How Can Interest Rates Go Lower Than Zero?

Our economy is a machine that is ran by humans. A machine can only be as good as the person who makes it. This makes our economy susceptible to human error. A couple years ago the United States faced one of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, which was the Great Recession. The Great Recession was a severe economic downturn that occurred in 2008 following the burst of the housing market. The government tried passing bills to see if anything would help it from becoming another Great Depression. Trying to aid the government was the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve went through a couple strategies in order to help the economy recover. The Federal Reserve provided three major strategies to start moving the economy in a better direction. The first strategy was primarily focused on the central bank’s role of the lender of last resort. The second strategy was meant to provide provision of liquidity directly to borrowers and investors in key credit markets. The last strategy was for the Federal Reserve to expand its open market operations to support the credit markets still working, as well as trying to push long term interest rates down. Since time has passed on since the Great Recession it has been a long road. In this essay we will take a time to reflect on these strategies to see how they helped.

During the Federal Reserve meeting in April 2016, the range was left unchanged for federal funds at 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). Labor markets experience growth confirmed by policy makers, yet economic activity was monitored as being slow (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). The risks associated with the financial developments of the country have ceased (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). The average percentage of interest rate in the U.S. averaged at 5.8. March of 1980 a record high was recorded at 20% (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). The lowest interest rates were recorded in the month of December 2008 at 0.25% (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016).

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.

During the Federal Reserve meeting in April 2016, the range was left unchanged for federal funds at 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). Labor markets experience growth confirmed by policy makers, yet economic activity was monitored as being slow (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). The risks associated with the financial developments of the country have ceased (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). The average percentage of interest rate in the U.S. averaged at 5.8. March of 1980 a record high was recorded at 20% (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016). The lowest interest rates were recorded in the month of December 2008 at 0.25% (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016).

As the onslaught of the sub-prime mortgage crisis began in late 2007, the housing market plummeted sending the economy into what is now known as the Great Recession. The Federal Reserve, as well as the private and government sectors, quickly took notice. In November of 2008 the Federal Reserve undertook its first trimester of quantitative easing; which means the Fed began purchasing treasury securities to increase the money supply in the system, with the hopes that the increase in assets would encourage lending and investment, leading to a resurgence of the economy in terms of unemployment rates and GDP. As time progressed the Fed continued to implement quantitative easing into its third trimester due to a lack of sufficient results.

Primarily, you must understand that lowering the rate of interest will make it cheaper for people to borrow as well as make it cheaper to pay back existing loans. As a result, firms may use this money that they have saved to spend on upgrading the

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.

“Is the current U.S. monetary policy too expansionary? Are interest rates too low or are they not low enough?”

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

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.

Negative interest rates have never been seen at such an enormous scale in history, and although it’s not certain, it is highly possibly they will be put into effect. University of Michigan economics professor Miles Kimball stated “negative rates are both possible and inevitable.” Additionally, he assumes adding the idea to a central banking policy system is essential to ending recessions and fighting deflation. When an economy is struggling, it is conventional for a central bank to lower interest rates. Lowering interest rates makes saving less inviting and borrowing more attractive, increasing the amount of money being spent and jump starting an economic recovery. But very low inflation can be detrimental to central banks, because governments depend on inflation to diminish the value of their debt. Recently, many economies that have negative interest rates are experiencing deflation, where prices are

This has the effect of bringing down interest rates, injecting money into the economy, and thus encouraging borrowing and spending. However, when interest rates are at or near zero and the economy still requires stimulus (a dangerous situation now referred to as a “liquidity trap”) (Blinder 466), central banks must use more extreme methods to resuscitate the economy.

In my opinion, how effective low interests rates are to encourage consumers to borrow and spend depends on the elasticity of the demand for loans. If the demand for loans is inelastic, a sharp reduction in interest rates will only increase the loans by a small amount. Please refer to Appendix G. In this case, lowering the interest rates to 0.5% is not enough to stimulate demand. As a result, quantitative easing, another monetary policy is being utilized, as bank rates could not go any lower. Although there are other underlying factors that contribute to the high unemployment rate in the UK, it is shown that reducing bank rates is not the key to solving this problem.

Quantitative easing refers to the practice of pumping money into the economy of a nation so that the banks are encouraged to lend. The government injects money into the economy with the hope that people and companies will be able to sped more. There is a greater chance for an economy to spring back to life when there is increased spending.

Monetary policy involves manipulating the interest rate charged by the central bank for lending money to the banking system in an economy, which influences greatly a vast number of macroeconomic variables. In the UK, the government set the policy targets, but the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) are given authority and freedom to set interest rates, which is formally once every month. Contractionary monetary policy may be used to reduce price inflation by increasing the interest rate. Because banks have to pay more to borrow from the central bank they will increase the interest rates they charge their own customers for loans to recover the increased cost. Banks will also raise interest rates to encourage people to save more in bank deposit accounts so they can reduce their own borrowing from the central bank. As interest rates rise, consumers may save more and borrow less to spend on goods and services. Firms may also reduce the amount of money they borrow to invest in new equipment. A