斯科特·贝桑特：改革美联储、以国家安全为由征收关税、2026年解决可负担性问题

贝森特秘书，欢迎回到《全面聚焦》节目。

Secretary Bessent, welcome back to All In.

感谢您抽出时间与我们交流，并为我们提供这一年的回顾。

We appreciate you taking the time to catch up with us and provide this first year in review.

我们很高兴您能来到这里，听您谈谈美国政府的财政状况、美国经济的整体状况，以及华尔街和主街的现状。

We're excited to have you here and hear how things are going and what's ahead regarding the fiscal condition of the US government, the economic condition of The US economy, including how things are going for Wall Street and Main Street.

最后，我们希望广泛讨论一下政府的一些政策和决策，以及从您的角度看，这些政策是如何实施或即将产生影响的。

And finally, we'd like to broadly discuss some of the administration's policies, decisions, and how they're playing out or will play out from your point of view.

我先来开场，或许可以回顾一下我们上次的对话，我非常关注的一件事，也是您曾认同的目标，就是将预算赤字降至GDP的3%以下。

I'll start us off and maybe to catch up on our last conversation, one of the things that I've cared deeply about and which you shared an objective around is getting the budget deficit below 3% of GDP.

很想听听您的看法，目前这一目标进展如何，2026财年的情况如何，已经采取了哪些措施，以及您对实现这一目标的前景有何展望。

Love to hear from your point of view how that's going and how things are looking for fiscal year '26, the actions that have been taken and and what you think is ahead for that target.

很高兴能与您交流。

Good to be with you.

很乐意回顾过去一年，并谈谈明年的情况。

Happy to review the year, talk about next year.

很多事情正在发生。

There's a lot going on.

我会把2025年归类一下。

I would categorize 2025.

我们取得了一些重要胜利，发布了一些重要政策，取得了一些重要进展，但正如我所描述的，2025年只是在铺垫，尤其是在经济方面，我认为真正的盛宴和盛筵将在2026年到来。

We had some important victories, some important policy announcements, some important movement, but I as I've described it, 2025 was setting the table and I especially on the economy, I think the the feast and the banquet's gonna be in 2026.

关于预算赤字，我们没得到多少认可，因为数据是在政府停摆期间公布的。

To start with the budget deficit, we didn't get much credit because it came out during the shutdown.

美国财政年度截止于9月30日，我们当年实现了轻微的财政收缩，幅度不大，但远好于此前预计的2万亿美元。

The US fiscal year is on September 30, we had a slight fiscal contraction for the year, wasn't much, but much better than the 2,000,000,000,000 that was estimated.

我们从大约1.8万亿美元下降到1.78万亿美元，尽管如此，这仍是一种收缩。

We came down from about 1,800,000,000,000.0 to 1.78, so a contraction nonetheless.

就日历年而言，我们取得了巨大进展；为了提供背景，拜登政府曾在第四季度大举发力，试图让副总统哈里斯当选。

For the calendar year, we're making great progress and just to put it in context, Biden administration, they blew things out front trying to get vice president Harris elected in the fourth quarter.

因此，去年2024年，政府支出的40%都集中在第四季度，因为他们试图说服选民，称他们并未陷入困境。

So last year, 2024, 40% of the government spending occurred in the fourth quarter as they had the unsuccessful or their unsuccessful attempt to convince voters that they weren't in a world of hurt.

我预测，本日历年我们将实现约2000亿至3000亿美元的财政收缩，占GDP的0.71%左右。

I forecast that we will have approximately a 200 to 300,000,000,000 fiscal contraction for the calendar year, which is between point seven, one percent of GDP.

我们年底的名义增长率将接近6%，因此我们将降低赤字与GDP之比。

We're going to end the year with nominal growth close to 6%, so we will be bringing down the deficit to GDP.

我认为，上一个日历年赤字占GDP的比例曾高达6.8%，而今年将降至5%中期水平。

I believe it peaked 6.8% for the calendar year previous year and we're gonna be in the mid fives.

这为一段重要旅程开了个好头。

So it's a very good start on an important journey.

我曾说过，到特朗普总统离任时，我们希望赤字与GDP之比能降到以3开头的水平，这将稳定赤字与GDP比率——这是一个关键指标，并使我们能够开始偿还债务。

And I've said that I would by the time President Trump leaves office that we would like to have something with a three in front of it, which will stabilize the deficit to GDP, which is an important number, and enable us to start paying down debt.

斯科特，看起来关税产生了极大的积极影响。

Scott, it seems like the tariffs have had an enormously positive impact.

它为你提供了大量可用的政策工具。

It's given you a lot of tools in the toolbox to work with.

你认为为什么这么多人判断错了？

Why do you think so many people got it wrong?

我相信你以前作为对冲基金经理时认识和共事过很多人，他们错在哪里？

A lot of people I'm sure that you've known and worked with in your prior life as a hedge fund manager, what did they get wrong?

他们错过了什么，而你却能看出来？

What did they miss that you were able to see?

嗯，我想到几点。

Well, I I a couple of things.

我认为人们缺乏开放的心态。

I I think people didn't have an open mind.

他们一听到特朗普关税，就立刻形成了一大群人，无论是政府官员、行业人士还是普通民众，因为特朗普总统想这么做，所以一定是坏事。

They became the Trump tariffs, which immediately a large cohort of whether it was government officials, industry people, the general population, because President Trump wanted to do it, it must be bad.

我前几天说过，特朗普总统治好了癌症，但却引发了头皮屑。

I I said the other day, President Trump cured cancer but it caused dandruff.

然后人们就会说，嗯，特朗普总统引发了头皮屑大流行。

Then people would say, well, you know, president Trump has caused a dandruff epidemic.

你看，很多陈规旧习其实都行不通。

And look, there's a lot of orthodoxy that hasn't worked.

如果我们回看21世纪初，让中国加入全球贸易体系，人们以为他们会变得和我们更相似。

If we look back, early early two thousands, letting China into the global trading system, that they would become more like us.

曾经有一个时候，我对那些持有这种观点的人多少有些同情，但到2013年习近平上台时，像伊丽莎白·埃康诺米这样曾经持此观点的著名作家都改变了看法，说他是个完全不同类型的人。

And there was a point, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the people who believe that, but by 2013 when Xi Jinping came in and great writers like Elizabeth Economy who had been of that view reversed and said, he's a different kind of cat.

中国政策不再只是带有资本主义倾向了。

It's no longer gonna be Chinese policies with capitalist tendencies.

它将回归到纯粹的硬核共产主义、列宁主义。

It's just gonna go back to, you know, hard communism, Leninism.

我只是觉得这是一种想象力的失败。

And I I just think that it was a failure of imagination.

我多次说过，人们——也许今天我们就会谈到这一点。

I I've said several times, people and maybe we'll talk about it today.

当人们问我，你对美联储主席有什么期待？

When people ask me, what are you looking for in a Fed chair?

我说，我需要一个思想开放的人。

I said, it's someone with an open mind.

如果我们回到上世纪九十年代，艾伦·格林斯潘做得非常出色，因为他意识到互联网和办公现代化浪潮将为美国经济带来生产力的爆发，于是他让经济自由发展。

If we go back to the nineteen nineties, Alan Greenspan did a magnificent job because he had an open mind that the Internet office modernization boom was going to create a productivity bonanza for The US economy and he let the economy he let it rip.

我们经历了前所未有的经济繁荣，偿还了巨额债务。到1998年和1999年，随着克林顿政府转变立场，以及纽特·金里奇及其政策的推动，九十年代末甚至有人讨论政府债务可能不足以满足金融体系的需求——这与我们现在的情况完全相反。

And we had an incredible economy, paid down a tremendous amount of debt that by 1998, 1999, with the combination of Clinton administration having gotten religion, Newk Newk Gingrich and his policies, there was talk at the end of the nineties that there might not be enough government debt to meet the needs of the financial system, which is the opposite of what we have now.

所以，再次强调，其中一部分原因只是认为总统做的任何事都是错的。

So again, I I would part of it was just anything the president does must be wrong.

另一部分原因则是想象力的匮乏。

Part of it was failure of imagination.

现在有一些非常出色的研究正在涌现，揭示了为什么所有人都错了。

And there there's some very good studies coming out now that are showing why why everyone has been wrong.

这些研究指出，商品价格的衡量问题正在加剧。

That the the measurement problems, they're on the increase in goods prices.

有一项来自旧金山联邦储备银行的研究（该机构并非政府支持者），基于长达150年的数据，我建议每个人都去读一读，它表明关税并不会引发通胀，反而具有通缩作用。

There's a study from, not a friend of the administration, the San Francisco Fed with a hundred and fifty years of data, I would refer everyone to that, that shows that tariffs do not cause inflation, that they're actually disinflationary.

那么，有人读过这项研究吗？

So has any anybody read that study?

斯科特，这在政府内部的讨论中是否也占了一部分？

Scott, has that been, I would say, a part of the conversation in the administration.

现在联邦政府有了新的收入来源，这为减税和削减联邦政府其他收入来源提供了机会，这可能会加速经济增长。

Now that there is this new revenue stream for the federal government, there's an opportunity to cut taxes and cut other sources of revenue for the federal government and that could potentially accelerate the economy.

但在平衡这一问题与削减赤字的重要性之间，你怎么看待利用关税作为减轻经济税负的手段，与利用关税作为联邦政府增加收入以最终减少赤字和偿还债务的手段之间的权衡？

But balancing that question against the importance of cutting the deficit, how do you think about the balance between using tariffs as a mechanism for reducing the tax burden on the economy versus using the tariffs as an incremental revenue source for the federal government to start to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt eventually?

大卫，在我回答之前，我想再提一下特朗普总统。

David, before I answer that, another thing I wanna go back to is president Trump.

关税政策成功的原因之一，或者我给你两个原因。

And one one of the reasons for the success of the tariff policy or I'll I'll give you two reasons.

一是特朗普总统将关税用于国家安全。

One is that president Trump you has used them for national security.

因此，关税政策已成为国家安全的一部分，能够利用关税来谈判贸易协议。

So the tariff policy has become part of national security who's able to use the tariffs to negotiate trade deals.

当他将某些关税水平提高到35%、49%、50%，甚至对中国达到145%时，就迫使各方坐到谈判桌前。

When he ratcheted up some of the tariff levels to 35, 49, 50%, even a 145 with the Chinese, it brings people to to the table.

今年春天，总统对墨西哥、加拿大和中国实施了针对芬太尼的关税。

In the spring, the president put fentanyl tariffs on Mexico, Canada, China.

它们都已前来合作，与美国政府携手终结这一危害我们人民的灾难。

They've all come to the table to help and partner with the US government to end this scourge on our people.

我们看到芬太尼致死人数正在下降。

We're seeing fentanyl deaths drop.

由于中国方面的积极努力，我们本着诚意采取行动，将芬太尼关税下调一半，降至10%。

We because of the the good efforts of China, we made a good faith move and decreased our fentanyl tariffs by half down to 10%.

因此，这属于国家安全范畴。

So that's been national security.

同样，在10月8日，北京宣布将对任何含有0.01%中国稀土元素的产品实施全球出口许可，这本会使西方贸易体系陷入停滞。

Same thing on October 8 when Beijing announced that they were gonna put a worldwide export license on any any product that had point 01% of Chinese rare earths in it, which would have ground the the western trading system to a halt.

特朗普总统威胁要征收100%的关税，中国立即坐到了谈判桌前。

President Trump was able to threaten a 100% tariff and the Chinese immediately came to the table.

我想说的另一点是，以上所有都属于国家安全。

The other thing that I would say so so that's all national security.

我还想说的一点是，人们常常忽视的一个事实，而我深信不疑的是，中国的商业模式建立在规模、就业和五年计划之上，我认为所有人都忽略了这样一个事实：尽管有关税，中国人仍会继续生产。

The other thing that I would say that people miss that I was convinced of is that the Chinese business model is based on volume, it's based on employment, it's based on a five year plan and I I think everyone neglected the idea that despite the the tariffs, the Chinese were gonna keep producing.

他们的做法是，即使每件产品亏一美元，也能通过销量弥补回来。

That it it's one of these they may lose a dollar on every product, but they make up for it in volume.

我们能预测到2028年的关税政策吗？还是说，我们需要依赖最高法院对不同法律条文的解释，从而改变我们的策略？

Can we forecast these tariffs through '28, or do you think that we have to have moments where whether it's the Supreme Court who is opining on one body of language versus another may change your course?

但您是否相信，我们现在就能预测特朗普总统任期内剩余时间的税收收入？

But do you feel confident that we can forecast these revenues now out through the balance of president Trump's term?

我认为，这些收入实际上是多种收入的组合。

Well, I I think the I think the revenues are are a combination of revenues.

因此，关税的最终目标——税收征收，在某种程度上，是对多年来贸易失衡的一种补偿。

So the the ultimate goal of tariffs, the the revenue collection, I think, in a way, is a payback for the imbalances that have gone on over the years.

但长远来看，真正的目标是实现贸易平衡，重建制造业，并使我们的经济与贸易伙伴达到平衡。

But over time, the real idea is to balance trade and re shore manufacturing and bring our economy into balance with our trading partners.

因此，随着时间推移，关税收入会下降，而美国的税收收入会上升，无论是来自工厂就业、更多制造业，还是更高的工资税。

So what should happen is over time, tariff income will come down and US tax receipts will come up whether it's from factory jobs or more manufacturing and through higher payroll taxes.

所以我们会从这个很高的层面开始，然后进行调整并逐步推进。

So we will we will start off at this very high level, then we will rebalance and come up.

所以我认为很难确定具体的时间点。

So I I I think it's difficult to know the timing.

我们知道方向。

We know the direction.

我们知道目的地，但关税与国内税收增加之间的时间点很难把握。

We know the destination, but the the timing's difficult on tariffs versus increased domestic tax revenues.

我能说的是，当我上世纪八十年代进入投资行业时，人们始终关注贸易以及我们在美国的产出情况。

What what I can say is when when I got into the investment business in the nineteen eighties, there was always a focus on trade and how much were we making in The US.

同样，所有在美国境外生产的产品都会减少美国的GDP，因此当我们把生产带回国内时，我认为我们将更关注贸易内容与国内制造业作为GDP增长组成部分的关系。

And again, that everything made outside of The US is a decrease in US GDP, so as we bring it back, I think we're going to start looking more at the content of trade versus domestic manufacturing as a component of GDP acceleration.

随着我们推进关税政策，明年一月将有一项最高法院的裁决。

As we wrap tariffs, we have a Supreme Court ruling coming in January.

如果裁决结果不利于政府，会发生什么？

What happens if that goes against the administration?

嗯，我认为这并不是反对政府。

Well, I I don't think it's against the administration.

实际上，我认为这是反对美国人民的。

I actually think it's against the American people.

而且，正如我所说，这将对国家安全造成打击，收入并不是这里关注的重点。

And it it will be, again, as I said, it it will be a hit to national security and the the the revenues aren't the the focus here.

收入并不是重点。

The revenues aren't the focus.

收入是可以被替代的，但特朗普总统利用关税在国家安全方面所做的一切都将受到威胁。

The revenues can be replaced, but all all the things that president Trump has been able to do using tariffs on the national security side will be will be jeopardized.

您能否与国会就此进行合作？

Would you be able to just work with congress on them?

这似乎是宪法设计的初衷，即国会应拥有这项权力。

That seems to have the seems to be how the constitution was designed is that the congress would have this authority.

那为什么不直接与他们合作呢？

So why not just work with them?

这是备用计划吗？

Is that the fallback plan?

那你为什么说国会拥有这种权力呢？

Well, why would you say congress would have what authority?

宪法规定了关税控制权，至少这是我对于美国宪法的理解，我认为这也是为什么会有最高法院案例的原因。

Well, the constitution has tariff control, so that's at least my understanding of The US constitution, and I think that's why there's a supreme court case.

对吗？

Correct?

嗯，总统根据《国际紧急经济权力法》拥有发放许可证的权力。

Well, they we'll The the president has has the right under IEPA for licenses.

我们还看到，我曾经去过最高法院，对于您的观众来说，观看一次最高法院听证会应该是人生必做之事。

We've also seen it it was I I was at the Supreme Court and for for your viewers, a bucket list event should be going to see a Supreme Court hearing.

就任何机构而言，最接近建国者当初设计、自1789年以来一直延续至今的，恐怕就是最高法院了。

It it it is in terms of any institution that is the closest to what our framers designed and kind of jumped into business in 1789, it is probably it is surely the closest to what what you would have seen at the court.

他们彼此之间非常融洽。

They're very convivial with each other.

是的。

Yeah.

我听了。

I listened to it.

内容非常引人入胜。

It's quite compelling content.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

而且亲自到场，不谈我的政治立场，卡根大法官的智慧确实令人叹为观止。

It's it's and to to be there in person, not not my political leanings, but justice Kagan was just an intellect of towering impressiveness.

我离开时心想，幸好阿利托大法官不是我父亲，因为他聪明、张扬，当他在质询中对几位原告步步紧逼、反复施压时。

I came away thinking I am glad that Justice Alito was not my father because he he he he he is smart, he is bombastic and when when he he got the knife into a couple of the plaintiffs in a line of questioning and he moves it around quite a bit.

但在这次听证会中，有一条质询让其中一位原告认同了，那句话要么来自阿利托大法官，要么来自卡瓦诺大法官：你告诉本院，美国总统可以实施100%的全面禁运，却不能征收1%的关税。

So but one one line of questioning in in this that one one of the plaintiffs agreed on was so and it was either from justice Alida or justice Kavanaugh was you were telling this court that the president of The United States can do a 100% embargo, but he cannot put on a 1% tariff.

原告说，是的。

And the plaintiff said, yes.

嗯。

Yeah.

这项裁决几个月后就会公布。

And that ruling is coming out in a few months.

它它

It it's

一月或二月。

January or February.

预期。

Expectation.

嗯。

Yeah.

一月或二月。

January or February.

杰森，关于你的问题，我真的不知道裁决会是什么样子。

And Jason, to your question, I I I don't I don't know what the ruling is going to be.

我的猜测是，你知道，我认为在任何问题上，表述方式都非常重要。

My my guess is everyone you know, I I think that framing is very important in any issue.

我认为到目前为止的表述非常糟糕，因为它被看作是非黑即白的。

And I think the framing thus far has been very poor because it's viewed as zero one.

它是非上即下的。

It's up down.

我的猜测是，结果会更加细致入微。

And I my guess is it will be more nuanced.

比如，因为我曾亲历现场，我认为许多媒体人士参加的听证会和我参加的并不是同一个。

Having been in the room, for instance, I I think many in the media were at a different hearing than I was at.

当巴雷特大法官说，如果我们推翻这个决定，将会一团糟时，人们只理解为‘这会很混乱’，但实际上，我认为她是在寻找一个不推翻它的理由，因为她所指的退款问题。

So when justice Barrett, Conway Barrett said, if we undo this, it'll be a mess, that was viewed as just it will be a mess as opposed to, I believe she was actually leaning toward looking for a reason not to undo it because it would the refund she was referring to the refunds.

