近日,特朗普团队宣布成立一个全新的部门——政府效率部,旨在提升政府的工作效率,通过削减开支,为纳税人节省资金。该部门将由亿万富翁、特斯拉首席执行官埃隆·马斯克和企业家维韦克·拉马斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy)领导,他们将采取“前所未见的企业家型政府方法”。无论你支持哪个党派,这都是一项有意义的事业。
自里根政府以来,联邦政府从未认真解决这一问题(即便在当时也未能认真解决)。希望这一次,我们能够见证实质性的进展。更令人期待的是,这项工作将由那些已经证明自己能够实现这一目标的企业家和创造者来负责。你个人是否喜欢被任命的人并不重要,因为如果该部门能够实现其目标,整个国家都将从中受益。这一举措早就应该实施了。早在罗斯福执政时期,联邦政府的规模就开始了无节制的快速膨胀。
今年,美国国债达到创纪录的35万亿美元。在两党执政的至少70年里,美国国债几乎一直在持续增长。尽管政客们经常宣称要减少国债,但到目前为止,他们在兑现这一承诺方面毫无信誉可言。
国债危机
为了更清楚地了解国债的负担,根据最新收集的数据,美国9月仅用于支付国债利息的费用就高达380亿美元,这还不包括政府运营的成本。这超过了当月个人所得税收入的15%。因此,指望债务会自动消失是不切实际的。
不断攀升的债务会带来切实的影响。大约10年前,标准普尔做出了一个大胆的决定,下调了美国的债券评级,“无耻地”声称随着债务增加,债务风险会上升。其理念是,当一个实体持续借款却从未偿还债务时,风险会随之增加。我记得,有位政客竟厚颜无耻地质疑标准普尔这样做是否爱国。我想,无视物理学定律而让美国债台高筑才是爱国的表现吧。去年,惠誉评级将美国的债务评级从AAA下调至AA+。我想说,这位老师在评分政策上实际上是相当宽松的。
想想一个企业,甚至一个人。如果一家企业的年收入为100万美元,而年支出却永远高达200万美元,还会有投资者愿意继续向这家企业注资吗?你会吗?如果一个人年收入10万美元,而年支出却永远高达12万美元,最终的结果会是什么?无疑是破产。这不仅是基本的经济学原理,也是常识。
总有一天,人们会停止借钱给我们。他们会停止购买我们的国债,而我们将无力偿还所欠债务。正是在这一点上,事情开始变得耐人寻味。一些生活在电子表格和模型的抽象世界里的博士声称,我们不必担心债务问题,因为美元是全球货币和交易的基础。其他人则认为,债务只需与国内生产总值(GDP)相比来衡量。这些观点与像万有引力这样简单的定律相悖:一个持续借款却从不偿还债务的实体是无法生存下去的。
削减开支
解决方案并不复杂。我们需要削减开支。我不知道你是怎么想的,但如果有人向我借钱,除非他们能证明自己有一定的财务约束能力,否则我是不会借钱给他们的。任何有预算的人都知道,削减开支是件难事。这需要自律。
我指的是真正减少开支。政客们对“削减开支”的定义颇为滑稽。如果你每年的家庭开支是100美元,而我要求你削减开支,你可能会理解为将支出减少到99美元或更少。但联邦政府所谓的“削减”实际上是降低增长速度。以刚才的例子来说,这意味着如果你每年花费100美元(实际负担不起),并且计划明年花费105美元,而你同意只花费104美元,那么你就削减了1美元。按照这样的逻辑,我们几近破产也就不足为奇了。只有联邦政府才会用这样的数学方法来计算。
对我们如今的议员来说,联邦政府削减开支几乎是一项不可能完成的任务,因为这需要采取难以置信的措施——偶尔对说客和选民说“不”。成立这个部门是朝着正确方向迈出的重要一步。国家必须整顿财政,因为迟早会有人直言不讳地指出皇帝的新装——即我们长期赤字的真相。如果人们不再借钱给我们,后果将不堪设想。(财富中文网)
布莱恩·汉密尔顿(Brian Hamilton)创立了Sageworks(现为Abrigo公司),这是一家已被收购的金融科技公司,旨在帮助数百万企业主将复杂的财务信息转换为易于理解的内容。他还创立了布莱恩·汉密尔顿基金会(Brian Hamilton Foundation)和“从囚犯到企业家”组织(Inmates to Entrepreneurs),旨在推广所有权的力量,改变人们的生活,并在美国广播公司(ABC)的获奖节目《自由企业》(Free Enterprise)中担任主演。
译者:中慧言-王芳
近日,特朗普团队宣布成立一个全新的部门——政府效率部,旨在提升政府的工作效率,通过削减开支,为纳税人节省资金。该部门将由亿万富翁、特斯拉首席执行官埃隆·马斯克和企业家维韦克·拉马斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy)领导,他们将采取“前所未见的企业家型政府方法”。无论你支持哪个党派,这都是一项有意义的事业。
