IN THE EARLY 1970s Arthur Burns(阿瑟·伯恩斯，1970年代美联储主席) had an inflation problem. As one supply shock followed another, the pipe-smoking Federal Reserve chairman, known as the “Pope of Economics(“经济学教皇”，伯恩斯的绰号)”, responded by excommunicating(逐出教会；排除) prices he blamed on “special factors”. The Arab oil embargo(1973年阿拉伯石油禁运) pushing up crude? Look past(忽略；看穿) energy. A collapse in Peru’s anchovy harvest(秘鲁鳀鱼捕捞，影响全球饲料价格) driving up feed costs? Strip out(剔除；去除) food. When inflation still looked too high, out went used cars, home purchases and mobile homes. Even rising jewellery prices were blamed on “gold mania” and waved away(不予理会；挥手打发), as Stephen Roach(斯蒂芬·罗奇，前美联储经济学家), then a young Fed economist, later recalled. In search of the one true inflation rate, Burns kept narrowing the canon(缩小正统范围). Inflation, meanwhile, was becoming ever more catholic(普遍的；广泛的).
20世纪70年代初，阿瑟·伯恩斯面临通胀难题。当供给冲击接踵而至时，这位抽着烟斗、被称为“经济学教皇”的美联储主席，将他归咎于“特殊因素”的价格逐出教门。阿拉伯石油禁运推高原油价格？那就忽略能源。秘鲁鳀鱼捕捞崩溃推高饲料成本？那就剔除食品。当通胀看起来仍然过高时，二手车、购房和移动房屋也被排除在外。正如当时还是年轻美联储经济学家的斯蒂芬·罗奇后来回忆的那样，就连珠宝价格上涨也被归咎于“黄金狂热”而不予理会。为了寻找唯一真实的通胀率，伯恩斯不断缩小正统教义的范围。与此同时，通胀却变得越来越普遍。
Half a century later Kevin Warsh has taken up the same challenge. The Fed’s new-ish chairman has made a mission out of pinning down(确定；锁定) underlying(基础的；潜在的) inflation (“underlying” is fast becoming his favourite adjective). Yet he has dismissed the usual guide, “core” indices excluding food and energy, as a “rough swag(粗略的估计)” for where inflation is headed. Mr Warsh instead prefers “trimmed averages(截尾均值)”, which exclude the biggest price swings, and measures of inflation’s breadth(广度；广泛性). On September 16th he complained that prices were rising by more than 3% in “too many” product categories. That was one reason why the Fed raised interest rates for the first time in three years. He has even sent a task-force(特别工作组) hunting for cleaner, timelier(更及时的) economic signals. Can Mr Warsh get closer to the underlying trend without stumbling into Burns’s trap?(沃什能否在不落入伯恩斯陷阱的情况下，更接近基础趋势？)
半个世纪后，凯文·沃什接过了同样的挑战。这位上任不久的美联储主席把锁定基础通胀当作使命（“基础”正迅速成为他最喜欢的形容词）。然而，他摒弃了通常的指南——剔除食品和能源的“核心”指数，称其对于预测通胀走向而言是“粗略的估计”。沃什反而青睐“截尾均值”，即排除最大价格波动的指标，以及衡量通胀广度的指标。9月16日，他抱怨说，价格上涨超过3%的产品类别“太多”了。这是美联储三年来首次加息的原因之一。他甚至派出一个特别工作组，寻找更干净、更及时的经济信号。沃什能否在不落入伯恩斯陷阱的情况下，更接近基础趋势？
Underlying inflation is, roughly, the part of today’s inflation most likely to still be there tomorrow. In a market economy, individual prices are always moving around. A drought makes coffee dearer(更贵的); a glut(供应过剩) makes cars cheaper. In August prices for mobile-phone services mysteriously jumped by nearly 6% in the space of a month. Such idiosyncratic(独特的； idiosyncratic 的) movements can move headline inflation without saying much about the broader trend. Central bankers therefore try to look through(看穿；忽略) the one-offs(一次性事件), training their gaze(将目光转向) instead on the underlying movement in the general price level.
基础通胀大致是指今天的通胀中最有可能在明天依然存在的部分。在市场经济中，单个价格总是在波动。干旱让咖啡更贵；供应过剩让汽车更便宜。8月，移动电话服务价格在一个月内神秘地跳涨了近6%。这类 idiosyncratic（独特的）波动可以影响整体通胀，却无法说明更广泛的趋势。因此，央行官员试图看穿这些一次性因素，将目光转向一般价格水平的基础走势。
The 500,000,001st price is right
第500,000,001个价格才是对的