Here is what the FOMC was looking at while debating the end of QE/ZIRP:


Will Holding Down Rates Spark Inflation Without Helping the Long-Term Unemployed?
click for larger graphic

Source: WSJ

Category: Employment, Federal Reserve, Inflation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

5 Responses to “What the FOMC Was Thinking . . .”

  1. Frilton Miedman says:

    Though service costs on household debt has salvaged what’s left of the middle class by shoring disposable income, the Fed is far too crude to solve the issue of participation, for that matter, I wager cheap money is enabling multinationals to set up shop & create jobs in emerging markets to displace those eliminated here as global demand increases, in turn, this is beneficial to stocks, of which 90% is owned by the top 10% and diminishing as time passes.

    This is a structural/fiscal problem, the Fed’s only buying us time, with bribery now being equated to “free speech” by SCOTUS, it’s going to take a long, long time, which explains why Bernanke has been saying these rates are here to stay.

  2. Futuredome says:

    “long term” unemployed is another boomer created illusion.

  3. Concerned Neighbour says:

    As the “short-term, temporary” stimulus continues indefinitely beyond the five years so far, at one point do most agree that the Fed wants inflation, and lots of it? I believe they will tolerate low to medium single digit inflation (3-6%) before they even consider raising rates.

    Screw retirees. If they aren’t 100% in on AMZN it’s more “temporary” negligible to negative returns for them over the “short-term”. Just remember, Ms. Yellen in her wisdom said there’s no bubble. Given the Fed is never wrong, and own the “markets” besides, what the hell, all into the pool!

  4. spencer says:

    Isn’t using the long term average since 1990 a biased measure to use as a target or proxy for normal.

    I suspect that is too high to use as a measure of full employment. where wage or inflation starts to accelerate.

  5. Robert M says:

    Worrying about inflation is a substitute for actual policy prescriptions to bring down long term the FED can not implement because the FED does not control fiscal policy or the ability to bring down debt loads in this country held by the worker.