According to WJAT:

Twenty years after closing all of its locations due to bankruptcy and a foodborne illness outbreak, a popular Mexican restaurant is looking to make a comeback.

Hormel Foods, who owns the trademark, worked out a deal to bring Chi-Chi’s back to life after every location closed in 2004. The company initially closed its doors after a bankruptcy which coincided with a foodborne illness outbreak that was linked back to them.

The son of the founder of Chi-Chi’s, Michael McDermott, said in a release that he hopes to honor his family’s legacy by combining the classic Mexican restaurant with modern influence.

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi’s team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

We’re back, baby!

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi's team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

"Trump Effect: Popular Mexican Restaurant Set to Return 20 Years After Closing All US Locations" pic.twitter.com/1BYHO5B8iW

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) December 5, 2024

According to WJAT:

Twenty years after closing all of its locations due to bankruptcy and a foodborne illness outbreak, a popular Mexican restaurant is looking to make a comeback.

Hormel Foods, who owns the trademark, worked out a deal to bring Chi-Chi’s back to life after every location closed in 2004. The company initially closed its doors after a bankruptcy which coincided with a foodborne illness outbreak that was linked back to them.

The son of the founder of Chi-Chi’s, Michael McDermott, said in a release that he hopes to honor his family’s legacy by combining the classic Mexican restaurant with modern influence.

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi’s team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

We’re back, baby!

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi's team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

"Trump Effect: Popular Mexican Restaurant Set to Return 20 Years After Closing All US Locations" pic.twitter.com/1BYHO5B8iW

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) December 5, 2024

The retail giant could file for bankruptcy as soon as next year, according to the New York Post, who said the retailer is blaming its recent descent on “a weak housing market and inflated prices” hurting sales.

The chain, based in Coppell, Texas, saw a pandemic-driven surge in 2020 and 2021 as homebound consumers, inspired by Marie Kondo’s Netflix show, embraced decluttering.

However, a sluggish housing market and persistent inflation have curbed moves, home renovations, and discretionary spending, shrinking demand for storage products. Or, in other words, people simply have less money for crap nowadays.

The Post reported that the Container Store faces a “high probability” of bankruptcy next year, according to Tim Hynes, global head of credit research at Debtwire, following the path of retailers like Big Lots and LL Flooring.

Amid a record wave of store closures predicted this year by Coresight Research, The Container Store has shown signs of distress. In May, it suspended its earnings outlook and began a strategic review to address declining performance. In its latest quarter ending September 28, sales dropped 10.5%, with losses totaling $30.8 million.

A potential $40 million lifeline from Beyond, owner of Bed Bath & Beyond and Overstock.com, to stock Bed Bath & Beyond products appears in jeopardy. Last week, Bed Bath & Beyond hinted the deal might collapse, citing The Container Store’s inability to meet financing conditions.

Hynes said: “I don’t see any dramatic increase in holiday sales that will change the situation. They are already pretty far down the line.”

Incidentally, this also means a lot of bored housewives could be looking for new ‘projects’ heading into the New Year, so stay out of their way…

With the punishment up to and including closing those accounts if the owner strays from what the government approves.

Such as shopping at specific retailers, or making cash deposits just under $10,000.

The institute explained, “Most Americans have no idea their financial accounts are being monitored. And that’s by design. The same federal law that mandates this surveillance also prohibits banks from telling customers about these reports.”

That means the first indication that a consumer may have about a government bureaucrat’s issue with their activity is when their accounts are closed.

The institute explained Bryan Delaney, a bar owner in New York City, learned the hard way in 2023 when his corporate and personal accounts were shut down.

It seems he offended Deep State members by often depositing cash amounts under $10,000 from his bar business.

The feds demand that such deposits over $10,000 are reported, and those under $10,000 are documented “because they do not trigger” that requirement.

“Bryan wasn’t trying to avoid any $10,000 reporting requirement; his bar’s revenue simply happened to fall below that threshold,” the institute reported.

