Inflation just 'subdued' http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/data/US-Inflation/mcpi.cfm No reason to expect Fed action unless expectations or the economy tanks
Fed's Hoenig: Keeping Rates Too Low 'Dangerous Gamble' http://www.cnbc.com/id/38693128 He claims 1% fed funds is not tight policy, but that highly depends on where inflation is going, if he is right(and inflation bottomed and it will rise over the next year), yes its not tight policy, but if he is wrong then the US is screwed, thats a dangerous gamble he is yet to comment on Someone needs to spam his email more, he clearly is not getting enough daily xanax offers
I asked a former FOMC member and Fed president about the scenario I had written about(Fed might never implement any exit because its balance sheet is growing in a permanent basis due all the private delevering) He answered "Well, I think you are probably right, but having the Fed's balance sheet not below current levels isn't that bad a thing. What matters is the delta. And the larger size of the balance sheet does reduce the cost of servicing outstanding treasury debt since the Fed turns its earnings back over to the Treasury. Just think of a $2 trillion balance sheet as the "new normal," and pray for a slow steady growth from there."
Worst jobs recovery ever? http://www.economist.com/research/a...story.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=16805946 THe only two periods slightly better had a much lower UR and much less slack
One thing that I believe is misunderstood in the economics community is the issue of whether tax cuts pay for themselves. In the short-run I agree that they dont pay for themselves(despite of what supply-siders might claim) but in the long-run if a certain economy wide tax rate gets an economy to growth by 3.5% instead of 3%, eventually the cuts will pay for themselves in the form of higher accumulated revenue growth(say, over the next 30 years) Even mainstream economists(like Krugmans of the world) accept that too much in taxes wont yield extra revenue as people will find ways to cheat and hide income(plus growth will be hurt, maybe even a recession) and too little might hurt the economy by not allowing the government to run its basic critical functions of enforcing the rule of law, contracts, infrastructure and others. Somewhere between these 2 there is an optimal tax rate that allows both things to occur, so the issue of whether the cuts pay for themselves is WHERE is the optimal rate compared to todays rate, if its bellow, the cut will pay for itself on the long-run because the economy will growth faster over the next 50 years, if its above, a tax hike is actually healthy and necessary
Fed Senior Survery shows large banks have started to ease credit standards on loans to large companies. Effects on M2 should be limited as large companies have access to capital markets and are probably ok in terms of their loan demands
Found an interesting fact in the book In Fed We Trust. 7 out of the 18 people sitting on the FOMC table(voting or non-voting) did not agree with inserting 'considerable period' back in 2003 on the day that they did it(both Bernanke and Kohn were in favor). This didnt show up in the statement nor the minutes, only in the 5 year lag transcripts
I have never read this information before and I'm surprised how this didnt leak out before the transcripts were released given the huge amount of people that go to these meetings. Maybe it got leaked and I was not aware but its the first time I read this
High UR here to stay "1635 GMT [Dow Jones] Don't blame the Fed for the high unemployment rate, Minn. Fed president Kocherlakota seems to say in today's speech. He says a mismatch between workers and job skills is a main cause. "Firms have jobs, but can't find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can't find appropriate jobs," he says. He notes that the relationship between unemployment and job openings was stable from December 2000 through June 2008. If that stable relationship were still in place, the current job opening rate of 2.2% would imply an unemployment rate closer to 6.5%, not 9.5%, he says. Correcting the mismatch is not readily amenable to monetary policy. Kocherlakota says, "The Fed does not have a means to transform construction workers into manufacturing workers.""
Kyle Bass http://www.zerohedge.com/article/must-watch-kyle-bass-interview-there-no-way-i-can-be-long-stocks part 1 http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/compon...s.cnbc.com/stickers/partners/cnbcplayershare/ part 2 http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/compon...s.cnbc.com/stickers/partners/cnbcplayershare/