本轮的美国大选选情胶着。最近的民调看，奥巴马领先罗姆尼的幅度在统计误差上下，三到五个百分点。作为选民，你会选奥巴马还是罗姆尼呢？

奥巴马的连任之路开始得很艰难。虽然从去年年底到今年年初，美国经济曾昙花一现的出现不错的反弹，失业率也有较之前的下降。但好景不长，基本是从第二季度开始，经济增长开始放缓，失业率也是没有大的好转，甚至一度下滑。于是共和党顺势而为，将竞选的基调定在了发展经济和创造工作上。在GDP增长在1.5%左右，失业率高于8.1%的情况下，奥巴马的连任前景阴云密布。因为在美国近代历史上，能够成功连任的总统选前的最高的失业率是7.2%（里根时期）。

为了成功连任，奥巴马的竞选策略开始试图将民众的注意力，从当前的经济状况和就业情况转移到对未来经济政策的选择。目前看来，这个选调是被民众认可的。于是对下任美国总统的选择，将是对未来经济政策的选择。

作为民主党的总统候选人，奥巴马的经济政策，简单讲基本可以归结为为98%的人减税，但会增加最富的2%人的税收负担，使其恢复到小布什政府实行给富人减税之前的水平。二，实行美国版的“铁公鸡”，即由政府对公路，机场，桥梁等交通设施的项目支出来增加劳工的工作机会。再有，就是增加教育投资，从长远来增加美国人的教育程度，以适应新兴科技带来的对劳工知识水平的新挑战。

罗姆尼对奥巴马经济政策的攻击主要集中在奥巴马的政策已实行了四年，其对经济刺激的政策增加了美国联邦政府财政的负担，但经济表现差强人意，现在是换人做做的时候了。

罗姆尼的经济政策，主要讲，是要对富人（罗姆尼称其为成功者和工作岗位的创造者，这点倒有趣的是和中国上下的认知合拍）减税。这和共和党自里根时期起的政策主张一脉相承。其理论的依据是给富人（成功者和工作岗位创造者）减少税务上的负担，富人就更有积极性去创造更多的工作机会，于是财富便从上到下使全社会大家都受益。

那么奥巴马的政策与罗姆尼的经济政策，哪个更可能让美国经济，美国的明天更好呢？

机缘巧和的是，昨天（9/13）美联储发力，宣布开始新一轮的量化宽松政策（QE3，又有称QEinfinity），要在无限长的时期内（长到美国经济可以持续向好为止）每月购买400亿的房贷证桊和美政府的长期债劵，以增加货币供应量，维持利率在较低的水平（维持政府短期债劵接近零至少到2015年中期）。

QE3让民主党拍手称快，但同时却让共和党咬牙切齿。其原因，两党同时认同QE3会对美国经济有帮助。经济越好，则奥巴马成功连任的机会就越高，自然对民主党越有利，对共和党不利。但有趣的是，共和党攻击QE3的理由，是认为它将对美国经济的帮助有限，但同时大大增加了通货膨胀的风险。

为什么QE3对经济的帮助可能有限呢？

CNBC上今天有篇文章，“QE是否主要帮助了富人？”，可以从某种意义上帮助澄清这个观点（见附文，但作者的党派倾向本人不太清楚）。文章的大意是，英国央行上个月有篇研究报告，称英国的QE主要使富人受益，因为QE使股票和债劵价值大增970亿美元，而40%的受益让最富的5%的人拿了去。这将增加社会的不公，并会增加社会的动荡。

文章说，而反观美国，QE1和QE2主要使金融资产（股票，债劵）价格增加。而在美国，最富的5%拥有60%的金融资产，82%的股票，90%的债劵，于是QE在美国造就了两种不同的经济复苏速度，一个富人已经复苏了的速度和一个非富人的，仍在经济衰退中挣扎的速度。

文章最后问，将大部分的利润交给富人，真的就能给美国造就更多的工作职位吗？至少目前看，不太乐观。
“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”

从这篇文章引申来进一步想想，如果将大部分的利润交给富人（通过QE增加金融资产价格，或是罗姆尼的通过给富人减税），未必真的就能给美国造就更多的工作职位，那么罗姆尼的经济政策真的会让美国经济更好吗？换句话说，如果你怀疑QE3对美国经济和美国工作岗位的增加的效果，那么你还会支持罗姆尼的经济政策吗？



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.