연준이 이제 긴축을 시작한다고봐도 무방할듯 합니다

If you're going to do this, do it alone: FOMC's approval rate

연준이 이제 긴축을 시작한다고봐도 무방할듯 합니다
cpi가 계속 내려갈줄 알았는데...
공급망이 개선되고나서는 다시 내려가지않고 시간이 걸리고 있죠 그 이유는 당연히 뒤에서 유동성공급을 계속하고 있으니까 그럴겁니다

이번달부터 유동성공급을 반으로 줄인다고 했으니까
다음 cpi는 기대해볼만할것같고...
이번주 15일에 나오는 cpi는 좀 높게나올듯하니까... 현금확보하고 뒤에서 관망하는게 좋을듯 합니다

열심히 물량나눠준 만큼... 바닥에서 손절받고
다시 주가를 올려주던지 말던지...? 하겠지요?


The last question at the last FOMC was this.

"We don't see a lot of no votes in official announcements, even though there are active discussions in the minutes.
How do you avoid groupthink in FOMC and try not to make policy mistakes?

some of the answers

"It's not like you're frowning on him, it's illegal, it's against the rules.
Our group is just diverse, and there are so many different levels.
They start with gender, age, and even include economists who haven't earned a doctorate."

This is a reasonable question.

In the last four years, there have been only two no votes among FOMCs, the lowest in 70 years.

The last opposition was Bullard/George in 22.
Neither is FED anymore.

So what has been the policy of the FED over the last four years?

First, we called inflation "transitory."
In 22, inflation hit a 40-year high,
You said Silicon Valley Bank was in danger, but it didn't do anything,
Two of the FOMC members resigned due to personal transactions,
He said he would cut interest rates, but now he said he doesn't know.

FED is special among central banks because they have a 'voting name' at FOMC. ECB is not.

The FED is trying to "encourage" approval and "force" it to support monetary policy.
Neither BOE nor BOJ is like this.

It's a way to settle groupthink.
I'll follow the chairman's opinion anyway,
Is it necessary to have a different opinion from the chairman and work differently?

Additionally, the suppression of the opposite vote increases the reliability of the forward guidance of the FED.
The last rate hike, a vote like 7-5 in July 23, shows that the policy is almost over.

The reality is that this is the biggest vulnerability of FED,
Speaker Powell doesn't see this.

Not only does it block other opinions, but it forces career-building personnel to be yes-men, and it kind of brings a reality hit.