Liz Hoffman: Austan Goolsbee, welcome to the show.<\/p>\n
Austan Goolsbee: Thank you for having me.<\/p>\n
Liz: You are a great communicator in a world of wonks, literally a champion talker. Kevin Warsh wants the Fed to talk less and to force investors to look at the numbers and make their own decisions. What do you think?<\/p>\n
I\u2019m an old friend and fan of Chairman Warsh. I worked with him back in the financial crisis. Before he ever got there, I\u2019m uneasy with people expressing what we\u2019re now calling forward guidance, that is saying, \u201cHere\u2019s what I think will happen at the next meeting. Here\u2019s what I think four months from now the interest rate should change.\u201d Most of the discussion about communication seems to have been about that, and I kind of agree with we should phase out that kind of communication. I\u2019m engaged in a demystification project about the Federal Reserve. Here\u2019s what we do. We\u2019re not the bad guys. We\u2019re the Guardians of the Galaxy. I\u2019m going to stay on that for sure.<\/p>\n
Liz: Getting to those numbers that you would all like the market to put more stock in and make their own decisions about, even if they were prepared to be weaned off the commentary, does the data that you\u2019re seeing right now lay out a clear picture?<\/p>\n
I like how you phrased that. I would say no, not a super clear picture because inflation\u2019s still way too high. I have been worrying publicly about the potential for supply shocks like tariffs, like oil prices to shove us into a stagflationary kind of a trade-off. There is one sense in which it hasn\u2019t been ambiguous. It hasn\u2019t been stagflationary. The job market still looks very stable to me. Growth has been solid, consumer spending solid. We\u2019re falling down on the inflation side of the mandate. But the ambiguity comes, is the inflation getting better on its own as it might if a supply shock kind of worked through or if you had a tariff that was just a one-time increase in the level of prices that should fade away and it hasn\u2019t really been fading away. And you\u2019ve seen inflation in services kicking up and that\u2019s not really from tariffs, that\u2019s not really mostly from oil. So that\u2019s where you start to get the ambiguity in it and it\u2019s not totally clear.<\/p>\n
Rohan Goswami: How much of that is AI, which obviously it\u2019s driving a huge investment boom that\u2019s sending up the price of inputs, power, land up. But at the same time, there is this deflationary promise that it\u2019ll make everything cheaper. How do you think about those two things?<\/p>\n
This dynamic where there is great promise to come that is factored into massive stock market valuations and massive incentives for companies to engage in business investment. All of those things, the bigger the hype, the greater the chance that you overheat the economy in the short run, that for the day job of the Fed, the more promise there is, the more temptation, the more tendency to spend today based on the promise of what is to come. And that you got to be careful about because that\u2019s just old-fashioned overheating right now.<\/p>\n
Rohan: What would a financial unwind of that trade, of the AI trade actually look like from where you sit?<\/p>\n
If it\u2019s a discovery that the fundamentals are not there and it\u2019s a bubble, that we have had bubbles in US history in the past, including in the recent past, and their unwinds can get ugly depending how much leverage is associated with those bubbles. It could be more like the popping of the internet. Now, Rohan, you\u2019re not old enough. You don\u2019t remember it, but if you back up, if you\u2019re older than dirt like me, you\u2019ll remember we had an experience with the internet that they were building out the infrastructure premised on growth rates of 20% per year. And when the growth rate came in, well, it\u2019s only going to be 7% per year, that\u2019s still a pretty strong growth rate, but they were massively overbuilt. And so we kind of had this overhang. That\u2019s slightly different than… Finding out the fundamentals are different is slightly different than just a old-fashioned bubble in my view.<\/p>\n
Liz: But Alan Greenspan, I think, said basically that the Fed cannot deflate a bubble in real time without making life miserable for everybody else. Do you think that\u2019s still true?<\/p>\n
There is a very significant debate among economists about the question, should the Fed try to prevent bubbles, pop bubbles, just clean up after the bubble pops? All of those things. Anybody citing the 1990s and Alan Greenspan, it\u2019s worth at least just going back to give yourself a refresher on the history because it\u2019s not near as straightforward as how a lot of people want to remember it. It is true that in the mid \u201990s, Alan Greenspan identified that he thought productivity growth must be accelerating, but people didn\u2019t know that. It wasn\u2019t showing up in the data yet when he said that. He concluded because he said, \u201cLook, growth is giant, profit margins are really high, but inflation is not going up. It\u2019s very tame and is going down, so there must be productivity growth.\u201d And he concluded we don\u2019t have to raise rates if we\u2019re getting this unexpected productivity growth.<\/p>\n
But by the end of the \u201990s, you\u2019ll remember it then started showing up the productivity growth and the stock market valuations began soaring and actually the FOMC began raising rates quite significantly in a short period of time. You might not attribute that to trying to pop a bubble, but there were certainly people at the time who said that\u2019s what popped the bubble was that they increased the rates. But the Fed\u2019s expression, if you go back and read the transcripts, they\u2019re just nervous that the economy\u2019s overheating, that inflation is starting to kick up, the unemployment rate is so low and the business investment is so high that they didn\u2019t really feel like they could do anything other than raise the rates.<\/p>\n
Liz: As you said, the Fed has two jobs, keeping inflation low and steady and maximizing employment. What does maximum employment even mean if we have a hundred million robots like Elon Musk says we\u2019ll have doing all the jobs?<\/p>\n
Oh, geez. Look, these are some deep questions. I will say when I see the technology people, look, they\u2019re really good at their job and what they want is to become economists and they\u2019ve been-<\/p>\n
Liz: Well, you make it look so fun, Austan.<\/p>\n
They\u2019ve been a lot. Look, it is fun. I see why they want it. I see why they want it. It strikes me that they don\u2019t realize that people have been saying this about technologies for hundreds of years. So many people have said it. We even have a name for it. It\u2019s called the lump of labor fallacy, that all labor is just a lump that cannot move. And as soon as the machines are better than this lump, then everyone will be out of a job. If you asked me to take the over under on will the unemployment rate be 40% in 10 years, I\u2019m taking the under. In a way, I feel like the technology people make more Draconian forecasts almost as a way of bragging about how good their technology is. So it\u2019s like they want to use as a proof point. \u201cMy AI algorithm is so good, it\u2019s going to replace everyone\u2019s job.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s going to change a bunch of jobs, but it\u2019s also worth remembering this happens all the time. If you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average person by age 50 has had 13 different jobs.<\/p>\n
Liz: How confident are you in the future of being an economist?<\/p>\n
Not 100%.<\/p>\n
Liz: That\u2019s about where I am a journalist.<\/p>\n
Rohan: That is the sort of high end of the market, the academic side of the market. But there was a McKinsey report a few weeks ago that predicted, and it\u2019s a consultancy, but still, that 16 million US workers, around 10% of the workforce, and that\u2019s primarily low income workers, should be prepared at some point in the next few years to switch their jobs because of AI. And I\u2019m curious what you think the right policy response is if that does come to happen.<\/p>\n
I thought you were making some joke. Is the right policy response to a consultant report saying to hire a consulting firm to come look at it? No, probably not.<\/p>\n
Rohan: No.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s probably not the outcome. Look, the speed at which new technologies displace skill sets of specific workers, as I say, matters a lot to how difficult it is to adjust to the new technologies. Now that said, I liked how you phrased this McKinsey finding that they\u2019ll have to find new skills, tasks, or something in their jobs. I would be puzzled. I\u2019m going to go look at it. A lot of the AI use cases that are trumpeted are knowledge work kind of cases. They\u2019re not low income work.<\/p>\n
They\u2019re not in the healthcare space, for example, going in and taking care of people. They are high level knowledge work, reading radiology scans and things like that. So I could be wrong. And I want to just re-highlight, by age 50, right now, these are in the data up to 50 year olds now. So before there ever was AI, 13 jobs people have had, they\u2019re constantly thinking, where is their demand in the marketplace? Where can I build a good career? And they\u2019re moving from thing to thing. So they\u2019re probably right that AI, like computers before it, like a bunch of other technologies before it, and going back farther, the introducing radio, introducing telephones, introducing electricity, introducing a whole bunch of big general purpose technologies did change both the economy and the labor force. But in no way did it lead the unemployment rate to head to 100% because it happened at a speed at which the new people coming out of school, they\u2019re going to try to figure out.<\/p>\n
They have every incentive to try to figure out what are the technologies not replacing. And that\u2019s the stuff that we want to focus on, the messier jobs.<\/p>\n
