“The Nuclear Option”

Published on
April 29th, 2020
78 minutes

“The Nuclear Option”

The Interview ·
Featuring Claudia Sahm and Pedro da Costa

Published on: April 29th, 2020 • Duration: 78 minutes

Claudia Sahm, Director of Macroeconomic Research at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, gives Pedro Da Costa an insider’s view of the Federal Reserve’s plans and goals. Drawing upon her experience as a former Fed Board Economist, Sahm analyzes the drastic measures the Fed is undertaking in order to shore up the American economy as it faces this unprecedented demand shock. Sahm and Da Costa explore the Fed’s reputation as having a cozy relationship with Wall Street with Sahm framing her analysis through the lens of the 2008 bailout, in which she saw the Fed bail out Wall Street, but not Main Street. Sahm then makes a spirited case for why the Fed should learn from its previous mistakes and go bigger than it ever has before. Filmed on April 23, 2020, over Skype.



  • CL
    Christopher L.
    16 May 2020 @ 08:21
    Da Costa has had more employers than a whole during happy hour.
  • TH
    T H.
    4 May 2020 @ 15:37
    First half was interesting Fed behind the curtain information and then she exposed herself for the socialist she is. Learn about our Federalist system. States need to manage themselves not cry when something out of the ordinary happens because they spend all their reserves on social justice nonsense programs and union pensions, look at NY and IL. They go racial and BS climate change at the end which confirms it. The Fed is wrong to even be in existence.
  • DR
    Dick R.
    3 May 2020 @ 20:37
    Confirmation bias. Judging by these comments, not one mind has been changed. Whatever you felt before, you feel now. Thanks for trying. As imperfect as it is, in this emergency the Fed has done more for the country than the White House has or will. And that is why Fed should answer to no one.
  • MS
    Michael S.
    3 May 2020 @ 16:29
    I thought this interview should be 100% thumbs up. Always put off by the asymmetric criticism of the Political Parties. Real Vision creeps closer and closer to choosing sides. Not what I want in serious Journalism and impartial Analysis.
  • GB
    Gary B.
    3 May 2020 @ 14:40
    I wish her assumptions were challenged a bit more and to hear her perspective on "why" she thinks the Fed's actions will actually help.
  • MH
    Mark H.
    1 May 2020 @ 22:02
    This is what I think. You hear all of this stuff about trade and automation being good because it increases purchasing power. Blah, blah, blah, we need to have trade because that's how living standards advance. That is deflation. Deflation is the same thing as “better living through purchasing power.” Here is the problem. The government and the financial system require inflation. All of the Western central bankers should have read the riot act to all of the politicians back in the 90s that increased globalization and automation was going to force no CPI inflation but asset inflation. Instead, they just blew a bunch of bubbles. Now socialism and populism is what everyone is worried about. The reality is, with all of this deflation you ***have to have*** libertarian governments everywhere. This is going to end badly. I don't see what the point of central banking is beyond simply backing up the financial system at a punitive rate. Good collateral at a punitive rate. All of this guessing the inflation rate and shoving it down our throats went away after the Soviet union fell. These people have no idea how to make it all work. GOSPLAN was idiotic and so is this regime. Also, who came up with a bright idea of trading with the Chinese mafia that has an army?
    • WM
      Will M.
      3 May 2020 @ 14:31
      Superb comment Mark. You highlight many issues that are great topics for debate.
  • WM
    Will M.
    3 May 2020 @ 14:21
    My main issue here is that the FED has conducted several missteps since Greenspan first drove interest rates lower after the tech boom failed in post 2000 crash. It appears to me that the FED have simply acted to keep the economy going irrespective of the amount of debt issued. The 2008 and 2020 bailouts have mostly benefited the Blackrocks and Goldman Sachs and lumbered the public purse with vast amounts of debt. We can now no longer withstand an interest rate rise of some 2-3% without bankrupting the nation (and the world). History tells us categorically that paper money without backing eventually becomes worthless. As a voracious reader of financial and world history, it is obvious to me that total collapse is coming and with it appalling social disorder. The latter will result in extreme authoritative action leading to potential revolution in countries like the US where guns are abundant and individual liberties held in very high regard. I very strongly recommend http://danielamerman.com for a full and non political / partisan analysis of FED debt and the fiscal consequences of what has happened and what WILL happen over the next few years regarding government debt. I am a capitalist, and largely centrist politically, but our politicians are weak and our media pathetically partisan. People need to prepare for economic collapse and social disorder, this is not alarmist, its just the high probability outcome of the current emergency.
  • JB
    Jon B.
    3 May 2020 @ 12:39
    I read the notes below and chose to skip 78 minutes. If it were 30 minutes, I would have listened.
  • DB
    David B.
    2 May 2020 @ 05:58
    I don’t see anyone mentioning the big take-home message from this interview: This Fed insider/cheerleader is 110% convinced that the Fed cannot go big enough MMT-style to sustain this bear market rally. That pretty much puts that question to bed.
  • AC
    Andrew C.
    2 May 2020 @ 03:25
    Pronouns should be banned! They, us, them, it. ‘They should have done it.’ The first half of this interview was useless, given the lack of detail and the overuse of non-specific words.
  • RK
    Ron K.
    30 April 2020 @ 22:00
    I enjoyed this interview. Felt like I was listening in on a private conversation and helpful for me as a newbie to learn about an opaque institution.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      1 May 2020 @ 19:32
      Many thanks, glad you liked it.
  • CT
    Craig T.
    1 May 2020 @ 02:32
    The Fed has failed. Wall Street manipulated the FED and moral hazard reigns supreme. "Lender of last resort" is 4 words. It is not complicated. For stocks, this means capital raise, liquidate (Ch 7 bankruptcy) or DIP Ch 11 bankruptcy. If the FED has to be Debtor in Possession, so be it. If bankruptcy is too slow in a crisis, then the creditors should get a WORSE offer. No bailouts. No lending to insolvency. No fiscal policy (that is congress). Time to shut the fed down. The argument seems to be we are In Too Deep to not bailout THIS time. Sounds just like last time (Too Big to Fail). Crisis is the result of long term negligence. Sorry.. pandemics are predictable. Unfortunately, all solutions lead to pain now. This is the FED legacy. Whether the intervention "works", is not the deciding factor here, the Fed has failed. They are already in violation of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act and Section 4003(c)(3)(B) of the CARES act. Future prediction: the Fed will worry about unofficial communication and/or look for scapegoats which is typical with poor leadership. I appreciate Claudia's bravery.
  • DS
    David S.
    29 April 2020 @ 16:22
    Congress uses the Fed as a whipping boy. The market uses the Fed as a whipping boy. The Administration use the Fed as a whipping boy. The current definition of a whipping boy is “a person who is blamed or punished for the faults or incompetence of others.” During the royal days, the young prince had a whipping boy who was his "friend." When the prince did something wrong the whipping boy would be whipped in hopes that young prince would correct his behavior. This only works if someone cares about the whipping boy. In this case Congress, the Administration and the market are happy to have a whipping boy who they do not care about. Keynes was rational in that he paid back the government borrowings in good times. There will never be times so good that we could pay down the US debt. Forget about paying down the debt of state and local governments. Hopefully in a year the pandemic will be behind us. The debt will be growing forever. DLS
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:13
      Why do we need to pay down the debt? Serious question.
    • RT
      Rune T.
      29 April 2020 @ 21:31
      Pedro, if we don't need to pay down the debt, why are we being taxed? If the Fed can print all the money needed, why not just print tax money?
    • DS
      David S.
      30 April 2020 @ 02:49
      Pedro D. - Good Question. Is there any example in history where a fiat currency was printed ad nauseum and it never mattered? The debt does not need to be paid down to zero, but debt limits future spending options without debasing the fiat currency. History and I agree with Rune T. for the extreme example - see above. MMT without inflation can work near the zero bound to increase inflation to the 2% "safe level." Wall Street, Congress, the Administration, and everyone else will not allow the Fed to normalize after the 2% level is reached – if it can really be identified in the short run. There is always a good reason to spend someone else's money. Ms. Sahm is smart and well educated. I would suggest that she thinks through the proposition that MMT is inflationary after the 2% inflation level is reached and may not be able to be controlled. As a corollary, what would be the probability that the Fed could drain liquidity from the economy after the 2% is reached. Like any debate it is good to take the other side and see what happens. This may be a good topic for another interview. DLS
    • IN
      Ian N.
