唐纳德·特朗普总统本周表示，他已经与一群共和党议员讨论了开火前美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔往回走这样的计划，称之为“极不可能”
尽管如此，这一事件导致股价暴跌，债券收益率攀升，直到特朗普的否认恢复了市场的平静。
在对特朗普罕见的公开指责中，几位大银行首席执行官强调了独立央行的重要性。
“我认为美联储的独立性绝对至关重要，”摩根大通首席执行官杰米·戴蒙周三在财报电话会议上表示。
分析师告诉美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)，受制于政治领导人的央行行长往往倾向于将低利率作为提振短期经济活动、削减失业和获得公众支持的手段。但他们补充说，这种姿态带来了一个重大风险，即消费者需求的上升可能会引发长达数年的通胀，而不受利率的影响。
普林斯顿大学(Princeton University)经济学教授、美联储前副主席艾伦·布林德(Alan Blinder)对美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)表示:“现在，几乎在全世界范围内，人们普遍认为:如果你把货币政策留在政治手中，你会得到太多的通胀。”。
“短期内给经济注入活力是有诱惑力的，”Binder补充道。"高通胀的代价随后到来."
自特朗普上任以来，他一再敦促美联储降低利率以支持经济。
“我们有一个拒绝降低美联储利率的人，”特朗普上个月谈到鲍威尔时说。“也许我应该去找美联储。我可以任命自己吗?我会比这些人做得更好。”
特朗普周三在椭圆形办公室发表讲话时，为美联储降息提供了一个不同的理由，称这将减少美国的偿债支出，节省“数万亿美元的利息成本”。
特朗普还抨击鲍威尔涉嫌与央行25亿美元的建筑改造项目相关的超支。美联储将支出超支归因于不可预见的成本增加，称其建筑翻新最终将“通过允许董事会整合其大部分业务，随着时间的推移降低成本”，根据央行的网站.
尽管经济学家对目前是否需要降息存在分歧，但政治妥协的美联储的前景有可能推高通胀预期，因为投资者担心一连串的降息和由此导致的价格飙升，汉密尔顿项目主任兼布鲁金斯学会经济研究高级研究员温迪·埃德尔伯格告诉美国广播公司新闻。
Edelberg说，普遍的通胀担忧将被证明是适得其反的，有可能导致高利率，因为潜在的高通胀将侵蚀债务支付的价值，并需要更大的金额来弥补差额。
“如果你叔叔借钱给你，并且他认为未来几年通货膨胀率会非常高，你叔叔会要求高利率，”Edelberg说。
一些分析师表示，上世纪70年代和80年代爆发的高通胀是一个警示。
在通货膨胀形成之前，理查德·尼克松总统敦促当时的美联储主席阿瑟·伯恩斯在1972年总统选举前降息。人们普遍认为，尼克松的主张导致了低于必要水平的利率，从而使通胀失控。
近十年后，在1981年，美联储将利率提高到20%，以控制通货膨胀。虽然这一举措成功地抑制了价格上涨，但却让美国陷入了衰退，失业率升至10%。
“如果你只是一直吃甜点，你真的必须带上蔬菜，”马克·斯平德尔，波托马克河资本的首席投资官和《独立的神话:国会如何治理美联储》的合著者，在谈到财政审慎的必要性时告诉美国广播公司新闻。
分析人士表示，尽管政治上妥协的美联储存在经济不稳定的风险，但美联储已经面临民选官员的监督，其形式是美联储主席每年两次在国会作证，以及参议院批准美联储的七人理事会。鲍威尔的任期将于5月结束，他于2017年由特朗普提名，并由拜登总统提名连任。
埃德尔伯格说，公众审查和政府监督有助于确保美联储服务于公众利益。
“我绝对不是说美联储应该在堡垒墙后自行其是，”Edelberg补充道。
President Donald Trump this week said he had discussed with a group of Republican lawmakers the possibility offiringFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, beforewalking backsuch plans, calling them “highly unlikely.”
Still, the episode sent stock prices tumbling and bond yields climbing, until Trump’s disavowal restored calm to the markets.
In a rare public rebuke of Trump, several big-bank CEOs stressed the importance of an independent central bank.
“I think the independence of the Fed is absolutely critical,” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said on an earnings call on Wednesday.
Central bankers beholden to political leaders tend to favor lower interest rates as a means of boosting short-term economic activity, slashing unemployment and generating public support, analysts told ABC News. But, they added, that posture poses a major risk in the possibility of years-long inflation fueled by a rise in consumer demand, untethered by interest rates.
“It’s by now widely agreed, almost all over the world: If you leave monetary policy in political hands, you’ll get too much inflation,” Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton University and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, told ABC News.
"There's temptation to give the economy juice in the short run," Binder added. "The costs in terms of high inflation come later."
Since Trump took office, he has repeatedlyurgedthe Fed to cut interest rates in an effort to bolster the economy.
"We have a man who just refuses to lower the Fed rate," Trump said of Powell last month. "Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself? I’d do a much better job than these people."
Speaking at the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump offered a different reason for the Fed to lower rates, saying it would reduce U.S. debt-service payments, saving “trillions of dollars in interest cost.”
Trump also slammed Powell for alleged overspending tied to the central bank's $2.5 billion building renovation project. The Fed attributes spending overruns to unforeseen cost increases, saying that its building renovation will ultimately "reduce costs over time by allowing the Board to consolidate most of its operations," according to the central bank'swebsite.
While economists disagree over whether interest-rate cuts are currently needed, the prospect of a politically compromised Fed threatens to drive up inflation expectations as investors fear a cascade of rate reductions and a resulting spike in prices, Wendy Edelberg, director of the Hamilton Project and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, told ABC News.
Widespread inflation worries would prove counterproductive, risking high interest rates because a potential bout of high inflation would eat away at the value of debt payments and require larger sums to make up the difference, Edelberg said.
“If your uncle was lending you money and he thought inflation was going to be really high over the next few years, your uncle would ask for a high interest rate,” Edelberg said.
A burst of high inflation in the 1970s and 1980s offers a cautionary tale, some analysts said.
Before the inflation took hold, President Richard Nixon had urged then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns to cut rates in the run-up to the 1972 presidential election. Nixon's advocacy is widely viewed as contributing to lower-than-necessary interest rates that allowed inflation to get out of control.
Nearly a decade later, in 1981, the Fed raised interest rates as high as 20% in order to bring inflation under control. While the move succeeded in cooling off price hikes, it plunged the U.S. into a recession and sent the unemployment rate to 10%.
“If you’re just eating dessert all the time, you really do have to take your vegetables,” Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital and co-author of “The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve,” told ABC News, regarding the need for fiscal prudence.
Though a politically compromised Fed risks economic instability, analysts said, the central bank already faces supervision from elected officials in the form of twice-a-year Fed chair testimony before Congress, and Senate approval for the Fed’s seven-member Board of Governors. Powell, whose term ends in May, was nominated by Trump in 2017 and nominated for a second term by President Biden.
Public scrutiny and government oversight help ensure the Fed serves the interests of the public, Edelberg said.
“I’m absolutely not arguing the Fed should be left to its own devices behind fortress walls,” Edelberg added.
With Trump threatening Powell, what's at stake with an independent federal reserve?
