Charles Payne Show February 28, 2024

Alright folks, joining me now on a monitoring macros. C.I.O. C.I.O. Joseph Wang. Joe, you know, I always find myself asking economists and Wall Street types if they have any relatives in a middle class or lower middle class because it does always kind of seem to be a disconnect. I always, the Wall Street guys are always sort of, it's good. The economy is strong and then, you know, everyone, all my relatives are like, it's tough. I'm struggling, Charles. Do you ever see that disconnect at all? Well, absolutely, Charles, first of all, thank you for having me. And I think this is especially salient. Now I can talk from my experience at the Fed. So the Fed, as you know, has to make decisions so they go and they gather information. My sense is that when the Fed talks to people, they're talking to C.I.O.s, they're talking to treasures, they're talking to big investors. Basically, they're talking to really wealthy people and so they're kind of taking their perspective more when they go and make decisions. And I think that's similar to many of the economists that you would speak to as well. This is huge, I guess, sample selection where the people we hear on who make decisions in public institutions and on Wall Street tend to not know very many middle-class people. And so you get a very skewed perspective as to how things are going and that impacts policy as well. There should be mandatory trips to the local supermarket twice a month, I think. Just mandatory.

大家好，现在加入我一起监控宏观数据的是首席信息官，乔瑟夫·王。乔，你知道，我总是会问经济学家和华尔街那些人是否有中产阶级或更低一级的亲戚，因为他们似乎总是有些脱节。我总是发现华尔街的人总是说经济状况不错，但是，我的亲戚们总说生活很艰难，我在挣扎，查尔斯。你有没有看到这种脱节的情况？嗯，绝对有，查尔斯，首先感谢您邀请我。我认为这点特别重要。现在我可以从联邦储备系统的经验谈起。正如你所知，美联储必须做出决策，所以他们会去收集信息。我觉得当美联储与人交谈时，他们在和首席信息官、财务官、大投资者交谈。基本上，他们是在和非常富有的人交谈，所以在做出决策时更多地采纳他们的观点。我觉得这和你谈话的许多经济学家类似。这其实是一个巨大的偏差，我们听到的在公共机构和华尔街上做出决策的人很少了解中产阶级。因此，你会得到一个非常片面的观点，对事态发展产生影响，也会影响政策。我想每月强制性去当地超市参观两次会是一个好主意。就是必须去。

Alright. You've got a great tweet. Well, it's very compelling. And I want to share it with the audience. People spending redistributes income from those who spend less to those who spend more. The effect may be particularly strong when spending is financed by debt than taxes. This suggests continued strong growth and nominal GDP in support of credit. I don't know. Am I reading this right? It sounds like you're saying that maybe a form of monetary theory is working and we should stick with it. Well, Charles, as you know, a couple years ago, we basically experimented with massive MMT. We're spending free money to basically millions of people. What people may not be aware of, though, is we kind of didn't really stop. Now we don't send overt checks, but if you look at the fiscal deficit, it's 5% a year. And according to the CBO, it's going to stay about 5% a year for the foreseeable future. Now the CBO is a great organization, but they can only make projections based on current law. If the past is any guidance, we're going to be spending more and more money. So that 5% fiscal deficit is going to be an underestimation. So in a sense, the federal government is going to spend tremendous amounts of money and pay for it by printing trade or securities. In a sense, it's very much like printing money. And this completely changes the game when it comes to economic growth and when it comes to asset prices. So this strong nominal growth we've seen, how the economy seems to be so resilient, even after the Fed hikes rates, I think a lot of it is due to this tremendous fiscal spending. Would you advocate then to make that a permanent feature? Or would you be concerned that inflation would never really go away and that the better, what do we want? Do we want nominal growth at any cost? Because it seems that the longer we do this, the bigger the larger the reckoning is going to be.

好的。你的推特很棒。实际上，它非常引人入胜。我想与观众分享它。人们的消费会将收入从那些消费较少的人重新分配给那些消费更多的人。当支出是通过债务而不是税收来融资时，这种影响可能特别强烈。这表明继续强劲增长和名义GDP支持信贷。我不知道。我理解得对吗？听起来你是在说也许某种货币理论正在发挥作用，我们应该坚持下去。嗯，查尔斯，正如你所知，几年前，我们实际上进行了大规模的MMT实验。我们在向成千上万的人派送免费资金。然而，人们可能不知道的是，我们似乎并没有真正停下来。现在我们不再发放明显的支票，但如果你看一下财政赤字，它是每年5%。根据国会预算办公室的数据，这种赤字在可预见的未来将维持在约5%。现在国会预算办公室是一个很棒的组织，但他们只能根据现行法律做出预测。如果过去是任何指引，我们将会花费越来越多的资金。所以那5%的财政赤字将是一个低估。因此，在某种程度上，联邦政府将会大量花钱并通过印刷贸易或证券来支付。从某种意义上说，这非常类似于印钞。这在经济增长和资产价格方面完全改变了游戏规则。所以我们看到的强劲名义增长，经济在联储加息后似乎如此有韧性，我认为很大程度上归功于这种巨额财政支出。那么你是主张将其作为一种永久特征吗？还是担心通货膨胀永远不会消退，我们希望什么呢？我们想要不惜一切代价的名义增长吗？因为似乎我们这样做的时间越长，惩罚越大。

Absolutely, Charles. So if you look across the world, let's say, can Argentina do something like this? Can Brazil do something like this? Absolutely not. If they were to have these tremendous deficits, well, their bond market would freak out and their currency would be selling off significantly. It's kind of already happening in some cases. What makes the US different is that we've built up so much credibility over the past hundred years as the world superpar, that even though we are not being physically well managed, there seems to be a lot of people who still just piling into the bond market, piling into the dollar. Now these perceptions take a while to change, but obviously it's not sustainable and that's true. Paul has already noted there's a lot of people who are ringing the alarm bells on our fiscal situation. It is not sustainable. Just like it takes a long time to build it up, once you lose it, it would take a long time to regain it. Joe, thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Folks, you got to check out the Fed guy on Twitter.

当然，查尔斯。所以如果你看看世界各地，比如说，阿根廷可以做到这样吗？巴西能做到这样吗？绝对不行。如果他们有这样巨大的赤字，那么他们的债券市场会一片混乱，他们的货币会大幅贬值。在某些情况下，这种情况已经开始出现了。美国的不同之处在于，过去一百年我们已经建立起了如此多的信誉作为世界超级强国，尽管我们的管理并不太好，似乎仍有大量投资者涌入债券市场、投入美元。现在这种看法需要一段时间才能改变，显然这是不可持续的，这是真的。保罗已经提到了有很多人在敲响关于我们财政状况的警钟。这是不可持续的。就像建立信誉需要很长时间一样，一旦失去了它，重新获得将需要很长时间。谢谢你，乔。非常感谢。朋友们，你们一定要关注推特上的这位联邦小伙子。