Loading

美元将爆发广泛短缺? 【中英对照翻译】

來源:ZeroHedge, 05/14/2020 - 09:20am

作者:Tyler Durden, 2020年5月14日-09:20am

翻译/简评:文意

PR: left gun

简评:

美联储用大量发放美元货币鼓励政府财政支出的形式来刺激美国经济,这种方法会使美元贬值,持续美国进出口贸易逆差的现状, 使美国债务危机持续并渗透到各个领域, 从而导致美元投资外流到发展中国家, 一旦这些国家出现经济和金融危机, 美元短缺之势会持续,美联储会继续发行货币造成经济萎缩的恶性循环。鲍威尔虽然是经济专家,但他代表的是美联储的利益, 让全世界经济受美联储的影响也是符合他们的利益。 但美国人民应该清楚的认识没有提高和实现真正的生产力盲目印钱有百害而无一利。 川普政府想要在提高生产力的基础上去发展经济, 为民众谋得福利。 在冠状病毒危机之时,虽然困难重重,但我相信美国人民会赢得这场“无形”的战争!

原文:

Rabobank: A Broad US Dollar Shortage Would Erupt If There Is A New Trade War With China

荷兰合作银行:如果与中国发生新的贸易战,美元将爆发广泛短缺

Yesterday saw Fed Chair Powell in the spotlight, and he had a few key things to say. First, things are looking grim for the economy. Rather than merely cheer-leading that Q2 and 2021 were going to see a V-shaped US recovery he stated “the path ahead is both highly uncertain and subject to significant downside risks.”

昨天看到了美联储主席鲍威尔大众关注之下讲了几件非常重要的事情。首先,经济形势显得严峻。他表示,“未来的经济发展趋势极度不确定,有面临严峻下行的风险.”而不是大家想象的乐观的2020第二季度和2021预见的美国V型复苏。

The UN would agree, with what looks like a vast underestimate that 130m people may slip into poverty globally in the wake of the virus: we could actually see that happening in just one or two large economies if things aren’t handled right. Even Australia just saw a jobs number of -594K, even worse than expected, and the US equivalent of nearly 8 million. (The wunderkind at the ABS did manage to replicate their usual monthly statistical bafflement, however, in showing that the unemployment rate only rose from 5.2% to 6.2% vs. 8.2% expected. *Sigh*.)

联合国也会同意的是,全世界至少有1.3亿人,而这数看来是被严重低估的,可能会因为冠状病毒而陷入贫困线下:这种情况我们可以从有一,两个大经济体对冠状病毒控制失败中看得到。就连澳大利亚也刚刚减少了59万4千个工作岗位,比预期差很多的美国则减少接近800万个。(然而,ABS咨询公司的天才们再次成功炮制他们让人疑惑的每月统计数据,显示失业率仅从5.2%上升到6.2%,对比预期的8.2%, “叹息”)。

However, Powell dismissed the need for negative interest rates, even if US futures markets have been flirting with the idea, adding that the evidence that they are effective as policy “is very mixed”. That’s being generous given negative rates have failed to generate a recovery in Japan or Europe, and technically are a form of partial default reflecting that there is just too much private-sector debt out there.

然而,鲍威尔驳回了负利率的需要性,尽管美国期货市场一直吐槽着这种想法,鲍威尔还补充称,负利率是否一有效(经济调控)政策的证据是“非常不一致的”。这已是比较温和的说法,事实上负利率并未能使日本或欧洲经济复苏,技术上而言负利率是一种局部违约,反映出市场上有太多的私人债务。

Then Powell made clear that the Fed can only lend, not spend, and that the path forward needs to be fiscal. Indeed, “Additional fiscal support could be costly, but worth it,” he added. Indeed. And what a refreshing change from the economic illiteracy displayed by Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore, who talking on The Hill argued that state spending can never create a job or produce any kind of recovery because it just moves money from one hand to another. Is this mantra really what they are thinking in the White House? ‘Moore is less’?

鲍威尔明确表示,美联储只能放贷不能花销,解决问题的办法必须是财政支出和花费政策。是的,”更多的财政支持可能代价高昂,但是是值得的” 他补充说。这(观点)是多么的醒神而有别于川普经济顾问斯蒂芬·摩尔(Stephen Moore)所展示的经济文盲, 他在《国会山》新闻里强调政府支出永远不能创造就业机会或产生任何形式的经济复苏,因为它只是将资金从左手转移到右手。难道这真是白宫的想法吗?“多”是“少”吗?(Moore与英文字“多”是同音)

Moore openly implies if a bank makes a loan to company A for project X, creating USD de novo to do so, and that new USD debt/money circulates around the economy, then this is economic growth – even if that loan has to be paid back with interest from within the same economy (so from hand A to hand B). Yet if a government issues a bond for project Y, which the central bank buys with USD created de novo, and that new USD debt/money circulates around the economy, this is NOT economic growth – even when the debt carries almost no interest and/or does not have to be paid back at all in some cases. (Even Italy, within the straightjacket of the Euro, which the German constitutional court wants to tighten the straps on further, is expanding state spending by EUR55bn: yes, it’s completely inadequate – but it will help growth.)

摩尔公开暗示,如果一家银行向A公司贷款用于项目X,创造美元,并且这个新的美元债务/货币在经济中流通,那么这就是经济增长——即使在同一经济体里要连本带息偿还该笔贷款(从A到B)。然而,如果政府为项目Y发行债券,而中央银行用美元购买,新的美元债务/货币在经济领域流通,这就不是经济增长——即使债务几乎没有利息和/或在某些情况下根本不需要偿还。(尽管在德国宪法法院也希望进一步收紧的欧元政策下,意大利也将国家支出扩大550亿欧元,对,这是完全不够的,但它将有助于经济增长。)

This is not to say that all state spending is good, or useful, or even necessary; this is not to say monetization is how we should all start our day. Yet not all private borrowing is good, or useful, or even necessary – and they can’t monetize in an emergency. To not understand the role of government stimulus in this new age of MMT and unprecedented socio-economic crisis surely displays an awesome political tin ear or an iron skin, or both. (On which note, the UK Daily Mail yesterday flagged that the currently very generous British government is going to tighten its belt post-Covid, with pay freezes --even for the heroes currently getting clapped? I guess claps are free…-- and tax hikes. Won’t that help a struggling, demand-weak economy?)

这并不是说所有的政府支出都是好的,或者有用的,甚至是必要的; 这并不是说我们全都应该上来就采取货币政策。然而,并非所有的私人借贷都是好的,或有用的,甚至必要的——他们在紧急情况下无法变现。在现代货币理论(MMT)新时代和前所未有的社会经济危机中不了解政府刺激的作用,会表现出令人敬畏的政治上的感觉迟钝或麻木不仁,或两者兼而有之。(对此,英国《每日邮报》昨日指出,目前非常慷慨的英国政府也在疫情后收紧裤带,冻结工资——即使对于目前得到掌声的英雄们也是如此?我想拍手是免费的…但加税。 这不是能帮助一个挣扎的、需求疲软的经济吗?

Powell, by contrast, does perhaps get it (?) However, what’s interesting is he is saying this even as stocks are still riding high overall, the last few days aside, with debates over whether this is a bear-market rally or a new bull market.

对比之下鲍威尔也许能明白(?)尽管如此, 有趣的是,他说这些话时,股市除了最近这几天外,整体上仍然走高,引起这是熊市反弹还是新的牛市的争论。

So let’s be a little cynical. Perhaps --just perhaps-- the Fed is happy to see a larger fiscal deficit because it knows this not only counters a huge shift to net saving by the private sector as unemployment soars and corporations sit on their hands or downsize; it also helps keep the US external balance in the negative. In other words, the larger the US fiscal deficit, the larger the current-account deficit, and the more USD might be able to leak out to emerging markets. That is likely going to matter again soon.

