Economic Twists/Timing: Evans, Fisher, Feldstein, & Roubini

"…should be done carefully over time, and not front-loaded on an economy that is less than robust."

Economic Conditions and Conditionality - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Charles Evans

Domestically, although the immediate threats from the turn-of-the-year fiscal cliff were avoided, there still are many issues to resolve regarding the course of government spending and tax policy. The present projected path for federal debt is not sustainable and needs to be addressed. But this should be done carefully over time, and not front-loaded on an economy that is less than robust. Current estimates of the economic drag in 2013 coming from fiscal consolidation without the sequester are on the order of 1 percent, and I am concerned about the risk that Washington might jam the recovery at the line of scrimmage by piling some more unhelpful near-term fiscal restraint on top of this already sizable effect. — Charles L. Evans, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (February 28, 2013, speech at the CFA Society of Iowa).

via Economic Conditions and Conditionality – Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Evans also discussed forward guidance pegged fairly closely to target percentages rather than as previously set to end by certain dates.

Evans' arguments aren't enough though to convince Richard Fisher, President, FRB Dallas. Fisher feels there's still too much uncertainty.

"I argue it's not because of monetary policy. We provide a lot of fuel," Fisher told CNBC. "It's because of the uncertainty and the fog that's been created by the fiscal authorities because people don't know what their tax bill is going to be, what their costs are going to be."

Note that Evans and Fisher are speaking about both monetary and fiscal policies and practices and that we don't want to suggest that Evans would disagree with Fisher that there's still too much uncertainty coming from the Congress. It is apparent though that they place emphasis and set priorities differently such that Evans believes tightening rates as soon as Fisher would, would be counter-productive to growth and would not increase certainty enough to offset the losses from economic slowdown or avoid perhaps too much inflation later.

Fisher isn't the only one with concerns.

For example, Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, believes that too much accommodation from the Fed and too much deficit spending by the federal government will not be covered by the US dollar being the (or even a) reserve currency or by the lack of other safer places/currencies to hold money in future storms.

Last but not least, Nouriel Roubini, Professor, NYU’s Stern School of Business, Chairman, Roubini Global Economics, does an excellent job listing the various concerns about quantitative easing (QE) in general.

If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.

Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.

Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.

Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.

Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.

We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.

If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.

The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?

For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.

We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.

We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.