鲍威尔谢幕不退场,特朗普降息算盘恐落空

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-04-30Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-30

原创 |Odaily 星球日报(@OdailyChina)

作者|Golem(@web3_golem)

北京时间 4 月 30 日凌晨两点,美国联邦公开市场委员会公布最新利率决议,决定将联邦基金利率目标区间维持在 3.5%-3.75%。美联储如期维持利率不变,但让市场感到不安的是,本次共有 12 名票委参与投票,最后却以 8 比 4 的罕见分裂投票通过了利率决议,这是自 1992 年 10 月以来美联储利率决策和政策声明获得最多反对票的一次。

与此同时,在利率公布后的新闻发布会上,现任美联储主席鲍威尔称这是他担任主席参加的最后一次发布会,但在任期届满后(5 月 15 日)他仍将继续留任美联储理事,时长待定。(Odaily 注:鲍威尔的美联储理事任期至 2028 年 1 月)

这次 FOMC 会议所藏的信息含义并不低,一方面罕见的 4 张反对票表明美联储的鹰派程度再加深,另一方面鲍威尔打破往届美联储主席任期届满后同时卸任理事职位的传统,也给了特朗普一个下马威,使其利用政治施压美联储降息的算盘扑空。

美联储鹰派程度加深

根据 FOMC 声明内容,在本次美联储利率决议的 4 张反对票中,美联储理事米兰与以往一样投票反对维持利率不变,支持降息 25 个基点。但剩下的 3 张反对票,克利夫兰联储主席哈玛克、明尼阿波利斯联储主席卡什卡利和达拉斯联储主席洛根反对的是在货币政策声明中纳入“具有宽松倾向”的措辞,简言之即更加鲜明的反对暗示未来会降息。

这样罕见的内部分歧,源于美伊冲突导致全球石油供应收缩,而原油价格的持续飙升可能会令美国本就居高不下的通胀雪上加霜。鲍威尔在新闻发布会上也坦言,委员会内部进行了激烈辩论,“支持转向中性偏向的官员人数有所增加,或许下次会议就会考虑改变目前的宽松倾向”。同时他又强调,市场对于官员的反对投票反应过度,反对在声明中维持宽松立场的措辞并不代表官员们倾向于加息,“人们并不是说我们现在需要加息,更多的是在讨论一个问题,即美联储是否应该对政策前景保持中立立场。”

但市场普遍还是认为,这次内部分歧的公开化表明美联储的鹰派程度已经加深。过去,美联储偏向于将地缘政治事件引发的物价上涨视为“暂时性冲击”,如 2025 年特朗普关税政策对商品贸易产生影响导致物价上涨,当时美联储就将其判断为“一次性价格上涨影响”,并没有阻碍最终的降息决定。

而这次美联储对由美伊冲突导致的油价上涨的态度正在转变。美伊冲突已经爆发约 2 个月,但截止目前,美伊和平谈判并无实质性进展,霍尔木兹海峡依然处于管制状态,原油价格依旧居高不下。在这种情况下,美联储内部更多的官员已经认为油价高企从短期影响演变为了长期持续性压力,因此这些官员的政策立场才会变得更加审慎。

在本次的美联储声明中,美联储对通胀的表述也从“略高”改为了“偏高”,这也表明了美联储官员们对油价的潜在传导效应和物价水平越来越担忧。这些发言和立场倾向虽然还不至于美联储在下一次议息会议上决定加息,但至少向市场表明降息的难度也在提高。据Odaily Seer 先知频道监测,Polymarket 上“美联储 2026 年不会降息”的概率从 38%升至 57%,上涨了 19%。

不过也有观点认为,FOMC 此次出现的 4 人反对票局面也可能是有意为之,目的是给即将上任的美联储新主席沃什一个警告,即必须维持美联储的独立性,不要妄想盲目听从特朗普的指挥降息,否则我们会投下反对票。

特朗普降息的政治施压算盘落空

在此次美联储意见分歧巨大的会议召开前数小时,参议院银行委员会已经推进了沃什的美联储主席提名程序。上周日,司法部宣布结束了对鲍威尔的调查后,Thom Tillis 也转为支持沃什,最终参议院银行委员会以 13 比 11 的党派投票结果通过投票,将沃什的美联储主席提名提交至参议院全体会议。

在共和党参议员 Thom Tillis 这个关键阻碍排除后,沃什有极大概率能在鲍威尔任期届满前获得参议院确认。参议院官方 2026 年日程显示,5 月 4 日至 5 月 8 日是参议院的休会期,因此全院投票窗口最早也只能落在返会后的 5 月 11 日当周,而在共和党控制的参议院下,只要能顺利排上期,沃什的提名就可以在 5 月 11 日至 5 月 15 日之间完成确认。

虽然即使在提名确认之后,沃什在正式掌管美联储前还需要经过总统任命(Odaily 注:沃什不是美联储理事,他需要先接替米兰的理事席位)、正式宣誓就职等程序,但他依然来得及主持 6 月的 FOMC 会议,而不会是鲍威尔作为临时主席主持。(Odaily 注:2018 年鲍威尔在被确认后 13 天宣誓就职,而其第二任主席从被参议院确认到正式宣誓就职为 11 天)

因此,特朗普今日高兴的再次表示,现在是降低利率的好时机,因为自己钦点的美联储新主席即将在下一次 FOMC 会议前执掌美联储,沃什此前也有多次鸽派表态。但让特朗普没想到的是,即使不再是美联储主席,责任感爆满的鲍威尔也要“想方设法”的坏他的好事。

鲍威尔在 FOMC 新闻发布会上称自己并不会成为一个影子主席,将给予沃什充分的施政空间。鲍威尔继续留任美联储理事的理由是捍卫美联储的独立性,其称“过去三个月发生的事情(特朗普对鲍威尔的法律诉讼)让我别无选择,只能留任。”

鲍威尔此前就认为特朗普之所以要调查美联储大楼翻新工程的成本问题就是想通过政治施压令他领导的美联储降息,但最终鲍威尔没有让特朗普得逞。而现在沃什是特朗普钦点的美联储新主席,并且两人也有私交,因此鲍威尔认为沃什上台后可能会不遵循客观事实而听从特朗普指挥降息,因此他留任理事会就是为了避免特朗普彻底掌握美联储。

鲍威尔的留任确实从人事层面限制了特朗普向理事会安插亲信的可能。加上即将上任的沃什,在美联储七人理事会中有三人都由特朗普提名,另外两位是鲍曼和沃勒。若鲍威尔卸任美联储主席时遵守传统同时从理事会辞职,那么特朗普就会再获得任命一名理事的机会,进而导致特朗普在七人理事会中拥有四位亲自任命的人选。

而在美联储整体已表现出鹰派立场的情况下(巧的是反对维持宽松立场的3名FOMC成员均是地区联储主席,非美联储理事),即使亲鸽派的沃什上任后面对的也是一个对降息极其抗拒的政策委员会。

因此,特朗普此前对鲍威尔和美联储进行的持续政治施压,到目前来看,不仅未达到效果,反而是美联储反抗意愿更加强烈。面对现在的局势,对于特朗普来说,最好的做法可能只剩赶紧结束美伊冲突或开放霍尔木兹海峡,降低原油价格,从而为沃什说服其他美联储官员支持降息提供合适的理由。

Пов'язані матеріали

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit31 хв тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit31 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit48 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit48 хв тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片