關注社會:新一輪QE離我們有多遠?

The Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve is no longer expected to announce a further round of monetary easing when it concludes its two-day meeting in Washington next week. The fact that the hawks have lost enthusiasm for more quantitative easing is scarcely surprising, given the fall in unemployment, and the stickiness of inflation.

美聯儲公開市場委員會(FOMC)本週將在華盛頓召開爲期兩天的會議，人們不再預計FOMC將在會議結束時公佈新一輪的貨幣寬鬆舉措。鑑於失業率的下滑以及通脹粘性，鷹派人物對出臺更多定量寬鬆政策(QE)失去熱情的事實已在人們的意料之中。

But until very recently the hawks have not been in control of the committee. What is more surprising is that the powerful group of doves, which includes Ben Bernanke, Bill Dudley and Janet Yellen, and which normally has disproportionate weight on the FOMC, has also taken QE off the agenda .

但直到最近，鷹派纔在FOMC中佔據了上風。令人更感意外的是，強大的鴿派陣營同樣也將QE從議程上撤了下來。包括本•伯南克(Ben Bernanke)、比爾•達德利(Bill Dudley)和珍妮特•耶倫(Janet Yellen)在內的鴿派往往能夠對FOMC產生非同一般的影響。

So is that the end of QE? Not necessarily. The doves seem to have changed their policy conclusion without changing their basic view of the economy. In recent speeches, they have all repeated that the current unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent will remain two to three percentage points above the level consistent with the Fed’s mandate for some time. This judgment depends on their interpretation of the work of three distinguished economists: Arthur Okun (1928-80), William Beveridge (1879-1963) and John Taylor (who is still alive and kicking at Stanford University).

QE這樣就算壽終正寢了嗎？未必如此。鴿派雖然改變了他們的政策意見，但他們對於經濟的基本看法卻似乎仍和往常一樣。他們在近日的講話中無一例外地重申，目前8.2%的失業率仍比美聯儲達到使命所應具有的水平高出二至三個百分點。這一論斷是依據他們對三位傑出經濟學家的成果所進行的解讀。這三人分別是：阿瑟•奧肯（Arthur Okun，1928-80年）、威廉•貝弗裏奇（William Beveridge，1879-1963年）和約翰•泰勒（John Taylor，目前在斯坦福大學任教）。

First, Okun’s Law. This describes the relationship between real gross domestic product growth and unemployment, which is reasonably stable over long periods. This stability broke down last year, with unemployment falling much more than it “should” have done, given the reported growth of real GDP. One possible, hawkish, interpretation could be that real GDP growth has been underestimated. But the doves argue that the unexpected drop in unemployment was just a reversal of the abnormally large shake-out of labour by employers in 2009. If this is correct, then unemployment will stop falling soon, unless GDP growth picks up significantly.

先來看看奧肯定律。它描述了實際國內生產總值(GDP)增速與失業率之間的關係，這種關係從長期來看具有相當的穩定性。而這種穩定在去年被打破，相對於官方公佈的實際GDP增速而言，失業率的下滑程度大大超過了它“應該”下滑的程度。鷹派可能給出的一種解釋是，實際GDP增速被低估了。而鴿派則認爲，失業率的意外下滑只不過是對用工者2009年瘋狂裁員的一次逆轉。如果的確如此，那麼除非GDP增速大幅提高，否則，失業率很快便會停止下滑。

Second, the Beveridge Curve. This describes the normally inverse relationship between unemployment and unfilled vacancies in the labour market. Higher vacancies should imply lower unemployment but in the past three years there has been a much larger rise in vacancies than would have been implied by the level of unemployment. The hawkish interpretation of this rise in unfilled jobs is that there is a mismatch between the skills and location of the unemployed, compared with the nature of the new jobs being created in the economy. If so, structural unemployment has risen, leaving less scope for monetary accommodation.

再來看貝弗裏奇曲線。它描述了失業率與勞動力市場上的空缺職位通常成反比的關係。空缺職位增加意味着失業率應該會下滑，但過去三年中，空缺職位增加的數量遠遠超過了根據失業率水平所應推導出的數量。對於空缺職位的增加，鷹派給出的解釋是，經濟活動會創造出新的就業機會，而與這類崗位的性質相比，失業人羣的技能與所在地區之間存在着某種錯位。若果真如此，結構性失業已經增加，如此一來，運用貨幣寬鬆政策的空間將受到擠壓。

But the doves argue that this is not the case, saying instead that the Beveridge Curve has broken down for temporary reasons. These include the extension in the maximum duration of unemployment benefits and delays between the rise in vacancies and the subsequent decline in unemployment. For these reasons, the doves conclude that the level of structural unemployment has not risen.

但鴿派人士指出，事實並非如此，貝弗裏奇曲線只是因爲某些暫時性的原因才失效。這些因素包括政府延長了領取失業救濟金的最長期限，以及空缺職位增加與隨之出現的失業率下降之間存在着滯後現象。出於這些原因，鴿派得出結論：結構性失業率並未上升。

Third, the Taylor Rule. This describes the “appropriate” path for short-term interest rates, given the behaviour of inflation and unemployment, which are the subjects of the Fed’s twin mandates. According to Janet Yellen’s speech on April 11 in New York, John Taylor proposed two versions of his famous “rule”, one in 1993 and the second in 1999. The latter includes a larger role for unemployment in determining the appropriate short rate, while the former gives a bigger role to inflation.

最後我們再來看看泰勒規則。它描述了在不同的通脹和失業率（美聯儲雙重使命的對象）環境下，短期利率所應遵循的“適當”走勢。根據珍妮特•耶倫4月11日在紐約發表的講話，約翰•泰勒提出的衆所周知的“泰勒規則” 其實有兩個版本，分別於1993年和1999年時提出。在後一個版本中，泰勒認爲制定適宜的短期利率時，應更多地考慮失業率，而前一個版本則認爲通脹應該受到更多的重視。

Ms Yellen prefers the 1999 rule, which has more dovish implications when unemployment is high, as it is today. She calculates that, on this version of the rule, short rates should stay at zero until the end of 2014, as implied in the Fed’s latest policy announcements. She also reckons that monetary policy has been too tight since 2008, because quantitative easing has not been powerful enough to allow for the fact that short rates could not be reduced below zero. In compensation for this, she argues that monetary policy should be kept easier for longer than the 1999 Taylor Rule implies.

耶倫更認同1999年的版本，當失業率高企時（就像今天這樣），它更具有鴿派的意味。耶倫推斷，按照1999年版的泰勒規則，到2014年底之前，短期利率應該一直維持在零區間，這正是美聯儲在最新的政策聲明中所闡述的觀點。她還認爲，自2008年之後採取的貨幣政策過於緊縮，因爲定量寬鬆的力度不夠，未能考慮到短期利率不可能爲負的情況。作爲補救措施，她認爲寬鬆貨幣政策保持的時間應該比1999年版泰勒規則所要求的更長。

John Taylor has denied Ms Yellen’s claim that he ever proposed the 1999 version of his rule, saying that it was an idea that emerged from the Fed itself. And anyway he strongly prefers the 1993 version, which has the hawkish implication that short rates should already be positive and should certainly be rising by 2013. But the doves see things differently.

約翰•泰勒否認了耶倫的說法，稱他從未提出過所謂1999年版的泰勒規則，這只是美聯儲自身的想法。他極力支持1993年的版本。該版本的觀點帶有鷹派色彩，認爲短期利率應該爲正，且在2013年以前必須保持升勢。而鴿派人士卻有着不同的看法。

Given the doves’ determination to interpret these key issues in the direction of highly accommodative policy, it is hard to explain why they have shelved their desire to introduce another bout of QE. To judge from their underlying economic rationale, they are probably just biding their time while inflation is somewhat above target, and will seek to bring easing back on the agenda as soon as they can.

鑑於鴿派一心想沿着極度寬鬆的方向去解讀這些關鍵性問題，因此，很難理解他們爲何會擱置推出新一輪QE的想法。從他們的根本經濟主張來看，在通脹水平略高於目標的情況下，他們或許只是在等待時機，一旦時機成熟，他們會盡快將寬鬆政策重新提上議事日程。

Gavyn Davies is co-founder of Fulcrum Asset Management and Prisma Capital Partners, and writes a regular blog on macroeconomics at

本文作者是Fulcrum資產管理公司和Prisma Capital Partners的創始人之一，定期在上撰寫有關宏觀經濟的博客。譯者:薛磊