2019年10月28日
In late August,none other than former Goldman chief economist and the former head of the NY Fed,Bill Dudley,broke the golden rule of central-banking elitism-he publicly crossed the line into politics,arguing that"there is even an argument"that the Fed should crush the economy(arguably by hiking or not cutting rates)and start the next recession,thereby preventing Trump from getting re-elected.
今年8月底，高盛前首席经济学家、纽约联邦储备银行(NY Fed)前行长比尔•达德利(Bill Dudley)打破了央行精英主义的黄金法则——他公开越界进入政治领域，辩称"甚至有一种观点"认为，美联储应该粉碎经济(可以说是通过加息或不降息)，开启下一场衰退，从而阻止特朗普再次当选。
..."this manufactured disaster-in-the-making presents the Federal Reserve with a dilemma:Should it mitigate the damage by providing offsetting stimulus,or refuse to play along?"
"这场人为制造的灾难正在酝酿之中，这让美联储陷入了两难境地:它是应该通过提供抵消性刺激来减轻损失，还是应该拒绝合作?"
Dudley's advice:"If the ultimate goal is a healthy economy,the Fed should seriously consider the latter approach",i.e.,defy the president.
达德利的建议是:"如果最终目标是一个健康的经济，美联储应该认真考虑后一种方法"，即藐视总统。
A week later,after widespread derision,Dudley doubled-down-despite attempting to clarify what he meant in his previous op-ed.
一周后，尽管达德利在之前的专栏文章中试图澄清自己的意思，但在遭到广泛的嘲笑之后，他还是加倍努力。
First,the Fed needs to be cautious that it does not inadvertently enable the president's trade war with China.
首先，美联储需要谨慎行事，以免不经意间引发奥巴马与中国之间的贸易战。
As I wrote:"what if the Fed's accommodation encourages the president to escalate the trade war further,increasing the risk of recession?The central bank's efforts to cushion the blow might not be merely ineffectual.They might actually make things worse."
正如我写的那样:"如果美联储的宽松政策鼓励总统进一步升级贸易战，增加经济衰退的风险，那该怎么办？中央银行为缓冲冲击所做的努力可能不仅仅是无效的。它们实际上可能会让事情变得更糟。"
In my judgment,there is a risk that the Fed,by easing,might encourage the president to take even more aggressive actions on trade and in raising tariffs.This might create even greater downside risks for the economy that monetary policy might prove ill-suited to address.
在我看来，美联储的宽松政策可能会鼓励总统在贸易和提高关税方面采取更激进的行动。这可能会给经济带来更大的下行风险，而事实可能会证明，货币政策并不适合应对这种风险。
And the absolute punchline:
还有一句绝对的妙语:
"I wrote the article to express my concern that the president had placed the negative economic consequences of his trade war at the feet of the Fed,and that Fed officials had not pushed back against this more forcibly."
"我写这篇文章是为了表达我的担忧，担心总统把自己贸易战的负面经济后果推到了美联储的脚下，担心美联储官员没有更有力地反击这种做法。"
Which is amusing,because after all those often contradictory words,Dudley leaves his readers where they started:asking him how the Fed should"push back more forcibly"against the president,one which the Fed can prevent from getting re-elected-as Dudley himself admitted last week-if it only chooses,but it would never choose to do so as it is so apolitical,it should push to"achieve a better economic outcome"than the one sought by the president.
这很有趣，因为在说了那些往往自相矛盾的话之后，达德利把读者们留在了他们开始的地方:问他美联储应该如何"更有力地反击"总统——正如达德利上周承认的那样，只要美联储愿意，它就可以阻止总统连任，但它永远不会选择这样做，因为它太不关心政治了，应该推动"实现一个比总统所追求的更好的经济结果"。
And now,six weeks later,Dudley appears to have flip-flopped completely, urging The Fed to cut rates as insurance against an imminent recession-the exact recession that he had previously willed into being to ouster President Trump in November 2020...
现在，六个星期过去了，达德利似乎完全改变了立场，敦促美联储降息，以防范即将到来的经济衰退——这正是他此前希望在2020年11月推翻特朗普总统的经济衰退.....。
通过彭博社,
People shouldn't be as worried as they are about the risk of a U.S.recession.That said,it wouldn't take much to trigger one,which is why the Federal Reserve should take out some insurance by providing added stimulus this week.
