on the free c-span video app and online at c-span.org. >> democracy, it isn't just an idea. it a process, a process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few in guarding its principles, debates are held, decisions are made and the nation's courts are judged. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> federal reserve chair jerome powell announced the fed is keeping the federal interest rate steady at 4 1/4% despite president trump's call for more cuts. his announcement after the january federal open market committee meeting and pointed to the strong job market and persistent inflation as reasons

to keep the interest rate steady. our policy stands significantly less restrictive and the economy remaining strong we do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. my colleagues and i remain of dual goals of maximum benefit and stable prices for the american people. the economy is strong overall and has made significant

progress toward our goals over the past two years. the labor market conditions have cooled from the formerly overheated state and remain solid. inflation has moved much closer to our 2% longer run goal though it remains somewhat elevated. in support of our goals today the federal open market committee decided to leave our policy interest rates unchanged and to continue to reduce our securities holdings. i'll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. for 2024 as a whole, gdp looks to have risen above 2%, bolstered by resilient consumer spending. investment in equipment and intangibles appeared to have slowed in the fourth quarter, but was strong for the year overall. following weakness in the middle of last year, activity in the housing sector seems to

have stabilized. in the labor market, conditions remain solid. payroll job gains averaged 170,000 per month over the past three months, following earlier increases the unemployment rate has stabilized since the middle of last year, and at 4.1% in december, remains low. nominal wage growth has eased over the past year and the jobs to workers gap has narrowed. overall, a wide set of indicators suggest that conditions in the labor market or broadly in balance. the labor market is not a source of inflationary pressures. inflation has eased segly over the past two years, but remains somewhat elevated relative to our 2% longer run goal. estimates based on the consumer price intext indicate 2.6% over the 12 months ending in december and that excluding the volatile food and energy

categories, core pce prices rose 2.8%. longer term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored as reflected in a broad range of surveys of households, businesses and forecasters, as well as measures from financial markets. our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the american people. we see the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals as being roughly in balance and we are attentive to the risks on both sides of our mandate. over the course of our three previous meetings, we lowered our policy rate by a full percentage point from its peak. that recalibration of our policy stance was appropriate in light of the progress on inflation and the rebalancing in the labor market. with our policy stance significantly less restrictive and the economy remaining strong we do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy

stance. at today's meeting the committee decided to maintain at 4 1/4 to 4 1/2%. we know that reducing policy restraint too fast or too much could hinder progress on inflation. at the same time, reducing policy restraint too slowly or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment. in considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the committee will assess incoming data evolving outlook and the balance of risks. we're not on any pre-set course. as the economy evolves, we will adjust our policy stance in a manner that best promotes our maximum employment and price stability goals. if the economy remains strong and inflation does not continue to move sustainably toward 2% we can maintain policy restraint for longer. if the labor market were to

weaken unexpectedly or inflation were to fall more quickly than anticipated, we can ease policy accordingly. policies well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainty that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate. as we previously announced, our five-year review of our monetary policy framework is taking place this year. at this meeting, the committee began its discussions by reviewing the context and outcomes of our previous review that concluded in 2020, as well as the experiences of other central banks in conducting reviews. a review will again include outreach in public events involving a wide range of parties, including listed events around the country and a research conference in may. throughout this process we'll be open to new ideas and critical feedback and take on lessens in the last five years in determining our findings. we intend to wrap up the review by late summer. i would note that the committee's 2% longer run

inflation goal will be retained and not be a focus of the review. the fed has been assigned two goals for money policy, maximum employment and stable prices. we remain committed to maximum employment. bringing inflation sustainably to our 2% goal and keeping longer run expectations well anchored. our success in delivering on these goals matters to all americans. we understand that our actions affect communities, families and businesses across the country. everything we do is in service to our public mission. we at the fed will do everything we can to achieve our maximum employment and price stability goals. thank you, i look forward to your questions. >> mr. chairman, cnbc. >> mr. chairman, at an event in davos or to davos anyway, demand that interest rates drop

immediately i have a three-part question. has the president done this? has he made that demand? secondly, what is your response to that and third, what effect, if any, does a president making these kind of remarks have on policy? >> thank you. three questions. i'm seeing it really as one question though, so i'm not going to have any response or comment whatsoever on what the president said. it's not appropriate for me to do so. the public should be confident that we will continue to do our work as we always have, focusing on using our tools to achieve our goals and really keeping our heads down and doing our work and that's how we best serve the public. >> could you comment whether he specifically communicated? >> i've had no contact. thanks. >> mr. powell, you and your college said around the time of

