来源：金融界网站 发布时间：2020年07月17日 11:27
本期嘉宾：Ian Goldin 世界银行前副行长、牛津大学全球化与发展学教授 本文为金融界独家专访，未经同意禁止转载。本文不构成投资建议。 疫情在哪里爆发并不重要，全球化会加速疫情的大规模传播 金融界：你在2014年出版的书中就准确预测了“下一次经济危机会由大流行病引发”。为什么在6年前您就可以做出这样的预测？ Ian Goldin：是的，我在《蝴蝶缺陷》那本书里作出了这个预测，这个结论是从我所有的工作和研究中得出的。全球化有很多好处但同时也有不少风险。当人们离动物、野生动物越来越近，离大型机场、高铁站越来越近时，大流行病爆发的可能性就会变高，而且全球化还会加速流行病的蔓延。. 一旦疫情爆发，就会引发下一场金融危机。由此我认为疫情爆发的可能性在不断提高。 虽然此次疫情最初爆发在武汉，但它有可能爆发在任何地方——印度、美国、非洲等等都有可能。爆发在何地并不重要，结果都会是在全球范围内的快速传播，我们看到事情也确实是这样发生的。这就是全球化的负面效应。 全球化益处良多，它为全世界的人们带来工作、机遇，让他们摆脱贫穷，尤其是中国。但全球化也存在风险，需要在国家和国际层面妥善管理。世卫组织和其他组织没有得到他们急需的支持，缺乏资金支持，也缺乏革新以适应21世纪的目标。全球体系和分裂的政治世界之间的裂痕越来越大，风险也在加剧。尤其是在美国接连退出国际组织之后，国际合作越来越薄弱，不仅仅是流行病大爆发的风险在加剧，还有气候变化和其他的风险。 金融界：你认为全球化的驱动力是什么？ Ian Goldin：全球化的驱动力包括政治开放。19世纪70年代末，中国向世界开放。柏林墙的倒塌标志着苏维埃联邦在欧洲的解体，此前， 柏林墙把欧洲世界一分为二，苏维埃联邦和非苏维埃联邦。同时，1990年技术的进步为世界带来了互联网，这也是全球化的驱动力之一。1986年的乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判也是驱动力之一。另外，自19世纪90年代开始的资本账户自由化带来的全球资本管控松绑、人口增长、思想交流、物流体系的进步降低了货物运输的成本……这些都是全球化的助推因素。我所说的全球化是指商品货物、服务、人流、观念跨越国界的流动，这些都是构成全球化的要素。对外开放、合理管控使中国成为全球化最大受益者 金融界：不少人都认为中国是全球化的最大受益者，你认同这样的观点吗？ Ian Goldin：我认可这个观点。中国在全球化的管理方面非常成功，即便开放但仍有非常强大的政府管控能力，如：资本账户和外汇管制。中国逐渐成为了全球出口的工厂，从全球化和出口获利，从全球化和出口获利。但不止于此，中国同时也是全球最大的进口国，很多很多国家也从中受益。中国是巨大的资本流入和流出国，持有超过2万亿美国国债。另外，全球的储蓄系统和中国旅游业是增长最快的部分，这为其他国家的旅游业带去了巨大的潜在收益。同时，中国也是最大的奢侈品消费国，法国、意大利，很多相关产业都依赖于此。 在中国超过7亿人已经脱离贫困线。这是因为向世界开放带来了就业、收入和经济增长。毫无疑问，如果中国没有开放，如果它没有成为全球化中的重要一环，没有加入国际贸易，那么它也就会无法享受过去40年中每10年就会出现的收入翻倍。这在全世界其他任何地方都没有发生过的，这是非凡的成果，需要全球化和对其合理的管理。 金融界：但是近期人们开始担心逆全球化。你是怎么看待这个问题的？ Ian Goldin：确实现在逆全球化的情绪高涨，但是不是在中国，也不是亚洲，主要集中在美国和欧洲。这说明全球化是机遇和风险并存的。欧美在2008年次贷危机中遭到重创，这就像流行病在全球范围内持续扩散一样，造成了全球金融危机。全球化的弊端显现，反全球化情绪的高涨，尤其是在金融危机后。 现在我们遭遇了大流行病，人们觉得如果他们建立一堵非常高的墙，一个巨大的屏障，就可以保留工作机会，可以保护他们的健康和经济体系。显然这是错误的。世界上没有墙能够解除未来要面对的风险，没有墙能够抵御流行病和气候恶化和其他威胁。这只会阻碍出口、资本、观点、技术、旅游、学生和其他益处的交流，而这些只在繁荣、和谐的世界才能看到。同时，“墙”只会阻碍国际合作。国际关系会更加紧张，这意味着金融危机、大流行病、气候恶化，这种威胁在不断增强，我担心的是反全球化造成全球化的不稳定。我们需要更多的合作、政治合作来管理我们共同面对的威胁。然而现在大家却变得越来越民粹主义，这是非常危险的信号，民族主义无法解决任何威胁，还会让事情变得更糟。全球经济或呈现“J型”复苏 金融界：市场上关于经济复苏的假设很多，如V型、W型、U型等等。你认为经济复苏的曲线应该是怎样的？ Ian Goldin：这主要取决于经济体当前的情况。中国、东南亚的复苏会和美国很不一样。欧洲内部，不同国家也会出现不同的复苏情况。那些跟随世卫组织、进行封锁的国家会更快控制疫情且更快进入经济复苏。而那些不采取措施的国家，如美国和巴西，抗疫之路还很远，这些国家的经济复苏会更像“L”。而不少非洲国家，疫情还没有爆发，可能也快了。总而言之，早爆发，早控制，比如中国就是最快复苏的国家。 直到疫苗研发成功，我们都不可能保持正常的商业运营。严格执行防疫措施的国家，如澳大利亚、新西兰、越南、韩国、中国，会迎来巨大的经济复苏。当然，机场和全球投资活动还是不会很快复苏，一个国家的复苏对这些行业而言是不够的。整体来看，复苏会比较缓慢，而且不会出现W型复苏，因为我们回不到疫情前了。经济复苏的曲线可能会更像“J”，经济回归至2019年的情况需要2-3年的时间。疫情后中国会更快成为全球最大经济体 金融界：你认为欧美政府在处理此次危机时是否采取了有效措施？你如何评价现行的防疫和经济复苏措施？ Ian Goldin：在欧洲，国家和国家之间情况不同，所以很难直接概括。具体来看，希腊的措施非常有效，瑞士的也不错，瑞典和英国完全落后了，他们的封锁措施太晚了，瑞典甚至到现在还没开始封锁。而英国没有对病例的溯源和追踪措施，与之相对的德国，在这方面做得很好。 而美国就是一场灾难。特朗普完全不顾基本的科学常识，一意孤行，而且还拒绝合作和承担责任。在美国，州和洲之间的差异也比较大，但总体而言，美国的疫情防控还差得远。而这对全球经济来说是非常大的问题，因为美国是如此的重要。我认为疫情的复苏进程会让中国更快成为全球最大经济体。政策大放水不会造成通胀，而是引发股市泡沫 金融界：我们现在需要担心通货膨胀的问题吗？ Ian Goldin：我们需要担心的东西太多了，现在很多情况都和正统经济学相违背，不仅仅是货币政策，财政政策也是。现在不仅有大量的量化宽松、货币超发，还有负利率，高债务和高财政赤字，这些在正常情况下都是非常罕见的，更像是战时的状态。我认为目前不需要担心量化宽松和货币供应过多，因为需求太弱了，还没有出现通货膨胀的迹象。另外，通胀一般是由石油的价格上涨引发的，但现在石油价格很低。 更大的威胁是由于封锁造成的供给不足和供应链物流的断裂。在流动性很强而缺乏供给时，会出现大问题。当大问题出现时，我们会看到存款利率上涨，人们降低消费。而现在这些都没有发生，所以情况还好。 货币供给过多容易造成股市泡沫，资本市场被越推越高而实体经济却每况愈下。这不只是量化宽松造成的，当银行变为负利率时，存钱变得没有意义，所以人们开始转向权益市场，估值由此被推高。在财政政策方面也是一样，我们看到由国家将10％，日本甚至将20％的GDP通过财政刺激注入经济体系。这是前所未有的，但不会造成通货膨胀，而是推高企业的估值。现在美国的负债是GDP的100％，日本的是GDP的200％。问题是可持续吗？我认为不行。尤其是对那些经济基本面很差的国家，以色列、非洲和拉美国家。意大利也面对着同样的问题，不过欧央行和欧洲委员会会援助他们，实际上欧洲委员会已经开始援助了。当前是发展绿色经济的好时机 金融界：对政策决策者有何建议？ Ian Goldin：我的建议是要跟上国际优秀的防疫措施。现在是特殊时期，即便疫情得到控制我们也不能掉以轻心。疫情得以控制的背后，我们做出了巨大牺牲，特别是年轻人由于封锁措施无法上学、工作。年轻人需要工作和未来。另一方面，现在是推动绿色发展的好时机，是推动新型基建下经济转型的好时机，是向绿色经济转型的机会。 从国际角度来看，我认为决策者要更专注，对发展中国家的支持。有超过100万亿美元的财政支持措施出台，但其中只有不到1万亿的是给予发展中国家的，不到1％。这亟需改变。发展中国家需要更多支持，更多的团结，来应对公共卫生和经济的突发事件，避免大规模的饥荒。同样地，国际组织也需要更多的支持。世卫组织可以带领全球对抗并战胜疫情，不只是这一次，也包括下一次。美国太荒谬了，这是在大火燃烧时试图毁灭消防车、杀死消防队的行为。世卫组织确实需要革新，但是首先我们要渡过此次危机，并为下一次做好准备。。这适用于其他国际组织。采访原文 JRJ: You successfully predict that the next economic crisis would come from a pandemic， which is published in one of your books in 2014. How would you make this prediction 6 years ago？ Ian Goldin：Yeah， I conclude in the butterfly defect for I have concluded the same thing from every other bit of work I’ve done since 2014. Globalization brings many benefits， but also many risks. And that the likelihood of a pandemic has been growing. Because more and more people living in close proximity to animals， also wild animals. And close to big airports and fast rail train stations. And that this would spread the pandemic very quickly. And if a pandemic spread， it would lead to the next financial crisis. I was convinced that the risk of pandemic was rising. This one started in Wuhan， but it could have started anywhere in the world. It could have started in India and could have started in the US， it could have started in Africa. It doesn’t matter where it starts. It’s gonna spread globally very quickly. And that’s indeed what we’ve seen. So this is the bad side of globalization. Globalization is a very good thing. It’s brought jobs it’s brought opportunities. It’s lifted many people out of poverty around the world， not least in China. But globalization is also very dangerous and needs to be better managed at the national level， but also at the global level. And the World Health Organization other global institutions have not received the support they need， have not received the funds they need， have not received the reform that they need to make them fit for 21st century purposes. So the growing gap between a integrated global system and a divided political world that leads to the rising risk. And that risk is grown as the US has turned its back on the international system. As the US is withdrawn， the international institutions and international coordination has become weaker. And that raises the risk dramatically not only of pandemics， but climate change and other risks or so. JRJ: What are the driving forces of globalization？ Ian Goldin: The driving forces for globalization are political opening up. So China opening up to the world since the late 1970s. The fall of the Berlin wall， the end of the soviet union in Europe， which completely divided the world into a soviet block and non-soviet block in Europe. The development of technologies that particularly the development of the world wide web， the internet from 1990. The opening up of trade with the Uruguay round of trade negotiations from the WTO. The reduction in capital controls as a result of capital account liberalization around the world from the 1990s， population growth increased， there is density， the flow of ideas， containerization on the development of logistic systems， which allowed much cheaper transport of products. All of these factors have combined to create a more globalized world. And by globalization， I simply mean the movement of a national borders of products， of goods， of services， of people， of ideas. All of those things have combined to create much more globalized world. JRJ: Many people hold the view that China is the biggest beneficiary of globalization. Do you agree with that？ Ian Goldin: Yes， I do agree with that. China has been extremely successful in managing globalization. It opened up. But it still has a very strong government controls on many dimensions. not also on capital account， currency is not freely tradable. It has become the export factory of the world benefitting from globalization， the creation of exports. But not only that. It has become the biggest importer in the world as well， which has been immensely beneficial for many many countries. It’s being a big absorber of capital and a big exporter of capital. It holds over $2 trillion I think of US reserves. So part of the global saving system and Chinese tourism and travel has been amongst the most rapidly growing part of that bringing massive potential benefits to the countries where these tourists travel. It’s been the biggest demand a of luxury goods. The French， the Italian， many many industries have dependent on the sale of luxury goods， with China the biggest growth market. So there are many dimensions which have benefited the world. Because China has benefited so much. In China， over 700 million people have been lifted out of terrible poverty， as the result of this opening up， the creation of jobs， the creation of incomes and the very rapid growth of the Chinese economy. So I have no doubt in my mind that if China hadn’t opened up， if it hadn’t become part of the global system， joined the World Trade Organization，it would not have enjoyed the doubling of incomes about every 10 years for the last 40 years that it has enjoyed. This has never happened anywhere in the world ever in history. It’s completely exceptional. But it’s been facilitated by this combination of a globalizing system and national management. JRJ: But recently many people are worried about anti-globalization. What do you think of that？ Ian Goldin: Yes， there’s a lot of anti-globalization sentiment. Not in China I don’t think， or in Asia， generally， southeast Asia. I don’t think you have anti-globalization sentiment in India or South Korea. The anti-globalization sentiment is mainly in the USA， is mainly in Europe， but not in Asia. I think it reflects the fact that a globalization spreads risks as well as opportunities. We know that the US and Europe were very badly affected by the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. This was the super spreading like epidemic of the bads of globalization， financial contagion spread， as a result. I would say that anti-globalization sentiment has gone up with the bad impact of globalization， particularly from the financial crisis. And now we see again， with the pandemic， people believe that if they put up a higher wall， they will protect their jobs， they will protect their health， they will protect their economies. Of course， this is a very bad and false understanding. Because there’s no wall high enough to keep out the risks we face for the future， no high wall will keep out a pandemic， or keep out climate change， or the big threats. What the high walls keep out is the export opportunities， the capital， the ideas， the technology， the tourism， the students and many other benefits we get from a bigger， more prosperous， more harmonious world. And what the high walls keep out also is the ability to cooperate. So countries start having more tension， that means the threats of financial crisis， of pandemic， of climate change， the other threats that will slow global growth and be very dangerous for all of us. They grow， so I’m worried that the reaction against globalization is going to make globalization more unstable. What we need is more coordination， more political coordination， to manage our shared threats. Instead what we’re getting is more nationalism. That’s very dangerous because it will not solve the threats. It will make them worse. JRJ: Many people are discussing about the economic recovery. There are several hypothesis in the market- V， W， and U with a flattened bottom. What is your opinion of economic recovery？ Ian Goldin：I think it very much depends on where we are. China， southeast Asia will be very different to the US， will be very different. Even in Europe the different countries compare Germany， UK， Greece， countries are in very very different situations. I think what we see in countries who followed the WHO advice， who locked down are able to manage the pandemic quickly， are more able to have a recovery. Whereas countries that are ignoring it in many respects， like the US like Brazil， have a very long way to go. And they’re more like L shape. In Africa， the pandemic hasn’t really arrived yet， in many countries. It’s still to come. So early in early out for some countries including China. Although obviously you have worries in Beijing at the moment. I think until we have a vaccine， we cannot return to business as usual and even then it will be different to before. But in those countries which have effectively executed like Australia and New Zealand，like Vietnam， South Korea in many respects， China in many respects， I think we will see quite strong recovery. Of course， a lot of the exports and the investments depend on global recovery. So it’s very difficult to have recovery in one country because we are in the integrated globalized world. So I think we’ll see slower growth. We will not be a W going back to where we were. I think it’s more like a J shape， and that will depend on where we are. But I think it’s gonna be two or three years before we back to where we were in 2019. JRJ: Do you think that American and European governments are dealing the crisis effectively？ How do you assess the measurements are being taken right now？ Ian Goldin：In Europe， we have very different situations in different countries. So it’s difficult to generalize in Europe. Greece has been extremely effective， Switzerland has been effective， Sweden and the UK are really the outliers because Sweden and the UK were very late to lock down. Sweden still hasn’t lockdown. And very weak testing in the UK， very poor testing， and no tracking and tracing of cases in the UK， which is in a very different to some other countries where we have very like Germany， very high levels of tracking and tracing. So Europe has been differentiated. Some countries， I think， have handled it very well. And some countries like the UK and I think like Sweden have handled it very badly. The US is a disaster. The president has ignored the science， has contradicted the science， has come up with his own personal scientific things which are not scientific， and then we stopped a coordinated response. So different states are doing it very very differently in the US and some states have been more effective than others. But the US has a long way to go. And that is a big problem for the world economy because the US economy is so important. So China will become the biggest economy in the world more quickly， because China will recover quicker and the US will take such a long time to recover. JRJ: Is it the time for us to worry about inflation since money is pumping in all over the world because of expansionary monetary policy？ Ian Goldin：Normally we should worry about many things， because many of the economic orthodoxy are being contradicted on monetary policy， but also on fiscal policy. We see not only massive quantitative easing and monetary injection， we see negative interest rates， we see very high levels of debt and deficits， which are unprecedented in peace time. It’s like a war situation. My own view on the quantitative easing and money supply is that we do not have to worry. Demand is so weak that... we are not seeing inflationary pressures because oil prices are very weak as well. The bigger danger a if there’s no supply response because the suppliers are in lockdown or because the logistic supply chains are broken. Then if we have a lot of money in the system and no supply we have a big problem. I think what we’re seeing is savings rates are going up dramatically. People can’t spend the money they get in. So savings rates aren’t moving up which is a good thing in many respects. But we also seeing where we are seeing inflationary bubbles is in stock markets. There’s this disconnect at the moment during stock markets， which are record high and the real economy which is broken. No cash flow for firms， and yet the valuations in the markets very high. So this is the impact I think not only of quantitative easing. There’s no point putting your money in the bank because you get negative returns. So people are putting their money in equities and we’re getting excessive valuations. It’s also the case on the fiscal side that we’re seeing very big injections. 10％， up in Japan， 20％ of GDP injections of fiscal stimulant into the economy. These are unprecedented high levels. But they’re not inflation at this point. They are leading to high valuations of companies. We get very high levels of debt with the US going well over 100％， Japan over 200％. This this is also a question- Is this sustainable？ My own view is that it’s likely to be... it’s not sustainable， is for countries with very bad fundamentals. It’s gonna a big problem for Israeli， African， and Latin American countries in this regards. Italy has big problems， but the European Central Bank will bail and the European commission will bail Italy out and has bailed Italy out. JRJ: Do you have any advice for policy makers？ Ian Goldin： My advice to the policy makers is nationally to keep up exceptional measures. This is an exceptional time. And don’t stop when the pandemic stops. Because there’s been enormous sacrifice， particularly from young people who have been locked down and sacrificed education and jobs. They need their jobs. They need their future. And this is an opportunity for green growth， for the transformation of economies with new infrastructure investments， which are not using oil， or carbon. This is an opportunity to transform our economies for green economy， new green growth. Internationally， I think there needs to be much more focused. There needs to be more solidarity with developing countries， much more solidarity. About $10 trillion of fiscal support has been spent by countries to ground the world， but less than 100 billion on poor countries， so less than 1％. And that needs to change. There needs to be much more support for developing countries to deal with their health and economic emergencies to stop mass starvation in the world. And there needs to be much more support for international organizations. The WHO is the organization which will stop the next pandemic and stop this pandemic globally. We need to give it more support. What the US has done is crazy， which is to try and kill the fire engine， the fire brigade while the fire is burning. We need to reform the WHO that’s for sure. But we need to， first we need to， make sure it deals with this crisis and then gets ready for the next one. And that’s true of all the global institutions.