The GBPUSD pair is above the EMA200 and EMA50 on the 4-hour timeframe and is moving in its ascending channel. In case of a downward correction, the pair can be bought within the specified demand range.
The Federal Reserve of the United States has embarked on a process that could have profound implications for the global economy: a reassessment of the framework used to determine interest rates. These rates influence borrowing costs and prices not only in the U.S. but also across much of the world.To implement this reform effectively, the Federal Reserve must first identify the core issue. During the January meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, central bank policymakers emphasized that the new framework must be “resilient to a wide range of conditions.” This marks a step in the right direction, given that the current framework, established in 2020, proved inadequate in responding to the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The 2020 framework was introduced at a time when inflation consistently remained below the Fed’s 2% target. To compensate for this shortfall, policymakers committed to allowing inflation to run above target. Specifically, the Fed pledged to keep short-term interest rates near zero until three conditions were met:
• The economy achieved maximum sustainable employment,
• Inflation reached 2%,
• Inflation was expected to remain above 2% for some time.
Additionally, interest rate hikes could not begin until the central bank had concluded its asset purchase program, known as quantitative easing (QE)—a process that itself depended on substantial progress toward meeting the three stated conditions.
As a result, the Federal Reserve was significantly delayed in responding to a strong economy, a tight labor market, and accelerating inflation. When rate hikes finally began in March 2022, real GDP growth remained robust, unemployment was below the level deemed sustainable by policymakers, and the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge had already exceeded 5%.
Despite these clear signals, debates persist about whether the Fed’s policy framework was to blame. Some argue that the central bank merely made a forecasting error, later compensating with aggressive monetary tightening. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has echoed this view, calling the framework “useless.”
However, had the Federal Reserve disregarded this framework and instead adhered to traditional policy rules, it likely would have started raising short-term rates about a year earlier.
Another argument is that the inflation surge, which was observed globally, was beyond the Fed’s control. However, in the U.S., surging demand for goods—bolstered by a massive fiscal stimulus—played a significant role in driving up global prices.
Additionally, while many other countries faced dramatic increases in energy prices, this factor played a relatively minor role in the U.S. inflation spike.
A third perspective holds that the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package was excessively large. While this undoubtedly contributed to economic overheating, it was still the Fed’s responsibility to account for its effects and respond with tighter monetary policy.
Identifying these missteps is crucial. Otherwise, how can we be confident that the Federal Reserve won’t repeat them? Credibility is essential; without it, policymakers will struggle to influence financial markets and the broader economy effectively.
To restore confidence, the Fed must address the shortcomings of the 2020 framework. It should abandon policies that kept interest rates artificially low for too long and adopt a more cautious approach to quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT). Finally, it should reconsider whether interbank interest rates remain the best policy tool or if focusing on the interest rate banks pay on reserves would be more effective.
The Federal Reserve of the United States has embarked on a process that could have profound implications for the global economy: a reassessment of the framework used to determine interest rates. These rates influence borrowing costs and prices not only in the U.S. but also across much of the world.To implement this reform effectively, the Federal Reserve must first identify the core issue. During the January meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, central bank policymakers emphasized that the new framework must be “resilient to a wide range of conditions.” This marks a step in the right direction, given that the current framework, established in 2020, proved inadequate in responding to the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The 2020 framework was introduced at a time when inflation consistently remained below the Fed’s 2% target. To compensate for this shortfall, policymakers committed to allowing inflation to run above target. Specifically, the Fed pledged to keep short-term interest rates near zero until three conditions were met:
• The economy achieved maximum sustainable employment,
• Inflation reached 2%,
• Inflation was expected to remain above 2% for some time.
Additionally, interest rate hikes could not begin until the central bank had concluded its asset purchase program, known as quantitative easing (QE)—a process that itself depended on substantial progress toward meeting the three stated conditions.
As a result, the Federal Reserve was significantly delayed in responding to a strong economy, a tight labor market, and accelerating inflation. When rate hikes finally began in March 2022, real GDP growth remained robust, unemployment was below the level deemed sustainable by policymakers, and the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge had already exceeded 5%.
Despite these clear signals, debates persist about whether the Fed’s policy framework was to blame. Some argue that the central bank merely made a forecasting error, later compensating with aggressive monetary tightening. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has echoed this view, calling the framework “useless.”
However, had the Federal Reserve disregarded this framework and instead adhered to traditional policy rules, it likely would have started raising short-term rates about a year earlier.
Another argument is that the inflation surge, which was observed globally, was beyond the Fed’s control. However, in the U.S., surging demand for goods—bolstered by a massive fiscal stimulus—played a significant role in driving up global prices.
Additionally, while many other countries faced dramatic increases in energy prices, this factor played a relatively minor role in the U.S. inflation spike.
A third perspective holds that the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package was excessively large. While this undoubtedly contributed to economic overheating, it was still the Fed’s responsibility to account for its effects and respond with tighter monetary policy.
Identifying these missteps is crucial. Otherwise, how can we be confident that the Federal Reserve won’t repeat them? Credibility is essential; without it, policymakers will struggle to influence financial markets and the broader economy effectively.
To restore confidence, the Fed must address the shortcomings of the 2020 framework. It should abandon policies that kept interest rates artificially low for too long and adopt a more cautious approach to quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT). Finally, it should reconsider whether interbank interest rates remain the best policy tool or if focusing on the interest rate banks pay on reserves would be more effective.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.