The relief package turned out better than I thought it would
美國的經濟救助計畫好於我的預期
原文：CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/perspectives/economic-relief-bill/index.html
譯文：察網 http://www.cwzg.cn/theory/202004/56553.html
作者：Joseph Stiglitz
譯者：李雨萌
【導讀】本文為斯蒂格利茨4月1日所發文章。他認為美國政府剛剛通過的經濟救助計畫比
原來預想的要好。他強調該方案中給每位年收入小於75000美元的公民發放1200美元的重
要性，因為根據美聯儲的問卷調查，40%的美國人拿不出400美元的應急資金。他認為，方
案中禁止美國公司用政府救助資金回購股票是正確的。他進一步建議，政府給陷入困難的
大公司的貸款應採取“帶有認股權證的可轉換債”。斯蒂格利茲此文寫成時，當時他
用的領取失業救助人數的登記數據還是330萬，但現在這個數據已經是660萬。美國經濟危
機的迅速發展和應對方案值得我們密切關注。
The federal bill just passed was an impressive response to the economic
consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. But we should not refer to it as a
"stimulus" package. That's a misnomer: It's not like 2008, when the economy
faced insufficient demand because of problems in the financial sector. Then,
a stimulus was what was required. Here, the problem is not lack of demand,
but an implosion of the economy because of COVID-19.
剛剛通過的聯邦法案，是對新冠病毒大流行的經濟後果所做出的反應，令人印象深刻。但
我們不應將其稱為“刺激性”方案。這是一個不恰當的詞彙：今日所發生的一切，與2008
年不同，2008年經濟因金融業問題而面臨需求的不足，因此，刺激成為必需。但今天，問
題不在於缺乏需求，而在於COVID-19導致的經濟塌陷。
The first priority is to ensure that we have the right economics to protect
our health — that's why assistance to hospitals and paid sick leave is so
important. But beyond that we need to protect our citizens to prevent the
extremes of deprivation and stress that would otherwise arise, and to put our
economy on a sound footing for recovery once the pandemic is under control.
What the US economy needs is for the money to get into the right hands
quickly and to keep workers linked to their employers.
當務之急，就是要確保我們有良知的經濟學，以保障我們的健康——這就是為什麼我們必
須要援助醫院，為什麼必須有帶薪病假。但除此之外，為了防止出現極端貧困和生活壓力
，我們還需要保護我們的公民（否則上述問題必定會出現）並使我們的經濟在冠狀病毒的
傳播得到控制後有一個良好的復甦基礎。當前美國經濟需要的，是讓金錢能夠迅速流動到
恰當的人手中，且需要維繫工人與僱主間的關聯。
In that respect, the bill rightly sought to strengthen the US unemployment
insurance system, which is among the weakest in the advanced countries both
in terms of coverage (the fraction of workers entitled to benefits) and
replacement rates (benefits as a ratio of normal pay). If forecasts are
correct, the burden on the unemployment insurance system will be enormous.
The 3.3 million workers who registered for unemployment benefits last week
increased the number of unemployed Americans by some 50% from the 5.8 million
US workers unemployed in February. And that latest number is likely low
because some couldn't get through to the unemployment offices to register.
Coverage for freelance workers and those in the gig economy is also an
important part of the deal that will help make sure these people get
much-needed support — but it will lead to unemployment benefit numbers
increasing still further. Extending the period of coverage for unemployed
workers and increasing payments will also be key provisions protecting the
estimated 20% to 30% of the labor force that is likely to be unemployed.
在這一方面，聯邦法案明智地力爭完善美國的失業保險制度，在所有發達國家中，美國的
這一制度是最弱的，包括保險範圍（享有福利的工人比例）和補貼率（福利佔正常工資的
比例）。不出所料的話，失業保險制度將面臨巨大的負擔。上週有330萬工人登記領取失
業救濟金，這使美國失業的人數較2月份的580萬增加了約50%。最新的增長數字可能會降
低，但只是因為很多人已經無法通過失業辦公室辦理登記。為自由職業者和零工經濟者提
供保險，也是聯邦法案的一個重要部分，這將有助於確保這些人在緊迫時刻獲得救助，但
這也導致失業救濟人數進一步增加。延長失業工人的保險期並且提升支付，也將構成關鍵
條款，保護20%至30%左右行將失業的勞動力。
The package also attempts to prevent people from falling through the cracks
by providing $1,200 to individuals earning $75,000 or less or $2,400 to
couples earning less than $150,000, although it does not go far enough to
ensure financial stability for most Americans. It was a fantasy for the Trump
administration to suggest it could send the checks out in two weeks. It took
two weeks to get legislation passed, and now the administration says it will
take another three weeks for those funds to reach taxpayers for whom the IRS
has the requisite data. It will take even longer for the rest. With so many
Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, unable to cover a $400 emergency, this
delay could be calamitous.
該法案還試圖通過向年收入7.5萬美元或以下的個人提供1200美元補助費，或向年收入15
萬美元以下的夫婦提供2400美元補助費，防止人們陷入困境，儘管這並不足以保障大多數
美國人的財務狀況穩定。川普政府曾指出可能在兩週內分發支票，但這無疑是一個幻想。
光是法案的通過，就花費了兩週時間，現在政府又聲稱還要再花三週的時間，這些資金才
能到達在美國國稅局登記造冊的納稅人手中。那麼對於其他人而言，資金的抵達則要需要
更長的時間。在有這麼多美國人僅靠工資過活、連400美元應急資金都拿不出的情況下，
這一拖延可能是災難性的。
There is an urgency here: If families can't pay the landlords, and the
landlords can't pay their bills, and so forth down the line, we could get a
gridlocked economy that would be hard to start up in the future. I've seen
this in other crises, and we don't want it here.
這一情況的緊迫性在於：如果家庭支付不起房租給房東，房東也就支付不起賬單，一系列
連鎖反應就此發生，我們就可能會陷入一個在未來也很難再啟動的經濟僵局。我已經在其
他危機中看到過這種結果，我們不想讓它再次發生。
Given these problems, it was important that the legislation included
provisions that many other countries have introduced — things like
protection against eviction and foreclosure on homes with federal mortgages
and a stay on interest payments on federal student debt. But the legislation
didn't go far enough: It should have included a stay on all evictions and
mortgage foreclosures, credit cards and car repossessions. The stay for
credit cards is especially important, given the high interest rates charged
by credit card companies. Without it, many families will find themselves with
unmanageable debt.
考慮到這些問題，此次立法收進的許多其他國家已經引入的條款就顯得尤為重要，例如保
護負擔聯邦抵押貸款的房屋不受房主驅逐和止贖，以及暫停聯邦學生債務的利息。但這項
立法還不夠廣泛和深入：它本應包括暫停所有房主驅逐、抵押貸款止贖、未清償貸款的信
用卡和汽車的收回。考慮到信用卡公司收取的高利率，信用卡的延期尤為重要。沒有它，
許多家庭將無法管理自己的債務。
In addition to helping individuals, we must also sustain the economy and its
financial system. Normal monetary and fiscal policy, while helpful, won't
suffice because both supply and demand have been deeply perturbed. In 2008,
monetary policy may have prevented the collapse of the banking system, but it
didn't lead to a quick resuscitation of the economy. So too here.
除了對個人施以援手，我們還必須維持經濟和金融體系。常規的貨幣和財政政策雖然有幫
助，但還不夠，因為供需雙方都陷入了混亂。在2008年，貨幣政策或許阻止了銀行體系的
崩潰，但並沒有幫助經濟迅速復甦。今天也是一樣。
In 2008, the credit crunch came from the top down, from the bad behavior of
the banks. Here it will come from the bottom up, because when people's income
sources dry up, they won't be able to pay their bills, with cascading effects
throughout the economy. For this, we need more of a bottom-up response than
in 2008. The $1,200 checks will be vital. Small businesses will also need the
variety of benefits that are included in the legislation, including deferrals
on certain tax payments and SBA loan repayments, grants and low-interest
loans.
2008年的信貸緊縮是自上而下的，主要可歸因為銀行的不良行為。而今天的危機是自下而
上的，因為當人們的收入來源枯竭時，他們將無法支付賬單，整個經濟就會產生連鎖反應
。正因如此，我們需要比2008年更多的自下而上的回應。1200美元的支票至關重要。小企
業還將需要聯邦立法中所包括的各種優惠，包括某些稅目的延期納稅，小企業管理局提供
的分期還款、贈款、低息貸款等。
Then there are the bailouts. Giving money to companies that squandered the
opportunity to put money aside for a rainy day because they opted for massive
share buybacks is not the way. That's old-fashioned trickle-down economics,
which has never worked. We need to distinguish between bailing out companies
and bailing out their shareholders and bondholders. I have argued that loans
should take the form of convertible bonds with warrants, so taxpayers get
adequate compensation for the risk they bear, and the interest should be
linked to their past behavior — if they've put themselves in this position
by share buybacks and if they've been a tax avoider. And there should be
conditions on this money based on employment, governance, the treatment of
labor and the environment.
然後是公司緊急救助的問題。很多公司會選擇做大規模股票回購，把錢放下來以備不時之
需，這是對機會的揮霍，把錢給這樣的公司，並不是什麼辦法。這種老式的涓滴經濟學從
未奏效過。什麼是救助公司，什麼又是救助股東及債券持有人，這是我們要做出區分的。
我認為，貸款應該採取附認股權的可轉換債券的形式，這樣納稅人就可以獲得足夠的風險
補償，利息應該與他們過去的行為聯繫起來——如果他們通過股票回購讓自己處於這種境
地，或者他們是避稅者的話。而且這筆錢的領取應該有基於就業、治理、勞動待遇和環境
的條件。
The Democrats succeeded in putting in restrictions on the behavior most
likely to outrage citizens: taxpayer money being used to pay executives'
exorbitant salaries or to buy back shares. They have also prevented companies
from taking the money and laying off workers.
民主黨成功地對最可能激怒民眾的行為進行了限制：比如納稅人的錢被用來支付高管過高
的工資或回購股票。民主黨還阻止了公司轉移資產和裁員。
What is most lacking in the package is an adequate sense of prioritization.
We've forgotten the first lesson of economics: Because resources are scarce,
we need to prioritize. Should we be rescuing luxury hotels when our states
may not be able to maintain essential services? When our universities, hard
hit by losses of endowments and threatened by declining enrollments from
foreign students, may have to cut back, including in grants they give to poor
students? Just because a sector is able and willing to pay for more lobbyists
or make larger campaign contributions does not mean it is more deserving of
assistance.
說起這套方案最缺乏的，當屬充分的優先順序意識。我們忘記了經濟學的第一課：由於資
源稀缺，我們需要設定優先的當務之急。當我們的國家無法維持基本服務時，是否還應該
救助豪華酒店？當我們的大學受到捐贈損失的嚴重打擊和外國學生入學率下降的威脅時，
我們是不是可能削減開支，包括削減對貧困學生的資助？僅僅因為一個行業領域更有能力
且願意為更多的遊說者買單，或者因為它能做出更大的競選捐款，並不意味著它更應該得
到幫助。
While this is not perfect legislation, it's far better than I had thought it
would be. Many of the measures originally proposed by the administration,
like a payroll tax cut, wouldn't have done the trick. That measure wouldn't
have delivered money to where it's needed the most. Little would have
trickled down to the workers, and workers who have lost their jobs would have
gotten nothing. Even worse it would have been another corporate profit tax
cut. The 2017 cut didn't generate investment and didn't raise wages; it
primarily led to almost a trillion dollars of share buybacks.
雖然這不是完美的立法，但比我想像的要好得多。政府最初提出的許多措施，比如工資稅
的削減，都不會起到作用。這項措施不會把錢送到最需要錢的地方。幾乎不會有錢分流到
工人身上，而失去工作的工人什麼也得不到。更糟糕的是，這將是另一次企業利潤稅削減
。2017年的減稅沒有產生投資，也沒有提高工資，而是帶來了近萬億美元的股票回購。
These measures won't save all the restaurants and other small businesses that
are closed as part of the steps taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus;
but, if we can mobilize quickly, it will save the millions of Americans who
will have no sources of income from economic ruin, it can stave off the
bottom-up financial crisis that is likely to arise otherwise, and it will put
us in a far better position for recovery once the pandemic has been conquered.
這些措施也不會拯救所有關閉的餐館和其他小企業——這是為減緩冠狀病毒傳播的措施的
一部分；但是，如果我們能夠迅速動員起來，它將拯救數以百萬計沒有收入來源的美國人
，使他們免於經濟崩潰，它可以避免可能出現的自下而上的金融危機，一旦戰勝疫情，它
將使我們處於一個更好的復甦位置。
Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, and these are
extraordinary times.
非常時期需要非常措施，而現在就是非常時期。