Fed Expansionary Monetary Policy

When there are problems in the United States economy, whom do the people turn to? The most obvious answer is the government. The federal government is given the responsibility of maintaining a stable economy. When the economy is not stable, like during a recession, the American people turn the government and demand that they fix whatever problem is occurring. The government can handle the economy in a recessionary period in one of two ways: expansionary fiscal policy or expansionary monetary policy. The sector of the government that handles the economy using these policies in a recession is the Federal Reserve. The best course of action to get the United States out of a recession is to use expansionary monetary policy.

The Federal reserve needs to increase interest rates in the next year in order to reduce inflation. With low unemployment, the government is placing strain on the economy by lowering taxes and increasing spending. When the economy reaches its maximum output, prices increase while output remains the same. This could be what is happening now, with economic overheating on the horizon. However, the Federal Reserve could stifle this inflation by hiking interest rates over the next year. This would decrease the money supply and thus reduce inflation to its targeted level. It would also provide some leverage for the Fed to lower rates in the case of a recession.

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.

Eric Rosengren, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and John Williams, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, have both been known as “doves” in their individual monetary policy opinions and votes over the last five years. Since the summer of 2015, there has been a notable change in Rosengren’s rhetoric in the pursuit of normalization to the point where Rosengren is now actively suggesting an increase in interest rates in the very near future in order to promote growth in the economy, and as of the FOMC meeting on September 21st, 2016, was one of three dissenting votes (out of ten) for keeping rates low. Rosengren supports his new change of face with factors that will be discussed at length in this paper such as the pace of growth, the up-sides to higher rates, and the danger lurking in a prolonged low-rate economy. In similar (but not identical) fashion, John Williams is turning to the belief that rate hikes will be necessary sooner, rather than later if the Fed wishes to continue to spur growth in the United States economy, as opposed to letting the economy overheat into recession. Williams supports this point with evidence similar to Rosengren involving the pace of growth, the upside to higher rates, and the danger lurking in a prolonged low-rate economy. Eric Rosengren’s recent flip provides an interesting vantage point on both camps in the Federal Reserve. By comparing and contrasting the rhetoric of Rosengren (a former dove) and Williams

If Janet Yellen, the Federal Reserve President is planning on raising the interest rates the US Federal Reserve will have to deal with the negative effects on economic growth, unemployment, wages, the prices of goods and services, and government spending. The effect on economical growth will be how much individuals would borrow to increase their spending. Over time the money individuals took and have to payback would increase. Thus, leading to debt by how much money they owe back. By increasing the amount individuals have to borrow it will lead to more unemployment. The need of consumption will decrease and that put more and more people out of jobs. Scarcity is always going to exist but a low demand will cause supply to be low and price be

Following a cut in the discount rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve lends to depository institutions) in August of that year, the Federal Open Market Committee began to ease monetary policy in September 2007, reducing the target for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points. As indications of economic weakness proliferated, the Committee continued to respond, bringing down its target for the federal funds rate by a cumulative 325 basis points by the spring of 2008. In historical comparison, this policy response stands out as exceptionally rapid and proactive. In taking these actions, we aimed both to cushion the direct effects of the financial turbulence on the economy and to reduce the virulence of the so-called adverse feedback loop, in which economic weakness and financial stress become mutually reinforcing. (Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy

The Federal Reserve Act lays out the monetary policy that states that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should look for "to support effectively the aims of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." The pre-requirement for highest sustainable growth and employment rates along with long term interest rates is price stability in the long run. Long run stable prices prevents merchandise, services, materials and labor from getting distorted by inflation and hence turn out to be good indicators to the proficient distribution of resources and consequently add to better and higher standards of living (Meyer, 2004). Moreover, price stability promotes saving and generates capital since the risk of inflation causing attrition of asset values is decreased and hence people are driven to save more and business tend to invest more.

The Fed can lower banks' reserves meaning banks would be required to carry less money on their books and can loan out more to businesses and consumers along with other banks. This approach increases the money supply in the economy. The Federal Open Market Committee meets eight times per year to place key interest rates and to choose whether to increase or decrease the money supply which the Fed does by buying and selling government securities. To comprehend how the Federal Reserve's procedure on interest rates affects you and your business, you should first understand what the Fed is trying to do. The objectives of the Fed’s monetary policy are to encourage sustainable growth in the U.S. economy, support high employment, and keep prices stable.

The Federal Government uses the monetary policy and fiscal policy to establish and determine the best way to manage the economy. Monetary policy is used by the Federal Reserve to manage the money supply. This includes credit, cash, check, and money market mutual funds, with loans, bonds, and mortgages being the most important. This policy can be broken into two categories: monetary restraint and monetary expansion. As it states, one is trying to restrain the market while the other expresses expanding the market. With control over the money supply, the two categories for monetary policy can manage the inflation of the economy. After this has been complete, the unemployment rate is a second objective that is handled and reduced. Fiscal policy is used as reference to the tax and spending policies, and is handled completely by the Federal Government rather than the independent agency of the Federal Reserve. In comparison to the monetary policy, there is also two sub categories of expansion and restriction. This paper will explain why I believe the monetary restraint policy is the best option for maintaining a stable economy through the use of controlled spending by limiting the access consumers have to money, its reliability in being the solution to a growing problem, and the benefits we see from past occasions. Using the monetary restraint policy will require the Federal Reserve to increase the interest rate nation-wide requiring citizens to decrease spending and borrowing.

Throughout last year, the media were solely focussed on the differences of opinion on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) between the doves and hawks as being solely about the projected increase in the federal funds rate. The baseline outlook proposed by Chair Yellen was for a glacial trajectory, but this was always subject to alteration depending on the underlying tone of incoming economic data. Since the financial crisis, however, US monetary policy has been underpinned by two separate pillars: 1) asset purchases, and 2) a zero-bound federal funds rate. Divisions of opinion between hawks and doves were evident before the onset of tapering asset purchases in 2014, and they

The Federal Reserve went into action in response to the 2008 recession by rapidly reducing interest rates with the hopes of encouraging economic growth. The federal funds target rate was decreased to between zero and .25 percent. The results of the rate changes caused what is called “zero bound”, this reduced the effectiveness of monetary policy with the near non-existence of interest rates.

the need for additional labor, however, businesses raise prices due to their inability to meet requirements and based upon their supply cost. With the Fed’s intention to keep long-term interest rate moderate, prices stable and unemployment to a minimum the long-term goals of inflation

Leadership at the Fed has, once again, been found wanting. After indicating in her Jackson Hole speech in late-August that the case for a higher policy rate had recently strengthened, Fed Chair Yellen has flip-flopped and sided with the dovish members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Her credibility as an effective communicator for the entire FOMC has, therefore, been compromised. Additionally, there are now clear signs of rising dissent amongst FOMC members, something which financial markets will have noted. The 20-21 September policy meeting released updated economic and federal funds rate projections and they indicate that the majority of members expect just one rise in the policy rate in 2016. This constitutes a downgraded assessment since June’s forecasts when two increases were projected. Meanwhile, expectations of rate hikes in 2017 have also been scaled back to two compared with three back in June. Furthermore, the anticipated terminal level of the federal funds rate has been modestly reduced to 2.875% from 3%. Given the continued projection of a long-term 2% inflation target, this implies that potential real GDP growth has been scaled back. The FOMC has duly obliged with a downward revision to 1.8% from 2%. Last week’s meeting concluded with the highest level of dissent since 1992. Fed Chair Yellen indicated that discussion was dominated about the timing of the next rate hike vis-à-vis whether a higher policy rate was

The recent recession lasting from 2007 until 2009, and the effects of which are still highly visible in the U.S. economy, led the Federal Reserve to use new and largely untested methods for protecting the country from a total financial collapse. The new strategy, which blurs the lines between monetary and fiscal policy, had been attempted only once before, and is open to criticism from several difference angles. This report documents the history, purpose, and controversy surrounding quantitative easing as a strategy to mitigate the effects of the recent recession. After considering these factors, the conclusion is drawn that quantitative easing was a modestly successful policy, yet one which should not be employed again. Although

This paper is written to illustrate Quantitative Easing from the implementation of the Federal Reserve System of the United States. There are other central banks around the world that also employed quantitative easing during the 2007-2009 global economic decline, but I will focus on the U.S. central bank.