Markets Weekly August 23, 2025
发布时间 2025-08-23 14:20:35 来源
Hello my friends, today is August 23rd and this is markets weekly. This past week was an action-packed week so we have a lot to talk about. The week began with a historic meeting between President Trump and President Putin in Alaska to discuss the Ukraine war. A few days later major European leaders including President Zelensky flew to Washington to discuss the Ukraine war. This itself would have been a very historic meeting, a lot of stuff going on, but because the White House has a flood zone to energy, there is just so much going on that it was forgotten basically midweek. Now the conclusion seems to be that peace in Ukraine is going to be very difficult, but the President also doesn't seem to want to impose secondary sanctions on Russia so the market and economic impact of a lack of peace doesn't seem to be very large.
你好，我的朋友们，今天是8月23日，这是每周市场更新。在过去的一周里发生了很多重大事件，所以我们有很多内容要讨论。周初，特朗普总统和普京总统在阿拉斯加举行了一次历史性会议，讨论乌克兰战争。几天后，包括泽连斯基总统在内的多位欧洲重要领导人飞往华盛顿讨论乌克兰战争。这本身就是一个非常重要的会议，很多事情发生。然而，由于白宫正全力关注能源问题，这一会议在本周中期基本上被忽略了。现在的结论似乎是乌克兰和平将会很困难，但总统似乎也不想对俄罗斯施加次级制裁，因此缺乏和平对市场和经济的影响似乎不大。
Now earlier on in the week we had some concerns that the AI bubble may be deflating. That was basically leaking lower for four days in the row, but that was saved by the Jackson Hall speech where Jay Powell seemed to be a bit more dove in the market expected. And of course during the week we had very interesting developments in the US's industrial policy where the US is taking a 10% stake in Intel. Alright so today let's first talk a little bit about the deflating of the AI bubble and then let's talk about Jackson Hall. I think we have to talk probably a lot about this because I'm seeing some very concerning takes about this on Twitter and lastly let's talk a little bit about the US's industrial policy.
本周早些时候，我们曾担心AI泡沫可能正在缩小。连续四天来，市场基本上都在下跌。不过，杰克逊霍尔会议上的演讲拯救了这个局面。在那里，杰伊·鲍威尔的态度显得比市场预期的更为温和。此外，本周美国的产业政策方面出现了非常有趣的发展，美国宣布购入英特尔10%的股份。好了，今天我们先谈谈AI泡沫的缩小，然后讨论一下杰克逊霍尔会议。我觉得我们需要多谈谈这个话题，因为我在推特上看到了一些非常令人担忧的观点。最后，我们稍微讨论一下美国的产业政策。
Alright starting with the AI bubble and yes it is a tremendous bubble that I wrote about last week in my blog and of course bubbles doesn't mean it's going to go down to be perfectly clear it can go higher and higher and higher than you can ever imagine. But there is I think growing awareness that we are in a definite AI bubble and that's beginning to have some impact on the market. So first off we had an interview with AI Godfather Sam Ultman where he was pretty candid that yeah it's probably a bubble and probably a lot of people will lose a lot of money but yes this is great technology and it's going to change the world and I think all those are totally correct.
好的，我们先从AI泡沫谈起。是的，这确实是一个巨大的泡沫，我上周在博客中写到了这一点。当然，泡沫并不意味着市场会下跌，可以清楚地说，它有可能会比你想象的还要高涨。不过，我认为人们越来越意识到我们确实处在一个AI泡沫中，而这开始对市场产生一些影响。首先，我们进行了一次对AI教父萨姆·阿尔特曼的采访，他相当坦率地表示，这可能确实是一个泡沫，很多人可能会损失大量资金，但这项技术非常出色，并且会改变世界。我认为这些观点都是完全正确的。
It is great technology. It is going to have a big impact on the world but doesn't mean stock market is going to go to infinity. Now there was also another interesting study picked up by Forbes on a Monday that seemed to speak the market whereas the study finds this MIT study finds that the AI implementation by the corporate sector actually is basically not super helpful. It finds out about 95% of AI implementations have no return on investment. So whereas AI again promising technology at the moment just isn't really helping corporations very much at least the vast majority of corporations.
这是一项很棒的技术。它将在世界范围内产生重大影响，但这并不意味着股市会无限上涨。周一，《福布斯》还提到了一项有趣的研究。这项麻省理工学院的研究发现，企业部门的AI普及并不是非常有用。研究发现，大约95%的AI应用没有投资回报。因此，尽管AI是一项充满前景的技术，但目前至少对绝大多数企业来说，并没有带来太大的帮助。
There is also a report that right now there are almost 500 AI unicorns. A unicorn is a start of value that more than one billion dollars. 500 that's a pretty big number and again another strong indication that this is definitely some kind of bubble. Now to be clear when we are looking at comparing the AI bubble to the dot com bubble, during the dot com bubble many people if not everyone knew that it was a bubble. In fact you had very very prominent media outlets like Barren's writing articles back then back in 2000 telling everyone that guys this is probably a bubble. Does it mean it can't go higher? But I think though personally the way that I look at this is that information takes time to deciminate throughout the markets.
据报道，目前有近500家AI独角兽公司。独角兽公司是指市值超过10亿美元的初创企业。500家是一个相当大的数字，这也再次强烈表明这肯定是某种泡沫。需要明确的是，当我们将AI泡沫与互联网泡沫进行比较时，在互联网泡沫期间，很多人甚至可以说所有人都知道这是一个泡沫。事实上，当时在2000年，有非常知名的媒体如《巴伦周刊》撰写文章提醒大家这可能是一个泡沫。但这并不意味着它不会继续上涨。不过，我个人认为，信息在市场中传播是需要时间的。
You have participants with varying degrees of expertise. The more dissemination you have and of course when price cooperates of course is when you begin to get that realization that maybe number doesn't go up forever. Now I recall not too long ago we had a bit of a scare with deep seek a Chinese AI company potentially because they came up with a product that was much more efficient will reduce demand for NVIDIA chips. Now that deep seek news actually was well understood by people in the AI space weeks in advance but only suddenly became a common knowledge at some point and had a market impact.
你有参与者拥有不同程度的专业知识。当信息传播得越广，而且当价格走势配合时，你就开始意识到，数字并不会永远上涨。我记得不久前，我们曾对一家中国AI公司Deep Seek感到有些担忧，这家公司开发出了一款更加高效的产品，可能会减少对NVIDIA芯片的需求。实际上，那则关于Deep Seek的消息在AI领域的人士中，其实在几周前就已经被很理解了，但只是在某个时间点才成为大众的常识并对市场产生了影响。
So again it takes time to disseminate information. This past week I noted that my favorite independent news outlet, Breaking Points actually had a segment on the potential AI bubble. So I think that knowledge is disseminating doesn't mean it can't go higher guys just to be totally clear but I definitely definitely think that we are in a bubble so hopefully again we are all prepared for what could happen. However, all the prices in tech did leak lower the first few days. There was a tremendous surge in Friday after Chair Powell's Jackson Hole speech.
所以，信息的传播需要时间。在过去的一周里，我注意到我最喜欢的独立新闻平台Breaking Points实际上做了一个关于潜在AI泡沫的专题。所以我认为知识正在传播，但这并不意味着价格不会继续上涨，我只是想说清楚这一点。不过，我确实非常相信我们正在经历一个泡沫，所以希望我们都能为可能发生的情况做好准备。然而，本周最初几天科技股的价格有所下跌。而在周五鲍威尔主席的杰克逊霍尔演讲后，价格则出现了大幅上涨。
Now heading into Jackson Hole, my expectation is we wouldn't really get much change or anything newsworthy. The reason I was taking this is that we still have a lot of data between now and the September meeting and we have non-Farm payrolls, we have CPI and of course there's a lot of disagreement on the FOMC. You have people who are dovish like Waller and Bowman, you have people who are more hawkish like Chair Powell and of course you have a lot of pressure from the President. So in this context it seems to make the most sense to just wait and see what the data says and then the data could give me cover to do what I want to do. But that actually did not happen. Now Chair Powell basically told everyone that he's going to cut rates in September.
