美债市场的重要性与近期异动
美国国债市场是全世界最重要的金融市场。毫无疑问，没有哪个市场能与之相比。我们大多数人并不直接参与其中。我们不会在早晨去买国债。但国债决定了一切，从股市的最终表现，到房贷、车贷、信用卡的成本。几乎没有任何金融领域是它触及不到的。
而美国国债市场最近看起来有点反常。美国政府的借贷成本正在上升。大概是因为我们的债务最近突破了 40 万亿美元。我们现在每年在该债务利息上的支出，比我们在整个国防预算上的支出还要多。但同时，唐纳德·特朗普也变得越来越反复无常。
英文原文
The US Treasury market is the most important financial market in the world. Bar none. Nothing is even close. Most of us don't participate in it directly. We don't go in the morning and buy treasury bonds. But treasury bonds define everything from how the stock market ends up performing to the cost of a mortgage, a car loan, a credit card. There is almost nothing financial they do not touch. And the US Treasury market, it's been looking a little weird lately. The cost of borrowing for the US government is going up. Probably because our debt recently passed $40 trillion. We now spend more on interest on that debt yearly than we spend on the entire defense budget. But also, Donald Trump has been more and more erratic.历史上从来没有哪个时期，会有像我们现在这样涌入一个国家的资金。
英文原文
>> There's never been in history the kind of money coming into a country as we have right now.他的财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）一直在对市场采取一些更激进的举措。
英文原文
>> His Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessant, has been making some more aggressive moves into the market.你可以把它想象成在这里拉开弹弓。我们有很多势能，这些势能将转化为动能。
英文原文
>> You think of it as pulling back the slingshot here. We have a lot of potential energy that will turn into kinetic energy.美国国债到底怎么了？为什么特朗普政府看起来如此惊慌失措？接下来可能会发生什么？罗宾·威格斯沃斯（Robin Wigglesworth）是《金融时报》博客 Alphaville 的主编。他是他们播客《金钱故事》（A Story of Money）的联合主持人，也是即将出版的《不可思议的债务：债券如何构建现代世界的史诗故事》（A Fabulous Debt: The Epic Story of How Bonds Built the Modern World）一书的作者。这里快速说明一下时间戳，因为债券市场最近发生了很多事情。我们的交谈时间是 8 月 24 日星期一。
罗宾·威格斯沃斯，欢迎来到本节目。
感谢邀请我。我想先从上周五唐纳德·特朗普被问及财政部长斯科特·贝森特近期干预债券市场的一段视频剪辑开始。
英文原文
>> What is going on with US treasuries? Why does the Trump administration seem so freaked out? And what might happen from here? Robin Wigglesworth is the editor of the Financial Times blog, Alphavville. He's co-host of their podcast, A Story of Money, and author of the forthcoming book, A Fabulous Debt: The Epic Story of How Bonds Built the Modern World. A quick time stamp here because a lot is happening in the bond markets lately. We spoke on Monday, August 24th.Robin Wilksworth, welcome to the show.
Thanks for having me on. So, I wanted to begin with this clip of Donald Trump being asked last Friday about Treasury Secretary Scott Besson's recent interventions in the bond market.
您是否指示过贝森特部长干预债券市场，但是——
完全没有。
英文原文
>> Did you direct Secretary Besson to intervene in the bond market, butNot at all.
没有。他是一个非常有能力的人。他自己想这么做。他在这方面很在行。他很有手腕。对债券和利息有着非常出色的天生手感。所以他就去做了。是的。
英文原文
>> No. He's a very capable man. He wanted to do it. He's very good at it. He is a good touch. Very good natural touch for the bonds and interest. And he did that. Yeah.从那以后收益率又回升了。您跟他谈过采取另一种干预方式吗？那是他会做的事吗？
英文原文
>> The yields have come back up since then. Have you talked to him about another type of intervention? Is that something he will do?我们有许多种干预方式。那是其中一种。终极的干预是我们的军队。呃，如果必须动用的话，我们会用的。是的。
英文原文
>> We have many types of intervention. That's one. The ultimate intervention is our military. And uh if we have to use that, we will. Yeah.是的。
所以我得说，这升级得相当快。呃，我以前还没听说过有人试图对债券市场动用军队。
英文原文
>> Yeah.So, I would say that escalated fairly quickly. Uh, I've not heard of people trying to use the military against the bond market before.
在我们讨论到那里之前，为什么不先从比较容易理解的部分开始呢？
英文原文
>> Why don't we start in the more comprehensible part of it before we go there?斯科特·贝森特一直在做什么？
英文原文
>> What has Scott Bessett been doing?财政部的干预与国债机制
嗯，感觉他有点像在采取倾其所有的“把厨房水槽都砸进去”的办法来压低债券收益率。核心原因在于，债券收益率——也就是美国政府的借贷价格——会渗透到其他所有领域。显然，在中期选举之前，他们希望利率和债券收益率更低，从而让美国家庭的负担能力更好一些。但在财政部长拥有的工具箱里，实际上并没有那么多东西。而贝森特似乎真在试图把一些奇怪的工具用于它们本来并非为此设计的目的。
英文原文
>> Well, it feels a little bit like he's doing a bit of a kitchen sink approach to bringing bond yields down. The core reason is that bond yields, the price of the US government borrowing flows into everything else. And clearly before the midterms, they would like interest rates and bond yields to be lower to make affordability better for for American households. But in the toolkit that the Treasury Secretary has, there's actually not that much. And Bessant seems to be really trying to kind of use some weird tools for purposes they weren't really designed for.为您插播市场快讯。财政部正在将用于较长期限名义附息证券的流动性支持回购操作规模翻倍，要知道，把回购计划呃增加数十亿美元，甚至翻十倍，都不会起到实质性作用，这就是为什么大家都在挠头不解他为什么要这么做，以及坦率地说，在最初的反应之后，呃美债收益率为什么又开始爬升。我认为要进行这场对话，我们需要先为整个结构做个铺垫，人们有时会在 CNBC 或财经版面上看到它一闪而过，但也许并没有那么熟悉。那么，就从最简单的层面来说，什么是美国政府债券？美国政府债券就是由美国发行的可交易贷款。所以，债券就是可交易的贷款。你可以买入它们，卖出它们。它们支付固定利率，而且在某种程度上它们被设计成——你可以非常迅速地买卖它，这与传统的贷款不同。而美国政府是世界上最大的政府。它是最强大的国家。它处于整个全球金融体系的顶点。所以这就是为什么国债如此重要，为什么人人都喜欢持有它们。它们算得上是地球上最容易交易的呃债券。而美国政府能够以如此低廉的成本为自己融资的原因之一，就是因为人人都喜欢买它们。
英文原文
>> Breaking market news for you. The Treasury Department is doubling the size of liquidity support buyback operations that are being used for longerdated nominal coupon securities and you know jacking up the buyback program uh by a few billion dollars even even 10xing it is not going to move the needle which is why people are scratching their heads over why he would do this and why frankly after the initial reaction uh treasury yields have started climbing again. I think to have this conversation, we need to just set the table on this whole structure that people sometimes see flash by them on CNBC or in the financial pages, but maybe don't have that much familiarity with. So, just at the simplest level, what is a US government bond? A US government bond is a tradable loan issued by the US. So, bonds are just tradable loans. You can buy them, sell them. They pay a fixed interest rate and they're kind of designed to be able to you can buy and sell it very quickly unlike a conventional loan. And the US government is the biggest government in the world. It's the most powerful country. It is at the apex of the entire global financial system. So that's why treasuries are so important and why everybody loves having them. They're kind of the most easily tradable uh bond on the planet. And one of the reasons why the US government can fund itself so cheaply is because everybody loves buying them.他们喜欢买它们是因为它们安全。如果你持有一只，你知道，特斯拉的股票或者苹果的股票，或者各种各样的东西，即使是一笔对一家公司的良好押注，在 10 年的时间跨度里也是相当难以预测的。
英文原文
>> And they love buying them because they're safe. If you have a, you know, a share of Tesla stock or of Apple stock or of all kinds of things, even a good bet for a company over a 10-year time frame is pretty unpredictable.但如果美国政府说，你看，你以 5% 的利率买了这只债券。那只债券就会在 10 年、20 年或 30 年，或者无论多长时间里付给你 5%，然后像发条一样准时在期末把贷款的本金还给你。
英文原文
>> But if the US government says, you know, you've bought this bond at 5%. that bond is going to pay you 5% for 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or whatever it is and then give you the underlying money on the loan back at the end of that like clockwork.是的。
英文原文
>> Yeah.这就是让它成为如此重要的全球金融工具的原因，人们需要绝对可靠的东西，而美国国债被认为是地球上最接近绝对可靠的金融工具。尽管这对美国人来说有时听起来很疯狂，但确实如此，呃我想说，你知道，这其中有多个支柱，其中之一是它很安全，如果我借钱给政府，不仅是在接下来的 5 年，在接下来的 30 年里，我都相当有信心 30 年后仍会有一个美国政府存在，你不可能对地球上的每一个国家都这么说，甚至对大多数公司都不能这么说，你知道，公司也是会破产的，呃但是美国政府，那感觉相当安全。不过我会说，国债市场未被充分赏识的支柱之一，就是极其容易买入大量的它们或卖出大量的它们。那就是流动性，这是一个有点奇怪的金融行话词汇，经常被滥用，但它指的就是你可以非常容易地买进和卖出某样东西。国债市场，我是说，那每天的交易额有一万亿美元。这就是为什么，你知道，无论你是丹麦的养老金计划、中东的主权财富基金，还是比如巴西的央行，人人都喜欢美债，因为即便你持有价值数千亿美元的国债，你知道，如果必须出手的话，你将能够非常迅速地卖掉很多。这几乎就像是那份神奇的佐料，帮助维持国债市场屹立不倒，尽管人们对美国债务问题的担忧已经持续了——有多久了，几代人了。所以这就是它金融管道的一面。这就是为什么国债最终对金融体系如此关键。它们是，它们就是流动性。它们就像流淌在全球金融体系动脉里的血液。
英文原文
>> And that's what makes it such an important global financial instrument that people need something that is perfectly reliable and the US Treasury Bond is considered as close to perfectly reliable as any financial instrument on earth. as crazy as it sounds sometimes to Americans but yes uh I would say that you know there are multiple pillars to this and one of it that it's safe that if I lend money to the government not just over the next 5 years the next 30 years I'm pretty confident that there will be a US government around in 30 years you couldn't say that about every country on the planet or even most companies you know companies do go bankrupt as well uh but the US government that feels pretty safe but I'd say one of the underappreciated pillars is of the treasury market is that it's so easy to buy a ton of them or sell a ton of them. It's liquidity, which is kind of a weird financial jargon word that gets abused a lot, but it just means that you can buy and sell something very quickly. The treasury market, I mean, that trades a trillion dollars a day. And that's why, you know, whether you're a pension plan in Denmark, a sovereign wealth fund in the Middle East, a central bank in Brazil, for example, everybody likes treasuries because even if you have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of them, you know, you're going to be able to sell a lot of them very quickly if you have to. And that's almost like the magic source that that that helps keep the Treasury market aloft even though concerns about US indebtedness have been growing for what generations now. So that's the financial plumbing side of it. That's why treasuries end up being so crucial to the financial system. They're they're the liquidity. They're like what what runs through the arteries of the global financial system.但假设我不是养老基金。我也不是巴西央行。据我所知，我没有任何债券。我为什么要关心？这会影响或者可能影响我作为一个普通人吗？
呃不幸的是，是的，它会影响你。呃我是说，从宏观层面退一步来看，债券市场，你知道，它看起来很无聊。人们不像关心股市那样关心它，但它确实是整个全球金融体系的基石。呃它是政府为自己融资的地方。它基本上也是银行融资的地方。它通过抵押贷款、汽车贷款、学生贷款等一切途径，决定了政府、企业、家庭的资金成本。而且它也会波及股市。如果债券收益率走得太高，如果企业的借贷成本太高，那么实际上，它也会导致股市出现动摇。这就是为什么我们看到像贝森特和特朗普这样的人，他们对股市的在乎程度其实没有人们想象的那么多。还记得“解放日”吗？股市跌得相当剧烈。但实际上是当债券市场开始吃不消崩塌的时候，贝森特和特朗普才非常迅速地说：“等等，债券市场开始变得神经质了。”呃，正如特朗普所说，
英文原文
>> But let's say I am not a pension fund. I am not the Brazilian central bank. I don't to my knowledge own any bonds. Why do I care? Does this affect or could this affect me as a normal person? Uh unfortunately, yes, it will affect you. Uh I mean, stepping really far back, the bond market, you know, it's it's seems boring. People don't care about it as much as the stock market, but really is it is the the bedrock of the entire global financial system. uh is where governments fund themselves. It's where banks fund themselves largely. It sets the costs of money for governments, for companies, for households, through mortgages, car loans, student loans, the whole nine yards essentially. And it flows into the stock market as well. If bond yields go too high, if borrowing costs are too high for companies, well, actually, it it causes the stock market to wobble as well. And that's why we've seen people like Besson and Trump, they actually care less about the stock market than people think. Remember Liberation Day? The stock market crapped out quite violently. It was actually when the bond market started to buckle that Bessent and Trump very quickly said, "Hang on, the bond market is getting yippy." Uh, as as Trump put it,他们变得神经兮兮的。你知道的，他们变得有点神经质，有点害怕。
英文原文
>> they were getting yippy. You know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid.呃，我们需要暂停一下。我认为这非常说明他们如何看待相对的实力和重要性——股市可以下跌，这虽然不太好。特朗普
英文原文
>> Uh, we need to take a time out. And I think that's quite indicative of how they see the relative strength and importance that the stock market can fall and it's not great. Trump希望它走高，但债券市场的动摇、债券市场闹点脾气，会非常迅速地产生切实的经济影响，有时会变得相当吓人。
英文原文
wants it to be higher, but the bond market buckling, the bond market throwing a bit of a tantrum that has a real economic impact very quickly and can get quite scary sometimes.是的，我想抓住这一点不放，即债券市场是一切其他东西成本的基石，因为我认为这一点值得展开谈谈。想想可负担性议题，对吧？现在一切东西的成本都是核心政治问题。
股市影响的是富人们感觉有多富以及实际上有多富。债券市场影响的则是你眼下为各种东西支付多少钱。因此，当你要办汽车贷款，当你要办……呃，申请信用卡或在未来偿还信用卡债务时，所有这些东西都是建立在国债市场的资金成本之上的。所以，如果国债的收益率是 3%，那就是 3% 加上 X，对吧？加上他们认为需要在其之上额外增加的任何数额。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I want to hold on this point that the bond market is bedrock of how much everything else costs because I think it's worth expanding this. So you think about an affordability agenda, right? The cost of everything is the central political issue now.The stock market affects how rich people both feel and are. The bond market affects how much you pay for things right now. So when you are getting an auto loan, when you are paying uh getting a credit card or paying credit card debt in the future, that all of these things are set on top of the cost of money in the treasury market. And so if treasuries are paying out at 3%, it's 3% plus X, right? plus whatever they think they need to add on top of that.
