目前，美联储改变2%通胀目标的可能性微乎其微。但随着美联储理事会成员构成发生变化，且鲍威尔的美联储主席任期将于明年5月到期，关于"替代2%固 定通胀目标"的讨论，是否即将逐渐升温？ 市场预计周五公布的数据将显示，美国通胀已连续第54个月超过美联储2%的目标。即便将近年所有冲击因素，以及美联储后疫情时代通胀框架中内置的灵 活性纳入考量，一家央行连续这么长时间未能实现目标，仍属罕见。 而且，通胀很可能在未来数月（甚至数年）内都无法回落至2%。美联储官员的中值预期显示，直至2028年，整体个人消费支出（PCE）通胀与核心PCE通 胀才有望回到2%。 采用"通胀区间"的可能性 对于一个"连续四年多每月都未实现"的目标，选择改变它（本质上是"临时调整规则"），显然不是一件光彩的事。 话虽如此，"政策试探"最好尽早进行。替代当前通胀目标的潜在方案之一是"通胀区间"，部分美联储官员近期已对此表示认可，其中最受关注的是亚特兰大 联储主席博斯蒂克。 本周，博斯蒂克在《宏观思考》（Macro Musings）播客节目中接受乔治梅森大学高级研究员戴维·贝克沃思（David Beckworth）采访时表示，他对未来采 用"通胀区间" ...

Group 1 - The Federal Reserve announced a 25 basis point interest rate cut on September 17, which was seen as a victory for Trump after months of pressure [2][4] - Trump's expectation was for a larger cut of at least 50 basis points, as he had previously claimed that rates were at least 300 basis points too high [2][4] - The Federal Reserve's stance indicated that this rate cut was a "risk management" move and not a signal for extensive monetary easing, which contradicted Trump's desires [4][5] Group 2 - The voting results from the Federal Open Market Committee showed 11 members in favor of the 25 basis point cut, with only Trump's nominee voting against it, highlighting a lack of support for Trump's influence [5][7] - Market reactions post-announcement were mixed, with the Dow Jones rising slightly while the Nasdaq fell, indicating skepticism about the effectiveness of the rate cut [7][9] - The U.S. national debt has surpassed $37 trillion, with interest payments projected to consume a significant portion of the federal budget, raising concerns about long-term economic stability [9][14] Group 3 - The potential for a "debt spiral" is a concern, as increased borrowing to stimulate the economy could lead to higher interest payments, further straining the budget [12][14] - Inflation remains a persistent issue, with consumer prices rising due to tariffs, which could complicate the Federal Reserve's ability to manage monetary policy effectively [12][14] - Projections indicate that by 2025, U.S. GDP growth may slow to 1.6%, with interest payments on the national debt reaching a historic high as a percentage of GDP [14][15]

智通财经APP获悉，顽固的通胀已经成为英国财政大臣里夫斯(Rachel Reeves)首份预算案的最大弊端之 一。而在第二份预算案中，她有可能重蹈覆辙。 近几日，英国商业团体警告称，工党政府在税收、就业权利和最低工资方面的政策，可能会给企业带来 数十亿英镑的运营成本，并推动物价在未来一年继续上涨。他们表示，这一次冲击可能更为尖锐，因为 企业利润空间更小，更难以在不转嫁成本的情况下消化压力。 英国商会发言人Steve Partridge表示："我们在本次预算中的头号诉求是：不要再提高对企业的税 收。""目前唯一能够消化这些成本的方式，就是通过涨价。" 由于受到英国首相斯塔默(Keir Starmer)竞选承诺——不伤害"劳动人民"(即不提高所得税或增值税)—— 的约束，里夫斯在去年10月的首份预算案中选择通过增加雇主工资缴纳份额260亿英镑(350亿美元)来平 衡预算。她还大幅上调了最低工资，这是工党14年来首份财政计划的核心内容。 将近一年后，人们普遍认为这些政策助推了通胀上升。英国央行最近也加入了预算责任办公室(OBR)的 行列，对此表示担忧。去年里夫斯宣布财政计划时，消费者价格指数(CPI)还徘徊在政府2 ...

