纽约——近几月来，美国宏观经济指标好于预期。就业数据掉头向上，制造业和服务业指标适度改善，就连房地产业也现出几许生机，唯有消费增长还相当疲软。
但是，尽管数据乐观，整个2012年，美国经济增长仍将乏力，低于趋势水平。为什么近期的经济好消息不足凭信？
第一，美国消费者仍然苦于收入吃紧、财富缩水和债务负担。实际工资增长停滞，但主要受减税和转移支付影响，可支配收入仍实现了微弱增长。这是不可持续的：迟早，政府将不得不收缩转移支付并增加税收以削减财政赤字。相对于数月之前，近期的消费数据已经有所减弱，节日零售差强人意。
与此同时，美国就业增长依旧表现平平，不足以降低总体失业率，提振劳动收入。仅仅为了将失业率维持在稳定水平，美国需要在一段时间内，每月新增15万个就业岗位。目前，超过40%的失业是长期失业，这部分失业者重新找到体面工作的机会较低。实际上，企业还在想方设法降低劳动成本。
收入差距扩大也会限制消费增长，因为收入份额从边际消费倾向较高的人群（如工人、低收入者）向边际储蓄倾向较高的人群（如企业和富裕家庭）转移。
此外，投资支出（包括房地产投资）的反弹将于近期结束，2012年的悲观预期、税收优惠到期、企业提防尾部风险（低概率、影响大的事件）和最终需求不足几大因素压低了企业的资本利用率。而大部分的资本支出将继续投向节约劳动力的技术改进，意味着进一步抑制就业。
与此同时，虽然房地产衰退已持续六年，这个行业仍在过冬。对新住宅的需求已从高点下跌八成，房价的向下调整在2012年应该还会持续，因为新增和存量住宅仍然供过于求。正在供房的家庭中，将近40%——2千万户——的房产可能会变成负资产。因此，断供和降价的恶性循环还会持续，而且，由于许多家庭信用严重紧张，消费者信心即使有所增强，也仍处低落水平。
鉴于国内需求贫血，美国挖掘增长潜力的唯一机会是缩小巨大的贸易赤字。但2012年的净出口只会给增长拖后腿，理由如下：
·要提振出口，美元必须继续走软，但这不大可行，因为许多国家的央行已经跟着美联储搞“量化宽松”了，欧元也同样面临贬值压力，中国和其他新兴市场则依然强势干预汇率，阻止本币过快升值。
·许多发达经济体、中国和其他新兴市场增速放缓，意味着对美国出口产品的需求减弱。
·由于中东地缘政治风险持续，油价料将保持高位，美国的能源进口账单仍会是个大负担。
美国也没有什么政策可以用来补救。正相反，2012年的财政前景将是经济的大利空，而在11月总统大选前，关于财政的政治僵局将令当局无法处理长期性财政问题。
鉴于美国经济增长前景黯淡，美联储料将再搞量化宽松。但美联储也面临政治约束，它对经济的帮助不是力度太小就是来得太晚，不会很显著。此外，美联储公开市场委员会有一小部分人反对进一步宽松。无论如何，货币政策解决的只是流动性问题，而让银行感到冒火的则是超额准备金。
最重要的是，美国和其他很多发达经济体仍处于去杠杆化周期的早期阶段。一场由过多负债与过高杠杆率（先是在私人部门，后在公共财政平衡表上）导致的衰退，必然导致长期的支出减少和储蓄增加。今年也不会例外，因为公共部门的去杠杆化过程才刚刚开始。
最后，有一些尾部风险值得投资者、企业和消费者引起高度警觉：欧元区债务重组乃至解体风险所包含的系统性后果，美国总统选举结果，阿拉伯之春、同伊朗爆发军事冲突等地缘政治风险，中国的领导层换届以及全球经济放缓的种种后果。
考虑到上述大大小小的风险，企业、消费者和投资者有很强的理由去静观其变。当然，问题恰恰在于，如果有很多人观望而不行动，他们反倒会加强那种他们试图避免的风险。
努里尔·鲁比尼系鲁比尼全球经济学（www.roubini.com）主席、纽约大学斯特恩商学院教授。
Comments (0)
You need to login in order to leave a comment. If you do not yet have an account, please register.
The two commenting options explained
Watch a 1 minute video
to discover how you can comment on the entire article or a specific paragraph. The two images below also explain the two ways of commenting.
1) Entire article comment
Once logged in, simply click inside the comment box where it says "Enter text here." Enter and post your comment.
2) Paragraph comment
Please log in first. Then click to the left of the desired paragraph. Your cursor will automatically move to the comments box. Enter and post your comment.
Ben Leet
In October 2011 Roubini and Alpert and Hockett released "The Way Forward", a lengthy recommendation, see The New America Foundation. In this present article he emphasizes only one remedy, U.S. exports. In The Way Forward the authors recommend three "pillars": 1) a public jobs program, $1.2 trillion over a five year period, 2) a debt restructuring program targeting real estate (housing) and finance, and 3) global reforms restoring balance to world trade. Since 1979 the CBO reported the top-earning 1% of households increased their income share from 8% to 17%, post-taxes and post-transfers. The lower-earning 80% of households lost the 9% transfer of income to the top 1%. There is no credible evidence that this trend will lessen, even the modest tax increases suggested by Obama will do little to revive demand and purchasing power for the 80% who are facing increasing stress. Marriner Eccles, the former Chairman of the Fed during the Great Depression, said the economy is like a poker game, when the losers run out of credit, the game is over. That's why he recommended public job creation and strict regulation of finance. Unemployment dropped 1933-1937 from 25% to 9.6%, and in the 1940s public job creation reduced it to under 2% in 1943 and 1944. The labor market (wages) is very deflationary under our present, 2012, conditions. This dire economic condition is staring us all straight in the face, and its remarkable that so few understand it. My blog, http://benL8.blogspot.com, I suggest more remedies, more analysis.
You argue that rising income inequality will dampen consumption growth, contributing to sustained below-potential growth in the United States. But in making this argument, you simply assume without any explanation that rising income inequality is a foregone conclusion. Rising income inequality has been an ongoing trend for many years now, and one could postulate that it likely will continue – but this is still just a claim that remains to be proven.
One reason why rising income inequality may seem a foregone conclusion is the degree to which it is entrenched in the U.S. tax system. However, the tax system, despite appearances to the contrary, is not immutable. Many prominent economists have suggested ways to recalculate tax rates (e.g., Diamond and Saez, 2011) or reform the system as a whole to more appropriately tax America’s wealthy, which would work to mitigate rising inequality.
Reforming the tax system is clearly not the silver bullet that will stop completely rising income inequality or eliminate the output gap. But, citing rising income inequality as a one of five reasons why United States’ economic growth is below potential and simply assuming that it will continue into the future is unproductive. Arguing that rising inequality dampens growth provides an opportunity for you to underscore the urgency of the active debate on tax reform and other ways to reduce income inequality. Rather than summarily dismissing rising income inequality as an irremediable part of the problem, you should reference the active debate and recommend that reversing the trend of rising income inequality be considered as part of the solution.