| 查看: 451 | 回复: 2 | |||
gongtianyu铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
Neville Chamberlain was Right
|
|
Neville Chamberlain is remembered today as the British prime minister who, as an avatar of appeasement of Nazi Germany in the late 1930’s, helped to usher Europe into World War II. But, earlier in that fateful decade, relatively soon after the start of the Great Depression, the British economy was rapidly returning to its previous level of output, thanks to Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain’s reliance on fiscal stimulus to restore the price level to its pre-depression trajectory. Compare that approach to the expansion-through-austerity policy being pursued nowadays by British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government (with Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne leading the cheering squad). The country’s real GDP has flat-lined, and the odds are high that British real GDP is headed down again. Indeed, in less than a year, if current forecasts are correct, Britain’s Cameron-Osborne Depression will not merely be the worst depression in Britain since the Great Depression, but probably the worst depression in Britain…ever. That is quite an accomplishment. As Phillip Inman of The Guardian recently put it: “[T]he UK’s plan for recovery from the financial crisis was based on a full-throttle recovery in 2012....[C]onsumer confidence, business investment, and general spending would converge to send the economy on a trajectory of above-average growth.” It did not work: government ministers “have done what the right-wing economists told them to do and moved out of the way – the theory being that public-sector spending and investment was ‘crowding out’ the private sector.” Instead, as Inman says, “Spain is showing the way with its austerity-driven recession. Where the weak tread, we [in Britain] look keen to follow...” The failure of expansionary austerity in Britain should give all of its advocates around the world reason to reflect on and rethink their policy calculations. Britain is a highly open economy with a flexible exchange rate and some room for further monetary easing. There is no risk or default premium baked into British interest rates to indicate that fear of political-economic chaos down the road is discouraging investment. There is an argument – not necessarily true, but an argument nonetheless – that, while in office from 1997 to May 2010, the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown overshot long-term sustainable government spending as a share of GDP. Their actions stand in contrast to countries that reduced their debt-to-GDP levels in the 2000’s, and to the United States, where the problem was not excessive spending but insufficient taxation under the Bush administration. Yet, if one takes this view seriously, Britain, with a ten-year nominal interest rate of less than 2.1% per year, should already be in a boom. If there was ever a place where expansionary austerity should work well – where private investment and exports should stand up as government purchases stood down, confirming its advocates’ view of the world – it is Britain today. But Britain today is not that place. And if expansionary austerity is not working in Britain, how well can it possibly work in countries that are less open, that can’t use the exchange-rate channel to boost exports, and that lack the long-term confidence that investors and businesses have in Britain? Nick Clegg, Britain’s deputy prime minister and the leader of Cameron’s coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, should end this farce today. He ought to tell Queen Elizabeth II that his party has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government, and humbly suggest that she ask Labour Party leader Ed Miliband to form a new one. To be sure, if Clegg did this, his political career would probably be finished, and his party’s electoral prospects would be damaged for a long time to come. But Clegg’s political career and his party’s fortunes will be shaky for a long time to come in any case, given the economic hardship that Britain is enduring (and will continue to endure). At least defection from the ill-advised Conservative-Liberal coalition now would benefit his country. Policymakers elsewhere in the world take note: starving yourself is not the road to health, and pushing unemployment higher is not a formula for market confidence. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
今天系统多次维护，明天很可能放榜！
已经有5人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有74人回复
-
岩土工程学报什么时候才能终审完呐
已经有4人回复
-
时间戳又变了8-15
已经有25人回复
-
2027广东省杰青
已经有6人回复
-
快农历七夕节了，轻松一下，男人悄悄话，女施主请不要进来。
已经有3人回复
-
哪位老哥知道今年的国自然具体哪一天放榜？
已经有9人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有26人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有16人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有12人回复
gongtianyu
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 6568.5
- 红花: 28
- 帖子: 357
- 在线: 355小时
- 虫号: 956323
- 注册: 2010-02-19
- 专业: 创新管理
|
There is an argument – not necessarily true, but an argument nonetheless – that, while in office from 1997 to May 2010, the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown overshot long-term sustainable government spending as a share of GDP. Their actions stand in contrast to countries that reduced their debt-to-GDP levels in the 2000’s, and to the United States, where the problem was not excessive spending but insufficient taxation under the Bush administration. Yet, if one takes this view seriously, Britain, with a ten-year nominal interest rate of less than 2.1% per year, should already be in a boom. If there was ever a place where expansionary austerity should work well – where private investment and exports should stand up as government purchases stood down, confirming its advocates’ view of the world – it is Britain today. But Britain today is not that place. And if expansionary austerity is not working in Britain, how well can it possibly work in countries that are less open, that can’t use the exchange-rate channel to boost exports, and that lack the long-term confidence that investors and businesses have in Britain? |
2楼2012-02-01 01:34:51
★
小木虫(金币+0.2):抢了个小板凳，给个红包
小木虫(金币+0.2):抢了个小板凳，给个红包
 |
3楼2012-02-01 04:46:51
25
