Comments 13

没有计划的人

Nov 11, 2012 Robert J. Shiller

发自纽黑文——在最近的美国总统大选期间，其民意调查始终显示经济——尤其失业率——是选民们关心的首要问题。来自共和党的挑战者——米特·罗姆尼（Mitt Romney）试图利用这一问题，他宣称：“奥巴马总统的计划并不凑效，他没有一个能推动经济的计划。”

然而巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）依然成功连任了。这个结果也许反映了经济在选举期间的轻微改善，正如1936年大萧条持续期间富兰克林·罗斯福（Franklin Roosevelt）击败来自共和党的阿夫尔·兰登（Alf Landon）时所发生的情况那样。但奥巴马的胜利或许也证实了大部分美国选民对经济现实的基本观感。

经济理论并不能为政策制定者开出一个明确的药方。对宏观经济学的专业判断一如既往地杂乱无章。由于不可能用受控的实验来测试政策，因此我们永远都不可能对宏观经济措施实施明确的检验。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Robert J. Shiller

Writing for PS since 2003
124 Commentaries

Robert J. Shiller, a 2013 Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Yale University and the co-creator of the Case-Shiller Index of US house prices. He is the author of Irrational Exuberance, the third edition of which was published in January 2015, and, most recently, Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception, co-authored with George Akerlof.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 in all 15 Comments on this article

Jianghang Wang Mar 17, 2013

Bene!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Waleed Addas Feb 5, 2013

For any successful progress - be it for nations, governments companies, individuals, there are a number of P's that must be followed. They apply to all walks of life and I think Obama or any other may like to consider making use of them:

Precepts: the do's and don'ts (the value system, principles and the constitution)

Perception: to have a vision that stems out from the above precepts

Plans/Programs: to develop strategic plans and programs that come out from the above Vision

Policies: to have them aligned with the above precepts

Processe: delegate and hold accountable for results

Products: to make a difference in peoples lives

Price: without corrupting the resources or the climate

Performance: If you cannot measure it then you cannot manage it!

Perseverance: in all the above as one can never fool himself/herself.

Food for thought!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
philip meguire Nov 27, 2012

This election was not about economic policy because I submit that the Great Recession is over. The employment population ratio has been declining since 2000 and is now where it was in 1978, seen at the time as a normal year for the American economy. Americans broadly accept that out of every 13 jobs in existence in 2006, one is gone for good. Most Americans can get by in the current labor market but for one thing: mortgage commitments, undertaken between 1998 and 2007, that they can no longer afford.

About 40% of American voters are committed conservatives: their value judgements are grounded in private property, free enterprise, traditional marriage, and church membership. For them, fiscal policy is low tax rates and a mild and procyclical budget surplus. Employers should enjoy a maximum freedom to hire and dismiss, and a minimum of labor market regulation. The employee's best friend is thought to be a competitive labor market.

About 40% of American voters are committed Democrats: their value judgements are grounded in personal freedom in all dimensions but the economic one. They advocate for a fiscal policy is strongly procyclical, one that also involves income redistribution via taxes and transfers. They welcome a variety of labor market regulations, and the employee's best friend is seen to be labor unions and a benevolent and paternalistic Federal govt.

About one fifth of the electorate sits between these two camps, and this is where the median voter lies. A Presidential campaign is an enormously expensive appeal for the support of this elusive median voter.

Two facts. Obama carried in 2012 every state he carried in 2008, except Indiana, North Carolina, and Omaha NB. (2) Nearly all rural counties were carried by Romney; Obama ran well in urban areas and college towns. To me, it is quite clear that there are two clashing visions of what American is and should be. One vision is a traditional small town one, where many people are entrepreneurs and many businesses process things. The other is an urban one, where most people are employees, and many jobs involve the shuffling of abstractions by relatively educated people. A growing fraction of urban residents lacking formal education are unemployed or out of the labor force. This is a story that has been unfolding since the 1970s, and nobody, including Obama, knows what to do about it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrick Kelley Nov 16, 2012

You mention that Gene Sperling pursues practical things to lift the economy. As the owner of a small manufacturing business my greatest concern is access to capital (not loans, but equity.) I read the entire American Job Act. The only item in it that I found to be of value was "Crowd Funding". I have no need for educated employess if I can not purchase machinery with equity capital. Perhaps Mr. Sperling could give some thought as to how to recreate the equity market for small businesses. We need a better answer than "Crowd Funding".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan hitt Nov 16, 2012

Surely the elephants in the room are our hundreds of foreign bases and multi-trillion dollar wars.

These must have an enormous (and negative) economic impact if only because of their size. But more than that, they divert limited engineering and scientific talent from productive uses to utterly non-productive uses.

I think we need look no further than to China, whose military spending is a tenth of ours, but whose economy is approaching and will surpass ours soon.

If we can't close some bases and mind our own business a little more, we are sure to be in the same bad spot---if not worse---in 2016 that we have been for the past several years.
- Aidan Kelly Nov 21, 2012
  
  Dan, your point has to be made and I agree. US foreign policy is an area, one area, that needs to be reformed if the US is to balance its budget. A lot can be said about that - yes no yes no - pros cons pros cons - i think that we have to accept that the majority of US citizens accept more power overseas as a trade-off for an unbalanced budget either than or they are not concentrating. There is another point, the world has changed. What was a recipe for a balanced budget in the 50-60-70s is not the same as it is now. Both Europe and the US are struggling to change the mechanics of their economy. Adjustments are needed. People want them too. I agree with Robert Shiller that the leaders of the policy tanks should be recognised as having a significant contribution to make and that its people like Obama who are willing to take the "best" solutions from the conga line of experts. My terminal thought is what has prevented the political, institutional and voting side of economic management to lag so far behind the game? I think it has been the dominance of the too-right middle ground majority who failed to recognise that an efficient, diverse and strong internal economy is important and that to do that you need to look after people and value them and train them and look after their health. Vigour is the key. The US has lost some of its all round vigour due to its focus on external indicators (foreign affairs and GDP) and not the bedrock of the economy - people.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mukesh Adenwala Nov 13, 2012

I wonder if selling of non-performing assets on the books of the banks by lottery system would help the economy. Prices of foreclosed houses can be decided and declared; lottery tickets for the amount can be issued; and a draw can be held once the amount has been collected by issue of lottery tickets. I think there would be more than 10,000 buyers of lottery ticket of $10 each than a single home buyer for $100,000. If it works, the banks would clear their books of the assets and even of derivative contracts. If this plan is successful then the virtuous cycle may start once again much sooner than is presently envisaged.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anthony De Orio Nov 13, 2012

Congress as a collective body has failed not the President. The Republican Party with its rigid right-wing extremism has rendered the party unrecognizable, useless and obstructionistic. The President does not control Congress. Congress is too comfortable and cozy with its subsidized healthcare, nice salaries, pensions. Something must be done by peaceful protest and voting.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ravi Bhatta Nov 12, 2012

There is a risk of another four years of lame duck presidency. I think Romney was in a better position to move legislation with republicans holding the congress. Barack Obama is no doubt a decent person, but his rhetoric and excellent speaking skills are matched by his leadership skills. Till he shows his ability to make deals with republicans and make things happen, he can't deliver on any of the promises.
- James Edwards Nov 14, 2012
  
  Ravi
  I think you are mistaken that Romney would have move legislation with the Republican holding Congress because we have a bi cameral legislature and right now the rules of the Senate requires 60 votes (2/3) to advance legislation. The Republicans have utilized the filibuster far more than they did in 1950, 1960 & 1970 combined because they are angry that they lost the White House to advance their agendas. They took to the next step is obstruct like they did when Clinton was President (there are so many similiarity to what happened to Obama)
  Lastly I found it hoot that Romney made so many promises that they were unmatched with what is realistically going on and many required Congressional approval.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carol Maczinsky Nov 12, 2012

Obama is deadlocked by Congress, so the only thing he could do is world politics/war keynesianism. Syria, Iran and then Asia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
prashanth kamath Nov 12, 2012

He has got a plan alright.
Here is his plan:
"Yes we can (period)"
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Nov 12, 2012

‘Leaving money on the table’ kind of simplistic idealism has passed, there is in fact more money locked in corporate balance sheets as never before, while the general public continues to deleverage as well. So where does it leave us, fiscal actions directed merely to increase spending would take us to the same original problem that monetary easing had not been able to solve, creation of new jobs.

With a clear mandate, the Presidency must now get the act of putting the best team together, non-partisan in approach, to direct money towards investments (both government and private), after the crucial challenge of understanding from where it will come from is settled once and for all (as far as the government spending is concerned).

Procyon Mukherjee
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Nov 11, 2012

Although it might sound paradoxical today a politician without a plan is the best leader.
This is because a plan means some personal agenda based on previous experience, previous knowledge or tool-set.
But in today's, new global, interconnected and interdependent system we can throw away all our previous knowledge and tools, because they simply cannot work, as all conditions changed.
All the previous tools and methods worked based on an angular, fragmented, polarized reality with different markets, different regions, nations, cultures, enemies and foes, but in a fully integrated network where each element depends on the other such previous practices became destructive, and this is exactly what we are seeing with each passing day of the crisis.
The main problem with Presidents elected for second term is that they start working on their "legacy" trying to stamp their authority, their ambitions on the world preparing to enter the history books.
This is the worse kind of attitude in a global system.
The right attitude is to come empty handed, try to feel the total system first, understand its laws and principles and then start to harmonize, guide the whole system into its most optimal, balanced state.
Of course no single person can do it alone, this is another key feature of our new world system, but based on the size of the US's influence, the American President can still play a significant moderating role in the process.
We can only hope that instead of a prideful man chasing history the President will become a servant of the system as leaders are supposed to be in an ideal world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
J St. Clair Nov 11, 2012

the campaigns are recorded....now it's time to deliver
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/8jI6ycd/zh;

没有计划的人

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Ending America’s World Bank Monopoly

Why a US-China Trade Deal Is Not Enough

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register