Fed’s dual mandate under assault

In International economics on November 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Bernanke tasked with achieving the dual mandate while there is no political will to assist

It seems that there’s more and more talk of the Fed’s dual mandate of price stability and full employment and whether it should exist. Critics say that most advanced economies’ central banks are charged only with the mandate of price stability, as they control the factors that contribute to inflation or deflation. Since the Fed’s inception, it has been charged with not only maintaining stable prices, but to keep growth high to maintain full employment. I thought that this would be a good discussion point for the US’ current plight: the Liquidity Trap.

IS-LM curve of an economy in a liquidity trap.

The problem with the dual mandate is that full employment is not solely controlled by the central bank. Especially in the current context where the United States is caught in a classic IS-LM liquidity trap, where monetary policy (LM) is unable to stimulate growth up against the zero-bound of interest rates. See the chart above for a representation of where the US currently is. Notice that a rightward shift in the LM curve (representing QE or other forms of expansionary monetary policy) would not produce sufficient expansion of output/employment, and only a demand-shock from the IS curve would lift the money market into normality and lift employment and output to sufficient levels. Simply put, fiscal stimulus is the only adequate solution to the US’ labor and money market woes. Federal funds will stay at the zero bound and unemployment flirting with double digits until the political will comes to boost growth and employment.

Back to the title of the post, why should the Fed be shackled with a dual mandate, when it is supposed to remain independent politically, but is faced with tasks that require political action? Stephen Roach, who I disagree with immensely on the topics of China’s currency manipulation and the economic policy issues surrounding trade with China and the mechanics with which they achieve the inflated exports to the US, actually has some wise points to make on this issue. In an Op-Ed piece in the Financial Timesthe half-professor, half-puppet of Chinese economic policy shares his personal view of the dual mandate outlined in the Federal Reserve Act and subsequent acts:

The only way to end this madness is to revamp the Fed’s dual mandate. What is desperately needed is a third leg to the stool – a financial stability mandate. If such a policy goal were hardwired into the Fed’s contract with the US Congress, the central bank would not have an excuse to ignore asset and credit bubbles as it has done repeatedly in recent years.

The dual mandate has outlived its usefulness. If Congress fails to address this flaw, we risk yet another treacherous endgame.

Despite how I feel about Roach’s views on Chinese/US trade, he seems to have a point here. If the Fed is supposed to maintain credibility as an independent organization that is uninfluenced by political noise, then how can it be tasked with achieving goals that require political mobilization? I wouldn’t go as far as Roach and add a third mandate of financial stability to the Fed, instead I think the Fed should undergo an immediate two-fold reform:

  1. End the full-employment mandate. The Fed is only one part of a multi-faceted function that determines employment in the economy. They should instead just be charged with facilitating robust credit markets in conjunction with price stability. This will maintain their independence and narrow their focus, and leave the other “IS” issues to the elected bodies who truly have control over them.
  2. Set an outright numerical inflation target zone. Many from the BIS and IMF have recently stated that higher inflation targets that are explicitly stated as the goal for central banks are the most effective tools for managing price stability. If the Fed targeted the 2.5-4% range, it would achieve moderate inflation that is most conducive to continued economic growth and healthy financial markets. This would give them a large window to adjust rates from “normal” levels, and combat deflation and sluggish output.

It’s doubtful that either Roach or my suggestions will be implemented, but hey, we can always dream right?


USDJPY Parabolic After North Korean Aggression in South Korea

In Forex Market on November 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm

So we’ve covered the fallout form the Korean conflict in the currency market for the KRW, but how about their neighbors? USDJPY is a good anchor for stability in the overall Far Eastern region. We saw a major selloff in the Yen right when the North Korean attack hit the wires. But how have we faired since then?

Below is the chart for USDJPY for the hours after the artillery shelling by the North Koreans:

USDJPY as the anchor of Far Eastern stability, has cooled down in the aftermath of the Korean conflict

It seems that the conflict is over. The South Koreans have already said that as a responsible major G20 economy they can not contribute to more instability by escalating this thing (Reuters). Also at the Reuters link you can see the North Korean take on what went down:

North Korea said its wealthy neighbor started the fight.

“Despite our repeated warnings, South Korea fired dozens of shells from 1 p.m. … and we’ve taken strong military action immediately,” its KCNA news agency said in a brief statement.

Regardless of how this little spat went down, it looks like the worst is over , at least in terms of the economic effects.  USDJPY has returned to the pre-conflict levels and the market seems to have shrugged off any lasting volatility in the region.


Irish bailout to cost more than Greece

In International economics on November 23, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Drunken Irishmen can't get their financial house in order

And you thought the Euro was out of hot water back with the Greek bailout and promises from the PIIGS that austerity would be swift and effective? Turns out major investment banks are predicting the European Union and International Monetary Fund bailout package will eclipse the Greek bailout when measured as a percentage of GDP. From Bloomberg:

Ireland will seek emergency international aid totaling as much as 60 percent of the size of its economy, dwarfing the Greek bailout, to save its banks and bolster its finances.

Ireland will ask for about 95 billion euros ($130 billion) from the European Union and International Monetary Fund, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates. UniCredit SA put the package at as much as 85 billion euros, while Deutsche Bank AG sees a 90 billion-euro plan. The 110 billion-euro aid for Greece in May was the equivalent of 47 percent of its gross domestic product.

So far we’ve seen some action in EURUSD, the past week the dollar has strengthened, even in the face of QE2, most likely as a response to the pending issues in Ireland. Notice that the bailout is sponsored by the European Union and the IMF, so those of us who aren’t in the EMU but are a member of the EU have to help foot the bill for this Eurozone issue. What’s the point of not being in the EMU when we still have to pay for their problems? Britons and Danes ought to be especially peeved at this.