Yellen, Janet L

More stories

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Debated Rate Liftoff in 2015, Offering Lessons for Today

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateThe First Six MonthsPermanent LayoffsWhen a $600 Lifeline EndedAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFed Officials Debated Rate Liftoff in 2015, Offering Lessons for TodayThe Federal Reserve raised rates from near zero in 2015. The discussion back then — and developments since — will inform their future policy.The Federal Reserve Board building in Washington. The central bank raised rates in 2015 as the unemployment rate dropped.Credit…Ting Shen for The New York TimesJan. 8, 2021Updated 2:24 p.m. ETThe Federal Reserve lifted interest rates from near zero in 2015 after years of holding them at rock bottom following the 2008 global financial crisis. Transcripts from their policy discussions, released Friday, show just how fraught that decision was.The debate that played out then is especially relevant now, when the central bank has again slashed interest rates practically to zero, this time to fight the pandemic-induced economic downturn. The concerns that officials voiced over lifting rates in 2015 — that inflation would not pick up, and that the labor market had further to heal — proved prescient in ways that will inform policy setting in the years to come.The Fed, under Chair Janet L. Yellen, raised its policy rate in 2015 as the unemployment rate dropped. Officials worried that if they waited too long to nudge borrowing costs higher, they would stoke an economic overheating that would push inflation higher and prove hard to contain.The logic, at the time, was that monetary policy works with “long and variable” lags, and that it was better to start to gently normalize policy before rapid price gains actually showed up.But even back then, not everyone on the Fed’s rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee was comfortable with the plan. When the decision to lift interest rates came in December, Governor Lael Brainard seemed to question it — arguing that the labor market still had room to expand and that inflation was coming in short of the committee’s 2 percent goal. She ultimately voted for the decision alongside Ms. Yellen and her fellow policymakers.“The recent price data give little hint that this undershooting of our target will end any time soon,” Ms. Brainard said of inflation at the time, according to the transcript. That, paired with risks from a slowdown overseas, made her place “somewhat greater weight on the possible regret associated with tightening too early than on the possible regret associated with waiting a little longer.”In explaining that she would vote for the increase anyway, Ms. Brainard said she placed “a very high premium on ensuring the credibility of monetary policy” and appreciated the thoughtful process Ms. Yellen and the staff had undergone in planning to change the policy. She suggested in 2019 that moving rates up in 2015 was a mistake, and that “a better alternative would have been to delay liftoff until we had achieved our targets.”Stanley Fischer, the vice chairman at the time, laid out a concise explanation of why the committee was moving.“Why move now?” he said. “First, as the chair has emphasized, our actions become effective with a lag. Second, there are some signs of accumulating financial stability problems. And, third, the signal we will be sending will reinforce the fact that our economic situation is continuing to normalize.”Jerome H. Powell, then a Fed governor and now the chair, said at the time that remaining room for labor market gains was “probably modest” but highly uncertain, and that the participation rate — which measures people working or looking for work — might rebound.“I’m not in any hurry to conclude that the current low level of participation reflects immutable structural factors,” Mr. Powell said. “I think it’s likely to be necessary for the economy to run above trend for some time to ensure that inflation does reach our 2 percent target.”The more reluctant stances aged comparatively well. In the time since then, many economists and analysts have viewed the Fed’s pre-emptive rate increases as possibly premature. The unemployment rate continued to drop for years, but as more workers entered the job market, wages increased only moderately. Price gains remained stable, and actually a bit softer than Fed officials were hoping.As a result, the Fed has reassessed how it sets monetary policy. Mr. Powell said last year that he and his colleagues would now focus on “shortfalls” from full employment — worrying only if the job market is coming in weak, not if it’s coming in strong, as long as inflation is contained.They no longer plan to raise interest rates to fend off inflation before it shows up, officials have said, paving the way for longer periods of lower rates.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    What Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus Talks

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhat Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus TalksThe Fed’s emergency lending authorities are a key part of its job. Republicans want to curb them. Democrats are pushing back.Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that emergency programs backed by the Federal Reserve cannot be restarted after they expire on December 31.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesDec. 18, 2020Updated 7:40 p.m. ETAs markets melted down in March, the Federal Reserve unveiled novel programs meant to keep credit flowing to states, medium-sized businesses and big companies — and Congress handed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin $454 billion to back up the effort.Nine months later, Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that those same programs cannot be restarted after Mr. Mnuchin lets them end on Dec. 31. Beyond preventing their reincarnation under the Biden administration, Republicans are seeking to insert language into a pandemic stimulus package that would limit the Fed’s powers going forward, potentially keeping it from lending to businesses and municipalities in future crises.The last-minute move has drawn Democratic ire, and it has imperiled the fate of relief legislation that economists say is sorely needed as households and businesses stare down a dark pandemic winter. Here is a rundown of how the Fed’s lending powers work and how Republicans are seeking to change them.The Fed can keep credit flowing when conditions are really bad.The Fed’s main and best-known job is setting interest rates to guide the economy. But the central bank was set up in 1913 in large part to stave off bank problems and financial panics — when people become nervous about the future and rush to withdraw their money from bank accounts and sell off stocks, bonds and other investments. Congress dramatically expanded the Fed’s powers to fight panics during the Great Depression, adding Section 13-3 to the Federal Reserve Act.The section allows the Fed to act as a lender of last resort during “unusual and exigent” circumstances — in short, when markets are not working normally because investors are exceptionally worried. The central bank used those powers extensively during the 2008 crisis, including to support politically unpopular bailouts of financial firms. Congress subsequently amended the Fed’s powers so that it would need Treasury’s blessing to roll out new emergency loan programs or to materially change existing ones.The programs provide confidence as much as credit.During the 2008 crisis, the Fed served primarily as a true lender of last resort — it mostly backed up the various financial markets by offering to step in if conditions got really bad. The 2020 emergency loan programs have been way more expansive. Last time, the Fed concentrated on parts of Wall Street most Americans know little about like the commercial paper market and primary dealers. This time, it reintroduced those measures, but it also unveiled new programs that have kept credit available in virtually every part of the economy. It has offered to buy municipal bonds, supported bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses, and bought up corporate debt.The sweeping package was a response to a real problem: Many markets were crashing in March. And the new programs generally worked. While the terms weren’t super generous and relatively few companies and state and local borrowers have taken advantage of these new programs, their existence gave investors confidence that the central bank would prevent a financial collapse.But things started getting messy in mid-November.Most lawmakers agreed that the Fed and Treasury had done a good job reopening credit markets and protecting the economy. But Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, started to ask questions this summer about when the programs would end. He said he was worried that the Fed might overstep its boundaries and replace private lenders.After the election, other Republicans joined Mr. Toomey’s push to end the programs. Mr. Mnuchin announced on Nov. 19 that he believed Congress had intended for the five programs backed by the $454 billion Congress authorized to stop lending and buying bonds on Dec. 31. He closed them — while leaving a handful of mostly older programs open — and asked the Fed to return the money he had lent to the central bank.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 18, 2020, 12:25 p.m. ETLee Raymond, a former Exxon chief, will step down from JPMorgan Chase’s board.U.S. adds chip maker S.M.I.C. and drone maker DJI to its entity list.Volkswagen says semiconductor shortages will cause production delays.The Fed issued a statement saying it was dissatisfied with his choice, but agreed to give the money back.Democrats criticized the move as designed to limit the incoming Biden administration’s options. They began to discuss whether they could reclaim the funds and restart the programs once Mr. Biden took office and his Treasury secretary was confirmed, since Mr. Mnuchin’s decision to close them and claw back the funds rested on dubious legal ground.The new Republican move would cut off that option. Legislative language circulating early Friday suggested that it would prevent “any program or facility that is similar to any program or facility established” using the 2020 appropriation. While that would still allow the Fed to provide liquidity to Wall Street during a crisis, it could seriously limit the central bank’s freedom to lend to businesses, states and localities well into the future.In a statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, called it an attempt to “to sabotage President Biden and our nation’s economy.”Mr. Toomey has defended his proposal as an effort to protect the Fed from politicization. For example, he said Democrats might try to make the Fed’s programs much more generous to states and local governments.The Treasury secretary would need to have the Fed’s approval to improve the terms to help favored borrowers. But the central bank might not readily agree, as it has generally approached its powers cautiously to avoid attracting political scrutiny and to maintain its status as a nonpartisan institution.Fed officials have avoided weighing in on the congressional showdown underway.“I won’t have anything to say on that beyond what we have already said — that Secretary Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, would like for the programs to end as of Dec. 31” and that the Fed will give back the money as asked, Richard H. Clarida, the vice chairman of the Fed, said Friday on CNBC.More generally, he added that “we do believe that the 13-3 facilities” have been “very valuable.”Emily Cochrane More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Expected to Name Top Economic Officials This Week

    by

    WASHINGTON — President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is expected to name top members of his economic team this week, including Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, to run the Council of Economic Advisers, and Neera Tanden, the chief executive of the Center for American Progress, to lead the Office of Management and Budget, according to people familiar with the matter.The announcement — which will include Mr. Biden’s decision to name Janet L. Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, as Treasury secretary — will culminate in several women in top economic roles, including the first Black woman to lead the Council of Economic Advisers. All three jobs require Senate confirmation.With the picks, Mr. Biden is showcasing a commitment to diversity in his advisers and sending a clear message that economic policymaking in his administration will be shaped by liberal thinkers with a strong focus on worker empowerment as a tool for economic growth.Two of Mr. Biden’s top economic aides during his presidential campaign, Jared Bernstein and Heather Boushey, will also be named to the Council of Economic Advisers, which is a three-member team that advises the president on economic policy. Both Ms. Boushey and Mr. Bernstein come from a liberal, labor-oriented school of economics that views rising inequality as a threat to the economy and emphasizes government efforts to support and empower workers.In many ways, his team is unified by a commitment to running the economy hot — with strong growth and low unemployment — in order to drive up wages. And it is likely to signal an embrace of spending to help workers, businesses and local governments recover from the pandemic recession, regardless of the effect on the federal budget deficit.“President Biden’s appointments show that he is quadrupling down on his commitment to working people and raising wages,” said Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and the former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama. “He has appointed four of the best labor market economists in the country to head the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers.”In addition to those roles, Mr. Biden is expected to name Adewale Adeyemo, a senior international economic adviser in the Obama administration, as deputy Treasury secretary.Mr. Biden has also selected Brian Deese, a former Obama economic aide who helped lead that administration’s efforts to bail out the American automotive industry, to lead the National Economic Council, according to three people with knowledge of the selection.Mr. Deese, 42, is not an academic economist but a veteran of economic policymaking, having served as the acting head of the Office of Management and Budget and the deputy director of the Economic Council under Mr. Obama. He was also a special adviser on climate change to Mr. Obama, a role that could signal Mr. Biden’s commitment to fashioning an infrastructure bill for his legislative agenda that heavily features spending on clean energy initiatives.Mr. Biden on Sunday announced an all-female White House communications staff, with Jennifer Psaki, a veteran of the Obama administration, in the most visible role as White House press secretary.Kate Bedingfield, 39, who served as a deputy campaign manager for Mr. Biden, will serve as the White House communications director. Karine Jean Pierre, who previously served as the chief public affairs officer for MoveOn.org, will be the principal deputy press secretary. Pili Tobar, a former immigrant advocate with the group America’s Voice, will serve as the deputy White House communications director.Symone Sanders, a senior adviser to Mr. Biden on the campaign, will serve as the senior adviser and chief spokeswoman for Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Ashley Etienne, a former senior adviser to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will serve as the communications director for Ms. Harris.The appointments indicate Mr. Biden’s plan to include racial, gender and ideological diversity in top roles, fulfilling a campaign pledge to ensure that a broad swath of America is represented in policymaking decisions.But they could fall short of hopes within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which has been frustrated that their views are not being sufficiently represented in early personnel decisions. In particular, the decision to select Ms. Tanden, a divisive and partisan figure in the Democratic Party, could culminate in an intraparty fight, as well as a confirmation battle.Republicans, who are expected to retain control of the Senate, are unlikely to easily pass Ms. Tanden, an Indian-American who advised Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and has been one of the most outspoken critics of President Trump.The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesUpdated Nov. 29, 2020, 6:35 p.m. ETBiden names all-female communications team with Jen Psaki as press secretary.Biden sees orthopedic doctor after spraining his ankle while playing with family dog.Biden team wants to tackle child care, elder care, preschool in one overarching plan.She also faces a challenge from Senate Democrats given her role in the 2016 election: Many of those who worked for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran against Mrs. Clinton, remain convinced that Ms. Tanden was part of a group of Democrats working behind the scenes to scuttle his nomination.Mr. Sanders, who ran against — and ultimately endorsed — Mr. Biden, is the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, which vets the director of the Office of Management and Budget, putting the fate of Ms. Tanden’s nomination under his watch.Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, referred to Ms. Tanden on Twitter on Sunday as a “sacrifice to the confirmation gods,” suggesting that her downfall would sate Republican anger toward Mr. Biden’s presidency and allow other nominees to more easily win confirmation.Drew Brandewie, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Twitter on Sunday evening that Ms. Tanden “stands zero chance of being confirmed.”The selection of Ms. Tanden, who was involved in the development of the Affordable Care Act as an adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration, is likely to resurface questions about the funding of the Center for American Progress. The New York Times reported last year that from 2016 through 2018, the center accepted nearly $2.5 million from the United Arab Emirates to fund its National Security and International Policy initiative.In addition, hacked emails from Ms. Tanden that were released through WikiLeaks in 2016 could also provide additional fodder for her critics.Mr. Biden’s other picks are most likely less contentious. Ms. Rouse, a labor economist, worked on Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2011 and at the White House’s National Economic Council during the Clinton administration in the late 1990s.Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, a pioneer in research on the role of women in the American economy and one of Ms. Rouse’s thesis advisers in graduate school, called her a leading expert on labor markets and education.“She is a deeply thoughtful person and a superb listener who brings out the best of those around her,” Ms. Goldin said.Mr. Bernstein was Mr. Biden’s first chief economist when he was vice president and has written extensively on the power of low unemployment and strong economic growth to bolster workers and wages. Ms. Boushey runs the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a liberal think tank focused on inequality, and was a top policy adviser to Mrs. Clinton in 2016. She has focused much of her research and writing on government initiatives meant to increase women’s participation in the labor force, such as paid leave programs.The appointments drew praise from Kevin A. Hassett, Mr. Trump’s first Council of Economic Advisers chairman.“They have put together a very strong team of experienced policymakers and smart economists,” Mr. Hassett said. “At this difficult time, it is great to know that a strong C.E.A. will be helping to guide policy.”Mr. Adeyemo is an immigrant from Nigeria and has extensive experience working at the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, when he was a senior adviser and deputy chief of staff. Mr. Adeyemo was also Mr. Obama’s chief negotiator for the macroeconomic policy provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Democrats ultimately opposed, and served as the first chief of staff of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. After a two-year stint as a senior adviser at BlackRock, he joined the Obama Foundation in 2019 as its president.Michael D. Shear and Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting. More