خفّض مجلس الاحتياطي الفيدرالي الأسبوع الماضي أسعار الفائدة بمقدار 25 نقطة أساس، خطوةٌ وصفها الكثيرون بأنها «حذرة أكثر مما يجب»، لكنها فجّرت مجدّدًا صراعًا مكتومًا بين الرئيس دونالد ترمب ورئيس الفيدرالي جيروم باول. فبينما يرى ترمب أن هذه الخطوة أشبه بجرعة مسكّن صغيرة لاقتصاد يحتاج عملية جراحية كاملة، يصر باول على أن الوقت ما زال غير مناسب لمغامرات نقدية قد تفجّر التضخم من جديد.
ترمب لا يخفي ضيقه من هذا النهج البطيء. فمنذ لحظة انتخابه، بنى خطابه الاقتصادي على وعود بتحريك عجلة النمو بقوة، وتخفيف أعباء القروض عن كاهل الأسر والشركات. وفي رؤيته، أي خفض أقل من نصف نقطة ليس سوى تلاعب بالأرقام دون أثر حقيقي في جيوب الأمريكيين. هو يريد خفضًا كبيرًا وسريعًا يعيد البريق لأسواق المال، ويحفّز الاستثمار، ويمنحه في الوقت ذاته ورقة رابحة في مواجهة خصومه السياسيين. بالنسبة لترمب، النمو السريع ليس خيارًا بل ضرورة سياسية واقتصادية، وأي تلكؤ من الفيدرالي يُقرأ كعقبة في طريق «أمريكا العظمى».
أما جيروم باول، فيقف متحصّنًا بدرس السبعينيات الذي يحذّر من أن التضخم إذا انفلت يصعب ترويضه. هو يعلم أن التضخم تراجع من ذروته، لكنه ما زال أعلى من 2%، والمخاطرة بخفض حاد للفائدة قد تطيح بما تحقق من استقرار نسبي. لذلك جاء خفض 25 نقطة كرسالة مزدوجة: تلبية جزئية لضغوط السوق والبيت الأبيض، وتأكيد أن الفيدرالي لن يفرّط في استقلاليته. باول هنا لا يواجه ترمب وحده، بل يواجه فكرة أن السياسة يمكنها أن تملي على الاقتصاد إيقاعه.
في الجوهر، نحن أمام صراع بين زمنين: زمن السياسة الذي يقيس النجاح بارتفاع مؤشرات الأسهم وانخفاض تكاليف القروض في الأمد القصير، وزمن الاقتصاد الذي يقيس النجاح بالقدرة على تحقيق نمو طويل المدى دون موجات تضخمية تقوض كل الإنجازات. ترمب يرى الأرقام بعين الناخب، وباول يقرأها بعين التاريخ. وهذه ليست معركة شخصية بقدر ما هي معركة حول من يملك دفة قيادة الاقتصاد الأمريكي.
الأثر لا يتوقف عند الداخل. فالعالم كله يترقب قرارات الفيدرالي الأمريكي كمن يترقب نبض قلب النظام المالي العالمي. خفض سريع وكبير للفائدة قد يضعف الدولار ويفتح شهية المستثمرين على المخاطر في الأسواق الناشئة، لكنه في الوقت نفسه قد يعيد التضخم للواجهة ويقلب موازين التجارة العالمية. أما الاستمرار في الحذر فيعني بقاء تكلفة التمويل مرتفعة، وضغطًا أكبر على ديون الدول النامية، وتباطؤًا في الاستثمار الدولي.
الحقيقة أن خفض الفائدة الأخير لم يحسم الجدل بل كشف عمقه. ترمب يرى أن باول يعرقل مسيرة النمو ويكبح «الحلم الأمريكي» بقيوده الأكاديمية، بينما يرى باول أن ترمب يغامر بالاقتصاد في سبيل مكاسب سياسية سريعة. في النهاية، قد يفرض الواقع مسارًا وسطيًا: تخفيض تدريجي مشروط، يوازن بين تهدئة الأسواق وضبط التضخم. لكن حتى هذا الخيار لن يوقف السجال بين الرجلين، لأن الصراع هنا ليس حول 25 أو 50 نقطة أساس، بل حول من يمتلك الكلمة الأخيرة في أكبر اقتصاد في العالم: البيت الأبيض أم الاحتياطي الفيدرالي.
علي محمد الحازمي
«الفائدة» بين مطرقة ترمب وسندان باول!
25 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:21
|
آخر تحديث 25 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:21
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates by 25 basis points last week, a move that many described as "more cautious than necessary," but it reignited a simmering conflict between President Donald Trump and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. While Trump sees this step as akin to a small dose of pain relief for an economy that needs major surgery, Powell insists that the time is still not right for monetary adventures that could reignite inflation.
