Good News! The Federal Reserve is Surviving the Trump Era.
from Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Good News! The Federal Reserve is Surviving the Trump Era.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell testifies before a Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell testifies before a Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Improbably, the Federal Reserve is surviving the Trump era with its integrity intact. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chairman since February, is quietly emerging as a skilled Washington operator.

Originally published at Washington Post

September 25, 2018 12:13 pm (EST)

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell testifies before a Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell testifies before a Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

While the Brett M. Kavanaugh battle spatters mud on the judiciary, there is shockingly good news from another technocratic branch of government. Improbably, the Federal Reserve is surviving the Trump era with its integrity intact. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chairman since February, is quietly emerging as a skilled Washington operator.

More From Our Experts

When President Trump nominated Powell for the job last year, this was not inevitable. The president had shown no regard for the independence of the Fed: He criticized it openly, breaking a bipartisan norm of restraint that had lasted for a quarter of a century. Indeed, Trump had signaled an appetite for escalating the fight, announcing a growth target of 4 percent per year, twice what Fed economists believe to be sustainable. Worse, at the time of Powell’s nomination, the Fed’s seven-member board included two Trump choices and three vacancies. If Trump wanted to break the Fed’s independence and force it to go for growth at the risk of inflation, he just had to pack those vacant seats with allies who would resist higher interest rates.

More on:

Monetary Policy

Federal Reserve

Financial Markets

United States

Fast-forward one year, and the Fed has not been subjugated. Trump and his administration continue to target unsustainably high growth, and they make no secret of their preference for low interest rates. But they have nominated respected mainstream economists to the vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board, depriving themselves of the means to turn their preference into policy. The Fed could still face meddling from Congress, which has periodically threatened to “audit” the central bank or otherwise bully it. But those congressional threats come mostly from the hard-money right. Not only will the midterm elections likely diminish the right’s power, but the loose-money White House would unite with the Fed in squashing any such legislation.

The new team around Powell is not merely respected; it seems likely to bolster his leadership. Richard Clarida, the Fed’s new vice chairman, got the job with Powell’s support. Nellie Liang, recently nominated to the last open board seat, worked closely with Powell when she was a top staff economist. Powell is also said to be close to John Williams, the new president of the powerful Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Thus fortified, Powell is proceeding to raise interest rates methodically. This week he is expected to raise them to a range of between 2 and 2.25 percent, and the markets confidently expect him to tighten the vise over the next year, which would slow the economy significantly during the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. Trump can harrumph as much as he pleases. If Powell has his colleagues on his side, he can ignore the president.

More From Our Experts

The next challenge for Powell is to navigate an economy that sometimes seems to want two different interest rates. Inflation is rising only gradually, warranting the measured tightening that Powell is delivering. But asset-price inflation — in the stock market, the real estate market and so forth — has been frothier, suggesting a case for raising interest rates more rapidly. Borrowing by companies is particularly exuberant. An unusually high share of corporate bonds is classed as risky by rating agencies, and the murkier hedge-fund lending market is unnervingly spirited. When growth slows, default rates will spike and some firms will go bust. Hence the risk that the economy will not merely falter; it could go into recession.

Powell has taken the first step in solving this dilemma. Instead of making Wall Street feel safer by projecting confidence in the Federal Reserve’s model and promising to move interest rates in lockstep with its signals, he humbly proclaims uncertainty and discretion. Powell’s next move should be to match words with action by raising interest rates on a less-predictable schedule. Right now, market watchers are nearly unanimous in the view that the next rate increase will come in December. Whatever the correct level of interest rates at the end of the current tightening cycle, why not shake market complacency by getting there in a less obvious fashion? Shocking Wall Street now, when growth is robust, may prevent Wall Street from shocking the economy later, when growth will be fragile.

More on:

Monetary Policy

Federal Reserve

Financial Markets

United States

Finally, Powell should use his political skills to prepare for the next panic. As veterans of the 2008 financial meltdown have recently stressed, Congress has banned some of the bailout tools that proved essential last time. For example, the Fed cannot act as a lender of last resort for non-bank lenders unless they are already failing, the financial system is at risk and the Fed can show that no private rescuer is willing to step in — conditions that would guarantee slow action in a crisis. If Powell can persuade the administration and Congress to restore its bailout powers, he will not merely have upheld the Fed’s independence. He will have strengthened it.

This article was originally published in the Washington Post, available at this link.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Middle East and North Africa

CFR experts Steven A. Cook and David J. Scheffer join Amnesty International’s Agnes Callamard and Refugee International’s Jeremy Konyndyk to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Japan

The highlights from Kishida Fumio's busy week in Washington.

Genocide and Mass Atrocities

Thirty years ago, Rwanda’s government began a campaign to eradicate the country’s largest minority group. In just one hundred days in 1994, roving militias killed around eight hundred thousand people. Would-be killers were incited to violence by the radio, which encouraged extremists to take to the streets with machetes. The United Nations stood by amid the bloodshed, and many foreign governments, including the United States, declined to intervene before it was too late. What got in the way of humanitarian intervention? And as violent conflict now rages at a clip unseen since then, can the international community learn from the mistakes of its past?