2009-08-20 中國時報 【黃文正／綜合報導】
「股神」巴菲特（Warren Buffett）十九日在《紐約時報》意見版撰文指出，美國經濟已走出急診室，似乎正緩慢康復中。不過美國須正視巨額經濟振興措施的副作用，狂印鈔票救市、過度的「美元排放」（greenback emissions），未來恐對美國經濟造成更大傷害。
在這篇名為《美元效應》（The Greenback Effect）的投書中，這位投資大師表示，不僅是自然界，金融世界也有所謂的「蝴蝶效應」（the butterfly effect），他將之稱為「美元效應」。他說，「美元效應」的連鎖反應，此刻雖還看不出來，甚至可能會潛伏很久，但其威脅不容忽視，因它足以引發另一波金融危機。
過度美元排放 憂引發新危機
巴菲特說，今年美國預算赤字將飆升至占國內生產毛額（ＧＤＰ）的一三％，達一兆八千億美元，創下非戰爭時期史上新高。由於巨額預算赤字，美國政府的「淨負債」（net debt，即政府的債務中扣除社會福利所剩餘的負債部分）正快速膨脹，在本會計年度中，每個月將增加ＧＤＰ一個百分點以上，從目前占ＧＤＰ的四一％爆升至五六％。
他說，聯邦政府有三種方式填補預算赤字：向外國政府、美國百姓借錢，或自己印鈔票。其中，中國等政府購買的美國國債，今年約可達五千億美元；假設今年美國人儲蓄總額達四千億美元，且都拿來買財政部發行的公債（部分透過銀行）；即便如此，財政部還是缺九千億美元，必須狂印鈔票才可能湊足。
經濟緩慢復甦 負債問題待解
巴菲特表示，今日聯邦政府支出已超過收入的一八五％，大刀闊斧修改稅制和政府支出乃勢在必行，這需要極大的政治意志配合。只是，對國會議員而言，不論增稅或刪減政府支出，都可能危及下屆選舉，為此，他們寧願選擇較高的通膨，因它較無政治風險。
他指出，目前美國最迫切的問題是讓美國重振旗鼓並恢復繁榮，「不計代價」的振興措施仍然有其必要。不過，當經濟開始復甦之後，美國國會必須終止「負債佔國內生產總值的比率」（debt-to-GDP ratio）上升之勢，並維持債務增長符合財力成長的情況。
巴菲特說，未經檢查的碳排放可能導致冰山融化，而未受管束的「美元排放」必將使貨幣購買力銷融。美元未來命運如何，取決於國會諸公。
巴菲特專欄／狂印美鈔 當心掀經濟災難
【經濟日報╱編譯劉道捷】
自然界有一種「蝴蝶效應」現象，意思是說每種行動都會有影響，影響的大小和行動規模還不見得會成比例。例如，釋放到大氣層的二氧化碳倍增，為社會帶來的問題可能遠不只兩倍。知道這一點後，世人理當擔心溫室氣體排放問題。
2009.08.20 03:43 am
金融界也有蝴蝶效應，美國正把一種可能有害的物質──美元──排放到美國經濟體系中。
說實話，這樣做的理由深得我心。去年秋季，我們的金融體系瀕臨崩潰、把經濟體系拖到蕭條邊緣，這種危機需要政府展現智慧、勇氣與果斷。幸好聯邦準備理事會、布希與歐巴馬政府的主要經濟官員能力高超，因應極為妥善。
官員當然也犯了錯誤，但經濟結構的中流砥柱在他們身邊紛紛崩潰時，你還能有什麼要求？不過我們的確在聯邦政府拋出極多金援下，避開了徹底崩潰的厄運。
美國經濟似乎已經走出急診室，開始緩慢復甦，卻仍然繼續服用超大劑量的資金藥品，因此我們不久之後，就要面對其中的副作用。目前大部分副作用還隱而不見，也可能長期潛伏。不過這種副作用的威脅可能像金融危機本身一樣可怕。
為了了解這種威脅，我們必須回顧歷史，除了1942到1946年間的二戰歲月外，從1920年起，美國聯邦赤字占國內生產毛額（GDP）的比率，最高只占到6%。本會計年度裡，這個比率大約升到13%，是承平歲月紀錄的兩倍以上，換算成美元，等於1.8兆美元。從財政觀點來說，我們踏進了從來沒有人到過的天地。
因為赤字驚人，美國的「淨負債」（公共債務總額）不斷膨脹。本會計年度內，公共債務總額每個月會增加一個百分點以上，從占GDP的41%，升到56%。沒有人知道這種比率升到多高，美國才會失去債信，但多過幾年像今年這樣的日子，我們就會知道了。
聯邦債務增加，可以用三種方法融通：向外國人借錢、向國民借錢、或迂迴印鈔票。我們分別評估三種方法，再綜合起來一起評估。
今年美國經常帳赤字--我們強迫其他國家接受的美元--會達到4,000億美元上下。假設情勢相當平順，收到這些錢的國家都直接把所有的錢拿來美國公債，不過別國不一定會這樣做，有些國家可能會買美國股票、不動產或整個公司。
第二種情形是向美國國民借錢，假設美國人超越常態，每年儲蓄5,000億美元，最後假設國民把全部儲蓄都拿來買美國公債。
即使這麼誇張的假設實現，財政部還得再找9,000億美元，融通1.8兆美元公共債務中剩下的部分，華盛頓的印鈔廠只好加班。
放慢印鈔速度需要超卓的政治意志，以政府入不敷出比率高達85%的情況來看，租稅和支出兩方面都需要真正的改革，就算經濟復甦，也不太能夠彌補這麼大的差額。
國會議員一定很清楚，加稅或削減支出都會威脅他們連任的機會。因此他們可能選擇較高的通貨膨脹率，這種選擇不會顯現在國會投票紀錄上，選民也不能怪罪他們。很久以前，凱因斯就為政客點出在經濟慘劇中的生存之道：「政府靠著繼續推動通貨膨脹過程，可以在不知不覺中秘密沒收國民的大部分財富…這種過程動用經濟法則中所有秘密的毀滅性力量，能夠察覺這種作法的人，100萬人中不到一個人。」
我希望強調：負債如果能夠比照所得和資產增加而增加，既不邪惡，也沒有毀滅性；個人、組織和國家的財力增加，可以應付的債務自然增加。美國還是世界最富有的國家，將來承受債務的能力會像過去一樣提高。
聰明人會說：「我只想知道我會死在什麼地方，這樣我永遠都不會去那裡。」我們不知道美國會不會變成凱因斯所說的香蕉共和國。
我們的迫切問題是讓美國重新站定腳跟，重新繁榮起來。「事在人為」仍然有理。然而，一旦經濟復甦確立，國會必須阻止國債占GDP的比率繼續上升，確保債務的增加符合財力的成長。
無限制排放溫室氣體可能造成冰山溶解，無限制排放美元一定會造成美元購買力熔燬，美元的命運掌握在國會諸公手中。
（作者Warren E. Buffett是波克夏公司董事長，素有美國股神美稱）
【2009/08/20 經濟日報】
The Greenback Effect
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 18, 2009
IN nature, every action has consequences, a phenomenon called the butterfly effect. These consequences, moreover, are not necessarily proportional. For example, doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions.
The butterfly effect reaches into the financial world as well. Here, the United States is spewing a potentially damaging substance into our economy — greenback emissions.
To be sure, we’ve been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud. Last fall, our financial system stood on the brink of a collapse that threatened a depression. The crisis required our government to display wisdom, courage and decisiveness. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve and key economic officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations responded more than ably to the need.
They made mistakes, of course. How could it have been otherwise when supposedly indestructible pillars of our economic structure were tumbling all around them? A meltdown, though, was avoided, with a gusher of federal money playing an essential role in the rescue.
The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.
To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.
Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out.
An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money. Let’s look at the prospects for each individually — and in combination.
The current account deficit — dollars that we force-feed to the rest of the world and that must then be invested — will be $400 billion or so this year. Assume, in a relatively benign scenario, that all of this is directed by the recipients — China leads the list — to purchases of United States debt. Never mind that this all-Treasuries allocation is no sure thing: some countries may decide that purchasing American stocks, real estate or entire companies makes more sense than soaking up dollar-denominated bonds. Rumblings to that effect have recently increased.
Then take the second element of the scenario — borrowing from our own citizens. Assume that Americans save $500 billion, far above what they’ve saved recently but perhaps consistent with the changing national mood. Finally, assume that these citizens opt to put all their savings into United States Treasuries (partly through intermediaries like banks).
Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime.
Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can’t come close to bridging that sort of gap.
Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
I want to emphasize that there is nothing evil or destructive in an increase in debt that is proportional to an increase in income or assets. As the resources of individuals, corporations and countries grow, each can handle more debt. The United States remains by far the most prosperous country on earth, and its debt-carrying capacity will grow in the future just as it has in the past.
But it was a wise man who said, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll never go there.” We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy described by Keynes.
Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.
Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt. Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt. The dollar’s destiny lies with Congress.
沒有留言:
張貼留言