---
title: 'FOMC: Don''t Trade Crypto Until Powell Says This… [Kalshi Live]'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=qFtY7gOFKfI'
video_id: 'qFtY7gOFKfI'
date: 2026-08-01
duration_sec: 2961
channel: 'IN THE MONEY'
---

# FOMC: Don't Trade Crypto Until Powell Says This… [Kalshi Live]

> Source: [FOMC: Don't Trade Crypto Until Powell Says This… (Kalshi Live)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=qFtY7gOFKfI)

## Summary

The video is a live stream reacting to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's FOMC press conference, where the committee left interest rates unchanged after three consecutive cuts. The host trades Kalshi prediction markets tied to Powell's language, tracks Bitcoin's muted reaction, and highlights Powell's key messages on tariffs, labor market stabilization, and Fed independence.

### Key Points

- **Fed holds rates after 75 bps of cuts** [00:33] — The FOMC left the policy rate unchanged, having already cut by 75 basis points over the previous three meetings. Powell cited maximum employment and 2% inflation as the dual goals.
- **Payroll growth slows to 22k per month** [01:52] — Over the last three months, payrolls rose at an average of 22,000 per month (29,000 excluding government). Powell attributed much of the slowdown to lower immigration and labor force participation, while labor demand 'has clearly softened.'
- **Policy is not on a preset course** [04:09] — Powell said the Fed will decide meeting-by-meeting based on incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks, leaving the door open for future adjustments.
- **Statement drops 'downside risks to employment rose' language** [06:47] — Powell explained the FOMC removed the phrase because data suggest some signs of labor market stabilization and the growth outlook has clearly improved.
- **Tariffs are a one-time price shock, not inflation** [15:24] — Powell said most of the overshoot in goods prices is tariff-related and expected to pass through as a one-time increase. Excluding tariffs, core PCE is 'just a bit above 2%' and services disinflation is continuing.
- **Fiscal path unsustainable, debt level sustainable** [22:12] — Powell called the US budget deficit 'uncontroversially on an unsustainable path' while the level of debt is sustainable. He urged addressing the fiscal picture sooner rather than later.
- **Defends Fed independence** [24:14] — Powell said every advanced economy democracy keeps monetary policy separate from elected officials. Losing that credibility would be hard to restore, and he is strongly committed to independence.
- **Core PCE still at 3.0%** [34:35] — Twelve-month core PCE inflation ended December at 3.0%, unchanged from the prior year. Powell framed the flat number as modestly positive because the overshoot sits in tariff-related goods prices.
- **Advice to the next Fed chair** [40:06] — Powell's advice: stay out of elected politics, treat Congress as the Fed's democratic accountability, and expect to work with the most qualified staff you will ever work with.
- **Stream results: small loss on prediction markets** [47:17] — The host closed the stream down $29 on Kalshi trades, noting all 'yes' positions hit except Beige Book and Projection.

### Conclusion

Powell delivered a cautious hold: rates are on hold, tariffs are expected to be a one-time price shock, and the Fed will move meeting-by-meeting on data. For traders, the stream underscores that macro headlines alone won't move crypto — watching the data and Powell's tone matters.

## Transcript

Good afternoon. All right, we are here right on&nbsp; time for the Powell FOMC speech. If you are new&nbsp;&nbsp; to the streams, we trade these. We look at the&nbsp; crypto markets and we also do the mention markets&nbsp;&nbsp; on Kalshi. So, right on time today and we don't&nbsp; have to wait an hour for President Trump to come&nbsp;&nbsp;
bless us with his presence like we did yesterday.&nbsp; We're going to just skip the intro and roll right&nbsp;&nbsp; into the speech today. While job gains have&nbsp; remained low, the unemployment rate has shown&nbsp;&nbsp; some signs of stabilization and inflation remains&nbsp; somewhat elevated. In support of our goals,&nbsp;&nbsp;
today the Federal Open Market Committee&nbsp; decided to leave our policy rate unchanged,&nbsp;&nbsp; having lowered our policy rate by 75 basis points&nbsp; over the course of our previous three meetings.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yeah. So, if you guys missed it, there is no rate&nbsp; cut this time around. Rates are staying the exact&nbsp;&nbsp;
same maximum employment and 2% inflation. Don't&nbsp; know what that's really going to do to the market.&nbsp;&nbsp; We just need to hear Powell's tone during this&nbsp; week. Economic developments. Available indicators&nbsp;&nbsp;
suggest that economic activity has been expanding&nbsp; at a solid pace. Consumer spending has been&nbsp;&nbsp; resilient. Also, for those just tuning in, I'm&nbsp; taking some long shots. I'm on President: No. I&nbsp;&nbsp;
am on Shutdown: Yes. Which he already said, which&nbsp; is great. I'm on Layoff: Yes. Because layoffs have&nbsp;&nbsp; been happening tremendously across the board. I'm&nbsp; on Pandemic: Yes. Projection: No. Beige Book: No.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Consumer Confidence: No. And Trump: No. Those are&nbsp; my positions across today. And we already hit one&nbsp;&nbsp; of them with a yes on shutdown. So, let's tune in&nbsp; to Powell. What's going on everybody in the chat?&nbsp;&nbsp;
Leave your questions, comments, any trades you're&nbsp; on. And hopefully Mr. Powell is back. Declined at&nbsp;&nbsp; an average pace of 22,000 per month over the last&nbsp; 3 months. Excluding government employment, private&nbsp;&nbsp;
payrolls rose at an average pace of 29,000 per&nbsp; month. A good part of the slowing in the pace of&nbsp;&nbsp; job growth over the past year reflects a decline&nbsp; in the growth of the labor force due to lower&nbsp;&nbsp;
immigration and labor force participation. Though&nbsp; labor demand has clearly softened as well. Other&nbsp;&nbsp; indicators including openings, layoffs, hiring and&nbsp; layoffs. Let's go. That was my biggest position of&nbsp;&nbsp;
the stream actually. I had 200 shares of layoff.&nbsp; Inflation has significant fantastic but remains&nbsp;&nbsp; somewhat elevated relative to our 2% longer run&nbsp; gold. Long on gold. Yeah, I actually think the&nbsp;&nbsp;
metals run is just going to continue as crazy as&nbsp; it sounds. That total PCE prices, I don't think&nbsp;&nbsp; it's going to slow down anytime soon over the&nbsp; 12 months ending in December. And that excluding&nbsp;&nbsp; the volatile food and energy categories core PCE&nbsp; prices rose. Why is this not updating election in&nbsp;&nbsp;
the goods sector which has been boosted by the&nbsp; effects of tariffs? In contrast, disinflation&nbsp;&nbsp; appears to be continuing in the services sector.&nbsp; Near-term measures of inflation expectations have&nbsp;&nbsp;
declined from last year's peaks as reflected&nbsp; in both market and survey-based measures.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most measures of longer-term expectations remain&nbsp; consistent with our 2% inflation goal. My long&nbsp;&nbsp;
shot here is president. I'm going to lose it,&nbsp; but if we hit it, it's a 4 to 1 for the American&nbsp;&nbsp; people. At today's meeting, the committee&nbsp; decided to maintain the target range for the&nbsp;&nbsp; federal funds rate. What's up, Mumo Evans? Good&nbsp; to see you as always. In the prediction streams,&nbsp;&nbsp;
always a mainstay. Since last September, we've&nbsp; lowered our policy rate 75 basis points or 3/4 of&nbsp;&nbsp; a percentage point, bringing it within a range of&nbsp; plausible estimates of neutral. This normalization&nbsp;&nbsp; of our policy stance should help stabilize&nbsp; the labor market while allowing inflation&nbsp;&nbsp;
to resume its downward trend toward 2%. Once the&nbsp; effects of tariff increases have passed through,&nbsp;&nbsp; we're well positioned to determine the extent&nbsp; and timing of additional adjustments to our&nbsp;&nbsp;
policy rate based on the incoming data, the&nbsp; evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.&nbsp;&nbsp; Monetary policy is not on a preset course, and we&nbsp; will make our decisions on a meeting-by-meeting&nbsp;&nbsp;
basis. Bitcoin's not really reacting to this.&nbsp; I'm also monitoring the Bitcoin chart just to&nbsp;&nbsp; see if there's any rhetoric that he says that&nbsp; maybe moves the market in some sort of fashion,&nbsp;&nbsp; but as of right now sustainably to our 2% goal&nbsp; and keeping longer-term inflation expectations&nbsp;&nbsp;
well anchored. Our success in delivering on these&nbsp; goals matters to all Americans. We at the Fed will&nbsp;&nbsp; continue to do our jobs with objectivity. I'm&nbsp; going to add more shares on my projection. I&nbsp;&nbsp; went kind of small on projection, but I do really&nbsp; like projection here. I'm going to grab 50 more&nbsp;&nbsp;
shares of projection: No. Hi. Chris Rugaber at&nbsp; Associated Press. Thank you. I wanted to ask&nbsp;&nbsp;
that you know you attended the Supreme Court&nbsp; hearing last week on the Lisa Cook case. And&nbsp;&nbsp; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent criticized that&nbsp; as political. Can you say why you attended and&nbsp;&nbsp; what you would say in response to the secretary's&nbsp; criticism? I think it's surprising. Let me start&nbsp;&nbsp;
with I that there's a subpoena strike. I don't&nbsp; think he's going to say subpoena, but the no price&nbsp;&nbsp; is just way too heavily favored to even take. But&nbsp; he's not going to talk about his own subpoena. And&nbsp;&nbsp; even if someone asks about it, he's just going to&nbsp; be like, "No." Case is perhaps the most important&nbsp;&nbsp;
legal case in the Fed's 113 year history. And I,&nbsp; as I thought about it, I thought it would might be&nbsp;&nbsp; hard to explain why I didn't attend. In addition,&nbsp; Paul Volcker went to a Supreme Court case famously&nbsp;&nbsp;
in I guess 1985 or so. So, it's precedented and,&nbsp; I thought it was an appropriate thing and I did&nbsp;&nbsp; it. Great. And then just quickly follow on, the&nbsp; job market. You mentioned last month that the&nbsp;&nbsp;
household survey might be distorted. And you also&nbsp; mentioned the potential for over-counting jobs&nbsp;&nbsp; which would suggest that we're still in a negative&nbsp; hiring pace. So do you I had restricted but I did&nbsp;&nbsp;
take a 96 loss on that one. I just lost a little&nbsp; bit of confidence going into it have stabilized.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thank you. So yeah really two questions. One&nbsp; is so we're we're getting through the the&nbsp;&nbsp;
distortions in the data from the shutdown. What&nbsp; however big they were in November they're smaller&nbsp;&nbsp; in December. So we're getting to a place where&nbsp; they're no longer material. They're still there,&nbsp;&nbsp; but it's a tweak here and there. The reason why&nbsp; we why we changed the statement, let me pull it&nbsp;&nbsp;
out. Take probability: No. I'm on projection and&nbsp; probability. I kind of feel like downside risks to&nbsp;&nbsp; employment rose in recent months. So, we saw, you&nbsp; know, data coming in which suggests some signs of&nbsp;&nbsp;
stabilization. I wouldn't go too far with that,&nbsp; but some signs of stabilization. There also some&nbsp;&nbsp; signs of continued cooling. And so we thought that&nbsp; was no longer an accurate description of the data.&nbsp;&nbsp; In addition, the outlook for economic activity has&nbsp; improved clearly improved since the last meeting&nbsp;&nbsp;
and that should matter for for labor demand&nbsp; and for employment over time. So for those two&nbsp;&nbsp; reasons, we thought we would take that language&nbsp; out of the statement. And Bitcoin's actually taken&nbsp;&nbsp; a little bit of a dive over the last hour from 90k&nbsp; to the low 89. Not a crazy move, but something to&nbsp;&nbsp;
take note of. Generally avoided engaging with&nbsp; political controversies directly and the video&nbsp;&nbsp; statement on January 11th was a departure. What&nbsp; made this different and are you concerned it&nbsp;&nbsp; could draw the institution further into political&nbsp; debates? So today on I'm simply going to refer&nbsp;&nbsp;
you to the statement that I made on January 11.&nbsp; I'm not going to expand on it or repeat it. So,&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm just not going to, this is really about the&nbsp; press conference and and the economy and what&nbsp;&nbsp;
we did today, but and some ancillaries, but I'm&nbsp; not going to be getting into that. What we did&nbsp;&nbsp; today did nothing, Mr. Powell. You kept rates&nbsp; the same, man. I have nothing for you on that&nbsp;&nbsp; today. Keep lowering those interest rates for&nbsp; us. Michael McKee from Bloomberg Radio TV. Have&nbsp;&nbsp;
you made a decision and whether you would remain&nbsp; as a governor of the Federal Reserve? And if so,&nbsp;&nbsp; would you tell us what it is? And if not, when&nbsp; might we anticipate a decision? Uh, no. A governor&nbsp;&nbsp;
of the Federal Reserve. We really once again have&nbsp; nothing for you on that today either. I honestly&nbsp;&nbsp; should have taken subpoena at 82. It's 97 now on a&nbsp; no. Why would he talk about his own subpoena even&nbsp;&nbsp;
if he's not something I'm there's a time and place&nbsp; for these questions and but not not something&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm going to be getting into today. There it&nbsp; is. Thank you. Um times thanks a lot for for&nbsp;&nbsp;
taking my questions. In another one that might,&nbsp; you know, lead to a similar answer. We've seen&nbsp;&nbsp; quite why on earth would he have that? I should&nbsp; have gone on. What do you think is driving the US&nbsp;&nbsp;
currency lower? And have you been at all concerned&nbsp; just by the extent of the volatility we've seen&nbsp;&nbsp; this week? Thank you. So, Claire, as you probably&nbsp; know, you know, we we don't comment on the dollar&nbsp;&nbsp; really. The administration, especially the&nbsp; Treasury Department, has a job of oversight over&nbsp;&nbsp;
over the the currency and so and exchange rates&nbsp; and all that. We don't comment on that. It's not&nbsp;&nbsp; our not our role. So I have nothing for you. But I&nbsp; mean, what's your view on the market movements? I&nbsp;&nbsp; mean, what do you think behind them? Is it asset&nbsp; managers diversifying? Is it Yeah, I just don't,&nbsp;&nbsp;
you know, we don't we don't talk about the dollar.&nbsp; We don't talk about what moves it around. We don't&nbsp;&nbsp; talk about the dollar. It's not appropriate for&nbsp; us to do so. Really the Treasury Department has&nbsp;&nbsp; that. It's their their role, their bailiwick, and&nbsp; and we stay off it. We do monetary policy and some&nbsp;&nbsp;
other things, but we don't we don't comment on&nbsp; the dollar. Sorry, we don't comment on the dollar.&nbsp;&nbsp; Jerome obviously no SEP in this meeting,&nbsp; but in light of the slight firming up of&nbsp;&nbsp;
for any further rate cuts is pushed back compared&nbsp; to what people might have thought in December?&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, first of all, if if you look at the incoming&nbsp; data since the last meeting, clear improvement in&nbsp;&nbsp;
the outlook for growth. The the data have come&nbsp; in and sentiment, the Beige Book, everything&nbsp;&nbsp; comes in suggesting that this come starts off on a&nbsp; rinsed us for 75 there. Inflation performed about&nbsp;&nbsp;
as expected and as I mentioned, some of the&nbsp; labor market data came in suggesting you know&nbsp;&nbsp; we're evidence of stabilization. So it's overall a&nbsp; stronger forecast really if that's your question.&nbsp;&nbsp;
I'm not sure I answered your question. But but&nbsp; in terms of timing or pacing of any additional&nbsp;&nbsp; easing. So we we haven't made you know what what&nbsp; we what we'd say about this was that after this&nbsp;&nbsp; meeting after the three recent rate cuts we're&nbsp; well positioned to address the risks that we face&nbsp;&nbsp;
on president. I'm more active monitoring and we'll&nbsp; continue to make our decisions meeting and profit&nbsp;&nbsp; right now. The outlook and the balance of risks.&nbsp; Haven't made any decisions about future meetings,&nbsp;&nbsp;
but you know, the economy is growing at a solid&nbsp; pace. The unemployment rate has been broadly&nbsp;&nbsp; stable and inflation remains somewhat elevated.&nbsp; So, we'll be looking to our goal variables and&nbsp;&nbsp; letting the data light the way for us. Steve.&nbsp; Steve Liesman, CNBC, and sticking with questions&nbsp;&nbsp;
you might answer. Thank you. You had previously&nbsp; I believe described the current policy rate being&nbsp;&nbsp; at the higher end of neutral and if you look at&nbsp; the longer run the SEP and the longer run rate 16&nbsp;&nbsp;
of 19 officials go in on AI here. Yes, he always&nbsp; brings up AI in the Q&amp;A at some point still in a&nbsp;&nbsp; process of bringing it down towards a middle range&nbsp; of neutral and what would it take to get there?&nbsp;&nbsp;
So, I the count I did was that four of the 19&nbsp; were at or above that. Maybe I missed by one,&nbsp;&nbsp; but I thought I thought it was four. And&nbsp; if you look at the the dealer survey,&nbsp;&nbsp;
it was 10 out of 58 where we're at or above. So,&nbsp; you're right. It's it's it's the high higher end&nbsp;&nbsp; of the range. What we say is it's it's within&nbsp; the range of plausible estimates. This is this&nbsp;&nbsp; is the higher end of that range, but it's in so&nbsp; for some people, they think it's it's neutral,&nbsp;&nbsp;
I think. And many of my colleagues think it's&nbsp; hard to look at the incoming data and say that&nbsp;&nbsp; policy is significantly restrictive at this time.&nbsp; It may be it may be sort of loosely neutral or it&nbsp;&nbsp; one knows with any precision. So you had a&nbsp; follow up. I get what you're saying, but are&nbsp;&nbsp;
some officials have described the Fed being in a&nbsp; a mode of bringing it down eventually over time.&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you still in that mode or is this a place to&nbsp; hang out? Yeah. No, I I I would say if you look at&nbsp;&nbsp;
the SEP from from December, you most people had&nbsp; additional normalization, but at the same time,&nbsp;&nbsp; we've done a lot of the process of normalizing. A&nbsp; good piece of it is done with 75 basis points and&nbsp;&nbsp;
before that 100. It's 175 basis. I built up to&nbsp; 100 shares on each probability and projection:&nbsp;&nbsp; No. So, you've moved Consumer Confidence: No as&nbsp; well. I have 50 on is running. I'm not going to&nbsp;&nbsp;
add to that %. So, you've moved a good way and&nbsp; we think we're well positioned here to watch how&nbsp;&nbsp; the economy performs, look at the data. We're not&nbsp; making decisions about future meetings, but we we&nbsp;&nbsp;
do think we're well positioned after those three&nbsp; cuts to to let the data speak to us. Thank you,&nbsp;&nbsp; Chair Powell. Jeanna Smialek from Bloomberg News.&nbsp; To what extent did the did the committee discuss&nbsp;&nbsp;
the possibility of cutting at this meeting or&nbsp; in March? And how are you all thinking about&nbsp;&nbsp; the conditions that would merit another rate&nbsp; cut? Is there broad agreement on the on the&nbsp;&nbsp; committee about what it would take? So there was&nbsp; broad support on the committee for holding today&nbsp;&nbsp;
broad I would say including among non-voters. So&nbsp; that's where that was. Of course something and&nbsp;&nbsp; Bitcoin still printing a couple red candles on the&nbsp; hourly committee during this broadly for for for&nbsp;&nbsp; holding today. We're not trying to articulate&nbsp; you know a test for what for when to next cut&nbsp;&nbsp;
or whether to cut at the next meeting. You know,&nbsp; what we're saying is we're well positioned as we&nbsp;&nbsp; make decisions meeting by meeting, looking at the&nbsp; incoming data, evolving outlook and all that. And&nbsp;&nbsp;
you know, we're in a position where we have to&nbsp; we still have some tension between employment&nbsp;&nbsp; and inflation, but it's less than it was.&nbsp; I think that the upside risks to inflation&nbsp;&nbsp;
and the downside risks risks have probably both&nbsp; diminished a bit. So, you know, we'll be looking&nbsp;&nbsp; at that. But it's about how you weigh the risks&nbsp; to the two goals and and and how big those and&nbsp;&nbsp; forward as the data evolve. Thank you. Thank you&nbsp; Mr. Chairman Edward Lawrence from Fox Business.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Has the effects of tariffs already moved through&nbsp; the economy on prices? A lot of it has. So,&nbsp;&nbsp; keep the word projection and probability out of&nbsp; your mouth. And and they're all highly uncertain.&nbsp;&nbsp;
But most of the overrun in goods prices is from&nbsp; tariffs. And that's actually good news because if&nbsp;&nbsp; it weren't from tariffs, it might mean it's from&nbsp; demand. And and you know, that's that's a harder&nbsp;&nbsp;
problem to solve. We we do think tariffs are&nbsp; likely to move through and be a one-time price&nbsp;&nbsp; increase. So most of the overshoot if you if you&nbsp; were to take that out you'd get and you would I&nbsp;&nbsp;
mean inflation core PCE inflation is running just&nbsp; a bit above 2% excluding the effects of tariffs on&nbsp;&nbsp; goods and the other good news is if you look away&nbsp; from goods and look at services you do see ongoing&nbsp;&nbsp;
disinflation in in all the categories of services.&nbsp; So that's a healthy development. So that's what's&nbsp;&nbsp; going on. The expectation is that we will see the&nbsp; effects of of tariffs flowing through goods prices&nbsp;&nbsp;
peaking and then starting to come down assuming&nbsp; there are no new major tariff increases that&nbsp;&nbsp; that are begun. And that's what we expect to see&nbsp; over the course of this year. If if we see that&nbsp;&nbsp; if the if we see that that would be something that&nbsp; tells us that we can we can loosen policy. Also,&nbsp;&nbsp;
if we see something that suggests that the labor&nbsp; market is not stabilizing, that in fact it's the&nbsp;&nbsp; downside risks reemerge or or the data just get&nbsp; worse, we'd have to look at both of those. We have&nbsp;&nbsp; a two-sided mandate. If I could, if President&nbsp; Trump does pick a new Fed chairman before May,&nbsp;&nbsp;
what does that look like? How would you work with&nbsp; that transition period look like? I don't have&nbsp;&nbsp; anything for you on that. I you know it stats&nbsp; will depend on on Congress's actions and things&nbsp;&nbsp;
I I can't speculate on. Hell yeah. Huge dodge&nbsp; Powell. Love this. Howard on no president and no&nbsp;&nbsp; Trump major dodge on that question all you've said&nbsp; so far. Is it is it fair to describe risks to your&nbsp;&nbsp;
to both sides of the mandate as roughly balanced&nbsp; right now? And is the next move necessarily down?&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd say that the the upside again the upside&nbsp; risks to inflation and the downside risks to&nbsp;&nbsp;
risks to employment have diminished but there&nbsp; they still exist tension between the mandates. I&nbsp;&nbsp; could miss out on a little profit. But that really&nbsp; scared me. Hard to say. I'm probably going to take&nbsp;&nbsp;
profit on my president position here. I'm going to&nbsp; go ahead and do that. Actually secure my discussed&nbsp;&nbsp; there and you know we'll just have to see how&nbsp; the data lead us. I'm wondering you you you a&nbsp;&nbsp;
minute ago you said you felt expectations were&nbsp; consistent with your with your mandate that the&nbsp;&nbsp; two and the 10-year breakevens have moved quite&nbsp; notably in the last couple of weeks I believe. Is&nbsp;&nbsp; there any concern on that front? I mean, the I I&nbsp; recently looked at at all all of the both survey&nbsp;&nbsp;
and market-based short-term inflation expectations&nbsp; have come way down. You know, they they they were&nbsp;&nbsp; in a good place at the beginning of last year.&nbsp; They spiked around Liberation Day and now they&nbsp;&nbsp; fully retraced in and Bitcoin continues to print&nbsp; still in the red on the last two hourly candles&nbsp;&nbsp;
and on the 15 minute candles. We are looking at&nbsp; a green candle actually ever since we hit this&nbsp;&nbsp; hourly low at 88% inflation. Something to keep&nbsp; an eye on is that Bitcoin price movement. Andrew.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Apologies if this is a little bit repetitive,&nbsp; but in the past you've said that the reason you&nbsp;&nbsp; cut rates was that the risk to the labor market&nbsp; was greater than the risk to the inflation side.&nbsp;&nbsp; Is that still true? You know, we haven't made&nbsp; You're right. We we this could be we saw the&nbsp;&nbsp;
labor market weakening and we acted and regarding&nbsp; labor, you know, we will always act to to address&nbsp;&nbsp; what we see as the economy moving away from our&nbsp; goals. Risks to both of the variables are a little&nbsp;&nbsp;
less. I think that the upside risk to inflation&nbsp; again a little bit less and the downside risk to&nbsp;&nbsp; employment a little less. I just would say that&nbsp; I I'm not making a judgment about how, you know,&nbsp;&nbsp;
one of them is more at risk than the other, just&nbsp; that the risks to both of them have diminished.&nbsp;&nbsp; Okay. Thanks. BIS wrote a paper last summer which&nbsp; concluded that global investors were hedging their&nbsp;&nbsp;
dollar exposures in ways that previously they they&nbsp; hadn't because of policy uncertainty. Do you agree&nbsp;&nbsp; with BIS? We really don't see much at all about&nbsp; that. That whole that whole story. There's just&nbsp;&nbsp;
not a lot of data that that suggests that there's&nbsp; much to that. Thanks. Anna Swanson with the New&nbsp;&nbsp; York Times. Can you talk more about what you would&nbsp; need to see in the labor market to conclude it's&nbsp;&nbsp;
time to resume easing? Do you need to see further&nbsp; deterioration in the labor market or would it be&nbsp;&nbsp; enough for inflation to soften? So, we'll always&nbsp; be looking at both things. And so, there could be&nbsp;&nbsp;
combinations, infinite numbers of combinations&nbsp; that would cause us to want to move. Certainly,&nbsp;&nbsp; a weakening labor market would be an argument for&nbsp; loosening. But what's happening with inflation?&nbsp;&nbsp; If inflation were at the same time getting worse,&nbsp; you know, you just you just have a very difficult&nbsp;&nbsp;
situation there. So, we'll be looking at both.&nbsp; Clearly, a week after he's done answering this&nbsp;&nbsp; question, I'll rattle off what I'm still pending&nbsp; on my position. The rates are in a good place.&nbsp;&nbsp; We'll have to be making similar judgments too on&nbsp; inflation though. And if inflation does pick back&nbsp;&nbsp;
up and the labor market doesn't show further signs&nbsp; of deterioration, is it there a chance that you&nbsp;&nbsp; could raise rates rather than simply remaining&nbsp; on hold? What would you need to see? Don't say&nbsp;&nbsp; you're going to raise take things off the table,&nbsp; but it isn't anybody's base case right now,&nbsp;&nbsp;
anybody's base case that the next move will be&nbsp; a rate hike. But, you know, ultimately we'll do&nbsp;&nbsp; we'll do what we think is the right thing. But&nbsp; that's that's not where people's expectations&nbsp;&nbsp; are right now. Okay, so I'm still pending: Yes AI,&nbsp; no Consumer Confidence, no Descent, yes Pandemic,&nbsp;&nbsp;
no Probability, and no Projection. Those are the&nbsp; positions I still have that have not resolved at&nbsp;&nbsp; this point recently in part due to concerns over&nbsp; their their fiscal and and long-term economic&nbsp;&nbsp; outlook. So do you worry that the US could at some&nbsp; point find itself in a situ similar situation to&nbsp;&nbsp;
Japan whether for fiscal or demographic reasons?&nbsp; You know, over time you've seen that US rates&nbsp;&nbsp; have remained pretty they haven't moved a lot&nbsp; really for a while, but they haven't moved a lot&nbsp;&nbsp; because of what's been happening in Japan. So&nbsp; it's more of an overtime thing. The US federal&nbsp;&nbsp;
budget deficit is, you know, uncontroversially on&nbsp; an unsustainable path. The level of debt is not&nbsp;&nbsp; unsustainable. It's very much sustainable, but the&nbsp; path is unsustainable. And the sooner we work on&nbsp;&nbsp;
it, the better. But you know right now the we're&nbsp; running a very large deficit at essentially full&nbsp;&nbsp; employment and so the fiscal picture needs to be&nbsp; addressed and it's not really being addressed. So&nbsp;&nbsp;
that's important. I I I'm not in anyway connecting&nbsp; it to some sort of near-term market event, but&nbsp;&nbsp; ultimately it's something we'll have to deal with&nbsp; and that you know in the end in the endgame that's&nbsp;&nbsp; that's where you wind up is in some kind of a&nbsp; difficult thing. But that's that's not where we&nbsp;&nbsp;
are. It's not what Japan is either. But not going&nbsp; to close out pandemic. I feel like you can still&nbsp;&nbsp; mention something is better than it was since&nbsp; the pandemic or something like that. Overall,&nbsp;&nbsp; not really budged that much. I I wouldn't&nbsp; say that. You know, the thing is um I mean&nbsp;&nbsp;
technically higher longer-term rates means less&nbsp; accommodated financial conditions, but remember&nbsp;&nbsp; many many things move longer term rates. It's not&nbsp; and it's not mostly what happens on the short end.&nbsp;&nbsp;
There can be effects of longer term rates from our&nbsp; moving our policy around but you know it's much&nbsp;&nbsp; more you know assessments of the fiscal path and&nbsp; fiscal policies and and risks and things like that&nbsp;&nbsp;
take an $18 loss on it and let my wins roll that&nbsp; over policy rate over the course of a year and&nbsp;&nbsp; over the course of that year the tenure is exactly&nbsp; where it started so it's not there's not a tight&nbsp;&nbsp;
link between you 10 years and the overnight rate.&nbsp; Elizabeth, thanks so much. Elizabeth Schulze with&nbsp;&nbsp; ABC News. Republican Senator Thom Tillis,&nbsp; who sits on the Senate Banking Committee,&nbsp;&nbsp;
said he will block any Fed nominee, including&nbsp; the chair, until this investigation into you is&nbsp;&nbsp; resolved. Do you support this move by the senator?&nbsp; And what conversations have you had? I don't think&nbsp;&nbsp; he supports anything involving investigation&nbsp; into him. I mean, come on now. Broadly, what&nbsp;&nbsp;
would happen to American households if the Federal&nbsp; Reserve loses its ability to operate independent&nbsp;&nbsp; from politics? So really the the point of of&nbsp; independence is not to protect policymakers or&nbsp;&nbsp;
anything like that. It just is that every advanced&nbsp; economy democracy in the world has come around to&nbsp;&nbsp; this common practice. It's just an institutional&nbsp; arrangement that is that is served the people well&nbsp;&nbsp;
and that is to to have a separation between&nbsp; to not have direct elected official control&nbsp;&nbsp; over the setting of monetary policy and the&nbsp; reason is that and Bitcoin is now printing&nbsp;&nbsp;
a fat green candle 15 minute chart in a way that&nbsp; will be political this isn't the US context this&nbsp;&nbsp; is every advanced economy democracy of any size&nbsp; so it's a it's a good practice this it's pretty&nbsp;&nbsp;
much everywhere among among countries that look&nbsp; at all like the United States and I think if you&nbsp;&nbsp; lose that it's first of all it would be hard to&nbsp; restore the credibility of the institution if&nbsp;&nbsp; people lose their faith that we're we're we're&nbsp; making decisions only on the basis of our of&nbsp;&nbsp;
our assessment of what's best for for everyone&nbsp; for the for the wide public rather than trying&nbsp;&nbsp; to benefit one group or another. If you lose that&nbsp; it's going to be hard to retain it and we haven't&nbsp;&nbsp; lost it. I I don't believe we will. I certainly&nbsp; hope we won't, but it's very important. And the&nbsp;&nbsp;
reason it's important is that it's enabled&nbsp; central banks generally not to be perfect,&nbsp;&nbsp; but to serve the public well. You're confident it&nbsp; can maintain that independence at this point. Yes.&nbsp;&nbsp;
I mean, I'm strongly committed to that and so are&nbsp; my colleagues. Archie. Thanks Archie Hawk from The&nbsp;&nbsp; Economist on that sort of stabilization of the&nbsp; labor market question. How much do you see the&nbsp;&nbsp;
weakening we saw over the past six months year as&nbsp; a kind of data mirage around immigration and the&nbsp;&nbsp; government shutdown and so on that's now resolved&nbsp; or how much have we seen a kind of real underlying&nbsp;&nbsp; firming up in the state of the labor market do&nbsp; you think? Well, part of it is to your point,&nbsp;&nbsp;
part of it just is that that labor supply, growth&nbsp; in labor supply has give me AI essentially a halt&nbsp;&nbsp; from all this labor talk. AI is one of the biggest&nbsp; threat to it growth over the last couple of years&nbsp;&nbsp;
driven by immigration and then that the halt being&nbsp; driven by a very sudden stop in immigration. So&nbsp;&nbsp; many outcomes were possible with that. You know&nbsp; supply came way down. Turns out that demand for&nbsp;&nbsp;
labor also came down a very similar amount,&nbsp; maybe just a little bit more, which is why the&nbsp;&nbsp; unemployment rate has gone up. So I don't know&nbsp; whether that's a coincidence or not, but that's&nbsp;&nbsp; that's what's happened with with that part. But if&nbsp; you look at other things like for example the just&nbsp;&nbsp;
to pick a couple the Conference Board's measure&nbsp; of job availability that came out I don't know was&nbsp;&nbsp; it yesterday or today but you know it shows ser&nbsp; it's a survey showing that that workers feel like&nbsp;&nbsp;
job availability is it's a very low reading just&nbsp; one reading but it's an indication of softening&nbsp;&nbsp; people part-time for economic reasons which&nbsp; is a category within the broader U6 category&nbsp;&nbsp;
measure has moved up significantly. So there&nbsp; there are lots of I could go on and on. There&nbsp;&nbsp; are lots of little places that suggest that the&nbsp; labor market has softened. But part of but you're&nbsp;&nbsp; right part of payroll jobs softening is that both&nbsp; the supply and demand for labor has softening have&nbsp;&nbsp;
come down. So that that makes I didn't take&nbsp; that trade. Time to read the labor market. I&nbsp;&nbsp; was thinking I was thinking one of these other&nbsp; ones projection probability. Okay. Is that full&nbsp;&nbsp;
employment? In a sense, it is. If if demand and&nbsp; supply are in are in balance, you know that you&nbsp;&nbsp; could say that's full employment. I'm fighting&nbsp; this profit line all because he said the silly&nbsp;&nbsp;
book thing one time. You know, if we can come out&nbsp; of this and quite unusual on my nose, we will be&nbsp;&nbsp; in profit. One more on growth and the kind of&nbsp; strong growth outlook. That's what's going to&nbsp;&nbsp; be the key is my nose. Much of that is the fiscal&nbsp; stimulus we're seeing from the beautiful bill, the&nbsp;&nbsp;
tax cuts and and all of that. So, you're seeing it&nbsp; already. You don't have much of the fiscal I think&nbsp;&nbsp; the outlook, you're right, it's it's financial&nbsp; conditions and it's it's fiscal policy for 26.&nbsp;&nbsp;
But, you've got strong consumption that's been&nbsp; happening before financial conditions have been&nbsp;&nbsp; supportive, but before the fiscal effects really&nbsp; are shown. Essentially the economy has once again&nbsp;&nbsp;
surprised us with its strength not for the first&nbsp; time. And you know consumer spending although it's&nbsp;&nbsp; you know it's uneven across income categories but&nbsp; consumer spending overall numbers are good and&nbsp;&nbsp;
we're benefiting from the you know from the AI&nbsp; buildout that's that's another benefiting from&nbsp;&nbsp; the economy AI is huge growth is one more of our&nbsp; yeses that really could turn it around as well&nbsp;&nbsp;
