2024年8月5日周一 美国大选AI日志，第二十二篇
距离投票日92天
标题要闻
法官裁定谷歌是垄断者，裁决是现代互联网时代第一起针对科技巨头的反垄断裁决，具有里程碑意义。 “Google Is a Monopolist。” Judge rules in Landmark Anititrust. 哈里斯将8月6日上午公布副总统候选人，并计划本周与她的竞选搭档开始访问关键州。 Harris is set to unveil V.P. choice by Tuesday Morning, then, plan to begin a tour of battleground states with her running mate this week.
美国股市出现近两年来最大单日跌幅
受美国经济放缓报道影响，亚洲和欧洲股市大幅下跌，美国股市也随之下跌。标准普尔 500 指数下跌 3%，为 2022 年 9 月以来的最大单日跌幅。此次下跌使该指数较 7 月份的历史高点下跌 8.5%，但 2024 年总体仍上涨8.7%。
（中文由ChatGPT4o根据原文提炼缩写）
许多美国人被告知他们处于糖尿病前期，通过改变生活方式可以预防糖尿病。同样，美国经济虽然尚未进入衰退，但显示出“衰退前期”的迹象，需要联邦储备局（美联储）采取紧急行动。近期经济数据表明，经济正在走弱，失业率上升，消费者信心恶化。美联储本应更早降息，现在必须在九月中旬的会议上大幅降息以防止经济衰退。萨姆规则由近期失业数据触发，暗示衰退可能即将来临，尽管一些经济学家认为情况并没有那么严重。消费者信心调查和像亚马逊这样的公司表现出的谨慎行为进一步加剧了对经济疲软的担忧。
美联储在应对2021-2022年通胀时大幅加息，这在当时是合理的。然而，随着通胀稳步下降，美联储迟迟未降息变得问题重重。这一拖延部分由于误导的2024年初通胀数据，导致了不必要的经济痛苦。尽管面临潜在的政治反弹，特别是在即将到来的总统选举中，美联储必须优先考虑经济需求。降息将支持经济并防止可避免的衰退，不论政治影响如何。
总之，美联储需要果断行动，大幅降低利率。拖延行动可能会危及最近的经济成果并导致不必要的困境。长期以来，尽管利率非常高，我们的经济仍然表现得相当稳健；但现在开始显露裂痕。美联储不应让政治考量掩盖经济稳定的迫切需要。
转载自《The New York Times》Aug 5, 2024
The Economy Is Looking Pre-Recessionary
Paul Krugman.
As an American of a certain age, I know quite a few people who’ve been warned by their doctors that they’re prediabetic. That is, their blood sugar is sufficiently elevated to put them at risk of Type 2 diabetes, even though they aren’t yet showing any symptoms. The good news is that they can greatly reduce that risk by losing weight, improving their diet and getting more exercise. But they need to take action quickly to avoid serious health problems.
No, this isn’t a medical advice column. But I found myself thinking about medical analogies when looking at recent economic data. The United States probably (probably) hasn’t entered a recession yet. But the economy is definitely looking pre-recessionary. And policymakers — which right now basically means the Federal Reserve — need to move quickly to head off the risks of serious economic deterioration.
It’s already clear that the Fed made a mistake by not cutting rates last week; indeed, it probably should have begun cutting months ago. Unfortunately, we can’t turn back the clock. But the Fed’s open market committee, which sets short-term interest rates, can and should make a substantial cut — probably half a percentage point, rather than its usual quarter-point — at its next meeting, scheduled for mid-September.
And we can only hope that the recent plunge in long-term interest rates, which reflects expectations of future Fed cuts, will be enough to avert a gratuitous economic slump.
Why do I say that the economy looks pre-recessionary? The most important factor is the unemployment rate, which has been gradually trending up over the past few months. Friday’s employment report triggered the Sahm rule, which says that a sufficiently large rise in the unemployment rate is a strong indication that a recession has started. Many economists, including Claudia Sahm, who devised the rule, believe that for a variety of technical reasons things may not be as dire as they look. But even so, the situation is worrisome.
It’s not just the official data. Private surveys and general buzz also point to a softening economy. The appraisal of the labor market by consumers surveyed by the Conference Board has deteriorated, Amazon has warned that consumers seem cautious, and so on. None of this screams recession, but it does point to a rising risk of a near-future recession.
Am I 100 percent sure that we’ll have a recession unless the Fed moves quickly to cut rates? Of course not — nothing is certain in economics, or in life more generally. But policymakers who wait for perfect certainty before acting will always move too late.
So how did we get to this point? The Fed increased interest rates a lot in response to the 2021-22 surge in inflation. I didn’t oppose that move; I don’t think the Fed had a choice, given the perceived risk that inflation might become entrenched in the economy the way it did in the 1970s.
By the second half of 2023, however, it was clear that fears of a return to that ’70s show were misplaced; inflation was coming down steadily without the years of high unemployment some economists wrongly claimed would be necessary.
But the Fed didn’t respond to falling inflation by cutting interest rates, seemingly unwilling to act until it was sure inflation was back to target. (Another example of how waiting for perfect certainty guarantees that you’ll move too late.) To some extent, the Fed may have been the victim of a statistical head-fake: Official numbers showed rising monthly inflation in early 2024, but as I wrote at the time, this looked more like noise in the data rather than anything that really happened.
Beyond that, however, it’s hard to escape the sense that the Fed has to some extent been paralyzed by inflation PTSD. Having faced harsh criticism for moving too slowly to raise rates when inflation began rising a few years ago, it may have compensated by failing to cut rates when inflation began to fall. For a long time, our economy held up remarkably well despite very high interest rates; now the cracks are starting to show.
What’s especially galling about the current situation is that we may be about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As of right now, America has basically achieved what many economists had considered impossible: a soft landing, in which we managed to get inflation way down without high unemployment. But we are increasingly at risk of experiencing a lot of unnecessary pain simply because the pilot waited too long to pull up the plane’s nose.
One more thing: If the Fed cuts rates in September, it will probably face a firestorm of criticism from Republicans accusing it of trying to help Kamala Harris defeat Donald Trump in the presidential election. And yes, a rate cut would probably help Democrats, largely because it would help drive home how successful America has been in bringing inflation under control.
But politics shouldn’t, and I hope won’t, affect the Fed’s decision. For the fact is that the economic case for major rate cuts is overwhelming; the Fed would be acting politically if it didn’t respond to that economic case simply because the election is looming.
保罗·克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)是纽约时报（The New York Times），自由派政治观点，他因在国际贸易和经济地理方面的成就获得2008年诺贝尔经济学奖。
