JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. (CNN) - Once again, attending the Fed's annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo. was like inhabiting parallel universes.

In one, deep economic thinkers ponder a Big Economic Question, while in the other, a handful of reporters invited to attend are on a quest to uncover the latest Fed thinking on interest rates and the economy.

For hot-and-heavy investors it's the latter story that matters most, so let's start there.

What I learned during the long weekend is pretty much what we've been hearing publicly from Fed officials in interviews and speeches, that the Fed funds rate is "too low" and that officials expect to keep raising interest rates despite signs of softness in the economy.

One Fed official said the economy is doing just fine and that it will pick up in the months ahead. When asked what it would take to convince him that the slowdown was for real, he replied, "Several more months of soft data."

Most think the recent pullback in consumer spending is the result of the jump up in oil prices, and that industrial output moving ahead is a sign of underlying economic momentum.

But another official admitted he was concerned about the recent signs of weakness, but that the fed funds rate is so low it has to be raised. The markets expect it, he said, adding that the stock market actually did better last month when the Fed raised the key overnight lending rate.

"If we don't raise rates, people might think we're trying to help Bush," said another FOMC member.

Bill Dudley, a Goldman Sachs economist who also attended the symposium, agreed that the Fed's conviction to continue raising rates step-by-step has not been shaken by any of the recent weak economic numbers.

Before the Fed started raising rates, people were criticizing officials for being "behind the curve," Dudley said, and now some are saying they don't need to raise rates as much. But officials haven't changed their thinking – they didn't think they were moving too slowly before and they don't think they should slow down now, he said.

Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor, shares the prevailing Fed view that the economy's soft patch will prove to be a one- or two-quarter wonder.

But what if oil prices don't go down, but move even higher and bring inflation up with them? Or what if those same high oil prices whittle down consumer spending further.

"Then the Fed would be in a very tough spot," Gramley said.

It would be a question of raising interest rates to fight inflation versus holding them steady to support spending.

"There would be no easy answer," said Gramley.

As for the "Really Big Question" of the conference, Greenspan delivered comments on how to solve the problem of an aging population preparing to retire and collect benefits while the population of younger workers expected to pay taxes and support them, begins to shrink.

Related stories • Greenspan: Change social safety net • Greenspan: Aging to strain U.S.

Alan Greenspan made waves Friday at the official opening of the symposium when he suggested -- as he has in the past -- that the funding needs of Social Security and, even more so, Medicare, will be so great in coming years that workers may have to retire later.

But Greenspan's suggestion that raising the retirement age may be the only way governments can afford to pay for the millions who will be eligible for retirement in the next few decades was a view espoused by several of economists presenting papers and discussing the issue.

Because the bottom line is this: The cash needed to pay for retirees just won't be there unless the government cuts spending on other programs (fat chance) or raises taxes. And not by just a little.

Tom Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, which has organized the Jackson Hole retreat for 28 years now, said that given present demographic trends and assuming benefits aren't cut, the marginal tax rate would have to hit 80 percent by mid-century to pay for Social Security and Medicare. (A note to readers: Hoenig only discussed the demographic challenge of an aging population with me. I did not ask -- and he had no comment on -- the economy and interest rates.)

Immigration could help the U.S. pay for future retirees, because more workers coming into the country will help offset the number of retirees. But there was widespread agreement in Jackson Hole that it only eases the problem a little because many millions more would be needed than the economy or the country could possibly absorb.

Faster economic growth and higher productivity could help because that would mean more tax revenues. But the numbers on dollars needed to pay for retirees seem to get too big, too fast, to count on a faster-growing economy to bail out the country.

No easy answers, indeed. But tough questions that have to be answered, sooner rather than later. And even though it's up to the White House and Congress to take the hard steps required to get the country's fiscal house in order, it's an issue that matters to Fed officials.

Because if it takes a crisis to get the President and Congress to take the steps necessary to start fixing it, then the Fed is going to be affected by the aftermath. And that's why it mattered enough to spend three days in Jackson Hole discussing it.  

Kathleen Hays anchors CNN Money Morning and The FlipSide, airing Monday to Friday on CNNfn. As part of CNN's Business News team, she also contributes to Lou Dobbs Tonight.