WEBVTT - Former St. Louis Fed President James Bullard Talks Economy

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:01.680
<v Speaker 1>We can catch up now with the former Sen Lewis

0:00:01.680 --> 0:00:04.440
<v Speaker 1>FED President jimpallad for more. Jim, welcome back to the

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:07.120
<v Speaker 1>program sir. Smuch has taken place since this election. We've

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:11.119
<v Speaker 1>heard from the chairman Jpal Jpal suggesting to us that

0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:14.000
<v Speaker 1>maybe they can pause if they want to. This is

0:00:14.040 --> 0:00:17.000
<v Speaker 1>me inferring from what he's told us already, maybe as

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:19.600
<v Speaker 1>soon as December. Is that what you're taking away from

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:20.600
<v Speaker 1>recent communication?

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:25.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, if it was me, I think they

0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 2>could make one more move here in December and then

0:00:29.160 --> 0:00:32.559
<v Speaker 2>that would put them at four and three aids and

0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 2>then there'll be a debate about where neutral is.

0:00:35.920 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 3>But if you thought the meeting of the committee.

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:43.239
<v Speaker 2>Thinks neutral is maybe three percent, then you have to

0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:45.760
<v Speaker 2>have maybe one hundred basis points on top of that.

0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:48.840
<v Speaker 3>Or one hundred and twenty five even because.

0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:53.400
<v Speaker 2>You know inflation isn't all the way back down to target.

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:58.120
<v Speaker 2>So normally you would take the inflation difference and then

0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 2>multiply that by one point two five or one to

0:01:01.240 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 2>five or something like that, and that's what a tailor

0:01:03.920 --> 0:01:04.440
<v Speaker 2>roll would do.

0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:06.800
<v Speaker 3>That's going to put you right around four percent.

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:10.800
<v Speaker 2>So they'd actually be pretty close to where they'd want

0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:13.880
<v Speaker 2>to be, they'd have another move to make maybe in

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:18.440
<v Speaker 2>the first quarter or second quarter, and then after that

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:21.800
<v Speaker 2>it would depend on where inflation went during twenty twenty five.

0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:24.800
<v Speaker 2>So they're in pretty good shape here, I think for

0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 2>the December meeting.

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:29.200
<v Speaker 4>Jim, maybe for December, But moving beyond that, there's a

0:01:29.240 --> 0:01:30.800
<v Speaker 4>real question. I haven't heard a lot about long and

0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:33.320
<v Speaker 4>variable lags in a long time. And basically there's this

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:35.880
<v Speaker 4>feeling that maybe if markets are flying and we have

0:01:36.000 --> 0:01:39.160
<v Speaker 4>this feeling that businesses are doing just fine, that everything

0:01:39.200 --> 0:01:41.440
<v Speaker 4>can chug along at these interest rates, and you alluded

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.640
<v Speaker 4>to it, we could see a higher neutral rate. Just

0:01:44.680 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 4>how much have you heard a change in tone from

0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:51.280
<v Speaker 4>FED officials over the past couple of weeks.

0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well, they've made a seventy five basis points of

0:01:54.080 --> 0:01:56.720
<v Speaker 2>cuts already, so they're not in the same situation that

0:01:56.800 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 2>they were in say June or July. And I think

0:02:01.040 --> 0:02:04.559
<v Speaker 2>the growth scare that occurred in sort of the.

0:02:04.560 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 3>July August time frame has dissipated.

0:02:07.680 --> 0:02:12.320
<v Speaker 2>And now you've got GDP now Atlanta Fed at two

0:02:12.320 --> 0:02:14.480
<v Speaker 2>and a half, and the last two quarters of growth

0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 2>have been pretty strong, above certainly above a potential growth

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:24.240
<v Speaker 2>rate for the US economy, and so I think, you know,

0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:27.000
<v Speaker 2>they don't have to go too much further to be

0:02:27.160 --> 0:02:30.520
<v Speaker 2>at the right rate for this level of inflation and

0:02:30.760 --> 0:02:33.160
<v Speaker 2>economy that's you know, moving along pretty well.

0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 3>Retail sales you reasonably good yesterday.

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:38.359
<v Speaker 4>So given all of that, I just I'm trying to

0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:41.040
<v Speaker 4>extrapolate this out to understand what this means at the

0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 4>long end, what this means for the yield curve at

0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:46.919
<v Speaker 4>a time when suddenly people are rethinking just how much

0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:49.280
<v Speaker 4>they can cut over a longer period of time. You

0:02:49.320 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 4>add to this some of the pro growth policies that

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:53.280
<v Speaker 4>we've been talking about all morning.

0:02:53.680 --> 0:02:54.359
<v Speaker 1>How much are you.

0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:57.960
<v Speaker 4>Looking at bond yields resetting, not necessarily because of the

0:02:57.960 --> 0:03:01.080
<v Speaker 4>political overlay, but because people are realizing that if it's

0:03:01.080 --> 0:03:03.600
<v Speaker 4>a four percent neutral rate, a five percent tenure yield

0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:05.240
<v Speaker 4>looks pretty reasonable.

0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:09.079
<v Speaker 3>Yeah. I mean to me, this is the last piece

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:10.200
<v Speaker 3>of the soft landing.

0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:13.600
<v Speaker 2>You're bringing the policy rate down to a more neutral

0:03:13.680 --> 0:03:17.320
<v Speaker 2>level as inflation goes back to target, and you would

0:03:17.400 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 2>expect the yelk curve to uninvert, which has happened here.

0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 2>And I thought that, you know, eventually you'd have the

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:30.080
<v Speaker 2>policy rate somewhere in the threes and the tenure somewhere

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:33.320
<v Speaker 2>in the floors, and you'd have this nice upward sloping yelkurve,

0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:37.080
<v Speaker 2>so that all seems to be developing. And you know,

0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:40.080
<v Speaker 2>that's part of the soft landing narrative in my view.

0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:42.120
<v Speaker 5>When we heard from J. Powell and the fact that

0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:44.000
<v Speaker 5>he's talking about they're not in a hurry. How much

0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:47.240
<v Speaker 5>does that have to do with policy uncertainty that right

0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 5>now is coming out of mar Lago, but we'll be

0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:51.600
<v Speaker 5>coming out of Washington, DC for twenty twenty five.

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:56.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think the sense of not being in a hurry,

0:03:56.120 --> 0:03:58.640
<v Speaker 2>if you think about this December of meeting that's coming up,

0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:02.120
<v Speaker 2>there'll be a summer of economic projections at that meeting,

0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 2>and what the committee will do is various members will

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:09.360
<v Speaker 2>project out for twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six,

0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:11.960
<v Speaker 2>how many more BRAT cuts they think, But it's not

0:04:12.000 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 2>going to be that many, right because I've already made

0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:17.599
<v Speaker 2>some and neutralism, you know, won't be as far away

0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:18.360
<v Speaker 2>as it was.

0:04:18.680 --> 0:04:21.640
<v Speaker 3>And so then they'll say, well, you know, some people say.

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:24.000
<v Speaker 2>I only need two more, or other people say I

0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:26.599
<v Speaker 2>need four more or something. But they'll spread those out

0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:30.240
<v Speaker 2>over twenty twenty five and maybe even over twenty twenty

0:04:30.320 --> 0:04:33.040
<v Speaker 2>six as inflation is projected.

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:33.920
<v Speaker 3>To continue to come down.

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:36.599
<v Speaker 2>So in that sense, it will smooth out and people

0:04:36.720 --> 0:04:38.359
<v Speaker 2>start talking about well, maybe once.

0:04:38.200 --> 0:04:41.840
<v Speaker 3>A quarter, maybe once every you know, every third meeting or.

0:04:41.800 --> 0:04:44.080
<v Speaker 2>Something like that would be the right pace, depending on

0:04:44.120 --> 0:04:47.120
<v Speaker 2>how fast you think inflation is actually going to go

0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:48.120
<v Speaker 2>down to two percent.

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:50.800
<v Speaker 5>Right, So you're talking about inflation coming down to two percent,

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 5>but some of these policies could be inflationary. We're talking

0:04:54.000 --> 0:04:58.200
<v Speaker 5>about deregulation, we're talking about cutting taxes, and then there's

0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 5>this debate debate on how hi the walls are going

0:05:01.160 --> 0:05:03.920
<v Speaker 5>to go up around the United States for imports coming

0:05:03.920 --> 0:05:07.120
<v Speaker 5>from China or the European Union. If that's the scenario

0:05:07.160 --> 0:05:11.279
<v Speaker 5>we have, does the FED need to think about potentially hiking.

0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:16.360
<v Speaker 6>You know, I think we've seen this movie before. In

0:05:16.400 --> 0:05:20.960
<v Speaker 6>twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen. I didn't see much inflation coming

0:05:21.000 --> 0:05:23.400
<v Speaker 6>from that. We had a corporate tax.

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:28.040
<v Speaker 2>Cut late twenty seventeen. I didn't see much inflation from that.

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:31.760
<v Speaker 2>So I just I don't think that that's the right

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 2>narrative for this. You know, that's not where the inflation

0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:38.440
<v Speaker 2>is going to come from. Where it comes from is

0:05:39.600 --> 0:05:44.920
<v Speaker 2>big fiscal spending. But if it goes straight into people's

0:05:44.920 --> 0:05:49.080
<v Speaker 2>bank accounts the way it did in twenty twenty one,

0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:52.320
<v Speaker 2>that's almost like printing money, and that ended up causing

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:53.240
<v Speaker 2>a lot of inflation.

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:55.280
<v Speaker 3>But if we don't get something like that, and I

0:05:55.279 --> 0:05:56.479
<v Speaker 3>haven't heard anybody talking.

0:05:56.320 --> 0:06:00.280
<v Speaker 2>About that, then I think other types of spending are

0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:04.159
<v Speaker 2>probably not devils suspending, probably not as inflationary.

0:06:04.640 --> 0:06:04.880
<v Speaker 3>Jim.

0:06:04.880 --> 0:06:07.040
<v Speaker 4>That's a fascinating point, and it really goes to the

0:06:07.080 --> 0:06:09.080
<v Speaker 4>heart of something that I've seen explored a number of

0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 4>research papers over the past few weeks, which is how

0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:15.159
<v Speaker 4>we don't understand inflation, why the FED got it wrong

0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:17.960
<v Speaker 4>and didn't raise rates as early as March of twenty

0:06:18.040 --> 0:06:21.840
<v Speaker 4>twenty two in the face of real inflation, and going

0:06:21.880 --> 0:06:24.039
<v Speaker 4>forward our understanding of what the read through will be

0:06:24.080 --> 0:06:27.400
<v Speaker 4>from things like tariffs. Are you basically saying that some

0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:29.840
<v Speaker 4>of the tariffs that we're hearing about are not going

0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:32.480
<v Speaker 4>to be inflationary, and that frankly, we should be looking

0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 4>simply at a cash infusion, at helicopter money as the

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:38.880
<v Speaker 4>only source right now of the inflation that we've seen

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:40.200
<v Speaker 4>in the post pandemic era.

0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:43.280
<v Speaker 2>I mean, inflation's a monetary phenomen and that's why they

0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:46.760
<v Speaker 2>call it monetary policy. And it's the job of the FED,

0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:51.000
<v Speaker 2>especially to keep inflation expectations under control. So you could

0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:54.600
<v Speaker 2>argue about an inflation expectations channel here.

0:06:54.680 --> 0:06:56.400
<v Speaker 3>If people start to worry.

0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:59.400
<v Speaker 2>That the Fed's not going to do its job, that

0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:01.320
<v Speaker 2>would be as serious concern I.

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:04.800
<v Speaker 3>Think for the inflation outlook. But tariffs themselves kind of

0:07:04.839 --> 0:07:05.840
<v Speaker 3>a double edged sword.

0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:11.400
<v Speaker 2>They sure they rearrange the prices somewhat, but they also

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 2>changed demand for the important good and you've also got

0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:18.080
<v Speaker 2>what's the reaction of the foreign.

0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:18.520
<v Speaker 3>Country going to be.

0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:21.440
<v Speaker 2>So a good outcome would be is that you get

0:07:21.480 --> 0:07:23.560
<v Speaker 2>serious here and you tell the rest of the world,

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.160
<v Speaker 2>which is pretty protectionists. You tell the rest of the

0:07:26.160 --> 0:07:28.920
<v Speaker 2>world you know, the US is going to play tougher here.

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 3>And we want you guys to lower your tariffs, and

0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:33.480
<v Speaker 3>those guys could say, hey, well.

0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:35.760
<v Speaker 2>You know, we agree, and we're going to lower our tariffs,

0:07:35.760 --> 0:07:38.560
<v Speaker 2>so you get just a lower tariff environment or the

0:07:38.560 --> 0:07:41.880
<v Speaker 2>whole thing. That would be very consistent with sort of

0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:45.040
<v Speaker 2>the Trump negotiating sort of view of the world.

0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:48.760
<v Speaker 1>Jimmy won't ask you for your favorite Trump Treasury Secretary.

0:07:48.880 --> 0:07:51.160
<v Speaker 1>We'll let you go. Thomas and Lewis FED President Jim

0:07:51.560 --> 0:07:53.680
<v Speaker 1>Jim appreciate your time, so thank you.