当前位置： >>
经济学之7个致命的谎言
Foreword 前言Warren Mosler is a rare bird: a self-taught economis a successful investor w a businessperson with a a financier with a true commitment to the public good. We have co-authored testimony and the occasional article, and I attest firmly that his contributions to those efforts exceeded mine. 沃伦 ? 莫斯勒是一种稀有的人：自学成才的经济学家，他不是怪人；他是 一个成功的投资者，他不吹牛；他是一个具有教学天赋的商人；一个能把事实真 相告诉公众的金融家。 我们有共同撰写的证词和偶尔写的文章， 并且我坚定地证明他在这方面成就 超过了我。 Many economists value complexity for its own sake. A glance at any modern economics journal confirms this. A truly incomprehensible argument can bring a lot of prestige! The problem, though, is that when an argument appears incomprehensible, that often means the person making it doesn’t understand it either. (I was just at a meeting of European central bankers and international monetary economists in Helsinki, Finland. After one paper, I asked a very distinguished economist from Sweden how many people he thought had followed the math. He said, “Zero.”) Warren’s gift is transparent lucidity. He thinks things through as simply as he can. (And he puts a lot of work into this - true simplicity is hard.) He favors the familiar metaphor, and the homely example. You can explain his reasoning to most children (at least to mine), to any college student and to any player in the financial markets. Only economists, with their powerful loyalty to fixed ideas, have trouble with it. Politicians, of course, often do understand, but rarely feel free to speak their own minds. 他尽可能简单的思考问题（他在这方面做了大量工作，真正的简单 很难）。他喜欢熟悉的隐喻，朴实的示例。你可以把他的道理讲给大多数儿童 （至少对我) ，讲给任何大学的学生，以及任何在金融市场上的人；唯独经济学 家，他们有强大而忠诚的固定观念，就会遇到麻烦；政客们，当然，常常是明 白的，但很少有说出自己的想法的自由。Deadly Innocent Fraud #1:The federal government must raise funds through taxation or borrowing in order to spend. In other words, government spending is limited by its ability to tax or borrow.Fact:Federal government spending is in no case operationally constrained by revenues, meaning that there is no “solvency risk.” In other words, the federal government can always make any and all payments in its own currency, no matter how large the deficit is, or how few taxes it collects. 致命的谎言1号： 联邦政府必须通过税收或借款为其支出融资。换句话说，政府支出受到税收 和借款能力的限制。 事实真相： 联邦政府支出无论如何不会在业务上受限于税收， 它没有 “偿付能力风险” 。 换言之，联邦政府总能用他自己的货币支付所有任何款项，不管赤字有多么大， 也不管税收有多么少。 Ask any congressman (as I have many times) or private citizen how it all works, and he or she will tell you emphatically that: “?the government has to either tax or borrow to get the funds to spend, just like any household has to somehow get the money it needs to spend.” And from this comes the inevitable question about healthcare, defense, social security, and any and all government spending: How are you going to pay for it???!!! 去问任何一个国会议员（我碰到过很多次），或者普通公民，这一切都是如何 运作的？他或她会坚定地告诉你：“? 政府要花钱，无非是通过税收或借款， 就像任何家庭一样，通过某种方式拿到需要花的钱。”由此不可避免地引出了 关于医疗保健、 国防、 社会保障和全部政府支出的问题： 你打算如何付钱？？？！！！ This is the killer question, the one no one gets right, and getting the answer to this question right is the core of the public purpose behind writing this book. In the next few moments of reading, it will all be revealed to you with no theory and no philosophy- just a few hard cold facts. I answer this question by first looking at exactly how government taxes, followed by how government spends. How does the Federal Government Tax? 这是致命的问题，一个没人清楚的问题，正确回答这个问题是我写这本书的公 共目的核心。接下来，它会向你透露几个冷冰冰的事实，不用理论，不用哲学。我来回答这个问题，首先讨论政府的税收,然后讨论政府如何支出。 联邦政府如何收税？ Let’s start by looking at what happens if you pay your taxes by writing a check. When the U.S. government gets your check, and it’s deposited and “clears,” all the government does is change the number in your checking account “downward” as they subtract the amount of your check from your bank balance. Does the government actually get anything real to give to someone else? No, it’s not like there’s a gold coin to spend. You can actually see this happen with online banking - watch the balance in your bank account on your computer screen. Suppose the balance in your account is $5,000 and you write a check to the government for $2,000. When that checks clears (gets processed), what happens? The 5 turns into a 3 and your new balance is now down to $3,000. All before your very eyes! The government didn’t actually “get” anything to give to someone else. No gold coin dropped into a bucket at the Fed. They just changed numbers in bank accounts - nothing “went” anywhere. 让我们首先来看看如果你签署支票，缴纳税款以后会发生什么。美国政府拿到你 的支票后，会被储蓄和清算，政府做的全部事情是“向下”更改您的支票帐户中 的数字， 作为从你的银行余额中扣除你支票上的数量。政府把什么真实的东西给 别人了吗？没有，这与花费一枚金币不同。实际上，你可以在网上银行看到这件 事――从计算机屏幕上看看你的银行账户的余额。假设您的帐户中的余额为 5000 美元，你给政府开了一张 2000 美元的支票。当支票清算时（有个过程）， 会发生什么事情？那个 5 变成了 3 ，你的新余额现在下降到 3000 美元。所有 事情就在你眼前 ！政府实际上没给其他的人任何东西。没有金币掉进在美联储 的桶里，他们只是改变了银行账户中的数字――没有什么“去”任何地方。 And what happens if you were to go to your local IRS office to pay your taxes with actual cash? First, you would hand over your pile of currency to the person on duty as payment. Next, he’d count it, give you a receipt and, hopefully, a thank you for helping to pay for social security, interest on the national debt, and the Iraq war. Then, after you, the tax payer, left the room, he’d take that hard-earned cash you just forked over and throw it in a shredder. 那么，如果你拿现金到当地的美国国税局办事处缴税，会发生什么？首先，你 会把一堆钞票交给值班的人作为付款。接下来，他会点数，再给你一张收据， 并感谢您帮助支付社会保障、 国家债务和伊拉克战争的利息。然后，你这个纳 税人就离开了这个房间，然后他就拿起这些你辛辛苦苦挣来的钱，扔进碎纸机。 Yes, it gets thrown it away. Destroyed! Why? There’s no further use for it. Just like a ticket to the Super Bowl. After you enter the stadium and hand the attendant a ticket that was worth maybe $1000, he tears it up and discards it. In fact, youcan actually buy shredded money in Washington, D.C. So if the government throws away your cash after collecting it, how does that cash pay for anything, like Social Security and the rest of the government’s spending? It doesn’t. 是的，拿到它并扔掉它。摧毁了 ！为什么？没有再使用它。就像橄榄球超级杯 大赛的一张门票，当您进入体育场时，你把这张可能花了 1000 美元购买的门票 交给服务员，他撕碎它，并扔掉。事实上，你在华盛顿特区可以买到切碎了的 钞票。那么，是不是政府扔掉你的现金以后再拣回来，为何不拿这些钱去花在 如社会保障和其他政府的开支上？不！不是这样。 How the Federal Government Spends Imagine you are expecting your $2,000 Social Security payment to hit your bank account, which already has $3,000 in it. If you are watching your account on the computer screen, you can see how government spends without having anything to spend. Presto! Suddenly your account statement that read $3,000 now reads $5,000. What did the government do to give you that money? It simply changed the number in your bank account from 3,000 to 5,000. It didn’t take a gold coin and hammer it into a computer. All it did was change a number in your bank account by making data entries on its own spreadsheet, which is linked to other spreadsheets in the banking system. Government spending is all done by data entry on its own spreadsheet called “The U.S. dollar monetary system.” 