美國必須出臺新增長政策

issues of inequality, fairness, middle-class living standards and job creation have been central to the US presidential campaign.

不平等、公平、中產階級生活水平和創造就業，這些問題一直是美國總統大選的核心問題。

Rightly so. For many years, the incomes of all groups tended to move together. Indeed, as a graduate student in the late 1970s, I was taught that it was a “stylised fact” that the shares of US total income going to profits and to wages, and to the rich and to the poor, was constant.

理應如此。許多年來，所有羣體的收入往往同步變動。實際上，作爲畢業於上世紀70年代末的人，我接受的教育是，美國整體收入分別流向利潤和薪資、富人和窮人的比例是固定不變的，這是一個“不證自明的事實”。

All of this has changed. It is totally appropriate that widening inequality and the associated stalling of middle-class living standards should become an urgent political issue.

如今一切都已改變。不斷加劇的不平等以及與之相關的中產階級生活水平停滯，完全應當成爲一個緊迫的政治問題。

What is unfortunate is that many people, in their eagerness to focus on fairness, neglect the single most important determinant of almost every aspect of economic performance: the rate of growth of total income, as reflected in the gross domestic product.

遺憾的是，許多人熱衷於公平，忽視了決定經濟表現幾乎所有方面的最重要因素：國內生產總值(GDP)反映出來的整體收入增長率。

Because those who champion strategies that centre on business tax-cutting and deregulation and favour the wealthy have placed the most emphasis on growth over the past 35 years, the objective of increasing growth has been discredited in the minds of too many progressives.

因爲那些致力於捍衛企業減稅、去監管化以及取悅富人政策的人，在過去35年裏一直最重視增長，因此太多進步人士心中不再相信促增長的目標。

The reality is that more growth means more employment. And with the college-graduate unemployment rate only 2.5 per cent, the newly employed are disproportionately less educated and disadvantaged.

現實情況是，更多的增長意味着更多的就業。考慮到大學畢業生失業率只有2.5%，新的勞動參與者將更多地是教育程度較低者和弱勢羣體。

It can hardly be an accident that the decades of maximum growth, the 1960s and 1990s, also saw the most rapid job growth and most rapid increase in middle-class living standards.

增長最快的上世紀60年代和90年代同時也是就業增長和中產階級生活水平提升最快的年代，這不太可能是巧合。

Growth provides the wherewithal for increased federal revenue and so encourages the protection of vital social insurance programmes such as Social Security and Medicare. It creates headroom for new initiatives such as expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

增長爲聯邦收入增加提供來源，從而鼓勵政府保護社會安全福利(Social Security)和聯邦醫療保險(Medicare)等關鍵社保項目。增長爲“勞動所得稅額抵減”(EITC)的擴大等新舉措創造了空間。

Tight labour markets are the best social programme, as they force employers to hire and mentor inexperienced people in order to be adequately staffed. Some years ago, I estimated that for each 1 per cent point increase in adult male employment, the employment of young black men rose 7 per cent. More recent research confirms economic growth has an outsized benefit for younger people and minorities.

勞動力市場用工緊缺是最好的“社會保障”，因爲這種市場狀況迫使僱主招聘並培養缺乏經驗的勞動者以維持足夠人手。數年前，我估計，成年男性就業率每增長1個百分點，年輕黑人男性的就業率就會上升7個百分點。較近的研究證實，經濟增長更多地讓較爲年輕的勞動者和少數族裔受益。

Rising growth has other benefits, as well. It strengthens the power of the American example in the world. It obviates the need for desperation monetary policies that risk future financial stability. Greater growth also has historically operated to reduce crime, encourage environmental protection and contributes to public optimism about the country that our children will inherit.

快速的增長還有其他益處。它增強了美國在世界上的示範力量。它使得美國政府不用無奈地出臺可能危及未來金融穩定的貨幣政策。歷史經驗表明，較快的增長還能減少犯罪、鼓勵環境保護。較快的增長還能讓公衆對這個將由我們的後代繼承的國家感到樂觀。

The reality is that if American growth continues to have a 2 per cent ceiling, it is doubtful that we will achieve any of our major national objectives.

現實情況是，如果美國增速持續無法突破2%，我們能否實現任何一個主要國家目標就不好說了。

If, on the other hand, we can boost growth to 3 per cent, interest rates will normalise, middle-class wages will rise faster than inflation, debt burdens will tend to melt away and the power of the American example will be greatly enhanced.

另一方面，如果我們可以將增速提升至3%，利率將會正常化，中產階級薪資增速將會超過通脹，債務負擔將逐漸減輕，美國的示範力量將會得到極大的增強。

How, then, can growth be accelerated? In an economy like that of the US, the vast majority of job creation and income growth comes from the private sector. If the next president is lucky enough to preside over the creation of 10m jobs from 2017-20, more than 8m of them will surely come from businesses hiring in response to profit opportunities.

那麼，如何促進增長？在一個與美國類似的經濟體內，絕大多數就業創造和收入增長來自私人部門。如果下任總統足夠幸運，能夠實現2017年至2020年新增1000萬個就業崗位，那麼其中超過800萬個無疑將來自爲追逐利潤而招人的企業。

The question is not whether business success is desirable. The question is how it can best be achieved. At a moment when capital costs are close to zero, the stock market is at a record high and businesses are earning record profit margins, we do not need to bribe businesses to make investments that now do not seem worthwhile to them.

問題不是商業的成功好不好，而是如何才能最好地實現這種成功。當前資金成本接近零，股市處於創紀錄高位，企業的利潤率達到歷史最高水平，我們不需要拿好處哄着企業去進行它們現在認爲不值得的投資。

There is no case for reducing already low corporate taxes or removing regulations unless it can be shown that these have costs in excess of benefits.

我們也沒有理由降低業已很低的企業稅率或者廢除監管，除非有跡象表明，現行的企業稅率和監管造成的成本超過了利潤。

What is needed is more demand for the product of business. This is the core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment, increasing workers’ purchasing power and promoting competitiveness.

我們需要的是加大對商業活動成果的索取。這是出臺政策加大公共投資、增加勞動者購買力以及提升競爭力的核心理由。

That such policies also contribute to fairness is not a reason to lose sight of the central objective of promoting growth.

此類政策也有助於公平，但沒有理由因爲這一點而忘記促增長的主要目標。

Often in economics there are trade-offs. But not always. We can and must promote both fairness and growth.

經濟學中往往會有取捨。但並非始終如此。我們可以而且必須同時促進公平和增長。