重振美國經濟需要兩黨合作

If the FederalReserve is right, the rapid growth that defined the economy of postwar Americais over.

如果美聯儲(Fed)是對的，那麼定義戰後美國經濟的快速增長已成過去。

The central bankhas once more lowered long-run expectations, with the US economy of the futureprojected to grow about half as fast as the economy of the past 70 years.

這家美國央行已經再次下調了長期預測，預計未來美國經濟增速將是過去70年的一半左右。

This in turn meansa slower increase in our standard of living.

這進而意味着我們的生活水平提高速度將放緩。

It is a threat tothe quintessential American notion that every generation will be better offthan the previous one.

這威脅到了典型的美國觀念：一代更比一代強。

It is also one ofthe biggest challenges for the next president.

這也是下屆美國總統將要面臨的最大挑戰之一。

So which party isbest placed to address the problem? As a life-long Republican, I believe myparty generally has better policies for prosperity, but I have never believedgood economic policy is our exclusive prerogative.

那麼，哪個政黨最適合解決這個問題呢？作爲一位終身共和黨人，我認爲，總體而言，我所在的政黨有着更好的繁榮政策，但我從不認爲好的經濟政策是我們黨專屬的特權。

In fact, I thinkAmerica’s remarkable postwar growth rests in part on bipartisan commitment tothe notion that, as President John Kennedy put it, a rising tide lifts allboats.

實際上，我認爲，美國在戰後引人注目的增長，在一定程度上源於兩黨都奉行前總統約翰.肯尼迪(John Kennedy)所稱的水漲船高這個理念。

This makes anemerging debate among the left all the more important: is slow growth the newnormal? Or should we focus our efforts on boosting output?

這讓左翼陣營內部的最新辯論變得更爲重要：增長緩慢是新常態嗎？抑或我們應該注重提高產出？

Lawrence Summers,Treasury secretary to Bill Clinton and a former adviser to President BarackObama, has argued in the Financial Times for the latter.

曾在比爾.克林頓(Bill Clinton)執政時期擔任財長、還曾擔任巴拉克.奧巴馬(Barack Obama)顧問的勞倫斯.薩默斯(Lawrence Summers)在英國《金融時報》撰文支持後者。

The objective ofincreasing growth, he laments, has been discredited in the minds of too manyprogressives.

他哀嘆道，提高增速的目標在太多進步人士的心目中變得不可信。

By contrast PaulKrugman, the economist and New York Times columnist, seems more at peace withslow growth.

相比之下，經濟學家、《紐約時報》專欄作家保羅.克魯格曼(Paul Krugman)對於增長緩慢似乎更爲平靜。

He invokes theserenity prayer — more often associated with 12-step programmes than economies— to suggest that boosting long-term growth is something we just do not knowhow to do.

他引用寧靜禱告——在更多情況下被人與12步計劃（通過一套規定指導原則的行爲課程來治療上癮、強迫症和其他行爲習慣問題的項目——譯者注）聯繫起來，而非經濟學——表明，我們不可能知道如何提高長期增速。

Grant me theserenity to accept the things I cannot change, he writes, courage to change thethings I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

賜予我寧靜去接受那些我無法改變的事情，他寫道，賜予我勇氣去改變那些我能改變的事情，賜予我智慧去辨別兩者的差別。

In Capital inthe Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty sounds even more downcast.

在《21世紀資本論》(Capital in theTwenty-First Century)一書中，托馬斯.皮凱蒂(Thomas Piketty)聽上去更爲悲觀。

For nations suchas the US, he writes: There is ample reason to believe that the growth ratewill not exceed 1-1.5 per cent in the long run, no matter what economicpolicies are adopted.

對於美國等國而言，他寫道：有充足的理由認爲，不管實施何種經濟政策，長期增速都不會超過1%至1.5%。

This is not aminor dispute of interest only to cloistered intellectuals.

這並非只有與世隔絕的知識分子才感興趣的雞毛蒜皮的爭議。

It hasimplications for every American.

它對所有美國人都具有潛在影響。

The reality isthat no single policy will return us to postwar growth.

現實是，沒有一種政策會讓我們恢復戰後的經濟增速。

That was fuelledin part by the baby boom and the entry of women into the workforce.

那時的增長在一定程度上受到嬰兒潮以及女性進入勞動大軍的推動。

It was not simplyincreased consumer demand but, more important, the human capital of all ofthese inventors, entrepreneurs and workers that made our economy stronger.

讓我們的經濟變得更爲強大的不僅僅是消費需求擴大，更重要的是所有這些發明家、企業家和勞動者構成的人力資本。

In future, bycontrast, an ageing population will be supported by a shrinking workforce.

相比之下，未來勞動力將日益縮減，同時人口老齡化。

To offset thisdemographic challenge and raise our standard of living, our economy has tobecome more productive.

要抵消這種人口結構挑戰並提高我們的生活水平，我們的經濟必須提高效益。

This will requireincreased public investment, especially in infrastructure, education andskills; tax reform that cuts rates, and reduced regulation.

這需要擴大公共投資，特別是在基礎設施、教育和技能方面；降低稅率的稅收改革；以及減少監管。

In other words, weneed a mix of policies, some principally championed by Democrats, some byRepublicans.

換句話說，我們需要一個政策組合，其中一些政策主要得到民主黨的支持，還有一些得到共和黨的支持。

For example,Hillary Clinton is to be commended for her focus on infrastructure and skillstraining.

例如希拉里.克林頓(Hillary Clinton)注重基礎設施和技能培訓，這值得稱道。

Similarly, DonaldTrump is right to focus on cutting red tape and making the tax code competitiveagain.

類似的，唐納德.特朗普(Donald Trump)關注於減少官僚程序和讓稅法再次變得有競爭力，這是正確的。

Unfortunately, wehear too little from Mr Trump on closing the skills gap and too little from MrsClinton on reforming our tax code.

不幸的是，我們從特朗普那裏聽到的有關彌補技能缺口的言論過少，從希拉里那裏聽到的有關改革我國稅法的言論過少。

There is much tolament about the 2016 presidential campaign and the gridlock in Washington.

對於2016年總統競選以及華盛頓的僵局，我們有很多事情可以埋怨。

America wouldbenefit greatly from healthy competition between the parties on the best way torevive our economy.

美國將大大受益於兩黨之間圍繞重振經濟的最佳方式展開的健康競爭。

We are unlikely toexperience this if they are fundamentally split on the objectives of policy.

如果他們在政策目標方面存在根本分歧，這種好處就不太可能成爲現實。

Which is why thisRepublican is rooting for pro-growth forces to prevail in this intra-Democraticdebate.

正因如此，我這個共和黨人支持促增長的力量在這場民主黨內部辯論中佔上風。

America’sprosperity may depend on the outcome.

美國的繁榮可能取決於辯論結果。