The New Global Economy
穆巴拉克的恶意债务
Saifedean Ammous
|
|
|
|
纽约——埃及公共财政揭示了一个令人不安的事实：付给外国贷款的利息超过了教育、医疗和住房预算之和。事实上，债务利息支出一项就占到了埃及政府总支出的22%。
所造成的影响是无法忽略的。随着政治不确定性的增加和经济增长的减速，埃及的政府收入可能会下降，紧急支出需求可能会增加，政府借贷的利率也会水涨船高。这将带来财政崩溃的危险，而与此同时，埃及正处在复杂政治过渡的关键时刻。
埃及公债相当于GDP的80%，与经济学家肯尼斯·罗格夫（Kenneth Rogoff）和卡门·莱因哈特（Carmen Reinhart）所指出的90%临界点十分接近——超过90%将导致经济增长减缓、金融和财政危机风险大增。只要看看北边的欧洲债务危机，埃及人就能明白，债务问题必须现在就解决，不能让埃及变成第二个希腊。
这笔债务是下台总统穆巴拉克在其30年的统治生涯中积累下来的。根据国际法，未经人民允许而产生的债务，以及没有用于民生的债务，都属于“恶意”债务；这类债务被认为不适合转移给继任政权。个中原因既简单又符合逻辑：如果有人用我的大名招摇撞骗，我是不会准备偿还的，国家亦然——无代表的领导人打着人民的旗号借钱并用于伤害人民，人民也不会替他偿还。
30年来，穆巴拉克的借款肥了他自己和他的统治集团，同时却让埃及陷入了水深火热。穆巴拉克治下的埃及腐败猖獗，称得上明火执仗：公共资金打着“振兴经济增长”、“创造就业机会”这样的拙劣旗号被用来支持商业活动。腐败与管制一起伤害着埃及的竞争力、市场开放程度以及中小企业。
公共资金的受益者现在都身陷囹圄等着送上审判台。但是，在埃及人民看来，这笔钱唯一的作用是让国家机器越来越庞大，用于巩固穆巴拉克的统治、迫害异见人士以及镇压千万埃及人民。当今年1月埃及人民奋起反对穆巴拉克的时候，他们所面对的就是用这笔借来的钱所购买的枪口。
现在要埃及人民继续为此前从穆巴拉克及其走狗那里得到的压迫和贫困买单，这公平吗？这笔钱很显然只是肥了穆巴拉克，人民没有获得任何好处，难道不应该由穆巴拉克——而不是他的受害者——来偿还吗？
穆巴拉克如何统治埃及，这在多年前就已经昭然若揭了，而如今，他如何花费借来的钱也已经水落石出。审慎的贷款人在发放贷款之前就应该考虑到这些。因此，借钱给穆巴拉克的银行和国际机构应该为向高压政权贷款这一行为负起责任来。
新埃及应该与穆巴拉克及其债权人划清界限，穆巴拉克归穆巴拉克，埃及人民归埃及人民。埃及政府的唯一角色应该是在必要时清算穆巴拉克的资产用以还债。
这不仅是公平问题，更能给那些借钱给独裁者的人一点教训，一点立刻可以在全世界产生正面影响的教训。贷款给高压政权的人不用指望继任者会还钱，这会立刻让全世界贷款人在放款时三思而后行。
埃及的例子能让整整一代贷款人警醒并冷静下来。他们还不习惯于考虑这类风险，甚至可能没怎么听说过恶意债务的说法。高压政权将发现很难借到钱，这反过来能让他们难以镇压其人民，也会让负责、合法的政府在需要时能够更轻松、更便宜地确保获得重要资金。
把外债责任转移给穆巴拉克不会对埃及的造成长期的经济后果。这样的举动不会被理解为财政鲁莽，而会被当作是快刀斩乱麻。卸下债务负担和利息支出，埃及财政状况会得到大大改善，经济增长所受到的威胁也会随之而逝。外国贷款人将因此更为审慎，从而能够防止未来埃及政府用债务融资来肆意蹂躏其人民。
或许最重要的是，用借来的钱来打造庞大国家安全机器的日子一去不复返了，这是一件好事，对全世界都是如此。为了埃及及其他生活在暴政统治下的人民，埃及政府应该勇敢地迈出这一步。
塞费迪安·阿毛斯是哥伦比亚大学资本主义和社会中心访问学者，黎巴嫩美国大学经济学讲师。
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org
You might also like to read more from Saifedean Ammous or return to our home page.
|
|
mvl28 07:34 06 Oct 11
This is something that already happen in other countries, such as Equador. The United States already used this concept, more than once. This documentary describes more recent similar situations while explaining the two cases above.
http://www.debtocracy.gr/indexen.html
It's about Greece's debt, altough here it is not so simple, because its different from an opressed regime like it was Egipt's case, where, I believe, that there should be no doubt that the use of the money was not for the benefit of the population.
Also, the creditors by writing off some of their debt, hopefully would make other creditors not give private loans so easily, because of the risk in losing money. Unfortunately, there are many and usually they always win more that they lose.
RobJones 02:30 07 Oct 11
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that Islam prohibited acceptance or payment of interest. Is this true?
slightly_optimistic 12:03 07 Oct 11
Why do the Paris Club use their taxpayers continually to bail out private financial institutions?
"Someone I had better not identify said the reason international meetings seldom produce the positive co-operation that could help solve the world's problems is that the people sitting round the table are too often more interested in their next job than the next generation", reported financial and economics commentator Anthony Hilton. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23932181-kings-five-points-deserve-respect.do
relkishky 01:36 10 Oct 11
Isn't it strange that Mr. Saifedean Ammous, an economics lecturer, doesn't understand the difference between domestic debt and foreign debt?
dismalscientist 08:15 11 Oct 11
Until very recently, Egypt's foreign reserves were approx equal to its foreign debt. That is changing now. The bulk of its debt is financed by local banks. and at $1,000 per capita, total debt not crushing.
And Egypt needs an external credit rating, because it will certainly need to borrow to kick start the economy again once it finds a leadership withthe courage to confront the difficult choices in front of it.
dismalscientist 08:16 11 Oct 11
And to Rob Jones' point, countries don't have religions, people do.
Hanias 06:50 07 Nov 11
if 85% of the debt is domestic, how can this count as odious? the debt payments you mention are somewhat innacurate and include both domestic and other debts.
slightly_optimistic 04:11 06 Oct 11
Interesting example. Many countries could no doubt appeal for debt write-off; the argument being that the population are unreasonably expected to repay debt that was not used for the needs or in the interests of the state.
Following the appeal the Paris Club of public creditors, or whatever replaces it in time, might be persuaded to write off some of the debt. This would switch the liability to the Club's taxpayers rather than the taxpayers of the indebted country.
However, significantly, there is no guarantee that private creditors would be equally philanthropic with the debts they are due - in fact the write off by the Paris Club makes it easier for the impoverished country to service private loans. More loans could then be taken out.
The European Union also has a problem with its debt. There is no effective cross-border management of debt levels yet.