奧巴馬挽救了美國經濟,但犯下一個大錯

How should we assess the economic success or failure of Barack Obama’s presidency?

我們如何評價巴拉克?奧巴馬(Barack Obama)擔任總統期間在經濟方面的成功或失敗呢？

This is a difficult question to answer. After all, the incumbent of the White House cannot determine the performance of the huge and complex US economy. Indeed, policy initiatives usually have a modest impact. But the story of Mr Obama’s presidency is a little different from the usual, since it began amid the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. If we consider the disaster he inherited and the determination of the Republicans in Congress to ensure he would fail, his record is clearly successful. This does not mean it is perfect. Nor does it mean the US confronts few economic challenges. Neither statement would be close to correct. Yet it does mean he has laid a strong foundation.

這個問題很難回答。畢竟，坐鎮白宮之人決定不了龐大而複雜的美國經濟的表現。事實上，政策舉措通常只會產生一定程度的影響。但奧巴馬的總統任期與歷屆略有不同，因爲他走馬上任的時候，美國處於自上世紀30年代以來最嚴重的金融危機期間。如果我們考慮到他初上任時要面對這場災難以及國會共和黨人決心要讓他一敗塗地，那麼他任內的作爲明顯是成功的。這不等於說他取得的功績是完美的，也不是說美國如今面臨的經濟挑戰很少——這兩種說法都距離正確甚遠。不過這確實意味着他打下了堅實的基礎。

The latest Economic Report of the President analyses the Obama record. It is also the brief for the defence. But Mr Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers does first-rate analysis. This report is no exception to that rule.

最近一份《總統經濟報告》(Economic Report of the President)分析了奧巴馬在任內取得的成績。這也是一篇簡略的辯護報告。但奧巴馬的經濟顧問委員會(US Council of Economic Advisers)往往會做出一流的分析。該報告也不例外。

The starting point must be with Mr Obama’s inheritance: the economy was in free fall in early 2009. As the report notes, perfectly correctly: “It is easy to forget how close the US economy came to an outright depression during the crisis. Indeed, by a number of macroeconomic measures?.?.?.?the first year of the Great Recession?.?.?.?saw larger declines than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30.”

出發點必然是奧巴馬剛接手時的情況：2009年初美國經濟呈自由落體式下滑。該報告完全正確地提到：“我們很容易忘記美國經濟在這次危機期間是多麼接近徹底蕭條。的確，從多個宏觀經濟指標來看……大衰退(Great Recession)的第一年……經歷了比1929-1930年大蕭條伊始更嚴重的衰退。”

Responsibility for the successful recovery does not rest with this administration alone: the administration of George W Bush was responsible for the immediate response (though bearing some responsibility for the severity of the crisis); the US Federal Reserve acted effectively; and Congress passed important legislation. Yet, shockingly, most congressional Republicans opposed all significant monetary, financial and fiscal actions taken to deal with the crisis.

成功實現經濟復甦的責任不只落在這屆政府身上：小布什(George W Bush)政府作出了快速反應（儘管該政府對危機的嚴重性也負有部分責任）；美聯儲(Fed)採取了有效行動；國會通過了重要法案。不過，令人震驚的是，大多數共和黨議員反對貨幣、金融和財政方面一切爲了解決危機的重大措施。

The Obama administration implemented a number of important fiscal measures, notably the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It also provided strong moral support for the Fed (including the reappointment of Ben Bernanke, who had been President Bush’s nominee). The administration also restored the financial sector faster than expected and carried out a highly successful rescue of the car industry.

奧巴馬政府實施了一系列重要財政措施，特別是2009年出臺的《美國復甦與再投資法案》(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act)。這屆政府也爲美聯儲提供了有力的精神支持（包括讓小布什總統提名的本?伯南克(Ben Bernanke)接着擔任美聯儲主席）。奧巴馬政府還以超出預期的速度復甦了金融業，並且極其成功地拯救了汽車產業。

Meanwhile, Republicans decried the fiscal stimulus, complaining about the huge fiscal deficits caused by the crisis. Yet it was as absurd to complain about deficits then as it is to slash taxes now, when the economy seems close to full employment. Some Republicans claimed Fed policies risked hyperinflation. Most opposed the re-regulation of the financial sector and savaged the bailout of the car industry. Yet President-elect Donald Trump might not be in a position to bully automakers today if they had not been rescued back then.

另一方面，共和黨人則指責財政刺激措施，抱怨危機造成鉅額財政赤字。不過，在當時抱怨赤字，與如今在經濟看似接近充分就業狀態之際削減稅收一樣荒謬。一些共和黨人聲稱美聯儲政策有造成惡性通脹的風險。大多數共和黨人反對重新加強金融業監管，也強烈抨擊汽車業紓困計劃。不過，如果當時政府沒救助汽車行業的話，當選總統唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)如今或許也就無法威脅汽車製造商了。

In all, given the starting point, the performance of the economy has been remarkable. The unemployment rate has consistently fallen faster than expected. US business has also added 15.6m jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in 2010. Real wage growth has been faster in the present cycle than in any since the early 1970s. In the third quarter of 2016, the economy was 11.5 per cent bigger than at its pre-crisis peak and real gross domestic product per head was 4 per cent above the pre-crisis peak, while that of the eurozone was still below it. Household net worth has also reached 50 per cent above its 2008 level.

總而言之，考慮到這樣的起點，美國經濟在奧巴馬任內的表現是相當不錯的。失業率比預期更快地持續下滑。自2010年私營部門就業實現正增長以來，美國商業領域增加了1560萬個工作崗位。當前週期的實際工資增長速度，超過自上世紀70年代以來任何一個週期。2016年第三季度，美國經濟規模比危機前峯值擴大了11.5%，人均實際國內生產總值(GDP)比危機前峯值高4%，而歐元區人均實際GDP仍然低於危機前峯值。家庭淨資產也比2008年的水平增長了50%。

Yet Mr Obama was interested in more than economic recovery. He tried to move the US closer to the universal health insurance taken for granted in other high-income countries. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has added an estimated 20m adults and 3m children to the insurance rolls. Healthcare costs have also grown exceptionally slowly since the law was enacted, relative to past US performance.

不過，奧巴馬關心的不只是經濟復甦。他試圖讓美國更接近於實現全民醫保，這種醫療保障制度在其他高收入國家被認爲是理所應當的。《平價醫療法案》（Affordable Care Act，也稱“奧巴馬醫改”）據估計讓2000萬成人和300萬兒童上了醫療保險。自該法案頒佈以來，相對於過去，醫療費用增長也非常緩慢。

These are all genuine achievements. Yet some problems could not be cured.

這些都是實實在在的成績。不過也有些問題無法解決：

First, US economic outcomes have become exceptionally unequal, despite a modestly progressive shift in the impact of fiscal policy under Mr Obama. Doing something effective about this was beyond his powers, both because it is difficult and because his opponents had no interest in helping.

第一，美國經濟成果的分配變得非常不平等，儘管奧巴馬任內財政政策所產生的影響出現輕微進步的轉變。在這方面採取切實有效的行動超出他的力量範圍，既是因爲難度很大，也因爲他的對手們一點都不想出力幫忙。

Second, the participation in the labour force of prime-aged males (25 to 45) has been on a 60-year downward trend, while that of prime-aged females has flatlined for three decades. This is a poor performance by the standards of most high-income economies. It is impossible to argue credibly that this is the result of particularly generous US welfare benefits or particularly high minimum wages. The failure is deeper.

第二，青年男性（25歲至45歲）勞動參與率的下滑態勢已延續60年，而青年女性的勞動參與率30年來保持平坦。以大多數高收入經濟體的標準來看，這是很糟糕的。認爲這是由美國特別慷慨的福利制度、或特別高的最低薪資標準造成的觀點並不可信。失敗緣於更深層次的原因。

Third, growth of labour productivity has slowed sharply, though it was still higher than in other members of the Group of Seven leading high-income countries between 2005 and 2015. The reasons for this slowdown are a puzzle. Possibilities include the post-crisis weakening of business investment and a broader post-crisis loss of animal spirits. It is also likely that the underlying rate of innovation is slowing. Some argue that this is the result of excessive regulation. The next administration is set to test that hypothesis to destruction.

第三，美國勞動生產率增長大幅放緩，儘管在2005年至2015年期間仍然高於七國集團(G7)其他成員國。放緩原因成謎。可能的因素包括後危機時期企業投資疲軟和動物精神廣泛缺失，也可能是由於基本的創新速度放緩。還有一些人認爲這是過度監管的結果。下屆政府將驗證這種假設不成立。

Finally, the US has a key role to play in tackling the threat of unmitigated climate change. In the absence of any consensus on this question in the US, Mr Obama relied on executive actions, which will now presumably be reversed.

最後，美國在應對嚴峻氣候變化所帶來的威脅方面應扮演關鍵角色。由於美國國內在該問題上沒有形成任何共識，奧巴馬依靠的是行政命令，而這些今後想必將被推翻。

In all, the administration rescued the US economy and bequeathed a sound foundation for its successor to build on. But it made a big mistake: it did not go all out to punish those whose malfeasance and irresponsibility blew up the financial system and economy. This sense of injustice is one reason why the US has elected the wrecking crew that is about to take office. Mr Obama could not channel rage. Mr Trump, alas, can.

總之，奧巴馬政府挽救了美國經濟，給繼任者留下了一個堅實的基礎。但這屆政府也犯下了一個重大錯誤：它沒有盡最大努力讓那些以違法亂矩和不負責任的行爲重創了美國金融體系和經濟的人受到處罰。這種不公平的感覺正是美國民衆選出那位即將上任的破壞能手的原因之一。奧巴馬無法疏導憤怒情緒。唉，特朗普可以。