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

Tag Archives: monetary policy

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

The preface to This Time It’s Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly tells us that, “We have been here before.”

During 1837, with Martin Van Buren entering the White House and Andrew Jackson leaving, a depression had begun. Called the Panic of 1837, banks failed, stock markets plunged, investment declined, there were fewer goods imported, fewer businesses were formed and economic activity contracted.

Describing how we felt about Congress, this 1837 excerpt from Nantucket’s Inquirer and Mirror sounds rather familiar.

“…and for the past year, the subject of our national currency has been the prominent theme of discussion. We have some faith in the wisdom of Congress, notwithstanding it has been predicted they will do nothing but talk–that they can do nothing towards extricating the country from the perplexities which, it is now but very evident to the candid in every party, the untoward ‘experiment’ of the last administration has either caused or aggravated.”

Fast forward to 2012 and an April Pew Research Center survey that reported just 1/3 of the American people had a positive opinion of the federal government and 54% of respondents believed that the “federal government is mostly corrupt.” Correspondingly, their January 2012 survey reported that just 23% of Americans have a “favorable opinion of Congress.” By contrast, many of us feel okay about our state and local governments. Still though, a majority of respondents “say their state government is not careful with people’s money (56%), is too divided along party lines (53%) and is generally inefficient (51%).”

And sadly, this Bloomberg headline says, “Telemarketers Get Higher Approval Rating Than U.S. Congress.” The article then continues to describe the results of a Gallup survey that reported stockbrokers and banks also got higher marks than Congress.

Sources and Resources: Here and here you can see more from Pew about our attitude toward government and here is an essay on the Panic of 1837. The 1837 news article excerpt was from page 1b, the August 16 edition of Nantucket’s Inquirer and Mirror.

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

Money..16624_4.26_000006278830XSmall

In Zimbabwe, people are laundering money. Literally.

When their U.S. dollars look too gray and faded, Zimbabweans wash and dry them. In this Wall Street Journal photo, dollar bills, shirts and sheets are suspended with clothes pins along a line. Why?

First some history

During September 2008, Zimbabwe’s inflation rate was 489 billion percent. One loaf of bread sold for what 12 cars had cost a decade earlier.  People were paying their rent with groceries because no one wanted currency. The price of a morning bus ride to work? Only for that trip because soon the fare would rise.  Forget saving. What you had today was worthless tomorrow. Freeze prices? Supply evaporated. And yes, everyone was a billionaire.

The solution was the U.S. dollar. Using the dollar as the basis of a multi-currency system in which the Zimbabwe dollar was banned, they attacked their hyperinflation. And that takes us to the laundry.

In the U.S., we have currency, checks, credit, the Fed to oversee the money supply and the U.S. mint to replace worn out bills. Not Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans have U.S. cash (or 4 other foreign currencies) and avoid their banks. As a result, they keep their cash and wash it when necessary.

The Economic Lesson

To be called money, a commodity needs 3 characteristics:

  • It should be a medium of exchange. (People willingly use the commodity for exchange.)
  • It should be a store of value. (In the future, it still will have relatively comparable purchasing power.)
  • It should be a measure of value. (When someone says one dollar, you know what that means.)

Today, in the U.S., the basic money supply includes cash, currency, travelers checks and demand deposits (checks).

When, during 2008, Zimbabwe’s inflation rate was one of the highest among the 30 countries experiencing hyperinflation since 1790, its currency could not be called money.

An Economic Question: Specifically explain why the Zimbabwean dollar cannot be called money.

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

Valentine's..2.12.12_000014130105XSmall

What a fantastic idea! When University of Pennsylvania economist Justin Wolpers suggested Federal Reserve Valentines, the Fed and others responded.

The San Francisco Fed:

  • “I’m going to extraordinary measures to increase your stimulus.”
  • “My love is elastic; my commitment too big to fail.”

The Atlanta Fed:

  • “Being with you hikes my pulse by several basis points.”

The Philadelphia Fed:

  • “Love me Tender. I have no cents when it comes to you!”
  • “My initial projections never forecast someone like you would be in my next quarter.”

Richmond Fed:

  • “Your equation is deriving me crazy.”

Justin Wolfers:

  • “Like fiat money, our love is built on trust.”
  • “I’ll be your lover of last resort.”
  • “You’re my gold standard.”

Others:

  • “There’s nothing irrational about my exuberance for you.”
  • “I’d like to borrow you overnight and then hold you to maturity.”

You can see lots more at #FedValentines.

The Economic Lesson

An independent agency, the Federal Reserve oversees monetary policy. Through its basic tools that recently have expanded considerably, it expands and contracts the supply of money and credit in the U.S. economy.

An Economic Question: You might enjoy visiting this Fed website to determine your own monetary response to different economic scenarios.

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