Dr. Martin Luther King Day -- New York City Rally Today Against Trump’s Racist “Shithole” comment
Dr. Martin Luther King Day -- New York City Rally Today Against Trump’s Racist “Shithole” comment
A coalition including 1199SEIU, the Haitian Round Table, National Action Network, Women’s March, New York State Nurses Association, District Council 37 AFSCME, 32BJ SEIU, American Federation of...
A coalition including 1199SEIU, the Haitian Round Table, National Action Network, Women’s March, New York State Nurses Association, District Council 37 AFSCME, 32BJ SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, United Federation of Teachers, New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, RWDSU, New York Immigration Coalition, Haitian-American Business Network, Yemeni American Merchants Association, United African Congress, Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, National Alliance for Advancement of Haitian Professionals, Association of Haitian and American Engineers, HEALHaiti, Arab American Association of New York, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Center for Popular Democracy, Make the Road New York, Immigration Equality, LIFE Camp,Inc., MPower, Desis Rising Up & Moving, Adhikaar, Haiti Cultural Exchange, Haitian American Lawyers Association, and the Working Families Party.
Read the full article here.
Ilhan Omar Romps In Minneapolis Democratic Primary, While Tim Walz And Keith Ellison Win Statewide
Ilhan Omar Romps In Minneapolis Democratic Primary, While Tim Walz And Keith Ellison Win Statewide
Omar had the backing of the bulk of the progressive and grassroots groups that weighed in on the race, including MoveOn; Justice Democrats; the statewide and Twin Cities chapters of Our Revolution...
Omar had the backing of the bulk of the progressive and grassroots groups that weighed in on the race, including MoveOn; Justice Democrats; the statewide and Twin Cities chapters of Our Revolution, the group that was formed from the remnants of the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign; and CPD Action, an arm of the Center for Popular Democracy.
Read the full article here.
Federal Reserve keeps key interest rate at zero, citing global turmoil
The Federal Reserve on Thursday voted to maintain its unprecedented support for the U.S. recovery, leaving a key interest rate unchanged amid gathering clouds over the global economy.
...
The Federal Reserve on Thursday voted to maintain its unprecedented support for the U.S. recovery, leaving a key interest rate unchanged amid gathering clouds over the global economy.
In an official statement, the nation’s central bank said the job market is recovering and hiring is “solid.” But it expressed concern that inflation remains too low and exports have weakened. Meanwhile, the risk is building that turmoil overseas will drag down growth in America.
"Recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term," the central bank's official statement read.
The decision to keep the Fed’s benchmark interest rate at zero amounts to a recognition that the robust recovery central bank officials had hoped for when they launched into an uncharted era of easy money during the throes of the 2008 financial crisis has yet to materialize. The Fed has repeatedly pushed back the goal line as the economy failed to deliver. Seven years after the central bank cut its target rate to zero, Fed officials believe the recovery is not yet ready to stand on its own.
At the press conference that followed the rate announcement Thursday afternoon, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said that a rate hike was still likely by the end of the year. But she reiterated that though “domestic developments have been strong, we want to see continued improvement in the labor market," and the central bank would like "to bolster our confidence that inflation will move toward" the Fed’s 2 percent target before a rate hike.
“We have very large drags from energy prices and import prices," Yellen said, adding that the central bank views those as transitory. As the labor market heals, "we will see further upward pressure on inflation," she said. “We expect to achieve our 2 percent goal over the medium term.”
Markets grew volatile immediately after news of the rate hold, going flat by the end of Yellen's press conference. The Dow Jones Industrial average closed down 0.4 percent and the Standard & Poor’s index closed down about 0.3 percent on Thursday.
Documents released by the Fed show most of the Fed's top brass now anticipate increasing rates only once this year, instead of twice. A growing minority think the central bank should not raise its benchmark rate this year at all, and one suggested it should stimulate the economy even more by taking the rate negative.
Three officials are advocating a 2016 liftoff, while one person pinned 2017 as the date -- longer than anyone has suggested so far.
“Even though the summer stresses in financial markets have abated, the impact of the intense market volatility on domestic economic activity is yet to fully play out,” Millan Mulraine, deputy chief U.S. macro strategist at TD Securities, wrote in a research note.
The Fed lowers its target rate when it wants to stimulate the economy by encouraging businesses and consumers to spend. It hikes when the economy begins to grow too quickly and inflation picks up, making saving money more attractive.
Timing, however, is crucial. If the Fed moves too soon, it risks undercutting the recovery’s momentum. Waiting too long could stock dangerous financial bubbles.
Yellen made reference to that risk at the press conference Thursday when asked whether the Fed should be moving sooner rather than later to raise the rates. "I don't think it's good policy to then have to slam on the brakes," she said.
The Fed modestly upgraded Thursday its expectation for economic growth this year from 1.9 percent to 2.1 percent, but the forecast is still lower than the robust expansion enjoyed a decade ago. The jobless rate has already fallen below the central bank's June estimate of 5.3 percent. The Fed adjusted its forecast to 5 percent. It also nudged up its estimate of core inflation from 1.3 percent to 1.4 percent.
In May, Yellen said speech that she expected the economy would be strong enough to raise the target rate by the end of the year. Other top Fed officials had signaled the long-awaited move could come during its meeting this month.
But that was before the jaw-dropping swings in financial markets over the past few weeks, including a 1,000-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average. Evidence is mounting that China’s breakneck economic growth is fizzling out faster than previously thought.
In the meantime, the strong U.S. dollar and low oil prices are weighing on inflation, which has run below the Fed’s target of 2 percent for years. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Nobel-laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers have all called on the central bank to hold off on a rate hike, at least for now.
“Now is the time for the Fed to do what is often hardest for policymakers,” Summers wrote in The Washington Post recently. “Stand still.”
The calls for delay are also coming from a populist campaign known as Fed Up, which protested outside of the central bank’s buildings Thursday. Several lawmakers joined the demonstration, including Michigan Rep. John Conyers, who is sponsoring a bill that would require the Fed to target a 4 percent unemployment rate.
Not everyone agrees the Fed should wait, however. Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker dissented from the central bank’s vote on Thursday. In aspeech earlier this month, he pointed to strong consumer spending, the sharp decline in unemployment and a pickup in inflation measured since the beginning of the year as reasons a rate hike is warranted.
“I am not arguing that the economy is perfect, but nor is it on the ropes, requiring zero interest rates to get it back into the ring,” he said. “It’s time to align our monetary policy with the significant progress we have made.”
In its official statement, the Fed attempted to assure investors and the public that after the first rate hike, it expects to make subsequent hikes only gradually. Though most officials predicted the Fed would raise its target rate several times next year, they also forecast it would remain below its historic norm of about 4 percent for several years. Fed documents released Thursday show the long-run median estimate at just 3.5 percent.
Each hike will also likely be small, analysts expect just one quarter of one percent. That would allow the central bank to assess how an economy grown accustomed to easy money operates under a new regime.
“One should never discount the importance of an interest rate change by a central bank merely because it looks small,” said Scott Sumner, an economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “Some pretty big avalanches have started from a small pebble being dislodged.”
Source: Washington Post
Can We Forgo Wells Fargo?
When disgraced Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was forced to resign a few weeks ago, it was a victory for economic justice. But this move, however dramatic, does not go far enough to fix the problems...
When disgraced Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was forced to resign a few weeks ago, it was a victory for economic justice. But this move, however dramatic, does not go far enough to fix the problems with Wells Fargo and Wall Street.
Christina Livingston, executive director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE).
A diverse array of progressive organizations are joining forces to not only end Wells Fargo's predatory practices, but also increase the pressure for broad Wall Street reform that puts people and communities first.
Through a new "Forgo Wells" campaign, they are pushing city councils, state legislatures, school boards, and other public bodies to stop doing business with Wells Fargo. And they've already scored some wins.
The groups launching this divestment campaign include national organizations like Jobs with Justice, the Communications Workers of America, and Center for Popular Democracy, as well as local groups like New York Communities for Change, Minnesota-based Isaiah, and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE).
Inequality.org co-editor Sarah Anderson interviewed ACCE's executive director, Christina Livingston, about her involvement in the Forgo Wells campaign.
Sarah Anderson: How did you come to be involved in this campaign?
Christina Livingston: Since our doors opened in 2010, Wall Street accountability work has been a staple issue. That's because so many of the issues people are battling have connections to Wall Street banks. From the foreclosure crisis, to wealth stripping of cities and municipalities, to student debt, and beyond, Wall Street banks and hedge funds are behaving in ways that harm you and me for the sake of unchecked power and greed.
Last year we engaged in a campaign organizing bank workers under our worker justice campaign umbrella and quickly realized that bank workers were being treated poorly by the big banks in many ways, including the use of unrealistic sales goals.
Working with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), we began to research how widespread these sales goals were and the impact they were having on workers. We didn't know then that because of these sales goals Wells Fargo workers were being compelled to open fraudulent accounts. However, given our interactions with Wells Fargo in the past, we were not surprised to find that such a widespread fraudulent practice existed. In fact, this is very reminiscent of the robo-signing practice Wells Fargo was found guilty of during the height of the foreclosure crisis.
What role will ACCE be playing in the Forgo Wells campaign?
Given that Wells Fargo is based in San Francisco, we felt compelled to immediately begin working with some of our largest California cities to call on the city government to take action. Already the Los Angeles City Council and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have moved to suspend business with Wells Fargo and we plan to move at least 2-3 other cities in the coming months to take action. We are also encouraging organizing groups in other states to work with their legislators to suspend business with Wells at the state or city level.
Why is this a strategic moment for targeting Wells Fargo?
First, hubris and exploitation is in their DNA. They have never worked with community organizations, and racially biased marketing and fraud is baked into their way of doing business. It is sort of like a game of Jenga (or house of cards). Once you pull out that piece that makes the tower fall, which in this case was the fraud that front-line workers were forced to commit, you unearth many more parts of fraudulent behavior, and realize it is pervasive through everything.
Just a couple days ago, Wells reached a $50 million settlement for mortgage appraisal fraud. There are so many ways in which they are corrupt, and their tentacles are everywhere. They are invested big in private prisons, police foundations, the Dakota Access pipeline, Puerto Rican bonds. Basically, they are invested everywhere, and bad things come from their investments.
Do you see any potential for building alliances that cut across partisan lines in this campaign?
We think so. Part of the right-wing pushback against Hillary Clinton is that she has been friends with Wall Street. People do not trust her to stand up to the banks and hedge funds. Some of Trump's economic appeal has been his willingness to "tell it like it is." And there are unfortunately some Bernie followers who are supporting Trump. The anti-Wall Street message holds both major parties accountable.
Is this campaign just about Wells Fargo or are you trying to address broader problems with Wall Street?
This is absolutely not just a campaign about Wells Fargo, it is about all the big banks and hedge funds that are implementing practices and policies that hurt communities in order to deliver for the wealthy few at the top. Wells is emblematic of what everyone else is doing.
What would victory look like for you?
If we are really successful, we would see the break-up of Wells Fargo and would send a message that banks will be held responsible for the ways they treat their workers, shareholders, and customers. Along the way, we hope to get a fair amount of justice in monetary settlements, rights for workers, and divestment from a host of racist and exploitative investments.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
By Sarah Anderson
Source
Activists Rally in Front of Federal Reserve, Calling for End to ‘Economic Racism’
The St. Louis American - March 5, 2015, by Rebecca Rivas - African-American residents are sick and tired of hearing about an economic recovery that does not apply to them, said Derek Laney, an...
The St. Louis American - March 5, 2015, by Rebecca Rivas - African-American residents are sick and tired of hearing about an economic recovery that does not apply to them, said Derek Laney, an organizer for Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.
In St. Louis, the unemployment rates for the black community remains triple the rate of white residents, 14.1 percent compared to 5.7 percent for whites, he said. However, some economists claim that the economy is rapidly approaching full employment.
“Is there only one set of the population that matters?” he said. “And if they are alright, we’re all alright? That’s something we can’t accept.”
Today (March 5,) activists attempted to ask James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, those same questions. At noon, a coalition of community-based organizations, faith leaders, elected officials, labor unions, and service organizations gathered in front of the bank in downtown St. Louis City, as a part of the national Fed Up Campaign (whatrecovery.org). They pointed to a new report released this month that details the difficulties for African-American families to find living wage employment. The report is titled, “Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve’s Full-Employment Mandate.”
