美國經(jīng)濟恢復(fù)四大怪現(xiàn)象
|
????究竟是什么一直在阻礙美國經(jīng)濟的恢復(fù),？恐怕我們一時很難準(zhǔn)確地指出癥結(jié)所在。經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和媒體一般喜歡用“大蕭條”這個詞來形容從2008年房地產(chǎn)市場崩盤之后（直至今日）美國經(jīng)濟的慘狀,。這表明他們認為這次經(jīng)濟危機和以往的經(jīng)濟蕭條并沒有什么區(qū)別,，只不過是更加嚴重一些而已。 ????眼下經(jīng)濟恢復(fù)再度步履維艱，美國金融體系更是接近崩潰,。不過哈佛大學(xué)（Harvard University）經(jīng)濟學(xué)家肯思斯?羅高夫指出,，今天的經(jīng)濟恢復(fù)可以說是一次“大緊縮”，這次金融海嘯的余震無論從哪方面看,，都不像是一場典型的經(jīng)濟蕭條,。 ????本月早些時候，羅高夫在《評論匯編》（Project Syndicate）雜志中撰文稱：“在傳統(tǒng)的經(jīng)濟蕭條期里,，一旦經(jīng)濟開始重新增長,，就意味著不久之后，經(jīng)濟將以較快的速度返回常態(tài),。經(jīng)濟不僅會收復(fù)失地,，而且一般來說，一年之內(nèi),，就會追趕上它的長期增長趨勢,。” ????這場大蕭條兩年前就正式結(jié)束了,。不過今年上半年,，美國經(jīng)濟的增幅幾乎為零。上周美聯(lián)儲（Federal Reserve）主席本?伯南克在懷俄明州的杰克森霍爾發(fā)表了一個演講,，承認市場之所以疲弱不振，其根本癥結(jié)并不是靠央行的力量就能解決?，F(xiàn)在華盛頓的立法者們必須站出來,，給經(jīng)濟復(fù)蘇注入活力。 ????談到下一步該怎么辦,，國會議員們可能頗感束手無策,。不過議員們也許有必要研究一下本次經(jīng)濟恢復(fù)與以往歷次經(jīng)濟危機有哪些不同之處，以此作為切入點,。 ????企業(yè)長期投資：自1949年以來,，建筑行業(yè)一直是推動經(jīng)濟恢復(fù)的主要因素之一。興建樓宇和廠房不僅可以幫助企業(yè)擴大產(chǎn)能,，而且總體經(jīng)濟中也會新增不少工作崗位,。因為每修建一棟樓，就必要有人負責(zé)接單,、倉儲,、運輸?shù)鹊裙ぷ鳌?/p> ????歷次經(jīng)濟危機結(jié)束時，企業(yè)的投資都會激增,，只有這次是個例外,。眼下并沒有多少新工廠破土動工，企業(yè)也沒有吃進多少商業(yè)地產(chǎn)。據(jù)美國進步中心（Center for American Progress）介紹,，自從金融海嘯爆發(fā)以來,，企業(yè)的投資一直保持低位運行，平均只占GDP的10.3%,，這是自上世紀70年代以來所有經(jīng)濟周期中最低的一次,。 ????事實上，標(biāo)普500企業(yè)中的非金融類企業(yè)共持有1.1萬億美元現(xiàn)金和短期投資,，可見美國的大企業(yè)并不是無錢投資,。那么美國企業(yè)捂緊錢袋子的原因到底是什么？ ????前美聯(lián)儲主席艾倫?格林斯潘最近接受《金融時報》（The Financial Times）采訪時指出：“在這次經(jīng)濟恢復(fù)時期里,，企業(yè)為什么不肯投資于長期資產(chǎn),？也就是說他們?yōu)槭裁床豢献龀?0年以上的投資？原因主要是當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟中存在著很大的不確定性因素,?！?/p> ????格林斯潘敦促華盛頓的立法者和決策層不要對經(jīng)濟進行干預(yù)，讓經(jīng)濟依靠自身的力量進行自愈,。不過增長緩慢和高失業(yè)率帶來的痛苦讓很多人來難以忍受,。此外，“無為而治”的做法在政治上也是不受歡迎之舉,，更何況2012年的總統(tǒng)大選已經(jīng)迫在眉睫,。 |
|
|
????It's hard to pinpoint exactly what has continued to hamper the U.S. economy. Economists and the media have popularly adopted the term "The Great Recession" to describe all that's gone wrong since the housing market collapsed several years ago, implying that Americans have just come out of a typical recession that, if anything, was only more severe. ????Needless to say, the near implosion of the U.S. financial system was severe. But as Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff has pointed out, the recovery today is something that can only be called "The Great Contraction," suggesting that the aftermath of a financial crisis does not look anything close to that of a typical recession. ????"In a conventional recession, the resumption of growth implies a reasonably brisk return to normalcy," Rogoff wrote earlier this month in Project Syndicate. "The economy not only regains its lost ground, but, within a year, it typically catches up to its rising long-run trend." ????The recession officially ended more than two years ago. And yet, during the first half of this year, the economy barely grew. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledging in his speech in Jackson Hole, Wyo., last week that the problems plaguing the marketplace are beyond the powers of the central bank, it becomes all the more important for Washington lawmakers to help reboot the economy. ????Members of Congress might be scratching their heads over what to do next, but perhaps as a starting point, members should look at how this recovery is different from previous ones. ????Long-term business investment: Since 1949, construction has been a major component driving economic recoveries. Not only does construction of new buildings and factories help make companies become more productive, but it also creates jobs for the overall economy as each order of concrete, for instance, demands workers to do everything from taking the order to delivering it from the warehouse to the building site. ????But unlike the end of other recessions when business investment surged, companies today aren't building many new factories or buying up much commercial real estate. Business investment has continued at a slow place, averaging 10.3% of GDP since the start of the latest recession – the lowest average for any business cycle since the 1970s, according to the Center for American Progress. ????Given that S&P 500's non-financial companies altogether hold more than $1.1 trillion in cash and short-term investments, it's not as if America's biggest companies don't have the money to invest. So what's to blame for the pullback in spending? ????"It's a question of why is it that we no longer in a recovery can fund long-term assets –basically 20 years or more – and the answer essentially is that there's a huge element of uncertainty in this economy," former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a recent interview with The Financial Times. ????Greenspan has urged Washington lawmakers and policymakers to stand aside and let the economy heal on its own. However, the pains of slow growth and high unemployment might be too much for many to endure. What's more, doing nothing would certainly be politically unpopular especially given the 2012 presidential election. |