联邦政府如何开支 想象您期待的2000美元的社会保障，打到了你的银行帐户，它里面原先就已经有 了 3000 美元。 如果您正在计算机屏幕上监视您的帐户，您可以看到政府开支是 什么也不需要的。 ！ 看 突然间， 你的银行账户由3,000 美元变成了 5,000 美元。 政府给你那笔钱他做了什么？它仅仅是简单的修改您的银行帐户中的数字，由 3000 至 5000。 它没有把金币放进电脑。它所做的全部工作就是在它自己的电子 账本上输入数据， 修改您的银行帐户上的数字，这和银行系统的电子账本是相连 的。 政府支出都是通过在自己的电子账本上输入数据， 这叫做 “美元货币系统” 。 Here is a quote from the good Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Ben Bernanke, on 60 Minutes for support:SCOTT PELLEY: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending? CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.这里引用美联储主席本?伯南克在“60 分钟”节目里讲的一段话为证： 斯科特?佩利：美联储花的钱是税钱吗？伯南克主席：它不是纳税人的钱。银行在美联储有账户，很像你在商业银行有 个账户。所以，向银行贷款，我们只需在美联储的计算机上标记一下他们账户 里的数字的大小。 The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is telling us in plain English that they give out money (spend and lend) simply by changing numbers in bank accounts. There is no such thing as having to “get” taxes (or borrow) to make a spreadsheet entry that we call “government spending.” Computer data doesn’t come from anywhere. Everyone knows that! 美联储主席以简洁的英文告诉我们，他们花钱（支出和借款）只是简单地改变一 下银行账户中的数字，完全没有所谓“获得”的税款（或借款）进入到我们称之 为“政府支出”的电子账户上。计算机数据不是从哪儿来的，每个人都知道 ！ Where else do we see this happen? Your team kicks a field oal and on the scoreboard, the score changes from, say, 7 points to 10 points. Does anyone wonder where the stadium got those three points? Of course not! Or you knock down 5 pins at the bowling alley and your score goes from 10 to 15. Do you worry about where the bowling alley got those points? Do you think all bowling alleys and football stadiums should have a ‘reserve of points’ in a “lock box” to make sure you can get the points you have scored? Of course not! And if the bowling alley discovers you “foot faulted” and lowers your score back down by 5 points, does the bowling alley now have more score to give out? Of course not! 我们看到这种事情会发生在别的地方吗？你们美式足球队踢进了一个球， 记 分板的分数要更改，比方说，由说 7 分改为 10 分。有谁会不知道这球场从那 里得到了这 3 分吗？当然不是 ！你在保龄球馆击倒了 5 个瓶，你的分数由 10 分变成 15 分。 你会担心保龄球馆从哪里得到这些分数吗？你会认为所有的保龄 球馆和足球馆应该都有“储备的分数”“锁”在箱子里，以确保您可以获得你得 的分数吗？当然不是 ！如果保龄球馆发现你“脚步犯规”，扣掉了你 5 分，现 在保龄球馆没有更多的分数给了吗？当然不是 ！ We all know how data entry works, but somehow this has gotten turned upside down and backwards by our politicians, media, and, most all, the prominent mainstream economists. Just keep this in mind as a starting point: The federal government doesn’t ever “have” or “not have” any dollars. 我们都知道输入数据是如何工作的，但不知何故，我们的政治家、媒体、 和大多数著名的主流经济学家， 把这给弄颠倒了。 只需记住这一点作为起点： 联 邦政府不可能“有”或“没有”任何美元。 It’s just like the stadium, which doesn’t “have” or “not have” a hoard of points to give out. When it comes to the dollar, our government, working through its Federal agencies, the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department, is the score keeper. (And it also makes the rules!) 它好像是一个大球场，它不会“有”或“没有”窖藏的分数给出来。就美元 来说，我们的政府，通过其联邦机构，美联储和美国财政部，做了一个记分员。（它还可以制定规则 ！） You now have the operational answer to the question: “How are we going to pay for it?” And the answer is: the same way government pays for anything, it changes the numbers in our bank accounts. 现在，您已经有了关于“我们打算如何付钱？”这一问题的答案，它就是： 政府什么也不用付，他只是改变我们的银行账户中的数字。 The federal government isn’t going to “run out of money,” as our President has mistakenly repeated. There is no such thing. Nor is it dependent on “getting” dollars from China or anywhere else. All it takes for the government to spend is for it to change the numbers up in bank accounts at its own bank, the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no numerical limit to how much money our government can spend, whenever it wants to spend. (This includes making interest payments, as well as Social Security and Medicare payments.) It encompasses all government payments made in dollars to anyone. 联邦政府不会落到“把钱花完”的地步，――如同我们的总统多次错误地 重复的那样。没有这样的事情，也不是依赖于中国或其他地方“获得”美元。 所有需要的政府支出仅仅是去自己的银行里，改变一下银行账户中的数字。我 们的政府可以花多少钱，没有任何数值的限制（这包括利息，也包括社会保障 和医疗保险的支付）。它包括所有用美元付款的政府支出。 This is not to say that excess government spending won’t possibly cause prices to go up (which is inflation). But it is to say that the government can’t go broke and can’t be bankrupt. There is simply no such thing.1 这并不是说，过多的政府支出没可能导致价格上涨 (即通胀）。这是说政 府不可能破产，不可能倒闭。很简单，没有别的。 So why does no one in government seem to get it? Why does the Ways and Means Committee in Congress worry about “how we are going to pay for it?” It could be that they believe the popular notion that the federal government, just like any household, must somehow first “get” money to be able to spend it. Yes, they have heard that it’s different for a government, but they don’t quite believe it, and there’s never a convincing explanation that makes sense to them. 那么，为什么好像政府中没有一个人理解它呢？为什么国会的筹款委员会 也担心“我们如何付钱”的问题呢？这可能是他们相信联邦政府如同任何家庭 一样，必须以某种方式先拿到钱才能花费的流行思想的缘故。是的，他们听说 过，这与政府不一样，但他们不完全相信它，并永远不会有令人信服的、对他 们有意义的解释。 What they all seem to miss is the difference between spending your own currency that only you create, and spending a currency someone else creates. To properly use this common federal government/household analogy in a meaningful way, we next look at an example of a “currency” created by a household.他们全部所有的错误在于区分花费你自己创造的钱，和花费别人创造的钱。 我们有目的地使用这个把共同的联邦政府比喻成家庭的办法， 接下来看一个由家 庭创造的“货币”的例子。 The story begins with parents creating coupons they then use to pay their children for doing various household chores. Additionally, to “drive the model,” the parents require the children to pay them a tax of 10 coupons a week to avoid punishment. This closely replicates taxation in the real economy, where we have to pay our taxes or face penalties. The coupons are now the new household currency. Think of the parents as “spending” these coupons to purchase “services” (chores) from their children. With this new household currency, the parents, like the federal government, are now the issuer of their own currency. And now you can see how a household with its own currency is indeed very much like a government with its own currency. 故事的开头是父母创造了奖券，用于支付给他们的孩子做各种家务。此外， 为了“驱动模型”，家长要求孩子们每周缴纳 10 张奖券以便免于处罚。这近似 于复制了实体经济的税收，我们必须纳税，否则会被判罚。奖券现在是新的家庭 货币，认为父母“花费”这些奖券从孩子那里购买他们的“服务”(杂务）。这 个新的家庭货币系统中，父母就好比联邦政府，现在是他们自己货币的发行者。 现在您可以看到， 具有它自己的货币的家庭是如何确实很像一个拥有自己货币的 政府。 Let’s begin by asking some questions about how this new household currency works. Do the parents have to somehow get coupons from their children before they can pay their coupons to their children to do chores? Of course not! In fact, the parents must first spend their coupons by paying their children to do household chores, to be able to collect the payment of 10 coupons a week from their children. How else can the children get the coupons they owe to their parents? 让我们首先询问一下这个家庭的新货币系统是如何工作的几个问题。 