Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff

Translator: Morton Bast Reviewer: Thu-Huong Ha

譯者: Chengrui Wang 審譯者: Jamie Wang

So a friend of mine who's a political scientist,

我有個朋友是政治學家

he told me several months ago

幾個月前 他告訴我

exactly what this month would be like.

這個月大概是什麼光景

He said, you know, there's this fiscal cliff coming,

他說：「財政懸崖快來了。」

it's going to come at the beginning of 2013.

估計在 2013 年初到來

Both parties absolutely need to resolve it,

兩黨都必須解決這問題

but neither party wants to be seen as the first to resolve it.

但沒有一方願意先採取行動

Neither party has any incentive to solve it a second before it's due,

也沒有一方想要在危機到來以前解決

so he said, December, you're just going to see lots of

所以他說，在十二月時你會看到一堆

angry negotiations, negotiations breaking apart,

激烈爭執、協商破局

reports of phone calls that aren't going well,

一些在電話上相談不歡的報導

people saying nothing's happening at all,

有人說什麼結果都沒有

and then sometime around Christmas or New Year's,

到了聖誕節或是新年的時候

we're going to hear, "Okay, they resolved everything."

我們會聽說：「他們解決所有問題了。」

He told me that a few months ago. He said he's 98 percent positive they're going to resolve it,

他幾個月前告訴我 他有98%的把握 他們會解決問題

and I got an email from him today saying, all right,

今天我收到他的電子郵件說

we're basically on track, but now I'm 80 percent positive

「好吧，大致上猜的沒錯 但現在我只有80%的把握

that they're going to resolve it.

他們會解決這件事情。」

And it made me think. I love studying

所以我開始思考，我喜歡研究

these moments in American history

美國歷史上這種分歧的時期

when there was this frenzy of partisan anger,

不同黨派彼此爭論不休

that the economy was on the verge of total collapse.

經濟正值崩盤的邊緣

The most famous early battle was Alexander Hamilton

早期最有名的爭論是 亞歷山大•漢彌爾頓

and Thomas Jefferson over what the dollar would be

和湯瑪斯•傑弗遜對於美元會如何

and how it would be backed up, with Alexander Hamilton

以及 該用什麼方式儲存而爭論

saying, "We need a central bank, the First Bank of the United States,

亞歷山大•漢彌爾頓說 「我們需要一個中央銀行，美國第一銀行

or else the dollar will have no value.

不然美元就毫無價值了」

This economy won't work,"

湯瑪斯•傑弗遜則說

and Thomas Jefferson saying, "The people won't trust that.

「這經濟體系行不通，人民不信這一套」

They just fought off a king. They're not going to accept some central authority."

「他們才剛推翻一個王朝 才不會接受一個中央集權組織。」

This battle defined the first 150 years of the U.S. economy,

這個爭論奠定了美國前期 一百五十年的經濟

and at every moment, different partisans saying,

每一次，當不同黨派說

"Oh my God, the economy's about to collapse,"

「老天，經濟要崩盤了。」

and the rest of us just going about, spending our bucks

有些人就開始盡情揮霍

on whatever it is we wanted to buy.

把錢花在所有想買的東西上

To give you a quick primer on where we are,

先來了解一下我們現在的處境

a quick refresher on where we are.

快速地回顧一下

So the fiscal cliff, I was told

有人叫我別叫它財政懸崖

that that's too partisan a thing to say,

因為黨派色彩太重

although I can't remember which party it's supporting or attacking.

我記不得 到底誰贊成誰反對

People say we should call it the fiscal slope,

有人說 應該叫財政斜坡才對

or we should call it an austerity crisis,

或稱為緊縮危機

but then other people say, no, that's even more partisan.

但就有人反對 說這樣反而更不中立

So I just call it the self-imposed, self-destructive

所以我乾脆叫它設立自我導致 自我毀滅

arbitrary deadline about resolving an inevitable problem.

沒有明確期限的方案 來解決不可避免的問題

And this is what the inevitable problem looks like.

這就是一個不可避免的問題的真實模樣

So this is a projection of U.S. debt as a percentage

這是美國國債百分比圖

of our overall economy, of GDP.

