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. 
 
美國國債剛剛突破36萬億美元，僅在突破35萬億美元四個月后，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.
  
本財年利息總額達到1.16萬億美元，首次突破萬億大關，平均每天30億美元。作為對比，估計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"海倫"造成的損失就達536億美元，而該州預計只能獲得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.

當前的債務軌跡顯然不可持續(xù)，但我們能做什么？增稅和削減預算可以減緩債務的未來增長，但無法解決根本問題——債務規(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品支出。  

Borrowing Is Actually More Inflationary Than Printing 
 
借貸實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. 
 
多位金融評論員建議，如果財政部直接無債務發(fā)行預算資金，情況會更好。具有計算機科學和大宗商品交易背景的經濟預測師馬丁·阿姆斯特朗認為，如果我們一開始就這么做，國債規(guī)?？赡苤挥鞋F(xiàn)在的40%。實際上，他認為如今的債務等同于貨幣，只是附帶利息。聯(lián)邦證券可以在回購市場作為貸款抵押品，且抵押品可被"再抵押"（重復使用）多次，創(chuàng)造新貨幣增加供應量，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: 
 
另一位經濟研究員兼趨勢預測師克里斯·馬滕森在11月21日的播客中質疑道，支持借貸而非印鈔的理由是政府借入現(xiàn)有貨幣，"如果財政部直接發(fā)行貨幣而不借貸會有什么大害？……你們仍在超支，可能仍有通脹，但現(xiàn)在不用支付利息了。"因此不會擴大貨幣供應。這在貨幣由金銀硬幣組成的時代成立，但如今已非事實。實際上由于政府借貸方式（通過拍賣向選定的"一級交易商"——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，更會增加貨幣供應。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)代經濟體依賴部分準備金銀行制度，當一級交易商以國債形式購買政府債務時，他們能通過放貸增加準備金并擴大貨幣供應。這被稱為貨幣乘數(shù)效應。"  

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)金儲備"，而"儲備增加會推高經濟中的貨幣供應量"。由于債務從未償還只是連本帶利逐年展期，利息復利計算，生息債務不斷增加，貨幣供應和通脹隨之上升。  

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

美元應由美國政府發(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."  

如今美國超過90%的貨幣供應并非由政府發(fā)行，而是私營銀行放貸時創(chuàng)造的。正如托馬斯·愛迪生1921年所言："說我國能發(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，但一個養(yǎng)肥了高利貸者，另一個造福人民。"  

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"）為預算融資而避免增加債務。唐納德·特朗普2016年承認政府永遠不必違約"因為你們能印錢"，這與艾倫·格林斯潘、沃倫·巴菲特等人的觀點一致。斯蒂芬妮·凱爾頓教授在2024年12月2日的博客中寫道?；蛘撸斦靠梢澡T造萬億硬幣。憲法賦予國會鑄幣和規(guī)定幣值的權力，且對硬幣面值無上限。1982年立法中，國會對多數(shù)硬幣設置了數(shù)量和面額限制，但特別條款允許為紀念目的鑄造任意面值的鉑金硬幣。前美國鑄幣局局長、鉑金硬幣法合著者菲利普·迪爾確認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，財政部長將行使國會220多年來常規(guī)授予的權力……基于憲法第一條第八款明確賦予國會的權力。"  

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

為防止國會超支，可設置預算上限——正如現(xiàn)行做法，盡管條款可能需要修訂。  

Eliminating the Debt  

消除債務  

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)邦債務增長，但仍無法消除現(xiàn)有36萬億美元債務的萬億利息負擔。唯一永久解決方案是消除債務本身。在古代美索不達米亞，當國王是債權人時，通過定期債務豁免（直接取消債務）實現(xiàn)。（參見邁克爾·哈德森《赦免他們的債務》）。但如今這不可行，因為債權人是擁有法定受償權的私營銀行和私人投資者，且美國憲法要求政府按時償債。  

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，又能產生足夠資金維持政府運作并償債。參見斯科特·史密斯《雙城記：美國經濟新金融操作系統(tǒng)》（2023年）及我早前文章。但該方案討論多年仍未在國會獲得支持。  

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)儲在債務到期時購買。過去幾年，財政部發(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%的未償債務到期續(xù)作，照例只是展期為新債務。但2025財年到期近三分之一的債務可由美聯(lián)儲在公開市場購買，而美聯(lián)儲扣除成本后需將利潤返還政府，使債務幾乎無息。賬面無息債務展期不會增加聯(lián)邦赤字。若為避免通脹無法一年內貨幣化三分之一的未償債務，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. 

強制"獨立"的美聯(lián)儲采取該行動需修訂《聯(lián)邦儲備法》，但國會有權修訂且多年來多次修訂。新政府正提議更激進的舉措，包括取消所得稅、終結美聯(lián)儲、審計美聯(lián)儲或將其與財政部合并。聯(lián)邦利息負擔在2022年4月美聯(lián)儲啟動"量化緊縮"后幾乎翻倍。美聯(lián)儲通過向經濟出售超2萬億美元聯(lián)邦證券縮減資產負債表，減少貨幣供應，并將聯(lián)邦基金利率提高至5.5%，可以說美聯(lián)儲過度緊縮，需要通過購買聯(lián)邦證券向經濟注入新資金逆轉趨勢。  

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."  

警覺的經濟學家聲稱魏瑪式惡性通脹是政府發(fā)行貨幣的必然結果。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)時外幣壓力，而非國內支出。"  

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. 
 
若資金用于增加國內商品和服務供應，直接發(fā)行貨幣不會推高價格。供需將同步增長，保持價格穩(wěn)定。歷史上已有例證，或許中國最顯著。中國人民銀行通過包括印鈔在內的多種手段管理貨幣供應。1996至2024年的28年間，中國貨幣供應量（M2）增長52倍達5200%，但未引發(fā)惡性通脹。價格保持穩(wěn)定因為資金流入了與貨幣供應同步增長的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.  

新冠危機期間的價格通脹被歸咎于美聯(lián)儲貨幣化國會向消費者和企業(yè)發(fā)放的財政補貼，增加需求（流通貨幣供應）而未增加供應（商品和服務）。但舊金山聯(lián)儲得出結論，COVID導致的全球航運和運輸成本激增及交付延遲和積壓，比財政刺激對2021-2022年通脹上升的影響更大。若非70多萬家被標為"非必要"的生產企業(yè)關停導致300萬個工作崗位流失，商品供應本可增加——生產商本可增產應對需求增長。  

Swapping Debt for Productive Equity  

債務換生產性股權  

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.  

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

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.  

經濟博主馬丁·阿姆斯特朗指出，負債國的一種解決方案是用債務交換生產性資產股權。墨西哥、波蘭、克羅地亞、捷克、匈牙利和美國自身都這樣做過。這是財政部長亞歷山大·漢密爾頓處理第一屆國會巨額債務的方案。州和聯(lián)邦債務連同黃金被置換為美國第一銀行股份，支付6%股息。該銀行隨后以高達資本金10倍的規(guī)模發(fā)行美元，采用銀行至今沿用的部分準備金模式。根據(jù)漢密爾頓《公共信用報告》，第一和第二美國銀行都旨在支持制造業(yè)和生產。  

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會審議的《2023年國家基礎設施銀行法案》（H.R. 4052）。NIB提議用私人持有的聯(lián)邦證券（國債）交換該銀行無投票權優(yōu)先股。債券利息將繼續(xù)支付投資者，外加2%股票股息。這不會消除債務或利息，但如果美聯(lián)儲在公開市場購買聯(lián)邦證券并置換為NIB股票，由于美聯(lián)儲需在扣除成本后將利潤返還財政部，這些證券實質上仍是無息的。  

Lending Directly to Productive Businesses  

直接向生產企業(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供應的另一可能是美聯(lián)儲直接向生產企業(yè)放貸。這實際上是《聯(lián)邦儲備法》的原意。該法第13條允許聯(lián)邦儲備銀行貼現(xiàn)源于實際商業(yè)交易（如農業(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)為抵押向金融機構提供短期貸款的過程。（商業(yè)票據(jù)是無擔保短期債務，通常折價發(fā)行，用于支付工資、庫存等短期負債。"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在法案報告中視其根本目標為'建立聯(lián)合機制，向擁有穩(wěn)健資產且希望變現(xiàn)以滿足客戶合法商業(yè)、農業(yè)和工業(yè)需求的銀行擴展信貸'。"  

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計：  

[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)儲體系的創(chuàng)立者……設計了一個類似區(qū)域開發(fā)金融機構的網絡。……12家地區(qū)聯(lián)儲銀行都應直接或間接（通過地方銀行）向需要資金的成長中企業(yè)提供短期融資。他們通過"貼現(xiàn)"——實質是購買——這些企業(yè)的商業(yè)票據(jù)實現(xiàn)?！跊Q定貼現(xiàn)何種商業(yè)票據(jù)時，《聯(lián)邦儲備法》過去——且諷刺的是現(xiàn)在仍——非常明確：聯(lián)儲貼現(xiàn)貸款僅用于"生產性"而非"投機性"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)的大機構。除2020-2021年和2008-2010年運作的緊急商業(yè)票據(jù)融資機制外，美聯(lián)儲不再參與商業(yè)貸款業(yè)務。與此同時，小企業(yè)難以獲得可負擔融資。  

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)邦儲備法》起草者——特別是卡特·格拉斯和保羅·沃伯格——實質上遵循了真實票據(jù)學說（RBD）。該學說曾稱"銀行業(yè)商業(yè)貸款理論"，認為若貨幣發(fā)行基于商業(yè)票據(jù)擔保的貸款，銀行可在資產負債表上創(chuàng)造信用貨幣存款而不引發(fā)通脹。當借款公司用銷售收入償還貸款時，新創(chuàng)造的貨幣將抵消債務并消失。他們的意圖是銀行可在聯(lián)儲貼現(xiàn)窗口折價出售商業(yè)貸款，釋放資產負債表空間進行更多放貸。霍克特寫道：  

"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. " 
 
"粗略表述的真實票據(jù)學說認為，只要內生（銀行創(chuàng)造的）信用貨幣的借貸保持生產性而非投機性，通脹和通縮不僅可能性更低，而且實際上不可能發(fā)生。德國移民沃伯格（本人是銀行家）密切了解的19世紀末德國漢密爾頓式'增長奇跡'期間德國銀行的經驗似乎驗證了這點。格拉斯在美國南部的農業(yè)貸款經歷也是如此。"  

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)儲區(qū)域化，從當前12家聯(lián)儲銀行擴展到多家。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. "  
"假以時日，我們甚至可以設想以高度成功的北達科他州銀行為模板的公立銀行激增，遍布多個州。這些銀行既能向所有人提供非營利銀行服務，又能協(xié)助聯(lián)儲地區(qū)銀行識別合適的流動性援助對象。"  

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，結果將是"回歸初衷"的美聯(lián)儲，響應廣闊大陸共和國各地不同狀況的美聯(lián)儲，不再過度涉足那些主要（若非全部）活動是在二三級市場押注價格波動而非投資構成我們'實體經濟'的一級市場的銀行的美聯(lián)儲。簡言之，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'。"