The US Federal Reserve has emphasized that its monetary policy is set to be determined by what economic indicators show. However, it would require some extremely unlikely data to change the Fed’s implicit plan to end its purchases of long-term assets — so-called quantitative easing — this month and to start raising the federal funds rate from its current near-zero level sometime in the first half of next year.
The financial markets are obsessed with anticipating whether rates might rise in March or June next year. Although my best guess is that the Fed will start to raise rates in March, the starting date is less important than the pace of the rate increase and where the rate will be by the end of next year.
There is a substantial range of views among the members of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee. The midpoint of the opinions recorded at the most recent committee meeting implies a federal funds rate of 1.25 to 1.5 percent at the end of next year. Even by the end of 2016, the midpoint of the range is less than 3 percent.
In my judgement, such rates would be too low. At a time when inflation is already close to 2 percent or higher — depending on how it is measured — the real federal funds rate would be at zero at the end of next year. Instead of ensuring price stability, monetary policy would be feeding a further increase in the inflation rate.
Although it is possible to argue about the precise appropriate level of the fed funds rate, the Fed’s own analysis points to a long-term rate of about 4 percent when the long-term inflation rate is 2 percent. The most recent value of the consumer price index was up 1.7 percent year on year, and the 12-month figure would have been even higher but for the anomalous decline in the most recent month. In the second quarter of the year, the annualized inflation rate was 4 percent.
The Fed prefers to measure inflation by the price index for personal consumption expenditure (PCE). Its relaxed attitude about inflation reflects its focus on the longer-term past, with PCE inflation at just 1.5 percent for the 12 months to August, the same as the “core” PCE inflation rate, which excludes food and energy.
However, PCE inflation has also been rising, with the most recent quarterly value at 2.3 percent year on year in the April-to-June period. So if price stability were the central bank’s only goal, the federal funds rate should now be close to 4 percent.
The Fed’s rationale for continuing its ultra-easy monetary policy is that its “dual mandate” requires it to be concerned with employment as well. Its monthly statements emphasize that there is still “a significant underutilization of labor resources,” reflecting not only the 6.1 percent unemployment rate, but also the millions of part-time employees seeking a full-time job and those who are not officially counted as unemployed because they are not actively looking for work.
The Fed is certainly correct that current labor market conditions imply significant economic waste and personal hardship. However, economists debate the extent to which these conditions reflect a cyclical demand shortfall or more structural problems that a monetary stimulus cannot remedy.
A recent study by a team of Fed economists concluded that nearly all of the current decline in the labor force participation rate reflects the aging of the population and other structural causes.
Recent research also indicates that increases in demand that would cause a further reduction in the current unemployment rate would boost the inflation rate. An important study coauthored by Alan Krueger of Princeton University, who served as chairman of US President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers until last year, showed that the inflation rate reflects the level of short-term unemployment — lasting less than six months — rather than the overall unemployment rate. Longer-term unemployment implies a waste of potential output and a source of personal suffering, but it does not have an impact on the rate of inflation.
Krueger’s analysis indicates that the rate of inflation begins to increase when the short-term unemployment rate falls to 4 to 4.5 percent. With short-term unemployment currently at 4.2 percent, the inflation rate is indeed rising and Krueger’s research suggests that it is scheduled to increase further in the months ahead.
Similar studies by Robert Gordon of Northwestern University and by Glenn Rudebusch and John Wiliams of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank point to the same conclusion about the role of short-term unemployment and the irrelevance of long-term unemployment in the inflation process. While not all researchers agree with this analysis, I think the evidence is strong enough to represent a warning to the Fed and to market participants.
Indeed, I would not be surprised by a continued rise in the inflation rate next year. In that case, the Fed is likely to raise the federal funds rate more rapidly and to a higher year-end level than its recent statements imply.
Martin Feldstein is a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the US National Bureau of Economic Research. He chaired former US president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath