Well, as I just mentioned, a further reduction in the policy rate of December meeting is not a foregone conclusion, as I've just said. So, I would say that that needs to be taken on board. We had 19 participants on the committee. Everyone works very hard at this and takes their obligations to serve the American people very seriously. And at a time when we have tension between our two goals, we have strong views across the committee. And as I mentioned, there were strongly differing views today. The takeaway from that is that we haven't made a decision about December, and we will be looking at the data that we have, how that affects the outlook and the balance of risks.

The way we have been thinking about it is, for a very long time, the risk was clearly of higher inflation and then that has changed now. Particularly after the July meeting, we saw downward revisions in job creation. We saw a very different picture of the labor market and suggested that there were higher downside risks to the labor market than we had thought. That suggested that policy, which we had been holding at a modestly restrictive level, needed to move more in the direction over time of neutral. If the two goals are equally at risk then you ought to be at neutral because one is calling for you to hike and one is calling for you to cut. So if that got back into balance, you'd want to be roughly neutral. In that sense, it was a risk management decision. And I would say the same about today, sort of the same logic, but going forward is a different thing.