重振美国经济需要两党合作

If the FederalReserve is right, the rapid growth that defined the economy of postwar Americais over.

如果美联储(Fed)是对的，那么定义战后美国经济的快速增长已成过去。

The central bankhas once more lowered long-run expectations, with the US economy of the futureprojected to grow about half as fast as the economy of the past 70 years.

这家美国央行已经再次下调了长期预测，预计未来美国经济增速将是过去70年的一半左右。

This in turn meansa slower increase in our standard of living.

这进而意味着我们的生活水平提高速度将放缓。

It is a threat tothe quintessential American notion that every generation will be better offthan the previous one.

这威胁到了典型的美国观念：一代更比一代强。

It is also one ofthe biggest challenges for the next president.

这也是下届美国总统将要面临的最大挑战之一。

So which party isbest placed to address the problem? As a life-long Republican, I believe myparty generally has better policies for prosperity, but I have never believedgood economic policy is our exclusive prerogative.

那么，哪个政党最适合解决这个问题呢？作为一位终身共和党人，我认为，总体而言，我所在的政党有着更好的繁荣政策，但我从不认为好的经济政策是我们党专属的特权。

In fact, I thinkAmerica’s remarkable postwar growth rests in part on bipartisan commitment tothe notion that, as President John Kennedy put it, a rising tide lifts allboats.

实际上，我认为，美国在战后引人注目的增长，在一定程度上源于两党都奉行前总统约翰.肯尼迪(John Kennedy)所称的水涨船高这个理念。

This makes anemerging debate among the left all the more important: is slow growth the newnormal? Or should we focus our efforts on boosting output?

这让左翼阵营内部的最新辩论变得更为重要：增长缓慢是新常态吗？抑或我们应该注重提高产出？

Lawrence Summers,Treasury secretary to Bill Clinton and a former adviser to President BarackObama, has argued in the Financial Times for the latter.

曾在比尔.克林顿(Bill Clinton)执政时期担任财长、还曾担任巴拉克.奥巴马(Barack Obama)顾问的劳伦斯.萨默斯(Lawrence Summers)在英国《金融时报》撰文支持后者。

The objective ofincreasing growth, he laments, has been discredited in the minds of too manyprogressives.

他哀叹道，提高增速的目标在太多进步人士的心目中变得不可信。

By contrast PaulKrugman, the economist and New York Times columnist, seems more at peace withslow growth.

相比之下，经济学家、《纽约时报》专栏作家保罗.克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)对于增长缓慢似乎更为平静。

He invokes theserenity prayer — more often associated with 12-step programmes than economies— to suggest that boosting long-term growth is something we just do not knowhow to do.

他引用宁静祷告——在更多情况下被人与12步计划（通过一套规定指导原则的行为课程来治疗上瘾、强迫症和其他行为习惯问题的项目——译者注）联系起来，而非经济学——表明，我们不可能知道如何提高长期增速。

Grant me theserenity to accept the things I cannot change, he writes, courage to change thethings I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

赐予我宁静去接受那些我无法改变的事情，他写道，赐予我勇气去改变那些我能改变的事情，赐予我智慧去辨别两者的差别。

In Capital inthe Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty sounds even more downcast.

在《21世纪资本论》(Capital in theTwenty-First Century)一书中，托马斯.皮凯蒂(Thomas Piketty)听上去更为悲观。

For nations suchas the US, he writes: There is ample reason to believe that the growth ratewill not exceed 1-1.5 per cent in the long run, no matter what economicpolicies are adopted.

对于美国等国而言，他写道：有充足的理由认为，不管实施何种经济政策，长期增速都不会超过1%至1.5%。

This is not aminor dispute of interest only to cloistered intellectuals.

这并非只有与世隔绝的知识分子才感兴趣的鸡毛蒜皮的争议。

It hasimplications for every American.

它对所有美国人都具有潜在影响。

The reality isthat no single policy will return us to postwar growth.

现实是，没有一种政策会让我们恢复战后的经济增速。

That was fuelledin part by the baby boom and the entry of women into the workforce.

那时的增长在一定程度上受到婴儿潮以及女性进入劳动大军的推动。

It was not simplyincreased consumer demand but, more important, the human capital of all ofthese inventors, entrepreneurs and workers that made our economy stronger.

让我们的经济变得更为强大的不仅仅是消费需求扩大，更重要的是所有这些发明家、企业家和劳动者构成的人力资本。

In future, bycontrast, an ageing population will be supported by a shrinking workforce.

相比之下，未来劳动力将日益缩减，同时人口老龄化。

To offset thisdemographic challenge and raise our standard of living, our economy has tobecome more productive.

要抵消这种人口结构挑战并提高我们的生活水平，我们的经济必须提高效益。

This will requireincreased public investment, especially in infrastructure, education andskills; tax reform that cuts rates, and reduced regulation.

这需要扩大公共投资，特别是在基础设施、教育和技能方面；降低税率的税收改革；以及减少监管。

In other words, weneed a mix of policies, some principally championed by Democrats, some byRepublicans.

换句话说，我们需要一个政策组合，其中一些政策主要得到民主党的支持，还有一些得到共和党的支持。

For example,Hillary Clinton is to be commended for her focus on infrastructure and skillstraining.

例如希拉里.克林顿(Hillary Clinton)注重基础设施和技能培训，这值得称道。

Similarly, DonaldTrump is right to focus on cutting red tape and making the tax code competitiveagain.

类似的，唐纳德.特朗普(Donald Trump)关注于减少官僚程序和让税法再次变得有竞争力，这是正确的。

Unfortunately, wehear too little from Mr Trump on closing the skills gap and too little from MrsClinton on reforming our tax code.

不幸的是，我们从特朗普那里听到的有关弥补技能缺口的言论过少，从希拉里那里听到的有关改革我国税法的言论过少。

There is much tolament about the 2016 presidential campaign and the gridlock in Washington.

对于2016年总统竞选以及华盛顿的僵局，我们有很多事情可以埋怨。

America wouldbenefit greatly from healthy competition between the parties on the best way torevive our economy.

美国将大大受益于两党之间围绕重振经济的最佳方式展开的健康竞争。

We are unlikely toexperience this if they are fundamentally split on the objectives of policy.

如果他们在政策目标方面存在根本分歧，这种好处就不太可能成为现实。

Which is why thisRepublican is rooting for pro-growth forces to prevail in this intra-Democraticdebate.

正因如此，我这个共和党人支持促增长的力量在这场民主党内部辩论中占上风。

America’sprosperity may depend on the outcome.

美国的繁荣可能取决于辩论结果。