In response to the protest, a St. Louis Fed spokewoman stated in an email to the St. Louis American: “We are aware of the protest at the St. Louis Fed and respect people’s right to protest peacefully.”
The coalition asked Bullard to prioritize full employment and rising wages for all communities. Laney said as the economy starts to recover, some are calling for the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent wages from rising – which would severely impact families still struggling to recover from the Great Recession. Tomorrow, the St. Louis Fed will release new numbers regarding unemployment, and in mid-March its leaders will meet to discuss its policies. Laney said they hoped the action today will help “shape those discussions.”
The report emphasizes that the Federal Reserve is responsible for keeping inflation stable, regulating the financial system and ensuring full employment.
“These mandates reflect the tension between the interests of Wall Street on the one hand and Main Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the other,” the report states. “As a general matter, corporate and finance executives want to limit wage growth— or, as they call it, ‘wage inflation’—and to maximize their future profits from lending money.”
The report argues that in past decades, the Federal Reserve resolved this tension in favor of banks and corporations, intentionally limiting wage growth and keeping unemployment excessively high.
“The Fed’s policy choices over the past 35 years have led to increased inequality, stagnant or falling wages, and an American Dream that is inaccessible to tens of millions of families—particularly Black families,” it states.
Since the Ferguson movement began, local and national leaders have emphasized the need to address the “structural racism” in the region.
“Economic racism cannot be delinked from racism by law enforcement and other governmental entities,” according to the coalition’s statement. “However, James Bullard has been silent on issues of economics and their impacts on communities of color in the region over the past seven months. Today, we are bringing these issues to his front door.”
Source
Group of Lawmakers Says Fed Fails to Diversify Leadership
Group of Lawmakers Says Fed Fails to Diversify Leadership
A group of Democratic senators and House members complained Thursday that the Federal Reserve has failed to meet its obligation to build a diverse leadership that includes enough women and...
A group of Democratic senators and House members complained Thursday that the Federal Reserve has failed to meet its obligation to build a diverse leadership that includes enough women and minorities, and it wants Chair Janet Yellen to remedy the issue.
The lawmakers said a more inclusive leadership that properly reflects gender, race, ethnicity, occupation and economic background is needed to ensure fairness in Fed policy.
The Democratic lawmakers — 11 senators and 116 in the House — expressed their concerns in a letter to Yellen. The Fed's leadership "remains overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male," they wrote.
In its search for directors who oversee the Fed's 12 regional banks for terms next year, the Fed's board of governors should cast a wider net for African American, Latino and female candidates, as well as qualified people from labor, consumer and community organizations, the lawmakers told Yellen.
A Fed spokesman, David Skidmore, responded that the central bank is "committed to fostering diversity — by race, ethnicity, gender and professional background — within its leadership ranks."
"We have focused considerable attention in recent years on recruiting directors with diverse backgrounds and experiences," Skidmore said. "By law, we consider the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers. We also are aiming to increase ethnic and gender diversity."
The senators signing the letter include Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging front-runner Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Warren and Sanders are the most outspoken Democratic critics on economic and financial issues.
The 116 House members, representing more than half the 188 Democrats in the House, are led by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
The letter cites data from the Center for Popular Democracy, a liberal advocacy group. The data indicates that 83 percent of the directors who supervise the Fed's regional banks are white and that nearly three-quarters of them are men. All the members of the Fed's committee that sets interest-rate policy are white, and 60 percent are men.
The Fed counters that the proportion of minority directors on the boards of its regional banks and their branches has risen from 16 percent in 2010 to 24 percent this year, and that the proportion of female directors has increased from 23 percent to 30 percent. Forty-six percent of the directors represent diversity in race and-or gender, the Fed said.
"We are striving to continue that progress," Skidmore said.
The data cited in the congressional letter do not include directors of the regional banks' branches, only the banks themselves.
On Thursday, Clinton's campaign said she shares the lawmakers' concerns. A spokesman, Jesse Ferguson, said Clinton thinks "the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole." She also believes there no longer should be three private-sector bankers sitting on each regional Fed bank board, Ferguson said.
That change would require new legislation.
