the problem is exactly the opposite of ben bernanke did in this country. opposite of what john boehner said to do. as a result of this, greece said we want to leave and then they -- they even vote today leave but then they changed their mind for the moment because germany, of course, is the -- is the 800-pound gorilla in the europe union. in fact, the man from mars landed today and said who won world war ii you might be incline to think it was germany, germany is by far the strongest power of the continent. with that in mind, you now have the united king doll. well, the united kingdom never went on the euro and were always luckwarm and i predicted that britain would leave and you write a book you finish it eight months and somebody reads it and say, of course, they voted for that. they didn't know that eight months ago. now what you have is great britain, the united kingdom voting to leave the eu. that's the beginning of the break-up because as they go, who else may go, france certainly may go. you have skippism and northern europe tends to be prosperous,

but he did gene ben bernanke on for a time at the head of the fed, and ben bernanke was abehind by george w. bush, and the credits ben bernanke as having ended the recession. far more so than congress' voting for what they did nor the supplements. so, those were things that obama did, but after that he has had a lot of troublegetting anything through. hillary clinton gets in, there's a reasonably good chance she-the democrats will take the senate. but taking the senate -- i don't want to good too far afield but one of the things harp on is a are 1, section 5 of the constitution. it says each house makes its own rules. when the founding fathers created the constitution, they assumed there would be an up and down vote on every bill. it never dawned on them it would be anything else. well, article 1, section 5, says each one gets to make their own stork that means the majority lead are in the senate, the fill buster in the senate, you don't have a filibuster in the house so yaw have the speaker of the house, committee members. all of these people and all these forces can prevent bills from c

. >> when the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke was on our show.e said they did everything they could to keep lehman brothers alive and there was nothing they could do legally. >> i would respectfully disagree as most people who looked at it would disagree. they had plenty of power under section 13.3. when congress looked at it through the federal crisis commission, they were candidate for documentation about not having power. there was a recent paper done by the chairman of the economics department of johns hopkins, lawrence ball, and the 214-panel paper which he went through with a thorough analysis and he also came to that conclusion. more important the emphasis was on this particular section. but there was the primary dealer's credit facility which lehman had well over $130 billion that was pledgeable and they cost could have gotten $88 billion out of that. so they didn't even need the power under section 13. i think it was a judgment call at the time in which they miscalculated the effect of lehman. and it was a bad judgment call. gary: when y

i think the ben bernanke's recent memoir and tim geithner stress test book, secretary poulson's book. they all i think helps us understand what it was like for policymakers who actually confronted the crisis on the frontline and i would add to that list allen binder's book which i think is the one that has a phrase like musical chairs somewhere in the title. when i read it struck me as a lucid review the broader causes of the crisis and questions as to how effectively he was dealt with as it played itself out. for me hal's book is a very valuable and highly useful petition to this literature and provides an intense and penetrating, we have seen this already in his remarks, an intense and penetrating analysis of the crisis. i also want to say a section of the crisis which serves as a solid foundation for evaluating the steps that have been taken subsequently especially in the dodd-frank law to prevent more realistically mitigate any recourse. professor scott clear delineation which you have already reviewed which is on the line by the book's title between what he terms as the connected

i think it was ben bernanke's memoir, secretary paulson's book, they all, i think, help us understand what it was like for policy makers who actually confronted the crisis on the front lines and i would add to that list, alan blinders, a book which is the one that has -- i think a phrase like musical chairs somewhere in the title. i struck me as elusive review of the broader causes of the crisis and dealt with as it played itself out. for me house book is a very valuable and highly useful addition to this literature and provides intense and penetrating analysis of the anatomy of the crisis and steps taken subsequently specially in the dad frank law to prevent realistically mitigate recurrence. i have professor's scott delineation which he has reviewed and underlined by the book's title. connectedness from contagion and the conclusion was that contagion was the primary driver and focus efforts to remediate. the book argues that asset and liability connectedness did not play a major rules in the core collapses of lehman brothers and aig rather contagion augmented version of an old-fashi

ben bernanke's name has been tossed out a couple of times. he made the excellent point that much of the cold war, when defense spending was 6% to 10% of gdp, defense had a default science -- we do not think of it trying to build our future domestic economy, and americans surely did not want to have to pick winners, but implicitly, we put a lot of money into our long-term economic foundations, which spilled over into the domestic economy. but if defense is only 3% of gdp, you do not have the same magnitude of effect. have to think about science and infrastructure strategies deserve more attention directly focused on them, because they are not getting it from spillover in the defense sector that they were before. that was the theme of the conversation for a while. so we will go to the front. gentleman the third row and then the fifth. >> i am a union officer, and i think the real problem is getting stuff through congress. even when you talk about infrastructure, there was a story today on npr about gas consumption being the highest ever, becaus

ben bernanke seems to conclude in a recent blog piece that the requirement isn't necessary. maybe that's right, what if the treasury secretary, at the time of a future crisis is not well-informed about managing financial crises. i suggest it's not difficult to imagine such a scenario in today's world. a strong perception, requires absolute confidence among participants that the fed can and will act forcefully and to stop it would be essentially to doing so. in more common banking language, it would need to be complete and robust. if there were doubts and mortgage that the treasury secretary would go along or that he would delay unduly, markets would be at high-risk of running if you think that's gonna be a, but someone else take that hit. i would say that his insistence on the privacy of this reality with respect to the treasury secretary approval provision is the principal contribution. all of this said, the the concern about moral hazard and reducing the risk of tasks pair losses are obviously not frivolous. i think he does not deny that the enhanced capital standards, aut

hank paulson was the secretary of treasury and ben bernanke at the federal reserve carved out a strategy of support and bush adopted. from bailing out the subprime se mortgage lenders and conglomerates to us giving the market itself with a massive trouble that such relief program, t.a.r.p., bush deserves credit for taking the necessary actions. it was a remarkable achievement and probably saved the world economy. when they failed to rescue lehman brothers, that was paulson more than bush. i haven't said anything about his personal life. let me be very brief he was always an early riser he got about 4:45 in the morning, goes to bed shortly before ten. exercises for two hours a day in the white house jim. but he wanted to short descriptions and brief memos. they were close into the white house could entertainment a minimum. i haven't said anything about laura. she was a major source to the president and took that responsibility seriously. she usually accompanied bush on his trips abroad and provide great comfort for him. paul sarbanes, the long serving senator from maryland as you know and

why did mitt romney in 2012 say he would predict -- replaced ben bernanke? forces in there republican party that feel the federal reserve is issuing easy money and gaming the market. is tapping into that populist rhetoric, that frustration of the pace of the economic recovery that in many parts of the u.s. is bubbling over as a result of this election. tom: the market says mrs. clinton one. what do you expect from the polling? what will you watch for in the next 48 hours in polling? kevin: no question the markets decided clinton one and what i'm going to be looking for is where are the independent voters, who quite frankly do not like hillary clinton or donald trump. testedd either janet either candidate speak to them? kevin: i think hillary did but there is a case to be made that donald trump spoke to the base of his party better than clinton did to hers. tom: kevin, thank you so much. bank,ne, look at deutsche extraordinary trying to make new lows. francine: credit suisse is talking about cost-cutting. ipo'ing that they are their swiss unit. live tomorrow

the same is true in ben bernanke, a beautiful day with puffy clouds, still pretty cool. you are the high temperatures we reached today, 62 in rochester manchester also 65. mid 30's, this was a good recovery. most of us are in the 50's and 60's all across the northeast and we are going to continue to have this seasonable air with temperatures in the 60's as we get into the work week ahead. we have a few high clouds up in the northern part of the state but off toward the west of us, completely clear s, from the boundary moved in. looks like a good something on tuesday but in the meantime with the clear skies, the lack of cloud cover, and this cooler air mass, that means another cold night in the northern part of the state. easily into the upper 20's overnight tonight, so a hard freeze and frost in those areas. will likely get to 30 degrees and many areas of the monadnock region will likely have frost -- so it's a good idea if you live anywhere away from the coast line to cover up or bring in sensitive plants with a light wind, clear skies. this is the perfect recipe for th

jackson hole and what janet yellen spoke about, more in the way of qe, other peculiar things, ben bernankealked about helicopter money, these things are all possible. the difficulty is that no one understands how they are supposed to work. i think we are going to see much more talk over the next three or four years not just about monetary policy, but as monetary policy becomes more tricky, more talk about fiscal policy. mark: talk is one thing and action is another. stephen: appears obvious constraint there. alternative which we are also seeing is a move towards increasingly protectionist narratives. when all else fails, if monetary policy fails, fiscal policy fails, the simple thing to do is to build a wall. but a metaphorical wall. the wall that says we protect our people at the expense of everyone else. defining who power people is is a very difficult task. this kind of protectionist pressure is a genuine threat to globalization and economic stability. mark: we had a guest on yesterday who suggested that if trump wins the presidency, the fed might not actually hike rates, which he think

when ben bernanke was still the fed chair. the dollar weighted fell to a low. very clearly japan is trying to ease their currency and why china is doing the same thing. vonnie: thanks to chart -- carl riccadonna. no september rate increase. mark: tomorrow, u.s. jobs. where thek at european market ended today, it was all up to that isn number. ♪ matt: welcome to "bloomberg markets." ♪ from bloomberg world headquarters in new york, good afternoon. i'm matt miller. we are covering stories from washington and london to beijing this hour. here's what we're watching. u.s. stocks falling with the dollar data showed not expected traction in american manufacturing, renewing concerns about the strength of the world's largest economy. if you are a traitor who's been fed up with u.s. stocks doing nothing for weeks, friday's payroll report may be the solution. does the fed need a blowout jobs report to move in september? republican presidential nominee donald trump doubles down on his hard-line immigration plans, promising robust protection of the u.s.-mexico border. trump:

two years since ben bernanke said we will ultimately raise rates, right?aise rates in december, so seven-nine months now. will they raise again? my answer is they want. -- my answer is they won't. they will be hard put to say we will increase rates. november is election. the fed has got a very ofsistent track record raising interest rates right before and right after an election. maybe they are politicizing it by not doing anything? >> it is not true that during an election the fed says they will wait, no. interest ratesd just before and right after an election. if they don't do anything in september, then october is out, november is out, and then christmas time. merry christmas, world, fed rate increase. what about china? how close are they looking at china? some datang to get that could possibly show stabilization. >> yeah, they will look at china, but it is not one of their priorities. exports to china is 1/10 of 1% of gdp. angie: ok. let's shift out to china here. it is the world's second-largest economy. it has been the workhorse of the global economy

. >> we are looking down the narrow of mario draghi channeling ben bernanke. >> i think it will be they language and the best case scenario is not going to be the extension of this program with theirmentum not seeing and the escape velocity is what most are hoping for desperately. your definition of escape velocity. thank you. you have been with us for the last half hour. >> that is it for anna and i. all a little bit stronger and a little bit better with the markets having a dispute on the higher level. we will have more on the exclusive meeting with the president of russia. do not miss that. this is bloomberg. >> welcome to "on the move." it is 7:30 here in london. i am guy johnson and here is what we are watching this monday morning. who will succeed vladimir putin? we asked the russian president that question in an exclusive interview. central banks take center stage. mark carney faces british lawmakers and what can mario draghi deliver on thursday? we get pmi data

