一年一度的巴菲特股东大会即将召开。
每年五月的第一个星期六数万投资人都会怀朝圣的心情，前往位于美国奥马哈的伯克希尔哈撒韦总部。
受疫情影响，今年的股东大会将不允许股东亲自出席，改为全程现场直播。
此前，金融界连续三年前往现场为中国投资者带回一手资讯与精彩观点，并在海外举行中美投资人峰会，本次巴菲特股东大会我们亦不会缺席。
4月30日19点，“战疫·未来—金融界之夜暨2020中美投资人云峰会”将准时上线，金融界邀请海内外专家共聚一堂，搭建中美投资沟通桥梁，聚焦后疫情时代全球经济、社会的巨大变革与机遇。
在“战疫·未来—金融界之夜暨2020中美投资人云峰会”上，哈佛大学经济学教授Robert Barro发表观点。他指出乐观情况下，病毒快速得到控制后，经济大概率会出现V型复苏，经济萎缩将仅有全年GDP的10％-15％。同时，他认为货币政策不会发挥主要作用，财政政策可以通过失业保险、健康险来强化基本的社会安全。
金融界：您认为新冠疫情会如何影响全球经济？
Robert Barro: 深度萧条似乎在所难免，短期内GDP（按照全年计算）会出现大约20％的下降。问题的关键在于，这会持续多久？当病毒（快速）得到控制，经济大概率会出现快速的V型复苏。那么经济萎缩将仅有全年GDP的10％-15％。
金融界：不少中国经济学家认为这次疫情带来的影响可以与大萧条及2008年次贷危机相提并论，您是怎么看待这个问题的？有何异同？
Robert Barro: 流感大流行（更广为人知的一个名字是西班牙流感）似乎是，在最糟糕的情况下，估计传染性病毒死亡率最好的历史标杆。根据48个国家（约占当时全球人口的92％）的数据，1918-1920年全球死亡率约为2.1％。如果按照这样的死亡率，这次疫情会有1.5亿人死亡。
为了防止病毒进一步扩散，经济活动的停摆会拯救更多人，代价则是损失更多的GDP。1918-1920年，典型情况是GDP收缩约为6％，但这样的紧缩持续了几年，总地来看，损失约为全年GDP的12％。这也是遏制社会活动，如：关闭学校、禁止群体性聚集、隔离的后果。但是当时的干预的程度和时长都远低于现在。
根据数据，1918-1920年的流感大流行死亡率高的国家多为最贫穷的国家，如：撒哈拉以南的非洲、印度、危地马拉和印度尼西亚。这或许是因为欠发达的公共卫生系统经济会易发生更广泛地传播。另外，一个很类似的情况可以应用于今天的情形，1918-1920年中国预估的流感死亡率是1.4％，大约为48个国家的平均值。
金融界：对于全球政府和投资者有何建议？在复产复工方面，货币政策、财政政策有何建议？
Robert Barro：我认为货币政策不会发挥主要作用，它们只能保证金融体系的正常运营。美联储和其他中央银行在现在的背景下做得很好。
财政政策的主要职能是通过扩展项目如：失业保险、健康险，来强化基本的社会安全网络。另外一件很重要的事情是，政府也要尽力保证企业正常运转，同时保障他们的员工。
英文原文：
JRJ：How would Coronavirus affect the global economy？
Robert Barro: A strong recession seems certain—with a short-term fall in GDP by perhaps 20％ （on an annual basis）. The critical factor is how long this lasts. A sharp V-shaped recovery is plausible once the virus is contained. In that case， the full contraction may be only 10-15％ of a full year’s GDP.
JRJ：Some Chinese experts are comparing this crisis to the Great Depression and subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. What are the similarities and differences？
Robert Barro: The Great Influenza Pandemic （popularly known as the Spanish Flu） seems like the best historical guideline for a worst-case scenario applicable to a contagious virus with a substantial death rate. The overall world death rate 1918-20 was 2.1％， based on 48 countries with data （constituting 92％ of world population at the time）. That would be a terrible outcome today in terms of deaths， over 150 million people.
The sharp response of shutting down much of the economy and， thereby， lessening disease spread， should produce a better health outcome though possibly at the cost of more lost GDP. In 1918-20, the typical contraction of GDP was around 6％， though sustained for a couple years， so corresponding to a loss of about 12％ of a year’s GDP. There was also a substantial amount of curbing of social interactions—particularly school closings， bans on public gatherings， and isolation/quarantine. But these interventions were much weaker and more short-lived than those being pursued currently.
In 1918-20, the high death rates were concentrated among the poorest countries—sub-Saharan Africa， India， Guatemala， and Indonesia among the countries with data. Probably this is because of poorly developed systems of public health and worse economic development more broadly. A similar pattern is likely to apply today. China’s estimated flu death rate 1918-20 was 1.4％， about average across the 48 countries with data.
JRJ：Any advices for the governments and the worldwide investors？ What monetary or fiscal policy do you think is suitable for resumption？
Robert Barro: I do not think that monetary policy can play a major role， except to ensure that the financial system keeps operating smoothly. The Federal Reserve and other central banks seem to be performing well in this context.
I think the major role for fiscal policy is to strengthen the basic social safety net， by expanding programs like unemployment insurance and healthcare. It is also important for governments to try to ensure that companies do not go out of business and maintain links with their employees.
限 时 特 惠： 本站每日持续更新海量各大内部创业教程，一年会员只需98元，全站资源免费下载 点击查看详情
站 长 微 信： lzxmw777
