As a result, we used the working assumption that the MPR would follow a trajectory similar to the one implied by financial asset prices during the ten days prior to its statistical closing. In practice, this meant at least one additional 25bp cut. It is always worth remembering that this is a working assumption and as such, contingent to the new developments and their impact on projected inflation. If incoming information points at the necessity of an additional boost or, on the contrary, if this is no longer needed, we will react promptly, communicating the justification of doing so. Consistent with the assumption used in our March Report, in April we decided to lower the MPR by 25bp, to 2.75%. The press release issued then stated that we will assess the need for some additional increase in the monetary impulse, which will hinge on the medium-term inflation outlook (figure 8). This way, our monetary policy continues to be one of the most expansionary in a group of comparable economies. Figure 8 MPR and expectations (percent)  5  5  MPR  4  Financial asset prices, December 2016 Report (*)  3  Financial asset 4 prices, March Report (*) 3  EES Financial asset prices (17 April)  FBS 2 14  15  16  17  18  2  19  (*) Constructed using interest rates on swap contracts up to 10 years. Source: Central Bank of Chile. 15. As usual when making forecasts, our macroeconomic scenario faces several risks.
This is the pathology I worry most about. So I ask: Can my colleagues and I at the Fed cure this with monetary policy? Obviously, businesses cannot create jobs without the means for investing in job-creating expansion, so, yes, monetary policy is necessary to propel job creation. But as I have shown you tonight, the store of bank reserves awaiting discharge into the economy through our banking system is vast, yet it lies fallow. Take a look at this chart of total reserves of depository institutions: They have ballooned from a precrisis level of $ billion to $ trillion. 2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  There is plenty of money available for businesses to work with. Consider this: In fourth quarter 2007 the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) was $ trillion; at year-end 2013 it was estimated to be $ trillion. Had we continued on the path we were on before the crisis, real GDP would currently be roughly $ trillion in size. That’s a third larger than it was in 2007. Yet the amount of money lying fallow in the banking system is 60 times greater now than it was at year-end 2007. One is hard pressed to argue that there is insufficient money available for businesses to put people back to work. Now, bear in mind that we at the Fed only control the monetary base (cash plus bank reserves), not the velocity with which money is used.