      30 April 2020 @ 18:16
      Pedro, That debt is owed to the owners of the fed, the more debt, the more the gov/ppl rely upon it. Why the gov is 'borrowing' from a third party is truly mind boggling. No reason why they couldn't double entry book keep themselves. Taxes will go up from this Covid credit splurge as an example, the the principal off won't be paid, ever. Maybe in the future we'll all become the Beatles & get taxed 90%. TL;DR; the more that's owed, the higher taxes are just to cover the interest only payment to service the national debt. I did enjoy this interview, thank you Pedro. Rune, The tax collected pays for the interest only on the national debt, that's it. Oh, & running the tax office. Check out 'The Grace Commission'.
    • JC
      Joseph C.
      1 May 2020 @ 00:51
      Pedro, you have hit upon a most important question. Does debt matter at all? Show me the evidence that all of the money printing has resulted in any inflation for the average person. We just printed what... 5, 6 Trillion dollars. Gold responded by going up 10%. Bitcoin has managed to break even. There seems to be near unanimous opinion that the Fed can't do this forever but I have yet to hear anyone give a cogent argument as to what is going to stop them.
  • CS
    Charles S.
    30 April 2020 @ 22:06
    This is a terrible video, let me summarize: A self serving piece of crap this is. Forecasting is hard, FED is great what else could you expect.
  • MH
    Mark H.
    29 April 2020 @ 20:10
    The Washington Center for Equitable Growth has an interesting board running it. Why is John Podesta on it?
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:11
      Why shouldn't he be?
    • MH
      Mark H.
      29 April 2020 @ 20:34
      Electioneers / professional lobbyists and monetary policy. Sounds like a bad combination, but what do I know.
    • BS
      Brian S.
      29 April 2020 @ 21:05
      Mark H., sounds like you know a lot!
    • mh
      michael h.
      30 April 2020 @ 21:32
      Well they have a focus on racial and economic inequities. Non political of course. Lobyist n friends do require a source of non-biased studies.
  • wj
    wiktor j.
    30 April 2020 @ 20:07
    Fed is failing. Jeff snider just did a super interview on macro voices on how bad the fed is failing.
  • DP
    Duane P.
    30 April 2020 @ 16:55
    I'm half way through this and this is incredibly hard to listen too. She seems like she is more interested in drowning in here own "insiderness" and claiming the usual CB-"we are the saviors of doom" propaganda than actually getting into the economics, mechanics and plumbing of why her support for QE infinity is actually a good policy. I'd love to see her in a room with Danielle DiMartino Booth. It would not be pretty.
    • CJ
      Charles J.
      30 April 2020 @ 16:57
      I thought about Danielle as well. I would love to get her take on this interview!
  • CJ
    Charles J.
    30 April 2020 @ 16:36
    For the first portion of the interview I really thought that I was going to agree with Sahm. She seemed to at least acknowledge the Fed's weaknesses and complicity in creating the mess we are in. Then I got to the second half and realized she suffers from just as much of the same thinking as the rest. If only the Fed and the central government would just tweak their intervention here or there we would finally get the outcome that we want. It's like the only thing these people understand is more action, more or better intervention and then we'll get what they are hoping for. They create worse and worse outcomes and that justifies more actions because how can you possibly suggest that a once in a hundred year moment is the right time to pull back.... It's funny how often you get once in a hundred year moments when you intervene constantly. It will never be the right time because there will always be some new outcome that you want to tweak and every time you intervene you make things worse not better. You are a lender of last resort, not a pianist trying to play the economy for your ultimate masterpiece. Greenspan created this monster and I'm afraid that the only way out is through the fire. The more you try to hold it off the more horrifying it becomes because the intervention prevents catharsis. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here. How do they not see that they are the problem?
    • CJ
      Charles J.
      30 April 2020 @ 16:55
      Just one quick addition..... Having said all of that I thought the interview was worthwhile because it gave good insight into the inner workings of the Fed. You can tell Pedro likes and respects Sahm which sometimes works against him because it made it seem like he agreed with her a little too much for my taste. Having said that I think people need to be fair to him.... People won't come on here if they know they are going to be target practice for the frustrations of subscribers. I'd imagine his relationship with Sahm is a big reason she agreed to come on and the insight I think is more important than using the interview to vent our frustrations with the Fed.
  • ES
    Elizabeth S.
    30 April 2020 @ 16:34
    Thank you for doing this interview. I learned a lot about the Fed that I didn’t know before and appreciate gaining a better understanding of how they think and some history.
  • Md
    Martijn d.
    30 April 2020 @ 12:18
    I once had an old car, I kept fixing problem after problem, pouring in money after money. I was "so proud" In hindsight I should have just scrapped the thing.
  • JF
    Jennifer F.
    30 April 2020 @ 06:55
    • EO
      Elena O.
      30 April 2020 @ 11:52
      perhaps lower case next time, Jen?
  • BO
    Bob O.
    30 April 2020 @ 06:53
    With the real possibility of a 30% plus unemployment rate and an unknown end to the Covid-19 disruption there are likely to be many Americans who will go hungry, will not receive medical attention and will be left with no place to live. The American social safety net will undergo its greatest challenge for some time. One of those challenges will be recognising a need to be more generous with unemployment entitlements. No doubt, there will be others that put forward argument against this. Their argument will, on the face of it, seem sound to some. However, hungry men are not scared of jail and with an 80% increase in the March US gun sales, the method of hunger prevention looks ominous. Please look after each other. I genuinely wish the citizens of the USA all the best during this Covid-19 crisis.
  • CM
    Chris M.
    29 April 2020 @ 18:55
    I really enjoyed this interview. I think a few harder questions could have been asked, but I appreciate her 'potically correct' candidness.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:11
      I appreciate the feedback.
    • DS
      David S.
      30 April 2020 @ 06:39
      The interviewer needs to stay within his/her style. You cannot expect Elvis Presley to sound like Mick Jagger. Keep up the good work Pedro. DLS
  • gc
    guillaume c.
    29 April 2020 @ 20:39
    Enjoyed this interview. Nice to see the Inside Fed. That said, my gold looks shinier.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      30 April 2020 @ 06:04
      Cheers, thanks for watching.
  • VR
    Vidal R.
    30 April 2020 @ 00:51
    I’m new to real vision and find the content refreshingly insightful, unbiased and high quality, compared to CNBC. Well prepared interview Pedro and guest, Claudia.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      30 April 2020 @ 06:03
      Many thanks Vidal.
  • BP
    Barry P.
    30 April 2020 @ 01:52
    I thought a great piece Pedro. Not easy on RV, given a general distaste for Fed, but enlightening to gain perspective from inside. It's tough right, have a few b school friends who worked at Chi Fed, and they're just regular blokes of course, so I think it is still really interesting to hear how the conversations are likely occurring inside the walls. We may not like it, but we have to live with it and the outcomes/consequences.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      30 April 2020 @ 06:02
      Thanks very much Barry. I'm trying to demystify the Fed. It's not a perfect institution, but it is full of smart staffers trying to do the right thing with limited tools and visibility.
  • CN
    Charles N.
    30 April 2020 @ 04:06
    Such an apologist. She says that the local, state, city entities SHOULD have had a rainy day fund. How does she square that with outright grants (vs loans to smaller cities, etc.) to corporate/financial outfits that burned through so much on stock buybacks instead of their own rainy day funds? She completely avoids and skates past any discussion of why the Fed allows or is complicit with the excesses which build up and are obvious to any normal, moral person? The Fed is a very guilty party. I wish Mr. Da Costa would have pressed Ms. Sahm on the both the revolving door between Wall Street and Fed as well as ways the Fed should have taken steps to prevent excess debt that was accessed and used by the shadow banking system...LTCM II cubed. Wish that we'd been able to peel away the bureaucratic nature of the Fed research departments. I do thank Ms. Sahm, Mr. Da Costa and RV, however in presenting this discussion, no matter the faults which I saw.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      30 April 2020 @ 06:01
      Many thanks. I did ask her about the revolving role and Fed's role in stoking inequality and, you're right, she did sort of skirt those by saying there was 'plenty of blame to go around.' Nonetheless, I thought she was pretty candid and open about her experience and convictions.
  • PP
    Patrick P.
    30 April 2020 @ 03:30
    Anyone that has confidence in the Fed is a moron, unless you are a banker or a government official. And even then you better have a life raft handy. The Fed is in business solely to lie to the public and protect their keepers .. (large banks and politicians.) Fed speak is another word for twisting and deceiving. Remember all the money that the Fed creates and the politicians give away belongs to someone else or will be someone else's responsibility. (your kids) Hire yourself a good tax guy because your taxes are going to go through the roof and your purchasing power is getting destroyed.
    • BC
      Burton C.
      30 April 2020 @ 05:22
      Right-on! and of course their final contribution to all of us will be to destroy the currency.
  • RL
    ROLFE L.
    30 April 2020 @ 02:30
    Frankly this was a waste of time. Ms Sahm is a conflicted apologist for an ethically corrupt, captured by special interests institution. Frankly, her and ilk should held to account for their robbing on the American people on behalf of their Wall Street masters. Disgusting.
  • PU
    Peter U.
    29 April 2020 @ 17:01
    No offense to Pedro, but he doesn't have enough journalistic expertise to be conducting interviews.
    • EH
      Edward H. | Real Vision
      29 April 2020 @ 18:13
      Peter, that's a completely ad hominem attack. David S was able to make a coherent rationale on why he found these Fed insider interviews from Pedro hard to stomach. That's the kind of feedback we are looking for.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:08
      I've only been covering markets, macro and the Fed for Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Foreign Policy, etc... So yea.
    • PD
      Peter D.
      30 April 2020 @ 01:16
      I'll take Peter U.'s side on this. Ms. Sahm, for all her charm, credentials, and agreeableness, is breathtakingly unaware of the Federal Reserve's role in fostering a multi-generational credit bubble ... and an almost certain coming depression. This would be a great interview for PBS, mainstream media or a Sunday morning talk show. But Real Vision viewers expect more. Note: the changes need not have been major. Ed Harrison of Ash Bennington would likely have asked the same questions. But neither would have been able to listen to those answers without involuntarily raising their eyebrows three or four times. Those raised eyebrows as opposed to obsequious smiles) would have made all the difference. This interviewer isn't in Kansas anymore. Time to up his game .... or to go work for CNBC.
  • JW
    Jay W.
    30 April 2020 @ 00:53
    My biggest takeaway was that the Fed is *so* proud of itself
  • JF
    John F.
    30 April 2020 @ 00:17
    We don't have markets anymore. There's no such thing as price discovery. Valuations no longer matter. We've reached a permanently high plateau. This time is different.
  • LL
    Lukee L.
    29 April 2020 @ 23:26
    What the f*ck was actually said here. Bla bla bla
  • DM
    Dominic M.
    29 April 2020 @ 21:23
    The argument at minute 53 that neither Fox nor MSNBC tells the truth—so we're supposed to throw our hands in the air at the relativity of it all—is complete nonsense. Any independent study done of the relative veracity of conservative mainstream media and their liberal cohorts paints an increasingly black/white picture of who is telling the truth, and who isn't. Pretending otherwise, because it sounds diplomatic or whatever else, is part of the problem. Intentional falsehood and intellectual cowardice are separated by image only.
    • TS
      Thomas S.
      29 April 2020 @ 21:56
      Kalev Leetaru over at RealClearPolitics has done some objective, data-driven research in this area. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to give his analyses a look, virtually all of it focused on cable network air time dedicated to various issues, which issues appear on which networks, etc. It's interesting stuff.
  • MT
    Mark T.
    29 April 2020 @ 21:38
    There is too much politics involved. The Fed is too political and no longer independent. No one is willing to do the right thing for the long-term because they want to please the powers that be/get re-elected. The Fed is simply a credit card for American Politicians... and we all know how Americans are with credit cards.
  • JE
    James E.
    29 April 2020 @ 21:17
    I wish the Fed would realise the effect it has on the rest of the World. The US sneezes, down here in New Zealand we get pneumonia.
    • DC
      Dave C.
      29 April 2020 @ 21:34
      But we avoid Convid19 - all hail Saint Jacinda and all of her works ..... meanwhile the search for survivors from the Jacinda economic death ray continues.
  • PG
    Philippe G.
    29 April 2020 @ 14:46
    Great conversation. Appreciated Mrs. Sahm's candidness!
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:10
      Thanks! She's a great economist and a good person.
  • DS
    David S.
    29 April 2020 @ 16:30
    Interesting perspectives given in this interview, but very disjointed in presentation. Maybe it is me after lockdown. I am sure that Ms. Sahm research papers are coherent. I hope in a future interview, you might address several issues more focused on her finished research papers. DLS
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:09
      Check this out in case of interest: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/coronavirus-federal-reserve-cities.html?smid=tw-share
  • DS
    David S.
