Supply shock

To improve Fed policy, improve communications

Since May 2021, we have criticized the Federal Reserve’s lagging response to surging inflation. In our view, both policy and communications were inadequate to address the looming challenge. Early this year, we argued that the Fed created a policy crisis by refusing to acknowledge the rise of trend inflation, maintaining a hyper-expansionary policy well after trend inflation reached levels far above their 2% target, and failing to articulate a credible low-inflation policy.

Against this background, we commend the FOMC for its recent efforts. Not only is policy moving quickly in the right direction, but communication improved markedly. In particular, despite the increasing likelihood of a near-term recession, Chair Powell made clear that price stability is necessary for achieving the second part of the Fed’s dual mandate. We suspect that the combination of the Fed’s recent promise to make policy restrictive, along with its improved communications, is playing a key role in anchoring longer-term inflation expectations.

In this post, we focus on central bank communication and its link to policy setting. By far the most important goal of communication is to clarify the authorities’ reaction function: the systematic response of central bank policy to prospective changes in key economy-wide fundamentals—usually inflation and the unemployment rate.

To anticipate our conclusions, we argue for two changes to the FOMC’s quarterly Summary of Economic Projections to better illuminate the Committee reaction function. First, we encourage publication of more detail on individual participants’ responses to link individual projections of inflation, economic growth, and unemployment to the path of the policy rate. Second, we see a role for scenario analysis in which FOMC participants provide their anticipated policy path contingent on one or more adverse supply shocks that present unappealing policy tradeoffs (for example, between the speed of returning inflation to its target and the pace at which the unemployment rate returns to its sustainable level)….

Read More

Can vacancies plunge without a significant rise of unemployment?

The primary objective of central bankers is to maintain low and stable inflation. While this task was never easy, the recent bout of large, adverse supply shocks—from the pandemic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine—combined with massive demand stimulus (both fiscal and monetary) made the task of securing price stability far more difficult.

Our favored indicator of the inflation trend, the Dallas Fed’s trimmed mean PCE price index, rose at a 4.4% annual rate over the past six months, and seems to be accelerating. Furthermore, while activity has slowed, the U.S. labor market remains extraordinarily tight: there are nearly two vacancies for each person who is unemployed—well above the peaks of the early 1950s and the late 1960s.

Against this background, a large, recession-free disinflation seems highly unlikely to us (see our recent post). In theory, a plunge of vacancies could cool a very hot labor market without raising unemployment (see, for example, Waller). In practice, however, the behavior of the relationship between vacancies and unemployment since 1950—what is known as the Beveridge Curve—suggests that this is very unlikely (see Blanchard, Domash and Summers).

That is the subject of this post….

Read More

The Costs of Acting Too Little, Too Late

Central bankers that act too little too late risk inflation, recession, or both. Everyone, including the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, knows that the FOMC is late in its current campaign to restore price stability. This makes it essential that they do not do too little.

In this post, we highlight the continued gap between the lessons of past disinflations and the Fed’s hopes and aspirations. We find it difficult to square the FOMC’s latest projections of falling inflation with only modest policy restraint. Simply put, we doubt that the peak projected policy rate from the June Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) will be sufficient to lower inflation to 2% in the absence of a recession.

In our view, boosting the credibility of the FOMC’s price stability commitment will require not only greater realism, but a clarification of how policy would evolve if, as in past large disinflations, the unemployment rate rises by several percentage points. The overly sanguine June SEP simply does not address this key question. Indeed, no FOMC participant anticipates the unemployment rate to rise above 4½% over the forecast horizon….

Read More

Harry Potter's Monetary Policy Wand?

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is reassuring us that, so long as we are patient, price stability will return without further pain. But its narrative seems less grounded in historical experience and more like something Harry Potter might have conjured at Hogwarts. By the end of 2024, the Committee expects trend inflation (measured by the price index of personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy) to drop by more than 3 percentage points while economic growth remains above (and the unemployment rate below) its sustainable level. And, all this magic materializes with the real (inflation-adjusted) policy rate barely turning positive.

The principal means by which the Fed affects the inflation outlook is by influencing financial conditions. Yet, having telegraphed its policy shift for months, the FOMC’s most recent actions on March 16—initiating a series of rate hikes and suggesting that balance sheet tapering could begin soon—barely affected the ease with which firms and households obtain financing. And, while financial conditions are indeed a bit tighter than six months ago—when about one-half of FOMC participants anticipated no interest rate hikes in 2022—these conditions remain quite accommodative (see here).

Is the FOMC’s current policy path consistent with its longer-term price stability goals? In this post, we address this question by exploring policymakers’ newly published projections. Our conclusion is that bringing the inflation trend back to 2% will require a tightening of financial conditions significantly beyond what the Fed currently envisions….

Read More

Russian Sanctions: Questions and Answers

This post is authored jointly with our friend and colleague, Professor Richard Berner, Co-Director of the NYU Stern Volatility and Risk Institute.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is altering global security and economic relationships. In this post, we focus on the financial and trade sanctions imposed on Russia. These sanctions are the most powerful and costly punishments imposed on a major economy at least since the Cold War. Their speed, breadth and coordinated global support appear unprecedented.

Not surprisingly, the impact is immediately visible. The damage to the Russian economy and financial system includes, but is not limited to, a plunge of the ruble (by about 40 percent versus the dollar over the past month amid heightened volatility); runs on domestic banks; a sharp hike in the central bank’s policy rate; imposition of capital controls; shutdown of the Russian stock market; collapse in the value of Russian companies traded on foreign stock exchanges; removal of Russian equities from global indexes; and the collapse of Russia’s sovereign credit rating to junk status.

The purpose of this post is to pose and provisionally answer a series of questions raised by this new sanctions regime.…

Read More

Stagflation: A Primer

The term stagflation came into common use in the mid-1970s, when many advanced economies experienced higher inflation and slower growth than they had in the 1960s. At the time, the joint behavior of inflation and economic growth confused many economists. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, growth and inflation generally moved in the same direction. Most important, inflation tended to fall during recessions and to rise in booms. Stagflation meant that these two key summary measures of macroeconomic performance moved in opposite directions. What caused this dramatic, painful, and persistent shift?

To understand the sources of stagflation in the 1970s—and how we subsequently avoided a repeat of that episode (at least so far)—we start with the simple premise that there are two types of disturbances hitting the economy: demand and supply. The first, changes in demand, moves inflation and growth in the same direction. The broad array of things that shift demand include fluctuations in consumer or business confidence, shifts in government tax and expenditure policy, and variation in the appeal of imports to domestic residents or of exports to foreigners. When any of these goes up or down, inflation and output rise and fall together.

Supply disturbances—which alter the cost of production—are fundamentally different. These stagflationary shocks move growth and inflation in opposite directions. For example, an adverse supply shock that raises the cost of production at least temporarily drives inflation up and growth down.

Importantly, these cost shocks cannot be the whole story behind a decade-long surge of inflation. Whether the consequences of a cost shock are one-off adjustments in the price level or an increase of the trend of inflation depends on the monetary policy response. Put differently, monetary policy determines whether we experience stagflation over any longer interval….

Read More

The Price is Not Right: Measuring Inflation in a Pandemic

Are prices really plummeting? If you watch the official government gauge of prices in the economy, you would think so. Between March and April, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) dropped by 0.8 percent―that’s a decline of 9.1 percent at an annual rate! Even if we exclude food and energy, prices still fell at half that rate. And, both price measures already had begun to fall the previous month. Is this the new trend? Are we in the midst of a deflation? The short answer is no.

The pandemic is an enormous shock to both supply and demand (see our earlier post). The productive capacity of the economy is lower both now (with the lockdown) and in the medium term (with the need to make economic activity biologically safer). Similarly, demand is lower both temporarily while people stay at home and in the longer term as the propensity to save rises to enable people to pay off elevated debts and build precautionary buffers. Determining which of these shifts prevails is essential for policymakers. If the demand contraction dominates, then trend inflation will fall and policymakers will need to implement further expansionary policies. Conversely, if trend inflation rises (implying that the supply constraints prevail), then policymakers will eventually need to introduce restraint.

In this post, we discuss the difficulties of measuring inflation during a pandemic—when demand and supply both shift dramatically. Our conclusion is that some indices provide better high-frequency signals of the trend. Unsurprisingly, headline measures of inflation are especially poor. Yet, traditional measures of “core inflation” that exclude food and energy may be equally bad. Instead, we suggest focusing on the “trimmed mean,” a statistical construct that disregards all goods and services whose prices change by the largest amounts (either up or down). In recent months, the trimmed mean CPI shows suggest that inflation has edged lower, but remains between 1½ and 2 percent per year….

Read More

COVID-19: What can monetary policy do?

Two weeks prior to their regularly scheduled mid-March meeting, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted unanimously to cut their target policy rate by 50 basis points to the 1 to 1¼ percent range. Policymakers attributed their exceptional decision to the “evolving risks” posed by the coronavirus. This move was the first inter-meeting policy rate shift, and the largest cut, since late 2008, at the depth of the financial crisis. Moreover, this time the move came against the background of a strong economy. Nevertheless, based on futures prices, market participants anticipate a further 75-basis-point cut in the target federal funds rate this month!

The coronavirus has thrust us into uncharted territory. Do central bankers really have any tools to guide us back to safer ground?

In the remainder of this post, we discuss the importance for policymakers of distinguishing between shocks to aggregate supply and demand. Importantly, while monetary policy can combat demand shocks, it can do nothing to cushion the impact of reductions in supply without sacrificing the commitment to price stability. The coronavirus shock involves some as-yet-unknown mix of these two very different types of shocks. Yet, given the limited amount of conventional policy space, and the decline of long-term inflation expectations, there is a good case for the FOMC to act rapidly and aggressively….

Read More

Inflation Policy

Inflation in the United States remains at levels that most people don’t really notice. Overall, the consumer price index rose 2.8 percent from May 2017 to May 2018. And, when you look at core measures, the trend is still below 2 percent.

With inflation and inflation expectations still so benign, it is no wonder that despite solid economic growth and the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years the Federal Open Market Committee continues to act quite gradually (see their June 2018 statement). Inflation could well turn up in the near term—perhaps by more than the policymakers expect. But, for reasons that we will explain, if we were on the FOMC, we would stay the planned course: remain vigilant, but certainly not panic.

We start with a look at the data. What we see is that trend inflation has stayed reasonably close to the Fed’s medium-term target of 2 percent for the past two decades. There have been occasional deviations, like the temporary rise in 2008 and again in 2011, but overall, the path is remarkably stable….

Read More