本次美联储发布会的十大要点

1. 忽略（看穿）能源冲击确实是传统的做法，但这前提是通胀预期必须保持稳定。

2. 如果非要取消一次SEP发布，这次绝对是最合适的，因为我们现在真的是两眼一抹黑。

3. 我们经历了关税冲击，经历了疫情，现在又来了一个规模和持续时间都不确定的能源冲击。这种接连不断的破事很容易让通胀预期脱锚出问题。

4. 我们觉得（利率）现在这个处于限制性边界高位的位置，刚刚好。

5. 在调查真正以完全透明和彻底完结的方式结束之前，我绝对没有离开委员会的打算。至于任期结束且调查结束后，我还会不会继续留任美联储理事，我还没做决定。

6. 委员会里不少人真正担心的，是新增就业的绝对水平太低了。这种零就业增长的平衡，让人觉得暗藏风险。

7. 世界真的变了吗？疫情就这么一次对吧？这次的能源断供也是偶发事件。这并不是什么不可逆的大趋势……我不敢断言世界格局已经变到以后全是供给侧冲击的地步。

8. 就像上次会议那样，我们聊到了下一步可能不是降息而是加息的可能性。

9. 我宁愿把“滞胀”这个词留给那种真正水深火热的局面，现在远远没到那份上。

10. 大家都在满世界建数据中心，这反而把需要的各种商品和服务的价格给抬上去了，这显然是在边际上推高通胀。不仅如此，它还有可能会拉高中性利率。

1、

The question of whether we look through the energy inflation doesn't really arise until we have kind of checked that box. It of course is kind of standard learning that you look through energy shocks, but that's always been dependent on inflation expectations remaining well anchored. And I think now it's also dependent on what you mention, which is that broader context of five years now of inflation above target, we have to keep all of those things in mind and the question of looking through when it does arise, will be one to approach not lightly.

至于我们是否要“忽略”能源通胀带来的影响，在解决关税问题之前，这个问题其实还排不上号。忽略（看穿）能源冲击确实是传统的做法，但这前提是通胀预期必须保持稳定。而且我认为现在还要考虑你提到的背景，也就是通胀已经连续五年高于目标了。我们必须综合考虑这些，真到了要决定是否“忽略”能源冲击的时候，我们绝不会掉以轻心。

2、

The thing I really want to emphasize is that nobody knows the economics effect could be bigger, they could be smaller, they could be much smaller or much bigger. We just don't know. So people are writing down something that seems to make sense to them but have no conviction. If we have a long period of much higher gas prices, that's going to weigh on disposable personal income, and it'll weigh on consumption. But we don't know if that's going to happen. Something quite different than that. We might have much lower than expected pass-through. So people write down... this is one of those SEPs where a number of people mentioned, if we were ever going to skip an SEP, this would be a good one because we just don't know. So I wouldn't say there's a conviction that this is going to go through quickly or not quickly. It's just you got to write something down.

我特别想强调一点，没人知道未来的经济影响会变大还是变小。我们就是不知道。所以大家只是写下了自己觉得合理的预测，但其实都没什么底气。如果高油价持续很长时间，那肯定会拖累可支配收入，进而拖累消费。但我们不知道会不会这样。也有可能价格传导比预期的低得多。好几个委员都私下说，如果非要取消一次SEP发布，这次绝对是最合适的，因为我们现在真的是两眼一抹黑。所以我也不能打包票说这波冲击会很快过去还是很慢。你总得在预测表上写点数字。

3、

It's more the thought that it's been five years and we've actually had the tariff shock, we had the pandemic, and now we have an energy shock of some size and duration. We don't know what that's going to be actually. And you worry that that's the kind of thing that can cause trouble for inflation expectations. And so we worry a lot about that. And we are very strongly committed to doing what it takes to keep inflation expectations anchored at 2%. I think it's important that we do that.

主要的问题在于，这都五年了（指通胀超标），我们经历了关税冲击，经历了疫情，现在又来了一个规模和持续时间都不确定的能源冲击。这种接连不断的破事很容易让通胀预期脱锚出问题。所以我们非常担心这点。我们也坚定承诺会尽一切努力把通胀预期锚定在2%。这非常关键。

4、

So that's not coming from standard Phillips curve restrictive policy. It's coming from the runoff of a one-time thing. We also think it's important to keep policy either mildly restrictive or close to that, but not too restrictive because of the weakness in the downside risk in the labor market. We are balancing these two goals in a situation where the risks to the labor market are to the downside, which would call for lower rates. And the risks to inflation are to the upside, which would call for higher rates or not cutting anyway. So we're in a difficult situation, and we feel like our framework calls on us to balance the risks. And we feel like where we are now is just kind of on that borderline, the higher borderline of restrictive versus not restrictive.

这可不是什么标准的菲利普斯曲线能解释的，这就是一次性冲击在消退。同时，我们认为政策得保持轻微的限制性，但不能太紧，因为劳动力市场有下行风险。我们现在是两头为难：就业下行风险大，按理说得降息；通胀上行风险大，按理说得加息或者至少不能降。局势很棘手，但我们的框架要求平衡风险。我们觉得现在这个处于限制性边界高位的位置，刚刚好。

5、

And while I'm at it on the question whether I will leave while the investigation is ongoing, I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality. And I would refer you to the statement that was in the Fed's brief that you will all have seen, and I won't have anything more for you on that. On the question of whether I will then continue to serve as a governor after my term ends and after the investigation is over, I have not made that decision yet, and I will make that decision based on what I think is best for the institution and for the people we serve, figuring you probably were going to set the dominoes off there, Edward, and I'm not gonna have any more to say on those issues.

顺便提一句，关于调查期间我会不会辞职的问题，在调查真正以完全透明和彻底完结的方式结束之前，我绝对没有离开委员会的打算。你们可以去看看美联储简报里的声明，别的我就不多说了。至于任期结束且调查结束后，我还会不会继续留任美联储理事，我还没做决定。我会基于什么对美联储最好、对美国人民最好来做决定。Edward，我就知道你想起这个头，关于这些问题我不会再多说一个字了。

6、

但委员会里不少人真正担心的，是新增就业的绝对水平太低了。如果把过去半年的新增就业趋势拿出来，剔除掉内部人员认为的统计注水水分，其实私营部门的净新增就业基本是零。考虑到目前劳动力供应几乎零增长这种历史罕见的情况，这似乎也正是经济目前需要的状态。所以现在是一种零就业增长的平衡。但这平衡让人觉得暗藏风险，坐得并不安稳。

7、

You know we did go through a long period where the shocks were all demand shocks, and so we've had a lot of practice thinking about supply shocks in the last four or five years for sure. And it's just a very different thing and a very much more difficult thing because it does immediately raise the question of tension between the two parts of our mandate. But has the world changed? I mean, Covid is a one-time thing, right? This energy supply shock is a one-time thing. It's not because of some broad tendency. And the oil shock with Ukraine was also a consequence of military action. So I don't know that the world has changed in a way that there'll be more supply shocks. But people have written that paper and that speech a number of times trying to make the case that that is the case. And in fact, we have seen more supply shocks in the last five years than we've seen in many years before that, it's a fact.

我们之前确实过了很长一段只有需求侧冲击的日子，所以这四五年我们算是把供给侧冲击彻底见识透了。这完全是两码事，处理起来难太多了，因为它直接把保就业和稳物价这对矛盾摆在了台面上。但世界真的变了吗？疫情就这么一次对吧？这次的能源断供也是偶发事件。这并不是什么不可逆的大趋势。之前乌克兰那次的油价冲击也是战争搞出来的。所以我真不敢断言世界格局已经变到以后全是供给侧冲击的地步。虽然不少论文和演讲天天都在渲染这个论调，事实也确实是过去五年我们遇到的供给侧冲击比之前好多年加起来都多。

8、

So it did come up today, the possibility, rather that our next move might be an increase, did come up at the meeting as it did at the last meeting. The vast majority of participants don't see that as their base case. And of course, we don't take things off the table.

是的，今天确实讨论过了。就像上次开会一样，我们聊到了下一步可能不是降息而是加息的可能性。但绝大多数委员并不觉得这是基准情形。当然，我们从不排除任何选项。

9、

Stagflation? Yeah, so. As I mentioned, there is tension between the two goals, right? The upward risk for inflation and downward risk for employment. So that puts us in a different situation. When we use the term stagflation, I always have to point out that that was a 1970s term, at a time when unemployment was in double figures and inflation was really high and the misery index was super high. Add them together, you get the misery index. And that's not the case right now. We actually have unemployment really close to longer run normal, and we have inflation that's one percentage point above that. So calling that stagflation, it's not. I would reserve the term stagflation for a much more serious set of circumstances, that is not the situation we're in. What we have is some tension between the goals and we're trying to manage our way through it. It's a very difficult situation, but it's nothing like what they faced in the 1970s, and that's I reserve the word stagflation for that period, maybe that's just me.

滞胀？是的。刚才我也提了，现在保就业和控通胀确实在打架，通胀往上窜，就业往下掉。这确实很被动。但一提到“滞胀”，我得科普一下，那是70年代的老黄历了。那时候失业率两位数，通胀高得吓人，俩加一块儿的“痛苦指数”简直爆表。现在可不是这样。我们现在的失业率基本上就是长期正常水平，通胀也就超标了一个百分点。把这叫滞胀？显然不是。我宁愿把“滞胀”这个词留给那种真正水深火热的局面，现在远远没到那份上。我们现在就是双重使命存在冲突，我们在想办法趟过去。虽然棘手，但跟70年代比差远了。我就认70年代那叫滞胀，可能这就是我的个人执念吧。

10、

And for many of us, I never thought I'd see this many years of really high productivity, and by the way, expect it to continue, and we haven't really started to see the effects of generative AI, and that should certainly contribute to that. So it's quite unusual and this higher productivity is the thing that allows incomes to rise over time. And so it's a great thing. I think you have to be cautious about that disinflationary argument, in particular, if you're talking about AI, about generative AI. Remember, in the short term, what's happening is we're building data centers everywhere, and that's actually putting pressure on all kinds of goods and services that go into building these things, so that's actually probably pushing inflation up at the margin. In addition,it probably raises the neutral rate.

重点是，我们现在还没真正吃到生成式AI的红利，等它发威的时候，还会对数据产生贡献。所以这事相当反常，但正是这种高生产率撑起了收入的长期增长。这是天大的好事。至于说AI能压低通胀，这结论下得太草率了，特别是生成式AI。你得想清楚，短期内发生了什么？大家都在满世界建数据中心，这反而把需要的各种商品和服务的价格给抬上去了，这显然是在边际上推高通胀。不仅如此，它还有可能会拉高中性利率。