在2024年9月18日的FOMC會議中，美國聯邦準備理事會決定降息兩碼。回顧過去，為應對2019年底爆發的COVID-19疫情，美國政府自2020年起實施大規模的量化寬鬆政策，導致從2020年第三季開始出現顯著的通貨膨脹。為了遏制通膨，聯準會自2022年3月起展開了快速且大幅度的升息行動，至今已進行了11次升息，累計達到21碼，使利率區間來到5.25%至5.5%。到了2024年初，透過貨幣政策來抑制通膨的成效逐漸顯現，截至今年8月，通膨率已經降至2.5%（相比2022年的最高峰9%）。與此同時，北京政府也承認中國大陸正面臨通貨緊縮，並在9月24日與25日實施了降準與降息政策，開始進行量化寬鬆以促進貨幣流動性。這意味著美國與中國大陸兩大經濟體的貨幣政策進入了新一輪的循環（或許也可以說是新的競爭？）。由於美國即將在11月舉行總統大選，不禁讓人聯想到聯準會此時的降息是否具有政治操作的考量。本篇將探討在此次FOMC會後記者會上，媒體對於這次降息的疑慮，以及記者們的提問中所反映的主要觀點。
 |
| 本圖取自Wikipedia |
本篇文章不僅供OT自我學習使用，也歡迎各位朋友轉載並註明原文網址。
Transcript of Chair Powell’s Press Conference
September 18, 2024
主席致詞原文：
CHAIR POWELL. Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people. Our economy is strong overall and has made significant progress toward our goals over the past two years. The labor market has cooled from its formerly overheated state. Inflation has eased substantially from a peak of 7 percent to an estimated 2.2 percent as of August. We are committed to maintaining our economy’s strength by supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to our 2 percent goal.
Today, the Federal Open Market Committee decided to reduce the degree of policy restraint by lowering our policy interest rate by 1/2 percentage point. This decision reflects our growing confidence that, with an appropriate recalibration of our policy stance, strength in the labor market can be maintained in a context of moderate growth and inflation moving sustainably down to 2 percent. We also decided to continue to reduce our securities holdings. I will have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments.
Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. GDP rose at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first half of the year, and available data point to a roughly similar pace of growth this quarter. Growth of consumer spending has remained resilient, and investment in equipment and intangibles has picked up from its anemic pace last year. In the housing sector, investment fell back in the second quarter after rising strongly in the first. Improving supply conditions have supported resilient demand and the strong performance of the U.S. economy over the past year. In our Summary of Economic Projections, Committee participants generally expect GDP growth to remain solid, with a median projection of 2 percent over the next few years.
In the labor market, conditions have continued to cool. Payroll job gains averaged 116 thousand per month over the past three months, a notable stepdown from the pace seen earlier in the year. The unemployment rate has moved up but remains low at 4.2 percent. Nominal wage growth has eased over the past year and the jobs-to-workers gap has narrowed. Overall, a broad set of indicators suggests that conditions in the labor market are now less tight than just before the pandemic in 2019. The labor market is not a source of elevated inflationary pressures. The median projection for the unemployment rate in the SEP is 4.4 percent at the end of this year, 4 tenths higher than projected in June.
Inflation has eased notably over the past two years but remains above our longer-run goal of 2 percent. Estimates based on the Consumer Price Index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 2.2 percent over the 12 months ending in August; and that, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.7 percent. Longer-term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored, as reflected in a broad range of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, as well as measures from financial markets. The median projection in the SEP for total PCE inflation is 2.3 percent this year and 2.1 percent next year, somewhat lower than projected in June. Thereafter, the median projection is 2 percent.
Our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. For much of the past three years, inflation ran well above our 2 percent goal, and labor market conditions were extremely tight. Our primary focus had been on bringing down inflation, and appropriately so. We 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.
Our restrictive monetary policy has helped restore the balance between aggregate supply and demand, easing inflationary pressures and ensuring that inflation expectations remain well anchored. Our patient approach over the past year has paid dividends: Inflation is now much closer to our objective, and we have gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent.
As inflation has declined and the labor market has cooled, the upside risks to inflation have diminished and the downside risks to employment have increased. We now see the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals as roughly in balance, and we are attentive to the risks to both sides of our dual mandate.
In light of the progress on inflation and the balance of risks, at today’s meeting the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/2 percentage point, to 4-3/4 percent to 5 percent. This recalibration of our policy stance will help maintain the strength of the economy and the labor market and will continue to enable further progress on inflation as we begin the process of moving toward a more neutral stance. We are not on any preset course. We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting.
We know that reducing policy restraint too quickly could hinder progress on inflation. At the same time, reducing restraint too slowly could unduly weaken economic activity and employment. In considering additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.
In our SEP, FOMC participants wrote down their individual assessments of an appropriate path for the federal funds rate, based on what each participant judges to be the most likely scenario going forward. If the economy evolves as expected, the median participant projects that the appropriate level of the federal funds rate will be 4.4 percent at the end of this year and 3.4 percent at the end of 2025. These median projections are lower than in June, consistent with the projections for lower inflation and higher unemployment, as well as the changed balance of risks. These projections, however, are not a Committee plan or decision.
As the economy evolves, monetary policy will adjust in order to best promote our maximum employment and price stability goals. If the economy remains solid and inflation persists, we can dial back policy restraint more slowly. If the labor market were to weaken unexpectedly or inflation were to fall more quickly than anticipated, we are prepared to respond. Policy is well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate.
The Fed has been assigned two goals for monetary policy—maximum employment and stable prices. We remain committed to supporting maximum employment, bringing inflation back down to our 2 percent goal, and keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. Our success in delivering on these goals matters to all Americans. 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. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
鮑威爾主席：
下午好。我和我的同事們始終專注於實現我們的雙重使命目標，即最大限度的就業和穩定的物價，為美國人民帶來福祉。我們的經濟總體上強勁，並且在過去兩年中朝著我們的目標取得了顯著進展。勞動力市場已經從過熱的狀態冷卻下來。通膨從最高的7%大幅緩解，截至8月估計降至2.2%。我們承諾保持經濟的強勁，透過支持最大限度的就業以及將通膨恢復到2%的目標來實現。
今天，聯邦公開市場委員會決定通過將我們的政策利率下調0.5個百分點來減少政策的限制性程度。這一決定反映了我們日益增長的信心，即通過適當重新調整我們的政策立場，勞動力市場的強勁可以在適度增長和通膨穩步降至2%的情況下保持。我們還決定繼續減少我們的證券持有量。我會在簡要回顧經濟發展後，對貨幣政策做進一步說明。
近期的指標顯示，經濟活動以穩健的速度繼續擴張。上半年國內生產總值（GDP）按年率增長2.2%，而現有數據顯示本季度的增長速度大致相似。消費者支出的增長依然具有韌性，設備和無形資產的投資也從去年的疲弱步伐中回升。在住房市場方面，投資在第一季度強勁增長後，第二季度有所回落。供應條件的改善支撐了需求的韌性，以及美國經濟在過去一年的強勁表現。在我們的經濟預測摘要中，委員會成員普遍預期GDP增長將保持穩健，未來幾年的中位數預測為2%。
在勞動力市場，條件繼續冷卻。過去三個月內，平均每月新增的非農就業人數為11.6萬，這是與年初相比明顯的減速。失業率上升至4.2%，但仍處於較低水平。過去一年，名義工資增長放緩，職位與勞工之間的缺口縮小。總體來看，廣泛的指標顯示，勞動力市場的緊張狀況如今比2019年疫情前有所緩解。勞動力市場不是造成通膨壓力升高的來源。根據「經濟預測摘要」（SEP）的中位數預測，今年底失業率將達到4.4%，比6月的預測高出0.4個百分點。
通膨在過去兩年中顯著緩解，但仍高於我們2%的長期目標。根據消費者物價指數和其他數據的估算，截止到8月的過去12個月內，總體個人消費支出（PCE）價格上升了2.2%；若排除波動較大的食品和能源類別，核心PCE價格上升了2.7%。長期的通膨預期似乎依然保持穩定，這反映在對家庭、企業和預測者的廣泛調查，以及來自金融市場的數據上。SEP中的中位數預測顯示，今年的總體PCE通膨率為2.3%，明年為2.1%，比6月的預測略低。此後的中位數預測為2%。
我們的貨幣政策行動是以促進最大限度的就業和價格穩定這兩項任務為指導，服務於美國人民。在過去三年中，大部分時間通膨遠高於我們的2%目標，且勞動力市場條件極其緊張。我們的主要關注點一直是降低通膨，這是適當的。我們深知高通膨對人們造成嚴重困難，因為它侵蝕了購買力，尤其是對那些最難以承擔食品、住房和交通等必需品高昂成本的人群來說。
我們的緊縮貨幣政策幫助恢復了總供給與需求之間的平衡，減輕了通膨壓力，並確保通膨預期保持穩定。我們在過去一年的耐心方法已經帶來了成果：通膨現在已經接近我們的目標，我們對通膨穩步降至2%的信心增強了。
隨著通膨的下降和勞動力市場的冷卻，通膨上行的風險已減少，而就業的下行風險則增加。我們現在認為實現就業和通膨目標的風險大致平衡，我們密切關注雙重使命中的雙方面風險。
鑑於通膨的進展以及風險的平衡，今天的會議中，委員會決定將聯邦基金利率的目標區間下調0.5個百分點，至4.75%至5%。這一政策立場的重新調整將有助於維持經濟和勞動力市場的強勁，並繼續推動通膨進一步進展，因為我們已經開始朝向一個更加中性的立場邁進。我們並沒有固定的路徑。我們將繼續根據每次會議的數據來做出決策。
我們知道，過快地減少政策限制可能會阻礙通膨的進展。同時，過慢地減少限制可能會過度削弱經濟活動和就業。在考慮進一步調整聯邦基金利率的目標區間時，委員會將仔細評估即將到來的數據、經濟前景的演變以及風險的平衡。
在我們的「經濟預測摘要」（SEP）中，FOMC的參與者根據每個人認為最可能的情況，寫下了對聯邦基金利率適當路徑的個人評估。如果經濟如預期發展，中位數參與者預計聯邦基金利率的適當水平今年底將達到4.4%，2025年底將達到3.4%。這些中位數預測低於6月的預測，這與較低的通膨和較高的失業率預測一致，以及風險平衡的改變。然而，這些預測不是委員會的計劃或決定。
隨著經濟的發展，貨幣政策將會調整，以便最好地促進我們的最大就業和價格穩定目標。如果經濟保持穩固且通膨持續，我們可以減緩政策限制的放鬆步伐。如果勞動力市場出現意外的疲弱或通膨比預期更快下降，我們也準備作出回應。政策的設置是為了應對我們在追求雙重使命時面臨的風險和不確定性。
聯準會的貨幣政策被賦予了兩個目標——最大化就業和穩定物價。我們仍然致力於支持最大限度的就業，將通膨率降低到我們2%的目標，並保持長期通膨預期的穩定。我們在實現這些目標上的成功關係到所有美國人。我們明白，我們的行動會影響到全國各地的社區、家庭和企業。我們所做的一切都是在服務我們的公共使命。我們聯準會將竭盡全力實現我們的最大就業和物價穩定目標。謝謝。我期待大家的提問。
STEVE LIESMAN的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Steve.
STEVE LIESMAN. Steve Liesman, CNBC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for taking our questions. In July you said you weren't necessarily thinking about a 50, you didn't want to be specific, but you said you weren't thinking about a 50. The inflation data last week came out a little firmer than expected; retail was strong, third quarter GDP running 3 percent, so what changed that made the Committee go, 50, and how do you respond to the concerns that perhaps it shows the Fed is more concerned about the labor market? And I guess, should we expect more 50's in the months ahead? And based on what should we make that call? Thank you.
CHAIR POWELL. So, okay, a lot of questions in there. Let me jump in. So, since the last meeting, okay, the last meeting we have had a lot of data come in. We've had the two employment reports, July and August, we've also had two inflation reports, including one that came in during blackout, we had the QCEW report, which suggests that maybe, that not maybe, but suggests that the payroll report numbers that we're getting may be artificially high and will be revised down, you know that. We've also seen anecdotal data, like the Beige Book, so we took all of those and we went into blackout and we thought about what to do, and we concluded that this was the right thing for the economy, for the people that we serve, and that's how we made our decision. So, that's one question. What was the second and third?
STEVE LIESMAN. How do we make the-- sorry, thank you, sir. How do we figure out in the months ahead is there another 25 or 50 coming in based on what should we make that call? Thank you.
CHAIR POWELL. Sure, so a couple things, a good place to start is the SEP, but let me start with what I said, which was that we're going to be making decisions meeting by meeting based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook, the balance of risks. If you look at the SEP, you'll see that it's a process of recalibrating our policy stance away from where we had it a year ago, when inflation was high and unemployment low, to a place that's more appropriate given where we are now and where we expect to be. And that process will take place over time. There's nothing in the SEP that suggests the Committee is in a rush to get this done. This process evolves over time. Of course that's a projection, that's a baseline projection. We know, as I mentioned in my remarks, that the actual things that we do will depend on the way the economy evolves. We can go quicker if that's appropriate, we can go slower, if that's appropriate. We can pause if that's appropriate. But that's what we are contemplating, again, I would point you to the SEP as just an assessment of where, what the Committee is thinking today. What the individual members rather, are thinking today assuming that their particular forecasts take, are realized.
MICHELLE SMITH：Steve。
Steve Liesman：Steve Liesman，CNBC。謝謝您，主席先生，回答我們的問題。在七月，您曾說不一定會考慮50個基點，您不想具體說明，但您說過不會考慮50。上週的通膨數據比預期稍微強勁，零售業表現也很強勁，第三季度GDP增長達到3%，那麼是什麼改變了委員會的決定，使其選擇50個基點？您如何回應外界的擔憂，或許這顯示聯準會更關注勞動力市場？我猜想，未來幾個月我們應該預期更多的50個基點調整嗎？基於什麼應該做出這樣的決定？謝謝。
鮑威爾主席：好的，裡面有很多問題，讓我來回答。自上次會議以來，對，從上次會議以來，我們收到了很多數據。我們有兩份就業報告，分別是七月和八月的，還有兩份通膨報告，其中一份是在封閉期內收到的，還有QCEW報告，這表明可能，應該說是表明我們收到的非農就業報告數據可能偏高，並將被向下修正，你知道的。我們還看到了例如米色書（Beige Book）中的一些軼事數據，然後我們進入封閉期，仔細考慮該做什麼，最終我們認為這是對經濟和服務我們的人民最正確的決定，這就是我們做出決定的過程。那是其中一個問題。第二個和第三個問題是什麼？
Steve Liesman：我們如何判斷未來幾個月是有25個基點還是50個基點調整？基於什麼應該做出這樣的決定？謝謝。
鮑威爾主席：當然，有幾件事，首先可以從「經濟預測摘要」（SEP）開始，但我先從我說過的開始，我們將根據即將到來的數據、前景的變化以及風險的平衡逐次會議做出決策。如果你看看SEP，你會看到這是一個重新調整我們政策立場的過程，從一年前通膨高漲、失業率低的情況，轉向更符合我們當前狀況和預期的政策立場。這個過程將隨著時間推移進行。在SEP中沒有任何內容表明委員會急於完成這一過程。這是一個隨時間演變的過程。當然，這是一個預測，這是一個基準預測。正如我在講話中提到的，我們實際做出的行動將取決於經濟的發展。如果情況合適，我們可以加快步伐，如果情況合適，我們可以放慢步伐，必要時我們也可以暫停。但這就是我們正在考慮的事情，再次指出，SEP只是一個評估，反映了委員會今天的想法，或更準確地說，是各成員根據他們的預測所認為今天的情況。
CHRIS RUGABER的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Let’s go to Chris.
CHRIS RUGABER. Hi, Chris Rugaber at Associated Press. Thank you. The projections show that the Fed officials expect the fed funds rate to still be above their estimate of long-run neutral by the end of next year. So, does that suggest UC rates as restrictive for that entire period? Does that threaten the weakening of the job market that you said you'd like to avoid? Or, does it suggest that maybe people see the short-run neutral as a little bit higher than-- Thank you.
CHAIR POWELL. I think it would, the way I would really characterize it as this, I think people write down their estimate, individuals do, and I think every single person on the Committee, if you asked them what's your level of certainty around that, they would say there's a wide range where that could fall. So, I think we don't know, they're model based approaches and empirically based approaches that estimate what the neutral rate will be at any given time. But realistically, we know it by its works. So that leaves us in a place where we'll be, where we expect in the base case to be continuing to remove restriction, and we'll be looking at the way the economy reacts to that, and that'll be guiding us in our thinking about the question that we're asking at every meeting, which is; is our policy stance the appropriate one? We know, if you go back, we know that the policy stance we adopted in July of 2023 came at a time when unemployment was 3 and 1/2 percent and inflation was 4.2 percent. Today, unemployment is up to 4.2 percent, inflation's down to a few tenths above 2. So, we know that it is time to recalibrate our policy to something that is more appropriate given the progress on inflation, and on employment, moving to a more sustainable level, so the balance of risks are now even. And this is the beginning of that process I mentioned the direction of which is toward a sense of neutral, and we'll move as fast or as slow as we think is appropriate in real-time. What you have is our individual accumulation of individual estimates of what that will be in the base case.
MICHELLE SMITH：接下來是Chris。
Chris Rugaber：嗨，我是美聯社的Chris Rugaber。謝謝。預測顯示，聯準會官員預計聯邦基金利率到明年底仍將高於他們對長期中性利率的估計。那麼，這是否意味著在整個期間，利率將保持在一個限制性的水平？這是否會威脅到您之前提到希望避免的就業市場疲軟？還是說這意味著人們可能認為短期中性利率略高於預期？謝謝。
鮑威爾主席：我認為可以這樣說，我覺得大家寫下的都是個人的估計，而我想，委員會中的每一位成員，如果你問他們對此有多大的確定性，他們都會說這裡有很大的不確定範圍。因此，我們並不知道，這些估計是基於模型和經驗的推測，來估算任何時候的中性利率。但是現實情況是，我們會根據實際結果來判斷。因此，這讓我們處於這樣的情況：我們預計，在基準情況下，會繼續去除政策限制，我們會觀察經濟的反應，這將指導我們思考我們每次會議時要問的問題，即：我們的政策立場是否合適？我們知道，如果回顧一下，我們在2023年7月採取的政策立場是在失業率為3.5%且通膨為4.2%的情況下制定的。今天，失業率上升到4.2%，通膨下降到略高於2%。因此，我們知道，是時候根據通膨和就業的進展重新調整我們的政策，使其更適合現在的情況，讓我們朝著更可持續的水平前進，因此風險平衡現在是均衡的。而這是我提到的那個過程的開始，這個過程的方向是朝著中性水平，我們將根據實時情況決定移動的速度。你所看到的是我們每位成員的個別預測所累積的基準情況。
HOWARD SCHNEIDER的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Howard.
HOWARD SCHNEIDER. Howard Schneider with Reuters. How close was this in terms of the decision, you do have the first dissent by a governor since 2005 I think, was the weight clearly in favor of a 50, or was this a very close decision?
CHAIR POWELL. I think we had a good discussion, if you go back, I talked about this at Jackson Hole, but I didn't address the question of the size of the cut and left it open and I think we left it open going into blackout, and so there was a lot of discussion back and forth, good diversity of division, excellent discussion today. I think there was also broad support for the decision that the Committee voted on. So, I would add though, look at the SEP, all 19 of the participants wrote down multiple cuts this year. All 19. That's a big change from June, right? Seven of the, seven of them wrote down three or more and sorry, 17 of the 19 wrote down three or more cuts and 10 of the 19 wrote down four or more cuts. So, there is a dissent and there's a range of views but there's actually a lot of common ground as well.
HOWARD SCHNEIDER. Follow-up to that; now that this is in the books, can you give us some guidance as sort of a follow up to Steve on the pacing here? Would you expect this to be running every other meeting once we get into next year?
CHAIR POWELL. Yeah, we're going to take it meeting by meeting, as I mentioned, there's no sense that the Committee feels it's in a rush to do this. We made a good, strong start to this and that's really, frankly, a sign of our confidence. Confidence that inflation is coming down toward 2 percent on a sustainable basis. That gives us the ability. We can, you know, make a good, strong start. But, and I'm very pleased that we did. To me the logic of this, both from an economic standpoint and also from a risk management standpoint, was clear. But I think we're going to go carefully meeting by meeting and make our decisions as we go.
HOWARD SCHNEIDER. Thank you.
MICHELLE SMITH：Howard。
Howard Schneider：我是路透社的Howard Schneider。這次的決定有多接近？我想這是自2005年以來第一次有州長表示異議，這是否明顯支持50個基點的減息，還是這是一個非常接近的決定？
鮑威爾主席：我認為我們進行了一次很好的討論。如果你回顧一下，我在傑克森洞（Jackson Hole）提到過這件事，但我並沒有具體討論減息的幅度，我們進入封閉期時也保持這個問題的開放性，因此在期間進行了很多討論，有很好的分歧，也有非常出色的討論。我認為委員會對此次投票的決定也有廣泛的支持。不過，我還想補充一下，看看SEP，今年所有19位參與者都寫下了多次減息的預期。19位全寫了，這與6月相比是一個很大的變化，對吧？其中有7位預計今年減息三次或更多，抱歉，17位預計三次或更多，10位預計四次或更多。所以，雖然有不同意見，且有各種觀點，但實際上也有很多共識。
Howard Schneider：作為後續問題，現在這個決定已經確定了，能不能給我們一些指導，就像Steve提到的步伐問題？你預期明年開始每隔一次會議就會有一次調整嗎？
鮑威爾主席：是的，我們會逐次會議做出決定，正如我提到的，委員會並沒有急於完成這個過程。我們已經有了一個很好且強有力的開端，這確實，坦率地說，顯示了我們的信心。我們對於通膨穩步降至2%的信心增強了，這給了我們行動的能力。我們可以，知道，做一個好的、強有力的開端，我也很高興我們做到了。對我來說，這無論從經濟角度還是風險管理角度來看，都是非常清晰的邏輯。但我認為我們會小心謹慎地逐次會議進行，並根據情況做出決定。
Howard Schneider：謝謝。
JEANNA SMIALEK的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Jeanna.
JEANNA SMIALEK. Hi Chair Powell, Jeanna Smialek, New York Times. Thanks for taking our questions. You and your colleagues in your economic projections today see the unemployment rate climbing to 4.4 percent and staying there. Obviously, historically when the unemployment rate climbs that much over a relatively short period of time, it doesn't typically just stop, it continues increasing. And so I wonder if you can walk us through why you see the labor market stabilizing, sort of what's the mechanism there? And what do you see as the risks?
CHAIR POWELL. So, again, the labor market is actually in solid condition. And our intention with our policy move today is to keep it there. You can say that about the whole economy. The U.S. economy is in good shape. It's growing at a solid pace, inflation is coming down, the labor market is in a strong pace, we want to keep it there. That's what we're doing.
Michelle. Jeanna
Jeanna Smialek：您好，鮑威爾主席，我是《紐約時報》的Jeanna Smialek。謝謝您回答我們的問題。您和您的同事今天在經濟預測中看到失業率將上升到4.4%並保持在那裡。顯然，從歷史上看，當失業率在相對短的時間內上升到這個程度時，通常不會就此停止，通常會繼續上升。因此，我想請您解釋一下，為什麼您認為勞動力市場會穩定下來，這其中的機制是什麼？您認為風險是什麼？
鮑威爾主席：再說一次，勞動力市場實際上處於穩健狀態。我們今天的政策調整目的是保持這樣的狀況。您可以這樣說，整體經濟狀況也是如此。美國經濟狀況良好，正以穩健的速度增長，通膨正在下降，勞動力市場也處於強勁狀態，我們希望保持這樣的狀況。這就是我們的目標。
NICK TIMIRAOS的提問
MICHELLE. Sorry, Nick.
NICK TIMIRAOS. Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal. Chair Powell, does today's action constitute a catch-up in action given recent substantial revisions to the employment data, or is this larger than typical rate cut a function of the elevated nominal level of the policy rate such that an accelerated cadence could be expected to continue?
CHAIR POWELL. Okay, multiple questions in there but, so I would say we don't think we're behind, we do not think-- we think this is timely, but I think you can take this as a sign of our commitment not to get behind. So, it's a strong move. Sorry, your other question was?
NICK TIMIRAOS. It was, is this about what happened in the unemployment data between this meeting and the last meeting? Or is this about the level of the funds rate, the high nominal level of funds rate relative to what might be expected if you're trying to maintain equilibrium.
CHAIR POWELL. So, I think it's about, we come into this with a policy position that was put in place, as you know, I mentioned in July of 2023, which was a time of high inflation and very low unemployment. We've been very patient about reducing the policy rate. We waited, other central banks around the world have cut, many of them several times. We've waited and I think that that patience has really paid dividends in the form of our confidence that inflation is moving sustainably under 2 percent. So, I think that is what enables us to take this strong move today. I do not think that anyone should look at this and say oh, this is the new pace. You have to think about it in terms of the base case, of course, what happens will happen, so in the base case what you see is look at the SEP, you see cuts moving along, the sense of this is we're recalibrating policy down over time to a more neutral level. And we're moving at the pace that we think is appropriate given developments in the economy and the base case. The economy can develop in a way that would cause us to go faster or slower, but that's what the base case is.
NICK TIMIRAOS. And if I could follow-up on the balance sheet, in 2019 when you did the mid-cycle adjustment, you ceased the balance sheet runoff. With a larger cut today, is there any, should there be any signal inferred about how the Committee would approach and state on the balance sheet policy?
CHAIR POWELL. So, in the current situation, reserves have really been stable, they haven't come down. So reserves are still abundant and expected to remain so for some time. As you know, the shrinkage in our balance sheet has really come out of the overnight RRP. So, I think what that tells you is we're not thinking about stopping runoff because of this at all. We know that these two things can happen side by side, in a sense they're both a form of normalization and so for a time you can have the balance sheet shrinking but also be cutting rates.
Michelle：抱歉，Nick。
Nick Timiraos：我是《華爾街日報》的Nick Timiraos。鮑威爾主席，今天的行動是否可以被視為對最近就業數據大幅修正的補償行動，還是這次較大幅度的降息是因為政策利率的名義水平較高，因此可能會預期加快節奏並繼續下去？
鮑威爾主席：好的，這裡有多個問題，但我想說的是，我們不認為我們落後了，我們認為這次行動是及時的，但你可以將其視為我們決心不落後的表現。因此，這是一個強有力的舉措。抱歉，您的另一個問題是什麼？
Nick Timiraos：是的，這是關於從上次會議到這次會議之間發生的失業數據變動，還是關於聯邦基金利率水平，特別是相對於維持平衡所預期的較高名義水平？
鮑威爾主席：所以，我認為這與我們所採取的政策立場有關，正如你所知，我在2023年7月提到過，當時通膨很高，失業率非常低。我們對於減少政策利率非常有耐心，我們等待了，世界上許多其他央行已經多次降息，而我們一直在等待。我認為這種耐心確實帶來了成果，使我們對通膨能夠穩步降至2%以下充滿信心。因此，這使我們能夠採取今天這一強有力的舉措。我不認為任何人應該將此視為新的節奏。你必須將其視為基準情況，當然，發生的事情會發生，因此基準情況是你在SEP中看到的逐步減息，這意味著我們在隨時間推進時將政策重新調整至更加中性的水平。我們正以我們認為適合經濟發展和基準情況的步伐行進。經濟可能會發展得更快或更慢，但這就是基準情況。
Nick Timiraos：如果我能繼續追問資產負債表，您在2019年做中期調整時停止了資產負債表的縮減。鑑於今天較大幅度的降息，是否應該推斷出委員會將如何處理資產負債表政策？
鮑威爾主席：所以，在當前的情況下，儲備金實際上是穩定的，沒有減少。因此，儲備金仍然充足，預計會保持一段時間。正如你所知，我們的資產負債表縮減主要來自隔夜逆回購協議（RRP）。因此，我認為這告訴你的是，我們並沒有因為這次降息而考慮停止縮減。我們知道這兩件事可以同時發生，從某種意義上說，它們都是正常化的一部分，因此在一段時間內，你可以同時進行資產負債表的縮減和降息。
COLBY SMITH的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Colby.
