The relief package turned out better than I thought it would
美国的经济救助计画好于我的预期
原文：CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/perspectives/economic-relief-bill/index.html
译文：察网 http://www.cwzg.cn/theory/202004/56553.html
作者：Joseph Stiglitz
译者：李雨萌
【导读】本文为斯蒂格利茨4月1日所发文章。他认为美国政府刚刚通过的经济救助计画比
原来预想的要好。他强调该方案中给每位年收入小于75000美元的公民发放1200美元的重
要性，因为根据美联储的问卷调查，40%的美国人拿不出400美元的应急资金。他认为，方
案中禁止美国公司用政府救助资金回购股票是正确的。他进一步建议，政府给陷入困难的
大公司的贷款应采取“带有认股权证的可转换债”。斯蒂格利兹此文写成时，当时他
用的领取失业救助人数的登记数据还是330万，但现在这个数据已经是660万。美国经济危
机的迅速发展和应对方案值得我们密切关注。
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.
刚刚通过的联邦法案，是对新冠病毒大流行的经济后果所做出的反应，令人印象深刻。但
我们不应将其称为“刺激性”方案。这是一个不恰当的词汇：今日所发生的一切，与2008
年不同，2008年经济因金融业问题而面临需求的不足，因此，刺激成为必需。但今天，问
题不在于缺乏需求，而在于COVID-19导致的经济塌陷。
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.
当务之急，就是要确保我们有良知的经济学，以保障我们的健康——这就是为什么我们必
须要援助医院，为什么必须有带薪病假。但除此之外，为了防止出现极端贫困和生活压力
，我们还需要保护我们的公民（否则上述问题必定会出现）并使我们的经济在冠状病毒的
传播得到控制后有一个良好的复苏基础。当前美国经济需要的，是让金钱能够迅速流动到
恰当的人手中，且需要维系工人与雇主间的关联。
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.
在这一方面，联邦法案明智地力争完善美国的失业保险制度，在所有发达国家中，美国的
这一制度是最弱的，包括保险范围（享有福利的工人比例）和补贴率（福利占正常工资的
比例）。不出所料的话，失业保险制度将面临巨大的负担。上周有330万工人登记领取失
业救济金，这使美国失业的人数较2月份的580万增加了约50%。最新的增长数字可能会降
低，但只是因为很多人已经无法通过失业办公室办理登记。为自由职业者和零工经济者提
供保险，也是联邦法案的一个重要部分，这将有助于确保这些人在紧迫时刻获得救助，但
这也导致失业救济人数进一步增加。延长失业工人的保险期并且提升支付，也将构成关键
条款，保护20%至30%左右行将失业的劳动力。
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.
该法案还试图通过向年收入7.5万美元或以下的个人提供1200美元补助费，或向年收入15
万美元以下的夫妇提供2400美元补助费，防止人们陷入困境，尽管这并不足以保障大多数
美国人的财务状况稳定。川普政府曾指出可能在两周内分发支票，但这无疑是一个幻想。
光是法案的通过，就花费了两周时间，现在政府又声称还要再花三周的时间，这些资金才
能到达在美国国税局登记造册的纳税人手中。那么对于其他人而言，资金的抵达则要需要
更长的时间。在有这么多美国人仅靠工资过活、连400美元应急资金都拿不出的情况下，
这一拖延可能是灾难性的。
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.
这一情况的紧迫性在于：如果家庭支付不起房租给房东，房东也就支付不起账单，一系列
连锁反应就此发生，我们就可能会陷入一个在未来也很难再启动的经济僵局。我已经在其
他危机中看到过这种结果，我们不想让它再次发生。
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.
考虑到这些问题，此次立法收进的许多其他国家已经引入的条款就显得尤为重要，例如保
护负担联邦抵押贷款的房屋不受房主驱逐和止赎，以及暂停联邦学生债务的利息。但这项
立法还不够广泛和深入：它本应包括暂停所有房主驱逐、抵押贷款止赎、未清偿贷款的信
用卡和汽车的收回。考虑到信用卡公司收取的高利率，信用卡的延期尤为重要。没有它，
许多家庭将无法管理自己的债务。
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.
除了对个人施以援手，我们还必须维持经济和金融体系。常规的货币和财政政策虽然有帮
助，但还不够，因为供需双方都陷入了混乱。在2008年，货币政策或许阻止了银行体系的
崩溃，但并没有帮助经济迅速复苏。今天也是一样。
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年的信贷紧缩是自上而下的，主要可归因为银行的不良行为。而今天的危机是自下而
上的，因为当人们的收入来源枯竭时，他们将无法支付账单，整个经济就会产生连锁反应
。正因如此，我们需要比2008年更多的自下而上的回应。1200美元的支票至关重要。小企
业还将需要联邦立法中所包括的各种优惠，包括某些税目的延期纳税，小企业管理局提供
的分期还款、赠款、低息贷款等。
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.
然后是公司紧急救助的问题。很多公司会选择做大规模股票回购，把钱放下来以备不时之
需，这是对机会的挥霍，把钱给这样的公司，并不是什么办法。这种老式的涓滴经济学从
未奏效过。什么是救助公司，什么又是救助股东及债券持有人，这是我们要做出区分的。
我认为，贷款应该采取附认股权的可转换债券的形式，这样纳税人就可以获得足够的风险
补偿，利息应该与他们过去的行为联系起来——如果他们通过股票回购让自己处于这种境
地，或者他们是避税者的话。而且这笔钱的领取应该有基于就业、治理、劳动待遇和环境
的条件。
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.
民主党成功地对最可能激怒民众的行为进行了限制：比如纳税人的钱被用来支付高管过高
的工资或回购股票。民主党还阻止了公司转移资产和裁员。
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.
说起这套方案最缺乏的，当属充分的优先级意识。我们忘记了经济学的第一课：由于资
源稀缺，我们需要设定优先的当务之急。当我们的国家无法维持基本服务时，是否还应该
救助豪华酒店？当我们的大学受到捐赠损失的严重打击和外国学生入学率下降的威胁时，
我们是不是可能削减开支，包括削减对贫困学生的资助？仅仅因为一个行业领域更有能力
且愿意为更多的游说者买单，或者因为它能做出更大的竞选捐款，并不意味着它更应该得
到帮助。
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.
虽然这不是完美的立法，但比我想像的要好得多。政府最初提出的许多措施，比如工资税
的削减，都不会起到作用。这项措施不会把钱送到最需要钱的地方。几乎不会有钱分流到
工人身上，而失去工作的工人什么也得不到。更糟糕的是，这将是另一次企业利润税削减
。2017年的减税没有产生投资，也没有提高工资，而是带来了近万亿美元的股票回购。
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.
这些措施也不会拯救所有关闭的餐馆和其他小企业——这是为减缓冠状病毒传播的措施的
一部分；但是，如果我们能够迅速动员起来，它将拯救数以百万计没有收入来源的美国人
，使他们免于经济崩溃，它可以避免可能出现的自下而上的金融危机，一旦战胜疫情，它
将使我们处于一个更好的复苏位置。
Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, and these are
extraordinary times.
非常时期需要非常措施，而现在就是非常时期。