????你要感謝塞浦路斯和歐洲的領導人們讓我們7000億美元的銀行救助方案看起來很像樣。

????銀行和金融危機領域世界領先的專家菲利普?迪威格表示，對銀行存款征稅以幫助支付塞浦路斯銀行救助計劃的想法“荒唐透頂”。早在1983年，迪威格就與芝加哥大學（University of Chicago）經濟學家道格?戴蒙德合著了一篇論文，探討為什么會發生銀行擠兌。時至今日，這篇論文依然是研究銀行擠兌和一般金融危機領域最具影響力的論文之一，也是大多數經濟課程的必選內容。

????目前在華盛頓大學（Washington University）任經濟學教授的迪威格表示，以當地存款人為代價來救助塞浦路斯的計劃弊大于利，可能會給早已陷入困境的歐洲銀行業帶來更大的壓力。

????這項由歐洲監管機構和央行行長們提議的計劃原擬對不足10萬歐元的儲蓄賬戶征稅6.75%，對超過10萬歐元的賬戶征稅9.9%，以此幫助償付救助該國銀行業的100億歐元款項。雖然方案在最后一刻增加了一個條款，“余額不足2萬歐元的儲蓄賬戶免于征稅”，但它并不足以拯救這一計劃。19日下午，擬議的存款稅被塞浦路斯議會駁回。雖然這使得歐洲救助塞浦路斯的計劃岌岌可危，但迪威格認為，如果能夠堅持反對實施存款稅，最終將是一件好事。

為什么你認為這個計劃很“荒唐”？

????總體而言，它會給塞浦路斯和歐洲的銀行體系帶來很多傷害。這項提案也動搖了其他國家的儲戶信心，這很危險。歐洲其他國家尚未出現銀行擠兌的唯一原因是，他們認為自己還有時間。最終這都將消失殆盡。

銀行臨時歇業不能阻止擠兌嗎？

????銀行臨時歇業聽上去好像是個辦法，但事實上很有害。如果你告訴人們，他們不能拿回自己的錢了，經濟要想重回正軌就會變得極其困難。我們在大蕭條時期曾嘗試過幾次銀行臨時歇業，結果情況變得更糟糕了。設立儲蓄保險的一個原因就是為了防止銀行擠兌，但如果不能獲得100%的保證，部分儲蓄保險是無效的。如果一個人覺得可能會損失100%的存款，他會跑到銀行擠兌。如果他認為會損失10%的存款，他同樣還是會跑到銀行擠兌。

但歐洲監管機構正在試圖表明，它們打算對塞浦路斯實施的救助計劃是一次性事件？

????如果這確實是一個細微、孤立且獨特的問題，是一次性事件，不會再發生，為什么不直接出資救助，然后讓這個國家慢慢來償還？為什么要冒著可能損害其余歐洲銀行體系的風險？

????因為歐洲監管機構真正想要阻止的是歐洲外圍經濟體依賴歐元，負債不斷膨脹直到難再承受。

????You can thank Cyprus and Europe's leaders for making our $700 billion bank bailout look good.

????The plan to impose a tax on bank deposits to help pay for the bailout of Cypriot banks was "absurd," says Philip Dybvig, one of the world's leading economic experts on banks and financial crisis. Back in 1983, Dybvig co-authored, along with University of Chicago economist Doug Diamond, a paper on why bank runs happen. It has since become one of the most influential pieces of research on the topic and on financial crisis in general, and is a regular staple of most economics curriculums.

????Dybvig, who is now an economics professor at Washington University, says the plan to bailout Cyprus at the expense of local depositors would have done more harm than good and could have put more strain on the already troubled European banking sector.

????The plan, which was proposed by European regulators and central bankers, was originally to levy a 6.75% tax on deposits of less than €100,000 and 9.9% on anything above €100,000 to help pay for a €10 billion bailout of the country's banking sector. At the last minute, an exemption for accounts that had less €20,000 was added, but that wasn't enough to save the plan. On Tuesday afternoon, the proposed deposit tax was rejected by the Cypriot lawmakers. And even though that has thrown the European bailout of Cyprus into doubt, Dybvig thinks the rejection of the deposit tax, if it sticks, will end up being a good thing.

Why do you think the plan was absurd?

????It will do a lot of damage to the banking system both in Cyprus and Europe in general. The proposal also has to shake confidence of depositors in other countries, which is dangerous. The only reason people haven't run from their banks in other nations in Europe is that they think they have time. Eventually that runs out.

Won't the bank holiday stop that?

????Bank holidays have a fun sounding name, but they are really quite harmful. When you tell people they can't have their money, it makes it very hard for an economy to return to normal. We tried bank holidays a few times in the Great Depression and it only made things worse. One reason to have deposit insurance is to prevent bank runs, but partial deposit insurance is ineffective if it does not cover 100%. You will run on your bank if you think you will lose 100% of your deposits, and you will also run if you think you will lose 10%.

But European regulators are trying to send the signal that the bailout they proposed for Cyprus was going to be a one-time thing?

????If it's really a small, isolated, unique problem, a one-time thing, and won't happen again, why not do the just do the bailout and have the country pay for it over time? Why risk the potential damage to the rest of Europe's banking system?

????Well, because the real event that European regulators want to prevent, which appears not to be a one-off event, is periphery European nations living off the Euro and running up debt they can't afford.