An Interest-Rate Cut, a Bankruptcy and Other Predictions
Making predictions in a column requires balance between the provocative (and implausible) and the plausible (and dull). With that goal, here are four educated guesses about 2006.
Ben Bernanke's first interest-rate move as U.S. Federal Reserve chairman will be to cut rates.
The bald, bearded Princeton University professor-turned-White House adviser takes over from the venerated Alan Greenspan on Feb. 1. The transition has been remarkable for being unremarkable. Markets, politicians and the opinionated cadre of ex-Fed officials have blessed the choice. Mr. Bernanke aced his confirmation hearings. Now comes the hard part: (1) Avoiding quips that unintentionally move markets and undermine his credibility. And (2) moving rates the right way at the right time.
IN THE YEAR 2006
Read some economists' predictions -- from the relatively mundane or macro (interest rates) to the more personal (eating habits).
Check back Tuesday for a Q&A at WSJ.com/CapitalExchange.Mr. Greenspan is likely to push rates up a quarter percentage point before retiring. The next call is Mr. Bernanke's. Markets expect him to boost rates another notch. But with oil prices receding, and with wages rising (painfully) slowly while productivity climbs (encouragingly) briskly, inflation is barely stirring. If economic growth levels off, perhaps as air comes out of the housing bubble and consumer spending slows, Mr. Bernanke may figure that his predecessor has raised rates enough -- and leave them alone until a weakening economy some day causes him to cut rates.
A big bankruptcy will rattle the U.S., and shake political support for unfettered global trade.
Maybe it will be General Motors, maybe Ford Motor, maybe some other old, unionized industrial company. But bankruptcy court has a fatal attraction: It is a way to shed not only debt, but also union contracts and health and pension benefits negotiated by managements when profits were fatter and competition softer.
The workers who get hurt are those who played by all the rules. That doesn't sit well with the public, even with consumers who cheerfully buy Japanese cars or Chinese sweaters. The case for ever-freer trade is that it creates more winners than losers. But the politics of trade turn on the "tweeners," those Americans who neither win big nor lose big from trade, and are terrified that competition from abroad clouds their children's future. Trade statistics don't drive politicians; anxious voters do. An epochal bankruptcy could push Congress to impose tariffs or to force the Bush administration to do more than jawbone China on exchange rates or to block approval of new free-trade pacts.
Health care will emerge as a big issue in the 2006 U.S. congressional elections, forcing 2008 presidential candidates to promise action.
In 1991, neophyte politician Harris Wofford became the first Democrat to win a U.S. Senate seat from Pennsylvania in about 30 years by arguing that every American should have the right to health care. Democrats figured Mr. Wofford had identified a great issue for them. Then Bill and Hillary Clinton's health plan flopped. For more than 10 years nothing major has happened in health-care policy -- except the expansion of Medicare to cover drugs.
Public anxiety about the problem is back. Premiums are rising. Employers are shifting more of the tab to workers. The ranks of the uninsured are growing. And now big companies, which helped thwart the Clintons and shunned John Kerry's health-care proposals, are really worried. When the public and big business agree on an issue, it finds its way onto the national agenda. This mounting sense of crisis is a necessary step toward crafting a workable remedy for what ails the U.S. health-care system and building a consensus behind it. That tough task could top the next president's to-do list.
The gap between winners and losers in the U.S. will keep widening.
In a 1998 book, a colleague and I predicted technology would propel faster economic growth and a growing supply of educated workers would narrow the gap between high- and low-paid workers over the ensuing 20 years. We were right on the first, and only temporarily (in the late 1990s) right on the second. Next year won't help our case.
By nearly every measure -- the ratio of CEO wages to those of ordinary workers, the share of income going to the top fifth, differences between health and retirement benefits at the top and bottom -- inequality is growing. Why? Technology, globalization, the premium employers pay to hire the educated and workplaces where old-style loyalty is replaced by rewards for solo performance.
The politicians in charge believe resisting these forces is counterproductive or wrong. But even Mr. Greenspan, a card-carrying conservative, sees a need to do more than we are. "Equal opportunity requires equal access to knowledge," he has said. "We cannot expect everyone to be equally skilled. But we need to pursue equality of opportunity to ensure that our economic system works at maximum efficiency and is perceived as just." (Read the text of Greenspan's speech.)
2006年美国经济政治展望
在专栏文章中预测未来需要在煽动性（但不合情理）与合理性（但枯燥乏味）中间找到平衡点。在此方针指导下，我对2006年作出了如下四个有理有据的预测。
贝南克(Ben Bernanke)上任后的首个调息举措是减息
这位秃顶、蓄须的前普林斯顿大学(Princeton University)教授、现白宫(White House)顾问将在明年2月1日接替备受推崇的格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)的职务。这个过渡因为进展相当顺利而显得有些不寻常。市场、政客以及固执己见的前Fed官员们都对这个选择感到满意，贝南克在听证会上一路绿灯。现在困难来了：1)避免无意中影响市场并损害其个人威望的一语双关的措辞；2) 在合适的时间、以合适的方式调整利率。
格林斯潘可能会在退休前再将利率上调25个基点。下面就看贝南克的了。市场预计他会进一步上调利率。不过油价下跌、工资上涨缓慢而生产率却令人振奋地大幅提高，这都说明通货膨胀还没能形成气候。如果随著住房市场泡沫破裂以及消费支出减少，经济增长开始放缓，这时候贝南克或许会觉得格林斯潘加息的幅度已经足够了，然后维持利率不变，直到经济放缓促使他下调利率的那一天。
大宗破产案将震动美国并动摇全球自由贸易的政治支持
破产的也许会是通用汽车公司(General Motors)或者福特汽车公司(Ford Motor)，或是其他一些历史悠久、有工会组织的工业公司。不过破产法庭有著致命吸引力：它不单单可以帮助公司摆脱债务，还可以把管理层在利润丰厚、竞争薄弱时签订的工会合约、医疗养老福利一笔勾销。
利益受到损害的都是那些循规蹈矩的员工。这令公众不快，即便对那些乐于购买日本汽车或中国运动衫的消费者来说也不是什么好事。完全开放贸易确实创造出更多的成功者，但是贸易的政治化却对“中间人”不利，他们是那些从贸易中既得不到太多好处、也不会遭受太大损失的美国人，他们害怕来自国外的竞争会影响其子女的未来。贸易数字不会让政客们大动肝火，只会让普通的选民焦虑不堪。前所未有的大破产案将会促使国会征收关税，或者迫使布什政府在中国的汇率问题上加大施压力度，也可能会阻挠审议新的自由贸易协定。
医疗保险将成为2006年美国国会选举的主要议题
在1991年，政坛新人哈里斯?沃福德(Harris Wofford)成为30年来宾夕法尼亚州第一位当选美国参议员的民主党人，他成功的关键就是宣扬所有美国人都有权享受医疗保险。民主党人意识到沃福德为他们找到了一个绝妙的突破口。不过后来比尔?克林顿(Bill Clinton)和希拉里?克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的医疗改革计划以失败告终。十多年来，医疗保险政策没有发生任何大的变革，只是在美国老年保健医疗制度(Medicare)中加入了药费。
如今，公众又开始对这个问题感到不安。保险费用在增加；雇主将更多的保险负担转嫁到员工身上；没有保险的人越来越多。如今曾阻挠克林顿政府、回避克里(John Kerry)医疗保险提议的大公司开始忧心忡忡。当公众和大公司为一个问题取得了共识，那么迟早它将被提上国家的议事日程。这种愈加强烈的危机感是为病痛缠身的美国医疗保健制度找到良药并建立共识的必要准备。这个艰巨的任务也许会成为下届总统最重要的工作。
美国贫富差距将继续拉大
一位同事和我曾在1998年的一本书中写道：今后20年，科技将促进经济更快发展，受教育员工数量的增多将令员工工资的差距缩小。我们的第一句话没错，而第二句只是暂时（20世纪90年代末）应验，明年的情况恐怕不是如此。从几乎所有方面看──首席执行长和普通工人的薪资比例、高层薪资占薪资总额的比例、高层和普通员工在医疗、退休福利上的差距──收入的不平等都在加剧。为什么呢？科技的发展、经济全球化、雇主支付给有能力员工的奖金、传统的忠诚度被个人表现获得的回报所取代──这都是原因所在。
执政官员认为对抗这种潮流得不偿失或者不明智，但是连公认的保守主义者格林斯潘都认为有必要采取更多行动了。他曾表示，“教育机会平等是机会均等的前提，我们不能奢望所有人都接受同样教育，但是我们要以机会均等为目标，这样我们的经济系统才最高效、最公平。”
