The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Heartbreak Motel: The employed, the unemployed and the unemployable

    I spent the last two days away from home on a job site in Tulsa. One of my clients was considering switching to a competitor. I have a "resource recovery" company---or, put another way, we scrounge the back lots of industrial plants looking for commodities which can be recycled and re-used. Our employees are well trained and long term and they do well on earnings. They drive our trucks and equipment to remote locations. and my insurance company requires drug testing. Because we control costs and like to make a bit of a profit there is a limit on how much we'll spend for a motel. When I'm on the road, which I don't enjoy, I stay where my workers stay.

    Heartbreak Motel sits on the intersection of two truck routes. The four corners are a stark melding of the food chain and the employment ladder. On one corner is a convenience store and cash-only gas station---the bottom rung of life in a gritty America.  Outside, behind the store, four homeless people stand around a compressor smoking and making ready for the night with pieces of card board to sleep on. A police car idles two hundred feet away, pointed in their direction. I say to hell with it and walk over to the store. A small bottle of milk and some cookies might come in handy if I wake up at the motel in the middle of the night and have the creeps. As I try to go into the store a guy forces me off the sidewalk. I ignore him. Coming back out a woman blocks my path, "Are you stayin' over there for the night?"

    Across the street is another gas station. It takes cash or even credit cards and has no homeless people sleeping out back  The station's food counter features turkey legs on a roller grill---which is a novel idea and serves as dinner for a lot of the patrons who stop there.  Rung two.

    I finally make it over to the opposite corner, rung three, the Waffle House. There, hard working employees yell greetings when you come in the door.  Three employed truck drivers are having grilled pork chops and waffles. They will sleep in their bunkers on the big rigs which are parked out back. After a great breakfast of eggs over-easy and grits at 8:00 p.m. I cross four lanes of traffic on foot to get back to Heartbreak Motel. Life is not so bad. Maybe I'll sleep through the night and won't need the milk and cookies.  Perhaps it's a good thing to take a breather from my media addictions.

    I found out later that there had been an Occupy Wall St. protest on the other end of town, that there was an FOMC meeting of the Federal Reserve in Washington, and that there had been muddy political wrestling all over the internet 

    The next morning over at the client company the owner, Bud Ratliff, and I quickly worked things out. "Oxy, I need a price break." I said, "Where do I need to be to keep your business?" He told me and I said, "O.K." Then he said, "Do you know anyone who'd like to buy that used recycle machine over there?" 

    I told him, "Bud, I just don't think it's repairable. But I'll give you a thousand dollars for the pump that's on it."  Bud said, "O.K. I'll have Joe unbolt it. Just credit my invoice. By the way I'm going to recommend your company to some folks down the street. They are good payers. I've known them for thirty years."

    Lose money on each deal and make it up in volume. Sometimes I feel as if I am the one at the bottom of the food chain--in more ways than just reclaiming industrial waste.

    Bud is a tough task master but you can deal with him on a personal basis. His employees are neat and hard working. They are middle aged and amiable. They know they have the best deal available to them in this economic climate. A small company. An owner who is fair and approachable. Bud treats them with respect. Rung four.

    Neither Bud or I are likely to hire the folks down around Heartbreak Motel.  It's not impossible, just not likely. It's a matter of qualifications. It's a matter of responsibility to clients and customers. The people on rungs one, two and and many on rung three are there for the duration unless something is done. Any rational person can see that we need a massive public works project to get these people back on their feet, get them some training, get their self esteem and personal lives in order and perhaps get them into employable status. I am not the government. Everyone in my company, including me, was unemployed before signing on. But my company is not a rehab center or training center. There is a role for government. We need programs for the long term unemployed and the unemployable.  

    Leaving Heartbreak Motel and a neighborhood suitable for a modern day Dickens' novel I headed back to Dallas thinking maybe I should hire a good salesmen who doesn't mind being on the road; we could get more accounts, make more money and raise our motel allowance. I wondered if Bud had snookered me.

