Fascination with Interest Rates Hides the Fed’s Policy Blunders
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The Federal Reserve (Fed) has not changed its federal funds target rate since 2008. Such a policy is unsustainable in the face of market forces that change interest rates. This statement may seem surprising given the widespread belief that the Fed sets interest rates, but, in fact, the Fed does not set interest rates.
As a matter of fact, the Fed does not set even the federal funds rate, the interest rate banks charge each other to borrow reserves. It merely sets a target and tries to push the average of federal funds rates toward that target. The Fed certainly has influence over market interest rates, but the Fed cannot make interest rates—even the federal funds rate—whatever it wants them to be. The misplaced focus on the Fed’s supposed responsibility for low interest rates obscures the debate over major policy reforms that could improve the nation’s monetary system.
The Federal Funds Rate Target
The Federal Reserve sets a target for the federal funds rate, but it does not set the federal funds rate itself. Furthermore, what is commonly called the federal funds rate is actually an average measure called the effective federal funds rate. The Fed targets this average[1] because there is no single federal funds rate in this market. Instead, banks regularly conduct overnight loans of reserves on an as-needed basis and negotiate their own rates. There is actually a great deal of dispersion around the effective fed funds rate each day. (See Chart 1.) The Fed sets a target consistent with its policy goals, and then tries to push the effective fed funds rate toward that target by changing the quantity of reserves in the system via open market operations.[2]
Does the Fed Hit Its Target?
The long-term data shows the effective fed funds rate does not always match the Fed’s target. (See Chart 2.) More importantly, the recent financial crisis highlights how powerless the Fed can be when faced with major changes in market interest rates. The Fed clearly followed rates downward after September 2007, when it began lowering its target from 5.25 percent to 1 percent in little more than one year.
The Fed then ditched the idea of a single target in favor of a target range (from zero percent to 0.25 percent), while nearly abandoning interest rate targeting altogether. In 2008, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke noted: “With respect to monetary policy, we are at this point moving away from the standard interest rate targeting approach and, of necessity, moving toward new approaches.”[3] If the Fed did have tight control over interest rates, it would have prevented them from falling in a manner that jeopardized its core approach to monetary policy. Instead, the rapid decrease in rates left the Fed searching for new ways to conduct policy.
Interest Rate Targeting: The Conventional Story
Since the 1980s, the Fed has conducted monetary policy by targeting the effective federal funds rate through open market operations. The Fed conducts these operations—buying and selling securities—to influence the federal funds rate, which, in turn, is said to affect other interest rates. Ultimately, these interest rate changes are said to shape other economic factors such as consumer spending, business investment, and employment. In other words, the Fed tries to trigger a chain of events by altering the federal funds rate.
One problem with this story is the evidence suggesting that the Fed is more likely to change its target in response to interest rate changes rather than to cause rates to change via its targeting procedure.[4] Recent trends in some interest rates support this finding, and also suggest the Fed will soon raise its target. (See Chart 3.) Another problem for this conventional story is that there is little evidence to support that interest rate changes affect aggregate spending in the economy. In a widely cited 1995 research paper, Ben Bernanke pointed out this apparent puzzle and argued that monetary policy effectiveness depended (partly) on the Fed’s ability to influence bank lending.[5]
What Does the Fed Control?
The Fed has direct control over a small number of policy instruments, such as the rate it charges banks to borrow at the discount window, the interest rate it pays on reserves, and the monetary base. The monetary base consists of all U.S. currency in circulation plus banks’ reserves, and its level determines the maximum quantity of money that can be created in the banking system. Provided banks have sufficient reserves, banks can then make loans and create new deposits, thus adding to the broader monetary supply. The Fed has control over the base because only the Fed can change the total amount of reserves in the banking system.[6]
The Fed’s open market purchases increase the base and aim to increase bank lending (and with it, economic activity), while its open market sales would have the opposite effect. Naturally, the total quantity of reserves in the banking system should have some relation to the federal funds rate, so it makes sense that the Fed would target this rate to achieve its policy objectives. It does not follow from this relationship, however, that the Fed’s open market operations exhibit precise control over the fed funds rate, the broader monetary supply, other market interest rates, or even aggregate economic activity.
What Can Monetary Policy Do?
Even without precise control over the federal funds rate (or other rates), the Fed’s policy actions can affect the economy regardless of whether interest rates are historically high or low.[8] For instance, the Fed’s policies can lead to excessive lending, relative to the level supported by underlying economic conditions, even though interest rates are historically high. Conversely, the Fed can exacerbate or cause a contraction in lending regardless of the level of interest rates, thus worsening or causing a recession. It appears the Fed made such a mistake in August 2008, when it decided against loosening its monetary policy stance.[9]
The Fed made this decision even though nominal gross domestic product has been on a downward trend since 2006, and then bank lending sharply declined.[10] It appears the Fed made this error because it placed too much importance on its interest rate target and on inflation. In particular, Bernanke claims that the Fed decided against expansionary monetary policy so that the Fed could keep “short-term interest rates where we wanted them,” and because the Fed forecasted inflation would come in at “an uncomfortable 3.5 percent in the second half of the year.”[11]
While the Fed’s concern with inflation is understandable, given that the central bank is directly responsible for the price level, this policy objective has always been controversial.[12] In the post–World War II era, central banks in most developed countries have tried to stabilize the price level by focusing on inflation rather than the price level itself. The Fed now defines price stability as 2 percent annual inflation, but this interpretation of price stability can be problematic for several reasons. For instance, while the average rate of inflation in most developed countries has declined, particularly since the 1980s, the price level itself has been widely divergent across countries.[13]
Separately, creating a constantly rising price level—even at a “low” rate—runs directly counter to the fact that a falling price level can be the by-product of a healthy, growing economy. For example, as business owners take advantage of new technology (productivity increases), the price level should fall, thus enabling consumers to buy more goods at lower prices. Using monetary policy to produce constant inflation, of course, prevents consumers from enjoying these benefits.[14]
Conclusion
The level of interest rates has become a distraction from much-needed monetary policy reforms even though the Fed does not have precise control over interest rates. The Fed’s policies can have a major effect on the economy regardless of whether interest rates are high or low by historical standards. To minimize harmful effects from the Fed’s actions, Congress should end discretionary monetary policy and direct the Fed to implement rules-based policies that move the U.S. toward a truly competitive monetary system.
—Norbert J. Michel, PhD, is a Research Fellow in Financial Regulations in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.
Prensa: Las subidas del salario mínimo se traducen en menos oportunidad
Posted in Iniciativa y Libre Mercado, Opinión, Análisis, Actualidad, Tecnología,Libertad económica, Destacables, Regulación, Desempleo
Bill Clinton's Predatory Behavior: Fair Game
Former President Bill Clinton (AP Photo)
Hillary Clinton has slammed Donald Trump for having a "penchant for sexism," but the Clinton-adoring media are acting shocked and dismayed that Trump would be so rude as to respond that she ought to look at her own husband when it comes to sexism and a "record of women abuse." Reporters are treating this as a sketchy allegation, or if true, a remarkably impolite way to campaign.
"Alleged" is the lying weasel word of the day. CNN's Karl de Vries wrote on Sunday morning: "Donald Trump on Saturday night slammed Hillary Clinton by citing her husband's history of marital infidelity and alleged sexual misconduct."
On Monday's "Good Morning America," ABC political reporter Mary Bruce embarrassed herself: "Based on his latest mudslinging, [it] seems like Donald Trump is already looking ahead to a battle with Hillary Clinton. ... Trump intensifying his war of words with the Democratic front-runner. Targeting her husband's history of alleged sexual misconduct."
"Mudslinging" to bring up "alleged sexual misconduct"? Bruce acts as if she were literally born yesterday. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick: Who's ever heard their stories about Clinton's predatory behavior?
On Tuesday's "Today, NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie asked Trump about Monica Lewinsky: "Are you saying an alleged extramarital affair, that of course he has now admitted, is that fair game in a campaign?" Trump rightly replied, "Is it alleged? I don't think that's alleged." He was pressing her: How's something that's admitted still alleged? Guthrie persisted as Miss Manners: "Are you saying an extramarital affair by Bill Clinton is fair game and something that you think should be in the campaign?"
In 2011, the media found it "fair game" to relentlessly pursue Herman Cain sex allegations, Newt Gingrich "open marriage" allegations, and in Savannah Guthrie's case, even Sarah Palin sex allegations, about who she had sex with before marriage at age 23. Guthrie also publicized allegations from author Joe McGinniss that the Palins used their children as props, fought constantly, and even used cocaine.
She was Savannah Gutter back then.
But this is Clinton, and no matter what year it is, the rules are different. In 1998, the year the Clintons lied for seven months, denying any presidential hanky-panky with the thong-flashing intern, journalists lectured that this was old news, that there were serious problems that needed attention, that it was time to "move on." This was said so frequently it led to a new liberal group called MoveOn.org.
When Clinton's guilt was established by DNA testing, they changed the narrative. This was all silly, all about the GOP's obsession with sex. Perjury? What perjury? Disbarment? What disbarment?
On Tuesday morning, CNN reporter Sara Murray also hopped aboard the Born Yesterday train. She noted Trump's attacks on Bill Clinton, but insisted "a number of voters who look at that and say 'Why should Hillary Clinton be punished because her husband made mistakes?'"
Maybe she's talking about low-information 2016 voters who were born during Clinton's presidency. But any political reporter who's a professional knows that it was Hillary Clinton who set up the "bimbo patrols" to discredit Bill's female accusers. George Stephanopoulos wrote in his memoir she said of the first accuser Connie Hamzy in 1991, "We have to destroy her story." She has lived with this reality and participated in the cover-up from Day One. She was no Arkansas bumpkin who never knew that her husband was cheating.
Clinton is also the one who so arrogantly and dishonestly appeared on the "Today" show and blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for her husband's adultery and perjury. She agreed with Matt Lauer's suggestion that the Lewinsky story was one of the biggest smears of the 20th century and predicted it wouldn't be "proven true."
The Clintons — both of them — are serial liars. An objective media would see that they have far too much baggage on female-smearing to be credible in objecting to Trump's unyielding rebuttals. But the Clintons have never had to face an objective media.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org.
