Adventures in inflation targeting — You might know the Federal Reserve's goal is for inflation to average 2 percent over time. Obviously that is not what we have (the personal consumption expenditures index increased 6.3 percent over the past year). But here's what might sound like an odd question: Does the Fed really want inflation to be 2 percent right now? In a vacuum, the answer is, yes, of course. But in reality, getting inflation back down to 2 percent this year would almost certainly cause a recession. That's because price spikes are only this severe because of all sorts of production and shipping delays — from China's Covid lockdowns to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and more. The question is how much getting back to 2 percent is in the hands of the Fed, and how much is related to factors outside its control. (If you look at the Fed's most recent projections — we'll get updated ones in a couple weeks — they project PCE to drop only to 4.3 percent by the end of this year.) So, what's going on? You can think of inflation as being caused by some combination of demand (people are spending lots of money) and supply (goods aren't getting from point A to point B very fast). The Fed can only really address the demand side, as Fed Chair Jay Powell has pointed out. That means there's some amount of inflation that the Fed can't do anything about, and if it did, it would be damaging healthy levels of consumer spending. That makes targeting 2 percent inflation a little bit more confusing, especially since it's pretty difficult to parse out how much inflation is caused by each half of the equation. The Fed seems to be hoping that the supply chain problems will ease quickly enough (over the next year or so) that this dilemma won't be too much of a problem. Or at least, that prices, such as on commodities, will stop rising, even if they stay high. But if supply problems keep inflation elevated, that could pose communications problems for the Fed in the future, since the central bank has pivoted to a focus on the economy running too hot. Its current message: we've got this. Bill Spriggs, a professor at Howard University and chief economist at the AFL-CIO, thinks the Fed risks overpromising on its ability to tame inflation, given the severity of supply problems. "At the very beginning, the Fed had done an excellent job of setting people up to understand that the supply shocks were going to be very big and very intense," he said. "I don't understand why they didn't stick to their guns." George Selgin, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, similarly said the Fed shouldn't be overly fixated on 2 percent — particularly in the wake of a pure, severe supply shock in the form of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "There are good reasons for the Fed to allow the inflation rate to continue to be above target for some time," he said. "But if it's now convinced the public it's not going to do that, that's adding to the confusion." Of course, the Fed definitely hasn't dropped its mentions of supply-side problems and their role in inflation. Powell has said success on inflation may depend on "events that are not under our control" and said outright that it's the demand side of the equation that the central bank can fix. But these questions are simpler to talk about than they are to truly measure. "There's a lot of excess demand. There're more than 5 million more employed plus job openings than there are the size of the labor force. So there's an imbalance there that we have to do our work on," Powell said in May. But if supply issues stay bad: "It would be a very difficult situation. I mean, we have to be sure that inflation expectations remain anchored. And I mean, that's part of our job, too, so we'd be watching that carefully. And it puts any central bank in a very difficult situation." HAPPY JOBS DAY — And TGIF. Kate Davidson is back on Monday. Send tips to kdavidson@politico.com or @KateDavidson, or aweaver@politico.com or @aubreeeweaver. And reach me at vguida@politico.com.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment