WEBVTT - Richard Clarida Talks US Economy

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:07.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.080 --> 0:00:09.160
<v Speaker 2>Showing us now the former vice chairman of the Federal

0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:11.200
<v Speaker 2>Reserve System with pimcoh and.

0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:14.640
<v Speaker 3>Of course Forever herder of cats.

0:00:14.360 --> 0:00:18.239
<v Speaker 2>At Columbia University within their Department of Economics.

0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:20.800
<v Speaker 3>I've got it's going to be a four hour.

0:00:20.680 --> 0:00:23.080
<v Speaker 2>Conversation and we're only doing it a short block this

0:00:23.120 --> 0:00:25.439
<v Speaker 2>time with the Vice Chairman, Clarita, but we'll make it

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:29.040
<v Speaker 2>a much longer conversation next time. I want you to reaffirm,

0:00:29.080 --> 0:00:33.120
<v Speaker 2>recapitulate your Economist article of seven eight, nine months ago

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:36.839
<v Speaker 2>where you shook the industry by saying, forget about two

0:00:36.920 --> 0:00:40.560
<v Speaker 2>point zero zero percent, it's going to be some number higher.

0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:41.920
<v Speaker 3>Revisit that right now.

0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 4>Well, thank you, Tom, and always great to be on

0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 4>the show, especially in studio.

0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:46.640
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:50.199
<v Speaker 4>In that essay, I highlighted that that I thought the

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:53.800
<v Speaker 4>pal FED and really global central banks we're really aiming

0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:56.480
<v Speaker 4>to get inflation down to what I called two points something,

0:00:57.480 --> 0:01:00.280
<v Speaker 4>and the idea was inflation was up to five, six

0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:02.880
<v Speaker 4>or seven at the peak, and the goal would be

0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:06.080
<v Speaker 4>to get it in the zip code of the inflation target.

0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:09.080
<v Speaker 4>But in terms of dealing with the last mile to

0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:11.959
<v Speaker 4>let the economy sort of get to the last mile

0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:13.720
<v Speaker 4>on its own without another leg up.

0:01:13.640 --> 0:01:14.840
<v Speaker 5>In rate hikes.

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:16.959
<v Speaker 4>And that's what I think we're seeing in the US

0:01:17.000 --> 0:01:18.640
<v Speaker 4>and really around the world.

0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:20.720
<v Speaker 3>Is the FED restrictive? Now?

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:24.320
<v Speaker 2>The polarity of market economists we speak to is there's

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 2>a select group saying, you know what, they could go

0:01:26.360 --> 0:01:29.720
<v Speaker 2>up further and then come down, and those others saying,

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:32.760
<v Speaker 2>stop it. They're way above the real rate, bring it

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:33.320
<v Speaker 2>down now.

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:34.000
<v Speaker 3>Which is it?

0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:38.680
<v Speaker 4>They think they're restrictive. I think they're restrictive. I think

0:01:38.680 --> 0:01:41.680
<v Speaker 4>there can be a debate on how restrictive. The Fed's thinking,

0:01:41.720 --> 0:01:44.720
<v Speaker 4>which I think makes sense Tom, is that the longer

0:01:44.760 --> 0:01:47.559
<v Speaker 4>they keep rates here, and importantly, the longer they signal

0:01:47.600 --> 0:01:51.160
<v Speaker 4>they're going to keep rates here, they will become more restrictive.

0:01:51.200 --> 0:01:53.280
<v Speaker 4>And so yes, I'm certainly in the camp that they've

0:01:53.320 --> 0:01:55.800
<v Speaker 4>done enough and the real question is how long do

0:01:55.840 --> 0:01:57.880
<v Speaker 4>they have to keep rates at this level?

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 1>Richuel, Tom and I will speak to people both in

0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:04.480
<v Speaker 1>academia and in practice that says the FED should.

0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:04.920
<v Speaker 5>Be cutting now.

0:02:05.040 --> 0:02:07.160
<v Speaker 1>If you look at the real time data, inflation is

0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:09.880
<v Speaker 1>maybe not whipped, but we're pretty darn close, and we

0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:11.120
<v Speaker 1>should be cutting rates now.

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:12.840
<v Speaker 5>How do you think about that.

0:02:14.000 --> 0:02:16.040
<v Speaker 4>If I were still in the building, I would not

0:02:16.080 --> 0:02:18.240
<v Speaker 4>be in the camp to be cutting now. It certainly

0:02:18.320 --> 0:02:20.760
<v Speaker 4>looked like that was feasible coming into the year, but

0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:23.480
<v Speaker 4>you know, since the beginning of the year, the inflation

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:27.240
<v Speaker 4>numbers have been going in the wrong direction. And also

0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:32.120
<v Speaker 4>I think that especially, I think what's relevant here is

0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:34.680
<v Speaker 4>an element of risk management. So I think there is

0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:38.000
<v Speaker 4>path dependence. The fact that the last three years inflation

0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:40.800
<v Speaker 4>has been well above target. I think it makes it

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:44.400
<v Speaker 4>a harder call to cut preemptively. So I do think,

0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:47.840
<v Speaker 4>you know, sometimes central banks say they're data dependent, and

0:02:47.840 --> 0:02:49.920
<v Speaker 4>they're not. I do think the pal FED now is

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:52.919
<v Speaker 4>data dependent, and I think they're ready to cut if

0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:56.000
<v Speaker 4>the inflation data starts to proceed as they expect.

0:02:56.440 --> 0:02:58.680
<v Speaker 5>How do you think this FED is looking at the

0:02:58.800 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 5>labor market?

0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Tom and I we kind of throughout this term it

0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:04.120
<v Speaker 1>feels like we're at full employment. Everybody who wants a

0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:05.239
<v Speaker 1>job kind of has a job.

0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:09.040
<v Speaker 5>Wages are going on at pretty reasonable pace. How do

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 5>you think the FED looks at the labor market today.

0:03:11.720 --> 0:03:14.440
<v Speaker 4>I think they see a labor market that is robust

0:03:14.919 --> 0:03:18.000
<v Speaker 4>by a variety of measures, not just the unemployment rate,

0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:21.840
<v Speaker 4>but other indications, and that's a good thing. Indeed, I

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:23.800
<v Speaker 4>think one of the first speeches I gave is Vice

0:03:23.880 --> 0:03:25.800
<v Speaker 4>chairs I made the point, you know, the FED is

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:29.040
<v Speaker 4>not targeting wage inflation. It actually likes it when folks

0:03:29.040 --> 0:03:31.640
<v Speaker 4>get a nice raise, but raises have to be consistent

0:03:32.120 --> 0:03:34.280
<v Speaker 4>with the inflation target. And you know, we've gotten some

0:03:34.360 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 4>good news on productivity in the last year. Productivity growth

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:42.160
<v Speaker 4>is now around two percent, and two percent productivity growth

0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 4>with four percent wage increases, if sustained, gets some pretty

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:47.240
<v Speaker 4>close to where they want to be. So I don't

0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:50.120
<v Speaker 4>think there's a lot of adjustment required in the labor market.

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:50.440
<v Speaker 3>From here.

0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 2>You're joining us right now, Richard Clarida from a vice

0:03:53.360 --> 0:03:57.400
<v Speaker 2>chairman of the FED, and of course with Columbia University,

0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 2>you're a certain kind of monetary economist. Of course with DSG,

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:07.160
<v Speaker 2>with DSGE, with Jordi Gally, and I think of megdund

0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:09.800
<v Speaker 2>decaih Over at the London School of Economics, coming from

0:04:09.840 --> 0:04:13.840
<v Speaker 2>a totally different world. Megnan got Lord Desai got so

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:17.280
<v Speaker 2>upset about our fiction of equilibrium that he wrote a

0:04:17.279 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 2>book about it two.

0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:20.080
<v Speaker 3>Thousand and eight, two thousand and nine.

0:04:20.240 --> 0:04:24.599
<v Speaker 2>In d SGE, there's a respect for vulrus in some

0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:29.600
<v Speaker 2>form of normal equilibrium. How can we measure equilibrium now

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:32.720
<v Speaker 2>if we don't have a clue what productivity is doing.

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:33.880
<v Speaker 3>I just don't buy it.

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:37.400
<v Speaker 4>Well, I think we measure it with pretty big error, Tom,

0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:40.159
<v Speaker 4>And you're absolutely right that not just productivity, but a

0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:44.560
<v Speaker 4>lot of inputs into theoretical DSGE models are star term premium,

0:04:45.480 --> 0:04:49.919
<v Speaker 4>equity premium are all unobserved and measured with air. So

0:04:50.040 --> 0:04:52.039
<v Speaker 4>I always thought, and I've said this on your show,

0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:54.520
<v Speaker 4>and I've said this in the halls of the FED.

0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:56.719
<v Speaker 4>You know, models are a place to start, but not

0:04:56.839 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 4>to end the conversation. And in particular, you know folks

0:05:00.680 --> 0:05:03.920
<v Speaker 4>would criticize s DSG that they're three equation models. Well,

0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:07.440
<v Speaker 4>I think every economy needs to have at least three equations,

0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:09.280
<v Speaker 4>but there are a lot more so, Tom, it's a

0:05:09.320 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 4>starting point, but it's not a destination to get to

0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:12.280
<v Speaker 4>the end.

0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:15.560
<v Speaker 2>The two hundred and fifty PhDs whatever it is. Fat

0:05:15.279 --> 0:05:17.560
<v Speaker 2>least they've all studied.

0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:20.120
<v Speaker 3>Clarida, Gally, Girtler, the rest of it.

0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:24.720
<v Speaker 2>I get it. They've studied this stuff. Yeah, isn't germane

0:05:24.800 --> 0:05:27.960
<v Speaker 2>right now? Our listeners say You've got to be kidding me.

0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:31.880
<v Speaker 2>After the shock of a pandemic, Yeah, a triple stimulus,

0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:36.080
<v Speaker 2>throw the equations out. Does Chairman Paul have equations now

0:05:36.120 --> 0:05:39.840
<v Speaker 2>that are effective, that are that have some form of use.

0:05:41.520 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 4>My sense, obviously from public comments of not only the

0:05:44.400 --> 0:05:47.039
<v Speaker 4>chair but the committee, is that they've understood Tom for

0:05:47.120 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 4>some time that the shock was sufficiently unusual and substantial

0:05:52.520 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 4>that they need they can, and they are relying less

0:05:54.839 --> 0:05:58.719
<v Speaker 4>on models and more on the way the data evolves.

0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:00.800
<v Speaker 4>You know, Tom, on one hand, you know, the models

0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:03.159
<v Speaker 4>were telling them that to get inflation down from five

0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:05.599
<v Speaker 4>and a half to two points something, they need to

0:06:05.640 --> 0:06:08.480
<v Speaker 4>have a big increase in the unemployment rate. And both

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 4>Governor Waller, Charipell and others said, look, the economy may

0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:14.400
<v Speaker 4>be different this time. We don't have to assume a

0:06:14.400 --> 0:06:16.680
<v Speaker 4>big cratering in the labor market, and that was actually

0:06:16.720 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 4>a positive device.

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:20.320
<v Speaker 2>I can't say enough, Paul, how I agree with this?

0:06:20.560 --> 0:06:23.480
<v Speaker 2>And then this is Paul Powell's been hit like a pinata.

0:06:24.080 --> 0:06:28.240
<v Speaker 2>Powell led saying, do we really trust these equations?

0:06:28.680 --> 0:06:29.719
<v Speaker 3>And Clarida who.

0:06:29.560 --> 0:06:34.400
<v Speaker 2>Invented the equations in Colombia, you know Sti Stiglitz.

0:06:34.680 --> 0:06:36.000
<v Speaker 3>They got their equations.

0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:39.000
<v Speaker 2>Some of them are real simple like Stiglitz engrossmen and

0:06:39.080 --> 0:06:42.120
<v Speaker 2>others like Clarina Ed's Greek to me, But the answer

0:06:42.200 --> 0:06:43.479
<v Speaker 2>is do they matter right now?

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:44.760
<v Speaker 3>And Powell's let on this.

0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 1>I know, and Tom, one of the key issues for

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:49.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot of folks is the consumer here. I mean,

0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:52.159
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's a tale of two cities, if not

0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:54.039
<v Speaker 1>more out there with the US consumer.

0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:56.360
<v Speaker 5>A lot of folks are really struggling.

0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:58.960
<v Speaker 1>Particularly they don't own assets, whether it's real estate or

0:06:59.200 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, stocks or.

0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:01.000
<v Speaker 5>And things like that.

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.280
<v Speaker 1>And how does the FED think about the consumer here?

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:06.560
<v Speaker 1>How did they gauge how the consumer's do they look

0:07:06.600 --> 0:07:08.120
<v Speaker 1>at the earnings from Walmart?

0:07:08.160 --> 0:07:10.320
<v Speaker 5>I mean, what do they do? Well?

0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:13.640
<v Speaker 4>The FED staff has devotes a lot of resources to

0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:16.000
<v Speaker 4>the consumer, not only at the aggregate level what is

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 4>total consumption, but also increasingly during the time I was there,

0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:22.960
<v Speaker 4>focusing on the on the distribution in both income and

0:07:23.000 --> 0:07:26.640
<v Speaker 4>consumption distribution across the population. And there are a lot

0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:29.880
<v Speaker 4>of things that can you can monitor, in particular how

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:32.480
<v Speaker 4>many households are laid in their car payments or credit

0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:35.480
<v Speaker 4>card payments, and so certainly, certainly the FED spends a

0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:38.240
<v Speaker 4>lot of time on the bottom up analysis of the consumer.

0:07:38.960 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>So again we came into the year, Richard, I mean

0:07:41.720 --> 0:07:44.280
<v Speaker 1>the market was discounting six rate cuts, an now we're

0:07:44.320 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 1>down to lesson to I mean, the market has no

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:49.440
<v Speaker 1>idea what's going on out there? Is the fed From

0:07:49.480 --> 0:07:52.720
<v Speaker 1>your perspective, are they happy to say, Hey, we've done

0:07:52.760 --> 0:07:55.680
<v Speaker 1>a lot of work here, We've raised rates, we had

0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.800
<v Speaker 1>a major impact on this economy. Let's just wait and

0:07:58.840 --> 0:08:00.640
<v Speaker 1>see how our work plays out. Is that kind of

0:08:00.640 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 1>where we are?

0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:03.000
<v Speaker 5>Do you think that's exactly where they are?

0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:05.600
<v Speaker 4>In fact, that the chair got that question at the

0:08:05.600 --> 0:08:08.880
<v Speaker 4>press conference, and I'm paraphrasing, but his answer was along

0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 4>the lines of, we judge that policy is restrictive, and

0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:14.440
<v Speaker 4>we judge that if we keep it here long enough,

0:08:14.480 --> 0:08:18.160
<v Speaker 4>it will be sufficiently restrictive. So that's definitely their mindset.

0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:21.000
<v Speaker 4>Their data dependent in terms of when the cut and

0:08:21.000 --> 0:08:24.720
<v Speaker 4>how many cuts are going to happen, but they certainly

0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 4>judge that policy is restrictive here and they just have

0:08:28.440 --> 0:08:29.120
<v Speaker 4>to keep it here.

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:29.640
<v Speaker 3>Well.

0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:34.760
<v Speaker 2>One of the great moments now in economics, Professor Clarita

0:08:35.040 --> 0:08:39.240
<v Speaker 2>is your colleague in crime at Columbia, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prizer.

0:08:39.400 --> 0:08:41.320
<v Speaker 3>He's out with a wonderful new book.

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:44.520
<v Speaker 2>Very thought provoking, should be read by conservatives, The Road

0:08:44.520 --> 0:08:48.839
<v Speaker 2>to Freedom, Economics and the Good Society. You two are

0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:53.040
<v Speaker 2>both victims of the Midwest. One of the great great

0:08:53.080 --> 0:08:58.080
<v Speaker 2>advantages here is Clarita and Stiglitz are like, what, everybody,

0:08:58.120 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 2>calm down, there's a whole other country out there. Yeah,

0:09:01.679 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 2>tell me about policing. As dean of Columbia Economics, Joe Stiglitz,

0:09:07.160 --> 0:09:10.520
<v Speaker 2>I can't fathom that is your day job. What was

0:09:10.559 --> 0:09:13.880
<v Speaker 2>it like telling Joe Stiglitz, you will teach this course?

0:09:14.080 --> 0:09:16.800
<v Speaker 4>Well, no, Joe is a treasure and I'm actually proud

0:09:16.800 --> 0:09:18.920
<v Speaker 4>of the fact that when I was department chair back

0:09:18.960 --> 0:09:23.320
<v Speaker 4>in two thousand and one, I recruited Joe to Columbia.

0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:27.000
<v Speaker 4>It was one of my big, big accomplishments. I'm an

0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:32.559
<v Speaker 4>enormous fan of his research. He's an incredible colleague, incredibly creative,

0:09:33.240 --> 0:09:35.280
<v Speaker 4>and you know, I just wish we had fifty more

0:09:35.360 --> 0:09:38.199
<v Speaker 4>Joe Stiglitz. Whether without the Nobel problem.

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:42.280
<v Speaker 2>Why should conservatives read Stiglitz The Road to Freedom?

0:09:42.640 --> 0:09:45.880
<v Speaker 4>Well, I'm reading it now. I listened to a podcast

0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:50.319
<v Speaker 4>the other day. Looks it gives I think an informed

0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:54.840
<v Speaker 4>and nuanced assessment of the power that economics can have

0:09:54.920 --> 0:09:57.520
<v Speaker 4>about thinking about the world, if you're willing to step

0:09:57.559 --> 0:10:01.240
<v Speaker 4>away from the oversimplifying assumption. So much of Joe's career

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:04.040
<v Speaker 4>has been driven by a curiosity about the world and

0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:06.959
<v Speaker 4>providing a structure to think about it.

0:10:07.280 --> 0:10:10.160
<v Speaker 1>How do you think about this US economy? A lot

0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:13.839
<v Speaker 1>of we hear recently about the exceptionalism of the US

0:10:13.920 --> 0:10:17.800
<v Speaker 1>economy vis a vis Europe. Let's think Germany or Asia,

0:10:17.880 --> 0:10:22.679
<v Speaker 1>Let's think China. Is this something as unusual, this kind

0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:25.840
<v Speaker 1>of decoupling, if you will, in terms of performance.

0:10:26.520 --> 0:10:28.720
<v Speaker 4>You know that term means different things to different people.

0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:31.400
<v Speaker 4>What is clear, I think is through the rear view

0:10:31.400 --> 0:10:36.000
<v Speaker 4>mirror last year many predictions of a recession. Not only

0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:39.079
<v Speaker 4>did a recession not happen, but growth was a point

0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:43.360
<v Speaker 4>above a trend, a very hot labor market. I think

0:10:43.400 --> 0:10:46.880
<v Speaker 4>part of the exceptionalism theme relates to excitement about AI.

0:10:47.360 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 4>AI is a big deal. It's not clear if it'll

0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 4>be a big deal in the next six months or

0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:54.520
<v Speaker 4>six years, but it is a big deal, and obviously

0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:59.079
<v Speaker 4>US companies in US innovation are poised to benefit from that.

0:10:59.120 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 4>But there's another dem I would argue in which the

0:11:01.320 --> 0:11:05.400
<v Speaker 4>US is exceptional, exceptional but in a poor direction, which

0:11:05.440 --> 0:11:10.160
<v Speaker 4>is that we have an exceptionally irresponsible fiscal policy. And

0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:14.480
<v Speaker 4>if you look at the CBO numbers, they are frightening,

0:11:14.600 --> 0:11:18.280
<v Speaker 4>essentially deficits of five six seven percent of GDP as

0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:22.320
<v Speaker 4>far as the I can see, so exceptional in multiple directions.

0:11:22.360 --> 0:11:25.200
<v Speaker 2>I would say one final question, Yeah, we have a

0:11:25.240 --> 0:11:29.840
<v Speaker 2>presidential candidate, a former president who basically wants to take

0:11:29.880 --> 0:11:32.960
<v Speaker 2>the independence of the FED away from your reading of

0:11:32.960 --> 0:11:36.960
<v Speaker 2>our political economy. Can an individual can a single president

0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:39.079
<v Speaker 2>remove FED independence?

0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:40.400
<v Speaker 3>Certainly not.

0:11:40.640 --> 0:11:44.040
<v Speaker 4>I think the legal standing of that issue is clear

0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:48.600
<v Speaker 4>and decided, and I would coup points one. Jerome Powell

0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:50.680
<v Speaker 4>will serve out his term which goes through May of

0:11:50.679 --> 0:11:53.960
<v Speaker 4>twenty six. Secondly, there are no vacancies on the federal

0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:59.360
<v Speaker 4>reserve right now, so for the foreseeable future, there's no

0:11:59.640 --> 0:12:02.559
<v Speaker 4>nothing for a future president to do on that account.

0:12:02.679 --> 0:12:05.240
<v Speaker 3>This is this has been fun. Did we do? Okay?

0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:05.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah?

0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:06.959
<v Speaker 3>You know quality?

0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:09.880
<v Speaker 5>See yeah, yeah, gentlemenly see. I'll take that.

0:12:10.200 --> 0:12:13.480
<v Speaker 2>Richard Clarida, thank you so much of Columbia University and

0:12:13.520 --> 0:12:16.800
<v Speaker 2>of course the FED and with PIMCO, thank you as well.