本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-12-8 12:53 AM 編輯 tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb: v0 x' j( ^! o7 R
1 s/ l6 _, c) [6 h1 V% B
, \3 z% h; ~) A9 j" Z
怎樣拯救歐元？ Joseph E. Stiglitz
! f. S1 B0 w( ]2 K- C: b$ ptvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 ^ N5 X( s/ T: }
' P8 h+ y& q. X3 o Y有時候事情看上去並不會變得很糟，但實際上卻並非如此。即就是歐元區一些看似“負責”的成員國也將面臨更高的利率。而大西洋兩岸的歐美經濟學家們現在討論的已經不是歐元能否生存下來的問題，而是如何確保歐元體系的崩潰只帶來最小的動蕩。公仔箱論壇6 F$ P9 w1 K& k
# f' Z- e" L2 p) G) j: M- k M7 @
儘管歐洲各國領導致力於挽救歐元，但在維繫歐元運作的必要措施方面，各國領導對此的認識缺陷卻逐漸暴露出來。歐元體系建立伊始，主流觀點認為維繫歐元體系的運作只需在財政方面進行約束，即，各成員國的財政赤字或公共債務應與各國國內生產總值相適應。經濟危機前，愛爾蘭和西班牙仍有預算結餘，並保持較低的債務值。然而，很快一切都化為烏有，兩國都陷入財政赤字，債台高築。所以，當今歐洲各國領導都指出控制各成員國的經常項目赤字才是當務之急。
4 \# G+ B5 V6 ^5.39.217.76
/ D9 L# G0 N4 S7 _TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。如果真是這樣，那麼隨著經濟危機的蔓延，美國這個常年保持經常項目赤字的國家卻成了全球投資者的避風港，就顯得不合常理了。而歐盟將如何分辨政府為創造有利投資環境以及增加外國直接投資而造成的“良性”經常性項目赤字和“不良”經常性項目赤字呢？要想避免“不良”經常性項目赤字，那麼對於私營部門的幹預則應該遠遠大於歐元區建立時頗受歡迎的新自由主義以及單一市場原則所倡導的程度。
" K3 r# b( |4 R4 r* U" ATVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。: S8 x! l0 U2 y- H
以西班牙為例，私營部門的資金主要來自私有銀行。而受這種非理性繁榮的影響，政府是否應被迫削減公共投資呢？而這是否又意味著政府必須決定這其中哪一種資金流是不良的（如，投資房產的資金），從而這種投資是否應繳納稅款或者被限制呢？我個人覺得這樣的政策會行之有效。但是對於歐盟自由市場的倡導者而言，這些政策只會招來極大的不滿。9 h( E/ ]9 S9 ^; @1 u
5.39.217.764 z6 `/ b5 Z* [( x D
為了尋求一個明確簡單的答案。人們的注意力再一次集中到每次金融危機過後的討論之上。每一次金融危機結束，總有相應的解釋出現。而這些解釋總是在下一次金融危機到來時被推翻或者至少證明其不全面。二十世紀八十年代的拉美經濟危機是由於過度貸款造成的。而這個解釋卻不適用於1994年的墨西哥經濟危機，因為這一次危機的原因是由於儲蓄不足。7 E1 T! X9 e( m6 J1 y3 `
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。, c( E6 f& s9 k4 k9 R: l9 h
而緊接著到了東亞經濟危機。東亞擁很高的儲蓄率，但這一次問題出在“管理方式”之上。在享有世界上最透明管理方式的斯堪的納維亞國家幾年前遭受金融危機時，這個解釋則又成了無稽之談。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。* A* s) h |* y) m5 j" }
+ C# H* t/ f9 U# Y& u5.39.217.76但值得注意的是，這些金融危機，包括2008年的金融危機，都有一個共通的線索，即，金融行業表現欠佳，未能准確評估信用度，在危機出現時，未能及時處理。) F, n3 W' x! r7 r, E9 u
) m" K# d) B1 S# P. Q) S. ^( D! I: j無論有沒有歐元，這些問題都會出現。但是對於政府來說，歐元的出現使得這些問題變得更加棘手。而現在的問題不僅只是：歐元的崩潰將使得各國喪失兩大調節方式（利率以及彙率），以及歐洲央行的權限主要集中於控制通貨膨脹；而且，現在各國政府還面臨失業，增長速度慢，以及金融市場不穩定的挑戰。失去了共同財政管理體系的統一市場只會為稅收競爭敞開大門。各國會通過降低稅收的方式來吸引投資並增加可以在歐盟區自由交易產品的產出。公仔箱論壇, E- K$ Z" I' f4 q4 ^
i0 H9 U" [$ P1 l& e
再者，自由勞動流動意味著個人可以選擇是否為自己的父母輩還債——愛爾蘭的年青人只需要離開自己的國家就不用在為政府愚蠢的銀行擔保買單。當然，移民可以使勞動力按照收益重新分配，本身當然無可厚非。但是，這種方式的移民實際是在削弱生產力。
% H3 u6 f* W; @7 E% V w, ETVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。. T n6 \4 L7 E/ M$ c# ]& R7 S
當然，移民正是美國調節機制的一部分。它使得美國能夠以使用單一貨幣的統一市場的形式來運作。更為重要的是：聯邦政府通過分配更多的額外稅收來緩解各州面臨的問題（如高失業率）時所扮演的角色，即所謂的“轉移聯盟”，讓很多德國人深惡痛絕。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb; o5 ^9 D" }1 Q8 u
+ L4 Y% X2 j, D x+ L3 z而美國同樣也願意在那些失去競爭力的州採取減少人口的方式來解決問題（一些人指出美國企業可以通過這種方法來從這些競爭力低的州購買議員的席位）。但是生產力相對落後的歐洲願意通過減少人口來解決問題嗎？或者，歐洲願意忍痛採取“內部”貶值的方式——這種方式在過去在黃金標准體系下曾經慘遭失敗，而在如今在歐元體系也下日趨崩潰？
" i- z& r6 ]- G6 C' ~9 Y: m# `& |3 C! k$ Z
即便一些歐洲北部國家所宣稱的通過採取一些有效的管理方法可以使歐元重獲生機方法是正確的。（我個人認為是錯誤的）他們也不過是在上演一齣自欺欺人的道德劇罷了。當然，採取奢侈財務政策的南部同盟，或者將自由市場等同為沒有限制，對於後果毫無顧忌的西班牙和愛爾蘭本身責無旁貸。但指責並不能解決今天面臨的問題：歐盟的巨額債務，無論是私有還是公有行業造成的，必須從起自身出發著手解決。公仔箱論壇0 V! z1 v) I/ U; F6 H/ U
- S A6 P0 T! b, l5 ^tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb往昔欠下的巨額債務並不能通過減少當下公共部門的預算來減少。這樣做只會適得其反，使經濟更為衰退。歐洲的領導人明白這一點。他們知道歐洲需要經濟增長。但是與其去解決問題，尋求經濟增長的方式，還不如喋喋不休地去指責前幾任政府的失職。對於說教者而言這是個讓人滿意的行為，但是這並不會解決歐洲的問題，當然也拯救不了歐元。/ r y9 t/ q& B5 z0 H
5.39.217.76( w `* r+ O( ^9 k$ v) q
3 p' N9 I$ O# L: \" iWhat Can Save the Euro? Joseph E.Stiglitz
7 F( Y" i* O% C% q2 ytvb now,tvbnow,bttvb6 i4 ?" p' l. g/ y/ b3 m
" k0 H% C. a3 V) k" M5.39.217.76Just when it seemed that things couldn’t get worse,it appears that they have. Even some of the ostensibly “responsible” members of the eurozone are facing higher interest rates. Economists on both sides of the Atlantic are now discussing not just whether the euro will survive, but how to ensure that its demise causes the least turmoil possible.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb" `5 ^$ M) {: f
- o# [ O$ g$ x7 ]. o; {tvb now,tvbnow,bttvbIt is increasingly evident that Europe’s political leaders, for all their commitment to the euro’s survival, do not have a good grasp of what is required to make the single currency work. The prevailing view when the euro was established was that all that was required was fiscal discipline– no country’s fiscal deficit or public debt, relative to GDP, should be too large. But Ireland and Spain had budget surpluses and low debt before the crisis, which quickly turned into large deficits and high debt. So now European leaders say that it is the current-account deficits of the eurozone’s member countries that must be kept in check.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。6 S$ Y, W) `# I- V
3 {9 R! r7 X0 f5.39.217.76In that case, it seems curious that, as the crisis continues, the safe haven for global investors is the United States, which has had an enormous current-account deficit for years. So, how will the European Union distinguish between “good” current-account deficits – a government creates a favorable business climate, generating inflows of foreign direct investment – and “bad”current-account deficits? Preventing bad current-account deficits would require far greater intervention in the private sector than the neoliberal and single-market doctrines that were fashionable at the euro’s founding would imply.
9 {5 A- b2 T. D" q V' r: ]TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。
5 V+ p* O8 Q& U3 r, H1 W: W/ ]0 m公仔箱論壇In Spain,for example, money flowed into the private sector from private banks. Should such irrational exuberance force the government, willy-nilly, to curtail public investment? Does this mean that government must decide which capital flows –say into real-estate investment, for example – are bad, and so must be taxed or otherwise curbed? To me, this makes sense, but such policies should be anathema to the EU’s free-market advocates.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb0 h6 p7 N/ p( K
. Q" y& t) L4 @# A公仔箱論壇The quest for a clear, simple answer recalls the discussions that have followed financial crises around the world. After each crisis, an explanation emerges, which the next crisis shows to be wrong, or at least inadequate. The 1980’s Latin American crisis was caused by excessive borrowing; but that could not explain Mexico’s1994 crisis, so it was attributed to under-saving.
8 u% q( m6 ^* Z1 o3 ptvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 Y$ Q+ O) j# ]& R0 Y3 Y, X9 C
Then came East Asia,which had high savings rates, so the new explanation was “governance.”But this, too, made little sense, given that the Scandinavian countries – which have the most transparent governance in the world – had suffered a crisis a few years earlier.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb( T; W% l2 Y X% ]* S
& @+ }7 y% ~$ n; D+ z- H' g9 S5.39.217.76There is, interestingly, a common thread running through all of these cases, as well as the 2008 crisis: financial sectors behaved badly and failed to assess creditworthiness and manage risk as they were supposed to do.
! A ?5 ]$ y, P; a# u( {8 J5.39.217.764 u6 U1 U+ t' r5 d3 q! c4 q) \) E
These problems will occur with or without the euro.But the euro has made it more difficult for governments to respond. And the problem is not just that the euro took away two key tools for adjustment – the interest rate and the exchange rate – and put nothing in their place, or that the European Central Bank’s mandate is to focus on inflation, whereas today’s challenges are unemployment, growth, and financial stability. Without a common fiscal authority, the single market opened the way to tax competition – a race to the bottom to attract investment and boost output that could be freely sold throughout the EU.
, v* r: A0 M# ]; I9 dtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& v0 u3 W% Y( c- B' v. H" p
Moreover, free labor mobility means that individuals can choose whether to pay their parents’ debts: young Irish can simply escape repaying the foolish bank-bailout obligations assumed by their government by leaving the country. Of course, migration is supposed to be good,as it reallocates labor to where its return is highest. But this kind of migration actually undermines productivity.0 l |8 p4 I" |, w% ]: ]
- q! @3 G+ z0 [- b/ E" U2 Y5.39.217.76Migration is, of course, part of the adjustment mechanism that makes America work as a single market with a single currency. Even more important is the federal government’s role in helping states that face, say, high unemployment,by allocating additional tax revenue to them – the so-called “transfer union”so loathed by many Germans.
: b5 g% v, T k& ?6 b# e3 ntvb now,tvbnow,bttvbtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5 Z+ R3 c0 Y: d5 e' R/ d
But the US is also willing to accept the depopulation of entire states that cannot compete. (Some point out that this means that America’s corporations can buy senators from such states at a lower price.) But are European countries with lagging productivity willing to accept depopulation?Alternatively, are they willing to face the pain of “internal” devaluation, a process that failed under the gold standard and is failing under the euro?
+ ^" L) f$ e4 R$ A& r) E7 w5.39.217.76% f" l" N) ?; v1 J; @. L5 m; F9 A7 ?
Even if those from Europe’s northern countries are right in claiming that the euro would work if effective discipline could be imposed on others (I think they are wrong), they are deluding themselves with amorality play. It is fine to blame their southern compatriots for fiscal profligacy,or, in the case of Spain and Ireland,for letting free markets have free reign, without seeing where that would lead.But that doesn’t address today’s problem: huge debts, whether a result of private or public miscalculations, must be managed within the euro framework.
' ]* E. g, i i5 otvb now,tvbnow,bttvb. t1 d+ B0 g# O& Y/ Q i& |
Public-sector cutbacks today do not solve the problem of yesterday’s profligacy; they simply push economies into deeper recessions. Europe’s leaders know this. They know that growth is needed. But, rather than deal with today’s problems and find a formula for growth, they prefer to deliver homilies about what some previous government should have done. This may be satisfying for the sermonizer, but it won’t solve Europe’s problems – and it won’t save the euro. 5.39.217.76' v( S1 v- Z* y7 ?
5 F: ^( e% M [. q" Itvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 ]% o9 }7 K: Q( D5 f
Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics, and the author of Freefall:Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy.
9 h' u4 w7 R3 | } b公仔箱論壇 |
發表於 2011-12-6 08:38 AM
| 
