In fact, at times, when short-term rates have been pinned at the zero lower bound, the Federal Reserve has taken actions that eased financial conditions without changing shortterm interest rates. Such actions have included forward guidance that the FOMC was likely to keep short-term rates low for a long time and large-scale asset purchases that led to lower bond term premia. Now, as I said at the start, just because I don’t want to follow a rule mechanically does not mean that I favor the polar opposite – that is, a fully discretionary monetary policy in which market participants, households and businesses cannot anticipate how monetary policy is likely to evolve as economic and financial market conditions and the economic outlook change. If households and businesses do not have a good notion of how the Federal Reserve will respond to changing economic and financial market conditions, then this would loosen the linkage between short-term rates and financial conditions. This would also likely lead to greater uncertainty about the outlook and higher risk premia, and it would make it more difficult for policymakers to attain their objectives. Instead, what I favor is a careful elucidation of those factors that influence the economic outlook and how monetary policy is likely to respond to changes in the outlook. This includes fiscal policy, productivity growth, the international outlook and financial conditions, as well as how much employment and inflation deviate from the Fed’s objectives.
3 Sometimes it can be much higher than 2 percent. Presumably, this was the case during the late 1990s as rapid technological change lifted productivity growth. Sometimes it can be well below 2 percent. For example, when credit availability dried up during the financial crisis in late 2008, this drove down the equilibrium real rate far below 2 percent. More recently, the slow growth rate of the economy and the low rate of inflation are evidence that the equilibrium real short-term rate today is well below the 2 percent rate assumed in the Taylor Rule. If 2 percent really was consistent with a neutral monetary policy, then the very low real rates of recent years – buttressed by our large-scale asset purchases – should have been extraordinarily accommodative. As a result, we should have grown much faster than the 2½ percent pace evident over the past couple of years and seen an inflation rate much higher than what we experienced. This conclusion is supported by a number of more formal models. For example, the Laubach-Williams model currently estimates that the equilibrium real short-term rate is around zero percent. 4 Third, the Taylor Rule – and more broadly, any prescriptive rule for the systematic quantitative adjustment of the policy rate to changes in intermediate policy inputs such as real GDP or inflation – is incomplete because it does not fully account for factors that are crucial to how monetary policy impulses are transmitted to the real economy.