Trump’s enemies push this line—that Trump is threatening to undermine Fed independence—because they see it as a way of defending other agencies. It’s a sort of slippery slope argument: if you let Trump boss around US AID, the Fed is toast.
The logic that it is unconstitutional to shield the CFBP or the FHFA from executive control does not imply that it is unconstitutional to shield the Fed in a similar way. The resemblance is only superficial.
What makes the Fed different? At least when it comes to monetary policy, it is carrying out a role assumed by the constitution to the legislative branch.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof.”
This is different from agencies tasked mainly with executive functions. In those cases, rules that purport to insulate agencies from presidential control are likely to be unconstitutional encroachments on executive power, violations of the separation of powers.
The Fed’s independent control of monetary policy is not an encroachment case at all because it is not exercising executive power.
It is possibly a nondelegation case. But the remedy would be to give more authority to Congress, not Trump or the president.
Courts have long recognized that Congress has the power to delegate certain functions to expert bodies, provided there are “intelligible principles” guiding their actions (J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 1928).
Arguably, the Fed might have been an unconstitutional delegation as originally structured. But Congress likely cured this by assigning the Fed a dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment and requiring semiannual testimony.
The constitutionality of the Fed may also be strengthened by the FOMC’s structure. Instead of single director running things, it is (at least formally) controlled by governors and presidents with independent authority. They can overrule the chairman.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After more than 50 years, legendary broadcast journalist Chuck Scarborough stepped down from his daily duties anchoring the news at NBC 4 New York.
So now seems a good time to finally tell everyone the true story of Scarborough that no one knows.
Some background.
I’m a journalist myself. I started out at the very edge of journalism. I worked for a blog called Dealbreaker. We had no access and no one knew who we were.
Every story we broke was built on literal shoe leather. That’s how I found out about Scarborough.
At the start, I was pretty introverted and did not really like talking to strangers. I was so shy that I did not even like talking to shop clerks to ask where something was.
I had to train myself to overcome that when I started covering Wall Street.
Let's play: Who is more wrong about economics according to economists?
Round 1:
The same survey @JustinWolfers points to below shows that ZERO economists disagree with the statement: "There is little empirical evidence that price gouging is causing high grocery prices."
Round 2.
What share of economists agree that capping rent increases by corporate landlords at 5% would make middle-income Americans substantially better off over the next ten years?
Two percent.
Round 3.
What share of economists disagree with the idea that rent caps would REDUCE the amount of apartments available?
Just 6 percent! (A large uncertainty group here, though.)
I see a lot of people are wondering why the government bothers to issue bonds when it could just print money to pay for the labor and resources it needs for its projects.
The answer is deceptively simple but I doubt even a half dozen economists could explain it to you.
So here's a thread.
Let's start from the beginning.
The government needs real resources to carry out its projects. It needs labor and it needs stuff. Maybe it wants to build a dam or take Normandy back from the French.
In a free society, to acquire the resources, it has to pay for them. The trouble is that the government has almost no income of its own. It has to get people to agree to allow it to finance the project in some way.
I think a big problem for the Fed has been the persistent projection of a 2.5% fed funds rate. There’s zero volatility in the longer run projection, which is highly unusual. What’s more, the steadiness is implausible.
The zero-vol projection means that businesses can always plan that the policy rate will fall to 2.5 percent. This means higher rates are temporary and therefore have much less of a drag on activity.
Especially true because projects can be refinanced later.
A business deciding to build a factory, for example, does not figure the funding cost of the factory at current rates but at a blend of current rates and expected future rates. So the effective “real rate” is actually much lower than the current real rate.
Here’s a risk about minting the coin or 14th Amendment.
There’s a lot of discretion in tax collection. An anti-tax President could deprioritize tax collection, driving down revenues, and then simply fund it with the coin. (Or with 14th Amendment bonds.)
Our system prudently denies the executive branch the power of the purse in most cases. This means taxes, debt, and spending each need separate authorizations from Congress.
Congress can’t just vote for spending and tell the executive to figure out how to finance it.
Why is it prudent to require a more or less direct authorization from Congress for the debt level? It’s instrumental to the concept that they have full faith and credit of the U.S.
There’s no risk of debt being “Biden bonds” that might be repudiated by a later administration.