Over at Market Beat: WSJ.com's inside look at the markets, Mark Gongloff reports that Standard Chartered’s David Semmens says that “Based on a strict Taylor-rule calculation, the first effective fed-funds rate increase shouldn’t come until the first quarter of 2013.”So the Taylor Rule tells us that interest rates should stay basically where they are, at least for now.
And over at Business Insider, Art Cashin of UBS reports that Jim Brown of Premium Investor says that “the Taylor rule says the Fed funds rate should be -1.65%” suggesting the need for a QE 2.5.So the Taylor Rule also tells us that interest rates should fall.
No calculations are given in either of these articles. I wonder if the journalists involved ever thought that checking the calculations of the results they were reporting would be a good idea? As it turns out such a thought would have been at good idea as at his blog, Economcis One, John Taylor writes,
So I think the economy would be better off if the Fed started moving to a higher funds rate now rather than later, and I certainly see no rationale for another round of quantitative easing.Thats right, John Taylor says that the Taylor Rule argues for an interest rate increase and he provides the calculations to back it up.
Over here at Economics One, I can report that the Taylor Rule says that the fed funds rate should now be 1 percent, and I can provide the calculations. Available data (through the 1st quarter) show that the inflation rate is about 1.6 percent (GDP deflator smoothed over four quarters) and the GDP gap is about 4.8 percent (average of San Francisco Fed survey). This implies an interest rate of 1.5 X1.6 + .5X(-4.8) + 1 = 2.4 - 2.4 +1 = 1.0 percent.