四家美国银行在两个月内接连崩溃，原因何在（三）注定的崩溃
4 US Banks Crash in Two Months; Banking Crisis Explained
译文简介
从本质上讲，银行总是可以进行相当于卖空的交易。如果他们不在美国经济中这样做，他们也会在开曼群岛这样做。所以做一些事情是非常困难的。
正文翻译
（接上）
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, it’s sort of like when they tried to ban betting on horse racing or ban the numbers racket.
The banks can always make, inherently, the equivalent of a short sale. And if they don’t do it in the U.S. economy, they’ll do it offshore in the Cayman Islands. So it is very hard to do something.
The government certainly has the money to hire somebody, a first year BA graduate in business could tell just what the short sellers are saying.
A short term graduate or Pam Martens herself could look at the banks and say, this bank has negative equity, and the government can immediately take it over into the public domain.
But the government won’t do that because they’ll say that’s socialism. And socialism, which we used to call democracy, but now they’ve [renamed] democracy socialism because they think it’s a bad term.
迈克尔·哈德森：嗯，这有点像他们试图禁止赌马或禁止数字诈骗。
从本质上讲，银行总是可以进行相当于卖空的交易。如果他们不在美国经济中这样做，他们也会在开曼群岛这样做。所以做一些事情是非常困难的。
政府当然有钱雇人，一个一年级的商业学士毕业生就能知道卖空者在说什么。
一个短期毕业生或者帕姆·马滕斯自己可以看着银行说，这家银行有负资产，政府可以立即将其纳入公共领域。但是政府不会这么做，因为他们会说这是社会主义。社会主义，我们以前称之为民主，但现在他们把民主改名为社会主义，因为他们认为这个词不好。
The banks can always make, inherently, the equivalent of a short sale. And if they don’t do it in the U.S. economy, they’ll do it offshore in the Cayman Islands. So it is very hard to do something.
The government certainly has the money to hire somebody, a first year BA graduate in business could tell just what the short sellers are saying.
A short term graduate or Pam Martens herself could look at the banks and say, this bank has negative equity, and the government can immediately take it over into the public domain.
But the government won’t do that because they’ll say that’s socialism. And socialism, which we used to call democracy, but now they’ve [renamed] democracy socialism because they think it’s a bad term.
迈克尔·哈德森：嗯，这有点像他们试图禁止赌马或禁止数字诈骗。
从本质上讲，银行总是可以进行相当于卖空的交易。如果他们不在美国经济中这样做，他们也会在开曼群岛这样做。所以做一些事情是非常困难的。
政府当然有钱雇人，一个一年级的商业学士毕业生就能知道卖空者在说什么。
一个短期毕业生或者帕姆·马滕斯自己可以看着银行说，这家银行有负资产，政府可以立即将其纳入公共领域。但是政府不会这么做，因为他们会说这是社会主义。社会主义，我们以前称之为民主，但现在他们把民主改名为社会主义，因为他们认为这个词不好。
And they say, no, we have to let private enterprise rule. And private enterprise is gambling.
Most banks have not made money, as much money in interest as they’ve made in capital gains. And the biggest capital gains have been derivatives and short sales and options.
So the financial sector isn’t about making loans to industrialists to build factories and employ labor to produce more goods.
It’s made to make loans to gamblers, because that’s where most of the money is made. That’s what the financial system is. And to characterize the system as if it’s part of the economy is the sort of mythology of our time.
The financial system is external to the economy. It’s like a parasite on the economy, using the government as a means of extracting money from the economy or using its own money-creation abilities to make sure that it creates enough money to make sure that the wealthy financial institutions cannot lose.
他们说，不，我们必须让私营企业统治，而私营企业是赌博。
大多数银行没有赚到钱，利息收入和资本收益一样多。而最大的资本收益是衍生品、卖空和期权。
因此，金融部门不是向实业家提供贷款，让他们建造工厂，雇佣劳动力来生产更多的产品。它是用来给赌徒贷款的，因为大部分钱都是从赌徒那里赚来的。这就是金融体系。把这个系统描述成经济的一部分是我们这个时代的错误观点。
金融体系是经济的外部。它就像经济上的寄生虫，利用政府作为从经济中榨取资金的手段，或者利用自己的货币创造能力来确保它创造了足够的货币，以确保富裕的金融机构不会亏损。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Most banks have not made money, as much money in interest as they’ve made in capital gains. And the biggest capital gains have been derivatives and short sales and options.
