Tag Archive for Federal Reserve

Personnel Is Policy: Who Donald Trump Could Appoint To The Fed

There is perhaps no better way of summing up the direction of any organization than the phrase: “Personnel is policy.” With regard to government, that means that the people who are put into positions of power indicate the direction of actual policy more clearly than the President’s statements. President Ronald Reagan’s tenure was a good example of this. Despite his many public statements in favor of gold, his appointments to key positions and in particular to the Gold Commission were people who undermined his publicly-stated positions. Whether he was aware of this or not is up for debate, especially as we now know of his battle with Alzheimer’s.

That is the danger that might face the current Trump Administration where, despite his many public statements favorable to the gold standard, President Trump may end up appointing officials who hold exactly the opposite view as he does. This is particularly important now that news outlets have been reporting this week that President Trump is set to appoint Randal Quarles to the Federal Reserve Board as Vice Chairman of Regulation. Mr. Quarles’ biography is as establishment as it comes. He received his A.B. from Columbia University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He worked at the Carlyle Group, a leading private equity firm whose close political connections to former senior Administration officials are legendary. His wife is Hope Eccles, grand-niece of Marriner Eccles, the Federal Reserve Board’s Chairman from 1934-1948, after whom the Fed’s headquarters building is named. Mr. Quarles also served as Under Secretary of the US Treasury, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, US Executive Director of the IMF, US Executive Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, etc. Doesn’t exactly sound like a guy who is about to shake things up, right?

While his nomination isn’t official yet, let’s look at some other possible candidates President Trump might appoint to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. We’ve split them into four categories.

1. The Dream Team – those candidates who would be the best possible from the perspective of those of us favoring sound monetary policy.

2. Establishment Favorites – the favorite candidates of the Establishment, or those already under consideration by the Administration.

3. The Compromise Candidates – these candidates are all former Presidents of regional Federal Reserve Banks. While they wouldn’t be the first choices of either the Establishment or of advocates of sound monetary policy, sending former regional Fed Presidents to serve on the Board might send a message to the Board to take into account not just the views of the Washington/New York financial-political elites.

4. The Dark Horses – while perfectly qualified for serving on the Board, these candidates are probably not as well known to the general public, and even to most policymakers, as some of the others.

Remember, President Trump will have at least four appointments to make in his first term, maybe even five if Chairman Yellen resigns her seat after her chairmanship is up, so his decisions on appointments could have a strong impact on the conduct of monetary policy going forward.

Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors

With the announcement earlier this week that Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Daniel Tarullo will resign effective April 5, 2017, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will likely find itself in a highly unusual situation come April, one in which the regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents on the FOMC outnumber the members of the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has been operating with two vacancies for several years, following the resignations of Jeremy Stein and Sarah Bloom Raskin in 2014, and Tarullo’s resignation will bring that to three open positions.

Let’s recall the structure of the Fed’s Board of Governors. Each of the seven governors is appointed to a 14-year term, with each term beginning on February 1st in an even-numbered year every two years and expiring 14 years later on January 31st. So a new term began on February 1, 2016, another will begin on February 1, 2018, another on February 1, 2020, etc. The two current open terms are the one that began in 2016 and the one that will begin in 2018. Tarullo’s term expires January 31, 2022. A governor appointed to a full term may not be reappointed, but a governor appointed to fill the remainder of an unexpired term may be reappointed for another full term.

The two current openings mean that President Trump could appoint someone to the current unexpired term that expires January 31, 2018, then reappoint that person to a full term that expires January 31, 2032. He could also appoint someone to the unexpired term that began February 1, 2016 that expires January 31, 2030, and that person could then be reappointed in 2030 until 2044. With Tarullo’s resignation, he could appoint someone to fill that unexpired term and, if he wins re-election in 2020, reappoint that person to serve until 2036. Finally, Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer’s term expires January 31, 2020, giving President Trump a fourth appointment opportunity until 2034. And, since Chairman Janet Yellen’s term as chairman expires in 2018 (her Board position expires in 2024), President Trump will also get to pick a new chairman next year.

The Bullard Flip Flop Continues

Coming in at the end of Friday, we have a little flashback to our article about St. Louis Fed President James Bullard and his penchant for constantly changing his views on the proper course for monetary policy. At the time we published the article, Bullard was in his hawkish phase, but he subsequently went back to being a dove, stated that the US economy only needed one rate hike through 2018. Now he is back to aligning himself with the hawks, stating that another rate hike next year would be appropriate, as would beginning to allow the Fed’s balance sheet to shrink. Perhaps that is why the FOMC can’t seem to make up its mind on what it wants to do, its members keep changing their opinions on what’s happening and what they should (or shouldn’t) do about it. As we wrote back in March:

At the end of the day, decisions on monetary policy are ultimately a judgement call, made with the same level of thought that might be given to where to hold the office Christmas party. The value of the dollar, the standard of living of the American people, and the health and well-being of money and banking in the United States are placed in the hands of a tiny group of people. It is a recipe for failure and disaster. Far better to leave everything to the workings of the market, where the choices of millions work together for mutual betterment and to outweigh the efforts of would-be tyrants, than to trust in the capricious and flighty fancies of our modern-day mandarins.

The Carl Menger Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Please consider supporting us with a tax-deductible donation.

Takeaways From The FOMC Meeting

As expected, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised its target federal funds rate to 0.50-0.75%. There wasn’t much substantive change in the language of the statement. Economic activity was judged to be expanding at a moderate pace, with a declining unemployment rate. Measures of inflation were said to have “moved up considerably” but still remain low, which seems to be contradictory. All FOMC members voted in favor of raising the target federal funds rate at this meeting.

Looking forward to 2017, some media reports have touted that the Fed’s “dot plots” point to the potential for three rate hikes in 2017. That possibility has a few things working against it. First, the Fed is watching closely to see what other central banks are doing. If the European Central Bank, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan maintain loose monetary policy, the Fed will find it tough to raise rates unilaterally. Secondly, the FOMC membership is switching up again as it does every year. For those who are unfamiliar, here’s the Federal Reserve’s description of the FOMC:

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.

Next year the four Federal Reserve Bank Presidents rotating onto the FOMC are: Charles Evans of Chicago, who has a dovish reputation; and Patrick Harker of Philadelphia, Robert Kaplan of Dallas, and Neel Kashkari of Minneapolis, all of whom are recently-hired and will be voting on the FOMC for the first time. Dallas and Philadelphia have reputations for being more hawkish, but it remains to be seen whether the new Presidents will maintain that reputation.

What the Federal Reserve Will Do This Week

Just about everyone expects the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to raise its target interest rate at its meeting this week. The talk of raising rates has occupied newspaper columns all year, and the comments from FOMC participants have become stronger in recent months in discussing their desire to raise rates. But the decision to raise rates won’t have come about because of any strong economic data, be it inflation hovering around the Fed’s target or the low unemployment rate showing strength in the labor market. Labor market activity has been relatively steady all year and there haven’t been any surprisingly strong signs of economic growth, so why the green light now? Because the European Central Bank (ECB) announced at its meeting last week that it would extend but taper its bond purchases.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, one central bank after another engaged in quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve, Bank of England, ECB, and Bank of Japan all engaged in large-scale asset purchases in attempts to drive down interest rates, remove overvalued assets from bank balance sheets, and attempt to jump-start their economies. Various interest rate targets were driven to near-zero, and even negative in Japan and Europe. Central bankers eventually realized that they couldn’t maintain those levels of policy accommodation indefinitely. But no one wanted to be the first one to start tightening. The fear was that if a central bank began to tighten policy while other central banks didn’t, the first country’s tighter policies would cause its economy to slow down, harming its relative position vis-a-vis other major countries. No central bank wanted to take the blame for weakening its country’s economy. So month after month, meeting after meeting, central banks just held pat.

To Really “Make America Great Again,” End the Fed!

To Really “Make America Great Again,” End the Fed!
By Ron Paul

Former Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher recently gave a speech identifying the Federal Reserve’s easy money/low interest rate policies as a source of the public anger that propelled Donald Trump into the White House. Mr. Fisher is certainly correct that the Fed’s policies have “skewered” the middle class. However, the problem is not specific Fed policies, but the very system of fiat currency managed by a secretive central bank.

Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality. This is because, when the Fed acts to increase the money supply, well-to-do investors and other crony capitalists are the first recipients of the new money. These economic elites enjoy an increase in purchasing power before the Fed’s inflationary policies lead to mass price increases. This gives them a boost in their standard of living.

By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases.

Some Fed defenders claim that inflation doesn’t negatively affect anyone’s standard of living because price increases are matched by wage increases. This claim ignores the fact that the effects of the Fed’s actions depend on how individuals react to the Fed’s actions.

Historically, an increase in money supply does not just cause a general rise in prices. It also causes money to flow into specific sectors, creating a bubble that provides investors and workers in those areas a (temporary) increase in their incomes. Meanwhile, workers and investors in sectors not affected by the Fed-generated boom will still see a decline in their purchasing power and thus their standard of living.

Adoption of a “rules-based” monetary policy will not eliminate the problem of Fed-created bubbles, booms, and busts, since Congress cannot set a rule dictating how individuals react to Fed policies. The only way to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycle is to remove the Fed’s power to increase the money supply and manipulate interest rates.

Because the Fed’s actions distort the view of economic conditions among investors, businesses, and workers, the booms created by the Fed are unsustainable. Eventually reality sets in, the bubble bursts, and the economy falls into recession.

When the crash occurs the best thing for Congress and the Fed to do is allow the recession to run its course. Recessions are the economy’s way of cleaning out the Fed-created distortions. Of course, Congress and the Fed refuse to do that. Instead, they begin the whole business cycle over again with another round of money creation, increased stimulus spending, and corporate bailouts.

Some progressive economists acknowledge how the Fed causes economic inequality and harms average Americans. These progressives support perpetual low interest rates and money creation. These so-called working class champions ignore how the very act of money creation causes economic inequality. Longer periods of easy money also mean longer, and more painful, recessions.

President-elect Donald Trump has acknowledged that, while his business benefits from lower interest rates, the Fed’s policies hurt most Americans. During the campaign, Mr. Trump also promised to make audit the fed part of his first 100 days agenda. Unfortunately, since the election, President-elect Trump has not made any statements regarding monetary policy or the audit the fed legislation. Those of us who understand that changing monetary policy is the key to making America great again must redouble our efforts to convince Congress and the new president to audit, then end, the Federal Reserve.

This article originally appeared on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Fed Holds Rates Steady: Setting Up for December Hike?

In an unsurprising decision, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided today once again to keep its target federal funds rate steady at 0.25-0.50%. It was widely speculated that the FOMC would hold rates steady at today’s meeting due to concerns about influencing next week’s Presidential election. Expectations now are that the Fed, if it decides to raise rates, will do so at next month’s FOMC meeting.

There were no significant changes in the language of the statement from September’s meeting. Household spending was described as “rising moderately” rather than growing strongly, price inflation and measures of inflation expectations have risen but still remain lower than what the Fed would like to see, and the case for raising rates has continued to strengthen. Voting against today’s action were Esther George from Kansas City and Loretta Mester from Cleveland, both of whom wanted to raise the target federal funds rate to 0.50-0.75%. Eric Rosengren, who voted against September’s FOMC action, switched this month to supporting the most recent FOMC action.

It remains to be seen when the Fed might raise rates, as it seems that central banks are waiting to see what the other central banks are going to do before they make their own decision. The Fed, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, and others are playing a game of chicken. They are like cars heading full-speed towards a volcanic crater, soon to plunge into the chasm and assured of destruction. Yet none of them want to be the first to hike rates. That would be tantamount to admitting error, or at least admitting defeat, and would be a tremendous blow to their pride. And so meeting after meeting we see central bank after central bank holding steady.

Some of them like to talk a good game, jawboning markets into thinking that more easing might be on the way (BOJ, ECB) or that rate hikes are just around the corner (Federal Reserve), but they never back up their tough talk with action. Watching central banks nowadays is like watching a game of poker in which each player has a horrible hand, tries to bluff, and is unwilling to show his hand. And so it goes again today. Even if the Fed were to raise rates next month, it would likely only be to 0.50-0.75%, still an abnormally low figure. Given that the Fed spent all year talking about raising rates and not doing anything, it would be safe to say that rates won’t even approach 1% until December of 2017. Don’t expect full “normalization” to be reached until 2020 at the earliest, assuming the economy doesn’t go down the toilet before then, which is very likely given the huge asset bubbles that easy money policies have inflated all across the world.

Ron Paul: Wells Fargo or the Federal Reserve – Who’s the Bigger Fraud?

The Wells Fargo bank account scandal took center stage in the news last week and in all likelihood will continue to make headlines for many weeks to come. What Wells Fargo employees did in opening bank accounts without customers’ authorization was obviously wrong, but in true Washington fashion the scandal is being used to deflect attention away from larger, more enduring, and more important scandals.

What Wells Fargo employees who opened these accounts engaged in was nothing more than fraud and theft, and they should be punished accordingly. But how much larger is the fraud perpetrated by the Federal Reserve System and why does the Fed continue to go unpunished? For over 100 years the Federal Reserve System has been devaluing the dollar, siphoning money from the wallets of savers into the pockets of debtors. Where is the outrage? Where are the hearings? Why isn’t Congress up in arms about the Fed’s malfeasance? It reminds me of the story of the pirate confronting Alexander the Great. When accused by Alexander of piracy, he replies “Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor.”

Over two thousand years later, not much has changed. Wells Fargo will face more scrutiny and perhaps more punishment. There will undoubtedly be more calls for stricter regulation, notwithstanding the fact that regulators failed to detect this fraud, just as they have failed to detect every fraud and financial crisis in history. And who will suffer? Why, the average account-holder of course.