Consequently they also faced the dilemma of trying to meet its mandate of full employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent creating division among its members, with some saying hold back on a cut,and full steam ahead by others, creating a first for that body.
The drop in the rate went down to a range: 3.5 to 3.75, to 0.25 percentage points. And The Hill reported that, “The FOMC approved the rate cut by a vote of 9 to 3, a smaller margin than the typical Fed rate decision. Fed board member Stephen Miran preferred to cut rates by 0.5 percentage points, while Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Austan Goolsbee and Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid called for no cut at all.”
It should be no surprise that Miran, an ally of President Trump, wanted the larger cuts a bone of contention between the president and Federal Reserve head Jerome Powell.
Even allowing for a plurality of views, “The unusual number and nature of Wednesday’s dissents revealed how hard it could be for Fed Chair Jerome Powell — and his eventual successor — to keep the FOMC united with the economy at a foggy crossroads” reported The Hill and added,”The last time three FOMC members voted against a Fed move was in September 2019, when the Fed cut interest rates to unwind a series of previous increases meant to stave off inflation that never materialized.
At Wednesday’s press conference, Powell said,“Everyone agrees that inflation is too high, and we want it to come down, and agree that the labor market has softened and that there’s further risk. Everyone agrees on that.”
With perhaps the greatest understatement he added: “Where the difference is, is how do you weigh those risks? And what does your forecast look like?”
Powell’s term ends in May of 2026, and Trump is expected to name his successor in the near future; and, it’s no secret that the two have differed on the role and size of rate cuts, and the president did give some of his characteristic verbal bludgeoning to the Chair for the past several months.
The dilemma that Powell has faced, as we have noted many times before, is the balancing act between meeting the mandate and taking stock of inflation, plus the adjoining employment rate. While inflation has rebounded from earlier years when it was over 3 percent, especially in a post pandemic world, the current rate is still high, and is especially felt by low income Americans during their weekly grocery shopping; and, many are feeling that the president has not kept his campaign promise of lowering those prices, inasmuch as any president can.
Meanwhile employment has remained resilient, if shaky, in the face of economic uncertainty, mostly attributable to the billions of dollars in tariffs imposed by the president, what an earlier era called protectionism; and, the effect on hiring is significant as employers are trying to make do with what they have on payroll, and increasing hiring only when necessary, creating a slowdown in many areas, health care and hospitality excepted.
Consumer confidence has taken a hit, as are the poll ratings for the president now at 36 percent. And, while he has portrayed affordability as a Democratic hoax, the reality of higher prices and the ever increasing costs of housing have many American working families deeply worried about their economic future, not to mention meeting monthly bills, and feeding their children.
There is some optimism by some economists that consumer spending is steady but it;s important to note, as we did last month, that the increased spending is supported by high income earners, but lower income individuals and families face the above challenges, thus the infamous K shaped economy.
Currently it is estimated that there is $150 billion in tariff money sitting in reserve and the the president has said that some might be given to Americans in the form of a check, or to help pay for health care, but economists don’t see that as a viable option in either case, with the latter forcing people to confront, on their own, the behemoth of American health care giants.
The role of politics cannot be underestimated in examining the American economy but there are fears that many hardworking Americans may be caught in the middle.
On Thursday there were the initial jobless claims and while there was an increase to the tune of 236,000 and allowing for some holiday volatility, following previously lower numbers of 191,000, there are cautionary notes, according to Claudia Sahm, a former Fed economist, who told Fortune magazine that, “Initial claims don’t give you a sense of what’s coming,” she said. They’re what economists like to call a lagging indicator, meaning they tend to spike after a recession is underway, not before it. Recent weekly readings, distorted by holidays and special factors, are even less informative.”
Nevertheless, as Yahoo Finance reported, “Weekly initial claims tend to be choppy around the holidays and will likely continue to fluctuate through the end of the year, but Thursday’s figures are toward the higher end of readings seen in 2025. Companies like PepsiCo Inc. and HP Inc. have laid out plans to reduce headcount in recent weeks, and nationwide layoffs in October were the highest since early 2023.”
The future is on the minds of many and Powell, playing close to the vest, feels at best that shifting into neutral gear may be the best option but then again, as The New York Times opined, ”If there are signs that the unemployment rate might surge, that would probably prompt more officials to embrace the need to cut rates. So far, though, most policymakers do not appear worried, nor do they appear to be downbeat about growth. Projections released on Wednesday showed that most officials expected the unemployment rate to peak at 4.5 percent in 2025, before declining.”
Tariffs are still on the chart and it seems that Powell, and others, are waiting for the first quarter of 2026 to make an assessment, perhaps a code word for “wait and see.”
.
