The Fed’s Troubling Clarity Of Confusion

by Mark St.Cyr

erns all a press agent needed to do was to say something like the following:

“It appears like a dehydration issue and the EMT’s (I’m assuming they were called) concur with this. However, Ms. Yellen is going to be have a quick exam and possibly an MRI as to make sure it was nothing else before she returns. (for a person of Ms. Yellen’s stature the pathways would have been cleared with immediacy) After all, we’re very fortunate such an event happened within such a renowned medical area.”

Simple, easy, and squashes a boatload of speculation. Also, is that not just plain commonsense? Why would you not? Or, they did and they won’t say. For as of this writing Fed. official channels are remaining tight-lipped on any further details.

And as such, as I related to earlier once again there are far more questions interjected via the Fed’s own hand that have global implications for uncertainty and resolutions rather, than give any clarity for the foreseeable future such as…

Did a parting member decide to stick it to the current Fed. and open up a can of worms? A can the Fed. may not be able to settle out in the near future? And if so – what does that say for the unity or condescension of current members?

Was the “nuclear option” seen within the current Dot Plot a choreographed move done as to give cover to current members or Chair as to get the issue on the table in some form of “test balloon” scenario wrapped in plausible deniability with a very Keynesian thinkers parting?

Was this action of no action so contentious between members that the decision was more of an arm twisting consensus rather than a consensus of agreeing minds? And if so, why so?

Did the Chair have a near revolt on its hands with standing pat? For many of the once dovish viewed members were speaking publicly very hawk-ishly including the Chair herself.

Who or what changed as to allow not only what many saw as a complete reversal of previously choreographed and publicized intent  – but have a publicly stated Fed. communique showing a never before in history vote (via the Dot Plot) for negative, repeat; neg-a-tive interest rate policy? All while members continue to publicly state the U.S. economy has and still is recovering.

Scenarios such as these one can easily presume would bring on quite the stressful situation for any Chair.

To reiterate; one can easily see there are far more questions today than answers. All from an institution that has set as its communication policy – more is better – as to clarify and help remove uncertainty from both the markets as well a what their intents going forward will be.

In my eyes it seems to be working exactly the same as its other policy outcomes: adding confusion, uncertainty, and having the exact opposite of intended results.

Source: The Fed’s Troubling Clarity Of Confusion |