New School Politics

Fed indicates more rate cuts to come

Ryan | 28 02 2008

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

In front of a House committee on Wednesday Ben Bernake claimed that lagging growth is the central bank’s chief concern.

This means only one thing: that the Federal Reserve will cut rates again in the relatively near future. His claim that growth is the chief concern also indicates that climbing inflation and the falling dollar are of secondary concern. The reality of both economic slowdown and climbing prices are beginning to revive worries of impending stagflation, which could be revealing itself for the first time since the 1970s and early 80s. The dilemma for Bernake is balancing these two inverse herrings. At this point, if he is indicating that he will cut rates to bolster short-term growth he is willingly accepting more inflation and a weaker dollar.

Yet there is still another side-effect that the fed is accepting: the stifling of long-term growth. This never gets talked about much on the news or by economically illiterate congressmen, but for the simple fact that more rate cuts encourage consumption at the cost of savings, we will be capital accumulation for usage of our economic resources in the short term. Its a simple matter of distorting time prefferances.

Additionally, unanswered is how rate cuts will actually revive the economy’s real capacity to produce and grow. While easier money encourages more spending, and thus creates the image of more growth by boosting aggregate demand in the immediate, it does not actually represent a real or sustainable spike in productivity. If rate cuts did boost real output then there would be no reason for the Fed to stop at 3%, they would just keep cutting and cutting the FFR down to 1% or less, and then keep it there. But the fact is that loose banking policy does little more than increase the money supply–which is the reason we are presently seeing more inflation–not wealth, contrary to the Keynsian and Mercantalist doctrines which apparently survive still today.

Another issue rarely addressed is the possibility of reinflating any bubbles in the economy by repeated rate cuts. Recall the slowdown in ‘01/’02 and how the Fed aggressively debased interest rates all the way to one percent by 2003. One of the consequences of the absurdly low rates was that investors that went bust in the tech bubble of the late nineties were to an extent bailed out by easy money and thus a standard of incentives were set which said that ‘even if you make bad investments, you will not be made to bear the full burden of your decision-making.’ Today, we may be seeing the deja vous in the housing market.

Henry Hazlitt once said, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Currently, I think many in the public eye are not acting as “good economists” by this measure. Even many economist have jumped on the fiscal/monetary stimulus bandwagon without enumerating all the costs and benefits of those policies. Until and unless many more Americans, economists, and policymakers start heeding Hazlitt’s advice, we should all become accustom to the patters of moderate booms and busts that we have witnessed in recent history.