拯救经济：克林顿为奥巴马支招

    私营领域有义务创造就业机会

    如果从事私营领域的工作，首要义务就是向投资方、客户以及雇员提供有足够利润空间的产品和服务，维持企业的运转。但是当企业有闲钱的时候，我觉得投资社会不失为一个好的办法，因为我认为，无论在道德上还是对于企业本身，这都是件好事。

    茶党的政府恐惧症

    问题是目前全世界没有一个案例能说明在反政府的环境下取得经济事业的成功。所有成功的经济实体都需要公共/私营的单位创造经济发展机会，提供良好的教育；需要一个良好的环境，以便政府和私营企业能够携手，共同促进经济发展。对于反政府群体我唯一想说的就是，干点实事，而实事就是合作，而不是冲突。

    总统有权干涉经济吗？

    总统握有相当大的话语权。看看里根总统的政策就知道。对于他所采取的放松管制的做法和在解决社会保险问题所达成的两党合作机制，我十分欣赏。然而我认为，他所推行的减税幅度过大，虽然刺激了经济增长，但缺乏可持续性。尽管里根总统的政策发挥了作用，但当老布什总统就任以后，这种利用透支手段来创造就业机会所带来的问题就一一浮出了水面。我执政的时候，要不是本着实现私营领域增长的理念，我的经济政策也难以取得成功。我很幸运。我在任时，信息技术革命爆发了。

    向房产市场投入更多的精力

    解决楼市困局的方法有很多。我觉得我们不应该在眼下，尤其在经济低迷的时候将这些房产交给市场来消化。我更倾向于通过有力的综合措施将它们转变为租赁资产。藉此，人们可以租用，交付设施租赁费用，缴纳税费以及负责维护，这样就可以保持住房存量。一旦经济复苏，这些住房就可以再次进入市场，促进经济增长而不是起负面作用。我认为这是我们应该采取的行动。

    从广义上来讲，市场已经非常低迷，无人能够幸免。过去人们常说，如果你所在区域的房子丧失了抵押赎回权，那么你的房产价值将下降10个，15个或20个百分点，因为这发生在你所住的街区。这一条曾一度被奉为金科玉律。

    但是现在，丧失抵押赎回权的房产比比皆是，因此几乎每家的房产都跟着遭殃，除了那些生活在美国繁华中心的人们：例如硅谷、圣地亚哥、奥兰多，这些地区的经济一片欣欣向荣，也算是积极的一面。除了这些地区以外，其他地区的问题很严重。

    我认为，如果我们能解决这个问题，我们将尽快扭转局面。

    关于增加税赋

    我赞同这种做法。这并不是什么阶级斗争。我的意思是说我们曾经--如果你回顾19—从二战末期到1980年左右的那段时期，辛勤劳动、个人才能以及创造力得到了超乎寻常的回报；与此同时，我们培养出了世界上最优秀的中产阶级，并一视同仁地给予穷人适当的机遇通过自身努力加入中产阶级大军。

    然而过去的国民收入分布显示，占人口90%的底层拥有国民总收入的65%；占人口10%的顶层拥有总收入的35%；而最顶端的1%拥有总收入的9%。

    这一数据在过去的30年当中发生了变化。90%的底层所拥有的收入份额从65下滑至52。10%的顶层的份额从35增加至48。1%的那部分份额从9升至21.

    贫富差距的扩大令人震惊，我认为不利于社会的长期稳定。

    关于克林顿全球行动

    今年我们的主要目标是在美国和全球创造就业机会。我们正致力于打造一个能持续发展的经济实体，也就是帮助各国打造相应的经济模式，应对全球变暖和当地资源消耗所带来的挑战，可持续地促进经济和就业机会的增长。

    与此同时，我们也在致力于为女性创造公平的机会，因为对于很多极度贫困的国家来说，这个问题极大地拖累了经济。我们认为在美国不存在这样的问题，女性在接受教育方面没有限制，有机会参加工作。但在很多国家，情况并非如此。

    The private sector's obligation to create jobs

    If you're in the private sector, your first obligation to your investors, to your customers, and to your employees is to provide a product or a service at a sufficient profit to keep the enterprise going. But when a company does have extra money, I think it's a good idea to invest in the community, because I think it's not only the morally right thing to do, it's good for the companies involved.

    The Tea Party's government phobia

    The problem is that there's not a single example on the planet of a successful economy that runs on the antigovernment model. All the successful economies have public/private cooperation to generate economic opportunity, provide a good education, create an environment where government and the private sector work together and advance economies. The only thing I'd say to the antigovernment crowd is that we've got to do what works and what works is cooperation, not conflict.

    Does the President have power over the economy?

    Oh, quite a bit. Look at President Reagan's policies. I give him a lot of credit for the deregulation work he did and the bipartisan resolution for the Social Security problem. But I also think that his tax cuts, which were very large, spurred economic growth in a way that wasn't sustainable. It worked, but when the first President Bush took office, he basically got all the downside of having a deficit-spending model of generating jobs. Now, my program wouldn't have been successful either if we hadn't had a theory of private sector growth. I was fortunate. I became President when the information technology revolution broke out.

    More on the housing market

    There are all these options and I don't think we ought to keep dumping these houses on the market right now when it's so depressed. I'd like to see them converted into rental property in an aggressive, comprehensive way, and let people rent it for the price of the utilities, the taxes, and the maintenance, just to maintain the housing stock. Then as the economy picks up, you can put it back on the market in a way that will support economic growth, not undermine it. That's what I think should be done.

    And in a larger sense, the market is so depressed that it's hurting everyone else. It used to be as a rule of thumb, people would say, well, if the mortgage is foreclosed on on your block, it will drive down the value of your house because it's on your block, by 10, 15, 20%.

    But now there are so many houses that have been foreclosed on, it's driven down the value of almost everybody's houses, except -- let's talk about the upside -- the people that are in the prosperity centers of America: in Silicon Valley, in San Diego, in Orlando, and places where the economy is booming. Except for those places, this is a problem.

    I can't -- I think it would really get us going in a hurry if we could flush this out.

    On paying more taxes

    No, no, I'm in favor of it because -- and I don't consider it class warfare. I mean we had -- if you look at from 19 -- from the end of the Second World War to about 1980, we had enough inequality to reward hard work and raw talent and creativity, and enough equality to build the world's greatest middle class and allow poor people a reasonable chance to work their way into it.

    And the distribution was the bottom 90% had 65% of the income; the top 10% had 35% of the income; the top 1% had about 9% of the income.

    And those numbers have changed in the last 30 years. The 90% share has dropped from 65 to 52. The 10% share has gone from 35 to 48. The 1% share has gone from 9 to 21.

    That's a breathtaking increase in inequality, and I don't think it's good for our long-term stability.

    On the Clinton Global Initiative

    This year we're working on the creation of jobs in America and around the world. We're working on building an economy that can be maintained. That is helping countries develop an economic model that takes account of the challenges of global warming and resource depletion locally, where you can still keep promoting growth and jobs in a sustainable way.

    And we're working on trying to equalize opportunities in the world for girls and women because that's a big economic drag on a lot of very poor countries. It's not anything we think about. We tend to take that for granted in America, that women should be able to stay in school as much as they want, and have access to the workforce. That's not the case in many, many countries.