芝加哥联储主席古尔斯比：担忧经济过热，通胀数据不乐观
Austan Goolsbee Is Worried the Economy Is Overheating
Joe, do you remember? I think when the fed first started the Dot plot, we were both at Bloomberg. Do you remember? I'm there. Wait, we were down at Bloomberg. Oh, where are we now? No, he was there. He was definitely here. He's going to be a member. No, no, I wasn't it wasn't. We're. Well I genuinely but I remember there was like this all hands committee at one point to try to like, figure out a way to display the. This is true.
乔，你还记得吗？我想当美联储刚开始发布点阵图时，我们俩都在彭博。你记得吗？我在那儿。等等，我们在彭博楼下。哦，我们现在在哪儿？不，他在那儿。他肯定在这儿。他将会成为成员。不，不，我不是，那不是。我们是。嗯，我确实记得，当时好像有一个全员委员会，试图想办法展示这个。这是真的。
Yeah. As it became clear that this became a thing, there was a very a lot of efforts to sort of like formalize the presentation of the dot. Right. And I thought you're going to say this is like me, like our, my mom's generation, everybody remembers where they were with John Kennedy. You remember the day that the the stuff I remember where I was when the Boe retired the fan charts. I was really sad about that. That's it.
是的。当它变得重要时，有很多努力去规范化点阵图的呈现方式。对。我以为你会说这就像我，像我们，像我妈妈那一代，每个人都记得他们在哪里听到约翰·肯尼迪的消息。你记得那天，我记得当英国央行退役扇形图时我在哪里。我对此真的很伤心。就是这样。
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Joe Weisenthal. -And I’m Tracy Alloway. Tracy we’re still here in Jackson Hole. We are recording this. What is it, the 27th? Before Chairman Warsh’s big speech, etc. But when we're here in Jackson Hole, we have to talk to as many people as we can about the state of monetary policy, the economy, central banking, all the good stuff we love to talk about.
大家好，欢迎收听另一期Odd Lots播客。我是乔·韦森塔尔。-我是特蕾西·阿洛韦。特蕾西，我们还在杰克逊霍尔。我们正在录制这期节目。今天是几号？27号？在沃什主席的重要演讲之前等等。但当我们在这里杰克逊霍尔时，我们必须尽可能多地和人们谈论货币政策、经济、中央银行，所有我们喜欢谈论的好东西。
Yeah, definitely. And we don't play favorites on the show. But one of our favorite fed presidents, we don't want to. What if we were to. That's right. We're going to be speaking with Austan Goolsbee of the Chicago Fed. That's right. Literally the perfect guest, someone we've had on several times. So, Austan, thank you so much for coming back on Odd Lots. Thank you for having me. Did you see any moose? No, no, I heard you.
是的，当然。我们在节目上不偏袒任何人。但有一位我们最喜欢的联储主席，我们不想。如果我们……对。我们将要采访芝加哥联储的奥斯坦·古尔斯比。没错。简直是完美的嘉宾，我们请过他好几次了。所以，奥斯坦，非常感谢你再次来到Odd Lots。谢谢你们邀请我。你看到驼鹿了吗？没有，没有，我听说你了。
So you saw a bear? a little while along with some of our producers yesterday. It's very exciting. I've never seen one here before, so hopefully not indicative of any. Yeah, in the broader economy. Look, there's so many places to start. Let's. How about a simple question right now when you look at where the fed has, rates, when you look at the curve, when you look at the state of the economy, would you characterize policy as restrictive right now?
所以你看到了一只熊？昨天和我们的几位制作人一起。非常令人兴奋。我以前从没在这里见过，希望这不是什么预兆。是的，在更广泛的经济中。看，有很多地方可以开始。让我们……现在问一个简单的问题，当你看到美联储的利率水平，当你看到收益率曲线，当你看到经济状况，你会把当前政策描述为紧缩的吗？
Depends what you think the underlying inflation rate is. Let's not let's not forget what matters is the real rate. Yeah. Rate minus expected inflation or actual inflation over some period. I've been a little. In the long run, where do we think it's going to end up? I loosely think 3% rates with 2% inflation and 1% real is kind of Eventual landing spot. The real rate, if the inflation rate is three plus percent, the real raise, it is a lot lower than, than if inflation is headed back to target.
