欧洲央行下个月也会降息吗?

币界网Published on 2024-08-22Last updated on 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

现在有很多关于欧洲央行(ECB)以及他们是否计划下个月降息的讨论。九月是每个人都在关注的月份。

超过80%的分析师几乎一致预计,欧洲央行将与美联储一起在下个月触发降息。他们还在12月押注另一场比赛。

原因?通胀没有回落,仍高于欧洲央行2%的目标。欧洲央行行长克里斯蒂娜·拉加德表示,任何降息都将取决于数据,尤其是通胀情况。

克里斯蒂娜·拉加德,欧洲央行行长

但就目前的情况而言,很难看到他们再拖延太久。目前,欧洲央行将主要再融资操作的关键利率定为4.25%,存款工具的关键利率为3.75%。2024年6月,在适度削减后,这些指标进行了调整。

但情绪正在发生变化——很多人都在谈论我们将要进行更多的削减。欧洲央行正在谨慎行事,试图在不使欧元区经济崩溃的情况下将通胀率引导回目标水平,而欧元区经济已经在缓慢增长和物价上涨中苦苦挣扎。

Martins Kazaks是欧洲央行管理委员会成员,也是拉脱维亚央行行长。他直截了当地说,他准备在9月份讨论再次降息。

“鉴于我们目前掌握的数据,我非常愿意讨论9月份再次降息的问题。”

但哈萨克斯坦人并没有抢先一步——他正在等待新的预测和8月份的通胀数据,然后再做出任何最终决定。他补充说:

“货币政策在降低通胀、为增长创造基础、减少不确定性方面做得很好。”

但他也指出,缺乏结构性改善,这意味着整体增长“相对疲软”

在7月的会议上,欧洲央行决定保持开放的心态,承认通胀前景面临的持续风险。从那以后,情况并没有太大改善。生产率数据没有达到欧洲央行的预期,尽管有一些好消息。

马丁斯哈萨克人

最近公布的数据显示,第二季度谈判工资的增长有所放缓,这可能意味着通货膨胀最终将在2025年恢复到欧洲央行2%的目标。

哈萨克人并不完全悲观。他认为,欧洲央行到2025年将通胀率恢复到2%的目标仍然触手可及。

但即使他们确实继续“两次”降低存款利率(目前为3.75%),他认为货币政策仍将保持足够的限制性,以控制通货膨胀。

Related Reads

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit1h ago

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit1h ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit2h ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片