經濟學界兩大泰斗激辯歐元未來

????羅伯特?蒙代爾和艾倫?梅爾策都是半個世紀以來最具影響力的經濟學家。哥倫比亞大學（Columbia University）教授蒙代爾于1999年獲得諾貝爾獎，獲獎的部分原因就在于他的“最優貨幣區”研究。從來沒有哪位學者像他這樣，親眼見證自己的理論在付諸實踐后取得了巨大的成功，同時還為他贏得了“歐元之父”等等類似的美譽。蒙代爾創建的單一貨幣理論架構是讓政客和經濟學家們打消疑慮的一股重要力量，并一度將這個由17個國家組成的歐元區變成足可睥睨美國的經濟強區，一直到最近這場危機爆發。

????梅爾策是一位非常有影響力的貨幣主義者，他撰寫的《聯儲歷史》（A History of the Federal Reserve）一書被譽為最詳盡的美聯儲編年史。他曾在肯尼迪總統時期擔任美國財政部官員，也曾出任里根總統的經濟顧問委員會（Council of Economic Advisors）。梅爾策強烈反對當前以提振房價或股價為短期目標的權宜貨幣政策，因為長期來看，這些價格的上漲必定遠高于通脹。

????兩位經濟界泰斗中，79歲的蒙代爾更擅舞臺表演，曾在諾貝爾頒獎宴會上為眾人唱了爵士歌王弗蘭克?辛納屈《我的道路》（My Way）中的一段。

????如今，蒙代爾和梅爾策在當今最重大的經濟問題，也就是歐元的未來這個問題上針鋒相對。我沒能聯系到蒙代爾進行采訪，他給我發的電子郵件稱，他目前正在歐洲，在意大利托斯卡納一棟風景如畫的別墅里消暑。但從他近期大量的采訪和文章中可以清楚地看到，他依然信奉歐元的原因以及他給出的危機解決之道。

????研究蒙代爾依然信奉歐元的理由，這一點很重要。在蒙代爾看來，過去歐洲弱國過度依賴本幣貶值來保持競爭力，因而背負上了高通脹和高利率的包袱，結果導致經濟增長緩慢。本幣貶值也使得這些國家得以繼續延續僵化的勞動法，政府規定的高福利及工資漲幅應超過通脹的條例等因素致使這些國家的勞動力價格畸高。如果不能再通過本幣貶值，降低他們生產的電腦、家電或提供的度假服務在國際市場上的價格，這些國家就必須努力提高生產率，節制工資，這是保持競爭力的唯一途徑。由此，歐元產生的市場壓力有望廢除幾十年來在歐洲已經成為一種制度、但抑制經濟發展的勞動法。

????蒙代爾在2011年的一篇文章中曾指出，他預測的這些歐元好處正是遵循了理論的指導。他說，歐元的一大好處是強化工資自律。“在歐洲，一個國家無法改變匯率。因此，當勞工或工會要求漲工資，比如10%的漲幅，而生產率增幅是2-3%，他們明白一定會導致失業或破產。因為無法進行本幣貶值，所以工會不得不克制要求。”

????那么，為什么如今歐洲的狀況如此糟糕？蒙代爾堅持稱，歐元“表現出色”，問題在于政府支出無度，赤字過高。如果歐洲建立“更完美的聯盟”，授權一個中央機構對支出無度的政府實施嚴格的財政約束，同時由德國和其他富國為南部鄰國提供融資，直到歐元得到拯救，經濟恢復增長。

????84歲的梅爾策堅決反對。梅爾策認為，主要問題不是支出（雖然支出無度），而是競爭力。他指出，弱國競爭力大幅下降是引入歐元的直接結果，同時這個結果也是意料之中的。事“歐元區絕不是想蒙代爾設想的那樣一個聯盟，”梅爾策在上上周接受電話采訪時告訴我。“引入歐元之前，希臘和德國屬于不同的世界，之后也是一樣。人們不應相信歐元神話。”

????梅爾策認為，深陷歐元危機的歐洲各國央行和政客們現在完全找錯了目標。“他們正在埋頭研究債務問題，”他說。“這不是他們該干的事。更大的問題是生產成本。”梅爾策稱：“只要西班牙和意大利的生產成本比德國高30%”，南部國家就不會實現增長，“而現在的情況就是這樣。”

????梅爾策認為，主要問題在于蒙代爾預測的生產率（每個工人每小時生產的卡車或半導體數量）趨同現象并未出現。相反，趨同出現在了不該出現的領域：西班牙、意大利、愛爾蘭和希臘的工資上漲速度都遠超德國。但生產率更高的是德國，而不是這些鄰國。從2000年到2008年，德國勞工成本上漲了15%，而意大利的漲幅是28%，西班牙是43%，愛爾蘭更是高達49%。

????蒙代爾最近承認了這個問題，承認歐元“可能導致生產率不同地區的工資過快趨同”。

????為什么工資持續上漲，完全與蒙代爾預測的新節制時代背道而馳？南部國家和愛爾蘭很快就意識到了，不用提升競爭力就可以實現快速增長，那就是以誘人的低利率進行巨額借貸。廉價按揭和信用卡貸款推動的消費繁榮導致2000-2007年意大利、西班牙、愛爾蘭、希臘和葡萄牙的通貨膨脹率（3.2%）幾乎達到了德國（1.7%）的兩倍。

????Robert Mundell and Allan Meltzer rank among the most influential economists of the past half-century. Mundell, a professor at Columbia University, garnered a Nobel Prize in 1999, in part for his work in defining what he calls "optimum currency areas." No academic has ever enjoyed such success seeing his theories into practice: He's variously called the "father" or "godfather" of the euro. The intellectual architecture that Mundell created for the single currency was a major force in winning over skeptical politicians and economists, and, until the recent crisis, appeared to have transformed the 17-nation eurozone into a juggernaut rivaling the U.S.

????Meltzer is a highly influential monetarist who authored A History of the Federal Reserve, lauded as the most comprehensive chronicle of the central bank. He served as a Treasury official in the Kennedy administration and on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. Meltzer strongly opposes what he views as our current, improvisational monetary policy targeted at such short-term goals as boosting housing or equity prices, when the inevitable price will be far higher inflation.

????Mundell, 79, is the more theatrical of the pair, having serenaded folks at his Nobel banquet with a stanza from Frank Sinatra's "My Way."

????Now, Mundell and Meltzer are taking diametrically opposed positions on today's biggest economic issue, the future of the euro. I was unable to speak with Mundell, who emailed me to say he was in Europe, where he summers in a picturesque villa in Tuscany. But examining his many recent interviews and articles gives a clear view of both why he still believes in the euro's benefits, and his solution to the crisis.

????It's important to examine Mundell's arguments for the euro, justifications he presents to this day. In Mundell's view, the weaker European countries relied excessively in devaluations to remain competitive, saddling them with high inflation and interest rates, and slow growth. The crutch of devaluation enabled them to maintain labor laws that made workers overly expensive because of heavy government-mandated benefits and ensured that wages would rise faster than prices. By making it impossible to reduce prices of computers, appliances or vacations on in the global marketplace by devaluing, nations would be forced to lift productivity, and moderate wages, as the only route to staying competitive. Hence, the euro would exert market pressure to banish restrictive labor laws that had been a European institution, and economic curse, for decades.

????Mundell argued in a 2011 paper that the progress he predicted was actually following the theory. One of the euro's big benefits, he stated, is enhanced wage discipline. "In Europe, a country is not able to change exchange rates. Thus, when labor or unions make claims, for example, for a 10% wage increase, and productivity growth is 2% to 3%, they know it will result in unemployment or bankruptcies. The impossibility of depreciation causes labor unions to moderate their demands."

????So why is Europe faring so miserably? Mundell insists that the euro "has performed spectacularly" and that the problem is reckless government spending and excessive deficits. If Europe moves to "a more perfect union" in which a central authority is empowered to enforce strict fiscal discipline on wayward governments––and Germany and other rich nations help finance their southern neighbors until that happens––the euro can be saved and growth will resume.

????Meltzer, 84, adamantly disagrees??. For Meltzer, the main problem isn't spending (though it's excessive), but competitiveness. He points to a shocking decline in competitiveness in the weaker countries that's a direct, and predictable, legacy of the euro. "The eurozone really isn't the union that Mundell thought it would be," Meltzer told me in a phone interview last week. "Greece and Germany were in different worlds before the euro was introduced, and they've stayed there. No one should have believed the euro story."

????For Meltzer, the central bankers and politicians facing the euro crisis are targeting the wrong issue. "They're hammering away the debt problem," he continues. "That's not what they need to do. The bigger problem is cost of production." The southern countries, Meltzer argues, will not grow "if production costs in Spain and Italy are 30% higher than in Germany, which is now the case."

????For Meltzer, the main rub is that the trend Mundell predicted, a convergence in productivity -- the number of trucks or semiconductors a worker makes per hour -- didn't happen. The convergence went in the wrong direction: Wages rose far more rapidly in Spain, Italy, Ireland and Greece than in Germany. But the Germans, not their neighbors, were the ones who got more productive. From 2000 to 2008, labor costs rose 15% in Germany, versus 28% in Italy, 43% in Spain and 49% in Ireland.

????Mundell recently nodded at the problem, admitting that the euro "might have brought about a too-rapid convergence in wages rates between areas where productivity was unequal."

????Why did wages keep rising, in defiance of Mundell's predictions of a new era of restraint? The southern nations and Ireland learned fast that they could grow rapidly not by increasing their competitiveness, but by borrowing enormous sums at irresistibly low rates. A consumption boom, financed by cheap mortgages and credit card loans, powered inflation at almost twice the rate in Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal from 2000 to 2007 as in Germany, 3.2% compared to 1.7%.