环球经济导读（哈佛大学经济学教授Karen）

嘉宾简介：Karen Dynan，美国财政部前助理部长及首席经济学家、哈佛大学经济学教授，今天小编就来说说关于环球经济导读?下面更多详细答案一起来看看吧!

环球经济导读

嘉宾简介：Karen Dynan，美国财政部前助理部长及首席经济学家、哈佛大学经济学教授

主要观点：

1.在无法分辨公司质量的情况下，美联储各类放贷措施合理

2.2020年西方经济无法恢复至疫情前

4.缺乏有力的公共安全措施，经济不会复苏

金融界：近期美联储宣布会直接购买公司债券而不仅限于ETF。有些经济学家指出这项措施过于激进，美联储是在浪费纳税人的钱拯救一些濒临破产的企业。您是怎么看这个问题的？

Karen Dynan：在过去的几个月中，美联储激进的“最后贷款人”措施发挥了重要作用，阻止了更严重的金融危机引发的更严重的经济下行。

企业的盈利大幅降低因为人们在停止消费的同时还要支付账单，这引发了今年年初企业和银行争前恐后创造现金流，结果就是金融市场出现了大量恐慌性抛售，资产价格大幅下滑且波动加剧。总地来看，美联储以各种各样的方式提供贷款的意愿已经让市场停止恐慌，波动减小。

在扮演“最后贷款人”的角色时，中央银行更关注那些还有得救的企业，也就是那些当危机结束仍然可以存活下来的企业。但是，什么样的公司值得救是很难判断的。靠利润判断很不准确，这样无法区分哪些公司真的运营有问题，哪些公司在解除隔离措施后可以迅速复苏。因此，我认为美联储为大量公司提供贷款是正确的选择。

金融界：你认为在面对这场经济危机时欧美政府采取的措施是有效的吗？你对这些措施的评价如何？

Karen Dynan：我认为欧美目前实施的经济政策不错。政府已经采取了赈灾措施来支撑备受重创的企业和普通人的生活。主要思路是努力保证经济的基本健康运转，一旦病毒得到控制，日常经济活动逐渐正常化。在美国，我们增发了失业救济金，也给更多人发放了现金，以规避金融危机波动引发复苏放缓。同样地，我们也给企业提供补贴以防破产。重要的是，这些补贴可以激励企业不裁员，从而保障普通人的收入。

2020年西方经济无法恢复至疫情前

金融界：根据IMF的最新预测，我们知道疫情造成的经济危机已经远超2008年次贷危机。但是经济复苏会有多快仍然是个问题。市场上有很多假设——V型、W型，还有U型。你如何看待经济复苏？

Karen Dynan：我相信复苏的最初阶段会是V型反弹。三四月的经济活动骤降，随着企业恢复正常营业，我们大概率会迎来快速的局部反弹，目前我们看到的数据也符合这一规律。然而，这之后的复苏似乎在逐渐放缓。企业在改变运用模式以保证其雇员和客户的健康，它们会更缓慢地恢复营业。另外，恢复营业所需的时间越长，雇员遇到财务问题的可能性越大，而这也会拉长复苏的后期阶段。所以这个V型的右侧曲线会被严重压低。

金融界：你认为西方经济体会在第三季度复苏吗？

Karen Dynan：比较确定的是，二季度GDP会出现大幅下滑，随后的三季度会出现显著增长。一种解释是我们很有可能会控制住病毒，这样的话那些传播风险较低的企业可以重新投入运转。但三季度的增长只能弥补二季度的小部分下滑，或许可以达到一半。虽然西方经济体会出现巨大的经济复苏，但是不可能恢复到危机之前。经济的完全复苏可能需要好几年。

现在不必考虑高杠杆，各部门不承担负债后果会更糟糕

金融界：不少专家担心新冠疫情会进一步加深逆全球化。你认为此次危机会对全球化产生决定性影响吗？

Karen Dynan：如果没有出现全球化逆转，很难说会有决定性改变。一方面，在疫苗没有研发出结果的情况下，人们会恐惧出行，而且对大部分国家来说病毒是从海外流入的，这可能会让人产生不信任感。另一方面，封城正在促进科技和商业的远程交流，而且成本更低。让大家意识到这种变化的益处可能需要一段时间，但这对全球化非常有好处。

金融界：现在需要担心政府、企业和私人的杠杆过高吗？

Karen Dynan：在很大程度上，我们不应该担心高杠杆。对于个人和企业来说，现在不承担债务就意味着破产和复苏放缓。同样地，政府部门也要承担负债来支持个人和企业的发展。最终我们需要面对这些债务，但是现在就开始担心只会让事情变得更糟。

金融界：你认为疫情会改变我们的日常生活吗？比如，有些工作岗位会彻底消失，人们的出行也会减少。

Karen Dynan：我们日常生活的一部分大概率会被永久改变。比如，人们会更加关注卫生问题，会改变自己的消费习惯，包括减少做飞机和轮船的次数。而且企业也会改变运营方式，更多成本会花在健康、安全方面。长期来看，在家办公会越来越普遍，而这会改变房地产的价格和城区的服务业。不过，这些改变不会是永久性的，疫苗研发成功后，这些会恢复正常。

缺乏有力的公共卫生安全措施，经济不会复苏

金融界：你对政策制定者有何建议？

Karen Dynan：我有两个建议。首先，政府重视公共卫生的程度要和重视经济复苏的程度一样。在美国，联邦政府在经济政策方面很激进，而在增大检测量、跟踪疑似确诊病例和控制病毒扩散方面却没有同样强有力的措施。越来越的证据表明，即便政府采取正常的封锁措施，很多人也不会选择恢复正常的经济活动，因为病毒仍然存在，这让他们感觉不安。因此，没有有力的公共安全政策，经济是不会复苏的。

第二个建议是关于经济政策的。目前采取的措施并不完美，存在着很多浪费，有些措施无法触达所有有需要的人和企业。不过，它们对于阻止经济继续下行非常重要。问题是央行不断放水，政府需要更多的措施保证政策发挥作用。尽管所有政府支出都是有所代价的，但从长期来看，这已经是对经济最好的措施了。

采访原文

JRJ：Recently， the US Fed said it would buy corporate bonds directly under its secondary market corporate credit facility （SMCCF） instead of just ETFs. Some economists pointed out that this measure is too aggressive， and the US Fed is wasting taxpayers’ money to save some almost-bankrupt companies. What do you think of this issue？

The Fed’s aggressive “lender of last resort” actions in the past few months have been critical to preventing a severe financial crisis that would have made the economic downturn in the United States more severe. Companies’ revenue is way down because people haven’t been spending and yet they still need to pay their ongoing bills. As a result， we saw companies and banks scrambling to create liquidity earlier this year， which resulted in significant amounts of “panic” selling in financial markets， creating large declines in asset prices and a lot of volatility. Generally speaking， the Fed’s willingness to lend in various ways has stopped the panic and reduced the volatility.

When acting as a “lender of last resort，” central banks want to focus on what they think are viable companies---ones that will survive once the immediate crisis is over. But， it’s very hard to judge what companies are viable right now. Looking at revenue is a very imprecise way to identify which companies will survive as some are only suffering because of social distancing and once the need for social distancing subsides， they’ll be fine. As a result， I think the Fed is doing the right thing to lend to a very wide range of companies.

JRJ: Do you think that governments in Europe and the United States are dealing with this economic crisis in an effective way？ How do you assess the measures that are being taken？

I think the economic policy put in place so far by governments in Europe and the United States has been good. These governments have taken a “disaster relief” approach in that they have been channeling support to the businesses and people that have been hit hard. The idea is to try to preserve the underlying health of the economy so that activity can normalize rapidly once the virus is constrained. In the United States， for example， we have increased unemployment benefits and sent money to households more generally to avoid a massive wave of financial distress that could slow the recovery. We have also provided subsidies to businesses to keep them from failing. Importantly， these subsidies incentivize businesses to retain their employees so they also help households financially.

JRJ: According to the recent prediction by IMF， we knew that coronavirus crisis was much more severe than the 2008 financial crisis， which almost becomes a consensus. But how fast will the economy recover is still a question. There are many hypothesis of economics recovery- V，W， and U with flattened bottom. So what is your opinion about the recovery？

I believe the initial phase of recovery is going to look like a “V.” Economic activity plunged in March and April， we are likely to be a rapid partial bounceback as the businesses that can open up safely do so. The data we have seen so far are consistent with that view. However， after that has occurred， the speed of recovery is likely to slow way down. Businesses that have to make major changes to their operations to keep their employees and customers safe from the virus are going to be able to open only very gradually. Moreover， the longer it takes for these businesses to open， the more likely their employees are to suffer large financial set-backs， which will also slow the later phases of recovery. So maybe you could describe the recovery as a “V” that has something heavily weighing down its right side.

JRJ: Do you think that Western economies will be able to recover in the third quarter of this year？

It’s very likely that we’ll see large GDP declines in the second quarter followed by considerable increases in the third quarter. The explanation for this pattern is that we will probably have the virus contained enough for many types of businesses to re-open （those that can bring back employees and serve their customers without exposing them to the virus）. But the latter increase is only going to make up for a portion of the decline---maybe half of it. So Western economies will make significant progress toward the recovery but by no means achieve full recovery. Full recovery is likely to take a couple of years.

JRJ: Many experts are worried that coronavirus may promote anti-globalization. In your opinion， will this crisis affect the globalization of the markets in a decisive way？

It is hard to say decisively whether we will see a reversal of globalization. On the one hand， people are going to fear travel until a vaccine is in place and， given that the virus entered most countries from abroad， there may well be some distrust from things foreign. On the other hand， the shutdowns are fostering the rise of technologies and business practices that allow people to collaborate remotely at a much lower cost. It may take a while to realize the benefits of that change， but it could be very good for globalization.

JRJ: Is it the time to worry about the high leverage for governments， households and companies？

For the most part， we should not be worrying about high leverage. For households and businesses， the alternative to taking on debt now might be failing financially altogether， which would make the recovery much slower than it otherwise would be. Likewise， governments need to be borrowing now to support their businesses and citizens. We will have to deal with this debt eventually， but doing so now would make us much worse off over the longer run.

JRJ: Would the pandemic change our daily life forever？ For example， some jobs may disappear， and people prefer travelling less.

Our daily lives are highly likely to change in some ways permanently. For example， people have become more focussed on hygiene in ways that will change their spending habits， including the degree to which they’ll be willing to be packed into airplanes and cruise ships. And， businesses are going to have to change practices and spend more to keep people safe. Work from home is likely to become more common on a long-run basis， which will change property prices and the mix of service businesses in downtown areas. But， these changes may not be that large over the longer run， particularly if a vaccine becomes widely available within the next year.

JRJ: Any advice for policymakers？

I have two pieces of advice for policymakers. First， they need to be just as focussed on public health policy as on economic policy right now. In the United States， for example， the federal government has been more aggressive putting economic policy in place than it has building the capacity for testing， tracking， and other means of containing the virus. We have increasing evidence that even when formal shutdown restrictions are lifted， many people will not engage in the economy if they don’t feel protected from the virus. So the economy just can’t recover without appropriate public health policy.

The second piece of advice is about economic policy. The measures put in place thus far are not perfect---there is some waste and support is not reaching all of the people and businesses that need it. But， the measures have been extremely important to preserving the underlying health of the economy thus far. The problem is that the money is beginning to run out. So governments need to be willing to pass additional measures to keep the support in place. While all of this government spending comes at a cost， it really is the best thing for the economy over the longer run.

,