Saying and Meaning, Cheap Talk and Credibility
Saying and Meaning, Cheap Talk and Credibility
复制标题
言语和意义，廉价的谈话和可信度
DOI：
10.1057/9780230285897_2
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Robert Stalnaker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robert Stalnaker
2003年5月，美国财政部长约翰·斯诺在回答记者提问时，发表了一些导致美元暴跌的言论。《华尔街日报》尖锐地批评他是在玩火，并将他的言论描述为“抛售本国货币”、“抨击美元”和“贬低美元”。他实际上是这样说的：当美元处于较低水平时，有利于出口，我认为其结果是出口变得更加强劲。这是一个没有争议的事实主张，每个人，无论他或她对美国政府的货币政策是什么或应该是什么，都会同意。为什么会有这样的影响？布林德说，他的所作所为是财政部长不应该说的显而易见的事实之一。当财政部长说出这样的话时，无论他想不想说，都会充满深刻的含义。一些人认为秘书知道自己在做什么，并打算让他的言论具有它们所产生的效果。(一位外汇策略师说，我认为他措辞谨慎。)其他人则认为他偏离了剧本，还不能流利地使用微妙的美元政策语言。国务卿和其他官员在他最初的讲话之后重申，政府的政策是支持强势美元，但一些人仍然认为他最初的言论是一个信号，表明布什政府秘密欢迎美元下跌。1这些明确的政策声明显然缺乏可信度。或许他们的意思没有外汇交易员和其他观察人士从最初言论中读出的“秘密”信号的含义那么深刻。
In May 2003, the US Treasury Secretary, John Snow, in response to a question, made some remarks that caused the dollar to drop precipitously in value. The Wall Street Journal sharply criticized him for ‘playing with fire,’ and characterized his remarks as ‘dumping on his own currency’, ‘bashing the dollar,’ and ‘talking the dollar down’. What he in fact said was this: ‘When the dollar is at a lower level it helps exports, and I think exports are getting stronger as a result.’ This was an uncontroversial factual claim that everyone, whatever his or her views about what US government currency policy is or should be, would agree with. Why did it have such an impact? ‘What he has done,’ Alan Blinder said, ‘is stated one of those obvious truths that the secretary of the Treasury isn’t supposed to say. When the secretary of the Treasury says something like that, it gets imbued with deep meaning whether he wants it to or not.’ Some thought the secretary knew what he was doing, and intended his remarks to have the effect that they had. (‘I think he chose his words carefully,’ said one currency strategist.) Others thought that he was ‘straying from the script,’ and ‘isn’t yet fluent in the delicate language of dollar policy.’ The Secretary, and other officials, followed up his initial remarks by reiterating that the government’s policy was to support a strong dollar, but some still saw his initial remark as a signal that ‘the Bush administration secretly welcomes the dollar’s decline.’1 The explicit policy statements apparently lacked credibility. Perhaps their meaning was not as deep as the meaning of the “secret” signal that currency traders and other observers had read into the initial remarks.