Nice_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Marque
2021-06-23

Nice

Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>

Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder Monetary

Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":129775610,"tweetId":"129775610","gmtCreate":1624401537630,"gmtModify":1634006820111,"author":{"id":3574901589558734,"idStr":"3574901589558734","authorId":3574901589558734,"authorIdStr":"3574901589558734","name":"Marque","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Nice</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Nice</body></html>","text":"Nice","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129775610","repostId":1180651681,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1180651681","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624374662,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1180651681?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 23:11","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1180651681","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder\nMonetary ","content":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote> Monetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.<blockquote>2021年的货币政策正在积极推动周期性增长的快速反弹，甚至迎接通胀的上行。这与1994年老一代政策制定者面对类似周期性反弹的方式形成了鲜明对比。当时，政策制定者迅速而积极地抑制周期性扩张，特别是通胀上升。</blockquote> Someone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免自己犯下重大政策错误。透明度和可预测性的制度僵化使得宽松货币政策持续的时间超过了所需的时间。与1995年老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似情景时设计的软着陆相比，目前的做法使经济走上了硬着陆的道路。</blockquote> 2021 vs. 1994<blockquote>2021年与1994年</blockquote> The economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.<blockquote>2021年的经济与1994年有很多相同的特征。随着不利因素的消退，这两年都出现了快速增长和价格压力。2021年，强劲反弹反映了经济重新开放以及宽松货币和财政刺激的帮助。1994年反弹的催化剂来自宽松货币政策的延长以及家庭去杠杆化、企业重组和国防削减的结束。</blockquote> 2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.<blockquote>继上一年创纪录的下降之后，2021年的快速增长速度更快、范围更广。普遍估计2021年实际GDP增长率在6%至7%之间，而1994年的增长率为4%。但这两年最大的区别是通货膨胀。</blockquote> Core consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.<blockquote>2021年前五个月，核心消费者通胀率的年化增长率为5%，而通胀率在1994年达到3%的峰值。管道通货膨胀的速度是它的三倍多。中间材料的核心价格在过去一年中上涨了17%，而1994年的峰值为5%。</blockquote> The current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.<blockquote>当代政策制定者认为，产品市场的供需将在某个时候“自动修正”。这意味着，随着企业提高生产水平以满足更高水平的需求，而不会对经济造成任何干扰，管道通胀压力将消失。当然，在现实中，一两个产品市场可以重新调整。但是，考虑多种产品市场是天真的，住房和服务经济的许多部分可以同时这样做。</blockquote> Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.<blockquote>透明度和可预测性的制度僵化阻止了政策制定者结束所有人都认为不再需要的住房资产购买计划。这是实施货币政策的正确方式吗？仅仅因为政策制定者没有告诉或告知金融市场它计划缩减其资产购买计划，在完全透明之前它不能这样做。这毫无意义。一项助长不可持续的需求激增和房价上涨的政策今天是错误的，明天就会更加错误。</blockquote> In 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.<blockquote>1994年，老一代政策制定者将强劲的订单和材料价格上涨视为公司需要更多库存来保护生产计划的证据。2021年已经有企业因零部件短缺而不得不减产的例子。抑制最终需求被视为打破和缩短通胀周期性上升的必要条件。因此，1994年政策制定者连续12个月提高官方利率，将官方利率从3%提高到6%，翻了一番。官方利率的逐步上升带来了1995年的软着陆。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e215035587498373a49afd2e7a1eb321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"372\">The current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.<blockquote>目前零官方利率和资产购买的政策立场使经济走上了一条不同的道路，硬着陆的可能性要大得多美联储需要有人尽快发声，因为在快速增长和物价压力上升的背景下，创纪录的货币宽松政策不再是必要的，在此过程中，经济将走上不可持续的道路，结局将很糟糕。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nSomeone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Avoid Committing A Major Policy Error<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-22 23:11\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nSomeone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免犯下重大政策错误</blockquote> Monetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.<blockquote>2021年的货币政策正在积极推动周期性增长的快速反弹，甚至迎接通胀的上行。这与1994年老一代政策制定者面对类似周期性反弹的方式形成了鲜明对比。当时，政策制定者迅速而积极地抑制周期性扩张，特别是通胀上升。</blockquote> Someone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.<blockquote>美联储需要有人大声疾呼，以避免自己犯下重大政策错误。透明度和可预测性的制度僵化使得宽松货币政策持续的时间超过了所需的时间。与1995年老一代政策制定者在1994年面临类似情景时设计的软着陆相比，目前的做法使经济走上了硬着陆的道路。</blockquote> 2021 vs. 1994<blockquote>2021年与1994年</blockquote> The economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.<blockquote>2021年的经济与1994年有很多相同的特征。随着不利因素的消退，这两年都出现了快速增长和价格压力。2021年，强劲反弹反映了经济重新开放以及宽松货币和财政刺激的帮助。1994年反弹的催化剂来自宽松货币政策的延长以及家庭去杠杆化、企业重组和国防削减的结束。</blockquote> 2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.<blockquote>继上一年创纪录的下降之后，2021年的快速增长速度更快、范围更广。普遍估计2021年实际GDP增长率在6%至7%之间，而1994年的增长率为4%。但这两年最大的区别是通货膨胀。</blockquote> Core consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.<blockquote>2021年前五个月，核心消费者通胀率的年化增长率为5%，而通胀率在1994年达到3%的峰值。管道通货膨胀的速度是它的三倍多。中间材料的核心价格在过去一年中上涨了17%，而1994年的峰值为5%。</blockquote> The current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.<blockquote>当代政策制定者认为，产品市场的供需将在某个时候“自动修正”。这意味着，随着企业提高生产水平以满足更高水平的需求，而不会对经济造成任何干扰，管道通胀压力将消失。当然，在现实中，一两个产品市场可以重新调整。但是，考虑多种产品市场是天真的，住房和服务经济的许多部分可以同时这样做。</blockquote> Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.<blockquote>透明度和可预测性的制度僵化阻止了政策制定者结束所有人都认为不再需要的住房资产购买计划。这是实施货币政策的正确方式吗？仅仅因为政策制定者没有告诉或告知金融市场它计划缩减其资产购买计划，在完全透明之前它不能这样做。这毫无意义。一项助长不可持续的需求激增和房价上涨的政策今天是错误的，明天就会更加错误。</blockquote> In 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.<blockquote>1994年，老一代政策制定者将强劲的订单和材料价格上涨视为公司需要更多库存来保护生产计划的证据。2021年已经有企业因零部件短缺而不得不减产的例子。抑制最终需求被视为打破和缩短通胀周期性上升的必要条件。因此，1994年政策制定者连续12个月提高官方利率，将官方利率从3%提高到6%，翻了一番。官方利率的逐步上升带来了1995年的软着陆。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e215035587498373a49afd2e7a1eb321\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"372\">The current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.<blockquote>目前零官方利率和资产购买的政策立场使经济走上了一条不同的道路，硬着陆的可能性要大得多美联储需要有人尽快发声，因为在快速增长和物价压力上升的背景下，创纪录的货币宽松政策不再是必要的，在此过程中，经济将走上不可持续的道路，结局将很糟糕。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/someone-fed-needs-speak-avoid-committing-major-policy-error?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/someone-fed-needs-speak-avoid-committing-major-policy-error?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1180651681","content_text":"Someone At The Fed Needs To Speak Up To Save Itself From Committing A Major Policy Blunder\nMonetary policy in 2021 is actively promoting the fast cyclical growth bounce and even welcoming the uptick in inflation. That's in sharp contrast to how the old generation of policymakers confronted a similar cyclical bounce in 1994. Back then, policymakers worked quickly and aggressively to restrain the cyclical expansion, particularly the uptick in inflation.\nSomeone at the Fed needs to speak up to save itself from committing a major policy blunder. Institutional rigidities of transparency and predictability are keeping a policy of easy money for longer than is needed. The current approach puts the economy on a course for a hard landing compared to the soft landing the old generation of policymakers engineered in 1995 when faced with a similar scenario in 1994.\n2021 vs. 1994\nThe economy in 2021 has a lot of the same features as in 1994. Both years saw rapid growth and price pressures emerge as headwinds faded. In 2021, the strong rebound reflects the re-opening of the economy helped along with easy money and fiscal stimulus. The catalyst for the rebound in 1994 came from an extended span of easy money and the end of household deleveraging, corporate restructuring, and defense cutbacks.\n2021 rapid growth is faster and broader as it followed a record decline in the prior year. Consensus estimates put Real GDP growth in 2021 in the 6% to 7% range, whereas the increase in 1994 came in at 4%. But the big difference between the two years is inflation.\nCore consumer inflation runs at a 5% annualized rate through the first five months of 2021, whereas inflation peaked at 3% in 1994. Pipeline inflation is more than three times as fast.Core prices for intermediate materials have increased 17% in the past year versus a peak of 5% in 1994.\nThe current generation of policymakers thinks that the supply and demand in the product markets will at some point \"autocorrect.\" That implies pipeline inflation pressures will disappear as companies raise production levels to meet the higher level of demand without causing any disturbances in the economy. Of course, in reality, a single or two product markets can readjust. But, it is naive to think of multiple product markets, and housing and many parts of the service economy can do so simultaneously.\nInstitutional rigidities of transparency and predictability stop policymakers from ending the asset purchase program for housing that everyone agrees is no longer needed. Is that the proper way to conduct monetary policy? Just because policymakers did not tell or inform the financial markets it planned to curtail its asset purchase program, it cannot do so until complete transparency. That makes zero sense.A policy that fuels an unsustainable surge in demand and a rise in house prices that is wrong today will be even more so tomorrow.\nIn 1994, the old generation of policymakers saw strong ordering and material price increases as evidence that companies needed more inventories to protect production schedules. There have already been examples in 2021 in which companies had to curtail production because of a shortage of parts. Subduing final demand was seen as a necessary condition to break and shorten the cyclical uptick in inflation. Thus, in 1994 policymakers lifted official rates for twelve consecutive months, doubling official rates from 3% to 6%. That ratcheting up of official rates brought about a soft landing in 1995.\nThe current policy stance of zero official rates and asset purchases puts the economy on a different course, with a hard landing a much likelier outcome. Someone at the Fed needs to speak up soon as record monetary accommodation is no longer necessary against a backdrop of fast growth and rising price pressure and, in the process, puts the economy on an unsustainable course that will end badly.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3091,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}