尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
The writer is chair of Rockefeller International. His latest book is ‘What Went Wrong With Capitalism’
作者是洛克菲勒国际(Rockefeller International)董事长，著有新作《资本主义出了什么问题》
As Donald Trump pressures the Federal Reserve to cut rates, the fear is that he is undermining the central bank’s independence, with potentially damaging consequences for the US economy. Yet most mainstream economists and investors seem convinced the Fed will cut rates anyway at its September 16-17 meeting, particularly after Friday’s employment report confirmed some signs of weakness in the labour market.
随着唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)向美联储施压要求降息，人们担心他正在削弱央行的独立性，可能给美国经济带来不利后果。然而，大多数主流经济学家和投资者似乎确信，美联储无论如何都会在9月16日至17日的会议上降息，尤其是在周五的就业报告证实劳动力市场出现一些疲软迹象之后。
This is unfortunately the same alarmist reflex — rush to the rescue at the slightest hint of economic trouble — that has been undermining Fed credibility and fuelling financial bubbles for decades. And the timing could not be less opportune.
遗憾的是，这种做法仍是同一种危言耸听式的本能反应——只要出现一丁点儿经济麻烦的迹象就急于出手相救——数十年来正是这种反应削弱了美联储的可信度，并助长了金融泡沫。而且，时机再糟糕不过了。
Financial conditions are very loose. The economy is still resilient. The basic Fed lending rate is not restrictive. Signs of job market weakness are minor compared with the evidence that inflation has become entrenched. And cutting rates with AI mania gripping US markets risks driving them to greater heights. All this makes it an odd moment to follow Team Trump, which includes past critics of easy money flip-flopping to please their boss.
金融环境极为宽松。经济仍具韧性。美联储基准利率并不具限制性。相较于通胀已根深蒂固的证据，就业市场疲软迹象微不足道。而在人工智能狂热席卷美国市场的当下降息，可能将推高市场热度。种种迹象表明，此刻追随“特朗普团队”实属反常——其中不乏曾批评宽松货币政策的成员，如今却为取悦上司而立场大转弯。
While interest rates have moved up since the pandemic, financial conditions reflect much more than rates. And it’s the broader signs that show conditions are loose.
尽管疫情以来利率有所上升，金融环境远不止利率这一项。更广泛的迹象表明，当前金融环境依然宽松。
Capital pouring into the US stock market has driven valuations close to historic highs. Venture capital is pouring into profitless tech firms. Credit growth is surging, particularly in private markets. Junk firms can borrow at rates only marginally higher than solid ones or even the government; the premium they pay over Treasuries is as low as at any point in the last half century. And not once during that period has the central bank cut rates, much less launched a cutting cycle of the scale the market is now pricing in, based on Fed guidance.
涌入美国股市的资本已把估值推至接近历史高位。风险投资正蜂拥流入尚无盈利的科技公司。信贷增长激增，尤其是在私募市场。垃圾级公司几乎只需以比优质企业甚至政府略高的利率融资；其相对于美国国债的利差降至过去半个世纪的最低水平之一。在此期间，美联储从未降息哪怕一次，更遑论像市场如今根据美联储指引所定价的那样开启一轮大规模降息周期。
Trump aides want to stimulate an economy that doesn’t need help. Despite the tariff shock, GDP is on track to expand by more than 2 per cent this quarter. Regardless, juicing up growth is not the central bank’s job. Its mandate is to control inflation while maximising employment. And standard guidelines on how to achieve this, such as the Taylor rule, show that the Fed’s basic lending rate is not currently restrictive.
特朗普的助手们想要刺激一个并不需要帮助的经济。尽管关税冲击存在，本季度国内生产总值(GDP)增长仍有望达到逾2%。不过，推动增长并非央行的职责；其任务是在最大化就业的同时控制通胀。而按照泰勒规则等实现这一目标的标准指引来看，美联储的基准贷款利率目前并不具有限制性。
If anything, there is an equally strong case for a rate increase. While the latest report showed disappointing job gains, that is unsurprising when labour supply is weak due to declining immigration. More tellingly, the unemployment rate is still just 4.3 per cent, close to historic lows. Meanwhile, consumer price inflation has exceeded the Fed’s 2 per cent target for five years running and is expected to remain stuck at an elevated pace for the foreseeable future.
非要说的话，升息同样有充分理由。尽管最新报告显示就业增速令人失望，但在移民减少导致劳动力供给疲弱的情况下，这并不意外。更具说明性的是，失业率仍仅为4.3%，接近历史低位。与此同时，居民消费价格通胀已连续5年高于美联储2%的目标，且预计在可预见的未来将保持在较高水平。
It’s also a mistake to ignore prices for stocks, homes and other financial assets. Since failing to anticipate the 2008 financial crisis, the central bank has incorporated financial stability into its “mission.” Some argue that a rate cut will make homes affordable again, but easy money was one driver of the affordability crisis in the first place. The main factor was and is over-regulation limiting housing supply, and new rate cuts won’t address that problem.
忽视股票、住房和其他金融资产的价格同样是一个错误。自从未能预见2008年金融危机以来，美国央行已将金融稳定纳入其“使命”。有人认为降息会让住房再次变得负担得起，但宽松的货币政策本就是住房可负担性危机的诱因之一。造成问题的主要因素当时是、现在也是过度监管限制了住房供给，而新的降息并不能解决这一问题。
By easing every time the markets falter — including as recently as last August — the Fed has been fuelling asset price inflation and wealth inequality. Now, it seems poised to go further, easing in a boom.
每当市场动荡——包括刚刚过去的8月的这轮动荡——美联储就放松政策，这一直在推高资产价格并加剧财富不平等。如今，它似乎还将更进一步，在景气时期继续宽松。
Tech investment is following the path of past bubbles: at nearly 6 per cent of GDP, it roughly matches investment in tech at the 2000 peak as well as investment in real estate at its 2007 peak, and greatly exceeds investment in oil at the 2013 commodity boom peak. Speculators focusing on the least profitable and most expensive stocks are amped up on AI too. Their share of US trading is now approaching the dotcom era high.
科技投资正重走以往泡沫的老路：其规模接近国内生产总值(GDP)的6%，大致与2000年时科技投资的峰值、以及2007年房地产投资的峰值相当，并远高于2013年大宗商品繁荣时期的石油投资峰值。投机者也被AI所刺激，把焦点放在盈利最差、估值最高的股票上。他们在美国市场中的交易占比现已逼近互联网泡沫时期的高点。
The “asymmetry” of Fed policy — always rescue but never restrain the markets — is tilting further towards promoting bubbles. Yet prominent Republican critics of easy money now call for more of it, in the name of “reform”. Stephen Miran, Trump’s appointee to the Fed board, is one of the enemies-turned-advocates of central bank dovishness.
美联储政策的“非对称性”——总是救市而从不约束市场——正进一步偏向于助长泡沫。然而，曾批评宽松货币政策的美国共和党知名人士，如今却以“改革”之名呼吁更多宽松。特朗普提名进入美联储理事会的斯蒂芬•米兰(Stephen Miran)，便是由反对者转为支持央行鸽派立场的代表之一。
Real reform would hold the Fed more accountable for errors of easy money. What’s needed is a return to symmetry, including periods of restraint. With the economy holding steady while AI mania is showing similarities to the dotcom boom, cutting rates now could push the market to crazier highs and set up a bust reminiscent of 2000. It would be exactly the wrong move at the wrong time.
真正的改革应让美联储为宽松货币的失误承担更多责任。当前需要的是回归对称性，包括在必要时收紧。随着经济保持稳健、且AI热潮与当年的互联网泡沫颇为相似，此时降息可能把市场进一步推向疯狂高位，并埋下类似2000年的崩盘隐患。这无疑是在错误的时间做出错误的决定。