Trump does not hide his displeasure with this slow approach. Since the moment of his election, he has built his economic rhetoric on promises to vigorously drive growth and ease the burden of loans on families and businesses. In his view, any cut of less than half a point is merely number manipulation with no real impact on the pockets of Americans. He wants a significant and rapid cut that restores luster to the financial markets, stimulates investment, and simultaneously gives him a winning card against his political opponents. For Trump, rapid growth is not an option but a political and economic necessity, and any hesitation from the Fed is seen as an obstacle in the path of "Great America."
As for Jerome Powell, he stands fortified by the lesson of the 1970s, which warns that once inflation gets out of control, it is difficult to tame. He knows that inflation has retreated from its peak, but it is still above 2%, and the risk of a sharp rate cut could undermine the relative stability that has been achieved. Therefore, the 25 basis point cut came as a dual message: a partial response to market and White House pressures, and a reaffirmation that the Fed will not compromise its independence. Powell is not just facing Trump; he is confronting the idea that politics can dictate the rhythm of the economy.
At its core, we are witnessing a struggle between two times: the time of politics, which measures success by rising stock indices and falling loan costs in the short term, and the time of economics, which measures success by the ability to achieve long-term growth without inflationary waves that undermine all achievements. Trump sees the numbers through the eyes of a voter, while Powell reads them through the lens of history. This is not a personal battle as much as it is a contest over who holds the steering wheel of the American economy.
The impact does not stop at the domestic front. The whole world is watching the decisions of the U.S. Federal Reserve as if waiting for the pulse of the global financial system. A rapid and large rate cut could weaken the dollar and open up investors' appetites for risk in emerging markets, but at the same time, it could bring inflation back to the forefront and upset the balance of global trade. Meanwhile, continuing with caution means keeping financing costs high, putting more pressure on the debts of developing countries, and slowing international investment.
The truth is that the recent interest rate cut did not settle the debate but revealed its depth. Trump sees Powell as hindering the growth trajectory and stifling the "American Dream" with his academic constraints, while Powell sees Trump as risking the economy for quick political gains. In the end, reality may impose a middle path: a gradual conditional cut that balances calming the markets with controlling inflation. But even this option will not stop the dispute between the two men, because the struggle here is not over 25 or 50 basis points, but over who has the final word in the largest economy in the world: the White House or the Federal Reserve.
Trump does not hide his displeasure with this slow approach. Since the moment of his election, he has built his economic rhetoric on promises to vigorously drive growth and ease the burden of loans on families and businesses. In his view, any cut of less than half a point is merely number manipulation with no real impact on the pockets of Americans. He wants a significant and rapid cut that restores luster to the financial markets, stimulates investment, and simultaneously gives him a winning card against his political opponents. For Trump, rapid growth is not an option but a political and economic necessity, and any hesitation from the Fed is seen as an obstacle in the path of "Great America."
As for Jerome Powell, he stands fortified by the lesson of the 1970s, which warns that once inflation gets out of control, it is difficult to tame. He knows that inflation has retreated from its peak, but it is still above 2%, and the risk of a sharp rate cut could undermine the relative stability that has been achieved. Therefore, the 25 basis point cut came as a dual message: a partial response to market and White House pressures, and a reaffirmation that the Fed will not compromise its independence. Powell is not just facing Trump; he is confronting the idea that politics can dictate the rhythm of the economy.
At its core, we are witnessing a struggle between two times: the time of politics, which measures success by rising stock indices and falling loan costs in the short term, and the time of economics, which measures success by the ability to achieve long-term growth without inflationary waves that undermine all achievements. Trump sees the numbers through the eyes of a voter, while Powell reads them through the lens of history. This is not a personal battle as much as it is a contest over who holds the steering wheel of the American economy.
The impact does not stop at the domestic front. The whole world is watching the decisions of the U.S. Federal Reserve as if waiting for the pulse of the global financial system. A rapid and large rate cut could weaken the dollar and open up investors' appetites for risk in emerging markets, but at the same time, it could bring inflation back to the forefront and upset the balance of global trade. Meanwhile, continuing with caution means keeping financing costs high, putting more pressure on the debts of developing countries, and slowing international investment.
The truth is that the recent interest rate cut did not settle the debate but revealed its depth. Trump sees Powell as hindering the growth trajectory and stifling the "American Dream" with his academic constraints, while Powell sees Trump as risking the economy for quick political gains. In the end, reality may impose a middle path: a gradual conditional cut that balances calming the markets with controlling inflation. But even this option will not stop the dispute between the two men, because the struggle here is not over 25 or 50 basis points, but over who has the final word in the largest economy in the world: the White House or the Federal Reserve.