So the financial sector isn’t about making loans to industrialists to build factories and employ labor to produce more goods.
It’s made to make loans to gamblers, because that’s where most of the money is made. That’s what the financial system is. And to characterize the system as if it’s part of the economy is the sort of mythology of our time.
The financial system is external to the economy. It’s like a parasite on the economy, using the government as a means of extracting money from the economy or using its own money-creation abilities to make sure that it creates enough money to make sure that the wealthy financial institutions cannot lose.
他们说，不，我们必须让私营企业统治，而私营企业是赌博。
大多数银行没有赚到钱，利息收入和资本收益一样多。而最大的资本收益是衍生品、卖空和期权。
因此，金融部门不是向实业家提供贷款，让他们建造工厂，雇佣劳动力来生产更多的产品。它是用来给赌徒贷款的，因为大部分钱都是从赌徒那里赚来的。这就是金融体系。把这个系统描述成经济的一部分是我们这个时代的错误观点。
金融体系是经济的外部。它就像经济上的寄生虫，利用政府作为从经济中榨取资金的手段，或者利用自己的货币创造能力来确保它创造了足够的货币，以确保富裕的金融机构不会亏损。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Smaller financial institutions can lose, but that’s okay to the government, because the big fish eat little fish, and the small banks are taken over by the big banks.
So ultimately the logical result is, if there are only four or five systemically important banks, meaning banks that we’re not going to let go under, and no matter how much they lose, you won’t lose your money in these banks, well, that means, hey, folks, take your money out of your local bank and put it in one of the big banks, because they’re now running things.
That’s the message. And I don’t know why the newspapers and media don’t come right out and say that, or why don’t the banks themselves.
Why doesn’t Chase take out a one-page argument in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and say, — Hey, folks, you notice how they bailed us out? We’ll always be bailed out. You’re not going to lose your money here. Put your money in our bank.
That’s a good advertising slogan. Why don’t they think of that?
较小的金融机构可能会亏损，但这对政府来说是可以接受的，因为大鱼吃小鱼，小银行被大银行接管。
所以最终合乎逻辑的结果是，如果只有四到五家具有系统重要性的银行，也就是说我们不会让这些银行破产，不管它们损失多少，你在这些银行里的钱都不会损失，这就意味着，嘿，伙计们，把你的钱从当地银行取出来，放在一家大银行里，因为它们现在在经营一切。
这就是要传达的信息。我不知道为什么报纸和媒体不直接说出来，或者为什么银行自己不这么说。为什么大通银行不在《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》上发表一页的文章说“各位，你们注意到他们是怎么救我们的吗?我们总是会得到救助。你不会在这里赔钱的。把你的钱存在我们银行。”
这是一个很好的广告口号。他们为什么没想到呢?
So ultimately the logical result is, if there are only four or five systemically important banks, meaning banks that we’re not going to let go under, and no matter how much they lose, you won’t lose your money in these banks, well, that means, hey, folks, take your money out of your local bank and put it in one of the big banks, because they’re now running things.
That’s the message. And I don’t know why the newspapers and media don’t come right out and say that, or why don’t the banks themselves.
Why doesn’t Chase take out a one-page argument in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and say, — Hey, folks, you notice how they bailed us out? We’ll always be bailed out. You’re not going to lose your money here. Put your money in our bank.
That’s a good advertising slogan. Why don’t they think of that?
较小的金融机构可能会亏损，但这对政府来说是可以接受的，因为大鱼吃小鱼，小银行被大银行接管。
所以最终合乎逻辑的结果是，如果只有四到五家具有系统重要性的银行，也就是说我们不会让这些银行破产，不管它们损失多少，你在这些银行里的钱都不会损失，这就意味着，嘿，伙计们，把你的钱从当地银行取出来，放在一家大银行里，因为它们现在在经营一切。
这就是要传达的信息。我不知道为什么报纸和媒体不直接说出来，或者为什么银行自己不这么说。为什么大通银行不在《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》上发表一页的文章说“各位，你们注意到他们是怎么救我们的吗?我们总是会得到救助。你不会在这里赔钱的。把你的钱存在我们银行。”
这是一个很好的广告口号。他们为什么没想到呢?
BEN NORTON: Well, Michael, to conclude here, I just want to give you a quote from Jamie Dimon.
He insisted in a media interview that with JPMorgan taking over First Republic Bank, he said, quote, “There may be another smaller one, but this pretty much resolves them all. This part of the crisis is over.”
So, JPMorgan Chase wants us to think that we’ve gone through the worst, that the solution has been pretty much solved. What do you say in response to Jamie Dimon?
本·诺顿：迈克尔，最后，我想引用杰米·戴蒙的话。
他在接受媒体采访时坚称，随着摩根大通收购第一共和银行，他说，“可能会有另一家较小的银行，但这几乎解决了所有问题。这部分危机已经结束。”
因此，摩根大通希望我们认为，我们已经度过了最糟糕的时期，解决方案已经基本解决了。你对杰米·戴蒙有何回应?
He insisted in a media interview that with JPMorgan taking over First Republic Bank, he said, quote, “There may be another smaller one, but this pretty much resolves them all. This part of the crisis is over.”
So, JPMorgan Chase wants us to think that we’ve gone through the worst, that the solution has been pretty much solved. What do you say in response to Jamie Dimon?
本·诺顿：迈克尔，最后，我想引用杰米·戴蒙的话。
他在接受媒体采访时坚称，随着摩根大通收购第一共和银行，他说，“可能会有另一家较小的银行，但这几乎解决了所有问题。这部分危机已经结束。”
因此，摩根大通希望我们认为，我们已经度过了最糟糕的时期，解决方案已经基本解决了。你对杰米·戴蒙有何回应?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, all of the banks have suffered the same problem that began with Silicon Valley Bank and the other banks that have gone under.
All of the banks have seen the market price of their mortgage loans and their government securities fall by a large amount, so much that the amount of the decline in their assets has wiped out the equivalent of their net worth.
So they’re in negative equity. They’re technically insolvent, except that the government doesn’t ask the banks to report what is the actual market price of your assets.
That’s a secret. And it’s a secret because if people could see the market price of the assets and what their liabilities, they’d see that their net worth is worse than that of the average homeless person on the New York subways.
And so they just don’t do that.
迈克尔·哈德森：嗯，所有的银行都遭遇了同样的问题，从硅谷银行和其他已经破产的银行开始。
所有的银行都看到他们的抵押贷款和政府证券的市场价格大幅下跌，以至于他们的资产下降的幅度已经抹去了相当于他们净资产的金额。
所以他们是负资产。它们在技术上是破产的，除了政府没有要求银行报告你的资产的实际市场价格。
这是个秘密。这是一个秘密，因为如果人们能看到资产的市场价格和他们的负债，他们会发现他们的净资产比纽约地铁上无家可归的人的平均水平还要低。
所以他们不这么做。
All of the banks have seen the market price of their mortgage loans and their government securities fall by a large amount, so much that the amount of the decline in their assets has wiped out the equivalent of their net worth.
So they’re in negative equity. They’re technically insolvent, except that the government doesn’t ask the banks to report what is the actual market price of your assets.
That’s a secret. And it’s a secret because if people could see the market price of the assets and what their liabilities, they’d see that their net worth is worse than that of the average homeless person on the New York subways.
And so they just don’t do that.
迈克尔·哈德森：嗯，所有的银行都遭遇了同样的问题，从硅谷银行和其他已经破产的银行开始。
所有的银行都看到他们的抵押贷款和政府证券的市场价格大幅下跌，以至于他们的资产下降的幅度已经抹去了相当于他们净资产的金额。
所以他们是负资产。它们在技术上是破产的，除了政府没有要求银行报告你的资产的实际市场价格。
这是个秘密。这是一个秘密，因为如果人们能看到资产的市场价格和他们的负债，他们会发现他们的净资产比纽约地铁上无家可归的人的平均水平还要低。
所以他们不这么做。
The fact is that we’re still in the problem that the Federal Reserve painted itself into when it moved to zero interest rates. Any increase in interest rates causes a crash in real estate and bond prices and implicitly stock prices.
And if the government doesn’t bail out the banks, they’re going to be insolvent, like somebody who’s bet the fortune at a racetrack or a casino and has lost their money.
So of course [Dimon] is going to say everything’s okay now.
But what that means is, well, it’ll be okay if the depositors leave their money in the banks and their savings accounts that are paying 0.2% and don’t go to an investment bank or broker and buy government money market funds or Treasury bills.
If they don’t go to Vanguard or one of these companies that’ll set up an account for them to buy Treasury bonds or local government funds, and are willing to give up the money in the banks and let the banks make money off the financial distress, not themselves, then everything will be okay.
事实是，我们仍然处在美联储在实行零利率时给自己画上的那个问题中。利率的任何增加都会导致房地产和债券价格的崩溃，当然也会导致股票价格的崩溃。
如果政府不救助银行，它们就会资不抵债，就像有人把钱押在赛马场或赌场里，结果输了一样。
所以(戴蒙)当然会说，现在一切都好了。
但这意味着，如果存款人把钱留在银行和他们的储蓄账户里，只支付0.2%的利息，而不去投资银行或经纪人那里购买政府货币市场基金或国库券，那就没事了。
如果他们不去先锋或其他公司，这些公司会为他们开设一个账户，购买美国国债或地方政府基金，并愿意放弃在银行的钱，让银行从金融危机中赚钱，而不是他们自己，那么一切都会好起来的。
And if the government doesn’t bail out the banks, they’re going to be insolvent, like somebody who’s bet the fortune at a racetrack or a casino and has lost their money.
So of course [Dimon] is going to say everything’s okay now.
But what that means is, well, it’ll be okay if the depositors leave their money in the banks and their savings accounts that are paying 0.2% and don’t go to an investment bank or broker and buy government money market funds or Treasury bills.
If they don’t go to Vanguard or one of these companies that’ll set up an account for them to buy Treasury bonds or local government funds, and are willing to give up the money in the banks and let the banks make money off the financial distress, not themselves, then everything will be okay.
事实是，我们仍然处在美联储在实行零利率时给自己画上的那个问题中。利率的任何增加都会导致房地产和债券价格的崩溃，当然也会导致股票价格的崩溃。
如果政府不救助银行，它们就会资不抵债，就像有人把钱押在赛马场或赌场里，结果输了一样。
所以(戴蒙)当然会说，现在一切都好了。
但这意味着，如果存款人把钱留在银行和他们的储蓄账户里，只支付0.2%的利息，而不去投资银行或经纪人那里购买政府货币市场基金或国库券，那就没事了。
如果他们不去先锋或其他公司，这些公司会为他们开设一个账户，购买美国国债或地方政府基金，并愿意放弃在银行的钱，让银行从金融危机中赚钱，而不是他们自己，那么一切都会好起来的。
But for the bank depositors and for the public to be quiescent, they have to be stupid. And that’s the role of The New York Times and The Washington Post and the other media.
You’ve got to have a financially stupid public. And the best way to do it is to have the university courses teach stupid economics, like that’s what Chicago School is all about, the economic curriculum in the United States.
Don’t look at debt problems. They don’t look at balance sheet problems. None of the problems that are occurring today appear in the economic curriculum that people have to learn in order to see how the economy works.
It’s all a mythology. It’s a fairytale. And you could say it’s sort of the superstition of our time. I won’t dignify it by calling it a religion, even though many banks look like the ancient Greek and Roman temples.
It’s really just a superstition that the financial system works to help the economy instead of, how can we make money from the economy by taking over the government and capturing the whole government, not only the regulators.
但要让银行储户和公众保持安静，他们就必须是愚蠢的。这就是《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》和其他媒体的角色。
你必须有一个财政愚蠢的公众。最好的办法就是让大学课程教授愚蠢的经济学，就像芝加哥经济学派，美国的经济课程一样——不要关注债务问题，不要关注资产负债表问题，今天发生的问题没有一个出现在人们为了了解经济如何运作而必须学习的经济学课程中。
这都是神话、童话。你可以说这是我们这个时代的迷信。我不会把它称为一种宗教，尽管许多银行看起来像古希腊和罗马的神庙。
这真的是一种迷信，认为金融系统是为了帮助经济但不是，我们如何通过接管政府和控制整个政府，而不仅仅是监管机构，来从经济中赚钱。
You’ve got to have a financially stupid public. And the best way to do it is to have the university courses teach stupid economics, like that’s what Chicago School is all about, the economic curriculum in the United States.
Don’t look at debt problems. They don’t look at balance sheet problems. None of the problems that are occurring today appear in the economic curriculum that people have to learn in order to see how the economy works.
It’s all a mythology. It’s a fairytale. And you could say it’s sort of the superstition of our time. I won’t dignify it by calling it a religion, even though many banks look like the ancient Greek and Roman temples.
It’s really just a superstition that the financial system works to help the economy instead of, how can we make money from the economy by taking over the government and capturing the whole government, not only the regulators.
但要让银行储户和公众保持安静，他们就必须是愚蠢的。这就是《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》和其他媒体的角色。
你必须有一个财政愚蠢的公众。最好的办法就是让大学课程教授愚蠢的经济学，就像芝加哥经济学派，美国的经济课程一样——不要关注债务问题，不要关注资产负债表问题，今天发生的问题没有一个出现在人们为了了解经济如何运作而必须学习的经济学课程中。
这都是神话、童话。你可以说这是我们这个时代的迷信。我不会把它称为一种宗教，尽管许多银行看起来像古希腊和罗马的神庙。
这真的是一种迷信，认为金融系统是为了帮助经济但不是，我们如何通过接管政府和控制整个政府，而不仅仅是监管机构，来从经济中赚钱。
BEN NORTON: Well, that’s a good note to end on. I want to thank you, Michael Hudson, an economist and author of many books.
People should go check out his website at michael-hudson.com.
And Michael also co-hosts the show Geopolitical Economy Hour here with Radhika Desai. I will lix to that in the descxtion below.
I will also lix to his previous interview with me where we talked about the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and Silvergate Bank this March.
Michael, it’s always a real pleasure. Thanks for joining me.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, thanks for having me, Ben.
本·诺顿：嗯，这是一个很好的结尾。我要感谢你，迈克尔·哈德森，一位经济学家和许多书的作者。大家可以去他的网站michael-hudson.com看看。
迈克尔还与拉迪卡·德赛共同主持了《地缘政治经济时间》节目。我将在下面的描述中链接到它。我还将链接到他之前对我的采访，我们谈到了今年3月硅谷银行、签名银行和Silvergate银行的倒闭。迈克尔，这是我的荣幸。谢谢你参加我的节目。
迈克尔·赫德森：谢谢你邀请我，本。
People should go check out his website at michael-hudson.com.
And Michael also co-hosts the show Geopolitical Economy Hour here with Radhika Desai. I will lix to that in the descxtion below.
I will also lix to his previous interview with me where we talked about the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and Silvergate Bank this March.
Michael, it’s always a real pleasure. Thanks for joining me.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, thanks for having me, Ben.
本·诺顿：嗯，这是一个很好的结尾。我要感谢你，迈克尔·哈德森，一位经济学家和许多书的作者。大家可以去他的网站michael-hudson.com看看。
迈克尔还与拉迪卡·德赛共同主持了《地缘政治经济时间》节目。我将在下面的描述中链接到它。我还将链接到他之前对我的采访，我们谈到了今年3月硅谷银行、签名银行和Silvergate银行的倒闭。迈克尔，这是我的荣幸。谢谢你参加我的节目。
迈克尔·赫德森：谢谢你邀请我，本。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
I am always amazed at the banking and financial systems in the USA. No regulations. No oversights. There hasn’t been a banking failure to speak of in Canada for over 100 years. Our system is totally different. I would say most banks in the USA would be obliged to close down if they operated in Canada or under our rules.
