Earlier this week, President Obama officially nominated Ben Bernanke
to a second four-year term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank’s
Board of Governors. The reaction was relatively muted, perhaps because
most pundits had already anticipated the news. Bernanke himself probably
sealed his own re-appointment with the public relations campaign
he embarked on last month, ostensibly to offer a rationale
for his
response to the credit crisis. “In a profound departure from the central
bank’s tradition as an aloof and secretive temple of economic policy,
Mr. Bernanke has plunged into the public spotlight to an extent that
none of his predecessors would have contemplated.”
Most of the sound-byte reactions came from politicians, and focused
on whether he deserved another term, rather than the potential
ramifications of his re-nomination. Heavyweights Barney Frank and
Christopher Dodd both offered tepid support. Ron Paul referred to the
news as irrelevant. Meanwhile, “European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet on Tuesday said he was ‘extremely pleased’ by President Barack Obama’s decision.”
The reactions from investors, likewise, ranged from ambivalent to
moderately supportive. Equity markets rose to a 2009 high the day after
the story broke, while the Dollar fell slightly. The re-appointment was
deliberately awarded five months ahead of schedule in order to help the
president’s credibility with investors. Fortunately (or unfortunately,
depending on how you look it), the fact that the markets didn’t react
much, shows that they don’t really care. In other words, “President Obama overstated matters
when he said that Mr. Bernanke had kept us out of a Great Depression”
not only because “this remains to be seen,” but also because the ebbs
and flows of GDP are contingent on more than just monetary policy.
Regardless of how much credit Bernanke actually deserves, he will certainly have his work cut out for him in his second term. “Bernanke’s Next Tasks Will Be Undoing His First,”
encapsulated one headline. At some point, the Fed must raise interest
rates, return credit markets to normal functioning, and remove hundreds
of billion of dollars from the money supply.
But this is easier said than done: “If the Fed shifts too quickly
from the role of savior to that of strict disciplinarian, it risks
aborting the recovery and tipping the nation back into a recession,
essentially repeating mistakes made in 1937 after the economy had begun
to rebound. If the Fed moves too slowly, it risks the kind of
intractable inflation it experienced in the 1970s and fueling another
bubble.”
The consensus is that, for better or worse, he will err on the side
of price stability, perhaps at the expense of economic growth. “A Fed
chaired by Ben Bernanke will follow a policy uncomfortably tight as the
2012 election looms into sight. Bernanke has espoused a commitment to
low inflation over his entire career,” argued one economist. Meanwhile,
the markets aren’t expecting rate hikes at least until 2010, although
Bernanke, himself, has conveyed a sense of optimism – and hence
hawkishness – about a quick exit from recession.
What does all of this mean for the Dollar? It’s impossible to say
exactly, and depends largely on whether Bernanke can unwind the easy
money policy of the last year just as deftly as he deployed it.And of
course, there is the wild card of the US National debt, and the
potential for a loss of confidence to induce a run on the Dollar, which
even Bernanke would be powerless to solve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment