State, national columnists

Good riddance to Bernanke’s tight-money policies

By From page A8 | February 03, 2014

The Wall Street Journal is on the hard-money side of the debate over recent monetary policy. But its editorial on the departure of Ben S. Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve articulated a conventional wisdom that transcends that debate.

The consensus assessment is that the Fed under Bernanke’s leadership kept interest rates too low during the boom years of the last decade, which contributed to the financial crisis, but when the crisis hit, the Fed’s heroic efforts staved off a reprise of the Great Depression. The Journal allows that time will tell about the post-crisis policies, but expresses skepticism.

There’s another view of the Fed’s role in the crisis, though, that has been voiced by economists such as Scott Sumner of Bentley University, David Beckworth of Western Kentucky University and Robert Hetzel of the Richmond Fed. They dissent from the prevailing view that the Fed has been extremely loose since the crisis hit. Instead, they argue that the Fed has actually been extremely tight, and that when its performance during the crisis is measured against the proper yardstick, the central bank emerges as the chief villain of the story.

In the second half of 2008, housing prices, many commodity prices, inflation expectations and stocks all suggested deflation was coming. Fed officials, though, kept talking about backward-looking measures of inflation that made it look high. Their hawkish pronouncements effectively tightened monetary policy by shaping market expectations about its future direction. In August 2008, the Fed minutes explicitly said to expect tighter money. Even after Lehman Brothers Holdings collapsed the following month, the Fed refused to cut rates and fretted about inflation (which didn’t arrive). A few weeks later, the Fed decided to pay banks interest on excess reserves, a contractionary move. Only then did it cut interest rates.

During the years of the “Great Moderation,” nominal spending (the size of the economy, measured without adjusting for inflation) had grown at a fairly steady rate. During the crisis, the Fed provided no indication that it would exert itself to continue that trend – and nominal spending started to fall at the fastest rate since the Great Depression. Lower expectations of future spending and income made for lower asset prices and higher debt burdens, adding to bank losses and making households less likely to consume and businesses less likely to invest. Another way of putting it is that the Fed increased the monetary base by enough to offset the financial industry’s troubles, but not by enough to offset the decline in velocity.

Bernanke’s Fed could certainly have done worse. It wasn’t as tight as the Depression-era Fed, or as the European Central Bank. But its mistakes made the crisis much worse and the recovery much more sluggish than it could have been. Bernanke doesn’t deserve all the blame for this performance – he may have been constrained by his colleagues or by the overall political environment – but he hasn’t acknowledged what the Fed got wrong, and neither have most of the pundits commenting on his legacy.

This analysis, again, is far from the conventional wisdom. But there is a precedent for that. In the early 1930s, many people worried that the Fed was being too loose, and only decades later did it become clear to almost everyone that it had really been too tight. Eventually, we may revise our view of the Bernanke era in the same way.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor at National Review.

Ramesh Ponnuru


Discussion | 2 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • The MisterFebruary 03, 2014 - 7:07 am

    How about good riddance to the for-profit, privately-owned, central bank mill-stone that has been around our collective necks for the past 100 years. (But no... most people love being a slave. Do you remember the Grace Commission found that not one nickel of your personal income tax goes to anything... not roads, not bridges, not the military... except to pay interest on the debt... most of it which is held by the Federal Reserve. In effect, ALL of the money you send to the IRS this April goes to the for-profit, privately-owned Federal Reserve. But you love being a slave, don't you!)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 05, 2014 - 12:17 pm

    As discussed, it's 20%. I love that line too, but it's just not true and if you sucker people in using a falsehood, they will leave just as soon as they find out the truth. Stick with telling the truth about the Federal Reserve, it's just as bad. Fed funds rates rose quickly during 2005-6 cutting off potential home purchasers and popping the real estate bubble. They then reduced rates, too little, too late. Gee, just like in 1929 and the stock market bubble.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.