Tag: Monetary Policy

Should We Turn Monetary Policy over to Generative Artificial Intelligence?

Image generated by ChatGTP-4o One of the key issues in monetary policy—dating back decades—is whether policy should be governed by a rule or whether the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should make “data-driven” decisions. Currently, the FOMC believes that the best approach is to let macroeconomic data drive decisions about the appropriate target … Continue reading “Should We Turn Monetary Policy over to Generative Artificial Intelligence?”

Image generated by ChatGTP-4o

One of the key issues in monetary policy—dating back decades—is whether policy should be governed by a rule or whether the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should make “data-driven” decisions. Currently, the FOMC believes that the best approach is to let macroeconomic data drive decisions about the appropriate target for the federal funds rate rather than to allow a policy rule to determine the target.

In its most recent Monetary Policy Report to Congress, the Fed’s Board of Governors noted that policy rules “can provide useful benchmarks for the consideration of monetary policy. However, simple rules cannot capture all of the complex considerations that go into the formation of appropriate monetary policy, and many practical considerations make it undesirable for the FOMC to adhere strictly to the prescriptions of any specific rule.” We discuss the debate over monetary policy rules—sometimes described as the debate over “rules versus discretion” in conducting policy—in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5.)

Probably the best known advocate of the Fed relying on policy rules is John Taylor of Stanford University. The Taylor rule for monetary policy begins with an estimate of the value of the real federal funds rate, which is the federal funds rate—adjusted for inflation—that would be consistent with real GDP being equal to potential real GDP in the long run. With real GDP equal to potential real GDP, cyclical unemployment should be zero, and the Fed will have attained its policy goal of maximum employment, as the Fed defines it.

According to the Taylor rule, the Fed should set its current federal funds rate target equal to the sum of the current inflation rate, the equilibrium real federal funds rate, and two additional terms. The first of these terms is the inflation gap—the difference between current inflation and the target rate (currently 2 percent, as measured by the percentage change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index; the second term is the output gap—the percentage difference of real GDP from potential real GDP. The inflation gap and the output gap are each given “weights” that reflect their influence on the federal funds rate target. With weights of one-half for both gaps, we have the following Taylor rule:

Federal funds rate target = Current inflation rate + Equilibrium real federal funds rate + (1/2 × Inflation gap) + (1/2 × Output gap).

So when the inflation rate is above the Fed’s target rate, the FOMC will raise the target for the federal funds rate. Similarly, when the output gap is negative—that is, when real GDP is less than potential GDP—the FOMC will lower the target for the federal funds rate. In calibrating this rule, Taylor assumed that the equilibrium real federal funds rate is 2 percent and the target rate of inflation is 2 percent. (Note that the Taylor rule we are using here was the one Taylor first proposed in 1993. Since that time, Taylor and other economists have also analyzed other similar rules with, for instance, an assumption of a lower equilibrium real federal funds rate.)

The following figure shows the level of the federal funds rate that would have occurred if the Fed had strictly followed the original Taylor rule (the blue line) and the actual federal funds rate (the red line). The figure indicates that because during many years the two lines are close together, the Taylor rule does a reasonable job of explaining Federal Reserve policy. There are noticeable exceptions, however, such as the period of high inflation that began in the spring of 2021. During that period, the Taylor rule indicates that the FOMC should have begun raising its target for the federal funds rate earlier and raised it much higher than it did.

Taylor has presented a number of arguments in favor of the Fed relying on a rule in conducting monetary policy, including the following:

  1. A simple policy rule (such as the Taylor rule) makes it easier for households, firms, and investors to understand Fed policy.
  2. Conducting policy according to a rule makes it less likely that households, firms, and investors will be surprised by Fed policy.
  3. Fed policy is less likely to be subject to political pressure if it follows a rule: “If monetary policy appears to be run in an ad hoc and complicated way rather than a systematic way, then politicians may argue that they can be just as ad hoc and interfere with monetary policy decisions.”
  4. Following a rule makes it easier to hold the Fed accountable for policy errors.

The Fed hasn’t been persuaded by Taylor’s arguments, preferring its current data-driven approach. In setting monetary policy, the members of the FOMC believe in the importance of being forward looking, attempting to take into account the future paths of inflation and unemployment. But committee members can struggle to accurately forecast inflation and unemployment. For instance, at the time of the June 2021 meeting of the FOMC, inflation had already risen above 4%. Nevertheless, committee members forecast that inflation in 2022 would be 2.1%. Inflation in 2022 turned out to be much higher—6.6%.

To succeed with a data-driven approach to policy, members of the FOMC must be able to correctly interpret the importance of new data on economic variables as it becomes available and also accurately forecast the effects of policy changes on key variables, particularly unemployment and inflation. How do the committee members approach these tasks? To some extent they rely on formal economic models, such as those developed by the economists on the committee’s staff. But, judging by their speeches and media interviews, committee members also rely on qualitative analysis in interpreting new data and in forming their expectations of how monetary policy will affect the economy.

In recent years, generative artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) programs have made great strides in analyzing large data sets. Should the Fed rely more heavily on these programs in conducting monetary policy? The Fed is currently only in the beginning stages of incorporating AI into its operations. In 2024, the Fed appointed a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer (CAIO) to coordinate its AI initiatives. Initially, the Fed has used AI primarily in the areas of supervising the payment system and promoting financial stability. AI has the ability to quickly analyze millions of financial transactions to identify those that may be fraudulent or may not be in compliance with financial and banking regulations. How households, firms, and investors respond to Fed policies is an important part of how effective the policies will be. The Fed staff has used AI to analyze how financial markets are likely to react to FOMC policy announcements.

The Central Bank of Canada has gone further than the Fed in using AI. According to Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, AI is used to:

• forecast inflation, economic activity and demand for bank notes
• track sentiment in key sectors of the economy
• clean and verify regulatory data
• improve efficiency and de-risk operations

Will central banks begin to use AI to carry out the key activity of setting policy interest rates, such as the federal funds rate in the United States? AI has the potential to adjust the federal funds rate more promptly than the members of the FOMC are able to do in their eight yearly meetings. Will it happen? At this point, generative AI and ML models are not capable of taking on that responsibility. In addition, as noted earlier, Taylor and other supporters of rules-based policies have argued that simple rules are necessary for the public to understand Fed policy. AI generated rules are likely to be too complex to be readily understood by non-specialists.

It’s too early in the process of central banks adopting AI in their operations to know the eventual outcome. But AI is likely to have a significant effect on central banks, just as it is already affecting many businesses.

A Disagreement between Fed Chair Powell and Fed Governor Waller over Monetary Policy, and Can President Trump Replace Powell?

In this photo of a Federal Open Market Committee meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell is on the far left and Fed Governor Christopher Waller is the third person to Powell’s left. (Photo from federalreserve.gov)

This post discusses two developments this week that involve the Federal Reserve. First, we discuss the apparent disagreement between Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Fed Governor Christopher Waller over the best way to respond to the Trump Administration’s tariff increases. As we discuss in this blog post and in this podcast, in terms of the aggregate demand and aggregate supply model, a large unexpected increase in tariffs results in an aggregate supply shock to the economy, shifting the short-run aggregate supply curve (SRAS) to the left. The following is Figure 13.7 from Macroeconomics (Figure 23.7 from Economics) and illustrates the effects of an aggregate supply shock on short-run macroeconomic equilibrium.

Although the figure shows the effects of an aggregate supply shock that results from an unexpected increase in oil prices, using this model, the result is the same for an aggregate supply shock caused by an unexpected increase in tariffs. Two-thirds of U.S. imports are raw materials, intermediate goods, or capital goods, all of which are used as inputs by U.S. firms. So, in both the case of an increase in oil prices and in the case of an increase in tariffs, the result of the supply shock is an increase in U.S. firms’ production costs. This increase in costs reduces the quantity of goods firms will supply at every price level, shifting the SRAS curve to the left, as shown in panel (a) of the figure. In the new macroeconomic equilibrium, point B in panel (a), the price level increases and the level of real GDP declines. The decline in real GDP will likely result in an increase in the unemployment rate.

An aggregate supply shock poses a policy dilemma for the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). If the FOMC responds to the decline n real GDP and the increase in the unemployment rate with an expansionary monetary policy of lowering the target for the federal funds rate, the result is likely to be a further increase in the price level. Using a contractionary monetary policy of increasing the target for the federla funds rate to deal with the rising price level can cause real GDP to fall further, possibly pushing the economy into a recession. One way to avoid the policy dilemma from an aggregate supply shock caused by an increase in tariffs is for the FOMC to “look through”—that is, not respond—to the increase in tariffs. As panel (b) in the figure shows, if the FOMC looks through the tariff increase, the effect of the aggregate supply shock can be transitory as the economy absorbs the one-time increase in the price level. In time, real GDP will return to equilibrium at potential real GDP and the unemployment rate will fall back to the natural rate of unemployment.

On Monday (April 14), Fed Governor Christopher Waller in a speech to the Certified Financial Analysts Society of St. Louis made the argument for either looking through the macroeconomic effects of the tariff increase—even if the tariff increase turns out to be large, which at this time is unclear—or responding to the negative effects of the tariffs increases on real GDP and unemployment:

“I am saying that I expect that elevated inflation would be temporary, and ‘temporary’ is another word for ‘transitory.’ Despite the fact that the last surge of inflation beginning in 2021 lasted longer than I and other policymakers initially expected, my best judgment is that higher inflation from tariffs will be temporary…. While I expect the inflationary effects of higher tariffs to be temporary, their effects on output and employment could be longer-lasting and an important factor in determining the appropriate stance of monetary policy. If the slowdown is significant and even threatens a recession, then I would expect to favor cutting the FOMC’s policy rate sooner, and to a greater extent than I had previously thought.”

