Federal Reserve press conference, 2020-09-16 — Chair Jerome Powell

Question (Rachel Siegel, Washington Post): Hi, Chair Powell. Thanks very much for taking my question. I wanted to ask if you anticipate a slowing in the pace of the recovery if there is not another stimulus package and, specifically, if there are particular holes still remaining in the economy that you think could be helped by more aid from Congress. Thanks very much.
Answer: Sure. So, first, if you look at the Summary of Economic Projections that my colleagues and I filed for this meeting, what you’ll see is an expectation that the recovery will continue—that it will continue at a reasonable pace through 2021, ’22, and ’23. We do expect that that pace will slow just because you would expect that the, the pace would be fastest right at the beginning of the—right at the beginning of the recovery, because you had such a sharp decline. You would expect that the third quarter should be the fastest gains, and that, after that, the pace should slow down to a more normal pace. So we do expect that. In terms of fiscal policy—you asked about fiscal policy. So, you know, one thing—I guess I would start by saying that the initial response from fiscal authorities was rapid. It was forceful and pretty effective. And we’re seeing the results of that in—today in income and household spending data, in the labor market data, in the construction data, in the data for business equipment spending, and the fact that businesses are staying in business, and, you know, the pace of default and things like that has really slowed. So there’s been a really positive effect. That said, my sense is that more fiscal support is likely to be needed. Of course, the details of that are for Congress, not for the Fed. But I would just say, there are still roughly 11 million people still out of work due to the pandemic, and a good part of those people were working in industries that are likely to struggle. Those people may need additional, additional support as they try to find their way through what will be a difficult time for them. We’ve also got struggling small businesses, especially those in the business of facing directly to the public. And we have state and local governments dealing with a drop in revenue at the same time spending has gone up, much of it related to the pandemic and economic effects. So, again, I would say, the fiscal support has been essential in, in the good progress we see now. And, finally, I’ll note that just about all—the overwhelming majority of, of private forecasters who, who project an ongoing recovery are assuming there will be substantial additional fiscal support.

Question (Howard Schneider, Reuters): Thanks. Thanks, Chair Powell, for doing this. So to follow up on Mike’s question there, since you described this guidance as durable, you—you’ve set up a three-part test here for rate hikes: levels consistent with assessments of maximum employment, inflation has risen to 2 percent, and you’re on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. Each of these have modifiers, and I wonder if you could explain them a little bit more. How do we pin down assessments of maximum employment? When you say that “inflation has risen to 2 percent,” does that mean 2 percent for a day, a month, six months? And when you say “on track to moderately exceed,” how should we define “moderately”? And how should we define “for some time”?
Answer: So, as you know, maximum employment is not—is not something that can be reduced to a number the way inflation can. It’s a broad range of factors. It really always has been and, really, a substantial number of factors that we’ve indicated we would look at. So it’s broader labor conditions, consistent with our Committee’s assessment of maximum employment. So that would certainly mean low unemployment, it would mean high labor force participation, it would mean wages—it would be a whole range of things. And we’re not looking at a rule. We’re looking at a judgmental assessment, which I think we’ll be very transparent about as we—as we go forward. In terms of inflation, you know, this is a Committee that is both confident and committed to—and determined to reach our goals. And the idea that we would look for the, the quickest way out is just—it’s just not who we are. It’s not that—there’s no message of that here. We would not be looking for one month of 2 percent inflation; we said return to 2—to achieve 2 percent inflation. Okay. So just understand that, you know, we’re strongly committed to achieving our goals and the overshoot. So that should tell you about that. Oh, in terms of—okay, in terms of—so, what does “moderate” mean? It means not large. It doesn’t—it means not very high above 2 percent. It means moderate. I think that’s a fairly well-understood word. In terms of—in terms of “for a time,” what it means is not permanently and not for a sustained period. You know, we’re, we’re resisting the urge to try to create some sort of a rule or a formula here. And I think the, the public will understand pretty well what we want. It’s actually pretty straightforward. We want to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time. And if we do that, inflation expectations will be right at 2 percent, and that’ll help us achieve 2 percent inflation over time and avoid the situation where the central bank loses its ability to support the economy.