美媒刊文：如何才能不与通货膨胀作斗争
How Not To Fight Inflation
译文简介
新民主党人的62点计划中没有一个解决经济问题的好主意。
正文翻译
The new New Democrats' 62-point plan is devoid of a single good idea for fixing the economy.
新民主党人的62点计划中没有一个解决经济问题的好主意。
新民主党人的62点计划中没有一个解决经济问题的好主意。
A coalition of so-called New Democrats (the last New Democrat was Bill Clinton, whose administration gave us corporate buy-backs, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, veto of the TEAM Act allowing building-level unxs, and jettisoning of the work of Barbara Jordan’s Commission on Immigration) has now proposed a 62-point plan to combat inflation.
一个所谓的新民主党人联盟（上一个新民主党人是比尔·克林顿，他的政府给我们带来了企业回购、废除格拉斯·斯蒂格尔法案（注：一部对美国银行系统进行改革的法律）、否决允许楼宇工会的TEAM法案以及抛弃巴巴拉·乔丹移民委员会的工作）现在提出了一个62点计划来对抗通货膨胀。
As an exercise in missing the point, this document is impossible to improve upon. Two essential elements are missing from this anthology of K Street wish lists: meaningful reduction of future budget deficits and removal of constraints on energy production.
作为一个失去重点的草案，这份文件是无法加以改进的。在这份白宫愿望清单选集中缺少两个基本要素：有意义地减少未来的预算赤字和消除对能源生产的限制。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
作为一个失去重点的草案，这份文件是无法加以改进的。在这份白宫愿望清单选集中缺少两个基本要素：有意义地减少未来的预算赤字和消除对能源生产的限制。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It is clear that there is now an inflation problem, in part fueled by rising energy prices, resulting from constraints on domestic energy production and the effect of the Ukraine war on foreign supplies. The New Democrats propose nothing to deal with this problem other than some acceleration of leasing on private lands. The recent pipeline bans, including the one protecting lizards on a minute fraction of the Appalachian Trail, remain in full force and effect, as do the delays imposed on energy projects by the National Environmental Policy Act, the failure to develop the Nevada site for high-level nuclear waste, and restrictions on fracking, hydroelectric high-tension wires, and even offshore wind turbines. Expectations of the future feed into the present, and these constraints invite OPEC and other foreign suppliers to charge what the traffic will bear without much fear of future domestic competition.
很明显，现在存在着一个通货膨胀问题，部分原因是能源价格上涨，这是因为国内能源生产受到限制以及乌克兰战争对外国供应的影响。新民主党没有提出任何建议来解决这个问题，只是在一定程度上加快了私人土地的租赁。最近的管道禁令，包括保护阿巴拉契亚步道上一小部分蜥蜴的禁令，仍然完全有效，国家环境政策法对能源项目的拖延也是如此，内华达州高级核废料场的开发失败，以及对水力压裂法、水电高压线，甚至是海上风力涡轮机的限制。对未来的期望反馈到现在，这些限制使欧佩克和其他外国供应商可以收取过路费，而不必担心未来的国内竞争。
很明显，现在存在着一个通货膨胀问题，部分原因是能源价格上涨，这是因为国内能源生产受到限制以及乌克兰战争对外国供应的影响。新民主党没有提出任何建议来解决这个问题，只是在一定程度上加快了私人土地的租赁。最近的管道禁令，包括保护阿巴拉契亚步道上一小部分蜥蜴的禁令，仍然完全有效，国家环境政策法对能源项目的拖延也是如此，内华达州高级核废料场的开发失败，以及对水力压裂法、水电高压线，甚至是海上风力涡轮机的限制。对未来的期望反馈到现在，这些限制使欧佩克和其他外国供应商可以收取过路费，而不必担心未来的国内竞争。
The other source of inflation is a vista of future budget deficits, unlikely to be curbed by tax increases. The burden of curbing excess demand will thus be thrust entirely on monetary policy, interest rates, and the Federal Reserve Board. We saw in the 1970s where this leads: to high interest rates and the collapse of the construction industry, real estate values, and consumer confidence; in short, to stagflation.
通货膨胀的另一个来源是未来预算赤字的前景，这不太可能通过加税来遏制。因此，抑制过剩需求的负担将完全推给货币政策、利率和联邦储备委员会。我们在20世纪70年代看到了这样的结果：高利率和建筑业、房地产价值和消费者信心的崩溃；简而言之，这就是滞胀。
通货膨胀的另一个来源是未来预算赤字的前景，这不太可能通过加税来遏制。因此，抑制过剩需求的负担将完全推给货币政策、利率和联邦储备委员会。我们在20世纪70年代看到了这样的结果：高利率和建筑业、房地产价值和消费者信心的崩溃；简而言之，这就是滞胀。
The Biden administration’s Build Back Better plan contains new “soak the rich” taxes, which are not as obxtionable as some Republicans make them out to be. The proceeds are to be wholly devoted to socialistic schemes for elder care, day care, dental care, and electric-car subsidies, not to deficit reduction.There is a case for combining the proposed taxes with a reconciliation bill including only the two most worthy spending projects: expansion of the family tax credit (with a work requirement as proposed by Senator Mike Lee to avoid re-creation of the AFDC program) and a revived Civilian Conservation Corps with a substantial role for the military in training (to duplicate the success of the original CCC and avoid the experience of the Johnson administration Job Corps, which assembled juvenile delinquents in high-rise urban buildings). The lion’s share of new revenues should be devoted to deficit reduction, reducing pressure on monetary policy, interest rates, and the Federal Reserve Board.
拜登政府的“重建美好未来”计划包含新的“向富人征税”项目，这并不像一些共和党人所说的那样令人反感。这些收益将全部用于老年人护理、日间护理、牙科护理和电动汽车补贴等社会主义计划，而不是用于削减赤字。有理由将拟议的税收与和解法案结合起来，其中只包括两个最值得的支出项目：扩大家庭税收抵免（按照参议员迈克·李的提议，增加工作要求，以避免重新创建“援助有受抚养子女的家庭”计划）和恢复平民保育团，让军队在培训中发挥重要作用（复制最初的平民保育团的成功，避免约翰逊政府的就业团的经验，该团将青少年犯罪者聚集在城市的高层建筑中）。新收入的绝大部分应该用于减少赤字，减少对货币政策、利率和联邦储备委员会的压力。
拜登政府的“重建美好未来”计划包含新的“向富人征税”项目，这并不像一些共和党人所说的那样令人反感。这些收益将全部用于老年人护理、日间护理、牙科护理和电动汽车补贴等社会主义计划，而不是用于削减赤字。有理由将拟议的税收与和解法案结合起来，其中只包括两个最值得的支出项目：扩大家庭税收抵免（按照参议员迈克·李的提议，增加工作要求，以避免重新创建“援助有受抚养子女的家庭”计划）和恢复平民保育团，让军队在培训中发挥重要作用（复制最初的平民保育团的成功，避免约翰逊政府的就业团的经验，该团将青少年犯罪者聚集在城市的高层建筑中）。新收入的绝大部分应该用于减少赤字，减少对货币政策、利率和联邦储备委员会的压力。
The political realities are such that an early reconciliation bill before the congressional elections is the only way Congress is likely to enact tax increases. It may be possible to find two or three Republican votes for it if most of the spending programs are stripped out. If this is not done, there will be no new revenues until after the next presidential election, and therefore steadily escalating interest rates with all the consequences those entail.
从政治现实来看，在国会选举前尽早提出和解法案是国会可能颁布增税举措的唯一途径。如果大部分支出项目被剥离出来，可能会找到两到三张共和党的赞成票。如果不这样做，在下一次总统选举之前，将不会有新的收入，因此，利率将稳步上升，并带来所有后果。
从政治现实来看，在国会选举前尽早提出和解法案是国会可能颁布增税举措的唯一途径。如果大部分支出项目被剥离出来，可能会找到两到三张共和党的赞成票。如果不这样做，在下一次总统选举之前，将不会有新的收入，因此，利率将稳步上升，并带来所有后果。
Yet the New Democrats say nothing about the overhang of future budget deficits. Their proposals will not meaningfully address the country’s macroeconomic issues.
然而，新民主党对未来预算赤字的问题只字不提。他们的建议将不会有意义地解决国家的宏观经济问题。
然而，新民主党对未来预算赤字的问题只字不提。他们的建议将不会有意义地解决国家的宏观经济问题。
Their microeconomic proposals are similarly trivial. They propose efforts to reform local zoning by withholding federal grant funds pending the submission of state plans for its liberalization. This top-down approach is akin to attempting to put spaghetti through a keyhole, and was utterly ineffective when tried by Education Secretary Arne Duncan during the Obama administration. The logical reform here would be to provide modest tax credits for the installation of second kitchens to create accessory apartments in owner-occupied homes. The pressure to reform zoning would then come from below, not above, and would be far more effective.
他们的微观经济建议同样是微不足道的。他们提议努力改革地方分区，在各州提交自由化计划之前，扣留联邦拨款资金。这种自上而下的方法类似于试图把意大利面条塞进钥匙孔，在奥巴马政府期间，教育部长阿恩·邓肯的尝试是完全无效的。合理的改革是为安装第二厨房提供适度的税收抵免，以在自住房屋中创建附属公寓。这样一来，改革分区的压力就会来自下面，而不是上面，而且会有效得多。
他们的微观经济建议同样是微不足道的。他们提议努力改革地方分区，在各州提交自由化计划之前，扣留联邦拨款资金。这种自上而下的方法类似于试图把意大利面条塞进钥匙孔，在奥巴马政府期间，教育部长阿恩·邓肯的尝试是完全无效的。合理的改革是为安装第二厨房提供适度的税收抵免，以在自住房屋中创建附属公寓。这样一来，改革分区的压力就会来自下面，而不是上面，而且会有效得多。
In the realm of education, there are pious gestures toward more apprenticeships and vocational education. There is no attention to the more fundamental reforms instituted by Britain, Australia, and New Zealand: a requirement that there be a community board for each school; that not more than one term of education-methods courses be required as a condition of a teaching license so as not to exclude 90 percent of college graduates from the teaching force; that there be extra pay for teachers in scarce disciplines; and that the supply of high-school science and computer-science teachers be increased by special immigration provisions for Eastern European, South Asian, and Far Eastern science graduates committed to high-school teaching.
在教育领域，人们对更多的学徒和职业教育作出了虔诚的姿态。没有人注意到英国、澳大利亚和新西兰进行的更基本的改革：要求每所学校有一个社区委员会；要求不超过一个学期的教育方法课程作为教师执照的条件，以便不把90%的大学毕业生排除在教师队伍之外；为稀缺学科的教师提供额外的报酬；通过为致力于高中教学的东欧、南亚和远东科学毕业生提供特殊的移民条款，增加高中科学和计算机科学教师的供应。
在教育领域，人们对更多的学徒和职业教育作出了虔诚的姿态。没有人注意到英国、澳大利亚和新西兰进行的更基本的改革：要求每所学校有一个社区委员会；要求不超过一个学期的教育方法课程作为教师执照的条件，以便不把90%的大学毕业生排除在教师队伍之外；为稀缺学科的教师提供额外的报酬；通过为致力于高中教学的东欧、南亚和远东科学毕业生提供特殊的移民条款，增加高中科学和计算机科学教师的供应。
Many of the proposals are exercises in self-parody, for example, the call to manipulate shipping rates without repealing the Jones Act, which bars foreign vessels from coastal shipping and is beloved by the unxs. The program as a whole is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. It will not, even if adopted, curb inflation so long as tax revenues and domestic energy supply are constrained. It is an exercise in evasion, the product of soft minds—or cynical ones.
许多建议都是自我嘲弄，例如，呼吁在不废除《琼斯法案》的情况下操纵航运费，该法案禁止外国船只从事沿海航运，从而受到了工会的欢迎。该计划作为一个整体，宣告了智力上的破产。只要税收和国内能源供应受到限制，即使它被采纳，也不会遏制通货膨胀。它是一种逃避行为，是软弱的思想——或者说是愤世嫉俗的思想的产物。
许多建议都是自我嘲弄，例如，呼吁在不废除《琼斯法案》的情况下操纵航运费，该法案禁止外国船只从事沿海航运，从而受到了工会的欢迎。该计划作为一个整体，宣告了智力上的破产。只要税收和国内能源供应受到限制，即使它被采纳，也不会遏制通货膨胀。它是一种逃避行为，是软弱的思想——或者说是愤世嫉俗的思想的产物。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
Gerald Ford knew how to fight inflation. Remember his W.I.N. lapel clips?
