原文标题：
The Guns And Butter Era Has Returned, Bringing Inflation With It
枪砲和黄油时代已经回来，给它带来了通货膨胀
原文连结：
https://reurl.cc/3NVXM8
发布时间：
Apr 29, 2021,07:15pm EDT
原文内容：
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.
机翻如下：
为了应对冠状病毒大流行，美国政府开始了前所未有的财政支出和货币宽松政策，并一直
持续到现在，从未间断。一年后，随着经济开始开放，通胀压力正在上升，尽管目前还不
清楚这些压力是否会是过渡性的。
虽然找到合适的历史类比总是很棘手，但目前的经济环境似乎最容易让人想起1960年代中
期。那些年是一个拐点，很像今天，当时财政支出加速。美联储以低利率为这种支出提供
资金，并假设1960年代初经历的历史性低通胀水准将继续下去。可以肯定的是，通货膨胀
在20世纪70年代大大恶化，但加速通货膨胀的基础是在20世纪60年代中期到后期建立的。
林登-詹森总统宣誓就职后，推行了一项包括雄心勃勃的财政支出的议程，在1964年通过
大幅减税之后。美国对越南战争的承诺不断升级，甚至在各种旨在减少少数民族失业和收
入不平等的 "大社会" 计画的支持下增加了国内开支。经济学家经常把20世纪60年代末的
时代称为 "枪炮和黄油 "时代，因为该政府选择同时追求几个雄心勃勃的目标，所有这些
都需要大幅和持续增加财政支出，同时扩大预算赤字。政府支出的平均同比增长率从1960
年至1964年的5.5%增加到1965年至1969年的10.8%（见下图）。
让人想起詹森总统1964年的减税政策，川普总统在2017年签署了一项大规模的减税政策，
甚至在经济以合理的速度增长和失业率低的情况下。川普总统还在2020年监督了美国历史
上最重大的财政扩张。联邦赤字估计达到4兆美元，意味着政府支出同比增长43%。随着新
政府的成立，拜登总统已经传达了他打算同时追求多个全面的目标。这些目标包括但不限
于为受到大流行病经济损害的个人和团体提供支持，应对气候变化，进行基础设施投资，
以及为越来越多的退休人员提供社会安全和医疗保险福利。鉴于拜登政府的计画，我们不
无理由地认为，在2021年至2025年期间，预算赤字可能保持在每年3-4兆美元左右，这代
表著与1960年代末进行的财政扩张规模相似。
在詹森执政初期，詹森总统会见了当时的美联储主席威廉-麦切斯尼-马丁，并以试图恐吓
他保持低利率和宽松的货币政策而闻名。在1965年美联储提高利率后，詹森对主席说："
马丁，我的孩子们正在越南死去，而你不会印刷我需要的钱。" 尽管马丁在其职业生涯的
早期是一个独立的美联储的强烈支持者和一个反通货膨胀的鹰派，但他还是服从了詹森总
统的要求。最终，马丁主席决定提供货币便利，为美国政府的支出计画提供资金，尽管有
通胀风险。货币基础的平均同比增长率在1960年至1964年期间为1.8%，在1965年至1969年
期间增长了两倍，达到6.0%（见下图）。马丁主席在多年后承认他对默许詹森总统的要求
感到遗憾，他说，"令我永远感到羞耻的是，我最终向他屈服了"。他于1970年卸任，但只
是在他把通货膨胀的精灵放出瓶子后才卸任。
与20世纪60年代发生的情况类似，由于目前对冠状病毒的战争和需要为每年几兆美元的财
政赤字提供资金，目前美联储的独立性在过去一年中大大减弱了。选择前美联储主席珍妮
特-耶伦担任财政部长在某种程度上象征著美联储和美国财政部之间似乎已经发生了联姻
。与此相关，美联储决心保护金融资产的名义价值，特别是美国国债的价值。不这样做可
能会对住房市场、股票市场和美国税收产生灾难性的后果，所有这些都越来越依赖于低利
率。即使消费者价格指数可能在2021年第二季度超过3%，这是多年来的第一次，但现任美
联储主席杰罗姆-鲍威尔已经传达了他的观点，即目前的通胀压力是过渡性的，假设像马
丁主席一样，通胀仍然得到良好的控制。虽然鲍威尔主席很可能是正确的，但每年四兆美
元的财政赤字支出在联邦基金利率为0和货币供应量激增的情况下，很可能是通胀加速的
秘诀。
枪炮和黄油时代的支出造成了不可避免的通货膨胀压力，这种压力一直持续到1960年代。
在20世纪60年代早期，通货膨胀得到了很好的控制，消费者价格指数在1.1%至1.6%的相对
狭窄的范围内波动。然而，随着60年代末财政承诺和货币供应量的增加，通货膨胀加速。
1966年，消费者价格指数增长了3.0%，到1969年，消费者价格指数增长了5.8%之多。同样
，在过去的五年里，通货膨胀率一直很低，而且得到了控制，与60年代初的通货膨胀率相
当。从2016年到2020年，消费者价格指数的平均同比增幅仅为1.8%。展望未来几年，看到
CPI的加速与1960年代末押韵，这并不令人惊讶。
20世纪60年代末和当前的时代存在重要的相似之处，但也有重要的不同。美元不再与金价
挂钩，贸易逆差已大幅扩大。由于目前美国政府的债务相对于GDP来说是如此之大，无论
美联储的通胀前景如何，都必须保持合理的偿债成本，因此美联储的选择是有限的。中国
已经发展成为美国的地缘政治和经济敌人，在过去二十年里，来自中国的廉价进口对美国
产生了通货紧缩的影响。最后，虽然拜登政府正在计画巨大的财政支出举措，但大幅增加
所得税将抑制其通货膨胀的影响。更简单地说，目前的时代和1960年代中期似乎存在许多
相似之处，但情况是复杂的，动态的，有许多移动的部分。
众所周知，1970年代是一个通货膨胀进一步加速的时期，即使与1960年代末相比也是如此
。在某些时候，很可能值得将1970年代与当前时代进行比较。然而，在通货膨胀达到70年
代的10%的通货膨胀率之前，它必须首先达到60年代末的5%的通货膨胀率，由于这个原因
，60年代似乎为未来几年提供了一个更适用的比较。
在讨论了20世纪60年代的宏观经济背景后，现在让我们来看看在1965年1月1日开始的五年
中主要资产类别发生了什么。
股票。经通货膨胀调整后，标准普尔500指数每年的总回报率为0.3%。经通胀调整后，收
益每年增加0.6%。然而，正如通货膨胀增加时的情况一样，标准普尔500指数的市盈率从
18.8倍收缩到15.8倍，股息率在1965年初和1970年初之间从2.9%增加到3.5%。今天，标准
普尔500指数目前的市盈率为33.7倍，股息率为1.5%。与历史相比，市盈率非常高，而与
历史相比，股息率则非常低。不幸的是，通货膨胀的加剧一般会导致市盈率的收缩和股息
率的扩大。今天通货膨胀的加速可能导致市盈率的大幅下调，这可能使股市难以跟上通货
膨胀的步伐。
债券。1965年，10年期国债的到期收益率为4.2%；到这十年结束时，同一债券的到期收益
率（离到期还有5年）为8.2%。该10年期国债的总回报率估计为-33.1%，或每年-7.7%，按
通货膨胀率调整。在20世纪60年代末，债券的表现远远落后于其他资产类别，正如人们所
预期的那样，在任何环境下，债券收益率都在上升，以补偿投资者日益增长的通货膨胀预
期。10年期国债的到期收益率目前为1.7%，这意味着今天债券收益率上升的下行风险比
1965年时要大。由于这个原因和其他原因，在你的投资组合中寻找债券的替代品可能是有
意义的。
房价。在1960年代末，住房的表现比债券好，但仍然没有跟上通货膨胀的步伐。房屋价格
每年增加3.3%，但经通货膨胀调整后，房屋价格每年略微下降-0.6%。由于工资、土地成
本和建筑成本的增加，房屋往往能跟上通货膨胀，这些都发生在60年代末。最近几个月，
土地价格、建筑成本和工资都在上涨，所有这些都支持了房屋价格的上涨。似乎有可能的
是，房屋价格应该大约与通货膨胀同步，就像在1960年代末那样。
黄金。在詹森政府时期，美元以35美元/盎司的价格与黄金挂钩，在此期间，美国人拥有
实物黄金还不合法。然而，欧洲人对黄金的需求大幅增加；在20世纪60年代，由于被低估
的美国黄金流向欧洲，美国的黄金储备下降了38%，从15800吨下降到9800吨。在1971年取
消美元/黄金挂钩后，在接下来的十年里，黄金的回报是惊人的，因为投资者寻求出售美
元来投资黄金作为价值储存。虽然在20世纪60年代末不是一个投资选择，但现在可能是一
个拥有黄金的好时机，如果通货膨胀继续增加，黄金将可能成为一个很好的长期价值储存
。
回顾这些资产类别在20世纪60年代末的表现，其结果似乎与那个时代的通货膨胀情况相吻
合。房屋和股票是相对的赢家，产生的回报跟上了通货膨胀，但没有超过。20世纪60年代
末 "枪炮与黄油 "时代的明显输家是债券市场，它受到了债券收益率上升和购买力逐渐减
弱的影响。今天对债券保持警惕并寻找合理的债券替代品可能是有意义的。拥有价格合理
的价值储存品，如黄金，也是有意义的。
心得/评论：
撇掉结论的黄金 (虽然我也是老派的黄金信徒)
拿1960年代和现在做为对照
真的可以看出相似性
所以特地转这篇过来分享给大家