特朗普將如何重塑美聯儲

President Trump has an almost unprecedented opportunity to reshape the key personnel and legal basis of the Federal Reserve in the next 12 months, essentially rebuilding the most important economic organisation in the world in his own image, if he so chooses.

特朗普(Trump)總統在今後12個月裏有着幾乎史無前例的機遇重塑美聯儲(Fed)的關鍵人事和法律基礎，可以說是能夠按他自己的想法重塑世界上最重要的經濟機構——如果他想這樣做的話。

The President may be able to appoint five or even six members to the seven-person Board of Governors within 12 months, including the Chair, Vice Chair for monetary policy, and a new Vice Chair for banking supervision. He may also be able to sign into law a bill that alters aspects of the Fed’s operating procedures and accountability to Congress, based on a bill passed in 2015 by the House of Representatives.

特朗普可能能夠在12個月裏任命美聯儲的5到6名理事會成員（美聯儲理事會總共有7名成員），包括主席、負責貨幣政策的副主席，以及一位新設立的負責銀行業監督的副主席。他也可能能夠將一項議案簽署爲法律，這項在某些方面改變美聯儲運行程序和對國會所負責任的議案，是建立在2015年衆議院通過的一項議案基礎上。

Not surprisingly, investors are beginning to eye these changes with some trepidation.

並不意外的是，投資者開始帶着幾分不安關注這些變化。

Some observers fear that the President will fill the Fed with his cronies, ready to monetise the budget deficit if that should prove politically convenient. Others fear the opposite, believing that the new appointments will result in monetary policy being handed over to a policy rule (like the Taylor Rule) that will lead to much higher interest rates in the relatively near future. Still others think that the most important outcome will be a deregulation of the banking system that results in much easier credit availability, with increased dangers of asset bubbles and economic overheating.

一些觀察人士擔心，如果事實證明政治上方便的話，特朗普將會把其親信安插到美聯儲，從而可以隨時通過增發貨幣爲預算赤字提供資金支持。其他人擔憂的則正好相反，認爲新任命將會導致貨幣政策被交由一種政策規則（如泰勒規則(Taylor Rule)）來決定，從而導致在相對不久的將來利率以大得多的幅度上升。還有一些人認爲，最重要的結果將是銀行業體系去監管化導致信貸獲取難度大大降低，從而使得發生資產泡沫和經濟過熱的風險上升。

It is not difficult to see how this process could work out very badly indeed. But, at present, I am optimistic that a modicum of sense will prevail.

不難明白，這種過程可能會產生多麼糟糕的結果。但就目前而言，我樂觀地認爲，些許理智將會佔據上風。

During the election campaign, Trump was fairly consistent in calling for a Republican to replace Janet Yellen as Chair in February 2018, and for bank credit to be made more readily available to corporate America, especially to small companies. On the setting of interest rates, he has been inconsistent, and on rules-based monetary policy he has been largely silent. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress seem focused on deregulation of the banking sector, with the partial removal of Dodd Frank, and a rules-based monetary policy mandate, with audits of the Fed by the GAO.

在去年選舉期間，特朗普基本始終堅持呼籲在2018年2月讓一名共和黨人取代珍妮特?耶倫(Janet Yellen)擔任美聯儲主席，讓美國企業（尤其是小企業）更容易獲得銀行信貸。在利率設定問題上，他的立場一直反覆無常，而在採取基於規則的貨幣政策上，他基本上未發表看法。與此同時，國會中的共和黨人似乎致力於銀行業部門去監管化，並部分廢除《多德-弗蘭克法案》(Dodd-Frank Act)，授權基於規則制定貨幣政策，以及由政府問責辦公室(GAO)審計美聯儲。

Fortunately, there does not seem to be any Republican support for using the Fed balance sheet to support inflationary financing of the fiscal deficit. Although that might come later, it will be hard to impose on the Fed once the appointments and institutional changes have been implemented in the next 12 months. After that, the new regime will be relatively free to operate under the new arrangements. A lurch towards inflationary populism is therefore not high on the list of worries at present.

幸運的是，似乎沒有共和黨人支持使用美聯儲資產負債表來支持對財政赤字的通脹性融資。一旦今後12個月內任命發佈且制度改變完成，就很難再幹擾美聯儲了——儘管這種情況以後還可能出現。任命發佈且制度改變完成之後，新機制將在新安排下以較大自由度運行。因此眼下無需過於擔憂局勢會突然轉向通脹民粹主義。

The first test for the administration will probably be the nomination of the new Vice Chair for Supervision, a post left unfilled by President Obama, though the functions have been undertaken by the now departing Daniel Tarullo. It has been reported that Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been actively engaged in picking the nominee, which is very reassuring since they are likely to select an impressive professional who is fit to hold the most important regulatory post in America.

特朗普政府面臨的首個考驗很可能是提名美聯儲新的負責監管事務的副主席，奧巴馬(Obama)總統沒有對這一職位的人選做出提名，儘管它的職能此前一直由現已離職的丹尼爾?塔魯洛(Daniel Tarullo)行使。據報道稱，加里?科恩(Gary Cohn)和財政部長史蒂文?姆努欽(Steven Mnuchin)一直積極參與挑選人選，這令人欣慰，因爲他們可能挑選出一個適合擔任這個美國最重要監管職位的傑出專業人士。

David Nason, identified as the front runner, certainly fits that bill. He has been strongly supported by Hank Paulson, his former boss at Treasury, and that support might influence Cohn and Mnuchin, both of whom, like Paulson, are Goldman Sachs alumni. The nomination of someone like Nason would calm concerns about the entire process.

被視爲希望最大的戴維?內森(David Nason)當然符合這個標準。他一直得到原上司、美國前財長漢克?保爾森(Hank Paulson)的有力支持，這種支持可能影響到科恩和姆努欽，這兩人與保爾森一樣，都曾在高盛(Goldman Sachs)工作過。提名內森將會緩解人們對整個過程的擔憂。

Donald Trump has also been talking about giving the job to John Allison, a libertarian who admires the gold standard and doubts whether the Fed should even be setting interest rates. He has strong academic and business credentials, with coherent views about the capital requirements and regulation of the banks, but the markets would worry about the unpredictable consequences his appointment might have for monetary policy.

唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)還談到讓約翰?艾利森(John Allison)擔任該職位，後者是一名自由主義者，支持黃金本位制，對美聯儲是否應該設定利率本身都抱有懷疑。他擁有深厚的學術和商業背景，對銀行的資本金要求和銀行業監管持有一貫的立場，但市場會擔心他的任命將對貨幣政策產生的不可預測的後果。

Although an important litmus test, the appointment of the Vice Chair on supervision pales into insignificance compared to the probable decision to replace Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer in the two top slots next year. These appointments are not yet on the political agenda but the markets are already thinking about what they may portend for monetary policy after 2017. After all, unless reconfirmed, Yellen and Fischer will soon be viewed as lame ducks.

儘管對負責監管的副主席的任命是一塊重要的試金石，但與明年很可能將美聯儲職位最高的兩人——珍妮特?耶倫和斯坦利?費希爾(Stanley Fischer)——替換掉的決定相比，前者就沒有那麼重要了。這些任命還未進入政治議程，但市場已經在考慮它們對2017年以後的貨幣政策預示着什麼。畢竟，除非得到再次確認，否則耶倫和費希爾很快就會被視爲即將離任的“跛腳鴨”。

The administration can turn to a lengthy list of respected, mainstream macro-economists with broad affiliation to the Republicans: John Taylor, Greg Mankiw, Glen Hubbard and many others. There is another list of former Fed officials who would fit the bill, including Kevin Warsh and Richard Fisher. Then there is a very long list of business people or bankers that might be considered appropriate, some of whom could unfortunately be portrayed as Trump “cronies”. Finally, there are some “Austrian” economists, a school that has apparently influenced Vice President Pence.

特朗普政府可以考慮一衆受人尊敬、與共和黨有着廣泛聯繫的主流宏觀經濟學家：約翰?泰勒(John Taylor)、格里高利?曼昆(Greg Mankiw)以及其他許多人。還有包括凱文?沃什(Kevin Warsh)和理查德?費希爾(Richard Fisher)在內的一衆美聯儲前官員也滿足要求。接下來有一羣商人和銀行家也可能被認爲合適，其中一些可能會令人遺憾地被描述爲特朗普的“親信”。最後，還有一些“奧地利學派”經濟學家，這一學派明顯影響了副總統彭斯(Pence)。

An “Austrian” candidate would certainly alarm the markets. Assuming that is avoided, investors will be interested in a couple of issues.

一個“奧地利學派”候選人當然會讓市場感到警惕。假設排除了“奧地利學派”候選人，投資者將會對兩件事情感興趣。

Where does the new leadership sit on the divide between economist and non economist? The last four Fed Chairs have all been clearly on the economist side of the line, and because they have all bought into the Fed’s economic orthodoxy, their actions have been considered somewhat predictable by the markets. A business person or banker might be less predictable, at least initially, and more prone to shake up the Fed’s orthodoxies, for good or ill.

新領導層在經濟學家和非經濟學家的分歧中支持哪一方？最近的4位美聯儲主席顯然全都站在經濟學家一邊，而且因爲他們全都認可美聯儲的正統經濟理論，他們的行動被認爲在某種程度上可以被市場預測到。一位商人或者銀行家（至少在最初）可能會不太好預測，而且更有可能打破美聯儲的正統理論，無論這是好是壞。

The second question will be whether the new team is supportive of rule-based monetary policy, with GAO audits. In recent years, the House of Representatives has tried on several occasions to bring forward legislation that would require the FOMC to establish an appropriate rule for setting interest rates and then explain to Congress why it had deviated from the rule in any future decisions. This would clearly shift the bias of policy making somewhat away from discretion, especially if a “rules guru” like John Taylor, or one of his academic supporters (listed here), becomes Chair.

第二個問題將是新團隊是否支持基於規則的貨幣政策，以及是否接受政府問責辦公室的審計。在最近幾年，衆議院多次試圖提出議案，要求美聯儲公開市場委員會(FOMC)制定設定利率的適當規則，隨後向國會解釋爲何在未來的決定中偏離規則。這將明顯讓政治制定不再傾向於是一個自由裁量的過程，尤其是如果像約翰?泰勒這樣的“規則大師”或者別的支持他學術思想的人成爲美聯儲主席的話。

The possibility of Congress forcibly imposing a rules-based regime is being taken increasingly seriously inside the present Board, which has followed the Fed tradition in strongly preferring discretion to the rigidity of formal algorithms, even if they are selected by the Fed itself.

當前的美聯儲理事會內部正在日益嚴肅地考慮國會強迫其推行基於規則的制度的可能性——當前理事會遵從美聯儲傳統，強烈傾向於自由裁量，而不是嚴格遵循正式算法，即便這些算法是美聯儲自己選擇的。

Janet Yellen, in her Congressional testimony last week, was unusually explicit about the adverse consequences, as she saw them, of adopting the Taylor Rule. She said this would require interest rates to rise to 3.5-4.0 per cent, leading to lower growth and higher unemployment.

珍妮特?耶倫在不久前的國會證詞發言中，不同尋常地坦承了在她看來採用泰勒規則的不利後果。她表示，這將需要利率上漲至3.5%-4%，從而導致更低的增速和更高的失業率。

Stanley Fischer has also weighed in, suggesting that the Taylor Rule would have resulted in a premature tightening in monetary policy after 2011 (see Appendix below). But a new law similar to the bill passed by the House in 2015 would allow them plenty of scope to deviate from the rule if they so choose.

斯坦利?費希爾也發表了看法，他說，泰勒規則本會導致2011年後的貨幣政策過早緊縮。但類似於衆議院2015年通過的那個議案的新法律，將讓他們有大量偏離規則的空間——如果他們選擇這麼做的話。

How will the Fed emerge from these potential shocks? The organisation has an extraordinarily strong and much admired culture, which will be hard for Trump to shake, even if he wanted to. All his nominations will be reviewed internally by Cohn and Mnuchin, and externally by the Senate.

美聯儲將如何安然度過這些潛在風險？美聯儲有着異常強大且備受敬仰的文化，特朗普即便想要撼動它也很難做到。他的所有提名都將在內部經過科恩和姆努欽的審覈，並在外部經過參議院的審覈。

My guess is that the institution will survive largely unscathed, albeit with onerous regulation of bank credit, and some increased role for specified monetary rules, with formal reporting on these rules to Congress. Compared to the present regime, this may lead to higher, rather than lower, interest rates.

我猜測，美聯儲將基本上安然無恙地度過難關，儘管會有繁瑣的銀行信貸監管，一些具體的貨幣規則還會被賦予更大重要性，美聯儲要就這些規則向國會做出正式報告。與當前制度相比，這可能導致更高、而非更低的利率。

The current Fed Board will (rightly) try to minimise any restriction on their discretion and independence. But in practice the likely new framework would not represent much of a threat to the sensible conduct of monetary policy in President Trump’s term.

當前的美聯儲理事會將會（正確地）試圖儘可能減少對他們自由裁量權和獨立性的限制。但在實踐中，可能出臺的新框架將不會對美聯儲在特朗普總統任期內實施明智的貨幣政策造成多大威脅。