steve leesman is the economic reporter and the hudson institute. president and economic advisors are here to tackle that question. steve leesman, something you said this morning got me interested in the topic when you said sure, consumer prices are out and they are zero, but before you celebrate, think about what that means. >> some are under extreme pricing pressure and some have pricing pressure. you don't get there by having everything at zero. you have severe declines and deflation or disinflation presents a challenge for investors and i wrote down a lunch of things. the first is obvious. you have no pricing pressure. one reason you might like to have that pricing is if prices are going up, you can rate them like being in a crowd. your debt becomes a huge burden with cost cutting. bonds can look more attractive and you have a friendly bet. the only thing that is helping you out. they really put it. all of that said, you have certainty. the cost with all that stuff. you have to pick one and you have a mild inflationary environment. >> this of co

cnbc's steve leesman in jackson hole. hello, steve. >> not a lot of difference in what the chairman said and participants are saying. what the chairman said, they pretty much see it as a mild upgrade and very much in line with what they are saying. we will have to go with this quarter or the income quarter to ask about the quarters beyond. the big thing that everybody was talking about. the central bank of japan. maybe emphasizing the global nature of the come back and perhaps the central banking response to the crisis. let's look at what he had to say. the big word he used was good. we haven't seen him use good for a while. after considering sharply, they appear to be leveling out in the united states and the broader protects chlg they appear to be good. they used the phrase "leveling without". he did with those as well. including additional loss and it is household credit being difficult. it will always lead it a slow recovery and a gradual decline. i want to show you the viewers with a couple of ideas that came out wher

jason benderly is here and our own reporter steve leesman is with us as well. all of you had a chance to listen to ron. what's your reaction to what he had to say? >> i think a lot of people thought this package was going to be a package that transformed the american economy and repair infrastructure and greener. they got a pack knowledge that would help out state and local governments and help people with unemployment and tax cuts. very little is going to transform the economy and we have huge structure needs and very little is going down. that's what you expected to get, that's not what you are getting. we shouldn't spend the money that remains in the kitty after this year. >> what are do you think of that? i know that john har wood i asked the question and he said it would be possible to take it back and not repeal the bill, but washington could essentially get to the same end goal. technically possible. should they? >> i would say no. there still is money that will be coming into the system and while it's difficult to quantify the aggregate effect, that con

. >> jim, one thing stuck out from an interview and an economist up with steve leesman at the fishing expedition. they said we have to create 15 million jobs over five years to make up for what we lost. population growth and people graduating school and coming into the workforce. it sounds daunting. do you think that we can do that or will we have a very much jobless recovery? >> it's going to be difficult to do. that is the number that you probably need. i wouldn't quibble with 15 million jobs over five years or so. the biggest problem we will have is everybody is saying all day and all week is that a lot of this recovery will come from stimulus and come for example federal reserve and zero interest rate policy. we can quibble when that will be, but can probably say it will come in the fixture five years. we will need to see the economy create jobs and create gdp and move forward without zero money and without $4500 to buy cars. only then we can say it has the ability to create jobs. >> and jeff, when you look at where jobs are coming from, we keep identifying that alternative energy

steve leesman is there. i saw you catching a fish. >> we have been working pretty hard. it's not all fun and games. we will tell you there is a sense of panic much less than in years past. plenty of concern about where they go from here. you call the meeting where the fed will visit the ghosts of financial decisions, past, present, and future. let's look at the fed agenda. they will see what they have done and how well that worked in the first order to try to see what it tells us about the fut skpurt turning point. talking more about that in the second and third and a lot of growing concern about fiscal deficits and how that will play in with policy in the coming year. for example, what does the fed do if there is a trillion dollar deficit? i talked with monetary policy expert jacob frankel. he is often on the restructuring team about this issue of deficits. >> the situation in the fiscal side is i believe very severe. we have budget deficits that are huge not only in the united states. all over. this is a huge certainty that actually is an obstacle for the success of th

steve leesman joins us as well. >> i am looking for a direct quote and i will take a minute here. lewis in the frontline documentary that was done was asked specifically about the bonuses that night. my recollection is that he called them unseemly. it was a rude awakening for ken lewis about what was going on on wall street. they went that sunday night to finish the deal and the merger being bank of america and merrill lynch that somebody said there is one other thing out there and it was the 3.5 or $5 billion in bonuses that were due. how are you going to pay us for selling you this company on this evening? it was one of the things that you got to be -- the mergers and this was an emergency situation. i'm trying to figure out what the fed and the treasury may have known about this. my understanding from my reporting previously is they were not involved in the final negotiations. they were told the broad outlines and not the specific outlines of the deal that would have said the fed knew about the bonuses and charging. >> we have the ft as well. what do you make of this? an intere