Fed Leadership: The guest criticizes the new Fed chair’s plan to use multiple task forces, arguing it is political theater with little real impact.
Monetary Policy Efficacy: He contends the Fed’s tools—interest rates and balance sheet changes—have limited influence on real economic outcomes.
Inflation Targeting: Skepticism is expressed about the Fed’s projections and its ability to achieve the 2% inflation goal given its track record.
Forward Guidance: The removal of forward guidance is framed as an admission that communication tactics, not policy tools, are the Fed’s main lever.
Task Force Scope: New groups on communications, balance sheet policy, data, productivity/jobs (including AI), and inflation frameworks are viewed as unlikely to deliver tangible results.
Jobs and Money Supply: The guest argues entrepreneurs create jobs and banks create money, not the Fed, underscoring limits of central planning.
Market Implications: Overall, he warns against overreliance on central bank signaling and forecasts, highlighting uncertainty and credibility risks.
Transcript
Hello fellow rebel capitalists. HOPE YOU'RE WELL. WOW. BIG NEWS TODAY. Kevin Walsh, new Fed chair, comes out and keeps rates the exact same. And that's the end of the video. No, absolutely. Excuse me. Actually, what he came out and did is tried to change everything. Everything, guys. He wants to really differentiate himself from all the other Fed chairs. And he told us that he's going to be doing this with task forces. A task force. I've got a task force for that. I've got a task force. Remember Obama and didn't he have all these task forces? Like what? That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life. you know that he is just a total politician or you know anyone is a total politician when they start talking about task forces because that's just a way of pretending like you're going to change everything when in reality you're not changing anything. It it's it's a way to make it seem like you're really doing a lot without doing anything at all. So, that was the main takeaway that I had from Kevin Worsh. But let's see. Let's go over to YouTube and listen to some of his press conference where he goes over all of these new task forces that he's going to have. And he's going to set up a task force to manage AI and he's going to set up a task force to bring down the cost of housing. By the way, for those of you who are older than the age of, I don't know, 10, have you ever in your life seen a task force do anything ever? Name name right here on the chat. We've got five 450 or so people on live right now. You guys tell me one thing that you can think of right now that you have actually seen a task for a political task force do anything. I'll just sit here and wait. Nothing. Zero. Because it's all a big ruse. It's all it's all a joke and they think you're stupid enough to buy into this nonsense. like just because the fact that they have this intention that that's going to be the result and remember what Ron Paul always teaches us. So just look at the name of a bill or look at the name of a task force and you know that the result is going to be the exact opposite. And this is really the problem or one of the main problems of central planning, right? It's it's the idea that intentions whatever the intention is of the politician well that's what the result is going to be and we know that that is total BS. Usually the intentions or the results have absolutely nothing to do with the initial stated intention because there's a lot of things out there where the stated intention might be a lot different from the real intention. Surveickness, right? Anyway, let's go over to Kevin Walsh talking about how he's going to change the Federal Reserve. changes everything, guys. Just you wait and see. Here we go. Let's listen to him. Josh, can you hear this? >> My Fed colleagues and I will be working. >> Can you hear that, Josh? >> Loud and clear. >> Okay, cool. >> So, he talks about how his Fed colleagues, they're going to come together and they're really going to make things happen >> in close collaboration to ask what changes might improve the conduct of monetary policy. And let's before we move any further, let's remember what the Fed does and what they don't do. The Fed and Kevin Walsh would like you to believe that they do everything, that they're these central PL, these puppeteers who can just they have all these dials that they can control anything that they want to in the economy. They can control anything they want to with interest rates or with the dollar or with the price of commodities or with the unemployment rate or with inflation. Let's look at their track record, shall we? Most of you on this live stream right now are old enough to remember what the Fed was trying to do between 2010 and oh, I don't know, 2020. What were they trying to do? They're trying to get inflation up to their 2% target. So, let's just say 10 years the Fed tried to get inflation up to 2%. And they couldn't do it. They couldn't do it with all their monetary policy and with all of their balance sheet, you know, quantitative easing, quantitative tightening, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah interest rate policy with all these tools at their disposal. They weren't able to do anything. Nothing. Zero, nada, nil, zilch. And then what happens in 2020 is that the inflation rate hits their target for what, like a week on its way up to 9.1%. Then it goes way above their target and now it's been above their target range for five years. So let's think about this. In the last 15 years, the Fed has achieved their target rate for about a week. in the last 15 and for some reason the market and the CNBC types the the Steve Leeman's come out and hang on their every word like they can control anything they want and Kevin W comes out and tries to make you believe this BS. It's total BS for anyone that will just open up their eyes and with an ounce of common sense. Unfortunately, it's one of these emperors wearing no clothes type of thing, right? Where the only people that are pointing this out like the little kid are the people on, let's just say, the alternative media space, like that weirdo on the Rebel Capitalist channel. They're the only ones that are calling out this BS, right? But everyone in the mainstream, they're still locked and loaded. They're fully committed to the old emperors wearing no clothes. It's it's just unbelievable. Le let's keep going here >> on that score. You might have already noticed something. A difference in today's policy statement. It's a bit shorter, A BIT SIMPLER. >> OH WOW. OH MY GOSH. WHAT? WELL, time out here. I just said that the Fed is totally incompetent and they can't do anything and monetary policy is a total ruse. But I didn't realize that Kevin Walsh is going to take a paragraph out of the Fed's statement. Oh, Holy cow. Nobody was expecting that. I mean, my goodness gracious. Pump the brakes here, Kevin. I I think you're going a little overboard here, aren't you? And we're supposed to believe that matters. Come on. Come on. >> And it dispenses with some older language. That statement just gives you the facts as best we can judge it. Absent also is so-called forward guidance which we agreed was not well suited to the current policy conjuncture. This afternoon you also received the usual summary of economic projections. It's been the practice of this committee for participants to submit these projections and I have encouraged my colleagues to continue to do so. I however have refrained from offering any projections of my own consistent with my long-held views on the SCP at least as currently structured. In the median projections, real GDP rises at 2.2% 2% this year, 2.3% next year, and total PC inflation runs at 3.6% this year. >> I I I just can't believe how anyone can take this guy seriously or they they can take the Fed seriously. What your projections when have your projections been right in the past? Like our projections show that GDP next year should tick up to 3.8% and in 10 years we should go all the way up to 4.4%. Like nobody like really like you want to try to make me believe that you guys can actually predict that when you haven't been able to predict anything. Name one thing that the Fed has predicted. Like inflation is transitory. Whoops. How about the I don't know the GFC. Oh, how about the survea sickness? How about the regional banking crisis in 2022? Name one thing that they've predicted. But name one thing. Zero. And their dot plot is a complete and that's the biggest joke of all times. Like like we're actually hanging on their dot plot when their dot plot changes and goes all over this like like that means anything to anybody. It's it's total it's like the Wizard of Oz. This is what they're doing is they're they do nothing and they're trying to make it seem like they do everything year 2.3% next year. The unemployment rate stands at about 4.3%. The median participant judges at the appropriate federal funds rate to be at 3.8% at the end of this year. And >> think about what he's saying. the appropriate Fed funds rate. What is the Fed funds rate? It's the overnight rate for interbank lending or in this case, you know, now it's it's really what I is. So interest on reserves. That's it. Like how much does it play into the real economy at the 10-year Treasury? Maybe a little bit, but they don't control anything. And by the way, and that assumes that they're not just following the market. And how do you know that they're just not following the two-year Treasury? And sure, they impact the two-year and whatnot, but is the Fed going to be that dramatically far off the two-year Treasury or interest rates in general? I mean, come on. It it's it's just I just keep saying the same thing over and over again because I get so frustrated. I get so frustrated that no one calls them out on this. Like how are none of those reporters in the in the just raising their hand and saying, "Kevin, how can you be so certain that you can just control these dials like this and you will actually make a difference when the Fed has hasn't gotten it right in 15 years? If those dials and those levers that you have are so incredibly powerful, how is it impossible for the Fed to get inflation up to 2% and then why is it so impossible for them to get it down to 2%. The the answer is self-evident and yet no one wants to say it out loud and that's that this guy can't do anything other than try to convince you that he can do something. >> 3.6 at the end of next. Let me turn now to a few words on a key initiative that we're announcing today. >> Whoa. Key initiative. I'm appointing a task force in each of five areas that are central to the broad conduct of monetary policy. >> Wow. >> First, Fed communications. Second, the Fed's balance sheet. Third, our use and reliance on existing data sources. Fourth, productivity and jobs. No, in an era of transformation. >> Wow. >> And last, the Fed's inflation frameworks. These subjects are timely, consequential, and in my view, worthy of a fresh look. >> Look at these people. They're they're just I see here's my problem. I've got a lot of them. How are these people taking this guy seriously? Like honestly, why are people not throwing like bananas at him or you know something that you do to like a court gesture in like the medieval times or something like that? Like we we should be throwing rotten tomatoes at this guy. Like the Fed has done if you believe that their job is, you know, uh unemployment or uh what do they call it? stable prices and whatever they say their mandate is, right? They've never been able to do it. So, why why are we not just like like running up and like punching this guy or like chasing him off the stage or like throwing rotten eggs at him? I mean, that's what they deserve based on their track record, but yet they're just Oh my gosh. Oh. Oh, the Fed chair. Oh, Kevin Worsh. Ke Oh my Did you hear what he said? Did you hear that? He's got a task force for inflation. Oh my gosh. I mean, it's just preposterous. It's absurd. Look, my colleagues and I discussed them with energy and purpose over the last couple of days. For each of these independent task forces, I'm enlisting some of the very best minds both inside and outside the economics profession. They will be supported by subject matter specialists from our superb Fed staff. And they'll have a straightforward charge. Start with first principles. Ask hard questions. Examine current practice. >> This doesn't He's not even saying anything. This is just all mumbo jumbo. So what he's saying is that the Fed had 900 PhDs and they didn't do a good job. They failed miserably. So the solution is we need a thousand PhDs and then we just have to have the thousand PhDs. We have to give them an assistant. And then we're going to go to from a miserable failure to an absolute success just by doing more of what hasn't worked in the past. Great idea, Kevin. Great idea. >> Consider alternatives and ultimately propose next steps for policymaker consideration. Since last summer, my colleagues discussed possible improvements in the form and function of Fed communications. This new task force will build on that effort and I expect proposed some well-considered changes, including to the SCP I mentioned a few moments ago. the second task force, the one on balance sheet policy. >> He he makes it sound like the Fed has all of these tools at their disposal. It's just a a limitless array of powerful tools that they can just pull out of the bag. Let's remember, they got two things. You can either bump interest rates, lower interest rates, you know, by maybe 25 or 50 basis points other than where the market would probably set them anyway, right? You can do that or you can just increase the size of the balance sheet or decrease the size of the balance sheet, which does nothing. Does nothing. And of course, you guys know from watching my videos, prior to QE, there basically were no bank reserves. none. So, you can't argue that increasing the amount of bank reserves by 50 billion or decreasing it by 50 billion is going to do anything when there weren't even $50 billion worth of bank reserves prior to the GFC. And those are the only two things he can do. no matter how many task forces he has or no matter what the IQ is of the assistance and the research and the commitment they're going to have to vigorous debate no matter what you do you still only got two levers Kevin and the second one is a big fat nothing burger and the first one basically all you do is follow the So, by the way, Josh, is Josh still here? >> Yes. >> Josh, how can you be this skinny and still have a double chin? >> How is that possible? >> I don't know. It's pretty impressive, though. >> He He's like, you remember when uh Conor McGregor used to always rip on Nate Diaz because he said he was like the skinniest fat person on earth? That's that's basically our new Fed chair. He's like the skinniest fat person on earth. Like from the neck down, he's like he's like his body looks like beus and buttthead, but yet from the head up he he looks like he weighs 400 lb. He should get a task force for his double chin. What? What? That would be the task force we need right there. All right, let's get back to it. will review the benefits and risks of the current ample reserves regime and the composition of the Fed's balance sheet. They will assess alternative frameworks for the conduct and operation of monetary policy. The third task force, the one on data, will evaluate new information sources and consider methodological changes to improve data gathering with the aim of giving policymakers more accurate, relevant, contemporaneous, and perhaps most important, actionable information on the state of our economy. Fourth, the task force on productivity and jobs. It'll survey the pace, the reach, the economic impact of new general purpose technologies, including AI. You know, let's focus on that for a moment. You guys know from just having common sense, the Fed can't do anything about jobs. They other than just hire PhDs. Why? Because jobs are created by the entrepreneur. So, no matter how many bank reserves there are or no matter how many task forces Kevin has for his double chins, the bottom line is it's all about the entrepreneur and they are going to hire or fire people based on the riskreward and how well or not well their business is doing. That the Fed doesn't have anything to do with that. Like what are we talking about? Now, if you want to argue that the Fed takes rates up to 10%, okay, that might have something to do with it or that might contribute to it, right? Or if the Fed goes from 3.5 straight down to zero. Okay, when we're talking about extremes, that might have something to do with it. But to keep the Fed funds rate at 3.5 versus 3.25 or 3.75, what do we like? Let's have an honest conversation here. Like, who are we trying to kid? But what's interesting about that is it's the exact same thing with the money supply. The exact same thing. So the idea that they can somehow control the money supply is as ridiculous as the idea that they can somehow control job creation. Because at the end of the day, just like an entrepreneur is the one that's creating the job or firing the employee, the banks are the ones that are creating the money. through lending it into existence. So I I just wanted to say that because I'll you know jokes aside here I think that is something that we can all learn from that the uh if you believe the Fed does not control job creation which you should then you also must believe that the Fed really doesn't control the money supply because it's the exact same thing. They're not directly in charge of it because there's a layer the banking system between them and the money supply just like there's a layer between the Fed and job creation which is the entrepreneur and explore the implications for the for the Fed in pursuit of our employment and inflation mandates. the last task force, the one on inflation frameworks that'll examine the drivers of inflation first principles and weigh the full range of ideas for delivering price stability in a changing economy. You'll hear quite a bit more about these task forces and this overall initiative in the coming weeks. Enough for now to make a simple statement. Each task force will serve an objective shared by everyone in the system. shared by everyone around that table that I sat with over the last couple of days. >> You know what, Josh? You know what my objective is? >> What? >> It's to be able to jump out this window of my 24th floor penthouse and fly over to the mall. So, we need a task force on that. I need you to get on that ASAP. >> Well, how will we measure success? >> Well, we we don't have to measure success. The only thing that we that is important is that we have that objective and that we're working diligently on achieving that objective. So, as soon as you get done swiping on Grinder or whatever you're you're choosing today, I I want you to get on that. Capiche? >> Got it. I only have 400 swipes left for the day anyway. >> All right, cool. a Federal Reserve that is cleareyed about its mission, fit for purpose, and focused on the future. And with that, I appreciate your attention. I'm happy to take your questions. >> Okay. The these questions are going to be so pandering and and just the asskissing is just going to be completely unbearable. But I don't even know if I can take listening to any of the questions. But well, we got 2500 people on. So, my gosh, the the torture I put myself through for the rebel capitalist community. All right, let's hear a couple questions. Ah, these should be doozies. >> Howard Schneider. Uh, hi Chairman Howard with Roers. Good to see you again and and welcome back. Um, uh, this is a lot to be putting in motion uh, so fast. What is the timeline uh, you have in mind for for each of these? >> It's a lot. See, I love it. It's the emperor is wearing no clothes. See, no one here, everyone has to pretend that he's doing a lot even though everyone knows that he's doing nothing and we just have to go along with it, right? Whereas, and that pisses me off instead of having me at the press conference raising my hand and saying, "So, what you just said means nothing." And you can have as many objectives as you want to, just like the Feds had an objective to keep inflation at 2%, which they've miserably failed at. So what makes you think that you've you as an entity has failed so catastrophically and that the implementation of just a new bureaucratic wing for this central planning is going to somehow make a difference? that that's the question they need to ask. Especially when you don't have any control over anything and the only thing you can do is just nitpick interest rates. Just 25 basis points here, 25 basis points there, or do something to your balance sheet that has absolutely no impact on the monetary system whatsoever. That's the questions they should be asking, not just going along with the ruse. I mean, who is anyone ever going to call them out on this? Like seriously, like how can none of these people have the integrity? How can none of them have the balls, the guts just to call them out on what they themselves know is BS? So um I think it'll depend on the task force. It also depends on the urgency in which we need clear answers. My expectation I'm still in the business of recruiting and finalizing them. My expectation is the task forces will begin work in the next couple of weeks and we'll start to get some more information from them, some more framing of how they see things starting in the fall and hopefully most if not all of them concluding by year end. And uh just specifically on the inflation uh framework uh you talk about first principles. Does this include a review of the 2% target itself? Uh you've mentioned that things to the right of the decimal point don't matter. Uh should this be starting from a premise that 2% as a point estimate is is too strict. >> Let me break that into two pieces. Uh first on the inflation framework review, their remitt is what are the drivers of inflation? What's the Fed's responsibility for inflation? In part, how do we measure inflation? But that'll overlap with my data group. >> Okay, so let me answer this question for him just and cut through all the spin. What he wants to do is just say moving forward, we don't really need a 2% target. We just need some sort of range. It's just it's just way too specific. So