> Voting against this action was Stephen I. Miran, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/2 percentage point at this meeting.
Inflation seems to be creeping up. Unemployment is reasonably low. How is this justified, in light of what the Fed did in similar situations, and with respect to the recent "soft landing" of the economy, something that's very rarely been done in the past
Is it reasonable to expect an economy to produce jobs across of all sectors equally? Is that viable or expected in a free market model? I don’t think so, but I am happy to be corrected.
No country is a true "free market", and those sectors which represent the majority of American employment are declining.
Inflation at this point is being caused by variables that cannot be controlled by monetary policy, and those policy changes are unlikely to be solved by this administration.
With all due respect, is that fair or even real? For an imperfect impromptu analogy, the KC Chiefs had a Superbowl threepeat, if you remove that last game. Some phenomenon are "bulk", like temperature, doesn't inflation and unemployment match that?
The US consists of multiple regional economies, and a large portion of regional economies have fallen into recession or are barely treading water.
The only regional economies that are healthy are those closely aligned with the trifecta of tech, real estate, and healthcare and those are heavily clustered in a couple of metropolitan regions.
You've convinced me. This has nothing to do with Trump wanting the prime rate lowered. Trump's pressure on Powell and Cook had no practical effects. Thanks for clearing all that up for me, I appreciate it.
> Voting against this action was Stephen I. Miran, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/2 percentage point at this meeting.
The dot plot is interesting, with one fed member looking to cut rates by another 125 basis points by the end of the year (Hint: it’s Trump’s guy, Stephen Miran). https://www.businessinsider.com/fed-dot-plot-one-member-want...
Inflation seems to be creeping up. Unemployment is reasonably low. How is this justified, in light of what the Fed did in similar situations, and with respect to the recent "soft landing" of the economy, something that's very rarely been done in the past
If you remove tech, healthcare, and real estate, we are in a recession [0]
[0] - https://www.ft.com/content/e9be3e3f-2efe-42f7-b2d2-8ab3efea2...
Is it reasonable to expect an economy to produce jobs across of all sectors equally? Is that viable or expected in a free market model? I don’t think so, but I am happy to be corrected.
No country is a true "free market", and those sectors which represent the majority of American employment are declining.
Inflation at this point is being caused by variables that cannot be controlled by monetary policy, and those policy changes are unlikely to be solved by this administration.
Has there ever been a period of time where we're not in recession if you cherry pick which Industries to pull out?
Not recently when not in a recession. Literally every recession indicator has been flagged since May.
With all due respect, is that fair or even real? For an imperfect impromptu analogy, the KC Chiefs had a Superbowl threepeat, if you remove that last game. Some phenomenon are "bulk", like temperature, doesn't inflation and unemployment match that?
The US consists of multiple regional economies, and a large portion of regional economies have fallen into recession or are barely treading water.
The only regional economies that are healthy are those closely aligned with the trifecta of tech, real estate, and healthcare and those are heavily clustered in a couple of metropolitan regions.
You've convinced me. This has nothing to do with Trump wanting the prime rate lowered. Trump's pressure on Powell and Cook had no practical effects. Thanks for clearing all that up for me, I appreciate it.