美国经济困境：解决之道

It’s the economy again, stupid
关键是经济，笨！

Jul 24th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

John McCain and Barack Obama are offering profoundly different prescriptions, though economic and political realities will limit their ambitions
麦凯恩和奥巴马开出了截然不同但都令人眼花缭乱的经济药方，而经济和政治的现状使他们无法大展拳脚

SIXTEEN years ago an American presidential election was fought against the backdrop of a weak economy and a grumpy electorate. In 1992, in the shadow of a recession and with Americans worried about their living standards, their health care and their country’s ability to compete, a charismatic young Democrat won by focusing on middle-class America’s economic angst and excoriating the “failed” policies of the Reagan and Bush eras. Candidate Bill Clinton promised an activist government that would tilt the scales towards workers, pledging wholesale health-care reform, big increases in public investment, tax cuts for middle-class families and higher taxes on the rich.

十六年前的美国大选面对的是疲软的经济和气急败坏的选民。1992年，随着经济的衰退，美国人担忧其生活水平的保持，健康保障的情况及国家的竞争力。最终，通过对中产阶级的经济担忧的充分重视及对里根及老布什时代政策的严厉斥责，一位民主党的青年才俊当选了，他就是克林顿。他向选民承诺了一个将大有作为的政府，保证其将致力于工薪阶层的福祉，大力改革医保体制，加大公共投资的力度，为中产家庭减税并向富人加征税收。

But the reality of Clintonomics was more centrist and less ambitious than promised. Taxes did go up for the rich, but large public investment plans were quickly ditched in favour of deficit reduction. His (or rather, his wife’s) health-care scheme famously collapsed. In 1996, facing a Republican Congress, he declared that “The era of big government is over.” And by the middle of the decade, Americans’ malaise was morphing into triumphalism as productivity accelerated, unemployment fell and wages rose across the board.

但克林顿经济的现实版却没有承诺的那么大刀阔斧，而更趋于走中间路线。富人的税是涨了，但为了削减赤字，大规模公共投资的计划被搁浅了。而他的（或者说他夫人的）健康保险模式的失败也为人们所熟知。1996年，面对共和党把持的国会，他宣布了”大政府时代的终结”。到了90年代中期，美国的产量开始提高，失业率下降，工资全面上升。人们的不安逐渐变为了走出困境的必胜信念。

One of the biggest questions facing America today is whether this dynamic is about to be repeated, whether the status quo will continue, or whether the country is on the brink of a more radical shift to the left. Once again, the economy is at the forefront of a presidential election and Americans are grumpy-grumpier, in fact, than they were in 1992. What’s more, compared with 1992, voters face a starker economic choice. Though Barack Obama and John McCain sound similar on some big issues, mostly green ones, their economic philosophies are quite different.

而美国今天面临的最大问题是能否再次激起人们的热情，现状是否为继续，或者他们是否需要一次更激进的改革。再一次，经济问题成了总统候选人斗争的最前线。而这次，美国的选民的脾气比92年还要差。而与92年相比，他们在经济问题上面临着更加赤裸裸的选择。尽管两位候选人在一些大问题上–主要是关于环保的 –观点相近，但其经济哲学却是截然相反的。

Mr Obama promotes a more ambitious version of candidate Clinton’s 1992 vision of activist government, with a dose of belligerent trade talk added on. He wants to spend money on public investment (primarily on infrastructure and alternative fuels); he has an ambitious and expensive plan for near-universal health-care coverage; he promises tax cuts for working Americans and sharply higher taxes for rich folk. During the primaries he threatened to pull out of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) unless it was renegotiated.

奥巴马宣扬的是克林顿92年的有为政府的加强版，还加上了进行更主动的贸易谈判这一条。他希望把钱花在公共投资上（主要在基础设施和替代能源上）；他野心勃勃地制定了一个昂贵的准全民健康保障计划；他承诺为工薪阶层减税并向富人们征重税。在初选中他还威胁如果不重新谈判就推出北美自由贸易协定。

Mr McCain, in contrast, is a staunch free-trader, arguing that America should be pushing for more trade deals, not shrinking from existing ones. On domestic policy, he sounds more radical than George Bush senior ever was-and than he himself has been in the past. Gone are Mr McCain’s long-standing worries about the wisdom of cutting taxes at the top. Instead he now offers the traditional Republican recipe for growth: tax cuts, freer markets and minimal government. Though he opposed George Bush’s tax cuts, he now wants to make them permanent and add more. Rather than extend government’s reach in health care, he wants to free up insurance markets and cut costs.

与之形成鲜明对比的是麦凯恩，坚定的自由贸易者，他认为美国应该扩大贸易规模，而不是在现有基础上还要减少。而在国内政策上，他表现地比老布什还要激进 –也比以前的他更激进。麦凯恩长期以来关于提倡对高收入人群减税的理论的担忧不见了，取而代之的是共和党传统的经济药房：减税，更自由的市场，政府的最低干预。尽管他反对过布什的减税政策，但现在，他不仅要保持还要变本加厉地减。他没有打算政府进一步介入健康保障，而是准备进一步开放保险市场并降低其成本。

These differences have allowed the two campaigns to paint America’s economic choice in dramatic terms. Republicans attack Mr Obama as a rank protectionist and big-spending liberal, who promises the biggest tax hike since the second world war. Democrats deride Mr McCain as an even more reckless tax-cutter than the current president, a man who will bust the budget and tilt the playing field even further against ordinary workers. But things are not exactly as they seem.

这些显著的差异给了选战双方在描述美国经济的未来时可以尽情的添油加醋。共和党人抨击奥巴马是下流的保护主义者和败家的自由主义者，而他承诺将进行二战以来最大的一次增税。民主党人则讽刺麦凯恩是比布什还要莽撞的减税者，并称他将使政府债台高筑，并使市场秩序进一步不利于工薪阶层。但两边说得都有点过了

For anyone outside the country, the stakes appear highest on trade policy, particularly since the Democratic Party has become noticeably more sceptical since the Clinton era. Look carefully, however, and 2008 is unlikely to mark as big a watershed as many fear. Mr McCain is a commendably committed free-trader. He also wants to overhaul America’s safety net for those who lose out, promising to revamp unemployment insurance, streamline retraining programmes and provide more wage insurance for older workers. But the odds of more trade deals are slim. Regardless of the outcome of America’s election, the Doha trade round is on life support. And at home a President McCain would almost certainly face a Democratic Congress that is chronically suspicious of trade deals, even those with sops for the losers.

从任何外国人的角度看，现在的贸易壁垒都是最高的，特别是在民主党自克林顿时代变得疑心越来越重的情况下。但进一步分析，2008年并不会成为许多人担心的分水岭。麦凯恩力挺自由贸易是讨人爱。他也表示会大力改进保障弱势群体的（社会）安全网，改进失业保险和流水线再就业培训计划并向年长的工人提供更高的工资保险，但增大贸易量希望渺茫。不管大选结果是什么，多哈贸易谈判都危在旦夕。而从国内来说，如果麦凯恩当选，其无疑将面对一个对贸易协定日渐多疑的民主党国会。

By the same token, Mr Obama is less likely to pander to his party’s protectionist wing than his primary rhetoric suggests. Within days of winning the nomination his tone changed. He told Fortune that his attacks on NAFTA were “overheated and amplified”; he wanted to “open up a dialogue” with Mexico and Canada, but disavowed the idea of unilateral withdrawal. An Obama presidency would doubtless bring more sabre-rattling than Mr McCain on everything from China’s currency to the need for environmental and labour standards, and Mr Obama may face troubles of his own from Congress. But a look at his advisers, and his recent speeches, suggests a moderate approach.

出于同样的原因，奥巴马也并不会像其初选时吹的那么倾向于党内的保护主义一翼。赢得总统候选人提名后仅几天，他的论调就变了。他告诉《财富》杂志，他对北美自由贸易协定的攻击有些”夸张和过头”了；他表示希望能与墨西哥和加拿大展开对话，并否认单边退出的说法。如果奥巴马当政，他在任何问题上都必定会比麦凯恩更加张牙舞爪，不管是中国的汇率还是环境标准或是劳工标准。而奥巴马在本党控制的议会也可能会碰钉子。但从其智囊的建议和其最近演讲来看，他都开始更倾向于走温和路线。

Of taxing and spending
关于税收和支出

What about the faultlines on domestic policy? There, too, the differences shrink a bit on closer inspection. Mr Obama would doubtless tilt the regulatory environment to the left (pushing up the minimum wage again and signing laws to make union organising easier, for instance). Both candidates are likely to favour more government involvement in areas from housing to financial regulation. Both have talked, for instance, of regulating oil-futures trading. But neither candidate proposes a huge shift in the reach of government. Calculations by the Tax Policy Centre suggest that Mr McCain’s tax plans would reduce the federal tax take to 17.6% of GDP by 2018, while Mr Obama’s would yield 18.5%. America’s post-war average is around 18%.

那么那些国内政策上的分歧呢？同样的，如果仔细分析就会发现，其实差别并不是那么大。奥巴马无疑会积极改进法治环境（比如，再次提高最低工资并立法帮助管理工会）。两位候选人都更倾向于扩大政府干预，从房地产市场到金融监管。比如，双方都曾提到要规范石油期货交易，但两位侯选人都并没有给出在政府的职权内的具体措施。据税务政策中心的计算，麦凯恩的减税计划会在2018年前使联邦税收减少到GDP的17.6%，而奥巴马的政策会使其增加到18.7%，而美国战后这一数据的平均值为约18%。

Nor is either candidate proposing serious tax reform. The expiry of Mr Bush’s tax cuts in 2011 offers the opportunity to rewrite America’s labyrinthine tax code in a way that could be both progressive (as Mr Obama wants) and pro-growth (Mr McCain’s concern). But while Mr Obama has plans to simplify tax filing and Mr McCain talks vaguely of an optional alternative tax with lower rates and a broader base, neither really focuses on reform.

而两边也都没有拿出具体的税收改革计划。布什的减税政策将于2011年期满，而届时将有机会来重写美国迷宫般复杂的税法，当然这有可能取得一定成果（如果如奥巴马所愿）也可能会抑制经济增长（如麦凯恩担心的）。但一边奥巴马在忙着简化报税程序，另一边麦凯恩含糊地宣传着其低税率广税基的新税制，明显的，两边都不是真正想改革。

Both candidates take the framework of the Bush tax cuts as given. And both measure the effects of their tax and spending plans not against current law (which has Mr Bush’s tax cuts expiring by the start of 2011) but against a world in which the cuts are all extended. Compared with that “baseline”, Mr Obama’s scheme raises some $800 billion over the next decade-all of which he then spends on health care, infrastructure and other programmes.

双方都沿袭了布什的减税政策的基本框架。并且两边都在掂量其税收和支出政策的效果，并使其不违背当前的法规（包括2011年失效的布什减税政策），并要使其能面对一个减税风潮正劲的世界。与这些”底线”相比，奥巴马的计划在未来十年将多征8000亿美元的税收–而他将全部用于健康保障，基础设施建设和其他的项目。

Mr McCain’s tax cuts, in contrast, would reduce tax revenue by about $600 billion over ten years. He “saves” that money by promising to get tough on spending. Indeed, he says he can balance the budget by 2013. Although Mr McCain has some credibility as a small-government conservative-he was one of the few who voted against Mr Bush’s reckless expansion of Medicare and, unlike Mr Obama, has consistently opposed farm subsidies-he offers few details on how this might be achieved. His speeches are peppered with pledges to get rid of earmarks (spending tagged for politicians’ pet projects). But since all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year, that will not yield much. For his numbers to add up, not only would discretionary spending need to be slashed from its current level of 7.6% of GDP, but spending on entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, would need to be cut too. If Mr McCain wants to do that, he has kept quiet about it.

与之形成鲜明对比的是麦凯恩的减税政策，其将使未来十年税收减少6000亿美元。他决定用严格控制支出来节约这部分税收。他更明确表示能在2013年使收支相抵。尽管他作为一个支持小政府的保守主义者还是值得信赖的–他是少数的几个反对布什布什不计后果的医疗保障的人，并且，与奥巴马相反，他反对农场补贴–但他并没拿出具体的措施来实现这一目标。他在其演讲中反复提到要杜绝特别拨款（政客们中饱私囊的项目）。但每年的特别拨款高达200亿美元，要杜绝绝非易事。除了这些，他还会削减现规模为GDP的7.6%的政府可自由支配开支，但这样的话，如社保和医保等补助经费也会相应减少。如果这是麦凯恩希望的结果，在这方面他嘴巴倒是闭得够紧的。

Since both candidates score badly on reform and fiscal prudence, the tax debate is really about distribution within the current tax structure: and here there genuinely are big differences. Mr McCain’s recipe is simple. He wants to keep all the Bush tax cuts (except eliminating the estate tax) and add a few more. His plan doubles the size of the tax exemption for dependants. In his speeches he promises to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax (a secondary system designed to prevent wealthy people avoiding tax, which now hits millions of taxpayers), though the campaign’s fine print suggests patching rather than eliminating it. And, most of all, he wants to cut corporate taxes. The top rate of corporate income tax is to fall from 35% (one of the highest in the world) to 25%. Firms would be allowed to deduct immediately the cost of all spending on long-term equipment rather than depreciate it over time.

两边在经济改革与节省财政开支上成绩都不太理想，而在税收政策上两边的差别只是在现有的税收结构上怎样分配税负。而两边在这个问题上的看法相左。麦凯恩的药方很简单。他将延续布什的减税政策的基础上再添上几个。他的计划将使被救济者获得双倍的税收豁免。他在演讲中承诺将废除替换最小课税（一个次级的税收体系，用来避免富人逃税，而现在却套住了上百万的纳税人（因为没有随通胀等因素调高底线，译注）），尽管其竞选的纲领中只是说要改善而不是废除。而，最重要的是，他要减少公司税，将最高的公司所得税从35%（全世界最高的税率之一）调低至25%。并且企业将被允许直接从成本中扣除长期设备的支出，而不是逐年折旧。

Mr Obama also wants to keep many of the Bush tax cuts that primarily benefit the 98% of households that make less than $250,000 a year. He then adds an array of new tax cuts for those at the bottom and middle. Some make sense, like a big expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which tops up the earnings of poor workers. Others, such as getting rid of income taxes for old people making less than $50,000 a year, don’t.

奥巴马也想维持大部分布什的减税政策，因为其使得98%年收入在25万美元的家庭都能受益。他还制定了一系列新的针对中低收入人群的减税计划。其中一些比较现实，比如大幅度增加所得税信用（一种返还性税收减免，译注），这将直接提高贫困工人们的收入。而其他一些像免除年收入5万以下的老人的所得税的政策就不那么可行了。

To pay for this largesse, and for his long spending wish-list, Mr Obama promises to raise huge sums from closing tax loopholes. He also pushes up tax rates at the top. America’s top rate of income tax will rise from 35% to 39.5%, its level at the end of the Clinton era. The capital-gains tax rate will rise from 15% to between 20% and 28%. “Carried interest”, the returns made by private equity and hedge-fund partners, will be taxed as ordinary income, rather than capital gains.

奥巴马的慷慨是要买单的，他承诺将通过打击偷税漏税获得的巨额资金来兑现其长长的许愿单。他同时提高了对富人的税率。他将美国人的所得税上限从35%提高到39.5%，克林顿执政后期的水平。而资本利得税率将从15%提高到20%至28%。”附带权益”，即从私募股权投资和对冲基金中获得的收入将按照普通收入来征税，而不是以前的资本利得。

Separately, Mr Obama has also suggested that he would help fix Social Security’s finances by raising the payroll tax on households earning more than $250,000 a year. (Today, the 6.2% payroll tax contributions made by both workers and employers stop at earnings of $102,000.) How much he would raise it is not clear. Adding on the full 12.4% would effectively take top marginal tax rates above 50%. Mr Obama offers no details, but his advisers hint that any rate rise would be much lower.

另外，奥巴马还表示他会通过增收年收入在25万美元以上家庭的工薪税来改善社会保险的财务状况。（现今的6.2%的工薪税是由收入在10.2万以上的工人和老板们承担的）到底加多少他没明说。但加上12.4%后最高的边际税率将超过50%。奥巴马没有提出具体的计划，但他的顾问表示真正增税了将大大低于这个水平。

Exactly how these plans shift the tax burden is not obvious-who gains from a corporate tax cut, for instance, depends on whether lower corporate taxes merely boost shareholders’ returns or also bring higher wages. But the big picture is clear. Both candidates cut taxes for all but those at the very top. For the richest fifth of the population, Mr McCain brings a lower tax bill than Mr Bush did while Mr Obama plans a big rise from the Bush years.

这些计划怎样转移税收负担并不是很明显–比如说，公司税的减免将提高谁的收益得看低税率是仅仅增加股东回报还是同时也拉高了工资水平。但大的框架还是清楚的。两边都推行全面减税，当然除了那些最有钱的。对于最富有的1/5，麦凯恩给他们开的账单比布什的少，而奥巴马则准备多收一些了。

But whether that rise marks a watershed is less obvious. Though the level ends up the same, the rise in the top marginal income tax rate that Mr Obama is proposing is smaller than that signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 (which took the top rate of tax from 31% to 39.6%). And analyses of that hike seem to suggest that while it had a big short-term effect on revenues, there is little evidence of large, permanent damage to incentives.

但这一增税政策会否成为选战的分水岭却不一定。尽管最终的税收水平相同，但奥巴马推行的政策在最高边际所得税率上低于克林顿在93年推行的水平（克林顿将税率从31%提高到了39.6%）。而通过对那次增税的分析表明，尽管在短期对收入有较大的影响，但长期来看，并无迹象表明其抑制了经济的发展。

The uncertainty with Mr Obama lies with the payroll tax. He has all but ruled out raising the retirement age or cutting pensions to plug the gap in America’s public pension system. The gap cannot be filled simply by raising taxes on the top 2%. But if raising taxes on rich people is Mr Obama’s only route to dealing with America’s pensions problem, he will be far from an economic centrist.

奥巴马最大的不确定性将来自其工薪税。他差点就决定提高退休年龄或者减少养老金来填补养老金系统的巨大资金缺口。而这一缺口单单靠对最富的1/5增税2%是填不了的。但如果对富人增税是奥巴马对付养老金问题的唯一路径，他将不得不放弃经济政策上的中间立场。

A healthy debate
论战医保

The main area where an Obama presidency could mark a break from the past is health. His plan is a version of the Democratic consensus: to provide near-universal coverage through subsidies, expanded government health schemes, a regulated insurance exchange, tough rules on whom insurance companies must insure, and taxes on employers who do not provide health coverage. Mr Obama has plenty of ideas for cost control, but his main aim is expanding coverage-at a cost of some $50 billion-65 billion a year, though some estimates run much higher. Mr McCain’s focus, in contrast, is cost control and competition. He wants to loosen the rules on insurance companies and end the preference for employer-provided health care. Everyone would get a $2,500 refundable tax credit to buy health insurance.

如果奥巴马当选，最大的突破将在医疗领域。他的计划是民主党历来的共识：通过补助达到准全名医疗保障，政府扩大在医疗领域的干预规模，规范保险交易，对保险公司必须保的险制定强制法规，并对未提供健康保险的雇主征税。奥巴马控制支出的方法不少，但其主要的目的是扩大医疗保障的覆盖面–代价是每年400至 600亿的支出，可能还更高。而麦凯恩关注的则是减少支出及鼓励竞争。他要放松对包险公司的管制并取消对提供医疗保障的雇主的优惠。他将给每个购买医疗保险的人提供2500元的减税额。

The staunch opposition of an (almost certainly) Democratic Congress makes it hard to see Mr McCain’s vision enacted. His plans are a somewhat improved version of those that Mr Bush has proposed, in vain, for several years. For Mr Obama, the headwinds are less likely to be political than economic. Getting a comprehensive and ambitious health-care plan through Congress will be an enormous undertaking. But a prolonged bout of economic weakness will sap the budget and divert focus from such far-reaching reform.

而国会被民主党控制的现实使得麦凯恩的图景实现的希望渺茫。他的计划某种程度上就是布什这几年推行的并被证明是白费劲的政策的改良版。而对奥巴马来说，最大的障碍将来自经济上而不是政治上。如此野心勃勃且价格不菲的医保计划要通过国会的通过将得费不少力气。并且经济的疲软在长期的后果将侵蚀预算，而人们的注意力也将从这个遥远的改革计划中挪开。

All told, the contours of the business cycle may be the main influence on whether 2008 proves a big turning-point for economic policy. Mr Obama’s tax increases will seem more risky if demand is weak. Whoever is president will be more focused on short-term palliatives than big policy change. Paradoxically, voters’ grumpiness may be a spur for radical change. But, just as in 1992, economic weakness may drive both sides to the centre.

综上所述，08年的大选会不会成为美国经济政策的转折点将取决于商业周期的大环境。如果需求上不去，奥巴马的增税政策风险将很大。但不管谁当选，都会着力先解决短期的阵痛而不是宏大的改革目标。讽刺的是，选民的气急败坏将可能使双方都更加激进。但，正如92年的情况，经济的疲软也可能使两边站到
一起。

译者：dujingqiang     http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13049&extra=page%3D1

Workingman’s blues
劳动者之殇

Jul 24th 2008 | KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
From The Economist print edition

Americans are furious about the state of their country. In the first of two articles, we examine the reasons for their discontent
美国人对国家状况怒不可遏，本文探讨了他们不满的原因。

JOEL AND JACKIE BRENDE differ on many things. He’s a Republican, and thrilled to have just shaken John McCain’s hand at a town-hall meeting in Kansas City, Missouri. She’s a Democrat, who supports Barack Obama because she thinks it is “time for a change”. But both of them agree that America’s star is fading.
雅意和杰克在很多事上看法不同。杰克是个共和党，刚刚在密苏里州堪萨斯市的选民见面会上麦凯恩握过手，激动不已。雅意是个民主党，支持奥巴马，因为她觉得”是时候该做出改变了”。但他们都认为美国的星光正日趋暗淡。

“We were always optimistic when we were young. We thought that every year, things would get better,” says Mrs Brende. But now: “The bubble has burst. I think my generation [will be] the last to see a great America.” Her husband agrees. Standards are falling in schools, he frets. Young people are finding it harder to get ahead. “We’ve all been so greedy for so long and it has caught up with us,” says Mrs Brende. She hopes that Mr Obama may be able to do something about the national malaise, but fears that “It’s too late. The slide is on.”
“年轻的时候我们总是很乐观。觉着一年会比一年好。”布兰迪夫人这样说道。但现在”泡沫已经破灭。我们这一代将是见证美国辉煌的最后一代。 “她的先生补充道。学校的水准正在下降，他感到很不安。年轻人发现取得成功越发困难。”长期以来我们所有人对（经济繁荣–译者注）都已习以为常，而现在却不如往日了。”布兰迪夫人说道。她希望奥巴马能改变这种弥漫全国的不安现象，但又害怕”为时已晚，回天乏术。”

Asked about their own lives, however, the Brendes are rather more cheerful. “We’re OK, financially,” says Mrs Brende. She is a travel writer; her husband is a doctor. They live half the year in Missouri and half in Mexico. They have 24 grandchildren and another on the way. Life could be a lot worse.
但谈到他们自己的生活，布兰迪夫妇倒是很开心。布兰迪太太说”我们的经济状况不错。”她是一位游记作家，先生是位医生。他们半年住在密苏里，半年住在墨西哥。家里有24个孙子孙女，还有就一个快要出生了。生活都还不错。

Regardless of their political beliefs, American voters are in a horrible mood this year. Democrats are sick of George Bush. Republicans are sick of the Democrats running Congress. Everyone worries about Iraq, either because they think the war should never have been fought, or because of the long, costly and thankless slog it has turned into. The latest violence in Afghanistan is depressing. The culture war[1] grinds on: America is slouching towards Gomorrah or theocracy[2], depending on your viewpoint. The earth is either cooking or being overrun by eco-fanatics. And the American economy is tottering.
不管各自的政治信仰主张如何，美国选民今年的心情都不怎么好。民主党人受够了布什。共和党人也受够了民主党主宰的议会。人人都担心伊拉克问题，原因或是有人认为本就不应该开战，或是有人认为战争久拖未决，代价巨大而又费力不讨好。阿富汗最近的暴力事件更是让人沮丧。文化战争[1]拖拖拉拉仍在继续：美国正在滑向罪恶之都还是走向神权国家[2]，怎么说都可以。”地球不是在制造着狂热的经济风潮，就是在忍受这股风潮四处泛滥。美国的经济正步履蹒跚。

The polls tell a dismal tale. Only 29% of Americans approve of the president. Only 14% approve of Congress. And just 6% view the economy positively. Yet many Americans combine despondency about the big picture with personal contentment. More than 80% say they are satisfied with their own circumstances. Even more are satisfied with their jobs. And although nearly everyone despises Congress, most Americans like their own representatives.
民调结果很是凄凉。只有区区29%的美国人对总统表示认可。对国会的认可度更是低至14%。认为经济状况良好的人只有6%。虽然美国大环境不景气，但美国人却表现出更多的个人满足。超过80%美国的人对自己的现状表示满意。对工作的满意度甚至更高。尽管几乎人人都对议会嗤之以鼻，但绝大多数人还是很喜欢本地区的代表。

How to reconcile these stark apparent contradictions? Some blame the media for overhyping gloomy news. Phil Gramm, a former senator from Texas and adviser to Mr McCain’s campaign, told the Washington Times that: “We have…become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline…Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”
如何调和这些鲜明的矛盾？一些人归咎于媒体夸大报道负面新闻。德克萨斯州前任议员，也是麦凯恩竞选前竞选顾问菲尔·格莱姆告诉《华盛顿时报》：”我们已然成为了一个悲情国家。啜泣不断，抱怨竞争力下降的声音不绝于耳，美国正在走下坡路。老天，经济并没有象每天报上写的那么遭。”

He had a point. American headlines are crammed with words like “failure”, “hurting” and “Fannie Mae[3]“. Foreign pundits sound even more bearish, and one sometimes detects a hint of gloating at the hyperpower’s distress. “The Great Depression,” thundered the front page of the Independent, a British newspaper, in April. The story underneath was about an increase in the demand for food stamps[4], after an effort to publicise their availability.
他说的不无道理。”失败，伤痛，范妮梅[3]” 等等字样充斥着美国报头。外国评论家更是火上浇油，甚至有些看超级大国笑话的意思。四月，英国”独立报”的头版”大萧条”字样格外醒目。下面的报道是关于粮票[4]需求增长，之前有人极力宣传粮票的用武之地。

Amity Shlaes, the author of a history of the Great Depression, thinks the comparison absurd. During the 1930s, she notes, “people lost their homes even though they had borrowed only 10% of the purchase price.” People losing their homes today often borrowed more than 90%. And today’s unemployment rate, though rising, is 5.5%. In the Great Depression, it peaked at 25%.
记录大萧条历史的作家，艾美蒂·希尔斯认为将现在比作”大萧条”时期很是荒唐。她指出，在上世纪30年代”人们的借款一旦超过购买价的10%就会无家可归。”而今只有借款超过90%的人才会流离失所。当下的失业率尽管在上升，但仅为5.5%。在大萧条时期，失业率曾高达25%。

Most Americans think their country is in a recession. But, buoyed by exports, output has yet to shrink for a single quarter. Mr Gramm suggested that his compatriots are suffering a “mental recession” rather than a real one. The McCain campaign tossed him under the Straight Talk Express, which was harsh but politically wise. For the figures miss an important point: consumers are facing a nasty squeeze, hit simultaneously by soaring costs for petrol, food and health care, tumbling house and share prices, tighter credit and flagging wages. Both candidates hear voters complaining about these things all the time. And since neither of them is a fool, both crack their cheeks trying to sound sympathetic.
绝大多数美国人认为美国在衰退。但由于出口拉动–至今为止还没有出现季度产量下滑的情况。在格莱姆先生看来美国人正经历着”精神衰退”而不是实际上的萧条。麦凯恩集团利用”直言快线”抛弃了他，有些冷酷，但却是明智的政治选择。因为统计数据没有反映出很重要的一点：消费者正面临着巨大压力，同时经受着高油价、高粮价、高医疗费用的考验，楼市、股市摇摇欲坠，信贷紧缩，工资缩水。两党的候选人一直都在倾听选民的上述抱怨。谁都不傻，都在顿足捶胸，恨不能表现得更富同情心。

Petrol prices, despite their recent retreat, hurt nearly everyone. Adam Julch, an enormous former college football star who is now a manager at a trucking firm in Omaha, Nebraska, complains that he had to trade in his pickup truck for a little Honda Civic. “I’m 350 pounds,” he says, “I feel like I’m in a clown car.”
油价尽管近期有所回落，但仍是几乎伤到了每个人。曾经的美国大学生橄榄球红星亚当·吉尔现在是内布拉斯加州奥马哈地区的一家货运公司经理。他抱怨说他不得不卖掉自己的敞篷小卡车，换一辆小型的本田思域。”我有350磅重。” “这让我感觉像是在个玩具车里。”

Soaring energy costs have sent the overall inflation rate to 5%-higher than it was in 1992, when angry voters threw out George Bush senior. Average hourly pay is falling in real terms. Meanwhile houses, most Americans’ biggest asset by far, are tumbling in value at a pace that exceeds that seen in, yes, the Great Depression. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of national house prices is down 16% from its peak, and judging by the overhang of unsold homes, has a lot further to fall. Asset deflation coupled with consumer-price inflation is a powerful recipe for political discontent.
节节攀升的能源价格已经导致总体通货膨胀率高达5%–高于92年的水平，当年愤怒的选民抛弃了老布什。除去通胀因素，小时平均工资在下降。与此同时，目前作为大多数美国人最大资产的房产价值却在以超过大萧条时期的幅度缩水。标准普尔全国住房价格指数相对峰值下挫了16%，考虑到还有大量待售房屋，价格指数将会有更大的下行空间。资产缩水加上消费价格膨胀正是促使政治不满强大诱因。

In Prince William County, Virginia, for example, house prices fell by 31% in the year to May and one home in 111 is in foreclosure. During the boom years, lenders offered mortgages to people with no cash for a deposit and no documents to prove a steady income, sighs a local real-estate agent. When these borrowers lost their jobs-and some were in the construction business, which has nosedived-many simply walked away from their homes.
举例而言，弗吉尼亚州的威廉王子郡的房价从年初到五月跌了31%，每111户中就有一户房产被没收。一位当地的房地产经纪人叹着气说道。效益好的年份，放待人都不会收取现金做抵押，借贷人也不用提供稳定收入证明。而当这些借贷人没了工作，其中一些正是从事严重下滑的建筑业，他们便一走了之。

Bankruptcies and bargains
绝境，生机

In the worst-hit neighbourhoods, such as Dale City, the foreclosure signs are everywhere. “People don’t want to buy round here because they see all these empty houses and wonder what’s wrong with the area,” says Ed Moore, an air force veteran who supports Mr McCain. “Things are going badly,” says John, who owns a struggling local construction business and supports Mr Obama but prefers not to advertise the fact to his clients.
在情况最为严重的地区，如德尔城，写着”没收”字样的牌子随处可见。一位支持麦凯恩的空军退伍老兵，摩尔说：”人们不会想来这儿买房子，因为他们看见这些空房子会不解，这儿究竟是怎么了。” “情况越来越不好。”约翰也这样说。他支持奥巴马，在当地拥有一家建筑公司，公司正在垂死挣扎，但他却不愿意向客户道出实情。

Both men are grumpy, but both reckon they will cope. Mr Moore’s home has lost much of its value, but since he plans to stay in it “till they put me six feet under”, he is not unduly bothered. John plans to quit construction, move to Texas and get into publishing. He is a college dropout, but reckons that “if you do some research, you can make a lot out of nothing” in America.
两个人对境况都颇有微词，但都表示他们会渡过难关。摩尔的房产价值缩水大半，但他仍决定留下，”直到我死在这儿”，这样想来也就无须多虑。约翰打算退出建筑业，搬到德克萨斯，进军出版业。他没念完大学，但相信 “在美国只要你做些功课，是可以找到出路的。”

Meanwhile, others see an opportunity in Dale City’s collapse. Jessica Lofiego, a mother of two, is scouring the neighbourhood for a bargain. At the height of the boom, she says, normal families couldn’t afford a nice place this close to Washington, DC. Now, she’s looking at a spacious 3-bedroom house that someone is trying to unload for $149,000.
与此同时，一些人却从德尔市的崩溃中看到了机会。一位名叫杰西卡·洛尔菲戈的两个孩子的母亲，正在社区里搜罗着超值房屋。她说，在楼市鼎盛的时候，在离华盛顿特区这么近的好地点的房子，一般家庭不可能负担得起。而今，她看好一个有3间宽敞卧室的房子，房主14万9千美元就打算脱手。

History suggests the housing slump will last for a while. A study of post-war housing busts by the IMF found that they typically last four years and involve a loss totalling 8% of a year’s output. Inflation, meanwhile, could slow if commodity prices stabilise. But given rapid, commodity-intensive growth in emerging economies, the underlying price shift-where American consumers spend relatively more of their income on food and fuel-is here to stay. Small wonder they are sour.
从历史经验看来，楼市低迷将持续一段时间。国际货币基金组织通过研究战后楼市情况发现萧条一般会持续四年，年损失达生产的8%。而如果商品价格稳定，通货膨胀可以减缓。但鉴于新兴经济体的商品密集型快速增长，基础价格就会随之攀升，美国人在食品、汽油上的相对花费会更多。难怪他们面无欢颜。

The malaise stems in considerable part from a feeling that individuals have become more vulnerable to forces beyond their control. The American can-do spirit is not dead, of course. Laid-off workers are finding new jobs, motorists are driving less and cooks are trawling the internet for recipes to jazz up the leftovers in the fridge.
不满情绪很大程度上是由于人们感到在外力面前越发无助。当然，美国的自强精神没有倒下。失业的人正在寻找新工作，开车的人越来越少，厨师们正在网上搜罗着处理冰箱里剩料的新点子。

But some shocks are hard to adjust to. The American suburban idyll of big homes and big gardens relied on cheap petrol. With gas prices high, many suburbanites yearn for a shorter commute. But they cannot quickly or easily sell their homes and start living in denser clusters with better public transport. Nor is it clear that they want to. So they suffer, and pray for petrol prices to fall. Sometimes literally: Rocky Twyman, a community organiser from Maryland, leads group prayers at petrol stations to beg for divine intervention.
但面对一些冲击美国人仍是难以适应。郊区那大房子、大花园的田园生活依赖的正是廉价汽油。油价上涨，许多市郊居民开始渴望短途通勤。但他们并不能迅速地把房子一卖了之，在交通更加便利的密集楼群中开始新生活。显然这也不是他们想要的。所以，这些人饱受煎熬，苦苦祈祷油价回落。毫不夸张，有时马里兰州的一个社区组织者洛基·德尔曼会带领一队人在加油站祈祷，请求神的帮助。

America’s costly but leaky health-care system aggravates several other problems. Soaring health-insurance premiums depress wages and prompt cash-strapped firms to stop covering their staff. The proportion of workers whose employers cover them fell from 65% in 2001 to 59% in 2007. And the fact that most Americans still get their health insurance through their job makes them much more worried about losing it. Unemployment may be low, but if it means your children lose their health cover, losing a job is scary.
美国的医保价格昂贵而又漏洞百出，这更加剧了其他问题。不断上涨的医疗保险金压低了薪水，迫使资金紧缺的公司纷纷停付。2007年由雇主支付的员工保险比例由65%下降到了59%。而事实上大多数依赖工作支付医疗保险的美国人更害怕的是失业。失业率可能还不算高，但如果这意味着孩子也将失去医疗保险，失业就显得面目狰狞了。

Opinion polls show unprecedented concerns about income distribution and economic mobility. Gallup finds that nearly seven out of ten Americans think wealth should be more evenly distributed, the highest fraction since the question was first asked in 1984. People are worried about inequality for good reason: real median household income has fallen since 1999, while labour’s share of the national pie has shrunk. The squeeze on labour could be cyclical: between 1997 and 2001, workers’ share of national income rose; now it is back where it was in 1997. But the earnings gap between the most-skilled workers and everyone else has been widening since the early 1980s. And in recent years the gains to the top have taken off while most people have stood still, or even fallen back, though the squeeze was partly mitigated by differing spending patterns (see article).
民意测验显示人们对收入分配、经济流动给予了空前的关注。盖洛普调查发现将近有70%的美国人认为财富分配应该更加均衡，这是自1984年该问题提出以来的最高比例。人们担心不平等是有充分根据的：自1999年以来，中产家庭收入减少，而劳动者所占有的财富份额也在减小。劳动者的窘境出现似乎有迹可循：97年到01年期间，劳动者所占的全民收入比例成上升之态，而现在又回到了97年的水平。但自80年代初起，高端技术工人和普通劳动者之间的收入差距就开始拉大。近几年，高层的收入激增，而大多数人的收入却没有什么变化，甚至还降低了。尽管通过改变消费习惯，困境已有所缓和。

Figures collated by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at Berkeley, make the point starkly. In the 1990s, the incomes of the richest 1% of taxpayers went up 10% a year in real terms (see chart), while those of the other 99% grew at an average annual rate of 2.4%. Between 2002 and 2006 the richest 1% saw 11% annual real income growth: everyone else got less than 1%. Three-quarters of the gains from the Bush expansion went to 1% of taxpayers, who now receive a larger share of overall income than at any time since the 1920s.
伯克利的经济学家以马力·萨尔兹得出的数据更清晰地阐明了收入差距问题。上世纪90年代，最富有的1%纳税人年均资产收益为10%，而其他的99%的年均资产收益为2.4%。2002至2006年，最富有的1%资产年均收益达到了11%，而其他人的还不足1%。布什扩张性财政政策利益的四分之三流向了最富有的1%人群，这些人的总收入为上世纪20年代以来最高。

Technology is probably the main culprit, but Americans prefer to blame trade. The latest Pew Research Centre survey of global attitudes found that only 53% of Americans think trade is good for their country, down from 78% in 2002 and lower than in any of the other 23 countries included in the survey.
技术进步很可能是罪魁祸首，但美国人更愿意归咎于贸易。Pew研究中心全球调查显示只有53%的美国人认为贸易对本国有利，而2002年这一数据为78%，这一数字也低于全部其它23个被调查国家。

The depth of gloom varies by age. The baby-boom generation (people aged 43-62) are glummer than the young or the elderly, according to Pew. Some 55% of boomers think it unlikely that their income will keep pace with the cost of living in the next year, compared with 44% of 18-42-year-olds and 43% of those aged 63 or more. Many boomers look after children and crumbling parents simultaneously.
年龄不同，心情忧郁的程度也不同。据Pew调查，与年轻人以及年纪更大的人相比婴儿潮一代（年龄在43-62之间）更为忧愁。有将近55%的这一代人认为来年将会入不敷出，在18-42年龄组这一数字为 44%，而在63岁以上年龄组为43%。许多婴儿潮一代正是处于上有老下有小境地。

Americans have grown accustomed to extraordinary prosperity. Poor Americans today are more likely to have fridges, dishwashers and air-conditioning than average Americans were in 1971. Young voters have no memory of a serious recession, since the last one was in the early 1990s. Some do not even realise that cyclical downturns are normal. Only 18% of Americans think they are worse off than their parents were at the same age. But elections hinge on shorter-term concerns. Four-fifths of Americans say it is harder to maintain a middle-class lifestyle now than it was five years ago. That probably means the election is Mr Obama’s to lose.
美国人早已习惯了富裕奢侈。今天就算是穷人也会有电冰箱、洗碗机、空调，而在1971年普通美国人还不一定拥有这些。年轻选民对严重萧条没有记忆，因为上次发生衰退是早在上世纪90年代初。一些人甚至没有意识到周期性的衰退实属正常。仅有18%的美国人认为自己没有父母年轻时活得好。但选举却取决于短期关切。80%的美国人认为同五年前相比，现在要维持中产生活更加困难了。这很可能意味着奥巴马将面临失败。

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war
[2]http://forums.jlconline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43910
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps

译者：eirrac     http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12908&pid=81611&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid81611