Laurence Meyer Quotations

On the other hand, it's possible the first quarter's growth was just a one-time inventory rebound and that we're now stuck in a range of 1.5-to-2 percent growth. If that continues, it will be much like the early 90s,

If the Fed study is right, payroll employment would have to slow to well below that.

He didn't think about the economic world the way most of us do. It made it difficult for him to communicate. His model was fundamentally different from everyone else's. That is what we'll miss.

That appointment got people scurrying back to their probability tables for the next Fed chairman, thinking the net might be wider and the person picked might be less credentialed, and that got people nervous.

When the chairman made his recommendation at the start of the go-round, the game was up, it was over. Everybody knew what the chairman would be in favor of.

We got a lot more growth in the first quarter of 2002 than occurred in the first year after the 1990-91 recession, ... The economy grew near 4 percent in the first half of this year. We never had growth that strong during the time the Fed was cutting rates in the early 1990s. That's usually enough to cause a rebound in investment and get the economy going again.

It was the same policy message but with a little innovation in communication.

The staff and Don Kohn together are important sources of continuity, Kohn becomes more important.

The staff and Don Kohn together are important sources of continuity, ... Kohn becomes more important.

The balance of aggregate demand and sustainable supply today and the distinct possibility that labor and product markets will tighten further suggest an unacceptable risk of overheating and, therefore, higher inflation in the future,

They could reduce tumors 88 percent overall and they could reduce 100 percent of cancerous tumors.

This is a very big story. It makes the challenge for the Fed a little greater.

So far it's been an easy roll, with interest rates rising at a steady gradual pace.

The Broader interpretation that often seems to underlie the new economy label is that we are witnessing a more fundamental change in the paradigm. The old rules no longer apply. Throw out the NAIRU. Heck, throw out supply and demand. No limits, no business cycles.

There are broader and narrower definitions of the new economy. The narrow version defines the new economy in terms of two principal developments: first, an increase in the economy's maximum sustainable growth rate and, second, the spread and increasing importance of information and communications technology.

So, is there a "new economy?" The answer is: It depends. It depends on how you define new economy, and it depends on where you live.

I accept the proposition that there has been a significant improvement in underlying productivity growth in the United States, that it is very closely tied to improvements in information and communications technology, and that it is likely to spread around the world. But I resist the new economy label because it seems to encourage a disrespect for the old rules that could seriously undermine our success in taking advantage of the new opportunities.

The difference with this disaster is that we have an energy shock.

The easy job has been done, unfortunately. Mistakes are more likely when you get closer to the end, not knowing where the end is, and that's where we are.

The challenge is in making day-to-day policy at a time when mistakes are most likely to be made.

The Committee continues to see the removal of accommodation as the focus of policy and has given no indication that it is close to the end of that process,