尼泊尔洪灾死亡人数上升，重建任务艰巨

Live from Singapore. This is insight with Haslinda Amin, where we dive deeper into the stories that matter with crucial context and sharp analysis. Global markets and policymakers are counting down to the Jackson Hole debut for Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh. Treasury yields remain elevated in the lead up to his address over concerns about sticky inflation and fiscal deficits. We'll be live at Jackson Hole with former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, who now co-chairs the Fed's task force on balance sheet policies.

Also ahead, fears of further flooding in the Nepal China border region as rescuers such devastated villages for survivors of this week's disaster. More than 1200 people are still missing. We'll assess the massive recovery task Nepal now faces, with its Finance Minister, Tim Wagler, and one of the country's top business leaders, Chowdhry Group Chairman and President, Beat Note Chowdhry. Our top story today. Markets on edge ahead of Fed Chairman Kevin Walsh's first speech at Jackson Hole amid criticism of his communication style.

Investors are looking for clues and Walsh's commitment to price stability, with fed officials divided on inflation and the need for a rate hike. Joining us from Jackson Hole is Raghuram Rajan, professor at the Chicago Booth School of Business, is also a member of the Fed's Balance Sheet Task force and previously served as a governor at the reserve Bank of India. Professor Rajan, always good to have you with us. We know that three fed officials are already saying that inflation remains way too high right now.

Is there a sense, perhaps, that wash may be underestimating how entrenched inflation has become? I don't think he's underestimating it. After all, he's been on record saying it's been too high for too long. Uh, five years of, uh, above target inflation. So I don't think he fully understands the need to get it under control. Uh, he fully understands the magnitude of the task that is needed, and certainly doesn't want inflation to be, uh, for another, so many, uh, months above target.

So why is he waiting? We have the likes of Jeffrey Schmidt questioning whether, you know, three and a half or 3.75% policy is tight enough whether it is effective in reining in inflation. Well, clearly, the labor market has been somewhat weak, uh, recently. Uh, there is also some thought that when you look at the Fed's own measure of inflation, because it is somewhat above other measures of inflation, and that might be suggestive that, uh, the true underlying inflation may be a little softer.

Uh, the the problem, uh, as Linda is really this, that, uh, what we have had, uh, over the last few quarters is not so much a steady shock, which is pushing inflation higher, but a sequence of shocks. So we had, for example, uh, the Liberation Day tariffs that were implemented because that shock is winding its way through the tariffs, uh, have increased goods prices, but, uh, we don't have additional tariffs now which are going to increase it even more other than the kerfuffle with Canada.

But uh, similarly, we had, uh, oil prices go up that had an effect on inflation. Now oil prices, at least for the moment, have stabilized. Of course, the big concern there is whether the spreads for diesel, for, uh, aviation fuel, etc. will, uh, will go even higher, especially if, uh, the street doesn't open up soon. But what I am getting at here is we've had a sequence of shocks, each one of which has pushed up inflation, but then it seems to be coming back down and then something else happens.

I think the, the monetary policy, uh, aficionados at this point would say at some point you've got to call it and say, you know, sequencer shocks be damned. I will still raise interest rates. We'll hear from, uh, Kevin Warsh, what he says tomorrow. But the question really is at what point do you call it? I mean, this is a fad that is data dependent. So what data would actually prompt the fed for Chairman Warsh to make that move?

I mean, we talk about data dependence. There is a risk that perhaps it becomes a euphemism for perhaps policy paralysis. Well, I would say, uh, you know, foremost on their minds must be one, uh, labor market. Uh, the last labor reading was weak. There was some special factors which led it to be weak. Uh, the expectation was positive, 78,000. What we got was -20. Uh, and some. I think if you have a very strong labor market reading, that would be, uh, a force for tighter policy going forward.

And of course, uh, signs that, uh, inflation is spreading, uh, through. I mean, we're already seeing, uh, the price of, uh, uh, technical equipment of computers, of chips, uh, going up. Uh, but we also may see as oil prices firm up. Uh, if the street, uh, doesn't get resolved soon, uh, that that too may be an inflationary force. So I think they're going to be watching both the labor market, uh, growth, of course, as well as inflation.

Uh, that's not seeing anything new, but it's saying that for now, uh, it still is consistent with a, an approach which says, oh, maybe we have some time to wait. It may become, uh, such that they have no further room and they have to move. Professor Roger, and you talked about how let's wait and see what Chairman Warsh has to say. This is a chairman who has said before that he wants to scale back communications. What are you expecting, really?

How much clarity do you think he will provide? Well, I think what, uh, a lot of people want to hear is that one, he has the right instincts, which he has actually, uh, tried to make clear that he is very much against inflation and wants to bring it down. Second, that he has a plan to, uh, do it, that he knows what he has to do, and he can communicate that very clearly, that, uh, without entering into the sphere of forward guidance, uh, basically, you know, affirm that, uh, that he will take whatever measures are necessary to combat inflation.

I think if the markets hear that here, that there is a clear plan here, that his, uh, intent is strong, uh, that would, uh, calm some of the concerns that have emerged, uh, over the last few appearances that, uh, He's made. Some people we have spoken to say that the fed is behind the curve. If it doesn't move in September, do you expect the fed to have to play catch up? Uh, it might well have to. I mean, I would be more hawkish, uh, than where the fed is right now.

I certainly would have been averse to cutting rates, uh, uh, last year. And I certainly, uh, would be at a higher level than now. I do think that financial conditions are not restrictive at this point. Yes. The mortgage market is not uh, is. Mortgage rates are very high, and certainly housing is off the table. But when you look at growth coming from, uh, the very strong investment in, uh, in data centers, etc., the fact that we have a very strong fiscal deficit, which doesn't look like it's coming down anytime soon.

And the fact that consumers themselves are saving, uh, at a pretty, uh, impressive pace. And so they are, uh, continuing to spend. When you have all these things together, it would suggest an economy which is not being held back. And so I personally would think that the fed should be raising rates, uh, or should have raised rates already. Uh, how concerned are you when you take a look at the Treasury markets, the surging yields at the long and might treasuries become a global systemic risk at some point?

Well, um, you know, um, uh, the answer's yes, of course. Uh, because it's the market that everybody watches. It's the, uh, to some extent the most important market in the world. Uh, but that said, I think we shouldn't be, um, overly concerned about, uh, some movement in long rates. I think the world over, you're seeing this movement in long rates, and that's partly, uh, of course, a worry about government deficits and so on.

But it's also, uh, a function of the fact that governments are, uh, on the hook to spend more, whether it's military spending, uh, in some cases, u