Featured Post from Cedarville University

How Will Rate Cuts Affect the Election?

Sep 27, 2024

2 min

Jeff Haymond, Ph.D.

On September 18, the Federal Reserve established the first interest rate cut since the Covid pandemic in 2020. The Fed lowered the federal funds rate by half a percentage point – a much larger change than the typical quarter percentage point cut. 



Dr. Jeff Haymond, dean of the Robert W. Plaster School of Business at Cedarville University, shared insight about the motivations behind this rate cut in a recent interview. Here are some key points:


  • The United States' national debt has been described as a "ticking time bomb." What impact will this and future interest rate cuts have on the national debt?
  • In light of this recent move, current presidential candidate Donald Trump has articulated his economic plan to put a cap on credit card interest rates. Would this bring down the cost of living in the United States, or will it lead to less options for the consumer?
  • This slashing of the interest rate comes only a short time before the presidential election, with many claiming that this cut was, in fact, a political move. Will it affect the decisions of voters as the election draws near?


If you are covering the recent interest rate cut or potential for future cuts and need to know more, let us help with your questions and stories. 


Dr. Jeff Haymond is an expert on this subject and is available to speak to media regarding the action of the Federal Reserve and what this means for families in the United States – simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview.













Connect with:
Jeff Haymond, Ph.D.

Jeff Haymond, Ph.D.

Dean, School of Business Administration/Associate Professor

Research interests include economics and religion, as well as monetary theory

Financial Markets (General)Federal Trade Reserve PolicyFree TradeMinimum Wage / UnemploymentGovernment Regulation
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Cedarville University

Slowing Job Growth Raises Questions About the Economy’s Momentum featured image

1 min

Slowing Job Growth Raises Questions About the Economy’s Momentum

The U.S. economy added just 29,000 jobs in September, while unemployment edged up to 4.2%, raising concerns about the strength of the labor market. Downward revisions to July and August’s employment figures further weakened the picture, suggesting hiring had been less robust than previously reported. For workers seeking their first job or a new opportunity, the slowdown adds uncertainty to an already challenging economic environment. The report also complicates the Federal Reserve’s next interest-rate decision. Weaker hiring reduced expectations for another rate increase this month, as policymakers weigh inflation concerns against the risk of slowing the economy further. Higher borrowing costs can make business expansion more expensive and discourage spending on homes, vehicles and other major purchases. A softer labor market gives the Fed another reason to consider how much financial pressure households and employers can absorb. September’s figures do not establish that a recession is underway: unemployment has remained between 4.1% and 4.3% since March, and employers are still adding jobs. Nevertheless, the report raises a broader question about whether the economy can sustain growth while hiring remains subdued. The coming months will help reveal whether September represented a temporary slowdown or a more persistent loss of momentum—with consequences for household confidence, business investment and monetary policy. 

Supreme Court’s New Term Puts Government Power and Constitutional Rights in Focus featured image

2 min

Supreme Court’s New Term Puts Government Power and Constitutional Rights in Focus

The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term October 5 with major cases involving climate change, gun rights, immigration and religious freedom. Although the disputes address different issues, they share an underlying question: What limits govern the exercise of government power? The answers could affect how communities seek compensation, how states regulate firearms and how religious institutions participate in publicly funded programs. The climate change case centers on Boulder, Colorado’s efforts to hold Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil accountable for alleged local damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The companies argue that federal law prevents those claims from proceeding. Beyond the financial stakes, the dispute raises questions about whether state courts can provide remedies for local harm linked to a global problem. The outcome could influence the path available to other communities pursuing similar claims. Gun rights cases will examine restrictions on semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s. States defend the bans as public safety measures, while challengers argue that they prohibit commonly owned firearms protected by the Second Amendment. The cases could clarify how far states may go in regulating these weapons. Immigration disputes concern detention without bond hearings and deportations to countries where migrants have no ties. These cases place the administration’s enforcement authority alongside questions about migrants’ opportunities to challenge government actions. Their practical consequences could reach people facing prolonged detention or removal to unfamiliar countries. Religious freedom will receive particular attention in a case involving Catholic preschools seeking access to Colorado’s universal preschool funding. The schools argue that their exclusion amounts to religious discrimination, while Colorado maintains that participating schools must meet nondiscrimination requirements. The dispute asks how protections for religious exercise apply when faith-based institutions seek public benefits while retaining policies grounded in their beliefs. For communities, policymakers and religious organizations, the significance of this term extends beyond individual victories or losses. These decisions could establish boundaries that guide future laws and government actions, shaping how Americans exercise their rights and seek accountability through the courts. 

Indiana’s Player-Prop Decision Raises Stakes for College Athletics featured image

2 min

Indiana’s Player-Prop Decision Raises Stakes for College Athletics

The rapid expansion of legal sports betting has created a particularly complicated issue for college athletics: wagers based on the performance of individual student-athletes. Indiana became the latest state to confront that issue Thursday when regulators rejected an NCAA request to ban pregame college-player proposition bets. These wagers allow bettors to predict individual outcomes—such as how many points a basketball player will score or how many passing yards a quarterback will record. The NCAA has increasingly targeted these bets, citing concerns about athlete harassment, access to inside information and the potential manipulation of individual performances. Indiana regulators ultimately chose to preserve the state’s current rules, which permit certain pregame college-player props while prohibiting them once a game is underway. Sports-betting operators maintain that legal sportsbooks can monitor unusual betting patterns and alert regulators to suspicious activity, an oversight mechanism that does not exist in illegal or offshore markets. The NCAA takes a different view, arguing that attaching money directly to an individual college athlete’s statistics creates risks that are difficult to eliminate through monitoring alone. Several states have already restricted or prohibited these wagers, leaving the country with an increasingly uneven regulatory landscape. Indiana’s decision puts a larger question about the future of legalized sports betting into focus. College athletes now compete in an environment where thousands of people may have money riding on their individual performance, even when the athletes themselves receive none of the wager. Are existing safeguards enough to protect athletes and the integrity of competition? Should college sports be treated differently from professional leagues when regulators decide what people can bet on? And if states adopt different answers, how effective can any single state’s restrictions ultimately be? 

View all posts
Powered by