Activists from around the country to march, hold workshops in Pittsburgh
Activists from around the country to march, hold workshops in Pittsburgh
An estimated 1,500 demonstrators will hit the streets of Downtown Pittsburgh this afternoon — and both geographically and politically, they expect to cover a lot of ground.
The “Still We...
An estimated 1,500 demonstrators will hit the streets of Downtown Pittsburgh this afternoon — and both geographically and politically, they expect to cover a lot of ground.
The “Still We Rise” March, which kicks off a two-day gathering of activists from around the country, begins at 2:30 and will feature stops including the Pittsburgh branch of the Federal Reserve, the headquarters of UPMC and the Station Square office of Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey.
Ana Maria Archila, co-director of the Center for Popular Democracy, which is organizing the gathering, said the activists are turning out to put the spotlight on issues communities face such as economic inequality, racism and xenophobia.
“… We will win our rights,” she said, adding that the event “is really the launch of a national grassroots community.”
In fact, the “People’s Convention” at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center expects to attract over 40 progressive groups from 30 states, focusing on issues ranging from immigrant rights and racial equity to environmental concerns and public schools advocacy. A parallel program will involve policy discussions among progressive elected officials: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and City Councilor Daniel Lavelle are among those participating.
The event “reflects what we’re trying to do in Pittsburgh, on a national level,” said Erin Kramer, executive director of activist group One Pittsburgh.
Here as elsewhere, organizers have pressed fast-food employers to raise minimum wages to at least $15 an hour, and fought for a city ordinance requiring employers to grant paid sick leave to workers. Other cities are weighing “fair scheduling” ordinances that require giving workers earlier notice about, and input on, their work schedules.
Immigration issues, which have become a critical issue in this year’s presidential race, also will be a key topic. While Ms. Kramer said the convention is about more than electoral politics, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “is really a threat for a lot of participants. He’s literally talking about building walls and sending people home. You may see a Trump puppet in the parade, more as a rodeo clown than anything else.”
The agenda may seem sprawling. “It is hard to weave these things together,” Ms. Archila admitted. One goal of the convention is for participants to craft a “statement of unity” outlining a vision to guide future activism.
But “all of our issues are interconnected,” said Pittsburgh education activist Pam Harbin, who will attend the convention to discuss tactics and lessons with organizers from elsewhere. “A $15 minimum wage is deeply connected to the fight for quality schools, because if you have parents working three jobs, you really can’t ask, ‘Why aren’t these parents more involved in their kids’ education?’”
Campaigns for higher wages or better worker protections often concentrate on the federal level. But with Washington in a partisan deadlock, activists are increasingly pressing for change locally.
“In some ways, people became more reliant on the federal government, and that took some of the wind out of the sails of local activism,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy. “But seeing the federal government crippled is an opportunity to reinvigorate local democracy.”
There are perils to the approach, as Pittsburgh has learned. Here as elsewhere, while progressives may control city hall, conservatives often rule state capitals.
State law has barred enforcing a Pittsburgh law to require the reporting of lost-and-stolen firearms, for example. And last December, an Allegheny County judge struck down ordinances requiring paid sick leave for employers, and special training for building security guards. A 2009 Supreme Court ruling barred municipalities for setting such rules for employers, Judge Joseph James ruled.
“It’s a growing trend to see these special interests using their access at the state level to preempt local democracy,” Ms. Graves said. This weekend will feature discussions of the challenge, but because states can limit local authority, “It’s extremely difficult to overcome.”
And a local ordinance may not help struggling families across the city line — at least not immediately.
Still, said Ms. Kramer, “If you lift the minimum wage in one place, people say, ‘Why not me?’ You have to start by painting an alternative picture.”
By Chris Potter
Source
The public compact
It is always amusing to be the subject of a John McClaughry jeremiad. While I don’t mind being labeled as the “foremost defender” of public education, he insists on giving me full personal credit...
It is always amusing to be the subject of a John McClaughry jeremiad. While I don’t mind being labeled as the “foremost defender” of public education, he insists on giving me full personal credit for what is a state school board position.
