奥巴马早该炒掉伯南克

    2009年夏秋之交，美国总统奥巴马面临一个非常棘手的决定：时任美联储主席本•伯南克四年任期即将结束，应不应该让他继续留任？一方面，在雷曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）倒闭引发的金融危机中，伯南克的应对表现非常出色。另一方面，伯南克是共和党任命的人选，而奥巴马最亲密的助手、著名的哈佛大学（Harvard）经济学家劳伦斯•萨默斯对这份工作也是垂涎已久。

    最终，奥巴马还是接受了财政部长蒂姆•盖特纳的建议，给伯南克延长了四年任期。蒂姆•盖特纳曾与伯南克密切合作过。当时的市场和经济仍非常脆弱，因此这看起来算是明智的选择。但现在回头看看，或许并不尽然。奥巴马让伯南克负责2012年大选的预备阶段，不仅让经济恢复受阻，也让自己的连任道路风险重重。过去几个月，美国经济没有丝毫好转，然而，美联储主席却没有任何良策。即使到了今天，他给人的印象依然是模棱两可。现在看来，奥巴马应该在自己还有机会的时候，请伯南克下台。

    当然，我这么说并不是因为对伯南克存有任何敌意。因为，他是一位著名的经济学家、鞠躬尽瘁的公务人员，为人也极其正派。2008年至2009年期间，他批准了一系列极具创新精神的贷款与流动性项目，有困难的银行都可以从美联储获得金融援助， 进而帮助避免了整个金融系统的崩盘。2009年，《时代》杂志（Time）授予他“年度人物”的称号，可谓实至名归。

    但从2009年之后，伯南克的表现便大不如前，今年尤为糟糕。我们都知道，行动与结果之间会存在滞后，但今年，美联储不仅没能做到未雨绸缪，防患于未然，反而似乎完全瘫痪了。美联储期望的通货膨胀指标仅有1.8%，而失业率则一直在8%以上的高位徘徊不下。很明显，它既未满足2%的通胀目标，也没有有效履行提供充分就业的职责。但伯南克依然无动于衷。八月初，伯南克与他的同事都承认，自从他们上次开会以来，美国经济预期进一步恶化，但他们依然没有采取任何措施。当时，我对伯南克的同情已经所剩无几了。

    当然，也有人会说，既然短期利率已经这么低了，他还能怎么办？但伯南克自己都否认了这一点。他曾经多次强调，通过购买债券和采取其他一些非常规手段，即便利率接近零，中央银行依然有能力为经济复苏提供支持。可如果是这样，他为什么没有推进另一轮量化宽松呢？

    对此，官方的解释是，他与其他决策者需要看到更多数据，但这种说法不足以让人信服。目前美国的失业率为8.3%；在最近一个季度，美国GDP基本停止了增长。这些还不够吗？还需要什么样的证据才能证明经济复苏陷入了停滞？另外一种可能性是，这是伯南克的政治手腕。大选还有几个月的时间，米特•罗姆尼和其他共和党人正在对第三轮量化宽松猛烈开火。或许，美联储主席只是希望能远离双方的战火，做到明哲保身。也可能他正在努力在中央银行内达成一种共识。因为，我们都知道，个别区域性储备银行总裁强烈反对第三轮量化宽松政策。

    但这无疑再次证明了2010年的一种看法。奥巴马应该任命一位更为强势和自信的美联储主席，来接替伯南克。不论是保罗•沃尔克还是艾伦•格林斯潘，在他们漫长的任期内都曾遭遇过内部的反对意见。但只要他们认为有必要，什么都无法阻止他们推进政策改革。直率自信、甚至有些自大的萨默斯也能做到，如果他有机会上任的话。奥巴马候选人名单上的其他人或许也有这样的能力。我想，如今的总统先生肯定正为当初的选择而后悔不已。

    译者：刘进龙/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.