No Free Lunch: Ongoing Ramifications of an Easy Fed
I had lunch with Richard Clarida a few years ago after meeting him at CNBC. He is a very nice guy, a Columbia economics professor, a former assistant U.S. Treasury secretary for economic policy, and is now a global strategic advisor at PIMCO.
He was actually introduced to me as "one of the few people who managed to escape from the White House with his reputation intact."
The professor has a very intriguing WSJ Op-Ed today, titled "The Dollar's Got Further to Slide." My alternative title would be easy No Free Lunch: Ongoing Ramifications of an Easy Fed.
Richard argues, somewhat incidentally, that the dollar's slide, as well as its future prospects, must be consider in the context of Fed action over the past decade:
"As the nearby chart shows, since 2001 there have three distinct phases of what I have called the dollar downdraft. From 2001 though the spring of 2004, there was a trend decline in the dollar against the currencies of other major countries. This occurred during an initially sluggish U.S. recovery and an aggressive ease in Fed policy that drove the fed funds rate down to 1% and kept it there for a considerable period.
In 2004, as the U.S. expansion was robust, productivity growth remained strong, and the Fed began hiking interest rates to normalize policy "at a measured pace," the dollar downdraft was put on hold. During this period from June 2004 (the first Fed hike) to August of 2006 (the first Fed pause), the dollar was in a trading range, neither trending up nor down, a fact that surprised a market consensus going into 2005 that a dollar fall for that year was inevitable . . .
Since the August 2006 meeting, at which the Fed announced at least a pause if not an end to the interest-rate hike cycle, the dollar downdraft has resumed. There are several reasons for this, and these reasons suggest the dollar downdraft is likely to continue for some time to come. First, the U.S. economy in the second half of 2006 slipped into what has now been more than a year of below-trend growth. Moreover, this occurred in the context of buoyant global growth, not only in the developing world, but also in Europe, Canada and Asia.
This relative U.S. underperformance is likely to continue, as the economy works through the headwinds of the housing contraction and consumer retrenchment in the face of tighter credit conditions and a soft labor market. But a U.S. recession is not necessarily in the cards, in large part because the Fed will probably ease more in future months to provide insurance against an economic contraction.
In the rest of the piece, the professor argues that the US is likely to avoid a recession, as the Fed stands ready to cut more aggressively if need be. If and when that happens, we should expect more dollar weakness.
One of the corollaries to this is that any Fed action has genuine, long lasting consequences. When rates are held at very low levels for long periods of time, as we saw from 2003-04, there are serious consequences. When the Fed is tightening, there are also major ramifications.
However, the cost for economic stimulus is inflation, and as we have seen during this past cycle, a weak US currency.
However, those pundits who have begged for rates failed to consider: there is no free lunch. Its the first rule of economics, and the cost of this stimulus is elevated prices, and ongoing inflation.
>
Source:
The Dollar's Got Further to Slide
RICHARD CLARIDA
WSJ, October 23, 2007; Page A19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119310280353567921.html
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 | 06:43 AM | Permalink
| Comments (35)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e54efcf0ba8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Free Lunch: Ongoing Ramifications of an Easy Fed:
Comments
What I think the pundit seems to miss is that it is "too late." We are already in a recession. 1974, here we come again!
Posted by: Justin | Oct 23, 2007 7:37:03 AM
"But a U.S. recession is not necessarily in the cards, in large part because the Fed will probably ease more in future months to provide insurance against an economic contraction."
Since when does the Fed determine whether or not the U.S. avoids recession?
Posted by: winjr | Oct 23, 2007 8:08:46 AM
The best illustration of the US economy policy dilemma is provided by the works of Robert Mundell dividing the economy in four quadrangles considering the inter relationships between savings supply and demand of money, balance of payment, employment and interest rates (Yes all of these!)
In a nutshell as long as the US economy is remaining with full employment, low investment and savings and low interest rates there is hope as soon as it drifts towards unemployment and the same characteristics, it is no longer hopes it falls in the field of fiscal, monetary, exchange rates inspiration.
This is why the present Fed policies are sometimes abscond when it comes to balance the micro economic mess and the macro economic disaster.
Posted by: Philippe | Oct 23, 2007 8:11:28 AM
No one seems to consider the coming fiscal crises as a reason for at least part of the dollar slide. I think if Fiscal issues were at least being addressed in some reasonable manner you would see some dollar strength. But that doesnt fall into the category of "Print, Print, Print. Spend, Spend, Spend."
Posted by: DD | Oct 23, 2007 8:19:21 AM
I have a question how does the falling dollar effect companys outsourcing various jobs?
Posted by: Costa | Oct 23, 2007 8:49:22 AM
"...those pundits who have begged for rates failed to consider: there is no free lunch."
So, it's back to the strawmen, is it? If your argument is not strong enough to stand without accusing people who disagree with you of being idiots, then it isn't much of an argument. Here's the homework assignment. Go and find calls for an ease that explicitly claim there is no risk of inflation. If you can't do that, you are simply claiming there is a "free lunch" pundit class out there without any evidence.
Most people who have paid any attention at all realize that monetary policy is always a trade-off. There are disagreemnts about the extent of the trade-off. Some people are less concerned about inflation than others. Who are these people that see no trade-off?
Posted by: kharris | Oct 23, 2007 8:56:19 AM
Well if the gov't continues to use core #'s as their inflation measures for policy targeting, we may not have to worry about inflation as a result of fed easing to stave off or put a floor to any recession.
After all, the fed says inflation is within their parameters right now. I dont see it, but hey, Im a real person and the gov't never lies right!
All I see is:
1. rising living costs
2. rising credit costs
3. rising food prices
4. rising gas prices
5. rising heating oil prices
6. rising electricity rates
7. rising health costs
8. rising school costs
9. rising transportation costs
To be fair, I do see..
1. declining flat panel tv prices
2. declining used car prices
3. declining consumer electronics
So I guess the things that are declining will offset the things that are rising. After all, who cant live without a flat screen tv these days!
Posted by: UrbanDigs | Oct 23, 2007 9:11:27 AM
Why would fed govs being talking about cataclysmic drops in home prices and protecting at all costs: read we don't care about inflation or your savings.
Kharris: Correct, economics is a social science right up to the point it tiptoes over the line and becomes a matter of finance
The "braintrust" in DC is betting a combined game of chicken and horiozon pushing causes a renewed case of cognitive dissonance. That you could have a fed official essentially claim that a spike in the headline number to be followed by easier comps has no impact is astounding? I guess when Argentina devalues it doesn;t matter becasue people just adkjust to halving their savings halved.
Long short or indifferent, the throttling of free markets by a somplicit fed is sad bordering on the criminal.
Posted by: S | Oct 23, 2007 9:28:26 AM
kharris,
If you paid any attention to CNBC you would know the number of people who believe in a free lunch is legion.
Posted by: Fullcarry | Oct 23, 2007 10:07:02 AM
It seems pretty obvious that the Fed has entered another cutting cycle. Just like the first cycle precious metals will benefit. The precious metals have lagged energy and base metals during the first phase of the commodity bull. I expect they will outperform during the second phase as liquidity flows into undervalued assets.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 23, 2007 10:11:19 AM
CNBC's Chief Free Market Cheerleader, Larry Kudlow, whose tagline is "free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity" is publicly calling for Treasury department intervention in the ForEx market to support the dollar.
So, in the past 2-3 months, CNBC's loudest proponent of free markets has called for both the FED and the Treasury to intervene in free markets.
Not only is he an obvious hypocrit, but it's an insult to his audience that he thinks they are too stupid to see through his facade of pretending to be a laissez-faire free market capitalist.
Posted by: Groty | Oct 23, 2007 10:41:10 AM
Gary, I agree with you. A rate cutting cycle looks very probable. More evidence of their asymmetric policy follows.
Evans Says Fed Must Guard Against 'Cost' of Bigger Housing Drop
Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Charles L. Evans said policy makers must shield the economy from ``high cost'' events such a worsening housing slump.
Posted by: zao | Oct 23, 2007 10:41:23 AM
It seems the only way out of our mess is inflation and the debasement of our currency. Yet, this is knowledge that is simple and easily known. The real question I have is just this. How can a middle-income American who does not understand high tech finance invest in such a way to counter this destruction of currency and increase in prices? If this is a very long term trend that is inescapable, what can we do?
Posted by: bj | Oct 23, 2007 11:05:54 AM
The USD has been sliding except for 2005 and I seem to recall a tax holiday that year for foreign corporate earnings brought back to the US supposedly for "investment". If you eyeball the chart, the gain in 2005 almost exactly matches the calendar year. I cannot quantify the effect however.
Posted by: NC Jim | Oct 23, 2007 11:23:14 AM
I was just in high school back in the 70's, so I had to go back and look what actually happened. It appears that it was the easy FED policy of Arthur Burns in 70, that lead to high inflation, and then Nixon, put the old price controls on. Question is: what is this group going to do? Cut rates even more? In my estimation the only logical step would be to raise rates like Paul Volker ended up doing; say in about 18 to 30 months from now. Like somebody said prior gold is where its at!
Posted by: Justin | Oct 23, 2007 11:34:51 AM
BJ,
The easist way is to invest in gold and silver. I have posted many times on the
SMT my thoughts on the Fed's inflationary bias.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 23, 2007 11:44:49 AM
I'll bet against the professor and against the euro (the yuan is another matter). Get green with the greenback, I say.
Posted by: Norman | Oct 23, 2007 11:47:51 AM
I stopped at "bold--but appropriate--50 basis point cuts". All I needed to read.
Posted by: moodmovesmarkets | Oct 23, 2007 11:58:14 AM
Thanks for your replies. I think a glitch has my previous post under zao's name and I will bet mine(bj) for his post. Anyway, I asked about what one could do. I have another question. Would index funds, in time, at least, track inflation upward? Would stock prices generally increase close to the rate of inflation. I know most want to make real gains by investing, but it is something just to keep in pace with inflation. If, in the coming years, inflation and currency debasement is coming, then there will be real pain in the lives of regular folks because, they (we) are losing purchasing power to inflation. Just keeping up with inflation is better than falling behind. But, most regular folks are going to need something simple to do. I don't know if most can actually bring themselves to buy metals. But, would stocks in general keep up with inflation. If so, an index fund would have value. Just asking.
Posted by: bj | Oct 23, 2007 11:59:24 AM
Please disregard my comment about zao and my comments getting switched. I interpreted the designations of posters incorrectly. But, again, thanks for this blog and the postings.
bj
Posted by: bj | Oct 23, 2007 12:04:44 PM
bj,
I agree with you. The Fed considers a falling dollar the least painful way for us to resolve our savings-consumption shortfall. This works only to a point. Then the foreign investors pull out and local interest rates will rise and asset mkts fall. Remember what happened in Asia in 97-98. I am not saying we are going to implode. Just a question of degree.
Posted by: zao | Oct 23, 2007 12:17:26 PM
Is it just me or is everyone and their mothers bearish on the $USD? Looking at a chart of the $USD (DXY) it appears that the $USD is staring into the abyss. I certainly can’t exclude the possibility that the $USD could crash or dislocate from this precipice.
However, if the growth in the issuance of credit is the primary source of asset and price inflation, and if that credit is primarily valued in the $JPY and $USD (plus pegged currencies to $USD), then wouldn’t a contraction of credit issuance have a strengthening effect upon the $JPY and $USD since there would be fewer $JPY and $USD credits outstanding (i.e., less supply or inventory or circulation).
If the USA is leading the rest of the world in an economic slowdown and there is no global decoupling, as Stephen Roach argues, then other countries will face a similar economic situation for which their currencies will have no real advantage relative to the $USD.
Furthermore, if the $USD economy slows down, then imports into the USA should fall, which would significantly improve the existing trade imbalance. The improvement in the trade imbalance should also have the effect of strengthening the $USD.
I suspect that if the credit contraction (and associated insolvency) are sufficiently severe, then the $USD and $JPY may even strengthen in a ZIRP environment. Of course, this is a very dismal and unpopular view.
Peter Pan
Posted by: Peter Pan | Oct 23, 2007 12:35:15 PM
Peter Pan,
your theory is not without merit. In fact, we saw a good example of this yesterday. Credit contraction worries leading to stock market falls and dollar rally and Yen rally against everyone else. However, I view this as the catastrophe scenario. The Fed is cutting rates and reflating precisely to offset the credit contraction implied by the bursting bubbles. If the Fed is winning, the dollar will fall. If the Fed loses, dollar should benefit as you point out. I will bet that the Fed will win the war between credit reflation war just as they did after the dot com burst.
Posted by: zao | Oct 23, 2007 12:42:48 PM
Funny. Almost everybody (including me) is long term bearish on the USD but almost everybody (including me) has also been expecting a counter-trend rally any day now, hoping for an opportunity to convert some more assets out of dollars at a better price. But the damn thing can't even seem to get a decent bounce going. Thought the G7 meeting might provide an excuse. But so far, nothing. The greenback is really looking pathetic.
Posted by: Al Czervik | Oct 23, 2007 1:27:04 PM
What is amazing to me is we selectively choose what we want to believe from economists yet they have never gotten economic forecasting correct. isn't it ironic the top two economists on Wall Street over the past three decades have no formal training in economics? Many economists have something beneficial to say but they never get the future right. That means they are likely barking up the same tree. But, in an act of insanity we continue to look to them to once again get the future forecasts wrong.
So, let me play devil's advocate. Why didn't long rates go up in the late 1990s when Greenspan tried to nudge them higher? And, more importantly, why did the Fed have to cut rates for two years to get the economy to respond in 2001-2003? I believe this bubble had little to do with Greenspan as the Fed has been tight for years. One year of artificially low rates did not cause a catastrophe of this size. And, the Fed has done nothing different than any other central banker has done throughout history. The EU policy has been just as loose. In fact, it has been more loose this cycle by many measurements. And, the EU central bankers dropped their drawers much lower than Bernanke with the unfolding situation we are seeing.
What we are witnessing is not inflation. It is the deflation. It is the reduced spending power seen through the start of asset deflation that will become more apparent over time. It looks like inflation because that is what everyone is conditioned to look for in their biased thinking.
No, this mess in the economy was not created by monetary policy any different than any other time in history. The future will unfold much differently than nearly anyone imagines and once again we will look back and see how everyone got it wrong.
Just a counter position to consider......
Posted by: BDG123 | Oct 23, 2007 1:28:27 PM
