奧巴馬早該炒掉伯南克

????2009年夏秋之交，美國總統奧巴馬面臨一個非常棘手的決定：時任美聯儲主席本?伯南克四年任期即將結束，應不應該讓他繼續留任？一方面，在雷曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）倒閉引發的金融危機中，伯南克的應對表現非常出色。另一方面，伯南克是共和黨任命的人選，而奧巴馬最親密的助手、著名的哈佛大學（Harvard）經濟學家勞倫斯?薩默斯對這份工作也是垂涎已久。

????最終，奧巴馬還是接受了財政部長蒂姆?蓋特納的建議，給伯南克延長了四年任期。蒂姆?蓋特納曾與伯南克密切合作過。當時的市場和經濟仍非常脆弱，因此這看起來算是明智的選擇。但現在回頭看看，或許并不盡然。奧巴馬讓伯南克負責2012年大選的預備階段，不僅讓經濟恢復受阻，也讓自己的連任道路風險重重。過去幾個月，美國經濟沒有絲毫好轉，然而，美聯儲主席卻沒有任何良策。即使到了今天，他給人的印象依然是模棱兩可。現在看來，奧巴馬應該在自己還有機會的時候，請伯南克下臺。

????當然，我這么說并不是因為對伯南克存有任何敵意。因為，他是一位著名的經濟學家、鞠躬盡瘁的公務人員，為人也極其正派。2008年至2009年期間，他批準了一系列極具創新精神的貸款與流動性項目，有困難的銀行都可以從美聯儲獲得金融援助， 進而幫助避免了整個金融系統的崩盤。2009年，《時代》雜志（Time）授予他“年度人物”的稱號，可謂實至名歸。

????但從2009年之后，伯南克的表現便大不如前，今年尤為糟糕。我們都知道，行動與結果之間會存在滯后，但今年，美聯儲不僅沒能做到未雨綢繆，防患于未然，反而似乎完全癱瘓了。美聯儲期望的通貨膨脹指標僅有1.8%，而失業率則一直在8%以上的高位徘徊不下。很明顯，它既未滿足2%的通脹目標，也沒有有效履行提供充分就業的職責。但伯南克依然無動于衷。八月初，伯南克與他的同事都承認，自從他們上次開會以來，美國經濟預期進一步惡化，但他們依然沒有采取任何措施。當時，我對伯南克的同情已經所剩無幾了。

????當然，也有人會說，既然短期利率已經這么低了，他還能怎么辦？但伯南克自己都否認了這一點。他曾經多次強調，通過購買債券和采取其他一些非常規手段，即便利率接近零，中央銀行依然有能力為經濟復蘇提供支持。可如果是這樣，他為什么沒有推進另一輪量化寬松呢？

????對此，官方的解釋是，他與其他決策者需要看到更多數據，但這種說法不足以讓人信服。目前美國的失業率為8.3%；在最近一個季度，美國GDP基本停止了增長。這些還不夠嗎？還需要什么樣的證據才能證明經濟復蘇陷入了停滯？另外一種可能性是，這是伯南克的政治手腕。大選還有幾個月的時間，米特?羅姆尼和其他共和黨人正在對第三輪量化寬松猛烈開火。或許，美聯儲主席只是希望能遠離雙方的戰火，做到明哲保身。也可能他正在努力在中央銀行內達成一種共識。因為，我們都知道，個別區域性儲備銀行總裁強烈反對第三輪量化寬松政策。

????但這無疑再次證明了2010年的一種看法。奧巴馬應該任命一位更為強勢和自信的美聯儲主席，來接替伯南克。不論是保羅?沃爾克還是艾倫?格林斯潘，在他們漫長的任期內都曾遭遇過內部的反對意見。但只要他們認為有必要，什么都無法阻止他們推進政策改革。直率自信、甚至有些自大的薩默斯也能做到，如果他有機會上任的話。奧巴馬候選人名單上的其他人或許也有這樣的能力。我想，如今的總統先生肯定正為當初的選擇而后悔不已。

????譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

????In the summer and fall of 2009, President Obama faced a tricky decision: Should he reappoint Ben Bernanke, whose four-year term as chairman of the Fed was coming to an end? On the one hand, Bernanke had done a pretty good job of managing the financial crisis that followed the demise of Lehman Brothers. On the other hand, he was a Republican appointee, and one of Obama's closest aides, Lawrence Summers, the pugnacious Harvard economist, badly wanted the job.

????Advised by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who had worked closely with Bernanke, Obama ended up giving Bernanke another four years. With the markets and the economy still fragile, it seemed the sensible thing to do. In retrospect, it looks like a mistake. By putting Bernanke in charge for the run-up to the 2012 election, Obama jeopardized the recovery and put at risk his own reelection prospects. As the economy has sputtered badly over the past six months, the Fed chairman has failed to do anything about it. Even today he continues to equivocate. Looking back, Obama should have canned Bernanke when he had the chance.

????I don't say this out of any animus toward Bernanke, who is an accomplished academic economist, a dedicated public servant, and an eminently decent man. In approving a series of innovative lending and liquidity programs during the crisis of 2008-09, which gave troubled banks access to the Fed's balance sheet, he helped prevent a wholesale collapse of the financial system. The "Person of the Year" moniker that Time bestowed upon him in 2009 was well earned.

????But Bernanke's performance since 2009 has been less impressive, and this year it's been pretty awful. Rather than getting out ahead of events, which is essential given that there's always a lag between action and results, the Fed appears paralyzed. With the Fed's favored inflation measure at just 1.8% and the unemployment rate stuck above 8%, it is clearly failing to meet either its inflation target of 2% or its legal mandate to promote maximum employment. Yet Bernanke hasn't moved. At the start of August, he and his colleagues acknowledged that the economic outlook had worsened since their previous meeting, and, once again, they did nothing. At that point, my sympathy for Bernanke ran out.

????It could be argued that with short-term interest rates already so low, there isn't anything he can do. But Bernanke denies that. He has repeatedly stated that by purchasing bonds and carrying out other unorthodox measures, central banks have the capacity to support a recovery even when interest rates are close to zero. Why, then, hasn't he pushed through another big round of quantitative easing?

????The official explanation -- that he and other policymakers need to see more data -- is unconvincing. The unemployment rate is 8.3%; in the latest quarter GDP hardly grew at all. What more evidence is needed that the recovery has stalled? Another possibility is that Bernanke is playing politics. With an election just months away, Mitt Romney and other Republicans are inveighing against the prospect of QE3. Maybe the Fed chairman is simply trying to stay out of the firing line. Or perhaps he is trying to maintain a consensus inside the central bank. It's well known that several of the regional Reserve bank presidents are firmly opposed to QE3.

????But that just strengthens the argument that back in 2010, Obama should have replaced Bernanke with a more assertive Fed chairman. From time to time during their long tenures, Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan both faced internal opposition. That didn't prevent them from pushing through policy changes they deemed necessary. If Summers, brusque and confident to the point of arrogance, had been given the job, he would have done the same thing. So would others on Obama's list of candidates. I'd bet that right about now the President is wishing he'd made a different choice.