作者 |
7000亿救市被否,在美经济博士生来讲讲美国金融危机 |
|
所跟贴 |
兄台看看这张图吧 Libor rate -- theoretical - (113 Byte) 2008-10-02 周四, 13:57 (652 reads) |
天凉好个哈糗
头衔: 海归上校 声望: 教授
加入时间: 2006/03/27 文章: 731
海归分: 69072
|
|
作者:天凉好个哈糗 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
I completely understand the visceral anger that many Americans feel about the situation we're in. I'm sick over the fact that its come to this. But this is what it's come to. We would be foolish, as Americans, to destroy our long-term economic prosperity just to satisfy our righteous anger with Wall Street.
One major point? This is like the old Fram oil filter commercial line "Pay me now or pay me later." As this study points out, the tax payers and citizens of the US (and the world) are going to pay for this crisis in one way or another. Either a major recession (with high and persistent unemployment), reduced incomes and tax collections or a collective efforts to stabilize the banking system. The costs of inaction are much higher. It is not a matter of cost or no cost. We are going to have to pay in one form or another.
One crucial lesson stands out: speed matters. This is obvious to anyone who followed Japan's dithering in the 1990s; standing aside and hoping the problem goes away is not a good idea. Relatedly, "forbearance" --regulatory indulgence, such as permitting insolvent banks to continue in business-- does not work, as has been established in earlier research. As the authors say, "The typical result of forbearance is a deeper hole in the net worth of banks, crippling tax burdens to finance bank bailouts, and even more severe credit supply contraction and economic decline than would have occurred in the absence of forbearance." This suggests that suspending mark-to-market requirements is not a good idea.
作者:天凉好个哈糗 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
返回顶端 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|