在美聯(lián)儲(U.S. Federal Reserve)的帶頭下,世界各國央行在2022年都堅(jiān)持著同一個(gè)理念——不惜成本地壓低通脹,即便這個(gè)過程可能會給個(gè)人和企業(yè)帶來痛苦。但是隨著美國和歐洲于今年3月相繼發(fā)生數(shù)起銀行爆雷事件,目前的這種做法也受到了空前的質(zhì)疑。一位曾經(jīng)成功預(yù)言2008年全球金融危機(jī)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家就表示,現(xiàn)在各國央行更喜歡的是“階級壓迫,而不是金融穩(wěn)定?!?/p>
包括美聯(lián)儲在內(nèi)的多國央行都強(qiáng)調(diào),勞動(dòng)力市場緊張和高工資是導(dǎo)致通脹的主要原因。雖然放松就業(yè)市場有助于為經(jīng)濟(jì)降溫,但這也意味著裁員、失業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在有些批評人士看來,如此高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的代價(jià)是不可接受的。
英國經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家安·佩蒂弗曾經(jīng)在2006年出版的一本書中成功預(yù)言了2008年的全球金融危機(jī)。3月19日,她在個(gè)人社交媒體Substack上寫道:“各國央行的公仆們似乎愿意犧牲私營銀行和全球金融穩(wěn)定性,只要能夠盡快加息,摧毀需求,鉗制工人和減少國家的收入?!?/p>
“換句話說,他們實(shí)際上更傾向于階級壓迫,而不是金融穩(wěn)定?!?/p>
“很難贊同各國央行的所作所為”
今年3月,硅谷銀行(Silicon Valley Bank)的破產(chǎn)引發(fā)了輿論的一片嘩然,很多人把矛頭指向了硅谷銀行的管理層,但是美聯(lián)儲對它的爆雷也應(yīng)該負(fù)有一定責(zé)任。
首先,當(dāng)美國政府宣布對硅谷銀行進(jìn)行緊急救助時(shí),據(jù)稱美聯(lián)儲采取“封口”政策,堅(jiān)決不談是否對硅谷銀行的爆雷負(fù)有監(jiān)管責(zé)任。另外,硅谷銀行爆雷的深層原因,還與它的資產(chǎn)在2022年貶值太快有關(guān),而這很大程度上則是因?yàn)槊缆?lián)儲突然放棄了近零利率政策,在加息的路上一騎絕塵。這導(dǎo)致硅谷銀行極易發(fā)生流動(dòng)性危機(jī),而其他銀行實(shí)際上也處于類似的境地。
“我發(fā)現(xiàn)自己很難贊同各國央行的所作作為,我說的不僅僅是加息、抑制需求和降低工資?!?佩蒂弗寫道:“事實(shí)上,他們是缺乏分析、監(jiān)管、監(jiān)督和預(yù)見能力的,上周的事情充分表明,他們還是準(zhǔn)備用高利率政策來冒險(xiǎn),哪怕這會加劇銀行爆雷,影響全球金融穩(wěn)定?!?/p>
另外,她還點(diǎn)名批評了歐洲央行(European Central Bank)。在近期美國和歐洲銀行接連爆雷的情況下,歐洲央行在3月中旬仍然堅(jiān)持大幅加息。而瑞士信貸(Credit Suisse)也在幾天后爆雷,最終在監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的撮合下被瑞銀集團(tuán)(UBS)緊急并購。
佩蒂弗還提到了上周媒體對美國財(cái)政部的前部長拉里·薩默斯和喜劇演員、政治評論家喬恩·斯圖爾特的一次采訪。薩默斯堅(jiān)稱不惜一切代價(jià)加息和抑制通脹才是正確的道路。而斯圖爾特則認(rèn)為,企業(yè)利潤也在推高通脹的過程中扮演了重要角色,而美聯(lián)儲對這個(gè)問題的關(guān)注度則相對較低。
現(xiàn)任美聯(lián)儲主席杰羅姆·鮑威爾和薩默斯等知名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都表示,工人和低收入群體的痛苦,是美國為了戰(zhàn)勝通脹而不得不付出的代價(jià)。但是這種通過打壓勞動(dòng)力市場來降低通脹的方法,也受到了世界各地的廣泛批評。英國央行(Bank of England)的行長安德魯·貝利在2022年就因?yàn)橐笥髽I(yè)在加薪談判中保持“克制”而遭到了猛烈抨擊。而最近美國的銀行業(yè)危機(jī)爆發(fā)后,也有很多人指責(zé)美聯(lián)儲主席鮑威爾,稱正是他的政策破壞了金融穩(wěn)定,同時(shí)也導(dǎo)致降通脹的負(fù)擔(dān)最終落在了普通工人的身上。
佩蒂弗并不是唯一一個(gè)批評央行政策的人。美國參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫和伯尼·桑德斯等左翼政客也指責(zé)美聯(lián)儲的政策很可能導(dǎo)致美國經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入衰退,并使數(shù)百萬人失業(yè)。沃倫一直是攻擊鮑威爾最積極的,3月19日,她表示,鮑威爾的工作是“失敗”的,不應(yīng)該再擔(dān)任美聯(lián)儲主席。她一直批評鮑威爾的加息政策給勞動(dòng)力市場帶來了巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。今年3月早些時(shí)候,她還稱,等到美聯(lián)儲的這一輪緊縮周期結(jié)束時(shí),美國或?qū)⒂?00萬人因此而失業(yè)。
一般來說,加息和經(jīng)濟(jì)放緩會導(dǎo)致裁員和工資增長放緩,這對普通工薪族的影響最大,尤其是低薪員工。2022年,就在美聯(lián)儲啟動(dòng)緊縮周期之前不久,美國勞工部的前部長羅伯特·賴克曾經(jīng)在《衛(wèi)報(bào)》(The Guardian)的一篇專欄文章里寫道:“加息將損害數(shù)百萬名工人的利益,他們將被迫加入對抗通脹的戰(zhàn)爭,而代價(jià)是失去工作,或者失去早該到來的加薪。”
當(dāng)然,從2022年開始,通脹就是很多美國人較為關(guān)注的話題,甚至是最關(guān)注的問題。來自民調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)蓋洛普(Gallup)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,今年2月,有13%的美國人認(rèn)為通脹是他們目前最擔(dān)心的問題,而只有1%的受訪者表示最關(guān)注工資問題。
自2021年以來,美國的物價(jià)開始瘋狂上漲,通脹已經(jīng)給各個(gè)階層的美國人造成了沉重的負(fù)擔(dān)。但最為痛苦的還是中低收入者,因?yàn)樗麄儽揪蜎]有多少家底,而糧食價(jià)格、能源價(jià)格和房價(jià)的飆升對其家庭儲蓄的影響可以用“傷筋動(dòng)骨”來形容。而在惡性通脹之下,高收入者的生活同樣也不好過,因?yàn)槌^一半的美國高收入者現(xiàn)在也成了“月光族”。
不過,沃頓商學(xué)院(Wharton School)的教授杰里米·西格爾認(rèn)為,美聯(lián)儲目前對通脹問題有些矯枉過正了,尤其是對勞動(dòng)力市場的政策,甚至已經(jīng)能夠用偏執(zhí)來形容。但美聯(lián)儲可能忽略了物價(jià)上漲背后的一些重要因素。左翼傾向的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)2022年的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn),各種商品和服務(wù)價(jià)格的上漲,一半以上可以歸因于企業(yè)利潤率的提高,而只有8%的物價(jià)上漲與勞動(dòng)力成本上升有關(guān)。
西格爾今年3月在接受美國消費(fèi)者新聞與商業(yè)頻道(CNBC)采訪時(shí)表示,自從新冠疫情爆發(fā)以來,美國的工資上漲速度始終低于通脹上漲速度,因此“很難說”勞動(dòng)力成本是通脹的主要因素。
對于美聯(lián)儲雄心勃勃的控通脹目標(biāo),包括穆罕默德·埃爾-埃里安在內(nèi)的一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都認(rèn)為,2%的通脹目標(biāo)已經(jīng)過時(shí)了,如果美聯(lián)儲仍然堅(jiān)持這一目標(biāo),那將對經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害。而3%到4%左右的“較高的穩(wěn)定通脹率”則可能是一個(gè)更合適的目標(biāo)。
至于最近的銀行業(yè)爆雷和左翼政客的抗議是否會讓鮑威爾“不惜一切代價(jià)控通脹”的態(tài)度產(chǎn)生動(dòng)搖,目前還不得而知。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
在美聯(lián)儲(U.S. Federal Reserve)的帶頭下,世界各國央行在2022年都堅(jiān)持著同一個(gè)理念——不惜成本地壓低通脹,即便這個(gè)過程可能會給個(gè)人和企業(yè)帶來痛苦。但是隨著美國和歐洲于今年3月相繼發(fā)生數(shù)起銀行爆雷事件,目前的這種做法也受到了空前的質(zhì)疑。一位曾經(jīng)成功預(yù)言2008年全球金融危機(jī)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家就表示,現(xiàn)在各國央行更喜歡的是“階級壓迫,而不是金融穩(wěn)定?!?/p>
包括美聯(lián)儲在內(nèi)的多國央行都強(qiáng)調(diào),勞動(dòng)力市場緊張和高工資是導(dǎo)致通脹的主要原因。雖然放松就業(yè)市場有助于為經(jīng)濟(jì)降溫,但這也意味著裁員、失業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在有些批評人士看來,如此高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的代價(jià)是不可接受的。
英國經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家安·佩蒂弗曾經(jīng)在2006年出版的一本書中成功預(yù)言了2008年的全球金融危機(jī)。3月19日,她在個(gè)人社交媒體Substack上寫道:“各國央行的公仆們似乎愿意犧牲私營銀行和全球金融穩(wěn)定性,只要能夠盡快加息,摧毀需求,鉗制工人和減少國家的收入。”
“換句話說,他們實(shí)際上更傾向于階級壓迫,而不是金融穩(wěn)定?!?/p>
“很難贊同各國央行的所作所為”
今年3月,硅谷銀行(Silicon Valley Bank)的破產(chǎn)引發(fā)了輿論的一片嘩然,很多人把矛頭指向了硅谷銀行的管理層,但是美聯(lián)儲對它的爆雷也應(yīng)該負(fù)有一定責(zé)任。
首先,當(dāng)美國政府宣布對硅谷銀行進(jìn)行緊急救助時(shí),據(jù)稱美聯(lián)儲采取“封口”政策,堅(jiān)決不談是否對硅谷銀行的爆雷負(fù)有監(jiān)管責(zé)任。另外,硅谷銀行爆雷的深層原因,還與它的資產(chǎn)在2022年貶值太快有關(guān),而這很大程度上則是因?yàn)槊缆?lián)儲突然放棄了近零利率政策,在加息的路上一騎絕塵。這導(dǎo)致硅谷銀行極易發(fā)生流動(dòng)性危機(jī),而其他銀行實(shí)際上也處于類似的境地。
“我發(fā)現(xiàn)自己很難贊同各國央行的所作作為,我說的不僅僅是加息、抑制需求和降低工資?!?佩蒂弗寫道:“事實(shí)上,他們是缺乏分析、監(jiān)管、監(jiān)督和預(yù)見能力的,上周的事情充分表明,他們還是準(zhǔn)備用高利率政策來冒險(xiǎn),哪怕這會加劇銀行爆雷,影響全球金融穩(wěn)定?!?/p>
另外,她還點(diǎn)名批評了歐洲央行(European Central Bank)。在近期美國和歐洲銀行接連爆雷的情況下,歐洲央行在3月中旬仍然堅(jiān)持大幅加息。而瑞士信貸(Credit Suisse)也在幾天后爆雷,最終在監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的撮合下被瑞銀集團(tuán)(UBS)緊急并購。
佩蒂弗還提到了上周媒體對美國財(cái)政部的前部長拉里·薩默斯和喜劇演員、政治評論家喬恩·斯圖爾特的一次采訪。薩默斯堅(jiān)稱不惜一切代價(jià)加息和抑制通脹才是正確的道路。而斯圖爾特則認(rèn)為,企業(yè)利潤也在推高通脹的過程中扮演了重要角色,而美聯(lián)儲對這個(gè)問題的關(guān)注度則相對較低。
現(xiàn)任美聯(lián)儲主席杰羅姆·鮑威爾和薩默斯等知名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都表示,工人和低收入群體的痛苦,是美國為了戰(zhàn)勝通脹而不得不付出的代價(jià)。但是這種通過打壓勞動(dòng)力市場來降低通脹的方法,也受到了世界各地的廣泛批評。英國央行(Bank of England)的行長安德魯·貝利在2022年就因?yàn)橐笥髽I(yè)在加薪談判中保持“克制”而遭到了猛烈抨擊。而最近美國的銀行業(yè)危機(jī)爆發(fā)后,也有很多人指責(zé)美聯(lián)儲主席鮑威爾,稱正是他的政策破壞了金融穩(wěn)定,同時(shí)也導(dǎo)致降通脹的負(fù)擔(dān)最終落在了普通工人的身上。
佩蒂弗并不是唯一一個(gè)批評央行政策的人。美國參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫和伯尼·桑德斯等左翼政客也指責(zé)美聯(lián)儲的政策很可能導(dǎo)致美國經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入衰退,并使數(shù)百萬人失業(yè)。沃倫一直是攻擊鮑威爾最積極的,3月19日,她表示,鮑威爾的工作是“失敗”的,不應(yīng)該再擔(dān)任美聯(lián)儲主席。她一直批評鮑威爾的加息政策給勞動(dòng)力市場帶來了巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。今年3月早些時(shí)候,她還稱,等到美聯(lián)儲的這一輪緊縮周期結(jié)束時(shí),美國或?qū)⒂?00萬人因此而失業(yè)。
一般來說,加息和經(jīng)濟(jì)放緩會導(dǎo)致裁員和工資增長放緩,這對普通工薪族的影響最大,尤其是低薪員工。2022年,就在美聯(lián)儲啟動(dòng)緊縮周期之前不久,美國勞工部的前部長羅伯特·賴克曾經(jīng)在《衛(wèi)報(bào)》(The Guardian)的一篇專欄文章里寫道:“加息將損害數(shù)百萬名工人的利益,他們將被迫加入對抗通脹的戰(zhàn)爭,而代價(jià)是失去工作,或者失去早該到來的加薪。”
當(dāng)然,從2022年開始,通脹就是很多美國人較為關(guān)注的話題,甚至是最關(guān)注的問題。來自民調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)蓋洛普(Gallup)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,今年2月,有13%的美國人認(rèn)為通脹是他們目前最擔(dān)心的問題,而只有1%的受訪者表示最關(guān)注工資問題。
自2021年以來,美國的物價(jià)開始瘋狂上漲,通脹已經(jīng)給各個(gè)階層的美國人造成了沉重的負(fù)擔(dān)。但最為痛苦的還是中低收入者,因?yàn)樗麄儽揪蜎]有多少家底,而糧食價(jià)格、能源價(jià)格和房價(jià)的飆升對其家庭儲蓄的影響可以用“傷筋動(dòng)骨”來形容。而在惡性通脹之下,高收入者的生活同樣也不好過,因?yàn)槌^一半的美國高收入者現(xiàn)在也成了“月光族”。
不過,沃頓商學(xué)院(Wharton School)的教授杰里米·西格爾認(rèn)為,美聯(lián)儲目前對通脹問題有些矯枉過正了,尤其是對勞動(dòng)力市場的政策,甚至已經(jīng)能夠用偏執(zhí)來形容。但美聯(lián)儲可能忽略了物價(jià)上漲背后的一些重要因素。左翼傾向的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策研究所(Economic Policy Institute)2022年的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn),各種商品和服務(wù)價(jià)格的上漲,一半以上可以歸因于企業(yè)利潤率的提高,而只有8%的物價(jià)上漲與勞動(dòng)力成本上升有關(guān)。
西格爾今年3月在接受美國消費(fèi)者新聞與商業(yè)頻道(CNBC)采訪時(shí)表示,自從新冠疫情爆發(fā)以來,美國的工資上漲速度始終低于通脹上漲速度,因此“很難說”勞動(dòng)力成本是通脹的主要因素。
對于美聯(lián)儲雄心勃勃的控通脹目標(biāo),包括穆罕默德·埃爾-埃里安在內(nèi)的一些經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都認(rèn)為,2%的通脹目標(biāo)已經(jīng)過時(shí)了,如果美聯(lián)儲仍然堅(jiān)持這一目標(biāo),那將對經(jīng)濟(jì)造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害。而3%到4%左右的“較高的穩(wěn)定通脹率”則可能是一個(gè)更合適的目標(biāo)。
至于最近的銀行業(yè)爆雷和左翼政客的抗議是否會讓鮑威爾“不惜一切代價(jià)控通脹”的態(tài)度產(chǎn)生動(dòng)搖,目前還不得而知。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
Marshaled by the U.S. Federal Reserve, central banks around the world have had a unifying philosophy over the past year: Bring down inflation no matter the cost, even if it means risking pain for people and businesses. But that approach has been questioned more than ever March in the wake of several high-profile banking collapses in the U.S. and Europe. Now a British economist who predicted the 2008 global financial crash has escalated the issue, saying central banks prefer “class war over financial stability.”
The Fed and other central banks have underlined tight labor markets and high wages as key underlying causes behind inflation. But while loosening job markets might help cool down the economy, it also means layoffs, joblessness, and a potential recession—an unacceptable and risky trade-off for some critics.
“[C]ivil servants that head up central banks seem willing to sacrifice private banks and global financial stability in their rush to raise rates, crush demand, discipline workers and shrink the nation’s income,” Ann Pettifor, a British economist and frequent economic adviser who predicted the 2008 global financial crash with a prescient 2006 book on mounting debt worldwide, wrote in her Substack newsletter on March 19.
“In other words, their effective preference is for class war over financial stability.”
“Hard to face up to what central bankers are doing”
Silicon Valley Bank has taken its fair share of criticism for its collapse earlier this month, with many slamming its management, but the Fed also had a role to play in its downfall.
The Fed has been accused of blocking any phrasing about regulatory blunders that may have led to the bank’s collapse when the government announced SVB’s rescue. SVB’s failure was also tied to its assets losing value over the past year as the Fed abruptly shifted away from a near-zero-interest rate environment. That made SVB particularly vulnerable to a liquidity crisis, and other banks are in a similar position.
“The fact is I found it hard to face up to what central bankers are doing, not just by raising rates, suppressing demand, and lowering wages,” Pettifor wrote. “Through lack of analysis, regulation, oversight and foresight—central bankers have shown this last week they were prepared to use high rates to risk and even precipitate bank failures and global financial instability.”
She also criticized the European Central Bank for sticking to large rate hikes in mid-March despite the recent bank collapses in the U.S. Credit Suisse failed just days later, and was bought by USB in an emergency deal brokered by regulators.
Pettifor went on to reference an interview between former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and comedian and political commentator Jon Stewart aired last week. Summers insisted that raising rates and tackling inflation at all costs was the right way forward, while Stewart challenged him on the outsized role corporate profits have played in fueling inflation, which has received comparably little attention from the Fed.
Pain to workers and lower-income groups has been depicted as a necessary evil in the battle to reduce inflation by Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other prominent economists, like Summers. But the approach of targeting the labor market to reduce inflation has also been widely criticized around the world. The Bank of England’s governor Andrew Bailey was slammed last year for asking British businesses to practice “restraint” in pay raise negotiations. More recently in the U.S., Powell’s method has been blasted for causing financial instability with this month’s banking crisis and ultimately placing the burden of reducing inflation on workers’ shoulders.
Pettifor isn’t the only voice critical of central banks’ policies. Political figures in the U.S., mainly on the progressive left including Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, have also criticized Powell and the Fed for risking driving the economy into a recession and casting millions into unemployment. Warren has been at the forefront of attacks, saying on March 19 that Powell had “failed” at his job and should no longer be chair. She has long been critical of Powell for the risks high interest rates pose to the labor market, warning earlier March that the Fed could put as many as 2 million Americans out of work by the end of its current tightening cycle.
Raising interest rate hikes and slowing down the economy tends to hit employees the hardest, especially low-wage ones, by triggering layoffs and slowing down wage growth. “Higher interest rates will harm millions of workers who will be involuntarily drafted into the inflation fight by losing jobs or long-overdue pay raises,” Robert Reich, former U.S. Labor Secretary, wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian last year shortly before the Fed began its tightening cycle.
To be sure, inflation has been a driving concern for Americans since 2022, often more so than any other issue. In February, 13% of Americans cited inflation as their biggest current concern, while only 1% mentioned wage issues, according to Gallup.
Inflation has been a heavy burden for Americans of all income levels since prices began creeping up in 2021. It’s been particularly painful for low and middle-income Americans, who have had to dip deep into their savings to cope with soaring food, energy, and housing prices. Inflation has been hard for high earners too, as more than half of high-income Americans are now living paycheck-to-paycheck.
But the Fed’s focus on inflation—and especially on labor market tightness which Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel earlier this month called “monomaniacal”—may be ignoring some important points behind rising prices. A 2022 study from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that over half of price increases for goods and services could be attributed to larger profit margins among corporations, while only 8% of inflation was tied to higher labor costs.
Siegel told CNBC this month that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, worker wages have been rising more slowly than inflation and it was “hard to argue” that labor costs were the main contributor to inflation.
On the Fed’s larger inflation vision, some economists including Mohamed El-Erian have argued that its 2% goal is outdated and reaching it would lead to severe economic harm, while a “higher stable inflation rate” around 3% to 4% might be more appropriate.
It is unclear if the recent banking failures and pleadings from the left have swayed Powell from his commitment to bringing down inflation no matter the cost.