The Fed leadership is asking to be sacked

A James Alexander post

A very long and rambling interview with John Williams, Governor of the SF Fed and a current voting member of the FOMC, highlighted one crucial feature of Fed monetary policy.

“The argument that we should wait until we reach 2% inflation before we start raising interest rates, I don’t agree with that. If we waited until inflation was 2%, unemployment by that point would be probably down to low 4s or something. We would be behind the curve and we would need to tighten monetary policy at that point very rapidly.”

Thus the 2% inflation target is very much a hard ceiling. Any move up towards anywhere near 2% will be met by a very rapid raising of interest rates, especially when unemployment is low.

This threat of massive retaliatory action guarantees that nominal growth will remain highly constrained. This is because the market treats such strong language with a high degree of credibility. Investment and spending decisions will be put off. Expected nominal growth of no more than 3%, made up of 1% or so inflation and 2% or so real is not worth businesses chasing after. Better to throttle back and live within existing means.

There will still be winners with business growth, ie sales and revenue growth, of 5% or more. But the iron logic of 3% or lower, economy-wide, nominal growth means just as many businesses will have sales growth of zero or lower. And they won’t feel good due to downwardly sticky wages and prices. Look at the big retailers, for instance.

Lay on top of this overall subdued outcome any potential or actual negative shocks, like China now or the EuroZone in the recent past, and the downside to even 3% nominal growth increases. And businesses will recognise this and act accordingly.

Williams reluctantly recognises the rise in these downside risks over recent months.

“My interest and my focus is trying to understand, has China’s growth outlook slowed significantly? Is there real information about what’s happening in Asia? Is there real information about any economic or other developments that then feed into my view on the forecast for employment, inflation in the U.S., and obviously the risks around those forecasts?”

But what Williams can’t see is that the potentially damaging effects of these threats are directly increased by his and the Fed’s own hypersensitivity around any moves in inflation towards 2%. The threat of the Fed yielding its rates sledgehammer to crack a low but rising inflationary nut is very scary, and totally counter-productive.

This is just like Japan over the last two decades, until recently. And leads the U.S. directly to the same sort of self-induced low growth trap.

Strong leadership at the Fed is needed to break this psychology. The evidence from Japan is that central banks are totally incapable of generating this change internally. It needed outside political leadership to do it in the form the new Prime Minister, Mr Abe, sacking the head of the Bank of Japan and appointing his own man. Step forward Mr Trump? Or Mr Sanders?


5 thoughts on “The Fed leadership is asking to be sacked

  1. Hitting the target is “behind the curve” that requires tightening very rapidly? 2% inflation is just god awful. He must look back at the latter half of the 1980’s and 1990’s as an inflation apocalypse. And of course that’s just ridiculous. How many more careers of sacrifice ratio have to be ruined before this insanity ends?

    • By the way, if I thought Trump would go to the Fed and knock some heads together as he does so well to get them to lighten up, it might be worth the tradeoff. Though, I would still have to hold my nose in the voting booth.

      • I don’t know what Trump would actually do if he got into power. All I know is that it takes populist politicians with thick skins and outside the Washington/central bank groupthink to create real change. Sadly, not all change is good.

  2. I might be on the outside here, but I really don’t care what they’re targeting as long as the target is clear. If it’s 3% nominal growth and everyone knows it, I am fine with that. Would we have more negative growth years in that scenario? Of course, but what’s the difference between a -1% year when you are expecting a +3% and a 3% year when you’re expecting a 7%? The only difference would be psychological. The bigger issue here is the inconsistency between their stated target and their actions. The Fed is forcing the market to guesstimate their policy. It’s horrific.

    • I see what you are getting at with the need for a clear target and how expectations would help smooth shocks. But I think an occasional -1% NGDP growth on a 3% known target would lead to much worse real outcomes than an occasional 3% NGDP growth on a 7% known target. This is due to money illusion and the negative real impact of sticky prices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.