WEBVTT - Federal Reserve Bank Chicago President Austan Goolsbee Talks Fed Future & Trump Administration

0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news well.

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:10.600
<v Speaker 2>Federal Reserve Baker Boston President Susan Collins said earlier on

0:00:10.640 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg TV that a December interest rate cut remains on

0:00:14.400 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 2>the table, emphasized in the Central Bank's decision will be

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:20.320
<v Speaker 2>guided by incoming data. For more on the path of

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:22.959
<v Speaker 2>rates and how another FED president is thinking about the environment.

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:25.600
<v Speaker 2>Right now, we had on over to Bloomberg News International

0:00:25.600 --> 0:00:28.680
<v Speaker 2>Economics and Policy correspondent Michael McKee, who's standing by with

0:00:28.760 --> 0:00:31.200
<v Speaker 2>Chicago Fed President Austin gooles Hey, Mike.

0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:35.480
<v Speaker 3>Good afternoon, Tim, and good afternoon to everybody watching around

0:00:35.479 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 3>the world on Bloomberg Television and radio through the miracle

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.040
<v Speaker 3>of modern telecommunications. I'm in Boston, where I did talk

0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.720
<v Speaker 3>with Susan Collins earlier today in Austin is in Chicago

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:49.479
<v Speaker 3>where he is making some of the media rounds. Austin,

0:00:49.520 --> 0:00:53.479
<v Speaker 3>thanks for joining us today. You saw to get you

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:57.560
<v Speaker 3>out here to Chicago exactly. But you just heard them

0:00:57.600 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 3>say that the markets are down today. It's a little

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:02.960
<v Speaker 3>bit of disappointment because there's a feeling that with reasonably

0:01:03.000 --> 0:01:07.199
<v Speaker 3>strong inflation and kind of strong economy and mixed news

0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:09.680
<v Speaker 3>on the labor markets that the FED might take a

0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:13.160
<v Speaker 3>cent a pause, take a pause in December. Do you

0:01:13.160 --> 0:01:15.440
<v Speaker 3>want to make everybody happy and tell them that it's

0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:16.279
<v Speaker 3>not going to happen.

0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Look, you know my thing is A. I'm only allowed

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:23.760
<v Speaker 1>to speak for myself, not for anybody else on the

0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:26.000
<v Speaker 1>committee or for the committee as a whole. And B.

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:28.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't like tie in our hands. We're going to

0:01:28.280 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>still get a lot of information and data before the

0:01:31.959 --> 0:01:34.959
<v Speaker 1>next meeting when we have to decide that, and we're

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:37.960
<v Speaker 1>going to get to discuss amongst ourselves, and I'm going

0:01:38.000 --> 0:01:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to hear the views of other folks on the committee.

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>I know the market's business model is to react immediately

0:01:47.480 --> 0:01:53.559
<v Speaker 1>and in the most extreme terms to rumors, and that's

0:01:53.680 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>not the FED timetable. What we need to do as

0:01:57.160 --> 0:02:01.760
<v Speaker 1>a central bank, I think is focus on the through line.

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:06.960
<v Speaker 1>And the through line has been substantial decrease in the

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:11.000
<v Speaker 1>inflation rate from its highs, the job market cooling to

0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:15.480
<v Speaker 1>something like full employment, where if it stayed right where

0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:18.400
<v Speaker 1>it was, that would be that would be a perfectly fine,

0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:22.240
<v Speaker 1>steady state outcome. And to do that and hold it

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:25.679
<v Speaker 1>in that kind of position, I think we're going to

0:02:25.919 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 1>be looking at rates coming down over the next year

0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:33.240
<v Speaker 1>along the lines of what the dot plot said. So

0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:35.440
<v Speaker 1>I still think we have a long way to go

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:38.919
<v Speaker 1>down with rates. How fast that happens. You saw a

0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:43.240
<v Speaker 1>chair pale saying that there's nothing that says it has

0:02:43.280 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 1>to be immediate. And I'm comfortable personally that as there's

0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:52.280
<v Speaker 1>some dispute about what is the neutral rate at which

0:02:52.320 --> 0:02:56.120
<v Speaker 1>we're going to settle down, if there's disagreement about that,

0:02:56.120 --> 0:02:58.680
<v Speaker 1>that we don't just charge right to it, that we

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 1>slow the pace as we get toward it. But again,

0:03:02.320 --> 0:03:04.640
<v Speaker 1>this is playing out over a longer period.

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:07.920
<v Speaker 3>I think, Well, everybody came out of the last meeting,

0:03:07.960 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 3>everybody on Wall Street came out of the last meeting

0:03:10.040 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 3>figuring that the December meeting was a sure thing for

0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:15.760
<v Speaker 3>another rate cut. Have you seen anything in the data

0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:18.640
<v Speaker 3>we got this past week that seems to have upset

0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.399
<v Speaker 3>people on Wall Street that would cause you to think

0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 3>there should be a pause or are you still fairly

0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:30.280
<v Speaker 3>confident that it's a necessary and a possible move.

0:03:31.560 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>Well, the second part of that, I always think you've

0:03:35.880 --> 0:03:38.880
<v Speaker 1>seen the table. It's a huge table. Everything's always on

0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:42.080
<v Speaker 1>the table. But there's no there are no guarantees, and

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 1>there shouldn't be We should be watching the conditions. I'm

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:48.000
<v Speaker 1>not going to try to put my head It's how

0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:50.360
<v Speaker 1>dangerous is it to try to put your head into

0:03:50.400 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 1>what the market is thinking. I've just got to focus

0:03:53.880 --> 0:03:56.800
<v Speaker 1>on what I'm thinking. We've seen what is Austin thinking

0:03:56.840 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 1>the job market conflicting crosswinds, let's call it. We had

0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:05.880
<v Speaker 1>a disappointing month. We had two stronger than expected months,

0:04:06.200 --> 0:04:11.200
<v Speaker 1>then we had a hurricane and strike noise affected month

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:16.599
<v Speaker 1>that was well below what was expected. We just need

0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:19.960
<v Speaker 1>to see through that and try to figure out where

0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:22.159
<v Speaker 1>we are in the job market. A lot of the

0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:24.919
<v Speaker 1>other measures, if you take the unemployment rate, if you

0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:27.599
<v Speaker 1>take some of the ratios like vacancies to the number

0:04:27.600 --> 0:04:32.880
<v Speaker 1>of unemployed workers, they're pointing to stabilization at something like

0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:37.160
<v Speaker 1>full employment. That would be great. The inflation numbers have

0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:40.800
<v Speaker 1>to keep improving. I believe that we have set out

0:04:40.839 --> 0:04:44.360
<v Speaker 1>a path to two percent. If we started to see

0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:48.279
<v Speaker 1>reversal of that, then we're going to be back into

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:50.600
<v Speaker 1>the phase where we got to figure out is this

0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:53.520
<v Speaker 1>a bump in the road like it was in January

0:04:53.600 --> 0:04:57.560
<v Speaker 1>of this year, or is this through line continuing and

0:04:57.720 --> 0:05:00.280
<v Speaker 1>that what you just think that a lot changed in

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 1>the last couple weeks on.

0:05:01.440 --> 0:05:04.599
<v Speaker 3>That is that what you're saying now with inflation as

0:05:04.600 --> 0:05:08.000
<v Speaker 3>a bump in the road, the CPI PPI and what

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:10.120
<v Speaker 3>the nerds have figured out for PC coming.

0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:13.280
<v Speaker 1>Up, Well the nerd I love those nerds. You a

0:05:13.279 --> 0:05:17.960
<v Speaker 1>bunch of those nerds work at Chicago FED. It's a

0:05:17.960 --> 0:05:21.640
<v Speaker 1>little higher, you know, on a monthly basis than the target.

0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:26.000
<v Speaker 1>If that was extended, that's too high. We're not the

0:05:26.040 --> 0:05:28.560
<v Speaker 1>inflation target's two percent. We're going to get inflation at

0:05:28.560 --> 0:05:32.080
<v Speaker 1>two percent. If it's coming in at three percent, it

0:05:32.120 --> 0:05:36.640
<v Speaker 1>has to come down. Now that said, absolutely, don't make

0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:40.279
<v Speaker 1>too much out of any one month's number, especially on inflation.

0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:44.800
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of volatility of that series, and we've

0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:47.960
<v Speaker 1>had many months in a row that the through line

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 1>on inflation, in my view is it's come way down

0:05:50.800 --> 0:05:53.159
<v Speaker 1>and it's going to keep coming down. I have some

0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:56.719
<v Speaker 1>confidence that if you break out the components, you're starting

0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.840
<v Speaker 1>to finally see progress. On the housing side. We've had

0:05:59.839 --> 0:06:04.720
<v Speaker 1>a bit of a bump slash blip where goods inflation

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:08.880
<v Speaker 1>has gone back up above zero, where pre COVID it

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:12.039
<v Speaker 1>was mild deflation. So I still think you can see

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:14.599
<v Speaker 1>some progress on that, and we'll keep an eye on

0:06:14.640 --> 0:06:15.279
<v Speaker 1>the services.

0:06:16.440 --> 0:06:18.400
<v Speaker 3>This morning, you re Quota is saying by this time

0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:21.599
<v Speaker 3>next year, we'll see interest rates far below where they

0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:25.080
<v Speaker 3>are today. What does far below mean? Is your view

0:06:25.200 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 3>of neutral significantly lower than we are now.

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:32.840
<v Speaker 1>It's significantly lower than where we are now, definitely. I mean,

0:06:33.120 --> 0:06:35.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's a secret. If you take the

0:06:35.160 --> 0:06:40.040
<v Speaker 1>dot plot SEPs it looked like a pretty wide consensus

0:06:41.680 --> 0:06:44.880
<v Speaker 1>among the members of the committee where they're asked individually.

0:06:44.920 --> 0:06:49.200
<v Speaker 1>We don't debate those points that almost everyone views that

0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>the long run settling rate of interest rates is somewhere

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.960
<v Speaker 1>well below where it is today. So that's why I say,

0:06:57.080 --> 0:07:01.080
<v Speaker 1>as long as we're staying on this path that we've

0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:05.839
<v Speaker 1>been on, I view that interest rates need to come

0:07:05.880 --> 0:07:08.920
<v Speaker 1>down a fair amount over the next twelve to eighteen months.

0:07:09.560 --> 0:07:12.960
<v Speaker 3>But given the growth rate Atlanta fed GDP now out

0:07:12.960 --> 0:07:15.760
<v Speaker 3>today two point six percent, and what we've seen the

0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:19.680
<v Speaker 3>rest of this year, it's been stronger than anticipated, inflation's

0:07:19.720 --> 0:07:24.880
<v Speaker 3>a little higher than anticipated, unemployment a little lower than anticipated.

0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:27.720
<v Speaker 3>Is it worth keeping your foot on the brake a

0:07:27.800 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 3>little longer to try to ensure you get to that

0:07:30.600 --> 0:07:31.480
<v Speaker 3>target you want.

0:07:32.680 --> 0:07:35.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's for sure keeping an eye on those conditions.

0:07:35.800 --> 0:07:38.360
<v Speaker 1>If you thought the economy is overheating and that we're

0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:42.640
<v Speaker 1>getting off the through line of improvement and going to

0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:46.720
<v Speaker 1>an overheated posture, the FED has to we committed we're

0:07:46.720 --> 0:07:49.640
<v Speaker 1>going to get inflation back to two percent now. I

0:07:49.720 --> 0:07:53.400
<v Speaker 1>think all the question mark to remember on all of

0:07:53.400 --> 0:07:58.360
<v Speaker 1>this is we've had very robust productivity growth now for

0:07:58.640 --> 0:08:02.960
<v Speaker 1>a year plus, and if productivity growth is higher than

0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:07.960
<v Speaker 1>trend as it has been, and that continues, then you

0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:11.400
<v Speaker 1>got to be a little careful over indexing on the

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 1>growth rate of GDP as an indicator of whether the

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:20.160
<v Speaker 1>economy is overheating, because if productivity is rising, you can

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:22.880
<v Speaker 1>have faster growth without generating more inflation.

0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:26.760
<v Speaker 3>I know there's some topics that FED officials don't like

0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:29.280
<v Speaker 3>to talk about, including the state of the Chicago Bears

0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:29.800
<v Speaker 3>these days.

0:08:29.800 --> 0:08:34.000
<v Speaker 1>But you have a new coming that's cold. You're not

0:08:34.120 --> 0:08:37.559
<v Speaker 1>even here, You're over there in Boston saying this. I'm

0:08:37.559 --> 0:08:38.440
<v Speaker 1>going to get you, Mike.

0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:43.240
<v Speaker 3>We have a new administration coming in and obviously it's

0:08:43.280 --> 0:08:48.079
<v Speaker 3>going to bring in some new fiscal programs. I realize

0:08:48.120 --> 0:08:50.520
<v Speaker 3>you don't have details, you can't model them. You're not sure,

0:08:50.559 --> 0:08:55.600
<v Speaker 3>But could you basically say that whatever kind of SEP

0:08:55.840 --> 0:08:59.880
<v Speaker 3>we get in December, the Summary of Economic Projections, whatever,

0:09:00.080 --> 0:09:03.640
<v Speaker 3>at a dot plot, we shouldn't put too much emphasis

0:09:03.720 --> 0:09:06.160
<v Speaker 3>on it because it could easily change when the new

0:09:06.200 --> 0:09:07.480
<v Speaker 3>administration takes over.

0:09:10.000 --> 0:09:13.000
<v Speaker 1>Maybe I don't totally know how to answer that. I

0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:16.600
<v Speaker 1>thought Chair Powell at the press conference had a lovely

0:09:16.679 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 1>phrase that when it comes to policy, we don't speculate.

0:09:21.520 --> 0:09:25.360
<v Speaker 1>It's not our job to try to make predictions about

0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:27.680
<v Speaker 1>who's going to win elections or what are they going

0:09:27.760 --> 0:09:30.800
<v Speaker 1>to do. Our job is to follow the dual mandate,

0:09:30.920 --> 0:09:36.680
<v Speaker 1>maximize employment, stabilize prices. If policies get enacted that we

0:09:36.840 --> 0:09:40.320
<v Speaker 1>think are going to affect our mandate, of course we

0:09:40.360 --> 0:09:43.760
<v Speaker 1>react to those conditions just like every other conditions. But

0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:49.200
<v Speaker 1>we're not in the elections business or the anticipate anticipation

0:09:49.400 --> 0:09:51.760
<v Speaker 1>of policy business of that form.

0:09:52.640 --> 0:09:55.520
<v Speaker 3>Well, you did serve in an administration as chairman of

0:09:55.559 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 3>the Council of Economic Advisors, and now you work for

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:04.600
<v Speaker 3>the FED. From your what should be the relationship between

0:10:04.840 --> 0:10:07.959
<v Speaker 3>an executive administration and the central Bank?

0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 1>Look, I said before I ever was at the FED

0:10:12.320 --> 0:10:15.640
<v Speaker 1>that FED independence is important, and that's a close to

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:20.520
<v Speaker 1>unanimously held view among economists because the simple reason just

0:10:20.559 --> 0:10:22.760
<v Speaker 1>look around the world and look at times in the

0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:27.640
<v Speaker 1>United States when a sitting administration can bully the FED

0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:30.040
<v Speaker 1>or tell the FED what to do or the Central

0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:32.880
<v Speaker 1>Bank what to do on interest rates. The outcomes are worse.

0:10:33.080 --> 0:10:37.200
<v Speaker 1>Inflation is higher, the economic growth is lower. And that's

0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:41.520
<v Speaker 1>why everybody thinks that the fed's independence is important. And

0:10:43.080 --> 0:10:45.719
<v Speaker 1>it's an interesting observation. I was the chair of the

0:10:45.760 --> 0:10:49.920
<v Speaker 1>Council of Economic Advisors. There are many previous people that

0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:52.960
<v Speaker 1>worked at the Council of Economic Advisors or in high

0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:56.320
<v Speaker 1>level treasury roles who work in the FED because they

0:10:56.360 --> 0:11:00.840
<v Speaker 1>have public sector experience. But the question of FED independence,

0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:04.400
<v Speaker 1>and it's embodied in the Federal Reserve Act. They try

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:08.160
<v Speaker 1>to set it up to be as insulated from elections

0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:14.559
<v Speaker 1>as possible. It's not on the presidential election timetable for

0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:19.400
<v Speaker 1>the terms. There's a composition of the FOMC, some of

0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:23.000
<v Speaker 1>which are political appointees, some of which are from reserve

0:11:23.120 --> 0:11:26.400
<v Speaker 1>banks around the country that are not chosen through a

0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:29.920
<v Speaker 1>political process. And that's how it should be. If you

0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:31.679
<v Speaker 1>want to do the best monetary policy.

0:11:31.720 --> 0:11:35.240
<v Speaker 3>I think, I guess I'm going to ask a question

0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:37.760
<v Speaker 3>that I sort of asked before, but in a different way.

0:11:38.760 --> 0:11:42.120
<v Speaker 3>Back a couple of years ago, Leyel brainer put forth

0:11:42.160 --> 0:11:44.880
<v Speaker 3>the proposition that maybe you want to have a slow

0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:50.280
<v Speaker 3>period of policy, taking breaks in between meetings where you

0:11:50.360 --> 0:11:52.680
<v Speaker 3>might raise or lower interest rates because you have to

0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:56.280
<v Speaker 3>assess where the economy is, because we don't know what's

0:11:56.320 --> 0:11:58.720
<v Speaker 3>going to happen with fiscal policy, and because we're getting

0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:03.880
<v Speaker 3>a little bit of extra strength in the economy. Do

0:12:03.920 --> 0:12:07.040
<v Speaker 3>you think that that is probably a good idea, that

0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:11.760
<v Speaker 3>maybe we don't price in regular rate cuts, that you

0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:13.360
<v Speaker 3>do take some breaks in between.

0:12:14.679 --> 0:12:17.199
<v Speaker 1>Well, first, I thought you were about to say. I

0:12:17.240 --> 0:12:19.640
<v Speaker 1>thought you were going to quote me something you asked

0:12:19.720 --> 0:12:22.480
<v Speaker 1>me two years ago, and I was going to say,

0:12:22.640 --> 0:12:28.079
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember that, But so you asked Vice Chair Brainerd.

0:12:30.200 --> 0:12:34.400
<v Speaker 1>The Fed's decision making is not based on the results

0:12:34.400 --> 0:12:38.040
<v Speaker 1>of elections. Our decision is based on the dual mandate

0:12:38.160 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 1>and the assessment of the economic conditions and the outlook.

0:12:41.600 --> 0:12:45.679
<v Speaker 1>If the outlook is changing, then we can balance and

0:12:46.160 --> 0:12:49.320
<v Speaker 1>think through what that means for the FED. But the

0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:51.600
<v Speaker 1>part of the question that I object to. It's not

0:12:51.920 --> 0:12:57.880
<v Speaker 1>speculating about fiscal policy. That's not the Fed's role. We're

0:12:57.920 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 1>the Midwest. You tell us the way, and we tell

0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:03.240
<v Speaker 1>you what jacket we're going to put on. But that

0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>goes into the economic conditions, and what we do is

0:13:06.320 --> 0:13:11.600
<v Speaker 1>watch economic conditions. I'm perfectly comfortable personally with the idea

0:13:11.679 --> 0:13:14.440
<v Speaker 1>that if you look at the dot plot there is

0:13:14.559 --> 0:13:19.400
<v Speaker 1>disagreement about what will the ultimate settling rate be of

0:13:19.559 --> 0:13:21.240
<v Speaker 1>our star if you want to call it that, or

0:13:21.280 --> 0:13:24.360
<v Speaker 1>what would it mean to stop being restrictive and start

0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:30.079
<v Speaker 1>being neutral? And if we're getting closer to the disagreement point,

0:13:30.400 --> 0:13:33.560
<v Speaker 1>I can understand why you would want to slow down

0:13:33.600 --> 0:13:38.120
<v Speaker 1>a little bit to try to gauge is this neutral

0:13:38.360 --> 0:13:41.719
<v Speaker 1>or are we still restrictive because monetary policy has a

0:13:41.800 --> 0:13:47.480
<v Speaker 1>lag in its impact, and in my view, that's the

0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:50.320
<v Speaker 1>way we should be managing this question of how slow

0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:51.439
<v Speaker 1>or how fast to do it.

0:13:52.320 --> 0:13:54.360
<v Speaker 3>Well, let me ask you one last question, and that

0:13:54.520 --> 0:13:56.959
<v Speaker 3>is you mentioned you're in the Midwest. You can tell

0:13:57.000 --> 0:13:58.920
<v Speaker 3>us what kind of coat you're wearing, probably the same

0:13:58.960 --> 0:14:02.520
<v Speaker 3>as us today it's colden Boston. But what are CEOs

0:14:02.679 --> 0:14:06.160
<v Speaker 3>and consumers telling you out there? I know you're not

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.119
<v Speaker 3>just looking at past data. When you make your decisions,

0:14:09.240 --> 0:14:11.720
<v Speaker 3>you try to incorporate current views of the economy. So

0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:14.080
<v Speaker 3>what are the views of the people in your district?

0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:19.400
<v Speaker 1>Well, out here in the heartland, you know, in the

0:14:19.440 --> 0:14:22.440
<v Speaker 1>Reserve banks, we spend a lot of time going and

0:14:22.480 --> 0:14:26.280
<v Speaker 1>talking to business leaders and community leaders and consumers and

0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:31.520
<v Speaker 1>getting the more up to date measures than just what

0:14:31.800 --> 0:14:35.040
<v Speaker 1>come out in official data. A lot of the discussion,

0:14:35.080 --> 0:14:38.800
<v Speaker 1>and we have a special focus on autos and manufacturing

0:14:39.080 --> 0:14:41.880
<v Speaker 1>here in the seventh district because we have the most

0:14:41.960 --> 0:14:46.080
<v Speaker 1>auto production of all the districts by far. Most of

0:14:46.120 --> 0:14:51.040
<v Speaker 1>the business community are reporting back steady as she goes

0:14:52.840 --> 0:14:56.680
<v Speaker 1>kind of a report and that the job market it's

0:14:56.760 --> 0:14:59.760
<v Speaker 1>not easy to find people, but it's not the kind

0:14:59.800 --> 0:15:04.160
<v Speaker 1>of labor shortage labor scarcity mentality that they had coming

0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:08.760
<v Speaker 1>out of peak pandemic. On the inflation side, a lot

0:15:08.800 --> 0:15:12.360
<v Speaker 1>of discussion, really complaints on the part of the business

0:15:12.400 --> 0:15:15.640
<v Speaker 1>people that they cannot raise prices as much as they

0:15:15.680 --> 0:15:20.000
<v Speaker 1>did before, they can't pass on cost increases, fear that

0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:24.000
<v Speaker 1>there might be some cost increases coming, complications in the

0:15:24.040 --> 0:15:28.480
<v Speaker 1>supply chain, etc. And that now consumers would not stand

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:33.280
<v Speaker 1>for passing those costs on. So all of those don't

0:15:33.320 --> 0:15:35.760
<v Speaker 1>tell a story to me that's that different from what

0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:39.680
<v Speaker 1>the data have been showing, which is this steady progress

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:44.680
<v Speaker 1>on the inflation front, stabilization on employment, and steady as

0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:48.200
<v Speaker 1>she goes. Let's try to bring the interest rate down

0:15:48.240 --> 0:15:51.200
<v Speaker 1>into something like neutral and be a little less restrictive.

0:15:52.480 --> 0:15:54.600
<v Speaker 3>You've been in Chicago for a long time, but now

0:15:54.640 --> 0:15:58.040
<v Speaker 3>you're at the Chicago Fed, which encompasses the city of Detroit.

0:15:58.360 --> 0:16:00.760
<v Speaker 3>If the Lions went out, that good enough.

0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:03.640
<v Speaker 1>For you, that's good enough for me. We got a

0:16:03.680 --> 0:16:07.400
<v Speaker 1>branch in Detroit. We got a bomb dog in Detroit

0:16:07.600 --> 0:16:11.200
<v Speaker 1>whose side lights as the bomb dog at the Detroit

0:16:11.280 --> 0:16:15.200
<v Speaker 1>Lions Stadium. So we we're all lions. That'd be okay,

0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:16.680
<v Speaker 1>almost as good as the bears.

0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:21.000
<v Speaker 3>Austin Gilsby, the president of the Chicago Fed and the

0:16:21.080 --> 0:16:24.600
<v Speaker 3>owner of a bomb dog in Detroit, thanks for joining

0:16:24.680 --> 0:16:27.760
<v Speaker 3>us today here on Bloomberg, and I'll send it back

0:16:27.760 --> 0:16:28.800
<v Speaker 3>to you guys in New York.

0:16:29.080 --> 0:16:32.160
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much. Michael McKee, Bombdogs and the Dot plot.

0:16:32.240 --> 0:16:36.040
<v Speaker 2>Michael McKee, Blooberg News International Economic New Policy correspondent out

0:16:36.040 --> 0:16:40.040
<v Speaker 2>there in Boston, though speaking with Austin Goulsby on Chicago,

0:16:40.120 --> 0:16:42.040
<v Speaker 2>the president of the Chicago Fed