Saturday, May 28, 2011

Do we need a central bank?

At the very least, I think government should get out of the rate-setting game.

Interest rate-setting is a crucial function of the private market. It is by this mechanism that we arrive at the price of debt and investment. Too low a price and you encourage more debt and speculation. Too high a price and you kill the market itself. Is this crucial mechanism market mechanism best served by leaving it up to the will of unelected technocrats? People who insist on 'independence' and non-accountability of action? How does the general public even know why they arrive at the decisions they do? Why do they keep on lowering rates when there is too much debt and speculation in the market already? Why would they suddenly jack up the rates just when the real businessmen are starting to undertake long-term investment? When they have to make a decision where the interest of a few large capitalists are in conflict with the interests of a larger but more diffuse set of businessmen, whose interest prevails in the end?

In short, do central bankers really have a positive value to the efficient rate-setting of the market? My gut says not really. More often than not, we've seen government intervention in this area only creates speculative bubbles and unnecessary recessions, which would have otherwise been avoided, if government had only let the market decide the price level of interest rates. This control of the monetary rates subjects the entire economy's price level and inflation and deflation on the whims of a few technocrats with little or no accountability to the people. The only use I see for ceding private sector control to the government is to use this as an international trade war weapon.

Central bankers have always said that they do not have any control over bubbles. When humans want to believe in something, they can make it so. If they believe that something will go up in value, then it will go up in value, low rates or not. If central banks cannot cause bubbles, as they have always said, from Greenspan on to Bernanke, then they cannot also do anything to burst them. If rate setting and quantitative easing do not affect the market , then what is the purpose of giving central banks the lever that can influence human beliefs? Haven't we seen that QE2's objective is precisely to influence the beliefs of the market? QE2's plan after all was to cause the price of financial assets to appreciate, because this makes people feel they are wealthier, and therefore more open towards purchasing more. QE2's intended mechanism is that rising monetary base increases inflation expectations, such that people begin to purchase things now rather than later. But instead of causing more purchasing velocity in the real economy, QE2 instead jacked up speculation.

From the time of Greenspan, we've seen how central bank rate-setting can unduly affect how the market speculates. The process has always been – lower interest rates – bond investors hunt for higher yield (more risk) and this leads to a bigger bubble than without the lower rates, as speculation is now turbocharged by greater leverage. When the bubble deflates, the losses are larger, and the downturn is steeper, as investors take stock of their losses and deleverage. As we saw during QE2, we saw that central bank rate-setting can actually disrupt the market,even at the zero level bound. At the end of the day, the central bank looks nothing more than a glorified asset price jockey.

And then, if we are to believe the all-encompassing usefulness of monetary policy to pick up the pieces each time a bubble bursts, we should believe that monetary easing should always do the trick. Will we reach to QE9? QE10? After all, if we truly belive there’s no problem that can’t be solved by lowering nominal interest rates, throwing more money into the economy (and thereby lowering real rates into negative territory) then it doesn't make sense to believe that we will ever reach a point where this doesn't work or make sense any more. Either it really works, or it never really worked. More likely, it only seemed to work, while delaying the inevitable, by 'kicking the can down the road' and extending the bubble until the next central banker ends up with a bigger mess.

The central bank should just set and maintain a fixed rate for its discount window. If the securities and commodities investment markets are becoming frothy and possibly bubbly, that should have nothing to do with the reality of the real economy businessman's world, and should be separated in the central banker's decision-making process of whether to burst that possible bubble. The discount rate could be kept steady while just going after the offending speculators, and imposing more taxes and regulatory overview on that particular offending sector only. Everybody else shouldn't be made to suffer just because a bunch of hooligans are trying to game their particular market to make a little more money.

I could be persuaded by the suggestion to just abolish the Central Bank. If we do away with the central bank altogether, its function of money issuance can be integrated with Treasury, thereby doing away with a possibly unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and possible loss of transparency and accountability. Some MMTers have already written on this.

If it stays, its most useful function would be just to ensure that private players keep playing by the rules (play fair) and follow macroprudential controls, so they don't develop dangerous bubbles all by themselves. We should start focusing more on what macroprudential controls should be in place once instead, so that private sector-led bubbles do not get out of hand either.

The central bank needs to be a stronger regulator. If we want borrowers and small investors to be protected from the vagaries of the market, it has to step up. If a certain level of rates can influence the creation of bubbles (and I believe this to be so), and the effect is transmitted in the market via financial entities that are beyond central bank purview, such as money market funds, hedge funds, pension and insurance funds, shouldn't it then be regulating everybody else's speculation/investment activities?

I'm not yet clear on its keeping the lender of last resort function. This function is important in preventing some bank failures from developing into full-blown systemic crises, but if it encourages moral hazard, this function becomes self-defeating. If a central bank can ensure individual players always follow macroprudential rules, a lender of last resort will be barely necessary. In those few times when there's a failure of regulation, we should penalize both the regulated, and to some extent, the regulator.

