Why the Damage to Fed Independence May Have Already Been Done

There’s a long history of US presidents putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, but the techniques have often been subtle or quiet in some way. Under President Trump, attacks on the Fed have risen to a whole new level. And it’s not just Trump that’s called on Chair Jerome Powell to cut rates. Other members of his administration (along with allies in Congress) have been hammering him both on policy and also topics unrelated to monetary policy, such as the cost of renovating the Federal Reserve building in Washington. Investors are taking seriously the prospect that Trump will find a way or a reason to remove Powell before the end of his term next year. And regardless of when Powell is replaced, there’s a widespread anticipation that the next Fed chair will be someone more closely resembling a Trump loyalist. So do we still have an independent Fed at this point? On this episode, we speak with University of Texas-Austin economics professor Carola Binder about why central bank independence is so cherished by economists, why mere criticism of the Fed could be inflationary, and whether Fed independence has been permanently damaged. Read More:Odd Lots Newsletter: Central Bank Independence Is a SpectrumWhat Happened the Last Time a Fed Chief Was BouncedOnly Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox — now delivered every weekday — plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Finance is increasingly being built on digital rails. But as the adoption of virtual assets, tokenization and stable coins grows, can regulation not only keep pace but help accelerate it? Find out more later in the podcast.

• 0:16Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting

• 0:58Speaker 01

  and hiring practices, but according to recruiters, advisors and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company and Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates quote "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at chatgpt.com.

• 1:39Speaker 02

  Small businesses are the pulse of every community. They bring people together, create opportunities and drive growth. Chase for Business helps business owners like you with personalized guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place. With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com/business. Chase for Business: Make More of What's Yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026 JPMorgan Chase and Company.

• 2:18Speaker 03

  Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts, radio, news.

• 2:34Tracy Alloway?

  Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway.

• 2:38Joe Weisenthal?

  And I'm Joe Weisenthal.

• 2:40Tracy Alloway?

  Joe, you wrote a good newsletter this week.

• 2:42Joe Weisenthal?

  Thank you. Thank you for saying that.

• 2:44Tracy Alloway?

  Just, just that one.

• 2:45Joe Weisenthal?

  I wrote a good newsletter this week. No, but interesting week because obviously there's for months, you know, talk about Fed independence, would President Trump try to fire Jerome Powell, all of these different questions. It's heating up. This is a very difficult topic to talk about podcast wise, because there's always that chance that, you know, we record something on Fed independence and by the time the episode is produced and edited, something new has happened. So very dicey, but you know, we're hoping that in the next short period of time, this holds. But yes, this is a really important story.

• 3:19Tracy Alloway?

  We're recording this on July 18th, and I think the ambition is to get it out on July 19th. So hopefully nothing changes that quickly, but of course, you never know. And just this week, we have had these back and forth headlines. We had a report that Trump was considering firing Powell sort of imminently. And then he came out at a press conference and said, no, he wasn't.

• 3:41Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah. And he said, there was a report that there was a literal letter that was signed. Other people affiliated in the administration had been hammering Powell, some related to monetary policy, some relating to the cost of renovations of the Federal Reserve offices. The criticism is of course getting intense. Anyway, I've been trying to learn more about this question of Fed independence. I came across a lot of the research that was done by economist Carol O'Binder, which I thought was interesting, which talks about how Fed independence is this cherished idea in economics, but it's not just about the idea of whether the Fed is legally independent, pressure on the Fed itself, even if the Fed doesn't necessarily react, just the rhetoric against the Fed and central banks around the world,

• 4:24Joe Weisenthal?

  not the Fed specifically, but central banks around the world, just the rhetoric and the pressure, the perception that the central bank is losing independence can have macroeconomic effects.

• 4:33Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah. And despite some people cherishing that independence, we know from a lot of recent events, the rise of populism around the world, that it seems a lot of people don't like unelected bureaucrats. Just put it that way. Okay. So we actually have Carol here. She is of course, the Associate Professor of Economics in the School of Civil Leadership at UT Austin.

• 4:54Joe Weisenthal?

  Hook him. Hook him.

• 4:56Tracy Alloway?

  Carol, thank you so much for coming on Odd Lots.

• 5:01Speaker 06

  Yeah, thanks so much for having me. Excited to be here.

• 5:04Tracy Alloway?

  Do you just want to give us maybe a summary of your previous work and why you got interested in the subject of central bank independence in the first place?

• 5:12Speaker 06

  Sure, yeah. I mean, the taper that was mentioned in the newsletter is one called "Political Pressure on Central Banks." And in that work, I really wanted to understand this distinction between legal central bank independence, which we know has been rising around the world for the past couple of decades, versus actual or de facto central bank independence. Because it seems like even when the central bank does have legal protections that kind of insulate the bank from politics, there's still always going to be reason for politicians to try to convince the central bank to do what they want. I mean, that's the whole reason why we have legal protections on central bank independence. So it's kind of hard to

• 5:57Speaker 06

  measure that. What I ended up doing with the help of a couple of research assistants was reading through these reports by Economist Intelligence Unit that come out every quarter for basically every country, and just seeing whenever there was a mention of some kind of political pressure on the central bank. And we tried to record whether it was pressure for easier or looser monetary policy, and also whether the central bank resisted the pressure or succumbed to it. And then, once we had this new dataset about all of these instances, at least all the known instances of pressure on central banks, then I was able to use that to say, well, what happens afterwards, especially to inflation? And

• 6:38Speaker 06

  as Joe said, if the central bank succumbs to the pressure, it's almost always pressure for looser monetary policy. So that's certainly followed by higher inflation. But even if they try to resist, inflation still rises, just not as much, but it still rises. So my interpretation there is that it probably has something to do with expectations. So people start at least worrying that there's a chance that the central bank is going to give in to those pressures. They know that if they do, that'll be inflationary. So inflation expectations rise right now, and that makes inflation itself start to rise also.

• 7:17Joe Weisenthal?

  To back up for a second, I described in the intro, central bank independence, one of these sort of very cherished ideas and perceived as extremely important. What do you describe by why? Why is this actually? Because as Tracy mentioned, there's a lot of people who find it distasteful that there are entities within any government that aren't directly democratically accountable. What is it about central bank independence that is perceived by economists to be such a such a goal, so to speak?

• 7:47Speaker 06

  So the way I see it is two main parts. One is that there is a natural inflationary bias in monetary policy. So meaning if you had monetary policy controlled by elected politicians, they would always have this concern about the next election. They always want to make the public happy in the short term. So they're going to tend towards juicing the economy. Even if in the longer run, that's going to cause inflation. So in equilibrium, you're always running monetary policy too loose and getting too much inflation. That happens if you don't have an independent central bank. So if elected officials are controlling monetary policy. The other side of it is think about the distinction between fiscal policy

• 8:32Speaker 06

  and monetary policy. So having independent central banks is very common. Having independent fiscal authorities is not. And the usual justification there is that fiscal policy has very obvious distributional consequences. I mean, that's basically the point of fiscal policy in some sense. Like you want, maybe you want progressive taxes. You want to spend on certain groups of people. You want to tax certain activities. And so that's inherently about distribution, which is something that you really want to be a political decision. You want like the voters to decide about what kind of distribution they want. Monetary policy, on the other hand, is thought of as being a lot more even, right?

• 9:17Speaker 06

  It affects the macro economy more than it affects distribution. So in that way, it's like kind of more acceptable in a democracy to delegate it to some technocrats. That's kind of the like traditional case. But of course, that's been very much challenged, especially when the Fed during the financial crisis started doing more unconventional monetary policies.

• 9:42Speaker 06

  Those did have distributional consequences. They're kind of hard to measure, but they're there. And even conventional monetary policy, like inflation is going to hurt some people more than others. Having a weak labor market is going to hurt some people more than others. So I think people do partly get dissatisfied with central bank independence when they realize that whatever the Fed is doing, I think maybe hurts them more than it hurts others, or that they didn't have any say in that kind of decision, which it is political. Inflation is political and monetary policy is too.

• 10:17Tracy Alloway?

  You just reminded me, on the topic of a natural bias towards loosening of monetary policy and therefore inflation, do you ever get governments trying to pressure for higher interest rates? I feel like I can't come up with a single example.

• 10:32Speaker 06

  Well, it might not be obviously for higher interest rates, but one of the few examples in that paper that I found of pressure for tighter monetary policy was in the US after the financial crisis, when the Fed was doing so much QE. And a lot of Republicans in Congress especially were worried that that was going to be very inflationary. So they were pressuring the Fed to cut back on the QE or not do so much monetary easing.

• 10:59Tracy Alloway?

  Those were wild times when we, when a lot of people, myself included, probably thought QE was going to be inflationary.

• 11:06Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, or people thought it was going to be hyperinflationary. The more cynical interpretation, by the way, is not that Republicans thought that, and this is just the cynical interpretation, I'm not even saying I'm going to say this, but not that they were worried about inflation, but that they didn't want the economy to recover particularly rapidly under a Democratic president. Again, different perceptions of what their motivations are. Okay, one of the things people say, and you talk to like veteran people on Wall Street and like, they've always done this. This is nothing new in this country. Every president has in some way tried to pressure their central banker typically for easing in some way. And I think there's all, there are certainly examples of that without question.

• 11:47Joe Weisenthal?

  How novel and different, when we talk about they're attacking them over the cost of renovations, they're directly saying, cut 300 basis points in a tweet, et cetera. Does this feel like a meaningful step up in the level of pressure that we've historically seen in the US?

• 12:05Speaker 06

  Yeah, I think the meaningful difference is that it's so public now and so obvious, where it used to be like there was this protocol, right, that the president might want lower interest rates, they might want easier monetary policy, but they're not going to say so out loud. There was a lot of just careful procedure around it. So the fact that it's really, really like a public spectacle now is a difference. It does, I think, further politicize the Fed, because now the general public sees the president tweeting about the Fed and depending on whether they support the president or not, they might be more angry at the Fed or more defensive of the Fed. So it really makes it public in a way that is, that is pretty new. But I mean,

• 12:50Speaker 06

  I do get the point that there is always this pressure on the Fed, always from within Congress too. You've had criticism of the Fed, which, coming from Congress, it's a bit more appropriate than from the president, because the Fed is accountable to Congress. So it kind of makes more sense that you would, you would see a lot of criticism of the Fed coming from Congress, because that's more their role. They have the monetary power that they've delegated to the Fed. Right.

• 13:19Tracy Alloway?

  I know you're not in the sort of market coal mines on a daily basis, but I'm hoping, I'm hoping you may nevertheless have an opinion on this, because one of the weird things that happened this week, when all the headlines about Trump possibly firing Powell started to fly around, was the biggest reaction in the market seemed to be in the dollar, in the US currency. And we actually didn't see that much movement in yields, at least going up, like, they didn't start surging. So I guess I'm curious, if your thesis holds that any type of pressure tends to be inflationary, because it boosts perceptions of inflation, why wouldn't we have seen an upward rise in yields, that reaction this week?

• 14:03Speaker 06

  Well, it's not that any type of pressure is inflationary, it's that on average, across all of these hundreds of data points I was looking at, on average, pressure was inflationary. This particular case could be very different, I think partly because there's so much uncertainty about what is Trump actually going to do. It's hard to even follow the news here where he says he's going to fire Powell, or no, he didn't. So any kind of announcement you get, I think the markets don't know exactly how to take it right away. And some of the news was already baked in. We've known for a couple

• 14:43Speaker 06

  of months that President Trump was having this conflict with Chairman Powell. So maybe these most recent announcements are not really that much new news.

• 15:10Speaker 00

  What's next for virtual assets? I'm Jacob Greaves, host of Economy Scale, a series exploring growth in key global sectors. And this episode, we're diving into the digital forces shaping finance. Sean McHugh from Dubai-based Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority has this to say.

• 15:26Speaker 07

  We're seeing a lot of institutional players come in, digital asset dedicated hedge funds, high-frequency traders and that sort of thing, and folks who service institutional clients.

• 15:34Speaker 00

  As more capital enters the market, adaptive regulation is likely to become increasingly key. Reese Merrick of Ripple says.

• 15:42Speaker 08

  A lot of regulators globally would like to keep the industry at arm's length. That's the opposite here. I think also what you'll find is that regulation and frameworks can come out, but some of them are maybe a slight iteration on some 80-year-old policy and not actually in line with what the technology can do and offer. And again, that's very different in Dubai.

• 16:01Speaker 00

  Listen to the full episode wherever you get your podcasts. This series is brought to you by Bloomberg Media Studios and the Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism.

• 16:12Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume, so writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting

• 16:53Speaker 01

  and hiring practices, but according to recruiters, advisors, and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company and Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates, quote, "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at ChatGPT.com.

• 17:35Joe Weisenthal?

  Has the damage already been done? This is the sort of question that I'm wondering about, which is that, okay, pressure has existed to some extent forever. It's become much more of a public spectacle. It's become much more aggressive, et cetera. There is this, I would say, safe assumption that Paul doesn't have that much longer in his term, but that the assumption is that the next Fed chair will be some sort of capital L loyalist to Trump, that there will be alignment. I forget who it was on TV talking about, "We need a new Fed-Treasury accord." So would you say, like, to some extent that the glass has been broken here or the glass has been cracked and that the damage has

• 18:17Joe Weisenthal?

  been done, even if the Fed legally retains its existing structure, that the Fed going forward will not be the same independent Fed, will not be as independent as we've had for the last several decades?

• 18:30Speaker 06

  Yes, I think that the damage to the perception of the Fed's independence has already been done. There are really big political divides in how people perceive the Fed. The kind of tradition that one president would reappoint the previous president's Fed Chair, even if they were from a different political party, I think that that tradition probably is over.

• 18:56Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, kind of like Supreme Court nominations, which used to fly through, now are entirely done on political, like the votes and this confirmation votes are completely political now.

• 19:07Speaker 06

  Yeah, but I would say it's not just the fault of Trump since his election, since his most recent election. It's not just that. It's also what was happening during the pandemic and during the high inflation episode in 2021 and 2022. That did a lot of damage as well, because there was so much on both sides of trying to like place the blame and saying, was everything the Fed's fault? Was everything the fault of the fiscal stimulus? Was inflation transitory or permanent? That really got things more politicized then, and that's only been exacerbated by the past couple of months, so.

• 19:49Tracy Alloway?

  One of the other narratives that I've seen this week is this idea that, okay, even if Trump fired Powell and put in place someone who would immediately push for lower interest rates, you wouldn't necessarily get them, A, because of the market expectations, which you just described. So people might start pricing in higher inflation expectations, which would move the curve up or steepen the curve. But also because it's not just the Fed Chair making decisions, it's a committee, and Trump might not be able to influence the entire committee. How do you take into account, I guess, the rest of the FOMC members? How do they play into this type of political pressure?

• 20:31Speaker 06

  Yeah, so it is monetary policy by committee and different, under different Fed chairs, the kind of committee decision making has differed a little, just the norms around it. So whether they, like, kind of how strong the Fed chair was in making sure that everyone would come to a consensus versus allowing some more disagreement to be public. But yeah, I think the fact that, I mean, the fact that the members of the committee have these overlapping terms and pretty long-term lengths is part of what gives it independence because it means we don't have a complete turnover of the committee in, at any given point in time and there's going to be a lot of continuity there because of that institutional

• 21:15Speaker 06

  structure, especially if you get a Fed chair that's kind of external, that's viewed as a loyalist. The rest of the committee may be quite reluctant to just go along with whatever the new Fed chair says if they don't feel like it's the right decision. The Fed, they emphasize all the time that they're data-dependent and I think that's the line that a lot of committee members would keep using. The unfortunate thing is we don't know exactly in what sense they are data-dependent. Like, they don't publish a monetary policy rule that they follow, but they say that they're, they take into account not just the PCE inflation rate and the unemployment

• 21:55Speaker 06

  rate, but all sorts of other indicators about where the economy is headed and they, they react to all of those. So, so they would, I'm pretty sure most of the committee would try to just stick to the course that they're on, even if there were a new chair in place.

• 22:10Joe Weisenthal?

  It would be really interesting because dissents are very rare and, you know, sometimes you get, a lot of times you get no dissent, sometimes you get one, very rarely you get two in the last, in my career, I can't remember any decision in the US that I think ever got more than two dissents. It would be interesting if that norm were broken where the Fed really does not control or have basically get to guide the committee on their preferred path. I wanted to, like, talk about in the broad research globally. Establishing a central independent central bank is politically difficult. And some countries attempt to do it by simply outsourcing their monetary policy to the Federal Reserve itself by setting up a dollar peg or currency board or something like that.

• 22:53Joe Weisenthal?

  Because they don't even have the sort of political capacity to establish a truly independent central bank. What are the patterns you see around the world? I'm curious if in your research, when pressure builds on a central bank, is it usually sort of a symptom of a broader domestic political disintegration that's happening? Where just all kinds of norms are being violated? Or all kinds of structures are sort of collapsing or deteriorating in some way?

• 23:22Speaker 06

  Yeah, well, to the the part about how the central bank independence is set up. Sometimes it's because there's already a very strong preference in that country for lower inflation. So they so then it's kind of easier to set up an independent central bank because they really want low inflation and they're committed to it. Which is why it's so hard in the research to say, does central bank independence actually lower inflation? Because you you have like a reverse causality.

• 23:48Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 23:48Speaker 06

  So sometimes that's how it gets set up. Sometimes it's imposed by like the IMF saying, you know, if you want to keep having our support, there's some things you need to do. And one of them is set up an independent central bank. But then the part about like, when do politicians start pressuring the central bank? When does that really build up? Yeah, I mean, there was a lot more of the pressure on the central banks around around crisis times. So I think the financial crisis did erode a lot of trust in institutions and made it more acceptable to pressure central banks. Also during the 2010s, when inflation was really low, that made it seem more like, okay,

• 24:33Speaker 06

  having higher inflation doesn't necessarily seem like so much of a threat. What we really want is to boost the labor markets, at least in in certain countries. So then there was more pressure on the central banks that way. The other thing is also like the fiscal situation. So if there's big, big debts to finance, right? And then there's going to be often pressure for the lower interest rates or to monetize the debt.

• 24:57Joe Weisenthal?

  Tracy, by the way, just as we're recording this headline from the AP, all this stuff about criticism of the Fed, it turns out Chris Ruggerberg, Josh Boeck of the AP, reporting, "Much of these costs were associated in 2020 with Trump officials demanding that there be more marble at the Fed instead of glass." So a new wrinkle to the cost of these office constructions. Anyway.

• 25:20Tracy Alloway?

  You gotta have that marble.

• 25:21Joe Weisenthal?

  Trump loves marble.

• 25:23Tracy Alloway?

  Marble and gold. He does have a very Louis XV style, I guess, taste in interior design. Anyway, maybe we should do an interior design episode. I would like that. Okay, anyway, on a serious note, given those concerns around trusting unelected bureaucrats and the idea that maybe, you know, central banks started to overstep their traditional roles post 2008 or something like that, what's the best way of, I guess, ensuring that central banks are in some way answerable to the electorate or in some way, you know, there's accountability there without sacrificing that independence?

• 26:07Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, this is a really important topic to me and something I focus a lot on in my book and in some of my other research. But I think that making sure that the role of the Fed or the central bank is limited to something like price stability and having a lot of transparency about how they're achieving that is really important. So the Fed has a dual mandate. Having the price stability and the employment side of the mandate gives them a lot of discretion because sometimes those two goals can come into conflict and then they need to just decide, well, what are we going to prioritize right now? The more discretion that unelected technocrats have, the more room there is for people to

• 26:49Speaker 06

  try to pressure them one way or the other. In my book, I advocate for a nominal GDP or a nominal income target, which I think would- Help them achieve both parts of that dual mandate, but with a single target that they're going after. And then it makes it really clear at any given point of time, do they need tighter or looser monetary policy? And there's not as much wiggle room. It makes it easier for them to justify their actions and for the public to say, well, are they doing what they say they're going to do or not? Versus if you have an inflation target and kind of full employment target, then you can always argue for either way. And yeah, so just keeping the role more limited.

• 27:34Speaker 06

  Not lately, but before COVID, there was a lot more pressure on central banks to do even more beyond those two parts of the dual mandate, to take on climate change and inequality and issues like that. And I think that those are important things that somebody needs to do, but it's not really the job of the Fed because they're not elected to do that. And those kinds of political topics need to be addressed by elected officials.

• 28:01Joe Weisenthal?

  One of the funny things I used to think of the 2010s is that had the Fed only had a single mandate, it's conceivable to me that policy would have been looser if they were continuing to fail on its inflation target from the downside in those days. You know, they continued to miss that 2%. Had they had a nominal GDP target, a nominal income target solely, it's possible actually that they might have achieved the employment part of the mandate sooner because it would be so sufficient that they were failing to hit that target. Anyway, Carol LaBlinder, really appreciate you coming on. I'm finding your research to be very fascinating. Happy to have dived into it. So thank you so much for coming on, Al.

• 28:46Speaker 06

  Thank you.

• 28:59Tracy Alloway?

  Joe, obviously a very timely episode to get out. I do think the question you asked about whether or not attacks on central bank independence might be part of a broader deterioration in norms and what's deemed acceptable by society and political society. There is an element of that. Like, it does feel like that.

• 29:19Joe Weisenthal?

  No, like, I think so. Like, I think if you were to look around the world and you were to say, find those examples where there is a lot of pressure or stress on central banks. I think almost always you would find it associated with other things happening in politics that are sort of, you know, the wheels are coming off in some way. Turkey strikes me is a great example, a country where the sort of like democratic norms have eroded over time, certainly over the last 20 years, many would say. And which gets to this whole idea, which Carol talked about, causality is often hard to establish. So you can point to on the line that this pressure on a central banker, central bank independence period associated with this or that inflation.

• 30:03Joe Weisenthal?

  But whether that's because it was the pressure or because many bad things are going on at the time, it's hard to disentangle.

• 30:10Tracy Alloway?

  Absolutely. But I guess her broad conclusion that on average, this type of political pressure does lead to higher inflation expectations, like, it does suggest that if your ambition is lower rates, then maybe this doesn't help.

• 30:26Joe Weisenthal?

  I mean, here's the thing. We are almost certainly going to get a Fed chair sometime in the next year, whether it's because Powell has been removed from his term prematurely, or just because at the end, the next central banker is perceived as a President Trump loyalist. There is probably going to be a meaningful difference in the reaction function of the Fed toward faster impulse to cut. Very naturally, people can assume therefore that the future would be, all things equal, more inflationary.

• 30:56Tracy Alloway?

  Ah, very naturally, the natural rate will go up. Okay. Shall we leave it there?

• 31:00Joe Weisenthal?

  Let's leave it there.

• 31:01Tracy Alloway?

  This has been another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alockway. You can follow me at Tracy Alockway.

• 31:07Joe Weisenthal?

  And I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our guest, Carola Binder. She's at C Consus. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armin, Dashil Bennett at Dashbot, and Cale Brooks at Cale Brooks. For more Odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg.com/oddlots, where we have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics 24/7 in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.

• 31:32Tracy Alloway?

  And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you want Joe to run for the next Fed chair, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

• 32:24Speaker 09

  If you're a business owner, you need a card that can keep up. With the Delta SkyMiles Reserve Business American Express Card, everyday purchases transform into miles you can use towards future travel. So business as usual can lead to a well-deserved getaway. And for a limited time, card members can earn 200,000 bonus miles, the highest miles offered this year. Whether you're traveling for business or planning your next adventure, now's a great time to make every purchase go further. Apply today at www.delta.com/podcast. Offer ends November 4th. Minimum spending requirements and terms apply.

• 33:00Speaker 10

  If you listen to financial news, you know a lot of time is spent thinking about what's next. The next opportunity, the next investment, the next move. But sometimes what matters most is being ready for what you never saw coming. For more than 75 years, Cincinnati Insurance has worked with independent agents to help protect businesses, homes, valuables, and more. Because planning for the future isn't only about knowing what's next, it's about making sure you're ready for what you can't predict. Let Cincinnati Insurance make your bad day better. Find an independent agent at C I N F I N dot com.

• 33:36Speaker 11

  For big business, AI opened up a world of promise, but that world of promise turned into a world of pain. Costs spiraling, data trapped, security and governance risks multiplying, and ROI out of reach. That's why enterprises turned to Boomi to connect data, apps, and AI, helping them operate securely, efficiently, and at scale. Boomi turns a world of AI pain into a world of AI gain. As Boomi says, "We got you." Head to Boomi.com. That's B O O M I dot com.