評論
打印
Inflation has behaved strangely over the past decade.
在過去的十年中，通脹表現得很陌生。
The recession that followed the financial crisis of 2007-08 sent American unemployment soaring to 10%.
2007-08年金融危機之后的衰退曾令美國的失業率升至10%。
But underlying inflation fell below 1% only briefly—nothing like the fall that models predicted.
但是，基礎通脹僅短暫地跌到過1%以下——無一類似于模型預測的那種下跌。
Because the only way economists can estimate the natural rate is by watching how inflation and unemployment move in reality, they assumed that the natural rate had risen (an estimate in 2013 by Robert Gordon, of Northwestern University, put it at 6.5%).
由于經濟學家能夠估算自然比率的唯一方式就是觀察通脹和失業如何現實中波動，因而，他們假定自然比率上升了(由西北大學的羅伯特·戈登在2013年提出的一種估算將其設定為6.5%)。
Yet as labour markets have tightened—unemployment was 4.3% in July—inflation has remained quiescent.
然而，盡管勞動力市場收緊了——失業率在今年4月為4.3%——通脹仍舊波瀾不驚。
Estimates of the natural rate have been revised back down.
自然比率的估算又被調低了回來。
Such volatility in estimates of the natural rate limits its usefulness to policymakers.
自然比率估算的這種波動使得它對決策者的有用性大打折扣。
Some argue that the wrong data are being used, because the unemployment rate excludes those who have stopped looking for work.
有人指出，錯誤的數據正被使用中。因為失業率排除了那些停止尋找工作的人。
Others say that the short-term Phillips curve has flattened as inflation expectations have become ever more firmly anchored.
其他人認為，短期的菲利普斯曲線已經隨著通脹預期變得愈發穩固地錨定不動而走平了。
The question is: how long will they remain so?
現在的問題是：它們會維持這樣多久？
So long as low unemployment fails to generate enough inflation, central banks will face pressure to keep applying stimulus.
只要低失業率沒能產生足夠的通脹，央行就將面對保持運用刺激的壓力。
Their officials worry that if inflation suddenly surges, they might lose their hard-won credibility and end up back in 1980, having to create a recession to get inflation back down again.
央行官員擔心，如果通脹驟然飆升，他們可能失去來之不易的信譽，最后的結果是退回到1980年，不得不制造一次衰退以便讓通脹再次回落。
This recent experience has led some to doubt the very existence of the natural rate of unemployment.
最近的經歷讓有些人對失業的自然比率的真實存在產生了懷疑。
But to reject the natural rate entirely, you would need to believe one of two things.
但是，要想徹底否定自然比率，就必需相信兩件事中的一件。
Either central banks cannot influence the rate of unemployment even in the short term, or they can peg unemployment as low as they like—zero, even—without sparking inflation.
央行要么不能在短期內影響失業率，要么能夠在不激起通脹的情況下，把失業率固定在與他們所喜歡的位置一樣低——甚至是0——的位置。
Neither claim is credible.
這兩種觀點，沒有一個是可信的。
The natural rate of unemployment surely exists.
失業的自然比率的確存在。
Whether it is knowable is another matter.
它是否可知另當別論。
譯文來源考研英語時事閱讀