现在正前往杰克逊霍尔会议，我本以为不会有太大变动或是重大的新闻。我之所以这么认为，是因为从现在到九月的会议之间我们还有很多数据需要考虑，包括非农就业数据和消费者价格指数（CPI），而且联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）内部有很多分歧。有像沃勒和鲍曼这样持温和立场的人，也有像鲍威尔主席那样更为鹰派的人，当然还有来自总统的巨大压力。因此，在这种背景下，似乎最明智的做法就是等待并观察数据，然后根据数据来决定接下来的行动。然而，事情的发展并没有按照预期进行。鲍威尔主席基本上告诉大家，他将在九月份降息。
Now the market was already pressing in a very high chance of a September rate cut but now it really seems like a sure thing. Now this seemed to have a very strong impact on the market. When you're looking at the rates markets you can see that basically the whole rates curve rallied. Rates went down along the curve including the longer deity rates. So for all you guys are afraid that no Fed cuts rates or lose control of the long end blah blah blah. That's just not how the word works. So Fed cut rates that gets priced in throughout the curve and yeah, 10 year year came down notably as well.
现在市场已经对9月降息的可能性给予了高度关注，而现在似乎更是板上钉钉。这对市场产生了非常强烈的影响。当你观察利率市场时，你会发现整个利率曲线都出现了上涨，曲线上各期限的利率都下降了，包括长期利率。因此，那些担心美联储不会降息或者无法控制长期利率的人，这种担心是不成立的。美联储降息的预期已经在整个利率曲线中得到了体现，10年期的利率也明显下降。
Looking at currencies, yes, dollar, massive sell off in the dollar and things that are indirectly related to that. Let's say gold and Bitcoin rallied strongly and of course the equity market absolutely surged with the major indexes up over over a percent. Some almost one and a half percent. So the market really interprets this quite strongly. So let's talk a little bit about why Powell did what he did and then let's also talk a little bit about the changes in the framework that he mentioned.
看一下货币市场，是的，美元出现了大幅抛售，与之间接相关的事物也受到影响。比如，黄金和比特币大幅上涨，当然，股票市场也大幅飙升，主要股指涨幅超过百分之一，有些甚至接近百分之一点五。因此，市场对此反应非常强烈。现在，我们来谈谈鲍威尔为何采取这样的行动，然后也聊聊他提到的框架变化。
So when you're looking at monetary policy, there are three dimensions in the US. So US, we have a dual mandate central bank. So first you have to look at employment and then you have to look at inflation and there there's there's third dimension that is not often mentioned but is just as important. That is how restrictive is the central bank right now. So in this context today, there's not a lot of agreement on the Fed as to just any of these dimensions. So it makes it more difficult to act. What Chair Powell did is that he I think began to buy into a little bit more of Governor Waller's case when it comes to both labor and inflation.
在美国，观察货币政策时，有三个维度需要考虑。美国拥有一个具备双重使命的中央银行。因此，首先要关注就业，其次要关注通货膨胀。还有一个不常被提到但同样重要的维度，即当前央行的政策有多紧缩。在当前的情境下，对于美联储在这些维度上的任何一个方面都没有太多共识，因此行动起来会更困难。主席鲍威尔开始在劳动力市场和通货膨胀方面更加赞同沃勒理事的观点。
So first off looking at labor, now Chair Powell has been pretty adamant that the labor market is strong and he's been talking about things like the unemployment rate or looking at things like wages, quit rates and so forth. Those are all fine. But he has acknowledged that over the past few months after the job revisions, the labor market is not as strong as they originally perceived. So monthly job growth numbers on average are pretty low. I think they're like 30 some thousand. So he acknowledges in his Jackson Hole speech that there's kind of more risk here. There's more risk here. So we got to be mindful of the employment mandate. We were saying to everyone that the labor market is strong but there's more risk there.
首先来看劳动力市场。现在，主席鲍威尔一直坚定地表示劳动力市场很强劲，他谈到了失业率、工资、辞职率等方面。这些方面都很好。但是，他也承认，在过去几个月里，经过就业数据修正后，劳动力市场并不像他们最初认为的那么强劲。月度平均就业增长数据相对较低，大约只有三万多个。因此，他在杰克逊霍尔会议上的讲话中承认，这里存在更多的风险。因此，我们需要关注就业任务。我们告诉大家劳动力市场很强劲，但是这里有更多的风险。
And then when it comes to inflation, I think it's quite telling that on a year over your basis, inflation today is basically unchanged than it was last year. So progress on inflation has basically stalled. And in addition to that, we have tariffs that are coming in that will have some impact on inflation. Now that some impact has been causing the FOMC some concerns because well, if you're not out target and you haven't been on target for a long time and then you have an additional inflation, that seems to have that could have some impact on inflation expectations.
当谈到通货膨胀时，我认为很明显的是，与去年相比，今年的通货膨胀几乎没有变化。因此，通胀的进展基本上停滞不前。除此之外，我们还面临即将到来的关税，这些关税将对通货膨胀产生一定影响。这个“某些影响”已经引起了联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）的担忧，因为如果通货膨胀率早已偏离目标，而又出现额外的通胀，上述关税可能会影响人们对未来通胀的预期。
So Paul was saying that we have this dilemma and two things could happen. We could have potentially employees demand higher wages. And so as their wages go up, we could have some kind of wage price spiral like we saw in the 70s and 80s and that's really bad. Or of course, we could have an unencrying of inflation expectations where everyone sees that inflation has been high for a long time, begins to think that 3% is the new 2% and begins to big that into their pricing and that leads inflation to continue to basically stay quite high. So he did not think that we could have a wage price spiral because as he just discussed, there's downside risk in the labor market.
因此，保罗指出我们面临一个两难境地，并可能发生两种情况。员工可能会要求更高的工资，随着工资的上升，可能会出现类似于70年代和80年代的工资价格螺旋，这将是非常糟糕的。或者，可能会出现通胀预期失控的情况，大家看到通胀长期居高不下，开始认为3%是新的2%，并将其纳入定价中，这样一来，通胀可能持续保持在较高水平。不过，他认为我们不会出现工资价格螺旋，因为正如他刚才讨论的，劳动力市场存在下行风险。
And according to what he's looks at for longer term inflation expectations, he thinks that they're still anchored. So he's willing to say that this tariff stuff, it could be just a one time increase in the price level as the textbooks say, basically it could simply be transitory. We could have various companies gradually pass that on to the consumers over time and it could come at different rates, vary by different industries. But it probably could be just a one time increase in the price level. So we've got to keep that in mind as well. So if you think the labor market risk is increasing a little bit more, you have to adjust your stance a little bit.
根据他对长期通胀预期的观察，他认为这些预期依然稳定。所以他愿意认为，这些关税问题可能只是一次性的价格水平上升，正如教科书上所说的，基本上这可能只是暂时的。不同公司可能会逐渐将这一成本转嫁给消费者，速度可能不同，并且因行业而异。但这可能只是一次性的价格水平上升，所以我们必须记住这一点。因此，如果你认为劳动力市场的风险有所增加，就需要稍微调整你的立场。
Now the third dimension is how restrictive you are and this is a really hard question. Because if you're super restricted right now, then yeah, you can say that I'll just lower rates a little bit. I'll still be restrictive, still be slowing the economy down, but not just as much because I want to balance my risk a little bit. Now Paolo himself doesn't think that interest rates are very restrictive right now. So he is hesitant to cut rates, but there are people on the FOMC who think that they are very restrictive.
现在，第三个维度是你有多严格限制，而这是一个非常困难的问题。因为如果你现在非常严格限制，那么可以说我只是稍微降低利率。我仍然会保持一定的限制性，继续给经济降温，但不会像之前那么多，因为我想平衡一下我的风险。现在，Paolo自己认为利率目前不是非常限制性的，所以他对降息持保留态度，但在联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）中，有些人认为利率非常限制。
And so they're eager to cut rates a little bit more, not to be easing, but just to be less restrictive. Paolo seems to be willing to soften his stance or at least compromise a bit on this and say that maybe we could just cut rates a little bit and just try to balance this man it's a little bit. Again, because you have three dimensions, there's a lot of discretion here. There's really no right, no wrong. It can be, in a sense, anything you want it to be. You can always make an argument.
因此，他们急于小幅降息，这并不是为了放宽货币政策，而是为了减少政策的限制性。Paolo似乎愿意在这一点上软化立场，或者至少在这方面做出一些妥协，并表示也许我们可以仅仅稍微降一点利率，尝试在这个问题上取得一些平衡。再说一次，由于有多种维度的考虑，这里有很大的灵活性，没有绝对的对错。从某种意义上说，你可以根据需要做出不同的解释，总能找到合适的理由。
And so maybe this is to bowing to pressure on FOMC. Maybe it's bowing to political pressure. Maybe he himself is just getting a bit more cautious because of what he saw with the labor market reports, but he's willing to cut rates at September. Doesn't mean he's going to cut rates again in December and November or anything like that, but means he's willing to compromise a bit. Now the market currently is still pricing in just two cuts this year. So from a rates perspective, it's not a huge move for the Fed.
也许这是为了向联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）的压力低头，也许是因为政治压力，也可能是他本人因为看到劳动力市场报告后变得更加谨慎。但他愿意在九月份降息。这并不意味着他在十二月或十一月会再次降息，但说明他愿意做出一些妥协。现在市场预计今年只会有两次降息。所以从利率角度来看，这对美联储来说并不是一个重大的变化。
So the market reaction seems to be overdone. But again, not everyone is a stir trader. And so depending on who you are, you could interpret this differently. And we'll see as we talk about the change in the FOMC's consensus statement, how there's a wide, wide view of, wide degree of expertise when it comes to looking at the Fed. Now every five years, the Fed does a review on their framework, how they conduct monetary policy. The last review was in 2020 and that was a pretty big change in how they operated monetary policy.
市场反应似乎有些过度。然而，并不是所有人都是短线交易者。因此，根据个人身份的不同，你可能会有不同的解读。我们稍后会讨论到联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）共识声明的变化，届时你会发现，关于如何看待美联储，有着广泛的观点和丰富的专业知识。美联储每五年会对它们的框架进行一次审查，即它们如何实施货币政策。上一次审查是在2020年，当时在货币政策操作方式上有了相当大的变化。
And it was a change in the operating procedure based on the low inflation and 0% interest rates they saw in the decade preceding 2020. So after the great financial crisis, interest rates were at zero, we had low inflation. And so the Fed thought that maybe this is what the new normal is. And so they did a couple interesting tweaks to their operating framework. They said that we're going to do flexible average inflation targeting.
基于低通胀和零利率的背景，他们对操作程序进行了更改。这种情况在2020年之前的十年就已经出现。在大金融危机之后，利率降到了零，通胀率也很低。因此，美联储认为这可能是新的常态。因此，他们对操作框架进行了一些有趣的调整，表示将采用灵活的平均通胀目标策略。
However, it's going to be asymmetric. So what that means is that sometimes if inflation, for example, were to run below 3%, we're going to be willing to let inflation overshoot above 2% for some time so that they would average at 2%. However, if inflation were to overshoot on 2%, 2%, we won't want to run inflation below 2% for some time to average it down. So it's asymmetric. We can run the economy hot, but we don't want to run the economy cool. Why did they contain, have this procedure? Because for the 10 years before, low inflation was the problem.
然而，这将是一个不对称的过程。这意味着，如果通胀率例如低于3%，我们会愿意让通胀在一段时间内超过2%，以使平均通胀率达到2%。但是，如果通胀率超过了2%，我们并不希望将通胀率压低到低于2%来让其平均下来。这就是不对称性。我们可以让经济"过热"，但我们不想让经济"过冷"。他们为什么要采取这种措施呢？因为在之前的十年间，低通胀一直是个问题。
The second big tweak in 2020 was that they also realized that they don't really know what the right unemployment rate is in the economy. Now historically speaking, when the unemployment rate got too low, what the Fed would do was they would raise high rates, preemptively, to try to head off the labor market from overheating. But what they saw in the decade after the great financial crisis was that the unemployment rate continued to go low, but you didn't really see any inflation and you didn't really see any wage pressure either. So that tells the Fed that they have no idea what the neutral unemployment rate is.
2020年的第二个重要调整是，他们意识到自己并不真正知道经济中的适当失业率是多少。从历史上看，当失业率过低时，美联储通常会先发制人地提高利率，防止劳动力市场过热。但是在大金融危机后的十年中，他们观察到，即使失业率持续下降，也没有出现明显的通货膨胀或工资压力。这让美联储意识到，他们并不清楚中性的失业率究竟是多少。
And so they should not be hiking rates preemptively when the unemployment rate drops too much. Again, this is a framework designed for low inflation world. Now after 2020, again, we have the COVID inflation, and TripHal very, very candidly, very humbly acknowledged that he got that wrong. And I think that speaks to his character. He's definitely a person of integrity. So in this new 2025 framework, what the Fed is doing is that they're basically undoing everything they did in 2020.
所以，当失业率大幅下降时，他们不应该预先加息。这一框架是为低通胀环境设计的。不过，2020年之后，出现了由于新冠疫情引发的通胀，特里普哈尔非常坦诚和谦逊地承认他在这个问题上判断错误。我认为这显示了他的品格，他确实是个诚实守信的人。因此，在这个新的2025年框架中，美联储正在基本上撤销他们在2020年所做的一切。
They're saying that we're not going to have this asymmetric, flexible, average inflation targeting, right? We're just going to target 2%. And of course, we're not going to, so we're saying that we weren't going to hike preemptively in case unemployment rate went too low, we're going to take that out. We're going to go back to the old school way of where unemployment rate got too low, we're willing to hike preemptively. So that's really all they did. And there were some really, really bad takes on Twitter saying that, oh my God, the Fed abandoned their inflation target. So forth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, no, they did not do that. You got to wake up, right? You think the Federal Reserve would just stand up and say that I'm not going to do 2% anymore. Guys, that's not how the world works.
他们在说，我们不会再采用这种不对称的、灵活的平均通胀目标策略了，对吧？我们只是要将目标定在2%。当然，我们不再像之前说的那样，为了防止失业率过低而提前加息。我们会取消这个说法，回到传统的方法，也就是如果失业率过低，我们愿意提前加息。这就是他们的全部改动。而且在推特上，有一些非常不靠谱的说法，比如天哪，美联储放弃了他们的通胀目标，等等，这些都不是真的。大家得清醒一点，对吧？你以为美联储会站出来说我不再追求2%的目标了吗？伙计们，这不是现实世界的运作方式。
And whether or not what they did was a pause here, I don't think so. Actually, I think it's totally reasonable, given that the labor market is weakening, actually just policy a little bit. And if you were expecting some sort of major policy error, you could probably see that in like, break even inflation or something like that, but that you just don't see that. So I think that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of about how US monetary policy is conducted. Also in related news is that the President's chief Fed watchdog, director Pultie of the FHFA has found some dirt on Fed Governor Lisa Cook on her mortgage application.
不论他们所做的是否真的是暂停行动，我认为并不是。实际上，我觉得这是完全合理的，考虑到劳动力市场正在走弱，他们只是稍微调整了一下政策。如果你预期会有某种重大的政策失误，你可能会在类似盈亏平衡通胀之类的指标中看到，但事实上并没有。所以，我认为这是对美国货币政策运作方式的基本误解。此外，有相关消息称，总统的联邦储备监控部门负责人——联邦住房金融局（FHFA）的Pultie局长在联邦储备理事Lisa Cook的抵押贷款申请中发现了一些问题。
So in the US, when you get a mortgage, you can get, if it's for your primary home, the say the home that you live in, you'll get a lower rate. If you get a mortgage for a secondary home, let's say vacation home, you get a high interest rate. So Governor Pultie has evidence that suggests that, sorry, director Pultie has evidence that suggests that Governor Lisa Cook got a mortgage for a secondary home, but actually claimed that it was her primary home so that she could get a lower mortgage rate. And now he's publicizing this and the President himself has picked this up and thinks that this is grounds to fire Governor Cook.
在美国，如果你申请购房贷款，针对主要居住的房屋（即你的常住住所），你可以获得较低的利率。如果是为度假屋等非主要居住的房屋申请贷款，利率就会较高。现有证据显示，普尔蒂主任发现库克州长在申请次要房产的贷款时，谎称其为主要住所以获取更低利率。普尔蒂主任正在公开此事，总统也注意到了，并认为这是解雇库克州长的理由。
Now I don't know if this will happen, but if it does, and you have more Trump appointees on the FOMC, this is something that will play out in the coming weeks. So very interesting. Again, if we have, let's say if Governor Cook leaves and Trump appoints someone else, then he could soon have a lot more influence over the board. And if Jay Powell leaves, when his term expires next May, then he'll definitely have a majority of Fed governors. And when you have a majority of Fed governors, you can do many things. In theory, you can even fire Fed presidents and replace them with other people as well.
现在我不知道这会不会发生，但如果发生了，而且你看到联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）中有更多特朗普任命的人选，这将在接下来的几周内展开。所以这非常有趣。再说一遍，假如库克（Cook）总督离职，而特朗普任命了其他人，那么他很快就会对董事会有更大的影响力。而如果鲍威尔（Jay Powell）在明年五月任期届满时离职，那么他将肯定拥有联邦储备委员会的大多数成员。在拥有多数成员时，你可以做很多事情。理论上，你甚至可以解雇联邦储备银行的行长，并用其他人取而代之。
So we'll see how this happens, how it's happening again, a future will not look like the past, how we run monetary policy. Today is not going to be how we did in the Great Moderation, which leads us to our last topic, whereas the US is also changing the way it's doing industrial policy. So the US announced it's taking a 5% stake in Intel. Powell is again a storied American semiconductor company. Most of you grew up using Intel products, but Intel, if you look at their stock price, has just really not been doing very well for the past several years.
所以，我们会看到这一切如何发生，以及它是如何再次发生的。未来将与过去不同，尤其是在我们执行货币政策的方式上。今天的货币政策不再像“大缓和”时期那样，这也引出了我们最后一个话题，即美国正在改变其工业政策的方式。美国宣布将持有英特尔5%的股份。鲍威尔是一家有着悠久历史的美国半导体公司。大多数人都是在使用英特尔产品中成长的，但如果看看英特尔的股价，近几年表现确实不太理想。
Now their problems are numerous. First off, they missed a huge boom in cell phone and cell phones, right? So Intel specializes in producing things like CPUs, the big processors for computers, but they didn't seem to realize that cell phones would take off and so they kind of missed the bandwagon in producing chips for cell phones and that went to ARM. And then they seemed to miss the boat when it comes to GPUs. Now GPUs are used in gaming originally, but now also used in data centers and so forth. So AMD and Nvidia basically ate their lunch.
现在他们的问题非常多。首先，他们错过了手机行业的大繁荣。英特尔专注于生产像CPU这样的计算机处理器，但他们似乎没有意识到手机市场会迅速崛起，因此在生产手机芯片方面错失了良机，这个市场被ARM抢占了。而且，他们似乎也错过了GPU的机会。GPU最初用于游戏，但现在也广泛应用于数据中心等领域。因此，AMD和Nvidia在这方面抢占了他们的市场份额。
So Intel is just missed these two big waves and their main processors, their CPUs are also being outshown by AMD. Personally, I build computers and now I use AMD processors in my desks, because they are simply better. So Intel is basically losing market share in a lot of things and also losing a lot of money. So its stock price has not done well. Now the US of course has an interest in protecting their own supply chains. They don't want these key industries to be outsourced to Taiwan, to China and so forth.
所以，英特尔错过了这两波大的发展潮流，而他们的主要产品——中央处理器（CPU）也被AMD超越了。就我个人来说，我装电脑时现在都会用AMD的处理器，因为它们确实更好。因此，英特尔实际上在很多方面都在失去市场份额，同时也亏损不少，所以他们的股价表现也不好。当然，美国希望保护自己的供应链，不希望这些关键行业被外包到台湾、中国等地。
And so the US has been trying to support domestic key domestic industries. Earlier in the year, they made an investment in MP, a company that could potentially process rare earths in the United States so that the US doesn't have to be as dependent on Chinese rare earths, but now they made a 10% investment into Intel. This is a non-voting shares and the way that it structured it seems to be that the US basically was giving Intel grants to the chips act, but now instead of getting grants basically just giving Intel money, they want something in return.
因此，美国一直在努力支持本国的关键产业。今年早些时候，他们投资了一家可能在美国加工稀土的公司 MP，这样美国就不必如此依赖中国的稀土。而现在，他们又对英特尔进行了10%的投资。这部分投资是无投票权的股份，从投资结构来看，美国似乎是通过芯片法案向英特尔提供补助。但是现在，他们不再是简单地通过补助方式给英特尔提供资金，而是希望能得到一些回报。
Again, President Trump is a sophisticated businessman, so he doesn't just want to give a company something he wants something in return. And that something in return is 10% stake, non-voting shares in Intel. Now the non-voting shares is important because there's a lot of concern that maybe the US is taking control of private companies and historically speaking in the US, we have a perception that government control companies, not good, that's socialism, government is very inefficient.
特朗普总统是一位精明的商人，所以他并不想仅仅给予一家公司好处，他也希望得到一些回报。而这个回报就是英特尔公司10%的非投票权股份。非投票权股份这一点很重要，因为人们非常担心美国可能在掌控私人公司，而从历史上看，美国人普遍认为政府控制公司不是好事，那是社会主义，政府运作非常低效。
And of course there are potential corruption here, that's what we see in many socialist countries, right? Government controls the company and begins to use it for their own personal benefit or at least the government officials do. So these are non-voting shares, they're not supposed to have influence over how Intel conducts its business. And in addition to that, they got a really good deal until shares are trading at about $24 and the price that the government was able to acquire there until shares is much lower than that.
当然，这里存在潜在的腐败问题，这在许多社会主义国家是常见的，对吗？政府控制公司，并开始为他们自己的个人利益服务，至少政府官员是这样的。所以这些是无投票权的股票，它们本不应该对英特尔的业务运作产生影响。除此之外，他们还以非常优惠的价格收购了股份——当时英特尔的股价约为24美元，而政府获得股份的价格远低于这个数字。
So definitely, Trump got a really good deal for the US taxpayer. However though, I think it's kind of interesting to note that if you were to tell me that, for example, in Brazil, if you owned a Brazilian company and the Brazilian government came and bought a 10% stake in it, I'm not sure the market will react well to that because when you have a government owning a company, the government's not really interested in making money, right? What does the government want? It wants to create jobs, it wants to maybe do, make sure that things are produced in the US.
所以毫无疑问，特朗普为美国纳税人争取到了一个非常好的交易。不过，我觉得有意思的是，如果你告诉我，比如在巴西，有人拥有一家巴西公司，而巴西政府买下了其中10%的股份，我不确定市场会对此做出积极反应。因为当政府拥有一家公司时，政府其实并不是以盈利为目标的，对吧？政府想要的是什么呢？它想要创造就业机会，可能还想确保一些东西是在美国生产的。
Maybe that's not the most profitable way to do things, but of course they're interested in national security. So it's not super clear why having higher government ownership in Intel would be a positive thing, but the market seems to really like it. I think if you were afraid that Intel was going to go under having this government's stake, basically means that it's impossible for them to fail now. They would just become, get more and more bailouts.
也许这不是最赚钱的方法，但他们当然对国家安全感兴趣。所以暂时不太清楚政府增加在英特尔的持股会有什么积极作用，但市场似乎对此非常看好。我认为，如果你担心英特尔会倒闭，那么政府的持股几乎意味着他们不可能失败了。他们只会得到越来越多的救助。
But if you think they're going to become more profitable, well, as we've just discussed, that's not really the top priority of the government. Now I suspect that this is just the beginning of what could be increased government influence over certain key sectors in the government. They're really clear on what they think of as a key sector, right? It's where Earths, it's like steel, it's aluminum, semi-conductors and so forth.
但如果你认为他们会变得更加盈利，就像我们刚才讨论的那样，这并不是政府的首要任务。我怀疑这可能只是政府对某些关键行业影响力增加的开端。他们对哪些行业是关键行业有很清楚的定义，比如稀土、钢铁、铝、半导体等。
So this kind of more cohesive industrial policy on certain segments, I think it's going to spread. The market thinks this is positive for when the government takes a stake, I'm skeptical, but we'll see what happens. But definitely again, future will not look like the past and exciting time to head. Alright, so that's all I prepared for today. Thanks so much for tuning in. Talk to you all next week.
这种在特定领域上更加紧密的产业政策，我认为将会得到更广泛的推广。市场认为政府持股的情况下这是积极的，我对此持怀疑态度，不过我们走着瞧。但可以肯定的是，未来将与过去大不相同，令人期待。好，这就是我今天准备的全部内容。非常感谢大家的收听。下周再聊。