佔整體經濟 國內生產毛額(GDP)的比例高低

The light blue dotted line represents

藍色虛線代表

the Congressional Budget Office's best guess

國會預算局最樂觀的估計

of what will happen if Congress really doesn't do anything,

如果國會什麼都沒做的情形

and as you can see, sometime around 2027,

可以看到 大概在2027年

we reach Greek levels of debt,

我們的債務會跟希臘有得拚

somewhere around 130 percent of GDP,

債務約佔GDP的130%

which tells you that some time in the next 20 years,

顯示出未來20年內

if Congress does absolutely nothing,

如果國會什麼事都沒做

we're going to hit a moment where the world's investors,

我們在國際上的地位會動搖

the world's bond buyers, are going to say,

全球的投資人 債券買家 將會說

"We don't trust America anymore. We're not going to lend them any money,

「我們再也不信任美國人了 也不會借他們錢」

except at really high interest rates."

「除非利率真的夠高」

And at that moment our economy collapses.

到時我們的經濟就崩盤了

But remember, Greece is there today.

但記得 這是希臘現在的狀況

We're there in 20 years. We have lots and lots of time

我們要過20年才會到那 我們有十分充裕的時間

to avoid that crisis,

來避免危機

and the fiscal cliff was just one more attempt

而財政懸崖 再次

at trying to force the two sides to resolve the crisis.

逼迫兩黨一起解決危機

Here's another way to look at exactly the same problem.

其實可以換個角度來看同樣的問題

The dark blue line is how much the government spends.

藍色實線是政府的開銷

The light blue line is how much the government gets in.

淺藍色線是政府收入

And as you can see, for most of recent history,

由此可見 近幾年來

except for a brief period, we have consistently spent

除了短暫的時期 我們一直

more than we take in. Thus the national debt.

入不敷出 所以國債才會這麼高

But as you can also see, projected going forward,

但可以看出 隨著時間的增長

the gap widens a bit and raises a bit,

收支的落差也越來越大

and this graph is only through 2021.

這張圖只統計到2021年

It gets really, really ugly out towards 2030.

到了2030年 數據會變得很難看

And this graph sort of sums up what the problem is.

從圖表中可以總結出問題所在

The Democrats, they say, well, this isn't a big deal.

民主黨認為 這沒啥大不了

We can just raise taxes a bit and close that gap,

只要稍微提高稅率 縮短收支差就好

especially if we raise taxes on the rich.

提高有錢人的賦稅尤其有效

The Republicans say, hey, no, no, we've got a better idea.

共和黨則說：「不 我們有更好的方法」

Why don't we lower both lines?

「為何不要讓兩種數據都降低？」

Why don't we lower government spending and lower government taxes,

「何不降低政府支出和賦稅？」

and then we'll be on an even more favorable

如此一來 就有更完善的

long-term deficit trajectory?

長期赤字規劃

And behind this powerful disagreement between

而在彼此爭論不休

how to close that gap,

該如何縮小收支差距的背後

there's the worst kind of cynical party politics,

有種最糟 最憤世嫉俗的政黨政治

the worst kind of insider baseball, lobbying, all of that stuff,

最醜陋的內幕 遊說政治 等黑暗面

but there's also this powerfully interesting,

但這場爭論也有非常有趣

respectful disagreement between

正大光明的一面

two fundamentally different economic philosophies.

因為這包含兩種截然不同 的經濟理念

And I like to think, when I picture how Republicans

而我希望 在我描繪出共和黨

see the economy, what I picture is just some amazingly

對經濟的看法時 所描出的只是

well-engineered machine, some perfect machine.

一台構造完整的機器 一台傑作

Unfortunately, I picture it made in Germany or Japan,

不幸的是 這是德國或曰本製

but this amazing machine that's constantly scouring

但這完美的機器不斷地侵蝕

every bit of human endeavor and taking resources,

人類的每分努力並拿走資源

money, labor, capital, machinery,

錢財 勞工 資本和機械等

away from the least productive parts and towards the more productive parts,

把它們從最沒生產力的部份 移到生產力最高的地方

and while this might cause temporary dislocation,

雖然會造成短暫的混亂

what it does is it builds up the more productive areas

卻能增強生產力較高的區塊

and lets the less productive areas fade away and die,

讓低生產力的區塊 慢慢地淘汰

and as a result the whole system is so much more efficient,

如此一來 整個系統就更有效率

so much richer for everybody.

