WEBVTT - Fed Governor Stephen Miran Talks Rates & Outlook For 2026 0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:09.040 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Cleveland Fed President Beth 0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:12.119 Hammock among those preferring to hold rates higher for longer, 0:00:12.360 --> 0:00:14.520 while our next guest is taking the other side, voting 0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:17.799 for a fifty basis point cut at the fed's last meeting. 0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:20.560 Joining us now is Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Myron. Very 0:00:20.560 --> 0:00:21.880 good morning to you, Steven. Thank you so much for 0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:22.319 joining us. 0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:23.520 Good morning, thanks for having me back. 0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:26.480 So let's start with Beth Ham actually came out over 0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:29.440 the weekend. Then we heard for Williams as well on Friday, 0:00:29.720 --> 0:00:32.440 saying that potentially where we are right now, rates should 0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:34.839 be steady and they're looking at what's going on inflation. 0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:37.080 Even the FED chair was talking about maybe you need 0:00:37.120 --> 0:00:39.640 to look at inflation the data we had with some 0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:42.199 grain of salt because of the government shutdown. How are 0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:44.920 you viewing that side of the FEDS mandate right now? 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:47.560 Yeah, So I gave a speech on the inflation Netlook 0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:50.400 last week, you know, and I still believe everything I 0:00:50.440 --> 0:00:52.200 said last week in light of this week's print. 0:00:52.920 --> 0:00:53.800 Last week's print, I. 0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:55.720 Mean, look, there were a couple of anomalies in last 0:00:55.760 --> 0:00:59.160 week's print related to consequences of the government shutdown, which 0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:01.800 have distorted and delayed economic data that we need to 0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:05.720 make policy. But you know, in those consequences I think 0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:07.720 are not huge there when you sort of get to 0:01:07.760 --> 0:01:10.080 when you get to sort of the ultimate PCE print, 0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:12.600 which is what the FED, which is what the FED targets, 0:01:12.880 --> 0:01:15.360 it's probably ultimately going to be in the neighborhood of 0:01:15.360 --> 0:01:17.240 two tenths of a point, maybe a tenth of that 0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:18.880 is going to be shelter, and tenth of the other 0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:21.640 stuff is going to be you know, calendar stuff like prices, 0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:23.400 like data were collected in the second half of the 0:01:23.400 --> 0:01:25.720 month around Black Friday stuff. But we'll have to sort 0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:29.080 of see when we get the PC data. But it 0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:31.240 is true that the shelter stuff was somewhat distorted by 0:01:31.240 --> 0:01:33.720 some of the quirks of the of recovering from the shutdown. 0:01:34.319 --> 0:01:37.320 But it's also true that the shelter data were distorted 0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:40.839 for most of the year because of really long lands 0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:43.200 with which shelter inflation is calculated. If you look at 0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:45.080 market rents, they've been running at about a one percent 0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:48.160 rate for about two years now, right. That's not indicative 0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:51.240 of any price pressures in housing whatsoever, but it takes 0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:53.559 a really long time for measured shelter inflation to catch 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.480 up to that, just because of various quirks of the 0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:58.400 statistical measurement process that I got into my speech last week. 0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:00.560 So I do think there was maybe someward bias in 0:02:00.600 --> 0:02:02.440 last week's print. But at the same time, there's been 0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:05.400 tons of upward bias in data for the entire year, 0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:08.320 and it's inappropriate to say, Okay, well, we have to 0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:10.240 adjust for the downward bias, but we're going to accept 0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:12.840 the upward bias that itself is a deeply biased position. 