logo
Dissenting Fed officials tie votes to labor market concerns

Dissenting Fed officials tie votes to labor market concerns

Reuters5 days ago
Aug 1 (Reuters) - The two Federal Reserve governors who favored an interest rate cut at the U.S. central bank's policy meeting this week said on Friday they did so largely due to rising concerns about the job market, amid expectations that any price increases related to trade tariffs will not lead to lasting price pressures.
"With economic growth slowing this year and signs of a less dynamic labor market, I saw it as appropriate to begin gradually moving our moderately restrictive policy stance toward a neutral setting," Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman said in a statement. "In
my view, this action would have proactively hedged against a further weakening in the economy and the risk of damage to the labor market," she said.
Governor Christopher Waller said in a separate statement that "with
underlying inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate." Waller said the job market is nearing stall speed and the Fed's rate target should be closer to its neutral level.
Waller said of the Fed's broader approach to monetary policy right now that "I believe that the wait and see approach is overly cautious, and, in my opinion, does not properly balance the risks to the outlook and could lead to policy falling behind the curve."
The policymakers weighed in after casting dissenting votes against the Federal Open Market Committee's decision on Wednesday to hold its benchmark interest rate in the 4.25%-4.50% range. The dissents marked the first time that many governors had opposed the Fed's consensus view since late 1993.
Comments made by Waller and Bowman going into the meeting had led many observers to expect their dissents.
Waller has been most explicit in arguing for lower rates, saying the risks are rising for the job market while tariff-related inflation increases are likely to be a one-time shift the Fed could ignore. Bowman also expressed skepticism that tariffs would cause sustained inflation problems.
The dissents also garnered interest because of the broader political currents buffeting the Fed. President Donald Trump has been pushing aggressively for rate cuts, excoriating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for failing to heed the White House's demands. Waller, who noted last month that his view was not "political" is widely considered to be in the running to succeed Powell when his term expires next May.
Bowman, who was recently elevated to the Fed's bank overseer role by Trump, had previously been on the more hawkish end of the monetary policy spectrum, having dissented last fall in favor of a smaller rate cut than what the Fed delivered.
Nodding toward the potential ambitions of the dissenters, Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JP Morgan, described their votes on Wednesday as "two job applications attached" to the FOMC statement, even as he noted, "we don't read too much into these dissents for the future direction of policy."
As for the rest of the Fed's policymakers, they voted in favor of holding rates steady because even as some risks to the outlook are emerging, they are still wary of what Trump's tariffs will do to price pressures.
"The economy is in a solid position" and "for the time being, we're well positioned to learn more about the likely course of the economy and the evolving balance of risks before adjusting our policy stance," Powell said at a press conference on Wednesday after the end of the Fed's two-day policy meeting.
Powell appeared to see no downsides to the dissents.
He described the FOMC gathering as a "good meeting" and added, "what you want from everybody, and also from a dissenter, is a clear explanation of what your thinking is and what are the arguments you're making ... We had that today."
Powell did not indicate whether the dissenters had moved the consensus. "We haven't made any decisions about September. We'll be monitoring all the incoming data and asking ourselves whether the federal funds rate is in the right place."
The Fed's next policy meeting is scheduled for September 16-17.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties

Times

time16 minutes ago

  • Times

Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties

E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article

Removal of parts of Constitution from Congress website raises concerns
Removal of parts of Constitution from Congress website raises concerns

The Independent

time18 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Removal of parts of Constitution from Congress website raises concerns

Significant parts of the US Constitution, including sections 8, 9, and 10, were temporarily removed from the website. Notably, Section 9, which discusses the Writ of Habeas Corpus protecting against unlawful detention, was among the missing text. The disappearance prompted an online frenzy and raised concerns about transparency among the public and media outlets. The Library of Congress, which maintains the website, stated that the removal was due to a 'coding error'. The missing sections were subsequently restored to the website later the same day.

Why Trump is threatening to double India's tariffs
Why Trump is threatening to double India's tariffs

The Independent

time18 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Why Trump is threatening to double India's tariffs

Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing a 50% tariff on Indian imports, citing India 's purchase of Russian oil This action has been criticised by India's opposition and public as 'bullying', with analysts warning it could undo two decades of diplomatic progress between the two nations. India has accused the US of double standards regarding Russian imports and vowed to protect its national interests, despite concerns that further escalation could harm it beyond trade. Analysts suggest the relationship is at its worst point since 1998, with India facing pressure to reduce Russian oil purchases without appearing to surrender to Trump's demands. Indian government sources indicate a need to gradually repair ties with the US while increasing engagement with the BRICS bloc and other nations affected by Trump's tariffs and aid cuts.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store