In the instant case, John appears to be affronted by the suggestion that private (independent) schools that take public money must actually be held accountable for that money. This principle is at the core of the state board’s review of the independent school rules. Now this seems like a straightforward and fundamentally democratic concept that is generally accepted, but it has been a long-standing problem for some.
The law (16 VSA 166) provides a list of reporting requirements for independent schools if they want to chow down at the public trough. Unfortunately, as far back as the 1914 Carnegie Commission, we find evidence of the refusal of some independent schools to provide private school data even though it was the law of the land. (At that time, the Cubs were still basking in the glory of their World Series victory.)
The second paramount principle is that we have to educate all the children — regardless of needs and handicaps. That’s a necessity in a democracy. Denying a child admission on the basis of a handicap is, in most cases, illegal. Furthermore, it’s wrong. Public schools serve every child. The false fear John peddles is that the private school can’t afford to serve these children. That’s incorrect. It’s really quite simple. While great eruptions of umbrage are displayed, this problem has been solved for years. The private school contracts with (or hires) a specialist who bills the costs back to the public school. Approval in a given area requires that one sheet of paper be filed with the state. As simple as the solution actually is, some independent schools refuse to adopt an equal opportunity policy.
Instead, John proposes that Vermont “clone” Florida’s McKay Scholarship program where parents can choose the school for their handicapped child. That hasn’t worked out too well. If you think a “business management class” that sends students onto the street to panhandle is an acceptable education, then the McKay program may be just your thing. The Florida Department of Education has uncovered “substantial fraud,” including schools that don’t exist, non-existent students, and classes held in condemned buildings and public parks. And the state of Florida does not have the staff to adequately monitor the program. This is a recipe for abuse. Last May, the Center for Popular Democracy estimated that $216 million in charter school money went out the back door.
Finally, John raises the cost question and says private school scholarships would be “less expensive.” Yet he also criticizes the cost of the state’s excess public school capacity. Now let’s look at Vermont’s private independent school numbers. In 1998, there were 68 independent schools, and by 2016, the number had exploded to 93. In the decade 2004-14, independent school enrollments went down from 4,361 to 3,392. A 37 percent increase in schools with a 29 percent drop in students suggests somebody needs to revisit their business plan.
Taking it all together, (1) all who profit from the public treasury must be accountable for that money, (2) children have the right to be admitted to private schools, free of discrimination, on an equal opportunity basis, (3) private schools are a part of our system, (4) the public purse must be protected from fraud and abuse, and (5) directly or indirectly building and operating a parallel school system would be inordinately expensive and wasteful. Do these principles sound reasonable?
William J. Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center and a member of the Vermont state Board of Education. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of any group with which he is associated.
Source
The Fed’s “Hammer” Can Be Used to Great Effect to Improve Prospects for Minority Workers
Economic Policy Institute Blog - March 4, 2015, by Josh Bivens - Update: Binyamin Appelbaum has made a useful change to...
Economic Policy Institute Blog - March 4, 2015, by Josh Bivens - Update: Binyamin Appelbaum has made a useful change to his article that I comment on below, noting that Black workers do indeed stand to benefit disproportionately from any demand boost that keeps overall unemployment rates falling in coming years. Again, however, I think that while he makes an important point, it still doesn’t strike me as right to frame it as about the limits of monetary policy. His point (as I read it) is that the gap in unemployment rates between Black and White workers is an economic problem that policymakers should seek to end, but this end-goal of no racial unemployment gap at all cannot be achieved with any single policy lever.
But while an expansionary monetary policy is not a sufficient condition to erase the racial unemployment gap, it is a necessary condition. That is, the first step towards tearing down racial bias in hiring is to rob employers of the economic power they can use to indulge this bias. And the best way to rob them of this economic power is to have tight labor markets that force employers to compete to hire workers. So, macroeconomic policy (which is dominated by the Federal Reserve) is just crucial to meeting the long-run goal of ending racial unemployment gaps.
Finally, while the existence of a racial unemployment gap in both good and bad times is a terrible problem, it’s an even bigger problem when the respective White and Black unemployment rates are 5.3 and 11.3 percent (like they were in 2014) than when they are 3.5 and 7.6 percent (like they were in 2000). So while ending the racial unemployment gap entirely should be the long-game, we also need to be keenly aware of what can alleviate economic pain in the short run. And that short-run is just dominated by what the Fed decides to do.
Simply put, the most effective policy lever to reduce the black unemployment rate in the next few years is for the Fed to keep its foot off the economic brakes by keeping short-term interest rates low until we see real signs of healthy wage growth for American workers.
Binyamin Appelbaum gets one deeply wrong in the New York Times, riffing off a report released by the Center for Popular Democracy with (full disclosure) data assistance from EPI and concludes with a version of the old saying that the Fed’s “hammer” can’t effectively address non-nail problems like excessive unemployment.
Appelbaum notes that the report shows that Black unemployment rates are significantly higher than White (or overall) unemployment rates in both recessions and recoveries. Fair enough. And if his conclusions had simply been that because the gap persists in both booms and busts that monetary policy alone cannot completely erase these unemployment gaps, that would also have been fair enough.
But instead he pushed this idea way too far, and ended getting something completely wrong. In his words (brackets and emphasis added by me):
“The same factors [that keep unemployment rates higher for Black workers in both good times and bad] help to explain why black workers are quicker to lose jobs and slower to return to work. Any given level of economic stimulus, as a result, helps black workers less than it helps white workers.”
This is totally backwards. Because Black unemployment is almost exactly double White unemployment in both recessions and booms, this means that Black workers are indeed “quicker to lose jobs” during recoveries, but they are actually faster, not “slower” to return to work. And any given level of economic stimulus reduces Black unemployment by twice as many percentage points as it reduces White unemployment, helping Black workers more than it helps White workers. In short, as the CPD report shows, the stakes regarding at what pace the economy improves and overall unemployment falls are highest for Black workers. And this means that the stakes regarding Fed decisions are highest for Black workers.
He also notes, “And it follows that the level of stimulus necessary to reduce excessive black unemployment may well be excessive for the economy as a whole.”
Maybe, though lots depends on both instances of “excessive” in that sentence. Regarding current debates over the Fed (ie, what they do in the next 6-12 months) we know that current Black unemployment is indeed “excessive” and we also know that it will be significantly reduced (at twice the pace of the overall rate!) the longer the Fed allows the recovery to proceed without braking it by raising interest rates.
And worries about “excessive” overall aggregate demand growth and monetary stimulus are still completely theoretical. This demand growth can be labeled “excessive” with respect to the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target only when there is a sustained period of wage-growth that is about double its current pace (which really hasn’t picked up since the recession’s trough).
The late 1990s offers a good reminder on both these points. First, when overall unemployment fell far enough to average just over 4 percent for two full years in 1999 and 2000, Black unemployment fell to levels (7.0 percent for a month, and below 8 percent for a majority of months in 1999 and 2000)) far lower than the 11.3 percent it averaged during 2014. And there was no evidence from that earlier period that these levels of overall unemployment and demand-growth were excessive – inflation actually fell in the late 90s, even as wages rose across-the-board.
What CPD and EPI (and others) are calling for when they ask the Fed to keep its foot off of the economic brakes in the name of helping the lot of the most vulnerable workers is precisely to probe the limits of excessive stimulus. That is, the Fed should be much more willing to experiment with very low rates of unemployment even if it risks a period of above-average inflation. If the Fed pursued this it would do more to help the most vulnerable workers than nearly any other single policy. So in this regard, the economic health of minority communities is one problem that the Fed’s policy hammer is very well designed to help.
Source
Avoiding 'Regressive Mistake,' Fed Holds Off on Rate Hike — For Now
Update 3 PM EDT:
In a decision that aligns with progressive demands, the Federal Reserve ...
