这段时间最关注点在于五月底乃至于六月的整体操作
无意间发现一篇不错的论文，分享结论的部份给股板板友
论文名称：INFLATION WITH COVID CONSUMPTION BASKETS
论文连结：https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27352/w27352.pdf
论文结论：
5 Conclusion
There is growing awareness among academics, central bankers, and the
financial media about the challenges of measuring and interpreting inflation
measures during the Pandemic. A major concern is that consumption patterns
are greatly affected by the lockdowns and social-distancing behaviors,
introducing a potential bias into the measurement of CPI inflation.
Using estimates of the changes in consumption expenditures during the
Pandemic, obtained from US credit and debit card transactions by Chetty et
al. (2020), I update the basket of CPI weights and study the effect on on
inflation in 18 countries. In most cases, I find that the Covid price index
has more inflation than the official CPI. In particular, in the US the annual
inflation rate by May 2020 was 0.95% with the Covid basket and only 0.13%
with the official CPI weights. The difference is growing over time as
consumers continue to spend more on food and similar categories experiencing
inflation, and less on transportation and related categories with significant
deflation. The difference is also present in the Core CPI, implying that the
bias is not limited to consumer spending patterns on food and energy.
Furthermore, I show that low-income households are experiencing more
inflation during the crisis, with an annual inflation rate of 1.12% in May
2020, compared to just 0.57% for high-income households.
These results have important implications for policy-makers trying to respond
to the crisis, as they suggest that the cost of living for consumers is
higher than implied by the official CPI.
The welfare implications are particularly relevant for lower-income
households and extend to many countries experiencing a divergence in sectoral
inflation rates. While the persistence of these effects is yet to be seen,
the changes in consumer spending patterns during the first few months of the
Pandemic have already produced a significant difference in inflation dynamics.
机翻如下：
5 结论
学术界、中央银行家和金融媒体对大流行期间衡量和解释通胀措施的挑战的认识越来越深
刻。一个主要的问题是，消费模式受到封锁和社会隔离行为的极大影响，给CPI通胀的测
量带来潜在的偏差。
利用Chetty等人（2020）从美国信用卡和借记卡交易中获得的对大流行期间消费支出变化
的估计，我更新了CPI权重篮子，并研究了对18个国家通货膨胀的影响。在大多数情况下
，我发现Covid价格指数比官方CPI有更多的通货膨胀。特别是在美国，到2020年5月，使
用Covid篮子的年通货膨胀率为0.95%，而使用官方CPI权重的年通货膨胀率只有0.13%。随
著时间的推移，这种差异在不断扩大，因为消费者继续在食品和经历通货膨胀的类似类别
上花费更多，而在交通和有明显通货紧缩的相关类别上花费更少。这种差异也存在于核心
CPI中，这意味着这种偏差并不限于消费者在食品和能源上的支出模式。此外，我表明低
收入家庭在危机期间经历了更多的通货膨胀，2020年5月的年通货膨胀率为1.12%，而高收
入家庭只有0.57%。
这些结果对试图应对危机的决策者俱有重要意义，因为他们认为消费者的生活成本高于官
方CPI所暗示的。 福利问题与低收入家庭特别相关，并扩展到部门通货膨胀率存在差异的
许多国家。 尽管这些影响的持久性尚待观察，但在大流行的最初几个月中，消费者支出
模式的变化已经在通货膨胀动态方面产生了显著差异。
心得：
尽管这方面的探讨在学界仍在持续
但是通膨数字对比生活压力显然有一定落差
假如此落差为真
政府对策与实际的落差，反映在民主国家可能就是直接的政局动荡
当然如果程度不如预期严重
那也可能只是民调下滑而非直接政局动荡的程度
政局动荡最直接反映的就是民主政府处理相关民生问题的速度和效率
短期速效的方法，好一点就是加税，差一点的就是打土豪分田地了
赖帐.....在相关国际货币组织的全力支援下，个人认为很难发生
如果美国为主的主导者们都还是坚持去年疫情刚发生的态度
也就是一失火就立刻灌水扑救
......恐慌压回即买点？