客户案例 /
当前位置:首页 > 客户案例

Under the pandemic, amidst the stock market crash, dangers were all around. The U.S. Senate passed a huge relief bill totaling US$2 trillion:


Pay up to US$1200 to individuals, US$2400 for couples, and US$500 for each child;


Establish a taxpayer capital pool of USD 500 billion to provide loans or loan guarantees to enterprises;


Provided 350 billion U.S. dollars in loans to small businesses to pay salaries, wages and benefits;


Provided 58 billion U.S. dollars to airlines to pay employee salaries, salaries and benefits, as well as loans and loan guarantees;


Provided $117 billion in grants to hospitals and veterans' medical care;


Providing US$17 billion in loans and loan guarantees to companies related to national security;


Provide 16 billion U.S. dollars for the national strategic drug and medical supplies reserve;


It also includes expanding unemployment insurance, delaying tax payments, tax relief, and exemption of student loan interest.


This is a "wartime level" rescue plan, and it is "one of the most expensive and far-reaching measures in the history of the United States." The Trump administration was able to let go of its hands to rescue the market because the Fed provided unlimited liquidity support.


This month, after the Fed cut interest rates to zero, it entered the crisis management mode ahead of time and launched the “no bottom line” rescue plan: unlimited purchases of treasury bonds and mortgage bonds; bypassing commercial banks to provide various types of loans to enterprises and individuals; Purchase corporate bonds and trading open-end index funds (ETFs) in the secondary market.


The Fed is not like the "lender of last resort" but the "buyer of last resort". How should we evaluate this rescue operation? This action has plunged many people into contradictions and paradoxes in economics: a crisis may break out immediately if it is not saved, and a bigger crisis may break out in the future.


Many brokerage economists who support interventionism criticize the Fed's move to "drink poison to quench thirst." Investors who usually oppose interventionism welcome the benefits and crave the Fed's liquidity.


If Keynes, Fisher, Mises, Friedman, and Volcker were alive, how would they evaluate the rescue operations of the Fed and the Trump administration? Did the Fed's actions "cross the border"? Is this saving the market or saving people? How to distinguish between saving the market and saving people, and how to cooperate?


In the face of economic and social crises, how should the central bank and the government rescue? This article goes deep into the internal logic of the market, central bank, and currency operation, trying to eliminate misunderstandings, explain the paradox, and clear the source.


The logic of this article:


1. "Wartime level": What happened to the United States?


2. "Rescue Posture": How to rescue the market?


3. The "dollar problem": how to change it?


(Note: The text is 8000 words, the reading time is about 30 minutes, you can read it first and share it with your friends)


The new crown epidemic is spreading at an alarming rate in the United States, and the number of infections and deaths are soaring.


After the outbreak detonated the US stock market, it is impacting the real economy and society. Companies, factories, schools, and stores in most states in the United States are closed, and markets are disrupted, logistics is blocked, orders are cancelled, workers are unemployed, and business closures are spreading. The states are expected to announce a record number of claims for unemployment benefits.


In the current era of globalization, capital has high liquidity and infectious viruses are highly contagious. In the face of the "dual liquidity" blow from market crises and public health events, the Fed and the Trump administration have seen the "devil" haunt: treasury bonds, corporate bonds, asset management mines, and possibly increasing unemployment and corporate and household bankruptcies.


The current crisis in the United States can be specifically decomposed into a stock market disaster and a public health crisis:


1. The oil price plummeted by the epidemic situation, detonated the collapse of financial asset prices, which can currently be defined as a stock market crash.


How far the stock market crash is from the financial crisis depends on whether the Fed can hold the national debt and eliminate the "asset management mine." The Fed buys unlimited Treasury bonds and directly purchases transactional open-end index funds (ETFs), such as rescue operations and direct blood transfusions to Treasury bonds, the stock market, and asset management agencies.


It is expected that the short-term liquidity tension can be relieved, the stock market crash can temporarily prevent the impact of commercial banks and national credit, and the warning of the financial crisis has been eased.


2. However, the public health crisis of the epidemic is pushing the real economy of the United States to the brink of economic crisis, and may even trigger a social crisis.


Therefore, we see that the rescue operation of the US government and the Federal Reserve goes beyond the scope of rescue, and belongs to the "wartime level" of social rescue: it rescues the market and people, and it rescues the financial crisis as well as the economic crisis and the social crisis.


This is in line with the logic of the United States in dealing with disasters: economic accounts.


In the United States, the boundary between civil power and government responsibility is very clear, and the government has no right to close the city rashly. The government can only gradually increase the level according to the spread of the epidemic, up to the wartime level.


In the process of raising the level, the government must have a comprehensive rescue and compensation plan. Companies, factories, and schools are closed, and the government has to provide corporate loans, tax concessions, worker wages, unemployment benefits, and cash compensation. Without this set of rescue plans, the deaths caused by the economic collapse may be more serious than the new crown epidemic.


Even at the same “wartime level”, China’s rescue method is different from that of the United States: China fought a rapid annihilation war decisively, then resumed work and production, and stimulated major infrastructure construction; the United States first used the Fed and the federal government’s funds to cover the bottom, and then in the epidemic prevention There is a constant trade-off between control and economic sustainability.


Therefore, what we have seen is that the actions of the US government seem to save the market more than people.


Keynesians equate economic crises with social disasters. They believe that saving the market is actually saving people. Many people remember a famous quote by Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." People live in the present, the crisis is now, survival is the first.


The post-Keynesian Stiglitz called on the government not to pay attention to deficits as it did during World War II, and to let go of rescue efforts. In fact, if the two trillion dollar rescue plan is implemented, the debt ratio of the United States will rise to 119%, exceeding the highest level during World War II (118.9%).


Critics say that this move will undoubtedly quench thirst, and the US Treasury debt will continue to swell and will die even worse in the future. This argument lasted for a whole hundred years. Just 100 years ago, at the end of the First World War, a group of young Cambridge economists faced a devastated world and began to doubt what neoclassicism said: the "flower of evil" of selfish desire bears the good fruits of public interest. ("The Fable of the Bee", Mandeville)

批评人士说,这一举动无疑将解渴,美国国债将继续膨胀,并在未来更加恶化。这种争论持续了整整一百年。就在100年前,在第一次世界大战结束时,一群年轻的剑桥经济学家面对一个毁灭性的世界,并开始怀疑新古典主义所说的话:自私欲望的“邪恶之花”结出了公共利益的丰硕成果。 (《曼德维尔的寓言》)

More than 100 years later, after experiencing various controversies between Keynesianism, Austrian school, neoclassicism, neoliberalism, new institutional economics, and game theory, we are still confused: to save or not to save?


My point of view is that salvation is affirmative, but salvation should not be done in a “fuzzy” way, otherwise it will not save people but harm them. Here we need to understand a fundamental issue: there is a fundamental difference between saving society and saving the market, saving people and saving enterprises.


Many people compare the market to the life of an individual. People are dying. This is actually a very wrong analogy. The structure and logic of the market are different from people: the market is a distributed structure, and its operation logic is a spontaneous order; human life is a centralized structure, and its operation logic is a central command system.


There is one less death. The government has the responsibility to save the lives of every citizen and to ensure that social order does not collapse. Therefore, the government must save people and society.


However, the market is different. The vitality of the market lies in the mutual game. Every day, companies die, companies are created every day, companies make money every day, and companies lose money every day. When the economy is booming, many companies make money, and when the economy is down, many companies lose money.


Only a market that makes money without losing money will surely disappear. If the government rescues the loss-making enterprises, it is equivalent to rewarding the loss-making enterprises, rewarding entrepreneurs who make wrong decisions and taking risks, and hurting those who make correct decisions.


This will cause two kinds of harm: one is moral hazard, and the other is market distortion, which ultimately reduces market efficiency. The final result is that the government and the Federal Reserve become the "last buyers", in fact, the whole people pay for the wrong decisions and operating risks of the entire market.


The market follows the laws of freedom, not the logic of democracy. Social and political issues can be resolved by democratic voting, but democracy cannot be used in the market.


The economic crisis has come, many companies have closed down, many companies have lost money, and the government cannot bail out the market for the benefit of the "most people", because this will harm the interests of a small group of people-entrepreneurs and individuals who make the right decisions. The status of a small number of people is equal to the majority of people, otherwise it will easily lead to "tyranny of the majority."


Some people say that if an economic recession does not save the market, the average life expectancy will drop, and some people commit suicide because of the embarrassment of their lives. Isn't this the same as not saving it? What I want to say is that the evil result of a messy and confused rescue is that the economic recession is more serious. This is not to save people but to harm people.


In reality, as long as the economy is in recession, it is easy to trigger "tyranny of the majority." Most people voted to pass the bailout plan, "helicopter money", and everyone is happy. In fact, this is a free rider. The central bank is a public utility, and everyone tries to ride a free ride on credit money to tide over the difficulties. But the result is "tragedy of the commons"-asset bubble collapse or inflation.


Therefore, saving society and saving individuals is completely different from saving the market and saving enterprises. This is not an issue of morality or democracy, but is determined by the difference in their structure and operational logic.


So, shouldn't the government help? of course not! When a social or economic crisis breaks out, how should the government rescue it?


First, save people and society.


The core responsibility of the government is to save people and society, not the market. Usually, the government needs to provide comprehensive public goods, such as medical care, education, welfare housing, social insurance, infrastructure, public health system, public finance, strategic reserve resources, legal system, national institutions, and judicial system.


When a crisis breaks out, the government can initiate a rescue plan, initiate emergency procedures, allocate strategic reserve resources, increase public financial investment, provide more relief payments, unemployment benefits, tax reductions and exemptions, extend tax payments, protect the lives and property safety of Chinese people, etc. . This rescue operation follows the majority principle.


Second, rescue the market in a limited and extremely harsh manner.


In theory, the government should withdraw from the ranks of market intervention and separate the "rescue market" from the government's responsibilities. This is the most beneficial to the economy.


However, the reality is difficult to achieve. Because economic crises and social crises are inseparable, it is often economic crises that trigger social crises. The government may choose to intervene in advance and intervene in the economic crisis in advance to prevent the outbreak of a social crisis.


This is the difference between politics and economics: economics studies objective laws, while politics emphasizes the subjective art of compromise. Economics tells people what is right and what direction they "should" go in; politics believes that the solution to current problems is the right path.


If I have to explain economically why the government rescued the market, I can think of transaction cost theory. Friedman's permanent income hypothesis proves that Keynes's demand theory (monetary drive) does not hold. Therefore, we cannot support the government to rescue the market from the perspective of Keynes, but the theory of new institutional economics can.


From the perspective of new institutional economics, the only reason for the existence of government and public goods is to reduce transaction costs. The government rescues the market or rescues the market to a limited extent. Of course, it will reduce market efficiency and increase transaction costs. However, if the economic crisis induces a social crisis, the market transaction costs may be higher.


The government, like ordinary people, makes choices on the margins. Whether to rescue the market or not, the degree of intervention depends entirely on the balance of marginal transaction costs.


For example, the failure of Boeing is not saved? If it is not saved, the bankruptcy of this company may trigger a chain reaction. A large number of companies fail and workers lose their jobs, so transaction costs will rise sharply. Rather than saving society, it is better to intervene in advance to save the market and save large enterprises.


If Boeing is rescued, it will induce moral hazard and increase transaction costs. What moral hazard? Boeing knew that it was "big to fail," and "strongly" asked the federal government for $60 billion in rescue, and it refused to exchange shares.


This is actually a moral hazard induced by the federal government and the Federal Reserve's large-scale rescue of large companies in 2008-a disguised incentive for Wall Street financial institutions and large companies to take risks. Such rescue will only amplify the risk.


So how to rescue? Two conditions must be met:


One is to strictly follow the Bajiet rule.


The Bajiet rule is specifically proposed to solve moral hazard, and it is basically to reduce payment costs. The government must formulate harsh bailout conditions, such as the definition of bailout targets, asset and liability requirements, punitive interest rates, and so on.


This time the Trump administration’s rescue conditions mentioned: “Prevent President Trump and his family business from accepting emergency taxpayer assistance”, “This provision also applies to Vice President Pence, heads of executive departments, members of Congress and His family", this is the definition of the recipients of assistance.


"It is forbidden for companies that accept government loans to repurchase stocks before the full one year of repayment." "It is forbidden to raise the salary of employees or executives who received at least $425,000 in income last year". This is a liability clause for the rescued companies.

“禁止所有接受政府贷款的公司在还款满一年之前回购股票。” “禁止提高去年获得至少425,000美元收入的雇员或高管的薪水”。这是被救公司的责任条款。

However, these rescue conditions are too loose and not strict enough.


Second, the rescue funds come from the government's public finances, and the central bank's loose policies should be used with caution.


There are essential differences between fiscal expansion rescue and monetary expansion rescue:


Responsibilities are different: the main responsibility of currency expansion or contraction is to maintain the stability of currency prices, and the "lender of last resort" procedure can only be initiated at the moment of crisis.


The effect is different: monetary expansion means that the currency in the market increases "out of thin air"; fiscal expansion is the transfer of funds, that is, the transfer of funds from the government to the market, enterprises and individuals. The government cannot expand its finances indefinitely. Taking into account the financial pressure, it will be more cautious.


Therefore, it is necessary to set the rescue funding gradient:


The first level: government financial funds;


The second level: government financial guarantees, central bank loans;


The third level: direct loans from the central bank (the lender of last resort).


These three levels are based on marginal transaction costs, applicable to different crisis levels and objects, and have strict procedures and rescue conditions.


Contrasting with the above, let's take a look at the problems with the Federal Reserve and the US government's rescue: The core problem is that the Federal Reserve and the US government have no separation of responsibilities and tied interests. Since the 1980s and 90s, European and American central banks have pursued independence. Why do they want independence?


Currency is a very special public commodity. The central bank cannot serve any government, enterprise, or individual alone, otherwise it will cause huge wealth injustice. However, the interests of the Federal Reserve and the US government are now completely tied up, and the US dollar and US debt are anchored to each other: the Federal Reserve buys Treasury bonds to issue US dollars, and the US government has the Federal Reserve to expand its deficit unscrupulously.


Why does this result? The main reason is that the Fed's responsibilities are not clear. After Black Monday in 1987, "economic czar" Greenspan's desire for power has expanded. The Fed's responsibility extends from controlling inflation to employment, financial fragility and government deficits.

为什么会这样呢?主要原因是美联储的职责不明确。 1987年“黑色星期一”之后,“经济沙皇”格林斯潘对权力的渴望扩大了。美联储的责任从控制通货膨胀扩展到就业,金融脆弱性和政府赤字。

What exactly are the responsibilities of the central bank? The responsibility of the central bank is actually very simple, and that is to maintain currency price stability. This is determined by the nature of currency-an intermediary that solves the problem of transaction convenience, which is equivalent to a reference for price stability. (This is the key to understanding the problem)

中央银行的职责到底是什么?中央银行的责任实际上非常简单,那就是维持货币价格稳定。这是由货币的性质决定的,它是解决交易便利性问题的中介机构,它相当于价格稳定性的参考。 (这是理解问题的关键)

Maintaining currency stability is the sacred duty of the central bank, not the "lender of last resort." After the 1990s, the Bank of New Zealand, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Deutsche Bank, and the Bank of England all made this goal (a single target system for the inflation rate).

维持货币稳定是中央银行的神圣职责,而不是“最后贷款人”。 1990年代后,新西兰银行,加拿大银行,德意志银行和英格兰银行都制定了这一目标(通货膨胀率的单一目标系统)。

The Fed played the role of "the central mother" and was finally kidnapped by the "cai dad" (Federal Government Ministry of Finance). After Greenspan's resignation, the United States broke out in a financial crisis. The Fed had no chance to adjust. Bernanke implemented quantitative easing. The Fed was deeply tied up with the federal government. Now the Fed has been unable to extricate itself.


What do you mean? In order to maintain financial stability and the government's fiscal deficit, the Fed has compromised with the federal government countless times, lowering interest rates, buying treasury bonds, and helping the Treasury to raise funds. As a result, the federal fiscal deficit is getting higher and higher, the size of the national debt is getting bigger and bigger, and there are more and more national debt assets in the Fed's balance sheet. The Fed is kidnapped by the federal government and can only serve it unlimitedly.


This is a reckless "collusion."


The Fed's binding with the US government has serious consequences:


1. The US government kidnapped the Federal Reserve, the Fed kidnapped the market, and the market suffered from Stockholm syndrome.


Why did the Fed kidnap the market?


The President of the United States is an elected president. When the economy is in recession, when the unemployment rate falls, when the stock market falls, and when there are financial risks, the president will call the Fed to "release water." In the past few years, Trump has always been aggressive, while Powell has been losing ground.


The Fed’s monetary policy was restrained by the President of the United States and indirectly "submitted" to the market and the people. Driven by the motive of free-riding, the people definitely hope to "release more water." Once the hitchhiker succeeds, another group of people suffers from it and is even vulnerable to Stockholm syndrome.


What is Stockholm syndrome?


For example, when you walked well, suddenly a strongman threw you into the water. When he was about to drown, he picked you up again. You thank him in every possible way.


The Fed drags down entrepreneurs and individuals who make the right decisions, and the "physique" of these companies and individuals has gradually become fragile. Once the crisis comes, they have to ask the Fed to "release the water." This is how the Fed in turn kidnapped the market.


From the Black Monday in 1987, the economic recession in 1990, to the Internet crisis in 2001, the financial crisis in 2008, to the stock market crash and the epidemic disaster, people have repeatedly strengthened the Stockholm syndrome: Fortunately, the Federal Reserve rescued the market. There is the US government to save me.


Free-riding motives and Stockholm syndrome work together, and the money market has become a tragedy of the commons where everyone grabs opium.


2. The U.S. government kidnapped the Fed, and the Fed kidnapped the global financial markets and central banks of other countries.


The reason why the Fed is so capricious that it can "release water" in an unlimited amount and the dollar index can still rise sharply. It relies on the credit of the dollar: the world's largest reserve currency and international settlement currency.


U.S. dollar credit comes from the strength of the United States. Today, the United States is the only superpower, and the U.S. dollar and U.S. debt have enough credit to overdraft. However, the Fed's expansion of US dollar overdraft credit has caused "harm" to other countries. This is how the Fed collects seigniorage from the world and the US government grabs monopoly rents from the world.


The Federal Reserve prints money and Americans can purchase goods in the international market with US dollars. This is a kind of seigniorage. Should this seigniorage be collected?


The use of U.S. dollars is the result of the market voting with feet. The advantage of using U.S. dollars is that U.S. dollars have better credit and lower global transaction costs, which facilitates international trade and local currency issuance. Therefore, seigniorage is actually the cost of using US dollars in the world.


However, another type of seigniorage has been criticized.


The Fed used the crisis to repeatedly collect seigniorage. For example, after the crisis broke out, the Fed expanded its currency, and the U.S. dollar rose sharply. International capital returned to the United States to provide liquidity for the U.S. financial market. The financial market of other countries became even more vulnerable due to lack of liquidity. This is the problem of "crisis transformation" and "dollar hegemony" that has been criticized.


As the Fed expands the U.S. dollar, central banks such as Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia hold large-scale U.S. dollar assets and U.S. debt and have to follow the expansion of their currencies. Even if the European Central Bank and the Bank of England have better mechanisms, they are also kidnapped by the Fed, making it difficult for monetary policy to maintain independence. The financial cycles of some countries are opposite to those of the United States, and crises are prone to break out when the Fed tightens their currencies.


No way. In the era of credit currency, the logic of competition is a competition of relative strength. The gold standard currency requires absolute strength, that is, the amount of gold reserves and a fixed price ratio. However, the credit currency is different. The anchor of the currency is the national credit. As long as the national credit of the United States is stronger than other countries, the US dollar is still "the tall man among the short men."


Therefore, the Federal Reserve has set a ceiling for world economic growth. However, in the long run, binding the Fed to the federal government is actually consuming the United States. Although after each crisis, the United States is still second to none and the US dollar remains unshakable, the absolute competitiveness of the United States will definitely decline.


This can be explained by Douglas North’s theory of the state ("Institutions, Institutional Changes and Economic Performance", Douglas North). North found that the government may have two choices when the country promotes institutional changes:

道格拉斯·诺斯(Douglas North)的国亚博全站网页登录版家理论(“制度,制度变迁和经济绩效”,道格拉斯·诺斯)可以解释这一点。诺斯发现,当国家推动机构变革时,政府可能有两种选择:

One is to establish a set of rules to maximize monopoly rent;


The second is to reduce transaction costs to maximize social output and increase government tax revenue.


Previously, the U.S. government chose the second option and tried to reduce transaction costs. The goals of economic growth and tax increases were consistent. However, after the U.S. government kidnapped the Federal Reserve, it turned to the first goal, which is to seize the monopoly rent by issuing currency. The specific approach is to use the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on currency issuance to finance its fiscal deficit monetization and expand the national debt and fiscal deficit on a large scale.


Once the government's main income comes from monopoly rents, including land finance and central bank printing money, the government's goals will deviate from the goals of economic growth and social well-being. Only by placing government revenues in taxes, rather than monetizing financing of monopoly rents and fiscal deficits, will the government's actions be dedicated to reducing transaction costs and promoting economic growth.


Therefore, "easily lose weight" is a false proposition. While stimulating a large amount of money, it can also actively carry out reforms to promote growth, which is against human nature. The U.S. government embarked on the road of monopolizing rents. As a result, the debt inflation, bubble rise, overdraft of the country, technological innovation, and the growth of entities have declined.


The problem is not only in the United States. Government revenue monopoly renting (monetization of fiscal deficits) has been a global trend since the 2008 financial crisis.


What should I do? I think that after this crisis, the US Congress needs to enact a series of binding bills as soon as possible. North said that the system is the rule of social game, and its advantage is to define and limit the set of choices of people.


Human motives are blind and irrational. The uncertainty and complexity of the environment often exceed people's rational cognition. Based on these two points, we need to formulate a system to deal with uncertainty: in times of crisis, the system can restrain self-irrational behavior, such as asking the Fed to "release water."


Therefore, after the crisis, when the scars are healed and the pain has not been forgotten, quickly legislate. mainly includes:


1. Strive to constrain the federal government's revenue within taxation.


The federal government can issue national debt, but the national debt must be secured by taxation, not the dollar. The federal government provides loans or assistance to necessary enterprises, but must use fiscal revenue. To use the Federal Reserve to provide loans to companies, fiscal revenue must be used as a guarantee.


If you do this, the U.S. Treasury bonds will suddenly collapse. After all, the scale of Treasury bonds and interest is too large to support tax revenue. Therefore, the legislation cannot be too tight at once. It can be gradual. According to the timeline, the federal government is forced to reduce the deficit year by year, try to increase tax revenue, and gradually return to the tax constraint framework.


After all, this is the basic requirement of the social contract. That is, nationals pay taxes, and the government provides public services to citizens based on tax revenue. The government has no right to use or interfere with the Fed's coinage for any purpose.


2. Constrain the responsibilities and powers of the Federal Reserve.


The current policy objectives of the Fed include employment rate, financial stability and inflation rate. Congress must reduce or deprive the Fed of its two major responsibilities and goals in regulating employment rates and financial stability. why?


These two goals are not the goals of the central bank, but the goals of the government. If these two goals exist, it is easy to cause the Fed to tie up with the federal government and undermine the independence of monetary policy.


The Fed's sole goal is to stabilize currency prices. The main responsibility of the Fed is to maintain the stability of currency prices. Whether monetary policy is loose or tightened, currency prices are the reference. However, I neither agree with Friedman’s monetary quantity target, nor the world’s popular inflation rate target.


Friedman's monetary quantity target is scientific in theory, but it is difficult to operate. Compared with the price mechanism, the response of the supply mechanism is not so sensitive and has a lag. The market can quickly recognize price signals (inflation rate, interest rate) and take action. However, the Fed operates in the open market and the market is not sensitive to how many government bonds it has purchased.


Why not approve of targeting inflation?


This is a good target, but the inflation rate cannot reflect the full picture of currency prices. In the past few decades, European and American central banks have targeted inflation rates (usually 2%). As long as this goal can be maintained, the central bank can issue more currency.


As a result, the inflation rate is well controlled, but the currency issuance is flooding. A large amount of money went to the financial market and the real estate sector, leading to skyrocketing asset prices, idling funds and hollowing out the industry. Although prices have not risen, asset prices have expanded and real estate prices have risen, which also shows that currency values ​​are unstable.


Therefore, only targeting the inflation rate is a lie: low inflation appeases the poor, high asset prices encourages the rich, the middle class suffers from it, and ultimately harms the country and the people. The European and American world has long been caught in a trap: low interest rates, low inflation, low growth, high leverage, and high bubbles.


In fact, currency is the reference for the entire market. Currency prices have many indicators, including not only the inflation rate (usually expressed by prices), but also the production price index (PPI), interest rates, exchange rates, stock prices, futures prices, real estate prices, gold Prices, crude oil prices, etc.


Therefore, it may be more scientific to establish a comprehensive price index based on prices, including factors such as production price index, exchange rate, real estate and financial asset prices, as the goal of monetary policy.


3. Establish a risk gradient mechanism.


Level 1 risk: corresponds to the economic stability cycle. The Fed has only one monetary goal and responsibility: the composite price index. The Fed focuses on interest rate regulation and open market operations.


Secondary risk: Corresponding to government deficit crisis and economic crisis. The Fed can break through the limits of the composite price index target to a certain extent and fulfill its responsibilities as the “lender of last resort”: lending money to the government and financial institutions on a “limited basis” through quantitative easing, but it needs to strictly implement the Bajet rule and specify strict rescue conditions , Such as congressional approval, punitive interest rate, asset-liability ratio, etc.


Three-level risk: Corresponding to social crisis and national wartime state The Fed can break through constraints and fully support the needs of the federal government and the market, including direct loans to companies and individuals, purchase of corporate bonds and transactional open index funds (ETFs).

三级风险:对应于社会危机和战时状态美联储可以突破限制并完全支持联邦政府和市场的需求,包括向公司和个人的直接贷款,购买公司债券和交易性开放指数基金( ETF)。

Fed Chairman Powell believes that the current "atypical economic downturn". This time the Fed and the US federal government launched a "wartime level" rescue. If the third-level risk is met, the rescue plan itself is not too problematic. The core of the problem lies in the rescue procedures, the Fed’s mechanism, and the federal government’s monopoly rent model.


Currently, in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, under “abnormal and emergency situations”, if five or more members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors vote and agree, the Federal Reserve can grant loans to any individual, partnership or institution.


This decree gives the Fed directors too much power. At present, the Fed relies on academic principles and elite decision-making, that is, "acting only on reliable economic principles and data."


This approach is somewhat ideal. Fed directors face "asymmetric risks" and are easy to succumb to political, corporate, and populist pressure. Only in the case of secondary and tertiary risks, and after approval by Congress, the Fed has the corresponding power.


Of course, unless there is a stagflation crisis or major social crisis similar to 70 years, the United States will continue to collect seigniorage from the world, and Congress will also lack the motivation to change.


Finally, the United States government and the Federal Reserve should be encouraged by all countries.


下一条:亚博全站网页登录版|八一男篮离开早有准备 CBA提升职业化势在必行

  360  |  百度  |  搜狗  |  神马