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”。
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.
相关文章
「 支持！」
WYZXWK.COM
您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！
欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号
