Markets Weekly November 16, 2024

Hello my friends, today is November 16th and this is Markets Weekly. So this past week we got quite a bit of volatility. Looks like it was largely driven by November Options X-berry. Is this just a bump in the road or is it all over? We'll find out in the coming weeks. But today let's talk about three things. First, even though the broader indexes didn't do that well the past week, there are three Trump trades that continue to surge. Let's talk about what they are and why they continue to do well. Secondly, the past week President Trump, Elon and Vivek unveiled Doge, Department of Government Efficiency that promises to cut government spending and government personnel. Let's talk about what that can mean for the broader economy. And lastly, last week, Chair Powell had an interview where he suggested that he would change the Fed's operating framework. Let's talk about what the current framework is and why it makes sense to change it at the upcoming Fed review.

你好，朋友们，今天是11月16日，欢迎收看《市场一周》。过去一周市场波动较大，看起来主要是由于11月期权到期引起的。这是一次小波动还是一切都结束了呢？我们将在接下来的几周找到答案。但今天我们先来聊三个话题。第一，尽管过去一周大盘指数表现不佳，有三个“特朗普交易”依然势头强劲。我们来谈谈它们是什么以及为什么继续表现良好。其次，上周特朗普总统、埃隆·马斯克和维韦克推出了Doge，即政府效率部门，承诺缩减政府开支和人员编制。我们来讨论这对整体经济可能意味着什么。最后，上周鲍威尔主席在一次采访中表示他可能会改变美联储的操作框架。我们来聊聊当前的框架是什么，以及为什么在即将到来的美联储评审中改变它是有意义的。

Alright, starting with the Trump trades. Now, there are three Trump trades that really caught my eye the past week because they continue to be on fire. First, of course, Bitcoin looks like it was up every single day. It's around 90,000 right now. Looks like it wants to go higher. What is driving this? Well, President Trump in a memorable fashion during the campaign went to a very large Bitcoin conference and made a lot of really bullish remarks wanting to make the US a crypto leader. Now, among his proposals, having a Bitcoin reserve fund, loosening regulation, and more recently floating some tax proposals that could eliminate capital gains tax for some crypto assets. Now, all in all, this sounds super, super positive, so it's no surprise that Bitcoin can give you up. Although looking more in detail, it does seem a little bit I think perplexing. For example, just what a Bitcoin reserve fund be used for. Now, the US has a strategic petroleum fund, reserve fund, because the US consumes a lot of oil. Other countries have dollar reserve funds because they need to spend dollars to buy goods and services that they import. Now, I'm not quite too sure what the Bitcoin reserve would be used for. There are use cases for Bitcoin. Right now, it seems to be mostly number goes up, which it does very well. So it's not super clear what we would need a Bitcoin reserve fund. But if there is one, again, that's more demand for Bitcoin prices go up. Now, the other two proposals do make a bit more sense. Now, the US, I think a big challenge for any adoption of an alternative asset like Bitcoin is the regulatory regime. Now, SEC chaired Gary Gensler is often considered to be someone that's not as friendly to crypto. It looks like he's on his way out. Now, if we have someone new coming in, we could have a new regulatory regime. That is much more friendly. Now, when Bitcoin cash ETFs came out, that generated tremendous enthusiasm. It was easier for the public to buy Bitcoin and that really made the number go up. And so if we have even even more friendly regulatory regime, that that's obviously helpful for the price. And lastly, the recent proposals about, I think, reducing capital gains tax for crypto assets, that seems a bit more ambiguous. It seems like what's hinted right now is that in order to support the development of a US crypto industry, they'd like to have no capital gains on US issued crypto, which I'm not sure Bitcoin is, but it is quite positive for the broader crypto ecosystem. Now, all these proposals, I don't know if they will actually amount to anything, but just having this in mind is capturing the imagination of people in as President Trump picks out his cabinet as he gets closer and closer to being sworn into office. Now, this could potentially continue as these regulations do, in fact, would be, I think, beneficial to Bitcoin and the crypto industry.

好的，先来谈谈关于特朗普的交易。上周有三笔与特朗普相关的交易引起了我的注意，因为它们持续表现强劲。首先，当然是比特币，看起来它每天都在涨，现在大约是90,000美元，好像还有上涨趋势。是什么驱动了这一现象呢？原来，特朗普总统在竞选期间非常引人注目地参加了一个大型比特币会议，并发表了相当乐观的言论，希望让美国成为加密货币的领军者。他提议设立比特币储备基金、放松监管，并在不久前提出了一些税收建议，可能会对某些加密资产免除资本利得税。总体来说，这些消息都相当正面，所以比特币价格上涨也不令人意外。尽管如此，仔细观察会发现其中有些让人困惑的地方。比如，一个比特币储备基金会被用来做什么？美国拥有战略石油储备，因为美国消费大量的石油。其他国家有美元储备基金是因为他们需要用美元购买进口的商品和服务。但对于比特币储备我们可以用来做什么还不太清楚。目前，比特币的使用场景似乎主要是其价格上涨得很厉害。因此，是否需要一个比特币储备基金还有待观察。但如果真的有一个，那就会增加比特币的需求，价格自然会上升。 另外两个提议则显得比较合理。我认为美国在采用比特币这样替代资产上面临的一个大挑战是监管制度。现任证券交易委员会（SEC）主席加里·根斯勒常被认为对加密货币不太友好，而他看起来即将离职。如果有新人接任，可能会有个更友好的监管制度。当比特币现金ETF推出时，曾激发了极大的热情，让公众更容易购买比特币，确实促进了其价格上涨。因此，如果有更友好的监管制度，那显然对价格是有利的。 最后，最近关于减少加密资产资本利得税的建议显得有些模糊。现在似乎暗示的是为了支持美国加密行业的发展，可能会对美国发行的加密货币免除资本利得税，但我不确定比特币是否在此之列。这对更广泛的加密货币生态系统是相当正面的。所有这些提议可能最终不会落地，但是在特朗普总统挑选内阁成员并接近就职的过程中，它们引发了人们的想象力。若这些新法规真的实施，可能会对比特币及加密货币行业带来积极的影响。

Now, moving on to the second really on fire Trump trade. It's the dollar. The dollar looks like it's just going straight up. Now, the biggest part of the dollar basket, obviously, is the euro and the euro has been really weak. Now, we talked about this last week, but a big part of the ongoing dollar strength is twofold. One, of course, is the market's perception that the US is going to have more growth. So we have money flooding in to try to take advantage of the greater growth in the US and US markets doing very well. Farners want to participate in that price appreciation.

现在，继续讨论第二个真正火热的特朗普交易：美元。美元看起来就像在直线上升。显然，美元指数中最大的一部分是欧元，而欧元最近表现非常疲软。我们上周谈到了这个问题，但美元持续走强有两个主要原因。第一，市场认为美国将会有更高的经济增长。因此，资金涌入美国以试图利用更高的增长，而且美国市场表现良好，外国投资者希望参与这种价格上涨。

But the other side of this is the prospect of tariffs. Now, looking at the European Union, you can see that over the past few decades, the US has a tremendous trade deficit with the European Union, and that's going to annoy President Trump a lot. Now, there aren't that many solutions to fix this. So Europe, like the US, is a very complicated political system with all sorts of interest groups, and they're not going to want to change. The easiest way for them to try to narrow the deficit is to just buy more US goods, probably US defense goods, since that would also make Trump happy about their spending on defense.

但是另一方面，关税问题也是一个可能性。现在来看欧洲联盟，我们可以看到在过去的几十年里，美国与欧盟之间存在巨大的贸易逆差，这肯定会让特朗普总统感到非常不满。解决这个问题的办法并不多。欧洲，和美国一样，是一个非常复杂的政治体系，有着各种各样的利益群体，他们并不愿意做出改变。他们缩小逆差的最简单办法可能就是多购买美国商品，尤其是美国的国防产品，因为这也会让特朗普对他们的国防开支感到满意。

But in any case, the first instinct of this is probably more tariffs to try to encourage the Europeans to be more receptive to changing their trade practices. And this, of course, is bad for the European economy and is forcing the ECB to probably cut rates more. And if you look at the interest rate differentials between the US and the European Union, over the past month, we see the US price in fewer rate cuts as they become more positive on growth prospects. And over there in your land, pricing in more rate cuts as they become a little bit more pessimistic. And so the interest rate differentials winding leading to a stronger dollar.

但无论如何，其第一反应可能是增加关税，试图鼓励欧洲人更愿意改变他们的贸易做法。当然，这对欧洲经济不利，并迫使欧洲央行可能进一步降息。如果看一下过去一个月美国和欧盟之间的利率差异，可以发现，由于对增长前景更加乐观，美国预计降息次数减少。而在你们那边，由于略显悲观，预计降息次数增加。因此，利率差异缩小，导致美元走强。

This looks like something that could continue, especially if President Trump really does carry through with his aggressive tariffs. Now, this is not just a story between the US and the US. It's also a story between the US and other countries like Mexico, Canada, China and so forth. So it looks like a broad dollar strength does make a lot of sense given the current policy proposals.

这看起来可能会继续，尤其是如果特朗普总统真的执行他的激进关税政策的话。这不仅仅是美国内部的问题，也是美国和其他国家之间的问题，比如墨西哥、加拿大、中国等。因此，鉴于当前的政策提议，美元的全面走强似乎是合理的。

Now, the last thing that really caught my eye among the on fire truck trades are US financials. Now, the US banking stocks are doing really well. Now, what really stood out was where was Fargo? It looks like Wells Fargo going straight up like it thinks it's Bitcoin. Now, the financials, the banks in the US since the great financial crises have been under a very heavy regulatory hand. In many ways, they're kind of like utilities. They're such highly regulated because understandably, the regulators don't want a repeat of the great financial crises. But the prospect of more lenient regulations means that they can continue to make more money and make more loans. And that's really positive for the banks.

现在，在火热的卡车交易中，真正吸引我注意力的是美国金融股票。美国银行类股票表现得非常好。其中最引人注目的是富国银行。看起来富国银行的股价直线上升，像是认为自己是比特币一样。自金融危机以来，美国的金融机构一直受到严格的监管。某种程度上，它们有点像公用事业公司，因为严格监管可以理解，监管机构不希望金融危机重演。然而，更宽松的监管前景意味着银行可以继续赚取更多利润并发放更多贷款。对于银行来说，这无疑是非常积极的信号。

Now, it's particularly positive for Wells Fargo because Wells Fargo is operating under an asset cap. As many of you remember, Wells Fargo behaved very, very poorly over the past decade. Many, many reports of fraudulent accounts being opened. And as punishment for that, they were put under an asset cap. That means that they cannot expand their balance sheet. They cannot really limit their ability to make loans. Now, if you take that asset cap off, then they can continue to grow and that's tremendously positive for their stock. So, broadly speaking, if the financials get less regulation, you know, they can continue to expand, increases their earnings. It makes sense for them to do well.

现在，这对于富国银行来说是一个特别积极的消息，因为它目前正处在资产上限的限制下。许多人还记得，过去十年间，富国银行的行为非常不当，有许多关于欺诈性开设账户的报道。作为惩罚，他们被施加了资产上限。这意味着他们无法扩大资产负债表，也限制了他们发放贷款的能力。如果取消这个资产上限，他们就可以继续增长，这对于他们的股票来说是极大的利好。总的来说，如果金融行业监管减少，他们就可以继续扩张，增加盈利，这将有利于他们的表现。

And if they continue to expand, that's actually quite positive for the US economy in general because that means more availability of credit. If you want to get a mortgage, you want to get a credit card loan. If you want to get an auto loan, it's going to be more available. So, strength in financials is actually quite bullish, not just for the banks, but for the US economy in general.

如果他们继续扩张，这对美国经济总体来说实际上是相当积极的，因为这意味着信贷的可获得性增加。比如说，如果你想申请房贷、信用卡贷款或汽车贷款，这些贷款会更容易获得。因此，金融业的强势实际上非常利好，不仅对银行，对整个美国经济都是如此。

Now, all this is based upon what the market believes that the upcoming Trump administration would do. This can all change. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. But so far, it seems like all this is consistent with what Trump did his first term and what he's been saying for the past several months. So, let's see how this plays out.

现在，所有这些都是基于市场对即将上任的特朗普政府可能会采取的措施的预期。这一切都可能发生变化，我们不要过于激进。目前来看，这似乎与特朗普在其第一个任期内的表现以及过去几个月的言论是一致的。让我们看看事情将如何发展。

Now, the second thing I want to talk about is Doge. Now, Elon has been really making a lot of noises about his concern about government efficiency. He's been saying that there's just, you know, a lot of waste fraud and abuse in the government and that he wants to tamp down on this. Vivek has also made some noises to this, famously noting that, you know, just kind of fire everyone who has an odd number of social security number or something like that. Now, these guys are big on efficiency. They've been in the private sector a long time. Elon famously fired, say, large majority of the Twitter staff and Twitter still here. So, he is known for being a bit more efficient. President Trump finally affirmed this by making an advisory body. Again, not an official agency in the US government. I believe he need an act of Congress to do that, but making what is essentially an advisory board led by Elon and Vivek.

现在，我想谈的第二个话题是狗狗币。最近，埃隆·马斯克对政府效率提出了很多关注。他指出政府中存在大量浪费、欺诈和滥用的问题，并表示希望减少这些现象。维韦克也发表了类似的看法，他曾戏称可以解雇那些社会安全号码是奇数的人。这些人在追求效率方面很有热情，因为他们长期在私营部门工作。埃隆知名的是，他大量裁减了推特的员工，但推特依然运营良好，这让他以效率著称。特朗普总统最终通过建立一个咨询机构对此表示认可。这个机构并不是美国政府的官方机构，我认为这需要国会立法，但实质上是由埃隆和维韦克领导的顾问委员会。

Now, a lot of you have not worked in the government before, so you may not be familiar with how this works, but I worked in both the private sector for many years and in the public sector as well. So, I can tell you that this is actually a really good thing. So, when I started my career in the private sector, I started at a law firm and I worked under a law partner. Now, at that time, you know, I didn't know anything. And so, everything I did was reviewed by the law partner or the senior associate. And those guys, you know, they've been doing this their whole life would absolutely smoke me on any aspect of the law. And I learned a lot from them. I've also worked under an economic consultancy under a PhD economist. Remember my boss then, got his PhD from MIT and, you know, everything I did, subject to his review, learned a lot from him. When I was a credit analyst, I worked under someone who's been in industry for basically almost 20 years.

现在，很多人可能没有在政府工作过，所以你们可能不太了解其中的运作方式。但我曾在私营部门和公共部门工作多年，所以我可以告诉你们，这其实是件好事。一开始，我在私营部门的职业生涯是在一家律师事务所开启的，我在一位律师合伙人的指导下工作。那时候，我对法律一无所知，所以我做的所有事情都要经过律师合伙人或高级律师的审查。而这些人，一生都在从事法律工作，在法律的任何方面都能比我厉害得多，我也从他们那里学到了很多。我还曾在一家经济咨询公司工作，指导我的是一位博士经济学家。我记得当时的老板拥有麻省理工学院的博士学位，我做的一切都要经过他的审查，我从中学到了很多。后来作为一名信贷分析师，我也在一位在行业中工作了几乎20年的人手下工作。

And he knew all the issuers, he knew the structure, he knew the asset, really well, and everything I did was reviewed from him and reviewed by him and I learned a lot. So, that's actually how the private sector operates. And many of you are familiar with that. But you may not know is that's not actually how the public sector operates. So, when I went to the Fed, you know, a lot of people there were very smart and knowledgeable. I learned from them. But what really struck me was just how clueless many of the, you know, the leadership and the management of these organizations are. Now, somewhere towards the end of my tenure at the New York Fed, we got a new senior management.

他对所有的发行人非常了解，对结构和资产也很熟悉，我做的一切都经过他的审查，我从中学到了很多。这实际上就是私营部门的运作方式，很多人对此都很熟悉。但你可能不知道的是，公共部门的运作方式并不是这样的。当我去美联储时，我发现那里的许多人都非常聪明和有见识，我从他们身上也学到了很多。但让我非常震惊的是，这些机构的许多领导和管理层对实际情况并不了解。接近我在纽约联储任期结束时，我们迎来了一位新的高层管理人员。

And I remember meeting with her and, you know, she kind of said that she did not know really anything about money markets, which is what I specialized in and what she was supposed to lead. But she's happy to learn. And that really struck me because just a couple of weeks ago, the college intern told me the exact same thing. And so, for the coming months, it was basically the job of me and my team to make this very senior person appear to be competent. And let me tell you, you can coach IQ. And what really struck me being in the public sector for these for those years was that there were many, many people like that.

我记得和她见面的情形，她说她对货币市场一无所知，而我正是专攻这方面的，她本该负责这块业务。不过，她很乐意学习。这让我印象深刻，因为就在几周前，大学实习生对我说了完全相同的话。因此，在接下来的几个月里，我和我的团队的工作基本就是让这位资深人士看起来是有能力的。让我告诉你，智商是可以培养的。让我真正感到震惊的是，在这些年我在公共部门的工作中，发现有很多人都和她一样。

And it really surprised me because how could this work, right? And then I understood it could work because the public sector is ultimately a business that can fail run by people who can't get fired. Nothing matters. So you can just do a terrible job. You can do nothing and really nothing bad happens to you. I can say during my time there is there five years, only one person got fired in. She was someone who really just didn't feel like showing up to work. Sometimes she would come to work. Sometimes she wouldn't. Sometimes you do her work. Sometimes she wouldn't. And after many months of this, she was finally fired. So, you know, the public sector is really different from the private sector because you can never get fired and nothing matters. And that kind of breeds tremendous amounts of incompetence and mismanagement.

这真的让我感到惊讶，因为这怎么可能行得通，对吧？后来我明白了，因为公共部门归根结底是一个可能失败的企业，而它由那些不可能被解雇的人管理。所以你可以做得很糟糕，甚至什么都不做，而你也不会受到什么不好的影响。在我那里工作的五年里，我可以说只有一个人被辞退了。她只是不太想来上班。有时候她会来，有时候她不会。有时候她会做她的工作，而有时候她不会。经过许多个月这样的情况，她终于被解雇了。所以，你知道，公共部门真的与私营部门不同，因为几乎不会被解雇，也不会受到影响。这种情况会导致大量的无能和管理不善。

So I think this government agency idea is really good. Now, if you look at the numbers, now the government accountability office in the US has come up with a number that the US federal government is, you know, a victim to between 250 billion to 500 billion a year and just straight up fraud. I mean, think about what happened during COVID, for example, PPP loans just given out and no one really knows what happened to the money. So having more accountability and a smaller federal government does make a lot more sense.

我觉得这个政府机构的主意非常好。现在，如果你查看相关数据，美国政府问责办公室指出，美国联邦政府每年因为欺诈损失在2500亿到5000亿美元之间。比如，想想疫情期间发生的事，很多PPP贷款发放出去，但没人真正了解这些钱的去向。所以，加强问责制并缩小联邦政府规模显得更加合理。

Now, I'd also add that some of the people in government, they're really trying to do a good job. But at the end of the day, if you can't get fired and, you know, you just continue to rise up in the ranks, then in a sense, you basically own the government agency. Some of these people trying to do a good job to benefit the public, but there are also bad people who basically run it like their personal piggy bank is finding ways to gain HR rules to give themselves promotions, promote their friends and just straight up use the agency as a piggy bank.

现在，我还想补充一点，政府里的一些人确实在努力做好工作。但归根结底，如果你不能被解雇，并不断晋升，那在某种意义上，你几乎是掌控了这个政府机构。有些人努力为公众谋福利，但也有些人不怀好意，把机构当作个人的钱袋，通过钻人事制度的空子为自己升职，提拔自己的朋友，以及直接把这个机构当成自己的财源。

So being able to have more accountability is smaller. The government is basically a way to root out corruption and fraud and mismanagement. So this is something that I think is broadly something that many people know is a problem in that people have tried to fix for many years. I mean, it's really hard though, even during Bill Clinton, when they tried to have some degree of government reform, it was very difficult because there are so many interest groups involved. It's a very difficult uphill battle.

所以，能够实现更高的问责制的可能性较小。政府基本上是用来根除腐败、欺诈和管理不善的工具。这个问题是许多人长期以来都知道并努力解决的。我是说，这真的很难，即使在比尔·克林顿时期，他们也曾尝试进行某种程度的政府改革，但由于牵涉到很多利益集团，这非常困难。这是一场非常艰难的持久战。

But assuming that this does get rolled out though, I think that on the short term, it's not going to be good for economic growth because you are essentially, you know, you're essentially reducing workers and workers don't have money. They won't be able to spend. And so that that's a little bit less demand. But I think in a longer run though, this is actually quite a positive development because when all these guys get kicked out of government, they don't disappear. They go and they find jobs elsewhere. Ideally jobs where they are actually to be able to do things other than just look at funny cat pictures.

假设这项计划真的实施，在短期内，我认为这对经济增长不利。因为减少了工人，工人没有收入，就无法消费，从而导致需求减少。然而，从长远来看，这其实是一个积极的发展。因为这些人被政府裁员后不会消失，他们会去其他地方找工作。理想情况下，他们会找到能发挥实际作用的工作，而不是仅仅看搞笑的猫咪图片。

So again, you're increasing the productivity of the United States economy in the long run and you're also cutting the deficit, which as many of us know is just not sustainable. So this is something that looks like it's going to be short term pain for long term gain if they're able to do it. Hopefully they will. But it's a struggle. If it can ever happen, it's going to be now because at the moment, we really do have more of an outsider force where all these people that I think many of the establishment people don't like are running running the show.

再次强调，从长远来看，提高美国经济的生产力，同时削减赤字，这是我们许多人都知道的，因为赤字不可持续。如果他们能做到这一点，这将是短期阵痛换取长期收益的情况。希望他们能够成功，但这是一场艰难的战斗。如果这一切可能发生的话，那就是现在，因为目前确实有更多的外部力量在主导局面，这些力量来自许多传统势力不喜欢的人。

The last thing I want to talk about is about the Fed's framework. Now, Trip Powell gave an interview the past week where he talked about how the Fed is probably going to revise their operating framework. I won't go into all the details, but it was to have a makeup strategy so that we would promise X and Y to let inflation run a little bit high if it were running too low. And the thought was if people believe that you'll do that, if that's credible, then inflation won't run low. So that's all we did.

我最后想谈谈的是美联储的框架。上周，鲍威尔接受了一次采访，他提到美联储可能会修改他们的操作框架。我不会详细展开，但这个框架的核心是制定一个补偿策略，以便在通货膨胀过低时可以允许其稍微高一点。这样的想法是，如果人们相信你会这样做，并且这种做法是可信的，那么通货膨胀就不会持续过低。所以，这就是我们所做的一切。

So what does that mean? So the Fed, as we all know, has two mandates. Price stability and full employment. Now, the operating framework is basically how they go about carrying this out. In 2020, the Fed was coming. The Fed was basically experiencing about 20 years of pretty low inflation. And it and the great problem he was thinking about was how to get inflation higher. Now, with that in mind, it modified its operating framework in two important ways.

那么这意味着什么呢？众所周知，美联储有两个主要任务：价格稳定和充分就业。现在，所谓的操作框架就是他们如何执行这两个任务的方式。在2020年时，美联储面临的是大约20年相对较低的通货膨胀。因此，他们面临的主要问题是如何让通货膨胀率提高。考虑到这一点，美联储在两方面对其操作框架进行了重要修改。

One is it committed to asymmetric flexible average inflation targeting. And what that means was that it aspired to have inflation that was 2% on average over time. However, if inflation ever undershot, it would let inflation stay above 2% for some time to compensate. If inflation ever overshot, it would not compensate by letting it undershoot for a period of time. So it was asymmetric in the sense that inflation to be higher than 2%. And that would be fine. But if it ever became too high, they would not commit to being able to kind of undershoot. So that was aimed at trying to move inflation expectations higher.

这个政策承诺实施不对称的灵活平均通胀目标。意思是，它希望通胀率在一段时间内平均达到2%。如果通胀率低于目标，它会允许通胀率暂时超过2%以作补偿。然而，如果通胀率超过了目标，它并不会通过让通胀率低于目标一段时间来进行补偿。因此，这种方式是不对称的，允许通胀率高于2%，这没有问题。但如果通胀率变得过高，政策不会承诺将其压低以弥补过高的部分。这个政策的目的是为了提高通胀预期。

So if you are the Fed, you think of the world through the lens of inflation expectations, thinking that if the public expects, say, inflation to be 2%, then what would happen is that inflation would magically be 2%. And you see other central banks think about this the same way. Bank of Japan, of course, memorably raise their inflation target some years ago to try to get inflation up. It didn't work because while inflation expectations is important in determining actual inflation, it's not really shaped by what the central bank says. It's largely shaped seemingly by the everyday experiences of the people. And in any case, that was one major change to the Fed's framework. The other major change is a commitment to not hike rates preemptively when the unemployment rate became too low. Now historically, if the unemployment rate became too low, the Fed would be worried that the economy is overheating and hike rates preemptively that try to get ahead of potential inflation. The Fed committed to not do that anymore. Now these two changes to the framework were done in a world where inflation was low. And so that was a time where the Fed just wanted to get inflation up. But now today, it's a very, very different world. We are in a world where we were, looks like there are interest rates are about going to be 3%, 4%, or 5% for the foreseeable future. We're going to be comfortably above zero lower bound. And it's a world where inflation might be a problem in the future.

如果你是美联储，你会从通胀预期的角度来看待世界，认为如果公众预期通胀率为2%，那么实际通胀率就会神奇地达到2%。其他央行也有类似的想法。比如，日本央行曾在几年前大胆提高通胀目标，试图提升通胀率。然而，这并未奏效，因为虽然通胀预期对实际通胀很重要，但它实际上并不是由央行的声明决定的，而是更多地受到人们日常生活经历的影响。无论如何，这是美联储框架的一个重大变化。另一个重大变化是承诺不在失业率过低时先发制人地加息。历史上，如果失业率太低，美联储会担心经济过热，从而提前加息，以避免潜在通胀。美联储承诺不再这么做。这两项框架的变化是在低通胀的情况下进行的，当时美联储的目标是提升通胀。然而，现在的世界已经截然不同。我们面临的情况是，未来的利率可能稳定在3%、4%或5%左右，高于零下限，并且未来通胀可能成为一个问题。

Now in that world, we don't really need these two changes to the framework. We could probably run monetary policy more or less, help you ran it before 2020. And that is to say, we don't try to goose inflation expectations upwards. So the base case should be more like a traditional reaction function where you don't promise an overshoot. You just target inflation. We haven't made any decisions, but those are the questions we'll be asking. Maybe we just abandoned this asymmetry there. And maybe we could think about just kind of preemptively raising the fence rate when unemployment rate is too low. Now that I'm not too sure they would do, but I'm pretty sure they're going to abandon the asymmetry and the flexible inflation targeting. And who knows, there could be other changes as well. Some of the things floating, having an inflation band, where let's say the Fed started, it was a band between 1.5 and 2.5 or something like that. Again, the problem they're facing today is higher inflation. So that's going to fundamentally change the operating framework. Roy and Chair Powell has told us one way that it will change.

在当今的世界里，我们实际上不太需要对框架进行这两项改变。我们可能可以像2020年前那样或多或少地执行货币政策。也就是说，我们不需要努力提高通胀预期。因此，基本政策应该更像是传统的反应机制，不需要承诺超调，只需以通胀为目标。我们尚未做出任何决定，但这些是我们将要讨论的问题。也许我们可以放弃这种不对称性，也许当失业率过低时，我们可以考虑预防性地提高利率。对此我不是很确定他们是否会这么做，但我非常确信他们将放弃不对称策略和灵活的通胀目标。谁知道呢，可能还会有其他改变。一些流传的想法是设置一个通胀区间，比如说美联储可能设定在1.5%到2.5%之间。如今他们面临的问题是更高的通胀，这将从根本上改变操作框架。Roy和主席鲍威尔告诉我们，其方式将会有所改变。

Okay, so that's all I prepared for today. Thanks so much for tuning in. Remember to like and subscribe. And if you're interested in hearing my latest thoughts, check out my newsletter, FedGuy.com. Talk to you all next week.

好的，这就是我今天准备的全部内容。非常感谢您的收听。记得点赞和订阅。如果您对我的最新想法感兴趣，请查看我的电子报：FedGuy.com。我们下周再见。