Other suspicious activities include regular cash deposits or withdrawals, overseas transfers, donations to “controversial” groups, purchases at gun shops or shopping at Dick’s Sporting Goods or Cabela’s.

The Institute explained, “This is called ‘de-banking,’ and it’s far more common than you might think. Thousands of Americans have had their accounts closed with little warning or explanation.”

It’s all because of a federal law that imposes demands on bank to monitor accounts.

Actually, the institute said, “Federal law provides that any transaction can be ‘suspicious’ if the ‘bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction.’

“In other words, ordinary financial activities are presumed guilty until proven innocent.”

And it gets worse, the IJ explained: “These surveillance laws more broadly harm Americans by creating a vast database of financial information that is susceptible to abuse by bad actors both within and outside government.”

That’s because federal, state and local – even foreign – agencies are given access to the reports without any warrant.

The IJ is fighting the schemes.

“The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to be ‘secure’ in our ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects.’ That protection for ‘papers’ should, on its face, extend to the kind of sensitive financial information held by banks,” the organization explained.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Dr. Shelton engages these questions in the context of academic debates, but she also uses the lens of rational economic planning to evaluate how the monetary system contributes to or detracts from economic growth. At the end of the day, the case for sound money rests on the claim that it will generate more stable and greater long-run economic prosperity. Dr. Shelton believes sound money will do just that. But what would such a sound money regime look like?

Although Dr. Shelton would prefer a system along the lines of a classical gold standard, she would probably be content with other monetary systems that dramatically reduced the discretion of policymakers. The real problem with our current monetary regime is not primarily technical. It is behavioral. Because public officials have strong incentives to inflate the currency, bail out various corporations, and underwrite extensive government borrowing, they do a poor job conserving the value of fiat currency or providing a predictable stable system of interest rates, credit, liquidity, etc.

In the first couple chapters of “Good as Gold,” Dr. Shelton takes the Federal Reserve to task. The wide discretion Fed officials can exercise makes monetary policy unpredictable. Although Fed officials argue that their decisions are countercyclical, that may not always be the case. As Milton Friedman famously noted, the effects of monetary policy decisions have “long and variable” lags. Despite claims to being “data-driven,” Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decisions remain unpredictable. Data can change rapidly and unpredictably, which can make policy change rapid and unpredictable too.

Another problem is that the “data-driven” mantra invokes the assumption that the data always clearly indicate what ought to be done. In fact, this is rarely the case. Not only do a wide variety of inflation measures exist, but there are also a wide range of time intervals over which to compare inflation trends. But that’s not the worst of it!

Employment, unemployment, GDP, and a host of other economic numbers suggest different things are going on in the economy. Retailers expect strong record spending this holiday season while the N.Y. Fed just released a study where the number of people reporting concern about their ability to make debt payments hit its highest level since 2020. How to weigh these various factors is far from clear.

Another problem with Fed policy is the rapid change in its interest rate targets. Three years ago, the short-run interest rate was ~.5 percent. Within two years it was over 5 percent. That rapid change created many issues in the economy, only some of which we have recognized. The rate-hike cycle created significant turmoil in the banking industry with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failing entirely while many large regional banks shrank or were enfolded into larger national banks.

The commercial real estate market has also been upended. While the owners of office buildings were already facing strong headwinds from the pandemic’s normalization of remote work, the Fed delivered a one-two punch when it raised interest rates. Most large commercial real estate investors use variable rate debt to finance their portfolios—which means the interest rate they pay moves with the market. Adding a couple percentage points to one’s debt rapidly changes the viability of a venture. In addition to higher debt-servicing costs, commercial real estate investors saw the market value of their holdings decline precipitously as buyers disappeared, financing costs rose, and future potential cash flows were more heavily discounted.

The previous rate-hike cycle in 2006 and 2007 preceded a major recession and financial crisis. Even as the Fed creates disruptions in markets, it has also overseen the relentless decline in the value of the dollar—ironically in the name of pursuing their mandate to maintain price stability. A dollar in 2024 is worth what a quarter was in 1980 and what a dime was in 1965. And a 2024 dollar is worth about what a penny was worth in 1900.

This downward march in the value of the dollar creates problems.

It drives up asset prices, favoring those who have investment savvy while eating away at the value of people’s savings and undermining the prosperity of those on fixed incomes. The steady fall of the dollar also distorts price calculations and expectations.

I’ve argued elsewhere that the Fed has been a prime culprit in boosting housing prices and, as a result, creating a “transitional gains trap” where homeowners with significant equity, juiced in large part by easy money, have organized to protect their equity by putting up local legal barriers to building new housing.

But “Good as Gold” includes much more than criticism of the Fed. Dr. Shelton points out that unstable money and exchange rates create costs to doing business. International firms must devote time, energy, and money to protect themselves from erratic fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Creating these “hedges” to protect their profitability from exchange-rate risk necessitates additional classes of assets and asset traders—contributing to greater “financialization” of the economy. While the services being offered create real value for corporations, they come at a price and would not be needed under more stable monetary arrangements.

Besides the frictions and costs that unstable money introduces into day-to-day business operations, it also creates long-term consequences when it comes to investing. If certain exchange rates can move 15 percent, 30 percent, or more in a single year, Dr. Shelton asks, then how can investors rationally allocate capital based on real factors and comparative advantage? The structure and mix of capital investment we currently have across countries and within the same country looks very different than it would in a world of stable money.

Dr. Shelton makes this point indirectly in a fascinating chapter about the monetary debate between Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell. Both were staunch advocates of free markets, but they differed in what monetary regime they thought best. Friedman argued in favor of freely floating exchange rates set by market participants. In this world, governments would feel pressure from markets, in the form of capital outflows, if they engaged in domestic monetary policy shenanigans. Mundell, on the other hand, favored more stability in exchange rates that would require domestic prices to adapt to changes in trade and capital flows. Friedman and Mundell both agreed, however, that government officials and central bankers should have very little discretion in how they managed a country’s monetary system.

In a later chapter, Shelton offers the problem of “currency manipulation” as a reason for implementing a sound money regime. Her argument basically asserts that countries that actively depreciate or weaken their domestic currency experience short-run benefits (in the form of more competitive exports) and long-term costs (in the form of inflation and capital outflows). Other countries, however, feel short-run pain as their exports decline and their factories shut down—even though they also receive cheaper goods and reallocate much of the displaced labor and capital. I find this line of reasoning a bit curious.

Shelton rightly champions free trade and argues that it works best when countries do not artificially manipulate the value of their currencies. No objection here. But I am not convinced that a sound money regime, even a gold standard, would change other countries’ incentives to devalue their currency. Gold convertibility of one currency does not prevent the issuer of a different fiat currency from issuing large amounts of that fiat currency to reduce the relative price of its exports.

I suppose one could argue (and Dr. Shelton does) that currency manipulation becomes easier to discern because currencies will be valued in terms of a fixed standard (gold), rather than in terms of another fluctuating fiat currency. For example, the price of gold in terms of dollars increased by 77 percent from May 2014 to May 2024.

The currencies of the largest trade partners with the United States lost far more value relative to gold in that period: Euros (129 percent), Mexican Peso (131 percent), Canadian dollar (122 percent), Chinese yuan (105 percent), and Japanese yen (165 percent). But that probably matters relatively little to the devaluing regime. Using gold as a benchmark might reveal relative changes in the value of currencies better. It could also defuse the language of “currency manipulation.”

Instead of attributing motives to foreign central bankers, policy makers could set relatively straight-forward criteria for when another country’s currency declines in a distortive way. Shelton suggests that some level of tariffs should be imposed in response to another country’s currency devaluation to offset the monetary distortion to international trade. This idea may not be crazy from a purely technical standpoint, yet I would hesitate to recommend it because of the likely distortions and co-opting of such policies by special interests. I also question whether the costs of not imposing tariffs on depreciating currencies is as high as Dr. Shelton believes.

Sound money advocates like Shelton must explain how we could get to a sound money regime. On the one hand, advocating a gold standard seems archaic and implausible. On the other hand, it would not be technically difficult to implement. And, in fact, given the dominance of the U.S. dollar, if another major currency, such as the Euro, also chose to move back to gold redeemability, it is not hard to imagine other major currencies (Yen, Yuan, Pound, etc.) following suit. The political difficulty, of course, is getting the United States to take the first step and then getting the EU to follow suit.

The odds of successful reform are highest when pursuing the easiest path to transition the current system to a sound monetary regime. Abolishing the Federal Reserve is not on that path. So tying dollars back to gold using the Fed makes more sense than moving back to a pre-Fed world. Similarly, constraining the FOMC seems far more plausible than abolishing it.

It may be worth raising a few other important secondary questions. At what price will the currency be convertible into gold? Dr. Shelton has suggested that incorporating a gold clause in Treasury bonds could be a good method for discovering the right price of convertibility. In fact, putting gold convertibility into government bond contracts may be sufficient, in and of itself, to tie dollars back to gold.

Afterall, depreciation of dollars would create consequences for the federal government and the Federal Reserve, the very institutions primarily responsible for managing the dollar and maintaining the monetary system. Shelton also makes the important point that currency should be seen as being like a weight or measure—something standardized for the public to use. It should not be viewed as a policy instrument or lever for managing the economy. This simple point rarely arises in modern commentary on the Fed and on monetary policy—yet it has deep legal and historical roots in the American founding and beyond.

Another benefit of moving to gold redeemability for U.S. bonds is that it utilizes U.S. gold reserves more effectively. Currently, the United States is the largest holder of gold in the world. But ironically, that gold is severely undervalued on the government’s ledger. Its book value is less than two percent of its market value (i.e., on the ledger the gold is valued at less than $50/oz when its market value is over $2700/oz). Offering gold redeemability might also open up the option for extremely long-dated debt (50 years or more) and lower interest rates because the most significant risk to lending to the federal government, the devaluation of future dollars, has been taken off the table.

The likely benefits of such bonds are so significant that it may seem surprising that they have not been implemented. The problem, of course, is that this form of bond would reveal the man behind the curtain. It would show that government officials can and do play fast and loose with the dollar and with the U.S. financial system to enable themselves and their friends a free hand to borrow and spend, and to actively “manage” the economy.

Dr. Shelton’s proposed changes will be vigorously resisted by those who benefit from the existing status quo—large commercial banks and financial institutions, Federal Reserve officials and bureaucrats, politicians and regulators—everyone who benefits from the Fed’s tendency to loose monetary policy. Still advocates of freedom and prosperity should continue to make the arguments and offer proposals for moving to a sound monetary regime.

And that is exactly what Dr. Shelton does in “Good as Gold.”

He went full Beast Mode.

As he posted on Truth Social:

The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the Dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER. We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar or, they will face 100% Tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy. They can go find another “sucker!” There is no chance that the BRICS will replace the U.S. Dollar in International Trade, and any Country that tries should wave goodbye to America.

100% tariffs. That’s essentially a death penalty for pretty much any nation that relies on exports because the United States is by far the world’s largest consumer. Critics will say that such tariffs will increase costs for Americans, but they’re missing the point. This isn’t about raising tariffs. It’s about preventing the collapse of the U.S. Dollar.

President Trump just announced that he will impose a 100% tariff on all products from countries that join BRICS or try to replace the U.S. dollar in international trade.

This is about to cause worldwide panic.

AMERICA IS BACK BABY! pic.twitter.com/HR0k3ePoSU

— George (@BehizyTweets) November 30, 2024

De-dollarization has been on the horizon since the Biden regime weaponized SWIFT against Russia following their invasion of Ukraine. But the Ruble only suffered temporarily before becoming stronger than ever. The move prompted many nations to seek a safer alternative; if the United States was willing to use control of international commerce to punish another nation, then an alternative needed to be found.

This move by President Trump changes the calculus completely.

