first one hundred dais of george washington's presidency. he established -- helped establish the nation's course. first system of tariffs and taxes. watch american history t series first one hundred days, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> federal reserve chair jarome powell announced that the fed is keeping the federal interest rates steady at 4 and a quarter percent despite president trump's cuts. 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. >> good afternoon.. my colleagues and i remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of stable prices for the benefit of the american people. the economy is strong, pardon me. , is strong overall and has made significant progress toward our goals overr the past two years. labor market conditions have cooled from theirar 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 market committee decided to leave our policy rate unchanged and to continue to reduce our securities holdings. i will have moreng to say about monetaryry policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace 2024 . looks to have risen above 2%, bolstered by resill why not consumer spending. -- resilient consumer spending. invest in intangibles appears 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 are broadly imbalanced. the labor market is not a source of significant inflationary pressures. inflation has eased significantly over the past two years, but remains somewhat elevated relative to our 2% longer run goal. estimates based on the consumer price index and other data indicate that total p.c.e. prices rose 2.6% over the 12 months ending in december and that excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core p.c.e. 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. 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 courses of our three previous meetings, we lowered our policy rate by a full percentage point from its peak. that recalibration or 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 than it had been 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 the target range for the federal funds rate at 4.25% to 4.5%. we note that reducing reducing

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, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. we're not on any preset 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 uncertainties 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 fed listens event around the country and a research conference in may. throughout this process, we will be open to new ideas and critical feedback, and we will take on board lessons of 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 will not be a focus of the review. we've been assigned it would goals for monetary policy, maximum employment and stable prices. we remain committed to

supporting maximum employment, bringing inflation sustainably to our 2% goal, and keeping longer run inflation 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, and i look forward to your questions. >> i'm from cnbc. mr. chairman, at an event in davos, the president said he'll demand that interest rates drop immediately. i guess i have a three-part question. has the president done this to you? 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. mr. powell: three questions. i'm seeing it really as one question, though. 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. i've had no contact. thanks. reporter: i'm from the "wall street journal." chair powell, you and several of your colleagues said at the last meeting that your policy stance was meaningfully restrictive. given economic and financial market developments since then, how has your confidence changed in an assessment that says interest rates are meaningfully

restrictive? chair powell: i think my assessment has really changed. a couple of things have happened. we've gotten more strong data, but wee also seen rates move up at the long end, which could represent tightening in financial conditions. if we look back over the past year or so, we can see that policy is restricted. if you look at the effects of high rates on spending, for example, in housing, and you if look at the heisman trophy of our goal variable, we're moving to 2% inflation and has moved largely to maximum employment. we really look at movement toward the goal variables to make that assessment. now, policy is less restrictive before we began to cut. it's 1 is hundred basis points less restrictive. for that reason, we're going to focus on seeing real progress on inflation or trying to do some weakness in the labor market before we consider making adjustments. reporter: if i could follow up, does the economy here warrant

meaningfully restrictive interest rates, and would you judge interest rates to still be meaningfully restrictive if you were to lower them by a quarter point? chair powell: i think our policy stance is very well calibrated. as i mentioned to balance the achievement of our two goals, we want policy to be restrictive enough to continue to foster further progress to our 2% inflation goal. at the same time, we don't need to see further weakening in the labor market to achieve that goal. that's kind of what we've been getting. the labor market has really been broadly stage. the unemployment rate broadly stable now for six months. conditions seem to be broadly in balance. i would say you look at the last couple of inflation readings, and you see we don't overreact with two good or bad creatings, but nonetheless, the last couple of readings have suggested more positive readings. i think policy is well positioned.

reporter: : i'm from the "new york times." chair powell, how should we interpret the removal from the line of the statement the statement has made progress to the 2% goal. is that no longer the case? chair powell: if you just look at the first paragraph. we did language clean-up there. we took out a reference to since earlier in the year as it relate to the labor market. and we just chose to shorten that sentence. again, if you look at the intermeeting data, it was good, and there was another reading just before december. we've got two good readings in a row that are consistent with 2% inflation. again, we're not going to overinterpret two good or bad readings. this was not met to send a signal other than this. take away from this that we remain committed to achieving our 2% inflation goal. reporter: just to follow up, we've seen inflation expectation as cross a number of measures rise sharply, which has been

linked to tariff concerns. there's also been this encouraging data you mentioned in terms of c.p.i. and rent. how would you characterize concerns about upside risk to inflation across the committee, especially those policies relate to the trump administration? chair powell: 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 really matters. 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. 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, or not beginning to see much, and i think we need to let those policies be articulated before we can even begin to make a plausible assessment of what the implications for the economy will be. we're going to be watching

carefully, and 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. reporter: i'm from bloomberg television and radio. and you 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 actually going to be, that you don't have a medium to long-term economic forecast that you can have confidence in, 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? chair powell: at all times, forecasts are conditional, at a minimum on just a set of

expectations. and they're highly uncertain in both directions. we know that. economic forecasting is really difficult beyond just a month or two out. in the current situation, there's probably some elevated uncertainty because of significant policy shifts in those four areas that i mentioned, tariffs, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy. so there's probably some additional unis not with that, but that should be passing. we should go through that. and then we'll be back to the regular. what forecasters are doing, not just us, but everybody is doing, they've got sort of just a set of assumptions about what might happen, but they're really kind of in the nature of a place holder, meaning 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 comes down. you know, it's a very large

economy. policies affected at the margin, but we're going to wait and see. reporter: the idea that you feel the policy is restrictive suggests that the fed in general wants to continue to lower interest rates. 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 you should hold? chair powell: 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. that's what we do. right now, we feel like we're in a very good place. policy is well positioned. the economy is in a good place as well. what we do expect is to see further progress on inflation. as i mentioned, as we see that or if we were to see weakening in the labor market, that could

foster, we could then be in a position of making further adjustments. right now we don't see that, and we see things as in a really good place for policy and for the economy, and so we feel like we don't need to be in a hurry to make any adjustments. reporter: i'm with reuters. thank you very much. in 2021, the central bank conference, you said, "throughout my career in both public and private sectors, i've seen that 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 beth talent by investing in and remansion a world-class workforce." first question is, do you still believe that, and if so, how do you intend to put that belief into practice while remaining consistent with the recent executive order prohibiting diversity anden collusion efforts? chair powell: let me say, yes, the answer to your first question. but to the second question, i want to say this. 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 are working to align our policies with the executive orders as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. and i want to add that i'm not going to have anything more specific for you today on this whole set of issues. reporter: just follow up quickly on that, i wonder how you're getting that to be consistent with the dodd-frank laws stipulations about maintaining an office of minority and womennen collusion. chair powell: i did mention consistent with applicable law, right? reporter: just to follow up on the other question, what reassurance can you give the american public the fed will continue to operate independent of politics under this administration? chair powell: 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. we use our tools to try to give it our best understanding or best thinking to try to achieve our goals. that's what we do. that's always what we do. don't look for us to do anything else. lots of research shows that's the best way for a central bank to operate. that 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. reporter: you've said the fed is in wait and see mode based on the policies that come out of this administration. hams the fed started to model what policies like mass deportation, changes in immigration policies specifically would look like for the workforce and for inflation? chair powell: one of the things our staff does, they look at a range of possible outcomes. they tend to go from really good to really bad, and it's one of

the best things that they do. in each book, you can look and see, there are alternative simulations. that's what they do. there will be a baseline and then show six or seven alternative scenarios, including really good ones and not so good ones. and what those do, they spark the policy makers to sort think and understand the policies around us. the staff does that, and we're well aware that the range of possibilities is always broad. not just now, but also. it's hard to be open to just how broad the possibilities are for an economic. no one saw the pandemic coming, and it changed everything. so things happen. but 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. reporter: i'm from bloomberg news. last month you talked about a future rate cut as being pretty 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? chair powell: i'd say it's the same. we want to see further progress on inflation. the story is there. 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 issues that may exist. we're just going to need to see that. we think that we see the pathway for that to happen. a key example is you now do see

equivalent rent and housing services, the way it's calculated. you see that coming down pretty steadily now. that's the place where most of the remaining gap is, in addition a big part of the overrun, as you know, was from nonmarket services, which don't tend to send much signal. you can look through that and think, ok, we seem to be set up for further progress. but being set up for it is one thing. having it is another. we want to see further progress on inflation. remember, we're not -- we're under 2%, but our goal is 2%, and we do mean to get back to 2%. reporter: in terms of the labor market, is that broadly -- you said a broad set of indicators show that it's been pretty solid. was there broad agreement on that? there's been a few underlying indicators that are showing perhaps some weakness, the low hiring rate, workers were reporting that it's increasingly difficult to find a job.

is that of concern to the committee? chair powell: you're right. we look at a broad range t. starts with unemployment, with the unemployment rate, employment participation, wages, job quits, people quitting, that kind of thing, the ratio of vacancies to unemployed. we look at all those things. you put your finger on, it's a low hiring environment. so if you have a job, it's all good. but if you have to find a job, if the job finding rate, they've come down. that's more typical, let's look at the unemployment that the labor market has had a sustainable level, it's not overheated anymore. we don't think we need it to cool off anymore. we do watch it extremely carefully. it's one of our two variables. but yeah, i'd say we watch those things quite carefully, but nonetheless, overall, look at the aggregate data in the labor market. the labor market does seem to be

stable and broadly in balance when you've got an unemployment rate that has been pretty stable for a full half year. reporter: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm from foxes business. on employment, you said there's a broad range of possibilities, but last september you said "we understand there's been quite an influx across the borders, and that has actually been one of the things that's allowed unemployment rate to rise." now that the flow over the border has slowed and we're seeing deportations, how do you expect the unflat rate to react? chair powell: what's happening is the flood across the border has decreased, and there's every reason to expect that to continue. but job creation has come down a bit, too. if those two things come down together, that sort of can be a reason for the unemployment rate to stabilize. in other words, the break even rate, as population growth

slows, the break even rate that you need in new jobs to make jobs for workers declined as well. so that seems to be something about what's happening. do you see a very flat unemployment rate at a time when you have seen significant declines. reporter: i want to ask about fed employment. i know tax money is not used here, but elon musk alleges the fed is "absurdly overstaffed." we've seen the executive branch push to reduce the federal workforce. i want to get your reaction. chair powell: 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. reporter: i'm from associated press. president trump has said he will lower inflation by reducing gas and energy costs. do you see such costs assist a particular driver of inflation and would lowering them have a dramatic effect?

chair powell: i'm not going to react or discuss anything any elected official would say, so give me a mulligan. reporter: two weeks ago the fed said it was withdrawing in the network for the financial system, even as we had significant wildfires in los angeles. of course, this is a group to talk about how the financial system could address climate change. many commentators did see the timing as political. why do you leave that organization? can you explain that decision? chair powell: i'll be glad to. we considered this really at length, and we did decide to withdraw from the ngfs. really, the reason is the work that they do has broadened very significantly. think about nature-related risks and biodiversity and things like that. in addition, the work of the ngsf is in significant part intended to, and this is a

quote, mobilize mainstream finance to transition to a sustainable economy. so we join to get the benefit of understanding what other central banks were doing and seeing research and things like that. i think this is just way beyond any plausible mandate that you could attribute to the fed, and so we have a narrow role, as i said many times, and i think that the activities are not a good fit for the fed, given our current mandate. so i just think it was time to acknowledge that, you know, the process dates back, thinking about it dates back a couple of years. i made the decision to bring this to the board some months ago. it just, the process just took time to get here, and this is when we got in and voted on it. i'm aware of how it can look. it was really not driven by politics. it was driven by kind of the disconnect between the ngsf and our mandate. other central banks have different mandates, and we have

no criticism of them, but it just isn't right for the fed. reporter: i'm from "the washington post." i'm wondering if you can talk more about what further progress would look like for consumers. chair powell: well, 2%, inflation down to 2% sustainably is what we're trying to achieve. we're somewhat above that, as you know, and we want to see 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 in the things that they buy at the grocery store or store. reporter: the other thing is just how far away you think you are from neutral. chair powell: you can't know with any precision, of course, as i like to say, you know the neutral rate by its works. i think at 4.3%, we're above

pretty much everyone on the committee's estimates of the longer run neutral. i think our eyes are telling us that our policy is having the effects on the economy. that's really a question we ask. you can consult models, empirical models, theoretical models, you have to look out the window and see how your policy rate is affecting the economy, and you 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. that's what we think. i would say we're meaningfully above it. i have no illusion that anyone knows precisely how much that is, but not knowing that, having cut 100 basis points means that it's appropriate that we not be in a hurry to make further adjustments.

reporter: politico. >> when it comes to omb memos, do those always apply to the fed , sometimes never, or do you just often voluntarily comply? chair powell: it has been our practice to work to align our policies to those mentioned in the executive orders. the mentioned, they will not go any deeper than that or get any deeper into these issues today. reporter: from the financial times. two questions on tariffs. we have seen global trade wars before, notably in 2019 first time around. that we were in a different place on both inflation and growth. if we see tariffs at the same

magnitude that we got that, which is a big if, why do you think might be different this time around. secondly, one of the governor has said it was no doubt the threat of tariffs or the big driver of the cut by the bank of canada today. what sort of information with the fed need to see on tariffs before it was willing to take such a preemptive move? what sort of information would you see on tariffs, the strategy, actual implementation, actual movement of inflation expectations before you are actually willing to change the path of military policy -- monetary policy? chair powell: things are different now. we just came through a high inflation period. you could argue both ways, he could see that economies have figured out they like to raise prices. we also hear from a lot of

companies these days that consumers have had it with price increases. not sure how that shakes out. nevertheless we are back to a situation where we are not back at 2%. in addition, the footprint of trade has changed a lot as a trade is now spreading around. it's not as concentrated in china as it was, a lot more manufacturing moved to mexico and other places. so there are differences. i just think the range of possibilities is very wide. i don't want to start speculating, as tempting as it is because we don't know. we didn't know by the way, in 2018. the range of possibilities is very, very wide. we don't know what's going to be

tariffed, or for how long and how much, which countries, we don't know how it will transmit through the economy to consumers, that remains to be seen. there are lots of places where the price increase from a tariff can show up between a manufacturer and consumer. just so many variables. we will just have to wait and see. the best we can do is what we have done, which's study on this, look at historical experience and read the literature, think about the factors that might matter than we will have to see how it goes --, then we will have to see how it goes. reporter: courtney, from axios. two unrelated questions. first is whether or not there was any discussion about keeping a timeline for ending qts at this meeting. second question is i wonder if the ai-prompted some of

this week said anything to you about financial conditions. chairman powell: let's talk about the runoff. the most recent data suggests reserves are still abundant. if they were when the runoff began and the federal funds rate has been steady, we track a bunch of metrics and they tend to point to reserves being abundant. we intend to reduce the size of our balance sheet to a level consistent with implementing monetary policy efficiently in our ample reserve regime. we are closely monitoring a range of indicators -- that should provide signals with her reserves are approaching levels that could be somewhat above ample. i don't have anything to say about particular dates. that is just the process. rates appear to be abundant. as always, we stand ready to take appropriate action to

support the smooth transition of monetary policy, including to adjust the details of our approach for reducing the size of the balance sheet. on ai it's a big event in stock markets and particular parts of the stock market. what matters for us is macro development and that means a changes in financial conditions that are persistent for a time. so i wouldn't put that label on these events, though of course we are all still watching with interest. reporter: the economist. thank you. you mentioned remarks about activity in the housing sector seems to have stabilized. at the same time, since your first rate cut in september, long-term mortgage rates have gone up about 7%. i am wondering looking forward, are you confident that activity will remain stable, given how mortgage rates are? chair powell: as you know, as we

have produced, policy rate at 185 basis points, longer rates have gotten up not because of expectations, not prescriptive because of expectations about our policy, it's more a term premium story. it is long rates that matter for housing. i think these higher rates will probably hold back housing activity to some extent. if they are persistent. we will have to see how long they persist. we control an overnight rate generally that propagates through the whole family of asset prices including interest rates david in this particular case i get a second at a time when four reasons unrelated to our policy, long covid's have moved up -- longer rates have moved up. reporter: thank you, jennifer with the office of finance.

he said you want further progress on inflation. given that households appear unhappy with the elevated level of prices, do you believe the committee should wait until inflation has fallen back a target to cut rates again? chair powell: we have never said we need to be all the way a target to reduce rates. at any time we are looking at the economy and asking whether our policy stance is the right one to achieve maximum employment and price stability. he would want to see further progress, but re-think our policy stance is restrictive, meaningfully restrictive. not highly restrictive. we need further progress. i wouldn't say all the way back down to 2% on a sustainable basis. we would love to see that. and we will. reporter: separate question for you, on tariffs, curious whether the threat of tariffs and whether or not they could stick,

creates uncertainty for businesses here in the united states and cause them to pull back ultimately waiting on growth -- does that threat of tariffs cause you to ponder your growth forecast? chair powell: i want to avoid commenting even indirectly on the conduct of tariffs. it's not our job to competent from the moves people make so i would want to criticize anything that is happening or comment on it one way or another. it is not our job. we found in 2018 that there was a little work done on trade policy uncertainty, if it is large and persistent, it can start to matter for businesses making investment decisions and things like that. that is not something i am observing today. it is very early days for this, but i think it did matter in 2018 and 2019. it is one of many things and will be watching.

reporter: thank you. from cnn. following on courtney's question from earlier about the stock market, how concerned are you, if at all, about a potential asset bubble brewing in financial markets. how do relatively high market valuations factor into considerations about potentially lowering interest rates further? chair powell: so, from a financial stability perspective at asset prices generally, along with things like leverage within the housing sector, in the banking system, funding risk for banks. it is that of the four things. asset prices are elevated by many metrics right now. a good part of that is this thing around tech and ai but we look at that. we also look at how resilient the households and businesses and the financial sector are to those things. we look at that mainly from a

financial sustainability perspective, and we think there is a lot of resilience out there. banks have higher capital and banks -- in the aggregate, households are in good shape financially these days. that's how we think about that. we look at overall financial conditions, and you can just take equity prices, you have to look at rates, too, at that represent the tightening in conditions with higher rates. overall, financial conditions are probably still accommodative, but it's a mixed bag. reporter: chair powell, cbs news. one question for you, this month's statement notes that unemployment stabilized at a low rate in the labor market is solid. he walked us through what is driving this. i am wondering if there are some risk that could challenge your assessment? chair powell: that things we

watched, we discussed earlier second one is the higher rate. if there were to be a spy, layoffs and companies are to start to reduce headcount he would see unemployment to go up quickly because the unemployment rate is quite low. that is one thing we look at. it's also worth pointing out that for low-income households, they are under significant pressure. in the aggregate, the numbers are good. but we know people at the lower end of the income spectrum are struggling with costs. really it is high inflation for the basics of life, not so much the inflation now, it's the price level because inflation has raised prices. inflation is now much closer to target, but people are really feeling that. overall, this is a good labor market. 4.1% unemployment, that's a good level and you have been solidly there for six or seven months.

job creation is pretty close to a level that will hold the unemployment rate there. given that there will be much lower population growth. reporter: one more question, some of the uncertainty around immigration policy, in your assessment, is that making it harder for businesses, and the fed to plan going forward? chair powell: we hear anecdotal reports, but i don't see anything in the data yet. but you hear that kind of thing about construction for example, and businesses that are dependent on immigrant labor are saying it has steadily gotten harder to find people. we don't see that in the data yet but, yes, we see that anecdotally. reporter: from barron's. uncertainty is certainly a theme today. i am wondering, are there any periods from your career at four

as it relates to the economy and what is going on in washington and beyond, lessons from history that may provide some guidance for the central banker operating in uncertain times like today? chair powell: i guess i'd say this, uncertainty is with us all the time. it is human nature of currently, to underestimate the possibility -- we think of things in a normal distribution. in the economy, the details are very fat, meaning things can happen way out of your expectations. it is never not that way. when you think about it, think of 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. the economy growing 2% to 2.5%. inflation has come down. the headline number was 2.6%. we look at core because it is a better indicator of future inflation. so, yes asked the price level went up a lot and people are feeling that, and they are not wrong. but -- the kind of uncertainty we have is our usual level of uncertainty jim 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: with market news international. chair powell, is a marked cut still on the table, and additionally are you looking to

see more data, inflation data that roughly aligned with? chair powell: current forecasts, as i mentioned, the economy is strong, the labor market is solid, downside risks to the labor market appeared to have abated. we think inflation continues on a slow and sometimes bumpy path. that tells me and the other members of the committee, the sense is that we don't need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance. your second question was -- >> whether or not you to see better-than-expected inflation data or just inflation data that roughly aligned with your current forecasts? chairman powell: it is that of those things that we will know when we see it. the expectation is that we will continue progress. you know, that is what we want. we will know when we see it. it will have to be something that isn't just idiosyncratic, you you will want to see continued progress with housing

inflation, inflation behaving in a way that builds confidence that we are really making progress, that's what it is going to be. is it better than expectations? we expect to see that, it is just a question of when. reporter: , from npr. t in your five year reviewhe, you said that the 2% inflation target will not be on the table. can you talk a bit about why? is that because you think that is the right target or because you don't want to move the goalposts? what is behind that? chair powell: i think that goal has served us well over a long periods of time. it is also a sort of global standard. i think if the central bank wanted to look at changing that, he wouldn't do it at a time when you are not meeting it anyway. i wouldn't look at changing it anyway but i certainly wouldn't look at it at a time when you are not meeting it. there is no interest at all in

changing it, if i am being at all unclear. we will not change the inflation goal anytime soon. [laughter] reporter: and five years ago, if i could paraphrase what you all decided was, you are going to not raise interest rates preemptively to head off inflation until you see -- because the labor market was so beneficial. have the last few years changed your thinking about that? chair powell: "we really sai was that wed wouldn't look at a strong labor market and raise rates unless we saw some evidence of inflation. so the thought was that we had seen really low levels of inflation -- sorry, of an employment with no sign of inflation so, why would you preemptively want to put people out of work in the absence of any kind of -- any evidence that suggested that this was not a sustainable level. it was only of acknowledging how

much community we have about the natural rate of unemployment. that was an insight. we will discuss that again. i don't think that insight is wrong. what we said was that in times when inflation persistently undershot 2%, we would likely allow inflation to run moderately above 2% for some time. that is what we said. that turned out not to be relevant to what happened. there was nothing moderate about the overture. it was endogenous. that was the pandemic. from a framework permitted us to act quite vigorously, and we did. the framework had nothing to do with the decision. we looked at inflation as a transitory right up to the point when the data turned against

that, and when the data turned against that in 2021, we adjusted overview. here we are at 4.1 percent unemployment and inflation way down. the framework was more irrelevant than anything else. that part of it was irrelevant. the rest of the framework work just fine as you keep it supported what we did to bring inflation down. >> last question. reporter: chairman paul, bankrate. as you know, in the annual report from the financial stability oversight council, among the risks outlined is cryptocurrency. could you talk about those risks now? and regarding individuals and households, perhaps distant from the concerns about the financial system, do you worry that speculation in this unregulated asset class could hurt their financial well-being, or do you think it has a place in the household as co-portfolio?

chair powell: our role would bitcoin really is -- with crypto -- is really to look at the banks. we think banks are perfectly able to serve crypto customers, as long as they understand and can manage the risks. and the good majority of the banks were supervised or that. banks are so know and we don't want to make the mistake here -- if you are making a choice to conduct that activity inside a bank, inside the federal safety net, with deposit insurance, then you want to be pretty sure that it is safe and sound activity. you know, we are not against innovation, and we certainly don't want to take actions that would cause banks to terminate customers who are perfectly legal just because of excess

risk aversion may be related to regulation and supervision. reporter: households and the impact -- >> you know, that's kind of -- that's not our bailey when i whick, youwant households to hae chance to understand the risk that they are taking. i do think it would be helpful if there were greater regular slatory apparatus around crypto and i thinkdo that's -- that's something congress worked on and worked on various things and i think that would be a very constructive thing for congress to do. thank you.

>> friday the democratic national committee meets in national harbor maryland for annual winter meeting, outgoing dnc chairman harrison will address the congress and dnc members will vote on upcoming leadership elections. live coverage 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-span's washington journal, from washington to across the country, coming up friday morning, americans for prosperity reviews organization national tax cut campaign and

legislative agenda during second trump administration and georgia's benjamin executive director of american public council association and then alex, white house reporter for the hill, talked about the late nest the federal response to wednesday's deadly midair collision in dc and other white house news of the day. c-span's washington journal, join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern friday morning on c-span, c-span now online at c-span.org. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend at 3:00 p.m. eastern we will bring you the military commissioning ceremony for harriet tubman given by the maryland national guard, maryland governor west moore also spoke at the event, at 5:3s back at the career and legacy of kentucky senator mitch mcconnell who stepped down at senate

republican leader. deputy washington, d.c. bureau chief for the associated press and author of new biography, titled the price of power and at 7:00 p.m. eastern, american history tv begins new series looking at the first 100 days of past presidential terms. this week we focused on the early months of president george washington's first term in 1789 including the establishment of the office of the president. formation of a cabinet and first judicial appointments. then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, college of william & mary, amy discuss it is history of 1607 jamestown settlement in virginia and efforts over the four centuries to preserve and remember the first permanent english settlement in the americas. exploring the the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history.

>> book tv the every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing latest nonfiction books. here is a look at what is coming up this weekend. at 8:00 p.m. eastern former obama administration homeland security senior adviser charles mar know argues that president biden's border policies have weakened national security in book terrorists on the border and our country. at 9:00 p.m. eastern critic and writer author of y2k reflects on cultural and technological innovations of the early 200's impacted the past, present and the future. then at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words, eva dell shares book house of hauwei, examines how hauwei become china's powerful