what what is he doing there, guys? He's specifically setting things up by being non-specific, but no, his intention here is just to kind of take away anything that's quantifiable just so they can claim victory. It's just like Ron Paul always used to say about these wars that we have to have. And the reason the central planners and the global elite have to have these war on the climate or war on drugs or war on terror or war on blah blah blah blah blah because it's unquantifiable. So since it's unquantifiable and it's just out there in the abstract then you can never claim victory or you can easily claim victory because there's no way to measure it. So if he wants to claim victory, he can and say, "Look at how great of a job I've done." Or if he wants to say that there's still a long way to go, so we got to do X, Y, and Z. You have to give me more power and more power and more power. Then he can make that claim as well. And it this goes all the way back to like Mchavellian stuff. Like this is just the standard operating procedures for central planners who want to accumulate more and more and more power. You need a boogeyman out there or you need some sort of call to action where the results are unquantifiable so then you can claim whatever you want to claim and you look like the hero. That's what's going on here. uh on the 2% inflation objective that is the Federal Reserve's longheld objective of 2%. You've heard me say before uh I tend to focus on the left of the decimal point. Well, the two is the left of the decimal point. For now, zero is to the right. I see no reason until we have reestablished our commitment and ability to deliver on the 2% inflation objective to revisit that. So, that'll be outside the scope of what we're taking on. >> Okay. So what he's going to do is he's just going to say, "Okay, we're going to focus on this, but we're going that that's still a target. We're not going to change the 2%, but we're going to change the importance of the 2%." >> Colby, >> thank you so much. Colobby Smith from the New York Times. You've in the past said that inflation is a choice and in the policy statement, um, it includes this pledge to deliver price stability as you've reiterated today. But looking at the SEP, the bulk of your colleagues expect core PCE to run around 3.3% by year end and for the 2% inflation target not to be reached until 2028. So I'm curious how patient you think the Fed can afford to be at this juncture in terms of waiting for one-time inflation waves to wash through. So we are so powerful here at the Fed that we will achieve our inflation target within two years probably maybe hopefully that's how powerful our tools are >> and for underlying inflation to step down after so many years of inflation running above target and under what circumstances you would support the Fed taking some action and raising rates. >> Sure. So quite a bit there. Let me let me try to break that into pieces. First, we have the capability and commitment to deliver on our price stability objective of 2%. That's exactly what we're going to do. Um in the >> How are you going to do that when when you haven't been able to do it for five years? I mean, the gal asked a great question, right? I mean, what she's getting at is you haven't ever been able to do this, so what makes you confident that you're going to be able to do it in the future? And then his answer is, don't worry, we're we're going to handle it. His review of its strategy over the last any number of years in January, the Fed, including the strategy that we're still bound by, the Fed statement says that inflation is primarily determined by monetary policy. You bet it is. What >> I've said for years, inflation's in is a choice. You bet it is. And today I'm announcing that this committee unambiguously and unanimously have decided we are going to deliver on that. >> Well, then why didn't you raise rates, dude? Like, not that I'm saying that would have helped, but if you think that, that's a bold statement right there. And quite frankly, it's total total BS when you look at history that inflation is a function of the Fed funds rate. What are you even talking about, you idiot? How are you going to say that with a straight face? We had interest rates at 0% and we couldn't get inflation. We've had interest rates at 15%. And we had runaway inflation back in the 1970s. Like, what are you even saying, dude? That it so inflation, let me get this straight. Inflation has nothing to do with the money supply. Inflation has nothing to do with supply shocks. It has everything to do with the Federal Reserve. But yet, for some reason, you haven't been able to get inflation to where you want it for 15 years. again. How are people not throwing rotten eggs at this guy to where he just leaves in a in a just crumbling in shame and in humiliation which is what they deserve. >> Rest of your questions sounded like a encouragement for me to give forward guidance. Uh we've dropped forward guidance. uh some along the committee I think dropped it I suspect from our discussion the last couple of days because they said at this moment in time it doesn't feel as though providing forward guidance is right. Others have I'd say different views and think as a general proposition forward guidance isn't the business we should be in. But that'll be taken up by the task force on communications and my policymaker uh colleagues. We're going to listen hard to what the experts say and make our own decision. Um, but I can't give any forward guidance about what we're going to do next. The good news, >> did he actually I I I'm this I I get so angry at this stuff. I don't even listen to what he's saying because it's all just complete and total rubbish. Did he say a task force on communications? So So what he he's he's building a a Federal Reserve Ministry of Truth. Is is that what he's doing? Or what exactly does a task force on communications do? And I think this is actually the most revealing part of the entire press conference because what he's doing is he's finally being honest that the only thing the Fed can do is psychological operations. Scops, that's it. That's it. Their their little lever over here, lever over there with the balance sheet, that doesn't do anything. So, they know that they're all just a big scam. They know that. They know that they're all just the Wizard of Oz that's just hiding behind the curtain. They know that they're just the the Indian witch doctor that dances around the fire and tries to convince you that they can make it rain. So, what's revealing about that is they're admitting to you that really the only influence they have is just psychological influence in making you believe that they can make it rain. Because if they make you believe that they can make it rain by running around the fire in a loin cloth for 3 hours, then they can get you to behave in a way they want you to. And if they can control your behavior, then then they think they can achieve XY and Z objective. You see, it's not about the balance sheet. It's not about the monetary policy. It's not about the interest rate. It's simply about brainwashing you to believe that they have power. And I think that is the best place to end it because that is the truth of the matter. And I didn't need a task force to figure that out. All right, guys. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon. As always, make sure you're standing up for freedom, liberty, free market, capitalism. We'll see you in the next video.
