CNBC访谈实录——德鲁肯米勒与乔·克南,德利弗林阿尔法会议

2022 · 访谈 · 原文约 4369 词
译文与英文原文逐段对齐可在本页展开英文,也可打开发布者原址核对上下文。
打开来源正文

今天,9 月 28 日星期三

地点:CNBC “阿尔法峰会”会议现场

WHEN: Today, Wednesday, September 28 WHERE: CNBC Delivering Alpha conference

以下为 CNBC 采访杜肯家族办公室董事长兼首席执行官斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒以及 CNBC “财经论谈” 联合主播乔·科南的现场非官方文字记录,该采访于今日周三 9 月 28 日在 CNBC “德尔弗林阿尔法” 大会期间直播。必须注明出处:CNBC “德尔弗林阿尔法” 大会。

乔·科南:斯坦之前来过“德尔弗林阿尔法”大会。我说,那是什么时候的事,两年前?三年前?八年前?八年前了。能请到斯坦说“好”来参加这个节目,非常难得。我查了一下年份,是 2014 年。你懂的,对吧?时间过得真快。我当时刚打开录像,你说:“美联储现在推行的零利率政策简直是疯了。” 所以,我们有八年时间把这个小家伙吹起来,我想我们可能正在看到一些负面影响。到了 2021 年,你好像上了“财经论谈”。当时你用什么词来形容货币政策?因为那时我们有 SPAC、有 NFT、有 AMC 的“猿猴股”、有比特币和狗狗币,但美联储仍然没觉得有问题。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:对,我想我说的是,相对于当时的形势,这是历史上最激进的货币政策。你看,我那年立下了新年愿望,不上电视了,但当我看到发生的一切时,我控制不住自己。从那次之后我就没上过电视了。显然,这不算是电视节目。这是好事。但我当时感到难以置信的挫败,因为在我看来,美联储正在冒无法想象的风险。为了什么?当时的情况是通胀率 1.7%,而他们每月购买 1200 亿美元债券。这还是在疫苗推出之后,成功接种疫苗之后,就因为通胀率是 1.7% 而不是 2%。所以他们在进行一场巨大的赌博,你危及了 40 年的通胀信誉,同时吹大了我见过的最疯狂、最火爆的资产泡沫,而且我知道,最糟糕的经济都发生在资产泡沫之后:这里的 30 年代,日本 89 年后房地产泡沫破裂之后。所以我就在节目上说了这些。如果你还记得,美联储在疫苗确认后进行了 2 万亿美元的量化宽松。而且在我上节目之后,以变化率衡量,就业出现了有史以来最强劲的势头。与此同时,他们的“同谋”——政府,又在做更多的财政刺激,同样是在疫苗之后,在显然不需要紧急措施之后,规模甚至超过了整个大金融危机时期。我不是说疫苗之前,我是说之后。你看,事实证明我是对的。我一生中也错了很多次。美联储错了。他们犯了大错。重要的不是他们错了——我也经常犯错——而是他们下的那个风险回报赌注。今天早上英国有些消息。30 年前,我们在量子基金做空英镑。我不知道英镑会不会贬值。但我确实知道,如果他们在未来六个月内不贬值,我的基金会损失 50 个基点;如果他们贬值了,我会赚 2000 个基点。所以这是一个 40 比 1 的单向风险回报赌注。你看看美联储做了什么,他们为了把通胀从 1.7% 提高 30 个基点到 2%,下的那个激进赌注,对我来说,就是一种风险回报赌注。你赌 1,输 40?然后他们输了。而真正输的是谁?是被通胀蹂躏的美国穷人、中产阶级,以及,我猜,未来多年的美国经济,因为资产泡沫在时间、持续时间和广度上都达到了极大规模。

乔·科南:那他们还有那个双重使命。你觉得在杰伊·鲍威尔心里会不会想:我离目标还差 30 个基点?还是他在说:我还没看到问题,我想要充分就业,所以我要继续坚持?因为我的问题是,既有通胀也有资产通胀。当时难道不明显吗,即使你没到 2%,资产通胀也到处都是?那么,一个掌管美联储的人,为什么这一点不在他的雷达上?

Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with Duquesne Family Office Chairman and CEO Stanley Druckenmiller and CNBC's "Squawk Box" Co-Anchor Joe Kernen live during the CNBC Delivering Alpha conference today, Wednesday, September 28 th . Mandatory credit: CNBC Delivering Alpha conference. JOE KERNEN: So Stan has been at a DA before, Delivering Alpha. And I said, What was it, a couple years, two years, three years? Eight years. Eight years ago. It's a rare "yes" from Stan and a precious "yes" to get him in this format. So I looked to see what year it was. It was 2014. Tell me about it, right? Time flies. And I just barely turned it on, the video, and you said, This zero interest rate policy the Fed is pursuing right now is insane. So we've had eight years to inflate this baby, and I think we might be seeing some of the deleterious effects. Now in 2021, you were on, I think, Squawk Box. What was the term that you used for the monetary policy? Because we had SPACs, we had NFTs, we had the AMC APEs, we had Bitcoin and Dogecoin, and yet the Fed still didn't see a problem. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Yeah, I think I said it was the most radical monetary policy relative to the circumstances in history. Look, I made a New Year's resolution that year not to be on TV, but when I saw what was going on, I couldn't control myself. I haven't been on TV since. Apparently, this isn't on TV. That's a good thing. But I was just incredibly frustrated with what to me looked like a Fed that was just taking unbelievable risks. For what? The story of the time was inflation was 1.7, and we were buying 120 billion bonds a month. This was post-vaccine, successful vaccine, because inflation was 1.7 instead of 2. So we're taking this massive gamble where you threaten 40 years of credibility with inflation, and you're blowing up the wildest raging asset bubble I've ever seen, and I knew that the worst economies happen post asset bubbles; the '30s here, post '89 in Japan after the housing bubble blew up here. So that's what I went on. If you remember, the Fed did 2 trillion in QE after vaccine confirmation. And after the time I went on, you had the strongest momentum in employment in history on a rate of change basis. At the same time their partner in crime, the administration, was doing more fiscal stimulus, again, post-vaccine, after it was clear emergency measures weren't needed, than we did in the entire great financial crisis. I'm not talking about before the vaccine, I'm talking about after. Look, it turned out I was right. I've been wrong plenty of times in my life. The Fed was wrong. They made a big mistake. It's not so much that they were wrong. I've been wrong a lot. It's the risk-reward bet they made. There's some news this morning in England. 30 years ago we shorted the pound in the Quantum Fund. I didn't know whether the pound was going to devalue. What I did know was, if they didn't devalue in the next six months, my fund was going to lose 50 basis points; if they did devalue, I was going to make 2,000 basis points. So it was a 40-1 one-way risk-reward bet. If you look at what the Fed did, the radical gamble they took to get inflation up 30 basis points from 1.7 to 2, it's, to me, sort of a risk-reward bet. You bet 1 to lose 40? And they lost. And who really lost? Poor people in the United States ravaged by inflation, the middle class, and my guess is the U.S. economy for years to come because of the extent of the asset bubble in time and duration and breadth it went on. JOE KERNEN: So they had that dual mandate. So you think that in the back of Jay Powell's mind he was like, I've got 30 basis points to go to get to where I want to go? Or was he saying, I don't see a problem yet, I want full employment, so I'm going to let it ride at that point? Because the problem I have is that there's inflation and there's asset inflation. Was it not clear at that point that even if you weren't at 2 percent, there was asset inflation everywhere? Now, how does a guy that's running the Fed, why is that not on his radar screen?

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER:因为这不在他们的职责范围内,在他们看来是这样,而且我认为他们不把这视为风险。公平地说,我们已经经历了 20 年的通货紧缩,人们倾向于活在过去,而且他有很多同道中人,包括你所在的电视台。所以,我要说的另一件事是,我在职业生涯中犯过很多错,一旦犯错,我就会纠正。让我特别费解的是,两三个月后,通胀开始抬头,这不再是理论,而是实实在在正在发生的事。我们却提出了一个荒谬的“暂时性”理论。我的意思是,我们有 5 万亿美元的财政刺激,有 5 万亿美元的量化宽松。珍妮特·耶伦在消耗财政部一般账户(TGA)的余额,那又是 1 万亿美元的刺激。

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Because it's not part of their mandate, in their opinion, and I don't think they looked at it as a risk. And to be fair to him, we'd had 20 years of disinflation, people tend to live in the past, and he had plenty of company, including on your network. So, the other thing I will say is, I've been wrong a lot in my career, and when I do, I correct my mistake. What was particularly mind boggling to me, two to three months later, inflation takes off, it's no longer a theory, it's actually happening. We come up with this ridiculous theory of transitory. I mean, so we have 5 trillion in fiscal stimulus, we have 5 trillion in QE. Janet Yellen is running down the TGA account, so that's another trillion in stimulus.

而且你记得吧,2020 年秋天的货币政策框架,他们不再做预测了。他们要依赖数据,要等到看见通胀的“白眼珠”再行动。结果猜怎么着?他们真看见了白眼珠。那他们做了什么?他们预测说这会是“暂时性”的。犯了错就得承认,然后继续往前走。那九到十个月里他们就坐在那儿,买了 1200 亿的债券,我觉得这事儿的影响会伴随我们很久很久。

乔·科南:那么接下来,他们是不是在财政支出方面也成了共犯?这是不是原因——我是说,通胀无处不在。我们也知道普京涨价,也知道经济重启后的供应链问题。

And if you remember, the monetary framework in the fall of 2020, they were no longer going to forecast. They were going to be data-dependent and wait until they see the whites of inflation's eyes. So guess what? They saw the whites of their eyes. And what did they do? They forecast that it was going to be transitory. When you make a mistake, you've got to admit you're wrong and move on. That nine or ten months that they just sat there and bought 120 billion in bonds, I think the repercussions of that are going to be with us for a long, long time. JOE KERNEN: So going to whether -- were they partners in crime with fiscal spending as well? And is that what caused -- I mean, inflation is everywhere. And we know about Putin price hike and we know about supply chain issues following the reopening.

但是,货币供应量的增长和财政赤字,真的是当前这一切的根源吗?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:那绝对是点燃导火索的火柴。我上了电视,这次判断也不算我多高明的操作。你看看,大规模财政刺激,加上大规模货币刺激,事情早就开始发酵了。这当然是原因。我还要说,很多人嚷嚷着,哎呀,是普京造成的。没错,普京确实加剧了问题,但我想提醒大家,普京入侵之前,CPI 同比就已经达到 7% 了。我们搞了那么多疯狂操作,本来想把通胀从 1.7 推高到 2,结果呢,它早就是 7 了。

But is it really the growth in the money supply and the deficit that is the root cause of what we're seeing right now? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: That's what lit the match, absolutely. I mean, come on, when I went on TV, I wouldn't consider this one of my better calls. You've got massive fiscal stimulus, you have massive monetary stimulus, and the thing is already starting to percolate. And of course it's what caused it. What I will say, there's a lot of people out there saying, well, Putin caused it. Putin did extend it, all right, but can I remind everybody that when Putin invaded, the CPI was 7 percent year-to-year before he invaded? And all this crazy stuff we did was to get inflation from 1.7 to 2, and we were already at 7.

但话说回来,一旦你点燃了那根火柴——我们在 1970 年代就发现了这一点——通胀就会旋转起来。那年夏天,所有人都在说二手车价格会降,这个会降,那个会降。但事情不是那样运作的。顺便说一句,现在在好的领域里,有很多通缩因素在发生。所以看看英国的工会,你觉得他们在春天谈判时会说,“哦,五年期远期通胀率才 2.3,那我接受 2.3% 的加薪”吗?不会。就像铁路工人刚拿到了三年 24% 的加薪。当你失去了那么多购买力,工资谈判就会把通胀渗透进去。然后,当然,那些不得不给员工加薪的公司的客户也会受到影响,事情就这样螺旋上升了。

But, yeah, once you light the match -- and we found this out in the '70s -- inflation rotates. That summer everybody kept talking about used car prices are going to come down, this is going to come down. That's not the way it works. By the way, there are a lot of disinflationary things happening now in the good sectors. So the U.K. unions, okay, do you think they're going to come in in the spring and they're going to negotiate and they're going to say, oh, well, the 5-year, 5-year forward is 2.3, so, yeah, I'll take a 2.3 raise? No. It's like the railroad workers who just got 24 percent over 3 years. When you lose that much purchasing power, so then the wage negotiations, it seeps in there. Then of course there's customers of companies that have to raise their wages, and the thing spirals.

我们要应对的就是这种局面,而美联储推行的那种基本是“繁荣—萧条”循环的政策,把自己搞到了这个境地。不过话说回来,它们并不孤单。财政刺激在其中扮演了很大角色。但公平地说,是美联储为其提供了条件。政府不可能花掉 5 万亿美元,除非它们把钞票印出来。

乔·科南:英国央行今天采取的举措——我上次看的时候(在这个市场里你得每隔两分钟就盯一次盘)——市场反应是积极的,我觉得这相当令人吃惊。我想,这大概是源于一种想法:如果它们先退缩了,也许我们退缩得会比人们预想的更早。我本来以为——这是那种事——你提到了 30 年前。这是那种往大海里滴一滴水就想阻止这件事发生的事情之一。

And that's what we're dealing with, and that's the position the Feds got themselves in with basically a boom-bust policy. But yeah, they were not alone. The fiscal stimulus was a huge part of this. But to be fair, they enabled it. The government can't spend 5 trillion dollars if they don't print it. JOE KERNEN: The move today from the Bank of England, last I looked -- in this market you've got to look every 2 minutes -- but it was being received positively, which I thought was pretty shocking. I guess it was the notion that if they blink, maybe we blink sooner than people thought. I would have thought -- this is one of those -- you mentioned 30 years ago. This is one of those things where they put a drop in the ocean trying to stop this thing from happening.

你们都知道,这行不通,这几乎表明,可能由于利率上涨得太快,经济底层已经出现了一些错位。我们需要为今天英国发生的事情感到担忧吗?你感到惊讶吗?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我认为这正是我们在讨论的一切的一个缩影。过去十年,全球进行了 30 万亿美元的量化宽松。当资金免费、债券被持续买入的时候,就会催生不良行为,对吧?所以养老基金和保险公司买入债券,做回购,拿回购来的钱加杠杆买股票和各种东西,试图提高回报。而且顺便说一句,当你这么做的时候,英国国债收益率才 2.8%,而通胀是 10% 或 15%——如果没有过去十年创造出来的这种环境,这种情况根本不会发生。

You know it's not going to work properly, and it almost indicates maybe there are some underlying dislocations because rates have gone up so fast. Do we need to worry about what happened in England today? And are you surprised? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I think it's a microcosm of everything we're talking about. We've had 30 trillion of QE globally over the last ten years. When you have free money and you have bond buying for that period of time, it creates bad behavior, okay? So the pension funds and the insurance companies, they're buying bonds, repoing, taking the repo money and levering that up with equities and all kinds of stuff to try and enhance their returns. And by the way, doing so when gilts were yielding, what, 2.8 and inflation is 10 or 15, that doesn't happen if you don't have the environment created the last ten years.

