高盛稱經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退風(fēng)險(xiǎn)上升
????7個(gè)月前,高盛一直高呼美國將迎來比預(yù)期更為強(qiáng)勢的經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇。然而現(xiàn)在,它預(yù)計(jì)美國第二季度的增長僅能維持在1.5%這一蝸牛爬速,第三季度為2%,也算不上勁頭十足。 ????周五的這一預(yù)測讓經(jīng)濟(jì)師讓?哈特久斯頗感失望,他在5月份曾預(yù)測第二季度能達(dá)到2%,第三季度達(dá)到3.5%——然而現(xiàn)實(shí)數(shù)據(jù)卻與公司在年初預(yù)測的開門紅差了不少。 |
????Goldman Sachs, which just seven months ago was the loudest voice for a stronger than expected U.S. recovery, now expects U.S. output to creep ahead at a snaillike 1.5% clip in the second quarter and a less than vigorous 2% in the third. ????Friday's call stands as quite a comedown for economist Jan Hatzius, who in May forecast a 2% expansion in the second quarter and a 3.25% gain in the third quarter – numbers that themselves represented a retreat from the firm's bullish start-of-the-year forecast. |
經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退?
???? ????當(dāng)然經(jīng)濟(jì)不會(huì)只是因?yàn)轭A(yù)測降級(jí)就走下坡路,但是,我們有充分的理由相信一個(gè)深層次隱患已然發(fā)作:上個(gè)月消費(fèi)者信心“一落千丈”,美國銀行(Bank of America)經(jīng)濟(jì)師喬治瓦?丹納雷周五在給他客戶的信中寫道,最近的數(shù)據(jù)顯示這一指數(shù)已跌落近20個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。這讓消費(fèi)者信心指數(shù)倒退至2009年的水平。當(dāng)時(shí)花旗銀行(Citi C)瀕臨倒閉,美國股市價(jià)格僅有現(xiàn)在的一半。 ????丹納雷希望將這一現(xiàn)象歸罪于懸而不決的債務(wù)上限問題,但是哈特久斯注意到今年上半年的總銷售額不溫不火地上升了0.5%,盡管如此,這一數(shù)字也難以讓人欣慰。即便華盛頓的瘋子們不會(huì)以“對(duì)財(cái)政負(fù)責(zé)”為由拖垮經(jīng)濟(jì),但銷售疲軟往往是經(jīng)濟(jì)收縮的前兆。 ????二次探底,我們來了。 ????哈特久斯寫道:“像這么疲軟的需求增長在戰(zhàn)后非經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退時(shí)期只有過一次先例?!?/p> ????即便最終經(jīng)濟(jì)不會(huì)下滑,緩慢的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長速度將意味著今后很長時(shí)間內(nèi)失業(yè)率將高居不下——因此這跟經(jīng)濟(jì)下滑沒有本質(zhì)的區(qū)別。高盛預(yù)計(jì)明年年底的失業(yè)率較今年會(huì)有略微下降,也就是從最近的9.2%下降為8.75%。今年早些時(shí)候,高盛曾預(yù)計(jì)2012年底的失業(yè)率為8.25%,雖然當(dāng)時(shí)預(yù)測的這個(gè)數(shù)字也不值得慶賀,但這一數(shù)字現(xiàn)在看起來已是相當(dāng)漂亮。 ????如果衰退的確來臨,美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)(Federal Reserve)可能會(huì)實(shí)施新一輪的刺激計(jì)劃,盡管本?伯南克已經(jīng)對(duì)故伎重演感到十分厭倦。 ????“如果經(jīng)濟(jì)再次陷入衰退——這并不是我們的預(yù)測,但是鑒于最近的一些數(shù)字,這是很有可能的——聯(lián)邦官員無疑會(huì)重新啟動(dòng)量化寬松政策,即使通脹已經(jīng)接近預(yù)期目標(biāo),”哈特久斯寫道。 ????哈特久斯的這番話是一個(gè)180度的轉(zhuǎn)彎。去年秋天,他是首批力挺美國強(qiáng)勢復(fù)興論的預(yù)測人之一。去年12月,他還撰寫了一篇文章進(jìn)一步闡釋他調(diào)高增長預(yù)期的理由。文章中提到,即便拋開政府刺激和庫存的影響,有機(jī)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)也即將展翅高飛。 ????即使他所說的經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇的確一度走上正軌,這一趨勢在今年春天又再次脫軌,罪魁禍?zhǔn)拙褪悄茉磧r(jià)格上漲以及使日本經(jīng)濟(jì)邊緣化的大地震。高盛曾一度預(yù)測今年及2012年的美國經(jīng)濟(jì)將增長3.5%-4%。鑒于現(xiàn)狀,該公司卻改口說,除非經(jīng)濟(jì)數(shù)據(jù)能有較大起色,否則將不得不調(diào)低其第四季度和2012年的增長預(yù)期。 ????因此,不管預(yù)測結(jié)果如何, 9%的失業(yè)率將持續(xù)很長一段時(shí)間。如果說求職者等不到什么好消息,那再想想經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們吧,他們今年的日子更不好過。伯南克和哈特久斯共同糾結(jié)的問題在于,他們的模型并沒有說明到底是什么削弱了這一起初他們認(rèn)為會(huì)增長的需求。常識(shí)告訴我們,一個(gè)花了將近10年形成的信貸泡沫不會(huì)輕易地在3、4年間消失得無影無蹤,當(dāng)然,也并沒有公式證明這個(gè)常識(shí)就一定是對(duì)的。這只是郁悶的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家之間的不解之謎而已。 ????“令人感到‘恐怖’的是,我們?nèi)圆荒艽_定2011年至今經(jīng)濟(jì)放緩的確切原因,這與我們?nèi)ツ昴甑姿龅?011年增長加速的論斷截然相反”,哈特久斯寫道,“從邏輯上來說,對(duì)此事的解釋涉及以下因素的共同作用:a)始料未及的日本地震及原油市場的影響,再加上b)美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的脆弱性超過預(yù)期,還因?yàn)閏)房產(chǎn)及信貸市場對(duì)于私有領(lǐng)域資產(chǎn)負(fù)債的影響比我們想象的時(shí)間更久遠(yuǎn)”。但是,很難理清這些因素孰輕孰重,而對(duì)這一問題的判斷不同,對(duì)未來前景的預(yù)期也會(huì)有天壤之別。 ????也或許完全沒影響。真正重要的是很多人手頭拮據(jù),而且對(duì)于明年能否找到工作依然憂心忡忡,所以沒有人敢花錢。也許有一天,經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們會(huì)睜開眼睛,正視這些現(xiàn)實(shí)情況,但不會(huì)是現(xiàn)在。盡管美國經(jīng)濟(jì)停滯不前,歐洲正處在崩潰邊緣,他們每天除了一廂情愿還是一廂情愿。 |
???? ????A forecast downgrade alone doesn't spell economic downturn, of course, but there is ample reason to suspect a deeper malaise is at work: Consumer confidence fell "off a cliff" last month, Bank of America economist Joshua Dennerlein wrote in a note to clients Friday, dropping almost 20% in the most recent reading. That puts the consumer sentiment index at a level last seen in 2009, when Citi (C) was assumed to be bankrupt and the stock market fetched half its current price. ????Dennerlein wants to blame that plunge on the debt ceiling debacle, but Hatzius notes less soothingly that final sales rose at a sub-tepid 0.5% clip in the first half. That is almost always a sign of economic contraction, even when nuts in Washington aren't trying to blow up the economy for the sake of appearing "fiscally responsible." ????Double dip, here we come. ????"There is only one precedent in the postwar period for such weak demand growth outside the immediate vicinity of a recession," Hatzius writes. ????Even if we don't end up with an economic downturn, slower growth means unemployment will stay higher for longer -- which will make it hard to tell the difference. Goldman now expects joblessness to fall just slightly by the end of next year, to 8.75% from a recent 9.2%. Earlier this year the firm was predicting end-of-2012 joblessness of 8.25%, which is not exactly something to celebrate but actually looks pretty good now. ????And if a recession does take hold, it could mean another round of Federal Reserve stimulus, as much as Ben Bernanke might like to stop running that particular play. ????"If the economy returns to recession—not our forecast, but clearly a possibility given the recent numbers—Fed officials would undoubtedly ease anew even if inflation is close to their target," Hatzius writes. ????That kind of talk marks quite a reversal for Hatzius, who last fall was among the first forecasters to throw his weight behind a stronger-than-expected U.S. recovery. He wrote in upgrading his growth forecasts last December that so-called organic economic activity, excluding government stimulus and inventory effects, was starting to lift off. ????But if that recovery was ever on track, it was derailed this spring by the surge in energy prices and the earthquake that relegated Japan to the economic sidelines for a few months. Accordingly, Goldman – which at one point was predicting U.S. output would rise at a 3.5%-4% clip this year and in 2012 – is now saying economic numbers will have to show "substantial improvement" just to keep the firm from cutting its fourth-quarter and 2012 growth forecasts. ????That could mean 9% unemployment will be here for some time, whatever forecasters claim. But if good news for job seekers is hard to come by, consider for a moment how hard this year has been for economists. One bit of frustration shared by Bernanke and Hatzius is that their models aren't saying what exactly is sapping the demand that they expected to pick up. Common sense might well dictate that a credit bubble that took the better part of a decade to build up wouldn't necessarily be squared away in just three or four years, but apparently there is no formula that says this is so. This is what passes for mystery among dismal scientists. ????"The 'bugbear' is that we are still unsure about the precise reasons for the slowdown in 2011 to date, which is sharply at odds with our expectation at the end of last year that growth would accelerate in 2011," Hatzius writes. "Logically, the explanation presumably has to involve a combination of a) unforeseen shocks from the Japan earthquake and the oil market, coupled with b) more vulnerability to these shocks, because c) the housing and credit market downturn is weighing on private-sector balance sheets for even longer than we thought. But the relative importance of these issues is exceptionally difficult to sort out, and it makes a great deal of difference for the outlook." ????Or rather, it makes no difference to the outlook. What makes a difference there is that lots of people have no money and even more lack confidence they will be employed a year from now, so no one is spending. One day economists may decide to open their eyes to these obvious truths, but not just yet. Even with the economy at stall speed and Europe on the verge of collapse, wishful thinking carries the day. |