Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- go a little bit here Richard because you're specifically answer the question what would it do to the economy if we were to see another round.
Would it be it would have -- I don't think and what kind of negative effects do you think -- see.
Well first of all I don't think you have a positive effect given that we have no clarity what's -- from Washington.
If you look at the Wall Street Journal this morning forgive me for measures to paper -- on page B one.
There was a great interview.
Reporter had gone through several of their recent earnings calls.
And the head of kindred health care said.
Can't plant can't spend can't spend can't hire.
And on its earnings call he said he couldn't give any forward visibility because they can't plan because what's happening on the fiscal side so.
I think some of the damage that can be done is that we would just once again.
Be sending a signal to those that have to make decisions the congress United States Democrats or Republicans.
The fiscal authorities want to create the laws and regulations.
They can just keep going on were basically.
By in my opinion purchasing treasuries.
We we have up to 70% -- certain treasury issues now I'm removing further out -- curve under Operation Twist.
We we can get two point under the program that my colleague outlined -- today.
Phoning in his case at the numbers -- who -- -- report them over 40% of all the treasuries that are ten year and longer maturity.
That presents a long term problem for what we -- to get out of those securities.
In addition to the fact that I'm not happy with the fact that we're putting ourselves that far out in terms of buying a secures a first place.
Because it keeps rates down does -- the market to rationalize.
It does gives a true cost of this government -- since which the congress is response.
-- for Richard not us just -- -- just -- mentioned on the on the businesses complaining about uncertainty with Starbucks hear yesterday that limit of 25 million dollar investment they know exactly what they're doing exactly where -- higher -- lot of businesses use that as an excuse and there are.
There are research -- is done decades back in the number one concern was always uncertainties so.
I think some of us are little disinclined to listen to businesses who use that as an excuse but again when you don't know what the tax structure is sure so -- the congress that's an that's an important issue but.
Senator Chuck Schumer said to fed chief Ben Bernanke just a couple of weeks ago what Ben Bernanke was testifying.
In essence the senator said.
You -- -- -- you're the only game in town you're the only ones who can quote save us.
Do you look at that say sadly senator Schumer is right or he's way off base their other things that should be done and if so what specifically some number one thing.
I went to college -- Chuck Schumer were classmates were friends.
My response that would have been no senator you're the only game in town.
It's very dangerous when central banks whether it's the Federal Reserve or any other Central Bank throughout history.
Becomes the only game in town you we are -- monetary authority we have limited powers.
We have specific powers.
Our powers only work if we can do our job and we have.
Basically fiscal authorities that are responsible in their conduct -- right now as we all know.
Both Democrats Republicans for far too long -- reckless and their policy.
We are necessary but we're not sufficient we can create liquidity to gasoline for the engine to run -- elect -- someone's got and sent.
Private sector where jobs are created particularly now the government shrinking.
Are certainly not growing someone -- sent them to use the fuel that we provide the high octane cheap fuel that we provided.
There's only one way to do it and that is through fiscal policy through tax spend and regulatory policy.
We're not responsible for that.
Senator Schumer and his colleagues in both houses are responsible Richard -- we are we're that I -- -- that that don't scare us about it people say we're almost out of time but.
Is another political side of it you raise politics here there is a meeting of the Fed coming up September 12 and September 13 if the Fed -- Does intervene before the election which of course is in November.
Is there -- a danger that it could be perceived because already a lot of folks on Wall Street are perceiving this.
That the Fed is trying to help President Obama get reelected.
We do not take any political input from anybody whether it's me or whether it's.
Her growth grand or more importantly of all the chairman but is there is are you sure there -- -- of that happening if the Fed intervenes before you're right because there is a history way McChesney Martin was bullied by president Lyndon Johnson right.
And we had of course Arthur Burns who was a little bit too politically flat for a couple of presents including President Nixon so.
There is a history of this and I do worry that that close election as you pointed out David.
I know for a fact that this is not true.
But I believe we could become perceived as such.
And even though I disagree with further expansion if we were to have done it I would have done -- August -- I would not supported it.
September's getting increasing close election and I do worry about -- -- you mentioned -- percent but I can tell you that we are not being pressured and that way.
And we would respond of that pressure if we were but I do worry about perception that's a very good point you make.
Richard Fisher of Dallas fed president wonderful to have you on we've truly appreciate it -- -- wouldn't want to hear more updates as it gets closer and closer to August 30 next time come for the whole hourly but yeah.
Thank you very.
Filter by section