主题：【译文】史蒂芬*罗奇：经济上的娘娘腔男人的供词(1) -- Chieftain

也正是在这个时候经济辩论开始上纲上线了。共和党宣称美国的经济状况棒极了。作为执政党，他们别无选择 ?C 选民们可是认为他们应该对治下的经济表现负责。而民主党当然会辩称说经济糟糕透了。每个政党都会举出和我上面相似的例子来支持它的论点。如果你同意任何一方的解释的话，你马上会被贴上标签说是某党的同情者。因为看好股市的人需要良好的经济面来支持其乐观的判断，她们通常会被认为是共和党；与此相反，看好债市的人往往希望经济状况差才舒服（按：经济状况差  需要维持低利率环境  债券市值高），所以她们一定是民主党。而现在斯瓦辛格州长又把男子气加到这个方程里来了。按他的说法看好债市的可以贴个标签说是娘娘腔男人，而看好股市的则一定是伟男子。这也正是美国政治辩论荒谬的地方。

以事实为依据和随意指责是两回事。是不是布什总统要对低质量的经济复苏负全部责任呢？参议员克里又是不是有改变经济状况的具体提议？在我看来，对这两个问题的回答都是一个响亮的“不是。”对美国经济脆弱性的指责不能系于一人。同样，也没有哪个政治人物能拿出来一个马上见效的灵丹妙药。事实上，美国经济的 架构更多还是反映“政治化群体”的普遍情绪。它取决于广泛而全面的经济参与者 ?C 消费者，商人，投资者，财政主管部门（国会和白宫）和央行。在我看来，每一类的经济参与者对于造成90年代后期经济的过度增长以及永久化接踵而来的后泡沫时代的虚假繁荣都扮演了重要的角色。布什政府造成的长期结构性的预算赤字使得美国经济国民储蓄短缺的问题更为严重，这当然是经济问题的一部分。而只要参议员克里提不出具体可信的减少联邦预算赤字的方案，他就不能说是解决问题的一分子。政客们玩起批判指责来可都是行家里手 ?C 将复杂的问题简单化，然后就是急急忙忙得出结论来谁应该对此负责。我真希望要是那样的容易就好了。

政治往往不知不觉地就溜进了金融市场的辩论。这当然是个好事情，因为成千上万的投资者就企图在变化莫测的政治风向基础上来对证券定价。不过在这次总统竞选的季节里，市场辩论中的政治化倾向到了一个新的高度。这在媒体上表现得更为突出，制造舆论可不就是媒体的天职嘛。可我实在是无法忍受商业电视台了。一项数据出来后，马上会有“专家”做出政治性的解释。这样一来，经济学家，市场战略分师，甚至是分析师都会被认为有政治倾向。我认为这种发展趋势让人担忧。它可能会损害公信力，并且使得投资者得不到独立意见的保障。尽管斯瓦辛格州长很幽默，他的言论只会使得问题更复杂化。他对于那些对严峻的经济状况持相对悲观看法的人带有政治性的定性实实在在是有损于这场辩论的严肃性的。

恐怕会有人批判我太过较真了，但我还是要骄傲地站起来代表那些广大的在美国正被称做是“经济上的娘娘腔男人”。我一直以来都说美国的经济复苏基本上是虚假的 ?C 极大程度上是靠着服用极度扩张的财政和货币政策这一“兴奋剂”的。兴奋剂也同样对于给运动员（和健美人士）提供非法的刺激扮演了不幸的角色。它的问题就在于试图打破人的常态但又奢望不带来任何副作用。对于经济来说，可持续增长就是一切。没有创造工作和工资收入这一原动力，政策刺激的效应消失后就会导致经济的衰退。对于运动员来说，使用兴奋剂后的综合症状也是同样的痛苦。可他们却叫我们（这些不用兴奋剂的）是娘娘腔的男人！

It’s at this point where the debate gets highly political. The Republicans portray the state of the US economy as terrific. As incumbents, they have no other choice-- voters hold them accountable for the performance of the economy on their watch. The Democrats, of course, argue that the economy is in terrible shape. Each party builds its case on the evidence similar to that outlined above. If you side with either of those interpretations, you are quickly labeled a sympathizer of one party or another. Since stock market bulls need a good economy to justify their optimism, they are generally dismissed as Republicans. Conversely, since bond market bulls draw comfort from a weak economy, they must be Democrats. And now Governor Schwarzenegger inserts masculinity into the equation. It follows that bond bulls can now be labeled girlie men, while stock bulls can be called macho men. Such is the utter absurdity of the American political debate.

Fact and causality are two different things. Is President Bush entirely responsible for the poor quality of the current economic recovery? Does Senator Kerry have concrete proposals that will change the outcome? In my view, the answer on both counts is an unequivocal “no.” Blame for the fragile state of today’s US economy can hardly be pinned on one man. Nor is another politician likely to come up with an instant cure. Instead, the fabric of the US economy is more of a reflection of the broad sentiment of the “body politic.” It is conditioned by a broad cross-section of players -- consumers, businesspeople, investors, fiscal authorities (Congress and the White House), and the central bank. Each of these players, in my view, exerted an important role both in fostering the excesses of the late 1990s and in perpetuating the post-bubble funk that has since followed. To the extent that the Bush Administration compounded the problems of a saving-short US economy by locking in long-term structural budget deficits, it is certainly a part of the problem. To the extent that Senator Kerry has failed to offer a specific and credible set of proposals aimed at reducing the federal budget deficit, he hardly qualifies as part of the solution. Politicians are masters of the blame game -- simplifying complex issues and rushing to render judgment on accountability. I wish it were that easy.

Politics have always crept into the financial market debate. And that is obviously a good thing, as millions of investors attempt to price securities on the basis of ever-shifting political winds. But during the current presidential campaign season, the politics of the market debate have been taken to an entirely new level. That’s especially true in the media, where spin has long been a way of life. But I can hardly bear to watch business television anymore. A piece of data comes out and the “expert” interpretation is quickly set in political terms. As a result, economists, market strategists, and even analysts are all too often becoming identified with a political agenda. That is a disturbing development, in my view. It has the potential to compromise credibility and leave investors without the security of independent advice. Notwithstanding Governor Schwarzenegger’s terrific sense of humor, he is only compounding this problem. His politically inspired characterization of those embracing the relatively pessimistic case for a tough economy does a real disservice to the integrity of the debate.

Lest I get accused of taking all this too seriously, I will proudly stand up for the vast legions of economic girlie-men in America today. I have long maintained that the current recovery in the US economy has been largely a false one -- unduly influenced by the “steroids” of excess fiscal and monetary stimulus. Steroids have also played an unfortunate role in providing illegal stimulus to some athletes (and bodybuilders) in recent years. The problem comes in trying to break the habit without suffering serious side effects. For the economy, it’s all about sustainability. Without the organic fuel of job creation and wage income generation, diminished policy stimulus could result in an economic relapse. For athletes, the post-steroid syndrome can be equally painful. And they call us girlie-men!

• 【西西河电子期刊】第16期（中）