怎么附件没贴上？重贴
＜meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"＞＜/meta＞＜meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId"＞＜/meta＞＜meta content="Microsoft Word 11" name="Generator"＞＜/meta＞＜meta content="Microsoft Word 11" name="Originator"＞＜/meta＞＜link href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CADMINI%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List"＞＜/link＞
＜style＞ <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:宋体; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:SimSun; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@宋体"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-justify:inter-ideograph; mso-pagination:none; font-size:10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:宋体; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:宋体; mso-bidi-font-family:宋体;} span.title02 {mso-style-name:title02;} span.storytitle {mso-style-name:story_title;} /* Page Definitions */ @page {mso-page-border-surround-header:no; mso-page-border-surround-footer:no;} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:42.55pt; mso-footer-margin:49.6pt; mso-paper-source:0; layout-grid:15.6pt;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> ＜/style＞
Failure to Rise
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 12, 2009
By any normal political standards, this week’s Congressional agreement on an economic stimulus package was a great victory for President Obama. He got more or less what he asked for: almost $800 billion to rescue the economy, with most of the money allocated to spending rather than tax cuts. Break out the Champagne!
Or maybe not. These aren’t normal times, so normal political standards don’t apply: Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat. The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks. And the politics of the stimulus fight have made nonsense of Mr. Obama’s postpartisan dreams.
Let’s start with the politics.
One might have expected Republicans to act at least slightly chastened in these early days of the Obama administration, given both their drubbing in the last two elections and the economic debacle of the past eight years.
But it’s now clear that the party’s commitment to deep voodoo — enforced, in part, by pressure groups that stand ready to run primary challengers against heretics — is as strong as ever. In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration’s tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.
And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan — which will, it’s worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq — has bordered on the deranged.
It’s “generational theft,” said Senator John McCain, just a few days after voting for tax cuts that would, over the next decade, have cost about four times as much.
It’s “destroying my daughters’ future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs,” said Arnold Kling of the Cato Institute.
And the ugliness of the political debate matters because it raises doubts about the Obama administration’s ability to come back for more if, as seems likely, the stimulus bill proves inadequate.
For while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough. We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.
Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree. And it’s widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have — that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. We’ve just seen how well that worked.
Now, the chances that the fiscal stimulus will prove adequate would be higher if it were accompanied by an effective financial rescue, one that would unfreeze the credit markets and get money moving again. But the long-awaited announcement of the Obama administration’s plans on that front, which also came this week, landed with a dull thud.
The plan sketched out by Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wasn’t bad, exactly. What it was, instead, was vague. It left everyone trying to figure out where the administration was really going. Will those public-private partnerships end up being a covert way to bail out bankers at taxpayers’ expense? Or will the required “stress test” act as a back-door route to temporary bank nationalization (the solution favored by a growing number of economists, myself included)? Nobody knows.
Over all, the effect was to kick the can down the road. And that’s not good enough. So far the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s: a fiscal expansion large enough to avert the worst, but not enough to kick-start recovery; support for the banking system, but a reluctance to force banks to face up to their losses. It’s early days yet, but we’re falling behind the curve.
And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.
There’s still time to turn this around. But Mr. Obama has to be stronger looking forward. Otherwise, the verdict on this crisis might be that no, we can’t.
纾困，赢了？ 政府，输了！
诺贝尔经济奖得主 克鲁曼专栏
从任何正常的政治标准来看，本周国会就经济振兴方案内容达成协议，都是欧巴马总统的一大胜利。他大体得到他要的：用近8,000亿美元来救经济，大部分钱用于支出而不是减税。开香槟吧！
且慢。现在不是一般时期，因此正常的政治标准不适用：欧巴马的胜利倒让人感觉很像是失败。振兴法案看似有帮助，但不充分，和令人失望的银行纾困方案绑在一起时更是如此。振兴方案的政治攻防已使得欧巴马跨越党派斗争的梦想像变成了笑话。
我们先从政治谈起。
想到共和党过去两次选举被彻底击溃，过去8年又把经济搞砸了，人们或许期待共和党国会议员在欧巴马政府刚上任时，至少会稍微克制一点。
不过现在很清楚，共和党对巫术的执着和过去一样坚定，一部分是由压力团体来执行。在众院和参院，绝大多数共和党议员支持一种理念，就是对布什政府减税方案一败涂地的适当反应，祭出更多布什式的减税方案。
保守派对振兴方案的论调已濒临精神错乱──要记住，振兴方案的成本比布什政府的两兆美元减税方案或在伊拉克的1兆美元花费少得多。
马侃参议员在投票支持减税法案的几天后说，这（振兴方案）是「世代大窃案」。而他支持的减税案未来10年的成本却是欧案的4倍。
卡托研究所的阿诺．克林说，这「毁了我女儿的前途，好比坐视我的房子被一帮暴徒洗劫」。
政治辩论的丑陋不能等闲视之，因为如果振兴法案证明不充分，而这似乎很有可能，欧巴马政府再要求更多的能力受到质疑。
虽然欧巴马大致得到他要的，他肯定要的不够多。我们可能面临自大萧条以来最严重的衰退。国会预算局预测，未来3年，我们经济体的产能与实际产值有2.9兆美元落差。8,000亿美元听起来是很多钱，但要填补这个缺口还差得远。
表面上，欧巴马政府坚称这项方案能满足我们经济体的需求。但只有极少数经济学家同意。一般相信，政治考虑产生一个较弱和较偏重减税的方案，欧巴马事先已妥协，以期获得跨党派的广泛支持。我们已看到后果。
现在，如果搭配有效的金融纾困方案，财政振兴方案证明适切的机会将高些，金融纾困将活络信用市场，并使资金再度流通。各方引颈期盼欧巴马政府宣布这方面的计划，本周宣布了，却有气无力。
财 长盖纳提出这项计划，其实还不赖。但十分模糊。每个人都绞尽脑汁想了解政府要往哪里去。这些公家和私人的伙伴关系结果会变成牺牲纳税人，去解救银行家的地 下行动吗？「压力测试」法案会成为通往银行暂时国有化的后门吗？没人知道。（愈来愈多经济学家支持暂时国有化，包括我在内。）
整体而言，收到缓兵之计的效果。这还不够。到目前为止，欧巴马政府对经济危机的反应与1990年代的日本太相似：财政扩张的规模足以避免恶化，但不足以启动复苏。支持银行体系，却不愿强迫银行面对亏损。政府才刚上台，表现却已经不及格了。
我不知道你们有什么感觉，但我感到反胃，感到美国没有奋起面对70年来最大的经济挑战。上焉者或许并非全无信念，却太容易妥协。下焉者十分情绪化，忘了他们的信条实际上行不通。
要扭转局势还有时间，但欧巴马必须更往前看。否则，这次危机的最后判决也许是否定的，我们做不到。（作者Paul Krugman是纽约时报专栏作家，田思怡节译）
[em03]
发帖
雷达卡
加JingGuanBbs
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
