保尔森：中国“农转非”影响全球
|
在你看来，如果清楚面前的风险，政客们会采取行动来防止金融系统失灵吗？还是说必须在大萧条可能重现的情况下他们才会被迫找到双方都能接受的解决方案？ 国会在危机迫近时采取了行动。美联储主席本•伯南克和我到国会去申请批准TARP时，民主党众议员巴尼•弗兰克在第一次开会时就说，从政治角度讲这项计划很难获得通过。无论能否得到批准，美国经济仍将继续滑坡，而阻止一场公众看不到的灾难不会给任何政客带来政绩。 但两党之间也出现了合作，这要归功于金融危机前人们做了大量工作来修复两党之间的关系。我和布什总统建立了相互信任。因此，危机到来后，他让我上阵迎敌，他也准备做出一些艰难的决定，即便它们不受欢迎。我很幸运，危机爆发前我有一年的时间，可以和两党成员共同解决一些问题，很像我在高盛时和客户之间的协作。 党派之争对经济复苏和增长有影响吗？ 当然有。目前的经济增长率仍然过低，失业率也过高，出现这种局面的部分原因是我们的经济竞争力在较长一段时间内一直都呈下跌趋势，从而产生了一些不利影响。即使在1997-2007年这个十年泡沫期内，家庭平均收入也没有出现变化；在此期间美国人的借贷规模则处于历史较高水平，而且为了维持超过自己支付能力的生活水平，人们的负债也达到了无以为继的程度。 要重塑经济竞争力并让年增长率超过3%，两党就要携手在一些领域实施改革，比如福利制度、移民政策以及税法，以便产生人们所需要的收入，同时创造出就业机会。 现在还没有出现另一场危机，国会在什么样的情况下才会以建设性的方式来实施经济改革？ 除非政府和两党议员都愿意做出让步，我们急需的改革才能付诸实施。 布什总统曾鼓励我作出妥协，以便达成协议。经济刺激计划建立在退税的基础上，共和党人很讨厌这种做法，但我们各退了一步，从而促成了这项计划的通过。 我们从2006年底开始对房利美和房地美进行改革。布什总统也同意我和一些共和党顽固派划清界限——考虑到这些人对政府设立的金融机构（GSE）所持的态度，布什总统基本上是对的，因为这些人所坚持的改革方案根本无法实施。更好的做法就是妥协，以便开展那些重要的工作，而不是执着于意识上的东西而一事无成。 对房利美和房地美这样的GSE进行改革为什么会如此困难？ 在既得利益者想保护的福利制度中，房利美和房地美占了很大一部分，另外还有按揭利息税减免政策和各州的住房项目。这些强大的既得利益者包括业主、房地产经纪人、建筑公司和投资者。 |
Do you think politicians would have acted to prevent a systemic breakdown had they understood the risks, or would it still have taken the threat of another Great Depression to force them to find bipartisan solutions? It took a near catastrophe to get Congress to act. When Ben Bernanke and I went to Congress to ask for approval for TARP, Barney Frank said in our first meeting that this was going to be politically difficult to pass. Whether or not we got approval, the economy was still going to turn down, and no politician gets credit for preventing a disaster the public never sees. But that bipartisanship also happened because a lot had been done to build relationships before the crisis. I had developed a relationship of mutual trust with President Bush, so when the time came, he turned to me as his war-time general and was prepared to make tough decisions even if they were unpopular. I was fortunate to have a year before the crisis hit to work with members of both parties to get things done, much in the same way I would with clients at Goldman. Is partisan gridlock stymying the economic recovery and harming growth? You bet. Economic growth is still too slow and unemployment too high, and this is in part because we're dealing with a disturbing, longer-term trend of declining economic competitiveness. Even in the ten-year bubble from 1997 to 2007, median family income was flat, when Americans were borrowing at historically high levels and taking on unsustainable levels of debt to maintain an unaffordable standard of living. What it takes to restore economic competitiveness and get growth above 3% a year is to have bipartisan reform in areas like entitlement systems, immigration policy, and the tax code so that we can get the revenues we need and create jobs. Absent another crisis, what needs to happen for Congress to tackle economic reform in a constructive way? The reforms we desperately need will only happen if the Administration and members of Congress from both parties are willing to compromise. President Bush encouraged me to compromise to cut deals. The stimulus bill was structured as a refundable tax credit, which is anathema to Republicans, but we compromised so that it could be passed. We started working to reform Fannie and Freddie in late 2006, and President Bush authorized me to break ranks with some of the Republican diehards – who were largely right regarding their views on the GSEs – because they were insisting on reforms that just couldn't get done. It's better to compromise and get some important things done, rather than clinging to ideological views and getting nothing done at all. Why has it been so hard to reform the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Fannie and Freddie are a big part of the incentive structure that vested interests want to protect, along with the mortgage interest tax deduction and state housing programs. Those strong vested interests include homeowners, real estate brokers, homebuilders, and investors. |