three of our four yeses have hit only waiting&nbsp; on pandemic sound really negative how would say&nbsp;&nbsp; something hasn't been this way since time between&nbsp; downbeat surveys and you know reasonably good&nbsp;&nbsp;
that's big let's go. Thanks Chair Powell Christine&nbsp; Romans from NBC News you talked about how consumer&nbsp;&nbsp; spending is uneven the president calls inflation&nbsp; defeated and solved the FOMC says it's a somewhat&nbsp;&nbsp;
elevated inflation but you talked about those&nbsp; customer survey or those consumer sentiment&nbsp;&nbsp; surveys and public opinion polls that show that&nbsp; most families the cost of living is still issue&nbsp;&nbsp; number one. The conversation around the table with&nbsp; your colleagues about how wealthier consumers seem&nbsp;&nbsp;
to be driving so much of the economy and why so&nbsp; many families still feel like they just can't make&nbsp;&nbsp; ends meet after 5 years of rising prices. What is&nbsp; that discussion like? So, a couple things. One,&nbsp;&nbsp;
there's something something to it in in that we&nbsp; know that honestly just did a bond in Bitcoin.&nbsp;&nbsp; You put 10 grand on real estate tend to own stock&nbsp; of securities and those assets have been going up&nbsp;&nbsp;
in value. That's what bond is free spending over&nbsp; time. So, and that's that's clearly a part of&nbsp;&nbsp; the story. We also know that for some time now&nbsp; for you know a year or more we've been hearing&nbsp;&nbsp;
from it's also just crazy seeing how mainstream&nbsp; it's gotten guys I'll show a tweet after this too&nbsp;&nbsp; but look how the money flow on the order book&nbsp; here on the left side just every single second&nbsp;&nbsp;
just thousands and thousands of dollars coming in&nbsp; trading down from brands and they're buying less&nbsp;&nbsp; and it's changing their buy this is we're not&nbsp; trading crypto here we're not trading options&nbsp;&nbsp; on Powell speaking we're trading mention. And&nbsp; there's $3.3 million in volume on this. I mean,&nbsp;&nbsp;
this is the future of trading happening right in&nbsp; front of our eyes on affordability. We, you know,&nbsp;&nbsp; we have a vast network through the reserve banks&nbsp; and also through the board of governors where we&nbsp;&nbsp; talk to small and large businesses and and&nbsp; households. And so we do hear a lot about&nbsp;&nbsp;
affordability and we take we take that very&nbsp; seriously and we take it to heart because,&nbsp;&nbsp; you know, our job is one of our jobs is price&nbsp; stability. And so, you know, the the best thing we&nbsp;&nbsp; can do for for people who are feeling that squeeze&nbsp; is to keep inflation under control and, you know,&nbsp;&nbsp;
frankly, to finish the job of getting inflation&nbsp; back down to 2%. You mentioned the AI buildout as&nbsp;&nbsp; being positive for the economic growth this year.&nbsp; I wonder as you look at the weakest year last year&nbsp;&nbsp; for job creation of a nonrecession year since like&nbsp; 2003, are you concerned about AI maybe supplanting&nbsp;&nbsp;
more entry-level work and entry-level jobs? And&nbsp; how does that play into your what you're watching&nbsp;&nbsp; about the labor market? You know, so everyone&nbsp; of course is watching AI and the deployment&nbsp;&nbsp; and you know trying to understand exactly&nbsp; what's happening. And there's a wide range of&nbsp;&nbsp;
possibilities. It's it's hard to say. We're and of&nbsp; course anyone who uses it is amazed at 20 shares&nbsp;&nbsp; off being able to sell for my profit here. Every&nbsp; tech incoming will eliminate some jobs. Yeah. I&nbsp;&nbsp;
mean the chart's kind of just doing some rubbish&nbsp; stuff right now. Couple of printed wave after wave&nbsp;&nbsp; after wave. I can't say that long-term technology&nbsp; increases productivity which is a basis for rising&nbsp;&nbsp; wages and it may not all happen immediately but&nbsp; over time it's what it's what enables incomes to&nbsp;&nbsp;
rise over time is rising productivity. So will&nbsp; and we always ask well this this is going to be&nbsp;&nbsp; different you know is is it going to be different&nbsp; and we we don't know and we may in any case see in&nbsp;&nbsp;
the short term jobs that are being eliminated&nbsp; by the capabilities of AI we may see that&nbsp;&nbsp; we just don't know what the overall effect is&nbsp; going to be so how to think about it in ter I&nbsp;&nbsp; feel like he's going to wrap this up pretty soon&nbsp; he usually goes between about 30 and 45 minutes&nbsp;&nbsp;
maximum he's been up here for about 33 minutes&nbsp; connection it appears between the low at least&nbsp;&nbsp; it didn't keep us waiting like ads and AI but&nbsp; it's not that the main or only driver. You hear&nbsp;&nbsp;
large companies though saying many of them saying&nbsp; that they either won't be hiring for some time or&nbsp;&nbsp; that they're hiring less or that they're laying&nbsp; people off and they they tend to refer to AI when&nbsp;&nbsp; they when they do that. So, we're all watching and&nbsp; learning and it could could certainly have pretty&nbsp;&nbsp;
significant effects on the economy, the workforce,&nbsp; and our society. We don't really have the tools to&nbsp;&nbsp; address the concerns that may arise, but we have&nbsp; a lot of people who who focus on analyzing it and&nbsp;&nbsp;
try to try to understand what the macroeconomic&nbsp; implications are, which which is our job. Behi,&nbsp;&nbsp; thank you, Chair Powell. Behi from AFP news&nbsp; agency. You mentioned earlier that on inflation&nbsp;&nbsp;
the broad expectation was for a one-time price&nbsp; increase and then for inflation to come down and&nbsp;&nbsp; I was wondering you know is your expectation still&nbsp; for inflation to start cooling in the second half&nbsp;&nbsp; of 2026 and you if you could elaborate how far&nbsp; we are from target currently. Thank you. I'm not&nbsp;&nbsp;
feeling great about pandemic. I probably should&nbsp; have just closed in that negative remarks where&nbsp;&nbsp; we had 3% 3.0% 0% core inflation right now over&nbsp; the 12 months ending in December and that's pretty&nbsp;&nbsp; much what we had the year before. So on net no&nbsp; progress but the story behind that is is modestly&nbsp;&nbsp;
positive in that most of the overshoot was in&nbsp; goods prices which we think is related to tariffs&nbsp;&nbsp; and ultimately we think those will not result in&nbsp; inflation as opposed to a one-time price increase.&nbsp;&nbsp; Okay. So that's that's where where it is in terms&nbsp; of if you asked so no one thinks they they will&nbsp;&nbsp;
you know ex-ante understand really clearly&nbsp; precisely when this will happen but there's&nbsp;&nbsp; an expectation that sometime in the middle&nbsp; quarters of the year we'll see close out my&nbsp;&nbsp;
Consumer Confidence inflation topping out. So what&nbsp; we do is we when when a tariff is put in place we&nbsp;&nbsp; track the effect of those tariffs over a six seven&nbsp; eight nine month period and you can see and then&nbsp;&nbsp;
you can see for that tariff how long it takes to&nbsp; reach a place where it's it's affected the price&nbsp;&nbsp; level and that's it. So we're getting better&nbsp; at that and and our estimate is that it'll be&nbsp;&nbsp; sometime in the middle of the year but I wouldn't&nbsp; look for great precision in that absolute rubbish&nbsp;&nbsp;
that just moving in that direction. That one got&nbsp; cheap. That one got so cheap on the charts. Tariff&nbsp;&nbsp; inflation graph. Thanks Powell. I'm opened up&nbsp; really high. I want to look outside the US.&nbsp;&nbsp;
What's happening outside. Prime minister said last&nbsp; week that there's been a rupture in the global&nbsp;&nbsp; order and I wonder how you're thinking about&nbsp; geopolitical risk as it relates to the US economy.&nbsp;&nbsp;
So I I can't I can't comment on on that speech&nbsp; or statement or anything like that. You know&nbsp;&nbsp; geopolitical risk for us is a lot of it is around&nbsp; energy oil and so far we haven't you know with all&nbsp;&nbsp;
for all the turmoil we really oil prices are have&nbsp; come down as you know and and so we don't really&nbsp;&nbsp; see much you know longer than that it's trade and&nbsp; you know the the trade the economy our economy&nbsp;&nbsp;
has has pulled through pretty well you'd have to&nbsp; say given the very significant changes in trade&nbsp;&nbsp; policy US economy has has pushed right through.&nbsp; Partly that is that the the the way that what&nbsp;&nbsp;
was implemented was significantly less than what&nbsp; what was announced at the beginning. In addition,&nbsp;&nbsp; other countries didn't retaliate. And in addition,&nbsp; a good part of it hasn't been passed through&nbsp;&nbsp; to consumers yet. It's being it's being taken by&nbsp; companies. I mean, we're skating pretty good right&nbsp;&nbsp;
now. It'll be big if we can just cruise by wrap&nbsp; it up Powell. Get us out of here with our nose.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's what we're really hoping for here. Thank&nbsp; you Chair Powell Jennifer Schonberger with Yahoo&nbsp;&nbsp;
Finance with third quarter GDP growing at 4.4% and&nbsp; the fourth quarter expected to have a five handle&nbsp;&nbsp; on it as to what the Atlanta Fed is predicting at&nbsp; a time when you had a government shutdown and we&nbsp;&nbsp;
thought that was going to shave off some growth.&nbsp; You've also got the fiscal tailwinds you've&nbsp;&nbsp; talked about big tax refunds coming potential&nbsp; tariff dividend. How could you cut rates which&nbsp;&nbsp;
isn't great? Like I feel like the second Powell&nbsp; stops talking here, we're probably going to do&nbsp;&nbsp; that's just my opinion. You know, it would dep it&nbsp; depends on how fast potential output is growing,&nbsp;&nbsp; right? I'm just asking in principle. I'm not you&nbsp; know, I'm not saying this is what's happening,&nbsp;&nbsp;
but you know, there's growth and there's how fast&nbsp; the potential is growing. And at a time of of&nbsp;&nbsp; you know, high productivity growth, potential&nbsp; output is rising. So it really matters whether&nbsp;&nbsp;
potential output is growing as fast as actual&nbsp; output. And and it would matter over time. The&nbsp;&nbsp; numbers you cite were for quarters and quarterly&nbsp; GDP is you need to look at 12 months because&nbsp;&nbsp; quarterly G GDP can be very lumpy. You know,&nbsp; GDP was negative in the first quarter last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;
So the overall over the year, the numbers were&nbsp; nothing like that. You know, it was more in the&nbsp;&nbsp; mid-2s for the year. And how do you explain the&nbsp; divide right now between strong economic growth&nbsp;&nbsp;
and the job market? Is it productivity that's&nbsp; filling the gap? And is productivity being driven&nbsp;&nbsp; by AI at this point? So we there has been you're&nbsp; right there has been a divide of solid growth but&nbsp;&nbsp;
what looked like a weakening labor market and that&nbsp; can be explained by by rising productivity. But&nbsp;&nbsp; I would say we we do see signs of certainly&nbsp; of the of the unemployment rate stabilizing.&nbsp;&nbsp;
So it may be we're seeing the beginning of&nbsp; the resolution of those two things. Also, as&nbsp;&nbsp; you probably know, the the lore is that when GDP&nbsp; and and the labor market get into argument, I'm&nbsp;&nbsp;
going to let Pandemic run. He says it doesn't hit&nbsp; all of our other hard to collect and understand,&nbsp;&nbsp; but nonetheless, I think we we may be seeing that&nbsp; that tension resolving a little bit. Too soon to&nbsp;&nbsp;
say with any confidence, though. Matt Egan. Matt&nbsp; Egan with CNN. Chair Powell, after today, you have&nbsp;&nbsp;
two meetings left as Fed chair. You've obviously&nbsp; experienced a lot during your time as Fed chair,&nbsp;&nbsp; served under multiple presidents. I'm wondering&nbsp; what advice you have for whoever your successor&nbsp;&nbsp;
might be. Honestly, I'd say a couple of things.&nbsp; One is um you know stay out of elected politics.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Don't get pulled into elected politics. Don't&nbsp; do it. And that's that's another question. He's&nbsp;&nbsp; asking for advice for the next Fed chair. You&nbsp; know, our window into democratic accountability&nbsp;&nbsp;
is Congress. And it's not a passive burden&nbsp; for us to go to Congress and talk to people.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's an affirmative, regular obligation. If you&nbsp; want democratic legitimacy, you earn it by your&nbsp;&nbsp;
interactions with the our elected overseers. And&nbsp; so, it's something you need to work hard at. And&nbsp;&nbsp; I I have worked hard at it. So, and the last thing&nbsp; is, you know, it's easy to it's easy to criticize&nbsp;&nbsp;
government institutions so many ways. I will&nbsp; tell whoever it is, you're about to meet the most&nbsp;&nbsp; qualified group of people you not only have ever&nbsp; worked with, you will ever work with. And when&nbsp;&nbsp; you meet Fed staff and not everybody's perfect, is&nbsp; this gonna be like the last question. The advice&nbsp;&nbsp;
than work at the Fed? Thanks for that answer.&nbsp; If I may follow up, as I'm sure you've noticed,&nbsp;&nbsp; gold and silver prices have experienced historic&nbsp; gains here. And I'm wondering how much attention,&nbsp;&nbsp;
if any, you pay to those moves and and what&nbsp; message you may take from these significant&nbsp;&nbsp; price increases we've seen for precious metals.&nbsp; Don't don't take much message macroeconomically.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The argument can be made, you know, something&nbsp; you look at where inflation expectations are,&nbsp;&nbsp; our credibility is right where it needs to be.&nbsp; So we look at those things. We don't we don't&nbsp;&nbsp;
get spun up over particular asset price changes&nbsp; although we do we do monitor them of course.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nicole for the last question. Last question.&nbsp; Where's my pandemic? I'm closing that one for&nbsp;&nbsp;
whatever I can get out of it. Economic models&nbsp; are are somewhat backward looking but should be&nbsp;&nbsp; more forward looking incorporating things like&nbsp; productivity whatever. How do you incorporate&nbsp;&nbsp;
current and future developments into your analysis&nbsp; and decision-making? And do you have a an answer&nbsp;&nbsp; to those critics? Yeah. So, by and large, those&nbsp; criticisms, as somebody on the inside, they just&nbsp;&nbsp;
don't make sense. And I'll tell you why. He just&nbsp; buzzer beatered projection. Are you kidding me?&nbsp;&nbsp; Writes down a forecast every quarter, right? The&nbsp; summary of economic projections. And that's the&nbsp;&nbsp; basis for how we think about the economy. So at&nbsp; the very end projection you know what an economic&nbsp;&nbsp;
model can do is it can grind up all the data for&nbsp; the last number of years 50 years let's say and it&nbsp;&nbsp; can it can identify what are the relationships&nbsp; between variable and all that kind of thing&nbsp;&nbsp;
holy absolute rubbish and it can tell you if you&nbsp; change one of those variables this is what should&nbsp;&nbsp; happen in the macroeconomy that's just the way it&nbsp; works however the structure of the macroeconomy&nbsp;&nbsp; is constantly changing for example we hadn't had&nbsp; a pandemic in 100 years. It wasn't in the model&nbsp;&nbsp;
and we knew it from the very beginning. It was not&nbsp; in the model. A trade war of this literally a 60&nbsp;&nbsp; second difference in me being able to hit that&nbsp; and the swing that I lose and so there's great&nbsp;&nbsp; uncertainty projection on the last question.&nbsp; That's craziness. Another thing I'm gonna get&nbsp;&nbsp;
out of here with like a $30 when it comes to&nbsp; this fiasco technological developments that&nbsp;&nbsp; raise potential output, some kind of technological&nbsp; renovation like like happened in the 90s here and&nbsp;&nbsp;
like maybe happening now with AI. We're all over&nbsp; that. And, you know, we everyone studies those&nbsp;&nbsp; periods and, you know, we're very clear-eyed about&nbsp; the possibility that this higher productivity may&nbsp;&nbsp; persist and also that it may not. You know, we&nbsp; we're not no one's sitting here unaware of the&nbsp;&nbsp;
possibility of higher productivity. We've been&nbsp; talking about it for three years. It it long&nbsp;&nbsp; predates the current situation. It's been going&nbsp; on for five or six years. We've had productivity&nbsp;&nbsp; higher. We've been talking about it that whole&nbsp; time. So, it's very much on our minds and we we&nbsp;&nbsp;
are well well aware that higher productivity means&nbsp; higher potential output and it changes the way you&nbsp;&nbsp; think about potentially inflation, growth, labor.&nbsp; Got a cheat sheet of words to say and not. Yeah.&nbsp;&nbsp; This last one, he's striking a ton of using better&nbsp; models print. Where are they? We'll take them. But&nbsp;&nbsp;
I think, you know, we we certainly are in contact&nbsp; with anybody who does economic modeling and and&nbsp;&nbsp; we're always looking to do better at that. But&nbsp; that's how I think about that. And just a quick&nbsp;&nbsp; follow-up, we've been talking a lot about tariffs&nbsp; and passing through and we've been talking a lot&nbsp;&nbsp;
about them for the past few months. You know, the&nbsp; trade landscape is still in a constant state of&nbsp;&nbsp; flux. Announcements, threats, negotiations,&nbsp; they're all frequently changing. So, I'm&nbsp;&nbsp; wondering how you actually track these, how what&nbsp; data channels are most critical to follow this in&nbsp;&nbsp;
real time. Trade. Yeah, the impact of tariffs&nbsp; and how they're changing. Yeah, I I think our&nbsp;&nbsp; staff has done a really nice job on that and and&nbsp; they've kind of put it together in real time. So,&nbsp;&nbsp;
as I mentioned, a tariff gets put in place. You&nbsp; can pretty much track its effects on pricing and&nbsp;&nbsp; on everything and and so you build up build a&nbsp; model up from all of the all of the tariffs. At&nbsp;&nbsp;
the beginning, it was very much of a forecast.&nbsp; Now, it's it's every every cycle that goes by,&nbsp;&nbsp; it becomes more informed by actual data. And, you&nbsp; know, we were we our forecasts were not far off.&nbsp;&nbsp;
What changed was as I think I said earlier&nbsp; what changed was what was implemented was&nbsp;&nbsp; smaller than what was announced in retaliation&nbsp; internationally people did generally expect that&nbsp;&nbsp;
we saw that in the past and that really mattered&nbsp; too and then the other thing is that pass through&nbsp;&nbsp; didn't know how much exporters would take how&nbsp; much it companies in the middle would take and&nbsp;&nbsp;
how much the consumer would take and it turns out&nbsp; it's a lot of companies in the middle who by the&nbsp;&nbsp; are pretty strongly committed to passing the rest&nbsp; of it through, which is one of the reasons why&nbsp;&nbsp; we need to keep our eye on inflation and not&nbsp; declare victory. It looks like he's wrapping&nbsp;&nbsp;
this thing up because a lot of these are going&nbsp; to one percenters. We're done. We're done. Okay,&nbsp;&nbsp; we're done. Thank you very much. That last five&nbsp; minutes literally just made or broke the profit.&nbsp;&nbsp;
I mean that last five minutes he comes through on&nbsp; the back door and we had 63 to take home a hundred&nbsp;&nbsp; on projection and he said projection at the last&nbsp; absolute minute. We close out our pandemic as he&nbsp;&nbsp;
said that was the last question. He takes another&nbsp; question and they hit pandemic. So, you know what?&nbsp;&nbsp; All in all, minus 29 probably should have been&nbsp; plus 70, plus 100, but the Beige Book strike and&nbsp;&nbsp;
the projection strike just really rinsed us over&nbsp; there, but you know what it is what it is. Like,&nbsp;&nbsp; not too bad as far as damage control. It could&nbsp; have been worse. All my yes strikes hit. And&nbsp;&nbsp;
then all of my no strikes came through except&nbsp; for Beige Book and Projection. So overall,&nbsp;&nbsp; I mean, if I would have just sized these a little&nbsp; differently, we could have profited. But minus&nbsp;&nbsp; $29 on on Jerome Powell today, you know, we'll&nbsp; take it and we'll roll with it. But just looking&nbsp;&nbsp;
at other stuff for the rest of the day. We do&nbsp; have Tesla earnings call coming up. We also have,&nbsp;&nbsp; I think, some Melania Trump speech. What will&nbsp; Melania Trump say during her Fox News interview? I&nbsp;&nbsp;
think it's going to be like the Fox News interview&nbsp; from yesterday. When it comes to Trump. And then&nbsp;&nbsp; we do have Tesla earnings. I might throw some&nbsp; of those on Twitter. This was more for just&nbsp;&nbsp; the FOMC meeting here today. And then I'm going&nbsp; to show just quickly the chart here on Bitcoin.&nbsp;&nbsp;
We did print a couple of 15 minute candles while&nbsp; Powell was talking. I'm curious to see the price&nbsp;&nbsp; action coming up because typically when Powell's&nbsp; up there, we do see a pump when he stops talking&nbsp;&nbsp; unless he was talking very bullish rhetoric, which&nbsp; I don't know. Wasn't screaming that to me. I think&nbsp;&nbsp;
we might see a little bit of I think we might see&nbsp; a little bit of a dip here in the coming hours.&nbsp;&nbsp; But that's going to be it for today's stream,&nbsp; everybody. Thanks for coming. As always, we'll&nbsp;&nbsp; see you guys on the next video tomorrow going over&nbsp; the crypto markets. As always, like the video down&nbsp;&nbsp;
below, subscribe to the channel, and also if&nbsp; you're not already trading on Kalshi, we have&nbsp;&nbsp; a link down below to check out Kalshi. They did up&nbsp; their referral bonus. So, if you deposit and trade&nbsp;&nbsp; $25, you will get $25 in your account absolutely&nbsp; free. So, check out Kalshi down below and I'll&nbsp;&nbsp;
see y'all tomorrow. As always, stay bullish,&nbsp; my friends, and trade responsibly, my friends.
