The Fed has come in for a surprising amount of criticism since its decision in the fall of 2010 to launch a new round of monetary easing — Quantitative Easing 2.  Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are right not to give in to these attacks.

            Critiques seem to be of four sorts. (Some are mutually exclusive.)

            1)  “QE is weird.”    Quantitative Easing entails the central bank buying a somewhat wider range of securities than the traditional short-term Treasury bills that are the usual focus of the Fed’s open market operations.    This has been a bold strategy, which nobody would have predicted 3 or 4 years ago.   But it has been appropriate to the equally unexpected financial crisis and recession.    Some who find QE alarmingly non-standard may not realize that other central banks do this sort of thing, and that the US authorities themselves did it in the more distant past.    It is amusing to recall that when Ben Bernanke was first appointed Chairman, some reacted “He is a fine economist, but he doesn’t have the market experience of a Wall Street type.”  The irony is that nobody who had spent his or her career on Wall Street would have had the relevant experience to deal with the shocks of the last three years, since none of them were there in the 1930s.  But as an economic historian, Bernanke had just the broader perspective that was needed.   Thank heaven he did.

            2)   “Monetary easing under current circumstances has no effect.”  It is true that, with short-term interest rates already near zero for the last two years, further monetary expansion is likely to be of less help than in a normal recession.  (The classic “liquidity trap” has been re-born as the “zero lower bound.”)    But monetary policy can work through other channels besides short-term interest rates.  Seven such mechanisms are: long-term interest rates, expected inflation, the exchange rate, equity prices, real estate prices, commodity prices, and the credit channel.   QE is worth a try, given that the economy is still weak and given the constraints that keep fiscal policy sub-optimal.

            3)  “Monetary ease will lead to inflation.   What we need now, if anything, is monetary tightening.”   This is the view, for example, expressed recently by some conservative economists, including John Taylor.   It seems to me way off base.  With unemployment far above the natural rate, GDP well below potential, and inflation (slightly) below target, it is clear that the Fed’s November 3 decision to ease further  was appropriate.

            4)  “The Fed is firing a volley in a destructive international currency war.”   This is the criticism that has come from some of our trading partners:  in particular, China, Germany and Brazil.   I don’t generally do “My country, right or wrong.”   But my country is right on this one.    Monetary easing is not a beggar-thy-neighbor policy.  The colorful phrase “currency wars“ seems to have confused some people.  The current situation is precisely the point of floating exchange rates:    when some countries feel that their high unemployment calls for monetary expansion (US) at the same time that others feel that their overheating calls for monetary tightening (Brazil, India, Korea, China…), an appreciation of the latter currencies against the former is precisely the way that floating rates accommodate the differences.    This is why Milton Friedman favored floating rates, so that each country could pursue its own desired policies independently.   I realize that the pressure which US monetary easing puts on countries like China to allow appreciation is unwelcome. China is finding it increasingly difficult to cling to its exchange rate target by means of controls on capital inflows and sterilized foreign exchange intervention.   But capital flows are a far more legitimate way to let China feel the pressure than the alternative:  Congressional threats to impose WTO-inconsistent tariffs on Chinese imports if it won’t allow faster appreciation of the yuan.

            I was glad to see that today’s decision by the Federal Open Market Committee to stay the course was unanimous.   The Fed is right not to give in to misguided criticisms.   This is what we have central bank independence for.

Click here for a TV interview on today’s FOMC decision, and inflation & TIPs.

[Comments can be posted on the Belfer site.]

     Some conservatives are attacking current U.S. monetary policy as being too expansionary, as likely to lead to excessive inflation and debauchment of the currency.   The Weekly Standard is promoting a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that urges a reversal of its policy of QE2, its new round of monetary easing. The letter is signed by a list of conservatives, most of whom are well-known Republican economists, some associated with political candidates.  Apparently the driving force is David Malpass, who was an official in the Reagan Treasury, and he is taking out newspaper ads later this week.  This follows similar attacks on the Fed by politicians Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan. 

     If the National Journal, Wall Street Journal and Politico are right that the Republicans are trying to stake out a position that Democrats are pursuing inflationary monetary policy, they are on shaky ground.   I will leave it to others to make the important point of substance:  the risk of excessive inflation is low now compared to the risk of an alarming Japan-style deflation, with the economy having only begun to recover from its nadir of early 2009.   Or to acknowledge that Quantitative Easing is only a second best policy response to high unemployment.    (Fiscal policy would be much more likely to succeed at this task, if it were not for the constraints in Congress.)

     I will, rather, respond to the political component of the National Journal’s question by pointing out some insufficiently understood history:

1. Republican President Nixon successfully pushed Fed Chairman Arthur Burns into an excessively easy monetary policy in the early 1970s — leading to high inflation which the White House tried to address with wage-price controls.  Nixon, of course, also devalued the dollar, and took it off gold, thereby ending the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates.
2. Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush tried aggressively to push Fed Chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan into easier monetary policy, especially in election years.  This is documented in Bob Woodward’s 2000 book Maestro.   The White House succeeded in making life unpleasant enough for inflation-slayer Volcker that he eventually declined to be reappointed, prompting Treasury Secretary James Baker to exult “We got the son of a bitch!” (p.24).  Baker is also the man usually credited with the Plaza Accord and the associated 50 % depreciation of the dollar from 1985 to 1987.
3. Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are the two presidents in the last four decades who scrupulously refrained from pushing their Fed Chairmen (Volcker and Greenspan, respectively) into inflationary monetary policy.  
4. Under Republican President G.W.Bush, monetary policy once again became excessively easy, during 2003-06, contributing substantially to dollar depreciation, the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crash.

     Thus if the other party were to accuse Democrats of pursuing excessively inflationary monetary policy, it would be akin to them accusing Democrats of pursuing excessively expansionary fiscal policy.    Perhaps such accusations will strike some who don’t pay close attention as superficially plausible, even after all these years.  But they nonetheless fly in the face of history.   Another case of the pot calling the kettle “red.”   Yes, I know, the usual saying is about the color black.  But red is the color of deficits, overheating, … and Republicans.

    I document the history in “Responding to Crises,” Cato Journal 27, 2007. 

My response:

I do think that measures such as the Contingent Convertible Bonds would be a useful step.  Some argue that it would be hard to know when to invoke the contingency clause.  It strikes me that this argument largely vanishes when one realizes that the clause would of necessity be invoked by the time we got to the stage of a Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. CoCos would not go very far in themselves toward comprehensive reform of the financial system, if that is the goal.  But then no single policy measure would do that.  I agree with Gillian Tett: “In theory, I think that CoCos certainly could be a useful additional to banks’ tool kits. However, in practice, the contagion risk suggests it would be dangerous to rely too heavily on an exclusive diet of CoCos for any policy ‘fix’.” 

Two related issues are of much bigger import.   First, is it a feasible goal to eliminate, credibly, the problem “too big to fail” or “too interconnected to fail,” thereby eliminating the critical moral hazard problem?  My suspicion is that this is not an achievable goal, when push comes to shove, ex post, in a crisis; and if I am right, then it is very important that we don’t return to the rhetoric of claiming “no bank is automatically too big to fail” and so fail to regulate and collect insurance from the banks ex ante.   This would just exacerbate the moral hazard problem.   Commercial banks are like river banks  in this respect.

Second, would the legislation that is offered by Senator Chris Dodd be a better approach to financial reform than alternative proposals, or even than the status quo?     While the 1,000+ page Dodd bill undoubtedly has some good things in it (the principle of a Consumer Protection Agency in lending is probably at the top of the list), I believe it would be very damaging overall. The major reason is that it would seriously undermine the power of the Fed to set fully-informed monetary policy in normal times and to respond effectively in times of crisis.  It seems that Barney Frank understands these things much better. 

Fed Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn in a speech yesterday, addressed a theory to which I am partial: the theory that low real interest rates have been a factor behind the continued rise in prices of agricultural and mineral commodities, including oil, over the last year.

The relevant excerpt: “Some observers have questioned whether the news on fundamentals affecting supply and demand in commodities markets has been sufficient to justify the sharp price increases in recent months. Some of these commentators have cited the actions of the Federal Reserve in reducing interest rates as an important consideration boosting commodity prices. To be sure, commodity prices did rise as interest rates fell. However, for many commodities, inventories have fallen to all-time lows, a development that casts doubt on the premise that speculative demand boosted by low interest rates has pushed prices above levels that would be consistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand. As interest rates in the United States fell relative to those abroad, the dollar declined, which could have boosted the prices of commodities commonly priced in dollars by reducing their cost in terms of other currencies, hence raising the amount demanded by people using those currencies. But the prices of commodities have risen substantially in terms of all currencies, not just the dollar. In sum, lower interest rates and the reduced foreign exchange value of the dollar may have played a role in the rise in the prices of oil and other commodities, but it probably has been a small one.” (Speech at the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 20, 2008).

As real interest rates have come down over the last year, real commodity prices have accelerated upward despite declining economic growth. (See graph, where the commodity price has been inverted so that one can see the correlation visually.)

The effect of interest rates can be demonstrated both theoretically and empirically. I have argued that the effect can come through any of three channels: inventories, production, and financial speculation.

Historically, real interest rates have had an inverse effect on oil inventories (when controlling econometrically for three other relevant factors). Nevertheless, I have to admit that inventory levels have not over the last year risen in a way that would support the theory. I thus have to rely more on the other channels of transmission to explain recent developments.

Stocks of oil held in deposits underground dwarf those held in inventories above-ground, and the decision how much to produce is subject to the same calculations trading off interest rates against expected future appreciation as apply to inventories. (The classic reference is Hotelling’s Rule.)

Apparently the Saudis have indeed deliberately decided to leave theirs in the ground. “King Abdullah, the country’s ruler, put it more bluntly: “I keep no secret from you that, when there were some new finds, I told them, ‘No, leave it in the ground, with grace from God, our children need it’.’’ FT 5/19/08. I see the interest rate as part of the Saudis’ decision how much oil to pump. Because the current rate of return on financial assets is abnormally low, they can do better by saving the oil for the future than by selling it today and investing the proceeds. Holding back production raises today’s oil price, to a point where the expected future return on oil has fallen to the same level as the interest rate. Hence the inverse effect of real interest rates on real oil prices. The same logic governs others’ decisions regarding how much copper to mine, how much forest to log, etc.

In addition to the link from world real interest rates to world real commodity prices, there is the less novel link from individual countries’ real interest rates to commodity prices expressed in their own currencies, a link that primarily passes through their exchange rates. For almost all of the eight floating-rate countries that I tested, both the US real interest rate and the local real interest rate (as a differential relative to the US rate) simultaneously had significant effects on real commodity prices. The effect is equally applicable to the United States: When the Fed eases and the dollar depreciates, the price of oil in dollars goes up quickly. This despite what many have thought in the past, that there is little effect because oil is invoiced in dollars.