经济学人：“九成经济”的痛苦将推动社会变化

经济学人：“九成经济”的痛苦将推动社会变化(2020.05.14) .zhubiaoti {font-family: 黑体;font-size:18pt;line-height:23pt; text-align:center;FONT-weight:800;color:black} .fubiaoti {font-family: 黑体;font-size:14pt;line-height:20pt; text-align:center;FONT-weight:700;color:black} .zhongwen{font-size:12pt;line-height:180%} .yingwen{font-size:13pt;line-height:150%} .tiyao{font-family: 楷体_GB2312;font-size:14pt;line-height:150%} 　　提要：很多情况下90%恰到好处，而“九成经济”却令人痛苦。解封之后的经济状态即为“九成经济”，它好过严厉封城，但日常生活远没有恢复常态。“九成经济”的持续时间越长，疫情过后经济活动迅速恢复正常的可能性就越小。严重而漫长的经济衰退将造成社会不满。变革诉求会导致激进主义政治力量的崛起。“九成经济”引发的社会不满可能会助长保护主义、仇外情绪以及大规模政府干预。 　　（外脑精华·北京）很多情况下，90%恰到好处，而“九成经济”却令人痛苦。中国的情况就说明了这一点。中国已开始逐渐解除2月份实行的封城措施。工厂忙碌起来，街道上行人越来越多。这就是“九成经济”。它好过严厉封城，但远没有恢复常态。缺失在于日常生活。地铁和国内航班乘客减少了三分之一。可选消费支出下降40%，酒店客流量只有正常水平的三分之一。财务困境和第二轮疫情的风险令人们背负重压。破产事件越来越多，失业率处于高位。 　　对富国来说，“九成经济”也会令生活很艰难－－至少在找到疫苗或有效疗法之前会是这样。美国GDP下跌10%就将是二战以来最严重的经济下滑。疫情造成的痛苦越多，其经济、社会与政治影响就会越严重也越持久。 　　经济复苏面临强大阻力 　　解除封城的方式本身也会影响经济损害的大小。成本收益分析显示，应首先开放学校。然而，无论采取何种解封方式，经济复苏都会面临强大阻力。 　　首先，解封是一个过程，而非一次性事件。意大利每日病死人数在一个月达到约900人的顶点，而今仍超过300人。由于疫情并未结束，因而部分社会隔离措施仍将保持下去。 　　第二个原因是不确定性。在解封之时，疫情仍有很大不确定性，包括第二轮疫情的风险、免疫力的持续性、以及制成疫苗或找到疗法的前景。这种不确定性会令惧怕疫情者止步。 　　解封之时，很多企业将面临资金短缺、背负财务压力并面临需求疲软。高盛银行进行的一项调查显示，接近三分之二的美国小企业主称，现金将在3个月内耗尽。波音警告说，未来两三年的航空客运量都将低于2019年的水平。占GDP的四分之一左右的投资将下降，这不仅因为企业要储存现金，还因为市场价格无法反映风险。 　　社会不满将推动社会变化 　　“九成经济”的持续时间越长，疫情过后经济活动迅速恢复正常的可能性就越小。一百年前的西班牙大流感和十几年前的非典疫情过后，恢复正常生活都是全社会的共同呼声。但那两次疫情造成的经济影响都远不及新冠疫情，而且1918年公民对政府的期望值也要低得多。 　　严重而漫长的经济衰退将造成社会不满。老年人护理不力、少数族群死亡率过高、劳动女性压力过大、以及难以获得医疗服务（美国尤为突出）等问题都会引发改革诉求。再则，人们会意识到，普通人背负了过重的负担。据研究，美国年收入不足20000美元者因新冠疫情而失业的可能性是收入超过80000美元者的两倍。 　　变革诉求会导致激进主义政治力量的崛起。开放市场与有限政府的信奉者应将这种力量导向正确的变革。疫情也许会增强国家与全球凝聚力。德国等治理出色、因而应对疫情较为成功的国家或许会与民粹主义作秀者浪费时间的国家形成对比。 　　然而，上述乐观期望也许只是一厢情愿。未来18个月之中，各派人士都会宣称，疫情证明了自己的主张。2007～2009年金融危机过后，政界未能消除普通人的不满，变革诉求导致了民粹主义浪潮。而今，九成经济有可能造成更大危害。“九成经济”引发的社会不满可能会助长保护主义、仇外情绪以及大规模政府干预。如果你反对那种前景，就应起而宣扬更好的主张。 　　英文原文： The 90% economy 　　Life after lockdowns will be hard in ways that are difficult to imagine today 　　In many things 90% is just fine; in an economy it is miserable, and China shows why. The country started to end its lockdown in February. Factories are busy and the streets are no longer empty. The result is the 90% economy. It is better than a severe lockdown, but it is far from normal. The missing bits include large chunks of everyday life. Rides on the metro and on domestic flights are down by a third. Discretionary consumer spending, on such things as restaurants, has fallen by 40% and hotel stays are a third of normal. People are weighed down by financial hardship and the fear of a second wave of covid-19. Bankruptcies are rising and unemployment, one broker has said, is three times the official level, at around 20%. 　　If the post-lockdown rich world suffers its own brand of the 90% economy, life will be hard—at least until a vaccine or a treatment is found (see Briefing). A plunge in GDP in America of anything like 10% would be the largest since the second world war. The more suffering covid-19 causes, the more profound and enduring its economic, social and political effects are likely to be. 　　How lockdowns ease will itself affect the scale of economic damage. For instance, the cost-benefit calculus points towards opening schools first (see article). But, however sensibly restrictions are eased, powerful forces will hold economies back. 　　For a start, leaving lockdown is a process, not an event. Even when the worst is over, cases ebb slowly. A month after Italy’s deaths peaked at about 900 a day, the toll is still over 300. With the virus still present, some social distancing is bound to stay. 　　A second reason is uncertainty. After lockdowns cease, much about the disease will remain unknown, including the chances of a second peak, whether immunity endures and the prospects for a vaccine or a cure. This inhibits those who fear the disease. Even as some states ease social distancing, a third of Americans say they would be uncomfortable visiting a mall. When Germany allowed small shops to open last week customers stayed away. Danes under lockdown cut household spending on services, such as travel and entertainment, by 80%. Danish economists reckon that people in next-door Sweden, which didn’t lock down, cut spending by about as much. 　　Many businesses will emerge from lockdown short of money, with strained balance-sheets and facing weak demand. In a survey for Goldman Sachs, almost two-thirds of American small-business owners said that their cash would run out in under three months. In Britain the share of commercial tenants who have fallen behind on their rent has risen by 30 percentage points. This week the boss of Boeing warned that air travel would not match the level of 2019 for two or three years. Investment, which accounts for roughly a quarter of GDP, will fall, not just to conserve cash, but also because risk cannot be priced (one reason to think a recent stockmarket rally has weak foundations). 　　The longer the world has to endure a 90% economy, the less likely it is to snap back after the pandemic. After the Spanish flu a century ago and SARS almost two decades ago, the overwhelming desire was for life to return to normal. But neither had such a large economic effect as covid-19, and citizens’ expectations of government were more modest in 1918 than they are today. 　　A deep, long recession will stoke anger, because the pandemic has held up an unflattering mirror to rich societies. Ill-run care homes for the elderly, high rates of death among minorities, the extra demands holding back working women and, especially in America, health care that is hard to reach for many, will all lead to calls for reform. So might the realisation that an unfair burden has fallen on ordinary people. Americans earning less than $20,000 a year are twice as likely to have lost their job to covid-19 as someone earning over $80,000. Much will depend on how fast they are rehired. 　　The popular demand for change could radicalise politics faster than it did after the financial crisis in 2007-09. The task for those who believe in open markets and limited government is to ensure that this energy is channelled towards the right sort of change. If the pandemic lowers the barrier to reform it will offer a rare chance to recast the social contract to favour those who have been shut out, and to peg back those who today enjoy entrenched privileges through the tax system, education and regulation. Perhaps the pandemic will enhance a sense of national and global solidarity. Perhaps the success of countries like Germany and Taiwan that have dealt with the disease thanks to strong institutions will contrast with places where populist showmen have spent their time theatrically deriding expertise. 　　Yet that may prove to be wishful thinking. In the next 18 months everyone with an agenda will argue that the pandemic proves their point. After 2007-09 politicians failed to deal with the grievances of ordinary people and the demand for change led to a surge in populism. The 90% economy threatens even greater suffering. The anger it creates may end up feeding protectionism, xenophobia and government interference on a scale not seen in decades. If, like this newspaper, that is an outcome you would reject, it is time to start arguing for something better. 来源：经济学人 \t