Yellen, the first woman to lead the central bank in its 100-plus-year history, has stressed in her public statements the importance of overcoming economic inequality.
The five current Fed governors are white. Two, including Yellen, are women.
By MARCY GORDON
Source
If Janet Yellen Goes, the Fed’s Current Policy May Go With Her
If Janet Yellen Goes, the Fed’s Current Policy May Go With Her
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — Liberal activists who stage an annual protest in favor of lower interest rates at the Federal Reserve’s annual conference here are planning a different kind of...
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — Liberal activists who stage an annual protest in favor of lower interest rates at the Federal Reserve’s annual conference here are planning a different kind of demonstration this year. They plan to don “Yellen wigs” on Friday to demonstrate in support of Janet L. Yellen, the Fed chairwoman, whose first term ends in February.
President Trump must soon decide whether to renominate Ms. Yellen or pick someone similarly inclined to emphasize economic growth. Or, instead, he could accede to the wishes of many conservatives for a Fed chairman more worried about inflation.
Read the full article here.
Who is Jerome Powell, Trump’s pick for the nation’s most powerful economic position?
Who is Jerome Powell, Trump’s pick for the nation’s most powerful economic position?
"Yellen's background as a trained economist and experienced Fed official gave her needed independence from the influence of Wall Street,” says Jordan Haedtler, campaign manager for Fed Up, a grass...
"Yellen's background as a trained economist and experienced Fed official gave her needed independence from the influence of Wall Street,” says Jordan Haedtler, campaign manager for Fed Up, a grass roots Democratic effort. He says it's concerning that Powell would be Trump's second Carlyle Group veteran appointed to the Fed board. Earlier this year, Trump nominated Randal Quarles, another Carlyle Group alum, to an open Fed board seat overseeing bank regulation.
Read the full article here.
Fed official explains why he stopped trying to predict the future
Fed official explains why he stopped trying to predict the future
JACKSON HOLE, WYO. -- The world's economic elite gathered here for an annual symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City last week to debate the strategies central banks should...
JACKSON HOLE, WYO. -- The world's economic elite gathered here for an annual symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City last week to debate the strategies central banks should employ to safeguard the global economy. We sat down with St. Louis Fed President James Bullard to chat about when he might be ready for a rate hike, the limits of his powers and why predicting the future is futile.
The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity.
Wonkblog: Let’s start with the question of the day: Which month looks good to you for a rate hike?
Bullard: Actually, I’m agnostic on this. Our new framework calls for one, and only one, and then we go on pause for a bit. It’s not critical to me exactly when we make that move, so we wouldn’t have to go at any particular meeting.
I do like to move on good news, so if we have good information, and we’re at a meeting, it might be a good opportunity to go ahead and make that move. But what’s different about what I’m saying is I’ve got a real flat interest rate path — much closer to the markets’ interest rate path. I don’t have this march upward of 200 or 250 basis points.
If only one more rate hike is really needed to get to the Fed’s neutral stance, why does it matter if you move in September, December or next year? You would be willing to wait until 2017?
Certainly, I just don’t feel that there’s any urgency when you’ve got the framework I’m talking about.
[The Federal Reserve is debating how to fight the next recession]
So explain your framework for us.
What we wanted to do is break down this idea that we’re really certain about where the economy is going in the medium- and long-run. What most models do is they have something called a steady state, which is really an average of all the variables in the past: You look at the unemployment rate, and you take the average unemployment rate. You look at interest rates and take the average past interest rate. You look at inflation, growth — you take averages of the past, and you call those your normal values.
As you go along, you expect all your variables to go back to their normal values. That’s what we’ve been doing. That’s the old framework. And what we’re saying is we don’t like that framework anymore because it suggests we have a lot more certainty about where the economy is going than we really do.
These averages of these variables from the past — they can sometimes be high and sometime be low. You can be in a configuration where these things are low, and then you can switch to another configuration when they’re high. Then they’re high for a while, and you switch back to low. What you have to do is make policy given whatever regime you’re in.
We think that the regime that is dominant right now is a slow-growth regime that is characterized by low productivity growth and very low real returns on short-term government debt around the world. We think these regimes are persistent. These things aren’t changing any time soon. And because of that, we just have to take them as given, for now anyway.
Given that in this framework, it’s difficult to tell when the regime is shifted, how do you know that you’re not setting monetary policy for a regime that’s already expired?
You’re gonna know when the regime switches. These very low real rates of return on government debt, if you look at the ex-post return on one-year Treasurys, it’s about -135 basis points right now. If that starts to go up rapidly, we’re gonna know and we’re going to take note of it. We’re gonna say, “Aha! Our regime has changed, and we’re going to have to change monetary policy accordingly.”
But for forecasting purposes, I wouldn’t say that I’m expecting that to happen all of a sudden. It’s been that way for at least the last three years, and if you look at real rates of return, they’ve declined for the last 30 years. It’s also very clear that we’re in a very low productivity environment.
It’s not that you go to sleep. You stay alert to the possibility that the regime can change in the future, and probably will change at some point in the future. It’s just not good to be predicting that it’s going to change.
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's speech here laid out the argument that the Fed is not out of ammunition to fight the next recession. Do you agree with that?
I loved the speech. She made the case that we still have quite a bit of bandwidth to handle problems if they arise in the next couple of years, and I very much agree with that. But at the same time, it’s always good to be studying other possibilities. I actually have papers on nominal GDP targeting, so I think that’s an interesting topic. It's probably not ready for prime time, but I’m a believer in research.
What led you to the support for this regime-based framework. Can you talk about the evolution of your thinking?
Maybe some frustration with the dot plot. We were saying we were going to have to raise rates fairly aggressively over the forecast horizon in order to keep the economy on track, and that wasn’t materializing. We had that forecast for several years, and it wasn’t really working. For that reason, I wanted to get a different way to think about what we were doing.
We’ve only moved once on the policy rate, and markets are saying maybe one more move this year. That would only be one move per year — that’s really not normalization. If you’re going to say it’s going to take 10 years to get back to a normal value, you’re really saying we’re not going back there. That’s way longer than any sort of business cycle than you can reasonably talk about.
How do you feel about the division between monetary and fiscal policy currently? Do you feel it’s time to pass the baton here?
I do think that. And I think the regime framework is good for laying that out for people. Part of the story is that the recession has been over for seven years. The unemployment rate has gone down below 5 percent. Inflation is low, but we don’t think it’s that low, and it’s kind of coming up to target.
So the cyclical dynamics are all done. The dust has settled, I guess is the way I would put it.
You might say the dust has settled, and I don’t like what I see. But for that, you can’t solve that with monetary policy. You’ve got to have things that are going to increase productivity in the economy. You’ve got to make the economy more efficient. New ideas, better technology, better diffusion of technology, better human capital, better skills match — I think it’s a lot of small things that you have to do right to get an economy humming. The story of let’s keep interest rates low and that will help us, that’s kind of over for now.
Related to that are the demonstrations by Fed Up and the Center for Popular Democracy that were held Thursday. Any additional thoughts on their point of view, that there’s still more that the Fed can do?
I love the people that come here. I think they’re a really great slice of the American workforce. It’s really nice that they’re willing to take time out of their lives to come out here and talk to us boring central bankers.
They want to talk about low nominal interest rates as solving difficult problems of how our labor markets operate and how our labor markets are unfair to many people. I would like them to think about the German labor market reforms that were done over the last decade. Germany had very high unemployment for a long time. It was an endemic problem, and then they did these reforms and got their unemployment rate cut in half — even though Europe went through a double-dip recession during that period.
It showed to me that there are ways to attack these problems, and I think we could do that in the U.S. I think they should refocus their efforts on the labor secretary, so we could get those kinds of reforms going. People aren’t even talking about that.
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source
Activists Descend on Fed’s Jackson Hole Meeting, Amid Anxiety About Rate Rises
Liberal and conservative groups of central-bank critics plan to hold events to coincide with the Fed symposium, which runs Thursday through Saturday.
The left-leaning group, called Fed Up,...
Liberal and conservative groups of central-bank critics plan to hold events to coincide with the Fed symposium, which runs Thursday through Saturday.
The left-leaning group, called Fed Up, will be gathering in the same Jackson Lake Lodge as the Fed attendees, arguing the central bank shouldn’t raise short-term interest rates anytime soon. The right-leaning group, the American Principles Project, is holding a separate gathering nearby to discuss the effect of Fed policies on the dollar and to urge the current crop of presidential candidates to pay more attention to Fed policy issues.
Fed officials also are getting plenty of advice from other experts on the sidelines. Harvard University’s Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary and one-time candidate for Fed chairman, warned in an opinion article this week that raising rates soon would be a “dangerous mistake.” Martin Feldstein, another Harvard professor, used an opinion article to blame the stock market’s current woes on past Fed policy mistakes and urge the Fed not to delay rate increases beyond September.
The Kansas City Fed conference takes place amid considerable turmoil in global financial markets. Stocks, bonds and currencies have gyrated in recent days as investors try to make sense of China’s economic slowdown and what that could mean for the U.S., the global economy and markets. The anxiety has occluded the outlook for Fed policy: Whereas market participants were recently looking to a possible mid-September Fed rate increase, it now appears the odds have diminished.
The liberal Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up coalition says it is planning to bring 50 or more activists to the Jackson Lake Lodge for meetings on Fed policy, economic inequality and racial disparities. The group also went to Jackson Hole last year.
Fed Up plans to hold a news conference Thursday and panel discussions with names such as, “Do Black Lives Matter to the Fed?” and “Who’s Afraid of High Wages? A History of the Inflation Bogeyman.” The group says its events are open to all and it hopes attendees at the Kansas City Fed event stop by.
Fed Up has seen successes in gaining one-on-one meetings with regional Fed bank leaders—they recently sat down with the chiefs of the Atlanta and New York Fed banks. It will bring folks to Jackson Hole who are affected by central-bank policies, but whose voices are rarely heard in the debate.
Atlanta resident Dawn O’Neill, a 48-year-old married grandmother, plans to go to Jackson Hole with the Fed Up group. Her unemployed husband struggles to find day work in the construction industry, and she works as teacher’s assistant in a day-care facility for $8.50 an hour.
“When the Fed says the economy is in recovery, and they want to raise the interest rates, I look around and I don’t see recovery,” Ms. O’Neal said. “I see lines of black men that want work, but there is no work.”
The group says that if the Fed keeps its benchmark short-term rate near zero for longer, it will generate more economic growth that creates more jobs among low-wage earners as well as higher-paid workers. The group also believes that better job growth will help benefit minorities and make discrimination harder.
“We have leaders of the Fed who don’t think slow wages and underemployment are problems,” said Ady Barkan, who leads Fed Up’s activities. “When you have leadership like that, you get policies that don’t advance the needs of working families,” he told reporters in a conference call on Monday.
Fed chiefs for years have acknowledged the painfully slow recovery of the labor market and rising income inequality. Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen gave a speech on inequality last October that garnered her criticism from congressional Republicans who believe such matters are beyond the Fed’s official mission.
Fed officials say their easy-money policies aimed at stimulating the economy are intended to benefit all Americans, not just the wealthy. Last year, former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pointed to the recovery of the housing and labor markets as evidence the Fed’s efforts were helping the middle and lower classes.
Even now, Fed officials generally say raising their benchmark short-term rate target by a quarter-percentage point from near zero won’t offer much restraint to growth. The see a small move as reducing the amount of economic stimulus they are providing, akin to lightening the pressure on the accelerator rather than tapping the brake.
They believe that while inflation remains too low, the unemployment rate has fallen enough to start the process of getting short-term interest rates back to more historically normal levels. Some worry that if the Fed sticks with ultralow rates much longer, it could create financial-market bubbles that could wound the broader economy.
The Fed also will be challenged by the American Principles Project, which is holding its event near the central-bank conference and will count participants from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, both Washington think tanks. In a news release, Steven Lonegan, the group’s monetary-policy director, said, “We will challenge prevailing wisdom and show how the Federal Reserve’s policies have negatively impacted wage growth and contributed to the rising cost of living.”
Wage growth has been tepid in recent years, despite Fed officials’ hopes their easy-money policies would spur stronger gains. Inflation has fallen well short of the Fed’s 2% target for years.
The Kansas City Fed declined to comment on the activity of outside groups around its conference.
Source: iBloomberg
2 days ago
9 days ago