面臨次貸風暴以來的經濟危機，美國兩黨總統候選人針對危機的對策展開激辯。共和黨候選人麥肯不但對經濟情勢惡化程度缺乏掌握，屢屢說出背離民眾感受的言論，更主張進一步的放鬆金融管制、片面地倚賴自由市場。在國際金融市場空前混亂，同時經濟危機勢將導致國內需求萎縮，貧困與社會矛盾加劇的此時此刻，麥肯的言行和社會經濟現實及升斗小民生活體驗明顯脫節，無怪歐巴馬批判麥肯說「參議員大人，你講的是什麼經濟呀？！」 

歐巴馬對麥肯的譏諷，實際上突顯了兩人在政策優先性上不同的選擇︰麥肯走的還是共和黨親近大企業、捍衛少數上層階級利益的老路，而被認為帶有平民主義色彩的歐巴馬，其從政以來的主張與實績，則都主要聚焦在中下階級和弱勢群體上。 

美國紓困方案的爭論焦點之一就是不同社會群體間，誰得利、誰受損的問題。方案將不良資產的處理外包給和銀行關係密切的私人資產管理公司，一位相關公司高層便稱不知如何既讓銀行利潤極大化，又能照顧大眾利益。同樣的，行政院或總統府財經諮詢小組近來的各種救急方案，如證交稅減半、降低遺贈稅率、全額保證私人存款等，究竟主要讓誰得利，也是值得探究的重要問題。

在全球經濟危機、能源糧食價格飛揚等因素的交錯衝擊下，國內平民百姓處境明顯的惡化，這並非在野者的危言聳聽，而是真實地反映在重要的社經統計數字上。 

就業方面，今年一到八月，平均失業率、失業週數和因關廠歇業造成的失業人數都創三年來新高。同時間內大學及以上學歷失業率4.16%.，是1978年開始調查以來的高點。八月，每名求職者平均只有0.79個工作機會，達2001年7月以來的新低。 

民眾收支方面，今年一到七月受僱員工平均實質經常性薪資比去年同期少近千元，降幅2.72%，是調查廿八年來最差的紀錄。七月份消費者物價指數達5.92%，是1980年以來同期的新高，在油價有所下跌的背景下，八月份指數降為4..78%，卻仍是十四年來的第三高。 

我們無意把經濟衰退、民生苦痛的責任完全歸罪執政者，但是標榜「苦民所苦」的當局，必須嚴肅面對其政策優先性，也就是究竟「解誰之苦」、「救誰之急」的問題。平心而論，政府政策試圖納入了照顧弱勢、促進就業等目標，但是從政策力道、施政重心、具體效果等方面來看，這些舉措不是還停留在紙上作業，就是聊備一格，連國民黨智庫都承認「照顧弱勢、刺激消費」的措施效果有限。 

更重要的是，政府為救股市之急，以國安基金護盤、禁止放空兩週等措施「干預自由市場」，而在面對家庭用電調漲時，卻強調「回歸市場機制」，從這種雙重標準，百姓可以看清楚政府究竟在「救誰之急」。同時，牽涉到數百億金額、主要由上層階級獲利的證交稅減半、遺贈稅率調降等措施，是否能達成其所宣稱的目標（如資金回流）、是否會擴大社會不公、日後是否會排擠國家在教育與社會政策方面的支出，都是疑問。我們不得不也問政府的經濟設計師們一句︰「大人，您講的是什麼經濟呀？」 

政府一再強調，中長期經濟措施無法立竿見影，即使如此，我們都得追問︰政府是否有打造透明政府、健全財政和進步社會的準備，是否有足夠的政治意願來將資源挹注到教育訓練、就業和社會安全上，因為唯有如此，真正健全的經濟環境才有形成的可能。長期以來，國民黨始終抱持著新自由主義理念，片面強調市場萬能，實際上是讓市場上的強者得利、弱者受損，面對資本主義經濟結構性弊病的暴露，是調整政策方向，真正重視國家、市場和公民社會三者間平衡的時候了。

登在中國時報上的版本：

楊偉中．李文忠　〈大人，您在講誰的經濟？〉

英文版刊登於台北時報

The government’s aloof policies

By Yang Wei-Chung And Lee Wen-Chung 楊偉中，李文忠

Monday, Oct 13, 2008, Page 8
Faced with a grim economic crisis, US Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, are engaging in intense debate. McCain, with close ties to big business, has increasingly made remarks that run counter to public sentiment, proposing continued deregulation of the financial system and reliance on free markets.

At a time of chaos on global financial markets, shrinking domestic demand and aggravated poverty and social conflict, McCain’s statements deviate from the social and economic realities facing the average citizen. No wonder Obama jumped on McCain’s economic proposals, asking him: “Senator, what economy are you talking about?”

One point of contention in the US financial bailout is the question of which social group profits and which group loses.

In the same way, it is important to consider who will be the beneficiaries of Taiwan’s attempts to contain economic and financial damage. The Cabinet and the Presidential Office’s economic advisory task force have proposed a series of measures to revive the economy, such as halving the securities transaction tax, reducing the inheritance tax and providing a blanket guarantee for private deposits.

The global economic crisis and soaring energy and food prices have led to a deterioration in living standards.

Between January and August this year, the average unemployment rate, the number of weeks of unemployment and the number of people laid off because of closures have hit three-year highs. In the same period, the unemployment rate for college graduates jumped to 4.16 percent, the highest level since 1978. In August, each job seeker had an average of 0.79 job opportunities, the lowest level since July 2001. In addition, local wage earners saw their income decline by 2.72 percent in real terms in the first seven months of the year, the worst decline in 28 years.

We do not mean to attribute the declining economy and public suffering to the government on this basis alone. However, a government that boasts of the ability to feel the pain of the people must take a serious look at its policy priorities: Whose pain are they feeling, and whose distress are they relieving?

It is true that the government’s policies are aimed at protecting the disadvantaged and promoting employment growth, but judging from policy strength, focus and effectiveness, these measures are still at the discussion stages or implemented perfunctorily.

Even the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) own think tank admits that the results of measures for caring for the disadvantaged and for stimulating consumption have been limited.

More importantly, in its eagerness to save the stock market, the government has intervened in a free market by activating the National Stabilization Fund and prohibiting short selling for two weeks. When it comes to price hikes in electricity for household use, however, the government stresses “a return to the market mechanism.”

This double standard is transparent to a public whose distress the government is trying to relieve.

Meanwhile, it is questionable that halving the securities transaction tax and reducing the inheritance tax — measures worth tens of billions of dollars that mostly benefit wealthy people — will achieve the goals of accelerating capital flow. Without supplementary measures, these actions will increase social injustice and eat up money needed for educational and social policies.

So, we also must ask the government and their economic experts: “What economy are you talking about?”

The government has time and again emphasized the mid and long-term economic measures cannot yield instant results.

Even so, we ask if the government is ready to establish a transparent political and financial system and if it is willing to allocate resources to education, the job market and social security. Only then can the government establish a truly healthy and complete economic environment.

While the KMT has long subscribed to neo-liberal ideas and stressed the omnipotence of the market, the fact is that only the strong make a profit and the weak lose out.

When structural problems in the capitalist system are revealed, it is time for the government to adjust its policy direction and stress the balance between nation, market and civic society.

TRANSLATED BY TED YANG