FOMC Meet: U.S. Federal Reserve Holds Key Interest Rate | NDTV Profit (2) - video Dailymotion

NDTV Profit

U.S. #FederalReserve keeps key interest rates unchanged for the sixth straight time.   Chairman #JeromePowell addresses the media after the #FOMC meet decision. _______________________________________________________   For more videos subscribe to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/@NDTVProfitIndia Visit NDTV Profit for more news: https://www.ndtvprofit.com/ Don't enter the stock market unaware. Read all Research Reports here: https://www.ndtvprofit.com/research-reports Follow NDTV Profit here Twitter: https://twitter.com/NDTVProfitIndia , https://twitter.com/NDTVProfit LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ndtvprofit #ndtvprofit #stockmarket #news #ndtv #business #finance #mutualfunds #sharemarket Share Market News | NDTV Profit LIVE | NDTV Profit LIVE News | Business News LIVE | Finance News | Mutual Funds | Stocks To Buy | Stock Market LIVE News | Stock Market Latest Updates | Sensex Nifty LIVE | Nifty Sensex LIVE

Transcript

00:00 first quarter. And I've said that it appears then that it's going to take longer for us

00:07 to reach that point of conference. So I don't know how long it will take. I can just say

00:13 that when we get that confidence, then rate cuts will be in scope. And I don't know exactly

00:20 when that will be.

00:21 Q And with hindsight, are there any signs that you can look back on now, looking at

00:25 the reports from January or February or March, that suggested something more worrying than

00:29 just expected bumpiness?

00:31 MR. BROWN I, you know, not really. You know, what -- so

00:39 I thought it was appropriate to reserve judgment until we had the full quarter's data, until

00:44 we saw the March data. So take a step back. What do we now see in the first quarter? We

00:48 see strong economic activity. We see a strong labor market. And we see inflation. We see

00:54 three inflation readings. And you -- so I think you're at a point there where you should

00:59 take some signal. We don't like to react to one or two months' data, but this is a full

01:04 quarter. And I think it's appropriate to take signal now. And we are taking signal. And

01:07 the signal that we're taking is that it's likely to take longer for us to gain confidence

01:13 that we are on a sustainable path down to 2 percent inflation. That's the signal that

01:17 we're taking at, yeah.

01:18 Q And, Mr. Chairman, if I could -- Steve Leach from CNBC. If I could follow up on that. What

01:28 particular areas were sort of temporary or blips in the inflation data in the first quarter?

01:33 And what's the dynamic by which you expect them to work out in the coming months and

01:38 quarters?

01:39 MR. BROWN Yeah. So we will -- you know, we will put the thing -- we have put the thing

01:43 under a microscope. I will say nothing is going to come out of that that's going to

01:47 change the view, I think, that in fact we didn't gain confidence and that it's going

01:52 to take longer to get that confidence. But confidence -- I just think -- I mean, you

01:57 know the story. What's happened since December is you've seen higher goods inflation than

02:04 expected and you've seen higher non-housing services inflation than expected. And those

02:08 two are working together to sort of be higher than we had thought. And there are stories

02:12 behind how that happens. And, you know, we -- I think my expectation is that we will

02:20 over the course of this year see inflation move back down. That's my forecast. I think

02:27 my confidence in that is lower than it was because of the data that we've seen. So, you

02:33 know, we're looking at those things. We also continue to expect and I continue to expect

02:36 that housing services inflation, given where market rents are, those will show up in measured

02:44 housing services inflation over time. We believe that it will. It just -- it looks like the

02:49 -- that there are substantial lags between when, you know, lower market rates turned

02:54 up and for new tenants and when it shows up for existing tenants or for in-housing services.

03:02 So --

03:03 >> If I could just follow up. Is there a bit of a contradiction in the idea that you are

03:07 reducing quantitative tightening, which is sort of an easing, while you're holding rates

03:12 steady at a restrictive rate to try to slow and cool the economy on inflation? Thank you.

03:17 >> I wouldn't say that, no. I mean, the active tool of monetary policy is, of course, interest

03:21 rates. And this is a long -- a plan we've long had in place to slow -- really not in

03:28 order to, you know, to provide accommodation to the economy, but to -- or to be less restrictive

03:38 to the economy. It really is to ensure that the process of shrinking the balance sheet

03:42 down to where we want to get it is a smooth one and doesn't wind up in -- with financial

03:49 market turmoil the way it did the last time we did this and the only other time we've

03:53 ever done this.

03:55 >> Craig.

03:56 >> Craig Forrest from Bloomberg. Two questions. First, simple one. Given the run of data since

04:06 March, has the probability in your mind of no cuts this year increased or stayed the

04:12 same? That's the first question.

04:15 Second question. Chair Powell, you joined the board in 2012, and I'm sure you remember

04:21 as I do what the jobless recovery was like. Lawyers, accountants, all kinds of highly

04:28 qualified people who couldn't get jobs. And given your history there, I wonder if there's

04:33 an argument for being more patient with inflation here. We have strong productivity growth that's

04:41 helping wages grow up -- go up. We have good employment. And so it seems to me there's

04:48 a lot of hysteria about inflation. I agree. It's -- you know, nobody likes it. But is

04:54 there an argument for being patient and working with the economic cycle to get it down over

04:59 time? Thank you.

05:00 >> So on your first question, I don't have a probability estimate for you. But all I

05:05 can say is that, you know, we've said that we didn't think it would be appropriate to

05:11 cut until we were more confident that inflation was moving sustainably at 2%. We didn't get

05:17 our confidence in that, didn't increase in the first quarter. And in fact, what really

05:21 happened was we came to the view that it will take longer to get that confidence. And I

05:26 think there are -- you know, I think it's -- the economy has been very hard for forecasters

05:32 broadly to predict its path. But there are paths to not cutting, and there are paths

05:39 to cutting. It's really going to depend on the data.

05:41 In terms of the employment mandate, to your point, if you go back a couple of years, our

05:49 sort of framework document says that when you look at the two mandate goals, and if

05:56 one of them is further away from goal than the other, then you focus on that one. Actually,

06:01 it's the time to get back there times the -- you know, times how far it is from the

06:07 goal. And that was clearly inflation. So our focus was very much on inflation.

06:12 As -- and this is what we referred to in the statement. As inflation has come down now

06:19 to below 3% on a 12-month basis, it's become -- we're now focusing -- the other goal, the

06:28 employment goal, now comes back in to focus. And so we are focusing on it. And that's how

06:36 we think about that.

06:37 Claire Jones, Financial Times. Thanks a lot for the opportunity to ask the questions.

06:47 Just to go back to the answer before the previous one, it seemed to suggest that you think the

06:53 likeliest path of inflation is one that's going to allow you to have a situation where

06:59 rates are lower at the end of the year than they are right now. It would be good if you

07:03 could just confirm whether or not that's a correct reading. And the Q1 GDP print has

07:11 led to some to start mentioning the term stagflation with respect to the U.S. economy. Do you or

07:17 anyone else on the FOMC think this is now a risk? Thank you.

07:22 Yeah, I'm not dealing really in likelihoods. I think there are paths that the economy can

07:29 take that would involve cuts and there are paths that wouldn't. And I don't have great

07:35 confidence in which of those paths. I think my -- I would say my personal forecast is

07:39 that we will begin to see further progress on inflation this year. I don't know that

07:44 it will be enough sufficient. I don't know that it won't. I think we're going to have

07:48 to let the data lead us on that.

07:50 In terms of your question -- your second question was stagflation. I guess I would say I was

07:57 around for stagflation. And it was 10 percent unemployment. It was high single digits inflation.

08:06 Right now we have -- and very slow growth. So right now we have 3 percent growth, which

08:13 is pretty solid growth, I would say, by any measure. And we have inflation running under

08:20 3 percent. So I don't -- I don't really understand where that's coming from. And in addition,

08:28 I would say, you know, most forecasters, including our forecasting, was that last year's level

08:35 of growth was very high, 3.4 percent in, I guess, the fourth quarter, you know, and probably

08:41 not going to be sustained and would come down. But that would be -- that would be our forecast.

08:46 That wouldn't be stagflation. That would still be to a very healthy level of growth. And,

08:50 of course, with inflation, you know, we will return inflation to 2 percent. And that won't

08:56 be -- I don't see the stag or theflation, actually.

08:58 Michael McKean from Bloomberg Radio and Television. The vice chair of the FOMC said recently that

09:10 he's willing to consider the idea that potential growth has moved up. And, of course, he's

09:16 Mr. Potential Growth R*. Do you share that view? And would that imply that maybe policy

09:22 isn't tight enough?

09:23 I -- so I think I would take that question this way. We saw a year of very high productivity

09:31 growth in 2023. And we saw a year of, I think, negative productivity growth in 2022. So I

09:38 think it's hard to draw from the data. I mean, the question is, will productivity run -- there

09:46 are two questions. One is, will productivity run, you know, persistently above its longer

09:50 run trend? I don't think we know that.

09:52 In terms of potential output, though, if -- that's a separate question. We've had a -- what amounts

09:58 to a significant increase in the potential output of the economy that's not about productivity.

10:05 It was about having more labor, frankly, both through -- in 2023, both through participation

10:10 and also through immigration. So we're very much like other forecasters and economists

10:16 getting our arms around what that means for potential output this year and next year and

10:22 last year, for that matter, too.

10:23 So I think in that case, I think you really do have a significant increase in potential

10:27 output. But you've also got -- so you've got more supply. But those people also come in.

10:33 They are -- they work. They have jobs. They spend. So you've also got demand. So it may

10:38 -- there may be -- it may be that you get more supply than you get demand at the beginning.

10:43 But ultimately, it should be neither inflationary nor disinflationary over a longer period.

10:48 Well, you said earlier that at this point, you're not really considering rate increases.

10:55 If growth is higher, but you're not considering rate increases, does that imply that you're

11:01 more worried about causing the economy to slow too much than you are about inflation

11:07 taking off again?

11:08 No. I think -- we believe our policy stance is in a good place and is appropriate to the

11:14 current situation. We believe it's restrictive. And, you know, we -- our evidence for that

11:19 I went over earlier. You see it in the labor market. You see it in inflation-sensitive

11:23 spending where demand has clearly come down a lot over the past few years. And that's

11:29 more from monetary policy, whereas the supply-side things that are happening are more on the

11:33 supply side. So that's how we think about it.

11:38 Edward.

11:39 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Edward Lawrence from Fox Business. So GDP growth is about 2 percent.

11:46 Inflation -- employment is about 4 percent. It feels a lot like a steady state. And we

11:51 have 3 percent inflation. So if the data remains the same that you're seeing -- and I know

11:56 you said you don't see a rate hike, but it stands to reason that you would need a rate

11:59 hike to get from 3 to 2 percent inflation. So was there any discussion about a rate hike

12:04 in today's meeting? And, you know, are you satisfied with 3 percent inflation for the

12:09 rest of the year?

12:10 Well, I -- of course we're not satisfied with 3 percent inflation. Three percent can't be

12:17 in a sentence with "satisfied." So we will return inflation to 2 percent over time. But

12:23 over time. And we think our policy stance is appropriate to do that. So if we were to

12:29 conclude that policy is not sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation sustainably down to 2 percent,

12:37 then that would be what it would take for us to want to increase rates. We don't see

12:41 that. We don't see evidence for that. So that's where we are.

12:45 With the discussion -- was there a discussion about a rate hike at all?

12:47 So the policy focus has been on -- has really been on what to do about holding the current

12:59 level of restriction. That's really -- that's part of the policy. That's where the policy

13:03 discussion was in the meeting.

13:04 I wanted to follow on the 3 percent. Is there a time frame of persistent inflation that

13:08 would trigger a rate hike?

13:09 There isn't any rule. You can't look to a rule. You know, these are going to be judgment

13:14 calls. You know, clearly, restrictive monetary policy needs more time to do its job. That

13:20 is pretty clear based on what we're seeing. How long that will take and how patient we

13:25 should be, it's going to depend on the totality of the data, how the outlook evolves.

13:29 Victoria.

13:30 Hi. Victoria Guido with Politico. You've talked about your commitment to being apolitical

13:39 and nonpartisan. And I was just wondering, given that it's an election year, is the bar

13:43 for rate changes higher close to an election? And similarly, is there a significant economic

13:51 difference between, you know, starting to cut in, say, September versus December?

13:57 So we're always going to do what we think the right thing for the economy is when we

14:03 come to that consensus view that it's the right thing to do for the economy. That's

14:06 our record. That's what we do. We're not looking at anything else. You know, it's hard enough

14:11 to get the economics right here. These are difficult things. And if we were to take on

14:16 a whole other set of factors and use that as a new filter, it would reduce the likelihood

14:21 we'd actually get the economics right. So that's how we think about it around here.

14:24 And, you know, we're at peace over it. We know that we'll do what we think is the right

14:28 thing when we think it's the right thing. And we'll all do that. And that's how everybody

14:33 around here thinks. So I can't say it enough that we just don't go down that road. If you

14:39 go down that road, where do you stop? And so we're not on that road. We're on the road

14:43 where we're serving all the American people and making our decisions based on the data

14:48 and how those data affect the outlook and the balance of risks.

14:53 And then is there a significant difference between, you know, whether you start in, say,

14:58 September versus December? There's a significant difference between an institution that takes

15:04 into account all sorts of political events and one that doesn't. That's where the significant

15:09 difference is. And, you know, we're -- we just don't do that. I mean, you can go back

15:14 and read the transcripts for every -- this is my fourth election, fourth presidential

15:20 election here. Read all the transcripts and see if anybody mentions in any way the pending

15:26 election. It just isn't part of our thinking. It's not what we're hired to do. If we start

15:30 down that road, again, I don't know how you stop.

15:37 >> Thank you, Chair Powell. Question about the labor market. You've mentioned a few times

15:43 that the labor market is normalizing. Certainly today's jolts data suggested that things are

15:47 kind of getting back to pre-pandemic levels. One thing that hasn't normalized is wage growth,

15:51 which is still quite a bit stronger than before the pandemic. I wonder if you can share your

15:55 analysis of why that's happening. Is it a lagging indicator or is something else going

16:00 on?

16:01 >> So I think if you go back to where wages peaked, wage increases peaked a couple, three

16:06 years ago, essentially all wage measures have come down substantially to that. But they

16:11 are not down to where they were before the pandemic. They're still roughly a percentage

16:16 point higher. And we've seen pretty consistent progress, but not uniformly. And you'll note

16:22 the ECI reading from Tuesday was it was expected to have come down, and essentially it was

16:29 flat year over year, I think, roughly. So, yeah, I mean, that part of it is bumpy. And

16:37 again, we don't target wage increases, but in the longer run, if you have wage increases

16:46 running higher than productivity would warrant, then there will be inflationary pressures.

16:56 Employers will raise prices over time if that's the case. So we've seen progress. It has been

17:01 inconsistent, but we have seen a substantial decline overall. But we have a ways to go

17:07 on that.

17:08 >> Scott. Nancy. Nancy, I'm sorry.

17:15 >> Hey, Chair Powell, Nancy Marshall-Ganzer from Marketplace. You mentioned consumers,

17:27 and consumers are feeling the weight of interest rates right now. Mortgage rates are up as

17:32 are rates for car loans, credit cards. People looking to borrow are very discouraged. That's

17:36 reflected in their views on the economy. What would you say to them?

17:41 >> Well, the thing that hurts everybody, and particularly people in the lower income brackets,

17:48 is inflation. If you're a person who's living paycheck to paycheck, and suddenly all the

17:54 things you buy, the fundamentals of life, go up in price, you are in trouble right away.

18:00 And so with those people in mind in particular, what we're doing is we're using our tools

18:05 to bring down inflation. It will take some time, but we will succeed, and we will bring

18:10 inflation back down to 2%, and then people won't have to worry about it again. That's

18:13 what we're doing, and we know that it's painful and inconvenient, but the dividends will be

18:18 paid in the -- will be very large, and everyone will share in those dividends. And we've made

18:24 quite a lot of progress, if you can think about it. I think headline -- Core PCE peaked

18:30 at 5.8. Now it's at -- anyway, headline peaked at 7.1. Now it's at 2.7. Don't want to get

18:38 that wrong.

18:39 >> No, you don't. Quick follow-up. Are current interest rates really doing that much, though,

18:43 to fight inflation right now for those consumers?

18:46 >> Yes. I mean, I think that restrictive monetary policy is doing what it's supposed to do,

18:54 but it's also, in this case, unusually, working alongside and with the healing of the supply

18:59 side. This -- what was different this time was that a big part of the source of the inflation,

19:05 and the reason why we're having this conversation, is that we had this supply side kind of collapse

19:11 with shortages and bottlenecks and all that kind of thing. And so -- and this was to do

19:17 with the shutting down and reopening of the economy and other things that really raised

19:22 demand. So many factors did that. So I think now you see those two things working together,

19:29 the reversal of those supply and demand distortions from the pandemic and the response to it,

19:35 along with restrictive monetary policy. Those two things are working to bring down inflation.

19:40 And we've made a lot of progress. Let's remember how far we've come. And we have a ways to

19:44 go. We've got work left to do. But we're not looking at the very high inflation rates that

19:48 we were seeing two years ago.

19:50 >> Courtney.

19:52 >> Courtney Brown from Axios. Thanks for taking our questions, Chair Powell. I wanted to follow

19:59 up on something you mentioned earlier on housing inflation. There's kind of been this long-awaited

20:05 disinflation in shelter that still hasn't arrived. So I guess two questions. How do

20:10 you explain the substantial lags between some of the private sector data we're seeing and

20:16 the government data? And how confident are you that rents will be helpful on the inflation

20:22 front in the coming months?

20:25 >> So essentially, there are a number of places in the economy where there are just lag structures

20:32 built into the inflation process. And housing is one of them. So when someone goes to -- a

20:41 new person goes to rent an apartment, that's called market rent. And you can see market

20:45 rents are barely going up at all. The inflation in those has been very low. But it takes -- before

20:52 that, they were incredibly high. They sort of led the high part. So what happens is those

21:00 market rents take years, actually, to get all the way into rents for tenants who are

21:08 rolling over their leases. Landlords don't tend to charge as much of an increase to a

21:14 rollover tenant for whatever reason. And what that does is it builds up a sort of an unrealized

21:20 portion of increases when there have been big increases. And what happens is -- it's

21:25 complicated, but the story is it just takes some time for that to get in. Now, I am confident

21:30 that as long as market rents remain low, this is going to show up in measured inflation,

21:35 assuming that market rents do remain low. What will be the exact timing of it? I think

21:41 we've learned that the lags are longer. We now think significantly longer than we thought

21:45 at the beginning. And so confident that it will come, but not so confident in the timing

21:50 of it. But yes, I expect that this will happen.

21:54 Thanks. Nick Jasinski.

21:59 Thank you, Chair Powell, for taking the questions. This is Nicholas Jasinski from Barron's Magazine.

22:03 It seems that over the past three or four years, economies and central banks in developed

22:07 markets have been on more or less the same trajectory, easing during the pandemic, fighting

22:13 inflation with restrictive policy on the way out. It feels like that may be ending in 2024

22:18 based on some of the economic data from Europe and the U.S. and Japan and statements from

22:21 those central banks as well. So my question is, what considerations or risks does a period

22:26 of more divergent global economic trajectories and central bank policies present for the

22:31 FOMC? So you're right. I think that may happen. And

22:38 you know that we all serve domestic mandates, right? So I think the difference between the

22:42 United States and other countries that are now considering rate cuts is that they're

22:47 just not having the kind of growth we're having. Their inflation is performing about like ours

22:54 or maybe a little better, but they're not experiencing the kind of growth we're experiencing.

22:57 So we actually have the luxury of having strong growth and a strong labor market, very low

23:02 unemployment, high job creation, and all of that. And we can be patient, and we will be

23:08 careful and cautious as we approach the decision to cut rates, whereas I think other jurisdictions

23:14 may go before that. In terms of the implications, you know, I

23:17 think obviously markets see it coming. It's priced in now. And so I think the markets

23:26 and economies can adapt to it. And I think, you know, we haven't seen -- in addition for

23:32 the emerging market economies, we haven't seen the kind of turmoil that was more frequent

23:36 20 years ago, 30 years ago. And that's, I think, partly because emerging market countries,

23:41 many of them, have much better monetary policy frameworks, much more credibility on inflation.

23:46 And so they're navigating this pretty well this time.

23:48 Jennifer. Thank you, Chair Powell. Jennifer Schonberger

23:57 with Yahoo Finance. You sort of backed away from the notion that the economy would need

24:01 to encounter pain for inflation to come back down. But given sticky inflation data in the

24:08 first quarter, can disinflation still happen along a relatively painless path for the economy,

24:15 or is some softening in the labor market and the economy likely needed to bring inflation

24:20 back down? So you're right. I think we thought and most

24:25 people thought there would have to be probably significant dislocations somewhere in the

24:32 economy, perhaps the labor market, to get inflation all the way down from the very high

24:36 levels it was at at the beginning of this episode. That didn't happen. That's a tremendous

24:39 result. We're very, of course, gratified and pleased that that hasn't happened.

24:44 And if you look at the dynamics that enabled that, it really was that so much of the gain

24:50 was from the unwinding of things that weren't to do with monetary policy, but the unwinding

24:54 of the distortions to the economy, supply side problems, and also some demand issues

25:01 as well. The unwinding of those really helped inflation

25:05 come down. Now, as I've said, I'm not giving up on that. So I think it is possible that

25:11 those forces will still work to help us bring inflation down. We can't be guaranteed that

25:17 that's true, though. And so we're trying to use our tools in a way that keeps the labor

25:23 market strong and the economy strong, but also helps bring inflation back down to 2

25:28 percent sustainably. We will bring inflation down to 2 percent sustainably. We hope we

25:31 can do it without significant dislocations in the labor market or elsewhere.

25:37 And speaking of dislocations in the labor market, in terms of cutting, you said if there

25:43 were weakness in the job market, that could be a reason to cut rates. So if the unemployment

25:47 rate were to tick above 4 percent, but inflation not back down to your 2 percent target, how

25:53 would you look at that? Would the unemployment rate popping back above 4 percent catch your

25:57 attention?

25:58 You know, I said an unexpected weakening is the way I characterize it. So, you know,

26:04 and I'm not going to try to define exactly what I mean by that, but, you know, it would

26:07 be -- it would have to be meaningful and get our attention and lead us to think that the

26:12 labor market was really significantly weakening for us to want to react to it. You know, a

26:16 couple of tenths in the unemployment rate would be -- would probably not do that, but

26:20 a broader -- it would be a broader thing that would suggest that it would be appropriate

26:26 to consider cutting. And I think whether you decide to cut will depend on all the facts

26:31 and circumstances, not just that one.

26:33 Kyle.

26:34 Chair Powell, thanks for taking the question. Kyle Campbell with American Banker. You've

26:42 said that broader material changes are needed for the Basel III endgame proposal, and you've

26:48 mentioned that a re-proposal is something that's on the table. As you've had more time

26:52 to sort of sit with the public commentary, process that, and understand the options available

26:57 to you, do you have a better sense of whether a re-proposal will be necessary, and do you

27:02 have a timeline in mind for when, you know, some sort of movement will be made on that

27:07 front, either a re-proposal or a move to finalize?

27:10 So let me -- let me start by saying that the Fed is committed to, you know, completing

27:16 this process and carrying out Basel III endgame in a way that's faithful to Basel and also

27:23 comparable to what the other large comparable jurisdictions are doing. We haven't made any

27:29 decisions on policy or on process at all. Nothing -- no decisions have been made. I'll

27:36 say again, though, if we conclude that that re-proposal is appropriate, we won't hesitate

27:41 to insist on that.

27:42 And then do you need to resolve issues with the capital proposal in order to advance other

27:49 parts of the regulatory agenda, or do you expect to continue to make progress on those

27:53 other agenda items?

27:54 You know, there's no mechanical rule in place there, but I would say that the -- you know,

28:00 the Basel III process is by far the most important thing and really is, I think, occupying us

28:07 at this -- at this time in terms of what's -- what we're moving ahead with.

28:10 Let's go to Mark for the last question.

28:17 Thank you. Mark Hamrick with Bankrate. Mr. Chairman, what can you tell us about your

28:22 -- the approach that you take with your role in the sense of trying to achieve consensus,

28:27 which you recently identified as a priority, while allowing for a range of views or even

28:33 dissent? We don't see many dissenting votes in the official statements, even when more

28:38 spirited discussions are noted in the minutes after the fact. How do you avoid groupthink

28:45 and avoid a higher risk of a policy mistake? Thank you.

28:48 So I think if you listen to -- and you all do -- listen to my 18 colleagues on the FOMC,

28:55 you'll see that we do not lack for a diversity of voices and perspectives. We really don't.

29:00 And it's one of the great aspects of the Federal Reserve System. We have 12 reserve banks around

29:06 the country where they have their own economic staff, not the people who work here at the

29:10 board. They're different people and -- you know, and -- and so each -- each reserve bank

29:15 has its own culture around monetary policy and its own approach and that kind of thing.

29:19 It guarantees you a diversity of perspectives. So I -- I think that the perspectives are

29:24 very diverse. But -- and in terms of -- in terms of dissents, you know, I -- I -- we

29:31 have dissents and -- and, you know, a thoughtful dissent is -- is a good thing, you know, if

29:38 someone really makes you think, that kind of thing. But all I can say from my standpoint

29:42 is I try -- I listen carefully to people. I try to incorporate their thinking or do

29:48 everything I can to incorporate their thinking into what we're doing. And I think many people,

29:54 if they -- if they feel that's happening, you know, that for most people most of the

29:57 time that'll be enough. And -- but I'm -- I'm not -- I mean, it's -- it's not, you know,

30:03 frowned upon or illegal or against the rules or anything like that. It just is the way

30:08 things come out. And I mean, I think we have a very diverse group around the people, frankly

30:13 more diverse than it used to be in many dimensions. More diverse from the obvious, you know, gender

30:18 and demographic ways. But it also -- we have -- we have more people who are not Ph.D.

30:24 economists. So we have people from business and -- and law and academe and things like

30:29 that. So I think you actually do have quite a -- quite a good diverse perspective. The

30:33 -- I think all of us read these stories about a lack of diversity and we look around the

30:38 room and say, I don't understand -- I really don't understand what they're talking about.

30:40 So -- but I get the question, though. Thank you very much.

30:43 [end of transcript]

30:43 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

30:44 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

30:49 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

30:54 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

30:59 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

31:04 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

31:09 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

31:12 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

31:17 Page PAGE of NUMPAGES www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

FOMC Meet: U.S. Federal Reserve Holds Key Interest Rate | NDTV Profit (2)

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended