had a nonmonetary source of valuation, how can Mises explain fiat money? (pp.110–11)
如果所有类型的货币都必须有最初的非货币估值来源，米塞斯如何解释法定货币呢？（英文版第110-111页）If the “past value of money is taken over by the present,” does that mean current conditions and expectations have no influence on the value of money today? (p. 111)
如果“过去的货币价值被现在接管”，那是否意味着当前的情况和预期对今天的货币价值没有影响？ （英文版第111页）Explain: “If all the exchange ratios of the past were erased from human memory, the process of market-price-determination might certainly become more difficult ... but it would not become impossible.” (p. 113)
解释：“如果过去的所有交换比率都从人类记忆中消失了，那么市场价格决定的过程肯定会变得更加困难......但并不会变得不可能。”（英文版第113页）Explain:“[A]mechanical theory of price-determination was arrived at—a doctrine of Supply and Demand. . . . It is correct or incorrect, according to the content given to the words Supply and Demand.” (pp. 128–29)
解释：“关于价格决定的机械的理论是在一种供给和需求学说中得出的......它的正确与否，取决于赋予供给和需求两个词的内容是什么。“（英文版第128-129页）