返回正常中文阅读
想对这篇译文“指手画脚”吗?
大错
小错
不顺
建议 US Economy
The U.S. economy is a vast, amorphous, invisible network that permeates practically everything we do. Politicians love to trumpet what they've done to try to spur it on and workers worry about how it will effect paychecks and prices at Wal-Mart, but no one can actually see it, so we're left with something of a guessing game. How strong is the economy? Is it growing—or slowing? What can we do to make it healthier?
The most popular way to comprehend the economy is by tracking GDP, or gross domestic product, the final market value of all goods and services produced. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis tallies the money Americans have spent, adds exports and subtracts imports, then publishes a number. Count up the Fords and Frappuccinos, the pedicures and dental work, and you've got GDP.
Government and business purchases are in there, but about 70% of it comes from consumer spending, which is why people get so worked up about measurements related to individuals' buying habits, like consumer confidence and the consumer price index. About half of that consumer spending comes from housing "rent"—economists' gauge of how much people spend on their homes, whether they're actually rented or owned.
Now, GDP isn't perfect. It doesn't, say, take into account the underground economy—black-market sales, wages paid off the books—which by some estimates is nearly a tenth the size of the aboveboard economy. Nonetheless, GDP is what we usually focus on. In the third quarter of 2006, for example, when seasonally adjusted annualized GDP came in at 2.0%—compared with 5.6% just two quarters earlier—it prompted chatter about an economic slowdown.
The government tries to control the economy in two ways. Fiscal policy adjusts government spending and taxes; monetary policy adjusts the amount of money in circulation. There are big (read: big) disagreements, both academic and political, about the extent to which tax breaks, for individuals and companies, stimulate the economy. There is consensus, on the other hand, about the role of monetary policy. It wasn't always so, but nowadays people generally agree that the economy can be successfully managed by giving control of certain interest rates to the Federal Reserve Board, the seven-member group that runs the government-chartered but operationally independent central bank.
The Fed, as it's called, employs hundreds of economists to project computer models of the economy—for the U.S. and the world—in order to figure out where we are in the economic cycle and how to keep growth chugging along. Popular gauges include the unemployment rate, worker productivity, housing starts and new home sales, business investment, manufacturing trends and producer and consumer prices.
All the statistics taken together, however, still only give a partial view of the economy. And many of those statistics are themselves open to interpretation. For instance, in recent years, how statisticians determine who is unemployed has been the root of much debate. For example, a person who is working only part-time when he would rather work full-time is counted as employed, even though he is what you might call underemployed—a state that isn't reflected in official figures.
These days, people watch as the Fed and its chairman, Ben Bernanke, try to orchestrate a "soft landing"—an incredibly delicate balancing act that would restrain inflation (a rise in prices) without stifling economic growth. The main method: controlling the amount of money in circulation and, in turn, interest rates.
The U.S. is more tied to the economies of other nations than ever before. Right now, the U.S. is running huge shortfalls in both the current account and the federal budget—the so-called twin deficits. The current account measures trade in goods and services and the flow of money among nations. Part of that is the trade deficit, which is the result of the U.S. importing a lot more than it exports. To balance out the equation, Americans, in the aggregate, either have to sell assets (stocks, real estate) or borrow money from abroad (by issuing Treasury bonds) to pay for the goods they buy. You might not see all that happen when you purchase a Samsung DVD player or a BMW sedan, but take your transaction, combine it with billions of others, and a picture of the globally entangled economy emerges.
That works just fine until other countries aren't willing to sell things in exchange for American assets. If foreigners suddenly stop buying U.S. debt or otherwise stop funding the trade imbalance, there could be a decline in the dollar and a surge in interest rates that might trigger a recession—one reason why people around the world keep such a close eye on the U.S. economy.
—Barbara Kiviat
美国经济及其与世界经济的联系
事实上,美国经济就像一个庞大的无定形的且不可见的网络一样,渗入了我们所做的一切事情之中。政客们喜欢津津乐道于他们在刺激经济上努力,工人们则更关注于经济对于薪酬的以及沃尔玛商品价格影响,但是却没有人能够真正理解它。所以我们只能进行猜谜游戏。美国经济强大吗?它是在增长还是在减速?我们怎么才能够使它更加健康呢?
理解经济最为流行的办法就是追踪GDP,即国内生产总值-----所生产全部商品和服务的最终市场价值。美国经济分析局记录美国人的支出,加上进口额并减去出口额,然后公布一个数字。把Ford,Frappuccinos,修脚和整牙的发生额相加就能够得到GDP了。
政府和商业采购也算在内,但是大概70%的GDP来自消费者支出,这是人们对有关个人消费习惯衡量方法,像消费信心和消费价格指数激动的原因所在。其中大约一半的消费者支出来自住房“租金”-----经济学家对于人们在房屋上的支出的计量,无论他们事实上是否租用或者拥有。
于是GDP就不是完美的了,因为它并没有考虑地下经济-----黑市销售,付讫账簿的薪水-----据估计其规模大概为“光明正大”的经济的十分之一。虽然如此,实际上我们还是着眼于GDP。例如,在2006年的第三季度,经过季节调整的年度GDP达到2.0%—和先前两个季度的5.6%相比—这导致了经济的大幅减速。
政府会用两种手段控制经济。财政政策调整政府支出和税收;货币政策调整流通货币总量。对于个人和公司来说,多大程度的减税能够刺激经济,在学术上和政治上尚存在很大的分歧。另一方面,对于货币政策的角色存在一致的看法。情况不是总是如此,但是今天人们普遍认同,通过给予联邦储备金监察小组-----经营政府特许但是操作上独立的中央银行的七人小组一定利率的控制权利是可以成功掌控经济的。
为了解决我们处在经济循环的什么位置和如何使经济持续增长的问题,Fed雇佣了数百个经济学家为美国和世界设计经济的计算机模型。通行的方法包括失业率、工人生产力、新房开工率和新房销售率、商业投资、制造业趋势积极生产者和制造者价格。
然而所有这些数据也仅仅是反映了经济的一部分而已。其中许多数据本身都值得商榷。例如,近些年统计学家如何判定一个人失业就已经成为了很多争论的根源。在比如,一个只有兼职工作但是想拥有全职工作的人也被算作为就业,即使你可能称他为失业-----这是官方数据所不能反映的状况。
相比从前,美国更加受其他国家经济的束缚。现在,美国正经受国际收支经常项目和联邦预算的不足-----即所谓的双赤字。国际收支经常项目衡量商品和服务贸易以及国家间的资金流动。它的一部分是美国进口大量超过出口所造成的贸易赤字。为平衡方程式,总的来说,美国人就不得不出售资产(股票,不动产)或者从国外借款(通过发行财政长期债券)来偿还他们购买的商品。或许当你购买三星DVD或者宝马轿车时上述情况可能都没有发生,但是把你的交易和其他亿万人的结合起来,那么全球化的交织在一起的图画就浮现出来了。
经济能够正常运行除非其他国家不再愿意为与美国交换而出售东西。如果外国人土人停止购买美国债务或者在其他方面停止为贸易失衡提供资金,那么可能出现的美元贬值和利率上升就有可能触发经济衰退-----这也是全世界都紧盯美国经济的一个原因。
—Barbara Kiviat
