After three months of ugly job growth, poor retail sales, missed inflation targets and forecasts of minimal economic growth (most analysts reduced their estimate to around 1.1% for the second quarter of 2012), Ben Bernanke finally announced his willingness to “be prepared” for further steps to boost the economy.
The Federal Reserve stands ready to offer additional monetary support to a U.S. economy that has slowed significantly in recent months, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers on Tuesday.
He told the Senate Banking Committee the recovery was being held back by tighter financial conditions due to Europe’s debt crisis and uncertainty surrounding U.S. fiscal policy.
This is classic buck-passing. The problem is not Bernanke’s fault, not the lid he has clamped at 2% inflation. It’s everyone else ruining it for him, you see.
But the “future action,” even if we see it coming out of the next Fed meeting in early August, would only mimic previous actions on quantitative easing, in all likelihood. And there has been little indication that this has materially improved economic circumstances. It’s been difficult to get the lower interest rates into the hands of those who need them, and that credit clog has limited Federal Reserve policy. The Fed could and should, if they want to make a difference, undertake more unconventional measures, like saying they could tolerate a higher inflation target:
It also suggests that a change in language to something like this:
“In one participant’s judgment, appropriate monetary policy would lead to inflation modestly greater than 2 percent for a time in order to bring unemployment down somewhat faster.”
[That] would be both surprising and effective in raising inflation expectations and boosting the broader economy. Indeed, if the Fed were to change the language to something like that, it probably wouldn’t need to do any additional asset buying. Which, you would think, would be the Fed’s desired outcome (given its focus on the risks of more purchases). But such is the power of the inflation bogeyman in the mind of the central banker that the easy, effective, in-many-ways-less-risky option is avoided in favour of purchases without a change in communication.
It really couldn’t hurt to try and use the communications channel here. I mean, Bernanke suggests that unemployment will improve only at a “frustratingly slow pace”. But he’s not frustrated enough about that to alter inflation expectations, even though the Fed is currently missing the mark on those as well.
You cannot look at the performance of the policymakers and have any confidence that we will navigate the pitfalls that would lead to another recession, let alone promote a stronger recovery.





32 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Maybe Helicopter Ben has finally realized that throwing money around hasn’t really helped anyone other than the 1%.
One thing that kills me is that the official line is the recession ended in 2009.
That is bullshit.
We are still in a recession and it is fairly obvious that another downturn is staring us in the face.
There really isn’t anything Bernanke can do at this point, unless you think pushing on a string is great policy. The one thing he could do has nothing to do with monetary policy. He could come out strongly for aggressive fiscal spending to close the demand gap. Of course, he will never do that. The only thing he is likely to do is bail out the EU if and when the euro collapses. But he would have had to do that anyway.
Ya beat me to it.
I think there ought to be a new contest. There are a lot of countries that could be contestants in the pushing-on-a-string sweepstakes.
This whole business about ‘raising inflation expectations’ is a crock that comes out of the textbook macro of the early 90s. It is hard to see how it could be done given the extent of slack in the economy, and if the financial markets came to expect it, the initial effect would be to raise the the nominal interest rate, which would depress already depressed spending. The Fed’s role at this point is purely political.
In Bernanke’s book of collected papers about the Great Depression, there is one ref to fiscal policy in the index, and none to Keynes, or the other way around.
Bernanke is one of the greatest know-nothing economists ever in the history of the subject. Remember how I talked about reading his work & writing it up as a diary? I tried 3 or 4 times and I never got past 2-1/2 papers. It is such garbage, you can’t imagine.
Which also reflects badly on Krugman, who defended Bernanke for quite awhile.
I agree with Knut about pushing on a string. Sensible people realize this is a balance sheet recession, and we aren’t doing anything to fix household balance sheets. There is a lot we could do without spending tax money. Something as obvious as cramdown would go a long way to helping millions of people.
But we can be confident that Bernanke and his buddy, Geithner, will continue to tell the clueless CongressCritters that civilization will end as we know it, if too many questions are asked of Those Who Dine On Fine China With Wall Street Titans.
Congress has completely outsourced monetary policy… to the point where they feel they don’t even need to have a basic grasp of it.
Please explain how increasing expenses through inflation will help the unemployment situation. If a business sees its’ input costs (raw materials, etc.) increase it will taken action to offset those increases. The primary costs of most businesses are payroll related. This is the area in which the cuts will be made. Meanwhile the people who still have jobs will face higher living expenses as their wages stagnate. If people have inflation expectations they will reduce discretionary spending to ensure their ability to purchase necessities. Inflation also makes it more difficult for people to reduce their debt load since they will have less discretionary income to pay down debt.
Bernanke is typical of the people who came through graduate economics at the end of the 70s and the early 80s. Not that much different from Jeff Sachs, who is in the same cohort. Larry Summers is a bit earlier and should know better. In the non-Chicago areas (what Paul calls the ‘salt water schools), the conventional wisdom held — contrary to evidence — that economies at the macro level do tend to equilibrate at something close to full employment (redefined as the ‘natural or ‘non-inflationary’ rate. The difference between them and the true believers at Chicago was that they thought it might take a little longer than the Chicago types, whose theories implied that full employment always holds. From a Keynesian perspective, this is a distinction without a difference, so it is not surprising that Bernanke’s policies are not far from what one would expect from a Chicago type.
Krugman was educated a few years before Bernanke and had the advantage of real contact with the old guard like Tobin and Solow. Same is true of Stiglitz, who is my generation. By the 80s the ‘young’uns, had taken over teaching graduate macro, and it has pretty much been downhill ever since. Judge them by their results.
The argument is that inflation puts a tax on holding cash, so people with lots of cash (companies, invenstors) will have to use it or lose it. This is something that comes out of theory — which as Yogi Berra noted ought to be reflected in practice, but in practice it isn’t. The point I made above still holds. Financial markets are the first to show inflationary expectations. It comes up in the yield curve, with the longer term rates drifting up relative to the short rate. But this is exactly what depresses investment, and what QE is designed to repress.
Squaring the circle is a mug’s game. Bernanke thinks he can do it. He should take a course in geometry.
With China and Japan having begun direct exchange of currency… and USD hegemony faltering… is it realistic for Bernanke to continue looking overseas for more funding for fiscal policy?
Are there other bilateral agreements on the horizon for direct exchange of goods and services that will bypass the USD? Did Iran and India ever ink that gold for oil deal?
It seems to me that the USDs life as the world’s reserve currency is coming to an end. Slowly? Yes. But it’s a factor that seems to be getting too little attention when we talk about increased spending by the USG. But I’m not an economist… just someone trying to understand the big picture. :)
But what about the people living at the margins? I’m more concerned with their well-being… people who are one pay check away from bankruptcy.
My disadvantage wrt economics is that I learned on the job. I found almost everything I learned in school (ABD, NYU) to be absurd.
Since my perspective was what I observed in the world, I simply dismissed the kooks who took what they learned in school seriously.
Boy was I wrong to think that observation & results mattered.
BTW, I worked for 2-3 years at Citibank economics dept in the early 70s. They were the corp hotbed of monetarists. Such a bunch of blowhards I’ve never met before or since.
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependant on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
“The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything but their true cause, the banking system”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”
-Bertrand Russell
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” -John Maynard Keynes
“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.”-Upton Sinclair
The trouble with capitalism is that it’s a dog-eat-dog world, whereas communism is exactly the opposite.
I believe we are in agreement.
You are wrong if you think that and do not understand communism.
Perhaps Ben, e.g., trusts in Euclid overmuch: On paper & in theory you can show a triangle (or any polygon), but it’s an impossible shape in practice since no two points can occupy the same space (so I’m told), hence the lines cannot truly meet or touch at the vortices, as they only appear to do.
Nobody is going to repeat the great Soviet experiment in progress through enslavement of peasantry. For starters, there aren’t really all that many peasants left in the world.
Why not discuss a serious alternative to the capitalist system? How could it hurt?
If the inflation-expectations theory really worked, which it doesn’t, people on the margin would be getting more and better job offers, and would be pushed inside the margin. But the whole argument structure is a sham.
Greenspan is the “epitome of success” at the FED and established a precedent of being correct 70% of the time as being the threshold for excellence in monetary policy. Ben can be a disaster 30% of the time and still be lauded as an outstanding intellect, at least amongst the politicians and Banksters.
I was under the impression that the Banksters and their government proxies were on a mission to increase the population of debt serfs and slaves globally. How is that different than creating more peasants?
Hum a few bars and I’ll pick it up.
On edit: It’s not the economic system that’s the problem. It’s the leaders, aka, political system. Economic systems over a wide range of variation have worked well. Central planning in the U.S. during WWII for example. But when you have shit at the top, economic systems fail.
It is the economic system. A system based on exploitation of labor and resources, unrestrained greed chasing after imaginary piles of wealth, which the entire world is being propagandized to do. You fell prey to it yourself as a supposed person who worked on Wall Street. Because you were programmed, as you say it is a ‘dog eat dog world’, a saying our parents teach us.
I think two particular injustices concern me:
1) those living on the margin who get further screwed by the inflation tax… and while I understand your point… they do get further screwed for a period of time… perhaps one day, perhaps one year or more… regardless savers, including those living on the margin, get screwed for some period of time.
2) the MOTU who sit are among the Primary Dealers benefit when the Fed / Treasury issue new debt as they are the first recipients of the money. By borrowing from the Fed at 0% and loaning to the Treasury at 3%, they demonstrated their greed. Based on what moral principle should this bullshi+ be allowed to occur?
I think that alternative is being tried in some Latin American nations that survived and ultimately rejected US influence and disaster capitalism. It’s a mixture of socialism of essential services and regulated capitalism. It’s being implemented in the countries that the US propaganda machine portrays as being run by “Pinko Commie Leftist Dictators”.
Is what you are describing among the younger, non-Chicago economists neo-Keynesianism? I believe Krugman says in “End this Depression Now” that he “kinda, sorta” belonged to that school at one point.
I don’t know about you, but personally I’m not really willing to sign on to supporting a policy that would further debase my already low income so Obama can have a better shot at being reelected.
Besides that, I think it’s important to point out that almost the entire economic model of the US revolves around printing lots of money/debt and bullying other countries into taking it… in exchange for real stuff that was actually produced somewhere by real people. In my humble opinion that model is neither moral nor sustainable, and continuing to rely on it is a death sentence for the US economy.
David, you know how I love your colorful graphs.
Excellent discussion today everyone. I learned a lot. Thanks.
UNfortunately, the more I learn from you all the more depressed I get.
At least we ain’t got locust.
Because indebted consumers ca. 2012 are quite a bit different from Russian peasants ca. 1929, and because a teetering global economy in 2012 offers fundamentally different material conditions from Russia under Stalin in 1929.
I can’t see how it isn’t the economic system that’s at fault. Growth rates have declined, on average, for four decades now. Profit rates are kept up by increasing government intervention. Neoliberal economics has brought us to the point of incipient collapse. The capitalist system is rapidly using up what little of Earth’s bounty is left, and I don’t really see how the rush to dive off of an economic cliff could be managed more effectively by more competent leadership.