RATE CUTS: FED Chairman Powell URGENT press Conference on The Economy and Monetary Policy



changing economic and financial picture brings us to today's decision so far this year the economy has performed reasonably well with solid fundamentals supporting continued growth and strong employment inflation has been running somewhat below our objective but we've expected it to pick up supported by solid growth in a strong job market along with this favorable picture we've been mindful of some ongoing cross currents including trade developments and concerns about global growth at the time of our last FOMC meeting which ended on May 1 there was tentative evidence that these cross currents were moderating the latest data from China and Europe were encouraging and there were reports of progress in trade negotiations with China our continued continued patient stance seemed appropriate in the Cabinet Committee saw no strong case for adjusting our policy rate in the week since our last meeting the cross currents have reemerged growth indicators from around the world have disappointed on net raising concerns about the strength of the global economy apparent progress on trade turn to greater uncertainty and our contacts in business and agriculture report heightened concerns over trade developments these concerns may have contributed to the drop in business confidence in some recent surveys and may be starting to show through to incoming data risk sentiment in financial markets has deteriorated as well against this backdrop inflation remains muted while the baseline outlook remains favorable the question is whether these uncertainties will continue to weigh on the outlook and this call for additional monetary policy accommodation many FOMC participants now see that the case for somewhat more accommodative policy has strengthened let me explain the basis for this judgment starting with the outlook for jobs and growth participants see unemployment remaining low this year and next monthly job gains in May were lower than expected however and in light of recent developments this bears watching still many labor market indicators remain strong community business and labor leaders all tell us that the prospects for job seekers have seldom been better and that this is true even for those who have traditionally struggled to find work wages are rising and this is particularly so for lower paying jobs committee participants growth projections from 2019 are little revised for March with a central tendency of to 22.2% just above their estimates of longer-run normal growth the growth projections for the year as a whole mask some important details about the composition of growth annual growth will be boosted by the surprisingly strong first quarter which had just been reported at the time of the May FOMC meeting as I noted then the unexpected strength was largely in net exports and inventories components that are not generally reliable indicators of ongoing momentum the more reliable drivers of growth in the economy are spending on consumption and business investment while consumption was weak in the first quarter incoming data show that has it has bounced back and is now running at a solid pace in contrast the limited evidence available at this time suggests that growth in business fixed income has slowed in the second quarter moreover manufacturing production has posted declines so far this year thus while the baseline outlook remains favorable many FOMC participants cited the investment picture and weaker business sentiment and the crosscurrents I mentioned earlier as supporting their judgment that the risk of less favorable outcomes has risen after running close to our symmetric 2 percent objective for most of last year inflation declined in the first quarter data since then shows some pickup participants broadly see inflation moving back up toward our 2 percent objective but at a slower pace than had been expected the central tendency for 2019 core inflation which emits volatile food and energy components is between 1.7 and 1.8% setting aside short-term fluctuations committee participants expressed concerns about the pace of inflation to return to 2% wages are rising as noted above but not at a pace that would provide much upward impetus to inflation moreover we quicker global growth may continue to hold inflation down around the world we are firmly committed to our symmetric 2% inflation objective and we are well aware that inflation weakness that persists even in a healthy economy could precipitate a difficult to arrest downward drift and longer run inflation expectations because there are no definitive measures of inflation expectations we must rely on imperfect proxies market-based measures of inflation compensation have moved down since our May meeting and some survey based expectations measures are near the bottom of their historic ranges combining these factors with the risks to growth already noted participants expressed concerns about a more sustained sustained shortfall of inflation overall our policy discussions focused on the appropriate response to the uncertain environment the projections of appropriate policies show that many participants believe that some cut in the federal funds rate will be appropriate in the scenario that they see as most likely though some participants wrote down policy cuts and others did not our deliberations made clear that a number of those who wrote down a flat rate path agree that the case for additional accommodation has strengthened since our May meeting this anatomic accommodation would support economic activity and inflation is returned to our objective uncertainties surrounding the baseline outlook have clearly risen since our last meeting it's important however that monetary policy not overreact to any individual data point or short-term swing in sentiment doing so would risk adding even more uncertainty to the outlook thus my colleagues and I will be looking to see whether these uncertainties will continue to weigh on the outlook and we will use our tools as appropriate to sustain the expansion thank you I will be pleased to take your questions Nik timorous of The Wall Street Journal chair Powell did you consider a rate cut today specifically was that one of the options the policy options in the teal book and is the committee considering moving given all of the uncertainty you addressed moving