WEBVTT - Former Kansas City Fed Governor Esther George Talks  Latest Fed Decision

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.480
<v Speaker 1>The market's already pricing in September with a high degree

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:05.480
<v Speaker 1>of certainty. What are you really waiting for at this point?

0:00:06.040 --> 0:00:10.200
<v Speaker 2>Why takes the additional risk of the community deteriority further So,

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:11.639
<v Speaker 2>you know, the end of the day, it's probably not

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:13.840
<v Speaker 2>going to make a big deal, a lot of difference.

0:00:13.960 --> 0:00:16.040
<v Speaker 3>But I think you know, given the fact that the

0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:19.120
<v Speaker 3>market expects the FED to cut once that decision.

0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:20.599
<v Speaker 2>Is mostly made, and I think you heard today it

0:00:20.640 --> 0:00:22.759
<v Speaker 2>was mostly made, then why are you waiting for?

0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:25.760
<v Speaker 3>Why are we waiting? Here's the latest investors turning their

0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 3>attention to the data following yesterday's FED decision, the July

0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 3>payrolls report you out tomorrow, and CPI coming in just

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:35.040
<v Speaker 3>two weeks time. Fedchaed Jpower waiting for the numbers before

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:37.960
<v Speaker 3>committing to a rake cup. The former Kansas City Fed

0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:40.680
<v Speaker 3>president Esther George right in this. I found the chair

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:44.520
<v Speaker 3>leaned pretty clearly to confirm market expectations for a September cup.

0:00:44.720 --> 0:00:47.240
<v Speaker 3>While September looks like the meeting to take this action,

0:00:47.680 --> 0:00:50.760
<v Speaker 3>I think this room to be patient. Esther joined us

0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:52.559
<v Speaker 3>now for more. Esther waterf to catch up with you.

0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:54.200
<v Speaker 3>It's been far too long. Thanks for being with us.

0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:56.680
<v Speaker 3>I want to talk about that word you've used, patients,

0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:01.000
<v Speaker 3>What underpins that patience? Why should we have patience?

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:07.279
<v Speaker 1>Welcome morning. I think my view on this really comes

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:10.880
<v Speaker 1>from the fact that we are looking at an economy

0:01:11.000 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>that is growing and by the reads of the second

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:18.720
<v Speaker 1>quarter growing well above it's sustainable long run growth. You've

0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:23.240
<v Speaker 1>got a strong labor market, and you still have elevated inflation.

0:01:23.400 --> 0:01:27.240
<v Speaker 1>And I think that combination reminds me that the fedce

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Speaker 1>mandate is a long run objective. And just as we

0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:34.800
<v Speaker 1>saw earlier this year, the market had priced in a

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:38.600
<v Speaker 1>number of cuts only to have to pull back on that.

0:01:38.720 --> 0:01:41.759
<v Speaker 1>So the central Bank's job is really to pay attention

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 1>to the data. And as that gets closer, of course,

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:47.080
<v Speaker 1>that's going to be more difficult for them, and they

0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 1>recognize that.

0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:49.760
<v Speaker 3>How big is the risk that we take that strong

0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:51.400
<v Speaker 3>labor market for grants it?

0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:56.320
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think you're always looking at this because we

0:01:56.440 --> 0:02:02.000
<v Speaker 1>don't know with any great certainty where that equilibrium rate

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:04.920
<v Speaker 1>is for the labor market. Obviously, we came out of

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 1>the pandemic during that recovery with a very tight labor market,

0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:13.640
<v Speaker 1>and so as we watch it normalize, the space between

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 1>normalization and weakening is one that policy makers are going

0:02:17.800 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 1>to be very attentive to. So we'll get a report tomorrow.

0:02:21.680 --> 0:02:24.280
<v Speaker 1>It will give a clue. I don't expect it'll be

0:02:24.400 --> 0:02:27.880
<v Speaker 1>definitive and by any means around that. But it is

0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 1>the collection, the aggregate of these reports that begin to

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 1>give the Committee a better sense of just where that

0:02:35.840 --> 0:02:37.280
<v Speaker 1>labor market is right now.

0:02:37.720 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 2>Ester, you get the sense that this Federal Reserve still

0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:43.880
<v Speaker 2>embraces the idea of transitory in that basically the inflation

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:46.880
<v Speaker 2>was largely due to the pandemic. It's come off the boil,

0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:50.079
<v Speaker 2>and now some of the ramifications, the ripple effects are

0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:51.680
<v Speaker 2>just being worked out of the economy.

0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:56.200
<v Speaker 1>I think that could have a lot to do with it. Lisa,

0:02:56.720 --> 0:03:00.919
<v Speaker 1>you did see tremendous supply adjustments, and it had been

0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:03.280
<v Speaker 1>some time since we'd had to pay attention to the

0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:07.040
<v Speaker 1>supply side of the economy. So as we watched supply

0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 1>and that was true on the labor side, certainly good

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:14.680
<v Speaker 1>on the good side, begin to adjust, that creates a challenge,

0:03:14.720 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 1>I think for the Committee and understanding just how restrictive

0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:21.280
<v Speaker 1>is our policy. How do we understand when the economy

0:03:21.320 --> 0:03:24.520
<v Speaker 1>is approaching an equilibrium, and I think, as they've noted,

0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:29.760
<v Speaker 1>they are close, those risks are coming into better balance

0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:34.600
<v Speaker 1>right now, and now, judging how tight their policy is

0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 1>relative to the steady state of the economy, is there

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:42.120
<v Speaker 1>real challenge And we heard that yesterday too soon versus

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:43.920
<v Speaker 1>too late and making adjustments to that.

0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 2>It seems like the market really believes that the risks

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 2>at this point are greater potentially on some sort of

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:54.280
<v Speaker 2>intereration in the labor market than an increase a surge

0:03:54.280 --> 0:03:58.280
<v Speaker 2>and inflation. I'm wondering if you think that maybe the

0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 2>Fed would have been prudent to push back just a

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 2>little bit on that base on what you're seeing, considering

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:06.440
<v Speaker 2>that you believe that maybe there should have been a

0:04:06.440 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 2>little bit more patients, kind of a little more discipline

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:11.640
<v Speaker 2>and viewed on the market.

0:04:12.160 --> 0:04:17.520
<v Speaker 1>Well, I would agree that the labor market again is

0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:21.479
<v Speaker 1>coming into better balance for this committee, and you will

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:23.719
<v Speaker 1>have to look at some of the subtleties that come

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:27.799
<v Speaker 1>in underlying that labor market in terms of the levels

0:04:27.839 --> 0:04:31.000
<v Speaker 1>of activity and the momentum that you see there. But

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:34.440
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the day, committee is faced with

0:04:34.920 --> 0:04:38.920
<v Speaker 1>an elevated inflation rate relative to the target they've established

0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:41.760
<v Speaker 1>and the credibility they seek around getting back to that,

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:44.960
<v Speaker 1>and in the long run, as we've heard many times

0:04:45.000 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>from both the chairmen and others, that sets the conditions

0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:53.200
<v Speaker 1>for a healthy labor market long run. So yes, near

0:04:53.320 --> 0:04:55.720
<v Speaker 1>term they're going to be watching a lot of those signals,

0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:59.440
<v Speaker 1>but the real issue, I think at the end of

0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the day their inflation.

0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:02.960
<v Speaker 3>Mandy, So, I'd like to do two things. I want

0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:04.719
<v Speaker 3>to share a quote with you, and then I'd like

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:06.960
<v Speaker 3>to lean on your experience on the committee. You've got

0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:10.119
<v Speaker 3>plenty of experience of understanding how all of this works

0:05:10.160 --> 0:05:12.880
<v Speaker 3>behind closed doors. The stuff that we don't see this

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 3>is what ever Core had to say. We think in

0:05:14.720 --> 0:05:17.640
<v Speaker 3>practice it's not very data dependent, and view the cautious

0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.440
<v Speaker 3>evolution of the statement as intended to carry hawks along

0:05:20.800 --> 0:05:24.480
<v Speaker 3>and avoid dissents. As in your experience when you hear

0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:27.160
<v Speaker 3>stuff like that, how true is that? How do things

0:05:27.200 --> 0:05:28.960
<v Speaker 3>come together on the committee?

0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Well, it's true. This is a committee that is consensus driven.

0:05:34.320 --> 0:05:38.520
<v Speaker 1>They must make a decision and the nature of a

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>large committee with differing views is to try to achieve

0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:46.720
<v Speaker 1>consensus at some point. That doesn't mean you always get

0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 1>unanimity around that decision, and I think anytime you begin

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 1>to approach what looks like I think, in their words,

0:05:56.200 --> 0:06:01.920
<v Speaker 1>better balance, things coming into balance get more difficult. It's

0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 1>not as clear cut as it was when you know

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:05.960
<v Speaker 1>you have to ease, or it's not as clear cut

0:06:05.960 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 1>when you see an inflation problem emerging that you have

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:12.760
<v Speaker 1>to address. And so I suspect there is challenge within

0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 1>the committee of trying to reconcile views and to try

0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:20.920
<v Speaker 1>to bring a solid consensus to whatever the decision will

0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:21.919
<v Speaker 1>be at their next meeting.

0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:24.120
<v Speaker 3>As to this was wonderful and hopefully the team gets

0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:26.040
<v Speaker 3>to see you in Jackson Holle as we used to

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:28.680
<v Speaker 3>as the George there the foremost kinds of City Fed

0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 3>President on the latest Fed Reserve decision