如果特朗普大火鲍威尔，加密货币会怎样？

最近几个月，某种模式的潮起潮落：美国总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）将采取一些客观上的有害行动

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.”

最近几个月来，某种模式的起伏和流动：美国总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）将对美国经济采取一些客观上的有害行动，市场将崩溃。看到这一点，特朗普转向美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔（Jerome Powell），现在要求他降低美联储资金利率（美联储向银行借钱的速度），以刺激经济。鲍威尔（Powell）的钢铁般的鲍威尔（Powell）将说“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.

这是因为特朗普想降低利率，因为这样做是对美国经济的有效现金注入，刺激活动并提升市场。他认为，这将使他显得成功。另一方面，鲍威尔（Powell）希望遵循严格的经济标准来设定费率，以仔细平衡美联储最大化就业和维持稳定价格的双重任务。

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.

他还希望维持美联储远离政治压力的独立性，并至关重要的是，保持美联储与政治压力的独立。如果市场认为中央银行的独立性在美国失败了，那么出售美国国库账单，美国主权债务可能会变得越来越困难。从基本意义上讲，这是一个问题，即美国将不得不花更多的钱来借钱，这使它变得贫穷 - 但这是一个特别严重的问题，因为美国已经有一笔巨大的300万美元的债务，必须定期再融资。

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.*

如果由于市场不再信任美国政府而被迫以较高的利率再融资，那么GDP的比例将会被利率成本所吸收，并且正如孩子们所说的那样，美国将被 *烹饪。

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.

那个舞带我们到现在。上周，特朗普一再暗示他想解雇鲍威尔，市场不喜欢它。周一，特朗​​普称鲍威尔为真相社会的“重大失败者”，引起了崩溃。作为回应，据报道，财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）表示担心向特朗普解雇鲍威尔的风险，特朗普目前似乎已经默认，并指出他不会解雇他的美联储主席。

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?

尽管如此，这个过程比其他任何事情都更像是螺旋形，许多市场观察家都在等待下一鞋掉下来。这迫使问题：如果特朗普确实与鲍威尔的基本本能和斧头结束，那将是什么结果？特别是，这将对加密货币行业产生什么影响？

Cracking the Fed

破解美联储

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.”

它提到总统不应该随意解雇美联储主席。 1913年《联邦储备法》第10条规定：“除非总统暂时撤职，否则每个成员应在其前任任期到期后任期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.

这种语言可能看起来很模棱两可，但是在1935年汉弗莱案的执行人诉美国诉美国案中，最高法院裁定，宪法没有给总统“撤职无能为力”，因此总统的罢免权受到法定语言的限制。

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.

该决定批准了位于行政部门内的“独立机构”的概念，但具有独立的权威。尽管许多机构具有此特征，包括SEC，CFTC和FTC，但美联储是最重要的。

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.

经济学家对中央银行的政治控制并不多。政客在多年或选举周期中具有相对短期的激励措施。这固有地促使他们更喜欢短期政策，其中热现金注射是最纯粹的形式。但是，财政和货币政策是精致的艺术，通常可以使痛苦的政策选择动画。

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.

在一个典型的例子中，理查德·尼克松（Richard Nixon）向当时喂养的主席亚瑟·伯恩斯（Arthur Burns）施加压力，要求在1972年大选之前追求扩张性的货币政策，他们认为这将有助于他的连任赔率。尼克松在滑坡上赢得了大选，但很快跟随灾难性的“停滞”，这使美国经济瘫痪了十年，而且在此期间陷入困境的行业中，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.

与保罗·沃尔克（Paul Volcker）的政策形成鲜明对比的是，在经过毁灭性的陷阱时期，他在1979年至1987年之间实施了一系列恶性的利率，这引起了“沃尔克冲击”，这是一系列痛苦的衰退。但是，这项政策的作用是最终在90年代的繁荣时期扼杀通货膨胀和先驱，这促进了比尔·克林顿（Bill Clinton）出色的财政政策。

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

没有政治家可以做出这些选择，将来没有人会做出这些选择，这就是摩擦。经济学家 - 以及至关重要的是市场 - 深深地相信美联储必须保持独立，否则美国社会的整个经济结构风险崩溃。这不是夸张的 - 拥有政治控制的中央银行等国家，例如魏玛德国，阿根廷佩隆主义者和委内瑞拉，经历了如此残酷的过度通货膨胀，以至于多样化地导致了多代人地缘政治后退，公民的报道，饥饿的报道