诺奖得主：特朗普经济学是“巫术经济学”

2016-12-29 15:54:04 来源: 第一财经日报(上海)

（原标题：斯蒂格利茨：特朗普经济学是“巫术经济学”）

靠着美国“愤怒的白人男性”上台的当选总统特朗普是否能承载这些蓝领工人阶级“让美国再次变得伟大”的梦想呢？更确切地说，特朗普的经济政策是否真能令“铁锈地带”的制造业工人重新拿到上世纪50年代时那样的高工资呢？

2016年年末，诺贝尔奖经济学家斯蒂格利茨（Joseph E． Stiglitz）连发两篇文章指出这其中的荒谬之处：特朗普及其团队的上台对于美国蓝领工人来说绝对不是个好消息，特朗普在针对目前美国低收入阶层最需要的收入分配机制改革问题上几乎没有任何主张，而特朗普把高薪制造业工作带回美国的想法，几乎没多大可能实现。

诺贝尔经济学奖得主斯蒂格利茨

至于特朗普团队希望通过对富人减税而刺激经济增长，斯蒂格利茨认为，在现实中有可能刺激税收总额增加的想法，过于“神奇”。他将特朗普整体的经济计划斥之为“巫术经济学。”

高薪制造业回不到美国

斯蒂格利茨在名为《美国经济需要特朗普（做）什么》的文章中指出，特朗普在美国大选中令人拍案惊奇般的胜利令一件事变得非常清晰：有非常多的美国人——特别是美国白性男人感到被时代抛在后面了。而这不仅仅是感受，通过数据可以明显看出，他们的确被落下了。无法为大部分人进行合理分配的经济系统就是一个失灵的经济系统，对此，特朗普应当如何应对？

斯蒂格利茨指出，中印两国已经同全球经济进行融合，除此之外，科技更新速度之快，全球在制造业方面的工作数量都在下降，“这意味着特朗普不可能把许多高薪制造业工作带回美国。他可以通过高级制造业，带回一些制造业，然而这些工作数量不可能很多，即使他能带回一些工作岗位，也是些低薪岗位，而非那些20世纪50年代时的高薪工作。”

斯蒂格利茨随后在《美国工人的坏消息》一文中更进一步指出，特朗普在选战中表示，要给那些将属于美国人的就业岗位外包的高管“颜色看看”。而且，现在特朗普还将“我老家印第安纳州制冷设备制造商凯利公司（Carrier）取消对800个工作岗位外迁的消息作为自己工作效果的证明”。但是这样的交易，花掉了纳税者700万美元，而且凯利公司仍旧要把1300个工作岗位外迁到墨西哥。

“这可不是什么优质产业或经济政策，且对于提高工作或创造好工作毫无益处。”斯蒂格利茨指出，“这简直是对企业高管向政府伸手要钱的一封公开邀请信。”

减税和引发贸易战都将令蓝领受伤

斯蒂格利茨指出，美国的税务系统令不平等问题放大，令富人变得更富，因而必须重塑美国的税务系统，结束资本和红利方面的特权。然而，特朗普本身作为这一制度的受益者，看起来并不会为普通美国人谋福利，而是会像大部分的共和党总统一样，发动最终会令富人阶层受益的税务改革。

更重要的是，特朗普同时承诺了高额的基础建设、国防军备、大额减税以及大幅度削减赤字。这样的重剂量药方在过去曾被称为“巫术经济学”。

首先，美国政府的开支削减已经没有太多空间：目前美国政府雇员比30年前里根政府时期的雇员还要少。

其次，基础建设大额支出伴随着税务减免，这样的政策将对对冲基金更为有利，受益的并不是美国资产负债表：当美国政府可以以近乎零利率获得资金时，这对于美国公众的负担而言会非常高昂。最终在政府承担风险的同时，对冲基金将获益。

斯蒂格利茨指出，这样的大额税务减免和支出上升将不可避免地导致大额赤字。然而，特朗普又承诺要减赤。因此，这恐怕会回到里根时代的一种“神奇思维”中：尽管几十年的历史现实已经证明了这不可行，不过此次由于主张对富人减税，从而对经济产生的刺激如此之强烈，最终税收收入还会增长。

这一结果对于支持特朗普、来自那些铁锈地带的愤怒的选民可不是什么好消息：这样“错乱”的预算政策将导致美联储朝着利率正常化方面的变化速度更快。

在此情况下，一些人看到了通胀苗头，另一些人则看到超低利率对资本市场造成的长期扭曲，还有一些人想“补充弹药”。斯蒂格利茨认为，如果经济再减速，美联储最终会降低利率。

除此之外，如果特朗普开展贸易战，对中国征收45%的关税并在美墨边境修筑围墙，这将对经济造成更严重的后果。斯蒂格利茨写道，“特朗普的亿万富翁内阁可以继续买他们的古驰和1万美元的伊万卡手链，但是普通美国人的生活支出将大幅上升，而没有了来自墨西哥和其他区域的零件，制造业的工作也将变得更加稀少。”

那么，在斯蒂格利茨看来，新一任美国总统需要做什么呢？

美国的收入分配系统是发达经济体中最糟糕的一个，综合的方式是要全面提高这一系统。斯蒂格利茨指出，虽然特朗普表示他要提高最低工资，然而他不太可能改变其他领域，比如赋予工人集体协商权、限制企业高管的补偿薪水等。

斯蒂格利茨写道，“如果希望美国不要成为一个新的封建国家、且有利因素和不利因素都世代相传的话，确保所有学前教育和对公立学校的投资是必不可少的，但特朗普一直对这个话题毫无表态。

NEW YORK – Donald Trump’s astonishing victory in the United States presidential election has made one thing abundantly clear: too many Americans – particularly white male Americans – feel left behind. It is not just a feeling; many Americans really have been left behind. It can be seen in the data no less clearly than in their anger. And, as I have argued repeatedly, an economic system that doesn’t “deliver” for large parts of the population is a failed economic system. So what should President-elect Trump do about it?

Over the last third of a century, the rules of America’s economic system have been rewritten in ways that serve a few at the top, while harming the economy as a whole, and especially the bottom 80%. The irony of Trump’s victory is that it was the Republican Party he now leads that pushed for extreme globalization and against the policy frameworks that would have mitigated the trauma associated it. But history matters: China and India are now integrated into the global economy. Besides, technology has been advancing so fast that the number of jobs globally in manufacturing is declining.

The implication is that there is no way Trump can bring a significant number of well-paying manufacturing jobs back to the US. He can bring manufacturing back, through advanced manufacturing, but there will be few jobs. And he can bring jobs back, but they will be low-wage jobs, not the high-paying jobs of the 1950’s.

If Trump is serious about tackling inequality, he must rewrite the rules yet again, in a way that serves all of society, not just people like him.

The first order of business is to boost investment, thereby restoring robust long-term growth. Specifically, Trump should emphasize spending on infrastructure and research. Shockingly for a country whose economic success is based on technological innovation, the GDP share of investment in basic research is lower today than it was a half-century ago.

Improved infrastructure would enhance the returns from private investment, which has been lagging as well. Ensuring greater financial access for small and medium-size enterprises, including those headed by women, would also stimulate private investment. A carbon tax would provide a welfare trifecta: higher growth as firms retrofit to reflect the increased costs of carbon dioxide emissions; a cleaner environment; and revenue that could be used to finance infrastructure and direct efforts to narrow America’s economic divide. But, given Trump’s position as a climate change denier, he is unlikely to take advantage of this (which could also induce the world to start imposing tariffs against US products made in ways that violate global climate-change rules).

A comprehensive approach is also needed to improve America’s income distribution, which is one of the worst among advanced economies. While Trump has promised to raise the minimum wage, he is unlikely to undertake other critical changes, like strengthening workers’ collective-bargaining rights and negotiating power, and restraining CEO compensation and financialization.

Regulatory reform must move beyond limiting the damage that the financial sector can do and ensure that the sector genuinely serves society.

In April, President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers released a brief showing increasing market concentration in many sectors. That means less competition and higher prices – as sure a way to lower real incomes as lowering wages directly. The US needs to tackle these concentrations of market power, including the newest manifestations in the so-called sharing economy.

America’s regressive tax system – which fuels inequality by helping the rich (but no one else) get richer – must also be reformed. An obvious target should be to eliminate the special treatment of capital gains and dividends. Another is to ensure that companies pay taxes – perhaps by lowering the corporate-tax rate for companies that invest and create jobs in America, and raising it for those that do not. As a major beneficiary of this system, however, Trump’s pledges to pursue reforms that benefit ordinary Americans are not credible; as usual with Republicans, tax changes will largely benefit the rich.

Trump will probably also fall short on enhancing equality of opportunity. Ensuring preschool education for all and investing more in public schools is essential if the US is to avoid becoming a neo-feudal country where advantages and disadvantages are passed on from one generation to the next. But Trump has been virtually silent on this topic.

Restoring shared prosperity would require policies that expand access to affordable housing and medical care, secure retirement with a modicum of dignity, and allow every American, regardless of family wealth, to afford a post-secondary education commensurate with his or her abilities and interests. But while I could see Trump, a real-estate magnate, supporting a massive housing program (with most of the benefits going to developers like himself), his promised repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would leave millions of Americans without health insurance. (Soon after the election, he suggested he may move cautiously in this area.)

The problems posed by the disaffected Americans – resulting from decades of neglect – will not be solved quickly or by conventional tools. An effective strategy will need to consider more unconventional solutions, which Republican corporate interests are unlikely to favor. For example, individuals could be allowed to increase their retirement security by putting more money into their Social Security accounts, with commensurate increases in pension benefits. And comprehensive family and sick leave policies would help Americans achieve a less stressful work/life balance.

Likewise, a public option for housing finance could entitle anyone who has paid taxes regularly to a 20% down-payment mortgage, commensurate with their ability to service the debt, at an interest rate slightly higher than that at which the government can borrow and service its own debt. Payments would be channeled through the income-tax system.

Much has changed since President Ronald Reagan began hollowing out the middle class and skewing the benefits of growth to those at the top, and US policies and institutions have not kept pace. From the role of women in the workforce to the rise of the Internet to increasing cultural diversity, twenty-first century America is fundamentally different from the America of the 1980s.

If Trump actually wants to help those who have been left behind, he must go beyond the ideological battles of the past. The agenda I have just sketched is not only about the economy: it is about nurturing a dynamic, open, and just society that fulfills the promise of Americans’ most cherished values. But while it is, in some ways, somewhat consistent with Trump’s campaign promises, in many other ways, it is the antithesis of them.

My very cloudy crystal ball shows a rewriting of the rules, but not to correct the grave mistakes of the Reagan revolution, a milestone on the sordid journey that left so many behind. Rather, the new rules will make the situation worse, excluding even more people from the American dream.