编译者注：这是一篇分析美国经济前景的文章，很有水平，作者我已经关注很长时间。这篇文章的逻辑非常清楚，很有说服力。
作者:兰斯·罗伯茨 |七月, 8, 2019
上周,特朗普总统提名朱迪·谢尔顿担任美联储董事会董事。谢尔顿一直获得很多"嗡嗡声",因为她直言不讳和另类的立场,包括"零利率"和美元的"黄金标准"。
但是,谢尔顿对货币政策的看法与之前观点不一致。例如,在2017年,她指出:
当政府操纵汇率(通过改变利率)影响货币市场时,它们会破坏那些希望在全球市场上公平竞争的国家的诚实努力。通过人为的汇率来传递的人为的价格扭曲了供给和需求。企业倒闭,因为合法赚取的利润变成货币损失,"
简而言之,当美联储或任何央行/政府降低或提高利率时,它直接影响到国家间的货币汇率,并最终影响贸易。
然而,最近当被问及她对美联储是否应该降息以刺激经济增长的看法时,她说:
"答案是肯定的。
因此,只要对美国有利,美国就应该降低利率,但不应允许其他人这样做,因为这对美国企业是"不公平的"。
虚伪？
这也是支持回归美元"黄金标准"的同一位女性。由于黄金供应有限,加上以美元储备体系为基础的全球贸易水平庞大,美元价值将大幅飙升,从而实际上使整个全球贸易体系崩溃。零利率和"金本位"不能共存。
谢尔顿被特朗普提名并不奇怪,因为他一直在游说美联储降息,误认为降息会支持经济增长。一直支持特朗普观点的谢尔顿最近表示,她支持特朗普观点,这再次表明她对经济实际运作的无知。
"今天,我们看到了生产率的惊人增长,这足以证明我们同样看到有意义的工资增长是合理的——这是促进增长整体政策的证明。美联储向银行支付资金,将资金存放在美联储的存款账户中,而不是进入实体经济的做法是不健康的,也是扭曲的;随着这种做法的逐步取消,利率应该会迅速下降。
但现实并不是如此。
如图所示,美国目前的GDP、生产率和工资增长水平均低于上次衰退前的水平。虽然这肯定不能证实谢尔顿的分析,但它也不能证实传统观点,即33万亿美元的救助政策和流动性、零利率和飙升的股市,都有利于所有人的更强劲的经济增长。
然而,数据确实证实美联储陷入了"流动性陷阱"。
流动性陷阱
下面是定义:
"流动性陷阱是凯恩斯经济学中描述的一种情况,即中央银行向私人银行系统注入现金未能降低利率,从而未能刺激经济增长。当人们囤积现金时,就会导致流动性陷阱,因为他们预期会出现通缩、总需求不足或战争等不利因素。流动性陷阱的特征是短期利率接近于零,货币基础的波动不能转化为一般价格水平的波动。
让我们花点时间分析该定义。将其分解为其压倒一切的假设。
毫无疑问全球央行正在向金融系统注入流动性。
然而,私人银行系统流动性的增加,有没有降低利率呢?答案也是"是"。下图显示了美联储资产负债表的增加,因为它们是债券的"买家",这些债券又增加了主要银行的超额准备金账户。与10年期国债利率相比，联储的基金利率的水平更低。
当然,这些资金并没有流入美国经济,它进入了金融资产。随着市场已经消化了目前的宽松水平,自然市场要求更多流动性(下图比较了标准普尔500指数与美联储资产负债表之间的偏差)。该偏差是有记录以来最高的。
虽然,在美联储的辩护中,美联储的货币干预显然抑制了利率,但我认为,流动性驱动的诱因对支持持久经济增长已经起了很大作用。自货币干预开始以来,利率一直没有下降——40年前,随着经济开始向消费信贷杠杆服务社会转变,利率开始下降。下图显示了GDP、利率、储蓄和通货膨胀之间的相关性。
实际上,经济活动持续下降是生产力下降、工资增长停滞、人口趋势以及消费者、企业和政府债务大量激增的结果。
由于这些原因,当长期趋势在这些货币政策干预项目开始之前很久就已明显保持不变时,很难将利率和通胀的下降归因于货币政策。
从一些最常见的衡量标准——实际GDP、工业生产、就业和消费——来判断，也没有真正的证据表明流动性过剩和人为的低利率刺激了经济活动。
虽然可以提出一个论点,即QE的最初几轮促成了经济活动的反弹,但重要的是,在最新的经济周期中,还要记住其他几个支持。
1. 经济衰退后,经济增长总是激增。这是由于在经济衰退期间积累起来的需求被压抑,当信心改善时,需求会重新回到经济中。
2. 2009年,从"以现金换住房"、"以现金换旧车"到直接救助银行体系和经济等,都进行了多次救助,这极大地支持了衰退后的提振。
3. 在疲软正显现时，从暂时关闭制造业的一些企业,到大规模的飓风和野火,几次自然灾害为经济增长提供了一系列一次性的提振。
4. 政府支出的激增直接推动了经济
美联储从2010年开始采取的干预行动,由于美联储成为唯一的宏观调控手段,除了资产价格的大规模上涨之外,实体经济似乎收效甚微。证据表明美联储(Federal Reserve)的货币政策回报率一直在下降。
货币周转速度的缺乏
再一次,我们发现朱迪·谢尔顿对货币政策究竟是如何转化为经济一无所知。她最近说:
"当你的经济由于减税、监管减少、能源活力和贸易改革而准备增长时,您希望确保最大限度地获得资本。美联储向银行支付资金,银行将资金存入存款账户,而不是进入实体经济的做法是不健康的,而且扭曲了;随着这种做法的逐步取消,利率应该会迅速下降。
可怜的朱迪
绝对没有证据表明,美联储的"零利率政策"刺激了过去十年贷款的大幅增长。在这一点上,货币周转速度是关键。
"流动性陷阱"的定义指出,人们开始囤积现金,以预期通缩、缺乏总需求或战争。由于"科技泡沫"侵蚀了人们对金融体系的信心,随后信贷/住房市场崩溃,工资未能跟上生活水平的增长步伐,货币速度已跌至历史最低水平。
货币周转速度问题是定义"流动性陷阱"的关键。如上所述：
"流动性陷阱的特征是短期利率接近于零,货币基础的波动不能转化为一般价格水平的波动。
下图显示,事实上,美联储实际上已经被困了很长时间。 "经济综合指数"指标由10年期国债利率、通货膨胀(CPI)、工资和美元指数组成。虽然BEA计算的GDP指标上升,但经济综合指数没有。更重要的是,综合指数的下滑引领了BEA计算的GDP指标。
美联储面临的问题是,过去30年来,美联储每次收紧货币政策,都导致经济放缓或恶化。更重要的是,每个加息周期都继续以低于前一低点的利率水平开始,并随着经济疲软的加剧,止跌在低于前一低点的水平。
虽然在短期内,这种宽松政策似乎有助于经济稳定,但实际上是降低利率增加了杠杆的使用。然而,杠杆增加的阴暗面是经济增长的侵蚀,以及通缩压力的增加,因为美元从生产性投资转向偿债。
没有逃离陷阱
美联储(Federal Reserve)现在陷入了日本过去30年历史上的"流动性陷阱"。随着人口老龄化,金融体系将继续紧张,债务水平增加,以及针对制约经济增长的问题采取非生产性的财政政策,因此,继续采取货币干预措施可能除了简单地延续金融资产的繁荣/萧条周期之外,并无其他结果。
下图显示了10年期日本政府债券收益率与季度经济增长率和日本央行资产负债表的比较。过去20年,低利率和大规模的量化宽松计划未能刺激可持续的经济活动。目前,2年期、5年期和10年期日本国债的实际收益率均为负数。
你知道美联储陷入"流动性陷阱"的原因是,由于经济疲软,他们被迫降低利率。
这是他们知道的唯一"把戏"。
不幸的是,由于目前经济周期的阶段,这种行动很可能收效甚微,或没有效果。
虽然朱迪·谢尔顿非常可能获得总统的提名,但她最近的声明清楚地表明,对经济和货币政策在现实世界中的运作方式存在不一致和缺乏理解。
当然,正如我们从杰罗姆·鲍威尔那里了解到的,官员们在被任命之前说的,以及之后做的事情,往往是两件截然不同的事情,尤其是当他们已经成为"政治动物"时。
发布视图:1,924
2019/07/08
Shelton, The Fed, & The Realization Of A Liquidity TrapWritten by Lance Roberts | Jul, 8, 2019
Last week, President Trump nominated Judy Shelton to a board seat on the Federal Reserve. Shelton has been garnering a lot of “buzz” because of her outspoken and alternative stances, including “zero interest rates” and a “gold standard” for the U.S. dollar.
But, Shelton is full of inconsistent and incongruous views on monetary policy. For instance, in 2017 she stated:
“When governments manipulate exchange rates (by changing interest rates) to affect currency markets, they undermine the honest efforts of countries that wish to compete fairly in the global marketplace. Supply and demand are distorted by artificial prices conveyed through contrived exchange rates. Businesses fail as legitimately earned profits become currency losses,”
In short, when the Fed, or any central bank/government, lowers or raises interest rates it directly affects the currency exchange rates between countries and, ultimately, trade.
However, when recently asked on her views about whether the Fed should cut rates to boost economic growth, she said:
“The answer is yes.”
So, the U.S. should lower rates as long as it is beneficial for the U.S., but no one else should be allowed to do so because it is “unfair” to U.S. businesses.
Hypocritical?
This is also the same woman who supports a return to the “gold standard” for the U.S. dollar. With a limited supply of gold and a massive level of global trade based on the U.S. dollar reserve system, the value of the dollar would skyrocket effectively collapsing the entire global trade system. Zero interest rates and “gold back dollar” can not co-exist.
Shelton’s nomination by Trump is not surprising as he has been lobbying the Fed to cut rates in the misguided belief it will support economic growth. Shelton, who has been supportive of Trump’s views, recently stated her support to the WSJ which again shows her ignorance as to the actual workings of the economy.
“Today we are seeing impressive gains in productivity, which more than justify the meaningful wage gains we are likewise seeing—a testimonial to the pro-growth agenda. The Fed’s practice of paying banks to keep money parked at the Fed in deposit accounts instead of going into the economy is unhealthy and distorting; the rate should come down quickly as the practice is phased out.”
Well, this is the point, as we say in Texas, “We call Bulls**t.”
As shown, the U.S. is currently running at lower levels of GDP, productivity, and wage growth than before the last recession. While this certainly doesn’t confirm Shelton’s analysis, it also doesn’t confirm the conventional wisdom that $33 Trillion in bailouts and liquidity, zero interest rates, and surging stock markets, are conducive to stronger economic growth for all.
However, what the data does confirm is the Fed is caught in a “liquidity trap.”
The Liquidity Trap
Here is the definition:
“A liquidity trap is a situation described in Keynesian economics in which injections of cash into the private banking system by a central bank fail to lower interest rates and hence fail to stimulate economic growth. A liquidity trap is caused when people hoard cash because they expect an adverse event such as deflation, insufficient aggregate demand, or war. Signature characteristics of a liquidity trap are short-term interest rates that are near zero and fluctuations in the monetary base that fail to translate into fluctuations in general price levels.”
Let’s take a moment to analyze that definition by breaking it down into its overriding assumptions.
There is little argument that Central Banks globally are injecting liquidity into the financial system.
However, has the increase in liquidity into the private banking system lowered interest rates? That answer is also “yes.” The chart below shows the increase in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, since they are the “buyer” of bonds, which in turn increases the excess reserve accounts of the major banks, as compared to the 10-year Treasury rate.
Of course, that money didn’t flow into the U.S. economy, it went into financial assets. With the markets having absorbed the current levels of accommodation, it is not surprising to see the markets demanding more, (The chart below compares the deviation between the S&P 500 and the Fed’s balance sheet. That deviation is the highest on record.)
While, in the Fed’s defense, it may be clear the Fed’s monetary interventions have suppressed interest rates, I would argue their liquidity-driven inducements have done much to support durable economic growth. Interest rates have not been falling just since the monetary interventions began – it began four decades ago as the economy began a shift to consumer credit leveraged service society. The chart below shows the correlation between the decline of GDP, Interest Rates, Savings, and Inflation.
In reality, the ongoing decline in economic activity has been the result of declining productivity, stagnant wage growth, demographic trends, and massive surges in consumer, corporate and, government debt.
For these reasons, it is difficult to attribute much of the decline in interest rates and inflation to monetary policies when the long term trend was clearly intact long before these programs began.
There is also no real evidence excess liquidity and artificially low interest rates have spurred economic activity judging by some of the most common measures – Real GDP, Industrial Production, Employment, and Consumption.
While an argument can be made that the early initial rounds of QE contributed to the bounce in economic activity it is important to also remember several other supports during the latest economic cycle.
- Economic growth ALWAYS surges after recessionary weakness. This is due to the pent up demand that was built up during the recession and is unleashed back into the economy when confidence improves.
- There were multiple bailouts in 2009 from “cash for houses”, “cash for clunkers”, to direct bailouts of the banking system and the economy, etc., which greatly supported the post-recessionary boost.
- Several natural disasters from the “Japanese Trifecta” which shut down manufacturing temporarily, to massive hurricanes and wildfires, provided a series of one-time boosts to economic growth just as weakness was appearing.
- A massive surge in government spending which directly feeds the economy
The Fed’s interventions from 2010 forward, as the Fed became “the only game in town,” seems to have had little effect other than a massive inflation in asset prices. The evidence suggests the Federal Reserve has been experiencing a diminishing rate of return from their monetary policies.
Lack Of Velocity
Once again, we find Judy Shelton completely clueless as to how monetary policy actually translates into the economy. She recently stated:
“When you have an economy primed to grow because of reduced taxes, less regulation, dynamic energy, and trade reforms, you want to ensure maximum access to capital. The Fed’s practice of paying banks to keep money parked at the Fed in deposit accounts instead of going into the economy is unhealthy and distorting; the rate should come down quickly as the practice is phased out.”
Poor Judy.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Fed’s “zero interest rate policy” spurred a dramatic increased in lending over the last decade. Monetary velocity has been clear on this point.
The definition of a “liquidity trap” states that people begin hoarding cash in expectation of deflation, lack of aggregate demand or war. As the “tech bubble” eroded confidence in the financial system, followed by a bust in the credit/housing market, and wages have failed to keep up with the pace of living standards, monetary velocity has collapsed to the lowest levels on record.
The issue of monetary velocity is the key to the definition of a “liquidity trap.” As stated above:
“The signature characteristic of a liquidity trap are short-term interest rates that are near zero and fluctuations in the monetary base that fail to translate into fluctuations in general price levels.”
The chart below shows that, in fact, the Fed has actually been trapped for a very long time. The “economic composite” indicator is comprised of 10-year rates, inflation (CPI), wages, and the dollar index.While the BEA measure of GDP ticked up (due to consistent adjustments to calculation) the economic composite has not. More importantly, downturns in the composite lead the BEA measure.
The problem for the Fed has been that for the last three decades every time they have tightened monetary policy it has led to an economic slowdown or worse. More importantly, each rate hike cycle has continued to start at a lower rate level than the previous low, and has stopped at a level lower than the previous low as economic weakness set in.
While, in the short term, it appeared such accommodative policies aided in economic stabilization, it was actually lower interest rates increasing the use of leverage. However, the dark side of the increase in leverage was the erosion of economic growth, and increased deflationary pressures, as dollars were diverted from productive investment into debt service.
No Escape From The Trap
The Federal Reserve is now caught in the same “liquidity trap” that has been the history of Japan for the last three decades. With an aging demographic, which will continue to strain the financial system, increasing levels of indebtedness, and unproductive fiscal policy to combat the issues restraining economic growth, it is unlikely continued monetary interventions will do anything other than simply continuing the boom/bust cycles in financial assets.
The chart below shows the 10-year Japanese Government Bond yield as compared to their quarterly economic growth rates and the BOJ’s balance sheet. Low interest rates, and massive QE programs, have failed to spur sustainable economic activity over the last 20 years. Currently, 2, 5, and 10 year Japanese Government Bonds all have negative real yields.
The reason you know the Fed is caught in a “liquidity trap” is because they are being forced to lower rates due to economic weakness.
It is the only “trick” they know.
Unfortunately, such action will likely have little, or no effect, this time due to the current stage of the economic cycle.
While Judy Shelton may certainly have the President’s ear, her recent statements clearly show inconsistencies and a lack of understanding about how the economy and monetary policies function in the real world.
Of course, as we learned from Jerome Powell, what officials say before they are appointed, and do afterward, tend to be two very different things particularly when they have become “political animals.”
Post Views: 1,898
2019/07/08
（本文系资深投资人馨月编译文章，转载请注明来源）
,
