（外脑精华·北京）美国财长的工作琐碎繁杂，缺少乐趣。财政部要负责印刷纸币、制作硬币，但财长却无法控制货币供应量；财长要监督国内收入局的运作，却无权制定税收政策；财长是国债局的上司，却无法决定预算赤字。
正因为如此，许多人对高盛CEO兼董事长亨利·鲍尔森同意接任美国财长感到不解。毕竟，高盛掌门人拥有无上的权势，而财政部却备受轻视。
那么，鲍尔森出任财长意义何在？人们为此寻找了种种理由。有人说，鲍尔森能够赢得金融市场对政府经济政策的信心；有人说，他能使政府执行更加负责的财政政策；还有人说，鲍尔森作为华尔街要人，能够在11月大选之前更好地宣传布什政府的经济业绩。
然而，所有这些论调都忽视了最关键的问题：鲍尔森将为财政部、乃至布什政府带来对风险与回报的深刻理解。作为财长，他能够向议员和公众阐明，在自由贸易等至关重要的问题上，不同政策选择究竟会产生怎样的后果，
改造华尔街的“风险先生”
在今天的华尔街，证券公司为了增加盈利，愿意承担越来越多的风险。目前，美国证券业的负债经营程度已经超出了上世纪90年代的高峰。与此同时，华尔街也巩固了其全球金融霸权。
鲍尔森正是这个新华尔街的缔造者之一。在他的领导下，高盛已经成为有史以来最强大、盈利能力最强的风险运作机器。自1999年鲍尔森出任CEO以来，高盛的负债迅速膨胀，长期债务由200亿美元猛增至2005年的1000亿美元。
如果把鲍尔森称为“风险先生”，那么克林顿政府的财长、同样来自高盛的罗伯特·鲁宾则可以称为“谨慎先生”。当时高盛的规模比现在小得多，而且仍然是合伙制企业，所以无法充分参与公共资本市场。
任命“风险先生”鲍尔森担任美国财长是再恰当不过的选择。依常理来看，美国经济最大的问题是巨额债务和严重的双赤字问题。美国的贸易赤字已增至国内生产总值的6%左右，无论自由派还是保守派经济学家都警告说，这种局面最终可能导致美元暴跌和金融危机。2006年，美国联邦预算赤字至少将达到3000亿美元。另据预测，从长远来看，美国的社保和医保都将出现巨额赤字。
然而，与高盛相比，近年来美国政府的债务增长速度还要略逊一筹。1999年，高盛每1美元净收入对应的长期负债额约为1.6美元，当年美国政府每1美元收入对应的负债额（主要是长期负债）约为3.1美元。而今，政府的数字增加到3.7美元，而高盛的数字则猛增到4美元左右。
显然，鲍尔森不惧怕借债和承担风险。正因为如此，他也许是应对美国经济和财政难题的理想人选。无论经济学家是否承认，从负债累累这一点来看，美国经济与高盛其实极为相似。面对日趋激烈的全球经济竞争，美国经济唯一的繁荣之道就是承担风险。事实上，美国就如同一家巨型风险资本基金，它源源不断地吸收国外资金，将其投资于高风险、高回报的项目。
华盛顿期待新财长
鲍尔森之前的两任财长均来自老迈的工业部门。保罗·奥尼尔来自金属巨头美国铝业公司，约翰·斯诺则来自铁路巨头CSX公司。金属和铁路行业增长迟缓，企业经营都避免过度借贷。而鲍尔森来自增长迅速的金融业，面对层出不穷的机遇，借用外部资金才是正确的经营之道。
不知布什本人是否清楚鲍尔森与两位前任的不同。据透露，布什选中鲍尔森，是因为他是华尔街举足轻重的资深银行家。他还希望鲍尔森在政府中担当更多职责，并成为总统在经济事务与经济决策方面的首要顾问。
然而，随着议会选举的临近，面对民主D人的步步紧逼，很难想象鲍尔森能够在税收政策上发挥很大作用。至于汇率问题，美元走势主要受通胀、经济增长等因素左右，财长能够发挥的作用也是微乎其微。
鲍尔森的真正价值在于，他不但能够为财政部、布什政府乃至整个华盛顿带来对风险的深刻理解，还能够发挥其阐释风险的高超能力。当今，几乎所有经济问题都存在风险问题。以自由贸易问题为例，保持美国经济的开放对美国自身和别国的经济增长都是至关重要的，但自由贸易给美国人带来了很大风险。如果鲍尔森能够向选民和政界阐明对外贸易的利弊，将是对美国的巨大贡献。
此外，布什对减税极其热心。而税收政策的取舍问题很明显，减税无疑会扩大今天的财政赤字，但对于未来经济增长的刺激作用就没那么确定了。如果财长能够透彻地解释税收问题，就会对华盛顿产生很大影响力。关于这个问题，鲍尔森去年11月就对德国《明镜周刊》表明了态度：现在没有赤字，将来也就没有增长，相对于这种情况，他赞成用赤字来换取未来的增长。
鲍尔森在高盛就以高超的沟通能力著称，如果他能够把华尔街行话改造成公众和政治家可以理解的通俗语言，那么所有美国人都将是受益者。
英文原文：Mr. Risk Goes To Washington
Hank Paulson's profound understanding of risk and reward makes him the perfect pick for the Treasury
What does a Treasury Secretary do? Good question. It's much easier to tick off the things a Treasury Secretary can't do. He can't control the money supply, even though the Treasury Dept. includes the Bureau of Engraving & Printing, which prints the paper currency, and the U.S. Mint, which makes the coins (7.7 billion pennies last year). He can't set tax policy, even though he supervises the Internal Revenue Service. While he controls the Bureau of the Public Debt, he can't expand or shrink the budget deficit. One might say the Treasury Secretary, especially in the Bush Administration, gets all of the scut work and none of the fun.
That's why many people were surprised when Henry M. Paulson Jr., CEO of Goldman Sachs Group (GS ) -- a power position if ever there was one -- accepted President George W. Bush's request to become the new Treasury chief. Treasury has been so minimized in recent years that most news outlets have been conditioned to downplay it. Most of their accounts of the Paulson nomination were heavy on fluff and devoid of specifics. Paulson was repeatedly lauded for the "credibility" he would bestow on the Administration's economic policy in the eyes of the financial markets. Some commentators opined, hopefully, that he would be a voice for "fiscal responsibility" who would have a "seat at the table" when economic policy was made. Others saw Paulson as a "heavyweight" who could more effectively deliver the Bush Administration's message of economic growth before the November elections.
Slide Show >>But all of that chatter misses the true significance of Paulson's appointment. What he'll bring to Treasury, and to Washington, is a more sophisticated understanding of risk and return than his two immediate predecessors had. As Treasury Secretary, he'll be perfectly positioned to explain to Senators and citizens alike the true consequences of various policy choices in such vital areas as free trade, where avoiding risk means falling further behind.
PROFIT MACHINE
Think of Paulson as Mr. Risk. He's one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits. By some key measures, the securities industry is more leveraged now than it was at the height of the 1990s boom. It has also extended its global supremacy since then.
Goldman, under Paulson's leadership, became one of the greatest and most profitable risk-taking machines ever built. Since 1999, when he took over as sole CEO, Goldman has competed with bigger rivals such as Citigroup (C ) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. by being aggressive, making smart gambles, and putting the company's own money into deals. Paulson stresses Goldman's willingness to take risks along with clients in the latest annual report: "Investment banks are expected to commit more of their own capital when executing transactions."
The subject has become an obsession at Goldman: how to find profitable risks, how to control and monitor them, and how to avoid the catastrophic missteps that can bring down whole companies. That means taking on more debt: $100 billion in long-term debt in 2005, compared with about $20 billion in 1999. It means placing big bets on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities. And it means holding almost $50 billion in the piggy bank, enough cash and liquid securities to keep the firm going in the event of a financial crisis.
By contrast, Robert E. Rubin, head of the National Economic Council and later Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, was Mr. Prudent. Rubin also came out of Goldman Sachs, but it was a much smaller firm back then, and because Goldman was a private partnership, it had limited access to the public capital markets. That made Rubin far more attuned to the need to preserve and protect capital. Perhaps that's one reason why he pushed for frugality from the very moment he entered government.
The appointment of Paulson, Mr. Risk, as Treasury Secretary is at once ironic and completely appropriate. According to conventional economic wisdom, the single biggest problem the U.S. faces is a massive accumulation of debt. Both liberal and conservative economists warn that the bulging trade deficit, now roughly 6% of gross domestic product, poses a danger of sending the dollar plunging and causing a financial meltdown. The federal budget deficit for 2006 will hit at least $300 billion. And current projections call for Social Security and Medicare to run up enormous deficits in the long run.
Yet Goldman actually has leveraged up faster than the U.S. government in recent years. In 1999, Goldman had about $1.60 in long-term debt for every dollar in net revenue. In the same year, the federal government had $3.10 in debt, mostly long-term, for every dollar in revenue. Today the government has about $3.70; Goldman, around $4.
Clearly, Paulson isn't scared by debt and risk-taking. That might make him the ideal person to grapple with the U.S. economic and fiscal situation, which is more similar to Goldman's than most economists will admit. Facing intense competition from around the world, the only way the American economy can thrive is through risk-taking. Indeed, some economists have characterized the U.S. as a giant venture capital fund that sucks in money from overseas and invests it in high-risk, high-return projects.
OLD ECONOMY THINKING
The two previous heads of Treasury, Paul O'Neill and John W. Snow, came out of the old industrial economy. Before moving to Treasury, O'Neill was head of Alcoa Inc. (AA ), the aluminum giant, and Snow led the railroad giant CSX Corp. (CSX ) -- two industries where growth is slow and borrowing is to be avoided. Paulson comes out of the part of the economy where the U.S. still has a preeminent global position, growth is strong, and borrowing to take advantage of opportunities makes sense.
It's hard to know whether Bush and his staff understood the difference between Paulson and his predecessors when he was first approached several weeks ago. At the time, Paulson said he wasn't interested. He didn't change his mind until he met with Bush on May 20. According to an individual close to Paulson, the President told the Goldman chief he wanted a "very senior person" from Wall Street. He also said he wanted Paulson to play a broader role in his Administration than had previous Treasury secretaries, taking on the role of Bush's "principal adviser" on economic matters and driving economic policy.
Heady stuff. Yet it seems hard to imagine that Paulson will have more than a marginal influence on tax policy, especially if the Democrats make political inroads in November, as seems likely. And the dollar will be affected far more by economic events, such as the course of inflation and growth, than by anything the Treasury Secretary can do.
Instead, what Paulson brings to the Treasury Dept., the Bush Administration, and, in fact, all of Washington, in addition to his understanding of risk, is an ability to communicate its upside and downside.
The importance of risk shows up in virtually every economic issue of the day. Take free trade, a subject that falls under the purview of the Treasury Secretary. Keeping the U.S. open to foreign goods and services is essential for growth, both in this country and abroad. Yet free trade creates risks for Americans. If Paulson can communicate the pros and cons of trade to voters and politicians, he'll do the country a service.
Or consider tax cuts, a subject dear to the President's heart. Whether or not you believe lowering taxes is a good idea, the logic seems clear: Cutting taxes accepts the certainty of a bigger budget deficit today in exchange for a less certain boost to economic growth in the future. A Treasury Secretary who can get that idea across could be highly influential in Washington. Paulson is already on the record as favoring the risk-reward proposition. "I still prefer the situation we're in to a situation without a deficit but with no growth," he told German news magazine Der Spiegel last November.
Within Goldman, Paulson is known as an exceedingly effective communicator. If he can translate Wall Street's language of speculation into something the public and politicians understand, the President's gamble in appointing him will pay off for everyone.
