Inflation cooled for the fifth straight month in August at 2.5%, inching closer to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. But core prices, which strip out food and energy, stayed stagnant at 3.2%. Is it time for the central bank to adjust its core inflation target of 2%?
The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of full employment and price stability. To keep those numbers in line with a strong economy, they use tools like adjusting the federal funds rate, which is the overnight lending rate for banks but in a downstream way that affects interest rates on everything from mortgages to car loans.
The range is currently set at 5.25-5.50% after the Fed raised rates from near zero starting in March 2022 through July 2023. The Federal Open Market Committee will meet next week and is expected to start cutting interest rates for the first time this year.
While it seems like the 2.5% increase in consumer prices would give Fed Chair Jerome Powell a little cover, the central bank puts the focus on core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices. Core inflation is still at 3.2% annually due mainly to rising shelter costs.
Straight Arrow News interviewed Monetary Macro CIO and the Fed Guy Joseph Wang Wednesday morning, Sept. 11, to discuss the latest inflation data. The conversation turned to whether the 2% target is a realistic endgame.
The following transcript is edited for length and clarity. Watch the full clip in the video above and catch the entire interview on SAN’s YouTube page.
Joseph Wang: I think we might be in a new, higher inflation regime. So we have to be careful. The future does not always look like the past. Over the past 20 years, we’ve had a world where inflation was pretty stable around 2%, but it wasn’t always like that.
Before the “Great Moderation” period, we were in the 1970s and 80s where inflation was volatile and sometimes very high. I think we’re heading into an era where inflation is probably going to be more volatile and higher than it was in the past. That’s certainly what the CPI is telling me.
Now looking on a year-over-year basis, we’ve been above 3% for some time and honestly, it looks kind of stuck there. Now we could have recessions that temporarily bring that down, but I think the next time we have a recession, maybe we just have more stimulus checks and so forth, and that makes it surge again.
So I think the future is going to be a world where inflation is going to be higher and more volatile. And that’s something that we’re going to have to get used to.
Simone Del Rosario: Fed Chair Jerome Powell gets asked this a lot and he loves to slap this down, which is, “Is the 2% target rate out of date and should we be looking at a 3% target?”
I know Jay Powell continues to stick to his 2% conviction but are you hearing anything different?
Joseph Wang: We have to realize that the 2% inflation target is nothing magical. It’s nothing set in stone. It’s a decision made by people. Now, in the Fed’s case, it was decided in 2012 to have an inflation target of 2%. Does it have to be that way? We could easily change it.
I think it’s helpful to understand why we might want to change the target. Traditionally speaking, economists think there’s a trade off between inflation and unemployment. So they would think that if we have 3% inflation, in order to get 3% inflation down to 2%, we have to have a bit of a recession, we have to have the unemployment rate go up a little bit. So ultimately, whether or not we decide to have a higher inflation target is a political decision as to whether or not the government can tolerate a temporary recession.
When inflation was around 4% and it looked like it would have come down, there were actually many people, influential people, writing columns in big newspapers saying, “Hey, why don’t we just change the inflation target so that it’s 3% or maybe a little bit more, instead of 2%?” They were saying this because they did not want the political costs of having temporarily higher unemployment, of creating a recession. So whether or not we change the inflation target is ultimately going to depend upon the political appetite for economic weakness.
Honestly, at 3% inflation, I think that’s close enough to 2% that people would just kind of struggle and say, “Yeah, it’ll eventually get there,” and they won’t have to change the target. But the next economic cycle, when we have an upswing, maybe inflation goes back to 4%, maybe a little bit more. Depending on who’s in power, maybe they don’t want to take that risk of having a recession to get inflation down, and maybe at that time, we’ll have some serious conversations within the government about whether or not they could change the inflation target.
To your point about what the Fed people have been talking about now, definitely they would never say that they’re going to raise the inflation target. But at the moment, they are having a discussion about their framework and that’s due to be released in a couple years.
There are former Fed speakers who are whispering that, “Instead of having a 2% inflation target, what if we have something called an inflation band?” So what that means is that my target is not a 2% point, but maybe it’s 2% plus or minus 1%. So that means that inflation at 1.5% is within the band, it’s okay. If it’s 2.5% or even 3%, that’s okay as well.
So that could be a way to, by sleight of hand, increase the inflation target simply by tolerating inflation higher than 2% because it’s still within the band. That is something that people discussed before in the Fed and now they’re discussing again. I don’t know what they will ultimately decide. I think it might depend upon just how easy they think it is to maintain 2% in the coming years.
