美聯儲加息新聞發布會

12月14日凌晨三點，我和搭檔去澎湃新聞的辦公室，翻譯了40分鐘的耶倫發布會。

澎湃的直播地址在這裡：

直擊美聯儲議息會議，耶倫詳解美元加息周期_正在直播_澎湃新聞-The Paper

原視頻在這裡：

FRB: News & Events

美聯儲的官方網站，每次的新聞發布會都會直播。是蠻好的金融學習資源。

客觀說來，聲音的控制和語言的簡潔是可以的，Delivery和Presentation可以打蠻高的分，這個要感謝搭檔，他開的頭，風格上會受他影響一點。

但是因為準備時間比較倉促，以及那天白天我們已經是一整天的同傳，客觀因素和主觀因素加在一起，準確度和完整度可以進一步提升。為了避免誤譯，我們採用了一些模糊處理的技巧，大家聽一聽就可以感受出來。

心理壓力也是有的，但是到今天基本上可以保證聲音里不把緊張帶給聽眾了。

另外一個原因是文本類型。耶倫的發布會前5分鐘是宣讀聯邦公開委員會的聲明，後面30分鐘左右是接受記者提問。大家如果仔細看下面的文稿，就會發現，她說話的邏輯是比較清楚的，但是句式很繞，從政治因素的角度考慮，有很多躲閃和模糊的措辭。導致句式反覆，翻譯策略上難以順句驅動，斷句有點難，需要等待和綜合。當然也有一些金融的背景需要了解。但是個人感覺同傳時術語並不是最大的難點。

大家先看原稿吧。假期有時間把全文翻譯了一遍，自我感覺是很值得的。後面我會提出幾個術語和語言點供大家參考。

另外推薦一下澎湃新聞。《東方早報》從1月1日起停刊，交棒給澎湃新聞，是上海報業集團旗下的強勢媒體。內容和形式都很新穎，除了我們參與的直播之外，也會有《問吧》、《譯中國》等等有意思的欄目，可以關注。澎湃APP的界面非常乾淨、整潔、無廣告。在這個信息爆炸的時代，簡單和清楚已經成了一種奢望，澎湃新聞可以做到。因此也一度要超過金融時報在我心目中的地位。不過金融時報是雙語對照的排版，對金融英語和翻譯學習者來說是寶庫，大家各取所需就好～

直播的翻譯，近來也成常態。潘基文的告別演講、卡斯特羅葬禮直播、下個月特朗普的就職演說，澎湃都（將）有直播，大家可以關注。

畫外：最初練習同傳，都是從政治經濟新聞開始的。進入市場之後偏商業居多，沒想到有一天，政經題材的積累還可以用上，蠻開心的。新年如果可以說一句勵志的話，恐怕就是，對於翻譯這件事，我們永遠可以做的更好。我們會拿出能力範圍之內的最好，而在能力不足的時候，願賭服輸。

」You cannot lie on the stage, the audience will know.」

以下是新聞發布會實錄：

CHAIR YELLEN. Good afternoon. Today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by ? percentage point, bringing it to ? to ? percent. In doing so, my colleagues and I are recognizing the considerable progress the economy has made toward our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. Over the past year, 2? million net new jobs have been created, unemployment has fallen further, and inflation has moved closer to our longer-run goal of 2 percent. We expect the economy will continue to perform well, with the job market strengthening further and inflation rising to 2 percent over the next couple of years. I』ll have more to say about monetary policy shortly, but first I』ll review recent economic developments and the outlook.

下午好。今天聯邦開放市場委員會決定將聯邦基金目標利率提高0.25個百分點，至0.5%至0.75%的區間，該舉措可以確保經濟發展在實現增加就業和穩定物價的雙重目標上取得長足進展。在過去一年中，全國凈增225萬個工作機會，失業率進一步下降，通脹日益接近2%的長期目標。我們預期未來幾年中，經濟繼續向好發展，勞動力市場進一步強化，通脹率增長至2%。之後我會進一步陳述貨幣政策，但首先我會回顧近期經濟發展和展望。

Economic growth has picked up since the middle of the year. Household spending continues to rise at a moderate pace, supported by income gains and by relatively high levels of consumer sentiment and wealth. Business investment, however, remains soft despite some stabilization in the energy sector. Overall, we expect the economy will expand at a moderate pace over the next few years.

經濟增長從年中開始逐漸穩步回升。家庭支出保持穩健增長，家庭收入增加，消費者信心和財富相對較高。但是商業投資較為疲軟，僅能源行業維持以往水平。總體說來，我們預期經濟將在未來幾年保持較為穩健的增長速度。

Job gains averaged nearly 180,000 per month over the past three months, maintaining the solid pace that we』ve seen since the beginning of the year. Over the past seven years, since the depths of the Great Recession, more than 15 million jobs have been added to the U.S. economy. The unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent in November, the lowest level since 2007, prior to the recession. Broader measures of labor market slack have also moved lower, and participation in the labor force has been little changed, on net, for about two years now, a further sign of improved conditions in the labor market given the underlying downward trend in participation stemming largely from the aging of the U.S. population. Looking ahead, we expect that job conditions will strengthen somewhat further.

上一季度每月新增18萬個工作機會，保持自今年年初以來的穩定增速。在過去7年中，經歷了大蕭條的低谷後，美國經濟已經新增了超過1500萬個工作機會。失業率11月降至4.6%，達2007年經濟危機以來新低。衡量勞動力市場疲軟程度的宏觀指標進一步走低，且勞動力市場參與率在過去兩年中保持不變，這在人口老齡化、參與率下滑的大背景之下，證明了勞動力市場已出現改觀。面向未來，我們預期就業形勢將會持續改善。

Turning to inflation, the 12-month change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures was nearly 1? percent in October, still short of our 2 percent objective but up more than a percentage point from a year earlier. Core inflation—which excludes energy and food prices that tend to be more volatile than other prices—has risen to 1? percent. As the transitory influences of earlier declines in energy prices and prices of imports continue to fade and as the job market strengthens further, we expect overall inflation to rise to 2 percent over the next couple of years.

再看通脹。個人消費支出物價指數的年化變動幅度10月為1.5%，未達到我們制定的2%目標，但和去年相比增長了1%以上。核心通脹率——排除了波動較大的能源和食品價格要素——已上升至1.75%。受之前能源價格下跌、進口價格持續走低的影響，並考慮勞動力市場不斷增長，我們預期總體通脹率將會在未來幾年中升至2%。

Our inflation outlook rests importantly on our judgment that longer-run inflation expectations remain reasonably well anchored. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have moved up considerably but are still low. Survey-based measures of longer- run inflation expectations are, on balance, little changed. Of course, we remain committed to our 2 percent inflation objective and will continue to carefully monitor actual and expected progress toward this goal.

因為我們對通脹的長期預測到目前為止仍然較為正確，因此才有如上通脹預期。通脹補償市場數字有所上升，但仍然水平較低。長期通脹預期的調研結果則保持穩定不變。當然我們仍然堅持2%的通脹目標，並會持續密切監測這一目標的實際和預期水平。

Let me now turn to the economic projections that were submitted for this meeting by Committee participants. As always, they conditioned their projections on their own individual views of appropriate monetary policy, which, in turn, depend on each participant』s assessment of the multitude of factors that shape the outlook. The median projection for growth of inflation- adjusted gross domestic product rises from 1.9 percent this year to 2.1 percent in 2017 and stays close to 2 percent in 2018 and 2019, slightly above its estimated longer-run rate. The median projection for the unemployment rate stands at 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter of this year.

現在我想說一下委員會參會者做出的經濟預期。和往常一樣，每位參會者的預測都是機遇各自對於貨幣政策的恰當觀點做出的，而恰當觀點又來自於各位對於未來展望各要素的總體評估。通脹調整後的國內生產總值中期預測增長率從今年的1.9%升至2017年的2.1%，將會在2018和19年保持在接近2%的水平，比長期增長率略高。失業率的中期預測水平保持在今年第四季度的4.7%。

Over the next three years, the median unemployment rate runs at 4.5 percent, modestly below the median estimate of its longer-run normal rate. Finally, the median inflation projection is 1.5 percent this year and rises to 1.9 percent next year and 2 percent in 2018 and 2019. Overall, these economic projections are very similar to those made in September: GDP growth is a touch stronger; the unemployment rate is a shade lower; and inflation, beyond this year, is unchanged.

在未來三年，中期失業率為4.5%，略低於長期預測水平。最後，中期預測通脹率今年為1.5％，明年為1.9%，18和19年為2%。總體而言，這些經濟預測都和11月份的結論相近：GDP增長率上浮；失業率下調；通脹率今年之後保持不變。

Returning to monetary policy, the Committee judged that a modest increase in the federal funds rate is appropriate in light of the solid progress we have seen toward our goals of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. We continue to expect that the evolution of the economy will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate over time to achieve and maintain our objectives. That』s based on our view that the neutral nominal federal funds rate— that is, the interest rate that is neither expansionary nor contractionary and keeps the economy operating on an even keel—is currently quite low by historical standards. With the federal funds rate only modestly below the neutral rate, we continue to expect that gradual increases in the federal funds rate will likely be sufficient to get to a neutral policy stance over the next few years.

回到貨幣政策。委員會判斷，聯邦基金利率的微幅上調將進一步鞏固目前已見端倪的就業增長和通脹率2%的維穩目標。我們預測，未來經濟增長態勢需要聯邦基金利率小幅上調，來達到和保持我們的目標。我們持有的觀點是，名義聯邦基金利率保持中性——即既不寬鬆也不緊縮，支持經濟穩定運行——按照歷史標準判斷，水平略低。現在聯邦基金利率略低於中性利率，因此我們預計聯邦基金利率小幅上調後，可以充分適應未來幾年的中性貨幣政策。

This view is consistent with participants』 projections of appropriate monetary policy. The median projection for the federal funds rate rises to 1.4 percent at the end of next year, 2.1 percent at the end of 2018, and 2.9 percent by the end of 2019. Compared with the projections made in September, the median path for the federal funds rate has been revised up just ? percentage point. Only a few participants altered their estimate of the longer-run normal federal funds rate, although the median edged up to 3 percent.

這一觀點也和參會代表對合適的貨幣政策的預期保持一致。聯邦基金利率的預測中位值明年年底為1.4%，2018年底為2.1%，2019年底為2.9%。和9月預測值相比，聯邦基金利率的中位值小幅上調了25個百分點。只有幾位參會代表修改了他們對於長期聯邦基金利率的預期，長期中位值約等於3%。

Of course, the economic outlook is highly uncertain, and participants will adjust their assessments of the appropriate path for the federal funds rate in response to changes to the economic outlook and associated risks. As many observers have noted, changes in fiscal policy or other economic policies could potentially affect the economic outlook. Of course, it is far too early to know how these policies will unfold. Moreover, changes in fiscal policy are only one of the many factors that can influence the outlook and the appropriate course of monetary policy.

當然經濟展望是充滿不確定性的，參會代表會根據經濟展望和相關風險的變動調整他們對於基金利率水平是否恰當的判斷。輿論可能已經注意到，財政政策或其他經濟政策的變化可能會影響經濟展望。當然，現在評判這些政策的效果還為時過早，此外，財政政策變化也只是影響展望和貨幣政策路徑的諸多要素之一。

In making our policy decisions, we will continue—as always—to assess economic conditions relative to our objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. As I have noted on previous occasions, policy is not on a preset course.

在做政策決議時，我們會如往常一樣，繼續評估相關經濟形勢，爭取擴大就業，維持2%的通脹率，如我之前所說，政策並不是固化不變的。

Finally, we will continue to reinvest proceeds from maturing Treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. As our statement says, we anticipate continuing this policy 「until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way.」 Thank you. I』d be happy to take your questions.

最後，我們會繼續對到期國債收益、機構債券和抵押擔保證券的償還本金進行再投資。正如聲明中所述，這一政策會延續直至「聯邦基金利率開始回歸正常化」。謝謝，現在可以接受提問。

HARRIET TORRY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Harriet Torry with the Wall Street Journal. Why does the Fed now see three rate increases next year instead of two? Is it because the economy is at risk of overheating, or is the Fed behind the curve, or is this a reaction to Donald Trump』s election?

為什麼美聯儲會在未來一年中連續加息三次，而不是兩次？是否因為經濟油鍋熱發展的風險？還是美聯儲的經濟指標預測低於實際？還是為了應對新總統當選？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, I would like to emphasize that this is a very modest adjustment in the path of the federal funds rate and involves changes by only, you know, some of, you know, some of the participants. So in thinking about the paths and the revisions, there are a number of factors that were taken into account by participants. The unemployment rate is perhaps a touch, as I said, a touch lower than previously; you』ve seen some modest downward revisions in that— in that projection. For this year, there was a slight upward revision to inflation, and some of the participants, but not all of the participants, did incorporate some assumption of a change in fiscal policy into their projections. And that may have been a factor that was one of several that occasioned these shifts, but I want to emphasize that these—the shifts that you see here are really very tiny.

我想強調一下，聯邦基金利率上調，這只是非常溫和的一種調整，委員會中一些代表調整了預期。因此在政策路徑和變動放慢，我們都會考慮多個要素。失業率確實比之前小幅調低，你會看到預期數據。今年的通脹預期調高了一些，有些代表，不是所人，確實在預測時考慮了財政政策的要素。這些可能是三次加息背後的考慮，但是我想強調——總體變動的幅度非常小。

STEVE LIESMAN. Steve Liesman, CNBC. In recent testimony, you said your advice was for fiscal authorities to increase the productive capacity of the economy. Do individual and business tax cuts increase the productive capacity of the economy? And how would the Fed』s reaction be different to fiscal policies that increase the productive capacity of the economy and those that don』t?

最近的聲明中，您提到建議財政當局提高生產力。民眾和企業減稅，是否能增加經濟的生產力？財政政策如果提高或不提高生產力，美聯儲會有怎樣不同的應對措施？

CHAIR YELLEN. So the statement that I made, that it would be useful to increase the productive capacity of the economy, reflects my concern that productivity growth has been very low. It』s the ultimate determination of the evolution of living standards. Policies that would improve productivity growth would include policy changes that enhance education, training, workforce development; policies that spur either private or public investment to enhance the quality of capital in the United States that workers have to work with; and policies that spur innovation or competition or the formation of new firms. So tax policies can have that effect. It really depends on the specifics. I don』t think there』s anything that I could say in general about what tax policy would do, but that—and I really can』t tell you what the Fed』s response would be to any policy changes that are put into effect. I wouldn』t want to speculate until I were more certain of the details and how they would affect the likely course of the economy.

我的聲明中講到需要增加經濟生產力，是因為我擔心增長率增速過慢，增長率是最終決定生活水平的關鍵要素。提高增長率的政策包括強化教育、培訓、勞動力發展；促進私人和公共領域對勞工的高水平投資；促進新企業成立的創新和競爭政策；減稅可以達到這樣的效果，但是還是看具體的措施。對於稅收政策我恐怕無法籠統地評論其作用，也無法言說美聯儲的反應是什麼。在沒有看到確鑿的政策措施及其對經濟進程的影響之前我不想做出任何預判。

STEVE LIESMAN. Okay. A quick follow-up—I』m sorry, but if there was a rush of fiscal policy that did not increase the productive capacity of the economy, would that mean the Federal Reserve would have to move more quickly with raising rates?

跟進一下，如果財政政策沒有提高勞動力，是否意味著美聯儲會更快地加息？

CHAIR YELLEN. I—you know, it』s something I really just can』t generalize about because, while it would be desirable to have tax policies that do increase the productive capacity of the economy, an increase in the pace of productivity change is one of the factors that does affect the economy』s neutral rate. A boost to productivity could spur investment. As we have been saying, we estimate that the value of the neutral federal funds rate is quite low—has—and one of the reasons for that is slow productivity growth. And so it』s very hard to generalize about it because it could affect that neutral rate.

這個我沒有辦法以偏概全地回答，因為雖然有稅收政策可以提高勞動力，這是一件好事，但是生產率增速提升只是影響經濟中性速度的一個要素。生產率提升可以促進投資，如剛才所說，美聯儲基金中性利率數值已經比較低——背後原因之一就是生產率增長過慢。很難一言蔽之，因為生產率會影響中性利率。

JIM PUZZANGHERA. Hi. Jim Puzzanghera with the L.A. Times. For the average American, can you explain what the impact of this hike and three additional hikes will be next year? And should they feel more confident in the economy now that you are raising rates at a slightly faster pace?

CHAIR YELLEN. So let me say that our decision to raise rates is—should certainly be understood as a reflection of the confidence we have in the progress the economy has made and our judgment that that progress will continue. And the economy has proven to be remarkably resilient. So it is a vote of confidence in the economy. As you know, this was a decision that was well anticipated in markets, and I think it will have relatively small effect on market rates. It could boost very slightly some short-term interest rates that could have an effect on borrowing costs that are linked to them, but, overall, I think that households and firms will see very modest changes from this decision. But, certainly, it』s important for households and businesses to understand that my colleagues and I have judged the course of the U.S. economy to be strong, that we』re making progress toward our inflation and unemployment goals. We have a strong labor market, and we have a resilient economy.

這樣說吧，加息反應了我們對目前經濟增長態勢的信心，及其有能力延續下去的判斷。經濟已經具有顯著的復原力，此舉確實是信心的體現。市場也已經預測到了本次加息的舉措，對市場利率的影響相對程度較小。可能短期利率會略微上揚，影響貸款成本，但總體兒樣，我覺得家庭和公司不會受到特別大的影響。當然，家庭和企業也應該知道，我們對美國經濟進程作出了判斷——勢頭向好，通脹和失業都在控制中，勞動力市場蓬勃發展，經濟有較好的復原力。

SAM FLEMING. Sam Fleming from the Financial Times. Clearly, there』s been a lot of discussion already about fiscal—fiscal policy. But even if you discount or don』t know what the fiscal outlook is going to be next year, unemployment is already below the longer-run projection under the policy rule you cited in your August speech. That would suggest that policy ought to be tighter. Is there a risk that the Federal Reserve is already behind the curve, even before any fiscal impact steps in next year? Thanks.

很顯然已經有很多討論是圍繞財政政策的。但您在八月份的演講中已經提到，即使是計入折扣率，或者在明年財政前景尚不明確的情況下，現在的失業率已經低於長期預測值。這意味著政策應該收緊。在明年財政政策出台之前，美聯儲的預測現在已經低於實際情況，這是否會帶來風險？

CHAIR YELLEN. So I would agree that—and as we said in our statement—policy remains accommodative. The degree of accommodation I would characterize as moderate. As I』ve emphasized and said in the statement, we currently judge the neutral level of the federal funds rate to be pretty low. So there is some accommodation. Remember that inflation is still below our objective. The Committee projects—at least the median projection shows a very modest undershoot of estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment. The median unemployment rate here gets down to 4? percent, which is just a few tenths below the estimated longer-run normal level of the unemployment rate. And we think that that』s appropriate because we want inflation to rise to our 2 percent objective in a timely fashion.

我同意——如聲明中所說——政策目前還是寬鬆的，在我看來是適度寬鬆。正如我在聲明中強調和說明的，我們認為現在的聯邦基金利率中性水平較低，因此存在一些寬鬆。同種還是低於目標值的，委員會的預測——至少中值預測顯示，長期失業率的預測正常水平略低於實際。因此中值調整為4.5%，比長期失業率的預測正常水平調低了幾個百分位。這是合適的，因為i 我們希望通脹能夠儘快上升至2%的目標水平。

So there is not a substantial undershoot of the natural rate of unemployment. We』re not seeing evidence in labor markets of very substantial upward pressures on labor that could signify extreme shortages of labor that could propel inflation higher in a very rapid way, and inflation is still operating below our objective. So I do not judge that we are behind the curve. I』ve—my judgment is that we』re on a good path to reaching our objectives. But, of course, the outlook is uncertain. We recognize that there are many sources of uncertainty affecting the outlook. And we will have to adjust our thinking as things evolve, as conditions—conditions evolve, and we learn more about economic policy changes that could affect the outlook.

失業率的自然水平並沒有大幅低於我們的目標。在勞動力市場上也沒有感受到巨大的上升壓力，不會出現勞動力短缺，導致通脹迅速上升的情形，通脹也在我們的目標之下。因此我不認為我們落後於預測。我的判斷是，有很多不確定因素會影響我們對前景的判斷，形勢在變，我們也會更清楚地了解經濟政策的影響，從而調整思路。

JIM TANKERSLEY. Jim Tankersley, Washington Post. I』m curious, you and your predecessor had both at times called for more fiscal stimulus to help with the outlook, the growth outlook. And I』m wondering, how much do you judge the economy has capacity for fiscal stimulus right now? It』s a version of Steve』s question, but I think we』re trying to get at, how much can happen before we run that risk of overheating?

您和上任美聯儲主席在任期間都呼籲過採取更多的財政刺激措施，促進經濟向好發展。我很好奇，目前經濟能力在多大程度上可以承受這樣的財政刺激？可能是Steve問題的另一個版本，但是最終想問的是，目前的狀況離經濟發展過熱還有多遠？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, I believe my predecessor and I called for fiscal stimulus when the unemployment rate was substantially higher than it is now. So, with a 4.6 percent unemployment and a solid labor market, there may be some additional slack in labor markets, but I would judge that the degree of slack has diminished. So I would say at this point that fiscal policy is not obviously needed to provide stimulus to help us get back to full employment. But, nevertheless, let me be careful that I am not trying to provide advice to the new Administration or to Congress as to what is the appropriate stance of policy. There are many considerations that Congress needs to take account of and many bases for justifying changing fiscal policy. I』ve continued to highlight the importance of spurring productivity growth, that I think that would be something that』s beneficial for the economy. Of course, it』s also important for Congress to take account of the fact that, as our population ages, that the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to rise, and that needs to continue to be taken into account. And so there are many factors that I think should enter into such decisions.

我相信當時上屆主席和我在呼籲進行財政刺激時，當時的失業率比現在要高很多。當前失業率穩定在4.6%的水平，勞動力市場穩定發展，可能略有疲軟，但我認為疲軟的程度在逐漸降低。因此當前，無需財政刺激計劃來提振就業。但不管怎樣，我還是要謹慎表示，我並不是通過此舉向新政府或國會施壓採納什麼樣的政策。國會在頒布財政政策之前需要考慮很多因素。我已經提到了促進生產力增長，這對經濟發展十分重要。當然國會也會考慮到，隨著人口老齡化，債務率預期會上升，這也要考慮在內。還有其他因素都要納入決策考慮範圍。

CHRISTOPHER CONDON. Thank you. Chris Condon, Bloomberg News. Chair Yellen, you』ve just spoken about some of the risks—the inflationary risks of running in this expansionary fiscal policy. But in October you were wondering whether it might be possible to repair some of the damage done to the labor force during the recession by running what you termed a 「high-pressure economy.」 So I』m wondering, why couldn』t fiscal policy serve the same end in seeking to run a high-pressure economy, hoping to draw more Americans off the sidelines and into the workforce? Is there something necessarily riskier about approaching it from the fiscal side, or perhaps have you become less enthusiastic about the idea of running a high-pressure economy? Thank you.

耶倫主席，您講到了一些風險——寬鬆的財政政策可能帶來通脹風險。但是10月您還提出，能否通過所謂「高壓經濟」的實施，來補全經濟危機中受損的勞動力。我想問的是，為何不能讓財政政策和高壓經濟保持發揮同樣的作用，減少邊緣化的勞動力讓他們重回市場？是否從財政政策方面入手，風險更大？還會您對於實行高壓經濟的看法目前發生了改變？謝謝。

CHAIR YELLEN. So I want to be clear that what I said in that speech in Boston is that an important research question is whether or not, in an economy with a very strong labor market, there might be changes that took place that permanently raised the labor force participation, training, and other things of the labor—of the labor force that would be positives for the productive potential of our economy on a long-lasting basis. I never said that I favor running a high-pressure economy. And, you know, as you can see in the SEP projections of the participants—and this has long been true not just in this forecast, but in earlier ones as well—you see a modest undershooting.

我想明確一下，我在波士頓的演講中想要探討的一個重要問題是，在勞動力市場較為強勢的經濟中，可能需要採取一些措施來永久性地提高勞動力參與率、受訓程度和其他方面——充分持久地發揮生產率潛力促進經濟發展。我從未說過想要實行高壓經濟。正如你看到SEP對參與率的預期——長久以來就是如此，不限於本次——參與率一直低於預期。

The under—unemployment rate is projected to modestly undershoot, for several years, levels that are deemed to be normal in the longer run. That』s an appropriate policy purely on the grounds that inflation is running below our objective. And while we don』t want to overshoot our 2 percent objective, we also don』t want a persistent undershoot of our 2 percent objective, and that does involve a labor market that may succeed in attracting more people off the sidelines into the labor market. It』s something we will see as we examine experience over the next couple of years. We may adjust our views on this. But I do want to make clear that I have not recommended running a 「hot」 economy as some sort of experiment.

幾年來失業率一直略低於預期，長期看來屬於正常水平。這是因為通脹率一直低於我們的目標。雖然我們不想超出2%的目標，但是也不希望總是低於2%的目標，這個目標可以保證勞動力市場將更多邊緣人群吸納入勞動力市場。這是我們未來幾年將會持續監視的一個點，也會調整。但是我想明確一點，我沒有說要嘗試經濟過熱發展。

LINDSAY DUNSMUIR. Hi, Lindsay Dunsmuir with Reuters. How comfortable are you with possible interference on Fed policy by the incoming President? And I』m talking there about the negative impacts his tweets on aerospace companies in the last week have had on their share prices. And do you feel having a President tweeting about individual companies—do you feel that that could begin to distort corporate decisionmaking?

如果新任總統干預美聯儲政策，您是什麼態度？特朗普總統上周在推特上對航空公司發表了負面言論，造成股價下跌。一個總統發推文評論某個具體公司——您是否認為這會改變公司決策？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, I』m not going to offer the incoming President advice about how to conduct himself in policy. I』m a strong believer in the independence of the Fed. We have been given the independence by Congress to make decisions about monetary policy in pursuit of our dual-mandate objectives of maximum employment and inflation, and that is what I intend to stay focused on. That』s what the Committee is focused on.

我不會就新任總統的政策決議給出任何意見。我堅定地相信美聯儲的獨立地位。議會給予了我們這樣的獨立地位，為擴大就業、控制通脹獨立決定貨幣政策，這是我會不斷堅守的職責，也是委員會的職責。

BINYAMIN APPELBAUM. Binya Appelbaum with the New York Times. The President-elect has said that overhauling financial regulation is a high priority for him. I』m curious whether the Fed has been asked to provide any advice on how that might be done, and what advice you would provide to the President-elect about how our financial regulatory system should be improved?

新任總統提到，重整金融監管是上台之後的第一要務。想問美聯儲是否已經接到請求，提供相關改革建議？您對新總統改善金融監管體系會提供什麼樣的建議？

CHAIR YELLEN. So we have been—our staff have been in touch with the Trump transition team. And we, of course, share the objective that the whole government has to work constructively to ensure a smooth transition. I』ve not been in touch beyond that, and it』s not something that I would expect. The financial rate. Yes. So, okay, on financial regulation, I feel that we lived through a devastating financial crisis that took a huge toll on our economy. And most members of Congress and the public came away from that experience feeling that it was important to take a set of steps that would result in a safer and stronger financial system. And I feel that we have done that. That has been our mission since the financial crisis for the last six or seven years. That』s what Dodd-Frank was designed to do.

我們的工作人員已經和特朗普的過渡團隊取得了聯繫，我們當然同意，政府機構需要以建設性的方式保證順暢過渡，但除此之外我們沒有接到其他的請求，也不求其他。金融監管方面，我覺得我們剛剛從一場嚴重的金融危機中走出來，經濟遭受了很大打擊。很多國會議員和民眾反思過去，都認為需要採取措施保障金融系統的安全性和穩健性，我們也已經做了不少，在過去6-7年中一直以此為使命。多德-弗蘭克法案就是其中之一。

I think it』s very important that we have reduced the odds that a systemically important firm could fail by requiring higher capital, higher liquidity, by performing stress tests that provide us another way of ensuring that the firms we count on to supply credit to households and businesses would be able to go on doing that even in the face of a severely adverse shock. The firms—the largest firms have a great deal more capital than they did before the crisis. Those are important changes. We have placed the toughest regulations on those firms that are systemically important. I would advise that—and we have been trying to do this—that it』s important to look for ways to relieve regulatory burden on community banks and smaller institutions, to tailor regulation so that it』s appropriate for the systemic risk profile of the particular institutions.

我們已經降低了風險，對機構的資本金要求、流動性要求增高，必須進行壓力測試，保證提供足夠的信貸給家庭和商業，確保有能力應對嚴重的負面衝擊。公司——大公司相對於危機之前的資本儲備已經大大提升。這些都是重要的變革。我們已經對那些在系統中具有支柱意義的公司施加了嚴格的監管措施。我會建議——也會嘗試——尋找途徑減少社區銀行和小機構的監管政策壓力，按需調整，保證特殊機構的系統風險可以得到良好控制。

I think there was broad agreement also that we should end 「too big to fail,」 and that means not only reducing the odds of the failure of a systemically important institution, but also making sure that, should such a firm fail, that it could be resolved in an orderly way. And the living wills process has been about that, and I think we』ve made considerable progress in making sure that the largest and most systemic firms conduct their businesses in a day-to-day way with some thought about—with important thinking in place about whether or not the way they are conducting their business would aid resolution in the event that they encountered a severe negative shock. So this is progress, I would say, it』s very important not to roll back. There may be some changes that could be made, and we』ve suggested a few, like eliminating the burden of compliance with the Volcker rule, or incentive compensation, regulations for smaller banks, or modestly raising the threshold for banks that are subject to enhanced prudential supervision. But I would urge that it』s important to keep this in place.

目前大家已達成廣泛共識，結束「太大而不能倒」的時代，也就是說，減少重要機構的破產風險，但是一旦破產，後續措施可以有序推進。我們已經儘力並取得了巨大進步，保證規模最大、最重要的公司能夠在日常運營的過程中持續思考他們應對嚴重負面衝擊的能力和解決方案。這是進步，也是保證我們不會重蹈覆轍的重要舉措。可能還需要一些改革，我們也建議了一些，比如減少沃爾克規則的合規負擔、使用激勵補償、監管小銀行、小幅提升需要遵循嚴苛監管的銀行門檻。我覺得這些措施還是很有必要的。

MARTIN CRUTSINGER. Marty Crutsinger with the Associated Press. The election of Donald Trump seemed to have sparked a major reaction in financial markets: stock prices at record highs, the dollar has strengthened, long-term interest rates are higher. The—did any of that get discussed in the meeting and did it—do you feel that it will have any effect, either negative or positive, on things? And also, did you have any broader discussion about Trump』s economic plan and what it might do and how the Fed might have to react?

特朗普當選總統之後，對金融市場產生了重大影響：股價上揚、美元升值、長期利率增長。委員會開會時是否討論了這個問題？您是否覺得新總統產生了正面或負面的影響？有沒有討論新總統的經濟計劃，以及今後美聯儲會如何應對？

CHAIR YELLEN. So we did discuss these topics in our meeting today. I would simply summarize by saying that all the FOMC participants recognize that there is considerable uncertainty about how economic policies may change and what effect they will have on the economy. And in so far as that will affect monetary policy, of course we will have to factor those policies along with many other things, including the global environment and oil prices and other matters. We will have to factor that into our outlook and figure out what is an appropriate response. But we』re operating under a cloud of uncertainty at the moment, and we have time to wait to see what changes occur and to factor those into our decisionmaking as we gain greater clarity.

會上確實討論了這些問題。簡而言之，FOMC代表認識到未來的經濟政策充滿了不確定性，對經濟的影響也有很多未知。在制定貨幣政策時，我們必須考慮當局政策，以及其他要素，包括國際局勢、油價等。在制定經濟展望和應對措施時這些都要考慮。但是我們目前的環境充滿不確定性，也需要時間去觀察，等到局勢更明確時再通盤考慮。

You mentioned the market moves. So I see the market moves as implicit forecasts about what impact these policies are likely to have on the economy. The changes—the financial market changes that you described, particularly the increase in stock prices, the increase in longer-term rates, and the strengthening of the dollar, suggest that many market participants anticipate expansionary fiscal policies that would raise interest rates somewhat in the United States relative to abroad and would cause a strengthening in the dollar. But market participants were uncertain too, and I would expect changes in our understanding of what is going to happen to also affect market prices in financial markets as we move forward.

您提到了市場波動。我認為市場波動反映了政策可能對經濟整體產生的影響。這些變化——剛剛您提到的金融市場變化，尤其是股價、長期利率的增長、美元走強，都表示市場參與者預期一個寬鬆的財政政策會讓美國的利率略高於其他國家，導致美元升值。但是市場參與者也並確定，我覺得我們的認知也會隨時間不斷影響影響市場價格。

NANCY MARSHALL-GENZER. Hi, Nancy Marshall-Genzer with Marketplace. Wondering about slack, when do you think the slack in the labor market will have worked its way through so we』re no longer talking about it at press conferences and it』s not such a big issue?

有關勞動力市場疲軟的問題，您認為何時勞動力市場的疲軟才會遏止，新聞發布會上不再當作重點議題反覆討論？

CHAIR YELLEN. So this is not something that it』s possible to judge precisely. My colleagues write down their best estimates of a normal longer-run unemployment rate. The median stands at 4.8 percent, so we』re close, possibly—the unemployment rate right now is ever so slightly below, but in the neighborhood. If we look at larger, broader measures of slack, like the U-6 measure that includes involuntary part-time employment and those who are marginally attached to the labor force, they』re slightly higher than pre-recession levels, but they』ve come down considerably. We look at a broad array of indicators of the labor market, and if you look at job openings or the hires rate or the quits rate or difficulty of hiring workers as reported in business surveys, you know, I would say the labor market looks a lot like the way it did before the recession, that it』s—we』re roughly comparable to 2007 levels when we thought the, you know, there was a normal amount of slack in the labor market. The labor market was in the vicinity of maximum employment.

這不是可以明確判斷的一個話題。我們對長期失業率的正常水平進行了能力範圍內的預估。中值是4.8%，已經比較接近了——目前的失業率稍微低一些，但相差不大。如果看評估勞動力市場疲軟程度的一些宏觀指標，比如包含強制性兼職和邊緣參與率的U-6表格，經濟疲軟度可能比危機前略高一些，不過這已經是顯著下降後的結果。如果參考調研中的勞動力市場指標，包括就業機會、僱傭率、辭職率、僱傭難度等，總體水平和危機前持平，基本達到2007年的水平，因此我們認為勞動力市場的疲軟程度屬於正常範圍。目前的勞動力市場基本已實現最高就業的目標。

MICHAEL MCKEE. Michael McKee from Bloomberg Television and Radio. Given President-elect Trump』s criticism of your low-rate policy during the campaign, like it or not, market participants are going to focus a lot in 2017 on you. You』ve suggested you will serve out your term, but I』m curious if that statement still holds, if you would like another term as Fed Chair, if you would accept another term as Fed Chair, and would you stay on the Committee if you were not Fed Chair?

特朗普總統在競選期間曾批評過您的低息政策。無論您喜不喜歡，但2017年市場參與者很大一部分的關注點都會放在您身上。您也表示，您已經到期任滿，但我想問，您是否願意連任美聯儲主席。如果不連任，是否還會繼續留在委員會中？

CHAIR YELLEN. So I guess the way I think about it is that I was confirmed by the Senate to a four-year term. The term of the Fed Chair was not meant to coincide with that of the President, and there were good reasons for that, too. It』s part of ensuring the independence of the Fed. And so I do intend to serve out my four-year term. I haven』t made any decision about the future. I, you know, I recognize I might or might not be reappointed. It』s a decision that I don』t have to make and don』t, you know, don』t have thoughts on at this time. And, as you said, I recognize too that I could stay on as a Board member, and that』s a decision for another day.

我的思路是，參議院給了我四年任期。美聯儲主席的任期和美國總統的任期是刻意錯開的，也是有意為之，可以保持美聯儲的獨立。我一定會完成四年任期，但未來還未有決定。我可能會或可能不會被任命連任，我不需要負責做這個決定，目前也沒有任何看法。如你所說，即使不連任，我也可以選擇繼續留在委員會，但屆時再定。

PETER BARNES. Peter Barnes, Fox Business. Just to follow up on Marty』s question about the financial markets, the Dow is about to hit 20,000. It』s up substantially since the election on, apparently, investor optimism about potential—the impact of President-elect Trump』s policies on the economy and an improving economy. I wonder if you share that optimism, number one, and, if not, are we seeing a bout of, perhaps, irrational exuberance right now? Or are you concerned at all about a bubble in equity prices that could create some financial instability in the economy?

接著Marty剛剛提的有關金融市場的問題。道指將達到2萬點，自競選開始一直持續走高，投資者對於特朗普總統的經濟政策和改善措施持有較為樂觀的態度。您是否也同樣樂觀？如果答案是否定的，那麼我們現在看到的是否只是一陣短暫的繁榮？您是否擔心股價泡沫會對造成經濟發展中金融市場的動蕩？

CHAIR YELLEN. So, you know, I really don』t want to comment on the level of stock prices. They may have been boosted by expectations about tax policy; possible cuts in corporate tax rates that have been much discussed; or by expectations about growth, possible reductions, and downside risk to the economy. But, you know, these are things that market participants are trying to view, along with the likely path of—paths of interest rates, and I think all of that factors into movements and stock valuations. But I don』t—I don』t want to offer a view as to whether they』re appropriate.

我不太想評論股價水平。股價可能只是被稅收政策的預期抬高了；輿論都在討論可能減免公司稅率；或者是因為增長的預期、減稅等降低經濟發展風險的措施。但是這是市場參與者的觀點，外加利率的因素，我認為這些都造成了股市波動。但是我不想評論股價是否合理。

PETER BARNES. You have said—mentioned—can I just follow up? On equity prices, you have talked about whether or not the valuations are still—are within historical ranges and norms. Did—is Dow 20,000 kind of within historical norms? Are you comfortable with that?

我能跟進一下嗎？股價方面，您剛說到目前的估值是否在歷史常規的區間中。目前道指20000點，是否屬於常規區間？您覺得該水平正常嗎？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, I think rates of return in the stock market relative to— remember that the level of interest rates is low, and, taking that into account, I believe it』s fair to say that they remain within normal ranges.

我覺得股市的收益，在利率水平較低的背景下，還是屬於正常水平的。

JOHN HELTMAN. John Heltman of American Banker. You said that much progress has been made since the crisis in making the banks more secure, more safe, higher liquidity, capital levels, et cetera. Does that feeling extend to the culture of the banks, the way that they run, the way that they operate in their approach towards—towards business? Do you think that more needs to be done there? Do you expect that if there has been improvement, that it will continue to be—that culture will continue to improve in the next Administration and the next Congress?

自經濟危機以來，銀行在更安全、穩定地運行，提升流動性和資本金方面已經取得了很大進步。這種氣氛是否已經擴大到銀行整個行業，包括運營方式和業務風格？還要採取其他措施嗎？如果現在已經有了進步，您是否覺得這樣的向好氛圍會在新政府和下屆議會任期內得以進一步加強？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, there have been many ways in which there have been compliance failures at large organizations, and you』ve seen a series of enforcement actions by the banking regulators over a range of practices that suggests some breakdown of compliance or culture, whether it involves violations of sanctions or foreign exchange or LIBOR or other matters. So this is something that we』ve discussed and emphasized, the importance of a culture of compliance. And the Board will be undertaking review. We』ve already begun this year, broadly, of compliance and management of compliance risk in the largest corporations. So I think this is something that』s important. And the failings that we have seen in a number of institutions suggest there is certainly room for improvement.

大機構在合規上可能出現各種問題，我們也看到監管方頒布了一系列執法措施，專門約束可能出現的合規問題，打擊不良風氣，包括對制裁處罰、外匯交易或LIBOR限制等，希望形成合規的風氣，這也是我們一直討論和強調的。委員會也會加以評審。今年我們也已經開始對大公司的合規和合規風險管理開展了宏觀考核。我們看到一些機構的破產也證明，還有改進的空間。

GREG ROBB. Greg Robb from MarketWatch. I』d like to—two questions, if I might— follow up on the question about running the economy hot that you mentioned in your speech up in Boston a couple months ago. You brought it up. Are you now sort of distancing yourself from the idea?

有兩個問題。第一個還是有關您在波士頓的演講中提到的經濟過熱發展，剛才說過。現在您是不是改變想法了？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, I want to make clear what I said and what I didn』t say. One of the things we』ve learned from our financial crisis and from a series of financial crises in history and around the globe is that, very commonly, when the economy takes a hit and falls into a recession, that productivity doesn』t pick up to pre-recession levels and that there looks like there is a permanent hit to the path of potential output for the economy, which is called 「hysteresis.」 And I raised the question as to whether or not this might operate in the opposite direction as well. We have seen quite a few people who lost their jobs during the Great Recession drop out of the labor force and, you know, lose their ties and become discouraged and not reenter. And I raised the question as to whether or not hysteresis could operate in the opposite direction. And that was a research question for economists to see if there is any evidence, because it could be important in determining policy. But I didn』t—I didn』t draw any policy conclusions from that. And, as I indicated, I think the path that you see—that the Committee has laid out in a tentative way that involves a modest degree of undershooting of normal longer-run levels of unemployment going down to around 4? percent would remain for a couple of years—might provide some insight. So I was not recommending a substantially easier policy in order to test that hypothesis.

澄清一下我說了什麼，沒說什麼吧。我們從美國的經濟危機和全球過往的危機中學到的是，當經濟受到重創進入蕭條時，勞動生產率很難回到危機前的水平，經濟產出似乎會永久受挫，這種現象我們稱之為「遲滯」。我當時提出的問題是這種情況是否可逆。我們看到大蕭條中有一些人失業，永久地退出了勞動力市場，脫離社會、沮喪不前。我提出的問題是遲滯是否可逆。這是經濟學家需要考慮和研究的問題，需要看看有沒有事實證據，因為這堆睜著制定很重要。但是我沒有——沒有試圖把政策定死。我也表示，經濟發展路徑——委員會頒布的措施，包括長期失業率一直略低於預期，因此未來幾年將其下調為4.5％——可能會給我們一些參考。我並沒有確鑿地說要通過某種簡單的政策來檢測這種「遲滯」。

GREG ROBB. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my question to—that I had before that follow-up was, both times you』ve raised rates in this cycle, the market expectations of a rate hike have been over 50 percent. The market has, you know, kind of priced it in. Is that a prerequisite going forward? Will that have to happen as you go forward?

第二個問題是，兩次調高預期之後，市場對本次加息的可能性預期超過50%。市場似乎已經預先在價格上體現了這個既定事實。加息是不是不得已而為之？是不是從未來發展的考慮您被動選擇了加息？

CHAIR YELLEN. It』s not a prerequisite, but we do try to explain our evolving views as clearly as we can. It』s important for market participants to have a sense of how we think about the economy and the appropriate path of policy, to look at incoming data, and to form their own judgments as to whether or not changes in policy would be appropriate. And while it』s not a prerequisite, if we』re in good sync in terms of explaining what goes into our policy judgments, it』s not surprising that it would often be true that moves are well anticipated by the market. As I said, in thinking about today』s move, we』ve indicated that we thought we were making progress on our objectives. We wanted to see some more. I think anyone looking at incoming data can clearly see that we have enjoyed further progress both in the labor market and on inflation. And, therefore, there are good reasons why the market should have anticipated a moved today.

這不是不得已而為之。但是我們確實想要儘早解釋一下觀點變動的原因。市場參與者應該要知曉委員會對於經濟發展和政策路徑有什麼樣的看法，看看新出的數據，就政策是否恰當形成自己的判斷。雖然不是不得已而為之，但如果我們能夠和市場形成良好的互動，及時解釋我們對政策的判斷的話，那麼市場往往可以預測出我們的決議，這也在情理之中。如我所說，今天加息的舉動背後，我們之前已經表示，委員會認為目標正在實現，還想再接再厲。大家如果觀察一下數據，就可以清楚地看到我們已經在就業和通脹上取得了進步。因此時常有充分的理由能夠預判出加息的舉措。

PATRICK GILLESPIE. Chair Yellen, Patrick Gillespie with CNN. There』s been a lot of discussion about manufacturing jobs and trade. I』m wondering, what do you think are two or three concrete steps that could be taken to increase manufacturing employment in the United States? And, separately, I』ve asked you about the importance of job training programs, something that you』ve emphasized. Specifically, what do you think about the worker assistance provided to workers who lose their jobs to trade, both the financial assistance and the worker retraining programs? Are they sufficient?

有很多人的關注點在製造業工作機會和貿易商。您認為目前採取的最重要的增加製造業就業的舉措是什麼？另外我之前問過在職培訓的重要性，這個您也強調了。具體說來，對於因為貿易而丟失工作機會的員工，在金錢上和培訓上有什麼援助項目？充分嗎？

CHAIR YELLEN. So, I don』t want to weigh in. I don』t intend to weigh in. I haven』t weighed in on either fiscal policy, specifics of evaluating policies. I』m not going to weigh in either on the details of particular trade policies. But, more generally, I』d say, you asked me about manufacturing. There were a lot of manufacturing jobs lost over a long period of time and particularly after—during the Great Recession. We』ve had some recovery in manufacturing employment as the economy』s recovered. So, to some extent, manufacturing employment depends on the progress of the economy, and we have seen some recovery. Over a long period of time, technological change is something that has been important in reducing manufacturing employment absolutely and as a share of jobs in the economy. For decades, the pace of technological change in manufacturing has outstripped that in the economy as a whole. And, so, firms—manufacturing firms have found it easier to continue producing by—with reducing their workforces. And that』s a change that I would expect to continue.

我不想引發爭論，無論是具體的財政政策，還是某一個貿易政策的具體條款，我都不會評價。但是總體看來，因為您說到了製造業，過去一段時間製造業失業嚴重，尤其是大蕭條之後。我們已經看到了一些復原跡象。所以在某種程度上，製造業的就業機會取決於經濟發展，而我們已經看到經濟回暖。長期看，科技的變革是導致製造業失業的重要原因，也削減了製造業在經濟中的比重。幾十年來，製造業的科技進程一直快於經濟發展的平均水平。因此，企業——製造業企業可以通過辭退員工來提高勞動生產率。這一趨勢未來也會繼續。

You mentioned worker assistance. So some of the forces that are acting on manufacturing and other sectors, including technological change and globalization—even though most economists would judge the overall consequences of these developments for the economy to be positive, certainly there are groups of workers who were harmed by developments pertaining to globalization and technology. And I think most economists and policymakers recognize that it』s important to provide ways for workers who were harmed by these kinds of developments to be retrained for jobs so that they can succeed in the economy. And so, I mean, I would agree—without getting into any particular program and whether it』s sufficient, I do think that it』s important to recognize there are those who were harmed by these developments, and their concerns, I think, need to be addressed by policymakers, certainly.

您提到了勞工援助。包括科技變革和全球化在內的因素對製造業和其他行業產生了重要影響——雖然大部分經濟學家覺得這些要素都是經濟積極發展的整體結果。當然會有特定的勞工群體利益受到影響，我認為經濟學家和政策制定者認識到有必要為因此而下崗的工人提供再培訓，保證他們的成功。我也同意——這裡不指代任何具體項目、不評判是否充分，我認為要充分認識到有些勞工因為這些積極的發展而利益受損，要給予他們以關切。政策制定者肯定要考慮他們這些群體。

JUSTINE UNDERHILL. Justine Underhill, Yahoo Finance. So the Fed』s balance sheet has grown to over $4 trillion. And as the Fed begins removing policy accommodation, under what circumstances would you see the Fed removing or possibly winding down its balance sheet in either letting mature—securities mature or possibly outright selling bonds from the SOMA portfolio?

美聯儲的資產負債表上有將近4萬億的資產。現在貨幣政策更加寬鬆，在什麼情況下您認為美聯儲會對縮減資產，讓證券到期或者從公開市場操作賬戶（SOMA）投資組合中直接出售一部分債券？

CHAIR YELLEN. So we』ve indicated in our normalization principles that we expect to diminish the size of our portfolio over time largely by ceasing reinvestments of principal rather than by selling securities. We』ve indicated that once the process of normalization of the federal funds rate is well under way, we would probably begin to allow our portfolio to run off. We』ve not yet made any precise decisions about when that will occur. We want to feel that if the economy were to suffer an adverse shock, that we have some scope through traditional means of interest rate cuts to be able to respond to that. Now, there』s no mechanical rule about what level of the federal funds rate we might deem appropriate to begin that process. It』s not something that only depends on the level of the federal funds rate. It also depends on our judgment of the amount of momentum in the economy and possible concerns about downside risks to the economy. So we』ve not yet made this decision, but it is something that we have long planned, to begin to allow our balance sheet to run off. And then it would take several years. And we would end up, if all goes well, with a substantially smaller balance sheet than we have at present.

委員會已經表示，在保證經濟正常化運作的原則下減少投資組合的規模，逐漸停止本金再投資，但不會出售證券。委員會也表示，一旦聯邦基金正常化之後，我們可能會縮減美聯儲資產。還沒有決定具體時間表，因為我們想保證在經濟遭受不良衝擊時，我們可以通過傳統的降息手段來應對。目前沒有強制規定說聯邦基金利率必須達到什麼水平才可以開始這一進程，這也取決於我們對於經濟發展勢頭和經濟下行風險的判斷。委員會還沒有作出任何決定，但是縮減美聯儲的資產負債表一直在我們的長期計劃中，這可能需要幾年時間。如果一切順利的話，我們未來的資產負債表會比現在小很多。

MICHAEL DERBY. Mike Derby from Dow Jones Newswires. I wondered if the unexpected outcome of the election and the sense that a lot of people are really upset with how the economy is performing despite having, you know, aggregate economic statistics that look pretty good—is that causing you in any way to think differently about how you evaluate the economy, like what sort of things you look for to get a sense of what』s going on in the economy? Is—you know, basically, did how things turned out in the election—is it making you think differently about how you evaluate the economy』s performance and how it』s doing?

大選結果出乎意料，很多人對於經濟的總體形勢仍然不滿意，雖然宏觀經濟數據顯示經濟發展勢頭良好——這樣的現狀會不會影響您對經濟的評估？評估時您主要看什麼指標和跡象？大選結果有沒有促使您在評估經濟形式時改變方法和思路？

CHAIR YELLEN. Well, I mean, we』ve long been aware, and I』ve spoken about previously disturbing trends in the economy, particularly rising wage inequality, income inequality, and the fact that a significant share of our population hasn』t been enjoying significant real wage gains, if any. And so these are long-standing concerns. These are not new phenomenon, but the recession was very severe and probably exacerbated developments that had long been affecting many American workers and households. And I think they are quite disturbing.

我們都知曉，而且我也談到了經濟發展中的一些干擾跡象，尤其是工資不均衡、收入不均衡、大部分民眾沒有享受到顯著的薪資上漲。這些都是長期關切，不是新出現的問題。但是嚴重的經濟危機及其惡化反應已經對美國勞動力和家庭產生了長久的影響，確實令人擔憂。

Now, they』re ones that the Fed is not well positioned—I think our policies can affect the general level of economic activity and slack in the labor market, the level—the rate of inflation, which we focus on. But I think it』s important for policymakers more broadly to be attentive to these trends and to think about policies that could address them. We』ve been quite attentive with respect to particular demographic groups in the labor market. Particularly, minorities tend to be very badly affected by downturns. We』ve discussed that. We』ve been focused on it—it』s not just since the election—and are pleased to see that they are enjoying gains. For example, the African American unemployment rate at this point is now rough—about back to 2007 levels as well. But these are important trends, and I think it』s important for policy to address them.

這些並不是美聯儲應對得最好的部分——我們的政策主要關注、影響經濟的整體水平、勞動力市場疲軟程度、通脹率。但是決策者也應該更具有全局觀，關注以上趨勢，考慮相關政策。我們對於勞動力市場的特定群體已經有所關注了，尤其是在經濟危機中最受打擊的少數族裔。我們討論過，也關注過——並不是大選後才開始——也很高興的看到了一些進步。比如，非洲裔美國人的失業率現在基本和2007年持平。這些都是重要的趨勢，應該採取政策加以應對。

全文在這裡結束了，以下是可以注意的部分：

1. 背景：美聯儲是美國的央行，負責制定貨幣政策，而政府和總統負責出台財政政策，二者配合，但彼此獨立。問答中很多提到了，在特朗普上台之後不確定的財政政策背景下，美聯儲會如何應對？耶倫的回答基本上都是保持美聯儲獨立的立場。加息聲明的發布方——FOMC 聯邦公開市場委員會，定期召開會議，回顧經濟數據，核心指標是GDP，通脹和就業，制定貨幣政策調控經濟。
2. Federal Funds Rate 加息的這個「息」，全稱是聯邦基金利息，其實質是美國銀行間的隔夜拆借利息。拆借成本高，為了減少成本，各銀行會隨之提升存貸款利息，保障資金充足
3. 小詞：a bout of irrational exuberance 曇花一現、稍縱即逝、虛假繁榮
4. Too big to fail 太大而不能倒＋Dodd Frank Act 《多得弗蘭克法案》

這是一個有歷史典故的術語了，指金融危機中具有系統重要性的金融機構，在信貸薄弱無法抵制衝擊時，必須依靠國家和納稅人買單bail out。因此金融危機後美國政府就頒布了Dodd Frank，限制了從消費者到金融機構的借貸行為，對資本金提出了硬性要求，也對高官限薪，遏制無限度借貸和交易的行為。如果有同學感興趣，可以去看PBS Frontline的紀錄片（PBS: Public Broadcasting Service），有一部叫做《崩潰的銀行》（Breaking the Bank），把前因後果都講的很清楚。

金融翻譯是比較難的，也曾經出現過在台上做交傳，因為背景知識欠缺，而被下面的才子們當場拿話筒批評說翻譯說錯了的尷尬場面。邏輯要弄清楚，金融細分領域的術語要知道大體意思，才算是基本合格的翻譯。那次印象太深以至於現在太過專業的金融會議都會接的比較謹慎。

就到這裡吧，有點長。謝謝大家的時間，2017年祝一切平安，心想事成：）