In a press conference after the last FOMC meeting on March 19, Fed Chair Jerome Powell took a similar position, arguing that: “If there’s an inflation that’s going to go away on its own, it’s not the correct response to tighten policy.” But in a speech yesterday (April 16) at the Economic Club of Chicago, Powell indicated that looking through the increase in the price level resulting from a tariff increase might be a mistake:

“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated. The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. Both survey- and market-based measures of near-term inflation expectations have moved up significantly, with survey participants pointing to tariffs…. Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. The inflationary effects could also be more persistent…. Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem.”

In a discussion following his speech, Powell argued that tariff increases may disrupt global supply chains for some U.S. industries, such as automobiles, in way that could be similar to the disruptions caused by the Covid pandemic of 2020. As a result: “When you think about supply disruptions, that is the kind of thing that can take time to resolve and it can lead what would’ve been a one-time inflation shock to be extended, perhaps more persistent.” Whereas Waller seemed to indicate that as a result of the tariff increases the FOMC might be led to cut its target for the federal funds sooner or to larger extent in order to meet the maximum employment part of its dual mandate, Powell seemed to indicate that the FOMC might keep its target unchanged longer in order to meet the price stability part of the dual mandate.

Powell’s speech caught the notice of President Donald Trump who has been pushing the FOMC to cut its target for the federal funds rate sooner. An article in the Wall Street Journal, quoted Trump as posting to social media that: “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Powell’s term as Fed chair is scheduled to end in May 2026. Does Trump have the legal authority to replace Powell earlier than that? As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 27 (Economics Chapter 17), according to the Federal Reserve Act, once a Fed chair is notimated to a four-year term by the president (President Trump first nominated Powell to be chair in 2017 and Powell took office in 2018) and confirmed by the Senate, the president cannot remove the Fed chair except “for cause.” Most legal scholars argue that a president cannot remove a Fed chair due to a disagreement over monetary policy.

Article I, Section II of the Constitution of the United States states that: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The ability of Congress to limit the president’s power to appoint and remove heads of commissions, agencies, and other bodies in the executive branch of government—such as the Federal Reserve—is not clearly specified in the Constitution. In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that President Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) because in creating the FTC, Congress specified that members could only be removed for cause. Legal scholars have presumed that the ruling in this case would also bar attempts by a president to remove members of the Fed’s Board of Governors because of a disagreement over monetary policy.

The Trump Administration recently fired a member of the National Labor Relations Board and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The members sued and the Supreme Court is considering the case. The Trump Adminstration is asking the Court to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision as having been wrongly decided because the decision infringed on the executive power given to the president by the Constitution. If the Court agrees with the administration and overturns the precdent established by Humphrey’s Executor, would President Trump be free to fire Chair Powell before Powell’s term ends? (An overview of the issues involved in this Court case can be found in this article from the Associated Press.)

The answer isn’t clear because, as we’ve noted in Macroeconomics, Chapter 14, Section 14.4, Congress gave the Fed an unusual hybrid public-private structure and the ability to fund its own operations without needing appropriations from Congress. It’s possible that the Court would rule that in overturning Humphrey’s Executor—if the Court should decide to do that—it wasn’t authorizing the president to replace the Fed chair at will. In response to a question following his speech yesterday, Powell seemed to indicate that the Fed’s unique structure might shield it from the effects of the Court’s decision.

If the Court were to overturn its ruling in Humphrey’s Executor and indicate that the ruling did authorize the president to remove the Fed chair, the Fed’s ability to conduce monetary policy independently of the president would be seriously undermined. In Macroeconomics, Chapter 17, Section 17.4 we review the arguments for and against Fed independence. It’s unclear at this point when the Court might rule on the case.

CPI Inflation Slows More than Expected

Image generated by Chat-GTP-4o

Today (April 10), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI). The following figure compares headline inflation (the blue line) and core inflation (the red line).

  • The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.4 percent in March—down from 2.8 percent in February. 
  • The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.8 percent in March—down from 3.1 percent in February. 

Both headline inflation and core inflation were below what economists surveyed had expected.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) fell sharply from 2.6 percent in March to –0.6 percent—that is, the economy experienced deflation in March. Core inflation (the red line) decreased from 2.6 percent in February to 0.7 percent in March.

Overall, considering 1-month and 12-month inflation together, inflation slowed significantly in March. Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month. The figure shows that 1-month inflation rate is particularly volatile. Also note that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI, to evaluate whether it is hitting its 2 percent annual inflation target.

