Charles Payne Show September 19, 2023

Entities that want the Fed and even the ECB to remain hawkish. Everyone else is like, please give us a break. Where did you come down on this?

希望美联储甚至欧洲央行保持鹰派立场的实体。 而其他人则像是在说，请给我们一点休息。 你对此持哪种立场？

Hey, Charles, thanks for inviting me. You know, I think what the OECD is trying to say is that they're really worried that there's going to be a replay of the 1970s. So what they're looking at, and remember, the OECD is looking at many countries, not just the US, what they're looking at is that they're seeing that countries are having slower growth, and there's more political pressure on central banks to cut rates. And they're afraid that the central banks would cave, cut rates, and then we'll see a basic decade of high inflation. Now, if you look at other countries, for example, Poland. In Poland, the central bank cut rates by 75 basis points ahead of a major election. Was it because the mission accomplished? Well, their inflation printed at 10%. And then, let me tell you, 10% is not their target. Or you can even look at Canada now. In Canada, you have the premieres of three major provinces, writing letters to Tifmaklim, the governor of the Bigelpanda, begging him to not height rates anymore. So the OECD is worried that politics is going to get into the way, and it will be in a situation where we have another decade of high inflation. Now, in the US, we're a bit lucky. So, the US, so far, with the exception of, say, maybe one senator, I think Congress has been pretty supportive of the Fed's role. There's more Fed independence. But I think across the world, I think other countries are not in the same situation and the OECD is worried. I think you're luding to Elizabeth Warren. Although, I will say this, a lot of folks in Congress, particularly in the Senate, wanted to Fed to be aggressive and kind of challenged up, Jay Powell, to show us his inner Paul Volcker. But the 70s aren't the burns, ironically, enough when it all was said and done, even though he's considered like a failure, he said it was political pressure to your point that made him pause. Now, the last time we spoke, you were confident about the US economy. It sounds like you still kind of feel that way. So, with that as the backdrop, what kind of a landing are we looking at? I would suspect next year, we'll have some sort of conclusion to all of this. Heart landing, soft landing, what do you say? So far, it looks like soft landing. As was just said, there's a whole range of GDP forecast, so we don't really know what things are. But we do know what the first two quarters were, and the first two quarters were pretty solid. Now, the US GDP is, let's say, 1.8% on trend growth, first quarter, second quarter, both 2% above trend. This quarter looks like there's a range of views, but it looks like it's going to be OK as well. Consumers spending data continues to be strong, and most importantly, fiscal deficit is still there. And I think that's behind a lot of the US economic strength, and I think that's going to continue. So far, I think we're on track for soft landing. So I got, I'm not as worried. I got less than a minute ago. I think I found something that you're worried about. We're going to have to start calling you Cool Hand Joe here. Liquidity, a liquidity event. How might that play out? No, I think liquidity is really bad in the market. So what we saw in March 2020, what that at the end of the day, what that means, what happened was that the markets have grown so big, but the underlying capacity to provide liquidity, that is to say the dealer capacity to intermediate hasn't really not grown in sync with the markets. For example, looking at the treasury market, today we're at say 26 trillion market treasuries. Now, the dealer balance sheets today are actually smaller than they were before the great financial crises. And so because there's just not enough capacity to intermediate, we have markets are fragile. We could be in a situation where we have a replay of March 2020. I'm not saying that it's happening right now or imminent, but structurally speaking, nothing that broke in March 2020 has been fixed and it's only gone worse. Wow, I think that's a hell of a statement to say nothing that was structurally broken as me fix. Joseph, thank you so much, my friend. Appreciate it.

嘿，查尔斯，谢谢你邀请我。 你知道，我认为经济合作与发展组织（OECD）试图表达的意思是，他们真的担心会重演上世纪70年代的情况。 所以他们关注的是，现在他们看到许多国家增长放缓，央行面临更多政治压力要降低利率。 他们担心央行会屈服，降低利率，然后我们将看到十年高通胀。 现在，如果你看其他国家，比如波兰。 在波兰，央行在一次重要选举前降息75个基点。 是因为任务完成了吗？ 嗯，他们的通胀率达到了10%。 而且，告诉你，10%并不是他们的目标。 或者你甚至可以看看加拿大现在的情况。 在加拿大，三个主要省的省长给央行行长蒂夫·马克利姆写信，恳求他不要再提高利率了。 所以OECD担心政治将成为阻碍之一，我们将面临另一个十年的高通胀局面。 现在，在美国，我们有点幸运。 到目前为止，除了一个参议员外，我认为国会一直对美联储的作用非常支持。 有更多的美联储独立性。 但我认为在世界其他地方，其他国家的情况并不相同，OECD感到担忧。 我认为你是在暗示伊丽莎白·沃伦。 尽管我要说的是，国会中很多人，特别是参议院中的人，希望美联储变得更积极，并向杰伊·鲍威尔提出挑战，展示他内心的保罗·沃尔克。 但讽刺的是，70年代并不是那种烧毁的情况，尽管他被认为是个失败者，但他说他暂停是因为政治压力让他停下来。 上次我们交谈的时候，你对美国经济很有信心。 听起来你仍然有这种感觉。 那么，在这种背景下，我们将迎来什么样的局面？ 我猜测明年我们将对所有这些有个结论。 硬着陆，软着陆，你怎么看？ 到目前为止，看起来是软着陆。 正如刚才所说，对GDP的预测有很多不同，所以我们不太清楚具体情况。 但我们确实知道前两个季度的情况，前两个季度非常稳定。 现在，美国的GDP大致在趋势增长率1.8%的水平，第一季度和第二季度都高出2%。 这个季度有很多不同看法，但看起来也会不错。 消费者支出数据仍然强劲，最重要的是财政赤字还在。 我认为这是美国经济实力的支撑，并且我认为这将会持续下去。 到目前为止，我认为我们正在努力实现软着陆。 所以，我没有那么担心。 刚刚不到一分钟，我想我找到了你担心的事情。 我们可能得开始称你为酷派乔了。 流动性，流动性事件。 会有什么情况发生？ 不，我认为市场的流动性非常糟糕。 所以我们在2020年3月看到的情况是，市场变得非常庞大，但提供流动性的基础能力，并没有随着市场的增长同步增长，即说中介的交易员能力并没有真正增长。 以国债市场为例，我们现在的国债市场总量约为26万亿美元。 而交易员的资产负债表实际上比大规模金融危机前还要小。 因此，由于中介能力不足，市场就显得脆弱。 我们可能会陷入重演2020年3月的情况。 我并不是说现在或即将发生，但从结构上说，2020年3月发生的问题一直没有得到解决，甚至变得更糟。 哇，我认为这是一个很大的说法，说就没有解决结构性问题。 约瑟夫，非常感谢你，我的朋友。 感谢你的参与。