评论
打印
In rich countries, most of the economic effort has been directed towards calming financial markets. On March 3rd America’s Federal Reserve cut rates a fortnight before its monetary-policy meeting, and by an unusually large half-a-percentage point. The central banks of Australia, Canada and Indonesia have also acted. The Bank of England and the European Central Bank are both expected to loosen policy, too.
在富裕国家，大部分的经济努力都是为了稳定金融市场。3月3日，美联储在其货币政策会议前两周下调了利率，并以异乎寻常的幅度下调了0.5个百分点。澳大利亚、加拿大和印度尼西亚的央行也采取了行动。预计英国央行和欧洲央行也将放松政策。
Yet this slowdown is not a textbook downturn. Lower rates will ease borrowing costs and shore up sentiment, but no amount of cheap credit can stop people falling ill. Monetary policy cannot repair broken supply chains or tempt anxious people into venturing out. These obvious limitations help explain why stockmarkets failed to revive after the Fed’s cut.
然而，这种放缓并不是教科书上的低迷。低利率将降低借贷成本，提振市场人气，但再多的廉价信贷也无法阻止人们生病。货币政策无法修复打乱的供应链，也无法诱使焦虑的人们去冒险。这些明显的限制有助于解释为什么美联储降息后股市没有复苏。
Better to support the economy directly, by helping affected people and firms pay bills and borrow money if they need it. For individuals, the priority should be paying for health care and providing paid sick leave. The Trump administration is considering paying some hospital bills for those with the virus. Japan’s government will cover the wages of parents who stay at home to care for children or sick relatives; Singapore’s will help cab drivers and bosses whose employees are struck down. More such ideas will be needed.
更好的办法是直接支持经济，帮助受影响的民众和企业支付账单，并在他们需要时借钱。针对个人，政府的首要任务应该是支付医疗保健费用和提供带薪病假。特朗普政府正在考虑为那些感染病毒的人支付一部分医院费用。日本政府将为那些在家照顾孩子或生病亲人的父母支付工资；新加坡将帮助出租车司机和雇员感染病毒的老板。我们需要更多这样的政策。
For companies the big challenge will be liquidity. And although this shock is unlike the financial crisis, when the poison spread from within, that period did show how to cope with a liquidity crunch. Firms that lose revenues will still face tax, wage and interest bills. Easing that burden, for as long as the epidemic lasts, can avoid needless bankruptcies and lay-offs. Temporary relief on tax and wage costs can help. Employers can be encouraged to choose shorter hours for all their staff over lay-offs for some of them. Authorities could fund banks to lend to firms that are suffering, as they did during the financial crisis and as China is doing today. China is also ordering banks to go easy on delinquent borrowers. Western governments cannot do that, but it is in the interest of lenders everywhere to show forbearance towards borrowers facing a cash squeeze, much as banks did to public-sector employees during America’s government shutdown in 2018-19.
针对企业，最大的挑战将是流动性。尽管这次冲击不同于金融危机，但是当病毒从内部扩散的时期确实显示了如何应对流动性紧缩。失去收入的公司仍将面临税收、工资和利息费用。只要疫情持续，减轻这种负担就可以避免不必要的破产和裁员。暂时减免税收和工资成本可能会有所帮助。可以鼓励雇主缩短所有员工的工作时间，而不是解雇部分员工。政府可以为银行提供资金，向遭受危机的企业提供贷款，正如在金融危机期间所做的那样，就像中国现在所做的那样。中国还要求银行对拖欠贷款的借款人宽容一些。西方政府做不到这一点，但是，对面临现金短缺的借款人表现出宽容符合世界各地贷款机构的利益，就像银行在2018-19年美国政府停摆期间对公共部门雇员所做的那样。
There is a tension. Health policy aims to spare hospitals by lowering the epidemic’s peak so that it is less intense, if longer-lasting. Economic policy, by contrast, aims to minimise how long factories are shut and staff absent. Eventually governments will have to strike a balance. Today, however, they are so far behind the epidemic that the priority must be to slow its spread.
存在一种张力。卫生政策的目标是通过降低疫情高峰来让医院有更多位置，这样如果持续时间更长，就能减轻疫情严重程度。相比之下，经济政策的目标是尽量缩短工厂关闭和员工缺席的时间。最终，政府必须寻求平衡点。然而如今政府举措还远远落后于流行病，所以当务之急必须是减缓病毒传播。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