所以大家就更富有了

And this view generally believes that there is a role for government,

此觀點也認為政府佔有一席之地

a small role, to set the rules so people aren't lying

一個訂定規則的小角色 以免人們

and cheating and hurting each other,

說謊 欺騙及傷害彼此

maybe, you know, have a police force and a fire department

政府機關像是警察 消防隊

and an army, but to have a very limited reach

或軍隊等 但這些機關影響很有限

into the mechanisms of this machinery.

難以深入此機器內部

And when I picture how Democrats and Democratic-leaning

而當我描繪民主黨或偏民主黨

economists picture this economy,

經濟學家對此種經濟的看法時

most Democratic economists are, you know, they're capitalists,

大部份的民主黨派經濟學家是資本主義者

they believe, yes, that's a good system a lot of the time.

他們深信:「對 以目前情況來說 這是理想的體制」

It's good to let markets move resources to their more productive use.

讓市場自動把資源做有效的利用是很好

But that system has tons of problems.

但這體制有一大堆的問題

Wealth piles up in the wrong places.

財富都聚集在不對的地方

Wealth is ripped away from people who shouldn't be called unproductive.

那些被不當稱為沒有生產力的人們被剝奪了財富

That's not going to create an equitable, fair society.

這樣沒法創造一個合理公平的社會

That machine doesn't care about the environment,

這種運作模式沒考慮到周遭環境

about racism, about all these issues

例如種族歧視等負面議題

that make this life worse for all of us,

這些讓我們的生活更糟的問題

and so the government does have a role to take resources

所以政府有義務從

from more productive uses, or from richer sources,

較高生產力或擁有較多資源的地方

and give them to other sources.

將其資源分配給其它地方

And when you think about the economy through these two different lenses,

如果你用這兩種不同的觀點 來探討經濟的話

you understand why this crisis is so hard to solve,

你就懂為何危機這麼難解決

because the worse the crisis gets, the higher the stakes are,

因為情況如果越嚴重 風險就越高

the more each side thinks they know the answer

兩方都認為自己有解決之道

and the other side is just going to ruin everything.

並對彼此嗤之以鼻

And I can get really despairing. I've spent a lot

我感到絕望

of the last few years really depressed about this,

過去幾年 我對此感到沮喪

until this year, I learned something that

直到今年 我發現了一些使我非常興奮的事

I felt really excited about. I feel like it's really good news,

我認為這是很好的消息

and it's so shocking, I don't like saying it, because I think

而且非常震撼 我不常談論它

people won't believe me.

因為我覺得沒人會相信我的話

But here's what I learned.

我所發現的是

The American people, taken as a whole,

整體來說 當美國人

when it comes to these issues, to fiscal issues,

遇到跟財政有關的問題時

are moderate, pragmatic centrists.

就變成溫和 務實的中立派

And I know that's hard to believe, that the American people

沒錯 很不可思議 美國人

are moderate, pragmatic centrists.

竟會是溫和 務實的中立派

But let me explain what I'm thinking.

但讓我解釋一下我的看法

When you look at how the federal government spends money,

當你看看聯邦政府的支出比例

so this is the battle right here,

這裡是問題所在

55 percent, more than half, is on Social Security,

55% 超過一半用在社會福利

Medicare, Medicaid, a few other health programs,

醫療保險 醫療補助 及其他的健保

20 percent defense, 19 percent discretionary,

20%國防 19%自由支配支出

and six percent interest.

利息則是6%

So when we're talking about cutting government spending,

所以我們在討論如何 減少政府支出時

this is the pie we're talking about,

就是看這統計圖

and Americans overwhelmingly, and it doesn't matter

絕大多數的美國人 無論

what party they're in, overwhelmingly like

支持哪一黨 大都喜歡

that big 55 percent chunk.

55%這一塊

They like Social Security. They like Medicare.

他們喜歡社會福利 醫療健保

They even like Medicaid, even though that goes to the poor and indigent,

甚至喜歡醫療補助 (低收入戶用) 即使這些支出只補助貧困的人

which you might think would have less support.

你本來可能以為 醫療補助的支持度較低

And they do not want it fundamentally touched,

他們都不希望以上支出比例變動

although the American people are remarkably comfortable,

雖然美國人民對此非常滿意

and Democrats roughly equal to Republicans,

兩黨選民基本上意見一致

with some minor tweaks to make the system more stable.

只要稍做調整 系統會更穩定

Social Security is fairly easy to fix.

社會福利很好調整

The rumors of its demise are always greatly exaggerated.

社會福利會倒的謠言 往往都是誇大的說法

So gradually raise Social Security retirement age,

所以對於把逐漸提高退休福利年齡的政策

maybe only on people not yet born.

加諸到未出世的下一代人的這個方法

Americans are about 50/50,

不管是支持民主黨還是共和黨

whether they're Democrats or Republicans.

贊成和反對人數都差不多

Reduce Medicare for very wealthy seniors,

減少高收入老人健保支出

seniors who make a lot of money. Don't even eliminate it. Just reduce it.

就是給老富翁的福利金 根本不用廢除 減少即可

People generally are comfortable with it, Democrats and Republicans.

人們大都接受這個政策 不管哪一黨的都如此認為

Raise medical health care contributions?

提高健保費呢?

Everyone hates that equally, but Republicans

大家都恨死了此方法 可是共和黨

and Democrats hate that together.

和民主黨支持者都一致反對

And so what this tells me is, when you look at

所以這個事實告訴我

the discussion of how to resolve our fiscal problems,

當我們仔細探討 如何解決財政問題

we are not a nation that's powerfully divided on the major, major issue.

我們的國民在主要議題方面並沒有意見分歧

We're comfortable with it needing some tweaks, but we want to keep it.

做點改變的話我們能接受 但卻不想廢除整個系統

We're not open to a discussion of eliminating it.

不太可能去討論是否要廢除整個系統

Now there is one issue that is hyper-partisan,

針對一個議題 政黨的意見分歧非常嚴重

and where there is one party that is just spend, spend, spend,

有一黨說花錢消災就好

we don't care, spend some more,

多花點錢無傷大雅

and that of course is Republicans

這當然是共和黨對於

when it comes to military defense spending.

減少國防預算的看法

They way outweigh Democrats.

他們的反對聲浪就比民主黨還強勢

The vast majority want to protect military defense spending.

多數共和黨支持者贊成不改變國防支出

That's 20 percent of the budget,

國防支出佔了國家預算的20%

and that presents a more difficult issue.

而它代表一個更複雜的議題

I should also note that the [discretionary] spending,

我也要提一下自由性支出的部份

which is about 19 percent of the budget,

佔了預算的19%

that is Democratic and Republican issues,

這是兩黨共同的議題

so you do have welfare, food stamps, other programs

福利 食物券等種種福利制度

that tend to be popular among Democrats,

在民主黨眼裡較受重視

but you also have the farm bill and all sorts of Department of Interior

但農田法案等以及 內政部的福利制度

inducements for oil drilling and other things,

例如石油鑽探之類的

which tend to be popular among Republicans.

就比較受共和黨青睞

Now when it comes to taxes, there is more disagreement.

至於納稅方面 分歧就比較嚴重

That's a more partisan area.

這方面黨派色彩比較嚴重

You have Democrats overwhelmingly supportive

民主黨民眾大力支持

of raising the income tax on people who make 250,000 dollars a year,

提高年收入25萬元以上 高收入族群的所得稅

Republicans sort of against it, although if you break it out by income,

共和黨支持者基本上是反對的 但如果用收入分開來看的話

Republicans who make less than 75,000 dollars a year like this idea.

年收入在7萬5以下的支持者 還滿喜歡這提議的

So basically Republicans who make more than 250,000 dollars a year don't want to be taxed.

也就是說 年收入高於25萬的 共和黨民眾不想多繳稅

Raising taxes on investment income, you also see

提高投資所得稅 你也看得出

about two thirds of Democrats but only one third of Republicans

贊成的人數 民主黨大約2/3 共和黨只有1/3

are comfortable with that idea.

接受這個主意

This brings up a really important point, which is that

這反映出非常重要的迷思 就是

we tend in this country to talk about Democrats

在美國 我們往往只討論民主黨和共和黨

and Republicans and think there's this little group

剩下有一小部分的人

over there called independents that's, what, two percent?

也就是獨立派所組成 獨立派大概只有2%吧

If you add Democrats, you add Republicans,

只要你把共和黨與民主黨支持者加起來

you've got the American people.

