Economics
A target band for inflation?
David Beckworth directed me to this tweet:
If the Fed had a single mandate to target inflation, then there would be an argument for switching from a…

David Beckworth directed me to this tweet:
If the Fed had a single mandate to target inflation, then there would be an argument for switching from a point target like 2% to a band such as 1.5% to 2.5%. But the Fed has a dual mandate, under which an inflation band would be completely pointless. The Fed already allows inflation to fluctuate above and below 2% as required to achieve the high employment side of their mandate.
Calling something “pointless” might be viewed as mild criticism, but I have other concerns. I fear that something like this might be the sole outcome of the next Fed review of its operating procedure, which is scheduled for 2025. In that case, an inflation band would shift from pointless to deplorable.
The past two years have clearly demonstrated that the Fed is off track, and it’s not hard to see where the problem lies. Fed policy since 2021 has been far too expansionary. The biggest problem seems to have been the Fed’s “flexible average inflation target”, which despite its name does not call for flexible average inflation targeting. The best outcome for the Fed upcoming policy review would be to actually adopt flexible average inflation targeting. Under this regime, the Fed would make up for inflation overshoots with lower than 2% inflation going forward, and inflation undershoots with above 2% inflation going forward. Over longer periods, the Fed would keep the average inflation rate close to 2%. Obviously, the Fed isn’t doing that today. The policy must be symmetrical.
As for the “flexible” part of the policy, the Fed would allow transitory deviations from 2% inflation due to supply shocks. The best way of implementing flexible average inflation targeting would be to set a target path for the level of NGDP at a rate of 2% plus the Fed’s estimate of long run RGDP growth. Those trend growth estimates might be updated every 5 or 10 years.
I’d actually prefer a simple NGDP level target, but as long as Congress gives the Fed a mandate for stable prices, they cannot entirely ignore inflation. Fortunately, the two options are pretty similar in practice, as long run growth trends change very slowly over time.
(0 COMMENTS)
inflation
policy
fed
expansionary

Why Did Bill Gates Make Sudden U-Turn On Climate Doom Narrative?
Why Did Bill Gates Make Sudden U-Turn On Climate Doom Narrative?
Microsoft co-founder, philanthropist, and climate alarmist Bill Gates has…
Time to Load up on Gold and Silver
Source: Michael Ballanger 09/22/2023
Michael Ballanger of GGM Advisory Inc. takes a look at the current state of the gold and silver market…
UAW Strike Eventual Agreement Could Carry Inflationary Implications
Source: McAlinden Research 09/22/2023
McAlinden Research takes a look at the current implications that may come from UAW strike.The United…
-
Base Metals23 hours ago
Study estimates 23M people may be affected by potentially dangerous concentrations of toxic waste from metal mining
-
Uncategorized13 hours ago
Copper Road intersects broad zones of visible copper mineralization at its namesake project in Ontario – Richard Mills
-
Companies13 hours ago
Max discovers new copper-silver target at CESAR – Richard Mills
-
Precious Metals16 hours ago
Time to Load up on Gold and Silver
-
Base Metals22 hours ago
Salzgitter orders 100 MW green hydrogen plant from ANDRITZ for low CO2 steel production: SALCOS
-
Financing News14 hours ago
1844 Announces a Non-Brokered Private Placement of Flow-Through Units, Extends the Previously Announced Private Placement of $2,000,000 and Provides Update Regarding Option Agreement
-
Energy & Critical Metals20 hours ago
An Improved FedEx Can Deliver A New High: This Is Why
-
Economics16 hours ago
UAW Strike Eventual Agreement Could Carry Inflationary Implications