诺贝尔奖得主:只有发动战争才能拯救美国经济(图)
【北美在线
NAOL.CA】 2010/10/12 分类:财经
来源:移动Labs
北美在线(NAOL.CA):
只有发动战争才能拯救美国经济--诺贝尔奖得主如是说。
费尔德斯坦,克鲁格曼同意:另一场战争可能有用。
来自两个政治派别的经济学家预测未来几年就业状况险恶。
两场战争还不够。
两位著名经济学家--一位保守主义者和一位自由主义者--今天说,美国经济前景如此险恶,完全没有政治解决方法,只有另一场大规模的战争可能才能把美国从长期的高失业和低速增长中解救出来。
纽约时报专栏作家、诺贝尔奖得主保罗·克鲁格曼和哈佛大学的费尔德斯坦--他曾在里根总统时期担任过政府经济顾问委员会(Council
of Economic
Advisers)主席--在华盛顿的一个经济论坛上对于未来达成令人不安的一致。第三位经济学家、高盛集团(Goldman
Sachs)的Jan Hatzius 也同意这种看法。Jan Hatzius
说,他能预测到的唯一的经济状况不是“相当坏”就是“很坏”。
2008年度诺贝尔经济学奖得主,美国普林斯顿大学经济学家保罗·克鲁格曼和妻子
至于重新回到充分就业,克鲁格曼说他的估计是“基本上不可能。没有迹象表明那种事会发生。”克鲁格曼说,美国陷于如此暗淡的后衰退期的低谷,相比之下,“我们要把日本‘失去的十年’看作是一个成功的事例”。
虽然克鲁格曼和费尔德斯坦在财政和税收政策方面经常站在对立的政治立场上,但是两个人好像都同意这种看法,即华盛顿的政治瘫痪使必要的财政和货币刺激政策成为不可能。只有诸如一场大规模战争这样的有强烈影响的外因震动--有点类似于克鲁格曼所称之的“以第二次世界大战闻名的协调的财政扩张”--可能足以打破循环。“我不认为我们即将对任何人发动一场战争,”费尔德斯坦带着言不由衷的遗憾在这个由四个智库赞助的、叫作“美国的财政选择”的左倾论坛上说。“但是保罗是正确的。那是把我们从能与这次衰退相比的上一次衰退即大萧条解救出来的财政手段”。
两人都重申了他们先前争论过的观点,奥巴马政府的刺激措施远远不够填补产出缺口(output
gap)。费尔德斯坦表示了谨慎的乐观,如果政府什么也不干,受对华盛顿缺乏信任的驱使,世界范围内的戏剧性的美元贬值可能促进出口和经济。但是,克鲁格曼和
Hatzius好像不同意。“对美元信心的缺乏可能与在其他市场上的不稳定性相符合,”Hatzius说,这会消除美元贬值可能带来的任何经济利益。
Hatzius表示,他的远景方案中最可能的那个--“相当坏的”那--需要失业率再一次上扬至百份之十以上的某处,二零一一年前几个月增长率为百份之一至百份之二,在二零一四年前不会重回充分就业。但是他表示他的“很坏的”这一选择有百份之廿五到百份之三十发生的可能:未来六个月至九个月里的一次二次衰退。
克鲁格曼补充说,第三种“灾难性的”选择涉及“一个政府在未来两年里百份之五十垮台的可能性,”尤其是随着中期选举的临近,预计一个更加右倾的共和党会被授予权力。
由Demos(英国智库)、美国世纪基金会(Century
Foundation)、美国经济政策研究所(Economic Policy
Institute)和美国预算和政策优先中心( Center for Budget
Policy and
Priorities)发起的这一讨论名为“预算政策、短期复苏和长期增长”。与会者如此地陷于当前的悲观情绪中,以至于他们从未触及关于预算政策或长期增长的问题。
Feldstein, Krugman Agree: Another War Would
Help
Economists From Both Sides Of The Political
Spectrum Envision Grim Employment Scenarios
For Years To Come
by Michael Hirsh
Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010
Two wars are not enough.
America's economic outlook is so grim, and
political solutions are so utterly absent,
that only another large-scale war might be
enough to lift the nation out of chronic
high unemployment and slow growth, two
prominent economists, a conservative and a
liberal, said today.
Nobelist Paul Krugman, a New York Times
columnist, and Harvard's Martin Feldstein,
the former chairman of President Reagan's
Council of Economic Advisers, achieved an
unnerving degree of consensus about the
future during an economic forum in
Washington. Their views were shared by a
third economist, Jan Hatzius of Goldman
Sachs, who said the only economic scenarios
he could visualize were either "pretty bad"
or "very bad."
As far as returning to full employment,
Krugman said his estimate is "basically
never. There is nothing visible on the
horizon that will make that happen." Krugman
said the United States is caught in a
post-recession trough so bleak that "we're
going to look at Japan's 'lost decade' as a
success story" by comparison.
Krugman and Feldstein, though often on
opposite sides of the political fence on
fiscal and tax policy, both appeared to
share the view that political paralysis in
Washington has rendered the necessary fiscal
and monetary stimulus out of the question.
Only a high-impact "exogenous" shock like a
major war -- something similar to what
Krugman called the "coordinated fiscal
expansion known as World War II" -- would be
enough to break the cycle. "I don't think
we're about to launch a war against
anybody," Feldstein said with
tongue-in-cheek regret at the left-leaning
forum, "America's Fiscal Choices," sponsored
by four think tanks. "But Paul is right.
That was the fiscal move that got us out" of
the last downturn comparable to this one,
the Great Depression.
Both reiterated their previously argued
views that the Obama administration's
stimulus was far too small to fill the
output gap. Feldstein expressed a cautious
optimism that if government did nothing,
then a dramatic dollar depreciation around
the world -- driven, ironically, by a lack
of faith in Washington -- might boost
exports and the economy. But Krugman and
Hatzius appeared to disagree. "A loss of
confidence in the dollar would coincide with
instability in other markets," Hatzius said,
and that would wipe out whatever economic
benefits depreciation might supply. Hatzius
said the most likely of his scenarios -- the
"pretty bad" one -- called for unemployment
to climb again to somewhere over 10 percent
on growth of 1 percent to 2 percent through
the early months of 2011, and no return to
full employment before 2014. But he gave a
25 percent to 30 percent chance that his
"very bad" alternative could develop: a
double-dip recession over the next six to
nine months.
Krugman added a third "catastrophic"
alternative involving "a 50 percent
probability of a government shutdown in the
next two years," especially with the
upcoming midterm elections expected to
empower an even more right-leaning
Republican Party.
The discussion -- put on by Demos, the
Century Foundation, the Economic Policy
Institute, and the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities -- was entitled "Budget
Policy, Short-Term Recovery and Long-Term
Growth." The participants were so caught up
in the pessimism of the moment that they
never got to questions about budget policy
or long-term growth.
阅读或发表评论
返回北美在线首页
热点专题
视频
春晚
奥运
西藏
艳照
海归
华南虎
王千源
胡紫薇
地震
猪流感
毒奶粉
大选
健康
杨佳
金融危机
贪腐
骗假
华社
贺梅
朱海洋
唐炜臻
蒋国兵
奇闻趣事
财经
警匪
情感
|