爱华网为何是资本主义？| 胡佛研究所 上交所资本市场研究所
Why Capitalism?
byAllan H. Meltzer(Distinguished Visiting Fellow)
Because it’s the only system that maximizes growth and personal freedom.
Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt of the bookWhy Capitalism?(Oxford University Press) by Allan H. Meltzer. In this essay, the author explains why we have big deficits now.
The United States government is on course in 2009, 2010, and 2011 to run the largest peacetime deficits in its history—at least $1 trillion a year for ten years or more—with no end in sight. Logic and historytellus that financing such enormous deficits will cause inflation and a depreciation of the dollar against other currencies. Every knowledgeable observer agrees that the projected deficits and debt are unsustainable. Studies at the Bank for International Settlements suggest that decades of surpluses will be required to restore the 2007 debt to GDP ratio.
It is a big problem, but not a new one. Historically, politicians have given lip service to fiscal restraint. Today, however, efforts to achieve budget balance or surplus in the United States are a rarity—apart from routine complaints from the party currently out of office about deficits attributed to their opponent. Once in office, the winner neglects fiscal orthodoxy and adds to the deficit.
Illustration by Barbara Kelley
Although the 2010 midterm elections showed considerable public concern about spending, there are only twopost–World War II exceptions to continued deficits: the Eisenhower and Clinton presidencies. Over the term of his presidency, Eisenhower achieved a balanced budget, though he ran a high (for the time) deficit during the 1957– 58recession.
From President Washington to the Civil War, the federal government ran surpluses 75 percent of the time, except during years of war. Alexander Hamilton, the country’s first Treasury Secretary, paid off Revolutionary War debts but ran budget deficits in three of the first eight years of the new republic. Other peacetime deficits in our history have occurred during recessions. During the War of 1812, total outstandinggrossdebt rose from $45 million to a maximum of $127 million.
By the early 1830s, the federal government had retired almostall outstandingdebt. As in most wars, Civil War expenditures greatly exceeded revenues. The $1.3 million in government spending in 1865 was more than 20 times government spending in the last pre-war year, 1860. By war’s end, the nation’s gross debt had reached $2.7 billion. The federal budget remained in surplus for the next 28 years. By 1892, gross debt was below $100 million. Despite the surpluses, or perhaps because they encouraged private investment, the economy grew.
During World War I, federal government deficits totaled $23 billion for the years 1917–19 and were $25 billion by war’s end. In the 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon reduced tax rates and controlled spending. By 1930, gross debt had fallen to $16 billion.
That was the end of a sustained effort to reduce government debt. During the Great Depression and World War II, the budget was in deficit every year. By war’s end, 1946, gross debt reached $269 billion, and in the following years, avoiding postwar deflation and unemployment took priority over debt reduction. President Truman raised tax rates to finance most Korean War spending. President Eisenhower, who spoke often about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, ran several budget surpluses. From 1946 to 1957, gross debtroselittle, except during the deep 1957–58 recession.
The political system is making promises it cannot keep.
Today, government spending has increased greatly. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the federal government spent 2.8 percent of total output (GNP). In World War I, as in all wars, spending and taxes increased. By 1929, spending was 3.7 percent of GNP. From the mid-1980s to the present, government spending has fluctuated around 18 percent of GNP. In 2010, it was 25 percent of GNP. If the current large gap between revenues and expenditures is to be closed, taxes are likely to rise. Future unfunded liabilities add to the pressure for higher taxes when they are spent and debt service increases spending, as well as the total debt.
In the past, when the nation spent more than it collected in tax, it was to finance wars. When the war ended, deficit spending ended.Today’sdeficits continue and grow in size, but defense and military spending, though large, are a greatly reduced share of spending. The big increases are for social welfare programs and redistribution.
After World War II, military spending related to the Cold War drove government spending, but military spending as a percentage of total government spending has since declined. The main driver of government spending since the mid-1960s has not been military spending, but regulation and income redistribution in the form of entitlements— Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and welfare. Estimates in 2009 of future medical costs exceeded expected revenues (“unfunded liabilities”), for which the government is liable, by $60 trillion or more.
From 1961 through 1977, the government budget was in deficit; the government spent more than it received in tax revenues during every year except 1969. President Johnson borrowed heavily to finance increased social spending and the war in Vietnam. Gross debt reached $369 billion when he left office.
President Nixon did more of the same. Domestic spending by government rose rapidly. By the 1980s, deficits of $150 to $250 billion had become common. President Reagan slowed the growth of domestic spending but greatly increased military spending in order to bring an end to the Cold War. After that, reduced defense spending helped President Clinton run budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001—the only period with a continuous surplus in the past 70 years.
The Bush administration increased social and military spending, reduced tax rates, financed a war by issuing debt, and added greatly to future spending for health care. Budget deficits and the gross debt rose and liability for future spending soared. The Obama administration greatly increased spending growth in 2009 and 2010. Gross debt reached $9 trillion, with additional unfunded promises of around $50 or $60 trillion. Foreign governments held about 25 percent of the debt, so much more of our future output must be used for exports to earn the money to pay the interest rate on the debt we owe. In 2009 the Obama administration proposed higher deficit spending to reduce unemployment and pollution, expand government-supported health care, and to redistribute income.
Historically, when America's wars ended, its deficits ended too.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that gross debt would nearly double in the next decade and said that without major policy changes, outstanding debt would reach 947 percent of GDP by 2084. Long before that point, a crisis would force policy change.
Reports of budget deficits and debt understate the government’s future obligations. Estimates of the federal government’s unfunded future liability for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security pensions range as high as $80 trillion, more than $250,000 for each currently living person. What this shows is that the political system makes promises that can’t be kept—our political arrangements make it easier to promise benefits than to pay for them. Our country’s choices are now restricted. Either we reduce spending to shift resource use toward more productive uses or we increase taxes to finance the welfare state. Welfare state spending helps the recipients, but it reduces national productivity, economic growth, and living standards.
The federal government is not alone. Many state and local governments have promised pensions to retired employees that can be honored only with much higher taxes. Or cities and states can renege on the promises, by making beneficiaries pay more of the cost. An alternative would shift the liability to the federal government, which is unlikely because the federal government has severe budget problems. Some estimates reach $2 or $3 trillion for these future state and local unfunded obligations.
Almost all state and local governments are required to balance their budgets annually. Instead of paying higher wages to teachers, police, firemen, and other employees, governments promised future pensions and health care that, being in the future, didn’t affect the current budget but would come due only after the officials who made the promises were out of office. These obligations are now coming due. Few were fully funded in the interim. And states avoided the balanced budget requirement by employing schemes such as chartering government corporations that they excluded from the budget, exempting capital projects, and many others.
There is a tendency to make estimates of future costs that are overly precise and that later prove entirely wrong—mostly too low. The future is uncertain. By any measure, the costs of fulfilling the promises that have been made in the past are unsustainable. Something must be done to reduce future costs and develop a feasible, believable plan.
Allan Meltzer is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Allan H. Meltzer University Professor of Political Economy at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University. His teaching and research interests include the history of US monetary policy, size of government, macroeconomics, and the relation of money to inflation and unemployment in open and closed economies. Professor Meltzer has served as a consultant on economic policy for the US Congress, US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and the US and foreign governments and was chair of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission. He was founder and chairman of the Shadow Open Market Committee from 1973 to 2000 and was an honorary adviser to the Bank of Japan. He is the author of many books and papers in the field of economics.
Reprinted with permission fromWhy Capitalism?by Allan H. Meltzer, published by Oxford University Press. ? 2012 Oxford University Press
Letters to the editor
This should be required reading
This well written and very informative article should be required reading for ALL our public officials including federal, state and local government employees. It is quite obvious that no one can continue to spend more money than they earn or we as a nation will surely fail at some point in our history. It should be noted that the there is a huge difference between ENABLING people versus ASSISTING people in a free society. Safety net programs should be, at best, temporary and if the government has any responsibility at all, it would be to assist all of its' people to become productive rather than dependent upon a monthly stipend for virtually doing nothing. Our Congress, unfortunately, remains committed to their own self-aggrandizing interests and until there is a change in the way we do business, we will continue to speed toward the path of economic destruction, following in the path of the Roman Empire.
---Emmet Winslow
A Moral Defense of Capitalism
Whenever an alleged defender of capitalism uses terms like 'we need this' or 'we need that,' run for the exits. Or, better yet, call them out. These are collectivist starting points.
The reason that all the past and current arguments in favor of capitalism have failed is that they start with an analysis of markets, deficits, budgets, and balance sheets. The intellectual defense of capitalism is moral, not economic. The proper starting point is metaphysics and epistemology. From this base, one can argue for the necessity of reason and it's social implication, individual rights. The only social system that supports both is capitalism. All other attempts to justify capitalism will, and have, failed.
---Mark Wilson
为何是资本主义？
作者：艾伦? H ?梅尔泽（杰出的访问学者）
译者：Shierzou
因为资本主义是唯一能促进增长最大化和导致个人自由最大化的体制
编者注：下文摘自的艾伦? H ?梅尔泽的《为何是资本主义？》（牛津大学出版社）。在本文中，作者解释了为何现在我们存在庞大的赤字。.
2009年至2011年美国政府有望摘得该国有史以来和平期存在最大赤字的三连冠——10年或以上时间内，至少每年拥有1万亿美元赤字——前途渺茫。逻辑和历史告诉，要为如此庞大的赤字进行融资将导致通货膨胀和美元相对于其他货币的贬值。每个学识渊博的观察者都同意，计划赤字和债务都是难以为继的。国际清算银行（Bank for International Settlements，BIS）的研究表明，美国几十年的盈余要回复至与2007年债务占GDP的比例相当的水平。
这是个老大难而非新问题。历史上，政客们只将财政紧缩停留在口头上。然而，今天，美国要达到预算平衡或盈余的努力实属罕见—— 除了来自当前属在野党的一方将赤字归咎于竞争对手而老调重弹的投诉外。 一旦大权在握，赢家便对传统的财政政策置若罔闻，而一味扩大赤字。
插图：芭芭拉? 凯利（Barbara Kelley）
尽管2010年美国的中期选举表明，公众广泛关注政府开支，但是二战后，接连不断出现赤字，仅有两次例外：在艾森豪威尔(Eisenhower)和克林顿（Clinton）总统任期。尽管在1957– 58经济衰退期维持着高赤字，但是在艾森豪威尔结束总统任期时，他实现了预算平衡。
从华盛顿总统（President Washington）任职至南北战争(Civil War)期间，除了战争年代 联邦政府在75%的时期内维持着预算盈余。美国的首任财政部长亚历山大?汉密尔顿（Alexander Hamilton）偿清了美国独立战争（Revolutionary War）的债款却在新共和国成立后的前八年时间里有三年存在预算赤字。在我国史上，其他和平期的赤字预算发生在经济衰退期。在1812年的战争期间，未偿付的总债务从4500万美元骤升至1.27亿美元的高峰。
至19世纪30年代早期，联邦偿差点还清所有的未偿债务。和大部分的战争一样，美国内战军费严重超支。1865年，政府130万美元的开支是在战斗打响的前一年即1860年的20多倍。至战争结束，美国总债务高达27亿美元。在接下来的28年里，联邦预算仍保持盈余。至1892年，债务总额低于1亿美元。尽管存在盈余，或有可能是因为国家鼓励私人投资，经济出现增长。
在第一次世界大战（World War I）期间，联邦政府的赤字总额于1917-19年达到230亿美元且至战争结束时达到250亿美元的赤字。20世纪20年代，美国财政部长安德鲁?梅隆（Andrew Mellon）减少了税率并控制了开支。至1930年，债务总额下降至160亿美元。
1930年标志着持续努力减少政府债务的终点。在经济大萧条（Great Depression）和二战期间，每年预算出现赤字。至1946年战争结束时，债务总额达到2690亿美元；而且在接下来的几年里，避免战后通货紧缩和失业优先于债务削减。杜鲁门总统(President Truman)通过提高税率以筹集朝鲜战争的大部分军费开支。艾森豪威尔总统常把承担财政责任并平衡预算挂在嘴边，他有几次实现了预算盈余。除了1957–58年经济陷入深度衰退期，从1946 至1957年，美国总债务小幅上扬。
这一政治体系轻诺寡言。
今天，美国政府的开支已大幅飙升。20世纪初，联邦政府开支占总产量（国民生产总值，GNP）的2.8%。一战和所有战争期一样，开支和税率均上扬。至1929年，政府开支占GNP的3.7%。从20世纪80年代中期至现在，政府开支占GNP的比例在18%左右波动。2010年，这一比例达到25%。若要拉近目前这一收支缺口，有可能要增加税收。一旦债款被花掉，还本负息增大了开支，总债务也增加，未来无资金准备的债务加重了加税的压力。
在过去，当国家开支超过其税收额时，便是国家筹集战争款之时。一旦战争结束，赤字开支也随之告终。今天的赤字像滚雪球越滚越大，但是国防军事开支虽然数目庞大却大幅降低了其占费用总额的比重。赤字的猛增是因为社会福利项目和重新分配的开支加大。
二战后，与冷战（Cold War）有关的军事开支推高了政府开支，但是自此，军费占整个政府开支的比例已下调。自20世纪60年代中期以来，政府开支的主要驱动因素并非是军费，而是监管成本和以福利形式的收入再分配——社会保障（Social Security）、医疗保险（Medicare）/医疗补助（Medicaid）和福利事业。2009年，对未来医疗成本的预测超过预期收入（即“无资金准备的债务”），为此，政府欠债达到或超过60万亿美元。
从1961至1977年，政府预算处于寅吃卯粮的地步；除了1969年，每年政府开支超过税收款。约翰逊总统（President Johnson）大举借债以赞助与日俱增的社会性支出并为越南战争筹款。当他卸任时，总债务达到3690亿美元。
对此，尼克松总统（President Nixon）有过之而无不及。政府的国内开销一路飙升。至20世纪80年代，赤字达到1500亿至2500亿美元已是司空见惯的现象。里根总统(President Reagan)放缓了国内支出的增速却大大增加了军费以便结束冷战。从此以后，减少国防开支有助于克林顿总统从1998年至2001年维持预算盈余——在过去70年时间里，唯一出现持续性盈余的总统任期。
小布什政府（Bush administration）提高了社会性支出并增加了军费；下调了税率；通过发行债券筹资战争款并大大增加了对未来卫生保健项目的开支。预算赤字和总债务增加且未来支出债务飙升。2009至2010年，奥巴马政府的开支增长激增。总体债务达到9万亿美元，外加约有50万亿至60万亿未备资金的承诺。外国政府掌握着约25%的债务，我们未来的大部分产出须用于出口以赚取资金支付所欠债款的利息。2009年，奥巴马政府提出更高的赤字开支以减少失业和污染，扩大政府资助的卫生保健并加大再分配收入。
从历史角度看，一旦美国参与的战争结束，其赤字也随之消失。
不受党派左右的国会预算局（Congressional Budget Office，CBO）预测，未来十年，美国的总债务将翻番；该机构还提到，若主要政策不变，至2084年，美国的未偿债务将是GDP的9.47倍。远未到那时，一场危机将逼迫政府改弦易辙。
对预算赤字和债务的报告低估了政府未来的债务水平。对联邦政府未备基金的医疗保险、药医疗补助和社会养老保障的未来债务的预测范围高达80万亿美元，即每个目前还活着的人负债25万美元以上。这些表明，美国的政治体系背信弃义——我们的政治安排使政府更易承诺利益而兑现。现在，我们国家的选择余地有限。要么我们减少开支，将资源使用转向生产力更高的用途，要么增加税收以资助这个福利国家。维持福利国家的开支有助于接受方，却降低国家生产力、经济增长和生活水平。
无独有偶。除了联邦政府，许多州及地方政府已承诺只要退休雇员能缴纳更高的税款便承兑发放养老金。或者各城市和州也可让受益人支付更多的成本而自食其言。另一种办法是将债务转移给联邦政府，这不太可能实现，因为联邦政府有着严重的预算问题，自身难保。有些人预测未来各州和地方的未备债务达2万亿或3万亿美元。
基本上所有的州和地方政府需要每年平衡其预算。政府不给老师、警察、消防员及其他雇员进一步加薪，而是承诺给予未来的养老金和医疗保健，这些是遥不可及的福利，并不影响现有的预算但只是在那些信誓旦旦的官员离任后，这些福利便到期了。这些承付款项行将过期作废。在此期，很少人能如愿以偿完全拿到应得款。而且州政府通过耍一些阴谋诡计逃避对预算平衡的要求。这些把戏包括给予政府企业特许权使其排除在预算外，免除非经常性支出项目，还有其他形形色色的花招不一一赘述。
有一种对未来成本的预测过分精确，后来却证明大错特错的倾向——大部分情况是被成本被低估了。世事难料。但无论如何衡量，遵守过去许下的诺言所付出的代价是难以为继的。必须采取一些措施以减少未来成本并制定出一套切实可行且可信的计划。
________________________________________
艾伦?梅尔泽是胡佛研究所（Hoover Institution）的杰出访问学者和卡内基梅隆大学（Carnegie Mellon University）泰珀商学院 （Tepper School of Business）艾伦H梅尔泽大学的政治经济学教授（Professor of Political Economy）。他的教学和研究方向包括美国货币政策史、政府规模、宏观经济学、和在开放和封闭经济体中货币通胀和失业之间的关系。梅尔泽教授为美国国会（US Congress）、美国财政部（US Treasury）、美联储(Federal Reserve)、世界银行(the World Bank)和美国及外国政府担任经济政策咨询顾问；且他是国际金融机构咨询委员会（International Financial Institution Advisory Commission.）的主席。从1973至2000年，他是影子公开市场委员会（Shadow Open Market Committee）的创史人兼主席而且曾任日本银行（Bank of Japan）的名誉顾问。他关于经济学领域的论文及著作层出不穷。
________________________________________
转载请经得《为何是资本主义》作者艾伦?H?梅尔的同意 该书由牛津大学出版社出版。? 2012牛津大学出版社出版
________________________________________
给编者的信
此文应加入必读书目
这篇文笔不错且信息量大的文章应列入所有政府官员包括联邦、州及地方政府雇员的必读书目中。显而易见，没有人可持续入不敷出，或我们作为一个收不抵债的国家在历史长河中的某些时候必将一败涂地。值得注意的是，在一个自由社会里，授权予人和帮助他人之间是存在天壤之别。社会保障网项目应该，最多不过是权宜之计，而且，一旦政府完全承担起责任，这将有助于所有国民提升生产力而非成为依赖每月津贴实际上无所事事的寄生虫。不幸的是，我们的国会仍致力于维护谋求自我膨胀的利益。而且，倘若我们不改变自己的做事方式，我们将继续一头扎进经济毁灭之路，走上令罗马帝国倾覆的不归之路。——埃米特?温斯洛（Emmet Winslow）
对资本主义的道德辩护
无论何时碰到一个所谓资本主义的拥护者使用一些类似“我们需要这样”或“我们需要那样”的措辞，你应直奔出口，扬长而去。或者，更好的办法是叫他们出去。这些是集体主义者的出发点。
所有古往今来支持资本主义的论据之所以苍白无力是因为它们始于对市场、赤字、预算和资产负债表的分析。为资本主义的理智辩护是道德上的而非经济上的。更加适当的出发点是形而上学与认识论。以此为基础，作者可对资本主义存在必要性的原因及社会意义并对个人权利的影响进行论证。支持这两者的社会体系唯有资本主义。所有其它为资本主义辩护的企图将且已是穷途末路。——马克?威尔森（Mark Wilson）
更多阅读
范文芳李铭顺结婚为何如此低调？(图) 范文芳李铭顺
范文芳李铭顺结婚为何如此低调？(图)昨天（4月15日），对范文芳和李铭顺来说，无疑是个值得纪念的日子，两人在这一天正式注册成为夫妻。值得一提的是，范文芳和李铭顺注册结婚很低调，注册仪式只邀请新人双方家属参加，不接受访问。那么，范文芳和
传记电影《胡佛传》 传记电影推荐
胡佛,48年联邦调查局局长,历经三次战争8任总统始终不倒。在他的打造下,“FBI”三个字母寒光闪闪,震颤世界。导演伊斯特伍德以一句箴言为影片定调:“伟大之人同样会被腐蚀”,标示了影片两大支柱——伟大与堕落。主旨非常好,但世事往
净土法门内的种种困惑是什么？为何本是万修万去的法门而往生率却 往生净土神咒念诵
为何素食使皮肤娇嫩有光泽和弹性，而肉食使相貌粗糙丑陋？（从科学角度的分析，不信佛者愿意接受）佛经云：吸烟为魔咒使然！善穴关闭，地狱穴打开，死后堕吸烟地狱！在佛教道场抽烟果报极重（力荐）净土法门内的种种困惑是什么？为何本是万修万去的法门而往生
转载：孙悟空师傅菩提祖师的真实身份是什么？
孙悟空师傅菩提祖师的真实身份是什么？《西游记》提及传授孙悟空本领的师父菩提祖师，此人名为菩提，（佛界名称）身着道服（还开了个道场）似佛非佛，似道却又通佛，在电视中并没有诸多说名其中身份和本领的描述。细细读西游，不免心中一直有个疑问，大圣
刘诗诗传闻中的男朋友是谁？ 黄奕回应整容传闻
刘诗诗传闻中的男朋友是谁？ 刘诗诗的男朋友是谁？答：经过查找刘诗诗目前还没有男朋友，还是单身。但是有很多绯闻男友。 “嫌疑人”之刘诗诗 胡歌回应：这个妹妹不来电 胡歌和刘诗诗已经三度携手了，不过两人在剧中的情感很“纠结”