In the intricate world of economics, the role of leaders like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke invites a great deal of scrutiny. Despite his academic background at Princeton, his shift to public policy raises questions about the potential consequences of central planning versus the unpredictable nature of the market.
While it might seem idealistic to have experts in charge, reality often reveals a stark contrast. Political incompetence is common, with leaders making questionable choices that might not significantly impact the populace. Yet, central planners who genuinely believe they can script a perfect economic outcome pose a far greater risk, as their misguided ambitions can lead to widespread chaos.
History teaches us that ambitious monetary experiments rarely end well. Central planners often think that controlling behavior will resolve economic issues, yet their interventions frequently lead to negative outcomes. The confidence with which leaders like Bernanke pursue their plans is troubling, especially as they embroil themselves deeper into the complexities of the economy.
Extending A Little More Rope
Recently, Bernanke revealed a new initiative aimed at influencing credit markets. By instituting a strategy similar to 1961’s “Operation Twist,” the Fed intends to exchange $400 billion in short-term treasuries for long-term ones with the aim of reducing interest rates.
Upon the announcement, the stock market reacted sharply, with the DOW dropping over 250 points, and continuing to plunge by nearly 400 points the following day. Meanwhile, bond traders rushed to take preemptive action, driving the 10-Year Note yields to historic lows, signaling significant concern about the economic landscape.
The Fed’s goal is ostensibly to make borrowing more affordable, encouraging both individuals and businesses to spend. With consumer spending representing 70 percent of the economy, the hope is that this strategy will spark a spending boom. However, this initiative raises pertinent questions: Are interest rates not already at unprecedented lows? Can an economy beset by over-debt truly benefit from additional borrowing?
The reality appears stark: consumers are exhausted by their existing debts, expressing a preference for saving over spending. The Fed’s failure to recognize this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of current economic sentiments.
On Scientific Management of the Economy and Going for Broke
The Federal Reserve’s latest strategy seems to reward reckless spending rather than disciplined saving. True economic growth is grounded in saving and investment, yet these principles require time and diligence—attributes that are often overlooked in favor of quick fixes.
The concept of scientifically managing the economy clashes fundamentally with the principles of a free market. Such interventionist strategies, particularly from an unelected board, raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of their economic governance. If past centralized economies struggled to find the right prices for basic goods, what gives the Fed the confidence to manage the price of money?
Despite their best intentions, the Fed’s efforts to lower interest rates further only serve to encourage additional borrowing, exacerbating the existing debt crisis rather than alleviating it. The pressing issue isn’t oversupply in goods but rather an overwhelming surplus of debt. Encouraging further borrowing in such a climate is counterproductive.
As former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder noted, Bernanke may not be willing to abandon his approach. He seems set on pursuing his vision to the bitter end.
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
Return from On Scientific Management of the Economy and Going for Broke to Economic Prism