Why does the Fed use PCE over CPI?
Consumers aren't the only economic participants impacted by a change in the Fed rate.... Inflation has WIDE ranging implications from the future liabilities of pension funds to the ongoing cost of our national debt.  It doesn't make sense to consider only consumer inflationary experience.  PCE is considered because it relates to consumption, which includes things paid for by other entities, like employer healthcare spend. (the average person doesn't care nor are they affected by how much their employer spends in healthcare) It may be true that the average person doesn't care how much their employer spends on healthcare, but it's not true that we aren't affected.  From an employer's perspective, healthcare, wages, and all other benefits are part of the cost of having an employee.  When healthcare goes up, it increases the total employee cost.   Employers can handle this in several ways.  They could reduce the amount they give investors (as dividends, stock buybacks, etc.).  But then the stock is worth less and they have to make up the money somewhere else.  They could pass the expense on to customers.  But then the loss in business can easily cost more than the revenue raised.  They can cut wages or other benefits.  Then the average person will start caring...and might get a different job.   (I found this article saying that 12M households spend >=50% of income on rent, so I'm assuming that an even greater number spend more than the recommended 30%, which means rent should be weighted as high as it is in CPI.) According to the census, that's only about 10% of households.  It also notes that 64.4% of households are owner-occupied.  They don't pay rent.  The CPI makes up a number called owner's equivalent rent for those households to get to the higher percentage.   The CPI is intended for things like wages.  This makes it a good choice for a cost of living adjustment, but it doesn't quite represent the overall economy.  And for investments, it's the broader economy that matters.  Household consumption is less important.   What the Fed says. The reason is in your own question. The answer is simple. They use that code to tax the product otherwise it would just be out of pocket expenses.
Interest rates are at historic lows. In my opinion they can only go up from here. With that in mind, it is best to lock in interest rates now.  I would only take an adjustable rate if I expected my personal income to increase in excess of the increase in interest rates.  I hold that the recent technology of fracking has driven down the price of energy. I also believe that this is a short term situation and energy prices will return, and have already begun to do so. With the price of energy going up, inflation will return. When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations. Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt.  The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt.  This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation.   1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure.  If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%. Inflation follows the money, chases the money. All the money in the past few years has been directed into the banking system, and so we have an inflation in banking investments -- an investment bubble.  The Fed makes a big mistake putting all the money into these investment banks. Better to put it into the population directly than let these buggering bankers control it. But then, the Fed *is* the buggering bankers, just wearing a different hat.  It's Wyle E. Coyote time yet again as we wait to see how long it takes these bastards to realize there isn't anything substantial under their feet and it's a long way down to the canyon floor. Again. I have read this at least a dozen times, and watched several documentaries on it, but this is the clearest explanation yet. Thank you.  I had not really considered the possibility that the fed is not the evil monster it's usually frame as before. Now I'm not sure how bad it is due to these conflicting viewpoints. The worst case I have heard against it (repeatedly) is that it's a privately owned corporation. And that it's for-profit. What is that about? The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low. While the standard measure of inflation, the CPI, has [severe problems](https://www.forbes.com/sites/perianneboring/2014/02/03/if-you-want-to-know-the-real-rate-of-inflation-dont-bother-with-the-cpi/), there are still a huge range of inflation statistics from the various M values to specific commodity prices. Regardless of the relative value of any of these, stealing pension funds is immoral, evil, and destabilizing. Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions. Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further.  The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made.   Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other.  When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity.  I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so. The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market.  The CPI is just one input to the Central Bank to determine rate, is not the only deciding criteria. The CPI does not take into account the house price or the cost of renting in the basket of goods.  One of the reasons could be that CPI contains basic essentials and also the fact that it should be easily mesurable over the period of time. For example Retail Price of a particular item is easily mesurable. The rent is not easily mesurable. I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much.  But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%.  Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment.  Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself. "My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves.  Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities.  Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the ""interest rate"", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many ""interest rates"" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be.  In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary." Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI.   Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case.  BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS. The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60 I'm not sure what point you think I was making. It looks like you think I'm supporting the idea that QE causes inflation, which it doesn't. At least not when it is being used as it has been. What it does seem to have done is depress interest rates and create a speculative market that doesn't match up with economic reality. It has also created a ridiculous profit loop for investment banks selling bonds to the Fed.  You can't talk about QE without mentioning that banks are now incentivized to hold onto reserves because they can collect interest. So the banks screwed up, were heavily subsidized under the pretense of it being best for the taxpayer, and were then rewarded for sitting on all of that money.   If I support any viewpoint it is this. The government agreed to give the banks a thin veneer of solvency by granting them enormous sums in a short period. Obviously if that much currency went straight into the market it would be a disaster, so it put a mechanism in place to reward them for holding onto it. All QE did was massively increase the debt burden of the government, which will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of taxes, fines, fewer benefits, worsening infrastructure, and more restrictions. QE may have not caused inflation, but it certainly didn't help the vast majority of Americans who will simply see their standard of living decline at a quicker pace. I'm sure this will get blamed on immigrants or something instead of the reality that our government is tacitly rewarding banks for not lending to individuals. Why would they? An individual might not pay them back, but the government always will by simply extracting more out of those very individuals.