0:02:12.880 --> 0:02:14.600 We've got to be clear right about both. Well, do 0:02:14.600 --> 0:02:16.560 you feel like yourself included? 0:02:16.760 --> 0:02:18.919 But do you feel like members of the Fed are 0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:21.880 cherry picking what about inflation they like or dislike? 0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:23.840 Well, I mean, you know, I think that for the 0:02:23.880 --> 0:02:26.679 last few months, we've had data come out in accordance 0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:28.840 with I think my view of the world. The inflation 0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:32.320 data has steadily come in cooler than expectations, the unemployment 0:02:32.440 --> 0:02:35.480 rate has poked up potentially above where people thought it 0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:37.600 was going to go, and so we've had data that 0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:40.120 should push people into a duvish direction. And I think 0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:42.520 it's somewhat problematic if you see those data coming out 0:02:42.520 --> 0:02:45.040 and you don't adjust your policy prescriptions in the Duvish direction. 0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:47.400 What does that say about the reactiveness of policy to 0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:49.600 the economy? You know, I think it looks very it 0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:51.080 reflects very poorly upon the institution. 0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:53.000 At the end of that speech at Columbia, you nodded 0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:56.480 to the fact that recessions are inevitable. Fed's job, it's 0:02:56.520 --> 0:02:58.880 going to forestall them as much as they can. Policymaker's 0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:01.520 jobs are that. I'm very curious when you look at 0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:03.480 the labor market, in particularly the rise that we've seen 0:03:03.480 --> 0:03:05.639 in the unemployment rate, that's kind of rise we've seen 0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:09.519 customarily before recessions. How do you assess the risk of 0:03:09.560 --> 0:03:11.360 there being a recession here in the near term when 0:03:11.400 --> 0:03:12.720 you look at the labor market, for instance. 0:03:12.960 --> 0:03:14.760 So I don't see a recession in the near term, 0:03:14.760 --> 0:03:18.679 in part because we are adjusting our policy rate, belowering it, 0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:20.320 which is appropriate. You know. 0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:24.120 My view, as I've described, is that a variety. 0:03:23.639 --> 0:03:26.440 Of shocks that hit the economy, you know, including changes 0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:28.239 to the population growth rate due to the changes in 0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:30.840 the border policy, have pushed what we call the neutral 0:03:30.919 --> 0:03:33.440 rate down and that policy needs to adjust downward to 0:03:33.440 --> 0:03:36.480 reflect that downward shift in neutral. If we don't adjust 0:03:36.520 --> 0:03:40.280 policy down, then I think that we do run risks 0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:43.400 of rising recessions. I don't think it's too late to 0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:45.280 prevent that, and so I think it's important that we 0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.600 keep on adjusting our policy rate down. But at the 0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:49.520 moment it's not my base case, in part because I 0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:52.400 think that we ultimately will end up continuing to adjust 0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:53.040 interest raights down. 0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:54.360 I want to ask you about the utility of the 0:03:54.400 --> 0:03:58.000 Myrone descent. So we had the FED share asked that 0:03:58.040 --> 0:04:01.800 press conference about the increasing fractured nature of the FED Committee. 0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:04.760 We've talked about quiet descents as well. What are you 0:04:04.800 --> 0:04:07.040 achieving or so what's the reaction been to you dissenting 0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:08.840 as you have been kind of in the conversation among 0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:09.800 the committee. 0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:12.920 Yeah, so, look, I mean there's not really any strategy here. 0:04:13.000 --> 0:04:15.400 I'm just transparent and say what I think and always 0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:17.000 have and that gets me in a lot of trouble. 0:04:17.320 --> 0:04:19.680 And does it or is it a constructive So when 0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:21.159 you descend in the way in which you does is 0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:23.279 it a constructive descent? Do you find that others are 0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:26.680 willing to engage with you and your perspective on inflation? 