New Fed Chair Just Changed EVERYTHING!!
Summary
Transcript
Hello fellow rebel capitalists. HOPE YOU'RE WELL. WOW. BIG NEWS TODAY. Kevin Walsh, new Fed chair, comes out and keeps rates the exact same. And that's the end of the video. No, absolutely. Excuse me. Actually, what he came out and did is tried to change everything. Everything, guys. He wants to really differentiate himself from all the other Fed chairs. And he told us that he's going to be doing this with task forces. A task force. I've got a task force for that. I've got a task force. Remember Obama and didn't he have all these task forces? Like what? That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life. you know that he is just a total politician or you know anyone is a total politician when they start talking about task forces because that's just a way of pretending like you're going to change everything when in reality you're not changing anything. It it's it's a way to make it seem like you're really doing a lot without doing anything at all. So, that was the main takeaway that I had from Kevin Worsh. But let's see. Let's go over to YouTube and listen to some of his press conference where he goes over all of these new task forces that he's going to have. And he's going to set up a task force to manage AI and he's going to set up a task force to bring down the cost of housing. By the way, for those of you who are older than the age of, I don't know, 10, have you ever in your life seen a task force do anything ever? Name name right here on the chat. We've got five 450 or so people on live right now. You guys tell me one thing that you can think of right now that you have actually seen a task for a political task force do anything. I'll just sit here and wait. Nothing. Zero. Because it's all a big ruse. It's all it's all a joke and they think you're stupid enough to buy into this nonsense. like just because the fact that they have this intention that that's going to be the result and remember what Ron Paul always teaches us. So just look at the name of a bill or look at the name of a task force and you know that the result is going to be the exact opposite. And this is really the problem or one of the main problems of central planning, right? It's it's the idea that intentions whatever the intention is of the politician well that's what the result is going to be and we know that that is total BS. Usually the intentions or the results have absolutely nothing to do with the initial stated intention because there's a lot of things out there where the stated intention might be a lot different from the real intention. Surveickness, right? Anyway, let's go over to Kevin Walsh talking about how he's going to change the Federal Reserve. changes everything, guys. Just you wait and see. Here we go. Let's listen to him. Josh, can you hear this? >> My Fed colleagues and I will be working. >> Can you hear that, Josh? >> Loud and clear. >> Okay, cool. >> So, he talks about how his Fed colleagues, they're going to come together and they're really going to make things happen >> in close collaboration to ask what changes might improve the conduct of monetary policy. And let's before we move any further, let's remember what the Fed does and what they don't do. The Fed and Kevin Walsh would like you to believe that they do everything, that they're these central PL, these puppeteers who can just they have all these dials that they can control anything that they want to in the economy. They can control anything they want to with interest rates or with the dollar or with the price of commodities or with the unemployment rate or with inflation. Let's look at their track record, shall we? Most of you on this live stream right now are old enough to remember what the Fed was trying to do between 2010 and oh, I don't know, 2020. What were they trying to do? They're trying to get inflation up to their 2% target. So, let's just say 10 years the Fed tried to get inflation up to 2%. And they couldn't do it. They couldn't do it with all their monetary policy and with all of their balance sheet, you know, quantitative easing, quantitative tightening, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah interest rate policy with all these tools at their disposal. They weren't able to do anything. Nothing. Zero, nada, nil, zilch. And then what happens in 2020 is that the inflation rate hits their target for what, like a week on its way up to 9.1%. Then it goes way above their target and now it's been above their target range for five years. So let's think about this. In the last 15 years, the Fed has achieved their target rate for about a week. in the last 15 and for some reason the market and the CNBC types the the Steve Leeman's come out and hang on their every word like they can control anything they want and Kevin W comes out and tries to make you believe this BS. It's total BS for anyone that will just open up their eyes and with an ounce of common sense. Unfortunately, it's one of these emperors wearing no clothes type of thing, right? Where the only people that are pointing this out like the little kid are the people on, let's just say, the alternative media space, like that weirdo on the Rebel Capitalist channel. They're the only ones that are calling out this BS, right? But everyone in the mainstream, they're still locked and loaded. They're fully committed to the old emperors wearing no clothes. It's it's just unbelievable. Le let's keep going here >> on that score. You might have already noticed something. A difference in today's policy statement. It's a bit shorter, A BIT SIMPLER. >> OH WOW. OH MY GOSH. WHAT? WELL, time out here. I just said that the Fed is totally incompetent and they can't do anything and monetary policy is a total ruse. But I didn't realize that Kevin Walsh is going to take a paragraph out of the Fed's statement. Oh, Holy cow. Nobody was expecting that. I mean, my goodness gracious. Pump the brakes here, Kevin. I I think you're going a little overboard here, aren't you? And we're supposed to believe that matters. Come on. Come on. >> And it dispenses with some older language. That statement just gives you the facts as best we can judge it. Absent also is so-called forward guidance which we agreed was not well suited to the current policy conjuncture. This afternoon you also received the usual summary of economic projections. It's been the practice of this committee for participants to submit these projections and I have encouraged my colleagues to continue to do so. I however have refrained from offering any projections of my own consistent with my long-held views on the SCP at least as currently structured. In the median projections, real GDP rises at 2.2% 2% this year, 2.3% next year, and total PC inflation runs at 3.6% this year. >> I I I just can't believe how anyone can take this guy seriously or they they can take the Fed seriously. What your projections when have your projections been right in the past? Like our projections show that GDP next year should tick up to 3.8% and in 10 years we should go all the way up to 4.4%. Like nobody like really like you want to try to make me believe that you guys can actually predict that when you haven't been able to predict anything. Name one thing that the Fed has predicted. Like inflation is transitory. Whoops. How about the I don't know the GFC. Oh, how about the survea sickness? How about the regional banking crisis in 2022? Name one thing that they've predicted. But name one thing. Zero. And their dot plot is a complete and that's the biggest joke of all times. Like like we're actually hanging on their dot plot when their dot plot changes and goes all over this like like that means anything to anybody. It's it's total it's like the Wizard of Oz. This is what they're doing is they're they do nothing and they're trying to make it seem like they do everything year 2.3% next year. The unemployment rate stands at about 4.3%. The median participant judges at the appropriate federal funds rate to be at 3.8% at the end of this year. And >> think about what he's saying. the appropriate Fed funds rate. What is the Fed funds rate? It's the overnight rate for interbank lending or in this case, you know, now it's it's really what I is. So interest on reserves. That's it. Like how much does it play into the real economy at the 10-year Treasury? Maybe a little bit, but they don't control anything. And by the way, and that assumes that they're not just following the market. And how do you know that they're just not following the two-year Treasury? And sure, they impact the two-year and whatnot, but is the Fed going to be that dramatically far off the two-year Treasury or interest rates in general? I mean, come on. It it's it's just I just keep saying the same thing over and over again because I get so frustrated. I get so frustrated that no one calls them out on this. Like how are none of those reporters in the in the just raising their hand and saying, "Kevin, how can you be so certain that you can just control these dials like this and you will actually make a difference when the Fed has hasn't gotten it right in 15 years? If those dials and those levers that you have are so incredibly powerful, how is it impossible for the Fed to get inflation up to 2% and then why is it so impossible for them to get it down to 2%. The the answer is self-evident and yet no one wants to say it out loud and that's that this guy can't do anything other than try to convince you that he can do something. >> 3.6 at the end of next. Let me turn now to a few words on a key initiative that we're announcing today. >> Whoa. Key initiative. I'm appointing a task force in each of five areas that are central to the broad conduct of monetary policy. >> Wow. >> First, Fed communications. Second, the Fed's balance sheet. Third, our use and reliance on existing data sources. Fourth, productivity and jobs. No, in an era of transformation. >> Wow. >> And last, the Fed's inflation frameworks. These subjects are timely, consequential, and in my view, worthy of a fresh look. >> Look at these people. They're they're just I see here's my problem. I've got a lot of them. How are these people taking this guy seriously? Like honestly, why are people not throwing like bananas at him or you know something that you do to like a court gesture in like the medieval times or something like that? Like we we should be throwing rotten tomatoes at this guy. Like the Fed has done if you believe that their job is, you know, uh unemployment or uh what do they call it? stable prices and whatever they say their mandate is, right? They've never been able to do it. So, why why are we not just like like running up and like punching this guy or like chasing him off the stage or like throwing rotten eggs at him? I mean, that's what they deserve based on their track record, but yet they're just Oh my gosh. Oh. Oh, the Fed chair. Oh, Kevin Worsh. Ke Oh my Did you hear what he said? Did you hear that? He's got a task force for inflation. Oh my gosh. I mean, it's just preposterous. It's absurd. Look, my colleagues and I discussed them with energy and purpose over the last couple of days. For each of these independent task forces, I'm enlisting some of the very best minds both inside and outside the economics profession. They will be supported by subject matter specialists from our superb Fed staff. And they'll have a straightforward charge. Start with first principles. Ask hard questions. Examine current practice. >> This doesn't He's not even saying anything. This is just all mumbo jumbo. So what he's saying is that the Fed had 900 PhDs and they didn't do a good job. They failed miserably. So the solution is we need a thousand PhDs and then we just have to have the thousand PhDs. We have to give them an assistant. And then we're going to go to from a miserable failure to an absolute success just by doing more of what hasn't worked in the past. Great idea, Kevin. Great idea. >> Consider alternatives and ultimately propose next steps for policymaker consideration. Since last summer, my colleagues discussed possible improvements in the form and function of Fed communications. This new task force will build on that effort and I expect proposed some well-considered changes, including to the SCP I mentioned a few moments ago. the second task force, the one on balance sheet policy. >> He he makes it sound like the Fed has all of these tools at their disposal. It's just a a limitless array of powerful tools that they can just pull out of the bag. Let's remember, they got two things. You can either bump interest rates, lower interest rates, you know, by maybe 25 or 50 basis points other than where the market would probably set them anyway, right? You can do that or you can just increase the size of the balance sheet or decrease the size of the balance sheet, which does nothing. Does nothing. And of course, you guys know from watching my videos, prior to QE, there basically were no bank reserves. none. So, you can't argue that increasing the amount of bank reserves by 50 billion or decreasing it by 50 billion is going to do anything when there weren't even $50 billion worth of bank reserves prior to the GFC. And those are the only two things he can do. no matter how many task forces he has or no matter what the IQ is of the assistance and the research and the commitment they're going to have to vigorous debate no matter what you do you still only got two levers Kevin and the second one is a big fat nothing burger and the first one basically all you do is follow the So, by the way, Josh, is Josh still here? >> Yes. >> Josh, how can you be this skinny and still have a double chin? >> How is that possible? >> I don't know. It's pretty impressive, though. >> He He's like, you remember when uh Conor McGregor used to always rip on Nate Diaz because he said he was like the skinniest fat person on earth? That's that's basically our new Fed chair. He's like the skinniest fat person on earth. Like from the neck down, he's like he's like his body looks like beus and buttthead, but yet from the head up he he looks like he weighs 400 lb. He should get a task force for his double chin. What? What? That would be the task force we need right there. All right, let's get back to it. will review the benefits and risks of the current ample reserves regime and the composition of the Fed's balance sheet. They will assess alternative frameworks for the conduct and operation of monetary policy. The third task force, the one on data, will evaluate new information sources and consider methodological changes to improve data gathering with the aim of giving policymakers more accurate, relevant, contemporaneous, and perhaps most important, actionable information on the state of our economy. Fourth, the task force on productivity and jobs. It'll survey the pace, the reach, the economic impact of new general purpose technologies, including AI. You know, let's focus on that for a moment. You guys know from just having common sense, the Fed can't do anything about jobs. They other than just hire PhDs. Why? Because jobs are created by the entrepreneur. So, no matter how many bank reserves there are or no matter how many task forces Kevin has for his double chins, the bottom line is it's all about the entrepreneur and they are going to hire or fire people based on the riskreward and how well or not well their business is doing. That the Fed doesn't have anything to do with that. Like what are we talking about? Now, if you want to argue that the Fed takes rates up to 10%, okay, that might have something to do with it or that might contribute to it, right? Or if the Fed goes from 3.5 straight down to zero. Okay, when we're talking about extremes, that might have something to do with it. But to keep the Fed funds rate at 3.5 versus 3.25 or 3.75, what do we like? Let's have an honest conversation here. Like, who are we trying to kid? But what's interesting about that is it's the exact same thing with the money supply. The exact same thing. So the idea that they can somehow control the money supply is as ridiculous as the idea that they can somehow control job creation. Because at the end of the day, just like an entrepreneur is the one that's creating the job or firing the employee, the banks are the ones that are creating the money. through lending it into existence. So I I just wanted to say that because I'll you know jokes aside here I think that is something that we can all learn from that the uh if you believe the Fed does not control job creation which you should then you also must believe that the Fed really doesn't control the money supply because it's the exact same thing. They're not directly in charge of it because there's a layer the banking system between them and the money supply just like there's a layer between the Fed and job creation which is the entrepreneur and explore the implications for the for the Fed in pursuit of our employment and inflation mandates. the last task force, the one on inflation frameworks that'll examine the drivers of inflation first principles and weigh the full range of ideas for delivering price stability in a changing economy. You'll hear quite a bit more about these task forces and this overall initiative in the coming weeks. Enough for now to make a simple statement. Each task force will serve an objective shared by everyone in the system. shared by everyone around that table that I sat with over the last couple of days. >> You know what, Josh? You know what my objective is? >> What? >> It's to be able to jump out this window of my 24th floor penthouse and fly over to the mall. So, we need a task force on that. I need you to get on that ASAP. >> Well, how will we measure success? >> Well, we we don't have to measure success. The only thing that we that is important is that we have that objective and that we're working diligently on achieving that objective. So, as soon as you get done swiping on Grinder or whatever you're you're choosing today, I I want you to get on that. Capiche? >> Got it. I only have 400 swipes left for the day anyway. >> All right, cool. a Federal Reserve that is cleareyed about its mission, fit for purpose, and focused on the future. And with that, I appreciate your attention. I'm happy to take your questions. >> Okay. The these questions are going to be so pandering and and just the asskissing is just going to be completely unbearable. But I don't even know if I can take listening to any of the questions. But well, we got 2500 people on. So, my gosh, the the torture I put myself through for the rebel capitalist community. All right, let's hear a couple questions. Ah, these should be doozies. >> Howard Schneider. Uh, hi Chairman Howard with Roers. Good to see you again and and welcome back. Um, uh, this is a lot to be putting in motion uh, so fast. What is the timeline uh, you have in mind for for each of these? >> It's a lot. See, I love it. It's the emperor is wearing no clothes. See, no one here, everyone has to pretend that he's doing a lot even though everyone knows that he's doing nothing and we just have to go along with it, right? Whereas, and that pisses me off instead of having me at the press conference raising my hand and saying, "So, what you just said means nothing." And you can have as many objectives as you want to, just like the Feds had an objective to keep inflation at 2%, which they've miserably failed at. So what makes you think that you've you as an entity has failed so catastrophically and that the implementation of just a new bureaucratic wing for this central planning is going to somehow make a difference? that that's the question they need to ask. Especially when you don't have any control over anything and the only thing you can do is just nitpick interest rates. Just 25 basis points here, 25 basis points there, or do something to your balance sheet that has absolutely no impact on the monetary system whatsoever. That's the questions they should be asking, not just going along with the ruse. I mean, who is anyone ever going to call them out on this? Like seriously, like how can none of these people have the integrity? How can none of them have the balls, the guts just to call them out on what they themselves know is BS? So um I think it'll depend on the task force. It also depends on the urgency in which we need clear answers. My expectation I'm still in the business of recruiting and finalizing them. My expectation is the task forces will begin work in the next couple of weeks and we'll start to get some more information from them, some more framing of how they see things starting in the fall and hopefully most if not all of them concluding by year end. And uh just specifically on the inflation uh framework uh you talk about first principles. Does this include a review of the 2% target itself? Uh you've mentioned that things to the right of the decimal point don't matter. Uh should this be starting from a premise that 2% as a point estimate is is too strict. >> Let me break that into two pieces. Uh first on the inflation framework review, their remitt is what are the drivers of inflation? What's the Fed's responsibility for inflation? In part, how do we measure inflation? But that'll overlap with my data group. >> Okay, so let me answer this question for him just and cut through all the spin. What he wants to do is just say moving forward, we don't really need a 2% target. We just need some sort of range. It's just it's just way too specific. So what what is he doing there, guys? He's specifically setting things up by being non-specific, but no, his intention here is just to kind of take away anything that's quantifiable just so they can claim victory. It's just like Ron Paul always used to