总统或行政部门完全可以通过301条款、332条款以及所谓的122条款来提高贸易收入。

The president has absolute ability or the executive branch has absolute ability through three o ones, two thirty twos, and something called 122s to raise revenue on trade.

因此，使用IEPA并不超出这一授权范围。

So using the IEPA is not a stretch of that authority.

好的，我认为问题在于，我很欣赏您对第一年的反思以及对第二年的乐观态度，华尔街和科技行业对第一年的成果非常满意。

Okay, so I think the question, and I really appreciate the introspection here on year one and the optimism for year two, Wall Street, the tech industry, we've absolutely loved the results in year one.

我的投资组合大幅上涨，这真是太棒了。

My portfolio has surged, so that's fantastic.

谢谢。

Thank you.

但主街对特朗普政府的第一年尤其不满。

Probably beyond my expectation, but Main Street is particularly displeased with the Trump administration's first year.

您的净支持率在两个关键问题上处于历史最低水平：通货膨胀，自夏季以来净支持率平均下降了约30%；经济方面，净负面评价为18%。

Your net approval rating is the lowest on two key issues, inflation, net approval rating down about 30% on average since the summer, and on the economy, 18% net negative.

这显然很矛盾，因为特朗普当选时，人们普遍认为他在这两个具体问题上历来非常强势。

And so this is quite paradoxical, obviously, since Trump was elected and considered historically very strong on those two specific issues.

所以我想问您的是，美国民众错了吗？

So my question to you is, are the American people wrong?

或者总统特朗普在选举期间将期望值设定得过高了？

Or maybe did president Trump set expectations too high during the election?

或者你们只是需要更多时间来执行，正在谦逊地请求美国人民再给你们一些时间？

Or do you just need more time to execute and you're asking the American people humbly to give you more time?

我认为是C，因为正如副总统万斯所说，我们不是一夜之间走到这一步的。

Well, I I I think it's c, because as vice president Vance has said, we didn't get here overnight.

我们继承了一团糟。

We inherited a mess.

我认为2026年对美国主流民众来说将会是极好的一年。

And I think 2026 is gonna be a a very good year for the American people for mainstream.

我们不会做的是像拜登政府以及许多评论员所做的那样，比如《华尔街日报》的格雷格·伊普、有毒的保罗·克鲁格曼——他似乎已被《纽约时报》开除，如今只能在Substack上发文，或者前美联储副主席艾伦·布林德。

And what we are not going to do is a, is what the Biden administration did and many commentators, whether it was Greg Ipp in The Wall Street Journal, the toxic Paul Krugman, who seems to have been booted from The New York Times and is relegated to Substack, or the former vice chair of the Fed, Alan Blinder.

他们说：哦，不。

And they said, oh, no.

你根本不懂你有多幸运。

You don't understand how good you have it.

吃吧，喝你们的朗姆酒，吃你们的面包，平民们。

Eat eat your drink your grog, have your bread peasants.

我们会再给你们一点，这是一场氛围体验，我们会向你们解释为什么你们其实过得很好。

We're we'll give you a little more that you it's a vibe session and we're gonna explain to you why you have it really good.

我们理解美国人民正在承受痛苦，我认为应该这样看待：拜登政府时期物价上涨到了一个水平，然后还有通货膨胀水平。

We understand that the American people are hurting and I think the way to think about it is there is a price level that things appreciated to during the Biden administration, then there is the inflation level.

物价水平已经变得非常高。

The price level has gotten very high.

我认为拜登政府时期累计的消费者价格指数达到了21%到22%。

I think cumulative CPI during the Biden administration was 21%, 22%.

有一家名为Strategas Research的华尔街公司，他们做了一个叫做‘普通人指数’的东西，它衡量的是工薪家庭所需的商品和服务——汽油、保险、汽车（主要是二手车）、房租、生活必需品——这些物价上涨了约35%。

There's a Wall Street firm called Strategas Research, they do something called the common man index and it is what do working families need gasoline, insurance, autos, mostly used cars, rent, staples, and that appreciated by about 35%.

因此，人们对高物价水平感到愤怒，而正如我们本周公布的通胀数据所见，通胀正开始回落，可负担性包含两个方面。

So people are seething over the high price level and as we saw in the inflation print this week, inflation is starting to turn down and affordability is two parts.

一是控制住物价。

It is getting the price is under control.

有些方面我们可以降低。

Some things we can decrease.

汽油价格正在大幅下降。

Gasoline is coming down substantially.

我预计它还会进一步大幅下降。

I would expect that it would come down much more.

油价已经大幅下跌。

Oil is down substantially.

汽油价格会滞后跟进。

Gasoline follows it with a lag.

租金正在下降。

Rents are down.

我们现在正看到多达两千万名无证移民涌入本国对租金造成的影响。

And we are now seeing the effects of what 10 to 20,000,000 undocumented people coming into the country did for rents.

这种无限制的大规模移民让民主党和共和党地区的租金水平飙升。

This mass unfettered immigration for D and C rent levels was through the roof.

有一项来自沃顿商学院的研究表明，城市人口增加11%会导致租金上涨1%。

There there is a study from Wharton that shows that 11% of population increase in in a city leads to 1% rent.

所以，你知道，我们可以理解为什么租金会上涨，如果移民回家了，我们现在看到租金大约下降了5%。

So, you know, we can see why rent went up, that if the migrants are going home, we are now seeing rents are down about 5%.

我认为这一趋势会持续下去。

I think that trend will continue.

再次强调，通胀数据开始回落。

Again, the inflation numbers are starting to roll down.

我认为它们会的。

I think that they will.

另一方面，实际收入我认为正在开始加速增长。

And then the other side is real incomes, which I think are starting to accelerate.

自特朗普总统上任以来，实际收入大约上升了1.8%，这又回到了主街问题。

Real incomes are about up about 1.8% since president Trump took office, and that's back to the main street question.

所以我就这个问题再快速追问一下，然后就把时间还给我的同事们。

So just one quick follow-up there and I'll give it back to my compatriots.

我们需要更多时间。

We need more time.

这不是一个一年就能完成的项目，这需要两到三年，我们不会欺骗你们，而且数据看起来不错。

This is not a one year project, this is gonna take two or three years, and we're not gonna gaslight you, and the numbers are looking good.

说到这里，我们经历了停摆。

On that note, we had the shutdown.

十月的数据并不完整。

October numbers were not complete.

现在有很多报告和对这些数据的担忧。

There's a bunch of reports now and hand wringing over those numbers.

我想你可以解释一下，劳工统计局用一些零值填补了大量非调查数据来源，而华尔街和分析师们现在的批评或担忧是，这个2.7的数字可能过于乐观。

I think maybe you could address it, which is the BLS filled in a lot of the non survey data sources with some zeros and potentially the criticism now or the concern on Wall Street and from analysts is that maybe this 2.7 number is overoptimistic.

也许你可以回应一下人们的担忧。

Maybe you could address people's concerns.

我们能相信你们提供的数据吗？我想这是华尔街在问的问题。

And can we trust you with the numbers, I think is what Wall Street's saying.

好吧，你知道，当一个好数据出来时，话题就会立刻转向那个方向。

Well, you know, I I again, it's amazing when a good number comes out, then it switches to that.

杰森，让我告诉你，彭博社上每一个华尔街预测者都错了。

And, Jason, just let me tell you, every every Wall Street predictor on Bloomberg was wrong.

那么当你错了的时候，你会怎么做？

So what do you do when you're wrong?

你会归咎于测量方法，归咎于数据，而这些数据中总是有很多估算值，这就是为什么我们会进行数据修订。

You blame the measurement, you blame the the data and there there's always a lot of imputed data in any of these numbers, that's why we get revisions.

我正在看这些数据，悖论的是，我认为下降最快的两样东西——租金，也就是自住型住房的租金或自住型住房成本——

And I'm looking at I was looking at the numbers and paradoxically, the two things that I think are coming down the fastest, which are rent, also it's known as the owner owner occupied funding or owner occupied rent.

但这个月实际上却上涨了。

That was actually up on the month.

我相信它已经转为负值了。

I believe it has turned negative.

另一项上涨的是能源和汽油，而这是一个可观察到的现象：这些价格从九月或十月起已大幅下降。

And then the other thing that was up was energy and gasoline, which we can is an observable event that those prices have decreased substantially from September or October.

所以，实际上我认为这个数字相当准确。

So I I actually think it was a a pretty accurate number.

所以你已经核实过劳工统计局十月的数据了？你确信他们设置的占位符和假设是错误的吗？

So you've checked into that, the BLS numbers from October, you feel confident they put those placeholders, they put those assumptions incorrectly, you feel confident in that?

听好了，劳工统计局一直存在问题，我们早就看出来了。

Look, the BLS is problematic, we've seen that the whole time.

我没有理由相信这个数据比其他任何数据系列更不可靠。

I have no reason to believe that this is any less robust than any other data series.

至于租金和能源，这两项是很大的组成部分，它们在这一统计期内实际上录得增长，但已经大幅下降。

And I I would say with with rent, with energy, that those are very large components that have turned down substantially that were actually recorded a gain for that measurement period.

为了进一步说明，我们团队中有人进行了我们自己的分析，使用了插值法和其他数据点，结果完全吻合斯科特的数字，甚至在某些边缘情况下略好一些。

Just to build on that, we had people on our team go and run our own analysis, both using interpolation and other data points, and we get to exactly Scott's numbers and frankly, on on the margin sometimes slightly better.

所以我认为，趋势与你和凯文·哈塞特过去几天所讨论的完全一致。

So I think the trend is very much what you and Kevin Hassett have been talking about in the last couple days.

另外，先生们，我也想提醒你们关注美联储理事斯蒂芬·迈伦，他来自经济顾问委员会，预计将在二月或三月返回该委员会，他在哥伦比亚大学发表了一篇非常有力的演讲。

And, gentlemen, I would also point you to Fed governor Stephen Myron who came from CEA, he'll be going back to CEA probably in February or March, delivered a very robust speech at Columbia.

就在一周或两周前，他对通货膨胀提出了一些非常有趣的观察点。

It was either a week or two ago and he made some very interesting measurement points on inflation.

通货膨胀的一个组成部分是金融服务，它会随着股市上涨而上升。

So one piece of the inflation component is financial services and that goes up based on whether the stock market's up.

没错。

That's right.

实际上，资产管理成本已经下降，但数据显示成本却在上升。

When in fact portfolio management costs have come down, that it is showing an increase in costs.

所以回到杰森关于BLS的问题，这些数据有多可靠？

So that back to Jason's question on b b o BLS, how how robust are the numbers?

我认为有很多地方可以调整，以让我们获得更准确的图景。

I I think there are a lot of changes that could be adjusted to give us a better picture.

让我们继续讨论可负担性话题，我想谈谈你写的那篇文章，太棒了。

Let's stay on the affordability topic, and I would like to go to this essay you wrote, which is, incredible.

你发表在《国际经济》上的《美联储的新功能型货币政策》。

The Fed's new gain of function monetary policy, which you wrote in the international economy.

我们会链接到这篇文章。

We'll link to this article.

其中很多内容涉及美联储在很大程度上加剧了不平等感和实际的不平等现象。

A lot of it goes to how the Fed in many ways has exacerbated the sense of inequality and the actual factual inequality.

但在向你提出这个具体问题之前，斯科特，你能帮助我们的观众退一步，简要回顾一下美联储的历史背景吗？

But before I ask you that narrow question, Scott, can you help our viewers just take a step back and give us a little bit of historical context on the Fed itself?

在18世纪和19世纪，我们曾有过一家中央银行。

So we had a central bank in the seventeen hundreds and the eighteen hundreds.

安德鲁·杰克逊废除了它。

Andrew Jackson got rid of it.

它在20世纪初又恢复了。

It came back in the early nineteen hundreds.

与当初设立时相比，如今的美联储运作方式有何不同？你对此进行了深入研究，能否帮助我们理解并对比它最初与现在的差异？

When we established it then versus what it's doing today, and you studied this carefully, can you help us understand and contrast and compare how it started versus how it's going?

当然。

Sure.

美联储成立于1913年，作为对1907年恐慌的回应，而大多数人并不了解这场恐慌。

So Fed was created in 1913 as a response to the panic of nineteen o seven, which people most people don't know about.

它让1929年的崩盘看起来就像去海滩度假。

It made the crash of twenty nine look like a day at the beach.

尼克伯克危机。

Knickerbocker crisis.

是的。

Yeah.

尼克伯克危机以及金融系统内的多米诺骨牌效应。

The Knickerbocker crisis and just the a domino effect within the financial system.

当时没有中央银行。

There there was no central bank.

英格兰银行是一家非常古老的中央银行，一直运作良好。

Bank of England is a very old central bank and had been functioning well.

摩根大通不得不亲自介入这场危机，人们认为应该建立一种机制，让政府能够接管、提供流动性，并对经济拥有更大的控制权，而不是依赖私人操作者。

JPMorgan actually had to personally step in the crisis and it it was deemed that there should be a mechanism for the the government to be able to either wind down, provide liquidity, and have have a greater control on the economy rather than private operators.

在联邦储备系统的大部分历史中，财政部一直参与美联储的决策。

For much of its history, treasury had a seat at the table on the Federal Reserve.

二战后，这种情况停止了。

Post World War two, that stopped.

如果我们看更近的历史，金融危机之后，我们看到了经济的停滞。

And then if we look at more recent history, what happened after after the great financial crisis, we saw this paralysis in the economy.

我认为其中很大一部分原因——这也是我今年在财政部通过金融稳定监督委员会推动的监管议程——就是撤销这些考虑不周的危机应对立法。

I think a huge part of it, which has been part of my regulatory agenda here at Treasury this year through the Financial Stability Oversight Council is undoing these the poorly thought out crisis crisis legislation.

但危机立法带来了什么？听好，我曾在耶鲁大学研究并教授金融危机的历史，每次危机之后都会出现报复性反应。

But what the crisis legislation did and look, after financial I I studied and taught at Yale the history of financial crises, there's always retribution.

你会从一个宽松的监管环境转向一个过度紧缩的监管环境。

And you you go from a lax regulatory regime to an overconstricted regulatory regime.

因此，在经历创伤性的全球金融危机后的十年里，我们一直处于过度紧缩的监管环境中，美联储被视为唯一的解决方案。

So coming out of the traumatic GFC for ten years, we had this overconstricted regulatory regime where the Fed was deemed to be the only game in town.

举个例子，佛罗里达州北部一栋在2006年售价50万美元的房屋，突然间人们纷纷交出钥匙，房价跌至15万美元，这看起来是个绝佳的购买机会，极具性价比，但由于新的金融监管以及银行因不良行为而受到惩罚的激励机制，导致在市场低谷时根本没有动力提供信贷。

So imagine example would be a a home in North Florida that sold for $500,000 in 2006, all of a sudden people are handing the keys back, it is now $150,000 great buy, great affordability, but because of the new financial regulation and the incentives that the banks were, in some cases rightly taken to the woodshed for bad behavior, but there was no incentive to give credit at the bottom.

所以发生了什么？资产所有者、有钱人能够积累资产。

So what happened, the asset owners, people with money were able to accumulate assets.

在奥巴马政府时期，我们看到了非常疲软的增长，而美联储将利率维持在低位很长时间。

We saw very poor growth during the period during the Obama administration And the Fed kept kept the rates low for very long.

但美联储从——我认为是10月6日，等等，是2009年3月6日——开始实施我们所说的量化宽松或大规模资产购买。

But what the Fed engaged in starting, I believe it was October 6 excuse me, March 6 or 03/08/2009 was the Fed began what we call QE or large scale asset purchases.

他们进入市场，开始购买长期债券。

They went in the market, started buying long bonds.

其背后的理论是，你创造流动性，把市场上的长期安全资产移除，然后获得这些资金的人会去购买风险更高的资产。

And the theory of the case there is you create liquidity, you take safe assets out of the market, long duration safe assets and then the people who receive that money would buy more risky assets.

本·伯南克曾被问及量化宽松的目的，他 famously 回答：‘大家去买股票吧。’

Ben Bernanke famously said when he was asked what's the purpose of QE, he told everyone go buy equities.

但并不是每个人都能买股票，所以我们最终形成了这种两极分化的经济：要么你是资产持有者，要么你就不是。

Well, not everyone could buy equities, so we we ended up with like this this two tier economy where either you were an asset holder or you weren't.

美联储很可能将量化宽松维持了太久，或者至少确实维持得太久了。

And the the Fed constant probably kept or definitely kept QE going for too long.

而且，你知道，我把美联储称为不平等的引擎，有人问我：‘你认为美联储有责任促进经济平等吗？’

And, you know, I I called the Fed the engine of inequality, and someone said to me, well, do you believe that the Fed is responsible for economic equality in the system?

我说：当然不。

And I said, absolutely not.

这不是他们的职责之一，但他们也不应该加剧这种不平等。

That is not one of their mandates, but they shouldn't be exacerbating it.

而他们正是造成这一问题的主要原因。

And they were the the leading cause of it.

有一本很棒的书，作者是我很熟悉的凯伦·佩特鲁。

There there is a fantastic book by a I I know Karen Petteru very well.

她属于中间偏左，甚至可能更左。

She's center left to maybe heart.

是的。

Yeah.

不是你的政治立场

Not not your politics for

当然。

sure.

不是我的政治立场，但她的书《美联储：不平等的引擎》

Not my politics, but her book, The Fed, The Engine Her

这本书非常出色。

book is excellent.

是的。

Yeah.

不平等的引擎。

Engine of inequality.

所以我们一直在推高这些资产价格。

So we just kept pushing up these asset prices.

然后我们遭遇了新冠疫情，市场陷入混乱，美联储做了它本该做的事。

And then then we got COVID and markets became disorderly and the Fed did exactly what it should do.

它介入并稳定了市场，但不知为何，他们决定继续实施量化宽松政策，一直持续到2023年2月或3月，实际上是在为那段时期出现的高达7万亿美元的债务激增提供融资。

It came in, it stabilized the market, but for some reason, they decided that they needed to continue this QE right up until '20 I think February, March 2023, and they were in essence financing this massive debt increase, 7,000,000,000,000 that we that we saw during that period.

所以，这长篇大论想说的是，中央银行已经更深地介入了经济。

So it's a long way of saying the Central Bank has become much more involved in the economy.

我认为很多人并不理解，我们已经从过去相对简单的利率设定机制，变成了如今美联储这种三头六臂的复杂体系，或者说是某种我也不太明白的复杂计算，包括我自己在内。

I think a lot of people don't understand we've gone from what used to be fairly straightforward rate setting mechanism to now we have kind of this three headed beast at the Fed or this very complex calculus that I don't think anyone really understands, myself included.

你有利率政策，还有资产负债表政策。

You have rate setting policy, you have a balance sheet policy.

所以美联储现在拥有庞大的资产负债表。

So the Fed has a very big balance sheet now.

然后你还有监管政策。

And then you have regulatory.

你的文章中有一部分让我震惊，那就是你描述了美联储的预算运作方式。

Well, there's a part of your article, was stunning to me, where you describe how the budget of the Fed works.

当你真正理解这一点时，就会发现美联储的一部分运作方式就像对冲基金，实际上在承担风险，而它们产生的收益被用来补贴其运营。

And effectively, when you understand that, there's a part of the Fed which acts like a hedge fund and effectively is taking risk, and the revenues that they generate are used to subsidize their operations.

你能给大伙解释一下这个机制吗？

Can you explain that for folks?

因为我之前并没有完全意识到这一点。

Because I I didn't fully realize that that was happening.

是的。

Yeah.

嗯，再说一遍，美联储应该赚钱。

Well well, again, the the the Fed should make money.

美联储过去通常会赚钱，并将资金返还给财政部。

Fed typically used to make money and would remit money back to the treasury.

关于大卫提到的预算赤字问题，美联储通过货币发行收益（即货币流通的浮息）每年返还约占GDP的0.3%。

And back to to David's question on the budget deficit, the Fed was sending back about 0.3% of GDP through we have seniorage, which is the float on the currency.

还有其他操作，但后来他们开始量化宽松，却没人告诉美联储：你不该在高位买入。

There are other operations, but then they started QE and no one told the Fed that you're not supposed to buy high.

所以他们以高价购买债券，当时利率很低，他们进行套利。

So they they paid a high high price for bonds, low interest rates and they're arbitrage.

如今，美联储每年亏损约1000亿美元。

The Fed's losing about a $100,000,000,000 a year now.

如果你看一下推动普通民众对其经济状况满意度的关键因素之一，那就是债务成本，即他们购房、购车、延长生活品质的能力。目前十年期国债利率我认为在4.2%到4.6%之间。

If you look at one of the key drivers of Main Street's satisfaction with their economic standing, it's the price of debt, the ability for them to buy a home, to buy a car, to extend their lives And we've got the ten year treasury sitting, I think, four two to four six right now in terms of the rate.

我想这可能引出了另外两个问题：财政问题和经济问题。

And I guess this may be a question that brings in two other issues, the fiscal issue and the economic issue.

这是否反映了联邦政府的财政状况、经济状况，还是市场在抛售债券？美联储难道不应当发挥重要作用，降低利率，让普通民众更容易获得贷款吗？

Is that a reflection of the state of the fiscal affairs of the federal government, the state of the economy both or the state of markets selling off bonds, and doesn't the Fed have an important role to play in bringing those rates down and making rates accessible for Main Street?

我认为美联储不幸地把现代货币理论从MMT（现代货币理论）变成了MMP（现代货币实践）。

Well, I I think what the the Fed did, unfortunately, they took modern monetary theory from I say they went from MMT, modern monetary theory, to MMP, modern monetary practice.

因此，拜登政府发行了大量债务，而美联储则购买了这些债务。

So the the Biden administration issued all this debt and the Fed the Fed bought it.

麻省理工学院最近有一项非常出色的研究，以只有麻省理工博士才能做到的精确方式表明，42%的严重通胀是由财政赤字引起的。

And there's a very good study from MIT that's come out that shows in a way that only PhDs at MIT can be very precise, 42% of the great inflation was caused by the budget deficit.

另有17%是由通货膨胀预期上升造成的，我认为这可以追溯到上述原因。

Another 17% was caused by the increase in inflation expectations, which I think you could tie back to that.

所以，大卫，几乎60%的通胀是由政府支出引发的。

So you've got almost 60%, David, that was caused by the spending of the inflation.

我认为，如果回到我之前的观点，我们在这里没有得到应有的认可的是：如果我们能稳定预算赤字，甚至减少它，这将有助于通货紧缩。

And I think what again, if you go back to my earlier point, I think what we're not getting credit for here is that if we can stabilize the budget deficit, even bring it down, that that will contribute to disinflation.

谈到央行的公信力，回顾我的职业生涯，自二战以来，在欧元诞生之前，没有哪家央行的公信力能超过德国央行，它们与德国政府密切合作，携手并进。

If I think about central bank credibility, knows in in my career, probably post World War II, no central bank had more credibility than the Bundesbank up until the advent of the Euro, but they controlled the they worked with the German government and they would work with each other hand in hand.

德国央行会说：如果你能控制财政，如果你不滥支，如果你保持合理的财政平衡，我们就会与你合作，为你铺平道路，让你减少支出。

The Bundesbank would say, if you give us the fiscal control, if you give us if you are not prolific, if you give us the reasonable fiscal balance, we will work with you, we will foam the runway to allow you to decrease spending.

我们会降低利率。

We will decrease interest rates.

我认为，我们这里也可以这样做。

And I I think that's something we could be doing here.

我很高兴你也对美联储的行动感到困惑，贝松秘书，因为我读过你的文章。

I'm I'm glad that you too are confused by the Fed's actions, secretary Besson, because I read your article.

虽然我理解美联储实现2%通胀目标的使命，

And while I understand the mandate to

但为什么是2%而不是3%？我对你的看法很好奇，因为我做了一些历史溯源。

get to 2% inflation, why it's 2%, not three, I'm I'm curious about your take on that because I did a little historical archaeology.

我知道有人在新西兰提出了2%的目标，而不是2.5%、1.5%或3%。

I understand somebody in New Zealand came up with the two target as opposed to 2.5 or 1.5 or three.

让我们暂时搁置这一点。

Let's put that aside for a second.

我认为大多数美国人不理解的是，美联储的第二个使命——充分就业、强劲就业——对我们所有人来说似乎都很容易理解。

The thing that I think most Americans don't understand and the and the second mandate, full employment, robust employment, that seems pretty easy to understand for all of us.

但这种量化宽松政策、它们购买资产的方式以及选择哪些资产，似乎对经济产生了巨大的扭曲效应，至少根据你的文章以及你在这篇文章中引用的其他一些资料是这样认为的，这些资料我们已在备注中提供给大家阅读。

But this quali qualitative easing and how they purchase and which assets they purchase and why seems to have a massively distorting effect on the economy, at least according to your essay and and some of the other sources you cite in this essay, which we have in the notes for people to read.

我们究竟应该如何对这种量化宽松政策进行限定或调整？

What should we be doing this qualify this QE at all?

如果你可以随意挥笔，彻底清理这一部分，你会直接取消他们正在做的量化宽松吗？

If you had your druthers and you could just, you know, swipe a pen here and and clean this up, would you just get rid of the QE portion of what they're doing?

他们又是如何选择的呢？

And how do they pick?

比如，你怎么决定购买哪家公司的债务？

Like, how do you pick whose corporate debt you buy?

