Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern on Apple car Play or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Joining us now is someone who is very familiar with these types of speeches. Saint Louis FED President James Bullard, who recently was in the media talking about his preference for one hundred basis points of rate cuts this year heading into twenty twenty six. Also a potential contender, I should say to be the next FED chair James Jim, how much are you seeing what we heard from Fedchair j Powell and seeing anything different that you would really say say if you were at that podium.
He used the speech to solidify expectations for twenty five basis points in September. I was expecting that anyway markets were expecting that. He leaned into the most recent labor market report, which was very soft, and so I think that's a done deal. He didn't say too much about beyond that, what you want to do with the October meeting or the December meeting. I have set one hundred
basis points, you know, going into twenty twenty six. I think you could adjust as you go forward and eventually get a full hundred basis points, but I would go slowly in order to watch the data and then on the framework review. I'm sure much earlier in the year they had targeted that they would have the framework discussion and that they would use the Jackson Hole speech to.
Talk about changes to the framework.
I thought those were thoughtful, and they were well presented in this speed each and they're about what many.
Have speculated on.
So I think they did about as much as they can on the framework side.
Jim Bowler, Tom keenan good morning to you. I definitely consider this my conversation of the day. You served a lengthy term at the Saint Louis FED. You have lived the decline of a greater economy decades and decades ago in the effort to provide for a resurgence Saint Louis is a next chairman of the FED, whoever that may be. Do they have to manage for two American economies, a technology driven exceptional economy and another, to use a cliche,
America flat on their back? How would a chairman execute those two Americas.
Yeah, I think in commonwealth distributsha have become more salient topics for the FED.
Is not that clear how much the FED can really do.
Providing interest rate Paul, for the whole economy of if you change the rate structure, that affects everyone, not just one.
Particular group that you might be targeting.
So I think that's been something we've had to wrestle with, and I've actually done research on it myself to try to understand it better from my point of view.
So I think there's been been a theme.
For a while, and that'll be an important theme in Macreconowics going forward.
Mike McKee's got a lot of smarter questions than me on the immediacy of this speech. I'm going to ask one more distant question, Jim Bollard. You're at Purdue executing online technology education every single day. How do you define the new technology productivity that America faces?
Is it enough to save us?
Is it enough to really add on to our present gdp Oh.
Yeah, I think that the AI boom is.
You know, it's a general purpose technology that will diffuse through the economy. I think the key question is how fast does that actually diffuse? And sometimes marcus can get ahead of themselves and think it's going to happen sooner. Sometimes they're too late and it happens faster than markets think. But nevertheless, anyway you look at it, it's an important technology.
It can drive productivity and.
I think in higher education is one of the places where you can really have the biggest impact. We put a AI requirement in at the Danniel School here for every single student, and we're trying to expand that to all produce. So I think that just shows you how important this technology is.
Jim, it's Mike McKee.
I have a question about sort of the process involved in this speech. The chairman is giving his own speech, but basically when he says it's time to maybe adjust policy, he's speaking for the entire open market. Can going into a speech like this, would he have polled everybody? Does he think he has the votes for that? Because we've been speaking with FED officials here in Jackson Hall and there's still some who were saying, well, we're not sure that we need to do that yet.
Now he's going to report on the center of gravity of the committee, even though there might be people that have misgivings. At the June meeting, the committee had a median dot dot plot of two rate reductions by the end of the year, and I think the minutes, you know, suggested something that was more like fifty to fifty.
But then the labor market report came in.
I think that tilted the balance, so he could have he could have pushed back a little bit. I think financial markets were expecting him to come be a little bit more hawkish here and try to set up a fifty to fifty meeting where you would wait and see for the rest of the data to come in. But I don't think that's where the center of gravity is on the committee, so so.
He went ahead and leaned in.
I thought there was quite a bit of talk about the labor market at the at the beginning. You know, you could have could have been a little more, uh, you know, a little more emphasis on the low unemployment rate, for instance. And you know, he did come out at the end of that discussion saying, well, it's in balance, but we're a little bit nervous. So I think, you know, I think he's accurately uh describing where the bulk of the committee is.
Well where would you be on this question, because we've heard FED officials for some time now saying, yes, we had poor job creation in recent months, but the unemployment rate, as you just mentioned, has been low, and they've described the labor market as solid. Now, this seems to be sort of a major shift in the way they view the outlook and the sort of balance between the two mandates.
Yeah, what he did at the end of that discussion, he said, well, it's in balance.
But I think the committee's nervous.
I think it has been slowing, and I think the policy rate is moderately restrictive. Is maybe you know, one hundred and twenty five basis points above the neutral rate. Is that really where you want to be in this circumstance. I think the answers no, So you can come down some and still have moderately restrictive monetary policy that puts
gentle downward pressure on inflation. And then the other thing I think has happened is that this argument from Chris Waller and others on the committee that the you know, you should look through the one time increase in goods prices coming from tariffs.
I think that's carrying the day.
And you know, then he emphasized that inflation expectations remain anchored and so on, and so I think that sets up a modest move downward in September.
Jim, We've been talking with you for years and you are very focused on the discipline of economics. Right now, I'm looking at the headlines that are crossing from the past hour. The top one, of course, is a Jerome Powell fedchair saying that shifting risks may warrant adjusting rates. The second one is that Trump says that hell fire the Fed's Lisa's cook if she doesn't resign as someone who is thought to be a contender to become the
next FED chair. Jim, how much does it concern you that there's this increasing political noise around the seat and exactly what the path of policy forward looks like.
Yeah, I want to see due process around something like this. I want to see you know, you can make charges against anybody about anything, I guess, and you know the person can answer the charges and the dojke and decide what they want to do and so on.
So I think this has, you know, should.
Have longer to play out before you took that step. Otherwise it's just is kind of the wild West, and she can get reinstate later, I guess, or something if there wasn't a conviction.
So seems messy to me.
I think these kinds of these kinds of charges are made from time to time against various officials around Washington, but I'd.
Like to see due process there.
Jim, there's another question here, and aside from Governor Cook and what happens there, about how the perception of political interference handles the market reaction to Fed policy. There is this perception that that could cause the dollar a week in more because there is more of an emphasis on supporting growth and supporting the label market than containing inflation.
And some people are worried that if the Fed does cut by fifty seventy five one hundred basis points, as you were talking about this past week, that you could see a move up in long end yields akin to what we saw last year. If you are on the FED currently and you did see yields along the long end moving up in response to near term FED rate cuts, what would you do?
Definitely be a concern.
And that's the tricky part of this business, is that you know, you think you're pursuing a dubbish policy at the short end, but the long end goes up because in place and expectations start to rise, markets start to lose confidence in the FED and the credibility of the FED, and that can go very very badly and unfortunately fairly quickly. So I think you do have to be come You
do have to be careful here. But I'm saying that I think that committee has room to maneuver if they proceed carefully over the remainder of twenty five and the first half of twenty twenty six.
I don't want to get out front of the debate here the moment, Jim Bullard, But what I would say to Chairman Bullard and Mike.
McKee, I got to turn to you.
You and I used to sit and look at the dots and go which one is Bullard?
I mean, you and I do.
It's fairly easy after a while to figure out.
I've Chairman Bullard, is your first act if you take over the FED as your act to get rid.
Of the dots?
Yeah.
I've threatened to well, ex President, I threatened to withdraw from the dot plot. I think this could be done better. This was discussed at the Framework conference and former chair of Bernanke gave a very nice presentation and talk about a quarterly monetary policy report, get more organized about it, put out a forecast.
I think all of that could be done.
I've advocated that for a long time, and so I think that would sort of clear up some of the misconceptions around the dot plot.
Okay, this is really really important, Folcus.
Jim Bullard made he can history i'd say, a decade ago, with a small, short paper forceful on regime change. How do we get a new FED away from the guessing and the certitude and the silly parlor game of it, Jim Bullard, with great respect, how do we get to that more disciplined study around the game of the FED and regime change?
Yeah, I think regime switching is a great way to think about the global economy and the US economy and how it operates. There are relatively long periods of time where you might have let's say, slow growth and very low interest rates, and you might switch to another time
with faster growth and higher interest rates. I think understanding that and understanding how that affects policy choices is a great thing to study further and talk about further in the years ahead, So you know, I think it's very salient for what the committee does.
Jim Bullard, former FED President of the Saint Louis Bank, will be sticking with us.
Right now.
In markets, you can see a cheering across Wall Street to the opening the door to a potential rate cut next month. Potentially more. You could see equities surging higher across the different of the different indexes, led by some of the more interest rate sensitive sectors. The Russell two thousand. You can see ten year yields down now about six basis points, even more at the front end, down ten basis points. As people look to the prospect of the
Fed looking through some of the inflation from tariffs. You could see the dollar markedly weaker one seventeen on the euro dollar cross up on nine tenths of a percent in terms of just the percentage rise up about a basis point. And there's a real question here about what this means going forward. City Wealth Chief Investment Officer Kate Moore is still with us, freezing a little bit because it is a little bit chilly.
Here, nippy in the morning.
I am curious though about what you're hearing in terms of prospective FED chairs and the politicization of the Federal Reserve. If this is a FED willing to err on the Dubvish side, does that mean something that materially is higher with respect to returns and with respect to risk appetite.
Look, markets love certainty and our investors love certainty, and we want a certainty in terms of the process around making monetary policy decisions. So I don't have any insight into who might be named next FED chair, But what I will say is if there is a sense that the process is changing, I think that will lead to
some pause and perhaps some volatility in the market. You know, our expectation is that regardless of who takes the next chair and what seats are filled, we'll have a continuous continuation of the process of being data dependent, of being thoughtful, of having great debate and discussion amongst the FED governors and their staff. But if that were to change, I
think that would introduce volatility. I think the most important thing for us right now is to recognize that so much of the data is going to be mixed through the back half of the year, and that's going to have a huge impact I think in terms of investor sentiment, and I would suggest even more crowding in some of the favored trades.
We tend to get reactions like we're seeing in the market now on a day when news breaks. But I think we're probably going to see extended rally here because people are anticipating great conscience. Does that worry you in terms of a bubble forming or some sort of excess spending that would push up inflation because of inflated asset prices.
Yeah, so I have been a little bit worried actually about positioning. I feel like I've been a little bit more cautious frankly than some of my peers on the street and saying, you know, people own the highest quality
parts of the market. It's quite crowded. Some of the shorts when we're looking at some of the fast money a community are very similar across the board, and we've seen people kind of shrug off concerns around economic growth or even the technological disruption across a lot of industries.
We've seen significant improvements in terms of the earnings or vision ratios, City Economic surprise index has moved up, you know, and all of this together I think sets us up for you know, a little bit of weakness if there was a bad data point, or if there was a bit of a shock where there's a lot of consensus positioning.
Well, Jim, Jim Bullard, I'd love to bring you back in here. How much does that concern you that sort of a bias to cut rates could cause asset price inflation to get ahead maybe of where the economy is.
Yeah, equities, except for just recently, equities have been doing very well as they've digested the new trade policy of the US and how that's going to play out globally.
You've got the AI boom going on, really a driver for the big tech companies, and you know.
I do get concerned that things we get ahead of ourselves. Sure it's a great technology and everything, but how fast is it really going to in diffuse into actual productivity in the economy. But overall, I would say, you know, it's possible that we'll get higher productivity growth ahead and really a good outcome for the second half of the twenty twenties here, much as we had in the for the nineteen nineties.
Let me talk to the chief investment strategist Purdue University right now. I'm going to do a double barrel question first to doctor Bullard and then to doctor Moore. Jim Bullard as simple as I can all of my conversations rather Jakamnagel, Bundesbank, Kate Moore, City Group and on and on, is about an elevated or persistent nominal GDP.
Do you frame out that.
We're going to have an animal spirit in the country, whether it's better real growth okay, inflation too much inflation, okay, real growth, But what we're talking about forward is an elevated nominal GDP.
If you think real growth is going to be faster than yes, nominal gp growth would be faster even if the Fed hits it's two percent inflation target over that period. So yeah, you would see higher, faster nominal GDP growth.
I mean, I look at this, Kate Moore, and it's a higher manner.
And I'm really surprised by your comments. I think they're extremely important our back to the US quality, etc.
But it sounds like.
City Group is modeling out through all the emotion, the fear, the turmoil, the political debate.
As we just sign next to the eight foot there in the lobby.
The answer here is you're modeling out that will be okay and there'll be a better nominal GDP, it leads into revenue, etc.
Look, I think we're going to have an okay growth environment. But one thing we keep on talking about is sort of the ke shape. Right there are the haves and have nots across all the different industries and different consumer groups. And so I don't think that we want to assume that everyone is going to experience strong growth in the second half the year. And we're seeing this, of course in the consumer companies. We're seeing this across you know,
segments of different households. We're seeing this even in technology companies, those that have made the investments and are reaping dividends from it. So yes, we may have these good headline numbers, but I think as investors we have to really pay attention to what's going on beneath the surface, and I think there's an opportunity for differentiation over the next couple quarters.
We are looking at a market that is moving, We are looking at headlines that are coming. And I want to bring this to you that Canada is planning to remove retaliatory tariffs on many US products in an olive branch to President Trump. And there is this feeling that maybe some of the tariffs are fungible, that we are going to see some of them removed, or US as a negotiating state.
I strongly agree with what you're saying. This was sort of out there in the ether last night, but to see these headlines is another example we adjust well.
And that's one of the reasons why there has been a focus on the labor market fed chair to ome Powell speaking just moments ago, really focusing on the complications for the labor market overall.
While the labor market appears to be in balance, it is a curious kind of balance that results from a marked slowing in both the supply of and demand for workers. This unusual situation suggests that downside risks to employment are rising, and if those risks materialize, they can do so quickly in the form of sharply higher layoffs and rising unemployment.
Some people might say that a fetcher J. Powell is coming around to the Chris Waller view of things, that there is this feeling of potentially the weakening and the labor market taking priority over inflation at a time where some of these tariffs are put on taken off, and that's what we're seeing a little bit in terms of negotiation this morning.
Well, the given the take and it goes back to Kate Moore's optimism on investment in America and you see it a dollar thank you, and you putting up that wonderful dollar Looney chart and you see things adjusts and you wonder, Okay, what do we do with China, what do we do with Mexico with the produce debate? And pharmaceuticals with Europe? Guess what there may be constructive surprises is the certitude of the tariff debate gives way, It makes it easier for the next chairman, and maybe maybe
I'll get out of triple levers all cash. It's fifty fifty.
Oh, now is the time to definitely do it? Yeah, for sure, Jim. Before we let you get on with your day, I do want to finish there that have we seen from tariffs that there is this fungibility there that they get put on, they get taken off, and that right now the path of travel is lower from where we were maybe on April second, not higher again, And so you can look through in another kind of way some of the inflationary impact.
Yeah, I mean, I think it was great to reach a pluminary deal with the EU. That's one of the bigger blocks in the world.
China put on the back burner.
Markets like that for now, and then you've got Canada and Mexico. Looks like we're headed toward renegotiation of the USMCA, which I think would be a fine thing to revisit. Was scheduled for twenty twenty six anyway, so it's maybe a little bit more settled than it was earlier this year, and I think markets are liking that.
That's making it easier to plan. So far, so good on that.
Jim Bullard, former Saint Louis FED President, joining us. Thank you so much for being with us. Maybe a future FED chair. We shall see. The process is ongoing. And City Wealth Chief Investments Officer Kate Moore, before we let you go, I just would like your take on this, the idea that we are at a moment where suddenly people are looking through the inflationary ramifications of tariffs. Are you seeing the same kind of thing? And that's appropriate
that this isn't nineteen seventies. This is a different shock that usually is a demand shock in the end.
Look, I will say people have been looking through the inflationary impact of terriffs for the entirety of the summer. At this point, there's been an enormous roller coaster ride in terms of expectations for end tariffs. But what I will say is this, you know, even if we're at a lower rate, I'm just going to say fifteen percent effective tariffs relative to where expectations were in the beginning of April. I think we have to keep our eye on the sectoral teriffs and this has potentially some of
the biggest impact for overall earnings. And those are sticky, we know, and are likely to endure through multiple different administrations. So you know, this a give and take between some of our trading partners around the reciprocal tariffs we're watching that it's very hard to trade around it. But I will say the sectoral tariffs are going to be very important for our outlook.
Stay with us.
More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at seven am Eastern on Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal.
Well, let's take a listen to what Fedchara Jerome Powell had to say about tariffs and what the impact is on the economy.
Take listen.
The effects of tariffs on consumer prices are now clearly visible. We expect those effects to accumulate overcoming months, with high uncertainty about both timing and amounts. The question that matters for monetary policy is whether these price increases are likely to materially raise the risk of an ongoing inflation problem.
What you could see is the response is rip roaring in markets, with equities surging, yields plunging on the front end, yield curve steepening at a dollar a weeker Pimpko global economic advisor and former FED Vice chair Rich Clarita joining us. Now and Rich, what's your take on what we just heard from FED share j Powell?
Well, I think the share certainly intended to open the door pretty wide to cutting in September. Importantly, Lisa, he spent a lot of time on balance of risk, which is what policy makers do, but at the two key junctures he highlighted the balance of risk to the labor market is to a weaker labor market, and he basically indicated that the balance of risk to higher inflation doesn't appear to be a first order concern in terms of
persistent inflation. So I think the message was they think they're going to cut in September, we get some more data, and the markets every acted to that.
How much do you think that this is partly to maintain the Fed's credibility, not necessarily with respect to the president, but that right now, if they get it wrong on the labor market front, that it is that much more pernicious based on some of the job owning by what we hear from the President.
Well, yeah, I mean, as the chair said in the remarks, it's a curious kind of balance in the labor market. The payroll employment growth has been very, very weak in the private sector, but the unemployment rate has not gone up, and so they are really focused on the balance of risk.
Look, the FED has a dual mandate.
It's costly to let inflation move higher and stay there, but it's also costly to have a recession with the rise of the unemployment. And I think, Lisa, you're correct they are tilting in that direction.
Now.
It feels like a very different Jackson Hole. And this is something that we've been talking about with all of our guests today, Rich that people have come on and said there is a different tone about central banking independence and a question of how to communicate at a time of such political interference. What's your sense of where that was in the speech that we just heard from Fedchair J Powell.
I think the approach the Chair took was to really focus front and center Lisa on the dual mandate that's assigned by Congress maximum employment and price stability, and the Chair gave a very reasoned and thoughtful analysis and discussion of how they're balancing the dual mandate risks.
And I think that's the j. Powell message to the issue of FED independence.
We have an assignment from Congress, and this is what we're doing to achieve it.
At this point, we also are dealing with the headlines that are coming out about FED Governor Lisa Cook, where at the same time that Jerome Powell was giving his speech, President Trump came out with this truth post saying that he will fire Lisa Cook if she doesn't resign. We did hear reports that in the Jackson Lake Lodge and the lobby that James Fishback was screaming at so Cook
that why did she commit mortgage fraud? What's your take on what this does in terms of both the FED composition but also just the ability to be clear minded about making FED policy.
Well, obviously understand just looking at the headlines that you mentioned myself and don't know the details or the facts in this particular situation, but clearly we're in an environment where FED independence is under scrutiny. And my conviction is that, notwithstanding all of the very relevant factors that you mentioned, that the Fed's is going to keep doing keep doing his job.
Richard Claire to Tom Keene here, thank you so much for joining.
U's very valuable.
I've got two tasks I want to take here that I think are important. You recently said that what matters is the institution that this chairman and any future chairman has to protect the institution. What's the day one first mandate to protect the institution for the next chairman?
Well, I think first and foremost it's to have in place a plan and communication that will deliver expectations of price stability. I think the chair was right today to emphasize that the FED has to focus on getting price stability, because that's going to deliver the ability to deliver maximum employment. I've also written Tom that the FED is sort of a complex and cumbersome institution with nineteen folks around the
table and the Reserve Bank presidents. But I do think that is a strength right now of the institution.
Right Well, this is really important because it's as fractiiced as a meeting of the bond team at Pimco. In the middle of the speech, Powell channeled a few years ago at PIMCO the new normal for a moment, I thought. Mohammed Ilarian persued it in to write the speech, What is your optimal new normal for the FED? Which Powell mentioned today? What's the best new normal for the next FED?
Well, I think a new normal would be inflation moving down towards the two percent target, which would let the next BEED chair cut rates down towards a neutral level. You know, Pimco in twenty fourteen we rolled out the idea of a new neutral and we've been operating in that new neutral world now for more than a decade, and so I think well anchored inflation expectations, getting tariffs in the rear view, Mirr would allow the FED to cut rates by probably one hundred and fifty basis points
from here and achieving that ultimate soft landing. So I think that would be a good new normal destination for the next FED chair.
What risks are there to that given what we're seeing with the dollar, given the fact that we really have a very high level of uncertainty around which tariffs are going to stick and how much is going to get past along to consumers.
Sure, and I think the Chair was right to point out that we are seeing evidence of tariffs showing up in the price indexes for imported goods, but that's been offset to extent with the decline in services inflation. Again, I think where they are focused is to make sure that what is an inevitable increase in the price level from tariffs does not over time result in persistent inflation.
And I think the speech today addressed their thinking right now, which is that their baseline is that that will not happen, which will give them the room possibly in September, to cut rates.
Yeah, Lisa, I think it's important to mention within the market check that the market is putting on steam. Here an hour after the beginning of the speech and Mike McKee's bombshell headlines a Dow lifting up. I'm not told I can't leave Jackson Hall unless Dow goes up a thousand points.
Well, I'm getting pretty close to you.
It sounds like you're going to be hiking for maybe another six hours and then all of a sudden not
so much rich. I do want to know, though, about what this does in terms of the currency ramifications and where your preference lies in terms of the good investment backdrop, because what we heard from fetcherg is so vastly different from what we heard from Joakim Novel of the German Central Bank, where he said we have to focus on inflation and right now that is more concerning to them than trying to support growth by cutting rates or being stimulative.
The fact that that is the framework there and it is such a different framework here, does that make you want to invest in Europe a little bit more?
Well, you know, I think one of our themes at PIMCO is that we're in a world where taking advantage of a global opportunity set makes sense. Also, we're in a world where makes sense to focus on valuations and without getting into particular markets or securities. There have been some pretty big divergencies between valuation in the US and Europe,
especially in inequity markets. Also, you know, the Europeans are much closer to their two percent target than is the FED because from your point of view, the tariffs are really a disinflationary force. So we're at different points in the rate cycle, and that does open up some good opportunities.
Richard Clarita, you are definitive in the mathematics, the modern mathematics of our economics. Then you know, we talk about a new framework and it's a lot of job boning about process.
Maybe it's what are we going to do with the dots? What are we going to do with the.
Mathematics of modern economics?
Forward? Is it diminished after all this turmoil?
You know, you know, Tom, you and I over the years decades now, I've talked about that a number of times, and my thinking continues to be the mathematics, the models, including my own, our tools. They're a starting point for analysis and discussion, but they're not They're not handcuffs, nor are they the destination.
And certainly, you know.
The last five years have been unusual with a pandemic and all the rest. But I continue to believe that models in math are our tools, not handcuffs.
My goal right now, Rich is to get you on the short list, is to be the next chairman.
So let's talk tariffs here.
What is the clarita mathematics of Trump tariffs?
Well, as Mike McKee said, they are raising a heck of a lot of revenue, and I would agree with.
My Washington there you go.
I think I think Washington may very quickly get hooked on the two or three hundred billion dollars a year in tariff revenue, especially if you know the initial cost of raising that revenue is in the rearview mirror, which which I think I expect to be the case down the road.
Look, we're in.
A different regime, you know.
We talked at PIMCO in June about an era of fragmentation, and these trends have been accelerating and the destination for the global trading system and global economy is going to be very different in five years than it was in the thirty years of globalization. So I think to be continued is the way I would answer your question.
He's running, Is that what you think? I know?
Bullets running?
Yeah, I think by the time we get done on the show today, we're going to have Tracy Alloway, right.
I think that maybe we'll find out, But I am we will. She's sitting here with us. I'm sure, she says, I bag Rich. I am curious though, going forward this idea of how inflationary tariffs could or couldn't be given the fact that this is a new world order. And we were talking with Adam Posen of the Peter S Constitute earlier, and he was talking about how he sees inflation as having nodes of the nineteen seventies and potentially being really pernicious. Why do you not necessarily see that?
Why are markets more sanguine on that risk?
Well, I think simply because the nineteen seventies we're a very serient experience for the current group of policymakers who lived through it, and I think there were some important lessons learned. And one lesson learned is high and persistent inflation is very costly to the economy. And I think politicians learn that as well, and so I think that
central banks have earned a lot of credibility. The under Vulcar, under green Span, under pass fed chairs in the US and abroad, and I think that expectations of inflation, we're sort of in a world in which the bomb markets at least think that over a five year period, the FED is going to do whatever it takes to get
inflation down what I call two points something. And I think that's an important victory that central banks are still benefiting from, and I would expect that and certainly hope that will continue.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday, seven to ten am Easter and on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal