How should central banks be - Binder 2012
11 pág.

How should central banks be - Binder 2012


DisciplinaEconomia Monetária760 materiais16.783 seguidores
Pré-visualização6 páginas
and\u2003 you\u2003 will\u2003 find\u2003
no\u2003mention\u2003of\u2003a\u2003central\u2003bank,\u2003much\u2003less\u2003of\u2003
central\u2003 bank\u2003 independence.7\u2003 Rather,\u2003 the\u2003
Federal\u2003 Reserve\u2003 was\u2003 created\u2003 by\u2003 an\u2003 ordi-
nary\u2003 act\u2003 of\u2003 Congress\u2003 in\u2003 1913.\u2003 Legislators\u2003
can\u2003 change\u2003 that\u2003 law\u2003 any\u2003 day,\u2003 and\u2003 in\u2003 any\u2003
way,\u2003 they\u2003 choose\u2014including\u2003 abolishing\u2003
the\u2003 Fed\u2003 entirely,\u2003 which\u2003 is\u2003 precisely\u2003 what\u2003
Congress\u2003did\u2003to\u2003the\u2003First\u2003and\u2003Second\u2003Banks\u2003
of\u2003the\u2003United\u2003States.\u2003Nor\u2003is\u2003there\u2003any\u2003ques-
tion\u2003 that\u2003 Congress\u2003 has\u2003 both\u2003 the\u2003 right\u2003 and\u2003
the\u2003 duty\u2003 to\u2003 oversee\u2003 the\u2003 Fed\u2019s\u2003 \u2003operations,\u2003
which\u2003 it\u2003 does\u2003 through\u2003 periodic\u2003 hearings\u2003
4\u2003\u2003The\u2003bill,\u2003named\u2003after\u2003Congressman\u2003Ron\u2003Paul\u2003(R-TX),\u2003
would\u2003subject\u2003 the\u2003FOMC\u2019s\u2003monetary\u2003policy\u2003decisions\u2003 to\u2003
audit\u2003by\u2003the\u2003Government\u2003Accountability\u2003Office\u2003(GAO).\u2003It\u2003
was\u2003modified\u2003and\u2003incorporated\u2003into\u2003the\u2003financial\u2003reform\u2003
bill\u2003that\u2003passed\u2003the\u2003House\u2003in\u2003December\u20032009.
5\u2003Although\u2003 only\u2003 twelve\u2003 FOMC\u2003members\u2003 vote\u2003 at\u2003 any\u2003
given\u2003 meeting,\u2003 all\u2003 nineteen\u2003 participate.\u2003 These\u2003 are\u2003 the\u2003
seven\u2003members\u2003of\u2003the\u2003Board\u2003of\u2003Governors\u2003in\u2003Washington\u2003
and\u2003the\u2003twelve\u2003presidents\u2003of\u2003the\u2003district\u2003Reserve\u2003Banks.
and\u2003 in\u2003other\u2003ways.\u2003Yet\u2003Fed\u2003Chairman\u2003Ben\u2003
Bernanke\u2003 has\u2003 characterized\u2003 the\u2003 Paul\u2003 bill\u2003
as\u2003something\u2003that\u2003would\u2003\u201cincrease\u2003the\u2003per-
ceived\u2003 influence\u2003 of\u2003 Congress\u2003 on\u2003monetary\u2003
policy.\u201d8\u2003What\u2019s\u2003the\u2003issue\u2003here?
