There have been all kinds of “voices” in the history of Western civilization. Perhaps the loudest voice is that of monomaniacs, who always claim that behind the appearance of the many is the one. If we illustrate the West, and at its roots, the intersection of Athens and Jerusalem, we see the origins of this monomania. Plato’s realm of ideas was supposed to explain everything encountered in our daily lives. His main student and rival, Aristotle, has his own competing explanation, based in biology instead of mathematics.
Currently, the monomania impetus continues full-force. For example, Professor Seth Lloyd of MIT tells us that reality is the cosmos and not chaos, because all of reality together is a computer. His MIT colleague, Max Tegmark, argues in his books that the world is not explained by mathematics, but rather ismathematics. Perhaps the climax of this kind of thinking is given to us by the essay “Everything Is Computation” by Joscha Bach:
These days we see a tremendous number of significant scientific news stories, and it’s hard to say which has the highest significance. Climate models indicate that we are past crucial tipping points and irrevocably headed for a new, difficult age for our civilization. Mark van Raamsdonk expands on the work of Brian Swingle and Juan Maldacena and demonstrates how we can abolish the idea of spacetime in favor of a discrete tensor network, thus opening the way for a unified theory of physics. Bruce Conklin, George Church, and others have given us CRISPR/Cas9, a technology that holds promise for simple and ubiquitous gene editing. “Deep learning” starts to tell us how hierarchies of interconnected feature detectors can autonomously form a model of the world, learn to solve problems, and recognize speech, images, and video.
It is perhaps equally important to notice where we lack progress: Sociology fails to teach us how societies work; philosophy seems to have become infertile; the economicsciences seem ill-equipped to inform our economic and fiscal policies; psychology does not encompass the logic of our psyche; and neuroscience tells us where things happen in the brain but largely not what they are.
It is the notion of computation. Computation, at its core, and as informally described as possible, is simple: Every observation yields a set of discernible differences.
These we call information. If the observation corresponds to a system that can change its state, we can describe those state changes. If we identify regularity in those state changes, we are looking at a computational system. If the regularity is completely described, we call this system an algorithm. Once a system can perform conditional state transitions and revisit earlier states, it becomes almost impossible to stop it from performing arbitrary computation. In the infinite case that is, if we allow it to make an unbounded number of state transitions and use unbounded storage for the states—it becomes a Turing machine, or a Lambda calculus, or a Post machine, or one of the many other mutually equivalent formalisms that capture universal computation.
Computation is different from mathematics. Mathematics turns out to be the domain of formal languages and is mostly undecidable, which is just another word for saying “uncomputable” (since decision making and proving are alternative words for computation, too). All our explorations into mathematics are computational ones, though. To compute means to actually do all the work, to move from one state to the next.
Computation changes our idea of knowledge: Instead of justified true belief, knowledge describes a local minimum in capturing regularities between observables. Knowledge is almost never static but progresses on a gradient through a state space of possible worldviews. We will no longer aspire to teach our children the truth, because, like us, they will never stop changing their minds. We will teach them how to productively change their minds, how to explore the never-ending land of insight.
A growing number of physicists understands that the universe is not mathematical but computational, and physics is in the business of finding an algorithm that can reproduce our observations. The switch from uncomputable mathematical notions (such as continuous space) makes progress possible. Climate science, molecular genetics, and AI are computationalsciences. Sociology, psychology, and neuroscience are not: They still seem confused by the apparent dichotomy between mechanism (rigid moving parts) and the objects of their study. They are looking for social, behavioral, chemical, neural regularities, where they should be looking for computational ones.
Friedrich Nietzsche rebelled against this type of thinking the most profoundly. If scientism represents the modern, then Nietzsche was the prophet of postmodernism. Nietzsche’s famous phrase, “God is dead.” is not about a creator or divinity, but rather finality itself. There is no final explanation.
by Hamza Abdelrahman, Luiz Edgard Oliveira and Aditi Poduri
Information the San Francisco Fed collects from businesses and community sources for the Beige Book provides timely insights into economic activity at both the national and regional levels. Two new indexes based on Beige Book questionnaire responses track business sentiment across the western United States. The indexes track data on economic activity and inflation, serving as early indicators of official data releases and helping improve near-term forecasting accuracy. The latest index readings suggest weakening economic growth and intensifying inflationary pressures over the coming months.
This Economic Letter examines the economic information collected through the SF Fed’s Beige Book questionnaire over the past 10-plus years. We analyze this information by constructing sentiment indexes from the qualitative data and comparing them with quantitative measures of national and regional economic activity and inflation. We introduce two indexes—the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index and the SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index—which track our contacts’ views and expectations for economic growth and inflation, respectively. We find that these new indexes serve as reliable early indicators of official data releases and help improve near-term forecast accuracy. The SF Fed Business Sentiment Index has generally exhibited patterns similar to other recent business and household sentiment indexes, and the SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index has shown a strong uptick in expected inflation. To regularly monitor changes in these two indexes, the San Francisco Fed has launched a new Twelfth District Business Sentiment data page.
Constructing regional sentiment indexes
The San Francisco Fed sends out a Beige Book questionnaire to business and community contacts across the District eight times a year to gather regional information. In addition to answering questions regarding their organizations, respondents share their views on regional and national topics, including economic activity and inflationary pressures.
In two questions, respondents indicate whether they see national output growth and inflation rates increasing, decreasing, or staying stable over the coming year using a standard five-tiered scale. We use these responses since 2014 to formulate two business sentiment indexes, one on economic activity and another on inflation. We assign standard weights to the five-tiered qualitative scale that are symmetrical around zero. For example, we ask if activity is expected to “decrease significantly” = –2, “decrease” = –1, “remain unchanged” = 0, “increase” = 1, or “increase significantly” = 2. We add up the weighted shares of responses for each tier within each index. We then normalize each resulting series by its own average and standard deviation for ease of comparison with traditional economic indicators.
Tracking business sentiment
Figure 1 shows how the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index (blue line), compiled from responses to the question on national economic activity, compares with data on changes in national GDP (green line). We measure national output as the four-quarter change in inflation-adjusted, or real, GDP, normalized by its average and standard deviation so that it is centered around zero and, hence, more directly comparable to the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index. The vertical axis shows how many standard deviations away each observation is from its respective measure’s average from 2014 to mid-2025.
Figure 1 Economic growth versus business sentiment
The SF Fed Business Sentiment Index generally tracks the movements in national GDP over the past decade; a correlation coefficient of +0.63 on a scale of –1 to 1 indicates a moderately strong positive relationship between the two measures. A relatively recent exception started in 2022, when our index began showing a considerable decline relative to the national GDP measure. Respondents across the District were downbeat about economic growth and reported expectations of a sharp decline in consumer spending and overall household financial health following the depletion of pandemic-era savings (Abdelrahman and Oliveira 2023). A similar decline appeared in other measures of business and household sentiment. Nevertheless, overall economic growth continued at a solid pace. This decoupling between sentiment and hard data that began in 2022 was dubbed a “vibecession” (Daly 2024, Scanlon 2022).
Another possible reason for the divergence between national real GDP and our Business Sentiment Index is the influence of the regional economy. Although respondents are asked about their views of national GDP, their responses may be affected by regional outcomes. Thus, our index may also reflect a regional perspective from our business and community contacts.
Figure 2 supports this rationale, showing the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index alongside a measure of regional output growth (gold line). We find that the measures closely track one another, including for 2022 and 2023, with a correlation coefficient of +0.74. We define District real GDP growth as the year-over-year percent change in the total output of the District’s nine states as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). We normalize the series as described before.
Figure 2 Regional economic growth and business sentiment
Our findings indicate that the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index can serve as an accurate early indicator for national and regional output growth. Since the regional Beige Book questionnaire is collected twice each quarter, it provides particularly timely insights into economic activity during the current quarter. By contrast, the first GDP data release for any given quarter usually arrives a full month after that quarter has ended, and initial data releases for state-level output growth arrive with even more delay.
Our Beige Book questionnaire responses also provide insights into how business and community contacts in the District see national inflation evolving. Figure 3 compares the SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index (blue line) with monthly changes in the year-over-year headline personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation rate published by the BEA (green line). We normalize the inflation series and index as discussed earlier.
Figure 3 SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index versus realized inflation
Beyond tracking data on national and regional economic conditions, we consider whether our two indexes can help improve one-year-ahead projections of output growth and overall inflation. We run linear regressions on a 2014–2022 data sample and estimate out-of-sample projections for the period starting in the first quarter of 2023. We run this analysis for the three economic measures—national GDP, regional GDP, and inflation—once with our index included on the right-hand side of the regression equation and once without the index. For this analysis, we use versions of the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index and the SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index that have been aggregated quarterly.
Figure 4 compares the out-of-sample projection accuracy of the two iterations. Across all economic measures, incorporating the SF Fed Business Sentiment Index or the SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index in the regression noticeably reduced the forecast errors for the out-of-sample period. This general result appears to hold when we project output growth and inflation one quarter ahead, in line with other studies that incorporate soft data from the Beige Book in short-term projections (Balke and Petersen 2002). The results are also consistent when using a local projections method from Jordà (2005) for one-year-ahead projections of output growth and shorter-term projections of inflation. This further supports the usefulness of our qualitative measures as early indicators of the future economic landscape over the short term.
Figure 4 Forecast errors with and without SF Fed sentiment indexes
Information collected from businesses and communities through the San Francisco Fed’s regional Beige Book questionnaire can provide valuable insights into the national and regional economies. Sentiment indexes described in this Letter use responses from Twelfth District Beige Book contacts to generally track economic activity and inflation. Our two indexes serve as reliable early indicators of official data, which could help improve near-term forecast accuracy. The SF Fed Business Sentiment Index remained negative for much of 2022 and 2023, possibly reflecting more subdued growth within the District relative to the United States. Meanwhile, the SF Fed Inflation Gauge Index spiked in recent months following adjustments to trade policy.
Therefore, the behavior and the volatility of different asset classes have been impacted, altering global financial conditions. This scenario requires particular caution from emerging market economies amid heightened geopolitical tensions.
Regarding the domestic scenario, the set of indicators on economic activity has shown some moderation in growth, as expected, but the labor market is still showing strength.
The inflation outlook remains challenging in several dimensions. Copom assessed the international scenario, economic activity, aggregate demand, inflation expectations, and current inflation. Copom then discussed inflation projections and expectations before deliberating on the current decision and future communication.
The global environment is more adverse and uncertain. If, on the one hand, the approval of certain trade agreements, along with recent inflation and economic activity data from the U.S., could suggest a reduction in global uncertainty, on the other hand, the U.S. fiscal policy—and, particularly for Brazil, the U.S. trade policy—make the outlook more uncertain and adverse. The increase of tradetariffs by the U.S. to Brazil has significant sectoral impacts and still uncertain aggregate effects that depend on the unfolding of the next steps in the negotiations and the perception of risk inherent to this process. The Committee is closely monitoring the potential impacts on the real economy and financial assets. The prevailing assessment within the Committee is the increased global outlook uncertainty, and, therefore, Copom should maintain a cautious stance. As usual, the Committee will focus on the transmission mechanisms from the external environment to the domestic inflation dynamics and their impact on the outlook.
The domestic economic activity outlook has indicated a certain moderation in growth, while also presenting mixed data across sectors and indicators.
Overall, some moderation in growth is observed, supporting the scenario outlined by the Committee. This moderation, necessary for the widening of the output gap and the convergence of inflation to the target, is aligned with a contractionary monetary policy. Monthly sectoral surveys and more timely consumption data support a gradual slowdown in growth.
The credit market, which is more sensitive to financial conditions, has shown clearer moderation. A decline in non-earmarkedcredit granting and an increase in interest and delinquency rates have been observed. Moreover, regarding householdcredit, there has been an increase in the household debt–service ratio and a deepening of the negative credit flow—that is, households repaying more debt than taking on. It was emphasized during the discussion that some recent measures, such as private payroll-deducted loans, have had less impact than many market participants expected. Given the implementation agenda in this credit line, as well as the effects of introducing and removing taxes on other credit modalities, the Committee believes it should closely monitor upcoming credit data releases.
Fiscal policy has a short-term impact, mainly through stimulating aggregate demand, and a more structural dimension, which has the potential to affect perceptions of debt sustainability and influence the term premium in the yield curve. A fiscal policy that acts counter-cyclically and contributes to reducing the risk premium favors the convergence of inflation to the target. Copom reinforced its view that the slowdown in structural reform efforts and fiscal discipline, the increase in earmarkedcredit, and uncertainties over the public debt stabilization have the potential to raise the economy’s neutral interest rate, with deleterious impacts on the power of monetary policy and, consequently, on the cost of disinflation in terms of activity. The Committee remained firmly convinced that policies must be predictable, credible, and countercyclical. In particular, the Committee’s discussion once again highlighted the need for harmonious fiscal and monetary policy.
Inflation expectations, as measured by different instruments and obtained from various groups of agents, remained above the inflation target at all horizons, maintaining the adverse inflation outlook. For shorter-term horizons, following the release of the most recent data, there has been a decline in inflation expectations. For longer-term horizons, conversely, there has been no significant change in inflation expectations between Copom meetings, even though measures of breakeven inflation extracted from financial assets have declined. The Committee reaffirmed and renewed its commitment to re-anchoring expectations and to conducting a monetary policy that supports such a movement.
De-anchored inflation expectations is a factor of discomfort shared by all Committee members and must be tamed. Copom highlighted that environments with de-anchored expectations increase the disinflation cost in terms of activity. The scenario of inflation convergence to the target becomes more challenging with de-anchored expectations for longer horizons. When discussing this topic, the main conclusion obtained and shared by all members of Copom was that, in an environment of de-anchored expectations—as currently is the case—greater monetary restriction is required for a longer period than would be otherwise appropriate.
The inflation scenario has continued to show downside surprises in recent periods compared with analysts’ forecasts, but inflation has remained above the target Industrial goods inflation, which has already been showing weaker wholesale price pressures, continued to ease in the more recent period. Food prices also displayed slightly weaker-than-expected dynamics. Finally, servicesinflation, which has greater inertia, remains above the level required to meet the inflation target, in a context of a positive output gap. Beyond the changes in items, or even short-term oscillations, the core inflation measures have remained above the value consistent with the target achievement for months, corroborating the interpretation that inflation is pressured by demand and requires a contractionary monetary policy for a very prolonged period.
Copom then addressed the projections. In the reference scenario, the interest rate path is extracted from the Focus survey, and the exchange rate starts at USD/BRL 5.552 and evolves according to the purchasing power parity (PPP). The Committee assumes that oil prices follow approximately the futures market curve for the following six months and then start increasing 2% per year onwards. Moreover, the energy tariff flag is assumed to be “green” in December of the years 2025 and 2026.
In the reference scenario, four-quarter inflation projections for 2025 and for 2026 are 4.9% and 3.6%, respectively (Table 1). For the relevant horizon for monetary policy—2027 Q1—the inflation projection based on the reference scenario extracted from the Focus survey remained at 3.4%, above the inflation target.
Regarding the balance of risks, it was assessed that the scenario of greater uncertainty continues to present higher-than-usual upside and downside inflation risks to the inflation outlook. Copom assessed that, among the upside risks for the inflation outlook and inflation expectations, it should be emphasized (i) a more prolonged period of de-anchoring of inflation expectations; (ii) a stronger-than-expected resilience of servicesinflation due to a more positive output gap; and (iii) a conjunction of internal and external economic policies with a stronger-than-expected inflationary impact, for example, through a persistently more depreciatedcurrency. Among the downside risks, it should be noted (i) a greater-than-projected deceleration of domestic economic activity, impacting the inflation scenario; (ii) a steeper global slowdown stemming from the trade shock and the scenario of heightened uncertainty; and (iii) a reduction in commodity prices with disinflationary effects.
Prospectively, the Committee will continue monitoring the pace of economic activity, which is a fundamental driver of inflation, particularly services inflation; the exchange rate pass-through to inflation, after a process of increased exchange rate volatility; and inflation expectations, which remain de-anchored and are drivers of future inflation behavior. It was emphasized that inflationary vectors remain adverse, such as the economic activity resilience and labor market pressures, de-anchored inflation expectations, and high inflation projections. This scenario prescribes a significantly contractionary monetary policy for a very prolonged period to ensure the convergence of inflation to the target.
Copom then discussed the conduct of monetary policy, considering the set of projections evaluated, as well as the balance of risks for prospective inflation.
Following a swift and firm interest rate hike cycle, the Committee anticipates, as its monetary policy strategy, continuity of the interruption of the rate hiking cycle to observe the effects of the cycle already implemented. It was emphasized that, once the appropriate interest rate is determined, it should remain at a significantly contractionary level for a very prolonged period due to de-anchored expectations. The Committee emphasizes that it will remain vigilant, that future monetary policy steps can be adjusted and that it will not hesitate to proceed with the rate hiking cycle if appropriate.
The Committee has been closely monitoring with particular attention the announcements regarding the imposition by the U.S. of tradetariffs on Brazil, reinforcing its cautious stance in a scenario of heightened uncertainty. Moreover, it continues to monitor how the developments on the fiscal side impact monetary policy and financial assets. The current scenario continues to be marked by de-anchored inflation expectations, high inflation projections, resilience on economic activity, and labor market pressures. Ensuring the convergence of inflation to the target in an environment with de-anchored expectations requires a significantly contractionary monetary policy for a very prolonged period.
Copom decided to maintain the Selic rate at 15.00% p.a., and judges that this decision is consistent with the strategy for inflation convergence to a level around its target throughout the relevant horizon for monetary policy. Without compromising its fundamental objective of ensuring price stability, this decision also implies smoothing economic fluctuations and fostering full employment.
The current scenario, marked by heightened uncertainty, requires a cautious stance in monetary policy. If the expected scenario materializes, the Committee foresees a continuation of the interruption of the rate hiking cycle to examine its yet-to-be-seen cumulative impacts, and then evaluate whether the current interest rate level, assuming it stable for a very prolonged period, will be enough to ensure the convergence of inflation to the target. The Committee emphasizes that it will remain vigilant, that future monetary policy steps can be adjusted and that it will not hesitate to resume the rate hiking cycle if appropriate.
The following members of the Committee voted for this decision: Gabriel Muricca Galípolo (Governor), Ailton de Aquino Santos, Diogo Abry Guillen, Gilneu Francisco Astolfi Vivan, Izabela Moreira Correa, Nilton José Schneider David, Paulo Picchetti, Renato Dias de Brito Gomes, and Rodrigo Alves Teixeira.
Table 1
Inflation projections in the reference scenario Year-over-year IPCA change (%)
1 Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this update considers changes since the June Copom meeting (271st meeting).
2 It corresponds to the rounded value of the average exchange rate observed over the ten working days ending on the last day of the week prior to the Copom meeting, according to the procedure adopted since the 258th meeting.
Meeting information
Date: July 29-30 2025
Place: BCB Headquarters’ meeting rooms on the 8th floor (7/29 and 7/30 on the morning) and 20th floor (7/30 on the afternoon) – Brasilia – DF – Brazil
Starting and ending times:
July 29: 10:07 AM – 11:37 AM; 2:17 PM – 5:51 PM
July 30: 10:10 AM – 11:13 AM; 2:37PM – 6:34 PM
In attendance:
Members of the Copom
Gabriel Muricca Galípolo – Governor
Ailton de Aquino Santos
Diogo Abry Guillen
Gilneu Francisco Astolfi Vivan
Izabela Moreira Correa
Nilton José Schneider David
Paulo Picchetti
Renato Dias de Brito Gomes
Rodrigo Alves Teixeira
Department Heads in charge of technical presentations (attending on July 29 and on the morning of July 30)
André de Oliveira Amante
Open Market Operations Department
Euler Pereira Gonçalves de Mello
Research Department (also attending on the afternoon of 7/30)
Fábio Martins Trajano de Arruda
Department of Banking Operations and Payments System
Luís Guilherme Siciliano Pontes
International Reserves Department
Marcelo Antonio Thomaz de Aragão
Department of International Affairs
Ricardo Sabbadini
Department of Economics
Other participants (attending on July 29 and on the morning of July 30)
Alexandre de Carvalho
Office of Economic Advisor
André Maurício Trindade da Rocha
Head of the Financial System Monitoring Department
Angelo Jose Mont Alverne Duarte
Head of Office of the Deputy Governor for Licensing and Resolution (attending on the mornings of 7/29 and 7/30)
Arnaldo José Giongo Galvão
Press Office Advisor
Cristiano de Oliveira Lopes Cozer
General Counsel
Edson Broxado de França Teixeira
Head of Office of the Deputy Governor for Supervision
Eduardo José Araújo Lima
Head of Office of the Deputy Governor for Economic Policy
Fernando Alberto G. Sampaio C. Rocha
Head of the Department of Statistics
Isabela Ribeiro Damaso Maia
Head of the Sustainability and International Portfolio Investors Unit (attending on the mornings of 7/29 and 7/30)
Julio Cesar Costa Pinto
Head of Office of the Governor
Laura Soledad Cutruffo Comparini
Deputy Head of the Department of Economics
Leonardo Martins Nogueira
Head of Office of the Deputy Governor for Monetary Policy
Marcos Ribeiro de Castro
Deputy Head of the Research Department
Mardilson Fernandes Queiroz
Head of the Financial System Regulation Department
Olavo Lins Romano Pereira
Deputy Head of the Department of International Affairs
Renata Modesto Barreto
Deputy Head of the Department of Banking Operations and Payments System
Ricardo da Costa Martinelli
Deputy Head of the International Reserves Department
Ricardo Eyer Harris
Head of Office of the Deputy Governor for Regulation
Ricardo Franco Moura
Head of the Prudential and Foreign Exchange Regulation Department
Rogerio Antonio Lucca
Executive Secretary
Simone Miranda Burello
Advisor in the Office of the Deputy Governor for Monetary Policy
The twentieth centuryphilosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, tells us that his purpose is “to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.” Where the fly is, of course, ourselves. He then tells us, that perhaps the main reason is that one is unable to free oneself from bewitchment of the mind by “language games.”
In the song “Hotel California” by the Eagles, there’s the line, “‘We are all just prisoners here / Of our own device.’” In this context, “device” could be interpreted as a bad decision.
My Body and Myself
The Americanphilosophy professor, Samuel Todes, in his book Body and World, analyzes the human body, not as a meat-machine, but more like the silent partner of a person navigating their life. You can get a sense of this from Gabriel Marcel, when he writes:
Is my body my body, for instance, in the same sense in which I would say that my dog belongs to me? The question, let us first of all notice, of how the dog originally came into my hands is quite irrelevant here. Perhaps I found it wandering wretchedly about the streets, perhaps I bought it in a shop; I can say it is mine if nobody else puts in a claim for it—though this is still quite a negative condition of ownership. For the dog to be really, not merely nominally, mine there must exist between us a more positive set of relations. He must live, either with me, or as I, and I alone, have decided he shall live—lodged, perhaps, with a servant or a farmer; whether or not I look after him personally, I must assume the responsibility for his being looked after. And this implies something reciprocal in our relations. It is only it the dog recognizes me, obeys me, expresses by his behaviour towards me some feeling which I can interpret as affection or, at the very least, as wholesome fear, that he is really mine; I would become a laughingstock if I persisted in calling an animal that completely ignored me, that took no notice of me at all, my dog. And the mockery to which I would be exposed in such an instance is very significant. It is linked to a very positive idea of how things must be between my dog and me, before I can really say, ‘This dog is mine’.
We should recall, at this point, what we said in an earlier lecture about the body; the latter is not merely an instrument, it presents us with a kind of reality which is quite different from the reality of any sort of apparatus, in so far as it, my body, is also my way of being in the world.
When I try to make clear to myself the nature of my bond with my body, it appears to me chiefly as something of which I have the use (as one has the use of a piano, a saw, or a razor); but all these uses are extensions of the initial use, which is simply the use of the body. I have real priority to my body when it is a question of active use, but none whatever when it is a question of knowledge. The use is only possible on the basis of a certain felt community. But the community is indivisible; I cannot validly say ‘I and my body.’ The difficulty arises from the fact that I think of my relation with my body on the analogy of my relation with my instruments—whereas in fact the latter presupposes the former.
The connections between the trio of “me, myself and I” and the body is very elusive (as you may sense from your own introspection). This is another “argument without end.”
But, of course, it needed more than economic hardship, social discontent, and the frustration of political and social ambitions to make a revolution. To give cohesion to the discontents and aspirations of widely varying social classes there had to be some unifying body of ideas, a common vocabulary, of hope and protest, something, in short, like a common “revolutionarypsychology”. In the revolutions of our day, this ideological preparation has been the concern of political parties; but there were no such parties in eighteenth-centuryFrance.
Inflation expectations for 2025 and 2026 collected by the Focus survey remained above the inflation target and stand at 5.1% and 4.4%, respectively. Copom’s inflation projections for the first quarter of 2027, currently the relevant horizon for monetary policy, stand at 3.4% in the reference scenario (Table 1).
The risks to the inflation scenarios, both to the upside and to the downside, continue to be higher than usual. Among the upside risks for the inflation outlook and inflation expectations, it should be emphasized (i) a more prolonged period of de-anchoring of inflation expectations; (ii) a stronger-than-expected resilience of services inflation due to a more positive output gap; and (iii) a conjunction of internal and external economic policies with a stronger-than-expected inflationary impact, for example, through a persistently more depreciatedcurrency. Among the downside risks, it should be noted (i) a greater-than-projected deceleration of domestic economic activity, impacting the inflation scenario; (ii) a steeper global slowdown stemming from the trade shock and the scenario of heightened uncertainty; and (iii) a reduction in commodity prices with disinflationary effects.
The Committee has been closely monitoring the announcements on tariffs by the USA to Brazil, which reinforces its cautious stance in a scenario of heightened uncertainty. Moreover, it continues to monitor how the developments on the fiscal side impact monetary policy and financial assets. The current scenario continues to be marked by de-anchored inflation expectations, high inflation projections, resilience on economic activity and labormarket pressures. Ensuring the convergence of inflation to the target in an environment with de-anchored expectations requires a significantly contractionary monetary policy for a very prolonged period.
Copom decided to maintain the Selic rate at 15.00% p.a., and judges that this decision is consistent with the strategy for inflation convergence to a level around its target throughout the relevant horizon for monetary policy. Without compromising its fundamental objective of ensuring price stability, this decision also implies smoothing economic fluctuations and fostering full employment.
The current scenario, marked by heightened uncertainty, requires a cautious stance in monetary policy. If the expected scenario materializes, the Committee foresees a continuation of the interruption of the rate hiking cycle to examine its yet-to-be-seen cumulative impacts, and then evaluate whether the current interest rate level, assuming it stable for a very prolonged period, will be enough to ensure the convergence of inflation to the target. The Committee emphasizes that it will remain vigilant, that future monetary policy steps can be adjusted and that it will not hesitate to resume the rate hiking cycle if appropriate.
The following members of the Committee voted for this decision: Gabriel Muricca Galípolo (Governor), Ailton de Aquino Santos, Diogo Abry Guillen, Gilneu Francisco Astolfi Vivan, Izabela Moreira Correa, Nilton José Schneider David, Paulo Picchetti, Renato Dias de Brito Gomes, and Rodrigo Alves Teixeira.
Table 1
Inflation projections in the reference scenario Year-over-year IPCA change (%)
In the reference scenario, the interest rate path is extracted from the Focus survey, and the exchange rate starts at USD/BRL 5.55 and evolves according to the purchasing power parity (PPP). The Committee assumes that oil prices follow approximately the futures market curve for the following six months and then start increasing 2% per year onwards. Moreover, the energy tariff flag is assumed to be “green” in December of the years 2025 and 2026. The value for the exchange rate was obtained according to the usual procedure.
Note: This press release represents the Copom’s best effort to provide an English version of its policy statement. In case of any inconsistency, the original version in Portuguese prevails.
GDPNow is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed. Rather, it is best viewed as a running estimate of real GDP growth based on available economic data for the current measured quarter. There are no subjective adjustments made to GDPNow—the estimate is based solely on the mathematical results of the model.
The GDPNowmodel estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2025 is 2.4 percent on July 25, unchanged from July 18 after rounding. The forecasts of the major GDP subcomponents were all unchanged or little changed from their July 18 values after this week’s releases from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Association of Realtors.
As more monthly source data becomes available, the GDPNow forecast for a particular quarter evolves and generally becomes more accurate. That said, the forecasting error can still be substantial just prior to the “advance” GDP estimate release. It is important to emphasize that the Atlanta FedGDPNow forecast is a model projection not subject to judgmental adjustments. It is not an official forecast of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, its president, the Federal Reserve System, or the FOMC.
The Court “directed” the Commission to advise whether it “intends to review or reconsider the [R]ules at issue in this case.”[2] And, if the Commission has determined to take no action, the Court ordered the Commission to explain whether it “will adhere to the [R]ules if the petitions for review are denied and, if not, why it will not review or reconsider the [R]ules at this time.”[3]
The Court’s directive was straightforward; our answer is not.
The Commission’s Status Report, filed today, states plainly enough that it has no intention of revisiting the Rules at this time.[4] That, however, is where our responsiveness ends.[5] The Status Report goes on to argue that we cannot expound on what the Commission’s future plans might be in the event the rule-making petitions are denied, because we would be “prejudging” those policy decisions.[6] And, the Status Report explains, any future rule-making should benefit from a court ruling on our statutory authority.[7]
We also weigh in on a number of questions that the Court did not ask of us—for example, we opine that there are “no obstacle[s]” to reaching the merits of the case and that a “live controversy” remains.[8]
This purported response is wholly unresponsive.
The Court asked us in no uncertain terms “will [the Commission] adhere to the [R]ules if the petitions for review are denied[?]” We did not—but should have—answered that question. The unspoken truth under this Commission is that the answer is “no.” Three of the four current Commissioners have been vocal critics of the Rules.[9] They have also withdrawn the Commission from the defense of the Rules in litigation.[10] The Commission simply does not want to say what we all know to be true by now—it has no intention of allowing the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules to go into effect.
Once we acknowledge this answer, the rest of the Commission’s arguments fall away. There are no prejudgment issues, because there is nothing to prejudge. And, we do not need the Court to rule on our statutory authority for the Commission to engage in rule-making. If there is future rule-making in this space—whether to rescind the Rules or otherwise—that rule-making may present different legal issues. Whatever those issues may be, and whomever those aggrieved parties may be, they are not now before the Court. Federal courts are not in the business of giving advisory opinions to agencies.
What is crystal clear, however, is that this Commission is seeking to avoid its legal obligations under the guise of conserving “Commission time and resources.” No matter what, this comes at the expense of judicial resources. As I wrote previously in connection with the Commission’s decision to stop defending these Rules,[11] the Administrative Procedure Act governs the process by which we make and repeal rules. It includes a prescriptive framework for promulgation and rescission. If this Commission wants to rescind, repeal or modify the Rules, which were promulgated by-the-book, then it must do the statutorily-required work. It cannot take the easy way out. It must engage in notice-and-comment rule-making, with the benefit of economic analysis and a public, transparent process, even if inconvenient or if the Commission has other, more pressing priorities.[12] Indeed, other Commissioners have acknowledged that doing the work required to rescind the rule would be a difficult lift.[13] So, instead, we once again ask the Court to do the work for us. By asking the Court to carry water that we should shoulder ourselves, we do a grave disservice to our already taxed judicial system. This is not good governance.
The Commission has effectively ignored the Court’s order and thrown the ball back at the Court. The Court should decline to play these games.
[1] See State of Iowa v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24-cv-1522 (8th Cir. Apr. 24, 2025) (“Status Update Order”); see also Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [archived PDF], Rel. No. 33-11275 (Mar. 6, 2024), 89 Fed. Reg. 21668 (Mar. 28, 2024) (“Climate-Related Disclosure Rules” or the “Rules”).
[4] Status Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Response to the Court’s April 24, 2025 Order, State of Iowa v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24-cv-1522 (8th Cir. July 23, 2025)(“Status Report”) at 2 (“The Commission does not intend to review or reconsider the Rules at this time.”).
[5] These viewpoints do not reflect upon the efforts of the staff in our Office of the General Counsel.
[10] See Status Report filed by SEC, State of Iowa v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 24-cv-1522 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025); SEC Press Release No. 2025-58, SEC Votes to End Defense of Climate Disclosure Rules (Mar. 27, 2025) (According to then-Acting Chair Uyeda, “The goal of today’s Commission action and notification to the court is to cease the Commission’s involvement in the defense of the costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate change disclosure rules.”).
[12] Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Remarks at the “SEC Speaks” Conference 2025 (May 19, 2025) (“For the Commission to rescind the climate-related disclosure rule—and address the countless factual findings discussed in that 885-page release—would place a significant strain on the Commission’s resources. This effort would be a difficult lift, and it would potentially take away staff resources needed to advance the regulatory regime with respect to crypto and capital formation.”).
by Mohammad Al-Shehri, Assistant Economist & Omar Al-Nakib, Head of MENA Research
Preliminary official figures show GDP expanding 1% y/y in Q1 2025 following seven consecutive quarters of contraction, helped by a less severe downturn in oil output. With the negative effects of earlier voluntary oil production cuts beginning to fade, oilGDP recorded only a marginal decline, the softest since Q2 2023. Growth in non-oil activity remained positive though eased, weighed by a moderation in the manufacturing, real estate, and transportsectors. The near-term outlook for GDP is one of positive growth, lifted by rising oil production after Kuwait started to restore 135 kb/d of oil output cuts between April and September 2025, while the non-oilsector should also register further steady gains.
Non-oil GDP growth softens in Q1 2025 after strong performance in Q4 2024
Growth in the non-oilsector weakened in Q1 2025, slowing to 2% y/y compared to 4% recorded in the prior quarter. (Chart 1.) The softer expansion in non-oil activity reflected, among other things, a moderation in the manufacturingsector, where activity grew at a still-solid 4.3% despite a decline in refined petroleum products output but slowed notably from the 12.2% reading registered in Q4 2024. Growth in other sectors including real estate, wholesale & retailtrade, transport, and education also slowed. Offsetting the slowdown was stronger expansion in the non-oileconomy’s largest segments: public administration and defense as well as financial intermediation and insurance, which grew 1% and 3.2% y/y, respectively. (Chart 2.)
Oil sector logs marginal contraction, set to return to growth in Q2
The contraction in oilGDP eased significantly to -0.3% y/y from -5.7% y/y in Q4 2024, registering the softest rate of decline since Kuwait embarked on cutting oil production in Q2 2023 after participating in the voluntary cuts scheme with 7 other OPEC+ members. (Chart 4.) Kuwait’s oil production averaged 2.415 mb/d in Q1 2025, a 0.7% decline from the same quarter last year, according to OPEC secondary sources. However, oilsector fortunes are set to shift in Q2 2025 and thereafter, after the OPEC-8 member alliance started unwinding the 2.2 mb/d voluntary cut tranche in April 2025. Originally planned to be unwound over the course of 18 months, OPEC+ has accelerated the pace of supply hikes with output now on a path to be fully restored in September, a full year ahead of schedule. For Kuwait, crude production rose by 0.5% q/q in Q2 to 2.426 mb/d and is set to accelerate further to average 2.533 mb/d in H2 2025. With the oil market so far able to absorb the additional OPEC and global supply and oil prices currently holding near $70/bbl, an upside risk to our oilsector outlook involves the potential unwinding of the outstanding OPEC-8 voluntary cuts (1.66 mb/d), of which Kuwait’s share is 128 kb/d.
Growth heading back into positive territory in 2025
Growth in total GDP is set to remain on a positive trajectory in the near term, buoyed by further steady expansion in non-oileconomic activity and increased oil production. Non-oilGDP is set to benefit from the government’s reform drive which includes the recent passing of the debtlaw that could catalyze the implementation of key development projects and the potential approval of the ‘mortgage’ law later in 2025, which could spur higher household borrowing and consumer spending. Economic indicators for Q2 2025 pointed to a healthy pace of non-oileconomic activity. The key ‘output’ and ‘new orders’ balances in the non-oilprivate sectorPMI gauge both averaged a very robust 57+ in Q2 2025, real estate activity continued to expand at a robust pace with earlier price falls in the residentialsector abating, while credit growth stood at a healthy 5.5% y/y in May, and could benefit in coming months if interest rates are reduced further.
Nonetheless, there are also downside risks to the outlook. Local consumer spending growth (according to central bankcardtransactions data) turned negative in Q1 2025, extending the weakening trend now observed for more than a year. The government’s ongoing fiscal consolidation push will also weigh on wage and job growth. Overall, we see GDP growing 1.9% this year, boosted by expansions in both the oil and non-oilsectors of 1.2% and 2.5%, respectively.
Marx (1818-1883) implies that the foundation of human reality is econo-technical, and on that basis society creates thoughts and philosophies, art and poems. This explanation seems appealing when we think of the economic development of China in our time, for example, or the rise of computers and software.
Our MI comment on this is that any monocausal explanation of how mankind went from Neanderthal to the Manhattan skyline is completely inadequate. You must create a “double-helix” of Marx and Heidegger, adding the dimensions of surprise and unintended consequences. Without the physics concepts of emergence and complexity, we have no possibility of understanding how we got to now. In the site tagline, we use the word “composite” as a reference to this kind of deeper understanding.
