????我們聽(tīng)說(shuō)，在2008年大選中曾一邊倒支持巴拉克?奧巴馬的高盛（Goldman Sachs）員工們?cè)诖舜未筮x中集體倒戈，轉(zhuǎn)投米特?羅姆尼。這時(shí)，很多人將它視為奧巴馬與這家投行關(guān)系疏遠(yuǎn)的一個(gè)跡象。但在高盛普通員工可能反對(duì)奧巴馬的同時(shí)，他在這家投行仍有一位重要的盟友：高盛首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家簡(jiǎn)?哈祖斯。

????當(dāng)然，出生于德國(guó)的哈祖斯從未公開(kāi)聲明支持奧巴馬總統(tǒng)。但在金融界頗有影響力的哈祖斯分析文章一直與美國(guó)民主黨實(shí)施的貨幣財(cái)政政策保持一致。過(guò)去幾年，哈祖斯發(fā)表過(guò)無(wú)數(shù)文章，提倡刺激性開(kāi)支，呼吁推出更多的量化寬松政策，放棄過(guò)早壓縮赤字的努力。

????去年，哈祖斯因?yàn)檫^(guò)去四年的準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測(cè)獲得了2011年度勞倫斯?克萊因獎(jiǎng)（Lawrence R. Klein Award），他在接受頒獎(jiǎng)后的演講中對(duì)上述觀(guān)點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了總結(jié)。這位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家在演講中援引了前美國(guó)財(cái)長(zhǎng)拉里?薩默斯的話(huà)說(shuō)，雖然危機(jī)“是由信心、借貸和支出過(guò)多造成的”，但也只能靠“信心、借貸和支出的增加來(lái)解決”。哈祖斯接著說(shuō)：

????我認(rèn)為這種觀(guān)點(diǎn)沒(méi)錯(cuò)。但不幸的是，它聽(tīng)起來(lái)可能太離譜，難以贏(yíng)得大多數(shù)選民和民選官員的認(rèn)可。特別是現(xiàn)在，一些財(cái)政刺激政策已經(jīng)實(shí)施了一段時(shí)間，而經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況依然糟糕，人們更容易相信政府赤字是問(wèn)題的根源（而不是解決之道），宏觀(guān)經(jīng)濟(jì)事關(guān)道義，行仁政的政府有獎(jiǎng)，邪惡的政府受罰。這種觀(guān)點(diǎn)在有些國(guó)家和文化中深入人心，在其他國(guó)家和文化中也慢慢得勢(shì)，其中就包括美國(guó)。

????哈祖斯的觀(guān)點(diǎn)為他贏(yíng)得了自由主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家保羅?克魯格曼等人的推崇，克魯格曼在他的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）博客中已不下10次提到哈祖斯。克魯格曼多次稱(chēng)哈祖斯的團(tuán)隊(duì)很“出色”，還說(shuō)這位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家是一位“非常安靜穩(wěn)重的人。”早在2009年，他就稱(chēng)哈祖斯的分析“十分精確”。

????最近，克魯格曼在一篇文章中宣稱(chēng)，高盛團(tuán)隊(duì)解決了“政策不確定性”問(wèn)題。共和黨人（和商界領(lǐng)袖）總是說(shuō)，奧巴馬政府的過(guò)度監(jiān)管抑制了公司擴(kuò)大招聘。

????哈祖斯不同意這個(gè)觀(guān)點(diǎn)?！拔覀儾徽J(rèn)為經(jīng)濟(jì)的糟糕表現(xiàn)是由外部政策不確定性的上升造成的，”他撰文寫(xiě)道。他的這篇文章中有一張圖，顯示一個(gè)反映不確定性的指數(shù)走向與經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)值缺口變動(dòng)相吻合?！按蟛糠终卟淮_定性的上升可能是經(jīng)濟(jì)疲弱的結(jié)果，而不是原因，”他在文中寫(xiě)到，以此抨擊保守黨政客經(jīng)常擁護(hù)的一個(gè)主張。

????10月初，哈祖斯表示驚愕，美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)居然打算讓1,260億美元所得稅減稅政策到期，聲稱(chēng)這可能會(huì)抵消第三輪貨幣寬松政策（QE3）產(chǎn)生的推動(dòng)作用。“我們很震驚，沒(méi)有一個(gè)政黨敢于挑戰(zhàn)壓縮赤字的邏輯，”他寫(xiě)到。他補(bǔ)充說(shuō)：“雖然我們同意，美國(guó)政府最終需要縮減開(kāi)支，但現(xiàn)在大幅縮減，時(shí)機(jī)看起來(lái)并不成熟?！?/p>

????When we learned that employees of Goldman Sachs, a group that overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in 2008, shifted their allegiances to Mitt Romney this election, many saw it as a sign that the President had alienated the investment bank. But while Goldman's rank and file may have turned against Obama, he still has an important ally at the firm: Goldman's chief economist, Jan Hatzius.

????To be sure, the German-born Hatzius hasn't publicly stated that he supports the President. But his analysis, which is widely read in financial circles, has long jibed with the monetary and fiscal policies embraced by Democrats. In numerous notes published over the last few years, Hatzius has advocated stimulus spending and called for more quantitative easing, renouncing efforts to slash the deficit as premature.

????He summarized these views in a speech last year, after accepting the 2011 Lawrence R. Klein Award for making the most accurate forecasts during the previous four years. In his remarks, the economist quoted former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who said that, while the crisis was "caused by too much confidence, borrowing, and spending," it could only be resolved by "increases in confidence, borrowing, and spending." Hatzius continued:

????I believe that this is true. But unfortunately, it is probably too much of an irony to resonate with most voters and elected officials. Especially after a period in which some fiscal stimulus has already been applied and the economy is still in bad shape, it is all too tempting to believe that government deficits are part of the problem rather than part of the solution, and that macroeconomics is a morality tale where virtuous governments are rewarded and wicked ones are punished. That view is held more strongly in some countries and cultures than in others but it has been gaining ground everywhere, including the United States.

????Hatzius' views have endeared him to the likes of liberal economist Paul Krugman, who has mentioned the Goldmanite nearly a dozen times in his New York Times blog. Krugman has repeatedly referred to Hatzius' group as "excellent," calling the economist a "very calm, measured guy." Back in 2009, he noted that Hatzius' analysis was "spot on."

????Krugman recently touted a note that Goldman's team put out on the subject of "policy uncertainty." Republicans (and business leaders) often argue that uncertainty created by the Obama administration's excessive regulations have prevented companies from hiring new workers.

????Hatzius disagreed. "[W]e do not believe that the economy's poor performance has been caused by an exogenous increase in policy uncertainty," he wrote. The note includes a chart showing that an index measuring uncertainty tracks closely with the economic output gap. "[M]uch of the increase in policy uncertainty is probably a consequence of economic weakness, rather than its cause," he wrote, knocking down an argument that is frequently espoused by conservative politicians.

????In early October, Hatzius expressed dismay that Congress would let the $126 billion payroll tax cut expire, arguing that it would likely counteract the boost from QE3. "We are surprised that neither party has seriously challenged the case for fiscal retrenchment," he wrote. He added: "While we agree that the U.S. government will ultimately need to tighten its belt, a big move in a restrictive direction still looks decidedly premature to us."