The Fed Raises Interest Rates for First Time Since 2006

[DonDadda59]

We're back, America. Ain't no stopping us Now! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on-NRn-tReg) :banana: :djparty :dancin :hammertime: :party: :banana:


Finally! Fed raises interest rates

America's first interest rate hike in nearly a decade is here.

The Federal Reserve raised its key interest rate on Wednesday from a range of 0% to 0.25% to a range of 0.25% to 0.5%.

The rate hike is a small one, but it will affect millions of Americans, including investors, home buyers and savers. Savers should eventually see a little more interest on their deposits at the bank, but big banks didn't make any increases Wednesday. Mortgage rates will gradually rise.

The move was widely expected. It is a sign of how much the economy has healed since the Great Recession. The central bank believes the U.S. economy is strong now and no longer needs crutches and that the move "marks the end of an extraordinary period" of low rates designed to boost the recovery from the Great Recession.

"I feel confident about the fundamentals driving the U.S. economy, the health of U.S. households, and domestic spending," Fed chief Janet Yellen said during a press conference. "There are pressures on some sectors of the economy, particularly manufacturing, and the energy sector...but the underlying health of the U.S. economy I consider to be quite sound."

The Fed telegraphed it will be patient with future rate increases so as not to kill the economic recovery. The central bank's statement said the economy will only merit "gradual increases" in rates, which are likely to remain low "for some time." Yellen repeatedly said during the press conference that future rate hikes will be "gradual."

Stocks rallied with the Dow rising 224 points after the announcement and Yellen's press conference.

Investors were pleased to see that the Fed expects "only gradual increases" in rates next year and that the committee explicitly said it would take into account "readings on financial and international developments."

Related: Wall Street celebrates Fed rate hike

The Fed put interest rates near zero during the financial crisis in December 2008 to help stimulate the economy and boost the collapsed housing market.
But the economy is no longer in crisis. In fact it is a lot healthier -- unemployment now is at 5%, half of the 10% rate it hit in 2009 during the worst of the jobs crisis.

Over 12 million jobs have been added since the recession ended. Wages -- which have barely grown during the recovery -- have also started to pick up recently.

On Wednesday, the Fed's committee improved its economic outlook. Compared to its last forecast in September, the Fed raised its expectations for growth next year to 2.4%, up from 2.3%. It also lowered its projection for unemployment in 2016 to 4.7%, down from 4.8%.

The Fed still has low expectations for inflation. The central bank has two goals: low unemployment and stable inflation. The Fed's target for inflation is 2%, but right now it's close to zero. The Fed sees inflation inching up in the years to come, but not hitting 2% until 2018.

Known as "liftoff," the Fed's action is expected to be the first of more rate increases that will probably come in 2016. The last rate hike was June 2006.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/16/news/economy/federal-reserve-interest-rate-hike/index.html

[KyrieTheFuture]

Probably not going to end well

[embersyc]

Well there goes the housing market...

[KevinNYC]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWYSbNFUEAAuwD1.jpg

[mehyaM24]

hmmm. does this effect the interest payment on the 18 trillion on uncle sams credit card?

:lol

really though, HOPEFULLY our congress will begin to cut spending now to compensate for the higher interest payments we'll have to make.

[oarabbus]

Big news. A .25% increase isn't much but if it leads to more increases...

also could be big news for the tech bubble. Shit could burst if interest rates rise.

[KevinNYC]

Big news. A .25% increase isn't much but if it leads to more increases...

also could be big news for the tech bubble. Shit could burst if interest rates rise.
Why would it affect the tech bubble?

At least today, stocks went higher after the announcement?

Also the idea is going to be see how the economy is doing after the increases. Because they could cut a quarter point if the want to reverse course

[oarabbus]

Why would it affect the tech bubble?

At least today, stocks went higher after the announcement?

The interest rate goes up, it becomes more expensive for one bank to borrow money from another, so they raise their own interest rates. that .25% bank-to-bank may end up being a .75% raise bank-to-VC. Now the venture capitalists have less money to throw and gamble on tech companies

[DonDadda59]

Big news. A .25% increase isn't much but if it leads to more increases...


Unless something unforeseen happens, they will be raised again next year. I like the gradual, incremental increases. Great way to test out the water and see just how solid the economy is.

[KevinNYC]

The interest rate goes up, it becomes more expensive for one bank to borrow money from another, so they raise their own interest rates. that .25% bank-to-bank may end up being a .75% raise bank-to-VC. Now the venture capitalists have less money to throw and gamble on tech companies
Venture capitalist typically don't raise their money from bank loans, do they? Venture capitalists should have direct access to investors like pension funds.

[HeatFanSince88]

In fact it is a lot healthier -- unemployment now is at 5%, half of the 10% rate it hit in 2009 during the worst of the jobs crisis.


Unemployment is only lower because the formerly unemployed have stopped trying to get employment altogether, thus they are no longer counted in this "stat". The labor force participation rate only continues to decrease.

[DCL]

"gradual" means they will always be behind inflation, which is good and bad depending on who you are.

[KevinNYC]

Unemployment is only lower because the formerly unemployed have stopped trying to get employment altogether, thus they are no longer counted in this "stat". The labor force participation rate only continues to decrease.

This is untrue.

For one thing, the bureau of labor gives multiple measurements of unemployment each month. The official rate is the u3. They also give the u6 which counts the people you mention, people "marginally attached to the workforce."

http://econbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/u3_u6_jul_15.png

Both rates tell the same story. Unemployment shot up in 2009 and has slowly been coming down since early 2010.

For the second thing, I'm not sure the labor force participation rate is very meaningful. It's only been mentioned often recently, it had declining for quite a while before the the recent uses of this.

The labor force participation rate is higher now than it was throughout the 1960's which had a pretty great economy. So what does it tell us?

It rose and rose and peaked in the first few months of 2000. So it's been declining for over 15 years now. What does that tell us?

If you look at the charts, you can see the wave of the baby boomers going through their working life. Let's say grandpa came home from WWII in 1946, he found a girl settled down. Had their first baby in 1950. That baby is retirement age now.


Unemployment has come down, but we are still not at full employment and probably need 5 million jobs to reach that. That's two straight years of strong employment numbers every month. This 5% is not feeling like previous 5% years. Even if that two years of good job growth happens, the Labor Force Participation rate is not going to climb back up to 2000 levels because so many people are going to be retiring.

[KevinNYC]

If you want some fun, search google for "labor force participation rate" before the middle of sept 2008

https://www.google.com/search?q=Labor+Force+Participation+Rate&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1852&bih=995&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F17%2F2008&tbm=

and after Sept 2008

https://www.google.com/search?q=Labor+Force+Participation+Rate&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1852&bih=995&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F17%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A9% 2F17%2F2016&tbm=

All the top results from the first search are wonky technical pages. Afterwards it's all news sources

[KevinNYC]

Another fun search

“labor force participation rate” site:foxnews.com

Run this before and after Obama's swearing in 1/20/2009

[HeatFanSince88]

This is untrue.

For one thing, the bureau of labor gives multiple measurements of unemployment each month. The official rate is the u3. They also give the u6 which counts the people you mention, people "marginally attached to the workforce."

http://econbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/u3_u6_jul_15.png

Both rates tell the same story. Unemployment shot up in 2009 and has slowly been coming down since early 2010.

For the second thing, I'm not sure the labor force participation rate is very meaningful. It's only been mentioned often recently, it had declining for quite a while before the the recent uses of this.

The labor force participation rate is higher now than it was throughout the 1960's which had a pretty great economy. So what does it tell us?

It rose and rose and peaked in the first few months of 2000. So it's been declining for over 15 years now. What does that tell us?

If you look at the charts, you can see the wave of the baby boomers going through their working life. Let's say grandpa came home from WWII in 1946, he found a girl settled down. Had their first baby in 1950. That baby is retirement age now.


Unemployment has come down, but we are still not at full employment and probably need 5 million jobs to reach that. That's two straight years of strong employment numbers every month. This 5% is not feeling like previous 5% years. Even if that two years of good job growth happens, the Labor Force Participation rate is not going to climb back up to 2000 levels because so many people are going to be retiring.

I'm not "blaming Obama" or the democrats. The Democrats, and the Republicans are equally terrible.

the labor force participation rate was lower in the 60s because women didn't work and you could support a family on one salary. And that was with more children too. Now you need two salaries, just to raise one or two kids.

Now employers can pay less(based in terms of efficiency), and be more selective in hiring since they essentially have double the people applying.

Convincing women that they needed to work was one of the biggest scams that we've ever seen.

The economy is absolutely terrible, and I honestly feel bad if your trying to justify it because you treat being a democrat like being a fan of a sports team.

[KevinNYC]

I agree with you with women entering the work force. Middle Class wages have been stagnant since the early 70's. And two earner families have cushioned that blow and greatly affected the Labor participation rate.


I'm not "blaming Obama" or the democrats. The Democrats, and the Republicans are equally terrible. .....
The economy is absolutely terrible, and I honestly feel bad if your trying to justify it because you treat being a democrat like being a fan of a sports team. The "labor force participation rate" argument really didn't exist until Obama's term. It simply didn't. I disagree with you on equally terrible, because the employment situation seems to be better under Democrats than it is under Republicans and the policies the Republicans offered during this recession would have only made the recession deeper.

The economy is not absolutely terrible. And that's not because I'm a "fan" of Democrats.

Or let me put it this way, if you consider the economy to be absolutely terrible, what was the economy in 2009 and 2010?

Surely, you don't consider the economy of 2015 to be comparable to 2009 and 2010, do you?

American job security at this point and time is better than the last 40 years.

The closest recent time to this was 2000.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w0veUXbpqg8/VnK51k10bDI/AAAAAAAAmAM/mcW9Z77Zbbc/s1600/WeeklyClaimsDec172015.PNG

Is this economy as good at 2000? No. Wages are not as strong and it's taking longer to find a job

http://www.economicgreenfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/UEMPMED_12-4-15-10.8-weeks.png

Still I'll take today over 5 years ago any time of day.

Two places where the slack in the economy is hurting the worst is the young and folks with just a high school education. Those rates of employment are not dropping as quickly as over all.

I sometimes feel that folks who are not willing to credit the progress of the economy, thought of 2008-2009 as just another recession and that we should be back as quick as the usual recession. Folks I was reading were predicting this was not going to be the like the others in my lifetime and was going to take a long time to recover from. I believe we genuinely had a chance for a mini-Depression, so when I see where we are today, I'm optimistic.

[UK2K]

In fact it is a lot healthier -- unemployment now is at 5%, half of the 10% rate it hit in 2009 during the worst of the jobs crisis.
:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Yeah the unemployment rate is at 5%.

I'm sorry..... I can't....

[KevinNYC]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Yeah the unemployment rate is at 5%.

I'm sorry..... I can't....

:sigh:

go ahead and give me your silly reason why it's not.

[UK2K]

I sometimes feel that folks who are not willing to credit the progress of the economy, thought of 2008-2009 as just another recession and that we should be back as quick as the usual recession. Folks I was reading were predicting this was not going to be the like the others in my lifetime and was going to take a long time to recover from. I believe we genuinely had a chance for a mini-Depression, so when I see where we are today, I'm optimistic.

No, most people, like myself, recognize that the depression was almost a decade ago, and at some point, the economy would recover on its own. You could have put a manikin in the oval office that made no votes, and made no changes to any economic policy, and at some point, the economy would recover, and the lost jobs would come back.

So, while you say 'credit Obama', I say, what the **** took so long?

Stop the government from spending over budget every year, and get out of the way, and it would fix itself.

Want to know what I see?

I see poverty at its highest level in 50 years.
I see food stamp usage up 80% since 2007.
I see the labor force participation rate (the actual measure of who is working and who isn't) at 62.5%. It was 66% in 2008. It was still 65% in 2010.

I see that those three trends I mentioned above, are not sustainable. At all. Period. There aren't enough of us paying in to pay for those who do nothing but take out.

[UK2K]

:sigh:

go ahead and give me your silly reason why it's not.

No, I believe it is, given how the government defines 'unemployed'.

If I work one hour a week for $20, I am counted as employed, per the government's numbers.

Do you think describing me as employed in this scenario is accurate?

If I have a degree in Rocket Science, and I worked at McDonalds 10 hours last week because I couldn't find a job in my field, I am also considered employed per the government's numbers.

Do you think describing me as employed in this scenario is accurate? Sure, it is, technically... but really?

If I lost my job six months ago, couldn't find another one, said **** it, and laid down to die. Guess what? The government now considers me 'not unemployed'.

Would not counting me as unemployed in the above situation be accurate?

Here you go, read up on it:

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

[KevinNYC]

No, most people, like myself, recognize that the depression was almost a decade ago, and at some point, the economy would recover on its own.
A decade ago the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent. So no.

It would be almost three years later that the ordinary recession of 2007-8 turned into a full-blown financial crisis and we started loosing over 400,000 jobs a month. So no.

A depression lasts for more than a year. So no.

The contraction of the economy stopped in June 2009, but the employment situation hadn't stabilized yet. In October 2009 unemployment rate peaked at 10% We didn't get sustained month to month job growth until Oct 2010 which is just over 5 years ago.

So almost a decade ago is deceptive and I think you know it.


No, most people, like myself, ..... You could have put a manikin in the oval office that made no votes, and made no changes to any economic policy, and at some point, the economy would recover, and the lost jobs would come back.

So, while you say 'credit Obama', I say, what the **** took so long? I never said "credit Obama." You did that's your psychological quirk. I said credit the economy.

The point about the economy recovering is the point I was making before. Financial crises are not ordinary recessions. Here's a comparsion of other financial crises. The us has only had 2 in the last 95 years. The authors who studied these financial crises wrote in Feb 2008, 7 months before Lehman Brothers exploded.[QUOTE]

[KevinNYC]

No, I believe it is, given how the government defines 'unemployed'. Yeah, everything you cite was in place 5 years, 10 years and 20 years ago. So you can cite the changes overall time in an Apples to Apples way. They also give more information

The unemployment rate is based on someone seeking work. If I'm retired I'm not counted. BLS also gives different rates, u3 is the regular usual rate and u6, counts people marginally attached to the work force.

They also count average wages and average hours.

So your argument is 5% is not the whole story and I would agree with that. However 5% is a better place than 10%.

[UK2K]

Yeah, everything you cite was in place 5 years, 10 years and 20 years ago. So you can cite the changes overall time in an Apples to Apples way. They also give more information

The unemployment rate is based on someone seeking work. If I'm retired I'm not counted. BLS also gives different rates, u3 is the regular usual rate and u6, counts people marginally attached to the work force.

They also count average wages and average hours.

So your argument is 5% is not the whole story and I would agree with that. However 5% is a better place than 10%.

Unless the other 5% just said **** it and stopped looking for work (and thus, not counted as unemployed), in which case, there is no difference.

[KevinNYC]

Unless the other 5% just said **** it and stopped looking for work (and thus, not counted as unemployed), in which case, there is no difference.
Except the BLS also jobs overall and there are 13 million more jobs that at the lowest point in 2010.

[Jailblazers7]

Unless something unforeseen happens, they will be raised again next year. I like the gradual, incremental increases. Great way to test out the water and see just how solid the economy is.

Yeah, I think their plan is to do a similar rate hike 4 times next year (each quarter) to get it up to 1.25-1.75 heading into 2017.

[Dresta]

Unless something unforeseen happens, they will be raised again next year. I like the gradual, incremental increases. Great way to test out the water and see just how solid the economy is.
:facepalm

No it isn't: it's a very blatantly to hide the terrible shape the American economy is actually in. A solid economy doesn't have seven years of zero percent interest rates, nor does such a policy make an 'unsolid' economy more 'solid' - what it allows them to to is act like they have confidence in the markets, when they really don't (or they would have raised rates more, and much earlier too), hoping to just kick the can down the road that little bit longer.

You're believing in fantasies.

[DonDadda59]

:facepalm

No it isn't: it's a very blatantly to hide the terrible shape the American economy is actually in. A solid economy doesn't have seven years of zero percent interest rates, nor does such a policy make an 'unsolid' economy more 'solid' - what it allows them to to is act like they have confidence in the markets, when they really don't (or they would have raised rates more, and much earlier too), hoping to just kick the can down the road that little bit longer.

You're believing in fantasies.

Can't help it. It's Star Wars season. :D

But was this not you just a few weeks ago, playboy?



At the moment the Fed is keeping the economy ticking over through misinformation and that alone, constantly hinting at a rate rise, while never intending to bring one into effect (this has been going on for years now).

Looks like I'm not the only hopeless romantic here. :cheers:

[GIF REACTION]

You got a communist manifesto at home don?

[DonDadda59]

You got a communist manifesto at home don?

I have a copy of Australia's constitution. I use it as toilet paper.

God bless the Queen of England who still technically rules over your convict Island. :bowdown:

[Dresta]

Can't help it. It's Star Wars season. :D

But was this not you just a few weeks ago, playboy?



Looks like I'm not the only hopeless romantic here. :cheers:
And they are doing the exact same thing I was saying there with this token gesture. If rates were at 1.5-2% and the economy was still 'going strong,' then you might have a point. As it is, the emphasis had already shifted to the scheduling of eventual rate rises, in an effort to reap the benefits of the spreading confidence that we're on a path of slow and steady rate hikes (which will of course be data dependent, and thus give them endless excuses to delay, or even to go back to zero).

Seven years for 0.25% - that seems like a sign things are going well to you? I've been complaining about them not bringing in a rise for years (and of that being a sign that the recovery has been largely illusory), and i also said they weren't going to raise it several times, and they have repeatedly hedged. They couldn't do it again and maintain credibility, and so they raised it as little as they possibly could. If the numbers then start to look worse, they'll just take us straight back to zero, or even negative rates.

And i'm pretty certain i've said on here that they could bring a rate hike, but that it would be tiny and insignificant, which is what it is.