The Fed's decision not to taper was a protest

But do they protest too much?

The Fed’s decision to surprise the market by NOT tapering last Wednesday was clearly intended as a protest at the market’s interest rate expectations and maybe also told us that now Larry Summers has been forced shamefully out of the contest, the front-runner to replace Mr Bernanke, San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen, is already easing herself quietly into the Chairman’s seat.

The FOMC’s shock tactic certainly had the desired effect, sending Treasury yields tumbling and forcing estimates for the timing of the first Fed Funds hike further into the distance.

My guess, however, would be that this is will be brief victory for the Fed, and maybe ultimately a Pyrrhic one, endangering its credibility; the reason being that the Fed’s actions and statements are littered with inconsistencies.

The Fed’s own prognoses for the economy, the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) would have us believe that by the end of 2016 the US will be enjoying an employment rate between 5.4 per cent to 5.9 per cent, very close to the FOMC’s own estimate for the long-run "full employment" rate which the economy can support without inflation getting out of hand, of 5.2 per cent to 5.8 per cent.  However, extraordinarily, the SEP also tells us that inflation will be at or near the 2 per cent target, but that the nominal Fed Funds rate will still only be at 2 per cent (meaning the real rate will be near zero).

This set of outcomes would represent an unheard of state of affairs; for instance, the standard piece of theory used by economists to predict the  appropriate level for interest rates, given prevailing unemployment and inflation rates, the so-called Taylor rule, would suggest a Fed Funds rate close to the long-run neutral level, which the FOMC itself estimates as 4 per cent!

When asked about these inconsistencies at the post-meeting press conference Chairman Bernanke said that “there may be possibly several reasons” for their end-2016 Fed Funds rate expectation being still far below the long-run neutral level but the “primary reason for that low value is that we expect that a number of factors, including the slow recovery of the housing sector, continued fiscal drag, perhaps continued effects from the financial crisis, may still prove to be headwinds to the recovery”.

Really? Eight years after the Financial crisis peaked? Why exactly? Show a little more faith in the US economy’s "animal spirits" please, Mr Bernanke but, hang on, your growth estimates for the next few years, with real GDP growth forecasts of 3.0 per cent in 2014, 3.25 per cent in 2015, and 2.9 per cent in 2016, are really quite upbeat? They don’t suggest that the crisis will still by then be inflicting the sort of structural damage that would call for the bizarre combination of economic variables and interest rates which you are trying to convince us will pertain?

My feeling would be that the Fed, like the BOE, will have to raise rates far earlier and faster than it would have us expect. Not tapering would have delivered an effective slap on the wrist to the market, the combination of the SEP and the forward interest rate guidance together meant "they did protest too much".

Ben Bernanke Photograph: Getty Images

Chairman of  Saxo Capital Markets Board

An Honours Graduate from Oxford University, Nick Beecroft has over 30 years of international trading experience within the financial industry, including senior Global Markets roles at Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Citibank. Nick was a member of the Bank of England's Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee.

More of his work can be found here.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here