Of Stagflation and Economic Recovery

 

Photo by FortyTwo on Unsplash

Governments create inflation.  Since governments maintain a monopoly on money creation and exercise it constantly, the results of their policies are their own, whether they wish to own them or not.  Having said that, though government got us into this inflationary mess, more government is not going to get us out.  Yet, less government might.

The current administration—including the Federal Reserve—is in a tight spot.  Many repeatedly predicted that the unwholesome monetary and fiscal policies to respond to the equally unwholesome policies of dramatic economic shutdown of the 2020 Great Cessation would eventually lead to inflation.  So they have, even worse than what we saw in the 1970s.  The incoming Biden Administration persisted in blowing air into the inflationary balloon distended the year before.

This is not a partisan statement.  We have seen two Republican administrations doom themselves at the polls by engaging in ruinous economic policies because it was an election year.  Within memory of 2020 policymakers, the outgoing Bush Administration in 2008 mishandled the sure-to-be recession coming from the bursting of the housing bubble by panicking Congress into passing the TARP legislation, which fright drove investors to the sidelines.

True, the price rise from the 2020 massive fiscal and monetary stimulus did not appear as quickly as worriers, like me, expected.  Recipients of government largesse were not spurred to spend it as spontaneously as predicted.  Neither did negative real interest rates prod much borrowing, but it did punish savers.  While economic activity remained suppressed, people for a time sat on their money with little to do.  Eventually, puzzles all finished, people started coming out as 2021 wore on.  Congressional leadership called for more stimulus whilst the flood of funds from earlier stimulus at last began to flow.

The tight spot for the current administration is how to bring down inflation without bringing down the economy.  Of course, the economy will come down if they do not, because inflation eats away at the insides of economic activity.  Current White House leaders are sensitive about comparisons with the Carter Administration, yet there is talk of following the failed Carter example of trying to drive the economic car with one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator.  That is the program for Carteresque stagflation, a stalled economy wrapped in continued high prices.

What we should have learned—and many have—is that the way to end inflation without getting into stagflation is not more government stimulus.  It is to end disincentives to business activity.  Reduce regulatory burdens and people will find ways to solve problems and get things done.  Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services, stagflation impeding production of goods and services.  Reducing regulatory burdens and barriers to business activity addresses both problems by promoting productivity, innovation, and expansion, which increase supply at lower costs, reward creativity, and encourage new ideas in a virtuous economic circle.  It worked in the 1980s.  It can work 40 years later.

Of the Federal Reserve and Dreams of Success

 

Photo by Tyler B on Unsplash

It may be easy, but I think unfair, to fault the Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  Their task is more than they can handle, and yet they are required to do it.  More accurately, I should say that their tasks are more than they can handle, and yet they are required to do them.

When the Fed was created, more than a century ago, a big concern was that it would be dominated by the financiers of New York and the politicians of Washington.  Hence, rather than a central bank, it was born as a system of a dozen regional banks, with a limited focus, to offset the liquidity risk inherent in banking.

Over time the Fed has not stayed that way.  Today, the Federal Reserve is effectively the biggest bank in the world.  Financiers in New York have an outsized influence, but the influence of the politicians in Washington may be greater.  Otherwise, how could a federal republic tolerate a handful of people at a single agency having so much sway over the daily lives and future prosperity of the individuals, families, communities, and businesses in the 50 States of the Union?  Accountability to the elected cannot long be withheld.

A great problem has been that the elected do not refrain from giving the Fed more things to do.  Its one first task has lost its focus by becoming three.  By law, the members of the Board, joined by the presidents of the 12 Fed banks, are to conduct themselves “so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”

What if they cannot succeed?  Then we fault them for failures while still pretending that they can.  We hide the goal posts in fog.  What is “maximum employment”?  Can it be today’s 62% of the adult population when we began the 21^st Century at 67%?  What are “stable prices”?  Does “stable” mean that the price of food tomorrow will be the same price it is today, or is “stable” the Fed’s official goal that things will cost 2% more each year, so that my young son’s retirement will require nearly twice as much as mine does?  Then there is the third, often forgotten requirement, that interest rates be “moderate.”  For 10 years the Fed kept quiet about that legal mandate, keeping interest rates very close to zero, a huge transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers, Uncle Sam being the world’s biggest borrower.  Is it surprising that the federal government’s debt grew during those 10 years to $30 trillion and still swelling?

What is the Fed to do?  We cannot reproach its current team, because they cannot succeed.  No government agency, regardless of excellent economists and the best computers, can manage it all.  If you read the statements, they carefully admit, essentially, “we don’t know how to succeed, but the law says we have to do something, so we will try this and that and see how it goes.”

Meanwhile, it has not been going so well.  To paraphrase liberally from psychiatrist Anthony Daniels, we should not be so beguiled by the dreamy tasks we have placed on the Fed that we cannot bear to lighten the load merely because it is not working.  

Of Rule by Experts and Rule by Law

 

Photo by Adam Szuscik on Unsplash

In the 1990s I was part of a congressional delegation to Argentina, when the Argentine economy was growing strongly and steadily, and inflation was low, the currency convertible 1-for-1 with the dollar.  Trade barriers were being lowered, commerce was booming.  I recall asking Argentines what could possibly darken what seemed to be a bright future.  They were quick to reply:  “Here in Argentina we have no rule of law.  You can have no confidence in getting justice from the courts.”  Not long after, political shenanigans to reward one part of the electorate by a transfer of wealth from others threw the Argentine economy into turmoil.  Momentary good policy is a tough path to walk across bogs of inadequate legal safeguards.  Freedom has rested upon rule by law rather than rule by men.

Fundamentally, the American Revolution was an assertion of the rule of law.  Most of the Declaration of Independence is a litany of abuse by the English rulers.  The Revolution was intended to take power away from man and men and rest it upon laws and rights, soon to be secured by the world’s first written Constitution.

The Progressive Movement, which thrived over a century ago, was a retreat, aggressively stepping backwards to the rule of men as an impatient alternative to the rule of law:  the Rule of Experts.  Their new view—really a very old view dressed up in modern rhetoric—was that there are benevolent experts, to whom we can safely yield our governance, for such understand the process of modern government better than ordinary people do.

It sounds akin to the ancient theory of Divine Right of Kings, that the worldly monarchs are chosen by God and invested with greater wisdom and perspective than the average man and woman.  To their benevolent expertise and fatherly care was entrusted the governance of the rest of us.

Today’s benevolent experts are invested by their colleagues with varieties of credentials certifying their expertise.  Not very democratic, they make no secret of their impatience with the Congress and other constitutional brakes on arbitrary authority.