Group 1: Jackson Hole Conference Insights - The Jackson Hole Economic Symposium is an annual event held by the Kansas Federal Reserve, where central bank leaders discuss monetary policy adjustments[2] - Powell's recent speech indicated a shift towards a dovish stance, suggesting a potential interest rate cut in September due to increasing employment risks[3][11] Group 2: Economic Indicators and Risks - Employment risks are rising, with a peculiar balance in the labor market due to significant supply-demand slowdown, potentially leading to increased layoffs and unemployment[3][12] - The likelihood of tariffs causing sustained inflation is deemed low, with current price impacts expected to be temporary[3][12] Group 3: Interest Rate Projections - Following Powell's speech, the probability of a September rate cut increased from 72% to 81.3%, with the average expected cuts for the year rising from 1.91 to 2.18 times[4][14] - The current policy rate appears slightly ahead of estimated levels, indicating that any rate cuts may be more preventive rather than recession-driven[4][14] Group 4: Market Reactions and Framework Adjustments - In a preventive rate cut scenario, U.S. stock indices typically rise, supported by resilient earnings, while long-term U.S. Treasury yields are likely to decline[5][19] - The Fed is shifting from an average inflation targeting framework to a flexible inflation targeting approach, allowing for more adaptability in response to economic conditions[6][20][25]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the likelihood of the Federal Reserve restarting interest rate cuts in September, with expectations of 3-4 cuts totaling 75-100 basis points, influenced by recent employment data revisions and political pressures from the Trump administration [1][10][13]. Group 1: Macroeconomic Analysis - Powell has adopted a dovish stance, indicating a shift in risk balance towards a downward trend in employment and a temporary inflation outlook [3][10]. - The current state of full employment is attributed to a unique balance from simultaneous supply and demand contractions, with significant downward risks anticipated for future employment [3][9]. - Economic growth has notably slowed, with actual GDP growth in the first half of the year at 1.2%, significantly lower than the projected 2.5% for 2024, largely due to a slowdown in consumer expansion [9][10]. Group 2: Monetary Policy - The Federal Reserve is expected to restart rate cuts, with Powell signaling that the current policy remains restrictive and may need adjustment based on economic outlook and risk balance [10][11]. - The Fed has made two key adjustments to its monetary policy framework: eliminating the inflation compensation strategy and shifting focus from solely full employment to also considering risks of both overheating and cooling in the job market [11][12]. Group 3: Impacts and Outlook - The anticipated rate cuts, combined with the effects of the "Big and Beautiful" legislation, are likely to lead the U.S. macroeconomic policy into a phase of "dual easing," potentially strengthening the economy and employment [13]. - Inflation risks may pose a threat to the upcoming midterm elections, prompting a possible shift in the Trump administration's approach to a combination of "expansive fiscal and stable monetary" policies [13]. Group 4: Market Reactions and Strategies - Market expectations for rate cuts have surged, with significant declines in U.S. Treasury yields across various maturities and a drop in the dollar index [14]. - Recommendations include cautiously going long on U.S. Treasuries with shorter durations while being wary of long-duration bonds, and maintaining a short position on the dollar with an awareness of potential reversal risks in the fourth quarter [15].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the phenomenon of stagflation, characterized by the coexistence of high inflation and high unemployment, which challenges traditional economic theories and policies [2][9]. Group 1: Definition and Characteristics of Stagflation - Stagflation is defined as an economic condition where stagnation (slow or negative growth) and inflation (rising prices) occur simultaneously [3]. - It disrupts the traditional trade-off between inflation and unemployment, leading to a complex economic environment [2]. Group 2: Causes of Stagflation - Supply shocks, such as sudden increases in oil prices, are classic causes of stagflation, leading to higher costs and reduced economic activity [2][7]. - Poor economic policies, including overly loose monetary and fiscal measures, can exacerbate inflation without addressing stagnation [2][7]. - Other contributing factors include restrictive production policies, wage-price spirals, and self-fulfilling inflation expectations [7]. Group 3: Historical Context and Market Reactions - The 1970s in the U.S. serve as a historical example of stagflation, marked by high inflation rates reaching nearly 15% and unemployment rates exceeding 8% [6][8]. - The stock market suffered significantly during this period, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average showing little to no growth, and many previously popular stocks collapsing [6][8]. - Bond markets also faced challenges, with rising interest rates leading to falling bond prices and negative real yields [8][12]. Group 4: Policy Responses to Stagflation - Initial policy responses included price and wage controls, which failed to resolve underlying issues and led to market distortions [8]. - The later approach involved aggressive monetary tightening under Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which successfully reduced inflation but resulted in a severe economic recession [8][9]. - The experience of the 1970s highlights the dilemma policymakers face: stimulating the economy can worsen inflation, while tightening can deepen stagnation [9]. Group 5: Implications for Current Economic Conditions - Understanding the causes and historical responses to stagflation is crucial for analyzing current economic conditions in the U.S. and globally [10].