Stephen Miran

I just don't think that makes a lot of sense.

The other thing is that because we've kept policy tighter than I think it ought to be, that makes me mark down our growth forecast for the future relative to where it should be.

And so if we hadn't been keeping policy, in my view, too tight over the last year or so, it wouldn't be necessary to provide that type of accommodation.

No, so like when you look at these dots, right, in the SEP, they're projections of appropriate policy and projections of economic fundamentals like growth and inflation, conditional upon growth.

appropriate policy.

So my projections for growth and inflation are conditional upon getting my policy forecast, my policy projection.

If I don't get my policy projection because the rest of the committee is more hawkish than I am, then we wouldn't meet my growth and inflation projections.

We'd underperform them.

And so because policy has been, in my view, too tight for the last year, that means that my expectations of growth will ultimately be unsatisfied because we didn't get the policy that I wanted.

Well, so that's conditional upon getting the policy projection that I want, right?

And part of the reason why it's a little bit lower than 2%

I think 2.8, 2.9 is probably more where it would be if we sort of had the right policy the entire time.

Part of the reason it's a little bit lower than that is because we got to account for policy having been too tight over the last 12 months.

That's a great question.

And before I answer it, let me step back a foot and say that my forecast is conditional upon shelter inflation coming down.

And there's people who agree with me, by the way.

You look at the research from Goldman Sachs.

It's pretty similar to where I am on shelter.

They've got shelter inflation running below the pre-COVID rate by the end of the year, similar to where I have it.

Where I differ from...