The Road Ahead: The Monumental Fiscal Challenge
該往何處：龐大的財務難題
Aug 15, 2011 1:00 AM EDT
Three Nobel economists share their thoughts on America’s future, what went wrong, and what can be done to fix things.
三位諾貝爾經濟學家提出他們對美國未來的看法，到底問題在哪，以及如何修正。
The latest major correction in the U.S. stock market has marked an abrupt change in economic thinking. Suddenly what used to be a minority view—a grim portrait drawn by myself and a few other observers—is widely accepted: some fundamental things are wrong with America’s economy. But “too little money chasing too many goods”—a so-called deficiency of aggregate demand—is not one of them. A deficiency emerged last year, but the Federal Reserve’s second round of “quantitative easing” got the inflation rate almost back to the target. A third round could be fired should the inflation rate sag again. The economy’s real malfunctions are structural. When recognized, they reduce valuations of stocks, capital goods, and housing. That in turn leads to a contraction of investment activity—and hence of employment.
美國股市近期來最大的修正是對經濟學想法的大轉彎。
根據我以及其他幾位觀察者的客觀看法，過去的主流觀點是這樣的：
美國經濟有些基礎根本上的錯誤。
但有一個現象沒被考慮，那就是錢太少商品太多，
也就是所謂的總體需求衰退。
去年就有一波衰退浮現，但聯邦儲備銀行第二波的”量化寬鬆”(quantitative easing場面話XD也就是指印鈔)
使得通膨回到目標水準。
而第三波也應該也會進行，那將會使通膨再次減緩。
經濟上真正出問題的是結構性的問題。
當意識到這點後，降低了股票、資本財以及房產的價值。
輪番的衰退導致投資活動縮水，也導致雇用方面出現了問題。
A big problem is that fiscal discipline was thrown to the winds after the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. When I first heard George W. Bush speak of “compassionate conservatism,” I braced myself for a splurge of entitlement spending. The opening shot was Medicare Part D—free pills for seniors. To enact it, Congress had to abandon its 1990s rule that any bill for new spending had to provide new tax revenues to pay for it. I warned at the time that the bill violated the principle of “fiscal neutrality”: such programs make people feel far wealthier than they are, leading to reductions in saving and domestic investment. But eventually people look to the horizon and see massive levels of public debt. Then markets get frightened, and asset prices plunge.
財政紀律(意指收支應保持平衡)完全被丟到九霄雲外，
尤其是在雷根、柯林頓以及小布希任內。
當我首次聽到小布希說『悲憫的保守主義』
(compassionate conservatism)，我心裡就做好了準備，
社會福利支出(entitlement spending)想必會被揮霍。
處方藥保險(Medicare Part D-使得老年人可以得到免費的部分藥品)開了第一槍。
為了讓法案能通過，國會在90年代遵守的規則也被捨棄了，
原本任何造成新支出的法案都必須有新的稅基來支撐才行，
那時候這個默契也被打破了。
我當時就覺得奇怪，這個法案完全違反了財稅中立性(fiscal neutrality)的原則。
這種計劃會使得民眾覺得他們遠比實際情況富足，
將會使得儲蓄與國內投資下降。
但人民最終是會意識到未來後果的，
他們發現等著他們的是一大堆的公債。
於是市場便開始恐慌，資產價格也隨著縮水。
When Barack Obama took office after years living in the hometown of Chicago economics, I assumed he would be an economic conservative but keen on job subsidies. Instead he proposed the 2010 Medicare legislation that again threatened to increase outlays without any increase in taxes to offset them. And this July he inexplicably passed up an opportunity to cut $4 trillion in federal expenditures on the grounds that the debt deal would not tax the oil and gas industries.
歷經幾年芝加哥學派的浸淫後，歐巴馬上台了。
我以為他會對經濟採取較為保守的做法，只對工作補貼比較積極。
但他提出了2010醫療照護法，此舉再度拉高整體支出，
而且也沒有增加任何的稅基來做抵銷。
今年七月，他又莫名其妙的放掉了讓支出減少四兆的機會，
不再對傳統能源產業多增稅。
These are just the highlights. Thanks to Bush’s tax tables, a working-class couple with two minor children would pay no federal tax at all on income up to about $30,000 and would pay 15 percent on additional income up to about $25,000. Housing benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid might easily exceed the federal tax on a $50,000 income. The middle class gets off lightly too. The federal tax on $85,000 would be about $10,000. In effect, the bottom half of America’s economy appears to be using its voting power to tax the top half.
這只是大概而已。
多虧了布希的稅率表，
收入三萬美元以下擁有兩個孩子的工薪階級夫婦完全不用繳稅，
只需要繳15%的額外收入稅。
住房補貼、糧食券還有醫療補助輕易的就超過年收入五萬美元的繳稅額。
中產階級也輕易的逃離稅賦懲罰。
年收入八萬五美金差不多要繳一萬美金的稅。
事實上，整個美國經濟體系下半部的人似乎用投票權來課上半部的稅。
That’s bad government. There would be plenty of justification to raise revenues in order to subsidize businesses that employ low-wage workers. But there can be no justification for pandering to the economy’s entire bottom half merely to attract its votes.
這真是糟糕的政府，
發放補助金給雇用低工資員工的公司或許有其正當性，
但為了吸引選票而努力討好在經濟體系中下半部的人則完全沒有任何正當性。
What makes the situation all the more unbelievable is that only 10 years ago it wasn’t like this. Expressed as percentages of GDP, America’s total federal outlay took off like a rocket in 2002, but federal revenue has declined steadily. Mary Meeker at the financial firm KPCB estimated earlier this year that the present value of America’s existing entitlements has soared to $66 trillion: $35 trillion for Medicaid, $23 trillion for Medicare, and $8 trillion for Social Security. And we can’t expect to “grow out” of this mountain; most signs suggest we’re headed for years of slower innovation and reduced borrowing and lending—and hence slower growth.
十年前根本不是這樣，這使得現在的窘境看起來更加不可思議。
用GDP來看的話，美國政府支出在2002年開始瘋狂的飆升，
但政府收入卻是持平的。
金融公司KPCB的Mary Meeker今年初做出評估，
目前美國的社會福利花費飆高到66兆美金，
35兆用於醫療補助、23兆用在醫療照護，8兆用在社會保障。
但我們完全沒辦法把這麼大筆的支出變出來，
許多的指標都暗示我們在未來幾年中應該減少新建設並降低租借，
這理所當然會造成經濟發展緩慢。
In that case, how can Washington keep its commitments? Some economists have suggested “restructuring” the country’s public debt—in effect, a default, which would likely cause a draconian downgrade of America’s credit. Or we could “restructure” the entitlements, as former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan has suggested—also a default of sorts. Maybe a little chiseling is inevitable, but many Americans are counting on their entitlements in retirement. A major retreat from these commitments would be disgraceful.
在這樣的情況下，政府要怎麼遵守這些承諾？
一些經濟學家暗示重整公債也是某種程度的違約。
事實上，這種拖延實現的行為很有可能造成美國信用下降，
或是我們要像前前聯邦理事主席Alan Greenspan所說的，
重整這些福利政策。
或許小幅度的更改不可避免，
但很多美國民眾退休之後必須要仰賴這些福利。
從這些承諾中臨陣退縮實在非常不光彩。
The best solution of a bad lot is to boost revenues. Republicans can agree to cancel the free ride of the middle class. Democrats can end the free ride of the working class, but that will make subsidies to business for low-wage employment more necessary than ever. Both parties can agree to a value-added tax. If these changes are phased in gradually, they will not stop a recovery. The main cost of fiscal responsibility will not be jobs lost. Instead, it will be a setback in the rise of paychecks, profits, and wealth. Entitlements have to come from somewhere.
在這一團糟中最好的解決辦法就是提升收益。
共和黨能同意消除中產階級在稅制與福利上搭順風車。
民主黨也能終止勞工階級搭上這些順風車，
不過得給企業特別的津貼去幫助那些比現在更需要幫助的低薪員工。
兩黨都能同意要課增值稅。
如果這些改便能漸漸成型，完全不會妨礙復甦。
償債能力上最大的代價就不會是工作的流失。
取而代之的是回到過去那樣，工資提升、利潤提升、財富提升。
社會福利得從別的地方來(別的方式來進行)。
We can only hope Congress learns that lesson before it enacts any more.
我們希望國會能學到這件事，而且要在他們制定更多東西以前學到。
==================================================
美國人有比較高明嗎XD。
不是一樣支票開爽爽，延遲實現所有債務。
收的稅明明不夠還要做很誇大的事情。
現在才發現事情大條得要縮衣節食可沒那麼簡單XD。
政策買票他們也很會阿，共和黨買中產，民主黨買勞工。
我們是一個黨買生意人，一個黨買激情的人而已。
沒有留言:
張貼留言