Peter Morici: Here’s why the Fed is no longer relevant |
Featured Commentary

Peter Morici: Here’s why the Fed is no longer relevant


As the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, it risks falling victim to its own dominance. For too long, the Fed has been a monastery where 2% inflation, 2% trend growth and the primacy of conventional banking are accepted without sound foundation.

The Fed targets 2% inflation as a compromise between accomplishing strong growth and stable prices. Since the financial crisis, whether unemployment was 10% or less than 4%, no matter how high or low the Fed set interest rates or engaged in quantitative easing, inflation has mostly fluctuated below 2% with the variance largely determined by international oil prices.

The pace of economic growth has fluctuated widely, mostly between 0% and 4%, but stayed depressed without much correlation with inflation.

The Fed is chasing an irrelevant target with ineffective policy tools — that simply doesn’t work.

Money — traditionally defined as currency and checking-account balances — is not what it used to be. Businesses’ and consumers’ ability to spend against next months’ sales and paychecks is really defined by the size of the lines of credit and credit-card limits.

Small movements in the federal funds rates have little impact on the availability of these forms of liquidity.

The Fed can’t control the traditional money supply anyway. It has put huge reserves in the hands of banks — those are sums only banks, hedge funds and money managers are allowed to keep in electronic checking accounts at the Fed.

Since 2008, the Fed effectively has paid banks its target federal funds rate, and banks appear to prefer taking that rate on their reserves over lending those funds to businesses to create new checking account money and spending power.

Soon the Fed, banks, fiat money and credit cards will be challenged by Facebook’s Libra. Its basic architecture is remarkably elegant, and something like it will happen even if federal regulators won’t let Mark Zuckerberg have that much power.

In the coming decades, government’s deficits will soar to pay for underfunded social insurance and employee pensions, health care, guaranteed incomes and efforts to combat climate change.

The Fed and other central banks will be compelled to purchase huge sums of government bonds by issuing fiat money. Only fools will have confidence that anyone really controls the supply of fiat money and in the security of government bonds denominated in those currencies.

Libra will initially be backed on a dollar-for-dollar basis by a basket of high-quality fiat money — dollars, euros, yen and the like. But fiat currency and checking-account money were originally backed by the gold and silver coins and bullion that those replaced.

In time, Libra’s independent commission in Switzerland could do something the Fed and ECB can no longer do — manage and expand its supply for the needs of commerce as a Libra-based banking system emerges through private initiative.

Nothing Washington can reasonably do can prevent Switzerland from letting Libra or something similar establish within its jurisdiction or stop existing banks and new institutions around the world from take taking deposits and making loans in Libra.

Central banks everywhere have shied from issuing electronic money akin to Libra directly to consumers to bypass banks and directly influence the private economy. The Fed and banks had better look out — Zuckerberg’s cryptocurrency could make them as irrelevant as Facebook did telephones and texting for keeping large groups of people informed of their common endeavors.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.