전체기사 최신뉴스 GAM
KYD 디데이
글로벌·중국 미국·북미

속보

더보기

제롬 파월 연준 의장의 잭슨홀 연설(영문)

기사입력 :

최종수정 :

※ 본문 글자 크기 조정

  • 더 작게
  • 작게
  • 보통
  • 크게
  • 더 크게

※ 번역할 언어 선택

[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
김정은, 2018년 서울답방 하루전 취소 [서울=뉴스핌] 이영종 통일전문기자 = 문재인 정부 당시인 2018년 12월 김정은 북한 국무위원장이 서울 방문 일정을 확정하고도 "정치국 위원들이 반대한다"는 이유를 들어 남북 공동발표 하루 전 취소했다는 주장이 19일 제기됐다. [서울=뉴스핌] 이영종 통일전문기자 = 남북 정상회담 개최를 위한 대북 특사로 2018년 3월 5일 평양을 방문한 정의용 당시 청와대 국가안보실장이 김정은 북한 국무위원장에게 문재인 당시 대통령의 친서를 전달하고 있다. 왼쪽부터 윤건영 청와대 국정상황실장, 서훈 국가정보원장, 천해성 통일부 차관, 정의용 특사, 김정은, 김여정 노동당 제1부부장(당시 직책). [사진=청와대 제공] 2026.01.19 yjlee@newspim.com 당시 남북 정상회담 개최를 위한 대북특사 역할을 맡았던 윤건영 더불어민주당 의원은 저서 '판문점 프로젝트'(김영사)에서 "김정은 위원장이 9월 문재인 당시 대통령의 평양 방문과 정상회담이 열린 이후 12월 13~14일 서울을 방문키로 약속했다"면서 "삼성전자와 남산타워‧고척돔 방문 등 일정이 잡혀 있었다"고 밝혔다. 비밀리에 답방을 추진하기 위해 '북한산'이란 코드네임도 붙였고, 경호문제 등을 고려해 숙소는 남산에 자리한 반얀트리호텔로 정했다. 윤 의원은 책에서 "남북한은 11월 26일 김정은의 서울 답방을 공동 발표키로 했지만, 하루 전 북측이 "정치국 위원들이 신변안전을 우려해 '도로를 막겠다', '위원직을 사퇴하겠다'며 결사 반대한다"는 입장을 전해와 무산됐다고 주장했다. 북한은 당시 "김 위원장도 정치국 위원들의 뜻을 무시하고 서울을 방문할 수 없다"고 전해왔고, 우리 측이 문 당시 대통령의 신변안전 보장 서한을 전달했지만 결국 성사되지 못했다는 게 윤 의원은 설명이다. 하지만 김정은의 결정을 노동당 정치국 위원들이 반대했다는 건 북한 체제의 특성상 논리가 맞지 않는 것으로, 서울 답방을 하지 않으려는 핑계에 불과한 것으로 보인다. [서울=뉴스핌] 이영종 통일전문기자 = 지난해 12월 9~11일 열린 노동당 제8기 13차 전원회의에서 김정은 노동당 총비서 겸 국무위원장이 간부들과 이야기 하고 있다. [사진=노동신문] 2026.01.19 yjlee@newspim.com 김정은의 아버지인 김정일 국방위원장도 2000년 6월 평양 정상회담 공동선언에서 '서울 답방'을 약속했지만, 10년 넘게 지키지 않았고 결국 2011년 사망했다. 윤 의원도 책에서 "북측은 김 위원장의 경호와 안전 문제로 노동당 정치국이 유례없이 반발한다는 다소 황당한 근거를 내세웠지만 실제로는 미국의 (북미대화) 압력에 순응한 것"이라고 분석했다. 당시 청와대 국정실장을 맡고 있던 윤 의원은 정의용 안보실장 등과 함께 2018년 3월과 9월 평양을 방문해 특사 자격으로 김정은과 만났다. 윤 의원은 책에서 그해 3월 5일 평양 노동당 본부청사에서 만났을 때 김정은이 "김일성 주석의 유훈인 조선반도(한반도) 비핵화 원칙이 달라진 건 없다"며 "군사적 위협이 제거되고 정전 체제에서 안전이 조성된다면 우리가 핵을 보유할 이유가 없다"고 말한 것으로 전했다. [서울=뉴스핌] 이영종 통일전문기자 = 김정은 북한 국무위원장과 리설주 부부가 2018년 4월 1일 남측 예술단의 평양공연을 관람한 뒤 가수들과 기념촬영을 했다. 김정은 오른쪽이 가수 백지영 씨. [사진=뉴스핌 자료] 2026.01.19 yjlee@newspim.com 또 면담을 마치면서 "비인간적 사람으로 남고 싶지 않다"며 자신을 믿어달라는 입장도 밝힌 것으로 윤 의원은 덧붙였다. 하지만 김정은은 이듬해 2월 자신의 핵 집착과 회담 전략 실패 등으로 북미 하노이 정상회담이 파국을 맞자 문재인 대통령을 항해 "삶은 소대가리" 운운하는 격렬한 비방을 퍼부었고 남북관계는 현재까지 파국을 면치 못하고 있다. 김정은은 2년 전부터 남북관계를 적대관계로 규정하고 '한국=제1주적'이라며 차단막을 쳐왔다. 윤 의원은 김정은이 2018년 4월 1일 남측 예술단의 평양 공연 때 가수 백지영 씨가 부른 노래 '총 맞은 것처럼'을 듣고 "북측 젊은이들이 따라 부르면 심각한 상황이 오겠다"는 언급을 한 것으로 전했다. 김정은은 2020년 12월 반동사상문화배격법을 만들어 한국 드라마와 영화를 단순 시청하는 경우에도 징역 5~15년을 선고하는 등 한류문화를 철저하게 단속하고 있다.   [서울=뉴스핌] 이영종 통일전문기자 = 2018년 남북 정상회담 대북특사 비화를 담은 윤건영 더불어민주당 의원의 책 '판문점 프로젝트' [사진=김영사] 2026.01.19 yjlee@newspim.com yjlee@newspim.com 2026-01-19 07:46
사진
李대통령 국정지지율 53% [리얼미터] [서울=뉴스핌] 박찬제 기자 = 이재명 대통령의 국정수행 지지율이 3주만에 하락세로 53.1%를 기록했다는 여론조사가 19일 나왔다. 여론조사 리얼미터가 에너지경제신문 의뢰로 지난 5일부터 9일까지 전국 18살 이상 유권자 2516명을 대상으로 이 대통령 국정수행 평가 조사를 실시한 결과다.  이 대통령이 '잘한다'는 긍정 평가는 지난주보다 3.7%포인트(p) 낮은 53.1%였다. 이재명 대통령과 여야 6개 정당 지도부가 16일 오후 청와대 상춘재에서 오찬 간담회를 하고 있다. [사진=청와대] '잘못한다' 부정평가는 4.4%p 오른 42.2%였다. 긍·부정 격차는 10.9%p다. '잘 모름' 응답은 4.8%였다. 리얼미터 측은 "코스피 4800선 돌파와 한일 정상회담 등 경제·외교 성과가 있었는데도 정부의 검찰개혁안을 둘러싼 당정 이견 노출과 여권 인사들의 공천헌금 의혹 등 도덕성 논란이 겹치며 지지율이 하락세를 보였다"고 분석했다. 지난달 15∼16일 전국 18살 이상 1004명을 대상으로 한 정당 지지도 조사에서는 더불어민주당 42.5%, 국민의힘 37.0%의 지지율을 보였다. 민주당 지지율은 5.3%p가 떨어지며 4주 만에 하락세로 빠졌다. 국민의힘은 반면 3.5%p 상승하며 4주 만에 반등했다. 개혁신당 3.3%, 조국혁신당 2.5%, 진보당 1.7%였다. 무당층은 11.5%였다. 리얼미터는 민주당의 경우 강선우·김병기 의원 공천헌금 의혹 수사 본격화로 도덕성 논란이 지지율 하락 원인이라고 분석했다. 중대범죄수사청(중수청)과 공소청법을 둘러싼 당정 갈등도 지지율 하락 원인으로 봤다.  반면 국민의힘은 특검의 윤석열 전 대통령 사형 구형과 한동훈 제명 논란으로 대구·경북(TK)과 보수층 등 전통 지지층이 결집한 것이 지지율 반등 원인이라고 리얼미터 측은 분석했다. 대통령 국정수행 지지도 조사는 신뢰수준 95%에 표준오차는 ±2.0%p, 정당 지지도는 95% 신뢰수준에 표본오차 ±3.1%p다. 대통령 국정수행 지지도 조사 응답률은 4.5%, 정당 지지도 조사 응답률은 3.8%였다. 보다 자세한 내용은 중앙선거여론조사심의위원회 홈페이지 참조하면 된다. pcjay@newspim.com 2026-01-19 09:25
기사 번역
결과물 출력을 준비하고 있어요.
종목 추적기

S&P 500 기업 중 기사 내용이 영향을 줄 종목 추적

결과물 출력을 준비하고 있어요.

긍정 영향 종목

  • Lockheed Martin Corp. Industrials
    우크라이나 안보 지원 강화 기대감으로 방산 수요 증가 직접적. 미·러 긴장 완화 불확실성 속에서도 방위산업 매출 안정성 강화 예상됨.

부정 영향 종목

  • Caterpillar Inc. Industrials
    우크라이나 전쟁 장기화 시 건설 및 중장비 수요 불확실성 직접적. 글로벌 인프라 투자 지연으로 매출 성장 둔화 가능성 있음.
이 내용에 포함된 데이터와 의견은 뉴스핌 AI가 분석한 결과입니다. 정보 제공 목적으로만 작성되었으며, 특정 종목 매매를 권유하지 않습니다. 투자 판단 및 결과에 대한 책임은 투자자 본인에게 있습니다. 주식 투자는 원금 손실 가능성이 있으므로, 투자 전 충분한 조사와 전문가 상담을 권장합니다.
안다쇼핑
Top으로 이동