there continues to be in the talk.ound the money >> ben bernanke's way of expressing helicopter moneythat is where fiscal programs are announced in the central bank pledges to buy that amount. i think that is off the table. i think that has been off the table for quite a while. i think the only thing that will happen with the boj is potentially a reduction in purchases but lower or negative rates at the short end of the policy rate curve. oliver: to what extent do you think these yields could be a canary in the coal mine? what my signal for german yields or u.s. yields? >> i don't think it means anything for ecb yields now. there is a clear distinction between the rhetoric of the boj in the last few days and of the bcb, which has actually not moved and if anything, moved toward the prospect we have seen officials say they are comfortable with changing the parameters of kiwi -- qe. i think that is what we will the if we see -- see if we see anything. no follow-through, no connect. oliver: how much can we learn from the trajectory? a negative interest rate and yields plunge. then we get

there was a big change under ben bernanke. it used to be a was considered a lack of confidence and the chairman. he had several times more than the world didd not fall in. i think this is a completely reasonable thing. deal.at big a >> moments ago on inflation of the federal reserve. going back to your teaching in columbia, is there any validity to the model that you and yellen and bernanke are working with just does not work at the moment? we may be in the area where low rates feeds on itself? >> it is not so much i think the phillips curve model is wrong per se, it is that it always had certain elements, parts of it that we do not have a good feel for. whether you are at the natural rate of unemployment work full employment rate -- unemployment rate. that is a big? . we have had to revise very sharply down. at one point the fed thought it was an unemployment rate of 6%. at some point, inflation heats up. we do not know it where that is. is, if you are not thing a lot of inflation and unemployment is low, that is selling you

. >> just to go back to this point again about this whole environment, ben bernanke comes out with at rule out negative rates. i don't know if he feels like the discussion has moved too far away into this world of the feds raising rates and yields just generally moving up and wants to kind of lean against that, but it's no wonder it kind of makes people go, wait a minute. >> the thought was that because janet yellen didn't overtly mention rates as a tool that could be used, we thought it was off the table. ben bernanke, of course, not in public service anymore, but just the fact he would be raising the question is important. jeff, i'm concerned that this is just an alteration of what we've seen all quarter or if we're starting to see a bifurcation. >> yellow's apple driver hitting a 9-month high, the damage has been in the yield sectors in those areas more of an extension in the bottom market. a company you're buying in the next 10 years of growth as opposed to a bird in the hand dividend. >>> apple finished the day at 4%, all in the wake of the iphone 7. let's bring in walter pasek.

i fear, jon, i know the fed is in a tough position but fear the transparency era ushered in by ben bernanke has really created a monster. these independent voices are a confusing c confusing cacophony for the investor right now? >> that is something we have to ask janet yellen in her press conference next week. yellen is in part to blame, he was out there herself saying the case had strength end for a rate move. and the result of an economy that never cooperates with the fed's own forecast. they're expecting inflation to pick up. expecting 2% growth. expecting unemployment rate to fall. the unemployment rate hasn't fallen. liz: it's always something. >> inflation isn't rising to their forecast. they're changing their minds because the numbers aren't coming in the way we expected it. liz: we got charles payne in the chair, one of the best fed watchers, second to you, jon. chafrls "making money." do they need to shut down all of the speeches? >> i think it is very, very confusing, and it is interesting that the last person that speaks is the one that moves the markets. i think yesterday, her

. >> maybe richard they need to rethink the whole thing as former fed chair ben bernanke wrote in his most recent log. maybe as he said you can't go home again. maybe they need to rethink the entire exit strategy. they were talking about how much damage they've done to the insurance companies and the banks. we saw an article in the big german newspaper last week about the threat to their insurance industry here. these are the savings media that most of the people, 90% in the united states, that have some money in the bank, look to, and for financial security. on the one hand -- i think they're looking at the wrong place, by the way, at the fomc, the federal committee. they have their blinders on, focused on the two criteria. employment. >> if you were in the room this week i hear you saying you would not vote to raise rates, even a quarter point at this meeting. >> i would advocate raising rates. i don't think it does much damage in the economy. it also gives breathing room to those key financial institutions that we need to be prosperous. i don't think they'll do it. i would have arg

i asked him about ben bernanke and stan fisher.em to be laying the groundwork for a possibility of these rates being used as policy tools in the u.s. i can't fathom why. you know, i understand the experiment. well, i guess i don't really understand the experiment. i am so sick and tired of the notion that they have to do something because congress isn't. first of all, it's a really bad reason. second of all, what they're doing is experimental, which takes it into a new realm of i don't understand it. my guest also pointed out that negative rates above and beyond the notion that they're unproven and could be highly dangerous, try explaining that to the end user, the consumer, the citizens of these countries pip know that in particular -- yesterday i saw the president campaigning talking about how great the economy is. how are citizens of this country going to go from that to potentially needing negative interest rates. not only is it confusing, it seems everywhere it's tried the outcome is exact opposite of their models. they're sta

globally isn't strong enough to support a rate hike campaign, which if it this were 2006 and you had ben bernankeng a quarter point every meeting, then you would have a very sharp drop-off off that ledge. right now it's just 25 bates points. it's nothing. >> i'll extend it a little further from metaphors. they're walking on a ledge, but they're on the first floor. i mean, you know what i'm saying, scott? when you really look at this thing, look at where we are with the rates. this quarter point, like you say, we're at record lows. we go a quarter point. if that really is going to mess up the market and get us to get some sort of an 8% sell-off or some crazy thing, then i think it will create some opportunities because that would be an overreaction of the markets once again. listening to everybody yesterday at delivering alpha, it's basically an inside of what it looks like at the fed, right? you have guys who want to raise. you have guys who don't think you should raise, and everybody has their opinion, and they've got good strong arguments. to your point, steven, i don't think it rocks the boat

jim bianco of the >> research, 86 meetings. ,very meeting from ben bernanke the fed fund had priced everysion. if there were not the is a prize, it would be a shock to the markets. do not expect anything from the fed. francine: what i don't understand is you argue that the fed will not move and the markets are not proceeding, but the fed has been in defense for such a long time that traders are this understanding. mike: it does not like the idea that it is being led around by the markets, so there is the possibility that they could push back against that. they also started forecasting for rate moves, and stanley market couldthe move, too, so there is a little bit of a credibility question there. since august, we have seen the economy start to weaken. up wherelittle leg things in the last week or so have been better, but in general, the economy deteriorating on the market side , there will be a push back. ambassador, you're shaking your head over the power game. richard: this is not taking odds that the fed moves this close to the election, 20% is high. mike: there is an interesting sideli

vonnie: people forget ben bernanke was a bush appointee who serve happily under president obama. different administrations come in at different times. talk about japan and yields. helicopter money we thought was on the way. it is not but we are getting this new idea of abandoning the 2% target of inflation and trying to control the curve. will that work in japan? could it be exported somewhere else? >> i think the communication that the bank of japan is trying to achieve in excess of 2% inflation was a weight to communicate to the world -- a way to communicate to the world they are committed to the policies they are pursuing them. it is not that they think it will be easy to get there, but they want to communicate we are continuing this policy for a long time. i would also say the fact that the balance sheet is already 86% 100% ais going to exceed year from now and will continue to grow. it is going to remain constant after eventually it stops growing. i would say that is a form of helicopter money. the central bank holds on its balance sheet indefinitely, the government does not

it is loaded with history, as ben bernanke said, and many others.hat do you right after the acclaim of this time is different? i cannot convey enough the brevity and pointed this of it, and the basic idea of the controversy. idea is the simplest way would be for government to cease putting new large denomination notes to get rid of the crooks. and then paving the way for unfettered and fully effective negative interest rate policy, a different angle. that would be a major collateral benefit. let's start with the crooks. the crooks use cash more than anyone. less cash, not no cash. i do not think we will ever see a situation in the next decade where we do not want any cash. but large denomination notes, which dominate global money -- central banks pumped about. 80% of the u.s. money supply, over $4000 for every man, woman, and child's. it is not a normal circulation. people might use them a bit, but they do not have 35 or 36 of them in their pockets. tom: what is holding us back from the common sense of getting away with big money for the crooks? ken

i would argue that really caught fire with ben bernanke the previous chairman to janet yellen.your point that the funny notion because should the fed really be concerned about the stock market? they say they are, the janet yellen has taught about a reaction and biotech, things that the fed does not have in their mandate. neil: i agree with you. it's not only the fed did congress would harp in the early days of the bush administration with this rescue fund and the markets tank almost a thousand points. they get back together, revoke, approve it in the market still falls over the next few months and an additional 6000 points. why do we play this game? >> at the testing to figure out why they are playing. i agree with you. in reality we want growth. we want normal policies. we want markets to operate on their own now without government stimulus in fed intervention. look what happened with japan overnight. the crazy stimulus where they've lost complete control of children in the play yard in the markets have shown they've been wrong. neil: they are paid in a government dictated rat

ben bernanke said when unemployment rates were at 6.7 the fed should start raising rates. no unemployment rates are 5.9%. the problem is the fed isn't going to have any more ammunition when we go into the next recession. gross domestic investment is down. gdp about 1% in a very real concern as to what's going to happen in the future as growth keeps on flowing. neil: you've always told me if i could extend it politically to what's going on last week when i was talking to mark cuban, he was saying the uncertainty of a trump presidency append getting elected the state to resolve off. even for them it wasn't a right or left argument. it was we don't know what to make of what is coming argument. how is this hillary clinton issue and her pneumonia and questions about her health change that equation? >> look, there's a cottage industry right now saying that trump is winning or clinton is losing, the market will crash. i don't know where that came from. neil: sounds like charles payne. both of these candidates have not been running the government as of yet. the biggest problem is

the themes that came out and i think steve also alluded to this is something that came up in ben bernanke'sould say implicit inclusion is that, hey, negative rates, raising the inflation target, all the stretching that we're seeing central banks do wouldn't be as necessary if we had fiscal reforms, structural reforms, tax reforms, fiscal policy, that accompanied and helped low rates earlier on in the cycle. and we're sort of late to the game on that. austerity took, you know, a higher priority than it should have, earlier in the cycle. now we're to the stage where you're now hearing people talking about loosening up on fiscal policy when we have a lot of debt in the world and it does make me worried about, you know, can we really get fiscal reforms and fiscal policy we need to get better economic growth and get the fed sidelined. i'm not sure that can happen. >> steve? >> i don't think it can either. who knows how this election comes out. but what we do see and i asked jack lew about this yesterday, an attempt to pass the onus of growth, baton of the onus of growth over to the fiscal side,

the organization and and prior to the big financial crash in 2007, we had already protested at ben bernanke'shouse, and got a meeting with him. and he told us in that meet -- we told him, thousands of people in our neighborhoods are losing their homes. every other house is abandoned in our communes. this crisis. he said, there's no crisis. the market will self-correct. and then later that year issue literally, lehman brothers, aig got a bailout. the rest is history. that's my earlier point. the people who are affected by the issues are the experts on these issues, and they saw this coming, and if we invest in their ability to work together, to organize, to come together and build power, and actually listen to them, then we can make a lot of good things happen and event bad things from happening. so, these conversations between people, they don't happen by themselves. it takes organizing, especially as the trend is that the social fabric of our communities is disintegrating. the trends are toward more isolation, individual action versus collective action. so we need to fight that actively. so,