就等於全美國人民了

But that is not the case at all.

但事實並非如此

And it has not been the case for most of modern American history.

美國近代歷史裡也沒這樣的情況

Roughly a third of Americans say that they are Democrats.

大約有1/3的美國人說 他們支持民主黨

Around a quarter say that they are Republicans.

大概1/4的人則說他們是共和黨的

A tiny little sliver call themselves libertarians, or socialists,

另有一小區塊的人則傾向 是自由或社會主義黨

or some other small third party,

或是支持其他小黨派

and the largest block, 40 percent, say they're independents.

而最大的區塊占了40% 這裡的人 認為自己是獨立派

So most Americans are not partisan,

所以大多美國人都不特別支持哪一黨

and most of the people in the independent camp

大多屬於獨立陣營的人

fall somewhere in between, so even though we have

都沒有偏向某一黨 即使我們

tremendous overlap between the views on these fiscal issues

在這些財政議題上 從支持民主及共和黨的民眾來看

of Democrats and Republicans,

大家有很多一致的想法

we have even more overlap when you add in the independents.

一旦你把獨立派的人加進來 就會有更多共同的想法

Now we get to fight about all sorts of other issues.

我們常常為其他問題起爭執

We get to hate each other on gun control

我們因為槍枝管制 而厭惡彼此

and abortion and the environment,

墮胎還有環境議題也是

but on these fiscal issues, these important fiscal issues,

但講到財政問題時 重要的財政議題

we just are not anywhere nearly as divided as people say.

我們並沒有像其他人說的那樣 彼此意見不合

And in fact, there's this other group of people

事實上 有另外一群人

who are not as divided as people might think,

並沒有我們想像中 內部分裂的那麼嚴重

and that group is economists.

那群人就是經濟學家

I talk to a lot of economists, and back in the '70s

我跟很多經濟學家談過 在70年代

and '80s it was ugly being an economist.

到80年代時 當經濟學家非常不好過

You were in what they called the saltwater camp,

當時你會被貼上一個「鹹水學派」的標籤

meaning Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley,

指的是哈佛 普林斯頓 麻省 史丹佛 柏克萊等學派

or you were in the freshwater camp, University of Chicago,

或者你被標為「淡水學派」 例如芝加哥大學

University of Rochester.

羅徹斯特大學等派

You were a free market capitalist economist

你可能是個支持市場資本主義的經濟學家

or you were a Keynesian liberal economist,

或是支持凱恩斯自由派主義的經濟學家

and these people didn't go to each other's weddings,

這些人仇視到不去對方的婚禮

they snubbed each other at conferences.

在會議上也互不理睬

It's still ugly to this day, but in my experience,

現在還有這種醜陋面 但就我的經驗

it is really, really hard to find an economist under 40

真的 真的很難找到一個 不到40歲的經濟學家

who still has that kind of way of seeing the world.

有這種過時的世界觀

The vast majority of economists -- it is so uncool

大多的經濟學家 如果稱自己是

to call yourself an ideologue of either camp.

某學派的擁護者 就遜掉了

The phrase that you want, if you're a graduate student

什麼樣的稱謂才是你想要的 如果你是研究生

or a postdoc or you're a professor,

博士 或是教授

a 38-year-old economics professor, is, "I'm an empiricist.

一個38歲的經濟學教授會說: 「我是經驗主義者」

I go by the data."

「我只相信數據資料。」

And the data is very clear.

而數據顯示非常清楚

None of these major theories have been completely successful.

沒有任何的理論真正成功過

The 20th century, the last hundred years,

20世紀或過去一百年來

is riddled with disastrous examples

有數不清的慘痛案例

of times that one school or the other tried to explain

過去有學派或其他人試圖分析

the past or predict the future

過去或預估未來經濟

and just did an awful, awful job,

結果慘不忍睹

so the economics profession has acquired some degree of modesty.

所以經濟學界變得比較謙虛了

They still are an awfully arrogant group of people, I will assure you,

我敢保證 他們的人還是 臭屁到不行

but they're now arrogant about their impartiality,

但現在令他們自豪的是公正的態度

and they, too, see a tremendous range of potential outcomes.

而他們也看到未來 一片光明的極大潛能

And this nonpartisanship is something that exists,

這樣無黨派立場的存在

that has existed in secret

必須是不為人知的

in America for years and years and years.

