近日,特朗普?qǐng)F(tuán)隊(duì)宣布成立一個(gè)全新的部門——政府效率部,旨在提升政府的工作效率,通過(guò)削減開(kāi)支,為納稅人節(jié)省資金。該部門將由億萬(wàn)富翁、特斯拉首席執(zhí)行官埃隆·馬斯克和企業(yè)家維韋克·拉馬斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy)領(lǐng)導(dǎo),他們將采取“前所未見(jiàn)的企業(yè)家型政府方法”。無(wú)論你支持哪個(gè)黨派,這都是一項(xiàng)有意義的事業(yè)。
自里根政府以來(lái),聯(lián)邦政府從未認(rèn)真解決這一問(wèn)題(即便在當(dāng)時(shí)也未能認(rèn)真解決)。希望這一次,我們能夠見(jiàn)證實(shí)質(zhì)性的進(jìn)展。更令人期待的是,這項(xiàng)工作將由那些已經(jīng)證明自己能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)的企業(yè)家和創(chuàng)造者來(lái)負(fù)責(zé)。你個(gè)人是否喜歡被任命的人并不重要,因?yàn)槿绻摬块T能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)其目標(biāo),整個(gè)國(guó)家都將從中受益。這一舉措早就應(yīng)該實(shí)施了。早在羅斯福執(zhí)政時(shí)期,聯(lián)邦政府的規(guī)模就開(kāi)始了無(wú)節(jié)制的快速膨脹。
今年,美國(guó)國(guó)債達(dá)到創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的35萬(wàn)億美元。在兩黨執(zhí)政的至少70年里,美國(guó)國(guó)債幾乎一直在持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)。盡管政客們經(jīng)常宣稱要減少國(guó)債,但到目前為止,他們?cè)趦冬F(xiàn)這一承諾方面毫無(wú)信譽(yù)可言。
國(guó)債危機(jī)
為了更清楚地了解國(guó)債的負(fù)擔(dān),根據(jù)最新收集的數(shù)據(jù),美國(guó)9月僅用于支付國(guó)債利息的費(fèi)用就高達(dá)380億美元,這還不包括政府運(yùn)營(yíng)的成本。這超過(guò)了當(dāng)月個(gè)人所得稅收入的15%。因此,指望債務(wù)會(huì)自動(dòng)消失是不切實(shí)際的。
不斷攀升的債務(wù)會(huì)帶來(lái)切實(shí)的影響。大約10年前,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾做出了一個(gè)大膽的決定,下調(diào)了美國(guó)的債券評(píng)級(jí),“無(wú)恥地”聲稱隨著債務(wù)增加,債務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)會(huì)上升。其理念是,當(dāng)一個(gè)實(shí)體持續(xù)借款卻從未償還債務(wù)時(shí),風(fēng)險(xiǎn)會(huì)隨之增加。我記得,有位政客竟厚顏無(wú)恥地質(zhì)疑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾這樣做是否愛(ài)國(guó)。我想,無(wú)視物理學(xué)定律而讓美國(guó)債臺(tái)高筑才是愛(ài)國(guó)的表現(xiàn)吧。去年,惠譽(yù)評(píng)級(jí)將美國(guó)的債務(wù)評(píng)級(jí)從AAA下調(diào)至AA+。我想說(shuō),這位老師在評(píng)分政策上實(shí)際上是相當(dāng)寬松的。
想想一個(gè)企業(yè),甚至一個(gè)人。如果一家企業(yè)的年收入為100萬(wàn)美元,而年支出卻永遠(yuǎn)高達(dá)200萬(wàn)美元,還會(huì)有投資者愿意繼續(xù)向這家企業(yè)注資嗎?你會(huì)嗎?如果一個(gè)人年收入10萬(wàn)美元,而年支出卻永遠(yuǎn)高達(dá)12萬(wàn)美元,最終的結(jié)果會(huì)是什么?無(wú)疑是破產(chǎn)。這不僅是基本的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)原理,也是常識(shí)。
總有一天,人們會(huì)停止借錢給我們。他們會(huì)停止購(gòu)買我們的國(guó)債,而我們將無(wú)力償還所欠債務(wù)。正是在這一點(diǎn)上,事情開(kāi)始變得耐人尋味。一些生活在電子表格和模型的抽象世界里的博士聲稱,我們不必?fù)?dān)心債務(wù)問(wèn)題,因?yàn)槊涝侨蜇泿藕徒灰椎幕A(chǔ)。其他人則認(rèn)為,債務(wù)只需與國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)相比來(lái)衡量。這些觀點(diǎn)與像萬(wàn)有引力這樣簡(jiǎn)單的定律相悖:一個(gè)持續(xù)借款卻從不償還債務(wù)的實(shí)體是無(wú)法生存下去的。
削減開(kāi)支
解決方案并不復(fù)雜。我們需要削減開(kāi)支。我不知道你是怎么想的,但如果有人向我借錢,除非他們能證明自己有一定的財(cái)務(wù)約束能力,否則我是不會(huì)借錢給他們的。任何有預(yù)算的人都知道,削減開(kāi)支是件難事。這需要自律。
我指的是真正減少開(kāi)支。政客們對(duì)“削減開(kāi)支”的定義頗為滑稽。如果你每年的家庭開(kāi)支是100美元,而我要求你削減開(kāi)支,你可能會(huì)理解為將支出減少到99美元或更少。但聯(lián)邦政府所謂的“削減”實(shí)際上是降低增長(zhǎng)速度。以剛才的例子來(lái)說(shuō),這意味著如果你每年花費(fèi)100美元(實(shí)際負(fù)擔(dān)不起),并且計(jì)劃明年花費(fèi)105美元,而你同意只花費(fèi)104美元,那么你就削減了1美元。按照這樣的邏輯,我們幾近破產(chǎn)也就不足為奇了。只有聯(lián)邦政府才會(huì)用這樣的數(shù)學(xué)方法來(lái)計(jì)算。
對(duì)我們?nèi)缃竦淖h員來(lái)說(shuō),聯(lián)邦政府削減開(kāi)支幾乎是一項(xiàng)不可能完成的任務(wù),因?yàn)檫@需要采取難以置信的措施——偶爾對(duì)說(shuō)客和選民說(shuō)“不”。成立這個(gè)部門是朝著正確方向邁出的重要一步。國(guó)家必須整頓財(cái)政,因?yàn)檫t早會(huì)有人直言不諱地指出皇帝的新裝——即我們長(zhǎng)期赤字的真相。如果人們不再借錢給我們,后果將不堪設(shè)想。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
布萊恩·漢密爾頓(Brian Hamilton)創(chuàng)立了Sageworks(現(xiàn)為Abrigo公司),這是一家已被收購(gòu)的金融科技公司,旨在幫助數(shù)百萬(wàn)企業(yè)主將復(fù)雜的財(cái)務(wù)信息轉(zhuǎn)換為易于理解的內(nèi)容。他還創(chuàng)立了布萊恩·漢密爾頓基金會(huì)(Brian Hamilton Foundation)和“從囚犯到企業(yè)家”組織(Inmates to Entrepreneurs),旨在推廣所有權(quán)的力量,改變?nèi)藗兊纳?,并在美?guó)廣播公司(ABC)的獲獎(jiǎng)節(jié)目《自由企業(yè)》(Free Enterprise)中擔(dān)任主演。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
近日,特朗普?qǐng)F(tuán)隊(duì)宣布成立一個(gè)全新的部門——政府效率部,旨在提升政府的工作效率,通過(guò)削減開(kāi)支,為納稅人節(jié)省資金。該部門將由億萬(wàn)富翁、特斯拉首席執(zhí)行官埃隆·馬斯克和企業(yè)家維韋克·拉馬斯瓦米(Vivek Ramaswamy)領(lǐng)導(dǎo),他們將采取“前所未見(jiàn)的企業(yè)家型政府方法”。無(wú)論你支持哪個(gè)黨派,這都是一項(xiàng)有意義的事業(yè)。
自里根政府以來(lái),聯(lián)邦政府從未認(rèn)真解決這一問(wèn)題(即便在當(dāng)時(shí)也未能認(rèn)真解決)。希望這一次,我們能夠見(jiàn)證實(shí)質(zhì)性的進(jìn)展。更令人期待的是,這項(xiàng)工作將由那些已經(jīng)證明自己能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)的企業(yè)家和創(chuàng)造者來(lái)負(fù)責(zé)。你個(gè)人是否喜歡被任命的人并不重要,因?yàn)槿绻摬块T能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)其目標(biāo),整個(gè)國(guó)家都將從中受益。這一舉措早就應(yīng)該實(shí)施了。早在羅斯福執(zhí)政時(shí)期,聯(lián)邦政府的規(guī)模就開(kāi)始了無(wú)節(jié)制的快速膨脹。
今年,美國(guó)國(guó)債達(dá)到創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的35萬(wàn)億美元。在兩黨執(zhí)政的至少70年里,美國(guó)國(guó)債幾乎一直在持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)。盡管政客們經(jīng)常宣稱要減少國(guó)債,但到目前為止,他們?cè)趦冬F(xiàn)這一承諾方面毫無(wú)信譽(yù)可言。
國(guó)債危機(jī)
為了更清楚地了解國(guó)債的負(fù)擔(dān),根據(jù)最新收集的數(shù)據(jù),美國(guó)9月僅用于支付國(guó)債利息的費(fèi)用就高達(dá)380億美元,這還不包括政府運(yùn)營(yíng)的成本。這超過(guò)了當(dāng)月個(gè)人所得稅收入的15%。因此,指望債務(wù)會(huì)自動(dòng)消失是不切實(shí)際的。
不斷攀升的債務(wù)會(huì)帶來(lái)切實(shí)的影響。大約10年前,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾做出了一個(gè)大膽的決定,下調(diào)了美國(guó)的債券評(píng)級(jí),“無(wú)恥地”聲稱隨著債務(wù)增加,債務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)會(huì)上升。其理念是,當(dāng)一個(gè)實(shí)體持續(xù)借款卻從未償還債務(wù)時(shí),風(fēng)險(xiǎn)會(huì)隨之增加。我記得,有位政客竟厚顏無(wú)恥地質(zhì)疑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾這樣做是否愛(ài)國(guó)。我想,無(wú)視物理學(xué)定律而讓美國(guó)債臺(tái)高筑才是愛(ài)國(guó)的表現(xiàn)吧。去年,惠譽(yù)評(píng)級(jí)將美國(guó)的債務(wù)評(píng)級(jí)從AAA下調(diào)至AA+。我想說(shuō),這位老師在評(píng)分政策上實(shí)際上是相當(dāng)寬松的。
想想一個(gè)企業(yè),甚至一個(gè)人。如果一家企業(yè)的年收入為100萬(wàn)美元,而年支出卻永遠(yuǎn)高達(dá)200萬(wàn)美元,還會(huì)有投資者愿意繼續(xù)向這家企業(yè)注資嗎?你會(huì)嗎?如果一個(gè)人年收入10萬(wàn)美元,而年支出卻永遠(yuǎn)高達(dá)12萬(wàn)美元,最終的結(jié)果會(huì)是什么?無(wú)疑是破產(chǎn)。這不僅是基本的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)原理,也是常識(shí)。
總有一天,人們會(huì)停止借錢給我們。他們會(huì)停止購(gòu)買我們的國(guó)債,而我們將無(wú)力償還所欠債務(wù)。正是在這一點(diǎn)上,事情開(kāi)始變得耐人尋味。一些生活在電子表格和模型的抽象世界里的博士聲稱,我們不必?fù)?dān)心債務(wù)問(wèn)題,因?yàn)槊涝侨蜇泿藕徒灰椎幕A(chǔ)。其他人則認(rèn)為,債務(wù)只需與國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)相比來(lái)衡量。這些觀點(diǎn)與像萬(wàn)有引力這樣簡(jiǎn)單的定律相悖:一個(gè)持續(xù)借款卻從不償還債務(wù)的實(shí)體是無(wú)法生存下去的。
削減開(kāi)支
解決方案并不復(fù)雜。我們需要削減開(kāi)支。我不知道你是怎么想的,但如果有人向我借錢,除非他們能證明自己有一定的財(cái)務(wù)約束能力,否則我是不會(huì)借錢給他們的。任何有預(yù)算的人都知道,削減開(kāi)支是件難事。這需要自律。
我指的是真正減少開(kāi)支。政客們對(duì)“削減開(kāi)支”的定義頗為滑稽。如果你每年的家庭開(kāi)支是100美元,而我要求你削減開(kāi)支,你可能會(huì)理解為將支出減少到99美元或更少。但聯(lián)邦政府所謂的“削減”實(shí)際上是降低增長(zhǎng)速度。以剛才的例子來(lái)說(shuō),這意味著如果你每年花費(fèi)100美元(實(shí)際負(fù)擔(dān)不起),并且計(jì)劃明年花費(fèi)105美元,而你同意只花費(fèi)104美元,那么你就削減了1美元。按照這樣的邏輯,我們幾近破產(chǎn)也就不足為奇了。只有聯(lián)邦政府才會(huì)用這樣的數(shù)學(xué)方法來(lái)計(jì)算。
對(duì)我們?nèi)缃竦淖h員來(lái)說(shuō),聯(lián)邦政府削減開(kāi)支幾乎是一項(xiàng)不可能完成的任務(wù),因?yàn)檫@需要采取難以置信的措施——偶爾對(duì)說(shuō)客和選民說(shuō)“不”。成立這個(gè)部門是朝著正確方向邁出的重要一步。國(guó)家必須整頓財(cái)政,因?yàn)檫t早會(huì)有人直言不諱地指出皇帝的新裝——即我們長(zhǎng)期赤字的真相。如果人們不再借錢給我們,后果將不堪設(shè)想。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
布萊恩·漢密爾頓(Brian Hamilton)創(chuàng)立了Sageworks(現(xiàn)為Abrigo公司),這是一家已被收購(gòu)的金融科技公司,旨在幫助數(shù)百萬(wàn)企業(yè)主將復(fù)雜的財(cái)務(wù)信息轉(zhuǎn)換為易于理解的內(nèi)容。他還創(chuàng)立了布萊恩·漢密爾頓基金會(huì)(Brian Hamilton Foundation)和“從囚犯到企業(yè)家”組織(Inmates to Entrepreneurs),旨在推廣所有權(quán)的力量,改變?nèi)藗兊纳?,并在美?guó)廣播公司(ABC)的獲獎(jiǎng)節(jié)目《自由企業(yè)》(Free Enterprise)中擔(dān)任主演。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Yesterday, the Trump team announced the formation of a new effort, the Department of Government Efficiency, to make the government more efficient, i.e. to cut costs and save taxpayers money. The department will be led by billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who will take “an entrepreneurial approach to government never seen before.” No matter what party you are affiliated with, this is a worthy cause.
