发帖
雷达卡
保罗·克鲁格曼（原载2008年9月21日《纽约时报》）
一些怀疑者指亨利·鲍尔森的7000亿美元拯救美国金融体系的方案为“现金换垃圾”, 另一些人则称这项待审法案为对动用“金融武力”的授权，堪比对布什政府声名狼藉的入侵伊拉克计划开绿灯的动用军力的授权。
这些讽刺并非空穴来风。大家都同意，采取一些主要行动是必要的。但是, 鲍尔森先生要求特别权力: 为自己和他的继任者---把纳税人的钱投入到一个方案中, 一个据我所看没有道理的方案。
有人说，我们应该简单地相信鲍尔森先生，因为他是个聪明的家伙, 他知道他在干什么。这说法只有一半是的正确的：他的确是个聪明人，但是，确切地说，回顾过去一年半的经历---在此期间鲍尔森先生再三宣称金融危机“可控”，然后呢，他提供的是一连串失败的诊治---难道这些有理由让人相信他知道自己在做什么？他只是头痛医头，脚痛医脚，和其他庸医没什么两样。
所以还是让我们自己来清理头绪吧。我对此次金融危机有一个“四阶段”的观点:
1.破灭的房地产泡沫已经导致了拖欠房贷案和丧失抵押房回赎案激增。而这反过来又导致其价值源于以房贷偿还为支拄的有关债券的价格暴跌。
2.这些金融失败业已使得很多金融机构陷入资本金严重短缺---和负债相比，已是资不抵债。这个问题显得异常严峻, 特别是在这泡沫年代, 家家都有巨额负债。
3.由于金融机构相对其债务而言资本太少，他们不能也不愿提供经济所需的信用。
4.金融机构一直在努力尝试出售资产偿付债务，包括出售房贷抵押支持的债券。但这又驱动他们拥有的资产价格下降，并使他们的财务状况更趋恶化。这种恶性循环就是所谓的“去杠杆化悖论 ”。(paradox of deleveraging)
鲍尔森计划要求联邦政府购买7,000亿美元价值的坏账，主要是住房抵押贷款证券。问题是这样做又如何解决危机呢？
那么，它可能---可能---会打破恶性循环的反杠杆化操作，也就是我的上述的第四阶段。即便是这点也不是很明晰：那么, 许多国库不打算购买的资产仍然承受作价格压力。此外，即使恶性循环被遏制住，金融机构仍然因为资本金不足而迈不开步子。
或者更确切地说，金融机构将受困于资本金不足，除非联邦政府以高于其价值的高价购买那些资产---花纳税人的钱, 给金融机构及其股东和管理层一笔暴利。我提到过我对此方案不爽吗?
看来这危机的逻辑决定了要介入的不在第四阶段，而在第二阶段：金融体系需要更多的资本金。如果政府计划向金融机构提供资本金，那么它应该得到提供资本金所应得到的：一部分的所有权，惟其如此，一旦援救方案奏效，其全部成果才不至于被那些引发糟糕局面的罪魁祸首所攫取。
这正是储贷危机 (the savings and loan crisis) 所发生的：联邦接管了坏银行 (bad banks) 的所有权，而不仅仅是接管它们的不良资产 (bad assets)。发生在房地美和房利美 (Fannie & Freddie) 的正是如此。（顺便提一下，那次营救做得恰如其分。自联邦接管后，抵押利率迅速调低。）
但是鲍尔森先生坚持他想要一个“干净”的方案。“干净”的言外之意是要纳税人没有附加条件, 没有任何补偿地为紧急救援买单。难道说这是一件好事？加上保尔森先生要求独裁的权力，再加上他要求免除“任何法庭或任何行政机构”的复审---这一切构成了一个令人不可接受的方案。
我知道国会面临着巨大的压力, 要求其在未来几天里批准鲍尔森方案---也许会有一点小小的修改使之稍微不那么坏。根本上说，在花了一年半时间告诉每一个人事情“可控”之后，布什当局宣称天就要塌了，为了拯救世界就必须确切地按照方案所要求的去做, 立即做, “ 现在, 而今, 眼目下。”
但是, 我想敦促国会暂歇一分钟，深呼吸，并尝试严肃地修订方案的架构，使之切中时弊。切不可操之过急, 急则失查---如果这个方案以当前的形态付诸实施，不久的将来我们都会遗恨可期。
Cash for Trash
By PAUL KRUGMAN 原文---给想读原文的同学并敬请翻译高手指正---老渔父
Published: September 21, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulson’s $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system “cash for trash.” Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.
There’s justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself — and for his successor — to deploy taxpayers’ money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn’t make sense.
Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because he’s a smart guy who knows what he’s doing. But that’s only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half — a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained,” and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes — justifies the belief that he knows what he’s doing? He’s making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.
So let’s try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:
1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities — assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.
2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital — too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.
3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.
4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging.”
The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?
Well, it might — might — break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isn’t clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.
Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms — and their stockholders and executives — a giant windfall at taxpayer expense. Did I mention that I’m not happy with this plan?
The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.
That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)
But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.
I’m aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.
But I’d urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don’t let yourself be railroaded — if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we’ll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-26 5:36:01编辑过]
winston1986 金钱 +50 奖励 2008-9-24 5:54:21
京公网安备 11010802022788号
