只有再打一场战争有助于摆脱世界经济危机

费尔德斯坦和克鲁格曼（共济会会员）都认为：
只有再打一场战争有助于摆脱世界经济危机
────两派经济学家面对严峻就业方案对未来几年的设想
华盛顿邮报记者：迈克尔赫希    （星期二，2010年10月5日）
美国目前的经济前景是如此严峻，解决的对策完全缺乏，因此只有再打一个大规模战争，否则没有办法足以使国家走出将长期面临的高失业低增长困境。两位著名经济学家───分别属于保守派和自由派的诺贝尔奖得主保罗克鲁格曼，以及纽约时报专栏作家、哈佛大学的马丁费尔德斯坦（他曾经是里根总统的的经济顾问委员会的前主席）────在华盛顿的一个经济论坛上对未来的前景前所未见地发表以上的令人不安的共同看法。
而高盛公司的扬哈祖斯說：至少会有三分之一的经济学家对他们的意见表示赞同。他还说，他能想象的经济情况不是“很糟糕”而是“非常糟糕。”
至于恢复到充分就业，克鲁格曼说，他的估计是“基本上不会，没有什么好消息出现在地平线上。”克鲁格曼说，美国此次经济衰退所陷入的低谷是如此悲惨————“我们必须回顾日本的“失去的十年”作为美国未来的前景”参照。
克鲁格曼和费尔德斯坦，过去经常对有关财政和税收政策的政治意见相左，但这次却都一致认为华盛顿的政治瘫痪已使能刺激经济的必要的财政和货币政策失去了可能。只有高强度的“外源性 ”休克，例如一场世界大战足以打破这种循环。---克鲁格曼说这类似于 第二次世界大战中“以空前的财政扩张刺激经济的著名政策”。 “我并不认为我们有必要要对任何人发动战争， ”费尔德斯坦不无遗憾地说， “但保罗是正确的。这是我们的财政重新获得启动动力的唯一办法”。他认为，当前这次经济衰退可以类比于上一次（1931年）的经济大萧条。
双方重申了他们先前共同认为的看法，奥巴马政府对经济的刺激力度了，难以填补产出缺口。
虽然费尔德斯坦表示了一种谨慎的乐观态度，但是他认为：如果政府什么也没有做，那么世界各地的经济在美元不断贬值的下驱动，会继续下降。具有讽刺意味的是如果人们对于华盛顿经济恢复的信心不足，可能刺激各国加大出口来弥补损失。克鲁格曼和哈祖斯对此没有不同的看法，“是的，对美元信心的丧失将导致其他市场的不稳定， ”哈祖斯说，这将抵消任何经济成长的复苏进程。哈祖斯说，他估计未来的情况会“相当糟糕 ”一-因为失业率可能再次攀升，到2011年年初的几个月超过11个百分点。是否仍有可能返回2014年之前的充分就业状态？他认为可能性不到25%至30%。他所预测的 “非常坏的 ”另一种可能的进程是：在未来六至九个月发生双底衰退。
克鲁格曼还指出了另一个“灾难性情况 ”，使得战争的可能再提高50%“在未来两年内”，特别是如果预期即将举行的中期选举把机会赋予一个更加右翼的共和党。
这次讨论会由新世纪基金会、美国经济政策研究所，以及预算与政策优先研究中心举办。主要议题是 “关于预算政策，短期复苏和长期增长”。有关预算政策或长期增长的问题，与会的参加者从来没有像目前这样地悲观了。
原文链接：http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ec_20101005_5357.php
“Feldstein, Krugman Agree: Another War Would Help
Economists From Both Sides Of The Political Spectrum Envision Grim Employment Scenarios For Years To Come
by Michael Hirsh
Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010
Two wars are not enough.
America\'s economic outlook is so grim, and political solutions are so utterly absent, that only another large-scale war might be enough to lift the nation out of chronic high unemployment and slow growth, two prominent economists, a conservative and a liberal, said today.
Nobelist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, and Harvard\'s Martin Feldstein, the former chairman of President Reagan\'s Council of Economic Advisers, achieved an unnerving degree of consensus about the future during an economic forum in Washington. Their views were shared by a third economist, Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs, who said the only economic scenarios he could visualize were either \"pretty bad\" or \"very bad.\"
As far as returning to full employment, Krugman said his estimate is \"basically never. There is nothing visible on the horizon that will make that happen.\" Krugman said the United States is caught in a post-recession trough so bleak that \"we\'re going to look at Japan\'s \'lost decade\' as a success story\" by comparison.
Krugman and Feldstein, though often on opposite sides of the political fence on fiscal and tax policy, both appeared to share the view that political paralysis in Washington has rendered the necessary fiscal and monetary stimulus out of the question. Only a high-impact \"exogenous\" shock like a major war -- something similar to what Krugman called the \"coordinated fiscal expansion known as World War II\" -- would be enough to break the cycle. \"I don\'t think we\'re about to launch a war against anybody,\" Feldstein said with tongue-in-cheek regret at the left-leaning forum, \"America\'s Fiscal Choices,\" sponsored by four think tanks. \"But Paul is right. That was the fiscal move that got us out\" of the last downturn comparable to this one, the Great Depression.
Both reiterated their previously argued views that the Obama administration\'s stimulus was far too small to fill the output gap. Feldstein expressed a cautious optimism that if government did nothing, then a dramatic dollar depreciation around the world -- driven, ironically, by a lack of faith in Washington -- might boost exports and the economy. But Krugman and Hatzius appeared to disagree. \"A loss of confidence in the dollar would coincide with instability in other markets,\" Hatzius said, and that would wipe out whatever economic benefits depreciation might supply. Hatzius said the most likely of his scenarios -- the \"pretty bad\" one -- called for unemployment to climb again to somewhere over 10 percent on growth of 1 percent to 2 percent through the early months of 2011, and no return to full employment before 2014. But he gave a 25 percent to 30 percent chance that his \"very bad\" alternative could develop: a double-dip recession over the next six to nine months.
Krugman added a third \"catastrophic\" alternative involving \"a 50 percent probability of a government shutdown in the next two years,\" especially with the upcoming midterm elections expected to empower an even more right-leaning Republican Party.
The discussion -- put on by Demos, the Century Foundation, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities -- was entitled \"Budget Policy, Short-Term Recovery and Long-Term Growth.\" The participants were so caught up in the pessimism of the moment that they never got to questions about budget policy or long-term growth.“
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ec_20101005_5357.php