&gt;This would be the first dissent by a governor in the FOMC since 2005.Yes, but for context- not the first dissent broadly, as there are 5 non-governors on the FOMC.&gt;In June 2022, Kansas City Fed President Esther George cast what until Wednesday had been the most recent dissent. She had argued for a smaller rate hike, but her colleagues opted for a 75-basis-point increase to battle accelerating inflation.
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;markets&#x2F;rates-bonds&#x2F;fed-bowmans-dissent-is-first-fed-governor-since-2005-2024-09-18&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;markets&#x2F;rates-bonds&#x2F;fed-bowmans-diss...</a>

&gt; Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Thomas I. Barkin; Michael S. Barr; Raphael W. Bostic; Lisa D. Cook; Mary C. Daly; Beth M. Hammack; Philip N. Jefferson; Adriana D. Kugler; and Christopher J. Waller. Voting against this action was Michelle W. Bowman, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1&#x2F;4 percentage point at this meeting.This would be the first dissent by a governor in the FOMC since 2005.

Some more discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41583327">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41583327</a>

&gt; On a 2026+ basis expectations have been steady at ~3%Source?

What counts as short-term? On a monthly basis this is definitely lower because they cut by 0.5% instead of 0.25%. On a 2026+ basis expectations have been steady at ~3%, don&#x27;t understand how 4.x% could be lower than that.Personally I think the 3% long-term expectation is ridiculous, and we&#x27;ll either see high (10%+) rates as inflation spirals out of control, or low (0%) rates as we get another depression, and likely oscillation between the two of them. You can&#x27;t use monetary policy to fix a demographic problem. But the projection for 3+ years out has held constant at 2.5-3% since at least 2018, even as the reality went from 2.5% to 0% to 5% during that time period. Just like all the projections for inflation always converge on 2% even if they&#x27;re wrong.

Anyone else think this indicates a lower short-term floor (say, 4.x%) than previously thought?

What an odd response. If you are somehow trying to call me an African Dog, then I accept your gracious compliment.

Meanwhile, African Dogs are not members of the genus Canis, like wolves and domesticated dogs, but a sibling genus Lycaon. Both African Dogs and other dogs are members of the Canidae family.

Lower rate also encourages more borrowing. So it&#x27;s not clear how the rate will affect the debt. I&#x27;d say it&#x27;s not the deciding factor.

A major portion Federal Government debt is interest charges; the government pays for borrowing money.Interest rates affect the amount of interest owed. After decades of low interest, the past five years of interest rate hikes have dramatically increased government debt.Lower rates won&#x27;t lower the amount already owed, but would help slow the rate of increase of the debt burden moving forward.

I am not sure why so many take it as a partisan observation. There was a time when a total debt of $1 trillion was controversial in politics and economics.Lowering the rate also determines how much it costs to sustain the debt spending. So my comment was related in an economic sense.I also prefer to have sustainable Government institutions and social programs which increasing debt will eventually threaten.Maybe the system can sustain $50 trillion with $2 trillion added every month. We will find out eventually with the current path.It already costs more to service existing debt than even defense spending.

It&#x27;s possible for this to be a real problem and for Republicans to simultaneously be full of shit.The increasing debt represents a wealth transfer to asset holders. If you can exchange your dollars for things like houses, before those dollars are devalued, then you win. This is regressive.This is not an argument for fewer social programs. It is an argument for more taxes.

This is the argument that republicans always throw around before they make a run for office, but somehow magically it turns into more spending. Things like the trillion dollar boondoggle of the F35 and the massive shit show of the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, $1 trillion every 3 months is added to the national debt.

&gt; economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has moved up but remains low.

Does that mean the US is more productive with less labor? (I guess it&#x27;s not normalized against working age population.)

If this round of cutting manages to keep GDP stable or up, it would be the first time on record that the unemployment rate rose so much from its trough without a recession occurring soon after<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fred.stlouisfed.org&#x2F;series&#x2F;UNRATE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fred.stlouisfed.org&#x2F;series&#x2F;UNRATE</a>

Fed Cuts Rates by a Half Percentage Point