这取决于你认为潜在通胀率是多少。别忘了，重要的是实际利率。是的。利率减去预期通胀或某段时间的实际通胀。我有点……长期来看，我们认为它会落在哪里？我大致认为3%的利率、2%的通胀和1%的实际利率是最终的着陆点。如果通胀率是3%以上，实际利率就会比通胀回到目标水平时低得多。
Yeah. So you can't I don't think you can really answer that. Without saying I'm, I'm, I'm okay with waiting to see, but I'm a little nervous that the inflation side is as over the last six months, not been looking great. Got it. Not to get too technical right at the jump of this conversation, but when we jump right in. But when we talk about the restrictive ness of monetary policy, I mean, we're talking about where it sits next to our star, and our star is unobservable at the best of times.
是的。所以我认为，如果不说明我接受等待观望，你就无法真正回答这个问题。但我有点担心，通胀方面在过去六个月里看起来并不太好。明白了。在对话一开始就不想太技术化，但当我们直接切入时，当我们谈论货币政策的限制性时，我们指的是它相对于我们的“星号”（中性利率）的位置，而我们的“星号”即使在最好的时候也是不可观测的。
Yes. And now we're in this environment where I don't think anyone would disagree that we have this huge structural change in the form of AI. Do we have any more confidence in the neutral rate of interest and versus where we are in terms of restrictive ness with all this? I love that. You know, I was an academic for 30 years, so I love saying, let's get out of the world of theory. You know, a lot. Let's get back at the I always called our star our Sasquatch.
是的。现在我们处于这样的环境中，我认为没有人会不同意我们正经历以AI形式出现的巨大结构性变化。我们对中性利率以及我们相对于限制性的位置是否有更多信心？我喜欢这个。你知道，我做了30年学者，所以我喜欢说，让我们走出理论世界。你知道，很多。让我们回到……我一直称我们的“星号”为我们的“大脚怪”。
And, you know, somehow it feels with this as a backdrop because you can't ever see it. You. And until after it was left. And, you know, here was a footprint. And when I say that, it's because I don't think our star, while the concept exists, I don't find it helpful for me in determining, well, what should the what should the the next monetary policy move be because it's not observable. It's even in the best of times, not observable.
而且，你知道，在这种背景下，感觉有点……因为你永远看不到它。你……直到它离开之后。你知道，这里有一个脚印。我这么说，是因为我认为我们的“星号”，虽然概念存在，但我觉得它对我决定下一步货币政策行动没有帮助，因为它不可观测。即使在最好的时候，它也是不可观测的。
That said, I think if you start thinking longer run. What does an increase in the productivity growth growth rate do to our star? I think it increases it because, faster growth, you got to have a higher steady state. Interest rate. And I gave a speech last year, I mean, at the, at the last, Hoover conference that was kind of thinking about if you think AI is increasing productivity, it makes a big difference to what that means for the here and now.
话虽如此，我认为如果你开始考虑更长期，生产率增长率的提高会对我们的“星号”产生什么影响？我认为它会提高它，因为更快的增长，你必须有一个更高的稳态利率。我去年在胡佛会议上发表了一次演讲，大致是在思考，如果你认为AI正在提高生产率，那么这对当前意味着什么会有很大不同。
Our star. Is this expected or is it unexpected? So if it's unexpected landing on you, then inflation goes down. And in a way people aren't adjusting their behavior in the short run and rates can go down. But if the bigger the hype, the more we're about to have a giant bounty that's going to come from technology. You can easily overheat the economy in the short run and you have to raise the rates. And we kind of live that through the mid to to late 90s.
我们的明星。这是预期中的还是意外？所以如果意外降临到你身上，那么通胀就会下降。从某种意义上说，人们短期内不会调整行为，利率可以下降。但如果炒作越厉害，我们越接近从技术中获得的巨大红利。短期内很容易让经济过热，你必须提高利率。我们在90年代中期到末期就经历过这种情况。
Yeah that's right. How about we maybe try to reverse take the question from the opposite direction. So setting aside theoretical questions about our star, setting aside how we would measure restrictive ness, let's just take your point. The inflation data is still warm. There are signs that it's going in the wrong direction, even if you know, here whatever. Why? Well, how would you decompose the drivers of either? That's what we're trying is still trying to figure out.
是的，没错。我们不妨试着从相反方向来提问。所以，抛开关于我们明星的理论问题，抛开我们如何衡量限制性，让我们直接采纳你的观点。通胀数据仍然偏高。有迹象表明它正朝着错误的方向发展，即使你知道，无论如何。为什么？那么，你会如何分解这两者的驱动因素？这就是我们仍在试图弄清楚的。
Yeah. There I was saying before, even before Liberation Day, as the tariffs came in, I've warned you'll remember, let's be careful. We learned during Covid that if a supply shock, that is that supposed to be transitory? If it's big enough, can end up taking a lot longer than than we initially forecast. And that was my fear that while one and done, tariffs are supposed to be an increase to the price level, but that to do with this increase the price level and temporary inflation shock.
是的。我之前说过，甚至在解放日之前，当关税出台时，我就警告过你，你会记得，要小心。我们在新冠期间学到，如果供应冲击，那应该是暂时的吗？如果它足够大，最终可能比我们最初预测的时间长得多。这就是我的担忧，虽然一次性关税本应只是价格水平的上升，但如何处理这种价格水平上升和暂时的通胀冲击。
Where was the evidence that that was true? Well, we've we've been dealing with that to add a oil price war driven price shock on top of it before that one went away. That's a dicier proposition. Like some component of the increase in inflation is from those two parts tariffs and and one time increase in price of oil, which hopefully should go away as inflation. But if you look at services that's not really caused from tariffs, it's not really caused from oil prices.
有什么证据表明这是真的？嗯，我们一直在处理这个问题，再加上石油价格战驱动的价格冲击，在之前那个冲击消失之前。这是一个更棘手的情况。比如通胀上升的某些部分来自这两个部分：关税和石油价格的一次性上涨，希望这些会随着通胀而消失。但如果你看服务业，那并不是真正由关税引起的，也不是真正由油价引起的。
That's a deeper level of concern. So in my is it a decomposition? I'm hopeful that much of it came from those temporary transitory factors, giving myself hives, even using that word. And if so then we should see it. It should go away. We can't. It can't be that each quarter we say, oh, yes, it's about to go away. Just not yet, you know, three months from now. And so that's why I was okay with if we're get 1 or 2 readings of inflation that are moderating, it's perfectly fine to say, let's, let's wait a meeting or two meetings or whatever.
这是一个更深层次的担忧。所以在我看来，这是分解吗？我希望其中大部分来自那些暂时的、过渡性的因素，我甚至用这个词都让自己起鸡皮疙瘩。如果是这样，我们应该看到它。它应该会消失。我们不能。不能每个季度都说，哦，是的，它即将消失。只是还没到，你知道，三个月后。所以这就是为什么我觉得如果有一两次通胀读数在缓和，完全可以接受说，让我们等一两次会议或什么的。
Let's see if this is the heralded, introduction of the of the temporary part. So in a normal world, these shocks are supposed to be, again, using the dreaded T word transitory, like one off levels to the price, and then they kind of fade away. I think it's fair to say in recent years we've seen shock after shock after shock. Do you think that the central bank needs to start like incorporating that kind of uncertainty into its mandate?
让我们看看这是否就是备受期待的临时性部分的引入。在正常情况下，这些冲击本应是，再次使用那个令人畏惧的“临时”一词，即价格的一次性水平变动，然后它们会逐渐消退。我认为可以公平地说，近年来我们接连遭遇了一次又一次的冲击。你认为央行是否需要开始将这种不确定性纳入其职责范围呢？
Just assume that it will do its mandate or sorry, not into the mandate, into its thinking? Yeah, into its thinking. Yes. I think that you're honest. It does feel like we're getting more supply shocks. The the traditional world does this is the world's shocks aren't the main thing happening. It's not commodity prices. Normally the grubby reality of the business cycle, demand driven unemployment goes up. When inflation goes down, inflation goes up.
就假设它会履行其职责，或者抱歉，不是纳入职责，而是纳入其思考中？是的，纳入思考中。是的，我认为你说得对。确实感觉我们正面临更多的供应冲击。传统世界是这样的：冲击并不是主要发生的事情。不是大宗商品价格。通常，商业周期的现实是需求驱动的失业率上升。当通胀下降时，通胀上升。
When unemployment goes down, when both of those things are moving together, like what happens with these supply shocks, there's not an automatic playbook of
当失业率下降时，当这两者同时变动，就像这些供应冲击发生时，并没有一个自动的应对方案。
原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。
更进一步：量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径，把它变成能交付的工程能力