The Fed's attempts at “forward guidance” appear to have confused consumers and businesses more often than they enhanced their ability to make informed decisions. Rather than describe the potential harm that excessive “Fedspeak” might inflict on the economy, we focus here on the objectives that motivate it.
While a temporary truce has been reached in the spat between Uber and New York City Mayor de Blasio, the debate over the city’s transportation future is far from over. As the city considers limiting the growth of for-hire vehicle fleets, it is focusing only on studying Uber’s effects on Manhattan traffic congestion — and ignoring the significant benefits the service provide outer-borough residents, who are chronically underserved by the existing taxi system.
Just in time for Labor Day, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez is resurrecting the old canard that workers do better in unions. His latest blog post uses misleading data to suggest that if workers were unionized, they would receive $200 more per week. Of course, anyone would want a $200 a week raise. That’s $10,400 a year. But the facts aren’t so simple.
As the stock market waited anxiously through the Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole Summit this weekend for clues to future monetary actions, another conference was held just miles away. The American Principles Project, a conservative non-profit, hosted the conference, and participants and speakers did not hide their worry over how the Fed’s unprecedented actions will harm future economic prosperity.
Sanders claims to hate corporate welfare. Rubio claims to love free markets. To prove their convictions, both candidates should reevaluate their support for a sweet program that carries bitter consequences.