????我們聽說，在2008年大選中曾一邊倒支持巴拉克?奧巴馬的高盛（Goldman Sachs）員工們在此次大選中集體倒戈，轉投米特?羅姆尼。這時，很多人將它視為奧巴馬與這家投行關系疏遠的一個跡象。但在高盛普通員工可能反對奧巴馬的同時，他在這家投行仍有一位重要的盟友：高盛首席經濟學家簡?哈祖斯。

????當然，出生于德國的哈祖斯從未公開聲明支持奧巴馬總統。但在金融界頗有影響力的哈祖斯分析文章一直與美國民主黨實施的貨幣財政政策保持一致。過去幾年，哈祖斯發表過無數文章，提倡刺激性開支，呼吁推出更多的量化寬松政策，放棄過早壓縮赤字的努力。

????去年，哈祖斯因為過去四年的準確預測獲得了2011年度勞倫斯?克萊因獎（Lawrence R. Klein Award），他在接受頒獎后的演講中對上述觀點進行了總結。這位經濟學家在演講中援引了前美國財長拉里?薩默斯的話說，雖然危機“是由信心、借貸和支出過多造成的”，但也只能靠“信心、借貸和支出的增加來解決”。哈祖斯接著說：

????我認為這種觀點沒錯。但不幸的是，它聽起來可能太離譜，難以贏得大多數選民和民選官員的認可。特別是現在，一些財政刺激政策已經實施了一段時間，而經濟狀況依然糟糕，人們更容易相信政府赤字是問題的根源（而不是解決之道），宏觀經濟事關道義，行仁政的政府有獎，邪惡的政府受罰。這種觀點在有些國家和文化中深入人心，在其他國家和文化中也慢慢得勢，其中就包括美國。

????哈祖斯的觀點為他贏得了自由主義經濟學家保羅?克魯格曼等人的推崇，克魯格曼在他的《紐約時報》（New York Times）博客中已不下10次提到哈祖斯。克魯格曼多次稱哈祖斯的團隊很“出色”，還說這位經濟學家是一位“非常安靜穩重的人。”早在2009年，他就稱哈祖斯的分析“十分精確”。

????最近，克魯格曼在一篇文章中宣稱，高盛團隊解決了“政策不確定性”問題。共和黨人（和商界領袖）總是說，奧巴馬政府的過度監管抑制了公司擴大招聘。

????哈祖斯不同意這個觀點。“我們不認為經濟的糟糕表現是由外部政策不確定性的上升造成的，”他撰文寫道。他的這篇文章中有一張圖，顯示一個反映不確定性的指數走向與經濟產值缺口變動相吻合。“大部分政策不確定性的上升可能是經濟疲弱的結果，而不是原因，”他在文中寫到，以此抨擊保守黨政客經常擁護的一個主張。

????10月初，哈祖斯表示驚愕，美國國會居然打算讓1,260億美元所得稅減稅政策到期，聲稱這可能會抵消第三輪貨幣寬松政策（QE3）產生的推動作用。“我們很震驚，沒有一個政黨敢于挑戰壓縮赤字的邏輯，”他寫到。他補充說：“雖然我們同意，美國政府最終需要縮減開支，但現在大幅縮減，時機看起來并不成熟。”

????When we learned that employees of Goldman Sachs, a group that overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in 2008, shifted their allegiances to Mitt Romney this election, many saw it as a sign that the President had alienated the investment bank. But while Goldman's rank and file may have turned against Obama, he still has an important ally at the firm: Goldman's chief economist, Jan Hatzius.

????To be sure, the German-born Hatzius hasn't publicly stated that he supports the President. But his analysis, which is widely read in financial circles, has long jibed with the monetary and fiscal policies embraced by Democrats. In numerous notes published over the last few years, Hatzius has advocated stimulus spending and called for more quantitative easing, renouncing efforts to slash the deficit as premature.

????He summarized these views in a speech last year, after accepting the 2011 Lawrence R. Klein Award for making the most accurate forecasts during the previous four years. In his remarks, the economist quoted former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who said that, while the crisis was "caused by too much confidence, borrowing, and spending," it could only be resolved by "increases in confidence, borrowing, and spending." Hatzius continued:

????I believe that this is true. But unfortunately, it is probably too much of an irony to resonate with most voters and elected officials. Especially after a period in which some fiscal stimulus has already been applied and the economy is still in bad shape, it is all too tempting to believe that government deficits are part of the problem rather than part of the solution, and that macroeconomics is a morality tale where virtuous governments are rewarded and wicked ones are punished. That view is held more strongly in some countries and cultures than in others but it has been gaining ground everywhere, including the United States.

????Hatzius' views have endeared him to the likes of liberal economist Paul Krugman, who has mentioned the Goldmanite nearly a dozen times in his New York Times blog. Krugman has repeatedly referred to Hatzius' group as "excellent," calling the economist a "very calm, measured guy." Back in 2009, he noted that Hatzius' analysis was "spot on."

????Krugman recently touted a note that Goldman's team put out on the subject of "policy uncertainty." Republicans (and business leaders) often argue that uncertainty created by the Obama administration's excessive regulations have prevented companies from hiring new workers.

????Hatzius disagreed. "[W]e do not believe that the economy's poor performance has been caused by an exogenous increase in policy uncertainty," he wrote. The note includes a chart showing that an index measuring uncertainty tracks closely with the economic output gap. "[M]uch of the increase in policy uncertainty is probably a consequence of economic weakness, rather than its cause," he wrote, knocking down an argument that is frequently espoused by conservative politicians.

????In early October, Hatzius expressed dismay that Congress would let the $126 billion payroll tax cut expire, arguing that it would likely counteract the boost from QE3. "We are surprised that neither party has seriously challenged the case for fiscal retrenchment," he wrote. He added: "While we agree that the U.S. government will ultimately need to tighten its belt, a big move in a restrictive direction still looks decidedly premature to us."