为应对20世纪90年代初国内资产泡沫破灭和1998年亚洲金融危机的冲击，日本央行逐步下调利率至零附 近，到1999年9月更是将政策目标利率降至零。2000年8月，随着亚洲金融危机影响逐渐消退，日本央行 小幅加息至0.25%，但2001年初为应对互联网泡沫破裂和美国经济衰退，连续两次降息至零并正式引入 QE操作，开启了央行资产购买。 2006年7月，日本央行加息并短暂退出QE操作，但2008年底为应对全球金融海啸爆发又连续两次降息至 零附近并恢复QE。2013年4月，日本央行将货币政策进一步拓展为量化质化宽松（QQE），在扩大央行 资产购买的规模和范围的同时，设定了2%的通胀目标。大胆的货币政策、机动的财政政策和以刺激民 间投资为中心的产业政策构成了安倍经济学的"三支箭"。2016年2月，日本央行将政策目标利率降 至-0.1%并引入收益率曲线控制（YCC），开启了负利率时代，直至去年3月才退出这两项安排。 引入QE乃至QQE操作对于推升日本通胀的效果并不理想。1991~2000年（资产泡沫破灭后、实施QE 前），日本消费者物价指数（CPI）和核心CPI年均分别增长0.8%和0.9%。其中，2000年CPI和核心 ...

Core Viewpoint - The independence of the Federal Reserve is derived from public trust, and it must recommit to maintaining the confidence of the American people. The focus should be on three statutory responsibilities: maximum employment, price stability, and moderate long-term interest rates [1][2][14]. Group 1: Critique of Current Policies - The use of unconventional monetary policies since the 2008 financial crisis is described as a dangerous "functional gain" experiment, threatening the independence of the Federal Reserve [2][10]. - The overuse of unconventional policies and the expansion of functions have led to a concentration of wealth among asset owners, exacerbating inequality [4][12]. - The Federal Reserve's actions have created a perception that monetary policy is being used to accommodate fiscal needs, undermining its independence [7][13]. Group 2: Recommendations for the Federal Reserve - The Federal Reserve should return to its narrow statutory mission and reduce economic distortions, focusing on maximum employment, price stability, and moderate long-term interest rates [8][14]. - Unconventional policies like quantitative easing (QE) should only be used in "true emergencies" and in coordination with other government departments [2][8][14]. - A comprehensive, independent, and nonpartisan review of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, regulation, communication, personnel, and research is necessary [8][13]. Group 3: Market Implications - The statements made by the Treasury Secretary are seen as a precursor to a significant shift in U.S. monetary policy, potentially paving the way for financial repression policies such as QE or yield curve control (YCC) [3][9]. - If such policies are implemented, they could lead to a weaker dollar and benefit commodities like gold, silver, and copper, as well as markets like A-shares and Hong Kong stocks [3][9].

Core Viewpoint - U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessen criticizes the Federal Reserve for straying from its statutory duties and emphasizes the need for the Fed to regain public trust and focus on its core mission of maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and maintaining moderate long-term interest rates [1][12]. Group 1: Critique of Federal Reserve Policies - Bessen describes the Fed's post-financial crisis policies as a dangerous "functional gain" experiment, warning that excessive use of unconventional policies threatens the central bank's independence [1][3]. - He argues that these policies have exacerbated wealth inequality, benefiting asset owners while disadvantaging small businesses and lower-income families [3][10]. - The Treasury Secretary highlights that the Fed's failure to achieve its inflation mandate has widened class and generational disparities, counteracting its intended growth stimulation through the "wealth effect" [3][10]. Group 2: Call for Policy Reformation - Bessen calls for the Fed to return to its three statutory responsibilities and to reduce economic distortions caused by its policies [6][12]. - He insists that unconventional policies like quantitative easing (QE) should only be employed in genuine emergencies and in coordination with other government departments [6][12]. - The need for an independent, bipartisan review of the Fed's monetary policy, regulation, communication, staffing, and research is emphasized to restore credibility and independence [6][11]. Group 3: Implications for Future Monetary Policy - Analysts interpret Bessen's statements as a potential precursor to significant shifts in U.S. monetary policy, possibly paving the way for renewed QE or yield curve control (YCC) [2][7]. - The introduction of "moderate long-term interest rates" as a focus area is seen as a notable signal, suggesting a priority on lowering long-term financing costs, particularly for mortgage rates [1][7]. - If such policies are implemented, they could lead to a weaker dollar and benefit commodities like gold, silver, and copper, as well as markets such as A-shares and Hong Kong stocks [2][7].

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core View of the Report The report analyzes the policy responses of the EU, Japan, and the US to liquidity traps and provides insights for China's future policy directions. It emphasizes that China should adopt a "fast, accurate, and forceful" monetary policy rhythm, more active fiscal policies, and structural reforms to avoid falling into a liquidity trap and stimulate economic growth [9][11][98]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 When an economy falls into a "liquidity trap", what characteristics will it exhibit? - **Core characteristics of a liquidity trap**: - **Near-zero nominal interest rates**: When policy rates are at or near 0%, borrowing and investment motives are weak, and market rates cannot be further reduced [18]. - **Deflation**: Increased preference for cash leads to reduced consumption, forcing businesses to lower prices and causing deflation [19]. - **Abundant market liquidity but low investment willingness**: Deflation expectations lead economic agents to postpone consumption and investment, resulting in low investment returns and weak investment willingness [22]. - **Ineffective monetary policy transmission**: Nominal interest rates have reached the zero lower bound, and banks are reluctant to lend, preventing liquidity from flowing into the real economy [23]. - **Transmission mechanism analysis**: Negative events prompt central banks to implement expansionary monetary policies. However, in a liquidity trap, low interest rates lead the public to hoard cash, reducing consumption and investment, and causing the economy to fall into a policy - failure situation [24][25]. 3.2 Overseas economies have successively fallen into liquidity traps 3.2.1 EU: Timely but conventional and indecisive policy responses (2008 - 2016) - **Policy changes and economic performance**: In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the ECB cut interest rates, launched bond - buying programs, and implemented LTRO and OMT. In 2015, it started the APP. GDP growth recovered in 2015 but slowed later. Unemployment declined, but inflation remained low. After the COVID - 19 pandemic, the ECB launched the PEPP, and the economy rebounded, but inflation concerns emerged [2][31][33]. - **Core characteristics of the EU's liquidity trap**: Policy rates were near zero or negative and stable until 2022. GDP growth was slow, CPI fluctuated, retail sales were weak, and unemployment was high, indicating deflation. Investment was pessimistic initially but recovered after 2015 [37][40][43]. 3.2.2 Japan: "The Lost Thirty Years" (1990 - 2023) - **Policy changes and economic performance**: After the asset bubble burst in the 1990s, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates, implemented QE, and later adopted "Abenomics". The economy showed short - term improvement, but low inflation and growth persisted. In 2023, Japan began to normalize policies and showed signs of recovery [3][5][52]. - **Core characteristics of Japan's liquidity trap**: Policy target rates were near zero or negative. GDP growth was low, CPI showed deflation, retail sales were weak, and unemployment was high. Investment was low, and funds were deposited in banks, indicating ineffective monetary policy transmission [56][60][64]. 3.2.3 US: A classic and correct self - rescue case (2008 - 2013) - **Policy changes and economic performance**: In response to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, the Fed quickly cut interest rates, launched QE1, QE2, and QE3, and implemented the "Operation Twist". The economy recovered, and the Fed ended QE in 2014 and normalized policies in 2015 [7][68][69]. - **Core characteristics of the US's liquidity trap**: Federal funds rates were near zero after 2008. GDP growth was low, inflation was weak, retail sales were volatile, and unemployment was high. Investment declined sharply during the crisis and showed short - term recovery but remained structurally weak [72][76][80]. 3.3 China's liquidity risk assessment and analysis - **Current policy environment**: China faces challenges in traditional manufacturing investment, financial institution risk preferences, and high household savings rates. Traditional monetary policy tools have diminishing marginal utility, requiring more precise policy combinations [86]. - **Risk factor identification and assessment**: China's policy rates still have room for operation. GDP growth has declined and been volatile, and the real estate sector has a negative impact. Consumption willingness is weak, and the M2 - M1 gap indicates low money activation [91][92][95]. - **Policy recommendations**: China should adopt a "fast, accurate, and forceful" monetary policy, more active fiscal policies, and structural reforms to stimulate consumption and investment and avoid a liquidity trap [9][11][98].