也許我們該認真考慮社會主義

By Noah Smith

‎2018‎年‎10月‎26‎日‎ ‎下午‎ ‎08‎:‎00



當川普總統的經濟顧問委員會，發布了一份長達55頁的報告，名為『社會主義的機會成本』，很多經濟學家嗤之以鼻。但這份報告很重要，因為顯示出一個大的、系統的經濟構面再度被考慮。也為當中重要的討論提供了一個有趣的起點。

二十年前，資本主義似乎決定性地贏得思想戰。蘇聯解體、毛澤東統治中國下的赤貧、越共、北韓，在在清楚顯示社會主義的極端是場災難。但即使在非共產主義的國家，試圖以制度、國有化、以及重新分配的方法，也遭受極大挫敗。拉吉證，印度一個嚴厲的商業法規系統，已經被廢除，該國的成長馬上突飛猛進。而在英國，私有化以及市場導向的改革措施彌補了損失。瑞典的財政體制不那麼先進，北歐國家則對其勞動市場法規大力改革。

但隨著美國等國家的收入與財富日漸不平等，以及全球各地的民粹主義與對政治的不滿，使各國陷入困境，一些人開始在質疑冷戰結束時的共識。民調顯示，越來越多的美國年輕人對傾向『社會主義』這個詞。

褪色記憶？

不同年齡層對資本主義和社會主義的看法

公開地持社會主義政見的候選人開始贏得美國的一些選舉，並且呼籲終結資本主義開始在主流媒體頻繁出現。

應該以這個角度來看待CEA的這份報告。代表同意或反對社會主義的人開始再度認真考慮這個觀點。全球的問題不只是不平等、還有產量的遲滯、以及氣候改變的威脅，該是時候提出是否能推動大型的系統改革。

CEA報告顯示出有多久沒討論過這樣的議題。1980年出版的，由米爾頓和玫瑰合著的『自由選擇』，提出對社會主義的一個關鍵性解釋。從那時起，經濟學明顯轉向左翼，但大多數經濟學家，現在多關注分眾高度特定的話題，而不是政治經濟的整個構面。會花時間思考社會主義，資本主義以及其他非常重要想法的人，更可能多為Teen Vogue或推特上的作者。希望CEA的報告，能夠激勵更多經濟學家，這群人往往擁有更多的經驗知識與理論的深度。

雖然這開啟一個重要的對話，但這份報告做得並不好，沒有清楚陳述各種形式的社會主義。它所引用的一些例子特別不適用於現在的社會，它忽略很多對政府角色擴大有利的證明。

例如，這份報告指出集體化農業是社會主義失敗的一個很明顯的例子。集體化農業確實是一項災難性政策，基本上所有嘗試過的地方都失敗了，導致大規模的飢荒與死亡。但在西方的現代社會主義者，很聰明跳過這個，卻指向保險或可能是財務國有化。

很多國家都有社會化的醫療保險比方法國，加拿大和日本。 政府醫療保險的成本和收益不必假設，可以被觀察到。美國的保險制度是公營民營混合，完全一樣的醫療服務，要比其他富裕國家付出更多的錢，得到的結果卻是類似的。同時，美國最大的政府醫療保險體系，Medicare，把價格壓到比私人醫療保險更低：

不喜歡什麼？

所以從健保來看，社會主義不見得不好。幾十年來，經濟學家了解到這或許是個例子。多虧獨特的資料問題、不完整的市場、以及健保產業涉及很多因素。

CEA報告討論到政府健保的概念，也認為代價太昂貴。爭論點仍在所謂的『新古典成長模型』，認為高的收得稅用來支付國家健保 會大大減低工作的意願。 但用這個模型預估稅收影響，已被證實會誤導。它往往誇大稅收的負面影響，遠超過經濟學家實際觀察到的。

這份報告值得注意的地方。儘管自20世紀70年代以來全球很多經濟體開放，但富裕國家的公共社會支出卻在增加：

有誰要小而美的政府嗎？

已開發與開發中國家，人均經濟增長與政府支出之間存在很強的相關性。國家越富裕，政府從GDP所得的支出就會越多。

這不代表政府花錢會讓國家更有錢。而是它建議隨著國家越來越富裕，人民對政府會有更多期望 – 健保，兒童照護，教育以及其他生活品質的服務。CEA報告主要在看，所增加的社會支出沒有產值，如果富裕國家刪減，就會更有盈餘。這些論點已經存在幾十年，已開發國家沒有要放棄健保的跡象。如果有的話，也是美國支持全民健保的聲浪在增加：

這不像食物

所以儘管CEA報告在某些方面有幫助 - 重新開啟對社會主義的辯論，並警告反對集體農業與共產革命 - 但並沒有正中現今美國社會主義的核心議題。說服美國人放棄政府實施健保的想法，以及增加社會支出，對川普政府會是場艱苦的奮鬥。

原文連結

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-28/u-s-trade-deficit-with-china-shows-america-s-strength

Maybe we should Take Socialism Seriously

by Noah Smith

‎2018‎年‎10月‎26‎日‎ ‎下午‎ ‎08‎:‎00

When President Donald Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers released a 55-page report called “The Opportunity Costs of Socialism,” many economists scoffed. But the report is important, because it shows that big, systemic economic issues are again being considered. And it provides an interesting jumping-off point for those important discussions.

Two decades ago, it seemed as if capitalism had decisively won the battle of ideas. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the grinding poverty of Mao’s China and communist Vietnam and North Korea clearly demonstrated that the most extreme versions of socialism were disastrous. But even in non-communist countries, attempts at regulation, nationalization and redistribution suffered big setbacks. The License Raj, a system of heavy-handed business regulations in India, was repealed, and the country’s growth leapt ahead. Privatizations and other market-oriented reforms in the U.K. helped the British economy make up ground it had lost. Sweden made its fiscal system much less progressive, and North European countries deeply reformed their labor market regulations.

But as inequality of income and wealth steadily rise in countries like the U.S., and as populism and political discontent roil nations across the globe, some are beginning to question the consensus that emerged at the end of the Cold War. Polls show an increasing number of young Americans responding favorably to the word “socialism”:

A Fading Memory?

Perceptions of capitalism and socialism by age group

Openly socialist candidates are starting to win a few elections in the U.S., and calls to end capitalism are starting to appear in the mainstream news media with increasing frequency.

The CEA’s new report should be seen in this light. It’s an indication that both socialism’s proponents and its opponents have begun to take the idea seriously again. With the world troubled not just by inequality but also by productivity stagnation and the threat of climate change, it’s time to ask whether there are big systemic improvements that could be made.

The CEA report shows just how long it has been since such a discussion was held. A key explanation of socialism is taken from “Free to Choose,” a 1980 book by Milton and Rose Friedman. The economics profession has shifted decidedly to the left since those days, but most economists now concern themselves with highly specific topics rather than the grand sweep of political-economic systems. The people spending their time thinking about socialism, capitalism and other really big ideas are now more likely to be the writers of Teen Vogue or activists on Twitter. Let’s hope the CEA report will prod more economists, who tend to have more empirical knowledge and theoretical depth, to think bigger.

But although it’s an important conversation starter, the report doesn’t do a good job of comprehensively debunking socialism in all its forms. Some of the examples it invokes are particularly inapplicable to the modern day, and it overlooks much of the evidence in favor of an expanded role for government.

For instance, the report highlights collectivized agriculture as a prominent example of a socialist failure. Collectivized farming is indeed a disastrous policy, failing essentially everywhere it has been tried, and leading to widespread famine and death. But modern-day socialists in Western countries are — wisely — not calling for this. Instead, the industries they want to nationalize are health care and (possibly) finance.

Socialized health insurance exists in many countries — for example, France, Canada, and Japan. The costs and benefits of government health insurance systems don’t have to be assumed — they can be observed. The U.S., with its unique hybrid of public and private insurance, pays much more than other rich countries for the exact same medical services — and achieves similar health outcomes. Meanwhile, the U.S. biggest government health insurance system, Medicare, holds down prices much more effectively than its private counterparts:

What's Not to Like?

Index of per enrollee costs for comparable health-care benefits*

So when it comes to health insurance, socialism doesn’t look too bad. Economists have realized for many decades that this might be the case, thanks to the unique information problems, incomplete markets and moral considerations involved in the health-care industry.

The CEA report discusses the idea of government health care, and dismisses it as too costly. Its argument rests on what’s known as a neoclassical growth model, which concludes that high income taxes — which would be required to pay for national health insurance — do a great deal to discourage work. But using this type of model to estimate the effect of taxes has proven misleading in the past — it tends to overstate the negative impact of taxes much more than economists actually observe.

The report is also noteworthy for what it leaves out. Despite liberalization of many economies around the world since the 1970s, public social spending has increased in rich countries:

Does Anyone Really Want Small Government?

Country social spending as a share of gross domestic product

Across developed and developing countries, there’s a strong correlation between per-capita economic growth and government spending — the richer a country is, the more of its GDP gets spent by government.

This doesn’t mean that government spending is what makes countries get rich. Instead, it suggests that as countries become wealthier, people demand more from their governments — health care, child care, education and other services that improve their lives. The CEA report essentially argues that this increased social spending is counterproductive, and that if rich countries gave it up, they’d be even richer. Such arguments have been made for decades, and developed nations show no sign of giving up their health-care systems. If anything, support for universal health care has been rising in the U.S. as well:

This Isn't Like Food

So while the CEA report is helpful in some respects — reopening the debate about socialism, and warning against collective agriculture and communist revolutions — it doesn’t do a great job of rebutting the centerpiece of the modern-day American socialist agenda. Convincing Americans to abandon the idea of government health insurance, and of increased social spending in general, will be an uphill battle for the Trump administration.