3,882
edits
FED Meeting:Historical Records/2023 February: Difference between revisions
FED Meeting:Historical Records/2023 February (view source)
Revision as of 18:55, 1 February 2023
, 1 February 2023→Analyst commentary
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
'''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. | '''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. | ||
About the rising unemployment, she is not referring to the official numbers, but the recent 1st wave of layoffs we are starting to see. All of these will not appear in the numbers (initial claims) for some time due to the severance packages. | |||
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> | ||