用户名: 密码: 验证码:    注册 | 忘记密码?
首页|听力资源|每日听力|网络电台|在线词典|听力论坛|下载频道|部落家园|在线背单词|双语阅读|在线听写|普特网校
您的位置:主页 > 英语能力 > 翻译 > 笔译 > 练习材料 > 经济 >

量化宽松不是给穷人的福利

2014-01-26    来源:财富    【      美国外教 在线口语培训

有观点认为,美联储推出量化宽松政策、购买债券给穷人带来的好处多于富人,这是个愚蠢的观点。实际情况是,根据最新的研究,本轮经济衰退以来,美国贫富差距扩大的速度已经超过了此前近20年的水平。

Robin Hood? Not quite

劫富济贫?还不至于。

Did the Fed do the poor a solid?

美联储(Feb)是不是帮了穷人一把呢?

A common knock on quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve stimulus program, suggests just the opposite: The interest rate lowering program mostly benefited the rich. That was one complaint made by Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary who the White House seemed close to appointing as head of the Fed before he dropped out of the race. He said QE likely made inequality worse.

量化宽松(quantitative easing)是美联储用来刺激经济的措施。仔细推敲一番后,人们通常会发现情况刚好相反:这项旨在降低利率的政策主要对有钱人有利。美国前财政部长拉里•萨默斯就对量化宽松提出过这样的批评。有一阵子,白宫似乎马上任命萨默斯为美联储主席了,但他最终还是落选了。萨默斯认为,量化宽松拉大了贫富差距。

Earlier this week, though, the Wall Street Journal staked out the contrary ground. The article said that the individuals who benefited the most from QE were the young and the poor. The article's simple logic -- too simple -- was that the young and the poor are the most in debt. So lower interest rates benefits them the most. Rich people with lots of money stashed in the bank, not so much.

本周早些时候,《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)旗帜鲜明地抛出了相反的观点。这家报纸刊登的一篇文章认为,从量化宽松中得到最多好处的是年轻人和穷人。这篇文章的逻辑很简单,或者说过于简单,那就是年轻人和穷人负债最多。因此,他们是利率下降的最大受益者。富人拥有大量银行存款,得到的好处没有那么大。

Were these effects part of a grand design to stimulate the economy through more corporate investment, household spending and a healthier financial sector, or a clumsy and unintended redistribution of wealth caused by extraordinary measures?

这样的效果是量化宽松的一部分吗?这项大政方针的目的是通过增加企业投资、促进个人消费和改善金融行业状况来提高经济增长率吗?还是说这样的效果只是非常规措施带来的蹩脚而又意外的财富再分配?

There are a number of problems with the argument that leads the Journal to this dubious question, but the biggest one is this: Stocks. The article says almost nothing about the stock market, only making a passing reference to the fact that other articles about the Fed's policies have talked about "asset prices." And not just stocks, but also bonds and houses, and investments in general. In other words, an article that was trying to draw a conclusion about how QE affected Americans' wealth completely ignored the very thing that contains the bulk of Americans' wealth.

让《华尔街日报》产生上述疑问的正是这篇文章中的观点,而这个观点本身也存在很多问题,其中最大的一个问题和股票有关。这篇文章几乎没有谈到股市,而其他关于美联储政策的文章都探讨过“资产价格”,而《华尔街日报》的文章对股市只是一带而过。其他文章不仅会写到股票,还会提及债券和房地产,以及各式各样的投资。也就是说,《华尔街日报》的这篇文章本打算说明量化宽松对美国人的财富造成了影响,但它却把占据美国人财富大头的因素抛到了九霄云外。

And you know who holds more stocks than anyone else? The rich. A lot more than the poor. (That's how these things work.) So to believe that QE benefited the poor more than the rich, you have to conclude that stocks over the past few years have gone down, which they have not (they've gone up, by a lot) or that QE has had no impact on the market.

你们知道谁的股票比较多吗?富人,而且他们的股票比穷人多得多(股市不就是这么回事吗?)。所以,如果相信量化宽松给穷人带来的好处多于富人,就只能得出这样的结论:要么过去几年股市一直在下跌——但实际情况并非如此(股市一直在上涨,而且涨幅巨大),要么量化宽松对股市没有任何影响。

The latter notion was argued in a recent McKinsey report, which appears to be the impetus for the WSJ article. Simple -- again, too simple -- logic would suggest the McKinsey report is wrong: We have had a lot of QE. Stocks have gone up a lot. QE made stocks go up.

最近,麦肯锡(McKinsey)在一篇报告中提出了后一种观点,看来这是《华尔街日报》发表上述文章的动力。简单的逻辑——让我再说一次,异常简单的逻辑——就能说明麦肯锡这篇报告错了,那就是量化宽松的规模已经非常大,股市已经大幅上扬,因此量化宽松在推动股市上涨。

But the McKinsey report, which was published in November, dives a little deeper. If QE has been driving stocks, then any announcements about QE would cause stocks to jump or fall. They say the stock market reactions to news about QE have been mild, and temporary. For example, the report says the market barely dropped when the Fed made it official in mid-June that they were considering pulling back on bond purchases. The market quickly began to rise again. Same thing but in reverse in mid-September, when the Fed put off the taper.

但这篇发表于去年11月份的报告稍稍做了一些深度分析。它指出,如果量化宽松在影响股市,那么有关量化宽松的任何官方声明都应该造成股市上涨或下跌。这份报告的作者称,股市对于和量化宽松有关的消息一直反应温和,而且都是短期反应。报告举例说,6月中旬,美联储在官方公告中表示,它正在考虑压缩债券购买规模,但股市几乎没有下跌,而且很快就开始再次上涨。11月中旬,美联储宣布推迟对购债规模的压缩,股市的表现也是如此,只是顺序相反。

But the report is looking at the wrong dates. Bernanke first hinted about the taper on May 22. From the beginning of the year until then, the stock market was up 17%. From that time until September 18, the day before Fed put off the taper, the market rose just 3%. Since then, the market is up another 8%, of which just 3% of that return has occurred since December 18, when the Fed actually began to cut its bond purchases.

不过,这篇报告选错了时间节点。伯南克首次对压缩债券购买规模作出暗示是在5月22日。从2013年初到5月22日,股市上涨了17%。从那一天到9月18日,也就是美联储宣布推迟削减购债规模的前一天,股市的涨幅只有3%。9月18日至今,股市又上涨了8%,但其中只有3个百分点的涨幅是出现在12月18日,也就是美联储真正开始压缩购债规模之后。

Another piece of evidence, according to the report, that QE has not boosted stock prices is the price-to-earnings ratio. If QE had been giving stocks a boost and not earnings, you would expect P/E ratios to go up. But the report says the stock valuation metric is not above historic norms. The report has a chart that shows that fact.

这份报告认为,量化宽松并未助推股市上行的另一项证据是市盈率。如果量化宽松提高的是股价而非盈利,市盈率就应该上升。报告指出,市盈率并没有超出历史正常水平,它还通过一幅图表来证明这一点。

But that was in November. I talked to one of the McKinsey report's authors, Richard Dobbs, and I had him update the chart in the report. Here's what it looks like now:  

但那是在11月份。我和理查德•多布斯进行了交流,他是这篇报告的作者之一。我请他更新了这幅图。现在它是这个样子:

See that spike at the end? P/E multiples are now well above norms, even when you exclude periods of inflation. Dobbs says the fact that the P/E ratio spike came in 2013 is proof of his point. Investors still bid up stocks even after it became clear that the Fed was going to pull back on bond purchases. But QE hasn't ended. The Fed is still buying $75 billion in bonds a month, which is less than the $85 billion a month it had been purchasing, but not by much. What I think you are really seeing here is that earnings growth has slowed, but investors' appetite for stocks has not. Is that because of QE? It's as good a guess as any.

看到上扬的曲线末端了吗?现在的市盈率远高于正常水平,就算剔除了通胀的影响也是如此。多布斯说,市盈率在2013年陡然上升印证了他的观点——尽管美联储削减购债规模的意图已经显而易见,但投资者仍在追捧股票。然而,量化宽松现在并未结束。目前,美联储每个月仍买入750亿美元的债券,低于此前每个月850亿美元的水平,但降幅不大。我认为,实际情况是利润增速已经放慢,但投资者对股票依然热情不减。原因是因为量化宽松吗?外界众说纷纭。

Dobbs' final point on how QE has benefited the poor: It has driven down interest rates, and QE has made it cheaper to borrow. That has put off austerity efforts that would cut spending on welfare programs. But it hasn't. Both the U.S. and Europe have cut back on social spending. Dobbs argues that without QE the cuts would have been deeper. But I'm not sure how he gets to that. Yes, higher interest rates would have meant higher deficits, but that doesn't necessarily mean Washington would have decided to cut any more.

对于量化宽松怎样让穷人受益,多布斯的最后一条依据是:量化宽松让利率下降,带来了更低的借贷成本。因此,政府没有马上紧缩开支,福利支出得以保全。非也。美国和欧洲政府都已削减了社会性支出。多布斯认为,如果没有量化宽松,削减幅度将更大。我不知道他是怎样得出这个结论的。没错,利率上升可能意味着更高的赤字,但美国政府未必会因此决定削减开支。

QE has been one of the largest and most persistent stimulus program that the government has enacted since the financial crisis. The Fed has bought roughly $3 trillion in bonds. So if it really benefited the poor more than the rich, then you would expect some rebalancing of wealth. But, in fact, the opposite has occurred. Earlier this week, a Stanford study found that wealth inequality has risen faster since the recession than it had in the nearly two decades before.

量化宽松是金融危机以来美国政府规模最大、持续时间最长的促增长措施。美联储购买的债券已经达到约3万亿美元。如果穷人从中获得的好处真的多于富人,财富的分配就应该比以前更均衡。然而,实际情况正好相反。本周早些时候,斯坦福(Stanford)大学公布的研究结果表明,本轮经济衰退以来,美国贫富差距扩大的速度已经超过了此前近20年的水平。

The real danger in this thinking is that with QE in place some may say we don't need programs like food stamps or unemployment insurance, programs that do actually benefit the poor and not the rich. Put another way: There may be a lot of valid reasons to dislike like QE. It's creating a bubble. It's not actually boosting lending. But the argument that it makes the poor richer should not be one of them.

这种观点的真正危险性在于,有些人可能会说,有了量化宽松,我们就不需要食品券,也不需要失业保险这样的措施,而只有这些措施的受益者才是穷人、而不是富人。换句话说,讨厌量化宽松或许有许多正当理由,比如它正在催生泡沫,它实际上并没有促进借贷。但说它让穷人有钱了不该是其中之一。(财富中文网)



顶一下
(0)
0%
踩一下
(0)
0%
手机上普特 m.putclub.com 手机上普特
[责任编辑:elly]
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
  • 推荐文章
  • 资料下载
  • 讲座录音
普特英语手机网站
用手机浏览器输入m.putclub.com进入普特手机网站学习
查看更多手机学习APP>>