Does the Fed Control Interest Rates?
Many economists will tell you that the most important variable to watch to assess the looseness or tightness of monetary policy is the interest rate and, in particular, the federal funds target rate. But while that rate matters and I would certainly want to pay attention to it, neither the federal funds rate nor the Fed’s target for that rate is a good way to assess monetary policy.
To see why, it’s important to understand what the federal funds rate is. The federal funds rate is the interest rate that banks charge each other on overnight loans. Why bother borrowing overnight? Because banks must meet daily the reserve requirement that the Fed has set for them. If a bank’s management sees that it will be, say, $30 million short on a given day, it will go into the federal funds market and borrow that money from other banks that have excess reserves. So notice something interesting: even though the Fed sets a target range for the federal funds rate—the target range is currently zero percent to 0.25 percent—it does not participate in the federal funds market.
Moreover, because capital markets are global, the Fed, though one of the biggest players in capital markets, is not a large player as a percent of the market. Its sales or purchases of bonds are a small percent of worldwide financial assets. The answer to the subtitle above, therefore, is no.
This is an excerpt from David R. Henderson, “Inflation: What Next?” Defining Ideas, December 16, 2021.
Another excerpt, estimating my predictive ability:
I still think, as I said in May, that there’s less than a 20 percent probability that there will be a twelve-month period between May 2021 and December 2022 over which inflation will be as high as 10 percent. Also in May, I gave an 80 percent probability that there will be a time period between May 2021 and December 2022 over which inflation, measured by the CPI, will be 5 percent or more. That prediction, unfortunately, is looking good. Between May 2021 and November 2021, the CPI rose by 3.85 percent. So if in the next six months the CPI rises by just over 1 percent, my prediction will come true.
One of the costs of inflation:
Consider the US federal tax system for individual income before 1985. Back then, even if inflation caused your wages or salary to increase at the same rate as overall prices, inflation put many people in a higher tax bracket. And even those who were not put in a higher tax bracket found that a higher percentage of their income was in their top tax bracket. When that happened, even those whose incomes kept pace with inflation found that their after-tax real income was lower than before the inflation. Fortunately, this ended at the federal level in 1985 when inflation-indexing of tax brackets, which was part of the tax act that President Ronald Reagan signed in 1981, began. Interestingly, former Fed vice-chairman and current Princeton University professor Alan Blinder admitted this point in his 1987 book, Hard Heads, Soft Hearts. But shockingly, he said that unless you’re an economist or an accountant, that cost of inflation “will leave you yawning.” Here’s what I wrote in my November 1987 review of his book in Fortune:
Where was Blinder during the late 1970s? I knew people with only a high school education who noticed instantly that an 8% increase in their hourly rate translated into only a 6% or so increase in their take-home pay, not enough to stay abreast of inflation. They didn’t yawn when that happened—they got mad, which is one reason taxes ended up being indexed.
When I wrote that, I had in mind my secretary, Chrissy Morganello, who completely understood how inflation combined with the unindexed federal income tax to make her worse off.
But the federal tax system is not fully indexed. Inflation creates apparent capital gains that are not gains at all. If you buy stock whose value in dollars rises, and then you sell, you will pay tax on the whole gain, which includes the part that simply compensates you for inflation. I call this a “phantom gain.” Also, the income thresholds beyond which you pay taxes on your Social Security income have not been inflation-adjusted in three decades. Finally, many state governments still have not indexed their state income tax brackets for inflation.
Read the whole thing.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Barbieri
Dec 16 2021 at 6:48pm
Excellent article. You did a great job of clearing up many of the misconception I hear regularly, even from widely respected news sources.
I do think your conclusion at the end is a bit more negative than my view. I give Powell credit for damping what could have been a pretty bad pandemic recession. If he brings inflation back down, I’ll forgive him given the difficult balancing act that he faced.
David Henderson
Dec 16 2021 at 7:21pm
Thanks, Mark.
Re the conclusion, I hope you’re right.
rsm
Dec 16 2021 at 11:11pm
《The starting point for analysis is a fully indexed economy. All debt instruments are indexed, except currency, on which no interest is paid (because there is no convenient way to do so); wage and salary contracts are indexed; the exchange rate is freely flexible; tax brackets, fines, and other payments fixed by law are indexed; real rather than nominal returns on assets are taxed; there are no nominal interest rate ceilings; and so on. […] in a fully indexed economy unanticipated inflation has very minor real effects》
Fischer, Stanley and Modigliani, Francesco, Towards an Understanding of the Real Effects and Costs of Inflation (November 1978). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=260489
Why not acknowledge prices are arbitrary and inflation is noise, and fully index?
David Henderson
Dec 16 2021 at 11:17pm
You ask:
I won’t acknowledge something that isn’t true. Prices are not arbitrary. Inflation is noise and that’s a point I make in the article.
rsm
Dec 19 2021 at 3:20am
Can you prove prices are not arbitrary?
See https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/08/05/supply-and-demand-deconstructed/
《
Neoclassical theory hinges on utility that cannot be measured
It relies on demand and supply curves that cannot be observed
It depends on equilibrium whose existence it cannot confirm
It requires but cannot show that demand and supply are mutually independent
It requires but cannot demonstrate that the market demand curve slopes downward
And it must but cannot measure capital and therefore cannot draw the supply curve, even on paper 》
If inflation is noisy, why aren’t prices arbitrary?
Also why doesn’t full indexation fix nominal inflation forever?
Jon Murphy
Dec 19 2021 at 8:27am
I find these 6 claims you make odd. Mainly because they’re incorrect.
-Neoclassical theory doesn’t hinge on utility. It’s a useful concept, but you can get the same results weakening that assumption*
-Supply and Demand curves are observed. Quite frequently. We observe them both in the lab and in real life. We measure them all the time. Anyone can.
-Again, we can and do confirm equilibrium all the time. Mere observation of human behavior gets us there.
-Again, we do show that supply and demand are mutually independent. They face similar factors, yes, but supply cannot affect demand (and vice versa).
-Price theory does not require downward-sloping demand curves. You can get the same results with Giffen Goods.^
-Capital is not needed for the supply curve. Costs are all that are needed. Adam Smith drew supply curves using just labor.
Basically any into Economics textbook will cover these things.
*As an aside, just because something cannot be measured does not mean it doesn’t exist. Sometimes, the dog that doesn’t bark hold the clue.
^Whether or not Giffen Goods exist in the real world is a different matter.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 17 2021 at 7:54am
Nice post and reference back to the change in the tax code that adjusts for inflaltion. I wish our Congress people would quite all this foolishness about trying to tax wealth. It will always be doomed to failure. Ironically, (I say this as a liberal) I’ve been in favor of a flat tax with no preferences with maybe the first $60K of income not subject to any taxes at all. It’s time for implementation of a Federal VAT that will raise the necessary remainder of the income the government needs. I’m caught in the middle regarding treating capital gains separately with a lower bracket.
Jon Murphy
Dec 17 2021 at 8:27am
Great article. I think I’ll assign it to my classes next semester
David Henderson
Dec 18 2021 at 11:39am
Thanks.
Mark Brophy
Dec 17 2021 at 8:32pm
The Consumer Price Index is much less than inflation. For instance, rents are rising 17% but the “owner equivalent rent” is only rising 3.5%. Real estate is inflating at least 20%.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Dec 18 2021 at 8:29am
“Many economists will tell you that the most important variable to watch to assess the looseness or tightness of monetary policy is the interest rate”
Many economists are mistaken or are describing a historical regularity rather than a casual relation. More importantly “assessing” the “looseness” or “tightness” of monetary “policy” (the values of the Fed’s instrumental variables) is pretty useless unless it is being assessed against (at least implicitly) the correct values of those instruments.
An aside, the transfer of income from individua to the government that inflation may cause is not the “cost” just as the transfer from gasoline buyer to seller is not the cost. The cost is the deadweight loss of that transfer, the suboptimal decisions about consumption and investment.
Phil
Dec 18 2021 at 11:32am
David: I noticed that the Fed eliminated reserve requirements in March 2020. Is that why the Fed “does not participate in the federal funds market“?
David Henderson
Dec 18 2021 at 11:39am
No.
Phil
Dec 19 2021 at 10:09am
Why is there a fed funds market if there are no reserve requirements?
Jon Murphy
Dec 19 2021 at 11:03am
They’re two different things. The reserve requirement is what percentage of deposits banks must keep in reserve. The federal funds rate is a target interest rate for overnight borrowing
David Henderson
Dec 19 2021 at 11:08am
Jon,
I think you missed Phil’s point. See my article’s discussion of why there’s a federal funds market and you’ll see why Phil asks his question.
Jon Murphy
Dec 19 2021 at 11:41am
I did miss the point. My mistake! I see the reason for the question now
David Henderson
Dec 19 2021 at 11:07am
Good question, Phil.
Here’s what the Fed says. Reserve requirements for demand deposits have been zero for many years now. They were made zero for time deposits last year, with some exceptions. The link explains the current situation.
Comments are closed.