[新聞] The Guns And Butter Era Has Returned,

[nangle (機翻如下)]

原文標題：

The Guns And Butter Era Has Returned, Bringing Inflation With It
槍砲和黃油時代已經回來，給它帶來了通貨膨脹

原文連結：

https://reurl.cc/3NVXM8

發布時間：

Apr 29, 2021,07:15pm EDT

原文內容：

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. government embarked on an
unprecedented surge of fiscal spending and monetary easing that has continued
unabated ever since. One year later, as the economy is starting to open up,
inflation pressures are rising, although it is still unclear whether these
pressures will be transitory or not.

While finding appropriate historical analogies is always tricky, the current
economic environment seems most reminiscent of the mid-1960s. Those years
represented an inflection point, much like today, when fiscal spending
accelerated. The Federal Reserve financed that spending with low-interest
rates, assuming that historically low inflation levels experienced in the
early 1960s would continue. To be sure, inflation worsened considerably in
the 1970s, but the foundation for accelerating inflation was built during the
mid-to-late 1960s.

Upon his swearing-in, President Lyndon Johnson pursued an agenda that
included an ambitious level of fiscal spending, following a significant tax
cut that was passed in 1964. U.S. commitments in fighting the Vietnam War
escalated even while domestic spending increased under the auspices of
various Great Society programs that were intended to reduce minority
unemployment and income inequality. Economists often refer to the era of the
late 1960s as the "Guns and Butter" era, as that administration chose to
pursue several ambitious goals at once, all of which required significant and
sustained increases in fiscal spending along with an expanding budget
deficit. The average year-over-year growth rate of government spending
increased from 5.5% per annum from 1960 through 1964 to 10.8% per annum from
1965 through 1969 (see chart below).

Reminiscent of President Johnson's 1964 tax cuts, President Trump signed a
large tax cut in 2017, even while the economy was growing at a reasonable
rate and unemployment was low. President Trump also oversaw the most
significant fiscal expansion in U.S. history in 2020. The Federal deficit
reached an estimated $4 trillion, representing a year-over-year increase in
government spending of 43%. With a new administration in place, President
Biden has communicated his intention to pursue multiple sweeping goals
simultaneously. These goals include but are not limited to providing support
for individuals and groups who have been economically harmed by the pandemic,
combating climate change, making infrastructure investments, and providing
Social Security and Medicare benefits to a growing population of retirees.
Given the Biden administration's plans, it is not unreasonable to assume that
the budget deficit could remain around $3-4 trillion per year between 2021
and 2025, representing a fiscal expansion similar in magnitude to the one
undertaken in the late 1960s.

Early on in the Johnson administration, President Johnson met the Federal
Reserve Chairman at the time, William McChesney Martin, and famously tried to
intimidate him into keeping interest rates low and monetary policy
accommodative. After the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 1965,
Johnson said to the Chairman, "Martin, my boys are dying in Vietnam, and you
won't print the money I need." Although Martin was a strong proponent of an
independent Federal Reserve and an anti-inflation hawk early in his career,
he complied with President Johnson's demands. Ultimately, Chairman Martin
decided to provide monetary accommodation to fund the U.S. government's
spending plans, despite the inflation risk. The average year-over-year growth
rate in the monetary base, which was 1.8% between 1960 and 1964, tripled to
6.0% between 1965 and 1969 (see chart below). Chairman Martin confessed his
regret in acquiescing to President Johnson's demands years later, saying, "to
my everlasting shame, I finally gave in to him." He stepped down from his
position in 1970, but only after he had let the inflation genie out of the
bottle.

Similar to what occurred in the 1960s, the current Federal Reserve's
independence has weakened considerably during the past year due to the
current war on the coronavirus and the need to finance multi-trillion dollar
annual fiscal deficits. The choice of former Federal Reserve Chair Janet
Yellen as Treasury Secretary is somewhat symbolic of the marriage that seems
to have occurred between the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury
Department. Relatedly, the Federal Reserve is determined to protect the
nominal value of financial assets and especially the value of U.S.
Treasuries. Not doing so would likely have catastrophic consequences on the
housing market, the stock market, and U.S. tax receipts, all of which are
increasingly reliant on low-interest rates. Even while the Consumer Price
Index is likely to exceed 3% during Q2 2021 for the first time in years,
current Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has communicated his view that
the current inflationary pressures are transitory, assuming, like Chairman
Martin, that inflation remains well-contained. While Chairman Powell may well
turn out to be correct, four trillion dollars a year in fiscal deficit
spending facilitated by a 0% Federal Funds rate and a skyrocketing money
supply is likely to be a recipe for inflationary acceleration.

The spending during the Guns and Butter era created inevitable inflationary
pressures that continued through the 1960s. During the early 1960s, inflation
was well-contained, with the Consumer Price Index fluctuating in a relatively
tight range of 1.1% to 1.6%. With increasing fiscal commitments and money
supply in the late 1960s, however, inflation accelerated. In 1966, the
Consumer Price Index increased by 3.0%, and by 1969, the Consumer Price Index
increased by as much as 5.8%. Similarly, in the past five years, inflation
has been low and contained, comparable to the inflation rate of the early
1960s. The average year-over-year increase in the Consumer Price Index was
just 1.8% from 2016 through 2020. Looking forward over the next several
years, it would be unsurprising to see a CPI acceleration that rhymes with
the late 1960s.

Important similarities exist between the late 1960s and the current era, but
there are also important differences. The dollar is no longer pegged to the
gold price, and the trade deficit has expanded significantly. Because U.S.
government debt is currently so large relative to GDP, the Federal Reserve's
options are limited by the necessity of keeping debt service costs
reasonable, regardless of the Fed's inflation outlook. China has developed
into a geopolitical and economic foe of the United States, and cheap imports
from China have had a deflationary impact on the United States over the past
twenty years. Finally, while the Biden administration is planning enormous
fiscal spending initiatives, significant income tax increases would dampen
their inflationary impact. Put more simply, many similarities seem to exist
between the current era and the mid-1960s, but the situation is complex and
dynamic with many moving parts.

The 1970s are well known for being a period when inflation accelerated
further even compared to the late 1960s. At some point, it may well be worth
comparing the 1970s to the current era. Before inflation reaches the 10%
inflation rates of the 1970s, however, it must first reach the 5% inflation
rates of the late 1960s, and for this reason, the 1960s seem to offer a more
applicable comparison for the next couple of years.

Having discussed the macroeconomic backdrop of the 1960s, let us now examine
what happened to the primary asset classes during the five years beginning on
January 1, 1965:


Stocks: Adjusted for inflation, the S&P 500 Index generated a total return of
0.3% per year. Earnings increased by 0.6% per year adjusted for inflation.
However, as is often the case when inflation increases, the P/E ratio of the
S&P 500 Index contracted, from 18.8x to 15.8x, and the dividend yield
increased from 2.9% to 3.5% between the beginning of 1965 and the beginning
of 1970. Today, the S&P 500 Index is currently trading with a P/E ratio of
33.7x and a dividend yield of 1.5%. The P/E ratio is extremely high compared
to history, and the dividend yield is extremely low compared to history.
Unfortunately, increasing inflation generally results in a contraction of P/E
ratios and an expanding dividend yield. Accelerating inflation today could
result in a significant downward re-rating of P/E ratios, which might make it
difficult for the stock market to keep up with inflation.

Bonds: In 1965, the yield to maturity on 10-year Treasury bonds was 4.2%; by
the time the decade ended, the yield-to-maturity on that same bond, with five
years remaining until maturity, was 8.2%. The total return of that 10-year
Treasury bond was an estimated -33.1%, or -7.7% per annum, adjusted for
inflation. Bonds woefully underperformed other asset classes during the late
1960s, as one might expect in any environment where bond yields are rising to
compensate investors for increasing inflation expectations. The
yield-to-maturity on 10-year Treasury bonds is currently 1.7%, which means
that the downside risk of a rise in bond yields is greater today than it was
in 1965. For this reason and others, it probably makes sense to seek out
substitutes for bonds in your investment portfolio.

Home prices: Housing performed better than bonds in the late 1960s but still
did not keep up with inflation. Home prices increased by 3.3% per year, but
home prices declined by a slight -0.6% per year adjusted for inflation.
Houses tend to keep up with inflation due to increases in wages, land costs,
and construction costs, all of which occurred during the late 1960s. In
recent months, land prices, construction costs, and wages are rising, all of
which support rising home prices. It seems likely that home prices should
approximately keep pace with inflation, as they did in the late 1960s.

Gold: During the Johnson administration, the dollar was pegged to gold at
$35/ounce, and it was not yet legal for Americans to own physical gold during
that period. However, demand for gold among Europeans increased
significantly; during the 1960s, U.S. gold reserves dropped by 38%, from
15,800 tonnes to 9,800 tonnes as undervalued U.S. gold flowed to Europe.
After the dollar/gold peg was removed in 1971, gold's return was spectacular
during the following decade as investors sought to sell dollars to invest in
gold as a store of value. While not an investment option in the late 1960s,
it's probably a good time to own gold, which will likely serve as an
excellent long-term store of value should inflation continue to increase.

Looking back at how these asset classes performed in the late 1960s, the
results seemed to coincide with the era's inflationary circumstances. Housing
and stocks were the relative winners, generating returns that kept up with,
but did not exceed, inflation. The clear loser of the late 1960s Guns and
Butter era was the bond market, which suffered from increasing bond yields
and gradual erosion of purchasing power. It probably makes sense to be wary
of bonds today and to seek out reasonable bond substitutes. It also makes
sense to own reasonably priced stores of value, such as gold.

機翻如下：

為了應對冠狀病毒大流行，美國政府開始了前所未有的財政支出和貨幣寬鬆政策，並一直
持續到現在，從未間斷。一年後，隨著經濟開始開放，通脹壓力正在上升，儘管目前還不
清楚這些壓力是否會是過渡性的。

雖然找到合適的歷史類比總是很棘手，但目前的經濟環境似乎最容易讓人想起1960年代中
期。那些年是一個拐點，很像今天，當時財政支出加速。美聯儲以低利率為這種支出提供
資金，並假設1960年代初經歷的歷史性低通脹水準將繼續下去。可以肯定的是，通貨膨脹
在20世紀70年代大大惡化，但加速通貨膨脹的基礎是在20世紀60年代中期到後期建立的。

林登-詹森總統宣誓就職後，推行了一項包括雄心勃勃的財政支出的議程，在1964年通過
大幅減稅之後。美國對越南戰爭的承諾不斷升級，甚至在各種旨在減少少數民族失業和收
入不平等的 "大社會" 計畫的支持下增加了國內開支。經濟學家經常把20世紀60年代末的
時代稱為 "槍炮和黃油 "時代，因為該政府選擇同時追求幾個雄心勃勃的目標，所有這些
都需要大幅和持續增加財政支出，同時擴大預算赤字。政府支出的平均同比增長率從1960
年至1964年的5.5%增加到1965年至1969年的10.8%（見下圖）。

讓人想起詹森總統1964年的減稅政策，川普總統在2017年簽署了一項大規模的減稅政策，
甚至在經濟以合理的速度增長和失業率低的情況下。川普總統還在2020年監督了美國歷史
上最重大的財政擴張。聯邦赤字估計達到4兆美元，意味著政府支出同比增長43%。隨著新
政府的成立，拜登總統已經傳達了他打算同時追求多個全面的目標。這些目標包括但不限
於為受到大流行病經濟損害的個人和團體提供支持，應對氣候變化，進行基礎設施投資，
以及為越來越多的退休人員提供社會安全和醫療保險福利。鑒於拜登政府的計畫，我們不
無理由地認為，在2021年至2025年期間，預算赤字可能保持在每年3-4兆美元左右，這代
表著與1960年代末進行的財政擴張規模相似。

在詹森執政初期，詹森總統會見了當時的美聯儲主席威廉-麥切斯尼-馬丁，並以試圖恐嚇
他保持低利率和寬鬆的貨幣政策而聞名。在1965年美聯儲提高利率後，詹森對主席說："
馬丁，我的孩子們正在越南死去，而你不會印刷我需要的錢。" 儘管馬丁在其職業生涯的
早期是一個獨立的美聯儲的強烈支持者和一個反通貨膨脹的鷹派，但他還是服從了詹森總
統的要求。最終，馬丁主席決定提供貨幣便利，為美國政府的支出計畫提供資金，儘管有
通脹風險。貨幣基礎的平均同比增長率在1960年至1964年期間為1.8%，在1965年至1969年
期間增長了兩倍，達到6.0%（見下圖）。馬丁主席在多年後承認他對默許詹森總統的要求
感到遺憾，他說，"令我永遠感到羞恥的是，我最終向他屈服了"。他於1970年卸任，但只
是在他把通貨膨脹的精靈放出瓶子後才卸任。

與20世紀60年代發生的情況類似，由於目前對冠狀病毒的戰爭和需要為每年幾兆美元的財
政赤字提供資金，目前美聯儲的獨立性在過去一年中大大減弱了。選擇前美聯儲主席珍妮
特-耶倫擔任財政部長在某種程度上象徵著美聯儲和美國財政部之間似乎已經發生了聯姻
。與此相關，美聯儲決心保護金融資產的名義價值，特別是美國國債的價值。不這樣做可
能會對住房市場、股票市場和美國稅收產生災難性的後果，所有這些都越來越依賴於低利
率。即使消費者價格指數可能在2021年第二季度超過3%，這是多年來的第一次，但現任美
聯儲主席傑羅姆-鮑威爾已經傳達了他的觀點，即目前的通脹壓力是過渡性的，假設像馬
丁主席一樣，通脹仍然得到良好的控制。雖然鮑威爾主席很可能是正確的，但每年四兆美
元的財政赤字支出在聯邦基金利率為0和貨幣供應量激增的情況下，很可能是通脹加速的
秘訣。

槍炮和黃油時代的支出造成了不可避免的通貨膨脹壓力，這種壓力一直持續到1960年代。
在20世紀60年代早期，通貨膨脹得到了很好的控制，消費者價格指數在1.1%至1.6%的相對
狹窄的範圍內波動。然而，隨著60年代末財政承諾和貨幣供應量的增加，通貨膨脹加速。
1966年，消費者價格指數增長了3.0%，到1969年，消費者價格指數增長了5.8%之多。同樣
，在過去的五年裡，通貨膨脹率一直很低，而且得到了控制，與60年代初的通貨膨脹率相
當。從2016年到2020年，消費者價格指數的平均同比增幅僅為1.8%。展望未來幾年，看到
CPI的加速與1960年代末押韻，這並不令人驚訝。

20世紀60年代末和當前的時代存在重要的相似之處，但也有重要的不同。美元不再與金價
掛鉤，貿易逆差已大幅擴大。由於目前美國政府的債務相對於GDP來說是如此之大，無論
美聯儲的通脹前景如何，都必須保持合理的償債成本，因此美聯儲的選擇是有限的。中國
已經發展成為美國的地緣政治和經濟敵人，在過去二十年裡，來自中國的廉價進口對美國
產生了通貨緊縮的影響。最後，雖然拜登政府正在計畫巨大的財政支出舉措，但大幅增加
所得稅將抑制其通貨膨脹的影響。更簡單地說，目前的時代和1960年代中期似乎存在許多
相似之處，但情況是複雜的，動態的，有許多移動的部分。

眾所周知，1970年代是一個通貨膨脹進一步加速的時期，即使與1960年代末相比也是如此
。在某些時候，很可能值得將1970年代與當前時代進行比較。然而，在通貨膨脹達到70年
代的10%的通貨膨脹率之前，它必須首先達到60年代末的5%的通貨膨脹率，由於這個原因
，60年代似乎為未來幾年提供了一個更適用的比較。

在討論了20世紀60年代的宏觀經濟背景後，現在讓我們來看看在1965年1月1日開始的五年
中主要資產類別發生了什麼。


股票。經通貨膨脹調整後，標準普爾500指數每年的總回報率為0.3%。經通脹調整後，收
益每年增加0.6%。然而，正如通貨膨脹增加時的情況一樣，標準普爾500指數的市盈率從
18.8倍收縮到15.8倍，股息率在1965年初和1970年初之間從2.9%增加到3.5%。今天，標準
普爾500指數目前的市盈率為33.7倍，股息率為1.5%。與歷史相比，市盈率非常高，而與
歷史相比，股息率則非常低。不幸的是，通貨膨脹的加劇一般會導致市盈率的收縮和股息
率的擴大。今天通貨膨脹的加速可能導致市盈率的大幅下調，這可能使股市難以跟上通貨
膨脹的步伐。

債券。1965年，10年期國債的到期收益率為4.2%；到這十年結束時，同一債券的到期收益
率（離到期還有5年）為8.2%。該10年期國債的總回報率估計為-33.1%，或每年-7.7%，按
通貨膨脹率調整。在20世紀60年代末，債券的表現遠遠落後於其他資產類別，正如人們所
預期的那樣，在任何環境下，債券收益率都在上升，以補償投資者日益增長的通貨膨脹預
期。10年期國債的到期收益率目前為1.7%，這意味著今天債券收益率上升的下行風險比
1965年時要大。由於這個原因和其他原因，在你的投資組合中尋找債券的替代品可能是有
意義的。

房價。在1960年代末，住房的表現比債券好，但仍然沒有跟上通貨膨脹的步伐。房屋價格
每年增加3.3%，但經通貨膨脹調整後，房屋價格每年略微下降-0.6%。由於工資、土地成
本和建築成本的增加，房屋往往能跟上通貨膨脹，這些都發生在60年代末。最近幾個月，
土地價格、建築成本和工資都在上漲，所有這些都支持了房屋價格的上漲。似乎有可能的
是，房屋價格應該大約與通貨膨脹同步，就像在1960年代末那樣。

黃金。在詹森政府時期，美元以35美元/盎司的價格與黃金掛鉤，在此期間，美國人擁有
實物黃金還不合法。然而，歐洲人對黃金的需求大幅增加；在20世紀60年代，由於被低估
的美國黃金流向歐洲，美國的黃金儲備下降了38%，從15800噸下降到9800噸。在1971年取
消美元/黃金掛鉤後，在接下來的十年裡，黃金的回報是驚人的，因為投資者尋求出售美
元來投資黃金作為價值儲存。雖然在20世紀60年代末不是一個投資選擇，但現在可能是一
個擁有黃金的好時機，如果通貨膨脹繼續增加，黃金將可能成為一個很好的長期價值儲存
。


回顧這些資產類別在20世紀60年代末的表現，其結果似乎與那個時代的通貨膨脹情況相吻
合。房屋和股票是相對的贏家，產生的回報跟上了通貨膨脹，但沒有超過。20世紀60年代
末 "槍炮與黃油 "時代的明顯輸家是債券市場，它受到了債券收益率上升和購買力逐漸減
弱的影響。今天對債券保持警惕並尋找合理的債券替代品可能是有意義的。擁有價格合理
的價值儲存品，如黃金，也是有意義的。



心得/評論：

撇掉結論的黃金 (雖然我也是老派的黃金信徒)

拿1960年代和現在做為對照

真的可以看出相似性

所以特地轉這篇過來分享給大家

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 118.163.36.239 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Stock/M.1619755939.A.C27.html
推 LovError    : 全世界的運鈔機全力啟動 沒有一個國家敢關掉的...
→ bnn         : 疫情就根本沒有好轉跡象
→ nangle      : 拿1960年代的歷史來套現在，可以預見債券是最大輸家
→ nangle      : 這種預期會導致債券下跌，殖利率更高
→ nangle      : 預期心理推動市場擺動，會加大擺動幅度，導致破滅
→ nangle      : 個人認為預期心理導致的局部流動性短缺
→ nangle      : 很有可能是大崩盤的起因
→ nangle      : 問題是，如果是這個原因，那會幾乎毫無預兆
→ nangle      : 如果短期美國政府真的沒有打算認真打擊虛擬貨幣
推 LovError    : 先等泡沫化破吧 這個泡泡是建築在全世界的共識之下
→ nangle      : 那區塊鍊貨幣可能會在六月迎來前所未有的暴漲
→ LovError    : 看哪個國家經濟體承受不住 等著連環爆
附帶一提

今天的世界通膨焦慮前十強是：

1.賴索托
2.中國
3.尚比亞
4.新加坡
5.迦納
6.肯亞
7.菲律賓
8.衣索比亞
9.牙買加
10.加拿大


幾乎都是第三世界國家。
第10名加拿大的部分可能是這兩天有通膨新聞的緣故。

※ 編輯: nangle (118.163.36.239 臺灣), 04/30/2021 12:34:11
→ nangle      : 另外還有一篇瑞典的新聞也是有關通膨焦慮的部分
→ nangle      : 有趣的是，瑞典的論點是美國的國債殖利率飆升預期
→ nangle      : 姑且不論這兩者是否有實際上的關聯
→ nangle      : 但是可以看出市場會有相當一部分將隨著美國債券變動
→ nangle      : 瑞典那一則新聞也有提到晶片短缺對於volvo的影響
→ nangle      : 還有雖然預期第三季會和緩，但是她們自己也沒把握
推 peter080808 : 中國3月CPI才0.4% 排名第二?= =
→ peter080808 : 然後因為通膨快垮掉的巴西和土耳其不再榜上?
→ peter080808 : 這排名哪裡來的 你自己排的嗎?
→ nangle      : 我說的是通膨焦慮而非通膨
→ nangle      : 是聲量蒐尋而非實際通膨數字
推 peter080808 : 所以這名單哪裡來的? 我想看看
→ nangle      : 是用google搜尋趨勢的結果，你也可以自己蒐尋看看
推 goodjop     : 通膨是經濟成長必要之惡 數十年的歷史經驗，才有美
→ goodjop     : 金與黃金脫鉤政策
→ goodjop     : 通膨焦慮是無法避免的
→ goodjop     : 反正就看哪時候會宣布利率逐步上升吧
推 FncRookie001: 把比特幣跟黃金一起算通膨資產的話還真差不多
→ FncRookie001: 就黃金的漲幅只是受到比特幣出現影響 不然通膨避險
→ FncRookie001: 工具還是一直在漲
推 Homeparty   : 凱因斯派就這樣，花錢-大通膨-失業率沒好轉-升息-
→ Homeparty   : 衰退。主要是大家要有工作後再升息，循環就不會衰
→ Homeparty   : 退。以前靠戰爭，現在靠公共政策，怕就在失業率好
→ Homeparty   : 轉前被迫升息。
→ pinebox     : guns & butter 譯 槍砲與黃油 有點礙眼。當年討論
→ pinebox     : 這兩字分別是"軍事"與"社福"的代名詞，民主黨不要
→ pinebox     : 越戰，要搞 the great society。不要槍砲，要奶油，
→ pinebox     : 講得振振有詞。結果後來發現，奶油社福比槍砲戰爭還
→ pinebox     : 要耗錢 XD 越戰簡直是小菜一盤。