一個很短的聖誕支出季節 聖誕經濟重要嗎

In 1939, Lew Hahn, the head of the Retail Dry Goods Association in the US, noticed something that gave him cause for concern: Thanksgiving would fall on November 30 that year, the latest possible date. Since it was thought poor form to start hawking Yuletide goodies before Thanksgiving was over, this would mean a brief Christmas spending season.

1939年，美國零售乾貨協會會長盧•韓(Lew Hahn)注意到了一件讓他不得不擔心的事情：那一年的感恩節將落在11月30日，即最晚可能的日期。既然在感恩節結束前開始叫賣聖誕商品被視爲不好的行爲，這將意味着一個很短的聖誕支出季節。

Hahn was concerned that consumers would spend less, damaging an already weak economy, to say nothing of the prosperity of the members of the Retail Dry Goods Association. And so he had a word with the secretary of commerce, Harry Hopkins, who had a word with President Franklin D Roosevelt, who had a word with the nation. He explained that as Thanksgiving was a federal holiday it was the president’s job to select the date — and he was choosing November 23 instead.

韓擔心，消費者將會減少支出，破壞本已疲弱的經濟，更不必說影響零售乾貨協會成員的繁榮了。因此他和美國商務部部長哈利•霍普金斯(Harry Hopkins)談了這件事，霍普金斯和總統富蘭克林•羅斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)談了這件事，羅斯福和國家談了這件事。羅斯福解釋稱，既然感恩節是一個聯邦假日，那麼選擇哪一天是總統的職責——而他選擇了11月23日。

The move was controversial. Alfred Landon, the Republican who had been defeated by Roosevelt in the presidential election of 1936, compared FDR’s high-handedness to that of Adolf Hitler, thus beginning a hallowed tradition in US political commentary. For a couple of years, half the country celebrated on the old Thanksgiving date while the other half marked the new “Franksgiving” instead; a couple of states sat on the fence and made both days a holiday.

此舉引發了爭議。在1936年總統選舉中敗給羅斯福的共和黨人艾爾弗雷德•蘭登(Alfred Landon)將羅斯福的專橫與阿道夫•希特勒(Adolf Hitler)相提並論，從而開啓了美國政治評論的神聖傳統。在兩年時間裏，一半的美國人在舊的感恩節日期慶祝，另一半人則慶祝新的“富蘭克林感恩節”(Franksgiving)，還有兩個州採取騎牆立場，把兩個日期都列爲假日。

All this raises a deeper question: what are the macroeconomic consequences of Christmas? The answer depends on your politics. Economic conservatives, from Rick Santorum to Alf Landon toGeorge Osborne, believe Christmas has little effect on the health of the economy; liberals, from Ed Balls to Franklin Roosevelt to Paul Krugman, believe Christmas is macroeconomically invaluable.

所有這些引發了一個更深層次的問題：聖誕節的宏觀經濟後果是什麼？該問題的答案取決於你們的政治。從裏克•桑托勒姆(Rick Santorum)和艾爾弗雷德•蘭登到英國財相喬治•奧斯本(George Osborne)，經濟保守派人士相信，聖誕節對經濟健康幾乎毫無影響；而從埃德•鮑爾斯(Ed Balls)到富蘭克林•羅斯福，再到保羅•克魯格曼(Paul Krugman)等自由派人士認爲，聖誕節對宏觀經濟具有不可估量的價值。

I should emphasise that I am making assumptions here. I have not approached any of these people to ask their opinions about Christmas. But the views I am speculating that they hold seem a logical extension of their views on government stimulus spending.

我應該強調的是，我在這裏只是假設。我沒有向這些人中的任何人詢問過關於聖誕節的看法。但從他們對政府刺激支出的觀點來看，我的假設似乎符合邏輯。

Allow me to explain. Imagine that this Christmas day, the Queen, the Pope and even Oprah Winfrey announced that Christmas would be a purely religious occasion from 2015 onwards. There would be no presents and no feasting. If people respected this declaration, about $75bn-$100bn of extra consumer spending in the US alone would simply not materialise next December. What then?

讓我解釋一下。想象一下，在今年聖誕節，女王、教皇，甚至奧普拉•溫芙瑞(Oprah Winfrey)宣佈，從2015年開始聖誕節將成爲一個純粹的宗教節日。屆時將不會有禮物，也不會有大吃大喝。如果人們尊重這種聲明，那麼在明年12月，僅僅在美國就有大約750億美元至1000億美元的額外消費支出不會發生。結果會如何？

One possibility is that the economy would be just fine. This is the classical view of macroeconomics: nothing significant would change after the abolition of Christmas. We would retain the same labour force and the same skills, the same factories and the same power stations, the same financial sector and the same logistics networks. The capacity of the economy to produce goods and services would be undiminished, and after a period of adjustment, during which tinsel factories would be retooled and Christmas tree plantations replanted, all would be well.

一個可能是，經濟將還不錯。這是宏觀經濟學的經典觀點：廢除聖誕節之後不會有重大變化。我們將保留同樣的勞動力和同樣的技能、同樣的工廠和同樣的發電廠，以及同樣的金融部門和同樣的物流網絡。經濟生產商品和服務的能力將不會減弱，在經過一段時期的調整以後——屆時金屬箔片工廠將會更換設備，聖誕樹種植園將種植其他樹木——一切都會恢復正常。

What would replace nearly $100bn of seasonal consumer spending? Nothing noticeable, but the replacement would happen just the same. The productive capacity freed up by the disappearance of Christmas could be turned to other uses; prices would fall just enough to tempt us to spend our money at other times of the year. Indeed, cancelling Christmas might even provide a modest boost to our prosperity in the longer term, as bunching up all that spending into a few short weeks strains factories and supply chains. Smoothing out our spending would be more efficient.

近1000億美元的季節性消費支出將會被什麼替代？沒有什麼引人注目的支出，但替代還是會有的。聖誕節消失所釋放的生產力可被轉向其他用途；價格將下跌，吸引我們在一年裏的其他時間花錢。的確，取消聖誕節甚至可能小幅提振更長期的繁榮，因爲把所有那些支出集中在短短几個星期給工廠和供應鏈帶來緊張。讓我們的支出在一年裏變得均勻一些將更有效率。

This classical view of how the economy works is also the view taken by Mr Osborne, the UK chancellor, and by Republicans in the US. Their view is that government stimulus spending does not work; cut it back, they argue, and the economy would adjust as the private sector took up the slack.

這種關於經濟運行方式的經典觀點也是英國財政大臣奧斯本和美國共和黨人的觀點。他們認爲，政府刺激支出不會奏效；他們主張，削減刺激支出後，隨着私營部門彌補不足，經濟將會調整。

On the other side of the debate stands Mr Balls, the UK’s shadow chancellor, as well as American stimulus proponents such as Mr Krugman and Lawrence Summers. Mr Krugman once commented that panic about an attack from aliens would help the economy because it would get the government spending money again. Since aliens are not available, Santa Claus will have to do.

辯論的另一頭是英國影子財政大臣鮑爾斯以及克魯格曼和勞倫斯•薩默斯(Lawrence Summers)等美國的刺激政策支持者。克魯格曼曾經表示，對外星人襲擊的恐慌將有利於經濟發展，因爲它將讓政府再次支出。既然外星人不見蹤影，那麼聖誕老人將不得不發揮作用。

This Keynesian view of how the economy works differs from the classical view in one crucial way: it argues that supply does not always and automatically create demand. When Christmas is abolished (or a financial crisis devastates people’s confidence and their spending power), consumers will plan to spend less. And if consumers plan to spend less, price adjustments may not induce them to change their minds; the price adjustments may not even happen. If Christmas spending disappears, it may take many years for the economy to replace it. Those factories will still be there and the workers will remain available — but they will stand idle.

這種關於經濟運行方式的凱恩斯主義觀點在一個關鍵方面不同於經典觀念：它認爲，供應並不總是自動創造需求。當聖誕節被廢除（或者金融危機破壞人們的信心和購買力）的時候，消費者將會計劃減少支出。而如果消費者計劃減少支出，價格調整可能不會讓他們改變想法；價格調整甚至可能不會發生。如果聖誕節支出消失，經濟可能需要許多年才能取代它。那些工廠仍將在那裏，工人們將依然準備勞動，但他們將無所事事。

Who is right? I should confess a bias. I am sceptical about the efficiency of many government spending programmes and of many Christmas purchase decisions. In both cases, too much attention is lavished on appearances and too little on what the recipient might truly want. In the long run, then, I should hope both for a smaller state and for a smaller Christmas.

誰是正確的？我得坦白自己存在偏見。我對許多政府支出項目和聖誕購買決定的效率感到懷疑。在這兩種情況下，人們過多地注意表面，不怎麼關注接收方真正想要什麼。因此長期而言，我倒希望政府和聖誕節的規模都更小一些。

But that is a matter for the ghost of Christmas yet to come. Despite my own biases, I have to acknowledge that this Christmas interest rates are still close to zero. Until that changes, the liberals will have the better of the argument. Stimulus spending remains effective, regardless of whether the stimulus comes from the Treasury — or from the North Pole.

但這是未來聖誕節的問題。儘管我自己存在偏見，但我不得不承認，在這個聖誕節，利率仍接近於零。在這種情況發生改變之前，自由派人士的觀點將會佔上風。刺激支出依然有效，無論刺激是來自財政部還是來自北極。