Reprinted from Campaign For America's Future
As of midday today, it remains unclear whether or not the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates on Thursday. If it does, it will be the first time rates have been raised since June 2006. Why is this even a matter of debate?
For one thing, it appears that the Fed will be acting alone if it raises rates. This chart shows just how much an outlier the U.S. has become, simply because there is an expectation of tighter monetary policy in the near future:
As Business Insider notes, right now "it's a world of easy monetary policy, meaning low interest rates and, in the case of the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan, outright asset purchases."
It's a world of easy monetary policy ... everywhere, that is, except, the United States. And yet, if the Fed is to be an outlier among central banks, it might be expected to be more concerned about jobs, wages and inequality than its peers -- not less. That's because, unlike other central banks, it has a dual mandate to manage both monetary policy and unemployment.
To be clear, many observers believe the Fed will not raise rates this week. But many of them feel it will do so in the coming months, perhaps in March. Public statements from Fed officials have certainly left the impression that a rate increase could be imminent.
If it does raise rates Thursday, the Fed would be rejecting the advice of many leading economists. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz makes a compelling case against such a move in a Guardian essay headlined "Federal Reserve needs to worry about inequality, not inflation." Stiglitz writes:
"There is strong evidence that economies perform better with a tight labour market and, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has shown, lower inequality (and the former typically leads to the latter)."
Despite the good topline jobs numbers, there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in employment, including minority employment and overall participation in the workforce. Stiglitz details those weaknesses -- weaknesses which would be made worse by an increase in interest rates. Wages would also suffer.
Stiglitz explains:
"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."
Two of President Obama's economic advisors, Lawrence Summers and Gene Sperling, have also weighed in against raising rates this month.
What about the arguments for raising rates? As economist Brad DeLong writes, "The arguments for raising interest rates right now are of appallingly low-quality." DeLong also suggests that "to establish credibility that its 2%/year inflation target is an average, and not a ceiling, (the Fed) needs to overshoot it for a period of time in the near future."
So why is a rate increase even a possibility?
One clue can be found in Stiglitz' observation that "the argument for raising interest rates focuses not on the wellbeing of workers, but that of the financiers." Despite the fact that it's a publicly created institution, bankers and other private interests are very involved in the governance of the Federal Reserve.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