the last meeting that your policy stance was restrictive. given financial and market developments since then, how has your confidence changed in an assessment that says interest rates are meaningfully restrictive? >> i don't think that my assessment has changed. we've got data and rates move up at the long end that could represent a tightening of financial conditions. i think if we look past year or so, we can see that the policy is restrictive if you look at the high rates on spending, for example, and housing and if you look at the achievement of our goal barriers, the economy move to 2% inflation and has moved largely to maximum employment. so, we literally look at the movement toward the goal variables to make that assessment. now, policy is meaningfully less restrictive before we began to cut and 100 basis points less restrictive and for that reason, we're going to be

focusing on seeing real progress on inflation or trying with some weakness in the labor market before we consider making adjustments. >> if i could follow up, does the economy here warrant meaningful restrictive interest rates and would you judge interest rates to still be meaningfully redistrictive if you were to lower them by another quarter point? >> so, i think our policy stance is very well calibrated as i mentioned to balance the achievement of our two goals. we want to-- policy to be restrictive enough to continue to foster further progress or 2% inflation goal. at the same time we don't need to see further labor weakening in the labor market to achieve that goal and that's what we've been getting. the labor market has been broadly stable and unemployment rate has been broadly stable now for six months, the conditions seem to be broadly in balance and i'd say look at the last couple of inflation readings and you see, we don't-- we have overreacted to two good

readings and bad readings. nonetheless, the last couple have suggested more positive readings, so i think that policy is well positioned. >> with the new york times. chair powell, how should we treat the removement of the statements making progress to the 2% goal. is that no longer the case? >> if we look at the first paragraph, we did a language cleanup there, we took out a refshs to since earlier in the year as related to the labor market and we chose to shorten that sentence, again, i mean, if you look at the sort of intermeeting data, it was good and there was another inflation reading, i guess, just before the december meeting. so we've got two good readings in a row consistent with 2% inflation and we're not going to overinterpret two, and that

was not a signal. you can take away that we remain committed to achieving our 2% achievement goals sustainably. >> and we've seen expectations across a number of measures rise sharply, which has in part been linked to tariff concerns and there's data for cpi and rent indices. how would you characterize to inflation across the committee and especially the two policies related to the trump administration? >> well, i'd say you see expectations moving up a little bit at the short end, but not at the longer end which is where it matters and those could be related to what you mentioned some of the new policies. i think where the committee is very much in the mode of waiting to see what policies are enacted, and we don't know what will happen with tariffs, with immigration, with fiscal policy and with regulatory policy. we're only just beginning to

see, actually or not beginning to see as much. and we need to let those policies be articulated before we can begin to make a plausible assessment for what the economy will be. we are going to be watching carefully as we always do. this is no different than any other set of policy changes at the beginning of an administration, we'll patiently watch and understand and you know, kind of not be in a hurry to get to a place of understanding what our policy response should be until we see how it plays out. >> michael from bloomberg television and radio. you and your colleagues normally condition future policy moves with the phrase, if the economy develops as we anticipate. is it fair to say that since there's a lot unknown about what this administration's fiscal policies are going to be, that you don't have a medium to long-term to economic forecast he, or if that's not

true can you lay out what you think is going to happen in the economy, how you see it developing? >> well, at all times, at all times forecasts are conditional at a minimum on a set of expectations and they're highly uncertain in both directions and economic forecasting is really difficult beyond just a month or two out. so, in the current situation, there's probably some elevated uncertainty because of, you know, significant policy shifts in those four areas that i mentioned, the tariffs, immigration, fiscal policy and regulatory policy so there's probably some additional uncertainty, but that should be passing and we should go through that and we'll be back to the regular uncertainty. what forecasters are doing, not just us, but what everybody is doing, a set of assumptions about what might happen, but they're really kind of in the nature of a place holder, meaning, you know, plausible

could be, but honestly, you wouldn't stand behind it because you just don't know. you're just on hold waiting to see what goes down. it's a very large economy and policies affected at the margin, but we're going to wait and see. >> the idea that you feel the policy is restrictive suggests that the fed in general wants to continue to lower interest rates. so when you look at the data that you are dependent on, are you looking for data that tell you that you can cut or data that will tell you that you should hold? >> you know, we're looking -- it's more the way it works is, we are looking at the data to guide us in what we should do and you know, that's what we do and right now, we feel like we're in a very good place. policies well-positioned and the economy is in quite a good place, actually, as well, and what we do expect is to see