杰拉尔德·福特知道如何对抗通货膨胀。还记得他的W.I.N.翻领夹吗？
Budget deficits in and of themselves aren't inflationary. The government is creating new money and putting it in the economy when it spends. But by law, the Fed issues a corresponding amount of Treasury bills that absorb that new money back. But budget deficits can be inflationary when it shifts spending. So if deficit spending causes a shift in demand, and there is inadequate supply to meet that demand, then you get inflation. Our current inflation is primarily a function of old deficit spending. When the government shut down the economy under Trump and printed money, it shifted spending from, for example, from cars to computers. So chip manufacturers shutdown their car chip facilities and ramped up computer chip manufacturing. As a result supply of car chips collapsed, new car supply collapsed, and as demand came back, car prices inflated. Biden doubled down when he took over and we ended up with massive demand increases at a time of supply chain collapse.
预算赤字本身并不会导致通货膨胀。政府在创造新的货币，并在支出时将其投入经济。但根据法律，美联储会发行相应数量的国库券，将这些新钱吸收回来。但是，当预算赤字转移支出时，它可能会导致通货膨胀。因此，如果赤字支出导致需求转移，而供应不足，无法满足这种需求，那么就会出现通货膨胀。我们目前的通货膨胀主要是旧的赤字支出的一个结果。当政府在特朗普领导下关闭经济并印制货币时，它将支出——例如——从汽车转向计算机。因此，芯片制造商关闭了他们的汽车芯片设施，加强了计算机芯片的制造。结果汽车芯片的供应崩溃了，新车的供应也崩溃了，随着需求的恢复，汽车价格上涨了。拜登上任后加倍努力，结果我们在供应链崩溃的时候出现了大量的需求增长。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
但是，只要政府不做任何新的和愚蠢的事情（我知道这一要求很高），预算赤字对通货膨胀的影响将消退，而且消退得很快。我们现在更大的问题是由于中国在新冠疫情问题上的持续停工造成的供应限制。我们目前的通货膨胀大部分来自于中国将增加的成本转嫁给美国消费者。唯一好的解决方案是将制造业迁回国内，但这不可能迅速完成。规划新的生产设施并让员工接受培训和工作需要数年时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
汽油价格是油价变动的一个结果，而油价也有类似的问题。油价高企是因为全球库存低。全球库存低是因为随着新冠疫情的结束，需求猛增，而生产商没有生产足够的产品来满足这种需求。希望更高的价格将导致生产商想要实现利润最大化，生产更多的产品并抢占市场份额。在我看来，作者指出了一些次要因素。如果生产商不把价格降下来，从长远来看，市场将对他们产生负面的反应：人们将购买更多的燃油效率高的车辆，并永久地降低需求。
Your peeps in DC want to get rid of oil and they aren’t building nuclear plants or any other viable, large scale energy sources to enlarge the grid as they allow millions of featherdusters to steam into America.
Good plan Chimps.
你在华盛顿的窥视者想摆脱石油，他们没有建立核电站或任何其他可行的大规模能源，以扩大电网，因为他们允许数以百万计的带毛动物进入美国。
好计划，黑猩猩们。
Societal suicide is well underway here in the USA. Sooner than later this will also severely affect you, not just some hapless working class stiff. Karma is a beach.
Your heroes have assigned ESG scores to corporations based on their adherence to the mechanizations of the Green Movement, thus allowing or disallowing access to capital.
在美国，社会性自杀正在顺利推进中。迟早这也会严重影响到你，而不仅仅是一些无助的工人阶级。报应不爽。
你的英雄们根据企业对绿色运动的机械化的遵守情况，给企业打出了环境、社会与企业治理分数，从而决定是否允许它们获得资本。
Republicans aren't the ones labeling half the country as deplorable insurrectionists.
共和党人不是给半个国家的人贴上可悲的叛乱分子的标签了吗？
Just labeling half of the country “groomers” and “communists”.
他们只是给全国一半的人贴上了“马夫”和“共产主义者”的标签。
Sometimes the "reaction" in "reactionary" is completely reasonable & logical.
