Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumSenator Warren Calls out Chair Powell for Fed's Plan to Throw At Least 2 Million People Out of Work
progressoid
(52,599 posts)peppertree
(23,132 posts)Worked for Greenspan against Al Gore.
SheltieLover
(76,897 posts)peppertree
(23,132 posts)He made sure to put in a partisan at the Fed (though, as I recall, he originally wanted someone much more partisan - like Judy Shelton).
A Fed Chair can, of course, make or break a president's re-election chances.
We'll see.
SheltieLover
(76,897 posts)ColinC
(11,098 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(22,063 posts)Warren acknowledges at the beginning of the clip there are other factors at play that Powell has no control over, but she doesnt acknowledge that the legislative branch does have control over, such as price gouging and tax cuts for the rich.
Unfortunately the legislative branch couldnt act to address those factors because of Manchin, Sinema and the filibuster. Repealing the Trump tax cuts, and even increasing taxes on billionaires would have had significant effect on inflation, but, alas
Powell really has only one weapon against inflation, and that is interest rates. Historically, the average fed rate runs in the 5-7% range (the rates have been abnormally low since the 2008 GFC, began to creep up, then COVID smacked them down again). Currently, the Feds rate is at 4.5%, below the historic average. Powells target was originally 5.1%, but since inflation isnt cooling enough, quickly enough, he may go higher.
Powells only mistake was waiting too long to begin hiking rates, so he had to make larger hikes more frequently.
Currently unemployment is at 3.5%, a 50 year low. Only us old boomers have seen it this low before. Full employment is considered to be reached when unemployment is at or below 5%. Warren states that, with Powells projected hikes, the unemployment rate will rise to 4.6%, putting 2 million people out of work, yet 4.6% is still considered to be full employment.
Now, if Powell were to pause hikes, those 2 million people might keep their jobs, but inflation would continue to grow, affecting all 330 million Americans. So the dilemma is: which is worse? Sacrificing 2 million jobs (which may only be temporary as tons of new jobs are being created by infrastructure and manufacturing projects made possible by the IRA, as well as millions of boomer retiring), or risking double digit inflation? (which again, us old boomers remember from the late 70s/early 80s)
Which scenario, 4.6% unemployment, or double digit inflation, is worse for Dems in the 2024 election? (The answer should be obvious)
Sucha NastyWoman
(3,018 posts)If we could just get those 2 million unemployed enough unemployment compensation to really help them so that inflation could be controlled, that seems like the best scenario to me
mountain grammy
(28,686 posts)soldierant
(9,287 posts)I submit Robert Reich -
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-relying-on-further-interest-rate