The Slippery Slope of a Higher Inflation Target

With inflation significantly above target in most advanced economies, there are renewed calls for central banks to raise their targets from 2% to 3% or 4%, in order to limit the prospective costs of disinflation. In this post, we review the benefits and costs of a higher inflation target.

Yet, regardless of the balance between the costs and benefits of raising the inflation target, our view is that central banks ought not be able to choose their inflation targets. The key problem with such discretion is the slippery slope. If households and firms come to expect that a central bank will opportunistically raise its inflation target to avoid the economic sacrifice associated with disinflation, inflation expectations will no longer be anchored at the target (whatever it is).

To limit the “inflation expectations ratchet”—avoiding perceptions of opportunistic central bank discretion— the Federal Reserve should follow an approach that it now employs regarding the possible introduction of a central bank digital currency: namely, the Fed should announce that it will not alter its inflation target without the explicit support of both the legislative and executive branches, ideally in the form of legislation….

Fed Monetary Policy in Crisis

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is facing a crisis of its own making. The crisis has four elements. Policymakers failed to forecast the rise in inflation. They failed to appreciate how persistent inflation can be. They are failing to articulate a credible low inflation policy. And, so far, there is little sign that monetary policymakers recognize the need to react decisively.

Our fear is that matters have now progressed to the stage where the Fed’s credibility for delivering price stability is at serious risk. And, as experience teaches us, the less credible the central bank, the more painful it is to lower inflation to target.

In this post, we discuss the policy crisis and suggest how to respond. In our view, the FOMC needs a plan to raise rates quickly and substantially. For the FOMC to ensure inflation returns to its target of 2%, policymakers likely will need to bring the short-term real interest rate into significantly positive territory. Put slightly differently, we suspect that the policy rate needs to rise to at least one percent above expected inflation.

Won’t a sharp policy tightening trigger a huge recession? In our view, credibility is the key to how much pain disinflation will cause. Applying the painful lesson of the 1970s and early 1980s leads us to conclude that the FOMC now needs to show clear resolve. Inflation rose very quickly over the past year, so it may still be possible to bring it down sharply without a recession. The more decisively policymakers act, the lower the long-run costs are likely to be. Failure to restore price stability in a timely way would almost surely render this expansion disturbingly short compared to recent norms.

The QE Ratchet

When it comes to quantitative easing (QE), where you stand definitely depends on where you sit. That is among the conclusions of the important new report of the Economic Affairs Committee of the UK House of Lords.

The report provides an excellent survey of how it is that central banks now use their balance sheets. Its key conclusions are the following. First, central bankers should clearly communicate the rationale for their balance sheet actions, stating what they are doing and why. Second, policymakers should provide more detail on their estimates (and uncertainties) of the effectiveness of their various actions, especially QE. Third, they should be aware that the relationship between central bank balance sheet policy and government debt management policy poses a risk to independence. Finally, and most importantly, central bankers need an exit plan for how they will return to a long-run sustainable level for their balance sheet.

We discussed several of these points in prior posts. On communication, we argued that central bankers should be clear about their reaction function for both interest rate and balance sheet policies (see here). On the justification for policymakers’ actions, we emphasized the need for clear, simple explanations tied to policymakers’ objectives, distinguishing carefully between the intended purposes (such as monetary policy, lender/market maker of last resort, or emergency government finance; see here). And, on the relationship between QE and fiscal finance, we noted how the ballooning of the U.S. Treasury’s balance at the Fed in the early stages of the pandemic looked like monetary finance, putting independence at risk (see here).

In this post, we turn to the challenge that Lord King highlights in the opening quote: the need to ensure that central banks do not see bond purchases as a cure-all for every ill that befalls the economy and the financial system, causing their balance sheets repeatedly to ratchet upward….

Patience vs FAIT: Which is key in the new FOMC strategy?

The Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) policy strategy update incorporates two key changes. The first is a shift to flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT), while the second is a move to what we will call a patient shortfall strategy. FAIT represents a shift in the direction of price-level targeting in which the FOMC intends to make up for past inflation misses (see our previous post). As Fed Governor Brainard recently explained, the strategy of increased patience, embedded in language that focuses on employment “shortfalls” rather than “deviations,” reflects reduced willingness to act preemptively against inflation when the unemployment rate (u) declines below estimates of its sustainable level (call it u*).

The Committee will need to explain what these two changes mean for the determinants of policy—what we think of as their reaction function. For example, FAIT implies that the FOMC’s short-term inflation objective will change over time—possibly even from meeting to meeting. For the policy to have its intended impact of shifting inflation expectations, we all need to know the Fed’s inflation target. Similarly, having downgraded the role of the labor market as a predictor of inflation, the central bank will need to explain how it aims to control inflation going forward. While patience is the broad message, pointing to a more backward-looking approach to control, it seems likely that attention will shift to other inflation predictors. But again, if this shift is to have the intended impact on expectations, it is important that the Fed be clear about how it is forecasting inflation.

In this post, we compare the practical importance of these two strategic shifts. Our conclusion is that, while neither appears very large on average, the patient shortfall strategy looks to be the more important of the two….

The Fed's New Strategy: More Discretion, Less Preemption

On August 27, marking the conclusion of the Fed’s first strategic review, the Federal Open Market Committee released an amended version of their fundamental policy guide—the Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy. The FOMC adopted a form of flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT). Partly because the new strategy largely confirms recent Fed behavior, the response in financial markets was minimal. Indeed, market-based long-run inflation expectations were virtually unchanged this week. Perhaps the only noticeable development was a modest steepening at the very long end of the yield curve.

In this post, we identify three key factors motivating the Fed review and highlight three principal shifts in the FOMC’s strategy. In addition, we identify several critical questions that the FOMC will need to answer as it seeks to implement the new policy framework. Specifically, the shift to FAIT implies a change in the Committee’s reaction function. How does this reformulated objective influence the FOMC’s systematic response to changes in economic growth, unemployment, inflation and financial conditions? Under FAIT, the effective inflation target over the coming years also now depends on past inflation experience. What is that relationship?

Average Inflation Targeting

The Federal Open Committee’s first-ever comprehensive monetary policy review looks to be coming to an end. Since the announcement on November 15, 2018, the Fed has focused on strategies, tools, and communications practices, and engaged the public through numerous Fed Listens events, including a conference at which invited experts proposed new approaches (see our earlier post). At its July meeting, the FOMC discussed potential changes to its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy—the “foundation for the Committee’s policy actions”—with the aim of finalizing those changes soon. And, Chairman Powell is scheduled to speak this week about the “Monetary Policy Framework Review” at the annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium.

Perhaps the most important issue on the review agenda is the FOMC’s inflation-targeting strategy. Since 2012, the FOMC has explicitly targeted an inflation rate of 2% (measured by the price index of personal consumption expenditures). A key objective of FOMC strategy is to anchor long-term inflation expectations, contributing not only to price stability, but also to “enhancing the Committee’s ability to promote maximum employment in the face of significant economic disturbances.” Yet, since the start of 2012, PCE inflation has averaged only 1.3%, prompting many policymakers to worry that persistent shortfalls drive down expected inflation (see, for example, Williams). And, with the Fed’s policy rate now back down near zero, falling inflation expectations raise the expected real interest rate, tightening financial conditions and undermining policymakers’ efforts to drive up growth and inflation.

In this note, we discuss one alternative to the current approach that has gained wide attention: namely, average inflation targeting. The idea behind average inflation targeting is that, when inflation falls short of the target, it creates the expectation of higher inflation. And, should inflation exceed its target, then it would reduce inflation expectations. Even when the policy rate hits zero, the result is a countercyclical movement in real interest rates that enhances the effectiveness of conventional policy….

Just say no to exchange rate intervention

Whenever possible, policymakers should explore a broad set of options before responding to challenges they face. However, when the President and his advisers recently discussed foreign currency intervention, we hope everyone quickly concluded that it would be a profoundly bad idea.

Before we get started, it is important to explain what foreign currency intervention is and how it is done….

Protecting the Federal Reserve

Last week, President Trump tweeted his intention to nominate Dr. Judy Shelton to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In our view, Dr. Shelton fails to meet the criteria that we previously articulated for membership on the Board. We hope that the Senate will block her nomination.

Our opposition arises from four observations. First, Dr. Shelton’s approach to monetary policy appears to be partisan and opportunistic, posing a threat to Fed independence. Second, for many years, Dr. Shelton argued for replacing the Federal Reserve’s inflation-targeting regime with a gold standard, along with a global fixed-exchange rate regime. In our view, this too would seriously undermine the welfare of nearly all Americans. Third, should Dr. Shelton become a member of the Board, there is a chance that she could become its Chair following Chairman Powell’s term: making her Chair would seriously undermine Fed independence. Finally, Dr. Shelton has proposed eliminating the Fed’s key tool (in a world of abundant reserves) for controlling interest rates—the payment of interest on reserves….

Inflation risks and inflation expectations

U.S. inflation has been low and steady for three decades. This welcome stability is not merely a consequence of good fortune. Shocks that in the past might led to higher trend inflation—like the energy price increases—continue to buffet the economy much as they did in the 1970s and 1980s, when inflation rose to a peacetime record. Rather, it reflects the improved monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, which began acting as an inflation-targeting central bank in the mid-1980s, long before it announced a 2% target for inflation in 2012. As a consequence of the Fed’s sustained efforts, long-run inflation expectations have remained close to 2% for more than 20 years. One result is that temporary disturbances that drive inflation above or below target quickly fade.

This is the optimistic conclusion of the 2017 U.S. Monetary Policy Forum (USMPF) report. Since the adoption of the de facto inflation-targeting regime, one-off shocks have little impact on the inflation trend. Moreover, as many have observed, the relationship between unemployment and inflation—the Phillips curve (see our primer)—is now notably weaker. However, the authors of that earlier report warn that the Phillips curve “flattening” could be a direct consequence of the Fed’s success. Furthermore, since the sample period from 1984 to 2016 excludes any sustained period of a very tight economywide labor market, it would not be possible to detect an outsized impact, if any, of persistently low unemployment on inflation.

Enter the 2019 USMPF report, which focuses on the possibility that inflation may indeed respond differently when the unemployment rate is very low and projected to remain low for several years (see, for example the FOMC’s latest Summary of Economic Projections). The logic is straightforward: if labor is very scarce for an extended period, employers will bid up wages and (unless they are prepared to accept declining profits) pass on those cost increases in the form of higher prices….

FOMC Communication: What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been

Following their January 2019 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) came in for intense criticism. Instead of a truculent President complaining about tightening, this time it was financial market participants grumbling about a sudden accommodative shift. In December 2018, Fed policymakers’ suggested that, if the economy and market conditions evolved as expected, they probably would raise interest rates further in 2019. Faced with changes in the outlook, six weeks later they altered the message, suggesting that going forward, monetary easing and tightening were almost equally likely.

We find the resulting outcry difficult to fathom. The FOMC’s perceptions of the outlook may have been incorrect in December, in January, or both. There are myriad ways for economic and market forecasts to go wrong. But, to secure their long-run objectives of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment, isn’t it sometimes necessary for policymakers to change direction, and when they do, to explain why?

The point is that the recent turmoil arises at least in part from the Fed’s high level of transparency. In this post, we summarize the evolution of Federal Reserve communication policy over the past 30 years, and discuss the importance and likely impact of these changes. While transparency is far from a panacea, we conclude that the evolution has been useful for making policy more effective and sustainable, and remains critical for accountability and democratic legitimacy….

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets