The year 2013 marks the 100^th anniversaries of two separate major institutional innovations in American economic policy:  the Constitutional Amendment enacting the federal income tax, ratified on February 3, 1913, and the law establishing the Federal Reserve, passed in December 1913.  
           It took some time before the two new institutions became associated with the explicit concepts of fiscal policy and monetary policy, respectively.   It wasn’t until after the experience of the 1930s that they came to be viewed as potential instruments for managing the macro-economy.  John Maynard Keynes, of course, pointed out the advantages of expansionary fiscal policy in circumstances like the Great Depression.   Milton Friedman blamed the Depression on the Fed for allowing the money supply to fall.    [Tools of fiscal policy used by governments, in addition to tax rates and tax deductions, are spending and transfers.  Tools of monetary policy used by central banks include interest rates, quantities of money and credit, and instruments such as reserve requirements and foreign exchange intervention used in various (non-US) countries.]

           In subsequent debate, Keynes was associated with support for activist or discretionary policy.  The aim was counter-cyclical response to economic fluctuations: expansion in recessions, discipline in booms.  (It is a myth that he favored big government generally.  He said “the boom is the time for austerity.”)    Friedman opposed activist or discretionary policy, believing that government institutions, whether monetary or fiscal, lacked the ability to get the timing right.   But both great economists were opposed to pro-cyclical policy moves, such as the misguided US tightening of 1937 at a time when the economy had not yet fully recovered. 
          After World War II, the lessons of the 1930s were incorporated into all the macroeconomic textbooks and, to some extent, into the beliefs and actions of policy-makers.  But many of these lessons have been forgotten in recent decades, crowded out of public consciousness by experiences such as the high-inflation 1970s.  As a result, many politicians in advanced countries are repeating the mistakes of 1937 today.  This despite conditions that are qualitatively similar to those that determined Keynes’ policy recommendations in the 1930s: high unemployment, low inflation, and rock-bottom interest rates.

         The austerity-versus-stimulus debate has been thoroughly hashed out.   On the one hand, proponents of austerity correctly point out that the long-term consequences of permanently expansionary macroeconomic policy [both fiscal and monetary] are unsustainable deficits, debts, and inflation.    On the other hand, proponents of stimulus correctly point out that in the aftermath of a recession, when unemployment is high and inflation low, the immediate consequences of contractionary macroeconomic policy are continued unemployment, slow growth, and debt/GDP ratios that go up rather than down.  Procyclicalists, both in the US and Europe, represent the worst of both worlds:  they push in the direction of expansion during booms such as 2003-07 and in the direction of contraction during recessions such as 2008-2012, thereby exacerbating both the upswings and downswings.  Countercyclicalists have it right:  working in the direction of fiscal and monetary discipline during booms and ease during recessions.

           Less thoroughly aired recently is the question whether — given recent conditions - monetary or fiscal expansion is the more effective instrument.   This question was addressed clearly in 1937 by Sir John Hicks in a once-famous article titled “Mr. Keynes and the Classics.”  The graphical model is known to many generations of undergraduate students in macroeconomics under the label “IS-LM.”   
           The answer to the question which form of policy is more effective:  under the circumstances that held in the 1930s and that hold again now - which are conditions not just of high unemployment and low inflation, but also near-zero interest rates — stimulus in the specific form of fiscal expansion is much more likely to be effective in the short-term than stimulus in the form of monetary expansion.   Monetary expansion is rendered relatively less effective because interest rates can’t be pushed below zero.  (Flat LM curve.)  This situation, labeled by Keynes a liquidity trap, is today called the Zero Lower Bound.  In addition, firms are less likely to react to easy money by investing in new plant and equipment if they can’t sell the goods they are producing in the factories they already have.  (Steep IS curve.)  The hoary — but still evocative — metaphor is “pushing on a string.”  Meanwhile, fiscal expansion is rendered relatively more effective than in normal times, in that it doesn’t push up those rock-bottom interest rates and thereby crowd out private-sector demand.
           Despite the inability of central banks to push short-term nominal interest rates much lower, one should not give up completely on monetary policy, especially because fiscal policy is so thoroughly hamstrung by politics in most countries.  It is worth trying all sorts of things:  quantitative easing, forward guidance, nominal targets.   Even if the short-term interest rate channel is inoperative, such steps may work through other channels:  long-term interest rates, credit channel, risk premia, expected inflation, asset prices, commodity prices or exchange rates.  But the effects of each are highly uncertain. 

