A SURVIVAL PLAN FOR GLOBAL CAPITALISM如何拯救全球资本主义_最新观点与文章

A SURVIVAL PLAN FOR GLOBAL CAPITALISM如何拯救全球资本主义

J. K. Galbraith wrote that 1929 stood alongside 1066, 1776, 1914, 1945 and 1989 in its importance. The world today was shaped by the efforts of governments to overcome the economic meltdown of the 1930s – and the consequences of their failures. Even if this economic crisis is not as bad as the Great Depression, it will have epoch-moulding consequences. This week the Financial Times starts a series on the Future of Capitalism. Much, however, depends on the success of next month's meeting of the Group

of 20 in London and how successful governments are at ending this worldwide crisis.

The intellectual impact of the crisis has already been colossal. The “Greenspanist” doctrine in monetary policy is in retreat. It no longer seems clear that it is easier for central banks to clean up after asset price bubbles burst than to prick them when they are small. Monetary authorities will need to be more concerned both about financial stability and global imbalances which allowed a few countries to build up vast surpluses while a few others ran yawning deficits.

Finance has already changed irrevocably. The grand investment banks which once strode alone have either collapsed, or joined the flock of retail banks. Governments are now borrowers, lenders, investors and insurers of last resort for much of the financial system. The future of finance will be determined by their efforts to disentangle themselves from the thickets of guarantees they have been forced to make. The depth of the crisis will determine how easily they manage it.

The fiscal cost of this episode is unclear. In some countries, they may be state-busting. Some nations will need to cope with extraordinary fiscal tightenings in the coming years. The domestic impact of government spending – and its geopolitical ramifications – could yet be colossal. Again, much depends on how soon the downturn ends.

There is one certainty. While recessions are inevitable, deep depressions or slumps – or whatever you call them – are neither necessary nor welcome. They destroy wealth, sap happiness and crush old certainties. What is more, increasing poverty is a grave threat to world stability and democracy. Revolutions often start as bread riots, and economically-stagnant countries make belligerent neighbours. Growth must be restarted.

In 1933, during the last comparable fight to restart the world economy, 66 governments met in London with tariffs and hackles raised. Franklin Roosevelt, newly-elected as US president, sent delegates to the “Economic and Monetary Conference”. But rather than being a staging post for recovery, the conference collapsed. The London G20 meeting must not suffer the same fate. Participants must agree on three points.

First, world demand is in freefall. Stimulus is necessary. The surplus countries with the most leeway to increase domestic spending – Japan and Germany, in particular – are not yet doing enough. They can afford to encourage serious spending and are, in any case, suffering the steepest contractions. In addition, if these habitual exporters were to become serious importers, it would be politically easier to hold back protectionism.

Second, governments must take responsibility for dealing with their financial systems. The toxicity which started in mortgage-backed securities is spreading through the world's banks as ever more assets go bad in the recession. Politicians must make sure that their banking systems are adequately capitalised and deal with the illiquid securities at the heart of this crisis.

Third, governments must agree to put aside more money for the International Monetary Fund. The recession would enter a new, dreadful chapter if a rash of financial crises broke out across eastern Europe, Asia or South America. The fund's current funds are clearly inadequate. The idea of a large issuance of SDRs – the IMF's own reserve asset – is an excellent one. Changes in voting-weights, to raise Asia's share and lower Europe's, are also both inevitable and desirable.

What matters is that there is agreement on these three issues so that politicians – even those in weak governments, as in Japan – are given the political cover to do what is necessary. A united front is, therefore, essential. Big questions about the shape of the broad future of the world economy can wait until we are certain that there is a future for globalisation. An impartial commission could be appointed to mull them over. If spats over minutiae – such as the regulation of tax havens or bankers' pay – were to stand in the way of a deal, the verdict of history would be damning. Electorates are unlikely to be more forgiving. The task now is simple: end this brutal recession.

