How Obama Can Fix The Economy

I'm mystified by all the hand-wringing about what a terrible time it is to be a new U.S. president.

Think of the presidents who have been judged by history to be truly great -- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington -- and they've all served in times of crisis. But imagine what it would be like to be president when the crisis first unfolds, such as Herbert Hoover or now George Bush.

After all, the electorate wouldn't be clamoring for change if everything were great, if easy credit remained there for the asking, stocks were hitting new all-time highs and speculators were still flipping Las Vegas condos. Crisis provides the political cover for undertakings that would otherwise be unthinkable.

Among other boons, for the time being we can forget about the deficit, because one thing we know from the Great Depression and Keynesian economics is that in crises like this the government has to get out there and spend. World War II produced the biggest deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product in U.S. history -- and an end to the Depression. There will be time to balance the budget later.

With that in mind, here are my prescriptions for the economic crisis, were I stepping into the White House.

Shoring up the banking and financial system must take first priority. Confidence, which eroded steadily after the demise of Bear Stearns, must be restored. We learned from the disaster at AIG that you can't build a moat around the big banks and call it a day.

The non-bank participants in the global financial system are just as important, since the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This means providing capital and liquidity to insurance companies and industrial finance arms like GMAC and GE Capital in return for preferred stock and ownership stakes where appropriate. These should be good investments, since so much of the crisis is psychological, and values will rebound when confidence is restored.

The U.S. needs a comprehensive policy for faltering industrial concerns, probably starting with the auto industry.

This can't be another case-by-case, ad hoc approach that arbitrarily favors some companies deemed too big to fail while consigning others to bankruptcy court. I favor the Warren Buffett approach: preferred shares that pay interest and warrants to acquire an equity stake at an attractive price. In fact, I might even ask Mr. Buffett to step up to this task. This can't be a bailout of private-equity firms or existing shareholders. Someone in the Treasury will have to start thinking like a distressed-asset manager, since he or she will be managing the taxpayers' money to earn a profit and will have to make tough-minded decisions about which investments are likely to pay off and which aren't.

Will this be branded 'socialism ' Not if the U.S. consistently manages its stakes as though it had a fiduciary duty to taxpayers, as opposed to management, labor, and other interests. The U.S. should be as tough on these companies as any private-equity firm, do what it takes to turn them around for the long term, and then get out, hopefully at a profit.

Another lesson from the Depression is that spending on infrastructure helps, and can also be an excellent long-term investment. China just unveiled a $586 billion program that includes spending for airports, rail lines and highways, housing and other programs. These should raise quality of life, enhance productivity, and provide an economic boost. There's no shortage of similar needs in the U.S.

If I'd just been elected on a promise to reduce dependence on foreign oil, I'd pour money into public transportation, including links between airports and central city transportation hubs. (I'd like to make a personal plea for an efficient rail line between New York's Kennedy airport and Midtown.) And I'd invest in education and the arts, which will be starving for new facilities given soaring state and municipal deficits. I would certainly not be investing in bridges to nowhere, which is why this program has to be run from the White House, not Congress.

I'd end compensation for failure. I'd legislatively ban employment contracts that call for huge severance payments without regard to performance. And I'd make prosecuting those guilty of fraud a top priority. When the government injects capital and takes a stake, I'd oust incumbent management unless there was a compelling reason not to. But I wouldn't cap pay for success, including at big banks. This country needs incentives for the ingenuity, hard work, good judgment and experience that have made it great, now more than ever. I don't begrudge Obama adviser Eric Schmidt at Google his billions; I wish we had more Googles, creating jobs and wealth and a product that benefits everyone.

As president, I'd be the spokesman-in-chief. Transparency is essential. People have to understand what steps are being taken and why. They have to understand how the U.S. can afford all this, and how their tax money is being invested in our future rather than spent on useless pork. I'd be out talking and listening in the offices, the factories, the farms of America, not huddled in the White House.

I realize all this is easy for me to say. I'm not a politician, and I don't envy anyone the rigors of a national campaign or the prospect of negotiating with Congress. But I think this is a great time to be president of the U.S., and if I were Barack Obama, I'd be seizing the historic opportunity that has just been handed me.

人们认为目前的形势对一位即将上任的新总统实在不是个好时机，我对此有些不解。

看看那些经过历史检验的真正伟大的总统吧──亚伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln)、 富兰克林·罗斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)和乔治·华盛顿(George Washington)，他们全都是在危机时期执掌国家的。再想像一下在危机刚开始出现时当政的总统结果会怎样，譬如赫伯特·胡佛(Herbert Hoover)或现任总统乔治·布什(George Bush)。



Getty Images

美国当选总统奥巴马11月4日在芝加哥发表了获胜

演讲，图为奥巴马及其家人毕竟，如果国家一切都好、人们可以轻易得到贷款、股市不断创下历史新高、投机商还在炒作拉斯维加斯的高档公寓的话，奥巴马竞选时也就不必打出“变革”的口号了。危机对成就那些在通常情况下难以想像的事情提供了政治掩护。

危机带来的好处不一而足，比如，眼下我们可以忘掉赤字，因为我们从大萧条的经历和凯恩斯派经济学家那里已经知道，在这次这样的危机时期，政府必须出手花钱。第二次世界大战给美国带来了历史上占国内生产总值最大比例的财政赤字，但它同时也终结了衰退。今后有的是时间来平衡预算。

基于这一点，我设想假如这次是我当选总统的话，我会给眼下的经济危机开出以下药方：

必须将强化银行和金融体系作为当务之急。因贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)倒闭而日益遭受重创的市场信心必须加以恢复。从美国国际集团(AIG)的灾难中我们学到的教训是，你不能在大银行周围建条护城河后就以为万事大吉了。

非银行参与者在全球金融体系中的作用同样重要，大家都知道所谓短板效应：水桶的容量取决于最短的那块木板。这意味着要向保险公司和诸如GMAC、通用金融(GE Capital)这样的综合性集团的金融分支注资，在适当的情况下换取其优先股和权益股份。这些应该是不错的投资，因为危机在很大程度上是心理上的，随着市场信心的复苏，资产的价值也会回升。

对摇摇欲坠的大型企业，美国需要一套综合性政策，或许可以从汽车业开始。

这种政策不可以再采取就事论事、个案处理的方式，这样只会对一些被视为“大而不倒”的公司有利，却让其他公司走向破产。我赞成沃伦·巴菲特(Warren Buffett)的方式：购买有股息的优先股和可以低廉价格收购权益股份的认购权证。实际上，我或许会要求巴菲特出面负责此项工作。这不能是针对私人股权投资公司或现有股东的救助。财政部的一些人应该开始像不良资产经理人那样考虑问题，因为他们将管理纳税人的钱、让这些钱赢利；他们还将不得不硬起心肠对哪些投资有可能赚钱、哪些没可能作出决定。

这会不会被贴上“社会主义”的标签？如果美国能始终如一地把自己当做纳税人的托管人来管理这些股份，那就不会。作为托管人，它将站在纳税人的一边，而不是管理层和其他利益集团的一边。美国应该像是这些公司的私人股权投资公司那样行事，从企业的长远改善出发，然后择机退出（最好能带着赢利）。

大萧条带来的另一个经验是基础建设开支能有所帮助，且可以成为很好的长期投资。中国刚刚出台了相当于5,860亿美元的经济刺激计划，其中包括用于建设机场、铁路和公路、住房等工程的开支项目。这些项目将改善人们的生活质量，提高生产率，刺激经济增长。美国也不缺乏类似的需求。

如果我当选前承诺减少对外国石油的依赖，那么，我会向公共交通系统投入大笔资金，包括机场和中心城市交通枢纽之间的道路。（我个人会呼吁在纽约肯尼迪机场与曼哈顿中城区之间建设快速轨道线。）我还会对教育和艺术投资，鉴于各州、市预算赤字急剧上升，这些领域应会急需新设施。我当然不会对那些没什么人使用的桥梁投资，这也就是为什么这个计划要由白宫而不是国会来运作的原因。

我会停止对失败者提供补偿。我将寻求从立法上禁止签署不论业绩好坏都要求大笔离职补偿金的雇用合同。我还将把对欺诈罪提起诉讼作为头等要务。当政府注资并取得股权时，我将把在任管理层赶走，除非有非常有力的理由要求我不这么做。但我不会限制业绩出色者的薪酬标准，包括对大银行。这个国家需要对有独创精神、工作努力、有判断力和富有经验的人给予鼓励，现在尤为如此，因为正是这些人让它成为一个伟大的国家。我并不嫉妒奥巴马的顾问、谷歌(Google)首席执行长施密特(Eric Schmidt)所拥有的数十亿美元，我希望我们有更多像谷歌这样的公司，它们能创造就业和财富以及能让每个人受益的产品。

作为总统，我将是这个国家的首席发言人。透明度至关重要。人们必须了解国家正在采取的措施和为什么要采取这些措施。他们必须理解美国怎样才能负担所有这一切、他们缴纳的税款怎样被用于对我们未来有益的投资，而不是被变成没用的小恩小惠。我会走出去，到写字楼、工厂、乡村，跟人们交谈，倾听他们的想法，而不是整天缩在白宫闭门造车。

我知道，所有这些我说起来很容易。我不是政治家，我也不嫉妒任何有勇气参加大选或将与国会谈判的人。但我想，现在是做美国总统是大好时机。如果我是奥巴马，我会抓住这个历史赋予我的机遇。