Colin Barr 2011年07月20日




    Goldman Sachs, which just seven months ago was the loudest voice for a stronger than expected U.S. recovery, now expects U.S. output to creep ahead at a snaillike 1.5% clip in the second quarter and a less than vigorous 2% in the third.

    Friday's call stands as quite a comedown for economist Jan Hatzius, who in May forecast a 2% expansion in the second quarter and a 3.25% gain in the third quarter – numbers that themselves represented a retreat from the firm's bullish start-of-the-year forecast.



    当然经济不会只是因为预测降级就走下坡路,但是,我们有充分的理由相信一个深层次隐患已然发作:上个月消费者信心“一落千丈”,美国银行(Bank of America)经济师乔治瓦•丹纳雷周五在给他客户的信中写道,最近的数据显示这一指数已跌落近20个百分点。这让消费者信心指数倒退至2009年的水平。当时花旗银行(Citi C)濒临倒闭,美国股市价格仅有现在的一半。





    如果衰退的确来临,美联储(Federal Reserve)可能会实施新一轮的刺激计划,尽管本•伯南克已经对故伎重演感到十分厌倦。




    因此,不管预测结果如何, 9%的失业率将持续很长一段时间。如果说求职者等不到什么好消息,那再想想经济学家们吧,他们今年的日子更不好过。伯南克和哈特久斯共同纠结的问题在于,他们的模型并没有说明到底是什么削弱了这一起初他们认为会增长的需求。常识告诉我们,一个花了将近10年形成的信贷泡沫不会轻易地在3、4年间消失得无影无踪,当然,也并没有公式证明这个常识就一定是对的。这只是郁闷的经济学家之间的不解之谜而已。




    A forecast downgrade alone doesn't spell economic downturn, of course, but there is ample reason to suspect a deeper malaise is at work: Consumer confidence fell "off a cliff" last month, Bank of America economist Joshua Dennerlein wrote in a note to clients Friday, dropping almost 20% in the most recent reading. That puts the consumer sentiment index at a level last seen in 2009, when Citi (C) was assumed to be bankrupt and the stock market fetched half its current price.

    Dennerlein wants to blame that plunge on the debt ceiling debacle, but Hatzius notes less soothingly that final sales rose at a sub-tepid 0.5% clip in the first half. That is almost always a sign of economic contraction, even when nuts in Washington aren't trying to blow up the economy for the sake of appearing "fiscally responsible."

    Double dip, here we come.

    "There is only one precedent in the postwar period for such weak demand growth outside the immediate vicinity of a recession," Hatzius writes.

    Even if we don't end up with an economic downturn, slower growth means unemployment will stay higher for longer -- which will make it hard to tell the difference. Goldman now expects joblessness to fall just slightly by the end of next year, to 8.75% from a recent 9.2%. Earlier this year the firm was predicting end-of-2012 joblessness of 8.25%, which is not exactly something to celebrate but actually looks pretty good now.

    And if a recession does take hold, it could mean another round of Federal Reserve stimulus, as much as Ben Bernanke might like to stop running that particular play.

    "If the economy returns to recession—not our forecast, but clearly a possibility given the recent numbers—Fed officials would undoubtedly ease anew even if inflation is close to their target," Hatzius writes.

    That kind of talk marks quite a reversal for Hatzius, who last fall was among the first forecasters to throw his weight behind a stronger-than-expected U.S. recovery. He wrote in upgrading his growth forecasts last December that so-called organic economic activity, excluding government stimulus and inventory effects, was starting to lift off.

    But if that recovery was ever on track, it was derailed this spring by the surge in energy prices and the earthquake that relegated Japan to the economic sidelines for a few months. Accordingly, Goldman – which at one point was predicting U.S. output would rise at a 3.5%-4% clip this year and in 2012 – is now saying economic numbers will have to show "substantial improvement" just to keep the firm from cutting its fourth-quarter and 2012 growth forecasts.

    That could mean 9% unemployment will be here for some time, whatever forecasters claim. But if good news for job seekers is hard to come by, consider for a moment how hard this year has been for economists. One bit of frustration shared by Bernanke and Hatzius is that their models aren't saying what exactly is sapping the demand that they expected to pick up. Common sense might well dictate that a credit bubble that took the better part of a decade to build up wouldn't necessarily be squared away in just three or four years, but apparently there is no formula that says this is so. This is what passes for mystery among dismal scientists.

    "The 'bugbear' is that we are still unsure about the precise reasons for the slowdown in 2011 to date, which is sharply at odds with our expectation at the end of last year that growth would accelerate in 2011," Hatzius writes. "Logically, the explanation presumably has to involve a combination of a) unforeseen shocks from the Japan earthquake and the oil market, coupled with b) more vulnerability to these shocks, because c) the housing and credit market downturn is weighing on private-sector balance sheets for even longer than we thought. But the relative importance of these issues is exceptionally difficult to sort out, and it makes a great deal of difference for the outlook."

    Or rather, it makes no difference to the outlook. What makes a difference there is that lots of people have no money and even more lack confidence they will be employed a year from now, so no one is spending. One day economists may decide to open their eyes to these obvious truths, but not just yet. Even with the economy at stall speed and Europe on the verge of collapse, wishful thinking carries the day.