© 2018 by Robert Person.  The views expressed on this website are my own and do not represent the official policy of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.

Apr 16

Fed Official Is Open to Adopting an Inflation Target Range



Just today, the leader of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Eric Rosengren, has publicized his acceptance of inflation exceeding the 2% inflation goal established in 2012. This goal has yet to be achieved and Eric Rosengren therefore believes that a range for the inflation target might work better. This range would allow Feds inflation target to view shortfalls and overages which the target has failed to do thus far while offering a positive view of the U.S. economy. Eric Rosengren also stated that by accepting an inflation rate above the 2% ceiling it would create more policy space to counteract the next recession. From his perspective, the economy is doing rather well when considering the trade off between stable prices and maximum employment. With continued success in the job market and the wage increases, Rosengren doesn’t view the Feds inability to meet the 2% inflation rate as a failure, but rather a minor setback.


This article directly applies to "Society and Monetary Affairs." Eric Rosengren’s support of increased inflation most closely resembles John Keynes’s “General Theory.” Keynes believes that by spending when others do not or by increasing the money supply to induce others to spend, the government could increase demand in the economy. In essence, by increasing the total demand in the economy, investments would rise, and unemployment would decrease. In theory, the use of macroeconomic policy to manage aggregate demand could allow the government to operate at full employment. However, if the Fed continues to implement the 2% inflation ceiling without allowing for flexibility, consumer prices could consistently fall due to the excessive productivity of the country and there would be no incentive for consumers to spend their money. A little bit of inflation is therefore not as bad as it may seem. Inflation can instead indicate that overall societal demand is increasing, indicating that money is moving throughout the economy. Despite Eric Rosengren’s support of this proposed inflation target, I am not so sure it will be well accepted by President Trump given his disapproval thus far. This increase in inflation could cause for price instability which could be disastrous for President Trump’s chances at reelection in the future. It is less likely that with an increase in inflation and price instability that President Trump will be able to gain the support of the upper class citizens.


Article found at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-official-is-open-to-adopting-an-inflation-target-range-11555372800

New Posts
  • In his article for Foreign Affairs David Cohen talks about the Trump administration's policy towards sanctions. He talks about how the conditional sanctions the Trump administrations has placed on Iran and now Venezuela will be ineffective because the changes the administration is trying to coerce will essentially mean regime change for the two nations. Cohen goes on to state that these will be ultimately ineffective because the relative cost of the sanctions is lower than the cost of losing power. This means that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela are more willing to bear the pain of the sanctions than lose the regime. This goes along with the lesson we had on sanctions in a couple of ways. First we learned that sanctions are used either as a method of deterrence or coercion. This means that the sanctions inflict financial and economic pain to make the target of the sanctions take or not take an action. These sanctions are meant to cause political changes that will in essence mean a change of regime which is why they will fail. They are effective in causing pain; however, there is not enough sanctions in the world to make it worth losing power. Article link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-04-29/sanctions-cant-spark-regime-change
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/china-trade-tariffs.html Just before a scheduled round of trade negotiations began on Friday, President Trump announced that he was still going to levy additional tariffs on Chinese imports valued at approximately $250 billion. President Trump claimed that these tariffs would bring billions of dollars back to US manufacturers, but the main focus seems to be inflicting pain on China, as opposed to bringing prosperity to the US. China and the US have not been able to reach an agreement that would minimize or end outright the "trade war" between the two, which stems from the Trump Administration's belief that China is not doing all it can to protect American investments and intellectual property in China, as well as the belief that a large trade deficit with China is inherently bad. The Trump Administration's use of tariffs as a negotiating tool is inelegant, but effective. Unilateral tariffs immediately affect the Chinese export industry, whose products become less competitive in US markets. While this inflicts pain on Chinese exports, whose largest market is the US, it also affects US consumers, who have to pay higher costs for consumer goods. Additionally, because China retaliates with target tariffs (on politically-relevant goods like Kentucky Bourbon and soybeans from the Heartland), US exporters are equally hurt by the trade war. The only immediate winner is the US, who collects revenue from the applied tariffs; however, long-term, US domestic industry should improve, as they will become more competitive when Chinese imports are more expensive. Slowly, we are starting to see this happen: Dan DiMicco, the chairman of a lobby group "Coalition for a Prosperous America," explained that American manufacturing is already experiencing gains in their domestic market shares.
  • https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/8/feds-release-168k-illegal-immigrant-family-members/ In Stephen Dinan's article in the Washington Times, he explains the unforeseen immigration due to illegal border crossings. ICE border patrol has released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members this fiscal year, and the number is expected to increase as the border situation increases in volatility (Dinan). Dinan reports that 87% of families in this new pilot program skip their court hearings, and with an ill-equipted government to track them down judges deport them in absentia (Dinan). Dinan argues that this increase in illegal immigration in family units is caused by a 2015 court ruling that stated parents who travel with children must be released in 20 days. Since this is too little time try them in court, the families are set free (Dinan). This article is very relevant to this block in IPE as it highlights a crucial phase that the world is going through. As policies towards free and open borders begin to gain more and more traction, we can expect the number of border crossings into the country to continue. As we talked in class, this may actually be a good thing for the economy, as low skill labor is substituted due to a higher rate of college attenuation and graduation. Dinan says that most migrants interviewed are not criminals, they are just seeking jobs, and know that if they bring children they will find asylum in the US (Dinan). One of the unintended consequences is that some of these migrants are being used to smuggle drugs and weapons into the country, and in some extreme cases, children are being sold to impersonate children of felons migrants of south american countries to gain access with ease. As globalization brings countries closer together and as the trend for free an open borders continues incentivizing cheap labor, it will be interesting to see the effects of these policies 10-15 years in time.