it's changing its policy before the next meeting so the committee had you know our usual long discussion of global and domestic economic and financial conditions and then spent this morning talking about monetary policy and came to the view that I expressed to you which is that we're gonna be monitoring monitoring the cross currents and the other items that we've mentioned but that we'd like to see more going forward particularly we'd like to see whether these risks continue to weigh on the outlook so generally as I mentioned many on the committee do see a strengthened case eight of those strengthened case for cutting rates aid actually wrote down rate cuts a number of others see that the case is strengthened but the committee wanted to wanted to see more as I mentioned and and I also mentioned that some of these some of these developments have been of quite recent vintage and so we do expect that we'll be learning a lot more on all of these issues in the near term and and that's our focus and do you think something could change before the next meeting I'm sure that things will change before the next meeting I expect a full range of data and information on all of these issues that we are looking at I think we'll learn a great deal more about them and I think that's that we think that that's the right way to to move here again many of these developments happen you know part of the way through the the last intermedia d seven weeks ago we had a great jobs report and came out of the last FOMC meeting feeling that the economy and our policy was in a good place so we want to see we want to see and we want to react to developments and trends that are sustained that are that are genuine and not react just to data points or just to changes in sentiment which can chew which can which can be volatile at the same time we're quite mindful of the risks to the outlook and are prepared to move and use our tools as needed to sustain the expansion mr. chairman Steve Liesman CNBC um could you walk us through your thinking about trade it was really the threat of tariffs against Mexico that caused at least the market to become definitively Bank your pricing in rate cuts if for example there's a deal with China does that take the possibility of rate cuts off the table yeah so I would say that we're not looking at any any one thing I guess I would start by agreeing with your premise that news about trade has been an important driver of sentiment in the inter meeting period but we're also looking at global growth it's really trade developments and concerns about global growth that are that are on our minds so we're not exclusively focused on one event or one piece of data risks seem to have grown in the meantime we have incoming data in the United States that's been pretty good particularly for the consumer consumer spending is solid supported by you know a healthy job market high levels of employment wages going up we do see those some areas that we're looking at such as I mentioned business fixed income so also the prolonged shortfall in inflation and perhaps job growth we don't like to look at one job report we like to average over three or six months but still that bears watching so we'll be monitoring the implications of all of those developments for the US economic outlook we expect to learn a good deal more as I mentioned and we'll be asking the question whether those risks are gonna continue to weigh on the outlook and then in the end we'll we'll use our tools as appropriate to sustain this long expansion hi Heather long from the Washington Post could you clarify what you would do if the president tweets or calls you to say he would like to demote you as Fed chair a young I think the law is clear that I have a four year term and I fully intend to serve it hi chip al I was hoping that this is genius my luck from the New York Times I was hoping that you could clarify for us a little bit how you're thinking about the risks of waiting too long to cut rates versus the risks of cutting rates prematurely sort of what the balance of risks are and how you talk about that right so we're always trying to balance that risk but I would say that given the the quite recent nature of some of the events I think the committee felt though though that the right thing to do was to wait and see more and we will see a lot more on all these issues in the very near term so I don't think the risk of waiting too long is prominent right now I would say as a general matter it's always something that we we have to weigh but I think we believe that that the right thing here is to is to watch carefully in the near term and see how these risks unfold and see whether they continue to weigh on the outlook obviously we try to avoid going prematurely as well in this case you know there's always some judgment in these things but I would just say that that the the risks that we see having emerged are our risks that have gotten our attention and that have called a number of us to write down rate cuts and a number of those who haven't to see that the case is strengthened Marty Marty crutsinger with the AP you had your first descent and your time is chairman how does that give us a sense that there was debate among a group that was pushing for a rate cut this time and and and and how do you do you expect further dissents going forward let me say the same thing as I as I said last time before they're advantageous and that is that I think the process of careful thoughtful dissent is a very healthy one and I've always believed that and I feel like you make better decisions when you hear a disparity of views so I I really do look at at at it that way I would add though that the support for the path we took for the policy statement that we adopted was was quite broad James believed you with the Financial Times Mario Draghi at the ECB yesterday sent us strong signal of new stimulus for the eurozone do you think that such actions to ease policy at other central banks around the world will put more pressure on the Fed to do the same well I first I think all central banks are focused on their domestic mint their mandates are domestic and they're focused on economic conditions from a domestic standpoint and that it goes for the european central bank goes for the Fed goes for all central banks so that's that's our principal focus so it could cut either way you know I would think that to extent you see stronger financial conditions and stronger activity in the ECB after a rate cut that would that would support tend to support activity so we're really focused on on you know the risks to our on the baseline outlook which is still a pretty favorable one and what and the risks to those outlooks that's that's our principal focus thanks this is a the first time that you've been really issuing CEPS in the naira when rates are going to be going down – sort of related questions is there concern that you'll be causing a sort of dot deflation by telling people well don't buy your car now because it'll get cheaper in six months because we're cutting rates and that that could sort of fulfill itself and secondly on inflation that was a pretty big drop in expected PCE yet manok without reacting to it are you not sort of undermining your own credibility in terms of commitment to the 2% target I'll take the inflation went first I didn't quite follow your dot question expected inflation went from 1.8 – how much time with words went from one point eight to one point five it's the fact that you're not responding that's the inflation question yes I'm saying you've gone deep know the fact that you've signaled rate cuts are coming or it is was there any concern on the committee that this would tell consumers tell people don't borrow now don't spend now because I see good overlay right okay so let me let me answer the inflation question first so we're saying that we know I noted in the statement and also in my my what I have said here we saw that market-based measures of inflation expectations breakevens dropped we noted that also in in the statement and I noted it as a reason for us to one of one of several reasons why why it feels to us that the case for more accommodation has strengthened so we find that notable not only that the the actual forecast for inflation for this year among FOMC FOMC participants dropped a couple of tenths so that means a more prolonged shortfall of inflation let me say on inflation it's it's something I've been concerned about for quite a long time it's one of the principal reasons why I called for the review you know in a world where we're where policy rates are going to be closer to the effective lower bound then just as a general matter we need to be really strong on 2% inflation so I think you know we certainly don't want to be seen as weak on inflation in it and I don't believe we are in terms of the dots you're right this is the first time I believe we've had we've talked about cutting it in the in the in the dot era I guess the dot era began in January of 2012 and you know we're working our way through it and I think it's just something we do I you know that my view on the dots is that they overall provide useful information for people but that we need to do our absolute best to explain what they are and what they are not speaking of which they are not a forecast of the group they're not discussed or debated at the meeting they're in input to policy more than an output of policy and they're also only the most likely case so in a situation where there's relatively high uncertainty there's the most likely case but the second most likely case might only be a little bit less likely but that doesn't show up in the dot the dot is either one thing or it's another so I just would say that if you pay too close attention to the dots then you may lose sight of the larger picture thank you Chris Condon Bloomberg News mr. chairman if and when the committee decides to cut rates I suspect there will be a debate over whether to move by 25 or 50 basis points indeed there's a pretty substantial body of academic literature arguing that a central bank close to the zero lower bound ought to act sooner and more aggressively than it otherwise would wondering what you think of that prescription and if you could spend a couple of minutes discussing the pros and cons of a 50 basis point cut and how you approach that question on a specific question of that that's just something we haven't really engaged with yet and it will depend very heavily on incoming data and and the evolving risk picture as we move forward so it would be so nothing I can say about that is specific to the near-term question that we face more generally though the research you refer to essentially notes that in a world where you are closer to the effect of lower bound it's why research kind of shows this it's it's wise to to react for example to prevent a weakening from turning into a prolonged weakening in other words sort of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure so I think that is that is a valid way to think about policy in this era I don't know and it's it's always in the I think it's in the minds of policymakers all the you know it during this era because it's it's it's well understood to be correct again I don't know what what that means in terms of the size of a particular rate cut coming forward that's going to depend heavily upon you know the actual data and the evolving risk picture Donna Borak with CNN thanks chairman Powell Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has provided a proposal to revalue the US dollar to in order to address concerns about rising trade deficits the President himself has routinely complained about the strength of the u.s. dollar saying it has resulted in quote tremendous close quote competitive advantage with countries like China and others do you think that an overvalued dollar has been a drag on America's global competitiveness and would you support an intervention of some kind on this issue the US Treasury has responsibility for exchange rate policy not the Fed and we don't comment in that sense on the level of the dollar we have the responsibility for maximum employment and stable prices and we use our tools to achieve that of course we we do that through changing financial conditions and one of those is the dollar but we don't target the dollar it's just something that we don't do in fact central banks or other nations when they get together routinely adopt a communique that says we will target our domestic economic and financial conditions and not our exchange rate in using monetary policy and that includes the United States that includes the g20 communique that we adopted ten days ago so I'm not the right person to ask about about that sort of dollar policy innovation thank German pal Paul Karen from Dow Jones mimosa according to the dot plot I mean if the most likely case is that you will have to cut rates in the next 18 months and given some of the concerns about you know policy needing to react sooner and more aggressively what would have been the downsides to cutting rates now why not just cut him now so why not why not now and m'as not much support for cutting rates now at this meeting there was as you see a number of people wrote down rate cuts but all of those but apparently one felt that that it would be better to see more – before moving and and I gave a couple reasons why that is the case first is just the fact that some of these developments are so recent that we want to to see whether whether that whether they'll sustain so we felt that it would be better to get a clearer picture of things and that we would in fact learn a lot about these developments in the near term ultimately the question we're going to be asking ourselves is are these risks going to be continuing to weigh on the outlook and we will act as needed including promptly if that's appropriate and use our tools to extent to sustain the expansion yeah thank you for doing this chairman Edward Lawrence from Fox Business Network how do you reconcile the conflicting economic data coming in you know one hand you have strong overall growth consumer spending is strong on the other hand manufacturing numbers were a little bit weaker you have growth and jobs but coming in a little weaker and then you have low inflation and then specifically what data are you looking at that you decided not to have a rate cut what is enough well you gave a pretty good picture I mean it's it's a it's a complicated picture and you know the answer is we look at all of it but I would say the big pieces of it are this the the baseline outlook has been a good one and that has basically been consumer spending coming back up in the second quarter that has that is coming true and consumer spending is at a healthy level and that makes sense you've got a tight labor market you've got companies in surveys saying that labor is scarce you've got workers in survey saying that jobs are plentiful you've got wages going up you've got high levels of household confidence so all of that underlying fundamentals for the consumer spending part of the economy which is 70 percent of the economy is quite solid job creation if you take a three-month average is still well above you know the level of entry into the workforce so that part of the economy is solid you mentioned manufacturing and we're seeing this all around the world manufacturing investment and trade have been have been weaker it's not solely a domestic issue and and it may be that there are a range of factors that are contributing to that including for example what China has done over the last couple of years in in working to bring down its leverage some of it may be uncertainty over over your supply chains due to trade developments the Boeing 737 issues may be contributing in their own way so they're lower oil prices are contributing to lower investment although they're also leading to lower gas prices which supports spending so there are many many things there isn't any one thing that explains it all but it's it is is it to something that we're watching but you do see growth in services so you this pattern around the world of weak manufacturing but growth in the far larger part of the services economy which has led to low unemployment good job creation rising wages that that's kind of the the two big pieces of it that you see then you see the cross currents if you lay the cross currents on top of that concerns about global growth and trade developments you have the full picture and I think what that picture what we took away from that picture is that we'd like to see more that we do see these risks and what we want to do is we're going to watch and see whether they continue to weigh upon the outlook Michael McKee Bloomberg television on the radio if consumer spending is solid and business investment has been slowed by uncertainty I'd like to get your thinking on what a Fed rate cut would do have you modeled the additional growth and inflation you might get from a rate cut can you identify any sectors that would benefit from a lower cost of capital or is this really about the Fed being the only game in town well we we have the tools we have and we're committed and sworn to use them to support economic activity and they do support economic activity through through a number of number of channels that are reasonably well understood some more directly tied to interest rates than others but we do generally believe that that our interest rate policy can can support demand and support visit business investment as well and so we we will will really use those tools and use them as we see is appropriate to achieve our objectives which really are to sustain this expansion and it I would just make a note of that the reason why we say sustain the expansion is you're seeing now for the for the first time you know communities that are being brought into the benefits of this expansion that hadn't been earlier you're ten years deep into this and that's something we heard quite a lot at the conference in Chicago on the review and I just would say that's why we think it's one of the reasons why we think so important to sustain the expansion keep it keep it going because we really are benefiting groups that haven't seen you know this kind of prosperity in a long time do you think Fed policy can solve those problems so we take the crew you know we we take the cross currents as a given and we have our tools I don't you know we we don't we react to anything in principle that could undermine our achievement of our dual mandate goals maximum employment stable prices is worthy of our attention and can call forth a policy response and that's just how we look at um hi Victoria GUI done with Politico you've said that the Fed doesn't take short-term political considerations into account and you've defended the feds independence so I was wondering is is there a point at which you think that publicly or privately you should push back on the president's criticisms rather than ignoring him and also do you think that you and the president have the same goals when it comes to monetary policy you know I don't I don't discuss elected officials publicly or privately really so I I would just say that we are at the Fed we're deeply committed to carrying out our mission and and also that our independence from direct political control we see as an important institutional feature that has served both the economy and the country well Nancy Marshall cancer with marketplace share Paul are you concerned that new digital currencies like Libre which Facebook unveiled this week could undermine the Fed and and erode your power to influence the economy and did anyone from Facebook talk with anyone at the Fed before Libre was unveiled this week so on your specific question of digital currencies replacing central bank currencies I think we're a long way from that yeah and of course the so I think we're a long way from that digital currencies are in their infancy so essentially not too concerned about but you know that central bank's no longer being able to carry out monetary policy because of crypto currencies or digital currencies you know Facebook I believe has made quite broad rounds and around the world really with regulators supervisors and lots of people to discuss their plans and that that certainly includes us and we're you know it's something we're looking at we meet with a broad broad range of private sector firms all the time on financial technology and there's just a tremendous amount of innovation going on out there you know they're potential benefits here there are also potential risks particularly of a currency that could you know that could potentially have large application so I would echo what what governor Carney said which is that we we will wind up having quite high expectations from a sort of safety and soundness and regulatory standpoint if they do decide to go forward with something in regulating Libra then you know we have we don't have plenary authority over crypto currencies as such they play into our world through consumer protection and money laundering and things like that but I would say that you know through international forums you know we we have significant input into into the payment system and and you know as you know play an important role in the payment system here in the United States Thank You chairman bout Greg Robb from MarketWatch I want to take you back to Chicago and the review of your monetary policy strategy and something I interesting I think is developing is that outside experts are excited and are like the idea of the Fed shifting your inflation target up to 4% around there roughly I guess they think that that would you know help monetary policy and that there's no 2% is not like sanctimonious or anything or whatever sacred it seems that you've taken that off the table so I was wondering if you could discuss that have you taken it off the table and then there's so why or and what's your thoughts on that thank you we have we've said that we wouldn't look at raising the the target rate for inflation we did say that and and the reason is it's become a global norm 2% we our statutory mandate is price stability and so we're actually taking a less we're looking at less radical ideas such as how to make the 2% inflation objective more credible this gives me a chance to say a couple things about the review and Chicago in particular so it's a new thing for us it's something that I thought it was both appropriate important for us to do it'll be a a year long or even longer process looking at our strategy tools and communications and it's it's meant to be a way to open ourselves up to let the Sun Shine in and have dialogue and criticism with the constituencies that we serve we've had a series of Fed listens around the country at every Reserve Bank and we had an academic conference earlier this month with seven papers written and criticized and leading global experts but I'll just say again that the heart of the conference was the two panels on with practitioners in low and moderate-income who live in low and moderate income communities and are part of those communities and they were there I think people were quite struck by their intervention which was really uniformly around how important maximum employment ISM what it mean in their communities you know the idea being they haven't had you know a bull market in these communities they haven't had just a booming economy what they have have is low unemployment lots of social problems and just now you have you know companies who want to hire and are bringing people into the Leie providing opportunities for people to come into the labor force to an extent not seen in quite a long time and that is some I think you know for someone who does this work that was very focusing and and motivating to so I think everybody thought you know that's that was really quite worth knowing I mean there was there was some thought at the beginning that we should some people recommended that we just talked to you know econ PhDs about this but no that's not what we chose to do and we're glad this is the choice we made but even those two panels that you just referenced the people that spoke they when they were asked about you know 2% inflation or higher inflation they kind of shrugged their shoulders you know so it is 4% inflation radical to enter who I I don't think it's um I don't think it's a practical alternative and and I'll tell you why I think you see disinflationary pressures around the world you see central bank's having a hard time getting inflation up to their close to their objective we've done better than other large central banks who work that are not you know open economies like the UK where that where where you you have big currency moves that move inflation around so but it's quite challenging to get inflation it's been even with very high levels of resource utilization inflation has been lingering and and not getting back up to target in a sustained symmetric kind of away so saying that you're gonna go for 4% i I wonder how credible that would be John Hilton with American Banker I have a question about the feds I guess the bank regulators leverage lending guidance from 2013 as you know the GAO had a letter saying that they thought it was a rule and it sort of went away but yet leverage lending is a resource of concern you yourself has said have said that credit underwriting quality seems to be deteriorating somewhat lately and that the Fed has tools to to supervise banks and to prevent leveraged lending from becoming too much of an issue I want to know what the is is the is the 2013 guidance still representative of the sort of feds thinking about leveraged lending and does the Fed of any intent intention to either issue like a leveraged lending rule or a new guidance that is less problematic or is the plan to just kind of carry on with supervision as as your as you are these are the the 2013 guidance is not binding and that's what came out of the GAO review but that's really the beginning of this of the story you know we we we have the authority we need to examine the banks for safety and soundness exposure so this the the first thing you start with as a bank supervisor is the risks that the banks are taking to themselves through their portfolio through the risks that they're running and and the pipeline you know the obligations that they've undertaken to underwrite deals and so we monitor that very carefully so do the banks and you see exposures that are much smaller than they were before the crisis and by the way we test that regularly in the in the stress tests we impose very large losses on those portfolios so we kind of have a sense of what that is whereas before the crisis there was a lot of lack of lack of knowledge about what the losses would be so that's where it starts for us in supervision is the risks that the banks are running at you know running on their own books and to themselves and to and each other so and that I feel I feel like that is that's in a good place but we never we never say mission accomplished on that we will keep you know keep monitoring that carefully what's happened though is the the the paper is now owned by market based vehicles collateralized loan obligations mutual funds and things like that and so we now have you know we have a good sense of domestically of where that paper is I think internationally not as much in the Financial Stability Board is actually looking more carefully at that and we you know we monitor those vehicles to to see what they are and they're actually pretty stable II funded in the sense that there's no run risk but there's still macroeconomic risk and you know this is something that we we take very seriously and that the the the F sock the financial stability Oversight Council is looking at and you know we call it out as a macroeconomic risk but it's not really a financial stability risk in the sense that it could undermine the ability of the financial system to do its job of intermediate and credit but is there any intention is there any plan on the part of the Fed or other regulators to sort of create any additional clarity for or inconsistency really that's the other point of guidance right is to to make sure everyone knows kind of what the Supervisory expectations are for leverage lending and for a role for anything for that matter is anything else coming or is it just gonna remain kind of like bilateral kind of conversations with banks you know I think I think the issue isn't that the banks don't understand what the rules are the issue is that the risk isn't in the banks it's in it's out in those market-based vehicles so I don't I don't you know I no longer am day-to-day involved in this as I was before I took this job but my sense is though that that's that's really not the the problem I'm not saying it's perfect but I think we do understand what what risks the banks are running and really the question is how concerned should we be about large holdings by market-based vehicles that I mentioned and what risks do they present and we're very carefully assessing that and we continue to take all these risks seriously you know I gave a whole speech about this a few weeks ago so I Brian Chung with Yahoo Finance I'm just wanting if you could expand a little bit on the labor market so the statement noted that the labor market still remains strong but the May job support that we saw missed on estimates but the unemployment rate still stayed at 3.6 percent I'm wondering how you reconcile that with the fact that we only got 3.1 percent year-over-year wage growth and that report what does that tell you about employment and by all standards compared to say a month ago or a year ago are we closer or farther away from full employment or maximum employment you know we have to be closer because more jobs are being created than people are running the labor force the unemployment rate is is lower you know but by just lots and lots of numbers the the labor market isn't is in a good place you mentioned wages so that the level of wages is very consistent with with a with what it should be in the sense that it's approximately equal to inflation plus productivity increases on an hourly basis so what's I guess a little surprising though is that you could reach these levels of unemployment late you know long into a cycle let's say and not see even higher wages they're pushing up on inflation because wages at this level even though they're growing at a healthy rate at an appropriate rate they're not they're not growing at a rate that would provide much upward thrust for inflation so you know we watch we watch all this very carefully and I think we're very careful about not assuming that were you know that with that there's no more slack in the labor market you know we've all lived through you know all right when I got to the Fed we were in the 8% plus range and it's just going down and down and down and you haven't seen wages picked up you haven't seen real signals that were that we're at maximum employment you have seen a tightening labor market you know that it's if the surveys and as I mentioned will all show that labor market has tightened but not over tightened hygiene young with Market News I wanted to ask did the FOMC discuss a change to its balance sheet policy at this meeting perhaps ending runoffs earlier than planned and with the committee be inclined to do something like that if it lowers rates before September so of course we haven't made any decisions yet balance sheet runoff is is very close to the end of its of its planned life I would say this if we do provide more accommodation again we haven't really addressed this but if we do provide more accommodation we'll certainly keep in mind what we said earlier this year which is that we'll always be willing to adjust balance sheet policy so that it serves our dual mandate objectives thank you very much




Comments
  1. We are not responsible for the Socialist Global Economy. We are a Constitutional Republic with a Free Economy that should be considered separate for what the Communists are doing.

  2. The Truly Old Old World Taiwan the Republic of China know's the truth about everything! Including how acupuncture, massage therapy, and the Real Truth of our Unseen World can Heal the Lame. Even allow a person to live longer and healthier. Yes Honesty and Truth are part of the Honest Healthy Holistic Lifestyle. Now with these truths many people can live a life free of opiod's and actually so much more learn more today! http://www.josephturnerbooks.com/our-unseen-world/

  3. I'm mining gold in Montana. Ill dig for ya. Send me a mssg. Screw these currency games. Ill even let you see our proposed micro village currency idea. 🇺🇸

  4. This idiot wants inflation???? Who want's inflation??? Snake oil salesman. They kept rates low until Obama was out of office then started raising them. It's done on purpose and we the people pay.

  5. They should not have raised the rates in the 1st place. Lower the RATE….. you fool. If you have 8 out of 12 Board Members from Regional Banks wanting an Interest Reduction, then 'JUST DO IT'! …..postponing it will do exactly what that Questioner said; People who planned to buy a car or house or whatever…. will just wait for the interest deduction. Which above all would bring more money out of hiding to be available now…. if Interest Rates are lowered! How can that be BAD??? Too Bad John D Lusk wasn't able to bring an end to the FED during Reagan's terms. As a Banker himself then operating the Largest Independent Family Owned array of Construction Companies….. like Trump he knew the FED was choking the life out the economy w/ ridiculous Interest Rates that turned his whole restructuring of the IRS and Lower Tax Rates into a Loser w/o availability of the lower interest rates driving the economy and not just Banks Getting Richer with higher interest rates!

  6. One thing at a time… Cut rates now.
    Then Cut the FED reserve off at the knees
    After an audit confiscate ALL their assets for stealing money from Americans for a hundred years. The trillions upon trillions stolen…

  7. Get rid of the Federal Reserve. It is the Elite Globalist Oligarchs tool to subject everyone else to s e r f d o m through lifetime indenture to the Luciferian Banking Cabal Industry. Get onto the gold standard. We want real $$$, and not fiat money. Yeah, just keep printing currency and dilute the $$$ to nothingness INTO FIAT MONEY. Shoot the missles of P R A Y E R. IN GOD WE TRUST. PURGE THE DARK POWER OF SATAN ESPECIALLY IN THE USA. CLEAR THE DARKNESS OVER AMERICA. KEEP PRAYING – URGENTLY, FERVENTLY, AND UNCEASINGLY. THE PRAYER OF THE RIGHTEOUS AVAIL MUCH. AMEN IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

  8. Do not confuse lower Fed rates with consumer APR. Fed rates is the cost Fed imposes to pass toxic assets from banks to the Fed. QEs are the money to buy toxic assets.

  9. If you abolish the Fed, USA would return to the 19th century worthless bills printed by each bank. It means that when a bank fails, all cash you had is worthless. Not good. People never studied financial history so they do not understand what they are asking.

  10. Gold is just another fiat currency. The Spanish empire crisis furing the ruling of Felipe II proves it. QEs in American mines caused lots of inflation.

  11. Powell, is a total hack…he will get smashed soon enough and fall right into the trump plan…he doesnt troll a subject for nothin…

  12. the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. This cycle always prevails and is however unfortunate as lots suffer while few win.

  13. Monopoly money is make-believe worth!
    True worth is one another's well-being!
    – the homeless in Babylon.
    HE'S US!
    In the mirror suffering the MONOPOLY of make-believe worth.

  14. The Fed is making political judgement. Where do they get the data?
    This is like a hobby horse giving the Fed more power. These people are not elected by the public. There needs to be stronger oversight over this agency

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *