費爾德斯坦,克魯格曼同意：另一場戰爭可能有用
來自兩個政治派別的經濟學家預測未來幾年就業狀況險惡
兩場戰爭還不夠.
兩位著名經濟學家--一位保守主義者和一位自由主義者--今天說，美國經濟前景如此險惡，完全沒有政治解決方法，隻有另一場大規模的戰爭可能才能把美國從長期的高失業和低速增長中解救出來。
紐 約時報專欄作家、諾貝爾獎得主保羅・克魯格曼和哈佛大學的費爾德斯坦--他曾在裏根總統時期擔任過政府經濟顧問委員會(Council of Economic Advisers)主席--在華盛頓的一個經濟論壇上對於未來達成令人不安的一致。第三位經濟學家、高盛集團（Goldman Sachs）的Jan Hatzius 也同意這種看法。Jan Hatzius 說，他能預測到的唯一的經濟狀況不是“相當壞”就是“很壞”。
至於重新回到充分就業，克魯格曼說他的估計是“基本上不可能。沒有跡象表明那種事會發生。”克魯格曼說，美國陷於如此暗淡的後衰退期的低穀，相比之下，“我們要把日本‘失去的十年’看作是一個成功的事例”。
雖 然克魯格曼和費爾德斯坦在財政和稅收政策方麵經常站在對立的政治立場上，但是兩個人好像都同意這種看法，即華盛頓的政治癱瘓使必要的財政和貨幣刺激政策成 為不可能。隻有諸如一場大規模戰爭這樣的有強烈影響的外因震動--有點類似於克魯格曼所稱之的“以第二次世界大戰聞名的協調的財政擴張”--可能足以打破 循環。“我不認為我們即將對任何人發動一場戰爭，”費爾德斯坦帶著言不由衷的遺憾在這個由四個智庫讚助的、叫作“美國的財政選擇”的左傾論壇上說。“但是 保羅是正確的。那是把我們從能與這次衰退相比的上一次衰退即大蕭條解救出來的財政手段”。
兩人都重申了他們先前爭論過的觀點，奧巴馬政府的 刺激措施遠遠不夠填補產出缺口（output gap）。費爾德斯坦表示了謹慎的樂觀，如果政府什麽也不幹，受對華盛頓缺乏信任的驅使，世界範圍內的戲劇性的美元貶值可能促進出口和經濟。但是，克魯格 曼和 Hatzius好像不同意。“對美元信心的缺乏可能與在其他市場上的不穩定性相符合，”Hatzius說，這會消除美元貶值可能帶來的任何經濟利益。 Hatzius表示，他的遠景方案中最可能的那個--“相當壞的”那--需要失業率再一次上揚至百份之十以上的某處，二零一一年前幾個月增長率為百份之一 至百份之二，在二零一四年前不會重回充分就業。但是他表示他的“很壞的”這一選擇有百份之廿五到百份之三十發生的可能：未來六個月至九個月裏的一次二次衰 退。
克魯格曼補充說，第三種“災難性的”選擇涉及“一個政府在未來兩年裏百份之五十垮台的可能性，”尤其是隨著中期選舉的臨近，預計一個更加右傾的共和黨會被授予權力。
由 Demos（英國智庫）、美國世紀基金會(Century Foundation)、美國經濟政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)和美國預算和政策優先中心( Center for Budget Policy and Priorities)發起的這一討論名為“預算政策、短期複蘇和長期增長”。與會者如此地陷於當前的悲觀情緒中，以至於他們從未觸及關於預算政策或長期 增長的問題。
Feldstein, Krugman Agree: Another War Would Help
Economists From Both Sides Of The Political Spectrum Envision Grim Employment Scenarios For Years To Come
y 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.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
