Author: Rodney Ward, Executive Editor

So here it is… the much awaited statement from today’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting. We’ll be talking more about this on tonight’s program, but what do you think of today’s Fed action?

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to lower its target for the federal funds rate 25 basis points to 4-1/4 percent.

Incoming information suggests that economic growth is slowing, reflecting the intensification of the housing correction and some softening in business and consumer spending. Moreover, strains in financial markets have increased in recent weeks. Today’s action, combined with the policy actions taken earlier, should help promote moderate growth over time.

Readings on core inflation have improved modestly this year, but elevated energy and commodity prices, among other factors, may put upward pressure on inflation. In this context, the Committee judges that some inflation risks remain, and it will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.

On last night's program, commentator Alice Rivlin suggested the U.S. use a more market-oriented approach to rein in traffic congestion and vehicle pollution. Here's what Rivlin, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former vice chair of the Federal Reserve, had to say:

"If you believe in a market system, you know we don't price carbon emissions correctly. If we had the political courage to raise the price of spewing carbon into the air, we would slash pollution. But another price we don't get right is the price of using congested highways. Highways are financed with gas taxes, and their use is normally free. But every additional vehicle on a congested highway imposes a cost on other cars using the same road -- each one slows the others down. Using a commuter route at rush hour should cost more than driving on an empty country road. If we collected money from those who impose costs on others, we could reduce congestion and pollution and improve mass transit dramatically. Read more...

We thought you might be interested in what some of your fellow viewers are saying about last night's interview about the Federal Reserve and interest rates. These viewers sent their thoughts in via email, but they're rich comments for our blog too.

Waldo Griffin writes:

This 75 year old investor is so tired of your inability to understand that the U.S. consumer is broke. They are victims of easy lending practices combined with Wall Streets propoganda. Those of us who have purchased repossessed housing in past slumps find it hard to believe that the so call experts didn't see this downturn coming. Furthermore, why do you expect the Fed (us) to bail out Wall Street? Controlling inflation and not catering to Wall Street is Bernakes number one priority. I am tired of you folks catering to the cry babies on Wall Street. As a major contributor to Public Television, I ask you to show more balance to your programming and interview folks other than these Wall Street experts that couldn't see a downturn coming until it happens. My old Silicon Valley buddies and I are not the least bit surprised and we forecast a recession toward the end of the year. Again, the average U.S. consumer is broke

In yesterday's program, Commentator Robert Morison, co-author of Workforce Crisis, talked about the role employee engagement plays in productivity. What he said sparked some interesting feedback, including the following email I received from Patricia Smith, a viewer in New York, New York:

I'd like to comment on the essay of 5 July 2007 about the reason(s) so many employees are not "engaged" in their work. Why is the simple and basic truth always the one reason not mentioned? Of course, I refer to compensation. It may be true that a minimal (less than cost of living as has been the rule for many years now for the majority of workers) increase will not improve morale and workers who earn advancements improve in productivity and devotion to the organization. But what does advancement mean? It means not only new and different assignments but an IMPROVING standard of living.

As you know one of the regular features on NBR is its commentary segment near the end of the program. And, for as long as we have been presenting commentaries there have been questions as to the value of this segment on the program. Now, this post is not a discussion on the value of these commentaries (it can be, if you like), but to point out a recent commentary we aired from Tom Stewart of the Harvard Business Review. I’m including it in this post because I think that sometimes as managers and leaders we need reminding of what it takes to “Have A Good Day”.

"How was your day?

There is no job-related question that’s asked more often. Chances are you and your partner just asked it of each other. Our calendars document the surface of our work life; but we also have an undocumented inner life at work. Emotions color our perceptions, motivations, and behavior. This inner life is rather like the crawl that scrolls beneath the main story on cable news- a separate but related chain of events-and it, rather than the formal schedule that appears on your Outlook, determines whether you had a good day at work or a bad one.

But what does it mean to have a good day?

We have gotten a lot of emails this morning regarding our “Power Struggle” series that began Tuesday night. Many of those emails contain a complaint similar to the two comments below regarding emissions from electric cars.

“Note that electric cars are not an energy "source". The source is what charges the battery, either a gas powered engine, as in a hybrid, or a wall plug with power supplied by a power company. The power company usually depends on coal or natural gas. Electric cars are certainly not pollution free when taking into account the battery charging source.”

“Martin Eberhard's statement (quoted by Stephanie Dhue) on tonight's Nightly Business Report that his electric cars are "zero emissions vehicles that don't contribute to global warming" is pure B.S. Electric cars are not "zero emissions" vehicles -