Janet Yellen: Good choice, or too soon to tell?

[AdelanteGOP]

Hello Gretel!

 

[AdelanteGOP]

I love Janet Yellen!

 

[austinnn]

well, personally, i don't see why she would be a bad choice as chair person, because if the FED has kept her around as long as she has been, there should be little to no argument if she should be in or not. Can anything happen? Yes, but we will never know until we give her a chance.

 

[KatCoonClaws]

WASSSSSSSSSUUUUPPPPP lang lang where r u

 

[BLKDMNDS]

its to soon to tell because anything can happenn

 

[Liani]

I think Janet Yellen is a great chair woman; she explains and give so much information and facts about econ. Giving her a logical chance to perform high academic FED decision whether we should plan to help the low interest rates would be a good one!

I love Janet

 

[waltky]

Possible interest rate hike in almost 10 years...

Pressure builds within Fed to signal new policy course
24 Aug.`14 - Pressure is building within the Federal Reserve for officials to move as early as next month to more clearly acknowledge improvements in the U.S. economy and lay the groundwork for the central bank’s first interest rate hike in nearly a decade.

According to some U.S. central bankers and their close advisers, signs of economic resilience and growing anxiety about the risks of holding rates too low for too long have set the stage for an intense debate over rewriting their policy statement. It is uncertain whether officials will use their upcoming meeting on Sept. 16 and 17 to scrap key parts of the language they have been using to keep rate-hike expectations at bay, but if they do not, October looks like a good bet. "Some shift of language is on the table, and should be on the table in the coming meetings," Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Dennis Lockhart, a policy centrist, said in an interview. While a handful of officials have argued for prompt changes, Lockhart said he thinks September "is still early."

Adding, dropping or adjusting even a few words in the Fed's post-meeting statement is a potentially treacherous task. A miscommunication by the world's most powerful central bank could shock financial markets globally and, in a worst case, reverse the economic recovery it seeks to foster. At issue is a 5-month old pledge from the Fed to keep benchmark rates near zero for a "considerable time" after it shelves an asset-purchase program in October.

Another line that has drawn internal objections is the month-old statement that "significant" slack remains in the labor market, a suggestion that not even strong job growth and a further drop in unemployment will prompt a tightening of policy any time soon. "The language puts us in a box that I think is not a good box to be in," Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser told Reuters on the sidelines of the central bank's annual Jackson Hole conference.

Plosser dissented against the "considerable time" line at the Fed's last meeting in late July. Like fellow hawks at the central bank, he said he prefers "very simple, data-dependent" guidance that avoids timelines or calendar dates.

WARY EYE ON GLOBAL GROWTH

 

[oldfart]

Possible interest rate hike in almost 10 years...

Pressure builds within Fed to signal new policy course
24 Aug.`14 - Pressure is building within the Federal Reserve for officials to move as early as next month to more clearly acknowledge improvements in the U.S. economy and lay the groundwork for the central bank’s first interest rate hike in nearly a decade.

According to some U.S. central bankers and their close advisers, signs of economic resilience and growing anxiety about the risks of holding rates too low for too long have set the stage for an intense debate over rewriting their policy statement. It is uncertain whether officials will use their upcoming meeting on Sept. 16 and 17 to scrap key parts of the language they have been using to keep rate-hike expectations at bay, but if they do not, October looks like a good bet. "Some shift of language is on the table, and should be on the table in the coming meetings," Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Dennis Lockhart, a policy centrist, said in an interview. While a handful of officials have argued for prompt changes, Lockhart said he thinks September "is still early."

Adding, dropping or adjusting even a few words in the Fed's post-meeting statement is a potentially treacherous task. A miscommunication by the world's most powerful central bank could shock financial markets globally and, in a worst case, reverse the economic recovery it seeks to foster. At issue is a 5-month old pledge from the Fed to keep benchmark rates near zero for a "considerable time" after it shelves an asset-purchase program in October.

Another line that has drawn internal objections is the month-old statement that "significant" slack remains in the labor market, a suggestion that not even strong job growth and a further drop in unemployment will prompt a tightening of policy any time soon. "The language puts us in a box that I think is not a good box to be in," Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser told Reuters on the sidelines of the central bank's annual Jackson Hole conference.

Plosser dissented against the "considerable time" line at the Fed's last meeting in late July. Like fellow hawks at the central bank, he said he prefers "very simple, data-dependent" guidance that avoids timelines or calendar dates.

WARY EYE ON GLOBAL GROWTH

Raising interest rates at this point is the epitome of stupid. Europe is sliding into another recession and real wages in the United States are still falling. There is absolutely no evidence of inflationary pressure anywhere.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Possible interest rate hike in almost 10 years...

Pressure builds within Fed to signal new policy course
24 Aug.`14 - Pressure is building within the Federal Reserve for officials to move as early as next month to more clearly acknowledge improvements in the U.S. economy and lay the groundwork for the central bank’s first interest rate hike in nearly a decade.

According to some U.S. central bankers and their close advisers, signs of economic resilience and growing anxiety about the risks of holding rates too low for too long have set the stage for an intense debate over rewriting their policy statement. It is uncertain whether officials will use their upcoming meeting on Sept. 16 and 17 to scrap key parts of the language they have been using to keep rate-hike expectations at bay, but if they do not, October looks like a good bet. "Some shift of language is on the table, and should be on the table in the coming meetings," Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Dennis Lockhart, a policy centrist, said in an interview. While a handful of officials have argued for prompt changes, Lockhart said he thinks September "is still early."

Adding, dropping or adjusting even a few words in the Fed's post-meeting statement is a potentially treacherous task. A miscommunication by the world's most powerful central bank could shock financial markets globally and, in a worst case, reverse the economic recovery it seeks to foster. At issue is a 5-month old pledge from the Fed to keep benchmark rates near zero for a "considerable time" after it shelves an asset-purchase program in October.

Another line that has drawn internal objections is the month-old statement that "significant" slack remains in the labor market, a suggestion that not even strong job growth and a further drop in unemployment will prompt a tightening of policy any time soon. "The language puts us in a box that I think is not a good box to be in," Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser told Reuters on the sidelines of the central bank's annual Jackson Hole conference.

Plosser dissented against the "considerable time" line at the Fed's last meeting in late July. Like fellow hawks at the central bank, he said he prefers "very simple, data-dependent" guidance that avoids timelines or calendar dates.

WARY EYE ON GLOBAL GROWTH

Raising interest rates at this point is the epitome of stupid. Europe is sliding into another recession and real wages in the United States are still falling. There is absolutely no evidence of inflationary pressure anywhere.

there is plenty of evidence of capital misallocation though with rates so low for so long. Those distortions will help keep growth well off what it should be. Best policy would be to end corporate taxes, make unions illegal, and raise rates so markets begin to work again!

 

[MisterBeale]

The natural assumption here is that debt based currency is a good idea and that we should even have a national Bank.

Thomas Jefferson thought having a national bank was unconstitutional and it was a stupid idea. Hamilton disagreed, but he was a stooge of the bankers.

AdelanteGOP, I think you do a great disservice to your students to just assume that the FED is, a priori, beneficial to have before you even have the discussion of whether the choice of chair is a good one.

Who cares? Get rid of this corrupt institution. It is the cause of all the nation's problems. The booms, the busts, deflation, inflation. It is in the interest of the bankers and the military-industrial-complex to create WAR. Does the class think war for the sake of fighting is a good idea?

Most of these kids would love to see a raise in the minimum wage. What they really want to see, is not so much more money, but to see the purchasing power of the dollar not to be destroyed. Who is responsible for the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar being destroyed since the creation of the FED? It's the bankers and their minions.





If you view the above video you will be aware of how much excess reserves are in the system because of the MBS that still have not been dealt with.

This is what Yellen wrote in this FOMC meeting report; http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20090624meeting.pdf

The bottom line for me is that we likely will need to maintain the current stance of policy for a very long time to get back to full employment, and my main concern is that markets will anticipate and we may be tempted to withdraw our accommodation too soon, thereby aborting the recovery. Christina Romer recently wrote a pertinent essay for The Economist on “The Lessons of 1937” that you may have read. As many of you know, in that year, following two years of robust recovery, the Federal Reserve tightened policy too soon because it was worried about large quantities of excess reserves in the banking system. The economy plunged back into depression, and I believe that a parallel can be found in Japan’s experience of the 1990s as well.

And yet, as soon as she is sworn in, she changes policy? Seriously?