Markets Weekly July 4, 2026
发布时间 来源
Episode 设置
这期录制于7月4日的《市场周刊》节目，以对美国250周年生日的节日问候开场，并提及了激动人心的世界杯足球赛。主持人指出，世界杯正在向全球观众积极展示美国城市。
讨论随后转向两个主要话题：当前市场趋势以及利亚夸特·艾哈迈德（Liaquat Ahamed）新书《1873》的评论。
关于市场，主持人观察到“动量交易崩盘”，尤其影响了人工智能（AI）股票和半导体。韩国综合股价指数（KOSPI）作为这些趋势的先行指标，此前曾翻倍，但现在似乎正在失去动能，可能正在“V型见顶”，这种情绪也反映在美光（Micron）等美国AI股票上。这发生在“AI交易叙事出现裂缝”的背景下。例如，据报道Meta正在出售过剩的计算能力，这与此前算力稀缺的说法相悖；同时，更多的美国公司正在考虑使用更便宜的开源中国模型。Palantir的亚历克斯·卡列夫（Alex Kareff）也倡导使用开放权重模型，这可能是因为Palantir在数据主权和隐私问题上失去了一些合同。主持人将此比作亚马逊的做法：在看到小型企业在其平台上成功后，便开发自有品牌产品。这暗示封闭式AI模型也可能利用用户数据与其客户竞争。这意味着未来AI模型层将是开放的，价值将转移到应用层面。著名投资者杰里米·格雷厄姆（Jeremy Grantham）因其泡沫警告被提及，他指出泡沫通常以高估值股票停滞不前而告终，而大盘指数在经历更大规模的修正之前会先上涨，这在互联网泡沫时代可见一斑。纳斯达克指数近期未能创下新高，可能预示着这种模式的开始。
在数据方面，美联储主席鲍威尔近期关于AI的言论被解读为略显鸽派。他认为AI初期是通胀性的（由于基础设施建设），但最终会是通缩性的（通过生产力提高）。非农就业报告显示新增就业岗位少于预期，但失业率意外下降（归因于劳动参与率降低）导致了复杂的解读。主持人驳斥了对劳动参与率下降的“悲观主义”解读，认为世界杯、兼职工作或数据错误等因素可能在起作用，这与他看待期权交易叙事的方式类似。
节目的后半部分聚焦于利亚夸特·艾哈迈德的新书《1873》。主持人是艾哈迈德另一本书《金融之王》（Lords of Finance）的粉丝，他强调了历史背景对市场判断的重要性。这本书详细描述了1873年前的全球投机热潮，其导火索是法国向普鲁士支付的战争赔款以及资本外逃。这种黄金和白银的涌入（当时各国实行硬金属本位制）直接增加了奥匈帝国和英国等接收国的货币供应并降低了利率。在美国，政府大力补贴的铁路建设热潮也吸引了大量投机活动。普遍存在的腐败现象司空见惯，包括贿赂官员以及贵族为可疑项目背书。主持人强调了查尔斯·狄更斯在1842年的观察，他描述了美国人对投机和赌博的偏爱，认为这深深植根于这个国家的“堕落世代”（D-Gen）文化中。
1873年始于维也纳的经济萧条，导致了长达数十年的严重通货紧缩（物价下跌30-40%），这与现代危机相比是一个独特的结局。这主要归因于两个因素：一是当时没有以物价稳定为使命的中央银行；二是全球意外地从金银复本位制（gold and silver）转向了纯金本位制。白银的非货币化大幅减少了货币供应，加剧了通货紧缩螺旋。这种货币政策的转变是一项政治决策，主要由强大的游说团体推动，尽管面对通货紧缩时期背负固定债务的农民的强烈反对（例如威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩的“黄金十字架”演说）。此外，机械化和铁路（降低了运输成本）等持续的技术进步也导致了物价下跌。通货紧缩最终因新金矿的发现而结束。主持人最后通过与当今的对比进行总结，指出虽然我们富有弹性的货币体系和政策工具可能会阻止如此深度的通货紧缩，但其他历史回响，例如对“廉价进口商品”征收关税，仍然具有现实意义。
This "Markets Weekly" episode, recorded on July 4th, begins with a festive greeting for America's 250th birthday and a nod to the exciting FIFA tournament, which the host notes is showcasing American cities positively to a global audience.
The discussion then shifts to two main topics: current market trends and a review of Liaquat Ahamed's new book, "1873."
Regarding the markets, the host observes a "meltdown in momentum trades," particularly affecting AI stocks and semiconductors. The Korean KOSPI index, a bellwether for these trends, had doubled but now appears to be losing momentum, potentially "V-topping," a sentiment echoing in US AI stocks like Micron. This comes amidst "cracks in the AI trade narrative." For example, Meta is reportedly selling excess compute capacity, contradicting the scarcity narrative, and more US companies are considering cheaper, open-source Chinese models. Palantir's Alex Kareff also advocates for open-weight models, possibly due to Palantir losing contracts over data sovereignty and privacy concerns. The host draws an analogy to Amazon's practice of developing generic products after seeing small businesses succeed on its platform, suggesting closed-ended AI models could similarly leverage user data to compete with their clients. This implies a future where the AI model layer is open, with value shifting to the application level. Jeremy Grantham, a well-known investor, is cited for his bubble warnings, noting that bubbles often end with high-flyers stalling while broader indexes initially rally before a larger correction, as seen in the dot-com era. The NASDAQ's recent inability to make new highs could signal the start of such a pattern.
On the data front, Fed Chair Powell's recent remarks on AI were interpreted as slightly dovish. He suggested AI is initially inflationary (due to infrastructure build-out) but ultimately disinflationary (through productivity gains). The non-farm payrolls report showed fewer jobs created than expected, but a surprise drop in the unemployment rate (attributed to a lower labor participation rate) led to a mixed interpretation. The host dismisses "doomer" interpretations of the participation rate drop, suggesting factors like the World Cup, side hustles, or data errors could be at play, similar to how he views narratives around options trading.
The second half of the episode focuses on Liaquat Ahamed's new book, "1873." The host, a fan of Ahamed's "Lords of Finance," emphasizes the importance of historical context for market judgment. The book details a global speculative boom leading up to 1873, fueled by France's war indemnity payments to Prussia and capital flight. This influx of gold and silver (as countries were on a hard metal standard) directly increased money supply and lowered interest rates in receiving nations like Austria-Hungary and the UK. In the US, a railroad construction boom, heavily subsidized by the government, also attracted significant speculation. Widespread corruption, including bribery of officials and aristocracy lending credibility to dubious ventures, was commonplace. The host highlights Charles Dickens' observation from 1842, describing Americans' penchant for speculation and gambling, seeing it as deeply ingrained in the nation's "D-Gen" culture.
The bust in 1873, starting in Vienna, led to a prolonged period of severe deflation (30-40% over decades), a unique outcome compared to modern crises. This was primarily due to two factors: the absence of central banks with price stability mandates and an accidental global shift from bimetallic (gold and silver) to a pure gold standard. The demonetization of silver drastically reduced the money supply, exacerbating the deflationary spiral. This monetary policy shift was a political decision, largely driven by powerful lobbyists, despite strong opposition (e.g., William Jennings Bryan's "cross of gold" speech) from farmers who suffered under fixed debt burdens during deflation. Additionally, ongoing technological advancements like mechanization and railroads (reducing shipping costs) contributed to falling prices. The deflation eventually ended due to new gold discoveries. The host concludes by drawing parallels to today, noting that while our elastic monetary system and policy apparatus would likely prevent such deep deflation, other historical echoes, like the use of tariffs against "cheap imports," are still relevant.
摘要
#federalreserve #marketsanalysis
00:00 - Intro
01:16 - Momentum Bust
11:13 - 1873
For macro courses:
www.centralbanking101.com
My best seller on monetary policy:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0999136771
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
你好，朋友们。今天是7月4日，欢迎收看《市场周报》。首先，我们要祝贺美国250岁生日快乐。同时，我觉得这次庆祝正好碰上了激动人心的FIFA锦标赛。我强烈推荐大家关注一下比赛。这次有很多精彩的比赛，比如昨天阿根廷队的比赛，他们本是热门球队，但差点被一个小国家淘汰，这个国家几乎没人听说过。
此外，我认为在整个美洲举办FIFA锦标赛是个绝妙的主意，这让全世界的人都能看到美洲的城市。很多人还在社交媒体上发布了有趣的视频，了解到美国其实并不像电视上说的那么可怕，有些地方相当不错。他们甚至可以使用空调，随心所欲地享受凉爽。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Hello, my friends. Today is July 4th, and this is Markets Weekly. So first off, we have to wish America a happy 250th birthday. And at the same time, I think it's happening in the context of the FIFA tournament, which is very exciting. Highly recommend you guys to tune in. There have been a lot of good games, such as the game yesterday with Argentina, which of course was a favorite, but became very close to be pushed out by a small country that no one has ever heard of. Now, in addition, I think it was a brilliant idea to host FIFA tournaments all throughout the Americas, where people all over the world are able to see cities in America, posting many interesting social media videos about it, and learning that America is actually not a scary place, as they say on TV, and actually in some places, quite nice. They even have air conditioning as much as you want.
今天我们来聊两个话题。首先，让我们讨论一下市场发生了什么，因为看起来动量交易似乎出现了一些崩溃。其次，我们来谈一下《1873》这本由里克瓦德·艾哈迈德撰写的新书，他也是我最喜欢的关于金融历史的书籍《金融大亨》的作者。
好的，先从市场开始。过去几周的市场情况非常明显，主要由AI股票，特别是半导体驱动。我们知道在内存（RAM）方面存在瓶颈，那些生产内存的公司因此赚了很多钱，市场基本上将这些股票推向了高点。这一切的先锋是KOSPI指数，即韩国的股票市场指数，今年已经翻了一倍。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So today, let's talk about two things. First off, let's talk about what happened in the markets, because it looks like we're having a bit of a meltdown in the momentum trades. And secondly, let's talk about 1873, the new book by Likwad Ahmed, who's also the author of Lords of Finance, one of my favorite books on financial history. All right, starting with the markets. So, if you look at what happened over the past few weeks, what's very clear is that the market has largely been driven by the AI stocks, specifically the semiconductors. So we know there are bottlenecks in RAM, and the companies that have been making RAM have been making a lot of money, and the market has basically been pushing those stocks vertical. The vanguard of all this is the KOSPI index, the Korean stock market index, which has doubled this year.
现在，这一切其实就是杠杆效应和市场惯性，对吧？人们通过融资或者期权等方式大量购买股票，从而推高了股价。如果你观察KOSPI指数，你会看到它看起来有些失去惯性，甚至可能出现“V型”峰顶，这也影响到了许多美国的股票。例如，美光的表现就不太好，很多人工智能相关的股票也是如此。这可能只是杠杆效应开始显现问题，人们在寻找新的市场逻辑。这种情况很常见，但过去一周确实有一些引人注意的现象，暗示人工智能市场交易中出现了明显的问题。例如，上周Meta提到他们计划将多余的计算能力出售给其他公司。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, a lot of this is just leverage and momentum, right? People are buying a lot of stock on margin, through options, so forth, and that's pushing it up. If you look at a KOSPI index, you can see that it looks like it's kind of losing momentum and maybe even V-topped, and that's reverberating in a lot of U.S. stocks as well, where Micron is not trading that well, and many AI names aren't as well. Now, this could just be some of the leverage cracking and people looking for a narrative. It's often like that, but there have been some compelling narratives over the past week that suggest that there are real cracks in the AI trade. For example, last week, Meta was talking about selling their excess compute capacity to other people.
所以，你知道，现在的说法是计算资源一直很稀缺。如果真是这样，为什么看似Meta有那么多计算资源多到不知如何处理，还要将其出租给市场呢？还有一种说法是，似乎越来越多的美国公司愿意使用开源的中国模型来节省成本。当然，这些开源模型不如美国的顶尖模型那么好，但它们更便宜且足够用。当然，还有Palantir的Alex Kareff上电视暗示未来是开放重量模型的时代。需要说明的是，Palantir在全球范围内失去了很多合同，因为外国政府对与Palantir的合作感到不太放心。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, you know, the narrative being that there's been a scarcity of compute. If that's the case, why is seemingly Meta having so much compute they don't know what to do with that they're leasing it out to the market? You also have other narratives that it seems like more and more U.S. companies are open to using open source Chinese mottos as a way to save costs. Now, the open source mottos are not as good as U.S. frontier mottos, but they are a lot cheaper and good enough. And, of course, you also have Alex Kareff of Palantir going on TV and kind of suggesting that the future is open-weight mottos. For context, Palantir has been losing a lot of contracts throughout the world, where foreign governments don't feel as comfortable working with Palantir.
人们担心，Palantir可能会将外国政府提供给他们的数据传递给美国政府，这种情况很可能会发生。因此，大家越来越关注主权风险和数据隐私风险。这种担忧促使人们转向开放模型，这对Anthropic和Open AI等公司来说非常不利。另一种思考方式是看看亚马逊的运作方式。很多时候，一些小企业开始在亚马逊上销售，他们的产品可能会非常成功。根据许多报道，作为一个庞大的平台，亚马逊会注意到这些产品卖得很好，然后推出自己品牌的类似产品，以较低价格抢占市场，从而压制小企业的生意。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The fear being that maybe Palantir is just going to send all that data that they give, the foreign governments send them to the United States government, which, you know, probably happens. So there seems to be more of a concern of both sovereignty risk, but also data privacy risk as well. And that pushes people towards open-weight models, which is very bad for, say, anthropic and open AI. Another way to think about this is to think about how Amazon is reportedly operating. So a lot of times, for example, some small businesses begin to sell on Amazon, and their products could become very successful. And there are many reports that what Amazon would do as a giant, giant platform would be to notice that these particular products are doing very well and then come out with their own generic Amazon-branded product and basically undercut all the small businesses and take the market.
他们这样做的报告有很多。如果你使用的是封闭模型，封闭模型的人可能会做类似的事情，而如果你是一家公司，你使用封闭模型，把所有的数据都发送给它，这确实能帮助你的业务，但封闭模型也获取了你的所有数据，能够开发出与你的业务相似的产品。比如说你是一家律师事务所，可能很多律师事务所都使用封闭模型作为例子。封闭模型从这些数据中学到了很多专业知识，然后开发出属于他们的律师AI应用，试图与律师事务所竞争，甚至可能让一些事务所倒闭。因此，总是存在数据被盗和主权风险的担忧。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Many reports of them doing things like that. If you have a closed-ended model, the closed-ended model people could do something similar, whereas if you are a corporation, you use your closed-ended model, send them all the data, and it does help your business, but then the closed-ended model gets all your data, is able to come up with a product that is comparable to whatever your business is doing. Say that you're a law firm, maybe lots of law firms use, just for example, closed-ended model. Closed-ended model learns a lot of expertise from that data and comes up with their, let's say, lawyer AI app that basically tries to compete with the law firms and maybe put some out of business. So there's always a fear of having your data stolen and, of course, sovereignty risk.
看来越来越多的人认为，AI系统中的模型层未来将会走向开放化。或许在应用层中才会产生价值，而这当然也将面临激烈的竞争。目前，计算领域依然非常具有盈利潜力。因此，人们对价值的定位产生了一些新的看法。而这种计算的一个重要需求来源，就是那些前沿模型，它们需要大量计算资源进行自我训练。如果封闭式模型的盈利能力不强，它们可能在训练上的投入就不会那么多。这是对市场的一种可能性影响。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So it does seem that it's becoming increasingly clear to many people that the future of the model layer in the AI system is going to be open. And maybe the value chain, value comes at the application level, which, of course, will be subject to a lot of competition as well. And, of course, at the moment, the compute is still very profitable. So anyway, you have some more cracks as to just where the value is. And, of course, a big source of demand for all this compute are the frontier models who are training themselves, and that takes compute. And maybe if closed-end models are not as profitable, they won't be spending as much to train them. So that could be some impact of the band.
无论如何，从价格走势来看，以及各种说法和叙述，我们可以看到人工智能模型和有关人工智能的故事存在更多问题。这是需要记住的一点。此外，著名投资者杰里米·格兰瑟姆也出现在电视上谈论巨大泡沫等话题。杰里米·格兰瑟姆是一位非常成功的投资者，他职业生涯中做出过几次非常准确的预判。不过需要注意的是，他常年持悲观态度，且近来不太准确。此外，他是一位价值投资者，而显然，现在世界的运行方式已经不是这样的了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
In any case, looking at price action, looking at narratives, more cracks in the AI model, in the AI narrative. And that's something else to keep in mind. And you have Jeremy Grantham, a very famous investor, making the rounds on TV, talking about huge bubbles and so forth. So Jeremy Grantham is a very successful investor. He's had a few very good calls in his career, but also note that he is kind of a perma-bearer who has not been right for some time. And, of course, he is a value investor, which is obviously not how the world works anymore.
