在多数亚洲人看来，目前欧洲和美国围绕是否需要刺激举措的辩论显得有些奇怪。当中国人来到西方，会觉得这些本以为陷入停滞的经济体简直是经济天堂。毕竟，当收入达到如此高的水平，经济就算停滞也没有那么糟糕；问问日本人就知道了。但无论当前这场经济辩论如何发展，中期来看，西方国家经济的相对停滞已无可避免。
目前，全球经济似乎正出现“二次探底”，许多人（包括参与英国《金融时报》紧缩与刺激之争的专家们）认为，需要进行新一轮的刺激。但新一轮的政府支出，只能暂时支撑经济增长，同时却会加大更多主权债务危机和新兴经济体过热的风险，并将全球经济推向更高的通胀。
一些反对无限制刺激举措的论据已广为人知。过高的国家债务可能让债券市场陷入恐慌。币值可能也会因此大跌。而且，当一个经济体面临眼下这种结构性失衡之际，刺激措施对就业的影响也很小。但有一个支持紧缩政策的新论据或许更加有力：全球化使得连美国这样大型的、此前按照特殊规则运转的经济体，都表现得更像小型的、开放的经济体。
这是因为，如今全球化的主要参与者不是国家，而是跨国公司。出于成本和监管水平等因素的考虑，这些大型企业目前在全世界各地配置它们的投资和生产。由于现在企业的投资可以跨越国界，一国政府用于提振需求的支出也会“渗出”边境，流入其它国家。这种渗出效应显著削弱了任何“凯恩斯式”刺激措施的效力。简言之，要创造同等水平的增长，现在所需的成本更高，而且这种增长无法自我持续。
同样的趋势，也解释了为什么近来西方经济体日渐削弱、而新兴经济体的贸易表现却不断增强。在2008年经济严重低迷时期，许多跨国公司关闭了开设在高成本的西方国家的工厂，同时在中国等低成本国家拓展业务。因此，目前西方国家采取更多的刺激措施，对国内经济增长的影响将更为有限。但尽管如此，这仍将加大新兴经济体的通胀压力，这些经济体的平均通胀率已超过5%，而且还在不断攀升。当它们的通胀借由贸易和外汇市场传回西方国家时，后者将遭受滞胀之苦。
有人或许会辩称，新兴经济体成本不断攀升，最终将使西方重获竞争力。但这将是非常漫长的等待。西方目前的平均劳动力成本，仍比新兴经济体高出10倍以上。而后者的人口数量是前者的5倍。全球化正为西方的增长形成难以克服的阻力。因此，即使推出新的庞大刺激方案，西方仍很有可能会在十年甚至更长时间内，经历日本式的增长模式。
当然，全球化对于西方而言并非一种“双输”的主张。西方跨国公司的利润将远高于以往的水平。未来十年，西方股市有可能与其经济表现脱钩，走势良好。对于眼下正艰难应对老龄化成本的西方社会而言，这将是一大福祉。
一些人主张实施贸易保护主义，以推动西方的增长。由于失业率一直居高不下，类似的呼声将会增强。但这也不是一种解决之道，尤其是在西方企业部门可能即将走向繁荣之际，此举将会导致这些企业价值暴跌。
甚至存在这种可能：未来十年西方的生活水平将有所下降。但是，正如亚洲人所认为的那样，西方不应该只盯着增长，而忽视（收入）水平。尽管西方对亚洲的繁荣艳羡不已，但在亚洲，人们宁愿要人均收入4万美元的“停滞”，也不愿要人均4000美元的“繁荣”。由于新兴经济体未能更“有组织”地竞争，西方国家享受了数十年高水准的生活。这是一种幸事。如今，好运已经结束。再多的刺激举措也无法将其挽回。
本文作者是驻上海独立经济学家
译者/何黎
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001033753
http://www.ftchinese.com/tag/退出之争
The current debate in Europe and America over the need for stimulus seems strange to most Asians. When people from China visit the west, they see economic paradise in these supposedly stagnant economies. After all, stagnation at such a high income level isn’t so bad; just ask the Japanese. But whatever happens in the current economic debate, relative stagnation in the west is inevitable in the medium term.
At the moment the global economy appears to be double-dipping, and many (including those in this Financial Times debate) have argued for another round of stimulus. But another round of spending would support growth only temporarily, while increasing the risks of more sovereign debt crises, more overheating in emerging economies, and pushing the global economy into high inflation down the road.
There are well-known arguments against unlimited stimulus. The bond market could freak out over excessive national debt. Currency values could collapse. When an economy faces structural imbalances like now, the impact of stimulus on employment is low. But there is a new and perhaps more powerful case for austerity: globalisation has made even large economies such as America, which used to operate under special rules, behave as if they were small, open economies.
This is because the main players in today’s globalisation are not countries, but multinational companies. These large businesses now allocate investment and production across the world, taking cost and regulation levels into account. Because companies can now move their investments across borders, government spending to boost demand in one country now leaks across borders into others. This leakage dramatically decreases the effectiveness of any Keynesian stimulus. Put simply, it now costs more to produce the same growth, and the growth does not become self-sustaining.
This same trend also explains the recent pattern of weakening economies in the west and the strengthening trade performance in emerging economies. During the big downturn in 2008 many multinational companies closed factories in the high-cost west, and expanded their operations in low-cost countries such as China. Hence, today, more stimulus in the west will have a more limited growth impact at home. That said, it will increase inflationary pressure in emerging economies, where average inflation is already above 5 per cent and rising. As their inflation transmits back to the west through trade and currency market, the west will suffer stagflation.
One might argue that rising costs in the emerging economies will eventually make the west competitive again. But it will be a very long wait. The average labour cost in the west remains over 10 times higher than in the emerging economies. Emerging economies also have five times as many people as the developed economies. Globalisation is creating an insurmountable headwind for growth in the west. As a result, even with huge new stimulus, it is quite likely that the west will experience a growth pattern like Japan’s for a decade or longer.
Of course, globalisation is not a lose-lose proposition for the west. Its multinational companies will make far more than in the past. It is possible that western stock markets will decouple from their economies in the decade ahead, and fare well. This would be a big boon for the western societies that are struggling with the cost of ageing.
Some argue for trade protectionism to promote growth in the west. As high levels of unemployment persist, such calls will strengthen. But that is not a solution either, in particular because it would cause a sharp drop in the value of the west corporate sector just at a time it might be about to boom.
It is even possible that western living standards will decline in the next decade. But, as those looking from Asia will tell you, one should not focus on growth and ignore the level. While the west looks enviously at booming Asia, people here would much rather stagnate at income of $40,000 per capita than boom at $4,000. It enjoyed decades of high living standards because the emerging economies were not organised to compete. It was a lucky break. Now the luck is over. And no amount of stimulus will bring it back.
The writer is an independent economist based in Shanghai
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001033753/en
没有评论:
发表评论