本次聯準發佈會的十個要點

2026/03/19

•

忽略（看穿）能源衝擊確實是傳統的做法，但這前提是通膨預期必須保持穩定。
如果非要取消一次SEP發佈，這次絕對是最合適的，因為我們現在真的是兩眼一抹黑。
我們經歷了關稅衝擊，經歷了疫情，現在又來了一個規模和持續時間都不確定的能源衝擊。這種接連不斷的破事很容易讓通膨預期脫錨出問題。
我們覺得（利率）現在這個處於限制性邊界高位的位置，剛剛好。
在調查真正以完全透明和徹底完結的方式結束之前，我絕對沒有離開委員會的打算。至於任期結束且調查結束後，我還會不會繼續留任聯準會理事，我還沒做決定。
委員會裡不少人真正擔心的，是新增就業的絕對水平太低了。這種零就業增長的平衡，讓人覺得暗藏風險。
世界真的變了嗎？疫情就這麼一次對吧？這次的能源斷供也是偶發事件。這並不是什麼不可逆的大趨勢……我不敢斷言世界格局已經變到以後全是供給側衝擊的地步。
就像上次會議那樣，我們聊到了下一步可能不是降息而是加息的可能性。
我寧願把“滯脹”這個詞留給那種真正水深火熱的局面，現在遠遠沒到那份上。
大家都在滿世界建資料中心，這反而把需要的各種商品和服務的價格給抬上去了，這顯然是在邊際上推高通膨。不僅如此，它還有可能會拉高中性利率。

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

至於我們是否要“忽略”能源通膨帶來的影響，在解決關稅問題之前，這個問題其實還排不上號。忽略（看穿）能源衝擊確實是傳統的做法，但這前提是通膨預期必須保持穩定。而且我認為現在還要考慮你提到的背景，也就是通膨已經連續五年高於目標了。我們必須綜合考慮這些，真到了要決定是否“忽略”能源衝擊的時候，我們絕不會掉以輕心。

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

我特別想強調一點，沒人知道未來的經濟影響會變大還是變小。我們就是不知道。所以大家只是寫下了自己覺得合理的預測，但其實都沒什麼底氣。如果高油價持續很長時間，那肯定會拖累可支配收入，進而拖累消費。但我們不知道會不會這樣。也有可能價格傳導比預期的低得多。好幾個委員都私下說，如果非要取消一次SEP發佈，這次絕對是最合適的，因為我們現在真的是兩眼一抹黑。所以我也不能打包票說這波衝擊會很快過去還是很慢。你總得在預測表上寫點數字。

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

主要的問題在於，這都五年了（指通膨超標），我們經歷了關稅衝擊，經歷了疫情，現在又來了一個規模和持續時間都不確定的能源衝擊。這種接連不斷的破事很容易讓通膨預期脫錨出問題。所以我們非常擔心這點。我們也堅定承諾會盡一切努力把通膨預期錨定在2%。這非常關鍵。

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

這可不是什麼標準的菲利普斯曲線能解釋的，這就是一次性衝擊在消退。同時，我們認為政策得保持輕微的限制性，但不能太緊，因為勞動力市場有下行風險。我們現在是兩頭為難：就業下行風險大，按理說得降息；通膨上行風險大，按理說得加息或者至少不能降。局勢很棘手，但我們的框架要求平衡風險。我們覺得現在這個處於限制性邊界高位的位置，剛剛好。

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

順便提一句，關於調查期間我會不會辭職的問題，在調查真正以完全透明和徹底完結的方式結束之前，我絕對沒有離開委員會的打算。你們可以去看看聯準會簡報裡的聲明，別的我就不多說了。至於任期結束且調查結束後，我還會不會繼續留任聯準會理事，我還沒做決定。我會基於什麼對聯準會最好、對美國人民最好來做決定。Edward，我就知道你想起這個頭，關於這些問題我不會再多說一個字了。

but the thing that I think a good number of people in the committee are concerned about is just the very, very low level of job creation. If you adjust what has been the trend job creation over the past six months, if you adjust that for what our staff thinks is the overstatement due to overcounting effectively, there's zero net job creation in the private sector. But actually that looks like that's about what the economy needs in terms of dealing with very, very low nonexistent really growth in the labor force, which of course, we've never had in our history. So you've got a sort of a zero employment growth equilibrium now that's a balance, okay, but you know I would say it does have a feel of downside risk, and it's not kind of a really comfortable balance.

但委員會裡不少人真正擔心的，是新增就業的絕對水平太低了。如果把過去半年的新增就業趨勢拿出來，剔除掉內部人員認為的統計注水水分，其實私營部門的淨新增就業基本是零。考慮到目前勞動力供應幾乎零增長這種歷史罕見的情況，這似乎也正是經濟目前需要的狀態。所以現在是一種零就業增長的平衡。但這平衡讓人覺得暗藏風險，坐得並不安穩。

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

我們之前確實過了很長一段只有需求側衝擊的日子，所以這四五年我們算是把供給側衝擊徹底見識透了。這完全是兩碼事，處理起來難太多了，因為它直接把保就業和穩物價這對矛盾擺在了檯面上。但世界真的變了嗎？疫情就這麼一次對吧？這次的能源斷供也是偶發事件。這並不是什麼不可逆的大趨勢。之前烏克蘭那次的油價衝擊也是戰爭搞出來的。所以我真不敢斷言世界格局已經變到以後全是供給側衝擊的地步。雖然不少論文和演講天天都在渲染這個論調，事實也確實是過去五年我們遇到的供給側衝擊比之前好多年加起來都多。

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

是的，今天確實討論過了。就像上次開會一樣，我們聊到了下一步可能不是降息而是加息的可能性。但絕大多數委員並不覺得這是基準情形。當然，我們從不排除任何選項。

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

滯脹？是的。剛才我也提了，現在保就業和控通膨確實在打架，通膨往上竄，就業往下掉。這確實很被動。但一提到“滯脹”，我得科普一下，那是70年代的老黃曆了。那時候失業率兩位數，通膨高得嚇人，倆加一塊兒的“痛苦指數”簡直爆表。現在可不是這樣。我們現在的失業率基本上就是長期正常水平，通膨也就超標了一個百分點。把這叫滯脹？顯然不是。我寧願把“滯脹”這個詞留給那種真正水深火熱的局面，現在遠遠沒到那份上。我們現在就是雙重使命存在衝突，我們在想辦法趟過去。雖然棘手，但跟70年代比差遠了。我就認70年代那叫滯脹，可能這就是我的個人執念吧。

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

重點是，我們現在還沒真正吃到生成式AI的紅利，等它發威的時候，還會對資料產生貢獻。所以這事相當反常，但正是這種高生產率撐起了收入的長期增長。這是天大的好事。至於說AI能壓低通膨，這結論下得太草率了，特別是生成式AI。你得想清楚，短期內發生了什麼？大家都在滿世界建資料中心，這反而把需要的各種商品和服務的價格給抬上去了，這顯然是在邊際上推高通膨。不僅如此，它還有可能會拉高中性利率。 (智堡Mikko)