Many in Washington argue that an emphasis on the long term is misplaced, that we should focus on near-term “stimulus and can confront long-term problems later. While there were strong reasons to argue for policy intervention at the onset of the crisis, there are three reasons to be sceptical about the call for “stimulus first.
华盛顿的很多人认为,把重点放在长期是错误的,我们应该注重近期的“刺激,以后再应对长期问题。尽管有强大的理由支持在这场危机爆发之初就进行政策介入,但“刺激第一的做法值得商榷,原因有三点:
First, failure to address structural problems contributed to the crisis (for example, the tax bias against business investment and misallocation of capital to housing). Second, making progress on longer-term debt reduction and tax reform would have given policy makers room to implement bolder short-term fiscal policy to support growth. Third, ad hoc responses to the crisis exacerbated policy uncertainty, weakening the recovery.
第一,没能解决导致危机的结构性问题(比如,不利于商业投资的税收规定,以及资本向房地产业的不当配置)。第二,在降低长期债务和税收改革方面取得的进步,可以给政策制定者一定的空间,来实施更为大胆的短期财政政策以支持增长。第三,应对危机的临时措施增加了政策的不确定性,削弱了复苏势头。
【美国经济亟需解决的问题】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15