          That monetary policy is less effective than fiscal policy under conditions of high unemployment and zero interest rates should not be a novel position.  But many economists have forgotten much of what they knew and politicians may not have even heard the proposition. 
          Introductory economics textbooks have long talked about the Keynesian multiplier effect:  the recipients of federal spending (or of consumer spending stimulated by tax cuts or transfers) respond to the increase in their incomes by spending more as well, as do the recipients of that spending, and so on.  Again, the multiplier is much more relevant under current conditions than in the normal situation where the expansion goes partly into inflation and interest rates and thus crowds out private spending.  By the time of the 2008-09 global recession even those who believed that fiscal stimulus works had marked down their estimates of the fiscal multiplier — intimidated, perhaps, by theories of policy ineffectiveness.   (These are some of the same theories that predicted that a tripling of the monetary base over five years, or a near-doubling of M1, should double or triple the price level !)
          The subsequent continuing severity of recessions in the United Kingdom and other countries pursuing contractionary fiscal policies, apparently to the surprise of the politicians enacting them, suggested that fiscal multipliers are not just positive, but greater than one, as the old wisdom had it.   The IMF Research Department has now reacted to this recent evidence and bravely confessed that official forecasts, including even its own, had been operating with under-estimates of multiplier magnitudes.
          A new wave of econometric research estimates fiscal multipliers using methods that allow them to be higher in some circumstances than others.   Baum, Poplawski-Riberio and Weber (2012) allow the estimate to change when crossing a threshold measure of the output gap.  Batini, Callegari and Melina (2012) allow regime-switching, across recessions versus booms.  Others that similarly distinguish between multipliers in periods of excess capacity versus normal times include Auerbach and Gorodnichenko (2012a, 2012b), Bachman and Sims (2012), Baum and Koester (2011), and Fazzari, Morley and Panovska (2012).  Most of this research finds high multipliers under conditions of excess capacity and low interest rates.  Gordon and Krenn (2011) and Shoag (2012) have the same implication.    Related studies confirm other conditions that matter for the size of the fiscal multiplier in precisely the way the traditional textbooks say, for example that they are lower in small open economies because of crowding out of net exports.  (Perhaps due to fear of sounding old-fashioned, few of these studies have the courage to mention that these are the findings that one would have expected from the elementary textbooks of 50 years ago.) 

          Needless to say, the effects of fiscal policy are subject to substantial uncertainty.   One never knows, for example, when rising debt levels might suddenly alarm global investors who then start demanding abruptly higher interest rates, as happened to countries on the European periphery in 2010.    (For this reason, the United States would be well-advised to lock in a long-term path toward debt sustainability, even while undertaking a little short-term stimulus.)   In the case of stimulus in the form of tax cuts, one never knows how much of the boost to disposable income will be saved by households rather than spent. We are also uncertain as to the magnitude of negative effects of high tax rates, via incentives, on long-term growth.   And it is true that monetary policy is much better understood than it was in the past. 
            Nevertheless, if the question is whether it is monetary policy or fiscal policy that can more reliably deliver demand expansion under current conditions, the answer is the latter.  One might even dramatize the contrast by speaking of “monetary alchemy and fiscal science.”

            A much-admired 2010 paper by Eric Leeper had it the other way around: it characterized monetary policy as science and fiscal policy as alchemy.   It is true that the state of knowledge and practice at central banks, which actually set the instruments of monetary policy, is close to the best that modern society has to offer.    It is likewise true that the instruments of fiscal policy are set in a very political process that is poorly informed by the state of economic knowledge and motivated largely by politicians’ desire to be re-elected.  These political realities may be what the author of “Monetary Science, Fiscal Alchemy” had in mind.
             But the ancient alchemists were not in fact stupid or selfish people in general, notwithstanding their search for the “philosopher’s stone” that was to turn lead into gold (of which modern proponents of returning monetary policy to the pre-1914 gold standard are reminiscent).  Nor was the alchemists’ problem that the monarchs of their day refused to listen to them.  It was rather that the state of knowledge fell far short of what the modern science of chemistry can tell us.   
            The term alchemy could be applied to pre-Keynesians like US Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (whose Depression prescription was that President Herbert Hoover should “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system”).  It could also be applied to the “Treasury view” in the UK of 1929. (Churchill:  ”The orthodox Treasury view … is that when the Government borrow[s] in the money market it becomes a new competitor with industry and engrosses to itself resources which would otherwise have been employed by private enterprise, and in the process raises the rent of money to all who have need of it.” ).  But in light of all that was learned in the 1930s, it would be misleading to characterize the current state of fiscal policy knowledge as alchemy.

