Greg Ip

The original article is linked here.

GREG IP

An academic background stood the chairman of the Federal Reserve in good stead during his first term. Political skills may be more important in his second

AP

AS THE financial crisis gathered force in August 2007, Jim Cramer, a hyperbolic market commentator on cable television, hurled the worst epithet he could muster at the chairman of the Federal Reserve: “Bernanke is being an academic. It is no time to be an academic!” By August 25th this year, when Barack Obama nominated Ben Bernanke to a second, four-year term, what had once been an epithet had become a source of strength. Read the rest of this entry »

 The original story is linked here.

The simple rules by which central banks lived have crumbled. A messier, more political future awaits

Illustration by Derek Bacon

IN THE world that existed before the financial crisis, central bankers were triumphant. They had defeated inflation and tamed the business cycle. And they had developed a powerful intellectual consensus on how to do their job, summarised recently by David Blanchflower, a member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, as “one tool, one target”. The tool was the short-term interest rate, the target was price stability.

This minimalist formula fitted the laissez-faire temper of the times. A growing array of financial markets could price risk and allocate credit efficiently. Central bankers had merely to calibrate their interest-rate tools and all other markets would automatically adjust. Central banks still cared about financial stability and full employment, but could argue these were best served by stabilising prices—without, if you please, interference from politicians.

The financial crisis has upended all that. Read the rest of this entry »

The original story is linked here.

Mar 19th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Today’s fattened central-bank balance-sheets evoke fears of inflation. Deflation is the bigger worry

BACK in 2002 Ben Bernanke, then still a Federal Reserve governor, declared that “under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.” That does not mean it is easy.

On March 18th America’s inflation rate was reported at 0.2%, year on year, in February. The same day the Fed said “inflation could persist for a time” at uncomfortably low levels. Yet some economists and investors insist high inflation, even hyperinflation, is lurking in the wings. They have two sources of concern. The first is motive: the world is deleveraging, ie, trying to reduce the ratio of its debts to income. Policymakers might secretly prefer to do that through higher inflation, which lifts nominal incomes, than through the painful processes of cutting spending and retiring debt, or default. The second is captured by the Fed’s announcement that it plans to purchase $300 billion in Treasury bonds and an additional $850 billion of mortgage-related debt, bringing such purchases to $1.75 trillion in total, all paid for by printing money. It is not alone: around the world, central-bank balance-sheets have ballooned (see chart).

This is scary stuff to those who swear by Milton Friedman’s dictum that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” But the role of the money supply in creating inflation is less obvious than monetarism suggests.

The quantity theory of money holds that the money supply, multiplied by the rate at which it circulates (called velocity), equals nominal income. Nominal income in turn is the product of real output and prices. But does money supply directly boost nominal income, or does nominal income affect velocity and the demand for money? The mechanism is murky. Read the rest of this entry »