WEBVTT - Single Best Idea with Tom Keene: Rich Clarida & Lael Brainard

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:17.120
<v Speaker 2>The single best idea and going back over two decades,

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:20.919
<v Speaker 2>today was one of the most extraordinary shows we've ever done.

0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:24.079
<v Speaker 2>I really want to say we try to do a

0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:28.800
<v Speaker 2>different conversation on technology. We are able to execute that today.

0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:35.240
<v Speaker 2>Mark lehmannan from San Francisco definitive with Citizens JMP decades

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:39.520
<v Speaker 2>of work in the society of San Francisco in Silicon

0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:42.320
<v Speaker 2>Valley and what they're doing. Perfect. To have him in

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:48.559
<v Speaker 2>today with Facebook Meta and with Microsoft as well. Then

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:51.360
<v Speaker 2>to have our Ana Agarana and men Deep Singh with

0:00:51.520 --> 0:00:54.520
<v Speaker 2>this was just brilliant. Aul Trump by two vice chairman

0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:57.080
<v Speaker 2>with US today. Lal Brainer will get to in a

0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:01.000
<v Speaker 2>moment at Harvard, but here with Columbia Universe in PIMCO

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:05.000
<v Speaker 2>is a former vice chairman of the FED. Richard Clarita

0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 2>on when you cut rates, do you establish a trend

0:01:10.400 --> 0:01:12.319
<v Speaker 2>or can you do a one off?

0:01:12.640 --> 0:01:14.360
<v Speaker 1>If you go back to when Tom, you and I

0:01:14.400 --> 0:01:18.760
<v Speaker 1>start our careers in the eighties with Vulgar, Vulgar would

0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:20.679
<v Speaker 1>never give you an indication of where rates were going

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:23.600
<v Speaker 1>to be in years. It was one meeting at a

0:01:23.640 --> 0:01:25.920
<v Speaker 1>time and for the first half of Green span. It

0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>was one meeting then at a time. This is really important, folks. Well,

0:01:29.600 --> 0:01:32.800
<v Speaker 1>two things happened. The academic literature to which I contributed

0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:35.960
<v Speaker 1>said there can be benefits to providing guidance on their

0:01:36.040 --> 0:01:40.080
<v Speaker 1>rate path, and so I think policymakers fall in love

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:42.720
<v Speaker 1>with that idea. They doubled down on it when we

0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:45.840
<v Speaker 1>hit the zero lower bound, and it made sense to

0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:47.840
<v Speaker 1>do that. But one of the points I make in

0:01:47.840 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>the paper that you nicely plugged, Tom, is that monetary

0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 1>policy is not immune from the laws of economics. There

0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 1>are benefits and costs to decisions, and there are benefits

0:01:58.440 --> 0:02:01.680
<v Speaker 1>in cost and diminishing. And I think you raise a

0:02:01.800 --> 0:02:05.320
<v Speaker 1>very good point. We could be in a different world

0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:08.440
<v Speaker 1>if basically the FED and other central banks said, you know,

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of uncertain we're gonna do one meeting

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:11.399
<v Speaker 1>at a time.

0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 2>Bottle it. I can't say enough about that answer on this.

0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:19.040
<v Speaker 2>I feel very strongly about this, folks. They are completely

0:02:19.160 --> 0:02:23.119
<v Speaker 2>awetted to the belief. And in physics, if you will,

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 2>an inertial force of starting a trend, either rates higher

0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:30.680
<v Speaker 2>or rates lower doesn't matter, And maybe the efficacy of

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:34.800
<v Speaker 2>a one off right now would be an interesting idea

0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:37.960
<v Speaker 2>for people like Lyle Brainerd and Richard Claire to the

0:02:38.040 --> 0:02:42.600
<v Speaker 2>others to study at least or ponder as well Richard

0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:45.800
<v Speaker 2>Clare to their PIMCO. The paper he mentioned is just

0:02:45.880 --> 0:02:50.639
<v Speaker 2>out from the National Bureau of Economic Research NBER. I'll

0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:53.480
<v Speaker 2>try to get that this weekend out on Twitter and

0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:58.480
<v Speaker 2>linked in. Low Brainerd with the same exquisite economics as Clarida,

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 2>but different She's at Harvard out of Wesleyan. She had

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 2>an honorary degree from Wesleyan at their commencement in May.

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:12.040
<v Speaker 2>Lyle Brainerd and here on Trump vessent economics.

0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:14.280
<v Speaker 3>I would say what is clear to me, because I

0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 3>have been listening carefully to the Treasury Secretary and the President,

0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:21.919
<v Speaker 3>is that they see tariffs as a way of raising revenues,

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:26.359
<v Speaker 3>and they have a very aggressive revenue target for tariffs.

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:30.480
<v Speaker 3>They want to raise hundreds of billions three hundred billion

0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:34.200
<v Speaker 3>dollars a year in tariff revenues, which is an order

0:03:34.200 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 3>of magnitude larger than what we have seen recently. And

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 3>that means that tariff rates have to be at those

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 3>high smooth Hawley levels with the attendant potential effects on

0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:52.680
<v Speaker 3>the labor market. And we've already seen substantial slowing in

0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:57.840
<v Speaker 3>the second quarter in terms of underlying private domestic final demand.

0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:03.840
<v Speaker 3>Consumers look like they are feeling a little bit cautious.

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:08.640
<v Speaker 3>We can see that even in today's personal consumption expenditures data,

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:12.480
<v Speaker 3>which really was very modest growth. So yes, I do

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:16.599
<v Speaker 3>believe there's some risk that by trying to achieve those

0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:20.440
<v Speaker 3>very aggressive tariff revenue goals, they really are putting a

0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:23.560
<v Speaker 3>big dampener on what could be a very dynamic and

0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:25.480
<v Speaker 3>exciting period in American growth.

0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 2>The dynamic and exciting period is maybe the path to

0:04:28.640 --> 0:04:32.279
<v Speaker 2>Jackson Hall, Lisa Branwinson. I will be out there for

0:04:33.040 --> 0:04:37.800
<v Speaker 2>the festivities. Low brainerd is it? Harvard? I can't emphasize

0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:41.480
<v Speaker 2>enough the work that's being done right now on tariffs.

0:04:41.480 --> 0:04:45.080
<v Speaker 2>Whatever your politics, whatever the pro Trump anti prompt is

0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:49.679
<v Speaker 2>that the other thing, this is an absolutely unique time

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:53.719
<v Speaker 2>for any of us living today. On our podcast on

0:04:53.760 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 2>Apple Music, on Spotify, on YouTube podcasts, this is a

0:04:57.360 --> 0:04:58.560
<v Speaker 2>single best idea

0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 3>Sen