0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:27.200 For instance. 0:04:27.400 --> 0:04:30.280 Yeah, well, my perspective on inflation is you know, look 0:04:30.279 --> 0:04:32.280 at my first speech, I talked about inflation a little bit, 0:04:32.279 --> 0:04:34.560 but I mostly was focused on neutral. 0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:36.320 My speech last week. 0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:38.440 I really drew out a lot about my outlook for 0:04:38.480 --> 0:04:40.760 inflation that was sort of implicit in the first speech 0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:44.760 and sort of just cursely curse, cursorily treated. 0:04:44.600 --> 0:04:45.480 And I really drew that out. 0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:47.880 So my views and inflation haven't been out there fully 0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:49.719 fleshed out for the committee for so long and now 0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:52.200 running into holiday season. But I have found that are 0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:54.320 that people are constructive, they want to discuss these things, 0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:56.479 and I think that's important. And you know, look, one 0:04:56.560 --> 0:05:00.320 positive benefit of me potentially dissenting like this is that 0:05:00.400 --> 0:05:04.080 it introduces more a wider variety of views. I think 0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:06.560 it's really really important to avoid groupthink. I think if 0:05:07.080 --> 0:05:09.400 you fall into group think, you stop questioning where you 0:05:09.400 --> 0:05:11.359 could be wrong, and then it just becomes much easier 0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:13.760 to be a complacent consensus that is in error. 0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:15.400 I think we've seen that over and over this year. 0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:17.120 For example, on tariffs. 0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:20.120 Let's talk potentially about tariffs. The President is pushing for 0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:23.400 this two thousand dollars tariff dividend the Church of secretary 0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:25.880 is talking about these tax refunds start of twenty twenty six. 0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:29.599 Is there potential that more money in consumers pockets could 0:05:29.600 --> 0:05:30.320 goose inflation? 0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:33.960 Yeah, so there is potential for some of these factors 0:05:33.960 --> 0:05:36.760 to boost economic growth. With respect to sort of tax refunds, 0:05:36.760 --> 0:05:39.240 you know, I think that sorry, with respect to tariff refunds, 0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:40.479 I think we need to sort of wait and see 0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:45.120 what the policy looks like before getting into analyzing its consequences. 0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:47.360 If there does end up being a policy with respect 0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:50.680 to tax refunds that are results of the already legislated 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:53.880 tax bill, the One Be Beautiful Bill Act from last year, 0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:56.440 those are already baked into the forecast and they will 0:05:56.440 --> 0:05:58.680 provide a little bit of demand stimulus. But there's so 0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:01.200 much other stuff going on as result of policy Ino 0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:04.880 triple b in deregulation, in other things that are going 0:06:04.880 --> 0:06:07.040 on in econ policy that ultimately push out the supply 0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:09.320 side of the economy too. And my view is that 0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:11.479 if you push out the demand side while you're putting 0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:13.320 the brakes in the supply side, you get inflation. 0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:14.839 If you push out supply. 0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:16.200 And demand at the same time, it doesn't really have 0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:17.480 an effect on priceis But do. 0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:19.280 You think it was a mistake that when we had 0:06:19.360 --> 0:06:22.120 under the Biden administration the American Rescue Plan Inflation Reduction 0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:24.160 Act sending out checks to American consumers. 0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:25.240 Was that an error? 0:06:25.400 --> 0:06:27.920 Well, it's not appropriate for you know, for a member 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:28.560 of the Federal Reserve. 0:06:28.640 --> 0:06:30.480 Do you think it described to there's an error or not? 0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:32.320 But I do think that if you hit if you 0:06:32.400 --> 0:06:34.760 hit the gas on demand while you're hitting the brakes 0:06:34.760 --> 0:06:37.080 on supply at the same time, it will result in 0:06:37.120 --> 0:06:37.760 higher prices. 0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:40.599 That is, that is an economic when two thousand dollars 0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:44.320 checks do a similar reaction as we saw on by 0:06:44.360 --> 0:06:46.400 the other checks during the American Rescue Plan, Well. 0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:48.480 It depends what's happening on the supply. So two things matter. 0:06:48.680 --> 0:06:51.000 One is the state of the demand, state of aggregate 0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:54.840 demand outside of those checks. And if you go back 0:06:54.880 --> 0:06:58.480 several years, the economy was recovering on its own from COVID. Right. 0:06:58.600 --> 0:07:01.520 What COVID was not like the Great the Financial Crisis, 0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:05.040 which had lingering deleveraging effects for a decade plus, which 0:07:05.040 --> 0:07:09.400 meant that demand was persistently depressed. After COVID, you know, 0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:12.520 we started getting vaccines, we started getting at virals, places 0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:14.720 started opening back up, the economy started returning to normal 0:07:14.800 --> 0:07:17.200 on its own, and so demand was growing quite healthily, 0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:20.160 and jobs numbers were beating every month, and so throwing 0:07:20.200 --> 0:07:22.920 more economic support on top of that wound up sort 0:07:22.920 --> 0:07:25.880 of pushing and already expanding demand side to expand even further. 0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:28.360 Right now, you see the unemployment rate is tilting up 0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:30.480 on its own, right, So demand is in a separate 0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:32.320 isn't a very different place than it was in twenty 0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:35.360 twenty one, but so is supply. And I think that 0:07:35.400 --> 0:07:37.480 if you're taking policy steps that are going to push 0:07:37.480 --> 0:07:39.720 out supply, or supply is moving out for reasons other 0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:43.240 than policy, for instance AI, which I find difficult to quantify, 0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:45.239 but a lot of people put a lot of faith 0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:47.800 in if supply is moving out for whatever reasons, it 0:07:47.800 --> 0:07:50.840 can accommodate increasing demand, and so the effect on prices 0:07:50.840 --> 0:07:51.760 could be very different. 0:07:52.280 --> 0:07:54.720 On higher goods inflation, there is a prevailing narrative that 0:07:54.720 --> 0:07:56.400 the terrorist policy has a lot to do with what's 0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:58.480 been pushing that up, and you kind of push back 0:07:58.480 --> 0:07:59.720 against that. You did that in the speech that you 0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:03.040 Live to Columbia as well. At the same time, you 0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:05.800 talk a lot about humility. How much uncertainty there is. 0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:07.400 I think you nodded to Mervin King in that speech 0:08:07.440 --> 0:08:08.920 and what he's written about uncertainty. 0:08:09.520 --> 0:08:10.880 What's it going to take for you? 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:12.520 Do you feel like you have a grasp of the 0:08:12.520 --> 0:08:14.320 effect of the tariffs policy thus far? Or are you 0:08:14.400 --> 0:08:16.080 still waiting to figure out sort of what that's going 0:08:16.120 --> 0:08:17.840 to mean for the economy broadly? And yes, when it 0:08:17.840 --> 0:08:19.040 comes to goods inflation. 0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:21.640 Yeah, So look in the speech I did discuss how 0:08:21.640 --> 0:08:25.080 there's this consensus has emerged that tariffs are a significant 0:08:25.160 --> 0:08:27.760 driver of inflation in the same way consensus emerged earlier 0:08:27.800 --> 0:08:29.400 in the year the tariffs are going to drive some 0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:34.520 sort of crazy recession, you know that was there. And 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:36.559 I think that consensus is wrong and and I think 0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:37.240 it's complacent. 0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:40.480 I described Charra factuals. Right. 0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:44.079 If you're describing a result in prices to tariffs, you 0:08:44.120 --> 0:08:45.440 need to say what the world would have been like 0:08:45.559 --> 0:08:48.600 without tariffs. Now, what most people do is they look 0:08:48.640 --> 0:08:50.360 at what we call the pre trends. What were the 0:08:50.400 --> 0:08:52.959 trends of various items before tariffs? 0:08:53.040 --> 0:08:53.199 Right? 0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:56.640 And most people select pre trends from the two decades 0:08:56.679 --> 0:08:59.839 before the pandemic. Right when the world was very very 0:09:00.480 --> 0:09:03.439 I don't think that that's really appropriate. Instead, the counterfactors 0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:05.120 that I want to look at that I describe in 0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:08.480 the speech and I include pictures for them, are two things. 0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:12.160 One what are imported goods imported core goods in the 0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:14.800 PC index doing relative to overall core goods? 0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:17.360 And two what are what's. 0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:19.960 Happening on an international basis? And in both of those cases, 0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:22.520 I don't see anything that would indicate to me that 0:09:22.559 --> 0:09:25.920 tariffs are the driver of core goods inflation. When you 0:09:25.960 --> 0:09:29.440 look at imported goods versus overall core goods, they're inflating 0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:32.120 at similar rates. Importive goods don't stick out. When you 0:09:32.120 --> 0:09:35.000 look at US core goods versus other countries. Again, US 0:09:35.040 --> 0:09:36.559 core goods are in the middle of the pack, and 0:09:36.600 --> 0:09:38.600 there hasn't been a change that would indicate to me 0:09:38.640 --> 0:09:40.920 that there's some sort of very significant tariff shop. So 0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:43.960 I think it's actually quite complacent for people to ascribe 0:09:44.000 --> 0:09:46.320 all this inflation to tariffs. And indeed, if you look 0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:49.160 at CPI, core goods in CPI bottomed out in the 0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:51.840 middle of last year, right seven or eight months before 0:09:51.840 --> 0:09:52.800 tariffs were implemented. 0:09:53.080 --> 0:09:55.120 I just want to get a sense before you leave us, 0:09:55.160 --> 0:09:56.840 how are you thinking about the next meeting, because it 0:09:56.840 --> 0:09:59.440 couldn't potentially be your last. Do you plan on dissenting 0:09:59.559 --> 0:10:01.040 in favor fifty basis point cut? 0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:04.360 Again, Look, I plan on pushing for the policy that 0:10:04.400 --> 0:10:06.559 I think is appropriate at the time. I will say, 0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:08.560 when I got to the FED, we hadn't cut rates 0:10:08.600 --> 0:10:11.160 at all this year, and so it was very important 0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:14.000 for us to move rates down quickly. Since then, we've 0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:17.120 pushed rates down three times, seventy five basis points of 0:10:17.120 --> 0:10:19.720 cuts to the policy rate, so the need for me 0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:22.720 to dissent for fifty becomes a little bit less as 0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:24.760 we come down. I haven't yet decided whether I'm going 0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:26.760 to push for twenty five or fifty next meeting. I 0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:29.720 think it depends on a variety of factors. So I 0:10:29.760 --> 0:10:32.320 could see voting for twenty five, but I do think 0:10:32.360 --> 0:10:35.199 it's important that we continue steadily reducing the policy rate. 0:10:35.360 --> 0:10:37.000 So basically, you'll vote for twenty five with the rest 0:10:37.000 --> 0:10:38.680 of the committee's there. If they're not going to push 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:43.760 through twenty five, you may alert everyone of your dissatisfaction 0:10:43.920 --> 0:10:45.040 with them by going for fifty. 0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:49.160 Well, No, it depends. I think I want to see 0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:51.280 the data. You know, we're still witting on a lot 0:10:51.280 --> 0:10:52.640 of data because of the shutdown, right, so I want 0:10:52.679 --> 0:10:54.400 to see what the data do to my forecast going 0:10:54.440 --> 0:10:57.160 forward and they and how they change my forecast going forward. 0:10:57.200 --> 0:10:58.400 But the truth is that I think that it was 0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:01.560 really important to vote to sorry to cut in bigger 0:11:01.559 --> 0:11:05.439 clips when policy was very high. As we continue reducing policy, 0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:07.559 I think you sort of get into into territory where 0:11:07.600 --> 0:11:10.880 you can start micromanaging instead of big instead of big cuts. 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:12.839 And I don't know whether we're here yet or it 0:11:12.880 --> 0:11:14.640 would sort of still take a couple more cuts to 0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:16.400 get there, but at some point you sort of start 0:11:16.400 --> 0:11:18.400 to become okay with sort of steady twenty five business 0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:20.000 point cuts instead of fifty business point cuts. 0:11:20.000 --> 0:11:21.480 Do you think it's going to be your last meeting? 0:11:21.600 --> 0:11:23.480 Has the White House reached out about whether or not 0:11:23.520 --> 0:11:24.720 you were going to stay on at the FED? 0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:26.040 I have no idea. 0:11:26.120 --> 0:11:28.080 I mean, look, you know, if nobody is confirmed in 0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:30.680 my seat by January thirty, first I assume that I 0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:32.600 will stay. I will stay in my seat. You know, 0:11:32.720 --> 0:11:36.000 you can stay in a seat until a successor is confirmed, 0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:39.160 and then beyond beyond that, you know, it all depend 0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:42.800 on who the President ultimately nominates to be the next 0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:45.480 Chairman of the FED, because it'll depend on, you know, 0:11:45.480 --> 0:11:47.280 what seats are available and who the President wants to 0:11:47.280 --> 0:11:47.840 fill them. 0:11:47.679 --> 0:11:50.080 When it comes to the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. 0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:52.760 There are two individuals that you've worked closely with just 0:11:52.800 --> 0:11:54.920 this year alone, Kevin Hassett of course when you were 0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:57.600 at the White House, and also Christopher Waller Government Waller 0:11:57.640 --> 0:11:59.360 of course with you at the FED. Can you just 0:11:59.360 --> 0:12:01.800 give us your valuation of both those individuals, given the 0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:05.480 fact that you have a very good, I imagine relationship 0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:06.120 with both of them. 0:12:06.559 --> 0:12:06.760 Yeah. 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.760 Look, they're both supremely talented economists and extremely effective individuals 0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:12.280 that I have the utmost respect for, and I think 0:12:12.280 --> 0:12:15.440 the counture would be very lucky to have either of them. 0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:17.719 A quick question just about what you've witnessed in terms 0:12:17.760 --> 0:12:19.600 of the chairman's role at the FED. You've been there 0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:22.599 for a few months. Is there anything that's surprised you 0:12:22.600 --> 0:12:25.160 about the way that FED share Powell is able to 0:12:25.240 --> 0:12:27.880 kind of go to get people to galvanize themselves around 0:12:27.920 --> 0:12:29.920 any kind of unanimity, the way that he runs the committee. 0:12:29.920 --> 0:12:31.480 I think we think about the FED shaers this kind 0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:33.760 of principal position. The President kind of makes us think 0:12:33.800 --> 0:12:34.960 that way that this is going to be a highly 0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:37.560 persons have a lot of determinism himself. But the FED 0:12:37.600 --> 0:12:39.800 Chair's responsibility is to try to get everybody on board 0:12:39.800 --> 0:12:42.400 with decisions. What if you wuitness about FED share power's 0:12:42.400 --> 0:12:43.599 ability to do that, what would you say to the 0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:46.320 president down that facet A FED chair has to have 0:12:46.400 --> 0:12:47.000 to be effective. 0:12:47.480 --> 0:12:49.959 Look, you know, I think that there's obviously a lot 0:12:49.960 --> 0:12:52.719 of people on the committee who are not comfortable with 0:12:53.400 --> 0:12:53.960 rate cuts. 0:12:54.520 --> 0:12:55.839 And I think that's the wrong. 0:12:56.160 --> 0:12:58.240 Economic position at the moment, given the data that we 0:12:58.280 --> 0:12:59.719 have available to us, and the forecast that we have 0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:02.679 able to us, and the very well known, very well 0:13:02.720 --> 0:13:06.560 understood upward biases that are that are affecting inflation measurement 0:13:06.559 --> 0:13:08.480 at this moment in time, I think that's the wrong 0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:11.640 the wrong view, no question about it. Nevertheless, I think 0:13:11.679 --> 0:13:13.640 you have to give Chairman Powell, uh, you know, a 0:13:13.720 --> 0:13:16.760 credit for having wrangled uh, you know, wrangled three cuts 0:13:16.760 --> 0:13:19.440 out of these guys in succession. And and it's a 0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:21.640 it's a it's a it's a it's a cat herding task. 0:13:22.080 --> 0:13:22.240 Uh. 0:13:22.280 --> 0:13:23.920 And you know, and I think we have to. You know, 0:13:23.920 --> 0:13:25.400 we got to give a little credit for that. 0:13:25.960 --> 0:13:27.640 Well, it definitely is a cat herding task. 0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:29.920 We look forward to to the next meeting and see 0:13:29.960 --> 0:13:32.440 where you come up, whether fifty or twenty five basis points. 0:13:32.480 --> 0:13:34.040 Governor Stephen Myron, thank you so much for your time 0:13:34.080 --> 0:13:34.439 this morning.