在美國好幾年來都是如此

I've spent a lot of the fall talking to the three major

我大概整個秋天 都在跟美國三大

organizations that survey American political attitudes:

政治態度民調機構討論

Pew Research,

其中包括皮尤研究中心

the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center,

芝加哥大學全國意見研究中心

and the most important but the least known

還有最舉足輕重卻鮮為人知的

is the American National Election Studies group

美國選舉研究中心

that is the world's longest, most respected poll of political attitudes.

它是全世界歷史最悠久 最具公信力的 政治態度民調中心

They've been doing it since 1948,

從1948年就開始做調查

and what they show consistently throughout

調查中顯出一個共通點

is that it's almost impossible to find Americans

就是美國幾乎找不到

who are consistent ideologically,

完全忠於某種主義的人

who consistently support, "No we mustn't tax,

始終認為:「不能課稅

and we must limit the size of government,"

我們要限制政府的權力範圍。」

or, "No, we must encourage government to play a larger role

或是「不 我們堅持政府 扮演要角

in redistribution and correcting the ills of capitalism."

政府要重新分配資源並改掉 資本主義的壞毛病。」

Those groups are very, very small.

這種群體少之又少

The vast majority of people, they pick and choose,

大多數人都東挑西揀

they see compromise and they change over time

找到折衷方案並在發現

when they hear a better argument or a worse argument.

更好或更糟的論點時 改變立場

And that part of it has not changed.

這種現象一如往昔

What has changed is how people respond to vague questions.

改變的是人們回答 籠統問題的方式

If you ask people vague questions, like,

如果你問別人籠統的問題 例如

"Do you think there should be more government or less government?"

「你認為政府要多干涉還少干涉經濟?」

"Do you think government should" — especially if you use loaded language --

「你認為政府應該...」尤其是 你用有偏見的方式去問時

"Do you think the government should provide handouts?"

「你認為政府應該提供救濟金嗎?」

Or, "Do you think the government should redistribute?"

或是「你認為政府應該重組嗎?」

Then you can see radical partisan change.

如此你就會發現極端的政治立場

But when you get specific, when you actually ask

但若你再更具體一點 如果你問

about the actual taxing and spending issues under consideration,

關於實際稅制與開銷等 值得注意的議題

people are remarkably centrist,

人們很明顯地變中立

they're remarkably open to compromise.

他們很樂意妥協

So what we have, then, when you think about the fiscal cliff,

所以以後談到政治懸崖的時候

don't think of it as the American people fundamentally

別想說這是美國人民完全

can't stand each other on these issues

不能達成共識的議題

and that we must be ripped apart

而我們一定得選邊站

into two separate warring nations.

把國家一分為二

Think of it as a tiny, tiny number of ancient economists

應該想說這只是一小群 老不修的經濟學家

and misrepresentative ideologues have captured the process.

和不誠實的理論家利用了這個議題

And they've captured the process through familiar ways,

他們用似曾相似的方法 來利用這個爭議

through a primary system which encourages

用主要體系來慫恿

that small group of people's voices,

某一小群人發聲

because that small group of people,

因為那一小群人

the people who answer all yeses or all noes

那群對於思想面的問題

on those ideological questions,

全部答是或否的激進份子

they might be small but every one of them has a blog,

他們可能是少數 但是每個人 都有一個部落格

every one of them has been on Fox or MSNBC in the last week.

每個人上禮拜至少都上過 Fox或MSNBC的節目

Every one of them becomes a louder and louder voice,

每個人說話的份量也越來越大

but they don't represent us.

但他們不能代表我們

They don't represent what our views are.

他們的想法不代表就是我們的

And that gets me back to the dollar,

這讓我回想到美元的問題

and it gets me back to reminding myself that

我不禁回想 提醒自己說

we know this experience.

我們有過類似經驗

We know what it's like

我們了解實際情況

to have these people on TV, in Congress,

那些在電視上 國會上的人

yelling about how the end of the world is coming

威脅說如果我們 不全盤採納他們的意見

if we don't adopt their view completely,

世界末日就會到來

because it's happened about the dollar

因為從我們開始有美元以來

ever since there's been a dollar.

他們一直是如此

We had the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton.

傑佛遜和漢密爾頓的爭論也是如此

In 1913, we had this ugly battle over the Federal Reserve,

也就是1913年關於聯準會的那場惡鬥

when it was created, with vicious, angry arguments

成立聯準會時 掀起一股 惡毒憤怒的爭論

over how it would be constituted,

吵著聯準會要如何組成

and a general agreement that the way it was constituted

而多數人同意的組成方式

was the worst possible compromise,

其實是最糟的妥協辦法

a compromise guaranteed to destroy this valuable thing,

這個辦法絕對會瓦解一個寶貴的東西

this dollar, but then everyone agreeing, okay,

也就是美元 但大家又互相附和說

so long as we're on the gold standard, it should be okay.

只要有金本位制度即可

The Fed can't mess it up so badly.

聯準會不可能會搞砸的那麼嚴重

But then we got off the gold standard for individuals

但接下來我們脫離金本位 因為

during the Depression and we got off the gold standard

經濟大蕭條的引響 我們脫離金本位

as a source of international currency coordination

認為這是國際貨幣一致性的開端

during Richard Nixon's presidency.

尼克森總統任職期間廢除了金本位制

Each of those times, we were on the verge of complete collapse.

每次危機時我們都如履薄冰

And nothing happened at all.

但其實什麼事也沒發生

Throughout it all, the dollar has been

整體來說 美元一直是

one of the most long-standing,

最長效

stable, reasonable currencies,

最穩定 最理性的貨幣

and we all use it every single day,

而我們每天都會用到美元

no matter what the people screaming about tell us,

無論別人怎麼激動的對我們說

no matter how scared we're supposed to be.

無論我們有多害怕

And this long-term fiscal picture that we're in right now,

我們目前的長期財政規劃

I think what is most maddening about it is,

我認為最令人生氣的是

if Congress were simply able

如果國會能夠

to show not that they agree with each other,

不要一味的爭論到底誰贊同誰反對

not that they're able to come up with the best possible compromise,

也不是告訴我們如何 達成最好的協議

but that they are able to just begin the process

而是他們能夠實際開始

towards compromise, we all instantly are better off.

妥協的過程 情況馬上就改善了

The fear is that the world is watching.

真正恐怖的是 全世界都在看

The fear is that the longer we delay any solution,

恐怖的是 越慢找到解決方法

the more the world will look to the U.S.

美國留給別人的印象

not as the bedrock of stability in the global economy,

再也不是全球經濟的穩定基石

but as a place that can't resolve its own fights,

而是一個連自家內鬨也解決不了的笑話

and the longer we put that off, the more we make the world nervous,

我們把問題拖得越久 就會讓全世界更緊張

the higher interest rates are going to be,

利率會節節攀升

the quicker we're going to have to face a day

我們得更早被迫面對

of horrible calamity.

危機爆發的一天

And so just the act of compromise itself,

只有真正去執行妥協的動作

and sustained, real compromise,

執行真正能永續的協議

would give us even more time,

才能爭取更多時間

would allow both sides even longer to spread out the pain

也能讓兩黨有更多時間 分散疼痛

and reach even more compromise down the road.

在未來才能繼續達成更多協議

So I'm in the media. I feel like my job to make this happen

而我在媒體界工作 我想我有義務實現理想

is to help foster the things that seem to lead to compromise,

就是促成可能的解決之道

to not talk about this in those vague and scary terms

不是用含糊半帶威脅的態度去討論

that do polarize us,

那樣只會加劇分裂

but to just talk about it like what it is,

我們應該單純就當前情況去討論

not an existential crisis,

不是把赤字懸崖看成已發生的樣子

not some battle between two fundamentally different religious views,

也不是把危機看成 兩種信仰之間的鬥爭

but a math problem, a really solvable math problem,

而是看成一道可以解決的數學題目

one where we're not all going to get what we want

一個我們無法解決的面面俱到的問題

and one where, you know, there's going to be a little pain to spread around.

而這個解決辦法需要大家一起分擔一點痛苦

But the more we address it as a practical concern,

但用越實際的眼光去看待這個問題

the sooner we can resolve it,

就越快可以解決

and the more time we have to resolve it, paradoxically.

相對的 我們如此以來會有更多時間可以解決問題

Thank you. (Applause)

謝謝 （掌聲）