发表于 2025年9月18日
When the Federal Reserve cut interest rates Wednesday, it looked like routine monetary policy. Markets largely shrugged, and Chair Jerome Powell mostly avoided acrimonious dissents over a decision that came amid unprecedented political confrontation.
The pivot he began with Wednesday’s reduction might represent Powell’s last stand to prove an independent U.S. central bank can navigate complex crosscurrents before appointees more aligned with President Trump’s priorities assume greater control. Powell’s term as chair ends in the spring.
For the third time in his tenure, Powell is attempting the delicate maneuver of cutting rates not because a recession appears imminent, but rather to prevent one. His 2019 effort was interrupted by the pandemic before its effectiveness could be judged. Last year, the labor market steadied itself, but a decline in inflation stalled this year amid rising prices that could reflect the effects of large tariff increases by Trump.
The upshot is that this is a riskier calculation. The Fed is navigating an extraordinary challenge to its traditional independence on top of both weaker growth and sticky inflation that didn’t complicate those other episodes.
History offers three potential outcomes for Powell’s gambit. In the mid-1990s, the Fed successfully engineered a “soft landing” by dialing back rate hikes and extending economic expansion without igniting inflation—the holy grail every Fed chair seeks to replicate.
In 1967, premature cuts helped kindle the persistent price pressures of the 1970s that were exacerbated by political pressure and a misdiagnosis of economic conditions. And in 1990, 2001 and 2007, cuts weren’t able to prevent recession.
Fed officials’ projections released Wednesday for growth, inflation and employment were little changed from June. While only a narrow majority had penciled in two cuts back then, on Wednesday a slim majority projected three cuts for the remainder of 2025, including this week’s cut. That change is a signal that consecutive rate cuts at the Fed’s October and December meetings have become more likely.
The reason? A meaningful slowdown in the pace of job growth this summer. When the Fed agreed to hold rates steady seven weeks ago, “the labor market was in solid condition,” Powell said Wednesday.
Revisions lowered three-month average job gains to 29,000 in August from an initially reported 150,000 in June. That latter number was the latest data available at the Fed’s prior meeting. The figures suggest “there really is meaningful downside risk,” Powell said.
Some economists say those are reasons Powell and his colleagues should have been even more aggressive, including by making a larger half-point reduction this week. “Job growth has rarely slowed to its current pace and then reaccelerated” without a recession in between, said Jeffrey Cleveland, chief economist at Payden & Rygel, a Los Angeles-based asset manager.
There has only been one close exception since 1990: last summer, when private-sector job growth slowed through August and then picked up. “Could we repeat the feat? I’m not sure, but I’m skeptical,” he said.
Cleveland is worried the Fed has put too much emphasis on the risks that tariffs will stoke inflation and not enough attention on how they could derail hiring, including for manufacturers that face higher costs for imported goods and materials. Companies facing higher input costs might protect profits by freezing hiring and not replacing workers when they leave, making labor markets more brittle and susceptible to a slowdown that feeds on itself.
Others are concerned that the Fed could misread structural shifts as temporary cyclical weakness. The Trump administration’s policy experiments—including immigration restrictions that are limiting labor force growth and tariff increases far broader than in his first term—might be permanently altering the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services.
That makes them especially worried about cutting rates too much. After years of elevated inflation, consumers and businesses could grow more accustomed to regular price increases in a way that allows higher inflation to persist, said Ethan Harris, former head of global economic research at Bank of America.
“We shouldn’t assume that because economists are confident that the Fed will get inflation down that the average person is,” said Harris. “There’s a bit of a disconnect here. The average American is very worried about inflation. Inflation concerns drove the last election.”
Buoyant stock markets highlight a puzzle: Despite unease about labor-market softness and a stagnant housing sector, consumer spending has held up and businesses are pouring money into artificial-intelligence infrastructure. The question is whether spending will eventually weaken as income growth slows or whether it can be sustained by other forces.
Powell was upfront about the two-sided risks of weaker employment and firmer inflation. “There’s no risk-free path,” he said.
Some of Powell’s explanations for the rate cut—and officials’ economic and rate projections—seemed more muddled than usual, but that reflected the moment, said Blake Gwinn at RBC Capital Markets. “We don’t think it’s his fault that no coherent, clear take exists,” he said.
For now, Powell has managed to maintain consensus despite disagreement over the outlook and intense political heat. Three Fed officials who cast votes this week—all of them presidents of regional Fed banks—have recently signaled apprehension about inflation but backed Wednesday’s move. So did two Fed governors who dissented from July’s decision, arguing then that the central bank should be cutting rather than holding rates steady.
The latest reduction will lower the Fed’s benchmark rate to a range between 4% and 4.25%.
On Wednesday, Powell faced a dissent only from one Fed governor, Stephen Miran, who began the week as a senior adviser to Trump but was confirmed and sworn in to a 4½-month term in time to vote at this week’s meeting. Miran favored a larger half-point cut and projected rates of just below 3% by year-end.
The rate projections highlight the prospect of more contentious debates ahead, divisions likely to persist regardless of who chairs the Fed. Seven of 19 meeting participants penciled in no more cuts this year and two thought only one more cut would be needed.
If the incoming data doesn’t resolve divisions, Powell faces the prospect of defending the central bank’s independence one precarious decision at a time. “We’re in a meeting-by-meeting situation,” he said.
When the Federal Reserve cut interest rates Wednesday, it looked like routine monetary policy. Markets largely shrugged, and Chair Jerome Powell mostly avoided acrimonious dissents over a decision that came amid unprecedented political confrontation.
美联储周三宣布降息时，看起来只是一次常规的货币政策操作。市场整体反应平淡，而在这项做出于前所未有的政治对抗背景下的决定上，主席Jerome Powell基本避免了尖锐的反对意见。
The pivot he began with Wednesday’s reduction might represent Powell’s last stand to prove an independent U.S. central bank can navigate complex crosscurrents before appointees more aligned with President Trump’s priorities assume greater control. Powell’s term as chair ends in the spring.
周三降息所开启的这一政策转向，可能是鲍威尔的“最后一搏”，意在在更符合特朗普总统优先事项的任命者取得更大控制权之前，证明一个独立的美国中央银行（美联储）能够在复杂多变的形势中顺利应对。鲍威尔的主席任期将在今春结束。
For the third time in his tenure, Powell is attempting the delicate maneuver of cutting rates not because a recession appears imminent, but rather to prevent one. His 2019 effort was interrupted by the pandemic before its effectiveness could be judged. Last year, the labor market steadied itself, but a decline in inflation stalled this year amid rising prices that could reflect the effects of large tariff increases by Trump.
在其任期内的第三次尝试中，Powell正进行一项微妙操作：降息并不是因为经济衰退已迫在眉睫，而是为了预防衰退。2019年的降息行动在其效果尚未可评之前就被疫情打断。去年劳动力市场趋于稳定，但今年通胀的回落停滞，物价上升，这可能反映出特朗普大幅提高关税所带来的影响。
The upshot is that this is a riskier calculation. The Fed is navigating an extraordinary challenge to its traditional independence on top of both weaker growth and sticky inflation that didn’t complicate those other episodes.
归根结底，这是一次更高风险的权衡。美联储在较为疲弱的增长与“黏性”通胀（指难以下降的通胀）双重压力之上，还要应对对其传统独立性的非同寻常挑战，而这些因素在先前那些阶段并未造成如此复杂的局面。
History offers three potential outcomes for Powell’s gambit. In the mid-1990s, the Fed successfully engineered a “soft landing” by dialing back rate hikes and extending economic expansion without igniting inflation—the holy grail every Fed chair seeks to replicate.
历史为鲍威尔的这步险棋提供了三种可能的结局。上世纪90年代中期，美联储通过放缓加息步伐，在不引发通胀的情况下延长了经济扩张，成功实现了“软着陆”——这是每一位美联储主席都力求复制的“圣杯”式目标。
In 1967, premature cuts helped kindle the persistent price pressures of the 1970s that were exacerbated by political pressure and a misdiagnosis of economic conditions. And in 1990, 2001 and 2007, cuts weren’t able to prevent recession.
1967年，过早降息助长了随后在20世纪70年代持续的通胀压力，而这种压力又因政治施压和对经济状况的误判而加剧。至于1990年、2001年和2007年，降息也未能阻止经济陷入衰退。
Fed officials’ projections released Wednesday for growth, inflation and employment were little changed from June. While only a narrow majority had penciled in two cuts back then, on Wednesday a slim majority projected three cuts for the remainder of 2025, including this week’s cut. That change is a signal that consecutive rate cuts at the Fed’s October and December meetings have become more likely.
美联储官员周三发布的关于经济增速、通胀和就业的预测与6月相比变化不大。此前仅有微弱多数预期会降息两次，而周三已有小幅多数预计在2025年剩余时间里将降息三次，其中包括本周这一次。这一变化表明，美联储在10月和12月会议上连续降息的可能性上升。
The reason? A meaningful slowdown in the pace of job growth this summer. When the Fed agreed to hold rates steady seven weeks ago, “the labor market was in solid condition,” Powell said Wednesday.
原因何在？今年夏季就业增长的速度明显放缓。鲍威尔周三表示，七周前美联储（Federal Reserve）同意维持利率不变时，“劳动力市场状况稳健”。
Revisions lowered three-month average job gains to 29,000 in August from an initially reported 150,000 in June. That latter number was the latest data available at the Fed’s prior meeting. The figures suggest “there really is meaningful downside risk,” Powell said.
经修订后，三个月平均新增就业在8月份降至29,000人，低于6月份最初公布的150,000人。后一个数字是美联储上一场会议时可获得的最新数据。鲍威尔表示，这些数据表明“确实存在具有实质性的下行风险”。
Some economists say those are reasons Powell and his colleagues should have been even more aggressive, including by making a larger half-point reduction this week. “Job growth has rarely slowed to its current pace and then reaccelerated” without a recession in between, said Jeffrey Cleveland, chief economist at Payden & Rygel, a Los Angeles-based asset manager.
一些经济学家表示，这些情况意味着Powell及其同僚本应采取更为激进的行动，包括在本周一次性下调半个百分点（即50个基点）。洛杉矶的资产管理公司Payden & Rygel的首席经济学家Jeffrey Cleveland表示：“在不经历一场衰退的情况下，就业增长很少会像目前这样放缓后又重新加速。”
There has only been one close exception since 1990: last summer, when private-sector job growth slowed through August and then picked up. “Could we repeat the feat? I’m not sure, but I’m skeptical,” he said.
自1990年以来，只有一个接近的例外：去年夏天，私营部门的就业增长一直放缓到8月，随后又回升。他说：“我们能再现这一表现吗？我不确定，但我持怀疑态度。”
Cleveland is worried the Fed has put too much emphasis on the risks that tariffs will stoke inflation and not enough attention on how they could derail hiring, including for manufacturers that face higher costs for imported goods and materials. Companies facing higher input costs might protect profits by freezing hiring and not replacing workers when they leave, making labor markets more brittle and susceptible to a slowdown that feeds on itself.
Cleveland 担心，联储（the Fed）过于强调关税可能推高通胀的风险，却没有足够关注关税如何拖累招聘——包括让那些依赖进口商品与原材料、因而承担更高成本的制造商受到冲击。面对更高的投入成本，公司可能通过冻结招聘、并在员工离职时不予补缺来保护利润，这会让劳动力市场变得更加脆弱，更容易陷入一种自我强化的放缓。
Others are concerned that the Fed could misread structural shifts as temporary cyclical weakness. The Trump administration’s policy experiments—including immigration restrictions that are limiting labor force growth and tariff increases far broader than in his first term—might be permanently altering the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services.
也有人担心，美联储（Federal Reserve）可能会把结构性变化误判为暂时性的周期性走弱。特朗普政府的政策试验——包括限制劳动力增长的移民限制，以及远远超过其第一任期幅度的关税上调——可能正在永久性地改变经济的商品与服务产出能力（产能）。
That makes them especially worried about cutting rates too much. After years of elevated inflation, consumers and businesses could grow more accustomed to regular price increases in a way that allows higher inflation to persist, said Ethan Harris, former head of global economic research at Bank of America.