References

   Miguel Almunia, Agustín Bénétrix, Barry Eichengreen, Kevin O’Rourke, and Gisela Rua, 2010, “From Great Depression to Great Credit Crisis: Similarities, Differences and Lessons,” Economic Policy, 25 (62), pp. 219-65.
   Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2012a, “Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal Policy,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 4(2), pp. 1-27, May.
   Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2012b, “Fiscal Multipliers in Recession and Expansion,” NBER Chapters, in Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis, edited by Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi (University of Chicago Press).
   Rüdiger Bachmann and Eric Sims, 2012, Confidence and the transmission of government spending shocks,” Journal of Monetary Economics vol. 59, no.3, pp.235-249.  NBER WP No. 17063, May.
   Nicoletta Batini, Giovanni Callegari and Giovanni Melina, 2012. “Successful Austerity in the United States, Europe and Japan,” IMF Working Papers 12/190, International Monetary Fund.
   Anja Baum and Gerritt Koester, 2011, “The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Economic Activity Over the Business Cycle - Evidence from a Threshold VAR Analysis” Deutsche Bundesbank, Research Centre in its series Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies  no. 2011,03.
   Anja Baum, Marcos Poplawski-Riberio and Anke Weber, 2012, “Fiscal Multipliers and the State of the Economy,” IMF Working Paper 12/286, International Monetary Fund, December.
   Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh, 2013, “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers,” IMF Working Paper No. 13/1, January.  Forthcoming, American Economic Review, May.  
   Steven Fazzari, James Morley, and Irina Panovksa, 2012, “State-Dependent Effects of Fiscal Policy,”  UNSW Australian School of Business Research Paper No. 2012-27, April.      
   Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, 1963,  A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 (Princeton University Press).
   Robert Gordon and Robert Krenn, 2011, “The End of the Great Depression 1939-41: Policy Contributions and Fiscal Multipliers,” NBER Working Paper No. 16380.
   John Hicks, 1937, Mr. Keynes and the Classics: A Suggested Reinterpretation,” Econometrica, pp. 147-59.
   Ethan Ilzetzki, Enrique Mendoza & Carlos Vegh, 2011. “How Big (Small?) are Fiscal Multipliers?,” IMF Working Papers 11/52 (International Monetary Fund.)  Forthcoming, Journal of Monetary Economics.
   Eric Leeper, 2010, “Monetary Science, Fiscal Alchemy,” NBER Working Paper No. 16510.
   Christina Romer and David Romer, 2013, “The Most Dangerous Idea in Federal Reserve History: Monetary Policy Doesn’t Matter,” UC Berkeley, January.
   Daniel Shoag, 2012, “The Impact of Government Spending Shocks: Evidence on the Multiplier from State Pension Plan Returns,” Harvard Kennedy School.
   Antonio Spilimbergo, Steven Symansky, and Martin Schindler, “Fiscal Multipliers,” Staff Position Note No. 2009/11, International Monetary Fund.

[This post appears at VoxEU.  And also at  Econbrowser. Comments may be posted there.]

      The time is right for the world’s major central banks to reconsider the framework they use in conducting monetary policy. The US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are grappling with sustained economic weakness, despite years of low interest rates. In Japan, Shinzō Abe of the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) was elected prime minister December 16 on a platform of switching to a new, more expansionary, monetary policy.  Mark Carney, the incoming governor of the Bank of England, has made clear that he is open to new thinking. 

Monetary policymakers would do well to consider a shift toward targeting nominal GDP.   (Carney is evidently contemplating precisely this.)  The switch could be phased in via two steps, without abandoning the established inflation anchor.

     A number of monetary economists pointed out the robustness of nominal GDP targeting after monetarist rules broke down in the 1980s.  (Meade and other references are given below.)  ”Robustness” refers to the target’s ability to hold up in the long term under various shocks. The context at that time was the need in the US and other advanced countries for an explicit anchor to help bring expected inflation rates down.  The status quo regime to achieve this, during the heyday of monetarism, had been a money growth rule.  Relative to the money growth rule, the advantage of nominal GDP targeting was robustness with respect to velocity shocks in particular.

    These days the presumptive nominal anchor and cyclical context are both very different than they were in the 1980s.  The popular regime is Inflation Targeting.   The advantage of a nominal GDP target relative to a CPI target is robustness, in particular, with respect to supply shocks and terms of trade shocks.    For example, a nominal GDP target for the European Central Bank could have avoided the mistake of July 2008: the ECB responded to a spike in world oil prices by raising interest rates to fight consumer price inflation — just as the economy was going into recession.    A nominal GDP target for the US Federal Reserve might have avoided the mistake of excessively easy monetary policy during 2004-06, a period when nominal GDP growth exceeded 6 per cent.

Why have proposals for nominal GDP targeting been revived at this particular juncture, after two decades of living in obscurity?  The motive, in large part, is to deliver monetary stimulus and higher growth — needed in the US, Japan, UK and Euroland — while still maintaining a credible nominal anchor.   For an economy on the fence between recovery and recession, such as Euroland, a target for nominal GDP that constituted 4% increase over the coming year would in effect supply as much monetary ease as a 4% inflation target.  (The new proponents show up on the left, the right, and the center of the political spectrum:  Romer, 2011, and Krugman, 2011  on the Left; Scott Sumner, Lars Christensen and David Beckworth, on the Right; and Goldman Sachs, 2011, and Woodford, 2012, in the center.)

    There are at least three reasons why central bankers are wary of the proposals for nominal GDP targeting.  First, a longstanding concern is that the public doesn’t know the difference between nominal GDP, real GDP and inflation.  But communications clarity is not a reason to go with a complicated function of inflation and real growth (as in the ubiquitous Taylor rule) in place of the simpler nominal income target.  Furthermore, the financial markets do understand the differences among these variables. 

Secondly, central bankers also worry they may not be able to achieve the nominal GDP target.   Needless to say, the margin around the target could and should be wide, though there is no reason why it has to be wider than the bands around the old M1 targets or the more recent inflation targets and there are reasons to think the width of a nominal GDP band could be a bit less.  Moreover, under current conditions, the shift in policy need be nothing more than a commitment to keep monetary policy easy so long as nominal GDP falls short of the target.  It would thus serve a purpose similar to the Fed’s December 12, 2012, announcement that it would keep interest rates low so long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5% - but it would not suffer the imperfections of the unemployment number (particularly its inverse relationship with the labor force participation rate and its tendency to lag other measures of expansion).

Third, in the current context, central bankers fear that it would undermine their long-term inflation anchor.

Some economists, such as Paul Krugman (2012) and the IMF’s chief economist Olivier Blanchard (2010) have proposed responding to recent high unemployment by explicitly setting a target for expected inflation above the traditional 2% — say, 4% — as a way of reducing real interest rates in the presence of the Zero Lower Bound on nominal interest rates.  They like to remind Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke of similar recommendations that he made to Japan in the past.    

But there is little support for the proposal to set a high inflation target.   Many central bankers are strongly averse to countenancing inflation rate targets of 4% or even 3%.  They do not want to abandon the hard-won 2% number that has succeeded in keeping inflation expectations well-anchored for so many years.   The economists can say that the upward change in the inflation target would be made explicitly temporary; but the central bankers worry that to target a higher number even temporarily would do permanent damage to the credibility of the long-term anchor.

Central bankers worry that to set a target for nominal GDP growth of 5% or more in the coming year would inevitably be interpreted as setting an inflation target in excess of 2%, and thus again would damage the credibility of the anchor permanently.   They don’t want to give up on the 2% number.   Their view on this is unlikely to change.  But it doesn’t have to.  

      The practical solution for overcoming these worries entails phasing in a nominal GDP target in two steps.  Here is how to do it.  

One of the main communications devices currently used by the US Federal Reserve is the Summary of Economic Projections.   The governors and regional presidents give their forecasts of real growth rate and inflation rates for each of the next three years and for the long run.   (Also for interest rates.)   The press interprets these as policy statements, even if they are only labelled projections.   

My proposal is to start, in Phase I, by omitting near term projections for real growth and inflation.   Do keep the longer run projections, and keep the inflation setting where it is, 2% [formerly 1 ½ -2% for the US].  But add a longer run projection for nominal GDP growth as well.  It should be around 4-4 ½ % to avoid any discontinuous jumps:  That number would imply a long-run real growth rate of 2-2 ½ %, the same as now.  Nobody could call such a move inflationary.   For Japan, the targets for nominal and real GDP growth would have to be set at lower levels, due in part to the absence of population growth.

A few months later, in Phase II, add projections for nominal GDP growth for the next three years.  These numbers should be greater than 4 % – perhaps 5 ½ %  – but with the long run projection unchanged at 4 or 4 ½ %.   Much public speculation would ensue, as to how the 5 ½ % breaks down between real growth and inflation.  The truth is that the central bank has no control over that - monetary policy determines the total but not the breakdown - and thus doesn’t know what the answer is any more than anyone else does.  But the nominal GDP target would insure that either (i) real growth will accelerate, as we hope, or else, (ii) if real growth falls short, there will be an automatic decline in the real interest rate which will push up demand, which again is what is desired.  The targets for nominal GDP growth could be chosen so as to put the level of nominal GDP on an accelerated path back to its pre-recession trend.  In the long run, when nominal GDP is back on its path of 4-4 ½ %, real growth will be back at its potential, say 2 ½ %, and inflation back at 1 ½ % - 2%.

This way of phasing in nominal GDP targeting delivers the advantage of some stimulus now, when it is needed - while satisfying the central bankers’ reluctance to abandon their cherished low inflation target.

References

    Bean, Charles (1983), “Targeting Nominal Income: An Appraisal”, The Economic Journal, 93:806-819.
    Bernanke, Ben (2000), “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” Chapter 7 in  Ryoichi Mikitani and Adam S. Posen, eds., Japan’s Financial Crisis and Its Parallels to U.S. Experience (Institute for International Economics), pp. 149-166. 
    Blanchard, Olivier, Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, and Paolo Mauro (2010), “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy,” IMF Staff Position Note, 12 Feb.
    Feldstein, Martin and Jim Stock (1994), “The Use of a Monetary Aggregate to Target Nominal GDP”,  in N. Gregory Mankiw, ed.,   Monetary Policy, NBER (University of Chicago Press).
    Frankel, Jeffrey (1995), “The Stabilizing Properties of a Nominal GNP Rule,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, no. 2, May, 318-334. Reprinted in Financial Markets and Monetary Policy (MIT Press. 1997).  
    Frankel, Jeffrey (2012), “Inflation Targeting is Dead. Long Live Nominal GDP Targeting,” VoxEU, June 19.
    Hall, Robert and N. Gregory Mankiw (1994), “Nominal Income Targeting,”  in N. Gregory Mankiw, ed., Monetary Policy (University of Chicago Press), 71-93.
    Hatzius, John (2011), “The Case for a Nominal GDP Level Target,” US Economics Analyst, issue 11/41,Goldman Sachs, Oct.
    Krugman, Paul (2011) “A Volcker Moment Indeed (Slightly Wonkish),” Oct. 30.
    Krugman, Paul (2012a), “Two per cent is not enough”, The New York Times, 26 January.
    Krugman, Paul (2012b), “Earth to Bernanke”, The New York Times, 24 April.
    McCallum, Bennett and Edward Nelson (1998), “Nominal Income Targeting in an Open-Economy Optimizing Model,”  Journal of Monetary Economics, 43(3):553-578.
    Meade, James (1978), “The Meaning of Internal Balance,” The Economic Journal, 88:423-435.
    Romer, Christina (2011), “Dear Ben: It’s Time for Your Volcker Moment,” New York Times, Oct. 29.
    Tobin, James (1983) “Monetary policy: Rules, Targets and Shocks,” Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 15, 506-518.
    Woodford, Michael (2012) “Methods of Policy Accommodation at the Interest-Rate Lower Bound,” presented at the Jackson Hole symposium, August (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City).

A short version of this post appeared at Project Syndicate;  comments can be posted there.  A version also appears at VoxEU.

    
      In 2008, the global financial system was grievously infected by so-called toxic assets originating in the United States.  As a result of the crisis, many have asked what fundamental rethinking will be necessary to save macroeconomic theory.  Some answers may lie with models that have in the past been applied to fit the realities of emerging markets — models that are at home with the financial market imperfections that have now unexpectedly turned up in industrialized countries.  The imperfections include default risk, asymmetric information, incentive incompatibility, procyclicality of capital flows, procyclicality of fiscal policy, imperfect property rights, and other flawed institutions.   To be sure, many of these theories had been first constructed in the context of industrialized economies, but they had not become mainstream there.   Only in the context of less advanced economies were the imperfections undeniable.  There the models thrived.     
 

     An analogy can capture the apparently novel suggestion that emerging markets may have important lessons for advanced countries.   In the latter part of the nineteenth century most of the vineyards of Europe were destroyed by the microscopic aphid Phylloxera vastatrix. Eventually a desperate last resort was tried: grafting susceptible European vines onto resistant American root stock.   Purist French vintners initially disdained a strategy that they considered would compromise the refined tastes of their grape varieties. But it saved the European vineyards, and did not impair the quality of the wine. The New World had come to the rescue of the Old World.

     The academic literature on macroeconomics and finance in developing countries hardly existed 30 years ago.  But by now it has grown very large — large enough to deserve a survey of its own.  I review much of this research in a survey titled “Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets.”  It appears as a chapter in the Handbook of Monetary Economics, edited by Ben Friedman and Michael Woodford, which has just this week become available from Elsevier Publishing.   Among the hundreds of authors represented in the survey are Caballero, Calvo, Dooley, Dornbusch, Edwards, Reinhart and Velasco, as well as many younger scholars.  Again, although financial opening gave capital flows a central role in the emerging market models, the need to allow for imperfections in these markets has always been clear.   It is also what gives the models so much relevance today, not just for theory but for policy as well.   Raghu Rajan and Simon Johnson point out that some of the institutional failings that we associate with financial sectors in developing countries, such as distorted incentives and undue political influence, also apply to the United States and other advanced countries.  Among other areas of economic policy where the North could draw useful lessons from small countries in the South as to how to address the problems, in earlier blogposts I have given the example of the procedures that Chile has used over the past decade to achieve countercyclical fiscal policy.  

[Comments can be posted on the Belfer Center 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. 

“Should Central Banks Target Asset Prices?”   That is the question addressed by the current symposium in The International Economy (2009, no.4).

My answer: 

Alan Greenspan was right to raise the question “How do we know when ‘irrational exuberance’ has unduly escalated stock prices?”, which is what he actually said in 1996.    But he was wrong to conclude subsequently that monetary policy should ignore asset prices (or even that it should take asset prices into account only to the extent that they contain information about future inflation, as the Inflation Targeters would have it).    More specifically,
(1) Identifying in real time that we were in a stock market bubble by 2000 and a real estate bubble by 2006 was not in fact harder than the Fed’s usual job, forecasting inflation 18 months ahead;
(2) Central bankers do have tools that can often prick bubbles; and
(3) The “Greenspan put” policy of mopping up the damage only after run-ups abruptly end probably contributed to the magnitude of the bubbles ex ante, while yet being insufficient ex post to prevent the crisis from becoming the worst recession since the 1930s.    All three points run contrary to what was conventional wisdom among monetary economists and central bankers a mere two years ago.

As Claudio Borio and Bill White at the BIS pointed out before the financial crisis, many of the worst economic collapses of the last 100 years have occurred after excessively easy monetary policy had shown up in asset prices but not in inflation: US 1929, Japan1990, East Asia 1997, and now the US 2007.

A final point: “Targeting asset prices” is the wrong phrase.  The word “target” (for example, with respect to the money supply, exchange rate, or inflation) implies a number, or at least a numerical range.   I don’t know anyone who thinks that the central bank should contemplate setting a numerical range for the stock market.   Rather, the claim, which I think the evidence now supports, is that central bankers would be well advised to monitor prices of equities and real estate and to speak out, and eventually to act, on those rare occasions when asset prices get very far out of line.

(To post a comment, go to the SeekingAlpha version.)