further progress on inflation and you know, as i mentioned, as we see that, or if we were to see weakening in the labor market that could foster and we could be in making further adjustments. we don't see that and we see things as in a really good place for the policy and the economy and we don't need to be in a hurry to make any adjustments. >> howard snyder with reuters, thank you very much. in 2021, the central bank conference you said, quote, throughout my career in both public and private sectors i've seen it the best and most successful organizations are often the ones that have a strong and persistent commitment to diversity and inclusion, these organizations consistently attract the best talent maintaining the work force. the first question, do you still believe that and if so, how do you intend to put that

belief in the practice remaining consistent with the executive order prohibiting diversity and inclusion efforts. >> let me say yes to answer your first question. to the second question, we are like others reviewing the orders and the associated details as they're made available, and as has been our practice over many administrations, we've working to align with the executive orders as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. i'm going to add i'm not going to have anything more specific today for you on this set of issues. >> follow-up quickly on that, i'm wondering how you're getting that to be consistent with the dodd-frank laws stipulations about maintaining an office of minority and women's inclusion. >> so, i did mention consistent with applicable law, right. >> (inaudible) could you follow

up on the question, what reassurance can you give the american people that the fed will continue to operate independent of politics of this administration? >> you know, as i've said countless times over the years, this is who we are, this is what we do. we study the data. we analyze how it will affect the outlook, and the balance of risks, and we use our tools to try to give it our best understanding, our best thinking, to try to achieve our goals. that's what we do, always what we do. don't look for us to do anything else and that's lots of research shows that's the best way for a central bank to operate. this will give us the best possible chance to achieve these goals for the benefit of the american people. that's always what we're going to do and people should have confidence in that, as i said a few minutes ago. >> you've said that the fed is in wait and see mode, based on the policies for this administration. has the fed start today model what policies, like mass deportations, changes in immigration policies, specifically, would look like

for the work force and for inflation? >> so, one of the things our staff does, they look at a range of possible outcomes and they tend to go from really good to really bad and you know, it's one of the best things that they do. in each teal book, you can watch the 5-year-old teal books, they're alternative simulations. that's what they do. there will be a baseline and show six or seven alternative scenarios, including really good ones and not so good ones and what those do, they spark, you know, the policy makers to sort of sync and understand about the, you know, the uncertainties that surround us. so, yes, what the staff does that and we're all well aware that the range of possibilities is always broad and not just now, but always, and you have to-- it's hard to be open to just how broad the possibilities are for the economy. nobody saw the pandemic coming and it changed everything and things happen and yes, we do do

that. but it's one thing to do that to make assessments about what might happen and begin to think about what you might do in that case, but you don't act until you see much more than we see now. >> katerina bloomberg news. you know, last month you talked about a future rate cut as being pretty, you know, significantly predicated on more progress in inflation, with the characterization of the labor market and the statement today, would you say that that's even more so the case now? >> i'd say it's the same. you know, we want to see, you know, further progress on inflation. and you know, the story there, it's-- we're just going to have to see the data. at the end of the day, it comes down to 12-month inflation because that takes out the

seasonality issue that may exist and you know, we're just going to need to see that. we think that-- we think we see the pathway to that and the key example, you do now see the owner's equivalent rent and housing services the way it's character lated for pce, it's coming down pretty steadily now and that's the place where the most remaining gap it. a big part of the overrun, you know what's from nonmarket services and don't tend to send much signal. you can look through that and, okay, that-- we seem to be set up for further progress. being set up for one thing, having it is another. we want to see further progress on inflation. remember, we're not-- you know, we're under 2%, but our goal is 2% and we need to get back to the 2%. >> in terms of the labor market, i mean, how-- you said a broad set of indicators show it's in a pretty solid place, was there

broad agreement on that? there's been a few underlying indicators that are showing perhaps some weakness, a low hiring rate, you know, workers reporting that it's increasingly difficult to find a job. is that of concern to the committee? >> so, you're right. we look at of course, a very broad range and it starts with unemployment, yeah, with the unemployment rate, employment participation, wages, job quits, are people quitting, that kind of thing. the ratio of vacancies to unemployed. we look at all of those things and you put your finger on, it's a low hiring environment, if you have a job it's all good, but if you have to fine a job, finding rates and hiring rates have come down and those more typical of a-- let's say the unemployment, that the labor market is at a sustainable level. it's not overheated anymore, we don't need it it cool off anymore, we watch it carefully,

one of our two goal variables, we watch it carefully and nonetheless, overall look at the aggregate in the labor market. it does seem to, the labor market seems to be pretty stable and broadly in balance when you've got an unemployment rate that has been pretty stable now for a full half a year. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. edward lawrence with fox business. unemployment you said there's a broad range of possibilities, last september you said, we understand there's been quite an influx across the borders and that's actually been one of the things that's allowed unemployment rate to rise. now that the flow at the border has slowed and we're see deportationings, how do you expect the unemployment to react? >> the flow across the border decreased significantly and there's every reason to expect that to continue. and job creation has come

down, too. and two things come together that sort of can be a reason for the unemployment rate to stabilize. in other words, a break even rate as population growth slows, the break even rate that you need in new jobs to make-- to make jobs for workers declines as well. so, that seems to be something about what's happening. you do see a very flat unemployment rate at a time when you've seen significant declines. i want to ask you about fed employment. i know that tax money is not used here, but elon musk says that the fed is overstaffed. we've seen the executive branch push to reduce the work force. >> we run a very careful budget process. we're fully aware that we owe that to the public and we believe we do that. i've got no further comment than that, thanks. >> chris at associated press.

president trump says he will lower inflation by reducing gas and energy costs. do you see such costs as a particular driver of inflation and would lowering them have a dramatic effect? >> chris, i'm not going to react or discuss anything that any elected politician say so i'll give you a mulligan. >> thank you. nearly two weeks ago the fed said it was withdrawing from the network for greening the fm system even as we have significant wildfires in los angeles doing billions of dollars in damage of course ngsf is a group to talk about how the financial system could address climate change and many see the timing. and why did you leave that organization? could you explain. >> i'd be glad to. we decided to withdraw from the ngfs. the work that it does has broadened very significantly. think about nature related

risks and biodiversity and things like that. in addition, the work of the ngfs is in significant part intended to, this is a quote. mobilize mainstream finance in order for a sustainable economy. we get the benefit of understanding what the central banks were doing and seeing research and things like that. i think this is just way beyond any plausible mandate that could attribute to the fed so we have a narrow role as i've said many times and i think that the activities are not a good fit for the fed given our current mandate and authority. and i just think it was time to acknowledge that, you know, the process-- this process dates back, thinking about it dates back a couple of years. i made the decision to bring this to the board, you know, some months ago. it just, the process just took time to get here and this is when we got it and voted on it.

so, i'm aware of how it can look, it was not driven by politics, it was driven by the disconnect of the work, and our mandates. other central banks have different mandates and we have no criticism of them, but it just isn't-- it's not right for the fed. >> thanks. andrew ackerman with "the washington post". i'm wondering if you could talk about what further progress could look like for consumers? >> well, 2% inflation down to 2% sustainably is what we're trying to achieve. you know, we're somewhat above that, as you know, and we want to see, you know, serial readings that suggest that we're making further progress on inflation. that's what we want to see. and consumers will pick that up, of course, in the things that they buy at the grocery store, at the store. >> the other thing i wanted to ask, how far away you think you

are from neutral? >> yeah, you can't know with any precision, of course, as i like to say that you know the neutral rate by its work, so, at 4.3% we're above pretty much everyone on the committee's estimates of a longer run neutral. i think our eyes are telling us that our policy is having the effects on the economy. that's really the question we ask. you know, you can consult models, empirical models, theoretically models and you have to look out the window and see how your policy rate is affecting the economy. and i think we see that it's having meaningful effects in bringing inflation under control. it has helped bring the labor market into balance as well. so, that's what we think. i would say we're meaningfully above it. i am-- i have no illusion that anyone knows precisely how much that is and, but, you know, not knowing that and having cut 100

basis points means that it's appropriate that we not be in a hurry to make further adjustments. >> victoria with politico. as a general matter when it comes to executive orders and omb memos, do those always apply to the fed? sometimes, never, or do you just often voluntarily comply? what is the legality there? >> so, it's been our practice as i mentioned to work to align our policy to those mentioned in the executive orders. i'll leave it at that. i'm not going to go any deeper than that or get in any deeper into this set of issues today. >> from the financial times. two questions, if i may, on tariffs. first of all, we've seen global trade wars before, 2019, the

last time around, but then we were in a very different place on both inflation and growth. if we see tariffs of the same sort of magnitude that we got then, a big if, what do you think might be different this time around? secondly, they said there was no doubt that the threat of tariffs was a big driver by the bank of canada today. what sort of information does the fed need to see on tariffs before it was willing to take such a preemptive move. >> sorry-- >> what sort of information would you need to see on tariffs? what you need to see a strategy, actual implementation, inflation expectations before you're willing to actually change the path. >> first of all, things are different now. we've just come through a high inflation period and you can

argue that both ways. you can say that companies have figured out that they do like to raise prices, but we also hear a lot from companies these days that consumers have really had it with price increases so i don't know how that shakes out. the nonetheless, you're coming from a situation where we're not quite back to 2%, that's different. in addition, the trade, the footprint of trade has changed a lot as trade is now spread around, you know, it's not as concentrated in china as it was. there's a lot more manufacturing. it moved to mexico and other places, so, there are differences and i just think that the range of possibilities is very, very wide. we just don't know-- we don't want to start speculating, as tempting as it is, because we really don't know and we didn't know, by the way, in 2000 and i guess 18. we really didn't know. and, you know, the-- again, the range of possibilities, very, very wide.

we don't know what's going to be tariffs. we don't know for how long or how much, what countries, we don't know about retaliation and how it's going to transmit through the economy to consumers. that really does remain to be seen. you know, there are lots of places where that price increase from the tariff can show up between the manufacturer and the consumer. just so many variables, so we're going to have to wait and see and the best we can could is what we've done is study up on this and look at historical experience, read the literature and think about the factors that might matter and then, we'll just have to see how it goes. >> thank you, courtney brown from axios. two unrelated questions. the first is whether or not there was any discussion about qt in the timeline for ending

qt at this meeting and then the second question is just, i wonder if the ai prompted selloff in the stock market this week signaled anything to you about the state of financial conditions? >> so on-- let's talk about runoff. so the most recent data do suggest that reserves are still abundant. reserves remain roughly as high as they were when runoffs began and the federal funds rate has been very steady within the target range. we track a bunch of metrics and this he do tend to point to the reserves being abundant. we do intend to reduce the size of our balance sheet consistent with monetary policy consistently and effectively with our regime. we're closely monitoring a range of indicators to assess conditions and that should provide signals whether reserves are approaching a level that could be quote, somewhat above ample. i don't have anything to say to you about particular dates. it's just that's the process

and what we see is that rates do appear to be abundant, and for reducing size of the balance sheet in light of economic and financial developments. on ai, it's a big event in the stock market and in particular parts of the stock market. i mean, what really matters for us is macro developments and that means substantial changes in financial conditions that are persistent for a period of time. so i wouldn't put that label on these events, although, of course, we're all watching it with interest. >> with the economist, thank you. you mentioned your activity in the housing sector seemed to have stabilized. at the same time since your first rate cut in september mortgage rates have gone up a

full percentage point, back above 7%. looking forward, are you confident that activity will remain stable given how the mortgage rates are? how does it fit into your broader thinking about the economy? >> so, as you know, as we've reduced our policy rates 100 basis points, longer rates have gone up. not because of expectations, not principally because of expectations, but it's long rates that matter for housing. so, i don't think -- i think these higher rates will probably hold back housing activities to some extent if they're persistent. we'll see how long they persist. you know, we are-- we control an overnight rate, generally it propagates through the family, including interest rates, but this particular case, it's happened for reason unrelated to our policy, longer rates have moved up.

>> thank you, chair powell. jennifer have yahoo! finance. you said you want to see further progress on inflation. given that households appear to be unhappy with the elevated level of prices, do you believe the committee should wait until inflation has fallen back to target to cut rates again? >> no, i wouldn't say that. we have never said we need to be all the way at target to reduce rates. at any time, what we're doing, we're looking at the economy and asking whether our policy stance is the right one to achieve maximum employment and price stability. so, i think if we want to see further progress, but we think our-- as i mentioned we think our policy stance is restrictive, meaningfully restrictive not highly restrictive, but meaningfully restrictive. we would need to see further progress, i wouldn't say all the way back to 2% on a

sustainable basis. we'd love to see that and we will. >> a separate question on tariffs, curious whether the threat of tariffs and not knowing whether they could stick or not creates uncertainty for business here in the united states and could cause them to pull back ultimately weighing on growth. does the threat of tariffs cause you to ponder your growth forecast? >> i want to avoid commenting, even indirectly, on the conduct of tariffs. you know, it's not our job, it's not our job to comment on the moves that people make so i wouldn't want to criticize anything that's happening or comment on it one way or another, and it's just not our job. i do think that, you know, we found in 2018 there was a lot of work done on trade policy uncertainty. trade policy uncertainty, if it's large and persistent, can start to matter for businesses making investment decisions and things like that. that's not something i'm observing today. it's very early days for this,

but i think that did matter in 2018-19 and you know, one of many things we'll be watching. >> thank you, chair powell, matt egan from cnn. following up on questions from the stock market, how concerned are you, if at all, about potential asset bubbles brewing in financial markets? how do relatively high market valuations factor into considerations about potentially lowering interest rates further? is that something that's in the back of your mind? >> so, we look-- we look from a financial stability perspective at asset prices generally, along with things like leverage in the household sector, leverage in the banking system, funding risk for banks and things like that. it's one of the four things, estimate prices are, and, yeah, i'd say they're elevated by many metrics right now. a good part of that, of course, is this thing around tech and

ai, but we look at that, but you know, we also look at how resilient the households and businesses and the financial sector are to those things. so, we look at that mainly from a financial stability perspective and we think there's a lot of resilience out there. banks have high capital and households are overall, not all households, but in the aggregate households are in pretty good shape financially these days. that's how we think about that. and we also look at overall financial conditions and you can't just take-- you can't just take equity prices you've got to look at rates, too, and that represents a tightening in conditions with higher rates. so, overall, financial conditions are probably still what accommodative, but it's a mixed bag. >> hi chair powell. i'm with cbs news. one question for you this month's statement says that

unemployment is a low rate and you walked through what's driving this. what risks do you see that might challenge your assessments? >> well, the things that we watched and discussed earlier, it's a little higher in rate so if there were to be a spike in layoffs. if companies were to start to reduce head counts, you would see unemployment go up pretty quickly because the hiring rate is quite well. that's one thing we look at. and it's worth looking out, for lower income households, they're under significant pressure and in the aggregate, the numbers are good, but we know that people at the lower end of the income spectrum are struggling with costs and really, it's high inflation for the basics of life. it's not so much the inflation now, it's the price level. because inflation has raised prices and inflation is now closer, much closer to target, but people are really feeling that, but you know, overall this is a good labor market. you're at 4.1% unemployment,

that's just a really good level and you've been solidly there now for six, seven months, and job creation is pretty close to a level that will hold the unemployment rate there given that, you know, they'll be much lower population growth. >> one more question, some of the uncertainty around immigration policy, in your assessment, is that making it harder for businesses and the feds to plan going forward? >> you know, we hear anecdotal reports, but nothing in the data yet on that, but you hear that kind of thing about construction, for example, and you know, businesses that are dependent on immigrant labor are saying that it's suddenly gotten harder to get people, but, again, you don't see that in the aggregate data yet, but, yes, you hear it anecdotally.

>> thank you, chair powell. nicholas from barons. uncertainty today, and are there other periods from your career, markets and economy, what's going on in washington and beyond or lessons from history that may provide some guidance for a central banker operating in uncertain times like today? >> i guess i'd say this, uncertainty it with us all the time. it is human nature, apparently to underestimate the details in a way, the possibility. we think of things in a normal distribution and in the economy it's not a normal distribution, the tales-- things can happen way out of your expectation. when you think about it, you think about the first few months of the pandemic, that was uncertainty. are we going to be able to reopen the economy? if so, when? how much of it, how long will it take?

that was uncertainty. what we have now is a good labor market. we have the economy growing at you know, 2, 2 1/2%. inflation has come down to now, that you know, the headline inflation number is 2-6 and that's what the public experience is. we look at core because it's a better indicator of future inflation. yes, the price levels went up a lot for inflation and people are feeling that and they're not wrong. but so the kind of uncertainty we have is just a usual level of uncertainty about the economy, but then policies which are, you know, not for us to criticize or praise, really. those are policies which people have been elected to implement. we're implementing them with a view to making a better economy. ... baird -- policies which are not for us to criticize, those are policies which people have been elected to implement, and are implementing them with a view to making a better economy. so i don't think -- i wouldn't call this out as one of those times, i wouldn't compare it to the global financial crisis because we have a very good economy right now.

reporter: