>> given the unprecedented nature of the destructions of opening -- disruptions we remain attentive to risk and will ensure our policy is well-positioned to address the full range of possible economic outcomes. i will say more about our monetary policy decisions reviewing recent economic developments. gdp growth slowed noticeably. a summer surge of the delta variant held back the recovery in travel and leisure. activity has been restrained by bottlenecks. notably in the motor vehicle industry. demand has been strong this year buoyed by monetary policy support and financial positions of households and businesses. with covid seating further and vaccination progress, economic -- with covid receding further and vaccination progress, the demand for workers remains strong. the pace of improvement had slowed with the rise of covid cases. a slowdown has been concentrated in sectors close to the pandemic including leisure and hospitality. unemployment rate was 4.8% in september. there was a shortfall in employment. participation in the labor market remained subdued. caregiving needs and ongoing concerns about the virus. employers are having difficulty filling job openings. these impediments should diminish with progress on containing the virus. the economic downturn has not fallen equally on all americans. it is hitting african-americans and hispanics disproportionally. there are sizable price increases in some sectors. supply chain disruption is limiting how quickly production can respond to demand. inflation is well above our goal. supply constraints have lasted longer than anticipated. but the drivers of higher inflation have been predominantly connected to the dislocations caused by the pandemic, the ongoing effects of the virus itself. we understand the difficulty high inflation poses. our tools cannot ease supply constraints. we believe our economy will adjust to that supply demand analysis and inflation will decline. it is very difficult to predict. supply chains are complex. timing is uncertain. we are committed to the goal of 2% inflation. if we saw signs that we were moving beyond those goals, we would use our tools to preserve price stability. we will watch to see if the economy evolves in line with expectations. asset purchases have been a critical tool. committee judged the economy has met this task and decided to begin reducing the pace of its asset purchases. later this month we will reduce the monthly pace of our net asset purchases by 10 billion dollars for treasury securities and $5 billion for agency mortgage-backed securities. we announced another reduction of the size in the monthly purchase pace starting in mid december. that months schedule will be released by the federal reserve bank of new york prior to our december meeting. if the economy evolves broadly, as expected, we judge that similar reductions in the pace of net asset purchases will likely be appropriate each month. implying increases in security holdings would cease by the beginning of next year. asset purchases does not imply a signal regarding interest rate policy. we understand our actions affect many across the country. we will do everything we can to achieve our stability goal. i look forward to your questions. >> markets anticipate you will raise rates once or twice next year. are they wrong? >> we try to focus on what we can control, which is how to communicate in this uncertain world and how policy will evolve so the focus is on tapering asset purchases. it is time to taper because the economy has achieved further progress towards our goals. we do not think it is time to raise interest rates. the baseline expectation is that shortages will persist into next year and elevate inflation. as the pandemic supplies, job rates will move back up and inflation will move down by the second or third quarter. this timing will depend on the path of the economy. we will be watching carefully to see if the economy evolves in line and policy will adapt appropriately. that is what i would say. >> if i could follow up, based on your current outlook for the labor market, do you think it is possible or likely that maximum employment could be achieved by the second half of next year? >> if you look at the progress we have made over the course of the last year, if that pace were to continue, the answer would be, yes, i do think that is possible. we measure maximum employment based on a wide range of figures. it certainly is within the realm of possibility. >> thank you. >> next we will go to gina at the new york times. >> hello. i was wondering if you could detail how you are thinking about wages at this moment. obviously we are seeing strong wage growth, particularly for people in lower income fields. i wonder if you see that as a positive thing or a potential [indiscernible] and how you delineate those two things. >> wages have been moving up strongly. in particular i would point to the employment compensation index reading that we got last friday. in real terms, they have been running below inflation. real wages are not increasing. i think with the reading, it comes close to, maybe not increasing but close to zero. in terms of the real increase. wages moving up of course is how standard of living increases over the years for generation upon generation. it is very important and it is generally a good thing. the concern is somewhat an unusual case where if raises we re to be rising persistently and materially above inflation and productivity gains, that could put upward pressure on -- or downward pressure on margins and cause employers to raise prices. you can see yourself, find yourself in what we used to call a wage price spiral. we do not have evidence of that. productivity has been very high, the uci reading is just one. if you look back, we will be watching this carefully. but i would say that at this point we do not see troubling increases in wages and we do not expect us to emerge but we will be watching carefully. >> next is steve from cnbc. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wonder if you could give us your thinking of the trade-offs between inflation and unemployment. you talked about the shortfall relative to the pandemic. and yet you have inflation that has affected everybody. are we at or close to a point where the risk of inflation is greater than the benefit for recovering these lost jobs, so now from a risk management standard weight it makes sense , to move aggressively? kind of a related question, the statement today says that you will keep policy but then you get that 2% inflation target. our surveys show looking at 5% inflation this year. 3.5% next year. it sure seems like you are on track to moderately exceed that 2% target. thank you. >> i am not sure i totally got your first question. in fact, could you just say your first question again? >> sure, the idea that the trade-off between inflation and employment, that you would keep policy accommodated to put these 5 million jobs -- at the same time, all americans will be suffering from higher inflation, is that trade-off worth it, is it better or smarter to raise rates to combat inflation and not lean so heavily on the employment side of the mandate? >> this is not the traditional phillips curve situation where there is a direct trade. the inflation that we are seeing is really not due to a tight labor market, it is due to bottlenecks and due to shortages and due to very strong demand meeting those. i think it is not the classical situation where you have that precise trade-off. in this situation, we do have a provision in our statement of long running goals with that says when those two things are intentioned, we take into account the shortfalls and inflation divisions and the dieren time horizons over which employment inflation are projected to return to levels judged consistent with the mandate. we used to call that the balanced approach . think about the amount of the deviation, the time that it will take, and we have to make policy where the goals are intention. it's difficult. it boils down to this, common sense, risk management. we have to be aware of the risks, particularly now the risk of significantly higher inflation. we see shortages and bottlenecks persisting into next year. we see higher inflation persisting. we have to be in position to address that risk, should it become really a threat. should it create a threat of more persistent long-term inflation. we think it is putting us in a position to address a range of plausible outcomes. >> thank you. colby smith at the financial times. >> thank you. what are the economic conditions that would warrant a faster pace of tapering? how you would characterize the risk that the fed may need to accelerate that process eventually? thank you. >> i guess as i said in my opening remarks, assuming that the economy performs as broadly as expected. with similar reductions in net asset purchases will be appropriated each month and we are prepared to deviate from that path if warranted by changes in the economic outlook. i will not give you a lot more detail on what that might be. if we do see something like that happening, if it becomes a question, we will communicate transparently and openly. but i am just going to leave it with the words that are in the statement. was there a second part? >> on characterizing the risk, that you might have to do so later on. >> i would just leave you with the words we have here. we are prepared to speed up or slow down the pace of reductions in asset purchases if it is warranted by changes in the economic outlook. if we feel like that is happening, we will be very transparent. we would not want to surprise markets. we will say in light this fact or these factors, we are considering doing this and then we would do it or not do it. but i am not going to start making up examples of what that might today. thank you. >> next, rachel from the washington post. >> thank you for taking our questions. you mentioned at the beginning that the fed understands the difficulties at inflation poses for individuals and families especially those with limited means. what is your message to those families and consumers that are struggling with higher prices? do you feel your expectation towards transitory inflation, that the message is reacng them? >> first of all, it is our job and we accept responsibility and accountability for inflation in the medium-term. we are accountable to congress and the american people for maximum employment and price stability. the price stability that we have right now is not maximum stability and we are not at maximum employment. i want to ensure people that we will use our tools as appropriate to get inflation under control. we do not think it is a good time to raise interest rates because we want to see the labor market heal further. we have good reason to think that this will happen as the delta variant declines, which it is doing now. transitory is a word that people have different understandings of. for some it carries a sense of short-lived. there is a time component measured in that. really for us whatitmeans is if something is transitory it will not leave behind a permanent or higher inflation. that is why we took a step back from transitory. we said, expect it to be transitory, first of all to show uncertainty around that. we have always said that in other contexts, not just in a statement. but also to acknowledge that it means different things to different people. we added language to really explain more of what we are talking about in paragraph two and paragraph three. we said supply and demand balance related to the pandemic and economy are treated to sizable price increases and progress under vaccination and easing of supply constraints are expecting to support gains and economic activity as well as reduction in inflation. we are trying to explain what we mean and also acknowledge more certainty about transitory. it has become a word that has attracted a lot of attention that is maybe distracting from our message that we want to be as clear as possible. the only other thing i would say is, look. we understand completely that it is particular people who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are seeing higher grocery cost and gasoline cost, when the winter comes, higher heating costs for their homes. we understand what they are going through. we will use our tools over time to make sure that does not become a permanent feature of life. that is one of our principal jobs, along with achieving maximum employment. that is our commitment. >> thank you. we go to chris from the associated press. >> thank you, michelle, and thank you, chair powell. you talked about getting back to full employment. can you update how you define that? a few months ago, you and a few officials talked about giving back to the pre-covid labor market, there was hints that you would try to do something better than that. now we heard talk of people retiring and talk of not being able to get all of the jobs back because of that and other trends. can you give us some examples of things you are looking at specifically to measure employment? are you looking at prime age, employment population ratio for example, and if so, do you need to see it get back to pre-covid levels to achieve maximum employment? is there something short of that, that will work? >> maximum employment is broad, -- it is a broad-based and inclusive goal that is not directly measurable and changes over time due to various factors. you cannot specify specifics. it takes into account a broad range of things. of course employment levels of employment, participation are a part of that. in addition, there are other measures of what is going on in the labor market. wage is a key measure of how tight the market is. the level of quits, the amount of job openings that flows in and out of various states. we look at soma different things. you make an overall judgment. the temptation at the beginning of the recovery was to look at the data in february of 2020 and say that is the goal because we did not know and that is what we knew. we knew it was achievable. we are learning. we have to be humble about what we know about this economy. it is still very covid-affected. a lot of what we are seeing in the last 90 days is because of delta. we were on a path to a different place and delta put us on a different path and we see these things. i think, ily, weld see further development at the labor market in a context where there is not another covid spike. and then we would be able to see a lot. we would see how participation reacts in the post-covid world. right now people are staying out of the labor market because of caretaking, because of fear of covid to a significant extent. we thought that schools reopening and the lapsing unemployment benefits would produce some sort of additional labor supply, that does not seem to be the case, interestingly. i think there is room for a lot of humility as we try to think about what maximum employment would be. we are going to have to see sometime post-covid or post delta to see what is possible. i think learning for those of us who lived through the last cycle, over time, you can get to places that did not look possible. what we also have now is high inflation. we have a completely different situation. we have high inflation and with -- and we have to balance that with what is going on in the employment market. it is a complicated situation. we hope to achieve greater clarity about where this economy is going and what the characteristics of the post- pandemic economy are over the first half of next year. >> thank you. we will go to howard snyder at reuters. >> giving that answer about employment, i would like to get back to steve's question. as it has evolved, do you feel that the two test on inflation have been met. >> i'm sorry, the two test? >> the two test with the 2% and [indiscernible] >> that is a decision for the committee. i will put it to you this way. when we reach maximum employment, when we reach a state where labor markets are at maximum employment in the committee's judgment it is very , possible that the inflation test will be met. we are aware that the language sounds out of touch with what is going on. but we are not at maximum employment. when that is the case, we will look to see if the inflation test is met. there is a good chance that it will be if you look at how inflation has evolved. >> so you're not willing to commit that the current levels of inflation from persistence have met moderately for some time [indiscernible] >> what i am saying is that question is not before us we right now. we have not focused on if we need the lift off test because we do not need that. we are not at maximum employment. what i am saying is, given where inflation is and where it is projected to be, let's say we meet the employment test, the question at that time will be has the inflation test been met. i do not want to get ahead of the committee on that. the answer may be, yes, it has been met. we are not asking the question today because we are not evaluating the lift off test today. we did not have that discussion in today's meeting. we did talk about the economy, but we do not ask ourselves whether the lift off test was met because it clearly is not met on the maximum employment side. >> thank you. >> let's go to matthew boesler at bloomberg. >> hello. when you are looking at this question of assessing whether or not the u.s. economy is at maximum employment, do you have a framework for making that judgment that is independent of what inflation is doing? if not, does it complicate that assessment, given all of the uncertainty about inflation right now and the inclination to believe that the high inflation that we are seeing is not related to capacity and utilization and the labor market? thank you. >> we do not define maximum employment as -- we define it in terms of inflation, but there is a connection. excellent employment has to be a level that is consistent with stable prices. that is not how we think about it. we think about maximum employment as looking at a broad range of things. unlike inflation where you can have a number. with maximum employment you could be in a situation hypothetically where the unemployment rate is low, but many people are out of the labor force and will thing is b measures we are at a very were tight labor market. -- by many measures, we are at a very were tight labor market. job openings and wages and things. many of them signal a tight labor market. but the question is how persistent is that. you have people holding themselves out of the labor market because of covid or whatever, they're staying out. demand for workers and wages moving up. it does some like we are set up to go back to a higher job. so that would suggest you are not at maximum employment. so at the end of the day it is a judgment thing. it also has to be a level of employment that's consistent with price stability. >> you have talked about the two goals might be intention and how you would have to balance those two things. can you talk about what the fed's process for balancing those two goals would be in the event that say come next year you decide there's a serious risk of persistent inflationary shortfalls? >> again, it is a risk management thing. i can't reduce it to an equation but ultimately it is about risk management. so you want to be in a position to act, to cover the full range of plausible outcomes, not just the base case. in this case the risk is skewed for now, it appears to be skewed towards higher inflation. so we need to be in a position to act in case it becomes necessary to do so or appropriate to do so. and we think we will be. so that's how we are thinking about it. and i think, though, that judgmentally, too, it is propate to be patient. it is appropriate for us to see what the labor market and what the economy looked like when they heal further. we know that we were on a path to a different place, as i mentioned, when delta arrived. delta stopped job creation. it stopped that transition away from a goods-focused economy where there's excess demand for goods because the services are not available, people are not traveling. that transition itself could help bring inflation down because presumably people would spend a little bit less on goods and spend more on travel and travel services and things like that. we want to see that healthy process unfold as we decide what the true state of the economy is. we think it will evolve in a way that will mean lower inflation, bottlenecks should be abating, we are starting to see that now but they haven't gotten better overall. we're very aware of that. so that is really how we are thinking about it. we are thinking that time will tell us more. in the meantime, we don't think it is time to raise rates now. if we conclude it is necessary to do so, we will be patient but we won't hesitate. >> thank you. let's go to edward lorenz at fox business. >> thank you for taking the call. the federal reserve said they support the effort to identify key issues and potential issues for the climate-related issues most relevant to banks and supervisory outcomes. is this putting us on the path to regulate what banks with author loans or what to invest in, like fossil fuels? >> that's not a decision for bank regulators or for an agency. that's a decision for elected representatives. so we feel that any role that we have, and we do think we have a ro in climate change, it relates to our existing mandates and they're regulation of financial institutions. we expect them and the public expects us to expect them to be in a position to manage their risks. the large financial institutions are doing this ready and we think that's right within our mandate. there's also a financial stability question, the overall stability of the financial system. from that standpoint we can do research and tried to help understand what will the pathways be through which climate change affects the economy both physical risk and transition risk. that's what we can do and what we will do. we will do it well within the frame of our existing mandates, we will do it well. we are not the people who will decide the national strategy on climate change. that has to be elected people, and not so much us, but we feel like we have that narrow mandate and we will do it well. >> thank you. >> great. thank you. victoria at politico. >> hi, chair powell. the fed announced new conflict of interest rules by the fed officials and this follows the resignation of two regional fed presidents. i am wondering, do you think that there's more that you need to do to rebuild the credibility of the fed such is as, you know, requiring officials to put their assets in blind trusts? and also, if you could speak to whether you have any concerns >> the ethics system has been in place for decades. and has served us well. and then that was no longer the case. we had no moment of denial about that. as a group we stepped in and took the actions that we took. within one fomc cycle we announced a new set of rules to try to put us back where we need to be. we need to have the complete trust of the american people that we are working in their interest all the time. that is critical for our work, and i would characterize it strongly and forcefully. if there were other things we could do, we would do them. you asked about lines trust, -- blind trust, there is a long-held position which is not favorable to blind trust. they think they are cumbersome, and there are better ways to get out the things that need to be done. for any blind trusts, for that reason. they are the regulator, they say that on their website. in terms of laws broken, i asked the inspector general to see whether there were rules broken or laws broken. and i won't speculate, but that is with the inspector general now and out of my hands. >> we will go to mike mckee at bloomberg. >> mr. chairman, critics of your policy say you are likely to end up with inflation by having to raise rates faster and farther than you would have liked, and therefore send the economy into recession. given the fact that your forecast has been chasing inflation over the last year, and now you are talking about it not coming down until the second or third quarter, why would they be wrong in ending that -- thinking that? >> what's happened, and we are very straightforward about it is that inflation is coming higher than expected. and bottlenecks have been more persistent and prevalent. we see that just like everybody else does and we see they are on track to persist well into next year. that was not inspected by other macro forecasters. it is typical enough to forecast the economy in normal times. when you're talking about global supply chains in turmoil, it's a whole different thing. and you are talking about a pandemic that's holding people out of the labor force for reasons we can sample, but it is very difficult to forecast. we have to set policy though, so that is what we are doing. i don't think we are behind the curve. i believe that policy is well-positioned to raise plausible outcomes, and that's what we need to do. i think it would be premature to raise rates today. i don't think that's controversial. i don't know anyone arguing for that today. there is still ground to cover to get to maximum employment, and we don't want to stop that when there is good reason to think. there is still good reason to think, although it has been delayed. there is reason to think that the economy will reopen, particularly if we do get past significant outbreaks of covid. that's when we're really going to see what the characteristics of the labor -- and i think the bottlenecks we are seeing in global supply chains around goods, and now in our domestic ports, because demand is stronger than the capacity, those things are going to work themselves out. we have a flexible economy, those things took some time. experts managed to create a vaccine faster than certainly i expected, and i think this stuff will work itself out over the course of next year. that is my baseline understanding, and that is very widely held among people. but we are prepared for different eventualities and we will use our tools to achieve price stability and maximum employment, and we will let the data latest to where we need to go. our policy is already adapted to the changing understanding of inflation and the bottlenecks in the supply story, so our policy will continue to adapt as is appropriate. >> you announced that the fed is going to taper at a rate that is more than twice the pace of the last taper. why are you tapering investor? >> the economy is in quite a different place than when we tapered back in 2013. we were much farther away from maximum employment, inflation was much lower. this is an economy where demand is very, very strong. and job openings substantially exceed the number of unemployed people. so the need of further stimulus is far less than it was. in 2013, we still had quite a ways to go. we had many years before we reach what i would characterize as conditions consistent with maximum employment. so it was quite a different situation. the committee unanimously felt that we did not have that test that we had articulated. this is faster than what people had expected six months ago. it's earlier and faster, and that's because our policy has been adapting to the situation as it evolves and it's clarifying itself. we see inflation coming in higher. >> let's go to mike derby. >> i wonder if the fed has given any thought to the balance sheet, once you get the taper process complete, will you hold it steady, or start winding down? do you have any insight into what bond buying goes for the economy in terms of impact, have you quantified it in any fashion? there have been questions about what bond buying is likely doing to help the economy. >> in terms of bond buying, now that we have tapered, i expect that is exactly what we will do in an orderly fashion. we will talk about investment at all those things. we have not made decisions, but typically, when we are doing a new subject, we will have a series of briefings and discussions, and that is what we will begin to do. in terms of the effective asset purchases, there is a tremendous amount of research on this. you can find different people coming out with different views, but most would say that you are at the effective lower bound, so how do affect lower rates? you can get -- giving forward guidance, and say we are going to keep rates low for a specific period until certain conditions are met, the markets will do the math, and the markets -- and that will have an effect on long-term borrowing. and if you buy long-term securities, that will drive down long-term rates. so, lower rates encourage more borrowing and economic activity. you can service your debt and have more free cash flow, it's not different from what we do with shortening. desk shortening. milton friedman said that was what you could do if you are at the lower bound many years ago. it's quite hard to be precise, because you only have one economy, and you cannot do a scientific experiment. but most of the findings are that it does support economic activity in the way that you would expect, which is to say that at the margin economic activity needs lower rates, more accommodative financial conditions lead to more economic activity over time. that is the main finding on qe. >> we go to paul at cnn. >> chair powell, you have addressed already questions about the stock purchases that took place from some of the regional vet presidents, and you are addressing the american people to make sure they can trust the fed. and in light of the fact that we now have questions about your own future, and whether president biden will nominate you for a second term, what would you say to the president and two senators -- to senators who will be voting on the renomination with regards to your future as fed chair vara -- for a possible second term. >> i'm not going to have any comment on the renomination process. i have briefed administration officials and people on capitol hill in detail about what we did and why, seeking their feedback and getting their reaction. part of my job, congress has oversight over that fed, so if you are on the committees that have oversight, then i am probably in regular contact. and i am going to explain it to you and answer your questions and identify concerns people might have. i don't talk about particular conversations. but i always do that, and i certainly did in this case. >> let's go to hannah at the american banker. >> i wanted to ask about the leverage ratio, is that fed looking at ways to permanently address that? >> i don't have anything for you. we are looking at ways -- if there are ways we can address liquidity issues. there is a working group at the treasury about the acute phase of the pandemic and what structural things would need to be done, so that would be part of that were extreme. -- work stream. i am not sure when that report will be out. that's one of the many issues, along with central clearing of treasuries, and many other ideas. it's important that we have a liquid treasury market, and it is a huge public