WEBVTT - Austan Goolsbee Talks Fed Policy, Inflation Data

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:08.119
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. There's a lot going

0:00:08.119 --> 0:00:10.160
<v Speaker 1>on in the world right now, and the focus is firmly,

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.240
<v Speaker 1>of course, on Europe, but more importantly on the FED. Now.

0:00:13.240 --> 0:00:17.119
<v Speaker 1>There are a number of outside economists, including Muhammadalarian, that

0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:19.320
<v Speaker 1>have suggested that the FED should get on with cutting

0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 1>interest rates.

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:22.080
<v Speaker 2>And this is risk risk perception.

0:00:22.840 --> 0:00:25.680
<v Speaker 1>Is there too much danger in waiting for too long

0:00:25.720 --> 0:00:27.200
<v Speaker 1>to cut Look.

0:00:27.080 --> 0:00:29.720
<v Speaker 3>There's a danger from waiting, and there's a danger from

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 3>making wrong moves. The basic function of the central bank,

0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:37.239
<v Speaker 3>and what the Fed's got to decide is we moved to.

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:41.680
<v Speaker 4>A quite restrictive posture. We raise the rates a great.

0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 3>Deal in a short period of time, and we've been

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:48.040
<v Speaker 3>holding it there. We got to this rate when inflation

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:52.080
<v Speaker 3>was over four percent, and inflation's now down close to

0:00:52.120 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 3>two and a half percent. So if you sit with

0:00:54.560 --> 0:00:58.320
<v Speaker 3>the rate somewhere while inflation goes down, you're tightening. And

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 3>the reason that you would want to tighten is if

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 3>you think you're not on path to two percent. If

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:07.559
<v Speaker 3>you're on path to two percent, you've got to take

0:01:07.640 --> 0:01:11.840
<v Speaker 3>seriously that the US Central Bank's got a dual mandate,

0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:16.600
<v Speaker 3>so we if employment starts falling apart or the economy

0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:20.319
<v Speaker 3>begins to weaken, which you've seen some warning signs. You've

0:01:20.319 --> 0:01:25.040
<v Speaker 3>got to balance that off with the how much progress

0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 3>you're making on the price front.

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:30.039
<v Speaker 1>So how worried are you about the unemployment rate? But

0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>with the job slowing down?

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:35.040
<v Speaker 3>I mean, it's still the unemployment rate is still quite low,

0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:36.480
<v Speaker 3>but it has been rising.

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:37.840
<v Speaker 4>And if you look.

0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 3>At quit rates, if you look at the ratio of

0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:45.839
<v Speaker 3>vacancies to the number of unemployed workers, and various conventional

0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:49.360
<v Speaker 3>measures of the job market, they're cooling, but they're at

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:53.440
<v Speaker 3>a level which is still pretty strong. That's that's kind

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:57.200
<v Speaker 3>of what we've been trying to fully sort out now.

0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:00.160
<v Speaker 3>I think if you look at the second half of

0:02:00.240 --> 0:02:04.200
<v Speaker 3>last year in the US, we had seven straight months

0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 3>of excellent inflation. We hit a bump in the road

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:12.360
<v Speaker 3>in January of this year, but now we've gotten a

0:02:12.400 --> 0:02:18.640
<v Speaker 3>string of improved inflation readings. If we get more like

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 3>what we have just seen, to me, that feels like

0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:23.400
<v Speaker 3>the path to two percent.

0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 1>But so you know, at what point would you want

0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:28.799
<v Speaker 1>to cut rates to make sure that the unemployment number

0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:29.560
<v Speaker 1>doesn't get worse.

0:02:29.800 --> 0:02:30.240
<v Speaker 2>How do you.

0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:33.000
<v Speaker 3>Calibrate that you need to calibrate that.

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 4>That's the right way to say it.

0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:39.880
<v Speaker 3>It's not a formula that says, hey, well, last month,

0:02:39.919 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 3>this is what happened. Therefore let's change the monetary policy.

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 3>You got to take it in totality. As I say,

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:48.800
<v Speaker 3>we've been restrictive. If you look at the real federal

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:52.919
<v Speaker 3>funds rate of just interst rate minus inflation, it's as

0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 3>high as it's been in decades. And the only reason

0:02:56.080 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 3>that you would want to be that distinctively restrictive is

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:03.880
<v Speaker 3>if you think that the inflation is not coming back

0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 3>to two percent. If you get months that are like

0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:09.959
<v Speaker 3>the second half of last year or like what we've

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:13.960
<v Speaker 3>seen now here for a bit of a string, then

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:16.840
<v Speaker 3>I feel we're on path to two percent, and you

0:03:17.400 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 3>return if that's returning to normal, the rate structure return

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:21.720
<v Speaker 3>to normal too.

