全球商场应声上涨，鲍威尔昨晚说话全文来了！（中英对照）

liukang20243天前朝阳吃瓜803

当地时刻周三，美联储举行联邦公开商场委员会会议，会后美联储主席鲍威尔在新闻发布会宣布说话，并答记者问。

鲍威尔标明，美联储的方针是有约束性的，现已看到它的影响，紧缩的作用没有彻底闪现。他点评，联储“在本轮加息周期中现已获得很大开展”。他说，美联储官员以为他们已挨近完毕本轮加息周期，现在慎重举动。

但他一起又标明，委员会并没有决心以为方针现已抵达了满足的约束性，足以使通胀回落到方针。

当被问及假如美联储本年12月也不加息，是否意味着加息周期现已完毕，鲍威尔答复：不一定，并标明以为“暂停了一两次加息之后就很难再加息”是不对的。

鲍威尔称，委员会将重视全部有关的要素，假如以为方针需求进一步收紧，那么就会如此。

鲍威尔供认，9月会议显现，委员们关于加息一次仍是两次的不合现已相对较小，就那次会议显现出来的状况是，加息周期现已挨近结尾。

就缩表而言，鲍威尔标明不准备改动QT的脚步，并称这不是“正在议论或考虑的作业。”

就降息而言，鲍威尔标明，现在委员会底子没有考虑降息，现在的问题是方针的约束性将会坚持多久。

就美国经济而言，鲍威尔标明，当时的美国经济依然微弱，没有依据真实标明短期内会呈现阑珊。可是由于方针具有滞后性，美国经济或许“仍将面对一些问题”。

鲍威尔以为，美国银行系统依然具有弹性，并以为加息不会“本质性地改动这一局势”。

就消费而言，鲍威尔以为美国居民消费依然微弱，并未发生结构性改动，称其“或许轻视了家庭和小企业的资产负债表实力”

新闻发布会后，商场关于加息完毕预期升温，标普大盘、纳指和纳指100涨幅扩展至超1%并再创日高。

而被视为“美联储喉舌”、有“新美联储通讯社”之称的记者Nick Timiraos议论称，据他所知，鲍威尔此次几乎没有谈及在9月发布利率预期中值的根底上再多一次加息的猜想，他仅仅简略地说，联储会在12月提交新的预期。这种议论被视为对鲍威尔发布会的一种鸽派视点解读。

有媒体议论称，鲍威尔这次讲了许多话，可债市只听到了一件事：美联储或许现已完毕本轮加息，短期美债收益率在鲍威尔说话期间进一步下行便是表现。

以下是发布会和QA全文，由华尔街见识翻译收拾：

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. We understand the hardship that high inflation is causing, and we remain strongly committed to bringing inflation back down to our 2 percent goal. Price stability is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all.

咱们下午好，欢迎咱们。我和我的搭档们一向专心于实行咱们的两层任务，即为美国人民促进最大作业和安稳物价。咱们了解高通胀带来的困难，并坚决致力于将通胀率降至咱们的2%方针。物价安稳是美联储的职责。没有物价安稳，经济对任何人都不起作用。特别是，假如没有物价安稳，咱们将无法完成继续的有利于全部人的微弱劳作力商场状况。

Since early last year, the FOMC has significantly tightened the stance of monetary policy. We have raised our policy interest rate by five and a quarter percentage points and have continued to reduce our securities holdings at a brisk pace. The stance of policy is restrictive, meaning that tight policy is putting downward pressure on economic activity and inflation, and the full effects of our tightening have yet to be felt. Today, we decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged and to continue to reduce our securities holdings.

自上一年头以来，联邦公开商场委员会已大幅收紧了货币方针情绪。咱们将方针利率进步了5.25个百分点，并继续以敏捷的速度削减证券持有量。方针情绪具有约束性，意味着紧缩方针对经济活动和通胀施加了下行压力，而咱们的紧缩方针的悉数影响没有得到表现。今日，咱们决议将方针利率坚持不变，并继续削减咱们的证券持有量。

Given how far we have come, along with the uncertainties and risks we face, the committee is proceeding carefully. We will make decisions about the extent of additional policy firming and how long policy will remain restrictive based on the totality of the incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. I’ll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments.

考虑到咱们现已获得的开展，以及咱们面对的不确认性和危险，委员会正在慎重推进。咱们将依据全部收到的数据、开展中的远景以及危险的平衡状况，决议进一步收紧方针的程度以及方针约束将坚持多长时刻。在扼要回忆经济开展之后，我迁就货币方针宣布更多定见。

货币方针远景

The Fed’s monetary policy actions are guided by our mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation imposes significant hardship as it erodes purchasing power, especially for those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation. We are highly attentive to the risks that high inflation poses to both sides of our mandate, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent objective.

美联储的货币方针举动以咱们的任务为辅导，即为美国人民促进最大极限的作业和安稳的价格。我和我的搭档们都敏锐地意识到，高通胀给人们带来了巨大的困难，由于它腐蚀了购买力，特别是对那些最无力付出食物、住宅和交通等必需品本钱上涨的人来说。咱们高度重视高通胀给咱们两方面带来的危险，并坚决致力于将通胀率康复到咱们的2%方针。

As I noted earlier, since early last year we have raised our policy rate by 5 ¼ percentage points, and we have decreased our securities holdings by more than $1 trillion. Our restrictive stance of monetary policy is putting downward pressure on economic activity and inflation.

正如我前面说到的，自上一年头以来，咱们已将方针利率进步了5.25%，并削减了超越1万亿美元的证券持有量。咱们的约束性货币方针情绪正在给经济活动和通胀带来下行压力。

The committee decided at today’s meeting to maintain the target range for the federal-funds rate at 5 ¼ to 5 ½ percent and to continue the process of significantly reducing our securities holdings. We are committed to achieving a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation sustainably down to 2 percent over time and to keeping policy restrictive until we are confident that inflation is on a path to that objective.

在今日的会议上，委员会决议将联邦基金利率的方针区间坚持在5.25%到5.5%之间，并继续大幅减持证券。咱们致力于完成一种货币方针的情绪，即采纳满足的约束性办法，使通胀在一段时刻内可继续地降至2%，并坚持方针的约束性，直到咱们坚信通胀正走向这一方针。

We are attentive to recent data showing the resilience of economic growth and demand for labor. Evidence of growth persistently above potential, or that tightness in the labor market is no longer easing, could put further progress on inflation at risk and could warrant further tightening of monetary policy.

咱们正在重视近期显现经济添加弹性和劳作力需求的数据。经济添加继续高于潜在水平的依据，或许劳作力商场的严重状况不再缓解，或许会使通胀面对进一步开展的危险，并或许导致进一步收紧货币方针。

Financial conditions have tightened significantly in recent months, driven by higher longer-term bond yields among other factors. Because persistent changes in financial conditions can have implications for the path of monetary policy, we monitor financial developments closely.

近几个月来，受长时刻债券收益率上升等要素的推进，金融环境显着收紧。由于金融环境的继续改动或许对货币方针的途径发生影响，咱们亲近重视金融开展。

In light of the uncertainties and risks and how far we have come, the committee is proceeding carefully. We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting based on the totality of the incoming data and their implications for the outlook and for economic activity and inflation, as well as the balance of risks.

考虑到不确认性和危险，以及咱们现已获得的开展，委员会正在慎重行事。咱们将继续依据行将发布的全体数据及其对经济远景、经济活动和通胀以及危险平衡的影响，一次又一次地做出决议。

In determining the extent of additional policy firming that may be appropriate to return inflation to 2 percent over time, the committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments.

在确认进一步收紧方针的程度时，委员会将考虑货币方针的累计收紧程度、货币方针对经济活动和通胀影响的滞后程度，以及经济和金融开展。

We remain committed to bringing inflation back down to our 2 percent goal and to keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. Reducing inflation is likely to require a period of below-potential growth and some softening of labor-market conditions. Restoring price stability is essential to set the stage for achieving maximum employment and stable prices over the longer run.

咱们依然致力于将通货膨胀率降至2%的方针，并坚持长时刻通胀预期的安稳。要想下降通胀，或许需求一段时刻的经济添加低于潜在水平，一起劳作力商场状况有所平缓。康复价格安稳关于为完成最大作业和长时刻物价安稳奠定根底至关重要。

To conclude, we understand that our actions affect communities, families, and businesses across the country. Everything we do is in service to our public mission. We at the Fed will do everything we can to achieve our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.

总归，咱们了解咱们的举动会影响到全国的社区、家庭和企业。咱们所做的全部都是为了咱们的公共任务。咱们美联储将尽全部尽力完成最大作业和价格安稳的方针。

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

谢谢，我等候你们的发问。

Q&A 收益率上升对紧缩的代替性

Q: Thank you, Chair Powell, for doing this. To what—you referenced the rise in long-term bond yields. To what degree did that supplant action by the Fed at this meeting?

问：你说到长时刻债券收益率上升，这在多大程度上替代了美联储在本次会议上的举动?

POWELL: Thanks for your question.I’ll talk about bond yields, but I want to take a second and just sort of set the broader context in which we’re looking at that. So if you look at the situation, let’s look at the economy first. Inflation has been coming down but is still running well above our 2 percent target. The labor market has been rebalancing, but it’s still very tight by many measures. GDP growth has been strong, although many forecasters are forecasting and they have been forecasting that it will slow.