benefit. i think we need to do those things that enable that, while also ensuring the safety of our financial institutions. that's always a first order of concern as well. >> let's go to brian at yahoo! finance. >> just to expand on the ethics conversation, you talked about how you engage with people in the administration. i'm wondering if you can assess whether there was reputational damage either from the publix or the financial community's view? >> i think it's too soon to say what the damages. from the very beginning, my reaction was we need to deal with this straightforwardly, transparently, and forcefully. it means everything to me to do whatever it takes to make sure nothing like this happens again. i like to think we have made a good start on that. you cannot execute a trade unless it is precleared. it is not even a trade. there is no trading going on. this is for investment and getting liquidity for life's expenses. but you then have to wait 45 days to execute that sale or purchase. i think it's a pretty good system. we will always be looking to make it better. in terms of interdependence, we will address this, and i think we have, and i like to think it is enough. we are just beginning to implement it, we have to write the rules, which we are doing as quickly as possible. we need more people, we are going to have to resource this much more significantly. and we are going to need appropriate technology, the system has more than 30,000 employees. far fewer of them will be covered by this, but the senior officers will be covered by this and will have to have technology access. so there is a lot of work to do to implement. again, i would just say, this system has been in place or decades. -- for decades. it was in place when i took over, and for at least the last three or four chairs, it was what it was. and it proved to have weaknesses in it. it wasn't uniformly enforced across the system, i am a big believer in the value of the federal reserve system and reserve banks. you had 12 different officers, and ethics officers here, and compliance was not all exactly the same. it was a little uneven. and we didn't imagine that the problems would happen. they may have been in compliance with rules, but they were not in compliance with don't do anything that would create a bad appearance. it is clear that this was a bad appearance. what can we do? we are where we are, it happened. we have to deal with it forthrightly, and own it. and meet this moment. i'm totally committed to doing that. if there are better ideas, i would love to hear them. so far, i think we have made a good start. >> you said you had spoken to the administers and, does that include the president? >> i'm not going to answer who i spoke to it all. so don't take that as a yes or no, i am not going to go down that road. >> we are going to go to jeff coxe for the last question. >> thank you, chair. i want to dig deeper on unemployment. you've seen what's called the great resignation of folks leaving their jobs in record numbers. do you feel that the labor environment has changed, and it may not look like what it looked like before? >> what's happening is people are quitting their jobs in all-time high numbers. but in many cases going back to employment and getting higher wages. that is a sign of a really strong labor market, as opposed to people just quitting. and a lot of retirement. towards the end of the last cycle, which was the longest in our recorded economic history, we did see labor force participation moving well above what economists estimated was the trend. part of that was people staying in the labor force. people were just not retiring at the rates they were expected to retire, so maybe this is just catch up on that. i am a believer that over time, you won't know what could happen with labor force participation in advance, you just have to give it some time. we saw that over and over again. there are things where we can say this is where the limit is. labor participation is a much more flexible subject for me. i think that we need to be humble about what the limits are on laborforce participation. we expect laborforce participation to pick up, we do not know the pace at which it will do so. in terms of employment, -- for employment, -- full employment, at the beginning of a recovery the natural thing is you look at labor conditions at the end of february 2010, there was so much you like about that labor market, it was a historically good labor market. never perfect, but i good labor market. we are in a different world now. it is just very different. the recession was the deepest, and the recovery has been the fastest. wages did not really go down. all of this is completely unusual. we are in an economy where inflation was driven by services and is now all the inflation is in goods. i'm very open to the thought that it's going to be an empirical question as to where is it located, and we are going to learn more. one thing i hope we will learn in the near term is once the delta variant really does continue to decline, what is going to happen to employment? are we going to see over the winter significant increases in jobs? if you look at the 3, 6, and nine month average job creation, it is between 60 and 150,000. you don't have to think back to -- if we wish to get back on that path, then we would be making good progress. we will learn so much more. it's a different world in so many ways. and we're very open to that. >> announcer: charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: the supreme court hears oral argument in fbi v. azaga on fbi surveillance programs conducted on a muslim community in irvine, california. watch live coverage 10:00 on monday on c-span.org for c-span now. announcer: next, a hearing on domestic terrorism with homeland security and fbi officials. witnesses address several topics including the rise of white supremacy, civil rights and the role of social media. they outline the agency's efforts to combat the issues before the house intelligence committee. this is about an hour and a half.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , California , Togo , Irvine , Washington , Americans , American , Jerome Powell , Howard Snyder , Mike Derby , Milton Friedman , Mike Mckee ,