各位，我们今天做点不一样的事情。通常美联储的议息会议后主席鲍威尔都会举行新闻发布会并讲开幕词，接下来就是答记者问环节，开幕词和FOMC的会议简要在美联储的官网上可以下载，但是这个答记者问环节是没有文稿下载的，官网上只有视频。我把视频中答记者问环节的文字扣下来花了不少时间，有外网检索经验可以在后面留言交流下怎么找到这个答记者问环节的英文原文，在此先谢过。好，我们先讲开幕词和FOMC报告，这两部分我就直接说中文了。【

（开幕词）下午好，欢迎光临。我和我的同事都明白高通胀所带来的困难，我们坚决致力把通胀率降低至2%的目标。过去一年，我们采取有力措施收紧货币政策立场。我们已经覆盖了很多领域，迄今为止，我们快速收紧政策的全部影响尚未显现。即便如此，我们仍有更多的工作要做。价格稳定是美联储的责任，是我们经济的基石。没有价格稳定，经济对任何人都没有好处。特别是，如果没有价格稳定，我们将无法实现一个持续的劳动力市场条件，使所有人受益。

今天，FOMC将我们的政策利率提高了 25 个基点（符合市场的预期）。我们继续预计，正在进行的加息将是适当的，以获得一个足够限制立场的货币政策，使通货膨胀率恢复到2%。此外，我们还在继续大幅缩减资产负债表规模。恢复价格稳定可能需要在一段时间内保持限制性立场。在简要回顾经济发展之后，我将对今天的货币政策行动有更多的话要说。

【按照本号的惯例，我们来看下美联储最新的缩表规模，数据怎么找之前的内容讲过，详见《如何看缩表》《我们注意美联储加息，但往往忽视缩表》等，最新一期的缩表规模约为738亿美元（缩表上限为950亿美元），见下图

日期

百万美元

缩表规模（-为缩）

2月2日

8,433,610

-73,819

1月4日

8,507,429

-77,147

12月1日

8,584,576

-92,294

11月2日

8,676,870

-82,183

10月6日

8,759,053

-67,040

9月1日

8,826,093

-48,527

8月3日

8,874,620

-17,231

7月6日

8,891,851

-23,199

6月1日

8,915,050

-24,922

5月4日

8,939,972

2,380

4月6日

8,937,592

33,137

3月2日

8,904,455

31,244

2月2日

8,873,211

107,490

整体而言，缩表规模小幅下滑，但没有距离缩表上限太远，货币政策继续紧缩】

（回正文）去年美国经济明显放缓，实际GDP增长率低于趋势值 1%。最近的指标表明本季度消费和生产适度增长。消费支出似乎增长缓慢，这在一定程度上反映了过去一年金融状况的收紧。住房部门的活动继续减弱，很大程度上反映出抵押贷款利率上升。利率上升和产出增长放缓似乎也在给企业固定投资带来压力。【GDP、固定资产投资的相关扩展内容请看《如何看待我们的1月份PMI？如何看待欧美GDP等数据？如何指引加息》】

尽管经济增长放缓，但劳动力市场仍然极度紧张，失业率处于50年来的最低水平，职位空缺率仍然非常高，工资增长也很快。就业增长一直很强劲，过去三个月平均每月增加 247，000个工作岗位。尽管过去一年就业增长速度有所放缓，名义工资增长也出现了一些放缓迹象，但劳动力市场仍然失衡。劳动力需求大大超过可用劳动力的供应，劳动力参与率与一年前相比几乎没有变化。

通胀率仍远高于我们 2%的长期目标。在截至12 月份的 12个月由，PCE 总房价上涨了 5.0%;剔除波动性较大的食品和能源类别，PCE 核心产品价格上涨了 4.4%。过去三个月收到的通货膨胀数据表明，每月增长速度有了可喜的下降。虽然最近的事态发展令人鼓舞，但我们需要更多的证据，才能相信通胀正在持续下行。

尽管通胀率上升，但长期通胀预期似乎仍然固定不变，这反映在对家庭、企业和预测者的广泛调查以及金融市场的措施中。但这并不是自满的理由。虽然通货膨胀最近有所缓和，但仍然过高。本轮高通胀持续的时间越长，高通胀预期变得根深蒂固的可能性就越大。

美联储货币政策行动的指导原则是，我们的任务是为美国人民促进最大限度的就业和稳定的物价。我和我的同事们清楚地认识到，高通胀给人们带来了巨大的困难，因为它侵蚀了人们的购买力，特别是那些最无力支付食品、住房和交通等必需品较高成本的人们。我们高度关注通货膨胀给我们两方面任务带来的风险，我们坚定地致力于让通货膨胀回到我们 2%的目标。

在今天的会议上，委员会将联邦基金利率的目标范围提高了25个基点，使目标范围达到 4-1/2 至4-3/4%（4.50%-4.75%）。我们还在继续大幅缩减资产负债表的规模。

通过今天的行动，我们在过去一年中把利率提高了4-1/2个百分点。我们继续预计，联邦基金利率的目标范围内的持续增长将是适当的，以便获得足够限制立场的货币政策的立场，使通货膨胀率恢复到 2%。

我们正在看到我们的政策行动对经济中对利率最为敏感的部门，特别是住房需求的影响。然而，货币限制的全部影响，尤其是对通胀的影响，还需要一段时间才能实现。鉴干货币政策的累积性收紧，以及货币政策在影响经济活动和通胀方面的滞后性，委员会今天决定将利率提高 25 个基点，继续从去年的快速增长步伐中回落。放慢节奏会让委员会更好地评估经济在实现目标方面取得的进展，从而确定今后需要提高到何种程度，才能获得足够的限制性立场。我们将继续逐项作出决策，同时考虑所有即将到来的数据及其对经济活动和通胀前景的影响。

我们一直在采取有力措施抑制需求，使之更好地与供应保持一致。我们的首要目标是利用工具将通胀率控制在2%以内，同时保持合理的长期通胀预期。降低通胀可能需要一段低于趋垫的增长期，以及劳动力市场状况的一些软化。恢复价格稳定对于为实现最大化就业和长期稳定的价格创造条件至关重要。历史记录强烈警告不要过早放松政策。我们将坚持到底，直到任务完成。

总之，我们理解我们的行动影响着全国各地的社区、家庭和企业。我们所做的一切都是为我们的公共使命服务。我们美联储将竭尽全力实现我们的最大就业和价格稳定目标。谢谢你。我期待着你的问题。

【至此，开幕词讲完，FOMC纪要简介就不说了，和上面差不多，小结一下：这次的内容除了加息25个基点，和之前的内容并无出入，各位，美联储并没有松口提暂停加息等“鸽派”言论，接下来我们进入重点环节：答记者问，这些记者问的问题都是市场关注的，所以鲍威尔的回答就很关键了！经常有人会问：国外金融看什么网站，很简单嘛，你看下面什么报社的记者问，你重点可以从中挑一些看。答记者问这个事情本号第一次做，既然是首次，那我们就做细致些，直接给大家原文并做一些解读，看看这周的美股大涨是否偏乐观了些】

Q: Chris Rugaber, Associated Press. Thank you for doing this.

As you know, financial conditions have loosened since the fall with bond yields falling, which has also brought down mortgage rates and the stock market posted a solid gain in January. Does that make your job of combating inflation harder and could you see lifting rates higher than you otherwise would to offset the increase in—or to offset the easing of financial conditions?

MR. POWELL: So it is important that overall financial conditions continue to reflect the policy restraint that we’re putting in place in order to bring inflation down to 2 percent, and, of course, financial conditions have tightened very significantly over the past year.

I would say that our focus is not on short-term moves but on sustained changes to broader financial conditions and it is our judgment that we’re not yet at a sufficiently restrictive policy stance, which is why we say that we expect ongoing hikes will be appropriate. Of course, many things affect financial conditions, not just our policy, and we will take into account overall financial conditions along with many other factors as we set policy.

问：Chris Rugaber，美联社。谢谢你做这个。

如你所知，自秋天以来，金融条件已经放松，债券收益率下降，这也使抵押贷款利率下降，股市在1月份公布了一个坚实的收益。这是否使你打击通货膨胀的工作更加困难，你是否可以看到提高利率，以抵消金融条件的宽松？

鲍威尔：因此，重要的是，整体金融条件继续反映出我们正在实施的政策限制，以便将通胀率降至2%，当然，金融条件在过去一年中已经非常明显地收紧。

我想说，我们的重点不是短期的动作，而是更广泛的金融条件的持续变化，我们的判断是，我们还没有达到足够的限制性政策立场，这就是为什么我们说，我们预计持续加息将是适当的。当然，影响金融条件的事情很多，不仅仅是我们的政策，我们在制定政策时将考虑整体金融条件和其他许多因素。

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Thank you for taking our questions. Rachel Siegel from The Washington Post.

Over the last quarter we’ve seen a deceleration in prices, in wages, and a fall in consumer spending, all while the unemployment rate has been able to stay at a historic low. Does this at all change your view of how much the unemployment rate would need to go up, if at all, to see inflation come down to the levels you’re looking for?

MR. POWELL: So I would say it is a good thing that the disinflation that we have seen so far has not come at the expense of a weaker labor market.

But I would also say that that disinflationary process thatyou now see under way is really at an early stage. What you see is really in the goods sector.You see inflation now coming down because supply chains have been fixed, demand is shifting back to services, and shortages have been abated. So you see that.

In the other—in the housing services sector we expect inflation to continue moving up for a while but then to come down, assuming thatnew leasescontinue to be lower. So in those two sectors you’ve got a good story. The issue is thatwe have a large sector called non-housing service—core non-housing services where we don’t see disinflation yet. But I would say that so far what we see is progress but without any weakening in labor market conditions.

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。谢谢你接受我们的问题。我是《华盛顿邮报》的Rachel Siegel。在过去一个季度里，我们看到价格、工资和消费支出都在下降，而失业率一直能够保持在历史低位。这是否改变了你对失业率的看法？失业率需要上升多少，才看到通胀率下降到你所寻找的水平？（各位，是不是觉得这些记者问的问题很有水平？这些都是市场中的不确定性因素！）

鲍威尔：所以我想说，到目前为止，我们看到的通货紧缩并没有以劳动力市场的疲软为代价，这是一件好事。但我也想说，你现在看到的通货紧缩的过程只是处于早期阶段。你看到的实际上是在商品部门（商品通胀项）。你看到通货膨胀现在正在下降，因为供应链问题已经解决，需求正在转移到服务上，而且短缺已经得到缓解。所以你看到了这一点。在其他方面--住房服务部分，我们预计通胀率将继续上升一段时间，但随后会下降，假设新的租赁合同继续降低。所以在这两个部门，你已经有了一个好的苗头。问题是，我们有一个很大的部门（份），叫做非住房服务--核心非住房服务，我们还没有看到通货膨胀减弱。我们看到了进展，同时没有造成任何劳动力市场的削弱。

Q: Has your expectation for where the unemployment rate might go changed since December?

MR. POWELL: You know, we’re going to write down new forecasts atthe March meetingand we’ll see at that time. I will say that it is gratifying to see the disinflationary process now getting under way, and we continue to get strong labor market data. So, but, you know, we’ll update those forecasts in March.

问：自12月以来，你对失业率可能走向的预期是否有变化？

鲍威尔：你知道，我们将在3月份的会议上写下新的预测，届时我们会看到。我想说的是，看到通货紧缩的进程正在进行，我们继续得到强有力的劳动力市场数据，这是令人高兴的。所以，但是，你知道，我们将在3月份更新这些预测。

【各位，美联储下次议息会议什么时候？3月21日。说到这，看过之前内容的朋友们应该可以理解为什么本号把很重要的一个时间节点定为一季度末，它是很多事件的时间节点。我们跟踪的数据和信息多了，就会有个大致时间节点出来，这些节点出现的信息非常有可能主导下一次的趋势，而你慢慢也会习得这些，这是跟踪数据的福利】

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Neil Irwin with Axios.

You and some of your colleagues have emphasized the possibility that job openings could come down and that that would let some of the air out of the labor market without major losses. We saw the opposite in the December JOLTS this morning, job openings actually rising. That also coincided with a slowdown in wage inflation. Do you believe that openings are an important indicator to be studying to understand where the labor market is and where wage inflation might be heading?

MR. POWELL: So you’re right about the data, of course. We did see—we’ve seen average hourly earnings and now the employment cost index abating a little bit, still off of their highs of six months ago and more,but still at levels that are fairly elevated. The job openings number has been—in JOLTS has been quite volatile recently. I did see that it moved back up this morning. I do think that it’s probably an important indicator.The ratio, I guess, is back up to 1.9 job openings to unemployed people, people who are looking for work.So it’s an indicator, but nonetheless, we—you’re right: We do see wages moving down.If you look across the rest of the labor market, you still see very high payroll job creation, and you know, quits are still at an elevated level. So by many, many indicators, the job market is still very strong.

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。我是Axios的Neil Irwin。你和你的一些同事都强调了职位空缺可能会下降，这将使劳动力市场的（紧张）状况得到缓解，而不会出现重大失业。今天早上，我们在12月的JOLTS中看到了相反的情况，职位空缺实际上在增加。这也与工资通胀的放缓相吻合。你是否认为职位空缺是一个重要的指标，以了解劳动力市场的情况和工资通胀可能的走向？

鲍威尔：当然，你对数据的看法是正确的。我们确实看到，我们已经看到平均时薪和现在的就业成本指数有一点减弱，脱离了六个月前的高点，但仍然处于相当高的水平。职位空缺数最近一直在JOLTS中相当不稳定。我确实看到它今天早上回升了。我确实认为这可能是一个重要的指标。我想，这个比例已经回升到1.9个职位空缺对应1个失业者，即正在寻找工作的人的比例。所以这是一个指标，但尽管如此，我们--你是对的。我们确实看到工资在下降。如果你看一下整个劳动力市场的其余部分，你仍然看到非常高工资的岗位创造，而且你知道，辞职仍然处于一个高位。因此，从许多、许多指标来看，就业市场仍然非常强劲。

Q: Thank you. Colby Smith with The Financial Times.

Given the economic data since the December meeting, is the trajectory for the fed-funds rate in the most recent SEP still the best guidepost for the policy path forward, or does ongoing now mean more than two rate rises now?

MR. POWELL: So you’re right: At the December meeting we all wrote down our best estimates of what we thought the ultimate level would be, and that’s obviously backin December, and the median for that was between 5 and 5.25 percent. At the March meeting we’re going to update those assessments. We did not update them today. We did, however, continue to say that we believe ongoing rate hikes would be appropriate to attain a sufficiently restrictive stance of policy to bring inflation back down to 2 percent.

We think we’ve covered a lot of ground, and financial conditions have certainly tightened. And I would say we still think there’s work to do there. We haven’t made a decision on exactly where that will be. I think, you know, we’re going to be looking carefully at the incoming data between now and the March meeting and then the May meeting.I don’t feel a lot of certainty about where that will be. It could certainly be higher than we’re writing down right now. If we come to the view that we need to write down—you know,to move rates up beyond what we said in December, we would certainly do that. At the same time, if the data come in in the other direction, then we’ll—you know, we’ll make data-dependent decisions at coming meetings, of course.

问：谢谢你。金融时报的科尔比-史密斯。考虑到12月会议以来的经济数据，最近一次SEP中的联邦基金利率轨迹是否仍然是未来政策路径的最佳指针，或者说现在的持续意味着未来不止两次加息？

鲍威尔：所以你是对的。在12月的会议上，我们都写下了我们认为最终水平的最佳估计，这显然是在12月的时候，而这个估计的中值是在5%到5.25%之间。在3月份的会议上，我们将更新这些评估。我们今天没有更新它们。然而，我们确实继续说，我们认为持续的加息是适当的，以达到足够的限制性政策立场，使通货膨胀率回落到2％。

我们认为我们已经覆盖了很多地方，而且金融条件肯定已经收紧了。我想说，我们仍然认为有工作要做。我们还没有就（利率峰值）具体位置做出决定。我认为，你知道，我们将仔细观察从现在到3月会议和5月会议之间的传入数据。我不觉得有什么把握，这将是什么。它肯定会比我们现在写下的要高。如果我们认为我们需要写下什么--你知道，将利率提高到超过我们在之前12月评估时所说的水平，我们肯定会这样做。同时，如果数据朝着另一个方向发展，那么我们将--你知道，我们将在接下来的会议上做出取决于数据的决定，当然。

Q: Just a specific follow-up. How are you viewing the kind of balance of risk between those two options of, you know, the likelihood of maybe falling short of that or going beyond that level?

MR. POWELL: I guess I would say it this way: I continue to think thatit’s very difficult to manage the risk of doing too littleand finding out in six or 12 months thatwe actually were close but didn’t get the job done and inflation springs back and we have to go back in,and now you really do worry about expectations getting unanchored and that kind of thing. This is a very difficult risk to manage, whereas—you know, of course we have no incentive and no desire to over-tighten. But, you know, ifwe feel like we’ve gone too far we can certainly—and inflation is coming down faster than we expect, then we have tools that would work on that.

So I do think that in this situation where we havestill the highest inflation in 40 years,you know, the job is not fully done. As I mentioned—started to mention earlier, we havea sector that represents 56 percent of the core inflation index where we don’t see disinflation yet. So we don’t see it. It’s not happening yet.Inflation in that core services ex-housing is still running at 4 percent on a six and 12 month basis. So there’s not—nothing happening there. In the other two sectors, representing, you know, less than 50 percent, you actually, I think, now have a story that is credible, that’s coming together. Although, you don’t actually see disinflation yet in housing services, but it’s in the pipeline, right? So for the third sector, we don’t see anything here.

So I think it would be premature.It would be very premature to declare victory, or to think that we’ve really got this.We need to see—our goal, of course, is to bring inflation down. And how do we—how do we get that done? There are many, many factors driving inflation in that sector. And they should be coming into play, to have inflation—the disinflationary process begin in that sector. But so far, we don’t see that.And I think until we do, we see ourselves as having a lot of work left to do.

问：只是一个具体的后续问题。你如何看待这两种选择之间的风险平衡，你知道，可能达不到或超过这个水平的可能性？

鲍威尔：我想我会这样说的。我仍然认为，很难管理这样的风险：做得太少，在6或12个月后发现我们实际上很接近，但没有完成工作，通货膨胀回升，我们不得不回去，而现在你确实担心预期变得不稳定，诸如此类的事情。这是一个非常难以管理的风险，而你知道，我们当然没有动力，也不希望过度紧缩。但是，你知道，如果我们觉得我们已经走得太远了（为压制通胀过度紧缩），我们当然可以--使得通胀下降的速度比我们预期的要快，那么我们有工具可以对此发挥作用。

【这一段可以说和鲍威尔的上次讲话（详见《美国通胀与就业-如何理解美联储主席最新讲话》）如出一辙，意思就是为压制通胀，搞货币紧缩过头了，也没有关系，美联储有工具应对。可是如果掉以轻心，过早地撤出货币紧缩的政策，通胀再度上涨，这显然不是美联储想看的】

（继续）所以我确实认为，在这种情况下，我们仍然有40年来的最高通货膨胀，你知道，工作还没有完全完成。正如我刚才提到的，我们有一个占核心通货膨胀指数56%的部门（核心服务通胀项），我们还没有看到通货膨胀的消失。所以我们没有看到它。它还没有发生。除住房外的核心服务部门的通胀率在6个月和12个月的基础上仍为4%。所以那里没有--没有发生什么。在其他两个部门，你知道，占不到50%，你实际上，我认为，现在有一个可信的进展，它正在形成。

虽然，你实际上还没有看到住房服务领域的通货紧缩，但它正在进行中，对吗？所以对于第三产业，我们在这里没有看到任何东西。因此，我认为宣布（抗击通胀）胜利将是不成熟的，或认为我们真的得到了这个，将是非常不成熟的。我们需要看到，我们的目标当然是把通货膨胀率降低。而我们如何......我们如何做到这一点？有许多，许多因素在推动该部门（核心服务项）的通货膨胀。它们（政策）应该发挥作用，使这些通胀项走向紧缩过程会开始。但到目前为止，我们还没有看到这一点。我认为在我们看到之前，我们认为自己还有很多工作要做。

【这里提到很多通胀的子项，这是美联储的分解，你如果搞的不清楚，请回看之前的内容《美国通胀与就业-如何理解美联储主席最新讲话》】

Q: Howard Schneider with Reuters. And thanks, as usual.

So I just want you to connect a couple dots here. The statement made a number of changes that seemed to be saying things are getting better. You’re saying inflation has eased. That’s new. You’ve taken out references to the war in Ukraine as causing price increases. You’ve taken out references to the pandemic. You’ve eliminated all the reasons that you said prices were being driven higher. Yet, that’s not mapping to any change in how you describe policy. We still have ongoing increases to come. So I’m wondering, why is that the case? And does it have more to do with uncertainty around the outlook, or more to do with you not wanting to give a very overeager market a reason to get ahead of itself and overreact?

MR. POWELL: So I guess I would say it this way, we can now say, I think,for the first time, that the disinflationary process has started. We can see that. And we see it really in goods prices so far. Goods prices is a big sector. This is what we’ve thought would happen since the very beginning, and now here it is actually happening, and for the reasons we thought. You know, it’s supply chains. It’s shortages. And it’s demand revolving back towards services. So this is a good thing. This is a good thing.

But that’s, you know, around a quarter of the PCE price index—core PCE price index. So the second sector ishousing services. And that’s driven by very different things. And we—as I mentioned, with housing services—we expect, and other forecasters expect, thatmeasured inflation will continue moving up for several months, but it will then come down,assuming thatnew leases continued to be soft. And we do assume that. So we think that that’s sort of in the pipeline. And we actually see disinflation in the goods sector and we see it in the pipeline for two sectors that amount to a little less than half. So this is good. And we note that when we say inflation is coming down. That this is good.

We expect to see that disinflation process will be seen, we hope soon, in the core goods ex-housing—sorry—the core services ex-housing sectorthat I talked about.We don’t see it yet.You know,it’s seven or eight different kinds of services,not all of them that are the same. And, you know, we have a sense of what’s going on in each of those different subsections. Probably the biggest part of it, probably 60 percent of that, is—research would show is sensitive to slack in the economy. And so the labor market will probably be important. Some of the other ones, the labor market is not going to be important. Many other factors will drive it.

In any case, we don’t see disinflation in that sector yet. And I think we need to see that. It’s the majority of the core PCE index, which is the thing that we think is the best predictor of headline PCE, which is our mandate. So it’s not that we’re not—we’re neither optimistic nor pessimistic.We’re just telling you that we don’t see inflation moving down yet in that large sector. I think we will fairly soon.

But we don’t see it yet. And until we do. I think we—you know, we see ourselves—we’ve got to be honest with ourselves, when we see ourselves as having perhaps more persistent—we’ll see—more persistent inflation in that sector, which will take longer to get down. And we’re just going to have to—we have to complete the job. I mean, that’s what we’re here for.

问：路透社的霍华德-施耐德。和往常一样，谢谢。所以我只想让你把这里的几个点联系起来。声明做了一些改变，似乎是在说事情正在变得更好。你说通货膨胀已经缓和。这是新的。你去掉了关于乌克兰战争导致价格上涨的说法。你已经删除了对大流行病的提及。你已经删除了所有你说价格被推高的原因。然而，这并不意味着你描述政策的方式有任何改变。我们仍然会有持续的（加息）增长。所以我想知道，为什么会出现这种情况？这是否与前景的不确定性有更大关系，还是与你不想给一个非常急切的市场一个超前和过度反应的理由有关？先生。

鲍威尔：所以我想我会这样说，我们现在可以说，我想，第一次，通货紧缩（或通胀放缓）的过程已经开始。我们可以看到这一点。到目前为止，我们在商品价格方面确实看到了这一点。商品价格是一个很大的部门（份）。这就是我们从一开始就认为会发生的事情，现在它真的发生了，而且是出于我们认为的原因。你知道，这是供应链的问题。这是短缺问题。而且它的需求又回到了服务上。所以这是一件好事。这是一件好事。但是，你知道，那是PCE价格指数--核心PCE价格指数的四分之一左右。因此，第二个部门是住房服务。这是由非常不同的东西驱动的。

正如我提到的，对于住房服务，我们预计，其他预测者也预计，测量的通货膨胀率将继续上升几个月，但随后将下降，假设新的租赁继续疲软。我们确实假设如此。因此，我们认为这是在进行中的。实际上，我们看到货物部门的通货紧缩，我们看到两个部门（商品+住房）的通货紧缩正在酝酿中，其数额略低于一半。所以这很好。我们注意到，当我们说通货膨胀正在下降时。这是好的。

我们希望很快就能在核心商品（不包括住房）--对不起，我谈到的核心服务（不包括住房）部门看到通货膨胀下降的过程。我们还没有看到它。你知道，这是七八种不同的服务，不是所有的服务都是一样的。而且，你知道，我们对每一个不同的分部门的情况都有一个感觉。其中最大的部分，可能有60%，是--研究表明对经济的松弛很敏感。因此，劳动力市场可能是重要的。其他的一些，劳动力市场不会很重要。许多其他因素将推动它。在任何情况下，我们还没有看到该部门的通货紧缩。而我认为我们需要看到这一点。它是核心PCE指数的大部分，我们认为这是预测PCE的最好的东西，这是我们的任务。因此，这并不是说我们不--我们既不乐观也不悲观。

我们只是告诉你，我们还没有看到通货膨胀在这个大部门（份）下降。我认为我们很快就会。但我们还没有看到它。在我们看到之前。我认为我们--你知道，我们看到自己--我们必须对自己诚实，当我们看到自己也许有更持久的--我们会看到--该部门更持久的通货膨胀，这将需要更长的时间来下降。而我们只是要--我们必须完成这项工作。我的意思是，这就是我们在这里的目的。

【最新市场的乐观情绪基本上由鲍威尔说的“通胀已经放缓”点燃的，通胀放缓这是一个事实，最新的通胀数据也是这样展示的，鲍威尔只是陈述事实，但是感觉市场好像单拎出来说宽松（鸽派）预期，然后反弹一波，实际上后面人家还说了很多话，通胀放缓更大地体现在商品部分，不包括住房的核心服务项还没有看到通胀放缓的迹象，注意啊，美联储主席在前后文都强调这一点，整体上整个讲话还是更多要继续紧缩（鹰派）的意思，就算不这么想，那起码要看成是“中性”的，市场似乎过于乐观了！不过说到这里，美国市场确实有它可取之处，现阶段有些“人心思涨”的味道在里面，随便拉出个“中性”就反弹一波，但是我们研究趋势的，现在还不能抢跑（个人看法，可能不对）】

Q: Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal.（各位注意下这个华尔街日报的记者，他有个外号叫“美联储的喉舌”，他的言论可以留意一下）

Chair Powell, you observed several years ago that we learned we can have a low unemployment rate without above-target inflation. And we have learned lately that inflation can come down from its uncomfortably high level despite a historically low unemployment rate. Given that, and given how much you did over the last year, why do you think further rate increases are needed? Why not stop here and see what transpires in the coming months before raising rates again?

MR. POWELL: So we—you know, we’ve raised rates four-and-a-half percentage points and we’re talking about a couple of more rate hikes to get to that level we think is appropriately restrictive. And why do we think that’s probably necessary?We think because inflation is still running very hot.We’re, of course, taking into account long and variable lags, and we’re thinking about that.

It really—the story we’re telling about inflation is—to ourselves and the way we understand it is, basically, the three things that I’ve just gone through a couple times. And again,we don’t see it affecting the services sector ex-housing yet. But I mean, I think our assessment is that we’re not very far from that level. We don’t know that, though. We don’t know that. So I think we’re—you know, we’re living in a world of significant uncertainty.

I would look across the rate—the spectrum of rates and see that real rates are now positive by—you know, by an appropriate set of measures, are positive across the yield curve. I think policy is restrictive.We’re trying to make a fine judgment about how much is restrictive enough, that’s all. And we’re going to—you know, that’s why we’re slowing down to 25 basis points. We’re going to be carefully watching the economy and watching inflation, and watching the progress of the disinflationary process.

问：《华尔街日报》的尼克-蒂米劳斯。鲍威尔主席，你在几年前就注意到，我们知道我们可以有一个低的失业率，而没有高于目标的通货膨胀。而我们最近了解到，尽管失业率处于历史低位，但通胀率可以从令人不舒服的高位回落。鉴于此，并考虑到你在去年做了不少工作，你为什么认为需要进一步加息？为什么不在这里停下来，看看未来几个月会发生什么，然后再加息？

鲍威尔：所以我们--你知道，我们已经提高了四个半百分点的利率，我们正在讨论再提高多少利率以达到我们认为适当的限制性水平。为什么我们认为这可能是必要的呢？我们认为是因为通货膨胀仍然非常热。当然，我们考虑到了长期和可变的滞后期，我们也在考虑这个问题。实际上，我们对通货膨胀所讲的事情，以我们自己和我们理解它的方式，基本上就是我刚才说过的三件事。再说一遍，我们还没有看到它影响到除住房以外的服务部门。

【这里又再强调服务通胀项还没有看到通胀放缓或紧缩的迹象】

但我的意思是，我认为我们的评估是，我们离这个水平不是很远。不过，我们不知道这一点。我们不知道这一点。因此，我认为我们--你知道，我们生活在一个具有重大不确定性的世界里。我想看一下整个利率范围，看到实际利率现在是正的，你知道，通过一套适当的措施，整个收益率曲线是正的。我认为政策是限制性的。我们正试图对多少是足够的限制性做出精细的判断，这就是全部。我们将--你知道，这就是为什么我们放缓到25个基点。我们将仔细观察经济，观察通货膨胀，并观察通货紧缩过程的进展。

【市场似乎也把部分注意力放在25个基点，事实上就加25个基点并把当前的利率维持一段时间，这是否也对经济（就业）起到负面的作用，大家可以思考下这个问题】

Q: Did you or your colleagues discuss the conditions for a pause at this meeting this week?

MR. POWELL: You know, you’ll see—the minutes will come out in three weeks and will give you a lot of detail. You know, we spent a lot of time talking about the path ahead and the state of the economy, and I wouldn’t want to start to drive—describe all the details there. But that was—the sense of the discussion was really talking quite a bit about the path forward.

问：你或你的同事在本周的会议上是否讨论了暂停的条件？

鲍威尔：你知道，你会看到--会议记录将在三周后出炉，会给你很多细节。你知道，我们花了很多时间讨论未来的道路和经济状况，我不想开始推动-描述所有的细节。但那是--讨论的意义是真正谈论了相当多的未来之路。

【三周出炉什么，就是FOMC会议纪要的详细版，上次的报告本号也解读过，详见《如何看美国12月ISM-PMI和美联储12月议息会议纪要？》】

Q: Hi, Chair Powell.

I wanted to ask about the debt ceiling. Given that we have now hit up against it, I was wondering, if the U.S. goes past the X-date will the Fed do whatever the Treasury directs as it relates to making payments as the fiscal agent, or will it do its own analysis of any legal constraints?

MR. POWELL: So the question is would we—say your question again?

Q: Will the Fed do what Treasury directs as it relates to making payments, or will it do its own analysis of any legal constraints?

MR. POWELL: So you’re really asking about—you’re asking about prioritization, in effect, is what you’re—

Q: Yes, yes.

MR. POWELL: OK. So I feel like I have to say this: There’s only one way forward here, and that is for Congress to raise the debt ceiling so that the United States government can pay all of its obligations when due. And any deviations from that path would be highly risky, and that no one should assume that the Fed can protect the economy from the consequences of failing to act in a timely manner.

In terms of our relationship with the Treasury, we are their fiscal agent and I’m just going to leave it at that.

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。

我想问关于债务上限的问题。鉴于我们现在已经撞上了它，我想知道，如果美国超过了日期，美联储是否会按照财政部的指示，作为财政代理人进行支付，还是会对任何法律限制进行自己的分析？

鲍威尔：所以问题是我们会不会--再说一遍你的问题？

问：美联储是否会按照财政部的指示进行支付，还是会对任何法律限制进行自己的分析？

鲍威尔：所以你真正问的是--你问的是优先次序，实际上，你问的是什么？

问：是的，是的。

先生：好的。好的，所以我觉得我必须这样说。这里只有一条路可走，那就是国会提高债务上限，以便美国政府能够支付其所有到期的债务。而任何偏离这条道路的行为都将是高度危险的，没有人应该认为美联储可以保护经济不受未能及时行动的后果影响。

就我们与财政部的关系而言，我们是他们的财政代理人，我就不多说了。

【这里就到美国债务上限的问题，我们之前也探讨过，最终一定会提高债务上限，国会和美国财政部的扯皮只是两dang之间利用这个契机博取一定的政治筹码，别忘他们是美国的两dang，服务于美国利益，历史上他们都会提高上限。具体扩展内容详见《如何看《经济褐皮书》?如何看美国的零售数据？如何影响我们》】

Q: Are you actively doing any planning of what might happen in the event that that would happen?

MR. POWELL: I’m just going to leave it at that. This is a matter that’s to be resolved between, really—it’s really Congress’ job to raise the debt ceiling, and I gather there are discussions happening, but they don’t involve us. We’re not—we’re not involved in those discussions. So—we’re the fiscal agent.

问：你是否在积极地做任何计划，在这种情况下可能会发生什么？

鲍威尔：我只是要把它留在那里。这是一个需要解决的问题，实际上--提高债务上限是国会的工作，我知道有一些讨论正在进行，但它们不涉及我们。我们没有--我们没有参与这些讨论。所以，我们是财政代理人。

Q: Jeanna Smialek from the New York Times. Thanks for taking our questions.

I wonder, was there any discussion today of the possibility of pausing rate increases and then restarting them? Lorie Logan from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas seemed to suggest that that would be a possibility in a recent speech, and I wonder if that view is broadly shared on the committee.

MR. POWELL:So the committee, obviously, did not see this as the time to pause.We judged that the appropriate, you know, thing to do at this meeting was to raise the federal-funds rate by 25 basis points and we said that we continue to anticipate that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate in order to attain that stance of sufficiently restrictive monetary policy that will bring inflation down to 2 percent. So that’s the judgment that we made.

You know, we’re going to—we’re going to write down new forecasts in March. And we’ll—you know, we’ll certainly be looking at the incoming data, as everyone else will.

问：纽约时报的Jeanna Smialek。谢谢你接受我们的问题。

我想知道，今天是否有关于暂停加息然后重新开始的可能性的讨论？达拉斯联邦储备银行的Lorie Logan在最近的一次演讲中似乎暗示，这将是一种可能性，我想知道委员会是否广泛认同这种观点。

鲍威尔：因此，委员会显然不认为现在是暂停的时候。我们判断适当的，你知道的，在这次会议上做的事情是将联邦基金利率提高25个基点，我们说，我们继续预计在目标范围内的持续增长将是适当的，以达到充分限制性货币政策，将通胀率降至2%。所以这就是我们做出的判断。

你知道，我们将--我们将在3月份写下新的预测。而且我们--你知道，我们肯定会像其他人一样，关注即将到来的数据。

Q: Sorry, I should have been clearer. I mean, would it be possible to take a meeting off, for example, and then resume? You know, could you, rather than just doing at every meeting a move, go a little bit more slowly, take some gaps in between moves?

MR. POWELL: I mean, I think—this is not something that the committee’s thinking about or exploring in any kind of detail. In principle, though, you know, we used to think—what we used to do is go every other meeting, if you remember, 25 basis points, and that was considered a fast pace. So I think a lot of options are available.

And I mean, you saw what the Bank of Canada did. And you know, they left it that they’re willing to raise rates after pausing. But this is not something that—this is not something that the—that the Federal Open Market Committee is on the—on the point of deciding right now.

问：对不起，我应该说得更清楚。我的意思是，比如说，是否有可能暂停一次会议，然后再继续？你知道，你是否可以，而不是在每次会议上做一个动作，走得更慢一点，在动作之间有一些空隙？

鲍威尔：我的意思是，我认为--这不是委员会正在考虑或探索的任何种类的细节问题。但原则上，你知道，我们过去认为--我们过去所做的是每隔一次会议，如果你记得，25个基点，这被认为是一个快节奏。所以我认为有很多选择。

我的意思是，你看到了加拿大银行的做法。你知道，他们离开时说他们愿意在暂停后加息。但这并不是联邦公开市场委员会现在正在决定的事情。

【这段意思是美联储不会暂停加息后面评估就再加回来，言下之意就是美联储一路加息直到宣布胜利，各位可以想下后面还会有多少个25个基点，怎么就解读为鸽派了？】

Q: Steve Liesman, CNBC.

Mr. Chairman, the SEP has the PCE inflation rate in 2023 of 3.1 percent. Meanwhile, the three-month annualized PCE is 2.1 percent. And you’ve achieved this without going to your 5.1 percent funds rate, which is what you have penciled in for this year. And you’ve also achieved it without the 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment, which you have penciled in for this year. I’m wondering if you’ve considered the idea of whether or not your understanding of the inflation dynamic may be wrong and it’s possible to achieve these things without raising rates that high, and also without the surge in unemployment.

And specifically, I wonder if you might comment on the speech given by Vice Chair Lael Brainard, who said to the extent that inputs other than wages may have been responsible in part for important price increases for some non-housing services, an unwinding of these factors—in other words, it may not be wages. The idea that it may not require unemployment rising to get this sector of inflation under control. Thanks.

MR. POWELL: So a couple things. First, on the—on the forecast, you’re right, if you take very short-term three-month, say, measures of PCE—core PCE inflation, they are quite low right now. But that’s because it’s driven by, you know, significantly negative readings from goods inflation. Most forecasters would think that the significantly negative readings will be transitory, and that goods inflation will move up, fairly soon, back up to its longer-run trend of something around zero—something like that. So a lot of forecasts would call for core PCE to go back up to 4 percent by the middle of the year, for example. So that’s really where the sustainable level is, is more like at 4 percent. So that would suggest there’s work left to do.

You know, let’s say inflation does come down much faster than we expect, which is possible, as I mentioned. You know, obviously our policy is data dependent. We would take that into account. In terms of the non—sorry—the core non-housing services, as I mentioned earlier, it’s a very diverse sector—six or seven sectors. And so sectors that represent 55 or 60 percent of that—subsectors of that sector—we think are sensitive to slack in the economy sensitive to the labor market, in a way. But some of the other sectors are not. And for example, you know, financial services is a big sector. That’s really not driven by labor markets, wages.

So that’s why I said there are a number of things that will affect—take restaurants, right? So clearly labor’s important for restaurants, but so are food prices. And, you know, transportation services is going to be driven by fuel prices, for example. So there are lots of things in that mix that will drive inflation. I would say overall, though, my own view would be that you’re not going to have a—you know, a sustainable return to 2 percent inflation in that sector without a better balance in the labor market. And I don’t know what that will require in terms of increased unemployment, your question.

I do think there are a number of dimensions through which the labor market can soften. And so far we’ve got, as I mentioned in goods, we have inflation moving down without a softening in the labor market. I think most forecasters would say that unemployment will probably rise a bit from here, but I still think, I continue to think, that there’s a path to getting inflation back down to 2 percent without a really significant economic decline or a significant increase in unemployment.

And that’s because the—you know, the setting we’re in is quite different. The inflation that we originally got was very much a collision between very strong demand and hard supply constraints—not something that you really have seen in prior—you know, in prior business cycles. And so now we see goods inflation coming down, for the reasons we thought. And we understand why housing inflation will come down. And I think a story will emerge on the non-housing services sector soon enough. But I think there is—there’s ongoing disinflation and we don’t yet see—you know, we don’t yet see weakening in the labor market. So we’ll have to see.

问：Steve Liesman，CNBC。

主席先生，SEP规定2023年的PCE通胀率为3.1%。同时，三个月的年化PCE为2.1%。你们在不将的资金利率提高至5.1%的情况下实现了这一目标，这也是你们为今年所做的计划。你们也在没有增加1个百分点的失业率的情况下实现了这一目标，这也是你为今年计算的。我想知道你是否考虑过这样的想法，即你对通货膨胀动态的理解可能是错误的，有可能在不把利率提高到那么高的情况下实现这些目标，而且也不会出现失业率激增？

具体而言，我想知道你是否可以对副主席Lael Brainard的讲话进行评论，他说，如果工资以外的投入可能对一些非住房服务的重要价格上涨负有部分责任，这些因素的松动，换句话说，可能不是工资上涨的因素。认为可能不需要失业率上升来控制这个部门的通货膨胀。谢谢。

【关于美联储副主席的讲话请回看之前内容《如何解读美联储副主席的讲话和美国房产？如何正确理解“复利”？》】

鲍威尔：那么有几件事。首先，关于预测，你是对的，如果你采取非常短期的三个月，例如，衡量PCE-核心PCE通胀，他们现在是相当低。但这是因为它是由于，你知道，商品通胀项的明显下降所驱动的【这里大家简单联系下油价和粮食的下降】。大多数预测者认为，明显的商品通胀下降将是暂时的，商品通胀将上升，相当快，（但最终也会）回到其长期趋势--大概0左右。因此，很多预测会要求核心PCE在今年年中回到4%的水平。因此，这才是真正的可持续水平，更像是4%的水平。因此，这将表明还有工作要做。

你知道，假设通胀下降比我们预期的要快，这是有可能的，正如我提到的。你知道，显然我们的政策是取决于数据的。我们会考虑到这一点。排除住房的服务通胀项而言，正如我之前提到的，这是一个非常多样化的部门，有六七个部门。因此，占该部门55%或60%的部门--我们认为在某种程度上对经济的松弛敏感，对劳动力市场敏感。但其他一些部门则不然。例如，你知道，金融服务是一个大部门。这真的不是由劳动力市场和工资驱动的。

因此，这就是为什么我说有一些事情会影响到--就拿餐馆来说，对吗？所以很明显，劳动力对餐馆很重要，但食品价格也很重要。而且，你知道，运输服务将受到燃料价格的驱动，例如。因此，在这个组合中，有很多东西会推动通货膨胀。不过，我想说的是，总的来说，我自己的观点是，如果劳动力市场没有更好的平衡，你就不会有--你知道，该部门的通胀率持续恢复到2%。我不知道在增加失业率方面需要什么。

我确实认为有许多方面可以使劳动力市场软化。到目前为止，我们已经得到了，正如我在商品中提到的，我们的通货膨胀率在下降，而劳动力市场没有软化。我认为大多数预测者会说，失业率可能会从这里上升一些，但我仍然认为，我继续认为，有一条道路可以让通胀率回到2%，而不会出现真正的经济大幅下滑或失业率大幅上升。【最新的非农靓瞎眼，似乎在加大这方面的概率，需要持续关注就业数据】

这是因为，你知道，我们所处的环境是相当不同的。我们最初得到的通货膨胀在很大程度上是非常强劲的需求和坚硬的供应限制之间的碰撞--这不是你在以前--你知道，在以前的商业周期中真正看到的东西。因此，现在我们看到商品通胀率下降，原因我们认为是这样的。我们也明白为什么住房通胀会下降。我认为关于非住房服务部门的好事很快就会出现。我认为会有--有持续的通货紧缩，我们还没有看到--你知道，我们还没有看到劳动力市场的疲软。因此，我们将不得不看。

【劳动力市场和非（排除）住房的核心服务通胀项之间的关系请回看之前的内容《美国通胀与就业-如何理解美联储主席最新讲话》，里面的图形很多，方便理解，各位啊，鲍威尔这份答记者问基本上和上面链接的这个讲话非常的一致，都强调了劳动力市场强劲对通胀的刺激，最新的非农就业数据可能也加大美联储抗击通胀的难度】

Q: Can we get there with just 5 percent?

MR. POWELL: Certainly possible. Yeah, absolutely it’s possible. You know, it’s a question—no one really knows, I think. It’s because this is not like the other business cycles in so many ways. It may well be that as—that it will take more slowing than we expect, and I expect, to get inflation down to 2 percent. But I don’t—that’s not my base case. My base case is that the economy can return to 2 percent inflation without a really significant downturn or a really big increase in unemployment. I think that’s a possible outcome. I think many,many forecasters would say it’s not the most likely outcome but I would say there’s a chance of it.

问：我们只用5%就能达到目的吗？

鲍威尔：当然可以。是的，绝对有可能。你知道，这是一个问题--没有人真正知道，我想。因为这与其他商业周期在很多方面都不一样。这很可能是，正如--这将需要比我们和我预期的更多的放缓，才能使通胀率下降到2%。但我不--那不是我的基本情况。我的基本情况是，经济可以恢复到2%的通胀率，而不会出现真正的重大衰退或失业率的大幅上升。我认为那是一个可能的结果。我认为很多很多预测者会说这不是最可能的结果，但我会说这是有机会的。

【这是累计大幅度加息后经济是否还能“软着陆”的问题（出现重大衰退，失业大幅上升），很多预测不可能，美联储主席认为有机会实现】

Q: Michael McKee from Bloomberg TV and Radio.

I’d like to pick up on what you were just saying about a substantial downturn and ask with the full weight of your tightening not in place yet and with the progress against inflation there’s still a lot of talk about very, very slow growth, going forward, in 2023 and the recession indicators are all suggesting that we are going to see recession this year.

So I’m wondering if you’ve changed your view or you have a more nuanced view of what you think the danger to economic growth is, going forward, and whether you’re very close to, perhaps, tipping it into the wrong place, which calls for more restraint on your part.

MR. POWELL: So I do think you—most forecasts and, you know, my own assessment would be that growth will continue—positive growth will continue but at a subdued pace, as it did last year. We had growth of—GDP growth of 1 percent last year and also final sales growth, which we think is a better indicator, of about 1 percent.

I think, you know, most forecasts and, certainly, my assessment would be that growth will continue at a fairly subdued level this year. There are other factors, though, that need to be considered. You will have seen that the global picture is improving a bit and that will matter for us, potentially. The labor market remains very, very strong and that’s job creation. That’s wages.

As inflation does come down sentiment will improve. You also—state and local governments are really flush these days with, you know, money and many of them are considering tax cuts or even sending checks.

So I think that’s going to support. They’re also spending a lot. There’s a lot of spending coming in the construction pipeline both private and public and so that’s going to support economic activity.

So I think there’s a good chance that those factors will help support positive growth this year and that’s—my base case is that there will be positive growth this year.

问：彭博电视和电台的迈克尔-麦基。

我想接着你刚才说的关于大幅下滑的问题，并问在你的紧缩政策还没有完全到位的情况下，随着对抗通货膨胀的进展，仍然有很多关于2023年增长非常、非常缓慢的讨论，而且经济衰退指标都表明我们将在今年看到衰退。

因此，我想知道你是否改变了你的观点，或者你对你认为未来经济增长的危险有了更细微的看法，以及你是否非常接近，也许，使它进入错误的地方，这需要你更多的克制。

鲍威尔：所以我确实认为你--大多数预测和你知道的，我自己的评估是，增长将继续--积极的增长将继续，但速度很低，就像去年一样。我们去年有1%的GDP增长，还有最终销售增长，我们认为这是一个更好的指标，大约为1%。

我认为，你知道，大多数预测，当然，我的评估是，今年的增长将继续在一个相当低迷的水平。不过，还有其他因素需要考虑。你会看到，全球情况正在改善，这对我们可能很重要。劳动力市场仍然非常，非常强大，这就是创造就业机会。这就是工资。

【工资的两面性，需要兼顾美联储的就业和通胀的双目标，目前的主要目标是什么，通胀！就业次要】

随着通货膨胀率的下降，人们的情绪将得到改善。你也知道，州政府和地方政府这些天真的很有钱，他们中的许多人正在考虑减税，甚至发送支票。所以我认为这将会支持。他们也花了很多钱。在建筑管道中，有大量的支出，包括私人和公共的，所以这将支持经济活动。所以我认为这些因素很有可能帮助支持今年的正增长，我的基本假设是今年会有正增长。

Q: Thank you. Rich Miller from Bloomberg.

First of all, how are you doing?

MR. POWELL: Fine, thanks. Fine.

Q: Good. Good.

Second off, I think that earlier on in the press conference you said you’d need to see substantially more evidence of inflation coming down. Can you give us some idea of what you’re thinking of? You mentioned three months, and we’ve seen three months in a row. Governor Waller suggested he might want to see six months. Is it just the inflation data, or do you have to see the labor market coming back into better balance to have that substantially more evidence metric?

MR. POWELL: So I don’t think there’s, you know, going to be a light switch flipped or anything like that. I think it’s just an accumulating—accumulation of evidence.

So, of course, we’ll be looking. By the time of the March meeting we’ll have two more employment reports, two more CPI reports, and we’ll be looking at those carefully as all of us will and we’ll be asking ourselves what are they telling us, and soon after that we’ll have another ECI wage report which, as you know, is a report that we like because it adjusts for composition and it’s very complete and, you know, the one we got, I guess it was yesterday, was constructive. You know, it shows wages coming down but still at a high level. They’re still at a level that’s way above—well above where they were before the pandemic.

So I don’t want to put a number on it in terms of months. But as the accumulated evidence comes in it’s going to be reflected in our assessment of the outlook and that will be reflected in our policy over time.

But I will say, though, you know, it is our job to restore price stability and achieve 2 percent inflation for the benefit of the American public. We’re not—market participants have a very different job. It’s a fine job. It’s a great job. In fact, I did that job for years but—in one form or another.

But, you know, we had to deliver that and so we are strongly resolved that we will, you know, complete this task because we think it has benefits that will, you know, support economic activity and benefit the public for many, many years.

问：谢谢你。彭博社的里奇-米勒。

首先，你还好吗？

鲍威尔：很好，谢谢。很好。

问：很好。很好。

其次，我想在新闻发布会的早些时候，你说你需要看到通货膨胀率下降的更多实质性证据。你能给我们一些你所想的想法吗？你提到了三个月，而我们已经连续看到三个月了。沃勒行长建议他可能希望看到六个月。这仅仅是通胀数据，还是你必须看到劳动力市场回到更好的平衡，才能有这种实质性的更多证据指标？

鲍威尔：所以我不认为会有，你知道，会有一个电灯开关被打开或类似的东西。我认为这只是证据的积累。所以，当然，我们会继续寻找。到3月会议的时候，我们会有另外两份就业报告，另外两份CPI报告，我们会像我们所有人一样仔细观察这些报告，我们会问自己它们告诉我们什么，之后不久我们会有另一份ECI工资报告，如你所知，这是一份我们喜欢的报告，因为它对构成进行了调整，它非常完整，你知道，我们得到的报告，我猜是昨天，是建设性的。你知道，它显示工资在下降，但仍然处于较高的水平。他们仍然处于一个远远高于--远远高于大流行病之前的水平。【接下来，重点关注什么指标知道了吗】

因此，我不想用几个月的时间来衡量它。但是，随着证据的积累，它将反映在我们对前景的评估中，并将随着时间的推移反映在我们的政策中。

但我要说，尽管如此，你知道，我们的工作是恢复价格稳定，为了美国公众的利益实现2%的通货膨胀。我们不是-市场参与者，我们有一个非常不同的工作。这是一个很好的工作。这是一项伟大的工作。事实上，我做了多年的这项工作，在这种或那种形式下。

但是，你知道，我们必须完成这个任务，所以我们坚定地认为，我们将，你知道，完成这个任务，因为我们认为它有好处，你知道，将支持经济活动，使公众受益很多很多年。

【这里熟知美国金融史的朋友是否能联想起80年代时任美联储的沃尔克强力加息压制通胀，后面确实美国有很长一段时间的繁荣期。上次加息效果和这次有什么不一样，有！上次有大规模失业，这次目前来说，还没有大规模失业问题，相反，最新的非农数据超预期的好！既然好，那就继续加息！衰不衰退后面再说，反正他说工具箱中有工具应对衰退的问题，既然后路都想好了，鬼知道他后面还会加多少次25个基点，只有后面的数据能告诉我们，所以当下市场是否乐观了一点？】

Q: Thank you, Michelle. Thank you, Fed Chairman, for taking the questions. So you’ve talked about—we had solid job growth—Edward Lawrence from Fox Business, by the way.

We had solid job growth, slight falling in the increase in consumer spending. It seems so far it’s been relatively mild for the economy to go to—from a 9.1 percent CPI inflation to 6.5 percent CPI inflation. Is the hard part yet to come, to go from 6.5 percent to 2?

MR. POWELL: I don’t think we know, honestly. You know, the—so we, of course, expected goods inflation to start coming down by the end of 2021, and it didn’t. It didn’t come down all through ’22, and now it’s coming down and it’s coming down pretty fast. So I would say these are—this is not a standard business cycle where you can look at the last 10 times there was a global pandemic and we shut the economy down and Congress did what it did and we did—it’s just—it’s unique. So I think certainty is just not appropriate here.

Inflation—it’s just harder to forecast inflation. It may come down faster. It may take longer to come down. And, you know, our job is to deliver inflation back to target, and we will do that, but I think we—we’re going to be cautious about declaring victory and, you know, sending signals that we think that the game is won, because, you know, we’ve got a long way to go. It’s the early stages of disinflation and it’s most welcome to be able to say that, that we are now in disinflation. That’s great, but we just see that it has to spread through the economy and that it’s going to take some time. That’s all.

问：谢谢你，米歇尔。谢谢你，美联储主席，感谢你接受提问。所以你已经谈到了--我们有坚实的就业增长--顺便说一下，福克斯商业的爱德华-劳伦斯。

我们有坚实的就业增长，消费支出的增长略有下降。到目前为止，经济从9.1%的CPI通货膨胀到6.5%的CPI通货膨胀似乎相对容易。从6.5%到2%，困难的部分是否还没有到来？

鲍威尔：老实说，我不认为我们知道。你知道，我们当然期望商品通胀率在2021年底开始下降，但它并没有。整个2022年都没有下降，而现在它正在下降，而且下降得很快。所以我想说，这不是一个标准的商业周期，你可以看看过去10次有一个全球大流行病，我们关闭了经济，国会做了什么，我们做了什么--它只是--它是独一无二的。所以我认为确定性在这里是不合适的。

通货膨胀--它只是更难预测通货膨胀。它可能下降得更快。它可能需要更长的时间来下降。而且，你知道，我们的工作是将通胀率拉回到目标值，我们将做到这一点，但我认为我们将对宣布胜利持谨慎态度，你知道，发出我们认为游戏已经胜利的信号（是需要谨慎的），因为，你知道，我们还有很长的路要走。现在是通缩的早期阶段，能够说我们现在处于通缩状态是最受欢迎的。这很好，但我们只是看到，它必须在经济中蔓延，这将需要一些时间。这就是全部。

【各位，美联储现在要的就是通缩来抗击通胀，它要这个经济的副作用！而且现在还只是通缩的早期阶段，意思是后面还会有，所以对于美股的上涨是不是我们也应该保持一份谨慎？】

Q: How long do you see, then, the federal-funds rate remaining at this elevated level?

MR. POWELL: You know, so—again, my forecast and that of my colleagues, as you will see from the SEP and—I mean, there are many different forecasts, but generally it’s a forecast of slower growth, some softening in labor market conditions, and inflation moving down steadily but not quickly. And in that case, if the economy performs broadly in line with those expectations, it will not be appropriate to cut rates this year, to loosen policy this year. Of course, other people have forecasts with inflation coming down much faster; that’s a different thing. You know, if that happens, if inflation comes down much faster, you know, then we’ll be seeing that and it will be incorporated into our thinking about policy.

问：那么，你认为联邦基金利率在这个高位维持多久？

鲍威尔：你知道的，所以，我和我的同事们的预测，正如你从SEP和我的意思是，有许多不同的预测，但一般是预测增长放缓，劳动力市场状况有所软化，通货膨胀稳步下降，但不是很快。在这种情况下，如果经济表现大致符合这些预期，今年降息，今年放松政策将是不合适的。当然，其他人的预测是通胀率下降得更快；那是另一回事。你知道，如果发生这种情况，如果通胀率下降得更快，你知道，那么我们将看到这一点，它将被纳入我们对政策的思考中。

Q: Thank you, Chair Powell. Simon Rabinovitch with The Economist.

May I ask a further question about the language around ongoing increases? That, of course, implies at least two further rate rises. If you look at Fed fund and futures pricing, the implication is that you’ll raise rates one more time and then pause. Are you concerned about that divergence, or do you think, if everything breaks right, is that a plausible outcome?

MR. POWELL: I’m not particularly concerned about the divergence, no, because it is largely due to the market’s expectation that inflation will move down more quickly, I think. That’s the bigger part of that. So, again, as I just mentioned, you know, our forecast—different participants have different forecasts, but generally those forecasts are for continued subdued growth, some softening in the labor market, but not a recession, not a recession, and we have inflation moving down, you know, into the—somewhere in the mid-threes or maybe lower than that this year. We’ll update that in March, but that’s what we thought in December.

Markets are past that. They show inflation coming down in some cases much quicker than that. So we’ll just have to see. And we have a different view and a different view—it’s a different forecast, really. And given our outlook, I don’t see us cutting rates this year, if our outlook turns true. As I mentioned just now, if we do see inflation coming down much more quickly, that will play into our policy setting, of course.

问：谢谢你，鲍威尔主席。我是《经济学人》的西蒙-拉比诺维奇。

我可以再问一个关于持续加息的问题吗？当然，这意味着至少还有两次加息。如果你看一下美联储基金和期货定价，暗示你会再加息一次，然后暂停。你是否担心这种分歧，或者你认为，如果一切正常，这是一个合理的结果吗？

鲍威尔：我并不特别担心这种分歧，不，因为这主要是由于市场预期通胀将更快地下降，我认为。这是其中较大的部分。因此，正如我刚才提到的，你知道，我们的预测--不同的参与者有不同的预测，但一般来说，这些预测是持续低迷的增长，劳动力市场的一些软化，但不是衰退，不是经济衰退，我们的通胀率下降，你知道，今年进入--大约在3个月中，或者可能比这更低。我们将在3月份更新，但这是我们在12月份的想法。

市场已经过去了。他们显示通胀率在某些情况下下降的速度比这快得多。所以我们将不得不看。我们有不同的观点和不同的看法--这是一个不同的预测，真的。鉴于我们的前景，我认为我们今年不会降息，如果我们的前景变成现实。正如我刚才提到的，如果我们确实看到通胀率下降得更快，这当然会影响到我们的政策制定。

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Scott Horsley from NPR.

One of the changes in the statement this month is that the committee’s no longer listing public health as among the data points you’ll consider in assessing conditions. What should we make of that? Does the Federal Reserve no longer see the pandemic as weighing on the economy?

MR. POWELL: That’s the general sense of it. Look, we understand—I personally understand well that Covid is still out there but that it’s no longer playing an important role in our economy. And you know, we kept that statement in there for quite a while and I think we just—we knew we would take it out at some point, there’s never a perfect time, but we thought that, you know, people are handling it better and the economy and the society are handling it better now. It doesn’t really need to be in a—you know, in the Fed’s monthly—or, you know, postmeeting statement, as an ongoing economic risk, as opposed to, you know, a health issue.

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。我是NPR的Scott Horsley。

本月声明中的一个变化是，委员会不再将公共卫生列为你们在评估条件时要考虑的数据点。我们应该如何看待这个问题？美联储是否不再认为大流行病对经济有影响？

鲍威尔：这是它的总体感觉。听着，我们理解--我个人很理解，新冠还在那里，但它不再对我们的经济发挥重要作用。你知道，我们把这个声明保留了相当长一段时间，我想我们只是--我们知道我们会在某个时候把它拿出来，从来没有一个完美的时间，但我们认为，你知道，人们正在更好地处理它，经济和社会现在正在更好地处理它。它真的不需要在--你知道，在美联储的月度或，你知道，会后声明中，作为一个持续的经济风险，而不是，你知道，（新冠目前是）一个健康问题。

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Nancy Marshall-Genzer with Marketplace.

I wanted to go back to another thing that Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard said recently. She said she doesn’t see signs of a wage-price spiral, and I’m wondering if you agree with that.

MR. POWELL: I do. Yeah, I do. You don’t see that yet.But the whole point is, you know, once you see it, you have a serious problem. That means that, effectively, in people’s decision-making inflation has become a really salient issue. Andonce that happens, that’s what—that’s what we can’t allow to happen. And you know, so that’s why we worry that the longer we’re at this and the longer people are talking about inflation all day long every day, you know, the more risk of something like that. But, no, there’s not much—it’s more of a risk. It always has been more of a risk than anything else.

By the way, I think it’s becoming less salient. And people are—you know, we pick that up in conversations. And I’ve seen some data, too, that show people are, you know, gradually—they’re glad that inflation’s coming down. People really don’t like inflation. And as we see it coming down, that could also add a boost to economic activity.

You look at the sentiment surveys now and they’re very, very low, with 3 ½ percent unemployment and, you know, high wage increases, nominally, by historical standards. Why can that be? It has to be inflation, right? So I think once inflation is seen to be coming down in coming months, even you will also see a boost to sentiment, I hope.

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。我是Marketplace的南希-马歇尔-根泽。

我想回到美联储副主席Lael Brainard最近说的另一件事。她说她没有看到工资价格螺旋上升的迹象，我想知道你是否同意这一点。

鲍威尔：我同意。是的，我同意。你还没有看到这一点。但整个问题是，你知道，一旦你看到它，你就有一个严重的问题。这意味着，实际上，在人们的决策中，通货膨胀已经成为一个真正突出的问题。一旦发生这种情况，这就是--这就是我们不能允许发生的事情。你知道，所以这就是为什么我们担心，我们在这方面的时间越长，人们每天都在谈论通货膨胀的时间越长，你知道，出现这种情况的风险就越大。但是，不，没有什么--它的风险更大。它一直是比其他东西更多的风险。

顺便说一下，我认为它正变得不那么突出。人们......你知道，我们在谈话中发现了这一点。我也看到了一些数据，显示人们，你知道，逐渐--他们很高兴通货膨胀的下降。人们真的不喜欢通货膨胀。当我们看到通货膨胀率下降时，这也会对经济活动起到推动作用。

你看一下现在的情绪调查，它们非常非常低，失业率为3.5%，而且，你知道，从历史标准来看，名义上工资增长很高。为什么会这样呢？它必须是通货膨胀（推升的），对吗？所以我认为，一旦通胀率在未来几个月被视为下降，甚至你也会看到情绪的提升，我希望。

Q: So that’s what you’re looking at most closely, is consumer expectations?

MR. POWELL: That’s at the very heart. It’s consumers and businesses that, you know, are—essentially,we believe that expectations of future inflation are very—at a very important part of the process of creating inflation.That’s sort of a bedrock belief. In one way or another, it has to be. We think it’s important.

And in this case, I would say the risk eight months ago or so, longer-term inflation expectations had moved up. We moved quite vigorously last year. Expectations are—seem to be well-anchored, including at the shorter end now, not just the longer end.

So it’s—you know, and that’s—I think that’s very reassuring. I think, you know, the markets have decided and the public has decided that inflation is going to come back down to 2 percent, and it’s just a matter of us following through. That’s measurably helpful to the process of getting inflation down, the fact that people now do generally believe that it will come down. That’ll be part of the process of getting it down, and it’s a very positive thing.

问：所以这就是你最密切关注的东西，就是消费者的期望？

鲍威尔：这是最核心的。消费者和企业，你知道，基本上，我们相信，对未来通货膨胀的预期是创造通货膨胀过程中非常重要的一部分。这是一种基石性的信念。在某种程度上，它必须是。我们认为这很重要。

【各位，预期在投资市场是非常非常重要的事情，现在美联储压的就是通胀预期，怎么可能马上就宣布抗击通胀胜利呢】

在这种情况下，我想说八个月前左右的风险，长期通胀预期已经上升了。我们在去年的时候就有了相当大的进展。预期是......似乎是稳固的，包括现在的短端，不仅仅是长端。

所以，你知道，这--我认为这是非常令人放心的。我认为，你知道，市场已经决定，公众也已经决定，通胀率将回落到2%，而这只是我们落实的问题。这对降低通货膨胀的过程有很大的帮助，人们现在普遍相信通货膨胀会下降的事实。这将是降低通货膨胀的过程的一部分，这是一个非常积极的事情。

【如果密歇根5-10年通胀率预期等数据突然上涨了，我们应该知道如何应对的吧】

Q: Thank you, Chair Powell. Greg Robb from MarketWatch.

In the minutes of the December meeting, there was a couple sentences that struck people as important when the committee said—participants talked about this unwarranted easing of financial conditions was a risk and it would make your life harder to bring inflation down. Haven’t seen—heard you talk much about that today, or in the statement. So I was wondering, has that concern eased among members? Or is that still something you’re concerned about? Thank you.

MR. POWELL: I would put it this way, it’s something that we monitor carefully. Financial conditions didn’t really change much from the December meeting to now. They mostly went sideways or up and down, but came out in roughly the same place. It’s important that the markets do reflect the tightening that we’re putting in place. As we’ve—as we’ve discussed a couple times here, there is a difference in perspective by some market measures on how fast inflation will come down. We’re just going to have to see. I mean, I’m not going to try to persuade people to have a different forecast, but our forecast is that it will take some time and some patience, andthat we’ll need to keep rates higher for longer. But we’ll see.

问：谢谢你，鲍威尔主席。Greg Robb来自MarketWatch。

在12月的会议记录中，有几句话让人觉得很重要，委员会说--与会者谈到这种无端放松金融条件的做法是一种风险，它将使你的生活更难降低通胀。没有看到--听到你今天或在声明中谈及此事。所以我想知道，成员们的这种担忧是否有所缓解？还是说你仍然在担心这个问题？谢谢你。

鲍威尔：我想这样说，这是我们仔细监测的事情。从12月的会议到现在，金融状况并没有什么变化。它们大多是横向或上下波动，但大致上是在同一个地方。重要的是，市场确实反映了我们正在实施的紧缩政策。正如我们--我们已经在这里讨论过几次，一些市场措施对通胀率将下降的速度有不同的看法。我们只能拭目以待。我的意思是，我不会试图说服人们，他们有不同的预测，但我们的预测是，这将需要一些时间和一些耐心，我们将需要保持更高的利率更长时间。但我们（最终）会看到（紧缩的效果）。

Q: Hi, Chair Powell. Brendan Pedersen with Punchbowl News.

I wanted to ask if the Fed takes into account at all the debt ceiling when it comes to quantitative tightening, given the fact that rapid or faster quantitative tightening could bring us closer, faster to that drop-dead debt ceiling deadline. Could it play an effect as we get closer to that drop-dead deadline this summer?

MR. POWELL: Look, it’s very hard to think about all the different possible ramifications. And I think the answer is basically I don’t think there’s likely to be any important interaction between the two, because I believe Congress will wind up acting, as it will and must in the end, to raise the debt ceiling in a way that doesn’t risk, you know, the progress we’re making against inflation, and the economy, and the financial sector. I believe that that will happen. I believe it will happen. You know, we, of course, will monitor money market conditions carefully as—you know, as the process moves on.

For example, the Treasury general account will shrink down and then it will grow back up. And we understand there’ll be lots of flows between there and the overnight repo facility and reserves. We understand all that, and we’re watching it carefully. We’ll just be monitoring it.

Thank you very much.

问：你好，鲍威尔主席。我是Punchbowl新闻的Brendan Pedersen。

我想问的是，鉴于快速或更快的量化紧缩可能使我们更接近、更快达到债务上限的最后期限，美联储在进行量化紧缩时是否考虑到债务上限的问题。当我们越来越接近今年夏天的最后期限时，它是否会发挥影响？

鲍威尔：听着，很难考虑所有不同的可能后果。我认为答案是，基本上我不认为这两者之间会有任何重要的互动，因为我相信国会最终会采取行动，因为它最终会也必须采取行动，以一种不冒风险的方式提高债务上限，你知道，我们在应对通货膨胀、经济和金融部门方面取得的进展。我相信这将会发生。我相信这将会发生。你知道，我们当然会仔细监测货币市场状况，因为你知道，随着这一进程的推进。

例如，财政部的一般账户将缩减，然后它将重新增长。我们知道在那里和隔夜回购机制以及储备金之间会有很多流动。我们了解所有这些，而且我们正在仔细观察它。我们只是在监控它。

非常感谢你。（答记者问环节结束）

小结一下：整个环节看下来，你就算不把它视为“有些鹰派”，起码这也是一份“中性”的报告，结合市场之前就已经充分预期到25个点，所以还是那句话：市场可能过于乐观了些，而这往往代表机会，至少也不应该抢跑！人家说3月底可能才宣布结婚，你不过元宵就跑去要喝喜酒，让人觉得不举行婚礼都有点对不住你，你何必？有那么多份子钱吗？当然这都是个人意见，本号还是要强调一下：慎重参考结论，逻辑的推导过程可能是更有价值的东西，也可能不是，你且看看。本来想再解读下最新的经济数据，但是篇幅可能太长，留着下次吧，基本上鲍威尔的讲话中也涉及到了。这份讲话的英文原文我对着视频核实过了，学英语也好，研判趋势也好，放心拿去用吧。

好的，本次的分享到此结束，如觉有用，点个在看，分享一下。这是经济数据解读系列【WXGZH杨梅看趋势】，感谢观看。