Not since the Reagan administration (and not even really then) has this issue been seriously addressed by the federal government. Hopefully, this time, something will actually happen. Better, the effort will be run by people who have proven that they can actually do this—entrepreneurs, creators. Whether you personally like the people appointed is not material since the country will gain if the objective of the department is achieved. This is long overdue. The federal government began to grow unabated at a fast clip as far back as FDR’s administration.
The national debt hit a record $35 trillion this year. Our national debt has been growing almost continuously for at least 70 years under both parties. Despite their words, to date, politicians have zero credibility in reducing it.
National debt crisis
To put the burden of the national debt into perspective, the U.S. put $38 billion toward paying the interest on our national debt in September, the most recent month for which data is available, not even the cost of running the government. That’s more than 15% of individual income tax dollars generated that month. The hope that the debt will magically fall is nil.
The rising debt has real implications. About 10 years ago, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) had the temerity to reduce the bond rating of the United States, outrageously stating that the risk of debt goes up as the amount of debt increases. The idea is that the risk increases as an entity keeps borrowing and never pays the money back. As I recall, one politician had the gall to question the patriotism of S&P for doing so. I suppose it’s patriotic to keep spending us into a mountain of debt without any heed to physics. Last year, Fitch Ratings lowered our debt rating from AAA to AA+. I’d say the teacher is actually lenient in his/her grading policy.
Think of a business or even a person. If a business takes in $1 million in revenue and spends $2 million each year forever, who would continue to lend money to that business? Would you? If a person is making $100,000 a year and is spending $120,000 a year in perpetuity, what is the result? Bankruptcy. This is not just basic economics, it’s common sense.
At some point, people will stop lending us money; they will stop buying our debt, and we will have no means to pay back what we owe. This is where it gets interesting. Some PhDs who live in the abstract world of spreadsheets and models say we don’t have to worry about our debt because the dollar is the basis for currency and exchange in the world. Others say the debt needs to be measured only as compared to GDP. These ideas argue against a phenomenon as simple as gravity: an entity that keeps borrowing and never reduces its debt cannot survive.
Cutting expenses
The solution is not complicated. We need to cut our expenses. I don’t know about you, but I would not lend money to someone unless they proved they had a modicum of fiscal restraint. As anyone with a budget knows, it is difficult to reduce expenses. It takes discipline.
And I do mean lower expenses. Politicians have a funny definition of “cutting expenses.” If you were spending $100 a year in household expenses, and I asked you to cut them, you might think I meant to reduce expenses to, say, $99 or less. In Washington, their definition is a reduction in the rate of increase. Using the previous example, this means that if you were spending $100 a year (and could not afford that) and you planned on spending $105 next year, and you agree to only spend $104, this is a cut of $1. Using logic like that, it is no wonder we are virtually bankrupt. Only in Washington does math like that get applied.
Cutting expenses is almost impossible to do in Washington D.C. with our current crop of legislators because it would require the unthinkable—telling lobbyists and constituents “no” once in a while. The formation of this department is a step in the right direction. The country must get its fiscal house in order because it’s a matter of time before someone says rightly that the emperor has no clothes and has been naked for a long time. If people stop lending us money, it would be catastrophic.
Brian Hamilton founded Sageworks (now Abrigo), a since-acquired fintech company that helped millions of business owners translate complex financial information. He also founded the Brian Hamilton Foundation and Inmates to Entrepreneurs, promoting the power of ownership to transform lives, and starred in ABC’s award-winning show Free Enterprise.