意識形態與投資：為什麼美國不搞基礎設施建設 -保羅·克魯格曼

【美國基礎設施日漸破敗，令諾貝爾經濟學獎得主克魯格曼追憶起當年的好時光。他認為，兩黨政治中的意識形態鬥爭是拖累美國基建的主要原因，共和黨控制眾議員後，美國政府的投資步履維艱。美國中期選舉已近，許多觀察者判斷共和黨有望拿下參議院，使奧巴馬政府徹底跛腳。美國基礎設施建設的前景可能更為黯淡。】

前人栽樹，後人乘涼。曾幾何時，美國也懂得這個道理。過去，政府直接出資建設了伊利運河、州際公路系統等公共工程，為經濟增長打下了堅實的基礎。除此之外，政府還向私人部門提供激勵政策，比如撥地修建鐵路等。無論以哪種方式，政府都對有益民生的投資給予了大力支持。

但現在，即使投資的需求已迫在眉睫，即使上佳的機會擺在面前，我們也不會投資。不要再用“政治機能障礙”之類模稜兩可的詞語詭辯，為罪魁禍首開脱責任。美國無法投資，不是華盛頓方面出了問題；破壞性的意識形態已在共和黨佔據主流，這才是根本原因。

先了解一點背景資料：自房地產泡沫破滅至今，已過去七年有餘，美國已變得儲蓄氾濫——或者更準確地説，合意儲蓄（desired savings）無處可去。房貸市場雖稍有恢復，但仍然低迷。企業雖賺取鉅額利潤，但疲軟的消費需求使它們不願投資，所以它們選擇積累現金或回購股票。銀行持有的超額準備金已近2.7萬億美元，這部分本可借出的資金處於閒置狀態。

合意儲蓄過高，投資意願太低，這種失調造成美國經濟持續低迷。要知道，你的支出就是我的收入，而我的支出則是你的收入。因此，如果大家同時削減支出，那麼每個人的收入都會下降。

顯而易見，針對這一情況，最恰當的政策是加大公共投資。美國對基礎設施的需求十分龐大，尤其是在水利和運輸方面。聯邦政府借貸的利息低得令人難以置信 ——事實上，在大部分時間裏，通脹保值債券的利率為負（目前也僅為0.4%）。因此，政策制定者不用腦子也能想到應該借貸修建公路，維護下水道系統以及改善其他基礎設施。但實際情況卻完全相反。公共建設開支僅在奧巴馬刺激政策生效初期短暫上升，接着便大幅萎縮。原因何在？

表面看來，各州政府和地方政府的財政困境是造成公共投資下降的直接原因，因為它們在公共投資中佔據着主要地位。

總的來説，根據法律規定，各州地方政府必須保持預算平衡。但在當前不景氣的經濟環境下，政府決策者們看到收入下跌、開支上升，便推遲或取消了許多建設項目，以節省現金支出。

然而，這種情況本可避免。聯邦政府只需舉手之勞，便能幫各州政府打開緊捂着的錢袋子——實際上，2009年的經濟刺激法案就包括了這樣的援助，正因如此，公共投資才出現了短暫的上升。但一旦大老黨（觀察者網注：共和黨別稱大老黨，Grand Old Party）控制了眾議院，基建項目就別想拿到一分錢。共和黨人嘴上偶爾也會提及增加支出，但他們在行動上封殺了奧巴馬政府的所有提案。

任何形式的政府支出都將遭遇壓倒性的敵視，這就是美國兩黨的意識形態之爭。一開始，共和黨反對的是那些社會民生項目，尤其是接濟窮人的項目，但隨着時間的推移，反對面越擴越大。如今，不管什麼形式，不管多麼必要，也不管經濟狀況，只要是支出，共和黨就反對。

只要翻翻眾議院的共和黨人在預算委員會主席保羅·瑞恩的領導下籤署的文件，你就能大致感受到這種意識形態的尖鋭對立。例如，2011年，他們發佈了“節流減債發展經濟”的宣言，無視高失業率，號召大幅削減開支，把“減少政府基建支出將縮減政府投資”這一説法斥為“凱恩斯主義”。（我以為這只是算術，但我懂什麼啊？）同年，《華爾街日報》發表題為“分配不當”的社論，聲稱政府每多花一分錢，私人部門的資源便多流失一分，而私人部門總能夠更好地利用這些資源。

即使支撐這些言論的經濟模式已在現實中一敗塗地；發佈這種言論的人年復一年錯誤地預測通脹失控、利率飆升，但對這些無視現實證據的人來説，一切都不重要。顯而易見，從地方公路到排水系統，大多數基建項目是私人部門現在不做，未來也不會做的。但在對私人部門的讚歌和對政府部門的罵聲當中，一切也都不重要了。

如此種種，導致今天美國已經背棄了自己的歷史。我們需要公共投資；在利率極低的今天，我們完全承擔得起這樣的投資。但我們就是不會這樣做。

（本文原載於《紐約時報》，原題“意識形態與投資”，觀察者網楊晗軼譯。點擊下一頁，查看英文原文）

 

   

Ideology and Investment

America used to be a country that built for the future. Sometimes the government built directly: Public projects, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, provided the backbone for economic growth. Sometimes it provided incentives to the private sector, like land grants to spur railroad construction. Either way, there was broad support for spending that would make us richer.

But nowadays we simply won’t invest, even when the need is obvious and the timing couldn’t be better. And don’t tell me that the problem is “political dysfunction” or some other weasel phrase that diffuses the blame. Our inability to invest doesn’t reflect something wrong with “Washington”; it reflects the destructive ideology that has taken over the Republican Party.

Some background: More than seven years have passed since the housing bubble burst, and ever since, America has been awash in savings — or more accurately, desired savings — with nowhere to go. Borrowing to buy homes has recovered a bit, but remains low. Corporations are earning huge profits, but are reluctant to invest in the face of weak consumer demand, so they’re accumulating cash or buying back their own stock. Banks are holding almost $2.7 trillion in excess reserves — funds they could lend out, but choose instead to leave idle.

And the mismatch between desired saving and the willingness to invest has kept the economy depressed. Remember, your spending is my income and my spending is your income, so if everyone tries to spend less at the same time, everyone’s income falls.

There’s an obvious policy response to this situation: public investment. We have huge infrastructure needs, especially in water and transportation, and the federal government can borrow incredibly cheaply — in fact, interest rates on inflation-protected bonds have been negative much of the time (they’re currently just 0.4 percent). So borrowing to build roads, repair sewers and more seems like a no-brainer. But what has actually happened is the reverse. After briefly rising after the Obama stimulus went into effect, public construction spending has plunged. Why?

In a direct sense, much of the fall in public investment reflects the fiscal troubles of state and local governments, which account for the great bulk of public investment.

These governments generally must, by law, balance their budgets, but they saw revenues plunge and some expenses rise in a depressed economy. So they delayed or canceled a lot of construction to save cash.

Yet this didn’t have to happen. The federal government could easily have provided aid to the states to help them spend — in fact, the stimulus bill included such aid, which was one main reason public investment briefly increased. But once the G.O.P. took control of the House, any chance of more money for infrastructure vanished. Once in a while Republicans would talk about wanting to spend more, but they blocked every Obama administration initiative.

And it’s all about ideology, an overwhelming hostility to government spending of any kind. This hostility began as an attack on social programs, especially those that aid the poor, but over time it has broadened into opposition to any kind of spending, no matter how necessary and no matter what the state of the economy.

You can get a sense of this ideology at work in some of the documents produced by House Republicans under the leadership of Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee. For example, a 2011 manifesto titled “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy” called for sharp spending cuts even in the face of high unemployment, and dismissed as “Keynesian” the notion that “decreasing government outlays for infrastructure lessens government investment.” (I thought that was just arithmetic, but what do I know?) Or take a Wall Street Journal editorial from the same year titled “The Great Misallocators,” asserting that any money the government spends diverts resources away from the private sector, which would always make better use of those resources.

Never mind that the economic models underlying such assertions have failed dramatically in practice, that the people who say such things have been predicting runaway inflation and soaring interest rates year after year and keep being wrong; these aren’t the kind of people who reconsider their views in the light of evidence. Never mind the obvious point that the private sector doesn’t and won’t supply most kinds of infrastructure, from local roads to sewer systems; such distinctions have been lost amid the chants of private sector good, government bad.

And the result, as I said, is that America has turned its back on its own history. We need public investment; at a time of very low interest rates, we could easily afford it. But build we won’t.