Economics

对抗美联储

Jul 23, 2014 Martin Feldstein

发自剑桥——美联储正就一项法律提案与国会议员进行交锋，该法案名为美国联邦储备委员会问责制和透明度法案，要求美联储使用正式的规则来指导货币政策。美联储担心法律会限制其独立性，而该法案的支持者认为，这将产生更多可预测的低通胀经济增长。谁才是正确的呢?

为了理解这一冲突，有必要在此将美联储的独立性与英格兰银行及欧洲央行进行一些比较。

在英国，英格兰银行拥有“工具独立性”而不是“目标独立性”。财政部设定目标通货膨胀率，由英格兰银行决定采用何种政策来实现这一目标。如果结果偏离超过1%而不能实现目标，行长就必须向财政部发送一封公开信解释原因（以及央行提议应当采取什么措施进行补救）。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Martin Feldstein

Writing for PS since 2008
130 Commentaries

Martin Feldstein was Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He chaired President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984. In 2006, he was appointed to President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and, in 2009, was appointed to President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He was also on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Group of 30, a non-profit, international body that seeks greater understanding of global economic issues.

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

pieter jongejan Jul 26, 2014

Martin Feldstein misses the point that other central banks are fully dependend of the FED's monetary policy. Lower interest rates in the USA imply higher exchange rates in Europe and other Western countries. In order tp prevent deflation these central banks are forced to lower their interest rates as well. Therefore it is important to understand why the FEd wants interest rates to stay low for ever. The Fed's monetary policy is based on teh assumption that lower (real) interest rates will stimulate investment, exports, economic growth and employment. Republicans fear higher inflation. Both parties seem not to bother about the facts, which point in a total different direction. After the liberalization of financial marktes in 1982 (in response to the rise of short term interest rates by Volcker) the negative relation between (real) interest rates and inflation has been transformed into a positive relation. Therfore we need higher and not lower (real) interest rates if we want to stimulate economic growth, investment growth and employment. A higher real interest rate will result in a stronger American dollar (like the Swiss franc) and thus in lower import prices and lower inflation. The conclusion is that republicans, democrats and the FED should opt for higher real interest rates.
Why are higher real interest rates resulting in higher investment ratios? The answer is thta higher real interest rates will result in lower asset values and thus in a higher profit rate. Lower real interest rates will on the contrary esult in lower profit rates, lower investment, lower economic growth an dhigher unemployment. Why does the FED not understand how the economy works?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
kiers sohn Jul 25, 2014

In the end it's a silly point to make because ALL the data are political and ALL the data are "fake". They are already cooking up inflation numbers to meet targets so who cares if they cook up policy to meet inflation numbers.

It won't impact FED independence ONE iota, except the media will sanctimoniously chatter
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Heller Jul 25, 2014

Martin Feldstein provides wonderfully clear summary of the issues, with additional useful comparisons between UK, EU, USA monetary policy frameworks. Rules vs discretion in economic policy is possibly the most important debate on the planet now, so the public needs to know (from people who know).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stamatis Kavvadias Jul 24, 2014

This is supposed to be a serious discussion? Inflation is at 1,5% and republicans are trying to restrict FED's freedom of setting the threshold for the inflation target that, roughly, allows for respecting the employment target, "because they need to make sure inflation will not exceed 2%" ?????

This is just making employment a "secondary-target" (in fact a non achievable target), canceling the current mandate, just not calling it that.

The basic problem that democrats have to address is that the current mandate does not specify who (e.g., which body or institution) *and how* should define "maximum employment" for the current state of the economy, and if it the target value of interest is a medium term average or a threshold. To make this reflect targets set by government (leaving instruments to the FED), the institution defining "maximum employment" should be part of the government. In my opinion, the "how" of defining "maximum employment," should be set by legislation and not under Treasury control.

At the same time, the FED should be allowed short-term biased targeting of inflation against employment and the other way round, in difficult times (i.e., if only the economy is -already- in a weak state; such states need to be defined and the FED should report on them).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.