Tuesday, June 25, 2019

The Fed's Duplicitous Goals

Duplicitous is my big word for the day. According to Wikipedia, "Someone who is duplicitous is almost like two people, saying one thing but then doing something very different, even contradictory." You might called them two-faced.

When the Fed said recently that they are worried about inflation getting too low, I think they are being duplicitous. The Fed doesn't give a rat's patoot about low inflation. The Fed cares about one thing and one thing only -- growth slowdowns and recessions. That's it. Yet they persist in this nonsense about inflation being too low.

Why would the Fed want to be duplicitous? Let's back up. The Fed is the institution in this country responsible for monetary policy. Monetary policy is generally thought of as one of the most important components of a country's macroeconomic policy. The government uses its fiscal policy to achieve macroeconomic goals. The Fed uses monetary policy. Ok? Big gulp of JD.

Every institution has goals. The Boys & Girls Club wants to provide a safe place where kids can go after school to learn sports and games. Your local neighborhood bar creates a nice place for you to go after work so you can have a drink and unwind with your friends.

The Fed has macroeconomic goals so it can provide a non-inflationary growing economy. The Fed has been historically clear that it has two goals -- assist economic growth and keep inflation low. Notice -- keep inflation low, not high. That sounds nice, but like a juggler with only one arm, it is very challenging if not impossible to "kill two birds with just one stone". And that's the rub with Fed policy -- it only has one tool or instrument of monetary policy.

If the economy is growing too slowly or is contracting, the Fed tries to juice it up with lower interest rates. If the economy is growing too fast and inflation rises, it tries to slow things down with higher interest rates. Interest rate control is the one-hand or the single instrument of the Fed. That's all it has. One hand for juggling the economy.

Notice that the whole story focuses on economic growth -- keeping it from growing too slow or from growing too fast. Inflation comes into the story but only because it is the other side of the coin. The Fed doesn't care a whit about inflation. It cares about growth.

When the illustrious leaders of the Fed tell us inflation is too low during a time period when output is actually strong, it makes no sense. It is a trick to divert your eyes from what they are really doing. What they are really doing is playing national savior. The problem is not that economic growth is low -- the problem is that they think they can look into their crystal ball and know that without their intervention, economic growth might slow in the future.

It sounds nice, right? They have managed the economy so well today that they are now ready to manage the future too. Unfortunately, they don't know the future any more than they know when the next earthquake will hit Seattle. Surely one is coming but I doubt anyone knows when.

It is these errors in timing that usually cause the most havoc. Diddle around all day and then get on the I5 at 5 pm, and you will understand what I mean. The Fed is famous for worrying so much about future economic growth slowing that they try to keep interest rates low much longer than they really should. Virtually every period of dangerously high inflation in the US in the last 50 years came because the Fed fed the economy's furnace with money too long. Then they play the frying pan/fire game. Fight weak growth one day. Cause inflation. Fight inflation the next. Cause a recession.

What is the duplicitous point here? The point is that the Fed does not have a mandate or a policy goal to prevent inflation from falling. In fact, I doubt that they really believe that inflation will fall so low as to become a problem. What they do believe is that the rate of economic growth might fall in the future. But they don't want to admit that. It seems more responsible to be fighting low inflation today than to be attacking a predicted future slowdown. That doesn't seem more responsible to me, but then I don't work at the Fed.

I wish they would either be more honest or just quit doing that stupid stuff. Lower interest rates after a decade of low interest rates is not going to be the solution to any of our problems, much less the next recession.

6 comments:

  1. Dear LSD. I vaguely recall some distance memory of you defending the Fed and Central banks generally. Now you seem to be critical of the Fed. Some advocate doing away with it. Given your critique would you support Fed bye-bye . . . . and if not, why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Tuna. I have been a pretty consistent critic of Fed activism. I would not abolish the Fed since it plays several important role including lender of last resort. Also, someone has to be in charge of emitting a proper amount of money for a growing economy. Sadly, both of those critical roles can be over-played. We are stuck with a Fed that is necessary but one that can cause its share of harm too. So I bellyache a lot when they get too active. I'd refer a more passive approach when it comes to saving the economy from slowdowns in economic growth. How's that?

      Delete
    2. How’s that? My takeaway is your position on the Fed is like having a weird sibling that is only in public when a good laugh is needed . . . not to be seen a lot but only when needed.

      Hm-m-m-m-m, passive but not passive to the point of elimination, eh? So, I guess passive is like beauty . . . . sort of like in the eye of the beholder, eh?

      I’m told JD does a good job of mollifying bellyache . . . . . . and fergitt’n ‘bout weird siblings.

      Delete
    3. Yer a smart Tuna. I think you get my drift. Or in other words its like accepting a daily ride to work from your cousin Peter. You love the ride to work until he starts telling that same old joke he tells you every time. Aint no free lunches or tacos around here. Anywho -- JD is quite the wonder drug. I recommend it highly.

      Delete
  2. Wait a second Dr. Doob. Under your argument, the Fed would almost never increase r. But they have raised r over time. What's the story for that, morning glory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well aren't you perky Mr J Anonymous. Not sure what time periods you are referring to when you say the Fed raised interest rates. My point is that they do sometimes raise them but only after a time period of rates that were kept too low for too long. Its like spoiling your kids every day and then finally you have to do something drastic to get them to behave. Ouch. Yes, recently they raised rates....but notice that as soon as they got any excuse, they back away. Hey guys the economy is strong now but maybe someday it will get weak. Bong. Back to lowering interest rates.

      Delete