Latest / Trumponomics / Ex-New York Fed President Bill Dudley on Trump and Central Bank Independence

Transcript

Ex-New York Fed President Bill Dudley on Trump and Central Bank Independence · Trumponomics

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. This is exactly where
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: we like to see central bank independence, because central bank
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: independence is thinking about manitre palsy. Not for the next
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: eighteen months, but for the next few years.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: and this is a bonus episode of Trumponomics, the podcast
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: that looks at the economic world of Donald Trump. While
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: I was in New York this week, I hosted a
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: fireside chat with Bill Dudley about the future of the
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: Federal Reserve and its monetary policy. Bill was once President
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Before that,
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: he was a chief economist at Goldman Sachs, among other things,
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: and he's now a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion and a
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: senior advisor to Bloomberg Economics. In our conversation, we discussed
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: not only the political threats to fail independence growing by
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: the day under President Trump's administration, but also the US
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: Central Bank's monetary policy right now and the implications of
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: tariffs and the AI investment boom. I started the conversation
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: by asking Bill why he thinks it would be a
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: bad idea for the FED to keep cutting interest rates
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: over the next year or so, which is what the
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: future markets are currently predicting.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Well, I think there's a debate going on between what's
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: the biggest risk inflation staying sticky above the two percent
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: target for if we go through next year the fifth
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: year in a row, or the layer market to continue
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: to deteriorate and potentially giving away and having a recession,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: and Pouls trying to navigate between those two risks, and
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: as he said, it's very difficult to figure out what
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: to do in the current environment. Where he lands is
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: that he thinks that the greater risk, or the increasing
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: risk at least, is the downs side risk to the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: labor market, and as a consequence of that, he wants
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: to make manentre policy less restrictive to sort of reduce
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: that downside risk to the labor market. Now, I think
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: you could make the argument that the upside risk to
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: inflation still is very much germane because the pass through
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: of teriff of terrorists into prices is probably quite incomplete,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and we have a number of other exogenous factors that
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: are going to also put upward pressure on inflation. For example,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: what's happening with the AI investment boom and the consequence
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: of that for electric prices. Now, I know we like
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: to historically exclude food and energy from our calculation of inflation,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: and that's fine when the prices go up and the
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: prices come right back down, but that's not going to
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: happen for electricity. The prices are going to keep going
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: up for the next few years, and so I think
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: that have to be considered a part of the inflation outlook.
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: I think where I come out is a little differently
• 2:54
  Speaker 3: than Paul.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: I think that the inflation risks are just as substantives
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: as the downside risk labor market number one and number two.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: I don't think policy is as restrictive as he thinks
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: it is. He thinks that policy is restrictive, so they're
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: say before he wants to make it less restrictive. I
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: think if you look at the economy writ large, it
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: doesn't look like Madre policies holding back the economy hardly
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: at all at this point. You know, if you look
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: at the Atlanta Fed GDP now forecast for the third quarter,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: it's tracking three point eight percent. If you think about
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: the exogenous AI investment spending boom that's going to continue
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: to support economic growth as we go through the rest
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five into twenty twenty six. So that's
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: the first point of sort of mild disagreement. The second
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: point is, I just feel like the risk of inflation
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: expectations rising is just as substantive as the labor market
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: continue to DETERIAD.
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: What Paul's worried.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: About in the labor market is that when the labor
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: market det rate's beyond a certain point, it tends to
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: be self reinforcing. And this is really summarized in the
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: sum rule. Every time the unemploying rate's gone up by
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: half a percent, the US is all into reception, with
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: one important exception twenty twenty four. Twenty twenty four, we
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: had a mild trigger of this somrale. Nothing bad happened.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: But I think that notion that labor marketed touring beyond
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: a certain point is still valid because what happened in
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four was the unemploying rate went up not
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: because of labor market weakness, but because of a big
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: surge and labor supply. This year, if the unemploying rate
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: goes up by half a percentage point, it's going to
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: because of weakness and labor demand. What concerns me on
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: the inflation side is, you know, we were sort of
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: pushing the envelope here of how long inflation can be
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: above the Fed's target and inflation expectations state will anchored.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: At some point people are going to start to believe
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: that the FED doesn't really care about getting inflation back
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: to two percent to three percent is good enough. And
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: if that happens, then inflation expectations will become a bit
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: less firmly anchored, and that'll be harder to get inflation
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: down in the future. So my own personal view is
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: I'd be a little bit more patient. Also, I think,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: you know, they's just a tremands amount unsurty in terms
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: of that can We've never had a you know, a
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: TERRFF shock like this. We've never had an AI investment
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: spending boom like this before. We've never had such a
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: dramatic change in labor supply before. So there's a whole
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: bunch of you know, wild cards that I think, in
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: my mind make me less confident in my forecast. And
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: if I'm less confident in my forecasts, going to be
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: sort of like you don't want to take the Democratic
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: oath of do no harm.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: That's fantastically useful to run through all those Let's just
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: pick up there. There's a couple of things from there
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: about what constitutes restricted but also about the pass through
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: the of the tariffs. You know, there is just a
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: lot of uncertainty, and so far things have not necessarily
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: played out certainly the way we might have expected from
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: the models. It's a puzzle, frankly on all sides of
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: the newsroom in Bloomberg as well, because we're talking to
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: people in senior business figures who appear to be kind
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: of nervous of mentioning tariffs in their earnings calls. If
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: it's not being shown in prices, these tariffs, which are
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: definitely being paid at the board, you'd expect it to
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: be shown in earnings, but we're not seeing an obvious
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: effect there. Our own Anna Wong has suggested that even
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: just the sheer uncertainty attached to the tariffs this time around,
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: the fact that they're jumping around so much, has actually
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: stayed manufacturers, how retailers hand in changing prices because they think, oh, well,
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: he may there may be a tweet next week and
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: he may suspend it for another few months. So just
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: on that, what's your sort of solution to the puzzle
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: of how tariffs are or are not actually being shown
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: in the economy and prices particularly, Well.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: First of all, I think the path through process just
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: takes a little bit longer than we expect because the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: goods have to move from abroad to the US, they
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: have to be unloaded, shift to the retailer, and the
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: retailer actually has to sell the goods at the higher price,
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: and that takes a number of months. Number two, to
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: your point, the encertainty level is really high. And I
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: think when a certainty is really high and there's a
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: cost of raising prices in terms of your customer relations,
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: you want to get more certainty before you decide how
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: big a price rise that you want to put into place.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: So it's better to raise the prices once and rather
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: than raise the prices multiple times. So I fully expect
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: that you know, most of the tariff burden is ultimately
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: going to be passed through, you know, probably on the
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: order of eighty percent, and I think that's probably going
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: to be worth you know, one to one percent to
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: one and a half percent on the level of prices.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: So I'm pretty confident that inflation is going to be
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: three percent or more, you know, well in well through
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: the first half of twenty twenty six. So I think
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: it's I think it's more delayed than not coming, because
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: to your point, if it's not showing up in earnings,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: then we're going to be seeing it at some point.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: And on the question of whether it's restricted, obviously, one
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: of the arguments that's been used by Stephen Myron and
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: others for why it is actually more restrictive than we
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: think the policy currently is that the natural rate has
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: fallen for reasons that he described in his testimony. I
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: think that the house view is certainly that that's not
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: the case. But is that one of the things that
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: you're thinking about in looking at considering where the policy
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: is restrictive enough?
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: As cher Paaloa says, we know our star by its works,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: and what he means by that is we look outside
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: see how the commedy is performing. If the comedy is
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: stronger than we thought, then we tend to revise up
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: our estimate of our star. And if the e commedy
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: is weaker than we thought, we tend to revise down
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: our estimate of our store. I'd say, right now, given
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: all the uncertainty in policy, the tariff shock, you know,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: it is a tightening of physical policy. Given all that,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: you'd have to say, the commedy is performing better than expected.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: In fact, you know, it's the last FED meeting, the
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: FED revised up their growth forecast for twenty twenty six
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: by a couple tenths of a percent. So that to
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: me tells me that our star is probably a little
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: bit higher than we think now. You know, Stephen Moran
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: made a number of arguments why our star is lowered,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: and I think some of the arguments are actually sensible,
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: but some of them are not. And of course he conveniently,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: I think, ignored some of the factors that are also
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: resulting in a higher our star. The investment spending boom,
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: for it was just totally not even mentioned by Marian
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: in his remarks. And it's hard to believe that the
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: investment spending boom in the short term doesn't increase the
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: demand for capital and result in a higher interest rate
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: to consistent with a neutral manetary policy.
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: You know what.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: The argument where I agree with him is on the
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: slower growth of the population, slower growth of liver force,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: that one, I think is you know, a good argument
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: because I think if you have less people, you need
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: less capital to equip them to work. So I think
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: that one was something I agree with. But the some
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: of the other arguments I think are btr cherry picking
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the arguments to support his point of view.
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: But the biggest problem is how does he explain if.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: The policy is as restrictive as he says it is,
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: then why is the economy performing so well?
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: There is this kind of mystic meg aspect to the
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: our Star debate. You have this feeling of you never
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: can see it, never can put it down, But we
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: talk about it a lot. We're going to talk about
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: it more later. Finally, just on the short term situation,
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: given that you have been, unlike most of the people
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: in the room round the table for these discussions, how
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: will the FMC be thinking about the shutdown? And how
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: important is it the timing If the government goes back
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: to work, say this week or that it's seeming pretty unlikely,
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: what kind of difference does that make relative to it
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: being what seems likely to be a pretty prolonged shutdown.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: So historically these government shutdowns have not had a big
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: effect on the economic trajectory.
• 10:22
  Speaker 3: And the reason for that is people.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Ultimately get paid even for their or even for the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: time that they were furloughed, so that they don't actually
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: adjust their spending habits in any significant way. But this
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: shutdown could be a little bit different because there are
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: people that apparently are going to be furloughed, there are
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: people who are not getting paid, so it might have
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: a more damaging consequence to the economy. Now, I think
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: everybody's of the view that this is not going to
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: last sort of indefinitely. You know, maybe it goes a month,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: maybe it goes five weeks, but I don't think anyone
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: is expecting it to last through the end of the year.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: And so at the end of the day, the size
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: of the shock that this is going to generate to
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: the economy is pretty small, and I would think that
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: it's unlikely that it's going to have a real big
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: consequence for MONTARC policy. Now the October meeting, I think
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: the FED is definitely going to ease at this point.
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: Once you started to ease, you're almost going to certainly
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: go in the same direction unless you get a new
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: set of information that contradicts your motivation for easing in
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: the first place. Since the FED is getting virtually no information,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: of course they're going to keep going in the same direction.
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: There's a yeah, of course, that's a good point in
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: terms of the BLS numbers and other things. Okay, So,
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: I mean, one thing that I like about your columns
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: that you do for Bloomberg Bill, and certainly why they
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: get read, is that you have these admirably direct headlines
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: that say basically what you're going to say. And if
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: you'll forgive me fourth of August column, the FED is
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: under siege and it'll be just fine. That was one column.
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I changed my mind on that one three weeks later.
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: Three weeks later, just about the time that Lisa Cook
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: was attempted to be fired. I wasn't very worried about
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: the FED now I am. So if you are, why
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: isn't Wall Street.
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: That's a good question. I don't have a good answer
• 12:07
  Speaker 3: for that.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: I guess Wall Street is just very uncertain how this
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: all is going to play out. Obviously, the Lisa Cook
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: case is going up to the Supreme Court, and how
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: they rule is going to be really important. If they
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: rule that President Trump can dismiss Lisa Cook for cause
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: then in principle, President Trump can dismiss other members of
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: the Board of Governors for cause, and it's not even
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: clearer whether what his authority would be over the Federals
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: or bank prisons. The fear in markets is that the
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: Trump administration will soon get could soon get control of
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: the Board of Governors, and then those that majority on
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: the Board of Governors could then start to decide not
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: to reappoint Federals or bank presidence when they're five year
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: two terms come due in February of next year. So
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: you can see that how you can bootstrap control of
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: the Board of Governors to having control full of the
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: broad Federal Open Market Committee, even if the Lisa Cook
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: case has decided in favor of the president. I don't
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: think this is preordained. We don't really know what, you know,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman would do. I thought it
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: was interesting at the last meeting that they went along
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: with the majority for a twenty five base point raycut,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: not the fifty bass point raycut that Stephen Moran supported.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: So you know, just because you're a Trump appoint he
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean that you're necessarily willing to do things as
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: radical as not reappointing a federal Reserve banks these five
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: year the five reappointments historically have been absolutely routine. You know,
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: they're they're not they're not ever, They've never been consequential
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: in the past. So to not reappoint a federal resert
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: president because you're afraid that they're not a supporter of
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: much lower interest rates would be without president. So I'm
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: looking at, you know, a couple of things. Number one,
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: the Lisa Cook case, hugely consequential. Number two, where are
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: where are Michelle Bowman and Chris Waller and all this?
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: And how far are they willing to go in terms
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: of transforming the FED? You know, basically, you know, dismissing
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: federis or presence because you don't like how they're going
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: to vote on monetary policy would be the end of
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: FED independence. And I think, you know, to your point,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: it's remarkable that people are so optimistic about this, because
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: even if it's a twenty percent probability, it's a twenty
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: percent probability of a very bad event. As you talked
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: at the top of the of the of this session.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: You know, if Donald Trump were to get his way
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: and get one percent interest rates, we would have a
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: much more significant inflation problem. Inflation expectations would become un anchored,
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: and the heel care would steepen. The bond market vigilantis
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: would almost certainly return, the dollar would weaken sharply.
• 14:51
  Speaker 3: You know, we would have a pretty big mess on
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: your hands.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: And if that's you know, even if that's only a
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: twenty percent probability, that seems like something that you want
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: to price in.
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: We did some scenarios thinking about how you might euphemistically
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: call a different reaction function of the FED under a
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: new chair. I mean, one distinguishing feature of all of them,
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: even the more extreme one, is that things look pretty
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: good for a while and then they're really bad. And
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: just looking at Donald Trump's policies sort of through time,
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: he's been quite good at picking policies that were quite
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: good for a while that he wouldn't necessarily pay the
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: consequences of. Isn't that a reason to be a bit nervous?
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: Well, this is exactly why we like to see central
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: bank independence, because central bank independence is thinking about maitre policy,
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: not for the next eighteen months, but for the next
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: few years. You know, if you have an independence central bank,
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: it can think medium to long term. If you have
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: a central bank that's controlled by the executive branch and
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: is worried about how things are going to look for
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the next election, yeah, you can basically make Maitre policy
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: very stimuli, make the economy look very strong, and the
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: inflation consequence of that usually shows through later. There's been
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: a lot of academic studies that have looked at economic
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: performance based on how independent the central bank is, and
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: the jury is in the more independent the central bank,
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: the better the economic outcomes. And this is the reason
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: why we've been engaged in a movement to more central
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: bank independence over the last thirty years. This is not
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: a new trend. So if Trump moves this in the
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: opposite direction, this is unwinding a lot of momentum that's
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: been in place for several decades.
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: We're going to run out of time. But I've got
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: a couple of quick ones. I mean one is just
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: as a matter of fact, given all the conversation around this,
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: given the focus on the particular candidates, the FED is
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: traditionally the fmc's a bit different certainly from the Bank
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: of England that you tend to have unanimity. The chairman
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: tends to command a lot of the room, so to speak.
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: You don't have the governor or the head of the
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: bank doesn't tend to be voted down in their decisions.
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: That as many people who have said that depends on
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: the respect that the people around the table have for
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: the chair. Do you think that anybody coming in in
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: these circumstances now is tainted because of the process that's
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: led up to it.
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: No, I think it depends on how they perform in
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: the job. So it's sort of up to them when
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: they come in. Cet A Reserve is a consensus driven institution.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: I mean, the chair can lead, but it only leads
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: so far. So the last meeting is a good example.
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: There were some people who didn't want to cut rates
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: at the last meeting, so you look at the outcome
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: of the meeting. All the people except Moran voted for
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: the twenty five basis point raycut.
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: And so that's basically telling.
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: You is when the committee has confidence in the chairman.
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: If the issues are small, the committee is oftentimes willing
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: to defer to the chairman, But if the if the
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: chairman wants to take the interest rates down two hundred
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: basis points and the committee thinks that's inappropriate, then it's
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: not going to happen. So I think, you know, it's
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: so the chair can lead, but it can only lead
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: so far.
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: There's a question that came up at a meeting we
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: had this morning. Do you personally think that Jay Powe
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: will stick around as he suggested?
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: I think I think he's keeping his options open. I mean,
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: I think if he's that his presence was standing between
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: good manitary policy and bad manitary policy, then I think
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: he would stay on board. If he thought that his
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: presence wouldn't make much difference, then I think he'll step down.
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: So I think he's right now. I don't think he
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: knows the answer to that question. So I don't think
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: he knows what he's going to do at this point.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: And the final question was just taking us full circle
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: to the discussion we had around where the risks lie
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: in the current decision all this debate. You know, another
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: potential consequences I've actually heard investors talk about is that
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: in a year or so's time, if you've had a
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: sort of continued boost to the economy from some of
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: these rate cuts and it's actually inflation is starting to
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: come back or come through it could look like you
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: really need to raise rates again, and the fear would
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: be that a slightly more politically compromised FED, whoever the
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: chair is, will not want to do that in the
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: lead up to a mid term election. Do you think
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: that's another reason for holding now?
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: Well, I think you know what you're getting to is
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: is that as we start this a discussion about the
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: independence of the FED, even if the FED retains its independence,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: there's always the question of whether the FED is starting
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: to pull its punches because it's worried about the consequence
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: of it if it doesn't do the administration's bidding. I mean, already,
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: I've been asked a number of times. Do you think
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: the FED cut rates in September because of the political
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: pressure of the Trump administration.
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: I don't think so.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: I think Paul believes that it's appropriate to worry about
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: the downside risk to the labor market. But the very
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: fact that people are asking me that question shows that
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: there's already been some damage to the Fed's credibility.
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that is just the kind of question that anyone
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: on the FED always hated, and certainly you always used
• 19:40
  Speaker 2: to say that, Bill Dudley, Thank you so much.
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: Thank you.
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to Trumpnomics from Bloomberg and this special
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: episode was hosted by me, Stephanie Flanders and I was
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: joined by Bill Dudley. Trumpnomics was produced by some of
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: Saddi and Moses and Dam with help from Amy Keene
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: and special thanks to Rachel Lewis Chriskey. Sound design is
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: by Blake Maples and Sage Bowman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts.
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: To help others find us, please rate and review us
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: highly wherever you listen