J.K.加尔布雷斯（J.K. Galbraith）写道，1929年的重要性与1066年、1776年、1914年、1945年和1989年相当。各国政府克服上世纪30年代经济崩溃的努力——及失败的后果——塑造了当今世界。纵然本轮经济危机的严重程度不及大萧条（Great Depression），但也将产生划时代的后果。本周，英国《金融时报》推出了“资本主义的未来”系列专题。不过，这在很大程度上还将取决于下个月20国集团（G20）伦敦峰会的成功与否，以及各国政府终结本轮全球性危机的成功程度。

本轮危机的学术影响已相当巨大。货币政策中的“格林斯潘主义”（Greenspanist）学说开始退避。相比于在资产价格泡沫仍不成规模时就戳破它，央行在泡沫破灭后再整顿市场的难度较小——这种说法看上去不再有把握。货币当局将需要更担心金融稳定性和全球失衡——让少数国家得以构建巨额盈余，而其他一些国家则出现巨额赤字。

金融的改变已无可挽回。曾经独自阔步前行的庞大投资银行，要么业已倒闭，要么加入了零售银行的行列。对金融体系的许多机构而言，政府如今成了最后借款人、贷款人、投资者和保险商。金融的未来将取决于各国政府把自己从被迫提供的错综复杂的担保中解脱出来的努力。而危机的严重程度将决定它们实现这一目标的难易程度。

这段插曲的财政代价尚不明朗。在一些国家，或许能让政府破产。另一些国家需要在未来数年应对非同寻常的财政紧缩。政府支出的国内影响——及其地缘政治后果——可能会相当大。此外，这在很大程度上有赖于经济衰退终结的早晚。

有一点毫无疑问。尽管经济衰退不可避免，但深度萧条或不景气——无论人们怎么称呼——既没有必要，也不受欢迎。它们摧毁了财富，吞噬了幸福，破坏了旧的确定性。更有甚者，日愈加深的贫困对全球稳定和民主是一个重大威胁。革命往往从民生问题开始，而经济停滞的国家喜欢挑起与邻国的战争。经济必须恢复增长。

1933年——在上一次规模相当的恢复全球经济增长的战斗期间——66国政府齐聚伦敦，关税和怒气同样高涨。新当选的美国总统富兰克林•罗斯福（Franklin Roosevelt）派出代表参加此次“经济和货币会议”。但尚未成为经济复苏的预备站，会议就破裂了。伦敦20国峰会决不能遭遇相同的命运。与会者必须就以下三点达成一致。

首先，全球需求在直线下降。刺激措施很有必要。最有余地增加国内支出的顺差国家——特别是日本和德国——目前做得还不够。它们能够鼓励严肃的支出，而且不管怎样，它们正经受着最急剧的收缩。此外，如果这些常规出口国变成重要的进口国，那么抵制保护主义的政治难度就会下降。

其次，政府必须承担起解决金融体系问题的责任。随着更多资产在衰退中不断成为不良资产，始于抵押担保证券的毒性在通过全球各地的银行蔓延。政客们务必要保证其银行体系资本充足，解决作为本场危机核心的缺乏流通性的证券。

第三，各国政府必须赞同为国际货币基金组织（IMF）拨备更多资金。如果东欧、亚洲或南美相继突然爆发金融危机，那么本轮衰退将进入一个可怕的新篇章。IMF目前的储备显然不充足。大量发行特别提款权（SDR）——IMF自有的储备资产——的主意相当出色。同样，改变投票权重——提升亚洲比重，而降低欧洲比重——既是不可避免的，也是可取的。

重要的是要就此三个问题达成一致，从而给予政客们（甚至在日本等弱政府中）采取必要行动的政治幌子。因此，建立统一战线很有必要。有关世界经济广阔前景的重大问题可以暂时搁置，直到我们确定全球化还有未来。可以指派一个公正的委员会，反复思量这些问题。如果对细枝末节——例如对避税天堂或银行家薪酬的监管——的纠缠会阻碍协议，那么历史的裁决将是毁灭性的。选民不大可能会更加仁慈。眼下的任务很简单：终结这场严酷的衰退。