Fellow
Shortrunners,
On Tuesday, the FOMC met again to decide monetary policy. Greenspan & company decided to slash interest rates another quarter of a point. Most economists and Fed watchers had expected such a move. What was instead perhaps more notable and arguably more important was the FOMC Statement which the Governors released following their meeting. Its task historically has been to allow the Federal Open Market Committee to give some of its impressions of economic activity and the justification behind its rate movements. There are several key benefits to this action which have been discussed in previous newsletters. The most important is that giving some incite into the thoughts of the committee provides transparency. It allows market participants and businesses to have some understanding of Fed policy. The transparency combined with gradual rate movements prevent financial markets from getting shocked and they help businesses and consumers plan and adjust to rate changes. Tuesday marked the 11th consecutive interest rate cut, by what has turned into one of the Fed's largest historical stimuli. The statement itself suggested that economic activity was "soft" and that underlying inflation (making a reference to their use of core indices) would likely move lower. This was the driving force behind their rate cut. What they did go on to say however was that they believed that the risks in the near future were toward continued economic slowdown (this section is known as a tilt), in a sense suggesting that they were unlikely to change monetary policy any time soon. This is basically the same thing the Fed has been saying for the past 11 moves. So what's important about this release? The Fed said something else, "weakness in demand shows signs of abating." They are essentially noting that there are signs that an economic recovery will occur in the near future, something that the markets have been waiting on for quite a while. Finally, something I found amusing was that in almost a postscript they mentioned the conflict in Afghanistan and security measures at home in what amounts the most purely economic analysis I have ever read. Calling increased defense spending the "necessary reallocation of resources to enhance security," they mentioned that these efforts may constrain short-term productivity, but should have little long -term impact on longer-term productivity and economic growth. Sincerely, Daniel Hicks
Wholesale Trade Index: -1.4%
Current Account: -$95 Billion
Import and Export Prices: -1.6%
Producer Price Index: -0.6% Core 0.2%
Retail Sales: -3.7%
Check out the new classroom section and watch for it to grow and change in the coming weeks as we implement drastic reconstruction to the section. Comment and suggestions as to the best method for this kind of a section would be extremely helpful.
Newest Articles: Balance
East and West Bush's
Tax Plan Just Doesn't Cut It
Money
and Power by Howard Means
Check out the new additions to the book reviews section. If you would like to unsubscribe, simply reply with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. |
SCREEN SAVER
Issue #81 There are currently 562 subscribers to the short run weekly
|
theshortrun.com