June 2026 FOMC Debrief
发布时间 来源
Episode 设置
摘要
Hawkish. with @ForwardGuidanceBW
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
我原本以为凯文·沃尔什会是那个卑躬屈膝求职的凯文。但他出场时，展现出了你一直知道他内在具有的那种硬派风格。所以，我认为他的表现相当强硬。我觉得市场反应也与美联储的强硬态度一致。他一直主张减少美联储的沟通，现在他立刻就实践了这一点。或许我们不需要经济预测摘要，或许美联储主席们不需要说那么多。甚至可能根本不需要那么多新闻发布会，除非我确实有重要的事情要说。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Again, I expected Kevin Walsh to be the Kevin begging for the job. He came out and he was like, the Kevin, you always knew it was there. So I think it was a pretty hawkish. I think that the market reaction is in line with the hawkish Fed. He has been a champion of having less Fed communication, and he put that into practice right away. Maybe we don't need an SEP. Maybe we shouldn't even have Fed presidents talk so much. Maybe we don't even need that many press conferences unless I have something to say.
所有工作小组都在为美联储即将发生的巨大变化奠定基础。美联储主席的权力可能会有显著的集中。我印象最深刻的是最后一句，凯文说，委员会将实现物价稳定。通常在市场达到高点时会看到加息。现在，我们并没有加息，但市场已经预期会加息。所以，所有这些事情都在共同发生。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
All the task forces are laying the groundwork for huge changes that are coming out to the Fed. You could actually have a significant consolidation of power within the Fed chair. What really stood out to me is this last sentence that where Kevin says, the committee will deliver price stability. What you usually see in major tops is rate hikes. Now, we didn't hike rates now, but market is pricing at a hike. So you got all these things coming up together.
我觉得他们都指向我。关于福特公司指导的内容并不是建议你去买卖任何投资或产品。这个播客仅供信息参考，节目中任何人的观点只是他们的个人意见，不构成财务建议，也不一定代表Blockworks的观点。我们的主持人、嘉宾和Blockworks团队可能持有在节目中讨论的公司、基金或项目的头寸。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I think they all point to me to a. Nothing said on Ford guidance is a recommendation to buy or sell any investments or products. This podcast is for informational purposes only and the views expressed by anyone on the show are solely their opinions, not financial advice, or necessarily the views of Blockworks. Our hosts, guests, and the Blockworks team may hold positions in the company's funds or projects discussed.
一如既往，投资区块链技术存在风险，条款和条件适用。请自行研究。好了，大家好。欢迎回到Ford Guidance的又一期节目。今天是一个非常特别的日子，6月17日，正好是在新任主席凯文·沃什主持的第一次联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）会议之后。此时此刻，我最想和谁在一起呢，就是我们的美联储专家Joseph Wang。Joseph，这类话题你是当仁不让的专家。很高兴你能参加我们的节目。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk, terms, and conditions apply. Do your own research. All right, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Ford guidance. And we are recording on a very special day today, June 17th, right after the first FOMC meeting from the new chair, Kevin Warsh. No one I'd rather be with right now than Joseph Wang, Fed guy. Joseph, you're the man of the hour for this type of stuff. Great to have you on the show.
谢谢你的邀请，伙计。能够回来真是太好了。是的，很高兴能回来。我们得好好谈谈有多少人说不喜欢这个播客的名字，至少凯文·沃什是这么说的。我看到很多关于“前景指导已经结束”的笑话。你们要改名字了吗？我知道，我们得重新定位或做些什么。也许可以考虑把它改成“工作小组”，因为他说了太多次这个词，这可以成为播客的新名字。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Thanks for inviting me, man. It's great to be back. Yeah, great to be back. We got to talk about how many times people said they hate the name of this podcast now, or at least Kevin Warsh did. I see so many jokes about, you know, Ford guidance is over. Going to change your name now? I know, we got to re-brand or something. You got to be a, maybe change it to task force might be the new name for the podcast after how many times he said it.
所以，是的，我的意思是，我们早就知道会这样。他一直是福特指导方针的批评者之一。接下来，我们会花点时间讨论一下这位新任美联储主席上任的这一天都有哪些重要信息。我们为什么不从这个开始呢？显然，我们在下午两点收到了声明，他们对声明进行了大刀阔斧的修改。声明变得更加简洁，几乎没有提供前瞻指引，这显然是有意为之的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, yeah, I mean, we knew that was going to happen. He's been a big critic of Ford guidance. We're going to spend the next little bit here talking all about the different points that we just learned from this pretty monumental day of a new Fed chair. Why don't we start with that? So, obviously, we got the statement that came out at 2 p.m., and they took an axe to it. Much more concise statement. Very little forward guidance, quite intentionally so.
好的，我想先听听你对这个声明的看法，然后我们再深入谈谈与SEP（经济预测概要）和新闻发布会有关的一些具体内容。是的，正如你提到的，他的声明确实出人意料地简短。从历史上看，凯文总是对美联储的沟通方式持不同意见。过去的几十年里，美联储的沟通方式确实改变了很多。几十年前，在格林斯潘担任主席期间，美联储几乎没有什么沟通，有时主席加息或降息，公众事先都不会知道。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, I just want to start off with hearing a bit about your take on the statement, and then we'll get into some of the other specifics from the SEP and the press conference after. Yeah, so his statement was surprisingly brief, like you mentioned. So, historically speaking, Kevin has always had disagreement with how the Fed communicates. So, the Fed communication has changed a lot over the past few decades. A few decades ago, under Chairman Greenspan, there was basically very little communication, and sometimes the chair would hike or he would cut, and no one would know about it.
你真的需要去查看货币市场才能知道美联储是否采取了行动。但自从伯南克主席上任以来，沟通方面发生了巨大变革。伯南克主席非常推崇透明度。在他的领导下，推出了一种叫做“点阵图”的东西。联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）的成员会通过它来指引他们认为未来几年适合的利率、就业和通胀目标。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You'd actually have to go and look at the money markets to see if the Fed did anything. But since then, under Chair Bernanke, there has been a huge revolution in communications. Chair Bernanke was a big believer in transparency. So, under his leadership, there was something called the dot plot. So, you know, the FOMC members would kind of guide to where they thought would be best for what rates or employment inflation would be in the next few years.
他也开始举行新闻发布会，并回答问题。这些都是在过去的10到15年里出现的新事情，对吧？而凯文一直对此持批评态度。他觉得这样的沟通方式，特别是各联储主席纷纷发表讲话，可能会让人感到困惑。因此，他一直主张减少美联储的对外沟通，并立即付诸实践。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And he also began to do news conferences when he would take questions. So, these are all things that are relatively new, right? Happened in the past 10, 15 years. And Kevin was always a critic of this. He felt like having all this communication, especially with all the Fed presidents out there talking, that would confuse people. So, he has been a champion of having less Fed communication, and he put that into practice right away.
所以，如果你将当前美联储声明与上次的进行比较，你会发现这次声明简洁了许多。而且，我认为此次声明意外地强硬。当我查看最新声明时，最让我印象深刻的是凯文所说的最后一句话：“委员会将实现价格稳定。” 对我来说，这就像是一个令人震撼的时刻。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, if you compare this current Fed statement with the last one, you'll notice that it is much, much briefer. And I think it is also shockingly hawkish. Now, when I'm looking at the recent statement, what really stood out to me is this last sentence that where Kevin says, the committee will deliver price stability, period. So, that's kind of like a mic drop moment for me.
这让我想起了几年前鲍威尔主席在杰克逊霍尔会议上的讲话，当时通胀高企。鲍威尔主席上台发表了一个非常简短的声明，大意是将会有一些痛苦，紧缩政策即将到来。然后他就坐下了。所以，我感觉凯文也想达到类似的效果，试图告诉大家，美联储将更加坚定地降低通胀。因此，无论是声明的语气还是形式都有所改变。就像你提到的，这次的讲话更加简练。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And it reminded me a lot of Chair Powell's Jackson Hole speech a few years ago when inflation was raging high. Chair Powell went on stage with a very brief statement, said something to the extent that there would be some pain, you know, tightening is coming. And then he sat back down. So, I got the sense that Kevin is aiming with a similar effect, trying to tell everyone that the Fed is going to, I think, be more determined to get inflation down. So, both a change in the tone in the statement and also a change in the format. Like you mentioned, it's a lot more terse.
嗯，完全正确。当然，他们今天实际上没有加息，也没有采取其他措施。在今天的会议上，这是一次经济预测总结（SEP）会议，联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）的其他成员提交了他们的预测点。然而，凯文·沃什没有提交。所以，我们实际上不知道他对未来几年联邦基金利率和经济走向的预测。但是，事实是，如果他们致力于维持价格稳定，并且你知道，在新闻发布会中提到的一些要点中，沃什多次提到，通货膨胀率已经超过了2%的目标。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Mm-hmm, 100%. Of course, they didn't actually hike rates or do anything today. In today's meeting, it was an SEP meeting, summary of economic projections, and the rest of the FOMC committee submitted their DOT, their forecast. But, of course, Kevin Warsh did not. So, we don't actually know what his forecast is for the path of the federal funds rate and the economy over the next couple years or so. But the fact of the matter is, is that if they're committed to price stability and, you know, getting into some of the points from the press conference, Warsh mentioned multiple times about the fact that, look, you know, inflation has been above the 2% target.
他再次强调了2%的目标对他们来说仍然非常重要。但你看，我们的通胀已经多年来超过了这个目标，而我们也正在努力实现价格稳定。但是，你知道的，尼克·蒂穆罗斯提了一个非常直接和犀利的问题，他说，好吧，如果通胀超过了2%，那你今天为什么没有加息呢？关于这一点，你的分析是什么，因为尽管他们这么说，但实际并没有加息。所以，我认为尽管有努力去消除前瞻性指引，但前瞻性指引仍然存在，对吧？我们仍然有点阵图，虽然它不在正式的声明中。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And he doubled down on how important that 2% target is for them still. But, look, we've been above the target for multiple years now, and we're going to get price stability. But then, you know, you have Nick Timuros, who asked a really direct and punchy question, said, okay, well, look, if inflation is above 2%, why didn't you hike today? What's your analysis there on the fact that we didn't actually get any sort of hike despite them saying that? So, I think notwithstanding the effort to get rid of Ford Guidance, Ford Guidance is still there, right? We still have the dot plot, even though it was not in the language statement.
目前还不必更改节目的名称。但是，通过这个点阵图，你可以看到利率市场对声明和点阵图的反应非常迅速。现在市场预计今年将加息多于一次。因此，整个收益率曲线基本上上移了。长期债券的利率略有下降，但短期和中期债券利率则有所上升。这表明市场实际上已经开始收紧政策。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Don't have to change the name of the show just yet. But through that dot plot, though, you can see that the rates market reacted immediately to what both the statement and the dot plot. And you can see that the market is now pricing in a little bit more than one hike this year. So, the entire curve basically shifted upward. The third, the long bond actually went down a little bit, but the front end and the belly went up a bit in rates. And so, that tells you that the market is actually already tightening a bit.
所以，他实际上并不需要真正加息。他仅通过沟通就影响了金融状况并提高了利率。我觉得如果回顾一下过去几个月的变化，这确实是一次非凡的历程，对吧？我们年初时市场预计会有一些降息。但随后，随着伊朗战争爆发，油价上涨，通货膨胀飙升，市场不再预计降息，反而开始预期加息。即使在最近问题解决后，油价下跌，市场仍然预计会有一些加息。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, he didn't have to actually hike. He did tie into financial conditions and raise rates just by his communication. And I think if you take a step back, it's really remarkable on this journey we've had over the past few months, right? We entered the year with the market pricing in a few cuts. And then, boom, we have the war with Iran. Oil prices go up, inflation surges, and the market began to price out those cuts, began to price in hikes. And even after the recent resolution, when we have oil prices come down, the market still is pricing in some hikes.
过去几个月中，事情确实发生了很大的变化。是的，我的意思是，即使现在看来，点阵图仍然具有很强的影响力。因为，如果你仅仅观察两年期利率的价格走势，很多抛售和加息的价格调整似乎正好发生在经济预测摘要（SEP）发布时，还在新闻发布会之前。似乎市场的强硬反应大多数都源于此。此外，我正在努力理清，这其中有多少是因为联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）和点阵图的调整导致的，而这些市场变化实际上在几周前就已经反映在担保隔夜融资利率（SOFR）市场上了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, it's been quite an evolution over the past few months. Yeah. I mean, it does still seem like the dot plot has a lot of power. Because, I mean, if you just look at the price action in the two-year, a lot of the selling off there and the pricing of those hikes seem to have occurred right when the SEP came out, before the press conference. It seems like a lot of the hawkish reaction in the markets actually mostly came from that. And, you know, I'm trying to square out, like, how much of this was just the FOMC and the dot plot market-to-market where the SOFR market has been for a couple weeks now.
翻译成中文：
就像，我们在年底之前就已经在曲线里计入了加息预期。现在看来，SEP（联邦公开市场委员会的经济预期摘要）和美联储才刚刚接近市场已经达到的位置。你是否也是这样认为的？显然，市场的反应有点过度，你可以在两年期国债上看到这一点。但感觉上这只是符合市场早已达到的水平。你怎么看呢？嗯，我的意思是，我们比几天前更鹰派了一点。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Like, we've had a hike priced into the curve by the end of the year for a little bit now. And now it seems like the SEP and the Fed is just getting to where the market has already been. Is that sort of how you see it? Obviously, there's been a little bit more of a further excessive reaction. You can just see in the two-year. But it feels like it's more so just meeting where the market was already at. Do you see it that way? Well, I mean, we're a bit more hawkish than they were a few days ago.
因此，SOFR市场根据其对美联储反应机制的判断来定价。我认为，由于我们正从一位美联储主席过渡到另一位，这一过程现在会有些困难。在即将召开的这次会议中，我原本并不期望会有如此强硬的态度。原因是，如果你听过凯文在竞选美联储主席时的发言，他一直在尽一切努力试图为降息寻找理由，对吧？起初，他谈论的是与人工智能相关的生产力因素。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So the SOFR market prices in what it thinks the Fed reaction function will be. And I think it's going to have some difficulty right now as we transition from one Fed chair to the other. Now, going into this meeting, I actually would not have expected it to be this hawkish. The reason being that if you listen to what Kevin has been saying when he was auditioning to be a Fed chair, he was doing everything he could to try to justify rate cuts, right? First, it was about AI productivity.
然后事情就是这样，你知道吗，CPI和PCE这些指标不太理想。一个真正好的指标是修正平均PCE，大家。这指标显示通货膨胀在下降。于是他尽一切努力去实现这点。然后还有其他很多人，他们觉得应对这种负面供应冲击或者能源冲击的标准方法就是忽视它们。这就是美联储在伊拉克战争期间所做的，也是他们在1990年代“沙漠风暴”行动期间所做的，这是标准的中央银行操作。但现在有人开始意识到，我们已经经历了太多的供应冲击，有新冠疫情、有关税、有石油，我们不能再继续无视这些问题了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And then it was like, you know, the CPI, PCE, that's just not a good measure. A really good measure is trim mean PCE, guys. And it's telling you that inflation is coming down. So he was doing everything he can to do that. And then you had all these other people who were like, you know, the standard way that we approach these negative supply shocks, these energy shocks, is to look through them. That's what the Fed did during the Iraq war. That's what the Fed did during Operation Desert Storm in the 1990s. Standard central banking. Now, you had some people begin to remember that, you know, we've had too many supply shocks. We got COVID. We got tariffs. We got oil. We can't keep looking through this.