我总是对美国的银行和金融体系感到惊讶。没有监管。
100多年来，加拿大从未出现过银行倒闭的情况。我们的系统完全不同。我想说，如果美国的大多数银行在加拿大或按照我们的规定经营，它们将被迫关闭。
@anonymousepersonThere hasn’t been a banking failure to speak of in Canada for over 100 years.
As usual Canadian smugness is totally misplaced. Canada has a much more centralized banking system, with only 34 banks operating in the entire country according to Google search. In the United States, meanwhile, which is still a major financial center, there are over 4000.
This assertion is also simply untrue, as there was a bank failure in Canada in the 1990s:
像往常一样，加拿大人的沾沾自喜完全放错了地方。根据谷歌搜索，加拿大的银行系统更加集中，全国只有34家银行在运营。与此同时，在美国，仍然是一个主要的金融中心，有超过4000家。
你的说法也完全不正确，因为上世纪90年代加拿大就有一家银行倒闭。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@the Man Behind the Curtain Its not smugness sir, just bewilderment at the flawed US system. Not just banking but comparing Wall street to Bay street too. By the way, the “failed bank” you refer too was little more then a very small trust company. It had 2,600 depositors. In reality there are five (six, if you count the Quebec focused National bank) big banks in Canada. They are closely watched and monitored and subject to much tighter regulations then the wild west financing of the USA.
先生，这不是自鸣得意，只是对有缺陷的美国制度感到困惑。不仅仅是银行业，还有华尔街和海湾街的比较。顺便说一下，你提到的“破产银行”也不过是一家非常小的信托公司。它有2600个存款人。实际上，加拿大有五家(如果算上专注于魁北克的国民银行，就有六家)大银行。他们受到密切关注和监控，并受到比美国狂野西部融资更严格的监管。
The banking system collapse is deliberate, obviously. With the feds more than willing to bail out this malarkey, where does the paper trail lead? Precisely where?
显然，银行体系的崩溃是有意为之。联邦政府都很乐意帮你收拾残局，那书面证据又能证明什么呢?具体哪些方面?
De-dollarization is accelerating my friends. Good overview:
….Though the US sees Russia and China as the largest threats to its position in the world, it is not just America’s enemies that are fleeing the dollar. Its closest friends have hinted at it too. Following his meetings with China, French President Emmanuel Macron likely stunned and angered the US by calling for Europe to reduce its dependency on the “extraterritoriality of the US dollar.” These calls for a flight from the US dollar are not merely economic, they are geopolitical…..
去美元化正在加速，我的朋友们。以下很好的概述:
…尽管美国将俄罗斯和中国视为对其世界地位的最大威胁，但逃离美元的不只是美国的敌人。它最亲密的朋友也暗示了这一点。在与中国的会晤之后，法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙呼吁欧洲减少对‘美元治外法权’的依赖，这可能令美国感到震惊和愤怒。这些要求逃离美元的呼声不仅是经济上的，也是地缘政治上的.....
链接略
Our system is totally different (Canada)
This sublimates and hides the innate truth:
Finance Capitalism, does not stop at borders, not nation states are the principals that decide on who and what is to be distanced from general exploitation. Horizontal investments, now utmost piracy, assets abroad, a currency just as nominal as what they declare publicly, stocks and bonds that can shift in underlying value, speculative value, …the bottom line is the Insiders against all others, and the middle classes scrambling and screaming. Jumping ice-scolds for non-insiders is meant to be the game. Financial Capitalism is religion to benefit the ones in the Vatican. Most particular: Europe, Australia, New-Zealand, Canada…all will be affected.
On the other end …Russia and China, and a stimulus of real economics that add acceleration and revolution cycles to mining and production run away from the same abyss: what to do about population factors planetarily as the main vector of economics, and how to incorporate this given into all estimates for our future.
Economics of want is the real money-maker.
“我们加拿大的体系完全不一样”
这升华和隐藏了固有的真理。
金融资本主义并不局限于国界，也不是民族国家是决定谁和什么应该远离普遍剥削的主体。……特别是:欧洲、澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大……都将受到影响。
另一方面，俄罗斯和中国，以及为采矿和生产加速的实体经济刺激的国家，都逃离了同样的深渊：如何处理全球人口因素作为经济的主要矢量，以及如何将这一因素纳入我们对未来的所有估计。
需求经济学才是真正的赚钱工具。
Accounting regulations in the area of Mark To Market and Hold To Maturity valuations are workable in normal times. Normal times means gradual ups and downs in interest rates. Gradual interest rate changes permit a bank to rebalance the average rate it receives on its assets (loans to customers) and the average rate it pays out on its liabilities (deposits from customer).
The problem we are in is that we are not in normal times. Interest rates have gone up much quicker than normal and many banks did not have the time needed to rebalance.
Banks are now in the uncomfortable position that the Savings and Loan industry was in in the Jimmy Carter years. The S and L industry was small and simple compared to the current banking industry. There is no longer a Savings and Loan industry as they went out of existence via bankruptcy, were bought out by a bank, or were strong enough to convert itself into a bank.
The Fed created this mess by keeping interest rates abnormally low for far too long. Rates should have gone up starting in 2011 rather than 2022.
按市值计价和持有至到期计价的会计法规在正常情况下是可行的。正常时期意味着利率的逐渐上升和下降。渐进的利率变化使银行能够重新平衡其资产(客户贷款)的平均利率和其负债(客户存款)的平均利率。
我们所处的问题是，我们不是在正常情况。利率上升的速度比正常情况快得多，许多银行没有时间进行再平衡。
银行现在的处境与吉米·卡特(Jimmy Carter)执政时期的储贷行业一样令人不安。与现在的银行业相比，储蓄借贷行业规模小且简单。储蓄和贷款行业不再存在，因为它们要么破产，要么被银行收购，要么强大到足以将自己转变为银行。
美联储在太长时间内将利率维持在异常低的水平，造成了目前的混乱局面。利率应该从2011年开始上调，而不是2022年。
Amazing interview. However, the 247 trillion USD value in derivatives is notional value of the outstanding derivatives. The settled value is far less, maybe around 2% of the notional value. Still a systemic risk, but its an important distinction to make. A better way to cope with derivatives related risk is to outright ban derivatives for price speculation and derivatives contracts only be allowed to written for underlying assets transaction-which was the initial purpose of derivatives-to hedge prices against wild speculation in agri commodity markets.
Interesting point about no arbitrage in fully informed markets, banks had no option other than to count on inertia, if they had gone for hedge, it had discounted their portfolio immediately to yield 4%. The surprise is not that its happening, the surprise is how did it take 15 years…. It was an ultimate consequence of the zero rated policy-whenever inflation had to return and interest rates need to be increased, this was going to happen. The administration in 2008 kicked the can down the road.
I need to understand one thing however, privatized credit refer to ownership structure of the FED and how it enables financial industry to be its own regulator or its something else-like fractional reserve banking? I think Chinese banking industry is also run on fractional reserve or maybe i am missing something. What exactly are distinguishing features of privatized vs. public credit creation?
精彩的采访。然而，247万亿美元的衍生品价值是未偿衍生品的名义价值。结算价值要少得多，可能在名义价值的2%左右。这仍然是一个系统性风险，但这是一个重要的区别。应对衍生品相关风险的一个更好的方法是彻底禁止以价格投机为目的的衍生品，并且只允许为基础资产交易而订立衍生品合约——这是衍生品的最初目的——以对冲农产品市场上疯狂投机的价格。
有趣的一点是，在完全知情的市场中没有套利，银行除了依靠惯性别无选择，如果他们进行对冲，他们的投资组合立即折现，收益率为4%。令人惊讶的不是它的发生，令人惊讶的是它怎么花了15年。这是零利率政策的最终结果——只要通货膨胀不得不回归，利率需要提高，这种情况就会发生。2008年，奥巴马政府把问题拖到了后面。
但是我需要了解一件事，私有化信贷指的是美联储的所有权结构以及它如何使金融业成为自己的监管者，还是说，所其他类似于部分准备金银行制度的东西?我认为中国银行业也在部分准备金制度下运行，或者我可能遗漏了什么。私有化和公共信贷创造究竟有什么区别?