전체기사 최신뉴스 GAM 라씨로
KYD 디데이
글로벌 미국·북미

속보

더보기

제롬 파월 연준 의장의 잭슨홀 연설(영문)

기사입력 : 2023년08월25일 23:17

최종수정 : 2023년08월26일 00:20

[휴스턴=뉴스핌] 고인원 특파원= 제롬 파월 연준 의장은 2023년 8월 25일 잭슨홀 심포지엄에서 '글로벌 경제의 구조적 변화'을 주제로 연설했다.

이날 파월은 "인플레이션이 여전히 높으며 적절하다고 판단되면 추가 금리 인상이 가능하다"는 매파 발언으로 시장에 충격파를 던졌다.

다음은 미 연준 홈페이지에 게재된 파월 의장의 연설문 전문이다. 원문 그대로 게재한다.

Good morning. At last year's Jackson Hole symposium, I delivered a brief, direct message. My remarks this year will be a bit longer, but the message is the same: It is the Fed's job to bring inflation down to our 2 percent goal, and we will do so. We have tightened policy significantly over the past year. Although inflation has moved down from its peak—a welcome development—it remains too high. We are prepared to raise rates further if appropriate, and intend to hold policy at a restrictive level until we are confident that inflation is moving sustainably down toward our objective.

Today I will review our progress so far and discuss the outlook and the uncertainties we face as we pursue our dual mandate goals. I will conclude with a summary of what this means for policy. Given how far we have come, at upcoming meetings we are in a position to proceed carefully as we assess the incoming data and the evolving outlook and risks.

The Decline in Inflation So Far
The ongoing episode of high inflation initially emerged from a collision between very strong demand and pandemic-constrained supply. By the time the Federal Open Market Committee raised the policy rate in March 2022, it was clear that bringing down inflation would depend on both the unwinding of the unprecedented pandemic-related demand and supply distortions and on our tightening of monetary policy, which would slow the growth of aggregate demand, allowing supply time to catch up. While these two forces are now working together to bring down inflation, the process still has a long way to go, even with the more favorable recent readings.

On a 12-month basis, U.S. total, or "headline," PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation peaked at 7 percent in June 2022 and declined to 3.3 percent as of July, following a trajectory roughly in line with global trends (figure 1, panel A).1 The effects of Russia's war against Ukraine have been a primary driver of the changes in headline inflation around the world since early 2022. Headline inflation is what households and businesses experience most directly, so this decline is very good news. But food and energy prices are influenced by global factors that remain volatile, and can provide a misleading signal of where inflation is headed. In my remaining comments, I will focus on core PCE inflation, which omits the food and energy components.

On a 12-month basis, core PCE inflation peaked at 5.4 percent in February 2022 and declined gradually to 4.3 percent in July (figure 1, panel B). The lower monthly readings for core inflation in June and July were welcome, but two months of good data are only the beginning of what it will take to build confidence that inflation is moving down sustainably toward our goal. We can't yet know the extent to which these lower readings will continue or where underlying inflation will settle over coming quarters. Twelve-month core inflation is still elevated, and there is substantial further ground to cover to get back to price stability.

To understand the factors that will likely drive further progress, it is useful to separately examine the three broad components of core PCE inflation—inflation for goods, for housing services, and for all other services, sometimes referred to as nonhousing services (figure 2).

Core goods inflation has fallen sharply, particularly for durable goods, as both tighter monetary policy and the slow unwinding of supply and demand dislocations are bringing it down. The motor vehicle sector provides a good illustration. Earlier in the pandemic, demand for vehicles rose sharply, supported by low interest rates, fiscal transfers, curtailed spending on in-person services, and shifts in preference away from using public transportation and from living in cities. But because of a shortage of semiconductors, vehicle supply actually fell. Vehicle prices spiked, and a large pool of pent-up demand emerged. As the pandemic and its effects have waned, production and inventories have grown, and supply has improved. At the same time, higher interest rates have weighed on demand. Interest rates on auto loans have nearly doubled since early last year, and customers report feeling the effect of higher rates on affordability.2 On net, motor vehicle inflation has declined sharply because of the combined effects of these supply and demand factors.

Similar dynamics are playing out for core goods inflation overall. As they do, the effects of monetary restraint should show through more fully over time. Core goods prices fell the past two months, but on a 12-month basis, core goods inflation remains well above its pre-pandemic level. Sustained progress is needed, and restrictive monetary policy is called for to achieve that progress.

In the highly interest-sensitive housing sector, the effects of monetary policy became apparent soon after liftoff. Mortgage rates doubled over the course of 2022, causing housing starts and sales to fall and house price growth to plummet. Growth in market rents soon peaked and then steadily declined (figure 3).3

Measured housing services inflation lagged these changes, as is typical, but has recently begun to fall. This inflation metric reflects rents paid by all tenants, as well as estimates of the equivalent rents that could be earned from homes that are owner occupied.4 Because leases turn over slowly, it takes time for a decline in market rent growth to work its way into the overall inflation measure. The market rent slowdown has only recently begun to show through to that measure. The slowing growth in rents for new leases over roughly the past year can be thought of as "in the pipeline" and will affect measured housing services inflation over the coming year. Going forward, if market rent growth settles near pre-pandemic levels, housing services inflation should decline toward its pre-pandemic level as well. We will continue to watch the market rent data closely for a signal of the upside and downside risks to housing services inflation.

The final category, nonhousing services, accounts for over half of the core PCE index and includes a broad range of services, such as health care, food services, transportation, and accommodations. Twelve-month inflation in this sector has moved sideways since liftoff. Inflation measured over the past three and six months has declined, however, which is encouraging. Part of the reason for the modest decline of nonhousing services inflation so far is that many of these services were less affected by global supply chain bottlenecks and are generally thought to be less interest sensitive than other sectors such as housing or durable goods. Production of these services is also relatively labor intensive, and the labor market remains tight. Given the size of this sector, some further progress here will be essential to restoring price stability. Over time, restrictive monetary policy will help bring aggregate supply and demand back into better balance, reducing inflationary pressures in this key sector.

The Outlook
Turning to the outlook, although further unwinding of pandemic-related distortions should continue to put some downward pressure on inflation, restrictive monetary policy will likely play an increasingly important role. Getting inflation sustainably back down to 2 percent is expected to require a period of below-trend economic growth as well as some softening in labor market conditions.

Economic growth
Restrictive monetary policy has tightened financial conditions, supporting the expectation of below-trend growth.5 Since last year's symposium, the two-year real yield is up about 250 basis points, and longer-term real yields are higher as well—by nearly 150 basis points.6 Beyond changes in interest rates, bank lending standards have tightened, and loan growth has slowed sharply.7 Such a tightening of broad financial conditions typically contributes to a slowing in the growth of economic activity, and there is evidence of that in this cycle as well. For example, growth in industrial production has slowed, and the amount spent on residential investment has declined in each of the past five quarters (figure 4).

But we are attentive to signs that the economy may not be cooling as expected. So far this year, GDP (gross domestic product) growth has come in above expectations and above its longer-run trend, and recent readings on consumer spending have been especially robust. In addition, after decelerating sharply over the past 18 months, the housing sector is showing signs of picking back up. Additional evidence of persistently above-trend growth could put further progress on inflation at risk and could warrant further tightening of monetary policy.

The labor market
The rebalancing of the labor market has continued over the past year but remains incomplete. Labor supply has improved, driven by stronger participation among workers aged 25 to 54 and by an increase in immigration back toward pre-pandemic levels. Indeed, the labor force participation rate of women in their prime working years reached an all-time high in June. Demand for labor has moderated as well. Job openings remain high but are trending lower. Payroll job growth has slowed significantly. Total hours worked has been flat over the past six months, and the average workweek has declined to the lower end of its pre-pandemic range, reflecting a gradual normalization in labor market conditions (figure 5).

This rebalancing has eased wage pressures. Wage growth across a range of measures continues to slow, albeit gradually (figure 6). While nominal wage growth must ultimately slow to a rate that is consistent with 2 percent inflation, what matters for households is real wage growth. Even as nominal wage growth has slowed, real wage growth has been increasing as inflation has fallen.

We expect this labor market rebalancing to continue. Evidence that the tightness in the labor market is no longer easing could also call for a monetary policy response.

Uncertainty and Risk Management along the Path Forward
Two percent is and will remain our inflation target. We are committed to achieving and sustaining a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to that level over time. It is challenging, of course, to know in real time when such a stance has been achieved. There are some challenges that are common to all tightening cycles. For example, real interest rates are now positive and well above mainstream estimates of the neutral policy rate. We see the current stance of policy as restrictive, putting downward pressure on economic activity, hiring, and inflation. But we cannot identify with certainty the neutral rate of interest, and thus there is always uncertainty about the precise level of monetary policy restraint.

That assessment is further complicated by uncertainty about the duration of the lags with which monetary tightening affects economic activity and especially inflation. Since the symposium a year ago, the Committee has raised the policy rate by 300 basis points, including 100 basis points over the past seven months. And we have substantially reduced the size of our securities holdings. The wide range of estimates of these lags suggests that there may be significant further drag in the pipeline.

Beyond these traditional sources of policy uncertainty, the supply and demand dislocations unique to this cycle raise further complications through their effects on inflation and labor market dynamics. For example, so far, job openings have declined substantially without increasing unemployment—a highly welcome but historically unusual result that appears to reflect large excess demand for labor. In addition, there is evidence that inflation has become more responsive to labor market tightness than was the case in recent decades.8 These changing dynamics may or may not persist, and this uncertainty underscores the need for agile policymaking.

These uncertainties, both old and new, complicate our task of balancing the risk of tightening monetary policy too much against the risk of tightening too little. Doing too little could allow above-target inflation to become entrenched and ultimately require monetary policy to wring more persistent inflation from the economy at a high cost to employment. Doing too much could also do unnecessary harm to the economy.

Conclusion
As is often the case, we are navigating by the stars under cloudy skies. In such circumstances, risk-management considerations are critical. At upcoming meetings, we will assess our progress based on the totality of the data and the evolving outlook and risks. Based on this assessment, we will proceed carefully as we decide whether to tighten further or, instead, to hold the policy rate constant and await further data. Restoring price stability is essential to achieving both sides of our dual mandate. We will need price stability to achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all.

We will keep at it until the job is done.

koinwon@newspim.com

[뉴스핌 베스트 기사]

사진
헌법재판관들 "공정" 49.3% "불공정" 44.9% [서울=뉴스핌] 이바름 기자 = 윤석열 대통령의 탄핵 심판을 맡은 헌법재판관들의 공정성을 묻는 질문에 '공정하다' 49.3%, '공정하지 않다' 44.9%로 팽팽했다. 종합뉴스통신사 뉴스핌이 미디어리서치에 의뢰해 지난 18~19일 전국 만 18세 이상 남녀 1000명을 대상으로 진행해 20일 발표한 ARS(자동응답 시스템) 조사에서 윤 대통령 탄핵 심판 헌법재판관들의 공정성을 묻는 질문에 49.3%가 '공정하다'고 응답했다. '불공정하다'는 답변은 44.9%로 오차범위 내였다. 5.8%는 '잘모름'이었다. 연령별로 보면 30·40·50대는 '공정'이 우세했고, 만18세~29세·60대·70대 이상은 '불공정' 응답이 많았다. 만18세~29세는 공정하다 44.7%, 불공정하다 47.8%, 잘모름은 7.5%였다. 30대는 공정하다 52.2%, 불공정하다 40.4%, 잘모름 7.3%였다. 40대는 공정하다 61.3%, 불공정하다 34.8%, 잘모름 3.9%였다. 50대는 공정하다 61.3%, 불공정하다 35.2%, 잘모름 3.6%였다. 60대는 공정하다 40.7%, 불공정하다 53.8%, 잘모름 5.5%였다. 70대 이상은 공정하다 31.6%, 불공정하다 60.4%, 잘모름은 8.0%였다. 지역별로는 서울과 경기·인천, 광주·전남·전북은 '공정'으로 기울었다. 대전·충청·세종과 강원·제주, 부산·울산·경남, 대구·경북은 '불공정'하다고 봤다. 서울은 공정하다 52.9%, 불공정하다 41.5%, 잘모름 5.6%였다. 경기·인천은 공정하다 50.8%, 불공정하다 44.0%, 잘모름 5.1%였다. 대전·충청·세종은 공정하다 41.8%, 불공정하다 50.7%, 잘모름은 7.4%였다. 강원·제주는 공정하다 44.6%, 불공정하다 48.6%, 잘모름 6.8%였다. 부산·울산·경남은 공정하다 43.8%, 불공정하다 49.3%, 잘모름 6.9%였다. 대구·경북은 공정하다 37.7%, 불공정하다 56.4%, 잘모름은 5.9%였다. 광주·전남·전북은 공정하다 28.2%, 불공정하다 67.6%, 잘모름 4.2%였다. 지지정당별로는 더불어민주당 지지자들은 88.7%가 공정하다고 답했다. 반면 국민의힘 지지자들은 90.0%가 불공정하다고 응답했다. 조국혁신당 지지자들은 84.4%가 공정하다고 봤다. 개혁신당 지지자들은 공정하다 48.0%, 불공정하다 46.9%로 팽팽했다. 진보당 지지자들은 59.5%가 공정하다, 잘모름 27.0%, 불공정하다는 13.5%였다. 무당층은 51.8%가 공정하다, 32.9%는 불공정하다. 잘모름은 15.3%였다. 성별로는 남성 53.6%는 공정하다, 42.1%는 불공정하다였다. 여성은 45.1%가 공정하다, 47.7%는 불공정하다고 답했다. 박상병 정치평론가는 "우리사회의 마지막 성역이었던 헌법재판관의 양심까지도 공격하는 시대"라며 "대통령 탄핵 인용 또는 기각 이후 다음 정권에도 이러한 갈등은 더 심해질 것으로 예상한다"고 전했다. 김대은 미디어리서치 대표는 "지지층에 따라 서로 상반된 입장이 나오고 있어 향후 헌재에서 대통령 탄핵 기각과 인용중 어떠한 판결을 내리더라도 상당한 혼란이 있을 것으로 보인다"고 말했다. 이번 여론조사는 무선 RDD(무작위 전화 걸기)를 활용한 ARS를 통해 진행됐다. 신뢰 수준은 95%, 표본 오차는 ±3.1%p. 응답률은 7.2%다. 자세한 조사 개요 및 내용은 미디어리서치 홈페이지와 중앙선거여론조사심의위원회 홈페이지를 참조하면 된다. right@newspim.com 2025-02-20 11:00
사진
민주 42.3%·국힘 39.7%…오차 범위 내 역전 [서울=뉴스핌] 한태희 기자 = 더불어민주당의 지지율이 청년층·수도권 등 보수 결집으로 힘을 받았던 국민의힘 지지율을 오차 범위 안에서 역전한 것으로 조사됐다. 20~30대 청년층과 서울·경기·인천 등 수도권에서 집권 여당에 대한 호감도가 줄어든 영향으로 분석된다. 종합뉴스통신사 뉴스핌이 여론조사 전문기관 미디어리서치에 의뢰해 지난 18일부터 19일까지 이틀 동안 전국 만 18세 이상 남녀 1000명을 대상으로 진행해 20일 발표한 자동 응답시스템(ARS) 조사에서 '어느 정당을 지지하거나 약간이라도 더 호감을 가지고 있냐'는 질문에 민주당 지지율은 직전 조사(41.4%) 대비 0.9%포인트(p) 오른 42.3%로 나타났다. 국민의힘 지지율은 직전 조사(43.2%) 대비 3.5%p 하락한 39.7%다. 같은 기간 조국혁신당은 4.5%에서 3.5%로 1%p 떨어졌다. 개혁신당은 1.5%에서 2.3%로 0.8%p 올랐다. 