Stephen Miran

I think the labor market still could use additional support from monetary policy, and that's why I dissented last meeting, as I have continued to dissent for all previous meetings.

Look, I think a lot of people around the table, like me, were hesitant to draw conclusions from the oil news thus far because, as I said before, we have to look 12 to 18 months out, not what happened to the oil price yesterday.

And so looking 12 to 18 months out, there's still not enough clarity to think that monetary policy itself should adjust in response to what's happened.

It has.

And I boosted my, you know, in the summary of economic projections, I boosted my inflation dot for the end of the year to 2.7%, reflecting that in part, right?

So there is some expectation of higher headline inflation.

However, as I said before-

I think it's way too early to draw conclusions that it's bleeding beyond headline inflation in a way that matters from Ontario policy.

Don't forget, higher oil prices also depress demand.

They take money out of the pockets of consumers that we're spending on other goods and services and redirects it towards gas and other energy costs.

And that depresses demand and causes unemployment to move a little bit higher.

That offsets some of the increase in inflation.

Yeah, so I just laid out a couple of them before, right?

If it looks like the oil shock is bleeding into inflation expectations beyond the first year, then you get really concerned about second round effects.

Or it looks like you're starting to cause a wage price spiral.

Then you get really concerned about second round effects.

First round effects are not something you traditionally respond to as a central bank.

Now, I'll say one thing beyond that.

which is that these oil shocks have been things that this Fed has looked through for a long time, right?

It would be highly unusual for the Fed to start looking through them now.