财政悬崖也许只是耸人听闻

    CBO相信如果什么也不做，十年内美国的赤字将更高，导致私营部门投资减少，资本效率下降。相比掉落悬崖，产值和薪资水平将更低。CBO这一预测的前提是人们工作和增加储蓄的动力，不会超出债务减少带来的国民储蓄和投资下降。CBO试图量化净效益和成本，结果发现十年后仍是方向难料——实际GDP的变动幅度从下降2%到增长2.1%不等。

    这是削减预算观点的最大问题——即便是长期来看，也不知道减少支出、控制预算赤字，是否真的值得。我们知道短期内不值得，因为它会对整个系统构成冲击，但即便是长期，值不值得也不清楚。CBO预计2022年以后，预算赤字增长（如果不掉落悬崖，赤字将累积）对GDP的负面影响将更大，推动利率上升。但它估计，3个月和10年期美国国债的利率只会上升0.4个百分点——0.4%。，真的吗？整个国家承受几年的痛苦，就得到了这些？避免利率上升了0.4%？

    预测是预测，很多时候它们都错得很离谱——特别是，如果当人们试图预测的是十年后的事情。CBO有一个观点，债务/GDP比率上升意味着投资和融资的难度加大。“真实世界”（对于你和我）的情况是这样，但对美国而言并不是这样。出于这样或那样的理由，华尔街、普通民众和全世界都相信，美国能过了这道关。去年标准普尔(S&P）下调了美国的信用评级，理由是美国的高负债率以及运转失灵的政府损害了它在全世界的地位。但市场不以为然，将美国国债的收益率推到了前所未有的低位——短期美国国债事实上已为负利率。这意味着就算今年美国的负债再增加1.1万亿美元，由于超低利率，其他的偿债金额反而会减少。

    但市场多变，大门随时可能关上。如果由于某种原因，某位债券经理一早醒来决定做空美国国债，他/她可能触发美国国债的巨大抛售，几天内就将收益率推至高位。在欧洲就曾经出现有过这样的情况：1个月前意大利支付的收益率还在2%左右，下一个月就要接近7%了。当你的债务收入比上升时，市场拒绝你的可能性会上升，但不一定。

    因此，在削减支出的好处依然不明的时候，政客们很难以削减支出为由、将整个国家推入深度衰退。事实是，《2011年预算控制法案》是一出政治剧戏码，共和党人希望藉此安抚“茶党”选民——而随着经济改善，如今这类选民基本上已消失。至于讨论上调最富有2%人群的边际税率，则纯粹是政治花招。事实上，多项研究（包括CBO的研究）都显示，上调边际税率能增加的收入不多(不同于民主党观点），也不会对经济造成真正的伤害(不同于共和党观点）。说到底，如果将最富有2%人群的边际税率从35%提高到39.6%，就能完全解决财政悬崖难题，相信各方早就就此达成一致了。

    The CBO believes that the higher deficit that the nation would have in 10 years if it did nothing would lead to less private investment, which would lower productive capital therefore reducing output and wages relative to where they would be by going over the cliff. It bases this on the belief that people's incentive to work and save by keeping more of their money would not outweigh an assumed decrease in national savings and investment that comes from having lower debt. The CBO tried to quantify the net benefits and costs and they found that after 10 years it still could go either way – spanning a range for real GDP from a decrease of 2% to an increase of 2.1%.

    This is the biggest problem with getting on the budget-cutting bandwagon – even in the long term it is unclear if sacrificing spending to check budget deficits really pays off. We know it won't in the short term, given the shock to the system, but even in the long term it's unclear. The CBO suggests that beyond 2022, rising budget deficits, accrued by not going over the cliff, would lead to larger negative impacts on GDP and cause interest rates to rise. But it estimates that the interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year Treasury notes would just be 0.4 percentage points higher - 0.4%, really? That's all the nation gets for incurring a terrible couple of years – a lousy 0.4% reduction?

    Projections are projections, and they are spectacularly wrong most of the time – especially when trying to forecast out 10 years. The message the CBO is sending makes sense – a higher debt to income ratio means that it will be harder to invest and harder to obtain credit. That's how it works in the "real world" (i.e. for you and me), but not for the US. Wall Street, Main Street and the world believe that the US, for some reason, gets a pass. S&P downgraded the credit rating of the US last year noting the nation's high debt ratio and its dysfunctional government was hurting its standing in the world. But the markets didn't care, pushing yields on US treasuries to their lowest point ever – short term bills were actually negative. This means that even though the US tacked on an extra $1.1 trillion to that national debt this year its debt payment went down because of the super low rates.

    But the market is fickle and can turn on you at any time. If for some reason a bond manager wakes up one morning and decides to short US debt, he or she could set off a huge sell off in Treasuries that could eventually send yields sky high in a matter of days. We saw that in Europe where Italy was paying yields around 2% one month and then close to 7% the next. The chance that the market moves against you increases as your debt to income ratio rises, but not necessarily.

    It is therefore hard for politicians to so brazenly throw the nation into a deep recession to reduce spending when the benefits of acting are so intangible. The fact is that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was political theater in which the Republicans tried to appease "Tea Party" voters – a constituency that has basically been wiped out as the economy has improved. Discussions around raising the marginal tax rate on the top 2% are simply just political fodder. Indeed, multiple studies, including ones by the CBO say that it would raise an insignificant amount of money (a negative for the Democratic view) but would also cause no real harm to the economy (a negative for the Republican view). In the end, if it takes changing the top 2% rate from 35% to 39.6% to end this whole fiscal cliff charade, you can bet it has already been agreed to.