Tag: Federal Reserve

A Powerful Intellectual Stumbling Block: The Belief that the Market Can Only Be Failed

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Over at Project Syndicate: The Trouble with Interest Rates: Of all the strange and novel economic doctrines propounded since 2007, Stanford’s John Taylor has a good claim to propounding the strangest: In his view, the low interest-rate, quantitative-easing, and forward-guidance policies of North Atlantic and Japanese central banks are like:

imposing an interest-rate ceiling on the longer-term market… much like the effect of a price ceiling in a [housing] rental market…. [This] decline in credit availability, reduces aggregate demand, which tends to increase unemployment, a classic unintended consequence…”

When you think about it, this analogy makes no sense at all.

When a government agency imposes a rent-control ceiling, it:

  • makes it illegal for renters to pay or landlords to collect more than the ceiling rent;
  • thus leaves a number of potential landlords willing but unable to rent apartments and a number of potential renters willing but unable to offer to pay more than the rent-control ceiling.

When a central bank reduces long-term interest rates via current and expected future open-market operations, it:

  • does not keep any potential lenders who wish to lend at higher than the current interest rate from offering to do so;
  • does not keep any potential borrowers who wish from taking up such an offer;
  • it is just that no borrowers wish to do so.

The reason we dislike rent-control ceilings–that it stops transactions both buyers and sellers wish to undertake from taking place–is simply absent.

So why would anyone claim that low interest-rate, quantitative-easing, and forward-guidance policies are like rent control?

I think that the real path of reasoning is this:

  1. John Taylor, and the others claiming that central banks are committing unnatural acts by controlling the interest rate, feel a deep sense of wrongness about the current level of interest rates.
  2. John Taylor and his allies believe that whenever a price like the interest rate is “wrong”, it must be because the government has done it–that the free market cannot fail, but can only be failed.
  3. Thus the task is to solve the intellectual puzzle by figuring out what the government has done to make the current level of the interest rate so wrong.
  4. Therefore any argument that government policy is in fact appropriate can only be a red herring.
  5. And the analogy to rent control is a possible solution to the intellectual puzzle.

If I am correct here, then the rest of us will never convince John Taylor and company.

Arguments that central banks are doing the best they can in a horrible situation require entertaining the possibility that markets are not perfect and can fail. And that they will never do. We have seen this in action: Five years ago John Taylor and company were certain that Ben Bernanke’s interest-rate, quantitative-easing, and forward-guidance policies risked “currency debasement and inflation”. The failure of those predictions has not led John Taylor or any other of the Republican worthy signatories of their “Open Letter to Ben Bernanke” to rethink and consider that perhaps Bernanke knows something about monetary economics. Instead, they seek another theory–the price-control theory–for why the government is doing it wrong.

Thus all we can do is repeat, over and over again, what both logic and evidence tell us:

  • That with the current configuration of fiscal policy, North Atlantic monetary policy is not too loose but if anything too restrictive.
  • That as far as the real interest rate is concerned, the “‘natural rate’… that would be ground out by the Walrasian system of general equilibrium equations”, as Milton Freidman would have put it, is lower than the one current monetary policy gives us.
  • That our economies’ inertial expectations and contracting structures have combined with monetary policy to give us nominal interest and inflation rates that are distorted, yes–but an interest rate that is too high and an inflation rate that is too low relative to what the economy wants and needs, and what a free-market flexible-price economy in a proper equilibrium would deliver.

Why does the North Atlantic economy right now want and need such a low real interest rate for its proper equilibrium? And for how long will it want and need this anomalous and disturbing interest-rate configuration? These are deep and unsettled questions involving, as Olivier Blanchard puts it, “dark corners” where economists’ writings have so far shed much too little light.

Hold on tight to this: There is a wrongness, but the wrongness is not in what central banks have done, but rather in the situation that has been handed to them for them to deal with.

Must-Read: Refet S. Gürkaynak and Troy Davig: Central Bankers as Policymakers of Last Resort

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: So should central bankers be given more tools–conduct monetary/fiscal policy via “social credit” assignment of seigniorage to individuals and monopolize financial regulation? Or should central bankers focus on price stability and only price stability? I would say central bankers should be (a) more modest, but also (b) commit not to price stability but to making Say’s Law true in practice…

Refet S. Gürkaynak and Troy Davig: Central Bankers as Policymakers of Last Resort: “Central banks around the world have been shouldering ever-increasing policy burdens beyond their core mandate…

…of stabilising prices… without an accompanying expansion of their policy tools. They have become policymakers of last resort, residual claimants of macroeconomic policy. As central banks take on the duty of addressing policy concerns other than inflation–and consequently take the blame for not completely solving those problems–other policymakers get a free hand in pursuing alternative goals, which may not be aligned with social welfare. The end result is that tools available to the central bank may be used excessively but ineffectively….

As Orphanides (2013) highlights, the increase in central banks’ implicit mandates is widely visible. In the developed economies, this is most clearly manifested in central banks’ attempts to compensate for fiscal tightening after the Great Recession. More recently, attention has turned to using interest rate policy to promote financial stability. In developing and emerging market economies, central banks carry out policies to affect a long list of macroeconomic outcomes, including capital flows, exchange rates, bank loan growth rates, housing prices and the like, as well as keeping an eye on inflation. An implicit expectation that central banks will take on these objectives, along with their willingness to do so, runs the risk of producing inferior outcomes compared to when central banks mind their core business of fostering price stability…

Must-Read: William Poole: Don’t Blame the Fed for Low Rates

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: You know, given the demographic headwinds of this decade, the consensus of economic historians is likely to say that job growth under Obama was not weak, but quite possibly the second-strongest relative to baseline since the Oil Shock of 1973–somewhat worse than under Clinton, a hair better than under Carter or Reagan, and massively superior to job growth under either Bush:

Graph All Employees Total Nonfarm Payrolls FRED St Louis Fed

William Poole: Don’t Blame the Fed for Low Rates: “Long-term rates reflect weak job creation and credit demand, both a result of President Obama’s poor economic stewardship…

…The frequent claim that Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues are responsible for continuing low rates of interest may be correct in the small, but not in the large…. The real villain behind low interest rates is President Obama. Long-term rates reflect weak job creation and credit demand…. The real rate of interest, currently negative for short-term interest rates and only slightly positive for long rates, is a consequence of non-monetary conditions that have held the economy back….

Disincentives to business investment deserve special notice…. The Obama administration has created one disincentive after another… the failure to pursue tax reform… insistence on higher tax rates… environmental activism… growth-killing overreach in the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Labor Department….

The Fed is responsible, however, for not defending itself by explaining to Congress and the public what is going on. The Fed is too afraid politically to mention any details of its general position that it cannot do the job on its own. Yes, there are “headwinds,” but they are largely the doing of the administration…. The Obama administration didn’t create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance, or the government’s affordable-housing goals—both of which fueled the 2008 financial crisis. But the Obama administration has failed to correct the economic problems it inherited. It has simply piled on more and more disincentives to growth. These disincentives have kept long-term rates low.

It seems to me that very little of William Poole’s argument makes any sense at all.

If the factors he points to were there and were operating, they would operate by lowering the future profits of both new capital and old capital. They should thus produce both (a) a fall in interest rates and (b) a fall in the equity values of established companies. We have the first. We do not have the second. Thus I find it very hard to understand in what sense this is made as a technocratic argument. It seems, instead, to be some strange fact-light checking off of political and ideological boxes: Obama BAD! Federal Reserve GOOD!!

What is the free-market solution to a liquidity trap? Higher inflation!

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Three seventeen-year old quotes from Paul Krugman (Paul R. Krugman (1998): It’s Baaack: Japan’s Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1998:2 (Fall), pp. 137-205):

Suppose that the required real rate of interest is negative; then the economy ‘needs’ inflation, and an attempt by the central bank to achieve price stability will lead to a zero nominal interest rate and excess cash holdings…

And:

In a flexible-price economy, the necessity of a negative real interest rate [for equilibrium] does not cause unemployment…. The economy deflates now in order to provide inflation later…. This fall in the price level occurs regardless of the current money supply, because any excess money will simply be hoarded, rather than added to spending…. The central bank- which finds itself presiding over inflation no matter what it does, [but] this [flexible-price version of the liquidity] trap has no adverse real consequences…

And:

A liquidity trap economy is “naturally” an economy with inflation; if prices were completely flexible, it would get that inflation regardless of monetary policy, so a deliberately inflationary policy is remedying a distortion rather than creating one…

Thinking about these three quotes has led me to change my rules for reading Paul Krugman.

