Bedrosian Book Club Podcast: “The Myth of Independence”

Congressional historian Sarah Binder joins neighbor and investment manager Mark Spindel in a look at the history of the relationship between the Federal Reserve and its legislative parent, Congress. The result is the Princeton University Press book The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.

Central to the book is the notion that the two institutions are interdependent rather than independent. The authors advocate that through legislation over the years, Congress has set up the Federal Reserve to bear the brunt of blame during times of financial crisis. This blend of political science, history, and economics was a hit for our panel. Why is it important to realize the relationship between Congress and the Fed is interdependent? What roles do transparency and accountability play in the relationship?

Continue reading “Bedrosian Book Club Podcast: “The Myth of Independence””

Our American Discourse, Ep. 27: Why the Federal Reserve Is More Politically Constrained Than You Think

We’ve been having a mistaken debate, or so it would seem based on the new book The Myth of Independence. The Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank and most influential economic regulator, isn’t as independent as critics like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders suggest. Congress created it, and Congress continues to shape it to the people’s will. This new perspective might just change your expectations about Fed policy and your appreciation for their delicate strategic work.

In this episode, Sarah Binder discusses the historical research that led to this new thesis and helps us appreciate the interplay between two of America’s most important political institutions.

Continue reading “Our American Discourse, Ep. 27: Why the Federal Reserve Is More Politically Constrained Than You Think”

Our American Discourse, Ep. 26: The Risky, Rocky Ride of Today’s Economy…and the Central Bankers Who Keep Watch

Just when you thought the economy was the only good news you could count on, the stock market took a dive on the heels of Janet Yellen’s exit from the Federal Reserve. Suddenly, Americans everywhere wondered whether the volatility and uncertainty in Washington had finally caught up with the long, steady recovery stretching from those dark days in 2009. Should we be worried? Who’s looking out for the economy? And do they have a plan for the risks that await us in 2018 and beyond?

In this episode, USC Price School Dean Jack H. Knott interviews Atlanta Fed President Raphael W. Bostic on the state of the economy and the forces that keep it humming along.

Continue reading “Our American Discourse, Ep. 26: The Risky, Rocky Ride of Today’s Economy…and the Central Bankers Who Keep Watch”

Watch Me Discuss the Future of the Economy on The Sam Lesante Show!

Let’s start 2016 by getting up-to-speed on the American economy! Here’s an interview with me, just in time for the holidays, on The Sam Lesante Show, where we cover everything from the federal budget deal to the Federal Reserve rate hike to the lingering problem of inequality:

You haven’t heard from me for a few months because I’ve been busy doing research on these economic issues. In 2016, I’ll be writing about my findings. I hope you’re as excited as I am for the new year and all the debate it brings!

The Ryan Budget Is an Affront to Economics and American History

A few years ago, when the unemployment rate was near its peak, two Swedish economists, Stefan Eriksson and Dan-Olof Rooth, conducted an experiment. They wanted to find out just how hard it was to get a job if you’d been unemployed for a long time. They sent 8,466 fictitious job applications to employers across Sweden. They varied the number of months that each “applicant” had been unemployed. For some, it was a matter of days. For others, several months. Then they waited for the employers to call them back for interviews.

Overall, one out of every four job “applicants” received an interview. Unsurprisingly, it was higher for high-skill jobs and lower for low-skill jobs. What was more significant was the effect of unemployment on the fictitious resumes.

Eriksson and Rooth found that unemployment didn’t matter if it lasted less than six months. Applicants who had been unemployed for the past six months were just as likely to receive an interview as applicants who just quit their job yesterday. If they had been unemployed for nine months or more, however, they were 20 percent less likely to get an interview, even if they had the same work experience, education, and other qualifications as everyone else.

In the United States right now, over 3 million people have been looking for work for nine months or more — and that doesn’t include the millions more who gave up searching because they couldn’t find anything.

Eriksson and Rooth have mostly confirmed what we already knew, but their experiment adds more specific and more reliable evidence to the overwhelming conclusion that these people need our help. Fortunately, another paper, published alongside Eriksson and Rooth’s, proves that we can help them.

While Eriksson and Rooth were sending out job applications, Emi Nakamura and Jón Steinsson were reading military procurement forms.

Both economists at Columbia University, Nakamura and Steinsson were trying to figure out what effect the federal government has on the economy when it increases its spending. They found a database at the Pentagon that summed up all large military purchases in every state in the U.S. from 1966 to 2006. It wasn’t exactly an experiment, but it was close enough.

The danger in estimating the effects of government spending is that it’s hard to tell whether states had faster economic growth because they received more funding — or whether they received more funding because they happened to enjoy faster economic growth. With military purchases, Nakamura and Steinsson knew they didn’t have that problem. States don’t receive military contracts based on the state of their economy. The two are usually independent.

Nakamura and Steinsson compared military spending in each state with subsequent economic growth over the course of four decades, and they found that a 1 percent increase in government purchases resulted in a 1.5 percent increase in income per person in that state.

Then they calculated the effect on the national economy. When the Federal Reserve couldn’t lower interest rates any further — the situation we’re in now, known as the “zero lower bound” — Nakamura and Steinsson found that a 1 percent increase in government purchases resulted in at least a 1.7 percent increase in national income per person.

In other words, the federal government can stimulate the economy and create jobs, and the resulting increase in income will far exceed any cost to the taxpayers.

Budget ProposalsLike Eriksson and Rooth, Nakamura and Steinsson aren’t telling us something we don’t know, but they are giving us another valuable piece of evidence that our government is headed in the wrong direction.

At a time when the long-term unemployed need more support, our government is giving them less. The leadership of both parties have agreed to shrink the federal budget drastically over the coming decade, and now Paul Ryan, the Republican chair of the House Budget Committee, has issued a new proposal that will cut the budget even further, to the point where most programs that support the unemployed will be half the size that they were during the Reagan administration, relative to the size of the economy.

This is a cruel, counterproductive path we are on, and that is not a statement of mere opinion. It is the inescapable conclusion of data-driven, cutting-edge economic research based on real-world evidence and the accumulated lessons of American history.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Huffington Post.