The U.S. national debt just passed $36 trillion, only four months after it passed $35 trillion and up $2 trillion for the year. Third quarter data is not yet available, but interest payments as a percent of tax receipts rose to 37.8% in the third quarter of 2024, the highest since 1996. That means interest is eating up over one-third of our tax revenues. 
 
美國(guó)國(guó)債剛剛突破36萬億美元，僅在突破35萬億美元四個(gè)月后，全年增加了2萬億美元。雖然第三季度數(shù)據(jù)尚未公布，但2024年第三季度利息支出占稅收的比例已升至37.8%，為1996年以來的最高水平。這意味著利息吞噬了我們超過三分之一的稅收收入。  

Total interest for the fiscal year hit $1.16 trillion, topping one trillion for the first time ever. That breaks down to $3 billion per day. For comparative purposes, an estimated $11 billion, or less than four days’ federal interest, would pay the median rent for all the homeless people in America for a year. The damage from Hurricane Helene in North Carolina alone is estimated at $53.6 billion, for which the state is expected to receive only $13.6 billion in federal support. The $40 billion funding gap is a sum we pay in less than two weeks in interest on the federal debt.
  
本財(cái)年利息總額達(dá)到1.16萬億美元，首次突破萬億大關(guān)，平均每天30億美元。作為對(duì)比，估計(jì)110億美元（不到四天的聯(lián)邦利息）就足夠支付全美無家可歸者一年的中位數(shù)租金。僅北卡羅來納州颶風(fēng)"海倫"造成的損失就達(dá)536億美元，而該州預(yù)計(jì)只能獲得136億美元的聯(lián)邦援助。這400億美元的資金缺口，我們支付不到兩周的聯(lián)邦債務(wù)利息就能覆蓋。  

The current debt trajectory is clearly unsustainable, but what can be done about it? Raising taxes and trimming the budget can slow future growth of the debt, but they are unable to fix the underlying problem — a debt grown so massive that just the interest on it is crowding out expenditures on the public goods that are the primary purpose of government.

當(dāng)前的債務(wù)軌跡顯然不可持續(xù)，但我們能做什么？增稅和削減預(yù)算可以減緩債務(wù)的未來增長(zhǎng)，但無法解決根本問題——債務(wù)規(guī)模如此龐大，僅利息支出就擠占了政府主要職能所需的公共產(chǎn)品支出。  

Borrowing Is Actually More Inflationary Than Printing 
 
借貸實(shí)際上比印鈔更具通脹性  

Several financial commentators have suggested that we would be better off if the Treasury issued the money for the budget outright, debt-free. Martin Armstrong, an economic forecaster with a background in computer science and commodities trading, contends that if we had just done that in the first place, the national debt would be only 40% of what it is today. In fact, he argues, debt today is the same as money, except that it comes with interest. Federal securities can be posted in the repo market as collateral for an equivalent in loans, and the collateral can be "rehypothecated" (re-used) several times over, creating new money that augments the money supply just as would happen if it were issued directly. 
 
多位金融評(píng)論員建議，如果財(cái)政部直接無債務(wù)發(fā)行預(yù)算資金，情況會(huì)更好。具有計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)和大宗商品交易背景的經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)測(cè)師馬丁·阿姆斯特朗認(rèn)為，如果我們一開始就這么做，國(guó)債規(guī)?？赡苤挥鞋F(xiàn)在的40%。實(shí)際上，他認(rèn)為如今的債務(wù)等同于貨幣，只是附帶利息。聯(lián)邦證券可以在回購市場(chǎng)作為貸款抵押品，且抵押品可被"再抵押"（重復(fù)使用）多次，創(chuàng)造新貨幣增加供應(yīng)量，效果與直接發(fā)行無異。  

Chris Martenson, another economic researcher and trend forecaster, asked in a Nov. 21 podcast,The argument for borrowing rather than printing is that the government is borrowing existing money, "What great harm would happen if the Treasury just issued its own money directly and didn’t borrow it? … You’re still overspending, you still probably have inflation, but now you’re not paying interest on it." so it will not expand the money supply. That was true when money consisted of gold and silver coins, but it is not true today. In fact borrowing the money is now more inflationary, increasing the money supply more, than if it were just issued directly, due to the way the government borrows. It issues securities (bills, bonds and notes) that are bid on at auction by sexted "primary dealers" (mostly very large banks). Quoting from Investopedia: 
 
另一位經(jīng)濟(jì)研究員兼趨勢(shì)預(yù)測(cè)師克里斯·馬滕森在11月21日的播客中質(zhì)疑道，支持借貸而非印鈔的理由是政府借入現(xiàn)有貨幣，"如果財(cái)政部直接發(fā)行貨幣而不借貸會(huì)有什么大害？……你們?nèi)栽诔?，可能仍有通脹，但現(xiàn)在不用支付利息了。"因此不會(huì)擴(kuò)大貨幣供應(yīng)。這在貨幣由金銀硬幣組成的時(shí)代成立，但如今已非事實(shí)。實(shí)際上由于政府借貸方式（通過拍賣向選定的"一級(jí)交易商"——主要是超大銀行——發(fā)行證券），借貸比直接發(fā)行更具通脹性，更會(huì)增加貨幣供應(yīng)。引自Investopedia：  

"Because most modern economies rely on fractional reserve banking, when primary dealers purchase government debt in the form of Treasury securities, they are able to increase their reserves and expand the money supply by lending it out. This is known as the money multiplier effect."  

"由于多數(shù)現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)體依賴部分準(zhǔn)備金銀行制度，當(dāng)一級(jí)交易商以國(guó)債形式購買政府債務(wù)時(shí)，他們能通過放貸增加準(zhǔn)備金并擴(kuò)大貨幣供應(yīng)。這被稱為貨幣乘數(shù)效應(yīng)。"  

Thus, "the government increases cash reserves in the banking system," and "the increase in reserves raises the money supply in the economy." And because the debt is never repaid but just gets rolled over from year to year along with the interest due on it, the interest compounds, an increasing amount of debt-at-interest is generated, and the money supply and inflation go up.  

因此，"政府增加了銀行系統(tǒng)的現(xiàn)金儲(chǔ)備"，而"儲(chǔ)備增加會(huì)推高經(jīng)濟(jì)中的貨幣供應(yīng)量"。由于債務(wù)從未償還只是連本帶利逐年展期，利息復(fù)利計(jì)算，生息債務(wù)不斷增加，貨幣供應(yīng)和通脹隨之上升。  

U.S. Currency Should Be Issued by the U.S. Government  

美元應(yīng)由美國(guó)政府發(fā)行  

Well over 90% of the U.S. money supply today is issued not by the government but by private banks when they make loans. As Thomas Edison argued in 1921, "It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."  

如今美國(guó)超過90%的貨幣供應(yīng)并非由政府發(fā)行，而是私營(yíng)銀行放貸時(shí)創(chuàng)造的。正如托馬斯·愛迪生1921年所言："說我國(guó)能發(fā)行3000萬美元債券卻不能發(fā)行3000萬美元貨幣是荒謬的。兩者都是支付承諾，但一個(gè)養(yǎng)肥了高利貸者，另一個(gè)造福人民。"  

The government could avoid increasing the debt by printing the money for its budget as President Lincoln did, as U.S. Notes or "Greenbacks." Donald Trump acknowledged in 2016 that the government never has to default "because you print the money," echoing Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett and others. So writes Prof. Stephanie Kelton in a Dec. 2, 2024 blog.Alternatively, the Treasury could mint some trillion dollar coins. The Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, and no limit is put on the value of the coins it creates. In legislation initiated in 1982, Congress chose to impose limits on the amounts and denominations of most coins, but a special provision allowed the platinum coin to be minted in any amount for commemorative purposes. Philip Diehl, former head of the U.S. Mint and co-author of the platinum coin law, confirmed that the coin would be legal tender:  

政府可以像林肯總統(tǒng)那樣通過印刷美鈔（即"綠背紙幣"）為預(yù)算融資而避免增加債務(wù)。唐納德·特朗普2016年承認(rèn)政府永遠(yuǎn)不必違約"因?yàn)槟銈兡苡″X"，這與艾倫·格林斯潘、沃倫·巴菲特等人的觀點(diǎn)一致。斯蒂芬妮·凱爾頓教授在2024年12月2日的博客中寫道?；蛘?，財(cái)政部可以鑄造萬億硬幣。憲法賦予國(guó)會(huì)鑄幣和規(guī)定幣值的權(quán)力，且對(duì)硬幣面值無上限。1982年立法中，國(guó)會(huì)對(duì)多數(shù)硬幣設(shè)置了數(shù)量和面額限制，但特別條款允許為紀(jì)念目的鑄造任意面值的鉑金硬幣。前美國(guó)鑄幣局局長(zhǎng)、鉑金硬幣法合著者菲利普·迪爾確認(rèn)該硬幣將是法定貨幣：  

"In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years … under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). "  

"鑄造1萬億美元鉑金硬幣時(shí)，財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)將行使國(guó)會(huì)220多年來常規(guī)授予的權(quán)力……基于憲法第一條第八款明確賦予國(guó)會(huì)的權(quán)力。"  

To prevent congressional overspending, a budget ceiling could be imposed – as it is now, although the terms would probably need to be revised.  

為防止國(guó)會(huì)超支，可設(shè)置預(yù)算上限——正如現(xiàn)行做法，盡管條款可能需要修訂。  

Eliminating the Debt  

消除債務(wù)  

Those maneuvers would prevent the federal debt from growing, but it still would not eliminate the trillion dollar interest tab on the existing $36 trillion debt. The only permanent solution is to eliminate the debt itself. In ancient Mesopotamia, when the king was the creditor, this was done with periodic debt jubilees — just cancel the debt. (See Michael Hudson, And Forgive Them Their Debts.) But that is not possible today because the creditors are private banks and private investors who have a contractual right to be paid, and the U.S. Constitution requires that the government pay its debts as and when due. 
 
這些操作能阻止聯(lián)邦債務(wù)增長(zhǎng)，但仍無法消除現(xiàn)有36萬億美元債務(wù)的萬億利息負(fù)擔(dān)。唯一永久解決方案是消除債務(wù)本身。在古代美索不達(dá)米亞，當(dāng)國(guó)王是債權(quán)人時(shí)，通過定期債務(wù)豁免（直接取消債務(wù)）實(shí)現(xiàn)。（參見邁克爾·哈德森《赦免他們的債務(wù)》）。但如今這不可行，因?yàn)閭鶛?quán)人是擁有法定受償權(quán)的私營(yíng)銀行和私人投資者，且美國(guó)憲法要求政府按時(shí)償債。  

Another possibility is a financial transaction tax, which could replace both income and sales taxes while still generating enough to fund the government and pay off the debt. See Scott Smith, A Tale of Two Economies: A New Financial Operating System for the American Economy (2023) and my earlier article here. But that solution has been discussed for years without gaining traction in Congress.  

另一種可能是金融交易稅，既可替代所得稅和銷售稅，又能產(chǎn)生足夠資金維持政府運(yùn)作并償債。參見斯科特·史密斯《雙城記：美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)新金融操作系統(tǒng)》（2023年）及我早前文章。但該方案討論多年仍未在國(guó)會(huì)獲得支持。  

Another alternative is to have the Federal Reserve buy the debt as it comes due. For the last few years, the Treasury has been issuing an estimated 30% of its debt as short-term bills rather than 10-year or 30-year bonds. As a result, in 2023 approximately 31% of the outstanding debt came due for renewal. As usual, it was just rolled over into new debt. But the nearly one-third coming due in FY2025 could be bought in the open market by the Federal Reserve, which is required to return its profits to the government after deducting its costs, making the debt virtually interest-free. Interest-free debt carried on the books and rolled over does not raise the federal deficit. If a third of the outstanding debt is too much to monetize in one year to avoid inflation, this maneuver could be spread out over a number of years.  

另一選擇是讓美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)在債務(wù)到期時(shí)購買。過去幾年，財(cái)政部發(fā)行約30%的短期票據(jù)而非10年或30年期債券，因此2023年約31%的未償債務(wù)到期續(xù)作，照例只是展期為新債務(wù)。但2025財(cái)年到期近三分之一的債務(wù)可由美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)在公開市場(chǎng)購買，而美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)扣除成本后需將利潤(rùn)返還政府，使債務(wù)幾乎無息。賬面無息債務(wù)展期不會(huì)增加聯(lián)邦赤字。若為避免通脹無法一年內(nèi)貨幣化三分之一的未償債務(wù)，可分散到多年操作。  

Mandating that action by an "independent" Fed would require an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act, but Congress has the power to amend it and has done so several times over the years. The incoming Administration is proposing more radical moves than that, including eliminating the income tax, ending the Fed, auditing the Fed, or merging it with the Treasury.The federal interest tab nearly doubled after April 2022, when the Fed initiated "Quantitative Tightening." It reduced its balance sheet by selling over $2 trillion in federal securities into the economy, reducing the money supply, and by hiking the federal funds rate to as high as 5.5%. Arguably the Fed has overtightened and needs to reverse that trend by buying federal securities, injecting new money into the economy. 

強(qiáng)制"獨(dú)立"的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)采取該行動(dòng)需修訂《聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備法》，但國(guó)會(huì)有權(quán)修訂且多年來多次修訂。新政府正提議更激進(jìn)的舉措，包括取消所得稅、終結(jié)美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)、審計(jì)美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)或?qū)⑵渑c財(cái)政部合并。聯(lián)邦利息負(fù)擔(dān)在2022年4月美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)啟動(dòng)"量化緊縮"后幾乎翻倍。美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)通過向經(jīng)濟(jì)出售超2萬億美元聯(lián)邦證券縮減資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表，減少貨幣供應(yīng)，并將聯(lián)邦基金利率提高至5.5%，可以說美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)過度緊縮，需要通過購買聯(lián)邦證券向經(jīng)濟(jì)注入新資金逆轉(zhuǎn)趨勢(shì)。  

How to Avoid Hyperinflation  

如何避免惡性通脹  

Alarmed economists contend that a Weimar-style hyperinflation is the inevitable outcome of government-issued money. But as Michael Hudson points out, "Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending."  

警覺的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家聲稱魏瑪式惡性通脹是政府發(fā)行貨幣的必然結(jié)果。但邁克爾·哈德森指出，"歷史上每次惡性通脹都因外債償付壓垮匯率所致。問題幾乎總源于戰(zhàn)時(shí)外幣壓力，而非國(guó)內(nèi)支出。"  

Issuing the money directly will not inflate prices if the funds are used to increase the domestic supply of goods and services. Supply and demand will then go up together, keeping prices stable. This has been illustrated historically, perhaps most dramatically in China. The People’s Bank of China manages the money supply by a variety of means including just printing currency. In 28 years, from 1996 to 2024, China’s money supply (M2) grew by 52 times or 5,200%, yet hyperinflation did not result. Prices remained stable because the funds went into increasing GDP, which went up along with the money supply. 
 
若資金用于增加國(guó)內(nèi)商品和服務(wù)供應(yīng)，直接發(fā)行貨幣不會(huì)推高價(jià)格。供需將同步增長(zhǎng)，保持價(jià)格穩(wěn)定。歷史上已有例證，或許中國(guó)最顯著。中國(guó)人民銀行通過包括印鈔在內(nèi)的多種手段管理貨幣供應(yīng)。1996至2024年的28年間，中國(guó)貨幣供應(yīng)量（M2）增長(zhǎng)52倍達(dá)5200%，但未引發(fā)惡性通脹。價(jià)格保持穩(wěn)定因?yàn)橘Y金流入了與貨幣供應(yīng)同步增長(zhǎng)的GDP。  

Price inflation during the Covid crisis has been blamed on the Fed monetizing Congressional fiscal payments to consumers and businesses, increasing demand (the circulating money supply) without increasing supply (goods and services). But the San Francisco Fed concluded that the surge in global shipping and transportation costs due to COVID, along with delivery delays and backlogs, were a greater contributor than this fiscal stimulus to the runup of headline inflation in 2021 and 2022. The supply of goods could have been increased – producers could have increased production to respond to the increase in demand — were it not for the shutdown of more than 700,000 productive businesses labeled "non-essential," resulting in the loss of three million jobs.  

新冠危機(jī)期間的價(jià)格通脹被歸咎于美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)貨幣化國(guó)會(huì)向消費(fèi)者和企業(yè)發(fā)放的財(cái)政補(bǔ)貼，增加需求（流通貨幣供應(yīng)）而未增加供應(yīng)（商品和服務(wù)）。但舊金山聯(lián)儲(chǔ)得出結(jié)論，COVID導(dǎo)致的全球航運(yùn)和運(yùn)輸成本激增及交付延遲和積壓，比財(cái)政刺激對(duì)2021-2022年通脹上升的影響更大。若非70多萬家被標(biāo)為"非必要"的生產(chǎn)企業(yè)關(guān)停導(dǎo)致300萬個(gè)工作崗位流失，商品供應(yīng)本可增加——生產(chǎn)商本可增產(chǎn)應(yīng)對(duì)需求增長(zhǎng)。  

Swapping Debt for Productive Equity  

債務(wù)換生產(chǎn)性股權(quán)  

Money printing is not inflationary if the money is issued for productive purposes, raising GDP in lockstep; but how can we be sure that the new money will be used productively? Today the banks and other large institutions that first receive any newly-issued money are more likely to invest it speculatively, driving up the price of existing assets (homes, stocks, etc.) without creating new goods and services.  

若為生產(chǎn)目的發(fā)行貨幣，同步提升GDP，印鈔不會(huì)引發(fā)通脹；但如何確保新貨幣被生產(chǎn)性使用？如今首先獲得新發(fā)行貨幣的銀行和其他大機(jī)構(gòu)更可能投機(jī)性投資，推高現(xiàn)有資產(chǎn)（房產(chǎn)、股票等）價(jià)格而不創(chuàng)造新商品和服務(wù)。  

Economic blogger Martin Armstrong observes that one solution pursued by debt-ridden countries is to swap the debt for equity in productive assets. This has been done by Mexico, Poland, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the United States itself. It was the solution of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in dealing with the overwhelming debt of the First U.S. Congress. State and federal debt was swapped along with gold for shares in the First U.S. Bank, paying a 6% dividend. The Bank then issued U.S. currency at up to 10 times this capital base, on the fractional reserve model still used by banks today. Both the First and the Second U.S. Banks were designed to support manufacturing and production, according to Hamilton’s Report on Public Credit.  

經(jīng)濟(jì)博主馬丁·阿姆斯特朗指出，負(fù)債國(guó)的一種解決方案是用債務(wù)交換生產(chǎn)性資產(chǎn)股權(quán)。墨西哥、波蘭、克羅地亞、捷克、匈牙利和美國(guó)自身都這樣做過。這是財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)亞歷山大·漢密爾頓處理第一屆國(guó)會(huì)巨額債務(wù)的方案。州和聯(lián)邦債務(wù)連同黃金被置換為美國(guó)第一銀行股份，支付6%股息。該銀行隨后以高達(dá)資本金10倍的規(guī)模發(fā)行美元，采用銀行至今沿用的部分準(zhǔn)備金模式。根據(jù)漢密爾頓《公共信用報(bào)告》，第一和第二美國(guó)銀行都旨在支持制造業(yè)和生產(chǎn)。  

Following the Hamiltonian model is H.R. 4052, the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023 (NIB) now pending in Congress. The NIB proposal is to swap privately-held federal securities (Treasury bonds) for non-voting preferred stock in the bank. Interest on the bonds would continue to go to the investors, along with a 2% stock dividend. That would not eliminate the debt or the interest, but if the Federal Reserve were to buy federal securities on the open market and swap them for NIB stock, the securities would essentially remain interest-free, since again the Fed is required to return its profits to the Treasury after deducting its costs. 
 
效仿漢密爾頓模式的是正在國(guó)會(huì)審議的《2023年國(guó)家基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施銀行法案》（H.R. 4052）。NIB提議用私人持有的聯(lián)邦證券（國(guó)債）交換該銀行無投票權(quán)優(yōu)先股。債券利息將繼續(xù)支付投資者，外加2%股票股息。這不會(huì)消除債務(wù)或利息，但如果美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)在公開市場(chǎng)購買聯(lián)邦證券并置換為NIB股票，由于美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)需在扣除成本后將利潤(rùn)返還財(cái)政部，這些證券實(shí)質(zhì)上仍是無息的。  

Lending Directly to Productive Businesses  

直接向生產(chǎn)企業(yè)放貸  

Another possibility for using newly issued money to increase the supply of goods and services is for the Federal Reserve to make loans directly to productive businesses. That was actually the intent of the original Federal Reserve Act. Section 13 of the Act allows Federal Reserve Banks to discount notes, drafts, and bills of exchange arising out of actual commercial transactions, such as those issued for agricultural, industrial or commercial purposes – in other words, lending directly for production and development. "Discounting commercial paper" is a process by which short-term loans are provided to financial institutions using commercial paper as collateral. (Commercial paper is unsecured short-term debt, usually issued at a discount, used to cover payroll, inventory and other short-term liabilities. The "discount" represents the interest to the lender.)According to Prof. Carl Walsh, writing of the Federal Reserve Act in The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Newsletter in 1991: 
 
利用新發(fā)行貨幣增加商品和服務(wù)供應(yīng)的另一可能是美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)直接向生產(chǎn)企業(yè)放貸。這實(shí)際上是《聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備法》的原意。該法第13條允許聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備銀行貼現(xiàn)源于實(shí)際商業(yè)交易（如農(nóng)業(yè)、工業(yè)或商業(yè)用途）的票據(jù)、匯票和交換票據(jù)——即直接為生產(chǎn)和發(fā)展放貸。"貼現(xiàn)商業(yè)票據(jù)"是以商業(yè)票據(jù)為抵押向金融機(jī)構(gòu)提供短期貸款的過程。（商業(yè)票據(jù)是無擔(dān)保短期債務(wù)，通常折價(jià)發(fā)行，用于支付工資、庫存等短期負(fù)債。"貼現(xiàn)"代表貸款人利息。）根據(jù)卡爾·沃爾什教授1991年在舊金山聯(lián)儲(chǔ)通訊中的論述：  

"The preamble sets out very clearly that one purpose of the Federal Reserve Act was to afford a means of discounting commercial loans. In its report on the proposed bill, the House Banking and Currency Committee viewed a fundamental obxtive of the bill to be the "creation of a joint mechanism for the extension of credit to banks which possess sound assets and which desire to liquidate them for the purpose of meeting legitimate commercial, agricultural, and industrial demands on the part of their clientele."  
 
"序言明確指出《聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備法》目的之一是提供商業(yè)貸款貼現(xiàn)手段。眾議院銀行與貨幣委員會(huì)在法案報(bào)告中視其根本目標(biāo)為'建立聯(lián)合機(jī)制，向擁有穩(wěn)健資產(chǎn)且希望變現(xiàn)以滿足客戶合法商業(yè)、農(nóng)業(yè)和工業(yè)需求的銀行擴(kuò)展信貸'。"  

Cornell Law School Professor Robert Hockett expanded on this design in an article in Forbes in March 2021:  

康奈爾法學(xué)院教授羅伯特·霍克特2021年3月在《福布斯》文章中詳述了這一設(shè)計(jì)：  

[T]he founders of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 … designed something akin to a network of regional development finance institutions. … Each of the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks was to provide short-term funding directly or indirectly (through local banks) to developing businesses that needed it. This they did by ‘discounting’ – in effect, purchasing – commercial paper from those businesses that needed it … [I]n determining what kinds of commercial paper to discount, the Federal Reserve Act both was – and ironically remains – quite explicit about this: Fed discount lending is solely for "productive," not "speculative" purposes. 
  
1913年美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)體系的創(chuàng)立者……設(shè)計(jì)了一個(gè)類似區(qū)域開發(fā)金融機(jī)構(gòu)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)?！?2家地區(qū)聯(lián)儲(chǔ)銀行都應(yīng)直接或間接（通過地方銀行）向需要資金的成長(zhǎng)中企業(yè)提供短期融資。他們通過"貼現(xiàn)"——實(shí)質(zhì)是購買——這些企業(yè)的商業(yè)票據(jù)實(shí)現(xiàn)?！跊Q定貼現(xiàn)何種商業(yè)票據(jù)時(shí)，《聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備法》過去——且諷刺的是現(xiàn)在仍——非常明確：聯(lián)儲(chǔ)貼現(xiàn)貸款僅用于"生產(chǎn)性"而非"投機(jī)性"目的。  

Today discounting commercial paper is big business, but the lenders are private and the borrowers are large institutions issuing commercial paper in denominations of $100,000 or more. Except for its emergency Commercial Paper Funding Facility operated from 2020 to 2021 and from 2008 to 2010, the Fed no longer engages in the commercial loan business. Meanwhile, small businesses are having trouble finding affordable financing. 
 
