Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Today, we peer into a world where shadowy government stuges

    今天,我們將一窺黑暗世界的政府

  • manipulate the levers of fiscal policy from deep in their evil lairs.

    在邪惡巢穴深處,操控財政槓桿。

  • They pick economic winners, and losers.

    他們挑選經濟贏家和輸家

  • And control the business cycle, creating recessions and controling inflation

    控制商業循環、製造衰退,控制通膨

  • to serve ... their nefarious purposes.

    以滿足他們邪惡的目的。

  • Nah, Fiscal Policy is a completely legitimate tool used by non-shadowy government officials

    才怪!財政政策完全是合法的工具,並交由不黑暗的政府官員操作

  • to correct fluctuations in the economy.

    來導正經濟波動。

  • [Theme Music]

    [主題音樂]

  • Okay, in previous videos we've discussed the business cycle and how the economy goes up and down and up and down and up and down overtime.

    在前一段影片,我們討論了商業循環以及經濟如何不斷起伏

  • This line represents the economy's potential GDP,

    這條線代表潛在GDP

  • the maximum sustainable amount that the economy will produce in the long run.

    也就是一個經濟體長期能夠製造的經濟最大產量

  • But the business cycle shows that the economy isn't always at its potential.

    但商業循環卻說明著經濟並不會永遠如預期所現

  • When actual output is below potential, economists call it a recessionary gap.

    當實質輸出小於潛在輸出,經濟學家稱作衰退缺口

  • Workers are unemployed and factories are sitting unused

    許多人失業,工廠倒閉

  • Sometimes, actual output can briefly rise above potential.

    有時,實質輸出可以略高於潛在輸出

  • Economists call this an inflationary gap.

    經濟學家稱為通膨缺口

  • Unemployment is super low and factories are working over time

    失業率極低,工廠日以繼夜運作

  • but it's not sustainable.

    但這樣的情況可維持不久

  • Eventually producers will bite up the price of scarce resources and higher cost will lead to more inflation rather than more output.

    最後生產者會提升稀有資源的價格,高價格會導向通膨,非更多的出口。

  • Obviously real life fluctuations aren't as predictable as the business cycle might suggest,

    很顯然的,現實生活中的波動並不如商業循環圖那樣好預測

  • but every modern industrialized economy sees times of boom and bust.

    但每個現代工業化經濟體都有多次的盛衰

  • You know, you get your empire strikes back and you get you're phantom menace.

    你也知道,難免你建立起的王國會遭逢衰敗,甚而被黑暗侵蝕。

  • So look at the real GDP growth rate in the United States since 1920

    因此,看看美國自1920年代後的實質GDP成長率

  • see up and down overtime.

    可以看到不斷的起伏

  • In the mid 1980s, things flattened out

    在1980年代中期,一切看似平緩

  • and we had been called the Great Moderation

    並進入我們所謂的大平穩時代

  • it seemed like the days of deep recessions and high inflation were over.

    似乎大蕭條和高通膨的年代結束了

  • Then came the great recession, as a result of the 2008 financial crisis.

    但2008年的金融危機,帶來的卻是經濟大蕭條

  • Back to the same old up and down, up and down of the business cycle.

    隨後,又再回到不斷起起伏伏的情況

  • Both recessionary and inflationary gaps cause serious problems.

    衰退缺口和通膨缺口都會造成嚴重的問題

  • High unemployment when the economy is bad?

    經濟差,連帶失業率也高?

  • That's bad, like really bad,

    沒有錯,真的非常的糟糕

  • And not just for the economy -- for people.

    不只影響經濟,人也是

  • High employment rate have been linked to higher suicide rates

    高失業率也造成自殺率提升、

  • more domestic violence, and social upheaval.

    家庭暴力、與社會的動盪

  • High inflation can be just as bad.

    高通膨也不容小覷

  • Rising costs wipe out savings,

    不斷攀升的物價讓荷包大失血

  • and have been the root of protests and riots throughout the world.

    這也是全世界抗議暴動的禍因。

  • Well, this seems like a fun episode.

    這一集還蠻有趣的

  • Stan, what's with all the doom and gloom?

    史丹,這樣的悲慘的氛圍是怎麼回事?

  • Isn't there some way to smooth out these fluctuations?

    是不是有方法可以弭平這些變動?

  • I'm gonna answer my own question: there might be.

    我的看法是:或許有

  • Many economists argue that policy makers should intervene in the macroeconomy in order to promote full employment or reduce inflation.

    許多經濟學家認為決策者應該干預大經濟體,提升就業率,降低通膨。

  • Today, we are gonna look at one of the ways to do this: fiscal policy.

    今天,我們要來談其中一個方式,財政政策

  • The idea of fiscal policy is really simple,

    財政政策的概念很間單

  • when the economy is going too slow, or too fast,

    當經濟上升地太慢或太快

  • the government can step on the gas or the brake by changing government spending, or taxes.

    政府可以踩油門或踩煞車,像是變動政府支出與稅賦

  • In the United States, that's the job of Congress and the President.

    在美國,那是國會和總統的職責

  • When the economy falls into a deep recessionary gap,

    當經濟跌入衰退缺口時

  • the government can increase government spending, cut taxes, or do some of both,

    政府可以增加支出,減稅,或雙管齊下

  • that's called expansionary fiscal policy.

    這叫做擴張性財政政策

  • The idea that government spending creates jobs and increases income for construction workers and teachers and other labours.

    這個概念就是政府支出增加工作,增加收入,幫助工人、老師和其他勞工

  • In turn, theses workers spend more of their additional income, increasing consumer spending and boosting the entire economy.

    相對地,這些勞工也更願意花錢,促進消費買氣,進而提升經濟

  • Cutting taxes follows a similar logic.

    減稅也是同樣的邏輯

  • A tax cut will increase disposable income for consumers that will increase our

    減稅可以增加消費者的可支出收入,並促進

  • consumer spending and boost the entire economy.

    消費買氣,從而提升經濟。

  • This is exactly what the U.S. did in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession.

    美國在2009年大蕭條真的這麼做。

  • The American recovery and reinvestment act was a stimulus build that added more than 8 hundred billion dollars to the economy.

    當時的美國復甦與再投資法案刺激美國經濟,為整個經濟賺進八千億美元。

  • That stimulus was split 60-40 between new government spending and tax cuts

    這項刺激經濟的政策,在政府支出跟減稅方面,各占了60%和40%

  • and the expansionary fiscal policy funded new roads and bridges and upgrades to the electric grid,

    這項擴張性財政政策資助了新道路、橋墩的建設和輸電網絡的升級,

  • and those projects created jobs.

    並創造了工作。

  • But when the economy has an inflationary gap

    但如果是通膨缺口的情況

  • the government can cut spending, or raise taxes or do some combination of the two.

    政府可以減少支出,增稅或兩者同時實行。

  • That's called contractionary fiscal policy, and that's not half as fun.

    這叫做緊縮性財政政策,而且一點也不有趣

  • The idea is that higher taxes will lead consumer with less money to spend,

    這個概念是希望透過高額的稅收以減少消費者支出,

  • and lower government spending will mean fewer public jobs, all that should reduce consumer spending

    而減少政府支出意味著縮減公務人員職缺,並減少消費支出,

  • cooling off the economy and reducing inflation.

    冷卻經濟,減少通膨。

  • We don't see contractionary fiscal policy very often in practice

    緊縮型財政政策其實並不常見

  • because politicians rarely want to hit their voters with a slower economy, it's a hard sell

    因為政治人物不想因經濟的遲緩而流失選票

  • and it could cost policy makers their job.

    這也有可能讓決策者因此失去工作。

  • U.S. President George H. W. Bush famously stated "Read my lips, no new taxes." While campaigning in 1988.

    美國前總統布希在1988年選戰時的經典名句「聽好了,我不加稅。」

  • A few years later, he agreed to raise taxes to reduce the debt and lost the election in 1992.

    但在幾年後,他還是同意增稅來減債,在1992年輸了選戰。

  • So the big question here is: Does fiscal policy actually work?

    所以關鍵就在於:財政政策有用嗎?

  • Does stimulating the economy with spending and tax cuts actually, you know, make the economy grow?

    用增加支出和減稅來刺激經濟真的有效嗎?

  • That is the most heated debate in modern economic, and it's been raging for decades.

    這個問題其實在現代經濟學已經吵了好幾十年

  • It's been known to drive mild-mannered economists to use their loud voices on cable news shows.

    還使許多原本斯文的經濟學家在電視新聞上,爭辯得口沫橫飛

  • Let's learn about it in the Thought Bubble.

    讓我們進入思想泡泡

  • Classical theories assumed that the economy will fix itself in the long run, and that government intervention

    古典理論假設經濟在長時間過後會自動恢復,政府干預

  • will, at best, lead to unintended consequences and, at worst, cause massive inflation and debt.

    得宜的話,會有讓人眼睛為之一亮的成果,但要是干預不當的話,會導致嚴重通膨和巨債

  • These theories dominated policy decisions during the earliers of the

    這些理論在1929年經濟大蕭條時

  • Great Depression, which saw little stimulus.

    主導了部分決策,並有了一點成效。

  • Economists argue that unemployed workers would eventually accept lower wages,

    經濟學家認為失業勞工最終會領取更低的薪資,惡性循環

  • since some pay is better than no pay,

    因為沒魚,蝦也好,

  • and resource prices would have eventually fall; since fewer people were using resources.

    資源價格最後則會下降,因為越來越少人使用。

  • Lower cost would lead to more production, more jobs and poof, the economy is back on track.

    低成本導向更多的產出、更多工作,然後耶,經濟再度回到正軌上。

  • At the time, many policy makers thought about a sick economy,

    當時,許多決策者遭逢經濟驟變時

  • the way doctors a thousand years ago thought about a sick patient.

    是用醫生在千年前治療病患的方法。

  • The thinking was that problems resulted from accumulated imbalance,

    這種方式認為其問題源自於經濟積累失衡,

  • which could be cured by aggressive purging.

    可以由經濟急速降溫的方式來解決

  • In the case of doctors, that meant bleeding their patients.

    用醫生來做比喻,就是為病患放血。

  • In the case of a recession, that meant standing back and letting the economy bleed jobs and output until balance was restored.

    以經濟蕭條的角度來看,則代表順其自然,減少整個經濟體系的血汗工作,直到回歸平衡。

  • Then entered British economist John Maynard Keynes

    再來進入凱因斯理論

  • One of the most influential and controversial economist of the 20th century.

    20世紀最具影響力也最具爭議的英國經濟學家

  • Keynes basically invented modern economics, and developed theories and models about spending in production.

    凱因斯基本上是現代經濟學的始祖,發展出生產支出理論模型

  • He's the one that suggested using expansionary fiscal policy to speed up the economy,

    他支持使用擴張性財政政策刺激經濟,

  • Keynes argued that government spending can make-up for a decrease in consumer spending.

    凱因斯認為政府支出可以補足消費者減少支出的缺額。

  • So even if the economy does self-correct in the long run, there's no reason to wait it out

    所以就算經濟確實會在長時間過後自動復原,但並不表示真的得乖乖慢慢等。

  • His justification: "In the long run we are all dead."

    他主張:「長期來看,我們終將一死。」 (譯註: 也就是說「人終將難逃一死,為什麼不現在就趕快解決低迷的經濟呢?」)

  • Well, Keynes died in 1946, but his theories live on, and so does the debate. Thanks Thought Bubble.

    雖然凱因斯死於1946年,他的理論與名言卻流傳了下來。謝謝思考泡泡

  • So at first glance, Keynesian policy seem like the perfect solution to fix a sluggish economy.

    乍看之下,凱因斯的政策好像是修復經濟的最佳良藥。

  • If consumer spending falls, the government can spend instead. What's the harm in that?

    如果消費支出下降,政府可以增加支出,但其中的破綻為何?

  • Well, the government needs to pay for all that spending.

    這麼說吧,政府需要大力支出

  • They can't just raise tax to cover because that would cause the decrease in consumer spending and defeat the purpose.

    但他們不可能只靠升稅,因為會導致消費下降,跟原用意相左。

  • So to stimulate the economy, the government needs the deficit spend;

    因此,要刺激經濟,政府需要赤字開支;

  • they need to spend more money than they collect in tax revenue.

    他們需要花比稅負收入還更多的錢。

  • Now to achieve this, the government needs to borrow money, which will result in debt,

    要實行此方法,政府要借更多錢,最終將導致負債,

  • and we are going to make a video about the national debt and different schools of economic thought. But for

    我們之後會再做部有關國債與不同學派對經濟的看法的影片。但話說回來,

  • now, it's fair enough to say that the people who don't like Keynesian policy, don't like it because it causes debt.

    不喜歡凱因斯的政策的人,是因為凱因斯的理論會導致人們的債務增加,這樣理解起來非常合理

  • More technical argument against deficit spending is that it leads to something called CROWDING OUT.

    有不少反對聲浪明確地指出,赤字開支終將導致「擠出效應」。

  • If the government borrows a lot of money that increases interest rates,

    如果政府借錢,增加利率

  • making it harder for business to borrow money and buy things like factories and tools.

    .讓企業更難借到錢,致使無法投資工廠或器材設備

  • This weakens the economy while increases government debt.

    終將削減經濟,增加政府債務。

  • But Keynesian economists maintain that crowding out is only a problem if the economy is operating at full

    但凱因斯學派的經濟學家聲稱,「擠出效應」只會在經濟產出達最大量

  • capacity, where all workers are employed and we're producing as much as we can. In that case,

    所有勞工都受雇、發揮最大功效而大量產出時,才會發生那樣的問題,如果這樣的話

  • since total output can't really rise, more government spending will result in less private spending.

    總輸出就難以再上升,政府支出地越多只會降低個人消費。

  • However, they argue that the situation is different when the economy is below capacity

    然而,他們辯稱當經濟輸出未達最大量

  • with lots of unemployed workers and vacant factories.

    也出現許多失業工人和倒閉的工廠時,情況就會不太一樣

  • Now in that case, more government spending can raise overall output by putting idle resources back to work.

    在這樣的情況下,政府支出勢必會增加輸出,使用閒置資源好讓經濟重回正軌

  • In fact, Keynesians will argue that government stimulus when the economy is below capacity

    事實上,凱因斯學派學者認為在經濟輸出未達最大量的情況下,政府介入刺激經濟

  • can actually raise private spending.

    可以增加消費。

  • All those newly hired workers will start spending more money.

    這些新上任的工人就會開始增加消費。

  • So how can we figure out who's right?

    所以誰是對的?

  • We can start by comparing the actual performance of economies that receive stimulus to those that didn't.

    我們可以開始比較有透過政府刺激和沒有經過刺激,兩者經濟體的實質表現。

  • As we mentioned, in 2009, the U.S. government launched a huge stimulus program

    如我們之前提到的,2009年,美國政府,為了因應金融危機

  • in response to the financial crisis. Despite that, employment and GDP both fell. That sounds like a

    實行巨大的刺激計畫。然而,就業率和GDP都下降。雖然看似

  • failure, but the majority of the economists think that the situation would have been far far worse without

    失敗,但是大多數經濟學家認為,如果沒有這些刺激政策,情況只會更糟

  • that stimulus. And while the U.S. was implementing stimulus, most European countries were doing the

    反觀沒有政府刺激的情況,就在美國執行財政政策的同時,多數歐洲國家卻反其道

  • oppositethey were pursuing a policy called AUSTERITY,

    而行 — 他們遵循「撙節政策」,

  • raising taxes and cutting government spending to reduce debt.

    增稅和減少政府支出來減少債務。

  • Since 2011, when the U.S. and European policies really started to diverge,

    從2011年起,美國和歐洲施政的方向開始出現分歧時

  • the U.S. economy has grown at an average rate of 2.5 percent,

    美國經濟成長率提升2.5%,

  • while the Euro-zone GDP actually shrank by one percent.

    歐元區的GDP卻反倒下降1%。

  • U.S. unemployment fell to 5.5 percent,

    美國失業率下降到5.5%,

  • while Euro-zone unemployment rose to 12 percent.

    歐元區失業率卻上升到12%。

  • Another thing to keep in mind is that stimulus is complicated and it's hard to do well.

    還有一點要銘記在心的就是,刺激經濟很複雜,也真的很難成功。

  • One reason is because of this thing called the MULTIPLIER EFFECT.

    其中一個理由叫做「乘數效應」。

  • The idea here is that the government spends 100 dollars and the highway construction worker who got the money

    這個概念簡單來說好比,政府花了100元聘請公路的建築工人後,工人把拿到的薪資

  • will save 50 and then spend 50 in a concert or something. And the musician who got that money will

    存下50元,並花50元聽音樂會,然後得到錢的演奏家

  • save 25 dollars and spend the other 25 and so on.

    存下25元,花了25元,就這樣持續下去。

  • So because of this ripple effect, the initial increase in government spending of $100 might turn out to be $175 worth of actual spending in the economy.

    因為這個連鎖反應,政府起初花的100元將有可能增加經濟體175元的實質消費。

  • Economists would call this a multiplier of 1.75.

    經濟學家稱此乘數為1.75。

  • But the question is, what's the real multiplier of the United States' economy?

    但問題是,美國經濟真正的乘數為何?

  • Economists have come up with a wide range of estimates for that multiplier, and it turns out that it

    經濟學家推測出許多數字,結論當然是依照

  • depends on different situations. When the economy's already booming, the multiplier seems to be close to 1.

    不同情況而異。當經濟繁榮時,乘數會接近1。

  • If everyone is already working and the government wants to build a road, then they're gonna have to hire workers away from the private sector.

    如果每個人都有工作,政府想建造道路,那他們必須雇用非私營企業的工人。

  • Sure public sector output increases, but private sector output falls and GDP is unchanged, it's a wash.

    當然國營企業輸出就會增加,但私營企業相對輸出減少,GDP不變,一切依舊。

  • But when the economy's in recession with lots of unemployed workers and lot of unused capital,

    但當經濟蕭條時,出現很多失業工人及閒置資本時

  • the multiplier is around 2.

    乘數差不多在2。

  • Due to that ripple effect, an increase of 100 dollars of government spending,

    因為連鎖效應,100元的政府支出,

  • would lead to about 200 dollars of total spending, which put some people back to work.

    將有200元的實質消費,讓許多人回歸就業。

  • Moreover, different policies have different multipliers.

    除此之外,不同的政策有不同的乘數。

  • Spending on welfare and unemployment seem to give us the biggest bang for our buck,

    福利支出和失業對我們的荷包衝擊甚大,

  • since people who have low incomes would likely to spend virtually all of their additional income.

    因為低收入者很有可能會花掉其全部的所得薪資。