本輪的美國大選選情膠着。最近的民調看，奧巴馬領先羅姆尼的幅度在統計誤差上下，三到五個百分點。作為選民，你會選奧巴馬還是羅姆尼呢？
奧巴馬的連任之路開始得很艱難。雖然從去年年底到今年年初，美國經濟曾曇花一現的出現不錯的反彈，失業率也有較之前的下降。但好景不長，基本是從第二季度開始，經濟增長開始放緩，失業率也是沒有大的好轉，甚至一度下滑。於是共和黨順勢而為，將競選的基調定在了發展經濟和創造工作上。在GDP增長在1.5%左右，失業率高於8.1%的情況下，奧巴馬的連任前景陰雲密布。因為在美國近代歷史上，能夠成功連任的總統選前的最高的失業率是7.2%（里根時期）。
為了成功連任，奧巴馬的競選策略開始試圖將民眾的注意力，從當前的經濟狀況和就業情況轉移到對未來經濟政策的選擇。目前看來，這個選調是被民眾認可的。於是對下任美國總統的選擇，將是對未來經濟政策的選擇。
作為民主黨的總統候選人，奧巴馬的經濟政策，簡單講基本可以歸結為為98%的人減稅，但會增加最富的2%人的稅收負擔，使其恢復到小布什政府實行給富人減稅之前的水平。二，實行美國版的“鐵公雞”，即由政府對公路，機場，橋梁等交通設施的項目支出來增加勞工的工作機會。再有，就是增加教育投資，從長遠來增加美國人的教育程度，以適應新興科技帶來的對勞工知識水平的新挑戰。
羅姆尼對奧巴馬經濟政策的攻擊主要集中在奧巴馬的政策已實行了四年，其對經濟刺激的政策增加了美國聯邦政府財政的負擔，但經濟表現差強人意，現在是換人做做的時候了。
羅姆尼的經濟政策，主要講，是要對富人（羅姆尼稱其為成功者和工作崗位的創造者，這點倒有趣的是和中國上下的認知合拍）減稅。這和共和黨自里根時期起的政策主張一脈相承。其理論的依據是給富人（成功者和工作崗位創造者）減少稅務上的負擔，富人就更有積極性去創造更多的工作機會，於是財富便從上到下使全社會大家都受益。
那麼奧巴馬的政策與羅姆尼的經濟政策，哪個更可能讓美國經濟，美國的明天更好呢？
機緣巧和的是，昨天（9/13）美聯儲發力，宣布開始新一輪的量化寬鬆政策（QE3，又有稱QEinfinity），要在無限長的時期內（長到美國經濟可以持續向好為止）每月購買400億的房貸證桊和美政府的長期債劵，以增加貨幣供應量，維持利率在較低的水平（維持政府短期債劵接近零至少到2015年中期）。
QE3讓民主黨拍手稱快，但同時卻讓共和黨咬牙切齒。其原因，兩黨同時認同QE3會對美國經濟有幫助。經濟越好，則奧巴馬成功連任的機會就越高，自然對民主黨越有利，對共和黨不利。但有趣的是，共和黨攻擊QE3的理由，是認為它將對美國經濟的幫助有限，但同時大大增加了通貨膨脹的風險。
為什麼QE3對經濟的幫助可能有限呢？
CNBC上今天有篇文章，“QE是否主要幫助了富人？”，可以從某種意義上幫助澄清這個觀點（見附文，但作者的黨派傾向本人不太清楚）。文章的大意是，英國央行上個月有篇研究報告，稱英國的QE主要使富人受益，因為QE使股票和債劵價值大增970億美元，而40%的受益讓最富的5%的人拿了去。這將增加社會的不公，並會增加社會的動盪。
文章說，而反觀美國，QE1和QE2主要使金融資產（股票，債劵）價格增加。而在美國，最富的5%擁有60%的金融資產，82%的股票，90%的債劵，於是QE在美國造就了兩種不同的經濟復甦速度，一個富人已經復甦了的速度和一個非富人的，仍在經濟衰退中掙扎的速度。
文章最後問，將大部分的利潤交給富人，真的就能給美國造就更多的工作職位嗎？至少目前看，不太樂觀。
“The question, though, is whether putting more profits into the hands of the top 5 percent will really generate jobs for the rest of America. So far, the evidence is not promising”
從這篇文章引申來進一步想想，如果將大部分的利潤交給富人（通過QE增加金融資產價格，或是羅姆尼的通過給富人減稅），未必真的就能給美國造就更多的工作職位，那麼羅姆尼的經濟政策真的會讓美國經濟更好嗎？換句話說，如果你懷疑QE3對美國經濟和美國工作崗位的增加的效果，那麼你還會支持羅姆尼的經濟政策嗎？
附：
Does Quantitative Easing Mainly Help the Rich?
By: Robert Frank
CNBC Reporter & Editor
Last month, the Bank of England issued a report that must have made Fed chairman Ben Bernanke squirm.
It said that the Bank of England’s policies of quantitative easing – similar to the Fed’s – had benefited mainly the wealthy.
Specifically, it said that its QE program had boosted the value of stocks and bonds by 26 percent, or about $970 billion. It said that about 40 percent of those gains went to the richest 5 percent of British households.
Many said the BOE's easing added to social anger and unrest. Dhaval Joshi, of BCA Research wrote that “QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it."
The BOE countered that the benefits of easing may have trickled down, and that “without the Bank's asset purchases, most people in the U.K. would have been worse off."
Still, the paper is instructive for the United States. The latest round of QE announced by Bernanke yesterday has sparked growing controversy about how Fed policy has mainly helped the wealthiest Americans. (Read more: The One Percent Gives Up Ground ... to the Five Percent)
Economist Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE “is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality.”
Donald Trump – not usually one for distributional analyses of monetary policy – said on CNBC yesterday that “People like me will benefit from this.”
The reason is simple. QE drives up the prices of assets, especially financial assets. And most of the financial assets in America are owed by the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans.
According to Fed data, the top 5 percent own 60 percent of the nation’s individually held financial assets. They own 82 percent of the individually held stocks and more than 90 percent of the individually held bonds.
By helping to reinflate the stock market in 2009 and 2010, the Fed created a two-speed recovery. The wealthy quickly recovered much of their wealth as stocks doubled in value. But the rest of the country, which depends on houses and jobs for their wealth, remained stuck in recession.
Put another way, most Americans have most of their wealth tied up in their houses (about 50 percent for most). For the top 5 percent, homes account for only 10 percent of wealth, while financial assets account for between one third and 40 percent.
By boosting the value of financial assets, Fed has helped the economy of Richistan but not the broader United States.
Bernanke is obviously aware of this criticism, which is why the latest round of easing is focused on mortgages. But here too, there is a divide between the rich and the rest. Despite lowered rates, banks remain strict on lending, restricting access to credit for most Americans. The wealthy and the asset-rich, however, will now enjoy even lower rates on their credit.
In other words, while Mark Zuckerberg can get a 1.05 percent mortgage, most American’s can’t.
Of course, low interest rates also penalize savers, and the wealthy as a group have the largest savings pool in America. If you ask the wealthy today what their biggest investment challenge is, it’s finding low-risk yield when CD’s and Treasurys pay next to nothing. (Read more: Ultra Rich Ready to Return to Stocks)
But that hardly undoes the advantages of easing. According to Spectrem Group, the wealthy have only about 13 percent of their investible assets in cash, and the rest (more than 85 percent) in stocks, bonds, alternative investments and mutual funds - all of which have benefited from easing.
I'm not taking a position on whether the Fed should ease or not. The benefits for the broader economy may indeed outweigh the costs. And no one else in Washington seems to be doing much in the way of policy to help the unemployed these days.
The question, though, is whether putting more profits into the hands of the top 5 percent will really generate jobs for the rest of America. So far, the evidence is not promising.