    The Fed chairman Ben Bernanke was on Sirius radio. After listening to him for an hour I concluded that Fed members might better have had their meetings at Heartbreak Motel--which has 5 large conference rooms, last used before the late 80's oil crash. The Fed might have pumped some travel expenses back into a local economy where it could have done some good. The members might have eaten out in the local neighborhood, or taken the shuttle over to the OWS protest at the other end of town. They might have learned the street-level distinctions between the employed, the unemployed and the unemployable.

    But the best that Bernanke could come up with on the short notice of a two day meeting was that our high unemployment is cyclical and, incredibly, it's a longer cycle than anticipated and that's why it will take more time for monetary policy to work. Oh, and, say, if unemployment were structural, by chance---well, then, monetary policy wouldn't be effective at all. That was brilliant.

    I hope I don't sound like a cranky capitalist or that I'm down on people. What put me in a foul mood was realizing that Bernanke is simply throwing in the towel like everyone else. He of course won't come out and say in plain language that we need programs to solve structural unemployment--or even if he thinks our unemployment is structural.  There are not more than a hand full of politicians in the entire country who will stand up and have the guts to say that we need a CCC or WPA---which to my mind is the only way out of this unemployment mess.  Can anyone look at the Heartbreak Motel intersections of America and conclude that we have anything other than structural unemployment? No one will admit the facts.

    The sad truth is that every company in the U.S. could hire a salesman or two and it wouldn't help people down on the lower rungs of society. I don't see anything in the economic and political mix right now which is going to make a dent in the ranks of the long term unemployed and the unemployable. And that's the real heart breaker.

    Comments

    Note to management. I'm getting a red patch of three or four lines above the title after I make an edit, which I do frequently. However if I leave the site and re-access it goes away. FYI.


    Well, since Genghis went on vacation, the site gets so lonely it could die.


    I hope you don't find my writing too muddy. I've added the extra dash.


    People don't seem to understand that Ben Bernanke is not supposed to say anything about what the political branches of our government do or don't need to do.  He is supposed to preserve the political independence of the Fed, and stay out of the politics.  I'm sure he has all sorts of lectures rolling around in his head that he would love to deliver to our incompetent and dysfunctional Congress.  But he is prohibited from delivering them by the nature of his position.

    However, Bernanke did say this yesterday: "With respect to the current economy we are currently continuing our accommodative monetary policy. We are trying to do our best to support economic growth and job creation. It would be helpful if we could get assistance from some other parts of the government to work with us to help create more jobs. But certainly we are doing our part to create more jobs, more opportunities in America."

    That's a pretty amazing statement for a Fed chair.   It's about as close as you are going to get to the statement, "Pass the damn jobs bill" from an independent central banker who is supposed to preserve a strict political neutrality.   For some reason, though, Democrats continue to dump on Bernanke even when he goes about as far as he can go in lending a hand politically..

    There has been an unhealthy obsession with the Fed lately in progressive circles.  These discussions and comments often grossly overestimate the impact of the Fed on the real economy, and don't reckon with the limited tools the Fed has at its disposal for carrying out macroeconomic monetary policy goals.

    There is no Fed Fix for our economic woes.  The problem is Congress.  Only Congress can fix the economy - and they don't want to do it, since they are both stupid and malevolent.   We need to stop barking up the Fed tree and turn all of the dogs on Congress.


    Excellent points.

    Got me thinking, though, that whenever a government-related institution is mandated to be apolitical, there are conspiracy theories about it. And the worse that times are related to its jurisdiction (whether the economy or terrorist attacks or safety net programs) the more people are wont to believe those conspiracy theories. And the tougher it is for an average person to understand what the situation is, the worst that effect is. Centralized/federal government always has this problem. The "information age" is supposed to fix that problem (cf. a citizen could not always easily figure out the facts on what the bureaucracy in ancient Rome was up to) but it does not seem to be working out that way so far.


    Well, I think part of the problem in this case is that the monetary, banking and financial systems are pretty hard to understand.  Even a lot of very smart people seem to have big disagreements over basic, fundamental points.  A lot of economics training presents people with very abstract and simplified models that leave out all of the institutional detail and causal channels.