0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 2>So what does your dream dot look like?

0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:28.640
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I don't like tie in our tie in our hands,

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:32.440
<v Speaker 3>even partially. So it's going to depend on the data.

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:36.960
<v Speaker 3>It depends also on the composition. If you look at

0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:41.040
<v Speaker 3>inflation in the FEDS dual mandate, we've been doing great

0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:44.120
<v Speaker 3>on the employment side, and we have done far less

0:03:44.160 --> 0:03:48.040
<v Speaker 3>great on the inflation side. But now inflation is coming down,

0:03:48.200 --> 0:03:51.440
<v Speaker 3>So we got to think about both sides within inflation.

0:03:52.640 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 3>Goods inflation has looked almost back to what it was

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:03.000
<v Speaker 3>pre COVID, services inflation and improving getting closer. And the

0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 3>thing that's been the toughest puzzle in the US has

0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:11.800
<v Speaker 3>been why housing inflation hasn't come down. The way they

0:04:11.840 --> 0:04:15.480
<v Speaker 3>measure the inflation in Europe is different. By the By

0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:19.200
<v Speaker 3>the European measure, the US would already be at two percent.

0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 4>But we're still grappling with this housing issue.

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 2>But is it fair too?

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean what I'm listening when I'm hearing you speak,

0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 1>is it fair that you would contest them sooner rather

0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:27.800
<v Speaker 1>than later?

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:29.479
<v Speaker 4>Well, like I say, I don't, I don't like tie

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:29.840
<v Speaker 4>in our hand.

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 3>We're still going to get a lot of data between

0:04:32.000 --> 0:04:34.560
<v Speaker 3>now and the next meeting, and certainly between now and

0:04:34.600 --> 0:04:38.719
<v Speaker 3>the rest of this year. But the question of how

0:04:38.760 --> 0:04:41.359
<v Speaker 3>restrictive the FED wants to be when we're at a

0:04:41.560 --> 0:04:46.800
<v Speaker 3>pretty historically restrictive position depends on what happens to inflation.

0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:49.120
<v Speaker 3>And if you just hold the race where they are

0:04:49.279 --> 0:04:53.279
<v Speaker 3>while inflation comes down, you're tightening, and so you should

0:04:53.440 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 3>You should do that by decision, not by default.

0:04:56.800 --> 0:04:58.960
<v Speaker 1>When you look at unemployment, so it's around four percent

0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:01.880
<v Speaker 1>at the moment. If it slows down a little bit more,

0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 1>is there a danger if it actually rises a bit more,

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:06.080
<v Speaker 1>is there a danger that suddenly it kind of gets

0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:06.720
<v Speaker 1>out of control?

0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:10.760
<v Speaker 3>There is a look, the historical business cycle pattern, as

0:05:10.800 --> 0:05:16.479
<v Speaker 3>you know, is that there's not slow deteriorations.

0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:19.600
<v Speaker 4>What we have seen so far is very unusual.

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 3>Usually, as they describe, unemployment goes up like a rocket

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:27.719
<v Speaker 3>and comes down like a feather. And so that's on

0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:31.320
<v Speaker 3>everyone's mind that there are some warning signs in the

0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:31.719
<v Speaker 3>job one.

0:05:31.880 --> 0:05:33.719
<v Speaker 2>But is this time different or is this a real

0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:34.480
<v Speaker 2>concern of yours?

0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:37.920
<v Speaker 4>Probably some of both.

0:05:38.040 --> 0:05:40.240
<v Speaker 3>I mean the I always say a job of central

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:44.760
<v Speaker 3>bankers to be concerned and worried about everything, So we

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:48.720
<v Speaker 3>have to take that seriously. That said, the unemployment rate

0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 3>is still very low by historic terms.

0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:53.560
<v Speaker 4>The job market is still quite strong.

0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:58.960
<v Speaker 3>It's just been some warning signs, and as inflation comes down,

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:01.640
<v Speaker 3>we got to keep our eye on the other side

0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 3>of the mandate. If you remain restrictive for too long,

0:06:05.520 --> 0:06:07.120
<v Speaker 3>that that's going to be a problem.

0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:08.719
<v Speaker 1>I know, you don't want to tie your hands into

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.200
<v Speaker 1>calling a cutter or when But when the FED starts cutting,

0:06:12.640 --> 0:06:14.839
<v Speaker 1>is it going to be a cycle of costs like

0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:17.960
<v Speaker 1>we've seen in the past, or it is a cycle different.

0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:23.240
<v Speaker 3>It depends what happens with the data. This has been

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:28.960
<v Speaker 3>a very unusual business cycle recovery. Now in the job

0:06:29.000 --> 0:06:34.320
<v Speaker 3>market it looks unusual. So I don't I don't like

0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:37.560
<v Speaker 3>to predict for the next meeting, much less well, what

0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:39.839
<v Speaker 3>would happen in multiple meetings after that.

0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 4>I just think we just have to see what happens.

0:06:43.040 --> 0:06:45.200
<v Speaker 2>But do you think the market needs to be guided?

0:06:45.279 --> 0:06:46.839
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the markets have been all over the place

0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:49.160
<v Speaker 1>in pricing costs and then not CODs. I mean, I'm

0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 1>even looking at possible rate heights.

0:06:52.040 --> 0:06:54.800
<v Speaker 3>Look, the market does what it does and the central

0:06:54.800 --> 0:06:59.040
<v Speaker 3>bank does what it does. And I was Paul Volker

0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:01.599
<v Speaker 3>was my mentor and had this phrase. Our job is

0:07:01.640 --> 0:07:04.320
<v Speaker 3>to act and their job is to react. And let's

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:08.160
<v Speaker 3>not get the order mixed uff. So the market, it's

0:07:08.240 --> 0:07:11.760
<v Speaker 3>presumptive not for the central bank to give guidance to

0:07:11.800 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 3>the market.

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:13.920
<v Speaker 4>The market is trying to figure it out.

0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:17.680
<v Speaker 3>They have a tendency to run one way, run the

0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:20.280
<v Speaker 3>other way, and you've seen that with announcements of the

0:07:20.320 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 3>summary of economic projections.

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 4>For example, if the media.

0:07:24.600 --> 0:07:27.440
<v Speaker 3>Dots says there will be three cuts, that's the same thing.

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:30.160
<v Speaker 4>Well, that must mean seven cuts, you know. And then.

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:36.400
<v Speaker 3>That volatility has a way of smoothing itself out as

0:07:36.440 --> 0:07:38.160
<v Speaker 3>they learn about reality.

0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:40.040
<v Speaker 1>So it seems that a lot of the data is

0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:43.720
<v Speaker 1>also politicized when you look at consumer sentiment. Because we're

0:07:43.720 --> 0:07:46.720
<v Speaker 1>an election, you're in the US, is it difficult to take?

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:49.480
<v Speaker 1>Are you confident that the consumer sentiment that you're seeing

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:51.240
<v Speaker 1>is the correct one?

0:07:51.320 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 4>Because not really. You know, the law orders the FED

0:07:58.320 --> 0:07:58.880
<v Speaker 4>to look.

0:07:58.680 --> 0:08:02.480
<v Speaker 3>At the actual numbers employment and stabilization of prices. We've

0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:07.840
<v Speaker 3>always used consumer sentiment and wanted to check that data

0:08:07.880 --> 0:08:08.920
<v Speaker 3>because it was a good.

0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:11.040
<v Speaker 4>Indicator of consumer spending.

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 3>And part of the call it politicization, whatever you want

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:19.280
<v Speaker 3>to call it, this real divergence in the consumer sentiment

0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 3>data is that it's become a horrible predictor of actual

0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:27.080
<v Speaker 3>spending behavior. So I think that's at least for me,

0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 3>that's made me a little cautious of concluding too much

0:08:30.840 --> 0:08:31.720
<v Speaker 3>from what comes out.

0:08:31.640 --> 0:08:33.640
<v Speaker 2>Of So what does that mean that you're putting more emphasis?

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:34.920
<v Speaker 2>We have a jobs report on Friday.

0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:38.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I've put a lot of emphasis on the jobs reports,

0:08:38.480 --> 0:08:41.960
<v Speaker 3>on for sure, all the measures of inflation, both the

0:08:42.000 --> 0:08:47.200
<v Speaker 3>official measures, and we now have such a wide expanse

0:08:47.240 --> 0:08:50.280
<v Speaker 3>of private sector information that we can get in real

0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:55.400
<v Speaker 3>time about prices. And I'm in the Chicago districts as

0:08:55.400 --> 0:08:57.800
<v Speaker 3>the heart of the Midwest. We talked to business people,

0:08:57.920 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 3>we talked to community leaders. We're trying to get real

0:09:00.960 --> 0:09:03.079
<v Speaker 3>time information. I put a lot of weight on that too,