4 datasets found
  1. Volcker Shock: federal funds, unemployment and inflation rates 1979-1987

    • statista.com
    Updated Sep 2, 2024
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Statista (2024). Volcker Shock: federal funds, unemployment and inflation rates 1979-1987 [Dataset]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1338105/volcker-shock-interest-rates-unemployment-inflation/
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Sep 2, 2024
    Dataset authored and provided by
    Statistahttp://statista.com/
    Time period covered
    1979 - 1987
    Area covered
    United States
    Description

    The Volcker Shock was a period of historically high interest rates precipitated by Federal Reserve Chairperson Paul Volcker's decision to raise the central bank's key interest rate, the Fed funds effective rate, during the first three years of his term. Volcker was appointed chairperson of the Fed in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, as replacement for William Miller, who Carter had made his treasury secretary. Volcker was one of the most hawkish (supportive of tighter monetary policy to stem inflation) members of the Federal Reserve's committee, and quickly set about changing the course of monetary policy in the U.S. in order to quell inflation. The Volcker Shock is remembered for bringing an end to over a decade of high inflation in the United States, prompting a deep recession and high unemployment, and for spurring on debt defaults among developing countries in Latin America who had borrowed in U.S. dollars.

    Monetary tightening and the recessions of the early '80s

    Beginning in October 1979, Volcker's Fed tightened monetary policy by raising interest rates. This decision had the effect of depressing demand and slowing down the U.S. economy, as credit became more expensive for households and businesses. The Fed funds rate, the key overnight rate at which banks lend their excess reserves to each other, rose as high as 17.6 percent in early 1980. The rate was allowed to fall back below 10 percent following this first peak, however, due to worries that inflation was not falling fast enough, a second cycle of monetary tightening was embarked upon starting in August of 1980. The rate would reach its all-time peak in June of 1981, at 19.1 percent. The second recession sparked by these hikes was far deeper than the 1980 recession, with unemployment peaking at 10.8 percent in December 1980, the highest level since The Great Depression. This recession would drive inflation to a low point during Volcker's terms of 2.5 percent in August 1983.

    The legacy of the Volcker Shock

    By the end of Volcker's terms as Fed Chair, inflation was at a manageable rate of around four percent, while unemployment had fallen under six percent, as the economy grew and business confidence returned. While supporters of Volcker's actions point to these numbers as proof of the efficacy of his actions, critics have claimed that there were less harmful ways that inflation could have been brought under control. The recessions of the early 1980s are cited as accelerating deindustrialization in the U.S., as manufacturing jobs lost in 'rust belt' states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania never returned during the years of recovery. The Volcker Shock was also a driving factor behind the Latin American debt crises of the 1980s, as governments in the region defaulted on debts which they had incurred in U.S. dollars. Debates about the validity of using interest rate hikes to get inflation under control have recently re-emerged due to the inflationary pressures facing the U.S. following the Coronavirus pandemic and the Federal Reserve's subsequent decision to embark on a course of monetary tightening.

  2. T

    United States Inflation Rate

    • tradingeconomics.com
    • fa.tradingeconomics.com
    • +13more
    csv, excel, json, xml
    Updated Jun 11, 2025
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    TRADING ECONOMICS (2025). United States Inflation Rate [Dataset]. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi
    Explore at:
    json, excel, xml, csvAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Jun 11, 2025
    Dataset authored and provided by
    TRADING ECONOMICS
    License

    Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    License information was derived automatically

    Time period covered
    Dec 31, 1914 - May 31, 2025
    Area covered
    United States
    Description

    Inflation Rate in the United States increased to 2.40 percent in May from 2.30 percent in April of 2025. This dataset provides - United States Inflation Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

  3. k

    Carter's Inc. (CRI): A Stitch in Time, or a Tear in the Fabric? (Forecast)

    • kappasignal.com
    Updated Feb 10, 2024
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    KappaSignal (2024). Carter's Inc. (CRI): A Stitch in Time, or a Tear in the Fabric? (Forecast) [Dataset]. https://www.kappasignal.com/2024/02/carters-inc-cri-stitch-in-time-or-tear.html
    Explore at:
    Dataset updated
    Feb 10, 2024
    Dataset authored and provided by
    KappaSignal
    License

    https://www.kappasignal.com/p/legal-disclaimer.htmlhttps://www.kappasignal.com/p/legal-disclaimer.html

    Description

    This analysis presents a rigorous exploration of financial data, incorporating a diverse range of statistical features. By providing a robust foundation, it facilitates advanced research and innovative modeling techniques within the field of finance.

    Carter's Inc. (CRI): A Stitch in Time, or a Tear in the Fabric?

    Financial data:

    • Historical daily stock prices (open, high, low, close, volume)

    • Fundamental data (e.g., market capitalization, price to earnings P/E ratio, dividend yield, earnings per share EPS, price to earnings growth, debt-to-equity ratio, price-to-book ratio, current ratio, free cash flow, projected earnings growth, return on equity, dividend payout ratio, price to sales ratio, credit rating)

    • Technical indicators (e.g., moving averages, RSI, MACD, average directional index, aroon oscillator, stochastic oscillator, on-balance volume, accumulation/distribution A/D line, parabolic SAR indicator, bollinger bands indicators, fibonacci, williams percent range, commodity channel index)

    Machine learning features:

    • Feature engineering based on financial data and technical indicators

    • Sentiment analysis data from social media and news articles

    • Macroeconomic data (e.g., GDP, unemployment rate, interest rates, consumer spending, building permits, consumer confidence, inflation, producer price index, money supply, home sales, retail sales, bond yields)

    Potential Applications:

    • Stock price prediction

    • Portfolio optimization

    • Algorithmic trading

    • Market sentiment analysis

    • Risk management

    Use Cases:

    • Researchers investigating the effectiveness of machine learning in stock market prediction

    • Analysts developing quantitative trading Buy/Sell strategies

    • Individuals interested in building their own stock market prediction models

    • Students learning about machine learning and financial applications

    Additional Notes:

    • The dataset may include different levels of granularity (e.g., daily, hourly)

    • Data cleaning and preprocessing are essential before model training

    • Regular updates are recommended to maintain the accuracy and relevance of the data

  4. American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1998

    • icpsr.umich.edu
    • search.datacite.org
    ascii, sas, spss
    Updated Mar 15, 2000
    + more versions
    Share
    FacebookFacebook
    TwitterTwitter
    Email
    Click to copy link
    Link copied
    Close
    Cite
    Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (2000). American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1998 [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02747.v2
    Explore at:
    ascii, spss, sasAvailable download formats
    Dataset updated
    Mar 15, 2000
    Dataset provided by
    Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/
    Authors
    Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
    License

    https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/2747/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/2747/terms

    Time period covered
    1998
    Area covered
    United States
    Description

    This study is part of a quadrennial series designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public and a select group of opinion leaders on matters relating to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate. Through telephone surveys, general public respondents (Part 2) were interviewed October 15-November 10, 1998, and opinion leaders (Part 1) were interviewed November 2-December 21, 1998. Respondents were asked to assess their level of interest in the news and specifically in foreign policy. Respondents were also asked whether concern for foreign policy is important in a presidential candidate, and their views were sought on the foreign policy records of President Bill Clinton and former presidents George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman. Those queried were asked for their opinions on economic aid to foreign nations, including Egypt, Poland, Russia, Israel, and African nations. In addition, respondents were asked to rate the Clinton administration on foreign policy, trade policy, immigration policy, United States relations with China, Japan, and Russia, international terrorism, the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Arab-Israeli peace process, the situation in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the situation in Northern Ireland, and the Asian financial crisis. Views were also sought on whether United States' vital interests were present in Egypt, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Israel, Canada, Brazil, Russia, Haiti, Bosnia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, China, France, the Baltic nations, South Korea, Poland, South Africa, Taiwan, Cuba, India, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan. A series of questions addressed potential threats to those vital interests. Additional topics covered the foreign policy goals of the United States, bloodshed in the 21st century, measures to combat international terrorism, the United States' commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United States' contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and United States involvement in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Respondents were asked to rate their feelings toward Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, China, France, Taiwan, South Korea, Cuba, Argentina, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey, Italy, Russia, North Korea, Germany, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Israel, Iraq, India, Canada, and Brazil. Respondents were also asked for their opinions of President Bill Clinton, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Pope John Paul II, former President George Bush, former President Jimmy Carter, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, South African President Nelson Mandela, European Union President Jacques Santer, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat, French President Jacques Chirac, and Serbian President Slobodan Milosovic. Further queries focused on whether United States troops should be used if North Korea invaded South Korea, if Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, if Arab forces invaded Israel, if Russia invaded Poland, if the Cuban people attempted to overthrow the Castro regime, if China invaded Taiwan, or if Serbian forces killed large numbers of ethnic Albanians. Respondents were asked whether they supported the use of economic sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and China. Additional topics covered the elimination of tariffs, globalization, the establishment of a Palestinian state, the United States' role as a world leader, United States federal government program spending, and whether the United States should pay the $1.6 billion owed to the United Nations. Opinion leaders were asked an additional question about the possible threat of the "euro" (the unified monetary system to be implemented in January 1999 by the European Union) to the United States dollar's supremacy as a reserve currency. Background information on general public respondents includes age, race, sex, political party, political orientation, religion, marital status, spouse's employment status, age of children in household, amount of time spent at home, employment status, occupation, position in hou

  5. Not seeing a result you expected?
    Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.

Share
FacebookFacebook
TwitterTwitter
Email
Click to copy link
Link copied
Close
Cite
Statista (2024). Volcker Shock: federal funds, unemployment and inflation rates 1979-1987 [Dataset]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1338105/volcker-shock-interest-rates-unemployment-inflation/
Organization logo

Volcker Shock: federal funds, unemployment and inflation rates 1979-1987

Explore at:
Dataset updated
Sep 2, 2024
Dataset authored and provided by
Statistahttp://statista.com/
Time period covered
1979 - 1987
Area covered
United States
Description

The Volcker Shock was a period of historically high interest rates precipitated by Federal Reserve Chairperson Paul Volcker's decision to raise the central bank's key interest rate, the Fed funds effective rate, during the first three years of his term. Volcker was appointed chairperson of the Fed in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, as replacement for William Miller, who Carter had made his treasury secretary. Volcker was one of the most hawkish (supportive of tighter monetary policy to stem inflation) members of the Federal Reserve's committee, and quickly set about changing the course of monetary policy in the U.S. in order to quell inflation. The Volcker Shock is remembered for bringing an end to over a decade of high inflation in the United States, prompting a deep recession and high unemployment, and for spurring on debt defaults among developing countries in Latin America who had borrowed in U.S. dollars.

Monetary tightening and the recessions of the early '80s

Beginning in October 1979, Volcker's Fed tightened monetary policy by raising interest rates. This decision had the effect of depressing demand and slowing down the U.S. economy, as credit became more expensive for households and businesses. The Fed funds rate, the key overnight rate at which banks lend their excess reserves to each other, rose as high as 17.6 percent in early 1980. The rate was allowed to fall back below 10 percent following this first peak, however, due to worries that inflation was not falling fast enough, a second cycle of monetary tightening was embarked upon starting in August of 1980. The rate would reach its all-time peak in June of 1981, at 19.1 percent. The second recession sparked by these hikes was far deeper than the 1980 recession, with unemployment peaking at 10.8 percent in December 1980, the highest level since The Great Depression. This recession would drive inflation to a low point during Volcker's terms of 2.5 percent in August 1983.

The legacy of the Volcker Shock

By the end of Volcker's terms as Fed Chair, inflation was at a manageable rate of around four percent, while unemployment had fallen under six percent, as the economy grew and business confidence returned. While supporters of Volcker's actions point to these numbers as proof of the efficacy of his actions, critics have claimed that there were less harmful ways that inflation could have been brought under control. The recessions of the early 1980s are cited as accelerating deindustrialization in the U.S., as manufacturing jobs lost in 'rust belt' states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania never returned during the years of recovery. The Volcker Shock was also a driving factor behind the Latin American debt crises of the 1980s, as governments in the region defaulted on debts which they had incurred in U.S. dollars. Debates about the validity of using interest rate hikes to get inflation under control have recently re-emerged due to the inflationary pressures facing the U.S. following the Coronavirus pandemic and the Federal Reserve's subsequent decision to embark on a course of monetary tightening.

Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu