`은행국유화가 유일한 해법이다`

노벨경제학상을 수상한 바 있는 조지프 스티글리츠 컬럼비아대 경제학과 교수가 독일의 공영방송 '도이체벨레'와 인터뷰한 내용을 긁어왔다. 제목부터 눈길을 끈다. "경제학자 스티글리츠는 말한다, 은행국유화가 '유일한 해법'이다"

 

규제완화만을 거의 유일한 금과옥조처럼 여기는 신정부의 경제정책 담당자들, 칠팔십년대 미국에서 공부하면서 레이거노믹스만 머릿속에 그득 차 있는 경제학자들의 반론이 있어야 하겠다.

 

원문출처: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4005355,00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economy | 06.02.2009

Nationalized Banks Are "Only Answer," Economist Stiglitz Says

 

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:

In an interview with Deutsche Welle, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz talks about nationalizing banks, the outlook for developing countries, and the need for an international financial regulator.

 

Joseph Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. Under US President Bill Clinton he served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1995- 1997. He was chief economist of the World Bank from 1997-2000 and was a lead author of the 1995 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He is currently a professor at Columbia University in New York.

 

DW-WORLD: Many experts fear that while things are bad now, we haven't seen the worst of the crisis yet. Do you share the belief that we are facing a long decline that could rival the great depression?

 

Joseph Stiglitz: We live in a very different world than during the Great Depression. Then, we had a manufacturing economy. Now we have a service-sector economy. Many people in the in the United States are already working part time because they can't get full-time jobs. People are talking more about the 'comprehensive' measures of unemployment, and these show unemployment at very high levels, around 15 percent. So it clearly is a serious downturn.

Another big difference between now and the Great Depression is then we didn't have a safety net. Now we have unemployment insurance.

 

글로벌 경기침체를 예견했던 경제학자 누리엘 루비니와 나씸 탈레브은 금융시스템의 붕괴를 막기위해서는 은행을 국유화할 것을 촉구한 바 있다. 동의하는가?

Economists Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Taleb, who predicted the global economic downturn, have called for a nationalization of banks in order to stop the financial meltdown. Do you agree?

 

중요한 사실은 은행들이 매우 나쁜 상태라는 점이다. 미국 정부는 이미 수백억 달러를 쏟아부었지만 그 효과는 거의 없다. 은행들이 파산했다는 것은 분명하다. 미국 시민들은 이미 다수의 주요 은행의 과반수 소유자가 되어 있다. 소유와 통제가 분리되어 있는 시스템은 어떤 시스템이라 하더라도 재앙에 이르게 된다. 국유화가 유일한 해법이다. 이들 은행들은 사실상 파산상태다.

The fact of the matter is, the banks are in very bad shape. The U.S. government has poured in hundreds of billions of dollars to very little effect. It is very clear that the banks have failed. American citizens have become majority owners in a very large number of the major banks. But they have no control. Any system where there is a separation of ownership and control is a recipe for disaster. Nationalization is the only answer. These banks are effectively bankrupt.

 

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Nationalized banks? Stiglitz says 'yes'

 

The Institute of International Finance estimates that the private flow of capital to developing countries will shrink by about two-thirds. Are we facing a situation where we could see a total collapse of many developing countries?

 

I think many governments of emerging nations actually have a much better central banking system than the United States. They realized the risks of excessive leverage, excessive dependance on real estate lending and so they took much more prudent actions. Many developing countries also built up large reserves and are in a better position to meet this crisis than they were a decade ago. But some will face very difficult times, potentially defaults. Some of these countries are suffering from having paid too much attention to what has gone on in the United States.

 

그러나 몇몇 국가는 매우 힘든 시기에 직면할 것이다. 디폴트 가능성도 있다. 이들 몇몇 국가들은 미국(자본주의)이 해온 방식에 지나치게 관심을 기울이며 (따라했기) 때문에 고통을 겪고 있다. 

 

Should steps be taken to help these developing countries?

 

Very definitely. I think it is absolutely imperative not just for the interest of these countries, not just from a humanitarian perspective, but from the perspective of global stability. It is not possible to have a strong global economy when there are large pockets of economic turmoil.

The World Bank has called for advanced industrial countries as they are bailing out their own industries and provide subsidies, to set aside some amounts for the developing countries, who can't compete on this uneven playing field.

 

US President Obama blasted banks for paying out billions in bonuses to executives while still on brink of collapse. Do yo agree with him that their behavior is "shameful" and "irresponsible"?

 

Yes, it is shameful and irresponsible. But it is not a surprise ... for years the executives of American firms have defended their outrageous compensation, saying it's important as an incentive scheme. How in the world can you give bonuses of billions of dollars when your firm has had record losses of billions of dollars? Unless you're rewarding people for failure you shouldn't be getting bonuses, you should be getting penalties.

 

세계경제포럼에서 독일의 메르켈 총리는 미국의 보호무역주의와 미국 자동차회사의 보조금을 비판했다. 메르켈 총리는 옳은가? 미국이 보호무역적 수단에 의존할 위험이 있다고 보는가?

 

In her speech at the World Economic Forum, German  Chancellor Merkel warned the U.S. of protectionism and criticized subsidies for American auto companies. Is she correct? Do you see a danger that the U.S. will resort to protectionist measures?

 

Yes, very clearly. We have always been aware that protectionism takes two forms: Tariffs and subsidies. Subsidies distort the playing field just like tariffs do. Subsidies are even more unfair and even more distorting, because while developed countries can give subsidies, poor countries can't afford to do so. Rich countries are distorting the level playing field by giving huge subsidies, not necessarily in the intention of protection, but with the consequence of protection.

 

메르켈은 최근 국제금융감독기구를 만들자고 제안했다. 이 의제에 대한 공감대가 확산되고 있다. 각국의 정부와 기업들이 자신의 주권을 국제기구에 내맡겨야 하는 이러한 구상이 현실성이 있다고 생각하는가?

Merkel recently called for an international financial oversight body, and concensus on the issue is growing. How realistic do you think it is that governments and companies would give up sovereignty to an international entity?

 

메르켈의 아이디어는 무척 중요하다. 나는 오래 전부터 이런 아이디어를 지지해왔다. 이미 실패한 IMF와 세계은행(World Bank)를 대체할 글로벌 경제 정책 조정 (기구)가 필요하다. 글로벌한 규제 없이 국경을 개방하라고 할 수는 없다. 적절한 규제가 이루어지지 않는 국가에서 만들어진, 위험한 금융상품을 아무런 규제 없이 미국으로 들어오도록 하거나, 그 반대로 미국에서 다른 나라로 가도록 허락하는 일은 앞으로 생각할 수 없다.  세계화를 선도한 국제적 기업들은 이제 국제적 규제를 촉구하는 데 앞장서야만 한다.

 

Merkel's idea is a very important one, which I have long supported. You need to have coordination of global economic policy that goes beyond the IMF, which has failed, and the World Bank. You cannot say that we have open borders without global regulation. It is inconceiveable as we go forward that we would allow financial products that are risky, manufactured in countries with inadequate regulation, to come without regulation into the United States and vice versa. International companies that are committed to gobalization should be at the forefront of calling for international regulation.

 

Michael Knigge interviewed Joseph Stiglitz