那你现在是英格兰银行,手上这个局面相当棘手,因为我认为英国 30% 的抵押贷款——至少 30%——正在走向浮动利率。你该怎么办?好吧,你肯定不会做的是,拿着纳税人的钱,在通胀率超过 10% 的时候去买收益率 4% 的债券。你不可能用通胀性的行为来治愈通胀。而买入债券,收益率比通胀率低 7、8、9 个点,市场当然在自我矫正,因为他们贴了个创可贴,所有人都在眨眼。但这正在为未来制造长期问题。那 30 万亿美元已经在暗处埋下了各种隐患。我一周前用过这个说法,当时我还不知道这件事会发生,但你还会看到更多,因为这就是资产泡沫期间发生的事情。

So you're the Bank of England and you've got this situation on your hands now which is quite serious, because I think 30 percent of mortgages there or at least 30 percent are heading toward being variable rate. What do you do? Well, what you don't do is go and take taxpayer money and buy bonds at 4 percent when your inflation rate is over 10. You don't cure inflation with an inflationary act. And buying bonds, you know, 7, 8, 9 points under the inflation rate, of course the markets are curing it, because they've got a Band-Aid, everybody is blinking. But this is creating long-term problems down the road. That 30 trillion has created all sorts of stuff that's probably under the hood. I used this term a week ago, I didn't know about this thing happening, and you're going to see more of it because that's what happens during asset bubbles.

行为会改变。

乔·科南:你最近谈到,未来十年有可能重演 1969 到 1982 年的那种情况,到时税率会和十年后一样高。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:是的。我要说的是——这是普遍共识,我也同意,股票长期来看是上涨的。

乔·科南:好的。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:问题在于,我们对“长期”的含义有点掉以轻心了。如果你在 1929 年买入道琼斯指数,要到 1954 年才能回本。就像你刚才指出的,道琼斯指数在 1966 年的位置和 1982 年一样。当我回顾 1982 年开始的长期牛市——让我们回忆一下。当时有一位总统说政府是问题所在,而不是解决方案。有一个家伙在航空管制员要求大幅加薪时,解雇了全国所有的航空管制员。

Behavior changes. JOE KERNEN: Recently you talked about the potential for a '69 -- 1969 to 1982 potentially type situation for the next ten years here in terms of taxes being at the same level a decade from now. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Yeah. I will say this. The -- it's conventional wisdom, which I agree with, that stocks go up over the long term. JOE KERNEN: Okay. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: The problem is we've become a little complacent about what does "long term" mean. If you bought the Dow in 1929, you got back to even in 1954. As you just pointed out, the Dow was in 1966 where it was in 1982. When I look back at the secular bull market started in '82 -- let's just take a trip down memory lane. We had a President who said government was the problem not the solution. We had a guy who fired all the air traffic controllers in the country when they wanted a big raise.

我们现在有一位总统,是工会出身的人,他说自己在努力对抗通胀,却为铁路工会三年 24% 的加薪欢呼。我们有一位总统,认为政府是解决方案,而不是问题所在。也许更重要的是,或者说就我们谈论的话题而言,如果你看看当时的估值,标普 500 是 GDP 的 50%——抱歉。股市是 GDP 的 50%。现在是 150%,从 225% 降下来。这是因为在我创立杜肯资本时,五年期国债收益率是 15%,所以实际利率很高。这就是为什么我们当时的市盈率只有 8 倍,而且是在盈利低迷的情况下。我们现在呢?市盈率是 18、19 倍,盈利已经膨胀,而且我强烈感觉明年盈利会下降。然后还有长期趋势的力量。全球化刚刚起步时你是对的,那是一件不可思议的好事。

We now have a President who is a union man who says he's trying to beat inflation who cheers at 24 percent over three-year reward to the railroad unions. We have a President who thinks government is the solution, not the problem. Maybe more importantly, or I'd say in terms of what we're talking about, if you look at valuations back then, the S&P was 50 percent -- I'm sorry. The stock market was 50 percent of GDP. It's now 150, down from 225. That's because five-years yielded 15 percent when I started Duquesne, so real rates were high. That's why we were at 8 times depressed earnings. We're now, what, 18, 19 times inflated earnings, that I have a very strong feeling are going to be down next year. Then you have the secular forces. You were right on the initial ramp of globalization, a fantastic thing.

在全球建立供应链能提高效率,导致通货紧缩。这已经持续了 20 或 30 年的趋势。现在方向变了,我们正在拆解这一切。这将带来通胀。最后,我们已经略微提到过,过去十年牛市,我们用 30 万亿美元的量化宽松和零利率把它推到了超速档。现在后果开始显现,所有推动牛市的因素不仅停止了,而且在逆转。每一个因素都是如此。我们从量化宽松走向量化紧缩,除非你这周住在英国。它们真的在展开。所以,当我把所有这些整合在一起,每当听到你们电视网络上有人说:“嗯,我看跌,但长期看涨”时,我就会恼火。

Building supply chains around the world increases efficiency, causes disinflation. That's been a trend for 20 or 30 years. Going the other way now, we're disentangling all that. That's going to be inflationary. And then, finally, and we've already kind of alluded to it, the last ten years of the bull market, you put it all in hyperdrive with 30 trillion of QE and zero rates. Now the consequences of that are borne, and all those factors that cause a bull market, they're not only stopping, they're reversing. Every one of them. We're going from QE to QT, unless you live in England this week. They're really unfolding. So when I put all of that together, the one thing I bristle about when I hear people on your network, is they say: Well, I'm bearish, but I'm bullish for the long term.

听着,你可能经历 15 年、20 年、10 年市场毫无进展的时期。这不意味着你赚不到钱。70 年代你也能赚很多钱。在不同阶段,我们经历过两次 60% 的反弹。我不是说,当股票不好做时你就该另找工作了。我只是说,我们背后曾经有 30 到 40 年的顺风,现在它正在逆转,我不会感到惊讶——事实上,这是我的核心预测——十年后道琼斯指数不会比今天高多少。

乔·科南:曾经有一段时间,你去大学校园演讲,谈到股权和债务问题——我想这次不是美联储引发的,而是福利制度引发的。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:是的。

Look, you can have a period of 15, 20 years, 10 years where the market doesn't go anywhere. That doesn't mean you can't make money. You could have made plenty of money in the '70s. At various times we had two 60 percent rallies. I'm not saying, you know, go get another job when you can't do stocks. I'm just saying we've had a hurricane behind us for 30 or 40 years, and it's reversing, and I wouldn't be surprised -- in fact, it's my central forecast -- the Dow won't be much higher in ten years than it is today. JOE KERNEN: There was a time you went to college campuses and you talked about an equity and debt -- I think in this case it wasn't necessarily Fed-induced, but it was entitlement induced. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Yeah.

乔·科南而且它可能会到来——这是十年前的事了,我想你说过在某个时间点,诺查丹玛斯——

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:2020 年到——

乔·科南:他说 2020 到 2035 年。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:是的。

乔·科南:那么现在是 2022 年?正在发生吗?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我们深陷困境。我在那些大学说的所有事情,按各项指标来看,现在都更糟了,除了一件事。我当初算错的是没有考虑零利率,我用了 4% 的利率。但唐纳德·特朗普和希拉里·克林顿在 2016 年唯一达成一致的就是:不要削减社会保障,不要削减福利。所以什么都没做。乔·拜登痛斥里克·斯科特,因为他胆敢提到也许我们不应该增加老年人的养老金。但如果你看看我刚才说的逆转,再使用国会预算办公室的估算——利率在 3.8%,坦白说,考虑到我们谈到的所有事情,我认为这个估计相当乐观——到 2027 年,仅债务的利息支出就会吞噬所有医疗支出。

JOE KERNENAnd it could come -- this was ten years ago, and I think you said sometime between, you know, Nostradamus --

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: 2020 to -- JOE KERNEN: He said 2020 and 2035. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Yeah. JOE KERNEN: So it's -- is it 2022? Is it happening? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: We are in deep trouble. So everything I said at those colleges is worse in terms of the metrics, except for one thing. And what I miscalculated was I didn't calculate zero rates; I used 4 percent rates. But the only thing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agreed on in 2016 was don't cut Social Security, don't cut entitlements. So nothing was done. Joe Biden has excoriated Rick Scott because he dared mention maybe we shouldn't be increasing senior pays. But if you look at the reversal I just talked about and you use the CBO estimate, which is rates at 3.8 percent, which I think, frankly, is pretty optimistic given all the things we've talked about, by 2027, the interest expense alone on the debt eats all health care spending.

到 2047 年,它会吞噬所有可自由支配支出。现在我们正在走向财政主导。顺便说一句,到 2049 年,它会吞噬所有社会保障。我们现在已经到了这样一个地步:债务的利息支出高得惊人,它将吞噬我们为下一代提供服务的能力,我甚至不确定能不能服务好当前这一代。

乔·科南:好吧。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我带了点氰化物,你要来点吗?

(笑声)

乔·科南:嗯,不,不,我在想这个,我在想也许我们会没事的,但是——

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:是的,因为我们到时候已经死了。

乔·科南:对,我就是这个意思。

(笑声)

乔·科南:但我担心的是,好吧,让我们回到这有多难——好吧。它会是一次着陆。

By 2047, it eats all discretionary spending. So we're now getting into fiscal dominance. By the way, by '49, it eats all Social Security. We're getting to the point now where the interest expense on the debt is so high that it's going to eat up our ability to basically service the next generation, and I'm not even sure about the current one. JOE KERNEN: Okay. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I brought some cyanide if you'd like one. [LAUGHTER] JOE KERNEN: Well, no, no, I'm thinking about that, and I'm thinking maybe we'll be okay, but -- STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Yeah, because we'll be dead. JOE KERNEN: Yeah, that's what I mean. [LAUGHTER] JOE KERNEN: But I worry about, okay, let's bring it back to how hard -- Okay. It's going to be a landing.

会是漂亮平稳的三点着陆吗?会有点颠簸吗?还是那种你只希望能活着走出来的着陆?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:嗯,我——

乔·科南:或者根本走不出来。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:让我这么说吧。如果我们 2023 年没有衰退,我会非常震惊。不知道具体时间,但肯定在 2023 年底之前。如果这次衰退比所谓的普通衰退更严重,我不会感到惊讶,而且我不排除——不是我的预测,但我不排除发生非常糟糕的事情。为什么?因为,如果你看看推动这一切的流动性状况,我们将从所有量化宽松走向量化紧缩,我们正在经历一个资产泡沫的余波。

Is it going to be a nice, smooth like 3-point landing? Is it going to be a little bumpy, or is it going to be one that you hope to walk away from right now? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Well, I -- JOE KERNEN: Or don't walk away from. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Let me just say this. I will be stunned if we don't have a recession in '23. Don't know the timing, but certainly by the end of '23. I will not be surprised if it's not larger than the so-called average garden variety, and I don't rule out -- not my forecast, but I don't rule out something really bad. Why? Because, if you look at the liquidity situation that has driven this, we're going to go from all this QE to QT, we're following an asset bubble.

我们一直在做所有这些消耗战略石油储备的事情,现在战略石油储备已经低于 1984 年的水平,尽管石油消耗量显然高得多。我们采取了一系列目光短浅的政策,实际上推迟了流动性收缩。珍妮特·耶伦消耗财政部储蓄账户几乎完全抵消了量化紧缩。顺便说一句,相当令人惊讶的政策。她本可以在那段时间以低于 1% 的利率发行十年期国债。相反,她却消耗了财政部储蓄账户。所有这一切都预示着大规模的流动性收缩,但这真的会全面展开,她还能继续这样一段时间。我们可以继续消耗战略石油储备一段时间,这些都是刺激性的。但到 2023 年第一季度,情况会转向另一边。所以我们的核心判断是 2023 年底前硬着陆。

We've been doing all this running down the SPR, which is now -- that's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It's now below '84 levels, even though obviously oil consumption is much higher. We've had a bunch of myopic policies that have actually delayed the liquidity shrinkage. QT has been almost entirely offset by Janet Yellen running down the Treasury savings account. By the way, pretty amazing policy. She could have sold ten years for under 1 percent during this time. Instead, she runs down the Treasury savings account. So all of that has mass liquidity shrinkage, but it really comes into full gear, and she can continue this for a while. We can do the SPR for a while, stimulative stuff. But by the first quarter of '23, it kind of goes the other way. So our central case is a hard landing by the end of '23.

但我不知道,我在很多事情上都错过。这次也可能错,但既然这是我的职业,这就是我们的预测:2023 年出现衰退。

乔·科南:你说所有一切都从 1982 年逆转了,那可以说开启了人类历史上最伟大的时代,方方面面——所有科学和医学进步、通胀下行、股市表现等等。所以我们正处于——

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:顺便说一句,我对医学进步非常看好,这是我要反驳你的唯一一点,比如癌症治疗,我期待神经科学的发展——

乔·科南:太好了。所以我们都能长生不老,但谁都没钱了。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我们最好不要都长生不老,因为我们的孩子会没钱,他们要给我们付社会保障。

But I don't know, I've been wrong on a lot of things. I could be wrong on this, but since I do it for a living, that's our forecast, which is a recession in '23. JOE KERNEN: You said everything has reversed from 1982 that ushered in, arguably, the greatest time in human history probably, for everything, for all scientific and medical advances and disinflation and the stock market and everything else. So we're at -- STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: By the way, I'm wildly bullish on medical advances, that's the one thing I'll push back on, cancer, and I expect neuroprogress -- JOE KERNEN: Great. So we're all going to live forever, and none of us are going to have any money. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: We better not all live forever, because our kids won't have any money because they'll be paying our Social Security.

乔·科南所以,你知道,里根说过,不幸的是,每一代人都得重新学习同样的东西。我没看到这种情况发生。我没看到地平线上有任何里根。你认为未来五年政治上会发生什么?会有人骑马杀出来吗——

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我在匹兹堡的第一个老板在 1976 年说过:“斯坦利,判断政治周期的方法是这样的:在大选前两年买入市场,然后在大选时卖出,因为他们总会在选举年把一切都搞得很好。”他是在 1976 年说这话的。我们在 1978、1982、1986、1990、1994、1998、2002 年都出现过重要的市场底部,2006 年不太明显,因为布什试图一路推高,结果我们都看到了。他们正在推行的这些短视政策令人难以置信的地方——我假设是为了期中选举,我不能——这在政治上相当愚蠢,因为它为 2024 年埋下了糟糕的伏笔。

JOE KERNENSo, you know, Reagan said, unfortunately, every generation has to learn the same stuff all over again. I don't see that happening. I don't see any Reagans on the horizon. What do you think happens in the next five years politically? Do we have someone riding in on a horse that --

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: My first boss in Pittsburgh in 1976 said, "Stanley, the way you time a political cycle is you buy the market two years before the general election and then you sell it on the general election, because they always rig things to be good in the election year." He said this in '76. We had major bottoms in '78, '82, '86, '90, '94, '98, '02, not so much in '06 because Bush tried to push it through all the way, and we see what happens. The incredible thing about the myopic policies they're running -- and I assume it's for the midterms, I can't -- is it's kind of dumb politically because it sets up a bad, bad '24.

所以,或许不幸中的万幸是,我们会迎来一场危机——它不会摧毁我们,但恶劣程度足以让我们重新团结起来,然后有个人从默默无闻中横空出世。因为我们绝对需要改变。现在一半的国民仇恨另一半。我们奉行短视的经济政策,实施繁荣-萧条循环式的政策。除非糟糕的事情发生,催化了变革,否则你根本得不到真正的改变。当年就是如此,保罗·沃尔克、G. 威廉·米勒,还有他之前的阿瑟·伯恩斯,都是因为危机才上台的。所以,尽管我心情沮丧,但我对那种在没有预兆的坏事催化之前,就突然出现的真正伟大事物,持开放态度。

乔·科南:没错,太棒了。巨大的危机,然后好事——比我们已经经历过的还要好?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:1982 年的衰退就非常严重。每个人都说,哦,天哪,我们是不是要衰退了?1982 年的衰退确实非常严重。

So maybe the silver lining is we get a crisis that doesn't destroy us but it's bad enough maybe to bring us together and someone comes out of nowhere. Because we definitely need a change. Half the country hates the other half. We've got myopic economic policies, boom-bust policies. You don't really get change unless bad stuff happens to catalyze the change. That's what brought in Paul Volcker, G. William Miller, and Arthur Burns preceded him. So as gloomy as I am, I'm open to something really great happening out of nowhere that we don't see catalyzed by something bad before it happens. JOE KERNEN: Yeah, great. Huge crisis and then something good -- greater than we've already had? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: '82 was a terrible recession. Everybody says, oh, my God, are we going to have a recession? '82 was a terrible recession.

首先,政治上,里根在 84 年赢了 49 个州。其次,它带来了 20 年的繁荣。所以,如果美联储现在搞点什么,让我们承受短期阵痛,在我看来,他们是在做正确的事,而且值得。风险在于,因为此前有 30 万亿美元的量化宽松,这可能演变成更糟糕的局面。我不是在预测这一点,但我对它有开放的态度。

乔·科南:北溪管道,你知道,漏气了。我是说,欧洲那边随着冬季临近、普京在台上,他们麻烦大了——我不知道,他可能走投无路,天晓得,但我们已经把能源转型搞砸了。我们还能扭转局面吗?欧洲会发生什么?会衰退吗?

First of all, politically, Reagan won 49 states in '84. Secondly, it brought in 20 years of prosperity. So if the Fed engineers something here that we have some short-term pain for, to me they're doing the right thing and it will be worth it. The risk is because it was preceded by 30 trillion dollars of QE, that it turns into something worse. And I'm not predicting that, but I'm open-minded to it. JOE KERNEN: Nord Stream, you know, leaks. I mean, they are in a heap of trouble over there in Europe with the winter approaching and with Putin -- I don't know, he could get desperate, God knows, but we have messed up this energy transition. And are we going to be able to reverse that? What's going to happen in Europe? Is there going to be a recession?

他们必须有电来供暖,更别说制造业了——

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我认为经济衰退即将到来。如果他们过冬的准备比我们想象的更充分,我不会感到意外。但衰退肯定会来。

乔·科南:在欧洲。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:欧洲和其他地方一样在收紧货币政策,而且天然气价格相当于每桶约 300 美元的石油。普京,我不知道他会做什么。我也不知道习主席会做什么。我们甚至还没谈到那些在天上飞来飞去的红天鹅和黑天鹅。

乔·科南:我知道。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我假设它们不会发生,但它们确实在飞来飞去。

乔·科南:你愿意举几个例子吗?

They have to have power to heat homes, much less manufacture -- STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I would think there's going to be a recession. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't prepared for the winter better than we think. But of course there's going to be a recession. JOE KERNEN: In Europe. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: You've got monetary policy tightening in Europe like everywhere else, and you have the price of natural gas at about $300 equivalent to oil there. Putin, I don't know what he's going to do. I don't know what President Xi is going to do. We haven't even gotten into all the red and black swans flying around up above. JOE KERNEN: I know. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Which I'm assuming aren't going to happen, but they are flying around. JOE KERNEN: Do you want to name a couple of them?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒嗯,一个是红色。中国。我的意思是,那里可能发生一些奇怪的事情。

乔·科南:随时都可能。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:显然还有普京。

乔·科南:核?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:对。

乔·科南:我甚至不想提到那个词。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我不指望会发生这种事。我只是说,就算不谈黑天鹅,你现在也有理由担心。对我来说,持有资产的风险回报率不太说得通。我不是在倡导做空。有史以来最厉害的做空者杰西·利弗莫尔,1929 年赚了 1 亿美元,然后在 1936 年破产自杀了。

乔·科南:他是跳楼还是开枪?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:结局都不好。

[笑声]

但我觉得你不需要做空。躲开就行了。不过对我来说,现在的风险回报比确实很难办。

乔·科南:我们时间不多了。

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLERWell, one is red. China. I mean, something strange could happen there.

JOE KERNEN: Any day. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Obviously Putin. JOE KERNEN: Nuclear? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Yeah. JOE KERNEN: I don't want to even say that word. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I'm not expecting that. I'm just saying you don't even need to talk about black swans to be worried here. To me the risk-reward owning assets doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not advocating going short. The greatest short seller ever, Jesse Livermore, made $100 million in '29, and then he went bankrupt in '36 and killed himself. JOE KERNEN: Did he jump or shoot? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: It wasn't good. [LAUGHTER] But I don't think you need to short. Just sidestep it. But to me the risk-reward is difficult right now. JOE KERNEN: We've got not much time.

说真的,我们非得去下一场吗?我想在这儿待一整天。我觉得“传递阿尔法”应该办上一整周。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:这下毒可够劲的。

乔·科南:你确定?我可喜欢听你说了。那你在结尾时——比特币是真的吗?你还持有它吗?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我没有比特币。

乔·科南:加密货币呢?

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我——在央行收紧的情况下,我很难持有这类资产。但是,对,我还是觉得——如果英国央行做的事,未来两三年里被其他央行效仿,如果情况真的变得很糟——

乔·科南:是啊。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:——我能看到加密货币在复兴中扮演重要角色,因为人们就是不再信任央行了。

Seriously, do we have to go to the next session? I would stay all day. I think Delivering Alpha should be a week. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: This is enough venom. JOE KERNEN: You sure? I love listening to you. So you became -- in closing, is Bitcoin for real? You still own it? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I don't own Bitcoin. JOE KERNEN: Crypto? STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I -- it's tough for me to own anything like that with central banks tightening. But yeah, I still think -- if the Bank of England, what they did is followed by stuff like that by other central banks in the next two or three years, if things get really bad -- JOE KERNEN: Yeah. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: -- I could see crypto currency having a big role in a Renaissance because people just aren't going to trust the central banks.

但眼下,我对美联储释放的所有信号都很满意,我希望他们能把事干完。他们犯过大错,现在似乎也认了——但就业强劲的时候认错当然容易。要是真遇上硬着陆,看看会怎样吧。我只希望他们坚持到底,因为 70 年代那种局面太可怕了。你必须屠龙。鲍威尔是对的,代价恐怕难以避免。

乔·科南:那么,30 年平均回报率 30%,而且没有一个亏损年份。这是怎么做到的。我是说,你能理解这为什么能成。我得求你回来——

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:那是以前的我,不是现在这个。

乔·科南:我知道。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:我确实没有亏损年份,但我也没做到年化 30%。

But right now, I like everything I'm hearing out of the Fed, and I hope they finish the job. They made a big mistake. They seem to have owned it, but it's easy to own it when employment is strong. Let's see what happens if we get a hard landing. I just hope they stick to their guns because this stuff was terrible in the '70s. You have to slay the dragon. And the chair is right. You're probably going to have some pain. JOE KERNEN: So 30 years averaging 30 percent and never a down year. So that's how it happens. I mean, you can see why that probably works. I have to beg you to come -- STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: That was a former version of my current self. JOE KERNEN: I know. STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: I haven't had any down years, but I ain't making 30 percent a year.

乔·科南我明白。谢谢你。我求你来,你又来了,这对我们所有人都是值得的。那么,斯坦·德鲁肯米勒。

斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒:谢谢。

实时转录由 RealtimeTranscription.com 提供。

JOE KERNENI know. Thank you. I begged you to come and you did again, and it's just worth it for all of us. So, Stan Druckenmiller.

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: Thank you. Realtime Transcription by www.RealtimeTranscription.com .

将谷歌上的首选来源设为 CNBC,不要错过来自最值得信赖的财经新闻品牌的任何精彩时刻。

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

订阅 CNBC PRO

订阅投资俱乐部

授权与转载

CNBC 理事会

选择个人理财

加入 CNBC 评审团

隐藏字幕

数字产品

新闻稿

实习机会

更正

关于 CNBC

网站地图

播客

招聘信息

帮助

联系我们

新闻线索

有保密新闻线索?我们期待您的来信。

联系我们

CNBC 新闻简报

免费订阅新闻简报,将更多 CNBC 内容投递至您的邮箱

立即订阅 将此内容投递至您的邮箱,并获取更多关于我们产品和服务的信息

Subscribe to CNBC PRO Subscribe to Investing Club Licensing & Reprints CNBC Councils Select Personal Finance Join the CNBC Panel Closed Captioning Digital Products News Releases Internships Corrections About CNBC Site Map Podcasts Careers Help Contact News Tips Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you. Get In Touch CNBC Newsletters Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox Sign Up Now Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.

与我们合作投放广告

请联系我们

广告选择

隐私政策

您的隐私选择

加州通知

服务条款

© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. 保留所有权利。Versant Media 旗下公司。

Advertise With Us Please Contact Us Ad Choices Privacy Policy Your Privacy Choices CA Notice Terms of Service © 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.

数据为实时快照 *数据至少延迟 15 分钟。

全球商业与财经新闻、股票报价及市场数据与分析。

Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes. Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis.

市场数据使用条款与免责声明 数据亦由

Market Data Terms of Use and Disclaimers Data also provided by