Just as not all men are always just, not all men are reliably wise.  The American Founders thought to address this problem by the separation of powers, dividing political authority among three branches in the Federal Government and the States.

The current regulatory program rests heavily on the notion that benevolent experts should be entrusted with authority for the big questions and increasingly smaller questions, too.  It has evolved by progressively engulfing the constitutional separation of powers, merging legislative and executive—and often judicial—authority in “independent” regulatory agencies headed by unelected officials.  The unelected federal regulator writes the details of mandatory regulations, charges violators, assesses guilt, and applies penalties.

Professedly efficient, it does not work well in practice.  First, the regulators are not dispassionate umpires, limited to calling the balls and strikes.  They are also players in the game, having their own set of particular interests and incentives that they take care of first.

Second, reliance on benevolent experts assumes what is an unproven, undemonstrated level of knowledge, insight, and forecasting skills.  Regulators are not dumber than the rest of the population, but they are no smarter either.  It is just that life is too complex and the society of the living is proving too much to be run by any designated group of humans and their computers.

A third flaw is mission creep.  Even if the tasks are too great or require too much knowledge, insight, foresight, and other skills in unachievable degree, the regulators still take them on, with each failure met with calls to increase resources and power of the agency.  

An example is the Federal Reserve (commonly called the “Fed”), created with a specific and rather narrow purpose, to make enough funding available for the banking system in times of financial stress.  Before long, the Fed gained control of monetary policy and the practice of controlling interest rates.  Later, it was tasked with promoting maximum employment.  In 2010 the Fed’s role in supervising banks was enlarged to supervising any financial business considered to be systemically significant.  Each augmentation has drawn the Fed away from its narrow, objective task. 

This expansion of authority affects every business and every home.  The Federal Reserve is the world’s biggest rigger of interest rates.  Its prolonged policy of keeping short-term rates at or slightly above zero has resulted in penalizing all savers and those who live off of their savings, transferring trillions of dollars of wealth to borrowers, the biggest borrower being the Federal Government.

A partial but simple solution toward strengthening the rule of law and reducing exposure to the caprice of men would be returning to elected representatives the making of laws.  It is a messy process, exactly the messy process that the Founders intended to preserve freedom from the encroachment of arbitrary and oppressive government.  The regulators, which are theoretically part of the executive branch, should be limited to the duty of implementing the laws that the elected and accountable representatives make. 

If Congress were required to write the rules and mandates, and delegate only the implementation, the mandates of government would be circumscribed by the exposure of a legislative body held directly accountable for what it has wrought.  It is easy for legislators to complain about bad regulatory decisions, but too often, these are decisions that Congress never should have delegated to regulators in the first place.

Of More Money and Higher Prices

 

Photo by Shane on Unsplash

We have a new occupant of the Oval Office.  I did not hear his inaugural address, uncertain who would forget it more quickly, myself or its deliverer.  Inaugural addresses are highly forgettable literature, Lincoln’s first and second addresses (the second especially) the only ones that anyone can seem to remember, and worthy they are as exceptions to the genre.

I have been remembering the mountains of money that the government has been spending that it does not have, wondering where it is coming from even more than where it is going.  It is hard to find anyone who can tell you much with certainty about either.  The current attention is more focused on plans to spend yet another two trillion dollars that the government does not have on things that are not very clearly explained.  This would be on top of the most recent trillion dollars approved by Congress drawn from an empty well to be spent watering many a hidden garden.

I can understand the first round or two of multi-trillion dollar government expenditures.  Since government caused the collapse of a strongly growing economy by shutting down commerce and locking up the population, a strong argument can be made that paying these victims is not exactly a bailout as it is compensation.  To quote Will Rogers, if Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out? 

A serious problem seems to be that once you get into the game of paying people more to stay at home than they can earn on the job, how do you bring the game to an end.  The plan of the new Oval Office occupant seems to be to go into extra innings but continue serving spiritous refreshments well past the seventh inning.  How will the people get home safely once the game is over?

The classic formula for inflation is to have too much money chasing too few goods and services.  The kindling for a roaring inflation would appear to be carefully set. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve have been dramatically expanding the money supply, with the Federal Reserve supporting the market for the government’s electronic debt (not much money is printed on paper anymore) by purchasing gobs of Treasury securities from banks, paying the banks with electronic credits on their accounts held at the Federal Reserve, which the banks cannot find much to do with.  At the same time, many governors continue to issue orders to suppress the supply of goods and services.  As Elon Musk reportedly said last year, if you don't make stuff, there is no stuff.

If this worry is well-founded, then why have we not yet seen any inflation, government spending surges and the Great Cessation having been Federal and State policies for nearly a year?  A very good question, the answer to which may be found in the savings rate.  While a lot of electronic money has been going into people’s bank accounts, people have been shy about spending it.  The personal savings rate jumped in 2020 from about 7% to nearly 35%.  Worried people hoard more than toilet paper.  And a lot of things that people might spend money on, such as travel, suddenly were not available.  I was surprised last year when our car insurance company sent us a rebate:  insurance losses were down because people were traveling less.

The roads are a bit more congested these days, and the economy is showing strong signs of trying to recover.  Even the savings rate is coming down, dropping to about 13% as 2020 approached its close.  More activity is good, but what is the Federal Reserve going to do if more people spend more savings faster than more goods and services are provided?  How will the Federal Reserve respond to another couple trillion dollars of deficit spending to stimulate an economy that is already on a recovery trajectory and families continue draining their savings?  They could allow interest rates to rise, to encourage people to keep some of their money in savings accounts that have paid less than a penny a year per dollar saved.  Recent Federal Reserve comments, though, declare that is not on the table.

In the late 1970s, when Jimmy Carter was president, economists invented the term “stagflation,” as inflation was high and the economy was in the doldrums.  Joe Biden was a relatively new Senator back then.  Maybe he will remember those days.  That economic pattern served no one well.

Of Bears and Working

Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

I can support a cute idea like this.  One of our neighbor dads plans to take his children “on a bear hunt.”  Dad has planned ahead.  He asked neighbors who have them, to put a teddy bear in the window to be spotted by his children as they walk around the block. 

Being empty nesters, our home is more often host to grandchildren; few of many bears remain in our house.  Once we had dozens—of teddy bears.  We now have more than a dozen grandchildren, and I am fine with the trade. 

Speaking of trading, I suppose that we could put in the window a print out of today’s stock market, sliding deeper into bear market territory, responding to yet another attempt by the Federal Reserve to stimulate market confidence.  A more than casual observation might be that these government intervention moves can do more to spook investors than reassure them.  Usually declared while the markets are closed, the moves appear lately to be followed by a sharp market sell-off.  No criticism of their intentions, but when the 5 governors at the Federal Reserve (Fed for short) are pitted against the billions of people who make trillions of economic decisions each day, the Fed is frequently worsted.  No matter how good computers are, the economy is too complex for any of the models upon which any team of experts relies.   

So, no picture of the bear market for the window.  We do not wish to scare the children or their dad.

Fortunately, we did find a teddy bear in the house, left by our youngest (who still has lots of his stuff here).  The bear now sits on our front porch, awaiting discovery.  On his lap he holds a sign, one that our daughter gave us some years ago to announce the pending arrival of her first child.  The sign reads, “Grandkids welcome.  Parents by appointment.” 

No, the sign was not mandated by the CDC or the governor.  Humans need social interaction.  That fact is not apparent in the government orders to isolate people indefinitely.  Dad may not go to work, children may not go to school, so it is great to see fathers and sons and daughters taking pleasant walks.  At some point, someone is going to need to pay bills to buy things produced by somebody somewhere.  I wonder whether the complex models on which the governors rely are a match for the billions of human interactions in which their millions of citizens need to engage in order to live and be happy. 

Of the Federal Reserve and Taking from Savers

Ben Bernanke has a blog.  You can find it here, courtesy of the Brookings Institution.  Of course, what would the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board write about, other than decisions he made as Chairman, and why people who take issue with them are wrong?  One would expect no less, and reading the light he sheds on previous decisions—offered in Fedspspeak at the time that they were made—is surely the chief lure of Ben Bernanke’s blog.  Allowed to communicate in regular English, not worried about how Fed Watchers might construe or misconstrue everything he says and does not say, Ben is more able to speak his mind clearly.

The former Fed Head chose for his first blog post a vigorous defense of price controls on interest rates.  In the process Bernanke demonstrates the assumption that we are safe letting government economists control the economy—an assumption continually disproven by real-world experience. 

In fact, as a result of entrusting much of our economic freedom in the United States to government economists, we do not have a free market for interest rates, at least not short term rates, and we pay for that every day.  The Federal Reserve sets short term rates in this country, and so far the market has had zero success in moving rates from the near zero interest rate range that the Federal Reserve has decreed and maintained for some years.  Keep that in mind the next time you wonder why you earned $1.73 in interest on your savings account last year.

If you borrow money—when you can get a loan—then you might consider yourself lucky.  The biggest borrower of all, in the whole world, is the United States Government.  Uncle Sam must be feeling very lucky, because he is paying comparatively little on the $18 trillion of U.S. Government debt, increased by another half trillion dollars last year.

If you save money, though, especially for your retirement—and if you have to live off of those savings in retirement—you might not feel so fortunate.  By keeping interest rates lower than the market would set them, the Federal Reserve is daily transferring many billions of dollars from savers to the Federal Government.  And you thought that only the IRS takes your money.

Let me illustrate with an example.  For the last three months of 2014, all of the banks in the United States, all of them together, paid no more than $11 billion to people who had their money in banks.  Is that a lot of money?  It depends.  When that is the interest paid on nearly $12 trillion in deposits, the answer is, no, that is not very much money at all. 

Do not blame the banks, though.  They are in the saving and lending business, too. Try as they might, with the Federal Reserve controlling interest rates, banks could not pay any more interest to depositors.  If a bank did, it would have more money than it could lend as people shifted their deposits where they could get a better return.  To pay interest on deposits, banks cannot get much more interest from the loans they make than the Federal Reserve price controls allow, and many relatively good loans present more repayment risk (banks do need to be paid back) than those low interest rates would cover.  Low interest earned means low interest paid. 

All the banks in the nation have a little over $15 trillion in loans and other assets, on which they earned last year about the same amount as they did five years ago, when they had $2 trillion less in loans and other assets.  In an environment of low interest rates, banks have to concentrate their lending on the safest borrowers. 

That is how the low interest rates controlled by the Federal Reserve are oppressing the economy.  When savers and lenders can only get a few cents on a hundred dollars lent, they place their money with the very safest of borrowers, since they cannot afford to take any losses.  Someone who has a really good idea—which like all good ideas may or may not succeed the first time—has trouble getting the money to give his idea a go and hire people to help him try. 

Ben Bernanke claims that the Federal Reserve’s near zero interest rate policy—called ZIRP—has been stimulating the economy.  If so, where is the stimulation?  Why has the recovery been so weak?  There has been stimulus, but it has gone primarily to support Federal Government spending and to pay down the debt of the largest and healthiest businesses that can trade in their higher cost loans for the Federal Reserve’s lending bargains.  The biggest increases in bank loans have been in Treasury debt and deposits at the Federal Reserve.

Ben Bernanke, in his blog, reminds me of the story of the lawyer representing a client charged with stealing a car and returning it damaged.  The lawyer says, first, that his client never had the car; second, that he returned it in perfect condition; and, third, that it was already irreparably damaged when his client took it. 

Bernanke begins by explaining that the Federal Reserve does not set interest rates, or that at most its ability to do so is only “transitory and limited.”  He pleads that the Fed can only affect short term rates “in the short run.”  He does not explain how seven years of ZIRP can be considered the short run.  Then he progresses in his blog to describe how the Federal Reserve “influences” interest rates and then how the “Fed’s actions determine” interest rates.  His argument, after denying that the Fed can set rates, is that the economy has been so weak that the Fed has had to lower interest rates for the nation’s own good.  Bernanke next argues that the economy has remained so troubled (he does not say, despite ZIRP) that the Federal Reserve has had no choice but to continue with ZIRP, concluding that it is the economy after all the forces the Fed to do what it does.  Do not blame the Fed Governors, they had no choice but to continue doing what they cannot do because it has not done any good so far.  I think you need to have a Ph.D. in economics to make such an argument.

We cannot do it, we did what we had to do, and since it has not helped we cannot stop.  I wonder how he reacted to those kind of explanations from his teenagers.  Any responsible parent would reply, no, you cannot have the car, give me back the keys.

Of the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers

In the 1990s I was part of a congressional delegation to Argentina.  At that time the Argentine economy was growing strongly and steadily, inflation was low, the currency was pegged to the dollar, convertible 1-for-1.  Trade barriers were being lowered, commerce was booming.  I recall asking Argentines what could possibly darken what seemed to be a very bright future.  They were quick to reply:  “Here in Argentina we have no rule of law.  You can have no confidence in getting justice from the courts.”

That reminded me of Washington Irving’s observation on a European judge, from his famous work, The Alhambra:

It could not be denied, however, that he set a high value upon justice, for he sold it at its weight in gold.

Not long after that visit, the politics of income redistribution and confiscation threw the Argentine economy into turmoil, where it has remained.

I recently spoke with an economist friend of mine, who was waxing eloquent about the attractive monetary and tax policies in Bulgaria.  I remarked that this would probably invite foreign investment.  He replied, “No, there is no rule of law there.”

The point is that good economic policy cannot long survive inadequate legal safeguards.  Many businesses that made major investments in China, attracted by a market of a billion people, have learned that the lack of a reliable legal and justice system in China has undermined much of the business value they thought to find.  A similar story has been holding back investment and economic development in Russia.

Bringing that home, I would venture that concern for changing rules (or even lack of rules)—the substitution of arbitrary bureaucratic powers in Washington over objective rule of law—has been inhibiting more robust investment in the United States, a major cause for our current anemic economic recovery.

An ancient king in the Western Hemisphere, named Mosiah, warned, “because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.” (Mosiah 29:16)  Because men are not consistently just, freedom has historically rested upon rule by law rather than rule by men.

Fundamentally, that was the very reason for the American Revolution.  Our revolution was based on the rule of law, an assertion of the rule of law, a response to violations of the rule of law by the English king and parliament.  Most of the Declaration of Independence is a lengthy litany of violations of law by the English rulers.  The Revolution was designed to take power away from man and men and rest it upon laws and rights, soon to be secured by a written supreme law embodied in the Constitution.  Any erosion in the force and effect of the Constitution is an erosion of the rule of law and of the freedoms that rely upon law for their defense.

The Progressive Movement that thrived about a century ago, and found a major advocate in the federal government in President Woodrow Wilson, aggressively proposed an alternative to the rule of law.  This program was the Rule of Experts.  Their new view—and it really was a very old view though they dressed it up in modern-sounding rhetoric—was that there are Benign People, Experts, who know the process of modern government better than most people do, to whom we can safely yield governing authorities. 

It sounds akin to the ancient theory of Divine Right of Kings, that the monarchs of the world are chosen by God and endowed with greater wisdom and perspective than the average man and woman.  To their benign expertise and fatherly care was to be entrusted the governance of the rest of us.

The modern Rule of Experts people have much the same view, that these experts were endowed by their universities and other sources of expertise with ability far above that of most, and it would be wise to trust ourselves to their benign care.  Not very democratic, and in fact these Benign Experts make no secret of their impatience with the Congress and other constitutional brakes on arbitrary authority.

As King Mosiah wisely pointed out that men are not always just, it is also appropriate to recognize that putting men in government does not make them any more reliably wise than the rest of us.  The American Founders thought to address this problem by dividing political power among not only three branches in the Federal Government but also by embracing the federal system of dividing government with the States.

The current regulatory structure and program of the United States rest heavily on the idea that Benign Experts should be entrusted with authority for many of the big questions facing Americans and for many of the much smaller questions, too.  That is certainly the structure of the Dodd-Frank Act, to offer one recent, prominent example among many.

Charles Calomiris, of the Columbia University business school, described the theory of the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulations this way:

The implicit theory behind these sorts of initiatives, to the extent that there is a theory, is that the recent crisis happened because regulatory standards were not quite complex enough, because the extensive discretionary authority of bank supervisors was not great enough, and because rules and regulations prohibiting or discouraging specific practices were not sufficiently extensive.

(Charles W. Calomiris, “Meaningful Banking Reform and Why it Is so Unlikely,” VoxEU, January 8, 2013)

This program of federal regulation has been imposed increasingly in contravention of the basic constitutional principle of separation of powers, by merging legislative, executive, and judicial authority in “independent” regulatory agencies.  The unelected federal regulator today decides the details and specifics of binding mandates, identifies violators of those regulations, assesses guilt, and applies penalties.

Taken together our current regulatory system, by merging rather than maintaining the separation of powers of the Constitution, is eroding the rule of law.  It is returning us to the age old practice of rule by men, with all of the potential for abuse of rights and freedoms, abuses that fill up most of the sadder pages of human history.

During the debate over the creation of the new financial consumer Bureau, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd boasted that with this new agency people would no longer have to come to Congress for the enactment of new consumer laws.  The Bureau would take care of all that.

There are serious operational flaws—too often overlooked—in the program of governance by Benign Experts.  First, the regulators are not dispassionate umpires, limited to calling the balls and strikes.  These umpires are also players in the game, the federal agencies each having their own set of particular interests and incentives that they take care of first.

Second, reliance on Benign Experts assumes an unproven, undemonstrated level of knowledge, insight, and forecasting skills.  AEI President Arthur Brooks, in his book, The Battle, provides one of many examples of this flaw:

Federal Reserve economists were still forecasting significant positive growth and moderate unemployment in May and June 2008.  They believed that economic growth in 2009 would be 2.4 percent, and unemployment would be 5.5 percent.  What we experienced instead was negative growth, double-digit unemployment, and the destruction of at least $50 trillion in worldwide wealth.  No one can get the numbers exactly right, to be sure.  But getting them this much wrong certainly lends a whole new meaning to the expression ‘margin of error.’

(Arthur C. Brooks, The Battle, p.46)

It is not that regulators are dumber than the rest of the population, but they are no smarter either.  The regulatory problems are increasingly too great for any designated group of humans to solve. 

Third flaw, mission creep:  power attracts power.  Even if the tasks are too great, require too much knowledge, insight, foresight, and other skills in unachievable degree, the regulators still take them on, especially if the task increases the reach and influence of the agency.  

I offer two examples from an example-rich environment.

Basel III capital rules started from a simple idea, that banks all around the world should be subject to the same capital standards.  Capital (the financial cushion a bank carries against losses) is one of the three key elements of sound banking, the other two being liquidity and earnings.  These international rules did not remain simple.  Developed by an international team of experts from around the world, who labored on them for years, the rules number hundreds of pages, affecting the entire financial structure and business model of a bank, any bank.  Congress was not involved and has no particular role in approving the rules.  When exposed to public review they attracted thousands of comment letters expressing dismay that they are a bad fit for the U.S. economy.  In the end, though, the regulators can go ahead with what they alone think is best.

A second example would be the Federal Reserve.  One hundred years ago this year the Fed was created with a specific, identifiable, and rather narrow purpose, to provide liquidity for the banking system in times of financial stress.  Before long, the Federal Reserve gained control of monetary policy and built up the practice of controlling interest rates.  Later, it was given the task of promoting maximum employment.  Under Dodd-Frank the Federal Reserve’s role in supervising banks and bank holding companies was expanded to supervising any financial business considered to be significant for financial stability.  Each of these powers has drawn the Federal Reserve away from its narrow, objective task, to broad fields of subjective authority. 