say about these wars that we have to have. And the reason the central planners and the global elite have to have these war on the climate or war on drugs or war on terror or war on blah blah blah blah blah because it's unquantifiable. So since it's unquantifiable and it's just out there in the abstract then you can never claim victory or you can easily claim victory because there's no way to measure it. So if he wants to claim victory, he can and say, "Look at how great of a job I've done." Or if he wants to say that there's still a long way to go, so we got to do X, Y, and Z. You have to give me more power and more power and more power. Then he can make that claim as well. And it this goes all the way back to like Mchavellian stuff. Like this is just the standard operating procedures for central planners who want to accumulate more and more and more power. You need a boogeyman out there or you need some sort of call to action where the results are unquantifiable so then you can claim whatever you want to claim and you look like the hero. That's what's going on here. uh on the 2% inflation objective that is the Federal Reserve's longheld objective of 2%. You've heard me say before uh I tend to focus on the left of the decimal point. Well, the two is the left of the decimal point. For now, zero is to the right. I see no reason until we have reestablished our commitment and ability to deliver on the 2% inflation objective to revisit that. So, that'll be outside the scope of what we're taking on. >> Okay. So what he's going to do is he's just going to say, "Okay, we're going to focus on this, but we're going that that's still a target. We're not going to change the 2%, but we're going to change the importance of the 2%." >> Colby, >> thank you so much. Colobby Smith from the New York Times. You've in the past said that inflation is a choice and in the policy statement, um, it includes this pledge to deliver price stability as you've reiterated today. But looking at the SEP, the bulk of your colleagues expect core PCE to run around 3.3% by year end and for the 2% inflation target not to be reached until 2028. So I'm curious how patient you think the Fed can afford to be at this juncture in terms of waiting for one-time inflation waves to wash through. So we are so powerful here at the Fed that we will achieve our inflation target within two years probably maybe hopefully that's how powerful our tools are >> and for underlying inflation to step down after so many years of inflation running above target and under what circumstances you would support the Fed taking some action and raising rates. >> Sure. So quite a bit there. Let me let me try to break that into pieces. First, we have the capability and commitment to deliver on our price stability objective of 2%. That's exactly what we're going to do. Um in the >> How are you going to do that when when you haven't been able to do it for five years? I mean, the gal asked a great question, right? I mean, what she's getting at is you haven't ever been able to do this, so what makes you confident that you're going to be able to do it in the future? And then his answer is, don't worry, we're we're going to handle it. His review of its strategy over the last any number of years in January, the Fed, including the strategy that we're still bound by, the Fed statement says that inflation is primarily determined by monetary policy. You bet it is. What >> I've said for years, inflation's in is a choice. You bet it is. And today I'm announcing that this committee unambiguously and unanimously have decided we are going to deliver on that. >> Well, then why didn't you raise rates, dude? Like, not that I'm saying that would have helped, but if you think that, that's a bold statement right there. And quite frankly, it's total total BS when you look at history that inflation is a function of the Fed funds rate. What are you even talking about, you idiot? How are you going to say that with a straight face? We had interest rates at 0% and we couldn't get inflation. We've had interest rates at 15%. And we had runaway inflation back in the 1970s. Like, what are you even saying, dude? That it so inflation, let me get this straight. Inflation has nothing to do with the money supply. Inflation has nothing to do with supply shocks. It has everything to do with the Federal Reserve. But yet, for some reason, you haven't been able to get inflation to where you want it for 15 years. again. How are people not throwing rotten eggs at this guy to where he just leaves in a in a just crumbling in shame and in humiliation which is what they deserve. >> Rest of your questions sounded like a encouragement for me to give forward guidance. Uh we've dropped forward guidance. uh some along the committee I think dropped it I suspect from our discussion the last couple of days because they said at this moment in time it doesn't feel as though providing forward guidance is right. Others have I'd say different views and think as a general proposition forward guidance isn't the business we should be in. But that'll be taken up by the task force on communications and my policymaker uh colleagues. We're going to listen hard to what the experts say and make our own decision. Um, but I can't give any forward guidance about what we're going to do next. The good news, >> did he actually I I I'm this I I get so angry at this stuff. I don't even listen to what he's saying because it's all just complete and total rubbish. Did he say a task force on communications? So So what he he's he's building a a Federal Reserve Ministry of Truth. Is is that what he's doing? Or what exactly does a task force on communications do? And I think this is actually the most revealing part of the entire press conference because what he's doing is he's finally being honest that the only thing the Fed can do is psychological operations. Scops, that's it. That's it. Their their little lever over here, lever over there with the balance sheet, that doesn't do anything. So, they know that they're all just a big scam. They know that. They know that they're all just the Wizard of Oz that's just hiding behind the curtain. They know that they're just the the Indian witch doctor that dances around the fire and tries to convince you that they can make it rain. So, what's revealing about that is they're admitting to you that really the only influence they have is just psychological influence in making you believe that they can make it rain. Because if they make you believe that they can make it rain by running around the fire in a loin cloth for 3 hours, then they can get you to behave in a way they want you to. And if they can control your behavior, then then they think they can achieve XY and Z objective. You see, it's not about the balance sheet. It's not about the monetary policy. It's not about the interest rate. It's simply about brainwashing you to believe that they have power. And I think that is the best place to end it because that is the truth of the matter. And I didn't need a task force to figure that out. All right, guys. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon. As always, make sure you're standing up for freedom, liberty, free market, capitalism. We'll see you in the next video.