卡梅伦＂紧缩论＂站不住脚

当前位置：首页 > 英语笔译

卡梅伦＂紧缩论＂站不住脚

天之聪教育 2013-04-11 天之聪教育 224次

卡梅伦"紧缩论"站不住脚

David Cameron’s “there is no alternative” speech last week on the UK economy has aroused much criticism. This is justified. The British prime minister’s arguments for sticking to the government’s programme of fiscal austerity were overwhelmingly wrong-headed.

戴维·卡梅伦(David Cameron)近期讲到英国经济时声称“别无选择”，引发了诸多批评。批评是合理的。英国首相用于论述政府应当坚持财政紧缩计划的理由都大错特错。

It is easy to understand why he had to defend the government’s failing flagship policy. The incoming coalition embarked on a programme of austerity with the emergency Budget of June 2010. The economy, then showing signs of recovery, has since stagnated. Even the fiscal outcomes are poor. Indeed, according to the latest Green Budget from the authoritative Institute for Fiscal Studies, this fiscal year’s borrowing requirement may be bigger than last year’s. Only a productivity collapse saved the day – by keeping unemployment surprisingly low, ameliorating the social impact of the output disaster.

不难理解卡梅伦为何一定要为政府失败的主打政策辩护。当初，刚上台的联合政府颁布2010年6月紧急预算案，开始实施紧缩计划。从那以后，原本显示出复苏迹象的英国经济陷入停滞。甚至连政府的财政状况也很糟糕。根据权威机构英国财政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)最新的《绿色预算》(Green Budget)，本财年的借款需求可能高于上个财年。只有生产率暴跌才能拯救危局——维持超低的失业率，改善产出困境对社会的影响。

How does one defend this record· Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford and Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, among others, have demolished the prime minister’s views. Here are the key points.

这样糟糕的记录要如何为之辩护？牛津大学(University of Oxford)的西蒙·雷恩-刘易斯(Simon Wren-Lewis)和英国国家经济社会研究院(National Institute of Economic and Social Research)的乔纳森·波特斯(Jonathan Portes)等人反驳了首相的观点。以下为要点。

Mr Cameron argues that those who think the government can borrow more “think there’s some magic money tree. Well, let me tell you a plain truth: there isn’t.” This is quite wrong. First, there is a money tree, called the Bank of England, which has created ￡375bn to finance its asset purchases. Second, like other solvent institutions, governments can borrow. Third, markets deem the government solvent, since they are willing to lend to it at the lowest rates in UK history. And, finally, markets are doing this because of the structural financial surpluses in the private and foreign sectors.

卡梅伦称，认为政府可以扩大借款的人们“以为有一棵魔法摇钱树。好吧，让我告诉你们一个简单的事实：没有这样一棵树”。这种说法是错误的。首先，摇钱树的确是存在的，它名叫“英格兰银行”(BoE)，已经创造出3750亿英镑，为资产购买活动提供资金支持。其次，正如其他有偿还能力的机构一样，政府能够借款。第三，市场认为政府是有偿还能力的，因为它们愿意以英国历史上最低的利率借给政府资金。最后，市场这样做，是因为私营和对外部门存在结构性财政结余。

Again, Mr Cameron notes that “last month’s downgrade was the starkest possible reminder of the debt problem we face”. No, it is not, for three reasons. First, Moody’s stressed that the big problem for the UK was the sluggish economic growth in the medium term, which austerity has made worse. Second, the rating of a sovereign that cannot default on debt in its own currency means little. Third, the reason for believing long-term interest rates will rise is expectations of high inflation and so higher short-term rates. But such a shift is going to follow a recovery, which would make austerity effective and timely.

卡梅伦再次提到，“上个月的评级下调将我们所面临的债务问题展露无遗”。三点原因可证明这一说法的谬误。首先，穆迪(Moody's)强调英国的主要问题是中期经济增长疲软，而紧缩已使之雪上加霜。其次，主权国家以本国货币计价的债务是无法违约的，因此对其进行评级缺乏意义。第三，认为长期利率将上升，是因为预计将出现高通胀和短期利率上升。但这一变化将是随复苏而发生的，在那种情况下紧缩将是有效、切合时宜的。

Mr Cameron also argued: “As the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear·.·.·.· growth has been depressed by the financial crisis·.·.·.·and the problems in the eurozone·.·.·.·and a 60 per cent rise in oil prices between August 2010 and April 2011. They are absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible.” This brought a rejoinder from Robert Chote, OBR director, who noted that: “Every forecast published by the OBR since the June 2010 Budget has incorporated the widely held assumption that tax increases and spending cuts reduce economic growth in the short term.”

卡梅伦还认为：“独立机构‘预算责任办公室’(Office for Budget Responsibility, OBR)明确表示……金融危机……欧元区问题……以及2010年8月至2011年4月间油价上涨60%等因素抑制了经济增长。他们非常清楚，削减赤字计划并非原因所在。”预算责任办公室主任罗伯特·乔特(Robert Chote)对此的回应是：“2010年6月预算案出台以来，OBR发布的每一份预测均秉持一项被广泛认同的假设：增税和减支在短期内会降低经济增长率。”

Serious researchers, including at international organisations, argue that the multiplier effect of fiscal austerity may be far bigger than the OBR has hitherto assumed, at least in today’s depressed circumstances. Moreover, even if the OBR believes the outcome turned out worse than forecast because of adverse shocks, rather than its underestimation of multipliers, this is an argument for active policy, not against it.

严肃的研究人员（包括国际组织的研究人员）认为，财政紧缩的乘数效应可能远高于OBR迄今的假设值，至少在当今疲软的经济环境下是这种状况。此外，即便OBR认为结果不如预期的原因是负面冲击，而非其低估乘数效应，这也是支持、而不是反对积极政策的理由。

The prime minister also stated: “[Labour] think that by borrowing more they would miraculously end up borrowing less·.·.·.·Yes, it really is as incredible as that.” What truly is incredible is that Mr Cameron cannot understand that, if an entity that spends close to half of gross domestic product retrenches as the private sector is also retrenching, the decline in overall output may be so large that its finances end up worse than when it started. Bradford DeLong of Berkeley and Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, have shown that, in a depressed economy, what Mr Cameron deems incredible is likely to be true. A recent International Monetary Fund paper argues that “fiscal tightening could raise the debt ratio in the short term, as fiscal gains are partly wiped out by the decline in output”. Mr Portes adds that, even if this is not true for the UK on its own, it is likely to be true for Europe since almost everybody is retrenching simultaneously.

首相还声称：“工党认为增加借款最后能奇迹般地起到减少借款的效果……是的，这令人难以置信。”但真正令人难以置信的是，卡梅伦无法理解，如果一个支出占国内生产总值(GDP)近半的政府随着私营部门一起削减开支，这将大大降低总产出，使得政府最终的财政状况还不及当初。伯克利(Berkeley)的布拉德福德·德隆(Bradford DeLong)和美国前财长拉里·萨默斯(Larry Summers)证明，当经济不景气时，在卡梅伦看来难以置信的事情可能成为现实。国际货币基金组织(IMF)近期的一篇论文认为，“财政紧缩在短期内可能导致债务比率升高，因为财政改善会被产出下降部分地抵消掉。”波特斯补充道，即便英国不出现这种状况，就整个欧洲而言也可能出现这种状况，因为几乎各方都在同时减支。

Mr Cameron argues that “this deficit didn’t suddenly appear purely as a result of the global financial crisis. It was driven by persistent, reckless and completely unaffordable government spending and borrowing over many years.” In a way, this is the most worrying error – not because the fiscal policy of the Labour party, then in power, was perfect. Far from it. Fiscal policy should have been tighter. But that is not the main reason the UK has a huge structural deficit.

卡梅伦认为，“赤字不是单纯因为全球金融危机而突然产生的，其根源是多年来政府进行持续、不顾后果、完全无法承担的支出和借款。”在某种程度上，这是最令人担忧的错误——原因并非当时执政党工党的财政政策无懈可击。工党当时的财政政策远非完美——它本该更加紧缩。但这并非英国产生高额结构性赤字的主要原因。

It is the economy, stupid. In 2007, according to the IMF, UK net debt – at 38 per cent of GDP – was the second-lowest in the Group of Seven leading economies. These levels were also exceptionally low by UK historical standards. In the March 2008 Budget, the Treasury estimated the structural cyclically adjusted deficit on the current budget at minus 0.7 per cent in 2007-08 and minus 0.5 per cent in 2008-09. The collapse in output has caused the explosion in deficits and debt. Almost everybody underestimated the vulnerability, the Conservative leadership among them: pre-crisis, it committed itself to continuing the plans that Mr Cameron now calls “reckless and unaffordable”.

问题是经济，笨蛋。根据IMF的数据，2007年英国净债务为GDP的38%，为七国集团(Group of Seven)第二低。按照英国历史标准衡量，这个比例也是非常低的。英国财政部在2008年3月预算案中估计，经周期调整的结构性经常预算赤字比例在2007-08年度为-0.7%，在2008-09年度为的-0.5%。产出大幅下降，导致了赤字和债务剧增。几乎所有人都低估了经济的脆弱性，保守党领导层也不例外：在危机前，它延续了如今被卡梅伦称为“不顾后果、无法承担”的计划。

Some think reckless spending explains the jump in government spending from 40.7 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 to 47.4 per cent two years later. Yet, between 1996-97 (the year before Labour came into office) and 2007-08 (the year before the crisis), the share of spending in GDP rose by only 1.2 per cent. No: the collapse in GDP, relative to expectations, caused the jump in spending and decline in receipts, relative to GDP. The Green Budget compares the forecasts for 2012-13 made in the 2008 Budget and the 2012 Autumn Statement: nominal GDP is down 13.6 per cent, receipts are down 17.6 per cent, spending is down 5.6 per cent and borrowing is up 372 per cent. It is because the OBR (and others) believe most of this lost GDP is permanent that the position seems so grim. (See charts.)

有人认为，不顾后果的支出能够解释政府支出占GDP比例从2007-08年度的40.7%大幅升至两年后的47.4%。然而，在1996-97年度（工党上台的前一年）和2007-08年度（危机发生的前一年）之间，支出占GDP的比例仅上升了1.2%。不！GDP相对预期的大幅下跌才是支出上升、收入下降（相对于GDP)的根源。《绿色预算》比较了2008年预算案和2012年秋季预算报告对2012-13年度的预测：名义GDP减少13.6%，收入减少17.6%，支出减少5.6%，借款增加372%。OBR（和其他机构）认为GDP的下降大部分将是长期化的，因此情况才显得如此严峻。（见图）

Mr Cameron’s argument against fiscal policy flexibility is wrong. But, beyond this, we have to consider why the economy has proved so fragile and rebalancing so difficult. That is for next week.

卡梅伦反对财政政策灵活性的理由是错误的。但我们也必须思考：为何经济表现得如此脆弱，而再平衡是如此困难？这是下一篇专栏的内容。