Ben Bernanke thinks bell bottoms are in
Started by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Discussion about
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704709304576124033729197172.html In the 1970s, despite rising inflation, members of the Federal Reserve's policy committee repeatedly chose to lower interest rates to reduce unemployment. Their Phillips Curve models, which charted an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, told them that inflation could wait and be addressed at a more... [more]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704709304576124033729197172.html In the 1970s, despite rising inflation, members of the Federal Reserve's policy committee repeatedly chose to lower interest rates to reduce unemployment. Their Phillips Curve models, which charted an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, told them that inflation could wait and be addressed at a more opportune time. They were flummoxed when inflation and unemployment rose together throughout the decade. In 1979, shortly after becoming Fed chairman, Paul Volcker told a Sunday talk-show audience that reducing inflation was the best way to reduce unemployment. He abandoned the faulty Phillips Curve thinking that unemployment was the enemy of inflation. And he told the Fed's staff that while he thought highly of their work, he did not find their inflation forecasts useful. Instead of focusing on near-term output and employment, he changed the Fed's policy to put more emphasis on the longer-term reduction of inflation. That required a persistent policy that President Reagan supported even in the severe 1982 recession. We know the result: Inflation came down and stayed down. The Volcker disinflation ushered in two decades of low inflation and relatively steady growth, punctuated by a few short, mild recessions. And as Mr. Volcker predicted, the unemployment rate fell after the inflation rate fell. The dollar strengthened. Throughout its modern history, the Fed has made several of the same policy mistakes repeatedly. Two are prominent now. It concentrates on near-term events over which it has little influence, and neglects the longer-term consequences of its operations. And it interprets its dual mandate as requiring it to direct all of its efforts to reducing unemployment when the unemployment rate rises. It does not have a credible long-term plan to reduce both current unemployment and future inflation, so it works on one at a time. This is an inefficient way to achieve a dual mandate. It failed totally during the Great Inflation of the 1970s. I believe it will fail again this time. Commodity and some materials prices have increased dramatically in the past year. Countries everywhere face higher inflation. Despite the many problems in the euro area, the dollar has depreciated against the euro, a weak currency with many problems, suggesting that holders expect additional dollar weakness. Imports will cost more. I believe it is foolhardy to expect businesses to absorb all the cost increases by holding prices unchanged. And loan demand has started to pick up, increasing the amount of money in circulation. It is a big mistake to expect that the U.S. will escape the inflation that is now rising throughout the world. Because the Fed focuses on the near term, it tends to ignore changes in money-supply growth. This, too, is a mistake. Sustained inflation always follows increases in money-supply growth. Sustaining negative real interest rates (i.e., adjusted for inflation), as we have now, will cause this. [less]
Add Your Comment
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
Most popular
-
11 Comments
-
22 Comments
-
25 Comments
-
61 Comments
-
13 Comments
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
Interesting and insightful.
What do you think the effect of inflation is on real estate ?
Perhaps the Fed needs an economics refresher..
In the 1970s, many countries experienced high levels of both inflation and unemployment also known as stagflation. Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under a concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman.
Friedman argued that the Phillips curve relationship was only a short-run phenomenon. He argued that in the long-run workers and employers will take inflation into account, resulting in employment contracts that increase pay at rates near anticipated inflation. Employment would then begin to fall until "full employment" was reached, but now with higher inflation rates. This result implies that over the longer-run there is no trade-off between inflation and employment. This implication is significant for practical reasons because it implies that central banks should not set employment targets above the natural rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve