Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway. Tracy, one of
Speaker 1: the really sort of tragic or frustrating aspects of this
Speaker 1: current crisis that I think about a lot is how good,
Speaker 1: arguably the economic situation was for the labor market. Right
Speaker 1: on the eve of the crisis, multi decade lows and
Speaker 1: unemployment rate, wages had just started to pick up, basically
Speaker 1: right before this hit. A lot of things that people
Speaker 1: had wanted to see for a long time started to
Speaker 1: seem like they were materializing. Yeah, by a lot of measures.
Speaker 1: I guess we were at well nearly at full employment.
Speaker 1: But I'm not sure it's tragic. Um, maybe ironic. I like,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't have wanted to go into the crisis with
Speaker 1: the economy already fragile, right, True, that's well put. But
Speaker 1: I do think there was just a lot of frustration
Speaker 1: at you know, how slow was so we had, you know,
Speaker 1: we had the crisis in two thousand and eight, two
Speaker 1: thousand nine, and then it just took years and years
Speaker 1: and years to get back to something that you know,
Speaker 1: economists would have called full employment. Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 1: And I think you've pointed out before that the danger
Speaker 1: with sudden increases in mass unemployment is that it does
Speaker 1: really take a long time to normalize, that it takes
Speaker 1: a long time to train people for new jobs, and meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the economy loses that expertise, loses that additional output, and
Speaker 1: it's just a bad situation. Right. I think there is
Speaker 1: this view that if you know, as we embark on
Speaker 1: this recovery, if it takes similarly long to return to
Speaker 1: something resembling normal, that'd be unacceptable. I think that's why
Speaker 1: there's probably a lot of rethinking about the role of
Speaker 1: monetary policy and the role of fiscal policy in accelerating
Speaker 1: this recession, because the length of time of recovery last
Speaker 1: time was pretty pretty unacceptable, not good. Yeah, it's that,
Speaker 1: and to me, it's also the nature of the current crisis.
Speaker 1: This is basically, in some ways a government mandated economic crisis.
Speaker 1: People need to stay home in order to stop the
Speaker 1: spread of the coronavirus. You don't really have a choice
Speaker 1: when it comes to shutting down your business, and so
Speaker 1: I think people are looking to the government more than
Speaker 1: they might be otherwise and asking for help with that. Right.
Speaker 1: Another aspect, And another sort of disappointing factor is that
Speaker 1: prior to the crisis, for a long time, there's been
Speaker 1: this big gap between black and white unemployment rates. You
Speaker 1: look at the headline unemployment rate, the unemployment rate for
Speaker 1: whites is below that. The unemployment rate for Black Americans
Speaker 1: has been significantly above that. That was starting to compress
Speaker 1: prior to the crisis, and then once again it looks
Speaker 1: like the status quo is that, you know, we just
Speaker 1: suffered another major setback on that gap. Yeah, I've seen
Speaker 1: a number of statistics on this, not only for racial inequality,
Speaker 1: but it's showing up in men versus women as well.
Speaker 1: The female unemployment rate is a lot higher right now
Speaker 1: than the male unemployment rate. So it feels like the
Speaker 1: crisis is accelerating a lot of the inequality trends that
Speaker 1: we saw in previous years. Right So there are a
Speaker 1: lot of different issues for the Federal Reserve and other
Speaker 1: policy makers to think about as they bark on accelerating
Speaker 1: this recovery. I want to bring in our guests very
Speaker 1: excited to talk to her. We're going to be speaking
Speaker 1: with Congresswoman Ayana Pressley. She represents the seventh District in Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: and she's, among other things, the recent co author of
Speaker 1: a op ed at CNBC about the need for the
Speaker 1: FED to focus specifically and think more about the black
Speaker 1: unemployment rate, talking about how monetary policy in the past
Speaker 1: has contributed to inequality along race, and so we think
Speaker 1: of monetary policy is being this sort of neutral thing,
Speaker 1: where we think of monetary policy is just affecting the
Speaker 1: economy in general, and the need for other policies to
Speaker 1: address race specific issues. But perhaps there is more that
Speaker 1: the FED could do. So without further ado, I want
Speaker 1: to bring in a Congresswoman Pressley, Thank you very much
Speaker 1: for joining us. Good to be with you, thank you
Speaker 1: for your interest. Absolutely so to start off, in your view,
Speaker 1: racial inequality in this country has numerous causes, but when
Speaker 1: it comes to monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, how
Speaker 1: in your view has UH monetary policy contributed to the
Speaker 1: gap between the success of whites in the labor market
Speaker 1: and the success of blacks and other non white minorities.
Speaker 1: Sure well, first let me just you know, um acknowledge
Speaker 1: that we find ourselves in a moment of national reckoning
Speaker 1: on racial justice, and every institution needs to address his
Speaker 1: role in perpetuating systemic racism and what it can do
Speaker 1: to be a part of the solution. And the FED
Speaker 1: should be no exception in that regard. You know, perhaps
Speaker 1: Donald Trump does not want to acknowledge the contributions of
Speaker 1: John Lewis and what I would consider our other founding fathers,
Speaker 1: but they've given us the blueprint on this. You know.
Speaker 1: Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Spoke about the fact that
Speaker 1: when Black Americans are unemployed, it's considered a social problem,
Speaker 1: but when white Americans are unemployed, it's considered a depression.
Speaker 1: That's what he said in nineteen and addressing the Memphis
Speaker 1: sanitation workers, and of course um he also went on
Speaker 1: in that same speech to say, what does it profit
Speaker 1: a man to sit at an integrated lunch counter if
Speaker 1: he cannot even afford to purchase a hamburger? And while
Speaker 1: we're speaking about the King's CORRECTI Scott King in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy six let over twenty five thousand protesters to the
Speaker 1: Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank. Rashi declared that outside of Congress,
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve has, for apps more power to correct
Speaker 1: our economic ills than any other agency or institution. And
Speaker 1: so UM I recently author this opped laying out three
Speaker 1: steps that the FED could take to center racial equity
Speaker 1: in its response um And they have to respond, you know,
Speaker 1: not only because it is the federal government's role uh
Speaker 1: in a period of unprecedented hurt managing a crisis within
Speaker 1: a crisis, but they have a responsibility. Only the federal
Speaker 1: government can meet the scale and scope of this crisis
Speaker 1: and play a role in ensuring an equitable economic recovery.
Speaker 1: And so the three things that we've laid out is
Speaker 1: that the FED must expand and modify the terms of
Speaker 1: its municipal liquid facility to ensure the big corporations aren't
Speaker 1: getting a better deal than our community. And secondly, and
Speaker 1: this is what correctit Scott King was organized went around,
Speaker 1: the FED must comply with the Humphrey Hawkins Act, this
Speaker 1: provision that requires efforts to reduce unemployment disparities by directly
Speaker 1: targeting the black unemployment rate, which is really a much
Speaker 1: better indicator of the country's true economic health. That will
Speaker 1: also prevent misguided action like raising interest rates too soon.
Speaker 1: You know, the FEDS have prioritized price stability and low
Speaker 1: inflation over full employment. And then finally, the federal reserve
Speaker 1: must not stand in the way of a federal jobs guarantee.
Speaker 1: This is a really fascinating topic and you lay it
Speaker 1: out very clearly. I guess my first question is what
Speaker 1: would you say to critics who will automatically respond with, well,
Speaker 1: this isn't the FEDS role and why should the Fed?
Speaker 1: You know, it's a group of unelected officials, lots of
Speaker 1: people describe them as economist sitting in an ivory tower.
Speaker 1: Why should they be the ones to take this on? Yeah,
Speaker 1: because they're the only ones that can. The federal government
Speaker 1: were the only ones that can play the sort of
Speaker 1: role necessary to meet the scale and scope of this crisis.
Speaker 1: And it's unprecedented, hurt. And uh, I'm gonna bring into
Speaker 1: the room another uh um civil rights leader, because I've
Speaker 1: been doing a great deal of reading and looking for
Speaker 1: fortifying and uh, you know, inspiration and direction at this moment.
Speaker 1: And Reverend William Barber, you know, said that we find
Speaker 1: ourselves in the midst of a reckoning, which requires a
Speaker 1: third reconstruction. And I think that, um, that reconstruction does
Speaker 1: mean everything from healthcare to ensuring that every individual that
Speaker 1: is able to work, UM is working, and also housing
Speaker 1: you know adults and policy makers don't make mistakes. They
Speaker 1: make choices, and poverty is a policy choice. In the
Speaker 1: midst of this national reckoning, this is the time for
Speaker 1: a reconstructing and to be bold, and we'll have to
Speaker 1: be in order to meet the scale and scope of
Speaker 1: the hurt um managing this crisis within a crisis, both
Speaker 1: a public health crisis and the economic hardship that it's wrought.
Speaker 1: And of course, the crisis of black unemployment did not
Speaker 1: begin with this pandemic. It's only been exacerbated. I mean,
Speaker 1: I represent one of the most diverse, vibrant, dynamic districts
Speaker 1: in the country, has previously helped by John F. Kennedy himself,
Speaker 1: one of the most progressive seats in the country and
Speaker 1: one of the most unequal, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Speaker 1: also has the highest unemployment rate in the country at
Speaker 1: seventeen point four. I want to go back to something
Speaker 1: you said that I thought it was really interesting, and
Speaker 1: you said, not only should the FED target black unemployment directly,
Speaker 1: you said you also thought it was probably the best
Speaker 1: proxy that we could have for the state of the economy.
Speaker 1: Why do you think it's the best proxy? And also
Speaker 1: just sort of flush it out a little bit in
Speaker 1: terms of how sort of specifically looking at the black
Speaker 1: unemployment rate could be incorporated into the FED mandate or
Speaker 1: just the fence thinking in general, we'll just say the
Speaker 1: bottom line for me is we can't afford to deny
Speaker 1: the Federal reserves role here as a potential equalizer. But
Speaker 1: we also have to confer the fact that they've been
Speaker 1: an exacerbator a racial and economic inequality. And so again
Speaker 1: this is the tipping point in the moment where we
Speaker 1: confront that past while we also chart a new path.
Speaker 1: And so rooting out systemic racism and inequity in our
Speaker 1: economy can't happen without a key piece of that system.
Speaker 1: And it just it requires a government wide approach, and
Speaker 1: that has to include the Federal Reserve. And and just
Speaker 1: picking up all my earlier comments regarding the Humphrey Hawkins Act, again,
Speaker 1: that provision requires the FED to reduce disparities and unemployment
Speaker 1: between marginalized groups. And so at this moment, it really
Speaker 1: is about exacting every every level, every tool available to you,
Speaker 1: and they've not done that. M H. You mentioned this
Speaker 1: idea of a reconstruction in response to a great reckoning
Speaker 1: I'm curious how do policymakers, such as yourself balance the
Speaker 1: need to respond quickly to what is quite a serious
Speaker 1: economic situation with the need potentially to to design or
Speaker 1: use the crisis as a jumping off point to redesign
Speaker 1: big picture ideas like how the federal works, like how
Speaker 1: the federal government should be funding states and municipalities. How
Speaker 1: do you balance those two things. I think in this moment,
Speaker 1: it's not a matter of or, it's a matter of
Speaker 1: and UM and so UM. I seek to do both
Speaker 1: because the moment demands that I do both. And I
Speaker 1: think I'm emboldened in that advocacy UM and in that
Speaker 1: legislating because we have a mandate from the people. There's
Speaker 1: a decisive mandate from the people of this country, UM
Speaker 1: to move with the strength of conviction, to be bold
Speaker 1: and our legislative responses to address the inequities and disparities
Speaker 1: and the racial injustices that not only persist, but we're
Speaker 1: created by policy. Public sentiment around issues lack of federal
Speaker 1: jobs guarantee and medicare for all, and affirming housing as
Speaker 1: a human right has only grown. Do you think that
Speaker 1: the left or progressives have underappreciated the role of monetary
Speaker 1: policy or the Federal Reserve in advancing priorities. During the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, there or long periods where seats on the
Speaker 1: FMC were left unfilled. It wasn't a priority to replace
Speaker 1: departing members. Should this be more? Should Do you think
Speaker 1: there's a lack of awareness um in terms of what
Speaker 1: monetary policy can do on the left? Yes, And that's
Speaker 1: exactly why I wrote the up ed you know, acknowledging
Speaker 1: that I do have this platform and I want to
Speaker 1: be an effective steward of it, especially in this moment.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why I was so excited
Speaker 1: to serve on via Financial Services Committee to address these
Speaker 1: issues specifically. And you know, I think the role of
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve for some maybe only really came into
Speaker 1: view on the left in the role that it played
Speaker 1: and stabilizing the world economy. In two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: more people started to think about it in that way.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm again, I'm appreciative of the opportunity
Speaker 1: to serve with the Final Services Committee so that I
Speaker 1: can can lift up the role that it can play
Speaker 1: and and it really should go without saying that all
Speaker 1: of this, you know that I'm looking for them to
Speaker 1: do must be in addition to the FED acknowledging their
Speaker 1: abysmal record on diversity, and that can't just fall on
Speaker 1: the back of the only black Federal Reserve Bank president
Speaker 1: and Raphael Bosti to name it and to call it out.
Speaker 1: So I'm also trying to provide some backup there. UM.
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk a little bit about what's going
Speaker 1: on in d C right at this moment. So I
Speaker 1: think we have the second round of potential stimulus relief
Speaker 1: currently log jammed in the Senate. I should just mention
Speaker 1: that we're recording this on let's see August five, so
Speaker 1: things could change. So looking back at the original CARES Act,
Speaker 1: how is that able to get bipartisan support? And what
Speaker 1: has changed between then and now? Why is it so
Speaker 1: difficult to get a second relief package off the ground?
Speaker 1: You know, Well, this Democratic majority House has been able
Speaker 1: to move you know, something like four relief packages, um,
Speaker 1: and they were bipartisan and I think, UM a lot
Speaker 1: of that had to do with public outcry and sentiment,
Speaker 1: which is why we need people to continue to be
Speaker 1: vigilant and their advocacy. UM. In that regard. You know,
Speaker 1: it's very frustrating. I um, you know, day feel that
Speaker 1: we are besieged by a dog whistles and uh and
Speaker 1: in tropes and sort of a cruelty and a callousness. Um.
Speaker 1: That proves that many people serving are completely removed and
Speaker 1: disconnected from the hardship and the heart that their constituents
Speaker 1: are experiencing. In terms of what parties are I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you think are this sort of absolute must
Speaker 1: have in this bill? Yeah? Well, I mean, thirty million
Speaker 1: people are still unemployed, and as I said, the Commonwealth
Speaker 1: of Massachusetts is the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Um.
Speaker 1: And so yet this Senate GOP they want to cut
Speaker 1: unemployment benefits, and they want to once again exclude our
Speaker 1: immigrant neighbors from the economic stimulus checks. And they're forcing
Speaker 1: K through twelve schools to reopen. It's shameful, it's reckless,
Speaker 1: and it's just cruel. And so I think we have
Speaker 1: to extend unemployment benefits, not cut them. Um. We need
Speaker 1: reoccurring economics to list payments for everyone. We need to
Speaker 1: extend the eviction moratoriums. We need to cancel rent and
Speaker 1: mortgage payments. We have were on the precipice of an
Speaker 1: eviction tsunami. We're talking about the disproportionate impact on marginalized groups. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, we find ourselves what is this the early
Speaker 1: in the month of August. By August, one of Americans
Speaker 1: said that they would not be able to pay their
Speaker 1: rent for the month, and that's thirty percent of Americans.
Speaker 1: Forty percent of Black Americans said they would not be
Speaker 1: able to pay their rent. So economic time stops, but
Speaker 1: financial time does not. And even in the worst downturns,
Speaker 1: people's bills will always still be due. And it's just
Speaker 1: really past time that the Senate acts and that they
Speaker 1: move with the urgency that reflects that economic time stops
Speaker 1: but financial time does not. Is a really good way
Speaker 1: of putting it. But just on that note, and going
Speaker 1: back to the idea of debt forgiveness, how would that
Speaker 1: work exactly? Because a lot of critics of that proposal
Speaker 1: would immediately point to the fact that, you know, landlords,
Speaker 1: as much as many people dislike them, also require income,
Speaker 1: and if they're not getting payments from their renters, that
Speaker 1: has knock on effects to the financial system. It could
Speaker 1: lead to losses for banks and things like that. How
Speaker 1: would you, Uh, how would you deal with that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the point is though people are hurting, they
Speaker 1: need real relief now and again, just I could have
Speaker 1: too many examples to enumerate in terms of the disconnect
Speaker 1: and the cruelty and the councils of this administration. One
Speaker 1: of the other issues that I've continued to push in
Speaker 1: terms of a robust economic recovery is the canceling of
Speaker 1: student debt. This Department of Education garnish wages and benefits
Speaker 1: fifty four thousand borrowers in the midst of a pandemic.
Speaker 1: People are hurting, they need real relief now, and and
Speaker 1: might I also add that our greatest wealth as a
Speaker 1: nation is the health of our people. So the reason
Speaker 1: why these other choices are being made is to prioritize
Speaker 1: and then the best interest of the public health. And
Speaker 1: so that has to be the priority right now. And
Speaker 1: if that means that we are paying people to stay home,
Speaker 1: then that's what that means, because we have to stave
Speaker 1: off the rate of transmission and we have to get
Speaker 1: this pandemic under control. That's number one. There's no economy
Speaker 1: without workers or consumers. And so our greatest wealth as
Speaker 1: a nation is the health of its people. I want
Speaker 1: to look forward a little bit. I know, you just
Speaker 1: have a few more minutes. Um you know, suppose thinking
Speaker 1: about long term economic agenda, and suppose U Biden were
Speaker 1: to win the White House and Democrats were to control
Speaker 1: both houses of Congress, as is possible, thinking about where
Speaker 1: economic policy should go. I'm looking at Biden's Racial Economic
Speaker 1: Equity Plan on his website and the first two things
Speaker 1: one is something about first bullet points about public private investments.
Speaker 1: The next one is opportunity zones and performing them. And
Speaker 1: I'm curious, do you think these are smart tools or
Speaker 1: would your vision for what racio economic equity would it
Speaker 1: look different from this? I just think that it's um
Speaker 1: it needs to be bolder, and it's about guaranteeing those
Speaker 1: most basic human rights, which certainly is is not a
Speaker 1: radical notion, but a lack of political will and leadership,
Speaker 1: and I think a deficit of empathy and an urgency
Speaker 1: has us where we are. And so, you know, I
Speaker 1: think we do need a federal jobs guarantee. I think
Speaker 1: we need Medicare for all, housing affirming the right to housing,
Speaker 1: um so housing justice, and then on the economic justice front,
Speaker 1: a federal Jobs Guarantee, and when it comes to healthcare
Speaker 1: justice Medicare for all. In addition to all the other things,
Speaker 1: I continue to fight for modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act.
Speaker 1: You know, the fact that ercent of financial institutions continue
Speaker 1: to pass CR exams, but the practice of redlining persists
Speaker 1: the Fair Housing Act, which they seek to you know,
Speaker 1: undermine and roll back those protections. Canceling student debt UM,
Speaker 1: which I see as a racial justice issue because black
Speaker 1: students borrow more than any other borrower and default more.
Speaker 1: And that has everything to do with policies which has
Speaker 1: obstructed black family's ability UM to equitably build generational wealth.
Speaker 1: And that is also you know, one way to your
Speaker 1: your question tries around UM cancelation and and and people's
Speaker 1: negative characterizations of that. That's also one way to jump
Speaker 1: start the economy. UM. The average of borrower is saddled
Speaker 1: with about thirty dollars worth of student loan debt, and
Speaker 1: so by canceling that, then those are other those funds
Speaker 1: can be used in other ways to jump starting to
Speaker 1: invest in our economy. So those are some of my priorities.
Speaker 1: So I have one more question, just just leading off
Speaker 1: from that, Why do you think so many people seem
Speaker 1: to be instinctively opposed to bailouts and instinctively opposed to
Speaker 1: policy that on the surface would appear to be good
Speaker 1: for everyone and for the overall economy. And how do
Speaker 1: you overcome that obstacle? That's sure, Maybe we've been, uh,
Speaker 1: we're so used to the way things have been done
Speaker 1: for so long that perhaps it's a greater expectation, and
Speaker 1: people are just used to corporations being been held out
Speaker 1: and not the American people and our families and the
Speaker 1: American worker and our communities. Um, you know. But again,
Speaker 1: this is the moment we need to be disruptive and
Speaker 1: we need to build something new that is intentional about
Speaker 1: equity and justice. Reiterating my earlier point in terms of
Speaker 1: the mandate from the people, I mean, the reason why
Speaker 1: people still continue to protest, to demonstrate, to mobilize, to organize. Yes,
Speaker 1: the tipping point was about the fact um that we
Speaker 1: had been in the midst of a pandemic, besieged by
Speaker 1: these images of unarmed black Americans being brutalized and murdered
Speaker 1: by police. But that's not the only reason why people
Speaker 1: are in the streets, and and that's and the reason
Speaker 1: that movement is one that is multigenerational and multi racial.
Speaker 1: There's unrest in the streets because there's unrest in the
Speaker 1: lives of Americans, and that has everything to do with
Speaker 1: the role that policy has played and creating these inequities
Speaker 1: and these disparities, and in particular these racial injustices. And
Speaker 1: so this is the reckoning and that's why the movement
Speaker 1: is not waying. It is a sustained one. And I
Speaker 1: was speaking earlier about Cretis Scott King and and and
Speaker 1: Dr King, and you know, they gave us the blueprint.
Speaker 1: It is to more organize, it is to mobilize, and
Speaker 1: it is to legislate. That's what all that marching was about.
Speaker 1: So you know, you can't say black lives matter and
Speaker 1: affirm that in this moment of culture shift, but then
Speaker 1: not see that reflected in our laws and in our budgets.
Speaker 1: Those are the only receipts that matter in this moment.
Speaker 1: So if black lives matter, we need to lead like it,
Speaker 1: and we need to legislate like it, and we need
Speaker 1: to act like it. And that includes the FED. Congresswoman,
Speaker 1: I did one last question. You mentioned the FED because
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring it back there. Looking again at
Speaker 1: um Uh Biden's platform, he mentions also having the FED
Speaker 1: focus more on racial economic gaps. Do you feel that
Speaker 1: Powell gets this? There's gonna be a lot of questions
Speaker 1: at some point in the theoretical Biden administration about whether
Speaker 1: he should be reappointed. In your communications conversations, do you
Speaker 1: feel that Powell understands this and what it makes sense
Speaker 1: to reappoint him as recently I've been disappointed. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that he understands um the gravity of the impact
Speaker 1: of the lack of action by the FED and fully
Speaker 1: appreciates the power that they have and the role that
Speaker 1: they can play and addressing these racial injustice is and
Speaker 1: in particular black unemployment and the racial wealth at Congressman Presley,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your time. Incredibly important topic
Speaker 1: and I appreciate you coming out. Thank you, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Tracy. I feel like so many of these
Speaker 1: conversations keeps coming back to the question of can we
Speaker 1: really go back to the status coo epidus. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's right, and I think the way the congresswoman
Speaker 1: put it, the idea of a reckoning that will now
Speaker 1: lead to a reconstruction. That's a good way of thinking
Speaker 1: about it. It seems pretty clear that policymakers have a
Speaker 1: mandate to do something differently now, I guess, I guess
Speaker 1: the question is how do they do it under time
Speaker 1: pressure and how do they actually constructed and maintain that momentum. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think it's also really important and really interesting her
Speaker 1: continued citation of the Humphrey Hawkins Act, because people have
Speaker 1: this idea that it's like, okay, target full employment or
Speaker 1: target maximum employment and price stability without really realizing well,
Speaker 1: and then and then full employment gets redefined as just
Speaker 1: sort of like, oh, this is like what a model
Speaker 1: says employment should be before inflation takes off. And as
Speaker 1: we saw during you know, the post crisis era, whether
Speaker 1: it was the FED started high grades, I think in
Speaker 1: you know, they really have no idea. And that's not
Speaker 1: even an insult per se to the Fed. It's like,
Speaker 1: these are really hard things. And so the idea of
Speaker 1: taking full employment more seriously and not hiking rage just
Speaker 1: because some model says, you know, pretty soon inflation might
Speaker 1: pick up to two point one percent if we don't,
Speaker 1: I think is going to be one of the big
Speaker 1: changes and we already see that with you know, some
Speaker 1: of the commentary out of the FED about not trying
Speaker 1: to preemptively fight inflation this time. But if you, you know,
Speaker 1: looking back at that experience, looking back at the cyclical
Speaker 1: aspect of the black white unemployment gap, perhaps this time
Speaker 1: around actually taking full employment uh and getting the unemployment
Speaker 1: rate down to as low as possible, it seems like
Speaker 1: it might be taken more seriously this time. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it would. One thing that we didn't really discuss though,
Speaker 1: is the role of the FED on asset prices. And
Speaker 1: if you think that, you know, low interest rates are
Speaker 1: going to boost asset prices in general, and but if
Speaker 1: you if you agree to that, then the vast majority
Speaker 1: of financial assets, you know, are held by rich people
Speaker 1: who are generally well off, lots of white people. And
Speaker 1: I guess there's a question around financial inclusion there as well,
Speaker 1: like how do you get more people to participate in
Speaker 1: a financialized economy? Yeah, no, I mean I think that's
Speaker 1: I thought you had a really good question about the
Speaker 1: sort of public cynicism around bailouts, and you know, these
Speaker 1: are all slightly different things. In the word bailout gets used, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, some people think, you know, stimulus and bailout
Speaker 1: and cutting rates, etcetera. But there is just a lot
Speaker 1: of cynicism towards the potential for policy to make things
Speaker 1: better for the public. And I feel like, you know
Speaker 1: you every time the Fed does something, people point to
Speaker 1: exactly that and they're like, well, not everyone has assets
Speaker 1: in the stock market. Not everyone benefits from a booming
Speaker 1: housing market, particularly in cities, or particularly in places where
Speaker 1: a lot of people are renting, and not um not
Speaker 1: participating in that upside. And so I do think that
Speaker 1: obviously monetary policy, interest rate policy as a role to play.
Speaker 1: But I think congress Woman Congresswoman pointed out, it's really
Speaker 1: a sort of it's a crisis, it's and it's an
Speaker 1: issue that needs to be addressed at all different levels
Speaker 1: of government. Uh. To me, it almost gets to these
Speaker 1: big philosophical questions like whether people care more about absolute
Speaker 1: gains versus relative gains, because you can argue that everyone
Speaker 1: will benefit in some way from whatever policy. But I
Speaker 1: guess in reality, if people see their neighbor, for instance,
Speaker 1: benefit more on a relative basis, I guess people still
Speaker 1: get angry that that feels like the essence of the problem.
Speaker 1: To me, like whether or not you believe relative gains
Speaker 1: are more important or absolute gains. But again, big questions, Yeah,
Speaker 1: big questions and potentially a moment of a big change.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it'll be really interesting to have similar conversations,
Speaker 1: hopefully not exactly the same, but more conversations on this
Speaker 1: topic next year and see how much has actually like
Speaker 1: shaken out in terms of change. Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: well this has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Trucy Alloway. You can follow me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Trucy Alloway and I'm Joe Wasn't All. You can follow
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at the Stalwart and follow our guest
Speaker 1: on Twitter, Congresswoman Ianna Pressley. Her handle is at Ianna Pressley.
Speaker 1: Follow our producer on Twitter, Laura Carlson at Laura M Carlson.
Speaker 1: Follow the Bloomberg head of podcasts, Francesco Levi at Francesco Today,
Speaker 1: and check out all of our podcasts under the handle
Speaker 1: at podcast. Thanks for listening. A