所以,让我们以怀疑的态度来分析一下。也许——只是也许——美联储很高兴看到更大的财政赤字,因为它知道这不仅会抵消私人企业由于失业率飙升,企业冻员或裁员,而变成净积蓄的巨大改变,它还会使美国进出口贸易平衡保持负值。换句话说,美国财政赤字越大,流动账户的赤字就越大,更多的美元就可能流失去发展中市场。这种事态会很快对经济造成重大影响。

After all, China’s Global Times is claiming Beijing is drawing up a list of US individuals and entities to be “punished” if they continue to pressure it over Covid-19: this as two bills are now at various stages before Congress, one of which includes the provision of sanctions vs. China, including its ability to access the US financial system. Moreover, following the US decision not to allow a government pension fund to invest in Chinese equities, we are seeing a trial balloon in the same direction for the private sector. A conservative US think-tank, the National Legal and Policy Centre (NLPC), has approached the CEO of the world’s largest asset manager to request it to divest its holdings of 137 Chinese firms listed in the US, of which 30% are allegedly “under the influence and ultimate control of the Communist Party of China”, which raises “ethical questions”. The NLPC specifically cites the precedent of such investment firms recently divesting from fossil fuels on ethical, not financial, grounds to argue that failing to apply the same benchmark in terms of human rights “will amount to empty virtue-signalling.”

中共国的《环球时报》声称,北京(政府)正在起草一份针对美国私人和机构的”惩罚”名单,如果他们继续施压追踪中共病毒的起源的话 ; 这两个有关法案正在国会多个审理过程中, 其中一个法案是有关对中共实行制裁的规定,包括中共国对美国金融体系的准入。此外,在美国决定不允许政府养老基金投资中国股市之后,我们看到私营企业正朝同一方向试热。保守的美国智囊团国家法律和政策中心(NLPC)已与全球最大的资产管理公司首席执行官接洽,要求其撤出持有的137家在美国上市的中国公司的投资,其中30%据称"受中国共产党的影响和最终控制",这引发了"道德问题"。NLPC特别引用了这些投资公司最近以道德而不是金融利益为里由从石化燃料投资中撤出的先例,来论证如不能采用同样的人权基准"将等同显得了无道德"。

Might this activist divestment trend grow? Just look at the current geopolitical and US domestic political backdrop. President Trump is falling further behind Biden in the polls, and just tweeted:

这种激进的撤资趋势会增长吗?看看当前的地缘政治和美国国内政治背景。川普总统在民调中进一步落后于拜登,他刚刚在推特上说:

“As I have said for a long time, dealing with China is a very expensive thing to do. We just made a great Trade Deal, the ink was barely dry, and the World was hit by the Plague from China. 100 Trade Deals wouldn’t make up the difference – and all those innocent lives lost!”

"正如我长期以来所说,与中国打交道是一件非常昂贵的事情。我们刚刚达成了一笔伟大的贸易协议,墨水几乎没干,世界受到了来自中共国的瘟疫的打击。100项贸易协议都无法弥补差额—和所有那些无辜地失去的生命!

No olive branch there. This suggests that --as we have repeatedly warned-- the risks ahead are still a three-step drying-up of USD flows to China: trade, tech, and capital. Broader USD shortages would then erupt as China has to scale back on its own purchases, or devalue hugely, or both.

那里没有橄榄枝。这表明,正如我们一再警告的那样,未来的风险仍然是美元流向中国干枯的三步走:贸易、科技和资本。届时,随着中国不得不缩减自身购买规模,或大幅贬值,或两者兼而有之,美元将出现更广泛的短缺。

In which case the Fed is right not to be worrying about hand A and hand B, but just handing USD out. Because we will all need them, and still be clamoring for them.

在这种情况下,美联储根本不担心左手和右手,只要发放美元就好。因为我们都会需要和渴望它们。

编辑:【喜马拉雅战鹰团】