答：谢谢你的问题。我将议论债券收益率，但我想花点时刻在更大的布景下议论这个问题。因而，假如你看状况，让咱们先看看经济。通货膨胀率一向在下降，但仍远高于咱们2%的方针。劳作力商场一向在从头平衡，但从许多方面来看，劳作力商场依然十分严重。GDP添加一向很微弱，虽然许多猜想者都在猜想，并且他们一向在猜想，GDP添加将会放缓。

As for the committee, we are committed to achieving a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time. And we’re not confident yet that we have achieved such a stance.

至于委员会，咱们致力于完成一种货币方针情绪，这种情绪具有满足的约束性，能够跟着时刻的推移将通货膨胀率降至2%。咱们还没有决心咱们现已获得了这样的情绪。

So that is the broader context into which this—the strong economy and all the things I said, that’s the context in which we’re looking at this question of rates.

因而，这便是更广泛的布景——微弱的经济和我所说的全部作业，这便是咱们研讨利率问题的布景。

So obviously we’re monitoring. We’re attentive to the increase in longer-term yields, which have contributed to a tightening of broader financial conditions since the summer. As I mentioned, persistent changes in broader financial conditions can have implications for the path of monetary policy. In this case, the tighter financial conditions we’re seeing from higher long-term rates, but also from other sources like the stronger dollar and lower equity prices, could matter for future rate decisions, as long as two conditions are satisfied.

显着咱们正在监控。咱们重视长时刻收益率的上升，这导致自夏日以来更广泛的金融状况收紧。正如我所说到的，更广泛的金融状况的继续改动或许会对货币方针的途径发生影响。在这种状况下，只需满足两个条件，咱们从长时刻利率上升以及美元走强和股价跌落等其他来历看到的金融状况趋紧，或许会对未来的利率决议方案发生影响。

The first is that the tighter conditions would need to be persistent. And that is something that remains to be seen. But that’s critical. You know, things are fluctuating back and forth. That’s not what we’re looking for. With financial conditions, we’re looking for persistent changes that are material.

首要，紧缩的环境需求继续下去。这一点还有待查询。但这很要害。你知道，作业总是翻云覆雨。这不是咱们想要的。在财务状况方面，咱们正在寻觅本质性的继续改动。

The second is that the longer-term rates that have moved up, they can’t simply be a reflection of expected policy moves from us that we would then—that if we didn’t follow through on them, then the rates would come back down. So—and I would say on that it does not appear that an expectation of higher near-term policy rates is causing the increase in longer-term rates.

其次，长时刻利率的上升，不能简略地反映咱们预期的方针办法，即假如咱们不跟进，利率就会回落。因而，我想说的是，近期方针利率上升的预期好像并没有导致长时刻利率的上升。

So, in the meantime, though, perhaps the most important thing is that these higher Treasury yields are showing through the higher borrowing costs for households and businesses and those higher costs are going to weigh on economic activity to the extent this tightening persists and, you know, that the mind’s eye goes to the 8 percent—near 8 percent mortgage rate, which could have, you know, a pretty significant effect on housing. So that’s how I would answer your question.

因而，与此一起，最重要的或许是，美债收益率的上升会导致家庭和企业的假贷本钱上升，而这些本钱上升会对经济活动形成压力，只需紧缩方针继续下去，人们就会想到8%-挨近8%的典当借款利率，这或许会对住宅发生恰当大的影响。这便是我对你问题的答复。

Q&A 金融条件还未有“满足约束性”

Q: Just as a quick follow-on to be clear on this, in your opening statement and just now you seemed to imply that you are not yet confident that financial conditions are restrictive enough to finish the fight. Is that true?

问：我想赶快弄清一下这个问题，在你的开幕词中，你方才好像暗示你还没有决心，以为金融条件的约束足以完毕这场战役。这是真的吗?

POWELL: Yes, that’s exactly right. You know, to say it a different way, we haven’t made any decisions about future meetings. We have not made a determination and we’re not—I will say that we’re not confident at this time that we’ve reached such a stance. We’re not confident that we haven’t but we’re not confident that we have, and that is the way we’re going to be going into these future meetings is to be, you know, just determining the extent of any additional further policy tightening that may be appropriate to return inflation to 2 percent over time.

是的，彻底正确。你知道，换一种办法说，咱们还没有就未来的会议做出任何决议。咱们还没有做出决议，我要说的是，咱们现在没有决心咱们现已抵达了这样的情绪。咱们没有决心说咱们没有，但咱们也没有决心说咱们有，这便是咱们往后会议的办法，你知道，仅仅确认任何额定的进一步方针紧缩的程度，这或许是恰当的，以使通货膨胀率跟着时刻的推移回到2%。

Q&A 12月会议没有指引

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Thank you so much for taking our questions. I wonder, you know, if you don’t raise interest rates in December would the presumption be that at that point that we should expect that rates are at their peak or is there a possibility of restarting rate increases next year? And are there any costs to taking a more extended pause?

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。十分感谢你答复咱们的问题。我想知道，假如12月份不加息，那么咱们是否应该预期利率已抵达峰值，或许下一年是否有或许从头开端加息？延伸暂停时刻是否会发生任何本钱？

POWELL: So let me start by saying we haven’t made a decision about [December]. You’re asking a hypothetical there. But we’re going into the December meeting. We’ll get, as you know, two more inflation readings, two more labor market readings, some data on economic activity. And so we’ll be taking—and also the broader situation, the broader financial conditions situation and the broader world situation. We’ll be looking at all those things as we make a decision in December. We haven’t made that decision.

鲍威尔：首要我要说的是，咱们还没有就（12月）会议做出决议。你在问一个假定。但咱们行将进入12月的会议。如你所知，咱们将得到别的两个通胀数据，两个劳作力商场数据，以及一些经济活动数据。因而，咱们将考虑更广泛的局势、更广泛的金融状况和更广泛的世界局势。咱们将在12月做出决议时考虑全部这些作业。咱们还没有做出这个决议。

I would say, though, that the idea that if you—the idea that you would—it would be difficult to raise again after stopping for a meeting or two it’s just not right. I mean, the committee will always do what it thinks is appropriate at the time.

我想说的是，以为“暂停了一两次加息之后就很难再加息”是不对的。我的意思是，委员会总是会做他们以为适宜的作业。

And, again, we haven’t made any decisions at all about December. We didn’t even—we didn’t talk about making a decision in December today. Really, it was a decision for this meeting and understanding broader things.

再说一遍，关于12月咱们还没有做出任何决议。咱们乃至没有在12月的今日议论做出决议。实践上，这是为了这次会议和了解更广泛的事物而做出的决议。

Q&A 美国短期不会呈现经济阑珊

Q: Chair Powell, did the Fed staff put a recession back into the baseline forecast in the materials for today’s meeting and how much does this tightening in financial conditions substitute for rate hikes if the tightening is persistent? You had said it was worth maybe a quarter point when we had the bank failures in the spring. What is it here on something that’s presumably more straightforward and more familiar to simulate?

问：鲍威尔主席，在今日会议的材猜中，美联储作业人员是否将经济阑珊从头归入基准猜想？假如紧缩继续下去，金融环境的紧缩在多大程度上替代了加息？春天银行封闭时，你说它或许值25个基点（的加息）。这儿有什么东西更直观，更简单模仿？

POWELL: So I guess I don’t want to answer your question about the—about the recession. But the answer is no. I think I have to answer it since we did publicly say in the minutes. You’ll know anyway in the minutes. The staff did not put our session back in. I mean, it would be hard to see how you would do that if you look at the—look at the activity we’ve seen recently, which is not really indicative of a recession in the near term.

我猜我不想答复你关于经济阑珊的问题。但答案是否定的。我想我有必要答复这个问题，由于咱们确真实会议记录中公开说过。横竖你立刻就知道了。作业人员没有把咱们的会议记录放回去。我的意思是，假如你看看咱们最近看到的经济活动，你很难看到你怎样做到这一点，这些活动并没有真实标明短期内会呈现阑珊。

In terms of how to think about translation into rate hikes, I think it’s just too early to be doing that and the main reason is we just don’t know how persistent this will be. You can see how volatile it is. Different kinds of news will affect the level of rates and I think any kind of an estimate that was, you know, precise would hang out there and have a great chance of looking wrong very quickly.

至于怎样考虑将其转化为加息，我以为现在还为时过早，首要原因是咱们不知道这种状况会有多耐久。你能够看到它有多不安稳。不同的音讯都会影响利率水平，我以为任何准确的估量都会悬而未决，并且很有或许很快就会犯错。

So I think what we can say is that financial conditions have clearly tightened and you can see that in the rates that consumers and households and businesses are paying now and over time that will have an effect. We just don’t know how persistent it’s going to be and it’s tough to try to translate that in a way that I’d be comfortable communicating into how many rate hikes that is.

因而，我以为咱们能够说的是，金融条件现已显着收紧，你能够从顾客、家庭和企业现在付出的利率中看到这一点，跟着时刻的推移，这将发生影响。咱们仅仅不知道这种影响会有多耐久，因而很难将这种影响转化为加息的次数。

Q&A 货币方针具有滞后性但终究会有用

Q: If I could follow up. I guess what makes you confident the tighter—what makes you confident the tighter financial conditions will slow above trend growth when 500 basis points, the rate hikes, QT, and a minor banking crisis have not thus far?

问：是什么让你对紧缩有决心——是什么让你信任在500个基点、加息、QT和一场较小的银行危机没有呈现的状况下，紧缩的金融状况将放缓至高于趋势添加的水平?

POWELL: Well, I just—that’s—you know, the way our policy works is and sometimes it works with lags, of course, which can be long and variable. But ultimately, if you—if you raise the—you know, raise interest rates, you do see those effects. And you see those effects in the economy now. You see what’s happening in the housing market. You’re seeing that now. You’ll see, if you look at surveys of people, it’s not a good time, they think, to buy durable goods of various kinds, because rates are so high now. I mentioned, again, we’re getting reports from housing that the effects of this—of this could be quite significant.

鲍威尔：嗯，我仅仅，你知道，咱们的方针运作的办法是，当然，有时它会有滞后性，这或许是长时刻的和可变的。但终究，假如你进步利率，你会看到这些作用。现在你能够在经济中看到这些影响。你能够看到房地产商场的状况。你现在看到了。你会发现，假如你看一下人们的查询，他们以为现在不是购买各种耐用品的好时机，由于现在的利率太高了。我再一次说到，咱们从住宅部分得到的陈述说，这种状况的影响或许十分大。

But you’re right, this has been a resilient economy. And it’s, I think, been surprising in its resilience. And there are a number of possible reasons why that may be. Our job is to—is to achieve maximum employment and price stability. And so we take the economy as it comes. It has been resilient. So we just—we take it as it is.

但你是对的，这是一个有弹性的经济。我以为，它的耐性令人惊奇。这其间有许多或许的原因。咱们的作业是完成作业最大化和物价安稳。所以咱们承受经济的开展。它一向很有弹性。所以咱们只能承受实践。

Q&A 若有需求将进一步收紧

Q: Thank you. In terms of the thresholds that you’ve laid out of what could warrant further tightening, the additional evidence of persistently above-trend growth or some kind of reversal in the recent easing of labor market tightness, that seems to suggest something more powerful than just one more quarter point rate hike would be necessary. And I’m just curious if that’s how the committee sees it.

问：谢谢。就你为进一步收紧方针设定的门槛而言，经济添加继续高于趋势水平的额定依据，或许近期劳作力商场严重程度的缓解呈现某种反转，这好像标明，需求采纳比再加息25个基点更有力的办法。我很猎奇委员会是不是这么看的。

POWELL: So we’ve identified those factors. Those were not meant to be the only factors or a specific test that we’re going to be applying with some metrics behind. Really, we’re going to be looking at the broader picture and, you know, what’s happening with our progress toward the 2 percent inflation goal. Is the labor market continuing to broadly cool off and achieve a better balance? We’ll be looking at that. You know, growth—we look at growth, insofar as it has implications for our two mandate goals. We look at that. And we look at broader financial conditions. So we’ll be looking at all of those things as we reach a judgment, you know, whether we need to further tighten policy. And if we do reach that judgment, then we will further tighten policy.

鲍威尔：咱们现已确认了这些要素。这些并不是仅有的要素，也不是咱们将运用一些参数进行的特定测验。实践上，咱们将着眼于更宽广的远景，你知道，咱们在完成2%通胀方针方面的开展怎样。劳作力商场是否继续遍及降温并完成更好的平衡?咱们会看到的。你知道，添加——咱们重视添加，只需它对咱们的两个任务方针有影响。咱们会重视这些。咱们还要考虑更广泛的金融状况。因而，在咱们做出判别时，咱们将重视全部这些要素，你知道，咱们是否需求进一步收紧方针。假如咱们的确做出了这样的判别，那么咱们将进一步收紧方针。

Q&A 还不到考虑降息的时分

Q: OK. And just in terms of the tightening of financial conditions, if that is having some kind of offsetting effect in terms of the need to potentially, again, raise rates, what then is the potential impact on the trajectory of rate cuts? Could we see those may be pulled forward, or have to see more than what the September SEP indicated?

问：好的。就金融状况收紧而言，假如这对或许再次加息的需求发生某种抵消作用，那么对降息轨道的潜在影响是什么？咱们能否看到这些或许会被提早，或许有必要看到比9月份所标明的更多的内容？

POWELL: So the fact is, the committee’s not thinking about rate cuts right now at all. We’re not talking about rate cuts. We’re still very focused on the first question, which is: Have we—have we achieved a stance of monetary policy that’s sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time sustainably? That is the question we’re focusing on.

鲍威尔：事实是，委员会现在底子没有考虑降息。咱们不是在议论降息。咱们依然十分重视榜首个问题，即：咱们是否现已采纳了充沛约束性的货币方针情绪，以可继续地将通货膨胀率降至 2%？这便是咱们重视的问题。

The next question, as you know, will be, for how long will we remain restrictive—will policy remain restrictive? And what we said there is that we’ll keep policy restrictive until we’re confident that inflation is on a sustainable path down to 2 percent. That’ll be the next question. But honestly, right now we’re really tightly focused on the first question. The question of rate cuts just doesn’t come up, because, I think, the first—it’s so important to get that first question, you know, as close to right as you can.

如您所知，下一个问题将是，咱们将坚持约束性多久——方针还会坚持约束性吗？咱们所说的是，咱们将坚持方针约束，直到咱们坚信通胀可继续下降至 2%。这将是下一个问题。但老实说，现在咱们十分重视榜首个问题。降息的问题并没有呈现，由于我以为，榜首个问题十分重要，你知道，要尽或许正确地答复。

Q&A 不确认是否还需求加一次息

Q: Mr. Chairman, I guess I had assumed that there was a tightening bias in the committee. You say in the statement you’re looking to assess the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the extent to which you may—you may need to hike additionally. You didn’t say earlier that you were sufficiently restrictive. There were forecasts for two rate hikes among most members of the committee. But then you just said that, you know, we don’t—we haven’t made a determination. Would you say the bias right now is neutral, that there is no disposition to hike again, and that the committee largely has moved off of this forecast for two hikes? Or for, I’m sorry, one additional hike this year?

问：主席先生，我想我现已假定委员会中存在紧缩倾向。您在声明中标明，您正在评价货币方针的恰当情绪，以及您或许需求额定加息的程度。你之前没有说过你的约束满足多。委员会大多数成员估量将有两次加息。但你方才说，你知道，咱们没有——咱们还没有做出决议。您是否以为现在的倾向是中性的，没有再次加息的倾向，并且委员会根本上现已抛弃了两次加息的猜想？或许，抱愧，本年还要再加息一次？

POWELL: I think you started with one additional. And I—no, I wouldn’t say that at all. I would say—I mean, the language, you know, looking at it here, in determining the extent of additional policy firming that may be appropriate to return inflation to 2 percent of the time, that’s the question we’re asking.

鲍威尔：我想你一开端说的是加息一次。我——不，我底子不会这么说。我想说的是，我的意思是，从这儿的遣词来看，在确认额定的方针安定程度时，或许合适将通胀率康复到2%，这便是咱们要探究的问题。

Q: So is it right to think of that as a hiking bias is still in the committee here?

问：那么，以为委员会中依然存在加息倾向的观念是否正确？

POWELL: We haven’t used that term, but it’s fair to say that’s the question we’re asking, is should we hike more? It’s not—it’s not—you know, and that is the question. And you’re right that in September we wrote down one additional rate hike. But, you know, we’ll write down another forecast, as you know, in December.

鲍威尔：咱们还没有运用过这个术语，但公平地说，这便是咱们要问的问题：咱们应该加息更多吗？这不是——不是——你知道，这便是问题地点。你说得对，九月份咱们又加了一次息。可是，如您所知，咱们将在12月份做出下一个预期。

Q&A 有必要要康复价格安稳

Q: Thank you. Chris Rugaber at Associated Press. Well, since the last meeting, the auto workers strike has finished. Oil prices have leveled off. And yet, on the other hand, you have the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas. How do you see all those factors, taken together, affecting the economy going forward? How are you thinking about those?

问：谢谢。自从前次会议以来，轿车工人停工现已完毕了。石油价格现已趋于平稳。可是，另一方面，以色列和哈马斯之间爆发了抵触。您怎样看待全部这些要素归纳起来对未来经济的影响？你怎样看待这些？

POWELL: So there are significant issues out there, as you—as you point out. Global geopolitical tensions are certainly elevated, and that goes for the war in Ukraine, it goes for the war between Israel and Hamas. We’re monitoring that. Our job is to monitor those things for their economic implications.

鲍威尔：正如您所指出的，存在一些严重问题。全球地缘政治严重局势肯定会加重，乌克兰抵触、以色列和哈马斯之间的抵触都是如此。咱们正在监控这一状况。咱们的作业是监控这些作业的经济影响。

So the UAW strike, as you point out, is—appears to be coming to an end. Oil prices have flattened out. They haven’t gone down, but—or I guess they’ve gone down a little bit from their earlier peak. Another one is the possibility of a government shutdown. We don’t know about that one. So there’s plenty of risk out there.

因而，正如您所指出的，UAW 停工好像行将完毕。石油价格现已趋于平稳。它们并没有下降，可是——或许我猜它们现已从之前的峰值下降了一点。另一个问题是政府封闭的或许性。咱们不知道那个。所以那里存在许多危险。

But I would go back to the—you know, the bigger picture, from our standpoint, is we’ve got a very strong economy, strong labor market. Making progress on the labor market. Making progress on inflation. And we’re very focused on getting confident that we have achieved a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive. That’s really our focus.

但我想回到——你知道，从咱们的视点来看，更大的远景是咱们具有十分微弱的经济和微弱的劳作力商场。劳作力商场获得开展。通胀方面获得开展。咱们十分重视保证咱们现已完成了充沛约束性的货币方针情绪。这的确是咱们的要点。

Q: Great. And just one quick thing. You last month went to York, Pennsylvania, where you talked to a lot of—or, yeah, last month—where you talked to a lot of small-business owners. Just curious, what sentiments did you hear from them or what did you pick up on? And what would you—was there anything that surprised you the most in terms of what they talked about?

问：太好了。还有一件事。你上个月去了宾夕法尼亚州的约克，在那里你和许多——或许，是的，上个月在那里你和许多小企业主进行了攀谈。仅仅猎奇，你从他们那里听到了什么心情，或许你发现了什么?他们议论的内容中有什么让你最惊奇的吗?

POWELL: I wouldn’t say I was terribly surprised. I was — I was very impressed by York, a town with a real strategy, and I would say it’s very impressive what the people there have put together in the face of, you know, some difficult longer-run trends about offshoring of manufacturing and that kind of thing. They’ve done a great job as a—as a city, I think.

我不会说我感到十分惊奇。约克给我留下了深入的形象，这是一个有着真实战略的乡镇，我想说，面对制造业离岸和制造业离岸的一些困难的长时刻趋势，那里的人们所做出的尽力令人形象深入。那种事。我以为，作为一个城市，他们做得很好。

You know, what you hear—and it’s consistent there—which is people are really suffering under high inflation. You were there. We talked to some people who, you know, were feeling that in their businesses and other people who were feeling it in their home lives as well. You know, it’s painful for people, particularly people who—you know, who don’t have a lot of extra financial resources who are spending most of their incoming, you know, income on the essentials of life. So we know that. That wasn’t new, but that did come through very clearly in the conversations we had in York. And you know, I walked away from that even, you know, I mean, just thinking that we really—the best thing we can do for the U.S. is to restore price stability—fully restore price stability and not fail in that task, and do it as quickly as possible but also with the least damage we can.

你知道，你所听到的——并且这是一起的——那便是人们确真实高通胀下遭受苦楚。你在那里。咱们采访了一些在自己的企业中有这种感觉的人，以及在家庭生活中也有这种感觉的其他人。你知道，这对人们来说是苦楚的，特别是那些没有许多额定经济资源的人，他们将大部分收入花在生活必需品上。所以咱们知道这一点。这并不新鲜，但在咱们在约克的谈话中的确十分清楚地表现了这一点。你知道，我脱离时乃至在想，咱们——咱们能为美国做的最好的作业便是康复价格安稳——彻底康复价格安稳，并且不能在这项任务中失利，要尽或许快地康复价格安稳，但也要尽或许削减丢失。

Q&A 苦楚或许终将“不可防止”

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Thanks for taking our questions. You’ve spoken before about the pain that would likely be coming for the economy in order to get inflation down. But since the economy has not responded to rate hikes in ways that would normally be expected, have you changed your views on that at all, on how necessary or inevitable that kind of pain would be, say, for the labor market or overall growth?

问：鲍威尔主席，您好。感谢您答复咱们的问题。您之前曾谈到过为了下降通胀或许给经济带来的苦楚。但由于经济并没有以一般预期的办法对加息做出反响，你是否彻底改动了你的观念，即这种苦楚关于劳作力商场或全体添加来说有多么必要或不可防止？

POWELL: Well, I think everyone has been very gratified to see that we’ve been able to achieve, you know, pretty significant progress on inflation without seeing the kind of increase in unemployment that has been very typical of rate-hiking cycles like this one. So that’s a historically unusual and very welcome result.

鲍威尔：我想每个人都十分欣喜地看到，咱们能够在通胀方面获得恰当大的开展，而没有呈现失业率的上升，而失业率的上升在像这样的加息周期中是十分典型的。这在历史上是不寻常的，也是十分值得欢迎的成果。

And the same is true of growth. You know, we’ve been saying that we need to see below-potential growth, and growth has been strong but yet we’re still seeing this. I think — I still believe, and my colleagues for the most part I think still believe, that is likely to be true. It is still likely to be true—not a certainty, but likely—that we will need to see some slower growth and some softening in the labor market—in labor-market conditions to get—you know, to fully restore price stability.

经济添加也是如此。你知道，咱们一向在说，咱们需求看到低于潜力的添加，添加一向很微弱，但咱们依然看到这种状况。我以为——我依然信任，我的大部分搭档也依然信任——这很或许是真的。咱们需求看到添加放平缓劳作力商场的疲软，这样才干彻底康复物价的安稳。

So—but it’s only a good thing that we haven’t seen it, and I think we know why. You know, since we lifted off, we have understood that there are really two processes at work here, one of—one of which is the unwinding of the distortions to both supply and demand from the pandemic and the response to the pandemic. And the other is, you know, restrictive monetary policy, which is moderating demand and giving the supply side time to—time to recover—time and space to recover. So you see those two forces now working together to bring down inflation.

所以--但咱们还没有看到这一点，这是件功德，我想咱们知道为什么。你知道，自从咱们加息以来，咱们现已了解，这儿的确有两个进程在起作用，其间之一是免除大盛行病和对大盛行病的反响对供给和需求的歪曲。另一个是，你知道的，约束性货币方针，它正在平缓需求，给供给方康复的时刻和空间。因而，你能够看到这两股力气正在一起作用，以下降通货膨胀。

But it’s that – that first one can bring down inflation without the need for higher unemployment or slower growth. It’s just it’s supply—you know, supply-side improvements like shortages and bottlenecks and that kind of thing going away. It’s getting, you know, a significant increase in the size of the labor market now, both from labor-force participation and from immigration. That’s a big supply-side, you know, gain that is really helping the economy. And it’s part of why—part of why GDP is so high, is because we’re getting that supply. So we welcome that.

可是，榜首种力气能够下降通胀，而不需求更高的失业率或更慢的经济添加。这仅仅供给——你知道，供给方面的改进，如缺少和瓶颈之类的东西消失了。你知道，现在劳作力商场的规划显着扩展，这既得益于劳作力参加，也得益于移民。你知道，这是一个巨大的供给方收益，对经济的确有协助。这也是GDP如此之高的部分原因，由于咱们获得了这种供给。所以咱们对此标明欢迎。

But I think those things will run their course, and we’re probably still going to be left—we think and I think we’ll still be left with some ground to cover to get back to full price stability. And that’s where monetary policy and what we do with demand is still going to be important.

但我以为，这些作业都会走完它们的进程，咱们或许仍将面对一些问题，咱们以为，我以为，咱们仍将面对一些问题，以康复全面的价格安稳。这便是货币方针和咱们在需求方面所做作业的重要性地点。

Q: I’m curious, against that backdrop, if you’ve gotten any clarity on lags. If you have an economy that’s been so resilient to high rate increases, does that suggest to you that there isn’t necessarily this huge wave of tightening that’s still coming through the pipeline and that it may have already come into effect?

问：我很猎奇，在这种布景下，你是否对滞后有了清晰的知道。假如你的经济对高利率的添加如此有弹性，你是否以为这并不一定意味着这一波巨大的紧缩浪潮仍在酝酿之中，并且或许现已收效?

POWELL: You know, I continue to think it’s very hard to say. So it’s been one year at this meeting—one year ago. This was the fourth of our 75-basis-point hikes. So that’s a full year since then. I think we are seeing the effects of all the hiking we did last year, and this year we’re seeing it. It’s very hard to know exactly what that might be.

鲍威尔：你知道，我依然以为这很难说。这次会议现已曩昔一年了，一年前咱们第四次加息75个基点。从那今后现已整整一年了。我以为咱们看到了上一年全部加息的影响，本年咱们也看到了。很难切当地知道这或许是什么。

For example, an example of where you wouldn’t have felt this yet is debt that had been termed out. But it’s going to come due and will have to get rolled over next year or the year after. So—and there are little things like that where the effects have just taken time to get into the economy.

举个比如，你或许还没有意识到这一点，那便是债款现已到期了。但它会到期，下一年或后年有必要展期。所以，像这样的小作业，其影响需求时刻才干进入经济。

So I don’t — I think we have to make monetary policy under great uncertainty about how long the lags are. I think trying to make a clear—get a clear answer and say, oh, I’m just going to assume this, is really not a good way to do it. And this is one of the reasons why we have slowed the process down this year, was to give monetary policy time to get into the economy. And it takes time. We know that. And you can’t rush it. So doing—slowing down is giving us, I think, a better sense of how much more we need to do, if we need to do more.

所以我以为咱们在拟定货币方针时有必要考虑到滞后时刻的不确认性。我以为企图弄清楚——得到一个清晰的答案，然后说，哦，我仅仅假定这一点，的确不是一个好办法。这是咱们本年怠慢这一进程的原因之一，是为了给货币方针进入经济的时刻。这需求时刻。咱们知道。你不能急于求成。所以我以为，怠慢举动速度让咱们更好地意识到，假如咱们需求做更多的作业，咱们还需求做多少。

Q&A 加息周期挨近结尾

Q: I’m trying to connect the dots here. One quick clarification I wanted to ask about Rachel’s question is you said you need slower growth. You had always said before a period of lower-than-trend growth. Has that changed?

And two, it sounds to me like you’re basically saying here that kind of the dot plot is out the window, that every meeting is live with the possibility of a rate increase for right now. It doesn’t matter about the turn of the year, and that there’s not an objective way to determine whether or not you’ve got enough tightening in the system. It’s just going to be a subjective judgment meeting by meeting.

问：我企图把这儿的点联系起来。我想快速弄清一下，在此之前，你一向说的是一段“低于趋势的添加”。这一点改动了吗？

其次，在我看来，你的意思根本上是说，点阵图现已不适用了，现在每次会议都有加息的或许性。至于年末是否加息并不重要，并且也没有一个客观的办法来确认你的系统中是否有满足的紧缩办法。这将是一个片面判别的会议。

POWELL: Well, so let’s talk about the dot plot first. So the dot plot is a picture in time of what the people on the committee think is likely to be appropriate monetary policy in light of their own personal economic forecast. In principle, when things change, it’s not—that’s not like a plan that anybody’s agreed to or that we will do. That’s a forecast that would change.

鲍威尔：好吧，让咱们先谈谈点阵图。点阵图是委员会成员依据他们个人的经济猜想以为或许恰当的货币方针的时刻图。原则上，当状况发生改动时，这并不是一个任何人都赞同的方案，也不是咱们即将履行的方案。这是一个会发生改动的猜想。

For example, I mean, many things could change that would cause people to say I wouldn’t write down that dot, you know, six weeks later. Think of the number of things that could change your mind on that. So I think the efficacy of the dot plot probably decays over the three-month period between that meeting and the next meeting. But nonetheless, it’s out there and we don’t—we do personally update our forecast, but we don’t formally update the dot plot. So, you know, I think we try to be as transparent as we can about the way we’re thinking about these things. We’re laying out our thinking. And, you know, as we approach the meeting, we’ll all—my colleagues and I, we’ll be talking about how we’re processing that data.

例如，我的意思是，许多作业都或许发生改动，导致人们在六周后说我不会写下那个点。想想有多少作业会改动你的主意。所以我以为，从那次会议到下次会议之间的三个月时刻里，点阵图的成效或许会下降。但虽然如此，它仍是存在的，并且咱们不会亲身更新咱们的猜想，但咱们不会正式更新点阵图。所以，你知道，我以为咱们在考虑这些问题时，会尽量做到通明。咱们正在论述咱们的主意。跟着会议的挨近，我和我的搭档们将议论怎样处理这些数据。

In terms of—so we’re not really changing the way—in terms of growth, what I said was below potential. So what you have here recently is growth that is temporarily—potential growth is elevated for a year or two right now over its trend level. So the right way to think about it is what’s potential growth this year.

就添加而言，我说的是低于潜力。因而，你最近在这儿看到的是暂时性的添加——潜在添加在一两年内高于其趋势水平。因而，正确的考虑办法是本年的潜在添加是多少。

People think trend growth over a long period of time is a little bit less than 2 percent, or I would say just around 2 percent. But what we’ve had is with the, you know, improvement in the size of the labor force, as I mentioned, through both participation and immigration, and with the—you know, the better functioning in the labor market and with, you know, the unwinding of the supply chain and shortages and those kinds of things, you’re seeing actually elevated potential growth. There’s catch-up growth that can happen in potential. And that means that if you’re—you could be growing at 2 percent this year and still be growing below the increase in the potential output of the economy. I hope that’s clear. That’s really what’s going on. That’s why I would say it is below potential.

人们以为，长时刻的趋势添加略低于 2%，或许我以为略高于 2%。可是，正如我所说到的，跟着劳作力规划的扩展，经过参加和移民，跟着劳作力商场的更好运作，跟着供给链的松动和缺少等要素的影响，咱们看到潜在添加率实践上在上升。潜在添加会呈现追逐性添加。这意味着，假如你本年的经济添加率抵达 2%，但依然低于经济潜在产出的添加。我期望咱们了解这一点。这才是真实的问题地点。这便是我说低于潜在产出的原因。

Q: But if you could clarify what I asked about the meeting by meeting. Are we essentially now supposed to assume that it’s a meeting-by-meeting live meeting with a chance of a rate increase that will be decided on subjective criteria rather than objective at each meeting?

问：期望您能弄清一下我关于会议的问题。咱们现在是否应该假定，每次会议都有或许依据片面规范而不是客观规范来决议加息？

POWELL: I mean, I don’t know that I want to just accept anybody’s characterization. But I’ll tell you how we’re doing this. So we’re going meeting by meeting. We’re asking ourselves whether we’ve achieved a stance of policy that is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time. That’s the question we’re asking. We’re looking at the full range of economic data, including financial conditions and all of those things that we look at. And then we’re—you know, we’ve come very far with this rate hiking cycle, very far. And you saw the spread at the September meeting of—you know, it’s a relatively small spread of people thinking one or two additional hikes. So you’re close to the end of the cycle. That was an impression as of—a belief as of September. It’s not a promise or a plan of the future.

鲍威尔：我的意思是，我不知道我是否乐意承受任何人的描绘。但我会告知你咱们是怎样做的。因而，咱们正在逐次开会。咱们在问自己，咱们的方针情绪是否现已抵达了满足的约束性，能够在一段时刻内将通胀率降至 2%。这便是咱们要问的问题。咱们正在研讨全方位的经济数据，包含金融状况和咱们研讨的全部这些东西。你知道，咱们的加息周期现已走了很远，十分远。你也看到了 9 月份会议上的不合——你知道，以为再加息一到两次的人的不合相对较小。所以，你现已挨近加息周期的结尾了。这是9月份的形象——一种信仰。这不是对未来的许诺或方案。

And so we’re going into these meetings one by one. We’re looking at the data. As I mentioned, we’re also—you know, we’re being careful. We’re proceeding carefully, because we can proceed carefully at this time. Monetary policy is restrictive. We see its effects, particularly in interest-sensitive spending and other channels. So that’s how I think about it.

因而，咱们将逐个进行这些会议。咱们正在检查数据。正如我说到的，咱们也——你知道，咱们很当心。咱们正在慎重行事，由于咱们此刻能够慎重行事。货币方针是约束性的。咱们看到了它的影响，特别是在利息灵敏开销和其他途径方面。这便是我的主意。

Q&A 不考虑改动QT速度

Q: Thanks. Hi, Chair Powell. In light of the run up in long term yields we’ve seen the last several weeks, have you given any consideration to the pace of your asset runoff program? And if there were a judgment that higher—that the higher term premium was endangering the dual mandate’s goals, would that be a reason to think about slowing or suspending QT? Or should we think of that as more of a technical question around reserves?

问：谢谢鲍威尔主席。鉴于曩昔几周咱们看到的长时刻收益率的上升，您是否考虑过缩表方案的脚步？假如有一种判别以为，更高的期限溢价正在危及两层任务的方针，这是否会成为考虑怠慢或暂停QT的理由?或许咱们应该把它看作是一个关于储藏的技术问题?

POWELL: So the committee is not considering changing the pace of balance sheet runoff. It’s not something we’re talking about or considering. And I know there are many candidate explanations for why rates have been going up. And QT is certainly on that list. It may be playing a relatively small effect, although I would say $3.3 trillion in reserves is not—I think it’s hard to make a case that reserves are even close to scarce at this point. So that’s not something that we’re—that we’re looking at right now.

鲍威尔：所以委员会没有考虑改动资产负债表减缩的脚步。这不是咱们正在议论或考虑的作业。我知道有许多原因能够解说为什么利率一向在上升，QT也是其间之一。它或许起到了相对较小的作用，虽然我想说3.3万亿美元的储藏不是——我以为很难证明现在的储藏现已挨近稀缺。所以这不是咱们现在正在考虑的问题。

Q: I wanted to ask about the Basel III endgame capital proposal. You know, you’ve gotten a lot of pushback from people on different aspects of the proposal, and you yourself expressed some reservations. And I’m just curious, could you accept finalizing that proposal without significant changes?

问：我想问一下《巴塞尔协议III》终究阶段的本钱提案。你知道，你在提案的不同方面受到了许多人的对立，你自己也表达了一些保留定见。我仅仅很猎奇，你能承受在没有严重改动的状况下敲定该提案吗？

POWELL: So that proposal is out for comment. And we expect a lot of comments. We won’t get those comments until the end of—well into next year. You know, we’ve extended the deadline. And we’ll take them seriously. We’ll read them. I’ll say, what I do expect is that we will—we will come to a—we’re a consensus-driven organization. We’ll come to a package that has broad support on the board.

鲍威尔：所以这个提案是宣布议论。咱们等候许多议论。咱们要到年末才干收到这些议论——直到下一年。你知道，咱们现已延伸了终究期限。咱们会认真对待他们。咱们会读的。我想说，我所期望的是，咱们将——咱们将成为一个——咱们是一个共同驱动的安排。咱们将达到一个得到董事会广泛支撑的方案。

Q: So does broad support mean more support than the proposal had?

问：那么，广泛的支撑是否意味着比提案获得的支撑更多？

POWELL: It means broad support.

鲍威尔：这意味着广泛的支撑。

Q&A 银行系统具有弹性

Q: Jonnelle Marte with Bloomberg. So in addition to persistence, when you look at long-term treasury yields, what else are you watching to evaluate how those tighter financial conditions are hitting the economy and if it will lessen the need for further tightening? Also, do you think that those higher yields could affect banking stress?

问：因而，除了继续性，当你查询长时刻国债收益率时，你还查询了什么来评价这些紧缩的金融状况对经济的影响，以及这是否会削减进一步紧缩的必要性？此外，你以为这些较高的收益率会影响银行业的压力吗？

POWELL: So, what do we look at? We look at a very wide range of financial conditions. In effect, as you’ll know, different organizations publish different financial conditions indexes, which can have, you know, seven or eight variables, or they can have 100 variables. So there’s a very rich environment. And we tend to look at a few of them, I’m not going to give you their names, but they’re, you know, a few of the common ones that people look at.

鲍威尔：那么，咱们重视什么？咱们重视的是十分广泛的财务状况。实践上，正如你所知，不同的安排发布不同的财务状况指数，这些指数能够有七到八个变量，也能够有100个变量。所以这儿有一个十分丰富的环境。咱们倾向于看其间的一些，我不方案给你他们的姓名，但你知道，他们是人们眼中常见的一些。

And so they’re looking at things like the level of the dollar, the level of equity prices, the level of rates, the credit spreads. Sometimes they’re pulling in credit availability and things like that. So it isn’t any one thing. We would never look at, for example, long term treasury rates in isolation. Nor will we ignore them. We would look at them as part of a broader picture. And they do play a role, of course, in many of the major standard financial condition indexes.

因而，这些指数重视的是美元水平、股票价格水平、利率水平缓信贷利差。有时会拉入信贷额度之类的东西。所以这不是一回事。例如，咱们永久不会孤登时看待长时刻国债利率。咱们也不会忽视它们。咱们会将它们视为更宽广图景的一部分。当然，在许多首要的规范财务状况指数中，它们的确发挥了作用。

Ah, banking stress. So it’s something we’re watching. As you know, we did have—there were issues with interest rate risk, and also, you know, funding uninsured deposits in the March—the things we went through in March and thereafter. And so we’ve been working a lot with financial institutions to make sure that they have good funding plans and good—and that they have a plan for how to deal with, you know, the kind of portfolio, unrealized losses, that they have. We do think the banking system is quite resilient. We had, you know, a handful of bank failures, but—so, that’s what we’re out there doing. And we don’t have any reason to think that this—that these rate hikes are materially changing that picture, which is one of a strong banking system and one where there’s a strong focus by banks and by supervisors on liquidity, on funding, and those sorts of things.

啊，银行业的压力。所以这是咱们正在重视的作业。正如你所知，咱们的确有利率危险的问题，还有，你知道，在3月份为没有稳妥的存款供给资金，咱们在3月份和之后阅历的作业。因而，咱们一向在与金融安排进行许多协作，以保证他们有杰出的融资方案，并且他们有一个怎样处理的方案，你知道，他们有一种出资组合，未完成的丢失。咱们的确以为银行系统具有恰当的弹性。咱们有几家银行封闭了，可是，这便是咱们要做的。咱们没有任何理由以为，这些加息会本质性地改动这一局势，即一个强壮的银行系统，以及银行和监管安排对流动性、融资等问题的高度重视。

Q: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Scott Horsley from NPR. Last week, you and your colleagues put forward a proposal to lower the cap on debit-card swipe fees for comment. Could you just talk a little about the considerations there—what it would mean for merchants, for banks, for consumers—and also just what you all are seeing in terms of the use of both debit and credit cards in the—in the payment system?

问：谢谢主席先生。上星期，你和你的搭档提出了一项下降借记卡刷卡费用上限的主张，寻求定见。你能谈谈其间的考虑要素吗？这对商家、银行和顾客意味着什么？以及你们在付出系统中运用借记卡和信用卡的状况吗？

POWELL: You know, so you’re right, we put a proposal out for comment, is what we did. And you know, this is—this is a job that Congress assigned us, as you of course know, in Dodd-Frank, and all we can really do is faithfully implement the statute. That’s all we’re trying to do. What else can we really do?

鲍威尔：你知道，所以你是对的，咱们提出了一个主张寻求定见，这便是咱们所做的。你知道，这是国会在多德-弗兰克法案平分配给咱们的作业，咱们所能做的便是忠实地履行法规。这便是咱们想要做的。咱们还能做什么呢？

It’s a 90-day comment period and we typically don’t comment on these things once they’re out for comment. And we do hope that stakeholders—and we know that they will use this opportunity to express their views. They haven’t been shy about that. So that’s critical, and that’s what I can say about that now.

这是一个90天的议论期，一旦这些作业寻求议论，咱们一般就不会再对此宣布议论。咱们的确期望利益相关者——咱们知道他们会使用这个时机表达自己的观念。他们对此毫不避忌。所以这很要害，这便是我现在能够说的。

Q&A 下一年年末通胀率降至2%最初

Q: Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Edward Lawrence with Fox Business. So over the last three months, the year-over-year PCE inflation was at 3.4 percent, core well over 3 percent. You’ve said in the past 2 percent remains the Federal Reserve target. But with no rate increase today, how long would you be OK, then, with a 3 percent or 3 percent plus overall inflation?

问：谢谢主席。在曩昔的三个月里，个人消费开销的同比通胀率为3.4%，中心通胀率远高于3%。你曩昔说过2%依然是美联储的方针。但假如今日不加息，那么3%或3%以上的全体通胀率能坚持多久呢？

POWELL: You know, the progress is probably going to come in lumps and be bumpy, but we’re making progress, you know. I think — I think the core PCE came down by almost 60 basis points in the third quarter. So if you—the best thing I could point you to would be the September SEP, where, you know, the expectation was that inflation by the end of next year on a 12-month trailing basis would be well into the twos and the year after that further into the twos. So that’s—if you look historically, that’s sort of consistent with the way inflation comes down. It does take some time. And as you get—you know, as you get further and further from those highs, it may actually take a longer time.

鲍威尔：你知道，开展或许会磕磕碰碰，但咱们正在获得开展。中心个人消费开销在第三季度下降了近60个基点。假如你，我能给你指出的最好的东西是9月份的经济猜想摘要陈述（SEP），你知道，那里估量到下一年年末，依照曩昔12个月的累积核算，通胀率会显着进入2%以上，再过一年后会进一步挨近2%。所以，假如你回忆历史，这与通胀率下降的办法根本一起。这的确需求一些时刻。跟着你越来越远离那些高点，实践上或许需求更长的时刻。

But the good news is we’re—you know, we’re making progress, and monetary policy is restrictive, and we feel like we’re on a path to make more progress. And it’s essential that we do.

但好音讯是，咱们正在获得开展，货币方针具有约束性，咱们以为咱们正在走上更多的开展路途。这是至关重要的。

Q: Well, you’ve said in the past that doing too little on interest rates could take years to fix but the cost of doing too much could be easily fixed. How robust was the debate about this pause on the doing-too-little side?

问：您曩昔曾标明，利率过低或许需求数年才干批改，但过度干涉的本钱能够很简单批改。关于这种关于削减干涉的暂停，争辩有多剧烈？

POWELL: That’s always the question we’re asking ourselves. And we know that if we—if we fail to restore price stability, the risk is that expectations of higher inflation get entrenched in the economy. And we know that that’s really bad for people; inflation will be both more—both higher and more volatile. That’s a prescription for misery. And so we’re really committed to not letting that happen.

鲍威尔：这总是咱们在问自己的问题。咱们知道，假如咱们无法康复物价安稳，那么通胀预期或许会在经济中根深柢固。咱们知道这对人们来说真的很糟糕；通胀率将更高且更不安稳。这是凄惨的征兆。所以咱们真的致力于不让这种状况发生。

You know, for the first year or so of our tightening cycle, the risk was all on the side of not doing enough. You know, we’re—we’ve come far enough that the risks, you know, have gotten more two-sided. You can’t identify that with a lot of precision, but it does feel like the risks are more two-sided now. And—but we’re committed to getting inflation back down to our target over time, and we will.

你知道，在咱们紧缩周期的榜首年左右，危险彻底在没有采纳满足举动的一边。咱们现已走得满足远，危险变得更具双面性。你不能十分准确地确认，但现在感觉危险愈加双面。但咱们致力于在未来将通胀率降回方针水平，并且咱们会做到的。

Q&A 大众对通胀预期杰出

Q: Quick follow up to the question about banking stresses. You talked about how the banking system is resilient. Of course, part of the resilience of the past year stems from the Bank Term Funding Program that you launched in March. Given that bond prices have not recovered, that unrealized losses are probably mounting, how likely is it that you might have to extend that program in March next year?

问：关于银行压力的问题的快速跟进。您谈到了银行系统的弹性。当然，曩昔一年的部分弹性来自您在三月份推出的银行期限资金方案。考虑到债券价格没有康复，未完成丢失或许在添加，您或许需求在下一年三月延伸该方案的或许性有多大？

POWELL: Good question. We haven’t really—we haven’t really been thinking about that yet. We—you know, it’s November 1, and that’s a decision we’ll be making in the first quarter of next year.

鲍威尔：好问题。咱们还没有真实考虑过这个问题。现在是11月1日，这是咱们将在下一年榜首季度做出的决议。

Q: OK. Sorry, quick separate question about inflation expectations. The U. Michigan sentiment survey showed a big jump in one-year-ahead inflation expectations last month, from 3.2 to 4.2. Last year, you said that particular survey was a really decisive factor in one of your rate-hike decisions. If it stays elevated next time around, how big of an input will that be into your December thinking?

问: 好的。抱愧，关于通胀预期的一个独立问题。密歇根大学的民意查询显现，上个月一年后的通胀预期大幅上升，从3.2%上升到4.2%。上一年，您曾标明该查询在您的加息决议中起到了十分决议性的作用。假如下一次坚持高位，那么这将对您十二月的考虑发生多大影响？

POWELL: Yeah. We look at a range of things. I think the—you know, the UM thing got blown out of proportion a little bit. It was actually a preliminary estimate that got revised away. And I said it was preliminary in it, but that didn’t get picked up. So we look at many, many things, and so, really, look across the broad array of surveys and also market-based estimates. And you know—and we do that really carefully at every meeting and between meetings. You know, it’s just clear that inflation expectations are in a good place. The public does believe that inflation will get back down to 2 percent over time and it will. They’re right.

鲍威尔：是的。咱们会重视许多方面。我以为密歇根大学的那个查询有些被夸张了。实践上，那仅仅一个开端估量，后来被批改掉了。我在其间说到它是开端估量，但这没有被注意到。所以咱们会查询许多作业，的确是在各种查询和商场估量中进行仔细查询。你知道，很显着通胀预期处于一个杰出的方位。大众的坚信任通胀会跟着时刻消逝回落到2%的水平，并且它会。他们是对的。

So there’s no real crack in that armor. You can always find one reading that is a little bit out of whack. But, honestly, the bulk of them are just very clear that the public believes that inflation will come down and that’s—of course, we believe that’s critical in winning the battle.

因而，在这一点上并没有真实的漏洞。你总是能够找到一些稍微不契合预期的读数。但老实说，大部分状况下都十分清晰，大众以为通胀会下降，而咱们当然以为这关于赢得这场战役至关重要。

Q&A 关于中性利率

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Megan Cassella with Barron’s. Thanks for taking our questions. I wanted to see if you could talk about the neutral rate. You mentioned today that you’re still debating whether rates are sufficiently restrictive and you’ve recently said that evidence is suggesting policy is not too tight right now. So I was curious if you could elaborate on that at all and whether that means the neutral rate, in your view, has risen.

问：嗨，鲍威尔主席。感谢您答复咱们的问题。我想知道您是否能够谈谈中性利率。您今日说到您仍在议论利率是否满足约束性，最近您也标明依据标明现在的方针并不过紧。因而，我想知道您是否能就此打开更多论述，以及这是否意味着在您看来，中性利率现已上升了。

POWELL: Yeah. So the first thing to say is that it’s very important—it’s a very important variable in the way we think about monetary policy. But you can’t identify it with any precision in real time and we know that.

鲍威尔：是的。首要要说的是，这是咱们考虑货币方针的一个十分重要的变量。但你不能在实时中准确确认它，咱们知道这一点。

So you have to just take that—you have to take your estimate of it with a grain of salt. What we know now is, you know, within a range of estimates of the neutral rate policy is restrictive and it’s therefore putting downward pressure on economic activity, hiring, and inflation.

所以你有必要只能带着置疑的情绪来承受你对它的估量。咱们现在知道的是，在中性利率估量规模内，方针是约束性的，因而它正在对经济活动、作业和通胀施加下行压力。

So we do talk about this. There’s not any debate or, you know, attempt to, you know, to sort of agree as a group on what—whether R-star is moving or not. Some people think it has. Some people haven’t said—don’t think it has.

所以咱们确真实议论这个问题。并不是有任何争辩或许企图一起赞同R*是否在移动的测验。有些人以为它现已移动了，有些人没有标明认同。

Ultimately, it’s unknowable and so, really, again, what we’re focused on is, you know, looking at the data and giving ourselves a little more time now to look carefully at the data by being careful in our moves. Does it feel like monetary policy is restrictive enough to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time? That’s the question we’re asking ourselves. I think, you know, years from now economists will be revising their estimates of R-star as it existed on November 1, 2023. You can’t—we can’t really wait for that in making policy. We have to look—we have to have those models and look at them and think about them but, ultimately, we’ve got to look at the effects the policy is having accounting for the lags, which makes it difficult.

终究，这是不可知的，所以，再次着重，咱们重视的是，看着数据并给自己更多时刻仔细查询数据，经过慎重举动。货币方针是否满足约束性，以使通胀率跟着时刻降至2%？这是咱们在问自己的问题。我以为，你知道，多年今后经济学家会批改他们对R*的估量，就像它在2023年11月1日的状况相同。咱们无法等候这一点来拟定方针。咱们有必要看着这些模型并考虑它们，但终究，咱们有必要看方针发生的作用，考虑滞后效应，这使得状况变得困难。

Q&A 薪酬不是推高通胀的首要要素

Q: If I could follow up on a wages point earlier. You talked about the inflation outlook. But I’m curious if you have any concerns whether wage inflation at its current level could be—could risk pushing up overall inflation or reacceleration.

问: 请答应我能在从前的薪酬问题上跟进一下。您谈到了通胀展望。但我想知道您是否忧虑当时水平的薪酬通胀或许会推高全体通胀或从头加快。

POWELL: So if you look at the broad range of wages they have—the wage increases have really come down significantly over the course of the last 18 months to a level where they’re substantially closer to that level that would be consistent with 2 percent inflation over time, making standard assumptions about productivity over time.

鲍威尔：所以，假如你看一下广泛的薪酬规模，你会发现薪酬添加在曩昔18个月中实践上显着下降，现在它们与跟着时刻推移关于生产率的规范假定下契合2%通胀的水平相差不大。

So it’s much closer than it was, and that’s true of the ECI, which is the one that we got this week. It’s true of average hourly earnings and compensation per hour, too, and all of them are kind of saying that, which is great, and you have to look at a group of them because any one of them can be idiosyncratic from—in any given reading.

所以现在它比曩昔更挨近这个水平，这关于本周咱们得到的劳工本钱指数（ECI）也是如此。均匀时薪和每小时酬劳也是如此，全部这些数据都在传达相同的信息，这十分好。你有必要查询一组数据，由于其间任何一个都或许是特定读数中的特例。

So that’s what you see, and so what you saw with the ECI reading was if you look back—it comes out four times a year. If you look back a couple of quarters you’ll see it was much higher and then it came down substantially in June, and then the September reading was more or less at the same level as the June reading. So, in a way, it’s just validating that decline and it was very close to our expectations internally, too.

这便是你所看到的状况，所以你在劳工本钱指数的读数中看到的是，假如你回忆一两个季度，你会发现它之前要高得多，然后在6月份大幅下降，而9月的读数根本上与6月的水平相同。所以，在某种程度上，这仅仅证明了这一下降，并且与咱们内部的预期十分挨近。

So I think we feel good about that. Also I would say it isn’t—in my thinking, it’s not the case that wages have been the principal driver of inflation so far, although I think it’s—I do think it’s fair to say that as we go forward, as monetary policy becomes more important relative to the supply side issues I talked about in the unwinding of the pandemic effects, it may be that the labor market becomes more important over time, too.

所以我以为咱们对此感到满足。此外，我要说的是，在我的观念中，薪酬并不是迄今为止通胀的首要推进要素，虽然我以为公平地说，跟着货币方针在相关于我所议论的免除大盛行效应的供给方面变得愈加重要，跟着时刻的推移，劳作力商场或许也变得愈加重要。

Q&A 危险越来越平衡

Q: Hi. Nancy Marshall-Genzer with Marketplace. Chair Powell, are you now as concerned about overshooting and raising interest rates too much as you are about getting inflation down to the 2 percent target?

问: 鲍威尔主席，您现在是否像忧虑通胀率降至2%的方针相同忧虑利率超谐和加息过多？

POWELL: So as I mentioned, I think for much of the last year and a half the concern was not doing too—not doing enough. It was not getting rates high enough in time to avoid having inflation expectations—higher inflation expectations become entrenched. So that was the concern.

鲍威尔：正如我所说到的，我以为在曩昔一年半的大部分时刻里，忧虑的不是做得太多，而是不行。要害是没有及时将利率进步到防止通胀预期根深柢固的水平。所以这是咱们的忧虑。

I think we’ve reached, you know, now more than 18 months into this, you can see by the fact that we have slowed down—although we’re still—we’re still—we’re still trying to gain confidence in what the appropriate stance is. But you can see that we think, and I think, that the risks are getting more balanced. I’ll just say that they’re getting more balanced. The risk of doing too much versus the risk of doing too little are getting—are getting closer to balance.

我以为咱们现已抵达了，你知道，现在现已超越18个月了，你能够看到，咱们现已怠慢了速度，虽然咱们依然企图在恰当的情绪上获得决心。但你能够看到，咱们以为危险正变得愈加平衡。我就说它们变得更平衡了。做得太多的危险和做得太少的危险正趋于平衡。

Because policy is, I think, clearly restrictive at 5 ¼ to 5 ½ percent, that range. If you take off a mainstream estimate of the—of the expected inflation, take one year inflation, you’re going to see that—you’re going to see a real policy rate that is, you know, well above mainstream estimates of a neutral policy rate. Now that’s arithmetic. It doesn’t really—the proof is really in how the economy reacts. But I would say that we’re in a place where those risks are getting closer to being in balance.

由于我以为，方针在5.25%到5.5%的规模内显着是约束性的。假如你去掉对预期通货膨胀的干流估量，取一年的通货膨胀，你会看到一个实践方针利率，你知道，远高于对中性方针利率的干流估量。这仅仅数学。真实的依据在于经济的反响。但我会说，咱们正处于危险越来越平衡的方位。

Q: And you said the proof is how the economy reacts. What are you looking at to be sure you’re not overshooting?

问：你说依据在于经济的反响。您看到什么来保证您没有过度进步利率？

POWELL: Well, I think what we’re looking at is, are we still—is inflation still broadly cooling? Do we – is it sort of validating the path we saw over the summer, where inflation was clearly cooling and coming down? Now we’ve seen periods like that before, and they’ve just—there hasn’t been follow-through, the data have bounced back. So what are we seeing? You know, are we seeing—is inflation still coming down? So that’s the first thing.

鲍威尔：我以为咱们正在重视的是，通胀是否依然在广泛降温？咱们是否——它是否验证了咱们在夏日看到的途径，那时通胀显着在降温文下降？现在咱们曾经也见过这种状况，但没有随之而来，数据反弹了。所以咱们看到了什么？你知道，咱们是否看到——通胀是否依然在下降？这是榜首件事。

Second thing is, in the labor market, what we’ve seen is a very positive rebalancing of supply and demand, partly through just much more supply coming online. And with labor demand still clearly remaining very strong, when you have the kind of job growth we’ve had over the last quarter. It’s still very strong demand. And you see wage increases coming down, as we discussed, but coming down, you know, in a kind of gradual way. I think that’s what we want to see, that that whole set of processes continue.

其次，在劳作力商场，咱们看到了供需的活跃再平衡，部分原因是更多的劳作力供给进入商场。劳作力需求依然十分激烈，当你看到咱们在曩昔一个季度所获得的作业添加时，就会显着感到需求依然十分激烈。你知道，咱们议论过薪酬添加，但薪酬添加逐步下降。我以为这是咱们想看到的，整个进程的继续。

Q&A 或许轻视家庭和小企业的资产负债表实力

Q: Do you think that there’s—has been any structural change in either consumption or in the job market that’s pushing up consumption? You obviously saw the third quarter GDP figures, which were strong, and some economists have expected everyone’s spending to have fizzled out by now. So I’m kind of wondering if there’s been any structural change in consumption?

问：您是否以为在消费或作业商场方面有任何结构性改动推进了消费？显着，您看到了第三季度的GDP数据，这些数据十分微弱，一些经济学家估量每个人的支呈现在应该现已衰退了。所以我想知道是否消费方面有任何结构性的改动？

POWELL: I wouldn’t say there’s been a structural change in consumption. I would say it’s certainly been strong. And so a couple of things. We may have underestimated the balance sheet strength of households and small businesses, and that may be part of it. There may be—you know, we’ve been, like everyone else, trying to estimate the number of—the amount of savings that households have from the pandemic, when they couldn’t spend on services really at all—or, you know, in-person services. And, you know, there can still be more of that than we think, although at a certain point we have to—we’re going to be getting back to prepandemic levels of savings. We may not be there yet.

鲍威尔先生：我不会说消费方面有结构性改动。我会说它的确很微弱。所以有几件作业。咱们或许轻视了家庭和小企业的资产负债表实力，这或许是其间的一部分。或许有——你知道，咱们和其他人相同，一向在测验预算家庭在大盛行期间无法真实消费服务时所存储的储蓄金额，或许说在现场服务方面。在某种程度上，咱们或许仍有更多的存款，虽然在某一点上，咱们将会回到大盛行前的存款水平。或许咱们现在还没有抵达那个水平。

So things are—clearly, people are still spending. The dynamic has been really strong job creation, with now wages that are—that are higher than inflation in the aggregate, anyway. And that raises real disposable income. And that raises spending, which continues to drive more hiring. And so you’ve had a really—that whole—that whole dynamic has been—and also, at the same time, the pandemic effects are wearing off so that goods availability, automobile availability, is better—or, was better, I think it still is. And they’re—and from a business standpoint, there are more people to hire and there’s more labor supply.

所以状况是——显着，人们仍在消费。动态的要害是作业岗位的真实微弱添加，现在的薪酬在全体上高于通货膨胀。这进步了实践可支配收入。这导致开销添加，从而继续推进更多的作业。所以整个动态是——还有，一起，大盛行的影响正在衰退，因而产品供给、轿车供给更富余——或许说曾经更富余，我以为现在依然如此。并且从企业的视点来看，有更多的人能够雇佣，劳作力供给更足够。

So the whole thing has led to more growth, more spending, and that kind of thing. And it’s been—you know, it’s been good. And the thing is, we’ve been achieving progress on inflation in the middle of this. So it’s been a dynamic. The question is, how long can that continue? And, you know, I just think this—the existence of this second set of factors at this time, which is the unwinding of the pandemic effects, that’s what makes this cycle unique, I think. And, you know, we’re still learning. It took longer for that process to begin than we thought, and we’re still learning about how it plays out. That’s all we can do.

因而全体而言，这些要素导致了更多的添加、更多的开销等。这全部都很好。问题是，这种状况能够继续多久？我以为，此刻第二组要素的存在，即大盛行效应的衰退，使得这个周期具有独特性。咱们仍在学习。这个进程开端的时刻比咱们预期的要长，咱们仍在了解它的开展状况。这便是咱们能做的全部。

Q&A 关于地缘抵触

Q: Thank you, Chair Powell. Just a quick question following up on an earlier one, with regards to the Israel-Hamas conflict. You know, the Fed’s financial stability report said that the Israel-Hamas conflict and the conflict in Ukraine pose important risks to global economic activity, including the possibility of sustained disruptions to regional trade in food, energy, and other commodities. You’ve had organizations like the World Bank warning of possible, you know, surge in oil prices if the war spreads to other countries in the region. I’m just wondering how the Fed is monitoring these developments in the Middle East. You mentioned they are. And just what, you know, the potential economic impact could be if the conflict does spread to other countries in the region. Thank you.

问：谢谢你，鲍威尔主席。这仅仅一个关于以色列-哈马斯抵触的快速问题。你知道，美联储的金融安稳陈述称，以色列-哈马斯抵触和乌克兰抵触对全球经济活动构成了重要危险，包含粮食、动力和其他大宗产品的区域交易或许继续中止。世界银行等安排正告说，假如抵触延伸到该区域其他国家，油价或许会飙升。我仅仅想知道美联储是怎样监测中东的这些事态开展的。你说到他们是。你知道，假如抵触真的延伸到该区域的其他国家，潜在的经济影响会是什么。十分感谢。

POWELL: I wouldn’t want to speculate too much. But I’ll just say, so, you know, really the question there is, does the war spread more widely, and does it start to do things like affect oil prices, in particular, since this is the Middle East, we’re talking about? The price of oil has really not reacted very much so far to this. You know, as the Fed, as the Federal Open Market Committee, our job is really to talk about, to understand the economy and the economic effects. And it isn’t clear at this point that the conflict in the Middle East is going to—is on track to have significant economic effects.

鲍威尔：我不想猜想太多。但我只想说，所以，你知道，真实的问题是，抵触是否延伸得更广，它是否开端影响油价，特别是由于咱们议论的是中东？到现在为止，石油价格的确没有对此做出太大反响。你知道，作为美联储，作为联邦公开商场委员会，咱们的作业实践上是议论，了解经济和经济影响。现在还不清楚中东抵触是否会对经济发生严重影响。

That doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly important and something for people to—you know, to take really important notice of. But it may or may not turn out to be something that matters for the Federal Open Market Committee as an economic body. But what the financial stability report does is it calls out risks. And that’s what it’s doing is, calling out a risk of that. And the war in Ukraine, the same. The war in Ukraine, you know, did have immediately very significant macroeconomic implications, because of the connection to commodities. So, thank you.

这并不意味着它不是十分重要的，对人们来说是十分重要的。但关于作为一个经济安排的联邦公开商场委员会来说，这或许是重要的，也或许不是。但金融安稳陈述所做的是指出了危险。这便是它所做的，它发出了这样的危险。乌克兰抵触也是如此。你知道，乌克兰抵触的确当即发生了十分严重的宏观经济影响，由于它与大宗产品有关。所以，谢谢你。

本文来自华尔街见识，欢迎下载APP检查更多

告发/反应