|
不管就业市场的消息是好是坏，美国总统的经济拯救计划都保持不变。乔治•W•布什(George
W. Bush)想让其减税方案永久化。这就像使用阿司匹林就能立竿见影，却硬要开出终生服用类固醇的处方。这种减税，只能有限地刺激短期消费，对经济复苏的影响更是微乎其微。未来年代的减税会增加消费，直至失业降至保障通胀安全的最低水平后很久，这很有可能阻碍长期增长。这种减税方案还有可能导致短期内发生经济危机，进一步摧毁工作机会。
|
Good
news about jobs or bad, the president's remedy remains the same. George W.
Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent. That is like prescribing a
regimen of steroids for life, when fast-acting aspirin would do. Only the
small fraction of the cuts that significantly boosts spending in the short
term will further the recovery. Tax cuts in future years will increase
spending long after unemployment is down to its inflation-safe minimum and
are more likely to retard growth in the long term. They also risk a
job-destroying financial crisis in the short term.
|
|
一般而言，企业增加生产则需要更多工人，需要更多工人则会创造工作机会。而企业增加生产的前提，是他们相信有人会购买他们生产的产品。如果减税能增加美国产品的内需和出口，那么减税就能增加就业。
|
Businesses
generally create jobs when they need more workers to increase production.
They will increase production only if they believe that someone will buy
the output. Tax cuts promote jobs when they increase domestic or foreign
spending on goods produced by American workers.
|
|
出口主要取决于外国人的收入水平和汇率；减税对这两方面没有直接影响。另一方面，提供税务补贴，让企业建新厂或者采购机械，也不是上策，因为有很多厂房和机械处在闲置状态。稳妥的对策，是增加家庭和政府采购，同时保持低利率。近期来设备采购和软件消费呈现的上升趋势正说明了这一点。
|
Exports
depend mainly on foreigners' incomes and the exchange rate; cutting our
taxes will not affect them directly. Tax subsidies to get businesses to
build new plants or buy machinery are not a good bet either while many
factories and machines are still idle. The reliable answer to that - as
the recent pickup in equipment and software spending suggests - is an
increase in household or government purchases, combined with low interest
rates.
|
|
抛开政府不论，减税若能刺激家庭消费，倒也不失为有效方法。提高税后收入会刺激富人以外所有人的消费，每增加一美元他们平均会消费60到90美分。减税的时机也至关重要。布什减税方案只有一小部分能提高税后收入，及时影响短期消费。未来的减税对目前的失业根本不起作用，甚至会起坏作用。如果在经济复苏之前利率就因预期赤字而升高，那么未来的减税举措则会阻碍复苏，并减少近期创造的就业数量。
|
Leaving
government aside, boosting household spending is where tax cuts can be
useful. Increasing after-tax incomes usually causes all but the rich to
spend, on average, between 60 and 90 cents of each extra dollar. But
timing is crucial. Only a small fraction of the Bush tax cuts will boost
after-tax incomes soon enough to affect spending in the short term. Tax
cuts that apply to years in the far future are at best useless for
reducing current unemployment. Should large prospective deficits push up
long-term interest rates before the economy fully recovers, these future
cuts will retard recovery and reduce the number of jobs created in the
short term.
|
|
如果失业率降低到通胀安全最低水平，减税和创造就业的情形如何呢？在这种情况下，私人和公共消费只要能抵消生产率增长，让就业和劳动力供应保持同步增长就可以了。而实现这一结果，只要综合运用一些政策手段就可以了。具体运用哪些政策的组合，部分要看我们如何分配私人和公共领域的国民生产，即多少是消费，多少是投资。
|
What
about tax cuts and job-creation once unemployment has fallen to its
minimal inflation-safe level? We will then need just enough growth in
private and public spending to offset productivity growth and keep job
growth in line with the supply of new workers. Many policy combinations
could achieve that outcome. The mix should depend in part on how we want
to divide the national product between consumption and investment, both
private and public.
|
|
布什的长期减税计划会限制政策手段的选择。纳税人一般都会将多出来的税后收入部分用于消费，只要政府消费不对半削减，总体消费支出是会上升的。为了防止消费上升造成通货膨胀，美联储（the
Federal Reserve）将被迫提高利率，以降低利率敏感型消费，特别是商业和基础设施投资，以及美国净出口，即出口额减进口额。（高利率会提高美元币值类债券的需求量，这一情形多会抬高美元和美国产品的价格，使外国产品更便宜。）
|
The
Bush tax cuts that apply far into the future will sharply narrow the
options. Because taxpayers typically spend some of their extra after-tax
income on consumption, unless the government reduces its spending on
consumption dollar for dollar, total spending on consumption will be
higher. To prevent this igniting inflation, the Federal Reserve will be
forced to raise interest rates so as to hold down interest- sensitive
spending, notably business and infrastructure investment and US net
exports - that is, exports less imports. (High interest rates, by boosting
demand for dollar-denominated bonds, will tend to make the dollar and
American goods more expensive and foreign goods cheaper.)
|
|
除非出现供给的奇迹，否则总统未来的减税计划都将改变消费的构成，即增加消费，减少国家投资。受其影响，国内自用产品产能的增速会放缓。再过15至20年，我们的孙子辈长大了，他们人口本来就少，生产这些产品的产能有限，而婴儿潮时代人的儿子辈数量众多，且都多已退休，那时候就会出现我们的孙子辈和儿子辈争产品的局面。
|
Barring
a supply-side miracle, the president's future tax cuts will shift the
composition of spending in favour of consumption and against national
investment. As a result, the economy's capacity to produce output for our
own use will grow more slowly. There will be less output available in 15
to 20 years when our relatively few grandchildren - who will produce that
output - will have to share it with our many retired baby-boomer children.
|
|
规划中的未来减税方案在短期内也存在危险。只减税，不相应削减政府消费，也不利用高利率防止通胀，这种政策组合是无法持久的。美国利率高则导致美元升值，美元升值将使本已庞大的赤字进一步扩大。若是通过贷款支付进出口逆差，外债的增长速度会超过国民生产的增速，如此一来，债主就会紧张起来。他们如果减持美元债务，或者削减新增贷款，则会不经意地引发投机性的美元抛售。
|
The
planned future tax cuts also pose a danger in the shorter term. Tax cuts
unmatched by cuts in government consumption, together with high interest
rates to prevent inflation, may not be a sustainable policy combination.
Because high US interest rates tend to cause the dollar to appreciate,
they are likely to make an already large trade deficit larger. If
borrowing to pay for the resulting excess of imports over exports means
that our foreign debt keeps increasing faster than gross domestic product,
our creditors are likely to get nervous. Should they try to reduce their
holdings of dollar debt, or even to cut back on new lending, they might
inadvertently set in motion a speculative run from the dollar.
|
|
美联储为防止美元价格的急剧下滑，或许会进一步提高利率。此举无论成败，都将冲击美国金融市场，包括就业在内的实体经济将因此受损。到了这种情况下，姑且不论需要采取的反周期举措，长期财政秩序都可能需要重新恢复了，否则没有出路。
|
The
Fed might try to prevent a free fall in the dollar's price by driving
interest rates still higher. Whether it succeeds or fails, US financial
markets would take a beating and the real economy, jobs included, would
suffer damage. As a saving grace, counter-cyclical measures aside, we
would be compelled to restore long-term fiscal order.
|
|
长期增长速度缓慢，短期经济危机风险触手可及，如此沉重的代价，换来的只是略微刺激当前的需求。同样的目的，完全可以通过一些眼前有益，日后也无害的举措来实现。
|
Slower
growth over the long term - and an appreciable risk of a financial crisis
in the short term - are a steep price to pay for a little stimulation of
current demand that could readily have been achieved by measures that
would do more good now and cause no damage later.
|
|
本文作者系哈佛大学肯尼迪学院政治经济学荣誉退休教授。
|
The
writer is professor emeritus of political economy at Harvard's Kennedy
School
|
|
译者/柏林
|
