Governments Move to Cut Spending, in 1930s Echo
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 29, 2010
The world’s rich countries are now conducting a dangerous experiment. They are repeating an economic policy out of the 1930s — starting to cut spending and raise taxes before a recovery is assured — and hoping today’s situation is different enough to assure a different outcome.
In effect, policy makers are betting that the private sector can make up for the withdrawal of stimulus over the next couple of years. If they’re right, they will have made a head start on closing their enormous budget deficits. If they’re wrong, they may set off a vicious new cycle, in which public spending cuts weaken the world economy and beget new private spending cuts.
Longer term, though, it’s still impossible to know which prediction will turn out to be right. You can find good evidence to support either one.
the most recent economic numbers have offered some reason for worry, and the coming fiscal tightening in this country won’t be much smaller than the 1930s version. From 1936 to 1938, when the Roosevelt administration believed that the Great Depression was largely over, tax increases and spending declines combined to equal 5 percent of gross domestic product.
Today, no wealthy country is an obvious candidate to be the world’s growth engine, and the simultaneous moves have the potential to unnerve consumers, businesses and investors, says Adam Posen, an American expert on financial crises now working for the Bank of England. “The world may be making a mistake, and it may turn out to make things worse rather than better,” Mr. Posen said.
As is often the case after a financial crisis, this recovery is turning out to be a choppy one. Companies kept increasing pay and hours last month, for example, but did little new hiring. On Tuesday, the Conference Board reported that consumer confidence fell sharply this month.
And just as households and businesses are becoming skittish, governments are getting ready to let stimulus programs expire, the equivalent of cutting spending and raising taxes. The Senate has so far refused to pass a bill that would extend unemployment insurance or send aid to ailing state governments. Goldman Sachs economists this week described the Senate’s inaction as “an increasingly important risk to growth.”
The parallels to 1937 are not reassuring. From 1933 to 1937, the United States economy expanded more than 40 percent, even surpassing its 1929 high. But the recovery was still not durable enough to survive Roosevelt’s spending cuts and new Social Security tax. In 1938, the economy shrank 3.4 percent, and unemployment spiked.
Given this history, why would policy makers want to put on another fiscal hair shirt today?
The reasons vary by country. Greece has no choice. It is out of money, and the markets will not lend to it at a reasonable rate. Several other countries are worried — not ludicrously — that financial markets may turn on them, too, if they delay deficit reduction. Spain falls into this category, and even Britain may.
Then there are the countries that still have the cash or borrowing ability to push for more growth, like the United States, Germany and China, which happen to be three of the world’s biggest economies. Yet they are also reluctant.
China, until recently at least, has been worried about its housing market overheating. Germany has long been afraid of stimulus, because of inflation’s role in the Nazis’ political rise. In responding to the recent financial crisis, Europe, led by Germany, was much more timid than the United States, which is one reason the European economy is in worse shape today.
The reasons for the new American austerity are subtler, but not shocking. Our economy remains in rough shape, by any measure. So it’s easy to confuse its condition (bad) with its direction (better) and to lose sight of how much worse it could be. The unyielding criticism from those who opposed stimulus from the get-go — laissez-faire economists, Congressional Republicans, German leaders — plays a role, too. They’re able to shout louder than the data.
Finally, the idea that the world’s rich countries need to cut spending and raise taxes has a lot of truth to it. The United States, Europe and Japan have all made promises they cannot afford. Eventually, something needs to change.
In an ideal world, countries would pair more short-term spending and tax cuts with long-term spending cuts and tax increases. But not a single big country has figured out, politically, how to do that.
Instead, we are left to hope that we have absorbed just enough of the 1930s lesson.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
當 心 第 三 次 蕭 條
By Paul KrugmanPublished: June 29, 2010
政策失敗是第三次蕭條的主要特徵。各國政府最在意通膨，實則真正的威脅是通縮。各國政府一再強調撙節的必要，真正的問題卻是支出不足。
在2008及2009年，我們好像已經記取歷史的教訓。與面臨金融危機時，動輒調高利率的前人不同，當前的聯準會及歐洲央行領導人相繼降息，並以具體措施 支撐信貸市場。與在經濟衰退時，試圖平衡預算的歷屆政府不同的是，當今的各國政府允許赤字增加。比較妥當的政策協助全世界避免徹底瓦解：金融危機引發的衰 退已於去年夏天結束。
過去幾個月間，匯率穩定的貨幣與平衡預算的傳統觀念出現驚人的抬頭趨勢。
在歐洲，舊宗教捲土重來的現象最明顯。歐洲官員似乎自胡佛的多次演說中歸納他們的論點，並認為加稅與削減支出有助於強化企業的信心，進而造就經濟擴張。然 而實際上，美國的表現並不是特別突出。聯準會似乎對通縮的風險了然於心，但對因應這些可能風險卻等於零。歐巴馬政府明白時機未成熟時，倉促祭出財政緊縮壓 施的風險，然而由於國會共和黨人與保守派民主黨人不願意為各州政府提供額外協助，以致緊縮還是無法避免，形式是州政府與地方政府縮減預算。
局面幾乎有如金融市場明白決策者不明白的道理：長期的財政責任誠然重要，蕭條時期撙節開支卻足以導致蕭條更嚴重，並奠定通縮的基礎，最終將以失敗收場。換言之，我認為這與體認希臘的情勢無關，也和削減赤字與刺激就業孰輕孰重無關，而是與理性分析毫無關聯的傳統觀念的勝利。
By SorosPublished: June 23, 2010
德法兩國對經濟政策的歧見較10年前更深，歐盟正在瓦解當中。索羅斯認為德國正將鄰國帶入通縮的地步，這將使得經濟停滯，同時導致民族主義、社會動盪與仇外的情況出現。
美國總統歐巴馬(Barack Obama)已提出呼籲，各國須當心過於激烈的撙節開支計劃會扼殺剛復甦的經濟，一向較擔憂通膨的德國則不這樣想。德國總理Angela Merkel表示，削減赤字對經濟復甦有其必要，並不會威脅成長。
Published: June 22, 2010
英國五年內打消赤字
這將是英國自戰後以來，最嚴厲的緊縮計劃。市場也做出了正面反應：英鎊與政府公債雙雙小幅上揚；原本要調降英國債信評等的信評機構，現在也暫緩下手。
當全世界都為了主權債務危機而焦慮不堪，英國大動作證明，自己絕對不想被歸類成「希臘那一群」。計劃一公布，各界都歡迎。
高達四分之三的緊縮目標，將來自削減公共開支，其他則靠加稅，尤其是加值稅（ＶＡＴ）將自明年一月起，由目前的一七．五％增加到二○％。政府支出佔ＧＤＰ的比重，將由上年度的四七％，縮減至四一％以下，赤字比重也將由一一％銳減至二％。
全站熱搜
留言列表
