Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Report on Business

Economy Lab

Delving into the forces that shape our living standards
Best Business Blog, EPPY awards, 2011 and 2012

Entry archive:

Economy Lab has moved

Only Globe Unlimited members will now have access to a wide range of insightful commentary
and analysis on the economy and markets previously offered on this page.


Globe Unlimited subscribers will be able to read these columns,
written by some of Canada’s most deeply respected economists,
such as Christopher Ragan, Sheryl King, Andrew Jackson, and Clement Gignac,
as part of our ROB INSIGHT section.


All of our readers will still be able to browse the Economy Lab archives and read our
broader coverage of economic data and news by accessing their 10 free articles a month.


Learn more about Globe Unlimited and how to subscribe.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of both 2 per cent inflation and keeping the U.S. at full-employment, which it estimates to be between 5.2 and 6 per cent. (JIM BOURG/REUTERS)
The U.S. Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of both 2 per cent inflation and keeping the U.S. at full-employment, which it estimates to be between 5.2 and 6 per cent. (JIM BOURG/REUTERS)

Fed flouts its mandate - and the jobless suffer Add to ...

The U.S. economy continues to struggle and yet the Federal Reserve remains on the sidelines despite having the ability to do more. In “What’s The Holdup With QE3?” James Bianco tackles the question I have been asking myself for months.

Bianco’s theory is that the Federal Reserve only loosens monetary policy when expectations of inflation, as measured by the 10-year TIPS break even rate, fall below 2 per cent. When examining the data that Bianco provides, it is a convincing argument, as QE1, QE2 and Operation Twist were all enacted when the TIPS spread fell below 2 per cent, but no actions were taken when the spread was at or above 2 per cent.

More Related to this Story

It is the best explanation of the Federal Reserve’s thinking I have seen to date. I hope, however, that Bianco is incorrect.

Such a strategy is in clear violation of the Federal Reserve’s own mandate. First, there is no reason why such a long period should be considered. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy role is to smooth out deviations in the business cycle. Unless there is a belief that this slump will last another decade, a shorter term (18-36 months) outlook is more appropriate. The Cleveland Fed’s measure of inflation expectations show inflation nowhere near a 2 per cent level over the next three years.

Second, and more importantly, is that the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of both 2 per cent inflation and keeping the United States at full-employment, which it estimates to be between 5.2 and 6 per cent. When the two objectives are in conflict, the Federal Reserve must “under circumstances in which the Committee judges that the objectives are not complementary, [follow] a balanced approach.”

With a U.S. unemployment rate at 8.3 per cent – well above its target – the Fed is required to balance inflation and unemployment. They do so by having inflation, and inflation expectations, significantly above 2 per cent.

I hope we do not live in a world where the Federal Reserve is willfully ignoring its own mandate. But from the evidence James Bianco provides I can reach no other conclusion.

 

Mike Moffatt is an Assistant Professor in the Business, Economics and Public Policy (BEPP) group at the Richard Ivey School of Business – Western University

 

Follow Economy Lab on Twitter

Follow on Twitter: @mikepmoffatt

In the know

Most popular video »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most Popular Stories