    29 April 2020 @ 16:58
    I have had a hard time listening to Pedro's Interviews. This one is no different. I am excited to listen to the guests, but get frustrated when it seems that Government Agencies, like the Fed in this case really are knowingly set up to support Wall Street. Maybe I am being to simple, but we knowingly are aware that Chairman Powell Came from Private Equity (PE Powell) and is a Multi Millionaire. With over 40 years of investment experience I am extremely disturbed by three things: 1 - The Powell Put in December of 2018 when the High Yield Debt Markets froze, 2- Repo Bailout in September 2019 and 3 - The Stock Price of Blackstone (BX) Stock today which I think is flat on the year. Enough said.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:09
      I agree with you and I asked Claudia about the conflicts of interest inherent in Fed support to the financial system. Thanks for the feedback though.
  • GH
    Gregory H.
    29 April 2020 @ 19:38
    Pedro, thanks for interviewing Claudia... big step up from last interview.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 20:07
      Cheers. Your input helps my questions.
  • TP
    Timothy P.
    29 April 2020 @ 16:20
    The Fed is an arsonist and a fireman. They start their fires (bad monetary policy), then expect to be thanked when they put it out. (Usually through bailouts and debt issuance.) I'm very happy the Fed is doing what it is during the virus crisis, because they're printing themselves into irrelevance, at the same time they're pumping my asymmetric bets against their policies. I also would like to thank Claudia for this tidbit (paraphrased) "...you don't tell a room full of monetary policy makers that they aren't going to get the inflation that they want." Algorithmic enforcement of monetary policy, such as Bitcoin, is markedly superior to the mental and emotional foibles of these non-elected Fed members. I find it highly ironic that JP Morgan is upheld as this huge risk to the monetary system in times of crisis. The reason Mr. Morgan stepped up, was because he had stake in what was happening. He wasn't going to bailout an enterprise that he thought would fail later. And frankly, I'd trust his judgement in that particular situation because he wasn't a indecisive academic. But now? What do we have -- we have banks and businesses that should've gone bankrupt, but they were "saved". That isn't how you run an economy. You don't privatize profits for the company and shareholders and socialize the losses through willing Fed members executing bailouts. In my book, you get it right, or you're liquidated. Bankruptcy allows restructuring of a company and while some jobs may be lost, it doesn't mean the entire workforce is shown the door. If it can survive as a fiscally responsible entity, then it will continue. If it can't -- then the shareholders and debt holders are marked to zero. The legacy financial system of monetary policy is broken. Lets stop thanking the arsonist for putting out their own fires. I'd love a job at the Fed, I could be wrong my whole career and still get paid.
    • ar
      andrew r.
      29 April 2020 @ 19:30
  • RM
    Russell M.
    29 April 2020 @ 15:07
    Her desire to use MMT to prevent social unrest is understandable. The Fed is obviously thinking the same way. But moral hazard is out the window. This is bad for long term growth. And it won't help much if the economy is not restarted. There will be nothing buy with the helicopter money.
  • RM
    Russell M.
    29 April 2020 @ 14:36
    Very interesting interview. Important to understand what kind of animal the Fed is.
  • AR
    Alexander R.
    29 April 2020 @ 13:55
    We have way too much debt At this point it can not be repaid so it is not "money good " , it is zero sum game Someone will win and someone will lose Fed over years served the rich creditors at the expense of poor borrowers, This is not our Fed, it is the Fed for very few very rich, Now with helicopter money it might change and it will become "our fed " For the people, but till today FED served the function of protecting only rich Ether way they are destroying the dollar and sold money, and people who tried to work hard and been responsible will see value of there money ( years of work and saving destroyed) Buy Gold. And remember no matter what Fed dies will not help you
  • PT
    Philip T.
    29 April 2020 @ 13:54
    True to form, she exemplifies the views of those in the Fed bubble, & despite several promptings concerning the Fed/Wall St coziness, refused to address the issue. Also, she has no problem with helicopter money, and more Fed bailouts using loans (& just converting them to grants). I can only guess at her defense of the Fed destroying savers in order to save their Wall Street cronies. A nice interview that verifies how insulated these folks are.
  • JL
    Johnny L.
    29 April 2020 @ 12:53
    I am not proud of the fed. The fed has not fixed anything in the economy since the GFC and since 2000 created 3 massive busts. US GDP is avg 2% since 2009 for 2X the cost/debt. Anyone who applauds the fed for saving stocks is lost and scary. Allow natural order and that fixes more quickly - bankruptcy works. I'm pissed at fed praisers
  • MC
    Michael C.
    29 April 2020 @ 12:41
    The Euro$ shortage gets a lot of press, but it seems the supply and transmission of on-shore USD's is grossly inadequate and dysfunctional as well. Doesn't help the argument that the Fed can prevent a massive debt deflation.
    • JA
      John A.
      29 April 2020 @ 12:52
      The main difference is that the US can solve the domestic $ market if it wants to thru Congress. But the rest of the world has to make due with the supply that exists outside of the US and what it can pick up from bonds and what it can borrow thru swap lines and foreign central bank Repos. All of the solutions though do nothing to increase the circulation of dollars on a permanent basis, so the problem remains. And with yields continuing to fall, it is only getting worse.
  • JA
    John A.
    29 April 2020 @ 12:49
    No amount of debt that takes back more cash in the form of interest payments than it injects into the system over time is going to ever create inflation. The more you pump into the financial markets in the form of debt with a positive interest rate, the more cash you are going to suck back out of the system. Either a bunch of doctorate level economists with 10 years of historical data to evaluate aren't able to see this, or this is simply the modus operandi and the end result of 30 years of increasingly cheaper money. Next stop, negative rates. The markets will take the Fed there because the last thing the Fed will do is try to increase rates.
  • TE
    Tito E.
    29 April 2020 @ 10:28
    The federal reserve is not federal and is not a reserve. Its raison d'etre was only ever to bail out Wall Street interests. Anything else is a pretence. Don't listen to any of the words. Only observe the actions. All of them.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 11:05
      It was created for bankers but that doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't serve a public purpose. It's our Fed.
    • TE
      Tito E.
      29 April 2020 @ 11:47
      Our fed. Who elects these people and who exactly is the Fed accountable to? I think its only right to zoom out and ask "what is this thing about?" I feel it does have a public purpose; that of funnelling from the masses by debasing their hard earned money and into those in their network who didn't earn it. The Fed is a money debasement machine. Nothing more. Sorry to sound so cynical. Money in itself is not important. People and their interactions are. But the reason why (some semblance of) hard money is important is retention of faith and fairness in society.
    • TE
      Tito E.
      29 April 2020 @ 11:59
      Btw, this was a v good interview. The fed is obviously a very important entity in these times. It's just that it shouldn't be, and it makes me a bit angry when i think about it.
    • TN
      Tobias N.
      29 April 2020 @ 12:06
      We wouldnt have "these times" to this extreme if FED wasnt so irresponsible for the past decade.
  • PV
    Peter V.
    29 April 2020 @ 09:15
    Great to hear from former insider. Can Realvision try to get a more negative FED interviewer? Like Fleckenstein or similar. It would be great if interview could be more critical to the prevailing bias.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 11:14
      Send me your questions and I can channel Fleckenstein.
    • MK
      Michael K.
      29 April 2020 @ 11:32
      Check out his daily newsletter. It’s like the cheapest one on the street and he’s a great understandable read.
  • PN
    PJ N.
    29 April 2020 @ 10:10
    Great interview. I am, like most RV subs, not a big fan of the "Fed Put" and what it has done to the economy. However, I found Claudia to be a very insightful guest, who was interesting to listen to. She provided quite a bit of insight into what happens/ happened at the Fed. Her comment about the public not knowing when the Fed is shouting i.e. when they said that we were in a recession, was very interesting! The most glaring omissions, especially given the praise that Claudia had for Jay Powell, was the "Powell Put" in Dec 18 - why did he do it? A well as, what she thinks transpired during the repo market blow up in Sep 19 and the subsequent injection of Fed liquidity into the stock market afterwards. Spending some time discussing those two episodes, would have given us more insight into Powell's way of thinking and what his view of the Fed's role in the economy truly was. But I guess that those episodes were not really in the scope of this interview, which is a pity. I also appreciated Pedro's interview style, he did a great job in allowing the interview to flow, while jumping in when needed, to add background, or to move the interview forward.
    • PD
      Pedro D. | Contributor
      29 April 2020 @ 11:06
      Thanks so much for watching! More content on the way.