No Firm Fomc Policy Consensus

The Federal Reserve has the dual job of ensuring price stability and maximum employment, which are contradictory objectives. The Feds try to achieve the goals through monetary policy which determines the demand and supply of money by controlling interest rates. The Fed’s goal is to achieve a natural rate of unemployment of more or less 5%. When the actual unemployment figures are below the natural rate of unemployment, inflation increases and there is a high demand of goods and services propelling the economy with the ensuing labor demands and the pressure it places on wages, which in turn produces inflation. When the Fed is faced with this scenario, it must increase the rates to slow the growth and achieve price stability (contractionary cycle).

Using quantitative easing has helped the recovery of the USA and other developing countries. The Fed’s then limited their ability to pursue more measures, but congress ignored those appeals to help support the economy. The Fed’s decided to use smaller steps to help investor expectations and to prevent a possible financial crisis in Europe. In 2011 it was announced that the FED’s would hold short-term interest rates close to zero percent through 2013; to help support the economy. Soon after it was announced that using the “twist” operation would push long-term interest rates down, by purchasing $400 billion in long-term treasury securities with profits from the sale of the short-term government debt. Inaugurating a policy to help shape market expectations, which will raise interest rates at the end of 2014.

QE3 began in September of 2012 with a gross domestic product increasing by 4.5%, which is an impressive gain over the previous years of very little growth, GDP currently, has had a relatively steady increase over each quarter amounting to 3.9% for the most recent data. However, while GDP is of serious concern, inflation and unemployment rates have not been so easily persuaded. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1), in September 2013 unemployment was in a downswing but still resided at 7.2%, much higher than the Feds target rate of 5%. Currently unemployment is at 5.8% which is within the realm of the Fed’s goal. Inflation has

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.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke 's meeting dealt mainly with the issues that could stabilize the economy after the great recession. After creating a number of policies to fight the 2008 crisis, Chairman 's move to further reduce Quantitative Easing was a bit of a disappointment. The Fed will reduce its purchases of long-term Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities by another $10 billion a month. Apart from this, Fed is going to concentrate on maximizing employment rates, stabilizing prices and interest rates.

This report discusses the association between the Federal Reserve System and U.S. Monetary Policy. It mentions that the government can finance war through money printing, debt, and raising taxes. It affirms that The Federal Reserve is not a government entity but an independent one. It supports that the Federal Reserve’s policies are the root cause of boom and bust cycles. It confirms that the FED’s money printing causes inflation and loss of wealth for United States citizens. It affirms that the government’s involvement in education through student loans has raised the cost of a college education. It confirms that the United States economy is in a housing bubble, the stock market bubble, bond market bubble, student loan bubble, dollar bubble, and consumer loan bubble. It supports the idea that the Federal Reserve does not raise interest rates because of the fear of deflating the bubbles they have created in recent years.

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

In an instant, a single organization, with minimal government oversight, can influence entire markets and monetary supply of the country with the largest economy in the world. The United States founding fathers established a government system to distribute certain powers of the federal government to particular branches that have checks and balances in place to assure efficiency and openness among its divisions. One may assume that the organization that controls the monetary supply of an economic powerhouse of a country would have strong oversight and control over the policies they carry out. The Federal Reserve, also referred to as The Fed, has a purpose, as a central bank, to protect and control the fiscal system of the United States to create a safer lending and borrowing market for private citizens, businesses, and the federal government. Americans perceive the Fed as an extremely powerful organization. Some have asserted, including Hillary Clinton’s spokesman, Jesse Ferguson, that “The Federal Reserve is a vital institution for our economy and the well-being of our middle class” (qtd. in Shapiro 7). Unfortunately, Federal Reserve financial policies have become detrimental to the growth of the national economy and the dollar, therefore, congressional actions against the Federal Reserve Bank are a necessity to avoid continuation of instability in both US and world markets.

The Federal Reserve System is the most powerful institution in the United States economy. Functioning as the central bank of the United States, acting as a regulator, the lender of last resort, and setting the nation’s monetary policy via the Federal Open Market Committee, there is no segment of the American economy unaffected by the Federal Reserve [endnoteRef:1]. This power becomes even more substantial in times of “unusual and exigent circumstances,” as Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act gives authority to the Board of Governors to act unilaterally in lending and market making operations during financial crisis[endnoteRef:2]. As illustrated by their decision making in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 Great Recession,

To begin, The Federal Reserve System opted to raise interest rates that were placed near zero years ago in order to aid the economy’s growth and prevent inflation from exceeding the target number. Several factors including: the five percent drop in the unemployment rate, and the increase in wages, and the outlook on future inflation contributed to the Federal Reserve’s decision take this action. However, the increase in interest rates in December has generated mixed results, and it appeared the Federal Reserve would announce the interest rates were going to increase again. Instead, Janet Yellen, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, announced that there were better days ahead for the economy, and a slow and careful approach to future increases in the interest rate would serve the economy best, ensuring the growth is maintained. Although the interest rates remained the same early in 2016, they are expected to increase during the June meeting of the Federal Reserve. but cited the economy needed low interest rates in order for the economy to maintain growth. I find it interesting that Yellen continues to worry about inflation growing in the coming years, although the interest rate increase should keep inflation in check through its effect of the economic markets. Yellen sites that she would like the inflation to become and stay at 2 percent each year. However, the current inflation rate is .9 percent, so the the economy is a long way from achieving its target inflation rate

Bernanke’s comment that the Fed would maintain “highly accommodative monetary policy for the foreseeable future” sparked the mood swing on Wall Street. As noted on above, this is appropriate, but what the market may be missing is what “highly accommodative” policy actually means, at least to the Federal Reserve. It is not unreasonable to think that holding interest rates near zero for the next couple of years is “accommodative”. It most certainly is. Maintaining bond purchases is also obviously accommodative policy, but there could be a subtlety in Bernanke’s likely approach. If in coming months interest rates are held at zero (which is as certain as anyone can be on any policy setting), yet the Fed starts to scale back its $85 billion bond purchases a month to $75 billion, then $50 billion and so on, there is still no question that policy is still accommodative, but a little less than it was before.

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

Moreover,some economists also argue that an increase in the rates now would be better than waiting until later on when the Federal Reserve will have to increase the rates eventually. Unemployment is also at a low rate, and the economy appears to be stable enough to handle an increase in the interest rates. The Federal

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 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