诺奖得主:现在的经济框架所基于的理念都是错的!
发布日期:2020-07-03

对话2001年诺贝尔经济学奖得主约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨

像匽文化传播有限公司

本文为钻研局与罗汉堂说相符出品的《新经济思维系列》文章,未经授权请勿转载

·聚焦国际思维市场·解析财经音信炎点·对话国际经济学行家

精彩弹幕,尽在客户端 

现在经济框架基于这一信心,即减税、解放化、金融全球化、贸易解放化可促进经济更快添长,并增补每幼我的福祉。现在吾们认识到这些想法是舛讹的。当今世界面临着多栽题目的荟萃,其中很多题目相互有关。这是吾们的政治制度迄今未能有效答对的真实挑衅。吾们的经济添长放缓,经济添长不足安详,这在2008年至2009年的危险中得到了表明。

有限的经济添长收获异国被普及分享,于是很大一片面人的收好凝滞不前,甚至消极。这在社会或政治层面上一定是不可不息的。吾们看到,不屈等亲善候转折题目日好添剧,在机器人自动化的趋势下,吾们忧郁闷是否还能创造有余就业机会。倘若不克解决这些题目,就会产生主要的效果。

其中一个基本的舛讹是所谓的涓滴经济学,该理论从来异国真实成为标准经济理论的一片面,但却成为很多银走,稀奇是发展中国家制定经济政策的关键思维。那就是,只要经济得到发展,每幼我都会受好。吾们清新原形并非如此。你能够能够说这个概念的推论,即全球化自己会促进经济添长,每幼我都会更好。

实际上,经济理论在声援解放贸易方面更为相符理。例如,很多年前吾曾指出,倘若风险市场不完善,贸易全球化的风险就会增补。其效果是,所有国家的每幼我的生活都能够变得更糟。这意味着,在盛开市场之前,你答该确保市场运转卓异。另一多所周知,但政策制定者并未谈到的题目是,就业机会的缩短速度能够快于就业机会的创造速度。倘若资本市场运走欠安,这一点就尤其切确,而资本市场从来都不完善。

如上所说,当局在促进创造就业机会,和协助人们从被镌汰的做事岗位迁移到正在创造的新做事岗位方面,发挥偏主要作用。兴味的是,稀奇是在像美国云云的国家,那些推动解放化的人,同时还指斥协助人们进走调整的声援。倘若不云云做,每幼我的生活都会变得更糟,或者经济添长会受到窒碍。现在主要指斥的是,既有认知并异国得到偏重。例如,对吾们理解贸易最主要的贡献之一是保罗·萨缪尔森及其同事挑出的一系列定理。这些定理外明,在发达国家,解放化、贸易全球化会降矮非技术工人的收好。当他们推动贸易全球化时,甚至异国人挑到这一点。这一理论晦涩难解,他们异国注释其中的舛讹。原形表明,这一理论相符理的地方不多。此外,还有一系列其他谬论,同样不是基于吾所说的当代经济科学,但被普及批准。片面因为在于:人们行使了浅易化的模型。

另一个例子是,市场是高效的。吾和同事布鲁斯·格林沃尔德对经济学的贡献之一就是表明,只要信息偏差称或风险市场不健全,市场清淡就不高效。吾们清新,市场既不高效,也担心详。然而,政策制定者和很多经济学家的做法好像是,“经济学通知吾们,市场总是高效且安详的。”吾按照吾活着界银走担任始席经济学家的不都雅察写了一本书,名为《全球化及其不悦》,吾指出,发展中国家和新兴市场对全球化的不悦实际上是相符理的。

现在吾们从特朗普和美国的珍惜主义者那里听到,全球化对美国不公平。但是全球化怎么会对发展中的新兴国家不幸,对美国也不幸呢?怎么会发展中国家和美国都不悦呢?倘若每幼我都指斥,为什么全球化还在进走?有一个很浅易的答案,那就是企业。企业发展的影响是,降矮美国工资程度,但实在协助很多发展中国家的人脱离拮据。这个过程要受盈余欲看驱动。例如知识产权,增补了大制药公司的收好,就义了活着界各地患者获得救命药物的机会。

全球化异国发挥答有作用的因为之一是,治理全球化的规则是为了公司的益处而制定。吾们必要重写全球化规则,例如全球贸易的规则,使之有利于公民。解决对全球化不悦的一栽手段是,挑出一个理念,即有赔偿方案的全球化,或引入社会保障的全球化。这隐晦很有必要。吾们异国挑供答该挑供的社会保障,吾认为这在政治上不再可信。人们并不真的有信心,也不再坚信岂论怎样吾们都会得到保障。

吾们有民主制度,当共和党掌权时,合作伙伴他们会裁减那些已经挑出的社会保障付出开支。倘若吾们要在全球化的基础上真实实现不息的经济添长,就要拥抱能够胁迫就业的技术变革。吾们必须对经济系统进走更深入的改革,竖立新的社会契约,确保添长具有容纳性,确保共享蓬勃。因此,这统统必须从根本上与吾们的经济系统运作手段厉密相连。

English Version:

It was widely accepted that the current economic framework which was predicated on the belief that lowering taxes, liberalization, financial globalization and trade liberalization would lead to faster economic growth and to increase everybody's well being. However, peopleare now realized that those ideas were wrong. To be more specifically, the world today is facing a confluence of several problems and many of which are interrelated. Those are some real challenges that so far our political system has not been able to address effectively. These days the economic growth has been slower and less stable, just as the same situation evidenced by the 2008 and 2009 financial crisis. Because the fruits of what limited economic growth were not widely shared, consequently, large fractions of the population saw their incomes stagnated or even decline. This may even socially or politically hurt the sustainability of the whole world. Nowadays, people can see it in the growing inequality, the problems of climate change and so on. They even worry about whether human beings will be able to create enough jobs with robotization. In other words, the challenges are far more serious than we previously thought.

One of the fundamental fallacies was a notion called trickle down economics, which was never really a part of a standard economic theory. Unfortunately, it became a key idea of economic policy formation in banks and countries in many developing countries. The main idea of this theory was that everybody will be benefited only if the economy was in growth statement and we know that is not true. Some people may hold there were corollaries of this notion that globalization would itself lead to the growth of economies so that everybody would be better off. In fact, the economic theory was much more qualified in its endorsement of free trade. For instance, once I showed that if risk markets were imperfect, there would be lots of increasing risks for trade globalization. Consequently, everybody around the world could be worse off. Most importantly, before liberalizing, a country ought to think about making sure the market is working well.

Another example ,which was well known but yet not talked about by policy makers, was the fact that job destruction could occur faster than job creation. That would be particularly true if capital markets didn't work well, and it seems like they never were perfect. There was an important role for government to both facilitate job creation and help peoplemove from the jobs that were being destroyed to the new jobs that were being created. Interestingly, particularly in countries like the United States, those who were pushing for liberalization, said the republican party at the same time opposed assistance that would have helped people make the adjustment. Actually,everybody could be worse off or growth could be hindered in the absence of that.

Today much of what the criticism is that what was known was not emphasized. For instance, one of the most important contributions in our understanding of trade were a series of theorems claimed by Paul Samuelson and some of his associates. The theorems show that in advance countries, liberalization and trade globalization would lower the incomes ofunskilled workers. However, no one even mentioned this when they were pushing for trade globalization. Although those were arcane theories, they didn't even explain what was wrong with the theories. In fact, it turned out that those theories are no more than a grain of truths. Certainly, there existed a wholeset of other fallacies of that were not based on modern economic science as well. The reason why they were widely held was mainly because that people were using simplistic models when explaining economic scenarios.

The last example is that markets are efficient. One of my contributions to economics with my colleague Bruce Greenwald was that we found whenever information was imperfect asymmetry or risk markets were incomplete, the markets are not always in general efficient. We have known that markets are neither efficient nor stable, yet policy makers and many economists have always said that "economics taught us that markets were always efficient and stable."

Once I wrote a book called 《Globalization and its Discontents》, based on what I've seen as chief economist of the World Bank, suggesting that the discontent for one sows globalization in the developing countries and emerging markets was in fact justified. Now we heard from Trump and protectionists inAmerica that globalization was unfair to the United States. How can globalization be bad for developing emerging countries and even for the United States? If everybody is against it, why is globalization still proceeding as it was? The simple answer was a corporate agenda. It was an agenda that had the effect of lowering wages in the United States, which did help many people move out of poverty in the developing countries, but yet driven mainly by the desires to increase profits. We can see it clearly when looking at the intellectual property agenda, which has increased the profits of big pharma at the expense of access to life saving medicines all over the world. One of the reasons that globalization has not worked as well as it should have worked is that the rules governing globalization have been written to benefit the corporate interests. We need to rewrite the rules of globalization. For instance, rewriting the rules of global trade in ways that can work for the advantage of citizens.

Personally speaking, I think one approach to solve the discontents toward globalization is an idea that has been put forward, which is called globalization with compensation or globalization with somesocial protection. That's clearly necessary since governments didn't provide the social protection that they should have provided to people. But politically that is no longer credible, for people don't really feel confident that, no matter what we say, the social protection will actually be provided. When the republicans get in power, they will cut back those kinds of social protections that have been put forward under the democratic system. If we really want to have sustained economic growth based on globalization and get ready of welcoming oftechnical change that can threaten jobs, we have to have a deeper reform in oureconomic system. That is, make a new social contract that ensures the growth isinclusive, and the world can share its prosperity. So it has to be much more fundamentally wired into the way our economic system works.

作者简介:

约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨,美国经济学家,美国哥伦比亚大私塾级教授(University Professor),哥伦比亚大学政策对话倡议机关(Initiativefor Policy Dialogue)主席。他于1979年获得约翰·贝茨·克拉克奖(John BatesClark Medal),2001年获得诺贝尔经济学奖,他的主要贡献使得IPCC获得2007年诺贝尔和平奖。1993年至1997年,美国总统经济顾问委员会成员及主席,1997年至1999年,任世界银走资深副走长兼始席经济学家。2011至2014年,任国际经济学协会主席。

智通财经APP讯,万科企业(02202)发布公告,根据中国证券登记结算有限责任公司深圳分公司提供的数据,“17万科02”的回售数量为9999997张,回售金额999999700元(不包含利息),本次有效回售后剩余未回售数量为3张。

原标题:“江姐”于蓝去世,时代会过去,但精神永不落幕

渭南市产业投资开发集团有限公司(以下简称“我公司”)已经国家发展和改革委员会发改企业债券〔2018〕93号文件批准同意发行不超过12亿元公司债券(以下简称“本次债券”)。我公司已于2019年4月发行第一期6亿元债券,原定于2020年4月30日簿记发行“2020年第一期渭南市产业投资开发集团有限公司公司债券”,后因市场原因,经与簿记管理人开源证券股份有限公司协商一致,我公司推迟债券发行。

(原标题:纳指大涨近4%亚马逊创新高,美国航空业救助协议达成一致)

上一篇:原创2021款大多CC亮相!内饰终于大变样,比想象中更时兴
下一篇:成年人不忍直视的脑内运动

主页    |     联系我们    |     产品分类    |     合作伙伴    |     公司动态    |    

Powered by 陪竭集团有限公司 @2018 RSS地图 html地图

Copyright 365建站 © 2013-2018 版权所有