This was very good, and you get bonus points for the reference to Van Halen's quality trick.
By coincidence, at the same time you posted this, Construction Physics took a look at ways in which HUD standards could yield more construction productivity for ADU's and other small housing types. I should really rant about that on his blog, but I want to point out there was never really a golden age of modular construction. HUD conforming trailers, mobile homes, etc.... are not an architectural solution for housing except for the most desperate of circumstances. I will maintain that position and object to the way they've been treated from the perspective of land use regulation.
I don't know. There are a lot of retiree communities made up of park models, etc., that seem to be an urbanists dream - walkable, dense, very active community interactions, etc. But they're legally restricted to retirees.
Maybe too early to crow yer, but maybe time to spay throat tonic and step up to the podium.
"Inflation in the US, as measured by the change in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index, was 3% on a yearly basis in October, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis reported on Thursday. This reading came in line with the market expectation and was below 3.4% of the previous month.
The annual Core PCE Price Index, the Federal Reserve's preferred gauge of inflation, rose 3.5%,"
Way OT, but I thought I would give Kevin Erdmann a chuckle.
A couple decades back or more, when I became obsessed with monetary policy, there was lots of talk about "the Taylor Rule," usually from the hawkish sorts. It has to be said, the Taylor Rule does offer some common sense approaches to monetary policy, but one could quibble with parameters.
Now this (see below), from the National Australian Bank. Why the NAB is writing about the Taylor Rule and the Fed I am not sure, but they seem to think it impacts Aussie monetary policy....
"Thematic – Taylor rules suggest the US Fed should cut rates"--NAB Market Economics
Note: this is the first Macro-Thematic publication from NAB Market Economics. We welcome comments and feedback at Tapas.Strickland@nab.com.au
Summary:
We replicate several Taylor rules referenced by the US Fed in light of the recent run of lower inflation prints, and using a range of differing real neutral rate assumptions. Our conclusion is that recent inflation would be consistent with a Fed Funds rate 75-125bps lower than current levels.
Key points:
On current inflation numbers, some Taylor-type rules referenced by the Fed suggest the Fed Funds Rate should be 75-125bps lower as of today. Of course, such rules are only bechnmarks. Policy may get to the level of rules eventually but actual policy deviates notably
Taylor-type rules that have best summarised actual policy are balanced rules (reflecting the dual mandate of inflation and employment) and inertial rules (policy being changed only gradually, particuarly when hiking rates, though cuts in practice occur more quickly in response to negative shocks). These rules imply fewer cuts.
As for when the Fed would start to cut rates, Fed Chair Powell has previously cited 6m annualised PCE and that the Fed would start to cut rates before reaching 2% y/y ("you'd stop raising long before you got to 2 percent inflation, and you'd start cutting before you got to 2 percent inflation").
The analysis contained in this thematic note gives us greater confidence of our forecasts for 100bps of cuts by the US Fed in H2 2024. The risks based on this analysis is that while cuts are justified, more sizeable cuts will likely require a sharper-than-expected apparent easing in the labour market and/or inflation heading below the Fed’s 2% target.
---30---
So, there you have it. Cut rates, the Taylor Rule says so.
This was very good, and you get bonus points for the reference to Van Halen's quality trick.
By coincidence, at the same time you posted this, Construction Physics took a look at ways in which HUD standards could yield more construction productivity for ADU's and other small housing types. I should really rant about that on his blog, but I want to point out there was never really a golden age of modular construction. HUD conforming trailers, mobile homes, etc.... are not an architectural solution for housing except for the most desperate of circumstances. I will maintain that position and object to the way they've been treated from the perspective of land use regulation.
I don't know. There are a lot of retiree communities made up of park models, etc., that seem to be an urbanists dream - walkable, dense, very active community interactions, etc. But they're legally restricted to retirees.
Maybe too early to crow yer, but maybe time to spay throat tonic and step up to the podium.
"Inflation in the US, as measured by the change in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index, was 3% on a yearly basis in October, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis reported on Thursday. This reading came in line with the market expectation and was below 3.4% of the previous month.
The annual Core PCE Price Index, the Federal Reserve's preferred gauge of inflation, rose 3.5%,"
Way OT, but I thought I would give Kevin Erdmann a chuckle.
A couple decades back or more, when I became obsessed with monetary policy, there was lots of talk about "the Taylor Rule," usually from the hawkish sorts. It has to be said, the Taylor Rule does offer some common sense approaches to monetary policy, but one could quibble with parameters.
Now this (see below), from the National Australian Bank. Why the NAB is writing about the Taylor Rule and the Fed I am not sure, but they seem to think it impacts Aussie monetary policy....
"Thematic – Taylor rules suggest the US Fed should cut rates"--NAB Market Economics
Note: this is the first Macro-Thematic publication from NAB Market Economics. We welcome comments and feedback at Tapas.Strickland@nab.com.au
Summary:
We replicate several Taylor rules referenced by the US Fed in light of the recent run of lower inflation prints, and using a range of differing real neutral rate assumptions. Our conclusion is that recent inflation would be consistent with a Fed Funds rate 75-125bps lower than current levels.
Key points:
On current inflation numbers, some Taylor-type rules referenced by the Fed suggest the Fed Funds Rate should be 75-125bps lower as of today. Of course, such rules are only bechnmarks. Policy may get to the level of rules eventually but actual policy deviates notably
Taylor-type rules that have best summarised actual policy are balanced rules (reflecting the dual mandate of inflation and employment) and inertial rules (policy being changed only gradually, particuarly when hiking rates, though cuts in practice occur more quickly in response to negative shocks). These rules imply fewer cuts.
As for when the Fed would start to cut rates, Fed Chair Powell has previously cited 6m annualised PCE and that the Fed would start to cut rates before reaching 2% y/y ("you'd stop raising long before you got to 2 percent inflation, and you'd start cutting before you got to 2 percent inflation").
The analysis contained in this thematic note gives us greater confidence of our forecasts for 100bps of cuts by the US Fed in H2 2024. The risks based on this analysis is that while cuts are justified, more sizeable cuts will likely require a sharper-than-expected apparent easing in the labour market and/or inflation heading below the Fed’s 2% target.
---30---
So, there you have it. Cut rates, the Taylor Rule says so.