Another question (as asked very early by DeLong and Summers) was and is “should the target be higher than 2%, because the 2% target implies spells at the ZLB?”
The answer to your question remains “yes”. Last year, one might have argued that the target should be raised, but not then, that The Fed had to avoid the impression that they were …
Another question (as asked very early by DeLong and Summers) was and is “should the target be higher than 2%, because the 2% target implies spells at the ZLB?”
The answer to your question remains “yes”. Last year, one might have argued that the target should be raised, but not then, that The Fed had to avoid the impression that they were just saying a 3 or 4% target (the higher being Volcker’s target) would be better because they couldn’t achieve 2% which grapes were source anyway.
Her now have the 2% grapes in hand and they are indeed sour. Now is the time to raise the target to where Greenspan should have set it.
Another question (as asked very early by DeLong and Summers) was and is “should the target be higher than 2%, because the 2% target implies spells at the ZLB?”
The answer to your question remains “yes”. Last year, one might have argued that the target should be raised, but not then, that The Fed had to avoid the impression that they were just saying a 3 or 4% target (the higher being Volcker’s target) would be better because they couldn’t achieve 2% which grapes were source anyway.
Her now have the 2% grapes in hand and they are indeed sour. Now is the time to raise the target to where Greenspan should have set it.
I say 4% but will settle for 3%