The need for a logical and clear language at the Fed

Cleveland Fed Loretta Mester muses:

How do you have June be a viable alternative, but not lock the committee into necessarily moving in June?” she said. “That is a challenge for communication.”

Ms. Mester is arguing more broadly for a rewrite of the Fed’s script. She said the Fed’s policy statements have gotten unwieldy, overloaded with code words that the public doesn’t well understand.

“We should try to simplify our statements over time,” she said. “We talk in code….We would probably do better to be a bit more plain-spoken.”

Having a misleading and anyway obsolete inflation targeting policy regime, it is hard (maybe impossible) to become “a bit more plain spoken”.

They could be much more plain spoken and clear if, while keeping the stable prices and maximum employment Congressional mandate (a consequence of having nominal stability), they changed to having an NGDP level target, the best means available for producing nominal stability.


One thought on “The need for a logical and clear language at the Fed

  1. Granted, IT targeting is stupid. But if the Fed has an IT, then it should say it will buy bonds (or lower rates) until it hits its IT for three months in a row, or something to that effect.

    In other words, Fed policies are dependent on real world outcomes. We do QE, until targets are hit. That is guidance.

    The mumbo-jumbo they put out is indecipherable gibberish about a stupid non-policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.