專欄英國經濟

How unruly economists can agree

If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion. The “battle of the letters” – two letters in the FT, from Lord Skidelsky and others and Lord Layard and others, replying to a letter in the Sunday Times from Professor Tim Besley and others – brings this hoary joke to mind.

Thus, the Sunday Times letter argued that “the government's goal should be to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over the course of a parliament”, instead of the two planned by the government. In response, opponents argued that it would be foolish to slash the structural deficit if this led to a deeper recession and so to an offsetting rise in the cyclical deficit.

Yet both groups might be right. A book on inter-generational (in)equity by David Willetts, a Conservative shadow minister, and the green budget from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have clarified the issues for me: the answer lies in the growth.

您已閱讀18%(941字),剩餘82%(4245字)包含更多重要資訊,訂閱以繼續探索完整內容,並享受更多專屬服務。
版權聲明:本文版權歸FT中文網所有,未經允許任何單位或個人不得轉載,複製或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵權必究。

馬丁•沃爾夫

馬丁•沃爾夫(Martin Wolf) 是英國《金融時報》副主編及首席經濟評論員。爲嘉獎他對財經新聞作出的傑出貢獻,沃爾夫於2000年榮獲大英帝國勳爵位勳章(CBE)。他是牛津大學納菲爾德學院客座研究員,並被授予劍橋大學聖體學院和牛津經濟政策研究院(Oxonia)院士,同時也是諾丁漢大學特約教授。自1999年和2006年以來,他分別擔任達佛斯(Davos)每年一度「世界經濟論壇」的特邀評委成員和國際傳媒委員會的成員。2006年7月他榮獲諾丁漢大學文學博士;在同年12月他又榮獲倫敦政治經濟學院科學(經濟)博士榮譽教授的稱號。

相關文章

相關話題

設置字型大小×
最小
較小
默認
較大
最大
分享×