    And given that the Republican Congress has set up such a vigorous roadblock, a lot of people have - in my eyes - succumbed to desperation, and a need to believe that there must be some other fix.   The only fix is to blow up the Congressional roadblock.  They need to be slammed hard, and continuously.

    What we need is more of this kind of stuff:

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/jobless-protesters-occupy_n_107...

     

    Fed-mania only plays into the conservative, neoliberal line that the only appropriate role for government in the economy is around-the-edges tinkering with monetary policy.   But our public sector is a powerful giant that has been chained up by laissez faire conservatives.  An energetic and organized government can use its taxing, spending and money-producing powers to boost and economy into overdrive overnight, just as it did during WWII.   But conservatives and the owners of capital don't want to let government succeed, because they don't want the public to learn that they have this extremely powerful tool available.


    Thanks, Artsy. I like the way you always peel off the next layer of the onion. Centralized complexity and the rise of conspiracy theories: unaffected, or magnified, by the public's  access to ever greater amounts of information? Hmmm.    


    You are too gracious. Some people might angrily call what I did "taking the thread off-topic." I have always liked the ability with discussion forums to go a bit towards "stream of several consciousnesses." And your posts often are full of inspiration. But I am also quite aware this is irritant to some bloggers who like to direct the conversation. smiley


    Right. I know he's not going to say it. Particularly since the first question he answered was that he was not going to be micro-managed either.

    But I'm not sure what you mean by "unhealthy obsession" and by whom. I think the subject of the Fed, their disclosures, their voting make-up and how members are elected, is a very much needed discussion.

    As to no Fed fix on our economic woes, there is much the Fed can do as a member of FSOC. Also Hoenig has some strong ideas about doing something about TBTF. And the Fed tip toed around Goldman Sachs and threatened fines and so forth, but has done nothing. I think they may have more tools.And unquestionably the major action should still be in the Congress.

    Anyway, I'm glad you opened this discussion. More later.


    I don't really disagree with you on the latter stuff Oxy.  Personally, I think we should get rid of the Fed altogether, and replace it with a something like a joint Congressional-Treasury monetary commission whose deliberations are completely public record, and whose actions respond directly to standard democratic political control and accountability.  We need to get away from the idea that monetary policies are some super-sophisticated and arcane art that can only be made in secret by wizard-bankers.  And we need to create a smoother and more efficient operational relationship between the fiscal and monetary powers of government.

    My only beef is with a lot of the recent suggestion that the Fed, as currently constituted, has it within its powers to engineer a serious recovery and reduction of unemployment, but is holding back.  The Fed can't spend money on anything but financial assets, and we have already seen how limited is the effect of even massive programs of financial asset purchases.   And there is much they can do with interest rates.  So basically, all of the other suggests are for the Fed to keep tweaking these things, but to fluff them up with public pronouncements.


    Thanks, Dan. I think you put that well.


    Seems to me the Fed could buy assets and then simply write them off.  It could start with its massive mortgage holdings, that would work wonders.  

    Of course that would bail out the small folks who made poor decisions or got caught in the downturn, not the big ones so we can't possibly do that. Moral Hazard. 

    Why not have a truly democratic Fed? I can image alternatives to fraction reserve banking, or different techniques for money creation, theoretically we could rewrite the system so that money created by the FED would be deposited directly in personal accounts- everybody with a valid id gets one, then people could spend, and banks could still exist and still lend, and their would be guaranteed demand. This would be an entirely different system, but I don't see why it couldn't work. 


    Saladin, your comments are appreciated. I'm a new comer around here and don't recognize your handle. Having said that, welcome to the site.

    Moral Hazard. Since my company sometimes reclaims "hazardous waste", seems I missed the best angle in my travels to bombed out industrial parks and run down motels.

    About direct deposits. There is a phrase going around to the effect, "helicopter cash drops", which is pretty close to what needs to happen---and to avoid the criticism of moral hazard, a few bills could be dropped around Greenwich, Conn.

    Both Hoenig, now appointed to the FDIC, and Fisher, the Renaissance Hawk who is President of the Dallas Fed have written in some detail about the dysfunction of the Fed's "Distribution" system. It's as if Bud manufactured his widgits, stocked them in six regional warehouses but had no way to deliver them to his customers.  Fisher, in fact, used the phrase, "You can't implement money policy through a system of sick banks."  Both Fisher and Hoenig have called for a down sizing of the TBTF banks through the authority vested in FSOC, a la Dodd Frank. In any case, the Fed's distribution system is broken. I do like the fact that the Fed is continuing its program to re-invest in Agency MBS's, which perhaps will key into the FHFA's revised plan for more underwater mortgage re-finances through HARP.

     


    Both Hoenig, now appointed to the FDIC, and Fisher, the Renaissance Hawk who is President of the Dallas Fed have written in some detail about the dysfunction of the Fed's "Distribution" system.

    Oxy, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Fed's distribution system.  Every dollar that is created by the Federal Reserve is the property of the United States government until it is exchanged for some privately owned asset.   The Constitution vests the power of the purse in the US Congress - an elected branch of the US government that is branch closest to the people who elect it.   It also vests the monetary authority of the country in Congress, some of which has been delegated to the Federal reserve system.  Only Congress, in the end, can and should determine how the public's money is spent.

    When people call for the Fed to have expanded powers in the use and disbursement of the public's money that they create they are in effect calling for wresting control of the public purse away from the political branches of government - from the US Congress and the American people - and putting it in the hands of unelected central bankers who deliberate in secret and are accountable in large part to the banking sector.  I find it remarkable that so many frustrated Democrats these days look to the Fed and say, "Why can't the Fed spend more money on more things?"

    The Fed isn't broken.  A central bank in a democratic society simply should never have the kinds of powers those who want to "unbreak" the Fed are calling for.


    In my hurry to make a "Bud" analogy I agree that the phrase "Fed's Distribution system" is not appropriate.

    What I am trying to get at, and I will re-read Fisher's comments, is that there is an impairment that keeps monetary easing from reaching the hinterland--which, has been Fisher's objection to QE2, why provide ever more liquidity when you cannot control where it goes.  

    But if you consider that the Fed has helped enable and sustain TBTF banks, which grants them implicit favors in the market which small banks don't receive, I think it may be fair to say that the Fed has adversely affected the "network of banks" at the local levels which normally are an instrument in spurring lending and growth once monetary policy has been eased.  I know that there are many more factors at work.

    I don't think I suggested  "breaking the Fed", which I agree could be the worst outcome.

    On a strictly intuitive basis I suspect the Fed's analytical systems are somehow not reflecting how globalization, the mobility of capital, the entrenchment of TBTF banks and structural unemployment plus a host of other sea changes have all combined to impede the flow of liquidity to the local economies compared to monetary easing periods of the past.  When I hear Bernanke say that the Fed's analytical framework and emphasis on "systemic bank risk" has been a "junior partner" in the Fed's analytical shop but is now catching up, it's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be other analytical frameworks which haven't caught up.

    I'm going to read Hoenig's work in more detail. To my mind, he is a sleeper in any future overall debate on the Fed's--let's call it, "reforms".    


    Well, my hunch is this:  I don't think the reason economy is stagnant is because there is not enough liquidity in the banking system.  Banks now possess gargantuan stores of reserves in their Federal Reserve bank accounts.  Companies are sitting on very large stores of excess cash, which are also being saved in banks.   Interest rates for borrowing are extraordinarily low, with the Fed keeping them right up against the zero bound.  So why isn't all that money being lent out rapidly?  Why isn't that money being invested in hiring lots more workers to produce lots more goods and services?

    Because the movements of the financial system do not depend on the supply of credit alone, but on the value of the promises that can be exchanged for that credit.   No matter how much liquidity exists in the financial system, an matter how low the prevailing interest rates are for borrowing it, people with money to lend still will not lend it if they cannot get a reasonable assurance of return on their investment.  Suppose you're a little entrepreneur with a business proposal.  You want to make some new product to sell, or open a store.  You take your proposal to a bank.  What they care about is whether your business will succeed, and whether the money they lend you will ultimately be returned to them, with at least some interest.  They are interested in the value of the promise you can give them for future money in exchange for the money they give you now.

    And there's the problem.  There are very few people around with valuable promises that they can exchange for credit.  Why?  Because as industrious as they might be, and as clever as their idea might be, they live in a business environment surrounded by unemployed people, by underemployed people, by people whose real incomes have been shrinking for years, by people who owe more money than they wish they owed and are not in a mood to spend.  They don't have enough potential customers with enough disposable income.  So a banker looking at that clever business plan says, "I don't think this plan is going to succeed.  I would like to make some money, and have all the money I need to lend, but this doesn't look like a way to make money.  I will do better by hanging onto my money.  At least that way I won't lose money."

    Obviously not all such plans are losers.  Money is still being lent.  But there are not enough profitable opportunities available.  And that's not something you can fix by making money easier when it is already as easy as it can be.

    I think the Fed's attitude is something like this: "The system is already flooded with money, and yet the money isn't moving.  We don't think adding even more money to the system will have any significant impact.  The Federal Reserve can do a lot to create easy conditions for financing.  But the Federal Reserve cannot create a country full of customers with ample stores of disposable income."

    What could create those customers?   Congress.  There are vast stores of amassed savings in this country - savings that are doing little economic work - just sitting somewhere receiving tiny rates of interest.   Congress can lay hold of some substantial portion of those savings via taxation, and transfer them as income to people who are desperate for more income.  Congress could also use that money to authorize the direct hiring of millions of unemployed people, so that they get not just a temporary boost in income, but jobs and income security.


    I largely agree with your analysis, and must tip my hat to you for your very cogent reading of the current situation. Perhaps negative interest rates could be considered?  Or writing off targeted assets, like housing?

    I do have a general philosophical concern that our money creation is done through lending at interest, which I believe promotes inequity. I also have concerns of how to maintain an eternal growth model in a world with real resource constraints. Hopefully those will be problems for my children. 


    "When people call for the Fed to have expanded powers in the use and disbursement of the public's money that they create they are in effect calling for wresting control of the public purse away from the political branches of government"

     

    Dan, I don't think that is quite right.  My understanding is that we have a fractional reserve system, that is most money creation in our economy comes when banks lend. The amount that they can lend out is based on their asset base, I believe that they lend something like 10's as much as they actually have.  When the Fed buys assets it moves 1s and 0s to the banks, and therefore they have more money that they can lend to us.  Banks are private firms that are middlemen from the FRB to us.  The fed also sets the interest rate on Tbills, which is the standard basis for determining lending rates, obviously the lower the rate, then the better the profit margin for any sort of lending activity the banks chose to do)

    I believe you are talking about when the Fed buys treasuries, in which case you are correct they give cash to the government who can spend it however they see fit.  However the government also gets cash from taxes, and other revenue sources.  When I propose alternatives to Fractional reserve banking, I am proposing that we redesign our economy so that money creation can take place without needing the middleman the banks.   I dont' think there is any reason why our system is perfect, in fact I think it is very undemocratic as banks pick and choose who to give money too. Obviously this gives preference towards successful businesses and people, or just as commonly who bankers have relationships with. This creates inequity.  Now there are some very good reasons for doing this, we certainly don't want inflation and we want to promote economic development by rewarding productivity.  However we could consider some alternatives.  In fact if we are serious about combating inequity then I think we have to.  

    One alternative could even be a merging of the Fed with the Government, and money creation could be decided politically maybe as a means of appropriation. I am not as sanguine that that model could work, but it would work in a way that you seem to  advocate.  I would prefer to actually change the structures of our current banks themselves, they are after all our most important public utilities. 


    No matter how money is created, Saladin, some system must exist for picking and choosing whom to give it to, and for determining whether to give it to them outright, or whether to demand some partial or total repayment - or repayment with interest - later on at some point in the future.   This can't all be decided from some central office, but clearly requires a decentralized system with a lot of local decision-makers making decisions on the basis of local conditions.   I would be happy to see us move to a system of public utility banks, or government operated banks, that operate on a non-profit basis.  That would certainly cut the lending costs and interest rates, and also allow for the rapid countercyclical expansion of credit during busts.  A private system cannot lose money indefinitely and remain solvent.  But a public system could choose to lend out more than it receives back, for very extended periods of time, as an aspect of our nation's monetary operations.   That would just be a way of expanding the money supply.

    But I don't thing we can have an effective monetary and financial system - public or private - without having the functional equivalent of banks, and without having the creation of money driven primarily by lending decisions at the local level.

    My point about expanding the powers of the Fed in the way I criticized can be viewed this way.  One thing I would like to see happen is for Congress to move some monetary operational discretion away from the Fed, and give it back to Congress and Treasury.   Congress could require the Fed to credit some fixed annual value of money to special Treasury department accounts at the Fed.  The Treasury could then spend out of those accounts as a purely monetary operation, without funding the spending by taxing and borrowing.  No additional taxes; no additional government debt.   To prevent serious inflation, there would have to be a cap on the amount placed in these accounts.

    What I wouldn't like to see happen is for Congress to give the Fed further discretion to spend the money it creates on the purchase of goods and services in the real economy.  Suppose the Fed were empowered to build a bridge, or open a store, or hire some workers.  That's a very dangerous and anti-democratic move: the agency with the power to create all the money its needs out of thin air would also have been given the power to spend that money on all sorts of things.  That means we are turning over some of the fiscal operations of the government, which are ordinarily under some degree of public control, and moving them over to a hierarchical organization of unelected officials, who make these spending decisions in secret, without direct public input.  Why would a democratic people want to do such a thing?


    Good points all,  I fully agree that democratic institutions should control discretionary spending, there in lies a recipe for disaster. I also agree that we some sort of decentralized system that function as banks. I really think we need to consider the public utlity argument. I would like to see progressives start this discussion.  

    Much to chew on.  Best,


     

    We really do need to get over the notion that "monetary policies are some super-sophisticated and arcane art that can only be made in secret by wizard-bankers." Greenspan should have cured us.

    We also need to remember the Federal Reserve's dual mandate: 

    A) Stable prices (controlling inflation), and

    B) Maximum employment

    It appears that the Fed prioritizes A over B, and it may be true that the Fed has stronger tools for A than B, but it is not powerless.

    For example, the Fed, working with Treasury, has the power to intervene in international financial exchange markets. In other words, it can influence the value of the US dollar against foreign currencies.

    If one believes that our trade deficit is at least as big a problem as our budget deficit, and I do; if one believes that supporting the value of the dollar also supports shipping jobs overseas, and I do; then there is something the Fed can do to change the game.

    Devaluing the dollar won't create manufacturing jobs overnight. It would slow the hemorrhage and create conditions that encourage the return of production to what we so fondly call "The Homeland" these days.

    Or we can wait for the Chinese to do it, on their own terms.


    Thanks, Planet. What I recall Bernanke saying is that the two mandates are considered in separate frames, then examined against each other--or something like that. Anyway, I thought it was a facetious response as there is no question in my mind that price stability is the dominant mandate. 

    By more or less dismissing out of hand the idea of targeting GDP rather than price stability per se, I think Bernanke is also repelling the notion that a little bit of inflation right now would be a good thing.

    A lot of inflation would hurt a lot of people. On the other hand a little bit of inflation might be the best possible remedy for one of the most depressing aspects of our economy, the market value of houses and the attendant "appraisals"--the key to getting a refi, (or in the case of many people, refis.)

    I don't know that the Fed hasn't had a policy of preventing over-valuation of the dollar, but I really don't understand that particular aspect of the Fed's actions. But to your point of intervening in foreign exchange markets, do you think that could be a long term policy? Perhaps it would set a "tone".

    As for manufacturing in the homeland, I know it's dangerous to be positive, but the recent ISM numbers, while dropping overall, had some good "internals"---as the saying goes.


     

    When I was involved in developing and managing real properties I learned that inflation is my friend. Debt service on original purchase price becomes less onerous, over time, with moderate inflation. 

    The loss of real estate value, upside-down homeowners, underwater mortgages, all the things our leaders feel nothing can be done about, would actually be helped by inflation in the ±4% range. Just think, if we'd targeted when things went to hell in 2008, we'd have taken back 12% of lost value by now (of what, 30% lost?).

