Joe Weisenthal

And you said one thing is to support the government.

And that is not like formally, I don't think that's part of the Fed, but I know that that's like why the whole bank, that's why the Bank of England was founded was to be the government's bank and to facilitate financing of the government.

Does that functionally change anything?

Does

Does that mean something substantively different in terms of the conduct of monetary policy within the BOE versus, say, another central bank when that's sort of like part of your founding charter?

There was an incident a few years ago in which the bank helped out the government a little bit.

Are they as vigorous as Prime Minister's questions?

Which is our only exposure to what policymaking looks like in the U.K.

This might be sort of like an abstract question.

You can take it however you want it.

A prior guest we've had on the podcast a bunch of times, Hyun Song Shin, recently became the head of Korea Central Bank.

And I read his opening speech, which I thought was really interesting.

And he said, you know, central bankers like to talk about theory and putting it into practice.

And you have theories like independence is good and so forth, these ideas you put in practice.

He said, in reality, the practice happens and then you sort of form a theory around it and that we're in a moment of historical change for central banks for many reasons.

Perhaps political populism, politics is changing.

That might change the nature of central banks.

AI, the extreme uncertainty of AI and how that's going to affect the economy.

That's a source of change.

And therefore, central banks period are going to be in a new period of like the old ways