‘Necessary’ Slowdown Doesn’t Mean Massive Job Losses, Goldman Says

Last week, Bill Dudley said the Fed should stop "sugarcoating" the message. He meant that Jerome Powell would do better to tell the public an unvarnished version of the truth: The Fed needs to tighten policy enough to push up the unemployment rate and slow the economy in order to short circuit any wage-price spiral and lean against demand-pull inflation. Dudley also said rates may need to be 4%, 5% or even 6% eventually. "Whatever it takes," so to speak. In essence, Dudley suggested a slowdow

Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today for as little as $7/month

View subscription options

Or try one month for FREE with a trial plan

Already have an account? log in

Leave a Reply to Hopium DealerCancel reply

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

9 thoughts on “‘Necessary’ Slowdown Doesn’t Mean Massive Job Losses, Goldman Says

  1. “The key to a soft landing is to generate a slowdown large enough to persuade firms to shelve some of their expansion plans, but not large enough to trigger sharp cuts in current output and employment.”

    That’s just great! They want to tame inflation, which is a shortage of supply problem, by stopping business from expanding their production. Brilliant!

    1. And there you have it. The Fed can really only mess with the demand side. The supply side mess is down to the environment (pandemic) and the collateral damage caused by businesses sailing too close to the wind with their JIT strategies. Increased product variety, market segmentation, and margin pressures made it difficult for supply chain managers to keep things moving smoothly. When a big disruption came along (and it still lingers everywhere) the system broke down. No Fed help for this. This whole situation will get a bunch of Republican elected this fall but they won’t be able to do anything about the situation either, except bitch about the “libs” who caused all this with critical race theory or some such.

      1. If the Rs take the house, it is because the extremist militant arm of the party won a bunch of seats. As the house controls spending, expect severe austerity policies in a nihilistic effort to “destroy Biden”. The pain it would cause the country doesn’t matter to them in the slightest. They see themselves as God’s Wrath. Yes, they are psychotically delusion to this level. They will look to finish what trump started in destroying the country. With the current tenuous economic backdrop the reasonable expect is for a full on depression.

        As for the likelihood of the Rs taking the house: before Roe was under threat, the Rs were almost assured of taking the house even if the Senate margin widens for the Ds. Now, the Rs might have just lost the white suburban woman vote, aka the swing vote that sunk the Rs in 2018 and trump in 2020.

  2. I just don’t see how the same Fed that has been behind the curve for almost a year now suddenly catches up enough to detect when this exact moment of slowdown occurs so they can take their collective feet off the brakes. And how to do you increase unemployment by half a percent when there are 11.5M jobs unfilled already and essentially minimal immigration without completely blowing up the entire economy?

  3. Dudley’s insistence that the present situation is the same as the early 80’s is starting to feel pathological. There is little evidence to prove it. Maybe that evidence presents itself eventually, but maybe it doesn’t. That it is a known unknown is the exact reason to not force a global depression, the logical result of a 6% FED funds rate.

    The most obvious argument against Dudley’s delusions is there is no wage price spiral. Low income individuals are seeing large increase 10-12% and yet their income is still too low. All the higher wage earners (the majority of wage earners) are gaining <4%. It’s almost as though he’s saying raising wages for low income earners is a terrible outcome and we should make sure these people stay in poverty.

  4. @Hopium, that is a very interesting point, and was new information to me.

    I am pretty happy to see wages going up, people getting jobs, and workers clawing back some leverage.

  5. One possible trick would be to open up immigration: increased labor (both skilled and unskilled) would ease Services wage based inflation and simultaneously allow for more consumption (with more consumers). We do need workers for adding efficiency via renewables and transit, if you don’t build those you might as well keep Putin in power by paying in ruples.

  6. Oh and don’t forget new housing requires lots of labor too – you can’t live in software, VR, or TikTok. (Or you can let old/inefficient housing stock continue to be a bottleneck for Millenials and GenZ and take Rents)…

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints