英国脱欧崩盘将使你们所有人更穷——警惕

2016 · 专栏 · 原文约 890 词
译文与英文原文逐段对齐可在本页展开英文,也可打开发布者原址核对上下文。
打开来源正文

戴维·卡梅伦,连同英国财政部、英格兰银行、国际货币基金组织以及其他机构,因夸大脱离欧盟的经济风险而受到了抨击。这种批评已被英国媒体和众多金融分析师广泛接受。结果,英国选民现在严重低估了脱欧的真正代价。

David Cameron, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and others have been attacked for exaggerating the economic risks of leaving the EU. This criticism has been widely accepted by the British media and many financial analysts. As a result, British voters are now grossly underestimating the true costs of Brexit.

太多人以为投票脱离欧盟不会影响自己的个人财务状况。这纯粹是一厢情愿。脱欧至少会带来一个非常明确且立竿见影的效果,直接影响每个家庭:英镑会急剧贬值。它还会对金融市场、投资、物价和就业产生即时而剧烈的冲击。

Too many believe that a vote to leave the EU will have no effect on their personal financial position. This is wishful thinking. It would have at least one very clear and immediate effect that will touch every household: the value of the pound would decline precipitously. It would also have an immediate and dramatic impact on financial markets, investment, prices and jobs.

鉴于脱欧公投结果的民调不断波动,我想根据自己在金融市场六十年的经验,提供一组清晰的事实,帮助投票者理解投票脱欧所带来的切实后果。

As opinion polls on the referendum result fluctuate, I want to offer a clear set of facts, based on my six decades of experience in financial markets, to help voters understand the very real consequences of a vote to leave the EU.

英格兰银行、财政研究所和国际货币基金组织都对英国退欧的长期经济后果进行了评估。他们认为,在英国退欧大约五年后,英国经济进入新的稳定状态时,每个家庭每年的收入会减少 3000 到 5000 英镑。但在公投辩论中却几乎没人提及一些更直接的财务后果。

The Bank of England, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the IMF have assessed the long-term economic consequences of Brexit. They suggest an income loss of £3,000 to £5,000 annually per-household once the British economy settles down to its new steady-state five years or so after Brexit. But there are some more immediate financial consequences that have hardly been mentioned in the referendum debate.

首先,如果脱欧公投通过,英镑几乎肯定会大幅快速下跌。我预计这次贬值的幅度将比 1992 年 9 月那次 15% 的贬值更大,破坏性也更强——当时我幸运地以英国央行和英国政府为代价,为自己的对冲基金投资者赚取了巨额利润。

To start off, sterling is almost certain to fall steeply and quickly if leave wins the referendum. I would expect this devaluation to be bigger and also more disruptive than the 15% devaluation that occurred in September 1992, when I was fortunate enough to make a substantial profit for my hedge fund investors, at the expense of the Bank of England and the British government.

基于当前市场价格所隐含的预期,可以合理推测,一旦英国脱欧公投通过,英镑将从目前的 1.46 美元水平至少下跌 15%,甚至可能超过 20%,跌至 1.15 美元以下——这比公投前 1.50 至 1.60 美元的交易区间低了 25% 至 30%。如果英镑跌至这一水平,那么讽刺的是,一英镑将约等于一欧元——这种“加入欧元区”的方式,英国没人会想要。

It is reasonable to assume, given the expectations implied by the market pricing at present, that after a Brexit vote the pound would fall by at least 15% and possibly more than 20%, from its present level of $1.46 to below $1.15 (which would be between 25% and 30% below its pre-referendum trading range of $1.50 to $1.60). If sterling fell to this level, then ironically one pound would be worth about one euro – a method of “joining the euro” that nobody in Britain would want.

英国脱欧派似乎意识到脱欧后英镑大幅贬值几乎不可避免,但他们辩称这反而是健康的,尽管这意味着英国家庭的购买力会遭受巨大损失。1992 年的那次货币贬值确实对英国经济起到了很大的帮助作用,事后我甚至因为在推动贬值过程中扮演的角色而受到赞扬。

Brexiters seem to recognize that a sharp devaluation would be almost inevitable after Brexit, but argue that this would be healthy, despite the big losses of purchasing power for British households. In 1992 the devaluation actually proved very helpful to the British economy, and subsequently I was even praised for my role in helping to bring it about.

但我认为 1992 年的情况不会重演。那次贬值是健康的,因为汇率机制失效后,政府无需再用破坏性的高利率去“保卫”被高估的英镑。这次,大幅贬值的后果将远不及 1992 年那样温和,至少有三个理由。

But I don’t think the 1992 experience would be repeated. That devaluation was healthy because the government was relieved of its obligation to “defend” an overvalued pound with damagingly high interest rates after the breakdown of the exchange rate mechanism. This time, a large devaluation would be much less benign than in 1992, for at least three reasons.

首先,英国央行不会在英国脱欧导致货币贬值后降息(不像 1992 年和 2008 年大幅贬值后那样),因为利率已经处于与英国银行稳定相适应的最低水平。顺便提一句,这是另一个令人担忧英国脱欧的原因。因为如果脱欧后房价下跌和失业导致经济衰退(这很有可能发生),那么货币政策在刺激经济、抵消随之而来的需求损失方面将几乎起不了什么作用。

First, the Bank of England would not cut interest rates after a Brexit devaluation (as it did in 1992 and also after the large devaluation of 2008) because interest rates are already at the lowest level compatible with the stability of British banks. That, incidentally, is another reason to worry about Brexit. For if a fall in house prices and loss of jobs causes a recession after Brexit, as is likely, there will be very little that monetary policy can do to stimulate the economy and counteract the consequent loss of demand.

其次,英国目前拥有非常大的经常账户赤字——相对而言,比 1992 年或 2008 年时都要大得多。事实上,英国对外国资本的依赖程度比历史上任何时候都高。正如英国央行行长马克·卡尼所说,英国“依赖陌生人的善意”。1992 年和 2008 年的货币贬值鼓励了更多资本流入,尤其是流入住宅和商业地产,同时也包括制造业投资。但脱欧之后,资本流动几乎肯定会转向相反方向,尤其是在英国与一个始终是、而且可能仍将是其最大贸易和投资伙伴的地区谈判离婚条款的两年不确定期内。

Second, the UK now has a very large current account deficit much larger, relatively, than in 1992 or 2008. In fact Britain is more dependent than at any time in history on foreign capital. As the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said, Britain “depends on the kindness of strangers”. The devaluations of 1992 and 2008 encouraged greater capital inflows, especially into residential and commercial property, but also into manufacturing investments. But after Brexit, the capital flows would almost certainly move the other way, especially during the two-year period of uncertainty while Britain negotiates its terms of divorce with a region that has always been and presumably will remain its biggest trading and investment partner.

第三,公投脱欧后的货币贬值不太可能像 1992 年之后那样带来制造业出口的改善,因为贸易环境过于不确定,英国企业不敢进行新投资、增加雇佣或扩大出口能力。

Third, a post-Brexit devaluation is unlikely to produce the improvement in manufacturing exports seen after 1992, because trading conditions would be too uncertain for British businesses to undertake new investments, hire more workers or otherwise add to export capacity.

基于上述原因,我认为这次贬值会更像 1967 年那次——当时哈罗德·威尔逊(Harold Wilson)说出了那句名言:“你口袋里的英镑并没有贬值”,但英国人民不同意他的说法,他们很快发现自己真实的生活水平在下降。与此同时,那些金融投机者——当时被称作“苏黎世侏儒”——却在以英国为代价大赚其钱。如今,市场中的投机力量比那时更庞大、更凶猛。他们会迫不及待地利用英国政府或英国选民犯下的任何误判。退欧会让某些人变得非常富有,但会让大多数选民变得更加贫穷。

For all these reasons I believe the devaluation this time would be more like the one in 1967, when Harold Wilson famously declared that “the pound in your pocket has not been devalued”, but the British people disagreed with him, quickly noticing that their true living standards were going down. Meanwhile financial speculators, back then called the Gnomes of Zurich, were making large profits at Britain’s expense. Today, there are speculative forces in the markets much bigger and more powerful. And they will be eager to exploit any miscalculations by the British government or British voters. Brexit would make some people very rich but most voters considerably poorer.

我希望人们能在投票前就了解脱欧的后果,而不是等到投票之后。如果投票决定脱欧,那个周末可能会迎来一个“黑色星期五”,给普通民众带来严重后果。

I want people to know what the consequences of leaving the EU would be before they cast their votes, rather than after. A vote to leave could see the week end with a Black Friday, and serious consequences for ordinary people.