Friday, September 14, 2012

Bernankeapalooza



An Internet Success Story. Chicago Fed President Charles Evans should feel vindicated for all of his hard work and for sticking his neck out.

A Quick Note on the Fed by Krugman
In effect, the Fed seems to be trying to “credibly promise to be irresponsible”, which is what I advocated way back when in this kind of situation. 
3. That’s all good. However, it’s kind of vague. No clear target, whether nominal GDP or some kind of inflation/unemployment mix. Put it this way: you could imagine a future Fed chairman tightening policy in line with the same Taylor rule that seemed to describe policy before the crisis — a rule that suggests that interest rates wouldn’t start to go up until unemployment was below, say, 7 percent — and still being able to claim that he had not violated any promise Bernanke made. In other words, it’s not totally clear that we really do have a shift in future policy. And since the whole point is to move expectations, leaving this kind of wiggle room is not a good thing. 
To paraphrase an old joke: what do you get when you cross a Godfather with a central banker? Someone who makes you an offer you can’t understand. 
4. Romney is talking destructive nonsense.
The Scott Summer Rally by Yglesias

It Is What It Is by Scott Sumner
On a lighter note, yesterday was “Scott Sumner day” and yet I had to go to work.  That doesn’t seem fair!  I’d also note that Cardiff Garcia at FT Alphavillementioned David Beckworth and I (along with Woodford), in their discussion of economists who had played a role in the debate. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Woodford’s 100 times more influential than I am.  But I also think we’ve had some impact, mostly by putting out ideas that other more famous people have discussed and/or advocated (Christy Romer, Krugman, DeLong, Jeffrey Frankel, Jan Hatzius, etc.)  So it’s a good day for market monetarism.
Why QE3 Matters by Yglesias

Federal Reserve Finally Working Expectations Channel With Open-Ended QE by Yglesias

Other fiscal measures have more reliable job-creation chains.  Increasing unemployment benefits or food stamps helps because those folks typically spend the money.  And new infrastructure is a pretty direct way to go.  Same with state fiscal relief.  I remember during the Recovery Act, mayors cancelling planned layoffs the day they received Recovery Act funds.
The punch line is a simple one, but it’s one that seems to have been forgotten amidst our increasing love affair in America with laissez-faire economics: the more direct the policy measure—i.e., the fewer links in the chain between the policy and the job—the better it will work.

No comments: