凱恩斯救不了歐洲敗家子

????在幾個陷入困境的歐洲國家，它們的領導人——從意大利的馬里奧?蒙蒂到法國的弗朗索瓦?奧朗德無不將經濟問題歸咎于“緊縮”，呼吁實施促“增長”政策。

????如何定義“緊縮”和“增長”很重要?！熬o縮”意味著要減少支出、增加稅收或者雙管齊下，實現預算赤字縮減。促“增長”舉措在美國被稱為“刺激”政策，包含旨在減少衰退沖擊、加快經濟復蘇的短期財政政策?！按碳ぁ闭叩男c“緊縮”正好相反，此類被視為應急手段的政策會擴大預算赤字。如今，南歐多國領導人正在倡導主要通過大幅增加政府支出，擴大政府收支缺口，為萎靡的經濟重新注入活力。

????這一復興觀點有兩大瑕疵。第一，陷入困境的這幾個國家，除極個別外，根本都沒試過削減赤字的“緊縮”政策，就在大喊緊縮令他們的境況每況愈下。第二，自2008年底此輪經濟衰退開始以來，這些國家就一直維持著龐大的赤字，但這樣持續的“刺激”對減緩衰退或加速復蘇都毫無幫助，主要的后果是讓這些財力薄弱的國家背上了不可持續的巨額債務。如果歐洲聽從了增加支出、擴大赤字的建議，情況只會更糟。

????要衡量這些政策哪里出了問題，讓我們來看看歐洲“六個敗家子”——法國、意大利、西班牙、愛爾蘭、希臘和葡萄牙的表現。簡單起見，我們把這“六個敗家子”的赤字、支出、債務、GDP增速和其他數字合在一起，當做一個大的國家來分析。

????這輪“刺激”政策始于2009年。從2008年底到2011年，“六個敗家子”的預算赤字總計近1.4萬億美元（我們把所有的歐元數字都折算成了美元），約每年4500億美元，占GDP比重高達7.3%。但所有這些“刺激”政策創造了多少增長？三年里，“六個敗家子”的GDP總量經通脹調整后，下降了5%。

????公共部門實際支出保持穩定，即便是在稅收收入大幅下降的情況下——導致赤字大幅攀升。為什么經濟整體表現如此之差？GDP的組成包括四部分，分別是政府支出、消費者支出、私人或企業投資、凈出口額或凈進口額。在經濟衰退期間維持政府支出的理由是，它不僅保持了政府支出一項，還會帶動其他三項，（相比沒有刺激政策）能讓國民經濟明顯加快增速或放緩減速。比如，雇傭更多公共交通客運員工，提高失業金，能提高“總需求”，因為消費者會用政府支付的薪水和聯邦福利金外出就餐、支付話費和公寓租金。

????The leaders of distressed European nations, from Italy's Mario Monti to France's Francois Hollande, are blaming "austerity" for their economic woes, and championing policies that promote "growth."

????It's important to define the two terms. Austerity stands for shrinking budget deficits, by lowering spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. The pro-growth measures are what's known in the U.S. as "stimulus." It comprises short-term fiscal policies designed to limit the damage from a recession and speed recovery. Stimulus works in precisely the opposite direction of austerity by raising budget deficits, supposedly as an emergency measure. Today, southern Europe's heads-of-state, applauded by the Obama administration, advocate recharging their flagging economies by swelling the gap between revenues and expenses, chiefly by lifting government outlays.

????This blueprint for revival has two glaring flaws. First, the ailing nations, except in rare instances, haven't even attempted the deficit-slashing "austerity" that's supposedly causing their decline. Second, these countries have been deploying enormous deficits since the recession began in late 2008, and yet this constant "stimulus" has done absolutely nothing to cushion the recession or hasten a recovery. Their principal legacy is saddling the weaker nations with unsustainable levels of debt, a situation that would become far worse if Europe heeds the current calls for more spending and deficits.

????To gauge where these policies went wrong, we'll examine the performance of what we'll call Europe's "Six Spenders:" France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece, and Portugal. To simplify, we'll treat the Six Spenders as if they were one big country by combining their deficit, spending, debt, GDP growth and other numbers.

????The big push for stimulus began in 2009. From the end of 2008 to 2011, the Six Spenders had combined budget deficits of almost $1.4 trillion (we'll translate all euro numbers into dollars). That's approximately $450 billion a year, or an enormous 7.3% of GDP. So how much growth did all that "stimulus" create? Over those three years, the Six Spenders' combined output shrank by 5%, adjusted for inflation.

????Public sector spending stayed steady in real terms, even though tax revenues fell sharply -- hence the big jump in deficits. So why did the economies overall perform so poorly? GDP has four components: government expenditures, consumer spending, private or business investment, and the surplus of exports over imports, or vice versa. The rationale sustaining government spending in a recession is that it sustains not just that category, but also boosts the other three, so that the economy expands far faster, or shrinks a lot less, than it would without the stimulus. For example, hiring more public transit workers and raising unemployment payments would lift "aggregate demand" as consumers spend their government paychecks and federal benefits on restaurants, cell phones, and condos.