Thank you.

I'm Colby Smith at the New York Times.

If I could follow up on Mike's question about hikes, are we right to assume that the hawkish

outcome for the Fed is still one in which the committee just extends the pause and rate cuts?

And to what extent is there a growing sense within the committee that monetary policy

really isn't just restrictive at all right now. The economy is holding up relatively well,

despite this major energy shock. The unemployment rate has ticked lower. Inflation was moving

sideways, even before the war and is now moving higher. So where is the committee at on that debate?

You know, where we're at is we think our policy rate is in a good place.

If we need to hike, we will certainly signal that and we will certainly do it.

And if we need to cut, then if it's appropriate to cut, then we'll signal the opposite.

I think we, because we feel like we're in a good place to move in either direction.

Nobody's calling for a hike right now.

So it really is going to depend on how things evolve.

And you know, that's really where it is.

And as I mentioned, you know, much closer question this cycle on changing the guidance, but ultimately we didn't.

And as it relates to the war, at what point do you think the risk to growth will be larger

than the risk to inflation as this conflict drags on?

You know, you just have to find that out empirically. You know, given our, the fact that we're, you know, a big exporter of energy and that our economy is far less energy-intensive, oil-intensive than it was during the 70s, you know, the effects on the United States are really substantially less than those of Western Europe or Asia.

We're feeling much greater effects from these things.

The effects we're feeling in the current situation currently and in sort of what's priced

in, which is a relatively quick outcome. If this goes on for much longer and prices

...