在另一个让人对美国经济失望的第一个季度后，许多经济政策专家再次询问：“是否有什么能够加速美国经济持续性软恢复。
这个讨论的一个层面是美国政府是否应该采取更多措施激发需求，即使这意味着承担更多的债务。鉴于美国政府已经承担了相当大的债务，我怀疑更多的债务是否会对国家和经济有利。
这里有四个我怀疑大规模债务政府支撑计划的原因。
1.缺少会奏效的有利证据
从历史上看，政府借贷和GDP没有关联性。换句话说，债务支撑的政府消费没有快速增长。在我看来，那些支持政府借贷的人应该描绘一条政府借贷和经济增长的清晰路径。
2.人口老龄化已经使政府财政吃紧
人口老龄化将在几个方面使美国经济吃紧。劳动力增长放缓将会使美国更难恢复其历史经济增长速度。另外，人口老龄化将给政府福利计划越来越大的压力，这个计划是在为了寿命较短和退休设计的。
3美国政府已经承担了过多的债务
由于经济增长放缓，美国的总债务大约在GDP的百分之百左右。这个总债务还不包括国家养老和医疗计划相关的无资金债务。
4.美国通常有过多债务
美国去杠杆化的故事并不完全准确。美国家庭的资产负债表比危机前充实了许多，金融部门也用了更少的杠杆。这也就是说，整体非金融债务从危机前的32万亿美元增加到现在的超过41万亿美元。即使为了经济增长调整之后，你也只能说美国的债务已经稳定。非金融债务占GDP的235%。尽管从2009年的最高值240%有所下降，但是从历史角度来看这些债务还是让人不安的。60年的平均值只有160%，甚至早在10年前，非金融债务还只占GDP的200%。
上面的建议并不表明没有明确目标的政府支出的机会。以基础设施支出为例，可以帮助提高美国生产力和长期增长。但是关注于中公私合作解决该国的基础设施老化不应该等同于另一个大规模刺激计划。
我的观点是，美国经济正在处于复苏和复苏之中，在第二季度或者至少在下半年增长将会加速。也就是说，我同意那些经济复苏也不可能把我们带会年增长3.5%到4%的光辉岁月。大量积累的债务不可能改变这一状况，而且可能使事情变得更糟。
Would More Government Debt Help The U.S. Economy?
Following another disappointing first quarter for the U.S. economy, many economic policy experts are once again asking: “What, if anything, can be done to accelerate the United States’ persistently soft recovery?”
One dimension of this debate is whether the U.S. government should be doing more to stir up demand, even if this means taking on more debt. Given the United States’ already sizeable existing obligations, I’m skeptical that another debt binge is in the interest of the country or the economy. Here are four reasons for my skepticism of massive, debt-fueled government stimulus.
1. There’s a lack of clear evidence it will work
Historically, there has been no correlation between government borrowing and gross domestic product (GDP) growth. In other words, debt-fueled government spending hasn’t been associated with faster growth. To my mind, the onus is on those arguing for more debt to draw a clear path between further borrowing and economic growth.
2. An aging population is already challenging government finances
An older population will challenge the U.S. economy in a number of ways. Slower work force growth will make it harder for the United States to achieve its historical growth rate. In addition, an older population will put increasing pressure on government entitlement programs, which were designed at a time of shorter lifespans and retirements.
3. There is already too much U.S. government debt
Gross U.S. federal debt is at around 100% of GDP, a level historically associated with slower growth. And this gross debt doesn’t include unfunded liabilities related to the country’s pension and medical programs.
4. America has too much debt in general
Tales of the United States “deleveraging” aren’t completely accurate. U.S. household balance sheets certainly are in much better shape than they were pre-crisis, and the financial sector is less levered. That said, overall non-financial debt in the United States has increased from $32 trillion on the eve of the financial crisis to more than $41 trillion today. Even after adjusting for the growth in the economy, the best you can say is that U.S. debt has stabilized. The ratio of non-financial debt-to-GDP is nearly 235%. While this is down a bit from the 2009 peak of 240%, debt is still disturbingly high from a historical perspective. The 60-year average is just 160% and even as recently as 10 years ago, non-financial debt was only 200% of GDP.
None of the above suggests that there isn’t an opportunity for well-targeted government spending. Infrastructure spending, for instance, could help improve U.S. productivity and long-term growth. But focused public-private partnerships to address the country’s aging infrastructure shouldn’t be synonymous with another massive stimulus program.
My view is that the U.S. economy is in the midst of a recovery, and growth should re-accelerate in the second quarter, or at least in the second half. That said, I would agree with those who argue that the recovery isn’t likely to take us back to the glory days of 3.5% to 4% annual growth. A massive build-up in debt is unlikely to change this, and it would probably make things worse.
本文翻译由兄弟财经提供: