加载中…
个人资料
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:
  • 博客访问:
  • 关注人气:
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
正文 字体大小:

赤字拯救了世界

(2009-07-18 19:04:56)
标签:

财经

危机以来,凯恩斯主义饱受攻击。轻一点的炮火对准其效果,说凯恩斯主义对拯救危机无效,重一点的说扩张财政不仅没有用,还会给未来留下严重隐患,而最极端的人,甚至将这一次金融危机的产生归罪于凯恩斯主义。

克鲁格曼是个极端的货币派,同时又是左派,这看来不可思议。因为货币主义是保守派,信奉市场,反对政府干预;凯恩斯主义按今天的说法,是自由派,两者是对立的。说克鲁格曼是货币派,是因为他一直鼓吹采用扩张性货币政策来治理危机,在这方面,全世界最突出的人有两个,一个是他,另一个就是今天的执掌美联储大权的伯南克。在批评者的口中,“直升机”一词是辛辣的讽刺,而克鲁格曼和伯南克似乎一点也不生气。

尽管克鲁格曼是极端货币主义政策的鼓吹者之一,但它并不信奉所谓的货币主义,相反,它对凯恩斯主义展现出少见的情有独衷。特别最近一年来,面对一些保守主义者对凯恩斯主义的围攻,克鲁格曼坚定地站在政府一边,对民主党政府的反危机政策鼓与呼,甚至成了最有效且免费的宣传员。在它的博客上,有相当多的文章是直接为凯恩斯辩护,甚至直接回到历史,为凯恩斯本人辩护。

一图胜千言,下面这个图表已清晰表达出了作者的核心观点。作者从来都是总量派,抛开很多的结构和细节,这种角度是可取的,但有时也不勉遗失了一些重要的内容。

 

 

July 15, 2009, 8:54 am

Deficits saved the world

Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs has a new note (no link) responding to claims that government support for the economy is postponing the necessary adjustment. He doesn’t think much of that argument; neither do I. But one passage in particular caught my eye:

The private sector financial balance—defined as the difference between private saving and private
investment, or equivalently between private income and private spending—has risen from -3.6% of GDP in the 2006Q3 to +5.6% in 2009Q1. This 8.2% of GDP adjustment is already by far the biggest in postwar history and is in fact bigger than the increase seen in the early 1930s.

That’s an interesting way to think about what has happened — and it also suggests a startling conclusion: namely, government deficits, mainly the result of automatic stabilizers rather than discretionary policy, are the only thing that has saved us from a second Great Depression.

The following figure makes the argument:

Here I show the private sector surplus and the public sector deficit, both as functions of GDP; the private sector line is upward-sloping because higher GDP means higher income and more savings, the public-sector line is downward-sloping because higher GDP means higher revenues. In equilibrium the private surplus equals the government deficit (not strictly true for any one country if you add in international capital flows, but think of this as a picture for the world economy). To make the figure cleaner I’ve shown an initial position of balance in both sectors, but this isn’t important.

What we’ve had is a sharp increase in the desired private surplus at any given level of GDP, due to a combination of higher personal saving and reduced investment demand. This is shown as an upward shift in the private-surplus curve.

In the 1930s the public sector was very small. As a result, GDP basically had to shrink enough to keep the private-sector surplus equal to zero; hence the fall in GDP labeled “Great Depression”.

This time around, the fall in GDP didn’t have to be as large, because falling GDP led to rising deficits, which absorbed some of the rise in the private surplus. Hence the smaller fall in GDP labeled “Great Recession.”

What Hatzius is saying is that the initial shock — the surge in desired private surplus — was if anything larger this time than it was in the 1930s. This says that absent the absorbing role of budget deficits, we would have had a full Great Depression experience. What we’re actually having is awful, but not that awful — and it’s all because of the rise in deficits. Deficits, in other words, saved the world.

0

阅读 收藏 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  

新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 欢迎批评指正

新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 产品答疑

新浪公司 版权所有