Commentary Magazine


Topic: Federal Reserve

Rand Paul Can’t Have Best of Both Worlds

Rand Paul is on the stump in Iowa this week and, according to the Wall Street Journal, he’s beating the bushes seeking to mobilize his father’s libertarian base to support his own 2016 presidential hopes. That’s smart politics for the Kentucky senator, who knows that if he can hold onto the 2012 Paulbots who turned out for his father Ron and add on to them a significant percentage of Tea Partiers and other Republican voters not attracted to other candidates, he can create a coalition that will vault him into the first tier of GOP candidates and give him an outside–but by no means insignificant–chance to win his party’s presidential nomination. But his attempt to make gestures toward what the New York Times refers to as the “middle” of the party while simultaneously winking at libertarians is telling us more about the contradiction at the heart of the Paul candidacy than about its viability.

Read More

Rand Paul is on the stump in Iowa this week and, according to the Wall Street Journal, he’s beating the bushes seeking to mobilize his father’s libertarian base to support his own 2016 presidential hopes. That’s smart politics for the Kentucky senator, who knows that if he can hold onto the 2012 Paulbots who turned out for his father Ron and add on to them a significant percentage of Tea Partiers and other Republican voters not attracted to other candidates, he can create a coalition that will vault him into the first tier of GOP candidates and give him an outside–but by no means insignificant–chance to win his party’s presidential nomination. But his attempt to make gestures toward what the New York Times refers to as the “middle” of the party while simultaneously winking at libertarians is telling us more about the contradiction at the heart of the Paul candidacy than about its viability.

As I wrote last week, Paul’s stand on vaccination revealed the main obstacle to his hopes for a libertarian coup that would topple his party’s establishment. Though he was at pains to try and show that he was personally supportive of vaccination, his rhetoric about choice and intrusive government was not just a wink in the direction of the activists who enabled his father to make respectable showings in both 2008 and especially in 2012. It was an indication that his core political philosophy remained deeply influenced by his father’s extreme libertarianism.

The same is true of his speeches this week about the need to reform the Federal Reserve and to change America’s approach to foreign policy to one less engaged in struggles overseas.

Though many Republicans are not unsympathetic to hostile rhetoric about the fed or even Ron Paul’s obsession about the Gold Standard, reviving these issues are about ginning up libertarian enthusiasm, not winning over non-libertarian conservatives. The same is true for Paul’s sounding the note of retreat from conflict in the Middle East.

In 2013 the supposed end of America’s long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the fading of terrorism as an issue seemed to present a golden opportunity for Paul to mainstream his neo-isolationist foreign-policy views. Calling himself a “realist” in the mode of the first President Bush, the senator believed disillusionment with George W. Bush’s wars and suspicion about the Obama administration’s continuance of much of that last Republican president’s national-security policies would enable him to rout the establishment that had disposed of his father’s challenges with ease.

But the notion that Republicans were ever to going to embrace a foreign-policy mindset that was actually closer to that of Obama than traditional GOP stands about a strong America was always something of an illusion. The rise of ISIS as a result of Obama’s decisions to abandon America’s foreign responsibilities jolted the nation back into reality. Though most do not want another land war in Syria and Iraq, there is a growing consensus, especially among Republicans, that the current crisis is a result of a failure of leadership and vision.

Conservatives are angry about having a president who reacts to terrorist atrocities with talk about moral equivalence to the West’s past. Obama’s failure is not merely tactical as the U.S. continues to struggle to come up with a war-winning strategy for dealing with ISIS and dabbles in appeasement of Iran. It’s that he can’t articulate American values in a coherent way so as to rally the country to the task of defeating these barbarians.

Paul has his virtues, but on this point he is particularly deficient. Since his views on foreign policy reflect Obama’s lack of conviction in the rightness of America’s cause abroad, he is in no position to make a coherent critique of the administration. While other Republicans seek to provide an alternative that speaks to this glaring problem, Paul is wandering the countryside in Iowa talking about what the Journal describes as a “less bellicose” foreign policy and seeking to make it harder for U.S. intelligence to seek out terrorists, not exactly the message most people want to hear when Islamist murderers are burning people alive and beheading American hostages.

That is exactly what Ron Paul’s supporters, many of whom haven’t been too happy with Rand’s tiptoeing toward the center in the last two years, want to hear. Ron Paul’s views are, of course, far more extreme than those of his son. Paul famously greeted the Republican victory in the midterms that his son worked so hard to help achieve by warning that it would mean more “neocon” wars. But while Ron Paul’s vision of American foreign policy is a carbon copy of what might be heard on the far left and is the sort of thing that got his supporters out to the polls, such ideas are anathema to the rest of the party.

The same is true of vaccination. For libertarians, the senator’s talk of making childhood vaccinations voluntary is catnip. But for the mainstream of his party, let alone the rest of the country, this is ideological extremism that is doing real damage to public health policy.

Paul thought he could romance mainstream Republicans while holding onto his father’s backers. That may have seemed like a viable plan in 2013. The political realities of 2015 have turned it into a fantasy and made his hopes for 2016 seem much more like a long shot than he may have thought. The contradiction at the core of his candidacy is proving too great for him to resolve.

Read Less

Janet Yellen

President Obama is nominating Janet Yellen for the post of chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, perhaps the world’s most powerful financial position.

The media, with its obsession with firsts for minorities, will doubtless make a big deal of her being the first female chairman (women actually make up a majority of Americans, but never mind that).

More to the point, she is spectacularly well-qualified for the job. She graduated, summa cum laude, from Brown with a degree in economics and got her Ph.D. in the subject from Yale four years later. She has been an economics professor at both Harvard and Berkeley, worked as an economist in the division of international finance at the Fed, served as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton (and at the same time was chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), been a Federal Reserve governor, served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and been vice chairman of the Fed for the last three years. Oh, one more thing, her husband, George Akerlof, won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001.

Read More

President Obama is nominating Janet Yellen for the post of chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, perhaps the world’s most powerful financial position.

The media, with its obsession with firsts for minorities, will doubtless make a big deal of her being the first female chairman (women actually make up a majority of Americans, but never mind that).

More to the point, she is spectacularly well-qualified for the job. She graduated, summa cum laude, from Brown with a degree in economics and got her Ph.D. in the subject from Yale four years later. She has been an economics professor at both Harvard and Berkeley, worked as an economist in the division of international finance at the Fed, served as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton (and at the same time was chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), been a Federal Reserve governor, served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and been vice chairman of the Fed for the last three years. Oh, one more thing, her husband, George Akerlof, won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001.

But, of course, résumés aren’t everything. The Federal Reserve’s most important job is to maintain the value of the dollar while keeping unemployment low. Those are often contradictory goals and the political pressures from sound-money advocates on one side and easy-money advocates on the other can be intense. Janet Yellen has a reputation for favoring soft-money policies and low interest rates. Rates have been very low in recent years to spur recovery from the recession, but at some point the Fed will have to begin to tighten or inflation will explode. It will also have to begin pulling back in some of the trillions of dollars it has created in recent years. It has recently been buying $45 billion in federal bonds and mortgage-backed securities a month, paying for them with newly-minted dollars.

Also, she will have to convince the other members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee to follow her lead. The Open Market Committee consists of the seven members of the Board of Governors plus the presidents of five of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. One seat is reserved for the president of the New York Fed, the other four rotate among the 11 other banks. It is the main decision-making body at the Fed. The chairman must get its agreement to act.

Barring some unexpected development, she will win Senate confirmation, probably losing only a few Republican votes. Then the tough part begins. I do not envy her.

Read Less

The Fed Stands Pat on the Stimulus

In a bit of a surprise, the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee voted 11-1 to continue its program of buying $85 billion worth of federal and mortgage bonds in order to continue stimulating the economy. It had announced in June that it would begin cutting back on these purchases by the end of the year and many expected it to begin doing so today. 

Both Paul Krugman who wrote earlier this week, “Memo to the Fed: Please don’t do it” and the financial markets, which love low interest rates, are happy. The S&P 500 index hit a new high on the news.

By buying these bonds, the Fed is, in effect, creating money, almost $1 trillion a year in new money. Since the financial meltdown in 2008, the Fed has created many trillions of dollars trying to stabilize the economy and then revive it. At some point it will have to begin to reduce and then reverse its bond purchases and get that money back into its capacious vaults lest a virulent inflation break out.

Read More

In a bit of a surprise, the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee voted 11-1 to continue its program of buying $85 billion worth of federal and mortgage bonds in order to continue stimulating the economy. It had announced in June that it would begin cutting back on these purchases by the end of the year and many expected it to begin doing so today. 

Both Paul Krugman who wrote earlier this week, “Memo to the Fed: Please don’t do it” and the financial markets, which love low interest rates, are happy. The S&P 500 index hit a new high on the news.

By buying these bonds, the Fed is, in effect, creating money, almost $1 trillion a year in new money. Since the financial meltdown in 2008, the Fed has created many trillions of dollars trying to stabilize the economy and then revive it. At some point it will have to begin to reduce and then reverse its bond purchases and get that money back into its capacious vaults lest a virulent inflation break out.

The timing will be tricky, to put it mildly. Too quickly and it could throw the economy back into recession. Too slowly and we could be back to the 1970’s, with double-digit inflation.

Let’s hope they get it right.

Read Less

Get Ready for Obama’s Great Recession

As John Steele Gordon rightly points out, Ben Bernanke’s latest attempt to bail out a failing economy by manipulating interest rates isn’t likely to be met with any more success than his first two tries. Some Democrats may think the Federal Reserve’s decision to print more money will inflate the economy enough to get President Obama re-elected. The assumption is that it will cause a rise in the stock market that will be interpreted as a sign that the recovery has finally succeeded. However, the result of another dose of inflationary economics, compounded by growing debt, unemployment and less than 2 percent growth may be another recession that will come on the heels of the current anemic recovery.

The constant refrain coming from the administration and its defenders has been that a change of course away from the president’s reliance on trying to spend our way out of the economic ditch would be a return to the failed Republican policies of the past that created the problem in the first place. But as James Pethokoukis writes at the American Enterprise Institute blog, it is cheap money and too much debt that caused the so-called Great Recession that the president inherits. That recession ended in the summer of 2009. It was followed by a recovery for which the president once took credit. But the feeble nature of that revival is something he still blames on his predecessor. Thanks to the continuation of the spending and debt binge that took place over the last four years, the country may soon be faced with another Great Recession no matter who wins in November. But it is not likely that most Americans will be willing to blame that one on George W. Bush.

Read More

As John Steele Gordon rightly points out, Ben Bernanke’s latest attempt to bail out a failing economy by manipulating interest rates isn’t likely to be met with any more success than his first two tries. Some Democrats may think the Federal Reserve’s decision to print more money will inflate the economy enough to get President Obama re-elected. The assumption is that it will cause a rise in the stock market that will be interpreted as a sign that the recovery has finally succeeded. However, the result of another dose of inflationary economics, compounded by growing debt, unemployment and less than 2 percent growth may be another recession that will come on the heels of the current anemic recovery.

The constant refrain coming from the administration and its defenders has been that a change of course away from the president’s reliance on trying to spend our way out of the economic ditch would be a return to the failed Republican policies of the past that created the problem in the first place. But as James Pethokoukis writes at the American Enterprise Institute blog, it is cheap money and too much debt that caused the so-called Great Recession that the president inherits. That recession ended in the summer of 2009. It was followed by a recovery for which the president once took credit. But the feeble nature of that revival is something he still blames on his predecessor. Thanks to the continuation of the spending and debt binge that took place over the last four years, the country may soon be faced with another Great Recession no matter who wins in November. But it is not likely that most Americans will be willing to blame that one on George W. Bush.

Bernanke’s third chorus of interest rate cuts is a last-ditch attempt to save Obama’s recovery. But we may look back on it next year as the moment when the next Great Recession became inevitable. In the long run, only a program that aims to reform our out-of-control spending, tax cuts to fuel real economic growth and to create wealth, and sound money policies from the Fed will create a genuine recovery.

But a steady diet of more spending, debt and cheap money has set the stage for a transition from a weak recovery to another collapse. Indeed, the bad employment numbers show that the recovery never reached some sectors of the economy or the army of unemployed Americans. That means that for many Americans the downturn we may have to face next year will feel more like the tail end of a double dip recession than a fresh downturn.

President Obama is hoping Bernanke’s latest stunt will give him the boost he needs to stay ahead of Mitt Romney in the final weeks of the campaign. But the long-term impact of the Fed chairman’s QE3 may merely pave the path for a poor economy that will make a second term a misery for both Obama and the American people.

Read Less

Bernanke’s Hammer

It’s an old saying that if your only tool is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has now decided to take a third whack at unemployment by another round of “quantitative easing,” using “open market operations” to manipulate interest rates.

In March 2009, the Fed launched a $1.25 trillion program to buy up mortgage backed securities in hopes of jump-starting the economy. This massive injection of liquidity into the economy certainly helped the stock market (which bottomed that month) and stabilized the economy. The second bout of qualitative easing, however, in November 2010, when the Fed began buying $600 billion in treasuries, had far less effect. Will this one help? The promise to buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities a month for the indeterminate future has already sent stocks soaring around the world, but anything that tends to lower interest rates and increase the money supply sends investors out of bonds and dollars and into commodities and stocks. The theory is that higher stock prices will have a “wealth effect,” making people think they’re richer and therefore more willing to spend money. But since the move is likely to make commodities costs more (both oil and gold rose yesterday) it’s at best doubtful that it will work.

Read More

It’s an old saying that if your only tool is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has now decided to take a third whack at unemployment by another round of “quantitative easing,” using “open market operations” to manipulate interest rates.

In March 2009, the Fed launched a $1.25 trillion program to buy up mortgage backed securities in hopes of jump-starting the economy. This massive injection of liquidity into the economy certainly helped the stock market (which bottomed that month) and stabilized the economy. The second bout of qualitative easing, however, in November 2010, when the Fed began buying $600 billion in treasuries, had far less effect. Will this one help? The promise to buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities a month for the indeterminate future has already sent stocks soaring around the world, but anything that tends to lower interest rates and increase the money supply sends investors out of bonds and dollars and into commodities and stocks. The theory is that higher stock prices will have a “wealth effect,” making people think they’re richer and therefore more willing to spend money. But since the move is likely to make commodities costs more (both oil and gold rose yesterday) it’s at best doubtful that it will work.

And how much lower can interest rates go? Mortgage rates were at 3.55 percent on Wednesday, down from 4.09 a year ago. That’s the lowest rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage in memory. The ten-year treasury bond is paying a piddly 1.86 percent. Interest rates cannot go below zero, after all. Banks won’t pay you to borrow their money.

And all this is storing up big trouble in the future. The Fed has increased its balance sheet enormously by buying up assets and, in effect, printing the money to pay for them. Getting that money back is going to be very, very difficult to accomplish without slowing the economy once again or setting off a nasty bout of inflation.

Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for politicians (and while Bernanke is not, strictly speaking, a politician, it’s close enough for government work) to do nothing.

 

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.