Proving the regulator could see the failure coming will always be the tricky part though. But the posibility of being penalized should concentrate the minds of the regulator. And if the regulator is being paid a salary commensurate to what he's doing, i.e., a salary similar to those he's supposed to be regulating, we should have no problem retaining highly-competent regulators who are constantly on top of what the private sector financiers are doing. But this is a discussion for a separate time.

12 comments:

Detroit Dan said...

Good post.

Monetary policy is worthless, in my opinion...

Mario said...

nice post. I am beginning to agree with you on these points more and more. I agree with the sound logic you express here. Thanks.

Rogue Economist said...

Detroit Dan and Mario, thanks. Monetary policy right now is pointless at the least, dangerous at the worst.

Hans said...

Brilliant thread, Mr Rogue! The Central Bank mission has been changed and they have become just another social engineering agency of the US government...

Did anyone laugh, when they were given oversight to keep unemployment levels to a minimum...Lol !

You are correct, in that they should be assigned the most simple of tasks, as to prevent them from foolishness...

What is even more scary, is these academic hooligans begin to apply their classroom theory to the practical world...

We have had Fedzero for the last three years and a similar one under Chairman Greenspam, both of which have distorted market rates to the extreme...

Does anyone wonder why the US dollar continues it's decline, while gold and silver rise from their ashes...

Rogue Economist said...

Someone at SA comments: "The Fed does not set interest rates, they do not bid in the competitive auctions for new issue Treasury Notes and Bonds. Independently, the FOMC has a relationship with the US Treasury and the NY Fed has a relationship with the Primary Dealers through which most Treasury debt bought and sold in the secondary markets. The Fed funds rate target has regressive effects across the yield curve and therefore factors into mortgage rates and savings account interest rates at the bank(or lack there of). The rate alone effects bank reserves held at the fed and changes or expected changes in that rate impact interbank lending".


The Fed does set interest rates. That's what the Fed discount rate or Federal funds rate is. The auction for treasury notes is a completely different process, involved in raising money for government deficits.

The Fed funds rate is what determines the banks' borrowing rate, and hence, a lower fed funds rate encourages banks to bid lower rates when bidding in Treasury auctions. So yes, the Fed's rate decisions affects every pricing decision that banks do, whether deciding what rate to charge borrowers, or how much to bid during Treasury auctions, or pricing the level of the yield curve .Fluctuating CD rates and deposit rates are caused by the changing Fed funds rate. If banks can raise money cheaper by borrowing from the Fed, they will likely pay less to borrow from the CD market.

Hans said...

A very lucid post, Mr Rouge...

That why they say, "do not fight the fed"....

Rogue Economist said...

Thanks, Hans

Hans said...

There was an excellent article in Forbes (6.27.11, page 24) about the failed policies of Bank Bernank and the inverting of interest rates during 06-08.

The author, Mr Salsman, states " The recession and financial crises of 2007-09 wouldn't have been possible without this monetary malfeasance."

The same event occurred before the Great Crash and Depression. The economy is extremely complex (sorry MMTers): Those that think one can form a Committee for Public Monetary Safety and Economic Regularity, are only fooling themselves..

FedZero, continues to be the last only option for the Central Bank, which in the long run only compounds our economic problems rather than solving them..

In two years, the Central Banko will be celebrating it's centennial birfday, is it now time to redefine its mission...?

The only time its policy had any effectiveness, was during the Volcker Plunge...

Rogue Economist said...

Well, some people have tried to drive their cars by only looking at their rear view mirror. Why wouldn't monetary authorities claim to run the economy by looking at the stock/asset markets?

Hans said...

Why, because it would be beyond their expertise in markets that are much too complex...

Raising and lowering interest rates (can I call that interest mechanization) is much akin to our beloved mothers sticking a thermometers in our mouths..

Simply suspend operations at the Central Bank for a period of time and judge the results...\

Even with the meddling of the Central Bank, we continue to suffer an inordinate amount of recessions, not what its founders had sought..

Rogue Economist said...

No real disagreement from me, Hans. Ever since their ongoing mission creep from being lender of last resort, to using rate-setting to control inflation, control employment, control bank lending, control asset speculation, control the stock and bond markets, control industrial policy, control currency value, control international flows, control control foreign monetary policy, control foreign inflation, control foreign stock and bond markets, control foreign industrial policy and international flows, who knows what else is next.....the fed's various stated objectives have all been attained at the expense of each other.

Hans said...

Well stated, Mr Rouge...

In the past decade, two Fed chairmen have failed to foresee serious economic disruptions, not to mention previous chairmen less than satisfactory performances..

In those immoral words of Alan Greenspam, "Can we break for coffee?"