Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh spoke with IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva during the IMF annual meetings on October 16, addressing global economic resilience, the artificial intelligence revolution, inflation pressures, and reform of Fed policy.
Warsh said AI may be the most significant change the United States and the global economy have experienced in his lifetime, first boosting aggregate demand in the short term and potentially delivering a positive supply shock through higher productivity over the medium term. He stressed that the Fed will firmly safeguard price stability but will not pre-signal decisions for the October and December monetary policy meetings.
Key takeaways: Monetary policy. Warsh said the Fed already withdrew some accommodation in September and that the global economy has largely performed in line with expectations since then. He will not prejudge the outcomes of the October and December policy meetings and will not preview possible actions in advance.
Artificial intelligence. Warsh believes AI first drives aggregate demand growth and only later produces a positive supply shock through productivity gains. Its long-term economic benefits are worth anticipating, but the employment impact over the next 12 to 18 months, the competitive landscape across industries, and who ultimately profits remain uncertain. He expects AI will also fundamentally change how central banks process economic data and set monetary policy.
Global economy. Warsh noted that the United States is undergoing a large-scale investment expansion and that investment growth has extended beyond AI. Despite ongoing geopolitical conflicts, most economies around the world have shown greater resilience than expected.
Highlights of the conversation
A new nickname for AI: In the United States, we now call AI "SI." When discussing AI's impact on the global economy, Warsh joked: "Kristalina, you just called it AI, but in the United States we now call it SI." He then quipped that he did not know how to translate that for staff around the world.
Meeting Volcker at 35: If it were today, I would definitely take a selfie with him. Warsh recalled that when he was nominated as a Fed governor at 35, a meeting was arranged for him with former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. Warsh joked that he respectfully addressed Volcker as "Mr. Chairman" at the time, but if it were today he would probably pull out his phone for a selfie, or even bring a signature book and behave like a child.
Asked about his future legacy, Warsh joked: Goodness, I have only been in office 148 days! When Georgieva asked how he hoped people would one day assess the 17th Fed chair, Warsh immediately responded: "Goodness, I have only been in office 148 days!" He said he is not focused on legacy right now and only wants to get policy right. Georgieva laughed and replied: "Kevin, maybe that is exactly why people will remember you."
Below is the full transcript of the conversation:
I. Opening remarks and the global economic situation
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: Good morning to everyone here and to those watching in other venues. This conversation has drawn wide attention, which of course has to do with our guest. I am very pleased to introduce Chair Kevin Warsh. For those who may not be familiar with his extraordinary career, let me say a few words. Chair Warsh has devoted his life to policy work. His career has been at the intersection of monetary policy, finance, and economic policymaking. He can examine issues from many different angles, not only those involving the financial system but also those affecting ordinary people's lives. He has served in academia, financial markets, and the public sector. So how did he get here? Before becoming Fed chair, he was the Shepard Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution, a lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and a partner at a Duke family office. Before that, he worked at Morgan Stanley and advised President George W. Bush on capital markets and banking issues. But my favorite part of Kevin's career is his first stint at the Fed. It was an extremely difficult and challenging period. He lived through the global financial crisis. At just 35, he was the youngest governor in Fed history. And now he is, of course, 36. (joke) He has an extremely deep understanding of financial markets. He played an important role in one of the most complex periods in modern history and participated in decisions alongside those responsible for key choices. For many people, those decisions may have been the most consequential of their lives. So he experienced the crisis from inside the financial system. I certainly hope you never have to go through that again. As everyone knows, he became Fed chair in May. It was an excellent choice. I greatly admire your extensive experience. But you also have a quality I rarely see in others: you always respond to questions thoughtfully and never shy away from listening to views different from your own. When Kevin agreed to join this conversation, I thought about how to move our discussion beyond immediate issues and around the long-term trends reshaping the world, so we could better understand how you think. I want to start with where the world stands. We are at the IMF annual meetings. We discussed the resilience of the global economy and also the fragility of that resilience and the growing divergence among countries. We have been discussing: where does resilience come from? Can it last? For how long? What conditions are needed to sustain it? So I think the best way to open today is to hear your view. How do you see the current world economy? How do you see the resilience we have been relying on? Can it continue? In a period of rising uncertainty, what advice would you give policymakers? How should they chart a course?
