The Two Economies

By DAVID BROOKS

The creative dynamism of American business is astounding and a little terrifying. Over the past five years, amid turmoil and uncertainty, American businesses have shed employees, becoming more efficient and more productive. According to The Wall Street Journal on Monday, the revenue per employee at S.&P. 500 companies increased from $378,000 in 2007 to $420,000 in 2011.

These efficiency gains are boosting the American economy overall and American exports in particular. Two years ago, President Obama promised to double exports over the next five years. The U.S. might actually meet that target. As Tyler Cowen reports in a fantastic article in The American Interest called “What Export-Oriented America Means,” American exports are surging.

Cowen argues that America’s export strength will only build in the years ahead. He points to three trends that will boost the nation’s economic performance. First, smart machines. China and other low-wage countries have a huge advantage when factory floors are crowded with workers. But we are moving to an age of quiet factories, with more robots and better software. That reduces the importance of wage rates. It boosts American companies that make software and smart machines.

Then there is the shale oil and gas revolution. In the past year, fracking, a technology pioneered in the United States, has given us access to vast amounts of U.S. energy that can be sold abroad. Europe and Asian nations have much less capacity. As long as fracking can be done responsibly, U.S. exports should surge.

Finally, there is the growth of the global middle class. When China, India and such places were first climbing the income ladder, they imported a lot of raw materials from places like Canada, Australia and Chile to fuel the early stages of their economic growth. But, in the coming decades, as their consumers get richer, they will be importing more pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, planes and entertainment, important American products.

If Cowen’s case is right, the U.S. is not a nation in decline. We may be in the early days of an export boom that will eventually power an economic revival, including a manufacturing revival. But, as Cowen emphasizes, this does not mean nirvana is at hand.

His work leaves the impression that there are two interrelated American economies. On the one hand, there is the globalized tradable sector — companies that have to compete with everybody everywhere. These companies, with the sword of foreign competition hanging over them, have become relentlessly dynamic and very (sometimes brutally) efficient.

On the other hand, there is a large sector of the economy that does not face this global competition — health care, education and government. Leaders in this economy try to improve productivity and use new technologies, but they are not compelled by do-or-die pressure, and their pace of change is slower.

A rift is opening up. The first, globalized sector is producing a lot of the productivity gains, but it is not producing a lot of the jobs. The second more protected sector is producing more jobs, but not as many productivity gains. The hypercompetitive globalized economy generates enormous profits, while the second, less tradable economy is where more Americans actually live.

In politics, we are beginning to see conflicts between those who live in Economy I and those who live in Economy II. Republicans often live in and love the efficient globalized sector and believe it should be a model for the entire society. They want to use private health care markets and choice-oriented education reforms to make society as dynamic, creative and efficient as Economy I.

Democrats are more likely to live in and respect the values of the second sector. They emphasize the destructive side of Economy I streamlining — the huge profits at the top and the stagnant wages at the middle. They want to tamp down some of the streamlining in the global economy sector and protect health care, education and government from its remorseless logic.

Republicans believe the globalized sector is racing far out in front of government, adapting in ways inevitable and proper. If given enough freedom, Economy I entrepreneurs will create the future jobs we need. Government should prepare people to enter that sector but get out of its way as much as possible.

Democrats are more optimistic that government can enhance the productivity of the global sectors of the economy while redirecting their benefits. They want to use Economy I to subsidize Economy II.

I don’t know which coalition will gain the upper hand. But I do think today’s arguments are rooted in growing structural rifts. There’s an urgent need to understand the interplay between the two different sectors. I’d also add that it’s not always easy to be in one of those pockets — including the media and higher education — that are making the bumpy transition from Economy II to Economy I.

一個美國 兩個經濟世界

美國企業的創意活力令人又驚又怕。過去五年，美國企業在動盪與不確定中裁員，變得更有效率和生產力。據華爾街日報9日報導，標普指數500家成份企業2011年員工平均營收達42萬美元，遠高於2007年的37.8萬美元。

效率提升提振了美國整體經濟，尤其是美國出口。兩年前，總統歐巴馬承諾在五年內讓出口倍增，美國事實上可能達此目標，誠如柯恩（Tyler Cowen）在《The American Interest》月刊發表「出口導向的美國意味著什麼」文章中提到的，美國出口激增。

柯恩認為，未來幾年美國出口實力將增強，並指出三個將提升美國經濟表現的趨勢。一是智慧機器。中國等低工資國家具勞工充沛優勢，但我們正邁入安靜工廠時代，有更多機器人和更棒的軟體，這降低工資率的重要性，有利於生產軟體和智慧機器的美國業者。

第二個趨勢是頁岩油和天然氣革命。過去一年，美國最先導入的一項技術使我們能取得蘊藏在美國、可外銷海外的龐大能源。歐、亞國家在這方面的能力遠不及美國。只要業者能以負責的方式運用這項技術，美國能源出口可望激增。

第三是全球中產階級日增。過去中國、印度等國在所得躍增的同時，也從加拿大、澳洲和智利等地進口大量的原物料，反過來進一步拉抬經濟。未來數十年，這些國家的消費者將更富有，可望進口更多美國擅長製造的產品，如藥品、飛機、娛樂等

倘若真如柯恩所料，美國就不是衰退中的國家。我們可能正處在最終將促進經濟復甦的出口榮景初期。但柯恩也強調，這不表示美好境地已在不遠處。他的文章給人美國經濟已裂成兩半的印象，但互有關聯。一邊是足跡遍及全球的全球化部門，亦即能在世界各地與任何對象競爭的企業，這些企業手持海外競爭利刃，活力旺盛且極具效率（有時殘酷無情）。

另一邊占美國經濟很大一部分，共通點是尚未面臨全球競爭，如健保、教育和政治等，這塊領域的領導者正試著改善生產力並運用新科技，但並未面臨「不改變就完蛋」的壓力，因此改變步伐遲緩。

兩者間的裂痕日漸擴大，全球化部門的生產力大躍進，但並未創造大量的工作；受保護的部門創造較多工作機會，但生產力無明顯進展。競爭激烈的全球化經濟創造豐厚獲利，但有更多美國人生活在較不全球化的那一邊。

在政治上，我們也開始看到這兩種經濟間的衝突。共和黨人士通常偏好有效率的全球化生活，深信這是整個社會的模範，一心想藉私人醫療市場與教育改革，讓社會變得像第一種經濟那樣具活力、創意和效率。

民主黨人士比較可能尊重第二種經濟的價值和生活方式，強調第一種經濟厲行精簡的破壞面，即頂端階層賺取暴利，中產階級薪資停滯。他們有意抑制全球經濟部門的精簡力道，並避免無情的企業文化滲入醫療、教育和政府。

共和黨人士相信，全球化部門遠遠走在政府的前面，以無可避免且適當的演進。若能提供足夠的自由，在第一種經濟之下的企業家將創造美國需要的未來就業機會。政府應讓人民對此發展做好準備，同時盡可能的減少限制。

民主黨則認為政府能提高全球化部門的生產力，並重新分配利益，希望第一種經濟能補貼第二種。

我不知道哪一黨會占上風，但當今的爭論源自日益結構化的裂痕，我們有必要儘快瞭解這兩種經濟間的相互作用。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/brooks-the-two-economies.html

2012-04-11/經濟日報/A6版/國際焦點 編譯于倩若