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

opposite — they 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。

Spending on infrastructure, and aid to state & local governments, also seems to have a fairly high multiplier,

公共建設的支出或對州立政府的贊助，也有相當高的乘數

about 1.5. But general cuts to payroll and income taxes seem to have a multipler of about 1: if the government

差不多1.5。但減少工資和所得稅乘數則會變1，也就是如果政府減稅

cuts $100 in taxes, the economy's going to grow by about $100.

100元，經濟體將增加100元。

More targeted tax cuts and tax credits have lower multipliers, since they tend to benefit those who have higher incomes

減稅和扣抵稅額的乘數偏低，這對那些習慣存錢甚於花錢的

who often save rather than spend additional income.

高收入者來說比較有利

But what we want is something that will affect the economy rapidly, but also have a high multiplier.

但我們要的是可以快速影響經濟，擁有高乘數的政策。

So tax cuts put money in people's hands quickly,

所以減稅快速將錢放入人民口袋，

but that money might get saved rather than spent.

但是，那些錢可能會被人民存起來，而不是花掉

On the other hand, infrastructure projects like making roads and bridges have strong multipliers,

另一方面，基礎建設工程如建造道路和橋墩，相對則有較高的乘數，

but it may take months or even years to complete.

但需要數月，甚至數年完成。

So fiscal stimulus maybe an important tool, at least when it comes to a recession,

因此在經濟蕭條的時候，財政刺激政策不免是一項重要對策

but it doesn't mean that it's easy to do or that all stimulus is created equal.

但這並不代表很容易執行，或所有刺激政策創造出來的效益都一樣。

So fiscal policy has its advantages and drawbacks

所以財政政策有利有弊。

but in the end, maybe it's all about that thing you didn't have when you were in 6th grade -- Confidence.

但到頭來，或許一切的關鍵是你在國小6年級所缺少的 -- 信心。

When people are miserable and unemployed, they want to feel like help is on the way.

當人民感到痛苦，沒有工作，他們希望能趕快得到協助。

Doing nothing doesn't create the kind of confidence that will get consumers and businesses spending again,

什麼都不做就不會產生信心，甚而讓消費者和企業增加支出

and it doesn't get politicians reelected.

也不會讓政客再次勝選。

So it looks like Keynes's policies are here to stay

所以看起來凱因斯提出的應對之道還是佔有一席之位

unless...

除非...

Crash Course Economics is made with the help of all of these nice people.

「搞懂經濟速成班」是由這些善心人士的幫助所成立

You can help make Crash Course free for everyone, forever. Through your support on Patreon.

你可以透過你在Patreon的贊助，來讓速成班永久免費。

Patreon is a voluntary subscription service that allows you to support the content you love.

Patreon是自由捐助的訂閱服務系統，你可以贊助你所愛的課程影片

And earn great rewards. Check it out at: patreon.com/crashcourse.

賺取獎勵。快點進入patreon.com/crashcourse

Thanks for Watching! And DFTBA.

感謝您的收看，別忘了要努力更上一層樓喔！ (譯註: DFTBA為美國聊天縮語，即Don't Forget To Be Awesome!)