Martin Feldstein
Published: Wednesday 27 June 2012
“Although it is difficult to know how much of this decline reflected higher demand for Treasury bonds from risk-averse global investors, the Fed’s policies undoubtedly deserve some of the credit.”

The Impotence of the Federal Reserve

Article image

The United States Federal Reserve’s recent announcement that it will extend its “Operation Twist” by buying an additional $267 billion of long-term Treasury bonds over the next six months - to reach a total of $667 billion this year - had virtually no impact on either interest rates or equity prices. The market’s lack of response was an important indicator that monetary easing is no longer a useful tool for increasing economic activity.The Fed has repeatedly said that it will do whatever it can to stimulate growth. This led to a plan to keep short-term interest rates near zero until late 2014, as well as to massive quantitative easing, followed by Operation Twist, in which the Fed substitutes short-term Treasuries for long-term bonds.

Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Martin Feldstein, click here.

These policies did succeed in lowering long-term interest rates. The yield on ten-year Treasuries is now 1.6%, down from 3.4% at the start of 2011. Although it is difficult to know how much of this decline reflected higher demand for Treasury bonds from risk-averse global investors, the Fed’s policies undoubtedly deserve some of the credit. The lower long-term interest rates contributed to the small 4% rise in the S&P 500 share-price index over the same period.

The Fed is unlikely to be able to reduce long-term rates any further. Their level is now so low that many investors rightly fear that we are looking at a bubble in bond and stock prices. The result could be a substantial market-driven rise in long-term rates that the Fed would be unable to prevent. A shift in foreign investors’ portfolio preferences away from long-term bonds could easily trigger such a run-up in rates.

Moreover, while the Fed’s actions have helped the owners of bonds and stocks, it is not clear that they have stimulated real economic activity. The US economy is still limping along with very slow growth and a high rate of unemployment. Although the economy has been expanding for three years, the level of GDP is still only 1% higher than it was nearly five years ago, when the recession began. The GDP growth rate was only 1.7% in 2011, and it is not significantly higher now. Indeed, recent data show falling real personal incomes, declining employment gains, and lower retail sales.

The primary impact of monetary easing is usually to stimulate demand for housing and thus the volume of construction. But this time, despite historically low mortgage interest rates, house prices have continued to fall and are now more than 10% lower in real terms than they were two years ago. The level of real residential investment is still less than half its level before the recession began. The Fed has noted that structural problems in the housing market have impaired its ability to stimulate the economy through this channel.

Business investment is also weak, even though large corporations have very high cash balances. With so much internal liquidity, these businesses are not sensitive to reductions in market interest rates. At the same time, many very small businesses cannot get credit, because the local banks on which they depend have inadequate capital, owing to accrued losses on commercial real-estate loans. These small businesses, too, are not helped by lower interest rates.

The Fed’s monetary easing did temporarily contribute to a weaker dollar, which boosted net exports. But the dollar’s decline has more recently been reversed by the global flight to safety by investors abandoning the euro.

Even if the US economy continues to stumble in the months ahead, the Fed is unlikely to do anything more before the end of the year. The next policy moves to help the economy must come from the US Congress and the administration after the November election.

Nonetheless, what needs to be done is already clear. The cloud of a sharp rise in personal and corporate income-tax rates, now scheduled to occur automatically at the start of 2013, must be removed. The projected increase in the long-term fiscal deficit must be reversed by stemming the growth in transfers to middle-class retirees. Fundamental tax reform must strengthen incentives, reduce distorting “tax expenditures,” and raise revenue. Finally, the relationship between government and business, now quite combative, must be improved.

If these things happen in 2013, the US economy can return to a more normal path of economic expansion and rising employment. At that point, the Fed can focus on its fundamental mandate of preventing a rise in the rate of inflation. Until then, it is powerless.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Martin Feldstein

Martin Feldstein is 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 1982-1984, and is currently a member of President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, as well as a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the National Committee on United States-China Relations.

Top Stories

4 comments on "The Impotence of the Federal Reserve"

Boris Badenov's picture
Boris Badenov

June 28, 2012 9:14am

How can the Fed represent anything but moneyed Politics.
This is not the idea, that was originally the purpose of the Federal Reserve.
Get the Rich out of the Fed and end this core of corruption.

bladtheimpailer

June 27, 2012 3:22pm

I have my doubts and my duhs about this piece. The Fed is a monetary beast not fiscal and so can have little direct effect on the real economy. It's quantitative easing(flooding money) and low interest rates are having no effect, like "pushing on a string." These efforts by the Fed have long been known to have little or no effect. That's the duh.

As for the various bond markets I have my doubts that this is even close to the correct analysis. I believe that with the current low yields and the real rate of inflation an investment in Tbonds might actually give a negative return. I also have a feeling that investors might actually be creeping away from U.S bonds (not buying, slowly selling) and that what is actually propping them up are the likes of JP Morgan etc and the interest rate swap market. Money is sitting it out, the "it" being the recession. The real economy, the one that actually produces goods and services, is completely stagnated and teetering on the edge of the downward spiral. The consumer, both household and small business is tapped out after years of maxing out on credit as a substitute for real wage increases and profit squeeze. Almost all of the increases in wealth have gone up the ladder where it's been stuffed away or invested in the virtual economy.

Basically we're stuck in the doldrums just like Japan has been since the 90's. My only fear is another virtual economy blow up that will tumble the house of cards we call the financial sector/system and taking all else with it. If the interest rate swap market should go bad for the big banks involved all hell is going to break loose and the FED (think taxpayers dollars) will not be able to save the system. American debt would then resemble that of Spain or Italy's. Think depression.

The Fed has let events and the CEO's of the big banks(and regional Feds) take control and drive the situation as they try to out compete one another and become in fact equal to the Fed and Treasury by a of leverage their power to topple all . To big is a gross understatement. But then again the ponzi scheme that is the fractional reserve system may have just about run it's course.

MikeSchwab

June 27, 2012 11:53am

The real reason is all new construction is in the FAR suburbs. With high gas prices, no one is willing to drive that far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil describes the increasing costs and decreasing supplies since the 2008 peack production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth describes how limited resources in general limit human population growth to 4 billion by 2010. Personally, I think the lack of fossil fuel will reduce Earth's food supply to enough for 2 billion people by 2050.

Hopefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis and http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-14/world/world.food.crisis_1_food-aid-fo... won't cause world wide destruction and the collapse of civilization.

Norman Allen

June 27, 2012 10:53am

Federal Reserve is the problem, not the solution. Since when a bunch of banksters have got compassion for the riff raff as the working people seems to be to them.... The Fed was created to siphon huge sums of money as interest to them irrespective of the economic conditions. We need a National Bank of the Unites States of America, at the service of all the people, not only the banksters....