For example:
1. When insane ed schools & their bonkers teacher grads push creepy gender ideology, sexual overeducation, "drag" shows & even freakish hormones on children... often w/o the parents knowledge. In other words: "grooming."
2. When the department heads of interior & energy are literally trying to TAKE DOWN OIL COMPANIES & raise the price of gas thus MAKE WAR ON THE POOR for some STUPID spurious "benefit" that China & India will completely ignore & override. In other words: moronic "green" socialism.
Meanwhile Raggedy Antoinette & her FOUL ilk tell the poor "just drive electric cars you revolting plebe."
If the cap fits you get to WEAR it Moishe. Worst. Administration. Ever. A "reactionary" wants things to go back to the way they were. Most Americans are now REACTIONARY. All ones with any sense certainly. You gotta be one of the Very Smart People to be STUPID as a Biden puppeteer.
有时候，“反动”之“反动”是完全合理和符合逻辑的。
比如说。
1. 当疯狂的教育学校和他们疯狂的教师毕业生把令人毛骨悚然的性别意识形态、性教育过度、“变装”表演乃至畸形的荷尔蒙推给孩子时——这往往是在父母不知情的情况下。换句话说，这是“诱导”。
2. 当内政部和能源部的负责人试图摧毁石油公司，提高油价，从而向穷人开战，以获得一些愚蠢的虚假“利益”，而中国和印度将完全无视和超越这些利益。换句话说：这是低能的“绿色”社会主义。
同时，安托瓦内特和她的卑鄙小人告诉穷人，“只要开电动车就行了，你们这些造反的小民”。
如果帽子合适，你就可以戴上它。这是史上最差劲的政府。一个“反动派”想让事情回到过去的样子。大多数美国人现在都是反动派。当然他们都是有理智的人。你必须是非常聪明的人之一，才会像拜登的傀儡一样愚蠢。
I guess when you groom children while creating a socialist paradise you are accurately categorized thusly. That simply makes Republicans accurate reporters of what is happening in the world.
我想，当你在创造社会主义天堂的同时培养孩子，你就会被准确地归类为这样的人。这只是让共和党人成为世界上正在发生的事情的准确报告者。
The right is basically reacting to constant cultural provocations from the left and getting more and more bent out of shape and panicked. The left needs to chill it, this time.
右派基本上是在对左派不断的文化挑衅做出反应，而且越来越卑躬屈膝，越来越慌张。左派需要冷静一下，至少这一次。
I couldn't agree more. The provocations seem designed to distract the population from far more important issues.
我非常同意。这些挑衅行为似乎是为了分散人们对更重要问题的注意力。
In my ideal world we can call a truce and run a national program designed to just reign in the polarization and stop the country from falling apart. No ideological pet projects for anyone.
在我的理想世界里，我们可以休战，并推行一个全国性的计划，目的只是为了控制两极分化，阻止国家分崩离析。我们不需要意识形态的宠物项目。
The Republicans had the presidency and both houses in GWBs first term and the first two years of Trump's term. It doesn't make a lick of difference who gets elected. Both parties just have different excuses for not doing what the people need to get done. And with the filibuster, they get to act like its the other parties fault. Remember repealing and replacing Obamacare? LOL! How often is that brought up on Fox News lately?
共和党在小布什的第一个任期和特朗普任期的前两年拥有总统职位和两院。谁当选并没有什么区别。两党只是有不同的借口，不做人民需要做的事情。有了阻挠议事的行动，他们就可以装作是其他政党的错。还记得废除和替换奥巴马医改吗？哈哈！最近在福克斯新闻上有多少次提到这个问题？
Budget deficits can be inflationary if people expect that the debt used to finance them will be monetized.
Think of it this way. Deficits are financed with Treasury Bills, which are a near perfect substitute for money. If people expect the Bills to be repaid with printed money rather than tax money when they mature, then there is no substantive difference between printing new money to cover deficits or issuing Treasury Bills to cover them. Which makes the deficit inflationary. But again, it all depends on expectations about how the debt will be handled when it comes due.
如果人们预期用于资助预算赤字的债务将被货币化，那么预算赤字就会造成通货膨胀。
这样想吧。赤字是用国库券融资的，国库券是货币的近乎完美的替代品。如果人们期望在国库券到期时用印制的货币而不是税收来偿还，那么印制新的货币来弥补赤字或发行国库券来弥补赤字之间就没有实质性的区别。这使得赤字成为通货膨胀。但还是那句话，这完全取决于对债务到期后如何处理的预期。
I see where you are coming from but I don't think it actually works that way in our system. On one side of the ledger is expenditures. On the other is debt and taxes (revenues). Nobody will ever know whether the debt is being paid with taxes or printed money. As long as the government can raise money through the issuance of treasury bonds, it never has to get to a point where it has to say "we don't have the money to pay the debt, so we're just going to print the money". And in our system, the government can always raise the money because it is sitting in the banking system under federal reserve control, and the banks will always use that money to replace the cash for interest bearing bonds.
我明白你的想法，但我不认为在我们的系统中实际上是这样的。账本的一边是支出。另一边是债务和税收（收入）。没有人会知道债务是用税收还是用印制的货币支付的。只要政府能够通过发行国债来筹集资金，它就永远不需要走到不得不说“我们没有钱来偿还债务，所以我们就去印钱”的地步。而在我们的系统中，政府总是可以筹集到钱，因为这些钱都在联邦储备局控制下的银行系统中，而银行总是会用这些钱来代替现金购买有息债券。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Treasury will always be able to raise money by issuing notes, bills and bonds, but not necessarily to investors. At some point, investors will be unwilling to buy them at a rate the Treasury is willing to pay. Then the only way the government will be able to finance deficits is if the Federal Reserve buys them with newly created money, which results in inflation.
So now step back to today. There is enough investor interest to finance the deficit by selling Treasuries to investors. However, everyone expects that when these securities come due, the Fed will have to step in and create the money to redeem them. Then everyone expects future money supply to grow, which means people expect future inflation. Now it doesn't make a difference if the deficit in financed by selling Treasuries or creating new money, as the two have become equivalent. So even if you can raise the funds by selling Treasuries to investors today, markets react the same as if you just printed a bunch of money to finance the deficit.
Expectations about future monetary policy is as important to current inflation as current monetary policy.
财政部总是能够通过发行纸币、票据和债券来筹集资金，但不一定是向投资者。在某些时候，投资者将不愿意以财政部愿意支付的利率购买它们。那么，政府能够为赤字融资的唯一途径就是美联储用新创造的货币来购买它们，这就导致了通货膨胀。
所以现在回到今天。有足够的投资者兴趣，通过向投资者出售国债来为赤字融资。然而，每个人都预计，当这些证券到期时，美联储将不得不介入并创造货币来赎回它们。然后，每个人都预期未来的货币供应量会增长，这意味着人们预期未来的通货膨胀。现在，如果通过出售国债或创造新的货币来为赤字提供资金，并没有什么区别，因为这两者已经变得等同。因此，即使你今天可以通过向投资者出售国债来筹集资金，市场的反应与你刚刚印制了一堆钱来为赤字融资是一样的。
对未来货币政策的预期与当前的货币政策对当前的通货膨胀同样重要。
I appreciate that thought, but I'd ask you to read up on the role of the primary dealer banks. They are always the "investors" of last resort. They are required by contract with the Federal Reserve to make the market in treasuries.
I agree that in theory expectations drive a lot of the market. But the big money movers know that there is no need for the FR to print money. The design of the system is actually brilliant: the federal government prints money, the money ends up in the banks, the FR issues treasury bonds equivalent to the amount of that money, the banks exchange the printed money for the bonds. It works regardless of the size of the deficits.
My issue with budget deficits is more along the lines that it removes any sense of financial responsibility from politicians, whether it is democrats spending frivolously or Republicans cutting revenues frivolously.
我很欣赏这种想法，但我想请你了解一下一级交易商银行的作用。他们始终是最后的“投资者”。根据与美联储的合同，他们需要在国债市场上进行交易。
我同意在理论上，预期驱动了很多市场。但大的资金流动者知道，美联储没有必要印钱。这个系统的设计实际上是很出色的：联邦政府印钱，钱最终在银行里，联邦储备银行发行相当于这些钱的国债，银行用印好的钱换取债券。无论赤字的大小，这都是可行的。
我对预算赤字的看法是，它消除了政治家的任何财政责任感，无论是民主党人的轻率支出还是共和党人的轻率削减收入。