这是对5月7日视频文字稿的总结，其中演讲者分析了最近一次的联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）会议及其影响： **背景介绍** 演讲者首先设定了背景，指出了三月份FOMC会议和五月份会议之间发生的进展。关键点包括第一季度GDP的负增长（主要归因于进口，但潜在数据看起来相对强劲），近期政策变化带来的不确定性（被称为“解放日”），以及劳动力市场降温（工资增长放缓和其他劳动力市场指标可以证明）。他还强调了美联储内部的分歧。 **分裂的美联储** 演讲者认为，美联储基本上分裂为两个阵营。一个阵营由主席鲍威尔领导，由于新政策变化带来的不确定性，他们优先考虑谨慎。这个阵营认为，这些变化（例如关税）可能会造成负面的供应冲击，导致更高的通货膨胀和更低的增长。鲍威尔的做法是“观望”，密切监测数据后再做出反应，因为他担心通胀预期会失锚，特别是考虑到消费者情绪调查显示，人们对关税相关的通胀感到担忧。 第二个阵营由理事沃勒代表，他们认为关税等政策带来的任何通胀影响都将是暂时的。他们认为，例如，对商品征收10%的关税可能会立即提高价格，但随后的年度通货膨胀率将恢复到正常水平。因此，这个阵营认为美联储应该“忽略”暂时的价格水平上涨，而关注失业率。如果失业率上升，他们将迫切希望降息。 **FOMC会议和鲍威尔的立场** 演讲者描述说，在FOMC会议上，主席鲍威尔反复询问委员会为什么不降息，理由是负面情绪数据以及来自中国的集装箱航运数据表明经济正在放缓。 然而，鲍威尔反驳说，像失业率、就业创造和首次申请失业救济金等“硬数据”仍然稳固。 虽然承认存在负面情绪，但他坚持要看到这反映在具体的经济数据中，然后才会采取行动。 演讲者批评鲍威尔的做法可能会导致美联储对经济变化做出反应时“迟到”。 中央银行通常会采取先发制人的行动来预测经济衰退，但鲍威尔似乎犹豫不决，因为他担心滞胀。 **对滞胀的恐惧** 鲍威尔强调了各种政策变化可能导致的广泛潜在结果，包括移民、贸易、财政政策和法规。 这些变化可能会导致通货膨胀冲击、负增长或两者兼而有之。 这种恐惧导致了“通货膨胀和失业率上升的风险都在增加”的结论，正如FOMC声明中所指出的那样。 它描述了权衡取舍的可能性，即为解决通货膨胀而采取的行动可能会加剧失业。 因此，鲍威尔坚持“观望”的态度，似乎承诺美联储只有在劳动力市场出现重大裂痕时才会做出反应。 **结论和影响** 演讲者得出结论，美联储可能会继续袖手旁观，直到有明确的证据表明劳动力市场恶化。 他认为，监测白宫的言论至关重要，因为目前政府政策对经济的影响更大。

This is a summarization of the May 7th video transcript, where the speaker analyzes the recent FOMC meeting and its implications: **Context and Background** The speaker begins by setting the stage, noting developments between the March FOMC meeting and the May meeting. Key points include negative first-quarter GDP (largely attributed to imports, with underlying data appearing relatively strong), the uncertainty brought on by recent policy changes (referred to as "liberation day"), and a cooling labor market (evidenced by decelerating wage growth and other labor market indicators). He also highlights the internal division within the Federal Reserve. **The Divided Fed** The speaker argues that the Fed is essentially split into two camps. One, led by Chair Powell, prioritizes caution due to the uncertainty surrounding new policy changes. This group sees these changes (such as tariffs) as potentially creating a negative supply shock, leading to higher inflation and lower growth. Powell's approach is to "wait and see," monitoring the data closely before reacting, as he's concerned about inflation expectations becoming unanchored, especially given consumer sentiment surveys that show heightened inflation fears related to tariffs. The second camp, represented by Governor Waller, believes that any inflationary impact from policies such as tariffs will be transitory. They argue that a 10% tariff on goods, for example, might raise prices immediately, but the subsequent annual inflation increase would return to normal levels. Therefore, this group believes the Fed should "look through" transitory price level jumps and focus on unemployment. If unemployment rises, they would be eager to cut rates. **The FOMC Meeting & Powell's Stance** The speaker describes the FOMC meeting as Chair Powell repeatedly questioning why the committee wouldn't cut rates, citing negative sentiment data and container shipping data from China indicating a slowing economy. Powell, however, countered that "hard data" like unemployment, job creation, and initial unemployment claims remain solid. While acknowledging negative sentiment, he insisted on seeing this reflected in concrete economic data before taking action. The speaker critiques Powell's approach as potentially leading to the Fed being "late" in responding to economic shifts. Central banks often act preemptively to anticipate economic downturns, but Powell seems hesitant to do so due to his fear of stagflation. **Fear of Stagflation** Powell emphasizes the wide range of potential outcomes stemming from various policy changes, including immigration, trade, fiscal policy, and regulations. These changes could lead to inflationary shocks, negative growth, or both. This fear leads to the conclusion that "the risks to higher inflation and higher unemployment have both gone up," as noted in the FOMC statement. It describes the potential for trade-offs, where actions taken to address inflation could worsen unemployment and vice versa. As such, Powell maintains a "wait and see" approach, seemingly committing the Fed to reacting only when significant cracks appear in the labor market. **Conclusion and Implications** The speaker concludes that the Fed is likely to remain on the sidelines until there is clear evidence of deterioration in the labor market. He suggests, it's crucial to monitor what the White House is saying, as for now, the government policies have a greater impact on the economy.