Fed up with the full empoyment target?

The debate on Bernanke's views on inflation targeting -- whether it should be 2 or 4% -- as I noted in a previous post is peculiar, to say the least. After all the Fed has a dual mandate, and inflation preoccupations have to be tempered by the pressing question of unemployment. The preoccupation in some quarters is that the Fed has already accepted as a matter of fact that it has single mandate (see here and here). It seems to me that critics (e.g. Krugman, DeLong and others) are correct for the wrong reasons.

The graph below shows the effective Fed Funds rate in the last three recessions (represented by the shaded areas). The rate of interest falls in all three during or just before the recession.

Further, after the trough of the recession the Greenspan Fed took 46 and 35 months to start raising the rate in the previous two recessions. So far, 35 months after the last trough, the Bernanke Fed has not increased the rate. This time around it has done Quantitative Easing allowing for lower long term rates too, which was not done during the Greenspan era. If anything the Fed has done more now than under Greenspan, and unless you believe in the inflation expectations fairy, the old Eccles maxim is still true, monetary policy now is like pushing on a string.

So how is that critics of the Fed are correct and I believe that the dual mandate (full employment and inflation) is gone. Well look at the graph below. It shows the Fed Funds, again, with the 10 year Treasury bonds rate.

Notice that the Fed eventually raises the Fed Funds sufficiently to surpass the bond rate, and invert the yield curve. The point is to slowdown the economy, and avoid full employment. Even in the 1990s, when Greenspan allowed the bubble to continue and unemployment to fall below the then official limit of 6%, he eventually took action, when wages started to increase. Full employment has not been a target, but keeping workers demands for higher wages checked has been very much part of the reaction function. Jamie Galbraith has written about it (go here for a technical paper). So the Fed has a single target mandate, but is not an inflation target, it is a "fear of full employment target."

The Fed can do practical things like helping distressed borrowers (with defaulted or underwater mortgages), but it cannot directly increase spending, and in the absence of private spenders (domestic or foreign), or local governments, it must be the federal government. Bernanke is not the problem right now. Geithner is (and so is Congress).

PS: The New Keynesian view that if you increase expected inflation spending goes up is now defended by Brad DeLong. He says: "an extra $100 billion of quantitative easing boosts the expected price level ten years hence by 1%--and boosts expected inflation after the next decade by an average of 0.1%/year. That is enough to spur higher spending and a more rapid and satisfactory recovery." I'm not against QE per se, the idea of maintaining long term rates low. But the notion that it would lead to inflation (printing money generates inflation) and that expected inflation generates a boost in productive spending is clearly another confidence fairy story.

It's the ECB stupid!

So the Fed announced yesterday that they will inject money into European banks if needed. Mark Thoma and Paul Krugman posted about it (here and here). This is not new, since the Fed did lend to European banks after the Lehman collapse. The reason is simple, US banks would be also affected by a collapse of the European banking sector. The point is that this not sufficient to end the euro crisis, for that the ECB must act buying European bonds. No substitute for that. So Bernanke is still asking: what are these guys doing over there?

Mario Draghing the feet on monetary policy

Central Banks have been at the epicenter of the current crisis, and have been, for good and for bad, fundamental for the policy response mounted to avoid a new Great Depression. Recently Christina Romer argued that the Fed should start targeting nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) instead of inflation. As I noted previously (see here), this is strange since it is far from clear that the Fed actually targets just inflation, or that targeting nominal output would make any significant difference.

Further, the idea that a central bank has the ability to actually hit a targeted level of output, or inflation for that matter, under the current circumstances in particular, is wishful thinking. Central banks can ease the credit conditions by reducing interest rates, a range of rates from the short to the long, to stimulate spending, and pump money into the system, fundamentally to avoid systemic crisis caused by bankruptcies. The ability of Ben Bernanke or Mario Draghi, the newly appointed head of the European Central Bank (ECB) that reduced the rate of interest in Europe as his first measure (see here), to further reduce interest rates and with that help the staggering recovery in the US or the free fall in the periphery of Europe is very limited.

Read the rest here.

Neo-Wicksellian macroeconomics

Modern macro has more to do with Wicksell's Interest and Prices than with Keynes' General Theory. For one, the idea of a natural rate of unemployment derives directly from Wicksell's natural rate of interest, as Friedman noted. So here is a brief explanation of Wicksell's main argument in that book.

Wicksell distinguished between the natural rate of interest (R*) and the monetary or bank rate of interest (R). The former was determined by the marginal productivity of capital (I) and the intertemporal decisions of consumption (leading to savings S), along the lines of what became known as the loanable funds theory. The monetary rate was determined by bank decisions. That is, banks supplied credit (Ms) at the chosen rate of interest (R), according to money demand (Md). Monetary equilibrium occurred when the two rates coincided (see figure below). The natural rate is the gravitational center around which the bank rate fluctuates. Real and monetary shocks could cause deviations of the bank rate from equilibrium.

Wicksell assumes that a positive productivity shock raises the natural rate of interest, and that banks maintain the initial monetary rate. Thus, with a low bank rate, investment exceeds savings and once the system reaches full employment prices would go up. However, continuous lending would reduce bank reserves, and as a result banks would be forced to increase the monetary bank until a new equilibrium was reached. Inflation resulted from a bank rate that was too low, as much as deflation (and temporary unemployment) from a bank rate that was too high.

The low bank rate implies overinvestment, and the need for additional savings. The inflationary process by reducing the ability of consumers to spend provides the additional 'forced savings.' Inflation acts as a tax that provides the additional resources needed to finance investment. The business cycle can be explained by exogenous shocks to productivity (the I curve), changes in consumers preferences (shocks to S), or by the misconduct of the banking sector (shocks to Ms). Wicksell, as much as the modern Real Business Cycle (RBC) School, favored the former.

Lindsay Lohan is a monetarist



Via Jason Linkins; the joke of the day.  So Lohan twitted the following:

"Have you guys seen food and gas prices lately? U.S. $ will soon be worthless if the Fed keeps printing money!"

Apparently she was paid by a group called the National Inflation Association (with that name I'm sure they are in favor of inflation).  Forget that the causes of inflation had nothing to do with the Fed printing money, what is really hilarious is that conservative/monetarists chose Lohan as the speaker of their cause.  It must be a question of credibility!