As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr once quipped: “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” Members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) can surely relate. Despite having ten months of data and the levers of monetary policy in hand, inflation has overshot their projection for 2021.
On December 15, 2021, the Federal Reserve released its Summary of Economic Projections, which reports the median, central tendency, and range of projections for inflation and other macroeconomic variables submitted by FOMC members. FOMC members are instructed to make projections based on the assumptions that the Fed conducts monetary policy appropriately, as they see it, and that the economy is not affected by any further shocks. The median FOMC member projected inflation at 5.3 percent for 2021. The central tendency was 5.3 to 5.4 percent and the range was 5.3 to 5.5 percent. Hence, most FOMC members projected 5.3 percent inflation for 2021, and none projected inflation in excess of 5.5 percent. These projections can be used to forecast the price level, as shown in the figure below.
It is worth noting that at the time when the Summary of Economic Projections was released, Fed officials had access to at least ten months of price level data for the year. The personal consumption expenditures price index (PCEPI) for October had been available since November 24 and inflation had been relatively high up until that point. If prices continued to grow at the same rate as they had over the first ten months of 2021, annual inflation would have clocked in at nearly 5.5 percent––the high end of their projections. In projecting 5.3 percent inflation for 2021, the median FOMC member was implicitly saying they expected inflation to fall over the last two months of the year.
They were wrong. Inflation did not fall. Prices climbed above the Fed’s forecast in November and remained elevated in December. Inflation averaged 5.6 percent for the year—exceeding the entire range of projections offered by FOMC members in December.
Why did FOMC members underestimate inflation? The assumptions underlying their projections offer two explanations, neither of which is very satisfying.
Recall that FOMC members are instructed to make projections based on the assumptions that the Fed conducts monetary policy appropriately, as they see it. Perhaps the Fed did not conduct monetary policy appropriately. That would explain the poor projections. But it would raise an even bigger question: Why can’t a majority of FOMC members ensure that monetary policy is conducted appropriately?
Recall further that FOMC members are instructed to assume the economy is not affected by any further shocks over the projection period. All else equal, an unexpected decline in total factor productivity or surge in nominal spending would cause prices to rise more than expected. But it is hard to point to any such shocks over the period in question.
The FOMC made its inflation projections in mid-December, with just sixteen days remaining in the year. Although the precise price level data was not yet available, FOMC members were aware of the events that had unfolded in November and nearly half of December. It is difficult to imagine how a shock big enough to cause a 20-basis point miss would have gone unnoticed by the well-briefed members of the FOMC.
I chalk it up to wishful thinking. Fed officials were not yet willing to tighten monetary policy. They hoped inflation would get better on its own. It didn’t, and their projections underestimated inflation as a result. That’s understandable. But we should keep this error in mind when considering future FOMC projections.
William J. Luther
William J. Luther is the Director of AIER’s Sound Money Project and an Associate Professor of Economics at Florida Atlantic University. His research focuses primarily on questions of currency acceptance. He has published articles in leading scholarly journals, including Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Economic Inquiry, Journal of Institutional Economics, Public Choice, and Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. His popular writings have appeared in The Economist, Forbes, and U.S. News & World Report. His work has been featured by major media outlets, including NPR, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, TIME Magazine, National Review, Fox Nation, and VICE News. Luther earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Economics at George Mason University and his B.A. in Economics at Capital University. He was an AIER Summer Fellowship Program participant in 2010 and 2011.
Selected Publications
“Cash, Crime, and Cryptocurrencies.” Co-authored with Joshua R. Hendrickson. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (Forthcoming). “Central Bank Independence and the Federal Reserve’s New Operating Regime.” Co-authored with Jerry L. Jordan. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (May 2022). “The Federal Reserve’s Response to the COVID-19 Contraction: An Initial Appraisal.” Co-authored with Nicolas Cachanosky, Bryan Cutsinger, Thomas L. Hogan, and Alexander W. Salter. Southern Economic Journal (March 2021). “Is Bitcoin Money? And What That Means.”Co-authored with Peter K. Hazlett. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (August 2020). “Is Bitcoin a Decentralized Payment Mechanism?” Co-authored with Sean Stein Smith. Journal of Institutional Economics (March 2020). “Endogenous Matching and Money with Random Consumption Preferences.” Co-authored with Thomas L. Hogan. B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics (June 2019). “Adaptation and Central Banking.” Co-authored with Alexander W. Salter. Public Choice (January 2019). “Getting Off the Ground: The Case of Bitcoin.” Journal of Institutional Economics (2019). “Banning Bitcoin.” Co-authored with Joshua R. Hendrickson. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (2017). “Bitcoin and the Bailout.” Co-authored with Alexander W. Salter. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (2017). “The Political Economy of Bitcoin.” Co-authored with Joshua R. Hendrickson and Thomas L. Hogan. Economic Inquiry (2016). “Cryptocurrencies, Network Effects, and Switching Costs.” Contemporary Economic Policy (2016). “Positively Valued Fiat Money after the Sovereign Disappears: The Case of Somalia.” Co-authored with Lawrence H. White. Review of Behavioral Economics (2016). “The Monetary Mechanism of Stateless Somalia.” Public Choice (2015).