COLBY SMITH. Thank you, Colby Smith with the Financial Times. Just following up on Jeanna's question on rising unemployment. Is it your view that this is just a function of a normalizing labor market amid improved supply, or is there anything to suggest that something more concerning perhaps is taking place here, given that other metrics of labor demand have softened too? And I guess, in direct follow up of Jeanna's, do you not, why should we not expect a further deterioration in labor market conditions if policy is still restricted?
CHAIR POWELL. So I think what we're seeing is clearly labor market conditions have cooled off by any measure, as I talked about in Jackson Hole, and but they're still at a level, the level of those conditions is actually pretty close to what I would call maximum employment. So you're close to mandate, maybe at mandate, on that. So, what's driving it? Clearly, clearly payroll job creation has moved down over the last few months, and this bears watching. Meant by many other measures, the labor market has returned to or below 2019 levels, which was a very good strong labor market, but this is more sort of 2018, '17. So, the labor market bears close watching and we'll be giving it that. But ultimately, we think, we believe, with an appropriate recalibration of our policy that we can continue to see the economy growing and that will support the labor market. In the meantime, if you look at the growth in economic activity data; retail sales data that we just got, second quarter GDP, all of this indicates an economy that is still growing at a solid pace. So that should also support the labor market over time. So, but again, we're-- it bears watching and we're watching.
COLBY SMITH. And just on the point about starting to see rising layoffs, if that were to happen, wouldn't the Committee already be too late in terms of avoiding a recession?
CHAIR POWELL. So we're, that's-- our plan of course has been to begin to recalibrate and as you know, we're not seeing rising claims, we're not seeing rising layoffs, we're not seeing that and we're not hearing that from companies that that's something that's getting ready to happen. So we're not waiting for that, because there is-- there is thinking that the time to support the labor market is when it's strong, and not when we begin to see the layoffs. There's some lore on that. So that's the situation we're in. We have, in fact, begun the cutting cycle now and we'll be watching, and that'll be one of the factors that we consider. Of course, we're going to look at the totality of the data as we make these decisions meeting by meeting.
Michelle Smith：Colby。
Colby Smith：謝謝，這裡是《金融時報》的Colby Smith。想跟進Jeanna關於失業率上升的問題。您認為這只是供應改善下勞動力市場正常化的一部分，還是有跡象表明更令人擔憂的事情正在發生，特別是其他衡量勞動需求的指標也出現了放緩？另外，直接跟進Jeanna的問題，如果政策仍然保持緊縮，為什麼我們不應該預期勞動力市場狀況會進一步惡化？
鮑威爾主席：我認為我們看到的情況是，顯然勞動力市場的狀況已經冷卻，這是無論如何衡量都可以看出來的，正如我在傑克森霍爾所談到的那樣，但這些狀況的水準仍然接近我所謂的最大就業水準。所以，你可以說接近目標，甚至可能已達到目標。那麼，什麼在推動這一變化？顯然，最近幾個月新增的就業崗位已經減少，這值得我們密切關注。從許多其他指標來看，勞動力市場已經回到了2019年或以下的水準，那時勞動力市場非常強勁，但現在更像是2018或2017年的狀況。所以，勞動力市場值得密切關注，我們會繼續這樣做。不過最終，我們相信，通過適當的政策重新調整，我們可以繼續看到經濟增長，這將支持勞動力市場。與此同時，如果你看看經濟活動數據的增長，剛剛發布的零售銷售數據，第二季度的GDP增長，這些都表明經濟仍在穩步增長。因此，這應該也會隨著時間的推移支持勞動力市場。但再次強調，這需要密切關注，我們正在觀察。
Colby Smith：關於裁員上升的問題，如果真的發生，委員會是不是已經太晚，無法避免經濟衰退了？
鮑威爾主席：所以，我們的計劃當然是開始重新調整政策，正如你所知，我們並沒有看到失業救濟申請的上升，也沒有看到裁員的增加，從企業那裡也沒有聽到這樣的事情即將發生。所以我們並沒有等待這種情況，因為有一種說法認為，在勞動力市場強勁時進行支持，而不是等到裁員開始時才進行支持，這是一種經驗。所以，這就是我們當前的處境。我們事實上已經開始了降息周期，我們會持續觀察，這將是我們考量的因素之一。當然，我們會在每次會議上根據所有數據的總體情況來做出決策。
MICHAEL MCKEE的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Michael McKee.
MICHAEL MCKEE. Michael McKee with Bloomberg TV and Radio. To follow-up on that, what would constitute for you and the Committee a deterioration in the labor market? You're pricing in basically by the end of next year, 200 basis points of cuts just to maintain a higher unemployment rate. Would you be moving to a more preemptive monetary policy style rather than as you did with inflation, waiting until the data gave you a signal?
CHAIR POWELL. We're going to be watching all of the data, right? So, if, as I mentioned in my remarks, if the labor market were to slow unexpectedly, then we have the ability to react to that by cutting faster. We're also going to be looking at our other mandate, though. We are more, we have greater confidence now that inflation is moving down to 2 percent, but at the same time, our plan is that we will be at 2 percent over time. So, and policy we think is still restrictive so that should still be happening.
MICHAEL MCKEE. I'm just curious as to how sensitive you'll be to the labor market since you forecast we are going to see higher unemployment and it is going to take a significant amount of monetary easing to just maintain it.
CHAIR POWELL. So, what I would say is we don't think we need to see further loosening in labor market conditions to get inflation down to 2 percent. But we have a dual mandate, and I think you can take this whole action as, take a step back, what have we been trying to achieve? We're trying to achieve a situation where we restore price stability without the kind of painful increase in unemployment that has come sometimes with disinflation. That's what we're trying to do. And I think you can take today's action as a sign of our strong commitment to achieve that goal.
Michelle Smith：Michael McKee。
Michael McKee：我是彭博電視與廣播的Michael McKee。跟進剛剛的問題，對您和委員會來說，勞動力市場的惡化標準是什麼？你們預計到明年底將降息200個基點，只是為了維持較高的失業率。您是否會採取更前瞻性的貨幣政策，而不是像應對通膨時那樣，等數據給出信號再行動？
鮑威爾主席：我們會密切關注所有數據，對吧？正如我在講話中提到的，如果勞動力市場意外放緩，那麼我們有能力通過加快降息來應對。不過，我們也會關注我們的另一個使命。我們現在對於通膨穩步下降到2%的信心更大，但同時，我們的計劃是最終會將通膨率穩定在2%。因此，我們認為政策仍然是限制性的，這種狀況應該會持續下去。
Michael McKee：我很好奇，既然你們預測失業率將上升，並且需要大幅貨幣寬鬆才能維持，那麼你們對勞動力市場的敏感程度如何？
鮑威爾主席：我想說的是，我們認為不需要進一步放鬆勞動力市場狀況來將通膨降至2%。但我們有雙重使命，我認為你可以將這整個行動看作一個回顧，我們一直在努力達成什麼目標？我們在努力實現一種情況，即恢復價格穩定，而不伴隨通縮時有時會出現的痛苦失業增加。這就是我們的目標。我認為你可以將今天的行動視為我們強烈承諾實現這一目標的表現。
RACHEL SIEGEL的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Rachel.
RACHEL SIEGEL. Hi Chair Powell, Rachel Siegel from the Washington Post. Thanks for taking our questions. You're describing this view that you don't think you're behind when it comes to the job market. Can you walk us through the specific data points that you found to be most helpful in the discussions at this meeting? And you've mentioned a couple, but would you be able to walk us through what that dashboard told you as far as what you know about the job market now?
CHAIR POWELL. Sure, so we'll start with unemployment, which is the single most important one probably, you're at 4.2 percent. That's, I know it's higher than we were used to seeing numbers in the mid and even below mid-threes last year, but if you look back over the sweep of the year, that's a low, that's a very healthy unemployment rate. And anything in the low fours is a really, is a good labor market. So, that's one thing. Participation is at high levels, it's-- we've had, we're right adjusted for demographics for aging. Participation's at pretty high levels, that's a good thing. Wages are still a bit above what would be their-- wage increases rather are still just a bit above where they would be over the very longer-term to be consistent with 2 percent inflation, but they're very much coming down to what that sustainable level is. So we feel good about that. Vacancies over per unemployed is back to what is still a very strong level, it's not as high as it was. That number reached 2 to 1, two vacancies for every unemployed person, as measured, it's now below, it's around one. But that's still, that's still a very good number, I would say. Quits have come back down to normal levels, I mean I could go on and on. There are many, many employment indicators and what do they say? They say this is still a solid labor market. The question isn't the level, the question is that there has been change particularly over the last few months and so what we say is, as the risks, the upside risks to inflation have really come down, the downside risks to employment have increased and because we have been patient and held our fire on cutting while-- while inflation has come down, I think we're now in a very good position to manage the risks to both of our goals.
RACHEL SIEGEL. And what do you expect to learn between now and November that will help inform the scale of the cut at the next meeting?
CHAIR POWELL. You know, more data, the usual. Don't look for anything else. We'll see another labor report, we'll see another jobs report, I think we get a-- we might, actually we get two, we get a second jobs report on the day of the meeting, I think. Or no, no on the Friday before the meeting. So, and inflation data, we'll get all this data, we'll be watching, it's always a question of look at the incoming data and ask what are the implications of that data for the evolving outlook and the balance of risks and then go through our process and think, what's the right thing to do? Is policy where we want it to be to foster the achievement of our goals over time? So, that's what it is and that's what we'll be doing.
Michelle Smith：Rachel。
Rachel Siegel：您好，鮑威爾主席，我是《華盛頓郵報》的Rachel Siegel。謝謝您回答我們的問題。您提到您不認為自己在就業市場方面落後。能否帶我們了解一下在這次會議討論中，您認為最有幫助的具體數據點是哪些？您提到了一些例子，但能否進一步說明您現在所了解的就業市場情況？
鮑威爾主席：當然，讓我們從失業率開始，這可能是最重要的指標，目前失業率是4.2%。我知道這比去年中期和中位數3%以下的數字高，但如果你回顧過去一整年，這仍然是一個很低、很健康的失業率。而任何接近4%以下的數字，都是一個良好的勞動力市場。所以這是一點。勞動參與率仍然很高——經過人口老化調整後，我們的參與率依然處於很高的水準，這是一個好現象。工資增長仍然略高於長期內與2%通膨相一致的水平，但它們正在逐漸回落到可持續的水準，對此我們感到滿意。每個失業者對應的職位空缺數仍然處於非常強勁的水準，儘管不像之前那麼高了。這一數字曾達到2:1，也就是每兩個空缺對應一名失業者，現在下降到接近1左右，但這仍然是一個非常不錯的數字。我們還看到辭職率已回到正常水平，我可以繼續列舉其他指標。很多很多就業指標都在表明，這仍然是一個穩健的勞動力市場。問題不在於當前的水準，而在於過去幾個月的變化。因此，我們的看法是，隨著通膨上行風險大幅下降，失業的下行風險已經上升，因為我們在通膨下降的過程中保持了耐心，沒有急於降息。我認為現在我們處於一個非常好的位置，可以管理好我們雙重目標的風險。
Rachel Siegel：您預期從現在到11月，還會學到哪些信息來幫助您確定下次會議的降息幅度？
鮑威爾主席：你知道的，就是更多的數據，和往常一樣。不要期待其他特別的東西。我們會看到另一份就業報告，我們會看到另一份工作報告，我想我們會——其實我們可能會有兩份報告，我們可能會在會議當天收到第二份工作報告，或者不，應該是在會議前的星期五。此外還有通膨數據，我們會收到所有這些數據，我們會密切觀察，總是要問的是：這些數據對未來前景的變化和風險平衡有什麼影響，然後進行討論，思考該做什麼是正確的。政策是否在我們希望的位置上，以促進我們長期目標的實現？這就是我們將要做的事情。
NEIL IRWIN的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Neil.
NEIL IRWIN. Hi, Chair Powell, Neil Irwin with Axios. We've only been running a little above a hundred thousand jobs a month on payroll the last three months. Do you view that level of job creation as worrying or alarming, or would you be content if we were to kind of stick at that level? And relatedly, one of the welcome trends of the last couple of years has been labor markets seen coming out through job openings falling, rather than job losses. Do you think that trend has further to run or do you see risk that further labor market cooling will have to come through job losses?
CHAIR POWELL. So, on the job creation, it depends on, it depends on the inflows, right? So, if you're having millions of people come into the labor force then, and you're creating a hundred thousand jobs, you're going to see unemployment go up. So, it really depends on what's the trend underlying the volatility of people coming into the country. We understand there's been quite an influx across the borders, and that has actually been one of the things that's allowed unemployment rate to rise, and the other thing is just the slower hiring rate. Which is something we also watch carefully. So, it does depend on what's happening on the supply side. And on the Beveridge Curve question, yes, so we all felt, on the Committee, not all but I think everyone on the Committee felt that job openings were so elevated that they could fall a long way before you hit the part of the curve where job openings turned into higher unemployment, job loss. And yes, I mean I think we are, it's hard to know that, you can't know these things with great precision, but certainly it appears that we're very close to that point, if not at it. So that further declines in job openings will translate more directly into unemployment. But it's been, it's been a great ride down, I mean we've seen a lot of tightness come out of the labor market in that form without it resulting in lower employment.
Michelle Smith：Neil。
Neil Irwin：您好，鮑威爾主席，我是Axios的Neil Irwin。過去三個月中，每月新增的非農就業人數僅略高於十萬。您認為這樣的就業創造水平是否令人擔憂或驚慌？或者，如果這個水平持續，您會感到滿意嗎？另外，過去幾年中一個可喜的趨勢是勞動力市場的緊張狀況主要通過職位空缺的減少來緩解，而不是通過失業。您認為這個趨勢會繼續下去嗎？還是您認為進一步的勞動力市場降溫將不得不通過失業來實現？
鮑威爾主席：關於就業創造，這取決於，這取決於勞動力流入的情況，對吧？如果有數百萬人進入勞動力市場，而每月新增就業崗位只有十萬，那麼你將會看到失業率上升。因此，這實際上取決於進入國家的人數的波動趨勢。我們知道，邊境有大量人員湧入，這實際上是導致失業率上升的原因之一，另一個原因是招聘速度放緩，這也是我們密切關注的事情。所以，這取決於供應端的狀況。關於Beveridge曲線的問題，是的，我們所有人——不見得所有人，但我認為委員會中的每一個人都認為職位空缺過高，這意味著它可以下降很多，才會達到職位空缺轉化為失業和裁員的部分。因此，是的，我認為我們非常接近這一點，儘管這些事情難以精確預測，但顯然我們非常接近這個點，甚至可能已經達到了。因此，進一步的職位空缺下降將更直接地轉化為失業。但總的來說，這是一段不錯的過程，我們已經看到勞動力市場的緊張狀況在這種情況下有所緩解，而沒有導致就業下降。
EDWARD LAWRENCE的提問
EDWARD LAWRENCE. Thanks Chair Powell, Edward Lawrence of FOX Business. So we've heard some speculation that you may be going with the federal funds rate to 3 and 1/2, maybe under 4 percent, as basically an entire generation that has experienced zero or near zero federal funds rate, and some think we're heading in that direction again, what's the likelihood that cheap money is now the norm?
CHAIR POWELL. So this is a question, and you mean after we get through all of this? It's just, great question that we just, we can only speculate about. Intuitively most, many, many people anyway, would say we're probably not going back to that era where there were trillions of dollars of sovereign bonds trading at negative rates, long-term bonds trading at negative rates. And it looked like the neutral rate was, might even be negative, so and it was, people were issuing debt at negative rates. It seems that's so far away now, my own sense is that we're not going back to that. But honestly, we're going to find out. But it feels, it feels to me, and that the neutral rate is probably significantly higher than it was back then. How high is it? I don't, I just don't think we know. It's, again, we only know it by its works.
EDWARD LAWRENCE. And one more, how do you respond to the criticism that will likely come that a deeper rate cut now, before the election, has some political motivations?
CHAIR POWELL. Yeah, so this is my fourth presidential election at the Fed, and it's always the same. We're always going into this meeting in particular and asking what's the right thing to do for the people we serve? And we do that and we make a decision as a group, and then we announce it. And it's, that's always what it is, it's never about anything else. Nothing else is discussed and I would also point out that the things that we do really effect economic conditions for the most part with a lag, so nonetheless, this is what we do. Our job is to support the economy on behalf of the American people. And if we get it right, this will benefit the American people significantly. So, this really concentrates the mind and it's something we all take very, very seriously. We don't put up any other filters. I think if you start doing that, I don't know where you stop. And so we just don't do that.
Edward Lawrence：謝謝您，鮑威爾主席，我是FOX Business的Edward Lawrence。我們聽到一些猜測，認為聯邦基金利率可能會降到3.5%，甚至低於4%，因為有一整代人經歷了接近零利率的時期，有些人認為我們正在朝這個方向發展。您認為低成本資金成為常態的可能性有多大？
鮑威爾主席：這是一個很好的問題，您是指在我們渡過這一切之後嗎？這是一個很好的問題，但我們只能猜測。直覺上，許多人可能會說，我們大概不會回到那個有數兆美元主權債券以負利率交易的時代，長期債券也是負利率的時代。而當時看起來中性利率甚至可能是負的，人們以負利率發行債務。這似乎離我們現在非常遙遠了，我個人的感覺是，我們不會回到那個時代。但說實話，我們會找到答案。對我來說，感覺是中性利率現在可能比當時高得多。具體多高？我認為我們無法知道。再次強調，我們只能從實際結果中得知。
Edward Lawrence：再問一個問題，您如何回應可能出現的批評，認為現在在選舉前進行更大幅度的降息，帶有某些政治動機？
鮑威爾主席：是的，這是我在聯準會經歷的第四次總統選舉，每次情況都是一樣的。我們總是在進行這樣的會議時，特別是在這次會議中，問自己：我們為所服務的人民做什麼才是正確的？我們就這樣做，作為一個團隊做出決定，然後宣布決定。這始終是我們的做法，從來沒有涉及其他任何事情。沒有其他話題被討論過，我也想指出，我們所做的事情通常會對經濟條件產生滯後影響，但無論如何，這就是我們所做的。我們的工作是代表美國人民支持經濟。如果我們做得正確，這將極大地造福美國人民。因此，這非常集中我們的注意力，我們每個人都非常非常認真對待這件事。我們不會添加其他任何過濾條件。我認為如果你開始那麼做，我不知道該在哪裡停止。所以我們根本不那麼做。
JO LING KENT的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Jo Ling.
JO LING KENT. Thank you, Chair Powell, I'm Jo Ling Kent with CBS News. My first question is; very simply, what message are you trying to send American consumers, the American people, with this unusually large rate cut?
CHAIR POWELL. I would just say that the U.S. economy is in a good place, and our decision today is designed to keep it there. More specifically, the economy is growing at a solid pace, inflation is coming down closer to our 2 percent objective over time, and the labor market is still in solid shape, so our intention is really to maintain the strength that we currently see in the U.S. economy. And we'll do that by returning rates from their high level, which has really been the purpose of which has been to get inflation under control. We're going to move those down over time to a more normal level over time.
JO LING KENT. Just have a follow-up to that, listening to you talk about inflation moving meaningfully down to 2 percent, is the Federal Reserve effectively declaring a decisive victory over inflation and rising prices?
CHAIR POWELL. No. We're not. So, inflation, what we say is we want inflation, the goal is to have inflation move down to 2 percent on a sustainable basis. And we're not really, we're close, but we're not really at 2 percent and I think we're going to want to see it be around 2 percent and close to 2 percent for some time, but we're certainly not doing, we're not saying mission accomplished or anything like that. But I have to say though, we're encouraged by the progress that we have made.
Michelle Smith：Jo Ling。
Jo Ling Kent：謝謝您，鮑威爾主席，我是CBS新聞的Jo Ling Kent。我的第一個問題是：這次異常大幅的降息，您想傳達給美國消費者和美國人民的是什麼訊息？
鮑威爾主席：我想說，美國經濟處於一個不錯的狀態，我們今天的決定是為了保持這樣的狀況。更具體地說，經濟正在以穩健的速度增長，通膨正逐漸接近我們2%的目標，勞動力市場依然強勁，所以我們的意圖是維持我們目前在美國經濟中看到的這種強勁狀態。我們會通過將利率從目前的高水平逐步調回到更正常的水平來實現這一目標，這樣做的主要目的是將通膨控制住。我們將隨著時間推移，逐步降低利率，回到一個更正常的水平。
Jo Ling Kent：再追問一下，聽您說通膨正在顯著下降接近2%，聯準會是否正在實質上宣佈在對抗通膨和物價上漲中取得了決定性的勝利？
鮑威爾主席：不，我們還沒有。我們的說法是，我們的目標是將通膨穩定地降至2%。我們確實接近了，但還沒有真正達到2%，我認為我們希望看到通膨在一段時間內保持在2%上下。因此，我們當然沒有宣布「任務完成」或類似的話。但我必須說，我們對所取得的進展感到鼓舞。
CATARINA SARAIVA的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Catarina.
CATARINA SARAIVA. Hi, Catarina Saraiva with Bloomberg News. I just would love to know kind of how the Committee is thinking about the persistence we've seen in housing inflation. Do you think you can return to 2 percent with housing inflation where it is? Yeah.
CHAIR POWELL. So, housing inflation is the one piece that is kind of dragging a bit if I can say. We know that market rents are doing what we would want them to do, which is to be moving up at relatively low levels, but they're not rolling over, the leases that are rolling over are not coming down as much and OER is coming in high, so it's been slower than we expected. I think we now understand that it's going to take some time for those lower market rents to get into this. But the direction of travel is clear, and as long as market rents remain relatively low inflation, over time that will show up, just the time it's taking now several years rather than just one or two cycles of annual lease renewals. So that's, I think we understand that now, but I don't think the outcome is in doubt again, as long as market rents remain under control, the outcome is not as in doubt. So I would say it's, the rest of the portfolio, or of the elements that go into core PCE inflation have behaved pretty well. They're all, they all have some volatility. We will get down to 2 percent inflation I believe and I believe that ultimately we'll get what we need to get out of the housing services piece too.
CATARINA SARAIVA. Some of your colleagues have expressed concern that with starting to cut rates you could reignite demand in housing and see prices go up even more. What's the likelihood of that and how would you react to that?
CHAIR POWELL. The housing market, it's hard to, it's a game that-- the housing market is in part frozen because of lock in with low rates, people don't want to sell their home. So, because they have a very low mortgage, it would be quite expensive to refinance. As rates come down, people will start to move more and that's probably beginning to happen already. But remember, when that happens you've got a seller but you've also got a new buyer in many cases. So, it's not obvious how much additional demand that would make. I mean the real issue with housing is that we have had and are on track to continue to have, not enough housing. And so it's going to be challenging. It's hard to find, to zone lots that are in places where people want to live, it's, all of the aspects of housing are more and more difficult, and where are we going to get the supply? And this is not something that the Fed can really fix. But I think as we normalize rates you'll see the housing market normalize, and I mean ultimately by getting inflation broadly down and getting those rates normalized and getting the housing cycle normalized, that's the best thing we can do for house holders, and then the supply question will have to be dealt with by the market and also by government.
Michelle Smith：Catarina。
Catarina Saraiva：您好，我是彭博新聞社的Catarina Saraiva。我想知道委員會如何看待我們在住房通膨方面看到的持續性問題。您認為在當前的住房通膨情況下，能夠將通膨率降回到2%嗎？
鮑威爾主席：住房通膨確實是有點拖累的一部分，可以這麼說。我們知道市場租金的變動趨勢符合我們的預期，即以相對較低的水平增長，但它們並沒有大幅下降，正在更新的租約沒有下降太多，而擁有者等效租金（OER）仍然很高，所以這一過程比我們預期的要慢。我認為我們現在明白了，要讓這些較低的市場租金反映出來需要一些時間。但方向是明確的，只要市場租金保持在相對較低的通膨水平，最終這將會顯現出來，只是現在需要幾年時間，而不是僅僅一兩個租約更新週期。所以我認為我們現在了解這一點了，但我並不懷疑最終的結果，只要市場租金保持受控，結果就不會有太大懸念。我想說的是，核心PCE通膨的其他組成部分表現都相當不錯，雖然它們都有些波動。我相信我們將把通膨率降到2%，並且我相信最終我們也能解決住房服務部分的問題。
Catarina Saraiva：您的一些同事表達了擔憂，認為降息可能會重新點燃對住房的需求，導致房價進一步上升。這種情況發生的可能性有多大？您將如何應對？
鮑威爾主席：住房市場確實有些特殊，部分原因是低利率鎖住了市場，人們不願意出售房屋。由於他們擁有非常低的貸款利率，重新貸款的成本會相當高。隨著利率下降，人們會開始更多地移動，這可能已經開始發生。但記住，當這種情況發生時，通常會有一個賣家和一個新買家。因此，不明顯會產生多少額外的需求。實際上，住房的核心問題在於，我們一直缺乏足夠的住房供應，未來也可能會繼續面臨這個問題，這將是一個挑戰。很難找到人們想居住的地段並進行規劃，所有與住房相關的問題變得越來越困難，我們要從哪裡獲得供應？這不是聯準會能真正解決的問題。但我認為，隨著我們將利率正常化，你會看到住房市場也會正常化，最終通過降低通膨並將利率正常化，住房周期也會正常化，這是我們能為房屋持有者做的最好的事情，而供應問題則需要由市場和政府來解決。
VICTORIA GUIDA的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Victoria.
VICTORIA GUIDA. Hi, Victoria Guida with Politico. Just following up on some of the labor market talk earlier, monetary policy operates with long and variable lags, and I'm wondering how much you see being able to keep the unemployment rate from raising too much comes from the fact that you're starting to act now and that's going to give people more room to run versus just the labor market is strong. And then also, if I could, following up on Nick's question, do you see today's 50 basis point move as partially a response to the fact that you didn't cut in July and that sort of gets you to the same place?
CHAIR POWELL. So, you're right about lags, but I would just point to the overall economy. You have an economy that is growing at a solid pace, if you look at forecasters or talk to companies, they'll say that they think 2025 should be a good year too. So, there's no sense, the U.S. economy is basically fine if you talk to market participants, I mean business people who are actually out there doing business. So, I think, I think our move is timely, I do. And as I said, you can see our 50 basis point move as a commitment to make sure that we don't fall behind. So you're really asking about, your second question you're asking about July. And I guess if you ask if we'd gotten the July report before the meeting, would we have cut? We might well have. We didn't make that decision but we might well have. I think that's not, that doesn't really answer the question that we ask ourselves, which is; let's look, at this meeting we're looking back to the July employment report, the August employment report, the two CPI reports, one of which came of course during blackout, and all of the other things that I mentioned, we're looking at all of those things and we're asking ourselves what's the right, what's the policy stance we need to move to. We knew, it's clear that we, clearly, literally, everyone on the Committee agreed that it's time to move. It's just how big, how fast do you go, and what do you think about the paths forward. So, this decision we made today had broad support on the Committee, and I've discussed the path ahead.
Michelle Smith：Victoria。
Victoria Guida：您好，我是Politico的Victoria Guida。想跟進剛剛有關勞動力市場的討論，貨幣政策的效果往往有長期且變動的滯後性。我想知道您認為，現在開始行動會在多大程度上幫助避免失業率過高，是否是因為這讓大家有更多的時間來應對？還是因為勞動力市場本身就很強勁？另外，跟進Nick的問題，您是否認為今天的50個基點降息，部分是回應7月沒有降息的情況，這樣讓政策到達相同的位置？
鮑威爾主席：關於政策的滯後性，您是對的，但我想指出的是整體經濟狀況。如果你看看經濟，它以穩健的速度增長，如果你問預測者或與公司交談，他們會說2025年也應該是一個好年頭。所以沒有感覺到任何問題，如果你跟市場參與者或實際在運營的商業人士交談，他們會說美國經濟基本上還不錯。因此，我認為我們的行動是及時的。我也說過，您可以將我們今天50個基點的降息視為我們決心不落後的表現。至於您的第二個問題，您問的是7月。我猜如果您問我們在7月會議前就拿到了7月的報告，我們會不會降息？我們可能會做出降息的決定。我們沒有這樣做，但我們可能會那樣做。我認為這不完全回答我們自己會問的問題，我們要看這次會議時，我們回顧7月的就業報告，8月的就業報告，還有兩份CPI報告，其中一份是在封閉期內收到的，還有其他我提到的數據。我們在審視這一切，問自己，我們需要調整的政策立場是什麼。我們知道，顯然，委員會中的每個人都同意，現在是行動的時候了。只是我們需要決定要多快、多大幅度地行動，並且考慮未來的路徑。所以，今天做出的這個決定得到了委員會的廣泛支持，我也談到了未來的路徑。
ELIZABETH SCHULZE的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Elizabeth.
ELIZABETH SCHULZE. Thank you Chair Powell. Elizabeth Schulze with ABC News. Mortgage rates have already been dropping in anticipation of this announcement, how much more should borrowers expect those rates to drop over the next year?
CHAIR POWELL. Very hard for me to say. That's, from our standpoint I can't really speak to mortgage rates. I will say that'll depend on how the economy evolves. Our intention though is we think that our policy was appropriately restrictive, we think that it's time to begin the process of recalibrating it to a level that's more neutral, rather than restrictive. We expect that process to take some time, as you can see in the projections that we released today. And as, if things work out according to that forecast, other rates in the economy will come down as well. However, the rate at which those things happen will really depend on how the economy performs. We can't see, we can't look a year ahead and know what the economy is to be doing, going to be doing.
ELIZABETH SCHULZE. What's your message to households who are frustrated that home prices have still stayed so high as rates have been high? What do you say to those households?
CHAIR POWELL. Well, what I can say to the public is that we had the highest-- we had a burst of inflation, many other countries around the world had a similar burst of inflation, and when that happens part of the answer is that we raise interest rates in order to cool the economy off in order to reduce inflationary pressures. It's not something that people experience as pleasant, but at the end what you get is low inflation restored, price stability restored, and a good definition of price stability is that people in their daily decisions, they're not thinking about inflation anymore. That's where everyone wants to be is back to what's inflation, you know? Just keep it low, keep it stable. We're restoring that so what we're going through now really restores, it will benefit people over a long period of time. Price stability benefits everybody over a long period of time just by virtue of the fact that they don't have to deal with inflation. So that's what's been going on, and I think we've made real progress. I completely, we don't tell people how to think about the economy, of course, and of course people are experiencing high prices as opposed to high inflation. And we understand that's painful.
Michelle Smith：Elizabeth。
Elizabeth Schulze：謝謝您，鮑威爾主席。我是ABC新聞的Elizabeth Schulze。房貸利率已經因為這次公告的預期而下降，借款人應該預期未來一年這些利率會下降多少呢？
鮑威爾主席：這很難說，從我們的角度來看，我無法具體談論房貸利率。我只能說，這將取決於經濟的發展。我們的政策目標是認為之前的政策限制是適當的，但我們認為現在是時候開始將政策重新調整到一個更中性的水平，而不是限制性政策。我們預期這個過程將需要一些時間，正如你從今天發布的預測中可以看到的那樣。如果一切如預測發展，經濟中的其他利率也會下降。然而，這些事情發生的速度將真正取決於經濟的表現。我們無法提前一年預見經濟會如何發展。
Elizabeth Schulze：對於那些因房價仍然居高不下而感到沮喪的家庭，您有什麼想對他們說的嗎？
鮑威爾主席：我能對公眾說的是，我們曾經經歷過一波高通膨，世界上許多國家也面臨類似的情況。當這種情況發生時，部分解決方案就是提高利率，來冷卻經濟，從而減少通膨壓力。這並不是一個愉快的經歷，但最終的結果是恢復低通膨，恢復價格穩定。價格穩定的一個很好的定義是，當人們做日常決策時，他們不再需要考慮通膨。這是每個人都想回到的狀況：通膨？只要保持低且穩定就好。我們正在恢復這種情況，因此我們現在正在經歷的事情，最終將使人們在長期內受益。價格穩定會在長期內惠及所有人，因為人們不再需要應對通膨。因此，這就是目前正在發生的事情，我認為我們已經取得了實質性的進展。我完全理解，我們不會告訴人們如何看待經濟，當然，人們現在感受到的是高價格而不是高通膨。我們明白這是痛苦的。
GREG ROBB的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Greg.
GREG ROBB. Hi Chair Powell, Greg Robb from Marketwatch.com. I was wondering if you could go through, you said just at the beginning that coming into the blackout there was like an open thought of 25 or 50, the Fed could move either 25 or 50. I would sort of argue that when we had those two last speeches by Governor Waller and New York Fed president, John Williams, that they were sort of saying that maybe a gradual approach was going to win the day. I mean I sort of want to ask a seven-part question about this. But, I mean, could you talk-- would you have cut rates by 50 basis points if the market had been pricing in like low odds of a 50 point move like they were last Wednesday? After the CPI number came out. It was a really small probability of a 50 point cut, does that play in your consideration at all? Just talk a little bit about that. Thank you.
CHAIR POWELL. We're always going to try to do what we think is the right thing for the economy at that time. That's what we'll do. And that's what we did today.
Michelle Smith：Greg。
Greg Robb：您好，鮑威爾主席，我是Marketwatch.com的Greg Robb。我想問一下，您在剛開始時提到，在進入封閉期時，對於降息25或50個基點的想法是開放的。我認為當聯準會理事Waller和紐約聯準會主席John Williams的兩次演講後，他們似乎是在說逐步降息可能會成為主流。我有點想問一個包含七個部分的問題。但我想問的是，如果市場認為降息50個基點的概率很低，比如像上週三CPI數據公佈後那樣的情況，50個基點的降息概率非常小，這會影響您們的考慮嗎？能不能稍微談談這個問題？謝謝。
鮑威爾主席：我們總是會嘗試做出我們認為對當前經濟最正確的決定。這就是我們今天所做的，也是我們一直在做的。
SIMON RABINOVITCH的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Simon.
SIMON RABINOVITCH. Thank you Chair Powell, Simon Rabinovitch with the Economist. You've mentioned how closely you're watching the labor market, but you also noted that payroll numbers have been a little bit less reliable lately because of the big downward revisions. Does that put your focus overwhelmingly on the unemployment rate? And given the SEP projection of 4.4 basically being the peak in the cycle, would going above that be the kind of thing that would trigger another 50 basis point cut?
CHAIR POWELL. So we will continue to look at that broad array of labor market data, including the payroll numbers. We're not discarding those. I mean we'll certainly look at those, but we will mentally tend to adjust them based on the QCEW adjustment, which you referred to. There isn't a bright line, it will be-- the unemployment rate is very important, of course, but there isn't a single statistic or single bright line over which that thing, that might move that would dictate one thing or another. We'll look at, each meeting we'll look at all the data on inflation, economic activity, and the labor market and we'll make decisions about is our policy stance where it needs to be to foster over the medium term our mandate goals. So I can't say we have a bright line in mind.
Michelle Smith：Simon。
Simon Rabinovitch：謝謝您，鮑威爾主席，我是《經濟學人》的Simon Rabinovitch。您提到您非常密切關注勞動力市場，但您也提到，由於最近非農就業數據的大幅下調修正，這些數據的可靠性有所下降。這是否讓您更加專注於失業率？考慮到SEP預測中的4.4%基本上是本次週期的高點，如果超過這個數字，會否觸發另一個50個基點的降息？
鮑威爾主席：我們會繼續關注廣泛的勞動力市場數據，包括非農就業數據。我們不會拋棄這些數據，我們肯定會查看這些數據，但我們會根據您提到的QCEW調整，對這些數據進行心裡上的調整。沒有一個明確的界線，當然失業率非常重要，但沒有一個單一的統計數據或明確的界線，超過這個數字就會決定採取某種行動。我們會在每次會議上查看所有有關通膨、經濟活動和勞動力市場的數據，並做出決定，看我們的政策立場是否處於中期內促進我們使命目標的適當位置。所以我無法說我們有一個明確的界線。
MATT EGAN的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Matt Egan.
MATT EGAN. Thanks Chair Powell. Matt Egan from CNN. I know that you discussed earlier how the Fed does, whatever the right thing is, and nothing else factors in. But in general, can you talk about whether or not you believe a sitting U.S. president should have a say in Fed decisions on interest rates? Because that's something that former president Trump, who obviously appointed you has previously suggested. And I know the Fed is designed to be independent but why? Can you tell the public why you view that as so important?
CHAIR POWELL. Sure, so countries that are, democracies around the world, countries that are sort of like the United States, all have what are called independent central banks. And the reason is that people have found over time that insulating the central bank from direct control by political authorities avoids making monetary policy in a way that favors maybe people who are in office as opposed to people who are not in office. So, that's the idea is that, I think the data are clear that countries that have independent central banks, they get lower inflation and so we're, we're not, we do our work to serve all Americans, we're not serving any politician, any political figure, any cause, any issue, nothing. It's just maximum employment and price stability on behalf of all Americans. And that's how the other central banks are set up too. It's a good institutional arrangement, which has been good for the public and I hope, and I hope and strongly believe that it will continue.
Michelle Smith：Matt Egan。
Matt Egan：謝謝您，鮑威爾主席，我是CNN的Matt Egan。我知道您剛才提到聯準會會做正確的事情，沒有其他因素影響。但總的來說，您能否談談您是否認為現任美國總統應該對聯準會的利率決策有發言權？這是前總統特朗普曾經提出的觀點，他顯然是任命您的總統。我知道聯準會的設計是為了保持獨立，但為什麼？您能向公眾解釋一下，為什麼您認為這麼做如此重要嗎？
鮑威爾主席：當然，全球的民主國家，像美國這樣的國家，都設立了所謂的獨立中央銀行。原因是人們發現，將中央銀行從政治當局的直接控制中隔離出來，可以避免貨幣政策傾向於有利於在位的官員，而不是不在位的官員。因此，這個設計的想法是，我認為數據顯示，擁有獨立中央銀行的國家通膨率較低。我們的工作是為所有美國人服務，我們不服務於任何政治人物、任何政治團體或任何議題。我們的目標只是代表所有美國人實現最大就業和價格穩定。其他中央銀行也是如此設置的。這是一個好的制度安排，對公眾有利，我希望並強烈相信這將繼續下去。
KYLE CAMPBELL的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Kyle.
KYLE CAMPBELL. Kyle Campbell for American Banker. Thanks for taking the questions, Chair Powell. A couple regulatory developments in the past week that I want to ask you about. First, last week Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr outlined his views for the changes to the Basel III endgame. I'm wondering if you are in alignment with him on what those changes should be, if those have support on the Board in the broad way that you're looking for, and if you think the other agencies are also fully onboard with that approach. And then yesterday, other banking regulators—
CHAIR POWELL. You know what, hold the second question.
KYLE CAMPBELL. Okay, sure.
CHAIR POWELL. We'll give you the second question. So, the answer to your question is that yes, those changes were negotiated between the agencies with my support and with my involvement, with the idea that we were going to re-propose, re-propose the changes that Vice Chair Barr talked about, and then take comment on them. So, yes, that is, that's happening with my support.
KYLE CAMPBELL. Is there a date for that—
CHAIR POWELL. That's not a final proposal though, you understand, we're putting them out for comment, we're going to take comment and make appropriate changes. We don't have a calendar date for that and as for the other agencies, the idea is that we're all moving together, we're not moving separately, so that I don't know exactly where that is. But the idea is that we will move as a group to put this again out for comment and then it'll, the comments will come back 60 days later and we'll dive into them and we'll try to bring this to a conclusion sometime in the first half of next year. Right.
KYLE CAMPBELL. And then yesterday there were merger reform finalizations from the other bank regulators, what does the Fed have to do to align itself on a merger?
CHAIR POWELL. I would bounce that question to Vice Chair Barr. It's a good question, but I don't have that today. Thanks.
Michelle Smith：Kyle。
Kyle Campbell：我是American Banker的Kyle Campbell，謝謝您回答問題，鮑威爾主席。過去一周有幾個監管發展，我想請教您。首先，上週監管副主席Michael Barr概述了他對巴塞爾III最終方案修改的看法。我想知道，您是否同意他對這些修改的看法，這些修改是否在您尋求的範圍內獲得董事會的支持，您是否認為其他機構也完全支持這種做法？還有，昨天其他銀行監管機構——
鮑威爾主席：知道嗎，先停下第二個問題。
Kyle Campbell：好的，當然。
鮑威爾主席：我會給您第二個問題的時間。所以，您的問題答案是：是的，這些修改是在機構間協商的，並得到了我的支持和參與，我們的想法是要重新提出修改，正如副主席Barr所談到的，然後對其徵求意見。因此，是的，這是有我的支持的。
Kyle Campbell：有具體的時間嗎——
鮑威爾主席：這還不是最終的提案，您理解，我們會將其公佈徵求意見，然後根據意見做出適當的修改。我們還沒有具體的日曆時間，至於其他機構，想法是我們會共同推進，而不是單獨行動，所以我不知道具體進度。但目標是我們將再次共同發佈徵求意見，60天後收到意見，我們會深入研究，並嘗試在明年上半年結束這個過程。
Kyle Campbell：那麼昨天其他銀行監管機構對合併進行了改革定案，聯準會需要做什麼才能在合併問題上達成一致？
鮑威爾主席：我會將這個問題轉給副主席Barr。這是一個好問題，但我今天沒有具體答案。謝謝。
JENNIFER SCHONBERGER的提問
MICHELLE SMITH. Jennifer for the last question.
JENNIFER SCHONBERGER. Thank you Chair Powell, Jennifer Schonberger with Yahoo Finance. You said earlier that the decision today reflects with appropriate recalibration strength in labor market that could be maintained in the context of moderate growth even though the policy statement says you view the risks to inflation and job growth as roughly balanced. Given what you've said though today, I'm curious, are you more worried about the job market and growth than inflation? Are they not roughly balanced?
CHAIR POWELL. No, I think, I think and we think they are now roughly balanced. So if you go back for a long time, the risks were on inflation, we had a historically tight labor market, historically tight. There was a severe labor shortage. So very hot labor market and we had inflation way above target. So, that said to us, concentrate on inflation, concentrate on inflation. And we did for a while and we kept at that, that the stance that we put in place 14 months ago was a stance that was focused on bringing down inflation. Part of bringing down inflation though is cooling off the economy and a little bit cooling off the labor market. You now have a cooler labor market, in part because of our activity. So, what that tells you is it's time to change our stance. So we did that. The sense of the change in the stance is that we're recalibrating our policy over time to a stance that will be more neutral. And today was, I think we made a good strong start on that. I think it was the right decision, and it think it should send a signal that we, that we're committed to coming up with a good outcome here.
JENNIFER SCHONBERGER. Is the economy more vulnerable to a shock now that could tip it into recession?
CHAIR POWELL. I don't think so. I don't, there's-- as I look, well, let me look at it this way, I don't see anything in the economy right now that suggests that the likelihood of a recession, sorry, of a downturn is elevated. Okay? I don't see that. You see growth at a solid rate, you see inflation coming down, and you see a labor market that's still at very solid levels. So, I don't really see that, no. Thank you. Thank you.
Michelle Smith：Jennifer，這是最後一個問題。
Jennifer Schonberger：謝謝您，鮑威爾主席，我是Yahoo Finance的Jennifer Schonberger。您剛才提到，今天的決定反映了適當的政策重新調整，即在適度增長的背景下可以維持勞動力市場的強勁，儘管政策聲明中表示，您認為通膨和就業增長的風險大致平衡。然而，根據您今天所說的內容，我很好奇，您是否對就業市場和經濟增長比通膨更為擔心？它們真的大致平衡嗎？
鮑威爾主席：不，我認為，且我們認為它們現在確實是大致平衡的。如果您回顧一段時間，風險一直在通膨上，我們曾有一個歷史上極度緊張的勞動力市場，存在嚴重的勞動力短缺。因此，我們的勞動力市場非常火熱，而通膨遠高於目標。因此，我們專注於通膨，並且我們確實這樣做了一段時間。我們在14個月前採取的政策立場是專注於降低通膨的一部分，這也包括冷卻經濟，並且在某種程度上冷卻勞動力市場。現在勞動力市場變得較為冷卻，部分原因是我們的行動。因此，這告訴我們，現在是時候改變我們的政策立場了，所以我們這樣做了。我們這次的政策變動表明，我們正在隨著時間推進，重新調整政策，使其更加中性。而今天的決定，我認為是一個強有力的開端，我認為這是正確的決定，也應該傳遞出一個信號，即我們致力於達成一個好的結果。
Jennifer Schonberger：現在經濟是否更容易受到衝擊，可能因此陷入衰退？
鮑威爾主席：我不這麼認為。我不覺得，讓我這樣說吧，我現在沒有看到經濟中有任何跡象表明經濟衰退的可能性在上升。明白嗎？我沒有看到這種跡象。我們看到經濟以穩健的速度增長，通膨正在下降，勞動力市場仍然處於非常穩固的水準。因此，我不認為這種情況會發生。謝謝。謝謝。
資料來源：
沒有留言:
張貼留言