진보당은 0.7%로 지지율에 변동이 없었다. '지지 정당 없음'은 5.9%에서 7.6%로 1.7%p 늘었다. '기타 다른 정당'은 2.3%에서 3.1%로 0.8%p 상승했다. '잘모름'은 0.5%에서 0.6%로 0.1%p 올랐다. [서울=뉴스핌] 한태희 기자 = 2025.02.20 ace@newspim.com 연령별로 보면 만 18~29세와 60대 이상은 국민의힘에 대한 지지도가 높았다. 30~50대는 민주당을 더 지지했다. 만 18~29세 정당 지지도를 보면 국민의힘 39.6%, 민주당 36.9%, 개혁신당 7.9%, 조국혁신당 3.6%, 기타 다른 정당 1.9%, 지지 정당 없음 9.5%, 잘모름 0.6%등이다. 직전 조사와 비교하면 민주당은 35.5%에서 36.9%로 1.4%p 올랐고 국민의힘은 46.3%에서 39.6%로 6.7%p 떨어졌다. 30대는 민주당 41.3%, 국민의힘 35.2%, 개혁신당 2.7%, 조국혁신당 1.4%, 진보당 1.3%, 기타 다른 정당 5.3%, 지지 정당 없음 11.4%, 잘모름 1.3% 등이다. 직전 조사 대비 민주당은 39.9%에서 41.3%로 1.4%p 상승했고 국민의힘은 41.1%에서 35.2%로 5.9%p 하락했다. 40대는 민주당 52.2%, 국민의힘 32.9%, 조국혁신당 3.8%, 개혁신당 2.9%, 진보당 0.5%, 기타 다른 정당 1.1%, 지지 정당 없음 1.1% 등이다. 50대는 민주당 50.2%, 국민의힘 27.8%, 조국혁신당 6.4%, 진보당 1.4%, 기타 다른 정당 4.5%, 지지 정당 없음 9.7% 등이다. 60대는 국민의힘 51%, 민주당 38.4%, 조국혁신당 3.2%, 개혁신당 0.5%, 기타 다른 정당 2.7%, 지지 정당 없음 3.7%, 잘모름 0.5% 등이다. 70대 이상은 국민의힘 54.7%, 민주당 31.5%, 조국혁신당 1.8%, 진보당 1.3%, 개혁신당 0.7%, 기타 다른 정당 3.2%, 지지 정당 없음 5.1%, 잘모름 1.7% 등이다. 지역별로 보면 직전 조사와 비교해 서울과 경기·인천 등 수도권에서 민주당이 국민의힘을 역전했다. 반대로 대전·충청·세종에서는 국민의힘이 민주당보다 앞섰다. 서울은 민주 42.5%, 국민의힘 37.4%, 조국혁신당 3.0%, 개혁신당 2.2%, 진보당 2.0%, 기타 다른 정당 3.5%, 지지 정당 없음 9.5% 등이다. 경기·인천은 민주 43.5%, 국민의힘 36.9%, 조국혁신당 4.1%, 개혁신당 3.2%, 진보당 0.3%, 기타 다른 정당 2.5%, 지지 정당 없음 8.6%, 잘모름 0.9% 등이다. 대전·충청·세종은 국민의힘 45.2%, 민주당 41.7%, 개혁신당 1.9%, 조국혁신당 0.8%, 기타 다른 정당 4.4%, 지지 정당 없음 6.0% 등이다. 강원·제주는 민주당 42%, 국민의힘 31.4%, 개혁신당 7.3%, 조국혁신당 4.3%, 진보당 2.4%, 기타 다른 정당 8.1%, 지지 정당 없음 4.4% 등이다. 부산·울산·경남은 국민의힘 47.1%, 민주당 34.7%, 조국혁신당 4.2%, 개혁신당 2.0%, 기타 다른 정당 2.1%, 지지 정당 없음 8.8%, 잘모름 1.1% 등이다. 대구·경북은 국민의힘 57.3%, 국민의힘 29.1%, 조국혁신당 3.8%, 기타 다른 정당 3.1%, 지지 정당 없음 6.7% 등이다. 광주·전남·전북은 민주당 63.7%, 국민의힘 22.1%, 조국혁신당 3.9%, 진보당 1.9%, 개혁신당 1.0%, 기타 다른 정당 2.3%, 지지 정당 없음 3.1%, 잘모름 2.0% 등이다. 성별로 보면 남성은 민주당 41.1%, 국민의힘 38.7%, 조국혁신당 4.2%, 개혁신당 3.3%, 진보당 1.1%, 기타 다른 정당 2.4%, 지지 정당 없음 8.6%, 잘모름 0.6% 등이다. 여성은 민주당 43.5%, 국민의힘 40.7%, 조국혁신당 2.9%, 개혁신당 1.4%, 진보당 0.4%, 기타 다른 정당 3.8%, 지지 정당 없음 6.7%, 잘모름 0.7% 등이다. 박상병 정치평론가는 "윤석열 대통령에 대한 탄핵이 기각될 수 있다는 예상과 극우 인사 준동, 국민의힘까지 힘을 합치며 (보수) 세력이 뭉치는 밴드왜건 효과로 국민의힘 지지율이 상승했으나 이제는 (보수 결집이) 정점에 이르렀다"며 "윤석열 대통령의 헌법재판소 법정 발언에 반감이 생기고 일부 극우 인사들이 밖에서 탄핵 무효를 외치는 게 중도층에는 꼴불견으로 비춰지고 있다"고 분석했다. 이어 "극우 인사들의 준동이 해도 너무 한다는 생각을 하는 사람이 늘며 국민의힘 지지율이 정점에서 하향 추세를 보이고 있다"고 부연했다. 이번 여론조사는 무선 무작위 전화걸기(RDD)를 활용한 ARS를 통해 진행됐다. 신뢰 수준은 95%, 표본 오차는 ±3.1%p. 응답률은 8.1%다. 자세한 조사 개요 및 내용은 미디어리서치 홈페이지와 중앙선거여론조사심의위원회 홈페이지를 참조하면 된다. ace@newspim.com 2025-02-20 11:00
안다쇼핑
Top으로 이동