前美联储副主席：市场高估了广场协议的作用

Core Insights - Richard Clarida argues that the common belief attributing the success of the Plaza and Louvre Accords primarily to coordinated foreign exchange interventions is a myth, emphasizing that U.S. domestic monetary and fiscal policy adjustments were the true driving forces behind the dollar's depreciation and the reduction of the trade deficit [1][2][3] Group 1: Historical Context - The Plaza Accord was signed in September 1985 by the G5 nations to address the soaring dollar and increasing trade deficit, which reached about 3% of GDP [2] - The Louvre Accord followed in February 1987, aiming to stabilize the dollar after it had depreciated sufficiently [2] - By 1989, the U.S. trade deficit as a percentage of GDP had decreased by two-thirds, leading many to mistakenly credit foreign exchange interventions for this outcome [2][3] Group 2: Monetary Policy Impact - Clarida highlights that the significant easing of U.S. monetary policy under Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was the key factor in the dollar's depreciation [4] - From October 1984 to December 1986, the Federal Reserve reduced interest rates from 12% to 6%, which correlated with the weakening of the dollar [4][5] - The decline in U.S. interest rates diminished the attractiveness of dollar-denominated assets, prompting capital to flow to currencies with higher yields [5] Group 3: Fiscal Policy Role - U.S. fiscal adjustments also played a crucial role in reducing the trade deficit, with significant budget cuts leading to a nearly 40% reduction in the budget deficit [6] - The initial Plaza Accord emphasized the need for fiscal adjustments in the U.S., Japan, and Germany to address global trade imbalances, which were effectively implemented in the U.S. [6] Group 4: Contemporary Implications - Clarida discusses the "Mar-a-Lago Accord" concept proposed during Trump's presidency, which aims to apply lessons from the Plaza Accord to current trade issues [7] - He expresses skepticism about the feasibility of using past experiences to guide current policy, citing limited monetary policy space, unclear fiscal prospects, and complex geopolitical dynamics as significant challenges [7]