    I know, that's a real back-of-the-envelope calculations. But that's basically how it works.

    Course, to make it work, it has to be real inflation, with rising wages as well as rising prices — not the steady upward drift of food and energy and steady downward drift of wages that we have now.


    Here's what I think. We must bring manufacturing back to the US, and foreign exchange rates must be part of the policy. So, yes, long term, as well as short, the dollar value is one way to equalize the playing field among nations.

    I, too, am feeling positive these days about manufacturing. In fact, I think we have hell of an opportunity right now to start making gains. 

    But we've missed so many hellaciously good opportunities to fix things since 2008 that I'm not as optimistic as I'd like to be.


    dismissing out of hand the idea of targeting GDP.

    But just think about that statement, Oxy.  When we talk about GDP, whether nominal or real, you are talking about the total level of output in our society.  Where in the world would people have developed this idea that the central bank can "target" the total level of output?  In the end, the Fed is just a a really big bank, a bank for bankers.  Banking policy surely has a significant impact on production and spending in the real economy.   But it doesn't determine production and spending.  So the notion that the Fed should target overall spending seems somewhat strange.   It seems to me that any sane central bankers should decline the suggestion that they re-orient their policy objectives aiming at impossible targets.

    Much of the modern history of the Fed consists in adopting certain targets, and then backing off of these targets once they couldn't hit them.  It was once thought the Fed should target the "money supply" in the country.   Well, there are different ways of defining the money supply.  But it turned out that no matter how the target was defined, the Fed couldn't hit it.  Adopting these targets and backing off of them only confuses people about what the Fed can and can't do.  the same would be true with NGDP.

    Progressive democrats should want a Fed, I believe that plays only a modest, managerial role in our economy, under tight regulatory control, and that leaves the macroeconomic heavy lifting to the political branches.

    One problem with the exchange rate business is that even though it is true that the Treasury department has to work with the Fed to set exchange rates, the determination of exchange rate policy is officially a Treasury matter, and so it is not up to the Fed to start making declarations and setting unilateral policies in the area of the exchange rates.

    Frankly, I think a lot of the recent Fed obsession is just a symptom of frustrated Democrats looking around for a scapegoat to blame for the problems of an evil and incompetent Congress and a failing Presidency.


    Good comments. I've been wanting to get into this whole area of the Fed.

    You probably know that Bernanke was asked about the GDP approach, which had been proffered in a recent prominent editorial, and blew off the suggestion quickly. It seems to me that targeting GDP is somewhat a cover for a policy which eases off the inflation target in favor of unemployment reduction and growth in general without saying so. I would like to have heard a more detailed answer. If he thinks it's a cover for allowing a little more inflation I would hope that he would have said so.

    I agree that Fed obsession by Democrats is a projection of Obama/Geitner failures. But my interest is, I think, a matter of concern that we have an institution that is out of date in its analytical prowess--again, an intuition rather than a researched argument.

    Someone has said that the Fed just isn't good at forecasting. Maybe that is the nature of the beast. So in recessions throw some money out there and hope for the best, and do the opposite after the economy has gained traction faster than anticipated.


    Oxy, FWIW the helicopter drop comment comes from Bernake himself about the importance of fighting deflation. It wasn't about unemployment--an issue he doesn't seem to take seriously--and with global demand for resources causing mild inflation it doesn't seem that we are at risk of deflation any longer. 

    I agree with you that the institutional structure is out of date, but then again what does that mean?  Path dependency means that our international financial system's design is largely set.  I think progressives should still explore it, I strongly disagree with Kervicks contention that it works just fine, or that it is powerless to fight joblessness, it could do much much more.  However it would probably take another collapse or revolution to change the functional design (one is more likely then the other, but both are unfathomable).  

    DK also has great faith in our democratic system that I don't really share (it makes him a pleasure to read though), however I can conceive of multiple ways we could require banks to be focused on regional economies again.  For example we could simply scrap them and use community credit unions instead, or force them to change into community building institutions.  Banks were useful in promoting economic development through rewarding productivity, but I believe that we have moved into a new phase of history where we no longer need to continually increase productivity--we have abundance, and can easily ramp up production of material items if necessary are most pressing needs are in the traditional external factors things like health, education, environmental sustainability. Maybe we should mandate that money is invested into those instead of productivity.  Obviously there are lots of issues here, but I think that progressives should be researching these issues and thinking about it, even while trying to build democracy. 

     


    I don't really have a lot of faith in our democratic system as presently constituted, Saladin.  I just think our efforts should be focused on reforming and fixing our economy and making it more democratic, rather than doing things in our desperation that might make it more authoritarian and elite-governed - such as granting more powers to the Fed.  I would like to see some fairly radical monetary system reforms instead, the bring the monetary powers of the US government back under more direct democratic control.

    But we really have to throw all the bums out of Congress.  The epicenter of our national disaster right now is the US Congress.  That's where it is all melting down.  Until we get a progressive Congress, the United Sates and its democracy are like a chained giant, that can't even make the most simple and obvious uses of its vast powers to pursue the public good.


    I don't know if the Fed is bad at forecasting.  What would make people think so?

    My whole beef in a lot of the recent discussions about the Fed is that there is just massive misunderstanding among even some very well-informed people about the nature and scope of the powers the Fed has.  You constantly hear the argument that because the economy is bad and unemployment is so high, the Fed must be doing something wrong.

    To my mind, this argument is like saying that because some people are hungry, the Church must be doing something wrong, and needs to adjust its loaves and fishes creation target.

    Part of the problem is that some legislators once got the bright idea that they should give the Fed a "mandate" to pursue maximum employment consistent with price stability.  But this is like some lawmaker giving me a mandate to pursue the maximum number of swooning women consistent with my marital vows.   If I try really really hard, maybe I could get one or two females to swoon;  and if I try harder than that, I might run into problems with my marital vows.  But the fact is, I really don't have a lot of power to make women swoon, no matter what kind of damn mandate I am given.  Similarly, the Fed has very little control over the number of people employed in our economy, mandate or no mandate.  In non-recessionary times, it can tweak employment up or down a bit by exerting some cooling or heating.  But in a profound recession, once it has flooded the banking system with reserves and lowered interest rates as low as they can go, they are pretty well tapped out.  Everything else beings suggested - building up bank reserves even further, declaring NGDP "targets" etc. - are mainly desperate gimmicks, attempts to get the economy moving by having Ben Bernanke do a rain dance and hoping that impresses the faithful into action.

    For a really good article on how the modern central banking system actually works, I highly recommend this article by Scott Fullwiler:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658232


    A lot of good comments, and like Saladin says, much to chew on. Thanks for the reference to the Fulwiler article.

    About the dual mandate, it begs the question, "If the Fed didn't have the mandate on employment, what would they do differently?" I think the answer is clearly, "nothing". So much for the mandate. However if we began careening into a double dip or worse, I think the Fed would in fact dream up some tools.

    There had been chatter before the FOMC meeting that QE3 was possible, but in the form of Agency MBS portfolio expansion---whereas at the moment the portfolio is remaining stable with payoffs reinvested. I think the Fed got a little bit of growth improvement news and held off--much to the liking of Fisher and others who had previously dissented.

    I like the concept of banks as more a utility than a gun slinging brokerage or investment banking outfit. On top of that I like the idea of helicopter cash drops when things go sour.

    Anecdotally, at the beginning of Sept the Fed announced a sanction against Goldman Sachs, the first of 14 banks having been reviewed for deceptive mortgage servicing practices. Goldman was ordered to hire a consultant to review practices and the Fed stated monetary penalties were expected. I thought an interesting twist was the suggestion by the Fed that the fines might be directed toward "remediation to borrowers" who suffered injury. Of course, any fines would probably be a pittance, but if there is a transfer of wealth from GS directly to citizens, I would count that as a direct stimulus. But most likely it was Fed P.R.

    I'm headed out for the weekend. To be continued.

     

     


    Solid, solid original post, Oxy. And a great batch of thoughtful, informed comments. For once, I've got nothing to add. Except that this is dagblog as God intended it.


    Just saw this. I appreciate your comments very much.