Liz: But we want people to have jobs because otherwise they couldn\u2019t buy things and the demand side of the economy would collapse. What about a world where, and there\u2019s some emotional reasons we like people to have jobs because of sense of purpose. It\u2019s what we do all day.<\/p>\n
Wow, that was really clinical right there. We want you to have a job, son.<\/p>\n
Liz: But I guess I\u2019m asking what about a world where the economic benefits of labor get divorced from actually having a job where we tax the AI, we send everyone a check, the demand side of the economy holds up just fine. Should the Fed care about that?<\/p>\n
Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel or John Maynard Keynes each had a theory that as time goes by and we get more and more productive, we\u2019re going to work less and less. So if we came back in 30 years and people were working 10 hours a week at a massively high productivity because they had all these robots supporting them, so their hourly per hour of work income was high enough to satisfy consumption, should the Fed care about that? Only to the extent that they would, if you\u2019re going to maximize employment and what everybody interprets as employment is working 10 hours a week, then fine, that\u2019s the world we would be in. We\u2019re not in that world right now. And I think with the unemployment rate barely above 4%, and that\u2019s for where the majority of people are working full time, that is my conception of what the full employment benchmark should be.<\/p>\n
And all of the rest is just speculation. So I\u2019m not going to speculate about what the job market is going to be in 10 years, except to say for the people who say it\u2019s going to cease to exist, I kind of think you got 500 years of history that say that\u2019s probably not true. No, maybe this is different from all the others, but I kind of also want the folks saying that whatever laws of economics from the last 200 years of industrialized society do not apply. I kind of need them to acknowledge that in the last 10 to 15 years, this is like the fifth time that they\u2019re saying that. We had the blockchain was going to revolutionize and change everything. NFTs were going to change it.<\/p>\n
Liz: You mean you\u2019re not living in the metaverse?<\/p>\n
No, I\u2019m not on the metaverse. I\u2019m not riding a Segway everywhere. Remember the Segway was going to change cities for 15 years. We\u2019ve been hearing that within three years, self-driving cars would eliminate every single professional driver in the economy. And it may still happen, but it didn\u2019t happen in three years as they were predicting at that time. And I would just, again, point folks to the history of general purpose technologies. It takes a long time for those to work their way through the economy. And if they don\u2019t happen in a two-year period, we adjust. And I\u2019m not making light of sectors who are directly impacted. If coders coming straight out of college are replaced or have to change what they\u2019re doing, it can be for sure traumatic and adjustment. And if you look at old people like me, if you\u2019re in your 50s, 60s or beyond, can you keep up with the new technologies?<\/p>\n
That\u2019s again, a dynamic that we have seen before in the US and around the world. It comes with transition costs, but it doesn\u2019t blow up the economy and it doesn\u2019t blow up the labor market. So if I had to bet, again, like I say, I would take the under on what the unemployment rate is going to be in 10 years.<\/p>\n
Rohan: Let\u2019s forget about 10 years. Let\u2019s talk about today, which is I know where you want to go. We\u2019ve been in a sort of low hire, low fire world for some time. Is that fine?<\/p>\n
No, it\u2019s not fine. It\u2019s not fine, but there\u2019s nothing the Fed can do about it or there\u2019s little the Fed can do about it. It\u2019s weird, and I like that you raised it. It\u2019s worth just taking a beat and emphasizing how odd such an environment is. If you have low hiring, you usually have high firing. And the reverse, that\u2019s the business cycle. My explanation has been that\u2019s a thing that characterizes uncertainty, that in uncertainty a business would say, \u201cWe\u2019re definitely not going to hire anybody new, but we\u2019re not going to get rid of these people either because what if we got rid of them and then we resolve the uncertainty and now we\u2019re going to have to go out and try to hire them.\u201d But I\u2019m going to have to revise my view. I still think that\u2019s true. That does characterize uncertainty, but it can\u2019t be uncertain forever.<\/p>\n
And that\u2019s why in your question, you said it\u2019s been going for a long time. If that goes for five years, then I kind of think I\u2019m going to need a rethink of was it uncertainty.<\/p>\n
Liz: So that\u2019s one half of the mandate, employment. You talked a little bit about inflation at the top. How much of what we\u2019re seeing do you think is sort of pure AI? How much is the oil shock from the Middle East, and how much is inflation from the post-pandemic era that never went away?<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t know the percentages, but in my heart, I\u2019ve wanted it to be from the supply shocks because they\u2019re supposed to go away. The fact that the services inflation is inflated and kind of going the wrong way makes me think there might be more to it than just the supply shocks. And the part that\u2019s coming from AI, I\u2019m getting increasingly nervous that that\u2019s just straight old-fashioned overheating demand. I don\u2019t think that it has overheated demand in the aggregate sense, but it\u2019s starting to. So I was just in downstate Illinois, met with the Illinois Manufacturers Association, went by University of Illinois, talked to a bunch of business people. Everybody\u2019s got a concern about cost, about prices. There\u2019s nothing about \u2018demand is not there.\u2019 So it sounded very much like overheating and\/but a lot of it is competition for factors, resources, et cetera, competing against the data centers.<\/p>\n
So they\u2019re like, the cost of construction is crazy because we can\u2019t get any electricians. We got a one-year waiting list for all these different kind of electrical component parts, and that\u2019s because of the data centers. To the extent that data centers are up and everything else is down, that\u2019s not aggregate overheating. That\u2019s a change in the relative composition. And you can see why it\u2019s going to agitate people, but that\u2019s slightly different than overheating.<\/p>\n
All of that said, this is starting to feel like aggregate overheating, that the AI data center cost increases are jumping out of its lane, that prices are going up in spaces that are not just components in data centers and the directly adjacent industries to data centers, that you\u2019re seeing, if you start to see more of this spreading into general services, that investment goods are just getting GDP growth up faster than potential and generating this kind of spillover inflation, that\u2019s problematic because unlike supply shocks where we tend to assume they\u2019re going to go away on their own in a relatively short period of time, nobody thinks that of overheating demand. It takes a long time for overheated demand to get going, and once it\u2019s going, it\u2019s hard to get rid of that. So that\u2019s why the conventional wisdom among economists has been if you see overheating demand, you act decisively and you act quickly to prevent that from rolling into inflation expectations, rolling into people taking for granted that it\u2019s never going to go away.<\/p>\n
Liz: Okay. Well then the big question is, should the Fed keep raising rates?<\/p>\n
So back to some forward guidance. Look, as I always say, I don\u2019t like tying our hands. When the dot plot came out, I know what my own dot is. I\u2019m one of the most optimistic people in the dots that if we can just show that we\u2019re on path back to 2%, we don\u2019t have to actually have gotten to 2% inflation, but that was a realistic path back. I think the ultimate settling place for rates is someplace a fair bit below where we are right now.<\/p>\n
Now that said, I\u2019m not a voter. Chicago\u2019s not a voter in 2026. I was a voter in 2025. I will be again in 2027. At the end of \u201925, I dissented against the rate cut because if you go back and look at what I said, I believed that we could get back to path to 2%, but I was not comfortable assuming that this was going to be temporary, transitory, and just cutting preemptively the rates, assuming that it was going to go away.<\/p>\n
I wanted to see some evidence that it was actually going away. And that was the meeting, you\u2019ll recall, when the government was shut down, so we didn\u2019t even have any data. I don\u2019t regret dissenting at that meeting because we have had persistent inflation ever since then. So if inflation remains persistent, then I think it\u2019s clear what the Fed has to do. If we can get some evidence that this tariff inflation is going away, that the oil shock inflation is going away, it\u2019s not too much progress that we need to show, but we need to start showing some progress if we\u2019re going to get back on the kind of rate cutting path that we were on.<\/p>\n
Liz: But is the Fed\u2019s primary tool, interest rates, still as powerful as it used to be? A lot of froth, you\u2019re talking about this overheating, a lot of it\u2019s coming from big tech companies-<\/p>\n
That\u2019s a good question.<\/p>\n
Liz: … which seem totally immune to the cost of borrowing for the moment.<\/p>\n
Yeah, look, it\u2019s an important question. I don\u2019t totally know that we have an answer to that. I\u2019ll give you a couple of places where it\u2019s pretty clearly the transmission and short-run effectiveness have gone down, and that is if you back up not that many years, a large fraction of mortgages were adjustable rate mortgages. So when the Fed changed rates, if it translated into mortgage rates, it did so kind of quickly and that became a channel of transmission. Now the overwhelming majority of mortgages are 30-year fixed mortgages. So when the Fed changes the overnight interest rate, the impact through the mortgage channel is reduced.<\/p>\n
That said, if the aggregate economy is overheating, the Fed has to use the tools that it has, and the tool it has is the interest rate, and normally it works because the most cyclical industries are also the most interest-rate-sensitive, and those are housing construction, consumer durables, business investment. One part of the AI landscape is about massive business investment. So far, it hasn\u2019t been very interest-rate-sensitive, but it does seem like they\u2019re getting more debt-financed in these investments. So if it were really overheating and the Fed started driving up rates, I think the cost of investment would get more expensive. There\u2019s always collateral damage.<\/p>\n
Liz: But boy, is it going to be wildly unpopular if in the hopes of finding the pain point for these big tech companies, the interest rate at which they will actually change their behavior just becomes intolerable for the rest of us, that if AI is so existential for these companies that they are just going to keep borrowing and investing until mortgages cost 15%, that doesn\u2019t seem great.<\/p>\n
Yeah. Look, I agree with that. I agree with that. But in a different way, if you were a person who was really into your own popularity, why would you choose to be a central banker? That\u2019s the dumbest job you could ever have. The biggest majority of Americans say they don\u2019t know what the Fed does but they think it\u2019s doing a bad job at it. And so the law tells us what the job is to maximize employment and stabilize prices. And I like to emphasize, notice there\u2019s nothing in there that says make sure the stock market is happy and there\u2019s nothing in there that says make sure the bond market isn\u2019t surprised or make sure the president or the Congress or whatever.<\/p>\n
Our job is to look at the state of the economy, and you can see in the minutes and you will see in the transcript when it comes out word for word, that is what happens at the FOMC meeting. People take the job extremely seriously and it\u2019s all about the economy.<\/p>\n
Now that said, as I indicated about the AI heating up, I don\u2019t actually think that they\u2019ve driven the output of the United States much higher than potential so far at this point. And the unemployment rate is 4.2%. We just went through a period where it got down into the lower threes. So I don\u2019t know that this is exactly what overheating looks like. And I am hopeful that the supply side can heal itself and we can kind of go back to what the economists call the divine coincidence, is that normally trying to minimize inflation, not minimize, trying to hit your inflation target while maximizing employment, they\u2019re not in contradiction. You have one tool, but they work together. And so I\u2019m hopeful we\u2019re going to get back in that kind of environment.<\/p>\n
Liz: Milton Friedman, I think, had this great analogy for central banks about the fool in the shower who\u2019s constantly scalding and freezing himself by turning the knob faster than the water can adjust. How do you think about the line between being too twitchy and being too slow?<\/p>\n
One of the harder degrees of difficulty is to get the timing right when there are moments of transition. It\u2019s not clear we\u2019re in a moment of transition, but that\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to figure out. I lean toward the steady hand and away from the twitchy. I think it\u2019s clearer that way. As you know, I was a protege and friend of Paul Volcker and worked through the financial crisis with him. And his line, which I try to follow, is he was speaking about the market and he said, \u201cLet\u2019s remember, our job is to act and their job is to react and let\u2019s not get the order mixed up.\u201d And I kind of think if you look at the actual interest rate, it smoothly goes like this. And if you look at the market projection of \u201cwhat do they think the interest rate is going to be,\u201d it kind of goes like this. And it\u2019s better that that is not the Fed, because I kind of fear if the Fed was doing this, then the market would be doing this, rather than turning itself into the smooth part.<\/p>\n
Liz: But you\u2019re getting at, I think, another metaphor I\u2019ve always liked about central banks, which I think is a Mervyn King thing, a Bank of England, the Maradona theory of interest rates, which goes back to this goal that Diego Maradona had scored against England in the World Cup, and that he kind of just went straight down the field and the defenders were all expecting him to zig and zag. And so they were trying to zig and zag, and he actually just took it all the way down and scored. And I think that\u2019s kind of the argument you\u2019re making here.<\/p>\n
And he just went straight down the mill.<\/p>\n
Liz: Straight down the field.<\/p>\n
Yeah. Look, I think that\u2019s argument. Mervyn King is an interesting guy. When you can pull that off, that\u2019s the best of all because it\u2019s in a way predictable. The difference between soccer and central banking is it\u2019s not a zero-sum game. We can do this thing together. Let\u2019s all hold hands, get back on the golden path, get inflation headed back to 2% with full employment. Rates, I think, can come down if we could get some evidence that we\u2019re on that. But the more you see services inflation going up and the more you see AI demand jumping out of its lane and overheating the rest of the economy, then it\u2019s going to be a little dicier.<\/p>\n
Rohan: You\u2019ve made this point before that there\u2019s nothing in your statutory mandate about weighing the bond market or the stock market in your decision making, but at the same time, how do you weigh the job that you have versus the risk of sparking a market crash or correction?<\/p>\n
As long as stable employment, maximum employment, and 2% inflation, the market does not think that that warrants a crash, then good for the market. But the stock market is not the economy. And I always cite the example because it happened on my mom\u2019s birthday in 2020. So I\u2019ll always remember, it was on May the 8th, 2020. That was the day they announced the jobs report for April, that the economy had lost 20 million jobs in a single month and the stock market went up that day. So is that because the stock market thought it was going to be even worse? Is that because… Who knows? We can go way deep into the hall of mirrors to try to figure out the psychology. Our job is to think about those two things. It\u2019s not to think about whether the stock market is going to be upset or what they felt about the dot plot or any of those things.<\/p>\n
Liz: So you\u2019re not afraid of the bond vigilantes is what you\u2019re saying? They don\u2019t keep you up at night.<\/p>\n
Look, we monitor financial stability. In periods where interest rates rise rapidly, you often see things break in the financial system. So we always got to think about those, but I don\u2019t believe in fiscal dominance over the monetary authority and I don\u2019t believe in financial dominance over the monetary authority. We have our job given to us by the law. We have to do our job. And if knowing that we\u2019re going to do our job changes your behavior, then that\u2019s what it is. If we start basing what we\u2019re going to do on what they think we\u2019re going to do, you can get yourself tied up in a pretzel.<\/p>\n
Rohan: Switching gears a little bit. Do you think that the hyperscalers with increasingly longer dated debt are starting to compete with the US Treasury for investors\u2019 money?<\/p>\n
It\u2019s an important question. When I\u2019ve talked to people in financial markets about that, there are widely differing views. Each very strongly held. As you know, the history of the question, does the amount of issuance of treasuries in a short period affect the interest rate? And if so, by how much? That is already controversial. So if you\u2019re of the view that the last however many years in which the US debt has gone up a lot and the interest rate hasn\u2019t gone up that much, then it\u2019s a puzzle why. In a way the closest substitute to treasury debt is more treasury debt. Why having extra treasury debt did not increase the interest rate, but having hyperscaler debt of a similar duration did increase it? I don\u2019t think we know the answer to how much it is. There\u2019s a plausible case to be made that it would have some effect because the flow does matter.<\/p>\n
But are people really attributing that AI data centers are the same or similar credit to US treasuries? Those don\u2019t seem like perfect substitutes.<\/p>\n
Liz: I don\u2019t know, but there were times in the last year that Microsoft bonds traded tighter than treasuries, and certainly-<\/p>\n
You have a point.<\/p>\n
Liz: … some group of investors will look at Satya Nadella and think that is a more stable and predictable management team than the one in the US government.<\/p>\n
You\u2019re getting me way out of my lane. I have no opinion. I have no opinion. The fiscal policy of the country, they can do whatever they want. I always say our Midwest thing is there\u2019s no bad weather, there\u2019s only bad clothing, and those are just weather conditions. You tell us what the conditions are and we\u2019ll pick the right jacket.<\/p>\n
Liz: Okay. It feels like a great place to leave it. Listen, thank you so much, Austan. This was really fun.<\/p>\n
Rohan: Thanks, Austan.<\/p>\n
Hey, it was great to see you and thanks for having me.<\/p>\n
Liz: We\u2019ll see you soon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Liz Hoffman: Austan Goolsbee, welcome to the show. Austan Goolsbee: Thank you for having me. Liz: You are…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":801284,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[84,1294,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-801283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-economy","tag-business","tag-economy","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=801283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801283\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/801284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=801283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=801283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=801283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}