精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

綠色新政是自由派的白日夢(mèng)嗎？還是說它能帶來一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)上可行的跨黨派氣候變化解決方案呢？

來自紐約州的民主黨眾議員亞歷山德里婭·奧卡西奧-科爾特斯及其團(tuán)隊(duì)提出的這項(xiàng)方案要讓美國改頭換面，成為沒有碳排放、實(shí)現(xiàn)全面就業(yè)、經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境公正平等而且人人都享有正義的國家。和該方案配套的是高額政府支出和美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)的量化寬松，以便實(shí)現(xiàn)這些目標(biāo)。他們覺得既然我們本來就能印鈔票，那么成本就是零。

別這么快下結(jié)論。雖然赤字性支出和美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)采取刺激措施在經(jīng)濟(jì)深度衰退時(shí)是好政策，但現(xiàn)在美國已經(jīng)接近充分就業(yè)了。綠色新政要在當(dāng)下發(fā)揮作用，就需要提高稅收，以便為所有聯(lián)邦投資籌集資金。此外，這些投資應(yīng)該逐步實(shí)施。

1960年以來，美國政府基本上一直都有赤字（除了1969年和克林頓的第二個(gè)任期）。我們能夠一直背負(fù)著赤字進(jìn)行運(yùn)作的原因是有人把錢借給政府，就像不斷地往餅干盒里放餅干一樣。主要貸款方是外國（和外國人），他們很想持有大量美元，因?yàn)槿藗兤毡檎J(rèn)為美元既穩(wěn)定又耐久。但如果肆意印錢，我們就會(huì)受到通脹的困擾，美元穩(wěn)定的印象將不復(fù)存在，也就不會(huì)再有人繼續(xù)往餅干盒里放餅干了。

穩(wěn)定而緩慢地增加支出可以讓我們有更多時(shí)間來挑選和評(píng)估那些比較有可能奏效的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施方案。氣候問題不會(huì)在5年或者10年內(nèi)得到解決。我們需要長(zhǎng)期保持政府開支的恰當(dāng)規(guī)模。如果政府打造了昂貴的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，大家卻更喜歡不那么綠色的行為，那么世界上的所有投資就都解決不了氣候變化問題。走這條路就相當(dāng)于先挖坑，然后再把它們填上。這樣做或許能創(chuàng)造大量就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，但如果大多數(shù)人已經(jīng)有工作了，新的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)就只會(huì)把其他生產(chǎn)性活動(dòng)排擠出去。具體點(diǎn)兒說，我們需要的是這些新工作擠掉那些“臟”工作。就這一點(diǎn)而言，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資應(yīng)該向按需型聘用傾斜，而不是簡(jiǎn)單地向待業(yè)者提供工作崗位。

通過提高個(gè)人所得稅和投資收益稅來籌集聯(lián)邦項(xiàng)目資金可能造成投資和就業(yè)下降。在不涉及綠色投資本身的情況下提高整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)的最低工資水平，輔以更先進(jìn)的所得稅結(jié)構(gòu)能讓經(jīng)濟(jì)變得更為平等。當(dāng)然，我們還需要把被忽視的少數(shù)族裔社區(qū)囊括在內(nèi)并加以保護(hù)。讓綠色新政具備公平性和包容性的想法很好，但和旨在直接減少碳排放的舉措相比，它們完全或者基本上是另一套政策工具。

最后，我們可以提高成功的可能性，方法是不僅讓綠色活動(dòng)變得更有吸引力，還要讓不那么綠色的行為變得不那么有吸引力。這樣，綠色新政就得和碳定價(jià)搭配。碳定價(jià)應(yīng)該被視為減少溫室氣體排放的主要元素，而政府對(duì)綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的聰明投資則是一種有用的補(bǔ)充，不要把二者弄顛倒了。

我的結(jié)論是綠色新政有可能奏效，但必須遵循上述三條指導(dǎo)原則，即碳定價(jià)、聰明的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資以及更公平的經(jīng)濟(jì)體系。如果這些都在綠色新政里，那就算我一個(gè)吧。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

約翰·萊利是麻省理工學(xué)院科學(xué)和全球變化政策合作項(xiàng)目的聯(lián)合負(fù)責(zé)人。

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

Is the Green New Deal (GND) a liberal pipe dream, or is it an opening for an economically viable, bipartisan climate change solution?

The program put forward by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her team reimagines the U.S. as a nation with no carbon emissions, full employment, a fair and equal economy, and justice for all. This GND proposal pairs massive government spending with quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve to achieve these aims. Since we can just print money, the argument goes, it would cost nothing.

Not so fast. Whereas deficit spending and a Fed stimulus package are good policies in a deep recession, we are now near full employment. For a Green New Deal to work now, we will need to pay for any federal investment with higher taxes. Moreover, that investment should be rolled out gradually.

We’ve been running near constant deficits since 1960 (exceptions being 1969 and the second term of the Clinton presidency). What enables us to run these constant deficits is that someone is lending the government the money, as if continually refilling a cookie jar. The primary lenders are foreign countries (and citizens) eager to hold onto large sums of dollars, a currency widely perceived to be stable and enduring. If we print money with abandon, however, inflation will catch up with us, the perception that U.S. currency is stable will disappear, and the cookie jar will stop refilling.

A steady and slow buildup of spending would allow more time to select and evaluate green infrastructure options that have a reasonable chance of working. The climate problem is not going to be solved in five or 10 years. We need the right size of government spending for the long term. If the government builds expensive green infrastructure but people prefer their brown activities, all the investment in the world won’t solve climate change. Taking this path is tantamount to digging holes and filling them in. It may create a lot of jobs, but if most everyone already has a job, the new jobs will just crowd out other productive activities. What’s needed is to have these new jobs crowd out dirty jobs, specifically. Toward that end, green infrastructure investment should favor hiring on the basis of needed workers rather than simply providing job slots for the available workforce.

Raising taxes on wages and investment income to fund Federal projects can lead to less investment and employment. A higher minimum wage requirement—unrelated to green investment itself—throughout the entire economy, along with a more progressive income tax structure, can make the economy fairer. Of course, we also need to include and protect neglected minority communities. If we want to bundle equity and inclusiveness into the GND slogan, that’s fine, but they are completely or largely separate policy instruments than those directed toward carbon emission reduction.

Finally, we can increase the chance of success by not only making green activities more attractive, but brown activities less so. Thus, the GND needs to be paired with carbon pricing. Carbon pricing should be seen as the main component of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and smart government investment in green infrastructure as a useful complementary measure, not the other way around.

The bottom line is that the Green New Deal could work, but only under the three aforementioned guiding principles: carbon pricing, smart infrastructure investment, and a more just economic system. If all that’s in the GND, then count me in.

John Reilly is co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.