Comments 9

مجلس الاحتياطي الفيدرالي ضد استقرار الأسعار

Mar 19, 2015 Robert Heller

سان فرانسيسكو ــ هناك فارق كبير بين تفويض بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي الأميركي بالحفاظ على "استقرار الأسعار" ــ كما يقضي قانون الاحتياطي الفيدرالي ــ والهدف الذي اختاره بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي بنفسه بالحفاظ على معدل التضخم السنوي عند مستوى 2%. كيف إذن تمكن صناع السياسات من وضع الأخير في محل الأول؟

إن مصطلح "استقرار الأسعار" يفسر نفسه بنفسه: فهو يعني أن أي حزمة من السلع سوف تظل تكلفتها ثابتة بعد عشر سنوات أو خمسين سنة أو حتى مائة سنة من الآن. وعلى النقيض من ذلك، إذا شهد أي بلد تضخماً بنسبة 2% على مدى عشر سنوات، فإن نفس السلع التي يمكن شراؤها بمائة دولار اليوم سوف تتكلف 122 دولاراً بحلول نهاية هذا العقد. وبعد مائة سنة سوف يكون سعرها 724 دولارا.

في شهادتها أمام الكونجرس مؤخرا، أشارت رئيسة بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي جانيت يلين عدة مرات إلى تفويض الحفاظ على "استقرار الأسعار"؛ ولكنها ذكرت هدف الحفاظ على التضخم بنسبة 2% سنوياً عدد مرات أكبر. فقالت: "إن التضخم في الولايات المتحدة يظل أقل من هدف اللجنة بنسبة 2%"، وأضافت "وتظل الدرجة العالية الحالية من توفيق السياسات ملائمة لتشجيع المزيد من التحسن في ظروف سوق العمل وعودة التضخم نحو نسبة 2% في الأمد المتوسط".

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 in all 6 Comments on this article

Robert Bostick Mar 22, 2015

It's always the big debt holders the likes of Heller, Greenspan, Bernanke and now Yellen bend over backward to protect. None of them would dare admit that their mandate to " ... promote effectively the goals of maximum employment ... " conflicts with their interpretation of an acceptable rate of inflation. Their metrics for the latter are questionable and their advocacy of alternative solutions for the former are non-existent. Yet, unemployment and real income gains cannot be achieved with current policies.

The curious ask, why then does not the Fed revamp its policies since none are working to achieve maximum employment? For instance, it could inform the Administration and Congress of what Beardsley Ruml, then, President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank presented to the ABA in 1946, in his paper, "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete".

Doing so, and coming from the Fed, would clear the air over the issues of deficit spending and financing the Federal budget.

Ruml, wrote, "Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.

The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements.

Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect.

The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.

By all odds, the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as "the avoidance of inflation"; and without the use of federal taxation all other means of stabilization, such as monetary policy and price controls and subsidies, are unavailing. All other means, in any case, must be integrated with federal tax policy if we are to have tomorrow a dollar which has a value near to what it has today."

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html

This the context in which today's Fed Chair should present its policy recommendations, not the stale and misleading screed about inflation targets.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
atul baride Mar 22, 2015

The Essential part of Inflation and inflation expectation is ' Cost Of Money' Which essentially is Missing in the FOMC Working. If We add that, US Inflation is Much more than Present Nos
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Nicholas Mar 21, 2015

Either feeble-minded or deceitful. No mention of the Fed's post-1977 second mandated target: mitigating unemployment.
- Hugo Pezzoni Mar 23, 2015
  
  Strongly disagree with John. I think Robert Heller is pointing to what should be the only mandate for a central bank: inflation as close to zero as possible. The mandate granted to the Fed by Congress in 1977 was a mistake. Unemployment should be reduced by policies and programs enacted by the Federal Government and not by monetary policy. In essence unemployed persons should be assisted in order to improve their capabilities.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Mar 21, 2015

How one-sided the suggestion that would make all wage inflation come to naught while the asset price inflation would move to the stratosphere !
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Erik Weholdt Tømte Mar 20, 2015

The author confuses price stability for a single good/service, with price stability for an ever changing basket of goods/services - changing over time due to preferences. This arguement would have held up prior to the industrial revolution, where prices were indeed stable. Hawks will be hawks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.