Update 3 PM EDT:
In a decision that aligns with progressive demands, the Federal Reserve announced on Thursday that it would keep interest rates near zero in light of "recent global economic and financial developments" and in order to "support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability."
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders issued the following statement today after the Federal Reserve announced that it would hold off on raising interest rates:
“It is good news that the Federal Reserve did not raise interest rates today. At a time when real unemployment is over 10 percent, we need to do everything possible to create millions of good-paying jobs and raise the wages of the American people. It is now time for the Fed to act with the same sense of urgency to rebuild the disappearing middle class as it did to bail out Wall Street banks seven years ago.”
The New York Times reports that the Fed’s decision, "widely expected by investors, showed that officials still lacked confidence in the strength of the domestic economy even as the central bank has entered its eighth year of overwhelming efforts to stimulate growth."
Progressives cheered the news, with Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute saying, "Today’s decision by the Federal Reserve to keep short-term rates unchanged is welcome. [...] We hope they continue their pragmatic, data-based approach and allow unemployment to keep moving lower, and only tighten after there is a significant and durable increase in inflation."
He continued: "Tightening before the economy has reached genuine full-employment is not just a mistake, it’s a regressive mistake that would hurt the most vulnerable workers—low-wage earners and workers from communities of color—the most."
However, Reuters reports that "the central bank maintained its bias toward a rate hike sometime this year, while lowering its long-term outlook for the economy."
Which means that pro-worker organizations, which have largely opposed a rate increase that they say would slow the economy and stifle wage growth, will have to keep up the fight.
"We applaud Chair Yellen and the Federal Reserve for resisting the pressure being put on them to intentionally slow down the economy," said Ady Barkan, campaign director for the Fed Up coalition, which rallied outside the Federal Reserve on Thursday.
"Weak wage growth proves that the labor market is still very far from full employment," Barkan continued. "And with inflation still below the Fed’s already low target, there is simply no reason to raise interest rates anytime soon. Across America, working families know that the economy still has not recovered. We hope that the Fed continues to look at the data and refrain from any rate hikes until we reach genuine full employment for all, particularly for the Black and Latino communities who are being left behind in this so-called recovery."
Earlier...
Progressives are cautioning the U.S. Federal Reserve against slowing the economy by raising interest rates "prematurely"—a decision the Fed will announce Thursday.
The U.S. central bank will issue its highly anticipated short-term interest rate decision following a two-day policy meeting, with a 2 pm news conference led by Fed Chair Janet Yellen.
As CBS Moneywatch notes, "[t]he decision affects everything from the returns people get on their bank deposits to how much consumers and employers pay for credit cards, mortgages, small business loans, and student debt." That's because a higher rate makes it more expensive for individuals and businesses to borrow, with rising bank lending rates shrinking the nation's money supply and pushing up rates for mortgages, credit cards, and other loans.
Just before the announcement, the advocates, economists, and workers of the Fed Up coalition will be joined by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) at a rally outside the Fed, calling on the central bank to keep interest rates low to allow for more jobs and higher wages.
"The point of raising rates is to rein in an overheating economy that is threatening to push inflation outside the Fed’s comfort zone," explained Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday. "But inflation has been running below the Fed’s target for years—and its recent moves have been down, not up."
Furthermore, wrote economist Joseph Stiglitz at the Guardian earlier this month: "If the Fed focuses excessively on inflation, it worsens inequality, which in turn worsens overall economic performance. Wages falter during recessions; if the Fed then raises interest rates every time there is a sign of wage growth, workers’ share will be ratcheted down—never recovering what was lost in the downturn."
Progressive activists opposed to an interest rate hike overwhelmed the Fed's public comment system on Monday in a last-minute effort to sway the central bank. Raising the rate, they said, would be catastrophic for working families, particularly in communities of color that are still struggling. The Fed Up campaign, which includes groups like the Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, and CREDO Action, say the central bank "privileges the voices and needs of corporate elites rather than those of America's working families."
