注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

至真至性的巴罗教授(下)  

2009-04-20 22:50:52|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

And when does this study come out?

[]:这个研究何时能出来?

 

Whoknows. I mean, it's a big project, we've been working on it for a while. Partof it is just measuring, back since 1913, the effect of the tax rate that thefederal government or the total government is levying on people. Measuring thatwas a big project. But we've sort of finished that.

答:不知道。我的意思是,这是一个大项目,我们已经做了有一阵了。部分工作就是量度税率效应,从1913年开始,看看联邦政府或全部政府,给人们附加的税收。度量它,是一个大项目。但是,我们差不多也结束了。

 

I just have two more questions,quickly. One is that you've mentioned that monetary policies sort of seem to bestuck. And I guess there have been a couple of people -- Robert Lucas is onethat comes to mind and maybe Greg Mankiw too -- who say there are other kindsof monetary policy that can still be pursued.

问:我还有两个问题。很快了。一个就是你刚说的货币政策似乎没有作用。我想,有很多人,卢卡斯是一个,曼昆可能也是一个,他们说:还有其他的一些货币政策可以实施。

 

OhI agree with that. There are things that they can still do. The sort ofstandard stuff. They drove the nominal rates on the usual government paper downto zero, and they drove down the federal funds rate, so they don't have anymore leeway on that. But there is plenty of other stuff that they can do andthat they are doing.

答:哦,我同意这种说法。还有一些事,是他们可以做的。像标准这种东西。他们让通常的政府债券的名义利率降至零,他们让联邦基金利率下降,然后,他们就没有别的余地了。但是,还有很多其他的事,他们可以做,他们也正在做。

 

And what is that?

问:是什么呢?

 

TheFederal Reserve is buying up all kinds of other assets, like long-term governmentbonds. But they are also buying a lot of private stuff, and that willpresumably have a substantial impact. I mean there's a downside to doing allthis, but it should certainly have effects. So in that sense they haven't runout of ammunition. I agree with that.

答:联储,正在收购各种各样的资产,像政府的长期债券。但是,他们还买了很多私人债券,这大概会具有很大的效应。我的意思是说:所有这些,都会越来越少,但是,它当然还是有效应的。因此,在这个角度看,他们还没有走到末路穷途。我同意这种看法。

 

The last thing is just about thestimulus bills as it stands. Two things here. One thing is what do you thinkabout the ratio of spending to tax relief in the bill. And the second is, ifyou judge it by Larry Summers standard -- that stimulus be temporary, timelyand targeted -- does it clear the bar?

问:最后一件事,是与刺激方案本身的。两件事。一件事就是:你怎么看方案中的支出/税负减免之间的比率。第二个是:如果你从萨默斯的角度看,即刺激必是短期的、及时的和有目的性的,那么,它会不会过关呢?

 

Thisis probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don'tknow what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has somesimplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditurestuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand theeconomy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's notreally geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwingmoney at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balancebetween the two it doesn't really matter that much.

答:这可能是1930年以来最差的方案。我不知道说什么。我是说,它是一个巨大的浪费。它的理论是很简化的,我觉得它不是会有效,因此,我认为支出会像他们期望的那样发挥效用。我认为,它不会扩张经济。税收减免,也不会真正产生激励。它根本不会降低税率;它更像是在给人们扔钱。从这两面看,我觉得它就是个垃圾。因此,在这两者之间的权衡上,它确实不会具有很大的作用。

 

Well,presumably Larry Summers is not an idiot.

问:哈,也许萨默斯不是个蠢货。

 

[laughs]That is another conversation. I have known him for 25 years, and I haveopinions about that.

答:[]那是另一个话题,我认识他有25年了,我对这个问题,有一些看法。

 

Well, presumably Christina Romer is notan idiot if you're...

问:哈,也许克利丝蒂娜·罗默,并不是一个呆瓜,如果你……

 

They'vebrought in some reasonable people in terms of economic advisors. I don't knowwhat impact they're having, and I suppose they have different views onKeynesian macroeconomics than I have. But I'm giving you my opinion about it.

答:在经济顾问里,他们还是有一些理性的人的。我不知道这些人有什么影响,而且,我估计他们关于凯恩斯宏观经济学的看法,与我不同。但是,我说了我的看法。

 

Ithink Geithner is a good appointment. I think he's going to focus on whatreally matters, which is the financial system and the housing market. That'swhere they should be putting their efforts. That's where the problems camefrom.

(续)我认为盖特勒,是不错的任命。我觉他会侧重于真正重要的东西,即金融体系和房地产市场。这就是他们应该努力的地方。这也是产生问题的地方。

 

Fixing the credit market, you mean?

问:处理信用市场问题,你是这个想法?

 

Thatwas the main problem in the Great Depression, too. Though then it wasconcentrated on commercial banks which were the main credit vehicle. That wasthe main problem in the depression and fixing that was the main thing thatended the depression.

答:这也是大萧条中的主要问题。虽然在那时,它侧重于商业银行(这是当时的主要信用载体)。那是大萧条的主要问题,解决它,就成了终结大萧条的主要工作。

 

Well since you brought it up... I haveno idea what your views are on financial economics, but it seems like there'sgoing to be another round of TARP-like bailouts. Do you have an opinion on howthat should be structured?

问:因为你提到了这个事……我不知道,你对金融经济学还有看法,但是,似乎还有新一轮的TARP式的救市。你对它的构造方式,是有没有想法?

 

That'sa hard problem. I mean, they're basically floundering around -- the crew of theprevious administration more than the current one. But I admit they're having agood effect by putting more resources into assistance. The exact way to do itis pretty tricky. It's not clear what the best thing to do is. Larry Summersdid bring in Jeremy Stein, who is probably one of the best people in the area.I think he's going to have a lot of impact on that design. I hope so. That'sanother person they hired recently.

答:这个问题,很难。我是说,他们本质上都在那儿盘旋了——上一届政府的人们,而不是这一届政府。但是,我承认,将更多的资源投入援助,是具有很好的效果的。具体的做法,是很难办的。最少的办法,还不清楚。萨默斯确实带进了Jeremy Stein,他可能是这个领域里最好的。我认为,他对这个设计有很大的影响。我希望如此。他们最近,又用了另一个人。

From Harvard?

:这个人是哈佛的?

 

Yeah,he's a Harvard economics department person. He's in the White House. Summersbrought him in to advise particularly on the financial and housing issues, thedesign of the new regulations structure. That was an excellent appointment.That's the stuff that's really going to count. Not this spending thing. I meandemocrats were waiting with all these ridiculous projects, and now they've gotan excuse to bring it through politically.

:是啊,他是哈佛经济系的人。他现在在白宫。萨默斯让他进去,特别让他给金融问题、房地产问题和新的监管结构问题提建议。这个任命非常好。这个人,是我们真正可以依赖的。当然不是支出这个事。我说的是,民主党员们,等的就是这些大项目,现在,他们有一个借口,可以让它在政治上通过了。

 

Just one last thing. I think Joe Bidenand a couple other people have said there's a fairly wide consensus amongeconomists that fiscal stimulus in the form of a large spending bill is the wayto go, and...

问:最后一件事。我觉得Joe Biden和其他一些人,曾经说过:经济学家中,有一个非常广泛的共识,认为大型支出方案的财政刺激,是要做的事,而且……

 

Hesaid first that every economist thought that.

答:他一开始说的是每个经济学家都同意。

 

Well, that's Joe Biden hyperbole. Butwhat is the lay of the land there? Presumably there are economists out therethat take this seriously. And then there are economists out there who thinkthere's a one-for-one crowding out with any government spending. And I guess,where does the profession fall on that spectrum?

问:哈,这是Joe Biden的夸张。但是,情况究竟是怎样的呢?大概有一些经济学家是严肃思考的。也有一些经济学家认为,政府支出具有一对一的挤出效应。我猜,在这个地方,经济学界是怎么分野的呢?

 

Mosteconomists haven't really been thinking about this issue, they haven't reallyfocused on it. It's not their specialty. Most economists today, they haven'treally been thinking about this kind of multiplier issue. Which goes back tothat first question you asked about how come now we're so worried about this. Idon't think most economists are focused on this, or that they're familiar withthe empirical evidence. I don't think they've really worked on the theory. So Idon't know, maybe they have some opinion that they got from graduate school orsomething.

答:大部分经济学家,根本没有想过这个问题,他们根本就没有侧重讨论过。这不是他们的特长。今天的大部分经济学家,他们真的一点都没有想过这样的乘数问题。这就要回到你问的第一个问题,你问的那个我们今天最担心的问题。我认为,大部分经济学家都没有侧重于此,或者,他们根本不熟悉实证证据。我认为,他们从来没有真实研究过这个理论。因此,我不知道,也许他们在读研究生的时候或其他什么地方,知道了一些看法。

 

Ithink my sense is that the sentiment has been moving against this kind ofapproach both within the economics profession and more broadly. I think theinitial view was that "yeah, this is a terrible situation" -- which Iagree with -- "and we've got to do something about this, and maybe thiswill work." I think there was support in that sense.

(续)我的感觉是:这种情绪,已经走向了经济学专业内外的方法的反面。我认为,一开始的看法是:“哈,这是一个糟糕的情况”——这是我同意的——“我们需要做点什么,也许这种方法会有用。”我想,这是这种感觉的支撑点。

 

Are there any conditions under whichyou might think spending could have a positive effect on output or is it alwaysgoing to be the case that as a relative matter that tax cuts are going to bebetter?

问:有没有什么情况下,你认为支出对于产出具有正效应?会不会总是这样的,作为相关的问题,减税会更好一点呢?

 

Taxcuts are bound to be better. I think the best evidence for expanding GDP comesfrom the temporary military spending that usually accompanies wars -- wars thatdon't destroy a lot of stuff, at least in the US experience. Even there I don'tthink it's one for one, so if you don't value the war itself it's not a goodidea. You know, attacking Iranis a shovel-ready project. But I wouldn't recommend it.

答:减税,肯定更好!我认为,从短暂的军事支出所造成的GDP扩张,这是最好的证据。军事支出,常常伴随着战争——那种并不消灭很多东西的战争,最少在美国的历史是这样的。即使在这种情况下,我也不认为,它是一对一的交换,因此,如果你不去评估战争自身,那就做得不好了。你知道,打伊朗,是一个早就准备就绪的项目。但是,我并不推荐这种做法。


(全文完)

  评论这张
 
阅读(181)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017