是不是父母 必须事先以某种方式从子女那里得到奖券，以便支付给他们的孩子，让他们做家 务？当然不是 ！实际上，父母必须先花费奖券，支付给他们的孩子做家务，然 后才有可能每周收集到10张奖券（的税收）。孩子们还有别的办法得到属于他们 父母的奖券吗？ Likewise, in the real economy, the federal government, just like this household with its own coupons, doesn’t have to get the dollars it spends from taxing or borrowing, or anywhere else, to be able to spend them. With modern technology, the federal government doesn’t even have to print the dollars it spends the way the parents print their own coupons. 同样地，在实体经济中，联邦政府，就像这个有自己奖券的家庭，不必通过征税 或借款，获取它花费的美元，或者通过其他方式，才有能力花费。用现代技术， 联邦政府甚至不用印刷美元，而父母要印刷他自己的奖券。 Remember, the federal government itself neither has nor doesn’t have dollars, any more than the bowling alley ever has a box of points. When it comes to the dollar, our federal government is the scorekeeper. Andhow many coupons do the parents have in the parent/child coupon story? It doesn’t matter. They could even just write down on a piece of paper how many coupons the children owe them, how many they have earned and how many they’ve paid each month. When the federal government spends, the funds don’t “come from” anywhere any more than the points “come from” somewhere at the football stadium or the bowling alley. Nor does collecting taxes (or borrowing) somehow increase the government’s “hoard of funds” available for spending. 请记住，联邦政府本身既不会没有钱，也不会有钱，好比保龄球馆根本就没有储 存分数的箱子一样。对美元而言，我们的联邦政府是记分员。父母/孩子奖券的 故事中父母有多少奖券呢？没关系。 他们甚至只是在一张纸上写上孩子拥有多少 奖券，写上他们赚到了多少奖券，写上他们每月已经支付了多少奖券。当联邦政 府支出时，资金没有“来自”任何地方，如同足球场或保龄球馆的分数不会来自 任何地方。也不会以某种方式收集税收(或借款)，以增加政府“储备的资金”， 以便用于支出。 In fact, the people at the U.S. Treasury who actually spend the money (by changing numbers on bank accounts up) don’t even have the telephone numbers of - nor are they in contact with - the people at the IRS who collect taxes (they change the numbers on bank accounts down), or the other people at the U.S. Treasury who do the “borrowing” (issue the Treasury securities). If it mattered at all how much was taxed or borrowed to be able to spend, you’d think they at least would know each other’s phone numbers! Clearly, it doesn’t matter for their purposes. 事实上， 美国财政部的人实际支出钱的时候 （通过更改的银行账户上的数字） 甚 至不会打电话给国税局征收税款的人（他们向下更改银行账户上的数字），或者 美国财政部搞“借款”(发行国债)的人。征了多少税，借了多少钱，都不重要， 你可能认为他们至少会知道对方的电话号码 ！显然， 这和他们的目的没有联系。 From our point of view (not the federal government’s), we need to first have U.S. dollars to be able to make payments. Just like the children need to earn the coupons from their parents before they can make their weekly coupon payments. And state governments, cities, and businesses are all in that same boat as well. They all need to be able to somehow get dollars before they can spend them. That could mean earning them, borrowing them, or selling something to get the dollars they need to be able to spend. In fact, as a point of logic, the dollars we need to pay taxes must, directly or indirectly, from the inception of the currency, come from government spending (or government lending, which I’ll discuss later). 从我们的（而不是联邦政府的）角度来说，我们首先需要美元以便支付。就像孩 子们要从他们的父母那里赚奖券，然后他们才能每周支付奖券。州政府、城市和 企业都在同一条船上。 他们都需要能够以某种方式得到美元， 然后才可以花费它。 这可能意味着赚到钱、借到钱、或者出售什么东西得到钱，然后才能花费它。事 实上，作为一个逻辑，我们需要纳税的钱，直接地或间接地，必须来自政府的支 出（或政府贷款，我将在稍后讨论）。Now let’s build a national currency from scratch. Imagine a new country with a newly announced currency. No one has any. Then the government proclaims, for example, that there will be a property tax. Well, how can it be paid? It can’t, until after the government starts spending. Only after the government spends its new currency does the population have the funds to pay the tax. To repeat: the funds to pay taxes, from inception, come from government spending (or lending). Where else can they come from? 现在让我们从零开始建立一个国家的货币。想象一下，一个新的国家，宣布 了新的货币，任何人都没有它。然后，例如政府宣布将开征物业税。那么，我们 如何支付？不能。直到政府开始开支以后。只有当政府花费了它的新货币后，人 们才有资金缴纳税款。 重复一遍：纳税的钱，从一开始，就来自于政府支出（或贷款）。会来自别 的地方吗？ Yes, that means that the government has to spend first, to ultimately provide us with the funds we need to pay our taxes. The government, in this case, is just like the parents who have to spend their coupons first, before they can start actually collecting them from their children. And, neither the government, nor the parents, from inception, can collect more of their own currency than they spend. Where else could it possibly come from? 是的。这意味着政府先把钱花掉，然后才就有了我们用于缴税的资金。在这 种情况下， 政府恰如父母一样， 要首先消费奖券， 然后才可以从孩子那里收集它。 而且，既不是政府，也不是的父母，从开始以来，可以收集比他们花掉的还要多 的货币。多余的货币从哪里来？ So while our politicians truly believe the government needs to take our dollars, either by taxing or borrowing, for them to be able to spend, the truth is: We need the federal government’s spending to get the funds we need to pay our taxes. 因此，尽管我们的政治家真正相信政府有必要通过征税或借款，拿走我们 的钱，供他们开支，而事实是： 我们需要联邦政府的支出，以获得我们纳税所 需的钱。 We don’t get to change numbers, like the federal government does (or the bowling alley and the football stadium). And just like the children who have to earn or somehow get their coupons to make their coupon payments, we have to earn or somehow get US dollars to make our tax payments. And, as you now understand, this is just like it happens in any household that issues its own coupons. The coupons the kids need to make their payments to their parents have to come from their parents. 我们不能像联邦政府（或者保龄球馆或足球场）那样更改数字。就像孩子需 要赚取、或以其他某种方式得到奖券，以便支付给父母，我们要赚取、或以其他 某种方式得到美元，以便支付我们的税款。而且，如你所知，这如同任何发行了 自己的家庭奖券后所发生的一样。 孩子们需要的支付给他们父母的奖券来自他们的父母。羊毛出在羊身上。 And, as previously stated, government spending is in no case operationally constrained by revenues (tax payments and borrowings). Yes, there can be and there are “self-imposed” constraints on spending put there by Congress, but that’s an entirely different matter. These include debt-ceiling rules, Treasury-overdraft rules, and restrictions of the Fed buying securities from the Treasury. They are all imposed by a Congress that does not have a working knowledge of the monetary system. And, with our current monetary arrangements, all of those self imposed constraints are counterproductive with regard to furthering public purpose. 并且，如前面指出的那样，政府支出在业务上永远不会受到收入（税费和借 款） 的约束。 是的。 不过， 可以有并确实有一个由国会强加给支出的 “自我约束” ， 然而，这完全是一个不同的问题。这些约束包括债务上限规则、财政透支规则和 限制美联储购买财政部债券。他们都是由没有货币体系运作知识的国会强加的。 而且， 我们当前的货币安排， 所有这些自我约束对于推动公共目的来说都是适得 其反的。 All they do is put blockages in the monetary plumbing that wouldn’ t otherwise be there, and from time to time, create problems that wouldn’ t otherwise arise. In fact, it was some of these self-imposed blockages that caused the latest financial crisis to spill over to the real economy and contribute to the recession. 他们所做的这一切是在货币的管道中放置一个本来没有的塞子， 并不时产生 一些本不该出现的问题。事实上，它是一些自己强给自己的塞子，它造成了最新 的金融危机，并波及实体经济，导致经济衰退。 The fact that government spending is in no case operationally constrained by revenues means there is no “solvency risk.” In other words, the federal government can always make any and all payments in its own currency, no matter how large the deficit is, or how few taxes it collects. This, however, does NOT mean that the government can spend all it wants without consequence. Over-spending can drive up prices and fuel inflation. 政府支出在任何情况下在技术上不会受收入的约束，这意味着没有“偿付 能力风险”。换言之，联邦政府总能对所有任何款项用它自己的货币付清，不 管财政赤字有多大，或者它所收集的税有多么少。 不过，这并不意味着政府可以花费所有他想花费的而没有任何后果。超支 可以推高价格，激起通货膨胀。 What it does mean is that there is no solvency risk, which is to say that the federal government can’t go broke, and there is no such thing as our government “running out of money to spend,” as President Obama has incorrectly stated repeatedly. Nor, as President Obama also stated, is U.S. government spending limited by what it can borrow. 它的意思就是没有偿付能力风险，这是说联邦政府不可能破产，没有如我们 的政府“花完了钱”这类事情――W巴R总统一再错误地指出。也不会如W巴R总统所说的，美国政府的支出受限于它能借到的钱。 So the next time you hear: “Where will the money for Social Security come from?” go ahead and tell them, “It’s just data entry. It comes from the same place as your score at the bowling alley.” Putting it yet another way, U.S. government checks don’t bounce, unless the government decides to bounce its own checks. 所以， 下次你听到： “社会保障的钱从哪里来？” 走到他跟前，告诉他： “这 是只是一个数据输入的小问题。“来”钱的地方就如保龄球馆“来”分数的地方 一样。” 反驳这些还有另一种方式， 美国政府的支票不会退票，除非政府决定自己退 回自己的支票。 Federal Government checks don’t bounce. A few years ago I gave a talk titled, “Government Checks Don’t Bounce” in Australia at an economics conference. In the audience was the head of research for the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr. David Gruen. It was high drama. I had been giving talks for several years to this group of academics, and I had not convinced most of them that government solvency wasn’t an issue. They always started with the familiar, “What Americans don’t understand is that it’s different for a small, open economy like Australia than it is for the United States.” There seemed to be no way to get it through their (perhaps) over-educated skulls that at least for this purpose, none of that matters. A spreadsheet is a spreadsheet. All but one Professor Bill Mitchell and a few of his colleagues seemed to have this mental block, and they deeply feared what would happen if the markets turned against Australia to somehow keep them from being able to “finance the deficit.” 联邦政府的支票不会退票 几年前，我在澳大利亚的一个经济会议上做了一个报告，题为“政府支票不会退 票” 听众有澳大利亚储备银行研究部部长大卫 ? 格林先生。 。 这是一个大场面。 我和这群学者的对话有很多年了， 我没能让他们大多数人相信政府的偿付能力不 是问题。他们总是很随便地问道：“美国人不懂的是，一个小型的、开放的经济 体系如澳大利亚和美国的区别。”似乎没有办法让他们弄明白，他们过度教育的 脑壳（可能）至少不是为此目的的，没关系。电子表格，仅仅是一个电子表格。 除了比尔 ? 米切尔教授和他的同事中的不多的几个，其余全部好像是有这种心 理障碍，他们非常担心会发生什么事，如果市场背叛了澳大利亚，阻止他们有能 力以某种方式“为赤字融资”。 So I began my talk about how U.S. government checks don’t bounce, and after a few minutes, David’s hand shot up with the statement familiar to all modestly-advanced economic students: “If the interest rate on the debt is higher than the rate of growth of GDP, then the government’s debt is unsustainable.” This wasn’t even presented as a question, but stated as a fact. 于是我开始谈论为什么美国政府的支票不会退票，没几分钟，大卫的手举起来， 用词很熟悉，如同所有适度教育的经济学学生： “如果债务收益率高于国内生产总值的增长速度，那么政府债务是不可持续的。”这甚至不是提出一个问题，而 是陈述一个事实。 I then replied, “I’m an operations type of guy, David, so tell me, what do you mean by the word ‘unsustainable’? Do you mean that if the interest rate is very high, and that in 20 years from now the government debt has grown to a largeenough number, the government won’t be able to make its interest payments? And if it then writes a check to a pensioner, that that check will bounce?” 我接着回答道：“我是操作类型的人，大卫，告诉我，你的不可持续一词的意思 是什么？你是说如果利息率很高，从现在起的 20 年中，政府债务已增长到非常 大的数字， 政府不能支付其利息吗？如果他给领退休金的人开一张支票，这支票 会退票吗？” David got very quiet, deep in thought, thinking it through. “You know, when I came here, I didn’t think I’d have to think through how the Reserve Bank’s check-clearing works,” he stated, in an attempt at humor. But no one in the room laughed or made a sound. They were totally focused on what his answer might be. It was a “showdown” on this issue. David finally said, “No, we’ll clear the check, but it will cause inflation and the currency will go down. That’s what people mean by unsustainable.” 大卫很安静，陷入沉思，终于想通了。“你知道，我来这里之前，我不认为我已 经明白储备银行是如何做支票交换工作的。”他说道，在尝试一个幽默，但房间 里没人发笑、没人作声。他们完全聚焦在他的答案可能是什么。正是在这个问题 上的“摊牌”，大卫最后说： “不，我们会兑现这张支票，但它将导致通货膨胀、 货币贬值。这便是人们认为不可持续的意思。” There was dead silence in the room. The long debate was over. Solvency is not an issue, even for a small, open economy. Bill and I instantly commanded an elevated level of respect, which took the usual outward form of “well of course, we always said that” from the former doubters and skeptics. 房间里鸦雀无声，长时间的争论结束了。偿付能力不是问题，即使对于一个小型 的、 开放的经济体系。我和比尔?米切尔立刻赢得了严肃的尊重，在这种情况 下，以前的辩手和怀疑者总是敷衍道：“当然，我们总是这样说。” I continued with David, “Well, I think most pensioners are concerned about whether the funds will be there when they retire, and whether the Australian government will be able to pay them.” To which David replied, “No, I think they are worried about inflation and the level of the Australian dollar.” Then Professor Martin Watts, head of the Economics Department at the University of Newcastle inserted, “The Hell they are, David!” At that, David very thoughtfully conceded, “Yes, I suppose you’ re right.” 我接着对大卫说：“嗯，我想大多数领取养老金的人会担心，他们退休后，澳大 利亚政府是否有足够的钱付给他们。”大卫说：“不，我认为他们担心通货膨胀 和澳元贬值。”接着，英国纽卡斯尔大学的经济学系主任马丁?瓦特教授插了一句：“就是这样，大卫 ！”因此，大卫若有所思地承认：“是的，我猜你是对 的。” So, what was actually confirmed to the Sydney academics in attendance that day? Governments, using their own currency, can spend what they want, when they want, just like the football stadium can put points on the board at will. The consequences of overspending might be inflation or a falling currency, but never bounced checks. 那么，参加这天会议的悉尼学者确认了什么呢？各国政府，使用自己的货币， 想怎么花就怎么花，只要他愿意，就像在足球场把分数放在记分牌上。超支的 后果可能是通货膨胀或货币贬值，但政府开出的支票永远不会退票。 The fact is: government deficits can never cause a government to miss any size of payment. There is no solvency issue. There is no such thing as running out of money when spending is just changing numbers upwards in bank accounts at its own Federal Reserve Bank. 事实是： 政府赤字可以永远不会导致政府付不起任何规模的债务，这里没有偿付 能力的问题， 也没有那些把钱花完了的事情，尽管它花钱就是向上修改自己在美 联储的银行账户的数字。 Yes, households, businesses, and even the states need to have dollars in their bank accounts when they write checks, or else those checks will bounce. That’s because the dollars they spend are created by someone else - the federal government C and households, businesses, and the states are not the scorekeeper for the dollar. 是的，家庭、企业，甚至州，当他开支票的时候需要有钱在其银行账户上，否则， 这些支票会被退票。 这是因为他们花的钱由其他人――联邦政府――创造的，家 庭、企业和州都不是美元的记分员。 Why the Federal Government Taxes So why then does the federal government tax us, if it doesn’t actually get anything to spend or need to get anything to spend? (Hint: it’s the same reason that the parents demand 10 coupons a week from their children, when the parents don’t actually need the coupons for anything.)为什么联邦政府要收税那么， 如果政府支出真的没有什么也不需要什么，为什么联邦政府还要向我们收 税？（提示：这和父母要求他们的孩子每周缴纳 10 个奖券，但父母并不真正需 要奖券是同样的道理。） There is a very good reason it taxes us. Taxes create an ongoing need in the economy to get dollars, and therefore an ongoing need for people to sell their goods and services and labor to get dollars. With tax liabilities in place, the government can buy things with its otherwise-worthless dollars, because someone needs the dollars to pay taxes. Just like the coupon tax on the children creates an ongoing need for the coupons,which can be earned by doing chores for the parents. 向我们征税有一个很好的理由。 税收创造了经济中不断获取美元的需求，因人们 需要不断地出售他们的商品和服务以及通过劳动获得美元。有了税务负担，政府 可以用毫无价值的美元购买东西，因为有人需要用美元缴纳税金。就像奖券税在 孩子那里创造了奖券的不断需求，他可以通过给父母做家务来赚取。 Think of a property tax. (You’re not ready to think about income taxes - it comes down to the same thing, but it’s a lot more indirect and complicated). You have to pay the property tax in dollars or lose your house. It’s just like the kids’ situation, as they need to get 10 coupons or face the consequences. So now you are motivated to sell things - goods, services, your own labor - to get the dollars you need. It’s just like the kids, who are motivated to do chores to get the coupons they need. 考虑财产税（你还没有准备好考虑所得税，――它可以归结为同样的事情，它更 间接和复杂）。您必须以美元支付物业税，否则会失去你的房子。就像孩子们的 情况，他们需要赚到 10 张奖券，否则面对惩罚的后果。所以现在你乐意去卖东 西――货物、服务、自己劳动――以获取您需要的美元。这好比那些孩子，他们 乐意去做一些家务，获得他们需要的奖券。 Finally, I have to connect the dots from some people needing dollars to pay their taxes to everyone wanting and using dollars for almost all of their buying and selling. To do that, let’s go back to the example of a new country with a new currency, which I’ll call “the crown,” where the government levies a property tax. Let’s assume the government levies this tax for the further purpose of raising an army, and offers jobs to soldiers who are paid in “crowns.” Suddenly, a lot of people who own property now need to get crowns, and many of them won’t want to get crowns directly from the government by serving as soldiers. 最后，我要解释这一点，从一些人需要美元交税，到每个人几乎都使用美元进行 买卖交易。要做到这一点，我们再回到一个新国家使用一种新货币的那个例子， 我们把这种货币叫做“皇冠”，该政府征收财产税。让我们假设政府征税的目的 是为了扩充军队，给士兵提供就业机会，并支付皇冠。突然间，很多拥有物业的 人需要得到皇冠， 很多人并不想直接从政府那里获得皇冠， 而是通过给战士服务。 So they start offering their goods and services for sale in exchange for the new crowns they need and want, hoping to get these crowns without having to join the army. Other people now see many things for sale they would like to have - chickens, corn, clothing and all kinds of services like haircuts, medical services and many other services. The sellers of these goods and services want to receive crowns to avoid having to join the army to get the money they need to pay their taxes. The fact that all these things are being offered for sale in exchange for crowns makes some other people join the army to get the money needed to buy some of those goods and services.因此，他们开始提供他们的商品和服务，以换取他们需要并希望的皇冠，希 望得到这些皇冠，而不必参军。其他人看到现在有很多他们想要的东西在出售， 如鸡、玉米、服装和各类服务，如理发、医疗服务和许多其他的服务。这些货物 和服务的卖家想拿到皇冠，以避免参军，他们需要拿到钱缴税。把这么多的东西 拿出来销售换取皇冠的事实， 使得另外一些人去参军挣钱，以便购买他们需要的 商品和服务。 In fact, prices will adjust until as many soldiers as the government wants are enticed to join the army. Because until that happens, there won’t be enough crowns spent by the government to allow the taxpayers to pay all of their taxes, and those needing the crowns, who don’t want to go into the army, will cut the prices of their goods and services as much as they have to in order to get them sold, or else throw in the towel and join the army themselves. 事实上，通过调整价格，可以让参军的人数达到政府想要的数量。如果达不到这 个数量，就会没有足够的皇冠支付政府的税收，他们需要皇冠，但不想参军，于 是就会降低其货物和服务的价格以便把它们卖掉，否则就得认输，自己去参军。 The following is not merely a theoretical concept. It’s exactly what happened in Africa in the 1800’s, when the British established colonies there to grow crops. The British offered jobs to the local population, but none of them were interested in earning British coins. So the British placed a “hut tax” on all of their dwellings, payable only in British coins. Suddenly, the area was “monetized,” as everyone now needed British coins, and the local population started offering things for sale, as well as their labor, to get the needed coins. The British could then hire them and pay them in British coins to work the fields and grow their crops. 以下不仅仅是一个理论的概念。它确实于1800年发生在非洲，当英国在这里建立 殖民地种庄稼。 英国人向当地居民提供了就业机会，但他们都对赚取英国银币不 感兴趣。于是英国人对他们的住的小屋放征收“棚屋税”，且只能付英国银币。 顷刻间，该地区被“货币化”了，因为现在所有人都需要英国硬币，于是当地居 民开始拿出东西销售，也参加劳动，以便获得所需的硬币。然后，英国人就雇用 他们在田里种植农作物，并付给他们英国硬币。 This is exactly what the parents did to get labor hours from their children to get the chores done. And that’s exactly how what are called “non convertible currencies” work (no more gold standards and very few fixed exchange rates are left), like the U.S. dollar, Japanese yen, and British pound. 这完全像父母不用从孩子那里得到劳动时间去做家务一样， 而这正揭示了被称为 “不可兑换货币”如何运作的（不是金本位，也没有固定汇率），像美元、 日 元和英镑。 Now we’re ready to look at the role of taxes from a different angle, that of today’s economy, using the language of economics. A learned economist today would say that “taxes function to reduce aggregate demand.” Their term, “aggregate demand,” is just a fancy term for “spending power.” 现在，我们可以从不同的角度（今天的经济，使用的经济学的语言）来看税收的作用。 用今天的经济学家的话说， “税收的功能是减少总需求。 他们话中的 ” “总 需求”一词，完全是“购买力”的代名词。 The government taxes us and takes away our money for one reason - so we have that much less to spend which makes the currency that much more scarce and valuable. Taking away our money can also be thought of as leaving room for the government to spend without causing inflation. Think of the economy as one big department store full of all the goods and services we all produce and offer for sale every year. We all get paid enough in wages and profits to buy everything in that store, assuming we would spend all the money we earn and all the profits we make. (And if we borrow to spend, we can buy even more than there is in that store.) 政府向我们收税，拿走我们的钱的一个原因是，就是让我们拥有的钱小于支出， 那样的话，货币就更加稀缺和珍贵。拿走我们的钱也可以被看作是，留个空间让 政府花费且不会造成通货膨胀。 我们可以把经济看作是一个大百货商场，里面堆 满了我们每年生产并拿来出售的所有商品和服务。我们都得到了足够的报酬，或 工资、 或利润， 假设我们把工资和利润全部花掉， 就可以买下商店里的所有东西。 （如果我们还借钱花，可以买到的东西比那家店里的还要多。） But when some of our money goes to pay taxes, we are left short of the spending power we need to buy all of what’s for sale in the store. This gives government the “room” to buy what it wants so that when it spends what it wants, the combined spending of government and the rest of us isn’ t too much for what’s for sale in the store. 但当我们的一部分钱去交税， 我们就会没有买下商店里的全部商品的购买力。给 政府一个空间让他购买他想买的，以便它需要的时候支出，政府和我们其他人的 开支，合计起来不会超过商店里出售的东西。 However, when the government taxes too much C relative to its spending - total spending isn’t enough to make sure everything in the store gets sold. When businesses can’t sell all that they produce, people lose their jobs and have even less money to spend, so even less gets sold. Then more people lose their jobs, and the economy goes into a downward spiral we call a recession. 然而， 如果政府相对于其支出而言收税太多， 总支出就不足以确保仓库中的所有 东西能出售完。当企业不能出售其全部产品时，工人就会失去工作，也没有钱消 费，所以就会有更多的商品无法出售。接着，更多的人失去了工作，经济螺旋向 下，我们称之为衰退。 Keep in mind that the public purpose behind government doing all this is to provide a public infrastructure. This includes the military, the legal system, the legislature and the executive branch of government, etc. So there is quite a bit that even the most conservative voters would have the government do. 请记住，政府做这一切背后的公共的目的是提供公共基础设施。这包括军事、法 律制度、 立法机关和政府行政机关等。所以有很多即使是最保守的选民会同意政 府支出。 So I look at it this way: for the “right” amount of government spending,which we presume is necessary to run the nation the way we would like to see it run, how high should taxes be? The reason I look at it this way is because the “right amount of government spending” is an economic and political decision that, properly understood, has nothing to do with government finances. The real “costs” of running the government are the real goods and services it consumes - all the labor hours, fuel, electricity, steel, carbon fiber, hard drives, etc. 因此，这件事应该这样看：所谓政府支出的数量“恰当”，是国家运行在我们所 希望的情况下时，我们认为应该需要多高的税收？我是这样看问题的，因为“恰 当数量的政府支出”是由经济和政策决定的，与政府的财政状况无关。政府运作 的真正“成本”是它消耗的真实的商品和服务，包括所有工时、燃料、电力、钢 铁、碳纤维、硬盘等。 that would otherwise be available for the private sector. So when the government takes those real resources for its own purposes, there are that many fewer real resources left for private-sector activity.For example, the real cost of the “right-size” army with enough soldiers for defense is that there are fewer workers left in the private sector to grow the food, build the cars, do the doctoring and nursing and administrative tasks, sell us stocks and real estate, paint our houses, mow our lawns, etc. etc. etc. 否则，这些东西会用于私人。所以当政府拿这些真实的资源用于自己的目的时， 留给私人部门使用的资源相对减少了。例如，“恰当规模”的、有足够多的战士 进行防御的军队的成本是有较少的工人留在私营部门去生产粮食、 制造汽车、 做 医生和护士以及管理任务、 卖给我们股票和房地产、 油漆房子、 修割草坪， 等等， 等等。 Therefore, the way I see it, we first set the size of government at the “right” level of public infrastructure, based on real benefits and real costs, and not the “financial” considerations. The monetary system is then the tool we use to achieve our real economic and political objectives, and not the source of information as to what those objectives are. Then, after deciding what we need to spend to have the right-sized government, we adjust taxes so that we all have enough spending power to buy what’s still for sale in the “store” after the government is done with its shopping. 因此，我这样看，我们首先设置政府的大小在“恰当”的公共基础设施水平上， ――基于真实利益和实际成本，不必考虑财政的因素。于是，货币系统成了我们 用来实现我们真正的经济和政治目标的工具，而不是把这些信息的源头当做目 标。然后，在决定了我们需要花费多少钱到这个具有恰当规模的政府的身上后， 我们调整税收， 以便我们都有足够消费力去购买那些完成政府采购后仍然尚未出 售的东西。 In general, I’d expect taxes to be quite a bit lower than government spending, for reasons already explained and also expanded on later in this book. In fact, a budget deficit of perhaps 5% of our gross domestic product might turn out to be the norm, which in today’s economy is about $750billion annually. However, that number by itself is of no particular economic consequence, and could be a lot higher or a lot lower, depending on the circumstances. What matters is that the purpose of taxes is to balance the economy and make sure it’ not too hot nor too cold. And federal s government spending is set at this right amount, given the size and scope of government we want. 一般情况下，我期望税稍低于政府开支，关于原因已经做了解释，并且稍后在这 本书中详谈。事实上，相当于GDP总量5%的预算赤字可能会变成为常态，而在今 天的经济， 每年为约 7500 亿美元。 然而， 这一数字本身是没有特定的经济后果， 可能很高，也可能很低，视乎情况。重要的是税收的目的是经济平衡，并确保它 不是太热也不是太冷。 联邦政府支出设置在这个恰当数额上，给定一个我们想要 的政府规模和范围。 That means we should NOT grow the size of government to help the economy out of a slowdown. We should already be at the right size for government, and therefore not add to it every time the economy slows down. So while increasing government spending during a slowdown will indeed make the numbers work, and will end the recession, for me that is far less desirable than accomplishing the same thing with the right tax cuts in sufficient-enough size to restore private-sector spending to the desired amounts. 这意味着我们不应增加政府的规模来帮助经济走出低谷。 我们应该已经有一个适 度规模的政府，因此，不应该在每次经济放缓时增加政府规模。所以在经济放缓 时增加政府支出，要确实创造就业数量以结束衰退，在我看来，这远远不如足够 规模地削减税收，把私人部门的支出恢复到他们希望的数量。 Even worse is increasing the size of government just because the government might find itself with a surplus. Again, government finances tell us nothing about how large the government should be. That decision is totally independent of government finances. The right amount of government spending has nothing to do with tax revenues or the ability to borrow, as both of those are only tools for implementing policy on behalf of public purpose, and not reasons for spending or not spending, and not sources of revenue needed for actual government spending. 更糟的是，如果政府发现自己有财政盈余，就增加政府的规模。其次，政府的财 政告诉我们政府应该多大无关紧要。这项决定完全独立于政府的财政。恰当的政 府支出与税收收入或借款能力没有关系，因为这两者是实现公共目的的唯一工 具，没有支出或不支出的理由，实际的政府支出不需要财政收入的来源。 I’ll get specific on what role I see for government later in this book, but rest assured, my vision is for a far more streamlined and efficient government, one that is intensely focused on the basics of fundamental public purpose. Fortunately, there are readily available and infinitely sensible ways to do this. We can put the right incentives in place which channel market forces with guidance to better promote the public purpose with far less regulation. Thiswill result in a government and culture that will continue to be the envy of the world. It will be a government that expresses our American values of rewarding hard work and innovation, and promoting equal opportunity, equitable outcomes and enforceable laws and regulations we can respect with true pride. 在这本书中，稍后我会给政府一个特殊的角色，但请放心，我的目标是为一个更 精简、 更高效的政府，一个热情地致力于基本公共目的的政府。幸运的是，有 现成及无限明智的方法做到这一点。 我们可以用正确的激励引导市场力量更好地 促进公共目的。 这将导致政府和文化进入令世界羡慕的地步。那时的政府将会是 一个奖励辛勤工作和创新，并促进机会均等、结果公正和可强制执行法规的，体 现美国价值观的、令我们真正自豪的政府。 But I digress. Returning to the issue of how high taxes need to be, recall that if the government simply tried to buy what it wanted to buy and didn’t take away any of our spending power, there would be no taxes - it would be “too much money chasing too few goods,” with the result being inflation. In fact, with no taxes, nothing would even be offered for sale in exchange for the government money in the first place, as previously discussed. 不过我跑题了。回到税收究竟多高的问题上来。重温一下习惯说法：如果政府只 是买它想要买的东西， 不拿走我们的任何购买力， 即没有税收， ――这将导致 “太 多钱去追逐太少的商品”，将导致通货膨胀。事实上，如果没有税收，政府的钱 在第一时间就不会被用于交换，就不会有东西出售，正如前面讨论的那样。 To prevent the government’s spending from causing that kind of inflation, the government must take away some of our spending power by taxing us, not to actually pay for anything, but so that their spending won’t cause inflation. An economist would say it this way: taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, not to raise revenue per se. In other words, the government taxes us, and takes away our money, to prevent inflation, not to actually get our money in order to spend it. Restated one more time: Taxes function to regulate the economy, and not to get money for Congress to spend. 若要防止政府开支而导致这种通胀，政府必须通过税收拿走我们一些购买力，不 是实际支付给任何东西， 以便让他们的支出不会导致通货膨胀。经济学家这样认 为： 税收的功能是调节总需求，不是藉此增加收入本身。换句话说，政府对我 们课税，拿走我们的钱，以防止通胀，并不是真的需要我们的钱去支出。重申一 遍： 税收的功能是调节经济，而不是拿钱给国会支出。 And, again, the government neither has nor doesn’ it simply changes numbers in our bank accounts upward when it spends and downwards when it taxes. All of this is, presumably, for the public purpose of regulating the economy.But as long as government continues to believe this first of the seven deadly innocent frauds, that they need to get money from taxing or borrowing in order to spend, they will continue to support policies that constrain output and employment and prevent us from achieving what are otherwise readily-available economic outcomes. 再次，政府既不会有美元，也不会没有美元，它只是简单地更改我们银行账户中 的数字，它支出时我们的数字增加，它收税时我们的数字减小。或许，所有这一 切就是调节经济的公共目的。 但是， 只要政府仍然信奉这个致命的谎言，认为他们需要通过征税或借款获得支 出的钱， 他们将继续赞成限制产出和就业的政策， 继续阻止我们实现那些没有它 时很容易达到的经济产出。Deadly Innocent Fraud #2:With government deficits, we are leaving our debt burden to our children.Fact:Collectively, in real terms, there is no such burden possible. Debt or no debt, our children get to consume whatever they can produce. 致命的善意谎言第二号： 由于财政赤字，我们把我们的债务负担留给了子孙 事实真相：总的来说，在实质上，没有这种负担的可能性。不管有没有债务，我 们的子孙都消费他们自己生产的东西。 This deadly innocent fraud is often the first answer most people give to what they perceive to be the main problem associated with government deficit spending. Borrowing now means paying for today’s spending later. Or, as commonly seen and heard in the media: “Higher deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow.” 这种致命的善意谎言，往往是大多数人联系到政府赤字支出时，对感觉到 的主要问题，给出的第一答案。今天借钱，意味着明天还钱。或者，如通常在 媒体上看到或和听到的：“今天的赤字越高，意味着明天的税收越高。” And paying later means that somehow our children’s real standard of living and general well-being will be lowered in the future because of our deficit spending now. Professional economists call this the “intergenerational” debt issue. It is thought that if the federal government deficit spends, it is somehow leaving the real burden of today’s expenditures to be paid for by future generations. And the numbers are staggering! 明天还钱意味着， 由于今天的赤字支出，我们的孩子的真实生活标准和基本 福利会降低。经济学教授把它称为“代际”债务问题。他们认为，联邦政府是否 应该赤字支出， 在某种程度上把今天花费的实际负担留给未来几代人去偿还，而 且数字是惊人的 ！ But, fortunately, like all of the seven deadly innocent frauds, it is all readily dismissed in a way that can be easily understood. In fact, the idea of our children being somehow necessarily deprived of real goods and services in the future because of what’s called the national debt is nothing less than ridiculous. 但是，幸运的是，我认为，在所有七种致命的善意谎言中，这一条是最容让人破解的。事实上，那种认为我们的孩子，因为被称为国家债务的东西，正在被 以某种方式剥夺了将来的真实商品和服务的想法，完全是荒谬的。 Here’s a story that illustrates the point. Several years ago, I ran into former Senator and Governor of Connecticut, Lowell Weicker, and his wife Claudia on a boat dock in St. Croix. I asked Governor Weicker what was wrong with the country’s fiscal policy. He replied we have to stop running up these deficits and leaving the burden of paying for today’ s spending to our children. 这里有一个故事可以说明这个问题。几年前，我去圣克罗伊码头会见康涅狄 格州前参议员和州长洛厄尔?魏克尔和他的妻子克劳迪娅。我问魏克尔州长，国 家的财政政策哪里不对。 他回答说， 我们应该中止这些赤字， 避免让今天的支出， 给我们的孩子造成负担。 So I then asked him the following questions to hopefully illustrate the hidden flaw in his logic: “When our children build 15 million cars per year 20 years from now, will they have to send them back in time to 2008 to pay off their debt? Are we still sending real goods and services back in time to 1945 to pay off the lingering debt from World War II?” 我接着问他下列问题，希望说明他的逻辑中隐藏的缺陷：“20年后，当我们 的孩子每年制造1500万辆汽车的时候，是否需要再把它送回到2008年，以偿还他 们的债务？我们是否仍需要输送真实的货物和服务到1945年那个年代， 以偿还二 次大战拖欠的债务呢？” And today, as I run for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut, nothing has changed. The ongoing theme of the other candidates is that we are borrowing from the likes of China to pay for today’s spending and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay the bill. 今天，正如我去竞选康涅狄格州的美国参议院，什么都没有改变。其他候选 人继续进行的议题是，我们从中国等国家借钱支出，却把账单留给了子子孙孙。 Of course, we all know we don’t send real goods and services back in time to pay off federal government deficits, and that our children won’t have to do that either. 当然，我们都知道，我们不会向过去输送真实的商品和服务，以偿还联邦政 府赤字，我们的孩子也不会这样做。 Nor is there any reason government spending from previous years should prevent our children from going to work and producing all the goods and services they are capable of producing. And in our children’ s future, just like today, whoever is alive will be able to go to work and produce and consume their real output of goods and services, no matter how many U.S. Treasury securities are outstanding. There is no such thing as giving up current-year output to the past, and sending it back in time to previous generations. Our children won’t and can’t pay us back for anything we leave them, even if they wanted to.也没有任何理由认为， 从前的政府支出，会阻止我们的孩子去工作并生产所 有他们有能力生产的商品和服务。我们孩子的未来，就像今天，不管谁活着，将 能够去工作、去生产，并消费那些真实的产品和服务，无论美国有多少国债未偿 还。没有这种把今年的产出输送给过去的事情，不会向上一代输送东西。我们离 开后，我们的孩子不会、也不能还给我们任何东西，即使他们想这样做。 Nor is the financing of deficit spending anything of any consequence. When government spends, it just changes numbers up in our bank accounts. More specifically, all the commercial banks we use for our banking have bank accounts at the Fed called reserve accounts. Foreign governments have reserve accounts at the Fed as well. These reserve accounts at the Fed are just like checking accounts at any other bank. 赤字支出没有任何后果。 当政府支出时，它只是改变我们的银行账户中的数 字。更具体地说，我们打交道的商业银行在美联储有一个银行账户，叫做准备金 账户，外国政府在美联储也有一个准备金账户。在美联储的这些准备金账户，就 好像在任何其他银行的活期账户一样。 When government spends without taxing, all it does is change the numbers up in the appropriate checking account (reserve account) at the Fed. This means that when the government makes a $2,000 Social Security paymentto you, for example, it changes the number up in your bank’s checking account at the Fed by $2,000, which also automatically changes the number up in your account at your bank by $2,000. 如果政府不收税、只花费，则会导致在美联储的相关的经常账户（保证金账 户）的数字增加。这意味着，当政府向您支付2000美元的社会保险时，它就会把 该银行在美联储的活期账户上数字增加2000美元， 同时也会自动地把你的银行账 户上的数字增加2000美元。 Next, you need to know what a U.S. Treasury security actually is. A U.S. Treasury security is nothing more than a savings account at the Fed. When you buy a Treasury security, you send your dollars to the Fed and then some time in the future, they send the dollars back plus interest. The same holds true for any savings account at any bank.You send the bank dollars and you get them back plus interest. Let’s say that your bank decides to buy $2,000 worth of Treasury securities. To pay for those Treasury securities, the Fed reduces the number of dollars that your bank has in its checking account at the Fed by $2,000 and adds $2,000 to your bank’s savings account at the Fed. (I’m calling the Treasury securities “savings accounts,” which is all they are.) 接下来， 您需要知道美国国债究竟是什么。美国国债无非是在美联储的储蓄 账户。当您购买美国国债时，您把您的美元给美联储，到期后，美联储付给你本 金和利息。任何储蓄账户在任何一家银行都是这样。您把钱给银行，到期后又拿 回钱，再加上利息。让我们说成是这家银行决定购买价值2000美元的美国国债。 为了偿付这些国债，美联储把该银行在美联储的活期账户中的美元减少了2000元，同时将2000美元添加到该银行在美联储的储蓄账户上。（我保证国债“储蓄 账户”都是这样。） In other words, when the U.S. government does what’s called “borrowing money,” all it does is move funds from checking accounts at the Fed to savings accounts (Treasury securities) at the Fed. In fact, the entire $13 trillion national debt is nothing more than the economy’ s total holdings of savings accounts at the Fed. 换句话说，当美国政府进行所谓的“借钱”时，只不过是把资金从活期账户 搬到了储蓄账户（国债）上。（两个账户都在美联储。）事实上，全部13万亿美 元的国债，只不过是整个经济的全部储蓄账户上的私有财产。 And what happens when the Treasury securities come due, and that “debt” has to be paid back? Yes, you guessed it, the Fed merely shifts the dollar balances from the savings accounts (Treasury securities) at the Fed to the appropriate checking accounts at the Fed (reserve accounts). Nor is this anything new. It’s been done exactly like this for a very long time, and no one seems to understand how simple it is and that it never will be a problem. 那么，国债到期后会发生什么事？“债务”要偿还吗？。是的，你猜对了。 美联储只不过是把美元余额从美联储的储蓄账户（国债），转移到适当的活期账 户 （准备金账户）。没有任何新的东西。一直以来都是这样。但是好像没人明 白它是如此简单，而且它永远不会有问题。 Federal Government Taxing and Spending Does Influence Distribution 联邦政府的税收和支出会改变分配吗？ Distribution is about who gets all the goods and services that are produced. In fact, this is what politicians do every time they pass legislation. They re-direct real goods and services by decree, for better or worse. And the odds of doing it for better are substantially decreased when they don’t understand the Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds. Each year, for example, Congress discusses tax policy, always with an eye to the distribution of income and spending. Many seek to tax those “who can most afford it” and direct federal spending to “those in need.” And they also decide how to tax interest, capital gains, estates, etc. as well as how to tax income. All of these are distributional issues. 分配是关于谁得到那些生产出来的货物和服务的问题。事实上，这是政治家 们通过法律一直在做的事情。 他们通过法令，或好或坏地重新分配真实的商品和 服务。如果他们不理解这７个致命的善意谎言，做好的可能性很小。例如，每年 国会讨论税收政策， 始终着眼于收入和支出的分布。 许多寻求那些 “谁最能承担” 税负，以及直接让联邦政府支出到“有需要的人士”身上。他们还研究应如何对 利息、资本收益、房产等征税，以及如何对收入征税。所有这些都是分配问题。 In addition, Congress decides who the government hires and fires, who it buys things from, and who gets direct payments. Congress also makes laws that directly affect many other aspects of prices and incomes. Foreigners who hold U.S. dollars are particularly at risk. They earnthose dollars from selling us real goods and services, yet they have no assurance that they will be able to buy real goods and services from us in the future. Prices could go up (inflation) and the U.S. government could legally impose all kinds of taxes on anything foreigners wish to buy from us, which reduces their spending power. 另外，国会还研究政府应雇佣谁、或解雇谁，跟谁买东西，给谁直接付款。 国会也通过法律直接影响其他多方面的物价和收入。持有美元的外国人特别危 险。他们出售给我们真实的商品和服务，赚到了美元，但他们却没有被保证将来 能够从我们这里买到真实的商品和服务。价格可能上涨（通货膨胀），美国政府 可以给任何想来买美国东西的外国人，合法地施加各种税，这减少了他们的消费 能力。 Think of all those cars Japan sold to us for under $2,000 years ago. They’ve been holding those dollars in their savings accounts at the Fed (they own U.S. Treasury securities), and if they now would want to spend those dollars, they would probably have to pay in excess of $20,000 per car to buy cars from us. What can they do about the higher prices? Call the manager and complain? They’ve traded millions of perfectly good cars to us in exchange for credit balances on the Fed’s books that can buy only what we allow them to buy. And look at what happened recently - the Federal Reserve cut rates, which reduced the interest Japan earns on its U.S.-Treasury securities. (This discussion continues in a subsequent innocent fraud.) 考察一下以前日本卖给我们的低于 2000 美元的汽车。他们已持有这么多美元， 放在美联储的储蓄账户上（他们持有美国国债），如果他们现在会想用这些钱来 买车，他们可能会向我们支付超过每辆车2万美元。为什么价格会更高？给经理 打电话并抱怨？他们已经交付了数以百万计的性能优良的汽车给美国， 交换到了 美联储账户上的贷方余额， 这些钱只能购买那些我们允许他们购买的东西。再看 看最近发生的事情， 美联储下调利率， 这减少了日本在美国国债上能赚到的利息。 (这个问题后面还会讨论）。 This is all perfectly legal and business as usual, as each year’s output is “divided up” among the living. None of the real output gets “thrown away” because of outstanding debt, no matter how large. Nor does outstanding debt reduce output and employment, except of course when ill-informed policymakers decide to take anti-deficit measures that do reduce output and employment. Unfortunately, that is currently the case, and that is why this is a deadly innocent fraud. 这一切在法律和商务上和往常一样完美无缺，每年的产出被人“瓜分”。真 正的产出没有被扔掉，因为流下了未清算的债务，无论有多大。未偿还的债务也 没有减少产出和就业，当然， 除了那些一知半解的政策制定者决定采取那些让产 出和就业减少的反制措施。不幸的是，目前就是这样，这就是为什么说它是致命 的善意谎言。 Today (April 15, 2010), it’s clear that Congress is taking more spending power away from us in taxes than is needed to make room for their own spending. Even after we spend what we want and the government doesall of its massive spending, there’s still a lot left unsold in that big department store called the economy. 今天（2010 年 4 月 15 日），很明显，美国国会正在通过征收超出了他们 支出需求的税收，拿走我们更多的消费能力。甚至当我们花了我们想花的、政府 也完成了它庞大的开支， 仍然有大批未出售的东西堆在大百货公司里，我们还称 之为经济。 How do we know that? Easy! Count the bodies in the unemployment lines. Look at the massive amount of excess capacity in the economy. Look at what the Fed calls the “output gap,” which is the difference between what we could produce at full employment and what we are now producing. It’ s enormous. Sure, there’s a record deficit and national debt, which, you now know, means that we all have that much in savings accounts at the Fed called Treasury securities. Incidentally, the cumulative U.S. budget deficit, adjusted for the size of the economy, is still far below Japan’ s, far below most of Europe and very far below the World War II U.S. deficits that got us out of the Depression (with no debt burden consequences). 我们怎么知道的？容易！计算一下新增的失业人数，看看经济中大量的过剩 产能，看看美联储所谓的“产出缺口”――这是指充分就业时的产出与现在实际 产