特朗普将如何重塑美联储

President Trump has an almost unprecedented opportunity to reshape the key personnel and legal basis of the Federal Reserve in the next 12 months, essentially rebuilding the most important economic organisation in the world in his own image, if he so chooses.

特朗普(Trump)总统在今后12个月里有着几乎史无前例的机遇重塑美联储(Fed)的关键人事和法律基础，可以说是能够按他自己的想法重塑世界上最重要的经济机构——如果他想这样做的话。

The President may be able to appoint five or even six members to the seven-person Board of Governors within 12 months, including the Chair, Vice Chair for monetary policy, and a new Vice Chair for banking supervision. He may also be able to sign into law a bill that alters aspects of the Fed’s operating procedures and accountability to Congress, based on a bill passed in 2015 by the House of Representatives.

特朗普可能能够在12个月里任命美联储的5到6名理事会成员（美联储理事会总共有7名成员），包括主席、负责货币政策的副主席，以及一位新设立的负责银行业监督的副主席。他也可能能够将一项议案签署为法律，这项在某些方面改变美联储运行程序和对国会所负责任的议案，是建立在2015年众议院通过的一项议案基础上。

Not surprisingly, investors are beginning to eye these changes with some trepidation.

并不意外的是，投资者开始带着几分不安关注这些变化。

Some observers fear that the President will fill the Fed with his cronies, ready to monetise the budget deficit if that should prove politically convenient. Others fear the opposite, believing that the new appointments will result in monetary policy being handed over to a policy rule (like the Taylor Rule) that will lead to much higher interest rates in the relatively near future. Still others think that the most important outcome will be a deregulation of the banking system that results in much easier credit availability, with increased dangers of asset bubbles and economic overheating.

一些观察人士担心，如果事实证明政治上方便的话，特朗普将会把其亲信安插到美联储，从而可以随时通过增发货币为预算赤字提供资金支持。其他人担忧的则正好相反，认为新任命将会导致货币政策被交由一种政策规则（如泰勒规则(Taylor Rule)）来决定，从而导致在相对不久的将来利率以大得多的幅度上升。还有一些人认为，最重要的结果将是银行业体系去监管化导致信贷获取难度大大降低，从而使得发生资产泡沫和经济过热的风险上升。

It is not difficult to see how this process could work out very badly indeed. But, at present, I am optimistic that a modicum of sense will prevail.

不难明白，这种过程可能会产生多么糟糕的结果。但就目前而言，我乐观地认为，些许理智将会占据上风。

During the election campaign, Trump was fairly consistent in calling for a Republican to replace Janet Yellen as Chair in February 2018, and for bank credit to be made more readily available to corporate America, especially to small companies. On the setting of interest rates, he has been inconsistent, and on rules-based monetary policy he has been largely silent. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress seem focused on deregulation of the banking sector, with the partial removal of Dodd Frank, and a rules-based monetary policy mandate, with audits of the Fed by the GAO.

在去年选举期间，特朗普基本始终坚持呼吁在2018年2月让一名共和党人取代珍妮特?耶伦(Janet Yellen)担任美联储主席，让美国企业（尤其是小企业）更容易获得银行信贷。在利率设定问题上，他的立场一直反复无常，而在采取基于规则的货币政策上，他基本上未发表看法。与此同时，国会中的共和党人似乎致力于银行业部门去监管化，并部分废除《多德-弗兰克法案》(Dodd-Frank Act)，授权基于规则制定货币政策，以及由政府问责办公室(GAO)审计美联储。

Fortunately, there does not seem to be any Republican support for using the Fed balance sheet to support inflationary financing of the fiscal deficit. Although that might come later, it will be hard to impose on the Fed once the appointments and institutional changes have been implemented in the next 12 months. After that, the new regime will be relatively free to operate under the new arrangements. A lurch towards inflationary populism is therefore not high on the list of worries at present.

幸运的是，似乎没有共和党人支持使用美联储资产负债表来支持对财政赤字的通胀性融资。一旦今后12个月内任命发布且制度改变完成，就很难再干扰美联储了——尽管这种情况以后还可能出现。任命发布且制度改变完成之后，新机制将在新安排下以较大自由度运行。因此眼下无需过于担忧局势会突然转向通胀民粹主义。

The first test for the administration will probably be the nomination of the new Vice Chair for Supervision, a post left unfilled by President Obama, though the functions have been undertaken by the now departing Daniel Tarullo. It has been reported that Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been actively engaged in picking the nominee, which is very reassuring since they are likely to select an impressive professional who is fit to hold the most important regulatory post in America.

特朗普政府面临的首个考验很可能是提名美联储新的负责监管事务的副主席，奥巴马(Obama)总统没有对这一职位的人选做出提名，尽管它的职能此前一直由现已离职的丹尼尔?塔鲁洛(Daniel Tarullo)行使。据报道称，加里?科恩(Gary Cohn)和财政部长史蒂文?姆努钦(Steven Mnuchin)一直积极参与挑选人选，这令人欣慰，因为他们可能挑选出一个适合担任这个美国最重要监管职位的杰出专业人士。

David Nason, identified as the front runner, certainly fits that bill. He has been strongly supported by Hank Paulson, his former boss at Treasury, and that support might influence Cohn and Mnuchin, both of whom, like Paulson, are Goldman Sachs alumni. The nomination of someone like Nason would calm concerns about the entire process.

被视为希望最大的戴维?内森(David Nason)当然符合这个标准。他一直得到原上司、美国前财长汉克?保尔森(Hank Paulson)的有力支持，这种支持可能影响到科恩和姆努钦，这两人与保尔森一样，都曾在高盛(Goldman Sachs)工作过。提名内森将会缓解人们对整个过程的担忧。

Donald Trump has also been talking about giving the job to John Allison, a libertarian who admires the gold standard and doubts whether the Fed should even be setting interest rates. He has strong academic and business credentials, with coherent views about the capital requirements and regulation of the banks, but the markets would worry about the unpredictable consequences his appointment might have for monetary policy.

唐纳德?特朗普(Donald Trump)还谈到让约翰?艾利森(John Allison)担任该职位，后者是一名自由主义者，支持黄金本位制，对美联储是否应该设定利率本身都抱有怀疑。他拥有深厚的学术和商业背景，对银行的资本金要求和银行业监管持有一贯的立场，但市场会担心他的任命将对货币政策产生的不可预测的后果。

Although an important litmus test, the appointment of the Vice Chair on supervision pales into insignificance compared to the probable decision to replace Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer in the two top slots next year. These appointments are not yet on the political agenda but the markets are already thinking about what they may portend for monetary policy after 2017. After all, unless reconfirmed, Yellen and Fischer will soon be viewed as lame ducks.

尽管对负责监管的副主席的任命是一块重要的试金石，但与明年很可能将美联储职位最高的两人——珍妮特?耶伦和斯坦利?费希尔(Stanley Fischer)——替换掉的决定相比，前者就没有那么重要了。这些任命还未进入政治议程，但市场已经在考虑它们对2017年以后的货币政策预示着什么。毕竟，除非得到再次确认，否则耶伦和费希尔很快就会被视为即将离任的“跛脚鸭”。

The administration can turn to a lengthy list of respected, mainstream macro-economists with broad affiliation to the Republicans: John Taylor, Greg Mankiw, Glen Hubbard and many others. There is another list of former Fed officials who would fit the bill, including Kevin Warsh and Richard Fisher. Then there is a very long list of business people or bankers that might be considered appropriate, some of whom could unfortunately be portrayed as Trump “cronies”. Finally, there are some “Austrian” economists, a school that has apparently influenced Vice President Pence.

特朗普政府可以考虑一众受人尊敬、与共和党有着广泛联系的主流宏观经济学家：约翰?泰勒(John Taylor)、格里高利?曼昆(Greg Mankiw)以及其他许多人。还有包括凯文?沃什(Kevin Warsh)和理查德?费希尔(Richard Fisher)在内的一众美联储前官员也满足要求。接下来有一群商人和银行家也可能被认为合适，其中一些可能会令人遗憾地被描述为特朗普的“亲信”。最后，还有一些“奥地利学派”经济学家，这一学派明显影响了副总统彭斯(Pence)。

An “Austrian” candidate would certainly alarm the markets. Assuming that is avoided, investors will be interested in a couple of issues.

一个“奥地利学派”候选人当然会让市场感到警惕。假设排除了“奥地利学派”候选人，投资者将会对两件事情感兴趣。

Where does the new leadership sit on the divide between economist and non economist? The last four Fed Chairs have all been clearly on the economist side of the line, and because they have all bought into the Fed’s economic orthodoxy, their actions have been considered somewhat predictable by the markets. A business person or banker might be less predictable, at least initially, and more prone to shake up the Fed’s orthodoxies, for good or ill.

新领导层在经济学家和非经济学家的分歧中支持哪一方？最近的4位美联储主席显然全都站在经济学家一边，而且因为他们全都认可美联储的正统经济理论，他们的行动被认为在某种程度上可以被市场预测到。一位商人或者银行家（至少在最初）可能会不太好预测，而且更有可能打破美联储的正统理论，无论这是好是坏。

The second question will be whether the new team is supportive of rule-based monetary policy, with GAO audits. In recent years, the House of Representatives has tried on several occasions to bring forward legislation that would require the FOMC to establish an appropriate rule for setting interest rates and then explain to Congress why it had deviated from the rule in any future decisions. This would clearly shift the bias of policy making somewhat away from discretion, especially if a “rules guru” like John Taylor, or one of his academic supporters (listed here), becomes Chair.

第二个问题将是新团队是否支持基于规则的货币政策，以及是否接受政府问责办公室的审计。在最近几年，众议院多次试图提出议案，要求美联储公开市场委员会(FOMC)制定设定利率的适当规则，随后向国会解释为何在未来的决定中偏离规则。这将明显让政治制定不再倾向于是一个自由裁量的过程，尤其是如果像约翰?泰勒这样的“规则大师”或者别的支持他学术思想的人成为美联储主席的话。

The possibility of Congress forcibly imposing a rules-based regime is being taken increasingly seriously inside the present Board, which has followed the Fed tradition in strongly preferring discretion to the rigidity of formal algorithms, even if they are selected by the Fed itself.

当前的美联储理事会内部正在日益严肃地考虑国会强迫其推行基于规则的制度的可能性——当前理事会遵从美联储传统，强烈倾向于自由裁量，而不是严格遵循正式算法，即便这些算法是美联储自己选择的。

Janet Yellen, in her Congressional testimony last week, was unusually explicit about the adverse consequences, as she saw them, of adopting the Taylor Rule. She said this would require interest rates to rise to 3.5-4.0 per cent, leading to lower growth and higher unemployment.

珍妮特?耶伦在不久前的国会证词发言中，不同寻常地坦承了在她看来采用泰勒规则的不利后果。她表示，这将需要利率上涨至3.5%-4%，从而导致更低的增速和更高的失业率。

Stanley Fischer has also weighed in, suggesting that the Taylor Rule would have resulted in a premature tightening in monetary policy after 2011 (see Appendix below). But a new law similar to the bill passed by the House in 2015 would allow them plenty of scope to deviate from the rule if they so choose.

斯坦利?费希尔也发表了看法，他说，泰勒规则本会导致2011年后的货币政策过早紧缩。但类似于众议院2015年通过的那个议案的新法律，将让他们有大量偏离规则的空间——如果他们选择这么做的话。

How will the Fed emerge from these potential shocks? The organisation has an extraordinarily strong and much admired culture, which will be hard for Trump to shake, even if he wanted to. All his nominations will be reviewed internally by Cohn and Mnuchin, and externally by the Senate.

美联储将如何安然度过这些潜在风险？美联储有着异常强大且备受敬仰的文化，特朗普即便想要撼动它也很难做到。他的所有提名都将在内部经过科恩和姆努钦的审核，并在外部经过参议院的审核。

My guess is that the institution will survive largely unscathed, albeit with onerous regulation of bank credit, and some increased role for specified monetary rules, with formal reporting on these rules to Congress. Compared to the present regime, this may lead to higher, rather than lower, interest rates.

我猜测，美联储将基本上安然无恙地度过难关，尽管会有繁琐的银行信贷监管，一些具体的货币规则还会被赋予更大重要性，美联储要就这些规则向国会做出正式报告。与当前制度相比，这可能导致更高、而非更低的利率。

The current Fed Board will (rightly) try to minimise any restriction on their discretion and independence. But in practice the likely new framework would not represent much of a threat to the sensible conduct of monetary policy in President Trump’s term.

当前的美联储理事会将会（正确地）试图尽可能减少对他们自由裁量权和独立性的限制。但在实践中，可能出台的新框架将不会对美联储在特朗普总统任期内实施明智的货币政策造成多大威胁。