Preventing the world from central bankers’ ego

Instead of Keynes, would the old Friedman rule be worth studying again? Milton Friedman invented his rigid rule for monetary growth to save the citizens of a free society from the central bankers’ ego unlike Lenin’s instruction to most effectively destroy a society by destroying its money.

Friedman was fearful of “the assignment of wide discretionary powers to a group of technicians, gathered together in an ‘independent’ central bank” and wanted “to establish institutional arrangements that will enable government to exercise responsibility for money, yet at the same time limit the power thereby given to government and prevent this power from being used in ways that will tend to weaken rather than strengthen a free society”; Capitalism and Freedom (1962, p. 39). Friedman introduced the idea of a constant annual rate of growth of money stock, regardless of changing economic conditions, to curtail the discretionary power of the monetary authorities in A Program for Monetary Stability (1959).

“The fact is that the Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than any inherent instability of the private economy”; the Federal Reserve System exercised its power to conduct monetary policy “so ineptly as to convert what otherwise would have been a moderate contraction into a major catastrophe” (C&F, p. 38).

By Friedman’s hindsight, the error list of the Fed included the unusually tight monetary conditions since mid-1928 culminating in an attempt to curb “speculation”, but leading to the 1929 stock market crash - that is, the Fed pricked the bubble which Greenspan’s Fed declined to carry out; the money stock declined by nearly 3 per cent from August 1929 to October 1930 – “a larger decline than during the whole of all but the most severe prior contractions”; prior to October 1930, there had been no sign of a liquidity crisis, or any loss of confidence in banks, but thereafter the economy was plagued by recurrent liquidity crises, runs on banks and waves of bank failures, but the Fed “stood idly by” because of “will, not of power”; Britain went off the gold standard in September 1931 inducing gold withdrawals from the USA, but two years of severe economic contraction did not prevent the Fed from defending the dollar and ending the gold drain by raising the discount rate – the rate at which it lent to member banks; the US money stock fell by one third from July 1929 to March 1933 with over two-thirds of the decline after Britain’s departure from the gold standard.

No wonder, Friedman wanted to avoid important policy actions being “highly dependent on accidents of personality” by introducing his rule of money growth that would also prevent monetary policy from being subject to the day-to-day whim of the politicians.

Was Alan Greenspan’s ego too big because of Friedman’s infamous research on and critique of the US monetary policy of the 1930s in A Monetary History of the United States 1967-1960 with Anna Swartz (1963)? Did Alan want to show how the Fed’s errors of the 1930s can be avoided? Alan fought preventively against “deflation”, a continuous downward spiral of prices and wages, in 2003-2005 during the most rapid global economic growth ever experienced! Greenspan’s Fed ridiculed active monetary policy by inventing to raise the steering rate of interest at a “measured” pace – the flip side of Friedman’s rule of a constant rate of growth of money supply?

What went wrong? The world is a global village was already taught in the mid-1960s. With a number of emerging market currencies pegged to the US dollar and the pound sterling and the euro shadowing the US policy rate changes, the USA is no longer a small open economy. The Fed ought to have a surveillance of monetary and fiscal conditions in the whole dollar block, not only the US economy, before taking decisions.

Also, the new rule of raising the steering rate at a “measured” pace softened the signal of monetary policy to the market participants in contrast to the previous policy actions and greatly increased long-term uncertainty about inflation and interest rates though making the next policy step more predictable - and lulled all financial journalists as well.

Is Ben Bernanke’s ego also too big? He earned his academic credentials by research on the Great Depression, lectured as a Governor of the Fed on quantitative easing, Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here, by using the balance sheet of the Fed. He is regarded as THE expert on financial crises, on exactly those sequences of events the world has experienced during the past two years.

This crisis has shown that Keynes's green cheese, money created by the banks and other financial intermediaries, is no substitute for the US treasuries in case of real excess demand for the “moon”, currency and highly liquid government bonds. So, global imbalances and their financing patterns matter for monetary policy.

Friedman confessed in the 1986 Economic Inquiry that his “rule” did not satisfy the most basic incentive scheme because it was not in the self-interest of the Fed hierarchy to follow the hypothetical policy of such a rule. But in the end, Friedman was after getting rid of the whole Fed: private markets would deliver financial and price stability at equal or less resource cost.

Green cheese factories fight excess demand for the moon – let sovereign wealth funds rescue!

Keynes likened a central bank to a green cheese factory under public control. In Chapter 17, ”The essential properties of interest and money”, of the General Theory, he emphasized the combination of three characteristics of money – via their effect on the money rate of interest - to cause contraction of output and employment at the emergence of an excess demand for money.

“Through the working of the liquidity-motive, (money) rate of interest may be somewhat unresponsive to a change in the proportion which the quantity of money bears to other forms of wealth measured in money” and “money has … zero (or negligible) elasticities both of production and substitution” (p. 234).

“Unemployment develops, that is to say, because people want the moon; - men cannot be employed when the object of desire (i.e. money) is something which cannot be produced and the demand for which cannot be choked off. There is no remedy but to persuade the public that green cheese is practically the same thing and to have a green cheese factory (i.e. central bank) under public control” (p. 235).

Where does the excess demand for money stem from? In my understanding, it is the same as the source of de-leveraging.

Fifteen years ago we, in the Government Guarantee Fund established to tidy up the banking mess in Finland, fancied the US system of securitizing the loan books of the banks to transfer credit risks to the ultimate investors as insurance companies, pension schemes, mutual funds and other agents of the end savers.

But, the occurrences in the USA show that the credit risks were not totally transferred outside the financial intermediation sector, but mostly remained therein. The reason is that the risks were only wiped off the balance sheets to the SIVs (Structured Investment Vehicles). They financed the long-term loans by issuing short-term commercial paper to the ultimate investors, that is, by applying even a riskier maturity transformation strategy than the banks themselves which originate mortgages.

As the ultimate investors started to suffer losses on the mortgage-backed securities they had purchased, they grasped to be exposed to the same credit risks via commercial paper of the SIVs. To limit their losses, the investors refused to no longer buy the SIV commercial paper; they would rather hold truly liquid assets that will bear no capital loss as short-maturity treasuries. Hence an excess demand for liquid cash started, but it was endogenously magnified by another feature of the SIVs that they had credit lines from their parent banks. Who else would have re-financed the mortgages in the SIVs?

So the SIVs had to draw short-term finance from their parent banks as soon as their commercial paper market started to dry up. The same commercial and investment banks that previously parceled loans into securities are now writing down those loans, that is, the credit risks were effectively not transferred from the balance sheet of the financial intermediation sector.

Hence the US, UK and also partly Eurozone markets are in the state of an excess demand for “the moon” which cannot be choked off! The Fed, the BoE and the ECB all try “to persuade the public that green cheese is practically the same thing” by swapping government bonds for mortgage securities to kick-start bank lending, that is, by socializing the credit risks of the underlying mortgages.

“Green cheese”, unaged cheese, is near money created by the financial intermediaries.

But, aren’t these measures rather an attempt to prevent from scoring an own goal without changing the long-term strategy of monetary policy? The central banks all behave today as if the nominal quantity of liquidity were fixed as under the gold standard in Keynes’s mind and follow his advice (p. 234): “The only relief … can come from … an increase in the quantity of money, or … a rise in the value of money”, the latter meaning a decline of money rates of interest on commercial lending.

The interbank rates of the eurozone are ¾ of a percentage point higher than the steering rate of the ECB; the interbank three-month dollar rate is more than half a percentage point higher than the Fed’s steering rate and almost a full percentage point in the case of the pound sterling.

The spread of the corporate bond rates over the steering rate is almost four percentage points for the dollar, almost three percentage points for the pound while only one and a quarter percentage points for the euro. The eurozone suffers from the global banks’ access to the Euribor market via their subsidiaries therein which Sweden avoids.

Excessive rate of expansion of financial intermediaries was the true cause of the ultimate investors’ losses on mortgage securities. The US banks advanced credit to 20 percent over the value of the asset purchased, benefiting from the interbank rates of interest of one to two percent, but in the end fished too many customers who could not afford servicing their loans.

Why to venture the taxpayers’ money? Such an approach only induces the banks to walk on stilts until the next round of socializing credit risks.

Money is currently flowing to oil-producing countries at the rate which is more than enough to recapitalize all ailing US, UK and Eurosystem banks by the next Labor Day? In the end, only equity injections and other sources of tier I capital will truly convey the banks over the “death valley”.

Such a market-driven event, secretly and quickly implemented, would enable The Fed, the BoE and the ECB to score against inflation and, in a way, would represent their “hand of God” goal.