这使他们对降息过度格外担心。美国银行（Bank of America）前全球经济研究主管Ethan Harris表示，经过多年的通胀高企，消费者和企业可能会更习惯于经常性的涨价，而这种适应可能会让较高的通胀持续下去。
“We shouldn’t assume that because economists are confident that the Fed will get inflation down that the average person is,” said Harris. “There’s a bit of a disconnect here. The average American is very worried about inflation. Inflation concerns drove the last election.”
哈里斯说：“我们不该因为经济学家有信心美联储（Federal Reserve，简称Fed）能把通胀压下来，就假定普通人也同样有信心。这里存在一定的脱节。普通美国人对通胀非常担忧。对通胀的担心推动了上一次选举的走向。”
Buoyant stock markets highlight a puzzle: Despite unease about labor-market softness and a stagnant housing sector, consumer spending has held up and businesses are pouring money into artificial-intelligence infrastructure. The question is whether spending will eventually weaken as income growth slows or whether it can be sustained by other forces.
股市走强凸显了一个谜题：尽管人们对劳动力市场走软和住房行业停滞感到不安，居民消费依然保持韧性，而企业正大量投入人工智能基础设施。问题在于，随着收入增速放缓，消费是否最终会转弱，还是能在其他力量的支撑下继续维持。
Powell was upfront about the two-sided risks of weaker employment and firmer inflation. “There’s no risk-free path,” he said.
鲍威尔坦言，就业走弱与通胀更为顽固这两方面的风险并存。他说：“没有一条没有风险的道路。”
Some of Powell’s explanations for the rate cut—and officials’ economic and rate projections—seemed more muddled than usual, but that reflected the moment, said Blake Gwinn at RBC Capital Markets. “We don’t think it’s his fault that no coherent, clear take exists,” he said.
RBC Capital Markets 的 Blake Gwinn 表示，鲍威尔对本次降息的一些解释——以及官员们对经济与利率的预测——显得比平时更为含混，但这恰恰反映了当下的局面。他说：“我们不认为如今之所以没有一个连贯、清晰的定论是他的责任。”
For now, Powell has managed to maintain consensus despite disagreement over the outlook and intense political heat. Three Fed officials who cast votes this week—all of them presidents of regional Fed banks—have recently signaled apprehension about inflation but backed Wednesday’s move. So did two Fed governors who dissented from July’s decision, arguing then that the central bank should be cutting rather than holding rates steady.
目前，尽管在前景判断上存在分歧、政治压力也极大，Powell 仍设法维持了共识。本周参与表决的三位美联储官员——均为地区联储行长——近期都对通胀表示担忧，但仍支持了周三的举措。与此同时，两位在7月决议中持异议的联邦储备委员会理事这次也投了赞成票；他们当时主张央行应降息而不是按兵不动。
The latest reduction will lower the Fed’s benchmark rate to a range between 4% and 4.25%.
最新一次降息将把美联储的基准利率下调至4%至4.25%的区间。
On Wednesday, Powell faced a dissent only from one Fed governor, Stephen Miran, who began the week as a senior adviser to Trump but was confirmed and sworn in to a 4½-month term in time to vote at this week’s meeting. Miran favored a larger half-point cut and projected rates of just below 3% by year-end.
周三，Powell只遭到一位美联储理事的反对：Stephen Miran。他在本周之初还是特朗普的高级顾问，但随后在本周会议投票前获确认并宣誓就任，任期为4个半月。Miran主张更大幅度的降息，即一次性下调半个百分点，并预计到年底利率将降至略低于3%。
The rate projections highlight the prospect of more contentious debates ahead, divisions likely to persist regardless of who chairs the Fed. Seven of 19 meeting participants penciled in no more cuts this year and two thought only one more cut would be needed.
利率路径预测凸显出接下来可能会出现更为激烈的争论；这种分歧很可能会持续存在，不论由谁担任美联储主席。19位与会者中，有7位在各自的预测中写下“今年不再降息”，还有2位认为今年只需要再降一次。
If the incoming data doesn’t resolve divisions, Powell faces the prospect of defending the central bank’s independence one precarious decision at a time. “We’re in a meeting-by-meeting situation,” he said.
如果最新数据仍不能弥合分歧，鲍威尔可能不得不一次次以充满不确定的决策来捍卫美联储的独立性。他说：“我们现在是一次会议一次会议地往前推进。”