如果国债收益率是 5%，如果是 7%，那么房贷、车贷、其他一切就是 5%、7%、9% 加上在此之上的某些数额。这样你其实就构成了包含债务在内的一切东西将要花费多少的底层基准。更不用说如果这个市场真的开始出现波动会发生什么，那情况就会变得非常吓人。我们目前还没怎么真正看到这种情况，
英文原文
>> If treasuries are 5%, if they're 7%, then mortgages, autos, everything else are 5%, 7%, 9% plus something on top of that. And so you you're kind of creating the base layer of how much everything that includes debt is going to cost. To say nothing of what happens if you actually begin having volatility in that market, then things get really scary. We've not really seen too much of that yet,但这在过去几年里一直以一种持续的方式走高。如果你是唐纳德·特朗普，你是共和党人，
英文原文
>> but but this has been going up now in a kind of persistent way for a couple of years. And if you're Donald Trump, you're the Republicans而你想让人们觉得东西变得越来越便宜。如果资金的成本——这基本上又会传导到其他一切——在上扬，要让人们觉得生活在变便宜是极其极其极其极其极其困难的。
英文原文
>> and you want people to feel things are getting cheaper. It is very very very very very hard to get people to feel that life is getting cheaper if the cost of money, which again feeds into everything else basically, is going up.财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）提出了一个他称之为“333 计划”的构想。他想把预算赤字降至 GDP 的 3%。他想实现 3% 的经济增长。而且他想让美国的石油产量每天增加 300 万桶。
英文原文
>> Well, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson has a 333 plan as he's dubbed it. He wants to uh lower the budget deficit to 3% of GDP. He wants to get 3% uh growth, economic growth. And he wants to increase oil production in the United States by 3 million barrels a day.我们在这方面进展如何？
英文原文
>> How are we doing on that?美债市场机制与运作
我觉得不怎么样。但这是一个全球性问题，因为美国是世界上最重要的经济体，其金融体系极其庞大。你知道，当我在挪威这里借钱时，我本质上是在与美国财政部竞争。美国政府就是那个无风险利率。它是世界上最安全、最大、流动性最强的政府债券市场。美国国债市场规模达 32 万亿美元。因此，当那里的国债收益率从 2% 变成 3%、4% 或 5% 时，我要为此支付利差。当我从一家挪威银行借款时，我本质上——每个人都在以某种方式或角度与美国政府竞争资金。但大体上，这就是为什么当美国债券市场打喷嚏时，全世界都可能跟着感冒。而那还仅仅是它打喷嚏的时候。当它患上流感时，情况就会变得非常恶劣。这就是你提到的波动性。你知道，我对国债的思考可能比大多数人都要多。多年来我对这方面、债务上限危机以及所有相关的事情都做过由内而外的报道。但即使到了今天，我也从来没有真正概念化过这些债券到底是如何买卖的。他们是不是都登录某一个网站？我是说，从字面意义上讲，这些债券到底是如何买卖的？
英文原文
>> Not well, I think. But like but this is a global issue because because the US is the world's most important economy and its financial system is huge. You know, when I borrow money here in Norway, I'm essentially competing with the US Treasury. The US government is the the risk-free rate. It's the safest government bond market, the biggest, the most liquid government bond market in the world. The US Treasury market is $32 trillion. So, when Treasury yields go from 2% or 3% or 4% or 5% there, I'm paying a spread on that. I'm essentially when I borrow from a Norwegian bank, everybody is in some way or respect competing with the US government for money. But broadly, that's why when the US bond market sneezes, the world can catch its cold. And that's just when it sneezes. When it has a a the flu, it gets really nasty. That's the volatility that you mentioned. You know, I have thought about Treasury bonds more than probably most people have. I've covered this in and out and debt sealing crises and all the rest of it for many years. But I have never, even to this day, I don't have a conceptualization really of how these bonds are bought and sold. Is there a website they all log into? I mean, how quite literally are these bonds bought and sold?它们确实是一直在字面意义上被买卖，尽管不是在一个单一的大集市里。最初的债券市场现在是意大利威尼斯的一个食品集市。而现在全都是电子化的，比如在彭博终端上。但多年来它一直在演变，而美国现在是一个庞大的借款者，因此围绕这个建立起了相当严密的流程。它希望保持可预测性，希望保持稳定，作为一个负责任的行为主体。你可以在政府建立的网站上购买国债、提交竞标，这是针对个人的；但大多数大买家——比如塔吉克斯坦的央行，或者墨西哥的一家养老金计划——他们会通过银行来买，一个被称为“一级交易商”的银行俱乐部，它们是类似摩根大通和高盛这样相当重要的大型机构。作为承诺进行做市、确保市场平稳、确保有买家和卖家并为之进行撮合的交换，它们被允许参与美国政府的拍卖竞标。那么，我是说，这是一个非常基本的问题，但我们正在讨论的收益率——无论它是 3% 还是现在的 4% 到 5%——到底是如何确定的？
它只是取决于那天早上的供需关系吗？有多少人在买？有多少人在卖？到底发生着什么，才让我们在任何给定的某一天落脚在比如 4.2%、2% 或不论是什么样的水平上？
英文原文
>> They are quite literally bought and sold all the time, albeit not in a in a big marketplace. So, the first bond market is now a food market in in Venice in Italy. And now it's all electronic on Bloomberg terminals, uh, for example. But it has evolved over the years, but the US now is a big borrower, so it's got pretty sort of strong processes built up around this. It wants to be predictable. It wants to be steady. is a responsible actor. uh you can buy treasury bonds, you can put in bids uh on on website the government has set up you as an individual but most of the big buyers the the central banks of of of you know Tajjakistan or a pension plan in in Mexico they'll buy through banks a club of banks called primary dealers and they're kind of serious big organizations like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs they in return for promising to make markets making sure that the markets are steady, that there are buyers and sellers and they'll match them, they are allowed to bid at auction from the US government and and so then I mean this is a very basic question but how is the yield we're talking about whether it's 3% or where it is now 4 to 5%.How is it set? It just it's supply and demand that morning how many people are buying? How many people are are selling? Like what what is happening that lands us on any given day at you know 4.2% 2% or whatever it might be.
呃，我是说，他们会看它们已经在什么样的水平上交易。不过，银行基本上会根据需求情况，拿出一个他们认为应该支付的价格方案。大多数时候，这些拍卖都是波澜不惊的。它们在某种程度上就被设计成枯燥乏味。当美国政府发行债务时，你不会想要什么刺激场面。但偶尔也会出现小意外。比如，我们最近就看到了这种情况：一场 30 年期国债拍卖的需求略显疲软，突然间那个收益率……美国政府就不得不在其上额外多支付一点，这引发了担忧。
好吧，情况正变得不那么枯燥。那么，请给我梳理一下过去——你可以在这里选择时间跨度，比如 5 年、10 年——债券市场的发展脉络。它比过去高了多少？又是什么开始让人们对其未来的走向感到紧张？
英文原文
>> Well, I mean, they look at where they're already trading. Uh, but the banks will basically come up with an idea or what they think they should pay depending on what the the the demand is. Most of the time, these auctions are non-events. They're kind of designed to be boring. You don't want excitement when the US government is issuing debts. But occasionally, there are little curve balls. For example, you know, we saw this recently. there was slightly limp demand for an auction of a 30-year Treasury bond and suddenly that that yield the US government had to pay a bit of extra on top and that kind of cause concerns. Well, things be getting less boring. So, walk me through the story of the bond market over the past I mean you can choose the time range here but you know 5 10 years.How much higher is it than it was? And what is it that is starting to get people nervous about where it's going from here?
全球金融危机以来的债务演变
呃，我想，我是说，世界上有太多事情都可以划分为全球金融危机前和全球金融危机后。我们就从那时开始吧。美国……你知道，这对现在的我们来说很不可思议，但埃兹拉（Ezra），在你和我更年轻的时候，美国的一场争论是：如果美国政府没有债务会发生什么？比如在 90 年代，人们真的担心美国政府可能会把国债用光。当时它有预算盈余，并且在偿还债务。那么，当这个基石压根不存在时，金融系统该如何运转？当然，现在的情况已经彻底截然不同了。
巨大的转折点是金融危机。世界各国不得不借债，并在随后的多年里支撑经济增长，而我们其实从未真正从中恢复过来。金融危机在经济层面上往往会引发长达约七年的严重后遗症，而各国政府当时完全理所当然地决定：我们需要通过花钱来摆脱困境。但接着当然，这种习惯是很难戒掉的，然后新冠疫情到来，直接把所有那些趋势推升到了新的高度。我是说，我们最近看到，美国政府的债务负担已经突破了 40 万亿美元大关。那是好大一笔债务。这是一个打破纪录的债务规模。呃——
英文原文
>> Well, I guess I mean so much in the world can be divided into the pre global financial crisis and post global financial crisis. Let's start then. The US, you know, it's crazy to us now, but you know, Ezra, when you and I were younger, a debate in the United States was what would happen if the US government had no debt? Like in the '90s, people were genuinely worried that the US government might run out of debt. It was it had budget surpluses and it was paying down debt. So how does the financial system when operate when the bedrock just doesn't exist? Now of course it's just radically different.The big change was the financial crisis. Countries around the world just had to borrow money and and you know support economic growth for years afterwards and we've never really recovered from that. Now, financial crisis cause these massive usually like seven-year hangovers economically speaking and governments quite rightly decided we need to spend our way out of this. But then of course, you know, it's it's a hard habit to kick and then co came and just kind of jacked all those trends up to new levels. I mean, we saw, you know, recently uh the US government debt burden has crossed the $40 trillion mark. That's a lot of debt. Uh it's a record shattering amount of debt. Uh
我想给人们提供一点背景信息。这意味着在利息方面，我们现在每年在债务利息上的支出超过了国防开支。
英文原文
>> just give people I want to give people a bit of a context on this. So that means in interest we are now paying every year in debt interest more than we are spending on defense.是的。事实上是近一个世纪以来——自第二次世界大战以来的首次，而且规模巨大。这是因为，你看，美国借了很多钱，过去借了很多钱，而且随着利率上升，那些债务正变得更加昂贵。所以美国基本上有大量过去年成本可能只有 1% 或 2% 的债券。嗯，它们正在被再融资，因为政府总是借新钱来还旧账。那些债务正以越来越高的利率进行再融资，这正在不断推高利率负担。所以我过去总觉得——我对政府债务及其规模从来没有过极度担忧，虽然它规模很大，但这不是我们欠火星的钱，大体上说这是我们欠自己的钱。但现在看到……你看，自我们摆脱疫情留下的后遗症以来已经过去十年、半个十年了，而在大多数国家，预算赤字依然处于历史高位，就算不是也绝对没小多少，而且那笔债务负担仍在不断膨胀。杰伊·鲍威尔（Jay Powell）在他卸任主席职位不久前——被赶下主席职位前，一些学生曾向他问及此事。学生们问他：我们应该对此感到担忧吗？而他——
英文原文
>> Yes. Uh for the first time in almost a century in fact since World War II and it's it's huge and that's because you know the US borrows a lot of money has borrowed a lot of money in the past but also that debt is becoming more expensive as interest rates have gone up. So the US is essentially has lots of bonds that used to cost maybe 1 or 2% a year. Well, they're getting refinanced because governments always borrow more money to pay back the old money. That's getting refinance at a higher and higher rate and that's just kind of jacking up the interest rate burden. So I was always like I've never been hugely worried about government debt, the size of it, like it's big, but it's not money we owe to Mars, it's money we owe to ourselves, broadly speaking. But now seeing you know co you know it's you know it's a decade half a decade since we emerged from from the hangover there and budget deficits are in most countries as large as they've ever been if not you know certainly not much smaller and that debt burden just keeps growing bigger and bigger and and Jay Powell he was asked about this by some students uh shortly before he stepped out his chair was pushed out out his chair and the students asked him you know should we worry about this and he说过，债务的水平并非不可持续，但其发展路径是不可持续的，而且……
英文原文
said the level of the debt is not unsustain ustainable but the path is not sustainable and我想这里的细微之处在于，我认为大家对债务目前的水平过于担忧了，但其走向当然确实不容乐观。正如你所说，美国仅在支付利息账单上的花费，就已经超过了国防开支。这种情况通常只会发生在大国身上，而且是在发生重大战争等严重紧急情况的时期。而且，嗯，你知道，我认为在未来的20、30年里，如果目前的状况持续下去，美国的债务负担看起来，它将从令人不安的高位走向庞大到可怕的地步，而这是令人担忧的。
英文原文
>> I think that's the nuance here that I think people are too worried about the debt where it is now but of course the trajectory just doesn't look good I the US like you said is already spending more money on on just paying its interest bill than it does on defense that typically only happens to great powers and in times of great emergency major wars and things like that and um you know I think over the next 20 30 years if the present conditions continue the US debt burden is going to look it's going to go from uncomfortably high to monstrously big and that's a worry.通胀、能源与利率
如果你还不是《纽约时报》的订阅者，我们有个消息要告诉你。在《纽约时报》App内首月期间，你现在可以免费浏览《时报》内容，完全没有任何付费墙阻隔。
好的，这就是正在发生的一件事。由于政府必须为这笔越来越庞大的债务进行融资，所以必须购买更多，或者更确切地说是出售更多国债。还有什么其他情况呢？嗯，还有通胀。呃，通胀。在……之后我们经历了那场大规模的通胀爆发，供应链变得有点失控。呃，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。当时发生了很多事情。呃，呃，很多人总认为通胀完全是国内问题，但这一直是一个全球性问题。各国央行或许行动迟缓地大幅提高了利率，以此来在某种程度上抑制经济、抑制物价。而这确实起到了作用，但他们或许还没有走完那“最后一英里”。因此，在包括美国在内的大多数国家，通胀率仍略高于目标水平。而且你知道，近期对伊朗的战争并没有带来帮助。那阻断了过去常常流经霍尔木兹海峡的大部分能源通道，并推高了能源价格，这在某种程度上让人们不安地意识到，通胀从未回落到央行2%的目标，而且很可能在此基础上轻易地向上攀升。
而这对债券并不是什么好事。通胀可以说是债券的头号死敌，因为债券支付的是固定利率。假设每年支付5%。那么，如果通胀率是5%，实际上你就只是在原地踏步。因此它的价值就变低了。
如果我对在开头播放的特朗普的那段音频保持最大程度的宽容，我认为他当时表达的意思是：如果你听听斯科特·贝森特的说法，听听特朗普他们讨论债券时的说法，他们谈到债券时，往往把主要问题归结为伊朗。我认为事实并非如此。但我认为，当特朗普说最终的干预手段是军事手段时，他的意思是他们可以重新对伊朗展开军事干涉。呃，现在的现实是那并没有奏效。所以再次声明，我不确定为什么那能拉低国债收益率，但贝森特和特朗普的论据似乎是：国债市场表现反常、国债收益率上升，是因为伊朗关闭霍尔木兹海峡所带来的暂时性影响。
你认同这个所谓“这完全是由伊朗推动的暂时性现象”的论据吗？
英文原文
>> If you're not a subscriber to the New York Times, we have some news for you. You can now explore the Times for free without any pay walls at all during your first month in the New York Times app.All right, so that's one thing that's happening. You're having uh the government has to buy more or sell more bonds rather because it has to finance this increasing large debt. What else is going on? Well, there's inflation. Uh inflation. We had that massive uh burst of inflation after co supply chains went kind of haywire. Uh Russia invaded Ukraine. There was a lot going on. Uh uh lots of people always think inflation is uniquely domestic, but this has been a global problem. Central banks maybe belatedly jacked up interest rates to kind of dampen down the economy, dampen down prices. And it's it it has it it has worked, but they haven't maybe gotten that last mile down. So inflation is in most countries slightly above target including in the United States and you know the recent war on Iran has not helped. That has blocked off uh large parts of energy that used to flow through the straits of Hormuz and that has pushed up energy prices and has kind of made people uncomfortably aware that inflation never got back down to the central bank's 2% target and might very easily drift higher from here. And that's not great for bonds. Inflation is kind of the the arch nemesis of bonds because a bond pays a fixed interest rate. So let's say it pays 5% a year. Well, if inflation is 5% then essentially you're just running to stand still. So it becomes less valuable. If I had to be maximally generous to that Trump clip I played at the top. This is what I think he was saying that if you listen to Scott Besson, if you listen to Trump when they've been talking about bonds, they're talking about bonds as often the primary problem is Iran. I don't think that's true. But I think that when Trump is saying the ultimate intervention is military, he's saying that about they could re-engage military inter intervention against Iran. Uh now that the reality is that hasn't worked. So again, I'm not sure why that would bring down bond yields, but the Bess and Trump argument seems to be that the Treasury markets are looking weird, that bond yields are going up because of the transitory influence of Iran's closure of the Straight of Hormuz.
Do you buy that actual argument that this is all a transitory Iran driven phenomena?
嗯，我认同你对特朗普当时发言意图的解读，尽管在那段音频之后我收到了很多来自债券投资者的恐慌短信，呃，当然略带开玩笑的性质。嗯，在一定程度上我同意，你知道，重新打通霍尔木兹海峡，给中东带来和平，能源价格下降，情况就会平静下来。但深层次的问题在于美国负债的规模，预算赤字的规模——要知道，在目前经济实际上表现相当不错的时候，我们却在承受着类似全面战争时期的赤字水平；此外还在于特朗普任命了新的美联储主席，而他似乎不情愿加息，也许是出于来自他老板的指示。美联储实际上只要稍微提高一点利率，就可以在拉低国债收益率和抑制通胀方面发挥很大作用。但由于某些原因，这似乎正是他们就是不愿迈出的一步。
英文原文
>> Well, I agree with your interpretation about what Trump was talking about, even though I got a lot of panicky text messages from bond investors uh after that clip. Uh slightly tongue and cheek, of course. Um and to a certain extent, I agree that you know, open the streets of Amuz, bring peace to the Middle East, energy prices come down, things will quieten down. But the the underlying issue is this the size of the US indebtedness, the size of the budget deficit which you know we are now running sort of full wartime levels of deficit at a time when the economy is actually doing pretty well and also the fact that Trump has put a new chair of the Federal Reserve in and he seems unwilling maybe because from instructions from his boss to raise interest rates. The Fed could actually do a lot to bring bond yields down and inflation down if it just raised interest rates a little bit. And that seems to be the set they just are unwilling to take for whatever reason.为什么提高利率能拉低国债收益率？
英文原文
>> Why does raising interest rates bring down bond yields?嗯，通胀在某种意义上是经济中流动的资金太多了。如果提高利率，就提高了资金的成本。资金变少了，这应该能抑制经济。但其中很大一部分只是一种信号传递。这是一种情绪与氛围。对于债券投资者而言，一个表示“我们愿意提高利率”的美联储，表明他们愿意采取一切必要手段来抑制通胀，投资者就会感到安心。我认为，如果美联储能够硬气起来并决定加息，你就会看到那种10年期国债收益率、30年期国债收益率相当迅速地降下来。
英文原文
>> Well, inflation should be, you know, is a sense of there's too much money sloshing around the economy. If you raise interest rates, you raise the cost of money. There's less of it and it should dampen the economy. But a lot of it's just signaling. It's vibes. And for bond investors, a Federal Reserve that says we are willing to raise interest rates shows that they're willing to do what it takes to bring inflation down, they will be feel reassured. And you'll see those kind of 10-year bond yields, the 30-year Treasury yields, they'll come down, I think, pretty quickly if the Fed kind of manned up and and and decided to raise interest rates.AI建设与国债挤出效应
我一直听到的另一个论据是，AI的建设规模，即各大AI公司为了为所有这些基础设施、数据中心、能源融资而借入的资金量，实际上正在造成……私营部门几乎挤出了对国债的需求，因为他们吸纳了如此多的投资，以至于其中一部分原本可能投向国债，从而减少了对国债的需求，并推高了政府必须支付的收益率金额。你认同这一点吗？
英文原文
So one other argument I've been hearing is that the level of AI buildout, the amount of money that the various AI companies are borrowing in order to finance all this infrastructure, the data centers, the energy, that that's actually creating uh the private sector is almost crowding out demand for bonds because they're soaking up so much investment that some of it might normally go to treasuries and that is reducing the demand for treasuries and pushing up the um amount of yield. the government has to pay. Do you buy that在边际上认同。AI的建设确实惊人，规模非同寻常。它非常庞大。呃，这在边际上产生了一定影响，但据我所知，我们谈论的全球与AI相关的债券发行量仍处于5000亿美元左右。即便在今天，5000亿美元也是大钱了。你知道，这确实有分量，但它主要是在排挤其他企业类投资，比如其他公司发现借贷成本略微变高了。对于美国国债而言，是的，我确定它可能会在最顶部增加几个基点，也就是百分之零点几的微小幅度，但对于美国借贷成本来说并没有实质性的重大意义。这里还有太多其他更庞大的力量在发挥作用。因此，它是一个因素，但并非决定性因素。
英文原文
>> on the margin? Yes. And the AI buildup is staggering, remarkable in scale. It is huge. Uh and that is having an effect on the margins, but we're still talking I think globally in AI related bond issuance half a trillion dollars. Now that's that's big money even today half a trillion dollars. you know, it matters, but it's mostly displacing other corporate like other companies are finding it a little bit pricier to borrow. The US Treasury, yes, I'm sure maybe adds a few basis points, like a smidgens of a percent on the top, but it is not massively meaningful for the the cost of US borrowing. There are so many other larger forces at play here. So, it's a factor, but not the factor.对冲基金的角色
然后人们一直在讨论的另一件事是，对冲基金在国债市场上扮演着不同的角色，并且它们正在引入以前不曾存在的波动性。你……你能解释一下为什么吗？
英文原文
And then one of the other things people have been talking about is that hedge funds are playing a different role in the treasury market and they are introducing volatility that wasn't there before. C can you explain why?好，我的意思是这是一个巨大的话题，而且我认为可能仍然讨论不足。如果你回想大约2000年代，呃，当时关于全球储蓄过剩的讨论很多。全球所有这些央行和投资者都在存入大量资金，并投入到美国国债中。呃，你可以看到国债市场中的外国持有份额变得非常庞大，而且主要由央行和主权财富基金持有，他们被称为对价格不敏感的投资者。他们购买国债是因为国债的流动性，非常容易买进卖出，不一定是为了获得丰厚的回报。
这种情况已经稳定下来，甚至略有萎缩。如今这个全球储蓄过剩看起来不再那么严重了。呃，而与此同时，国债市场在过去十年中大幅增长。在这片真空之中，我们看到对冲基金介入了。但这意味著国债市场变得越来越受制于对冲基金。我认为它的占比从大约2%上升到了接近8%。因此在官方层面，对冲基金持有的国债份额现在已经超过了日本、中国和沙特阿拉伯持有的总和，这是一个巨大的变化。通常这并不算太大的问题，因为你知道，你需要一个多元化的生态系统，对冲基金在国债市场中扮演着重要角色，我甚至可以说是有价值的角色；但它们同时也是高杠杆运作的，它们借钱来持有这些国债。假设你拿出1000万美元——好吧，当然是1亿美元——你就可以买入价值10亿美元的国债。因此，如果你的杠杆成本、借贷成本突然上升，那么你就直接被迫平仓出局了。呃，我认为这是政策制定者关注的一点，珍妮特·耶伦之前谈论过这一点。我确信斯科特·贝森特也意识到了这个问题。我认为这也是为什么当2025年4月解放日之后国债市场开始出现些微震颤时，他们相当迅速地退缩的原因之一。
但这绝对是贯穿金融领域的最大断层线之一。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I mean this is a a huge topic and I still think probably under discuss. So if you cast your mind back to sort of the the 2000s uh there was all this talk of a global savings. So you had all these central banks and and investors around the world were saving a lot of money and they were putting into treasury bonds. Uh and you could see the the foreign ownership of the treasury market became very big and it was mainly central banks and sovereign wealth funds and they were known as price agnostic investors. They were buying treasury bonds because their liquidity they were very easy to buy and sell not necessarily as a sort of to make great returns.That has stabilized and even shrunk a little bit. This global savings glut is looking a little bit less gluty these days. Uh and the treasury market has at the same time grown enormously over the past decade. And into the breach we've seen hedge funds step in. But it has meant that the treasury market has become increasingly beholden to hedge funds. So I think it's gone from around 2% to close to 8%. So officially now hedge funds own more of the treasury market than Japan and China and Saudi Arabia combined and that's a huge change and normally that doesn't matter that much because you know you want a diverse ecosystem and hedge funds are playing an important role in the treasury market a valuable role I'd even say but they are also very leveraged they borrow money to hold these treasury bonds so let's say you put down $10 million, well certainly $100 million, you can buy a billion dollars worth of treasury. So if suddenly the cost of your leverage, your borrowing that goes up, well then you're just shaken out of that trade. Uh and that I think is something that policy makers, I'm Janet Yellen's talked about this before. I'm sure Scott Bessent is aware of this issue. I think this is one of the reasons why they backtrack quite quickly when the bond market started quivering a bit after Liberation Day in April 2025.
But it is definitely one of the biggest fault lines running through the financial
目前的体系。
英文原文
system right now.这里令人担忧的是，对冲基金加了杠杆，与养老基金或各央行的行为方式相比，可能会发生一些情况迫使它们以快得多的速度行动，以防止自身倒闭。所以你可能会遇到国债的关联性抛售以非常非常快的速度发生，其方式在央行面临压力时的行动模式中并不多见。是的，通常发生经济危机时，美债收益率会下跌，因为人们会去买国债——国债安全可靠，而人们想不顾一切逃离股市。但由于这种机制，你可以看到不同的现象发生。我们在2020年3月看到了这一点。我们在2025年4月也看到了这一点，当时国债收益率实际上开始急剧飙升，伴随着国债被抛售，因为对冲基金基本上被迫平仓退场。它们的杠杆极高。这意味着它们不是稳固的持有者。你知道散户模因股交易员怎么谈论“钻石手”吧？他们绝不会卖掉GameStop。但对冲基金可并不总是坚挺的接盘手。因此在后金融危机时代至今的这段时间里，我们从美国政府借贷成本极低的状态，走到了现在的地步。
英文原文
>> And the concern here is that hedge funds when they're leveraged compared to the way pension funds act or the way other central banks act, things can happen that require them to move much faster to keep themselves from going under. So you could have correlated sell-offs of treasuries happening very very quickly in a way that would not be typical of the way central banks act under pressure. Yeah, normally when there's an economic crisis, Treasury yields fall because people buy Treasury bonds because they're safe and solid and you want to get the hell out of stocks. Uh but because of this dynamic, you can see different uh phenomena happen. We saw this in March 2020. We saw this in April 2025 when Treasury yields actually started shooting higher as Treasury bonds were sold off because hedge funds were essentially being shaken out of those trades. There were very heavy leverage. That means that they're not strong hands. You know how you know meme stock traders talk about diamond hands? They're never going to sell at GameStop. Well, hedge funds are not solid hands all the time. And so we've gone in this period in this post financial crisis period to now from a place where the borrowing cost for the US government was just incredibly low.美债市场与借贷成本的变迁
是的。我记得当年我在《华盛顿邮报》的Wonkblog时，我们经常——因为我们当时主张应该借更多的债并投资于基础设施。我们经常拿出这些10年期的图表，显示在实际利率层面借贷成本是负的。也就是说把通胀考虑进去之后，人们几乎是在倒贴钱给美国政府去借贷，因为他们太渴望获得美国政府债务了，因为它安全，因为它流动性高，因为在这个巨大不确定的时期你确实可以拿着它做很多事。
英文原文
>> Yeah. I remember back when I was at Wonk Blog at the Washington Post and we would constantly cuz we were we were arguing that we should actually borrow more at that time and invest in infrastructure. We had constantly put up these 10-year uh tables showing that at a real rate, the borrowing cost was negative. That when you took inflation into account, people were almost paying the US government to borrow because they were so desperate for US government debt because it was safe, because it was liquid, because you could actually work with it at a time of of great uncertainty.所以那个时期美国经济的一个维度就是我们享有极低的借贷成本。然后先是慢慢地、在后疫情时期加速地、在后特朗普时期更加难以预测地，这一切一直在发生变化。你知道，你再也拿不到2%或3%的房贷利率了，所以资金成本就像在拾级而上。而今年让人感觉正是人们开始思考——噢，如果再不发生什么改变，这将会改变你未来看待美国经济的方式——的一年。因为几年前人们觉得通胀是暂时的，美联储会加息然后再降下来。但特朗普政府的支出方式，加上美国政策缺乏可预测性，在我看来，债券市场上关于如何看待美国的舆论已经发生了转变。那么这种转变……
英文原文
So one dimension of the US economy in that period was we had incredibly low borrowing costs and just slowly and then kind of postcoid more rapidly and then post Trump more unpredictably that's been changing you know you're not going to get that 2 or 3% mortgage anymore and so you're you're having this sort of like stepping up of the ladder of how much our money costs and it this year has felt to like the year when people are starting to think, oh, this is going to change the way you should think about the US economy going forward if something doesn't happen. Because people felt the inflation a couple years ago was transitory. The Fed would bring up rates and it would bring it back down. But the way the Trump administration is spending, the lack of predictability in US policy, it seems to me that there is a shift in bond markets, in the conversation about how to think about the US. So what is the shift具有多个维度。我同意所有这些，而且值得注意的是，长期以来债券收益率确实曾处于令人称奇的低位，显而易见这曾是萎靡不振的迹象。那不是健康的现象，它表明我们当时本应该把更多钱花出去。2022年可以说是一个清算之年，那就像是债券市场的可怕之年（annus horribilis）。那是全球债券市场几个世纪以来最糟糕的年份之一。我是说，按某些统计来看是三个世纪以来。而且我认为大家以为在经历清算之后，会有宣泄释放，接着翻篇，一切就会稳定在一个新的水平上：通胀会降下来，美联储终于大幅加息，欧洲央行也大幅加息，各国政府会在疫情后开始勒紧裤腰带。因此在债券市场上，你可以看到价格反映出来，债券市场当时在某种程度上也认同美联储的观点，即通胀将是暂时的，我们将回到——虽然这是一个被极度滥用的词——“新常态”。而那个新常态将是通胀回到应有水平，债券收益率或者说美债收益率可能在3%，或许3%到4%。另外我认为，特朗普之前和之后也标志着，我认为有一种感觉是，你以前认为无法想象的事情，现在绝对不再是不可思议的了。你知道，美国仍然依赖大量来自外国投资者的资金来购买国债。而且你知道，那些资金感受到的欢迎程度已经不像过去那样了。我们可以看到中国和其他国家正稍微把脚步从国债市场移开。因此突然之间，即便是我几年前或许愚蠢地坚信的事情，我认为如今你也不会那么确信了。我认为这无疑也会在整个金融系统中泛起涟漪。这里有一件有些不寻常的事情。在我的政治生涯观察中，通常总统和政府对债券市场都是小心翼翼、如履薄冰的。詹姆斯·卡维尔（James Carville）在担任克林顿总统高级顾问时曾开过这样一个玩笑：如果有下辈子，他希望能转世成为债券市场，因为那样所有人就都得听他的了。
英文原文
has multiple dimensions. I I agree with everything and it was remarkable right how low bond yields were for a long time and obviously it was a a sign of malaise. It was not a healthy thing and it showed that we should have been spending more money then arguably um 2022 was kind of the year of the reckoning that was like the Anna's herulous for the bond market. It was one of the worst years for the global bond market in centuries. I mean by in three centuries by some reckoning and I think people think that after you have a reckoning well then there's cathosis you move on and things kind of settle down to a new level and inflation will come down the Fed finally jacked up interest rates the European Central Bank jacked up interest rates governments would start tightening their belts after co so there was also in the bond market you and we can see this on the prices the bond market kind of agreed with the Fed that inflation would be transitory and we would return to, you know, it's a massively overused phrase, but a new normal. And that new normal would be inflation back to where it should be and bond yields at maybe Treasury yields at 3%, maybe 3 4%. And then I think look pre and post Trump also mark I think a a sense of things you thought were unimaginable before are now certainly not unthinkable anymore. the US, you know, still depends on a lot of money coming in from foreign investors to buy treasuries. Uh, and and you know, that money doesn't feel quite as welcome as it used to. We can see China and other countries tiptoeing a little bit away from the Treasury market. So suddenly things that even I maybe foolishly believed firmly a few years ago, I think you wouldn't feel quite as confident about today. And I think that ripples certainly through the financial system as well. One thing that has been a little unusual here. So in my political lifetime, typically presidents and administrations are they tiptoe quite gingerly around the bond market. James Carville when he was a top adviser to President Clinton had this joke that when he when he was reincarnated, he wanted to come back as the bond market because then everybody would have to listen to him.这是一个很好的问题。大体而言，总统面对债券市场往往会做两件事。其一，如果收益率在上升，你会希望任命一位能受到市场充分尊重与敬重的人来执掌美联储。另一件在面对资金成本担忧且背负巨额债务或赤字时总统往往会做的事，就是开始转向缩减赤字、进行财政紧缩。
英文原文
>> It's a great question. And you have in general uh presidents tend to do two things around the bond market. One is if it's going up you want to put in charge of the Fed somebody who markets are going to treat with a lot of respect and esteem. The other thing you'll tend to see presidents do when they are worried about uh the price of money and they have a big debt or deficit is beginning to move towards deficit reduction, fiscal contraction.唐纳德·特朗普这两件事其实都没做。他在逼迫鲍威尔下台方面表现得非常激进。他大谈特谈自己多么希望看到美联储降息。他引进了凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh），此人相对而言受人尊重，但他却是在这层阴云下入局的——他到底对唐纳德·特朗普说了什么，他又为了得到这份工作承诺了什么。而在另一方面，特朗普推行了庞大规模的支出、巨额的减税。没人认为他们会突然大幅转向达成一个宏大的预算妥协。
英文原文
>> Donald Trump is not really doing either of these things. He was very aggressive in pushing uh Powell out. He talked a lot about how he wanted to see the Federal Reserve bring down rates. um he brought in Kevin Worsh who is a relatively wellrespected guy but he's coming in under this cloud of what did he have to tell Donald Trump and what has he promised in order to get that job. Then on the other side Trump has done huge amounts of spending, huge amounts of tax cuts. Nobody thinks they're about to do a big pivot to a grand budget bargain.所以在处理对债券市场的态度，以及在收益率上升且你不希望看到它上升时该怎么做方面，在我看来现在的美国总统表现出了一种截然不同的取向。正如他所说，贝森特（Bessent）懂债券市场，懂产业，他以前是个货币交易员，但你通常不会把财政部部长当作交易员来用。
英文原文
So you have a very different orientation right now it seems to me from the US president towards the bond market and towards what you should do if yields are going up and you don't like it. Like as he said Besson has a touch with the bond market, a touch with industry. He's a former currency trader, but you don't usually use the head of the Treasury Department as a trader.是的，不能这样。
英文原文
>> No,他应该执行财政政策。那么，你如何界定他们在这方面的方向，以及这可能意味着什么？
英文原文
>> he's supposed to implement fiscal policy. So, how would you characterize where they're going on this and what that might mean?你知道，我也是个记者，我总是试图设身处地、甚至在最大善意下替对方立论（steel man），但我确实觉得围绕这一问题的一些政策制定往宽容了说是前后矛盾的。而其中一部分原因来自于一些几乎很自然的误解，比如人们总想着“利率”，但显然存在着许多不同的利率。美联储基本上决定的是短端利率，比如隔夜利率是多少，并通过银行系统向下传导；但国债市场的利率，也就是债券收益率，是由市场决定的。它们由价格和需求决定，它们显然受到利率的影响，但也受到各种因素的影响。你知道，唐纳德·特朗普希望债券收益率和债券市场老实听话，因为他希望美国人能获得负担得起的房贷。显然他对此谈论过很多。但他同时也希望美联储降低利率，而这两者就算能兼容，也相处得并不融洽。你知道，如果你想要更低的债券收益率，最快的方式就是美联储大幅加息，或者干脆人为制造某种严重的衰退。这两种方式可都没什么乐趣，对吧？但正如你所说，你需要一个有公信力的美联储官员。我认为这就是为什么他选了一个像沃什这样的人，在相当可怕的一长串候选人名单中，沃什显然可能是最具有公信力的一位，在最终候选名单中肯定是。因为他意识到，如果让一个完全不够格的人出任美联储主席，那么突然之间你就会看到债券市场做出相当剧烈的反应。
英文原文
>> You know, I'm a journalist as well and I always try to sort of project of almost steal man the other side's argument, but I do feel some of the policym around this has been charitably incoherent. Uh, and some of it is due to some almost very natural misunderstandings like people think of interest rates but there obviously lots of different interest rates. The Fed decides interest rates on the short end essentially like what overnight's interest rates are and that filters through the banking system, but the Treasury markets interest rates, the bond yields, they are set by markets. They're set by price and demand and they're obviously affected by interest rates, but all sorts of things. And you know, Donald Trump wants bond yields and the bond market to behave because he wants that affordable mortgage for Americans. That's clearly he's talked a lot about that. Uh but he also wants the Fed to lower interest rates and they don't really play well together if at all. You know if if you want bond yields lower uh I mean the quickest way is for the Fed to jack up rates or just engineer some sort of massive recession. Neither are really that much fun, right? But like you say, you want a credible federian. And I think that's why he chose somebody with like Walsh who in a fairly horrific long list of candidates was by far probably the most credible one certainly on the short list. Uh because he realized if you put somebody completely uh unqualified uh in in the Fed chairmanship, then suddenly you'll you'll see quite a violent bond market reaction.是的。彼得·纳瓦罗（Peter Navarro）当主席可不会对……有利。
英文原文
>> Yeah. chair Peter Navaro would not have been good for.噢，比尔·普尔特（Bill Pulte）才是那个真正——我是说，作为一名财经记者，我喜欢看混乱的局面，
英文原文
>> Oh, Bill PY was the one that that really I mean as a financial journalist I love you know messy stuff但是，
英文原文
>> but那会相当——普尔特本来会相当糟糕，我认为，不过他和贝森特并不……
英文原文
>> that'd be pretty py would have been pretty bad I think but uh you know him and Bessant don't也相处得不好。
英文原文
play well together either.我想放一段贝森特前几天在 CNBC 上的视频片段。
英文原文
>> I want to bring up a clip of Bessant from the other day on CNBC.是的，我当时正打算问这个规模可能会达到多大。如果这里的信号是你们对收益率的走势感到不满，你知道，它们又回到了相反的方向。昨天那个巨大的意外所带来的美债反弹，基本上已经被你们抹平了。那么，你们还愿意采取多大程度的行动？
英文原文
>> Yeah, I I I was going to ask how how big this could get. If if if the signal here is that you're not happy with the direction of yields, you know, they've they've gone back the other way. We you've erased most of the Treasury rally that you got yesterday with that big surprise. So, how much more are you willing to do?好的，还是那句话，我们拥有丰富的政策工具箱。所以，我们拭目以待。其中的一部分是在这里释放信号，表明我们认为收益率并没有反映出潜在的基本面。你知道，这场伊朗冲突，我们最终会渡过难关的。我们不知道具体是什么时候，稍后我们可以谈谈我们打算对伊朗采取的经济措施。而且你知道，我们身在政府当中。我们大概会在本周末或下周初宣布，将加大对财政整顿的关注力度。而且你知道，这是来自特朗普总统的要求。拉斯·沃特和我自己将同时从收入端和成本端两方面审视我们能做些什么。
英文原文
>> Well, again, uh we we have a big toolkit. So, we we'll see. And part of it is signaling here and to show that we we believe that the yields don't reflect the underlying fundamentals. you know, this Iran conflict, we will get on the other side of this. Uh we we don't know when and we can talk about the economic measures we're going to be taking against Iran in a minute. And you know, we are in the administration. We are the announcing probably at the end of this week, beginning of next week, an increased focus on fiscal consolidation. And you know, it's the coming from President Trump. uh Russ Vote and myself will be examining both on the revenue side and the cost side uh what we can do.回购计划与市场预期
好的。所以我想梳理其中的几点，因为你在那里听到的一件事，正是我几分钟前提到过的，那就是他们至少开始发出想要进行财政整顿的信号。但是鉴于他们与国会之间的动作寥寥无几，我认为根本没有人对此当真。不过，当他说“我们不认为收益率反映了潜在基本面”时，他到底是什么意思？这让我想起了约翰·麦凯恩在市场崩盘之后那句非常著名的话。
英文原文
>> All right. So I want to go through a couple pieces of that because one thing you hear there is something I was mentioning a few minutes ago which is at least beginning to signal they would like to do fiscal consolidation. But given how little they've done with Congress, I don't think anybody's taken that seriously at all. But what does he mean when he says we don't believe the yields reflect the underlying fundamentals? Reminds me a little bit of the John McCain quote that was very famous after when the markets were collapsing.“我们经济的基本面依然强劲。”
英文原文
>> The fundamentals are of our economy are strong.那句话在当时可没经受住时间的考验。当贝森特说出那番话时，你听出了什么？
英文原文
>> Uh that quote did not age well at that moment. What do you hear when Bessant says that老实说，我听出了一丝绝望。
我不认为债券收益率会大幅走高。这并不是一场大规模的危机，但推出扩大后的回购计划——一项技术性程序，按理说是非常专业枯燥的，本不应该产生重大影响。举例来说，当美国政府发售10年期国债时，那是标准的债券类型，算是基准债券，具有极高的流动性，非常容易交易，你卖出10亿美元也不会引起价格波动；但随着它逐渐变成9年期、8年期、7年期的债券，它就变得有点陈旧了。它基本上被锁在银行的金库和养老金计划中，因此交易量不大。所以其价格通常会反映出这一点，你通常可以以轻微的折扣买到它们。因此，财政部一段时间以来的做法是，花费几十亿美元购买其中一些流动性较差、价格略微低廉的旧债券，并通过发行那些高流动性的10年期、20年期债券来筹集资金。贝森特扩大了那个计划。他说这是因为国债市场某些部分的流动性正在恶化，但这看起来完全是一次企图再次拉低债券收益率的赤裸裸尝试。然而，这在某种程度上完全忽视了我们所讨论的规模。我们说的是几十亿美元。每天交易的美国国债超过一万亿美元。这就像是用玩具水枪去扑灭森林野火一样。
正因如此，你看到债券市场起初对他传递的“我们希望压低收益率”的信号做出了反应；而且你知道，当财政部长这样表态并这样行动时，本能的反应是“哦，我们要买入债券”，但随后人们意识到，“实际上并不是这样，这显然不会产生任何效果”。这也是为什么债券市场对人们来说如此棘手的原因之一，也是为什么卡维尔留下了那句令人惊叹的引言——你可以恐吓所有人，因为你无法轻而易举地左右数万亿美元的资金。唯一真正有能力做到这一点的人，他们拥有相应的资源。全城只有一家机构能够无限制地印钞票，那就是美联储。因此，美联储过去曾这样做过，在金融危机之后以及在新冠疫情期间压低过债券收益率，但财政部根本没有这样的资源。
英文原文
I truthfully I hear a little bit of desperation.I I don't think bond yields are going to go massively higher. uh this is not a massive crisis but the rolling out of an enlarged buyback program a technical program supposed to you know very nerdy it's not supposed to be something that has a major effect so when the US government sells a 10-year bond for example which is the standard type of bond kind of the benchmark bond that's super tradable it's super easy you can sell a billion dollars of it without moving the price but as that kind of becomes a 9-year bond an 8year bond a seven-year bond it becomes It's a bit stale. It's kind of locked away in vaults and pension plans at banks. So, it doesn't trade that much. So, the price usually kind of reflects that and then you can typically buy them at a slight discount. So, what the Treasury has been doing for a while is spending a few billion dollars on buying some of those stale slightly cheap bonds and paying for it by issuing those those super liquid 10-year bonds, 20-year bonds. Uh, Besson enlarged that program. He says because the liquidity was getting worse in some parts of the Treasury bond market, but it looks like a a fairly naked attempt at lowering those bond yields again. Uh but sort of completely ignoring the scale of what we're talking about. We're talking a few billion dollars. There's over a trillion dollar worth of treasuries that trade every day. I this is like putting out a you know a wildfire with a water pistol. And that's why you saw the bond market first reacted to the signal. he was sending that we we want yields down and you know when the Treasury Secretary says that and acts that way the knee-jerk reaction is oh we're going to buy bonds but then people realize well actually no this is clearly not going to have an effect and it's one of the reasons why the the bond market is so tricky for people why Carville made that amazing quote about how you can intimidate everybody because you can't push around trillions of dollars very easily the only people that could really do it they have the resources to do it. There's only one place in town that can print unlimited dollars and that's the Federal Reserve. So, the Federal Reserve has done this in the past, has beaten down bond yields uh after the financial crisis and in in co um but the Treasury just doesn't have the the resources.
我听到很多交易员谈论的一件事，也许也是你看到这种剧烈波动的一个原因：贝森特宣布了一项增加这些回购力度的政策，这似乎让收益率短暂下降了一阵子，随后收益率又反弹了回来。
英文原文
Well, one thing that I've heard a lot of traders talking about and one reason maybe you saw this rapid movement where Bessant announced a policy where they increased these buybacks and that seemed to bring yields down for a minute and then yields bounce back up.是的。
英文原文
>> Yeah.关键在于，你一直在说这看起来有点绝望。
也许值得详细阐述一下这究竟意味着什么，因为他的意思是：我正在努力让情况与基本面保持一致。你看，在这件事上我们甚至愿意付诸实际行动。这在很多情况下似乎起到了相反的效果，反而让人们感到有点恐慌：如果他们连这种事都愿意做，这究竟会让你对局势的发展走向产生怎样的想法？但你是如何看待这一维度的？比如，为什么它会对预期产生这种与财政部购买行为方向完全相反的效果？
英文原文
>> Is it you keep saying this is looking a little bit desperate.It's maybe worth expanding on what that actually means because what he is saying is that I am trying to bring things into alignment with the fundamentals. you know, we're even willing to put our money where our mouth is on this. It seems in many cases have the uh opposite effect of actually scaring people a little bit that if they're willing to do this, what does that actually make you think about where this is all going? But how do you see that dimension of it? Like why why does it have this sort of effect on expectations? It is in the opposite direction of the Treasury's purchases.
归根结底，这关乎公信力。我的意思是，在很长一段时间里，历经两党的多届政府，美国在自身行为模式、举止和可预测性方面建立起了大量的制度公信力。
当你看到世界上最具影响力的经济政策制定者，其举动——我不会说是反复无常，但这种举动的表现方式，你知道，大多数债券交易员很快就看穿了这根本行不通。
这会让你对其他方面的考量产生怀疑：如果他们不可预测，他们还在盘算些什么？还会发生什么？这让人们变得神经紧张。我并不认为人们正在对美国产生恐慌或完全陷入担忧。而且我认为，坦率地说，贝森特对国债收益率的上升做出如此强烈的反应是很奇怪的，因为考虑到人们认为通胀可能会在更高水平维持更长时间，以此来补偿你承担的直接风险，收益率上升虽然令人遗憾，但完全是自然的。它并没有失控。这完全不像我们在解放日看到的那样，也不是2020年3月国债市场在新冠疫情压力下真正彻底崩溃的时候。所以说实话我有点困惑，因为正如特朗普本人在开场片段中所说，贝森特——我不确定他在债券市场上是否有一双巧手，但他是一位前债券和外汇交易员。他是懂得这些事情的。他正在做他自己明知是错误且行不通的事情。我毫不怀疑他心知肚明这根本不起作用。
英文原文
Well, this boils down to credibility. I mean the US has for a very long time over across many many administrations of both from both sides of the aisle built up a ton of institutional credibility about how it acts how it behaves its predictabilitywhen you see you know the world's most influential economic policy maker acting I wouldn't say erratically but acting the way that you know most bond traders sus out very quickly that this was not going to work.
It makes you doubt other parts of what what what else are they thinking about if they're unpredictable? What what else could happen? And that makes people skittish. And I I don't think people are panicking about the US or worrying at all. And I think, you know, frankly, it was weird that Bessant would respond so forcibly to what looked like a unfortunate but entirely natural increase in Treasury bond yields because of, you know, people think inflation might stay a bit higher for a bit longer to, you know, compensate you for that direct risk you're taking. But it wasn't out of whack. This was not like we saw in liberation day. This was Mar not March 2020 when the Treasury market really crapped out on the pressure from CO. So I'm I'm honest a little bit baffled because as as Trump said himself in that opening clip that you know Bessant I'm not sure he has a deaf hand with the bond market but he is a former bond and currency trader. He does understand these things. He's doing things he himself knows to be wrong and won't work. I don't doubt for a second he know this doesn't work.
当耶伦执行规模较小的同类回购时，贝森特难道没有批评过她吗？
英文原文
>> Didn't Besson criticize Yelen when she was doing a more modest version of these same buybacks?他确实批评过。他还批评过拜登政府发行了更多短期国债。当时的想法是，这是激进的财政部干预政策，而现在他们自己当然也在做同样的事情。我更多地将这归结于标准的党派政治偏见。你知道，你总会因为任何事情去批评现任政府；是的，当你做完全相同的事情时，这看起来极其虚伪，但感觉这属于常规操作。
不符合常规的是这种混乱不连贯，以及去做政府内部人士心知肚明不会奏效的事情。通常在特朗普政府中出现前后不一致时，其原因要么是唐纳德·特朗普想要某些东西，要么是大家以为唐纳德·特朗普想要某些东西。现在，在被问及此事时，唐纳德·特朗普表示：“我当然与我的财政部长介入债券市场并以此类方式进行干预没有任何关系。”我对此的看法是，我并不相信这句话不论在哪个方向上具有真实性。贝森特本周还在《金融时报》上发表了专栏文章，提出要对伊朗实施彻底的经济毁灭以终结这一切。所以在我看来，特朗普政府内部某个地方正在进行一场辩论，他们对伊朗发生的事情感到不满，对债券市场感到不满。因此，对于为什么贝森特在做那些他在另一个时期似乎深知不该做的事情，答案在多大程度上仅仅是因为总统在告诉大家他不喜欢债券市场的走势，并且他希望它
英文原文
>> He did. And he also criticized the Biden administration for issuing more bills. So the the idea was that this was you know activist Treasury policy and of course they're doing the same thing. I chalk that more up to sort of standard political partisanship. uh you know you're always going to criticize incumbent government for anything and yes it looks massively hypocritical when you do exactly the same thing uh but that feels standard. What doesn't feel standard is this kind of incoherence and doing things that people in the administration know won't work well. Usually when there's incoherence in the Trump administration it comes because either Donald Trump wanted something or people thought Donald Trump wanted something. Now, when asked, Donald Trump said, "Of course, I had nothing to do with my Treasury Secretary engaging with the bond market and intervening in this way." I'm going to take that as something that I don't uh believe has truth value one way or another. Uh Besson also came out this week with this FT oped about, you know, just a complete trend to do an economic annihilation of Iran to to end that. So this feels to me like there is a debate happening inside the Trump administration somewhere where they're upset about what is happening in Iran, upset about the bond market. So how much is the answer to why is Besson doing things that at another time he seemed to know you shouldn't do simply that the president is telling people that he does not like the path of the bond market and he wants it你之前用了“表现规矩”这个词。我只会说“更低”，对吧？他希望收益率更低。他希望资金更便宜。他希望物价更容易承受。他希望经济增长更快。尽管这可能与他在政策方面做的一堆其他事情背道而驰，这里的某些问题实际上可能就是他造成的，但他想要同时得到所有这一切。
英文原文
to you use the word behave earlier. I would just say be lower, right? He wants yields lower. He wants money cheaper. He wants things more affordable. He wants the economy growing faster. And even though that is maybe contrary to a bunch of other things he's done on the policy side, maybe some of the problems here actually of his causing, he wants all the things at once.是的。谁不想同时得到所有好事呢，对吧？我也一样。我既想保留蛋糕，又想把它吃掉。但我确实觉得——我也同意——我不是政府观察家。我只是观察债券市场。但这确实让人感觉有这种成分在里面。我记不清是哪位亨利了，是某位英格兰国王说过：“谁能替我摆脱这个麻烦的教士？”然后你懂的，就有人跑去谋杀了托马斯·贝克特（Thomas Becket）。他会说他想要某些东西，人们就会觉得有必要跑去以某种方式把它办成，即便他们知道实际上这不会帮到国王，反而可能会害了他。呃，这是一种非常短视的思维方式。我的意思是，正如我所说，这里简单的解决办法是美联储加息，嗯，至少发出强烈的加息意愿信号。我认为这会恢复很多平静。这会比那些微不足道的买回操作有用得多。呃，结束在伊朗的战争并恢复霍尔木兹海峡（Straits of Hormuz）的自由通行肯定也会大有帮助，但我们现在其实在谈——你看，有很多事情正在发生。我们在杰克逊霍尔年会（Jackson Hole Symposium）这一周交谈，那是每年一度的大型央行会议。这将是凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）作为美联储主席出席的第一届。你期待他说些什么？你……
英文原文
>> Yeah. Who doesn't want all the good things at the same time, right? I I'm the same. I like my cake and I like to eat it. But it does feel I agree that you I'm not an administration watcher. I just watch the bond market. But it does feel there has elements of that. I can't remember which Henry it was one of the English kings who said who will rid me of this troublesome priest and then you know somebody went out and murdered Thomas Abeckett that you know he will say that he wants certain things and people will feel the need to go out and somehow do it even when they know that in practice this is not going to help the king it's going to probably harm him uh it's a very sort of short- termist way of thinking I mean like I said the simple solution here is that the Fed raises interest rates Well, at the very least signals a strong willingness to do so. That I think would restore a lot of calm. It would do way more than these measly buybacks. Uh ending the war in Iran and and restoring free passage through the straits of Amuz would certainly help a lot as well, but we're really talking, you know, there's a lot of things going on. We're we're talking in the week of the Jackson Hole Symposium, which is the annual big central bank conference. This will be the first where Kevin Worsh is there as Fed chair. What are you expecting him to say? Do前瞻指引与央行政策预期
你知道，通常美联储主席在杰克逊霍尔都不想引起太大波澜。沃什可不这么认为。而且我不得不承认，我对他的一些观点抱有同情，即债券市场出现一些波动——仅仅是一点点——从长远来看实际上可能是一件健康的事。央行的观点（我对这种观点也抱有同情）是：可预测性意味着债券市场的波动和利率的波动都很低，而这对经济增长更好。这完全是事实。我全心全意相信这一点。
英文原文
>> you know normally Fed chairs have not wanted to rock the boat too much at Jackson Hall. Walsh does not think that. And I have to admit I have some sympathy with his view that maybe some volatility in the bond market just a little bit might actually be a healthy thing in the long run. So the central bank view and I have some sympathy with that too is that uh predictability means that bond market volatility and interest rates volatility is low and that's better for economic growth. That is completely true. I believe that wholeheartedly.但某种程度的不可预测性也许能让整个系统更加安全。如果你回想一下2000年代，当时美联储实际上在因为房地产泡沫膨胀而调高利率，他们看到了一些这种情况。他们以一种非常可预测、平稳的方式加息，这种方式可能并没有真正消除泡沫，而美联储下一步可能会做什么的一点不确定性，总体而言对系统来说可能是健康的，因为它能稍微抑制冒险行为。如果你并不真正清楚美联储会对某些情况做出怎样的反应，你做蠢事时的底气就会不足。我从未见过沃什完全以这种方式表述过。呃，也许他会在杰克逊霍尔这么做，但这将是一件引人入胜的看点，因为我的意思是，在世界上最强大的央行，这是一个央行新时代。所以这可能是很长一段时间以来最有趣的杰克逊霍尔年会之一。我肯定准备好爆米花了。我的意思是，这是沃什与前任们略有不同的一个方面。我是说，这听起来非常……
英文原文
But some unpredictability can maybe make the system as a whole safer. So if you think back in 2000s when the Fed was actually jacking up interest rates because the housing bubble was inflating, they saw some of this. They were raising interest rates in a very predictable steady way in a way that maybe didn't really blow away the froth and a bit of uncertainty about what the Fed might do might be on the whole be healthy for the system because it kind of re in a bit of risk-taking. You you feel less confident about doing dumb stuff if you don't really know how the Fed is going to react to certain things. I've never seen Walsh articulate it quite in that way. Uh and maybe he does so at Jackson Hole, but it's going to be fascinating to see because I mean this is a new era of central banking uh at the world's most powerful central bank. So it's going to be probably one of the most interesting Jackson holes for a very long time. I'm certainly getting my popcorn ready. I mean this is a way in which wars is differing a little bit from those who came before. I mean, it sounds very为这个争论挺奇怪的，但是的，最近几任美联储主席都非常热衷于前瞻指引。他们……
英文原文
>> it's a weird thing to be arguing over, but yeah, Fed recent Fed chairs have been very into forward guidance. They他们在采取行动很久之前就告诉你他们打算做什么，这样你就知道他们要做什么，你就能做出反应，每个人都能做好规划。而沃什一直……呃，我不想说他反对所有的前瞻指引，但他公布的前瞻指引一直是：前瞻指引将会减少。
英文原文
>> tell you what they're going to do well before they do it, so you know what they're going to do and you can react and everybody can plan. And Wars has been uh I don't want to say opposed to all forward guidance, but he has announced his forward guidance has been there will be less forward guidance.是的。呃，为什么呢？
英文原文
Yes. Uh why?所以我不得不说，我认为前瞻指引的支持者（也就是全球大多数央行官员）和反对者，都几乎夸张到了滑稽的地步去夸大支持和反对的理由。前瞻指引的反对者指出，这是央行把自己绑在了桅杆上，如果他们说要做某事，就必须去做某事，这剥夺了采取任何行动应对新公布数据的灵活性，那纯属扯淡。央行发布过前瞻指引，而当数据发生变化时，他们就改变主意。我们在包括美联储在内的每家央行都见过这种情况发生。坦率地说，我认为央行夸大了前瞻指引作为一种刺激经济手段的优势。他们说，嗯，如果我们说我们打算在极长的时间内保持低利率，或者直到出现X或Y（有时会有具体触发条件），嗯，那会给人们提供如此多的安全感，确信我们不会加息，以至于他们会去借钱、刺激经济、带动所有那些经济增长。而且我认为人们同样也不会真的听那一套，因为他们也明白，如果通胀像2021、2022年那样突然爆发，那么央行就会非常仓促地在这项前瞻指引上反悔，它根本就没那么重要。
英文原文
So I I have to should say that I think both the proponents of forward guidance and that's most central bankers around the world and enemies of it have almost to a comical degree overstated the case for and against that you know the enemies of forward guidance have indicated that this is central banks binding themselves to the mast that if they say they're going to do X they have to do X and it takes away the the flexibility to be able to do anything respond to incoming data and that's just below Central banks have issued forward guidance and when the data changes they change their mind. We've seen that happen in every central bank including the Federal Reserve. I think central banks have frankly overstated the advantages of forward guidance as a way of sort of stimulating the economy. They said that well if we say we're going to keep interest rates low for super long or until X or Y sometimes there being concrete triggers um that that will give people so much safety that we're not going to raise interest rates that they'll go out and borrow money stimulate the economy get all that economic growth going and I think also again people don't really listen to that because they also do understand that if inflation suddenly erupts as it did in 2122 then central banks are going to very hurily backtrack on this forward guidance, it just doesn't matter that much.债券义警与潜在危机
过去当人们担忧债券和美国政府债务时，你常听他们谈论的是令人恐惧的“债券义警”（bond vigilantes）的到来。那么，谁是债券义警？现在还有任何理由去担忧他们吗？
英文原文
>> So when people used to worry about bonds and the US government debt, the thing you would hear them talk about was the coming of the dreaded bond vigilantes. So who are the bond vigilantes and is there any reason to still worry about them?这就是特朗普要出动军队对付的人，对吧？嗯……
英文原文
>> So these are the people that Trump is going to deploy the military against, right? Um只是那是我们最后的选择。我们最后的选择是把所有债券关进监狱。
英文原文
>> only it's it's our it's our last option. Our last option is jailing all the bonds.最后的选择。对，没错。嗯，把他们关进监狱。嗯，所以我的意思是，那里……我是说那就是你和我。那是我们的养老金计划、我们的共同基金、我们的银行业、我们存在银行系统里的钱。呃，“债券义警”在某种程度上是一个非常模糊的词。这是一个极好的……我自己就用过很多次，因为它太形象了。但实际上，你知道，它就是一个庞大的资金生态系统，存在于共同基金、养老金计划、保险公司、银行、主权财富基金、瑞士的私人银行里。呃，甚至你和我，我们都可以直接从美国政府购买国债。呃，而这种想法是，你看，义警们会，你知道，停止向国家借钱。而这真的是唯一的权力。他们不能到处去打人……
英文原文
>> Last option. Yes, exactly. Well, jailing them. Um, so I mean there I mean it's you and me. It's our pension plans, our mutual funds, our banking, the money that we have in the banking system. Uh, the bond vigilantes is kind of a very amorphous phrase. It's a wonderful I've used and used it many times myself because it's so evocative. But in reality, it's just, you know, a vast ecosystem of money that is in a mutual fund, a pension plan, an insurance company, a bank, a sovereign wealth fund, a private bank in Switzerland. Uh even you and I, we can buy treasuries directly from the US government. Uh and the idea is that, you know, the vigilantes would, you know, stop lending to countries. And it's really the only power. They can't go around beating people up,也就是说他们会停止购买这些债券。
英文原文
>> which is to say they would stop buying these bonds.对。或者也许只是少买一些，或者希望获得稍微高一点的利率。嗯，所以这既是一个被过度渲染的词，而且我认为当然在像美国这样一个字面上可以创造美元的地方，美国债券市场与比如说巴基斯坦、斯里兰卡甚至阿根廷（后者往往大量借入外币）相比，是截然不同的庞然大物。呃，但它确实，你知道，它带有一点真实感，因为在一个靠信贷运转的全球经济中，提高信贷成本或彻底拒绝提供信贷的能力是一种惊人的权力，而这并不是由某些坐在秘密WhatsApp群里的大佬决定的，而是一百万人有时协同一致采取行动的个体决定。但你确实，有时债券市场就是会对特定时期的特定国家、特定公司感到惶惶不安。最著名的就是在2022年的英国，他们成功在我想是45天内赶下台了一位首相，但通常更多是发生在较贫穷的国家，坦率地说，这些国家没有一个庞大的发达同行经济体所拥有的资源。
英文原文
>> Yeah. Or maybe just buy the less of them or or want a slightly higher interest rate. Um so it's both a overdone phrase and I think certainly in the place like the United States that can literally create dollars. The US bond market is a very different beast than it is in let's say a Pakistan or Sri Lanka or even Argentina that tends to borrow a lot in in foreign currencies. Uh but it does actually you know it's has a bit of truthiness to it because in a world in a global economy that runs on credit the ability to raise the cost of credit or deny it altogether is an incredible power and this is not set by you know a bonesses in a secret WhatsApp group but it is the individual decision of a million people sometimes acting in concert but you do sometimes the bond market just get jittery about certain countries, certain companies at certain times. Most famously in the UK in 2022 where they managed to oust a prime minister in I think 45 days, but typically more in poorer countries that frankly don't have the resources that a large advanced fellow economy does.你跟债券交易员的交谈比我多。呃，这不是一个很高的门槛，但你超过了这个门槛。
英文原文
>> So you have more conversations with bond traders than I do. Uh, it's not a super high bar to clear, but you clear it.我的一些好朋友就是债券交易员。
英文原文
>> Some of my best friends are born traders.当你们喝了几杯酒，他们在描述那些糟糕的场景、他们担忧或思考的事情、也许贝森特（Bessent）在凌晨时分所担忧的事情时。如果这出了差错，接下来的几年会是什么样子？我的意思是，知情人士认为这里的糟糕后果可能会是什么样的？
英文原文
>> When you guys are a couple drinks in and they're describing the bad scenarios, the stuff they worry about or they think about, the stuff that maybe Bessant is worried about in, you know, the wee hours in the morning. What does this look like over the coming couple of years if this goes wrong? I mean, what do informed people think bad outcomes here might look like?嗯，埃兹拉（Ezra），全世界我最喜欢的话题之一——这可能确实让我显得是一个非常可悲的人——就是主权债务危机和主权债务重组。我只是觉得这……这里只是……
英文原文
>> Well, so Ezra, one of my favorite topics in the whole world, and this does make me a very sad human being probably, but a sovereign debt crisis and sovereign debt restructuring. I just think it's there are just美国债务危机的独特性与非常规风险
这种金融、经济、政治、地缘政治的迷人碰撞，万物汇聚于此。但当然，它们通常影响的是体量更小、更贫穷的国家。但出于我个人的兴趣，我实际上花过可能多到不健康的时间去思考，一场美国的债务危机究竟会是什么样子。美国的债务危机不会像世界上任何其他危机那样。
英文原文
this fascinating collision of finance, economics, politics, geopolitics, everything comes together. But they usually affect uh smaller, poorer countries, of course. Uh but because of my interest, I actually had thought probably an unhealthy amount of time about what a US debt crisis would look like. Uh a US debt crisis would not look anything like anything else in the world.首先，除非美国自己选择破产，否则它并不能真正破产。我是说，美国只借美元，而且它能创造美元。如果你能创造自己所借的货币，那你就很难破产。现在，这可能会引发其他类似危机的后果，比如失控的通胀，金融系统因所有这些美元印钞而陷入剧烈动荡。但是，经典的违约是不大可能的，或者说是极其不可能的。这就是为什么当我和债券投资者交谈时——包括在凌晨几点喝了几杯酒之后——我认识的债券投资者里几乎没有人真正担心传统意义上的债务危机。但你可以在美国看到许多非常规类型的严重债务问题。举个例子，如果他们突然开始——如果他们突然成功拉拢并控制了整个美联储，开始像特朗普说的那样印美元：“我希望利率更低，我们就要印尽可能多的美元来实现这一点。”这会在各处引发连锁反应。
英文原文
First of all, the US can't really go bankrupt unless it chooses to. I mean, the US only borrows in dollars and it can create dollars. It's very hard to go bankrupt if you can create the currency that you're borrowing. Now that can have other um crisis-l like outcomes like runaway inflation, a financial system that you know convulsed by all this dollar printing. But but a classic default is unlikely or or vanishingly unlikely. And that's why when I've talked to bond investors, including in the the the early hours of the morning and a few drinks in, very few bond investors I know are genuinely worried about a debt crisis in the conventional sense. But you can see lots of unconventional types of of severe debt issues in the United States. Like for example, if they suddenly start if they suddenly are managed to co-opt the entire Federal Reserve and start creating dollars like Trump says, I want interest rates lower and we're just going to print as many dollars to do so as possible. That has ripple effects everywhere.美债收益率走向与 AI 资本开支
你认为……因为我们……现在国债利率是多少？你今天早上可能看了彭博，我没看。嗯，10年期大概是……对，大概在4……4……在4%到5%之间已经有一段时间了，所以你知道，我不明白他们为什么那么惊慌失措。在你看来，到了2028年11月——我们拿这里的选举日作为某种标志——
英文原文
>> What do you think the Cuz we're What What is the Treasury rate at right now? You probably looked at Bloomberg this morning and I didn't. Well, 10 year is kind of yeah it's around four four between it's been between four and 5% for a while which is why you know I don't get why they were freaking out so much. What's the chance in your view that come you know November of 2028 we'll use election day here as a a kind of marker利率达到6%到7%的几率有多大？
英文原文
>> that the rate is 6 to 7%.我是说，我喜欢债券市场的一点是，它综合了极其庞大的信息量。经济增长、通胀、生产率、体制健康状况，诸如此类。而且我想说，你知道，比我聪明的人整天试图预测市场，最后都闹了笑话。所以，我真的不知道。但只要经济蓬勃发展——而这也是我们所期望的——那么国债收益率就应该走高。那会是一个健康的信号。而如果债券收益率回到，比方说1%，如果你和我在2028年11月谈话，国债收益率又回到了1%，嗯，那将是一个非常糟糕的经济背景。至于现在它会朝哪个方向发展，我不知道。我是说，AI是当前的大变量。我是说，现在投资正发生在数据中心领域。它们也许在边际上从国债市场抽走了一点投资，但它们确实在刺激经济。如果不考虑这些庞大的资本开支项目——你知道，最大规模的是铁路建设狂潮——我认为美国经济看起来会相当不同。然后，你知道，这取决于：这是会带动经济发展，还是最终沦为另一种基础设施崩盘？这可能会决定11月的情况会是什么样子。
英文原文
I mean, one thing that I love about the bond market is that it synthesizes just an insane amount of information. Uh, economic growth, inflation, productivity, health of institutions, things like that. Uh, and I'd say that, you know, I people smarter than me embarrass themselves trying to predict the markets all day long. So, I I just don't know. But as long as the economy is booming and we want that, then Treasury yields should go higher. That would be a healthy signal. And if bond yields go back to, let's say, 1%, if you and I are talking in in November 2028, and Treasury yields are at 1% again, well, that's a very terrible economic backdrop. Uh, which way it would go right now, I don't know. I mean, AI is the big factor right now. I mean, it's kind of the investments are happening in data centers. I they're maybe on the margins sucking a little bit of investment away from the treasury market, but they're certainly juicing the economy. Uh the US economy would look I think rather different if we weren't seeing these huge capex programs that you know the biggest is the railways splurge. Uh and then you know it depends like is this going to get the economy going or is it just going to end in another sort of the infrastructure bust and that would probably decide what things look like in in November.顺着这个思路推演，你可以设想一个AI被证实是泡沫的世界。
英文原文
>> To try that out you can imagine a world where AI proves to be a bubble.出现一次大破裂。这笔推动了这么多领域的投资崩塌了，然后你可能就会迎来更低的债券收益率，因为第一，私人债务需求会减少，因此那些资金提供者中会有更多人去买国债。第二，美联储可能不得不降息，因为你将陷入衰退，或者极有可能陷入衰退。所以，那可能会是一个债券收益率下降到3%的世界，但那并不是一个美好的世界。它们之所以降到那个水平，是因为经济陷入了危机。
英文原文
>> There's a big pop. this investment that is powering so much collapses and then you probably would get to lower bond yields because one there would be less private demand for debt and so more of the more of those funders could buy treasuries. Second, the Fed would probably have to bring down rates because you'd be going into a recession or very likely going into a recession. So that'd be a world where yeah, maybe bond yields are down to 3% but it's not a good world. They're down there because the economy has gone into crisis.现在，我们希望债券收益率出于正确的原因下降，那就是通胀低而稳定、处于休眠状态且波动不大；但你希望从你的国债中获得一定的利息回报，对此有所期待应当是合情合理的。但是，收益率是否会上升到你所说的6%、7%，我认为那也可能是一个非常无益的前景，因为那将意味着通胀未能得到控制。这可能意味着美联储在很大程度上已经默认、可能是不动声色地放弃了控制通胀，而我们正走向过去所见的那种真正的滞胀——经济增长与通胀并存，增长过低，通胀过高，而利率在很大程度上已经失去了过多撬动局面的能力。
英文原文
>> Now, we want bond yields to go down for the right reasons and that is that inflation is low and stable and quiescent and not uh very volatile and but you want you want some interest on your treasury bonds. It should be fair to expect that. Um but whether they're up at the 6 7% you talk about that also is I think probably a very unhelpful will because that would imply that inflation is not under control. It probably implies the Fed is tacitly probably unstatedly given up on controlling it to a large extent and we are heading into what we have seen in the past as a proper stagflation where both growth and inflation are you growth is too low, inflation is too high and interest rates have kind of lost the power to move things around too much.投资者行为悖论与人性应对
这里面有些很奇怪的事情。你写过美国国家经济研究局的一份调查，我觉得非常令人震惊：调查显示，在接受调查的债券投资者中，他们认为未来十年发生美国债务危机的可能性为50%。但随后几乎所有这些投资者都表示，他们并没有因此改变投资组合策略。所以我很难理解。一方面，如果债券市场真的认为我们有50%的几率发生债务危机，我并不清楚那究竟意味着什么。但另一方面，如果他们认为几率那么高，却没有任何人采取行动，嗯，这太奇怪了。你怎么看这件事？你会如何解释那项调查所揭示的问题？对此你有什么看法？
英文原文
Well, there's something weird in all this. So, you wrote about a National Bureau of Economics research survey that I found genuinely shocking that said among bond investors surveyed, they believed there to be a 50% chance of a US debt crisis in the next decade. But then almost all those investors said they had no change in their portfolio strategy based on this. So, I had trouble making heads or tail. On the one hand, if the bond market actually believes we're going to have a 50% chance of a debt crisis, I wasn't clear what that actually meant. But then also, if they believe it's that high and nobody's doing anything, um, that's weird. What did you make of that? How would you explain what that survey was revealing? And what did you make of it?我是说，保罗·桑托……是圣奥古斯丁说的吗？“主啊，请让我保持贞洁，但不是现在。”
英文原文
I mean, Paul Santo, is it St. Augustine who said, "Lord, make me chased, but not yet."这正是我们人类应对许多事情的方式，比如气候变化。你知道，我们知道这是一件大事，它正在逼近，我们可能会在自己生活方式的边缘稍微做点微调，但实际上我们并没有。我们可能会说希望政客们去做这做那，但在实践中，直到它真正开始在日常生活中影响到我们，你可以看到人们并不真正喜欢那样。我认为这既令人震惊，但同时也完全在意料之中，因为它正好概括了人性，对吧？即使你能看到某种巨大而险恶的东西可能正沿着隧道向你冲来，你仍然会认为那道亮光可能是某种有利的事情。
英文原文
>> Uh, and it's how we humans respond to so many things like climate change. you know, we we we know it's a it's a big deal and it's coming and we maybe might tweak it a little bit around the edges of our own lifestyle, but in reality, we don't. And we might say we want politicians to do X or Y, but in practice until it actually starts affecting us on a daily basis, you can see people don't really like that. And I think it's it's both shocking but also incredibly unsurprising because it just sums up human nature, right? Even when you can see something big and nasty potentially coming, you know, down the tunnel towards you, you still think that light might be something favorable.书籍推荐
我认为这是一个很好的结束点。那么，照例是我们最后的问题：你会向听众推荐哪三本书？
英文原文
I think that is a good place to end. So then always our final question. What are three books you recommend to the audience?我得承认，我一直对这个问题心存畏惧，因为你知道，要是你明天问我，很可能就会是不同的书了。但我打算选三本能展现金融、经济和商业其实可以非常有趣、引人入胜甚至扣人心弦的书。我想，显而易见的第一选择，第一本书是《门口的野蛮人》。我真心认为它堪称如今叙事商业新闻报道的黄金标准，但实际上，它有点像通过这桩私募股权交易的棱镜以及涉及的所有疯狂人物，讲述了过去一个世纪的美国商业史。它令人惊叹。我的第二本书，丹尼尔·耶金的《奖赏》。这是一部石油市场的历史。它算得上是后来许多类似书籍的典范雏形，但耶金算是鼻祖级的。我喜欢这类在某种程度上讲述世界历史的书籍。这几乎是一部20世纪的历史，只是切入的角度完全不同。它是透过石油市场来讲述的。太精彩了。当然，书中也有那些疯狂的人物，不仅作为一名记者，甚至仅仅作为一个普通人，我都从中获益匪浅。我的第三本。天哪，我几乎能感觉到我身后的某些书在尖叫。
英文原文
>> I have to admit I I've been dreading this because you know, you ask me tomorrow, they'll probably be different books. Uh, but I I I'm going to choose three books that show that finance, economics, and business can actually be really fun and interesting and riveting even. Um, I think the obvious first place, the first book is is Barbarians at the Gate. I I genuinely think it's kind of the gold standard of of narrative business journalism today, but really it's kind of like um a history of American business over the past century told through the prism of this private equity deal and all the crazy characters involved. It is astonishing. Um my second book, uh Daniel Jurgens's the prize. It's a history of the oil market. It's kind of the model for a lot of similar books that came first, but Jurgen's kind of the OG. Uh, it's I I love those histories that kind of tell a history of the world. This is almost a history of the 20th century, but through a completely different angle. So, it tells it through the oil market. It's tremendous. Has crazy characters, of course, and just I I learned so much just as a journalist, but also just as a a person. Um, my third one. God, I can almost feel some of the books behind me. Uh, screaming.希望被选中。
英文原文
>> Hoping to be picked.希望被选中。我的意思是，是的，它们正在瞪着我。我能感觉得到。我想我会选利亚卡特·艾哈迈德的《金融之王》。这是一本关于大萧条前夕动荡的两次世界大战期间的绝妙书籍。它通过当时主要央行掌门人，讲述了一段极其复杂、多维度的金融经济史。你知道，在《金融时报》的日常工作中，我花了很多时间试图去剖析这些事情，让普通大众容易理解，让它们变得扣人心弦、趣味盎然。而且你知道，我认为我还没有见过哪本书能像利亚卡特的书那样，以如此充沛的热情把这么复杂的故事讲得这么好。所以，我想这必须是我的第三个选择，我只是
英文原文
>> Hoping to be picked. I mean, yeah, they're glaring at me. I can feel it. Uh, I think I'm going to go with Leak Ahmed's Lords of Finance. Uh, it's just a fabulous book about this kind of tumultuous interwar period, uh, in the run-up to the Great Depression. uh and it tells you know what is an incredibly complex multiaceted financial economic story uh through these the heads of the the the major central banks at the time and you know in my day job at the FT I spend a lot of time trying to kind of pass these things and make them digestible to a general audience and make them sort of uh riveting and fun and and you know it's I I don't think I've seen such a complex story told with such verve as well as as in Leak's book. So, I think that'll have to be my third pick and I'll just不得不接受……我身后的那些书，其中一些书正怒气冲冲地盯着我。Robin Wigglesworth，非常感谢你。
英文原文
have to accept the books some of the books behind me staring down at me angrily. Robin Wigglesworth, thank you very much.感谢邀请我参加。