(2009/01/31 21:56)
生活中心／綜合報導
為了拼觀光，台鐵交通又有新創意！將推出仿製的3種古董車，包括天皇花車、總督花車、還有專為蔣公設計的總統花車，要供民眾搭乘旅遊觀光，預計1年後上路，票價將比照自強號。
3輛國寶級的花車中，以總督花車內裝最華麗，全是手工雕花，還有全用檜木、柚木打造而成的天皇花車，當時是給裕仁皇太子坐的，光復後改成蔣公的座 車；另外一部復刻總統古董花車，是民國56年專為蔣介石特別打造的，台鐵花了600萬，預計1年後開放載客。(新聞來源：東森新聞)
 示威工人要求政府采取措施保障就業和提高工資 |
上百萬法國工人周四（29日）走上街頭舉行跨行業全國大罷工，抗議法國政府處理金融危機的措施，罷工對法國鐵路和航空交通造成了混亂。
法國各大工會說，約有250萬工人走上街頭遊行示威，要求政府采取措施保障就業、提高工資和購買力水平。
但警方表示罷工人數約有1百萬人。
法國總統薩爾科奇說，工人們對金融危機的擔憂合情合理，政府也願意聽取工人的意見並採取相關措施。
薩爾科奇說，他將在下月與工會和商界領袖見面，商量今年應當採取什麼樣的改革措施。
這次大罷工是在法國八大工會的號召下舉行的。法國政府預計約有四分之一的公務員參加了這次大罷工，但工會認為參與的人數更多。
法國總工會發言人說，共有250萬工人參加了這次大罷工。
法國總工會領導人呼籲薩爾科奇總統認識到有關情況的嚴重性，並呼籲他重新評估政府處理這次經濟危機的措施。
在巴黎，65,000名示威者走過巴士底獄遺址，向市場中心進發。
報道說，當示威者遊行接近市區的時候發生了暴力事件，一些青年在一個主要的商業街道投擲空飲料瓶並在街頭點火。
防暴警察後來這些鬧事青年擋回了巴士底獄遺址附近的示威集合點。
從英國英格蘭東部一個煉油廠開始的抗議雇用外國建築工人的行動有擴大的趨勢。
又有其他四家企業加入了抗議聲援。
在林肯郡北部的英國第三大煉油廠---林西煉油廠，約一千名工人的抗議行動已經是第三天。
他們抗議該煉油廠所屬的道達爾石油公司將價值2億美元的建築合約批給一家意大利公司後，而該意大利公司聘請來自意大利和葡萄牙的工人。
星期五，在蘇格蘭、威爾士和北英格蘭的數千名工人發起罷工聲援行動。
BBC記者說："聲援罷工行動正在迅速擴大"。
英國環境大臣希拉裡﹒本說，憤怒的工人"有權得到一個答覆"。
道達爾石油公司的負責人說，獲得合約的意大利公司聘請了特別工程力量，他們從外國引進了300多名工人來完成工作。
道達爾說，聘請意大利公司完成合約並不會直接導致該煉油廠解雇本地工人。
抗議的工人還向英國首相布朗發出呼籲：請兌現諾言，英國工作由英國工人來做。
正在瑞士達沃斯出席世界經濟論壇的布朗回應說，他理解人們的擔心。
他說，政府正在盡全力恢復經濟，幫助每個人回到工作崗位。
(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)美國經濟收縮步伐顯著擴大，上季國內生產總值（GDP）跌百分之三點八，是近二十七年以來跌得最急，反映企業與消費者持續緊縮開支，進一步加深美國衰退，預期美國經濟未來數月將持續倒退。
商 務部公布，美國的國內生產總值在去年第三季按年率計下跌百分之零點五後，第四季下跌百分之三點八，為一九八二年首季以來最大單季跌幅，也是九一年第一季以 來首見連跌兩季。不過，上季的經濟收縮步伐較市場分析師原先預測的百分之五溫和，主要得益於企業存貨回升。由於經濟增長跌幅較預期細，美股早段缺乏方向， 開市微升後又輾轉下跌，昨晚十一時跌三十點報八一一八點。
受樓市崩潰以及隨之而來的全球信貸危機拖累，美國經濟自○七年十二月開始轉差，至今仍未復甦。去年全年計，美國經濟增長百分之一點三，是二○○一年以來增長最慢的一年。
商 務部說，佔美國經濟三分二的消費者開支，上季跌幅由第三季的百分之三點八略為收窄至百分之三點五，是一九四七年以來首見連跌兩季跌逾百分之三。上季的耐用 品開支銳減百分之二十二點四，是一九八七年首季以來最大跌幅；企業投資減少百分之十九點一，是一九七五年首季以來最大單季跌幅。
經濟滑坡明顯紓緩美國的通脹壓力，反映物價走勢的個人消費開支物價指數在第三季按月上升百分之五後，上季下跌百分之五點五，創紀錄單季跌幅，受惠於商品價格下跌；按年計跌百分之零點一，是一九五四年以來跌得最多。
商務部表示，去年第四季的企業存貨自○一年多以來首次回升，對拉動GDP的貢獻達到一點三個百分點，部分抵銷了消費者開支持續顯著下滑的負面影響。有分析師指出，存貨回升可能是美國上季經濟收縮幅度比預期輕微的重要原因。
另外，一月份的芝加哥採購經理指數由去年十二月的三十五點一跌至三十三點三，為連續第四個月報跌，並差過市場預期，反映美國製造業在未來數月或將繼續惡化。指數低於五十點表示美國製造業活動呈現收縮。
聯儲局前理事邁耶預期，美國經濟在今年首季仍會向下行，假如沒有刺激經濟方案，整體經濟在今年下半年仍難望復甦。
除美國外，加拿大、日本、南韓和澳洲昨天公布的經濟數據，也反映全球發達國家經濟正滑入衰退泥淖。加拿大十一月份的GDP按月倒退百分之零點七，跌幅遠高於市場預期的百分之零點四以及十月錄得的百分之零點一。
亞洲第四大經濟體系南韓去年十二月的工業生產按年計跌百分之十八點六，刷新十一月的一成四紀錄年跌幅，進一步顯示該國正步入九七年亞洲金融風暴以來首次經濟衰退。
澳洲央行公布，該國上月的私人信貸額下降百分之零點三，遠遜市場預期的增長百分之零點五，是自九二年以來首次錄得收縮，反映外資銀行正削減對澳洲企業放款。
The United States economy shrank at its fastest pace in a quarter-century from October through December, the government reported on Friday, as consumer spending and business investment collapsed, signaling more economic contraction in the months ahead.
Today's Business With Jeff Sommer and Louis Uchitelle In the broadest official accounting of the toll of the credit crisis, the government reported that gross domestic product shrank at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. While that was less than economists’ expectations of a 5.5 percent drop, the decline would have been much steeper — more than 5 percent — if shipments of goods had fallen as sharply as orders.
President Obama seized on the figures Friday morning, calling the contraction a “continuing disaster” for working families, and again urged Congress to pass a package of tax cuts and spending. The House, divided on party lines, passed an $819 billion stimulus plan on Wednesday, and Senate is expected to take up the measure next week.
“What we can’t do is drag our feet or delay much longer,” Mr. Obama said. “The American people expect us to act.”
The president also announced the first meeting of a Task Force on Middle-Class Working Families, which will seek to raise living standards of working families. .
Wall Street tumbled after the numbers were released. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 100 points in midday trading, and the broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was down 1.5 percent.
The slide in gross domestic product — a crucial measure of economic health — is likely to continue at an alarming pace well into the summer as consumers continue to curtail spending and businesses reduce their capital investments and cut their payrolls, economists said.
In the fourth quarter, rising inventories accounted for the difference between the overall 3.8 percent contraction of the economy and a steeper 5.1 decline in final domestic sales.
“The difference between 3.8 and 5.1 percent is the inventory buildup,” Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight, said. “My only explanation is that companies could not cut production fast enough.”
With inventory accumulation gone, the economy will contract in the first quarter at more than a 5 percent annual rate, Mr. Gault said.
Employers reduced their corporate investments in computers, office equipment, machinery and other capital goods by an annualized 19.1 percent in the fourth quarter.
Trade fell, as Americans bought fewer Asian-made televisions and computers, and global demand for American goods and services ebbed. Exports in the fourth quarter declined 19.7 percent while imports dropped 15.7 percent.
Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, said that the drop in exports was distressing because of their contribution to growth in recent years.
“That’s been a real key strength to the economy,” Mr. Bevins said. “They were punching above their weight for a couple of years, but they have really collapsed.”
And American consumers, who took on home equity loans and large amounts of credit card debt to finance their lifestyles earlier in the decade, curtailed their spending for a second consecutive quarter. Consumer spending, which typically accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, fell 3.5 percent in the quarter, after decreasing 3.8 percent in the third quarter.
With no end in sight to the downturn, the stark numbers on Friday are likely to intensify the debate over an enormous stimulus plan moving through Congress.
Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the report offered more evidence that the economy continued to contract severely, and said “immediate action” was needed to shore up the financial sector and broader demand.
“Aggressive, well-designed fiscal stimulus is critical to reversing this severe decline and putting the economy on the road to recovery and improved long-run growth,” Ms. Romer said Friday in a statement.
Michael E. Feroli, a United States economist at JPMorgan Chase, said, “The fact that you’re not seeing any evidence that things are turning for the better has added quite a bit to the urgency to get things done and do something substantial.”
The House, divided along partisan lines, passed an $819 billion package of tax cuts and spending on Wednesday, and the Senate is to begin debating its version of the package on Monday. President Obama and most Democrats support the plan, but not a single Republican has voted for it.
While many economists say the stimulus is crucial to replace a paucity of private spending and investment, they are concerned that the tax cuts in the Democratic plan will not be particularly useful, and that more effective spending proposals will take too long to put in place.
“It’s badly needed, and as quickly as possible,” Mr. Gault said. “You’d like to be able to inject a huge amount of stimulus very quickly, but how practically can that be done? Practically speaking, you can’t spend the money that fast.”
The pace of contraction in the fourth quarter was the steepest since 1982, when the economy shrank at an annual rate of 6.4 percent in the first three months of the year, after the Federal Reserve limited bank borrowing as a means of strangling inflation.
But it may be more difficult to pull the country out of this recession than the downturn of the 1980s, when the Federal Reserve helped stimulated growth by slashing interest rates. In December, the Fed cut its target overnight rates to a record low near zero percent, exhausting one of its crucial weapons.
“They’re running out of options,” said Ann L. Owen, associate professor at Hamilton College and a former Fed economist. “They’ve got the Fed funds rate down to basically zero. They’re talking about buying Treasuries. It’s not really clear what kind of effect they can have on the economy.”
Although the recession officially began 13 months ago, as the housing market soured and energy prices pinched consumers, the gross domestic product continued to grow slowly in 2008 until the third quarter, when it contracted at an annual rate of 0.5 percent.
The turmoil in the last three months of the year reflected widespread havoc in the economy. Housing prices fell at their fastest pace on record, credit markets dried up and billions of dollars’ worth of bad mortgage debt threatened the stability of the country’s largest financial institutions.
Because of their losses, many banks pulled back on lending, and even healthy ones tightened lending standards for those who still had a stomach to borrow.
Businesses reeled from falling sales and dim prospects for growth. Employers like Microsoft, Starbucks, Sprint and Home Depot have cut thousands of jobs as they prepare for a difficult year. Unemployment now stands at 7.2 percent, and some economists said that jobless rates could hit 9 percent as the recession spreads like an oil slick.
“It’s a severe contraction,” said Mickey Levy, chief economist at Bank of America. “No sector of the economy is safe right now.”
As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.
Paul Krugman
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner, the House minority leader, has already made headlines with one such shot: looking at an $825 billion plan to rebuild infrastructure, sustain essential services and more, he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services — and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”
But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.
First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.
It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)
The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.
Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.
Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.
It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.
That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse.
These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.
But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.
| ||
歐巴馬的經濟振興方案進入討論階段，有件事是肯定的，方案的反對者因不樂見第二個「新政」出現，當然不容大政府主義主張有機會證明它是對的。於是處心積慮找碴，一有機會，即朝政府提高支出的方案猛擊。 反對者提出的反對論點，有些顯然是爛招。例如歐巴馬的八千兩百五十億美元振興經濟方案，眾院少數黨領袖貝納挑了一個無關緊要的條款找碴，稱一項擴大國民醫療補助中家庭計畫的項目，是「花大錢買避孕藥」。 貝納的攻擊，不算最糟的，更危險可怕的，是有些人明顯耍詐，用似是而非的論點，把不懂經濟概念與數字的人騙的團團轉。容我針對一些反對刺激方案者已提出的論點，為各位破解，一旦有人附和這些論點，即可寫信給對方，拆穿他們的伎倆。 首先，反對者說，歐巴馬的計畫每創造一個就業機會，要花廿七萬五千元，這是一句假話。因為計畫將分多年進行，其中每年可創造數百萬個工作機會，然而提出論 點的人，僅以一年可創造的工作機會相除。根據切實的計算，每創造一個工作機會的成本約是十萬美元，而淨成本甚至可能低於六萬美元。 第二，不要理會減稅比提高政府支出是更好政策的說法。因為納稅人，而不是官僚，更懂得該如何花他們的錢。 根據這種論調，美國應該關閉空中交通指揮系統。這套系統的經費來自隨機票加收的費用，讓乘客拿回這筆錢，應該要比交給政府官僚好，飛機相撞增加就讓它增加吧。 這種觀點顯然認為減稅的一美元，可創造的效益，要比公共支出的一美元來得高。事實上，刺激經濟時，公共支出創造的效益遠大於減稅，這是因減稅的錢，會有一大部分被民眾儲蓄起來。 這意謂，公共支出，而不是減稅，才應該是任何經濟振興計畫的核心。但保守派不願意接受這項觀念，寧可提出荒謬論點，反對到底。 最後，當有人說，面對不景氣，現今新政府的首席經濟顧問，過去端出的，是以貨幣政策為主，而不是財政政策時，也請不要理會。 沒錯，對付不景氣，正常的反應是由聯準會降息因應，並非由政府提高支出。但如果政府還有降息這項工具可用，或許它仍是至今的最佳選擇。可惜情況並非如此，美國已實質進入零利率年代，經濟形勢惡劣，為一九三零年代以來僅見。 想以舊論調攻擊財政刺激方案的人，要不就是徹底的外行，因此也無置喙餘地，否則即是故意裝傻。以上，均是反對經濟刺激方案的人所作的不實言論。 幸而多數的美國人並未聽進這些論調。最近有報導指出，面對共和黨反對以支出為主的振興經濟方案，歐巴馬的回應是：「我選贏了！」的確，他是贏家，大可不必理會那些氣呼呼的輸家。 |
德新社报道："德国大联合政府坚持其退出核能的方向，与此同时，全世界日益增长的能源饥渴使新建核电厂、扩大核发电能力的需求大增。"到2030年，全世界将新建400多座核电厂，"仅在中国，到2020年就将有30个左右的新核电厂投入运营。"
德国这一领域的大企业西门子为了在全球市场这块大蛋糕上多分一杯羹，决定从跟法国国营核电公司合资的Areva NP公司中脱身，走自己的路。西门子在这个合资企业中占34％的股权。
2007年中，法国总统萨科奇向德国总理默克尔提出，希望在Areva公司的合作中作出一条规定，让西门子到2011年时退出该公司。萨科奇打算让 Areva与西门子的竞争对手阿尔斯通公司以及"他的朋友马丁·布伊格的建筑公司"三家合并，形成核电、发电领域从建厂到生产、服务全面包容的企业。当时 这一建议被默克尔拒绝。萨科奇不愿"惹怒默克尔"，所以才放弃了这个计划。然而，现在却是西门子主动退出。目的是为自己争得更大的市场份额。西门子公司认 为自己在这个合资企业里受制于过多的约束。
「財星」雜誌公布年度「百大最佳工作場所」排行榜，過去兩年高居榜首的Google今年跌落至第4名，從事資料管理和電腦儲存服務的加州科技公司NetApp從去年的14名躍居榜首。
Google的員工福利一向號稱傳奇，包括免費按摩、上班時間有20%的時間可以自由支配、可享受免費壽司和Haagen-Dazs 冰淇淋，厚待員工之名遠播，每年吸引77萬人求職。但最近的金融海嘯中，Google首次宣布裁員100人，並採取撙節措施，包括取消每年招待員工的滑雪 活動，這對超愛滑雪的Google人是一大打擊。
新榜首NetApp總部設在加州桑尼維爾市，有5,000員工。「財星」指出，該公司的平等文化堪稱傳奇，員工可提出「未來歷史」計畫，描繪對公司的願 景。員工福利包括做義工可領公司津貼，以及收養子女津貼、自閉症醫療保障等。而且公司擁有20多億美元現金可應付環球金融危機，在金融海嘯下不但未裁員， 並且擴大市場占有率。
NetApp已連續6年入榜，而且最近3年都擠進前15名，共同創辦人希茲指出：「員工希望工作帶來成就感，並在愉快的環境中工作，更重要的是能夠對領導階層有信心。」
第二的是愛德華瓊斯經紀公司、第3名是波士頓顧問公司。上榜知名公司包括思科（6）、基因科技公司（7）、高盛（9）、Adobe（11）星巴克（24）、微軟（38）、安永（51）、eBay（83）、聯邦快遞（90）。
這項調查是由舊金山的最佳工作場所研究中心進行，訪問了353家企業的8萬多名員工，受訪公司必須成立7年以上、有1,000名員工。
Like anyone who pays attention to business and financial news, I am in a state of high economic anxiety. Like everyone of good will, I hoped that President Obama’s Inaugural Address would offer some reassurance, that it would suggest that the new administration has this thing covered.
Paul Krugman
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
But it was not to be. I ended Tuesday less confident about the direction of economic policy than I was in the morning.
Just to be clear, there wasn’t anything glaringly wrong with the address — although for those still hoping that Mr. Obama will lead the way to universal health care, it was disappointing that he spoke only of health care’s excessive cost, never once mentioning the plight of the uninsured and underinsured.
Also, one wishes that the speechwriters had come up with something more inspiring than a call for an “era of responsibility” — which, not to put too fine a point on it, was the same thing former President George W. Bush called for eight years ago.
But my real problem with the speech, on matters economic, was its conventionality. In response to an unprecedented economic crisis — or, more accurately, a crisis whose only real precedent is the Great Depression — Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to special interests.
That’s not enough. In fact, it’s not even right.
Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age” — but I have no idea what he meant. This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn’t because Americans “collectively” refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea.
Or consider this statement from Mr. Obama: “Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.”
The first part of this passage was almost surely intended as a paraphrase of words that John Maynard Keynes wrote as the world was plunging into the Great Depression — and it was a great relief, after decades of knee-jerk denunciations of government, to hear a new president giving a shout-out to Keynes. “The resources of nature and men’s devices,” Keynes wrote, “are just as fertile and productive as they were. The rate of our progress towards solving the material problems of life is not less rapid. We are as capable as before of affording for everyone a high standard of life. ... But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand.”
But something was lost in translation. Mr. Obama and Keynes both assert that we’re failing to make use of our economic capacity. But Keynes’s insight — that we’re in a “muddle” that needs to be fixed — somehow was replaced with standard we’re-all-at-fault, let’s-get-tough-on-ourselves boilerplate.
Remember, Herbert Hoover didn’t have a problem making unpleasant decisions: he had the courage and toughness to slash spending and raise taxes in the face of the Great Depression. Unfortunately, that just made things worse.
Still, a speech is just a speech. The members of Mr. Obama’s economic team certainly understand the extraordinary nature of the mess we’re in. So the tone of Tuesday’s address may signify nothing about the Obama administration’s future policy.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama is, as his predecessor put it, the decider. And he’s going to have to make some big decisions very soon. In particular, he’s going to have to decide how bold to be in his moves to sustain the financial system, where the outlook has deteriorated so drastically that a surprising number of economists, not all of them especially liberal, now argue that resolving the crisis will require the temporary nationalization of some major banks.
So is Mr. Obama ready for that? Or were the platitudes in his Inaugural Address a sign that he’ll wait for the conventional wisdom to catch up with events? If so, his administration will find itself dangerously behind the curve.
And that’s not a place that we want the new team to be. The economic crisis grows worse, and harder to resolve, with each passing week. If we don’t get drastic action soon, we may find ourselves stuck in the muddle for a very long time.
像所有關注財經新聞的人，我處於高度經濟焦慮的狀態。像所有懷有善意的人，我原先期盼歐巴馬總統廿日的就職演說會帶給我們一些寬慰。可是結果卻非如此。我聽過演說後，反而對新政府的經濟政策方向更沒有信心。
當然，就職演說的內容並無任何大錯，雖然對那些仍盼望歐巴馬推動全民健保的人而言，歐巴馬只談到健保的成本龐大，未免令人失望。我也希望這篇演講稿的捉刀者能想出更激勵人心的話，而不只是呼籲「重塑負責任的文化」。
不過，我對這席就職演說真正挑剔的地方在於，談到經濟問題，它只是老生常談。面對一場前所未見的經濟危機，歐巴馬做了華府政治人物都會做的事：他以抽象措詞大談須做困難抉擇，對特殊利益團體說不。
然而，這麼說並不夠，甚至有不對之處。
歐巴馬在演說中把當前經濟危機部分歸咎於「我們的集體失敗，未能做困難抉擇，讓國家準備好迎接新時代」，但我根本不了解他的意思。歸根結底，這場危機是金融業如脫韁野馬般失控造成，才不是因美國人「集體」拒絕做困難抉擇所導致；美國大眾本來根本不曉得出了什麼事，而那些曉得出了事的人卻還多半認為，解除金融管制是很棒的主意。
再看看歐巴馬另一段話：「和危機爆發前相比，我們勞工的生產力並沒有變低，我們頭腦的創意並沒有減少，對我們財貨和勞務的需求並未比上周、上月或去年降低。我們的能力絲毫未減。不過，我們因循苟且，保護狹隘的利益，拖延不討喜的決定，這個時代無疑已成為過去。」
這段話的前半部，肯定是改寫自凱因斯當年談論全球經濟大蕭條的文字。鑑於過去數十年來人們提到大政府時，總是不假思索地加以批判，如今能夠聽到一名新總統借用凱因斯的話，頗為令人寬慰。不過，歐巴馬在借用凱因斯的話時，卻有重點漏失了。
歐巴馬與凱因斯均斷言，我們未能善用自己的經濟能力，然而凱因斯也談到「我們陷自己於大泥淖中，試圖操縱一部精密的機器，卻不懂得其運作 方式，因而犯下大錯。」凱因斯的洞見力即在於，我們必須設法走出「泥淖」，但歐巴馬在演講中卻代之以那種「我們全難辭其咎，讓我們嚴以待己」的陳腔濫調。
請記得，當年胡佛總統並不怕做不討喜的決定：他面對經濟大蕭條時，敢於削減支出和增稅。可惜的是，這麼做只是讓問題變本加厲。
歐巴馬是前總統布希口中的「決策者」（the decider），他很快便必須做出一些重大決定。尤其是，他必須決定拯救金融體系的行動要有多大膽，而現在不少經濟學家認為，由於金融體系的前景急遽惡化，為了解決危機，新政府勢必要把若干大銀行暫時收歸國有。
那麼，歐巴馬準備好了嗎？或者他在就職演說中的老生常談乃顯示，他要等到全民都具有共識後才出手？若是如此，他的政府將會發現自己趕不上大趨勢，從而陷國家於險境。
這並非我們樂見的情況。隨著時間一周一周過去，這場經濟危機只會變得益加嚴重，更難解決。如果我們不趕快採行大動作，我們可能會發現自己陷於泥淖中好長一段時間。
（克魯曼為美國普林斯頓大學教授，《紐約時報》專欄作家。本報國際新聞中心王嘉源摘譯）
The Capitol in Washington early on Tuesday.
WASHINGTON — On the day before moving into the nation’s most storied house, Barack Obama visited a shelter for teenagers with no home. With sleeves rolled up, he spent a few minutes painting for the benefit of the cameras that trail him everywhere now.
The latest on the inauguration of Barack Obama and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Crowds filled the National Mall in the early morning hours on Tuesday.
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Cara Fuller, a shelter worker, asked if he was sweating.
“Nah, I don’t sweat,” he told her. “You ever see me sweat?”
Not yet. But then again, it is still early.
Mr. Obama arrives at the presidency Tuesday after a transition that betrayed little if any perspiration and no hint of nervousness. Throughout the 77 days since his election, he has been a font of cool confidence, never too hot, never too cold, seemingly undaunted by the magnitude of troubles awaiting him and unbothered by the few setbacks that have tripped him up.
He remains hard to read or label — centrist in his appointments and bipartisan in his style, yet also pushing the broadest expansion of government in generations. He has reached across old boundaries to build the foundation of an administration that will be charged with hauling the country out of crisis, but for all the outreach he has made it clear he is centralizing policy making in the White House.
He will eventually have to choose between competing advice and priorities, risking the disappointment or anger of constituencies that for the moment can still see in him what they hope to see.
What the country has seen of his leadership style so far evokes the discipline of George W. Bush and the curiosity of Bill Clinton. Mr. Obama is not shy about making decisions and making them expeditiously — he assembled his team in record time — but he has also sought to tap into the nation’s intellectual dialogue at a time of great ferment.
He has set out ideas for governance even before taking office, but he has also adapted the details as conditions changed.
More than any president since he was an infant, Mr. Obama has taken a place in society that extends beyond political leadership. He is as much symbol as substance, an icon for the young and a sign of deliverance for an older generation that never believed a man with his skin color would ascend those steps to vow to preserve, protect and defend a Constitution that originally counted a black man as three-fifths of a person.
He is a celebrity president in a celebrity culture, cooed over for his shirtless physique on the beach and splashed on the cover of every magazine from Foreign Policy to People. What his political opponents sought to portray in the campaign as arrogance is now presented by his aides as comfort with power and the responsibilities that go along with it.
“He sort of lives in a grudge-free zone,” said John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of his transition team. “He’s capable of taking on board a lot of information and making good decisions. He knows he’s going to make mistakes. But he also knows that you’ve got to do the best you can, make tough decisions and move on.”
Some of those mistakes may owe in part to that signature confidence. Mr. Obama knew and liked Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, initially overlooking an investigation into state contracts that later sank his nomination for commerce secretary. Likewise, Mr. Obama forged a personal connection with Timothy F. Geithner and picked him for Treasury secretary, choosing to disregard Mr. Geithner’s past failure to pay some of his taxes.
Little has emerged about the process behind those episodes, but aides described Mr. Obama’s decision making as crisp and efficient. When he sits down for meetings, they said, he starts by framing questions he wants answered, then gives each person a chance to talk, while also engaging them. At the end, he typically sums up what he has learned and where he is leaning. A late-night person, he often follows up with calls to aides at 10 p.m. or later, after he has put his daughters to bed.
Mr. Podesta would not describe how the decision had been made to pull Mr. Richardson’s nomination but said it had played out over just nine hours rather than days, which limited the damage. “We saw the problem, understood it, Bill understood it wasn’t viable, and we stopped it,” Mr. Podesta said.
That contrasts with Mr. Clinton, who liked free-ranging discussion and took time making decisions. Mr. Podesta, Mr. Clinton’s last White House chief of staff, described the former president as brilliant at “thinking laterally” across subject areas. “One thing that seemed not to have taken on Bill Clinton is law school,” he said. “I tend to think of the president-elect as approaching a problem in a more logical, more drill-down sort of way.”
Mr. Obama opted not to play it safe during the transition. He brought his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, into the cabinet, and angered gay and liberal supporters by inviting the Rev. Rick Warren, an opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage, to give the inaugural invocation. Although Mr. Obama deferred foreign affairs with his “one president at a time” rule, that did not apply to domestic policy, where he lobbied Congress to release $350 billion in financial bailout money and set about negotiating roughly $800 billion in spending programs and tax breaks.
“He’s got the political courage to look at things and be bold,” said Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s who has spent time with Mr. Obama since the election. “The political wisdom is go slow, take the easy way first and build up some victories.”
Mr. Rendell said Mr. Obama did not mind taking risks. “He’s goal-oriented, not process-oriented,” he said. “If he does some things that are unorthodox or tick off his friends to achieve a goal, he’ll do that.”
But Mr. Obama made a point of engaging adversaries, dining with conservative columnists and talking with Republican congressmen. “He and his transition team have reached out to the Hill more than any transition team I’ve seen,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader. “So far, so good. But running a campaign and running a transition are going to be different than governing, because governing is about making choices.”
Mr. Boehner noted that Mr. Obama had originally reserved 40 percent of his economic package for tax cuts but now seemed to be heeding Democrats pushing for more spending. “At some point he’s going to have to tell people what he’s for,” Mr. Boehner said, “and then we’ll see whether he really wants to govern from the middle or cave into the liberals in his party.”
Mr. Obama’s outreach to Republicans has paid dividends. He wooed enough Republican senators to release the bailout money. Even some he did not convince muted their opposition. For instance, he called Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, who opposed more bailout money without a commitment that it be used only for the financial sector, not other industries.
“They didn’t want to shut the door, and if I were them maybe I wouldn’t either,” Mr. Coburn said. “But I wanted the door shut.” After Mr. Obama’s call, he said, “I was quiet as I voted against it.”
Mr. Obama has built a broader base of public support than many incoming presidents. Representative Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama, said 53 percent of white voters in his conservative state now had favorable views of Mr. Obama, compared with 17 percent before the election. “He has been pragmatic,” Mr. Davis said, “and even many voters who voted against him see him as prepared to govern in a pragmatic, nonideological way.”
But Mr. Obama has been harder to peg than that, and the next few months should flesh out his governing philosophy.
“I don’t think it maps into traditional right-left, but nor is it Bill Clinton-like triangulation,” said Robert B. Reich, Mr. Clinton’s labor secretary and an economic adviser to Mr. Obama. “My sense is he genuinely believes that people can come to a rough consensus about big problems and work together effectively. I don’t really get a sense of ideological position. He’s obviously a man of strong convictions, but they don’t fall into the standard boxes.”
The epic financial crisis afflicting the banking industry over the past 18 months is largely the result of cratering loan and other asset values stuck on bank balance sheets. When the market for such loans stalled, banks couldn't sell them and had to take billions of dollars in writedowns.
Fearing the worst, the government pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into these institutions, with questionable long-term results. Though it is early in the rescue, the economy has shown few signs of improvement, and the bank losses continue.
Why should taxpayers foot the bill when there are trillions of dollars in private money on the sidelines in the world financial markets? Private investment is a far more appropriate agent to revive these institutions, yet little is coming in.
One reason for this is that distressed assets on bank balance sheets have artificially low values because of misguided federal bankruptcy laws. With a few changes, the banking system could enjoy a revival backed by private investment, not public funds.
The problem is that, in this bear market, the prospect of a bankruptcy puts a huge damper on investor appetite for debt securities in overleveraged companies. This includes hundreds of billions of dollars in bank and bond debt issued for leveraged buyouts.
This state of affairs could be improved by eliminating the bankruptcy rule known as the "exclusivity" period. This rule unfairly gives managements, with court approval, a monopoly in drawing up a reorganization plan for a minimum of 18 months. Generally that plan includes proposals to restructure debt, sell assets and void onerous contracts. During this period nontrade creditors, like bank debt and bond holders, languish in uncertainty as to what will happen to their investment.
The exclusivity rule mainly benefits equity holders and managements, not creditors. But why should the same management that got the company into trouble have the right to lock-up its assets for an extended period of time?
Without an exclusivity period, different classes of creditors and equity holders could immediately propose different restructuring solutions, including the sale of assets overseen by a bankruptcy court. The biggest impact of such a rule change would be that the assets of a company in Chapter 11 would be priced as though they could be sold -- in effect giving them a "mergers & acquisitions premium" -- rather than be shackled for years in a bankruptcy court.
This change would cause many distressed loan prices to rise -- bolstering the balance sheets of banks and other companies that hold these loans -- without public money. Furthermore, such a change would slash the need for expensive bankruptcy lawyers, restructuring firms, and other advisers, who can reap tens of millions of dollars in fees -- often at the expense of creditors and company treasuries.
It is one thing to apply the exclusivity rule to small businesses in the hopes that an individual who has spent his life building a business has a chance to keep it. But it is unfair that huge private-equity players can use this same rule to put into limbo billions of dollars of debt that banks lent to finance once-healthy companies.
If equity holders bet and lost, then debt holders should be able to come in quickly and salvage the company and their investment. In the long run, this would be good for companies, credit markets, employees and the communities in which companies are located.
Few are helped by the exclusivity rule, other than desperate equity holders and top managers clinging to the helm of companies that faltered on their watch. Eliminating exclusivity would not necessarily lead to more company liquidations, but it would take away the monopoly management has on formulating restructuring proposals.
It would also force managements to redouble their efforts to stay out of Chapter 11 -- which would be a good thing. Chapter 11 is often a crutch for lackluster managements. Changing the rules would put pressure on them to keep their companies healthy.
I have long argued for increased shareholder rights and last year founded United Shareholders of America to advocate strengthening those rights. In this case I argue for increased creditor rights. But the thinking behind both is identical. In both cases it allows market forces to work better, both in pricing securities and in eliminating management monopolies in company affairs.
We must allow market forces to do their job, which includes promoting the ability of the rightful owners of assets -- not just managements -- to control their fate to the maximum extent practical. The idea is to efficiently maximize the value of the assets through operational changes, restructuring or sale to third parties.
Today, troubled assets are stuck in a quagmire and will be for years unless bankruptcy laws are changed. The capitalist system is the most efficient wealth-producing machine in existence. We must strive to remove barriers that thwart this efficiency.
Mr. Icahn is chairman of Icahn Enterprises, a publicly traded diversified holding company.
From Detroit to Wall Street to Silicon Valley, it seems that bad executive decisions have become the rule instead of the exception in today's corner offices. Shareholders, employees, politicians, and even managers themselves are asking why. What is the cause of all these bad decisions, and how can we start making good decisions again?
Bad managerial decisions do not stem from low intelligence. Bad decisions are not rooted in flawed logic, deficient math skills, a poor understanding of business trends, or any of the other usual suspects. Bad decisions result from emotional ignorance.
Over the last decade, TalentSmart industrial psychologists surveyed 6,000 board members, colleagues, and employees from a cross section of industries that included hospitals, tobacco companies, churches, and casinos. The key stakeholders of these organizations rated managers on 22 separate leadership skills, including such stalwarts as strategic thinking, focus on results, character, and the ability to communicate and articulate vision. Those managers considered good decision makers consistently score high on one skill in particular: emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence ratings tell us how well managers understand and regulate their own feelings as well as how skilled they are at reading and responding to the emotions of others. As it turns out, the nearly 70% of the leaders who were ranked highly in emotional intelligence were also among the most highly skilled decision makers. Overwhelmingly, it's the managers most adept at understanding how others influence their own emotional state—and who can take responsibility for their part in difficult situations and make the most of bad situations—who are capable of making sound decisions in a timely manner.
In contrast, can you guess how many of those with a poor grasp of their own emotions ranked among the most skilled decision makers? Zero. In fact, 69% of emotionally ignorant leaders ranked among the bottom 15% in decision-making skill. Those who fail to handle conflict effectively, refuse to shoulder responsibility for their actions, and remain unaware of their own fear, anger, or excitement are dreadfully inept at making decisions.
If emotional intelligence is so critical to a manager's ability to make good decisions, the next logical question is, how emotionally intelligent are most managers?
This is where the story takes a strange turn. In another study a few years ago, we measured the emotional intelligence of hundreds of thousands of workers from janitors to CEOs. We found that emotional intelligence rises steadily as people get promoted up the ranks into middle management. From there, however, emotional intelligence declines precipitously with every rung up the corporate ladder, finally bottoming out with CEOs.
So it seems the people least equipped to make good decisions are those we trust to make the most profound decisions. Perhaps this sheds some light on how so many of our businesses have ended up where they are today.
Fixing the problem requires that we first understand it. For so long, we have been taught to believe that decisions should be coldly logical. So we assume that emotions have no place in the decision-making process. We find evidence of this widespread, albeit erroneous, belief in the recent outpouring and popular acceptance of books and research detailing the many ways in which people make irrational decisions. The assumption is that if bad decisions result from illogical biases, then correcting those decisions is simply a matter of infusing more logic into the process.
But quirks in logic are merely symptoms of the real problem. The enduring misunderstanding of the deeper issue—emotions—is leading us down a dangerous rabbit hole in search of the wrong solutions. As long as managers continue to view decisions only in terms of logic (or lack of it), they will continue to look exclusively for left-brain solutions, all the while getting blindsided by unrecognized and unmanaged emotions.
The good news is that emotional ignorance is curable. It doesn't happen overnight, but it can be learned in three months with just a little focused effort. Here's how to get started.
Take note of what you are feeling and doing as a situation unfolds so you can learn to harness your emotions in difficult situations. Remember that ignoring emotions doesn't make them magically disappear. Only now after the Wall Street crash are we finally hearing people talk about fear and panic. A year ago, nobody wanted to discuss anything except Fed policies and interest rates.
Keep your finger on the pulse of your emotions and know when to allow yourself the opportunity to step back from the situation. Once you get good at sniffing out your emotions as you feel them, evaluate them objectively. Try picturing the current situation in your head as if it were happening to someone else. What would you recommend that someone else do to create the best results?
By definition, every choice you make depends on your estimation of uncertain outcomes. For nearly everyone, that uncertainty feels uncomfortable, so expect some anxiety to accompany decisions. Anticipate it and prepare yourself for it by talking through your thoughts and feelings with a third party who may not be as closely involved with the situation. Then, accept the fact that you may not have complete control over the outcome, but you can control your reaction to it.
Remind yourself to practice Step 1 every day for one month. Set a reminder on your calendar or jot down "Understand your emotions as they happen" on a sticky note and post it on your bathroom mirror. At the end of the first 30 days, switch the reminder to say "Step away from the emotional situation," and add Step 2 to your routine. And at the beginning of the third month, change the reminder to "Prepare yourself for feelings of uncertainty," and incorporate Step 3 into your practice.
Once you've mastered the three steps, you're on the path to making decisions you can celebrate, not regret.
Nick Tasler is the director of research and development for TalentSmart, a global think tank and consultancy that serves more than 75% of Fortune 500 corporations. He's the author of The Impulse Factor: An Innovative Approach to Better Decision Making. Lac D. Su is TalentSmart's director of strategic alliances and contributor to the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal 2.0 (May, 2009).
军乐，合唱，还有歌星向奥巴马献歌。在就职宣誓之后，国会将为奥巴马举行盛大午宴。而在同时，前任总统布什将会乘直升飞机离开白宫。
总统就职典礼早就不仅仅是新任总统按照宪法规定做一个宣誓的仪式了。它已经发展成一个大型庆祝会。前国会图书馆历史学家克兰茨讲述道："总统就职典礼发展到如今这样巨大的规模，是因为这么多年来一直不断添加新的传统内容进去。"
军队占据了典礼的很大一部分内容－5000名官兵在军乐的伴奏下由国会大厦行进到白宫。总统就职仪式委员会军方代表菲利浦斯女士说："乔治.华盛顿 的第一次总统就职仪式是在当时的首都华盛顿举行的。他那时就有两支卫队，一支平民卫队，一支军方卫队。自那以后，军队就一直参加总统就职典礼的仪式活动。 总统是军队的最高统帅，我们要给他举行相应的仪式，以表达军人对他的敬意。"
通常情况下，庆典活动在露天举行。但就算遇上严寒天气，士兵们也会一丝不苟地完成任务。新任总统要当着全体美国人宣誓。在举行就职仪式的时候，国家 的三大支柱－立法，司法和行政的代表都要出席。这表达了政府的一致性。国会大厦历史研究协会的肯农解释说："最高行政首长，也就是总统在立法代表，即国会 所在地宣读誓词。由美国最高大法官来首肯。"
新总统在就职宣誓之前，先在白宫受到老总统的接待，之后共同携夫人前往国会大厦。这一仪式起源于新老政府交接不那么安全的时代。肯农回忆起1801 年杰佛逊就任总统时的情况："杰佛逊的民主党与之前执政的联邦主义者在政策方面有很大的分歧。所以当时人们担心，政府权力能否和平交接。"
而美国政府有200多年的权力和平交接历史，这在世界史上是绝无仅有的。因此，美国的总统就职典礼就不仅仅是一个群众的庆典了。克兰茨说："尽管在 整个庆典中没有上帝这一词汇的出现，但我仍旧看到了宗教的准则。它是我们生活在其中的爱国体系的一部分。庆典表明，这是美国，这是美国人的节日。"
除了总统誓词以外，总统就职演说也是典礼中必不可少的。但肯农认为，只有很少的就职演说值得留念："如果你仔细听听总统就职演说就会发现，大部分都 是糟糕英语的范例。当然其中也不乏警世之语。比如1933年罗斯福的一句演说词："世界上唯一可惧怕的就是惧怕本身。"他试图用这句话鼓励美国人，黑暗即 将过去，曙光就在前面。"
肯尼迪的就职演说词里也有一句名言：不要问国家能为你做什么，要问你能为国家做什么。但也有表演过分的总统。比如1841年哈里森总统的就职演说竟 有两个小时之长，而且是在一个非常寒冷的日子。克兰茨讲述道："哈里森是到目前为止当选总统中年龄最大的一位。他想以此表明他的身体非常健康。他在演讲时 没有穿大衣，也没有戴帽子和手套。结果在就职典礼后三他便得了感冒，最后导致肺炎，一个月后便撒手人寰。这是美国历史上最短命的一届总统。"
鉴于这一历史悲剧，之后的总统就职典礼之日如果天气过于寒冷的话，就在室内举行。阅兵式也会被取消。比如里根第二任期就职典礼那天的气温达到零下20摄氏度，因此改在室内举行。
德国之声版权所有
转载或引用请标明出处
Multimedia Features | |
各位同胞：
今天我站在這裡，為眼前的重責大任感到謙卑，對各位的信任心懷感激，對先賢的犧牲銘記在心。我要謝謝布希總統為這個國家的服務，也感謝他在政權轉移期間的寬厚和配合。
為了我們，他們攜帶很少的家當，遠渡重洋，追尋新生活。
為了我們，他們胼手胝足，在西部安頓下來；忍受風吹雨打，篳路藍縷。
為了我們，他們奮鬥不懈，在康科特和蓋茨堡，諾曼地和溪山等地葬身。
我們的挑戰也許是新的，我們迎接挑戰的工具也許是新的，但我們賴以成功的價值觀─辛勤工作和誠實、勇氣和公平競爭、容忍和好奇心、忠實和愛國心─這些都是 固有的。這些價值是真實的，是我們歷史上進步的沈默力量。我們有必要找回這些真實價值。我們現在需要一個勇於負責的新時代，每一個美國人都體認到我們對自 己、對國家、對世界負有責任，我們不是不情願地接受這些責任，而是欣然接受，堅信沒有什麼比全力以赴完成艱難的工作，更能得到精神上的滿足，更能找到自 我。
這是公民的代價和承諾。
讓我們記住這一天，記住我們是誰、我們走了多遠。在美國誕生這一年，在最寒冷的幾個月，在結冰的河岸，一群愛國人士抱著垂死的同志。首都棄守，敵人進逼，雪沾了血。在那時，我們革命的成果受到質疑，我們的國父下令向人民宣讀這段話：
「讓這段話流傳後世，在深冬，只剩下希望和美德，這個城市和這個國家，面臨共同危險，站起來迎向它。」
Old-fashioned voodoo economics — the belief in tax-cut magic — has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.
Paul Krugman
But recent news reports suggest that many influential people, including Federal Reserve officials, bank regulators, and, possibly, members of the incoming Obama administration, have become devotees of a new kind of voodoo: the belief that by performing elaborate financial rituals we can keep dead banks walking.
To explain the issue, let me describe the position of a hypothetical bank that I’ll call Gothamgroup, or Gotham for short.
On paper, Gotham has $2 trillion in assets and $1.9 trillion in liabilities, so that it has a net worth of $100 billion. But a substantial fraction of its assets — say, $400 billion worth — are mortgage-backed securities and other toxic waste. If the bank tried to sell these assets, it would get no more than $200 billion.
So Gotham is a zombie bank: it’s still operating, but the reality is that it has already gone bust. Its stock isn’t totally worthless — it still has a market capitalization of $20 billion — but that value is entirely based on the hope that shareholders will be rescued by a government bailout.
Why would the government bail Gotham out? Because it plays a central role in the financial system. When Lehman was allowed to fail, financial markets froze, and for a few weeks the world economy teetered on the edge of collapse. Since we don’t want a repeat performance, Gotham has to be kept functioning. But how can that be done?
Well, the government could simply give Gotham a couple of hundred billion dollars, enough to make it solvent again. But this would, of course, be a huge gift to Gotham’s current shareholders — and it would also encourage excessive risk-taking in the future. Still, the possibility of such a gift is what’s now supporting Gotham’s stock price.
A better approach would be to do what the government did with zombie savings and loans at the end of the 1980s: it seized the defunct banks, cleaning out the shareholders. Then it transferred their bad assets to a special institution, the Resolution Trust Corporation; paid off enough of the banks’ debts to make them solvent; and sold the fixed-up banks to new owners.
The current buzz suggests, however, that policy makers aren’t willing to take either of these approaches. Instead, they’re reportedly gravitating toward a compromise approach: moving toxic waste from private banks’ balance sheets to a publicly owned “bad bank” or “aggregator bank” that would resemble the Resolution Trust Corporation, but without seizing the banks first.
Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, recently tried to describe how this would work: “The aggregator bank would buy the assets at fair value.” But what does “fair value” mean?
In my example, Gothamgroup is insolvent because the alleged $400 billion of toxic waste on its books is actually worth only $200 billion. The only way a government purchase of that toxic waste can make Gotham solvent again is if the government pays much more than private buyers are willing to offer.
Now, maybe private buyers aren’t willing to pay what toxic waste is really worth: “We don’t have really any rational pricing right now for some of these asset categories,” Ms. Bair says. But should the government be in the business of declaring that it knows better than the market what assets are worth? And is it really likely that paying “fair value,” whatever that means, would be enough to make Gotham solvent again?
What I suspect is that policy makers — possibly without realizing it — are gearing up to attempt a bait-and-switch: a policy that looks like the cleanup of the savings and loans, but in practice amounts to making huge gifts to bank shareholders at taxpayer expense, disguised as “fair value” purchases of toxic assets.
Why go through these contortions? The answer seems to be that Washington remains deathly afraid of the N-word — nationalization. The truth is that Gothamgroup and its sister institutions are already wards of the state, utterly dependent on taxpayer support; but nobody wants to recognize that fact and implement the obvious solution: an explicit, though temporary, government takeover. Hence the popularity of the new voodoo, which claims, as I said, that elaborate financial rituals can reanimate dead banks.
Unfortunately, the price of this retreat into superstition may be high. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that taxpayers are about to get another raw deal — and that we’re about to get another financial rescue plan that fails to do the job.
克魯曼專欄》新巫毒經濟登場 小心 |
 |
| ‧克魯曼 2009/01/20 |
| |
 |
 |
| 【作者Paul Krugman是紐約時報專欄作家／夏嘉玲譯】
相信減稅有奇效的巫毒經濟學已褪流行，且被排除在文明論述之外。供給面學說的狂熱信徒只剩怪胎、假內行和共和黨人。
但近來新聞報導顯示許多動見觀瞻的人，包括聯邦準備理事會官員、金管官員，即將上任的歐巴馬政府官員可能也在內，已成為一種新巫毒的忠實信徒，相信舉行複雜的金融儀式，就能讓已經不行的行庫起死回生。
要解釋這碼事，我來說說一家虛構銀行的處境，我稱為「高譚集團」或簡稱高譚（按：Gotham是英格蘭傳說和童話中的愚人村） 。
帳面上，高譚有2兆美元資產和1.9兆美元負債，它的淨值是1000 億美元。但它的資產有很大部分，比如說房貸抵押債券和其他毒資產值4000億美元，假使這家銀行設法出售這些資產，可能賣不了2000 億美元。
所以高譚是家「僵屍銀行」，仍在營運，但實質上已破產。它的股票並非完全一文不值，它市值還有200億美元，但全然建立在政府會紓困解救其股東的希望上。
為何政府要對高譚紓困？因為它是金融體系的核心要角。各界任由雷曼公司倒閉後，金融市場凍結，有好幾星期全球經濟在崩垮邊緣搖搖欲墜。由於我們不希望舊事重演，因此高譚一定得繼續發揮作用。但怎樣才能讓它繼續發揮作用？
這個嘛，政府可以給高譚幾千億美元，就足以恢復其償付能力。但這當然是給高譚現在的股東送大禮，也等於鼓勵他們日後拚命不顧風險。即使如此，這分大禮的可能性讓高譚現在的股價獲得支撐。
比較好的方法是拿出政府在1980年代末期處理僵屍存款、貸款的方法：接管已無生意的銀行，解散股東。接下來政府把銀行壞帳轉移給特殊機構「資產清理信託公司」，政府清償足夠的銀行債務，讓銀行有償付能力，再把整頓過的銀行賣給新的所有人。
然而目前各方意見顯示，這兩種方式政策制定者都無意採用。據報導，他們傾向妥協，即把毒資產從民營行庫的資產負債表移到類似資產清理信託公司的公有「壞帳行庫」或「整合銀行」，但不先接管銀行。
美國聯邦存款保險公司董事長拜爾女士最近嘗試說明這種方法如何發揮功效：「整合銀行會以合理價格買下資產。」但何謂「合理價格」？
就我舉的例子，高譚集團沒有償付能力，因為其帳面上的4000億美元毒資產實際只值2000億美元。政府買下毒資產使高譚恢復償付能力的唯一途徑是支付比私人買家願意出的價高得多。
現在也許私人買家不願支付有毒資產的實際價值：拜爾女士說：「我們目前尚未就某些這類資產種類訂定合理價格。」但政府該聲稱比市場更清楚毒資產值多少錢嗎？還有，真的可能付「合理價格」（不管這是什麼意思）就足以讓高譚恢復償付能力嗎？
我懷疑可能政策制定者正準備試圖放長線釣大魚：政策看似清理了存款和貸款，但實際上無異犧牲納稅人而送給銀行股東大禮，還裝做以「合理價格」購買毒資產。
為什麼要如此拐彎抹角？答案似乎是華府仍對「國有化」這個字怕的要命。實情是，高譚集團和其同類機構已由國家監護，完全仰賴納稅人支撐，卻沒有人願意承認 這個事實並施行明顯的解決方案：儘管暫時卻是明確的政府接管。因此，如同我所說，大行其道的新巫毒宣稱複雜的金融儀式可讓死氣沉沉的銀行回春。
不幸的是，耽溺迷信的代價可能很高。希望我這想法是錯的，但我懷疑納稅人又被坑了一次，我們將多了一項無法奏效的金融援助計畫。 |
Video: The Speech