????或者說，它可能輕松嗎？

????Hedgeye首席執(zhí)行官基思?麥卡洛一再觀察到，政府干預(yù)所產(chǎn)生的最可預(yù)期而且最常見的結(jié)果并不是讓事情自然而然地發(fā)展，而是加快經(jīng)濟周期，從而造成市場波動進一步加劇。我們不知道人們怎么衡量社會痛苦程度。但我們一直認(rèn)為，和前后三位總統(tǒng)任職期間問題久拖不決的局面相比，沃爾克式的短期劇烈沖擊要遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)有益于我們的社會體系。

????我們認(rèn)為，下一任總統(tǒng)可能會考慮對政策進行重大調(diào)整。美聯(lián)儲不需要經(jīng)濟學(xué)家來經(jīng)營。掌管美聯(lián)儲的人甚至都不需要深入了解金融市場。隨著我們推選出來的政府越來越多地放棄做出決策的責(zé)任，掌控經(jīng)濟的要領(lǐng)已經(jīng)移交給了政府任命的專家們。也許美聯(lián)儲需要像企業(yè)一樣進行運作。也許美聯(lián)儲需要一位在實現(xiàn)經(jīng)營預(yù)算目標(biāo)、聘用和管理員工以及把握經(jīng)濟走勢以免超支方面有經(jīng)驗的人。只要能無限制地使用印鈔機，人們就不必理會預(yù)算。也許我們應(yīng)該選擇一位大型水管供應(yīng)商或者機床銷售商的老板來擔(dān)任下一任美聯(lián)儲主席。

????在各主要經(jīng)濟體中，中央銀行都在用同樣的方法來給經(jīng)濟提速，這給伯南克的工作帶來了更大的困難。從日本到歐洲，印鈔機在晝夜不停地創(chuàng)造流動性，以期激活全球經(jīng)濟。這使得伯南克無窮無盡的量化寬松成為對沖基金人士所說的“擁擠交易”。如果只有某一個聰明人買了一只便宜的股票，他就能賺錢。但是，如果所有人都采用了這個“聰明的辦法”，則會先后出現(xiàn)兩種局面：首先，股價因此上漲，造成接下來的買家無法獲利，而且這只股票會吸納市場中的流動性，造成持有者無法轉(zhuǎn)手給別人。擁擠程度達(dá)到頂點時，利潤就會消失，股價隨之下跌，而且通常都是暴跌。

????伯南克最近一次在國會作證時表示，近期利率小幅上升讓他感到意外。這種局面并不是沒有根據(jù)。本周，基思撰文指出：“集中規(guī)劃留下來的最后一個泡沫現(xiàn)在就要破裂。它的名字就是超級主權(quán)債務(wù)泡沫?！币苍S我們應(yīng)該不謙虛地指出，伯南克應(yīng)該訂閱Hedgeye的研究報告了？

????在美聯(lián)儲的政策游戲中，有一點讓人頗為費解，那就是我們實際上不知道伯南克在想什么。在這場游戲中，有精心挑選的公眾輿論，也有規(guī)模與之相當(dāng)?shù)膶嶋H公開市場操作，用來增加流動性（我們知道，理論上還可以采取減少流動性的政策，但長期以來它一直被視為一種假設(shè)。伯南克就像一位從來不知道踩剎車的司機）。

????我們對伯南克工作表現(xiàn)的評價是他知道市場正在超過他的控制能力。問題已經(jīng)不再是要不要進行量化寬松。伯南克一直都是那只帶頭的鳥，一路上他孜孜不倦地查看市場的反應(yīng)，他把重心放在就業(yè)和樓市上，以此表明他響應(yīng)了美國公眾對政策的最殷切期望——現(xiàn)在他打算以足夠緩慢的速度離去，以免整個經(jīng)濟體系像10層大樓遭遇地陷那樣轟然倒塌。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????Or can it?

????As Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough has repeatedly observed, the most predictable and constant effect of government intervention is to increase volatility in the marketplace by accelerating economic cycles, rather than letting things play out in their own time. We do not know how one measures societal pain, but we have always been of the opinion that a Volcker-like short, sharp shock to the system would have been far healthier than the extended malaise we have lived through over nearly three presidencies.

????We think the next president may want to consider a substantive shift in policy. The Fed does not need an economist to run it. It may not even need someone with a deep understanding of the financial markets. Increasingly, as our elected government has abdicated its responsibility for decision-making, the nuts and bolts of running the economy has been handed over to appointed experts. Perhaps the Fed needs to be run like a business. Perhaps the Fed needs someone with experience meeting operating budgets, hiring and managing employees, and tracking flows in the economy to stay on budget. We never need to stay within a budget as long as we have unlimited access to the printing press. Maybe the next Fed chair should be the owner of a major plumbing supply house or a machine-tool shop.

????Bernanke's task has been made more difficult by the fact that major economies' central banks are all pushing on the same accelerator. From Japan to Europe, printing presses are running 'round the clock to create liquidity, in hopes it will stimulate the global economy. This has had the effect of making Bernanke's QE "To Infinity and Beyond" what folks in the hedge fund world call a "crowded trade." When one smart person buys a cheap stock, they can make money with it. When everyone piles into the same "smart idea," two things happen: First, it drives the price to levels where there is no more profit to be made by the next buyer, and it sucks the liquidity out of the market, leaving holders with no one to sell to. In the ultimate crowded trade, the profits vanish and the next move is down. Usually way down. Usually with a thud.

????In his most recent testimony, Bernanke expressed himself as "surprised" that interest rates have edged up recently. This is not occurring in a vacuum. This week Keith writes, "The last of the central planning bubbles left in the world is now popping. It's called the bubble in super sovereign debt." May we flatter ourselves to point out that Bernanke should have been subscribed to Hedgeye's research?

????The impenetrable aspect of the Fed policy game is that we don't actually know what Chairman Bernanke thinks. The game is played as much with carefully selected public utterances as with actual open-market transactions to add liquidity. (We know there is also a theoretical policy option to decrease liquidity, but it has long been treated as hypothetical. Bernanke is like a driver who never learned that cars have brakes.)

????Our take on Bernanke's performance is that he acknowledges the markets are moving away from his ability to control them. QE or not QE is no longer the question. Having led from the front, checking market reactions assiduously along the way -- and having apparently followed Americans' most ardent policy desire by focusing on employment and housing -- Bernanke is now trying to get out of the way gradually enough that the entire edifice does not collapse like a 10-story building into a vast sinkhole.