奧巴馬救贖

奧巴馬救贖
謝國忠總第224期出版日期：2008-11-10

奧巴馬面臨的是1932年以來美國總統面臨的最大困難；奧巴馬很聰明，但美國的問題超出了他的能力範圍

11月4日，一場歷史性的總統大選在美國上演。一位非洲裔美國人以絕對優勢入主白宮。種族主義依然是美國社會不可小視的力量，因而此次大選，毫無疑問，將 成為美國通往公平社會的一個重要里程碑。美國目前陷入了金融與經濟危機的泥潭，然而，我們不應該低估其複興能力，此次大選就是證明。

全球“救經濟”

全球經濟“硬著陸”的跡象愈發明顯。經濟在第三季度的小幅萎縮將在第四季度轉化為大幅衰退，下降程度可能達到第三季度的5倍至10倍。第三季度，美國經濟下滑0.3％，英國經濟下滑0.5％，歐洲和日本經濟也略有下滑。

由 於出口訂單反映的信息比較滯後，三季度，亞洲製造業國家經濟大部分沒有下滑。不過，第四季度經濟指標預示著全球經濟將大幅下滑。例如，鋼鐵價格大幅下挫， 反映了全球需求嚴重疲軟；裝船率的劇減，也表明了全球貿易萎靡。 10月美國供應管理協會（Institute for Supply Management）的製造業指數由9月的43.5下挫至38.9（該指數以50作為蕭條與擴張的分界線，低於40則表明嚴重疲軟）。

刺激 經濟的重任目前落在了各國央行的肩上。所有主要大型經濟體近幾週都在大幅削減利率，但降息並不能扭轉經濟的快速收縮。大部分分析師批評央行的信貸緊縮政 策，認為它導致了經濟的收縮。因此，全球各國政府都在試圖鼓勵銀行放貸。低利率被認為可以增加金融機構放貸的動力，而企業和個人也將有借款的動力。然而， 這並不能抵消資產縮水帶來的衝擊。

全球房地產市場和股票市場已經縮水了50萬億美元。借款者可以向銀行提供的抵押品減少，銀行被迫對那些股權 資產大幅縮水的借款者削減貸款。財富負效應削弱了家庭的貸款需求。他們的新增儲蓄必須彌補其財富的縮水。此外，經濟衰退也減少了那些財務狀況健康的企業的 貸款需求，因為它們覺得沒有必要此時實施業務擴張。因此，當一個大資產泡沫破裂時，信貸收縮是藉款人和貸款人的理性反應。削減利率並不能扭轉這一趨勢。

解決方案是採取大規模的財政刺激政策。金融機構目前並不希望向他們的老客戶提供貸款，因為後者現在缺乏信用。不過，政府在他們眼中仍有信用，所以 他們願意向政府提供貸款。另一方面，受財富負效應影響，家庭希望增加儲蓄。因此，對政府而言，合理的解決措施是藉入資金支持減稅和擴大支出。如果50萬億 美元的財富損失通過負財富效應減少了2.5萬億美元居民貸款需求，那麼，各國政府必須採取相近力度的刺激政策。

此外，亞洲和歐洲應該承擔更多的財政刺激重任。

盎 格魯-撒克遜國家將減少消費，改變多年以來借錢消費的習慣。如果盎格魯-撒克遜國家引入刺激政策，則應該致力於提高投資，例如，基礎設施建設，從而擴大生 產，在未來提高收入。不過，由於儲蓄增加、消費減少將降低進口需求，盎格魯-撒克遜國家的財政刺激政策不會阻止其貿易赤字減少。亞洲和歐洲有貿易盈餘的國 家，出口將減少5000億-10000億美元。除非它們採取足夠力度的刺激政策，抵消外部需求減少，否則，它們將不可避免地面臨衰退。

當資產 泡沫大面積破滅，與財政刺激相比，降息刺激總需求不會產生同樣的效果。由於減槓桿壓力的存在，沒有足夠的股本來支撐已存在的債務。降低利率的確會穩定金融 體系，因為低利率使得擁有大量不良資產的金融機構的融資成本下降。當年，日本也選擇了降息。但是，很長時間內，日本的銀行都持有大量不良貸款。低利率雖然 穩定了金融市場，卻也減少了銀行清理資產負債表的動力，使經濟在低谷中徘徊很久。

低利率在穩定金融市場的同時，也助長了通脹。這聽上去很牽 強，因為現在全世界都在擔心經濟回歸通縮。毋庸置疑，需求收縮在短期內能讓通脹降溫。但是，這只是暫時的。利潤減少會引發供給收縮。高通脹在經濟蕭條時也 會存在。這種情形之前我們已經見證過很多次。大宗商品，特別是石油，價格大幅下降，讓人們對通脹形勢過於樂觀。全球經濟快速收縮，油價卻仍然保持在每桶近 70美元。相比1998年，當時新興市場步入衰退，歐美仍在增長，油價一路跌到每桶8美元。今後，油價極有可能反彈。

工會是另一個引發通脹的導火索。通脹已經損害到所有經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）國家工人的真實工資。雖然失業率在上升，但是，工會運動可能重新高漲。因此，削減利率會導致嚴重的通脹風險。

奧巴馬“新政”

如 何應對眼前的危機是個難題。關於穩定金融體系和整體經濟，有太多迫在眉睫的事要做：如何在保持金融體系穩定和處理不良資產之間掌握平衡；失衡的全球經濟需 要在擁有巨額貿易赤字的盎格魯-撒克遜國家和其他國家之間調整；發現可以替代盎格魯-撒克遜借錢消費模式的新增長路徑。

現在，各國政府處理危 機的方式是膝跳反應式的，不過是權宜之計。金融危機是系統性的危機。將金融危機問題零敲碎打是很危險的。眼下，各國政府關注的是全球金融體系的改革，以免 危機再次發生。但是，金融體系的改革是最不迫切的。像今天如此嚴重的金融危機再次發生，至少要到十年以後。人們有足夠的時間實施改革。

奧巴馬 政府會改善現在的局面嗎？應該不會比現在更糟。很難想像新一屆美國政府能比現任政府表現更糟糕。現任政府作為監管者，沒有盡到風險控制的職責，反而主動迎 合華爾街。危機伊始，它還試圖通過幾筆交易來解決問題。格林斯潘所倡導的流動性政策，使他成為這場危機中最應該感到愧疚的人，其次就是布什政府。

奧 巴馬讓我覺得比較安慰的，是他選擇了正確的人作為智囊。在金融業，我最尊敬的兩個人，保羅沃爾克（Paul Volker）和沃倫巴菲特（Warren Buffet）將作為奧巴馬的顧問。他們是信守常識的人。相比之下，很多專家執迷理論卻不知道其中的局限，竟然相信有“免費午餐”。正是這種迷信製造了泡 沫。每一次泡沫都是一些承諾“免費午餐”的新事物、新理論或者新現象。像巴菲特和沃爾克這樣的人，是不會捲入其中的。

奧巴馬在他兩年的競選活 動中，給我留下很深刻的印象。美國總統漫長的選舉之路，讓人們有機會觀察候選人如何應對災難。在所有的場合，奧巴馬錶現出難以置信的自控力，並在任何時刻 都盡可能表現完美。這與“嬰兒潮”時期出生的克林頓和布什產生了鮮明對比。後者是孤芳自賞，自以為是，在災難面前，只會自憐自憫。 “嬰兒潮”時期出生的人們的父母，如老布什，被認為是美國歷史上最偉大的一代。他們在“大蕭條”時期出生，贏得第二次世界大戰，回到家鄉發展經濟，在“冷 戰”中打敗蘇聯。但是，他們的孩子卻在20世紀60年代反對越南戰爭，20世紀70年代成為MBA或者律師，20世紀80年代努力在公司中升職，在20世 紀90年代掌握權力。這些人執政後，製造出一個又一個泡沫。在他們執政時期，“購物之旅”（a shopping trip）成為人們生活的終極目標。在這次選舉中，美國的選民們做對了一件事，就是從“嬰兒潮”的下一代選出總統。

奧巴馬選擇誰當財政部長， 對全球經濟意義重大。不幸的是，我認為他會從克林頓政府中選擇一人，而且這個人與格林斯潘一樣，都相信流動性一說。金融市場將流動性看做“自由錢 ”（free money）。實際上，流動性是短期負債。中央銀行注入流動性，其實是在鼓勵投資者藉入更多錢。當投資者藉了更多錢去買有風險資產，資產價格便上揚。接 著，這種財富效應進一步激活了經濟。所以，流動性發揮作用的過程，就是在創造一個大泡沫。當這種手段反複使用，一個巨大的泡沫就誕生了。這個大泡沫破滅的 後果就如我們今天看到的——一場破壞力極大的金融風暴。

在巨型泡沫破滅時，減息或者註入流動性，可以穩定金融體系。但是，在正常環境下，依然 用這種方法刺激經濟增長，就犯了嚴重錯誤。實體經濟沒有能力再承擔更多的債務。額外的貨幣擴張可能會引發通脹，也就是說，新增貨幣會直接表現為價格上漲。 我擔心奧巴馬將選擇一個信奉流動性的人出任財政部長，這會非常危險。幸好，巴菲特和沃爾克可以為奧巴馬的政策帶來常識。

一旦奧巴馬接管，他將 面臨新的危機。美國的汽車業最終將會崩潰。過去30年，美國汽車業處境艱難，僅是依靠信貸而苟延殘喘。現在，信貸危機將汽車業的現金流切斷，經濟危機和高 油價又使汽車銷售量下滑。經營失敗的汽車製造商正在討論合併，其目標很可能是形成一個龐大公司，“大而不倒”，只能由政府來拯救。美國政府是否援救它的汽 車業還不清楚。如果奧巴馬選擇用納稅人的錢援救汽車業，將會鼓動其他行業都向政府要錢。

美國不完善的退休養老金體系很快就要陷入困境。股票市 場的暴跌將這個體系的問題暴露出來。很長時間裡，美國製造業依靠股票市場的升值來減輕它們養老金的負擔。股票市場崩潰，將退休養老金的問題在他們最困難最 沒有能力解決的時候，擺在製造業老闆的面前。企業需支付的養老金是12.2萬億美元。這部分有多少在市場崩潰以及信貸危機中縮水？應該不是小數目。

2009年，美國將有2萬億美元的財政赤字需要融資，接近其在外流通國債的五分之一。美國依靠外國資金來發行國債。美國經濟糟糕的狀況會讓其財政巨額赤字持續，使國債發行量居高不下。如果外國人的信心出現危機，美國國債市場就會像股票市場那樣崩盤。

奧 巴馬面臨的困難，是1932年羅斯福上台後美國總統面臨的最大困難。在某種程度上，奧巴馬的工作更艱難。羅斯福接手時，美國尚有儲蓄餘額，使得他能以低利 率借入資金來擴大財政支出。現在，即便消費需求大幅減少，美國仍將是一個負儲蓄的國家。因此，奧巴馬的財政政策要考慮到外國人的信心。

面臨發 生數万億美元危機的風險，或許美國惟一的出路就是印鈔票。美聯儲可以印足夠的鈔票，給每個人融資。當然，預期到通脹率上升，債券市場和美元會暴跌。不過， 美國政府、企業和家庭可以為他們的債務再融資，並從美聯儲的低利率中獲益。時間一長，債務隨著通脹惡化而“蒸發”。

奧巴馬可能很聰明，但是美國的問題可能超出了他的能力範圍。印鈔票可能是惟一的選擇，但美國經濟會陷入滯脹。現在應該賣出美國國債。 ■

作者為《財經》雜誌特約經濟學家、玫瑰石顧問公司董事
此文英文原文請見《財經網》英文版http://english.caijing.com.cn/english/Economist

Obama to the Rescue?

11-10 11:45 Caijing Magazine

Barack Obama is facing the biggest challenges since Franklin Roosevelt became President in 1932. In a way, Obama’s job may be tougher.

By Andy Xie, board member of Rosetta Stone Advisors Limited

A historical election has taken place in America. An African American was just elected into the White House in a landslide. The slavery of Africans was an integral part of the U.S.’s founding. Racism remains a potent force in the U.S. society. This election is undoubtedly a milestone in the country’s progress towards a just society. Indeed, it is unimaginable that such an event could have taken place in any other nation on earth. The U.S. is mired in a financial and economic crisis and appears weak. However, we shouldn’t underestimate its capacity for renewal, as this election demonstrates.

The world is facing a leadership crisis. Government leaders around the world have performed poorly in handling the financial crisis and preventing it from becoming an economic crisis. The U.S. government has stumbled badly in dealing with the financial crisis, swinging from one extreme to another. The chaotic unwinding of Lehman Brothers amidst a huge financial crisis was tantamount to stupidity. It sparked a massive confidence crisis in the financial system that has accelerated the process of turning the financial crisis into an economic one. Despite ample warnings, European governments took too long to stabilize their banks.

Evidences of a global hard landing are piling up. It appears that the minor contractions in the third quarter turned into massive ones in the fourth quarter, possibly five to 10 times the contractions in the third quarter. In the third quarter, the U.S. economy contracted by 0.3 percent, the UK economy by 0.5 percent, and there was probably half as much contraction in the euro zone and Japan. Asian manufacturing economies mostly avoided contraction in the third quarter, probably due to export orders reflecting lagging information. Economic indicators in the fourth quarter point to far bigger contractions. For example, steel price dropped sharply, reflecting sharp drop in global demand. Shipping rates have also collapsed, suggesting contraction in global trade. The Institute for Supply Management index of U.S.’s factory activity fell to 38.9 in October from 43.5 in September. (The level of 50 separates contraction from expansion, and a reading below 40 is exceptionally weak.)

The burden for economic stimulus is on central banks at present. Virtually all the major economies have cut interest rates aggressively in the past few weeks. But the rate cuts cannot reverse the rapid economic contraction. Most analysts blame credit contraction as the cause for the economic contraction. Hence, governments around the world are trying to pressure banks to lend. Lowering rates is supposed to increase incentives for financial institutions to lend and for businesses and individuals to borrow. However, such marginal incentives cannot offset the impact of asset deflation. Property and stock markets have fallen by US$ 50 trillion worldwide. It decreases the collaterals that borrowers can pledge to banks. Hence, banks must cut lending to borrowers whose equity capital has declined so much. The negative wealth effect cuts household demand for loans; their savings preference must go up with so much wealth destruction. The economic deterioration decreases loan demand from healthy businesses that find no need for expansion. Hence, credit contraction, when a giant asset bubble deflates, is due to rational responses of both borrowers and lenders. Rate cuts cannot reverse it.

The solution is massive fiscal stimulus. Financial institutions don’t want to lend to their usual customers, as they are not credit worthy. They want to lend to governments who still are credit worthy. Households, on the hand, want to save more, reflecting the negative wealth effect. Hence, the logical solution is for governments to borrow to fund tax cuts and spending. If the wealth effect from the loss of US$ 50 trillion paper wealth is US$ 2.5 trillion, governments around the world probably need to implement stimulus of a similar magnitude.

Moreover, Asia and Europe should shoulder more burdens for fiscal stimulus. The Anglo-Saxon economies should contract their consumption to end the borrow-and-spend habit that got them into trouble in the first place. If they introduce stimulus, it should be aimed at increasing investment – e.g., infrastructure – that would expand production and, hence, income in the future. However, fiscal stimulus wouldn’t stop their trade deficits halving or more, as rising savings and falling consumption decrease imports. That means that the surplus countries in Asia and Europe will see exports cut by US$ 500 to 1,000 billion. Unless they stimulate sufficiently to offset this reduction in external demand, they would obviously face a recession.

As argued before, lowering interest rates wouldn’t have the same effect on demand when a major asset bubble is bursting; there isn’t enough equity capital to support the existing debt level, resulting in pressure for deleveraging. Lowering rates does enhance financial stability, as it decreases funding cost for financial institutions that carry massive problematic and illiquid assets. That’s what happened in Japan. Its banks held vast amounts of non-performing loans for years. Low interest rate did help financial stability but also lessened incentives to clean up the balance sheets, prolonging economic stagnation.

While lower rates help financial stability, they stoke inflation. This may sound farfetched as the world is worrying about deflation again. Demand contraction undoubtedly cools inflation in the short term. However, it is temporary. Collapsing profitability causes the supply side to contract. Inflation can persist into a sluggish economy as we have seen so many times before. Sharp decreases in commodity prices, especially oil, has made people more optimistic on inflation. This view is not sound. Oil price remains close to US$ 70 per barrel in a rapidly contracting global economy. In 1998, when emerging markets went into recession but Europe and the U.S. were still growing, oil price dropped to US$ 8 per barrel. The potential is huge for oil price to rise. Labor union is another path to inflation. Inflation has eroded real wages in all OECD economies. A unionist backlash is quite possible despite rising unemployment rates. Hence, cutting interest rates carries significant inflation risk. Steepening yield curves – the gap between the yields of long term and short-term bonds – in many government bond markets suggest that markets are expecting inflation to remain high. Let it be said that there is cost to cutting interest rates. It should be used carefully and sparingly.

Handling the current crisis is highly complicated. There are urgent issues regarding financial and economic stability, what would be the right balance between the need for stability and the pace for disposing bad assets. There is the necessity to rebalance the global economy between Anglo-Saxon economies with large trade deficits and rest of the world. There is the important task to create another growth dynamic to replace borrow-and-spend Anglo-Saxon consumption. The performance of global leaders in handling the crisis has been reactive and ad hoc. A financial crisis is a systemic crisis. It is dangerous to treat different aspects of its manifestation separately. The intellectual power of the current global leaders is focused on reforming the global financial system to prevent a future crisis. But this should be the lowest priority. After a crisis of such magnitude, another crisis is at least a decade away. There is plenty of time to focus on financial reforms later. Unfortunately, the global summit in Washington D.C. this month has taken this topic as its centerpiece. It will be a waste of time. Indeed, considering how soon the Bush Administration ends, the world should wait for the Obama Administration to host the summit in January 2009.

Will an Obama Administration improve the situation? First off – it can’t be worse. It is hard to imagine that the new U.S. government could perform worse than the current one. Its regulators pandered to the Wall Street and didn’t focus on risk control. When the crisis began, it tried to make a few deals to make the problem go away. Greenspan is the guiltiest for the current crisis for its liquidity policy. The Bush Administration is the second.

What gives me comfort about Obama is what sort of people he has chosen to surround himself. Paul Volker and Warren Buffett, whom I respect most in the financial world, are his advisors. They are common-sense people. Too many experts believe in theories without understanding their limitations and can get sucked into believing in a free lunch. That is what makes a bubble. Every bubble is some new object, theory, or phenomenon that promises a free lunch. A person like Warren Buffett or Paul Volker would never get sucked into one.

Barack Obama has impressed me in his two years of campaigning. The U.S.’s long election process serves the purpose of allowing people to watch how candidates respond to adversities. Obama has shown incredible self control in all circumstances and the ability to optimize at any point of time. He is a sharp contrast to the baby boomers like Clinton and Bush, who are narcissistic and self-righteous, and have a tendency to wallow in self-pity under adversity. The parents of the baby boomers like Bush Senior are considered the greatest generation in the U.S.’s history. They grew up during the Great Depression, won the Second World War, came home to build the economy, and broke the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Their children protested against the Vietnam War in 1960s, became MBA’s or lawyers in the 1970s, climbed the corporate ladder in the 1980s, and came to power after the Cold War in the 1990s. They used their power to make one bubble after another for a good time. Under their reign a shopping trip became the ultimate purpose in life. One thing that American voters did right in this election was to elect someone from the next generation.

Obama’s choice of the Treasury Secretary is so critical to the global economy. Unfortunately, I think he may pick someone from the Clinton Administration who, like Greenspan, believes in liquidity. Financial markets worship liquidity like free money. In reality, liquidity is short-term debt. When a central bank boosts liquidity, it works through encouraging investors to borrow more. When investors borrow more to purchase risk assets, asset prices appreciate. The wealth effect boosts economic activities. The dirty secret is that liquidity works through creating bubbles. When it is used repeatedly, it leads to a huge bubble. The crash would cause catastrophe like what the world is facing now.

After a huge bubble bursts, cutting interest rate or boosting liquidity can stabilize financial system. But, it would be a mistake to use it to boost economy like under normal circumstances. There is no debt appetite or capacity to take on more in the real economy. Excessive monetary expansion could trigger inflation, i.e., money supply would go straight into rising prices. I am afraid that picking a liquidity believer for the Treasury Secretary is dangerous. Hopefully, Warren Buffett and Paul Volker will always be there to bring common sense to Obama’s economic policies.

As soon as he takes over, he will be facing new crises. The U.S.’s auto sector may finally collapse. It has been in trouble for three decades and has survived on credit. The credit crisis is cutting off its money flow. The economic crisis and high oil price are destroying its sales. The failing automakers are talking about mergers. The purpose is probably to create a behemoth too big to fail. It’s not clear that the U.S. auto sector should be saved. Its managers have not solved their competitiveness problem and have depended on accounting tricks and gas guzzling SUVs to stay alive. If Obama chooses to use taxpayers’ money to keep it alive, it only gives incentive to other industries to beg for money from the government.

The U.S.’s under-funded pension industry could slump into crisis soon. The sharp fall in stock market has exposed the problems in this industry. For too long the U.S. industries have relied on stock market appreciation to shoulder their pension burden. The market collapse forces the issue on them when they are least able to deal with it. The total pension liability is US$ 12.2 trillion. How much of it has been lost in the market crash or the credit crisis? It must be a large number.

Then, there is US$ 2-trillion fiscal deficit to fund in 2009, nearly one fifth of the outstanding amount. The U.S. is dependent on foreign money to fund its treasury issuances. How would the world have the confidence to fund so much? The poor economy guarantees large deficit to last and the treasury supplies to remain high. If there is a confidence crisis among foreigners, the U.S. treasury market could crash like the stock market now.

Barack Obama is facing the biggest challenges since Franklin Roosevelt became President in 1932. In a way, Obama’s job may be tougher. When Roosevelt took over, the U.S. had savings surplus. He could just borrow at low interest rate to boost fiscal spending. Even with the sharp consumption decline the U.S. will likely remain a savings deficit country. Hence, Obama’s fiscal policy must consider foreigners’ confidence.

With all the trillion dollar crises ahead, maybe the only solution is printing money. The Fed can just print enough money to fund everything. Of course, the bond market and the dollar will drop sharply in anticipation of inflation. The U.S. government, businesses, and households could all refinance their debts at short end to benefit from the Fed’s low interest rate. Overtime, the debt is inflated away. It seems that stagflation may be the only way out.

Obama may be smart. But the problems may be too big for him. Printing money may be the only option left. You should sell the U.S. treasuries.