Connect with us

News

Federal Reserve officials were divided over September’s big rate cut

Published

on

Federal Reserve officials were divided over September’s big rate cut

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Federal Reserve officials were at odds over the US central bank’s decision to lower interest rates by a half-point last month, according to a record of the meeting released on Wednesday.

Minutes from the September meeting indicated support for a gradual pace of rate cuts in future, but showed some divisions across the Federal Open Market Committee as the central bank embarked on its first easing cycle since 2020.

September’s rate decision, which lowered the policy rate to 4.75-5 per cent, was not unanimous, with Michelle Bowman becoming the first governor to dissent since 2005. She argued that a more “measured” quarter-point cut would “avoid unnecessarily stoking demand”.

Advertisement

The minutes, released on Wednesday, showed that some participants preferred a quarter-point cut, with “a few others” indicating they could have supported a move of that size instead of the larger-than-usual half-point cut.

“Several participants noted that a 25 basis point reduction would be in line with a gradual path of policy normalisation that would allow policymakers time to assess the degree of policy restrictiveness as the economy evolved,” the minutes said.

It would also signal “a more predictable path of policy normalisation”, a few people said, according to the minutes.

Officials supporting the half-point move — which the minutes showed had the support of a “substantial majority” — said it would “help sustain the strength in the economy and the labour market while continuing to promote progress on inflation, and would reflect the balance of risks”. Many of those officials thought a quarter-point cut in July — when the Fed held off any move — would have been “plausible”.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Advertisement

The Fed’s “dot plot” of officials’ individual rate projections, released at the meeting last month, showed most saw another half-point worth of cuts this year and more in 2025 when rates were estimated to drop to 3.25-3.5 per cent.

The minutes did not suggest support for another large rate cut, hinting instead that US central bankers were inclined to gradually lower rates to a “neutral” setting that no longer crimps growth.

“Participants anticipated that if the data came in about as expected, with inflation moving down sustainably to 2 per cent and the economy near maximum employment, it would likely be appropriate to move toward a more neutral stance of policy over time,” the minutes said.

Since the meeting, top Fed officials have signalled little urgency for another half-point cut at the next meeting in November, especially after a bumper jobs report for September.

That report quelled fears that the US was heading for recession and boosted the odds that the Fed would get inflation back to its 2 per cent target with minimal job losses.

Advertisement

In an interview with the Financial Times this week, New York Fed president John Williams said officials’ projections for smaller cuts in the coming meetings was a “very good base case”.

Chair Jay Powell has also said that the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee was “not a committee that feels like it’s in a hurry to cut rates quickly”.

On Wednesday, Dallas Fed president Lorie Logan also backed the Fed cutting rates “gradually”, citing “meaningful risk that inflation could get stuck above our 2 per cent goal”.

The Fed will next meet just days after the US presidential election and then again in mid-December. The central bank will on Thursday receive its final inflation report before the country votes.

Economists forecast that the annual inflation rate in the consumer price index fell to 2.3 per cent last month, the lowest level since February 2021.

Advertisement

Services-related inflation has been more stubborn, keeping the “core” measure, which strips out volatile food and energy items, more elevated. That gauge is expected to have steadied at 3.2 per cent in September.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Implosion brings down Tropicana casino in Vegas to make way for baseball stadium

Published

on

Implosion brings down Tropicana casino in Vegas to make way for baseball stadium

The Tropicana Las Vegas hotel tower is imploded on Wednesday in Las Vegas.

David Becker/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

David Becker/AP

LAS VEGAS — Sin City blew a kiss goodbye to the Tropicana before first light Wednesday in an elaborate implosion that reduced to rubble the last true mob building on the Las Vegas Strip.

The Tropicana’s hotel towers tumbled in a celebration that included a fireworks display. It was the first implosion in nearly a decade for a city that loves fresh starts and that has made casino implosions as much a part of its identity as gambling itself.

“What Las Vegas has done, in classic Las Vegas style, they’ve turned many of these implosions into spectacles,” said Geoff Schumacher, historian and vice president of exhibits and programs at the Mob Museum.

Advertisement

Former casino mogul Steve Wynn changed the way Las Vegas blows up casinos in 1993 with the implosion of the Dunes to make room for the Bellagio. Wynn thought not only to televise the event but created a fantastical story for the implosion that made it look like pirate ships at his other casino across the street were firing at the Dunes.

From then on, Schumacher said, there was a sense in Las Vegas that destruction at that magnitude was worth witnessing.

The city hasn’t blown up a Strip casino since 2016, when the final tower of the Riviera was leveled for a convention center expansion.

Fireworks are launched before the Tropicana Las Vegas towers are imploded on Wednesday.

Fireworks are launched before the Tropicana Las Vegas towers are imploded on Wednesday.

David Becker/AP


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

David Becker/AP

This time, the implosion cleared land for a $1.5 billion baseball stadium for the relocating Oakland Athletics, part of the city’s latest rebrand into a sports hub.

Advertisement

That will leave only the Flamingo from the city’s mob era on the Strip. But, Schumacher said, the Flamingo’s original structures are long gone. The casino was completely rebuilt in the 1990s.

The Tropicana, the third-oldest casino on the Strip, closed in April after welcoming guests for 67 years.

Once known as the “Tiffany of the Strip” for its opulence, it was a frequent haunt of the legendary Rat Pack, while its past under the mob has long cemented its place in Las Vegas lore.

It opened in 1957 with three stories and 300 hotel rooms split into two wings.

Advertisement

As Las Vegas rapidly evolved in the following decades, including a building boom of Strip megaresorts in the 1990s, the Tropicana also underwent major changes. Two hotel towers were added in later years. In 1979, the casino’s beloved $1 million green-and-amber stained glass ceiling was installed above the casino floor.

The Tropicana’s original low-rise hotel wings survived the many renovations, however, making it the last true mob structure on the Strip.

Behind the scenes of the casino’s grand opening, the Tropicana had ties to organized crime, largely through reputed mobster Frank Costello.

Costello was shot in the head in New York weeks after the Tropicana’s debut. He survived, but the investigation led police to a piece of paper in his coat pocket with the Tropicana’s exact earnings figure, revealing the mob’s stake in the casino.

By the 1970s, federal authorities investigating mobsters in Kansas City charged more than a dozen operatives with conspiring to skim $2 million in gambling revenue from Las Vegas casinos, including the Tropicana. Charges connected to the Tropicana alone resulted in five convictions.

Advertisement

There were no public viewing areas for the event, but fans of the Tropicana did have a chance in April to bid farewell to the vintage Vegas relic.

“Old Vegas, it’s going,” Joe Zappulla, a teary-eyed New Jersey resident, said at the time as he exited the casino, shortly before the locks went on the doors.

Continue Reading

News

US foreign policy is too volatile to lead the world

Published

on

US foreign policy is too volatile to lead the world

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

The old line about New England weather — if you don’t like it, wait a little — describes US foreign policy just as well nowadays. Other countries are exploiting this fickleness.

Joe Biden doesn’t rule out that Benjamin Netanyahu is delaying a truce in the Middle East until the possible return of Donald Trump, under whom the Israeli premier might have a freer hand. Nor does it take a paranoid cast of mind to suspect that Vladimir Putin has been holding out for Trump’s re-election for two years or more.

Deplore the cynicism of these foreign leaders all you want. Their behaviour is only possible because a gap between Democratic and Republican policies exists in the first place. The impotence of the Biden administration of late stems from that domestic US split, not his old age or the guile of leaders of much weaker countries. It is structural, not personal. As such, it is liable to afflict his successors.

Advertisement

The biggest drag on American power, besides the nation’s reduced share of world output, is its ever-changing mind. A volatile foreign policy undermines the US twice over. First, it incentivises unscrupulous leaders to wait out the president of the day until a more amenable one comes along. Second, compared to China, its superpower rival, the US is difficult for third countries to plan around.

If Netanyahu is an example of the first problem, America’s waning stature in south-east Asia, which is borne out in surveys of elites there, might be proof of the second. The US has been attentive to that crucial region, then disengaged; an enthusiast for transpacific trade, then stingy about access to its domestic market; gnomic about Taiwan under Trump, then strident under Biden. Something as basic as whether a country would be better-received in Washington if it democratised (Asean regimes often hover on the democratic-autocratic cusp) varies from White House to White House.

And this isn’t the most extreme case of American unreliability. Consider the US line on climate change. Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol in 1998. George W Bush withdrew from it in 2001. Barack Obama signed the much broader Paris agreement in 2015. Trump withdrew from it in 2017. Biden recommitted to Paris as one of his first acts as president in 2021. If Trump withdraws again, as reports over the summer suggested he might, that would be five reversals of US policy on a subject of world importance within a generation.

Someone observing all this from Beijing or Moscow might tut and say, “Well, if you will allow multi-party elections”. But sudden twists in policy are not inevitable in a democracy. The US used to change government every few years while keeping up an amazing philosophical unity. All the presidents between 1945 and 2016 supported Nato, European integration, the Bretton Woods institutions (if not dollar-gold convertibility) and a global web of garrisons. Even the Vietnam war was a bipartisan debacle. Don’t believe the credulous and almost mystical trope that “eastern” autocracies think in hundred-year cycles that free societies are too skittish to match. If that were true, why have so few survived?

The problem isn’t democracy per se. It is the rise of partisan feeling within America. Even on trade, towards which there has been a general cooling in Washington, the difference between the parties is sharp: Democrats want a “small yard with a high fence”, while Trump talks up a 20 per cent tariff on all imports. How does a mid-sized, non-western nation chart a course here? It is not as if there is no alternative superpower orbit to join.

Advertisement

If US diplomats were all career civil servants, there might at least be some smoothing of the differences between administrations. In fact, plum postings are often “political”. They can reinforce rather than counteract the partisan discontinuities.

The sheer plasticity of US policy is nowhere clearer than in Ukraine. The ultimate answer to the war, I keep hearing in polite company, is to freeze the battle lines, then secure non-occupied Ukraine with Nato membership or something like it. All very rational and 20th century. But a security guarantee is only as good as the will of a future US president to honour it. Would Trump or a Trumpist do that? Don’t rule it out: his foreign record is subtler than the “isolationist” tag allows. (Isolationists don’t fire missiles at Syria.) Even Republicans might see that reneging on such a commitment would end US credibility worldwide. But the fact that we ask the question admits doubt. The US at its peak had more going for it than overwhelming strength. It had a certain amount of predictability. Without either, its purchase on events can’t be the same.

The miracle of 21st-century America is how inexpensive its political divisions have been economically. The US has surged ahead of Europe despite failing to achieve so much as a peaceful transfer of power at the last election. The country has almost no material incentive to fix its domestic rifts. But the geopolitical cost of them, the effect on America’s external steadiness, and therefore its leadership claims: that’s a different matter. It has always been obvious, unlike in Europe, who one calls to speak to America. But it has come to matter far too much who answers the phone each time.

janan.ganesh@ft.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Weather To Deteriorate In Florida Ahead Of Milton – Videos from The Weather Channel

Published

on

Weather To Deteriorate In Florida Ahead Of Milton – Videos from The Weather Channel
Continue Reading

Trending