organization and, you know, prior to the big financial crash in late 2007 we had already protested at ben bernanke'shouse and got a meeting with him, and he told us in that -- we told him, look, you know, thousands of people in our neighborhoods are losing their homes, every other house is abandoned in some of our communities, there is a crisis under foot. he said, there is no crisis, the market will self-correct and then later that year literally lehman brothers went out, aig got a bailout, the rest is history. so this is to say -- back to my earlier point, you know, the people who are affected by the issues are the experts on these issues and they saw this coming and if we invest in their ability to work together, to organize, to come together and build power and actually listen to them then we can make a lot of good things happen and prevent a lot of bad things from happening. so, you know, these conversations between people they don't happen by themselves, right, it takes -- it takes organizing especially as our -- the trend is that the social fabric of our communities is dis integrating, the tr

that the lastid 86 that meetings, all of the meetings under ben bernanke and janet yellen, 10 days out, the future market had correctly priced in a decision. since they are only saying 20%, that suggests if they were moving, it would not be a surprise, it would be shocking. alix: that means we will not see any movement until december when the chances are over 50%. we have been talking about the boj much more than the fat. what will be the real market mover tomorrow? >> that is the real question. follow the yen. if you look at it over the last six months or so, it is completely decoupled from other risk indexes. it has been behaving currency. why is this? nobody knows what the bank of japan is doing. they could raise their purchase program or lower. they could raise interest rates or lower them. they can expand their bond buying program or contract them. there are so many options open that nobody knows what is going to happen. the yen will be the measure of how investors react to the bank of japan whatever they do. alix: whatever they do is the key phrase. thank you very much. i keep re

. >> you know, ben bernanke, smart guy, he doesn't want to ever seem to embrace the notions that these the marketplace or investors to behave in the way they thought they would. but he's so eager to embrace an even more deviant form of the experiment in the form of negative rates, setting the groundwork for my opinion on his blog. your final thought. >> yeah, i think it's very difficult when they do that. as i, again, i said these are very difficult policies to explain to people. i don't want to say they're dangerous, but i'm really afraid of if there's weakness in the u.s. what will be bernanke/yellen, what will be the response of our central bank to weakness in the u.s.? will they drive 10-year treasury yields down below 1%? that kind of frightens me because i think it's something that shakes the foundation of the financial system here in the u.s. big mistake. >> quick yes or no answer, we're just about out of time. when the bank of japan meets next week, are they going to give more or rethink strategy? what do you think? >> well, i'm very afraid they're going to try and cut rates, n

but to embrace negative rates even ben bernanke is writing that we haven't outruled the notion in thisgative rates a horrible idea? why do we let them make us frogs? why do we let these central bankers experiment with trillions of dollars of economic money in the future? >> well, we in the market can't control that. so what we have to do is deal with it. and one of the things i think that we have to deal with right now is that central bankers are reluctant to move away from one policy, which is negative rates today, without having another policy to replace it with. so i think they're trying to embrace it less, but they're not yet ready to abandon it. what they are trying to do is massage it a little bit and trying to prop up back end rates so it helps other parts of the economy. >> let me interrupt. we're almost out of time. you said the fed likes steep curves. i'll tell you what, they better be careful about what they like and don't like. the reason the curve is steepening is not necessarily for reasons they would like. and if they actually donor mallimall i -- do normalize rates or m

paul volcker and alan greenspan and ben bernanke has strategies they were trying to achieve.hange your strategy under circumstances but i have not seen any exigent circumstances. david: is this a failure of leadership at the fed? >> it's a failure of thinking i knew about these challenges. this is been going on for seven years across the institution. economists, 80 or 90% of them were trained by marty feldstein and believe the same thing. suggest they need new oxygen and new ideas and a real reform in how they conduct policy. david: thank you so much for being with us. the former fed president, good to have you here. argentina has been in the news since the president won a tight election and he undertook major reforms. he lifted currency controls and bonds.d a dispute over he has invited economic leaders from around the world. erik schatzker is there where he is joined by the president of argentina for an interview. erik: thank you so much. you toe to introduce bloomberg television viewers and radio listeners worldwide. we thank you for welcoming in us. >> thank you for comin