Federal Reserve System

More stories

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Senate Republicans Stall Crucial Vote on Fed Nominees

    by

    President Biden’s plans to reshape the Federal Reserve suffered a setback on Tuesday as Republicans delayed a key vote on his five nominees for its Board of Governors.Republicans did not show up for a committee decision that would have advanced the nominees to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Because a majority of the Senate Banking Committee’s members need to be physically present for such votes to count, their blockade effectively halted the process.The unusual maneuver, spearheaded by Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, was driven by Republican opposition to Mr. Biden’s pick for the nation’s top bank cop, Sarah Bloom Raskin.The president has renominated Jerome H. Powell as Fed chair and has tapped Lael Brainard, a current Fed governor, as vice chair. He has also nominated the economists Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson as Fed governors. But Ms. Raskin — a longtime Washington policymaker and lawyer whom Mr. Biden has picked as vice chair for bank supervision — has garnered the most pushback.To prevent her nomination from advancing to the full Senate, Republicans held up the vote on all five nominees.Democrats and the White House criticized Republicans for engineering a boycott and scrambled for a solution that could get the nominees to a confirmation vote. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and chair of the Banking Committee, on Tuesday shot down the idea that he would separate Ms. Raskin from the other nominees to allow the rest to advance. Ms. Raskin could face tough odds of passing, especially on her own.By nominating five of the Fed’s seven governors and all of its highest-ranking leaders, Mr. Biden had a chance to shake up the institution. While some of his picks — like Mr. Powell — represented continuity, together they would have made up the most racially and gender-diverse Fed leadership team ever.Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University who co-wrote a book on the politics of the Fed, said Democrats would need to come up with a strategy to overcome the Republican block or the nominees could get stuck in limbo.“It is really a delay — it might yet scupper Raskin,” she said. She noted that Democrats could break the nominations up or try to garner enough support among the full Senate to override the rules and get the nominees past the committee, though that might be a challenge.“It’s pretty uncharted, and they’re going to have to find a way,” Dr. Binder said.Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that outside of trying to change Senate rules — which she called the “nuclear option” — Democrats’ clearest avenue was probably to negotiate with Republicans.“They just need a Republican to show up,” she noted, explaining that the senator would not even need to vote yes for the committee to secure a majority and move the candidates along.Tuesday’s maneuver was the latest step in Mr. Toomey’s opposition campaign against Ms. Raskin, who would serve as arguably the nation’s most important bank regulator if confirmed.Mr. Toomey has criticized Ms. Raskin for past comments on climate-related regulation, worrying that she would be too activist in bank oversight. More recently, he has pressed for more information about her interactions with the Fed while she was on the board of a financial technology company that was pushing for a potentially lucrative central bank account.“Until basic questions have been adequately addressed, I do not think the committee should proceed with a vote on Ms. Raskin,” Mr. Toomey said in the statement.White House officials criticized his move as inappropriate when the Fed is wrestling with rapidly rising prices and preparing to raise interest rates next month.“It’s totally irresponsible, in our view — it’s never been more important to have confirmed leadership at the Fed,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. She added that the administration’s focus now was moving the nominees through the committee and called Mr. Toomey’s probing of Ms. Raskin’s background “false allegations.”The dispute centers on the revolving door between government regulators and the arcane world of financial technology.Mr. Toomey and his colleagues have said Ms. Raskin, a former Fed and Treasury official, had contacted the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on behalf of Reserve Trust, a financial technology company. Reserve Trust secured a strategically important account at the Fed while she was on its board: To this day, it advertises that it is the only company of its kind with what’s known as a “master” account.Master accounts give companies access to the U.S. payment system infrastructure, allowing firms to move money without working with a bank, among other advantages.Republicans are blocking the process over concerns about one of the nominees, Sarah Bloom Raskin.Pool photo by Ken CedenoMs. Raskin said in written responses to Mr. Toomey’s questions early this month that she did “not recall any communications I made to help Reserve Trust obtain a master account.” But Mr. Toomey said in a subsequent letter that the president of the Kansas City Fed, Esther George, had told his staff that Ms. Raskin called her about the account in 2017.The Kansas City Fed has insisted that it followed its normal protocol in granting Reserve Trust’s master account and noted that talking with a firm’s board members was “routine.” But Mr. Toomey has continued to push for more information.“Important questions about Ms. Raskin’s use of the ‘revolving door’ remain unanswered largely because of her repeated disingenuousness with the committee,” Mr. Toomey said in his statement Tuesday.Democrats have emphasized that Ms. Raskin recently committed to a new set of ethics standards, agreeing not to work for financial services companies for four years after she leaves government — a pledge Ms. Cook and Mr. Jefferson also made, at the urging of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.Ms. Brainard agreed to a weaker version of that commitment that would bar her from working at bank holding companies and depository institutions outside of mission-driven exceptions like banks that target underserved communities, a spokesperson for Ms. Warren’s office said Tuesday.Mr. Powell declined to make a similar commitment, the spokesperson said. The Fed chair did signal that he would adhere to the administration’s ethics rules, which ban paid work related to government service for two years upon leaving office.On Tuesday, a dozen Republican chairs in the room where the committee met remained empty while Democrats occupied their seats across the room. Democrats took a vote to show support, though it was not binding, and Mr. Brown pledged to reschedule.“Few things we do as senators will do more to help address our country’s economic concerns more than to confirm this slate of nominees, the most diverse and most qualified slate of Fed nominees ever put forward,” Mr. Brown said, chiding Republicans for skipping the session.“They’re taking away probably the most important tool we have — and that’s the Federal Reserve — to combat inflation,” he later added.The Fed has four current governors, in addition to its 12 regional presidents, five of whom vote on monetary policy at any given time. Mr. Powell has already been serving as chair on an interim basis, since his leadership term officially expired this month. Even if the nominees advance, Ms. Raskin may struggle to pass the full Senate. Winning confirmation would require her to maintain full support from all 50 lawmakers who caucus with Democrats and for all those lawmakers to be present unless she can win Republican votes. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, has been absent as he recovers from a stroke.“The Republicans are playing hardball because they can,” said Ian Katz, the managing director at Capital Alpha Partners. “At the least, it delays her confirmation. It could have the ultimate effect of killing it.” More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    CPI Inflation Climbed 7.5 Percent in January, the Fastest Rise Since 1982

    by

    Consumer Price Index data showed prices climbing faster than expected, picking up across a broad array of goods and services.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Year-over-year changes in the Consumer Price Index
    Seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesA key inflation measure released on Thursday showed that prices are climbing at the fastest pace in 40 years and broadening to touch nearly every corner of the American economy, heightening the risk that they will stay elevated for longer and that policymakers may have to react more aggressively.Markets tumbled after the government released Consumer Price Index data for January, which showed prices jumping 7.5 percent over the year and 0.6 percent over the past month, exceeding forecasts. More worrying were the report’s details, which showed inflation moving beyond pandemic-affected goods and services, a sign that rapid gains could prove longer lasting and harder to shake off.Investors speculated that the hot inflation would spur a decisive reaction from the Federal Reserve — possibly a big interest rate increase at the central bank’s next gathering in March, though few Fed officials have signaled comfort with such a large move. Making money more expensive to borrow and spend could weigh on demand, slowing the economy and tamping down prices.Wall Street is now anticipating that interest rates could rise to more than 1.75 percent by the end of the year, up from near zero now, and the possibility of a more forceful Fed reaction sent a key bond yield above 2 percent for the first time since July 2019 and deflated stock prices.Most economists still believe inflation will cool by year’s end, as automobile prices climb at a more moderate pace and as supply chain problems hopefully ease. But high and widespread price increases portend trouble for a White House that is struggling to convince voters that the economy is strong, and for a Fed that looks increasingly at risk of falling behind the curve.“It was more than expected, and it was broad-based,” said Priya Misra, head of global rates strategy at TD Securities, adding that she now expects price gains to slow less drastically this year. “We’ve gotten used to these big headline numbers, but every aspect of ‘transitory’ you can push back against now.”Economists thought price gains would fade quickly in 2021 — making now-infamous predictions that inflation would prove “transitory” — only to have those projections proved wrong time and again as booming consumer demand for goods collided with roiled global supply chains that could not ramp up production fast enough.High inflation has been a political liability for the White House, as rising prices have eaten away at household paychecks, leaving consumers feeling pessimistic.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesLately, it is more than just shortages of goods at play. Price gains are increasingly hitting consumers in hard-to-avoid ways as they show up in necessities: January’s inflation reading was driven by food, electricity and shelter costs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.High and broadening inflation has become a political liability for President Biden, as rising prices eat away at household paychecks and detract from a strong labor market with solid wage growth. That has left consumers feeling pessimistic and has all but killed Mr. Biden’s chance to pass a sweeping climate and social policy bill given lawmaker concerns about rising prices.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Ryan Sweet, an economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated that inflation was costing the average household $276 a month, compared with a more normal rate of inflation, which had been hovering just around 2 percent before the pandemic.“While today is a reminder that Americans’ budgets are being stretched in ways that create real stress at the kitchen table, there are also signs that we will make it through this challenge,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. He emphasized that wages grew more quickly than prices last month — though in general they have not kept up with price gains over the past year.The White House has introduced policies that might help to ease inflation slightly — discussing plans to help place military veterans into the short-staffed trucking industry, for instance — but the Fed is primarily in charge of slowing down demand to keep prices under control. Fed officials have already shifted away from trying to foster a quick economic rebound and toward bringing inflation down. After Thursday’s report, investors expected the Fed to withdraw economic support even more quickly. Markets braced for a half-percentage-point increase in the federal funds rate at the central bank’s meeting next month — double the usual increment.The inflation reading sent stocks down and government bond yields up. The S&P 500 dropped 1.8 percent, while the Nasdaq composite fell 2.1 percent. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes rose 0.1 percentage points, to about 2.03 percent, the highest level since November 2019.James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, fretted about the January inflation report in an interview with Bloomberg News and suggested that policymakers should be open to both a bigger-than-normal rate increase and to increasing rates in between officially scheduled meetings.“You have got the highest inflation in 40 years, and I think we are going to have to be far more nimble and far more reactive to data,” said Mr. Bullard, who has at times espoused bold stances that are not followed by his policymaking colleagues.The Fed generally moves borrowing costs in between meetings only at stressed moments and in emergencies, as was the case when it cut rates to zero between planned gatherings in March 2020.Inflation is abnormally high relative to the central bank’s goal: The Fed aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time, defining that target using a different but related inflation index that is also sharply elevated.And it increasingly appears to be driven less by the pandemic and more by a strong economy. Price increases in 2021 came heavily from roiled supply chains that sent new and used car prices and furniture costs up sharply. Those continue to be a big factor elevating overall inflation, but other areas are also fueling the rapid rise.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Year-over-year changes in the Consumer Price Index
    Not seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesRent of a primary residence, which counts for a big chunk of overall inflation and tends to respond more to economic conditions than to one-off trends, climbed 0.5 percent in January from the prior month, a slight acceleration. Other shelter costs rose at a steady but notable pace.“Low vacancies and the end of rent moratoriums are expected to continue to push rents higher in the year ahead,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton, wrote in a note after the release.As costs for shelter and other services pick up, policymakers are hoping that supply chains will start to catch up. That could allow prices for goods to moderate or even fall — taking pressure off overall inflation.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation probably climbed at fastest pace in four decades in January.

    by

    Consumer Price Index data released on Thursday could show the biggest annual price increase since early 1982.A key inflation measure set for release Thursday morning is expected to show that prices continued to climb at the fastest pace in 40 years.But the data could also show some moderation in how much costs are going up each month — a potential silver lining as consumers wait for price pressures to lessen after a bruising year.Economists expect the Consumer Price Index data for January to show that prices climbed by 7.2 percent over the past year, up from 7 percent in December. That would be the fastest clip since February 1982.But prices are expected to have climbed 0.4 percent in January from the prior month. That is unusually rapid, but it is a moderation from the biggest monthly increases last year, which came in as high as 0.9 percent.Forecasters anticipate that inflation will ease meaningfully in 2022: Many expect it to finish the year closer to 3 percent. But economists regularly predicted that price gains would fade quickly in 2021, only to have those projections foiled as booming consumer demand for goods collided with roiled global supply chains that could not ramp up production fast enough.The recent spike in prices for food, fuel, cars and other goods has become a problem for both the Federal Reserve, which is responsible for keeping prices stable, and the White House, which has found itself on the defensive as rising costs eat away at household paychecks and detract from a strong labor market with solid wage growth.On Wednesday, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, tried to put a positive spin on the numbers, acknowledging that the data to be released Thursday would most likely show a high reading for the year but that the trajectory is for prices to decrease.“We expect a high year inflation rate reading in tomorrow’s data, given what we know about the last year,” Ms. Psaki said, adding that “it’s not about the recent trends.”“Inflation is expected to decrease over the course — and moderate — over the course of this year,” she said.Even so, the new data could add to the urgency for the Fed to begin weaning the economy off the rock-bottom interest rates that have been in place since March 2020.Fed officials have signaled that they will begin raising rates at their meeting next month. Higher rates can slow down consumer and business spending by making it more expensive to finance a car, house or machine purchase. Policymakers have also suggested that they will soon begin to shrink their balance sheet of bond holdings, which should push up longer-term interest borrowing costs and further cool off the economy.Investors now expect that central bankers might lift interest rates six times this year as they try to slow down the economy and tamp down price gains. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Fed nominees commit to not taking part in finance’s revolving door.

    by

    Three of President Biden’s nominees to the Federal Reserve committed to lawmakers that, if confirmed to their posts, they would not work in financial services for four years after leaving the Fed.The pledge comes amid growing concern about the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street.The three potential Fed governors in question — the economists Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson and a longtime government official and lawyer, Sarah Bloom Raskin — said they would “commit not to seek employment or compensation” from any financial services company after leaving the board, which oversees the largest banks.Their promises came at the urging of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who has criticized the so-called revolving door between government and finance. Fed officials regularly go to work for Wall Street after leaving the institution, making the commitment notable.“These are the strongest ethics standards ever agreed to by Federal Reserve Board nominees,” Ms. Warren said in a statement on Wednesday. “U.S. Senators and the American people can be confident that these public servants will make sound economic policy decisions in the public’s best interest.”Republicans have been questioning Ms. Raskin’s nomination by highlighting her stint on the board of directors for a financial technology company, Reserve Trust.The company got a critical account with the Fed — known as a master account — while Ms. Raskin was on the company’s board. The account provided the firm with advertisable benefits, like access to the Fed’s payments system.During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs last week, senators questioned whether she had used her previous positions at the Fed and Treasury to help secure the account. Ms. Raskin did not confirm or deny whether she had been in touch with the company’s local Fed bank while she sat on its board.The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, which approved the master account, has said that it “did not deviate from its review process in evaluating this request.”Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked Ms. Raskin to respond in writing by Wednesday about the Reserve Trust situation.Ms. Raskin, in her response, said she did “not recall any communications I made to help Reserve Trust obtain a master account. Had I done so, I would have abided by all applicable ethics rules in such communications.”Amanda Thompson, the communications director for Republicans on the Banking Committee, called those responses a “case of selective amnesia.”The White House has continued to stand behind its nominees. Christopher Meagher, a spokesman for the White House, called the Republican questioning “smears” and said that they “continue to fall flat in the face of scrutiny and facts.”Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson and Ms. Raskin are up for confirmation alongside Jerome H. Powell — who Mr. Biden renominated to be Fed chair — and Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the Biden administration’s pick for vice chair.Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and the chairman of the Banking Committee, said last week that all five candidates would face a key committee vote on Feb. 15. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Modern Monetary Theory Got a Pandemic Tryout. Inflation Is Now Testing It.

    by

    The sun was sinking low over Long Island Sound as Stephanie Kelton, wearing the bright red suit jacket she had donned to give a virtual guest lecture to university students in London that morning, perched before a pillow fort she had constructed atop the heavy wooden desk in her home office.The setup was meant to keep out noise as she recorded the podcast she co-hosts, a MarketWatch production called the “Best New Ideas in Money.” The room was hushed except for Ms. Kelton, who bantered energetically with the producers she was hearing through noise-blocking headphones, sang a Terri Gibbs song and made occasional edits to the script. At one point, she muttered, “That sounds like Stephanie.”What Stephanie Kelton sounds like, circa early 2022, is the star architect of a movement that is on something of a victory lap. A victory lap with an asterisk.Ms. Kelton, 52, is the most familiar public face of Modern Monetary Theory, which posits that if a government controls its own currency and needs money — to make sure its citizens have food and places to live when, say, a global pandemic pushes many out of work — it can just print it, as long as its economy has the ability to churn out the needed goods and services.In the M.M.T. view of the world, “How will you pay for it?” is a vapid policy question. Real-world resources and political priorities determine how much lawmakers can and should spend.It is an idea that was forged, and put to something of a test, during a low-inflation era.When Ms. Kelton’s book, “The Deficit Myth,” was published in June 2020 and shot onto best seller lists, inflation had been weak for decades and had dropped below 1 percent as consumers retrenched in the pandemic. The government had begun to spend rapidly to try to prop up flailing households.When Ms. Kelton appeared on a Bloomberg podcast episode, “How M.M.T. Won the Fiscal Policy Debate,” in early 2021, inflation had bounced back to around 2 percent.But by a chilly January afternoon, as ducks flew over the frosty estuary outside Ms. Kelton’s house near Stony Brook University, where she teaches, inflation had rocketed up to 7 percent. The government’s debt pile has exploded to $30 trillion, up from about $10 trillion at the start of the 2008 downturn and $5 trillion in the mid-1990s.The good news: The government has had no trouble selling bonds to fund its spending, contrary to the direst projections of deficit scolds.The bad news: Some economists blame big spending in the pandemic for today’s rapid price increases. The government will release fresh Consumer Price Index data this week, and it is expected to show inflation running at its fastest pace since 1982.And that may be why Ms. Kelton, and the movement she has come to represent, now seem anxious to control the narrative. The pandemic spending wasn’t entirely consistent with M.M.T principles, they say — it wasn’t assessed carefully for its inflationary effects as it was being drawn up, because it was crisis policy. But the situation has underlined how hard it is to know just where the economy’s constraints lay, and how difficult it is to fix things once you run into them.Last summer, Ms. Kelton called inflation a temporary sign of “growing pains.” By the fall, she painted it as a good problem to solve, compared with a continued weak economy. As it lingers, she has argued that diagnosing what is causing it is key.“Can we blame ‘MMT’ for the run-up in inflation?” she tweeted rhetorically last month, just hours before her podcast recording.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.“Of course not.”Emon Hassan for The New York TimesThe economy is the limitTo understand how M.M.T. fits in with other dominant ways of thinking, it’s helpful to take a trip to the beach.In economics, there’s a school of thought sometimes called “freshwater.” It’s the set of ideas that became popular at inland universities in the 1970s, when they began to embrace rational markets and limited government intervention to fight recessions. There’s also “saltwater” thinking, an updated version of Keynesianism that argues that the government occasionally needs to jump-start the economy. It has traditionally been championed in the Ivy League and other top-ranked schools on the coasts.You might call the school of thought Ms. Kelton is popularizing, from a bay that feeds into the East River, brackish economics.M.M.T. theorists argue that society should feel capable of spending to achieve its goals to the extent that there are resources available to fulfill them. Deficit spending need not be constrained to recessions, even theoretically. Want to build a road? No problem, so long as you have asphalt and construction workers. Want to feed children free lunches? Also not a problem, so long as you have the food and the cafeteria workers.What became Modern Monetary Theory began to percolate among a small group of academics when Ms. Kelton, a former military brat and one-time furniture saleswoman, was a graduate student.She had a gap period between graduating with a bachelor’s degree from California State University, Sacramento and attending Cambridge University on a Rotary scholarship, and her college economics professor recommended that she spend the time studying with L. Randall Wray, an early pioneer in the set of ideas.They hit it off. She remained in Mr. Wray’s circle, and he — and Warren Mosler, a hedge fund manager who had written a book on what we get wrong about money — convinced her that the way America understood cash, revenues and budgeting was all backward.Ms. Kelton earned her doctorate at The New School, long a booster of out-of-mainstream economic thinking, and went on to teach at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. She, Mr. Wray, who was there at the time, and their colleagues mentored doctoral students and began to write academic papers on the new way of thinking.But academic missives reached only a small circle of readers. After the 2008 financial crisis punched a hole in the economy that would take more than a decade to fill, Ms. Kelton and her colleagues, invigorated with a new urgency, began a blog called “New Economic Perspectives.” It was a bare bones white, red and black layout, using a standard WordPress template, that served as a place for M.M.T. writers to make their case (and, in its early days, featured a #Occupy[YourCityHere] tab).The theory picked up some fervent followers but limited popular acceptance, charitably, and outright derision, uncharitably. Mainstream economists panned it as overly simplistic. Many were confused about what it was arguing.“I have heard pretty extreme claims attributed to that framework and I don’t know whether that’s fair or not,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said in 2019. “The idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency is just wrong.”Ms. Kelton kept the faith. She and her colleagues held conferences, including one in 2018 at The New School where she gave a lecture on “mainstreaming M.M.T.”Rohan Grey organized the conference and a media reception afterward at an Irish pub (“‘Shades of Green,’ monetary pun intended,” he said). It was attended by organizers, academics, “lay people” and lots of journalists. At the happy hour — which lasted until 1 a.m. — Ms. Kelton was mobbed when she walked in the door. “She was already on her way to super celebrity status at that point,” said Mr. Grey, an assistant professor at Willamette Law.When she gave presentations on her ideas, Ms. Kelton would occasionally display a quote often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win.”And her star was rising more broadly. She advised Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020, getting to know the Vermont senator. He never fully publicly embraced M.M.T., but he nevertheless advanced policies — like Medicare for All — that reflected its ideals.She amassed a following of tens of thousands, later growing to 140,000, on Twitter. Her first handle, @deficitowl, prompted ardent fans to gift her wise bird figurines, some of which are still on display in her home office. She cultivated a small coterie of prominent journalists who were interested in the idea, most notably Joe Weisenthal at Bloomberg. She signed a book deal. She was regularly talking to Democratic lawmakers, sometimes in groups.Her idea percolated through Washington’s media and liberal policy circles. Mainstream economic predictions that huge debt loads would come back to haunt nations like Japan had not played out, the anemic rebound from 2008 had scarred society and called the size of the crisis response into question. Ms. Kelton and her colleagues were ensuring that their theory on benign deficits was an ever-present feature of the blossoming debate.Then the pandemic hit, and suddenly the theoretical question of just how much the government could spend before it ran into limits faced a real-world experiment.The $1.9 Trillion FloorWithout thinking about paying for it, Donald J. Trump’s government quickly passed a $2.3 trillion relief package in late March 2020. In December, it followed that up with another $900 billion. President Biden took office in early 2021, and promptly added $1.9 trillion more.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Notes Economic Success as Employment and Wages Rise

    by

    President Biden on Friday celebrated unexpectedly rapid January hiring and new data that showed historically strong employment gains over the past year, seizing on good news at a moment when consumers are nervous about their prospects thanks to a lingering pandemic and persistent inflation.America has recorded 6.6 million new jobs since January 2021, giving Mr. Biden the strongest first year of job gains of any president since the government began collecting data in 1939. The unemployment rate has dropped precipitously since the worst of the pandemic, and wages rose a rapid 5.7 percent in the year through January.The progress came on the heels of historic job losses at the start of the pandemic — and the recovery remains incomplete. But the surprisingly strong pace of the rebound offers Mr. Biden a chance to try and turn around an economic narrative that has focused largely on negatives: soaring inflation and dour consumer sentiment.On Friday, Mr. Biden attempted to capitalize on the numbers and the moment.“If you can’t remember a year when so many people went to work in this country, there’s a reason — it never happened,” Mr. Biden said during remarks from the White House.But the administration is in a delicate position as it tries to shift the economic conversation and refocus voters on the breakneck pace of the recovery, rather than the ongoing effects of the pandemic.Brisk inflation is eroding workers’ spending power, government support for families and businesses is fading, and households report pessimistic outlooks. Inflation is expected to come in at 7.3 percent in the year through January when the government releases fresh consumer price data next week.And some of the same developments that Mr. Biden cited on Friday as wins for his administration are likely being eyed warily by the Federal Reserve, which is poised to raise interest rates from rock bottom at their March meeting as officials try to cool the economy.Surging wages could mean that companies will lift prices to cover their rising labor costs, exacerbating inflation and forcing a more vigorous central bank response. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, has previously signaled that the central bank would be worried if wage growth exceeded productivity, a sign that it would drive prices higher over time.“No matter how bullish you are about productivity growth, the Fed can’t live with that pace, if it is sustained,” Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote after the release of the January jobs report.The report spurred investors across Wall Street to speculate that policymakers might make a bigger rate increase than previously expected at their next meeting — perhaps half a percentage point — as rising wages amp up the inflation urgency.Investors on Friday also sharply increased their bets that the central bank might make six or seven quarter-point rate increases in 2022. The Fed’s benchmark interest rate is currently set near zero, and that would leave interest rates close to 2 percent.How much the Fed slows down the economy this year could have important political implications. Fed rate increases tend to slow hiring, cause stock and other asset prices to fall, and weaken the market for big purchases like houses and cars.Economists have been expecting economic growth to moderate in 2022, as government pandemic supports fade and the Fed pulls back its pandemic-era help. That could mean that this is a high point for the White House — one that it is trying to embrace, even as it tries to sustain the progress.“For many Americans, wages are up this year,” Mr. Biden said. “That’s good — we have to continue to keep wages growing. And we need even more high-paying jobs.”Some of the president’s top economic aides have been frustrated by the persistent gloom expressed in polls of public sentiment despite economic growth and job gains.Officials say they believe the ongoing pandemic is primarily responsible for how people feel about their lives. But several senior administration officials have said privately in recent days that the White House was working harder to claim credit for the robust economy even as it was careful not to alienate people who are still struggling, especially with costs rising sharply on many goods and services.The president nodded at the pain of inflation during his remarks, emphasizing the need for more competition among corporations and pointing out that the administration is doing what it can to ease price pressures.“Look, average people are getting clobbered by the cost of everything,” Mr. Biden said, noting that gas and food prices are up. Later, he added, “there’s a lot we can do to give families a little extra breathing room.”Last year, Mr. Biden frequently argued that his legislative agenda, including a $2.2 trillion social spending bill in Congress, was his answer to those economic challenges. Now, with that bill stalled in the Senate, the president is increasingly talking about steps his administration can take without lawmakers.On Friday, he repeatedly sought to connect the strong growth in jobs numbers to his early executive orders calling for a “Buy America” approach to the economy. He noted the recent announcements by several large companies to increase manufacturing in the United States, including a planned $20 billion semiconductor facility in Ohio and $7 billion electric vehicle plant in Michigan.After delivering his remarks at the White House, Mr. Biden, along with Vice President Kamala Harris, again hailed the good economic news during a visit to an ironworkers union office in Maryland, where he signed an executive order aimed at lowering the costs of federal construction projects.Whether the White House can shift the national mood from economic pessimism to optimism — particularly ahead of the midterm elections — will depend in large part on the trajectories of the economy and the pandemic.Mr. Biden signed an executive order he said would help lower costs of federal construction projects during a visit to an ironworkers union office in Upper Marlboro, Md., on Friday.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesMuch of the contrast between how rapid progress has proved and how voters feel about it likely owes to the virus, which has lingered on for nearly two years, disrupting lives and inflicting tragedy. And while employment did grow rapidly last year, there are still 2.9 million fewer workers on payrolls today than there were in February 2020.The January jobs data may have looked strong partly because the virus has disrupted normal hiring patterns: As labor shortages bit in industries like retail, employers might have decided not to lay off seasonal workers who usually would have been let go after the holidays. As 2022 begins, virus flare-ups make economic forecasting a field of nonstop surprise.“We expected the very low pace of year-end layoffs to support job growth this month, and with hindsight, this tailwind more than offset the temporary Omicron drag,” economists at Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note.Thanks at least in part to big government spending that helped to fuel a rapid recovery in consumer demand, the pace of labor market healing has consistently surprised economists. While the unemployment rate ticked up to 4 percent in January, that is down from 14.7 percent at the start of the pandemic and not far above the 3.5 percent that prevailed before its onset.“Overall the labor market remains tight,” Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan, wrote of the data — but he noted that as the virus persists, they are also hard to read. “Fed Chair Powell has recently vowed to be humble, which will be useful in reading these numbers.”More traders see a half-point rise in March.Probability of a 50 basis point interest rate increase at the Federal Reserve’s March 16 meeting, derived from trading in futures contracts

    Source: CME GroupBy The New York TimesBen Casselman More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Covid’s effect on the jobs numbers may leave Washington in the dark.

    by

    Without clarity on how quickly the labor market can shake off Omicron, the Fed will have difficulty applying the data to its interest rate strategy.Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, has compared setting monetary policy to stumbling through an unlit room: You feel your way to the door cautiously to avoid making a painful mistake.The analogy is likely to ring especially true after the Omicron-jumbled job report for January, as the virus obscures the pace of progress in the job market and leaves policymakers in the dark. But the Fed may lack the luxury of creeping slowly through the dinginess this time.Mr. Powell and his colleagues are poised to raise interest rates for the first time since 2018 in March, a move meant to cool off the economy as inflation runs at its fastest pace in nearly 40 years. It will likely be in the uncomfortable position of making that move — and signaling what comes next, as markets are pointing to as many as five 2022 rate increases — at a time when the latest job market data look lackluster at best, bleak at worst.The Fed will look past a few months of virus-depressed job market data as officials try to assess the actual strength of the economic rebound: The Omicron variant is already in retreat in the United States, and there’s little reason to expect an extended lull in hiring after a year of breakneck labor market progress.But the virus flare-up and its economic repercussions underline a challenge that is likely to confront the Fed throughout 2022 as it pares back its support. It’s hard to know what will happen next in a coronavirus-stricken business environment.“We’ll be humble and nimble,” Mr. Powell pledged of the central bank’s policy path, speaking at a news conference last month.The Fed typically navigates by watching incoming labor market data — especially the unemployment rate, lately — and inflation data. But it could take a few months for the jobs picture to clear, and in the meantime, inflation is running hot. Used-vehicle prices, which have been a big driver of overall price increases, might be on the cusp of stabilizing but have yet to cool off notably. Gasoline prices are headed back up, food is costing more and rents have been increasing steeply.That is likely to leave the Fed, which typically takes away its help at moments of strong labor market progress, moving when the job market is hitting a bump.“It’s the Omicron fog,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist for the accounting firm Grant Thornton. “It’s not going to give us visibility.”Fed officials are trying to make sure that they do not fall behind the curve on high inflation, allowing it to become so locked into consumer and business expectations that it becomes a permanent feature of the economic landscape. How the Fed strikes the balance — and how much it slows down the economy with its rate increases this year — could have important political implications, too. Voters are already glum about the economy’s prospects, and President Biden is suffering in the polls. More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Sarah Bloom Raskin Faces a Contentious Senate Hearing

    by

    Sarah Bloom Raskin is a longtime Washington policy player with progressive credentials and a track record of speaking out against the fossil fuel industry, qualities that helped her to win the White House’s nomination to be America’s top bank cop.But those same views could leave her with a narrow path to confirmation as the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision — especially if Senator Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat who is recovering from a stroke, is not present for her vote before the full Senate. (A senior aide to Mr. Luján said he was expected to make a full recovery, and would return in four to six weeks, barring complications.)And Ms. Raskin’s views are almost certain to ignite sparks at her hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday.Ms. Raskin has been nominated alongside Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson, both economists up for seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Ms. Raskin, Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson will field questions from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs at 8:45 a.m. on Thursday.Ms. Raskin, a former Fed governor and high-ranking Treasury official who was most recently a professor at Duke Law School, is seen as a known entity by the banking industry that she would oversee. But business groups have been critical of her attention to climate issues — including an opinion piece she wrote in 2020 criticizing the Fed’s decision to design one of its emergency loan programs in a way that allowed fossil fuel companies to access emergency loans.“I’m deeply concerned that Sarah Bloom Raskin has — let’s be honest, she has explicitly, publicly advocated that the Fed use its powers to allocate capital,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said in an interview on Tuesday. “I think that’s disqualifying, and I think that is going to be a topic of discussion.”Such full-throated opposition from Republicans may mean more than just a heated hearing — Ms. Raskin may need to maintain the support of every Democrat in the Senate to stay on the narrow path to confirmation. If Democrats were to lose their fragile grasp on the Senate majority because Mr. Luján has not returned yet, it is not clear that she would garner the votes she would need to pass.Fed nominees need a simple majority to clear the Senate Banking Committee and then to win confirmation from the Senate as a whole, meaning that it is possible that Ms. Raskin could skate through if all 50 senators who caucus with Democrats vote in her favor, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie.Vice chair for supervision is arguably the most important job in American financial regulation, and given those high stakes, Ms. Raskin’s chances are being closely watched.“I’m not expecting her to get many, if any, Republican votes,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners, explaining that he thinks she will ultimately secure enough Democratic support to pass, assuming all the Senators, including Mr. Luján, vote. “You hear different things from the industry: You hear some concerns that she is too progressive, but you also hear that she’s well within the mainstream.”Oil and gas businesses are mounting a campaign against more decisive climate monitoring by the Fed, worried that the central bank will subject banks to stringent oversight that dissuades them from lending money to the industry. This could bring skeptical questioning for all three nominees.“I am concerned about all of the Fed nominees and their apparent willingness, despite what some of them said, to include bank and financial regulations designed to prohibit legal industries from operating in the United States borrowing money,” Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, a Republican who sits on the committee, said on Wednesday.Mr. Toomey said during an interview on Wednesday that he also had some reservations about Dr. Cook.Lisa D. Cook, a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics, will also face questions from the committee on Thursday.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesMuch of the opposition coming from Republicans and lobbyists alike is aimed at Ms. Raskin, though. She argued in a Project Syndicate column recently that “all U.S. regulators can — and should — be looking at their existing powers and considering how they might be brought to bear on efforts to mitigate climate risk.”But Ms. Raskin struck a gentler tone in her prepared testimony for the hearing, released Wednesday night, noting that the role does not involve excluding certain sectors and asserting that bank supervisors must ensure that “the safety of banks and the resilience of our financial system are never compromised in favor of short-term political agendas or special interest groups.”It is unclear at this point whether those assurances will be enough for her critics.The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to the Senate committee last week, urged lawmakers to ask Ms. Raskin about her position on whether the Fed’s regulatory approach should try to curb credit access for oil and gas companies. The business group asked whether Ms. Raskin would be independent of politics. After Democratic members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board clashed with and ultimately precipitated the resignation of the Trump appointee Jelena McWilliams, who was the regulator’s chairwoman, some Republicans have raised concerns that something similar could happen at the Fed. In December, partisan politics helped to scupper the nomination of Saule Omarova, who withdrew herself from consideration to be comptroller of the currency after attacks from Republicans and banking lobbyists, and as she struggled to draw wide enough support from Democrats.By contrast, the banking industry has taken a more benign view of Ms. Raskin. The Financial Services Forum, which represents the chief executive officers of the largest banks, congratulated Ms. Raskin and the other White House Fed picks in a statement after their nominations were announced, as did the American Bankers Association.Ms. Raskin is seen as a qualified candidate who understands the roles various regulators play in overseeing banks, according to one banking industry executive who asked not to be identified discussing regulatory matters. Even though bankers expect Ms. Raskin to be confirmed, they are awaiting more clarity around her stance on climate finance and disclosures, the executive said.As she is received as a mainstream pick, centrist Democrats have sounded content with Ms. Raskin.“I’ve been very impressed with her,” Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said on Tuesday, adding that he had not met her yet but that he was “favorably inclined” and noting that banks have expressed comfort with her.Senator Joe Manchin III from West Virginia, a key centrist Democrat, said on Wednesday that he hadn’t yet studied the nominees, adding that he’s “going to get into that” because he’s “very concerned” about issues including inflation.A Harvard-trained lawyer, Ms. Raskin is a former deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, where she focused on financial system cybersecurity, among other issues. She also spent several years as Maryland’s commissioner of financial regulation. Ms. Raskin is married to Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat.If confirmed, she would be only the second person formally appointed as the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, succeeding Randal K. Quarles, a Trump administration pick who typically favored lighter and more precise regulation. Ms. Raskin, by contrast, has a track record of calling for stricter regulation. Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson might both might be quizzed about their views on policy and professional backgrounds. The Fed has seven governors — including its chair, vice chair and vice chair for supervision — who vote on monetary policy alongside five of its 12 regional bank presidents. Governors hold a constant vote on regulation.Philip N. Jefferson, an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed, is also a nominee for the Fed’s board.John Crawford/Davidson CollegeDr. Cook, who would be the first Black woman ever to sit on the Fed’s board, is a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics. She earned a doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and was an economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.“High inflation is a grave threat to a long, sustained expansion, which we know raises the standard of living for all Americans and leads to broad-based, shared prosperity,” Dr. Cook said, after emphasizing her decades of experience, calling tackling America’s current burst in prices the Fed’s “most important task.”Dr. Jefferson, who is also Black, is an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed. He has written about the economics of poverty, and his research has delved into whether monetary policy that stokes investment with low interest rates helps or hurts less-educated workers.He seconded that the Fed must “ensure that inflation declines to levels consistent with its goals,” speaking in his prepared testimony.Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson, and Ms. Raskin are up for confirmation alongside Jerome H. Powell — who had previously been renominated as Fed chair — and Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the Biden administration’s pick for vice chair. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the committee chairman, said all five candidates will face a key committee vote on Feb. 15, and that Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, “knows to move quickly” for a full floor vote.If all pass, the Fed’s leadership will be the most diverse in both race and gender that it has ever been — fulfilling a pledge of Mr. Biden’s to make the long heavily male and white central bank more representative of the public that it is intended to serve. More