The Federal Reserve signaled Wednesday that a full economic recovery could take “nearly three more years,” and it went further than ever to assure consumers and businesses that they will be able to borrow cheaply well into the future. The central bank said it would probably not increase its benchmark interest rate until late 2014 at the earliest – a year and a half later than it had previously said. Some economists said the new late-2014 target might foreshadow further Fed action to try to “invigorate the economy.” Julie Coronado, an economist at BNP Paribas, said she thought the Fed was indicating that it will step up its purchases of bonds and other assets if economic growth fails to accelerate — even if it doesn’t slow. That is a “very low bar indeed,” she wrote in a note to clients. Other analysts fear that the Fed’s longer-term timetable for a rate increase could hamstring it, even though Bernanke stressed the Fed’s ability to adjust rates “as it sees fit.” Dana Saporta, an economist at Credit Suisse, worried that the much-longer timetable would compromise the Fed’s credibility if it must raise rates sooner because of unexpectedly strong growth and inflation. “It’s striking that the Fed would make an implicit commitment for almost three years,” Saporta said. “It seems like an awfully long time to make such a statement. Given that no one knows what will happen … the (Fed) may eventually regret this.” The new timetable showed the Fed is concerned, if not surprised, that the recovery remains “stubbornly slow.” However, the Fed also thinks inflation will stay tame enough for rates to remain at record lows without igniting price increases. Chairman Ben Bernanke cautioned that late 2014 is merely its “best guess.” The Fed can shift that plan if the economic picture changes. But he cast doubt on whether that would be necessary. “Unless there is a substantial strengthening of the economy in the near term, it’s a pretty good guess we will be keeping rates low for some time,” he said. The bank’s tepid outlook suggests it’s prepared to do more to “help” the economy. One possibility is a third bond-buying program that will supposedly drive down rates on mortgages and other loans in an effort to convince consumers and businesses to borrow and spend more. In a statement after a two-day policy meeting, the Fed said it stands ready to adjust its “holdings as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery in the context of price stability.” It was the first time the Fed had released interest-rate forecasts from its committee members. It will now do so four times a year, when it also updates its economic outlook. The central bank slightly reduced its outlook for growth this year, from as much as 2.9 percent forecast in November down to 2.7 percent. For the first time, the Fed provided an official target for inflation – 2 percent – in a statement of its long-term policy goals. The bank sees unemployment falling as low as 8.2 percent this year, better than its earlier forecast of 8.5 percent. December’s unemployment rate was 8.5 percent. However, that number is very much debatable. As noted earlier on The Blaze (via Zero Hedge ): One does not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp the fudging the BLS has been doing every month for years now in order to bring the unemployment rate lower: the BLS constantly lowers the labor force participation rate as more and more people “drop out” of the labor force for one reason or another. While there is some floating speculation that this is due to early retirement, this is completely counterfactual when one also considers the overall rise in the general civilian non institutional population. …we are redoing an analysis we did first back in August 2010, which shows what the real unemployment rate would be using a realistic labor force participation rate… It won’t surprise anyone that as of December, the real implied unemployment rate was 11.4% – basically where it has been ever since 2009… Bernanke noted that the Fed expects only moderate growth over the next year. He pointed to the persistently depressed housing market and continued tight credit for many consumers and companies. The Fed described inflation as “subdued,” a more encouraging assessment than last month. “This is a fairly clear-cut signal that inflation is not on their radar at this point,” Tom Porcelli, an economist at RBC Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read the original post:
Does This Latest Decision by the Fed Foreshadow Future Plans for the Economy?
Well, he made good on one promise for once. President Obama has defied the Senate’s rejection of Dodd-Frank czar Richard Cordray and recess-appointed — just as he threatened last month and just as Soros operatives pushed him to do for months. The White House trumpeted the strong-arm move this morning. The President nominated Mr. Cordray last summer. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate blocked his confirmation. They refused to let the Senate go forward with an up or down vote. It’s not because Republicans think Cordray isn’t qualified for the job, they simply believe that the American public doesn’t need a watchdog at all. Well, we disagree. And we can’t wait for Republicans in the Senate to act. Now, you might hear some folks across the aisle criticize this “recess appointment.” It’s probably the same folks who don’t think we need a tough consumer watchdog in the first place. Those critics might tell you that Wall Street should write their own rules. Or you might hear them say the American people are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves. Again, we disagree with those critics. Refresh your memories on Cordray and the expansive new regulatory powers he will now wield here . Senate Republicans have vowed to block Cordray or any other candidate for the job until key reforms are made to the sweeping law and its half-billion-dollar enforcement arm, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The common-sense changes include subjecting the CFPB to the congressional appropriations process instead of the Federal Reserve; restoring independent judicial review; ensuring that it takes into account the impact of new rules on the safety and soundness of financial institutions; and creating a bipartisan oversight board instead of a single director to run the agency. Obama himself supported such a panel — before he opposed and demagogued it. As it stands, the bureau remains under the Treasury Department. The minute a director is sworn in, the agency will transfer to the fed for administrative purposes, but will effectively have free rein. The Fed’s authority over it is illusory. And it would be impossible for the Dodd-Frank czar to be removed by a change of administration because his term is five years and his tenure protected. While crusading as a consumer watchdog who’ll take on Wall Street, Cordray (whom voters booted from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office last fall) is tight with securities class-action lawyers. As Daniel Fisher at Forbes Magazine reported, Cordray has a record of “taking money from lawyers who profit from private litigation that often follows closely on the heels of government investigations.” In other words: Exactly the kind of cozy, crony relationships that created our financial crisis in the first place. As for Cordray’s ability to police shady behavior by others, his own record as Ohio Attorney General raises more doubts than it allays. When local papers spotlighted shady campaign account-shifting involving nearly $800,000, even a liberal Ohio Citizen Action leader responded: “I’m sure he’s following the letter of the law. It’s certainly not following the spirit of the law.” Flashback — Obama 2005: Recess appointees are “damaged goods;” Obama 2010: Recess appointments are “critical” need
Read the rest here:
He’s baaaaack: Obama recess-appoints Dodd-Frank czar
Markets closed up on Wall Street today: Dow +0.38 percent S&P +0.32 percent Nasdaq +0.07 percent Oil -1.65 percent Gold -0.95 percent On the commodities front: Oil ( NYSE:USO ) dropped to $93.38 a barrel Gold ( NYSE:GLD ) fell to $1,571.80 an ounce Silver ( NYSE:SLV ) climbed 0.74 percent to settle at $29.15 (Related: House Republicans Unveil $1 Trillion Spending Bill ) Today’s markets were up because: 1) Jobs: The number of people filing for initial unemployment benefits fell to 366,000 last week, the Labor Department reported this morning—the lowest level since May 2008, and well below analysts’ estimates. The 19,000 decline in new claims matches a 19,000 decline from the week earlier, giving markets hope that persistently high unemployment might finally be easing up a bit. 2) Europe: Despite some positive economic news in the U.S.—mortgage rates sank to record lows, manufacturing activity jumped—the lingering threat of Europe’s debt crisis tempered sentiment. News that Ben Bernanke told Senate Republicans yesterday that the Federal Reserve had no plans to send additional aid to European banks only had investors fretting more about a situation already fraught with peril. And though a strong bond auction provided some relief for Spain today, it did little to calm larger fears for the future of the European Union. 3) Fashion: Michael Kors stock debuted on the New York Stock Exchange today, after the fashion brand raised $944 million in its initial public offering on Wednesday evening. The IPO was the largest ever for a U.S. fashion company. Michael Kors joined 10 other companies in going public this week, making for the most active IPO week in more than four years. Other hot IPOs this week include Zynga and Jive Software. [ Editor's note: the above is a cross post that originally appeared on Wall St. Cheat Sheet .]
Read the rest here:
Market Recap: Stocks Rally to Break 3-Day Losing Streak
Newt Gingrich has hit Mitt Romney where it hurts. Right in the Liberalus Maximus . In an intervie w with The Transom on Friday, Gingrich was asked about Romney’s lack of support for the Contract with America, a list of public policy goals Gingrich crafted that spurred the Republican Revolution in 1994. “That’s not totally fair,” Gingrich said. “He was running to the left of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994. He said flatly, he wasn’t for the Reagan-Bush policies, he was independent. And he couldn’t possibly have been for the Contract because, how do you run to the left of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts favoring a Gingrich contract?” h/t Yahoo News

Read the original post:
Gingrich says Romney was more liberal than Ted Kennedy
