5# pertain

支持楼上的，看来克鲁格曼已经成为奥巴马政府的经济问题说客了，理由如下：

1）记得克鲁格曼的强项是————国际贸易和国际金融，并非是经济，其诺贝尔经济学奖
      也不过出自与其的国际贸易模式(pattern)而已。其最好的佐证是他预见到了1997年的亚洲金融危机。

      所以，严格说来他没有多少权威和资格来谈论美国的经济。

2）如果他的经济学了得的话，那他很可能早已经成为奥巴马的什么经济顾问，
     或国会预算委员会委员长的幕僚什么的了，而不会屈才于纽约时报的专栏作家了。

3）其次，《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》往往是民主党的喉舌，所以，克鲁格曼也不过是替奥巴马政府
      唱唱赞歌而已。因此，不能不信，但也不能全信。

4）我个人觉得作为一个“著名”的贸易和金融家，如果非要拿前总统涮涮的话，不是不可以，但不能断章取义。
      其实，里根并非不要政府，而是不需要大政府，需要的是小政府。里根主义的前提是从肯尼迪、约翰逊、
      尼克松、福特到卡特政府，政府越整越大，赤字越整越大，经济越整越差。这中间尼克松在任时参、众两院
      仍旧是民主党把持，所以，尼克松很难在经济方面有所作为。所以，里根竞选时就认为政府才是经济糟糕的
      的主要问题，但并不等于说是要踢开政府，这根本就不现实。

      此外，1981年的美国经济并非糟糕到像1933年的经济大萧条一样，大萧条（或经济危机）的时候不需要政府
      还能需要谁？这是懂得一点经济基本常识的人都明白的道理。所以，克鲁格曼的那句话似乎太牵强，不同的时代
      不同的背景，怎么能硬绑到一起？实属断章取义，误导读者。

新浪财经的摘译不全，原文如下：
（为便于查看，漏译部分显示为红粗体字）

现在看来我们似乎将不会经历第二次“大萧条”了。谁拯救了我们？答案是大政府(Big Government)。
　　
So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all. What saved us? The answer, basically, is Big Government.
需要说明一点：经济形势依然糟糕，甚至比几乎任何人不久前想象的更为糟糕。从经济衰退至今，美国已经丧失了670万个工作岗位。如果把不断增长的就业人群的就业需求考虑在内，美国的就业缺口可能在900万左右。
Just to be clear: the economic situation remains terrible, indeed worse than almost anyone thought possible not long ago. The nation has lost 6.7 million jobs since the recession began. Once you take into account the need to find employment for a growing working-age population, we’re probably around nine million jobs short of where we should be.

　　美国的就业市场仍未好转，7月份失业率微幅下滑有可能是统计上的侥幸。我们尚未达到状况在真正好转的时点；目前而言，我们庆祝的只是恶化速度放缓的迹象。虽然如此，最近公布的一系列经济数据显示美国经济已经从深渊边缘退回了几步。
And the job market still hasn’t turned around — that slight dip in the measured unemployment rate last month was probably a statistical fluke. We haven’t yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly.
For all that, however, the latest flurry of economic reports suggests that the economy has backed up several paces from the edge of the abyss.

未完待续

接上页

几个月前，经济滑落深渊的可能性似乎是非常大的。2008年下半年爆发的金融危机在某种程度上和上世纪30年代初的银行危机一样严重，并且在一段时间内，关键经济指标如全球贸易、工业产值甚至股价的下滑速度赶上或超过1929年至1930年时的降速。
A few months ago the possibility of falling into the abyss seemed all too real. The financial panic of late 2008 was as severe, in some ways, as the banking panic of the early 1930s, and for a while key economic indicators — world trade, world industrial production, even stock prices — were falling as fast as or faster than they did in 1929-30.

　　但是，在上世纪30年代，趋势线一直维持向下；而本轮下滑在一年之后似乎即将结束。那么，是谁拯救我们避免了“大萧条”的完全重演呢？几乎可以肯定，答案就是两个时期的政府扮演了极为不同的角色。
But in the 1930s the trend lines just kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.
So what saved us from a full replay of the Great Depression? The answer, almost surely, lies in the very different role played by government.
　　在此次危机期间，政府所发挥的最重要的作用可能并不是做了什么，而是没有做什么：和私人部门不同，联邦政府并没有因收入的下滑而削减支出。这在最困难的时候对经济提供了支撑。
Probably the most important aspect of the government’s role in this crisis isn’t what it has done, but what it hasn’t done: unlike the private sector, the federal government hasn’t slashed spending as its income has fallen. (State and local governments are a different story.) Tax receipts are way down, but Social Security checks are still going out; Medicare is still covering hospital bills; federal employees, from judges to park rangers to soldiers, are still being paid.

All of this has helped support the economy in its time of need, in a way that didn’t happen back in 1930, when federal spending was a much smaller percentage of G.D.P. And yes, this means that budget deficits — which are a bad thing in normal times — are actually a good thing right now.

接上页

除“自动稳定器”之外，政府还采取措施对金融市场进行救助。你可以指责说，对金融机构的救助原本可以做得更好，纳税人付出过多而所得过少。你可以对政府的救助方式及运作过程感到不满甚至愤怒，但同时应该承认，如果没有这些救助措施，事情可能会更为糟糕。
In addition to having this “automatic” stabilizing effect, the government has stepped in to rescue the financial sector. You can argue (and I would) that the bailouts of financial firms could and should have been handled better, that taxpayers have paid too much and received too little. Yet it’s possible to be dissatisfied, even angry, about the way the financial bailouts have worked while acknowledging that without these bailouts things would have been much worse.
和上世纪30年代不同，在银行体系濒临崩溃的时候，政府没有采取放任自流的态度。这是我们成功避免第二次“大萧条”的另一原因。
The point is that this time, unlike in the 1930s, the government didn’t take a hands-off attitude while much of the banking system collapsed. And that’s another reason we’re not living through Great Depression II.

　　最后一个原因是政府出台的各项提振经济的政策，该原因可能是最不重要的，但决不是微不足道的。从一开始，我就认为《美国复苏和再投资法案》(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act)规模过小。但有数据显示，超过100万的美国人在该计划帮助下找到工作，并且该数字将会随着时间逐步增加；经济刺激计划在帮助美国经济结束自由落体式下滑方面发挥了重要作用。
Last and probably least, but by no means trivial, have been the deliberate efforts of the government to pump up the economy. From the beginning, I argued that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, was too small. Nonetheless, reasonable estimates suggest that around a million more Americans are working now than would have been employed without that plan — a number that will grow over time — and that the stimulus has played a significant role in pulling the economy out of its free fall.
　　总之，政府在此次经济危机中发挥了至关重要的稳定作用。罗纳德•里根(Ronald Reagan，美国前总统)是错误的：有些时候私人部门是问题所在，政府才是解决之道。
All in all, then, the government has played a crucial stabilizing role in this economic crisis. Ronald Reagan was wrong: sometimes the private sector is the problem, and government is the solution.
And aren’t you glad that right now the government is being run by people who don’t hate government?
We don’t know what the economic policies of a McCain-Palin administration would have been. We do know, however, what Republicans in opposition have been saying — and it boils down to demanding that the government stop standing in the way of a possible depression.
I’m not just talking about opposition to the stimulus. Leading Republicans want to do away with automatic stabilizers, too. Back in March, John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that since families were suffering, "it’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it." Fortunately, his advice was ignored.

　　然而，我仍然对美国经济感到担忧，美国失业率仍有很大可能在将来很长一段时间内维持在高位。但我们似乎已经渡过了最糟糕的阶段：衰退可能不会演变成大灾难。
I’m still very worried about the economy. There’s still, I fear, a substantial chance that unemployment will remain high for a very long time. But we appear to have averted the worst: utter catastrophe no longer seems likely.
And Big Government, run by people who understand its virtues, is the reason why.

(全部完)

原文网址：http://www.nytimes.com/

同网址还可以点击读者评论 Reader's comments ，看看美国读者是如何评价的

克鲁格曼在文章的最后一句：And Big Government, run by people who understand its virtues, is the reason why. 以及英文原文倒数第四段的And aren’t you glad that right now the government is being run by people who don’t hate government?

不知道他是在喝大的时候写出来的，似乎太露骨和肉麻了，即使替奥巴马贴金也不能这样啊？
看来他恨不得叫奥巴马一声——“爹”了

Government ...... run by people ??????  这话说的太早了吧？ 恰又在民主党称参加医保议事会
的愤怒民众是——“angry 乌合之众”之际？

无语，如果奥巴马苍天有眼的话，赶快把克鲁格曼收下当徒弟吧。