????2009年夏秋之交，美國(guó)總統(tǒng)奧巴馬面臨一個(gè)非常棘手的決定：時(shí)任美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)主席本?伯南克四年任期即將結(jié)束，應(yīng)不應(yīng)該讓他繼續(xù)留任？一方面，在雷曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）倒閉引發(fā)的金融危機(jī)中，伯南克的應(yīng)對(duì)表現(xiàn)非常出色。另一方面，伯南克是共和黨任命的人選，而奧巴馬最親密的助手、著名的哈佛大學(xué)（Harvard）經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家勞倫斯?薩默斯對(duì)這份工作也是垂涎已久。

????最終，奧巴馬還是接受了財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)蒂姆?蓋特納的建議，給伯南克延長(zhǎng)了四年任期。蒂姆?蓋特納曾與伯南克密切合作過。當(dāng)時(shí)的市場(chǎng)和經(jīng)濟(jì)仍非常脆弱，因此這看起來算是明智的選擇。但現(xiàn)在回頭看看，或許并不盡然。奧巴馬讓伯南克負(fù)責(zé)2012年大選的預(yù)備階段，不僅讓經(jīng)濟(jì)恢復(fù)受阻，也讓自己的連任道路風(fēng)險(xiǎn)重重。過去幾個(gè)月，美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)沒有絲毫好轉(zhuǎn)，然而，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)主席卻沒有任何良策。即使到了今天，他給人的印象依然是模棱兩可?，F(xiàn)在看來，奧巴馬應(yīng)該在自己還有機(jī)會(huì)的時(shí)候，請(qǐng)伯南克下臺(tái)。

????當(dāng)然，我這么說并不是因?yàn)閷?duì)伯南克存有任何敵意。因?yàn)?，他是一位著名的?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家、鞠躬盡瘁的公務(wù)人員，為人也極其正派。2008年至2009年期間，他批準(zhǔn)了一系列極具創(chuàng)新精神的貸款與流動(dòng)性項(xiàng)目，有困難的銀行都可以從美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)獲得金融援助， 進(jìn)而幫助避免了整個(gè)金融系統(tǒng)的崩盤。2009年，《時(shí)代》雜志（Time）授予他“年度人物”的稱號(hào)，可謂實(shí)至名歸。

????但從2009年之后，伯南克的表現(xiàn)便大不如前，今年尤為糟糕。我們都知道，行動(dòng)與結(jié)果之間會(huì)存在滯后，但今年，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)不僅沒能做到未雨綢繆，防患于未然，反而似乎完全癱瘓了。美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)期望的通貨膨脹指標(biāo)僅有1.8%，而失業(yè)率則一直在8%以上的高位徘徊不下。很明顯，它既未滿足2%的通脹目標(biāo)，也沒有有效履行提供充分就業(yè)的職責(zé)。但伯南克依然無動(dòng)于衷。八月初，伯南克與他的同事都承認(rèn)，自從他們上次開會(huì)以來，美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)期進(jìn)一步惡化，但他們依然沒有采取任何措施。當(dāng)時(shí)，我對(duì)伯南克的同情已經(jīng)所剩無幾了。

????當(dāng)然，也有人會(huì)說，既然短期利率已經(jīng)這么低了，他還能怎么辦？但伯南克自己都否認(rèn)了這一點(diǎn)。他曾經(jīng)多次強(qiáng)調(diào)，通過購(gòu)買債券和采取其他一些非常規(guī)手段，即便利率接近零，中央銀行依然有能力為經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇提供支持。可如果是這樣，他為什么沒有推進(jìn)另一輪量化寬松呢？

????對(duì)此，官方的解釋是，他與其他決策者需要看到更多數(shù)據(jù)，但這種說法不足以讓人信服。目前美國(guó)的失業(yè)率為8.3%；在最近一個(gè)季度，美國(guó)GDP基本停止了增長(zhǎng)。這些還不夠嗎？還需要什么樣的證據(jù)才能證明經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇陷入了停滯？另外一種可能性是，這是伯南克的政治手腕。大選還有幾個(gè)月的時(shí)間，米特?羅姆尼和其他共和黨人正在對(duì)第三輪量化寬松猛烈開火?；蛟S，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)主席只是希望能遠(yuǎn)離雙方的戰(zhàn)火，做到明哲保身。也可能他正在努力在中央銀行內(nèi)達(dá)成一種共識(shí)。因?yàn)?，我們都知道，個(gè)別區(qū)域性儲(chǔ)備銀行總裁強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)第三輪量化寬松政策。

????但這無疑再次證明了2010年的一種看法。奧巴馬應(yīng)該任命一位更為強(qiáng)勢(shì)和自信的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)主席，來接替伯南克。不論是保羅?沃爾克還是艾倫?格林斯潘，在他們漫長(zhǎng)的任期內(nèi)都曾遭遇過內(nèi)部的反對(duì)意見。但只要他們認(rèn)為有必要，什么都無法阻止他們推進(jìn)政策改革。直率自信、甚至有些自大的薩默斯也能做到，如果他有機(jī)會(huì)上任的話。奧巴馬候選人名單上的其他人或許也有這樣的能力。我想，如今的總統(tǒng)先生肯定正為當(dāng)初的選擇而后悔不已。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/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.