Good-To The Moon - Tiger Brokers Online Investing Community

1
Comment
Favorite

DavidChung
2021-07-27

Good

What happened to the Fed? Is there inflation or not?

最近在思考一个问题，外部在通胀，价格持续上涨，为什么美联储就是不承认通胀呢？一直说是暂时的，而且，最近一直关注劳动力市场，也一直在推迟政策转向找各种理由，所说的进一步迹象也没有答案。最近看了几本书，《

What happened to the Fed? Is there inflation or not?

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment

Top
Latest

No comments yet

Most Discussed

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":809694530,"tweetId":"809694530","gmtCreate":1627363515020,"gmtModify":1703488423831,"author":{"id":4088510584208570,"idStr":"4088510584208570","authorId":4088510584208570,"authorIdStr":"4088510584208570","name":"DavidChung","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1790a1450aa7bdec104690967e1c814f","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>Good</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Good</body></html>","text":"Good","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/809694530","repostId":2154602599,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2154602599","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1627363025,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2154602599?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-07-27 13:17","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"What happened to the Fed? Is there inflation or not?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2154602599","media":"格隆汇","summary":"最近在思考一个问题，外部在通胀，价格持续上涨，为什么美联储就是不承认通胀呢？一直说是暂时的，而且，最近一直关注劳动力市场，也一直在推迟政策转向找各种理由，所说的进一步迹象也没有答案。最近看了几本书，《","content":"Recently, I have been thinking about a question. External inflation is occurring and prices continue to rise. Why does the Federal Reserve just not recognize inflation? It has been said that it is temporary. Moreover, recently, it has been paying attention to the labor market, and it has been delaying the policy shift to find various reasons. There is no answer to the further signs mentioned. Recently, I have read several books, \"Return on Capital\", \"Principles of Money and Credit\", and \"Human Behavior\". I have some inspiration. Let's record it.Economic crisis is like a cycle, which is basically inevitable. Under the cycle, it is repeated constantly. However, the U.S. government has not effectively predicted the crisis or adopted effective policies to identify it.What is the reason for this?The economic prosperity brought about by credit expansion will eventually collapse. This is the view of the Austrian school of economics. If the debt crisis is avoided, we can only give up the debt expansion or use the stimulus of monetary policy to make the crisis come later, and eventually a bigger crisis will break out.Finally, the Great Depression proved this view.Economic stimulus and downward interest rates will form a larger valuation premium for assets with better liquidity. This is a simplistic logic.Therefore, the spread between U.S. 10-year bonds and 1-year bonds can intuitively calculate the accuracy of the economic crisis:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/402b576b3c1c9b3ba8531861c0fc5afe\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"531\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Then why didn't the central bank, which clearly knew the result, take a good defense? From academic argumentation and practical operation, if the central bank has this ability, maybe we haven't seen any changes made by the central bank. Before the economic crisis broke out in 1929, Hoover always said that there was no problem with the economy. Including before 1990 and before the Great Recession in Japan, there were similar remarks.In 2008, after further credit expansion stimulated the economy, the debt growth of the United States actually grew faster. And why do central banks do this?Considering the huge destructive power of market sentiment after the co-shock on asset prices. If the central bank objectively states the facts and risks, the asset price fluctuations caused by it may be unwilling to bear by the government. At the same time, it is also related to one's own future, which is applicable to any country. And the market is more willing to listen to positive remarks. This is in line with the inner expectations of investors, and this is human nature. Even if the price is maintained with a very weak probability, it will be executed without hesitation.So, is the market rational? Not necessarily. The so-called rationality should be based on certain information, and even artificially created certain information is possible.If this time, the Federal Reserve says that inflation is long-term and the government wants to tighten, how should this new high index be adjusted? Maybe from a global perspective, it is not a better choice. If the central bank shows certain confidence in this uncertainty of the economy, then the popularity of the market will inevitably be higher. Therefore, this reverse incentive will make officials speak contrary to the facts.Contemporary economists discuss economic problems, use a lot of mathematics and formulas, and use numbers to prove facts, which can't be questioned.From the results of past academic arguments, the central bank's prediction of the crisis has never been correct. In order to compete with it, the central bank will inevitably introduce theories to demonstrate that its judgment is correct. Or in line with policy logic. For example, further signs, such as market factors in labor countries. To support the logic of the policy.These methods also include models, mathematics, authorities, scenario analysis, and stress testing. The same calculation has reached the opposite conclusion. Then who is correct?Perhaps these proofs, the central bank itself thinks are scientific.The Austrian school of economics has another point of view:When injecting liquidity into the process of economic operation, it will first cause inflation on the asset side. In the initial stage of inflation, the price of consumer goods may fall, because funds will concentrate in certain assets, causing prices to rise and then withdraw. At this time, inflation cannot be seen. Consumer goods did not rise, but industrial products rose, and real estate stocks and bonds rose.As prices get higher and higher, some price depressions will gradually fill up. After that, it will make the price of consumer goods rise.When the price of consumer goods is rising, it may cause the price of other assets to pull back. If the central bank doesn't notice that after the injection of liquidity, these invisible inflation, the asset bubble caused by inflation concentrated in the market, it is likely that the real interest rate is lower than the natural interest rate. By the time the central bank responded to consumer goods, it was too late.So can central banks see it? I think it can be seen that the central bank's response to inflation is too late, which may be based on the discussion and hesitation period of policy pros and cons.Back to the present, U.S. inflation exceeded expectations in June, reaching a 13-year high. Inflation expectations continue to strengthen. The core CPI hit a 20-year high, and the PPI also reached 7.3%. However, the Fed still believes that this is only temporary.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/97940456ed81feecba7a8676f5e7010c\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"478\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Why is this?As a global policy central bank, it guides global expectations, and consensus expectations will make asset prices higher and higher. As asset prices continue to hit new highs, the vulnerability is getting stronger and stronger, and the slightest disturbance will cause shocks.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4a04217e1d9fdb32c05a8656f397171a\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"461\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">In this case, as long as a few people turn around and short, it may lead to a price turn. If the bulls follow up, the final result will be the bursting of the bubble, causing a crisis.Of course, if the bubble of asset prices in the early stage blows bigger, the higher the degree of correction will be, and the greater the damage contained in it. Look at the current main asset prices:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/38acee39105389299807c86e25bc7edc\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"624\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">House price:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1bacce7fe96d81af007de1abfc7169e2\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"537\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Commodities:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/49a7e99789ee50296f251f90fe50a9ec\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">At this time, if the policy suddenly turns at this time, that is, it begins to tighten, then the prices of these assets may explode.So, if you tighten it now, then it's basically over.If there is no tightening, asset prices will continue to hit new highs. Without substantial reforms in production relations, economic efficiency will remain low, and asset prices will become higher and higher. After reaching a certain level, it will be found that consumer goods have price depressions, and overvalued assets will be sold and low-priced consumer goods will be bought. Then the price of overvalued assets will also collapse.Therefore, in the case of a dilemma, monetary policy can only hold on. By disturbing expectations, to maintain the fragile balance of the economy.When Powell spoke, the market's first question was that inflation exceeded expectations, and he did not respond. Ye Nai talked about the risk of high inflation before, but later he changed his mind, saying that it was temporary.They expressed their expectations for the economy in obscure language, such as the anchoring effect of inflation and supply-side constraints.In short, the policy is not in a hurry to turn.Therefore, after the interest rate rose in the first quarter, it began to continue to decline, and now it is maintaining a downward trend.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5197b8bce798425385d994ae4576f787\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"490\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">All inflation is monetary phenomenon.While controlling inflation, we must maintain asset prices. Therefore, when the price rises to a certain extent, it will fall. Capital itself is profit-seeking. If the asset price appreciation is less, then the capital will change a place.At present, inflation may be curbed based on insufficient demand, but the U.S. stock market has risen in recent years. Have you considered the fundamentals? The actual demand has not been considered, as has the rise in house prices, which in itself is the result of excessive currency issuance.If monetary policy shifts now, then demand will be stimulated? This one is even more ridiculous. Therefore, as long as assets can't rise, excess money will push up prices. Because more money is the most essential reason.Moreover, this wave of high prices cannot be maintained, and the United States is bound to recover liquidity, eventually bursting the bubble. Then as the central bank of the world, other countries cannot be immune.Printing money is not sustainable. So the mouth gun now is to stabilize expectations.At present, it is only a small score problem, which is only the tip of the iceberg.","source":"gelonghui_highlight","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>What happened to the Fed? Is there inflation or not?</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\">\nWhat happened to the Fed? Is there inflation or not?\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n格隆汇2021-07-27 13:17\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nRecently, I have been thinking about a question. External inflation is occurring and prices continue to rise. Why does the Federal Reserve just not recognize inflation? It has been said that it is temporary. Moreover, recently, it has been paying attention to the labor market, and it has been delaying the policy shift to find various reasons. There is no answer to the further signs mentioned. Recently, I have read several books, \"Return on Capital\", \"Principles of Money and Credit\", and \"Human Behavior\". I have some inspiration. Let's record it.Economic crisis is like a cycle, which is basically inevitable. Under the cycle, it is repeated constantly. However, the U.S. government has not effectively predicted the crisis or adopted effective policies to identify it.What is the reason for this?The economic prosperity brought about by credit expansion will eventually collapse. This is the view of the Austrian school of economics. If the debt crisis is avoided, we can only give up the debt expansion or use the stimulus of monetary policy to make the crisis come later, and eventually a bigger crisis will break out.Finally, the Great Depression proved this view.Economic stimulus and downward interest rates will form a larger valuation premium for assets with better liquidity. This is a simplistic logic.Therefore, the spread between U.S. 10-year bonds and 1-year bonds can intuitively calculate the accuracy of the economic crisis:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/402b576b3c1c9b3ba8531861c0fc5afe\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"531\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Then why didn't the central bank, which clearly knew the result, take a good defense? From academic argumentation and practical operation, if the central bank has this ability, maybe we haven't seen any changes made by the central bank. Before the economic crisis broke out in 1929, Hoover always said that there was no problem with the economy. Including before 1990 and before the Great Recession in Japan, there were similar remarks.In 2008, after further credit expansion stimulated the economy, the debt growth of the United States actually grew faster. And why do central banks do this?Considering the huge destructive power of market sentiment after the co-shock on asset prices. If the central bank objectively states the facts and risks, the asset price fluctuations caused by it may be unwilling to bear by the government. At the same time, it is also related to one's own future, which is applicable to any country. And the market is more willing to listen to positive remarks. This is in line with the inner expectations of investors, and this is human nature. Even if the price is maintained with a very weak probability, it will be executed without hesitation.So, is the market rational? Not necessarily. The so-called rationality should be based on certain information, and even artificially created certain information is possible.If this time, the Federal Reserve says that inflation is long-term and the government wants to tighten, how should this new high index be adjusted? Maybe from a global perspective, it is not a better choice. If the central bank shows certain confidence in this uncertainty of the economy, then the popularity of the market will inevitably be higher. Therefore, this reverse incentive will make officials speak contrary to the facts.Contemporary economists discuss economic problems, use a lot of mathematics and formulas, and use numbers to prove facts, which can't be questioned.From the results of past academic arguments, the central bank's prediction of the crisis has never been correct. In order to compete with it, the central bank will inevitably introduce theories to demonstrate that its judgment is correct. Or in line with policy logic. For example, further signs, such as market factors in labor countries. To support the logic of the policy.These methods also include models, mathematics, authorities, scenario analysis, and stress testing. The same calculation has reached the opposite conclusion. Then who is correct?Perhaps these proofs, the central bank itself thinks are scientific.The Austrian school of economics has another point of view:When injecting liquidity into the process of economic operation, it will first cause inflation on the asset side. In the initial stage of inflation, the price of consumer goods may fall, because funds will concentrate in certain assets, causing prices to rise and then withdraw. At this time, inflation cannot be seen. Consumer goods did not rise, but industrial products rose, and real estate stocks and bonds rose.As prices get higher and higher, some price depressions will gradually fill up. After that, it will make the price of consumer goods rise.When the price of consumer goods is rising, it may cause the price of other assets to pull back. If the central bank doesn't notice that after the injection of liquidity, these invisible inflation, the asset bubble caused by inflation concentrated in the market, it is likely that the real interest rate is lower than the natural interest rate. By the time the central bank responded to consumer goods, it was too late.So can central banks see it? I think it can be seen that the central bank's response to inflation is too late, which may be based on the discussion and hesitation period of policy pros and cons.Back to the present, U.S. inflation exceeded expectations in June, reaching a 13-year high. Inflation expectations continue to strengthen. The core CPI hit a 20-year high, and the PPI also reached 7.3%. However, the Fed still believes that this is only temporary.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/97940456ed81feecba7a8676f5e7010c\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"478\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Why is this?As a global policy central bank, it guides global expectations, and consensus expectations will make asset prices higher and higher. As asset prices continue to hit new highs, the vulnerability is getting stronger and stronger, and the slightest disturbance will cause shocks.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4a04217e1d9fdb32c05a8656f397171a\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"461\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">In this case, as long as a few people turn around and short, it may lead to a price turn. If the bulls follow up, the final result will be the bursting of the bubble, causing a crisis.Of course, if the bubble of asset prices in the early stage blows bigger, the higher the degree of correction will be, and the greater the damage contained in it. Look at the current main asset prices:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/38acee39105389299807c86e25bc7edc\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"624\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">House price:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1bacce7fe96d81af007de1abfc7169e2\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"537\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">Commodities:<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/49a7e99789ee50296f251f90fe50a9ec\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"515\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">At this time, if the policy suddenly turns at this time, that is, it begins to tighten, then the prices of these assets may explode.So, if you tighten it now, then it's basically over.If there is no tightening, asset prices will continue to hit new highs. Without substantial reforms in production relations, economic efficiency will remain low, and asset prices will become higher and higher. After reaching a certain level, it will be found that consumer goods have price depressions, and overvalued assets will be sold and low-priced consumer goods will be bought. Then the price of overvalued assets will also collapse.Therefore, in the case of a dilemma, monetary policy can only hold on. By disturbing expectations, to maintain the fragile balance of the economy.When Powell spoke, the market's first question was that inflation exceeded expectations, and he did not respond. Ye Nai talked about the risk of high inflation before, but later he changed his mind, saying that it was temporary.They expressed their expectations for the economy in obscure language, such as the anchoring effect of inflation and supply-side constraints.In short, the policy is not in a hurry to turn.Therefore, after the interest rate rose in the first quarter, it began to continue to decline, and now it is maintaining a downward trend.<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5197b8bce798425385d994ae4576f787\" tg-width=\"1080\" tg-height=\"490\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">All inflation is monetary phenomenon.While controlling inflation, we must maintain asset prices. Therefore, when the price rises to a certain extent, it will fall. Capital itself is profit-seeking. If the asset price appreciation is less, then the capital will change a place.At present, inflation may be curbed based on insufficient demand, but the U.S. stock market has risen in recent years. Have you considered the fundamentals? The actual demand has not been considered, as has the rise in house prices, which in itself is the result of excessive currency issuance.If monetary policy shifts now, then demand will be stimulated? This one is even more ridiculous. Therefore, as long as assets can't rise, excess money will push up prices. Because more money is the most essential reason.Moreover, this wave of high prices cannot be maintained, and the United States is bound to recover liquidity, eventually bursting the bubble. Then as the central bank of the world, other countries cannot be immune.Printing money is not sustainable. So the mouth gun now is to stabilize expectations.At present, it is only a small score problem, which is only the tip of the iceberg.\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n source：<a href=\"http://www.gelonghui.com/p/477601\">格隆汇</a>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/85a8b00918342fa05f981d941cbe303d","relate_stocks":{"161125":"标普500","513500":"标普500ETF","DXD":"两倍做空道琼30指数ETF-ProShares","SPXU":"三倍做空标普500ETF-ProShares",".DJI":"道琼斯","DOG":"道指ETF-ProShares做空","SH":"做空标普500-Proshares",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","PSQ":"做空纳斯达克100指数ETF-ProShares","SSO":"2倍做多标普500ETF-ProShares","QQQ":"纳指100ETF","IVV":"标普500ETF-iShares","TQQQ":"纳指三倍做多ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF","SDOW":"三倍做空道指30ETF-ProShares","QLD":"2倍做多纳斯达克100指数ETF-ProShares","SDS":"两倍做空标普500 ETF-ProShares","DJX":"1/100道琼斯","OEX":"标普100","UDOW":"三倍做多道指30ETF-ProShares","SQQQ":"纳指三倍做空ETF","UPRO":"三倍做多标普500ETF-ProShares","QID":"两倍做空纳斯达克指数ETF-ProShares","OEF":"标普100指数ETF-iShares","DDM":"2倍做多道指ETF-ProShares"},"source_url":"http://www.gelonghui.com/p/477601","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/6b8fa6424aebe95f6781d04ef17a1852","article_id":"2154602599","content_text":"最近在思考一个问题，外部在通胀，价格持续上涨，为什么美联储就是不承认通胀呢？一直说是暂时的，而且，最近一直关注劳动力市场，也一直在推迟政策转向找各种理由，所说的进一步迹象也没有答案。最近看了几本书，《资本回报》、《货币与信用原理》、《人的行为》，有一些启发，记录一下。\n经济危机像是周期一样，基本是必然的，在周期下，不断的重复。而美国政府并没有为危机进行了有效的预测或者采取有效的政策来识别。\n这是什么原因呢？\n信用扩张带来的经济繁荣，最终会实现崩溃，这是奥地利经济学派的观点，如果避免债务危机，那么就只能放弃债务的扩张或者使用货币政策的刺激让危机晚点到来，最终爆发更大的危机。\n最终大萧条应证了这样的观点。\n经济的刺激，利率下行，对于流动性较好的资产，就会形成较大的估值溢价，这是一个简单化的逻辑。\n所以， 美国10年债与1年的利差就可以很直观地统计了经济危机的准确性：\n\n那明明知道结果的央行为什么没有做好防御呢？从学术的论证加上实践的操作，央行有这个能力的，可能我们并没看到央行做出的任何改变。在1929年经济危机爆发前，胡佛也一直说经济没有问题。包括1990年前，日本大衰退前也有这种类似的言论。\n在2008年，进一步的信用扩张，刺激经济之后，美国的债务增长其实更快的。而央行为什么要这么做呢？\n考虑到市场情绪对资产价格共震之后，产生的巨大破坏力。如果央行客观陈述了事实与风险之后，引发的资产价格波动，可能是政府不愿承受的。同时也关系到了自身的前途，这点，放在任何国家都是适用的。而市场更多的愿意倾听积极的言论。这符合投资者内心的期待，这就是人性。哪怕以极微弱的概率去维持价格，那也会义无反顾地执行。\n所以，市场是理性的吗？也并不见得。所谓的理性，要建立在确定的信息之上，而哪怕是人为制造出来的确定信息也是可以的。\n如果这次，美联储说通胀是长期的，政府要进行紧缩，这个创新高的指数，该如何调整？可能从全局的角度看，并不是更好的选择。如果央行表现出对经济这种不确性而营造出确定的自信，那么市场的欢迎程度必然更高，所以，这种反向的激励，会使官员说出违背事实的言论。\n当代的经济学家去论述经济学问题，运用大量的数学和公式，用数字去证明事实，且不容质疑。\n从过去学术论证的结果看，央行对于危机的预测从未正确过。为了与之博弈，央行必然会引出理论去论证自己的判断是正确的。或者符合政策逻辑的。比如进一步迹象，比如劳动国市场要素。去支持政策的逻辑。\n这些手段也包括了模型，数学，权威人士、情景分析，压力测试。而同样的测算却得出了相反的结论。那谁是正确的呢？\n可能这些证明，央行自身也觉得是科学。\n奥地利经济学派还有一个观点：\n当向经济运行的过程中，注入流动性，首先使资产端产生通货膨胀，在通胀初始阶段，消费品的价格可能下跌，因为资金会集中进入某些资产，引起价格上涨之后回抽。这时候，通胀是看不出来的。消费品不涨，但工业品涨，房股债涨。\n随着价格越来越高，一些价格洼地也会逐渐的填满。之后，会使消费品价格上涨。\n当消费品价格在上涨时，可能会使其他资产价格出现回调。如果央行没有注意到注入流动性之后，这些看不见的通胀，集中在市场上的通胀产生的资产泡沫，很可能，实际利率低于自然利率的情况出现了。到央行对消费品做出反应时，已经太迟了。\n那么央行能看到吗？我觉得是可以看得见的，央行对于通胀做出的反应太迟，可能基于政策利弊的讨论及犹豫期。\n回到当下，6月美国通胀超预期，13年新高，通胀预期不断在走强，核心CPI创20年新高，PPI也达到了7.3%，但联储仍然认为这只是暂时的。\n\n这是为何？\n作为全球的政策的央行，引导着全球的预期，而一致的预期，将使资产的价格越走越高。而在不断创新高的资产价格，脆弱性越来越强，稍微一点风吹草动，就会引起震荡。\n\n这种情况，只要少数人调头做空，那么可能导致价格的转向，如果引起其多头的跟进，那么最终的结果就是泡沫的破灭，引起危机。\n当然，如果前期资产价格的泡沫吹的越大，这种回调程度就越高，这里面蕴含的破坏就越大，看看现在的主要资产价格：\n\n房价：\n\n大宗商品：\n\n这时候，如果这时候，政策突然转向，也就是开始走向紧缩，那么这些资产价格可能就炸了。\n所以，如果现在收紧，那么基本就是玩完了。\n那如果没有紧缩，资产价格会不断的创新高，生产关系没有大幅度改革的情况下，经济效率维持低位，资产的价格会越来越高，而高到一个程度之后，会发现消费品有价格洼地，就会卖出高估的资产，买入低价消费品。那么高估的资产，价格也会崩溃。\n所以，在进退两难的情况下，货币政策只能硬撑。通过干扰预期，去维持经济的脆弱平衡。\n当鲍威尔讲话时，市场第一个问就是通胀超预期了，他并未进行回应。之前耶奶说了一下高通胀的风险，结果后面也改口了，说是暂时的。\n他们用晦涩难懂的语言表达了对经济的预期，比如通胀锚定效应，还有就是供给侧的约束。\n总之，政策并不着急转向。\n所以，利率在一季度走高之后，开始持续的下行，现在也维持在下行的趋势。\n\n一切通胀都是货币现象。\n一边要控制通胀，一边要维持资产的价格。所以，价格上涨到一定程度，就会是下跌。资本本身就是逐利的，如果资产价格增值越少，那么资本就会换一个地方。\n当前基于需求不足可能会抑制通胀，但这几年的美国股市上涨，有考虑过基本面吗？也没有考虑过实际需求，房价上涨也是，这本身就是货币超发的结果。\n如果现在货币政策转向，那么需求就会刺激出来了？这个就更扯了。所以，只要资产涨不动了，货币的超量就会去推高价格。因为钱多就是最本质的原因。\n而且这波的高价维持不住，美国势必要收回流动性，最终泡沫的破灭。那么作为全球的央行，其他国家不可能独善其身。\n印钱不可持续。所以现在打的嘴炮也就是稳住预期。\n当前只是显示一部小分问题，那只是冰山一角。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"161125":0.9,"513500":0.9,"ESmain":0.9,"SDS":0.9,"DOG":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"MNQmain":0.9,"SPXU":0.9,"SQQQ":0.9,"UPRO":0.9,"SH":0.9,"IVV":0.9,"SPY":0.9,"OEX":0.9,"QLD":0.9,"PSQ":0.9,"DDM":0.9,"OEF":0.9,"NQmain":0.9,"DXD":0.9,"TQQQ":0.9,"SSO":0.9,".DJI":0.9,"QQQ":0.9,"QID":0.9,"DJX":0.9,"SDOW":0.9,"UDOW":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1651,"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}