My rules were, as you remember:

  1. Paul Krugman is right.
  2. If you think Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to (1).

They are now:

  1. Paul Krugman is right.
  2. If you think Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to (1).
  3. And even if you thought Paul Krugman was right already, go reread and study him more diligently–for he is right at a deeper and subtler level than you would think possible.

Let us imagine a fully-flexible distortion-free free-market economy–the utopia of the Randites. Let us consider how it would respond should people suddenly become more pessimistic about the future.

People feel poorer. Feeling poorer, people want to spend less now. However, today’s productive capacity has not fallen. Thus the market economy, in order to incentivize people to keep spending now at a rate high enough to maintain full employment, drops the real interest rate. It thus makes the future more expensive relative to the present, and makes it sufficiently more expensive to incentivize keeping real spending now high enough to maintain full employment.

The real interest rate has two parts. It is equal to:

  1. the nominal interest rate,
  2. minus the inflation rate.

If money demand in the economy is interest elastic, the fall in the real interest rate will take the form of adjustments in both pieces. First, the free-market flexible-price distortion-free economy’s equilibrium will shift to drop the nominal interest rate. Second, the equilibrium will also shift to drop price level will drop immediately and instantaneously. Then the subsequent rebound of the price level back to normal produces the inflation that is the other part of The adjustment of the real interest rate.

If money demand takes the peculiar form of a cash-in-advance constraint, then:

  1. the interest elasticity of money demand is zero as long as the interest-rate is positive, and then
  2. the interest elasticity of money demand is infinite when the interest-rate hits zero.

In this case, the process of adjustment of the real interest rate in response to bad news about the future has two stages. In the first stage, 100% of the fall in the real interest rate is carried by a fall in the nominal interest rate, as the price level stays put because the velocity of money remains constant at the maximum technologically-determined rate allowed by the cash-in-advance constraint. In the second stage, once the nominal interest rate hits zero, and there is no longer any market incentive to spend cash keeping velocity up, 100% of the remaining burden of adjustment rests on the expected rebound inflation produced by an immediate and instantaneous fall in the price level. These two stages together carry the real interest rate down to where it needs to be, in order to incentivize the right amount of spending to preserve full employment.

The free-market solution to the problem created by an outbreak of pessimism about the future is thus to drop the nominal interest rate and then, if that does not solve the problem, to generate enough inflation in order to solve the problem.

Now we do not have the free-market distortion-free flexible-price economy that is the utopia of the Randites. We have an economy with frictions and distortions, in which the job of the central bank is to get price signals governing behavior to values as close as possible to those that the free-market distortion-free flexible-price economy that is the utopia of the Randites would produce.

In particular, our economy has sticky prices in the short run. There can be no instantaneous drop in the price level to generate expectations of an actual rebound inflation. If the central bank confines its policies to simply reducing the nominal interest rate while attempting to hold its inflation target constant, it may fail to maintain full employment. Even with the nominal interest rate at zero, the fact that the price level is sticky in the short-run may mean that the real interest rate is still too high: there may still be insufficient incentive to get spending to the level needed to preserve full employment.

A confident central bank, however, would understand that its task is to compensate for the macroeconomic distortions and mimic the free-market flexible-price full-employment equilibrium outcome. It would understand that proper policy is to set out a path for the money stock and for the future price level that produces the decline in the real interest rates that the flexible-price market economy would have generated automatically.

Thus a confident central bank would view generating higher inflation in a liquidity trap not as imposing an extra distortion on the economy, but repairing one. The free-market flexible-price distortion-free economy of Randite utopia would generate inflation in a liquidity trap in order to maintain full employment–via this instantaneous and immediate initial drop in the price level. A central bank in a sticky price economy cannot generate this initial price-level drop. But it can do second-best by generating the inflation.

All of my points above are implicit–well, actually, more than implicit: they are explicit, albeit compressed–in Paul Krugman’s original 1998 liquidity trap paper.

And yet I did not come to full consciousness that they were explicit until I had, somewhat painfully, rethought them myself, and then picked up on them when I reread Krugman (1998).

On the one hand, I should not feel too bad: very few other economists have realized these points.

On the other hand, I should feel even worse: as best as I can determine, no North Atlantic central bankers have recognized these points laid out in Paul Krugman’s original 1998 liquidity trap paper.

Central bankers, instead, have regarded and do regard exceeding the previously-expected level of inflation as a policy defeat. No central bankers recognize it as a key piece of mimicking the free-market full-employment equilibrium response to a liquidity trap. None see it as an essential part of their performing the adjustment of intertemporal prices to equilibrium values that their flexible-price benchmark economy would automatically perform, and that they are supposed to undertake in making Say’s Law true in practice.

But why has this lesson not been absorbed by policymakers? It’s not as though Krugman (1998) is unknown, or rarely read, is it?

It amazes me how much of today’s macroeconomic debate is laid out explicitly–in compressed form, but explicitly–in Krugman’s (1998) paper and in the comments by Dominguez and Rogoff, especially Rogoff…

Must-Note: Macro Advisers Forecasts: 1.9% GDP Growth in Q4

Posted on by Brad DeLong
Https macroadvisers bluematrix com sellside EmailDocViewer encrypt 0cd264f3 96b8 4ac5 8004 a8fb218fcae8 mime pdf co macroadvisers id jbdelong uclink berkeley edu source mail

Must-Note: Macro Advisers says: the economy is growing at less than any reasonable estimate of potential output this quarter…

In fact, let’s look at the past eight quarters:

2015Q4: 1.9%
2015Q3: 1.5%
2015Q2: 3.9%
2015Q1: 0.6%

That is a 2.0% growth rate for 2015, after a 2.5% growth rate in 2014, after a 2.4% growth rate for 2013. No signs of growth faster than potential output. No signs of inflation.

Must-Read: Menzie Chinn: “Inflation Expectations Can Change Quickly…”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: It is not clear to me that inflation expectations would undergo a “rapid and dramatic shift” even if we had a “drastic regime change”. Or rather, as Stan Fischer told me when we were discussing Tom Sargent’s “Stopping Moderate Inflation” and “End of Four Big Inflations” papers, we say after the fact that we had a drastic regime change if and only if inflation expectations underwent a rapid and dramatic shift. It’s not something that one can do–especially living, as we do, not in Plato’s Republic but in Romulus’s Sewer…

Menzie Chinn: “Inflation Expectations Can Change Quickly…”: “One of the arguments for acting sooner rather than later on monetary policy…

…is that if the slack disappears, inflationary expectations will surge… [aA] in this quote from reader Peak Trader’s comment…. I am sure if there is a drastic regime change, one could see a rapid and dramatic shift in measured expectations; the question is whether that scenario is relevant and/or plausible…. I will let readers decide whether expectations turned on a dime. They seem pretty adaptive to me.

Inflation expectations can change quickly Econbrowser

Question: Neel Kashkari to Replace Narayana Kocherlakota at the Minneapolis Fed?

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Can somebody remind me: where was Neel Kashkari in September 2008 on letting Lehman go into uncontrolled bankruptcy?

Intellectual broker: Secular stagnation vs. Ben Bernanke

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Let me put here my first, much longer draft to what appeared on Project Syndicate: The Tragedy of Ben Bernanke

Ben Bernanke has published his memoir, The Courage to Act.

I am finding it difficult to read. I am finding it hard to read it as other than as a tragedy. It is the story of a man who found himself in a job for which he may well have been the best-prepared person in the world. Yet he soon found himself overmastered by the situation. And he fell and stayed well behind the curve in understanding what was going on.

Those of us with even some historical memory winced when, back in 2003, Robert Lucas flatly declared that the problem of depression-prevention had been solved “for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades”. We remembered 1960s Council of Economic Advisers chairs Walter Heller and Arthur Okun saying much the same thing. Indeed, we remembered Irving Fisher in the 1920s saying much the same thing. Fisher’s hubris was followed by nemesis in the form of the Great Depression. Heller’s and Okun’s hubris was followed by nemesis in the form of the 1970s inflation. The joke was on Lucas.

But in a deeper sense the joke was on those of us who winced at Lucas–and also on the people of the North Atlantic. For, as we know, the economy since 2007 has not been a very funny joke the people of the North Atlantic.

Those of us with historical memory knew that the problem of preventing severe macro economic instability had not been solved. But even we believed that even sharp downturns would be transitory and short. Rapid recovery to full prosperity and the supply side-driven trend growth was all but guaranteed. Perhaps full prosperity could be delayed into an extended medium-run by actively-perverse and destabilizing government policies. Perhaps the full-prosperity equilibrium-restoring forces of the market would work quickly.

But they would work.

Indeed, back in 2000 it was Ben Bernanke who had written that central banks with sufficient will and drive could always, in the medium-run at least, restore full prosperity by themselves via quantitative easing. Simply print money and buy financial assets. Do so on a large-enough scale. People would expect that not all of the quantitative easing would be unwound. Thus people would have an incentive to use the extra money that had been printed to step up their spending. Even if the fraction of quantitative easing that thought permanent was small, and even if the incentive to spend was low, the central bank could do the job.

It is to Bernanke’s great credit that the shock of 2007-8 did not trigger another Great Depression. However, what came after was unexpectedly disappointing. Central banks in the North Atlantic–including Ben Bernanke’s central bank, the Federal Reserve–went well beyond the outer limits of what we had thought, back before 2008, would be the maximum necessary to restore full prosperity. And full prosperity continued and continues to elude us. Bernanke pushed the US monetary base up from $800 billion to $4 trillion–a five-fold increase, one that a naïve quantity theory of money would have seen as enough stimulus to create a 400% cumulative inflation. But that was not enough. And Bernanke found himself and his committee unwilling to take the next leap, and do another more-than-doubling to carry the monetary base up to $9 trillion. And so, by the last third of his tenure in office, he was reduced to begging in vain for fiscal-expansionary help closed-eared Congress, which refused. Some leading figures in the dominant Republican party made political hay by calling what he had done “almost treasonous”, and threatening, in the coded language applied a generation ago to civil rights and other agitators, to lynch him should he show up where he was not wanted.

So what went wrong? I have been thinking about this with mixed success, most recently for the Milken Institute Review. So let me try yet again to summarize:

As I understand Ben Bernanke’s perspective, he thinks that nothing fundamental went wrong. It is just that the medium-run it takes for aggressively-expansionary monetary policy to restore full prosperity has been artificially lengthened, and seems long to us indeed. Interventions by non-market–or perhaps it would be better to call them non-risk adjusted return maximizing–financial players have created a temporary global savings glut. Sovereign wealth funds for which loss aversion is key, the emerging-market rich seeing their positions in the North Atlantic as primarily insurance against political risk, and governments seeking to ensure freedom of action have pushed full-prosperity interest rates down substantially, and lengthened the medium-run it takes for shocks to dissipate. But, I believe Bernanke believes, these disturbances are ending. And so, if he were still running the Fed, he would think it appropriate to raise interest rates now.

An alternative view is held by the very sharp Ken Rogoff. He believes, I think, that Bernanke’s cardinal error was to focus on money when he should have been focusing on that. In our simple models which you focus son does not matter: when the money market is in full-prosperity equilibrium, the debt market is too. But in the real world a central bank and a broader government that focused not on expanding the stock of safe money but on buying back and inducing the writing-down of the stock of risky debt would have boosted private spending much more effectively and restored full prosperity much more quickly.

Yet a third possible view is that the Fed could have done it: if it had committed to a higher target inflation rate than 2%/year, and promised to do as much quantitative easing as needed to get to that target, it would have produced full prosperity without requiring anywhere near as much quantitative easing as has been, so far, undertaken without that favorable result.

And then there is fourth view, one that I associate with Larry Summers and Paul Krugman, that we have no warrant for believing that monetary policy can restore full prosperity not only not in the short-run, but not in the medium-run and probably not even in the long-run. As Krugman put it most recently:

In 1998… I envisaged an economy in which the… natural rate of interest… would return to a normal, positive level… [and so] the liquidity trap became a [monetary-]expectations problem… monetary policy would be effective if it had the right kind of credibility…. [But if] a negative Wicksellian [natural] rate… permanent… [then] if nobody believes that inflation will rise, it won’t. The only way to be at all sure… [is] with a burst of fiscal stimulus…

Their position is, after a long detour through the post-World War II neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis, a return to a position set out by John Maynard Keynes in 1936:

It seems unlikely that the influence of [monetary] policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself…. I conceive, therefore, but a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means the securing an approximation to full employment; though this not need exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which the public authority will cooperate with private initiative…

The government, that is, will have to be infrastructure-builder, risk-absorber, safe debt-issuer, debt workout-manager, and to a substantial degrees sectoral economic planner of last resort to maintain full prosperity. Milton Friedman’s dream that strategic interventions by the central bank in the quantity of high-powered money would then be just that—a dream. And our confusion, and the attractiveness of Milton Friedman’s monetarism in the half-century starting with a World War II would be an accident of the particular circumstances of the uniquely rapid North Atlantic-wide demographic and productivity growth of the transient post World War II era.

I cannot claim—we cannot claim—to know whether Bernanke he will Rogoff or Krugman and Summers are correct here, or even weather if Bernanke he and his committee had found the nerve, and rolled double-or-nothing one more time to boost the American high-powered money stock to $9 trillion, we might have been back to full prosperity a couple of years ago. But I do think that the debate over this question is the most important debate within macroeconomics since the debate—strangely, a very similar debate, at least with respect to its policy substance—that John Maynard Keynes had with himself in the decade around 1930 that turned him from a monetarist into a Keynesian.

Must-Read: Ken Rogoff: The Fed’s Communication Breakdown

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: I guess I must be a foaming polemicist then :-)…

Ken Rogoff: The Fed’s Communication Breakdown: “Personally, I would probably err on the side of waiting longer…

…and accept the very high risk that, when inflation does rise, it will do so briskly, requiring a steeper path of interest-rate hikes later. But if the Fed goes that route, it needs to say clearly that it is deliberately risking an inflation overshoot. The case for waiting is that we really have no idea of what the equilibrium real (inflation-adjusted) policy interest rate is right now, and as such, need a clear signal on price growth before moving.

But only a foaming polemicist would deny that there is also a case for hiking rates sooner, as long as the Fed doesn’t throw random noise into the market by continuing to send spectacularly mixed signals about its beliefs and objectives. After all, the US economy is at or near full employment, and domestic demand is growing solidly…

I look at this graph:

A kink in the Phillips curve Equitable Growth

And I think: One always disagrees with the very sharp Ken Rogoff at one’s grave analytical peril…

But: Inflation expectations anchored at 2%/year, wage growth at 0%/year real, the prime-age employment-population ratio far below historical norms–that does not smell like an economy “at or near full employment” to me. And so I cannot see a “very high risk that, when inflation does rise, it will do so briskly”, or agree that “only a foaming polemicist would deny that there is also a case for hiking rates” not “sooner” but “right now”…

Must-Read: Alan Greenspan (1994): Testimony before the Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Credit Formation of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, U S House of Representatives, July 20

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: July 20, 1994: Alan Greenspan reintroduces Knut Wicksell’s 1898 Geldzins und Güterpreise, and so shifts America’s macroeconomic discussion from the quantity of money to the natural (or equilibrium, or neutral) rate of interest.

As I remember it, I then spent my lunchtime seated at my computer in my office on the third floor of the U.S. Treasury, frantically writing up just what Alan Greenspan was talking about. For over in the Capitol, Greenspan had just said:

  1. Pay no attention to Federal Reserve policy forecasts of M2.
  2. Instead, pay attention to our assessments of the relationship of interest rates to an equilibrium interest rate.

In Greenspan’s view:

[the] equilibrium interest rate [is]… the real rate… if maintained, [that] would keep the economy at its production potential…. Rates persisting above that level, history tells us, tend to be associated with slack, disinflation, and economic stagnation–below that level with eventual resource bottlenecks and rising inflation…

And I said: this is Wicksell. Greenspan is announcing that the Fed is no longer asking in a Friedmanite mode “do we have the right quantity of money?”, but rather asking in a Wicksellian mode “do we have the right configuration of interest rates”:

Alan Greenspan (1994): Testimony before the Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Credit Formation of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, U S House of Representatives, July 20: “In addition to focusing on the outlook for the economy at its July meeting…

…the FOMC, as required by the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, set ranges for the growth of money and debt for this year and, on a preliminary basis, for 1994…. The FOMC lowered the 1993 ranges for M2 and M3–to 1 to 5 percent and 0 to 4 percent, respectively…. The lowering of the ranges is purely a technical matter, it does not indicate, nor should it be perceived as, a shift of monetary policy in the direction of restraint It is indicative merely of the state of our knowledge about the factors depressing the growth of the aggregates relative to spending….

In reading the longer-run intentions of the FOMC, the specific ranges need to be interpreted cautiously The historical relationships between money and income, and between money and the price level have largely broken down, depriving the aggregates of much of their usefulness as guides to policy. At least for the time being, M2 has been downgraded as a reliable indicator of financial conditions in the economy, and no single variable has yet been identified to take its place. At one time, M2 was useful both to guide Federal Reserve policy and to communicate the thrust of monetary policy to others. Even then, however, a wide range of data was routinely evaluated to assure ourselves that M2 was capturing the important elements in the financial system that would affect the economy…. The so-called “P-star” model, developed in the late 1980s, embodied a long-run relationship between M2 and prices that could anchor policy over extended periods of time But that long-run relationship also seems to have broken down with the persistent rise an M2 velocity.

M2 and P-star may reemerge as reliable indicators of income and prices…. In the meantime, the process of probing a variety of data to ascertain underlying economic and financial conditions has become even more essential to formulating sound monetary policy….

In assessing real rates, the central issue is their relationship to an equilibrium interest rate, specifically the real rate level that, if maintained, would keep the economy at its production potential over time. Rates persisting above that level, history tells us, tend to be associated with slack, disinflation, and economic stagnation–below that level with eventual resource bottlenecks and rising inflation, which ultimately engenders economic contraction. Maintaining the real rate around its equilibrium level should have a stabilizing effect on the economy, directing production toward its long-term potential.

The level of the equilibrium real rate–or more appropriately the equilibrium term structure of real rates–cannot be estimated with a great deal of confidence, though with enough to be useful for monetary policy. Real rates, of course, are not directly observable, but must be inferred from nominal interest rates and estimates of inflation expectations. The most important real rates for private spending decisions almost surely are the longer maturities. Moreover, the equilibrium rate structure responds to the ebb and flow of underlying forces affecting spending. So, for example, in recent years the appropriate real rate structure doubtless has been depressed by the head winds of balance sheet restructuring and fiscal
retrenchment.

Despite the uncertainties about the levels of equilibrium and actual real interest rates, rough judgments about these variables can be made and used in conjunction with other indicators in the monetary policy process. Currently, short-term real rates, most directly affected by the Federal Reserve, are not far from zero; long-term rates, set primarily by the market, are appreciably higher, judging from the steep slope of the yield curve and reasonable suppositions about inflation expectations. This configuration indicates that market participants anticipate that short-term real rates will have to rise as the head winds diminish, if substantial inflationary imbalances are to be avoided

While the guides we have for policy may have changed recently, our goals have not. As I have indicated many times to this Committee, the Federal Reserve seeks to foster maximum sustainable economic growth and rising standards of living. And in that endeavor, the most productive function the central bank can perform is to achieve and maintain price stability…