Fed Chair Says Interest Rates Should Have Gone Up Sooner (washingtonpost.com) 97
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell acknowledged in an interview with Marketplace on Thursday that the central bank could have moved faster to raise interest rates and cut inflation, as the central bank comes under increasing scrutiny over whether it waited too long to act on prices. From a report: "If you had perfect hindsight you'd go back, and it probably would have been better for us to have raised rates a little sooner," Powell said in an interview released Thursday with Marketplace's Kai Ryssdal. "I'm not sure how much difference it would have made, but we have to make decisions in real time, based on what we know then, and we did the best we could."
Powell's comments mark a sharper sentiment of regret than his past remarks when it comes to whether the Fed should have stepped in sooner. The Fed has faced criticism, primarily from Republicans and some prominent economists, such as Lawrence H. Summers, for delaying interest rate hikes and ending stimulus-era financial supports, which work together to cool off the economy and bring inflation down. Powell, who was confirmed by the Senate for a second term as Fed chair earlier Thursday, lost a handful of votes from lawmakers who said their constituents were suffering too much from high prices on his watch. For much of the last year, the Fed stuck to its message that rising inflation would be "transitory," or temporary, and more limited to pockets of the economy hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic and related shutdowns and supply chain disruptions. At WSJ conference on Tuesday, Powell emphasized his resolve to get inflation down, saying he won't hesitate to back interest rate increases until prices start falling back toward a healthy level. "We'll go to that point. There won't be any hesitation about that," he added.
Powell's comments mark a sharper sentiment of regret than his past remarks when it comes to whether the Fed should have stepped in sooner. The Fed has faced criticism, primarily from Republicans and some prominent economists, such as Lawrence H. Summers, for delaying interest rate hikes and ending stimulus-era financial supports, which work together to cool off the economy and bring inflation down. Powell, who was confirmed by the Senate for a second term as Fed chair earlier Thursday, lost a handful of votes from lawmakers who said their constituents were suffering too much from high prices on his watch. For much of the last year, the Fed stuck to its message that rising inflation would be "transitory," or temporary, and more limited to pockets of the economy hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic and related shutdowns and supply chain disruptions. At WSJ conference on Tuesday, Powell emphasized his resolve to get inflation down, saying he won't hesitate to back interest rate increases until prices start falling back toward a healthy level. "We'll go to that point. There won't be any hesitation about that," he added.
Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Classic understatement. Must. Appease. Wall. Street. Interest rates go up, stocks go down. Always has. Always will.
Re: (Score:3)
The federal reserve is mostly a-political and operates mostly outside the political desires.
However if Trump was reelected I expect he would keep on pushing to keep the rates as low as possible, and complain how the Liberals want to raise rates.
Where I think the Federal Reserve would be doing this anyways.
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to see a politicized central bank, look at Turkey
Too good to be true - lets do nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
However if Trump was reelected I expect he would keep on pushing to keep the rates as low as possible, and complain how the Liberals want to raise rates.
Considering when the economy was roaring Trump argued (and tried to influence) to keep interest rates low (when, correctly, that's the time to head towards normal rates which is what the Fed cautiously ended up doing in spite of Trump) , that's a reasonable assumption for continuing good conditions. Hard to say what Trump would propose in current conditions.
Where I think the Federal Reserve would be doing this anyways.
Well in all fairness, a lot of people blame most of the inflation on money being (figuratively) tossed at people from helicopters. Especially the last
Re: Duh! (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd say Trump would of certainly blocked it, he was one of the first to say the last round wasn't enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it didn't. People go on and on about supply chain problems and then turn around and insist that inflation is due to too much money. I guess money-printer memes are sexier than locked down Chinese factories and mothballed oil wells.
Fun fact, all six post WWII high inflation periods in the US were caused by either war-related demand or oil supply problems.
Re: Duh! (Score:2)
Remember your support for increasing interest rates as auto loans, mortgages, and student loans, along with unsecured credit interest rates go up also.
Re: Duh! (Score:1)
Just because he said that doesnâ(TM)t mean he meant that.
Re: Duh! (Score:1)
Yes, with this administration we learned that cabinet-level officials and others sometimes say their own "personal opinions" sitting at their official podium during an official press briefing... it's kind of amazing. https://mobile.twitter.com/kat... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hindsight is 20/20
Any one of the factors that had caused inflation, would quickly resolve itself, however as one issue begin to get better, a new one kicked in.
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not hindsight. Oversight is what caused this.
The Fed kept interest rates at near zero for a decade, even though for many of those years the economy was humming along nicely. They couldn't figure out why the low interest rate wasn't causing overheating, but it wasn't, so they didn't raise rates. What they forgot is that "near zero" is an unprecedented level of support for the economy. An unprecedented measure is not appropriate during a time when things are going OK and you just don't know why the low rate isn't causing damage. Once we were no longer in recession, it was time to start raising rates slowly. They didn't, and here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Once we were no longer in recession, it was time to start raising rates slowly. They didn't, and here we are.
They did raise rates slowly, perhaps so slowly that you didn't notice. (or in other words, where it was at slightly less close to zero is maybe what you still define as "near zero") But look at the history of rates the Fed was charging, there was an upward movement for about the year prior to Covid. (Your point would have been stronger if you'd said something like "As it was, they raised so late and so little it was basically still where it'd been")
What I interpret as your underlying point is completely val
Re: (Score:2)
They raised rates a tiny amount, and when the stock market noticed and had a single down week, they promised to stop - and the market went back to its "there's no place else to invest" bull phase.
The fact that the market was 'doing well' while prices on a specific set of commodities seemed stable is not an indication of no inflation. Housing costs, in particular continued to rise the whole time. So did health care costs. And a market that rises just because there's nowhere else to invest is hardly a sign
Re: (Score:1)
It is human nature to demand that the government should take care of those who will not take care of themselves.
You mean the 1% who DO NO WORK and instead profit from the labor of all others, along with some socialism for the wealthy in the form of tax cuts from the income tax instead of from the sales and employment taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
imagine a world where people do not try to steal from each other either individually or as a group. I know it is above your understanding, just try to imagine.
Re: (Score:1)
imagine a world where people do not try to steal from each other either individually or as a group. I know it is above your understanding, just try to imagine.
Understanding? You do realize you just voted in favor of confiscation of the ill-gotten gains of Capital, which does no work and so profits off the labor of workers.
Talk about lack of understanding!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
I voted? Are you sure you are answering in the correct thread?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
no idea what you are talking about, you are clearly delusional.
Re: (Score:1)
you said imagine a world where...theft does not happen (paraphrase). The only such world would forbid profits taken by virtue of owned wealth on the part of exploiters.
The rest is left to the exercise of the competent commentator
Re: (Score:1)
So what 'voting' are you talking about? As to 'ill gotten capital gains' - I don't care for any form of Marxist propaganda. Capital gains are exactly what they are - appreciation of the value of a company, if they are fake, then it's a shareholder problem, if they are real, then they are exactly the reason someone starts a business in the first place - to get money by investing it into something. Just like house price appreciation and any other appreciation of an asset.
Re: (Score:1)
Marxism is one solution, ENFORCED socially beneficial Captialism (aka Socialism) is another.
It is not a "shareholder problem" it is the failure of the entire economic system.Read Piketty.
Re: (Score:1)
Pfffft, complete nonsense. There are no ill gotten gains in capital gains. For example I started a company back in 2015, nobody would give me a red dime for it, in 2017 someone offered half a million USD for it, today the gross monthly revenue is more than twice as much as someone offered me to buy the entire company 5 years ago. The people that I hire (over 900 at this point) are doing the work that the company teaches them and they are definitely getting a good deal, since nobody offers them a better
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Penal system is not a private enterprise it is a government contraption and is under government control, so what the hell are you yapping about? Prison labour is not a 'capital gains' question, it is a question of a broken government system.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It is exactly what I said - a broken government system. Either the prisons should be completely private or they should be completely public (I don't mind), however there is clearly a fascist collusion, but it has nothing to do with 'ill gotten capital gains', it is a broken government system. If I can buy politicians for profit and they will provide me with benefits for my bribe, then I am a wonderful hacker, who found a way to make the system do something that it was not intended for (or maybe it was:)
AF
Re: (Score:1)
BOTH the named companies are the culprits, exploiting slave labor for profit.
All government did was execute the 13th Amendment exception.
GOVERNMENT WORKING AS DESIGNED.
DUH!!!
Re: Duh! (Score:3)
A main issue with inflation is that what it's calculated on is just a few select areas. Those gives a false value. "The most commonly used inflation indexes are the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Wholesale Price Index (WPI)." https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
If property prices were included we would have seen some different figures
Re: (Score:2)
Classic understatement. Must. Appease. Wall. Street. Interest rates go up, stocks go down. Always has. Always will.
Sure, that plus inflation is actually profit-taking. Not for you and me, but for the companies that suddenly have inflated prices. Because they can.
Fed Chair Says.... (Score:2)
Looks like the Chair does not know what Table has.
Oh really? (Score:2, Troll)
I get it; public sector fell during the pandemic, government spending propped up a lot, etc. etc. But t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh really? (Score:2)
I think more accurate it's government deficit.
It's the deficit that creates extra money.
Unfunded tax cuts create inflation as much as unfunded spending, a balanced budget shouldn't create much inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Laughable.
The government never spent this much before, you have no basis for comparison. It's like saying humanity has little to do with global warming, because for 99.99 percent of human existance this has been true. But there's something a bit different about the last couple hundreds years than the previous 199,800. Just like there's something a bit difference about creating an extra few trillion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Increase our countries GDP. That's how you "pay" for things.
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress spends money and makes laws for taxes. The Executive Branch submits budget requests that are ignored. About all Presidents do that affects the balance of money in/out are go to war without Congressional approval (which Republicans have done a lot of lately) and screw with tariffs. Your numbers seem a bit off. The first year in office, Presidents live with the budget from the last President due to when the budget year now starts.
This is a good reference The American Presidency Project [ucsb.edu]. As a percent of GDP, Biden's actual and projected budgets are better than Trump's last two years in office - which again had pandemic issues causing them to be worse than any under Obama who had to deal with the last financial meltdown. The Trump years were also plagued with some stupid tariff issues that can be laid at his door. Before that, Clinton, the last Democrat before Obama, actually ran a surplus for several years before the Republicans got back in office and initiated more giveaways to the wealthy.
literally still buying bonds as of a few weeks ago (Score:2)
Volcker he ain't.
Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another economist arguing why central banks raising interest is not going to help [taxresearch.org.uk], and in fact only going to make things worse.
The main point is that the current inflation is not there because people have too much money to spend. And raising interest rates is not going to address any of the actual causes of inflation, while it is indeed going to result in a world of hurt. Not just for bitcoin gamblers, but also for people that used to get by only just, and now are at the limit of their spending becau
Re: (Score:2)
The main point is that the current inflation is not there because people have too much money to spend.
While this is true, big businesses have a LOT of money to spend. Shortages didn't raise their costs for the most part. It just raised their profit margin - and any cost increases that existed were more than made up for. They sold less and made more money. And with low interest rates and high inflation, you don't want your money to disappear to inflation - so you spend it.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is true, big businesses have a LOT of money to spend.
Agreed.
And with low interest rates and high inflation, you don't want your money to disappear to inflation - so you spend it.
But the main drivers of the inflation right now are energy and food costs. Those costs are not rising because profiteering companies are buying up tons of those. Speculation does play a big part here, but that's more the area of the financial industry. Which is an industry whose profits will grow even further when hiking interest rates, in fact.
There's also the supply chain that's still not running smoothly and random China lockdowns hampering production, but again those are unrelated to big business
Re: (Score:2)
There are still a lot of natural monopolies to buy up.
If there's no growth, you can always grow your neofeudal kingdom. Rent is small ROI, but it's something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will help the US though, if the world isn't pushed entirely off the brink.
For a short time at least this is going to be a new extreme of American exceptionalism. The US can and will keep up government spending (because everyone is fleeing into the dollar) while the rest of the world goes into a depression, the world wide depression eases supply side issues by decreasing consumption everywhere except the US. So it will solve inflation in the US to a certain extent.
If the world isn't pushed entirely off th
Re: (Score:2)
Found the Turkish president.
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Only understandable if you believe the "historically low" rates were still appropriate before the pandemic.
"Historically low" is what you do when you have a huge problem to correct. The economy had been good for years before inflation came back, but it wasn't quite perfect. That scenario doesn't call for "historically low" rates. It calls for slow return to normal.
Before 2008, interest rates of 2-4% were considered "normal" for "normal times." Zero was barely on the list of possibilities.
The zero rate caused people to change their behavior. They stopped saving because they would get no reward, and instead borrowed like crazy because it was cheap, and invested in the stock market because it was the only place to make your money grow.
The Fed missed the boat LONG before the pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, the Fed interest rate everyone watches, is the interest rate it charges banks for overnight loans. https://www.bankrate.com/banki... [bankrate.com]. In that sense, it is variable and increases immediately.
This rate has an indirect effect on other major interest rates. US Treasury bonds, the notes that comprise the vast majority of the US national debt, are fixed rate. Once the bonds mature, new debt is issued at the new going rate.
Mortgage rates are typically based on LIBOR, not the Fed Funds rate. LIBOR is a
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Had they done so, they would have had the ability to drop rates during the lockdown and maybe print less cash. Instead it was just all "create more money and give it away."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give you mod points if I could. The "historically low" rate near zero was held way, way too long. They seemed to want to get the economy "just right" before they stopped this unprecedented intervention. Unprecedented interventions aren't useful for getting things "just right," they are best for emergencies. Five years ago, the US economy was NOT in emergency mode, but the Fed kept pretending it was.
There is no Crystal Ball Variant. (Score:3)
We already had this discussion on [slashdot.org]
I disagree starting it earlier was an obvious choice. For example, early in the year the Omicron variant was flaring up and nobody knew how high the death/illness toll would ultimately go up at the time. If we had needed a big lockdown to prevent swamping the hospitals, then a rate hike would have been the wrong choice and the hikers would have egg on their faces, or Covid.
We still might be in for a nasty spike of a killer variant. It ain't necessarily over. Evolution plays dice with the universe.
Re: (Score:1)
No. The "obvious" choice occurred years before the pandemic, when the economy returned to something like normal. Emergency measures are no longer appropriate when the economy is doing "pretty well." The Fed should have ended its emergency measures several years before the pandemic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They were raising rates before the pandemic. Remember Don complaining about that? [politico.com] And inflation was sub-par at the time such that there appeared to be no hurry to raise.
Wrong, it was always evident. (Score:1, Troll)
You may have already had that discussion; but I guess whatever is at that link is totally invalid it seems since your conclusion is wrong.
The pandemic had NOTHING to do with the inflation we are seeing, all of what is happening now was inevitable. Maybe on a slightly different timeframe but all this inflation is from decades of pushing cans down a road and there are now too many cans and no more road.
There were many people warning about inflation before the pandemic...
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, inflation was never good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, some amount of inflation is desirable
Actually that was never true and has always been a fever dream of modern monetary theory. In real life people prefer things to get cheaper not more expensive. But all of the "smartest minds" think inflation is great, so they breed the dragon and then have no idea later why everything is perishing in flames.
The utter stupidity of thinking inflation is a force you can tame and manage so it should be encouraged has got us exactly where we are now, and the super
Re: Wrong, inflation was never good. (Score:2)
A large percentage of the population owns houses.
Inflation is good for them.
A lot of people own cars too.
Re: (Score:1)
> There were many people warning about inflation before the pandemic...
There were always people warning about inflation ever since I was old enough to read the news many many moons ago. Economists don't really fully understand inflation, in large part because it's based on aggregate human expectations of future prices, and that's really hard to predict and change.
Re: There is no Crystal Ball Variant. (Score:2)
People seem to car about smoking.
It's not as extreme here as other countries, but just recently they upped the age in most states to 21.
In my life time they stopped indoor smoking almost everywhere and increased prices many fold (past the point of increased tax revenue in many areas).
Smoking is absolutely something that there's been a pretty strong government backed reduction of.
Re: (Score:1)
For one, me eating junk food doesn't kill my neighbor; spewing viruses can. You do have an interesting point about weighing risks and "death math", but it's not fleshed out enough with specific numbers and rates to show that society is overreacting compared to other risks. Come up with some good metrics to compare such risks, including the costs of prevention, and I may come around to agree. But, most conservatives (and other "anti-woke-ers") instead just claim doctors etc. are fake and rigged.
Powell's 2nd term confirmation delayed rate hike (Score:2)
Re: Powell's 2nd term confirmation delayed rate hi (Score:1)
Exactly. Powell had to hurt Americans with inflation in order to get the nomination. Now, heâ(TM)ll be more free to act.
Don’t mention the war (Score:2)
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
We always punish working Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Go to YouTube and search for a video from "Some More News" about inflation. It's moderately funny, not their best work, but it makes an incredible point I never once considered:
If the fundamental problem with inflation is too much money, why do we always take money away from working Americans? Never the 1%.
There's a laundry list of things we could do besides jacking interest rates up, most obviously taxing corporations and wealthy. But that's not what we're doing. Instead, we're setting it up to force companies to do layoffs so that wages go down in the hopes that cheap labor will mean cheap prices.
Of course that's not working this time, because there's no competition. We've had 4 decades of mega mergers. Prices don't need to go down. Who are you gonna buy from? There's 3 or 4 mega corps that own everything.
It's like an MMO in reverse. In an MMO like World of Warcraft the way you control money supply is top down. You have an expensive mount for the richest players to buy in order to absorb money.
Now imagine if instead of 1000 Gold for that sweet mount that mount was 300 gold, still too much for your run of the mill player but not enough to fix inflation, so to fix inflation Blizzard shut down all the dungeons and cleared out the mobs and we all had to sit around until the price of healing herbs went down.
That's how the US economy works.
Thank you Captain Obvious (Score:3)
There are a lot more ways to slow inflation besides making it more expensive to borrow money.v v Why is nobody talking about repealing tariffs? I understand that Biden is beholden to unions but you would think other people would be raising this issue.v
And how about oil prices? We are in a full blown oil shock and there has been no discussion about using wartime powers to compel oil companies to restore production to pre-pandemic levels or threatening to cancel defense contracts with OPEC members unless they too restore production to pre-pandemic levels. I understand that corrupt politicians need oil money to get elected, but why isn't anybody raising this issue as well?
And what the hell is the deal with not allowing migrant workers to come into the US to pick our food. Doesn't anybody realize this drives up the cost of food?
I know it's not popular, but we have to stop giving away money. We need a system where everyone works. It is insane that we refuse to require a living minimum wage condemning a whole class of people to need free handouts to survive. The whole unemployment statistic is a huge lie and it should be forgotten and replaced with the job participation rate. We cannot afford razzle-dazzle to confuse voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Tariffs have become the go to for US Administrations since at least Obama, and Trump threw up his own. It's not about unions, it's about protectionism, about trying to prop up domestic industries that can't adequately compete. Up here in Canada, for instance, we have marketing boards for agricultural sectors, first constructed in the Depression to solve a very particularly problem at the time, but now so entrenched that to even challenge them is to literally attack one of my country's most sacred cows (pun
Yes, 100% the should have (Score:3)
The economy was flourishing just a few years ago and the rates should have been raised then. Now we are in a barn door after the horse is loose situation.
The Third Leg (Score:1)
hindsight (Score:3)
Hindsight is 20-20. However, in this case many many people had the foresight. Unfortunately, none of the were Democrats, therefore they were wrong by definition.