Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and other members of the Fed are fond of saying that part of their job is to manage monetary policy for maximum employment, five times in this short speech by Vice Chairman Kohn. It’s true they have this duty. 12 U.S.C. § 225a.
The Fed is also required file a written report to Congress every six months. Let’s see what Bernanke reported last time, July 29, 2009, on the employment front. First we learn that unemployment is rising and production is falling. P. 1. Here is the forecast (P.2):
However, all participants expected that labor market conditions
would continue to deteriorate during the remainder of this year and improve only slowly over the subsequent two years, with the unemployment rate still elevated at the end of 2011.
And what is Chairman Bernanke going to do about employment? Keep reading. Eventually you get to page 31, where we learn that the Fed is going to a) buy up a bunch of Treasuries and Agency Debt, b) buy up a bunch of mortgage backed securities, and c) help fund the TALF, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. The first two are designed to pump money into the financial system, which helps banks survive, but has no direct effect on employment. Instead, it scares the Chicken Littles, who think any increase in the money supply will lead directly to hyperinflation. Indeed, the report devotes over three pages to the steps the Fed will take to unwind the steps taken to deal with the great recession, as if that were the problem, instead of 10% unemployment.
The TALF is supposed to buy securitized consumer loans, like car loans and credit card loans, and loans to small businesses guaranteed by the SBA. It might help consumers buy stuff, which might encourage employment indirectly. Easing securitization of SBA loans could conceivably help. Or not. The Congressional Oversight Panel, chaired by Elizabeth Warren, addressed TALF in its May 2009 report. The COP thinks TALF was poorly designed, and that it didn’t target the real problem. Consumers didn’t want to borrow money, so making that easier wouldn’t really help. The COP says asset-backed securities have never been a significant source of lending to small businesses, so that isn’t going to help.
And, that’s it. The full extent of the Fed’s efforts to increase employment was a program to pour money into banks and minimal help with consumer spending and small business lending. Meanwhile, bank lending fell all year at giant banks like JPMorgan Chase (P. 2) and was flat to lower at Bank of America (P. 35).
There were things he could have done. He could have used his supervisory powers to insist on increased lending to small businesses, by telling the Fed’s examiners to look at small business loans that weren’t renewed, and applications that weren’t granted and treat that as part of their examination report. That would have forced banks to justify their failure to lend. He could have increased the Fed’s inflation target, which Scarecrow points to as a good step on the employment front.
Under Bernanke, the Fed hasn’t thought of anything that would actually help on the employment front. It hasn’t done anything to meet its statutory objective of assuring maximum employment. But it sure has shown it can help banks recover their profitability and their bonuses.
I know Bernanke has the all-important support of Alan Greenspan; and I know that there is a good chance that if he isn’t confirmed, the world will come to an end. Just ask Senator Dodd, Senate Banking Committee chairman, who
… renewed his support for the Fed chief today. He said rejecting him would send the “worst signal to the markets right now” and produce an economic “tailspin.”
Here’s a real world signal for the “markets”: the entire country has been devastated by your greed and incompetence. It’s infuriating that you failures can hold us hostage while you buy Lamborghinis with your bonuses.
photograph courtesy of pingnews




30 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Have you not heard? Let them eat cake.
Bernanke has the all-important support of Alan Greenspan;
The same Fed chair who didn’t see the dot com bubble, housing bubble, or bank debacle racing toward us. Is that supposed to make us all feel better? Geezuz, how f’ing stupid do they think we are?
So what? You said farther up that consumers didn’t want to borrow.
The fact is that with the policy rate near zero, the fed is out of its only tool that matters for macroeconomic stimulus. Anything else is just frittering.
That’s why depression is worse than inflation. Monetary stim is powerless in the former, whereas in the latter, there is no limit to how high interest rates can go, so you always have anti-inflationary tool in monetary policy.
Sure and like taking out the trash its the last thing they think about doing.
My bold I’m sure the banks would never use TALF cash to seek higher returns writing CDS/s.
We’re looking at experiencing, like the Third World, the IMF and World Bank solutions to our economic predicament.
This administrations intent on transferring wealth upwards by blowing endless strings of Bubbles via Bernanke, followed by Geithner’s implementation of IMF/World bank prescriptions, is far more bold than anything the kleptocrats have conceived thus far. Obama makes Bush look like a Boy Scout.
It’s become the State against the People and the party affiliations are immaterial. So in order to fight back we must find a way to burry our social differences until the economic ones are resolved in our instead of the kleptocrats favor.
Neo Hooverism:(
Next job for masaccio: study up on stuff like “liquidity trap” and “pushing on a string”.
Bankers think they are slick but they are fool hardy at best. They are the reason we have high unenjoyment but they are making money by being evil. That never works out in the end.
There was a bank takeover in our city the other day. The account as I read it in the papers said essentially that the bank had a tiny percentage of bad loans, that the local owners had been large lenders to projects for low-income people and that the owners had been great philanthropists.
The paper also reported that the Fed last summer had insisted that the bank increase the amount of cash they held as collateral and that they had done so, but this then left them with insufficient “reserves.” They could not find a buyer and the family/owners appeared to be left with nothing after years of being successful bankers. Those with cash in the bank were fully insured, the assets were transferred to a bank in neighboring TX who would become the operators.
I am sure there is more to the story, but I am fairly astonished.
From a crowd psychology I’m sure investors think so however investors Neo Hoover thinking is what got us into this mess.
I think getting rid of Ben and putting in a Keynesian would be great for the market long term. And no Ben does not have friends among regular investors who are still hurting.
Ben’s only friends are the fat cat investors with the bailout cash, the MSM and Washington wise men who know nothing about the economy.
The TALF is supposed to buy securitized consumer loans, like car loans and credit card loans, and loans to small businesses guaranteed by the SBA. It might help consumers buy stuff, which might encourage employment indirectly.
Picky I know, but credit card debt is unsecured.
I think the real problem is that a large number of functioning small businesses have lost their access to credit. In my relatively small bankruptcy practice, I met at least three. One was able to get a replacement loan because each family member mortgaged all of the equity in their homes, including his retirement age parents. The other two filed. In all three cases, the business could have continued, because there was sufficient cash flow to pay the loans, which had never defaulted on payment, and were willing to cut their own take until business picked up. There was, to my eye, no reason to pull the lines of credit from those three companies.
There are many similar stories in the media. I think this might have encouraged big banks to work harder with their customers. I note that in each case, it was either a national or a regional bank that cut the credit. The replacement loan was done by a community bank.
If a big word.But what if we change the direction of the Bail outs.To businesses that produced goods that all use in there day to day lives.To help the ones that pay labor fairly the ones that furnished good Health Care Planes a good retirement Social Security Plus.—JOBS==SELFESTEEM==LESS CRIME==TAX DOLLARS==PLACE FOR AMERICAN BANKERS TO INVEST IN AMERICAN AGAIN.OR STAY THE CORSE MORE PUBLIC SERVANTS WILL BECOME S.W.A.T THE NATIONAL GUARDS ALLWAYS ON CALL TASK FORCE ENTERING YOUR HOME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WRONG ADDRESS IT OK AS LONG IT DOES NOT HAPPEN TO ME WITH YOU WHO ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO GO ALONG WE’LL SEE?NOT JUST JOBS
I understand. I was referring to the practice of securitizing assets. The bank sets up a special purpose entity, like a trust, and sells its credit card receivables to the SPE. The SPE gets the money to buy the receivables by selling securities, and pays the securities off with the proceeds of the credit card receivables. The bank then has the cash up front, which is can then use to make more loans. Or, as ThingsComeUndone points out in comment 5, it can do other things, and likely will.
As long as Obama does not pull Bernanke nomination, he is clearly not sincere about unemployment. (yes, I know I am beating a dead horse).
It would at least be a symbolic commitment to changing direction.
The bankers want to make easy $$ sitting around trading CDO’s and other fancy so called finance instruments. They don’t want to do the hard work of actually loaning money to flesh and blood people trying to start new businesses or keep existing ones running. They want to be RICH fast because they’re bankers and they deserve to be rich. Get it?
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds pretty risky.
Still, it’s interest rates that do the heavy lifting and they’re gone.
My money manager just bought some stock in a company for me. They do transition loans with SBA money when a family business is selling out. Head guy is an accountant who worked on all the firms that sold out to Waste Management in the day, so he knows how to evaluate these businesses. Owing to the situation, both the quantity and quality of its business are going up. The stock yields 10%.
In the spirit of the employmentI have to say taht the banks are the problem as thry will not loan businesess the capital to reemploy the work force.The workers that were layed off and the incoming young force are ready to go. An architect friend has a client who wants to buils a second motel he has good credit and a sucessful operation the banks will not fund the project. Mw O needs to get off of his ass and provide leadership.
Bernanke has the complete support of President Pander. Tough shit for the un or under employed.
TALF, TARP and the rest of the alphabet soup of schemes mostly succeeded in finding ways to exchange taxpayer debt for a little part of bad bets of the owned by the TBTF. Right now the Fed’s actions to increase the number of primary dealers, the financial players that get some of the best back-end bailouts from low cost money, is starting to bring in new foreign financial investors while possibly putting even more dreck onto the Fed’s balance sheets in the future. With enough new businesses becoming customers of nearly free money – stocks, commodities and annuities may still inflate for a while longer.
These things are happening while the Fed and their supporters continue do say that all is well unless we start looking for the reasons behind the run up in stocks last year.
So far as I can tell Bernanke still continues to believe that our problems stem from a lack of liquidity and a bunch of other stuff that the Fed does not control. He did’t do it, he wasn’t there, he didn’t see it coming and without him we have a trashed economy that would lacking the many benefits to having our economy controlled by the massively compensated. We just need to get people to borrow more. Debt being the one of the most effective ways to transfer whatever is left into the hands of the wealthy few.
“Nice stock market you have there. It would be a shame to see something happen to it.” – Chris Dudd.
Maybe these new Primary Dealer counter parties can borrow money from the Fed and ramp up their investments in American politicians now that SCOTUS has opened the floodgates for corporations. Synergy.
Ben Bernake reminds me of the Simpsons movie review: Homer saves the town of Springfield from a disaster of his own making.
The NYT says the banksters are being told to keep the Lamborghini buying quiet. Shameless.
Bernanke’s plan is even worse than Hooverism.
Hooverism was basically do nothing, liquidate everything.
Bernankeism is save the big banks by liquidating everything else.
If we follow the plans of such men as Ben Bernanke and Peter Peterson then we are heading straight toward anarchy.
The truth about high unemployment is that it represents the poverty of ideas within our nations leadership. Our workforce is a national resource which should not be squandered by leaving it idle. In other words, we cannot afford not to keep full employment.
But they fig. they have China at 10% the price with Communist masters holding a whip handle if they don’t do as their told. Why should they have to pay Americans who want real wages and benefits when they can just as easy send the work to China or Vietnam or anyone of 20 other shit holes with dictatorships or worse? Until Americans grovel and beg they won’t be happy and even then they’ll just shrug their shoulders and walk on by. These are people steeped in callousness and baked hard by 30+ yrs. of Reaganism. Unless, you force them they’ll do nothing.
Unlike the European Central Bank, and indeed, most central banks, the Fed has a weird triple-mandate to manage the exchange rate, fight inflation (and by inference regulate the money supply), and assure “optimum” employment. Certainly, a U6 of 21% is not optimum, but think about the pain that goes with quickly correcting this situation. Russia, after the 1998 financial crisis and a complete seizure of the payments system, massively devalued the ruble. The result, finally, was price competitiveness of domestic industries and employment rebounded. As it is, the dollar has already been devalued about 25% against the euro and yen, not to mention commodity producing countries like Canada. We’ve gotten plenty of money dumped into the system and the loss of jobs is easing. So it comes down to this, do we dump more money in the system, devalue further, let inflation flare, screw people on fixed incomes, piss off creditors, and create jobs faster — or not?
Oh sure, I don’t like the international “free trade” system that Bush Sr and Clinton put together. But it doesn’t prevent us from employing our citizens. Not employing our citizens is a government policy choice.
I’m not worried about creditors. They can do one of 3 things:
1) Spend dollars buying US products.
2) Buy treasuries as they always have done.
3) Stop selling us thier manufactured wares. That’s fine, it’d stimulate local manufacturing.
As for dumping money into the economy. Not all government spending is created equal. Some types of spending more than pay for themselves while others turn us into a wiemar wannabe. Good ways would include building infrastructure and supporting state budgets. A bad way would be to pour money into the banks as Bernanke and Geithner have done.
Several comments. The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, implements monetary policy. The Treasury Department implements fiscal policy, which includes the issuing of T-bills. Central banks may hold obligations of other countries as assets to stabilize the global currency markets. For example, the People’s Bank of China currently holds just over $2.4 trillion in foreign currency reserves. 60-70% of this is held in dollar assets, mostly US treasuries. Perhaps the PBoC is not one of the creditors you are not worried about, but the Chinese probably follow US monetary and fiscal policy quite carefully.
The Fed usually gets liquidity into the system by lowering the cost of money it provides to banks (rate cuts). At the moment, quantitative easing is at the end of the trail as costs to banks for borrowing dollars are close to zero. The Fed can also stand as lender of last resort in a systemic crisis, and that’s a role the Fed had to assume in August 2008. It is a bit hard to understand your nonchalance about systemic bank crises. The Bank of Russia, for example, had to deal with a complete seizing up of the payments system that took three weeks to restart. Do you really want to get five gallons of gas for your car by trading beaver pelts or providing sexual services? Before you answer, you might check out some of the more dystopian films of John Carpenter.
Stiglitz, among many others, would certainly agree with you on the wisdom of continued fiscal stimulus. The US can still borrow long-term money at low rates. Channeling that money to states, counties and cities is probably a good idea, as long-term institutions such as education and public health are already battered. Aggressive spending on infrastructure, however, carries the twin dangers of over-building and feeding yet another stock market bubble. Finally, we should remember that making war has a tremendously stimulative effect. The US Geological Survey recently established that Venezuela has more than 500 billion barrels of recoverable heavy oil. Perhaps we need a Pentagon study on how we might segue the Haitian relief effort into a full-on invasion of Venezuela. After all, it’s only a matter of time before Chavez gets his hands on weapons of mass destruction and we see the launch of a terrorist organization named e.g. Caída Libre (sorry, no El Caida, it’s a feminine noun).