- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Inflation rises to Fed's 2 percent target for first time in 5 years
Posted on 3/31/17 at 9:56 am
Posted on 3/31/17 at 9:56 am
Boom
A little bit of noise in there with energy, but encouraging nonetheless.
quote:
After nearly five years, inflation is finally back at the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported Friday that inflation rose to a 2.1 percent annual rate in February, up from 1.9 percent the month before, according to the personal consumption expenditure price index.
The PCE price index, as it's known, is a different gauge than the more widely-cited consumer price index, but the one favored by the central bank for its inflation target.
A little bit of noise in there with energy, but encouraging nonetheless.
This post was edited on 3/31/17 at 9:58 am
Posted on 3/31/17 at 10:09 am to Lou Pai
good post by Kashkari on why he wanted rates to stay steady from February
(paragraph breaks added by me)
quote:
While the FOMC wants to avoid making forecast errors whenever possible, to the extent that we make them, I would think we’d want our errors to be equally too high and too low. Yet, over the past five years, 100 percent of the medium-term inflation forecasts (midpoints) in the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections have been too high: We keep predicting that inflation is around the corner. How can one explain the FOMC repeatedly making these one-sided errors? One-sided errors are indeed rational if the consequences are asymmetric.
For example, if you are driving down the highway alongside a cliff, you will err by steering away from the cliff, because even one error in the other direction will cause you to fly over the cliff. In a monetary policy context, I believe the FOMC is doing the same thing: Based on our actions rather than our words, we are treating 2 percent as a ceiling rather than a target. I am not necessarily opposed to having an inflation ceiling. The European Central Bank has a 2 percent ceiling instead of a symmetric target.
However, I am opposed to stating we have a target but then behaving as though it were a ceiling.
(paragraph breaks added by me)
Posted on 3/31/17 at 10:11 am to Lou Pai
No more QE & other artificial bullshite from the community agitator.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 10:38 am to Lou Pai
Doubt I'll see a 2% pay increase
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:01 pm to 90proofprofessional
Lol I love how punknugget downvotes you there.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:05 pm to Lou Pai
Yep, for the last five years the Fed has artificially kept inflation at zero to make Obama's "recovery" look stronger than it actually was.
Now that we actually see signs of REAL recovery, inflation needed to be corrected.
Now that we actually see signs of REAL recovery, inflation needed to be corrected.
This post was edited on 3/31/17 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 3/31/17 at 12:06 pm to Lou Pai
Could have been, should have been, and would have been much sooner with effective leadership at the Fed. And previously alleged free market proponents who backed government intervention and picking winners. I remember that debate with you. Social consequences if we would have let banks go broke and had a healthy depression. Yeah, free market.
But, but Trump. Tariffs. Free Markets! Russians!
But, but Trump. Tariffs. Free Markets! Russians!
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:11 pm to Lou Pai
I agree. I found it awfully funny you took that position. It's honorable from a basic human decency perspective, and I applaud you for that. It just never reconciled with your professed free market conservatism. But I guess if you need to depart to a more liberal position, you picked one that had some redeeming value. But from that point on, I read your free market posts as 80% free market, the other 20% fungible.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:13 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
The Bureau of Economic Analysis
sounds like this dept can get axed
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:20 pm to Iowa Golfer
I never have professed to be an anarcho capitalist on here. So I don't know where you are going with that inane strawman.
This post was edited on 3/31/17 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:40 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
with effective leadership at the Fed
pls explain in great detail
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:45 pm to Lou Pai
I'm wondering which part of the "market basket" went up? Saw something recently stating typical food type groceries have recently fallen by 1.6%. Combined with falling/stable fuel prices, would mean about 4% increase in non daily consumables....money board
quote:from USDA (also says 1.7% fall as opposed to the 1.6% I saw somewhere)
Food-at-home prices declined overall in 2016, falling 1.3 percent below 2015 levels. This marks the first annual decline in supermarket prices since 1967.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:50 pm to Lou Pai
It's not a strawman, it's an observation. And it isn't intended to insult. Actually if I pay attention to 80% of what you post and stipulate a lot of the 80% is well thought out, you should take that as a compliment coming from me. I'm a fan of free markets, I'm not a fan of immoral behavior by large financial institutions. Although as I've mentioned on another thread, I try to copy JP Morgan Chase on precious metal trades. Can't beat them, join them. I am a true Christian, which is to say very, very imperfect, and I have a fair amount of profit motive, if left unchecked, quickly goes to greed. I am what I am.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:52 pm to Lou Pai
Good. Time to raise rates so us savers can make a little money.
Posted on 3/31/17 at 2:54 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
pls explain in great detail
OK, like the detail you provided about tax policy? Not a high bar to clear.
Let's start with her not telegraphing, and maybe not giving political speeches right before an election. Then we could move to her comments setting off a foreign central banker to respond about their country's carry trade. But everyone missed that one, even the Russian expert. asked for a link, gave a link. Silence.
She's improved to be fair, but if she went, I don't see many people mourning her loss.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News