Jeff Rosenberg

And they appears to be justified by the reduction in the downside risk to the labor market.

So to me, that kind of validates a little bit of what we understand about their response function of this current Fed, that they are more keyed in on the labor market risks than they are on the growth side.

And the growth side is being upgraded at the same time.

He talked a little bit about that.

So I think we're still getting some view into that response.

Well, he kind of answered that one as well, at least from Powell's perspective, is that no one has, trying to find my notes on this one, no one has rate hikes in the expectation.

The economics of an uptick in growth and an uptick in inflation, you know, might otherwise say that.

But yes, in terms of the response function, it's still asymmetric here where they're looking, you know, to be stable or maybe looking for economic reasons to cut, but not looking for an economic...

It's a great conversation.

It came up again in the press conference.

And I think Powell did a really nice job in addressing what we don't really know.

And we don't know what that impact is going to be.

But he also critically added this comment on this is not something that Fed policy is well suited to.

So if we want to address labor market frictions and disruptions, that's much better suited to

other government policies than the broad cudgel of monetary policy.

I want to just come back to your earlier conversation and just make one other point, that the wealth effect that we were discussing, it's a double-edged sword.

So, while the CapEx impact that Stephanie was talking about, point well taken, the wealth effect, if you were to have, you know, a challenge to the valuations or concerns or repricing,

The benefits that we've seen can also turn into headwinds.

And so we should just be kind of aware of that fact of the AI micro impact to the macro economy.

Ah, yeah, it's one of my favorite discussions.