3,882
edits
FED Meeting:Historical Records/2023 February: Difference between revisions
FED Meeting:Historical Records/2023 February (view source)
Revision as of 18:31, 1 February 2023
, 1 February 2023→Analyst commentary
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<u>'''Comment Moritz:'''</u> I have to say that i am agreeing with the interviewer on this one. DiMartino Booth sometimes sounds very dramatic e.g. on her last sentence "and now we have rising unemployment" while the job market held up extremely well. (too well) | <u>'''Comment Moritz:'''</u> I have to say that i am agreeing with the interviewer on this one. DiMartino Booth sometimes sounds very dramatic e.g. on her last sentence "and now we have rising unemployment" while the job market held up extremely well. (too well) | ||
'''Magaly:''' I agree Danielle is more pessimistic than everyone lately, but she also has a track record of being way ahead of most people in her outlooks. Eg. When she was arguing inflation was not that transitory since 2021 and no one | '''Magaly:''' I agree Danielle is more pessimistic than everyone lately, but she also has a track record of being way ahead of most people in her outlooks. Eg. When she was arguing inflation was not that transitory since 2021 and no one believed her either back then. However, I am trying to be less biased with her opinions lately, and balance it with other good economists, and my own reasoning, and only included in my notes what I considered important, especially the liquidity part. | ||
3. Jeremy Siegel argues Fed needs to do 25-basis-point hikes because 50 would be a disaster:<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhz4S2bz7G0</ref> | 3. Jeremy Siegel argues Fed needs to do 25-basis-point hikes because 50 would be a disaster:<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhz4S2bz7G0</ref> | ||