【摘要】：次債危機爆發(fā)引起馬克思主義關于現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟危機解釋的爭議。首先,19世紀末英國的數(shù)據(jù)支持利潤率下降導致經(jīng)濟危機產(chǎn)生的觀點,但是置鹽、哈曼、哈森、弗里曼對這個觀點保有爭議。其次,二戰(zhàn)后美國數(shù)據(jù)并不支持利潤率下降規(guī)律;相反,非金融部門單位生產(chǎn)利潤和單位勞動成本的增速可能是一致的,二者在長期內(nèi)是上升的;并且,美國金融部門與非金融部門間利潤率差異與新世紀后的經(jīng)濟周期十分契合。最后,文章考察了中國的部門間利潤率差異狀況。在金融危機期間中國金融部門的利潤率呈下降趨勢,工業(yè)部門的利潤率比較穩(wěn)定。此外,兩個部門間利潤率差異在不斷縮小,并未出現(xiàn)反彈趨勢,預示中國經(jīng)濟仍面臨一定風險。
[Abstract]:The outbreak of the sub-prime debt crisis caused controversy about the interpretation of the modern economic crisis. First, data from Britain at the end of the 19th century supported the view that falling profit margins had led to the economic crisis, but salt, Haman, Harson, Freeman and Freeman disputed that view. Secondly, the US data after World War II do not support the decline of profit margin; on the contrary, the growth rate of non-financial sector unit production profit and unit labor cost may be consistent, both of which are rising in the long run. Moreover, the profit margin difference between the financial and non-financial sectors in the United States fits well with the economic cycle after the new century. Finally, the article examines the inter-sectoral profit margin differences in China. During the financial crisis, the profit margin of China's financial sector showed a downward trend, while that of the industrial sector was relatively stable. In addition, the margin gap between the two sectors is narrowing, there is no rebound trend, indicating that the Chinese economy still faces some risks.
【作者單位】： 南京大學經(jīng)濟學院;北京大學環(huán)境科學與工程學院;深圳市政府發(fā)展研究中心;
【分類號】：F831

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 蘇民;逯宇鐸;;經(jīng)濟周期視角下的資產(chǎn)輪動模式[J];金融理論與實踐;2011年01期

2 魏瑞;;經(jīng)濟周期對股市的影響[J];經(jīng)濟研究導刊;2011年11期

3 喻旭蘭;;經(jīng)濟周期同步性與東亞金融合作的可行性研究[J];經(jīng)濟研究;2007年10期

4 鄧q，

本文編號：2400400