你知道吗？你购买英伟达、优步和谷歌，或者微软的股票，是因为这些公司很优秀吗？

Do you know, are you buying Nvidia's and Ubers and Google's because those are great companies or Microsoft's?

你是购买福特，还是那些陷入困境的公司或挣扎中的航空公司？

Are you buying, you know, Ford's or struggling companies or struggling airlines?

这些决策是如何做出的？

How are those decisions made?

美国人应该购买这些资产吗？为什么？

And should the American people be buying those things and why?

是的。

Yeah.

所以，杰森，你提到的这些内容非常丰富，大规模资产购买确实应该是所谓央行工具箱的一部分。

So, Jason, a lot to unpack there that absolutely large scale asset purchases should be part of the so called central bank toolkit.

但如果我们回溯新冠疫情时期，那是一次真正的考验，英格兰银行的模型最为出色。

But I think if we go back and look at COVID, which was a real test, the Bank of England had the best model.

当时市场陷入混乱，他们介入了一段时间，我记不清是三十天、六十天还是九十天，他们稳定了市场，并充当了最后的买家，这正是中央银行应有职责的经典理论。

The markets became unhinged, they stepped in for a period, I can't remember whether it was thirty, sixty, or ninety days, they stabilized markets and they were the buyer of last resort, which is classic theory for what a central bank is supposed to do.

它们的职责是提供流动性，开设一个窗口，让金融机构可以抵押担保品进行融资。

They're supposed to provide liquidity, they're supposed to open a window where financial institutions can pledge collateral and do it that way.

我只想指出，当债券收益率相当高时，美联储确实购买了大量债券，如果当时停止购买，它们本可以获得巨额利润。

And I'll just point out that when the bond yields were quite high, the Fed did buy quite a bit and they would actually have a large profit if they stopped during during that period.

但它们却继续购买，直到我们接近零利率下限。

Instead, they continued on when we were near near these the zero bound.

而我们现在的情况是，它们推高了资产价格，利率处于低位，许多人在疫情期间买不起房子，但现在利率已经恢复正常，我们正处在一个利率更正常的时期，但资产价格却并不正常，因为仍有大量人持有疫情期间获得的3%利率的抵押贷款。

And what we've ended up with here is they pushed the asset price up, the interest rates were low, many people couldn't buy a house during COVID, but now the interest rate has normalized And we're just in a much more normal period for interest rates, but we're not in a normal period for asset prices because so many people still have the 3% mortgages they have from COVID.

回到你关于美联储应该购买什么的问题，自2009年大规模资产购买开始以来，美联储一直只购买政府债券。

And back back to your question on what should the Fed buy, traditionally, the Fed since large scale asset purchases began in 2009, they just bought government bonds.

它们选择债券的期限。

They choose the duration.

在疫情期间，它们改变了策略，因为当时有预测称我们的GDP可能会下降20%、30%甚至40%。

They switched during COVID because, look, there were estimates we were going to have a 20%, 30%, 40% GDP decrease.

因此，它们购买了高收益债券和公司债券的指数，以稳定市场。

So they were buying indices of high yield bonds, of corporate bonds to stabilize the market.

我认为你所暗示的，杰森，是那段时间内，美联储与财政部合作通过一个名为13-3条款的机制提供了救助，该机制由美联储和财政部协商确定，用于识别可能陷入困境的战略行业。当时，如果航空公司因这场最终证明是短暂的病毒而倒闭，对任何人来说都不是好事。

I think what you're alluding to, Jason, is also during that period, in conjunction with Treasury, there were bailouts and that's done by a facility that is negotiated between the Fed and the Treasury called a thirteen-three facility and you identify strategic industries that may be struggling, it would not have behooved anyone for the airline industry to go belly up because of a virus that turned out to be quite transitory.

所以，我认为这些是紧急权力。

So, you know, I again, I I think these are emergency powers.

我认为在紧急情况下应该拥有这些权力，但我觉得持续时间实在太长了。

I think they should have them in an emergency, but I think the duration went on much, much too long.

如果你现在在做债券销售业务，贝桑特秘书，你之前可是站在市场的另一侧，但现在你却在卖债券。

If you're now in the bond sales game, secretary Besant, I mean, you've you've been on the other side of the market, but now you're selling the bonds.

你如何看待美国债券的市场需求？

What do you see in terms of appetite for US bonds?

中国消失了吗？

Has China disappeared?

他们还在减持吗？

Are they still selling down?

是否有其他买家正在崛起？

Are there other buyers emerging?

那么，当前 broader 资本市场如何看待美国债务？

And how does broader capital markets look to US debt in this moment?

嗯，这就像约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯说的，很多经济学就像一场选美比赛。

Well, it's it's like the John Maynard Keynes said said, a lot a lot of economics is is a beauty pageant.

你只是在猜谁会赢。

You're just picking who do you think is gonna win.

去年，美国成为了全球的赢家。

And the the The US became the worldwide winner last year.

我们拥有自2020年以来表现最好的债券市场，也是表现最好的市场。

We've had the best performing bond market, best performing market since 2020.

我认为这背后有多种原因。

And I I think that was for a combination of reasons.

一个是我们在财政方面取得的进展，人们从认为关税是末日机器，转变为认为关税可能正引领我们走向财政减负的乐土。

One was the fiscal progress we made, and everyone went from tariffs, they were a doomsday machine, to maybe tariffs are taking us to the promised land in terms of fiscal pay down.

我还觉得通胀预期一直保持稳定，这回到杰森的问题：为什么是2%？

And I also think inflation expectations have remained well anchored back to Jason's question, why 2%?

我们选择了2%，我认为在已经高于2%的情况下，很难在空中加油或临时改变目标，因为一旦超过这个水平，人们就会觉得你总是会向上调整。

We've chosen 2% and I I I think it's very difficult to do a mid air refueling or to call an audible on two when you're above two because then it looks like when you're above a level, you will always fudge upward.

所以我认为有必要进行一场非常有力的讨论来回归目标。

So I I think there is a very robust conversation to get back.

一旦我们重回2%，我认为这将很快实现，那时我们就可以展开讨论。

Once we are back to two, which I I think will be in sight, then we can have a discussion.

拥有一个区间难道不是更明智的选择吗？

Is it much smarter to have a range?

让我感到疯狂的是，经济和市场是生物学。

Like, what what drives me crazy, the the economy, the markets are biology.

它们不是数学。

They're not math.

它们也不是物理学。

They're not physics.

它们是非线性系统。

They're they're nonlinearities.