但是，过去几天油价大幅下降。如果你还是那个支持降息的凯文，而中央银行采用的还是传统的操作措施，那么在油价下跌的情况下，你本可以预期他们会无视这个因素，尤其是考虑到最近的消费者价格指数（CPI）数据。如果看每月核心数据的变化，实际上只有一个相对温和的0.2%。所以，他们本可以有足够的理由忽视油价下降的影响，至少保持利率不变，而不是加息。然而，他们并没有这样做。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But we had huge declines in oil prices in the past few days. So if you still had that same Kevin who was campaigning for, you know, rate cuts, if you still had standard central banking operating measures, you would have expected with oil prices coming down, they could actually look through this, especially since the most recent CPI data. If you look at month over month core, it was actually a pretty tame 0.2%. So they had enough cover to look through this and so deliver something that was at least not hikes, but maybe just affirming the current rate. But they didn't do that.
我认为市场正在了解美联储的新反应机制。目前，这个机制偏向于更重视通货膨胀，所以显得有点鹰派。基于这种反应机制，你认为这些加息真的会发生吗？委员会内部意见分歧很大。大概有九个人在谈论加息。我们其实并不知道具体决定，这也是故意这样设计的。但显然，市场预期与实际情况之间往往存在很大差异。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so I think the market is learning about what this new Fed reaction function is. And at the moment, it's tilted to be a bit more, emphasize a bit more on inflation, so a bit more hawkish. Based on that reaction function, do you think these hikes actually happen? The committee is pretty split. You know, like nine of them are talking about hike. We don't actually know really where it stands and that's by design. But obviously there's a lot of difference between what gets priced in and what actually happens.
你有什么想法吗？不，我认为我们今年不会加息。一方面，能源价格正在下降，也许会迅速下降，这将对通货膨胀产生抑制作用。通货膨胀即将下降的时候，为什么还要加息呢？另一方面，如果你看看股票市场的反应，股票市场可能会有所调整。如果真发生调整，我觉得美联储继续加息的理由就更少了。所以，我的基本观点是，我们在未来几个月会保持现状。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Do you have any thoughts there? No, I don't think we'll hike this year. So on the one hand, energy prices are coming down. They're going to come down maybe rapidly. And so that is going to have a disinflationary tailwind coming forward. Why would you be hiking rates when inflation is going to start coming down? And the second thing is, if you look at the equity market reaction, there's some possibility that equity markets could have a bit of a correction. And if that happens, I think there's even less justification for the Fed to continue to hike rates. So I think my base case is that we just keep where we are for the coming months.
然后，我想我们会根据数据来重新审视这件事。听着，世界上有很多事情正在发生。我从没想到我们会在中东开战。也许总统下一个目标是古巴，我不知道。但总是有很多事情不断冒出来。不过，我的基本看法是我们今年会保持利率不变，是的，完全同意。在新闻发布会上，有一项重大公告，即凯文·沃什宣布他将要执行一些跨越几个关键主题的新举措或任务小组。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And then I guess we'll revisit this as the data. And listen, a lot of things are happening in the world. I never expected us to go to war in the Middle East. Maybe the president would take Cuba next. I don't know. But a lot of things keep coming up. But my base case is that we just hold rates throughout this year. Yeah, 100%. All right. So during the press conference, one of the big announcements was these new initiatives or task forces that Kevin Warsh announced that he was going to pursue that go across a few different key themes.
好的，我想详细讨论一下每一个方面，因为我认为这些对我们这些美联储观察者以及整个市场思考问题的方式有很大影响。第一个是关于沟通的问题。正如我们之前讨论的那样，Warsh 一直对前瞻指引的使用持批评态度。他的许多观点都是很有道理的。在利率为零的时候，前瞻指引确实非常有用，因为它在零利率下限时提供了一些方向性的指引。但我们现在已经不在那个环境中了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And, yeah, I would love to just unpack each of them because I do think they are pretty consequential for how Fed watchers such as us and just the broader market think about things. So the first one is around communications. So obviously, as we've already talked about, Warsh has been a stern critic of the usage of forward guidance. It, you know, it's a lot of it's pretty valid. It was very useful at a time when rates were at zero to provide some sort of, you know, forward guidance while we're at the zero lower bound. But we're not in that world anymore.
因此，工作组在这部分的主要争论点似乎是关于新闻发布会的数量。你知道，沃什今天在那个会议上提到，当有重要内容要宣布时，他们的新闻发布会效果很好。而他今天确实有话要说。我们将看看会开多少次。但就是这个方面。当然，还有与此相关的SEP。所以我对您对于工作组在沟通方面的看法很感兴趣。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so the main points of contention for that part of the task force seem to be about the number of press conferences. You know, Warsh mentioned in that conference today that their press conference is really good when there's something to say. And he had something to say today. We'll see how many we get. But there's that component. And then, of course, the SEP related to that. So just specific around this communications bucket of the task force. I'm curious about how you're thinking about that one.
首先，我想从更广的角度来看待这个问题。你要上台告诉我们关于工作组的事情，对吧？这是什么呢？某种合规培训吗？所以，我认为了解这件事情的实际作用是非常重要的。如果你在一个大型官僚机构中，或者任何需要事情缓慢推进的地方，你需要有很多掩护。你需要有文件记录，还要获得支持。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
First off, I'd like to take a broader view. Just why is this bet you're getting on stage and telling us about task force, right? What is this, right? Some kind of compliance training. So I think it's really important to realize what this is actually doing. So if you are in a big bureaucracy, if you're anything, you got to have things move slowly and you have to have a lot of cover. You have to have documentation. You have to have support.
你知道，就比如说，我在纽约联邦储备银行工作的时候，那里的很多高级管理人员已经工作了很长时间，他们的薪资等级达到了上限。于是，这些人聚在一起，他们说，我们的管理层显得非常繁琐。所以我们如果能增加一层管理层，可能会更有利于我们的工作效率。我认为这样一切都会变得更好。于是他们想出了这个主意，并将其推销给人力资源部门和其他利益相关者，最终得到了批准。然后，他们开始为这个新的高级管理层面试人员，也就是比他们高一个等级的管理层。这个过程花了很长时间，他们邀请了很多来自私营部门和整个联邦储备系统的非常有才华的人来面试。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You know, as an example, when I was working at the New York Fed, there was, you know, there was a whole bunch of senior managers there who'd been there for a long time. And they hit the ceiling on the salary grade there over there. And so these guys got together and they said that, you know, guys, I feel like our management is very cumbersome. And so we could benefit for another layer of management. And so if we have another layer of management, we will work so much better. I think everything will be great. And so they came up with this idea and they sold it to HR and all the other stakeholders. And then they got the OK for that. And then they began to interview people for this super tier of management, right, tier above them. And it took a long time. And they had all these very talented people come in from the private sector, but throughout the Fed to come interview.
经过多个月的面试后，他们终于向我们揭晓了他们选择的人。就是他们，就是他们，就是他们。他们升职了，得到了更多的名额，一切都很顺利。好吧，这就是官僚组织中团队运作的方式。你需要掩护、需要支持、需要书面记录。对美联储而言尤其如此，因为不仅仅是你有其他的委员会成员和投票者，你还必须对国会负责。你必须作为美联储主席参加国会的听证会，回答所有这些问题，其中一些问题是来自与你不对付的人。所以你不能仅仅站起来说，"我是凯文·沃尔什，我要维护价格稳定，宣布标准普尔指数不好。" 你必须能够说，“嘿，我在做这个重大改变，但这不仅仅是我一个人的决定。”
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And after many months of interviews, they finally revealed to us who they had chosen. It was them. It was them. It was them. They got the promotion. They got more headcounted. Everything was great. OK, so this is how teams work in bureaucratic organizations. You need cover. You need buy-in. You need paper trail. This is especially so for the Fed, because it's not just that you have other governors, other voters on the committee. You also have to be responsive to Congress. You have to go, Fed chair, sit at Humphrey Hawkins, answer all these questions, you know, some of them from people who are not your friends, right? So you can't just stand up and be like, you know, I, Kevin Walsh, first in my name, defender of price stability, declare that the S&P is not good. You have to be able to say, hey, I'm making this big change, but it's just not me, though.
我有一个庞大的工作小组，大概有五十个人。里面有一些很有声望的教授、专家和行业人士。其中有些人，可能是民主党的人，我没问他们，但你知道，可能是。他们都说，标普指数和美联储的沟通太多了，对吧？其实我自己也有这样的感觉，这就是正确的答案。不过，现在他们也这么说，这就更说得通了。我还有一份大报告。所以，也许我们不需要一个标准普尔指数，也许我们甚至不应该让美联储的负责人说太多话。你知道吗？可能除非我有话要说，否则我们甚至不需要那么多新闻发布会。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I have this huge task force. There are like 50 people there. You got these big professors. You got these experts. You got these industry people. And some of them, you know, maybe they're Democrats. I didn't ask them, but, you know, probably they are. And so they all said that, well, the S&P, they all said that the Fed is communicating too much, right? So, you know, I had that sense myself. This is what the right answer was. But, you know, now that they say it, it makes a lot more sense. Got this big report. And so, yeah, maybe we don't need an S&P. Maybe we shouldn't even have Fed presidents talk so much. You know what? Maybe we don't even need that many press conferences unless I have something to say.
我认为，所有这些工作小组正在为美联储即将进行的大变革奠定基础。我们知道会有重大变化，因为过去十年来凯文的公开记录显示了这一点。而且，我们还得知他近期的新聘用人员情况。他实际上聘用了《2025项目》中有关美联储章节的作者。所以，你可以去阅读那一章，我们可以讨论一下他们想做的一些事情。如果你想对这样一个非常官僚、政治化的组织进行大变革，这需要时间和这些工作小组的努力。这就像总统在增加关税时一样对策，你需要施加那些不会在法律上受到挑战的关税。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So I think all the task forces are is laying the groundwork for huge changes that are coming out to the Fed. And we know there are going to be huge changes because we have public record from Kevin over the past decade. And we also have more news of his recent hires. He actually hired the author of the Fed chapter of Project 2025. And so, you know, you can read that chapter. We can talk about it. Some of the ideas of what they want to do. So if you want to do big changes to a very bureaucratic and political organization, it takes time and it takes these task force. It's just like the president when he puts on tariffs, right? You want to put on tariffs that can't be legally challenged.
第301条调查需要几周时间。现在你已经有了调查结果，那么执行关税就是合情合理的了。这是同样的原理。因此，我认为通信方式的改变可能会导致美联储主席的权力大大集中。这次会议非常好，我们达成了一致的投票决定，没有人持反对意见。上一次会议有些混乱——有三个人反对，他们想采取更强硬的立场，还有一个人反对并希望降息。市场应该如何解读这种情况呢？美联储通过前瞻性指引来控制利率的能力将变得更加重要，无论他们是否明确给出这种指引，因为市场总是需要预测利率走向，从而影响市场定价。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Section 301, investigation, takes weeks. Now that you have an investigation in hand, you do your tariffs and you are on sound ground. Same principle here. So I think what could happen with the change in communication is you could actually have a significant consolidation of power within the Fed chair. So this meeting was very good. We got unanimous vote, right? No one dissenting. The last meeting was kind of a circus, right? You got three people dissenting. They wanted to be a bit more hawkish. You got one person dissenting wanting rate cuts. So how is the market supposed to interpret that? A lot of the power of the Fed in controlling interest rates is going to be through forward guidance, whether they give it explicitly or not, because the market will always have to price in where they think the market, where the path of rates will be.
现在，如果你是美联储主席并能掌控信息传播，就不会有那么多人持不同意见，也不会有那么多鹰派人士发表各种言论，这样你对政策走向的影响力就会大大增加。所以，这可能是会发生的事情之一。利率波动可能会更大。不过，作为一个可能不是很受欢迎、并可能想做一些大多数人不赞同的事情的美联储主席，我希望那些持不同意见的人不会受到伤害。所以，这也可能是会发生的事情之一。嗯。我还想问一下，缺乏指引对利率波动的影响，因为显然自2008年以来，市场上就出现了一整个围绕短期利率市场交易员和资金市场的产业。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now, if you are a Fed chair and you control the message, you don't have all these people dissenting, you don't have all these hawks saying whatever, that gives you a lot more influence over the path of policy. And so maybe that is one thing that could happen. There will be more rate volatility. But as a Fed chair that is probably not super popular and maybe want to do things that most people don't agree with, I would like the other people who disagree to not be hurt. So maybe that's, that's one thing that could happen. Yeah. I did want to ask you about the impact of this lack of guidance on rate vol, because there's obviously a whole cottage industry now since 08 of, of funding of like, you know, stir market traders, funding market, whatever you want to call them.
嗯，你知道的，你曾在纽约联储市场部工作过。现在有一个巨大的行业存在，自从伯南克以来，特别是之后，我们一直有这种前瞻性指导，而现在这种感觉似乎要失去锚定。所以，深入谈谈这些资金市场组成部分的更具体的、学术化的一面，如果我们在利率市场中结构性地经历更多的波动，你认为这会如何发展？事实上，结构性更多的波动是联储中的一些人认为是件好事的事情。比如，鲍曼董事就表示，我们应该有更多的波动性，这很好。为什么呢？因为如果有更多的波动，人们就不会过度杠杆化。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Um, you know, you, you work the other side of that at the New York Fed on the markets desk there. There is this huge industry now that exists and that's been existing in this world ever since like Bernanke, especially onwards where we've had this sort of forward guidance and now it just feels like it's going to get on anchor. So, you know, getting into some of the more specific, wonkish parts of those funding markets components, like how do you see that playing out if we have structurally more volatility in the rates market? So structurally more volatility is actually something that is, uh, some, some people on the Fed actually think is good. Governor Bowman, for example, is like, we should have more vape ball. This is great. Why? It's because if there's more volatility, then people won't lever up as much.
为了避免被意外打击，你需要避免过于自信，以为你所相信的就必然是正确的。常常是你认为对的事情，其实并不正确，最后可能会导致严重后果。如果你觉得自己已经了解了一切，认为政策稳定，一切很安全，于是加大杠杆投资，那么当突如其来的不利事件，比如地缘政治事件发生时，你可能会受到重创。因此，我认为市场存在一些波动性，可能对投机者来说不太理想，但实际上能够提升市场的韧性。当然，我理解这可能会让依赖低波动性策略的人感到不满。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so that, then you have less possibility of, of being surprised, right? It's always what you think is true, but just isn't so that it kind of blows you up. And so if you have an impression that, you know, everything, there's no very policy, things are really safe and you just lever up, then when something bad happens and it could be like out of the blue geopolitical event, then that's how you could get blow up. So I think that having some volatility would actually probably be not as good for speculators, but could make the markets more resilient. And yes, I understand that would make some people who have current strategies, uh, relying on low vol unhappy.
好的。那么套利交易者呢？我想现在这个市场规模比以前要大得多，你已经写了很多关于这方面的内容。我认为这对他们来说可能会有些棘手。如果市场变得更加波动，融资成本也会更加不稳定。所以，是的，他们增加杠杆进行套利交易会更困难，这也会让市场更难消化即将到来的大量交易发行。那么，我们现在就看看吧。他刚执政，这还是早期阶段。确实很难确定未来的情况。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah. What about the basis traders? Like the, I imagine like that is just so much bigger now you've written plenty of times about it. Um, I imagine this could be pretty dicey for them. If it were to become very more volatile, funding costs would be more volatile. So yes, it would be more difficult for them to, to lever up on their basis trades and that would make it more difficult for the market to absorb as much trade issuance as is coming. So, so we'll see right now. So it's, it's, it's still early stages in his reign. Yeah. Too early to tell for sure.
好的。另一个主要工作组宣布的重点是资产负债表，Warsh 对此一直是一个相当严厉的批评者。他在2010年代初期以基本上不支持量化宽松而著名地辞去了美联储理事的职务。在联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）的声明中，少数内容之一是对于充足储备这项制度的承诺。这就让人想知道，为什么他会那样评论。这其实是一个背景信息。因为自去年12月以来，美联储开始担心储备可能变得过低、过于稀缺，这对资金市场产生了影响。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Um, all right. The other major task force that was announced was around the balance sheet, which, uh, Warsh has been known to be a pretty stern critic of, uh, he famously basically resigned as a fed governor in the early 2010s, uh, because he did not really support quantitative easing. Um, in the, in the, one of the few things in the, in the FOMC statement was this commitment to the ample reserve regime, um, which, yeah, why would he say that? Right. That's kind of very much in the background. I mean, just, just for reference, you know, that over since last December, the Fed has began to be concerned that maybe reserves are getting too low, too scarce, and that was impacting funding markets.
他们开始进行储备管理购买，即通过印制储备资金来购买国债，从而为系统提供支持。这种做法有效缓解了当时回购市场中的融资压力。目前，他们已经大幅减少了这些储备管理购买，好像现在每月大约是100亿。我认为这其实是一个相对微妙的操作，没有必要将其提升到引起广泛关注的程度。毕竟，在声明中我们能写入的句子有限。我觉得这主要是为了回应公众可能存在的担忧，让大家知道有一个支持小规模资产负债表的主席。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So they began reserve management purchases where they would print reserves to buy treasury bills that topped up the system. And that really took away the funding pressure we saw in the repo markets at the moment there, they've really scaled down those reserve management pro, uh, purchases. I think it's like the 10 billion a month now. And so I think that was something that was subtle. There's really no reason to elevate that to, uh, what is now prime real estate, right? There's only so many sentences we can have in the statement. So I think that was meant to address concerns that the public may have had as to having a chair that is, you know, supportive of a small balance sheet.
所以，我们都知道，过去十年来，凯文一直在说他希望美联储的资产负债表变小。主要的担忧是，如果缩小资产负债表，可能会使储备金不足，从而导致资金市场出现波动。因此，通过提高储备金水平，安抚市场情绪，表示“我们不会做任何重大改变，储备会充足，一切都会没问题”。不过话虽如此，如果你想在美联储政策上进行大变动，你需要什么呢？你需要一个委员会或工作小组来进行筹划。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So we all know that Kevin has been saying for the past decade that he would like a smaller Fed balance sheet. The primary concern of that is that when you shrink the balance sheet, maybe that you have not enough reserves that results in hiccups in the funding markets. And so maybe by elevating, uh, you know, just reserve levels to that level, it's kind of calming the markets down saying, Hey, we're not going to be doing anything big here. Reserves are going to be ample or everything is going to be okay. Now that being said, though, again, if you want to have a big change under Fed policy, what do you need to do? You need a committee, you need a task force, you know, put it together.
他正在开始着手实现一个我认为是他毕生梦想的计划，即缩减美联储的资产负债表。所以，我完全预期会有一个庞大的委员会，所有成员都会同意这个计划。也许他们都来自传统基金会之类的组织，然后他们会说：“是的，你知道吗？拥有一个更小的美联储资产负债表，这是个好主意。”而这是“2025项目”中提出的建议：我们应当让美联储的资产负债表只包含国债。这实际上在美联储内部得到了一致认同，大家都同意我们应该只持有国债，不要有机构的抵押贷款支持证券。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so he's setting the ball rolling for, I would imagine to complete his lifelong dream of having a smaller Fed balance sheet. So my full expectation is you would have a big committee, all these people sign off. Maybe they're all from the Heritage Foundation or something like that. And they'd be like, yeah, you know what? Having a smaller Fed balance sheet, great idea, by the way. And this is from Project 2025. We should have it be a treasury only balance sheet. Now, this is something that actually has a complete buy-in on everything on the Fed. Everyone agrees that we should have a treasury only balance sheet, no agency mortgage backed securities.
这已经完成了一些事情。不过，美联储资产负债表的规模问题还需要一些说服。还有些人认为缩小美联储资产负债表很愚蠢，这可能是真的。但目前，我认为他正在朝这个方向努力。而且，金融体系已经发生了重大变化，如果他愿意，确实可以让他缩小美联储的资产负债表。缩减美联储资产负债表的最大问题当然是私人部门需要持有更多国债。这意味着需要有更多的资产负债表。所以，要么银行需要购买国债，要么银行需要通过回购协议为持有国债的杠杆投资者提供融资。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So that's something that's already done. The size of the balance sheet, though, that's going to need some persuading. You have other people who are just saying that basically it's stupid to shrink the Fed's balance sheet, which is probably true. But at the moment, I think he's kind of building towards that. And there's been big changes to the financial system that will actually allow him to shrink the Fed's balance sheet if he wants to. The biggest problem when you shrink the Fed's balance sheet, of course, is that you're going to need more people in the private sector to hold treasuries. And that means that you're going to have to have more balance sheets. So either the banks are going to have to buy it or the banks are going to have to be able to provide financing through repo to levered investors who hold it.
为了实现这一目标，银行系统发生了重大变化。我们即将对银行资本要求进行调整。更重要的是，更直接的改变是去年他们取消了对富国银行的资产限制。富国银行几乎立刻开始在回购市场大量放贷，规模达到数千亿美元。这解放了银行系统中的资产负债表，以支持国债的吸收。我预计这种趋势将持续下去。但这个过程会很慢。在为此铺平道路的同时，美联储可以更轻松地退出其庞大国债持有者的角色。另外，关于是否应该出售抵押贷款支持证券还是等30年到期等问题，还需要进一步讨论。但我确实认为，这只是未来一两年内可能出现的大变化的开始。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So there has been big changes in the banking system to allow that. We have upcoming changes to bank capital requirements. And more importantly, more immediately, last year, they also unleashed the asset cap for Wells Fargo. And Wells Fargo basically immediately began to lend a lot more in repo to the tune of hundreds of billions. So that's been freeing a balance sheet in the banking system to support the absorption of treasuries. I expect that to continue. But it's going to be a slow process. And as the groundwork is laid for that, the Fed can more easily just step out of its role as having this huge treasury portfolio. Again, other discussions like whether or not we should sell mortgage-backed securities or wait 30 years for the material. That's something that they'll have to discuss. But I do think this is just the beginning of big changes that will come maybe within a year or two.
有趣。好的。我们正在浏览这些任务小组的名单，实际上有很多任务小组。其中有一个数据任务小组。顺便说一下，各位，我想告诉大家，我非常希望能加入一个任务小组。如果有人在听到这段话，那就太好了。是的，我想你可以参加其中任何一个。这次任务小组主要是关于数据的，它深入探讨了这些不同国家使用的账户，实时数据与滞后数据之间的问题。显然，对于不同的通胀指标以及哪个是最好的使用方法，也有很多讨论。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Interesting. Okay. Another one of the – we're just going through the list of these – there's a lot of task forces. There's a data task force as well. By the way, guys, I just want to know. I would love to be on a task force. If anyone is listening, that'd be great. Yeah, there's plenty – you can be on any of these, I imagine. Yeah. All right. So this task force is all about data. And this – it really gets into the question of these different national accounts that are used, real-time versus lagging data. Obviously, there's been plenty of talk about different inflation metrics and which are the best to use.
关于我们衡量工作和就业报告的方法是否有效，一直存在很多争议，因为这些数据经常会被修正。看起来他们想对这一方法进行许多调整。您怎么看待他们可能会开始使用的数据组合呢？我认为这是一个合理的担忧。 我们确实经历了很多关于就业数据的大幅修正。比如，我相信经过修正后，基本上去年的所有就业数据都被大幅修改了，这很令人惊讶。因此，由于经济的变化，我们目前的方法可能不再那么有效。但同时，随着科技的进步，我们也许能够在这些方面做出更真实有效的改进。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
There's been plenty of debate around the usefulness of the way that we measure jobs and jobs reports because of the amount of revisions. It seems like they want to change that a lot. How are you thinking about what data compositions they're going to start to work with? No, I think that's a legitimate concern. We have had a lot of big revisions to jobs, right? Like I believe after revisions, basically all of the jobs last year got revised away, right? That's kind of surprising. And so it is possible that because of changes in our economy, maybe our current methods don't work as well. But also, we also have a lot more technology today such that maybe we could legitimately improve upon our efforts.
这让我想起一个例子：在金融危机之后，很多人担心官方数据无法准确反映通货膨胀的情况，因为他们认为量化宽松（QE）具有通胀性，但这种影响没有在通胀数据中体现出来。因此，他们认为官方数据一定有误。于是，出现了利用非公开方式来测量通货膨胀的大量努力。例如，麻省理工学院曾参与的“十亿价格项目”就是利用私有数据进行通胀测量的尝试。我相信现在也有类似“真正的通货膨胀”等项目存在。所以有很多私营部门在运用技术来提供非常精确的通货膨胀状况。有可能公共部门能够从这些技术中受益。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
What this reminds me of is, for example, after the great financial crisis, there were many people who were concerned that the official data was not accurately measuring inflation because they thought that QE was inflationary, but it's not showing up in inflation data. Thus, the information data must be wrong. And so you had a huge effort to try to collect measure inflation through non-public means. So using private data you had from that, the Billion Price Project, which was affiliated with MIT. And I believe you have today things like true inflation as well. So there are a lot of private genders who use technology to provide very, very good view of where inflation is. So maybe the public sector could benefit from some of that technology.
所以我认为这是个好事情。当然，风险在于，我们做了这么多工作，最后却发现其实衡量通胀的最好方法是修正后的PCE（个人消费支出）指标。这一直是这样做的风险。还要记得，不久前有一份劳动力市场报告不太理想，结果有人因此被解雇了，对吧？因此，我们的数据有被政治化的风险，这很令人担忧。不论你的政治立场如何，我们需要知道经济实际发生了什么，以便做出明智的决策。但我们还是会给予他们信任，相信他们是想要现代化显然非常困难的过程，当然，包括衡量就业等方面。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So I think that's a great thing. The risk, of course, is that, you know, we do all this and we end up realizing actually the best way of measuring inflation is trimming PCE, guys. So that is always the risk of doing that. Also remember, not too long ago, there was a labor market report that was not good and that kind of got someone fired, right? So, again, there is a risk of more of a politicization of our data, and that's very concerning. No matter what your political beliefs are, we have to know what's actually happened in the economy to make good decisions. But we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they want to modernize what has evidently been a process that is very difficult to do, of course, measuring employment and things like that.
但是，这可以通过人工智能等技术来提高。我们今天确实有更好的工具。是的，我觉得人们对美联储的一个合理批评就是，他们总是落后于形势。而这在某种程度上是不可避免的，因为他们关注的数据往往是一些滞后的指标。对那些不密切关注经济数据的人来说，总是会有领先指标、同步指标和滞后数据点。而大多数情况下，美联储真的是在关注最滞后的数据。就像当糟糕的数据开始出现在劳动力数据中时，实际上事情已经恶化了很长时间了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But it could potentially be improved by things like AI. We do have better tools today. Yeah, I feel like one of the valid criticisms that people have had of the Fed is that they're always behind the curve. And that's sort of fundamentally baked into it because of the data points that they follow are often some of the more lagging metrics, right? Like if you're, there's always, you know, for those that don't track the economic data closely, like you always have leading metrics, coincident and then lagging data points. And for the most part, the Fed really focuses on the most lagging of data. Like by the time that bad data starts to show up in labor data, you know, things have already been falling apart for quite a while.
如果他们开始专注于更具前瞻性的数据，不管是什么数据，你觉得这会不会导致他们变得过于被动或者过于超前？因为当完全依赖前瞻性数据时，显然信息会更嘈杂。我认为这可能会带来另一种问题。我觉得，美联储在这方面处于艰难的境地。假设他们必须采取主动行动以避免危机，并且成功地避免了危机。那么，这个未曾发生的危机不会为他们带来任何认可，因为危机根本没有发生。因此，从政治角度来看，这种行动总是很困难。但如果发生不好的事情，然后他们再反应，就会被指责反应太慢。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
If they start to move towards focusing on more leading data, whatever it is, do you think that can make them even like too reactive or too ahead of the curve where obviously it's going to be a bit noisier too if you go towards entirely leading data? Like it feels like that could also come forth with its own issues on the other side of the spectrum. Now, I think the Fed is in a difficult position when it comes to that. Let's say they have to act proactively, right? To avert a crisis and they do that. The crisis doesn't materialize and then, you know, they don't get any credit because it never materializes, right? So it's always difficult from a political perspective to do that. Now, if something bad happens and then you react to it, then you're accused of being too slow.
所以，我认为从他们的角度来看，这件事没有任何好处。这是一项艰难的工作。不管你做什么，总会有人批评你动作太慢或者太快。是的，这确实难以避免。另一个需要关注的问题是生产力和工作，以及正在发生的人工智能革命。就像你之前提到的，在提名和确认之前，Warsh就已经多次谈到过人工智能带来的生产力新高涨。这似乎会成为一个非常重要的话题。这是一个需要回答的重要问题，并且需要有一定的看法，因为它可能对如何考虑经济产生极大的深远影响。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So I don't think there's any win for that from their perspective. So it's just a tough job. And no matter what you do, you're going to have people who are going to yell at you and accuse you of being too late or too early. Yeah, fair enough. One of the other ones is around productivity and jobs and the AI revolution that's occurring right now. And as you mentioned earlier, Warsh talked plenty about the emerging productivity boom from AI before his nomination and confirmation. And it seems like it's going to be top of mind here. It's, you know, it's an important question to answer and have a perspective on because it can be have such large fat tailed consequences on just how to think about the economy.
所以，他们将关于AI对生产力影响的问题提升到工作组讨论的层面，这一点确实很重要。我很好奇，你怎么看待这个问题？正如你所提到的，有人认为我们可能会因为生产力的提升而降低利率，也许我们最终会发现这一点。但是到目前为止，从数据中还看不出来任何迹象。最近的生产力数据并没有特别亮眼，实际上最新的数据还被下调了。我个人认为，AI将会带来巨大的变革，极大提升生产力。但是，AI如何真正渗透到经济中，它对就业意味着什么，这些都是我认为比较难以预测的事情。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So, yeah, the fact that they're elevating this to a task force to talk about how AI impacts productivity. I'm curious, how are you thinking about that one? That was actually, so that doesn't have, I mean, like you mentioned, the argument is that we could cut rates because we have a productivity boom. Maybe that's what we discover. But so far, you just can't see that in the data. So the most recent productivity data is just not that special. It actually revisions, revise the most recent productivity numbers lower. Now, I personally believe that AI is going to be hugely transformational and hugely productivity enhancing. But how that actually filters out into the economy, what that means for employment, that's something that's, I think, it's a little bit more difficult to predict.
这将在未来几年中继续发展。所以，当我想到这些巨大的生产力变化时，我会先从历史的角度来看问题，然后再看看我自己的生活。历史上，比如说农业，大约几百年前，大多数人都在农场工作。为什么？因为如果不这样做，他们就会饿死。当时，生产足够的食物需要花费很多工作时间，仅仅为了生存。但如今，看看我们的社会，可能只有一到百分之二的从业人员在农业中，却足以养活我们所有人的食物需求。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And it's going to play out over the coming years. So, you know, when I think about these huge productivity things, first of all, I look at things historically, and then I look at my own life. And so historically, let's say that, let's say agriculture, for example, like a couple hundred years ago, most people worked on farms. Why? Because if you didn't, you would starve to death, right? You really couldn't produce enough food. It would take hours for you just to produce, of work to have enough to survive. But today, if you look at our society today, maybe one or two percent work in agriculture. And that's enough to support all of us when it comes to food.
不仅如此，如今人们吃得更多，吃得更好，比过去任何时候都要好。那为什么这么少的人能生产出这么多的食物呢？这要归功于生产力、技术、化学等因素。这样巨大的生产力增长也意味着大量真实商品和服务的增加。但这并不一定会转化为金钱收益或者就业机会。因此，当这些农民在生产更多农产品时，如果你问他们是否因此突然变得非常富有，他们会告诉你，并没有，这是毁灭性的。之所以毁灭性，是因为每个人都能生产出这么多东西，价格自然就下跌了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And not just that, people today eat more, eat better than they did, than they ever have. And how can such fewer people produce so much more food? It's because of productivity, technology, chemistry, and all those other things. So that huge productivity boom also had a huge, okay, that's an increase in real goods and services. But that does not translate into necessarily monetary games or necessarily translate into employment. So as all these people, all these farmers were making more produce, if you ask them whether or not they suddenly became very rich, they'll tell you, no, it was ruinous. It was ruinous because when everyone could produce so much stuff, prices go down.
即使你的实际商品和服务增加了，整个社会也变得更加富裕。每个人的饮食也变得更好了。但是，那些商品的价格下降了，所以你基本上破产了，只能去别的地方找工作。要么是在制造业，要么是在当时还很小的服务业。如今，服务业已经非常庞大，并且产生了许多新职业，比如播客，这在以前是不存在的。通过观察这一现象，我认为当拥有人工智能并大幅提高生产力时，我们将变得更加富裕，拥有更多的商品和服务。在我自己的生活中，我可以问人工智能各种问题，瞬间就能获得历代最聪明的人们所拥有的知识。人工智能整理并提供给我所有的研究信息等。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So even though the real goods and services you have increase, you become wealthier as a society. Everyone eats better. Now, the prices of those goods went down. And so you basically were ruined and you had to go find work elsewhere. It was either in manufacturing or the growing services sector, which at that time was very small. Today, it's very big. And new employments were created such that podcasters didn't exist before. And now you have that. So what I take away from that and looking at things today is that when you have AI, if you have a big productivity game, we're going to be wealthier. More goods and services. Looking at my own life, I can ask AI all sorts of things. I have the knowledge of like the very smartest people that ever lived. Just kind of a snap of the fingertips. The AI organizes, gives me all the research and so forth.
因此，我的生活在某种程度上得到了改善。但另一方面，我并没有为这些服务付费，所以我不明白他们是如何赚钱的。这不一定意味着会有经济收益。当然，这也意味着会有一些行业受到影响，比如原本提供这些知识服务的人，不论是我可以在推特上发布的有趣图片，还是比如说健康咨询等服务，他们可能需要寻找新工作。因此，仅从过去的经验来看，这种生产力的提升会带来冲击，并不一定能让我们所有人变得更好，也不一定会有经济回报。我认为这个问题值得一个专门小组去研究。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So my life is improved in that way. But then again, I don't really pay them anything. And so I don't see how they're making any money. And so that doesn't necessarily mean there is a monetary gain. And that also implies, of course, that there will be some disruption where we had people who were providing these knowledge works, whether it be, you know, funny pictures that I can post on Twitter or actually, let's say, health consultation or something like that. They're going to have to find new jobs. So this whole productivity thing, just looking at the past is going to be disruptive, might not going to make us all better off, might not make any money off of it. And it's going to be something that I think is worthy of a task force group.
说得好。那么，我们来到了最后一个问题，这一切都与通胀框架有关。我们之前提到过，有很多不同的方法来衡量通胀。当然，趋势平均通胀是沃什最喜欢的，同时也是所有方法中最低的之一。但总的来说，我对通胀有一个更广泛的问题，特别是关于沃什提到的通胀驱动因素。当然，我们这是在伊朗战争和能源供应冲击的背景下讨论这一问题的，这对于中央银行来说是一个极其困难的反应课题。比如你看到最近欧洲央行上周加息，即使可以说应该放眼长期，毕竟这对于欧洲尤其是一个非常负面的增长冲击，但他们还是加息了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Well said. Okay, we're at the last one, which is all about inflation frameworks, which we've sort of mentioned already about how there's just all these different ways to measure inflation. And of course, trend mean inflation is Warsh's favorite, just also happens to be one of the lowest of them all. But overall, like, I am curious about a broader question around inflation, which is around the, Warsh mentioned the drivers of inflation. And of course, like we're talking about this during the context of the Iran war and these energy supply shocks, which are just inherently an exceptionally difficult thing for a central bank to react to. I mean, you've seen in the ECB, they just recently hiked last week, even though, you know, you can make the argument that you should look through it and that it's going to be a very negative growth shock for Europe especially, but they still hiked.
有没有方法可以让美联储更好地应对由供应因素引起的通货膨胀冲击，从而形成正确的通货膨胀框架？因为我不知道，传统观点认为他们根本无法很好地应对这种情况，这也是他们面临困难的原因。但是，我不知道，当他们反思通货膨胀以及这些基本通货膨胀驱动因素时，你认为有没有更好的思路让他们进行思考和应对？我认为这里有两个要点。首先，当你是美联储主席时，你需要告诉大家，通货膨胀主要由政策驱动，这样可以让人们相信你有能力实现2%的通货膨胀目标。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Is there any sort of way to have this correct framing of inflation for the Fed to be able to better react to these supply driven inflation shocks? Because it just, I don't know, I mean, the old tale is that there's just no way for them to react well. And that's why it's so difficult for them. But I don't know, as they go through this reflection on inflation and these first principle inflation drivers, like, do you think there's a better way for them to think about that and react to? Well, I think there's two points here. One is that, whereas when you are Fed chair, you have to tell everyone that, you know, inflation is largely driven by policy that tells people that you have power to meet your 2% inflation target.
这显然不是真的。比如说，通货膨胀是非常复杂的，它依赖于很多因素，对吧？包括税收政策、地缘政治事件、贸易、人口结构等等。例如，看看这个人工智能热潮，这些从事人工智能的人有很多资金。他们相信自己在做一些伟大的事情，他们会继续建设他们的人工智能数据中心，并且无论利率如何都会推高需求。所以利率在供需、通货膨胀等方面确实发挥作用，但只是一个作用，而且说实话，有时候并不是一个很大的作用。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
That's just obviously not true. Like, inflation is very complicated. It's depending on many things, right? You got tax policy, you got, you know, geopolitical events, you got trade, you got demographics. And, for example, looking at this AI boom, you know, these AI guys, they have a lot of cash. They believe they're doing something great. They're going to be building out their AI data centers and pushing up demand no matter what interest rates are, right? So interest rates really play a role in supply and demand, inflation and stuff like that. But just one role, just a role, and honestly, sometimes not even a big role.
所以，作为一个基本原则，我会说货币政策本身是无法实现你的目标的。尽管作为美联储主席，你需要表现得好像你能做到这一点。所以我会说，如果美联储真的关心通货膨胀问题，他们实际上需要与政府的其他部门合作。例如，面对这些负面供给冲击，仅靠货币政策是很困难的，但政府还有其他手段。比如，你可以使用战略石油储备（SBR）的释放，也可以暂时减免汽油税等措施，共同管理经济。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So as a first principle, I would say that monetary policy alone is not able to achieve your objectives. Although as Fed chair, you have to sound like you can do this. So I would say that if you wanted to, if the Fed really were concerned about inflation, they would really have to work with other parts of the government. Looking at these negative supply shocks, for example, it's hard if you look at monetary policy itself, but hey, you have other places in the government. For example, you got the SBR release. You got, perhaps you could have holidays, holiday on the gasoline tax and so forth to work together to manage the economy.
所以我想说的是，将来在管理通货膨胀和就业方面，政府需要更紧密的合作。不过，让我真正感兴趣的是，这个工作小组有可能重新定义通货膨胀目标。这种讨论时不时会出现。Kevin 坚定地表示，在我们谈论任何变更之前，我们希望先将通货膨胀率恢复到2%。拉加德女士在某次被问到这个问题时也表达过同样的看法。这些都是标准做法，旨在管理公众预期。一个可能的方向是，你的工作小组可能会建议我们坚持2%的通货膨胀目标，不改变这一点。不过，我们是否可以在这个目标上设定一个1%的浮动范围，比如1.5%到2.5%，或者1%到3%？通货膨胀是个复杂的问题，很难精确测量，且波动较大。所以，也许我们可以考虑采用一个通货膨胀范围。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So I would say that in the future, when you're looking at managing inflation and employment, it's going to have to be more of a concerted effort on the government. Now, but what really makes me, what really picks my interest about the task force, though, is the potential to redefine the inflation target. And this comes in and out sometimes. And what Kevin says is resolutely that before we even talk about changing anything like that, we want to get inflation back to 2%. This is also what Madame Lagarde said when she was asked this question once upon a time. So this is all standard stuff. It's about managing expectations. But one possibility is that you could come out with, from your task force, that we can have an inflation target of 2%. Guys, not changing that at all, 2%. But what if we have a 1% band around that, say 1.5% to 2.5%. Or what if it's 1% to 3%? You know, inflation is a complicated thing. Can't measure it very well. It fluctuates a lot. You know, what if we just have an inflation band?
好的，这不算不合理。我们可以找到一些非常重要的人支持这一观点，这就让我们有可能在某种程度上进行一些调整。当然我不是说他们会这样做。但是每当我听到关于通胀框架的特别小组任务时，给我的感觉就是这样。因为，要精确估算一个点，起初就很难做到，不是吗？我指的是，通胀从来不会正好是2%。所以留一点余地是合理的，很明显，这会让通胀变得更高。那么回过头来看市场对瓦尔什上任第一天的反应：我们看到美国股市下跌，美元上涨，债券尤其是两年期国债下跌，黄金和贵金属显著下跌，整体上是一个比较强硬的反应。但我想知道，总的来说，你觉得凯文·瓦尔什上任第一天的表现如何？是否与你预期的有所不同？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Well, OK, well, it's not unreasonable. We can find very important people who support it. And so that opens up the possibility of maybe modifying that a little bit. So not saying that they would do that. But when I hear a task force on this inflation framework, stuff like that, that's my sense. Because seriously, having a point estimate, it's hard to get to begin with anyway, right? I mean, it's never going to be 2% exactly. So giving yourself a little bit of wiggle room, it makes sense. And obviously, it's going to buy us inflation higher. All right. So just to wrap you up here, zooming out on the market's reaction to Warsh in day one. We saw U.S. equity sold off, the dollar rallied, bonds sold off, two-year especially. Gold sold off pretty significantly, precious metals. Overall, a pretty hawkish reaction function. But just generally speaking, I'm curious about how do you think this first day played out for Kevin Warsh versus maybe what you expected would happen?
好的，我之前以为凯文·沃什会是那个求职的凯文。然而他出场时的表现是那个大家一直知道的凯文。所以我觉得这次非常鹰派，市场反应也与鹰派的美联储一致，一切都很统一。然而，从更广泛的风险市场来看，很明显我们处于一个市场充满投机的阶段。我不需要指明诸如SpaceX这样的公司，去年亏损了几十亿，但估值却超过了2万亿美元。所以很多是市场趋势和杠杆的追逐。这总是很危险的。这种情况在全球范围内都能看到，比如韩国，今年通话速率基本翻了一倍。美国的许多芯片股也大幅增值。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah, I expected Kevin Warsh to be the Kevin begging for the job. He came out and he was like, the Kevin that you always knew was there. Yeah. So I think it was a pretty hawkish. I think that it was the hawkish reaction is in line with the market reaction is in line with the hawkish Fed. Everything is consistent. Now, looking at the broader risk market, though, it's very obvious to me that we are at a point where there is a lot of speculation in the market, right? I don't have to point to SpaceX, which lost a few billion last year, trading at over $2 trillion in valuation, right? So there's a lot of just momentum and leverage chasing the market. So that's always dangerous. And we see that all over the world. You see that in Korea, right? So the call speed basically doubled this year. A lot of these chip stocks in the U.S. are very appreciated a lot as well.
此外，你知道的，还有各种经典的市场见顶指标。大众广泛参与、杠杆的使用，还有股价不断上涨。这些都是市场触顶的特征。同时，还有一个信号是股票发行量的大幅增加。例如，SpaceX虽然市值庞大，但公开交易的股票数量非常有限。然而，在接下来的几个月中，禁售期将结束，那些持有股票的人便会开始出售。想象一下，如果你是SpaceX的员工，持有的股票无法出售，眼见着市值飞涨，让你看起来像个百万富翁，但同时又担心在能够出售之前，这一切会消失得无影无踪。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
On top of that, you know, you have all these classic indicators of major tops. You have widespread public involvement, you've got leverage, and you've got stocks that go up and up and up. Now, what also coincides with tops is that you have now massive increase in equity issuance. So it's not just that SpaceX is coming. So SpaceX actually, even though they have a big market cat, they only gave a sliver of it is available for public trading. In the coming months, you'll have lockups unlock, and then you'll have the people sell. I mean, think about yourself as a SpaceX employee who has stock that you just can't sell, watching the valuation go to the moon, looking at yourself being like a multimillionaire, but also, also afraid that it will all disappear before you have a chance to sell.
显然，第一次有机会出售的时候，你会赶紧抛售。其他长期资本和长期风险投资者也会这样做。这就增加了股票供应。现在有Anthropic和谷歌在发行股票，Supermicro也有类似的举动。所以可以看到大家都在增加股票供应。而通常在市场达到高峰时会加息。虽然这次我们没有加息，但市场正在预期加息。所以所有这些因素都凑在一起，我认为这可能导致风险资产持续且显著地下降。当然，我也可能完全错了。为了说明白，我完全没想到在伊朗战争后市场会反弹得这么厉害。所以我那时判断错了，但现在的情况让我有些担忧。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So obviously, the first chance you have to sell, you're going to be dumping that. All the other long-term capital, long-term venture investors will be doing the same. So that's equity supply. You've got Anthropic. You've got Google making an offering. You even had Supermicro make an offering as well. So everyone is beginning to increase the supply of equities. And what you usually see in major tops is rate hikes. Now, we didn't hike rates now, but market is pricing at a hike. So you've got all these things coming up together. I think they all point to me to a sustained and meaningful decline in risk assets. Again, I could be totally wrong. And to be totally clear, guys, I totally did not think that we would rally so hard after the Iran war. So I got that totally wrong, but I look at what's happening, and it looks concerning to me.
太好了。感谢你的坦诚和对前景的看法。如往常一样，很高兴在这些重要的美联储日子里与你交流，约瑟夫。再次感谢你加入我们的讨论。非常感谢。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Awesome. Well, I appreciate the transparency, the perspective on the outlook. And yeah, as always, great to have you on during these major Fed days, Joseph. So thanks again for joining. Thanks so much for having me. Thanks.