人们不应该像担心美国经济衰退的风险那样担心。也就是说，触发一次危机并不需要太多时间，这就是为什么美联储本周应该通过提供额外的刺激来采取一些保险措施的原因。
Market participants see all sorts of reasons to fret about an imminent slump.Global growth is slowing,trade wars are adding to uncertainty,the economic expansion is getting old and,until recently,yields on short-term Treasury bills were higher than those on long-term notes–the kind of"yield-curve inversion"that has tended to precede recessions.
市场参与者看到了各种各样的理由来担心即将到来的经济衰退。全球经济增长正在放缓，贸易战正在增加不确定性，经济扩张正在变老，而且直到最近，短期美国国债的收益率还高于长期国债——这种"收益率曲线反转"往往出现在衰退之前。
I'm less concerned.Consumers are in good shape,and the Fed's rate cuts have kept financial conditions easy.It takes more than age to kill an expansion:Typically,either unwanted inflation forces the Fed to snuff out growth,or some shock hits demand so hard and fast that the Fed can't respond quickly enough to prevent a recession.The yield curve is flat not because short-term rates are high,but because long-term rates are so low.Investors are buying bonds as a hedge against bad outcomes on growth;they're not worried about higher inflation.Importantly,monetary policy is still supporting growth,as can be seen in home sales and residential construction.
我没那么担心。消费者状况良好，美联储降息使金融环境保持宽松。通常情况下，要么是不受欢迎的通货膨胀迫使美联储扼杀经济增长，要么是某些冲击对需求的打击太大太快，以至于美联储无法及时做出反应，防止经济衰退。收益率曲线是平坦的，不是因为短期利率高，而是因为长期利率太低。投资者购买债券是为了对冲经济增长的不良后果;他们并不担心更高的通货膨胀。重要的是，货币政策仍在支持经济增长，这可以从房屋销售和住宅建设中看出。
What,then,can go wrong?Sometimes,an adverse event and human psychology can reinforce each other in such a way that they bring about a recession.Given how slowly the economy is growing,even a modest shock could do the trick.
那么，会出什么问题呢？有时候，不利事件和人类心理会相互加强，从而导致经济衰退。考虑到中国经济增长的缓慢程度，即使是温和的冲击也可能奏效。
To understand the risk,consider the historical behavior of the unemployment rate.Looking at a three-month average(to eliminate month-to-month noise),a remarkable pattern appears:When the rate rises,it moves either trivially or a lot.That is,either it goes up by less than a third of a percentage point,or it goes up by 2 percentage points or more and the U.S.economy falls into recession.Since World War II,there has never been anything in between.
要理解这种风险，可以考虑失业率的历史表现。看看三个月的平均值(去掉每个月的噪音)，一个显著的模式出现了:当利率上升时，它要么变化很小，要么变化很大。也就是说，要么上升不到三分之一个百分点，要么上升2个百分点或更多，美国经济就会陷入衰退。自从第二次世界大战以来，从来没有任何介于两者之间。
Why the gap?The answer probably lies in a dynamic that Yale economist Robert Shiller describes in his new book,"Narrative Economics."Suppose some minor economic shock,such as heightened uncertainty about trade policy,precipitates modest job losses.When other workers hear that their acquaintances,or their acquaintances'acquaintances,have been laid off,they worry that they could be next.So they tighten their belts a bit,eat out less,hold off on that kitchen remodeling.This reduces demand further and leads to more layoffs.Pretty soon the negative narrative is pervasive and self-reinforcing,with the unemployment rate rising persistently.The Fed can't respond in time because definitive data take a while to appear,and because it takes time for monetary easing to stimulate economic activity.
为什么会有这样的差距？答案可能就在耶鲁大学经济学家罗伯特·希勒在他的新书《叙事经济学》中描述的动态中
假设一些较小的经济冲击，如贸易政策的不确定性增加，导致了适度的失业。当其他员工听说他们的熟人或熟人的熟人被解雇时，他们担心自己可能是下一个。所以他们勒紧了裤腰带，减少了外出就餐的次数，推迟了厨房的改造。这进一步降低了需求，导致更多的裁员。很快，随着失业率持续上升，这种负面叙事变得无孔不入、自我强化。美联储无法及时做出回应，因为确切的数据需要一段时间才能出现，而且货币宽松政策需要时间来刺激经济活动。
There are plenty of identifiable risks that could trigger such a negative feedback loop right now.They include developments in the trade war between the U.S.and China and the drag exerted by slowing global growth--along with people's memories of the last deep recession,which could increase the power of gloomy narratives.
现在有很多可识别的风险可能引发这样一个负反馈循环。其中包括中美贸易战的发展，全球经济增长放缓带来的拖累，以及人们对上一次深度衰退的记忆，这可能会增加悲观叙事的力量。
This danger bolsters the argument for the Fed to ease monetary policy at this week's meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee.Such a preemptive move will reduce the chances that the economy will slow sufficiently to hit stall speed.Even if the insurance turns out to be unnecessary,the potential consequences aren't bad.It just means that the economy will be stronger and the inflation rate will likely move more quickly back toward the Fed's 2%target.
这种危险支持了美联储在本周联邦公开市场委员会会议上放松货币政策的论点。这种先发制人的举措将降低经济放缓到陷入停滞的可能性。即使保险被证明是不必要的，潜在的后果也不是坏事。这只是意味着经济会更加强劲，通货膨胀率可能会更快地回到美联储2%的目标。
***
***
Of course,as we detailed previously,what Dudley is concerned about is not the trade war itself,but how it could implicate the Fed as the global economy continues to grind to a halt,and as he says,"the Fed's problems might not end there.Not only might the Fed be unable to rescue the economy,but it also might be blamed for the economy's poor performance.This risk is higher because of the president's ongoing attacks on the Fed."This is a point he echoes toward the end of the article as well,writing that"I don't think the Fed should be attacked for the economy's performance when the president's own actions are creating the downside risks."
当然，正如我们之前详述的那样，达德利所关心的不是贸易战本身，而是在全球经济继续陷入停滞之际，它将如何影响美联储。正如他所言，"美联储的问题可能不会就此结束。美联储不仅可能无法拯救经济，还可能被指责为经济表现不佳的罪魁祸首。由于总统不断攻击美联储，这种风险更高。"这一点在文章的最后也得到了他的回应，他写道:"我认为，在总统自己的行动正在制造下行风险的情况下，不应该因为经济表现而攻击美联储。"
Bingo:that's it right there-the"risk"that the Fed may be blamed for not just the"economy's poor performance"but that the great unwashed masses may one day wake up and realize that the reason why the global financial system is facing a crisis of monumental proportions has nothing to do with Trump-who is merely a vessel and a symptom of a broken system-and everything to do with a central bank which ever since its creation in 1913 has had one purpose,to make the rich richer and perpetuate a broken monetary system(even Mark Carney is saying the days of the dollar as a reserve currency are now over),is why Dudley is so very much on edge.
宾果:就是这样——"风险"是，美联储可能不仅因为"经济表现不佳"而受到指责，而且可能有一天，无知的大众意识到，全球金融体系正面临一场规模巨大的危机的原因，与特朗普没有任何关系——特朗普只不过是一个容器，是一个破碎体系的症状——而这一切都与中央银行有关。自1913年成立以来，中央银行的目的就只有一个，即让富人变得更加富裕，并延续一个破碎的货币体系(甚至连马克•卡尼(Mark Carney)都说，美元作为储备货币的时代已经结束)，这就是为。
After all,those same great unwashed masses,following the moment of epiphany may pay Dudley a visit in his mansion and demand an explanation of their own why everything has gone to hell,as it almost certainly will after the next recession.
毕竟，那些同样的下层民众，在顿悟的那一刻，可能会去杜德利的豪宅拜访他，要求他们自己解释为什么一切都变成了地狱----在下一次经济衰退之后，几乎肯定会这样。
来源：https://www.zerohedge.com/political/deep-state-dudley-flip-flops-urges-fed-cut-rates-avoid-trump-killing-recession?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29
