Talking to Ambrose about the Fed

Talking to Ambrose about the Fed
I have been talking to The Telegraph's  about the Fed's decision to hike interest rates (see here):
“All it will take is one shock,” said Lars Christensen, from Markets and Money Advisory. “It is really weird that they are raising rates at all. Capacity utilization in industry has been falling for five months.” Mr Christensen said the rate rise in itself is relatively harmless. The real tightening kicked off two years ago when the Fed began to slow its $85bn of bond purchases each month. This squeezed liquidity through the classic quantity of money effect. Fed tapering slowly turned off the spigot for a global financial system running on a “dollar standard”, with an estimated $9 trillion of foreign debt in US currency. China imported US tightening through its dollar-peg, compounding the slowdown already under way. It was the delayed effect of this crunch that has caused the "broad" dollar index to rocket by 19pc since July 2014, the steepest dollar rise in modern times. It is a key cause of the bloodbath for commodities and emerging markets. Mr Christensen said the saving grace this time is that Fed has given clear assurances – like the Bank of England – that it will roll over its $4.5 trillion balance sheet for a long time to come, rather than winding back quantitative easing and risking monetary contraction. This pledge more than offsets the rate rise itself, which was priced into the market long ago. Chairman Janet Yellen softened the blow further with dovish guidance, repeating the word “gradual” a dozen times.
So no I don't think the hike is a disaster, but I don't understand the Fed's rational for doing this - nominal spending growth is slightly soft, inflation is way below the target, money supply and money base growth is moderate, the dollar is strong and getting stronger and inflation expectations are low and have been coming down. So if anything across the board monetary indicators are pointing towards the need for easing of monetary conditions - at least if you want to maintain some credibility about the 2% inflation target and or keep nominal GDP growth on the post-2009 4% path. But I guess this is because Janet Yellen fundamentally has the same model in her head as Arthur Burns had in the 1970s - its is all about a old-style Phillips Curve and I predict that Yellen is making a policy mistake in the same way Burns did in the 1970s - just in the opposite direction and (much) less extreme. PS some Fed officials are obviously also concerned with the risk of asset market bubbles, but the Fed shouldn't concern itself with such things (and by the way I don't think there is any bubbles other than in the market for people concerning themselves with bubbles.)  



Sign up now to receive the latest blog posts and news about our research.