自里根政府以来,联邦政府从未认真解决这一问题(即便在当时也未能认真解决)。希望这一次,我们能够见证实质性的进展。更令人期待的是,这项工作将由那些已经证明自己能够实现这一目标的企业家和创造者来负责。你个人是否喜欢被任命的人并不重要,因为如果该部门能够实现其目标,整个国家都将从中受益。这一举措早就应该实施了。早在罗斯福执政时期,联邦政府的规模就开始了无节制的快速膨胀。
今年,美国国债达到创纪录的35万亿美元。在两党执政的至少70年里,美国国债几乎一直在持续增长。尽管政客们经常宣称要减少国债,但到目前为止,他们在兑现这一承诺方面毫无信誉可言。
国债危机
为了更清楚地了解国债的负担,根据最新收集的数据,美国9月仅用于支付国债利息的费用就高达380亿美元,这还不包括政府运营的成本。这超过了当月个人所得税收入的15%。因此,指望债务会自动消失是不切实际的。
不断攀升的债务会带来切实的影响。大约10年前,标准普尔做出了一个大胆的决定,下调了美国的债券评级,“无耻地”声称随着债务增加,债务风险会上升。其理念是,当一个实体持续借款却从未偿还债务时,风险会随之增加。我记得,有位政客竟厚颜无耻地质疑标准普尔这样做是否爱国。我想,无视物理学定律而让美国债台高筑才是爱国的表现吧。去年,惠誉评级将美国的债务评级从AAA下调至AA+。我想说,这位老师在评分政策上实际上是相当宽松的。
想想一个企业,甚至一个人。如果一家企业的年收入为100万美元,而年支出却永远高达200万美元,还会有投资者愿意继续向这家企业注资吗?你会吗?如果一个人年收入10万美元,而年支出却永远高达12万美元,最终的结果会是什么?无疑是破产。这不仅是基本的经济学原理,也是常识。
总有一天,人们会停止借钱给我们。他们会停止购买我们的国债,而我们将无力偿还所欠债务。正是在这一点上,事情开始变得耐人寻味。一些生活在电子表格和模型的抽象世界里的博士声称,我们不必担心债务问题,因为美元是全球货币和交易的基础。其他人则认为,债务只需与国内生产总值(GDP)相比来衡量。这些观点与像万有引力这样简单的定律相悖:一个持续借款却从不偿还债务的实体是无法生存下去的。
削减开支
解决方案并不复杂。我们需要削减开支。我不知道你是怎么想的,但如果有人向我借钱,除非他们能证明自己有一定的财务约束能力,否则我是不会借钱给他们的。任何有预算的人都知道,削减开支是件难事。这需要自律。
我指的是真正减少开支。政客们对“削减开支”的定义颇为滑稽。如果你每年的家庭开支是100美元,而我要求你削减开支,你可能会理解为将支出减少到99美元或更少。但联邦政府所谓的“削减”实际上是降低增长速度。以刚才的例子来说,这意味着如果你每年花费100美元(实际负担不起),并且计划明年花费105美元,而你同意只花费104美元,那么你就削减了1美元。按照这样的逻辑,我们几近破产也就不足为奇了。只有联邦政府才会用这样的数学方法来计算。
对我们如今的议员来说,联邦政府削减开支几乎是一项不可能完成的任务,因为这需要采取难以置信的措施——偶尔对说客和选民说“不”。成立这个部门是朝着正确方向迈出的重要一步。国家必须整顿财政,因为迟早会有人直言不讳地指出皇帝的新装——即我们长期赤字的真相。如果人们不再借钱给我们,后果将不堪设想。(财富中文网)
布莱恩·汉密尔顿(Brian Hamilton)创立了Sageworks(现为Abrigo公司),这是一家已被收购的金融科技公司,旨在帮助数百万企业主将复杂的财务信息转换为易于理解的内容。他还创立了布莱恩·汉密尔顿基金会(Brian Hamilton Foundation)和“从囚犯到企业家”组织(Inmates to Entrepreneurs),旨在推广所有权的力量,改变人们的生活,并在美国广播公司(ABC)的获奖节目《自由企业》(Free Enterprise)中担任主演。
译者:中慧言-王芳
Yesterday, the Trump team announced the formation of a new effort, the Department of Government Efficiency, to make the government more efficient, i.e. to cut costs and save taxpayers money. The department will be led by billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who will take “an entrepreneurial approach to government never seen before.” No matter what party you are affiliated with, this is a worthy cause.
Not since the Reagan administration (and not even really then) has this issue been seriously addressed by the federal government. Hopefully, this time, something will actually happen. Better, the effort will be run by people who have proven that they can actually do this—entrepreneurs, creators. Whether you personally like the people appointed is not material since the country will gain if the objective of the department is achieved. This is long overdue. The federal government began to grow unabated at a fast clip as far back as FDR’s administration.
The national debt hit a record $35 trillion this year. Our national debt has been growing almost continuously for at least 70 years under both parties. Despite their words, to date, politicians have zero credibility in reducing it.
National debt crisis
To put the burden of the national debt into perspective, the U.S. put $38 billion toward paying the interest on our national debt in September, the most recent month for which data is available, not even the cost of running the government. That’s more than 15% of individual income tax dollars generated that month. The hope that the debt will magically fall is nil.
The rising debt has real implications. About 10 years ago, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) had the temerity to reduce the bond rating of the United States, outrageously stating that the risk of debt goes up as the amount of debt increases. The idea is that the risk increases as an entity keeps borrowing and never pays the money back. As I recall, one politician had the gall to question the patriotism of S&P for doing so. I suppose it’s patriotic to keep spending us into a mountain of debt without any heed to physics. Last year, Fitch Ratings lowered our debt rating from AAA to AA+. I’d say the teacher is actually lenient in his/her grading policy.
Think of a business or even a person. If a business takes in $1 million in revenue and spends $2 million each year forever, who would continue to lend money to that business? Would you? If a person is making $100,000 a year and is spending $120,000 a year in perpetuity, what is the result? Bankruptcy. This is not just basic economics, it’s common sense.
At some point, people will stop lending us money; they will stop buying our debt, and we will have no means to pay back what we owe. This is where it gets interesting. Some PhDs who live in the abstract world of spreadsheets and models say we don’t have to worry about our debt because the dollar is the basis for currency and exchange in the world. Others say the debt needs to be measured only as compared to GDP. These ideas argue against a phenomenon as simple as gravity: an entity that keeps borrowing and never reduces its debt cannot survive.
Cutting expenses
The solution is not complicated. We need to cut our expenses. I don’t know about you, but I would not lend money to someone unless they proved they had a modicum of fiscal restraint. As anyone with a budget knows, it is difficult to reduce expenses. It takes discipline.
And I do mean lower expenses. Politicians have a funny definition of “cutting expenses.” If you were spending $100 a year in household expenses, and I asked you to cut them, you might think I meant to reduce expenses to, say, $99 or less. In Washington, their definition is a reduction in the rate of increase. Using the previous example, this means that if you were spending $100 a year (and could not afford that) and you planned on spending $105 next year, and you agree to only spend $104, this is a cut of $1. Using logic like that, it is no wonder we are virtually bankrupt. Only in Washington does math like that get applied.
Cutting expenses is almost impossible to do in Washington D.C. with our current crop of legislators because it would require the unthinkable—telling lobbyists and constituents “no” once in a while. The formation of this department is a step in the right direction. The country must get its fiscal house in order because it’s a matter of time before someone says rightly that the emperor has no clothes and has been naked for a long time. If people stop lending us money, it would be catastrophic.
Brian Hamilton founded Sageworks (now Abrigo), a since-acquired fintech company that helped millions of business owners translate complex financial information. He also founded the Brian Hamilton Foundation and Inmates to Entrepreneurs, promoting the power of ownership to transform lives, and starred in ABC’s award-winning show Free Enterprise.