Consumer confidence is up. The stock market, crypto, and gold numbers have looked solid after the initial post-election shock to the system. Things are looking good, but that doesn’t mean we can become complacent. It still behooves Americans to be frugal with spending until all of the dust settles and President Trump’s economic plan can truly kick into action. With that said, here’s some important information from Zero Hedge…

(Zero Hedge)—The Fed’s favorite (when it’s going down) inflation indicator – Core PCE – ticked up noticeably in October to +2.8%, the highest since April…

Headline PCE rose 0.2% MoM (as expected) lifting it 2.3% YoY (up from +2.1% YoY prior)…

A jump in Services and Durable Goods costs drove the reignition of inflation…

The so-called SuperCore PCE (Services ex-shelter) surged up to +3.51% YoY…

Incomes – for once – grew at a faster rate than spending (+0.6% MoM vs +0.4% MoM respectively)….

…and while that bumped up the savings rate MoM, thanks to massive revisions, Americans lost $140BN in personal savings… out of nowhere…

Oh look, the savings rate was just revised sharply lower for most of 2024 and some $140BN in personal savings was magically erased. pic.twitter.com/T3lGgLCIEQ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 27, 2024

Remember when they revised it from 2.4% to 5.0% in late September to bump up GDP? Well, we guess Kamala isn’t president.. so all bets (adjustments) are off…

And finally, imagine how bad things would be if the government wasn’t handing over billions to ‘we, the people’ all of a sudden…

Bye, bye, rate-cut expectations!…

The group’s consumer confidence index rose to 111.7 in November, up from 109.6 in October, marking the second consecutive month of improvement, according to the Nov. 26 report.

The present situation index, which gauges consumers’ views of current business and labor market conditions, climbed 4.8 points to 140.9. Meanwhile, the expectations index, which reflects outlooks over the next six months on income, business, and labor conditions, inched up 0.4 points to 92.3, remaining well above the threshold of 80 that is typically associated with recession risks.

“The proportion of consumers anticipating a recession over the next 12 months fell further in November and was the lowest since we first asked the question in July 2022,” Dana Peterson, chief economist at The Conference Board, said in a statement.

Peterson said that November’s increase in overall consumer confidence was mostly due to more positive assessments of current conditions, particularly with respect to the labor market.

“Compared to October, consumers were also substantially more optimistic about future job availability, which reached its highest level in almost three years,” Peterson said.

Even though consumers’ assessments of their family’s current financial situation fell slightly, optimism for their finances over the next six months reached a new high. Confidence in the U.S. stock market also reached a record high, with 56.4 percent of respondents expecting stock prices to increase over the next 12 months.

Inflation expectations also fell sharply. The average 12-month inflation expectations fell from 5.3 percent in October to 4.9 percent in November, the lowest in nearly four-and-a-half years. Still, elevated prices remained the top concern for consumers, followed by worries about higher taxes, social unrest, as well as conflicts and wars.

“In a special question about concerns and hopes for 2025, consumers overwhelmingly selected higher prices as their top concern and lower prices as their top wish for the new year,” the report states.

Despite the rise in optimism, consumers reported mixed plans for future purchases. Buying intentions for homes stalling in November, while plans to purchase autos ticked up. Durable goods purchases faced uncertainty, with declines in plans for appliances and electronics, offset by steady interest in travel and healthcare spending.

Other data released on Tuesday suggests Americans are tightening their purse strings. Best Buy, the nation’s biggest consumer electronics chain, reported another quarterly sales drop as customers pivoted toward essentials, away from gadgets and appliances. The retailer also lowered its annual sales and profit outlook, with CEO Corie Barry noting weak customer demand ahead of the November election and shoppers who were waiting for bargains.

“We continue to see a consumer who is seeking value and sales events, and one who is also willing to spend on high price-point products when they need to or when there is new, compelling technology,“ Barry said in a statement. ”Thus, we are balancing our optimism in both the industry and our unique positioning with a pragmatic approach to likely uneven customer behavior going forward.”

Similarly, Kohl’s reported disappointing third-quarter results and lowered its full-year sales outlook. The retailer now expects comparable sales to decline 6 percent to 7 percent for the year, a deeper slump than the 3 percent to 5 percent it previously projected.

“Our third quarter results did not meet our expectations as sales remained soft in our apparel and footwear businesses,“ CEO Tom Kingsbury said in a statement. ”We are approaching our financial outlook for the year more conservatively given the third quarter underperformance and our expectation for a highly competitive holiday season.”

Target also reported weak sales and slumping profits as customers pulled back on non-essential purchases. CEO Brian Cornell said the company “encountered some unique challenges and cost pressures that impacted our bottom-line performance” in the third quarter, although he expressed confidence in Target’s business fundamentals and its ability to deliver on longer-term financial goals.

The picture wasn’t universally grim among the nation’s retailers during this reporting season, however. Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, last week reported a solid third quarter and raised its full-year net sales growth guidance to between 4.8 and 5.1 percent.

“We had a strong quarter, continuing our momentum,” CEO Doug McMillon said in a statement. “In-store volumes grow, pickup from store grew faster, and delivery from store grew even faster than that.”

Alongside the rise in consumer confidence, as reported by The Conference Board, there was also an uptick in sentiment among professional economic forecasters this week. The latest National Association for Business Economics (NABE) survey showed that economists have raised their growth projections substantially for 2025 and most of them no longer see downside risks as predominant.
NABE’s periodic survey, released on Nov. 25 and based on the responses of 38 professional forecasters, found improved economic growth projections for both this year and the next, while expecting inflation to cool further.

At that meeting, FOMC members overwhelmingly voted to lower the federal funds rate by 25 basis points, to a new range of 4.5–4.75 percent, signaling further loosening of restrictive monetary policy.

The meeting summary indicated that officials are confident that inflation is moving sustainably toward the institution’s objective of 2 percent. The Fed could rapidly ease policy if there were sudden weakness in the labor market or the broader economy, the document said.

“In discussing the outlook for monetary policy, participants anticipated that if the data came in about as expected, with inflation continuing to move down sustainably to 2 percent and the economy remaining near maximum employment, it would likely be appropriate to move gradually toward a more neutral stance of policy over time,” the minutes stated.

Meeting participants did express uncertainty regarding how low interest rates need to be before touching the neutral rate that neither stimulates economic activity nor halts growth.

“Many participants observed that uncertainties concerning the level of the neutral rate of interest complicated the assessment of the degree of restrictiveness of monetary policy and, in their view, made it appropriate to reduce policy restraint gradually,” the minutes said.

Looking ahead, Fed policymakers said that incoming data are consistent with the central bank’s 2 percent inflation target. They noted that higher shelter costs bolstered recent higher readings.

“Participants cited various factors likely to put continuing downward pressure on inflation, including waning business pricing power, the committee’s still-restrictive monetary policy stance, and well-anchored longer-term inflation expectations,” it added.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters at the post-meeting press conference earlier this month that the road to 2 percent inflation may be “bumpy” with more bumps in the road.

As for the U.S. economic landscape, participants concluded that downside risks to the labor market and wider economy decreased.

In addition, staff projected that economic conditions would remain solid and growth projections would be higher than in the previous assessment.

Tim Barkin, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, recently expressed caution over the labor market but was optimistic about inflation.

“The labor market might be fine, or it might continue to weaken,” Barkin said in prepared remarks to the Baltimore Together Summit on Nov. 12.

“Inflation might be coming under control, or the level of core might give a signal that it risks getting stuck above target.”

Market Reaction

Financial markets registered tepid gains toward the closing bell on Nov. 26, with the leading benchmark indexes up by as much as 0.4 percent.

Yields in the U.S. Treasury market attempted to reverse the previous session’s sharp decline. The benchmark 10-year yield topped 4.3 percent. The two-year yield was flat at 2.5 percent, while the 30-year bond surged to 4.48 percent.

The greenback extended its gains. The U.S. dollar index, a gauge of the greenback against a basket of currencies, recorded a modest increase and added to its year-to-date rally of 5.6 percent.

Policy minutes did little to change the market’s assessment of next month’s outcome.

“The minutes did nothing to alter my view that the policy rate is going to be adjusted lower next week and will continue to do so through the next calendar year,” Jamie Cox, managing partner for the Harris Financial Group, said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times.

According to the CME FedWatch Tool, investors are mostly penciling in a quarter-point rate cut.

The rate-cutting cycle will persist throughout 2025, though Fed easing might not be as aggressive, says Jeffrey Roach, the chief economist at LPL Financial.

“In our view, after weeks of markets pricing in too many rate cuts throughout 2025, Fed rate cut pricing is now better aligned with economic data,” Roach said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times. “Currently, markets still expect the Fed to cut rates below 4 percent by the end of 2025.”

The FOMC will hold its next two-day policy meeting on Dec. 16–17.

The periodic survey, released on Nov. 25, reveals an upward revision in economic growth projections for both this year and the next, compared to the last time the panel of 38 professional economic forecasters was polled in September. Specifically, the current forecast calls for real inflation-adjusted gross domestic product to increase by 2.7 percent in 2024, up from the 2.6 percent the panelists expected several months ago. The economists’ prediction for 2025 is even more optimistic, forecasting a 2.0 percent pace of growth, up 0.2 percentage points from the 1.8 percent growth they expected a few months before the November election.

“In addition, the largest share of respondents—44 percent—now sees the risks surrounding the outlook as balanced, whereas a majority of respondents in the previous survey thought downside risks were more likely than balanced or upside risks,” NABE president Emily Kolinski Morris said in a statement.

Most of the panelists also expect inflation to cool further, predicting that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) will slow to 2.3 percent in annual terms by the end of 2025, and the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, the core Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) price index, will come in at 2.1 percent by that time. Slowing inflation means more room for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which the panelists expect will take place “gradually but consistently.”

Fed policymakers focus more on core PCE, which excludes the volatile categories of food and energy, when assessing inflation trends as this gauge provides a more stable measure of underlying inflation pressures.

This week will see the release of PCE inflation data for October, with the latest report for September showing that core PCE remained unchanged from August at 2.7 percent year over year, although it jumped by 0.3 percent month over month, up from August’s 0.1 percent increase.

While the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s inflation nowcasting model indicates a near-term increase in core PCE inflation, it hints at a gradual decline later, aligning with the Federal Reserve’s latest Summary of Economic Projections, which foresees a downward trajectory for core PCE in both 2024 and 2025.

The Cleveland Fed’s inflation model, updated on Nov. 25, estimates that core PCE inflation rose to 2.76 percent in October and will have risen to 2.90 percent by the end of November. At the same time, the nowcast sees the core PCE month-over-month readings declining from 0.24 percent in October to 0.23 percent in November, suggesting the onset of a potential downward trend, which would be consistent with the view of the NABE economists and Fed officials.

In their latest Summary of Economic Projections, released in September, Fed policymakers expected core PCE to fall to 2.6 percent by the end of 2024, a drop from the 2.8 percent they projected in June. They also lowered their projections for core PCE in 2025, expecting it to come in at 2.2 percent, lower than the 2.3 percent they forecast during the summer and 0.1 percentage point higher than the NABE panel’s prediction for next year.

The increase in optimism about the future of the U.S. economy expressed by NABE forecasters dovetails with a jump in positive sentiment expressed by consumers and members of the business community alike.

The latest S&P Global Flash PMI survey of the manufacturing and service industries, released on Nov. 22, showed a broad-based improvement in year-ahead business confidence, which was particularly notable in U.S. factories, where it hit a 31-month high.

“The business mood has brightened in November, with confidence about the year ahead hitting a two-and-a-half year high,” Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement. “The prospect of lower interest rates and a more pro-business approach from the incoming administration has fueled greater optimism, in turn helping drive output and order book inflows higher in November.”

The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey, released on Nov. 22, showed an uptick in consumer confidence, while year-ahead inflation expectations eased.