如今商業(yè)票據(jù)貼現(xiàn)是大生意，但貸款方是私人的，借款方是發(fā)行面額10萬美元以上商業(yè)票據(jù)的大機(jī)構(gòu)。除2020-2021年和2008-2010年運(yùn)作的緊急商業(yè)票據(jù)融資機(jī)制外，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)不再參與商業(yè)貸款業(yè)務(wù)。與此同時(shí)，小企業(yè)難以獲得可負(fù)擔(dān)融資。  

In a sequel to his March 2021 article, Hockett explained that the drafters of the Federal Reserve Act, notably Carter Glass and Paul Warburg, were essentially following the Real Bills Doctrine (RBD). Previously known as the "commercial loan theory of banking," it held that banks could create credit-money deposits on their balance sheets without triggering inflation if the money were issued against loans backed by commercial paper. When the borrowing companies repaid their loans from their sales receipts, the newly created money would just void out the debt and be extinguished. Their intent was that banks could sell their commercial loans at a discount at the Fed’s Discount Window, freeing up their balance sheets for more loans. Hockett wrote:  

在2021年3月文章的續(xù)篇中，霍克特解釋《聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備法》起草者——特別是卡特·格拉斯和保羅·沃伯格——實(shí)質(zhì)上遵循了真實(shí)票據(jù)學(xué)說（RBD）。該學(xué)說曾稱"銀行業(yè)商業(yè)貸款理論"，認(rèn)為若貨幣發(fā)行基于商業(yè)票據(jù)擔(dān)保的貸款，銀行可在資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上創(chuàng)造信用貨幣存款而不引發(fā)通脹。當(dāng)借款公司用銷售收入償還貸款時(shí)，新創(chuàng)造的貨幣將抵消債務(wù)并消失。他們的意圖是銀行可在聯(lián)儲(chǔ)貼現(xiàn)窗口折價(jià)出售商業(yè)貸款，釋放資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表空間進(jìn)行更多放貸?；艨颂貙懙溃?nbsp; 

"The RBD in its crude formulation held that so long as the lending of endogenous [bank-created] credit-money was kept productive, not speculative, inflation and deflation would be not only less likely, but effectively impossible. And the experience of German banks during Germany’s late 19th century Hamiltonian ‘growth miracle,’ with which the German immigrant Warburg, himself a banker, was intimately familiar, appeared to verify this. So did Glass’s experience with agricultural lending in the American South. " 
 
"粗略表述的真實(shí)票據(jù)學(xué)說認(rèn)為，只要內(nèi)生（銀行創(chuàng)造的）信用貨幣的借貸保持生產(chǎn)性而非投機(jī)性，通脹和通縮不僅可能性更低，而且實(shí)際上不可能發(fā)生。德國(guó)移民沃伯格（本人是銀行家）密切了解的19世紀(jì)末德國(guó)漢密爾頓式'增長(zhǎng)奇跡'期間德國(guó)銀行的經(jīng)驗(yàn)似乎驗(yàn)證了這點(diǎn)。格拉斯在美國(guó)南部的農(nóng)業(yè)貸款經(jīng)歷也是如此。"  

Prof. Hockett suggested regionalizing the Fed, expanding it from the current 12 Federal Reserve banks to many banks. He wrote in August 2021:  

霍克特教授建議美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)區(qū)域化，從當(dāng)前12家聯(lián)儲(chǔ)銀行擴(kuò)展到多家。他在2021年8月寫道：  

"In time, we might even imagine a proliferation of public banks, patterned more or less after the highly successful Bank of North Dakota model, spreading across multiple states. These banks could then both afford nonprofit banking services to all, and assist the Fed Regional Banks in identifying appropriate recipients of Fed liquidity assistance. "  
"假以時(shí)日，我們甚至可以設(shè)想以高度成功的北達(dá)科他州銀行為模板的公立銀行激增，遍布多個(gè)州。這些銀行既能向所有人提供非營(yíng)利銀行服務(wù)，又能協(xié)助聯(lián)儲(chǔ)地區(qū)銀行識(shí)別合適的流動(dòng)性援助對(duì)象。"  

The result, he said, will be "a Fed restored to its original purpose, a Fed responsive to varying local conditions in a sprawling continental republic, a Fed no longer over-involved with banks whose principal if not sole activities are in gambling on price movements in secondary and tertiary markets rather than investing in the primary markets that constitute our ‘real’ economy. It will mean, in short, something approaching a true people’s bank, not just a banks’ bank."  

他說，結(jié)果將是"回歸初衷"的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)，響應(yīng)廣闊大陸共和國(guó)各地不同狀況的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)，不再過度涉足那些主要（若非全部）活動(dòng)是在二三級(jí)市場(chǎng)押注價(jià)格波動(dòng)而非投資構(gòu)成我們'實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì)'的一級(jí)市場(chǎng)的銀行的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)。簡(jiǎn)言之，這將意味著接近真正的'人民的銀行'，而不僅僅是'銀行的銀行'。"