Since you didn't read it, you lazy-ass white honky cracker, here's the relevant bits:
WSJ Real Time Economics - you're still not listening to Rosengren you dumb-ass cracker. Quote:
WSJ: Maybe the Fed shouldn’t be talking about an exit, because it is making it harder to achieve one.
ROSENGREN: Our goal is not to surprise anyone. We shouldn’t be specific about timing. We should be specific about what we need in order to actually be doing something. The last statement highlighted that we needed further improvement in labor markets and we need to be reasonably confident that inflation is moving back to 2%. If we start getting economic data consistent with those conditions then I would expect market conditions to move. We don’t want to surprise people. We want to make it pretty clear that we are getting closer to the conditions where it makes sense to do that.
Economic data have come in much weaker in the first quarter than we might have expected. The employment report was weak. Most private-sector forecasts for first quarter [gross domestic product] indicate that it will be even slower than the 2.2% [growth] we saw in the previous quarter. That wasn’t anticipated in most forecasts. Economic data has a tendency to sometimes surprise us. We’ll have to see if these factors are temporary or whether it is a broader reflection of what is happening globally. That is why we can’t be specific on dates. We can only be specific about the kinds of economic conditions where a tighter policy would be appropriate.
WSJ: Given the developments that we’ve been talking about, the slowdown in the first quarter, the jobs numbers, the risk of slow growth overseas, has the probability of the first interest-rate move occurring in 2016 rather than 2015 increased in your view?
ROSENGREN: If we get an outcome that is consistent with the forecast of a pickup in the next three quarters, that would be an environment where it may be consistent with raising rates later this year. It is in the forecast. It is not in the data. If we continue to have data that look like less than 2% growth, that would not be an environment that you would expect to produce a tightening in labor markets. That wouldn’t be an environment where you would necessarily see inflation moving to 2%. Then that would be the condition that we would have to defer any monetary-policy tightening. That is a different outcome than most baseline forecasts, including my own.
WSJ: So it would take more forecast revisions?
ROSENGREN: Most of the economic forecasts that you see from the private sector are expecting inflation to move towards 2% and the labor market to continue to tighten. We actually have to see those forecasts being realized. Those forecasts by and large, the last several years, have had that same component, and they haven’t actually been realized.
My God, he's handing it to you people.
Seriously, he's given Whitey the fucking essay questions for the final exam and still Whitey is too damn stupid to figure out what he's supposed to do.