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: First, thank you very much, Kristalina. Let me note: Kristalina and I have been old friends for many years. So while those questions sounded a little difficult, I suspect there will be some easier ones ahead. (laughter) Also, on the bio Kristalina just gave, I only disagree on one point. She said her favorite part of my resume is the global financial crisis, but that was definitely not my favorite experience. Whenever I attend an IMF meeting or a G20 meeting again, I am of course deeply honored, especially to hold this position. We are in a period of major historical significance. But whenever I walk into the IMF or attend meetings like this, I must admit that the experience of the darkest, most difficult days of the global financial crisis still left scars. Maybe that experience made me overly cautious, but I think it is better to be overly cautious than insufficiently vigilant. So we can take the discussion in any direction you want. I think you asked where the global economy stands. I have been trying to do one thing, and for policymakers it may represent a slight shift in mindset: I try to look out the window at what is happening. In economics and policymaking, we can devote enormous energy to the past, studying history and analyzing data. Sometimes we think those data reflect the present, but in fact they are often lagging data that only tell us what has already happened. We can also spend a great deal of time and attention on the future. Of course we want to know what will happen in 2027 and 2028, but no one can predict perfectly. So when thinking about the current situation, I try to observe as clearly as possible what is happening outside the window. At the Fed, we do this kind of observation about eight times a year, when the FOMC holds monetary policy meetings. About a month ago, we made such an assessment at our September meeting. We judged: what is the state of the global economy? How will these changes affect the United States? I think that in the roughly one month since that meeting, the world economy has largely performed in line with our expectations. We still have several meetings this year. At that time, we will again carefully examine the situation. What are we seeing? What is happening to output? How is employment? How is inflation evolving? These are questions we need to reassess. Between meetings, especially on occasions like today, I have the chance to sit down with Kristalina, free from cameras and microphones, and also to discuss in depth with G20 counterparts. In those exchanges, I spend at least as much time listening as speaking. Obviously, the Fed and its policies have spillover effects on the rest of the world. But other countries' policies in turn affect the United States. I made some judgments about a month ago, and I will make new judgments at the October and December meetings. But let me step back first and talk about some views I formed earlier. Although these judgments were made some time ago, I think they broadly still hold. First, about 20 years ago at meetings like this, we often discussed "secular stagnation." Looking back now, that concept seems somewhat inaccurate. I do not know whether it also seemed as inaccurate then as it does today. But what we see now is structural growth and an investment boom. Of course, this investment boom has not benefited every country equally. But in the United States, we are experiencing a huge investment expansion. It reminds me, Kristalina, that the concept of secular stagnation seemed to imply that economic stagnation was somehow inevitable and that policymakers like you and me could do nothing about it. Yet if I learned anything from my previous stint in a similar role, it is that policymakers can actually do a lot to change that. Policy matters greatly. The current investment boom did not appear by accident; it is the result of good policy. That includes both macroeconomic policy and microeconomic institutional foundations. As everyone has heard from the new Nobel laureates over the past week or two, sound macroeconomic policy combined with solid microeconomic foundations can drive substantial investment growth. On the positive side, I think this may be the most important thing happening in the global economy right now. But as central bankers, we of course must remain balanced. Yesterday and today, I attended some meetings here. In discussions with other central bank officials, it is almost impossible not to exchange views on the price increases each of us faces. Obviously, price increases affect different countries differently. As for the Fed, we have made it very clear that we will safeguard price stability. About a month ago, we withdrew some accommodation. I will not prejudge monetary policy meetings, and I do not favor telling everyone now what I might do at the remaining meetings this year. That is where things stand. I imagine this answer may disappoint half or more of the people here. They can turn off the livestream now. (laughter) The Fed has entered a new chapter. We no longer engage in pre-signaling future meeting decisions. But we can continue in whatever direction you want.
II. AI's impact on inflation, employment, and monetary policy
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: All right, this is exactly a direction worth exploring in depth. You are right that we need to observe what is happening outside the window. What we see is an economic landscape in which some regions are booming, driven largely by market enthusiasm for artificial intelligence. But when we look elsewhere, we see a very different picture: the effects of war and other factors are weighing on local economies. Still, one thing is happening almost everywhere: whether a country's economy is accelerating or slowing, it faces stubborn inflation pressures, and these price pressures come from multiple sources. One source is of course the energy shock from the Middle East and the energy price shock caused by war. But another source is precisely the investment boom brought by artificial intelligence. So my question is: from a monetary policy perspective, how should we understand AI's short-term and long-term effects on the economy? Are there issues to which we are not paying enough attention but should be?
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: That is a very good question. Let me address several aspects. First, Kristalina, you just called it AI, but in the United States we now call it SI. Just letting you know. As for how to translate that for teams around the world, I do not know either. (joke) But I want to say that the emergence of this new technology is very likely the most significant change the U.S. economy and even the global economy have experienced in my lifetime so far. So I take it very seriously. But as a central banker, I must also view it prudently and responsibly. I think this technology will have effects in several ways. First, AI will clearly affect the demand side of the economy before it affects the supply side. For central bankers, if your job is to ensure price stability and full employment, then you must recognize that this is a shock. But you must also recognize that the shock from AI will, over the medium term, be a positive supply shock favorable to growth. I firmly believe that. However, before that positive supply effect truly appears, we first see growth in aggregate demand. That is the current reality. That is simply how it is. Still, I understand this shock differently from the other shocks just mentioned. Whether it is war, military conflict, or similar events, they are not the same as the shock brought by AI. I think over a longer horizon, AI can indeed bring enormous benefits to the global economy and the U.S. economy. That is my first point. Second, AI is also highly significant for central banks. Because in some ways our job is to distill genuinely useful information from a massive amount of noisy data from around the world. Some of the information we obtain comes from U.S. official statistical agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Then we use traditional economic models to repeatedly analyze these data, trying to identify underlying inflation trends. But in the near future, we may not have to process data so laboriously. By then, information from around the world may be within easy reach, and central banks will be able to use new analytical tools to extract what is truly valuable from these data. So when we receive new information, we will have greater confidence in judging what it actually means. When we look out the window at the economy, we need to judge: are we seeing reality, or noisy data with statistical error, measurement bias, and time lags? Therefore, I think AI will fundamentally change how monetary policy is formulated and implemented. Finally, AI will also change the real economy. Over the next 12 or 18 months, we still do not know exactly what impact it will have on employment. But if you believe, as I do, that AI can raise productivity in economies and countries that use it effectively, then it will allow us to create more wealth. That must be a very good thing. Still, the journey from today to that future is likely to be very bumpy. On the one hand, our understanding of the technology itself is still evolving. On the other hand, we actually do not know what market structure these new technologies will ultimately produce. In other words, who will ultimately make money? And what will happen to those who bet they could profit but eventually find that the market structure does not allow it? These questions remain unanswered. So I hope everyone can hear in my remarks this attitude: I am optimistic about AI. But that optimism must be grounded in taking our respective responsibilities seriously. I think this is an exciting development and an important innovation. Ten years from now, looking back, people may regard this innovation as having extremely far-reaching historical impact. Therefore, as policymakers, our task is to pay attention to this change with equal seriousness. I want to add one more point about the major, complex questions that may not have much direct bearing on the current policy situation. My view is that central banks need to invest and prepare in advance for the next stage of the policy environment. About four or five months ago, I launched a series of external working groups, one of which specifically studies productivity and employment. On November 16, we will hold the first field hearing of that working group in the San Francisco Bay Area to discuss related issues in depth. I am fairly certain we have identified the right questions. But I am not certain we already have the right answers. So we invited a group of outside experts, including working group members and people from the broader professional field, to help us study these issues together, and I hope this work will produce results. Moreover, these results should not serve only the United States. The research and investment the Fed is undertaking have the character of a global public good. The IMF and central banks in other G20 member countries may also learn from it and decide whether to apply some of these practices themselves. That is our hope and expectation. The better they do, the better we will do.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: I very much look forward to seeing those results. To avoid continued disputes over terminology, we might call it "Non-Human Intellect." If we look at this extremely fast-moving technology, we must think about its short-term and long-term effects on inflation at the same time. We must also consider its impact on financial stability. As you just said, AI may boost productivity, and that is also exciting. So we are in fact facing a triangle of three issues: first, inflation and possible future disinflation; second, financial stability risks; and third, the upside from productivity gains. Among these three, which would you most like the working groups to focus on? Or in your view, which is most important for monetary policymakers?
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: First, let me talk about my basic vision for these working groups. Before taking this position, like you, I participated in similar working groups. I think we first need to ask them the right questions. Of course, I should also say candidly that I communicate regularly with the five working groups I established to learn about their progress. But at the same time, we must give them enough independence to form their own judgments. The purpose of setting up working groups on productivity and employment, data collection, and inflation is to let them create new knowledge. Then we submit these new research results to the FOMC, share their views with the broader public, and see whether these views can stimulate new thinking. Otherwise, people like you and me, and our central bank colleagues, may just keep repeating and discussing the same existing views. The real point of these working groups is to let them conduct independent research and come up with new ideas. Every shock comes with tail risks. I will not single out one risk and then conclude that the whole change must be beneficial. What I want to say is that the U.S. private sector is investing capital in a range of new technologies and new companies, making investment bets on different possible future market structures. But for us as central bankers, we do not need to judge whose investments will ultimately succeed and whose will fail; that is the work financial markets should do. What we really need to do is step back and ask ourselves: if different scenarios materialize in the future, what impact will they have on our statutory responsibilities? As everyone knows, we usually discuss price stability and full employment. However, given my experience attending IMF meetings 20 years ago, we also need to think about financial stability risks. Moreover, my understanding of financial stability may be slightly different. I do not think central banks, or the international policy-making system we are part of, should regard preventing the economy and markets from deviating from some central scenario as their job. What we should really ask is: are there certain negative tail risks that we can take measures to address? And in answering that question, we must remain sufficiently humble. I have given the working groups ample space to study on their own: what are the potential upside opportunities? What are the downside risks? What do these changes mean for us? Just as I will not prejudge FOMC meetings, I will also try to avoid prejudging what these working groups will ultimately conclude.
III. 148 days in office: Fed reform, talent, and institutional credibility
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: Kevin just mentioned that we both participated in working groups in the past. He once led a working group whose research results were ultimately reported to Parliament. So the chair position you now hold is indeed very special. Kevin, I calculated that today is your 148th day as Fed chair. Of course, the calculation may be a little off because it depends on whether we use Washington time or Bangkok time, but it is roughly 148 days. So what do you understand now as Fed chair that you had not yet formed on your first day? And how do you plan to continue the work ahead?
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: That is a very reasonable question. But I may not be particularly good at self-reflection; I should say that first. I want to say that I am truly glad I worked at the Fed before. If I had not had those five and a half years at the Fed, especially if I had not lived through such a historically significant period, I think I might be more hesitant today. I might be less willing to introduce new ideas and less willing to try new approaches inside the Fed. After all, the Fed is an institution with 23,000 employees. We need to think carefully about whether we can open a new chapter for the Fed while carrying forward its fine traditions and recognizing that we are in a completely new world. So my first feeling is that those five and a half years at the Fed are indeed helpful now. People sometimes say that when someone joins an organization, he should bring the fresh perspective of an outsider. To that I would add: you also need some insider knowledge of the institution. I am trying to put myself in a position where I am both an insider and someone who retains an outside perspective. So what have I learned in 148 days? First, the Fed has an extremely deep talent pool. I must admit that I had actually been a little worried before. I had been away from the Fed for 15 years. I had worried that during those 15 years the Fed's excellent people might have gradually left. But it turns out there are still an astonishing number of outstanding people there. Fortunately, when I was young, they were young too. Today they still have an extremely strong sense of responsibility to the Fed's mission. Like me, they are proud to be able to say, "I work at the Fed." In a leadership role like this, part of the job is of course to ensure policy is right. But a crucial prerequisite for ensuring policy is right is ensuring the institution has the right culture. When I look deeper inside the Fed, I see many excellent people trying new ideas and challenging one another. To outsiders, it may seem that everyone at the Fed is speaking from the same script. But if you look closely, beneath the surface there is actually a very impressive exchange of ideas. That is an important takeaway since I took office. I must say that the depth of talent inside the Fed truly exceeded my expectations. That is a positive surprise. Now, as an institutional manager, our task is to think about how to make full use of these people. How can we leverage their knowledge and experience while rethinking and reorganizing how work is done inside the institution so that these capabilities are truly brought into play? Second, I want to talk about what I have not done well enough in these 148 days. And that is largely due to everyone here and those watching this conversation through cameras. Because almost all attention is focused on monetary policy. But in fact, about 75% of Fed employees do not directly work on monetary policy. The responsibilities Congress has given the Fed cover many areas, including financial regulation and supervision, the payment system, consumer and community affairs, and many others I could list. But over the past 148 days, I have not done well enough in making these employees feel that I value their work as much as I value monetary policy work. Perhaps because we are in such a special period, my own attention has also been somewhat drawn to monetary policy. But the Fed chair must lead the entire Fed. I am passionate about that. The reason is that fundamentally we need to think about what matters most for a central bank. Among the work we do, what is truly important? The answer is not the printing press. Of course, the printing press is a powerful tool and indeed quite interesting. If you had one, you would love it. (joke) The real power of a central bank comes from its institutional credibility. The credibility I have was left to me by the great Fed chairs before me. Only by continuously safeguarding and enhancing that institutional credibility can we truly succeed in making the right policy. Therefore, no matter which part of the Fed is doing what work, any mistake will damage the credibility of the whole institution. If we make mistakes in financial supervision, or if problems arise in the payment system, those mistakes will ultimately affect the Fed's reputation. So in the next 100 days, I will work hard to devote just as much attention to the Fed's other business areas. Because that work is equally important. When you take on a position like this, you must lead the entire institution. You must genuinely love all the work the institution does and be willing to ask the most basic questions again in every area. You cannot just say, "We have always done it this way, so we should continue to do it this way." That reason is no longer sufficient.
IV. Lessons from past Fed chairs and Warsh's policy philosophy
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: You just mentioned your predecessors. You are the 17th chair in Fed history. When you look back at the leadership of past Fed chairs, what about them inspires you most? I do not know whether you have begun to think about what you hope to leave to the Fed. But what do you think people will ultimately remember the 17th Fed chair for?
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: Goodness, I have only been in office 148 days! I am not yet thinking about legacy. My job now is to try to get policy right.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: Kevin, maybe that is exactly why people will remember you.
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: Yes. I do not think I took over as Fed chair at a particularly easy moment. I think when I took over, I was in a... Georgieva interrupted: Do you really think so? (joke) ...a period of major significance. So I must say that I do not think about my work in terms of legacy. But I want to talk about my predecessors. I was very fortunate to know or work with the five most recent Fed chairs. I still remember that when I was a young nominee for Fed governor, I was summoned to a meeting. A senior member of the Senate Banking Committee looked at me. I guess he thought I looked too young and was not sure I was suited for the job. So he arranged for me to meet Paul Volcker. I was only 35 then. I still remember walking in. Although I was a tall adult, when I met him I respectfully called him "Mr. Chairman." If it were today, I would probably take out my phone and take a selfie with him. Or bring a signature book and ask for his autograph. That would make me look like I was still a child. (laughter) But I did learn a great deal from each predecessor. Looking back at the Volcker era, the Greenspan era, and the Bernanke era, I think they all successfully responded to the challenges of their time. Each of them faced problems their predecessors had not experienced. And they all managed to adapt a great institution to the demands of their era. Of course I hope I will not have to face the kind of major challenges they encountered. I hope the next roughly three years and eight months will be smooth and steady. Therefore, we must always remain vigilant, respond actively to change, and keep asking ourselves: what does all this mean for us? So I can draw inspiration from my predecessors. I can also take pride that they left behind a Fed with greater institutional credibility, because that makes our work easier today. But beyond that, I have not spent much time looking back. I spend a great deal of time looking out the window, trying to figure out what is actually happening in the real world. You mentioned a speech I gave recently at Jackson Hole. One theme of that speech was that our first job is to examine reality deeply and understand what is actually happening. I think Orwell once said that the hardest thing to see is what is right in front of your eyes. At least for me, accurately understanding what is actually happening in the outside world is not easy. That is why attending meetings like this, listening to others, and learning about the real conditions in their economies is so important to me. I plan to take part in more of these exchanges going forward.
V. Shared inflation challenges facing G20 central banks and the synchronized global tightening of monetary policy
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: So what has impressed you most at this meeting so far? What is the one thing you have learned here that you most want to take back and share with your colleagues?
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: I will take back several takeaways. First, I think we face many shared challenges. In the United States, I see the kind of resilience in the real economy that you mentioned. But at the same time, we also see an investment boom. And this investment boom is not limited to artificial intelligence. Investment expansion is spreading to a broader range of areas. That means the U.S. economy has quite a few favorable factors, providing strength and persistence for growth. Of course, not every part of the world has that kind of growth momentum. But two things impressed me especially. First, economies in almost every region have shown resilience. Given the current geopolitical situation and the conflicts taking place around the world, I am not sure I could have foreseen this five or six months ago. If someone had asked me then to forecast the world economy as the IMF does, I am not sure I would have expected so many G20 members to remain stable and perform well. I might have made that judgment about the U.S. economy, but I would not necessarily have had the same expectation for so many other economies. Second, we also have a shared challenge. That is the inflation issue I mentioned at the start; inflation is not unique to the United States. So we are studying together how to address this challenge. Of course, each country must decide according to its own domestic policy responsibilities. U.S. policy responsibilities come from Congress, while central banks in other countries may need to follow the mandates given by their own parliaments. But there are spillovers between countries' policies, and reverse spillovers as well. What I heard from central bank counterparts around the world at this meeting was their firm determination to safeguard price stability. I of course also clearly expressed the Fed's determination in this regard. Yes, the policy tools we use may differ, and the sequence of actions may differ. But looking back over the past few months, although each of our central banks acted according to its own judgment and policy responsibilities, most of the world has in fact seen a synchronized tightening of monetary policy.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: That means no country can sit back and enjoy the benefits. We see common problems and we are taking practical action. I think this is a positive development, and I very much agree with your view. A shared vision of ensuring price stability can give confidence to businesses and households. And that confidence is very important for sustaining growth. I think this is also an important message from this meeting. Now our time is running short. Is there anything you want to tell everyone here that I was not wise enough to think to ask you?
VI. Warsh's closing remarks: breaking free from traditional models and responding to economic change with new policy thinking
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh: Kristalina has moderated today excellently. I am even considering whether I should invite you to my next press conference. Because the questions you asked seem much friendlier than some I usually face. (laughter) Finally, I want to share one feeling. Anyone who works at the Fed, and especially anyone fortunate enough to sit in the position I now hold, should feel deep gratitude. I myself am very grateful to be able to bear this responsibility. I feel the world is changing at an unprecedented pace. Our thinking about how the economy works is also being affected by these changes. Our economy is facing circumstances different from the past. Five or ten years ago, these changes might have been hard to imagine. But I am very grateful to my Fed colleagues and to all Fed staff. I am also very grateful for the extraordinary openness everyone has shown toward new ideas. In my private meetings with you, I felt that openness. In my exchanges with G20 counterparts, I felt it too. Our goal is to make the right policy and to think about problems in new ways. And there are some things we do not want to hear and should no longer hear. For example: "We have always done it this way." Or: "That is what the model says." Or: "The model predicts that after this happens, that must happen next." Rather than models that keep trying to force reality back to historical averages, I prefer to rely on a policy analysis framework. I believe that with your help, Kristalina, and with the help of these extremely talented counterparts around the world, we can get through this period of major historical significance. Moreover, I hold an optimistic belief. You may think I am a bit naive. But at least for the United States, I believe we will ultimately emerge from this period stronger. We will have a more durably resilient economy and a greater capacity to continue leading global economic growth. This is not a zero-sum game. I also hope we can put forward some new ideas so that other countries, when making policy decisions based on their own circumstances, can also think: "These approaches apply to us as well." Thank you all.
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva: Ladies and gentlemen, let us once again thank Chair Kevin Warsh. A defender of price stability. Thank you all very much.
Comments