Fighting Off Depression
“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.
Paul Krugman
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.
So will we “act swiftly and boldly” enough to stop that from happening? We’ll soon find out.
We weren’t supposed to find ourselves in this situation. For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy. In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”
Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall.
Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.
But these plans may turn out to be a hard sell.
News reports say that Democrats hope to pass an economic plan with broad bipartisan support. Good luck with that.
In reality, the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years.
More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis.
The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.
This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful.
All of this leaves me concerned about the prospects for the Obama plan. I’m sure that Congress will pass a stimulus plan, but I worry that the plan may be delayed and/or downsized. And Mr. Obama is right: We really do need swift, bold action.
Here’s my nightmare scenario: It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going.
So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?
---
克魯曼專欄》防二次大蕭條 端看美出手快不快
 | ||
| ||
| 總統當選人歐巴馬在最近一次每周演說時宣稱：「如果我們不採取迅速、果決的行動，我們可能陷入更嚴重的經濟衰退、失業率會升到兩位數。」如果你問我的看法，我會說他還低估了嚴重性。 事實是，近來的經濟數據令人膽戰心驚，不只美國如此，世界各國皆然。各地製造業尤其慘。銀行不放款，企業和消費者不花錢。我們要坦白的說：這樣看來很像第二次大蕭條開始了。 所以，我們會夠「迅速且大膽行動」以免第二次大蕭條發生嗎？過不久我們就會知道。 我們不該落得這般田地。許多年來，大部分經濟學家相信避免另一次大蕭條發生很容易。2003年，芝加哥大學的勞勃‧魯卡斯對美國經濟學會發表會長演說時宣稱，「防止蕭條的核心問題實際上已經解決，而且事實上已經解決多年。」 特別是米爾頓‧傅利曼（按：1976年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主，2006年11月過世），說服許多經濟學者說美聯邦準備理事會只要提供銀行業更多資金流動，避 免貨幣供給劇減，或許就能遏阻大蕭條形成。聯準會主席柏南克代表聯準會好言好語向傅利曼致歉：「您說得是，我們不對。萬分抱歉。不過謝謝您，我們不會重蹈 覆轍。」 然而，防止蕭條不是這麼容易，聯準會在柏南克的領導下，像想撲滅五顆警星級大火的消防員拚命灌水一樣，灌輸資金，貨幣供給快速上升，但信用依然稀少，經濟仍然直線下墜。 傅利曼稱貨幣政策可預防大蕭條，是試圖駁斥凱因斯的分析。凱因斯主張貨幣政策在經濟衰退下無效，政府以龐大赤字支應支出的財政政策是對抗大量失業所必需。這次危機中貨幣政策失靈，第一次顯示凱因斯說對了，而且凱因斯的想法是歐巴馬先生振興經濟計畫的基礎。 但這些計畫可能不易推銷。 新聞報導說，民主黨希望獲得跨黨派支持通過經濟計畫。祝他們好運。 事實上，政壇已開始裝腔作態。共和黨領袖設下重重阻礙，以免刺激立法，同時卻擺出一副大力支持國會審慎商討的姿態，想到該黨這8年來的行徑，就讓人覺得荒唐。 更明顯地，且不說共和黨詆毀凱因斯經濟學和新政，幾十年來，他們一直宣稱政府是問題、不是解決之道，需要小羅斯福總統式的大量支出、解決經濟危機的看法，看來大多數共和黨人不會接受。 然而，歐巴馬計畫面臨最大問題，可能是很多政客要求他提出證據，證明他倡議的公共支出計畫物有所值，但減稅提案從來都不必負舉證責任。 這是凱因斯熟悉的問題：他指出，給錢所遭遇的異議比公共投資計畫少，「因後者並非完全浪費，易於以嚴格的『商業』原則評斷。」大家在這種討論中忘掉了振興 經濟的主要理由，也就是在目前情況下，公共支出激增，可讓原本會失業的美國人就業，讓原本閒置的資金得以利用，讓閒人、閒錢發揮作用，生產有用的東西。 凡此種種都讓我對歐巴馬計畫的前景憂慮不已。我確信國會會通過振興計畫，但我擔心此計畫可能延宕且（或）規模縮水。歐巴馬說的沒錯：我們真的得迅速而果決地行動。 我擔心的夢魘是：國會花好幾個月才通過振興計畫，真正完成的立法太過謹慎，導致2009年大部分時間的經濟持續沉淪，待振興計畫終於開始發揮效益，只能減 緩經濟衰退，卻無力阻止經濟走下坡。同時通貨緊縮開始，企業和消費者開始根據經濟永久蕭條的預期，決定支出計畫，——這一來，你可以看出後果是什麼。 所以現在是關鍵時刻。我們實際上會採取必要行動、防止第二次大蕭條嗎？ （作者Paul Krugman是紐約時報專欄作家） |
沒有留言:
張貼留言