There’s been considerable discussion in the media about continuing inflation in grocery prices. In the following figure the blue line shows inflation in the CPI category “food at home,” which is primarily grocery prices. Inflation in grocery prices was 2.4 percent in March, up from 1.8 percent in February, but still far below the peak of 13.6 percen in August 2022. Although, on average, grocery price inflation has been low over the past 18 months, there have been substantial increases in the prices of some food items. For instance, egg prices—shown by the red line—increased by 108.1 percent in March. But, as the figure shows, egg prices are usually quite volatile month-to-month, even when the country is not dealing with an epidemic of bird flu.

To better estimate the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation.

  • Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. 
  • Trimmed-mean inflation drops the 8 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates. 

The following figure shows that 12-month trimmed-mean inflation (the blue line) was 3.0 percent in March, down from 3.1 percent in February. Twelve-month median inflation (the red line) also declined slightly from 3.1 percent in February to 3.0 percent in March.

The following figure shows 1-month trimmed-mean and median inflation. One-month trimmed-mean inflation fell from 3.3 percent in February to 2.6. percent in March. One-month median inflation increased from 3.5 percent in February to 4.1 percent in March. These data are noticeably higher than either the 12-month measures for these variables or the 1-month and 12-month measures of headline and core inflation. Again, though, all 1-month inflation measures can be volatile.

There isn’t much sign in today’s CPI report that the tariffs recently imposed by the Trump Administration have affected retail prices. President Trump announced yesterday that many of the tariffs would be suspended for at least 90 days, although the across-the-board tariff of 10 percent remains in place and a tariff of 145 percent has been imposed on goods imported from China. It would surprising if those tariff increases don’t begin to have at least some effect on the CPI over the next few months. As we noted in this post from earlier in the month, Tariffs pose a dilemma for the Fed, because tariffs have the effect of both increasing the price level and reducing real GDP and employment.

What are the implications of this CPI report for the actions the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may take at its next two meetings? Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts still do not expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next two meetings. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) Today, investors assigned only a 29.9 percent probability that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will cut its target from the current 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent range at its meeting on May 6–7. Investors assigned a probability of 85.2 percent that the FOMC would cut its target after its meeting on June 17–18 by at least 0.25 percent (or 25 basis points).

By the time the FOMC meets again in early May we may have more data on the effects the tariffs are having on the economy.

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report

Image generated by ChatGTP4-o

As we’ve noted in earlier posts, according to the usually reliable GDPNow forecast from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, real GDP in the first quarter of 2025 will decline by 2.8 percent. This morning (April 4), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for March. The data in the report show no sign that the U.S. economy is in a recession. We should add two caveats, however: 1. The effects of the unexpectedly large tariff increases announced this week by the Trump Administration are not reflected in the data from this report, and 2. at the beginning of a recession the data in the jobs report can be subject to large revisions.

The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do the household survey’s employment data and unemployment data. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 228,000 jobs during March. This increase was well above the increase of 140,000 that economists had forecast. Somewhat offsetting this unexpectedly large increase was the BLS revising downward its previous estimates of employment in January and February by a combined 48,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in payroll employment for each month in the last two years.

The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.2 percent in March from 4.1 percent in February. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable in recent months, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month since May 2024. In March, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecast that the unemployment rate for 2025 would average 4.4 percent.

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net increase of 201,000 jobs in March, following a sharp decrease of 588,000 jobs in February. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent with employment increasing in one survey while falling in the other. This month, however, both surveys showed roughly the same net job increase. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

One concerning sign in the household survey is the fall in the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. The ratio declined from 80.5 percent in February to 80.4 percent in March. Although the prime-age employment-population is still high relative to the average level since 2001, it’s now well below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024. Continuing declines in this ratio would indicate a significant softening in the labor market.

It’s unclear how many federal workers have been laid off since the Trump Administration took office. The establishment survey shows a decline in total federal government employment of 4,000 in March. However, the BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.” It’s possible that as more federal employees end their period of receiving severance pay, future jobs reports may find a more significant decline in federal employment.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 3.8 percent in March, down from 4.0 percent in February.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. The March 1-month rate of wage inflation was 3.0 percent, up from 2.7 percent in February. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is still increasing somewhat more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

Taken by itself, today’s jobs report leaves the situation facing the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) largely unchanged. There are some indications that the economy may be weakening, as shown by some of the data in the jobs report and by some of the data incorporated by the Atlanta Fed in its pessimistic nowcast of first quarter real GDP. But the Fed hasn’t yet brought inflation down to its 2 percent annual target.

Looming over monetary policy is the fallout from the Trump Administration’s implementation of unexpectedly large tariff increases. As we note in this blog post, a large unexpected increase in tariffs results in an aggregate supply shock to the economy. In terms of the basic aggregate demand and aggregate supply model that we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 13 (Economics, Chapter 23), an unexpected increase in tariffs shifts the short-run aggregate supply curve (SRAS) to the left, increasing the price level and reducing the level of real GDP.

The effect of the tariffs poses a dilemma for the Fed. With inflation still running above the 2 percent annual target, additional upward pressure on the price level is unwelcome news. The dramatic decline in both stock prices and in the interest rate on the 10-Treasury note indicate that investors are concerned that the tariffs increases may push the U.S. economy into a recession. The FOMC can respond to the threat of a recession by cutting its target for the federal funds rate, but doing so runs the risk of pushing inflation higher.

In a speech today, Fed Chair Jerome Powell stated the following:

“We have stressed that it will be very difficult to assess the likely economic effects of higher tariffs until there is greater certainty about the details, such as what will be tariffed, at what level and for what duration, and the extent of retaliation from our trading partners. While uncertainty remains elevated, it is now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected. The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. The size and duration of these effects remain uncertain. While tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent. Avoiding that outcome would depend on keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored, on the size of the effects, and on how long it takes for them to pass through fully to prices. Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem.”

One indication of expectations of future cuts in the target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) The data from the futures market indicate that, despite the potential effects of the surprisingly large tariff increases, investors don’t expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its May 6–7 meeting. As shown in the following figure, investors assign a 58.4 percent probability to the committee keeping its target unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at that meeting.

It’s a different story if we look at the end of the year. As the following figure shows, investors now expect that by the end of the FOMC’s meeting on December 9-10, the committee will have implemented at least four 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) cuts in its target range for the federal funds rate. Investors assign a probability of 75.8 percent that the target range will end the year 3.25 percent to 3.50 percent or lower. At their March meeting, FOMC members projected only two 25 basis point cuts this year—but that was before the announcement of the unexpectedly large tariff increases.

03/29/25 Podcast – Authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien discuss the impact of tariffs on monetary policy & the Fed.

Please listen to a podcast discussion recorded just this past Friday between Glenn Hubbard and Tony O’Brien as they discuss tariffs and it’s impact on monetary policy. Also, check out the regular blog posts while on the site! So much has been happening and these posts helps both instructors and students integrate this discussion into their classroom.

Join authors Glenn Hubbard and Tony O’Brien as they discuss the impact of new tariff policies on trade but also on the larger economy. They delve into the Fed, monetary policy, and the impact on inflation. They also discuss some of the history back to when tariffs used to be a high proportion of government revenue and analyze the mix of products that are imported & exported by the US. Should the Fed change its current behavior due to the tariff environment?

https://on.soundcloud.com/PNi5sLLkC4GikoX1A

Not Much Good News in Today’s PCE Inflation Data

Image generated by GTP-4o

Today (March 28), the BEA released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2016 with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In February, PCE inflation was 2.5 percent, unchanged since January. Core PCE inflation in January was 2.8 percent, up slightly from 2.7 percent in January. Headline PCE inflation was consistent with the forecasts of economists, but core PCE inflation was higher.

The following figure shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while this figure shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, PCE inflation declined slightly in February to 4.0 percent from 4.1 percent in January. Core PCE inflation jumped in February to 4.5 percent from 3.6 percent in January. So, both 1-month PCE inflation estimates are running well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. The usual caution applies that 1-month inflation figures are volatile (as can be seen in the figure), so we shouldn’t attempt to draw wider conclusions from one month’s data. But it is definitely concerning that 1-month inflation has risen each month since November 2024.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has noted that inflation in non-market services has been high. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices fall, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also fall. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the green line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.2 percent in February, and core market-based PCE inflation was 2.4 percent. So, both market-based measures show less inflation in February than do the total measures. In the following figure, we look at 1-month inflation using these measures. The 1-month inflation rates are both very high. Headline market-based inflation was 4.0 percent in February, up from 3.5 percent in January. Core market-based inflation was 4.6 percent in February, up from 2.8 percent in January. Both 1-month market-based inflation members have increased each month since November.

In summary, today’s data don’t show any evidence that inflation is returning to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. It has to concern the Fed that the 1-month inflation measures have been increasing since November with the latest data showing inflation running far above the Fed’s target. The Fed’s goal of a “soft landing”—with inflation returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy entering a recession—no longer appears to be on the horizon. The current data seem more consistent with a “no landing” scenario in which the economy avoids a recession but inflation doesn’t return to the Fed’s target. As a result, it seems very unlikely that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will lower its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on May 6-7, unless the unemployment rate jumps or the growth of output slows dramatically.

Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts expect that the FOMC will leave its federal funds rate target unchanged at its next meeting. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of 82.9 percent to the FOMC leaving its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent. Investors assign a probability of only 17.1 percent to the FOMC cutting its target by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points).

As the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of 72.9 percent percent to the FOMC cutting its target range by at least 25 basis points at its meeting on June 17–18. Despite the bad news on inflation in today’s BEA report, investors assign a zero probability to the FOMC increasing its target range for the federal funds rate to help push inflation back to the Fed’s target. One aspect of the current situation that both policymakers and investors are uncertain of is the effect of the Trump Administration’s new tariffs on the price level. It’s possible that some of the increase in inflation seen in today’s report is the result of tariff increases, but the full extent of the effect will only become evident when the tariffs are fully in place.

The FOMC Leaves Its Target for the Federal Funds Rate Unchanged, while Noting an Increase in Economic Uncertainty

Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaking at a press conference following a meeting of the FOMC (photo from federalreserve.gov)

As they had before their previous meeting, members of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had signaled that the committee was likely to leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at its meeting today (March 19). In a press conference following the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the FOMC was facing significant policy uncertainty:

“Looking ahead, the new Administration is in the process of implementing significant policy changes in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation…. While there have been recent developments in some of these areas, especially trade policy, uncertainty around the changes and their effects on the economic outlook is high…. We do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance, and we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.”

The next scheduled meeting of the FOMC is May 6–7. It seems likely that the committee will also keep its target rate constant at that meeting. Although at his press conference, Powell noted that “Policy is not on a preset course. As the economy evolves, we will adjust our policy stance in a manner that best promotes our maximum employment and price stability goals.” The statement the committee released after the meeting showed that the decision to leave the target rate unchanged was unanimous.

The following figure shows, for the period since January 2010, the upper bound (the blue line) and lower bound (the green line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate and the actual values of the federal funds rate (the red line) during that time. Note that the Fed is successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range. (We discuss the monetary policy tools the FOMC uses to maintain the federal funds rate in its target range in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.2).)

After the meeting, the committee also released a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP)—as it typically does after its March, June, September, and December meetings. The SEP presents median values of the 18 committee members’ forecasts of key economic variables. The values are summarized in the following table, reproduced from the release.

There are several aspects of these forecasts worth noting:

  1. Committee members reduced their forecast of real GDP growth for 2025 from 2.1 percent in December to 1.7 percent today. Committee members also slightly increased their forecast of the unemployment rate at the end of 2025 from 4.3 percent to 4.4 percent. (The unemployment rate in February was 4.1 percent.)
  2. Committee members now forecast that personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation will be 2.7 percent at the end of 2025. In December, they had forecast that it would 2.5 percent. Similarly, their forecast of core PCE inflation increased from 2.5 percent to 2.8 percent. The committee does not expect that PCE inflation will decline to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target until 2027.
  3. The committee’s forecast of the federal funds rate at the end of 2025 was unchanged at 3.9 percent. The federal funds rate today is 4.33 percent, which indicates that committee members expect to make two 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) cuts in their target for the federal funds rate this year. Investors are similarly forecasting two 25 basis point cuts.

During his press conference, Powell indicated that a significant part of the increase in goods inflation during the first two months of the year was likely due to tariffs, although the Fed’s staff was unable to make a precise estimate of how much. Economists generally believe that tariffs cause one-time increases in the price level, rather than persistent inflation. Powell was asked during the press conference whether the FOMC was likely to “look through”—that is, not respond—to the tariffs. Powell replied that it was too early to make that decision, but that: “If there’s an inflation that’s going to go away on its own, it’s not the correct response to tighten policy.”

Powell noted that although surveys show that businesses and consumers expect an increase in inflation, over the long run, expectations are that the inflation rate will return to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. In that sense, Powell said that expectations of inflation remain “well anchored.”

Barring a sharp slowdown in the growth of real GDP, a significant rise in the unemployment rate, or a significant rise in the inflation rate, the FOMC seems likely to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged over the next few months.

CPI Inflation Is Lower than Expected, but Still above Target

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

Today (March 12), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI). The following figure compares headline inflation (the blue line) and core inflation (the green line).

  • The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.8 percent in February—down from 3.0 percent in January. 
  • The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 3.1 percent in February—down from 3.3 percent in January. 

Both headline inflation and core inflation were slightly below what economists surveyed had expected.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) fell sharply from 5.7 percent in February to 2.6 percent in January. Core inflation (the green line) decreased from 5.5 percent in January to 2.8 percent in January.

Overall, considering 1-month and 12-month inflation together, the most favorable news is the sharp decline in both the headline and the core 1-month inflation rats. But inflation is still running ahead of the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month. The figure shows that 1-month inflation is particularly volatile. Also note that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI, to evaluate whether it is hitting its 2 percent annual inflation target.

There’s been considerable discussion in the media about continuing inflation in grocery prices. In the following figure the blue line shows inflation in the CPI category “food at home,” which is primarily grocery prices. Inflation in grocery prices was 1.8 percent in February and has been below 2 percent every month since November 2023. Although on average grocery price inflation has been low, there have been substantial increases in the prices of some food items. For instance, egg prices—shown by the green line—increased by 96.8 percent in February. But, as the figure shows, egg prices are usually quite volatile month-to-month, even when the country is not dealing with an epidemic of bird flu.

To better estimate the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation.

  • Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. 
  • Trimmed-mean inflation drops the 8 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates. 

The following figure shows that 12-month trimmed-mean inflation (the blue line) was 3.1 percent in February, unchanged from January. Twelve-month median inflation (the green line) declined slightly from 3.6 percent in January to 3.5 percent in February.

The following figure shows 1-month trimmed-mean and median inflation. One-month trimmed-mean inflation fell from 5.1 percent in January to 3.3. percent in February. One-month median inflation from 3.9 percent in January to 3.5 percent in February. These data provide confirmation that (1) CPI inflation at this point is likely running higher than a rate that would be consistent with the Fed achieving its inflation target, and (2) inflation slowed somewhat from January to February.

What are the implications of this CPI report for the actions the FOMC may take at its next several meetings? The major stock market indexes rose sharply at the beginning of trading this morning, but then swung back and forth between losses and gains. Inflation being lower than expected may have increased the probability that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate sooner rather than later. Lower inflation and lower interest rates would be good news for stock prices. But investors still appear to be worried about the extent to which a trade war might both slow economic growth and increase the price level.

Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts still do not expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next two meetings. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) Today, investors assigned only a 1 percent probability that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will cut its target from the current 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent range at its meeting next week. Investors assigned a probability of 33.3 percent that the FOMC would cut its target after its meeting on May 6–7. Investors today assigned a probability of 78.6 percent that the committee will cut its target after its meeting on June 17–18. That probability has fallen slightly over the past week.

At his press conference after next Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell will give his thoughts on the current economic situation.

Strong Jobs Report with No Sign of Recession

Image generated by GTP-4o

In a post earlier this week, we noted that according to the usually reliable GDPNow forecast from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, real GDP in the first quarter will decline by 2.8 percent. (The forecast was updated yesterday on the basis of additional data releases to a slightly less pessimistic –2.4 percent decline.) This morning (March 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for February. The data in the report show no sign that the U.S. economy is in a recession. We should add the caveat, however, that at the beginning of a recession the data in the jobs report can be subject to large revisions.

The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do either the employment data or the unemployment data from the household survey. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 151,000 jobs during February. This increase was below the increase of 160,000 that economists had forecast. The previously reported increase for December was revised upward, while the previously reported increase for January was revised downward. The net change in jobs, taking the revisions for those two months together, was 2,000 lower than originally estimated. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in payroll employment for each month in the last two years.

The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.1 percent in February from 4.0 percent in January. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable in recent months, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month since May 2024. Last December, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecast that the unemployment rate for 2025 would average 4.3 percent.

As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for February showed a sharp decrease of 588,000 jobs following a very large increase of 2,234,000 jobs in January. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent with employment increasing in one survey while falling in the other. The difference was particularly dramatic this month. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

Another concerning sign in the household survey is the fall in the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. The ratio declined from 80.7 percent in January to 80.5 percent in February. Although the employment-population is still high relative to the average level since 2001, it’s now well below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024. Continuing declines in this ratio would indicate a significant softening in the labor market.

It’s unclear how many federal workers have been laid off since the Trump Administration took office. The household survey shows a decline in total federal government employment of 10,000 in February. The household survey was conducted in the week that included February 12, so, it’s possible that next month’s jobs report may find a more significant decline.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 4.0 percent in February, up slightly from 3.9 percent in January.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. The February 1-month rate of wage inflation was 3.4 percent, a decline from the surprisingly high 5.2 percent rate in December. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is still increasing somewhat more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

Today’s jobs report leaves the situation facing the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) largely unchanged. There are some indications that the economy may be weakening, as shown by some of the data in the jobs report and by some of the data incorporated by the Atlanta Fed in its pessimistic nowcast of first quarter real GDP. But the Fed hasn’t yet brought inflation down to its 2 percent annual target. In addition, it’s unclear how the Trump Administration’s policies—particularly with respect to tariff increases—might affect the economy. Speaking today at an event at the University of Chicago, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed the following:

“Looking ahead, the new Administration is in the process of implementing significant policy changes in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation. It is the net effect of these policy changes that will matter for the economy and for the path of monetary policy. While there have been recent developments in some of these areas, especially trade policy, uncertainty around the changes and their likely effects remains high. As we parse the incoming information, we are focused on separating the signal from the noise as the outlook evolves. We do not need to be in a hurry, and are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.”

The likeliest outcome is that the FOMC will keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged, perhaps for several meetings, unless additional data are released that clearly show the economy to be weakening.

One indication of expectations of future cuts in the target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) The data from the futures market indicates that investors don’t expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at either its March 18–19 or May 6–7 meetings. As shown in the following figure, only at the FOMC’s June 17–18 meeting do investors assign a greater than 50 percent probability to the committee cutting its target. As of this afternoon, investors assign a probability of only 19.2 percent to the FOMC keeping its target unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at that meeting. They assign a probability of 80.8 percent to the committee cutting its target rate by at least 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at that meeting.

Are We in a Recession? Depends on Which Forecast You Believe

Image generated by GTP-4o of people engaging in economic forecasting

How do we know when we’re in a recession? Most economists and policymakers accept the decisions of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private research group located in Cambridge, Massachusetts (see Macroeconomics, Chapter 10, Section 10.3). Typically, the NBER is slow in announcing that a recession has begun because it takes time to gather and analyze economic data. The NBER didn’t announce that a recession had begun in December 2007 until 11 months later in November 2008. When the NBER announced in June 2020 that a recession had begun in February 2020, it was considered to be an unusually fast decision.

On its website, the NBER notes that: “The NBER’s traditional definition of a recession is that it is a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months.” The NBER lists the data it considers when determining whether a recession has begun (or ended), including: “real personal income less transfers (PILT), nonfarm payroll employment, real personal consumption expenditures, manufacturing and trade sales adjusted for price changes, employment as measured by the household survey, and industrial production.” In practice, it is normally the case that an NBER business cycle peak coincides with the peak in nonfarm payroll employment and an NBER business cycle trough coincides with a trough in the same employment series.

Of course, policymakers at the Fed don’t wait until the NBER announces that a recession has begun when formulating monetary policy. Members of the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) monitor a wide range of data series as the series become available. The broadest measure of the state of the economy is real GDP, which is only available quarterly, and the data are released with a lag. For instance, the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s “advance” (first) estimate of real GDP in the first quarter of 2025 won’t be released until April 30.

Given the importance of GDP, there are several groups that attempt to nowcast GDP. A nowcast is a forecast that incorporates all the information available on a certain date about the components of spending that are included in GDP. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta both release nowcasts of GDP. They use different methodologies, so their forecasts are not identical. Today (March 3), the two estimates are surprisingly far apart. First, here is the nowcast from the NY Fed:

This nowcast indicates that real GDP will grow in the first quarter of 2025 at a 2.94 percent annual rate. That would be an increase from growth of 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024.

The nowcast from the Atlanta Fed—which they call GDPNow—is strikingly different:

The Atlanta Fed nowcast indicates that real GDP in the first quarter of 2025 will decline by 2.8 percent at an annual rate. If accurate, this forecast indicates that—far from the solid expansion in economic activity that the NY Fed is forecasting—the U.S. economy in the first quarter of 2025 will contract at the fastest rate since the first quarter of 2009, near the end of the severe 2007–2009 downturn (leaving aside the highly unusual declines in the first three quarters of 2020 during the Covid pandemic).

What explains such a large difference between these two forecasts? First, note that the Atlanta Fed includes in its graphic the range of forecasts from Blue Chip Indicators. These forecasts are collected from 50 or more economists who work in the private sector at banks, brokerages, manufacturers, and other firms. The graphic shows that the Blue Chip forecasters do not expect that the economy grew as much as the NY Fed’s nowcast indicates, but the forecasters do expect solid growth rate of 2 percent or more. So, the Atlanta Fed’s forecast appears to be an outlier.

Second, the NY Fed updates its nowcast only once per week, whereas the Atlanta Fed updates its forecast after the release of each data series that enters its model. So, the NY Fed nowcast was last updated on February 28, while the Atlanta Fed nowcast was updated today. Since February 28, the Atlanta Fed has incorporated into its nowcast data on the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing index and data on construction spending from the Census Bureau. Incorporating these data resulted in the Atlanta Fed’s nowcast of first quarter real GDP growth declining from –1.5 percent on February 28 to –2.8 percent on March 3.

But incorporating more data explains only part of the discrepancy between the two forecasts because even as of February 28 the forecasts were far apart. The remaining discrepancy is due to the different methodologies employed by the economists at the two regional Feds in building their nowcasting models.

Which forecast is more accurate? We’ll get some indication on Friday (March 7) when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases its “Employment Situation” report for February. Economists surveyed are expecting that the payroll survey will estimate that there was a net increase of 160,000 jobs in February, up from a net increase of 143,000 jobs in January. If that expectation is accurate, it would seem unlikely that production declined in the first quarter to the extent that the Atlanta Fed nowcast is indicating. But, as we discuss in this blog post from 2022, macro data can be unreliable at the beginning of a recession. If we are currently in a recession, then even an initial estimate of a solid net increase in jobs in February could later be revised sharply downward.