Perversely, this expansion of authority into more judgmental areas is eroding the independence of the Federal Reserve, making it yet one more political player in Washington, with responsibilities that far exceed human ability to fulfill, but which reach to every business and every home.  The Fed’s prolonged policy of keeping short-term interest rates at or about zero has penalized all who save and live off of their savings, transferring trillions of dollars from savers to borrowers, the biggest borrower being the Federal Government, a policy decided by a small group of Washington experts.

I offer a partial but simple solution to point us back toward strengthening the rule of law and reducing our exposure to the rule of man and men, however expert they might be.  Return the lawmaking and the policy decisions to the elected representatives.  It is a messy process, but exactly the messy process that the Founders intended to preserve freedom from the encroachment of arbitrary and oppressive government.  The regulators, which are theoretically part of the executive branch, should be left with the duty of implementing the laws and policy decisions that the elected and accountable representatives make. 

If Congress were required to write the rules and mandates and delegate to the executive agencies only the execution, the mandates of government would be circumscribed by the limitations of a legislative body forced to be directly accountable for what it has wrought.  It is easy for legislators to complain about bad regulatory decisions, when all too often these are decisions that Congress never should have delegated to regulators in the first place.

We would still have laws and regulations, but the laws might be more direct and specific, and perhaps fewer and surely smaller.  We would probably not have Dodd-Frank Acts that number thousands of pages read by no congressman or Senator, containing a cacophony of half-baked ideas and multiple solutions to the same problem, all left for the regulators to sort out.  

And legislators might recall this caution, from Thomas Paine:

Laws difficult to be executed cannot be generally good.

(Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man)

Of Good Times on Wall Street and Standing Out from the Crowd

The lot of people engaging in the “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) party in New York City are a lot of things to a lot of people, particularly if you rely upon the glowing news reports about them.  Most Americans, let’s say 99% of them, have not been near any of the party goers, so we have had to rely upon the news media to tell us who and what they are.  A colleague of mine witnessed their march in Washington on a recent Saturday.  There were about 30 of them matched—or even overmatched—by the number of reporters accompanying the march, so in terms of numbers the parties seem to be well covered.

Still, for all that coverage I have to confess that I have not been able to get any specific or focused idea on who they are and what they want.  That is why I am indebted to Democrat pollster Douglas Schoen, who had the bright idea of sending his polling team to the party to ask the attendees themselves who they are, what they believe, and what they want.  As far as I know he was the first to come up with such an obvious idea and remains the only one to have tried it.  The occupiers were fortunately candid and forthcoming in the interviews.  I expect that they may be more on their guard in the future to repeat the party line, whatever that might be.

I understand that the OWS party goers represent 99% of the population (I am not sure if they mean 99% of America, or of the World, or of just New York City—the lack of Yankees baseball caps in the media photos casts doubt on this last possibility), 99% because they said so and the news coverage has repeated it, over and over again.  I suspect that puts me in the 1%, at least that is the percentage of fat in the milk I drink (I prefer whole milk, but my wife refuses to buy it).  In case you are wondering whether you are in the 99% that the OWS groupies represent, here is a list of characteristics of the New York City party goers, care of Douglas Schoen’s polling team, who interviewed 198 of them in their New York City party venue.  See whether you fit the list, keeping in mind that, in the words of O.J. Simpson’s attorney, if the glove does not fit you must acquit.

·         The majority are male.

·         More than half are 30 years old or older.

·        None of them are Republicans, although 14% are either anarchists, socialists, or belong to the “Working Families Party” (that sounds socialist to me, but maybe that just means that they are not Democrats).

·        Somewhat more than half of them, 56%, voted in the 2008 presidential election, and 74% of those for Barack Obama.

·       When asked what bugs them the most, 30% claimed the influence of corporate/moneyed/special interests; 5% claimed “everything” (sounds like the teenagers or maybe the college students); 3% identified America’s democratic/capitalist system; 2% each for bureaucracy, Bush tax cuts, military spending, the Federal Reserve, and Obama abandoning the left; that gets us up to 53% without moving on to the rest of the gripes that they offered.

·       When asked what this was all about, there was a similar variety of answers, with the lead going to the 44% who said mobilizing progressives or influencing the Democrats the way that the Tea Party has influenced Republicans (that may seem ambitious, but I suspect that it is as tough as pushing on an open door given the rest of the OWS demands); curiously, 5% favored a flat tax, a favorite of many conservatives; but 4% called for dissolution of representative democracy and capitalism, and another 4% were for a radical distribution of wealth, which amounts to the same thing; and that brings us to 57% without getting to the rest of the somewhat confused list.

·       When asked who is to blame, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Wall Street tied at 7% each (suggesting that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be as much of a focus for them as Wall Street); while the Republican Party only just edged out “The American People”, 16% to 15%; 5% identified the “Citizens United Supreme Court ruling”; which again gets us to 57% without going any further down the rather long list.

·       The closest point to unanimity among the party goers was that 98% agreed that civil disobedience was a good idea to achieve their goals, and even 31% believed that violence would be O.K., too.

·       Surprising to me was that these anti-Wall Street protesters were almost exactly evenly divided over whether giving TARP money to banks was a good idea, 51% opposed but 49% in favor.

·       Last point here, though there were several other questions, 65% agreed that government had a moral responsibility to guarantee healthcare, college education, and a secure retirement for all, no matter what the cost.

You are excused if you have trouble finding a clear theme in all of this.  If your head is spinning to some degree, just watch some TV or pick up a newspaper and you will learn once again what this is really all about.  I doubt that the reporters or commentators will note that there is almost a universal attitude at the OWS party that someone else is to blame for all things blameworthy.  Nor are they likely to point out that the demands of the unwashed 99ers revolve around getting others to do something for them or give them something.

This latter point seems to me to be one of the more distinguishing points separating the OWS Gimmees from the TEA Party activists.  The hundreds in the OWS crowd predominantly want to have government dictating to people how to live—while they have their hands out or want to put their hands in your pocket (a common complaint among the campers is that their stuff is constantly getting stolen by other campers).  The tens of thousands of TEA Party activists want to be left alone, want to keep what they have earned, want government to step back from making rules to control their lives.

Maybe at this point you are feeling very special, which is not a bad achievement for any writer.  If you feel that you do not fit into the Gimmees 99%, congratulations on being one in a hundred.

Of Inflation and Words of Offence

The professional political commentators were all atwitter today about a word. It was one word from a comment that new presidential candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, said yesterday in discussion with some likely Republican voters in Iowa. The subject was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board. These are the monetary policies that affect the price of everything in the United States and the value of the dollar abroad.

This is what Governor Perry said. Read it carefully, and see if you have any difficulty figuring out what Perry’s message was:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all will do to them in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas . . . I mean printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion. Because all it’s going to be doing—we’ve already tried this—all it’s going to be doing is devaluing the dollar in your pocket. And we cannot afford that. We have to learn the lessons of the past three years.

Have you figured out what he was talking about, what his message was? This is not a trick question. His message seemed clear and obvious to me. That message was not what the professional commentators were largely talking about. I guess they missed it. As they interviewed each other, pretending that they were somehow reporting news, they zeroed in on Governor Perry’s use of the word “treasonous”. Was Governor Perry accusing the Federal Reserve Board Chairman of “treason” they all asked?

Having been interviewed by the TV talking heads on numerous occasions, I could not help imagining myself responding to their question. Of course they did not ask me, or anyone like me. They were busy interviewing each other.

But if I had been asked what seems to be the important question of the day—or, like Sesame Street puppets, the word of the day—I suspect I might have answered something like this:

“Are you asking me about a word or about the principle that Governor Perry was emphasizing? My religion teaches me not to make a man a transgressor for a word (see Isaiah 29:20, 21), but it is the principle, his message that we should consider if we want to evaluate his candidacy for President. What principles would likely guide him while in office? That is what we need to know if we want to have an intelligent conversation about who should be president.”

I would then add that it seemed to me that Governor Perry’s message was very clear:

Inflation is a bad policy, an especially bad policy at this time of a weak economy. We have tried it before, and it hurts the nation and the people. It would be particularly wrong for the independent Federal Reserve to choose inflation for political purposes.

That would be my recitation of Governor Perry’s message. I think I got it right. And I think that Governor Perry got it right.

Inflation is terrible. It breaks the promise embedded in money and makes it a lie. Remember that money is just a certificate of a promise between two people: I will give you my labor or goods or service in exchange for a promise that I can obtain something of equal value later. That becomes a lie if inflation means that when I redeem that promise I get something that government has reduced in value by depreciating the money that carries that promise. I provide $20 of labor and only get $18 of value in return. That is what inflation means. It corrupts that value of our goods and services. Even worse it corrupts the value of the promises we make and receive.

Inflation is particularly hard on retired people. These are people who set their money aside for 20, 30, 40, 50 years or more so that they could live off of it in their old age. Inflation cheats them, giving them only a fraction—sometimes only a small fraction—of the value that they set aside and hoped and relied upon for the rest of their lives. They lived a lower standard of living so that they could save for the future, only to find inflation make that future poorer for them. That is a life-time theft, when it is all too late to be reclaimed.

So if you want, go ahead and choose whatever word you want to describe inflation and its effects, especially if that inflation were inflicted on the nation for short-term political gain. Choose your word if that political inflation were to be inflicted by those public servants—the Federal Reserve Board—who took on the legal duty and responsibility to maintain stable prices, to fight inflation.

Whichever word you may choose, the policy of national inflation is wrong. Even if governments throughout history and into the modern era frequently resort to inflation when their national debt becomes too heavy to carry, it is still wrong. It is destructive and undermines the economy and robs the people who rely upon honest money.

Governor Perry was right to say, in very clear language, that it would be a major mistake for the Federal Reserve to choose that road, that the Federal Reserve must guard its independence from political pressure and hold to its legal mandate to fight inflation, not promote it.

If you must choose a word to describe it, go ahead. To quote Gilbert and Sullivan,

I conceive you may use
Any language you choose
To indulge in without impropriety.
(Iolanthe)

Of Government Debt and Historic Ratings

Apologists for the Obama administration desperately wish to make light of the unprecedented downgrading of the credit rating of U.S. Government debt from the virtually riskless category of AAA to the slightly riskier rank of AA. The apologists, when they cannot divert attention from the issue altogether, rely upon one or both of two arguments: 1) it was all a big mistake, an irrational and inappropriate decision; or 2) the downgrading does not really matter, it does not mean much.

Apology 1) merits this observation. Maybe it was a mistake. The other two major rating agencies so far have not taken a similar step, even while making noise about the possibility. That kind of public and open debate and disagreement is important for this land of free speech, most particularly with regard to opinions on government policies and their consequences.

The question of the ability of the U.S. to continue to service its debt is certainly open for debate. What is not debatable is that we are now in a condition where it is debatable. We have not been in a situation—since the emergence of the United States onto the world stage of major nations—where our ability to service our debt was at all in question. That we are is new, historic, and not disputed. Under the Obama Administration a lot of unthinkable things have suddenly become all too thinkable, from socializing medicine, or backing away from our support for Israel, to the government taking over the banking system. Add to that list of unthinkables the riskiness of U.S. Government debt.

Apology 2) is without merit. The noise from the Obama Administration suggests that it really does matter, a lot. It is important to note that the S&P decision came after the Congress and the Administration very predictably reached agreement on raising the debt ceiling. The issue is not about the debt ceiling. The issue would still exist if there were no debt ceiling. The issue is the natural debt ceiling, the one that comes when the debtor is no longer able to make good on his promises of repayment. The downgrade is advice to all investors anywhere in the world that the safety of U.S. Government debt can no longer be taken for granted. It has moved from being riskless to an investment that carries some risk—you may debate how much, but you can no longer deny that there is some.

Maybe there is great wisdom in that. Maybe all government debt, from any source, should be recognized as carrying risk. There is always political risk. History is replete with evidence that governments lie to their own people and to their investors, so perhaps a Triple-A “riskless” rating should never be given to any government promises. But apart from willingness to pay, to honor debt agreements, the recognition today is that the U.S. government debt is on a trajectory to where the government cannot—to where it will be unable to—honor its debt commitments.

That is not unprecedented. There are several historical examples where governments amassed debts that were too heavy to repay. It has usually led to the downfall of the governments. The Roman emperors tried to manage their uncontrolled spending on cheap popularity by debasing the coinage (a form of inflation) that wrecked the economy and eventually the empire itself. The debts of the English King Charles I led to rebellion that cost him his head in 1649. A similar chain of events brought on the French Revolution. More recently, the Soviet debt crisis of the 1980s set in motion the final events that broke up the USSR. Other sovereign debt crises are unfolding today before our eyes. All that S&P said was that the U.S. Government cannot act like it is immune from joining the sad list without making major changes in spending and borrowing programs.

Which is to say that the S&P decision matters greatly. There will be much debate about how much it matters, but only charlatans or simpletons will maintain that it does not matter at all. Once you have lost your virginity, there is no reclaiming it. It is a watershed to move from perceived risklessness of debt to the recognition of some risk. Risk costs money, as investors have to hedge against the possibility of some degree of non-payment, whether through changes in terms or through repayment in debased (inflated) currency.

Already investors are starting to move some of their money out of government debt—now exposed to greater market risk—into bank deposits where even with interest rates artificially depressed by the Federal Reserve the principal is not exposed to changes in market values. More significantly, an important anchor of certainty in our economy—the assumption of absolute security of U.S. Government debt—has been pulled up, rougher going for any ships that have to navigate an economy already turbulent with uncertainties.

In the early days of the Obama presidency the media and the President himself were eager to point out how this or that development was history-making, that this or that initiative was historic. Downgrading the credit rating of the debt of the U.S. Government is certainly historic. Let us hope that President Obama does not make any more history.

Of Depressions and Government Rescues

The government is running out of things to do. I am referring to the economy and with reference to improving the economy. A successful government program to recover from the financial crisis and recession that the government caused is turning out to be much harder than presidential candidate Barack Obama promised.

All prolonged recessions and depressions are caused by governments. The recent financial crisis occurred, first, because the elaborate house of cards of government promises and guarantees that dominated the mortgage and housing markets was flattened by a puff of the wind of reality. With government reinforcement and in fact much prodding, builders were encouraged to build more houses bigger and faster than people could use them, realtors were rewarded for selling them, mortgage brokers were drawn to get mortgages for people who could not afford them, and investors were lured into thinking that there was no risk in pumping their money into funding these mortgages. Reality eventually took over, as it always does.

All of this would have caused a major recession, but former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson ensured that the recession would turn into a full blown financial panic. Nearly every Sunday in the fall of 2008 Paulson was on national camera, little hiding his deer-in-the-headlights expression, announcing the latest desperate and ill-conceived Federal financial rescue program. Remember that the disastrous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (that was not used to purchase assets after all) was Paulson’s idea. The markets were spooked by it. Markets tanked when Congress defeated it and tanked again when Congress passed it about a week later (sweetened with enough pork to buy needed votes). Investors went on strike.

President Obama has been unsuccessful, coming up on three years, in ending the strike. In fact, each time investors have shown some interest in coming back some new government plan or program has renewed enough uncertainty to drive investors back to the sidelines. For example, in early 2009 bank stocks were starting to recover until the Administration decided to impose stress tests to see how banks would fair if the Obama recovery plan failed. Investors returned to their seats to watch, and even the regulators’ findings that the banks could weather continued recession did not bring more than a tepid response from bank investors. The Obama Administration’s plan to restructure the entire banking and financial system—realized in the Dodd-Frank Act—has served to warn investors against taking new investment risks until they could see how it would all play out. It now seems clear that the financial crisis has been replaced by a regulatory crisis, with the regulators already falling way behind the mandates of the last Congress to write hundreds of new rules and no bank able to make any business plans extending much beyond a few months.

The housing markets remain at depression levels. New Dodd-Frank rules are making it much harder for families to get, lenders to offer, and investors to fund new mortgages for new houses. Is an economic recovery even conceivable with housing and mortgage markets mired in depression?

Our government has tried pulling its other levers. The United States has never, ever, witnessed the amount of government spending intended to stimulate the economy artificially. The Federal Reserve has expanded the money supply by trillions of dollars. Most of that Federal Reserve money has gone into funding government deficits, driving down the value of the dollar, and stimulating the prices of gold, silver, oil, and other commodities. The government takeover of the healthcare system, it was argued, was the only way to control medical costs that were said to be harming the economy.

Of course, there are more government actions waiting in the wings. The Administration wants to raise taxes dramatically, especially on investors and businesses—the energy business, the banking industry, investment firms, anyone who uses carbon (one of the elements necessary to life and essential to breathing), “rich” people, and small businesses that would be caught in the definition of “rich people.”

And yet the economy remains in the doldrums. Nothing seems to work. It conjures up memories of the Great Depression, that economic recession that Franklin Roosevelt was eager to take over. Through the whole decade of the 1930s FDR tried one thing after another to restore economic recovery, but nothing worked. Instead, FDR helped weaken world faith in representative government, greatly encouraging the willingness of desperate people to embrace the desperate measures of the dictators in Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union who gave us World War II.

The Obama Administration has tried everything that government can do. Why not now try getting government out of the way and letting the people solve this one as they always have? Investors still have plenty of money ready to invest, if they were only confident that the rules would not change and that their investments would not be taxed away. Businessmen would be eager to hire new employees if they only knew how much the employees would cost and that some new government program would not impose new costs and burdens on their business. Banks would love to lend to businesses and provide mortgages if the regulators would stop changing the rules and discouraging banks from making loans to anyone other than to the government.

Maybe there is the worry that government will not get credit for the recovery if there is no new government program to point to, no government guarantee to praise, no stimulus spending to trumpet. Maybe that would be O.K. But I would be ready to vote for the government leaders who removed the obstructions to investment, lowered tax rates, lifted regulatory burdens, and dispelled the clouds of regulations and barriers to growth that are gathering on the horizon.

Of Dishonest Money and a Poorer Future

Interest rates in the United States are low, far lower than they would normally be. The Federal Reserve has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy to keep them low. Is that a good thing? For the federal government it might be—in the short run—but for savers it is bad. One percent back on your savings is pretty low. The persistent, artificially low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve Board has become a major transfer of wealth from private savers to the federal government. Low interest paid by the Treasury means low interest earned by savers. Measured against inflation, you may be letting the federal government use your money for less than nothing.

Perhaps even worse, the low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve is supporting the colossal spending binge of the federal government. The federal government can spend trillions of dollars it does not have, because the cost of government borrowing is so cheap.

It is not naturally cheap. Normal markets would not support the continued massive deficits from Washington. When the government spends more than it takes in it has to borrow from you and me, or more particularly from our pension plans and insurance programs, as well as from banks (and foreigners, a subject for another day). Savers and banks do not, however, have an unlimited appetite for lending to the government, especially at the low rates that the government offers. In past decades, persistent federal deficits would result in rising interest rates, as investors would demand a higher return to keep them willing to buy more government bonds.

Some months ago, when the ballooning federal deficit showed no signs of easing, the Federal Reserve stepped in and started buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt just as investors were backing away. Interest rates on government borrowing would have gone up, but the Federal Reserve bought up the oversupply of debt and pushed interest rates down. Interest rates on government borrowing today remain at historically low levels, six-month Treasury securities going for about one-tenth of one percent. That is way below the rising rate of inflation, which lately is at about 2.5% and going north. That means that many investors in government debt are actually losing money, the return on their government debt falling behind the rate of inflation, the government paying back the money it borrowed with dollars that buy less than the ones that they took in. Federal Reserve policies are helping this go on.

Speaking of inflation, the Federal Reserve announced this past week that it is O.K. with inflation of 2.5%, that in fact the Federal Reserve sees inflation trending toward 3% for the coming years. Some of us who remember back to the Jimmy Carter days when inflation approached closer to 20% than 10% might be tempted to think that 3% inflation sounds pretty good. Keep in mind, though, what inflation means.

Remember what money is. Money is an exchange of promises. I promise that I will give you, say, $100 worth of value, whether my goods, my time, or my services, in exchange for which you give me a certificate—money—that can be exchanged for $100 worth of goods, time, or services with someone else. Money lets me take that promise and put it in my pocket and carry it around to where I think that it will be of most use to me. Money is enormously efficient. I do not work for the grocery store. I work at my job and get paid and then take my money to the grocery store and exchange it for groceries. The store exchanges that money, in turn, for more goods, as well as to pay the salaries of the people who work there. They in turn take that money and use it for what they want.

Inflation makes all of that dishonest. I get paid the $100. If I wait a year to spend it, and there is a 3% inflation rate, that $100 dollars will then only by me what about $97 would have bought when I got paid. Of course, that is an even bigger deal if the inflation rate is 10%, my $100 only being worth some $90 of goods and services in my example. But even 3% can be a very big deal, a far bigger deal than the Federal Reserve seemed to acknowledge this past week.

Consider retirement. Not enough people do, but you should. Perhaps you are an average couple saving and investing and hoping to have a retirement income of say $80,000 per year. You have figured that you can live on that. With an inflation rate of 3%, you had better think again. Your $80,000 retirement income will only be able to buy what $40,000 or less buys today. Setting aside adequate money to save and invest for retirement is hard enough. Inflation makes it all much harder.

Massive government deficits are already driving the Federal Reserve to cheapen the return on your investments (in order to keep the federal deficit from snuffing out the weak recovery). The inflationary pressures that they are building up inside the federal volcano will undermine your retirement even further. The longer we wait to solve the deficit problem, and the interest rate and inflation dangers it spawns, the worse it all gets. Government may not be able to create wealth, but it can surely take it away.

Of What Government Knows and What It Will Do

The biggest cause of the lingering financial trouble and the 2008 financial panic has been bad government policy. The markets did not fail. The markets did just what government policies encouraged them to do, namely over-invest in housing while paying little attention to the risks. That created twin bubbles in house prices and in the ways that building houses and buying houses were financed.

When the bubbles burst, the government leadership panicked, and the markets followed their leadership. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson predicted imminent disaster, and the Federal Reserve rather than playing an independent steadying and calming hand reinforced those predictions (although without the public “fire in the theater” shouting of the Treasury Secretary).

Perhaps the best that can be said about the federal financial leaders during the financial crisis is that they did the best that they knew how to do. The problem was, that they did not know what to do. Each new memoir or retrospective published by one of these financial leaders reveals that they were acting on insufficient knowledge, insufficient information, and most of all insufficient understanding of what was going on. In other words, none of them knew enough to know what to do, and none of them knows enough now.

No one can ever know enough. The economy is just too big; there is too much for anyone but God to know. In an economy as large and diverse as ours, with billions of economic decisions being made all in the same day, it is impossible for anyone to know enough at any one time—of all that is involved—to be able to make the right decisions to control the economy, even if there were someone wise enough to do it.

That problem is not solved by creating a committee to control the economy. While any one person who serves as decision maker will suffer from lack of knowledge and will wear blinders towards the parts of the economy he either does not understand or is not watching at the moment, a committee of people has its own major shortcomings. Not the least of these is the proclivity of any group to be captured by group think, by the members of the group reinforcing each other to form a consensus and not venturing to upset things by questioning or looking beyond the consensus.

That is usually what happens with economic and financial bubbles. A key idea, usually a wrong idea, captures the group imagination. So many people come to believe this idea—like the odd notion that housing prices rarely if ever decline—that they all act on it, building up artificial values that increasingly depart from reality. When there is no government involvement, these bubbles burst soon enough and are resolved pretty quickly. Government leadership can hasten the formation of group think when an idea is part of official policy, and government policies can help to keep it going. Then, because government officials are slow to admit their own mistakes, government policies slow down the quick and natural adjustments that the market provides when the bubbles burst.

Unfortunately for all of us, the new Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation increases the power of new government financial czars to try to control virtually any aspect of the financial system that they choose. That error is not diminished by requiring these financial czars to meet together in committee from time to time, in a new Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC).

This last week two of the financial czars testified before a commission created to discover what caused the recent financial trouble and to recommend what to do about it (seems that if people were serious about this commission it would have made sense to pass new legislation only after the commission finished its work). One of the commission’s members, John Thompson, asked this question: “Why should we believe that this Council (the FSOC) is going to be uniquely different and keep us out of trouble?” (Donna Borak, “FCIC Presses Bernanke, Bair: Will Dodd-Frank End Bailouts?”, American Banker, September 3, 2010) Good question, but it got a poor answer, basically the observation that government regulators have more authority now. That is akin to saying that I will improve my aim because now I have more ammunition and a bigger gun.

Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke admitted that even with all the new power given to the federal financial czars it will take political will to use it. “If there’s a lack of political will, there’s probably no solution that is sustainable.” Even were we to believe beyond all experience that any federal regulators or group of federal regulators could possibly know enough, where is the evidence that there would be the political will to break through the regulatory group think? Where would there have been the political will to bring the housing bonanza to a halt, or even to rein in the politically powerful housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which at least the Federal Reserve was seeking to do, against strong opposition from Congress—the stronger political will opposed needed reform)?

You do not need political will, however, if discipline in the markets is not a political decision. Market solutions do not require any political action or the exercise of political will by some federal financial czar or council of czars. No one needs a federal agency to drive down the stock of a badly managed company. Enron was beaten up by the markets long before Congress got around to it. The financial firms that disregarded risks in the housing bubble were put out of business by the markets—except for the firms that the government decided to prop up.

Which highlights the danger we are now in: today, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act we have a financial system dependent on the government. Every important financial decision has now become a political question for one or more regulators to chew on and manage. Ready or not, here they come.