August Employment Report Does Not Resolve Fomc Case Study

In the late 2007, early 2008 the United States and the world was hit with the most serious economic downturn since The Great Depression in 1929. During this time the Federal Reserve played a huge role in assuring that it would not turn into the second Great Depression. In this paper, we will be discussing what the Federal Reserve did during this time, including a discussion of our nation’s three main economic goals which are GDP, employment, and inflation. My goal is to describe the historic monetary and fiscal policy efforts undertaken by the U.S. Government and Federal Reserve, including both the traditional and non-traditional measures to ease credit markets and stimulate the economy.

The discussion of whether the Federal Reserve should raise the federal funds rate is a highly contentious one. Members of the Federal Reserve (“Fed”) and academic economists disagree about what constitutes appropriate future macroeconomic policy for the Unites States. In the past, the Fed had been able to raise rates when the unemployment rate was under 5% and inflation was at a target of 2%. Enigmatically, since the Great Recession and despite a strengthening economy, year-over-year total inflation since 2008 has averaged only 1.4%—as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (“PCE”). Today, PCE inflation is at 1-1.5% and has continuously undershot the Fed’s inflation target of 2% three years in a row. (Evan 2015) In the six years since the bottom of the Great Recession the U.S. economy has made great strides in lowering the published unemployment rate from about 10% back down to about 5.5%. In light of this data, certain individuals believe that the Federal Reserve should move to increase the federal funds rate in 2015 because unemployment is near 5% and inflation should bounce back on its own (Derby 2015). However, this recommendation is misguided.

In the late 2007, early 2008 the United States and the world was hit with the most serious economic downturn since The Great Depression in 1929. During this time the Federal Reserve played a huge role in assuring that it would not turn into the second Great Depression. In this paper, we will be discussing what the Federal Reserve did during this time including a discussion of our nation’s three main economic goals which are GDP, employment, and inflation. My goal is to describe the historic monetary and fiscal policy efforts undertaken by the U.S. Government and Federal Reserve including both the traditional and non-traditional measures to ease credit markers and stimulate the economy.

The federal government responded to the crisis that affected businesses and Industries many ways. The Federal Reserve has been most successful in its double full-employment, low inflation mandate when it relies on fixed rules, and keenly looks on the intermediate term rather than trying to respond to short-term developments under political pressure. A number of policies were resolved to react on the emphasis of intermediate term stability on the handling of the

During the great recession era that began in late-2007 and lasted until mid-2009, the labor market took a major loss. The reasons that caused the labor market to plummet during this time frame were due to unemployment, a decrease in income and lack of education. Despite the efforts from the government to help as much as possible, the labor market had taken the worst hit and was at its lowest since the last three decades. It is important for everyone to understand what a weak labor market can result in. In this paper, I will discuss these findings and what impact they had on the labor market to weaken it to such a low point.

To begin, the article explains the Federal Reserve’s plan to take a careful approach to enacting contractionary monetary policies, policies used to decrease money supply, in the future. Last December the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates after they had been near zero for years to ensure inflation was kept in check and to promote economic growth. It appeared the economy would be in for another increase in the interest rates sometime this year, but the Feds have rethought that strategy. If the Federal Reserve were to continue to raise interest rates it would have short-run and long-run effects on the Money Market, Goods and Services Market, Planned Investment, Phillip Curve, and Aggregated Supply and Demand. These effects are aspects that have to be considered because they express and explain the effects the increase in interest rates has on the economy and explain if the Federal Reserve is enacting the correct policy to achieve their goal.

• As previously stated in the executive summary, the United States’ economy is currently stagnating. From week to week we may see a rise in one indicator while there is a fall in another indicator, but none of the rises or falls are drastic enough to have an overwhelming impact on the economy as a whole. Although the economy is not near as strong as it was before the 2008-2009 recession, arguably one of the biggest economic crises of the past decade, there has been much growth and strength throughout the past few years with this year being the first year in which the economy is in somewhat of a holding pattern. I believe, that even with the little growth and movement of the United States economy over the past year, it is still perhaps one of the strongest economies in the world at the moment.

Just a few days ago, the Federal Reserve increased the federal funds rate from 1.25% to 1.5%. The federal funds rate is one method that the Federal Reserve uses to control monetary policy. The other methods used by the Fed to control monetary policy are open-market operations, and the discount window. The federal funds rate is defined as the interest rate that banks charge each other to lend reserve funds. The federal funds rate is usually than the discount rate so that banks are more inclined to go to other banks first, rather than the Fed. During the recession in 2008, the federal funds rate was near 0 in the hopes that banks would lend more, and the economy would be kickstarted. However, as the effects of the

The willingness of the FOMC to contemplate an increase in the federal funds target despite mediocre economic data would indicate that the bar has been set fairly low. Prior to last week’s policy meeting, there were 3 potential scenarios for the Fed. Firstly, monthly non-farm payroll gains in October and November in excess of +200K would guarantee a rate hike at the December policy meeting. Secondly, monthly job gains over the aforementioned period of +150K would probably have deferred the lift-off point until March 2016. Finally, further slowing of non-farm payroll growth to +100K per month in October and November, along with other data corroborating weaker expansion, would have pushed tightening deep into 2016. The arrival of a lower tightening bar may be due to the influence and gravitas of Fed Vice Chairman Fischer who seems to be the keenest FOMC member to raise the federal funds target in 2015. Markets are, however, reluctant to completely embrace a December rate hike, because the Fed has previously backed away from policy proclamations. Thus, the credibility of the FOMC’s policy statements is now being constantly put under the surgeon’s knife. While it is abundantly clear that December is the preferred lift-off point for the federal funds rate, there are potential circumstances that could, once

One of the most consistent defenses against deflation is for a central bank to target an inflation rate greater than zero. The Federal Reserve’s current inflation target is 2% and has informally been at that rate for quite some time. This nonzero target provides a cushion for policymakers: should inflation decrease due to an unexpected shock to aggregate demand, prices should not immediately start falling. This allows policymakers to act with easy money when inflation reaches 1 or 0%, thus avoiding deflation. Yet, during the last two recessions in the United States, the 2% inflation rate did not prevent significant fear of deflation. Extraordinary action was required, and many economists argue that the low interest rate policy following the 2001-2002 recession contributed to the housing bubble that was inflating at that time. It is not yet known what the impact will be from the unorthodox policies taken in response to deflation fears in 2009-2010. Based on these experiences, it may be time to consider alternative inflation targets to provide greater insulation from deflationary pressures.

The FED decided to carry out its bond purchasing program in August to help prevent deflation (Hauser, 2011). The article could have turned out much differently if the FED did not step up and take action. In addition the FED has the authority to adjust interest rates in accordance with the current economic condition. Currently the FED is willing to curb inflation by adjusting the interest rates at a moment’s notice (Hauser, 2011). The FED’s invisible hand can sometimes help prevent major economic disasters.

On September 18, 2013 the Federal Reserve reaffirmed its view that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In addition, the committee agreed to continue its monthly $85 billion purchase of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5 percent. Inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored .

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) makes no secret that it attaches a higher policy weight to seemingly tight labour market conditions vis-à-vis low inflation readings. Given this bias, therefore, it is essential that the FOMC accurately assesses whether the economy is indeed at full employment. The Fed’s econometric of the US economy embraces the so-called Phillips Curve, a statistical relationship that depicts an inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and wage inflation. Historically, increases in wages were passed on to consumers via higher selling prices. Unsurprisingly, the Phillips Curve’s original statistical relationship was modified and wage inflation was subsequently replaced

Consequently, economic growth was in the 7th year as the rate of unemployment approached the estimated level of total employment at the start of increasing rates. This was a new experience for the Fed’s as they departed from past experiences. Besides, the unprecedented stimulative policy stance taken by the Fed has been viewed as rather controversial (Rudebusch 14). This is as a result of the recent recession being severe. Therefore, economists fail to agree on how much slack is remaining in the economy today as well as how quickly the Fed should do away with the monetary stimulus. The intended policy path to be taken by the Fed’s encompasses both downward and upward risks. If the Fed decides to raise the interest rates slowly, the economy could overheat leading to high inflation and the possibility of financial instability.

The Fed hasn 't raised the interest rate since the Financial crisis 2008 and it said that the interest rate would keep near zero for now, as expected, but it added an unusually explicit statement that it would consider raising rates at its final meeting of the year in mid-December. From the perspective of monetary restraint policy this essay will deal with if the interest rate would raise or not from the aspects of monetary restraint policy. My purpose is that Fed would definitely raise the interest in short term considering both inflation and unemployment rate by now. The raise in interest rate would lead to lower levels of capital investment but after 7 years growth on economy, it is time to slow down and get an insurance for future inflation.