对于退出资产购买，鲍威尔给出了晦涩的触发条件，即“substantial further progress toward our goals”。
We also understand that we will want to provide as much advance notice of any potential taper as possible. So when we see that we are on track, when we see actual data coming in that suggests that we are on track to perhaps achieve substantial further progress, then we'll say so. And we'll say so well in advance of any decision to actually taper.
part of that is wanting to see actual data rather than just a forecast at this point
The state of the economy in two or three years is highly uncertain, and I wouldn't want to focus too much on the exact timing of a potential rate increase that far into the future. So that's how I would think about the SEP.
is talking about inflation is one thing. Actually having inflation run above 2% is the real thing.
That's what we'd really like to do is to get inflation moderately above 2%. I don't want to be too specific about what that means because I think it's hard to do that. And we haven't done it yet.
So over the years, we've talked about 2% inflation as a goal, but we haven't achieved it.
There will still be some social distancing.
I would be concerned by disorderly conditions in markets or by a persistent tightening of financial conditions that threaten the achievement of our goals.
The tools we have are the tools we have. 对OT的回答挺敷衍的，显然没当回事。
And we conduct policy, of course, here. Our focus is on -- our objectives are domestic ones.
We monitor developments abroad because we know that those can affect our outcomes.
people on the Committee broadly say that uncertainty about the forecast is very high compared to the normal level.
So you are going to have different perspectives from Committee participants about how fast growth will be, how fast the labor market will heal, how fast inflation will move up, and those things are going to dictate where people write down an estimate of liftoff.
It isn't meant to actually pin down a time when we might or might not lift off.
That will be very much dependent on economic outcomes, which are highly uncertain.
I would point out that over the long expansion, longest in U.S. history, ten years and eight months, rates were very low for -- they were at zero for seven years, and then never got above, you know, 2.4%, roughly.
During that, we didn't see, actually, excess buildup of debt. We didn't see asset prices form into bubbles that would threaten the progress of the economy. We didn't see the things -- we didn't see a housing bubble. The things that have tended to really hurt an economy and have, in recent history, hurt the U.S. we didn't see them build up despite very low rates. Part of that just is that you are in a low-rate environment. You are a much lower rate environment.
The connection between low rates and the kind of financial instability issues is just not as tight as people think it is. That's not to say we ignore it. We don't ignore it. We watch it very carefully. And we think there is a connection. I would say there is, but it's not quite so clear. We actually monitor financial conditions very, very broadly and carefully, and we didn't do that before the global financial crisis 12 years ago. Now we do. And we've also put a lot of time and effort into strengthening the large financial institutions that form the core of our financial system are much stronger, much more resilient.
There is a relationship between wage inflation and unemployment. But that has not -- what happens is that when wages move up because unemployment is low, companies have been absorbing that increase into their margins rather than raising prices. And that seems to be a feature of late-cycle behavior.
What we are saying is substantial further progress toward our goals. We will tell people when we think -- until we say -- until we give a signal, you can assume we are not there yet. And as we approach it, well in advance, well in advance, we will give a signal that, yes, we are on a path to possibly achieve that, to consider tapering. So that's how we are planning to handle it. It's not different, really, from QE3, and I think we've learned what we've learned from the experience of these last dozen years is to communicate very carefully, very clearly, well in advance, and then follow through with your communications. In this case, it's an outcome-based set of guidance, as our rate guidance is, and it's going to depend on the progress of the economy. That's why it's not appropriate to start pointing at dates yet.