"A higher interest rate means that fewer jobs will be created, and that the wages of workers at the bottom will remain too low to live on," wrote Rod Adams, a member of Neighborhoods Organizing for Change in Minneapolis, in an op-ed published Wednesdayat Common Dreams. "That’s because when the Fed raises rates, they are deliberately trying to slow down the economy. They’re saying that there are too many jobs and wages are too high. They’re saying that the economy is exactly where it should be, that people like me are exactly where we should be."
However, at this point, "many observers believe the Fed will not raise rates this week," analyst Richard Eskow wrote on Wednesday.
"The Fed is really the central bank of the world. If the Fed raise rates a little bit, it will have an impact all over the world, particularly in emerging markets," billionaire private equity professional David Rubenstein told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday.
"I think the Fed is sensitive to that," Rubenstein said, "and I think therefore the Fed is likely to wait for another month or two to get additional data and probably telegraph a little bit better than it has now that it's about ready to do it at a particular time."
Meanwhile, global markets are fluctuating wildly in anticipation of Yellen's announcement and subsequent news conference.
But as Eskow noted, Thursday's real surprise "is that there’s any question at all what [the Fed] will do. That suggests that our economic debate is not yet grounded in economic reality, at least as most Americans experience it."
While the Guardian is providing live updates on the Fed's decision, others are making comment under hashtags that reflect the unbalanced economic recovery:
Source: CommonDreams
Jeff Flake jokes about moment when sexual assault survivors confronted him on elevator
Jeff Flake jokes about moment when sexual assault survivors confronted him on elevator
Sen. Jeff Flake cracked a joke Saturday about the viral moment we was confronted by sexual assault survivors on an elevator last week over his support for embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett...
Sen. Jeff Flake cracked a joke Saturday about the viral moment we was confronted by sexual assault survivors on an elevator last week over his support for embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Read the full article here.
Two Federal Reserve Openings Provide One Chance to Counter Trump
The Federal Reserve is facing a significant change in leadership that goes beyond the installation of a new chairman. It is also awaiting the appointment of two other top officials who will play a...
The Federal Reserve is facing a significant change in leadership that goes beyond the installation of a new chairman. It is also awaiting the appointment of two other top officials who will play a crucial role in shaping Fed policy.
President Trump, who has already nominated Jerome H. Powell as the Fed’s next chairman, also gets to pick a new vice chairman. But the other open position, the presidency of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is not Mr. Trump’s choice to make.
Read the full article here.
Arpaio Meets Virtually No DOJ Criteria for a Pardon
President Donald Trump’s unorthodox, dysfunctional behavior and decision-making may lead him to violate a whole slew of new norms if he announces a pardon Tuesday night, as he has said he might,...
President Donald Trump’s unorthodox, dysfunctional behavior and decision-making may lead him to violate a whole slew of new norms if he announces a pardon Tuesday night, as he has said he might, for former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Legal analysts and Dept. of Justice guidelines reviewed by TYT suggest that granting a presidential pardon to the controversial former sheriff would go against virtually every recommended criteria the DOJ has for appropriate pardon candidates.
Read the full article here.
No, 2016 Won't Be the Year of the $20 Minimum Wage
Bloomberg Businessweek - November 13, 2014, by Josh Eidelson - In the midterm elections, four red states—Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota—passed minimum wage increases. Those votes...
Bloomberg Businessweek - November 13, 2014, by Josh Eidelson - In the midterm elections, four red states—Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota—passed minimum wage increases. Those votes mean that, starting next year, a majority of states will have minimum wages higher than the federal rate. The last time that happened, in 2007, Democrats newly in control of Congress used their power to pass the first national increase in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. It’s extremely unlikely the Republicans who took back the Senate in the midterm elections will do the same. “Waiting for Congress to act is frustrating and, at this point, pointless,” says Ed Flanagan, a former Alaska labor commissioner who spent a year campaigning for his state’s new increase, from $7.75 to $9.75.
Already, labor organizers in Oregon are considering a ballot initiative for 2016 that would raise the state minimum to $15 an hour, matching the leap taken this year by Seattle and San Francisco. In Los Angeles, where Mayor Eric Garcetti signed an ordinance mandating a $15.37 wage floor for some hotel workers in October, 6 of the 15 members of the city council have asked for a vote in early 2015 on a proposal to increase the city’s rate to $15.25 across the board by 2019.
Voters in most states shouldn’t expect to see pushes for higher rates than that anytime soon. Labor activists say they want to end the exclusion of tipped workers such as restaurant wait staff from minimum wage laws and add worker protections, like requiring employers to give workers advance notice of schedule changes or offer paid sick days. That approach worked this year in Oakland, where voters approved a referendum on Nov. 4 that lifts wages only to $12.25 but requires employers to offer paid leave above what the state requires. “When you combine them together, it’s actually more popular,” says Brian Kettenring, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, a union-backed community organizing group. “People appreciate that you are trying to actually solve the problem.”
Not all the coming fights will be put directly to voters. In California, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown signed a compromise bill last year increasing the statewide minimum from $8 to $10 by 2016. Some Democratic state lawmakers say that’s not enough to help workers make ends meet. “It will still allow the legal payment of a poverty wage,” says Mark Leno, the state senator who sponsored a bill that would have increased minimum pay to $13 by 2017 and then indexed future wage levels to inflation. That passed the state senate in May but failed by a single vote in an assembly committee. Leno plans to revive the issue in the next legislative session.
In some cities, Democrats are pitting themselves against the Republicans who control their state governments. Louisville has held hearings about raising wages to $10.10 after a statewide increase died in the Republican-controlled state senate. City officials in other states are hamstrung by laws prohibiting municipal governments from raising minimum wages above state levels. In June, business-friendly Democrats in Rhode Island’s statehouse killed efforts by the Providence city council to raise hotel pay to $15 an hour with a budget rider barring cities from setting their own minimum wages. In New York, where state law denies cities authority over pay rates, Governor Andrew Cuomo agreed to support changing that statute, along with a statewide increase to $10.10, to win the endorsement of the progressive Working Families Party in the November gubernatorial election. “He made a promise on this,” says Bill Lipton, the party’s New York director. “We expect him to fulfill it.”
Source
Immigration Advocates Concerned Whether President Obama's Plans Will Help Families
New York Daily News - November 15, 2014, by Celeste Katz - Local advocacy groups — eager for details on President Obama’s plan to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation — are concerned...
New York Daily News - November 15, 2014, by Celeste Katz - Local advocacy groups — eager for details on President Obama’s plan to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation — are concerned many families may still be vulnerable.
At issue is the possibility Obama may limit work permits for parents of children who are in the U.S. legally to those who have been in the country 10 years.
“It’s very important that the President acts to include that segment of folks that have been here more than five years but less than 10 years,” said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
Some advocates were careful to be gentle in their criticisms.
Lucia Gomez of La Fuente said, “The general consensus is everyone is extremely excited,” but added her members hope Obama goes “full force” with protections.
“We hope the Obama administration announces policies that will keep families together and allow for as many people as possible to live with dignity,” said Ana Maria Archila of the Center for Popular Democracy.
Source
Fed Officials Say a September Rate Increase Is Still on the Table
The comments, uncoordinated but generally consistent, suggested that some investors and analysts had been too quick to discount a September rate increase, particularly as global markets finished...
The comments, uncoordinated but generally consistent, suggested that some investors and analysts had been too quick to discount a September rate increase, particularly as global markets finished the week on a relatively quiet note on Friday.
“We haven’t made a decision yet, and I don’t think we should,” Stanley Fischer, the Fed’s vice chairman and a close adviser to the Fed chairwoman, Janet L. Yellen, said in an interview with the cable network CNBC. “We’ve got time to wait and see the incoming data and see what exactly is going on now in the economy.”
The Fed’s policy-making committee is scheduled to meet Sept. 16 and 17.
Mr. Fischer offered an upbeat assessment of the domestic economy. He described job growth as “impressive” and said there had been a “pretty strong case” to raise rates in September before the latest round of global turmoil. He did not sound inclined to wait much longer than September to start raising rates.
“We’re getting back to normal and at some point we will want to show that, by beginning to normalize interest rates,” he said, speaking during a break at the annual conference hosted here by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Dennis Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and a centrist on the Federal Open Market Committee, told Bloomberg that he saw roughly even odds of a September rate increase. But if the Fed did choose to wait, he said it wouldn’t be for long — he suggested that it could raise rates at its next meeting in October.
James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said in an interview that he was reserving final judgment, but that he did not see strong reasons for the Fed to delay. “I would like to see the whole panoply of data before I make a decision but I’m certainly leaning in that direction,” Mr. Bullard said.
The march toward higher rates has inflamed some critics who argue that the central bank should continue or even expand its stimulus campaign.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University economist and Nobel laureate, said Thursday that the Fed was on the verge of repeating an old mistake by raising interest rates sooner than necessary to control inflation. He pointed out that the share of Americans with jobs remained unusually small and wages were rising only slowly.
“There hasn’t been a recovery for the majority of Americans and so to me this is a no-brainer,” Mr. Stiglitz told a coalition of community groups who call themselves “Fed Up” that met just outside the main conference to advocate against a rate increase. “I don’t even know why we’re talking about” tightening monetary policy, he said.
The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation was updated on Friday. The new data showed that prices rose just 0.3 percent during the 12 months that ended in July. A narrower measure excluding food and oil prices, which the Fed regards as more predictive, increased by 1.2 percent over that period. The Fed aims to maintain inflation at a 2 percent annual pace, a goal it has not achieved for several years.
Mr. Stiglitz said the Fed should try to keep inflation at about 4 percent a year. Even with a stated target of 2 percent a year, he said, actual inflation is significantly lower. “We wind up with a monetary policy that has been consistently too tight,” he said.
Most Fed officials say they expect inflation to increase as the economy expands. Mr. Fischer said on Friday that his confidence was “pretty high” that inflation would rebound.
Still, Mr. Fischer said there was a continuing “discussion” among Fed officials, some of whom see the strength of domestic growth as a reason to raise rates, while others argue the sluggishness of inflation means there is no reason to rush.
Mr. Bullard, a member of the first camp, said that he viewed recent global economic developments as unlikely to change his economic forecast. The sharp fall of oil prices and the decline of long-term interest rates should increase growth, while a stronger dollar and a weaker global economy are likely to have an offsetting impact.
“I want to take the time I have between now and the September meeting to evaluate all the economic information that’s come in, including recent volatility in markets and the reasons behind that,” Loretta Mester, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, told The Wall Street Journal. “But it hasn’t so far changed my basic outlook that the U.S. economy is solid and it could support an increase in interest rates.”
Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, reiterated his contrasting view that the Fed should not raise interest rates this year. Instead, he argued, the central bank should consider expanding its stimulus campaign to address the persistence of low inflation, which can harm consumer spending and business plans for expansion. Mr. Kocherlakota said the volatility of financial markets should be seen as further evidence of the weakness of the economy.
Both camps, however, agree that the Fed should not start raising rates in the middle of market volatility. William C. Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said this week that the gyrations of financial markets made the case for raising rates in September “less compelling.”
Mr. Fischer in his interview Friday said he did not want to judge the current situation, because it was new. But if volatility persisted, the Fed would be less likely to move.
“If you don’t understand the market volatility, and I’m sure we don’t fully understand it now — there are many, many analyses of what’s going on — then yes, it does affect the timing of a decision you might want to make,” he said.
Both Mr. Dudley and Mr. Fischer, however, noted that the current situation might be fleeting. Mr. Fischer said markets “could settle down fairly quickly.”
And Mr. Fischer emphasized that Fed officials could not afford to wait until all of their questions were answered and all of their doubts resolved. “When the case is overwhelming,” he said, “if you wait that long, then you’ve waited too long.”
Source: New York Times
8 hours ago
10 days ago