Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Ben Bernanke

I can remember a combination of euphoria and uneasiness as we we had some early signs of the credit crisis during 2007, the stock market peaked in October, and then in December the recession began. With a typical 5-year lag, the transcripts of the 2007 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings were just released. Reflecting either correlation or causation, FOMC laughter “outbreaks” hit highs during the summer but quickly plunged with the economy.

2007 FOMC Laughter Chart

In its humor chart, the National Journal doubled the laughter incidents from single day meetings so they could be compared more accurately to 2 day meeting.

In its  2007 FOMC humor chart, the National Journal doubled the number of laughter incidents for one day meetings to  more accurately compare them to 2 day meetings.

Two examples of Fed humor:

  • Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher (referring to firms that had stopped buying securities they did not understand) ”…If you will forgive me, you might say we have gone from the ridiculous to the subprime.”
  • Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker: “Let the transcript say ‘groan.”[Laughter]

 

  • NY Fed President Timothy Geithner: I just want to start by saying in defense of the Empire  State that there is no way– the only way that Richmond could be bigger than New York and  Philadelphia is if you don’t count the substantial business we have in the manufacturing of financial  products.
  • Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn: It’s a lot smaller business than it used to be. [Laughter]

 

As the transcripts reflect, the Federal Reserve was slow to recognize the severity of the downturn. So, to conclude, here is some humor from Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, expressed last week, at the University of Michigan.

Question: “Now that you have actually lived through a major global crisis, I wonder if you could tell us what surprised you most?”

Dr. Bernanke: “The crisis.”

Sources and Resources: As always, Comedy Central’s  Indecision was a perfect source of humor, this time for the 2007 FOMC transcripts, while my graph was from a National Journal article. For the serious side, this NY Times article has excerpts from the FOMC meetings and here is Chairman Bernanke at the University of Michigan’s Ford School.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

At the beginning of yesterday’s QE3 press conference, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke referred to the plight of savers. Similarly, during an August “Conversation With the Chairman,” Dr. Bernanke was asked, “What about the savers?”

Both times, Dr. Bernanke had the same response. “Obviously interest rates are very low. They are low for a good reason…our economy is still in a fragile recovery…low interest rates are….to help the economy recover [and] restore more normal levels of employment and growth in our economy.”

What if, though, you have $360,000 in savings? Retired, you depend on the return from your investment. With a 5% return, you might have gotten $18,000 annually from certificates of deposit (CDs) in addition to maybe $18,000 from social security. Each month, you would have received $3000. Now, that CD return is close to zero and your monthly income plummets.

This takes us to the baby boomers.

Every month, for the next 17 1/2 years, 10,000 baby boomers will celebrate their 65th birthday. Pew Research says boomers feel 9 years younger than their chronological age and consider 72 the threshold of old age. I wonder though, how retired boomers are feeling about QE3, especially with food and gas prices rising. (Please see the ground beef graph below. Since January, 2008, ground beef has risen from $2.73 a pound to $3.45 during July 2012.)

So when, Chairman Bernanke says that his goal is very low interest rates until 2016, you can see the tradeoff. Lower interest rates are supposed to target the corporate borrowing that creates more jobs, fuels expansion, elevates tax revenue and buoys stock prices. But many senior savers pay the cost.

Sources and Resources: Talking about the plight of savers, the NY Timeshere and USA Today, here do a good job of conveying the cost of QE3. To see how Dr. Bernanke commented, here is a WSJ blog and his ‘Conversation With the Chairman” talk.  Finally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was my source for price information while here is Pew Research data on baby boomers.

The Price Per Pound of Ground Chuck Beef, January 2002-January 2012

Source: BLS

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

10 years ago, the future Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, “Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

What won’t they do again? As David Wessel explains in his book, In Fed We Trust, Dr. Bernanke believed that the devastating synergy between tight monetary policy and failing banks made the 1930s economy implode. And, as the head of the Fed when the economy was nosediving, he was not going to let it happen again.

As the guardian of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve oversees the supply of money and credit. Sort of like Goldilocks and the 3 bears, monetary policy makers have to be sure that the money supply is not too much nor too little but just right. Their goal is a balance between the goods and services the economy produces and the money we have to buy them. Too much money is inflationary because too many dollars are chasing what we can buy; too little money means we cannot buy all that has been produced. The problem, though, is that people disagree about how to achieve “just right” monetary policy.

And that takes us to the current debate.

We have had QE1 (quantitative easing) which most economists believe was necessary. As the economy was contracting in 2008, the Fed poured money into banks, other financial institutions and corporations by purchasing different kinds of securities. When they buy securities, the Fed gets the paper while the seller gets the money. A lot of that money finds it way to banks, thereby helping their solvency and (theoretically) their ability to lend.

After QE1, we got QE2. Now QE3 is being debated and not everyone at the Fed agrees.

  • One group says the economy needs another boost from the Fed. Believing that Fed policy should be based on current economic conditions, they say high unemployment and other weak economic indicators require another monetary stimulus. In a Bloomberg interview, San Francisco Fed president John Williams said that lower interest rates create jobs. Referring to the US economy, he said, “ I think what we want to do now is think about a sick patient. You want to get him or her as strong as possible, as well as possible so if they get hit by another shock or another problem they’re in a good position to fend that off.”
  • By contrast, a new paper published by the Dallas Fed, “Ultra Easy Monetary Policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences” says the Fed  should not respond to current data. Emphasizing that easy money policy is not a “free lunch,” the paper explains why the health of financial institutions, the functioning of financial markets, the “independence” of central banks, and prudent government behavior will be sacrificed.

 

In his August 31st talk on at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Ben Bernanke’s position echoes his promise to Milton Friedman.

For an excellent, brief explanation of quantitative easing that my class enjoyed and easily grasped, do look at this Marketplace.org “whiteboard.” Much longer but clear and interesting, David Wessel’s In Fed We Trust is quite good for insight and facts about the Fed and Dr. Bernanke. Finally, for my facts about the current debate, here is the Dallas Fed paper against easy monetary policy, here is an unofficial transcript of a Bloomberg interview of John Williams, the San Francisco Fed president, and here is more about the Bernanke Jackson Hole speech.

More from Econlife on quantitative easing is here and here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Congress and the Deficit

Having experienced an economic calamity, don’t we just need to figure out how to prevent it from happening again?

Yes…but that might be impossible.

MIT economist Andrew Lo read 21 books on the financial crisis. 11 were from academics, 10 from journalists and one was written by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Comparing the dates, the problems, the solutions that deal with the events of 2006-2009, here is what Dr. Lo learned:

There is disagreement about when the crisis began:

  • Mid-2006 when the housing bubble crested?
  • Late-2007 with the liquidity crunch in the shadow banking system?
  • September 2008 with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and “breaking the buck” by the Reserve Primary Fund?

 

People disagree about the protagonists and the focus of the financial crisis:

  • a housing bubble?
  • concentration of power with financial elites?
  • financial innovation and deregulation?
  • subprime mortgage crisis?
  • regulatory shortcoming?
  • misaligned financial incentives?
  • disproportionate emphasis on shareholder wealth?
  • too big to fail?
  • income inequality which led to political decisions about housing and easy credit?
  • failure of the market system?
  • “animal spirits?”
  • international contagion of investment products?

 

Depending on how the problems were defined, the solutions differ:

  • bailouts
  • diminish inequality
  • government subsidies for those who cannot afford financial advisors
  • government monitoring of financial products, creating safer financial products
  • greater transparency
  • price risk higher
  • capital requirements
  • separate investment and commercial banking

 

At the end of his 36 page analysis, Dr. Lo suggests that we need a “black box” of indisputable facts rather similar to the data from a plane crash. However, Dr. Lo warns us that the complexity of the crisis and of human behavior may preclude us from ever getting satisfactory analysis.

Dr. Lo’s paper returns me to Dodd-Frank. Isn’t it a solution to a problem we have not clearly identified?

A draft of Dr. Lo’s paper can be read here while the work of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is here and here in econlife and here is their report.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15994_11.8_000004436948XSmall

Reminding us that there is no such thing as a free lunch, The Washington Post has an excellent interactive summary of the pros and cons of a QE2 impact.

But first…what is QE2? Through a second round of quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve will purchase government securities. By purchasing securities, the Federal Reserve injects money into the U.S. economy. Very simply, (but not quite exactly the way it happens) the Fed can call you and say, it wants your Treasury bonds. You say “Yes,” and sell them to the Fed for $100. You deposit that $100 in your bank account. Because the bank now has more to loan to people, it can lower its interest rates. Also, you have more to spend.

Who will be helped by these purchases? Anyone who wants to buy a house and can get a mortgage will pay a lower interest rate. Similarly, businesses could find it more attractive to borrow money and expand. Furthermore, stock prices could rise because of the expansion that lower interest rates stimulate. Internationally, lower rates usually lead to a cheaper dollar. Consequently, U.S. exporters benefit because their goods and services are relatively cheaper.

Who will be harmed by these purchases? People with savings (typically retirees) will get lower interest rates for their money. Some believe that injecting large amounts of money can cause too much expansion, inflation, and bubbles. Internationally, if the dollar is cheaper, then imports such as oil become more expensive.

You can see where all of this is going. With valid arguments on both sides of QE2, there is a big split in the economic community. This NY Times economix blog lists equally eminent people on both sides.

The Economic Lesson

Government can guide the direction of economic activity through fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy takes us to spending, taxes, and borrowing. Monetary policy involves the supply of money and credit.

As the source of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve has used three basic tools: the interest rate they charge banks, the size of reserves that banks are required to have on deposits, and buying and selling government securities.  QE1 and QE2 reflect far more extensive buying activity than the Federal Reserve has ever done. Some have even said it equals dropping money out of a helicopter down to the economy.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment