如果特朗普大火鮑威爾，加密貨幣會怎樣？

最近幾個月，某種模式的潮起潮落：美國總統唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）將採取一些客觀上的有害行動

Recent months have seen the ebb and flow of a certain pattern: US President Donald Trump will take some objectively harmful action to the US economy, and the markets will crash. Seeing this, Trump has turned to Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, and now demands he lower the Fed Funds Rate — the rate at which the Fed lends money to banks — in order to stimulate the economy. And the steely-eyed Powell will say “No.”

最近幾個月來，某種模式的起伏和流動：美國總統唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）將對美國經濟採取一些客觀上的有害行動，市場將崩潰。看到這一點，特朗普轉向美聯儲主席杰羅姆·鮑威爾（Jerome Powell），現在要求他降低美聯儲資金利率（美聯儲向銀行借錢的速度），以刺激經濟。鮑威爾（Powell）的鋼鐵般的鮑威爾（Powell）將說“不”。

This is because Trump wants to lower rates, as doing so is an effective cash injection into the United States economy, stimulating activity and lifting the market. This, he feels, will make him appear successful. Powell, on the other hand, wants to follow rigorous economic standards to setting rates to carefully balance the Fed’s dual mandates of maximizing employment and maintaining stable prices.

這是因為特朗普想降低利率，因為這樣做是對美國經濟的有效現金注入，刺激活動並提升市場。他認為，這將使他顯得成功。另一方面，鮑威爾（Powell）希望遵循嚴格的經濟標準來設定費率，以仔細平衡美聯儲最大化就業和維持穩定價格的雙重任務。

He also wants to maintain the Fed’s independence from political pressure and, crucially, maintain the Fed’s *appearance* of independence from political pressure. If the markets believe that the central bank’s independence has failed in the US, it may become more difficult to sell US Treasury Bills, the United States’ sovereign debt. That is a problem in the fundamental sense that the US will have to pay more to borrow money, making it poorer — but it is an especially acute problem now because the US already has an enormous, $30-trillion pile of debt which it has to periodically refinance.

他還希望維持美聯儲遠離政治壓力的獨立性，並至關重要的是，保持美聯儲與政治壓力的獨立。如果市場認為中央銀行的獨立性在美國失敗了，那麼出售美國國庫賬單，美國主權債務可能會變得越來越困難。從基本意義上講，這是一個問題，即美國將不得不花更多的錢來借錢，這使它變得貧窮 - 但這是一個特別嚴重的問題，因為美國已經有一筆巨大的300萬美元的債務，必須定期再融資。

If it is forced to refinance at higher rates because markets do not trust the US government anymore, then an ever greater percentage of GDP will be absorbed by the cost of interest, and, as the kids say, the United States will be *cooked.*

如果由於市場不再信任美國政府而被迫以較高的利率再融資，那麼GDP的比例將會被利率成本所吸收，並且正如孩子們所說的那樣，美國將被 *烹飪。

That dance takes us to now. Last week, Trump repeatedly intimated that he would like to fire Powell, and the market didn’t like it. On Monday, Trump provoked a crash by calling Powell a “major loser” on Truth Social. In response, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly voiced concerns with the risks of firing Powell to Trump, who seems, for now, to have acquiesced, stating Tuesday that he would not fire his Fed chair.

那個舞帶我們到現在。上週，特朗普一再暗示他想解僱鮑威爾，市場不喜歡它。週一，特朗​​普稱鮑威爾為真相社會的“重大失敗者”，引起了崩潰。作為回應，據報導，財政部長斯科特·貝森特（Scott Bessent）表示擔心向特朗普解僱鮑威爾的風險，特朗普目前似乎已經默認，並指出他不會解僱他的美聯儲主席。

Still, this process feels more like a spiral than anything else, and many market watchers are waiting for the next shoe to drop. That forces the question: if Trump does go through with his base instincts and axes Powell, what will be the result? In particular, what effect will this have on the cryptocurrency industry?

儘管如此，這個過程比其他任何事情都更像是螺旋形，許多市場觀察家都在等待下一鞋掉下來。這迫使問題：如果特朗普確實與鮑威爾的基本本能和斧頭結束，那將是什麼結果？特別是，這將對加密貨幣行業產生什麼影響？

Cracking the Fed

破解美聯儲

It bears mentioning that the President is not supposed to be able to fire the Fed chair at will. Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that “each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President.”

它提到總統不應該隨意解僱美聯儲主席。 1913年《聯邦儲備法》第10條規定：“除非總統暫時撤職，否則每個成員應在其前任任期到期後任期14年任期。”

This language may appear ambiguous, but in the 1935 case Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not give the President an “illimitable power of removal” and so the President’s removal power is limited by statutory language.

這種語言可能看起來很模棱兩可，但是在1935年漢弗萊案的執行人訴美國訴美國案中，最高法院裁定，憲法沒有給總統“撤職無能為力”，因此總統的罷免權受到法定語言的限制。

This decision ratified the concept of “independent agencies,” which reside within the executive branch, but have independent authority. While a number of agencies have this characteristic, including the SEC, the CFTC, and the FTC, the Fed is the most important.

該決定批准了位於行政部門內的“獨立機構”的概念，但具有獨立的權威。儘管許多機構具有此特徵，包括SEC，CFTC和FTC，但美聯儲是最重要的。

Economists do not think much about the political control of central banks. Politicians have relatively short-term incentives, thinking in years or election cycles. This inherently pushes them to prefer short-termist policies, of which hot cash injections are the purest form. However, fiscal and monetary policy are delicate arts that often animate painful policy choices.

經濟學家對中央銀行的政治控制並不多。政客在多年或選舉週期中具有相對短期的激勵措施。這固有地促使他們更喜歡短期政策，其中熱現金注射是最純粹的形式。但是，財政和貨幣政策是精緻的藝術，通常可以使痛苦的政策選擇動畫。

In a classic example, Richard Nixon pressured then-Fed chair Arthur Burns to pursue expansionary monetary policy in the lead up to the 1972 election, believing that it would help his reelection odds. Nixon won that election in a landslide, but soon followed catastrophic “stagflation” that crippled the United States economy for a decade, and indeed may still be felt in the industries which hollowed out during that period.

在一個典型的例子中，理查德·尼克松（Richard Nixon）向當時餵養的主席亞瑟·伯恩斯（Arthur Burns）施加壓力，要求在1972年大選之前追求擴張性的貨幣政策，他們認為這將有助於他的連任賠率。尼克鬆在滑坡上贏得了大選，但很快跟隨災難性的“停滯”，這使美國經濟癱瘓了十年，而且在此期間陷入困境的行業中，仍然可以感受到。

Contrast this with the policies of Paul Volcker, who, after this devastating period of stagflation, implemented a vicious series of rate increases between 1979 and 1987, which caused the “Volcker Shocks”, a series of painful recessions. However, the effect of this policy was to eventually strangle inflation and herald in the boom times of the 90s, facilitating Bill Clinton’s remarkable fiscal policy.

與保羅·沃爾克（Paul Volcker）的政策形成鮮明對比的是，在經過毀滅性的陷阱時期，他在1979年至1987年之間實施了一系列惡性的利率，這引起了“沃爾克衝擊”，這是一系列痛苦的衰退。但是，這項政策的作用是最終在90年代的繁榮時期扼殺通貨膨脹和先驅，這促進了比爾·克林頓（Bill Clinton）出色的財政政策。

No politician could have made these choices, none will in the future, and that is the rub. Economists — and, crucially, markets — believe deeply that the Fed must remain independent or else the entire economic fabric of American society risks collapse. This is no hyperbole — nations with politically controlled central banks like Weimar Germany, Peronist Argentina and Venezuela have experienced such crippling hyperinflation that it led variously to multigenerational geopolitical backsliding, reports of citizens starving

沒有政治家可以做出這些選擇，將來沒有人會做出這些選擇，這就是摩擦。經濟學家 - 以及至關重要的是市場 - 深深地相信美聯儲必須保持獨立，否則美國社會的整個經濟結構風險崩潰。這不是誇張的 - 擁有政治控制的中央銀行等國家，例如魏瑪德國，阿根廷佩隆主義者和委內瑞拉，經歷瞭如此殘酷的過度通貨膨脹，以至於多樣化地導致了多代人地緣政治後退，公民的報導，飢餓的報導