他非常注重数据和历史，并且做出了一个很好的观察：通常，当泡沫出现时，结束的方式往往是那些表现优异的股票开始滞后，而其他股票可能还表现良好。然后，整个市场就崩溃了。这种情况在互联网泡沫时期也发生过。当时，纳斯达克指数达到顶峰，而几周后，标准普尔500指数仍然在继续上涨，甚至在崩盘前又上涨了大约10%。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But he is very grounded in data and in history, and he makes a very good observation in that usually when you have these bubbles, the way that they end, is that the high flyers begin to lag, and maybe the rest of the index is okay. And then everything falls down, and that's kind of what happened during the dot-com boom as well. During the dot-com boom, the NASDAQ peaked, and several weeks later, the S&P continued to go higher and higher. I think it went actually another 10% higher before it all tumbled down.
从技术上来讲，投资者发现他们的人工智能交易或其他热门项目不再奏效时，开始重新分配资金到其他领域，比如医疗保健等。这样一来，市场的涨势就会扩展开来，这保护了更广泛的指数，甚至可能将它们推至历史新高，然后某些东西就会下跌。我们已经看到纳斯达克指数似乎在一段时间内未能再创新高，所以这可能是更严重调整的开始。不过，这只是开始。如果历史重演，我们实际上可能会在更广泛的标准普尔500指数上看到新的历史高点，然后才会有不利情况发生。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So technically what happens is that investors, seeing that their AI trades or whatever is hot is not working, began to reallocate to other sectors, say healthcare or something, the rally broadens up, and that protects the more broad-based indexes, maybe even pushing them to all highs, and then something tumbles. So we've had the NASDAQ, it's seemingly not able to make new highs for some time, so this could be the beginning of it, of what would be a more serious correction. Again, just the beginning, and if history holds, we could actually see new all-time highs in the broader S&P 500, before anything bad happens.
需要注意的是，过去一周我们收集了大量数据，也听到了美联储的一些言论。Kevin在Centra的一个小组论坛上首次亮相，该活动可以视为欧洲央行的“杰克逊霍尔”（Jackson Hole）。他与全球其他知名央行官员一起站在台上讨论政策。虽然他承诺不提供前瞻性指引，但他确实发表了一些被解读为略显温和的意见，特别是他对人工智能（AI）的看法。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, something else to note is we also got a lot of data, and a little bit of Fed speak the past week. We had Kevin make his debut on a panel at Centra, which is the ECB's Jackson Hole. So he was there on stage with other prominent central bankers in the world talking about policy. Now, as someone who committed to not giving forward guidance, he gave none, but he did have slightly chatter that was interpreted to be slightly dovish, and that is his views on AI.
他谈到人工智能时指出，最初阶段会因建设数据中心而带来通胀压力，但随后这些投资开始产生回报时则具有抑制通胀的作用，这实际上是一种常规的标准解释。这种现象在其他地方也适用，比如建造工厂，一开始需要大量劳动力和材料，这可能导致通货膨胀。但一旦工厂建成，就会提高产量，进而抑制通胀。因此，这并不特别，但这再次体现了他核心观点，即通过提升生产力，人工智能很可能会抑制通胀。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Whereas he talked about AI as upfront being inflationary as people build out data centers, but afterwards, disinflationary as those investments begin to pay off, which kind of is really just a normal standard interpretation. It's kind of true anywhere, right? If you build a factory, in the beginning, you need a lot of labor, you need a lot of materials, and that could be inflationary. But once the factory is complete, then you have more production, and that's disinflationary. So it wasn't really that special, but it is, again, him going back to his core thesis that AI is probably going to be disinflationary through higher productivity.
这次重要的数据发布就是非农就业报告，市场解读认为数据较弱，因此预计美联储加息的可能性略有降低。不过，总的来说，影响并不大。主要结论是，新增就业岗位的数量低于预期，而且低很多。同时，失业率意外下降，主要是因为劳动参与率出现了较大幅度的降低。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The big data release, of course, was the non-informs payrolls report, which the market interpreted to be weak and priced a slightly lower chance of Fed hikes. Again, on the margin, though, it wasn't a big impact. So the takeaway was that the headline jobs created was lower than expected, right? Much lower than expected. At the same time, the unemployment rate declined unexpectedly, and that seems to be largely due to account of a rather large drop in the labor participation rate.
所以当你看这个时，我认为这算是一份喜忧参半的报告。一方面，可以说新增就业数据有所下降，这是一个较弱的方向性信号。但同时，美联储官员们一直强调，他们并不专注于新增就业数据，因为人口结构在发生变化。他们并不确切知道每个月应新增多少就业才是合适的，这个数字甚至可能低至零。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So when you look at this, I think it's kind of a mixed report. So on the one hand, you can say that the headline jobs number created declined, so that is directionally weaker. But at the same time, Fed officials have been emphasizing repeatedly that they're not focusing on the headlines number created because of changes in demographics. They don't really know what would be the right number of jobs they created each month. It could be as low as zero.
所以，他们一直强调失业率是衡量劳动力市场健康状况的一个更好指标，而这个指标最近下降了。然而，当然地，正如许多人指出的那样，这种下降是由于劳动参与率的下降。悲观者可能会说，哦，有很多人陷入困境并退出劳动力市场，所以失业率才会降低。悲观者的解释总是很愚蠢。确实有可能有些人这样做，但是，你知道，这个情况总是波动的，对吧？疫情后我们已经有了很大的增长，也许现在是正常化的过程。也许人们只是在看世界杯，也许他们在忙其他事情，或者在股市投机。很难说，也可能只是一个数据误差。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So they've been emphasizing the unemployment rate as a better sign as to whether or not of the health of the labor market, and that declined. However, of course, the decline, as many have pointed out, is due to a drop in participation rate, and the doomers can go and say, oh, there's so many people who are desperate and dropping out of the labor market, and so that's why the unemployment rate is lower. The doomer interpretation is always stupid. So that is totally possible that some people do this, but, you know, this thing fluctuates up and down, right? So we've kind of risen a lot post-pandemic. Maybe it's a bit normalizing. Maybe people are just watching the World Cup. Maybe they are just hustling. Maybe they are just gambling in the stock market. It's hard to say. It could just be a data error.
我认为，对于任何现象都不应该直接采取悲观的解释。比如，有人可能会认为零到期日期权交易激增，或者市场自然流通量上升，是因为人们太绝望了，只能通过赌博来求生，这种想法太过简单化。的确，可能有些人这样做，但谁不喜欢轻松赚钱呢？无论是牙医还是医生，甚至美国总统，都可能参与加密货币等各种投机活动。每个人都喜欢轻松赚钱和赌博，不论他们是绝望还是富有。因此，把这种现象单纯归结为绝望的悲观解释是不恰当的。我认为这种悲观解释同样不适用于劳动力参与率的下降。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So I think it's always wrong to reach for the doomer interpretation. Like, for example, the doomer interpretation for a jump in zero DTE option trading or spouting natural circulation is that people are so desperate they can only make it by gambling, which is totally stupid because, of course, maybe some people are doing that, but everyone likes easy money, right? So even you have the dentist, you have the doctors, people are well-off, you even have the president of the United States gambling bigly in crypto and all sorts of things, right? So everyone likes easy money, everyone likes to gamble, no matter how desperate or well-off you are. So that, of course, the desperation, doomer interpretation of this phenomenon is just not very good, and I think it would similarly not good for the drop in the labor force participation rate.
现在，美联储官员可能会认为，劳动参与率的下降使得失业率的下降不那么有效。因此，我们将看看未来几周他们会怎么说。好的，我想谈的第二件事当然是李宽·艾哈迈德的新书《1873》。我注意到李宽正在参加各种播客节目，还看到他和杰克·法利讨论货币问题的采访，意识到他出了一本新书。所以我马上去当地书店买了这本书。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, it's possible the Fed officials could look at this and say that, you know, drop in participation rate makes the drop in the unemployment rate less valid. So we'll see what they say if it's in the coming weeks. All right, the second thing that I want to talk about is, of course, this brand new book by Lee Kwon Ahmed, 1873. So I saw that Lee Kwon was making the podcast circuit, saw him do an interview with Jack Farley on monetary matters, and realized that he had a new book. So I immediately went outside and bought it at the local bookstore.
有个人写了一本叫《金融之王》的书，这本书是通过当时中央银行家的视角来讲述大萧条的历史。这本书非常好，所以我马上就想去看看1873年发生了什么。我认为宏观经济学基本上就是关于判断力和背景的。因此，理解历史对于理解未来世界的运作方式非常重要。这本书很容易读完。所以让我们来谈谈1873年到底发生了什么。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So this guy wrote Lords of Finance, which is a historical account of the Great Depression through the eyes of the central bankers of the time. And it's a really good book, so I immediately wanted to see what happened in 1873. So I think that I look at macro as basically, you know, it's all about judgment and context. So being able to understand history is really important to understand how the world will work in the future. So finish the book, easy to read. So let's talk about, I'll talk about what happened. So what happened in 1873?
基本上，当时全球范围内出现了一次炒作热潮。法国在与普鲁士的战争中失败，不得不向普鲁士支付大量赔款。为了筹措这笔资金，法国发行了债券，集资后将款项汇给了普鲁士。这一过程导致大量资金涌入了奥匈帝国及其周边地区，进而引发了当地的炒作热潮。随之而来的是，人们开始大量投资于建设项目，这就导致房地产价格上涨，并扩展了财富效应。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So basically there was kind of a global boom in speculation. So France lost the war to Prussia and had to pay Prussia a lot of money. So they floated bonds and basically collected the money and sent it over. And this kind of led to a huge infusion of cash into the Austrian-Hungary empire and that part of the world. So what happened was that this fueled a tremendous boom in speculation in that part of the world. And what happened was that, you know, like speculate, you begin to build more stuff. And so that means that real estate prices go up and that broadens the wealth effect.
这为银行提供了更多可以抵押贷款的资产。接着，整个市场出现了巨大的繁荣。在当时，最受欢迎的投机工具是股票。因此，人们开始疯狂地在股市中投机。各种各样的人创建初创公司只是为了发行股票，导致了一场巨大的繁荣。此外，由于法国在战争中失败，很多资金从法国流出，流入像英国这样的国家。这也为英国带来了大量资金，进一步推动了那里的投机热潮。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
That creates more collateral for banks to lend against. And you had an overall huge boom. And the preferred measured vehicle of speculation at that time for them was stocks. And so people began to gamble fiercely in stocks. You had all sorts of people create startups just to issue stock, and there was just a huge boom. And in addition to that, as France lost the war, there was a lot of capital flight out of France into places like the UK. And that also brought a lot of money into the UK and fueled a speculative boom there.
在理解这段话时，需要记住的是，当时采用的是硬币金属标准，对吧？也就是说，货币是以黄金和白银为基础的。因此，当资本流动发生时，实际上就是人们将大量的黄金和白银运送到另一个国家。这样一来，那个国家的货币供应量就会增加。这与现在的情况不同，现在我们使用的是浮动货币。当下，如果我从日本转移大量资金到美国，这并不会影响美国的货币总量，而是会影响汇率，对吗？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Something to keep in mind was at that time, it was on the hard metal standard, right? So money was gold and silver. So when you have capital flows, that's literally people taking a bunch of gold and silver and moving it to another country. And the money supply of that country does increase. It's different than how it is today where we have floating currencies. Now, if I were to take a lot of money from Japan and move it to the United States, that does not impact the amount of money in the United States. It impacts the exchange rate, right?
所以，你卖出日元，买入美元，美元就会升值。但在过去，当每个国家都使用金本位或银本位时，当你移动资本时，接收资金流入的国家确实会有更多的钱。因此，这实际上让人们有更多的钱可以花。一个有趣的观察是，从今天的角度来看，利率主要由中央银行设定。过去，当大量资金流入这些市场时，比如在维也纳，利率会下降，对吧？因为供需关系，更多的资金流入。资金流入越多，利率作为资金的价格自然会下降，意味着有更多的钱可以借贷。这与今天非常不同，现在的利率并不完全由供需决定，而是由中央银行设定的。这对利差有影响，但还是取决于中央银行的决定。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So you sell Japanese yen, you buy dollars, to dollar strengthens. But back then, when everyone was on the gold or silver standard, when you move capital, this country that receives financial flows actually does have more money. And so that actually does give people more money to spend. An interesting observation, just looking at this from a lens today, where interest rates are largely set by central banks. Back then, when you had this huge infusion of money into these markets, say Vienna, interest rates declined, right? Supply and demand, more money flowing in. More money flowing in, and interest rates, of course, being at the price of money, declines, more money to lend. Very different than it is today, where it's not so much supply and demand. That has an impact on spreads, but it is what the central bank sets it to do.
当时，美国也经历了一场巨大的投机热潮，但与之前有所不同。美国正在建设真实的世界，这些真实世界受到了美国政府的大力补贴。所以，各种现实世界的公司不断涌现并在那时发行债务。他们提供了相当不错的回报，吸引了大量的投机。因此，那里也存在很多泡沫。在这些故事中，有一个反复出现的情节，那就是，那时候很多人通过贿赂政府来达成交易。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, at the same time, you also had this huge boom in speculation in the United States, but it was a little bit different at that time. The United States was building up real worlds, and real worlds were something that was heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. So you had all sorts of real-world companies popping up and issuing debt at that moment. And they were offering pretty good returns, and there was a lot of speculation there. So, again, a lot of froth over there. One recurring story throughout all these narratives is that, you know, back then, people were really – a lot of people were bribing the government to get deals done.
在美国，例如，一些公司、银行和铁路公司通过大规模贿赂公职人员来达成交易。在欧洲，投机行为非常普遍。甚至擦鞋童、女服务员和贵族都会参与其中。而贵族由于其政治上的关系，会通过在各种公司董事会任职来提升这些公司的股价，从而吸引更多人的兴趣。可以说，在公共部门中，公职人员为了个人利益参与抬高私营公司股票价格的腐败现象是非常严重的。这种情况在今天也经常被人们提起，也是当前常见的问题。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
In the U.S., for example, companies, banks, railroad companies, massive bribery of public officials to be able to get deals done. In Euroland, speculation was widespread. You'd have shoeshine boys, you'd have, you know, waitresses, you'd have aristocracy go and participate. And the aristocracy, of course, being politically connected, would then lend their credence by sitting on boards of all these random companies to try to, you know, gin up interest for their stock. So tremendous amounts of, I guess you could say, corruption between the – where the public sector is – public officials are basically boosting private stock – private stock prices for their personal gain, which is something people talk about a lot today, and which happens a lot today.
但，我觉得，那时候这种事情发生的频率也是非常大的。在美国，那时候似乎完全正常的，就是通过贿赂来获得许可或其他东西。比如说，书中有很多故事讲到，当时的美国政府开始尝试筹集更多资金、发行国债，而获得这些交易的投资银行就是那些会拼命游说政治关系的人，他们会把财政部的人拉上关系，给他们钱之类的，以便获得承销国债的交易。所以，谁知道，也许这种情况现在仍然存在，但无论如何，那时候这类事情是更加明显的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But, again, it was something that happened, I think, back then to a very large extent as well. It was just seemingly totally normal back then in the U.S. to just kind of bribe people and get your permits or whatever. So then, for example, there's a lot of stories back in the book where the U.S. government back then, beginning to try to raise more money, issue treasuries, and the investment bank that would get those deals was one that would furiously lobby for political connections, would get all these people connected to the treasury, would pay them off and so forth to be able to get these deals to underwrite a treasury debt. So, who knows, maybe that's how it still happens today, but in any case, back then, much more explicit.
现在，我觉得有一件事非常有趣，我想阅读一段关于查尔斯·狄更斯描述当时美国的文字。让我来读一下。1842年，像查尔斯·狄更斯这样的早期欧洲旅行者评论了美国人对投机的热衷以及他们“凭空发财”的欲望。正如伦敦的《旁观者》后来所写，美国的百万富翁在投机中的行为，就好像他们没什么可失去的，只是当作一场奢侈的游戏。一个英国人极度害怕贫穷，一个法国人为了避免贫穷可能选择自杀，而一个有百万资产的美国人则敢于投机以赢得千万，即使输了，也不会多想就去找一份职员的工作。这种特性使他们成为世界上最危险的商业赌徒。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, one other thing that I thought was super interesting, and I want to read this passage about how some – about – actually, Charles Dickens described the United States back then, so let me read it. So, early travelers from Europe, like Charles Dickens in 1842, had remarked on their taste for speculation and their desire to, quote, make a fortune out of nothing. As London's spectator would later write, millionaires in America make corners as if they had nothing to lose, as if they were only an expensive game. An Englishman fears poverty excessively, and a Frenchman shoots himself to avoid it, but an American with a million will speculate to win 10, and if he loses, take a clerkship without thinking much about it. The peculiarity makes them the most dangerous business gamesters in the world.
所以，朋友们，我们一直以来都是投机者。几百年来，美国人就喜欢投机和赌博。这是一种文化，也许也是我们基因的一部分，对吧？美国是一个遥远的地方。为了来到这里，你必须是一个至少不怕冒险的人，因为你要将自己移植到一个遥远的异国，对吧？这种特质必须存在于你的基因中。所以，我认为肆意投机就是一种美国人常做的事情。不管怎样，我们今天依然可以看到这种现象，并且在过去的岁月中也不断重演。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, guys, we have always been DGens. Since hundreds of years ago, the Americans have always liked to speculate and gamble. It's just part of our culture, and maybe part of our DNA as well, right? The United States is a place that's far away. In order to come here, you have to be someone who is just going to be more, at least, not risk-averse, because you are uprooting yourself and coming to a foreign land far away, right? That has to be in your DNA. So, you know, I think just rampant speculation is just – I guess it's an American thing to do. So, anyway, and we see that today, and we've seen that recurring throughout the years.
现在，除了各种股票市场和农村债券市场的投机活动之外，国际债券市场的投机也在不断增加。书中提到，当时新兴市场的情况非常复杂，尤其是埃及和奥斯曼帝国，这两个国家突然成了债券投资者的热门选择。这些国家的领导人过着奢华的生活，拥有巨大的庄园，他们会在欧洲巡回演讲，表现得很负责任。由于当时的投机热潮，他们能够借到大量资金，但据书中所述，这些资金大多被挥霍在豪华的宫殿等奢侈品上。然而，由于投机和市场情绪非常看好，资金仍源源不断地流入。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, in addition to all this speculation in the various equity markets and the rural bond market, you also had growing speculation in international bond markets. At that time, the emerging markets were, say, all over the place, but in particular, the book highlights Egypt and the Ottoman Empire as places that were suddenly very, very popular among bond investors. So, these guys apparently lived luxurious lifestyles and had huge estates, and so they would do roadshows in Europe, act very responsible, and because speculation was so high, they were able to get a lot of money to lend a lot of money, which, according to the book, they basically wasted on their huge palaces and so forth. But, because speculation and sentiment was very positive, the money continued to flow in.
现在，总的来说，最终随着投机活动的进行，最终出现了崩盘。这场崩盘很有趣，因为它导致了一个显著的通货紧缩时期，比如在接下来的几十年里，价格下降了30%到40%。在考虑是什么原因导致了这次崩盘和通货紧缩时期时，我们必须牢记，当时并没有一个负责维持价格稳定的央行，所以政府并不负责维持，比如说2%的通胀率。通货紧缩就像天气变化一样，是自然发生的。因此，有一些有趣的事件促成了这次重大的通货紧缩。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, ultimately, though, as what happens is that speculation ultimately ended into a bust. And this bust is interesting because it led to a period of significant deflation, say prices dropped 30%, 40% over the next couple of decades. Now, in thinking about what actually drove that bust in period of deflation, we have to keep in mind that back then, there was no central bank with price stability mandates, so, you know, the government really wasn't in charge of, say, 2% inflation or something like that. You know, deflation happens, you know, it's like the weather, it happens. So, there's a few interesting things that happened that made this significant disinflationary event.
首先，我们经历了一段非常高的投机时期，杠杆使用极为普遍。所以，当一切最终在1873年左右崩溃时，最开始是在维也纳，然后逐渐蔓延到世界其他地区，很多人损失惨重，许多人彻底破产。杠杆和崩盘，这是相对正常的现象。真正让这一事件特别有趣并导致了长时间的价格下降，不是通货紧缩，这是不准确的说法，而是彻底的通货紧缩，原因还在于货币体系的变化。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
First off, of course, we had a period of very high speculation, tremendous amounts of leverage. So, when it all eventfully came tumbling down around 1873, and it happened in a ruling fashion, it happened first in Vienna and then eventually to other parts of the world, people lost a lot of money, people lost a lot of money, so many people were totally ruined, right? Leverage and busts, totally normal. What actually made this particularly interesting and led to a prolonged period of disinflation, not disinflation, that's not the right word, deflation, outright deflation, was that there was also a change in the monetary system.
因此，就在因通货紧缩和巨大的负财富效应导致资金变得稀缺的情况下，通常中央银行会像在2008年或2009年那样介入，增加货币供应量以避免通货紧缩。然而，这次情况却恰恰相反，而且是偶然发生的。当时，一些国家采用的是金银复本位制，即同时使用黄金和白银作为标准，但全球几乎在无意中向金本位制转变。所以，随着国家逐渐放弃白银，像英国这样的国家完全采用金本位，而法国这样的一些国家则保持金银复本位。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, just as money was becoming scarce because you had deflation and you had tremendous negative wealth effect, usually the central bank would come in like they did in, say, 2009, 2008, come and increase the money supply to try to ward off deflation. You actually had the opposite happen, and it happened by accident. It happened because at that time, a few countries were on the bimetallic standard, so gold and silver, but there was a global movement almost by accident to move towards a gold standard. So, as countries moved away from silver, and there were countries like the UK, which were purely gold, and you had countries like France that were bimetallic.
在美国，你们之前也有一种类似的金银复本位制。但随着各国逐渐只采用金本位，这意味着银币被取消流通功能，导致市面上流通的货币减少，加剧了经济衰退期间的通货紧缩。这实际上是一个政治决策。因此，在美国，关于如何重新将白银货币化的争论时常发生。如果你学过美国历史课程，可能记得布莱恩·詹宁斯那句著名的演讲，不要让我们在金的十字架上受苦。这是一种民粹主义的声音，试图重新货币化白银以增加货币供应，从而缓解通货紧缩的压力。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
In the US, you also had a kind of a bimetallic standard as well. But as countries moved towards only gold, then what that means by definition, there's just going to be less money because silver is demonetized. And so, that exacerbated the deflationary impacts of the bust. And this was basically a political decision. So, in the US, there was recurrently a lot of debate to try to remonetize silver. And if you studied, let's say, AP US history, you would have remembered Brian Jennings' famous speech, you know, not crucify us upon a cross of gold, right? That was the populists trying to remonetize silver to increase the money supply to alleviate deflation.
现在，通货紧缩在美国造成了非常不均衡的影响。如果你很富有，比如你在东北部的金融中心，你会喜欢通货紧缩，因为你拥有大量债券，你的钱变得更有价值。但如果你是农民，而这占了国家的大多数人，你会发现你能卖出商品的价格在下降。同时，你背负着利率固定的债务，所以你会感到痛苦，被压榨。因此，在共和党和民主党内部，这种情况其实跨越了党派界限。有人在支持硬通货。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, deflation had a very uneven impact in the US. If you were wealthy, say you were at the financial centers in the Northeast, you like deflation because you own a lot of bonds and your money is more valuable. But if you were a farmer, which was the vast majority of the country, you saw the amount, the price you could get for your goods sold decline. And at the same time, you had debt that had a fixed interest rate. So, you know, you were suffering, getting squeezed. So, this was something that actually cut across party lines within both Republican parties and the Democrat parties. You had people arguing for hard money.
在这段时间里，有些人支持使用软货币。最终，这个决定经历了几十年的演变，几乎是偶然间，美国转向了金本位制。根据书中的说法，当时投票支持这一决策的人真的不了解其意义。然而，强大的游说者似乎很清楚其中的利害关系，他们不仅成功推动了这一决定，还成功阻止了恢复金银双本位制的企图。因此，这实际上是一个政治决定，而货币政策一直以来就是一个政治性问题，将来也会是这样。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You had people arguing for soft money. And at the end of the day, and this happened over a few decades, it was ultimately, the decision to basically move to a gold standard was something that was, by the count of the book, almost by accident in that the guys who were voting for this really didn't understand what it meant. But the powerful lobbyists, they seemingly did, and they were able to get that and successfully ward off attempts to go back to a bimetallic standard. So, this was a political decision, as monetary policy is, has been, and will always be.
这进一步压缩了美国及全球的经济，资金的短缺加剧了通缩的影响。但除此之外，持续的技术发展也在起作用。例如，机械化程度的提高确实提升了生产力。这意味着你可以用相同的投入生产更多的产品，从而带来通缩影响。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And that kind of further squeezed the economy in the U.S. and throughout the world, scarcity of money, exacerbated the deflationary impacts. But in addition to that, though, you also had ongoing technological developments. The increase of mechanization, for example, really did increase productivity. And that, of course, increased productivity means you can produce more with the same inputs, deflationary impact.
那个时候，铁路也开始出现了。有了铁路之后，货物可以更高效、更经济地运输到遥远的地方。这大大降低了运输成本，因此也降低了商品的价格。于是，各种因素共同作用，使得商品的价格在接下来的几十年间不断下降。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And at that time, there was also the creation of the railroads. So, now you have railroads that can more effectively, more efficiently ship things across long distances. That significantly decreased shipping costs. And so, that also reduced the cost of goods. So, you had all these impacts that were basically pushing down prices for a few decades.
这就是事情发展的经过。最终，你知道，价格并不会永远下跌。它确实稳定下来了。其中一部分原因纯粹是运气好。因为发现了一些新的金矿，货币供应量自然增加，这也帮助缓解了问题。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And that's kind of how it happened. And eventually, again, you know, prices don't go down forever. It did stabilize. And part of it was basically just due to a stroke of luck. So, there were new gold discoveries that came about. And so, the money supply just kind of naturally increased and that kind of took things away.
那个时候的环境确实不一样，有不同的货币政策、不同的政治局势，以及不同的历史背景。但是，我们今天反复看到相似的事情重演。因此，如果市场今天再次出现波动，我们现在拥有一个更加灵活的货币体系。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so, it really was a different setting back then, different monetary policy, different politics, and just a different historical context. But again, we see the same things repeat over and over again today. So, should we have a bus today in the markets, we have a, you know, different monetary system that is more elastic.
我们有一套不同的政策工具来防止通货紧缩。因此，通货紧缩的可能性非常小。我想我们都知道政策会如何反应。不过，我认为还有一些小细节也非常有趣。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And we have a different policy apparatus that will guard against deflation. So, that is going to be pretty unlikely. So, I think we all know what the policy reaction will be. But in any case, I thought there was, oh, there's small tidbits that I thought were very interesting as well.
随着通货紧缩的发生，人们认为原因是国外廉价商品的进口。因此，他们建立了巨大的关税壁垒，以防止外国商品进入市场，与本地商品竞争，这实际上也是我们现在正在做的事情。有趣的是，当时美国还对加拿大设置了关税壁垒，因为他们想要向加拿大施压，希望其成为第45个州。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
As deflation happened, people thought that the deflation was happening because of cheap imports from abroad. So, they actually erected huge tariff walls to prevent foreign goods from coming in and basically competing with local goods, which is kind of something that we're doing right now. Fun fact, at the time, the U.S. actually also erected a tariff barrier on Canada because they kind of wanted to pressure Canada to become the 45th state at the time.
好的，很多事情现在发生过的，以前也都发生过。有点意思看到历史重演。无论如何，这是这本书，1873年，很容易读。这就是我今天准备的所有内容。下周再跟大家聊。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, again, a lot of things that happened now have happened before. It's kind of interesting to see history repeat. All right, in any case, this is the book, 1873, very easy read. And that's all I prepared for today. Talk to you guys next week.