美国经济展望：为何重复出现的生产率激增可能不再是缓解价格压力的万能药

Date US Economic Perspectives Why a repeat productivity surge may not bethe same panacea for price pressures Matthew Luzzetti, Ph.D.Chief US Economist+1-212-250-6161 •As the Fed contemplates the appropriate path for policy over the comingquarters, broader questions have arisen about parallels between thecurrent period and the productivity boom of the late 1990s. During thatearlierepisode, then Fed Chair Greenspan cited strong productivity gainsinarguing against rapid rate increases to tame robust growth.Inresponse, the economy registered consistent 4%+ real GDP growthalongside at or below target inflation and a lower unemployment rate. Brett RyanSenior US Economist+1-212-250-6294 Justin WeidnerEconomist+1-212-469-1679 •The current period has an important parallel to that earlier episode. AI-driven capex has surged in recent quarters, and over the past two yearsproductivity growthhas registered its best performance during anexpansion since the late 1990s. The backdropof a historically tight labormarket in recent years combined with the promise of innovations fromthe implementation of AI supports strong productivity growth ahead. Amy YangEconomist+1-212-250-9959 •However, a number of factors are less supportive than in the late 1990s.These forces include a reversal of the positiveUS andglobal labor supplyshocksof the 1990s; overturning the disinflationary forces of the pushtowards globalization during that period; and the potential for tariffs toact as an exogenous source of inflationary pressures that will also offsetsome of the underlying gains to productivity. •While it is possible–even likely--that AI leads to a productivity repeat ofthe late 1990s, the aforementioned differences could well lead to a lessbenign inflation backdrop compared to that period. For these reasons, wewould argue for caution in extrapolating the productivity similarities to asimilarly dovish stance for the Fed. Introduction As the Fed contemplates the appropriate path for policy over the coming months,broaderquestions have arisen about whether there are important parallelsbetween the current period and the late 1990s. During that earlierperiod, thenFed Chair Greenspan cautioned against rapid rate increases to tame robustgrowth. At the core of his argument was a sustainedproductivity boom, drivenprimarily by the information and communications technology (ICT) revolution,that allowed the US economy to grow at rapid rates without renewed inflationarypressures. Greenspan saw this dynamic early on and correctly withstood pressureto tighten policy. Distributed on: 29/09/2025 16:07:21 GMTDistributed on: 29/09/2025 16:07:21 GMTFast forward to today, productivity growth has accelerated to the fastest paceduring an expansion since the late 1990s and the AI revolutionoffersreasons to be optimisticthis boomcanbe sustained. With it, inflationary pressures could betamed,and the labor market could undergo an upheaval that lifts unemployment,at least temporarily. Are the parallels between these two periods strong enough to argue that the Fedshouldtodaytake a similarly dovish approach to themonetary policyoutlook? We explore this question in this report. We begin by noting the similarities inproductivity dynamics. However, we then argue that the backdrop for growth,inflation,and the labor market is otherwise dissimilar to the late 1990s. While thatearlier period benefited fromotherpositive supply-side dynamics--in addition toproductivity--that allowed growth to remain robust while keeping inflation incheck, the current episode is punctuated by the presence of adverse supplyshocks. Turningback the clock: Greenspan’s productivity prescience By 1995, the Fed had completed a tightening cycle of 3 percentage points, liftingthe fed funds rate from 3%to 6%. At that time, theUSeconomy looked close tothe Fed’s objectives–the unemployment rate had fallen to ~5.5%, not far from its5.25% level in 1989 and 1990 prior to the recession, and core PCE inflation hadstabilized near 2.25% over the year prior. After dipping in 1995, real GDPaccelerated to 4-5% on a sustained basis over the 1996-1999 period, eventuallypushing the unemployment rate below 4%, its lowest level since the late 1960s. Source:BEA, Haver Analytics, Deutsche Bank Source:BEA, BLS, Haver Analytics, Deutsche Bank Source:FRB, Haver Analytics, Deutsche Bank With the history of the inflation pickup in that earlier period in mind, and withmotivations of remaining pre-emptive to prevent against a reversal of inflationprogress, some Fed officials began to push for tighter monetary policy. From mid-1996 through end-1998, Greenspan faced 11 dissents, all for tighter policy. Morethan half of those dissents (6) came in 1998 alone, including a meeting (May) withtwo dissents for tighter policy. Greenspan withstood the push for tighter policy over this period. His mainargument was that robust economic growth was being driven by a surge inproductivity, reflecting the innovative benefits of