The\u2003 Paul\u2003 bill\u2003 started\u2003 as\u2003 a\u2003 piece\u2003 of\u2003 free-
standing\u2003 legislation\u2003 that\u2003 would\u2003 end\u2003 the\u2003
exemption\u2003 from\u2003 audit\u2003 that\u2003 now\u2003 applies\u2003 to\u2003
the\u2003 Fed\u2019s\u2003 monetary\u2003 policy\u2003 and\u2003 dealings\u2003
with\u2003 foreign\u2003 central\u2003 banks\u2003 and\u2003 govern-
ments.\u2003 (Everything\u2003 else\u2003 is\u2003 auditable\u2003 now.)\u2003
The\u2003bill\u2003was\u2003short,\u2003to\u2003the\u2003point,\u2003and,\u2003in\u2003the\u2003
eyes\u2003 of\u2003 many\u2003 economists,\u2003 a\u2003 serious\u2003 threat\u2003
to\u2003the\u2003Fed\u2019s\u2003independence.\u2003But\u2003when\u2003it\u2003was\u2003
attached\u2003 to\u2003 the\u2003 House\u2003 version\u2003 of\u2003 financial\u2003
reform\u2003legislation,\u2003 the\u2003bill\u2003was\u2003amended\u2003 in\u2003
two\u2003important\u2003ways\u2003that\u2003seem\u2003barely\u2003to\u2003have\u2003
been\u2003noticed.9\u2003
First,\u2003the\u2003text\u2003now\u2003states\u2003that\u2003GAO\u2003audits\u2003
\u201cshall\u2003 not\u2003 include\u2003 unreleased\u2003 transcripts\u2003
or\u2003 minutes\u2003 of\u2003 meetings\u2003 of\u2003 the\u2003 Board\u2003 of\u2003
Governors\u2003 or\u2003 the\u2003 Federal\u2003 Open\u2003 Market\u2003
Committee.\u201d\u2003 That\u2003 important\u2003 exclusion\u2003
enhances\u2003both\u2003confidentiality\u2003and\u2003the\u2003inde-
pendence\u2003 of\u2003 monetary\u2003 policy.\u2003 But\u2003 it\u2019s\u2003 not\u2003
quite\u2003 enough\u2003 because\u2003 of\u2003 a\u2003 legalism.\u2003 Non-
lawyers\u2003 might\u2003 naturally\u2003 assume\u2003 that\u2003 the\u2003
words\u2003quoted\u2003 above\u2003 implicitly\u2003 instruct\u2003 the\u2003
GAO\u2003not\u2003to\u2003ask\u2003Fed\u2003officials\u2003to\u2003reveal\u2003infor-
mation\u2003about\u2003those\u2003confidential\u2003documents.\u2003
After\u2003 all,\u2003 what\u2003 sense\u2003 does\u2003 it\u2003make\u2003 to\u2003 rule\u2003
the\u2003documents\u2003out\u2003of\u2003bounds\u2003but\u2003allow\u2003the\u2003
GAO\u2003 to\u2003 request\u2003 information\u2003 about\u2003 their\u2003
contents?\u2003Apparently,\u2003 however,\u2003 there\u2003 is\u2003 no\u2003
such\u2003 implication\u2003 in\u2003U.S.\u2003 law.\u2003So,\u2003 for\u2003exam-
ple,\u2003 the\u2003 current\u2003 audit\u2003 statute\u2003provides\u2003 this\u2003
\u201cobvious\u201d\u2003 extension\u2003 explicitly\u2014in\u2003 words\u2003
8\u2003\u2003See\u2003Bernanke\u2003(2009).
9\u2003\u2003It\u2003 became\u2003 the\u2003 Paul\u2013Grayson\u2003 amendment,\u2003 which\u2003
became\u2003 section\u2003 1254(c)\u2003 of\u2003H.R.\u2003 4173,\u2003 \u201cThe\u2003Wall\u2003 Street\u2003
6\u2003\u2003Furthermore,\u2003 people\u2003 often\u2003 forget\u2003 that\u2003 Federal\u2003
Reserve\u2003\u201cindependence\u201d\u2003is\u2003far\u2003stronger\u2003in\u2003monetary\u2003policy\u2003
than\u2003in,\u2003e.g.,\u2003bank\u2003supervision\u2003and\u2003regulation.
7\u2003\u2003Instead,\u2003Article\u2003 I,\u2003 section\u20038\u2003assigns\u2003 to\u2003Congress\u2003 the\u2003
power\u2003\u201cto\u2003coin\u2003Money\u2003[and]\u2003regulate\u2003the\u2003Value\u2003thereof.\u201d
Reform\u2003and\u2003Consumer\u2003Protection\u2003Act\u2003of\u20032009.\u201d
Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVIII (March 2010)126
among\u2003nine\u2003federal\u2003agencies\u2003tested\u2014a\u2003list\u2003 that\u2003 included\u2003
that\u2003 can\u2003 and\u2003 should\u2003 be\u2003 imported\u2003 directly\u2003
into\u2003Paul\u2013Grayson.10\u2003
Second,\u2003and\u2003even\u2003more\u2003important,\u2003a\u2003clause\u2003
was\u2003added\u2003stating\u2003that,\u2003\u201cNothing\u2003in\u2003this\u2003sub-
section\u2003 shall\u2003 be\u2003 construed\u2003 as\u2003 interference\u2003
in\u2003 or\u2003 dictation\u2003 of\u2003 monetary\u2003 policy\u2003 to\u2003 the\u2003
Federal\u2003Reserve\u2003System\u2003by\u2003the\u2003Congress\u2003or\u2003
the\u2003Government\u2003Accountability\u2003Office.\u201d\u2003My\u2003
first\u2003reaction,\u2003upon\u2003reading\u2003this,\u2003was:\u2003\u201cWow.\u2003
That\u2019s\u2003the\u2003strongest\u2003affirmation\u2003of\u2003monetary\u2003
policy\u2003 independence\u2003 that\u2003 exists\u2003 anywhere\u2003
in\u2003U.S.\u2003 law.\u201d\u2003But\u2003 a\u2003 slower,\u2003 lawyerly\u2003 parsing\u2003
of\u2003the\u2003words\u2003leads\u2003to\u2003a\u2003different\u2003conclusion.\u2003
Read\u2003 literally,\u2003 the\u2003 sentence\u2003 simply\u2003 asserts\u2003
that\u2003 Paul\u2013Grayson\u2003 is\u2003 not\u2003 an\u2003 \u201cinterference\u2003
in\u2003 or\u2003 dictation\u2003 of\u2003 monetary\u2003 policy.\u201d\u2003 Oh,\u2003
really?\u2003Lots\u2003 of\u2003 people\u2003 construe\u2003 it\u2003 that\u2003way.\u2003
Fortunately,\u2003this\u2003legalistic\u2003attempt\u2003at\u2003thought\u2003
control\u2003can\u2003be\u2003eliminated\u2003by\u2003inserting\u2003a\u2003sin-
gle\u2003 gerund\u2003 into\u2003 the\u2003 relevant\u2003 sentence.\u2003 For\u2003
example,\u2003if\u2003Congress\u2003rewrote\u2003it\u2003as,\u2003\u201cNothing\u2003
in\u2003 this\u2003 subsection\u2003 shall\u2003 be\u2003 construed\u2003 as\u2003
allowing\u2003interference\u2003in\u2003or\u2003dictation\u2003of\u2003mon-
etary\u2003policy\u2003.\u2003.\u2003.\u2003,\u201d\u2003the\u2003clause\u2003would\u2003say\u2003what\u2003
a\u2003plain-English\u2003reading\u2003suggests.\u2003
Why,\u2003 then,\u2003do\u2003 the\u2003Fed\u2003and\u2003many\u2003econo-
mists\u2003 still\u2003 view\u2003 Paul\u2013Grayson\u2003 with\u2003 alarm?\u2003
One\u2003 reason\u2003 is\u2003 that\u2003 neither\u2003 of\u2003 these\u2003 two\u2003
\u201cminor\u201d\u2003 changes\u2003 have\u2003 been\u2003 made.\u2003 They\u2003
should\u2003be.\u2003But\u2003I\u2003think\u2003the\u2003main\u2003reason\u2003is\u2003the\u2003
justifiable\u2003concern\u2003that,\u2003once\u2003a\u2003camel\u2019s\u2003nose\u2003
gets\u2003 under\u2003 the\u2003 tent,\u2003 the\u2003 rest\u2003 of\u2003 the\u2003 camel\u2003
will\u2003try\u2003to\u2003follow.\u2003It\u2003has\u2003not\u2003escaped\u2003anyone\u2019s\u2003
notice\u2003 that\u2003Congressman\u2003 Paul\u2019s\u2003 latest\u2003 book\u2003
(Paul\u2003 2009)\u2003 is\u2003 entitled,\u2003 End the Fed.\u2003 We\u2003
know\u2003where\u2003 this\u2003 particular\u2003 camel\u2003wants\u2003 to\u2003
go,\u2003and\u2003most\u2003economists\u2003do\u2003not\u2003want\u2003it\u2003to\u2003get\u2003
10\u2003\u2003USC\u200331,\u2003Subtitle\u2003I,\u2003Chapter\u20037,\u2003Subchapter\u20032,\u2003Section\u2003
714.4\u2003states\u2003that\u2003\u201cAudits\u2003of\u2003the\u2003Federal\u2003Reserve\u2003Board\u2003and\u2003
Federal\u2003Reserve\u2003banks\u2003may\u2003not\u2003include\u2003.\u2003.\u2003.\u2003(4)\u2003a\u2003part\u2003of\u2003a\u2003
discussion\u2003or\u2003communication\u2003among\u2003or\u2003between\u2003members\u2003
of\u2003the\u2003Board\u2003of\u2003Governors\u2003and\u2003officers\u2003and\u2003employees\u2003of\u2003
the\u2003Federal\u2003Reserve\u2003System\u2003related\u2003 to\u2003clauses\u2003 (1)\u2013(3)\u2003of\u2003
this\u2003subsection.\u201d\u2003The\u2003ellipses\u2003connote\u2003the\u2003three\u2003clauses\u2003I\u2003
have\u2003omitted\u2003from\u2003the\u2003quotation.\u2003They\u2003list\u2003the\u2003three\u2003items\u2003
that\u2003are\u2003placed\u2003outside\u2003the\u2003scope\u2003of\u2003GAO\u2003audits.
there.11\u2003Congress\u2003should\u2003not\u2003either,\u2003because\u2003
mountains\u2003of\u2003empirical\u2003evidence\u2003support\u2003the\u2003
proposition\u2003 that\u2003 greater\u2003 central\u2003 bank\u2003 inde-
pendence\u2003produces\u2003not\u2003only\u2003less\u2003inflation\u2003but\u2003
superior\u2003macroeconomic\u2003 performance,\u2003 e.g.,\u2003
lower\u2003and\u2003less\u2003volatile\u2003inflation\u2003with\u2003no\u2003more\u2003
volatility\u2003in\u2003output.12
Despite\u2003 that,\u2003 the\u2003 Paul\u2003 bill\u2003 garnered\u2003 the\u2003
support\u2003 of\u2003 more\u2003 than\u2003 two-thirds\u2003 of\u2003 the\u2003
House\u2003of\u2003Representatives\u2003even\u2003before\u2003it\u2003was\u2003
amended\u2003 to\u2003make\u2003 it\u2003 more\u2003 palatable\u2003 in\u2003 the\u2003
ways\u2003 just\u2003 discussed.\u2003 In\u2003 a\u2003 political\u2003 environ-
ment\u2003in\u2003which\u2003regard\u2003for\u2003the\u2003Fed\u2003has\u2003hit\u2003rock\u2003
bottom,13\u2003 economists\u2019\u2003 technical\u2003 arguments\u2003
have\u2003 not\u2003 been\u2003 very\u2003 persuasive,\u2003 leaving\u2003 the\u2003
independence\u2003of\u2003the\u2003Fed\u2003under\u2003some\u2003threat.
3.2\u2003 The Structure of the FOMC
There\u2003 was\u2003 no\u2003 FOMC\u2003 when\u2003 the\u2003 Federal\u2003
Reserve\u2003System\u2003opened\u2003for\u2003business\u2003in\u20031914.\u2003
Even\u2003Keynes\u2003was\u2003busy\u2003 thinking\u2003about\u2003war-
time\u2003 finance,\u2003 not\u2003 about\u2003 discretionary\u2003mon-
etary\u2003policy.\u2003While\u2003the\u2003origins\u2003of\u2003the\u2003FOMC\u2003
date\u2003 back\u2003 to\u2003 the\u2003 1920s,\u2003 it\u2003 was\u2003 officially\u2003
established\u2003 by\u2003 amendments\u2003 to\u2003 the\u2003 Federal\u2003
Reserve\u2003 Act\u2003 in\u2003 the\u2003 1930s.\u2003 Today\u2019s\u2003 commit-
tee\u2003 reflects\u2003 the\u2003 founders\u2019\u2003 original\u2003 desire\u2003 to\u2003
balance\u2003power\u2003between\u2003government\u2003officials\u2003
in\u2003Washington,\u2003who\u2003might\u2003be\u2003\u201cpolitical,\u201d\u2003and\u2003
bankers,\u2003 who\u2003 are\u2003 presumably\u2003 reliable\u2003 stal-
warts\u2003against\u2003inflation.\u2003
11\u2003\u2003For\u2003 example,\u2003 my\u2003 surveys\u2003 (see\u2003 Blinder\u2003 2000)\u2003
found\u2003 that\u2003 both\u2003 central\u2003 bankers\u2003 and\u2003 economists\u2003
rated\u2003 central\u2003 bank\u2003 independence\u2003 as\u2003 the\u2003 second\u2003 most\u2003
important\u2003 (out\u2003 of\u2003 seven)\u2003 ways\u2003 to\u2003 establish\u2003 or\u2003 main-
tain\u2003 credibility.\u2003 A\u2003 petition\u2003 against\u2003 the\u2003 Paul\u2003 bill,\u2003 cir-
culated\u2003 in\u2003 November\u2003 2009,\u2003 \u2003rapidly\u2003 \u2003garnered\u2003 the\u2003
signatures\u2003 of\u2003 over\u2003 300\u2003 economists.\u2003 It\u2003 can\u2003 be\u2003 found\u2003 at:\u2003
https://survey.chicagobooth.edu/ViewsFlash/servlet /\u2003
viewsflash?cmd=showform&pollid=gfm!fedpetition2.
12\u2003\u2003For\u2003 a\u2003 recent\u2003 summary,\u2003 see\u2003Daron\u2003Acemoglu\u2003 et\u2003 al.\u2003
2008.
13\u2003\u2003Two\u2003 examples:\u2003 First,\u2003 the\u2003 thirty\u2003 votes\u2003 against\u2003 Ben\u2003
Bernanke\u2003 in\u2003 January\u2003 2010\u2003were\u2003 the\u2003most\u2003 in\u2003 history,\u2003 by\u2003
a\u2003 wide\u2003 margin.\u2003 Second,\u2003 a\u2003 July\u2003 2009\u2003 Gallup\u2003 poll\u2003 found\u2003
that\u2003the\u2003public\u2003judges\u2003the\u2003Fed\u2003to\u2003have\u2003done\u2003the\u2003worst\u2003job\u2003
Homeland\u2003Security,\u2003the\u2003CIA,\u2003and\u2003the\u2003IRS!
127Blinder: How Central Should the Central Bank Be?
The\u2003 twelve\u2003district\u2003 banks\u2003 are,\u2003 technically,\u2003
private\u2003 corporations\u2003 with\u2003 shareholders\u2003 and\u2003
boards\u2003of\u2003directors.14\u2003As\u2003shareholders,\u2003bankers\u2003
comprise\u2003three\u2003of\u2003the\u2003nine\u2003members\u2003of\u2003each\u2003
Reserve