It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve signaled Wednesday that it plans to keep a key interest rate at a record low for a considerable period because a broad range of U.S. economic measures remain subpar.
The Fed said it intends to keep its benchmark rate near zero as long as inflation remains under control, until it sees consistent gains in wage growth, long-term unemployment and other gauges of the job market.
The central bank retained language signaling its plans to keep short-term rates low "for a considerable time" after it ends its monthly bond purchases after its next meeting in October.
Stock prices rose after the Fed issued a statement at 2 p.m. Eastern time after a two-day policy meeting. Traders appeared pleased that the Fed seems in no hurry to raise rates. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note ticked up to 2.59 percent from 2.56 percent before the Fed's statement. In its statement, the Fed said it will make another $10 billion cut in the pace of its Treasury and mortgage bond purchases, which have been intended to keep long-term borrowing rates low. It also clarified the process by which it will eventually unwind its low-rate policies. The Fed said it would first increase its key short-term rate before it stops reinvesting its bond holdings, which have driven the Fed's balance sheet to a record of nearly $4.5 trillion. On Wednesday, the central bank also issued updated forecasts for growth, inflation and interest rates. The median short-term rate supported by Fed policymakers at the end of 2015 is now 1.38 percent, up from 1.13 percent at its June meeting.
I'm sure the FED thinks we the people are idiots. And well, a lot of the country is, but still...no one remember 2008 I guess. This is pattern and repetition. If people would stop cheering Obammy on, saying he is bringing America back to the greatness of the Eisenhower years this type of BS wouldn't be able to fly without protest.
originally posted by: intrepid
I'm sure the FED thinks we the people are idiots. And well, a lot of the country is, but still...no one remember 2008 I guess. This is pattern and repetition. If people would stop cheering Obammy on, saying he is bringing America back to the greatness of the Eisenhower years this type of BS wouldn't be able to fly without protest.
Um, Obama didn't take power until Jan 2009.
And 2, does it matter? Who can borrow these days?
The Fed said it intends to keep its benchmark rate near zero as long as inflation remains under control
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
No one should expect a full recovery of the housing market until lending rates come up from these contrived lows.
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Aazadan
And what do you think contributed most to that? Transportation costs? Ie: The cost of fuel? That's a tax that is undocumented imo.
originally posted by: abecedarian
My wife works for one of those larger general retail chain stores. California just bumped minimum wage to $9.00. So, whereas previously she earned nearly $1.00 per hour more than 'new' hires, she is now less than $0.40 difference. So what is fair? If minimum wages increase, should existing employees be entitled to a proportional increase in wages as well, so as to maintain the perceived equity with regards to employment history and duration?
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Aazadan
And what do you think contributed most to that? Transportation costs? Ie: The cost of fuel? That's a tax that is undocumented imo.
Drought, farm bill, fuel costs, and most importantly, pumping $85 billion into the economy every single month. That's 1 trillion per year created and injected directly into corporate expense accounts. That has a huge impact on inflation.
originally posted by: abecedarian
My wife works for one of those larger general retail chain stores. California just bumped minimum wage to $9.00. So, whereas previously she earned nearly $1.00 per hour more than 'new' hires, she is now less than $0.40 difference. So what is fair? If minimum wages increase, should existing employees be entitled to a proportional increase in wages as well, so as to maintain the perceived equity with regards to employment history and duration?
The Henry Ford approach, which he validated with his success was that if you paid your employees more money, they in turn would have the money to purchase your products letting you broaden your customer base and recover what you paid out in wages.
originally posted by: ArchPlayer
The problem is with the repeal of Glass-Stegall and other acts, how can you essentially force corporations to take the henry ford approach, or at least feel they have to divest back in their country of origin. I believe deregulation has pushed America off the proverbial cliff, and this is a power play by corporations to take over as their own authoritative body outside of national sovereignity.